Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-05-19 PZC MINUTESh • •• CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION May 19, 1981 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Judith Pierson at 7:00 P. M. Members present: Tanguma, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Pierson, Senti Powers, Ex-officio Members absent: Draper, Allen Also present: Assistant Director Dorothy A. Romans Associate Planner Barbara S. Young Assistant City Attorney Tom Holland II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Pierson stated that the Minutes of May 5, 1981, were to be considered for approval. Tanguma moved: Barbre seconded: The Minutes of May 5, 1981, be approved as written. AYES: Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Pierson, Senti, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Draper, Allen The motion carried. III. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE §22.4-10 B-1 Zone District §22.4-11 B-2 Zone District §22.4-13 I-1 Zone District §22.4-14 I-2 Zone District §22.6-11 Non-Conforming Uses §22.8 Definitions CASE #B-1-81 Chairman Pierson stated that the matter before the Planning Commission is a Public Hearing on the amendment of the Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance to regulate the location of adult entertainment uses . Carson moved: Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing be opened. AYES: Carson, McBrayer, Pierson, Senti, Tanguma, Barbre, Becker NAYS: None ABSENT: Draper, Allen -2- The motion carried. Mrs. Pierson asked for the staff presentation. Ms. Susan Powers was sworn in, and testified that she is the Director of Community Development for the City of Englewood. The proposed ordinance before the Planning Commission per- tains to the amendment of the B-1 and B-2, Business Zone Dis- tricts, the I-1 and I-2, Industrial Zone Districts, with the addition of a section pertaining to adult entertainment uses and services. The proposed ordinance also adds several new definitions to §22.8 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Powers discussed points of difference between the proposed permanent legislation and the temporary legislation which was approved by the City Council in February, 1981. Ms. Powers stated that one of the primary changes is the change in the distance limitations; the temporary ordinance which is in ef- fect requires 1,000 feet between two adult entertainment uses, or between an adult entertainment use and a residential zone district, park, school, church, playground or public building. The proposed permanent legislation requires 1,000 feet between two adult entertainment businesses, but requires 500 feet be- tween an adult entertainment business and a residential zone district, religious institution, public park or educational in- stitution. Ms. Powers also pointed out that the proposed permanent legislation does not restrict distances between an adult entertainment business and "public building". Ms. Powers stated that the result of the changes cited, the reduction in distance and the elimination of public buildings as a specified use to be separated from adult entertainment businesses, is the increase in areas where adult entertainment businesses could be located. Referring to a map of the City, Ms. Powers pointed out an area in the central business dis- trict which could potentially accommodate adult entertainment uses under the proposed permanent legislation. Ms. Powers stated that the City Attorney's Office now suggests that adult entertainment uses be considered as "Conditional Uses" in the B-1, B-2, I-1, and I-2 Zone Districts. The ef- fect of this suggestion is that prior to locating in any given area, the use must be specifically approved by the Planning Commission and would have to meet the guidelines which are set forth for consideration of "Conditional Uses". The Planning Commission would have to hold a Public Hearing on each applica- tion for an adult entertainment use as required in the Conditional Use provisions. Ms. Powers pointed out that the Conditional Use section of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance was approved in • 1978 at a time when the City was considering auto wrecking and junk yards; these uses are Conditional Uses in the I-1 Zone District. • ... • -3- Ms. Powers referred to maps indicat~ng areas where adult enter- tainment businesses could locate under the existing 1,000 foot rule, and where they could locate under the proposed 500 foot rule. Mr. McBrayer stated that it appeared the area where the adult entertainment businesses could locate keeps increasing, and that the City is "giving" areas to these businesses. Ms. Powers stated that the area has increased, pointing out that with the elimination of "public buildings", consideration of the Library had to be eliminated which increased the area in which the adult entertainment business can locate, as well as the reduction in distance which increased the potential lo- cations of these businesses. Ms. Powers explained that the distance requirement was reduced from 1,000 feet to 500 feet to bring the Englewood ordinance in line with the Detroit ordinance