Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-07-19 PZC MINUTES' • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 19, 1983 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Senti at 7:00 P. M. Members present: Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel Romans, Ex-officio Memhers absent: Barbre, Becker II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. July 6, 1983 Chairman Senti stated that the Minutes of July 6, 1983, were to be con- sidered for approval. Carson moved: Tanguma seconded: The Minutes of July 6, 1983, be approved as written. AYES: Venard, Allen, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Barhre, Becker The motion carried. III. CONDITIONAL USE Video Arcade in Centennial Acres Shopping Center CASE /114-83 Chairman Senti stated that this case pertains to a request for approval of a video arcade to be located in the Centennial Acres Shopping Complex. Mr. Senti asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Tanguma moved: Carson seconded: The Puhlic Hearing on Case 1114-83 be opened. AYES: Allen, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard NAYS: None ABSENT: Barbre, Becker The motion carried. s Mr. Senti stated that he has in hand a copy of the public notice as published in tne Englewood Sentinel, and the Certification of Posting required of the applicant. Mr. Marvin Clatt and Mr. Kevin Clatt were sworn in • Mr. Marvin Clatt stated that their intent is to open a small business in the Centennial Acres Shopping Complex. He stated that he personally does not live in Englewood, and that his son, Kevin Clatt, would represent him in the business. Mr. Clatt stated that they are aware there are a number -2- of ordinances that they must comply with to operate a video arcade, and that they do intend to comply with all those ordinances. Mr. Senti asked if the Commission had any questions of the applicants. Mr. McBrayer asked if the applicants were aware of the recommendation of the Department of Community Development pertaining to the licensing and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Marvin Clatt stated that they are aware of these requirements, and will comply with the ordinances. Mr. Kevin Clatt stated that he would be the night manager for the video arcade. Mr. Marvin Clatt stated that he and his son are presently doing business in Englewood as "Freedom Vans", which is rental of wheelchair vans. The business in Centennial Acres Shopping complex will be called "Captain's Quarters". Mr. Kevin Clatt stated that he feels he can run a good business and that there will not be any problems; he feels it is a good location for such a business. Mr. Carson stated that it appeared to be a rather small area for a video arcade, and questioned whether the area Mr. Clatt has indicated in the drawings of the shopping complex would be sufficiently large for this operation. Mr. Kevin Clatt stated that he feels the area is large enough, and noted that it is the quality of the games that an arcade has rather than the quantity; if the games are good and popular, there is no need for a large volume. Mr. Senti asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of the proposed video arcade. No one else spoke in favor of the arcade. Mr. Senti then asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to the pro- posed video arcade. No one spoke in opposition to the video arcade. Mr. Senti asked that the staff report be made a part of the record of the Hearing. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #14-83 be closed. AYES: Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen NAYS: None ABSENT: Barbre, Becker The motion carried. Carson moved: Tanguma seconded: The Planning Commission approve the request for a video arcade to be located in the Centennial Acres Shopping Center complex, with the following conditions: 1. That the arcade must be licensed under Ordinance No. 49, Series of 1982. ' • • • • -3- 2. That before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, the building will need to conform to the applicable Building and Fire Codes. AYES: Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen NAYS: None ABSENT: Becker, Barbre The motion carried. IV. CONDITIONAL USE 2855 South Broadway CASE #15-83 Chairman Senti stated that this request for approval of a Conditional Use at 2855 South Broadway is for a United Tire Store, involving sales and ser- vicing of tires and wheels. Mr. Senti asked for a motion to open the Hearing. Allen moved: Venard seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #15-83 be opened. AYES: Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen NAYS: None ABSENT: Barbre, Becker The motion carried. Mr. Senti noted that he had in hand a copy of the public notice of the •Hearing which was published in the Englewood Sentinel. Mr. Gordon Lewis, architect, and Mr. Robert Naiman were sworn in. Mr. Lewis testified that he is the architect for the building proposed by the applicant, which is to be a United Tire Store. They feel this would be a good business