Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1969-04-18 PZC MINUTESCITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 1995 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. in the Englewood City Council Chambers, Chairman Mason presiding. Members present: Homer, Redpath, Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Dummer, Mason Members absent: Garrett, Shoop Merkel, Ex-officio Also present: Harold J. Stitt, Planning Administrator Dan Brotzman, City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. April 4, 1995 Chairman Mason called for consideration of the Minutes of April 4, 1995. Tobin moved: Dummer seconded: The Minutes of April 4, 1995 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Homer, Redpath, Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Dummer, Mason None None Shoop, Garrett The motion carried. ID. SOUTII DENVER MEDICAL PLAZA Planned Development 3299 South Lincoln Street CASE #2-95 Mr. Mason stated that the issue before the Commission is a request for Planned Development approval of a proposed medical office complex at South Lincoln Street and East Floyd Ave- nue. Mr. Mason set forth parameters for conduct of the Hearing, and asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Homer moved: Dummer seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #2-95 be opened. 1 AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Redpath, Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Dummer, Horner, Mason None None Shoop, Garrett The motion carried. Staff was asked to present the case. Harold J. Stitt was sworn, and testified that the request is for Planned Development approval of a proposed medical office complex to be constructed at 3299 South Lincoln Street and a proposed parking area on the east side of South Lincoln in the 3200 block. Mr. Stitt presented Chairman Mason with copies of the Notice of Public Hearing, published in the Englewood Herald on April 6, 1995, and Certification of Posting of the property. Mr. Stitt stated that, following closure of the Public Hearing, the Commission may recommend ap- proval of the Planned Development; recommend conditional approval of the Planned Devel- opment, or recommend denial of approval. Mr. Stitt testified that Planned Development approval is required in the B-1 and B-2 Zone Districts for development of sites that are one acre or more. The site is 1.443 acres in area, and is currently undeveloped; it was previously developed and used as an auto body repair shop. Mr. Stitt stated that the Planned Development district is an overlay of existing zoning, which allows some flexibility in the location of buildings. Mr. Stitt reviewed the comments from other City Departments pertaining to the proposed de- velopment, those comments being from the Building & Safety Division, Public Works, and the Utilities Department. Mr. Stitt stated that the Utilities Department is concerned regarding the integrity of the City Ditch which runs across the site; if heavy equipment is brought in during the period of construction there is fear that the Ditch could be damaged. The Ditch has been in operation since early this century, and Englewood is contractually obligated to keep the Ditch open and running April through November to furnish water to Denver. Mr. Stitt stated that the applicants have submitted revised plans to address the concerns that were cited by various members of the City staff, and now propose to pour a slab over the Ditch to provide protection. Other concerns that the City cited, such as parking spaces that were unusable, and the shortage of parking spaces, have also been addressed in the revision. Jim Morgan, Vice President of Lee Architects, was sworn in. Mr. Morgan stated that the proposed development will be a two-story, 43,500 square foot medical office complex, to be constructed on the west side of South Lincoln Street just north of East Floyd Avenue. Mr. Morgan addressed revisions they have made, such as resiting the trash pick-up location , relo- cation of parking spaces, and the provision of the required number of handicapped parking spaces. Mr. Morgan stated that the proposed structure will have a covered drop-off area, and 2 -' e four of the five handicapped parking spaces will be under this covered drop-off. Mr. Morgan addressed the appearance of the proposed building, which will be of brick and stucco, with a metal roof. A parking lot will also be developed on the east side of South Lincoln Street to provide parking for the medical complex; this parking lot will be repaved and will be land- scaped. Mr. Morgan stated that to comply with the minimum parking requirements, they are negotiating an agreement with the Archdiocese of Denver to allow joint use of a parking area owned by the Archdiocese and used by St. Louis Church. This agreement has been made ver- bally, and needs to be reduced to written form for