Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-06-18 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 18, 1985 5:00 P. M. Members of the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission convened in Con- ference Room A for a study session at 5:00 P. M. on June 18, 1985. Members present: Magnuson, Allen, Beier, Stoel, Barbre, Carson, Venard, Gourdin Vargas, Acting Director of Community Development Members absent: McBrayer Also present: · Susan Powers, Assistant City Manager for Economic Development Dorothy Romans, Assistant Director of Community Development Susan T. King, Senior Planner Mr. Venard stated that the purpose of the study session is to further discuss the goals and objectives of the Commission for 1985/1986. Goal #1, REPORT ON THE INVESTIGATION OF A CITY-WIDE RESIDENTIAL TRASH COLLECTION BY THE CITY. INVESTIGATE THE FEASIBILITY OF CONVERSION OF TRASH TO USEFUL PRODUCT, was discussed by Mr. Allen. He stated that the ad hoc committee studying this problem has met, and members have discussed the scope of concern. The minimum recommendation would be for the City to contract the pick-up and disposal of trash with an in- dependent disposal company, and charge this fee against the water and sewer bills. This would assist in eliminating the "loose trash" around the City. Mr. Allen stated that the committee has not considered any bottom-line cost figures on the proposal at this point in time. Mr. Allen stated that the ideal would be to have a full-blown trash re- moval, recycling, energy conversion system. He stated that prior to requesting funds from the City, it is his opinion that there needs to be a clearer definition of the problem and the proposed resolutions. No time frame has been cited as yet. Mr. Carson stated that he understood that the Council asked the Com- mission and staff to look into the matter of the trash collection in the City. He urged that a recommendation be forwarded to City Council. Mr. Allen stated that he has spoken with Mayor Otis regarding the issue of trash col l ection, and has also spoken with the City Manager. Mr. Allen stated that the committee needs to define what is best for Engle- wood, and that any recommendation made to City Council must be based on what is b est for the City. Mr. Ca r son reit e rated his suggestion that a recommendation be sent to Ci t y Council asking that the trash pick-up be contracted out, and that haulers be asked to submit bids on the cost of the residential trash p i c k -up service. Mr. Allen reiterated his opinion that the committee needs more information prior to any recommendation being made. Mr. Varg as suggested a need to determine the scope of any survey that is to be done, such as an analysis of the problem, and suggested reso- lutio ns t o the problem. -2- Mr. Stoel asked if an ordinance could be enacted requiring that every residential unit must have trash pick-up. Mr. Carson stated that he would rather see the City ask for bids to have the trask pick-up done. Mr. Allen again stated that he felt action beyond defining the scope of the problem and the economic needs is premature. He stated that there is a need to also look at the long-range needs --pick-up, in- cineration, conversion. He pointed out that a complete incineration program probably would not cost as much as a new City Hall, and that we have waited too long to "ease" into the program. The committee is to do further refinement on the scope of the pnoblem, and further define proposed resolutions, and report back to the Com- mission as a whole. Goal II, REVIEW SWEDISH HOSPITAL MASTER PLANS AND POTENTIAL IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD, was considered. Mrs. Romans stated that the Commis- sion has traditionally met with the Swedish Hospital Board in the Fall. Goal III, DEVELOP A PROMOTION PLAN FOR ENGLEWOOD UTILIZING THE NEW BROCHURE, was next discussed. Mr. Stoel asked if EDDA was not to work with the City in developing a brochure and a promotion plan for the City. Ms. Powers stated that EDDA has developed the englewood, which is an informational brochure. Mr. Stoel asked if there were some way the Commission could be kept informed on the activities of the EDDA. Ms. Powers stated that EDDA is doing a marketing study for the area east of Broadway. Discussion ensued. Mr. Venard suggested that copies of the Commission minutes be sent to EDDA, and ask the Director of EDDA if copies of their minutes could be available to the Planning Commission. Goal IV, REVIEW REPORT BEING GENERATED REGARDING CITY TRAFFIC PATTERNS. REVIEW THE MASTER STREET PLAN FOR NECESSARY CHANGES, was discussed. Mrs. Romans reported that the Traffic Engineering Division has nearly com- pleted the traffic counts; when this information is available, it will be used in the revision of the Master Street Plan, and designation of collector and arterial streets will be based on this information. Goal V, ESTABLISH SOLAR ACCESS ORDINANCE, was then considered. Mrs. Romans stated that Mrs. Rothweiler, Planner I, has