to have in Englewood. No cars will be stored on the lot overnight, and will be replacing an auto storage lot with vehicles parked 24-hours per day. Mr. Lewis testified that the proposed building will be approximately 5,000 square feet in area, and will have eight service bays. Mr. Senti asked if the Commission had questions of Mr. Lewis. Mr. Allen stated that he understood this was to be a retail store, and asked if they proposed to handle one line of tires, or many lines. Mr. Naiman stated that they will handle primarily Delta tires, and the business would be mostly the sale of new tires and related uses. Mr. Carson asked if recapped tires would be sold from this outlet. Mrs. ffecker entered the meeting and took her place with the Commission. Mr. Bernard Naiman was sworn in, and testified that United Tire does their own recapping, but they would be handling mostly new tires. The company does wholesale business in Colorado and surrounding states, and specializes in tires, shocks, and realignments. Mr. Naiman stated that there would not be recapping facilities on the subject premises. -4- Mr. Carson asked if the applicants were aware of the recommendations from the staff and if they agreed with them. Mr. Lewis stated that they had read them and did agree. Mr. Carson asked about the landscaping, noting that on the plans, no landscaping is shown on the north property line. Mr. Lewis stated that this abuts a residential property, which is heavily landscaped, and presented a picture to the Commission showing that landscaping. Mrs. Romans asked if Mr. Lewis was aware that the landscaping must be provided by the applicant on his own property; they cannot take credit for landscaping planted on abutting property. Mrs. Romans cited a pro- vision in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance which states that the owners of areas subject to wheeled traffic shall provide screening. Mr. Lewis stated that he has been working closely with the Planning staff, and "they said if the applicant would landscape one of the access points (.curb cut to be closed) from Broadway and provide the landscaping as shown on the site plan on the east side of the property, they felt it would he adequate", and that the residential use was a nonconforming use of the property along Broadway. Mrs. Romans emphasized that property owners must provide landscaping on their own property, and pointed out that the applicant would have no con- trol over property next door, and the landscaping could be removed at any time. Mr. Lewis stated that he was told by the Planning staff that if the land- scaping as he has described was provided, that it would be approved and that it would be "approaching the 10%" requirement. Mrs. Romans stated that she wanted the Commission to be aware that the overall percentage of landscaping on the subject site includes that pro- posed on public property. Mrs. Becker noted that the staff report indicates that 5.7% of the land- scaping is provided on private property; that another 10.2% is provided on public right-of-way. The staff report also notes that two street trees would b.e required to be planted. Mrs. Becker stated that she did not feel the applicant is in compliance if 10% of the private property is to be landscaped, and only 5.7% of the site will be landscaped according to the site plan. Mr. Lewis stated that they would plant the trees, and suggested that they would be planted in the parking strip rather than on-site. Mr. Lewis stated that the applicants feel that by closing one of the curb cuts, they will be doing a great deal for the community by putting this area into grass. Mrs. Becker stated that she recalled that the staff had asked Mr. Lewis if he and Mr. Naiman would want to abide by the conditions set forth in the approval granted previously on this site for an automotive repair shop; she stated that she recalled the staff indicated they were told that Mr. Lewis and Mr. Naiman would not want to comply with those conditions, and that the applicants felt the landscaping on the adjacent property was sufficient. • • • • -5- Mr. Naiman stated that he received a phone call from a staff member that the plans appeared to be OK, and that this was the only knowledge he had of any discussion about landscaping. Mr. Lewis stated that he did have a conversation in early June with the staff, and was made aware that a conditional use had been approved for the site. In response to whether the applicants would abide by the con- ditions approved for the previous applicant, Mr. Lewis stated that he in- formed the staff that the building proposed by Mr. Naiman is much larger, and would be situated differently on the site. Mr. Lewis noted that no landscaping was proposed on the north side of the property under the previously approved plan. Mr. Lewis stated that he also pointed out to the staff that the traffic patterns for this proposed business are dif- ferent from those for the auto repair business previously approved. He stated that he had presented the plans to