Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-03-22 PZC MINUTESCITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 22, 1994 I. CALL TO ORDER. Chairman Covens called the regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission to order at 7:05 P.M. in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood City Hall. Members present: Clemens, Dummer, Garrett, Becker, Covens Members absent: Gerlick, Shoop, Tobin (all with previous notice), Mason Merkel, Ex-officio Also present: Planning Administrator Harold J. Stitt Assistant City Attorney Dan Brotzman Chairman Covens announced that Mr. Merkel is on vacation this week. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 8, 1994 Chairman Covens asked for approval of the Minutes of the March 8 meeting. Clemens moved: Dummer seconded: The Minutes of March 8, 1994 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Becker, Clemens, Dummer, Covens None Mason, Shoop, Tobin, Gerlick Garrett The motion carried. ill. COOPER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 260 West Jefferson Avenue CASE #5-94 Chairman Covens stated that the Public Hearing on this issue was opened on March 8 and continued to this meeting. Individuals who testified during the proceedings on March 8 are still under oath. Mr. Covens asked that staff bring the Commission up-to-date on this case. Mr. Stitt addressed the Commission on several issues that were raised on March 8, 1994. The Planned Development process is a "review" process. Any development in the R-3 Zone Dis- trict encompassing more than four dwelling units requires Planned Development approval. 1 The Planned Development process subjects the proposal to scrutiny by the Technical Review e Committee composed of technical staff members of all concerned departments; allows for public input from adjacent property owners and the neighborhood in general during Public Hearings; and scrutiny and input from members of the Planning Commission and City Council prior to approval. Approved Planned Developments are recorded in the County Clerk and Re- corder's Office, and construction must comply with the approved, recorded plans. Mr. Stitt more fully discussed the duties of the Technical Review Committee, noting that this committee meets on an as-needed basis to review all large projects: Planned Development, Subdivisions, street/alley vacations, etc. All Departments (notably Community Development, Public Works [Building, Engineering, Traffic], Utilities and Fire) which are involved by some facet of the project discuss the project, set forth problems they see, suggest a means to correct some of those problems, and in general try to work with the applicant before the proposal is brought to the Commission and Council for Public Hearing. The Planned Development process can act as a "variance" in that strict application of the regu- lations of the underlying zone district can be adjusted or varied: strict application of setback requirements may be waived, as can off-street parking requirements, and/or landscaping re- quirements upon approval of the Planned Development. The review process determines if the proposal "fits" with the neighborhood in which it is proposed. One of issues raised on March 8 was that of density. The R-3 Zone District allows a maxi- mum of 40 dwelling units per acre; anything less than 24,000 square feet in lot area uses a dif- ferent formula to determine the density. Using this standard, a maximum of six units would be allowed on Mr. Cooper's total ownership; the ownership is approximately 200 sq. ft. shy of the minimum lot area to accommodate the six units --this would be equal to a strip of land 10 feet x 20 feet. Mr. Stitt discussed the possible vacation of a portion of the north/south alley , and the possible paving of this portion of West Jefferson Avenue to an alley width (14 feet of pavement, no curb, gutter, or sidewalk) with vacation of the remaining right-of-way from West Jefferson Avenue. Either of these possibilities could increase the land area under Mr. Cooper's ownership to comply with or surpass the minimum square footage requirement. Mr. Stitt stated that both of these possible scenarios have been discussed by City personnel with some of the adjacent neighbors; however, no resolution has been reached, and there is no guarantee the right-of-way will be vacated. Mr. Stitt stated he understood the Public Works Department will be scheduling a meeting with the area property owners to discuss the possible vacation of the north/south alley between the City Ditch and West Jefferson Avenue. Mr. Covens inquired whether the paving proposed on West Jefferson Avenue would be put to a vote at the general election; could the paving be done privately, if the property owners came to such an agreement. Mr. Stitt answered affirmatively to both questions. Mr. Stitt discussed the formation of paving districts, and the fact that financing of such districts is put to a vote of the total electorate. A second issue which was raised during discussion on March 8 was that of drainage. All de- velopments require that a drainage plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works 2 Department before construction can begin. Mr. Cooper's drainage plan, which was submitted the evening of March 8, has been rejected by the City. The numbers cited in the study appear to be correct, but the proposals to address the runoff were not satisfactory . Mr. Stitt empha- sized that no development is built unless the Public Works Department approves a drainage study for that project. Fire rating of the structures was also discussed at the previous meeting. The southwestern most structure of Mr. Cooper's proposal will be three feet from the property line. For a structure this close to a property line, the Building Code requires one-hour fire resistive con- struction. The developer will have to comply with the Fire Rating requirements stipulated in the Building Code. Mr. Stitt commented that the Planned Development review process on the six units proposed by Mr. Cooper is the same scrutiny that would be applied were Mr. Cooper to build only three units. The Planned Development review is unique only when it varies underlying zone district regulations --setbacks, parking, landscaping, etc. The issue of survey monumentation was discussed. Mr. Stitt stated that additional information has been presented, but not yet reviewed by the Public Works Department. The retaining walls are not on Mr. Cooper's property, and the City Ditch is piped through this section of the City. The parking lot for the apartment units to the south of Mr. Cooper 's apartments is constructed over the City Ditch. The Utilities Department is concerned about excavation in proximity to the Ditch, and would have to review such plans. Mr. Covens asked if there were new conditions or restrictions Mr. Stitt would recommend be placed on the proposal. Mr. Stitt noted that all restrictions pertaining to the retaining walls probably should not be included as a "condition". The biggest issue still to be resolved is the matter of the drainage report. Mr. Stitt cautioned the commission to keep in mind that many of the "conditions" cited in the Staff Report are short-term requirements which must be ad- dressed before the proposal goes to City Council; other conditions are long-term in nature and go with the property. Mr. Covens asked Mr. Cooper to address the Commission. Mr. Covens queried Mr. Cooper regarding the survey of his property. Mr. Cooper stated that he has submitted a survey he had of his property on South Bannock which he believes clears up questions on the monumenta- tion. Mr. Cooper stated that he had not been informed prior to this meeting that the drainage study by KLM Engineering was rejected. Mr. Covens commented on the concerns regarding the retaining walls for the City Ditch. Mr. Cooper stated that his construction will be quite some distance from the existing retaining walls . Mr. Covens inquired whether Mr. Cooper had made any changes in his proposal as a result of the discussions on March 8. Mr. Cooper stated he had not made any changes, but would like 3 to address some of the questions that have been raised. A fence will be required around the e construction site, and he is willing to hang a tarpaulin on the fence to the north to inhibit the amount of dust that will blow off the site. He has not pursued a possible vacation of the alley any further. Mrs. Becker questioned whether there is a continuous alley which crosses the Ditch. Mr. Stitt stated that the alley is improved and open for traffic from Kenyon north to U.S. 285, and does go over the top of the Ditch. John Wise, property owner to the west of Mr. Cooper's property, addressed the Commission again. Mr. Wise stated that his development is a six unit apartment complex. Mr. Wise challenges the Drainage Report, which he alleges uses the "premise that the existing drainage is handled properly". Mr. Wise takes issue with this premise, and further pointed out that the development will increase the drainage by at least 30%. Mr. Wise states that the study makes reference to "holding tanks", but does not discuss the construction of these tanks, nor the depth. Mr. Wise stated there is still the problem of distance between the buildings; if the sur- vey is correct, he estimates a distance of perhaps seven feet between the two structures. Mr. Wise asked what distance the "regulations" require between structures. Mr. Stitt stated that 15 feet is required, and that based on the information that has been submitted, the 15 foot distance will be met. Mr. Wise stated that he wanted that 15 foot distance "guaranteed". Mr. Wise re- iterated that according to the survey stakes he has located, the distance between buildings will be only seven feet. e Mr. Wise addressed another "error" on the plans; one of the drawings showed a sidewalk. Mr. Wise stated that his building overhangs the sidewalk by three feet, and the property line cannot be determined from this drawing. One of the surveys is wrong --either his, or Mr. Cooper's. Mr. Wise discussed the angle of the City Ditch, and its relation to the proposed construction. If there is a problem with the Ditch, it appears tpat his property will have to be disturbed to accomplish any repairs. Mr. Wise further stated he did not believe the general electorate of the City would vote to ap- prove the financing to pave West Jefferson Avenue, so it will still generate dust and be a mud problem. Mr. Wise stated that his concerns about the utility lines crossing the structures has not been addressed. Mr. Wise stated that "variances" from the strict application of the codes will be required to build these six units as designed. He does not want to see the construction of something that will be a detriment to him, to his property, or to his tenants. Mr. Wise stated that he is strongly opposed to allowing such variation from the regulations for the Zone District. 4 Mr. Covens asked Mr. Wise whether , as a neighbor, he also opposed construction of two units on Parcel B. Mr. Wise responded that the total proposal is a "hodge podge", and it is not an attractive layout. Mr. Covens asked Mr. Molner if he wanted to add to his testimony of March 8. Mr. Molner, 3642 South Cherokee, reiterated his statements of March 8 regarding the dust, dirt, drunks, speeding, etc. that he has endured in his three years of residency at this location. Mr. Molner stated that he is being cited into Court for having a "junk yard" on his property, and alleged that Mr. Cooper instituted these charges against him. Mr. Molner stated that he "isn't getting anything from the City", and charged that Mr. Cooper is storing things on his property and has not improved it in the three years that Mr. Molner has been a neighbor. Ci- tations intended for Mr. Cooper were issued to Mr. Wise by error. Mr. Molner stated he wants "protection", and "will stand in Mr. Cooper's way until I get satisfaction". Mr. Covens inquired whether Mr. Molner would cooperate with Mr. Wise and Mr. Cooper were they to seek a private solution to the issue of dust caused by the unpaved section of West Jefferson Avenue. Mr. Molner stated that people have friends , and with the nicer weather , people are visiting more, plus the proximity to the Park , there is an increase in the amount of traffic and parking problems. Mr. Molner discussed the problem caused by people warming their cars up in the winter time; the fumes are brought into his house through the furnace air- intake system. Mr. Molner reiterated that he can get no satisfaction regarding any of his complaints. Mrs. Becker asked Mr. Molner, if the other property owners were willing to contribute funds to pave this portion of West Jefferson Avenue, would Mr. Molner contribute. Mr. Molner stated "probably not--not without thinking about it". Mr. Molner reiterated his contention that Mr. Cooper turned him in to Neighborhood Services, and he has now been cited into Court. Mr. Covens admonished Mr. Molner it is not the position of the Planning Commission to be- come involved in neighborhood squabbles. He asked that Mr. Molner's testimony adhere to the issue of the Planned Development . He stated that he understood from Mr. Molner' s statements that he is opposed to the development, citing the issue of increased traffic, dust, etc . which the proposed development will magnify. Mr. Molner stated he is not opposed to development, but wants to be 'protected". Mr. Covens asked if there was anyone else who wished to address the Commission. No one indicated a desire to address the Commission. Covens moved: Becker seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #5-94 be closed . AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Garrett , Becker, Clemens, Dummer, Covens None Gerlick, Mason, Shoop, Tobin 5 ABSTAIN: None The motion carried. Mr. Covens stated that he understood from Mr. Stitt's memorandum and presentation that the purpose of a Planned Development to permit and encourage diversification of developments, and that the decision of the Commission should concentrate on the zoning and development issues. Mr. Covens stated that there are several unresolved issues, such as the possible paving on West Jefferson Avenue, which impact the development and the neighborhood. The Com- mission has three choices: (1) approve with no modifications; (2) approve with modifications, limitations, etc.; or (3) disapprove. He asked the Commission's choice. Becker moved: Covens seconded: The Planned Development proposal filed by Mike Cooper for 260 West Jefferson Avenue not be approved. Mrs. Becker stated that in her opinion, after studying the request for two weeks and listening to testimony that has been presented, there is insufficient lot area in the site to construct six living units. There are other issues which yet need to be resolved, and once these resolutions have been achieved it is her hope that Mr. Cooper will redesign his proposal and reapply. Mr. Clemens stated that in his opinion, the main issues seem to be the separation of Mr. Coo- per's ownership by the alley, and the issue of West Jefferson Avenue. Mr. Clemens offered an amendment to ask the City to expedite a decision on West Jefferson Avenue and on the al- ley issue, so that the property owner will not be unduly inhibited in use of his property. Discussion ensued. Mr. Covens stated if this case is denied, further consideration will have to be a new application and a new case. Mr. Stitt stated that the applicant can, if he so desires, withdraw this application prior to the vote by the Commission on the motion on the table, or the Commission could delay action for a period of time, or the vote to not approve can go forward, in which case further consideration would be a new application and a new case. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Clemens suggested that his recommendation that the City ex- pedite the decision on West Jefferson Avenue and the alley be "on the record", but not an amendment to Mrs. Becker's motion. Mr. Covens stated that a lot of the objections seem to be caused by the fourth unit on Parcel A, the extreme southwestern unit. He stated that he also objected to the proposed development on Parcel B. Mr. Covens suggested that Mr. Cooper consider development of Parcel A with three units, and that Parcel B contain only one unit. Mr. Covens spoke to the need to balance the needs of the developer with the neighborhood. Mr. Covens stated there is also the issue of the retaining walls, and the drainage study which has been rejected by the City. Mr. Covens stated he will support the motion so that the issue can be re-examined from square one at a later date. Ms. Becker stated she would agree a decision should be made at this time, and not delayed. 6 The vote was called: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Becker, Clemens, Dummer, Garrett, Covens None Shoop, Tobin, Gerlick, Mason None The motion carried. Brief discussion ensued. IV. PUBLIC FORUM. Mr. Cooper stated that when he purchased the property, he was given a letter stating that he could construct five units on the property; this letter led to his purchase of the site. Mr. Covens stated that the Commission is a citizens panel, and cannot take into consideration the issues of economic gain or loss to a property owner/developer. Mr. Covens stated it is his hope that Mr. Cooper will consider the issues that have been raised over the last two meetings , resolve those issues with the neighbors, and come back to the Commission with a viable de- velopment. Mr. Dummer also encouraged Mr. Cooper to work with the neighbors and staff to resolve the issues and come back with a viable proposal. v. OMAK'S PLACE 3958 South Broadway CASE #9-93 Mr. Covens stated that this is a continuation of a review process begun on March 8 on a Conditional Use which was granted approval in August, 1993. Mr. Covens turned the Chair over to Mr. Clemens for this portion of the meeting. Mr. Clemens asked for an up-date on the issue from the staff. Mr. Stitt distributed a memorandum from Detective John Collins, who could not be in atten- dance this evening because of an assignment at the Police Department. Mr. Stitt stated that the purpose of a Conditional Use hearing is to provide the Planning Commission an opportunity to review the impacts a potential use may have on a neighborhood. If there are issues that fall outside the purview of "land use issues", they cannot be regulated by the Commission . The Commission may impose restrictions to mitigate the impact a proposed use might have on a neighborhood. Mr. Clemens emphasized that this procedure is not a Public Hearing, and persons addressing the Commission need not be sworn. Mr. Clemens asked that Mr. Omak Yanez address the Commission. 7 Mr. Omak Yanez extended an apology to the Commission for his non-attendance on March 8; e he and his family were in the process of moving, and did not receive the letter notifying them of the meeting until March 10. Mr. Yanez asked for, and received, a copy of the memoran- dum from Detective Collins. Mr. Yanez suggested that the dates on the two incidents cited in the March 1, 1994 memoran- dum have been reversed. Mr. Yanez stated that Incident 93-25017 cited in Detective Collins' memorandum of March 1, 1994, was severe enough that, as he recalled, they changed the hours of closure on their business from 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. shortly thereafter. They took into consideration the numbers and type of clientele who were frequenting their estab- lishment after 7:00 P.M., and made this determination. Mr. Yanez further discussed this inci- dent in which a young person was struck by a vehicle on Broadway. There was an altercation with a merchant from a used car dealership across the street, and the situation quickly got out- of-hand. Mr. Yanez stated that this early closure has affected their business, and expressed the hope that the Commission would consider modifying or rescinding the restriction on the hours of operation to allow the business to open earlier and keep the 7:00 P .M. closure; they would possibly consider not opening at all on weekends. The present hours of operation are 3:00 P .M. to 7:00 P.M. on weekdays during the school year; and from 12 Noon to 7:00 P.M. on Saturdays and Sundays. Mr. Yanez noted that there have not been problems during the day- time hours, but only during the evening hours with youngsters "hanging out" and getting into mischief. Mr. Yanez noted that he has learned that the hourly restrictions on "Broadways" were rescinded following their six-month review. He is asking that Omak's Place be accorded the same con- sideration that Mr. Carter was in the operation of his business, and that the hourly restrictions be rescinded to allow the earlier opening time. Mr. Yanez acknowledged that there have been some problems experienced during the late evening hours --from 7 P.M. to 10 P.M., and this is the reason they have determined to close at 7 P .M. There have been no further incidents since the change in closure time, and the number of youngsters congregating has lessened, also. Mr. Dummer noted that Detective Collins' memorandum of March 22 indicates a considerable increase in the number of calls from the 3900 block of South Broadway, yet the Police De- partment says there is no direct correlation to this increase and the opening of Omak's Place. Mrs. Becker agreed, noting that the number of calls for comparable periods of time (811/92 to 311 /93 and 8/8/93 to 3/1/94) have doubled. How can one account for this increase? Mr. Yanez stated that Englewood is getting an influx of youngsters from surrounding com- munities --all the youngsters that congregate in the block are not "local" kids. Mrs. Becker asked if this rationale could be applied to any other randomly selected business or industrial block --would that block also show a doubling of calls. Mr. Yanez stated that this would probably not be the case, and pointed out that the 3900 block of South Broadway has several businesses which are particularly attractive to youth: 7-Eleven, Omak's Place, Buy-Back Games, and Broadways. e 8 Mrs . Becker asked the occupancy rating on Omak's Place. Mr. Yanez stated that he does not have an occupancy rating. He did state that since they adjusted the hours of their operation, probably no more than 10 people are ever in the establishment at one time. Prior to the busi- ness hour adjustment, there probably were more people in the store than should have been al- lowed. Mr. Clemens asked about the Fire rating. Mr. Stitt stated that the Fire Marshall establishes the maximum occupancy rating for businesses; inasmuch at this was not a "change of type of occupancy", the Fire Marshall did not impose an occupancy restriction on the operation. Mrs. Becker questioned the issue of window coverage, and the lack of visibility to Police. Mr. Yanez stated that he does not feel the tinted glass inhibits visibility; he is willing to re- move the mural, and they do have window blinds to block the afternoon sun. Mr. Yanez stated that he did not feel the issue of "visibility" is a big problem. Mr. Clemens asked Mr. Carter if he wanted to address the Commission further. Mr. Carter discussed the hours of operation for his business, Broadways. He opens his busi- ness at approximately 7 P.M. and closes at 2 A.M. The purpose of his business is to promote the sport of Foos-Ball, and provide a place for people to gather to watch sporting events on big screen Tvs. Mr. Carter suggested that the adjustment of hours proposed by Mr. Yanez to al- low them to open at noon or thereabouts, would have an effect on the school age youngsters, and in his opinion could be a big problem. In response to a query from Mr. Clemens, Mr. Carter stated that "loitering" has been a problem, and that during the one incident there were probably 75 people in and on the street. The size of the business is one of the problems --the premises are too small, youngsters are forced to wait outside until someone leaves the busi- ness, and this always leads to problems. The Police Department tries to discourage loitering whenever possible, as he does at his establishment. Mr. Carter stated that since the adjustment of hours at Omak's, they are closing at the same time he is opening for business. Mr. Carter stated that his place of business has an occupancy restriction of 85 people; he has all the rules prominently posted including dress code and curfew rules, and if he sees someone who appears to be "waiting", he will ask if they are with a friend or why they are there. Mr. Carter ex- pressed surprise that Omak's Place had not received an occupancy rating, stating he assumed this would have been addressed. He emphasized that establishments with electronic games do attract large numbers of people. Mr. Carter stated that he understood 7-Eleven pulled the games from their store because of the problems with clientele, and the problems were not just on shoplifting. Mr. Carter emphasized the types of games that are allowed in an establishment can also lead to problems, noting that the "fighting" games do cause trouble. Mr. Carter stated that he had talked to Police Chief Stanley prior to opening his business, and was advised by Chief Stanley that the Police Department wanted visibility into a business for officers in a cruiser on-street. Mr. Yanez again addressed the Commission, stating he agreed with much that Mr. Carter has said regarding the size of their location, and the number of persons attracted to such an estab- lishment. Mr. Yanez reiterated his belief that the two cited incidents have been "mis-tagged" 9 by the Police Department, and that after the change of hours, there have not been any further incidents. Mr. Yanez reiterated they would be willing to change the tint of the glass in the door, remove the mural and adjust the blinds. Mr. Covens inquired whether Mr. Yanez ever offered pagers for sale as initially proposed. Mr. Yanez stated that they did not; they never received notification from the City Attorney regarding the change in the determination of the Commission. The only thing offered for sale at Omak's Place is candy and gum. Mr. Yanez stated that he does understand the concern of the City regarding loitering. The two incidents cited by Detective Collins were further discussed. Mr. Covens suggested that the Police Department is pretty careful in labeling and designating their cases. Mr. Yanez stated that the incident identified as 94-3245 was a "drunk" who got into an altercation with some of the patrons outside Omak' s. Mr. Yanez reiterated his request that the restriction on hours of operation be rescinded, and that they be allowed to open earlier in the day. Mr. Covens stated that two weeks ago, on March 8, statements were made about guns that may have been carried by someone coming from Omak' s Place. He asked if Mr. Yanez knew anything about guns being carried by his clientele. Mr. Yanez stated that the only incident with a gun that he is aware of was the altercation with the merchant on the west side of Broadway who reportedly had a gun. Mr. Covens inquired about the "rated" games, asking whether Mr. Yanez would make an effort to assure that games offered are appropriate for the age of the clientele. Mr. Yanez suggested that "too much emphasis is being placed on video games", noting that there is violence offered on nightly television, in movies, books, newspapers, etc. Mr. Yanez stated that if there were restrictions on age groups for specific games, he would make an attempt to monitor those players. Mr. Clemens inquired about the age group that frequents Omak's Place. Mr. Yanez stated that this business attracts a lot of middle-school aged youngsters, particularly with the hours they are now operating. When the business was open until 10 P.M., there were high-school teenagers frequenting the establishment. Mr. Clemens addressed the issue of rescinding the hours of operation, and the kids who might frequent the business during school hours. Mr. Yanez stated that youngsters go to 7-Eleven for lunch, visit Buy-Back Games on their lunch hours, and he would hope to be able to attract some of those youngsters during their lunch hour. Mr. Yanez pointed out that until School District personnel determine there will be no off-site lunches, there will be kids who "ditch" school. Mr. Clemens asked if anyone had questions, and whether anyone else wished to address the Commission. 10 Nichole Fraley, 105 West Belleview, addressed the Commission. Ms. Fraley stated that she is a former Englewood High School student, and as long as the School District permits the "open campus" policy, the teenagers will leave the campus. Ms. Fraley pointed out that the young- sters have not only the lunch hour, but "free periods" when they are not in class. Ms. Fraley further pointed out that Omak's Place isn't going to encourage the students to ditch school, and that when she was a student there were many places the kids went to get out of school. Ms. Fraley expressed doubt that allowing a business to open prior to 3:00 P.M. will be an encour- agement to youngsters to ditch class. Mr. Carter re-adressed the Commission, stating he disagreed with Ms. Fraley's statements. Mr. Carter stated that amusement establishments such as pool halls, foos-ball establishments, video game arcades and youngsters on lunch hours and free periods "just don't work". This is only providing a susceptible youngster one more reason to skip class, and many kids don 't need additional reasons to ditch. Mr. Clemens asked Assistant City Attorney Brotzman to recap the responsibility of the Com- mission. Mr. Brotzman stated that this is a "review" to determine if the business is operating in compliance with the conditions imposed at the time of approval. If there are problems, and if the Commission is considering the possible revocation of the approval, the applicant/owner must be told what those problems and concerns are, and must be given a time to cure or cor- rect same. If, after the time granted the applicant to correct the problems has expired , the problems and concerns have not been addressed and corrected, then a date for Public Hearing must be scheduled to consider revocation of the approval. Counselor Brotzman stated that the Planning Commission may, if they choose , schedule a second review prior to considering revocation proceedings. Mr. Garrett stated that he would favor rescinding the hours of operation imposed on Omak's Place . Mr. Garrett pointed out that two incidents have been cited and tied to Omak's Place by the Police Department; while there has been an increase in reported calls, they cannot be, or ha ve not been, directly attributed to Omak's Place. Mr. Garrett stated that the issue of visibil- ity into the establishment seems to be a non -issue in light of the statement in Detective Collins ' memorandum that " ... it is the City Attorney's opinion that this is not a violation of municipal ord inance. " Mr. Covens suggested a second review mid-summer to see whether the rate of police calls continues, and whether the Police can better tie those calls to a specific cause. Mr. Dummer agreed that a second review is needed. He stated that Mr. Yanez now knows what the con - cerns are, and if he feels the problems can be controlled, he should be given that opportunity . He suggested that another review be scheduled in July to give a sampling of operation when youngsters are not in school. Mrs. Becker stated that she has been in the education field for a number of years, and there is no reason to have an establishment such as Omak's Place open before school is out. She agreed that there is a problem with the open campus which allows youngsters to come and go all day long. Mrs . Becker stated that she also understands that a direct correlation cannot be 11 drawn between the increased number of police calls and Omak's Place; however, there is a e problem somewhere. Mrs. Becker spoke against rescinding the hours of operation imposed in August, 1993, supported scheduling a second review of the operation, and expressed the hope that a "better paper trail" could be established regarding the Police calls in this