Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-03-18 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COlVIMISSION March 18, 1997 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 Douglas. Present: Absent: Cottle, Garrett, Horner, Tobin, Weber, Douglas Simpson, Ex-officio Welker, Dummer, Mason Staff Present: Planning Community Coordinator Stitt Assistant City Manager Reid II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. March 4, 1997 Chairman Douglas stated that the Minutes of March 4, 1997 were to be considered for ap- proval. Horner moved: Tobin seconded: The Minutes of March 4, 1997 be approved as written. AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Cottle, Garrett, Horner, Tobin, Weber, Douglas None None Dummer, Mason, Welker The motion carried. III. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Temporary Employment Centers CASE #OR-97-01 Chairman Douglas stated that the issue before the Commission is a Public Hearing on a pro- posed amendment regarding temporary employment centers. He asked for a motion to open the Hearing. Garrett moved: Horner seconded : The Public Hearing on Case #OR-97-01 be opened . 1 AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Garrett, Horner, Tobin , Weber, Cottle , Douglas None None Dummer , Mason , Welker The motion carried. Mr. Douglas asked that staff present the case . Harold Stitt was sworn in , and testified that the Public Hearing is on a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance regarding temporary employment centers . The purpose of the Hearing is to gain public input on the proposed ordinance amendment. The Planning Commission will, after hearing all testimony and reviewing all pertinent information, make a recommendation to the City Council. City Council is 'also required to hold a Public Hearing and is the governmental body responsible for the final decision on the proposed amendment. Mr. Stitt stated that the proposed amendment is one step in the process to implement the South Broadway Action Plan, which was recommended for approval by the Commission on February 19 , 1997. The proposed ordinance amendment is a compromise reached following meetings with neighborhood representatives , and representatives of temporary emplo yment services. Mr. Stitt stated that "temporary employment services " is defined as: Any person , firm , part- nership , association or corporation that maintains a central location where day laborers as- • semble and are dispatched to work for a third party user . Mr . Stitt stated that this is the same • definition used in the licensing ordinance for temporary employment services. Mr. Stitt stated that when staff first began analysis of this problem , they looked at the Zoning Ordinance to determine where this particular use would best fit . At present , there is no men- tion of "temporary employment services " as a permitted business category in any zone district. The Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance is a "permissive " ordinance in that unless a business category or use is specifically cited as permitted , it is prohibited. Mr. Stitt reiterated that un- der the existing Zoning Ordinance , temporary employment services are prohibited . However , in pursuing the analysis further , the staff took into consideration strategies set forth in the South Broadway Action Plan which cautions against eliminating specific business classifica- tions to address problems created by one specific business . Mr. Stitt stated that four alterna- tives have been cited in the staff report for Commission consideration as a means to address temporary employment services , and their negative impact on adjoining residential neighbor- hoods. 1. Prohibited use in the B-1 , B-2 , 1-1 , and 1-2 Zone District. 2. Prohibited use in the B-1 and B-2 Zone Districts. Permitted use in the 1-1 and 1-2 Zone Districts. 3. Prohibited use in the B-1 Zone District. Permitted use in the B-2 , 1-1 , and 1-2 Zone Districts . 2 • • 4 . Prohibited use in the B-1 Zone District . Conditional use in the B-2 Zone District. Permitted use in the 1-1 and 1-2 Zone Districts. Mr. Stitt stated that staff recommends Alternative #4 , which will retain prohibition of tempo- rary employment service businesses in the B-1 Zone District , but would allow them in the B-2 District only as a Conditional Use; they would be permitted uses in the 1-1 and 1-2 Zone Dis- tricts . A Conditional Use approval would entail a Public Hearing before the Planning Com- mission , and applicants would be required to comply with the following requirements: 1. The business shall be licensed by the City. 2. The business shall be located no closer than 1,000 feet to another temporary employ- ment service business. 3. The business shall be located no closer than 1,000 feet to a business establishment li- censed to sell liquor by the drink or by package. '· 4. The hours of operation shall be limited to 5:00 a .m . to 7 :00 p .m . 5 . The business shall comply with the Landscaping Ordinance , Section 16-4-18 , of the Englewood Municipal Code. 6. The Planning Commission shall annually certify that the use is in compliance with all approved conditions. In the event the use is determined to be in violation of the condi- tions , the Conditional Use shall be revoked. Mr. Stitt discussed the process for revocation of a Conditional Use , noting that this would re- • quire a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission, also. • Mr . Stitt stated that when staff met with representatives of the temporary employment service businesses , those representatives expressed the opinion that the proposal is a "reasonable ap- proach " to address the problem . However , it was pointed out to staff that during winter months the hours of operation , as stated , could present a problem to the businesses inasmuch as they place temporary workers to do snow remo val in parking lots ; this could mean operating outside the parameters of the cited hours of operation during periods of snowfall. Mr. Stitt discussed the difficulty in writing regulations that address all facets of this type of business , and suggested the possibility that this exception to hours of operation should be addressed through the licensing provision. Mr. Douglas asked if the City now licenses day labor halls. Mr. Stitt responded affirmatively , but noted that a moratorium on licensing of new temporary employment centers was approved approximately nine months ago. Mr. Douglas discussed the distance restnct1ons , and asked how a temporary employment service , approved as a Conditional Use , would be impacted were a grocery store or conven- ience store , licensed to sell beer , to locate within the 1 , 000 foot distance. Mr. Stitt suggested that Assistant City Attorney Reid could address this issue. Mr . Stitt did state that if a Condi- tional Use is granted by the Planning Commission , revocation would be considered only if "they" violated the provisions of the conditional use approval. Another view could be that if any use locating within the 1,000 foot restriction would affect the conditional use, it would be 3 the responsibility of the approved conditional use business person to make it known to the liq- uor licensing board that a proposed liquor outlet would impact their business . • Mr. Horner asked what zone district the temporary employment businesses are in at the present time . Mr. Stitt stated that those cited are in the B-2 Zone District , and do not comply with the 1,000 foot distance requirements. Mr. Horner stated that under the proposed amendment, ex- isting temporary employment centers would be "grandfathered " in so far as distance require- ments apply; would they have to comply with other restrictions such as landscaping. Mr. Stitt responded affirmatively . Mr. Garrett asked how many new temporary employment centers could meet the 1,000 foot restrictions from each other and from liquor outlets. Mr . Stitt suggested there could be an area south of Radcliff A venue on South Broadway , or sites within the I-1 or I-2 District would be