the Planning staff, and there was agreement that to have landscaping along the north property line would be a duplicate effort. Mr. Lewis emphasized that the residential use to the north is a "nonconforming use". Mr. Lewis stated that the staff approved the relocation of the landscaping to other areas as in- dicated on the site plan. Mr. Lewis stated that he and Mr. Naiman had received the staff report, which they felt was favorable, and that they realize they will have to plant the two street trees. Mr. Stoel questioned whether plantings in the public right-of-way, such as lawn, would be maintained, and whether the maintenance could be en- forced. He stated that he would rather see the greenery in the parking area, if maintained, than somewhere else on the site. Mrs. Romans stated that property owners are required to maintain the area between the side- walk and the curb, but that it could be difficult to enforce maintenance of living plant materials on the public property. Mr. Tanguma asked for clarification of the Zoning Ordinance provision previously cited by Mrs. Romans on areas subject to wheeled traffic. Mrs. Romans stated that such areas must be screened, which screeni ng may he by landscaping or by a wall or solid fence . Mr. Tanguma stated that the question is whether they are complying with the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and as the plan is before the Commission, he does not feel the applicant is complying . Mrs. Becker asked of Mr. Lewis if it is his understanding from the dis- cussion of the Commission and from the materials he has read regarding this case, that on the north side of the property, the applicant must in- stall a fence or provide landscaping . Mr. Naiman stated that he probably wasn't aware of it until this meeting. Mr. Lewis noted that there is a fence on two sides of the property at the present time. Mr. Allen stated that he has looked at this property, and feels that this is a good plan for the site, and that the landscaping as proposed is satisfactory. He stated that he did not see what more landscaping could do for this property, and questioned that the lack of landscaping would bother property owners abutting the subject site • Mr. McBrayer stated that he feels one of the intents of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and of the proposed Landscaping Ordinance is to improve the stre~t scene, and he feels that this intent is being met even if the amount of the landscaping is less than the required 10%. -6- Mr. Venard stated that this site was previously used as a filling station, and asked if the applicants had knowledge whether or not the tanks had been removed. Mr. Lewis stated that he did not know whether the tanks were re- moved or not, but that he appreciated it being called to his attention. Mr. Senti asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. No one else spoke in favor of the proposed tire store. Mr. Senti then asked if there was anyone wanting to speak in opposition to the request. Messrs .. Burt Smith and Doug Anderson were sworn in. Mr. Smith stated that he owns property at 2823 South Broadway, which is within 50 -60 feet to the north of this site, and objects to this business being located on the subject site. Mr. Smith cited problems with parking along South Broadway, and no parking lots are anywhere near for customers to use. He stated that this business will increase the congestion and parking problems along this part of South Broadway. Mr. Smith discussed the difficulty he has providing parking for his customers and employees. Mr. Allen pointed out that the proposed business will have 14 off-street parking spaces on their site. Mr. McBrayer asked Mr. Smith how many off- street parking spaces he provided at his business. Mr. Smith stated that he had three parking spaces. He noted that there is space for maybe six to eight cars in the back, but these vehicles have to be moved to use the back door of the shop in loading and/or unloading. Mr. Smith stated that he felt any kind of retail outlet on this site would add to the problems of parking and general traffic congestion. Mr. Smith also noted that the Bear Frame & Axel, right across the street, is one of the biggest tire outlets in the area. Mr. McBrayer pointed out that by closing one curb cut, possibly two on- street parking spaces would be added . Mr. Stoel stated that the subject site is vacant other than the storage of cars by a car dealership; he asked Mr. Smith what he wanted to see on the site. Mr. Smith stated that he is sorry to see the car dealership moving the cars from the site; they did not contribute to the traffic movement and congestion in the block. He stated that he does not want to see the traffic increased, and is against the proposal. Mr. Venard asked for clarification of the location of Mr. Smith's business in relation to the subject site. Mr. Smith stated that the address of his business is 2823 South Broadway. He noted that when customers park in his driveway, they are given tickets by the