Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-10-08 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 8, 1996 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P .M . by Vice Chair Douglas. Members present: Members absent: Also present: Dummer, Horner, Tobin, Weber , Douglas Garrett, Redpath, Mason (all with previous notice) Harold J. Stitt, Planning Community Coordinator Dan Brotzman, City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. September 4, 1996 Vice Chair Douglas stated the Minutes of September 4, 1996 were to be considered for ap- proval . Dummer moved : Tobin seconded: The Minutes of September 4, 1996 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Dummer, Tobin, Weber, Douglas None Horner Garrett, Redpath , Mason The motion carried. III. BROOKRIDGE SHOPPING CENTER Planned Unit Development Mini-Storage Units CASE #PUD-96-01 Vice Chair Douglas asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing on the PUD request f~r Brookridge Shopping Center. Tobin moved : Horner seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #PUD-96-01 be opened. 1 AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT : Homer, Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Dummer None None Garrett, Redpath, Mason The motion carried. Vice Chair Douglas asked that staff present the case. Harold J. Stitt was sworn in , and stated that the request before the Commission is to consider a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the Brookridge Shopping Center. Mr. Stitt presented the Chair with proof of public notice, published in the Englewood Herald on September 26, 1996. Mr. Stitt stated that this application is the first to be considered under the new PUD guidelines adopted in July, 1996. Mr. Stitt stated that the PUD process allows for broader re- view; the District Plan delineates the uses which are to be included in the PUD, and the Site Plan delineates site specific attributes such as location of structures , landscaping , etc . The total site of the Brookridge Shopping Center encompasses 7. 9 acres , and is currently de- veloped with a 59 ,175 square foot shopping center/office complex. The proposed PUD would include uses allowed in the B-2 Zone District, and the additional uses of mini-storage on the south and east portions of the property , as well as an on-site resident caretaker for the self- storage use. The proposed mini or self-storage units appear to be well suited to this particular site taking into consideration the topography of the site, and land use of surrounding area . However , several people have commented about the "industrial " nature of the self-storage units, and questioned whether allowance of such a use in a business district is appropriate. Mr. Stitt discussed the evolution of mini-or self-storage from the typical "warehousing " at- mosphere to the units that, today , are unobtrusively integrated into many residential and busi- ness areas. Mr. Stitt stated that design of the proposed self-storage units takes into account the topography of the site. Two access points are proposed from East Centennial Avenue on the south , and one access point proposed from East Belleview Avenue . Mr. Stitt stated that a "neighborhood meeting " was held by the applicant, to which the sur- rounding residents were invited . Issues raised during the course of this neighborhood meeting were security , increased traffic congestion , and aesthetics. The traffic concerns were consid- ered by the Public Works Department traffic personnel; traffic generated from self-storage op- erations is considerably lower than that generated by retail or office usage . Mr. Stitt noted that another issue that has arisen is that of access for fire equipment. This communication was received in the office after 4 :00 P .M . on this date . Mr. Stitt read the fol- lowing communication from Assistant Fire Marshal Greene: "A re view has been completed of the proposed storage units at Brookridge Shopping Center. The following concerns for Fire Department access must be addressed: 2 • • • • 1 . 2. The turning radius for fire department access is determined by the radius of the fire de- partment vehicles that may be required to use the access road. The minimum turning radius for Englewood Fire Division is 88 feet. Any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building must be located within 150 feet from fire department access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility . (Uniform Fire Code, 902.2.1) The above items are a concern when addressing buildings #9 and 10." Mr. Stitt stated that he isn't sure how this will be resolved, but the applicant and Fire Marshall must address and resolve this issue before City Council considers this PUD . Mr. Stitt stated that he has also received the following communication from Gretchen Watkins, a real estate agent and resident of Brookridge, which communication was faxed to the office earlier on this date: "October 8, 1996 "STORAGE UNITS TO BE BUILT AT THE BROOKRIDGE SHOPPING CENTER "As a resident of the Brookridge area and a Real Estate Broker selling a lot of homes in Brookridge and Englewood, I am very concerned about the proposed storage units to be con- structed on the east side of the Brookridge Shopping Center. As you are aware the subdivision • of Brookridge is located in unincorporated Arapahoe County. • "My first concern is the impact of this construction on the 27 homes that would be harmed in Brookridge by this construction. I have listed a few of the concerns that I have: 1. Industrial Use in a residential area should not be allowed. 