which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Ms. Powers stressed that under the proposed ordinance, any adult entertainment business · that was permitted by zone and distance limitations, would still have to be approved as a Conditional Use by the Planning Commission; the Commission would have to determine if such use met the criteria and guide- lines for Conditional Uses, and if it would be in the best in- terest of the community. Appeals from the decision of the Planning Commission would be to the courts. Ms. Powers asked that the staff report/analysis be made a part of the record of this Hearing. Ms. Powers stated that Assistant City Attorney Holland would discuss other proposals and means of controlling the adult entertainment businesses in addition to zoning with the Com- mission. Mrs. Pierson asked what specified uses were eliminated from the proposed permanent legislation? Ms. Powers stated that public facilities were eliminated; this encompassed anything that was publicly owned. Mrs. Pierson asked if it would be within the authority of the Planning Commission to broaden the list of specified uses; she felt that the exclusion of such uses as the Library, for instance, did not have any logic behind it, and pointed out the heavy usage that libraries have by children and young adults. Ms. Powers stated that if the Commission felt the inclusion of such uses as libraries could be justified that the Commission could recommend the inclusion of such uses. Ms. Powers noted that the Detroit court case did not specifically address "libraries" as a specified use requiring a specific distance between it and an adult enter- tainment center. Mr. McBrayer stated that he feels the proposed changes have "diluted" the ordinance, and that this is doing a disservice to the citizens who attended the public hearing before the Commission and City Council at the time the temporary legisla- tion was enacted. He stated he hated to see a portion of the downtown area approved for adult entertainment uses. -4- Mrs. Pierson asked if it was within the rights of the Planning • Commission to recommend the 1,000 foot distance between the adult entertainment establishment and specified uses, but if the 1,000 foot distance is not upheld, to recommend that the 500 foot limitation be imposed? Ms . Powers stated again that the proposed ordinance was pre- sented with the 500 foot limitation between specified uses and the adult entertainment businesses because this is what has been upheld by the Supreme Court, and this is the way the City Attorney advised that the ordinance would be strongest. This does not mean that another figure such as 1,000 feet would not be upheld, but it has not been tested. Ms. Powers pointed out that by having the Conditional Use approval with- in the purview of the Commission, they can determine if such proposal is within the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Assistant City Attorney Tom Holland stated that the City At- torney's Office does feel that the 500 foot limitation gives the City the strongest position on the proposed regulations; they are not certain that the 1,000 foot limitation would be upheld in Court. He stated that other cities are using the 1,000 foot rule, but so far this has not been tested in Court. Mr . Tanguma stated that he felt the Commission was worrying too much about what the Courts have said; he pointed out that the City would be opening up the possibility of many court cases if each and every adult entertainment business has to be considered individually and the decisions of the Commission have to be defended. He stated that if the ordinance is made strict enough to begin with, it will only have to be defended once. Mr. Tanguma asked what means were used to notify the public of this Hearing? Ms. Powers stated that public notice was published in the official city newspaper, and that she and Mrs. Romans had personally made some telephone calls. Ms. Powers stated that regarding the non-conforming use section, which under the temporary legislation calls for termination of such non-conforming use within 180 days, the City Attorney is suggesting that an extension of time up to two years be given those businesses which become non-conforming, this extension to be given in 180-day increments. Ms . Powers stated that the concern indicated by the City Attorney is that the non- conforming provision has not been tested in the United States Supreme Court; the Washington State Supreme Court has upheld a 90-day termination time for non-conforming uses in a case dealing with adult theaters. Ms. Powers stated that the City Attorney is suggesting the applicant (adult entertainment and service business) would have to prove hardship in asking for an extension of time to relocate, and that this extension • would not exceed a total of two years. ,, • -5- Assistant City Attorney Holland addressed the Conrrnission, and stated that zoning is one method of dealing with the location of adult uses, providing a means of designing and planning a city to protect the welfare of the citizenry, and yet protect the first amendment rights of those wishing to engage in the adult entertainment business. Mr. Holland stated that zoning is only one means of addressing the control of such uses, and that other controls can be instituted through licensing re- quirements, taxing requirements, and other regulatory require- ments. Mr. Holland stated that he has recently been employed by the City of Englewood and is not yet totally familiar with all of the ordinances, but he would assume there is an ordi- nance prohibiting materials and activities which are classified as "obscene". Mr. Holland stated that the Planning Conrrnission and City Council must be concerned with Court rulings on specific matters, because all public agencies are required, when dealing with citizens, not to contravene the rights of those citizens. He stated that the City Attorney's office is attempting to give the Conrrnission guidance on what can be done to regulate the adult entertainment businesses without violating the rights of those individuals engaged in such business. Mr. Tanguma stated that he did not mean to infer that the rights of anyone should be taken away; he does feel, however, that the Commission should uphold the rights of the citizenry of Englewood and see that the City is maintained in the manner in which those citizens so desire. Discussion ensued. Upon the request of Mrs. Becker, Mr. Holland cited the following from the Detroit Court case: "In the opin- ion of urban planners and real estate experts who supported the ordinances, the location of several such businesses in the same neighborhood tends to attract an undesirable quantity and quality of transients, adversely affects property values, causes an increase in crime, especially prostitution, and encourages residents and businesses to move elsewhere." Mrs. Chris Vanvorst was sworn in, and testified that she is the executive director of the Downtown Business Association, located at 3460 South Broadway, Englewood, Colorado. Mrs. Vanvorst stated that members of the DBA feel it is necessary to let the City know their concerns about the possibility of adult entertainment businesses locating in the downtown area. She stated that the DBA has a membership of over 50 of the downtown businessmen out of a possible membership of 102; the DBA is involved in promotional activities to encourage increased use of the downtown area. Mrs. Vanvorst stated that they are discussing the possibility of low-interest loans to assist businessmen and property owners in improving their building fronts, and making use of the SBA to help some of the smaller businessmen become property owners. Mrs. Vanvorst stated that the DBA has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan and the goals as it pertains to the downtown area and their real concern is whether the adult entertainment uses are consistent with what is wanted in the downtown area. Mrs. Vanvorst expressed con- -6- cern that if an adult entertainment business were to locate in the downtown area, this would give potential businessmen "another viewpoint of a deteriorating downtown." Mrs. Vanvorst stated that there are adult entertainment uses located further north on South Broadway in the Broadway Plaza area, and that these uses do make shoppers hesitate to patronize other businesses in close proximity to the adult entertainment business. Mrs. Vanvorst urged members of the Planning Commission to be aggressive and assertive in making their decision if they feel strongly · that they do not want to see this type of use developed in the downtown area. Mr . Frank Hammond was sworn in, and stated that he was repre- senting the Englewood School District, 4101 South Bannock Street. Mr. Hammond read the following letter to members of the Com- mission and submitted it for the record: "May 19, 1981 Members of the Englewood City Council City of Englewood 3400 South Elati Street Englewood, Colorado SUBJECT: Board of Education Support of Proposed Ordinance .. • The purpose of this memorandum is to communicate to you, the • members of the Englewood City Council, the support of the Englewood Board of Education relative to the proposed ordinance restricting locations of adult entertainment establishments. The Board of Education appreciates the efforts of the City Council and staff of the City of Englewood to restrict loca- tions of adult entertainment establishments. /sf Wm. Frank Hammond Wm. Frank Hannnond Director, Pupil Services WFH:b cc: Members of the Board of Education" Mr. Hannnond stated that he wished to thank the Connnission for allowing the School Board to convey their opinion on the pro- posed ordinance, and stated that the school officials are in favor of the proposed ordinance, and are very much in favor of the 1,000 foot distance restriction between such adult en- tertainment use and schools. Mr. Hammond also urged that the Commission take an aggressive and strong stand in regard to the adult entertainment businesses . Mr. Tanguma asked if the school administration building on South Bannock Street would be considered a public facility or a school structure ? Mr. Hannnond stated that they do have students in the building, particularly special education students . Ms. Powe r s pointed out tha t the school administration building is l