police officers. Mr. Doug Anderson stated that he owns two properties to the north of the subject site, and has control of a third property. Mr. Anderson stated that in reviewing the list of permitted uses for this site, he is aware that there could be a use which would generate much more parking and congestion, and is appreciative of the Planning Commission's efforts to • assure provision of parking by each individual business. Mr. Anderson • stated that in relation to the matter of parking, the applicant has pro- posed 14 off-street parking spaces, with eight service bays; he asked how many employees are to be affiliated with the business, and where they would park. He questioned that the 14 parking spaces would be sufficient for employees. and customer vehicles. Mr. Anderson stated that he purchased • -7- the property at 2845 South Broadway, directly to the north of the subject site, for use as an outdoor photography studio; this property is well landscaped. Mr. Anderson noted that they have experienced some problem during the time the auto dealership had vehicles parked on the lot with the glare and reflection from the cars interfering with the photography on his site. Mr. Anderson noted that the trees on his property at 2845 South B.roadway did at times drop sap which got on the vehicles parked along the north property line; an employee of the auto dealership came onto his property and removed some of the trees, which did cause problems for him, Mr. Anderson, and for the dealership. The dealership did make restitution to him for the trees that had been removed. Mr. Anderson stated that he wants to be a good neighbor, and asked that any use which goes in on the property at 2855 South Broadway provide some type of pro- tection for the fence which he has installed on his south property line. Mr. Anderson stated that he has installed 4" steel poles filled with concrete as a fencing, but they are still damaged by vehicles. He stated that if Mr. Naiman would agree to provide some plan to keep the vehicles back from the fence, he probably would not have an objection to the pro- posed business. Mr. Senti asked if anyone else wanted to speak in opposition. No one else spoke in opposition at this time. Mr. Senti then asked if Mr. Lewis would answer some questions from the Commission. Mrs. Becker questioned whether there is a scale on the site plan. She noted there was a small "5" on the lower part of the plan, and questioned if this was an indication of scale. Mr. Lewis conferred with the Commission on the particular site plan Mrs. Becker had in hand. Mr. Lewis stated that the subject site is 125 feet in depth, and the parking stalls are nine feet in width. Mr. Stoel asked of Mr. Naiman how many employees he will have, and where the employee parking will be. Mr. Naiman stated that the business will probably have six to eight employees. Mr. Naiman stated that both gentlemen who spoke in opposition have pointed our problems to him that he will have to consider further before finally determining to develop the site. He stated that he was not aware of the lack of on-street parking, commenting that he has been to the site in the early morning when the problem didn't seem to be acute. He stated that as far as the fencing around the site is con- cerned, they take pride in the appea-rance of their stores; he noted that the curb. stops do help if they are set back far enough from a fence to prevent the vehicle overhang from hitting the fence. He stated that they do not want problems with their neighbors. He did state that if the trees on the adjoining site drop sap onto the cars on his property, this would be a prob.lem. Mr. Venard asked if a portion of the on-site parking spaces would be allotted to employees of the business. Mr. Naiman stated that on-site parking would be provided for at least three of their employees. Mr. Venard asked ab.out the required street trees, noting that a "typical tree" is indiCated on the plan, and that a tree is not actually at that location. Mr. Naiman stated that this was to indicate a large tree to the north, and stated that the trees have had a lot to do with the placement of the proposed building on the site. Mr. Lewis stated that they would prefer to plant the street trees on the south side of their ownership in the public area, if this is permissible. -8- Mrs. Becker asked where the remainder of the employees would park, if on-site parking is to be allotted for no more than three employees. Mr. Naiman stated that until this evening, he was not aware there was a parking problem in the area, or that he had to supply parking for all of his em- ployees. Mrs. Becker asked how many vehicles they would have parked waiting to get into the bays for servicing. Mr. Naiman stated that they hoped to get as many vehicles on the site as possible, and would like to have at least the 14 parking spaces available. Mr. Lewis. noted that they are providing in excess of the off-street parking as required by the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Senti