Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-08-20 PZC MINUTESCITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1996 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:05 P.M. by Chairman Mason. Members present: Shoop , Tobin , Weber, Douglas, Dummer, Homer, Redpath, Mason Simpson, Ex-officio Members absent: Garrett (absence with previous notice) Also present: Planning Community Coordinator Harold Stitt Assistant City Attorney Nancy Reid . City Attorney Dan Brotzman II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. August 6, 1996 Chairman Mason stated that the Minutes of August 6, 1996 were to be considered for ap- proval. Tobin moved: Redpath seconded: The Minutes of August 6, 1996 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Redpath, Mason None Dummer, Homer , Shoop Garrett The motion carried . III. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Home Day-Care CASE #OR-96-03 Mr. Mason stated that the issue before the Commission is a proposed amendment of the Com- prehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Mason asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Tobin moved: Douglas seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #OR-96-03 be opened. 1 AYES : NAYS : ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Weber , Douglas , Dummer , Horner, Redpath, Shoop , Tobin, Mason None None Garrett The motion carried . Mr. Harold J. Stitt, Planning Community Coordinator, was sworn in. Mr. Stitt stated that the proposed amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance addresses the issue of home day-care. Mr. Stitt presented Chairman Mason with the Notice of Public Hearing , published in the Englewood Herald. The proposed amendment is written in two parts , the first of which will allow a "family child-care home " and an "infant/toddler home " as a Conditional Use in the R-1-A Zone District ; the second part of the proposed amendment will change verbiage of the Englewood Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to comply with that cited in State regula- tions , and will apply to all other residential zone districts. "Family child-care home" and "infant/toddler home" would be allowed in R-1-B , R-1-C , R-2 , R-2-C , R-3 , and R-4 as Home Occupations ; a "large child-care home" would be allowed in those zone districts as a "Conditional Use ." A day-care "center " is more commercial in nature, and would not be al- lowed in the R-1-A District , and only as a Conditional Use in the remaining residential dis- tricts . At the present time , there are no provisions to permit day-care in the R-1-A Zone District. This issue arose because of a neighborhood dispute in the R-1-A District , which ended up be - fore City Council. As a result, City Council imposed a six month moratorium on enforcement against home day-care in the R-1-A District and directed staff to review the issue and recom- mend a course of action. Mr. Stitt noted that when the Commission initially reviewed the proposed regulations, the sug- gestion was made that any children living in the home should be taken into account in deter- mining the total number of children allowed. In compliance with that suggestion , the statement that "Residents of the home under 12 years of age who are on the premises and all children on the premises for supervision are counted against the approved capacity ." Mr . Mason asked if this is in the State regulations . Mr. Stitt responded affirmatively. - Mr. Redpath asked for clarification on licensing for care of three children under two years of age. Mr. Stitt responded that for a care-giver to be granted a license for three children under the age of two , they must have first been licensed for two years to provide day-care for two children under the age of two years, have had no complaints about child-care lodged against them, and must have received 40 clock hours of approved training . Mr. Horner inquired whether the "Conditional Use" provisions for dependent care centers in R-1-A could be construed to allow home schooling. Mr. Stitt stated this would not allow home schooling. Mr. Stitt further pointed out that the dependent care center is not part of the amendment under consideration this evening; this provision is in effect. 2 Mr. Weber asked why "Large Child Care Centers" were not included in R-1-A as a Condi- tional Use. Mr. Stitt responded that City Council asked staff to consider the issue of "day-care homes" in the R-1-A Zone District. A large child-care center is more commercial in nature, and staff felt that to allow the family child-care home and an infant/toddler home in the R-1-A, but to not allow the more commercial large child-care center was an appropriate compromise. Mr. Stitt stated that it is certainly the prerogative of the Commission to recommend that R-1-A have the same provisions as those contained in R-1-B, R-1-C, etc. Mr. Mason asked if there were further questions of staff. No further questions were posed to Mr. Stitt. Mr. Mason then asked if any members of the audience wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed amendments regarding day-care. No member of the audience indicated interest in addressing the Commission on this issue. Horner moved: Tobin seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #OR-96-03 be closed. AYES: NAYS: Douglas, Dummer, Horner, Redpath, Shoop, Tobin, Weber, Mason None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Garrett The motion carried. Mr. Mason asked for discussion. Mr. Weber stated he would like to see the same provisions for day-care apply to all residential zone districts, including R-1-A. Mr. Mason stated that, in his opinion, this would be desirable . Mr. Mason asked for a motion, in the affirmative, for discussion. Horner moved: Tobin seconded: The Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed amend- ments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance on home day-care as set forth in Case #OR-96-03. Mr. Mason called for discussion. Ms. Tobin commented that the Planning Commission had previously recommended continuity in provisions for home occupations throughout the residential zone districts, which City Coun- cil did not accept. Mr. Redpath asked what, specifically, is the directive from City Council. Mr. Stitt stated that the directive is to consider home day-care in the R-1-A Zone District; there was no directive on any particular manner for that consideration. 