Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-02-20 PZC MINUTES• CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 1980 I. CALL TO ORDER. 5 D I The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:05 P. M. by Chairman Judith Pierson. Members present: Pierson, Tanguma, Williams, Becker, Barbre, Carson, Draper, McBrayer Wanush, Ex-officio Members absent: Smith Also present: Assistant Director D. A. Romans Associate Planner Alice Fessenden Chairman Pierson welcomed Mr. Doyet Barbre and Mr. Edwin McBrayer to the Commission. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Pierson stated that the Minutes of February 5, 1980, were to be considered for approval . Williams moved: Carson seconded: The Minutes of February 5, 1980, be approved as written. AYES: Pierson, Tanguma, Williams, Becker, Carson, Draper NAYS: None ABSTAIN: McBrayer, Barbre ABSENT: Smith The motion carried. III. INTERPRETATION OF ORDINANCE Use Not Mentioned in B-2 CASE #5-80 Mrs. Pierson stated that the request before the Planning Com- mission is concerned with an interpretation of the Comprehen- sive Zoning Ordinance for a Use Not Mentioned in the B-2 Zone District. Mrs. Pierson stated that as a rule, the Planning Commission acts in an advisory capacity and makes recommenda- tions to the City Council for implementation. Mrs. Pierson stated that the Planning Commission does, however, make the final decision on some matters, such as a request for an in- terpretation of the ordinance for a Use Not Mentioned. If the applicant is not satisfied with the Planning Commission's determination, their appeal process is to the Board of Adjust- ment and Appeals. Mr. Smith entered and took his place with the Commission. -2- Mrso Pierson then asked for the staff reporto Mrs 0 Romans stated that under the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, tf the B-1, Business Zone District has 106 listed Principal Per- mitted Useso In the B-2, Business Zone District, there are an additional 14 uses listed which are Permitted Uses, and a state- ment which also permits any use permitted in the B-1 Zone Dis- trict o In both the B-1 and B-2 Zone Districts, the Commission is given the authority to approve 11 any similar lawful use" which the Commission finds to be compatible. Requests for uses that have not been listed as permitted uses are submitted to the staff, which in turn brings these requests to the Planning Commission for their interpretation and determinationo Mrso Romans stated that Mr. Bill Forington owns property on West Evans Avenue in the B-2 Zone District. The B-2 District runs from Evans Avenue to the centerline of the West Adriatic Avenue/West Evans Avenue alley, and the area to the south of the centerline of the alley is zoned R-2-C, Medium Density Residenceo The subject parcel was indicated on a map of the immediate area by Miss Fessendeno Mr. Forington wants to remove the garage that is existing on the property, and replace it with a metal building which would be attached to the existing house; the house would continue to be used as an office and a caretaker's residence. Mro Forington intends to have his son operate an auto repair, tune-up and body repair business from this locationo Mrs. Romans pointed out that the business proposed by Mr. Forington would be per- mitted as an accessory to a new or used car dealership, which uses are permitted in the B-2 Zone District. The staff is of the opinion that the use proposed by Mr. Forington is a similar use to that conducted by the new and used car lots in the re- pair of automobiles, and is also similar to the work being done at many gasoline service stations. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff recommends that this use of automotive repair, tune-up and body shop be found similar to uses permitted in the B-2 Zone District, and that the following conditions be imposed: 1) That all work be done within the enclosed structureo 2) A six-foot, opaque, screening fence shall be erected at the rear of the property to comply with §22o5-3b of the Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance: "Barriers and screening. Areas sub- ject to wheeled traffic shall be provided with barriers of such dimensions that occupants of adjacent residential structures are not unreasonably disturbed, either by day or night, by the movement of vehicles." 3) There will be no outside storage of vehicles to be serviced or repaired during hours that the business is not in operationo 4) There is compliance with all applicable codes and ordinances 0 • -3- Mrs. Pierson asked if the members of the Commission had any questions of the staff? Don Smith asked if consideration had been given as to whether or not the proposed use was hazardous to adjoining properties by reason of fire, explosion, etc. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the use will have to comply with the applicable codes and ordinances of the City. Mrs.Becker inquired whether the six foot screening fence would be of woven wire with slats? Mrs. Romans stated that chain link fences with slats are not approved; the fence would have to be of solid wood, brick, block or concrete construction. Mr. Williams asked what the B-2 Ordinance required in fencing? Mrs. Romans stated that areas subject to wheeled traffic shall be screened to protect the adjacent residential areas. Mr. McBrayer referred to the map of the area, and asked if the area shown on either side of the gravel drive would be black- topped, or would it be in sod? Mrs. Romans suggested that Mr. Forington could answer this question better than she. Mr.Carson asked about the location of the curb cut? Mrs. Romans again suggested that Mr. Forington answer that question. Mr. Bill Forington stated that the area on either side of the drive are presently in grass, and that the present tenant has Mountain Foliage and Landscaping, which headquarters there. Mr. Forington stated that there would not be much traffic at the business --only word-of-mouth advertising. Mr. Forington stated that his son would be operating the business; he is presently doing it out of his home in Denver, but wants to find a business locationo Mr. Forington stated that the vehicles that they are working on would be within the building, and he does not like the idea of leaving vehicles parked along West Evans Avenue; if a vehicle would be stolen, he would be liable. He stated that he would prefer to have the vehicles brought to the site the morning the work could begin. Mr. Tanguma asked for clarification from Mrs. Romans on the term "outside storage"; he asked if this referred to storage of vehicles outside of the building, or outside of the lot? Mrs. Romans stated that the restriction was in reference to storage outside of the building; vehicles that are not finished should not be stored outside of the building over night. Mr. Tanguma asked of Mr. Forington how many cars the proposed metal building would accommodate? Mr. Forington stated there will be sufficient capacity for four bays; the building has three doors presently, and part of the structure is used for office purposes. Mr. Tanguma noted that parts are hard to get for some vehicles, a n d he felt it would be very difficult to avoid having cars -4- stored on the site unless they turned business away . Mr . Forington agreed with Mr. Tanguma, and stated that he could not guarantee there would be no outside storage over night. Mrs. Pierson noted that there is an area in the rear of the site that is designated as "storage"; she asked if this would not be used for outside storage of vehicles, and how many cars could be stored in this area? Discussion ensued . Mrs . Romans stated that she felt the pro- posed restriction on outside storage may be too restrictive and that it was certainly something that should be discussed by the Commission. Mr. Don Forington stated that he has been in the business of auto repair, tune-up and body work for three years; he pointed out that the shop, as proposed, would only have two people operating it. He stated that he felt four to five cars could be stored inside with another four in the rear of the lot, and this would give two people a pretty heavy work load. He stated that as small as the shop is proposed to be, the storage of vehicles would not be that great a problem . Mr. Tanguma stated that he is aware of several businesses such as this that have assured the Commission there would be no outside storage of vehicles, but this has not proven out. He stated that "you can't make money by keeping the cars that are not finished in the bay." He felt the proposed limitation was very restrictive, and that, in his opinion, there will be times when cars will be outside of the building that are in the pro- cess of being repaired or are yet to be worked on. Mrs. Pierson questioned if there could be some rewording of the proposed restriction that would not be quite so specific? Mrs. Romans indicated that when the staff report was written and the restrictions were suggested, the staff was concerned with the "wrecked" automobile that might be stored on the site . She suggested that possibly the Commission might want to re- move the proposed restriction altogether. Mr. Tanguma stated that he did not feel it should be removed, but should be re- worded . Mrs. Romans suggested that possibly the restriction could be reworded to prohibit outside storage of vehicles re- quiring body work after operating hours. Mrs. Becker suggested that the restriction be added to prohibit storage of vehicles over night at the front of the building. Mr. Don Forington stated that the site is well sheltered by the trees that are on the site, and they do propose landscaping on the lot; he stated that he felt the business should be appealing to the people in the area and to those patronizing the business, and not degrading. Mr. McBrayer suggested that the restriction could be amended by stating there be no outside storage of vehicles except in the storage area. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Pierson suggested -5- that the restriction could state except within the "enclosed storage area.11 Mr. Smith stated that he felt Mr. McBrayer's suggestion should be implemented. He stated that he felt the intent of the re- striction was to stop the parking of vehicles over night or over weekends. If the vehicles that must be kept on site are parked within an enclosed storage area, they would not be visible from the street. Mr. Williams stated that he felt the main issue before the Commission is whether or not to grant Mr. Forington the right to use the property for auto repair, tune-up and body work; he stated that he felt too much attention was being given to the restrictions suggested to control the use. He stated that anyone in the auto repair business will have to have some storage of vehicles on the site, and he felt these restrictions are going beyond what the Commission has been asked to do. Mr. Forington stated that he would want the right to park vehicles on the site overnight. He expressed concern that the tenant on his property would not be allowed to park his vehicle on the site over night. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the suggested restriction does state that there shall be no outside storage of vehicles that are to be "serviced or repaired." Mr. Williams stated that he felt the staff was thinking of "wreckers" that would be sitting on the site for weeks, and not the vehicle that is in just for a tune-up or minor engine work. He reiterated that he does feel the applicant should have the right to park vehicles on the site over night. Mrs. Pierson asked if the applicant wished to address the Commission further? Mr. Forington stated that he could not guarantee how long his tenant would be on the site, or how long his business would be at this location. He stated that he would just as soon leave the trees and present landscaping as it is because it would be cheaper than paving the front area. Mr. Forington stated that he would hope to put in the testing equipment for emission control and other innovations in this shop. Carson moved: Williams seconded: The Planning Commission approve the request of Mr. Bill Forington to use the property at 2120 West Evans Avenue for an automobile repair shop, with the following conditions: 1. That all work be done within the enclosed structure. 2. A six-foot, opaque, screening fence shall be erected at the rear of the property to comply with §22.5-3b of the Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance: "Barriers and screening. Area:; -6- subject to wheeled traffic shall be provided with barriers of such dimensions that occupants of adjacent residential structures are not unreasonably disturbed, either by day or night, by the movement of vehicles." 3. There will be no outside storage of vehicles to be serviced or repaired during hours that the business is not in opera- tion. 4. There is compliance with all applicable codes and ordinances. Mrs. Pierson pointed out that if the recommendations as suggested in the staff report are adopted, they may be too restrictive. Discussion ensued. McBrayer moved: Smith seconded: The motion be amended by adding to Condition #3 the following: "····· in operation, EXCEPT IN THE ENCLOSED STORAGE AREA." Mr. Smith questioned that the storage area is not identified. Mrs. Pierson pointed out that Mr. McBrayer's motion stated that the storage area must be "enclosed." Mr. Wanush pointed out that the Commission is not approving a plan for development of the area, but are approving the use. He noted that if the applicant wanted to, he could built out to the street line, and this would not have an effect on the Commission's approval. He reiterated that the approval is for the "use" only. Brief discussion ensued. The vote on the amendment was called. AYES: Carson, Draper, McBrayer, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Williams, Becker, Barbre. NAYS: None The motion carried. Mrs. Pierson then called for the vote on the motion as amended. AYES: Draper, McBrayer, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Williams, Becker, Barbre, Carson NAYS: None The motion carried. The approved motion would read as follows: The Planning Commission approve the request of Mr. Bill Forington to use the property at 2120 West Evans Avenue for an automobile repair shop, with the following conditions: 1. That all work be done within the enclosed structure. 2. A six-foot, opaque, screening fence shall be erected at -7- the rear of the property to comply with §22.5-3b of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance: "Barriers and screening. Areas subject to wheeled traffic shall be provided with barriers of such dimensions that occupants of adjacent residential structures are not unreasonably disturbed, either by day or night, by the movement of vehicles." 