asked if anyone else wished to speak on the matter. M$. Jean Anderson was sworn in. MlS. Anderson stated that nobody has brought up the fact that there is a day care center two properties to the north of the subject site, and that the play yard for the smaller children extends across the back of their property at 2845 South Broadway abutting the subject site. Mrs. Anderson stated that she had opened the day care center, and sold it in January, but the play yard is abutting the subject site across the back yard of their property. Mrs. Anderson commented on the noise that is inherent in such business establishments --the pneumatic equipment used in installing tires --would not be compatible with the day care use. Mrs. Anderson noted that the traffic both on Broadway and the Broadway/Acoma alley is heavy in the morning and evening when parents are dropping the children off or picking them up at the day care center. Mrs. Anderson pointed out that this play area is for use of children one to three years of age. Mr. McBrayer asked Mrs. Anderson what sort of development she would prefer on the subject site. Mrs. Anderson suggested that perhaps a small office or small, quiet retail use would be acceptable; something that would not contribute to the traffic congestion and would not be too noisy. Mr. Anderson stated that the land between the sidewalk and the curb belongs to the City, and that when he built a building, he was not allowed to include planting in this as part of his landscaping. Mr. Allen asked if landscaping of the area between the curb and the side- walk is counted on the total landscaping requirement. Mrs. Romans stated that it is not; only the property in private ownership is counted toward the landscaping requirement, even though a property owner is responsible for maintenance of the parking strip. Mr. Senti asked if anyone else wished to speak regarding this request. There was no one else who wished to speak . Mr. Senti asked that the staff report be made a part of the record of the Hearing. Carson moved: Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #15-83 be closed. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, None Barbre The motion carried. Becker, Carson • • • • -9- Mr. Stoel asked what was meant by the condition that "an occupancy permit not be issued until the landscaping is installed"; what landscaping did this mean. Mrs. Romans stated that the landscaping as shown on the plan is required to be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. ·Discussion ensued. Becker moved: The Planning Commission disapprove the request for a United Tire Store as a Conditional Use at 2855 South Broadway. There was no second to Mrs. Becker's motion; Chairman Senti declared the motion dead. Carson moved: Tanguma seconded: The Planning Commission approve the request for a United Tire Store as a Conditional Use at 2855 South Broadway, with the following conditions: 1. No body work, dismantling, or collision repair shall be permitted. 2. Motor vehicles being serviced or stored while waiting to be serviced or called for, shall not be parked on the street, in the alley, on the sidewalk, or in the parking strip. 3. All work shall be performed within an enclosed structure. 4. No materials, tire stock, or parts shall be de- posited or stored on the premises outside of an en- closed structure. 5. An Occupancy Permit shall be issued until the landscaping is installed. Mrs. Becker spoke in opposition to the motion, stating that she did not feel provis.ion of 5. 7% landscaping on private property is sufficient; there seems to be a reluctance on the part of the applicant to provide additional landscaping on the north property line of their ownership or some other means to prevent cars from running into Mr. Anderson's fence; she is also concerned about the noise inherent in this type of business. Mrs. Becker stated that if she were a residential property owner across the alley to the west, she would be extremely displeased with the daily noise from this ousiness. Mr. McB .rayer stated that he would vote in favor of the motion, noting that the Commission determined to view such uses as Conditional Uses to give an opportunity to try to improve the "street scene", by encouraging land- scaping, control of noise, air pollution, etc. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt there are other uses which could go in on this site without con- sideration of the Conditional Use which would create just as much or more congestion and noise. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt the applicants have shown him they are concerned about the street scene, also, and are providing more than the minimum parking required. They would also be creating some additional on-street parking by the closure of one curb cut. -10- Mr. McB.rayer stated that he felt the motion should be expanded to include the requirement of planting of two street trees, as agreed to by the ap- plicant, and that curb stops be installed along the north property line to prevent vehicles from running into the fence that is presently in place. Mr. McBrayer noted that there was no one from the residential area on South Acoma present to express any concerns about noise, etc. Mr. Tanguma and Mr. Carson agreed to expand the motion to include as a condition of approval: 6. Two street trees shall be planted in the public right-of-way and maintained by the property owner. 