3 ·. Mr. Weber stated that no one is in attendance in opposition to the home day-care. Mr. Doug-A las pointed out that no one is in attendance in favor of the home day-care amendments, either. W Mr. Douglas asked if Mr. Weber was interested in allowing large child care-care centers in the R-1-A District. Mr. Weber suggested that they could be allowed as a Conditional Use as they are in R-1-B, R-1-C, and other residential districts . Mr. Weber pointed out that impacts of home day-care activities could be more noticeable for residents of R-1-B and R-1-C than for the residents of R-1-A because of higher density in those zone districts. Mr. Douglas agreed with this premise. Mr. Douglas stated that he could not support the amendment because R-1-A Zone District regulations do not allow home occupations, and home day-care is a "home occu- pation". Mr . Simpson stated that there are good reasons why zone districts have different regulations. Different lot sizes, home sizes, and density requirements create different neighborhood "character". Mr . Simpson stated that the suggestion to have different day-care provisions for different residential districts is, in his opinion, good. The Planning Commission does have the option to make such a recommendation if they choose. City Council did have some concern regarding the home occupation amendments as proposed previously, and the impact on the residential neighborhoods. The current proposal is an effort to comply with the Council direc- tive, and to provide an alternative for home day-care to be as unintrusive in the R-1-A District as possible. Mr. Simpson pointed out that the Conditional Use requirement means each home day-care will have to gain Conditional Use approval on a case-by-case basis. Large child-care centers do have a different character than family child-care homes or infant/toddler homes, and reflect more of a "commercial flavor". Mr. Simpson emphasized the draft proposal is an at- tempt to provide a way to meet a need for home day-care without being intrusive in a residen- tial neighborhood. Mr. Redpath stated that he agreed with Mr. Douglas that child-care and home occupations are linked and should be considered together. Mr. Mason stated that the Planning Commission recommendation on home occupations was for a "home office" in the R-1-A which would have low impact on the neighborhood, but City Council was not supportive of that proposal. Child-care is "high impact", but it is also needed in all neighborhoods. Child-care in the R-1-A District is a very normal activity, and does oc- cur. Day-care provides an intrinsically valuable service, and while it does have some impacts, they can be mitigated. Mr. Mason expressed surprise that there was no one in attendance at the Hearing regarding this issue. Ms. Tobin commented that a lot of people prefer to wait un- til the City Council hearing to attend a meeting . Mr. Mason asked if there was further discussion on the motion. Douglas moved: Redpath seconded: Allowance of family child-care homes and toddler/infant homes as Con- ditional Uses in R-1-A Zone District be eliminated from the proposed amendment. 4 Mr. Douglas stated that in his opinion, the remaining amendments regarding home day-care are beneficial in that the wording in the Englewood Ordinance will comply with the wording of the State regulations. Mr. Redpath reiterated his opinion that there must be a linkage between home offices/home occupations and home day-care in the R-1-A District; these issues must be considered together. Mr. Dummer stated that home day-care is a totally separate issue from a home office or home occupation. Mr. Douglas reiterated his opinion that they are linked and should be considered as "one issue". Mr. Douglas pointed out that commercial activities are prohibited in the R-1-A Zone District. Mr. Mason emphasized that child care is a normal activity in all zone districts; it does occur in the R-1-A District, and that he has a moral objection to prohibition of normal activities. Mr. Mason reiterated that there is a value to the provision of home day-care in the R-1-A District. Ms. Tobin asked if there are any applicants for home day-care approval in the R-1-A. Mr. Simpson stated there is a list of over 10 people who provide home day-care in the R-1-A Dis- trict. If the Commission and City Council determine that the proposed amendment should not be approved, enforcement procedures will begin against these home day-care providers to close them down. Mr. Simpson reiterated that City Council imposed a six-month moratorium on enforcement procedures to enable the staff and Commission to consider a resolution to the is- sue. Mr. Simpson stated that each and every one of the home day-care providers in R-1-A will have to apply for Conditional Use approval if the proposed amendment is approved. Mr. Redpath asked if efforts were expended to enforce the restrictions against home offices in R-1-A. Mr. Simpson stated that the home occupation issue has been postponed temporarily. In terms of priorities, it is not high, but will be brought back for consideration in the future . The reason the issue of home day-care is before the Commission at this time is that enforce- ment procedures against an R-1-A home day-care provider had been instituted and the issue was taken before City Council. Mr. Simpson suggested that the Commission may want to postpone their decision or table to another meeting to enable staff to inform day-care providers of the issue before the Commission. Mr. Mason stated that he would like to hear from those day-care providers. Discussion ensued. Mr . Simpson suggested that if the Commission wants to hear further testimony, they should reopen the hearing and continue to a date certain . Mr. Douglas expressed concern that opponents of home day-care would not be notified by staff even if proponents were, and this would be an "unfair" situation. Discussion ensued. Mason moved: The Public Hearing on Case #OR-06-03 be re-opened, direct notice be given to all interested parties, and further discussion be scheduled for September 4, 1996. Mr. Mason stated his belief that home day-care does not have to be linked to home occupa- tions. He commented that probably one out of every three residents in the R-1-A District en- gage in some type of home occupation. 