City Council Agenda and Packet 1997 07 15

Home Browse Search

Davidson called for Council questions or comments. Keany clarified to the applicant that without a SRU, any other retail uses, other than personal services, such as dry cleaners, barber shops, things that compliment the office park would not be acceptable without a SRU. He asked if they were aware that there was no SRU connected with this resolution tonight. Slack stated that not only were they not aware of this, but they disagreed with it. He pointed out that the PUD that resided with the property was approved in 1995. Within the PUD both retail and restaurant uses were approved. The retail was designated for this particular building. The restaurant was designated for Lot 9A. This amendment does not modify the zoning under that PUD, or intend to modify the zoning under that PUD. The zoning that is approved under that PUD allowed for the retail tenants described under the BO zoning for retail as opposed to those service use retail also described under the BO zoning. They believed that the underlying PUD approved in 1995 provided for those uses allowed in this building. They wanted to make clear to Council that they expect and anticipate that approval of this final PUD, as amended, would endorse the zoning under the original PUD, since this makes no change nor requests no change to that zoning. He read the staff report referencing the October 1995 PUD authorizing a mix of general office, medical and dental offices, personal service, and a limited amount of retail and restaurant uses. The BO zone district allowed professional offices, medical offices, small animal clinics and personal service uses. Restaurants, retail, and convenience goods are allowed as a SRU. He stated that the mix of use proposed by the applicant are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this zone district. The applicant limited by PUD note the consideration of retail/restaurant uses to Lots 9A and the main level of 10A only. Davidson stated that a PUD does not grant Special Review Use. Slack stated that the SRU was a part of the previous PUD and they stand by that. He stated for the record that this PUD is expecting to have those uses be approved as they were approved in 1995. Harry Sterling, Hadjis' associate, 1600 Broadway, Denver, Colorado, asked if they decide to use the building that was approved in the PUD in 1995 and limit the uses to the retail uses that are permitted in the BO zoning, they would not need a SRU? Davidson responded for those that are specifically allowed, not those allowed by SRU. Sterling asked for a five minute recess. RECESS Davidson called for a five minute recess. RESOLUTION NO. 27 RESUMED 9