Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-11-07 PZC MINUTESe CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 1995 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers of Englewood City Hall, Chairman Mason presiding. Members present: Shoop, Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Dummer, Homer, Redpath, Mason Simpson, Ex-officio Members absent: Garrett Also present: Harold J. Stitt, Community Coordinator Dan Brotzman, City Attorney Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. October 17, 1995 Chairman Mason stated that the Minutes of October 17, 1995 were to be considered for ap- proval. Redpath moved: Tobin seconded: The Minutes of October 17 , 1995 be approved as written . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Homer, Redpath, Shoop, Mason None Dummer Garrett The motion carried. ID. 5200 INVESTMENTS. LTD. Planned Development Mr. Mason asked for a motion to re-open the Public Hearing. Tobin moved: Douglas seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #9-95 be reopened. CASE #9-95 AYES: Weber , Douglas, Dummer, Homer, Redpath, Shoop, Tobin, Mason 1 NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: None None Garrett The motion carried. Harold J. Stitt was sworn in and stated that the death of a family member necessitated his ab- sence from the October 17 meeting. Mr. Stitt then offered testimony regarding the concerns cited by Commission members during the initial part of the Hearing on October 17. Mr. Stitt noted that the issue of the auto body shop and paint booth as an ancillary use seems to be of concern to the Commission. He pointed out that a majority of, if not all, new car dealerships have auto body shops and paint booths in conjunction with the auto sales; indeed, Burt-on- Broadway has an auto body shop on the premises on the east side of South Broadway. The volume of business that the Burt-on-Broadway dealerships do, both new car sales and used car sales, has necessitated that a considerable amount of the auto body work be "farmed out". The development of this second auto body shop in conjunction with the proposed medium-duty truck sales activity will enable Burt to handle the auto body work from their various dealer- ships. Mr. Stitt emphasized that the proposed development on the west side of South Broad- way is an expansion of the Burt-on-Broadway dealerships on the east side of South Broadway, and the proposed body shop and paint booth will provide services to all of the Burt businesses. Mr. Stitt further emphasized that there is no requirement that an ancillary use, such as the auto body shop, be located on site with a primary use. The "phasing" of the proposed development was addressed by Mr. Stitt. It was noted that ap- proval of a Planned Development cannot assure development of a site; it does assure that if development does occur, it will be in compliance with the approved, or amended, Plan. The phasing aspect of this particular Planned Development was proposed to provide staff better in- formation on timing of infrastructure improvements that might be needed to facilitate total de- velopment of the site. The "phasing" aspect of the Planned Development has been revised; ref- erence is now made to Parcel "A", "B", and "C". Mr. Stitt stated that development of phases or parcels is not required to be "sequential". Mr. Stitt further stated that existing uses on the site have leases, which will impact the timing of development. Mr. Stitt commented that it does appear that all infrastructure improvements are in place to handle the proposed development. The "value of the development to the City" was discussed by Mr. Stitt. Burt Chevrolet has been a long time member of the Englewood business community. Their business has expanded far beyond the Chevrolet sales operation to include such dealerships as Toyota, Subaru, and Nissan. Mr. Stitt noted the development character of the surrounding area, citing the multi- plicity of auto dealerships and other auto related businesses, and the Brookridge shopping cen- ter. All of these uses are heavy traffic generators. In light of the development character of the area, Mr. Stitt questioned whether the existing China Kitchen, Kentucky Fried Chicken, and El Ranchito restaurants represent the "highest and best use" of the land. Development of the site will comply with and further the goals for commercial corridor development as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, those goals being: 2 • To encourage and support the vitality and the existing variety of established businesses. • To provide the climate for attracting new business, thus increasing our tax base. • To upgrade marginal uses and to replace or rehabilitate deteriorating structures. To meet and comply with the aforesaid goals does provide "value" to the City. Elimination of existing curb cuts was then discussed by Mr. Stitt. These comments, from the Traffic Division, are a reflection of comments of the Colorado Department of Transportation. It was not the intent that the curb cuts to existing businesses be eliminated upon approval of the Planned Development. The elevations and prototypical design of the building addition have been added to the Planned Development. The final design will probably be similar to other Burt-on-Broadway dealership buildings. Mr. Stitt noted that there is a "corporate identity" that dealerships have to comply with, which corporate identity applies to all design guidelines. Ms. Tobin questioned the lack of sidewalks along this section of South Broadway. Mr. Stitt surmised that much of the existing development may have occurred prior to annexation to Englewood, and possibly sidewalks we re not required. Sidewalk, curb and gutter will be re- quired at the time of demolition of the existing Broadway fr ontage and redevelopment of the area. Mr. Shoop inquired whether other dealerships have paint booths in conjunction with the sales activity. Mr. Stitt responded affirmatively. The proximity of the paint