signature. Mr. Morgan asked that the Commission grant conditional approval, dependent upon the applicant presenting the written parking agreement, and covering of the Ditch with the proposed concrete slab. Mr. Redpath asked if the structure would have a basement, or be constructed on a slab. Mr. Redpath also inquired about the drainage of the site. Mr. Morgan stated that there will be no basement. Mr. Morgan then indicated the storm water detention areas on the site. The deten- tion areas allow for controlled run-off from the site to the alley or to the street. A small triangular parcel that is owned by the City along East Floyd on the west side of South Lincoln Street was discussed. Mr. Morgan stated that this parcel is used for parking, but is unimproved in that it is unpaved, and parking spaces are not marked. Mr. Morgan suggested that the City work with the developers to landscape this parcel and provide a small, pleasant green-area in the downtown. Mr. Homer inquired about signage for the parking areas which would direct clients of the medical office complex to the off-site parking areas. Mr. Morgan discussed the need for di- rectional signage in the parking lots and assured the Commission that such signage will be in- stalled. Mr. Morgan further stated that the shared parking agreement with the Archdiocese will provide an additional 25 spaces, and will still provide parking for Church use during the day. Once the written agreement is signed, the medical complex will have 145 parking spaces available for their use. Mr. Homer asked whether the applicant will have to provide landscap- ing on the parking lot they will be using jointly with St. Louis. Mr. Stitt stated that this park- ing area would not be controlled (owned) by the applicant, and the landscaping cannot be re- quired on a joint use agreement. Ms. Tobin asked what protection the City has that sufficient parking will be provided should the Archdiocese decide to terminate the agreement in the fu- ture. Mr. Stitt stated that it would be the responsibility of the applicant to secure the required parking. Mr. Stitt suggested that the applicant would have the option of applying for a vari- ance to the off-street parking requirements. Mr. Homer stated that in his work, he has been involved with the development of a number of medical office buildings, and the biggest problems have been insufficient parking. Current statistics suggest a ratio of 5: 1, 000 sq. ft. rather than the 3: 1, 000 sq. ft. that the Englewood Ordinance uses. Mr. Morgan discussed the sizes of the parking stalls, noting that they will be 17 feet to the curb stop, with a two foot over-hang; the curb stops will be 2.5 feet from the property line, so the vehicles will not protrude beyond the property line. 3 Mr. Mason asked if Mr. James O'Neil wanted to address the Commission. Mr. O'Neil de- clined, but did state that the proposal seemed like a "good idea." Ms. Darlene O'Neil, 3270 South Broadway, was sworn in, and asked questions about the drainage from the site; they own the building used by the Channel Six Reruns, and their son- in-law has the service station on South Broadway at Floyd. Mr. Stitt stated that the drainage plan is designed to direct the flow to the alley, South Lincoln Street, and East Floyd Avenue; this will be controlled flow, not to be released at greater than the "historic" rate. Earl Ladewig, 3235 South Lincoln, was sworn in and testified that he owns the property im- mediately to the north of the proposed development. Mr. Ladewig noted that one of the City provisions is that unused curb cuts must be closed. There is a curb cut approximately at the property line which he uses to access his property; he asked that he be assured of cooperation so that when the curb cut is closed, he can at the same time take steps to increase the width of the cut on his property. Mr. Ladewig also stated that he has a wooden fence on his south property line; he expressed concern that the vehicles parking along the north line of the medi- cal complex will overhang the bumper stops enough to damage his fence. Mr. Stitt stated that the Development Plan shows five and one-half feet setback from the property line, and the applicant has testified that the overhang of the vehicles will only be two feet. Mr. Ladewig commented on the concerts at the Gothic Theater, and asked what will prevent patrons of the concerts from parking in these parking lots and "trashing" them. He asked if the lots will be patrolled, or locked evenings to prevent such occurrences. Ms. Tobin asked Mr. Morgan if the lots will be chained or locked at night. Mr. Morgan stated that there are no plans for this, and any parking problems will have to be addressed by the building manager. Mr. Ladewig then addressed the .general condition of the alley, stating that it should be im- proved because existing drainage pools water in the