been doing research on this topic, and on the satellite dish issue, and the staff hopes to have something to present to the Commission in the near future. Goal VI, INITIATE STUDY TO DETERMINE THE FEASIBILITY AND SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR OXFORD PARKWAY FROM BROADWAY TO SANTA FE (MEDIAN), was dis- cussed. Mr. Venard stated that an ad hoc committee composed of Mr. McBrayer, Mr. Magnuson, and himself were looking into this issue. Mr . Vargas suggested that this project might also be considered in conjunc- tion with the Capital Improvements Program. Mrs. Romans stated that the Commission will have the C.I.P. on the agenda for the meeting of July 2. • • • • • • -3- Goal VII, IDENTIFY AREAS TO ANNEX THAT WOULD BE OF BENEFIT TO THE CITY. ENCOURAGE ANNEXATION OF THE IDENTIFIED AREAS, was considered. Mr. Carson asked what progress had been made on the discussions with Home Lumoer. Mrs. Romans stated that she has not had further discussions with. this business owner, but she will attempt to contact him. Mr. Carson then inquired about the areas in the proximity of West Tufts Avenue. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the City has annexed some of these same prop- erties previously, but the annexations were voided. These property owners are opposed to annexation, and prefer their status in Arapahoe County. Discussion ensued. Mr. Vargas stated that it might be ap- propriate for the Commission to recommend to City Council that steps be taken to pursue the annexation of these enclave areas in the vicinity of West Tufts Avenue. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Planning Commission recommend td. City Council that action be taken to annex the enclave properties in the vicinity of West Tufts Avenue, and to annex Home Lumber Company. Further discussion ensued. The vote was called: AYES: Magnuson, Stoel, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Beier, Carson, Gourdin NAYS: None ABSENT: McBrayer ABSTAIN: None The motion carried. Goal VIII, HOLD JOINT MEETINGS WITH COMMISSIONERS OF ADJACENT C!TIES. DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR OUR OOMMISSIONF:RS, ··:Was considered. Mr. Venard stated that it is the intent of the Commission to pursue setting up meetings with the various jurisdictions. Ms. Powers suggested that the Commission might consider adding the Arapahoe County Planning Commission to this group. Goal IX/ COMPLETE REVIEW OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, will be pursued after the completion of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance revision. Goal X, REQUEST MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL. FINALIZE AGENDA SUGGESTIONS FOR SUCH MEETING, was discussed. Mr. Stoel suggested that the Commission should begin compiling a list of agenda items they would like to discuss with the City Council. Mr. Vargas was also asked to write a letter asking for a meeting with the City Council sometime in September . Goal XI, STUDY ZONE CHANGES AND CONSIDER REVISIONS OF THE ZONING MAP, was considered. Mrs. Romans stated that she would plan a tour of these areas at the pleasure of the Commission. The Commission suggested the date of July 27, 1985, to begin the tour at 7:30 A. M. -4- Goal XII, REVIEW HANDBOOK, is in progress. Goal XIII, SATELLITE DISH ORDINANCE, was discussed. Mrs. Romans stated that Mrs. Rothweiler, Planner I, is researching this matter in conjunc- tion with her research of the Solar Access Ordinance. Mrs. Romans stated that proposed regulations will be drafted in the format of the Zoning Ordinance, and that satellite dishes will be listed as Accessory Uses; some controls on setbacks of such Accessory Uses will be exercised in this manner. Mrs. Rothweiler has also arranged to have a speaker on the satellite dishes address the Commission at the meeting of July 16 . Goal XIV 1 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW, was considered. Mr. Allen felt this item should be eliminated from the list. Mr. Venard stated that he was of the opinion that the objective in including this on the list was to gain more information. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff would get a draft of proposed regulations to the Commission. Mr. Venard asked Mrs. Romans to also submit to the Commission a list of the areas in town where the zoning designation is of concern to the staff. Mr. Carson suggested that enlargement of the Golf Course club house should be included on this list. Mr. Venard suggested that this item would be more appropriately included on the Capital Improvement Program. Mr. Venard asked if the staff had gotten a report on the sidewalks around Burt Chevrolet, and at Belleview and Broadway. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff had a meeting with State Highway representatives, and it seems to be the policy of the State to assume responsibility for the area between the "curbs"; anything back of the curb line is the City responsibility. Mrs. Romans stated that s .he has written to the City Attorney to try to find out what the City's responsibility is, but has not received a reply as of this time. Mr. Venard stated that if there were no further comments, the meeting would recess and reconvene at 7:00 P. M. in the City Council Chambers for the regular Commission meeting. * * * * * • • • • • • -5- CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 18, 1985 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chnlrman Ve nard at 7:00 P. M. Members present: Stoe l, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Beier, Carson, Gourdin, Magnuson Members absent: Also present: Varg as, ActJng DJr e ctor of Community Development McB ray e r Susan Powers, Executive Director of the Urban Renewal Authority D. A. Romans, Assistant Director of Community Development Susan King, Senior Planner Jack Olsen, City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES . June 4, 1985 Chairman Venard stated that the Minutes of June 4, 1985 were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Minutes of June 4, 1985 be approved as written. AYES: Stoel, Venard, Barbre, Beier, Carson, Gourdin, Magnuson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: All en ABSENT: McBrayer The motion carried. III. DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Amendment #8 CASE /114-85 Ms. Powers, Ex ecutive Director of the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority, addressed the Commission, and stated that th.e purpose of the presenta- tion is to ask the Commission to review proposed Amendment 11 8 for the Downtown Redevelopment Plan. This proposed amendment must be considered by the Commission, and found to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan o f the City. City Council has scheduled a Public Hearing on this proposed amendment for July 1, 1985. Previous amendments to the Plan have been to add properties to the list for acquisition by the Authority, and changes in the tex t. Amendment #8 is concerned with a change in the boundarie s of the Urban Renewal Project Area, and with changes to the tex t of the Plan. -6- Ms. Powers discussed the modifications to the boundaries of the Urban Renewal Project Area, one of which is the addition of the present Park Floral property south of U. S. 285, and several adjacent properties. There are serious storm drainage problems in this area, and the present system cannot adequately serve the industrial area on Kalamath and Kenyon. Ms. Powers stated that Urban Renewal statutes require solicita- tion of developers for any area to be developed, which will be done. The sales tax and property tax generated by the new development on the site will help to pay for the storm sewer improvements; the redevelop- ment cannot occur until the storm sewer problems are alleviated, and the storm sewer problems cannot be alleviated until a firm commitment is made for the redevelopment of the property. Including this area in the Urban Renewal Project Area is the first step to enable negotiations with property owners and developers to occur. Ms. Powers also discussed access problems to the site, and which properties will be required to pro- vide the access from U. S. 285. Mr. Stoel asked if this area was zoned for industrial development. Ms. Powers answered in the affirmative. Ms. Powers indicated the second area where the boundary will be changed; this is around the former Safeway Store, and straightening the boundary to include the total new Safeway Store. Ms. Powers stated that the Planning staff has reviewed the amendments to the Plan, and have concluded that the proposed boundary modifications and text changes are compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. Approval of proposed Amendment #8 is recommended, and a proposed resolution is part of the staff report which has been submitted to the Commission. This resolution, if approved by the Commission, will be referred to the City Council for their Public Hearing on July 1. Mr. Venard asked if there were further questions from the Planning Com- mission. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Planning Conunission approve Resolution #2, Series of 1985, A RESOLUTION OF THE ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGARDING CONSISTENCY OF THE AMENDED DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, and refer said Resolution and Amendment #8 to the Downtown Redevelopment Plan to the City Council. AYES: Venard, Allen, Barbre, Beier, Carson, Gourdin, Magnuson, Stoel NAYS: None ABSTAI N: None ABSENT: McBrayer The motion carr ied. • • • • • • IV. CONDITIONAL USE 3986-1/2 South Broadway -7- CASE #11-85 Mr. Venard stated that this case is a request for approval of a Condi- tional Use, an automotive repair shop, in the B-2 Zone District. Barbre moved: Carson seconded: The Public H·earing on Case #11-85 be opened. AYES: Allen, Barbre, Beier, Carson, Gourdin, Magnuson, Stoel, Venard NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: McBrayer The motion carried. Mr. Venard stated that he has been handed a list of members in the audience, who he will call on the address the Commission. He asked that those speak- ing to the Commission come to the podium, state their name and address, and be sworn in. Mr. Venard stated that he does have a copy of the notice of public hearing, which was published in the Englewood Sentinel on May 29, 1985 . Mr. Venard asked if the staff wished to make further statements at this time. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff had nothing to add to what is contained in the staff report. Mr. Venard then called on Mr. Reitler; Mr. Reitler stated that he had no comment. Mr. Venard called on Mr. Sorenson; Mr. Sorenson had no comment. Mr. Venard called on Mr. Henke. Mr. Philip Henke, 3986 South Broadway, was sworn in. He testified that he appeared before the Planning Commission previously on January 22, 1985, at which time they were also requesting approval of the automotive repair shop as a Conditional Use in the B-2 Zone District. At that time, there were several conditions the Commission wanted to place on the approval of the request, one of which he and Mr. Jha took exception to. This con- dition was the imposition of a fence across the rear of the property; if this fence were to have been constructed, it would have eliminted the use of the rear of the building and the two parking spaces which are located there. They appealed this issue to the Board of Adjustment, which Board granted a varance and said that it would not be reasonable to require the parking for Mr. Jha's business to be screened. Mr. Henke and Mr. Jha are now asking that the Commission approve the Conditional Use at this loca- tion. Mr. Henke stated that he has had an architect make a survey of the building, and a list of items has been submitted that are needed to bring the building up to Code. Mr. Henke presented a letter from Robert W. Naudack, owner of properties at 3997 South Lincoln Street, 3983 South Lincoln Street, and 3971 South Lincoln Street, which indicates that Mr. Naudack has no objection to the operation of an automotive repair shop at 3986-1/2 South Broadway. Mr. Henke stated that the staff report ad- dresses the issue of parking on-street by the employees and customers of these businesses. Mr. Henke stated that the on-site parking is limited to two spaces in the rear of the building, which he has assigned to Mr. -8- Jha. Mr. Henke stated his employees, and Mr. Jha and his employee, park on Nassau Avenue. Mr. Henke stated that he has leased and operated his business at this location for six yeara, and he has never provided off- street parking for his employees in that period of time. Mr. Naudack has stated that he has no problem with the parking along Nassau Avenue by the employees of these two businesses. No vehicles are left on-street over night. Mr. Henke stated that he did not feel this small business operated by Mr. Jha is compounding the parking problem on Broadway or on Nassau. Mr. Henke stated that there is space in Mr. Jha's portion of the building to park two vehicles, plus the two spaces at the rear of his building which he has been assigned ·. This will be used for customer parking and for vehicles that are being worked on. Mr. Carson asked the number of employees for each of these businesses. Mr. Henke stated that he has three employees in addition to himself; Mr. Jha has one employee and himself for a total of five employees for the two businesses. Mr. Carson noted that this is five people that are being asked to park on residential streets; he asked Mr. Henke if he felt this was right. Mr. Henke stated that he hasn't had any parking for his employees for a long time; he did have an agreement with Mr. Markham; this property is now being used as a car sales lot, so he lost that area for parking. Mr. Stoel noted that Mr. Henke stated that an architect has surveyed the building and submitted a list of changes, which the City has accepted with the addition of one exit door. Mr. Stoel asked if the applicant plans to do the remodeling to the building. Mr. Henke stated that he will do it if it is necessary, and it will be done at his expense. Mr. Stoel asked if a condition for approval were that the remodeling would be done as outlined by the architect and with the additional exit door, would the applicant be willing to do them. Mr. Henke replied in the affirmative. Mr. Allen asked if people parked in the alley. Mr. Henke stated that people do not park in the alley, but in the back of the garage. The vehicles to be repaired are parked on the north side of the garage building. There is not sufficient room to park in the alley. Mr. Henke pointed out that Little Wheels has the parking rights to a part of the area at the rear of his building, and also uses street parking for a number of their lot vehicles they are preparing for sale. Mr. Donald Rippen, 304 Wellington, Northglenn, was sworn in. Mr. Rippen testified that he is the owner of the property in question, and wanted to reassure the Planning Commission that he has been in