HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 Ordinance No. 040•
10 a
ORDINANC E NO . .!:t/)
SE RI ES OF 1992
BY AtITHORITY
~t{ /-~
COUNCIL Bl[~~~) /ro/f z
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER HATHAWAY
A.'1 ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 16, CHAPTER 4, SECTION 12, OF THE ENGLEWOOD
MUN ICIPAL CODE 1985 BY ADDING A NEW SUBSECTION 12.1, WHICH CREATES A NEW
ZONE CLASSIFICATION B-3 BUSINESS DISTRICT.
WHE REAS , the new zone cla11ification of B-3 . Bu1ines ■ 1.li1trict i1 needed due to 1ignificant
differences whi ch are not addressed in prope rty cuTTtntly zoned B-1 and B-2; and
WHEREAS, the new classification B-3 include■ all the permit.ted uoe1 of the cunent B-2 and add s
a, permitted uses the auto related conditional uses and certain trade and contractor use s;
'OW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ENGL !,;. 000, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS :
~:
16-4-12.1: B-3 BUSINESS DISTRICT: THIS IS A MIXED USE DISTRICT WHICH CONTAINS
USES OF A GENERAL COMMERCIAL NA"'UJIE AS WELL AS CERTAIN UGHT INDUSTRIAL
USES . THIS DISTRICT SERVES THE S,\M'.E GENERAL ffiGHWAY RELATED USES AS THE
B-2 DISTRICT WHILE ALSO SERVING &1 A LINK TO ADJACENT INDUSTRIAL AREAS.
A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS . THE PROVISIONS FOUND IN THIS ZONE DISTRICT
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS FOUND IN
SECTION 16 -5, GENERAL REGULATIONS , SECTION 16-4-18 FENCES AND
RETAINING WALLS, SECTION 16-4-19 LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-4-
20 SIGN CODE, AND ANY OTHER APPLICABLE CITY ORDINANCE, UNLESS
OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR IN THIS ORDINANCE OR AN AMENDME NT
HERETO .
B. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT . A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE FILED FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANY LOT HAVING ONE OR MORE ACRES IN AREA.
C. PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES . NO BUILDING, STRUCTURE OR LAND SHALL BE
USED, AND NO BUILDING OR STRUCTURE SHALL BE ERECTED ,
SThUCTURALLY ALTERED , ENLARGED OR MAINTAINED UNLESS
OTHERWISE PRO VIDED FOR IN THIS ORDINANCE, EXCEPT FOR THE
FOLLOWING USES :
I. AN Y USE PERMl1'T EO lN THE B-2 BUSI NESS DISTRICT .
2. MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR BUSINESS INCLUDING BODY AND FENDER REPAIR ,
CO LLISION REPAIR AND PAINTING, PROVIDED THAT:
A. MOTOR VE HI CLES BEING SERVICED, OR STORED WHILE WAITING TO BE
SERVICED OR CALLED FOR , ARE NOT PARKED ON STREETS , ALLEYS ,
PUBLIC SIDEWALKS OR PARKI NG STRIPS .
B. AL L WORK MU ST BE PER FO l{MED IN AN l ". "CLOSED STRUCTURE OR
BUILDING.
C . NO MATERIAL OR PARTS SHALL BE DEPOSITED OR STORED ON THE
PREMISES OUTSIDE OF AN ENCLOSED STRUCTURE OR BUILDING.
D . ANY AREA SUBJECT TO WHEELED TRAFFIC OR STORAGE IS PAVED WITH
A DUST FREE SURFACE .
3. MOTOR VEH ICLE LAUNDRY OR POLISHING BUSINESS PROVIDED THAT:
A . A MINIMUM OF THREE (3 ) PARKJNG SPACES SHALL BE PROVIDED ON THE
SITE FOR EACH WASHING STALL.
8 . AREAS SUBJECT TO WHEELED TRAFFIC SHALL BE PAVED WITH A
DUST FREE SURFACE.
C. ALL WASTE WATER SHALL BE DISCHARGED INTU THE SANITARY
SEWER LINE AFTER PASSING THROUGH A SAND TRAP.
4 . AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIONS PROVIDED THAT:
A . ALL ACTIVITIES , OTHER THAN THE SALE OF .tOTOR FUELS AN D THE
NORMAL SERVICES INCIDENTAL THERETO, ARE PROHIBITED OUTSIDE
OF AN ENCLOSED BUILDING OR STRUCTURE.
5 . CONTRACTORS AND TRADES EXCEPI' EXCAVATION, STRUCTURAL, WELL
DRILLING, OR SIMILAR HEAVY CONSTRUCTION OR EQUIPMENT AND
PROVIDED THA1':
A . ALL WORK MUST BE PERFORMED IN AN ENCLOSED STRUCTURE OR -
BUILDING. •
B . ANY AREA SUBJECT TO WHEELED TRAFFIC OR STORAGE IS PAVED WITH
A DUST FREE SURFACE.
C . MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES SHALL ONLY BE STORED ON THE REAR
PORTION OF THE LOT, SHALL BE SCREENED FROM ADJACENT,
ADJOINING OR ABUTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BY A SOUD WALL OR
FENCE AND MATERIAL AND SUPPLIES MAY NOT BE STORED IN EXCESS
OF THE HEIGHT OF THE WALL OR FENCE.
6 . ANY SIMILAR LAWFUL USE , WHICH IN THE OPINION OF THE COMMISSION,
IS NOT OBJECTIONABLE TO NEARBY PROPERTY BY REASON OF NOISE,
ODOR, DUST, SMOKE, FUMES, GAS , HEAT, GLARE, RADIATION, OR
VIBRATION, OR IS NOT HAZARDOUS TO THE HEALTH AND PROPERTY OF
THE SURROUNDING AREA THROl.!GH THE DANGER OF FIRE AND
EXPLOSION .
D . ACCESSORY USES.
1. M"f USE INC IDE NTAL TO THE ABO VE PERMITTED USES , WHEN LOCAT ED
ON THE SAME SITE AS THE PERMITTED USE .
2 . SWIMM ING POOLS . SEMI -PRIVATE , SEMI -PUBLIC, AND PUBLIC .
E . CON DITIONAL USES . PR OVIDED THE PUBLI C IN'TE REST IS FULLY PROTECTED
AND THE FOLLOWING USES ARE APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION .
2
•e I. ADU LT l',NTERTAINMENT AND SERVICE FACILITY.
A . NO M>ULT ENTERTAINMENT OR SERVICE FACILITY SHALL BE
LO CATED ON ANY SITE UNLESS SUCH SITE 18 NOT LESS THAN THE
Dl:sTANCE LIMITATION AS REQUIRED BY THIS SECTION.
Cl) ONE THOUSAND FEET (1,000') FROM THE LOCATION OF ANOTH ER
SUCH ADULT ENTERTAINMENT OR SERVICE FACILITY.
(2) FIVE HUNDRED FEET (500) FROM THE BOUNDARY LINE OF ANY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT DEFINED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING
ORDINANCE AS AMENDED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, R-1-A ,
R-1-B, R-1 -C, R-2, R-2-C, R-2-C/SPS, R-3, OR R-• OR SIMILAR
RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT IN AN AREA ADJOINING THE CITY OF
ENGLEWOOD, OR ANY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION, PUBLIC PARK,
PUBLIC LIBRARY, COMMUNITY CENTER , OR EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTION, WHETHEII. WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE CITY OF
ENGLEWOOD .
B. MEASUREMENT OF DISTANCE . ALL DISTANCES PROVIDED
HEREIN SHALL BE MEASURED AS FOLLOWED :
(1) WITH RESPECT TO THE DISTANCE BETWEEN A LOCATION FOR
WHICH AN ADULT ENTERTAINMENT OR SERVICE FACILITY IS
PROPOSED AND A LOCATION WHERE SUCH A FACIIJTY EXISTS , THE
DISTANCE SHALL Bit MEASURED BY POLLOWINO A STRAIGHT LINE
FROM THE NEAREST POINT OF THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE
PROPOSED PREMISES TO THE NEAREST POINT OF THE PROPERTY
LINE OF THE EXISTING LICENSED PREMISES .
(2) WITH RES PECT TO THE DISTANCE FROM THE BOUNDARY LINE OF
A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OR ANY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION,
PUBLIC PARK, PUBLIC LIBRARY, COMMUNITY CENTER , OR
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, THE DISTANCE SHALL BE MEASURED
BY FOLLOWING A STRAIGHT LINE FROM THE NEAREST POINT OF
THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE PROPOSED LICENSED PREMISE'.; TO
THE NEAREST POINT OF DISTRICT BOUNDARY LINE ; OR IN THE
CASE OF A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION, PUBLIC PARK, PUBLIC
LIBRARY , COMMUNITY CENTER , OR EDUCATIONAL INSTITU'lWN ,
THE DISTANCE SHALL BE MEASURED BY FOLLOWING A STRAIGHT
LINE FROM THE NEAREST POINT OF THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE
PROPOSED LICENSFD PREMISES TO THE NEAREST POINT OF THE
PROPERTY LINE OF A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION, PUBLIC PARK ,
PlTBLI C LIBRARY, COM MUNITY CENTER , OR EDUCATIO NA L
INS r 1TUTION .
(3) WH E R •, THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF AN ADULT
ENTE RH oNME NT OR SERVICE FACILITY IS A VACANT PARCEL OF
LAND l "l'ON WHICH NO PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR TH E
CONST RU CT IO N OF A BUILD IN G, JILL DISTANCES SHALL BE
MEASURED FROM THE NEAREST POINT OF THE PROPERTY LIN E OF
THE LAND PROPOSED AS A LOCATION FOR AN ADULT
ENTERTA INME NT OR SE RVI CE FACILITY . WHERE THE PROPO SED
LOCATION OF AN AD ULT ENTERTA;NMENT OR SERVICE FACILITY
3
IS A VACANT PARCEL OF LAND UPON WHICH A PERMIT HAS BEEN
ISSUED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PERMANENT BUILDING FOR
SUCH USE , ALL DISTANCES SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE
NEAREST POINT OF THE PROPERTY LINE AS SHOWN ON TH E
SURVEY OF SUCH PARCEL OF LANO .
F . DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS .
I . MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS . SIXTY FEET (60').
2. SETBACKS .
A . MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK FOR NONCORNER LOTS SHALL BE TEN FEET
(10 ').
B. MINIMUM SETBACK FOR CORNER LOTS SHALL BE TEN FEET (10') ON ALL
SIDES WHICH ABUT A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.
C. WHERE A PROPERTY ZONED B-3, BUSINESS, ABUTS UPON ANY
PROPEKTY ZONED "R", RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, THE RESIDENTIAL
FRONT Y,\RO REQUIREMENT OF THE ABUTJ'ING RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT SlL'u.L APPLY TO THAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IN THE
B-3, BUSINESS UISTRICT.
S. MINIMUM LANDSCAPING. SBE SECTION 16-4-19 OF THIS TITLE.
4. MINIMUM OFF-STRBET PRIVATE PARKING AND LOADING. SEE SECTION 16-5 -
OF THIS TITLE . •
G. SCREENING. TO PROTECT ADJACENT, ADJOINING OR ABUTTING
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS SHALL APPLY :
l . THERE SHALL BE NO LESS THAN A TEN POOT U0') SETBACK FROM THE
PROPERTY LINE WHERE IT ABUTS, ADJOINS OR IS ADJACENT TO A
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. THIS SETBACK AREA SHALL BE LANDSCAPED
WITH SUFFICIENT MATERIAL SO AS TO PROVIDE A VISUAL BARRIER TO
ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED UPON THE SITE; OR
2. THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WHICH ABUTS, ADJOINS OR IS ADJACENT
TO A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SHALL BE SCRFENED BY A DECORATIVE,
CLOSED-FACE OR SOLID CONCRETE , BLOCK, BRICK, OR WOOD FENCE NOT
MORE THAN SIX FEET (6') HIGH .
3. NO BUILDING OR PORTION THEREOF SHALL QUALIFY AS A WALL, SCREEN ,
OR FENCE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION .
H . OTHER PRO\ ISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS. NO USE SHALL BE PERMl'ITED
WITHI N THE DISTRICT WHICH WOULD BECOME A NUISANCE TO THE OTHER
USES IN THE AREA BY EMITTING AN OBNOXIOUS OR DANGEROUS DEGREE OF
HEAT, ODOR , GLARE, RADIATION OR FUMES, OR UNDUE OR EXCESSIVE NOISE
BEYOND ANY BOUNDARY LINE OF THE LOT UPON WHICH THE USE IS
LOC AT ED.
Introd uced, reod in full , and pa ssed on first reading on the 8th day of September, 1992 .
4
Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the 10th day or September, 1992.
A Public Hearing was held on the 5th day or October, 1992.
Rea d by title and passed on final reading on the 5th day or October, 1992 .
Publi shed by title as Ordinan ce No .~ Seriu or 1992, on the 8th day of.October, 1992.
ATTEST:
Patrici a H. Crow , City Clerk
I, Patricia H. Crow, City Clerk of the City orEnelewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above
and foregoini: is a true copy or the Ordinance pused on final reading and published by title u
Ordinance No . _, Series or 1992.
Patricia H. Crow
5
ORDINANCE NO ._
SERIES OF 1992
BY AUTHORITY
A BILL FOR
COUNCIL BILL NO . 35
INTRODUCf!J11 COUNCIL
MEMBER J/(dttg -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 16, CHAPl'ER 4, SECTION 12, OF THE ENGLEWOOD
MUNICIPAL CODE 1985 BY ADDING A NEW SUBSECTION 12.1, WHICH CREATES A NEW
ZO NE CLASSIFICATION B-3 BUSINESS DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the new zone cla11ification of B--3 • Bu1ineH Di1trict i1 needed due to 1ignificant
differences which are not addreued in property currently •oned B-1 and B-2; and
WHEREAS, the new clauification B-3 include■ all the permitted u111 of the current B-2 end add s
as permitted use ■ the auto related conditional uu1 and certain trade and contractor uoe1 ;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ENGLEWOOD , COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:
16+12.l: B-S BUSINESS DISTRICT: THIS IS A MIXED USE DISTRICT WHICH CONTAINS
USES OF A GENERAL COMMERCIAL NATURE AS WELL AS CERI'AIN UGHT INDUSTRIAL
USES . THIS DISTRICT SERVES THE SAME GENERAL HIGHWAY RELATED USES AS THE
B-2 DISTRIC'." WHILE ALSO SERVING AS A LINK TO ADJACENT INDUSTRIAL AREAS .
A . GENERAL REQUIREMENTS . THE PROVISIONS FOUND IN THIS ZONE DISTRICT
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS FOUND IN
SECTION 16-5, GENERAL REGULATIONS, SECTION 16-4-18 FENCES AND
RETAINING WALLS, SECTION 16-4-19 LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE , SECTION 16-4-
20 SIGN CODE , AND ANY OTHER APPLICABLE CITY ORDINANCE, UNLESS
OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR IN THIS ORDINANCE OR AN AMENDMENT
HERETO .
B. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE FILED FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANY LOT HAVING ONE OR MORE ACRES IN AREA.
r.. !.'ERMl'ITED PRINCIPAL USES. NO BUILDING, STRUCTURE OR LAND SHALL BF
USF,D, AND NO BUILDING OR STRUCTURE SHALL BE ER L:G TED,
STRUCTURALLY ALTER E .,, ENLARGED OR MAINTAINED UNLESS
OTHERWISE PR"VIDED FOR IN THIS ORDINANCE, EXCEPT FOR 1'HE
FOLLOWING USE:l;:
1. ANY USE PERMI'ITED IN THE B-2 BUSINESS DISTRICT.
2. MOTOR VEHICLE REPAiR BUSINESS INCLUDING BODY AND FENDER REPAIR ,
COLLISION REPAIR AND PAINTING, PROVIDED THAT :
A . MOTOR VE P.lCLES BEING SERVICED, OR STORED WHILE WAITING TO BE
SERVICED OR CALLED FOR, ARE NOT PARKED ON STREETS , ALLEYS ,
PUBLI C SIDEWALKS OR PARKING STRIPS .
B. ALL WORK MUST BE PERFORMED IN AN ENCLOSED STRUCT URE OR
BUILDING .
C. NO MATERIAL OR PARTS SHALL BE DEPOSITED OR STORED ON THE
PREMISES OUTSIDE OF AN ENCLOSED STRUCTURE Oil. BUILDING .
D. ANY AREA SUBJECT TO WHEELED TRAFFIC OR STOP.AGE IS PAVED WITH
A DUST FREE SURFACE .
3. MOTOR VEHICLE LAUNDRY OR POLISHING BUSINESS PROVID1.W THAT :
A . A MINIMUM OF THREE (3) PARKJNG SPACES SHALL BE PROVIDED ON THE
SIT£ FOR EACH WASHING STALL.
B. AREAS SUBJECT TO WHEELED TRAFFIC SHALL BE PAVED WITH A
DUST FREE SURFACE.
C. ALL WASTE WATER SHALL BE DISCHARGED INTO THE SANITARY
SEWER LINE AFTER PASSING THROUGH A SAND TRAP.
4 . AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIONS PROVIDED THAT :
A . ALL ACTIVITIES, OTHER THAN THE SALE OF MOTOR FUELS AND THE
NORMAL SERVICES INCIDENTAL THERETO, ARE PROHIBITED OUTSIDE
OF AN ENCLOSED BUILDING OR ~RUCTURE.
5. CONTRACTORS AND TRADES EXCEPT EXCAVATION, STRUCTURAL, WELL
DRILLING, OR SIMILAR HEAVY CONSTRUCTION OR EQUIPMENT AND
PROVIDED THAT:
A . ALL WORK MUST BE PERFORMED IN AN ENCLOSED STRUCTURE OR -
BUILDING . ..,
8 . ANY AREA SUBJECT TO WHEELED TRAFFIC Olt STORAGE IS PAVED WITH
A DUST FREE SURFACE.
C. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES SHALL ONLY BE STORED ON THE REAR
PORTION OF THE LOT, SHALL BE SCREENED FROM ADJACENT,
ADJOINING OR ABUTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BY A SOLID WALL OR
FENCE AND MATERIAL AND SUPPLIES MAY NOT BE STORED IN EXCESS
OF THE HEIGHT OF THE WALL OR FENCE .
6. ANY SIMILAR LAWFUL USE, WHICH IN THE OPINION OF THE COMMISSIO
IS NOT OBJECTIONABLE TO NEARBY PROPERTY BY REASON OF NOISE,
ODOR, DUST, SMOKE, FUMES, GAS , HEAT, GLARE, RADIATION, OR
, 'BRATION, OR IS NOT HAZARDOUS TO THE HEALTH AND PROPERTY OF
'.,iE SURROUNDING AREA THROUGH THE DANGER OF FIRE AND
l:XPLOSION .
D. ACCESSORY USES .
I. ANY USE INCIDENTAL TO THE Al:!OVE PERMITTED USES , WHEN LOCATED
ON THE SAME SITE AS THE PERMITTED USE .
2. SWIMMING POOLS -SEMI -PRIVATE , SEMI -PUBLIC, AND PUBLIC .
E . CO NDITIONAL USES . PROVIDED THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS FULLY PROTE CTE D -
AND THE FOLLOWING USES ARE APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION.
I. ADULT ENTERTAINMENT AND SERVICE FACILITY .
A . NO ADULT ENTERTAINMENT OR SERVICE FACILITY SHALL BE
LOCATED ON ANY SITE UNLESS SUOH SITE IS NOT LESS THAN THE
DISTANCE LIMITATION AS REQUIRED BY THIS SECTION.
(1 ) ONE THOUSAND FEET (1,000') FROM THE LOCATION OF ANOTHER
SUCH ADULT ENTERTAINMEl'1T OR SERVICE FACILITY .
(2i FIVE HUNDRED FEET (500) FROM THE BOUNDARY LINE OF ANY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT DEFINED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING
ORDINANCE AS AMENDED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, R-1 -A,
R-1-B , R-1-C, R-2, R-2-C, R-2-C/SPS, R-3, OR R-4 OR SIMILAR
RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT 1N AN AREA ADJOINING THE CITY OF
ENGLEWOOD , OR ANY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION, PUBLIC PARK ,
PUBLIC LIBRARY, COMMUNITY CENTER, OR EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTION, WHETHER WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE CITY OF
ENGLEWOOD .
8 . MEASUREMENT OF DISTANCE. ALL DISTANCES PROVIDED
HEREIN SHALL BE MEASURED AS FOLLOWED :
(1) WITH RESPECT TO THE DISTANCE BETWEEN A LOCATION FOR
WlUCH AN ADULT ENTERTAINMENT OR SERVICE FACILITl IS
PROPOSED AND A LOCATION WHERE SUCH A FACILITY EXISTS, THE
DISTANCE SHALL BE MEASURED BY FOLLOWING A STRAIGHT LINE
FROM THE NEAREST POINT OF THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE
PROPOSED PREMISES TO THE NEAREST POINT OF THE PROPERTY
LINE OF THE EXISTING LICENSED PREMISES .
(2) WITH RESPECT TO THE DISTANCE FROM THE BOUNDARY LINE OF
A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OR ANY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION ,
PUBLIC PARK , PUBLIC LIBRARY, COMMUNITY CENTER, OR
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, THE DISTANCE SHALL BE MEASURED
BY FOLLOWING A STRAIGHT LINE FROM THE NEAREST POINT OF
THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE PROPOSED LICENSED PREMISES TO
THE NEAREST POINT OF DISTRICT BOUNDARY LINE; OR IN THE
CASE OF A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION, PUfiLIC PARK, PUBLIC
LIBRARY, COMMUNITY CENTER, OR EDUCAt-lONAL INSTITUTION ,
THE DISTANCE SHALL BE MEASURED BY FOLLOWING A STRAIGHT
LINE FROM THE NEAREST POINT OF THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE
PROPOSED l ,ICENSED PREMISES TO THE NEAREST POINT OF THE
PROPERTY l,INE OF A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION, PUBLIC PARK ,
PUBLIC LIBRARY , COMMUNITY CENTER, OR EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTION.
(3) WHERE THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF AN ADULT
ENTERTAINMENT OR SERVICE FACILITY IS A VACANT PARCEL OF
LAND UPON WHICH NO PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING , ALL DISTAN CES SHALL &E
MEASURED FROM THE NEAREST POINT OF THE PROPERTY LINE OF
THE LAND PROPOSED AS A LOCATION FOR AN ADULT
ENTERTAINMENT OR SERVICE FACILITY . WHERE THE PROPOSED
LOCATION OF AN ADULT ENTERTAINMENT OR SERVICE FACILITY
IS A VACANT PARCEL m' LAND UPON WHICH A PERMIT HAS BEEN
ISSUED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PERMANENT BUILDING FOR
SUCH USE , ALL DISTANCES SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE
NEAREST POINT OF THE PROPERTY LINE AS SHOWN ON THE
SURVEY OF SUCH PARCEL OF LAND .
F . DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS .
1. MAXJMUM HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS . SIXTY FEET (60').
2. SETBACKS .
A . MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK FOR NONCORNER LOTS SHALL BE TEN FEET
(10').
B. MINIMUM SETBACK FOJ< CORNER LOTS SHALL EE TEN FEET (10 ') ON ALL
SIDES WHICH ABlIT A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY .
C . WHERE A PROPERTY Z·DNED B-3, BUSINESS, ABUTS UPON ANY
PROPERTY ZONED •:F.", f:llSIDENTIAL DISTRICT, THE RESIDENTIAL
FRONT YARD REC,,UlRt,;MENT OF THE ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT SHALL APPLY TO THAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IN THE
B-3, BUSINESS DISTRICT.
3. MINIMUM LANDSCAPING . SEE SECTION 16-4 -19 OF THIS TITLE.
4. MINIMUM OFF-STREET PRIVATE PARKING AND LOADING. SEE SECTION 16-5
OF THIS TITLE .
G . SCREENING. TO PROTECT ADJACENT, ADJOINING OR ABUTTING
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS SHALL APPLY :
l. THERE SHALL BE NO LESS THAN A TEN FOOT (10') SETBACK FROM THE
PROPERTY LINE WHERE IT ABUTS, ADJOINS OR IS ADJACENT TO A
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. THIS SETBACK AREA SHALL BE LANDSCAPED
WITH SUFFICIENT MATERIAL SO AS TO PROVIDE A VISUAL BARRIER TO
ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED UPON THE SITE; OR
2. THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WHICH ABUTS, ADJOINS OR IS ADJACENT
TO A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SHALL BE SCREENED BY A DECORATIVE,
CLOSED -FACE OR SOLID CONCRETF , BLOCK, BRICK, OR WOOD FENCE NOT
MORE THAN SIX FEET (6') HIGH.
3. NO BUILDING OR PORTION THEREOF SHM.L QUALIFY AS A WALL , SCREEN ,
OR FENCE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION .
H . OTHER PROVISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS. NO USE SHALL BE PERMITTED
WITHI N THE DISTRICT WHICH WOULD BECOME A NUISANCE TO THE OTHER
USES IN THE AREA BY EMITIING AN OBNOXIOUS OR DANGEROUS DEGREE OF
HEAT , ODOR. GLARE, RADIATION OR FUMES, OR UNDUE OR EXCESSIVE NOISE
BEYOND ANY BOUNDARY LINE OF THE LOT UPON WHICH THE USE IS
LO CATED .
Intr od uced, read in full , and pn ssed on first reading on the 8th day of September, 1992.
Publi shed as a Bill for an Ordinance on the 10th day of September, 1992.
ATTEST :
vb@ ~ ol,t-e,<f
Patricia H. Crow , City Clerk
I, Patricia H. Crow , City Clerk of the City of Engl 1,wood , Colorado, hereby rertify that the above and
foregoing is a true copy of a Bill for an Ortiinan,e, ,ntror.uced, read in full , and passed on first
reading on the 8th day of September, 1992.
az-«<~ &~
Pabicia H. Crow
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Date
September 8, 1992
Agenda Item
11 b
INITIATED BY Community Development
Subject Creation"' ··-" __
classifica::. •· -, Business
District.
STAFF SOURCE Harold J. Stitt, Pl,mning Administrator
ISSUE/ACTION PROPOSED
St aff requests Council consideration of an Ordinance to amend Title 16 of the Municipal Code
for the creation of a new zone classification, B-3, Business, and lo stt Scptunbt1 S!l, 1992 as 'the
date for the Public Hearing. Ori-.;
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
There has been no previous Council action on this matter.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION
The Planning Commission, in their revi ew of the propose d B-3 zoning r egulati ons, focu sed on
the iss ues that came out of the Public Hearing. Those issues were: how the proposed B-3
zoning regulations differed from the existi ng B-2 and 1-1 zoning regulations; the effect ur
including the adult entertainm en t provis ions of the B-2 zoning in the proposed B-3 zoning· and
th e effect the proposed B-3 zonin g w ould have in stimulating development and redevelopment
al o ng th e West Evan s corridor. After consider ing th ese issues and reviewing the revisio ns to
the regulations proposed b y staff to address the concerns expreslle d during th e Public Hearing,
the Commission concl ud ed that the prorosed B-3 zoning regulations sufficientl y balanced the
needs of the vari ou s interests in vo lved . The Commission vo ted lo appr ove the proposed B-3
zoning reg ulati o ns with fiv e merr.bers in favor and four members opposed .
STAFF ANALYSIS
lllis amendment to the. Municipal Code will create a new zone classification th at is intended e ·
to address the uniqu e ne eds of the West Evans Avenue Corridor. Currently thi s area is zoned
B-2 . H owever, there are significant differences between this area and other B-2 areas within
the City. Th e proposed B-3 zoning recognizes these differences and a ttempts to provide zoning
that addresses th e nee ds of this area while providing protection for the adjacent re siden tial
area. The proposed B-3 zoning includes all the permitted u ses of the B-2 and adds as permitted
uses th e auto related conditional uses of the B-2 . In addition, ce rt ai n trade and contractor uses
are permitted as well.
BACKGROUND
The creation of this zone district classification resulted from a long history of concern for the
development of the West Evans Avenue area. Initi ally, only a rezoning of the R-2-C area north
of the future We st Adriatic Place from South Vallejo Street to South Zuni Street was considered.
Hr.wever, after discussions with the property owners and businesses involved , staff determined
ti., t a new zone classification would be more appropriate. The resulting B-3 classification is
more representative of the existing and potential future uses within the entire corridor.
FINANCIAL
There would be no di rect financial impacts on the City as a result of the enactment of this
Ordinance. -
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
AUGUST 4, 1992
I. CALL IQJJJll2ER..
The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zonir,g Commission was called to order at 7:00
P .M. by Chairman Schultz in the City Counci l Chambers of Eng lewood City Hall.
Members present: Covens, Draper, Dummc:r, Ge rliclc , Glynn, Shoop, Schultz
Members absent : Tobin , Leonard
(Both ladies had pven previous notice of the absence)
Also present : Harold J . Stitt, Planning Administrate,,·
Dan Brotzman, Assistant City Attorn, y
n. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 21 , 1992
Chairman Schultz stated that the Mi mit~s of .: Jly 21 were to be considered for approval .
Gerliclc moved :
Shoop seconded : The Minutes of July 21 be approved as written .
Mr . Draper asked that Paae 15 be amended to state that he suggests that •some• trees along
Broadway should be removed .
Mr. Gerlicic and Mr . Shoop accepted the amendment, and the motion is to approve the Min-
utes as amended .
AYES :
NAYS :
ABSENT :
ABSTAIN :
Gerliclc, Glynn, Shoop , Covens , Draper , Dummer , Schultz
None
Leonard , Tobin
None
.:rile motion earned.
m. COMPREHENSIVE ZO!'Jlfill.MAl
B-2 to B-3
R-2-C toB-3
CASE #8-92
Chairm an Schultz stated that in light of the fact that the Public Hearing on the proposed re -
zoning was closed at the meeting of July 21, and subsequently tabled to this date, no new evi-
dence may be elicited or introduced unless members of the Commission want to reopen the
Hearing , republish notice of the Hearin g, and repost the property . The Commission members
may di sc uss the infonnation presented during the course of the Public Hearing , and may as k
questi on s of staff fo r purposes of clarification . Mr. Schultz then asked t/ie pleasure of the
Commi ssion .
Mr . Gerlic k asked whether there was anything new that would warrant reopening the Hearing .
l\!r. Covens stated th at he has disc uss ed the is sue with several of the property owners in th e
ar ea , an d will, there fo re , abstain from voting on th is issue . Mr . Co vens reponed that he had
also been in contact with the City Attorney's office regarding the right-of-way for West Adri -
atic Avenue . Mr. Covens stllted that he was advised by the Attorney's office that the City can
"ask" that the right-of-way for Adriatic be dedicated, but the City cannot coerce the dedica-
tion . At th is time , there are two owners of residential p~ that have not dedicated the
right-of-way, and two business owners that have not dedicated nght-of-way. Apparently, the
residents feel the busi•r5s owners should take the first step, ID dedicate the ridtt-of-way to get
the street through, anu the business owners feel the residents should take the fut steps to dedi -
cate the right-of-way .
Mr. Gerlick ased if Mr. Covens was abstainin~ solely becaU£~ hi had tallced to people in th e
subject area . Mr. Covens indicated that he felt 11 would be pn,~ that he do so.
Mr . Schultz stated that i, was his impression at the end of the last meeting, that Mr . ForriTig-
ton had indicated that if "things were equitable", he would consiim dedicating the right-oi-
way .
Mr. Ferrington, from the audience, stllted that he had not realizet1 prcvi ~u ly that the.,. were
some properties that are "landlocked•, with no w1.y for the property owner to maintain ·hose
properties.
Mr. Brotzman advised at this point that a motion to raise the issue from the table would be in
order .
Drapt.."f moved :
Gerlick seconded: Case 18-92 be raised from ti'.,• table for discussion .
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSF.NT:
ABSTAIN:
Glynn, Shoop, Covens, Draper, Dummer, Gerlick, Schultz
None
Tobin, Lcooard
Nooe
Th e motion carried .
Mr. Schultz suggested that the Commission now needs a moti.:,n o~ the floor for discussion
purposes .
'{;erlick moved :
Dra~r seconded : The Planning Commission =mmend to City Council that the B-3
Zoning be approved for the following described areas:
ll:2... Business to B-3, Bysjn~: Beginning at the c:nterlines of West Evans Avenue and
South Zuni Street ; then east along the centerline of West Evans Avenue to the centerline of
South Raritan Street; then south along the centerline of South Raritlln Street to the centerline of
the West Evans Avenue/West Adriatic Avenue alley; then west along the centerline of the
West vans Avenue/West Adriatic Avenue alley to the centerline of Sou •£11 Vallejo Street; then
continuing west along the centerline of the West Evans Avenue/West Adriatic Avenue alley,
exten ded , to the centerline of South Zuni Street ; thence ncrth along the centerline of South
Zuni Street to the centerline of West Evans Avenue .
R-Z-C . j\fedjum Density Residence, to B-3, Busjn~: Begin ning at the centerlines of West
Adri atic Avenue . extended, and South Zuni Street; then north along the centerline of South
Zuni Street a di stan ce of 163 feet , more or less; then east along a line to the centerline of A
Soutl1 Vall ejo Street ; then south along the centerline of South Vallejo Street to centerline of W
2
West Adriatic Avenue, extended; then west along the centerline of West Adriatic Avenue , ex -
tended, to the centerline of South Zuni Street.
Mr . Draper sta~ that this area was annexed to the City in the late 'SO's, and whlle then: has
been some change in the character of development, the residents and owners have not taken
st_C)ls to get streets through to foster additional development. He stated that dr.dications of ad-
diuonal rights-of-way for streets has been discussed since at least 1957, and he personally does
not think that Adriatic Avenue will ever be fully dedicated and improved; nor does he believe
that the north side of Adriatic Avenue , extended, will ever be developed for residential pur-
poses . In his opinion , the only thing to help this particular block is to approve the rezoning to
B-3.
Mr . Gerlick pointed out that residents have expressed concern about the inclusion of any of the
residentially wned property in the =ning; he asked about the possibility of rezcning only the
Evans Avenue frontage to B-3 . Mr . Glynn stated that this would not solve the problem of the
property owner whose property extends from Evans south to Adriatic extended; this property
would still have two zone classifications .
