Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-09-21 PZC MINUTES• • • I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 21, 2004 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:10 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic Center, Ch air Krieger presiding. Present: Absent: Staff : Bleile, Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieger, Mosteller, Roth, Schum, Welker Mueller (excused) Robert Simpson, Director of Community Development Mark Graham, Senior Planner Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 17, 2004 Mr. Hunt moved; Mr. Schum seconded: To approve the August 17, 2004 Minutes. Chair Krieger stated she had a correction. On page 4, third paragraph, it should read: "Chair Krieger stated she believed the draft Ordinance followed the goals with the Comprehensive Plan and the recently adopted Broadway Plan which call for diversity of use on the Broadway Corridor." Mr. Hunt and Mr. Schum accepted Chair Krieger's friendly amendment to their motion. AYES: NAYS: Bleile, Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieger, Mosteller, Roth, Schum None ABSTAIN: Welker ABSENT: Mueller Motion carried. Ill. PUBLIC HEARING Case #2004-28, Auto Use Ordinance Mr. Bleile moved; Mr. Hunt seconded: That the public hearing be opened for Case #2004-28. Mark Graham, Senior Planner was sworn in. Before the Commission is a proposal to amend the use specific standards in the Unified Development Code (UD C) as they relate to automotive sales and rental uses. The request establishes a separate category for those uses in the UDC and provides four categories of criteria that these uses would be subject 1 • • • to. These requirements would only affect newly established businesses in the auto sales or rental use categories. It is staff's recommendation that the Commission recommend approval to City Council. The South Broadway Plan provides criteria which would help revitalize South Broadway. The South Broadway Plan recommends development standards that would revitalize Broadway properties when the physical improvements to a property are not functionally obsolete; otherwise redevelopment is appropriate. It recommends establishing minimum frontage requirements enhancing vehicle and pedestrian safety . It recommends increasing the value and appearance of the Broadway corridor through public and private investment. It also recommends promoting economic growth in Englewood by building on Broadway character, community image, identity, and quality of life. Lastly, it encourages development investment that contributes to the quality of life in Englewood. It is staff's belief that this proposal would raise the bar of these types of development, and would address many of those recommendations from the South Broadway Plan. The actual implementation of the proposal is somewhat complex; there is a table provided on page two of the staff report which is also provided in the text of the draft Ordinance. There are a few categories listing who would be affected . A new auto sales or rental use on a property that had never had that ty pe of use would be subject to all four criteria. In the second category, if it had been 0-5 years since an auto sales or rental use on that property had existed, the property would be exempt from the requirements of the Ordinance. If it had been 5-10 years since an auto/rental use had existed on the property, the property would be expected to meet all the requirements except for "d" the 75 ' lot frontage. In the final category, greater than 10 years, the requirements would be the same as the first category; they would be expected to meet all the requirements. The proposal is the work product of the Auto Use Committee, established by City Council. It is considered to be a good compromise. The auto dealers on the committee worked with the other auto dealers in town and believe the proposal is a workable solution for Broadway and Englewood. In summary, raising the bar for the newly established auto uses would be an improvement. Affected properties would be landscaped and meet City drainage standards. The longer frontages would provide the frontage to landscape and would provide improved access control. Investments in the building such as upgrading them to meet current codes improves the community building stock as well as the public health, safety and welfare. It also improves the quality of life for those working in or patronizing those businesses. The proposed Ordinance will not affect properties with existing automotive sales or rental businesses . Mr. Graham entered the proof of publication into the record and noted the public hearing was published in the Englewood Herald on September 3, 2004 . 2 • • • Chair Krieger asked if a restaurant went out of business and then another restaurant moved into the same building, whether they were grandfathered in with regards to the facility. Mr. Graham responded ; assuming a restaurant is in a zone district which permits restaurants when one restaurant leaves and another moves in, they essentially open the doors and put up the new sign. Chair Krieger asked if they had to meet any new requirements. Mr. Graham stated they typically do not. Mr. Welker provided a scenario of a small auto dealer with less than 75 ' frontage which is looking to increase their size by absorbing an adjacent lot to meet the 75 ' frontage requirement. Mr. Welker asked how the City would consider the property; would it have to meet all the criteria or would it have to meet the criteria only on the new portion that wasn 't a previous auto use. Mr. Graham stated staff is not aware of how all the issues will be addressed. In one sense, the scenario brings the business in compliance with the Ordinance by now having 75 ' frontage . Staff doesn't know what the trigger would be in that case for landscaping. Typically those types of issues are worked out through a series of policies that are adopted informally, brought to the Commission and codified into the Ordinance. There are likely some policies that would be written if that situation arose to guide staff. Mr. Welker stated he has seen that situation in the City in his tenure and is wondering whether or not it should be looked at before it is accepted completely so there is a threshold established on how it is approached. Mr. Graham stated the Ordinance is currently silent on that issue . If the Commission feels that it would improve the implementation of