control of the property since 1970. There had been no change in the parking needs of the leasees of the property since that time. Mr. Rippen stated that if the Commission denies the use of the garage "you will deny another small businessman in Englewood." Spaces for small business garage areas are very difficult to find; he stated that he gets no more money from the lease of this building to Mr. Jha, who sub-leases from Mr. Henke, so that is not a factor in his urging approval of the request. Mr. Allen asked if Mr. Rippen operated a business on the property. Mr . Rippen stated that he did not; he owns the property, leasing the buildings to other businessmen. He stated that he did have a business on the site from 1970 to 1979. • • • • • • Mr. Allen asked if Mr. Rippen serve the parking congestion. property from time to time. -9- had occasion to view the property and ob- Mr. Rippen stated that he does view the Mr. Venard asked if Mr. Rippen was aware of the off-street parking re- quirements for this type of business. Mr. Rippen stated that he possibly was not aware. Mr. Venard asked if Mrs. Romans could give the minimum requirements for off-street parking on these businesses. Mrs. Romans stated that this is a "mixed-use" and should be figured as separate uses. Computing the parking needs at one space per each two employees, plus two spaces for each 300 square feet of repair or maintenance area would be the formula to be used. She stated that the applicant has not sub- mitted a floor plan giving the square footage, so it would be difficult to determine at this time what the minimum parking should be. Mr. Rippen estimated that the square footage of the building is 2,800 sq. ft. Mrs. Romans estimated a minimum of 9 off-street parking spaces would be required based on the square footage alone. Mr. Venard pointed out that Mr. Rippen has stated that if the Commission were to deny approval of this request, they would be denying another small business in Englewood; Mr. Venard asked Mr. Rippen what he felt his responsibility to be to provide parking for those businesses using his property. Mr. Rippen stated that if he owns the property, he would have to provide the parking to make it a viable business. Mr. Venard stated that it did not appear that Mr. Rippen could provide the needed parking for these businesses on this property. Mr. Rippen stated that the "spaces are there but the way it's divided up they aren't provided for these uses." Mr. Venard suggested that merchants should be responsible enough to provide parking on their property for the use of that property, and not to rely on the over-loading of streets to provide the parking for the business. Mr. Allen asked if Mr. Rippen had a plan for the subject site showing where the parking is located. Mr. Rippen stated that he did not. Mr. Allen asked if Mr. Rippen planned to develop a plan showing the City where the parking would be provided. Mr. Rippen stated that his "future use [of the property] is unknown at this time." Mr. Carson asked how many parking spaces were provided on the lot on the corner at Broadway and Nassau. Mr. Rippen stated that he is not prepared to answer this question. Mr. Carson stated that a lot of the vehicles from the corner business are parking on the street. Mr. Rippen stated "Is that a fact, sir?" Mr. Carson stated "It's a fact." Mr. Venard asked if there were additional questions of Mr. Rippen. He then asked that Mr. Jha come to the podium. Shiv Jee Jha, 3986 South Broadway, was sworn in. Mr. Jha stated that he is sub-leasing space from Englewood Motor Supply, and does minor repair. There have been no concerns and no problems expressed to him since the previous hearing; there is oniy one employee besides himself in his por- tion of the business. Mr. Jha stated that there are spaces for two ve- hicles in the building, and two at the rear of the building; none of the vehicles remain over-night. Mr. Stoel stated that the staff report indicates that Mr. Jha has been in business since November, 1984. Mr. Jha stated that this is correct. -10- He applied for a sales tax license at that time, and was told that this use would have to be approved by the Commission before the Sales Tax License could be issued. Mr. Jha stated that he was told by the City that he could operate the business, but had to get the business approved by the Commission before he could get a sales tax license. Mr. Venard stated that the staff report also indicates that Mr. Jha does not have an Occupancy Permit for his portion of the building. Mr. Jha stated that his application is in; this is the third public hearing he has been through on this matter. Mr. Jha reiterated that he was told by "people" in City Hall that he could continue operating his business until the Planning Commission makes a decision. Mr. Allen stated that the City has received complaints regarding the parking congestion in the area. Mr. Jha stated that there are now three businesses operating there; the car sales lot is parking cars on the