Then: was further discussion on the dedication of the ri&ht-of-way for Adriatic. Mr . Gcrlick:
pointed out that the Commission has been advised that this cannot be required by the· City.
Mr . Schultz pointed out that residents have Slated that wen: lhe property to be rezoned for
business purposes, they will not dedicate right-of-way for lhe streel.
Mr. Glynn as!-'.ed if the area wen: lfJ be rezoned, would all business development still be re-
quired to have Evans Avenue fmntage ; if lhe street were to go through, could businesses de-
velop and front on that street . Mr. S'JU. stated that any develoi;ment must have fronta&,e on a
dedicated right-of-way . Mr. Stin polnti:d ou t that the iuue of the street ri&ht-of-way exists re -
gardless of what zone district is applied; then: can be no development of those landlocked
properties until they have frontage on a dedicated street .
Mr. Covens stated that he personally would ~\le,! to see all right-of-way dedicated and the street
improved; this would eliminate a hindrance lo development in this block:. He commented that
changes in ownership in the block: might also affect the dedication of right-of-way. Mr.
Covens further stated that the upgrading of value on one individual property whlle downgrad-
ing the value on properties abunin ~, a~;-:.>ining, or adjacen t, must come into consideration in
making the decision on this issue.
Mr . Brotzman clarified that while the Comrnission cannot advocate the 'taking" of property
~ fo r the street , they can recommend that the right-of-way be dedicated if the rezoning is ap-
proved.
Mr . Gerlick asked if the Commission were to recommend the rezoning to City Council with
the stipulation that the property owners be encouraged 10 dedicate the right-of-way on approval
of the zoning, does this mean that if the property is not dedicated , that the B-3 zoning would
not apply. Mr. Schultz reiterated that at least two residents have stated that if the block: were
to be zoned for business pu~ses, they arc not interested in dedicating riiht-of-way . Business
owners have also stated that 1f the block: is not rezoned, they may not dedicate right-of-way .
Mr. Stin pointed out that the Commission cannot make a "sti pulation" that the rezoning be ap-
proved "pursuant 10 " the right-of-way dedi cation. The Commission ma y only =ommend to
City Coun cil that the City "encourage " the ded ication of the right-of-way . The rezoning must
stand on its own.
Mr . Schultz stated that residents who attended prev ious meetings of the Commission on June e·
16 and July 21, and gave testimony indicated they were concerned about the possibility of
business de velopment directly across the street from them if the street were to go through .
Mr. Schultz further stated he understood the business zoning was to be along Evans Avenue ,
and that the rezoning does encroach into the residential area .
Discussion ensued . Mr. Covens pointed out that A~.rutl c Avenue does not exist we.st of Zuni
Street in ·Denver. Mr . Covens suggested that ,x>L~ts 10 be considered arc(!) do we "improve•
the area , or not improve the area ; (2) do we take tl,e .uca in 10tal, or 'spot zone'.
Mr. Covens offc ,d fri endly amcn J ~~! tn bf:-. Gcrlick's motion that property owners be
encouraged 10 dedicate nght-<if-way !01 W <:::t ,.,;r,~tic Ave nue . Mr . Gerlick and Mr. Draper
approved the friendly amendmen t to the m 1,>o'.t t'
Mr . Dummer asked for clarification on Mr . Covens' statement of improving one property but
downgrading another . Which w:a was he rcfcm,cing that particular statement to? Mr .
Covens stated that he wanted lo leave the people in atlClldancc this evening out of this , but
pointed out that there are 'feuds", people won 't dedicate right-of-way , the area is undcv oped
and over-grown . He wanted to •get the area up to speed ." Mr . Covens suggested t the
trade off isn't so much residents and business as whether we can get the area together . -Some
people testified that they like the •open•, undeveloped character of the neighborhood , but this
ts two blocks from Denver , and is a valuable area . His hope is to not make this an adversarial
issue , but to provide opportunity for improvement of the properties . He also pointed out that
the Planning Commission should consider the ber :fits to the total City , and not to just one
person .
Mr. Dummer pointed out that there has been little to no development since this particular
block was zoned R-2-C , and while there ls no guarantee it will develop under the B-3 there
will be an increased opportunity . Further discussion ensued .
Mr. Stitt reiterated that unless Adriatic Avenue is dedicated, properties that are now land-
locked will not be able to develop no matter what the zone classification is. They must have
frontage on a "dedicated" street to develop .
Mr. Schultz stated that he would like to speak on behalf of the residents once again : the
Commission heard a lot of comments from the residents during the course of the Hearing, and
-if the proposal for rezoning remains as has been considered, there is a slim chance to get the
street throueh . Were the proposal to be redesigned , would it be easier to achieve full dedica-
tion of the right-of-way -if the R-2-C area were to remain as R-2-C, would dedication and
~ improvement of_ the street become a reality .
Mr. Draper stated that in his opini on, there is a better chance of getting the street if the area
were to be rezoned to B-3; he pointed out that nothing has been done by the residents/property
owne rs to ge t the street through in the last 40 years .
Mr . Cove ns stated that when the area was annexed , the residents chose to annex to Englewood
rather than Denver , and that improved access to and through the area was one of the promises
made to the resident1 at that time ,. (r. Covens stated that Mr . Kelley made a po int during his
testimony that if the property goes \Jusiness , it becomes more valuab le , :md what business-
man is going to want to "g ive up' , · .iblc land .
F urther brief discuss ion ensu ed .
Mr. Schultz called fo r the vote on the motion , wh ich is as follows:
4
"The Planning Com ml,sion recommend to City Council that the B-3 Zonine be approved for
the following described ar=:
"B-2. Buslnes., to B-3. Bus lu )$5 : Beginning at the centerlines of West Evans Aven ue and
South Zuni Street ; then east along the centerline of West Evans Avenue to the centerline of
South luritan Street ; th e south along the centerline of South luritan Street to the centerline of
the West Evans AvrnnelWes t Adri atic Avenue alley ; then west alone the centerline of the
West Evans Avenu c/W t·I Adriatic Avenue alley to the centerline of South Vallejo Street; then
continuing west along th e centerline of the West Evans Avenue/West Adriatic Avenue alley ,
extended , to the centerl in e of South Zuni Street; thence north alone the centerline of South
Zuni Street to the centerline of West Evans Avenue .
"R-2-C. Medium Pt11sity Residence, to ~3. Bullnm: Beginning at the centerlines of West
Adriatic Avenue, exten ded , and South Zuni Street; then north along the centerline of South
Zuni Street a distance of 163 feet , more or less ; then east along a line to the centerline of
South Vallejo Street ; then south along the centerline o.f South Vallejo Street to centerline of
West Adriatic Avenue , extended ; then west along the centerline of West Adriatic Avenue, ex -
tended , to the centerline of South Zuni Street.
"The Commission further recommends that property owners be encouraged to dedicate the re-
quired right-of-way for West Adriatic Avenue between South Vallejo Street and South Zuni
Street .'
AYES :
NAYS :
ABSENT :
ABSTAIN :
Draper, Dummer , Gerlick , GlyM
Shoop , Schultz
Leonard , Tobin
Covens
Chairman Schultz declared the motion carried .
Mr. Stitt stated that the issues of the B-3 District rqulalions and of the rezoning will be re-
ferred to City Cou ncil. Ci ty Council will set a date for Public Hearing ; the area will have to
be reposted , an :. pu blic notice will have to be given in the official City Newspaper.
IV. PUBLIC FORUM,
Mr. Schultz asked if an yone wanted to address the Commission under Public Forum . No
member of th,! audience addressed the Commission .
V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE.
Mr. Stitt reported that Deputy City Manager Linda Martin has assumed her position as Ci ty
Manager of Bl ack Hawk as of August 3. Management Analyst Chuck Reid has been appointed
as Assistant City Manager of Englewood effective August 3.
Mr. Sn also reponed that interviews were condu cted on July 29 for the pos iti on of Comm u-
nity De velopment Direct or, and that Mr. Lee Merkel has been sel ected for the position . Mr.
Merkel will begin his duti es with the City of Eng lewood in mid-September .
Mr. Co vens asked for inform atio n on the reported "condemnation" of Cinderella Ci ty . Mr.
Stitt upd ated the Comm iss ion on activ ities pert2.in ing to the Cinderella City Mall , and pointed
ou t that this would be a "friendl y" condemnation. Th e City will be is suing a Request for Pro -
posals (RFP) in an effun to determine whether there is interest of developer s/redeve lo pers in
5
the projec t. The City, through the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority , docs have the power e·
10 condemn the Mall for redevelopment; however, once condemnation proceedings are insti-
tuted, the City must have funds available to deposit with the County until a valuation hearing
is held . This necessitates having a developer with funds avaifab !e read y and willing to proceed
once the property has been condemned . A "friendly " cond e mation is when the property
ownl·r will agree to the condemnation action . Mr. Stitt pointed out that there is a lot of work
yet to be done before the condemnation proceedings can be&in.
Discussion ensued . Mr. Shoop asked if the City would have an opponunity to work with the
redeveloper. Mr . Stitt stated that the City will have to know and be party to everything before
getting into condemnation . Mr. Schultz asked if trus process could include such thinr,s as
changes in traffic patterns , improvements along U.S . 285, etc . Mr. Stitt suggested that these
thing s would probably be cons idered as "in-kind contributions• from the Cit¥, and not be an
actual outlay of the redeveloper . Mr. Stitt po in ted out that in the EURA proJects, the EURA
financed the infrastructure items, such as the Englewood Parkway, the Plaza at Little Dry
Creek , the realignment of Floyd Avenue and Inca Way, etc.
Mr. Shoop asked if there was a time frame on this . Mr. Stitt SUie,;! he is not aware of a time
frame , but reiterated there iJ a tremendous amount of work to be ·~mplished.
VI. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE
Mr . Gcrlick commented on the detailed , lcn&lliY discussions oo li''I 'a-3 re&ulations, and the
rezoning of the area in nonhwcst Englewood . He stated that this was a tou,h decision to
make, but he felt that the Commission tried to show concern for both the residents and the
businessmen of the area . Mr . Schultz agreed, and stated that it i1 not an easy task for the
Commission or Council to make decisions that affect other people; he expressed hls ai;precia-A
tion to other members for their work and considcranon on these issues . •
Mr . Shoop asked about the "visioning• project. Mr . Stitt stated that funds have been re-
quested in the 1993 budget for the project, and if the budget request iJ approved, we should be
abl e to t,cg in the process in January . When Mr. Merkel joins the staff, we will begin getting
the information to~ . .her and proceeding as far as we r;a~ this year.
Mr. Sch ul tz asked if Mr. Merkel will be mt · ..lllg with the boards ~uci comw..i.ssions, and hav-
ing srud y sessions with the Commission. Mr . Stitt assured the Commission that Mr. Merkel
-will be meeting with the Board of Adjustment , and will be the ex-officio member of the Plan-
ning Commi ssion, and attending the meetings .
There was nothing funher brought before the Commission . The meeting was dee.Jared ,1d-
joumed.
_L-tr:J L 2/44-
'Geruu de G. Welty
Recor,:Er.g Secretary
6
STAFF REPORT
CASE NUMBER 492
STAFF REPORT RE ;
Creation of a new zone classification -B-3, Business District
DATE TO BE CONSIDERED;
June 16 , 1992
PROCEDURE;
B-3, BUSINFSS DISTRICT
The City Planning and Zonin~ Commission will hold a Public Hcaiing on the proposed new
zoning classification , after which their recommendation will be forwarded to City Council for
final action.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ANAL';'hlS:
The creation of this new zone district first surfaced as a result of the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals action against the property at 2280 West Evans . When first considered, the inien d•d
action was a rezoning only to chan&e the R-2-C zoning north of West Adriatic Avenue (from
South Tejon Street to South Zuni Street) to B-2. However, after discussions with property
owners and businesses, a suuestion was made to amend the existing zoning to allow the types
of uses that arc pcnnitted on the Denver side of West Evans Avenue or create a new zone
classification . After further consideration an entirely new zone district was determined to be
the most advantageous course of action .
The proposed B-3 zone district is modeled on the Denver B-4 district. The B-4 district is a
hybrid of commercia!, trade and very limited li ght manufacturing uses . It is somewhat akin to
a cross between the En.ilewood B-2 and 1-1 districts, allowing all of the retail uses pcnnined in
the B-2, and certain lin:ited manufacturing uses and special trade contractors .
The proposed B-3 disuict includes all the pcrmined principal uses of the 8-2 . In addition to
these are three auto re~\led conditional uses from the B-2 that will be classified as permitted
principal uses in the poposcd B-3. Also, contractors and trades have been added as permitted
principal uses. 11tis would include such uses as heating contractors, electrical contractors ,
plum bing contractors and the like. In all other aspects the B-3 is consistent with the B-2
distri ct in terms of its approach to land use regulation.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATION;
The Departme nt of Communi ty Devel opment recommends that the proposed B-3 , Bus ine ss
Dis tric t be appro ved and forwarded to City Co~ncil for final action .
16-4-13 : B-3 Business District: This is a mixed use district which contains uses of a general
commercial nature as well as certain light industrial uses. This district serves the same general
highway related uses as the B-2 Distri ct while also serving as a link tn adjacent industrial ar-
eas.
A. General Requirements . The provisions found in this zone district shall~ subject to the
requirements and standards found 10 Section 16-5, General R~gulations, Section 16-4 -18
Fences and Retaining Walls, Section 16-4 -19 Landscape Ordinance, Section 16-4-20 Sign
Code, and any other applicable City Ordinance , unless otherwise provided for in this Ordi -
nance or an amendment hereto.
B. Planned Development. A Planned Development shall be tiled for the development of
any lot havi ng one or more a.:res in area .
C. Permitted Principal Uses . No building, structure or land shall be used , and no building
or structure shall be erected, structurally altered , enlarged or maintained unless otherwise pro-
vided for 111 this Ordinan.:e, except for the following uses:
I. Any use permitted in the B-2 Business District .
2. Motor vehicle repair business including body and fender repair, collision repair and
painting, provided that :
a. Motor vehicles being serviced, or SL'lred while waiting to be serviced or
called for, arc not parked on streets, alleys, public sidewalks or parking strips .
b. All work must be performed in an enclosed structure or building.
c. No material or parts shall be deposited or stored on the premises outside of
an enclosed structure or building.
d . Any area subject to wheeled traffic or storage is paved with ~ tiust free su ·r-
face.
3. Motor vehicle laundry or polishing business provided that:
a. A minimum of three 13) parking spaces shall be provided on the site for each
washing stall.
b. Areas suuject to wheeled llaffic shall be pave!, with a dust free surface .
c. All waste water shall be discharged into tlie sanitary sewer line after passing
through a sand trap .
4 . Autom obile Service Stations provided that:
a. All activities , other than the sale of motor fuels and the normal services inci -
de ntal thereto , are proh ibited outside of an encl osed buildin g or structu re .
5 . Contracto rs and Trades excep t excavation , structural , well drillin g, or similar hea vy
construc tio~ or equipment and pro vi ded that:
a. All work mu st be performed in an enclosed structure or bu ilding.
b. An y area subjec t to wheeled traffic or storage is paved with a dust free sur-
face .
c. Materials and supplies shall only be stored on the rear portion of the 101 ,
shall be screened from adjacent, adjoinin~ or abuting residential property by a
solid wall or fence and material and supplies may 001 be stored in excess of the
height of the wall or fence .
6. Any si mil ar lawful use, which in the opinion of !he Corn mission , is not objection -
able 11> nearby propeny by reason of noise , odor, dust, smoke, fume s, gas, heat, glare,
rad iati on, or vibration, or is nol hazardous to the health and propeny of the surround -
ing area through the danger of fire and explosion .
D. AcceSSOI) Uses .
I. Ar,y use incidental to the above perrnilted uses, when loca•~;t on the same site as the
perr.lilled use .
2. Swimming pools -semi-private , semi -public, and public .
E. Conditional Uses . Provided the public interest is fully protected and the following uses
are approved by the Commission .
I. Adult entertainment and service facility .
a. No adult entertainment or service facility shall be located on any site unless
such site is not less than the distance limitation as required by this Section .
(1) One thousand feet (1,000') from the location of another such adult
entertainment or service facility .
(2) Five hundred feet (500) from the boundary line of any residential
district defined in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance as amended , in-
cluding but not limited to, R-1-A, R-1-13, R-1-C, R-2, R-2-C, R-2-
C/SPS, R-3, or R-4 or similar residential zone district in an area ad-
joining the City of Englewood , or any religious institution , public park ,
public library, community center, or educational institution , whether
within or without the City of Englewood .
b. Measurement of Distance . All distances provided herein shall be measured
as followed:
( l) With respect to the distance between a location for which an adull
entertainment or service facility is proposed and a location where such a
facility exists, the distance shall be measured by following a straight line
from the nearest point of the property line of the proposed premises to
the nearest poin1 of the propeny line of the existing licensed premises .
(2) With respect to the distance from U1e boundary line of a residential
district or any religious institution, public park , public library , commu -
nity center , or educational institution , the distance shall be measured by
fo llowing a straight line from the nearest point of the propeny line of the
proposed licensed premises 10 the neare st point of district boundary line;
or in the case of a religious institution , public \lark , publi c library ,
community cente r, or educational in s1i1ution, the di stance shall be mea -
sured by following a straight line from the nearest point of 1he prop cny
line of the propo sed licensed premises to the nearest po in t of the prop-
eny line of a relig ious institution, public park , public library, commu -
nit y center , or educat ional institution .
2
(3) Where the proposed location of an adult entenainment or service fa .
cility is a vacant parcel of land upon which no permit has been is sued for A
the construction of a building, all distances shall be measured from the -
nearest point of the property line of the land proposed as a location for
an adult entenainment or service facility . Where the proposed location
of an adult entertainment or service facility is a vacant parcel of land
upon which a permit has ~n issued for the construction of a permanent
build ing for such use , all distances shall be measured from the nearest
point of the property line as shown on the survey of such parcel of land .
F. Development Requi rements
I. Maximum height of buildings. Sixty feet (60').
2. Setbacks.
a . Minimum front setback for noncomer lots shall be ten feet (LO').
b. Minimum setback for comer lots shall be ten feet (10') on ill sides which
abut a public right-of-way .
c. Where a property zoned B-3, Business, abuts upon any property zoneti "R",
Residential District, the residential front yard requirement of the abutting resi-
dential district shall apply to that portion of the property in the B-3, Business
District.
3. Minimum Landscaping. See Section 16-4-19 of this Title .
4. Minimum Off-Street Private Parking and Loading . See Section 16-5 of this Title .
G. Screening . To prorw adjace111, adjoining or abuning rtsldtlllial properry, 1he follow-
ing provisions shall apply:
I. There shall be no less rhan a 1en fool (10') se1baclc from w properry line where ii
ab111s, adjoins or is adjacent 10 a rtsidenriaJ l!roperry . This St/ba ck area shall be land-
scaped with sufficie111 ma1erial so as 10 prowdt a visual barrier 10 activities conduc1ed
upon 1he site; or
2. 771e portion of 1he properry which aburs , adjoins or is adjace111 10 a residential
properry shall be screened by a decorative, closedjace or solid concre1e, block, brick,
or wood fence not more 1han six/eel (6') high .
3. No building or portion 1hereof shall qualify as a wall, screen, or fence under 1he
provisions of 1his Se c.io n.
H. Other Provisions and !Requirements. No use shall be permitted within the District
which would become a nuisan ce to the other uses in the area by emitting an obnoxious or dan -
gerou s deg ree of heat, odor , glare , rad iati on or fumes , or undue or excessive noise beyond any
boundary line of the lot upon which the use is loca ted .
3
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD
PLANNJNG AND ZONING COMMISSION
IN TIIE MATIER OF CASE #4-92,
FINDINGS OF FACT , CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING
TO TIIE CREATION OF A NEW ZONE
CLASSIFICATION -B-3, BUSINESS
DISTRICT
)
)
l
) FINDIN GS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIO NS
) TIIE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING
) COMMISSION
FILE !) JlY: l
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD
3400 SOUTii ELA TI STREET
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110
)
)
)
)
This matter came before the City Planning and Zoning Commission on June 16, 1992 , in City Council
Chambers of the Englewood City Hall upon the ~uest of the City of Engle-..,ood to consid er the
creatiop of a new zone classification, B-3, Business Distric t.
Commission Members present on June 16: Schultz , Gerlick , Glynn , 1=nard, Sh0-1p, Tobin , Draper ,
and Covens .
Commission Member absent on June 16 : Dummer .
The Public Hearing was continued to July 21, 1992 , at which tim~ ii.II members of the Commission
were in attendance .
Testimony both in favor and in opposition to the proposed zone district was received . The
Commission RCeived the Notice of Public Hearing and the Staff Report, which were incorporated into
and made a pan of the record of the Public Hearing . After corisidering the statemen ts of the
witnesses and reviewing the necessary documents , the members of the City Planning and Zon in g
Commi ssi on made the following findings and conclusions .
I.
2.
3.
4 .
FINDINGS OF FACT
THAT the Publi c Hearing was initiated by the City of Englewood to consider the creation of a
new zone classifiration , B-3 , Business District.
THAT the :.Jti ce of the I'ublic Hearfag was published in the Englewood Herald , the official
City new spaper , on June 4, 1991 .
THAT the Public Hearing was continued until July 21, 1992 .
THAT J\!r. Haro ld J. Stitt , Planning Admin istrator, testified that the purpose of the propo sed
B-3 zo ne dislric t regulations was to recognize the un ique characte r of the We st Ev ans corridor
and de velo p regula ti ons ap pro priate to it.
THAT Mr. Pat Quinne y, Bell Engineering , representing Manuel and Emil y Guardado ,
supponed the propo sed B-3 cl assificat ion and suggested the inclusion of landscape businesse s
as permitt ed use s.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10 .
II.
12.
13 .
I.
THAT Mr. John Bowman commented on the proposed rewning and the proposed di strict A ·
boundaries. W
THAT Mr. William Forrington stated that he is supportive of the proposed zone classification .
THAT Ms . Dorothy A. Romans, Police Division, Department of Safety Services, stated her
opposition to the inclusion of adult entertainment provisions in the proposed B-3 district
regulations .
THAT Mr . Dennis Kelle y, 2393 West Warren Avenue, stated that he was opposed to the
proposed zone classification contending that it amounted to "spot wning ".
THAT Mr. JC1Told Capeasius, 2350 West Warren Avenue, stated that he was opposed to the
proposed zone classi Ii cation.
THAT Mr. Mark Apodaca , 2351 West Warren Avenue, stated that he was opposed to the
proposed wne classification .
THAT Ms. Lynn Apodaca , 2351 West Warren Avenue, stated that there should be a buffer
between residential and commercial uses.
THAT Mr . Art Davis testified that he supported the creation of the proposed B-3 w ne district.
CONCLUSIONS
THAT proper notice was published in the Englewood Herald , the official City newspaper , on
June 4, 1992 .
2. THAT the proposed B-3 wne classification was considered by the Planning and Zoning
Commission at a Public hearing on June 16 , 1992 and continued to July 21 , 1992 .
3. THAT testimony for and against the proposed zone classification was received from the public
and made a part of the record of the Public Hearing .
4. THAT the Staff Report was made a part of the record of the Public Hearing .
DECISION
THEREFORE , it is the decis ion of the Planning and Zoning Commission that the proposed B-3 ,
Business District zone classifi cati on be approved and referred to City Council with a favorable
recommendation .
This dec ision was rea ched upon a vote on a motion made at the meeting of the Planning and Zon in g
Commis si on 0.1 Jul y 21, 1992, by Mr . Draper , seconded by Mr. Dummer , which moti cn states:
The Plann ing and Zoning Commi ssion recommend to City Council approval of the amend men t
f the Englewood Munkipal Code by including the proposed B-3, District as §16-4-1 3, and
~ bsequent renumberi ng of ap lica ble section s of th e Code .
Th ose voting in fa vor of the mo ti on: Leonard , Shoop , Draper , Dummer , and Schultz .
2
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 16, 1992
I. CALL IO ORDER.
The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by
Chairman Jan Schultz in th e City Council Chambers at 6:30 P. M.
Members present : Covens, Draper , Gerlick , Glynn, Leonard , Shoop , Tobin , Schultz
L. Man.,1, Ex-officio
Memben absent : Dummer (w ith previous notice)
Also present: Harold J . Stitt , Planning Administrator
Chairman Schultz declared a quorum present.
n. APPROVAL Of MINUTES
June 2, 1992
Chairman Schultz stated that the Minutes of June 2, 1992 were to be considered for approval.
Gerlick moved :
Tobin seconded: The Minutes of June 2, 1992 be approved as written.
AYES:
NAYS:
Draper , Covens , Ger.lick, Glynn, Leonard, Shoop, Tobin, Schultz
None
ABSENT : Dummer
ABSTAIN : None
The motion carried .
m. COMPREHENSJVE ZONING ORDINANCE
Proposed B-3 Zone District
CASE #4-92
Mr . Schultz stated that the issue before the Commission is a proposed amendment of the Com -
prehensive Zoning Ordinance by adding a new B-3 Zone D1stn ct. He asked for a motion to
open th e Publi c Hearing .
Cove ns moved:
Tobin seconded: The Publi c Hearin e on Case #4 -92 be opened.
AYES :
NAYS:
G~rlick , Glynn , Leonard , Shoop, Tob in, Covens , Draper , Schultz
N0ne
ABSENT: Dum mer
ABSTA IN : Non e
The motion carried.
!'-Ir. Schultz set fonh the procedure to be follo wed in the conduct of the Publi c Heari ng : all
persons gi vi ng testimony shall be sworn in , identify themsel ves , give their address , and ad -
dre ss the Co mmis sion from the podium . The Com mi ss ion will ask that the staff present the
-Those voting against the motion: Tobin, Covens , Gertick, and Glynn .
These Findings of Fact and Conclusions are effective as of the meeting of July 21, 1992 .
By order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission
Jan .
Chaimi
case , proponents will speak , then opponents will speak . There will be opportun ities for qu es -
tions from the Commission of all persons speaking, and an opportunity for rebuttal.
Mr. Schultz asked that staff prrsent the issue to the Commission.
Harold J . Still was sworn i.,, and testified that he is the Planning Admin istrator in th e
Department of Community Development. Mr . Stitt presented Chairman Schultz with a copy
of th e Publi c Notice which was published in the EneJcwood Herald on June 4, 1992 . Mr . Stitt
stated that there are two existing busines, zone classifications : B-1, the pC'.destr.an -oriented
Dow ntown Business District ; and B-2 , which is more hi~hway/automotive oriented in the use s
that are permitted . This B-2 Di strict is presently apphed on South Broadway from Yale to
Floyd , and from Kenyon south to the City Limits ; along East and West Hampden Avenues;
along Fed eral Boulevard in the Centennial Shopping Center area , and along Wes t Evan s
Avenue from South Raritan Street to South Zuni Street.
There have been a number of inquiries over the years regarding the West Evans Avenue area :
what uses are permitted , why a variety of other uses are not permitted , et~. Mr. Stitt stated
that a large number of properties in this area are undeveloped , or under-developed . The mo,1
recent inquiry has come from Bill Forrington, recent purchaser of 2380 West ~vans Avenue .
Mr. Fonington purchased a former "eye-sore ", has cleaned the property , and now finds he is
unable to sell or lease the property because the wning restrictions do no t permit the type of
uses whicJ, ,,,ospective tcnants/~urchasers have in mind. This issue has been ('.;scu ~sed with
the Commission at recent meetings , and the consensus was to develop a new zone district
which would encompass the present B-2 District provisions , and include a llmit,'.d number of
the lighter industrial uses 1 such as some "trades" contracton. Mr. Stiit pointed out that West
Evans Avenue is bordereo on !hree sides by Denver, and the B-4 Zone classificaLon in Denver
allows automobile repair, auto body shops, paint shops, and limited light manufacturing \!~P.,.
Specifically excluded are heavy construction contracton.
Mr. Stitt stated that staff analyzed the exisUng zoning in lhe area and the existing land use of
the area in developing the proposed B-3 rqulations . This area is a transition between the
highway oriented uses of the B-2 District, and the light industrial development to the far south
and east of the area. Mr . Stitt pointed out that there is R-2-C , Medium Density Residential
zoning which abuts directly on the B-2 District between South Tejon and South Zuni Street .
The block between South Vallejo and South Tejon Street is sparsely developed, and right-of-
way for West Adriatic Avenue 1s not fully dedicated . Mr . Stitt emphasized the need to make
sure that whatever is proposed , and adopted, will improve the value of the entire area , and is
not done just to addres s the economi c concerns of one property owner .
The B-3 Di strict , as !'reposed , leaves the provisions of the existing B-2 Zone District in tact ;
some Condi tional Uses in th e B-2 District are propo~cd as 'Permitted Uses " in the B-3 Dis -
trict. Also permitted are contractors and trades bus inesses . The B-3 District , as proposed ,
does speci fically except excavat io n, structural, well drilling, and similar heavy construction or
equipment. Mr. Stitt reviewed the provisions of the proposed B-3 District : Accessory Uses ,
Conditional Uses , and Development Requirements . Mr . Stitt pointed out that Adult Enter -
tai nm en t and service facility has been included as a Conditional Use ; this provision is in th e
existing B-2 , Busines s, and 1-1 , Light Industrial Dist>ict. Staff has some concern that if thi ;
provisio n were not included in the B-3 Di strict, the City mi ght be challenged by so meon e
want iny such an establishment. Mr . Stin stated that he had spoken with a member of the City
Attorn ey's Office , and the y concurred : were the City to be challenged , we would have to
prove a "un iqueness ' in the D-3 District which caused the exclusion of that use . Mr . Stitt
st re ssed that the distance rest ri ction s of the adult entertainment provi sion would effectivel y
pro hi bit any suc h use from locating along We st Evans Avenue beca use it would be within 5Cv
feet of a res ide nti al zo ne di strict.
2
Setbacks in the proposed B-3 Distri ct were discussed by Mr . Stitt . A 10 fool setback is r~·--
quired on all properties fronting or abutting a public right-of-way . Where a B-3 propert y ·
would abut a residentially zoned property , the residential front yard requirement shall also ap -
pl y to the B-3 wned property .
Mr . Stitt stated that this concluded his presentation on the B-3 Distric t.
Mr . Schultz asked if there were questions from the Commission of Mr . Stitt .
Mr . Draper asked what was meant by Adult Entertainment Service Facilities . Mr. Stitt stated
that this would be the 'x' rated uses . Mr . Stitt discussed the measurement methods used in
dctcrmin inc distan ces of Adult uses from residential uses , public parks , libraries , community
c.•ntcrs, tt'.; Ibis i, e 'straight line' irrespective of crossing other properties, etc. and differ s
from the methodology used in determining distances for liq uor establishments . Mr . Stitt stated
he und erstands th e Safety Services Department wants the Adult Entertainrr.ent Servi ce
Facilitie , p re>vi sion removed . Mr . Stitt reiterated that he had been told by the City Attorney 's
Office 111:1 . 11 ,; !•ivisablc to retain this provi sion in the B-3 District, as proposed .
Mr. ch u!· . asked that persons in favor e>f the proposed B-3 Zone District address the Com -
mission .
Pat Quinney , Bell Engineering , stated that he was representing Manuel and Emily Guardado ,
who own a landsr.ipi~g business. They own property on West Adriatic Avenue, extended, and
had ~ us 1111 th e Nperty for storage of materials in conjunction with the landscaping busi -
n~, but received a notice of violalion from the City because the roning on their property is
residential . Mr. Quinney stated that Mr . and Mrs. Guardado want to use the property to park
vehicles overnight, dispatch crews from this location, and eventually erect an office for their
c,peration . There would be no retail or wholesale operation . He u 'ad whether a business
such as he has outlined would be permitted in the B-3 District as projlOsed . Mr . Stilt replied
in the negative. The intent of the B-3 District is primarily retail, with limited uses of light in -
dustrial . The business as outlined by Mr. Quinney would more properly belong in the 1-1 or 1-
2 Industrial Zone Districts .
Mr . Qu inne y asked if the B-3 District were to be approved , what would the time clement be
before th e d1stri ci and rezoning would be final . Mr. Sti t stated that typically this could be fi -
nal within 90 to 120 day s; this is dependent on whether the Commissic,n makes a determination
this evening .
Mr . Covens inquired whether the materials , wh en stored on the site, were on a dust-free sur-
face . Mr . Quinney stated that he did not believe the surface was paved .
Mr . John Bowman was sworn in, and testified that he owns land on West Adriatic Avenue .
He asked why th e prop<'!.Cd District bo undaries (for Case #8 -92) were so delineated . Mr . Still
responded that from Tejon to Zuni , the property south of the Evan s/Adriati c alley, exte nded ,
is zoned R-2-C , Medium Residence Distric t. The block between Tejon and Vallejo has the
street dedicated and open to use ; there is some residential development in this block c,n both
si des of Adri atic , and were this to be rezoned would render those uses non-conform ing . How-
ever, the block between South Vallejo and South Zuni has ownershjps that extend from West
Evans south to West Adriatic Avenue , extended; the ri ght-of-way for the street is not full y
ded ica ted, and the propertie s are basically undeveloped . Mr . Stitt ,1tated th at were it to be th e
det ermination of the majo rit y of the propert y owners in the block betwee n South Tejon Street
and South Vallejo Stree t that this area sho ul d be rezoned , the Commiss ion would consider
~~--
3
Mr . Schultz stated that the Commission docs try to break Z01ie di stricts on the rear property
lines rather than mid-street.
Mr . Schultz askei if there were proponents who wished to address the Commission .
William Forrington was sworn in ; he testified that he now owns 2380 West Evans Avenue ,
and has been unable to se ll or lease the site because of the restrictions in the B-2 Zone District.
The majority of uses that have been proposed by prospective purchascrs/lcasees are automotive
in character -auto body shops, etc., which is not permitted . Mr . ;'orrington stated that th e
character of the Evans Avenue area is very different than South Broadway , and that ~scs ap -
propriate on South Broadway do not meet the needs along West Evans Avenue. t'r. Forring -
ton stated that it is pretty evident ::: him that West Adriatic "w ill not go through ". His prop-
erty is split between the existing B-2 Zone District , and the R-2-C Residence District, and is
just not usable at the present time . Mr . Farrington stated that he requested assistance from the
Com mission and staff to resolve his problem, and he is supportive of the pro~scd B 3 Dis -
trict. Mr . Fonington stated that in his opinion, the proposed Zone District will foster devel -
opment of not only his property , but other undeveloped properties in the aru, and will in -
crease land values. Mr. Fonington pointed out that this strip of West Evans Avenue is sur-
rounded on three sides by the City of Denver. Mr. Fonington stated that the proposed B-3
Di strict will not change th e health and lifestyle of the neighborhood.
Mr . Covens asked what th: response had been to discussions Mr . Fonin5tcn has had with
neighboring businessmen/residents . Mr. Fonin,ton stated that adjoining commercial neigh -
bors are in favor of the B-3 District; he has not discussed the issue with z.ny of the residents of
the area .
Mr . Covens asked if Mr . Forrington was riill considering an awning manufacturing operation
on the site. Mr. Fonington stated that the majority of the inquiries he receives are for auto -
mobile related operations , and paint shops .
Mr . Gerlick asked if the B-3 District would be acceptable to Mr. Fonington . Mr . Forrington
stated that he neet!s the B-3 District in order to sell or lease his property .
Mr. Scl,ultz inquired if there were other proponents who wis hed to address the Commission .
No one else spoke in fav or of the proposed Zone District.
Mr. Schultz then asked that persons in opposition address the Commission .
Dorothy A. Romans was sworn in, and testified that she is speaking as a representative of the
Police Division of the Safety Services Department. Mrs . Romans urged that the Planning
Commission consider the correlation between land use, zoning , and crime in neighborhoods .
Mrs. Romans statCG that the area along West Evans Avenue is of great concern to the Police
Department because of the number of incidents that occur. Mrs. Romans stated that since Jan -
uary l , 19'.' · ·, June 16 , 1992 , there have been 600 c.alls to the Department from the Evans,
Adriatic , B"' .• ~, Warren and Iliff area . On West Evans Avenue alone, there have been 364
calls; 22 calls have come from West Adriati c; 115 calls fro m West Warren Avenue ; 64 calls
on West Baltic Avenue , and 14 calls on West Iliff Avenue . Mrs . Romans stated that when on e
considers the cost of the calls 10 the people invol· ed , as we] as to the community as a whole ,
it is a matter of great concern . She urged the Commission kc:ep these statistics in min ,. when
conside ring the proposed inclusion of Aduh Entertainment ana Service Facilities in the B-3
Zone Distri ct.
Mrs . Roman s further testified that she is a member of AICP (American Institute of Certified
Planners), and has long be.en inte rested in land use development and r~ning. The lack of street
4
lighu, w. •/PC of use, ~rmitted in areas can all lcati ,.:> a high in cid ence of criminal activity . -
Mrs. Re,.,,""' urged the Commission to keep this in mind in theh deliberations of both the
Comprtt.•.:ns ive Plan and the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance .
Mrs . f<ornans stated that while the Safety Services Department agrees that the actual location
of an od ult entertai nment/service facility in this immediate area is a moot point , it is the pos i-
tion ol 1hc Department that this provision should be eliminated from the propoSCG B-3 District.
Mrs . Romans further testified that she had ~ken to City Attorney DeWitt at 2: 15 P .M. on
June 15 , 1992 , and that City Attorney DeWitt was also concerned about the inclusion of the
adult enter:aiP.m~nt/service facilities · .rovision in the proposed B-3 District, and that there
would be no problem with excluding this provision from the ordinance.
Mrs . Romans sbl.ted that it is the recommendation of the Safety Services Department that Sec-
tion E I be deleted from the proposed B-3 Zone District.
Mr . Schultz teed whetl,er Mrs . Romans' discussion with City Attorney DeWitt addressed the
issur. of First Amendment rights , and whether this would be an issue that should be consid -
ered. Mi-1 . Romans stated that "the test is whethe.t the City completely excludes the use; there
are areas where you can have those businesses .•
Mr . Shoop asked for further clarifi cati on 011 the type of crime calls that have been received .
Mrs. Romans stated that of 11:e 364 calls n,ccived from West Ev~ns Ave.,uc businesses, 324 of
those calls w:rc to bu sinesses that are auto-reltlled, primarily service station~; the majority of
the calls pr.naincd to people who filled the vehicle, and drove away without paying for the gas .
Ms. Tobm commented that some service stations require a $20 deposit from patrons prior to
filling the vehicle.
Ms. Tobin asked if any calls were riprding car theft or stripping of vehicles. Mrs. Romans A
stated that those calls come from the residential areas, not along West Evans Avenue. W
Mr . Glyn u asked whether the City of Denver also receives a large number of police calls from
this area . Mrs. Romans stated that she did not have that information .
Mrs . Leonard asked if there was much vandalism on vacant property . Mrs . Romans stated
that there are no calls in the 2200 block of West Adriatic, but there are on West Warren .
Mr . Gerli ck stated that as he understood Mrs. Romans' ttstimony, the B-3 as ~roposed would
be satisfactory to the Safety Services Department were the Section E I to be eliminated . Mrs .
Romans stated that this section is the only concern of the Department .
Mr. Covens asked Mrs . Romans if she felt B-l was a good compromise between the B-2 and J-
I Districts; does she think it would be applied :o other areas of the City . Mrs . Romans stated
that she did not think there were other areas of the City where this District would be appropri -
ate; this northwest Englewood area is unique .
Dennis Kelley, 2393 West Warren Avenue , was sworn in . Mr. Kelley testified that he can not
find any reason to justify changing the zoning . Mr . Kelley strongly objected to rezoning of
any residentially zoned propen y to commercial classification. Mr. Kelley stated that he had
hoped tha t Adriatic Avenue would go through , but the economy took ~ down -tum , and th ,:
costs to dedicate the land , to improve the street, install utility lines , etc . was just too expen -
sive . Mr. Kelley stated that he felt the proposal would con stitute "spo t zoning "; if "somethin g
co ncre te" were to be pro posed , he woul d be wi lling to look at it ; but it appears that a speci al
zone distric t is bei ,,c de ve loped for • specific area. Mr. Kelley stated that all the neig hb ors he A
has spoken to are in 'J ppo sition to the proposal. W
5
Mr . Cov ens inquired if Mr . Kelley felt tha1 1he development on Wesl Evans should 'mirror "
the developmenl on Wesl Evans in Denver. Mr . Kelley staled lhal he didn't feel there was
much difference now ; there is a bar on the Denver side, which Englewood docsn'I need.
Jerrold Capeasius , 2350 Wesl Warren Avenue, was sworn in , and lestified that he has not been
able 10 delermine the difference between the proposed B-3 Distric1 and the existing B-2. He
docs n01 want any zo11e district imposed on the area that will add to the problems cited by Mrs .
Romans . He lives in this area and has for a number of years ; he wants to retain the residential
zoning . Mr . Capeasius stated that the proposed rezoning would only be of assistance to the
businessmen who don't live in the area anyway ; there should be some consideration given to
the residents of the area . He stated that he is opposed to any change . Regarding the develop-
ment along West Evans A venue, he stated that Englewood docs not have a bar on this street,
and Englewood doesn't need it. He cited noise problems which are disturbing during the
summertime .
Mr . Schultz asked that Mr. Stitt clarify the different business classifications . Mr. Stitt stated
that the B-1 is the Central Business District; B-2 is more high-way/automobile oricn1ed; the
proposed B-3 would allow the B-2 uses, plus additional light industrial-type uses . Mr . Still
suggested that noise problems cited by Mr . Capeasius could be addressed by the Noise Ordi-
nance .
Mr. Gerlick staled that two people hav• csscd concern about the bar in Denver; could a
liquor outlet be developed in Englewo ., .. West Evans Aven ue. Mr . Stitt stated that it coul.J
be developed under the B-2 Zone District, which is exi s injl now; the Liquor Authority would
have to hold a Public Hearing, but there would be no zoning restrictions on the development
of a bar on this street .
Ms . Tobin asked if 16 on Pa,e 2 could appi1 to Mr. Capcasius 's concerns regarding no i!:i:.
Mr. Stitt stated that this prOVJsion is regarding •any similar lawful use•, which is not men -
tioned in the regulations of this District , but may be permitted by the Commission on specific
consideration. The noise created by existing permitted uses can be controlled i>y the Noise
Ordinance .
Mr. Shoop asked how many non-conforming uses exist in the area now . Mr . Stitt stated that
the landscaping operation that was given a notice of violation, was not ~rrnitted . There are a
number of auto related/auto repair uses that have been "grand-fathe""' in . The creation and
application of the B-3 District, as proposed , won't creale non-conforming uses .
Mark Apodaca, 2351 West Warren Avenue, was sworn in, and lestified to the uniqueness of
the general neighborhood . He stated that he did not realize the crime rate in the area was as
high as cited by Mrs. Romans . Mr . Apodaca stated that he would support elimination of the
Adull Emertainment/service facility as a Conditional Use in the B-3 District. Mr . Apod aca
sta led that it appears to him th at the primary difference between the B-2 and B-3 is that Condi -
lional Uses in B-2 would be allowed in the B-3 with no specific approval of the Commission or
an op portunity for the neighborhood to voice their opinion . This would take control aw ay
from the residents of the neighborhood and give it to the businessmen who don't live in the
neig hborhood . Mr. Apodaca stated thal in his opinion , ii is up to the neighbors to wa1ch wha1
develop s in their neighb orhood , and he doe s no1 feel there has been a prob:em with havi ng 10
make spec ial appearan ce before the Commission to gain ap proval for any speci fic use . Mr.
Apoda ca staled lhal there is a Bingo parlor in Denver , which has caused a 101 of problems ;
Engle wood doe s not wanl an y such establi shment or a bar along West Evans. Th e resident s
wan I 10 wa1ch whal happens in their neighborhood , and 10 watch whal type of people are doing
bus iness in 1he area . Mr. Apodaca staled thal he has small chi!Jren , and th is is of concern 10
6
him . He stated that the residents are trying to revitalize the area, and it needs close surv eil -A
lance . -
Mr . Shoop asked Mr . Apodaca what he felt about the possibility of Adriatic being dedicated
and improved . Mr . Apodaca stated that he doubted it would go through becau se of th e peopl e
who own the lots that have yer tu be dedicated . He stated that he has a 'field" in back of hi s
house at the present time . ..nd would rather have that than an industrial business .
Mr. Covens asked if Mr . Apodaca felt the community was too fragile to add businesses on
Evans . Mr . Apodaca stated that this area is pretty fragile; there are a lot of rentals because of
the rezoning a few years ago to permit duplexes and triplexes, which has led to a transient
population . With the existing B-2 District , and the restrictions contained therein, the resident s
feel they have some control over what goes in. Mr . Apodaca stated that he had no problem
with the lani:scaping operation and would rather have this type of business for a neighbor than
bars . Mr . Apodaca stated that he fell the step of approvi ng Conditional Uses in the B-2 Dis -
trict is a good extra step for this neighborhood, and did 001 want to sec this eliminated .
Mike Stone was sworn in, and stated that he was representing Mr . Forrington . He stated th at
the opponents to the B-3 District do have a point in that the B-2 does offer control on devel -
opment of some uses, but that the B-3 District will not be opening the flood gates to mass de -
velo~ment of uses that are unsuitable to the area . Mr . Stone stressed that the problem on Mr .
Fomngton 's property is that of split zoning; half of the site is zoned for business , and the
south half is zoned for residential use. It is not Mr. Forrington's intent ID erode the residential
area, or to cause problems for the residents of the neighborhood . Mr . Stone stated that Mr .
Forrington had purchased an eyesore, and has cleaned the property up; he now wants to be
able to sell or lease the property and realize some income from the site . T'.e B-3 District
would add uniformity to the business area, and provide greater opportunity IL -'" ,1usincssmen
on Evans to use their properties . The City will not be losing control by approving the B-3
District. Mr . Stone stated that if the City wanted Adriatic to be developed, they will have to
buy the land, and the improvements will have ID be borne by the property owners . Mr. Stone
stated that in his opinion, the proposed B-3 is the best that can be done under 1he cirrum-
slanees .
Mr . Schultz asked if staff wanted to rebut any of the testimon y. Mr. Still stated that there
seems to be a great deal of concern about the proposed B-3 uses. Mr. Still emphasized that
this would be allowing the uses in the existing B-2 District , allow some of the uses that are
Cond itional Uses as Permitted Uses , and some light industrial uses. Mr . Stitt suggested 1hat it
could be beneficial for the Commission to continue the Hearing , and allow the staff to consider
whether the concerns that have been expressed at this meeting can be addressed in the pro -
posed District so that a majority of the businessmen/residential property owners are satisfied
that it is in their best interest. Mr . Stitt stated that he would welcome additional comm ents
from members of the audience so that staff will have as much information as possible .
Mr. Denn is Kelley again addressed the Commission, commenting on what he interpreted as a
"threat " from Mr. Stone regarding whether West Adriatic would ever be fully dedicated and
impro ved. Mr . Kelley reiterated his strong objection to rezoning of any residential area to
commerci al purpo ses; he stated this would be breaking faith with the people residing in the
area .
Mr. Apodaca al so addressed the Commi ssion again , stating that he is not con ce rned about wh at
Den ver does or does not allow , and hopes the Commission wilt take this into consideration.
Mr. Apoda ca also stated that he doesn 't "give a hoot about uniform ity", and stressed th e
un iquen ess of the neighborhood . He expressed dislike for the attitud e tha t the change in zo n-A
ing is needed to "make qu ic k bu cks "; th is is n't good for the nei ghborh ood . -
7
Mr . Quinney also readdressed the Commission, asking that if the Htaring is continued, an,'
staff and Comm is sion do consider modifications "' the pro~sed B-3 District , could the re•
s1ric1ions be modified to allow the landscaping operation which Mr. and Mrs . Guardado have
so that they may use their land for this purpose. He stated that the proposed use would be
screened to protect the residential use s; the storage would be trucks, flatbeds, sprinkler pipe,
small tractors , dump trucks, tree spades , g1av.l, rocks , logs , etc . The property 1s now fenced
with a six foot solid wood fen ce all the way around . Mr . Quinney stated that if the B-3 provi •
sions could be amended 10 permit this operation, Mr . and Mrs . Guardado would be in favor of
the proposal .
Mr. Gerlick asked whether the landscaping operation as outlined by Mr . Quinney would be
permitted under Section C 5 of the proposed B-3 District . Mr. Stitt stated that Section C 5
pertains to contractor 's offices , some parking of small trucks overnight , and possibly some re-
tail sales . The operation that Mr . Quinney has described is a storage yard, which is not the
intent of the Section C 5.
In response to a query from Mr . Shoop, Mr . Stitt stated that junk _yards will not be pennitled
in the B-3 District ; auto body repair will be pcnnilled . Mr. SUit pointed out that a great
perce ntage of the land in this area is undeveloped or under-developed, and that any type of
development will impact the residential area , but the intent is to avoid, wherever possible,
negative impacts such as junk yards . Mr . Stitt emphasized that the Hearing has brought 10
everyone 's attention the need to give closer consideration to ways of protecting the residential
area , while providing reasonable uses for the commercial area on West Evans.
Ms. Leonard asked how many properties are affected . Mr. Stitt stated that 25 letters were sent
giving notification of the proposal ; this included properties that are in the immediate area, not
just those which are under consideration for possible rezoning .
Mr . Schultz asked if anyone else wanted to speak to the Commission . No one else addressed
the Commission .
Gerlick moved :
Tobin seconded : The Public Hearing on Case #4 -92 be continued to July 21, 1992 at 7:00
P.M., to allow staff additional opportunity to work with the business and
residential property owners , gather more information and input , and
make modificatic,ns to the proposed B-3, if warranted.
AYES:
NAYS :
ABSENT :
ABSTAIN :
Further, the Commission directs that Section E l. Adu lt ~ntertainment
and service facility, be eliminated from the B-3 R\:,, -'.~.tfon s.
Gerli ck. Glynn, Leonard , Shoop , Cov ens, Draper , Sch ,1liz
None
Dummer
None
The motio n carried .
Ms. Tobin made not e of th e fac t that Mr. Denni s Kelley and Mr s. Frances Shaffer were both
membe rs r r the Hou sing Task Force , and that she was glad to see the,n lake of the ir time 10
attend this ·,1eet ing.
IV. REZONING
B-2 to B-3
R-2-C to B-3
CASE 8-92
Mr . Still stated that this case is dependent on the approval of :, 11-3 Zone District , and sug -
gested that this case also be continued to July 21, 1992.
Gerlick moved :
Tobin seconded: The J>ublic Hearing on Case #8-92 be opened .
AYES :
NAYS :
ABSENT :
ABSTAIN :
Leonard, Shoop, Tobin , Covens, Draper , Gerlick , Glynn, Schultz
None
Dummer
None
The motion carried.
Mr . Stitt entered into the record the Certification of Posting for 14 signs posting the properties
for rezoning , and the Notice of Public Hearing which was published in the Em?)cwood Herald
on June 4, 1992 .
Covens moved:
Tobin seconded: Case #8-92 be continued to July 21, 1992 , and will be consider~ after
Case #4-92 on that same date.
AYES :
NAYS :
ABSENT :
ABSTAIN:
Shoop , Tobin , Covens, Draper, Gerlick , Glynn, Leonard , Schultz
None
Dummer
None
The motion carried.
A recess of the Commission was declared.
The Commi ssion reconvened at 8:45 P. M .
"·
. . . . . . . . . .
CAPITAL IMPRO\ BfENT PROGRAM
1993 -1997
CASE,U-92
Ms. Martin led discussion of the Capital Improvem ent Pro~ram, and the valuation system as-
sign ed to the projects suggested by the members . Ms . M m stated that some members classi -
fi ed a feasibility study and the construction project as one "project•, ·1,1hile others considered
this to be two separate steps, and so rated it. This created some diftict lty in assigning the val-
uation po ints , and if members feel that projects are mis -rat , th is can be changed .
Discussion ensued . Mr. Schultz asked if members found the process as outlined by Ms. Mar -
tin acce ptable . Mr. Shoop stated that the process is acceptable , but suggested that a third page
be added for notat io ns and explanat io n. Mr. Stitt sugge sted that the format co uld be changed,
with th e rat ing each individual Commissio ner gave a project eliminated , only the total point s
9
as signed to a project shown , with a column for comments . This proposed format was accept -
able to the Commission.
Mr . Coven s suggested that all ADA projects be grouped together. Discussion ensued .
Final determinat:v n of the reco mmended Capital Improvement Projects is as follows :
I. Cor,1munications Cen ter: The need for necessary staff space and to accommodate th e
upgraded Computer Ai ded Dispatch system .
2.
3.
Compu ter Aided Dispa tch System : Bring this ope.ration up to State-of-the-An .
Municipal Coun Move/Parking : Needed space for staff/accommodation of new pro-
grams . Give strong consideration to relocating this operation to j>resent Library space .
4. Library Feasibility Study /Construction : Consider leasing of existing vacant space
(Trolley Square , Cinderella City) prior to purchase/construction of new site/facility .
5.
6.
City Hall ADA : N~ed to provide disabled/elderly access to all portions of City Hall.
Malley Center Expans ion Feasibility Study/Construction : Suppon construction, but
stress need for more discussion on the need for an indoor pool, and more defin itive
plans .
7. Parks ADA : Need for access for disabled children and adults to all parks areas and
programs .
8. Recreation Center ADA : Needed access for disabled to all ai:eas of recreation center.
9. U.S. 285 TSM: Needed traffic flow improv~ment, widening ofBroadway Bridge .
10 . Tri-C ities/Santa Fe Improvements : Needed improvements along Sama Fe Drive .
All other projects would remain as previously ranked , that ranking in descending order as fol -
lows :
Cherrel yn Horsecar Shelter
Golf Course Expan~ion
Belleview Park Improvements (Page #13)
Servicenter Storage
Golf Clubhouse Expansion
Centennial Lake Shoreline
Belleview Zoo Move
Belleview RR Expansion
Reg ional Park Over/Underpass
Upg rade City Hall
Plaza Restrooms
Tejon Fire Station
Cen tenn ial Lake Parki ng
The above lis ting an d justi fi ca tion will be submitted to Cit y Mana ger Fraser fo r his use in th e
budget proce ss.
!O
VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE
Ms. Martin summarized action al the Executive Session, and at the City Council meeting on
June 15. Negotiations with two of the three employee unions have been underway . Agree -
ment has ,-ecn reached with the general employee's union , and Ms . Marti n felt confident that
negotiation~ will progress satisfactorily with lhe Poli ce Union. There was an economic devel -
opment session specifically on Cinderella Cily, and new approaches to the ownership of the
Mall were suggested . The Tri-Cities Intergovemmenlal Agreemenl was passed on first read -
ing . Council also approved the transfer of $11,000 to the Community Development budget to
finance Englewood's share for the consultanl in conjunction with the Planning Group. Council
approved the ACTS contract. The 1991 assessments for concrete construction/.Paving were
presented , and a Public Hearing was scheduled on July 13. Surfacing of the tenms courts will
be done this summer .
The week of June 22 through June 26 has been declared Employee Appreciation Week , and
voluntee r members of all Boards and Commissions are considered as employees , and are
invited to attend an ice-cream social to be held on June 26 begi nning at 3:00 P.M. on the south
lawn of City Hall. Spouses are also invited .
Tentative designs for the Broadway Park improvements are available for perusal by members
following closure of the meeting .
VD. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE,
Mr . Glynn asked what progress has been made on the formation of "focus groups" and revi-
sion of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr . Stitt staled that this has not been dropped or forgotten ,
but we are engaged in the Budget preparation process now and the "vision process" hinges on
the budget. Mr . Stilt stated that the process as has been considered thus far will be very
intense for the first 12 months . Were the staff and Commission to undertake this process with
no outside assistance (consultants/facilitators), the time commitment from both staff and
Commission members would be staggering . Discussion ensued .
Ms . Tobin suggested the use of college s:udents who want to get credits in the process . Mr.
Stitt stated it.is would be explored, and if people who have the training and ability can be
found , they would be considered . Mr . Stitt stated there is a need to go out into the community
to find out what the issues are. He emphasized this is a different approach to get community
involvement in the process .
Ms . Manin stated thal several communities in Colorado have done the 'visioning process",
among th em Fl. Collins , Loveland , and Greeley , and that all of the communities have very
distin ct reco mmendations on the process . They all had someone assist in identifying the
issues , and rarel y used staff or Planning Commissioners in conducting the focus group
meeting s. Ms . Manin pointed oul 1ha1 the ent ire process will involve a considerable amount
of mone y, and a l01 of sta ff time. Ms . Manin as sured the Commission they will be kepi
apprised of progre ss in the budgeting process to finance this visioning process .
There be in g noth ing further to come before th e Com mis sion , th e meeting was declared
adjou rned al 9:45 P. M.
Ge rt rude G. Wr ily
Reco rdin g Sec retary
II
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 21, 1992
I. CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7 :00
P.M. by Chairman Jan Schultz in the City Council Chamben of the Englewood City Hall.
Members present: Draper, Dummer , Gerlick , Glynn, Leonard, Shoop, Tobin, Schultz
Members absent : Covens (entered the meeting at 7:40 P.M.)
Also present : Planning Administrator Harold J . Stitt
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 7, 1992
Chairman Schultz stated that the Minutes of July 7, 1992 were to be considered for approval .
Draper moved :
Tobin seconded: The Minutes of July 7, 1992 be approved as written .
AYES :
NAYS:
Dummer , Gerlick , Glynn, Leonard , Shoop , Tobin, Draper, Schultz
None
ABSENT: Covens
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried.
m. COMPREHL~SIVE ZONING ORDINANCE
Proposed B-3 Zone District
CASE 14-92
Chairman Schultz stated that this is a continuance of the Public Hearing initially begun on June
16 . He outlined the parameters for the conduct of the Hearing , staling that people will be re-
swom , staff will make a presentation , proponents will be heard, opponents will be heard, with
opportunities for questions and rebuttal . Mr. Schultz called for a motion to "reopen" the Pub-
lic Hearlpg.
Shoop moved:
Tobin seconded : The Public Hearing on Case #4-92 be reopened .
AYES:
NAYS :
ABSENT :
ABSTAIN :
Gerlick, Glynn , Leonard, Shoop, Tobin , Draper , Dummer , Schultz
None
Covens
None
Th e motion carried .
SECRETARY'S 1',0TE: Notic e of Public Hearin~ was presented at the meeting of Ju ne 16,
!992.
Harold J . Stitt was sworn in , and testified that he is the Planning Ad minis trator for the City of
Englewood . Mr. Stitt stated th at the Staff Rcpon for Case #4-9 2 has been modified from th e
June 16th meeting 10 include Screening prov isions for protection of adjace nt , abutting , or ad •
joining resid ential properties to any B-3 Zoned property. These provis ion s read as follows :
G. Screening . To protect adjacent adjoining or abutting residential property , the following
provisi ons shall appl y:
I.
2.
3.
There shall be no less than a ten foot (10 ') setback from the property line where
it abuts , adjoins or i., adjacent to a residential propcny . This setback area shall
be landscaped with sufficient material so as to provide a visual barrier to activ•
itics conducted upon the site; or
The portion of the property which abuts , adjoins or is adjacent to a residential
prope rty shall be screened by a decorative , closed-face or solid concrete , block ,
brick, or wood fence not more than six feet (6') hi1h.
No building or ponion thereof shall qualify as a wall , screen, or fence under the
pro vi sions of this Section.
Mr . Stitt stated that in his opinion, the inclusion of the above provision will help obviate ncga·
tivc impacts the B-3 District might have on residential properties which abut, adjoin , or arc
adjacent thereto .
Mr . Stitt pointed out that this screening i., not contained in the existing B-2 District; it is, how•
ever, contained in the I-1 , Light Industrial District. The screening provisions of the 1-1 Dis·
trict and the proposed B-3 District provide more protection to adjacent, adjoining , or abutting A
residential property than the y presently have under the B-2 District . The B-3 District will also W
provide flexibility to the property owners/businessmen in that it provides for a wider range of
permitted uses.
Mr . Stitt addressed a memorandum from City Attorney DeWitt regarding the inclusion of adult
cntenainmcnt/service facilities as a Conditional Use in the~ B-3 Di rtrict . Mr. Stitt
stated that the issue is one of co nsistence and constitutional nr,bt,. If it is the determination to
exclude this use as a Conditional Use, the Commission's deliberations must focus on legal and
factual reasons why this use shculd be excluded . Mr . Stitt str,~ that with the existing 500
foot rule , the issue is virtually moot ; however , staff's opinion is that adult entertain •
mcnt/servicc ,facilities should ve included as a Conditional Use. [SECRETARY'S NOTE :
Mr . DcWitt 's Memorandum of July 14 , 1992 is appended to the Minutes as a pan of the
rec ord of these proceedings.]
Mr . Schultz stated that he had recei ved a telephone call fr.im Dorothy Romans , who stated that
she could not be in attendance this evening . Mrs . Romans indicated tha t it still the position of
the Safety Service s Depanment that adult entcnainment/servicc facilities should not be in·
eluded as a Condi tional Use in the proposed B-3 Zone District.
;,...1r. Shoop asked whethe r the fencing refer~ to in the proposed Section G. 2 could be located
on the property line . ;,...[r , Stitt stated that ii can be on the prope rty line, and suggested the ad·
diti on of "such fence may be located on the property line" at the end of this paragraph .
}.Ir . Gerlick asked if the height was to be limited to six feet. Mr. Stitt stated tha\ anything
higher would neces si tate amendi ng the portion of the Code penain ing ll' fences . ,nis ma y be
something the Commission would want to consider at a later time . -
Mr . Schultz asked what activities the decorati ve, closed-face fencing or wall is expected 1,i
hide from the resid ential area. Mr . Still suggested outside storage of materials , movement of
and /or parked vehicl es , etc.
Mr . Forrington was sworn in, and testified that at the beginning of the Public He:u t 1g on June
16 , he was "pleased 10 sec that Englewood had taken a positive stand 10 promote business in
Englewood". Howe ver , in the last 30 days . he has lost three leases of his property because of
1iscussions the prospective lcssccs had with people in City Hall . Mr. Forrington testified that
···once a business is established , there are no controls imposed -no weed control, no land-
scaping, tra5h and derelict cars .• Mr. Forrington cited a business in nonhwest Englewood
(Banon Brothers) that arc painting structural steel out on the ground -the ground is discolored
because of the paint; the building on the property is a "shack" for their air compressor . Mr .
Forrington charged that this business is polluting the ground and atmosphere because of their
uncontrolled activities . Mr . Farrington cited another building at 2197 South Tcjon -a 20,000
square foot building , 800 sq. ft. landscaping, the remainder of the lot in concrete, which
drains to South Tcjon , and ultimately across Evans into Denver . Mr. Forrington stated that
Denver is "upset' with the drainage from Englewood . Mr . Forrington then addressed the re -
quirements to develop his property: the drive and parking area will have 10 be asphalted or
paved to meet the requirement of "dust-free surface'; this will add IO the drainage problems in
the area . Mr . Forrington stated that at his sons' place of business on West Evans Avenue ,
they have crushed rock , bark, and leaves; water does not run off or erode ditches on the site .
Mr . Forrington stated that every ye:u or two they do bring in additional crushed rock. Mr .
Forring1on addressed the issue of the visual barrier in the proposed Screening section : people
in Ci :y Hall arc telling prospective ICDants they have 10 have a 'bullct-proof, bomb -proof wall,
anc! the landscaping requirements are like something from the KGB". He stated that he will
ha vc 10 landscape 3500 square feet of his property; J>COl>le will have IO come in by helicopter
because the landscaping, visual barrier, etc . are so resmctive, there will be no room for vehi-
cles . Mr . Forring1on stated that the rear one-half of his property at 2280 West Evans is zoned
R-2-A ; 'this is holy ground, you can't even wal1c back there.• Mr . Farrington stated that he
understands why businessmen are moving ID Mexico . Mr . Forrington Slated that he does have
a contract on his properly for considerably less than he was asking; if the B-3 District and re-
zr.1ing die , the deal ·is also dead. Mr. Forrington stated that he ~ad filed a protest with the
Arapahoe County Assessor on the valuation of bis property; they have devalued it in the
neighborhood of SI 19,000, so the City of Englewood won't get as much property tax from
him. Mr. Forrington stated that he was going to r.,ove out of the metropolitan area and go to
the country to get away from people . Mr. Farrington stated that one of the persons who spoke
at the Jur,e 16th session had stated that he was 'against change'. Mr. Forrington stated that he
had viewed this person's property , and found five junk vehicles and weeds on the property, so
he complained to the City about the condition of the property; nothing has been done to clean
the premises to this date in time . Mr . Forrington stated that the weeds on the back of the fill -
ing station are taller than he is . Mr. Forrington stressed the need to "get things moving'.
Mr. Schu ltz asked Mr . Ferrington what businesses were proposed for his property that deter -
mine d th ey could not operate in the current district. Mr . Forrinllton stated that one was a
manufacrurin g and marketing of meat culling operation . Mr. Fomngton sta ted that the new
fe nci ng, land sca ping , and surfacing requ irements wo•1ld require about a $75 ,000 investment; if
he did this work . and added it onto the price of the land it wouldn't sell ; if he had to foot the
bill with no way 10 reco up his expense s, he wouldn't be very happ~.
Mr . Schultz as ked what Mr. Forring to n felt would make th e pro~rty more sal able . Mr. For-
ri ngton stat d that the re aren't enough people in the B-2 type r;)f work to occupy the buildin g
he has on th e sit e . There must be a great deal of mone y in the light manufacruri ng-indu stri al
use s.
Mr . Sc hu ltz asked if Mr. Ferrington was aware of the B .. 2 Zone classification on th e Evan s -
fro ntage whe n he bought the property , and of the R-2-C zoning on the rear of the property .
Mr . Ferrington stated that he was aware of the zoning of tile property at the time of purchase .
Mr . Draper stated that he has driven through the area , and agreed that the rear of the 1-Jts are
badl y in need of weed cutting , and the derelict vehicles have obviously been stored on some of
the pro perties for several years .
Mr . Ferrington stated that he has "turned them all in•; he pro tested the requirement that he, as
a businessman , mu st make the type of capital outlay that be has cited )ust to &et a business on
his prope rty , and then the neighbors don 't care about the upkeep ofthcu own properties.
Ms . Tob in inquired whether removal of "paving" would be of assistance to Mr. "'oni.t,g(on .
Mr . Stitt pointed out that the surfacina of areas subject to wheeled traffic must be of a "dust -
free " substance . Mr . Stitt did point out that the Public Works Department does allow road
base and crush ed rock, and suggested that Mr . Ferrington should check with Public Works on
acce ptab ili ty of any surfacin g.
Mr . Ferrington stated that the operators of the landscaping business were "under court order to
cease and desist •; this business abutted the rear of his property , and even residents of the area
who spoke on June 16 were not "P!)Osed to the ;mdscapinc busir..css .
Mr. Co vens entered the mcctin11 at 7:40 P. M.
Mr . Forrington stated that he doc m't mind putting some landscapin,i on his property, but
"dorl 't sho-;-e it down someone 's throat.• Ms . Tobin pointed out that Mr. Ferrington may pro-
vide lan dscaping on his 9ropcrty without there b~ speclfic requirements, but other busi-
nessm eni propcrty owners may not; therefore, the requll'Cmcnts become necessaiy .
Mr . Ferrington pointed out that the residential property owners won 't clean up their property,
and he cannot lease his property for business purposes . He stated that he fdt this is som e son
oi di scri mination thai he has to abide by the rules , yet the residents don 'I.
Mr . An Davis was sworn in , and testified that he owns 300 foot froniaae on the south side of
Evans abuttin g Zuni Street. Mr. Davis stated that he resides in Fairpla;, Colorado , and was
unabl e to attend the mcetin, of June 16. Mr . Davis stated he wanted to commend the Com -
mission and staff for realizing that something must be done to promote dcvdopment of the
area . Mr. Davi s stated that a 101 of the development was in pl a~ when the area was annexed
to the City o f Engl ewood in the late '50 's, and estimated that 759' of the existin~ developme nt
was "in he rited ". Mr . Davi s stated that he ha, been renting his property , but 11 has actually
bee n for sale since at least i<;.l S. Mr . Davis stated tha t he had discussed the area with some -
one fr om the Wate r Depanment , and the individual had said that if th e property has not devel -
oped , it's a "pro blem prope ny ·. Mr . Davi s stated that in hi s op ini on , the proposed B-3 Dis •
tric t makes ccmmon horse sense , and that the Commission and staff arc looking at a probl em
tha t need s to be co rr ec ted , and may affect the enti~ City.
\1r. Schul tz asked if an yone else wish ed to speak in favor of the proposed B-3 Dis tri ct. No
,e else ad dress ed the Com mi ssi on .
M. Sch ultz then as ked fo r tho se in oppos ition to speak.
De nni s KeUev , 2393 West Warren Avenue , was sw orn in, an d stateJ tha t while he does no t
have strong objections to th e B-3 District, as propo sed , he did take is sue with th e statem ent A
that adult entenainment/service fac iliti es is "m oo t", sta ti ng that in his opinion, such a use W
4
could tocate on the rropcny on the southwest corner of West Evans and South Raritan Street
and comply with the 500 foot limii..tion. Mr . Kelley mtcd that if the R-?.-C portion of the
block were to be rezoned, and developed for business purposes , it would be difficult for any-
one to develop homes on the South of West Adriatic A11enue that face the into businesses,
particularl y if the businesses front on West Evans Avenu~; the rear of the property would be
used for storage and dumpsters , etc . Mr. Kelley reiterated his previous opinion of June 16
that this is "spot zoning", and that it is "morally wrong "; it is uesigned sp,~cally for the
benefit of one person , and this is wrong . Mr. ~.lley stated that the homeowners in the area
are willing to work wi th anyone interested in developing property alo:tg West Evans, but they
want to protect t:1e integrity of their homes . He stated that he has had discussions with several
people who have expressed interest in Mr. Davis ' property. Mr. Kelley stated that Mrs . Ro-
mans, former Planrung Administrator for the City of Englewood, referred several people who
were interested in developing in the northwest sector of the City, to him . Mr . Kelley stated
that when the residential area wa., rezoned to R-2-C, "the City" told them that the , ning
would not be changed "just for change". Mr. Kelley 1 ,ted that Mr. Farrington may do what
he says , but he also knew what he was buying . The t-"iidents of the area feel they should be
given consideration, and protect what is there. Mr. Kelley stated there was development oc-
curri ng in the area until the mid '80 's when the economy slumped . Mr . Kelley stated that the
residents do not want the R-2-C area rezoned to B-3 .
Mr. Covens ask.:~ for clarification of the area Mr . Kelley feels could be developed for adult
purposes . This was indicated to Mr. Covens. Mr. Stitt stated that Mr. Kelley is correct that
the block is 600 feet in length ; however , measurements an: from property line to residential
district line, following a straight line, and reiterated the staff opinion that it is a moot issue .
Ms . Tobin pointed out that adult entmainment is a Conditional Use under the existing B-2 and ·
1-1 districts ; this would not be changed. Mr. Kelley stated that he is aware of this , and it is
immaterial ; he wanted to point out that such a use could develop on West Evans Avenue and
be in comp"iiance with the dista• restrictions.
Mr . Mark Apodaca was sworn in, and stated that following the meeting ofJune 16, an Evans
Avenue businessman talked to his mother-in-law, informed her of various violations on her
property , and that if the residents didn't cooperate, it woold be "war". Mr. Apodaca~
that his mother-in-law was very upset by this individual . Mr .. Apodaca stated that this 1s "not
working with people' when threats such as this arc voiced. Mr . Apodaca stated that neither he
or his in-laws own the weedy lots Mr. Farrington alluded to earlier. Mr . Apodaca stated that
with the proposed screening provision, the B-3 District may be a good idea along West Evans
Avenue . Mr. Apodaca asked Mr . Stitt if the wording in the B-3 District on adult entertain-
ment use s was the same as presently exists in B-2 . Mr . Stitt assured him it is the same word-
ing . Mr . Apodaca stated that if this is the case , then he would approve inclusion of the adult
entertainme nt provision in the B-3 , also. Mr. Apodaca stated that the Scenic View school was
closed, and their children are now bused as far away as Sinclair Middle School. The residents
fought the idea of rezoning from si ngle-family to the R-2-C, which has encouraged a transient
pop ulation. Mr. Apodaca stated th at he cannot determine any reason for rezoning the R-2-C
area to B-3; there is no access to the rear of those lots because the right-of-way for West Adri-
atic Avenue is not full y dedicated. Mr . Apodaca acknowledged that Mr. Forrington's propeny
is very clean, but he has no assurance that whoever purchases the property will maintain it in
the cl ean condition it's in today. Mr. Apodaca stated tha.t the B-3 District does remove some
control from the resid ents in that some uses which were "Conditional" and had to be consid-
ered at Public Hearing will now be permitted , and can go in without an y input from the resi-
de nts. Mr. Apodaca stated that he also is willing to work with anyone who expresses interest
in de velop in2 or doi ng business in the area. Mr . Apodaca po inted out that Mr. Forrington 's
property is only on e piece of propeny in the block, and questioned wh y he didn't pi· sue a
varian ce rathe r than the rezo ning . Mr . Apodaca stated th at he had al so advised the owners of
th e lan dsca ping business that Mr. Farrington earlier alluded to , to pursue a variance to allow
the use . Mr. Apodaca stated that he feels the City government is here te1 help the people -
residents and businessmen alike . Mr . Apodaca stated that he really does oppose the rezoning
of the portion of the block from R 2-C to B-3. Regarding the right-of-way dedication and im-
provement of West AJriatic Avenue, Mr. Apodaca suggesu:d that the City investigate use of
Community Development Bloc k Grant funds for this purpose . He is aware that this propam
can provide funds for in stallation vf water and sewer lines, paving, etc .
Mr . Sti tt a6recd th~t possibly COBO funds could be oblair,ed for this purpose. Mr . Al>Odaca
requested that the City investigate the acquisition and use of CDBG funds for West ,foriatic
Aven ue.
Mr. Apodaca stated that he understood Mr. Forrington's goals for his business prope rty, but
pointed out that he, Mr. Apodaca, l'ves in this imm ediate area.
Mr . Draper asked for clarification of the issue regarding the businessman discussing weed s
with the property owner . Mr. Apodaca stated that the Evans businessman he had alluded to
was Mr. Forringtun, and that he accosted Mrs . Kelley regarding the weeds and vehicles the
Kelley 's have on their property. Mr . Forrington is reported to have stated that 'if you want a
war , we will give you war'.
Mr. Jerold Capeasius, 2350 West Warren, was sworn in and testificd that he has lived in
northwest Englewood for a number of years . He asked if the rezoning was going to open
doors to take the remainder of the residential aru over for commercial purposes.
Mr . Schultz stated that the philosophy of the Commission is, wherever possible , to break zone
district boundaries on alley lines !O that dissimilar districts are not facing into each other. This
is not possible in all cases. Mr. Schultz Stated that the B-2 J:;isttict along West Evans Avenue
was estab lished after the devel<ll'ment was already there. Mr. Schultz emphasized that the
Commission and staff are not trying to "backdoor • anything. Ms. Tobin also emphasized that
the Commission and staff are not trying to sneak anything by the residents of the area.
Mr . Capeasius asked why the B-3 District is needed. Why, if the rezoning is needed, not just
go with the existing 8-2 District. Mr . Schullz stated that the Commission received a request
for something other than the existing B-2 District for the Evans Avenue corridor; staff worked
to de velop the !lroposed B-3 , which combines the existing B-2 District with limited ligt.t in-
dustrial uses, :it an effott to find a compromise which will be of assistance to the business
owners , •nd not be offensive to the residential district . The R-2-C area in this block was in-
cluded be .. ,use some of the ownenhip! go through from Evans Avenue to West Adriatic Av-
enue, extended .
Mr. Stitt stated that he understood Mr . Capeasius's concern was that the City was 'sneakinf
in the B-3 District. Mr . Stitt then discussed the composition of the B-3 District . Mr . Sutt
then asked Mr . Capesius if he understood correctly that he [Mr. Capesius] would prefer that
the R-2-C area be rezoned to B-2 rather than B-3. Mr. Capesius stated hr did not understand
the reaso n for a new zone district; if the intent is to take the residential disaict, the City could
get the same results with the B-2 District. Mr . Capesius stated that he is quite concerned to
hear that Mr . Forrington is alleged to have said they 'would have war if the residents didn't
com e around '. He stated that 'it is not right to turn people in just to get revenge .•
Mr. Covens asked if Mr . Capeasius was aware the Board of Adjustment had considered this
area in the pa st ; doe s Mr. Capeasius want vacant lots along Evans if the txisting businesses go
un de r. Mr. Capea si us stated that there will not be vacant lots along Evans .
6
Mr . Schultz aslced if Mr. Capcasius felt the B-3 was better than B-2 for the Evans frontage .
Mr . Capeasius stated that the B-3 was "OK", but objected to rezoning the R-2-C portion of the
block .
Mr . Glynn stated that he liH.cl at Fox and Mansfield, not too far from industrial development
to the west. He stated that lbcse industrial businesses take care of their properties, and the in-
dustruJ uses and residents ~xist. Mr . Capeasius reiterated that he doesn't have too much
against the B-3, but doesn't want to see any residential area rezoned.
Ms . LyM Apodaca was sworn in, and testified that she has lived in the immediate area all of
her life. There is no development on the Denver side of West Evans, with the exception of
the bar and bingo plzce, that is not in Englewood. She sugcstcd that it is not because of the
zoning restrictions if someone decides to locate in Denver rather than in Englewood . She
stated that she docs not understand the n,,ed for the new zone district . Ms. Apodaca stated that
she would like to sec West Adriatic Ave ,tue be fully dedicated and improved. She stressed the
need for a buffer between the residentia . and business communities.
Mr . Schultz asked if anyone else wished to address the Commission on the proposed B-3 Zone
District. No one indicated they wished to speak further.
Draper moved:
Leonard seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #4-92 be closed .
AYES:
NAYS :
ABSENT :
ABSTAIN :
GIYM, Leonard, Shoop, Tobin, Covens, Draper, Dummer , Gerlick , Schultz
None
None
None
The motion carried .
Mr . Schultz stated that the discussion will now be limited to Commission members .
Mr . Gerlick asked how close Adriatic Avenue is to being fully dedicated . Reference was
made to the map , and it appears there are four property owners that have not dedicated right-
of-way .
Mr. Covens aslced if the Commission were to recommend denial of the B-3 District, could the
Commission recommend that the area be rezoned to B-2 . Mr. Stitt pointed out that the Evans
frontage is currentl y zoned B-2; the Commission could, if they so desired, recommend that the
south one-half of the block (the area zoned R-2-C) be rezoned to B-2. However , to consider
the area for B-2 zoning would require a new hearing , the property would have to be posted
and public notice would have to be given.
Mr. Schultz asked if there was any current discussion of this immediate block before the Board
of Adjustment. :Mr . Stitt stated that the last discussion by the Board v.-as on Mr . Forrington's
property quite some time prior to his purchase.
Mr. Draper asked the location of Mr . Davis's property . Mr . Davis stated it is the south east
corner of the Evan s/Zuni in tersection that is owned by him . He reiterated he purchased the
property in I 979 , and has been trying to sell it ever since. He has advised everyone who has
expre ssed an interest in the property to check with the ~ity regarding zone classification and
permitted uses . Mr . Davis also reiterated that he feels th e City is working in the right dire c-
tion to allo w fle xibility and promote development.
Ml. Shoop asked if the landscaping business which was in violation would be permitted under A
the proposed B-3. Mr . Stitt stated that it would not. •
Mr . Covens asked for clarification of the memorandum from City Attorney DeWitt . Mr . Stitt
reiter.ued that unless the Commission has logical and factual reasons for elimination of the
adult entertainment/service facility from the B-3 District, it should be included . He empha-
sized that this is a matter of consistency and constitutional rights, and a way ID avoid a chal-
lenge if it were not included in the new district . Mr. Covens Slated that be is of the mind to
let constitutional challenges be made regarding this . Mr . Dummer pointed out that the en>vi -
sion takes the exact wording from the existin, B-2, 1-1 and 1-2 Districts and includ= it m the
B-3 . Mr . Covens stated that his compcllin, interest is the~ that have lived in this area
for 30 some years; inclusion of this proviSton could impact Ibis area, and otbcr areas in the
City were the B-3 to be applied elsewhere . Mr. Dummer expressed the opinion it is wilikcly
the B-3 area would be used elsewhere , or that residential property would be taken for B-3 ; the
only reason this one-half block is being taken is because of the lack of development.
Brief discussion ensued .
Draper moved :
Dummer seconded : The Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the
amendment of the Englewood Municipal Code by including the proposed
B-3 District as §16-4-13, and subsequent renumbering of applicable sec-
tio ns of the Code .
AYES :
NAYS :
ABSENT :
ABSTAIN :
Leonard , Shoop , Draper, Dummer, Schultz
Tobin , Covens, Gerliclc, Glynn
None
None
The motion carried . . .•.......
A brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 8:45 P .M. wi:h all members presen t ..........
IV. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING MAP
Rezoning B-2 to B-3
Rezoning R-2-C to B-3
Chairman Schultz called for a motion to "reopen" the continued Public Hearing.
Tobin moved :
Draper seconded : The Public Hearing on Case #8-92 be reopened .
CASES-92
AYES:
NAYS :
Sr'Xlp , Tobin , Covens, Draper, Dummer , Gerlick, Glynn , Leonard , Schultz
!·ione
ABSENT : None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried .
Mr. Schultz set forth the parameters fo r the conduct of the Hearing .
SECRETARY'S NOTE: Notice of Public Hearing , and Certification of Posting had been
presented for the record at the meeting of June 16 .
Mr . Stitt, being sworn for the previous Hearing, gave testimony on the background of the re-
zoning, delineating the permitted uses in the existing 8-2 District along West Evans Avenue ,
and uses which would be permitted under the 8-3 District as recommended by the Commis -
sion . Mr . Stitt pointed ou t that the block between Vallejo and Zurti has split zoning, the north
one -half being 8 -2, Business, and the south one-half being R-2-C, Medium Density Residence .
Mr . Forrington's ownership extends north to south from West Evans Avenue to West Adriatic
Aven ue , extended.
Mr. Stin stated that staff has consistently told anyone inquiring about development and/or use
in this area that the B-2 District does lll!1 permit auto body shops, paint shops, or light manu -
facturing. Mr. Stitt stated that this has been the procedure for the last 10 years that he is
aware of, and that staff has tried to be very consistent in information that is given .
The area to the south of the "projected alley ", the R-2-C area , is primarily vacant , and he is
unaware of an_y inquiries for new R-2-C development in this half block . Mr . Stitt stated that
only two lots m thts one-half block can be developed at the present time , those with frontage
on either South Vallejo Street or South Zuni Street ; the remaining properties do not front on a
dedicated public right-of-way , and until West Adriatic Avenue is dedicated and improved, the
majority of this block will not develop because of the lack of frontage on a dedicated street.
Mr. Stitt em~hasized that anr development will Impact the residential area . He pointed out
that the e:rutmg B-2 Zone Dtsttict does not contain the Screening provisions of the proposed
B-3 District ; but the B-3 Disttict will allow a more intense type of use than the B-2. Also, if
the rezoning wi:rc to be approved , and were West Adriatic Avenue to be improved, it would
be a 'commercial street", and traffic could increa.•c in this area. The impact of rezoning on
the residential neighborhood is a negative factor no matter what .
Benefits of the rezoning will be that it offers more flexibility and opportunity fo( development.
Mr. Stitt stated that Mr. Forrington's property was formerly owned by Mr . Kurtz , who was
before the Board of Adjustme nt & Appeals on numerous occasions regarding non~ompliance
with restrictions they had placed on the nonconforming use of his property . Omru Bank
eventually assumed control of Mr. Kurtz's property, and there was discussion with BanJc rep -
resentatives on rezoning of the property . The Bank wanted onl y the subject property rezoned,
and when staff suggested that the entire block be considered and that the Bank should approach
the adjacent property owners regarding the rezoning, the Bank declined to pursue the issue .
Mr . Kunz used the rear one -half of his property (zoned R-2-C) in conjunction with the Evans
Avenue frontage, in violation of the R-2-C Zoning . Mr. Kunz's use of the entire property is
terminated, and is 'history"; future use of the entire property ll1llil be in compliance with the
zone district regulations applied to the site .
Mr. Stitt outlined options the Commission may conside r:
I) Den y the rezoning .
2) Approve the rezoning with the present configuration .
3) Appro ve the rezon ing with reconfig uration of the area to be rezoned , elim inating the
ponio n of the bl ock zo ned R-2-C, allowing a small "nodule " on Mr . Forrington 's
property to accommodate the build ing which extends into the R-2 -C Distri ct.
Mr . Still stated that Optio n 113 would not address the concerns of some of the peopl e who ow n
prop en y on West Adria tic Avenue, exter.Jed; they would still have R-2-C Zonin g. Mr. Still
9
stressed that the Commission must consider what is in the best interest of the community :
leave the area as it exists; rezone as proposed; or rezone with the modifications. Mr . Stitt rc -
uerated that the proposed rezoning docs have b•Jth negative and positive impacts · however
with the proposed restrictions written into the proposed B-3 District, he is of the o'pinion thai
development can be controlled and will alleviate a majority of the negative aspects for the resi-
dents .
Mr. Covens asked why Mr . Davis's property cannot develop . Mr. Stitt stated that it can under
the present zoning ; Mr . Davis has street frontage on West Evans Avenue .
Mr. Schultz asked for proponents of the rezoning to address the Commission .
Mr . An Davis , previously sworn, testified that the former Kurtz property is a "problem prop-
erty '. Mr . Davis stated that it mJ.lccs sense to rezone this area ; he is of the opinion that Adri -
atic will go through if the property owners •want • it. Mr. Davis reiterated he has owned his
property since 1979, but has been unable to sell it or develop it. The City is not realizing the
rev enue that can be generated from this area, and feels thr.i :.'1c new district and rezoning will
provide some development incentives .
Mr . Schultz asked if anyone else wanted to speak in favor of the rezoning . No one else spoke
in favor.
Mr . Schultz then asked for opponents to speak .
Mark Apodaca, previously sworn, testified that he is cor,cemed about putting 'inr stria!" uses
along a high traffic-volume street, such as Evans . Mr. Apodaca pointed out that the inc.ustrial
developments in oorthwei;t EnJ!ewood have access from !;vans via Raritan, Tejon , and Zurti .
He docs not underswld the rationale of imposing indUSlrial de\ elopmcnt along heavily traveled
thoroughfares . He is also concerned about the imposition of an adult use on Wffl Evans at
Raritan . Mr . Apodaca stated that he •would like to sa: this whole thing shelved ". M.. Apo·
daca emphasized that he is a resident of the area, and the fact that a businessman purchased
-property that cannot be leased or sold is not his problem . Mr . Apodaca urged the City to ex-
plore the alternate ways tr ,get West Adriatic Avenue dedicated and developed. The rezoning
would eliminate the right of the residents to voice their opinions on the Conditional Use provi-
sions, and this is an elimination of control that Mr. Apodaca feel. is important. He again
urged that until we can do something better coordinated , that this proposal be "shelved'. Mr .
Apodaca stated that he believes that Mr . Ferrington is an honest businessman , but is also of
the opinion that a variance could be granted to give the relief Mr . Ferrington is seeking, but
Mr . Apodaca emphasized Mr . Ferrington knew what the zoning of the ground was when he
bought it. Mr. Apodaca stated he is of the opin ion that the ru:oning of the area doesn 't help
any body.
Mr . Schultz posed a hypothetical situation : if the property with Zuni Street frontage were to
de vel op , and were the solid visual barrier and landscaping imposed along the southern bound -
ary of that prope rty, would this still be objectionable to the residents on the south side of We st
Adriatic Avenue , extended. Mr . Apodaca stated that it would be of great concern to him,
po in ting out that the solid fence or wall would be an invitation for graffiti ; there would be no
lighti ng along the projected Avenue, and this is a hig h crime area. Mr . Apodaca stated that he
really wants to see West Adriatic Avenue go through with resi dential development on bo th
sides of the street .
De nnis Kelley , pre viousl y sworn, testified that he had talked to Mr . Schultz during the earlier -
recess. There arc rwo property owners on the south sid e of the projected street whic h have not
dedicated right -of-way , and that he is one of those property owners . If he felt there we re to be
10
better controls on development, he would dedicate the right-of-way, and ~~ is of the opinion
the other owner would, also . There are four lots on the north side of the projected Avenue
which are not dedicated, two of which are owned by Mr. Forrington . Mr . Kelley stated that if
the rezoning were to be approved , what makes the City think the property owners on the north
will co nsider dedicating the right-<>f-way; they will have gotten what they want. Mr. Kelley
emphasized that the owners of the "interior" lot:l have no access to their property, and the B-3
rezoning doesn 't help them . The only benefactors from the rezoning will be the ~usinessmen
along West Evans Avenue.
Mr . Dummer asked why the property owners along West Adriatic Avenue haven't tried to get
the street dedicated and improved in the ~t. Mr. Kelley stated that he has not dedicated the
right-<>f-way in the past because be didn t like the way things were going ; he wants to know
what businesses are going in, and what type of development is being proposed . Mr. Kelley
stated that he is concerned for the total area .
Mr. Schultz asked if anyone else wished to address the Commission .
Mr. Covens staled that he wished to ask Mr . Forrington a question . Would Mr . Forrington
commit, or ask a new owner of his property to commit , to dedicate right-of-way and suppon
the development of West Adriatic Avenue. Mr. Forrington stated that he does not want to see
the street ded icated or improved . No businesses will use the street , and he bas no interest in
improving it.
Mr . Schultz pointed out that if the strccl were to go through, the area adjoining it could de-
velop. Would Mr . Farrington help to get the street dedicated and improved, If it came down •
to it . Mr. Farrington reitcnted his stance that he has no interest in improving the street, or in
seeing it im proved to p~uvide access to that block. He stated that he regards this area as an
alley to place rras:1 .:..,is .
Mr. Dummer recalled that at the meeting of June 16, Mr . Forrington had said that he could do
nothing with the back pan of his property because of the R-2-C zonin~. Mr . Forring ton stated
that this is correct.
Mr . Schultz again asked Mr . Forrington if he would help get the right-<>f-way for West Adri -
atic Avenue; Mr. Forrington again responded that he would not , that there is no reason to put
a stree t through there .
Mr. Ger lick pointed out that the reason for the street to go through would be to give other
property owners a means of access to their property for development and maintenance pur-
poses.
!\fr. Covens stated that if the street were not to be developed , this would mean that the proper-
ti<:s on both east and west sides of Mr . Forrington's property would remain vacant. Mr. For-
ring ton countered that if the landscaping busines~ were to be allowed to operate , they would
abut his property on the west, which would not objectionab le. He stated that "trees don't
make noise whe n they grow."
Mr. Sch~:tz asked if anyone else wished to address the Commission .
Mr. Apodaca re iterated that ther,: was no rationale for imposing industrial uses along West
Evans Avenue: this is not needed . Mr. Apodaca also pointed out th at there would be no ac-
cess along the rear of the properties. provided Adriatic doc s not go throug h, for police patrols.
II
Mr . Stin reiterated that in ttnns of rezoning , there arc some positive benefits : the increased -
uses available to the business properties which may increase the likdihood of add itional devel -
opm ent in the area. He stated that staff realizes this is a problem an:a and in the best sit-
uations , zoninJ would not brcak on streets, but with the restri.;tions that have been wrinen in,
he is of the opinion that it can be workable .
Mr. Stin stated that the rezoning also has negati ves that must be constdcred : the impact tha t
Ad riati c Avenu e would have we re it to be full y ded icated and improved in tcnns of increased
traffi c th rough the resid ential area . This street could serve as a "short cut " from the industrial
area to Zuni Street .
Mr . Ferrington stated that he has detemtined that the lots filled with weeds belong to owners
who arc not present at the Hearing tonight. He pointed out that if Adriatic Avenue were to go
through , it would place a burden on the property owners; if it improves business opportunities ,
he might be in fa vor of it.
Ms. Tobin rccalled that Mrs . Romans had ttstified previously that the Police Divi sion was
con=ed that the ri:zoning was ill-advised for safety reasons. Mr . Schultz stated that he re -
called Mrs . Romans' ttstimony was regarding th e elimination of the adult uses , and the corre -
lation of zoning and land use development to criminal activities.
Mr. Gerlick posed the situatio n whereby if the B-3 zoning were to be approved for the an:a as
delineated , and were the street to go through : If a business were to develop wilh West Adri-
atic Avenue frontage, would they still have to have the visual barrier wall with a Jate for ac -
cess , and landscaping. Mr . Stitt stated that were a business to develop with Adriane frontage ,
they would still have to provide the landscaped buffer , and the visual barrier wall would have
to be situated back of the landscaping; there would have to be provision for entrance and exit , A
cf course . W
Mr. Schultz asked if there were further questions or comments .
Gerlick moved :
Tobin seconded : The Public Hearing on Case #8-92 be closed .
.•,YES :
NA YS:
Covens , Draper, Dummer , Gcrlick , Glynn , Leonard , Shoop , Tobin , Schultz
None
ABSENT : None
ABSTAIN : None
The moti on carried .
Mr . Schultz as ked for di sc us si on by Commission members. Ms . Tobin stated that sh e does
have con cerns about safety were the rezoning to be approved .
Mr. Dummer asked if th ere was any requireme nt regarding pro vi sion of lighting for bu si-
nesses . Mr. Stin stat ed that th e lighting req ui reme nts spec ificall y stall that the lighting for
businesses shall not shine onto adjace nt prope rti es.
Mr. Covens posed an inquiry rega rdin g ow ners hip of som e of the pro perty alon g West Ev ans
Ave nue . Mr . Sti n stated that he did not have th e information al han d. Discussion ensued.
Mr . Covens stated that he felt the Co mmissio n was in need of add iti onal info rm ati on , and was
no1 prepared 10 vo te on thi s iss ue a1 thi s tim e. -
12
Covens moved :
Tob in seconded : Case #8-92 be tabled until the August 4, 1992 meeting of the Commi s-
sion .
AYES :
NAYS :
ABSENT :
ABSTAIN :
Dummer, GlyM, Shoop , Tobin, Covens
Draper , Gerhclc , Leonard , Schultz
None
None
The motion carried .
Mr . Schultz announced the issue has been tabled to August 4, 1992, at which time it will be
considered and discussed by the Commission , and a determination will be made on the rezon -
ing .
V. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE
§16--4-13 1-1, Light Industrial
§16--4-14 1-2, General Industrial
CASE #3-92
Mr . Chuck Reid , Management Analyst , led the discussion on the proposed amendments 10 the
1-1 and 1-2 District. He bas made revisions 10 the proposed amendments that were initiall y
disc ussed at the meeting of Jul y 7, and the revised proposal was incl•Jded in the packets for the
Commission members . Mr . Reid stated that Mr. Mike Magee, of Waste Management Denver-
South , has worked very closely with staff in development of the proposed amendments .
Mr . Reid stated that the bond proposal bas not been included, and discussed estimates that
have been received 10 clean up one recycling site; a SI0,000 performance or clean-up bond
would be worthless in light of the $400,000 estimate . A!so , provision of bonds could serve as
an inhibitor to new businesses. In lieu of the bond, staff suggests that the p~rty owner, as
well as the lessee , be notified of the Public Hearing and aslccd 10 participate tn the proceed-
ings .
Mr . Schultz recalled that one of the gentlemen from Waste Management who al!Cllded the
meeting of Jul y 7, had indicated he favored requirement of a performance/clean-up bond ; he
asked if "something isn't better than nothing", and would the $10 ,000 bond really stymie new
business . Mr . Re id discussed the procedure used in Commerce City ; the bond for $10,000
costs between $600 to 5900 annually , which does not appear 10 be very much , but can be a
major investment for an "in cubator business ". Mr . Reid also pointed out that businesses such
as WMI can mee t the req uireme nts for bond s much easier than new, small businesses Mr .
Gly M suggested that possibly something could be worked out that after a given period of time ,
sa y three years , the bond requirement would be waived. Discussi on ensued on whether the vi -
ability of a bu si nes s can be determined when it is just starting .
Mr. Schultz asked what other cities have don ~. Mr. Reid stated that the onl y other munic ipal -
ity in this area that is address ing the issue is Commerce City. Colora do Spring s, which wa,
recently hit with a hailstorm of sim ilar magnitude to the 1990 storm to hit the Denver Metro
area, has no regulations to deal with the issue of shingle recycling . Englewood appears to be
on the "lea ding edge" of addressing th e issue of recycling oper•tions . Mr. Re id revie wed th e
four options that he had outlined at the meeting of Jul y 7: status-quo; prohibition; Permitted
1;se with re strictions ; or Conditional Use.
Dis cussion ensued on the effec t the rec ycling operations have on the environment : air pollu -
tion, rain/lea ching into ground , etc. Mr. Dummer asked whether the quantity of recyclable
materials to be accepted and stored before processing could be restri cted . Funher discussion A
ensued . •
Mr . Stitt stated that the issues we are trying to address are those that impact the public, and
where public funds would have to be expended were a clean -up necessary. The attempt is to
try to protect against additional "problem" businesses . In ttis opinion , the proposed rc~ulations
do not restrict the business , but docs provide some controls for the City. Funher discussion
ensued.
Mr . Schultz asked who is rcsJ>Onsible for the clean-up . Mr . Stitt stated that the current
landowner is ultimatel y responsible for clean-up; however, if notice is given and action by the
landowner is not taken and the City has to do the clean-up , the cost of this clean-up is billed to
the landowner; if the bill is not paid, the bill is certified to the County and is placed as a lien
against the property to be collected with taxes.
Mr. Schultz inquired whether stringent regulations on the recycling operations are acceptable
inasmuch as they are a "new" type of busin~. Mr . Stitt suegested that impacts on the com-
munity and environment must be identified.
Discussion specifically centered on the Treecycle operation on South Windermere Street, and
recent activities with the property owner and less:e . Mr. Stitt and Mr. Reid both indicated
that staff is working closely with the property owner to provide whatever assistance we can .
Mr . Reid discussed the provisions of the proposed amendments more fullr. He noted that the
language on the yearly review has been Chanfed to a "compliance" review. Mr . R.:id sug-
gested that the word "semi-traile~• be used in lieu of "tractor trailer•. Disr.ussion on b·~y-back
centers ensued. Staff does not recommend imposition of tippina fee charges on buy-back cen-
ters that operate as an "absolute use"; however, this exempnon would not apply to companies
that buy-back and process recyclables. If this rationale is approved, Kin' Soopers, Safeway,
Boy Scouts, etc . who all do "buy-~ck" would be exempt from any "tipping fee ". It w..s the
consensus of the Commission that . i s rationale was acceptable; Mr . Reid will incorporate the
appropriate wording into the proposed amendments .
Mr. Schultz asked for a motion to set a date for Public Hearing .
Covens moved :
Leonard seconded : A Public Hearing on Case #3-92, amendment of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance , §16-4-13 and §16-4-14, be scheduled for August 18,
1992 at 7:00 P.M .
AYES :
NAYS:
ABSENT :
ABSTAIN:
Dummer , Gerlicl:, Glynn , L.-onard, Shoop , Tobin , Covens, Draper , Schultz
None
None
None
The motion carried.
VI. PUBLIC FOr-t.IM
There was no one pre sent to 1dd ress the Commission under Publi c Forum.
14
vn. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE
Mr. Sti tt stated that the first regular mee ting of the Commission in Sep~mbcr would nonnally
be on Wednesday, September 9, because of the Labor Day Holiday on Monday, Sep~mber 7.
The Board of Adjustment & Appeals , of which Mr . Stin is staff advisor, is al.so scheduled to
meet on September 9 for their regular meeting, and is scheduled to meet in the City Council
Ch ambers . Mr. Stin suggested that possibly the Planning Commission could consider meeting
on September I , which is the Tuesday evening prior to the Council meeting, rather than
Wednesday , September 9, following the Council meeting . This would allevia~ a scheduling
conflict for staff and meeting space .
It was the consensus of the Commission to meet on Sep~mber I at 7:00 P.M.
VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE
1\-lr. Drap~r expressed displeasure at the recent signage installed by EDDA, and sugested that
if busine ss identification along Broadway is a problem , that some trees should be cut down
r.ither than a proliferation of additional. signs . Mr. Schultz clarified for members of the
Commi ssion who have not seen the sicns that they are business identification sisns but arc
placed street level. He expressed the opinion that the signs are unattractive . Mr. Schultz also
agreed that some of the trees might be ren :o, .:d.
Mr. Covens stated that the Tri-Cities Planning Group meets on July 22nd .
There was no funher business to come before the Commission , and the meeting was adjourned
at 10 :25 P.M.
! -✓!ci!a~Ld* GmrucG. ety
Recording Secretary
15
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM : Rick DeWitt, City Attorney
DATE : J ul y 14 , 1992
REGARDI NG : Inclusion of Adult Entertainment in the proposed
B-3 Zoning District.
This memo is to clarify the position of the City Attorney's Offi ce
regarding the inclusion of adult entertainment in the newly proposed B-3
zoning diatrict. It has been the City's policy to restrict adult entertainment
up to the point where Constitutional issues will not be violated. At present
our Code provides that adult entertainment is available in B-2 and in
industrial zoning districts. In that the new B-3 zoning would fall in
between these categories i.t would appear appropriate to have it included in
the B-3 zoning district un!nss some logical or factual reason can be found to
exclude it from this district ..
Our Code currently meets Constitutional requirements. In the present
B-2 zoning district there are ample opportunities for their establishments.
Tbe addition of B-3 would be in compliance with the Constitutional
requirement set forth by the Supreme Court. The Board should focus on
whethe r it is appropriate to have business zoning in the proposed plan and
on the actual changes from the B-2 to the B-3 zoning that are proposed.
I do not believe it is legally ne..:essary to decline this use in the B-3 zone
district. My experience has been that this is no · ] •.
RD /nf
' .
· / 1/. fvfi/ l__L ------
RickDeWitt