3. There will be no outside storage of vehicles to be serviced or repaired during hours that the business is not in opera- tion except in the enclosed storage area. 4. There is compliance with all applicable codes and ordinances. IV. INTERPRETATION OF ORDINANCE Professional Off ice to include Food Broker. Mrs. Pierson asked for the staff report. CASE #6-80 Mrs. Romans stated that the request before the Planning Com- mission is to determine whether or not the definition of Pro- fessional Office would include the occupation of "Food Broker." Mrs.Romans stated that the applicants, Mr. C. J. Berardini and Mr. R. J. Schultz, contacted the Planning Division some time ago about constructing an office building on the north side of U. S. 285 at South Pearl Street. This area was indicated ona map of the area by Miss Fessenden. The site is presently de- veloped with a house that is not on a foundation, and a garage. They proposed that the garage be removed, a foundation be con structed, and that the house be moved onto the foundation and used for office purposes. In discussions with the staff, the construction of a new office building was considered. The zoning on this property is R-3, High Density Residence, which zone district does permit, among other things, "professional offices" in addition to High-density residential uses. Mrs. Romans stated that back in 1959, a consulting firm was engaged to develop a zone district that would be compatible with Swedish Medical Center. The resulting zone district was the former R-3-A Zone District, and one of the permitted uses was "professional office". In 1976, the R-3-A and R-3-B Zone Districts, both multi-family residential districts, evolved into the R-3 High Density Residence District. Professional Offices are still a permitted use in this zone district, and is defined as follows: 11 The office of a person engaged in any occupation, vocation, or calling, not purely commercial, me- chanical, or agricultural in which a professed knowledge or skill in some department of science or learning is used by its practical application to the affairs of others, either advising or guiding them in serving their interest or welfare through the practice of an act founded thereon, such as medical doctors, dentists, attorneys-at-law, architects or engineers." -8- In discussions with Mr. Berardini and Mr. Schultz regarding the proposed new office building and the offices that would be in the building, the "food brokerage" office was mentioned. The staff questioned whether this type of use would be per- mitted under the definition of a "professional" office and recommended that the gentlemen discuss the matter with the Commission. Mrs. Romans stated that no products would be sold from the office of the Food Broker. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff has had requests from people in real estate, insurance, accountants, and other similar occupations who want to locate offices in the R-3 zone District. According to the definition, these occupations are not con- sidered a "profession" and the staff has been of the opinion that they are not permitted in the R-3 District. Mrs. Romans discussed the development surrounding the subject site, which development is comprised of three-story walk-up apartments, a health spa, nursing home and other office buildings. The request for another office building to the west of this site has been submitted, and the applicants have appeared before the Board of Adjustment and Appeals on their request for a variance to the minimum lot area, and setbacks. Mr. Draper inquired as to the type of variance being requested? Mrs. Romans stated that one of the requests was on lot area. Miss Fessenden stated that the variances would be for lot area and minimum setbacks. Mrs. Romans pointed out that Mr. Berardini and Mr. Schultz would also have to appeal to the Board for a variance in lot area on this site. The Planning Commission is considering the use of the site and whether the occupation of "food broker" is a "professional" use. Mrs. Pierson asked Mr. Schultz to address the Commission. Mr. Schultz stated that he is a food broker, and is considered a professional sales person. The business employs 19 people, seven of whom would office in this location. The remaining twelve employees are employed in other cities or other locations in Denver. This office staff would comprise three secretaries, himself, and three other sales personnel. He stated that three of his personnel have masters degrees in marketing and one has a bachelors degree in marketing. Mr. Schultz stated that opera- tion projects a volume of business for this year which would amount to $24,000,000. He stated that they act as the sales agent for a number of companies. Mr. Schultz stated that he feels the new office building would do a great deal for this site, and the building they have in mind would add beauty and a large number of tax dollars to the City of Englewood. Mr. Schultz stated that his food brokerage firm would occupy approxi- mately 1/3 of the building; Mr. Berardini is planning to open a branch of his law firm at this location, and there would be other professional occupants of the building. -9- Mr. McBrayer asked if Mr. Schultz could describe an average transaction of their operation? Mr. Schultz stated that their business deals with King Soopers, Safeway, Nobel and other similar businesses; their contacts are by telephone, mail or on the telex. The food brokers represent a product; they do all the paper work, take the orders, transmit the orders to the warehouses, but would not handle invoicing or purchasing from this office. He stated that their