2. A large amount of traffic will flow through Brookridge Residential Area from the stor- age units. An example could range from Cars, Pickups, U Haul Trucks and Moving Vans. These vehicles will access the storage units on the east driveway off of Centen- nial Avenue into the storage units. As you know that street is already heavy with traffic from the Burt Chevrolet Dealership on Broadway and Centennial. The service garage entrances are located on that north side of Burts. Also, there is already considerable traffic using Centennial Avenue to avoid the light on Broadway and Belleview. 3. I have been told from various sources that Storage Areas breed crime . 4. There will be storage units on the south end of the shopping center. These storage units will back directly to the homes on the south end of Brookridge. 5. There will be unfenced storage units in back of the center that would be an easy gath- ering place of undesirables which would have to be paroled (sic) by the City of Engle- wood. 6. Most storage lockers are built in a Business Zoning with a large grassy area on both sides of the property plus lots of grass behind and attractive landscaping in the front of the buildings . 3 7. 8. More than likely these storage units will be leased on a long term leases by and out of town management company. (sic) The residents will have no owner to turn to . As you know this shopping center will probably be sold once renovation is complete . One of the biggest problems that I see is people who are purchasing property do not want a wall such as this in their back yard and it will create a large reduction in the present owners valuation. "!have seen the City of Englewood taking on a new image in the last few years and a lot of the cancers that were present disappearing. People are once again moving back into Englewood and the neighborhoods are looking much improved. "! believe that the City of Englewood will only be hurt by allowing this construction to be al- lowed. Whenever there is a bad decision made I Think it indirectly hurts your city . "!hope you will consider this proposed construction very carefally and not allow it to happen. "Sincerely, Gretchen Watkins 761-7894 Home 794-9191 Office 5395 S. Grant Street Littleton, CO 80121" Mr. Stitt stated that staff is of the opinion the PUD does comply with the standards set forth in the Ordinance, and recommends approval and referral to City Council. Mr. Stitt stated that this concludes his presentation. Ms. Tobin inquired whether comparative studies on safety issues pertaining to traffic and stor- age sites in other locations had been done. Mr. Stitt stated that he did not conduct a compara- tive analysis. Mr. Horner asked what zone districts allow self-storage in Englewood. Mr. Stitt responded that typically, self-storage is allowed in the 1-1 and 1-2 industrial districts. Mr. Stitt stated that staff did consider the site and the proposal carefully, and concluded that the PUD to allow the self-storage units was an appropriate way to proceed. Mr. Stitt stated that options included application for a use variance before the Board of Adjustment and Appeals; request approval through the "use not mentioned" process before the Planning Commission; amend the B-2 Zone District to allow self-storage units as a permitted use, which might not be appropriate in all locations of the B-2 District; or ask for rezoning to PUD. Mr. Stitt noted that the PUD al- lowing the self-storage units applies ONLY to the subject site -the Brookridge Shopping Center. The parameters of development -landscaping, setbacks, height, design indicated on the Site Plan -all become applicable for this particular site. • • Michael Spriggs was sworn in, and testified that he is the owner of Brookridge Shopping Cen-• ter, Inc., and distributed a booklet of information regarding his proposal and other centers he 4 • • • has acquired and improved . Mr . Spriggs reviewed the improvements he has instituted in the Shopping Center since he acquired it 3 .5 years ago. The Center is approximately 40 years old , the tenants weren't doing too well when he took over , lighting was inadequate , and the Paddy Boots establishment was the scene of a murder and other criminal activities. People didn 't want to shop in the Center , prospective tenants didn't want to locate there , and there were a lot of vacancies. There are approximately 75 ,000 vehicles per day past this shopping center , a great number of whom are potential shoppers if they could be encouraged to stop . Mr . Spriggs stated