booth to West Lehow A venue should not be of concern. There are a number of regulations and standards that are imposed on paint booths, whether in conjunction with auto dealerships, or free-standing. Mr. Redpath asked if "any part of the Burt property in Englewood is being used today". Mr. Stitt stated that all of the Burt property is within the City li mits of Englewood, and all of it is being used for automotive-related purposes. Mr. Homer asked why staff determined the amount of required landscaping should be reduced on this proposal. He stated that he has been involved working with other developments, and has never seen the "developable" versus "undevelopable" rationale applied. Mr. Homer stated that using this rationale, approximately 5,000 square feet of landscaping will not be required of the applicant. Is this a standard th at the staff is trying to impose. Mr. Stitt noted that the site is of odd configuration, and is impacted by Big Dry Creek and a 75-foot wide Public Service easement. A large percentag e of the site is unusa ble because it is Creek bed and flood plain; this area has natural vegetation wh ich will remain . Mr. Stitt stated in his opinion, to require the property owner to provid e landscaping based on the total square footage of the site is punitive when approximately 25 % of the site is unusab le. He advised Mr. Homer that it is the prerogative of the Commission to require full compli ance of the landscaping standards. Mr. Homer stated that he does "not appreciate the staffs interpretation of the landscaping re- 3 quirements." Mr. Homer stated that when one considers the existing landscaping, the land-e scaping proposed with the redevelopment is almost a "net loss". Mr. Mason questioned that Parcel A could accommodate additional landscaping, and noted that Parcels B and C have existing businesses with leases so the landscaping cannot be installed on those parcels at this time. He asked if the City couldn't require the additional landscaping to be on Parcels Band C at such time as those parcels are available for redevelopment. Mr. Homer stated that there is no guarantee any development will be done on Parcels Band C. Mr. Homer then asked how the City can be assured, if a change in land use is approved and tied to a specific owner, that the site will not be sold. Mr. Stitt stated that approved Planned Developments are recorded with Arapahoe County. If staff were to learn of a proposed sale of part of the site, for instance the auto body shop site, the seller and prospective purchaser would be notified that a "free-standing" auto body shop is not a permitted principal use in this zone district. Mr. Stitt suggested that the Commission could impose a condition that the auto body shop may only be used in conjunction with an automotive business. Mr. Homer inquired whether Burt-on-Broadway, 5200 Investments, Ltd., and LGC Manage- ment are all "Burt". Mr. Shoop asked whether the five year limitation on landscaping installation will still apply. Mr. Stitt stated that at the time the initial staff report was written, staff was unaware of the existing long-term leases for the existing restaurants. Mr. Redpath stated that the paint booth and auto body shop are not "permitted", and expressed his fear that the redevelopment will proceed only through development of these uses and no further. He stated that the Commission, at their last meeting, wanted to look at ways to re- voke use of the auto body shop and paint booth if total redevelopment didn 't occur. Mr. Stitt reiterated that this paint booth and auto body shop will provide service to all of the Burt deal- erships --not just the proposed truck sales. The issue of sidewalk, curb and gutter along South Broadway was further discussed. Gary Harrison, Concepts West Architecture, was sworn in. Mr. Harrison testified that he has been engaged to design the Planned Development. Mr. Harrison distributed information pack- ets to members of the Commission and staff, which packets contained trip generation esti- mates, traffic circulation patterns, spray booth information, use plans and service listings, and outstanding lease information. Mr. Harrison discussed modifications that the applicant has made since the initial meeting with the Commission on October 17. Phasing has been replaced with Parcel identification; building elevations have been shown, and some parking spaces which were questioned by the Traffic Division have been eliminated. Big Dry Creek does cut through the site, and impacts development of the ownership. Mr. Harrison also reviewed the surrounding land uses, and emphasized that all of the Burt uses do tie into the proposed devel- opment of this site. Mr. Harrison stated that the applicant has made efforts to deal with the landscaping issue. Mr. Harrison noted the inability to landscape along South Broadway be- 4 cause of the existing businesses; at such time as those parcels become available for redevelop- ment they will be landscaped. Some of these leases extend until at least 1998 or 2001. Mr. Redpath asked how the landscaping on the "undeveloped area" would be maintained. Non- maintenance could result in a fire hazard with dry brush, etc. Mr. Harrison stated that this is in the creek bottom, and they do not consider the natural vegetation a fire hazard. Tedd Utzinger, in charge of Risk Management for Burt-on-Broadway, was sworn in. Mr. Utzinger testified regarding the paint booth, and the necessity to make sure that all of the Burt facilities are in compliance with standards prescribed by the EPA and OSHA. The proposed paint booth is self-contained , with a 96.4% efficiency rating. They work closely with Safety Kleen who hauls away any residue from the process. The proposed structure does meet Fire Code requirements, and all paints will be stored in a fire-proof room. New technologies allow mixture to exact colors and amounts needed so there is no storage problem. There will be an operator in the paint booth, who will be required to wear the