salesmen do call on the various stores that they are attempting to interest in a specific product. Smith moved: Tanguma seconded: The Planning Commission find that a food brokerage firm be a permitted use at 3597 South Pearl Street. AYES: Barbre, Carson, Draper, McBrayer, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Williams, Becker NAYS: None The motion carried. Mr. Draper asked if the granting of variances for the office buildings in this area would set a precedent for granting variances in future applications? Mr. Wanush stated that it would not set a precedent for the Board of Adjustment; they are required to take action on specific requests at a specific location. Mr. Wanush stated that once the Commission has interpreted any "use" to be permitted in a zone district, the staff will say that it is a permitted use in that zone district. V. CENTURIAN PARTNERSHIP Planned Development CASE #27-79 Mrs. Pierson stated that members of the Commission received a copy of the letter from Centurian Partnership requesting that their application for a Planned Development be withdrawn. She asked if this required any action from the Commission? Mrs. Romans stated that it was included only for the information of the members. Mrs. Romans stated that at the Public Hearing on the Centurian Partnership Planned Development which was before the Planning Commission on February 5, 1980, a Mr. Crosby testified that the right-of-way on the south side of his property had not been dedicated, and that the map displayed to the Commission by the staff was in error. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff has further investigated the matter and the property was dedicated for roadway purposes in 1963 by a previous property owner. The deed has been recorded in the off ice of the Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder. The staff obtained a copy of this deed, -10- which was shown to the members of the Commission. Mrs. Romans stated that a copy of this deed has also been sent to Mr. Crosby for his information . VI. PUBLIC FORUM. There was no one present who wished to address the Commissio~ VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Wanush reported on progress of the Country Club Joint Venture; he stated that some people from Salt Lake City who are the new owners or are the representatives of the new owners, were in his office recently inquiring about the codes and ordinances governing the development of the site. Mr. Wanush stated that these people wanted to review the plans and conditions which were approved by the Commission. Mr. Wanush stated that he understood they hope to have the architectural plans for the development completed in early March and will be making application for a building permit very shortly. Mr. Wanush stated that the State of Colorado has a local chapter of the American Planning Association, which meets monthly. The meeting of the month of February will be the evening of February 21 at 6:30 P.M. at the Arvada Center; the topic for discussion is "Developer Appraises the Planning Pro- cess and Development Regulations." This will be a panel dis- cussion. The address of the Arvada Center is 6901 Wadsworth Boulevard, and anyone is welcome to attend these sessions. Mr. Wanush stated that the local Chapter of the APA has some very interesting meetings; among the recent meetings was one on solar energy and a session last fall in Colorado Springs on "infill". VIII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mrs. Becker stated that she had perused the City Council Minutes of January 28th regarding the rezoning appeal of Mr. Harry Wise. She noted that City Council did not make a decision on the evening of the Public Hearing; she asked if this was a customary procedure followed by the City Council? Mr. Wanush stated that it is not unusual. He stated that the City Council did vote to deny the rezoning at their meeting of February 19, 1980, by a vote of 7 -o. Mrs. Pierson stated that she and the staff have discussed the possibility of another study session some time in the near future. She pointed out that there are three new members on the Commission who might benefit from such a session. She stated that she felt one topic that might be explored is the "courses of action" approved in the Comprehensive Plan, and that possibly some deeper thought could be given to these goals and courses of action. -11- Mrs. Romans stated that she would also welcome an opportunity to discuss the philosophy of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance before drafting of specific regulations begins. Once the goals of the Zoning Ordinance are determined, the actual work in rewriting the Ordinance can begin. Mrs. Pierson stated that she has found the study sessions to be very productive. She asked if there was a possibility the study session and tour of the city could be worked in together? Mrs. Romans stated that she was not considering doing the tour until some time after the weather warms up. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Pierson asked if a "pre-meeting" study session might work out? Mr. Wanush stated that he felt the Saturday morning sessions were better. It was determined that the study session be scheduled for March 29th at 8:00 A. M. Mr. Draper asked if there had been further communication from the City Attorney's office regarding the public hearings, legal status of the hearings and the decisions of the Commission? Mr. Wanush reported on a brief discussion he had with a member of the City Attorney's office. He stated that he felt a decision must be reached on how City Council will hold their hearings. He noted that the public hearing before City Council on Mr. Wise's appeal was repetitive; everything that had been brought out before the Planning Commission was brought out before the City Council, but no new information was presented. Mr. Wanush stated that one possibility that will be discussed is having the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission with verbatim transcripts of the Hearings sent to the City Council. City Council would then not hear the matter unless there was informa- tion to be presented in addition to what is contained in the transcript of the Planning Commission Hearing. Mr. Wanush stated that discussion has centered around engaging a Court Reporter for these hearings, and that if the applicant desired to take the matter on to City Council, they would have to pay for the transcript. Mr. Wanush emphasized that the basic idea would be to provide City Council with a complete record of proceedings so that body would not have to hear the matter again. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer noted that the staff report for Case #5-80 con- tained a suggestion from the staff that auto repair shops be determined to be similar to permitted uses and therefore should be permitted in the B-2 Zone District. He stated that this aspect of the matter was not really addressed; only whether Mr. Forington would be granted permission to use a specific parcel of land for an auto repair shop. He asked if this would require more action on the part of the Commission, or did the action at this rneeti~g set a precedent, and would the staff continue to interpret that auto repair shops would be permitted in the B-2 Zone District? As previously stated by Mr. Wanush, the staff indicated that this would be their interpretation. Mr. McBrayer also suggested, in connection with Case #6-80, -12- that a list of permitted uses in conjunction with the pro- fessional offices be set forth in the R-3 Zone District. He stated that he felt there were many occupations which might want their offices in the R-3 Zone District which would be "professional" but might not fit within the definition as presently set forth. He cited manufacturer's representatives and others as an example. Mr 0 Tanguma excused himself from the meeting. Mr. Wanush stated that this suggestion of Mr. McBrayer's is a matter that might be addressed in the study session. He felt that there should be further determination on what is "professional". Discussion ensued. Mr. Barbre stated that if he understood correctly, there was not much control exercised over the type of use that went into an office building if a "professional" use relocated. Mrs. Romans stated that this is basically correct. Mrso Pierson stated that if there was a "troublesome" tenant, there were some means by which they might be removed if they were not "permitted." Mr. Smith stated that he felt possibly one reason for the restriction on "professional" office was an attempt to keep consumer-oriented businesses out of a residential area because of the heavy traffic that could be generatedo Mrs. Romans pointed out that a doctors office generates extremely heavy traffic, and this is a permitted "professional" use. Mr. Draper asked if Swedish Medical Center was able to over- come the problems they had with the sewer line underneath the Scandia Apartment House? Mro Wanush stated that he was not aware of any problem that the hospital had with the sewer line under the apartment house. At the time that the hospital was considering the construction of a multi-story garage south of Hampden Avenue, they were considering the possibility of crossing the alley, and the sewer line under the apartment house came under staff discussion at that time. Mr. Wanush stated that he did not think the hospital was proceeding with any projects on the south side of Hampden Avenue at this time. Mrs. Pierson discussed the construction of the office building on the medical center property north of Hampden Avenue, and asked if this construction would not be in violation of setback requirements considering the height of the hospital itself. She asked if the hospital was not obligated to leave the open space at it was? Mrs. Romans stated that the minimum setback requirements are only 15 feet for each side for a maximum height of 60 feet; they would have to set back one additional foot on each side for each additional foot of height. She also pointed out that the medical center was constructed under a previous ordinance that did not have the same requirements as are in existence now. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M.