that he has up-dated facades , up-dated signage , improved lighting of the parking lot , demolished the Paddy Boots structure, has brought in the Black-Eyed Pea Restaurant and Ein- stein Bagels , and has a number of other good tenants. Mr . Spriggs stated that the Center com- prises almost eight acres , and the footprint of the shopping center is approximately 50 ,000 square feet. He stated that he wants to be a good neighbor , and has avoided leasing to auto- motive oriented uses, bars, and tattoo parlors. He wants to create a project that will have good neighborhood appeal , and not have undesirable uses in it. Mr. Spriggs stated that there is new construction going on now , which will accommodate a Zuma 's Mex ican Restaurant , and a Papa John 's Pizzeria. Mr. Spriggs stated he is now entering the final stage of the redevelop- ment project , and wants to make better use of some of the underused land on the south and east portion of the site. A lot of the uses allowed in the B-2 District are not acceptable alternatives , and he determined that the self-storage units are a viable option. Self-storage units are a low impact use, and can be compatible with business development, and with residential uses. Such uses are very low traffic generators, and Mr. Spriggs cited information prepared for him by a consulting firm indicating that at peak hour , mini-warehousing/storage uses generate 0.26 trips/1000 sq. ft. compared to fast food restaurants which generate 36 .53 trips /1000 sq . ft . Self-storage units do not require off-street parking areas . Mr . Spriggs stated that if the self- storage units were constructed on the scale of the existing retail , it would appear similar to townhouse garages and would be a positive improvement. No doors will be visible from street-side pedestrian or vehicular traffic , and the structures will have sloped roof lines. New construction is proposed to use the same type materials , scale and colors of e x isting structures, and the landscaping along East Centennial Avenue will include 109 shrubs and 9 trees. A total of 10 .1 % of the total site will be landscaped, which exceeds landscaping requirements. Mr . Spriggs stated that while the mini-or self-storage units will not be open 24-hours per day, there will be a full-time resident manager's apartment included as part of the development. Mr . Spriggs made noted there were quite a few people in the audience this evening ; he stated that he had looked through the sign-up sheets that were circulated , and noted that a good num- ber of them had indicated opposition to the proposal. Mr. Spriggs stated that letters were sent to 105 property owners notifying them of the "neighborhood meeting " held on October !51; only six residents attended that meeting and discussed their concerns with him . Mr. Spriggs also noted that none of them were Englewood residents . Mr. Spriggs suggested that the ma- jority of those in attendance at this meeting did not attend the neighborhood meeting , and know nothing about the proposal . Mr. Spriggs reviewed the letter from Gretchen Watkins , and refuting each point of objection cited. Mr. Spriggs noted that the concept of self-storage is only about 20 years old , and is not 5 the typical "industrial warehouse" operation envisioned by many people. Self-storage is the lowest impact use that could be placed on this underutilized portion of the site, and reiterated • previously cited traffic generation figures. Mr. Spriggs stated there is absolutely no basis for the statement that storage areas breed crime. Mr. Spriggs stated there are not 27 homes abut- ting the shopping center property, but only 10 or 11. He stated that he has spoken with many of the homeowners on South Sherman Street, but there were one or two who were not at home when he made his attempts to contact. He noted that many of the Sherman Street residents have privacy fences or shrubbery along the rear property lines, and that when they look out the back window of the home, or are in the backyard, they will see their fence and sloping roof of the storage units on his property . Mr. Spriggs discussed the contention that "undesirables" will gather back by the storage units, and commented that he has not even experienced any tagging activity, and youngsters do not gather at the rear of the shopping center . Mr . Spriggs stated that he has no plans to sell the shopping center, and is of the opinion that he deserves some credit in eliminating many of the "cancers " cited by Ms. Watkins as a result of the rede- velopment and improvement efforts he has put forth on the shopping center. Mr . Spriggs stated that he does feel many of the development rules in the City should be stricter to assure better developments . Mr. Spriggs stated that there are several positives that can be expected if the PUD is improved: 1. The redevelopment can be completed in a cohesive manner . 2. Landscaping will be installed, exceeding 103 of the total site . 3. Obsolescence is eliminated. 4. 5. 6. 7. Removal of existing office structures and replacement with self-storage units will lower the traffic congestion on Centennial A venue. There is no requirement for additional on-street parking. The improvements and landscaping will beautify the street-scape on Centennial A venue. This will be an opportunity to "lock-in" a use; surrounding residents will be assured that the site will not be used by car dealerships or other automotive related uses. Ms. Tobin asked whether any of the centers cited in the booklet, such as the Plaza at Highlands Ranch, had self-storage in any of them. Mr. Spriggs stated no, they did not have self-storage as part of the shopping center activity. Mr. Douglas asked about fencing on the east side. Mr. Spriggs stated that from Belleview southward there is a three-foot high chain link, and from mid-point of the site south to Centen- nial there would be a six foot chain link fence . He noted that a number of the Sherman Street residents have six foot privacy fences along the rear of their yards . Mr. Spriggs commented that at the present time, residents would see the chain-link fence and dumpsters serving the shopping center . Mr. Douglas inquired about lighting on the east side of the development. Mr. Spriggs stated that lighting would be "wall-packs" placed on the buildings; lighting can be directed so that it does not infringe upon neighboring properties. 6 • • • • • Mr . Douglas asked about the concern that this would be a "gathering place for criminals" . Mr . Spriggs discussed the layout of the proposal; there will be wall-pack lighting on the rear of the buildings . There will be an open gate from Belleview Avenue, which must remain open to accommodate the businessmen and trash pickup . South points of access from Centennial Ave- nue will be gated. Mr. David Metzler , 5101 South Sherman Street, was sworn in . Mr. Metzler stated that he is in favor of the proposal , and had attended the neighborhood meeting last week . He purchased the property on South Sherman Street three years ago as a home for his daughter and grand- children . His initial concerns were about lighting and safety for members of his famil y, but Mr . Spriggs addressed those concerns at the neighborhood meeting . Mr . Metzler stated that placement of landscaping is important to assure that no "hiding " spots are created behind shrubbery and trees. Mr. Metzler stated that he personally lives in the Arapahoe Road/South Holly Street area and that self-storage units in this area ha ve not increased traffic. Mr . Metzler agreed that the shopping center was in bad shape when acquired by Mr. Spriggs, and that the Paddy Boots restaurant created a myriad of problems for the general area. Mr . Metzler opined that self-storage units will be a lot less intrusive than other uses which are currently permitted in the B-2 Zone District. Mr. Douglas reminded Mr. Spriggs that the Commission does need to receive the Proof of Posting for the record. Mr. Douglas asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of the proposal. No one else spoke in favor. Mr. Douglas referred to the sign-in sheets , noting that a majority of individuals signed in as "observers ". He called on Ms . Babette Sangster to speak . Babette Sangster , 5200 South Grant Street , was sworn in. Ms. Sangster noted that storage units are a permitted use in the 1-1 and 1-2 districts in Englewood; is it an appropriate use for the B-2 Zone District. Ms . Sangster stated that the only reason that she would see any com- patibility of self-storage with the existing development is topographically. Ms . Sangster noted that she works for the City of Littleton, and is a member of the Planning staff; she does not feel the proposal is appropriate . Ms. Sangster stated that she had called other municipalities in the metro area to determine their classification for self-storage units: Aurora allows them only as a conditional use , and they are considered to be a "light industrial use". Arvada allows mini-warehousing only in the 1-1 and 1-2 zone districts, with a 50 foot setback from adjacent residential uses. Lakewood permits then in C-5 (large lot commercial) and industrial districts. Landscaping , buffering and screening requirements are applicable. Littleton permits mini- warehousing in B-3 , General Business District , 1-1 and 1-2 , with a 10 foot landscaped area ad- jacent to all abutting street right-of-way . Northglenn permits the use in 1-1 and 1-2 , and a 6 ' opaque screening if adjacent to residential. Thornton allows them in a "regional commercial " and industrial zone districts ; landscaping buffers apply . Wheat Ridge allows them only in PD- C and PD-I districts , and they are considered a "semi-industrial " use . Ms. Sangster noted that a large problem will be with traffic , in that a majority of those using the self-storage units will be accessing the site from Centennial , which is a very heavily trav- 7 eled street. People will cut through the residential neighborhoods. She also noted that a large number of those using the storage units will be transporting materials in large trucks and • moving vans. Ms . Sangster stated that she has discussed storage units with police and fire of- ficials, and some units have been used for storage of toxic materials, or for criminal purposes. Ms. Sangster commented that the landscaping of five crabapple trees is insufficient to land- scape the site. Ms. Sangster suggested that if the City does determine the proposal is appropri- ate, that restrictions be imposed, such as specificity in building materials, requirement of addi- tional landscaping , security fences around all buildings used for mini storage, and prohibition of such activities as retail or wholesale sales, auto repair, auto or furniture painting and refin- ishing, electrical equipment or electronic repair or assembly, or any other like repair, refin- ishing, or assembly activity by the owner or agent thereof, or by lessees of the storage units, prohibition of truck and trailer rentals, and restriction of hours of operation from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Parking should also be prohibited along the north side of East Centennial Avenue . She noted that Burt-on-Broadway frequently uses this area for off-street parking, and if they cannot continue to use it, they will use the on-street parking along East Centennial. Mr. Dummer pointed out that Mr. Metzler had previously testified that heavy landscaping could provide a "hiding place" for the criminal element; however, Ms. Sangster seems to want screening and landscaping. Ms. Sangster stated that she wants to see security gates and land- scaping around the entire area. Ms . Sangster reiterated her opinion that the proposed use is not a good fit in this area. Margaret Hoaglund, 5451 South Sherman Street, was sworn in and testified she lives approxi- mately .4 miles from the subject site. She stated she does agree with many points made by Ms. Sangster, particularly the use of storage units for storage of hazardous materials and con- traband. Ms . Hoaglund noted that the Eugene Field Elementary School is only .3 mile from the site, and additional traffic could be hazardous for children. There will also be "strangers" using the self-storage units coming into the neighborhood. Ms. Hoaglund stated that the pro- posed development will be detrimental to the entire neighborhood. Gretchen Watkins, 5395 South Grant Street, was sworn in and testified that she lives .4 miles from the proposed project. Ms. Watkins stated that South Grant Street is not a through street. Ms. Watkins stated that she does not think the proposed self-storage development will affect her property, but she is concerned about the impact it may have on neighboring residents. Her neighbors are hard working people, and many may not realize how this proposal may impact property valuation -it will not be a house and garage across the alley, but a storage facility. There is no landscaping in the area of the proposed storage units, and weeds and debris collect. The 27 homes she cited in her written statement, will be impacted not only by the development itself, but by increased traffic. Ms . Watkins stated that she has spoken to representatives of Burt-on-Broadway, who agree that traffic in the area is a problem. Ms . Watkins noted that the trip comparisons cited by the applicant were for "peak hours"; she noted that persons who will use the self-storage units will be accessing them in the evenings and on weekends . Ms . Wat- kins noted that individuals changing homes may have to store their household goods for a time until the new home is ready ; large moving vans could be accessing this site to unload or load household goods. 8 • • • • • Ethel Womochil, 5271 South Logan Street was sworn in , noting that she has lived in the area a long time , and her children used to play in the alley back of the shopping center. She stated that she is of the opinion that the alley is not large enough to accommodate large trucks. Ms. Womochil acknowledged the improvements made to the Center by Mr. Spriggs , but com- mented that the "new facade will make it more profitable when he sells it ", and that newer, bigger business that locate in the Center are more advantageous to Mr . Spriggs. Ms . W omo- chil urged that efforts be made to "clean up Burt ". She further stated that she did not receive any le tter notifying her of the neighborhood meeting , even though she lives in Brookridge . She does not want extra traffic in and through her neighborhood . Don Hetts , 5136 South Pennsylvania Street , was sworn in , and stated he is 79 years of age. He wanted to go on record in opposition to the proposal. It will have a traffic impact on Cen- tennial A venue , which has already increased because of the businesses recently opened (Einstein 's Bagels) and others which the developer has under construction . Mr. Hetts stated that he likes to walk everyday for enjoyment and exercise and it is hazardous for pedestrians. Mr. Hetts stated that he does not feel Mr . Spriggs will be a "good neighbor ". Mr . Chris Forrest, Hamilton & Fox legal firm , was sworn in . Mr. Forrest stated that he rep- resents the trustee , Patricia Barnes , actual owner of the property . Mr. Spriggs does have a long-term lease but is not owner-in-fact. Ms . Barnes is out of town and he has not been able to reach her. Mr. Forrest requested an extension of time to discuss the proposal with Ms. Bar- nes , and to prepare a written position statement. Mr. Weber asked the objective of the time extension. Mr . Forrest quoted a statement that is on the bottom of the application, which states: "If the applicant is not the owner of the prop- erty , the application must be accompanied by the written authorization for such action signed by the owner or owners of said land, together with a statement signed by the owner or owners that they agree to be bound by the regulations and conditions which will be effective with the approval and recording of the Development Plan." Mr. Forrest stated that the first notice they were aware of was the generic letter of September 16th from Mr. Spriggs. Mr. Forrest reiter- ated that "Brookridge Shopping Center , Inc.," is not the owner of the land, but is only the les- see. Mr. Forrest reiterated his request for time extension , and offered the opinion that the "application process doesn 't appear to have been properly complied with ." Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Douglas asked if anyone else wished to speak in opposition . No one else addressed the Commission in opposition. Mr. Spriggs addressed the Commission stating there has been no attempt to skirt the proper application process . He noted he was informed by staff that the PUD process is very recently adopted , and the proper PUD application is not finalized ; therefore , the application for PD was modified for use . Mr. Spriggs stated that he does have a long term lease -55 years remaining on a 99 -year lease . Mr. Spriggs stated that he does have a legally sufficient interest in the property , and according to the lease can authorize construction , demolition, and development on the site without approval of the owner-in-fact . Ms. Barnes received the same letter every- one else did , and was represented at the meeting by a Mr. George Pulver. Mr. Spriggs noted 9 that Ms. Watkins and Ms. Sangster were in attendance at the neighborhood meeting, and they attended the meeting this evening fully prepared to present their position . Mr. Spriggs sug-• gested that it is unfair to delay progress on the proposal just because Ms . Barnes ' representa- tives were not prepared for this meeting . Mr. Douglas called for a motion to close the Public Hearing. Tobin moved : Horner seconded : The Public Hearing on Case #PUD-96 -01 be closed. AYES : NAYS : ABSTAIN : ABSENT : Horner , Tobin, Weber , Douglas , Dummer None None Redpath, Garrett , Mason The motion carried. Mr. Douglas declared a short recess of the meeting. The Commission reconvened at 8 :50 P .M. with five members present , and three members absent. Mr. Douglas clarified the issue regarding Mr. Forrest's concern regarding the PUD applica- tion. The PUD process is , indeed, new; proper application forms have not been finalized , and rather than make the applicant wait until finalization of the form , the PD application form was • modified and used . Mr. Douglas also stated that he would like to resolve the issue before the Commission this evening if possible, noting that it must be referred to City Council. Ms. Tobin noted that there is a specific request from the property owner 's representative to delay the decision. Mr. Brotzman stated that if the Commission wants to hear from the prop- erty owner , they should continue the hearing; he suggested that the owner 's statement can be prepared and submitted prior to consideration by the City Council if the Commission decides to proceed with the decision process at this time. Horner moved : Dummer seconded: The Planning Commission proceed with discussion with the intent of reaching a decision on Case #PUD -96 -01 at this time. AYES : NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT : Weber , Douglas , Dummer, Horner Tobin None Redpath, Garrett , Mason The motion carried . Discussion ensued. Mr. Dummer noted that the PUD must be amended to address the con- cerns of Fire Marshal Greene. Other amendments were also noted . 10 • • • • Homer moved: Dummer seconded: The Planning Commission recommend approval of Case #PUD-96-01, and refer it to City Council. Mr. Weber asked whether hours of operation should be restricted. Mr. Douglas noted that the ungated structures could be a 24-hour operation, but that those with gated access would not be . Mr . Weber stated that much has been made of the traffic congestion, but it does seem that the self-storage units will generate lower impact traffic impact than other uses currently permitted in the B-2 District. Mr. Douglas also noted that concern had been voiced about large moving vans accessing the site; however, if the turning radius cannot accommodate fire vehicles, moving vans would not be able to make the turns either . Mr. Homer stated that there are two issues to be considered: 1) a land use issue, and 2) a de- sign issue. The City is being asked to make an exception to the zone district regulations to al- low a use that is typically not permitted in the B-2 District, i.e., mini-storage units . Mr. Douglas stated that the applicant is requesting that the site be rezoned from B-2 to PUD to specify uses that would be accommodated on this site, one of which will be the mini-or self- storage units. Mr. Homer stated that the mini-or self-storage units in conjunction with the shopping complex is a unique idea; however, he isn't sure this use is what we want to permit on the Broadway corridor -mini-storage is not his vision of improvement along the Broadway corridor, and is a precedent he is not willing to set at this time . Ms. Tobin stated that she also has concerns about inclusion of the mini-storage in this area . Mr. Weber directed the attention of members to the information presented by Ms. Sangster on treatment of mini-storage by other municipalities. He noted that Littleton allows such use in their B-3 (General Business District); he questioned that this district is all that different from the Englewood B-2 Zone District. Mr. Horner addressed the issue of site design and commented that "we are talking about shoe- horning" the units onto the site -it is very squeezed in, and this is not a very good site plan. He commented that this portion is very industrial looking. Setbacks have been lowered to 5 feet, and landscaping is minimal. The solid wall on the Centennial A venue side does not cap- ture the retail nature of the Center, and adds nothing to the street. Ms. Tobin felt this was a prime area for additional retail stores. She commented that when Cinderella City is redeveloped , perhaps more new retail outlets will be looking for an area to locate , and this area could accommodate those retailers. She suggested the possibility of a store such as Target. Mr. Dummer commented that if Target were to try to locate on the site, the traffic would increase many times over . The self-storage will provide the lowest traffic impact as possible. Mr. Douglas noted that office units on the site now will be removed and replaced by the stor- age units , which will lower the traffic impact. He noted that Burt Chevrolet brings in the large 11 transports, parks in the middle of Centennial Avenue to off-load the new vehicles, which greatly impacts street and traffic congestion in the area. • Mr. Dummer noted that self-storage units are located all over the metro area, and are inte- grated in residential districts, business districts, and industrial districts . He commented that any use that goes into this portion of the Center will create some congestion. The appearance of the proposed development was discussed at length . Mr. Dummer noted that the mini- storage portion of the site is not visible from South Broadway . Mr. Weber agreed, and ques- tioned what retail business would want to locate in this area because of the lack of visibility from Broadway. Ms. Tobin commented that area residents have expressed concern about the storage of materi- als that could be hazardous to health, or contraband from illegal activities. Mr. Douglas noted that access to a great portion of the proposed development will be behind a locked gate with an attendant on-site, and he questioned whether storage of toxic materials or illegal contraband would occur. Ms. Tobin stated she felt the mini-storage units would be acceptable in another location; the residents who spoke this evening and attended the meeting are "neighbors" to the proposed development, and to the City, and their concerns should be taken into consideration. Ms. Tobin stated that she also has a concern that the adjoining property owners were not noti- fied of the proposal until week before the Public Hearing. She opined that the proposed devel- opment will not increase property values for the residential neighborhood . Mr. Douglas suggested that the self-storage units may not affect the value of the homes as • much as one might think; he noted that the applicant has invested, and is continuing to invest, a large sum of money into the Center to make it up-to-date and viable . The use of the self- storage units will be controlled by the developer and property manager. Brief discussion en- sued. Use of the units for workshops was briefly discussed; Mr. Dummer expressed the opin- ion that this would again depend on surveillance of the resident manager and the developer. The issue of landscaping was discussed. Mr. Homer stated that one crabapple tree every fifty feet with small juniper bushes isn 't much. Mr. Homer suggested that the applicant/developer be required to plant one tree every 20 feet along East Centennial Avenue, and that the mini- mum size of the tree be 2" caliper. Mr. Homer reiterated that he is not convinced this proposal is the right move, but if the rest of the Commission members are in favor, they "had better get whatever you want right now" or the City will have another shopping area with very limited landscaping, and resembling Trolley Square. Ms. Tobin asked what the rush was to approve this request; she commented she wanted to see some things clarified, such as building and facade materials. Amendments to the PUD Site Plan were discussed at length, with the resulting list of items : 1. CENTENNIAL AVENUE: 2" Caliper trees spaced 20 feet apart shall be planted from • the comer of Building 2 to the east end of Building 8. 