street, plus Little Wheels, and his business. · Mr. Allen stated that he understood that Mr. Jha was alleging he has had no contact from City Hall on the parking issue, or the lack of sales tax license, or occupancy permit; is this correct. Mr. Jha again stated that the City has told him that he could continue to operate his business; that a sales tax license could not be issued until the business was approved for this location. Mr. Vargas stated that it was his understanding that Mr. Jha had applied for his sales tax license after he had been in operation for a while; he was told that he would have to get approval from the Planning Commission for this type of business to operate at this location, and was informed that he would not be "shut down" until he got a determination from the Planning Commission on his application for approval of the business. Mr. Jha has been pursuing this since January, 1985. Mr. Venard asked if there were any questions from the Commission. Mr. Venard then asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to speak on this matter. No one else indicated they wanted to address the Commission on this issue. Mr. Stoel stated that this is a very difficult situation. Mr. Stoel stated that Mr. Jha is trying to do business. Concern was expressed by some of the neighbors at the previous hearing; however, Mr. Jha and Mr. Henke have now obtained a letter from Mr. Naudack who says he has no problem with the operation of this business at this location, so at least one adjacent neighbor has changed his mind about the problems this use may cause. Mr. Stoel also pointed out that the building is an existing structure; parking spaces cannot be provided for the uses on the site because the space isn't available for the parking. Mr. Stoel stated that he does want to make sure that the building is safe, and the applicants have had an architect view the building and have submitted his recommenda- tions, to which the City has also added a requirement. Mr. Stoel stated that he wanted to see Mr. Jha obtain the proper licenses and permits to operate the business, and would like to see Mr. Jha continue to operate his business at this location. Mr. Stoel stated that he does see the problems that are being created by the auto sales lot on the corner, but on the subject property he does not see a problem other than the safety of the building. • • • • • • -11- Mr. Allen stated that he did not see how there could be sufficient parking to accommodate these uses. Mr. Stoel stated that the space for the parking is not there, and this situation will not change, no matter what type of use might be on the site. This entire structure would have to be razed and a new structure erected with the required parking figured into the new development. Mr. Venard stated that he could appreciate what Mr. Stoel is saying; it is an unfortunate situation, and Mr. Jha is caught in the middle. What- ever the Commission does, the parking area is not available, and the em- ployees will be using parking on the public streets. Mr. Venard stated that we do have problems in this area and the business density on this site does compound the parking problems. Mr. Venard stated that he did not feel that he could support the application. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #11-85 be closed. AYES: Barbre, Beier, Carson, Gourdin, Magnuson, Stoel, Venard, Allen NAYS: None ABSENT: McBrayer ABSTAIN: None The motion carried . Mr. Venard asked for further discussion on this matter. Mr. Carson stated that he had to agree with Mr. Venard; there is insuf- ficient parking, and the business density on this corner is too crowded. All the parking for employees from these businesses is on-street. Mr. Stoel pointed out that a business other than automotive-related could lease this site, which might require more parking, but the Commission could have no voice in the matter because it might not be a Conditional Use in the B-2 Zone District. Mr. Stoel emphasized that this is an existing building, there is insufficient parking space, and it will not be solved no matter what type of business is on this site. Mr. Stoel acknowledged that the used car lot is the problem, but it is not the point of concern at this time; he asked why Mr. Jha should be put out of business because of the lack of parking which he cannot change. Mr. Allen stated that there are some types of business that might be able to use the premises that would have fewer employees, and would not require the number of parking spaces that are presently required. He stated that bringing vehicles for repair does add to the parking con- gestion. Mr. Gourdin stated that Mr. Naudack may have given approval or said he has no problems with this particular business, but pointed out that there are three residential properties adjacent to the rear of the site which are owned by Mr. Naudack. Mr. Gourdin stated that he felt one of the Commission's responsibilities is to the residents living adjacent to business areas, and cited factors such