5 There was no second to Mr. Mason 's motion; motion was declared dead. Mr. Horner called for the question. The vote was called . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Horner, Redpath, Shoop , Tobin, Douglas, Dummer Weber , Mason None Garrett The motion carried. Mr. Mason stated that the Commission would vote on the motion to approve the proposed amendments, with the elimination of the Conditional Use in R-1-A. Mr. Horner stated that he thought the vote was on the "call for the question ", and not on the motion to amend. Discus- sion ensued. City Attorney Brotzman directed that a second vote be taken on Mr. Douglas ' motion , and that clarity be stressed on exactly what a vote is on prior to the vote call. Mr. Redpath expressed strong opposition to Mr. Brotzman 's ruling on the second vote. The vote on Mr. Douglas amendment to eliminate family child-care homes and toddler/infant homes as Conditional Uses in the R-1-A District was called : AYES : Redpath , Douglas NAYS : ABSTAIN: Shoop , Tobin , Weber, Dummer, Horner, Mason None ABSENT: Garrett The motion carried. Mr. Redpath asked that the record reflect that the first vote was affirmative and would have eliminated the Conditional Use provision for home day-care in R-1-A . Mr. Mason stated that the record would so reflect. Mr. Mason state d the motion now under consideration is to approve the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance as set forth in the staff report for Case #OR-96-03 . He asked if there was any further discussion. Mr. Douglas discussed the preamble to the R-1-A Zone District and the preamble to the R-1-B District. Douglas moved: Mason seconded: The preamble to the R-1-A Zone District be amended to read: This District is composed of certain quiet , low-density residential areas of the 6 ·. City. The regulations of this District are designed to stabilize and pro- tect the essential characteristics of the District, to promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life, and to prohibit activities of a commercial nature within the District, EXCEPT FOR CERTAIN CON- DITIONAL USES WHICH ARE CONTROLLED BY SPECIFIC LIMITATIONS GOVERNING THE SIZE AND EXTENT OF SUCH ACTIVITIES. To these ends, development is limited to a relatively low concentration, and permitted uses are limited basically to single-family dwellings, educational institutions and religious institutions, plus certain public facilities, which serve the residents of the District. Mr. Simpson stated that the intent statement, or preamble, is meant to provide "guidance". He suggested use of the word "discourage" rather than "prohibit" if this section is to be amended. Discussion ensued. Mr. Mason called for the vote on Mr. Douglas' motion to amend the preamble to R-1-A. AYES: NAYS: Shoop, Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Dummer, Homer, Redpath, Mason None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Garrett The motion carried. Mr. Mason asked if there is further discussion on the proposed amendments regarding home day-care. Mr. Mason then called for the vote on the motion to recommend approval of the home day-care amendments. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Dummer, Homer, Shoop, Tobin, Weber, Mason Redpath, Douglas None Garrett The motion carried . Mr. Mason called for a short recess at 8: 10 P. M . The meeting reconvened, with members Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Dummer, Homer, Redpath, Shoop and Mason present. Mr. Garrett was absent. IV. INTERPRETATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE Tattoo Parlors Permitted in B-1 Zone District CASE #CZO -I -96-01 Mr. Mason stated that this is not a Public Hearing; however, a list of people have signed up to address the Commission. Assistant City Attorney Reid suggested that the Commission receive 7 the case background from staff, ask the applicant to address the Commission, then open the meeting to public testimony and impose a five minute limit on those speakers. e Mr. Mason noted that someone had wanted to video tape the proceedings, and that some mem- bers of the Commission are uncomfortable with this. Ms. Reid noted that this is a public meeting of record, the proceedings are being recorded and the applicant may obtain a copy of the tapes. Ms. Reid likened video taping of these proceedings to that of allowing video cam- eras in a court of law -it is at the discretion of the Commission . Discussion ensued. Ms. To- bin stated that in her opinion, allowance of filming would be restrictive to her freedom of dis- cussion on this case. Mason moved: Homer seconded: Video-taping of the proceedings on Case #CZ0-1-96-01 be allowed. The vote was called. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: None Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Dummer, Homer, Redpath, Shoop, Mason None Garrett The motion failed. Mr. Mason stated that video-taping will not be permitted. Mr. Stitt addressed the Commission, stating that the request is for "interpretation" of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is Remi Fields, owner of Remi's Emporium of Mystic Ink, a tattoo parlor. Mr. Fields plans to relocate from the 3700 block of South Broadway to 3494 South Broadway. The Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance is a "permissive" ordinance, and if a particular use is not listed as specifically "permitted", it is not allowed. Tattoo parlors or stu- dios are not a listed permitted use in the B-1 Zone District. There is a provision in the Ordi- nance, specifically §16-4-10 b 95, which allows for interpretation by the Commission whether a use is "similar" to other uses in that zone district. This provision reads: "Any similar lawfu.l use which, in the opinion of the Commission, would be compatible with other uses in the area and which would not be objectionable to nearby property by reason of odor, dust, fames, gas, noise, radiation, heat, glare, or vibration or is not hazardous to the health and property of the surrounding areas through danger of fire or explosion. " This provision has been used very sparingly in the past, and is not intended to be used to "side-step" or circumvent the amend- ment process. Mr. Stitt noted that the regulation of land use within a community has been upheld as a legiti- mate exercise of "police power" to promote and protect a community's