Planning Commission Minutes 2017 07 13

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 13, 2017 Page 6 of 12 Moline says the public raised an issue about the business association at CTC. I am familiar there was an association. Do we know if this was reviewed by it? Zuccaro says there is an owners association. We sent them a referral. Ritchie says we have a referral response from them and sent them the updated application today. They are not subject to our review and we are not subject to theirs. Summary and request by Staff and Applicant: Staff recommends Planning Commission move to approve Urban Barnz — 745 Pierce, Resolution 16, Series 2017. A resolution recommending approval of a request for a final Planned Unit Development to allow the construction of three buildings containing a total of 36,600 square feet with 32 condominium storage units and a clubhouse for property at 745 S. Pierce Avenue, Lot 2, Block 1, Colorado Technological Center, with three conditions, 1. The applicant shall comply with the Public Works memo dated June 28, 2017 prior to the public hearing before City Council. 2. The applicant shall provide at least three different tree species along the north property line prior to the public hearing before City Council. 3. The applicant shall provide written authorization from the property owner to the north to allow an easement for the proposed storm sewer prior to the public hearing before City Council. Leyba says we have submitted to the CTC Review Committee, received comments, and have addressed the comments. They are reflected in the plans you see. Closed Public Hearing and discussion by Commission: Sheets says I am a little confused by the proposal and initially was in support. A couple of issues have come up and I struggle with how to address them. The main issue for me is, if this is a storage space, the resolution should be approved as a storage space. If it is storage space that can be used for other warehousing or manufacturing, I feel there may be different requirements for this proposal. I am not sure what to do with that. It feels like a change from what I had read. I wonder if we could add a resolution that includes a stipulation that it is supposed to be used for storage. I think we need to be consistent with the code. Rice says I have the same concern and that is why I asked my questions. I am satisfied with the responses from Staff. If there is a significant change in character of use, it would trigger some additional process. I don't sense this is being made as a stealth application where they apply for the storage use with an ulterior motive. We all know that things change. I want to assure myself that if there is a significant change in the character of the use, this will trigger some additional planning process. I am satisfied that it will occur. Moline says I agree. I am concerned about the potential for changing use. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. I think it will be challenging since it will be condos, for owners to get together to try and change this. I am confident in this situation that since the CTC has become a busy place and if there are zoning violations occurring, there will be complaints. The City will be able to step in and address them. I am in support of the project. Sheets says I am curious because this a condominium project with multiple owners. It is different in terms of enforcement against one owner. That is troubling to me. Do you think enforcement will be enough? If one owner is manufacturing something with five employees and needs five parking spots, does that make the whole building comprised? Moline says I assume that if one condo owner is violating the zoning, it can be enforced. Rice says wouldn't it be the same in a residential condo, where there is a homeowners association that owns the common areas? That is who the enforcement action would be against. Zuccaro says if the violation is in an individually owned area, it would be against that individual owner. For a use violation, there are building code requirements for manufacturing. It would be the more obvious violation to go after.