|
|
|
 |
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Bill Marino, Chair John Plotkin
Bunny Malm George Brown III
Rich Urbanowski Tracy Sheffield
STAFF PRESENT
Becky Clark, Community Planning & Development Department Director
Paul Rice, Principal Planner
Amy DeKnikker, Associate Planner
Anne Heine, Lead Development Review Engineer
Toni Spurgeon, Engineer Development Assistance Coordinator
John Padon, Principal Traffic Engineer
Vicki Kaufman, Secretary to the Planning Commission
Following are the minutes of May 3, 2006 Lakewood Planning Commission Public
Hearing. A permanent set of these minutes is retained in the office of the City
Clerk.
The roll having been called, a quorum was declared. The Chairman gave information
on public hearings before Planning Commission. The following business was conducted:
ITEM 1: SU-06-001 Request of Christine Sherwood to allow for a limited office Special Use Permit at 7400 West Quincy Avenue.
CHRISTINE SHERWOOD, the applicant who resides at 7425 West Radcliff Avenue, Littleton, Colorado, 80123, said there is a fifty-year old house at 7400 West Quincy Avenue she and her husband bought and would like to put a dental or medical office or another professional business in the house. Directly across the street are a medical office and a vacant field, both zoned commercial. The applicant and her husband own a business working directly with dentists, which would aid them in finding a dentist who would want to use the house as a dental office. In her experience she has found that most dentists stay a long time, if not their entire working life, in one place. It is a financial investment for the dentist who would be required to keep up the landscaping and the look of a professional business. The building square footage would not change. Hazardous material would be disposed of according to State requirements. The applicant has willingly complied with all the city's requests including granting an easement for a future sidewalk, limiting parking, grading, and complying with Articles 6 and 15. In keeping with the Performance Based Review Process, the applicant has held two neighborhood meetings and worked with the neighbors in an attempt to comply with their request. And she attended a Lochmoor Neighborhood Board meeting. The applicant has called and talked to all the neighbors. She and her husband reside just behind the property. She said turning an old house into an attractive dental office will compliment the area and would be in keeping with the Lochmoor Area Plan, the Comprehensive Plan vision and the community at large.
Christine said a typical dental office could see 10-20 people per day and have 5-6 employees. They are usually open 4-5 days a week, half day Saturdays, coming in on Sunday evenings to do paperwork. With that in mind, the applicant requests office hours of 6:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. seven days a week. This does not mean these would be the doctor's standard office hours but would be available if the doctor preferred to come in early and leave early or vice versa. These hours would also allow time to accommodate emergency patients and after hours paperwork. The applicant feels this project would increase the value of the house and the neighborhood. It would interact well with the surrounding businesses and be a beneficial transition from Quincy Avenue into their neighborhood. The applicant has met all applicable elements from the Performance Based Review Process and is willing to comply with any other reasonable suggestions.
AMY DEKNIKKER, Associate Planner, entered into the record the Staff Report, case file and associated materials for Case SU-06-001.
COMMISSIONER MARINO accepted items for inclusion into the case record.
NANCY TUCKER who lives at 4240 South Yarrow Court in Marston Slopes, Lakewood, Colorado 80123, said she appreciates the Sherwood's talking to her and did get a response to concerns sent in a letter to the city. Nancy said she appreciates the Sherwood's taking care of the property such as fixing the fence that was down. She wants to be sure that if this project is approved, as a business the house will never be turned back into a residence. She is in favor of the SUP but concerned tonight about the change in hours. Originally the hours were going to be 8-5 Monday thru Friday and 8-1 on Saturday.
STEVE PAYNE, of 7300 West Radcliff Street, Littleton, Colorado 80123, and a resident of the Lochmoor Community, which is a Lakewood subdivision, said the proposal would be a good use of the property. However, he is also concerned about the change in hours from what was proposed throughout the meetings. He said Nancy Tucker was correct, originally the neighbors were told the office would only be open 8 hours a day with no discussion of staying open all day Saturday or at all on Sunday.
COMMISSIONER BROWN said he also read the hours of operation differently and is wondering if maybe there are two sets of hours intended, one set for when the public can come and one set for when there is just extra administrative items to be taken care of?
CHRISTINE SHERWOOD explained that traditionally dentists have a set schedule of hours they keep. However occasionally the dentist may need to make an emergency appointment either early in the morning or late at night. Also, periodically, they may have a lot of paperwork that needs to be done. The administrative paperwork would only be occasional, as would emergency appointments that would only need to be covered by the doctor and perhaps one other staff person.
COMMISSIONER BROWN said he noticed, in response to a neighborhood-meeting question, Staff said, "If the hours are a major concern the hours of operation could be added as a condition of approval." He asked how often the dentist work on Sunday?
CHRISTINE SHERWOOD said the typical established dentist only works 4 to 4 ½ days a week but a dentist starting a new practice may work five days a week. The 4 to 4 ½ days would be when the public would be coming in but it doesn't mean the dentist or their staff might not be working there a longer amount of time doing administrative paperwork. The applicant is sure of this because of her business dealings with dentists. The applicant has talked to established dentist about moving into the house.
COMMISSIONER MARINO asked if they approve the hours as requested, would that mean that they could have full operations seven days a week 6 a.m. to 8 p.m.?
PAUL RICE, Principal Planner, said yes, however, he explained that the city does not usually limit the hours of operation for businesses because there might be instances when the business owner may need to go into the office for an emergency situation. If the commissioners decide to regulate the hours, the business owner would be in violation of the conditions of the Special Use Permit.
COMMISSIONER MALM said she understands that for 4 to 41/2 days a week a dentist would schedule appointment in a normal course of business. Then there would be additional days when there might be an emergency or some sporadic situation when the dentist might need to come into the office before or after hours.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI said the commissioners are the review agent. Should problems arise with any Special Use Permit they do have an opportunity to place restrictions in the future. He proposed phrasing the condition as "allowable patient hours could be 7 a.m.-5 p.m. Monday through Saturday with exceptions for emergencies or internal office activities at other hours".
PAUL RICE said the commissioners can limit the hours with wording such as what Commissioner Urbanowski suggested but he would encourage the commissioners not to because then it becomes a city responsibility to regulate and city staff would need to go out at odd hours to monitor the situation. The commissioners do retain the right to change or revoke the permit at any time.
COMMISSIONER MARINO asked if there were no condition on the business hours, the business owner would not be breaking the permit if they didn't keep proper hours, right?
PAUL RICE said that is correct.
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN said his thinking was also to be specific about the hours when a dentist might be able to see patients vs. doing office work. Once you grant a Special Use Permit you are allowing a different set of issues for an occupant. Commissioner Plotkin thinks it would be a good idea to define the ordinary business hours and then have an exception clause. He asked Staff to explain the difference between a personal service and a professional service use, such as a chiropractor.
PAUL RICE said a personal service is something that a business does for you as an individual such as doing your nails or cutting your hair, but a professional office use is by appointment, they have a clientele. A personal service would have more of a turnover of people. But they are similar. Part of the decision might be based on whether or not it is a licensed business but he would leave the interpretation up to the Director of Community Planning and Development.
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN reiterated that he agrees with Commissioner Urbanowski regarding the office hours. He said it would be a good idea to define the business hours as hours that are standard for a business and have exception hours for emergencies, etc. The city should only be called out if there really is a problem and if that happens, the commission could revisit this case.
COMMISSIONER BROWN asked if this Special Use Permit would allow for rezoning to retail?
AMY DEKNIKKER explained that the Lochmoor Special Area Study does not allow for the five properties that front onto Quincy Street to rezone to commercial or retail therefore Staff would not support it.
COMMISSIONER BROWN asked if there were parking spaces anywhere other than the five or six in the very front of the building.
CHRISTINE SHERWOOD said originally there were going to be two strips of parking spaces in the front but, as part of her compliance, she granted right of way in the front for a future sidewalk. Some of the fifteen parking spaces required will be along the side of the building or in the back.
COMMISSIONER BROWN said it is hard to determine what the building will look like without a color rendering but it looked like it would be earth-tone colors, is that right?
CHRISTINE SHERWOOD said they envision using wood siding or a combination stone/stucco/wood siding. The dentist would pay for the construction cost and may want to have their ideas incorporated into the plan. Christine would see that everything would be tastefully done and have the final say as owner.
COMMISSIONER BROWN asked about the signage, the height, and whether or not the lighting would stay lit 24-hours a day.
AMY DEKNIKKER said the sign would be a maximum of 25 sq. ft. and would be allowed
to be illuminated 24-hours a day.
COMMISSIONER BROWN said he read that there was a neighborhood concern about
the lighting and asking for it to be turned down at a certain time.
CHRISTINE SHERWOOD said there is a picture of the type of lighting and it illuminates downward and can be put on timers. There will be lighting for security reasons.
COMMISSIONER SHEFFIELD asked if there are plans for overhead or parking lot lighting? Are the notes on the proposed site plan going to be part of the conditions?
AMY DEKINIKKER said the notes regarding lighting are standard Article 15 requirements and placed on all site plans.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI said he would like to suggest that there be signs inside the property saying "Customers need to park in the front of the building and the side" leaving the rear parking for staff.
CHRISTINE SHERWOOD said she would be agreeable to doing that.
COMMISSIONER MARINO wanted to clarify, from a procedural standpoint, that restrictions or conditions placed in this Special Use Permit are like those on an ODP where the Planning Commission has some latitude to impose the conditions. Also, would this be a live-in unit? For example, if a single dentist wanted to live there, is that a possibility?
CHRISTINE SHERWOOD said because of the large partial second floor with a bath already, it is technically possible but she does not expect that would happen.
AMY DEKNIKKER said the only clause relating to live-in housing says that a caretaker could live there. So it would be possible for a dentist to be the caretaker and live there.
COMMISSIONER MARINO asked, with respect to the area plan, if one person owned all five buildings along Quincy Street and wanted to rezone them altogether, can they? Or would each Special Use Permit operate on its own so no one could aggregate the property and suddenly build something using all five properties?
AMY DEKNIKKER said each Special Use Permit would need to be reviewed on it's own. It would not be possible for anyone to build something using all five properties.
COMMISSIONER MARINO asked if the aesthetics, considering Article 15 rules, would come back in to Planning Commission or be reviewed by Staff?
AMY DEKNIKKER said Staff would review and approve any modifications to the building.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI said usually the neighborhoods come in opposing a project but with this project the neighborhood is all for it and that is nice to see.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI made the motion in Case SU-06-001, that the commission accept the Findings and Conclusions as published in the Staff Report Summary and Recommendations with the addition of two items: Item 14 as provided to the commission regarding Professional Office Uses vs. Personal Services and Item 15, which would limit the office hours as currently proposed 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Saturday, with an exception for emergency and administrative purposes.
COMMISSIONER MALM seconded the motion.
Discussion followed about whether or not Staff could work with Item 14 and Item 15. Staff said they could.
COMMISSIONER BROWN wondered if the hours are not working, could the applicant come back in and request different hours.
PAUL RICE said the applicant could amend the Special Use Permit but they would be required to go through the entire process again.
Motion passed 6-0.
ITEM 2: SU-06-002 Request of Charles King, King & Associates, to allow for Trade and Technical Uses Special Use Permit at 897 Tabor Street.
CHARLES (Chip) KING, 730 Monaco Parkway, Denver, Colorado 80220, represents the owner. The building has been vacant for about two years. The Federal Government used the building with 105 parking spaces prior. A newspaper distribution center, high tech manufacturing, mail order sales and a warehouse are all uses the owner is considering. Charles King said the proposed use is compatible with the neighborhood and zoning in the area. The only residents that were at the neighborhood meeting were a husband and wife. Other uses in the area are a restaurant, multi-family dwellings to the west and a hotel. The rest of the area is vacant.
AMY DEKNIKKER, Associate Planner, entered into the record the Staff Report, case file and associated materials for Case SU-06-002.
COMMISSIONER MARINO accepted items Amy requested to have entered into the record.
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN asked about the park improvements on the north side of this property.
ANNE HEINE, Lead Development Review Engineer, said the city's Community Resources Department is making passive park improvements with picnic areas, a gazebo, improving the walking trails, proposing a wild meadow area on the east side of the park.
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN asked if these park changes have been considered with respect to compatibility with this proposed project?
AMY DEKNIKKER said yes, compatibility was considered.
COMMISSIONER MALM said there are several uses permitted under Trade and Technical Uses, which one is the applicant proposing to use? There is such a broad assembly of uses she wonders about some of the wording, such as "The servicing of any commodity and the sales of which is permitted.
PAUL RICE said if the commission approved the case, the applicant could manufacture products and sell them off site. One would not build cars here but could produce a low end product, package it and then send it off site.
COMMISSIONER MALM said she doesn't see any limitation on what could be done here within the confines of this building. It says "Servicing of any commodity and the sales of which are permitted".
COMMISSIONER MARINO asked if the Zoning Ordinance defines Trade & Technical?
PAUL RICE said it does and asked Commissioner Malm what she was reading and referring to?
COMMISSIONER MALM said she was reading the first paragraph under "History and Background" of the Staff Report.
AMY DEKNIKKER said Commissioner Malm is referring to the definition of Trade and Technical as defined in Article 2 under definitions in the Zoning Ordinance.
COMMISSIONER MALM asked if there are limitations on what can be manufactured within the confines of this Special Use Permit? She feels the wording sounds pretty open and would like the record very clearly stated that some things are not permitted because they are not appropriate.
PAUL RICE said yes there are limitations "All operations must be contained within the confines of the building." You cannot make and sell something retail at this site.
AMY DEKNIKKER said the restrictions outlined in Article 6 under the Trade and Technical Uses are the confines of this Special Use Permit. Each potential user that comes in, in the future, will need to request a Special Use Permit that will be reviewed to make sure it does meet all zoning, building and fire code regulations.
COMMISSIONER MARINO said the commission is approving a land use, once a tenant is found for the land, the tenant will need to come forward to have their specific use evaluated by Staff.
AMY DEKNIKKER said Commissioner Marino is correct, that this is a "Master" Special Use Permit that will require further review for each specific user.
COMMISSIONER BROWN asked if the loading dock noise was going to be considered? For example, if this became a newspaper warehouse they could make a lot of noise in the early hours of the day?
AMY DEKNIKKER said there are no current restrictions at this time and no improvements are proposed. The only requirement for this project is to change the parking to meet ADA standards.
COMMISSIONER BROWN wondered why the loading dock was mentioned? And was this second dock discussed at the neighborhood meeting?
PAUL RICE said at this time the building would stay as is. But if a user came in and requested loading dock number two, if the commission approves the case as it is written, Staff would approve a second loading dock through the site plan process reviewing the construction and specifications for dock number two. The dock is a future proposal and was discussed at the neighborhood meeting.
COMMISSIONER BROWN said some of the local utilities had a star by them indicating no response had been received by Staff.
PAUL RICE said it's not necessarily a utility but can also be a large corporation or a larger firm serving Lakewood.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI said the companies are given the opportunity to oppose and in not responding, they are indicating no opposition.
COMMISSIONER MARINO asked that the wording be changed to "given the opportunity to review" from "have reviewed the case". However, this does not need to be a condition. Staff confirmed that this could be changed without it being a condition.
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN said he thinks it is great to see an empty building being converted into a productive use. He understands that the commission is voting tonight on a generic category and he agrees a newspaper distribution company would be disruptive to the neighborhood. His hope is that Staff will take the next step and consider the uses. He imagines the commission might be addressing this Special Use Permit again if problems arise with the neighborhood such as hours of operation.
COMMISSIONER SHEFFIELD said he understands there were issues about lighting. The Staff Report says lighting will be addressed.
AMY DEKNIKKER said the lighting issue did come up at the neighborhood meeting and from that meeting, Staff would review and consider any lighting changes. Staff said they requested a lighting plan or lighting detail and were provided with lighting that is downcast and shielded.
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN said, based upon the Summary and Recommendations as well as the Findings and Conclusions in the Staff Report and the testimony given tonight, he moves to have the Planning Commission approve case SU-06-002.
COMMISSIONER SHEFFIELD seconded the motion.
Motion passed 6-0.
ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes from the Public Hearing meeting of April 5, 2006, needed to be approved.
The Chairman pointed out a correction and the minutes are approved once the
correction has been made.
ITEM 4: GENERAL BUSINESS
COMMISSIONER MALM wanted to remind everyone to watch the Colfax Marathon on
May 21st and root for Chairman Marino and Commissioner Plotkin who would both
be running in the marathon. She said the marathon still needs volunteers.