12 • • • 2 . 3. 4. 5 . 6 . 7 . BELLEVIEW AVENUE: Two additional Honey Locust trees, 2" caliper , installed on the northeast, to continue the planting pattern shown along Belleview PARKING AISLES: Two 2" caliper trees shall be planted on the west end of each parking aisle nearest the shopping center structure; this will comprise a total of 10 trees, two for each parking aisle. IRRIGATION: All landscaping on-site must be irrigated. FIRE ACCESS : The developer and the Fire Marshall shall resolve the issue of emer- gency access for fire vehicles. USE OF STORAGE UNITS: The storage units may be used for "storage" only. PROHIBITION OF VEHICLE RENTAL: There shall be no rentals of trucks, trailers , or cars from this site. 8. CHARACTER OF DEVELOPMENT: The developer shall use the same facade mate- rials , colors and architectural character for the mini-storage units as is used in the re - mainder of the Shopping Center . 9. ROOF STYLE: The mini-storage units shall have pitched roof lines . Mr. Douglas asked if the design standards and guidelines for large format retail would be in effect by the time this proposed PUD is submitted to City Council. Mr. Stitt stated they would not be in effect prior to submission of this PUD to City Council. A vote was called on approval of the proposed amendments to the PUD. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Tobin, Weber , Douglas, Dummer , Homer None None Garrett , Redpath, Mason The amendments were approved . Mr. Douglas asked that the vote on the motion to approve the PUD, with the amendments , be taken. The motion is: Homer moved : Dummer seconded: The Planning Commission recommend approval of Case #PUD-96-01 , amended as follows , and refer to City Council. 1. CENTENNIAL AVENUE: 2" Caliper trees spaced 20 feet apart shall be planted from the comer of Building 2 to the east end of Building 8. 2 . BELLEVIEW AVENUE: Two additional Honey Locust trees, 2 " caliper, installed on the northeast, to continue the planting pattern shown along Belleview 3. PARKING AISLES : Two 2" caliper trees shall be planted on the west end of each parking aisle nearest the shopping center struc- ture; this will comprise a total of 10 trees , two for each parking aisle . 13 AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT : 4 . 5 . 6. 7 . IRRIGATION : All landscaping on-site must be irrigated. FIRE ACCESS: The developer and the Fire Marshall shall re- solve the issue of emergency access for fire vehicles . USE OF STORAGE UNITS: The storage units may be used for "storage " only. PROHIBITION OF VEHICLE RENTAL: There shall be no rentals of trucks , trailers, or cars from this site. 8. CHARACTER OF DEVELOPMENT : The developer shall use the same facade materials, colors and architectural character for the mini-storage units as is used in the remainder of the Shopping Center . 9. ROOF STYLE : The mini-storage units shall have pitched roof lines. Weber , Douglas, Dummer Homer, Tobin None Garrett , Redpath , Mason The motion carried. Members of the Commission expressed their appreciation to members of the audience for their • attendance and participation in the Hearing . This matter will be referred to City Council , and • another public hearing will be held before that body. IV. FINDINGS OF FACT Retail Design Standards CASE #OR-96-04 Mr. Douglas stated that the Findings of Fact on the Large Format Retail Design Standards were to be considered for approval. Homer moved : Tobin seconded : The Findings of Fact be approved as written. AYES : NAYS : ABSTAIN : ABSENT : Dummer , Homer , Tobin , Weber , Douglas None None Garrett , Redpath, Mason The motion carried . V. PUBLIC FORUM. No one was present to address the Commission. 14 • • • • VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Stitt stated that there will be a Public Hearing on October 22, 1996, on a Planned Unit Development for the Englewood Meridian development, 3455 South Corona Street. Mr. Stitt announced the Holiday Dinner scheduled for December 19, 1996 at the Englewood Golf Course. Members of the Commission and a guest are invited. VIII. CO:t\irnISSIONER'S CHOICE. Ms. Tobin stated that she has not yet presented the information she gathered from the confer- ence on transportation which she attended. She requested that time be allotted for this discus- sion. Mr. Douglas suggested that time be allotted at the next meeting under Commissioner's Choice. Mr. Homer commented that Commissioners need to consider items they want to see on future PUDs, such as improved landscaping, facade materials, etc. Discussion ensued. Gertrude G. Welty, Recording Secretary \ \$nds\. eng_ ch_ sys.cityhall. englewood\dept\nbd\group\boards\plancomm\minutes 96\pcml 0-96a.doc 15