approved safety-garb prescribed by the EPA and OSHA. Mr. Utzinger stated that the existing paint booth is registered with the EPA ; this new paint booth will require a separate registration because it will have a different address. Mr. Utzinger stated that the paint booth will do "touch-up work", and will be an en- hancement to what Burt already has. Mr. Utzinger stated that the medium-duty trucks would not be painted in this paint booth because they will be too large for the booth. John (Hank) Held, corporate attorney for Burt-on-Broadway , was sworn in. Mr. Held testi- fied that Burt-on-Broadway did have separate auto body shops at the Toyota and Subaru deal- erships , which were consolidated with the Burt Chevrolet body shop. However , the auto body business from all Burt dealerships exceeds what can be accommodated in the consolidated shop. The new auto body shop will be ancillary to the existing uses. Mr. Held corroborated Mr. Utzinger's testimony on new paint booth technologies , resulting in very little waste. Re- garding the issue of leases , Mr. Held stated that Burt did not acquire the properties until this year; the properties were previously under long-term lease to Burtkin Associates. Mr. Held then elaborated on the various holdings of the Burt bu si nesses, and stated that Burt-on- Broadway , LGC Management , 5200 Investments , Ltd. are all part of the overall Burt business organization. Mr. Dummer asked whether the outstanding leases could be terminated by Burt. Mr. Held stated that they can be terminated only at the option of the lessee. Brief discussion ensued. Redpath moved: Dummer seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #9-95 be closed. AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Douglas, Dummer, Horner , Redpath , Shoop , Tob in, Weber, Mason None None Garrett 5 The motion carried. Mr. Mason stated that he would entertain a motion to approve the Planned Development. Horner moved: The Public Hearing be continued to provide the applicant an opportunity to return with a revised plan showing more than minimal landscaping. There was no second to Mr. Homer's motion. Shoop moved: Mason seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the Planned Development application filed on behalf of 5200 Investments, Ltd. be approved. Discussion ensued on the landscaping provisions. Mr. Mason proposed that a condition be ap- pended to the motion to require that Parcels B and C include an increased amount of landscap- ing when redevelopment of those parcels occurs to bring the total landscaping to 10% of the developable area. Mr. Homer commented that the total development should have approxi- mately 12,000 square feet of landscaping. Mr. Stitt provided clarification on landscaping re- quirements. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Redpath asked if staff is willing to accept the fact that the auxiliary uses may be the only uses developed under this plan. Discussion ensued. Mr. Homer asked if these uses are "accessory" or "auxiliary" to the auto dealership , why is this even before the Commission. Mr. Stitt responded that the total site to be redeveloped is in excess of one acre; the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance requires that any development or redevelopment of an area in excess of one acre must be pursued through a Planned Development. Mr. Stitt suggested that if the members of the Commission want Parcels B and C to be devel- oped in accordance with the landscaping requirements , to so state as a condition to the ap- proval. Conditions and the planned development approval go with a "property", not an owner; therefore, if the Commission wants to assure that the paint booth/auto body shop continue only as an auxiliary use to an auto dealership , this should be so specified as a condition. The landscaping issue was revisited. Mr. Homer noted that 126,210 square feet of the site is determined to be "developable"; this would require a total of 12,621 square feet of landscaping to be provided on Parcels A, B, and C. Mr. Douglas stated that the applicant should not be allowed to count the "volunteer trees" which are growing in the creek bottom toward the re- quired landscaping. Mr. Homer agreed that the applicant cannot consider the existing vegeta- tion in the undevelopable area as part of the required landscaping. The motion to approve, with conditions, is as follows: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the Planned Development application filed on behalf of 5200 Investments, Ltd. be approved. 6 1. The applicant shall comply with required minimum landscaping requirements for Lots A, B, and C, that being that 10% of the developable lot area shall be land- scaped, with at least 50% of the landscaping to be live material, and 80% of the required landscaping shall be in front of the front building line. 2. The auto body shop and paint booth are recognized as accessory uses to an auto sales dealership. The auto body shop and paint booth shall not be allowed as free- standing uses. The vote on the motion, as restated, was called: AYES: NAYS: Horner, Redpath, Shoop, Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Dummer, Mason None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Garrett The motion carried. The applicants were informed that this matter will be referred to the City Council, which body may also require a Public Hearing. IV. PUBLIC FORUM. There was no one present to address the Commission. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Simpson stated he had nothing to bring before the Commission. VI. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Mr. Horner thanked the staff for having the materials delivered on Friday rather than mailing the packets. Mr. Mason stated that the Gothic Theater has been recommended for historical designation. There being nothing further to come before the Commission, the meeting was declared ad- journed. Y t._kA, l dJf ~ Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary 7