the Ordinance, staff can look at adding some criteria for that particular situation . Chair Krieger asked if Mr. Welker had any suggestions. Mr. Welker suggested proceeding through the hearing first and bringing the issue back during discussion. He missed the study session and perhaps it was discussed during "discussion ensued ." Chair Krieger stated it was not. Ms. Mosteller asked for an explanation of "newly established ." Mr. Graham stated that for the purpose of this Ordinance the existence of a sales or rental business on the property is what determines whether or not it is newly established or fits into one of the other categories . Ms. Mosteller confirmed it is the property use not the business. Mr. Graham stated that was correct; a dealership moving to a property that never had an auto dealership on the property would be subject to all the criteria . Ms. Mosteller asked if the proposed Ordinance also pertained to auto pawn brokers. Mr. Graham stated that was a modification in one of the drafts; originally staff included auto pawn brokers because it was considered a similar use . When revising the draft Ordinance, the City Attorney's office determined auto pawn brokers are addressed in a different section of the UDC and would not be appropriate to include them in this change. Mr. Schum asked if a pawn shop could be opened that was strictly cars and have a car dealership without meeting any criteria. Mr. Graham stated it would be difficult because there are distancing requirements for pawn shops and Broadway is already developed out for pawn shops; there is no more room on Broadway for additional pawn shops. It is not likely that would occur. Mr. Schum asked if that was a system similar to the adult business 3 • • regulation where there is a separation distance between each business. Mark Graham stated that was correct. Ms. Mosteller asked if the proposed Ordinance would supersede the limited use process. Mr. Graham stated staff has looked at the mechanics of implementing the two, and there are some conflicts but hope to reconcile those with perhaps some amendments to the limited use section of the Ordinance. Staff will be discussing that topic with Council on Monday evening. Mr. Graham distributed material prepared for that meeting to the Commission. Under the current Limited Use Ordinance if an auto dealership turns over, the new owner comes into the City, files an application for limited use, and then becomes subject to annual review of their site. They would also file a plan which would address the criteria in the Limited Use Ordinance such as impacts they may generate and how they would mitigate the impacts on adjacent properties. Currently, the Limited Use Ordinance may be more restrictive than the proposed Auto Use Ordinance which is what needs to be reconciled. Chair Krieger clarified if the limited use is for a new dealer, not a new use on the property. Mr. Graham stated that was correct; it uses a different threshold. It uses a change in ownership. Ms. Mosteller stated currently auto sales groups must go through the limited use process . Mr. Graham stated that was correct. Mr. Roth asked if a drug store changes to a restaurant if there is a new set of requirements . Mr. Graham stated in that case there would be. Mr. Roth asked if there would be a phasing in period for those requirements. Mr. Graham stated if a building permit or sales tax license were applied for, staff would need to resolve any zoning issues before it would be signed off. Mr. Schum asked how long a dealership needs to be open on a property to be considered for the five year criteria; is a day or two sufficient. Mr. Graham stated the Ordinance is not specific on that issue; a day or a month would seem to meet the requirements of the Ordinance. Mr. Schum stated that in fact a dealer would not even have to sell a car. Mr. Graham stated typically staff would use a record keeping system such as the State issuing the dealer license. Staff would accept proof that the dealer had a license issued on the property. Mr. Schum asked if that is what staff would use as the determination -the dealership license or will it be that staff will periodically stop by the property throughout the five years to document that it is still a dealership. As an example, Mr. Schum stated if he wanted to maintain his right to an auto dealership, he could operate another business on the property but still put a few cars out in the parking lot for one day and still call it a dealership as long as he maintained his license. Mr. Graham stated from his reading from State statute it would be difficult to do that scenario . The State does not allow the mix of an operation of a dealership with another business. There are other criteria which may preclude someone from doing that for a day. There may be variations on that theme that would be possible to continue to vest that right indefinitely. • Mr. Welker asked if the State issues the license for a particular location or a particular individual. Mr. Graham stated it is issued for a particular location; it has to meet several 4 • • • criteria such as accessible bathrooms; sales records must be kept on site; and be open a certain number of hours. Mr. Welker confirmed that the license goes with a specific piece of property. Mr. Graham responded y es . Mr. Schum stated if he owned a car dealership and decided to lease out his basement to another company, would it be considered to be two conflicting businesses . Mr. Graham stated he didn 't know the minimum threshold other than having accessible bathrooms, records, etc. There are auto dealers in the audience, perhaps those questions could be better addressed by them . Mr. Graham stated he has observed there is a business near Milestone that was an Aamco Transmission and one of the tenant spaces is an indoor auto sales business and another is a different type of business; perhaps a small tenant space would be sufficient for the office purposes of an auto sales business to maintain that right on the property. Mr. Schum stated then a landlord could decide that his property had plenty of space to have a couple of accountants, some offices, and a car dealership on the same property. Mr. Graham stated that was potentially correct. Chair Krieger stated that in that instance it would come before the Commission as a limited use application. Mr. Graham stated that was incorrect; the distinction between limited uses and conditional uses is that limited uses are administratively reviewed and approved; whereas conditional uses are brought to the Commission . Chair Krieger stated it would still need to be reviewed . Mr. Welker stated it would not need to be reviewed if the secondary use was a use by right. Mr. Welker asked if there currently was documentation in the files back 10 years. Mr. Graham stated there is information from 199 7, 2002 and 2003; it is spotty. It is the burden of the business to provide proof if they are in category one, two, or three . They probably have a relationship with the auto licensing bureau, could obtain those records, and could provide that proof to the City . Mr. Welker confirmed that the Ordinance is specific to auto sales and rental , not auto repair or other auto related businesses. Mr. Graham stated that was correct. Ms. Mosteller asked that if in comparison with what exists in the current UDC means that barriers, screening, parking lot markings, bumper curb and wheel stops, entrances and exits, lighting, proximity to public right-of-way, etc. are not applicable with the new Ordinance. Mr. Graham noted that a few are cross referenced . The landscape plan exists and would be a requirement of any newly established business . This Ordinance is more specific and the drainage requirement notifies the dealers that they will be expected to provide a plan for grading and drainage so there aren't situations which have occurred on Broadway where someone demolishes a building, paves it, and starts selling cars before filing the grading or drainage plan. It also provides a lower threshold for requiring drainage because car dealerships typicall y have more impermeable surfaces than the average business . Mr. Welker confirmed that drainage also includes retention requirements. Mr. Graham stated retention requirements will be reviewed by the Public Works Department. They will use their storm drainage criteria manual. His understanding is that the current best practice 5 • • • is that all water needs to flow through some area where it can drop a sediment load before it enters into the storm sewer. Typically, that means flowing through a grassy area that can strain out some of the bigger particles . Mr. Welker stated that retention is also flow rate so there isn't flooding, which is a bigger criteria considered on parking lots. Mr. Graham stated he believes the storm drainage criteria would allow the City Engineer to require a controlled aperture release plate and prescribe the rate they could release back into the storm sewer system or the street. Ms. Mosteller stated she understands what is in the new Ordinance, but what about the other items that are under Automotive Sales , 16-5-2:C3 which is being amended, such as the lighting, exits and entrances, etc. which appl y in the existing UDC which are not included in the new Ordinance. Mr. Graham stated that in order to make the new Ordinance consistent with the format of the UDC it was not necessary to repeat all of those requirements in the new section. It was sufficient to reference the landscape section, drainage, frontage, and buildings because b y cross referencing those the other requirements are included. In the landscaping section , buffering is addressed. The new Ordinance is more streamlined to be consistent with the UDC. Mr. Welker suggested adding a clause referring to all the other standards in a section of the UDC, partly because Section 6, Inconsistent Ordinances of the proposed Ordinance states other sections are hereby repealed if the y are inconsistent or in conflict with the Ordinance. Ms. Reid stated the first section of the new Ordinance deals with removing automotive sales and rentals from use-specific standards under 16-5-2:C3. Commercial Uses. The remaining uses under 16-5-2 :C3 Commercial Uses -Commercial Storage of Operable Vehicles, Parking Area, Surface (Operable Vehicles ), etc. -would be required to comply with requirements 16-5-2:C3 (a-j ), which includes entrances and exits, bumper, curb, wheel stops, markings, barriers and screenings, lighting, proximity, back-out parking, alley improvements, etc. The Ordinance then adds a new 16-5-2:C13 Automotive Sales or Rental Use . These uses are not required to comply with the requirements listed in 16-5- 2:C3(a-j) because they are specifically pulled out. They will be required to comply with landscaping, drainage, lot frontage, and buildings . There are other requirements in the Municipal Code with regard to lighting. Mr. Welker reiterated that Section 6 of the proposed Ordinance states: "All other Ordinances or portions ther eof inconsistent or conflicting with this Ordinance or any portion hereof are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency or conflict." Ms. Reid stated there isn 't an inconsistency because the new Ordinance has been removed from Commercial Uses. Mr. Welker stated he wants to ensure auto sales and rental uses comply with other requirements the Commission wants them to comply with. Ms. Reid stated if the Commission wants them to comply with bumpers, curbs, and wheel stops, those are not in the new Ordinance. Mr. Welker asked if staff has looked at comparing those requirements. Lighting is a big issue for auto sales; wheel stops are appropriate in certain cases. By putting automotive sales and rental uses into a separate category, staff has exempted them from various requirements . 6 • • • Mr. Bleile stated he thought that issue was discussed at the study session and that the requirements do pertain because they are in a previous section of the UDC. Mr. Roth stated Ms. Reid just stated they do not pertain. Mr. Graham stated Section 6 is one way of addressing the issue; another way which is used in Zoning Ordinances is that the more restrictive applies. Ms. Reid stated the purpose of Section 6 was in case staff inadvertently missed something, the most recent Ordinance applies. Mr. Welker stated the way Section 6 is written is that the previous requirements can now be ignored; perhaps the problem is in Section 6. Ms. Reid stated the problem is not in Section 6; it is standard language. If the Commission would like the previous requirements to apply, they need to be added to the Ordinance. Mr. Welker stated that as an Ordinance for land use, the Commission needs to deal with those criteria and they need to be included. Mr . Welker stated they way he reads Section 6, the criteria are not currently included, and continue to not be included. Chair Krieger asked if there was a reason why staff didn't want the additional criteria included . She thought the purpose was to add more restrictions, not remove them. Mr. Graham stated as the Ordinance was drafted, Ms . Langon reminded him that the standards in the UDC were taken from the old Code. Largely what was achieved in the UDC was a reformatting and in some cases the standards were outdated. Tricia went through the original draft which included the criteria and determined the standards that would be required as the Ordinance was redrafted. They would likely be dropped for the other uses as well. She felt the requirements were overly specific and in some cases obsolete. Mr. Welker stated he did not agree. Those standards do not only talk about bumper, curbs, and wheel stops; they also talk about entrances and exists to lots; they talk about lighting; they talk about back-out parking, and alley improvements -all things which are very critical on how we want to organize the access to properties. He believes those are mostly germane still, if not even more important because properties that have existed for a long time may have allowed some of these things the City may not want to allow. He believes those standards are these ones which should be maintained not done away with. This is a very argumentative issue which needs to be dealt with completely and rightly , not let something big like this simply go away. It is not unreasonable because the Commission has accepted a number of things. If a new car dealership comes in and meets other criteria, it should meet all the other criteria as well. Mr. Schum stated one of the requirements that would be dropped is marking of parking lots, structures, and car sales lots. Mr. Welker stated that if it doesn't apply, perhaps it shouldn't be included, but the ones that are applicable need to be included. Mr. Schum stated he believes it does appl y; he wants to see how to travel in and out of lots . Marked parking spaces for the customers are important. Mr . Graham stated that some of those are included in the Landscape Ordinance which requires better definition of drive aisles , definition of patron parking spaces, etc. Mr. Welker stated it should be included in a site plan. Mr. Graham stated staff's approach was to handle it by cross referencing . 7 • • • Chair Krieger confirmed that staff feels everything that was important in the previous list is already handled somewhere else in the UDC. Mr. Graham stated that primarily the landscape plan is a site plan on how the site functions, the impacts, and how the impacts will be mitigated. Mr. Welker stated it should be described as a site plan not a landscaping plan. It could be legitimately argued that all that is required is a landscape plan. Mr. Hunt confirmed that the cross reference in the new Ordinance, 16-5-2:C13(b) Landscape Plan, 16-6-7 EMC has the more specific requirements. Mr. Graham stated that was correct. Ms. Mosteller stated she didn't see anything about entrances and exists, curbs, wheel stops, etc. Ms. Mosteller asked what percentages of businesses on Broadway are currently auto sales and rental uses. Mr. Graham responded that there are approximately 50 dealers and rental businesses. Ms. Mosteller asked how many total businesses are on Broadway. Mr. Graham stated there are approximately 300 businesses on Broadway. There are approximately 95 licensed auto dealers in the City; approximately half are located on Broadway. Ms. Mosteller asked how that compared to other communities. Mr. Graham stated staff did a per capita calculation a few months ago in the course of the Broadway study. The "take home" message was the City has more dealers per capita than other cities, but he does not recall the exact numbers. The information is available and could be provided to the Commission. Mr. Schum asked if a very large dealership would be the same as all 50 Broadway auto properties put together. Mr. Graham stated the new car dealerships are larger than the used car dealerships. Mr. Hunt confirmed there aren't any other cities that have similar special treatment for auto sales and rental uses , such as the timeline which is proposed. Mr. Graham stated he is not aware of another implementation mechanism similar to the one proposed. Other cities regulate auto dealers in a variety of ways. Many had similar requirements for landscaping or frontage. The implementation is a novel part of the Ordinance. Mr. Hunt asked if during staff's research if any average implementation timeline was found. Mr. Graham responded he couldn 't recall any; the mechanisms he is familiar with are similar to nonconforming uses. Some cities have dropped automobile dealerships; in that case the only mechanism he is aware of is that if it is out of business for 180 days it could not be reestablished . Chair Krieger stated it appears this Ordinance is more lenient than a lot of other cities. Mr. Graham stated the reasoning behind the implementation is that there are business cycles which may extend for multiple years; these property owners have invested in the property for a number of years and may stop selling cars when the business cycle is down but resume within five years. They felt that was a reasonable window to give the auto dealers considering their longstanding investment in the facilities. Mr. Schum asked if there was anywhere in Englewood that the City welcomes car dealers . What he sees is a bunch of "we don't want you." He has never thought of Englewood as that type of city. If Broadway is not the best place for car dealers, perhaps the City should look at a different location for car dealerships to develop and locate in a friendly manner. Mr. Graham stated the earlier version of the Broadway Plan looked at that scenario which 8 • • • would designate an area that would be more appropriate for auto dealerships, such as the Cherrelyn District which tends to function more as a highway and is less pedestrian in characteristic. Mr. Schum stated he remembers that Plan; he is talking about another area in the City located off Broadway that is "up and coming." Chair Krieger asked if the Ordinance applied to all auto uses in the City not just on Broadway. Mr. Graham stated it applies to auto uses in the MU-B-2 zone district. It would not apply to the industrial districts since auto uses are a use by right. Mr. Roth asked if a dealership in operation and ceases to operate, how will the city know when it ceases to operate to start the "clock" on the five years. Mr. Graham stated that is one of the things that has to be worked out. To the extent that the Limited Use Ordinance is used as an opportunity to register when the business starts and the annual inspection is a provision of the Ordinance, the City would find out at least annually whether or not the business was still in operation. Chair Krieger stated that as soon as the City understood it wasn 't an active auto business, the five years would start. Mr. Graham stated that was correct. Mr. Diekmeier asked of the 50 dealers how many would have an immediate impact from the Ordinance. Mr. Graham stated that none would be affected. Chair Krieger stated they are current dealers; only new properties would be affected. Mr. Graham stated the earliest the Ordinance would affect an auto dealer currently in business was if they closed tomorrow it would be five years and one day before they would be required to meet three of the four requirements. If a new property wanted to open an auto dealer or rental use , they would be required as soon as the Ordinance went into effect to meet all the standards. Mr. Welker stated an additional condition needs to be looked at for auto dealers that wish to add their property. He sees that as likely as someone acquiring a property that hasn't to this point had an auto dealership on it. Mr. Graham asked if he had a specific threshold in mind, such as any expansion or a certain percentage of expansion. Mr. Welker stated that typically a 50 percent lot frontage expansion would be a threshold to consider. Mr. Hunt stated the assumption is the property being adjoined is not an auto use. Mr. Hunt stated his interpretation would be that if an auto use has never existed on the subject property that new area falls into the new category. Mr. Welker stated because of the idea that you can improve an existing frontage by adding a little bit of land to it based on some of the goals we have, that might be a condition that we do not want to require the whole property to be brought up to standards. Ms. Mosteller asked Mr. Hunt to explain his reasoning. Mr. Hunt stated that the first column in the Ordinance defines new auto sales or rental use as "an auto use has never existed on the subject property." To him that logically means that if an existing dealership adds on to its property a piece of land that never had an auto use on, it should fall in the newly established category. Mr. Welker reiterated that is why he is trying to address it. A dealer that is currently existing and legal but wishes to expand to neighboring property that has never been an auto use, how does the dealer comply with the Ordinance. Chair Krieger asked if the Commission really wants to force the dealer who is expanding their lot 9 • • • to make it more desirable from the City's standpoint to comply with all the standards. Mr. Hunt stated he understands, but simply expanding the property doesn't make it more appealing. Mr. Welker stated his point is the Commission needs to address the issue; if it is taken to the letter of the law, the property would need to be brought into total compliance at least on the new lot. One of the ideas considered is to keep car dealers from growing and minimizing the impacts on our frontages and business districts. If they make a better business by growing onto adjacent property that hasn't been a previous auto dealership, they can then make an attractive business to the City. The Commission needs to decide how much they have to do between the one is exempt and one is not to be allowed to grow. Mr. Bleile suggested discussing this issue after the public hearing is closed. Palaua Sparacino of Richard's Motors, 3809 South Broadway, was sworn in. Ms. Sparacino testified that she is in favor of the Ordinance . She is a member of the Auto Use Committee and was appointed by City Council. She and the other members of the committee worked very hard to have an Ordinance which would bring value to the City for the newly established auto lots. In the future, the committee will work on the existing auto lots. Mr. Welker's comments on an existing lot expanding can be incorporated into the committee's discussion at a later date. The issues relating to lighting and screening were discussed by the committee, and the new dealers would need to comply with those standards; it just didn 't get written into the Ordinance because of the complexity of the UDC. The Ordinance is a very good compromise between the committee and the City. It works much better than arguing. She expressed that the committee is in favor of the Ordinance . Mr. Schum asked how many Broadway dealers are represented on the committee. Ms. Sparacino stated members were appointed by City Council. There are three dealers and a property owner. One of the dealers has property on Broadway as well as off Broadway. Mr. Welker asked if the committee is in contact with other dealers that are not represented on the committee. Ms. Sparacino stated the committee is in contact with other dealers. Mr. Hunt asked how significant the requirements are to auto dealers. Ms. Sparacino stated they are very significant. Seventy-feet of frontage on Broadway to start a dealership is an expensive investment. There is an investment the committee decided needed to be made into the City by new dealers which would keep them and which would also bring in a higher quality of dealer. There are some very good dealerships on Broadway; ones that have been recognized by at the state and national level as quality dealers . There are some dealers that are not up to those standards. The committee determined a monetary investment will keep a business in the City longer. If a newly established business must comply with the standards, they will be a higher quality of business to come in and have the capital to build it. The State requires a dealer to have net worth to obtain a license; a suitable place of business; a dealer can't have another business in with the dealership. A dealer may have multiple locations, but each location is licensed and costs extra money to be licensed. There are many more regulations to becoming a dealer than most people understand . Mr. Hunt asked for the committee 's thought process behind the timeline. Ms. Sparacino responded the committee wanted a use by right which it can 't have because the auto 10 • • • dealers are a limited use. As property owners protecting their property rights, the committee went along with a phased in approach. Initially, they wanted existing auto dealers to be grandfathered in, but the committee understood the ups and down of the market so it looked at the issues. It is more of a property rights issue as owners. In addition, it is a bottom line number for leasing. Car dealers bring in more revenue to a property owner than a beauty shop. Mr. Welker asked Ms. Sparacino to address any differences between her license and an auto pawn license. Ms. Sparacino responded that there are different regulations for auto pawn than there are for dealers. A retail dealer has a different license than an auto pawn. Richard 's Motors at one time held an auto pawn license. An auto pawn business holds the property for a certain amount of money and timeframe. If the owne r does not reclaim the car, the business can sell the car. The dealer's license is much more retail/wholesale. She does not have that much experience in the auto pawn business. She did indicate that it is her understanding that there is not any more space available on Broadway for auto pawn since it has been regulated out. Mr. Welker stated it may not be specific to the Ordinance, but the Commission has discussed the issue a number of times and have never had the opportunity to talk with someone with the necessary background . Jon Cook, 2466 South Cook Street, was sworn in. Mr. Cook stated he did not have any particular comments, but he was available to answer questions from the Commission. Mr. Welker asked his relationship to the issue . Mr. Cook responded that he is a wholesale auto dealer; the name of his company is Colorado Auto Group. He also owns Auto Dealer Lending and lends money to the car dealers on Broadway and other areas for their inventory . He is also a property owner and owns a number of automotive-style properties, many of them on South Broadway. Mr. Schum asked Mr. Cook if he feels the Ordinance will work for dealers on Broadway. Mr. Cook responded he believe it will . He and Ms. Sparacino made man y trips to different dealers on Broadway to talk to them about this issue. He explained to each one of them that he owns properties that would be affected as well as them. Economically it favors him to already own a car lot. Once the Ordinance is in effect, car lots will become more valuable. The process is attrition; it will become more difficult for someone to purchase a piece of property and convert it to an auto dealership because the standards will make it prohibitive from a lease standpoint. The only people he sees coming in are owner/operators. Owners take much more pride in their operations. He doesn 't see many, if any, investors coming in. Regarding auto pawn, Ms. Reid clarified that auto pawn has a pawn license and the City treats it as a pawn shop rather than an auto use . Ms. Mosteller asked what the major opposition was to the new UDC that drove the creation of the Auto Use Committee or was it something that stemmed from the first South Broadway Plan . Robert Simpson , Director of Community Development, was sworn in. Mr. Simpson testified that the Comprehensive Plan drives regulations. The UDC is not in disfavor of or 11 • • • creating a particular situation toward auto related uses . Over the past several years, the Comprehensive Plan , South Broadway Plan, and the UDC have been moving forward and they have just been off step by maybe six months. The reality is a lot of regulations may have been created within the UDC that expect higher standards for business in general in the community; auto uses have that applied to them also. As the South Broadway Plan proceeded through the process last year, it incurred a lot of conflict in the community and with the business community. When the moratorium was lifted on auto uses, the current Council chose to address some of the conflicts by creating an Auto Use Committee and began working through what they felt where both City and business interests to attempt to reach common ground. Mr . Bleile asked Ms. Mosteller if she remembered the South Broadway Plan. Ms. Mosteller stated she wasn 't on the Commission for the original Plan, but was on the Commission for the revised Plan. Mr. Bleile stated the original Plan contained a lot of specifics relating to auto related businesses which created a lot of conflict. From the feedback Council received , they established the Auto Use Committee. Mr . Simpson asked Ms. Mosteller if perhaps she was referring to a conflict between the draft Ordinance and the Limited Use Ordinance. Ms. Mosteller stated she wanted to know that if there weren 't an y issues within the UDC then why is it being amended. Mr. Simpson stated the draft Ordinance goes further than the UDC. The UDC does have some conflicts with the draft Ordinance, and staff will be working to clarify those. The draft Ordinance actually creates a higher standard because it addresses newly established auto uses. As Mr. Cook testified , by establishing the Ordinance and creating the standards, it creates a higher standard for new auto sales business . The effect will be a new business will be owner occupied and will be of better quality . Mr . Bleile moved: Mr . Welker seconded: To close the public hearing for Case #2004-28. AYES : NAYS : Bleile, Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieger , Mosteller, Roth, Schum, Welker None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Mueller Motion carried. Mr. Welker moved: Mr. Roth seconded : In Case #2004-28, Auto Use Ordinance, recommend approval to City Council with the following amendments: 1. 