appropriate. Mr . Garrett asked how the existing temporary employment centers were allowed to open for business in the B-2 Zone District inasmuch as they are not a cited permitted use; is this a code enforcement problem. Mr. Stitt stated that he could not answer how these uses were allowed . Mr. Douglas asked why temporary employment centers locating in I-1 or I-2 Districts would be required to be 1,000 feet from residentially zoned areas , but this same distance restriction is not applicable to the B-2 Zone District. He suggested that residentially zoned areas adjacent to the B-2 zoning on South Broadway should be provided this same protection . Mr . Stitt stated • that Mr. Douglas is correct that like distance restrictions are not suggested. He noted , how- ever , that hours of operation restrictions are imposed in the B-2 District in an effort to mitigate the impact of the temporary employment centers , and there are no hours of operation restric- tions suggested in the industrial areas. Staff suggests that land use controls along with code enforcement efforts and licensing requirements will accomplish mitigation of the impacts the temporary employment centers have on adjoining residential districts. Ms. Tobin stated that it is not logical to provide distance protection to residential areas abut- ting industrial districts , and not to residential areas abutting commercial districts. Mr. Weber inquired about licensing requirements. Mr. Stitt stated that licensing provisions would include delineation of hours of operation, require provision of an indoor waiting area , require provision of adequate restroom facilities , if an outdoor waiting area is proposed it must be screened from adjoining businesses/residences. Ms. Cottle asked how the 1, 000 foot figure was chosen. Mr. Stitt stated that this figure has been successfully defended in distance restrictions for adult businesses ; analysis has also indi- cated that this is the maximum distance most people will walk. Mr. Garrett questioned the hours of operation , noting that 5 :00 a.m. is pretty early. Mr. Stitt stated that the hours of operation were based on a typical start to a work day for manual labor-• ers, which begins at 6:00 a.m .; the 5:00 a .m . time will give the employment center time to ac- 4 • • • cept calls and dispatch workers to a work site in time for their work day to begin. Mr. Garrett asked what hours constituted a normal work day for day laborers. Mr. Stitt stated he could not answer that question. Mr. Simpson was sworn in , and testified to the difficulty in preparing a proposed ordinance amendment that is fair and reasonable to the residential community and to the business com- munity. Mr. Simpson stated that the temporary employment centers located in the B-2 Busi- ness District will have a higher level of restriction, such as hours of operation , than those lo- cating in industrial districts. If any temporary employment center is found to be a "nuisance " to the neighborhood, this business will be brought before the Planning Commission and taken through the revocation process . The temporary employment centers locating in the industrial districts will be "permitted uses", and not subject to the hours of operation , nor to revocation of their right to do business. Mr. Douglas asked for clarification on the annual review process proposed for employment centers approved as a conditional use. Mr. Simpson stated that the details have not been fully worked out , but the intent at this time is to require the business to appear before the Commis- sion and prove their compliance with all of the requirements imposed at the time approval was granted . Mr. Simpson clarified that "grandfathering " will pertain to the distance factors only ; temporary employment centers presently in business will have to go through the Conditional Use process and comply with all other requirements to gain approval. Mr. Simpson stated that the temporary employment centers will not be considered as legal non-conforming uses ; the Commission may establish time frames for compliance with the restrictions , or revoke the right to do business. Mr. Horner asked if a temporary employment center were to be sold to another like business, would this type of business be able to continue . Mr. Simpson stated that if the "use " is con- tinuous throughout the sale proceeding, the premises may continue to be used for temporary employment purposes . However , if there is any break in use of the premises as a temporary employment center , the "grandfather " provision ceases and the premises would have to be used for a conforming use. Assistant City Attorney Reid amplified on Mr. Simpson 's re- sponse , noting that if there is a catastrophic damage to the structure so that business cannot be conducted , the grandfather provision ceases. From that point on , all conditional use restric- tions would have to be complied with. Ms . Sandy Ostema , 2843 South Grant , was sworn in . Ms . Ostema testified that she lives and works in the City of Englewood , and has a vested interest in the city as a whole, in her home , her neighborhood , and in the quality of life available to citizens. Ms . Ostema testified that she is a recent first-time home buyer , and is proud of her home. Ms. Ostema stated that Commis- sion members should be made aware of, and take into consideration , the activities and behav- iors that have occurred in this north Englewood neighborhood. Ms . Ostema stated that Mr. Hanifen, who has addressed the Commission several times during consideration of the South Broadway Action Plan , consistently failed to identify himself as a temporary employment cen- ter owner/operator. Ms. Walker , owner of Stand-by Personnel , has "played chicken-little up and down Broadway ", and has instilled such a degree of fear in businesses and employees that 5 everyone is afraid they will lose their business and /or their job. Ms. Ostema testified that an acquaintance of hers went to Stand-by Personnel , was issued a temporary social security num-• ber, and was put to work. This individual was advised that the temporary number was good for only three days , after which a permanent number was required . Ms. Ostema stated that this information has been given to the Social Security office , and "they went ballistic ". Ms . Ostema stated that this acquaintance could not attend the meeting this evening , but will make herself available for testimony at a future time if so desired. Ms. Ostema stated that she has reviewed the staff report and proposed ordinance , and asked that the Commission consider only Alternative #1 as set forth on page 2 of the Staff Report. Ms . Jessie Alsop , 2843 South Grant Street , was sworn in . Ms . Alsop stated that she has waited for the bus at the Broadway/Bates Avenue bus stop , and has seen a man with a red lunch pail selling something from this lunch pail. Ms. Alsop suggested that it might have been drugs that were being sold. She testified that it is "scaty ", she doesn 't like to wait for the bus any more , and is afraid to walk across Broadway to see her best friend who resides west of Broadway . Ms. Carol Tomasso , 2998 South Bannock Street , was sworn in and testified that she has li ved at this location for 10 years. Ms. Tomasso stated that she has reviewed the staff report , and expressed concern regarding the staff analysis statement regarding difficulty to establish statis- tical data . Ms . Tomasso inquired about crime statistics before Stand-by Personnel opened for business , and after they opened for business. What about the businesses that have relocated from the immediate area since Stand-by Personnel opened for business . What about property values in the area -before Stand-by Personnel began business , and after they began business . Ms. Tomasso stated that the staff report contains no "hard core statistics ". She took issue with the statement that ... "negative impacts associated with temporary employment services were commonly felt throughout the corridor " ... ; she suggested that the impacts are not