health, safety, morals, and general welfare. Uses allowed in zone districts vary from district to district, and zoning ordinances are, in that regard, "discriminatory in nature". Mr. Stitt traced the history of zon- ing ordinances in the City, commenting that the present form and character of the zoning ordi- nance was established in 1955. At that time, the business/commercial districts were designated by "C-1" and C-2"; in 1963 a general updating of the ordinance occurred, with the district 8 designations changing from the "C" to "B-1" and "B-2". No substantial changes occurred in the list of uses permitted from the "C" districts to the "B" districts. Tattoo parlors/studios were not listed as a permitted use during any of this course of time. Mr. Stitt then discussed the history of tattoo parlors/studios, noting that tattooing is a long- recognized decorative art form. The applicant is alleging that tattoo parlors/studios are similar in nature to an art studio and/or art gallery; therefore, such uses should be permitted in the B-1 Zone District. Mr. Stitt stated that tattoo parlors have been in existence long before zoning was established , and the authors of the zoning ordinance provisions for the City of Englewood were aware of tattoo parlors . It seems reasonable to conclude that tattoo parlors in the down- town business district (B-1) were not viewed as a necessary or integral part of the character of the downtown area, and were not an appropriate use in that district. Mr. Stitt emphasized that the zoning ordinance is a land use tool, and does not determine what is or what is not "art". Mr. Stitt referenced the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code, which classifies tattoo parlors, art studios and art galleries in different categories . Tattoo parlors are classified as a "personal service", whereas art studios are classified as "services" and art galleries are identi- fied in a separate category. Mr. Stitt stated that if there is interest in the community to amend the Zoning Ordinance to al- low tattoo parlors as a permitted use in the B-1 Zone District, this will be a separate process and will require public hearings before the Planning Commission, referral to City Council and hearings before that body also . The issue before the Commission this evening is to determine whether or not tattoo par- lors/studios are , in fact , similar in nature to an art studio or art gallery . Mr . Stitt submitted a letter to Chairman Mason from the Englewood Downtown Development Authority in opposi- tion to allowing the tattoo parlor in B-1 ; also submitted was a letter from Fred Kaufman and Sam Kaufman in opposition to allowing the tattoo parlor. Discussion ensued. Mr. Simpson emphasized the issue before the Commission is whether a use not mentioned -tattoo parlors -are similar to art studios and art galleries. Mr. Douglas inquired whether there are tattoo parlors in Englewood. Mr . Stitt responded that there are several; however , none are in the B-1, downtown area. Mr. Simpson noted that tat- too parlors are not listed as permitted uses in the B-2 Zone District either; however, past ad- ministrations did not enforce the ordinances as is currently being done. Michael Armstrong, attorney-at-law , stated he was representing Mr. Remi Fields, owner of Remi's Emporium of Mystic Ink, previously located at 3708 South Broadway. Mr. Fields had his tattoo parlor at that address for two and one-half years, and the location is within 500 feet of Flood Middle School. Mr. Fields plans to move his business to 3494 South Broadway, and had wanted to open for business August 1. Mr . Armstrong had previously distributed folders of background information, including articles from "Artform " magazine, "Englewood Com- panion", and "Pierced Hearts and True Love" to members of the Commission . Mr. Arm- strong referenced these articles , noting that there is "no question that tattooing is art", and that 9 the only question is where the art styles are going. Mr. Armstrong emphasized that we "aren't talking about 'low-lifes "', and made particular reference to the article published in the Engle-e wood Companion. The exhibit "Pierced Hearts and True Love " is contained in a catalog pub- lished as part of an exhibit of tattoo art that has appeared in New York, Massachusetts, Flor- ida, and California. Mr . Armstrong emphasized that tattooing has long been a type of decora- tive art, and that Mr. Fields is one of the "finest ". Clients getting tattoos are not all young- sters , but cover all age ranges and all social boundaries. Mr. Armstrong stated that some peo- ple choose to purchase art to display on their walls , and other people choose to wear the art on their bodies. Mr. Armstrong cited a list of "notables " who have been tattooed , in addition to bikers and gang members. Mr. Armstrong stated that the tattoo parlor will increase social and cultural opportunities in the downtown area ; this is a new business and a new "product". The tattoo parlor will bring more customers into the area , with money to spend . Mr. Armstrong emphasized that a tattoo is not inexpensive , ranging from $35 upward to several hundreds of dollars. Mr. Armstrong presented a "petition" containing 260 signatures from people "all across the metro area " in favor of the tattoo parlor. [SECRETARY'S NOTE: At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr . Anderson retrieved the ''petition " with the reported 260 signatures; said petition was presented to the members of the Commission , and not logged in by the Secretary . Said petition is not included as a part of the permanent file on this case.] Mr . Anderson stated that a Mr . DePriest and Mr . Fields are well-known throughout the coun- try for their artistry in tattooing . Mr. Fields business hours will begin at 11 A .M. and close at midnight on weekdays, and open until 2:00 A .M. on weekends. Mr. Armstrong stated that the "Englewood Police Department has said they like the tattoo business in the proposed location ". Mr. Douglas asked if Mr. Armstrong had such a statement in writing from the Police Depart- ment . An unidentified gentleman in the audience stated that this statement was made by Offi- cer Sam Watson , but that Officer Watson will not commit in writing. Mr. Armstrong discussed the improvements that Mr. Fields has undertaken at the 3494 South Broadway location ; this was a former doctors office and the premises have been cleaned, painted , and will have separate areas for each "artist ". The walls in the lobby have a lot of "flash ". Clients can choose from the displayed art , or make their own design for their tattoo. There is a sterilization room for all equipment . The Health Department has been contacted and brought in voluntarily by the applicant even though approval by the Health Department is not required. All bio-wastes are picked up by a contract firm experienced in handling such wastes. Mr. Mason asked if there was any record of the Health Department visits . Again , an unidenti- fied gentleman in the audience stated there were three people in the shop in one day. Mr. Armstrong stated that Mr. Fields ' business outgrew the premises at 3708 South Broadway. The 3494 South Broadway location is considerably larger , and will provide a private work area for each of the artists. 10 Mr. Armstrong discussed the impacts of uses such as the bus stop , which creates problems and litter in downtown ; the pool halls , bars and inebriated patrons also create health and safety problems. Mr. Armstrong stated in his opinion , it is an error to not allow tattoo parlors in the B-1 District, noting that tattoo parlors do exist in the B-2 District. Rocky Mountain Tattoo has been in business since 1987 , Mr. Fields operated his business in B-2 for 2.5 years, and Pene- trations has been in business for five or six months. Mr. Armstrong reiterated his position that tattoo is "art", and has been classified as "fine art" since 1971. Mr. Armstrong suggested that if the designs done by Mr. Fields and his fellow-artists were to be etched on glass , or painted on canvas , wood , or pottery, there would be no question whether to allow such a business in the B-1 District. Mr. Armstrong stated that the SIC Codes were done for census purposes , to determine classifi- cations that people were working in ; it was not done for the purposes of "definition". Mr. Armstrong stated that if the writers of the zoning ordinance in 1955 wanted to exclude tattoo operations , they should have so indicated . Tattoo parlors/studios are permitted on the Six- teenth Street Mall in Denver . Mr . Redpath asked if tattoo businesses are specifically mentioned in the Denver Ordinance. Mr. Armstrong stated that they are specifically permitted and specifically eliminated in specific zone districts. Mr. Simpson commented on the apparent confusion between the B-2 versus the B-1 Zone Dis- tricts . Tattoo parlors are not "permitted " in either Zone District. There are a number of uses in any zone district that are not "permitted", but exist none-the-less. An example is that of sec- ond-hand stores in B-1 , which are not permitted . Code enforcement action hasn 't been taken against those uses at this time. Mr. Simpson suggested that if tattoo parlors are to be included as a permitted use in the B-1 Zone District, it should be accomplished by amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance . Staff is of the opinion that a tattoo studio should not be classified as an "art gallery". Mr. Simpson reiterated that if the applicant wants to pursue al- lowance of tattoo parlors/studios in B-1, they should do so through the amendment to B-1 . Mr. Simpson stated he wants to make sure that members of the Commission, and the audience , are cle ar why the tattoo parlors are "permitted " in B-2; in actuality , this is not a permitted use in B-2 , but the ordinance has not been enforced . Mr. Simpson stated that staff may begin dis- cussion with City Council enforcement against all uses that are not "permitted ". Mr. Simpson stated that City Council is taking a very strong look at South Broadway, there is an ongoing study of South Broadway, and there may be changes in "permitted" uses. Mr. Mason asked whether Remi 's is being singled out. Mr. Simpson stated that it is not being singled out ; this was brought up because of the proposed relocation from B-2 to B-1. Mr. Armstrong stated that the applicant feels he is , indeed , being singled out . Mr. Douglas asked if the applicant had to get any license from the City . The unidentified gen- tleman in the audience stated that he does have a sales tax license, but was not required to get a business license. Anything that can be "carried out " they charge sales tax on. Mr. Armstrong clarified the sales tax is imposed on "product" and not on "service ". 11 Mr. Mason stated he will ask that members of the audience addressing the Commission limit A their comments to five minutes , and he asked that those in support of the proposal be allowed w to speak first. Mr. Mason called on Joan Fields. Ms . Fields stated that she is the wife of Remi Fields. The previous location of 3708 South Broadway was in close proximity to a junior high or middle school. The proposed location of 3494 South Broadway is a considerable distance from any school. They tattoo no one under the age of 18 , do not tattoo anyone under the influence of alcohol or drugs . Ms. Fields stated that she doesn 't want her children in Englewood Schools because the City doesn 't enforce the Zoning Ordinance. Ralph Fields stated that he is Remi Fields ' father , and is a retired 20-year military man , and is also a retired deputy sheriff from Jefferson County. Mr. Fields stated that Remi has never done anything illegal , and would like to be able to make a living for his family. The business is now closed , and cannot open at the new location. Remi Fields stated that he is the owner of the Emporium of Mystic Ink , and was in business for 2 .5 years at 3708 South Broadway. That site had approximately 900 square feet of floor area , and the new location at 3494 South Broadway will have over 2100 square feet. They have cleaned the premises , painted, remodeled , and each "artist " will have their own work studio. He stated that he has spent a considerable amount of money to ready the new site for opening , only to be told that he cannot operate his business at this location . Mr. DePriest came into his business, saw how it was operated , and came to work for Remi. Mr. DePriest has several trophies for his work. Mr. Fields stated that supplies have been purchased, bills have been paid , but neither he nor any of his employees have had any salary for the last 18 days. Mr. Fields estimated that he has lost $10 ,000 since his business was closed 18 days ago. Mr. Fields stated that they hung a banner advertising their relocation , and received a notifica- tion to remove the banner , which they did within 45 minutes of receipt of notice. Two or three days la ter, they received a notice that the business cannot open. They have continued the re- modeling that was begun. Mr. Fields stated that for the last 18 days, he has walked the Englewood area and talked to merchants , customers, and passers -by; the majority of those he has talked to are supportive of his being allowed to do business at 3494 South Broadway. Mr. Fields estimated they average between 10 to 30 paying customers per day , and it is not unusual for someone to pay upwards of $700 for one tattoo. People also drop in just to look at the de- signs they have on display . The age group of his customers range from 18 to 80. Mr. Fields stated that he has lived in the area for the last 12 years , and chose the City of Englewood to raise his family and "get a piece of the American dream". He has watched changes in the commercial character of the area -the demise of Cinderella City , the inability to rent Trolley Square and its ultimate demolition . Mr. Fields stated that he had tried to rent space in Trolley Square , but no one would ever return his calls. Mr. Fields commented that the large parking lot in the 3400 block of South Broadway is "open to everything "; most of the other businesses are closed by 8 P .M . so the major ity of his customers won't have any contact with those cus- tomers . Mr. Fields discussed the "drunks " that wander up and down the street when the bars close , or that he has found lying in his doorway . Mr. Fields noted that "undesirable people are already in Englewood ". Mr. Fields stated that he is 34 years of age , and has been doing 12 tattooing for six years. He would like the opportunity to do business in downtown Englewood and show what he can do. Mr. Mason inquired about changes that have occurred in the last 20 years regarding clientele of tattoo parlors. Mr. Fields stated that tattoos are now applied to both men and women; he has never tattooed a biker, has never applied a swastika or other tattoo of that genre . He will not apply names any more , and wants his clients to make logical choices in their tattoo . Ms. Tobin stated that she had no problem with people wanting tattoos , but she felt that the ap- plicants are making an assumption that all "bikers are bad", and that there is a bias against tattoo parlors on the part of the Commission. Ms. Tobin stated that this is untrue. Mr. F ields stated that he wants to break assumptions about the business . He discussed the is- suance of a "notice of violation ", that false police reports have been made , and they are a law abiding business . Code Enforcement people went to the landlord, and posted the notice on the door , but nothing was given to him personally. Mr. Reiser is his landlord. Mr. Redpath asked if the Commission is limited to determining whether tattooing is "art "; can the Commission make a recommendation as to whether it should be a permitted use. City At- torney Brotzman referenced §16-4-10 B 95 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. He em- phasized that the responsibility of the Commission is to determine whether a tattoo par- lor/studio is a similar lawful use to other uses permitted in the B-1 Zone District. This is the scope of the Commission 's authority in this request. Dave Kroz stated that he grew up in Englewood , and went through the school system , leaving before he graduated to join the Navy at 17 . He has lived in other communities, but came back to Englewood to settle down. He stated he is now 44 years of age , and he has gotten a tattoo. He met Remi when the business was located in the 3700 block of South Broadway. He stated that he does not understand the zoning issue , but does plan to get more involved in the local government process. Mr. Kroz stated that Remi is not able to do business, therefore he cannot make any money. People have a right to do business; the premises are clean and bright , the applicants have already stated they will not tattoo anyone who is drunk or on drugs , and they ID their clients. In his opinion this is a reputable business. Code Enforcement cited him be- cause he moved from B-2 into B-1. Mr. Kroz stated that determination of "art " is at the dis- cretion of the viewer . Mr. Mason read into the record the letter from Messrs. Fred and Sam Kaufman opposing this request. Mr . Harold Celva , Executive Director of Englewood Downtown Development Authority, ad- dressed the Commission , and read into the record the letter previously submitted to the Com- mission . The boundary of the EDDA District is the same as the B-1 Zone District boundary . Mr . Mason asked if members of the EDDA board had cited specific reasons for opposition. Mr. Celva suggested that "stereo-typing " probably is behind much of the opposition; he com- mented on the difficulty of dealing with perceptions versus reality . Mr. Celva noted that Ms. 13 LaPorta of LaPorta Art Gallery is opposed to this other "art form ". Tattooing is associated with the counter culture -prison inmates, gangs , etc . Mr. Celva stated he found the discus-e sion this evening educational but it would not change the perception of people who have large investments in the downtown area and don 't want a tattoo parlor in the downtown . Mr. Celva stated that a study of the downtown area is underway , and he and the board hate to see the zoning ordinance diminished , modified , or diluted in any form. Mr. Celva reminded the Commission they have an obligation to protect the integrity of the zoning ordinance and of the downtown area. Mr. Mason noted that some tattoo parlors have been in existence for 10 years; what is the dif- ference between the B-1 and B-2 districts to make them acceptable in one district, but not an- other . He stated it is difficult to tell where one district ends and another begins . Mr. Celva noted that the downtown blocks of South Broadway are heavily commercial , with a lot of pe- destrian traffic. Mr. Redpath asked if Mr. Celva considered tattooing to be an art form . Mr. Celva stated he did not know. Mr. Redpath asked if the applicant were to move the operation back to his pre - vious location would the downtown businessmen object. Mr . Celva stated that the previous location is outside of the B-1 District. Ted Vasilas , proprietor of Ted 's Custom Clothiers , addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed tattoo parlor. Mr. Vasilas presented Chairman Mason with petitions signed by businessmen in the 3300 , 3400 , and 3500 block of South Broadway. The petitions contain 18 signatures. Mr. Vasilas stated that some of the signers are property owners , and some are business owners . Mr. Vasilas stated that he owns his property and his business , and purchased the site 10 years ago , and paid a premium price for the site because he wanted to stay in Englewood. Mr. Vasilas stated that prior to purchasing his property, he met with former City Manager McCown , who assured him this was a "premium area ". Mr. Vasilas expressed con- cern that his clients will not want to come to his store if the tattoo parlor is allowed . He stated that he serves customers from Cherry Hills Village and Greenwood Village, Littleton , Denver, as well as Englewood . Mr. Vasilas stated that in his opinion the tattoo business does not fit in with the other businesses in this block ; the downtown area is the primary shopping area since the Mall closed. He urged that the Commission help the established businesses stay in busi- ness , and pointed out that the downtown businessmen pay property and sales tax. If the tattoo parlor is allowed , it will have a financial impact on the businesses and on the City. Mr. Fields has stated that he spent a lot of money to remodel the new site , but Mr. Fields has continued to do remodeling and impro vement even after the City issued the Notice of Violation. Mr. Armstrong stated that Mr . Fields has not spent additional funds on remodeling since re- ceiving the Notice of Violation; he did complete work begun prior to receipt of the NOV . Phil Andert addressed the Commission. Mr . Andert stated that he owns the Clock Shop, and has been 26 years in Englewood , spending 18 years in the Mall, and now located at 3490 South Broadway . At one time , he had three business locations in the City. In 1988, he sold the clock shop he had in the Mall and concentrated his efforts on the South Broadway site, 14 I • which was to be his "retirement shop ". Mr. Andert estimated that while 403 of his customers are senior citizens, the remainder are young families with children. Mr. Andert stated he has nothing against Mr. Fields , but is of the opinion that the clientele frequenting the tattoo parlor will disturb customers visiting his clock shop . Mr. Andert commented that common percep- tions of tattooed people are military and burlesque people, to cite a couple of groups. Mr. An- dert stated that he is of the opinion that the tattoo shop will "hurt" the remainder of the busi- nesses on Broadway , and even though the hours of most businesses will vary from that of the tattoo parlor there will still be some "overlap " of customer hours. Mr. Andert stated that he is 74 years of age , and "still trying to make a buck"; what effect will a tattoo parlor next door to his business do if he wants to sell. Mr . Mason asked what the hours of Mr. Andert 's business were. Mr. Andert stated that he is open 9 A .M . to 5 P.M ., and is busy all the time ; possibly the busiest hours are from 9 A.M. to 2 :30 P.M. Bart Rivkin addressed the Commission. Mr. Rivkin commented on a tattoo parlor that is lo- cated on South Broadway at Iliff in Denver, and the appearance of people who loiter and hang out around this site . This is the atmosphere that people think of when issues of tattoo parlors are raised . Mr. Rivkin asked if Mr. Fields can assure that destruction of property , trashing of property , and other undesirable activities won 't happen if this business is allowed . Broadway businessmen are upset because of activities viewed in other neighborhoods around other tattoo parlors . Mr. Rivkin stated that they have replaced windows in their business at least 30 times as a result of breakage by inebriates or drug-influenced individuals . There is insecurity on the part of people who don't understand what the tattoo parlor is about -just look at the Iliff Ave- nue site. Mr. Rivkin stated that he can't say whether he is for or against the tattoo parlor at this time, but is concerned about the effect on customers and clientele of established busi- nesses . He asked if Mr. Fields would be willing to relocate if it is determined that clientele of his establishment were having a detrimental effect on clientele of other businesses . Mr. Fields stated that he would move if his clientele had a detrimental effect on other busi- nesses. Vicki Chesney discussed a demographic study on the tattoo industry, and the stigma attached to such businesses. In the last five to 10 years , demographics have shown the white collar work- ers getting tattoos has increased dramatically. People have more money and are willing to spend it on tattoos; it is an art form and has improved in the quality of design and workman- ship . Ms. Chesney asked if there is action to amend the zoning ordinance to allow tattoo par- lors as permitted uses, could Mr. Fields open his business while the amendment is being ac- complished . Larry Osler stated he has lived in Englewood for nine years , and owns his home. He has a restaurant , and has a tattoo . He stated that if people frown at him because he has a tattoo, he might not want to do business with those people. Remi 's business is very reputable , and he can see no down side to allowing him to do business in Englewood . Remi Fields has every right to be in Englewood as a businessman, and to support his family . Mr. Osler pointed out 15 -' ..., . that it is "walking distance" from Remi's old shop to the new location, and that zone district lines are "invisible". He stated that when you walk into Remi's it's "all business"; no drugs, e drunks, etc. are allowed. Jan Dryer presented the Commission with a copy of the notice of violation, which says that tattoo parlors is prohibited in the B-1 District. Ms. Abeyta suggested that members of the Commission visit businesses next to Remi's previ- ous location and see if the tattoo parlor had any impact on their business. Mr . Vasilas commented he had heard that windows were broken when the tattoo business moved out. Mr. Fields stated that the cost of window breakage has been repaid . J. J. Gunderson presented a "case scenario" whereby he goes to Remi's to get a tattoo; how- ever, Remi is busy and he cannot get it done immediately. He will probably walk around Broadway, visit other stores, and purchase clothing, shoes, etc. from surrounding business- men. He stated that he spends a considerable amount of money on his clothes, does not drink, and does not do drugs. Kristi Daugherty stated she is manager of Guys 'n Dolls in the 3400 block of South Broadway. She has an appreciation of people trying to earn a living and do their job. Ms. Daugherty sug- gested that Remi's be given a three month trial period at the 3494 South Broadway site. Ms. Daugherty stated that people are "afraid of the unknown", and stated that the downtown busi- nessmen have to deal with the problems caused by the bars and the clientele frequenting those establishments. Ms . Daugherty reiterated her proposal to grant a trial period for Mr. Fields to prove to the business community that he can become a part of that "community". Mr . Redpath stated that the charge to the Commission is to determine whether the tattoo busi- ness is an "art form ", but it has been turned into an economic issue . Ms. Tobin agreed that the issue before the Commission is whether the tattoo business is similar to an art studio or an art gallery. City Attorney Brotzman stated that if members of the Commission are of the opinion that tat- tooing is a "similar lawful" use to other uses permitted in the B-1 Zone District, they should so find . However , the Commission cannot grant a three month trial period. The determination must be made whether it is a similar lawful use . Mr. Mason recalled an "artist" that used to have a space in Cinderella City, but who painted the same picture countless times , albeit in different color ; he stated that some of the tattooing he has seen is at least as artistic as the work of that particular "artist". Mr. Mason commented that, given the broad definition of art , the decision asked of the Commission is a difficult one to make. Mr. Homer stated that the question is whether the tattoo parlor has enough similarity to an art studio or an art gallery to allow it. Mr. Dummer suggested that, in his opinion, this is some- 16 .- thing that isn't going to be determined this evening; if the question is solely related to "art", he would say that it is art; when you relate the issue to "people", it's another issue entirely. Ms . Tobin emphasized that the issue is whether a tattoo parlor is similar to an art studio or to an art gallery . Discussion ensued. Mason moved : Redpath seconded : The Planning Commission finds that tattoo parlors are similar to art stu- dios and art galleries , and that tattoo parlors should be a permitted use in the B-1 Zone District. Mr. Dummer pointed out that this motion is very broad; we could have tattoo parlors located where they might not be appropriate. Mr . Simpson stated that this motion will allow tattoo parlors in the B-1 Zone District. Discussion ensued. Mr. Shoop commented that it should be noted that this determination applies not only to this particular tattoo parlor, but will apply to all other tattoo parlors wanting to locate in the downtown area . Discussion ensued. Mr. Dummer asked if no one in zoning was informed of the relocation of the tattoo parlor when permits were issued. Mr . Simpson stated that the Office of Neighborhood and Business De- velopment was not informed. Efforts to improve inter-departmental communication are being made, as well as efforts to work with businesses early on through use of a possible business registration process. Mr. Simpson acknowledged that this has created financial hardship for Mr. Fields and his employees . Ms . Tobin commented the Commission must also consider hardships for the existing businesses if the tattoo parlor proves to be detrimental. The vote on the motion was called: AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN : ABSENT : Weber, Mason Douglas , Dummer, Homer , Redpath, Shoop , Tobin None Garrett The motion failed. Mr . Mason thanked the applicant and members of the audience for their attendance and partici- pation in this meeting. v. FINDINGS OF FACT 3035 South Corona Street CASE #CU-96-01 Mr. Mason stated that the Findings of Fact for the Small Child-Care Center at 3035 South Co- rona are to be considered. Redpath moved: Tobin seconded : The Findings of Fact for Case #CU-96-01 be approved as written. AYES: Redpath, Tobin, Weber , Douglas, Mason 17 NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: None Dummer, Horner, Shoop Garrett The motion carried. VI. AMENDMENT OF ZONING ORDINANCE Retail Design Standards -Draft Proposal CASE #OR-96-04 Members of the Commission asked if discussion of this issue could be delayed to the next meeting because of the lateness of the hour. Mr. Simpson agreed that it could, but did point out that this issue has been scheduled for a Public Hearing on September 4. City Council has asked that the issue be brought forward and considered as soon as possible . Mr. Simpson em- phasized that the Commission will certainly be able to make changes in the draft proposal the evening of September 4; if an additional evening of discussion on the proposal is needed, the case will continued to be the second meeting in September. VII. PUBLIC FORUM. No one was present to address the Commission. VIII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Simpson had nothing to bring before the Commission. IX. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Ms. Tobin stated that she had attended a conference at University of Denver on August 19th, and will make a report on that conference at the next meeting. Mr. Horner asked how a situation such as the tattoo parlor could be prevented from happening again. Mr . Simpson agreed that there is no need for such a situation to occur; it is very diffi- cult when it results in financial hardship as this has. Mr. Brotzman commented that Mr. Fields can request amendment of the Zoning Ordinance, or can ask for a "use variance" . Discussion ensued. Enforcement procedures in the B-1 and B-2 Districts were briefly discussed. The meeting was declared adjourned at 10:25 P.M. Gertrude G. Welty, Recording Secretary \ \$nds\.eng_ ch_ sys . city hall . englewood\dept\nbd\grouplboards\plancomm\pcm0896b. _doc 18