as noise, additional traffic, air pollution, which must all be taken into consideration. Mr. Magnuson stated that he felt there were good points in everything that has been said; however, there is a business there, and the matter -12- of lack of parking and parking on-street goes back to the matter of en- forcement. If a car is only parked on-street for 24 hours, it is legal. Mr. Naudack's renters did not appear at the first meeting in January to protest the use of the property as an auto repair shop, and Mr. Naudack himself has apparently changed his mind about the problems experienced with the use. Mr. Magnuson stated that he would have to support the ap- plication, but emphasized that Mr. Jha would have to meet all the con- ditions of bringing the building up to Code, obtaining the proper licenses and permits, etc. Carson moved: Allen seconded: The Planning Commission deny approval for a Conditional Use at 3986 South Broadway as requested by Mr. Shiv Jee Jha for use as an auto repair shop. This denial is sub- stantiated by the staff recommendation in Case #11-85, staff recommendation being that the subleasing to Caesar's Auto Service compounds on-street parking by customers and employees; there is heavy use of the alley by vehicles, with vehicles parked in the back of the property in various states of repair; and that this location cannot accommodate the increased intensity of business resulting from Caesar's Auto Service. AYES: Beier, Carson, Gourdin, Venard, Allen, Barbre NAYS: Magnuson, Stoel ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: McBrayer The motion carried. V. SUBDIVISION WAIVER Centennial Shopping Center Mr. Venard asked if the applicant was present. CASE #12-85 Mr. Bruce Reitler stated that he is a general partner of Centennial Limited Partnership, which owns the Centennial Acres Shopping Center. Mr. Reitler stated that there have been problems with access, and with a water and sewer line running across the lot with no easement of record for this line. They have made plans to expand the shopping center, and this is when the water and sewer lines were located; in their present location, they would have to run under a building, which is not approved by the City. To re- solve these problems, Mr. Reitler stated that he and Mr. Sorenson, who owns the property at 5000 South Federal Boulevard, have agreed to a trade of property, and Mr. Reitler will construct a new building for Mr. Sorenson. The Centennial Acres Shopping Center is not part of an approved subdivision, and to effectuate the property exchange and the expansion of the shopping center, they have to request a waiver to the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Sorenson stated that he does agree with Mr. Reitler's presentation, and pointed out that while two addresses, 5000 and 5050 South Federal Boulevard are listed in the staff report, the correct address is 5000 South Federal Boulevard. Mr. Venard asked if there were any questions or comments from the Com- mission. • • • • • • -13- Mr. Stoel commended the two applicants on working out a satisfactory solution to the problem. Stoel moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission approve granting a Subdivision Waiver to Mr. Bruce F. Reitler and Leonard C. Sorenson as requested in Case #12-85 for the Centennial Acres Shopping Center. AYES: Carson, Gourdin, Magnsuon, Stoel, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Beier NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: McBrayer The motion carried. VI. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE §16.4-17 CASE 1/15-85 Mr. Venard stated that at the last meeting, the Commission discussed the matter of fences in relation to the B-2 Business District. It was the consensus of the Commission that it might be more appropriate to modify some provisions in the Fence Ordinance than to further modify the business district regulations . Mr. Carson asked if fences were required in the B-1 Zone District. Mrs. Romans stated that fences are not "required"; they are "permitted". Mr. Carson stated that he would not object to fences along the alley line in the business districts; he does not want to see fences along the street frontage on South Broadway. Mr. Carson stated that he has driven through several municipalities and viewed their car lots, and "there is no city that has car lots with fencing except the City of Englewood." Mr. Stoel asked if the Commission wanted to address the issue of fencing differently in the B-1 and B-2 districts. Mr. Carson stated that he did not feel that there were that many areas in downtown with alleys where fencing might be installed; he stated that he did not object to decorative planters along the front of properties. Mrs. Romans pointed out some areas that are zoned B-1 where fencing is installed, and cited St. Louis School, the Malley Center, Simon Center Parking Lot, for instance; these are legitimate use of fencing. Mr. Allen stated that his primary objection is to the "type" of fencing that might be installed. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Romans noted that on the Malley Center corner lot, the fencing is set back to the front building line. Mr. Gourdin cited a provision from the City of Aurora whereby a triangle 30 ft. back from the point of intersection is restricted from fencing . Mr. Stoel asked how fencing could be eliminated only from the front of a property. Mr. Allen suggested that it be eliminated on the "street side" of a property. -14- Mr. Magnuson stated that he felt the decorative masonry walls, Class I, should be left as an option, provided the height could be restricted. Mrs. Romans suggested that fences be excluded in the front of the property, and on corner lots, the "triangle" could be used, or the prohibition could apply to any fence on the "street side". Mr. Carson suggested that Class I type fences, (decorative masonry walls), up to a maximum height of 30 inches, could be allowed on street frontages. It was also suggested that there should be an exclusion of public buildings or educational insitutions from these provisions; they could install fencing on street sides. Mr. Stoel asked why public buildings should be excluded; he was opposed to this provision. He would approve fencing around educational institutions because it is a safety factor for the children. Wording of the proposed amendment was discussed. Mrs. Romans suggested that a new section d.l. be added, reading: Fences of Class 2, 3, 4, or 5 shall not be permitted on the street side of any property. Fences of Class 1 on the street side shall not exceed 30 inches in height. This provision shall not apply to educational institutions. Fences in the rear yard or interioT side yard may be of Class 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, and shall not exceed 6 feet in height." This wording was acceptable to the Commission. Mr. Venard asked about section c.6. Mr. Allen stated that he did not want to permit a barbed wire fence at all. Mr. Stoel stated that he did not feel this issue needed to be addressed; barbed wire would be restricted to industrial areas, and at a height not less than six feet. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Planning Commission schedule a Public Hearing on July 16, 1985 at 7:00 P. M. to consider amendment of §16.4-17 d.l. AYES: Magnuson, Stoel, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Beier, Carson, Gourdin NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: McBrayer The motion carried. VI. FINDINGS OF FACT B-2 Zone District CASE /110-85 Mr. Stoel noted on Page 1 of the Findings of Fact, it indicates that Mr. Thompson "testified"; inasmuch as the date Mr. Thompson addressed the Commission was not the date of the Public Hearing, Mr. Stoel sug- gested it should read that Mr. Thompson "stated". It was also suggested that the phrase "one car lot owner" should be stricken. Magnuson moved: Stoel seconded: The Findings of Fact for Case #1-85 be approved as corrected. AYES: Stoel, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Beier, Carson, Gourdin, Magnuson .. • • • • • • NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: McBrayer The motion carried. VII. PUBLIC FORUM. -15- There was no one present to address the Commission. VIII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Nothing was brought before the Commission under Director's Choice. IX. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Mr. Beier noted that view of some stop signs is -·obstructed ' ·by vehicles parkingdn front of them; he asked how close parking is permitted to corners and stop signs. Mr. Vargas stated that he understood parking is restricted 25 feet from any corner. Mr. Stoel stated that according to the Engineering office, it is restricted for 30 feet. Mr. Vargas stated he would clarify this and report back to the Commission . Mr. Carson also noted that some traffic regulatory signs are visually obstructed by tree branches. Mr. Magnuson stated that one of the sessions he attended at the APA Con- ference in Montreal pertained to a vote by acclamation rather than having a voice vote on every motion. He asked why this could not be done on matters such as opening public hearings. Mr. Vargas stated that this is a procedural matter which may be addressed in the Commissioner's Handbook. Mr. Stoel stated that on matters where there is possible litigation, he felt it would be better to have the individual voice vote. Further discussion ensued on the Conditional Use case heard earlier. Mr. Magnuson pointed out that some use might go in on this site that could have many more vehicles than Mr. Jha's business, but the Commis- sion might not get to address the issue if it is not a Conditional Use. Mrs. Romans stated that a large part of the problem is that parking for this building has been allotted to the businessman operating on the cor- ner of Broadway and Nassau. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 P. M. / x!£ -/ h ~-t <dct~ 7, c Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary