Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-02-05 PZC MINUTESI CITY OF ENGELWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 5, 1985 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P. M. by Chairman McBrayer. Members present: Venard, Allen, Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Beier Members absent: Magnuson Also present: D. A. Romans, Assistant Director of Community Development Susan T. King, Senior Planner Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. January 22, 1985 Chairman McBrayer stated that the Minutes of January 22 were to be con- sidered for approval. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Minutes of January 22, 1985 be approved as written. Mr. Venard noted a typographical error on Page 6. The vote was called on the motion to approve the minutes, as amended on Page 6. AYES: Barbre, Carson, Stoel, Venard NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Allen, McBrayer, Beier ABSENT: Magnuson The motion carried. III. FINDINGS OF FACT Camden Place One Planned Development CASE #1-85 Chairman McBrayer stated that the Findings of Fact on Case #1-85, the Camden Place One Planned Development, were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Barbre seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Findings of Fact for Case #1-85, Camden Place One Planned Development. AYES: Barbre, Carson, Stoel, Venard, Allen NAYS: None ABSTAIN: McBrayer, Beier ABSENT: Magnuson The motion carried. IV. FINDINGS OF FACT 3986 South Broadway -2- CASE #2-85 Chairman McBrayer stated that the Findings of Fact on Case #2-85 were to be considered for approval. Stoel moved: Carson seconded: The Findings of Fact on Case #2-85, a Conditional Use at 3986 South Broadway, be approved as written. AYES: Carson, Stoel, Venard, Allen, Barbre NAYS: None ABSTAIN: McBrayer, Beier ABSENT: Magnuson The motion carried. V. CONDITIONAL USE The Shine Factory 2749 South Broadway Carson moved: CASE #3-85 Venard seconded: The Public Hearing on the proposed Conditional Use at 2749 South Broadway, Case #3-85, be opened. Mr. Magnuson entered the meeting while Mr. Carson was making the motion. AYES: McBrayer, Stoel, Beier, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Carson, Magnuson NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried. Mr. McBrayer stated that he is in receipt of the notification given in the official City Newspaper on January 16, 1985, and also has the Certi- fication of Posting; both of these documents are to be made a part of the record of this Hearing. Mr. McBrayer also asked that the staff report be made a part of the record. Mr. McBrayer asked if the Commission members had any questions regarding the staff report. Mr. Carson asked about the 5/8" water line that is mentioned in the staff report. Ms. King stated that this water line is serving the structure at the present time. Ms. King stated that the applicant has furnished to the Fire Department the technical data requested on the storage of fluids and materials used in the processing of the automobiles. There will be no problem with the storage of the flammable liquids, and the Fire Department has indicated that the building will not have to be sprinklered. This would negate the necessity for including Condition #2. Mr. McBrayer outlined the procedure to be followed in the course of the I .. .. I -3- Hearing, and noted that the Commission is the determining body in matters of Conditional Uses. The Commission may approve the request as submitted, may approve the request with conditions, or may refer the request back to the applicant. Mr. Allen asked the use of the building previously. Mr. McBrayer stated that it was used as a furniture store for a number of years, and recently was used as the Mountain Miser outlet. Mr. McBrayer asked that the applicants come forward and be sworn in. Mr. Burch Winder 2672 South Jackson Street -was sworn in, and testified that he is the Vice-President of the Shine Factory. Mr. Carson asked Mr. Winder if he had read the staff report. Mr. Winder replied in the affirmative. Mr. Carson asked if Mr. Winder would amend his application to include the three recommendations from the staff which are cited in the staff report. Mr. Winder stated that he would not, and wanted to discuss the issue of providing off-street parking on-site. Mr. Winder stated that this is a unique automotive business; there would be a limited number of vehicles brought to the site for reconditioning and re- finishing. These vehicles would be delivered in the morning, and picked up in the evening; the process is approximately a six-hour process, and would not result in any long-term storage of vehicles on the premises. Mr. Winder noted that the building is oversized for their actual needs, and felt that a number of the vehicles could be garaged within the building after completion. Mr. Winder estimated there is sufficient space within the structure for 25 to 30 vehicles. Mr. Winder stated that he did not feel it would be necessary to park any vehicles outside the building, and does not feel it necessary that additional off-street parking be provided. Mr. Winder acknowledged that they (the applicants) did state that addi- tional parking would be pursued, and did discuss this issue with the parent company. Based on the experience of 45 such operations throughout Canada and the United States, they were told that the space available within the building is adequate for parking and the applicants do not want to have to provide additional off-street parking. Mr. Winder emphasized that it is the opinion of the applicant that the parking spaces within the building, in addition to the two off-street spaces at the exterior rear of the building, are adequate for their needs. Mr. Winder discussed Condition #2, and pointed out that they have satisfied the concerns of the Fire Department on the storage of flammable liquids and solvents. Mr. Winder stated that Condition #3 will be pursued by the applicant. Mr. Carson asked if it was the intent of the applicant that they would in- clude in their application and comply with, Conditions #2 and #3 only. Mr. Winder stated that the applicants do not want to furnish 10 additional parking spaces; they do not feel this Condition #1 is necessary or appropriate. Mr. Allen asked if there was any additional space where additional off- street parking could be provided. Mr. Winder stated that the previous owners of the building had an informal agreement with Olinger's Mortuary that they could park in the mortuary parking lot except during the time of funeral services. He has also talked to Olinger's about a similar -4- arrangement for the Shine Factory; while Olinger's has indicated they are willing to continue this "informal" arrangement, they will not put anything in writing. There is also a vacant lot across the street in the south half of the block; Mr. Winder expressed concern over security of the vehicles, and the dangers inherent in employees having to take vehicles to this lot, and then •cross Broadway on foot. Mr. Allen asked how many vehicles per day the Shine Factory could do. Mr. Winder estimated six to eight vehicles per day would be done. Mr. McBrayer discussed the possibility of confirming the agreement with Olinger's for use of their parking facilities. Mr. Winder reiterated that Olinger's does not want to make a written conunitment on this; they will maintain the agreement on an informal basis, but will not give a letter regarding use of their parking area by the Shine Factory. Mr. McBrayer asked Mrs. Romans how strongly the staff feels on the need for off-street parking. Mrs. Romans stated that all businesses should provide off-street parking for their own employees; she noted that it would place an additional burden on Broadway to expect the employees to park on the street. Mrs. Romans emphasized that businesses should pro- vide off-street parking for the employees at the very least. Don Estey 385 Gilpin Street -was sworn in, and testified that he is the president of the Shine Factory. Mr. Estey further discussed the process used on the vehicles, and noted that they have franchises operating in Canada and the United States. This process is a "one-of- a-kind", and is guaranteed in writing for the life of the vehicle. Mr. Estey stated that the parking situation has been discussed at some length, and that they are concerned that they have to provide off-street parking when they have a larger building than they actually need, and can use some of the interior for parking spaces for employees as well as customers. Mr. Estey stated that this particular operation will be the headquarters for the franchise program in Colorado, and will be a training center in Colorado. Mr. Estey described the type of operation the Shine Factory wants to have on the site --uniformed employees, a clean, white, aspect where women are comfortable in coming to drop off vehicles or to pick up vehicles. Mr. Estey urged the Conunission to give great consideration to the require- ment of additional off-street parking; if the Shine Factory does indeed have to provide additional off-street parking, they "may have to look for another site." Mr. Allen asked what would happen if a back-log of vehicles occurs; where will these vehicles be stored, and where would the employees park if the vehicles are stored within the building. Mr. Estey stated that the employees could work at night; the hours will be flexible, but the customers will expect to have the vehicle completed within one day's time. Mr. Estey stated that this process is not cheap, and will cost approximately $200 per vehicle. Automobile dealers will also be bringing vehicles to them for this process. Mr. Estey stated that Shine Factory representatives have been trying to find something in this general area with a structure of the size they need, but cannot find anything to meet their needs closer than the subject site on South Broadway. .. I I \ -5- Mr. McBrayer asked if employee parking could be "designated" within the structure by painting on the floor; he cautioned against placing a greater parking burden on Broadway. Mr. Estey stated that he saw no problem with designating spaces within the building for the use of the employees pro- vided it was not rest;:ricted to "only" employee use. Mr. Estey further expressed concern about a statement in the staff report comparing this operation to Aamco. Mr. Beier inquired about the capacity of the building as far as the total number of cars that could be within the structure. Mr. Estey stated that they figure on approximately 210 to 300 sq. ft. for a customer's car to be worked on; he estimated 10 to 15 vehicles, plus the employee vehicles, could be accommodated in the building. Mr. Venard noted that Mr. Estey stated that this operation would be the franchise headquarters in Colorado; he asked if this operation would also be a point of distribution of the cleaning solvents and polishes to other points throughout the state. Mr. Estey stated that this would be done from the home office, and that he is very aware and concerned about the storage of flammable materials. Mr. McBrayer asked if Mr. Rod Moser wanted to address the Commission on this matter. Mr. Moser stated that he did not want to address the Com- mission, and was present as an observer. Mrs. Romans cited §22.5-21 e (4) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, which section pertains to Commission consideration of Conditional Uses: "(4) The number of off-street parking spaces shall not be less than the requirements of Chapter 22.5-5 of this Ordinance." Mrs. Romans discussed the amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and the process the staff used to arrive at the number of off-street parking spaces needed by the Shine Factory in the absence of specific requirements for this specific use. Mrs. Romans emphasized that the Conditional Use Ordinance requires that the parking requirements must be met by any use approved as a Conditional Use. Carson moved: Allen seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #3-85 be closed. AYES: Magnuson, McBrayer, Stoel, Beier, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Carson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The motion carried. Mr. McBrayer asked that the record reflect that he had asked everyone present in the audience if they wished to speak to the Commission. Mr. McBrayer stated that he is inclined to try to make things work for the applicants; any use of this building will experience a parking short- age because the building covers the entire site, and most uses will re- quire more parking than this business will. Mr. McBrayer noted that there are two off-street spaces existing at the rear of the building now, and the applicant has agreed to designate spaces within the building for employee parking. -6- Mr. Allen pointed out that the building is larger than the operation actually calls for, and he would regard the use of the remainder of the building as "covered parking". Mr. McBrayer stated that he feels the Shine Factory will be an improvement to the area, and feels that the Commission does have some assurance that employee parking will be provided within the building. Mr. Carson disagreed, and stated that he felt the Commission should abide by the staff recommendation. Discussion ensued. Mr. Venard stated that the applicant has stated that they will be willing to designate a given number of parking spaces within the building, and that the figure 11 6 11 was mentioned. He pointed out that the Commission would have no more control over off-street parking on the exterior of the building than over the parking provided within the building. Mr. Stoel pointed out that the "site" is the problem; there is no room for off-street parking on the subject site. Carson moved: The Planning Commission deny approval of a Conditional Use, The Shine Factory, at 2749 South Broadway, because the ap- plicant has refused to amend his application to provide the required off-street parking spaces. There was no second to Mr. Carson's motion. Allen moved: Stoel seconded: The Planning Commission approve the application of the Shine Factory as a Conditional Use at 2749 South Broadway, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide six parking spaces within the building; said six spaces shall be designated by appropriate painting or signage for employee parking. 2. The applicant shall comply with all City Code require- ments, including the Uniform Fire Code and Uniform Building Code. Mr. McBrayer stated that the six off-street parking spaces to be designated on the interior of the building, plus the two parking spaces on the exterior of the building, will give a total of eight off-street parking spaces for this business. Mr. Allen stated that he feels the proposed Shine Factory is "almost an ideal use for this building." Mr. Venard discussed the change in procedure outlined by Mr. Olsen at the previous meeting; the applicant has to agree to amend his application to include the proposed conditions. Assistant City Attorney Reid verified this procedure; if the applicant ' agreed to amend the application, conditions that the staff and/or Com- mission may have are made a part of the application. If the applicant refuses to amend the application, this can be grounds for denial. The applicant does have a right to have the Commission vote on his application as it was submitted. ' -7- Mr. McBrayer asked the applicant: "Are you willing to amend the application to delete #1 as written on page 3 of the Staff Report, and to make provision for six off-street parking spaces on the interior of the building, said spaces to be designated for employee use; this would be in addition to the two parking spaces on the exterior of the building. The amendment would also include Condition #3 as suggested by the staff on Page 3 of the staff report." Mr. Estey stated that he would agree to designate the parking spaces in the building, with the understanding that those parking spaces could be used for other vehicles if the six employee spaces are not taken up by actual employee vehicles. Mr. McBrayer stated that employees would have to be given first option on use of these spaces. Mr. Estey stated that he would accept these amendments to the application. The vote was called on the motion to approve: AYES: Barbre, Be.ier, Magnuson, McBrayer, Stoel, Venard, Allen NAYS: Carson ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The motion carried. VI. PUBLIC FORUM. Mr. McBrayer noted that the three members of the audience had departed with the determination of the previous case. VII. ELECTION OF OFFICERS. Mr. McBrayer stated that he is not a candidate for re-election to the position of .Chairman; he thanked the other members of the Commission for their support while he has been Chairman. Mr. Allen expressed his appreciation to Mr. McBrayer for his leadership during his service as Chairman. Mr . McBrayer called for nominations for Chairman. Mr. Carson nominated Mr. Gerry Venard as Chairman of the Commission. No further names were placed in nomination. Carson moved: Allen se c onded: Nominations be closed, and a unanimous vote be cast for Mr. Ve nard for Chairman. AYES: Beier, Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer, Stoel, Venard, Allen, Barbre NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The motion carried. -~ Mr. Venard assumed the Chair, and thanked the Commission members for his election as Chairman. Mr. Venard then asked for nominations for the position of Vice-Chairman. Mr. Barbre nominated Mr. McBrayer for Vice-Chairman. No further nominations for Vice-Chairman were made. Stoel moved: Carson seconded: Nominations cease, and a unanimous vote be cast for Mr. McBrayer for Vice-Chairman. AYES: Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer, Stoel, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Beier NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The motion carried. VIII. APA CONVENTION Montreal, Canada April 20 -24 The APA Convention will be in Montreal April 20 through the 24th. Mr. Venard asked members to indicate whether they would like to attend. Mr. McBrayer indicated his interest in attending, as did Mr. Magnuson. Budget limitations for Commission members were discussed; Mrs. Romans stated that the staff requested funds for the attendance of two Com- mission members, and while she has not seen the 1985 Budget, as approved, she has been told that there is funding for one Commission member to attend the Conference. She stated that she would discuss this matter with Mr. Vargas. It was the consensus of the Commission that Mr. McBrayer will be the delegate to the Convention in Montreal; Mr. Magnuson will be the first alternate and Mr. Venard stated that he would serve as the second alternate. IX. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans discussed a rezoning referral that has been received from Arapahoe County for property on West Tufts Avenue at South Beverly Drive. This is just east of Windermere, and on the south side of Tufts Avenue. The request encompasses one site, and will leave two single-family resi- dences facing Tufts Avenue sandwiched in between commercial and industrial zoning. Mrs. Romans presented Commission members with a small map of the area; this is part of a larger area that was annexed by the City of Englewood for a short time several years ago, but was de-annexed by Court action and not further pursued by the City. Mrs. Romans stated that it is her feeling that the County should consider rezoning more than just the one property at this time, and include the two single-family residential properties in this zoning action. Mrs. Romans also pointed out that addi- tional right-of-way is needed for West Tufts Avenue, and 20 feet from the property will be required for that right-of-way. Mrs. Romans read a letter ' • ' -9- that she has written to the County in opposition to the consideration of this one property, and suggested that perhaps the correspondence should come from the Chairman of the Commission rather than from staff. Dis- cussion ensued. It was the consensus of the Connnission that the letter should be signed by Chairman Venard, and that the content of the letter was appropriate. Mrs. Romans discussed the Rules and Procedure Manual for the Planning Conunission; she stated that she has had the City Attorney's staff review the Handbook, and they have pointed out some legal points that should be taken into consideration. Other sections of the Handbook are simply out-dated, and need to be revised, Mrs. Romans stated that she would be working with the legal staff to update the Handbook, and will bring a draft of the Handbook to the Commission as soon as possible. Mrs. Romans introduced Assistant City Attorney Nancy Reid to members of the Commission. The luncheon scheduled for the Commission members with Mr. Olsen on February 15, was discussed. Mr. Allen and Mr. Beier stated that they would not be available on February 15 to attend the luncheon. Mrs. Romans discussed the power of the Commisison to "vary" from standards and requirements cited in the ordinance, as was done earlier in the meeting on the Conditional Use case. She suggested that the City Attorney should address this issue • Mrs. Reid stated that the Planning Commission does not have the authority to vary from the requirements and standards cited in the ordinance, and that the Conditional Use ordinance is "mandatory" and the requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance must be met in considering a Conditional Use. Mrs. Reid further discussed the "interpretations" that may be made because an ordinance is v:ague, and cautioned that the "interpretations" must be made the same way on all cases. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt the Commission needed some flexibility; he noted that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance amendments are coming on for Public Hearing on February 20, and this might be considered. Mrs. Romans pointed out that in the B-1 section of the Ordinance, an ap- plicant may present a traffic/parking study, and the Community Development Director and Traffic Engineer may then waive the requirements; this pro- vision is not contained in the Conditional Use section of the Ordinance. Discussion ensued. X. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Venard announced that Assistant City Attorney Nancy Reid was celebrating her birthday on this date, and presented Mrs. Reid with a birthday card. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 P. M. ~rtrude G. Welty, 'R~corclini se~ary