Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-05-14 PZC MINUTES• I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION May 14, 1985 CALL TO ORDER. The Special Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Venard at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Barbre, Beier, Carson, Magnuson, Stoel, Gourdin, Venard. MEMBERS ABSENT: Allen, McBrayer. ALSO PRESENT: D. A. Romans, Assistant Director of Community Development. Susan T. King, Senior Planner. II. Jack Olsen, City Attorney. PUBLIC HEARING. Proposed Changes in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance: Section 16.4-8, R-3, High Density Residence District Section 16.4-10, B-1 Business District CASE #10-85 Section 16.4-11, Design Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings in the South Broadway Incentive Area Section 16.4-12, B-2 Business District Section 16.4-13, I-1 Light Industrial District Section 16.4-15, Planned Development (P.D.) District Section 16.4-17, Fences and Retaining Walls Section 16.4-18, Landscape Ordinance Carson moved: Beier seconded: The Public Hearing be opened for Case 1110-85. AYES: Barbre, Beier, Carson, Magnuson, Stoel, Gourdin, Venard. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Allen, McBrayer. ABSTAIN: None. The Chairman stated that he had proof of public notice that the proposed changes were published in the Englewood Sentinel on April 24, 1985. He stated that the Commission would hear testimony on each of the Sections in order. Section 16.4-8, R-3. There were no speakers in favor of or opposed to this Section. Section 16.4-10, B-1. There were no speakers in favor of or opposed to this Section. Section 16.4-11, Design Guidelines. There were no speakers in favor of or opposed to this Section. Section 16.4-12, B-2. Mr. Venard asked if there was a Staff presentation. Mrs. Romans narrated slides showing many of the used and new car sales lots in Englewood along South Broadway in the B-2 Zone District. A slide was also shown of a car lot in an 1-1 district, which car lot was not screened from the adjacent residential district. Mr. Venard said that the first Section of the B-2 to be considered was "c", Permitted Principal Uses. Mr. Greg Thompson 4528 South Broadway -was sworn in for testimony. He asked if the uses listed in this Section were the only uses permitted in the B-2 Zone District. Mrs. Romans • -2- said that any use permitted in the B-1 would also be permitted in this district. No type of car dealership would be included as a Permitted Use • The Chairman asked if there were any speakers who wished to speak concerning Section "e" of the proposed Conditional Use Section. Because there were many people wishing to address this issue, a Sign-in Sheet was used, and the Chairman called names from this Sheet. Lloyd Dreiling, Kearns Jeep 3247 South Broadway -was sworn in for testimony. He stated that some of the requirements proposed would affect whether his business could stay in Englewood. He said that he agreed that some of the conditions of car lots should be changed, but the City and the dealers should work together to solve those problems. He asked that the Commission think before doing something which, in his opinion, everyone would regret later. He said that his business has a payroll of $352,000, with Federal taxes of $28,000, State taxes of $78,000, unemployment of $27,000, sales taxes of $30,000. If his business is restricted on space, they would have to look for a new location. Mr. Dreiling objected to the setback requirement in front and the required grass which would make the ground soft. He stated that many years before they had grass, and people would drive across it. The business needs a fence. There were thefts and vandalism twice a week before the fence was installed, and the fence lowered the insurance rates, and saved aggravation. Mr. Stoel asked if there were any parts of the proposed changes which Mr. Dreiling could support. He said there were not. In our country, people have always been able to go into business by themselves, and this proposal would discourage people from starting businesses. John Seago, Coach Exchange 3131 South Braodway -was sworn in for testimony. He said that he had been on that corner for 8 years in the car business. He said he was opposed to the proposed changes. If he had to give ten feet from the front of the lot and five feet on the side, his inventory would be cut 40%; and, therefore, his business would be cut 40%. He has a fence around the property, and this fence has protected his lot from vandalism and theft. Before the fence was installed, he lost eleven or twelve cars, 30 to 40 toppers, several hundred batteries, tires and wheels. He called the Police Department many times. Once all his keys were stolen; the police said they would watch the lot, but one of his cars was stolen. His insurance company required that he fence the property. He tried 42 inch poles with chains, but thieves either cut the chains or drive cars right through or over the chains. He described several thefts that his business had suffered. He said that most of the crimes were committed by juveniles, and even when they were caught, no restitution was made, and the cases were not prosecuted. He finally put in a six foot fence, and the thefts have ceased. He has an alarm in the building. He said that he runs a small business, and if his business is cut 40%, he will be out of business. The police cannot give him the protection he needs without a fence. The changes are attacking his livelihood. There were no questions from the Commission. Bob Bahne, Valley Motors 4550 South Braodway -was sworn in for testimony. He stated that, in his opinion, the proposal to impose landscaping, inventory and fencing regulations on the car dealers in Englewood is unfair, anti-business, discriminatory and shows a restraint of trade. He said that Valley Motors is a model dealership, and has an excellent overall appearance. He said that there are better places to begin beautification -3- programs, and pointed out that in the 3400 block of South Braodway, a fire a building 2~ years ago, and the siteis still waiting for beautification. pointed to all the unpaved alleys with rnudholes and weeds. There are many and businesses which need more attention than car dealerships. Soon there be enough beautification to drive out all the businesses from the City of Englewood. He said that the new regulations should not be passed. ruined He areas would Mr. Venard asked if any of the regulations would be acceptable. Mr. Bahne said that some planting would be acceptable, but the ten feet of property required would be very expensive, especially since their business had already given up ten feet at the rear of the lot because of requirements for loading. They cannot afford any more. He has geraniums planted on his property, and would be in favor of a tree. He said he is in favor of trees and vegetation, but not when they interfere with his livelihood. There were no further questions of Mr. Bahne. Dan O'Bryan, O'Bryan's Motors 4201 South Broadway -was sworn in for testimony. He asked if the planting and setbacks of ten feet in front and five feet on the sides were just strictly for car lots. Mrs. Romans said that this particular section of the ordinance refers only to car businesses, but there is a landscaping ordinance that applies to all businesses. Mr. O'Bryan asked if the purpose of the proposal was to hide the cars. He said 30% of his business was dependent on people who drive by the lot seeing cars, and corning in to buy. Mr. Carson said that the purpose of the hearing was to listen to what the dealers think about the matter. Mr. O'Bryan said it is absurd to take ten feet from his property and force him to move all his cars back. There were no further questions of Mr. O'Bryan. John C. Cook, South Broadway's Best 3150 South Broadway -was sworn in for testimony. He said he moved to this location in 1975, and this property was a major investment for him. He is now the landlord of that location, and collects high rent. The lot looks good, the buildings are nice, and it is maintained well. He said no improvements need to be made. He is particularly opposed to the required ten foot setback, one car per 200 square feet, and the twelve foot land requirements. He said that those requirements would take 50% of the display area. His rent would go down 50 %. He collects $30,000 a year in rent. Department stores and shoe stores have showcases and displays using all of their area. Car lots need to use all their area for display. His lot will be worth less than he paid f or it ten years ago if the regulations are passed. He said that other parts o f the proposal are objectionable, but those three issues are his principal objection. Phil Palmer, Watson Motors 4267 South Broadway -was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Palmer said that he had testified during the hearings for the Sign Code, and l ost that case. He said the businesses are fighting for their lives in this matter . He had no objection to nature or beauty, but the lots need their square footage to advertise and show their cars. Every square foot is needed. The City took away much of their advertising ability with the Sign Code, and now wants to regulate their inventory. He considered this poor management, which would hurt the large businesses and would drive the small businesses out of business. He said most of the slides shown early in the meeting showed attractive lots. There are only a few which need some regulations, and they will be out of business because customers will not go to those lots to buy. Mr. Palmer said that if the proposals are passed, we will have a c olor-coordinated city, and the only things that will survive are the shrubs, not the businesses, and certainly -4- not his business. There were no questions from the Commission for Mr. Palmer. Larry Corwin, Credit Motors 3232 South Broadway -was sworn in for testimony. He said that, in his opinion, the proposed changes were ill-advised. He said that car dealerships bring in people to the City, not just for cars, but also to Cinderella City and nearby restaurants. He said most of the car lots look good. He said he could not afford to give ten feet for greenery. The lots should be neat, but he and his family, life, workers, and 2,000 people would be affected when these businesses fail. He said that he agreed that the lots should be cleaned and no cars should be parked on the sidewalk. Many lots in Denver are smaller. He said that he thinks the car dealerships are being discriminated against and the City is trying to drive them out of business. Bruce Cairns, Cairns Conomy Cars 4732 South Broadway -was sworn in for testimony. He said that he appreciates the procedure which gives opportunity for the dealers to give information. Mr. Cairns said that Englewood and car dealers should be working together to promote the fact that the car dealer strips along South Braodway give more variety of cars presented in a good way than any anywhere else . The Urban Renewal should help the lots that are not up to standard, and this would help all the City. He asked if there had been complaints about the lots. Mrs. Romans, in response to the Commission's question, said that she had not received any personally. Mr. Cairns asked that this be noted in the record. He said that car businesses, like other businesses, are corte@rned with meeting the payroll. Mr. Venard asked that Mr. Cairns keep his testimony concerned with the proposed changes to the Ordinance. Mr. Cairns particularly objected to the ten foot setback requirement, and warned that the changes would be unconstitutional and would result in litigation because the car dealers have not been confronted with the witnesses against them, and it is unreasonable seizure of property. He said that car dealers would need help paying for these regulations. He said that the front ten feet are the most valuable in the car business; and, after asking for a show of hands in the audience, he asked that the record show that no one in the audience disagreed with him. Mr. Cairns said that making these businesses Conditional Uses would discriminate against his business. The car dealers need the fences, and without them would need much heavier police protection. He said that the Fire Department can reach any place on his lot without an access lane. He said that passing these proposals would be making ex post facto laws; and the dealers worry not only about being forced to meet these requirements, but new ones later. The rules should be limited only to businesses which are new or being remodeled. Mr. Magnuson asked Mr. Cairns to look at the proposed ordinance on page 3 (see attached proposed ordinance pages 2, 3, and 4). He stated that Mr. Cairns had opposed Sections (i), (iii) and (viii), and asked if he would address (ii), parking for customers and employees. Mr. Cairns said that South Broadway has two-hours parking on Broadway, and until recently this wa s strictly enforced. He said there is no need to provide four spaces for parking . Mr. Magnuson referred to Section (v), concerning the directing of lighting. Mr. Cairns said that lights are needed for protection and advertising, but should not be allowed to bother the neighbors. Mr. Magnuson asked about the Sign Code, Section (vi). Mr . Cairns said he did not know. Mr. Magnuso n asked about (vii), the regulating o f the display racks which position bumpers more than four feet above the grou nd. Mr. Cair ns says it is -5- a marketing technique, and while he is not affected, it should be a free market decision. Mr. Magnuson asked about (viii). Mr. Cairns said that existing businesses should not be required to comply. Passing this Section would require greater investment of time by the police department. Some people do not want fences, but it should be up to the dealer. Mr. Magnuson said that this Public Hearing was intended to receive testimony from anyone affected by the proposed ordinance, and the testimony should be restricted to that so that the Commission can make an informed decision. Mr. Gourdin asked if the dealers would accept a peer group as a regulating authority. Mr. Cairns said that there is already an organization, Independent Auto Dealerships. He suggested that the City contact that organization. There were no further questions of Mr. Cairns. Thomas Gerlick, Gerlick Motors 4808 South Broadway -was sworn in for testimony. He stated that his three main objections to the proposed changes were the ten foot setback with required landscaping, the 12 foot access drive and the minimum of four spaces of off-street parking. Of lesser concern is the 200 square feet required for each car. He said the small lot owners would not be able to comply and remain in business. They purchased the property in good faith, and if the proposals are passed, their ability to make a living will be jeopardized. He had no objections to the other items. Mr. Carson asked Mrs. Romans about (iv). Mrs. Romans said this would require a twelve foot lane on the site available for access by emergency vehicles. Mr. Gerlick said any emergency vehicle should be able to reach anything when the depth of the lot is usually only only about 125 feet deep. Mr. Barbre asked how much square footage is used for each of Mr. Gerlick's cars. He said he uses about 180 square feet, and this is one of his lesser objections. Ken Kauffman, Ken's Quality Cars 4400 South Broadway -was sworn in for testimony. He asked the Commission to consider how the proposed laws would affect his business. Concerning the setback and parking requirements, he said he has 75 feet of frontage and the lot is not very deep. He has 30 cars on display. With the ten foot setback, and the five foot side setbacks, and the 200 square foot requirement, his inventory would be reduced and only 19 units could be displayed. He could not survive as a business. He already has a drive lane, and has no objection to the lighting and Sign Code requirements, but the display rack has never injured anyone, and, while risky to the dealer from a theft of parts standpoint, should be permitted. He said the fencing would lower insurance rates, although he does not like the fences. He said he has been fortunate in not being seriously affected by thefts of cars, but he has had petty theft and vandalism. There were no questions of Mr. Kauffman. Bernice Taylor, owner of 2900 and 4490 South Broadway -was sworn in for testimony. She stated that her husband has been in the car business for 15 years. At 2900 South Broadway they sold classic cars for three years, putting up a six foot fence after two years. They prefer a corner lot b e cause there is more frontage. They were driven off of South Broadway because of the the f ts. She said that the beautification attempt seems to be directed to only car dealers. Mr. Venard -6- said this Section does apply only to car dealers, but there is a landscape ordinance which applies to the other businesses. She said any new laws should apply only to new businesses, and passing this ordinance would take away property from the owners. She had no objection to sign regulation and lighting regulations, but asked that their property not be confiscated. Mr. Venard asked if there would be objections if these regulations applied only to new businesses. Mrs. Taylor said she agreed that there are areas of South Broadway in need of beautification, but it cannot be done immediately, and the City cannot confiscate property that has been owned for some time. Mr. Jim Bahne, Valley Motors 4550 South Broadway -was sworn in for testimony. He stated he opposed every item of the proposed changes except the adherence to the Sign Code. He said that not all the regulations would directly affect his business, but not all businesses are the same. He said that, in his opinion, the proposals are discriminatory. He said downtown Englewood looks bad, and asked why only car dealers were being regulated. The State and Federal laws are already a burden with meaningless laws (window stickers were given as an example). He invited the Planning Commission to visit his lot. He said the proposed law would take ten feet of his property which is needed for display and parking. He asked that the Planning Commission thoroughly research the subject. He said that of all of the car dealers present, Mr. Higday contacted only the largest dealer. Mr. Carson said he had walked by all the lots. Mr. Bahne asked Mr. Carson to come in and have a cup of coffee, and Mr. Bahne would show him how the business would be negatively affected. Richard Funk, Richard's Motors 3787 South Broadway -was sworn in for testimony. He said that he has artificial landscaping, which is more efficient. He has 12,500 square feet of property, and about 1,662 square feet is used for the building. The new requirements would take 3,813 square feet, leaving him 7,025 square feet for car display. Using the price he paid for the property, he would be donating to the City $51,322, and he thinks the land is worth more than that. He said he has a chain link fence on the back of the property because he sells Corvettes. He has made many complaints to the police about theft and vandalism, and has yet to have one dollar returned. He is insured, but there is $1,000 deductible. He has been considering buiiding a showroom for security or adding a fence in front. The new regulations would prohibit either option for protection. He said he had no objection to the Sign Code regulation, but needs to have good lighting to prevent theft. There were no questions of Mr. Funk. Mrs. Lavina Weems 4851 South Lincoln -was sworn in for testimony. She stated that she is a neighbor of one of the car lots. She said that Bill Crouch's Mitsubishi employees park in front of her house. New cars are parked on the street for weeks at a time. She said that they should be limited to parking on their lot. She said that the recreational vehicle lot on 4800 South Broadway washes the vehicles near the alley, the water drains into the unpaved alley and makes the alley a mudhole. The residents are unable to use the alley because of the mud. The lots should be required to have drains on the lots or to pave the alleys. The asphalt on the lots makes the water run into the alley. She said Broadway will be like Colfax if any more car dealers move in. There were no questions of Mrs. Weems. -7- Dave Wegner 4677 South Broadway -was sworn in. He stated that he is opposed to the new ordinance. He has a leasing company which moved into Englewood two months ago, and he would not have located in Englewood if he had known of these proposed regulations. He said that the regulations are discriminatory, and will prevent business. He said they are ill-prepared, and the Commission should agree with him. Rary Lester, Harry's Specialty Auto 5155 South Broadway -was sworn in for testimony. He said that he is confused about the intention of the ordinance; he asked if it is to beautify Englewood, bring in revenue or get rid of all the used car dealers on South Broadway. He said that it appears that the intent is to get rid of all the used car dealers. He said he has a chain link fence around his lot, and that it has kept him in business. The theft was horrendous. He said the building next to his property is right on the sidewalk. They should have to remove their building if he has to provide ten feet aloug the front of his property. He said that there is a Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News stand attached to a bus bench in front of his property; and this stand looks much worse than anything on his lot. He said that people come from out of state to see his car lot because they have heard about his lot. He said bad car lots will go out of business. He maintains his property, and the new rules would only cost money and would not help Englewood. Jim Higday 4970 South Washington -was sworn in for testimony. He stated that he is the Englewood Councilman for District III. He said that this is a serious situation for the people in District III. There have been many people who responded to it. The City has received a lot of response. He said the Planning Commission will consider the matter, pass, reject or ammend it and send it on to City Council for final decision. He said that the motive for the regulations was that there had been many complaints. He said that there is a serious problem, and he asked that the Planning Commission consider the matter carefully. He said that what is done about the problem may be negotiable, but something must be done. He said there are many car dealers along South Broadway who are welcome assets to the City, but there are some who, in his opinion, shouldn't be in Englewood. Mr. Stoel asked what the problem is. Mr. Higday said that the problem is the increasing number of used car lots. Nearly every time a property is vacant a car dealer moves in. He said that he had no objections until citizens said the lots were blatantly disregarding the Sign Code and Landscaping Ordinance even after repeated requests to comply. There has been a safety problem because autos are being parked on the sidewalk, leaving no place for people to walk. If people walk across the lot, they are ordered off. There is no place for employees to park, and in many cases, no place to park emergency equipment. Cars are so close together that a fire would spread through the cars, and the Fire Department could not prevent that. Some of the cars for sale are being parked on South Broadway. Some of the dealers appear to care neither for safety nor aesthetics. Revenue to Engelwood is not the point; he is interested in the safety, convenience and welfare of the people and the City and the ability of the Fire and Police Departments to provide emergency service. Mr. Corwin stated that he had not heard that anyone had been injured because of sidewalk parking. He asked for specifics. He said that it is usually customers who park on the sidewalk, and he has always asked them to move. The problem has nothing to do with the car dealers. The dealers want to make a living and get along with the City. He quoted Mr. Higday's remarks to the -8- Englewood Sentinel, saying that the atmosphere on South Broadway is not conducive to used car lots. Mr. Corwin said that it is conducive, or they would not remain on South Broadway. Mr. Corwin said that, if there had been such a tremendous uproar from the citizens, more than one citizen would have attended the meeting. He said there are houses in Englewood that are health hazards, and the City should do something about that. Mrs. Romans entered a letter into the record, which was read by Mr. Venard: TO: Gerry Venard, Chairman Planning Commission and TO: Councilman Higday For Meeting May 14, 1985 FROM: Dorothy Schmidt 4085 South Lincoln I am unable to attend your hearing, but I took pictures May 3, 1985 and am attaching these with notations. Our neighborhood has had a constant battle with car dealers, repair shops who use our streets as a dumping area for car (sic) in all states of repair and disrepair, some unlicensed. It seems that in line with the Council's new sign ordinance and the downtown area renewal that helping residents keep the streets free of extra cars would not be unreasonable. My understanding is that from the alley west to Broadway is zoned business. From the alley east to Lincoln is zoned R-2. How then can car dealers use our streets as a parking lot? First picture --"Corner of Broadway and Nassau. Taken 5-3-85." with a note stating "Junked for weeks" with an arrow to a car on the south side; on the north side "a sign by door 'Rack's Little Lot' apparently from a dealer who moved out further South on Broadway. Sign overhead is Little Wheels Saab repair. 3998 South Broadway." There is also a notation "drive way to AMCO". There were also two pictures taken on 5-3-85 showing cars with no license, a blocked driveway to a garage. The garage belongs to Bob Neudock, 3997 South Lincoln. Picture three showed a car parked on the street with a dealer tag. On page 4 of the letter were two more pictures taken 5-3-85. One showed a car with no license which was parked going the wrong way on Nassau, near the same property, and there is a note saying that the car stayed there the 3rd, 4th and 5th of May. Picture 5 was another view of the same car. On page 5, two more pictures show a car with a dealer tag parked in front of a residence east of the alley. Mrs. Schmidt continued: This morning May 14, 1985 the following cars are on the street East of the alley along Nassau from Broadway to Lincoln. l-F-150 White pickup with dealer insignia Colorado Chrysler Plymouth 2-Unlicensed blue Chevrolet (old in disrepair) 3-Unlicensed AMC Eagle -9- They are using these streets as a lot to conduct business. Could I do that? How long can I leave my car unlicensed? Councilman Higday, I hope you are able to implement the proper ordinances to at least keep our streets free from these nuisances. Sincerely, Mrs. Dorothy Schmidt 4085 South Lincoln This letter was entered into the record as Exhibit I, and Mr. Venard said that it could be viewed if anyone in the audience wished to see it. Mrs. Romans asked that in Section 16.4-12 e (1) (a) (ii), that the R-2-C/S.P.S. be added. This is a new zone districtly recently created by the Council, and should be included. Mr. Bob Bahne, who had already spoken, asked to answer the letter from Mrs. chmidt. He said it did not apply to the new ordinance. The parking problem can be solved by enforcing the present ordinance. The cars should be ticketed, and, if necessary, towed away. He said that the point of the letter was that the neighbor does not like car dealers. He said that car dealers want to do the job right. He said if any dealer violat~s the law, he should be ticketed, and if it continues, the car should be towed away. He said the main problems with the proposed ordinance are the ten foot setback, fencing and driveways. The Chairman declared a five-minute recess at 9:25 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:35 p.m., with the same people present. The Chairman asked for further comments. There were none. Mr. Venard thanked people for coming to give input to aid the Commission. Mrs. Romans asked that additional changes be made in the Landscape Ordinance: Section 16.4-18 b (1) (a), include R-2-C/S.P.S., also in Section 16.4-18 c (2) (b). In Section 16.4-18 c (1) (e), add "In all zone districts the street tree requirements are in addition to the requirements for minimum living plant material"; (e) becomes (f), (f) becomes (g). It was also noted that Sections e and f should be changed to d and e in the Landscape Ordinance. Carson moved: Gourdin seconded: That the Public Hearing be closed. AYES: Barbre, Beier, Carson, Magnuson, Stoel, Gourdin, Venard. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Allen, McBrayer. The public hearing was closed. The members agreed that the B-2 section of the proposed ordinance would require further study. Magnuson moved: Stoel seconded: That the changes as published and suggested at this meeting be acceptec and passed on to Council, with the exception· of the B-2 district. AYES: Barbre, Beier, Carson, Magnuson, Stoel, Gourdin, Venard. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Allen, McBrayer. -10- The motion carried. Open discussion on the B-2 followed. Mr. Carson suggested a study session to be held in conjunction with the meeting to be held on May 21, 1985. The Corrunission agreed. Mr. Stoel suggested that the Corrunission review what had taken place at the meeting and list its concerns and conclusions from this meeting. He said that he is not clear as to why the changes were suggested because there does not seem to be a major problem. The current laws should be enforced. He said the retroactive nature of the phrasing of the proposed ordinance is, in his opinion, out of the question; but he would accept the Conditional Use status for car lots. He suggested keeping Sections (v), (vi) and (vii), permitting fences, and keeping the drainage and site plan regulations. He said that the dealers cannot do much landscaping. Items (i) through (iv) should be removed, in his opinion. The Conditional Use application and hearing should take care of problems, and should not require heavy guidelines. Mr. Beier said that many of the lots are very small with little depth. They may not be able to meet setbacks. He toured the lots on the north end of South Broadway. The lots seemed acceptable, having driving lanes and no parking on the sidewalk. The areas should be policed and the ordinance enforced. Fencing must be allowed. Sections (iv) through (vii) and (ix) should be retained, and (i) through (iii) and (viii) should be taken out of the proposed ordinance. He said that he does not think the dealers can police themselves. Mr. Gourdin said Section (viii) is necessary. Fencing is offensive, and makes Englewood look like a crime area. He concurred that Sections (i) through (iv) be removed, and (v) through (vii) and (ix) should be retained. He agreed that the auto dealers should be conditional uses, and should supply site plans. Mr. Magnuson said that there should be some setback with landscaping, although it might not have to be ten feet, and bumpers could stick out over the grass. He suggested removing (ii), and (iii) should have modification. He said an access lane was probably not necessary, but suggested keeping (v) and (vi). He disagreed with (vii) and (viii). The rest was fine. He suggested that the City should pave all the alleys. Mr. Barbre agreed that the car lots should be conditional uses, and suggested reducing the setback to five feet. He said making the law retroactive would wipe out some of the businesses. He said that there are only a few dealers causing the problem. He said that other businesses use the curb for customers. Employees often drive the lot's cars. Section (iii) might be reduced from 200 feet, and (iv) could be reduced. He suggested keeping (v) through (ix ). Mr. Carson disagreed with (i), felt there should be a place for employees to park, suggested reducing (iii) to 150 square feet, disagreed with (iv), suggested keeping (vi) and (v), had no objection to auto display racks above ground level, and, unless there were evidence that there is a great deal of crime, would agree with the fencing section. Mr. Gourdin suggested drafting a letter to the Independent Auto Dealerships, asking that peer pressure be applied for improvement in conditions. Mr. Venard said that some of the owners of car lots have not been good responsible citizens. Some of the speakers offered to meet with the Corrunission, and he would like to see a group formed to encourage things to improve. He said that he would like the Corrunission to take plenty of time to make a decision. • -11- Mr. Beier said there should be a minimum lot area required. Mr. Stoel said that each applicant could bring the matter before the Commission. Mr. Beier, Mr. Gourdin and Mr. Magnuson, suggested further research into how neighboring communities are handling this problem. Mr. Carson said there are no fences along Havana or in Littleton and Aurora. Mrs. Romans said the lots are conditional uses, or require special permits in those cities. Mr. Barbre asked that it be considered that a change in ownership would require another conditional use hearing. Mrs. Romans said that could be stipulated. Mr. Stoel said that the wave of the future will be indoor showrooms. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Sheryl Rousses, Recording Secretary