Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Pud Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies Turnberry PUD amendment that would have allowed express car wash
Summary
Commerce City Council voted 6-2 to deny a requested PUD amendment that would have added an express “auto spa” car wash and a broad set of additional commercial uses to a vacant parcel at 12411 E. 104th Ave after concerns about noise, site design and long-term land-use compatibility.
Commerce City Council voted 6-2 to deny a proposed amendment to the Turnberry planned-unit development that would have added an express car wash and a list of 20-plus additional commercial uses at 12411 E. 104th Ave.
The applicant’s consultant, Alan Jacob of Car Wash Pro Designers, and the property owner, Andrew Warner, told the council the planned “auto spa” would use modern, low‑friction equipment intended to reduce wear on vehicles, and that the design incorporates landscaping and architectural elements to limit visual impact. Planner Nick Berry said staff reviewed the proposal against the city’s land development code and provided materials showing noise projections and a traffic analysis.
Opponents at the planning commission hearings and at the council public hearing raised noise, trash and traffic concerns. Resident Bob Hannon said the closest homes would face the development “in my backyard” and objected to vacuum and blower noise and litter. Planning Commission members had recommended denial, citing that the proposal did not meet multiple approval criteria in the city’s zoning code.
Councilmembers debating the item focused on whether the application conferred a “substantial benefit” or a sufficiently unique design quality to justify amending the existing PUD. Several members said the proposal did not meet the approval criteria, particularly site integration and mitigation of adverse impacts. Others, while sympathetic to the developer’s investment, urged the owner to work with city economic development staff on alternative uses better aligned to long‑term commercial needs.
Councilmember Kim moved to deny the PUD amendment; Councilmember Douglas seconded. The motion to deny passed 6-2. The council directed the city attorney to prepare written findings from the administrative record for adoption at the next regular meeting.
The denial preserves the existing PUD use table for the property and closes this application; the owner may return with a revised application or pursue other zoning avenues permitted under the city code.