block. Mr. Clemens asked whether there is a way the Police Department could keep more detailed information on the calls, and whether the Commission can get this information. Mr. Stitt re- lated a discussion he had earlier in the day with Detective Collins, who reported that it is al- most impossible to determine where someone came from in any particular incident --they could have come from Omak's, from Broadways, from 7-Eleven, or any other business that happened to be open, or maybe just passing by. Discussion ensued. Mr. Garrett stated of the two incidents directly related to Omak's Place, it appears that only one of them was a "bad" incident. He stated he would have no problem reviewing this opera- tion in mid-summer. Mr. Covens agreed with Mrs. Becker that youngsters do not need one more excuse to ditch school. It appears that some of the conflict might be resolving itself if Omak' s Place closes at 7:00 P.M., and Broadways doesn't open until 7:00 P.M. The issue of hours of operation for Omak's Place was further discussed. Mr. Garrett stated that while Broadways owners choose not to open until 7:00 P.M. they have the option of opening anytime they choose; this is not the case with Omak' s Place, and he spoke for "parity " between the two businesses. Mr. Garrett agreed that an open campus is ridiculous, and ques- tioned that businesses should have to restrict their hours of operation because the School Dis- trict has abrogated their responsibility to youngsters attending school. Covens moved: Becker seconded: The Planning Commission will conduct a second review of the opera- tional record of Omak's Place at the first meeting in July, 1994. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt that whatever operating conditions were in effect for this re- view, should also be in effect for the second review in July to get a clear picture whether the problems are being addressed. Mr. Dummer agreed there should be no change in the hours of operation until the second review has been conducted. Discussion ensued. The vote was called: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Becker, Clemens, Dummer, Garrett, Covens None Tobin, Gerlick, Mason, Shoop None The motion carried. 12 Garrett moved: Clemens seconded: The hours of operation for Omak's Place be changed to allow them to operate between the hours of 12 Noon to 7:00 P.M. on school days during the school year. On Sundays, the hours shall be from 12 Noon to one hour before curfew. The hours on Saturdays and during summer months shall be from 12 Noon to one hour before curfew. Mrs. Becker reiterated her concern about making a decision in July on two sets of "conditions"; she questioned that this will give a fair picture of the efforts of the owners to address the issues that have been cited during the course of this review. Discussion on the information received from the Police Department ensued. Mrs. Becker sug- gested that perhaps members of the Commission could do some of the "in depth" research needed to determine whether the incidents are a result of Omak's Place or not. Mr. Covens stated that he would feel more comfortable conducting the second review on the same basic conditions as used for the first review. The vote was called: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Clemens, Garrett Becker, Dummer, Covens Gerlick, Mason, Shoop, Tobin None " The motion failed. Mr. Clemens announced that the hours of operation for Omak' s Place remain the same as im- posed in August, 1993; a second review will be conducted by the Commission at the first meeting in July, 1994. The Messrs. Yanez were asked to note this on their calendars so they will be in attendance . VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Covens assumed the Chair for the remainder of the meeting. Mr. Covens announced that the meeting with the City Council has been scheduled for May 16. He asked Mr. Stitt if there was anything to be brought up by the Director. Mr. Stitt replied in the negative. Mr. Covens asked if Mr. Brotzman had anything he wished to discuss. Mr. Brotzman replied in the negative. VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mrs. Becker stated that she realized that some of the requests from the Commission, such as research of the records of Police reports on Omak's Place, and the 3900 block of South 13 Broadway, require a lot of staff time, and that staffing is limited because of budget restraints. e She asked whether members of the Commission could do some of this research of the records. Mr. Stitt stated that Commission members would not be allowed to research the Police Rec- ords. Mr. Brotzman amplified Mr. Stitt's response, noting that some of the incidents may be "working cases", in which event they are not yet public record. It would take staff time to sort the records to determine which are public record and which are working cases, and probably would not be "cost and time efficient". General discussion ensued on the impact on neighbors certain uses may have. Mr. Brotzman pointed out that businessmen must not be discouraged from reporting incidents that occur in or near their establishment. Mr. Brotzman stated that he would clarify to the Police Department the type of information the Commission is expecting for the review in July. Funding for Commission workshops was briefly discussed. The meeting was declared adjourned. 14