Eye On Englewood

Link: http://www.eyeonenglewood.com

During June 7,2010 City Council meeting, the Denver Christian School requested a business variance to open a second hand store on Broadway. The history underlying this request is that the latest version of the Englewood code prohibited various kinds of businesses, including thrift. But in this economy, beggars can't exactly be choosers.

Senior Planner, Langon, suggested changes in the code to enable the School to open their store front. The only question there is whether the code should lighten up across the board, or whether the school will receive preferential treatment.

The School also requested a change to the square footage. Again, Council debated the advantages against the disadvantages, and several district representatives admitted that they had no vision for what was to happen along South Broadway, and did not talk with the business owners, but only amongst themselves. Olsen stated she was concerned that there was no real downtown plan, and also concerned about allowing a subcategory for nonprofits. McCaslin recognizing the limits of government in a unprecedented moment, suggested that it was more appropriate to allow the businesses themselves to determine such things, and that it was better for Council to let out the rope.(See Council Bill 11, See Item 11.b.1 discussion.)

Mayor Woodward, however, suggested that Council purchase a new set of aerial photographs for $5,000, at "a real bargain" and that further he personally used the photos for code enforcement issues against business and residential properties comparing the last photographs were taken. (Item 11-a.1. Council Bill 13).

"With a $39,953 loss anticipated this year,and a 2.5 million dollar deficit in the City, I am very disturbed about our cavalier Council," reported Rick Gillit after the most recent financial presentation at Monday's City Council meeting.

The votes are down the line, six to one, six to one, six to one, but District 4 Representative, Rick Gillit is sticking to his Mantra: "Stop Approving New Spending."

Mayor Jim Woodward's response seemed insipidly lacking in perspective when he said, "Well you know, back in 2007, we were really concerned, but we had a super situation and we came out on top." In 2007, Englewood was still rechanneling sales taxes from Cherry Hills and Greenwood Village. Englewood can no longer do that, so it must either amend it's spending or enact a higher tax on the people in order to make ends meet.

"I am very disturbed at this ongoing trend. It terrifies me that this Council just doesn't care." Said Gillit. Thankfully, Commissioners on the Board of Adjustments and Appeals stood up and took notice themselves in this week's Board meeting directives to the Englewood City Attorney, Nancy Reid.

In the BOAA meeting, two private land owners approached the Board because the present Englewood Code was inappropriate for their properties. Research performed by Commissioner, Douglas Cohn,was presented, showed that,

1. Englewood had originally drafted its zoning codes after Denver's zoning codes in the 1903 (Mayor Jacob Jones, and afterwards, with Mayor Daniel Sutton). These codes established the typical lot sizes as 25 feet and 37.5 feet wide.

2. Mayor Woodward had changed the entire zoning code (E.M.C)in 2004 off of a generated template from the Municipal League of Cities. This code replaced the old lot measurements with a minimum of 40 feet wide.

a. the template was geared towards new emerging cities, not
existing, and did not apply to Englewood's historic issues.

b. the new Englewood Municipal Code did not grandfather the
residents' pre-existing properties or conforming uses.
Therefore, all lot sizes under 40 feet wide are automatically
non-conforming in use.

c. The enacting of the new Code in it's entirety rather than
in smaller topical sections that had time to be reviewed and
researched in detail, violated Constitutional restrictions for
enactments.

d. Owners and developers are encountering logistical conflicts
in these last few years, throwing the City into numerous
lawsuits due to lack of foresight.

e. Owners cannot sell existing residences as a "conforming use"
and are forced to sell them as "non-conforming" uses at a loss
of value because they are under 40 ft wide.

Chairman John Smith III,'s ire was raised, as a multiple property owner and landlord in Englewood. He spearheaded the ensuing discussion and both of the residents approaching the Board for variances this week obtained their objectives. Chairman Smith and the Board of Adjustments and Appeals instructed City Attorney Reid to direct Englewood Mayor Woodward to revisit and amend the zoning code accordingly. The code is the Mayor's own yard work.

Link: http://www.I2I.org

On Tuesday evening, June 9, 2009, 6m at the Englewood Civic Center, the City hosts an open market for determining the image of two important districts, the Historic Broadway Business District and the as yet undeveloped Swedish Medical Business PUD located between old Hampden and I-285.

Having attended the first open market, I am interested in this "Final" market approach, especially since a public hearing is approaching July 6, 2009.

In the first go round, everyone who attended was given sticky dots to affix to their preferences--as represented by the Planning and Zoning Department--of lighting, artwork, street designs and sizes, mall signage, and cross-walk design.

It made for a fun evening out.

While engrossing myself as an outsider in attempts to understand and make choices, to make my mark as it were, I began to hear murmurs from the other guests.

Business owners were saying, "I like this one, but who is going to pay for it?" A person with a disability stated emphatically, "Don't choose those posts at the crosswalk or we can't get our wheelchairs through them."

A politician argued against the cobblestone look of the cross-walks because the cobblestone laid in Denver's Larimer Square is requires regular maintenance because of bulging, trippage and breakage.

One business owner discussed with a citizen the fact that they each quite liked the idea of overhead lighting on Broadway.

One wanted to see Englewood by satellite. The other wanted an atmosphere to invite nightlife into her otherwise small town. Those overhead white lights would accomplish both economically.

Someone like the arch idea and said, "Couldn't Englewood use this idea to incorporate that bridge from the South of I-285 to the Civic Center?" "No, no." She was corrected, "That arch idea is not presented for the Civic Center, but only for Historic Broadway Businesses."

Upon another person entering the discussion, a critique was made that Broadway's present buildings are only two stories tall at most, and every other one is ranch style height. "Who are they trying to fool with these depictions?" He hissed. "This ain't Broadway."

This point led into whether Englewood intended to rebuild Broadway's lower structures similar to Littleton's redevelopment, and if so, what would happen to the existing businesses?

A chill entered the circle of conversation, then hovered over the voters. They realized that too little information had been handed over, and the depictions of choices were not depictions of the existing Englewood centers.

Further, Englewood does not have the money to improve Broadway presently. It's simply not in the budget.

Questions started arising such as why the City is presenting marketing idioms from two completely separate situations: One being a pre-existing historic Broadway, and the other concerning a largely scraped block of empty land with a few blocks of populated housing and flourishing small businesses.

Someone pointed out that he lives in a small home in the Swedish redevelopment area. "Would my place eventually be taken through eminent domain?"

"Maybe you're land values would increase if it gets zoned commercial," poised another.

There was an awkward shuffling of feet. The hoopla began to wain in the face of larger implications to private property takings.

Questions of business owners' businesses, their rights, taxes and choices being run over by the City 's prostitution of their property to the masses suddenly became a concern.

Why hadn't the City approached the Chamber of Commerce with these matters first or dialogue in a less-expensive way about real proposals and real needs?

Why must the City narrow the already narrow street of Old Hampden while creating a mall that will produce more traffic?

The owner of a mechanic's shop explained how the overlaid redevelopment proposals work against grandfathered business owners. He told his own story about being pushed out of business and forced to sell because he could not obtain a new proprietor/lease until after the six month window of City-allotted time had lapsed.

"There is only so much an owner can do with a building designed for car mechanics." Expressed one sympathetic guest.

Yet, the City ungrandfathered this land owner and forced him out because they had their own plans for that prime corner lot on Logan and I-285. A big beautiful bank now sits there.

The City's position is that outdated, unkempt properties need to be updated or replaced.

Somewhere in the mix are the answers for better stewardship of the existing images and markets of Englewood, and a means to upgrade properties without taking over viable existing rights.

If the City wants to exercise control, it needs to fund its existing rehabilitation budget before implementing frivolous marketing parties and coy marketing plans for eminent domain.

Collecting the funds first and utilizing them for the public benefit is one thing. Diverting tax moneys already vested and raised to other City employee benefits and frivolous exercises is another.

Public Hearing is set for July 6, 2009 to gather public input.