ocated in a r esidential area. • • -7- Mrs. Pierson asked if there was anyone else who wished to address the Commission either in favor of the proposed amend- ment or in opposition to the proposed amendment? No one else addressed the Commission on this subject. Tanguma moved : Carson seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. AYES: Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Pierson, Senti, Tanguma, Barbre NAYS: None ABSENT: Draper, Allen The motion carried. Mrs. Pierson asked the pleasure of the Commission on the pro- posed amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance? Becker moved: McBrayer seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the proposed Ordinance con- sidered in Planning Commission Case #B-1-81 be approved with the following amendments: 1. The 1,000 foot rule be consistent from specified properties as well as between adult establishments. 2. The list of specified properties be expanded to include l i braries, post offices, community centers, city hall and hospitals. 3. The 180-day time limitation on termination of non-conforming uses be extended only with the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission for one time only (an additional 180-day period). 4. In the event the 1,000 foot distance is determined in Court to be excessive , the Planning Commission would recommend that 750 feet be required from specified properties to adult entertainment establishments, with the 1,000 foot rule to apply between adult businesses. Mrs . Becker stated that she felt there was some point where the Commission had to determine something was worth trying; she stated that the City may have to defend these restrictions, but she felt that the City should try for as strong restrictions as possible . Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt the Commission and City would be letting the people who attended the previous hearing in January down if they did not approve a strong ordinance and attempt to prevent an influx of the adult entertainment uses to this community . Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt the Planning Commission has shown fine sensitivity of the needs and desires of the community in their consideration of the proposed amendments, as well as -8- taking into consideration the concerns and rights of the people • involved in the adult entertainment businesses. She noted that the City is not attempting to define obscenity, but fs regulating areas where this type of business may locate. Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt this procedure was being fair to everyone. The vote was called: AYES: McBrayer, Pierson, Senti, Tanguma, Barbre, Becker, Carson NAYS: None ABSENT: Draper, Allen The motion carried. Ms. Powers stated that the Commission must now adopt Findings of Fact on this matter for submission to the City Council. She pointed out that the City Council has scheduled a Public Hearing on this subject on June 1, 1981. Mrs. Pierson suggested that the findings be written by the staff and submitted to the Com- mission, and that a telephone poll of the Commission be taken on May 26th. This telephone poll would be affirmed at the next regular meeting of June 2nd. IV. PUBLIC FORUM. Mrs. Pierson asked if anyone wished to address the Commission? No member of the audience addressed the Commission. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Ms. Powers stated that City Council did approve the appropriation of $2,500 for the seminar by Mr. Kirk Wickersham, the date of which is July 10th. Ms. Powers stated that the staff would have more information to give the Commission at the next meeting. She asked Mrs. Romans to give a brief review of what the staff is suggesting be considered at the seminar. Mrs. Romans stated that when the Comprehensive Plan was being reviewed there was considerable discussion about "mixed-use districts", these districts being along South Broadway, around the hospital, and south of U.S. 285 to Kenyon Avenue. There was also consideration of the residential districts; those that should be maintained, those that are in the target areas for rehabilitation, and incentives to encourage new construction in some areas. Mrs. Romans stated that those citizens who participated in the comprehensive plan review would be invited to attend the seminar, as well as members of the Commission, City Council, members of DBA and the Downtown Development Authority, representatives of the medical center and other • interested citizens. The seminar will be held at the Police- Fire Center, and will be an all-day session. • • -9- VI. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Tanguma announced that he had just gotten the slides of his Boston trip back yesterday, and did not have the presenta- tion prepared for this meeting. Mrs. Pierson asked that this be put on the agenda for the next meeting. Mrs. Pierson asked about the landscaping that is to be done on the parking lot developed by the EDDA in the 3400 block of South Lincoln Street. Ms. Powers stated that the City of Englewood will be doing the landscaping. The City has taken over the parking lot, and will finish the landscaping of the lot and the walk-through. The sprinkling system will be put in at the direction of the City. It was felt that there could be a savings if the City did the work on the landscaping and sprinkler system. Mrs. Pierson noted that when EDDA initially appeared before the Planning Commission with their proposal, they emphasized that they wanted to show the businessmen and the City that they were going to do something, and by not finishing the project she feels that they are showing that they cannot do what they proposed. Mrs. Pierson stated that she did not like the idea of the City "picking up after anyone who cannot finish a project." Ms. Powers pointed out that there were problems that arose on the development of the parking lot that were unforeseen, and resulted in a cost over-run. Also, the EDDA has been without a director for five months, and the City has stepped in to be of assistance. Ms. Powers emphasized that the City will be doing the landscaping this spring, but didn't know the exact timing when it will be done. Mr. McBrayer stated that he would have to agree with Mrs. Pierson on this matter. He recalled that the former Executive Director of the EDDA, Jim Keller, had indicated there were problems at the time he was requesting approval of a change in the proposed lighting for the parking lot, which change the Commission denied. Mr. McBrayer stated that the feeling at the time was that the downtown businessmen should complete something that they had started, and, he stated, it "seems ridiculous that they can overrun as much as they want to and someone will pick up the pieces." Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt this was "mis-manage- ment." Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt this was not a good showing for or about the EDDA, and that she is very unhappy about the City taking over the completion of the project. She stated that she is against this, and it should not be a precedent for future actions . Mrs. Becker stated that the EDDA is legislatively established; when there is mis-management they are not fulfilling their public office. She asked who was the appointing authority? Ms. Powers stated that members of the EDDA were appointed by the Englewood City Council. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt -10- a good look should be taken at the appointments and manage- ment of the EDDA. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Pierson asked if this could be taken to mean that anytime the EDDA over-spends their budget, the City will pick up the over-run? Ms. Powers discussed the involvement of the City with the EDDA and the powers of the EDDA. Ms. Powers stated that the City is to take over the parking lot May 20th, and will hold title since the City sold the bonds to finance the parking lot through an assessment district. Ms. Powers pointed out that the City was not liable for the debts of the EDDA, but the development of the parking lot and the walk-through was a joint project. Mrs. Pierson asked how much the over-run was going to cost the City? Ms. Powers stated that she was not sure of the exact figures at this time . Mrs. Pierson asked that this matter be placed on the next agenda of the Planning Commission, and that the staff report back to the Commission on the cost the City is having to stand. Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt this whole thing was "outrageous", and again emphasized that she wanted to know what this was going to cost the City. Mrs. Romans pointed out that there were unforeseen problems, such as a high underground water table, that resulted in cost over-runs on the parking lot. The cost of properties that EDDA wanted to purchase came in over that estimated by the architect. She pointed out that when the former Director was employed by EDDA she felt that he tried to keep on top of the expenses, but that EDDA has been without a director for five months. Further discussion ensued. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 -P.M. • • • • ' -11- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: May 19, 1981 SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Becker moved: McBrayer seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the proposed Ordinance con- sidered in Planning Commission Case #B-1-81 be approved with the following amendments: 1. The 1,000 foot rule be consistent from specified properties as well as between adult establishments. 2. The list of specified properties be expanded to include libraries, post offices, community centers, city hall and hospitals. 3. The 180-day time limitation on termination of non-conforming uses be extended only with the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission for one time only (an additional 180-day period). 4. In the event the 1,000 foot distance is determined in Court to be excessive, the Planning Commission would recommend that 750 feet be required from specified properties to adult entertainment establishments, with the 1,000 foot rule to apply between adult businesses. AYES: McBrayer, Pierson, Senti, Tanguma, Barbre, Becker, Carson NAYS: None ABSENT: Draper, Allen The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission.