Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-01-10 PZC MINUTES• CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION January 1 O, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:10 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic Center, Chair Krieger presiding. Present: Absent: Staff : Brick, Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieger, Knoth, Roth, Welker Bleile, Mosteller (Excused) Anthony Fruchtl, Planner Mark Graham, Senior Planner Robert Simpson, Community Development Director Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 6, 2005 Mr. Diekmeier moved: Mr. Hunt seconded: TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 6, 2005 MINUTES . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieger, Knoth, Roth, Welker None Brick Bleile, Mosteller Motion carried. Ill. PUBLIC HEARING Case #USE2005-00010 21 East Bates Avenue Cha ir Krieger stated the issue before the Commission is Case #USE2005-0010, 21 East Bates Avenue. The applicant is seeking a conditional use to allow a parking area for operab le vehicles as a principal use within the MU-R-3-A Mixed Use Residential/Limited Office -Retail Zone District as part of a Starbucks Coffee redevelopment site. Chair Krieger asked for a motion to open the public hearing. Mr. Welker moved: Mr. Knoth seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #USE2005-00010 be opened. 1 • AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Brick, Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieger, Knoth, Roth, Welker None None Bleile, Mosteller Motion carried. Mr. Knoth disclosed that he works for a firm that represents Starbucks in their real estate transactions. Since he is not the employee doing the real estate transaction in this case and has no personal or financial gain from this particular transaction, he believes he can make an impartial decision in this case. Chair Krieger asked staff to present the case. Anthony Fruchtl, Planner was sworn. Mr. Fruchtl stated this would be his last case before the Commission as he is leaving the City and beginning a new job with Centex Homes. He thanked the Commission for their support while he worked for the City and presented various projects to the Commission. Mr. Fruchtl stated the property was properly posted the required 15 days prior to the hearing and was published in the Engl e wood Herald on December 23, 2005. This was done in accordance with Section 16-2:3G of the Englewood Municipal Code. The posting and publication were handed to the recording secretary and officially entered into the record. Further, the applicant submitted a landscape plan after the application was sent to the Commission. Mr. Fruchtl submitted the landscape plan to the Commission for their review. Mr. Fruchtl stated the applicant is seeking a conditional use to allow a parking area for operable vehicles as principal use within the MU-R-3-A Mixed Use Residential/Limited Office -Retail Zone District as part of a Starbucks Coffee redevelopment. The property is located at 21 East Bates Avenue, on the north side between Broadway and South Lincoln Street. The Commission can only approve conditional uses if it promotes the health, safety and general welfare of the community and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, before approving the conditional use permit, the Commission needs to make findings that the conditional use will implement the purposes of this Title and will meet the following requirements: 1. The use must be permitted as a conditional use in the zone district in which it is proposed to be located. 2. Taking into consideration any proposed m1t1gatio11 measures, the conditional use shall not create significant adverse impacts on either the existing development in the surrounding neighborhood or on any future development permitted by this Title . Significant adverse impacts include but are not limited to: 2 a. Significant increases in traffic generation and parking beyond what would be generated by a use by-right; b. Building heights or bulk are significantly larger or more massive than those on nearby properties; c. Lack of screening of parking, loading, traffic circulation, or outdoor activities, garbage collection facilities and storage; d. Significant intrusions of noise, light, dust, or glare onto nearby properties; e. Significant increases in burdens on housing, schools, public utilities, or governmental services beyond those that would be generated by a use by- right; or f. Hours of operation that begin significantly earlier or end significantly later than those on nearby properties. 3 . The number of off-street parking spaces shall not be less than the requirements of Section 16-6-4 of the Englewood Municipal Code. 4. The Conditional Use shall meet all other applicable provisions of the Englewood Municipal Code. 5. If the application is for a telecommunications tower or antenna, it shall also conform with any additional standards and requirements for such uses specified in Chapter 16-7 of the Englewood Municipal Code . Mr. Fruchtl stated that prior to the adoption of the Unified Development Code (UDC) on February 23, 2004, parking surfaces located within the R-4 zone district, currently the MU- R-3-A zone district, were permitted as a use by-right. With the adoption of the UDC, the zoning category was changed and private off-street parking lots were only permitted through the conditional use process. The applicant is requesting a conditional use to create a parking area ancillary to the Starbucks Coffee establishment which is located along the east side of South Broadway and is a permitted use within the MU-B-2 zone district. Mr. Fruchtl clarified that the Starbucks is a permitted use along the Broadway Corridor, and the application is specifically for the parking area which is ancillary to the coffee establishment. The parking lot is needed to meet the parking requirements of the Englewood Municipal Code. The analysis of the overall project is that as properties begin to develop and redevelop within the MU-B-1 and MU-B-2 zone districts, a reinvestment in the City is beginning to take place. The City is tasked with balancing sustainable development that supports reinvestment with existing and adjacent neighborhoods. Although a disconnect between current regulations, goals of the Comprehensive Plan, and construction parameters such as lot depth, lot width and restrictive development standards relating to parking requirements exists, the City recognizes that developments such as the Starbucks Coffee and the ancillary parking promote the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. • As proposed, the Starbucks Coffee site and the conditional use application have been reviewed by members of the Development Review team. Per review, the proposed 3 conditional use application meets all the requirements of the Englewood Municipal Code. The site plan supports a balance between reinvestment along the South Broadway Corridor, addresses the requirements of the UDC, and the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. It will not negatively impact the existing established neighborhood. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve Case #USE 2005- 00010, a request to allow a parking area for operable vehicles as a principal use within the MU-R-3-A Mixed Use Residential/Limited Office -Retail Zone District as part of the Starbucks Coffee redevelopment site. Mr. Fruchtl stated he or the applicant would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Welker asked if the Commission was considering conditional use only on the east portion of the site. Mr. Fruchtl stated that was correct; the conditional use application is specific to the parking area. Chair l<rieger asked what other uses would be permitted within the MU-R-3-A zone district as a use by-right. Mr. Fruchtl responded that the MU-R-3-A zone district permits office uses and higher destiny residential, such as apartment buildings. It is intended to be adjacent to the business corridor and have higher density developments. Mr. Brick asked who currently owned the property and how long it has been owned by that person. Mr. Brick stated he went by the property earlier in the week, and it appears very dilapidated. Mr. Fruchtl responded that it is owned by Jon Cook, the applicant. Jon Cook, 2466 South Cook, was sworn in. Mr. Cook stated that he has owned the property for six months. Mr. Welker stated the MU-R-3-A zone district requires a 12,000 square foot area minimum for off-street parking. This parking area is approximately half of that. Mr. Fruchtl responded that if the principal use in the MU-R-3-A zone district was a use by right, then there would be a 12,000 square foot minimum. Since this is a conditional use application, it is permitted to be a smaller size. Mr. Welker stated he would like more information on the wall. He clarified that it was the north wall along the parking that buffers between the site and the residential site on the north. Robert Simpson, Community Development Director was sworn in. Mr. Simpson responded that at a minimum the wall will be a six-foot wooden fence. At this time, it has not been fully designed. Mr. Welker stated his issue is more the opacity to protect lighting. Mr. Simpson responded that it can be a solid wooden fence. 4 Mr. Welker stated his next issue deals with the trash enclosure and visual triangles at the corner. He asked if they are within the 25-foot curb distancing requirements. Mr. Fruchtl stated they are; the site plan has been reviewed by the Development Review T earn, which includes the Traffic Engineer. It meets the applicable setback requirements and all sight triangle requirements. Mr. Welker responded that he would like that specified, as well as the material and height of the fence since it is also a sight issue. Mr. Fruchtl stated the materials will be comparable to the proposed Starbucks . It will be a six-foot CMU wall dressed in a stucco veneer. Mr. Welker asked if any other location had been discussed rega rding the trash enclosure. Mr. Fruchtl stated that to maximize the amount of parking spaces and to meet the stacking requirements of the UDC, the proposed location was determined to be the best location of the trash enclosure. Mr. Welker disagreed. Mr. Welker stated he has a difficult time distinguishing where to draw the line between issues on the parking site and those on the building site. He believes the entire parcel needs to be look at and discussed. One of his concerns is that the drive-thru goes around the back of the building and the alley, but also on the full south side of the property. He asked if the drive on the south is a two-way drive. Mr. Fruchtl responded that it will be a two-way drive on the south which will help with traffic flow. After a meeting with the Public Works Engineer and the Traffic Engine e r an egress point adjacent to Broadway was put in which will assist with the flow in and out of the site. Mr. Fruchtl explained the history behind the strong development edge policy which permits drive-thrus along a major arterial in the City as long as extra aesthetic and buffering issues are met. The applicant has provided additional buffering on the site along South Broadway; a 30 inch wall will be constructed which meets the strong development edge cr ite ria. Mr. Welker stated he has concerns regarding the two-way traffic which will complicate the way traffic flows within the stacking drive. There is also a curb cut that is 20 feet in from the property on Bates Avenue that is 16 feet wide. There is the potential for traffic coming in and out of that same curb cut, and it is not wide enough. He realizes the plan has been through the Traffic Division, but he believes the curb cut is too close to the corner to have another one on the north side which has not yet been defined on the site plan. Those are issues which he believes need to be resolved. The other part is the buffering of the drive with cars going both directions and cars against the curb from the street itself. There is also the potential of parking on the street by residents or other users which will further congest that corner. Mr. Welker continued by stating he has concerns with traffic that comes up and down that alley in both directions; there is strong stacking direction going into Starbucks; and cross alley traffic going to and from the parking lot in both directions. He does not see those issues as being resolved. Mr. Welker continued; there are also landscape issues. The landscape plan only shows a certain degree of shrubbery between the sidewalk and the street curb in the right of way. 5 The building itself has no landscape buffering around it. It is at the street, the northwest and southwest corners, and the northeast next to the alley. There is also landscaping around the parking on the east. Mr. Welker stated he has an additional concern with the operational hours going to 11 :30 p.m. With cars going both directions through the parking lot, the car lights will be shining onto the duplex to the south. Also the traffic in and out of the parking lot on Lincoln will be shining their lights onto that same house . He believes that is another issue that needs to be resolved when looking at parking and accessibility. He stated he would like some discussion on all those issues whether now or when the Commission sees it again because he is not ready to approve it based on what he currently sees. Mr. Brick asked Mr. Cook if bicycle racks would be installed on the site. Mr. Cook responded that he believes Starbucks would be installing bicycle racks. Beverly Whitley, 2888 South Lincoln Street was sworn in. Ms . Whitley testified that she has lived in her house for approximately 20 years. Even though her house is a block from Broadway, she lives in a n eighborhood; it is quiet and there is no crime. It is filled with families, with more families moving in . She stated her kids are grown and are moving out of the neighborhood, but she sees a lot of children in the neighborhood. One of her biggest concerns with the proposals is that she will sit on her porch looking at a trash container. She currently looks at a house that is old. The current renter has mad e the property into a beautiful park-like setting, especially in the summer. Since the property was sold, he has let the property "go" under the pretense that something would be happening. She stated that she is very concerned about traffic. Approximately a year ago, a car coming around the corner at Bates took out a piece of her tree. People drive "crazy" coming off of Broadway. She is concerned that the parking lot will be used by patrons of the bar across Broadway. The Starbucks is open until 11 :30 p.m. which will encourage more people in the neighborhood late at night. She reiterated that it is quiet neighborhood without a lot of people on foot or on cars unless they are seeing people. She resents the intrusion into her neighborhood. She enjoys Starbucks, but there is one a few blocks away. She does not see the necessity of another parking lot. Mr. Welker asked where she lives relative to the project. Ms. Whitley stated she is the second house north of Bates on Lincoln . She stated she has put a lot of money into her house . She asked what was going to happen to her property values if a parking lot is put in across the street. David W . Bode, 2890 South Acoma, was sworn in. Mr. Bode stated he is opposed to the demolition of 21 East Bates Avenue because Advanced Auto Parts is going to move into that neighborhood. It will not only contaminate the soil, it will lower the property values in the neighborhood. He sees no reaso n to contaminate the surrounding ground past the alley. He stated he has no opposition to the destruction of the other two structures. He reiterated that he is opposed to the parking lot at 21 East Bates. The lighting will interfere with people's lives. It is a quiet neighborhood, and he knows of no crime. Mr. Cook has done wonderful things for the neighborhood, and has improved the neighborhood. He just 6 d?esn't want to see the property at 21 East Bates demolished to accommodate a parking lot, especially if it is for a Advanced Auto Parts which will contaminate the ground. Lu Wilson, 2860 South Lincoln Street, was sworn. Ms. Wilson testified that she grew up in South Denver and when she moved back to the area she wanted to live in a neighborhood similar to the one she grew up in. In looking around, she bought a house approximately a year ago at 2860 South Lincoln Street. It was in fairly bad shape, but she invested a lot of money into it. She stated she is more concerned with the surrounding neighborhood than her property values. She likes having a street where she can park in front of her house, and a street where she doesn 't have to worry about a child getting hit by a vehicle if he/she runs out into the street. She enjoys the lack of noise . There is a new parking lot on Broadway next to where the Starbucks will be built. She does not want to see the corner turned into a parking lot. Phillipe Ernewein, 2820 South Lincoln Street was sworn in. He requested that the Commission consider the proposal a "puzzle piece" in the neighborhood. There has been an increase in traffic in the last year as the result of a very successful establishment at Amherst and South Broadway, the Auld Dubliner. Mr. Ernewein stated he does not know how a parking lot does not affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the neighborhood. Safety issues should be glaring to the Commission. Mr. Ernewein asked why the required parking lot for Starbuck couldn't be located just north of the property or at another location rather than in the neighborhood. Mr. Ernewein urged the Commission to consider best location above all . Saul Marquez, 2891 South Lincoln Street was sworn in. Mr. Marquez stated his home is just north of the proposed parking lot. He stated he has a concern regarding light pollution from vehicles entering and leaving the parking lot as well as from light poles. He stated he has an additional concern about the hours of operation; 11 :30 p.m. seems too late. He asked how porous the fence would be and how much light would pass through. He is also concerned about his son's privacy and safety. Chair Krieger asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to speak. She asked the Commission if they had additional questions for staff or the applicant. Mr. Roth stated he did not have any additional questions; however, he stated he has some of the same issues as Mr. Welker, in particular the curb cut on the southside of the property. He travels that intersection often and he feels that it will be a major problem . Mr. Welker stated he had additional questions. He asked why there needed to be another Starbucks when there is one five blocks south in the King Soopers' center. There is also one in Safeway. An additional issue is what happens to the property if the Starbucks doesn't make it. The application states that the lighting will be confined to the building; does that mean there isn't any security lighting in the parking lot? Security lighting needs to be provided without placing it on a pole that shines onto the neighbors' properties. Mr. Simpson stated the project was reviewed by the Development Review T earn who provide a lot of input. In a project with a drive-thru there are going to be issues related to traffic. Much of what the Commission is seeing is suggested as a result of the City's traffic 7 engineer because he felt it would provide greater safety and reduce congestion. He also felt it would provide for better overall traffic circulation and less impact on the neighborhood to the east, which is why there are ingress points as close as they are. The traffic engineer wanted the widening of the alley. Regarding the landscape plan, increasing the buffering along the edge of the street to deflect lighting from vehicles has be e n discussed. Also for clarification, there is no Advanced Auto Parts locating in the neighborhood. Regarding another Starbucks, as the Commission knows cities evolve and change. Mr. Simpson continued; there is linkage occurring between the permitted use and the request for the conditional use. The permitted use will not occur without the parking lot which is the conditional use request. The linkage between the two properties is important, but Mr. Simpson referred to the staff report that states the linkage between ongoing . revitalization is a careful balance. The Commission is tasked with determining that balance between those difficult impacts of these particular uses and seeking and maintaining good ongoing revitalization on the Broadway corridor. Englewood is an older community; the City does not have a lot of land. It is a difficult discussion on how the City uses that land and how to determine that balance between maintaining good quality commercial environment and good quality neighborhoods. Both are extremely important and need to be looked at in the long term. Mr. Simpson stated he doesn 't know the answer either, but the Commission is linking the two properties and he would ask that the Commission consider the commercial/residential balance when it makes its decision. Mr. Cook stated the most important things in his life are his family and other children. He does not wish to affect Mr. Marquez' children or anyone else's children. He does not wish to have this project bother anyone, and wishes to soften any issues that may affect someone's life. Mr. Cook stated he spoke with Mr. Marquez regarding building him a new fence and cutting down some trees on his property at Mr. Cook's expense. Mr. Cook stated he provided City Council 208 police reports over a four year period responding to this neighborhood. There was a crack house in the pink house on the alley; there have been many arrests in the neighborhood; a police officer stabbed with a pencil, etc. There is a check cashing place on the corner which is open odd hours. Some of the traffic is unwanted in his opinion. Mr. Cook stated he believes Starbucks has a lot to offer. There are numerous people who have wanted to rent the pink house on a month-to-month basis since he bought it just based on its past reputation. On the north end of the block, on the east side, is a parking lot much larger than the one being discussed which has no barriers or fencing. The business located there also has late hours. He stated he believes he is doing something good for the neighborhood; dealing with a few Starbucks' customers is better than dealing with all the other visitors that have been coming and going in that blighted area for many years. The lighting has been discussed many times, and he has been assured that the lighting will not be any more than is currently there . In the alley, Xcel Energy can install a double-sided light on both posts which will provide additional lighting. 8 It was also discussed to move the dumpster to various locations; however, someone on the review team suggested its present location due to removal from the dump trucks. None of the curb cuts close to Broadway were on the original plan; it was changed by the traffic engineer. The alley was also changed by City staff. The buffering was also changed by staff. The plan was presented to staff and was changed a few times to accommodate everyone. Mr. Cook stated he is running out of time with Starbucks; these are not easy deals to put together. An average Starbucks sells a $1.3 million a year which is approximately $50,000 in sales tax for Englewood. Mr. Simpson stated that in the last three years the City has had 20 inquiries from coffee establishments wanting to locate on the Broadway corridor. Mr. Cook asked the Commission what they would like to see on the corner instead of the Starbucks. Mr. Brick asked Mr. Cook whether or not he has explored the possibility of parking to the north. Mr. Cook responded that Starbucks will not do that; shared parking is not permitted. The building on that property with the parking lot has been remodeled rather than demolished. He is hopeful to attract a restaurant on the far north end of that building. The proposed location for Starbucks is very good since it is on the east side on the way into Denver to accommodate commuters. He believes that Starbucks has several more locations planned further north in Denver. Mr. Welker stated he is not adverse to putting parking in the half block, but he does wish to mitigate and control the impact it will have on the adjoining residents. Traffic and vehicle lights are two of those impacts he wishes to discuss. The trash enclosure is one of the most imposing elements on the neighborhood. There are other possibilities rather than having a straight east/west drive-thru between the alley and Lincoln; there could be a turn in that and turn the traffic back onto Bates without hurting the parking count. That would mitigate the light upon Lincoln and the houses across Lincoln from the drive-thru. He has an issue with the second curb cut on the southwest part on Bates. It is too close to the corner; it complicates too much the ingress/egress and the traffic flow on the primary site. He does not have a problem with widening the alley, but he does have a problem with the directions of traffic. He does not mind Starbucks, but he wants to make it the best project for that corner with the least damage to the neighbors. Mr. Cook stated that he also wants a low impact project on the neighborhood. This will be the first, free-standing, drive-thru Starbucks with 1,750 square feet. Approximately 60 percent of all their sales nationwide are through the drive-thru. If that national trend holds true on this site, 60 percent of the traffic will be pulling out onto Broadway or onto Bates, not onto Lincoln. Mr. Welker stated he still has concerns with two-way traffic through the parking lot. Mr. Cook responded that the traffic engineers assisted in designing the plans and also reviewed the plans . 9 Mr. Simpson asked what the issue was with traffic circulation. Mr. Welker responded that the issue is not the two-way traffic on the south part of the building site; it is that there is no mitigation between the building site and Bates. Mr. Simpson stated there is good landscape mitigation. Mr. Welker stated he sees a row of low shrubs which will not block lights, but which only buffer it and are only between the sidewalk and the street curb. There is nothing on the north side next to the drive on the site. Mr. Welker stated there is approximately a 7 foot sidewalk which has a curb on the north side and approximately a 2- 3 foot wide landscaped area between the sidewalk and street. That seems to be a little difficult to deal with. There are some street trees, but he wonders if there is any way of mitigating that area more by adding landscaping to the building edge. Mr. Hunt stated the two sites are difficult to separate. He asked the City Attorney if for purposes of the public hearing on the conditional use issue if the Commission's discussion should be limited to the parking lot. He stated he felt the Commission was getting off point on the conditional use. Ms. Reid stated the Commission is considering the conditional use, but as Mr. Welker and Mr. Simpson have stated the properties are linked. Mr. Welker is asking questions relating to the whole project. The Commission has been asked to consider a conditional use which meets certain criteria. When considering issues on the building site, which is a use by right, those should be considered suggestions and the Commission can make a motion to approve the conditional use with the following conditions that the entire project have those conditions. The Commission is making a decision based on the criteria for the conditional use. Mr. Hunt stated he feels the Commission is concentrating more on the issues relating to the use by right rather than addressing the conditional use. Mr. Welker stated he is trying to focus on the conditional use, but he is also attempting to mitigate all the issues. Traffic flows through the entire site, not just the parking lot. Not all of the traffic will be drive-thru; employees will need to park somewhere. Chair Krieger stated Commission members are not traffic engineers; it is her opinion that if the traffic engineers feel that the plan is fine, the Commission shouldn't be "second guessing" them. Mr. Roth disagreed. Chair Krieger asked if there would be any lighting in the parking lot. Mr. Cook stated the building would have decorative lighting on the front, and the lights on the corner would be Xcel Energy pole lighting. No additional lighting will be supplied in the parking lot. Mr. Welker reiterated that he still has issues with the location of the trash enclosure; the height of it on the corner; and the traffic flow through the parking lot which is east/west at this time. Taking the idea of getting a trash truck out of the parking lot, he could put in an "L-shaped" drive and turn it back onto Bates buffering the Lincoln side and have some parking on the east side and still have the same number of spaces. This would eliminate having access straight through the site so that vehicles aren't heading toward the two houses on Lincoln on the east side that see the lights. The south side still needs mitigation; the landscaping is there but he can't guarantee that it will stop cars from shining into the duplex on the other side of the street. Those are issues he still has with the parking site. He 10 is not against having parking in this area, but he wishes to mitigate it so that the neighborhood is protected from traffic, noise, and other issues a commercial business creates. He is not in favor of adding lights on a public utility pole in the alley as a method of reaching the parking lot. If it needs lighting, it can be added to the back of a fence. Chair Krieger asked the applicant if he would be willing to add lighting on the back of a fence. Mr. Welker asked if he would be willing to add it to the trash enclosure or somewhere to protect people walking in the parking lot. Mr. Cook responded that he is not opposed to adding lighting. It has been discussed previously, as well as less impact on the neighbors by not installing lights in the parking lot. In response to the operating hours, Mr. Cook stated the 11 :30 p.m . is in Starbuck's national lease. The other local Starbucks closes at 10:00 p.m. He doesn't believe there will be a lot of traffic late at night. Referring to the police activity, Mr. Welker stated additional lighting may decrease that activity. Mr. Cook responded that the police were going to the site for the people at the house and the check cashing business, not the Starbucks. Mr. Welker stated that as the neighborhood transitions, lighting and security are issues that need to be discussed and dealt with. Mr. Cook stated he is not opposed to lighting up the area, but he believes the neighbors are . Mr. Welker stated he wishes to mitigate the lighting so it does not shine in the neighbors' doors and windows. Mr. Roth moved; Mr. Knoth seconded: TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #USE2005-00010, 21 EAST BATES AVENUE. AYES: NAYS: Brick, Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieger, Knoth, Roth, Welker None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bleile, Mosteller Motion carried. Mr. Knoth moved; Mr. Hunt seconded TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE FOR CASE #USE2005-00010 TO ALLOW A PARKING AREA FOR OPERABLE VEHICLES AS A PRINCIPAL USE WITHIN THE MU-R-3-A MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL/LIMITED OFFICE -RETAIL ZONE DISTRICT. Chair Krieger asked Mr. Welker where he thought the trash dumpster could be located if it weren't on the parking lot. Mr. Welker responded that it could be on the northeast corner of site. It might change the curbing, but it is more appropriate since it would be closer to the building where the trash is generated and it provides the access around the building for accessibility of the trash pickup. Two trees in the northeast corner mitigating the building 11 from the alley are meaningless. He would rather have those two trees on the southeast corner of the parking lot. Mr. Roth stated he agreed with the issue of the trash container. It should be located directly on the alley. Chair Krieger stated that the trash enclosure is at least screening the parking lot from the houses. Mr. Roth stated that he didn't believe it was because it is adjacent to the parking places rather than the driveway. He believes it would do just as much screening at the alley as it does where it is currently proposed. Chair Krieger stated it is a difficult decision; it is a balancing act between the neighborhoods and the business. The neighborhood is getting busier; she has lived in that neighborhood for more than 20 years. It is unfortunately moving more in a commercial direction which is good from the commercial aspect, but bad from the neighborhood aspect. If it were a professional office, there would still be traffic but not late at night. She agreed with Mr. Cook that there probably would not be a lot of people parking late at night going in to drink coffee. Mr. Welker restated his position that he is not against development that extends into the half block along Broadway. He is a believer of development and redevelopment of the City, and the viability that it needs. He does not believe that issues on the site have been resolved. Mr. Brick stated he wants to ensure bicycle racks are on the site since they are included in the Broadway Plan, the Comprehensive Plan , and the UDC. Chair Krieger stated it does have the potential to be a gathering place for the neighborhood. Mr. Welker stated he does not have a problem with the number of parking spaces. Mitigating the issues shows the neighborhood that the Commission is not ignoring their concerns. Mr. Knoth stated there are a lot of changes occurring along South Broadway. Starbucks is a national tenant with high exposure across the country wanting to move into the neighborhood. There may be an issue with the trash enclosure, but as a whole it can be dealt with. Mr. Hunt stated he was not challenging Mr. Welker's comments. He was wanting to get the discussion on point with regards to the conditional use. He has confidence in the City's engineers in what they have recommended. It appears that a number of revisions have occurred . Mr. Diekmeier stated he is also concerned with traffic in the neighborhood. He doesn't believe the lights will be a huge issue. He sees it as a Broadway redevelopment that is expanding toward Lincoln and Acoma. 12 Mr. Hunt further stated the Starbucks is a vast improvement over what currently exists on the property. Chair Krieger stated that both Mr. Roth and Mr. Welker have expressed strong reservations regarding the curb cut toward the street; she stated she didn't disagree. She asked if either member wished to amend the motion to remove the curb cut. Mr. Welker stated that is beyond the scope of the Commission. Mr. Roth stated he would recommend the Engineering or Traffic Departments reevaluate that curb it. Discussion ensued . Mr. Brick suggested a friendly amendment to the motion that the owner provide two bicycle parking stations in compliance with the Code and they be located near the building. Mr. Welker pointed out that the Code already requires two bicycle spaces and they are required to be as close to the building as possible; therefore, the amendment is not necessary. Mr. Brick withdrew his friendly amendment. With no further discussion, the secretary called the roll. Mr. Brick, Mr. Hunt, and Mr. Knoth stated they voted yes. Mr. Diekmeier stated he voted yes. The conditional use meets the stated conditions. Mr. Roth stated the conditional use achieves many of the things the Commission has been talking about. It is not the perfect, ideal situation, but it is an improvement. The neighborhood has been improving. There have been a number of new projects within a couple of blocks surrounding this property. Being a long-time resident of that neighborhood, it is a welcome sight. He would like to see the dumpster moved and the curb cut removed. Mr. Roth stated he voted yes. Mr. Welker stated the Commission has five conditions to consider when making a decision on a conditional use application. 1. The use must be permitted as a conditional use in the zone district. Mr. Welker stated he believes the proposed use is permitted. 2. Taking into consideration any proposed mitigation measures, conditional use shall not create significant adverse impacts on either the existing development in the surrounding neighborhood or any future development permitted by this Title. 3. The number of off-street parking spaces shall not be less than the requirements of Section 16-6-4 of the Englewood Municipal Code. Mr. Welker stated 14 are required; 12 are being provided He does not have an issue with the parking spaces. 13 4. The conditional use shall meet all other applicable provisions of the Englewood Municipal Code. Mr. Welker stated the fifth condition is not relevant because it deals with telecommunications. The issue for him is that there are still other ways to mitigate the project. The second condition has not been fully satisfied even though it is an improvement to the neighborhood. Mr. Welker voted no. Chair Krieger stated she voted yes. She agreed with Mr. Welker that it meets the majority of the requirements. She understands the neighbors' concerns and feels for them . She believes there are other uses by right that could create the same amount of adverse impacts from traffic, lights, noise, etc. She doesn't believe the use will increase safety problems. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Brick, Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieger, Knoth, Roth, Welker Welker None Bleile, Mosteller Motion carried. Chair Krieger thanked the public for coming out and sharing their opinions. IV. PUBLIC FORUM No one was present to address the Commission. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Simpson wished the Commission a Happy New Year. Mr. Simpson stated the department is sad Mr. Fruchtl is leaving; he has been a nice asset for the last four years. He has learned a lot and will be taking that great training and applying it in another location. We wish him well. There is a year of change ahead; there will be a focus on the Comprehensive Plan and its implementation. Since the Comprehensive Plan focuses on redevelopment, revitalization, and renewal, Mr. Simpson stated he sees a lot of opportunities as the City moves forward in 2006. Mr. Simpson stated the Commission can anticipate seeing the following projects in 2006: • Rezoning for U.S. 285 and Pennsylvania Avenue for a senior housing facility. A neighborhood meeting is scheduled on January 19. • Economic Development Strategy implementation • Bates Station 14 • Denver Seminary -Even though it has been app rov ed, the property has been purchased by Continuum Partners and pre-sales should begin by summer with potential construction by fall. • Parks and Recreation Master Plan • Swedish Small Area Plan -The boundary is still undefined, but he wants to look at the area that surrounds Swedish and perhaps into downtown to improve the zone categories and some of the uses that want to occur in that area. • Regulatory review on parking, landscaping, creative sign code, R-3-A, R-3-B, and duplex frontage Mark Graham updated the Commission on the Acoma redevelopment site. The property was acquired in the 1980's for redevelopment which was never completed; therefore, the parking lot has existed serving the 3400 block of South Broadway. In 2003, the City tested the market with a Request for Proposals (RFP). The committee looked at several proposals, but were not impressed with the proposals and decided not to proceed. Proposals were received again late last year, and deadlines were reestablished. The committee reviewed four proposals in December and asked three companies to provide additional information. The committee will be reviewing them again on January 19 w ith the additional information. It is important to note that all companies were provided with the public objectives from the original RFP. It was specified that there be at least 100 parking spaces with additional parking if that was the sense of the community. Staff also requested a commercial component on the Broadway/Englewood Parkway corner. An objectives letter was sent to the committee asking them to determine whether the applicants were qualified to do the project and whether they had done similar projects. The projects are use by right; the MU-B-2 permits both the residential uses and the commercial uses. The proposals are for-sale residential product in addition to the commercial. There is the potential for well known restaurants . One proposa l includes a theater which runs first-run movies. That project entails a significant public investment because they are asking for City participation in parking . All the proposals would generate a lot of activity and interest in the downtown. VI. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid stated she had nothing further. VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Welker thanked Mr. Fruchtl for his service with the City and wished him well. The remaining members joined Mr. Welker in wishing Mr. Fruchtl well in his new endeavors. Ms. Fenton extended an invitation to the Commission to Mr. Fruchtl's farewell reception on January 11. Mr. Roth stated the development proposals on the Acoma property are exciting and are very different from what the committee saw a few years ago . 15 .. The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. ~ Nar{cy Fer ton, Recording Secretary 16