Planning commission recommends denial of proposed car-wash PUD amendment after noise and compatibility concerns

The Commerce City Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that the City Council deny a proposed PUD (planned unit development) zone-document amendment that would expressly allow a car wash on a 1.06-acre parcel at 12411 East 104th Avenue.

The amendment, filed as PUDA23-0004 by Car Wash Pro Designers on behalf of Noli Enterprises LLC, would change the Burlington Northern Cattellus PUD to permit the commercial use. The commission’s decision was driven by concerns about projected noise levels, how required noise mitigation would affect site connectivity and visual character, and whether the parcel change would confer a substantial public benefit.

Applicant representatives Alan Jacob and Nick Spallone presented renderings, a traffic analysis and a sound study during the hearing. Jacob described the design as a “state of the art facility” and said the proposal includes landscaping and masonry enclosures for central vacuum systems. He also told the commission that the applicant is “open to additional landscaping” and willing to work with neighbors during the later permit review.

Staff presented the project as a PUD amendment that would change allowable uses for a single parcel within the Turnberry PUD. Planning staff noted a neighborhood meeting held Oct. 24 in which Turnberry Homeowners Association representatives Jeff Trzczak and Rob Hodnet attended; staff said two residents came to that meeting. Staff summarized proposed conditions carried from an earlier hearing, including a condition that noise levels at the property line not exceed 50 decibels, minimum stacking of five vehicles for the tunnel entrance and screening of stacking from public rights-of-way.

The central technical dispute at the hearing concerned the noise study. Staff and the applicant showed two model runs: one projecting property-line noise with no barrier and one projecting noise with an 8-foot sound wall. Staff explained the Land Development Code limits typical side-yard fence heights to 6 feet and that an 8-foot wall would require a specific change to the PUD document if the commission wished to require it. Staff also said the city’s engineers reviewed and accepted the traffic study and concluded the project would not materially change level-of-service on adjacent roadways.

The applicant’s sound-study presentation and video demonstrations argued that the conveyor and tunnel operations were quieter at typical measurement locations than opponents feared; the applicant said the site’s projected property-line levels without walls would be roughly 56–57 decibels and that ambient noise on E. 104th Avenue averages about 65 decibels. Staff told commissioners that, per the study, achieving 50 decibels at the property line would require an 8-foot barrier.

Nearby residents who spoke at the hearing opposed the amendment. Resident John Simanski said he was not convinced the tests reflected real-world daytime operation and told commissioners that with “vehicles that are running all day” noise levels would be higher than shown. Resident Bobby Hannon told the commission that the proposed use would “interrupt” mountain views from his backyard and expressed concern about daytime noise, vacuum use and odors.

Commissioners discussed how the PUD approval criteria applied. Several commissioners cited concerns that: the use is not unique to the area given multiple existing car washes nearby; requiring an 8-foot noise wall to meet a proposed 50-decibel condition would reduce visual connectivity with adjacent commercial development; and the project might not adequately mitigate potential impacts to neighboring properties.

Commissioner discussion culminated in a motion finding that the requested PUD zone-document amendment fails to meet approval criteria C, E and F in the Land Development Code (relating to whether the PUD addresses a unique situation and confers substantial benefit to the city; integration and connectivity with adjacent development; and mitigation of potential impacts). The planning commission approved the motion by a 5-0 roll-call vote. The vote was recorded as five yes, zero no, zero abstentions.

This action is a recommendation only; the City Council will hold the final decision. Staff advised the hearing record will go to council for first reading on March 3. The applicant and neighbors may raise the same technical issues before council and again during the permitting phase if the amendment is approved there.

For the record: the case number is PUDA23-0004; the subject property is described in staff materials as approximately 1.06 acres at 12411 East 104th Avenue; staff-recommended conditions included a 50-decibel property-line standard, a minimum of five stacking spaces for the tunnel entrance and screening of stacking from the public right-of-way; staff noted that achieving a 50-decibel property-line standard in the applicant’s noise model would require an 8-foot noise wall while the city’s Land Development Code ordinarily limits side-yard fence and wall heights to 6 feet.

The planning commission’s recommendation and supporting materials, including the noise and traffic studies and written public comments, will be part of the City Council hearing packet ahead of the March 3 council session.