alley. Mr. Ladewig expressed concern on the detention area on the northwest comer of the site, noting this is right next to his property; he asked if the drainage water detained in this area would be drained onto his property. Mr. Morgan stated it would not; this storm water will drain to the alley. Mr. Ladewig stated that, basically, he feels the proposed development is good. John Schieving, 3216 South Lincoln Street, was sworn in. Mr. Schieving testified that his greatest concern . is parking, and asked if he could be guaranteed he can park in front of his house, or whether he will have to carry his groceries one-half block. He stated that there is a parking problem at the present time, and the proposed development will compound the prob- lem. Mr. Redpath asked if Mr. Schieving had a garage or driveway on his property. Mr. Schieving stated there is a garage; however, the garage must be accessed from the alley, the garage is old, and the vehicle he has will not fit into the garage. There is no driveway on his property. Mr. Schieving agreed that the condition of the Broadway/Lincoln alley is very bad and the alley needs improvement. Discussion ensued.. Mr. Schieving pointed out that the block is developed residentially, and are nicely kept homes. The development of the medical 4 e complex will ruin the residential character of the neighborhood. Mr. Schieving expressed the opinion that this site would be best developed as a park. He reiterated that he does not want to see the development go forward, and that his biggest concern is parking. Kent Krausman, 3375 South Bannock Street, was sworn in, and testified to his affiliation with the group negotiating the acquisition of the Gothic Theater. They are now looking at building use, and hope to have a parking plan worked out in the near future. Mr. Krausman stated that the new venues to be presented at the Gothic will attract a totally different clientele than what the neighborhood has recently experienced. Mr. Krausman stated that the proposal is to run the Gothic on a similar basis as the Paramount Presents programs --comedy, country and western, gospel, and jazz. The theater will be renovated, probably to the 1949 era. Mr. Ladewig asked if the parking lots proposed by the medical complex allow for employee parking, or is this only for clients. Ms. Tobin stated that Mr. Morgan had previously indi- cated the parking lots were for both clients and employees. Mr. Mason asked if anyone else wished to address the Commission. Mr. Kirby Ross, 1901 Clarkson Street, stated that the developers are willing to talk to and work with neighbors to assure the workability of the proposal. Redpath moved: Tobin seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #2-95 be closed. Mr. Dummer asked if there is anything the City is required to do to improve the alley as a re- sult of the proposed development. Mr. Stitt stated improvement of the alley would be the re- sponsibility of the adjoining property owners, and that the 3299 South Lincoln Street Partner- ship, as owners of the site, will be responsible for the improvement of the portion of the alley adjoining their ownership. Ms. Tobin expressed her concern again regarding the parking agreement with St. Louis Church and the Archdiocese. Mr. Stitt suggested that.the Commission can approach the parking agreement from two ways: 1. Make it a condition of approval, and forward the Planned Development to City Coun- cil. 2. Approve the Planned Development, but do not forward to the City Council until the written, signed, parking agreement is presented to staff and the Commission is notified of the receipt. The vote on the motion was called: · AYES: NAYS: Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Dummer, Horner, Redpath, Mason None 5 ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Shoop, Garrett The motion carried. Mr. Mason stated that he would entertain a motion to approved the Planned Development; but that the request not be forwarded to City Council until the signed, written parking agreement with the Archdiocese has been received. Brief discussion ensued. Tobin moved: Horner seconded: The Planning Commission recommend approval of the Planned Devel- opment for 3299 South Lincoln Street Partnership; this recommendation is not to be forwarded to City Council for final action until an agreement for shared parking is signed by the Archdiocese of Denver and the appli- cant, and presented by the applicant. Mr. Redpath suggested amending the motion to require alley improvements to accommodate the drainage. Discussion ensued. Mr. Redpath withdrew his suggested amendment. Mr. Horner inquired about the treatment of the small triangular-shaped property owned by the City. Mr. Mason stated that it would be nice to incorporate this parcel into the overall land- scaping plan, but he is not in favor the City giving away land, even though this parcel