experienced with the same intensity four or five blocks either north or south . Ms. Tomasso noted that M s . Walker of Stand-by Personnel has stated publicl y that 80 3 of her workers come from a one- mile radius of this employment center. Ms. Tomasso stated that this is not true; she has seen the workers coming in by bus from north on Broadway . Ms . Tomasso stated that there are 12 employment agencies serving a variety of employment skill needs in Englewood , and noted that the City has only 30 ,000 residents. Ms. Tomasso stated that the temporary employment agencies contribute only property taxes to the tax revenues of the City , and very limited sales tax revenue if workers purchase something at nearby retail outlets. Ms . Tomasso stated that she is very concerned that temporary employment centers are not permitted in any zone dis- trict , and asked if a mistake was made which allowed them to open for business . If this classi- fication of business is not a permitted use in the zoning ordinance , they should not have been allowed; instead , they were licensed by the City . This type of business has "victimized " an entire neighborhood; the y are not permitted and are "welcome to leave ." Ms. Tomasso dis- cussed the review process as proposed , asking what is entailed in this process . Ms. Tomasso stated that "what they are required to do in the proposed ordinance is very lame ". Ms . Tomasso stated that right now , adverse impacts are being addressed by the Police Department , and that they drive by the site at least four times every day. She is concerned that adverse im- pacts will not be effectively addressed under the proposed ordinance. She stated that there 6 • • • • • have been 13-year old girls who have run away with workers from Stand-by Personnel ; the youngsters have been found and returned home . She also reported having found hypodermic needles in her yard . Ms. Tomasso descr ibed a "feeding frenzy " of businesses such as tempo- rary employment centers, liquor stores , check-cashing outlets, and pawn shops that group to- gether. Ms . Tomasso discussed the drunken people she has seen along Broadway , and sug- gested that the distancing factors between employment centers and liquor outlets will only dif- fuse this problem -there will be drunken people the entire length of Broadway. Ms. Tomasso discussed the background checks that are conducted on those wanting to procure a teaching po- sition and evaluations based on past performance , and suggested that businesses be subjected to similar scrutiny on their performance during the review process. Ms . Tomasso urged that a longitudinal property sales study three blocks west/three blocks east of Broadway be con- ducted , and that other statistical data be collected and studied before a determination is made on the proposed amendment . Ms. Tomasso stated that in 1994 , this area was a "war zone"; the District I City Council representative went to work for Stand-by Personnel ; in 1995 , the residents of the neighborhood adopted a "zero tolerance " level , and began involving the Police Department in the problems they were experiencing. Gerry Venard , 2763 D West Long Drive , Littleton , was sworn in . Mr. Venard testified that he is a previous long-time resident of Englewood, and is still a member of the Mayflower Congregational Church. Mr . Venard also testified that he is a former member of the City Planning and Zoning Commission . Mr. Venard stated that he is very familiar with the subject neighborhood, and knows a lot of the people who live there . Mr . Venard noted that there have been a lot of changes in the neighborhood in the last three to four years . The Church is now a "locked fortress" -doors must be locked during the day , and some doors are even kept locked during Sunday services . Mr. Venard stated that he and other parishioners have been ap- proached by people looking for handouts , or looking for work ; and some of them have stated that they are from Stand-by and that there was no work for them on that day. Mr. Venard stated that he has heard residents and parishioners express concerns for their personal safety . He addressed the decline of home ownership in the neighborhood , and applauds the South Broadway Action Plan. He pointed out , however , that the SBAP addresses only the commer- cial corridor , and does not address neighborhood problems. Mr. Venard stressed the impor- tance of considering the neighborhoods and taking steps to strengthen the neighborhoods. Mr . Venard stated that ordinances are to address and protect the neighborhoods and residents of the City , and it is clear that the present zoning ordinance failed in that regard . Temporary em- ployment services are not a permitted use in any zone district , and he questioned how the y have been allowed to locate on South Broadway . He stated that it is now the responsibility of the Planning Commission and City Council to figure out how to deal with them. Four alterna- tives have been presented by staff, with staff recommending Alternative #4 . This is unfair - the residents of north Englewood are being asked to put up with a prohibited use that has se- verely impacted their quality of life . This is not their problem; it is a City problem and now the Commission and Council must take steps to correct it . Licensing and review process may address and mitigate some of the adverse impact , but there is a possibility that these impacts may not be controlled: who will control the laborers once they are "off the clock ". Mr. Ve - nard stated that he would ask the Commission to support Alternative #1 ; leave the Comprehen- 7 sive Zoning Ordinance as it is written, and enforce the existing provisions. If the Commission truly feels they cannot support Alternative #1 , he would urge support Alternative #2. • Ron Gold, 2812 South Bannock Street, was sworn in. Mr. Gold testified that he has owned his home in Englewood for 20 years , and owns his Englewood-based business , Gold Sound. Mr. Gold asked if Englewood would , once again , become a peaceful community , or would prob- lems caused by day labor transients be allowed to continue -littering , relieving themselves in public , accosting neighborhood residents and general public to panhandle , etc . Mr. Gold stated that the business owners of the temporary employment centers do not live in Englewood . These business owners like to "portray themselves as helping the poor", but are victimizing the neighborhood residents. Good businesses are moving out of Englewood . Mr. Gold stated that there have been 42 calls to the Police Department since last June on the Standby-Personnel business . It costs Englewood taxpayers money for police protection , and the temporary em- ployment centers pay very little in tax dollars to the City of Englewood . Mr. Gold expressed the opinion that police response regarding this one business could be better expended patrolling the City as a whole. Mr . Gold enumerated litter that is found by residents -syringes , liquor bottles, etc . The Stand-by offices are open 24-hours per day with insufficient bathroom facili- ties; thus people waiting for jobs relieve themselves in the alle y, in resident's yards , etc. Mr. Gold stated that temporary employment centers should not be located in or near residential neighborhoods. Carlene Walker , 2911 South Broadway , was sworn in. Ms . Walker testified that there have been so many inaccuracies presented this evening, she wouldn 't even try to address them. Ms. • Walker stated that she has reviewed the proposed ordinance on temporary employment centers , and is of the opinion it is a fair compromise -fair to residents , and to business people. Ms. Cottle inquired of Ms . Walker what the present hours of operation are for Stand-by Per- sonnel. Ms. Walker stated the office opens at 5:00 A.M ., and closes at 10:00 P .M . Ms . Cot- tle asked how the proposed hours of operation -5 :00 A.M. to 7 :00 P .M. -would impact Ms. Walker 's business. Ms . Walker stated it could result in loss of approximately 103 of her business at this location. Mr. Garrett asked how many people are turned away each day by Stand-by Personnel. Ms . Walker stated that they don 't tum people away -there is a shortage of workers, and she esti- mated they could use another 20 to 30 day laborers every day. Mr . Garrett asked how many workers were placed every day. Ms . Walker estimated roughly 100 per day were assigned jobs. Ms . Walker pointed out that the greatest percentage of the laborers are assigned jobs from the time the office opens at 5 :00 a .m. to 9:00 a .m . Mr. Garrett asked if she was aware of reported inebriation among the laborers. Ms . Walker responded that she does not sell liq- uor, and cannot dispatch people to jobs who have been drinking . She cannot control the be- havior of the laborers before or after they are off the clock. Ms. Tobin asked what restroom facilities are available on-site . Ms . Walker stated that she provides four restrooms -equipped for handicapped individuals ; two for women and two for • men . Ms. Tobin asked how many staff members Ms. Walker has at this office . Ms. Walker 8 • • • stated that she has eight staff members at this location . Ms . Tobin noted that this would equate to 108 people sharing four restrooms . Ms . Walker reiterated that the greatest majority of the laborers are dispatched between 5:00 a .m . and 9 :00 a.m. Ms. Walker further testified that her staff cannot give out social security numbers or cards , and has "no idea what they are talking about ". Ms. Walker stated that when a job applicant comes in , they are asked to show a card -the agency must have two forms of identification before placing an applicant in a job. Ms. Walker further testified to regulations that temporary employment centers must follow . Mr. Weber asked how many applicants might be turned away because of inebriation , a lack of social security card or proper identification. Ms . Walker stated that less than one per day would be refused placement . Ms. Walker emphasized that she cannot risk sending an inebri- ' ated person out to a job. She stated that maybe once a week an applicant may come in with alcohol on their breath. Ms. Walker reiterated that inebriated laborers cannot be assigned a job if they are under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Ms . Walker stated that she did dispatch work for 17 years and will not put up with applicants that come in with alcohol on their breath . Mr. Weber inquired about the volume of calls to the Police Department regarding the business. Ms . Walker stated that she has heard there were 42 or 44 calls made ; why did the Police not come into the business to discuss whatever the prob lem was . She pointed out that 44 calls were over a 9 month period of time. Mr. Weber suggested this closely correlates to the one person per week who may apply for a position, but who has alcohol on their breath. Ms. Walker again questioned why the police did not contact her office about the problems. Ms . Tobin asked how police personnel would know an individual they were called about was one of Stand-by laborers. Ms. Walker stated that all laborers are issued a card from Stand-by Per- sonnel. Ms. Tobin stated that this is not the card that people are going to present if asked to present identification by a police officer . Ms. Walker stated that the man with the red lunch pail alluded to in earlier testimony actually sells burritos from this lunch pail ; her staff have had to ask him not to sell from Stand-by premises. Ms. Walker further stated that this gentleman is a neighborhood resident , and that her staff have called the police to have him removed from their premises when he was trying to sell his burritos in the parking lot. Ms. Cottle asked if Ms . Walker had given any thought to developing programs to address some of the problems pertaining to the workers . Ms . Walker stated that she is aware that there are problems in this neighborhood , but it cannot be proven that these problems are caused by her employees or workers. Ms. Cottle asked how the workers assigned jobs through Stand-by get to the job. Ms . Walker stated that Stand-by has a van , and they are transported to the job site. The workers do get to the Stand-by site and leave the site either by bus or on foot. 9 Ms. Tobin stated that Ms. Walker has testified that 75 % to 803 of the workers are Englewood residents, yet no statistical data has been presented to support this allegation. Ms. Walker dis-• cussed a pin-map which had been made showing the locations of the workers coming to this Stand-by office; the majority of the applicants live within a one-mile radius of this office. Ms. Tobin asked whether there would be computer print-outs showing addresses of those provided jobs through this office to support Ms. Walker 's testimony. Ms. Walker stated she was sure this could be obtained, noting that W-2's had to be prepared for all of the people given jobs through her business. Ms . Walker noted that there are some people from Denver , and from Littleton , who are provided jobs through this office , but the vast majority of people who work from this office are from Englewood . Mr. Weber asked why Stand-by Personnel is the only temporary employment center that has been cited as creating problems. Ms. Walker suggested that it is because Rita Hathaway , for- mer Council representative for this neighborhood, app r oached her asking for temporary em- ployment until she took a position at a flower shop; she gave Ms. Hathaway a job. One of the ladies in the neighborhood had opposed Ms. Hathaway in the last election, and lost. Ms. Walker stated that "hell hath no fury .... ". Mr. Douglas declared a short recess of the Commission. The meeting reconvened at 8 :35 P .M. Clyde Miller , pastor of Mayflower Church, 3001 South Acoma, was sworn in. Reverend Miller expressed his gratitude to the Commission for the opportunity of residents to express • their views and opinions. Reverend Miller stated that he supports comments made previously by Mr. Venard regarding the changes in the neighborhood. Reverend Miller stated that he does not live in the neighborhood , but his position as Pastor of the Church requires him to ad- minister the activities of the Church, and to address the quality of life for the neighborhood . Reverend Miller stated that he strongly supports the South Broadway Action Plan which con- tains some proposals to enhance the quality of life. Reverend Miller asked that the Commis- sion look at some issues which are detrimental to an acceptable quality of life -temporary em- ployment centers. Reverend Miller stated that temporary employment centers are not legal en- tities. If it is not a viable alternative for the Commission to approve Alternate #1, he urged the Commission approve the Conditional Use proposal and to immediately take action if the use continues to be a detriment to the neighborhood . Linda Whitten, 2880 South Acoma Street, was sworn in and testified that she purchased her home three months ago. Ms. Whitten stated that she has had to clean up broken glass, has chased people away who were urinating on her fence, chased transients out of the yard. Ms . Whitten stated that Stand-by Personnel attracts transient clients, and does not attract anyone looking for permanent employment. Mr. Horner asked if Ms. Whitten knew the persons she has chased from her property were af- filiated with the temporary employment agency . Ms. Whitten stated that she has watched them leave the Stand-by site, go to the liquor store or bar, and then come down the alley. 10 • • • • Karessa Lavery, 2909 South Acoma, was sworn in. Ms. Lavery stated that she and her hus- band have lived at this address only three weeks. She and her husband feel their rental home has a lot of potential, and want to explore possibilities of purchasing the property, renovating the house, and re-landscaping the yard. Ms. Lavery stated that it is her belief that the neigh- borhood has a lot to offer if Stand-by Personnel were to relocate . Ms. Lavery cited the neigh- borhood school, close proximity to the Mayflower Church, and an active Neighborhood Watch program as positives in the neighborhood. Ms . Lavery stated that she has reviewed the pro- posal , and does not feel that cited restrictions on Conditional Use approval would adequately address the problem created by the temporary employment center. In her opinion , to "grandfather" Stand-by Personnel in is not conducive to the safety or quality of life that the area residents and homeowners deserve . Ms . Lavery urged the Commission to consider only Alternative #1 of the proposal. Judy Dunlop , 2935 South Acoma Street , was sworn in. '·Ms . Dunlop testified that she has lived in Colorado for 25 years , and 15 of those years have been in this neighborhood. She and her husband purchased this particular property 5 years ago. At the time of purchase , the house had no screendoor , and upon inquiry she was told that people were afraid to leave inside doors open, so there was no need for screendoors . Fears of panhandlers and transients were cited. Ms . Dunlop stated that she had worked for a number of years at Rocky Flats , and had to be up and out very early in the morning; when she went out to her car at 5:00 a.m. or 5:30 a.m ., people waiting to get into Stand-by Personnel relived themselves in front of her. Ms . Dunlop stated that "it is hard to understand that someone has to relieve themselves in public , but to have to witness such behavior is horrible." Ms. Dunlop stated that in the last month , there have been eight calls to the police department regarding Stand-by; she has made at least four of those calls herself, two of them being made this last week. She was panhandled on Sunday , and verbally abused because she did not give the individual money. Ms. Dunlop referred to the General Iron site as the "hobo hotel ", and stated there is considerable traffic between Stand-by and General Iron. Ms. Dunlop testified that it is a "scary neighborhood"; she hates to wait for the bus at Bates and Broadway , or to take the bus because a lot of the laborers ride the bus and "stare" at other riders. Ms . Dunlop stated that new liquor bottles litter the alleys , yards and side streets every morning. Ms. Dunlop stated that she and her neighbors do not deserve to have to live this way , or to have to witness what goes on. Ms. Dunlop stated that the Magnet Inn opens very early, before 7 :00 a.m ., and caters to many of the Stand-by clien- tele . Ms. Dunlop stated that she has reviewed the proposed ordinance , and has some of the same concerns cited by others that have testified . Why are there six temporary employment centers within a 12 block radius . Ms. Dunlop stated that she strongly urges the Commission to consider recommending Alternative #1 to the City Council. If the Conditional Use alternative is chosen, a public hearing must be mandatory before approving any temporary employment service , and that Stand-by Personnel must be the first one to be considered. Ms. Dunlop again urged that Alternative #1 be supported by the Commission. Ann Nabholz, 2990 South Delaware Street , was sworn in. Ms. Nabholz stated that this is a very important issue to her , and has been for the last three years . It is , however , not "personal" as categorized by Ms. Walker. Ms . Nabholz referenced a packet of material pre- sented to staff on March 14 m, which was included in the meeting packet to the Commission. 11 Ms. Nabholz stated that this packet of information included copies of police records of tele- phone calls , correspondence from Bear Frame & Axel , police reports on a recent incident at • MD Liquor, newspaper articles, correspondence from former Council representative Hatha- way, an "open letter " from Ms. Walker to the City Council and area residents , and verbatim testimony from a recent City Council meeting , plus other items of correspondence and minutes of meetings. Ms. N abholz stated that she does not want to run businesses out of town , but Stand-by Personnel will not try to work with the residents to resolve the problems . Ms . Nab- holz stated that this business is a "nuisance ", but the "nuisance " ordinances address such things as weeds , old refrigerators, etc. -not a business. Ms . Nabholz stated that there is now a "brick wall " under construction around Ms. Walker 's site, which is of concern to the neigh- bors. Ms . Nabholz stated that she has nothing against temporary employment agencies , and has herself used Kelley Services. Ms. Nabholz stated that Bob Cote, widely known for his work with homeless and addicts, will not send any of his people to Stand-by to find jobs. Revenues from licensing fees for Stand-by Personnel a're $550. Ms . Nabholz asked that fur- ther statements on the number of Stand-b y workers that are Englewood residents be supported with written verification. Ms. Nabholz stated that at a previous meeting , Ms . Walker made allegations regarding a City employee, and that she would now lose her account with the City of Englewood . Ms. Nabholz stated that it is her understanding that the City of Englewood has not used anyone from Stand-by Personnel since 1995. Temporary employment centers are prohibited -they are not permitted in any zone district. Ms. Nabholz expressed doubt that the Conditional Use permit proposal will work. Ms. Nabholz stated that Alternative #1 is accept- able to the neighborhood ; Alternative #2 is "possible ", but Alternatives #3 and #4 are unac- ceptable. Ms. Nabholz stated that "Littleton saw what was corning , and they now allow tern-• porary employment services only in their industrial districts ." Ms. Nabholz again stated that this has never been a "personal " issue between her and the former City Council representative . John Looze , 2935 South Acoma Street , was sworn in. Mr. Looze stated that many things brought forth this evening are true. He is the Neighborhood Watch block captain, and has lived at this address for five years . The problems in the neighborhood are on-going, and the record of 42 or 44 calls to the Police Department don 't reflect all of the problem. People were living in the Kaiser Permanente parking lot, and they have said to him that they were laborers from Stand-by Personnel. Mr. Looze stated that he will present a letter from Leo Martinez , owner of M-D Liquor and Drug which letter relates the problems that M-D Liquor and Drug has experienced as a result of Stand-by Personnel. Many people feel that Stand-by Personnel is the cause of businesses closing , causing people to lose their jobs . Children in the neighbor- hood are securing liquor and tobacco products purchased for them by clientele frequenting Stand-by Personnel. Mr. Looze emphasized that these people are day laborers -they are not home owners; they live in the alleys or in derelict vehicles. Mr. Looze stated that he knows of none of his neighbors who work for Stand-by . Mr. Looze stated that only Alternative #1 is acceptable; the proposed ordinance has no "teeth ". Mr. Looze stated that Ms . Walker , when she was sworn in, gave her address as 2911 South Broadway, which is a Printer 's Personnel temporary employment office . This business is also owned by Ms. Walker, and is next door to Stand-by Personnel at 2901 South Broadway . Mr. Looze stated that the allegation the prob- lems are caused by neighborhood residents is not true . Mr. Looze stated that at a meeting in • the Mayflower Church basement , attended by City personnel Peterson , Chappel , and Parsons , 12 it was stated that Stand-by Personnel would allow people to go work for them with no ID for • up to three days. • • Ms. Tomasso again addressed the Commission, and stated that in 1994 Officer Vandermee stated that 50% of everyone stopped in that neighborhood was from Stand-by Personnel. Ms. Tomasso also took issue with the statement that no workers who are inebriated are dispatched for jobs; she related a conversation she had with someone who operates a golf outlet and they told her they would never use workers from Stand-by because they do send employees who had alcohol problems. Ms . Tomasso stated that she has seen workers pour liquor into a coffee mug, and go into the Stand-by office; and has also seen people buying liquor , and then getting into the Stand-by van. Ms. Tomasso stated that issuance of temporary social security numbers is very illegal. Mr. Douglas asked if anyone else wished to address the Commission. No one indicated a de- sire to speak further. Horner moved: Tobin seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #OR-97-01 be closed . Ms . Reid stated that she had been asked whether additional information could be received if the Hearing is closed. She stated that if the Commission wants additional information, even from staff, the Public Hearing should be continued rather than closed. Ms . Reid further clarified the Conditional Use review/revocation process, referring Planning Commissioners to §16-5-21 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Horner stated that there are a considerable amount of data he wants to review before ren- dering a determination on this proposed Ordinance. It was suggested, and Mr. Horner and Ms. Tobin agreed, that the motion should be : Horner moved: Tobin seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #OR-97-01 be continued to April 8, 1997. Mr. Horner stated that the data he wants to review includes: • A comparison of Police calls on all temporary employment centers; • A comparison of Police calls in this neighborhood before Stand-by opened for business, and after Stand-by opened for business; • What revenues are realized from temporary employment centers; • A comparative analysis of regulations in Littleton, Denver, and Englewood on temporary employment centers; • What are the ramifications of enforcing the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance as currently written. Ms. Tobin asked that information also be supplied on the following: 13 • How and why a prohibited use was licensed to open ; • Clarification/justification on no distance provisions between temporary employment centers • in B-2 and the residential districts. Ms . Cottle stated that she would like clarification of differences in labor categories , and what types of services are prov ided by these temporary employment centers . Mr. Weber asked for clarification on the conditions the Commission will use to evaluate the performance of day labor halls : police calls , neighborhood problems , what criteria will be used . The vote on the motion to continue the Public Hearing was called . AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Garrett , Horner , Tobin, Weber , Cottle , Douglas None None Mason , Welker , Dummer The motion carried. Members of the audience were thanked for their attendance . [Secretary 's note : All documents presented to the Secretary/Commission during the course of • the Public Hearing are appended to these Minutes as part of the official record .] IV. FINDINGS OF FACT All Souls School/Duncan School Pre-School/Day Care Center CASE #CU-97-01 Chairman Douglas stated that the Findings of Fact on the Conditional Use request of All Souls School to use Duncan Elementary School as a pre-school/day care center were to be consid- ered. Horner moved: Garrett seconded: The Findings of Fact on Case #CU-97-01 be approved as written. AYES : NAYS : Horner , Tobin , Weber , Cottle , Garrett , Douglas None ABSTAIN : None ABSENT: Mason , Welker , Dummer The motion carried. 14 • • V. PUBLIC FORUM . No one addressed the Commission. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr . Simpson stated he had nothing to bring before the Commission . VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Commissioners inquired regarding the construction on the northeast comer of the King Sooper 's site at West Floyd Avenue and South Broadway . Staff stated that building permits have been obtained for construction of two stores, one of which will be a Starbuck's Coffee shop. The second tenant has not been named at this tim'e . Ms . Tobin stated that no signs have been posted on the site , and Mr. Simpson responded that no signs are required. Approval for the retail pad was granted when the PD amendment was approved . The meeting was declared adjourned. ktt:.1u jd;;;h-- • Gertrude G. Welty , Recording Secret~ry j lnbdlgroup\boards\plancommlminutes 97\pcm 03-97b .doc • 15 PLEA .PRINT STAND-B.rERSONNEL Dispatcher's Initial-- " SAFE,.. CHECK ENGf E\AfQQQ Date (Firs~)-·)\< O J (Middl:i:--r Social Security Number r.-.r-:r · _ r~ .>··._. -(-. f ;::~ r:; ..,. ) \r ..._j { .I ( ... You have received an offer of employment in category : A B C D (Please refer to che j ob description on your application) THE FOLLOWING INQUIRIES ARE INTENDED FOR YOUR SAFETY: YES NO Currently How Long Ago YES NO Currently Hearing Problems '-,; x , Fainting or Dizziness rx: Eye Problems x Chemical/Medication Allergies Pc<" Breathing Problems X' Lead Poisoning t:;-< ~ Knee Problems x Tuberculosis ~ x ~ Shoulder/Elbow Problems Scoliosis Neck Injuries ·>< Skin Eruptions ~-'-' Heart Trouble V, Arthritis ~- High Blood Pressure )<C Previous Back Strain "><' r... . ,.._ Low Blood Pressure X' Previous Back Injuries '-~ Diabetes >< Trick Joints ~~ Drug Addiction >< Difficulty Bending /Stooping ~ Alcohol Addiction -x. Broken or Fractured Bones ·;x: Nervous Disorders ><:-" Hernia or Rupture ~· Convulsions >< Pregnant at this time? ,.,><::~ .x· ~ Epilepsy Respond YES or NO to the following questions: YES NO Name of Physician Have you collected Workers' Compensation in the last seven years? ~ Type of Injury: ... ~_,.._, ..... ~ -~ "'-.. Have you had a major illness or injury in the last five years? ~ .......... ''\ ...... -...... ....... Are you currently using non-prescription drugs? Jx~y J -- Are you currently using any prescription drugs? ("~ ..... -..... - ___.,,~. .... Please list drug and what used for ~ Are you willing to be examined by a company physician? ·;.<:,_~ .... ·. PLEASE READ AND SIGl\I THE BACK OF THIS FORM Rev ision Date : Oecemb'' 10, 1996 Ff'JR M •,r 1 1 How Long Ago -0 (/)CJ llJ OrTJ lO nrri rn 1--1 ):::> 3: N IC ::0 0 (/) ::0 -+> rri ):::> CJ-< N c ::0 1--1 -l -< ):::> CJ 3: 1--1 :z ~ ~ ~ i -........ ~ DEE MURRAY U.S. Department of Justlc1 lrnm igr?t io7 and N3uralization s: SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN 18 No. 1115·0136 1ployment Eligibi lity Verification Page 1 of 2 WWW&3!&4 MM Please read Instructions careful!) _ _ . _ Je available during completion of this form. ANTI-DISCRIMINATION NOTICE. It Is Illegal to discriminate against work eligible individuals. Employers CANNOT specify which docume.nt(s) they will accept from an employee. The refusal to hire an individual because of future expiration date may also constitute Illegal dlscrlmlnatlo!'1. Section 1. Employee Information and Verification. To be comp leted and 519ned by employee al ttle ume emp loymP.nt begins Prmt Name : last First Address (Street Name and Number) City S tate I arn aware that federal law pro v ides for Imprisonment and/or fines for false statements or use of false documents In connection with the completion of this form. ,Employee 's Signature -\ Mi(j(Jle ln1Ual Maiden Name Apt II Date of Birth (month1day1year ) Zip Cod e Social Security /1 I attest. under penal ty of pequry , that I am (check one of 1r1e lollo w1n g): O A citizen or national of the United States O A Lawful Pennanent Res ident (Alien /1 A ________ _ O An al ien authorized to worll until __ ! ___ _ (Al ien /1 or Admission 11 ________________ _ Dat e (rno nt11/dayl ye ar ) Preparer and/or Translator Certification. (To be compl ete d an d si gn ed i f SectJon 1 1s prepared by a pe r s on other man the emplo yee .) I att est. unde r pe n a1ry of p e rj ury, ma t I h ave .assisted in che com pleti on of th is fo r m an d tha t to the bes t o f mv l<nowled o e the 1nforrna/l o n is tr ue an d corre ct. Prepa re r' s/T ran sl at or's Signatu re Print Name Addr ess (Stree t Nam e an d Num b e r , Ci ry. St at e. Zi p Co de ) Date (mon m1dayiy ear) Section 2. Employer Review and Verification. To be completed and signed by emp loyer. Examine one document from List A OR examine one document from LJst B and one from List C as listed on the reverse of ttlis form and record the Utle, number and exp irauon date, if any, c ttie document(s) - List A OR List B ANO List C Document title : ----· Issuing author ity : Document 11 : Expirauon Date (if any): Document 11 : Expiration Date (if any): CERTIFICATION ·I attest, under penalty of perjury, that I have examined the document(s) presented by the above-name<' employee, that the above·llsted document(s) appear to be genuine and to relate to the employee named, that thf employee began employment on (month /day/year) I I and that to the best of my knowledge the employer. Is eligible to work In the United States. (State employment agencies may omit the date the employee begar employment). Signature of Employer or Authorized RepresentatJve Print Name Business or Organization Name Stand-By Personnel Address (Street Name and Number, City, State, Zip Code) 665 Kalamath Street, Denver, CO 80204 Section 3. Updating and Reverification. To be completed and signed by employer Title Date (month/day/year) A. New Name (if applicable) B. Date of rehire (month/day/year) (if applicable C. II employee 's previous grant of work authorization has expired, provide the information below f()( the document ttiat establishes current employme • elig ibility. Document Title : Document 11 : ---------_______ Expiration Date (if any): __ l __ I __ I attest, under penalty of perjury, that to the best of my knowledge, this employee Is ellglble to wori< In the United States, and If the presented document( a), the document(s) I have examined appear to be genuine and to relate to the Individual. Signature of Employer or Authorized Representative Date (month/day/year) Form 1·9 (Rev . 11 ·21 ·91) N • • • To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Carole Tomasso Concerning: Temporary Employment Agencies Date: 17 March 97 After attending meetings concerning the regulation and zoning of temporary employment agencies and watching the metamorphosis of the ordinances I submit the following concerns. Of first concern is the staff analysis described in BACKGROUND of Mr. Stitt's proposal. He refers to "staff analysis" but does not reference it to any statistical data. The nearest I can figure is that it is all anecdotal and I question it's validity when he later states that the "negative impacts associated with temporary employments services were felt throughout the corridor as well." These statements don't show any possible relativity of severity of affected areas(i.e. is the impact more severe the closer one is to these businesses), offer little insights as to the true problem and I feel does an injustice to those neighborhood located closest ~o these temporary employment agencies. For instance, last summer, when I was petitioning in the NW sector of Englewood----just west of the north industrial zone last summer , those residents expressed concern and demonstrated an acute awareness of what was happening at the Bates/Broadway intersection. This anectdotaal information could be misconstrued as a concern for their own neighborhood. Is their personal safety and quality of life actually threatened as severely as those closer to temporary employment agencies? So what hard cold facts have been accumulated for review? Any crime statistics? Evaluation of the business district? A longitudinal study of private property sales? The South Broadway Action Plan cites a 30% ownership v.s. 70%% rental in the Gateway district. I would like more information on that statistc because I think it suggests a dismal prognosis for that district-my neighborhood. I have done my own amateur evaluation of what has happened to private property in . my neighborhood and submit it to you for your evaluation. I suggest that there needs to a more comprehensive evaluation of the impact of day labors before Englewood makes a decision what to do about them. As a concerned citizen I don't see what I want to know to make a prudent decision about these business. But living in close proximity to one of these businesses I can give a lot of anecdotal testimony as to why they should not be near a residential neighborhood. My next concern in this proposal is the recognition of " a demand for this type of use or service exists in the community". Ms. Carlene Walker has often stated that 80% of her workers come from within a mile radius of her day labor halls but has never offered any hard statistical data to support her statements. In fact anecdotal information doesn't support her statements. While I recognize a need I question the need of so many temporary employment agencies in such a small town as Englewood. Given there is a variety of such agencies but twelve such agencies in a town of 30,000 makes me question Englewood's future if the proposed zoning in passed. I am especially critical because such agencies only give back to us through property tax to Arapahoe and provide little retail tax other that liqor which is inevitably offset by tax dollars spent on police intervention . Given this information I question why we need to include such business in Englewood as a permissive use. If they are not currently allowed under the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance then why are such businesses being allowed such a permissive • zoning ordinance. Is protocol being followed to permit them to be in Englewood? Is this ordinance going to quietly let them in the back door while citizens who are directly affected don't have a say on the initial acceptance to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance? Are they licensed but not permitted? How is a new business added to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance? Shouldn't protocol be followed on this issue as all issues should be addressed by government? I would like Englewood to follow the letter of the law on this because I strongly feel such businesses should not be allowed in residential neighborhoods. I hear rumors that Englewood would have to pay them to move their businesses and question that resolution. If I ,as a citizen did something against an ordinance I would be cited and told to comply. I would be told the old adage that ignorance is no excuse. I believe ignorance is no excuse for those temporary employment agencies; they are out of compliance and should cease said business within a reasonable amount of time. I don't think Englewood would necessarily have to pay for their land-they could sell or do something with their land that is in compliance with code. The next concern I have is the philosophy that temporary employment agencies "adverse impact could be effectively addressed through a permit or license review process". I find nothing in the current proposal that addresses those adverse impacts other than locating such businesses further from liquor stores. Adverse impacts are now being addressed by the police routinely having to drive by Stand--By at least four times a day--starting at 7:00 a.m. Adverse impacts such as a child getting aids from a discarded hypodermic needle or another string of unsolved burglaries or another • thirteen year old girl running away with a Stand-By employee can not be effectively addressed by a permit or license review process. Prevention is the only way to offset the most serious adverse effects.As one of those residents that came harrowingly close to getting stuck by a discarded hypodermic needle I ask you if a permit review would effectively address my need to go through AIDs testing for years if not AIDs treatment. Please note that hypodermic needles are still being found in the neighborhood adjacent to Stand--By. In reviewing the Conditional Uses requirements I don't see anything that truly addresses the adverse impact. I think think that locating them further from liquor stores will only spread out the problem happening in the neighborhood closest to a temporary employment agency and make Broadway even more of an eyesore as drunks parade back as forth between temporary employment agencies and liquor establishments. And how does one deal with the sticky issue of a liquor store getting a license within 1,000 feet of a temporary employment agency. Liquor stores are not prohibited from being near temporary employment agencies but since the reverse is prohibited then will the temporary employment agency have to close? The only thing I see that would lead to the revocation of their license if if they get lazy and don't cut the grass. This ordinance is so watered down that it says "business as usual". Finally I would like to address the concept of grandfathering all currently existing temporary employment agencies. Doesn't this again say "business as usual"? I offer the following analogy: It's like Colorado Dept. of Education telling someone"We • • • • know you've molested children before but we'll give you a license and you can keep it until you molest a child again then we will take your license away." This may be a a bit strong but I don't think Englewood should carte blanche issue licenses. Not all temporary employment agencies are alike and I think that their impact on a community should be evaluated on an individual basis before they are given a license. Finally I am submitting data on private property sales in North Englewood. It's limited but I think indicates the negative impact Stand-By has on our neighborhood. I urge you to zone them in industrial zones away from residential areas before something serious to an Englewood resident because of a temporary employment agency. If something does happen I would never forgive Englewood City government. Respectfully submitted, ~~ DL \ J Um e-.AA0 Carole Tomasso Evaluation of Private Property Real Estate Sales in 18 blocks surrounding Stand--By Notes: --this data may be inconclusive. Two separate print-outs had different sales and a real estate agent cautioned that properties may be erroneously listed in other areas -to establish a possible negative impact by Stand-By property sales should be evaluated before and after Stand-By moved in. I found this data relevant because it reflects a significant change when police established zeor tolerance in the Stand---By area(1995), and an disportionate number of sales when the market was flat (1994). 1996 was a more representation of the overall real estate market. ---1 limited my data to three blocks either side of Broadway to make a comparision-- data could be expanded to a bigger area and I would predict the results would be even more dramatic --anecdotal information I have culled indicates that recent house sales are to first time home buyers which could stabilizee the Bishopo neighborhood. We are in a good real estate market to encourage a positive change in this area but the adverse impacts of a temporary employment agency could send the Bishop neighbohood in decline. Results: Year 1994 1995 1996 Total Sales W of Broadway 15 8 16 39 %of houses 40% * in area sold Sales East of Broadway 8 4 12 24 22% *Bishop was calculated at 8 blocks because Stand---By/Kaiser accounts for 1/2block and apt. building on 3000 S.Bannock accounts for 1/2 block-This is conservative because another 1/2 could be discounted due to commercial rental proerty and Mayflower church Analysis-I strongly believe that Stand--By has a negative impact on residential areas as is reflected in this evaluation of residential property surrounding it. I think this information warrants a longitudinal study in conjunction with a crime stats review to truly evaluate whether temporary employment agencies should be located near residential areas. • • • ' • ' 1 .. ..... _ ...... _.,. -. ._ ... ~ ... ~ ~ r I I t tt .l) -.II :..c • • • - * ~ N [\) l'l N?-JNN ..() 00 Cfl t1t ..J..J-JJ 00 (jJ ~ "'-C' °' 01 .c. =? 0 rJ <:> 0 Q 0 t-J "' -"' --cit \A"'..._.:::. 0 ~ aq -~ .J>.Q ~ N -.... (./'\ ........ o4i) C'" "' c--() -,..,.., "' -0 (' I '-..l; - ~ • r >1 (,J.J -5'-f, :::, 0 r--, ..; -C"'• ,• I -'!; I • ~ ~ J r Ii ..J:) •) 0 "' N~ ~ 2 ()) .....i .<) ..r: (b C& ('f'\ ~ ..c en ~N -.... .£. .J) ...0 ~ ...... c-.. ,/;) .&: I ..c:: r ~ ,..--~ /'} ~/J;f/~/. -C)f) O.N N \:1 1 ff/ ~ ll / .. /; / /, ,• t:: t-J ~ ~ /~ ~~· ..i -_, C'" ~ "~·· ,/~/ .i:: 0 -Sl • /'. 0 '/ .· / ~ r-,'L / -! ~ // / / /',',. ~ A:: -·--.0 -w -di .r 0 -,..., ~ Lil .r:: 00 a~ ,......, "' --,... . .J) ..J s::--.z: -~ V\ ~ --Jl -A .a ,('" "" ~ -----A: '"" ·~ vJ 0:) \I -.... .!---' ~"-~~ ,., i~~ ~~ N Cl> -l ' ~"' .~ tJlt 0 C> .&: . } 0 "" ao l\a . }. 9. .t: -~~ "' .c '" ' ...... ............. -'d3S 1\:f?I ONVJ..5 ..() .Q .0 -0 ..0 ~ " l"C C' C-rat A" J\'\ a ttGll~: · .. h·i. ,;,.c. I ;, '' ' . ...:...:,:_~ .. ~-.·~ ... ~~· ... :·,;~!·L~tlc.~ at;) : " " ... ... ' .. -. . '" ~ ~ .) :' t-:1 ! ! ..() ~ -. ..c _, l , c-.,. • c:o l~ -~ c--...... ~~ ~ ..c ..... .Q "' .0 .l: C" C\hO'JN n ~ c- ,~ r~ .N l'l ~ 1'J """ > ..[) IS) "' rJ .J N i • ~ -..1 ci(l J;- .e ' tN ..... § -~ -..0 .t: ("' .A r ~ " 'Vl i f I\) N ~ 00 0 C) 111 "' C' "' --:0-.() -0 C'-.. r--..c c--J.N -~ S'-' w ~ ~ ~ ll c- °'Ill t.J N ~ ~t v) ..._ ..0 ~ c-0-C:: c:-. --I'..\ . v-> N~ oO c ~ ~ Q .... 0) N -..c \Ji v, ~ r:J) ...& ~ ~ "" -.i) ~ ~ c-c--1:. -) w :J, 0 w Q) ..0 (} -c: ...(> :ti-' ~ ..() (" -, ~-~· ' .. 2.0 • aq •• 11 ILi JS M l3 tl " lO <J 8 1 ~ • 5 'i 3 2 • ~ D £If-Sr SALE OF /-tOUSES Wts+ of £~+of ~· • A' /( ~ c:rc~un-L/\_ 7 h/-D -f. ~7 --;f <'C<~L t~""l __M,/ _£~,,-~ • • ___ _,, c><• -4 // if'~- • • ·G:7J 1 ~'7U-UrPocl Jl!tc~ ad J~: • J &J'J ~1 e~"1r &-d-<!._EA<--7 ~ tJV<. L ~ "'- t ~u(_, UfiC-~ c:M~ Jun_<-~·J. ~ ~~~cc/. ~UL CVr._~ ~L~ /-&rx:_~a,,U_,, ~£--J-~~u_~ ' <1 ~<--~ ,_~-71-7 e_·~ a_,{c., CVc-La__ 1 ~~ ~ dl;tJ UL£l-V-a',u, 02/J L .A'l'JcW.lu, ~a.J ffeL ~ <_,#(_~~"',/, _ju u1.u.n 1 Y0L /uyi-tc a.wio CL.&t: <./hue_ ~'r~d.... Cl/ £4' a '£ o , _.,;, ~~ £4&0 e. , 2:'.c.JL M ~ C-£-1. ~ ULJL ;(!7 £) ~ .,.,,:.,,,_ &,(,(A.., a.lt ... La.., ....il.e-62-uoe_ "1--raA..-r-tfZLU._,, n.y1J / uh. tu\....;L t;cw..._ ~ c!.-tn~o{_LJ..J '!Au./ zE~~ t~J--: ,~ 4-~ ~ '-4../ a;._~. ~wL u..o £AzJ, ~. ~,. c:.. ~~led-A~~ Da.<:J E...AClJ a.A-L ~ u.::L e~~-xaL U.0L, 'M £A<.., (/h t:A..G ~ ....A_e_ ~(J &t._, ~~~, ._(}_ .h~t:.o?l4C. ,,.__,,_J ,Jd.57nL ~L,,-f!_d.~? ~ ~ a_~d.-Lt~ \0L .A'L~~e_ ~va.J 6, ~ ~7 'Y c..Lt.f ~ CVJlC/ &-ft0 j:l ~xa_L ~ 7, • ~~c...~, ~~j)~ 'G~r .a. ~l~! c2J'IC} .~.uZL 0~~~, ~yt<.L<J~od {?CJ go110 • • MY NAME IS KARESSA LAVERY I RESIDE AT 2909 S. ACOMA STREET I HAVE LIVED AT THIS ADDRESS FOR THREE WEEKS NOW . AS A YOUNG COUPLE, MY HUSBAND AND I FOUND THIS RENTAL HOUSE TO HAVE A LOT OF POTENTIAL. WE ARE EVEN CONSIDERING PURCHASING THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY AS WE ARE EAGER TO RENOVATE THE HOME AND LANDSCAPE THE YARD AREA. WE BELIEVE , WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE LOCATION OF STAND-BY PERSONNEL; THAT THIS RESIDENTIAL AREA HAS A LOT TO OFFER . THERE JS A CHURCH LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF CORNELL AND ACOMA ST. AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IS ONLY BLOCKS AWAY . THESE ARE ONLY A FEW ELEMENTS ALONG WITH AN ACTIVE AND ALERT NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH PROGRAM THAT HAVE ATIRACTED US TO MAKE OUR FIRST HOME INVESTMENT WHERE WE ARE PRESENTLY LOCATED . UPON REVIEWING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS FOR TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT SERVICES; I HAVE FOUND THAT ALL SUGGESTED CONDITIONS A -F UNDER CONDITIONAL USE ADDRESSING THE B-2 ZONE, GROSSLY NEGLECTS TO ADDRESS THE AREA RESIDENTS AFFECTED BY THE OPERATION AND CRIME WAVE BROUGHT TO THIS AREA • BY ST AND-BY PERSONNEL. NONE OF THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED OF TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES LOCATED IN THE B-2 ZONE MENTION A DISTANCE REQUIREMENT BETWEEN STAND-BY PERSONNEL AND A RESIDENTIAL AREA. "GRAND FATHERING,, STAND-BY TEMPORARY LABOR, IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO THE SAFETY AND QUALITY OF LIFE THAT OUR RESIDENTS AND HOME OWNERS DESERVE. IN CONSIDERATION OF THIS, I WOULD IMPLORE YOU TO SELECT ALTERNATIVE #1 IN YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO EXERCISE MY RIGHT OF EXPRESSION AS I FEEL THE IMPACT OF THIS ISSUE AND THE SAFETY OF MY FAMILY IS IMPORTANT . • • •