16-5-2:C3a-j be added 2 . Change Landscape Plan reference to Site Plan Chair Krieger stated she didn 't believe the title of the Landscape Plan could be changed to Site Plan because it is pursuant to the Landscape Plan Ordinance. Mr. Welker stated he 12 • • • wants a requirement for a site plan that is more broad that discusses these other elements as a requirement for submission which a landscape plan is typically a part of. A site plan will include building location and other broader items, whereas a landscape plan may just deal with landscaping which is not what he is asking for . Chair Krieger stated a site plan would need to be submitted during the building permit process. Mr . Welker stated there is a site plan for building plan submission, and there is site plan for zoning; they are treated somewhat differently. He would like a specific site plan for zoning which depicts setbacks and the other requirements of a site plan which have nothing to do with landscaping. A landscaping plan is typically a supplement to a site plan. Ms. Reid stated there is not a definition for site plan in the UDC. She confirmed that Mr . Welker is looking for the site plan to include buildings , driveways, etc. Mr. Welker stated it didn't needed to be defined in the Ordinance because it is defined elsewhere in the Code; but a site plan is needed to know where cars will be parked, how the site will be accessed , what will be landscaped, and what part will be building. Mr. Bleile asked for clarification on the motion that it was for newly established auto uses not existing auto uses . Mr . Welker stated his suggested amendments are under the requirements for newly established auto uses. He accepts the idea of phasing it in for terms of use. He is trying to establish a complete set of standards . Mr . Welker clarified his motion . He is suggesting adding the following amendments to the Ordinance as requirements for newly established auto sales and rental uses: 1. Site Plan 2. Landscape Plan 3 . Other specifics that are currently in 16-5-2:C3(a-j) The proper language is asking for a site plan and the other items list what is included in the site plan . Ms. Mosteller stated the timeline is lengthy; five years is a long time to allow something to sit and not have anything done to it and still be allowed to revert to the same use again. She understands the presentation regarding business cycles, but that is economics; every business goes through a business cycle. Having the luxury of keeping something available without necessary improvements would be wonderful for every business, but it should not be applied for that reason. Chair Krieger stated all businesses have that luxury. Ms. Mosteller stated a kennel cannot be in a B-2 district, leave and become a kennel again in five years without adhering to new standards. Chair Krieger stated she believed they could; that was one of the questions she asked. Ms . Mosteller stated a kennel is a limited use, the same as an auto dealer. Chair Krieger stated she understood . Mr. Welker asked Ms. Mosteller if five years was too much what did she feel was more acceptable . Mr. Hunt stated he agreed with Ms. Mosteller; the phasing issue is a big issue for him . He does not have the perspective of trying to get rid of certain businesses; that is not a concern for him at all . His issue during the study session was that large 13 • • • inconsistencies are being created for a very specific use . He appreciates the background and understands there needs to be a phasing, but five to ten years to him seems absurd; he doesn't see things changing with that type of timeline. Mr. Schum stated that just because a property hasn't been a car dealer for five to ten years doesn't mean the owner hasn't kept the property up . Mr. Hunt stated he is not arguing that point. If there is a viable auto use on the property, there is no issue even if the timeline is zero to six months. Mr. Welker stated the issue is that it goes back in time for a use that is presently not in use but was a period of time of go. If a business meets that qualification, in this case five to ten years, they don't have to meet all the requirements. Mr. Hunt stated he is open to a special provision; he is not advocating 180 days, but 5 to 10 years is too much. Mr. Schum stated he doesn 't believe it is too much, especially after hearing Ms. Sparacino's testimony of the ups and downs of the business. Ms. Mosteller stated that can happen in any business. Mr. Schum stated if the property is already built for a car lot, the owner should have the right to use their property to the maximum. If the Commission removes their right to use it as a car lot after six months, unless they jump through a bunch of hoops, places a huge financial burden on the owner. Mr. Bleile stated he had a procedural question . There is currently a motion on the floor regarding the requirements; how could the timeline be addressed. Ms. Reid stated the only motion on the floor is a motion from the staff report with Mr. Welker's changes, which was seconded. If someone wishes to make an amendment to that motion, the Commission would vote on that motion first. If that motion passes, it changes Mr. Welker's motion . If it fails , the Commission would then vote on the original motion. Chair Krieger stated she doesn 't have an objection to the five years; the ten years does seem a bit extreme. She also feels there has been a lot of compromise and discussion on all sides with Council, staff, and business owners. If they feel the draft Ordinance is a viable compromise, the Commission should respect what the committee has drafted and pass it the way it is written. Mr. Welker agreed; he only offered some amendments to be consistent. Ms. Mosteller stated she appreciates that argument, but it is before the Commission and is the Commission's decision to make. Mr. Hunt agreed; it is not the Commission's responsibility to blindly accept a committee's recommendation . Mr. Welker asked what their recommended timeline would be. Mr. Bleile suggested putting it to a vote. Mr. Hunt moved; Ms. Mosteller seconded: To change the implementation timeline to 0-2 years, 2-5 years, and greater than 5 years. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: Diekmeier, Hunt, Mosteller, Roth, Bleile, Schum, Welker, Krieger None 14 • • • ABSENT: Mueller Motion failed. Chair Krieger stated even though the motion failed, it is on the record for City Council to read that the Commission disagreed on the timeline. Chair Krieger stated she understands Mr. Welker's amendments; however, she would feel more comfortable sending the Ordinance with approval with the condition that staff make sure all the items are in fact included within the references. Mr. Welker stated he could amend his motion since it would achieve the same purpose . Ms. Reid stated the motion is broad enough to make it match the other requirements. Mr. Welker stated that was his intent; his fear was that without adding in the other requirements the City would be allo w in g a whole lot of things that it doesn 't want to allow. Chair Krieger stated she didn 't want to make it cumbersome or out of character. Chair Krieger stated if there was no further discussion , the vote would be taken on the origin al motion which was to forward the ordinance to Council with a recommendation with the amendments put forth by Mr. Welker. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Bleile, Diekmeier, Krieger, Roth, Schum , Welker Hunt, Mosteller None Mueller Motion carried. IV. MULTI-YEAR CAPITAL PLAN Mr. Graham distributed an updated version of the spreadsheet and stated there will be additional changes throu ghout the week before Council makes decisions on the items. In some cases, there were items that dropped out and in some cases the amounts were reduced . Ms . Reid went through the spreadsheet line by line and explained the changes from the previous version the Commission received in their packet. Mr. Welker stated the Commission has previousl y looked at recommendations for projects such as the bridge o v er US 285 ; those projects have been lost and need to be looked at again. He didn 't believe the y wouldn 't ever be talked about again, even though he knows there isn 't any money for those projects now. Mr. Simpson responded that Council indicated to staff that there are a number of projects going unfunded this year . As a result, what the Commission sees on this year's MYCP are projects that have been identified, some of which have been deferred . Mr. Welker stated it is the paper trail which seems to be lost. Mr. Welker stated the Commission battled for several years to get projects it thought were viable on the list. He would like to see a continued paper trail. Chair Krieger asked if those projects are still identified somewhere in the City. Mr. Simpson stated they are; Ms. Reid stated they are listed in a book. Mr. Welker stated for the benefit of the new 15 • • • members, the Commission battled for a long time as to what the Commission actually tries to accomplish regarding the MYCP. The Commission attempts to have an actual voice regarding the MYCP; no other Board or Commission is asked for input. By charter, the Commission does have input. Mr. Schum asked why there is a $400,000 difference between the two versions . Mr. Simpson responded there was a need to transfer money from the MYCP to the general fund. The Finance Department inadvertently failed to include a Brownfields loan payment on the Centennial Park and one other major item was accidentally left out; those costs were so significant that it required a transfer of funds. Regarding the Bates Street li ght rail station , Mr. Schum asked if the money would need to be available in 2005 if FasTracks passes. Mr. Simpson responded it would not; there is a need to put money aside, but the City is not held by a contract to put aside a certain amount of money each year. Chair Krieger asked the Commission how the y wished to proceed; the budget is almost set in stone this year. She agrees with Mr. Welker; there are years when the Commission 's input is more important; this is not one of those years. Discussion ensued. Mr. Welker stated the budget is actually for 2005; the Commission 's power is actually on the Multi-Year Capital Plan which is completely different. The MYCP discussion can be held at a different time and some of those projects can be brought back at that time to work on. When the budget discussion happens again next spring, the Commission can put some of those projects back onto the list based on the multi-year plan. Mr. Simpson stated he felt that was an excellent suggestion . Staff can prepare a study session in the next few months to discuss the Multi-Year Capital Plan. Mr. Welker stated the one difference this year is that there is open space money which Community Development can attach some claim to; that money is bey ond this budget because it is a separate pool of money. Mr. Simpson stated when staff holds the study session on capital needs, the open space tax will be part of that discussion. Discussion ensued. Chair Krieger asked how the Commission needed to proceed . Ms. Reid stated the Commission needs to review the plan as it has been presented, and make a motion to forward the 2005 Public Improv ement Fund Recommendations to the City Manager. Mr. Hunt moved; Mr. Bleile seconded: To forward the 2005 Public Improvement Fund Recommendations dated September 21 , 2004 to the City Manager. AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bleile, Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieger, Mosteller, Roth, Schum, None Welker Mueller 16 • Motion carried. • • Chair Krieger stated she agrees with Mr. Welker. The Commission did not receive a Multi- Year Capital Plan; it only received 2005 . V. PUBLIC FORUM No one was present to address the Commission. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Simpson stated City Council approved the Denver Seminary PUD by a 7-0 vote . Chair Krieger stated the Englewood Herald kept stating Council seriously amended the PUD, but never commented on how it was seriously amended . Mr. Simpson responded that there was a little technical "glitch" in publication versus what was recommended . As a result, it went through one more leg al hearing; there was a two week delay . There was no difference in the recommendations the Commission provided. Mr. Bleile asked if there was a lot of public input at the Council hearings. Mr. Simpson stat ed there w as less input than at the Commission hearings. VII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE M s. Reid distributed and discussed an article from the Zoning Bulletin. VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Schum stated Ms . Langon called him, apologized, and did a very good job explaining the frustrations she has with the Commission. He agrees with her; he is as guilty as anyone on t h e Commission. Commissioners do interrupt staff when they are trying to make a pres entation because we have a question or are in a conversation. He understands how th at can be frustrating . He believes Ms. Langon is a very outstanding Planner for the City. Mr. Bleile confirmed that Pirates Cove is closed for the season. Mr. Simpson stated that was correct. Mr. Bleile asked if Englewood or COOT owned the signal at the intersection . Mr. Simpson stated he belie v ed it is owned by COOT. Mr. Bleile stated that if Pirates Co v e is closed whether the light could be changed to a flashing yellow until Pirate Coves reopened. Mr. Simpson stated he would refer the matter to Public Works . The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. ton, Recording Secretary 17