7. Curb or bumper stops shall be installed along the north property line to prevent vehicles from hitting the fence belonging to Mr. Anderson. The vote was called: AYES: Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Carson, McBrayer, Senti NAYS: Becker ABSENT: Barbre The motion carried. V. CONDITIONAL USE Funtastic Play Center CASE 1116-83 Mr. Senti stated that this case concerns a request for approval of an in- door Funtastic Play Center in the Cinder Alley area of Cinderella City. Mr. Senti then asked for a motion to open the public hearing. Carson moved: Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing on Case 1116-83 be opened. AYES: Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel NAYS: None ABSENT: Barbre The motion carried. Mr • Jam es Hew: it t 229-8 Green Oaks Drive Littleton, Colorado -was sworn in, and gave a synopsis of his proposed indoor play center for children ages 3 -13 years. All play equipment will be child-powered, and has been carefully engineered and designed. There will be no video games in conjunction with this use. 'llley would like to open for business by the middle of October, and will operate on a year-round hasis. Parents may leave their children here for entertainment while the parents are shopping. Mr. Hewitt stated that while the Physical Vfuimsical is comparaQl e in some facets to this pro- posal, he suggested that the closest comparable facility in the Denver metro area would be Casa Bonita, and Disneyland on a national basis . Mr. Hewitt stated that he has spent 18 months researching this entire concept, and this is the first project that he is involved with. Mr. Hewitt stated that his professional background is in marketing and marketing research. • • -11- Mr. Allen asked where this use would be located in Cinderella City. Mr. Hewitt stated that it will be on the lower level, in the Cinder Alley area, between Joslins and Penneys. In response to further questioning from Mr. Allen, Mr. Hewitt stated that this play area will be enclosed, with heating and air-conditioning for year-round use. Mr. Earl Reynolds 7033 South Buffalo Street -was sworn in, and testified that he is the General Manager of Cinderella City. He noted that he has been working with Mr. Hewitt for the past year to enable this operation to be in Cinderella City. He noted that the ages of 10, 11, 12 and 13 are very impressionable years for young people, and he feels a definite need for the youngsters to have a place to go with good, clean fun. Mrs. Becker asked where the video arcade in Cinder Allen is in relation to the proposed play center. Mr. Reynolds stated that the video arcade would aout the play center to the south. Mr. Senti asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition. Mr. Stieffler 4006 South Rifle Way Aurora, Colorado -was sworn in, and testified that he is the general manager of Physical Whimsical, which is the "first in- door amusement park where everything is child-powered and unique." Mr. Stieff ler stated that the Physical Whimsical opened for business on February 11, 1983, and have made a significant impact on the community, citing sponsorship of several benefits for diabetes, dental care, etc. He stated that the aim of Physical Whimsical is to create an atmosphere to entertain the children and yet be safe. He testified that the Board of Directors of the Physical Whimsical are planning to expand this idea, and will develop similar centers across the country; they are now looking for another location in the Denver area, but their studies have shown that the Denver metro area cannot accommodate any more than two such in- door amusement centers for children. Mr. Stieffler stated that he felt the City of Englewood can and should be very proud of the fact that Physical Whimsical is the first in the U. S. to develop this concept, and that it is located in Englewood. Mr. Stieffler stated that if the proposed Funtastic play center is approved, it would be less than one mile away from the Physical Whimsical, and questioned whether the City would want to have two businesses that are "suffering", or one "healthy" husiness. Mr. Stieffler stated that they approached Cinderella City with the idea of cooperative advertising, and were informed that Cinderella City was not interested. A short time later, one of the employees of the Physical Whimsical noticed a sign posted in Cinderella City giving notice of the hearing for the Funtastic Play area. When this employee asked tne information desk at Cinderella City for a description of the proposed Funtastic, they were told "it's the same as Physical Whimsical." Mr. Stieffler stated that he is in favor of the free enterprise system, but to have another similar indoor amusement center located in such close proximity is "unfair . •t Mrs. Becker questioned what the staffing patterns were for Physical Whimsical --how many employees, and what is the maximum number of children the establishment would allow. Mr. Stieffler stated that they could acommodate 999 children, and have about 15 employees. Up to six -12- years of age, a child must be accompanied by an adult; 15 years of age is considered "adult", and youngsters of that age must be in company of a smaller child. Children ages six to 14 may come to Physical Whimsical by themselves, and would be supervised by their employees. Mr. Allen asked if Mr. Stieffler felt the proposed Funtastic amusement area was a threat to the Physical Whimsical operation. Mr. Stieffler stated that the people affiliated with Physical Whimsical feel that this is a threat. Mr. Carson stated that he understood Mr. Stieffler had proposed joint ad- vertising with Cinderella City; did he intend for the youngsters to walk from Cinderella City over to the Physical Whimsical on Broadway. Mr. Stieffler stated that this was not the intent; the parents would drop the child off at Physical Whimsical prior to going shopping at Cinderella City. Mr. Carson asked if it would not be more convenient for the parents at Cinderella City to have to make only one stop, and the children could play at the Funtastic Center while they shop. Mr. Stieffler agreed that this would probably be much more convenient. He reiterated that they feel Physical Whimsical is "unique", and has made a contribution to the City; they have "resurrected" the life along Broadway. Mr. John Anderson 465 Xavier Street Denver, Colorado 80204 -was sworn in, and testified that he had attended • the meeting as an interested observer. Mr. ~ Anderson stated that he is familiar with the operation at Physical Whimsical, ~ and is somewhat familiar with the operation proposed by Mr. Hewitt. Mr. Anderson stated that he feels Physical Whimsical is trying to avoid competition. Mr. Anderson took exception to the contention of Physical Whimsical that there is no other concept of an amusement park for children in the Denver area, and pointed out Elitches, Show Biz, etc. He stated that he is aware that Physical Whimsical is trying to negotiate a location in Northglenn for a second facility, but they want to avoid competition as much as possible. Mr. Stoel asked if Mr. Anderson is involved in either venture. Mr. Anderson stated that he is not; he would be more involved with Physical Whimsical if he was "involved" . Mr. Tanguma asked if he understood Mr. Anderson to mean that these two businesses wouldn't really hurt each other; did he feel either one of them would be hurt by being in close proximity. Mr. Anderson stated that he couldn't determine how similar they are at this time, and that competition may hurt for a time; but competition can also be a help to a business. He indicated that he doesn't really feel the businesses will be hurt. Mr. Anderson stated that he had to take exception to a business trying to stop someone else from going into a similar business just because it happens to be nearby. There was no one else who wished to address the Commission relative to this matter. Mr. Senti thanked those individuals who spoke to the Commission. Mr. Senti then stated that he does have in hand a copy of the public notice published in the Sentinel, and the Certification of Posting for the site. He asked that the staff report be made a part of the record of the Hearing. • • • -13- McBrayer moved: Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #16-83 be closed. AYES: Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel NAYS: None ABSENT: Barbre The motion carried. McBrayer moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Connnission approve the request for the Funtastic Amusement Center to be located in Cinder Alley in Cinderella City. Mr. McBrayer stated that he would like to point out that in considering re- quests for conditional uses, it is not a criteria of the Commission to look at the matter of "competition"; this is not a criteria used to determine the merits of the individual conditional use. Mrs. Becker questioned how these two establishments can operate without meeting the strict licensing provisions of staff ratio to children, and a nurse being present when a given number of children are in attendance. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt these two businesses come very close to "day care" definition, and questioned why they did not meet those standards. Mrs. Becker stated that she recognizes the need and importance of an amuse- ment area for children, but emphasized that she wants to see very close supervision at both establishments. Mr. Allen stated that he felt the objections to competition are ill-founded, and noted that automobile dealers tend to congregate in a given area. The vote on the motion was called: AYES: Venard, Allen, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Barbre The motion carried. VL FINDINGS OF FACT Design Guidelines CASE 1112-83 Mr. Senti stated that the Findings of Fact pertaining to the amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to incorporate proposed Design Guide- lines are to fie considered for approval. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Findings of Fact for Case #12-83 be approved as written. AYES: Allen, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Becker ABSENT: Barbre The motion carried. -14- VII. PUBLIC FORUM. It was noted that all members of the audience had left the meeting. VIII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE. There was no one from the City Attorney's office present. IX. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans stated that she had nothing to bring before the Commission. X. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mrs. Becker asked if the Commission could review the goals and work pro- gram adopted by the Commission in early 1982. She noted that the Commission cannot undertake any work program without the help and cooperation of the staff, or without the permission and approval of the City Council. Mrs. Becker stated that after the goals and work program for the Commission were developed and adopted, the Commission met with the City Council, and this was one of the topics that was discussed; at that time the City Council indicated that they felt a work program/goals for the Commission • was fine, and that the Commission should work toward the fulfillment of these goals. ~ Item #1, a resource brochure was discussed. It was noted that Ms. Dalquist has been working on this, and that something will be available for review very soon. Item #2, support regarding the Santa Fe Corridor was discussed. It was noted tliat Cliairman McBrayer had written a letter offering the support and assistance of the Commission on this project. Item #3, review of the Comprehensive Plan, is still pending. Item #4, condominium conversion guidelines, has been done and referred to the City Council, and is being reviewed for minor changes. Item #5, landscaping guidelines for multi-family, commercial, and industrial development, has been done and referred to the City Council. Item #6, a Downtown Zone District, has been considered by the Commission and referred to the City Council. Item #7, Zoning Ordinance rev1s1ons, have been considered. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff has pretty thoroughly reviewed the proposed re- visions and has submitted them to the City Attorney's office. The staff is now awaiting legal advice before setting the matter for public hearing hefore the Commission. Item #8, work toward establishment of a community center. This has been done, and purchase of the property was approved by the City Council at their meeting of July 18th. • • • -15- Item #9, review of current annexation policy, was considered. Areas being considered for annexation were briefly discussed. Item #10, review of the litter problem, was considered; it was noted that Cominissioner Allen was doing background work on this matter. Mrs. Becker stated that it appears that six out of the ten items have been completed as far as the Commission work efforts are concerned, and one is currently being worked on. Three matters are still to be taken up in detail. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt this was a very good record for the Commission, and the members could be very satisfied with their efforts. Mr. McBrayer suggested that perhaps new objectives and goals should be developed for the work program for the ensuing year or two. Mr. Stoel commented that he was newly appointed to the Commission when the development of the goals and work program were initially undertaken, and that at times it was confusing; he credited Mrs. Becker with guiding the Commission in the development of the goals and keeping the members on "track", and that the results are a good showing of Mrs. Becker's efforts. Mr. Senti thanked Mrs. Becker for her efforts, and for bringing this up for review by the Commission. Mrs. Becker stated that information included in the packet indicates that the City picnic is scheduled for July 30th, which is very close to the tentative date of the Commission picnic of July 24th, which she had offered to hostess. It was suggested that the Commission picnic be re- set for sometime in August, tentatively for the 21st. Mr. Tanguma expressed his concern regarding the traffic and accidents occurring at the railroad crossings in Englewood, particularly in the area from Tufts to Evans. He stated that grade separations are proposed at several of the intersections, and suggested that perhaps a letter should be written to the Highway Department urging that the construction date for such grade separations b.e advanced. Mrs. Romans stated that the City Council discussed the matter at their meeting on July 18. Further brief discussion ensued. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 P. M •