doesn't appear to be useful. Mr. Morgan stated that if the City is agreeable to the proposal, they will landscape the site. Mr. Stitt agreed that the proposal from the applicant is a wonderful idea, but that it is not something that ·should be made a part of the Planned Development approval. Mr. Stitt suggested that the City will possibly be interested in having the site landscaped. Mr. Mason stated that it would be nice to have a small, park-like area in this location. The vote on the motion was called: AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Dummer, Horner, Redpath, Mason None None Garrett, Shoop The motion carried. ********** A short recess was called; the meeting reconvened at 8: 18 P.M., Mr. Garrett and Mr. Shoop absent. IV. DILLON COMPANIES King Soopers at Trolley Square Planned Development CASE #3-95 6 Mr. Stitt addressed the Commission and stated that by mutual consent of the applicant and the staff, it is requested that the Public Hearing be opened, no _testimony be taken at this time, and that the Public Hearing b~ continued until the evening of April 25 at the hour of 7:00 P.M. Mr. Homer inquired what impact this procedure would have on the public notice and posting. Mr. Stitt stated that if the Public Hearing is opened this evening, and "continued" to a date certain, there is no impact on the posting and public notice. Ms. Tobin stated that the Commission and staff should not make changes in the meeting schedule for everybody; applicants should be advised of the regular meeting dates, and be pre- pared to make their presentations on the date of the advertised Public Hearing. Ms. Tobin commented on the "sacrifice" on the part of the Commission members to accommodate special meetings. Mr. Stitt responded that sometimes there are issues beyond the control of staff or applicants that dictate a change in meeting date, and emphasized the efforts expended by staff members to work with all applicants. Mr. Stitt noted that a change in meeting date not only requires a "sacrifice" on the part of Commission members, but for staff members, applicants, and general public who may be interested in a particular topic. Mr. Redpath asked if preliminary plans were available for viewing by the Commission at this time. Mr. Stitt stated there are not; revised plans are to be available for review by the staff and delivery to the Commission by Friday, April . 21; this will provide time for Commission members to view the proposed plans and accompanying staff report. Tobin moved: Dummer seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #3-95 be opened, and continued until April 25, 1995, at the hour of 7:00 P.M. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Weber, Douglas, Dummer, Homer, Redpath," Tobin, Mason None None Garrett, Shoop The motion carried. v. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Pawn Shops Mr. Mason asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Dummer moved: Tobin seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #13-94 be opened. AYES: NAYS: Dummer, Homer, Redpath, Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Mason None 7 CASE #13-94 ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Garrett, Shoop The motion carried. Mr. Stitt, still duly sworn, stated that the issue · is to consider amendment of the Comprehen- sive Zoning Ordinance to impose distance regulations between pawn shops. Notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Englewood Herald on April 6, 1995. This issue arose in 1994 as a result of perceived proliferation of pawn shops in the City. State licensing regula- tions require that each pawn transaction must be reported to and documented by the Police De- partment. The Department uses volunteers for this data entry; however, full-time employees also work on this project, and there is need to recoup some of the expenses associated with this particular business. The City Council recently enacted more stringent licensing and transaction procedures, and also asked that the Planning Commission consider zoning regulations to re- strict the location of pawn shops. This issue has been the subject of several discussions by the Commission in work sessions, and has also been considered by the Chamber of Commerce. A copy of the agenda and staff report were mailed to the Chamber. The City of Aurora recently adopted provisions establishing a two-mile distance restriction between pawn shops; other municipalities staff researched have not imposed distance restrictions. Staff was directed by the Planning Commission to draft an amendment to impose distance restrictions in Englewood. The proposed amendment specifies a minimum distance of 600 feet between pawn shops, 600 feet being the length of the average block in Englewood. Mr. Stitt testified regarding the difficulty to develop findings to substantiate a distance restric- tion for pawn shops in Englewood. Mr. Stitt acknowledged there are concerns regarding the clientele which reportedly frequent pawn shops, and the increased criminal activity allegedly related to pawn shops; however, pawn shop owners are trying to run an honest business, and are not interested in fencing stolen .merchandise. Mr. Stitt expressed the opinion that the li- censing provisions recently enacted by City Council will have more effect on the number of pawn shops that choose to locate in the City than distance limitations will have. Mr. Stitt stated that while he appreciates the "fear of what may happen", staff does not have specific data to support imposition of distance restrictions. Mr. Stitt emphasized that it is the Commission's decision to make, but they must be very specific on their reasons to impose distance restric- tions on a specific business. Ms. Tobin commented on three pawn shops she had recently seen while driving into Engle- wood from Aurora, none of which had "visible" bars on the windows. Discussion ensued. If bars on windows of pawn shops were to be prohibited, this would again raise the issue of sub- stantiating reasons why one particular business is singled out. Mr. Stitt suggested that the is- sue of "bars on windows" be considered in general, pointing out that there are other businesses who also have bars on their windows, such as jewelry stores, gun shops, and others. There are also businesses who offer merchandise more valuable than what is found in pawn shops, and they choose not to have bars on the windows. He suggested the possibility of working with the pawn shop businesses using an "aesthetic" approach. 8 e Mr. Redpath asked if distance restrictions can successfully be imposed on adult businesses, why cannot distance restrictions be placed on pawn shops. Mr. Stitt responded that issues re- lating to adult businesses have been litigated, and distance restrictions have been approved as a means to mitigate the negative impact of such uses on surrounding businesses and neighbor- hoods, while protecting the free speech rights of the business owners. There is not the same case law relating to distance restrictions on pawn shops. Mr. Mason commented that there is significant opinion regarding pawn shops in Englewood, and also cited uses such as second hand shops and used car dealerships which, in his opinion, are not "upscale" businesses. He acknowledged that pawn shops do serve a specific niche, but that one or two would serve the needs of the community .. Discussion ensued. Mr. Stitt stated that he is attempting to counsel the Commission that if it is their determination to impose distance reql,lirements, they need to clearly state why the restrictions are being im- posed, and what they are protecting the community from. Mr. Stitt commented that he sus- pects any increase in the pawn businesses will be in the "auto pawn" operations. Mr. Stitt also commented on the "cyclical pattern" of a number of businesses, and stated he suspects the pawn business in Englewood will also follow the cyclical pattern. Mr. Stitt stated that he is not op- posed to the 600 foot or 1,000 foot distance, but reiterated the need for the Commission to clearly articulate their reasons to support this imposition on one type of business. Further dis- cussion ensued. Mr. Brotzman stated the need for the Planning Commission to determine if there is a problem, and what the problem is: is it the bars on the windows and the fortress ap- pearance; is it the clientele; is there increased police activity beeause of the clientele; is it the fact that it is a pawn shop; does the business not belong in the business district but in an indus- trial area. He emphasized the need for the Commission to find that a pawn business is "different" from other businesses. The possibility of requiring Conditional Use approval for pawn shops was discussed. Mr. Stitt pointed out that there is a section of the Zoning Ordinance that addresses Conditional Uses in general. A Conditional Use must go through the Public Hearing process, which does allow for public input on the proposed use .. This procedure would also require definition of the impact the specific business has on an area. Ms. Tobin excused herself from the meeting. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Mason again stated that in his opinion there is significant citi- zen concern about pawn shops and degradation of the neighborhoods along Broadway. Mr. Mason stated that there should be a diversity of businesses, and in his opinion the distance re- strictions on pawn shops would address the citizen concerns, and also promote business di- versity. Mr. Mason stated that several citizens in his neighborhood have discussed the pawn shop issue with him, and they are concerned. Mr. Horner asked Mr. Douglas whether he had sensed any concern from his neighborhood re- garding pawn shops. Mr. Douglas stated that he has not, th.at his neighborhood is not close to 9 Broadway, but felt there would be . concern if pawn shops were in a close proximity to the e neighborhood. Further discussion ensued. It was noted that there was no one in attendance to address the Commission on this issue, even though notification of the Hearing was sent to the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Mason said that it is difficult to support "concern" when there is no show from the general public or busi- ness community that they are concerned. The options before the Commission were again cited and discussed , those options being: 1. Maintain pawn shops as a permitted use in the B-2, Business District, but with a specific requirement for a minimum distance between any two pawn shops . This would act to limit the maximum number of pawn shops that could operate in the City at any one time . · 2. Make paWn shops a prohibited use in the B-2 , Business District , but permit them in the I-1, Light Industrial District, and the I-2, General Industr~al District. The existing pawn shops in the B-2 District would be classified as nonconforming uses and amortized out over a short period of time , such as three to five years. 3. Make pawn shops a conditional use in the B-2 District. This would create an opportunity for public review of any proposed pawn shop in a public heating setting. 4. Leave the current regulations as they are. Brief discussion ensued. Horner moved: Dummer seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #13-94 be closed. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Horner, Redpath, Weber, Douglas, Dummer, Mason None None Garrett, Shoop, Tobin The motion carried. Discussion followed. Mr. Stitt stated that when the concerns on pawn shops initially arose, City Council looked at ways to address the .issue, those ways being through licensing and pos- sible zoning restrictions. City Council does rely on the Planning Commission and staff to in- vestigate an issue , and the Planning Commission has to take an honest, hard look at what is best for the community. City Council may or may not accept the recommendation of the Commission on any given issue. The reason any type of business locates in any given municipality were briefly discussed. Mr. Dummer suggested that demographics may affect where specific businesses locate. Brief dis- cussion followed. 10 Mr. Mason stated that there appears to be no great public concern regarding pawn shops, nor does there seem to be a strong reason to impose distance restrictions on any specific business in the community. · · Mason moved: Homer seconded: .The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that current regulations pertaining to pawn shops remain. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Homer, Redpath, Weber, Douglas, Dummer, Mason None None Shoop, Tobin, Garrett The motion carried. Planning Administrator Stitt stated that all discussion will be documented and forwarded to City Council in a Council Communication. VI. FINDINGS OF FACT Zoning Ordinance Amendments Home Occupations CASE #4-93B The Findings of Fact pertaining to the amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance on Home Occupations were briefly reviewed. Redpath moved: Dummer seconded: The Findings of Fact for Case #4-93B be adopted. AYES: NAYS: Redpath, Weber, Douglas, Dum·mer, Homer, Mason None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Shoop, Tobin, Garrett The motion carried. VII. PUBLIC FORUM. There was no one present to address the Commission. vm. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Stitt announced that Director of Community Development Merkel has submitted his resig- nation from the City of Englewood effective May 5, 1995. Mr. Merkel will assume the posi- 11 tion of Town Manager for the town of Dillon on May 8, 1995. Members of the Commission e expressed goo(! wishes for Mr. Merkel in his new position. IX. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Mr. Horner reported on research he has done regarding Dr. Bruno's request for Conditional Use approval, which was heard at the meeting of April 4 and continued to May 2. Mr. Hor- ner stated that he has spoken with the Arapahoe County Director of Social Services, and also someone affiliated with licensing. Children under the age of six years may not be placed in these homes; there can be no mixing of the sexes in any group home; such uses are usually restricted to no more than 10 children; and children 12 years of age, or less, may only be in such facilities for 60 days maximum. City Attorney Brotzman briefly discussed the need to determine whether the children Dr. Bruno proposes to treat are "emotionally disturbed" or are "developmentally .disabled"; this determination will have a bearing on the actions of the Com- mission. Brief discussion ensued. The meeting was declared adjourned at 9:45 P.M. 12