HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-07-21 PZC MINUTESCITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUL y 21, 1992
I. CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7: 00
P .M. by Chairman Jan Schultz in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood City Hall.
Members present: Draper, Dummer, Gerlick, Glynn·, Leonard, Shoop, Tobin, Schultz
Members absent: Covens (entered the meeting at 7:40 P.M.)
Also present: Planning Administrator Harold J. Stitt
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTFS
July 7, 1992
Chairman Schultz stated that the Minutes of July 7, 1992 were to be considered for approval.
Draper moved:
Tobin seconded: The Minutes of July 7, 1992 be approved as written.
AYES:
NAYS:
Dummer, Gerlick, Glynn, Leonard, Shoop, Tobin, Draper, Schultz
None
ABSENT: Covens
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried.
ill. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE
Proposed B-3 Zone District
CASE #4-92
Chairman Schultz stated that this is a continuance of the Public Hearing initially begun on June
16. He outlined the parameters for the conduct of the Hearing, stating that people will be re-
sworn, staff will make a presentation, proponents will be heard, opponents will be heard, with
opportunities for questions and rebuttal. Mr. Schultz called for a motion to "reopen" the Pub-
lic Hearing.
Shoop moved:
Tobin seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #4-92 be reopened.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Gerlick, Glynn, Leonard, Shoop, Tobin, Draper, Dummer, Schultz
None
Covens
None
The motion carried.
SECRETARY'S NOTE: Notice of Public Hearing was presented at the meeting of June 16,
1992.
1
-1
Harold J. Stitt was sworn in, and testified that he is the Planning Administrator for the City of
Englewood. Mr. Stitt stated that the Staff Report for Case #4-92 has been modified from the
June 16th meeting to include Screening provisions for protection of adjacent, abutting, or ad-
joining residential properties to any B-3 Zoned property. These provisions read as follows:
G. Screening. To protect adjacent adjoining or abutting residential property, the following
provisions shall apply:
1. There shall be no less than a ten foot (10') setback from the property line where
it abuts, adjoins or is adjacent to a residential property. This setback area shall
be landscaped with sufficient material so as to provide a visual barrier to activ-
ities conducted upon the site; or
2. The portion of the property which abuts, adjoins or is adjacent to a residential
property shall be screened by a decorative, closed-face or solid concrete, block,
brick, or wood fence not more than six feet (6') high.
3. No building or portion thereof shall qualify as a wall, screen, or fence under the
provisions of this Section.
Mr. Stitt stated that in his opinion, the inclusion of the above provision will help obviate nega-
tive impacts the B-3 District might have on residential properties which abut, adjoin, or are
adjacent thereto.
Mr. Stitt pointed out that this screening is not contained in the existing B-2 District; it is, how-
ever, contained in the I-1, Light Industrial District. The screening provisions of the I-1 Dis-
trict and the proposed B-3 District provide more protectiQn to adjacent, adjoining, or abutting
residential property than they presently have under the B-2 District. The B-3 District will also
provide flexibility to the property owners/businessmen in that it provides for a wider range of
permitted uses.
Mr. Stitt addressed a memorandum from City Attorney DeWitt regarding the inclusion of adult
entertainment/service facilities as a Conditional Use in the proposed B-3 District. Mr. Stitt
stated that the issue is one of consistence and constitutional rights. If it is the determination to
exclude this use as a Conditional Use, the Commission's deliberations must focus on legal and
factual reasons why this use should be excluded. Mr. Stitt stressed that with the existing 500
foot rule, the issue is virtually moot; however, staff's opinion is that adult entertain-
ment/ service facilities should be included as a Conditional Use. [SECRETARY'S NOTE:
Mr. DeWitt's Memorandum of July 14, 1992 is appended to the Minutes as a part of the
record of these proceedings.]
Mr. Schultz stated that he had received a telephone call from Dorothy Romans, who stated that
she could not be in attendance this evening. Mrs. Romans indicated that it still the position of
the Safety Services Department that adult entertainment/service facilities should not be in-
cluded as a Conditional Use in the proposed B-3 Zone District.
Mr. Shoop asked whether the fencing referred to in the proposed Section G.2 could be located
on the property line. Mr. Stitt stated that it can be on the property line, and suggested the ad-
dition of "such fence may be located on the property line" at the end of this paragraph.
Mr. Gerlick asked if the height was to be limited to six feet. Mr. Stitt stated that anything
higher would necessitate amending the portion of the Code pertaining to fences. This may be
something the Commission would want to consider at a later time.
2
Mr. Schultz asked what activities the decorative, closed-face fencing or wall is expected to
hide from the residential area. Mr. Stitt suggested outside storage of materials, movement of
and/or parked vehicles, etc.
Mr. Forrington was sworn in, and testified that at the beginning of the Public Hearing on June
16, he was "pleased to see that Englewood had taken a positive stand to promote business in
Englewood". However, in the last 30 days, he has lost three leases of his property because of
discussions the prospective lessees had with people in City Hall. Mr. Forrington testified that
"once a business is established, there are no controls imposed --no weed control, no land-
scaping, trash and derelict cars." Mr. Forrington cited a business in northwest Englewood
(Barton Brothers) that are painting structural steel out on the ground --the ground is discolored
because of the paint; the building on the property is a "shack" for their air compressor. Mr.
Forrington charged that this business is polluting the ground and atmosphere because of their
uncontrolled activities. Mr. Forrington cited another building at 2197 South Tejon --a 20,000
square foot building, 800 sq. ft. landscaping, the remainder of the lot in concrete, which
drains to South Tejon, and ultimately across Evans into Denver. Mr. Forrington stated that
Denver is "upset" with the drainage from Englewood. Mr. Forrington then addressed the re-
quirements to develop his property: the drive and parking area will have to be asphalted or
paved to meet the requirement of "dust-free surface"; this will add to the drainage problems in
the area. Mr. Forrington stated that at his sons' place of business on West Evans Avenue,
they have crushed rock, bark, and leaves; water does not run off or erode ditches on the site.
Mr. Forrington stated that every year or two they do bring in additional crushed rock. Mr.
Forrington addressed the issue of the visual barrier in the proposed Screening section: people
in City Hall are telling prospective tenants they have to have a "bullet-proof, bomb-proof wall,
and the landscaping requirements are like something from the KGB". He stated that he will
have to landscape 3500 square feet of his property; people will have to come in by helicopter
because the landscaping, visual barrier, etc. are so restrictive, there will be no room for vehi-
cles. Mr. Forrington stated that the rear one-half of his property at 2280 West Evans is zoned
R-2-A; "this is holy ground, you can't even walk back there." Mr. Forrington stated that he
understands why businessmen are moving to Mexico. Mr. Forrington stated that he does have
a contract on his property for considerably less than he was asking; if the B-3 District and re-
zoning die, the deal is also dead. Mr. Forrington stated that he had filed a protest with the
Arapahoe County Assessor on the valuation of his property; they have devalued it in the
neighborhood of $119,000, so the City of Englewood won't get as much property tax from
him. Mr. Forrington stated that he was going to move out of the metropolitan area and go to
the country to get away from people. Mr. Ferrington stated that one of the persons who spoke
at the June 16th session had stated that he was "against change". Mr. Forrington stated that he
had viewed this person's property, and found five junk vehicles and weeds on the property, so
he complained to the City about the condition of the property; nothing has been done to clean
the premises to this date in time. Mr. Forrington stated that the weeds on the back of the fill-
ing station are taller than he is. Mr. Forrington stressed the need to "get things moving".
Mr. Schultz asked Mr. Forrington what businesses were proposed for his property that deter-
mined they could not operate in the current district. Mr. Ferrington stated that one was a
manufacturing and marketing of meat cutting operation. Mr. Forrington stated that the new
fencing, landscaping, and surfacing requirements would require about a $75,000 investment; if
he did this work, and added it onto the price of the land it wouldn't sell; if he had to foot the
bill with no way to recoup his expenses, he wouldn't be very happy.
Mr. Schultz asked what Mr. Ferrington felt would make the property more salable. Mr. Fer-
rington stated that there aren't enough people in the B-2 type of work to occupy the building
he has on the site. There must be a great deal of money in the light manufacturing-industrial
uses.
3
Mr. Schultz asked if Mr. Forri.Ilgton was aware of the B-2 Zone classification on the Evans
frontage when he bought the property, and of the R-2-C zoning on the rear of the property. e
Mr. Forrington stated that he was aware of the zoning of the property at the time of purchase. ·
Mr. Draper stated that he has driven through the area, and agreed that the rear of the lots are
badly in need of weed cutting, and the derelict vehicles have obviously been stored on some of
the properties for several years.
Mr. Forrington stated that he has "turned them all in"; he protested the requirement that he, as
a businessman, must make the type of capital outlay that he has cited just to get a business on
his property, and then the neighbors don't care about the upkeep of their own properties.
Ms. Tobin inquired whether removal of "paving" would be of assistance to Mr. Forrington.
Mr. Stitt pointed out that the surfacing of areas subject to wheeled traffic must be of a "dust-
free" substance. Mr. Stitt did point out that the Public Works Department does allow road
base and crushed rock, and suggested that Mr. Forrington should check with Public Works on
acceptability of any surfacing.
Mr. Forrington stated that the operators of the landscaping business were "under court order to
cease and desist"; this business abutted the rear of his property, and even residents of the area
who spoke on June 16 were not opposed to the landscaping business.
Mr. Covens entered the meeting at 7:40 P. M.
Mr. Forrington stated that he doesn't mind putting some landscaping on his property, but
"don't shove it down someone's throat." Ms. Tobin pointed out that Mr. Forrington may pro-
vide landscaping on his property without there being specific requirements, but other busi-
nessmen/property owners may not; therefore, the requirements become .necessary.
Mr. Forrington pointed out that the residential property owners won't clean up their property ,
and he cannot lease his property for business purposes. He stated that he felt this is some sort
of discrimination that he has to abide by the rules, yet the residents don't.
Mr. Art Davis was sworn in, and testified that he owns 300 foot frontage on the south side of
Evans abutting Zuni Street. Mr. Davis stated that he resides in Fairplay, Colorado, and was
unable to attend the meeting of June 16. Mr. Davis stated he wanted to commend the Com-
mission and staff for realizing that something must be done to promote development of the
area. Mr. Davis stated that a lot of the development was in place when the area was annexed
to the City of Englewood in the late '50' s, and estimated that 75 % of the existing development
was "inherited". Mr. Davis stated that he has been renting his property, but it has actually
been for sale since at least 1985. Mr. Davis stated that he had discussed the area with some-
one from the Water Department, and the individual had said that if the property has not devel-
oped, it's a "problem property". Mr. Davis stated that in his opinion, the proposed B-3 Dis-
trict makes common horse sense, and that the Commission and staff are looking at a problem
that needs to be corrected, and may affect the entire City.
Mr. Schultz asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of the proposed B-3 District. No
one else addressed the Commission.
Mr. Schultz then asked for those in opposition to speak.
Dennis Kelley, 2393 West Warren Avenue, was sworn in, and stated that while he does not
have strong objections to the B-3 District, as proposed, he did take issue with the statement
that adult entertainment/service facilities is "moot", stating that in his opinion, such a use
4
could locate on the property on ' the southwest corner of West Evans and South Raritan Street
and comply with the 500 foot limitation. Mr. Kelley stated that if the R-2-C portion of the
block were to be rezoned, and developed for business purposes, it would be difficult for any-
one to develop homes on the South of West Adriatic Avenue that face the into businesses,
particularly if the businesses front on West Evans Avenue; the rear of the property would be
used for storage and dumpsters, etc. Mr. Kelley reiterated his previous opinion of June 16
that this is "spot zoning", and that it is "morally wrong"; it is designed specifically for the
benefit of one person, and this is wrong. Mr. Kelley stated that the homeowners in the area
are willing to work with anyone interested in developing property along West Evans, but they
want to protect the integrity of their homes. He stated that he has had discussions with several
people who have expressed interest in Mr. Davis' property. Mr. Kelley stated that Mrs. Ro-
mans, former Planning Administrator for the City of Englewood, referred several people who
were interested in developing in the northwest sector of the City, to him. Mr. Kelley stated
that when the residential area was rezoned to R-2-C, "the City" told them that the zoning
would not be changed "just for change". Mr. Kelley stated that Mr. Forrington may do what
he says, but he also knew what he was buying. The residents of the area feel they should be
given consideration, and protect what is there. Mr. Kelley stated there was development oc-
curring in the area until the mid '80's when the economy slumped. Mr. Kelley stated that the
residents do not want the R-2-C area rezoned to B-3.
Mr. Covens asked for clarification of the area Mr. Kelley feels could be developed for adult
purposes . This was indicated to Mr. Covens. Mr. Stitt stated that Mr. Kelley is correct that
the block is 600 feet in length; however, measurements are from property line to residential
district line, following a straight line, and reiterated the staff opinion that it is a moot issue.
Ms . Tobin pointed out that adult entertainment is a Conditional Use under the existing B-2 and
I-1 districts; this would not be changed. Mr. Kelley stated that he is aware of this, and it is
immaterial; he wanted to point out that such a use could develop on West Evans Avenue and
be in compliance with the distance restrictions.
Mr. Mark Apodaca was sworn in, and stated that following the meeting of June 16, an Evans
Avenue businessman talked to his mother-in-law, informed her of various violations on her
property, and that if the residents didn't cooperate, it would be "war". Mr. Apodaca reported
that his mother-in-law was very upset by this individual. Mr. Apodaca stated that this is "not
working with people" when threats such as this are vo iced. Mr. Apodaca stated that neither he
or his in-laws own the weedy lots Mr. Forrington alluded to earlier. Mr. Apodaca stated that
with the proposed screening provision, the B-3 District may be a good idea along West Evans
Avenue. Mr. Apodaca asked Mr. Stitt if the wording in the B-3 District on adult entertain-
ment uses was the same as presently exists in B-2. Mr. Stitt assured him it is the same word-
ing . Mr_. Apodaca stated that if this is the case , then he would approve inclusion of the adult
entertainment provision in the B-3, also. Mr. Apodaca stated that the Scenic View school was
closed, and their children are now bused as far away as Sinclair Middle School. The residents
fought the idea of rezoning from single-family to the R-2-C, which has encouraged a transient
population. Mr. Apodaca stated that he cannot determine any reason for rezoning the R-2-C
area to B-3; there is no access to the rear of those lots because the right-of-way for West Adri-
atic Avenue is not fully dedicated. Mr. Apodaca acknowledged that Mr. Forrington's property
is very clean, but he has no assurance that whoever purchases the property will maintain it in
the clean condition it's in today. Mr. Apodaca stated that the B-3 District does remove some
control from the residents in that some uses which were "Conditional" and had to be consid-
ered at Public Hearing will now be permitted, and can go in without any input from the resi-
dents. Mr. Apodaca stated that he also is willing to work with anyone who expresses interest
in developing or doing business in the area. Mr. Apodaca pointed out that Mr. Forrington's
property is only one piece of property in the block, and questioned why he didn't pursue a
variance rather than the rezoning. Mr. Apodaca stated that he had also advised the owners of
the landscaping business that Mr. Forrington earlier alluded to, to pursue a variance to allow
5
the use. Mr. Apodaca stated tliat he feels the City government is here to help the people --
residents and businessmen alike. Mr. Apodaca stated that he really does oppose the rezoning
of the portion of the block from R-2-C to B-3. Regarding the right-of-way dedication and im-
provement of West Adriatic Avenue, Mr. Apodaca suggested that the City investigate use of
Community Development Block Grant funds for this purpose. He is aware that this program
can provide funds for installation of water and sewer lines, paving, etc.
Mr. Stitt agreed that possibly CDBG funds could be obtained for this purpose. Mr. Apodaca
requested that the City investigate the acquisition and use of CDBG funds for West Adriatic
Avenue.
Mr. Apodaca stated that he understood Mr. Forrington's goals for his business property, but
pointed out that he, Mr. Apodaca, lives in this immediate area.
Mr. Draper asked for clarification of the issue regarding the businessman discussing weeds
with the property owner. Mr. Apodaca stated that the Evans businessman he had alluded to
was Mr. Forrington, and that he accosted Mrs. Kelley regarding the weeds and vehicles the
Kelley's have on their property. Mr. Forrington is reported to have stated that "if you want a
war, we will give you war".
Mr. Jerold Capeasius, 2350 West Warren, was sworn in and testified that he has lived in
northwest Englewood for a number of years. He asked if the rezoning was going to open
doors to take the remainder of the residential area over for commercial purposes.
Mr. Schultz stated that the philosophy of the Commission is, wherever possible, to break zone
district boundaries on alley lines so that dissimilar districts are not facing into each other. This
is not possible in all cases. Mr. Schultz stated that the B-2 District along West Evans Avenue
was established after the development was already there. Mr. Schultz emphasized that the
Commission and staff are not trying to "backdoor" anything. Ms. Tobin also emphasized that
the Commission and staff are not trying to sneak anything by the residents of the area.
Mr. Capeasius asked why the B-3 District is needed. Why, if the rezoning is needed, not just
go with the existing B-2 District. Mr. Schultz stated that the Commission received a request
for something other than the existing B-2 · District for the Evans Avenue corridor; staff worked
to develop the proposed B-3, which combines t4e existing B-2 District with limited light in-
dustrial uses, in an effort to find a compromise which will be of assistance to the business
owners, and not be offensive to the residential district. The R-2-C area in this block was in-
cluded because some of the ownerships go through from Evans Avenue to West Adriatic Av-
enue, extended.
Mr. Stitt stated that he understood Mr. Capeasius's concern was that the City was "sneaking"
in the B-3 District. Mr. Stitt then discussed the composition of the B-3 District. Mr. Stitt
then asked Mr. Capesius if he understood correctly that he [Mr. Capesius] would prefer that
the R-2-C area be rezoned to B-2 rather than B-3 . Mr. Capesius stated he did not understand
the reason for a new zone district; if the intent is to take the residential district, the City could
get the same results with the B-2 District. Mr. Capesius stated that he is quite concerned to
hear that Mr. Forrington is alleged to have said they "would have war if the residents didn't
come around". He stated that "it is not right to turn people in just to get revenge."
Mr. Covens asked if Mr. Capeasius was aware the Board of Adjustment had considered this
area in the past; does Mr. Capeasius want vacant lots along Evans if the existing businesses go
under. Mr. Capeasius stated that there will not be vacant lots along Evans.
6
Mr. Schultz asked if Mr. Capeasius felt the B-3 was better than B-2 for the Evans frontage.
Mr. Capeasius stated that the B-3 was "OK", but objected to rezoning the R-2-C portion of the
block.
Mr. Glynn stated that he lived at Fox and Mansfield , not too far from industrial development
to the west. He stated that these industrial businesses take care of their properties, and the in-
dustrial uses and residents co-exist. Mr. Capeasius reiterated that he doesn't have too much
against the B-3, but doesn't want to see any residential area rezoned.
Ms. Lynn Apodaca was sworn in, and testified that she has lived in the immediate area all of
her life. There is no development on the Denver side of West Evans, with the exception of
the bar and bingo place, that is not in Englewood. She suggested that it is not because of the
zoning restrictions if someone decides to locate in Denver rather than in Englewood. She
stated that she does not understand the need for the new zone district. Ms. Apodaca stated that
she would like to see West Adriatic Avenue be fully dedicated and improved. She stressed the
need for a buffer between the residential and business communities.
Mr. Schultz asked if anyone else wished to address the Commission on the proposed B-3 Zone
District. No one indicated they wished to speak further .
Draper moved:
Leonard seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #4-92 be closed.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Glynn, Leonard , Shoop, Tobin, Covens, Draper, Dummer, Gerlick, Schultz
None
None
None
The motion carried.
Mr. Schultz stated that the discussion will now be limited to Commission members.
Mr. Gerlick asked how close Adriatic Avenue is to being fully dedicated. Reference was
made to the map, and i t appears there are four property owners that have not dedicated right-
of-way.
Mr. Covens asked if the Commission were to recommend denial of the B-3 District, could the
Commission recommend that the area be rezoned to B-2. Mr. Stitt pointed out that the Evans
frontage i s currently zoned B-2; the Commission could , if they so desired, recommend that the
south one-half of the block (the area zoned R-2-C) be rezoned to B-2 . However, to consider
the area for B-2 zoning would require a new hearing, the property would have to be posted
and public notice would have to be given.
Mr. Schultz asked if there was any current discussion of this immediate block before the Board
of Adjustment. Mr. Stitt stated that the last discussion by the Board was on Mr. Forrington's
property quite some time prior to his purchase.
Mr. Draper asked the location of Mr. Davis's property. Mr. Davis stated it is the southeast
comer of the Evans/Zuni intersection that is owned by him. He reiterated he purchased the
property in 1979, and has been trying to sell it ever since. He has advised everyone who has
expressed an interest in the property to check with the City regarding zone classification and
permitted uses. Mr. Davis also reiterated that he feels the City is working in the right direc-
tion to allow flexibility and promote development.
7
Mr. Shoop asked if the landscaping business which was in violation would be permitted under
the proposed B-3. Mr. Stitt stated that it would not.
Mr. Covens asked for clarification of the memorandum from City Attorney DeWitt. Mr. Stitt
reiterated that unless the Commission has logical and factual reasons for elimination of the
adult entertainment/service facility from the B-3 District, it should be included. He empha-
sized that this is a matter of consistency and constitutional rights, and a way to avoid a chal-
lenge if it were not included in the new district. Mr. Covens stated that he is of the mind to
let constitutional challenges be made regarding this. Mr. Dummer pointed out that the provi-
sion takes the exact wording from the existing B-2, I-1 and I-2 Districts and includes it in the
B-3. Mr. Covens stated that his compelling interest is the people that have lived in this area
for 30 some years; inclusion of this provision could impact this area, and other areas in the
City were the B-3 to be applied elsewhere. Mr. Dummer expressed the opinion it is unlikely
the B-3 area would be used elsewhere, or that residential property would be taken for B-3; the
only reason this one-half block is being taken is because of the lack of development.
Brief discussion ensued.
Draper moved:
Dummer seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the
amendment of the Englewood Municipal Code by including the proposed
B-3 District as § 16-4-13, and subsequent renumbering of applicable sec-
tions of the Code.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Leonard, Shoop, Draper, Dummer, Schultz
Tobin, Covens, Gerlick, Glynn
None
None
The motion carried.
**********
A brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 8:45 P.M. with all members present.
**********
IV. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING MAP
Rezoning B-2 to B-3
Rezoning R-2-C to B-3
Chairman Schultz called for a motion to "reopen" the continued Public Hearing.
Tobin moved:
Draper seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #8-92 be reopened.
CASE 8-92
AYES:
NAYS:
Shoop, Tobin, Covens, Draper, Dummer, Gerlick, Glynn, Leonard, Schultz
None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried.
Mr. Schultz set forth the parameters for the conduct of the Hearing.
8
SECRETARY'S NOTE: Notice of Public Hearing, and Certification of Posting had been
presented for the record at the meeting of June 16.
Mr. Stitt, being sworn for the previous Hearing, gave testimony on the background of the re-
zoning, delineating the permitted uses in the existing B-2 District along West Evans Avenue,
and uses which would be permitted under the B-3 District as recommended by the Commis-
sion. Mr. Stitt pointed out that the block between Vallejo and Zuni has split zoning, the north
one-half being B-2, Business, and the south one-half being R-2-C, Medium Density Residence.
Mr. Forrington's ownership extends north to south from West Evans Avenue to West Adriatic
Avenue, extended.
Mr. Stitt stated that staff has consistently told anyone inquiring about development and/or use
in this area that the B-2 District does not permit auto body shops, paint shops, or light manu-
facturing. Mr. Stitt stated that this has been the procedure for the last 10 years that he is
aware of, and that staff has tried to be very consistent in information that is given.
The area to the south of the "projected alley", the R-2-C area, is primarily vacant, and he is
unaware of any inquiries for new R-2-C development in this half block. Mr. Stitt stated that
only two lots in this one-half block can be developed at the present time, those with frontage
on either South Vallejo Street or South Zuni Street; the remaining properties do not front on a
dedicated public right-of-way, and until West Adriatic Avenue is dedicated and improved, the
majority of this block will not develop because of the lack of frontage on a dedicated street.
Mr. Stitt emphasized that any development will impact the residential area. He pointed out
that the existing B-2 Zone District does not contain the Screening provisions of the proposed
B-3 District; but the B-3 District will allow a more intense type of use than the B-2. Also, if
the rezoning were to be approved, and were West Adriatic Avenue to be improved, it would
be a "commercial street", and traffic could increase in this area. The impact of rezoning on
the residential neighborhood is a negative factor no matter what.
Benefits of the rezoning will be that it offers more flexibility and opportunity for development.
Mr. Stitt stated that Mr. Forrington's property was formerly owned by Mr. Kurtz, who was
before the Board of Adjustment & Appeals on numerous occasions regarding non-compliance
with restrictions they had placed on the nonconforming use of his property. Omni Bank
eventually assumed control of Mr. Kurtz's property, and there was discussion with Bank rep-
resentatives on rezoning of the property. The Bank wanted only the subject property rezoned,
and when staff suggested that the entire block be considered and that the Bank should approach
the adjacent property owners regarding the rezoning, the Bank declined to pursue the issue.
Mr. Kurtz used the rear one-half of his property (zoned R-2-C) in conjunction with the Evans
Avenue frontage, in violation of the R-2-C Zoning. Mr. Kurtz's use of the entire property is
terminated, and is "history"; future use of the entire property must be in compliance with the
zone district regulations applied to the site.
Mr. Stitt outlined options the Commission may consider:
1) Deny the rezoning.
2) Approve the rezoning with the present configuration.
3) Approve the rezoning with reconfiguration of the area to be rezoned, eliminating the
portion of the block zoned R-2-C, allowing a small "nodule" on Mr. Forrington's
property to accommodate the building which extends into the R-2-C District.
Mr. Stitt stated that Option #3 would not address the concerns of some of the people who own
property on West Adriatic Avenue, extended; they would still have R-2-C Zoning. Mr. Stitt
9
stressed that the Commission must consider what is in the best interest of the community:
leave the area as it exists; rezone as proposed; or rezone with the modifications. Mr. Stitt re-
iterated that the proposed rezoning does have both negative and positive impacts; however,
with the proposed restrictions written into the proposed B-3 District, he is of the opinion that
development can be controlled and will alleviate a majority of the negative aspects for the resi-
dents.
Mr. Covens asked why Mr. Davis's property cannot develop. Mr. Stitt stated that it can under
the present zoning; Mr. Davis has street frontage on West Evans Avenue.
Mr. Schultz asked for proponents of the rezoning to address the Commission.
Mr. Art Davis, previously sworn, testified that the former Kurtz property is a "problem prop-
erty". Mr. Davis stated that it makes sense to rezone this area; he is of the opinion that Adri-
atic will go through if the property owners "want" it. Mr. Davis reiterated he has owned his
property since 1979, but has been unable to sell it or develop it. The City is not realizing the
revenue that can be generated from this area, and feels that the new district and rezoning will
provide some development incentives.
Mr. Schultz asked if anyone else wanted to speak in favor of the rezoning. No one else spoke
in favor.
Mr. Schultz then asked for opponents to speak.
Mark Apodaca, previously sworn, testified that he is concerned about putting "industrial" uses
along a high traffic-volume street, such as Evans. Mr. Apodaca pointed out that the industrial
developments in northwest Englewood have access from Evans via Raritan, Tejon, and Zuni.
He does not understand the rationale of imposing industrial development along heavily traveled
thoroughfares. He is also concerned about the imposition of an adult use on West Evans at
Raritan. Mr. Apodaca stated that he "would like to see this whole thing shelved". Mr. Apo-
daca emphasized that he is a resident of the area, and the fact that a businessman purchased
property that cannot be leased or sold is not his problem. Mr. Apodaca urged the City to ex-
plore the alternate ways to get West Adriatic Ave1:me dedicated and developed. The rezoning
would eliminate the right of the residents -to voice their opinions on the Conditional Use provi-
sions, and this is an elimination of control that Mr. Apodaca feels is important. He again
urged that until we can do something better: coordinated, that this proposal be "shelved". Mr.
Apodaca stated that he believes that Mr. Forrington is an honest businessman, but is also of
the opinion that a variance could be granted to give the relief Mr. Forrington is seeking, but
Mr. Apodaca emphasized Mr. Forrington knew what the zoning of the ground was when he
bought it. Mr. Apodaca stated he is of the opinion that the rezoning of the area doesn't help
anybody.
Mr. Schultz posed a hypothetical situation: if the property with Zuni Street frontage were to
develop, and were the solid visual barrier and landscaping imposed along the southern bound-
ary of that property, would this still be objectionable to the residents on the south side of West
Adriatic Avenue, extended. Mr. Apodaca stated that it would be of great concern to him,
pointing out that the solid fence or wall would be an invitation for graffiti; there would be no
lighting along the projected Avenue, and this is a high crime area. Mr. Apodaca stated that he
really wants to see West Adriatic Avenue go through with residential development on both
sides of the street.
Dennis Kelley, previously sworn, testified that he had talked to Mr. Schultz during the earlier
recess. There are two property owners on the south side of the projected street which have not
dedicated right-of-way, and that he is one of those property owners. If he felt there were to be
10
better controls on development, he would dedicate the right-of-way, and he is of the opinion
the other owner would, also. There are four lots on the north side of the projected Avenue
which are not dedicated, two of which are owned by Mr. Forrington. Mr. Kelley stated that if
the rezoning were to be approved, what makes the City think the property owners on the north
will consider dedicating the right-of-way; they will have gotten what they want. Mr. Kelley
emphasized that the owners of the "interior" lots have no access to their property, and the B-3
rezoning doesn't help them. The only benefactors from the rezoning will be the businessmen
along West Evans Avenue.
Mr. Dummer asked why the property owners along West Adriatic A venue haven't tried to get
the street dedicated and improved in the past. Mr. Kelley stated that he has not dedicated the
right-of-way in the past because he didn't like the way things were going; he wants to know
what businesses are going in, and what type of development is being proposed. Mr. Kelley
stated that he is concerned for the total area.
Mr. Schultz asked if anyone else wished to address the Commission.
Mr. Covens stated that he wished to ask Mr. Forrington a question. Would Mr. Forrington
commit, or ask a new owner of his property to commit, to dedicate right-of-way and support
the development of West Adriatic Avenue. Mr. Forrington stated that he does not want to see
the street dedicated or improved. No businesses will use the street, and he has no interest in
improving it.
Mr. Schultz pointed out that if the street were to go through, the area adjoining it could de-
velop. Would Mr. Forrington help to get the street dedicated and improved, if it came down
to it. Mr. Forrington reiterated his stance that he has no interest in improving the street, or in
seeing it improved to provide access to that block. He stated that he regards this area as an
alley to place trash cans.
Mr. Dummer recalled that at the meeting of June 16, Mr. Forrington had said that he could do
nothing with the back part of his property because of the R-2-C zoning. Mr. Forrington stated
that this is correct.
Mr. Schultz again asked Mr. Forrington if he would help get the right-of-way for West Adri-
atic Avenue; Mr. Forrington again responded that he would not, that there is no reason to put
a street through there.
Mr. Gerlick pointed out that the reason for the street to go through would be to give other
property owners a means of access to their property for development and maintenance pur-
poses .
Mr. Covens stated that if the street were not to be developed, this would mean that the proper-
ties on both east.and west sides of Mr. Forrington's property would remain vacant. Mr. For-
rington countered that if the landscaping business were to be allowed to operate, they would
abut his property on the west, which would not objectionable. He stated that "trees don't
make noise when they grow."
Mr. Schultz asked if anyone else wished to address the Commission.
Mr. Apodaca reiterated that there was no rationale for imposing industrial uses along West
Evans Avenue; this is not needed. Mr. Apodaca also pointed out that there would be no ac-
cess along the rear of the properties, provided Adriatic does not go through, for police patrols.
11
Mr. Stitt reiterated that in terms of rezoning, there are some positive benefits: the increased
uses available to the business properties which may increase the likelihood of additional devel-
opment in the area. He stated that staff realizes this is a problem area and in the best sit-
uations, zoning would not break on streets, but with the restrictions that have been written in,
he is of the opinion that it can be workable.
Mr. Stitt stated that the rezoning also has negatives that must be considered: the impact that
Adriatic Avenue would have were it to be fully dedicated and improved in terms of increased
traffic through the residential area. This street could serve as a "short cut" from the industrial
area to Zuni Street.
Mr. Forrington stated that he has determined that the lots filled with weeds belong to owners
who are not present at the Hearing tonight. He pointed out that if Adriatic A venue were to go
through, it would place a burden on the property owners; if it improves business opportunities,
he might be in favor of it.
Ms. Tobin recalled that Mrs. Romans had testified previously that the Police Division was
concerned that the rezoning was ill-advised for safety reasons. Mr. Schultz stated that he re-
called Mrs. Romans' testimony was regarding the elimination of the adult uses, and the corre-
lation of zoning and land use development to criminal activities.
Mr. Gerlick posed the situation whereby if the B-3 zoning were to be approved for the area as
delineated, and were the street to go through: If a business were to develop with West Adri-
atic A venue frontage, would they still have to have the visual barrier wall with a gate for ac-
cess, and landscaping. Mr. Stitt stated that were a business to develop with Adriatic frontage,
they would still have to provide the landscaped buffer, and the visual barrier wall would have
to be situated back of the landscaping; there would have to be provision for entrance and exit,
of course.
Mr. Schultz asked if there were further questions or comments.
Gerlick moved:
Tobin seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #8-92 be closed.
AYES:
NAYS:
Covens, Draper, Dummer, Gerlick, Glynn, Leonard, Shoop, Tobin, Schultz
None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried.
Mr. Schultz asked for discussion by Commission members. Ms. Tobin stated that she does
have concerns about safety were the rezoning to be approved.
Mr. Dummer asked if there was any requirement regarding provision of lighting for busi-
nesses. Mr. Stitt stated that the lighting requirements specifically state that the lighting for
businesses shall not shine onto adjacent properties.
Mr. Covens posed an inquiry regarding ownership of some of the property along West Evans
Avenue. Mr. Stitt stated that he did not have the information at hand. Discussion ensued.
Mr. Covens stated that he felt the Commission was in need of additional information, and was
not prepared to vote on this issue at this ti.me.
12
Covens moved:
Tobin seconded: Case #8-92 be tabled until the August 4, 1992 meeting of the Commis-
sion.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Dummer, Glynn, Shoop, Tobin, Covens
Draper, Gerlick, Leonard, Schultz
None
None
The motion carried.
Mr. Schultz announced the issue has been tabled to August 4, 1992, at which time it will be
considered and discussed by the Commission, and a determination will be made on the rezon-
ing.
v. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE
§ 16-4-13 I-1, Light Industrial
§16-4-14 I-2, General Industrial
CASE #3-92
Mr. Chuck Reid, Management Analyst , led the discussion on the proposed amendments to the
I-1 and I-2 District. He has made revisions to the proposed amendments that were initially
discussed at the meeting of July 7, and the revised proposal was included in the packets for the
Commission members. Mr. Reid stated that Mr. Mike Magee, of Waste Management Denver-
South, has worked very closely with staff in development of the proposed amendments.
Mr. Reid stated that the bond proposal has not been included, and discussed estimates that
have been received to clean up one recycling site; a $10,000 performance or clean-up bond
would be worthless in light of the $400,000 estimate. Also, provision of bonds could serve as
an inhibitor to new businesses. In lieu of the bond, staff suggests that the property owner, as
well as the lessee, be notified of the Public Hearing and asked to participate in the proceed-
ings.
Mr. Schultz recalled that one of the gentlemen from Waste Management who attended the
meeting of July 7, had indicated he favored requirement of a performance/clean-up bond; he
asked if "something isn't better than nothing", and would the $10,000 bond really stymie new
business. Mr. Reid discussed the procedure used in Commerce City; the bond for $10,000
costs between $600 to $900 annually, which does not appear to be very much, but can be a
major investment for an "incubator business". Mr. Reid also pointed out that businesses such
as WMI can meet the requirements for bonds much easier than new, small businesses Mr.
Glynn suggested that possibly something could be worked out that after a given period of time,
say three years, the bond requirement would be waived. Discussion ensued on whether the vi-
ability of a business can be determined when it is just starting.
Mr. Schultz asked what other cities have done. Mr. Reid stated that the only other municipal-
ity in this area that is addressing the issue is Commerce City. Colorado Springs, which was
recently hit with a hailstorm of similar magnitude to the 1990 storm to hit the Denver Metro
area, has no regulations to deal with the issue of shingle recycling. Englewood appears to be
on the "leading edge" of addressing the issue of recycling operations. Mr. Reid reviewed the
four options that he had outlined at the meeting of July 7: status-quo; prohibition; Permitted
Use with restrictions; or Conditional Use.
Discussion ensued on the effect the recycling operations have on the environment: air pollu-
tion, rain/leaching into ground, etc. Mr. Dummer asked whether the quantity of recyclable
13
materials to be accepted and stored before processing could be restricted. Further discussion
~. e
Mr. Stitt stated that the issues we are trying to address are those that impact the public, and
where public funds would have to be expended were a clean-up necessary. The attempt is to
try to protect against additional "problem" businesses. In his opinion, the proposed regulations
do not restrict the business, but does provide some controls for the City. Further discussion
ensued.
Mr. Schultz asked who is responsible for the clean-up. Mr. Stitt stated that the current
landowner is ultimately responsible for clean-up; however, if notice is given and action by the
landowner is not taken and the City has to do the clean-up, the cost of this clean-up is billed to
the landowner; if the bill is not paid, the bill is certified to the County and is placed as a lien
against the property to be collected with taxes.
Mr. Schultz inquired whether stringent regulations on the recycling operations are acceptable
inasmuch as they are a "new" type of business. Mr. Stitt suggested that impacts on the com-
munity and environment must be identified.
Discussion specifically centered on the Treecycle operation on South Windermere Street, and
recent activities with the property owner and lessee. Mr. Stitt and Mr. Reid both indicated
that staff is working closely with the property owner to provide whatever assistance we can.
Mr. Reid discussed the provisions of the proposed amendments more fully. He noted that the
language on the yearly review has been changed to a "compliance" review. Mr. Reid sug-
gested that the word "semi-trailer" be used in lieu of "tractor trailer". Discussion on buy-back
centers ensued. Staff does not recommend imposition of tipping fee charges on buy-back cen-
ters that operate as an "absolute use"; however, this exemption would not apply to companies
that buy-back and process recyclables. If this rationale is approved, King Soopers, Safeway,
Boy Scouts, etc. who all do "buy-back" would be exempt from any "tipping fee". It was the
consensus of the Commission that this rationale was acceptable; Mr. Reid will incorporate the
appropriate wording into the proposed amendments.
Mr. Schultz asked for a motion to set a date for Public Hearing.
Covens moved:
Leonard seconded: A Public Hearing on Case #3-92, amendment of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance, §16-4-13 and §16-4-14, be scheduled for August 18,
1992 at 7:00 P.M.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Dummer, Gerlick, Glynn, Leonard, Shoop, Tobin, Covens, Draper, Schultz
None
None
None
The motion carried.
VI. PUBLIC FORUM
There was no one present to address the Commission under Public Forum.
14
vn. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE
Mr. Stitt stated that the first regular meeting of the Commission in September would normally
be on Wednesday, September 9, because of the Labor Day Holiday on Monday, September 7.
The Board of Adjustment & Appeals, of which Mr. Stitt is staff advisor, is also scheduled to
meet on September 9 for their regular meeting, and is scheduled to meet in the City Council
Chambers. Mr. Stitt suggested that possibly the Planning Commission could consider meeting
on September 1, which is the Tuesday evening prior to the Council meeting, rather than
Wednesday, September 9, following the Council meeting. This would alleviate a scheduling
conflict for staff and meeting space.
It was the consensus of the Commission to meet on September 1 at 7:00 P.M.
VIll. CO:Ml\.fiSSIONER'S CHOICE
Mr. Draper expressed displeasure at the recent signage i nstalled by EDDA, and suggested that
if business identification along Broadway is a problem, that some trees should be cut down
rather than a proliferation of additional signs. Mr. Schultz clarified for members of the
Commission who have not seen the signs that they are business identification signs but are
placed street level. He expressed the opinion that the signs are unattractive. Mr. Schultz also
agreed that some of the trees might be removed.
Mr. Covens stated that the Tri-Cities Planning Group meets on July 22nd.
There was no further business to come before the Commission, and the meeting was adjourned
at 10:25 P.M.
15
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Rick De Witt, City Attorney
DATE: July 14, 1992
REGARDING: Inclusion of Adult Entertainment in the proposed
B-3 Zoning District.
This memo is to clarify the position of the City Attorney's Office
regarding the inclusion of adult entertainment in the newly proposed B-3
zoning district. It has been the City's policy to restrict adult entertainment
up to the point where Constitutional issues will not be violated. At present
our Code provides that adult entertainment is available in B-2 and in
industrial zoning districts. In that the new B-3 zoning would fall in
between these categories it would appear appropriate to have it included in
the B-3 zoning district unless some logical or factual reason can be found to
exclude it from this district ..
Our Code currently meets Constitutional requirements. In the present
B-2 zoning district there are ample opportunities for their establishments.
The addition of B-3 would be in compliance with the Constitutional
requirement set forth by the Supreme Court. The Board should focus on
whether it is appropriate to have business zoning in the proposed plan and
on the actual changes from the B-2 to the B-3 zoning that are proposed.
I do not believe it is legally necessary to decline this use in the B-3 zone
district. My experience has been that this is not · :g,-.
\ ....
( r (//i 0/i/
---L ------Rick DeWitt
RD/nf
'.