BECKY CLARK, Community Planning & Development Director, commented that tonight's cases are among the first cases to be heard as a result of the Performance Based Review Process part of the Comprehensive Plan as well as the Implementation Steps from the Comprehensive Plan. If the commissioners have any comments on how the Staff review, as well as the Staff Report turned out for the Performance Based Review Process, she would like to hear them. Also, Special Use Permit requests will probably be heard more often. This is the city's mantra for the next couple of years, to promote small businesses as well as provide for our primary businesses and the Special Use Permit is one way to do that. It may take a little more time but Becky noted the commissioners were very cautious as to how to implement the Performance Based Review Process that will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN suggested it would be helpful if the public comments at neighborhood meetings were addressed specifically in the Staff Report.
PAUL RICE asked if the commissioner had a recommendation for how to include
public comment in the Staff Report (adding that there is a summary of the neighborhood
meeting included in the Staff Report now) perhaps Staff could summarize by issue
or summarize by person. Which would be preferable?
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN said it is his thinking to avoid micromanaging the process
if the commissioners know that Staff has taken into consideration specific comments,
the commission is less likely to repeat issues that have already been addressed
by Staff. As Becky said, this is an opportunity to take a vacant building, as
in the last case, and turn it into a productive use. That's a win/win situation.
If the neighborhood doesn't voice any objection it becomes necessary for the
commission to look at potential problems that may arise and help facilitate
the process. He does not mean to imply that Staff is not doing their work correctly.
BECKY CLARK said yes, Staff will add in specific neighborhood comments in the Staff Report.
COMMISSIONER MALM commended Staff on the way Performance Based Review Process was incorporated into the summary and analysis in the Staff Report. She thought it read very well and it was obvious that Staff paid close attention to the detail, it was very well written.
COMMISSIONER SHEFFIELD said as the new commissioner it was very easy to read through the Staff Report and follow the flow of it, it was well correlated.
COMMISSIONER BROWN agreed saying it flowed well and was much easier to review. He liked how the Performance Based Review Process was addressed in the Staff Report. This style is not repetitious and is easy to follow. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER MARINO said over the years as the Performance Based Standards evolved into the Performance Based Review Process, Staff had predicted that Special Use Permits would become more common. And the commission would be dealing with them on a case-by-case basis based on their unique characteristics. He agreed with Commissioner Plotkin's comments saying if Staff does not weigh into the neighborhood issues in the Staff Report it may become an issue at the Planning Commission public hearing - and maybe that's ok. He thought it would be good to address neighborhood comments in the Analysis of Issues. However, wherever it makes sense for Staff to include comments is ok with him.
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN recognized the fact that Staff does a lot of negotiation before a case comes to Planning Commission and he appreciates Staff addressing neighborhood concerns or realities for the applicant before it gets to the public hearing. It's just that the commissioners aren't always reflected but to the extent that Staff can help the commissioners understand what issues have been addressed helps the commissioners feel better about the case. He agreed that the reports are much more readable. Recognizing that the Staff does so much behind the scenes he would like to identify the effort Staff has already developed behind the scenes.
BECKY CLARK said the Staff Reports have evolved between what we do for Board of Adjustment and what we do for Planning Commission. Staff is trying to "marry" the two. The Staff Report should speak for itself; Staff shouldn't have to speak for the report. The commissioner's point is well taken. Also, this will be a work in progress because when Staff starts applying other things and needs to explain why those things have not been brought forward. For example the time issue is not usually an issue Staff addresses because of additional costs brought on the city and incurred by the city because of Performance Based Review Process, such as Code Enforcement. We need to explain in our Staff Report as to why we may or may not limit hours.
COMMISSIONER MARINO said Code Enforcement would only be reactive. So it would only occur costs if someone calls and says, for example, that the dentist is booking regular dental appointments on Sunday. Otherwise, Code Enforcement would not go out.
BECKY CLARK said that is true but the two commissions before this one were very concerned about not adding extra things onto Official Development Plans because of the added costs incurred. We've gotten pretty good when it comes to lighting but we just need to be aware.
COMMISSIONER BROWN AND MALM thanked the Secretary for creating new Planning Commission packet books.
COMMISSIONER MARINO asked what is on the agenda for the future and when should we have a Study Session?
PAUL RICE said there is nothing on the agenda for the May 17th Planning Commission Public Hearing but May 24th at 6:30 P.M. in the DAT Conference Room would be a good time to discuss the retreat and other items the commission may want to discuss.
COMMISSIONER MARINO said the commission would leave it up to Staff to let them know when and where the Study Session will be held.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M.
Vicki Kaufman, Secretary to the Planning Commission
 |
||
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Notice |
||
