Englewood planning commission leans toward allowing neighborhood-serving businesses in residential zones

The Englewood Planning & Zoning Commission on July 22 held a study-session discussion on whether to allow existing commercial nonconforming properties located in residential zoning districts to change uses, expand structures or update site conditions.

Planning staff opened the discussion by defining the problem: “for tonight we're gonna be talking about non residential nonconforming uses located in the residential districts,” and explained that many small commercial buildings in R‑1 and R‑2 zones are effectively locked into their original use and face disincentives to investment.

The issue matters because staff identified roughly 14 historically established commercial properties that no longer conform to underlying residential zoning — a number staff said has likely fallen to about 12 because some sites are in process of redevelopment or conversion. Most of the buildings date from about 1910–1950, several exceed lot‑coverage standards for their base districts, and many are small quarter‑lot parcels that are difficult to redevelop as single‑family homes.

Planning staff described the current rules and three broad policy options for the commission to consider: keep the status quo and require the existing use to remain unchanged; allow selected commercial uses by tying them to an existing low‑intensity commercial district standard such as MUR‑3A; or adopt a defined list of permitted neighborhood‑serving uses (or the inverse: explicitly prohibit certain uses). Staff also outlined possible implementation paths ranging from administrative (by‑right) approvals to public hearings or conditional‑use processes.

Commissioners discussed practical examples and neighborhood impacts. Planning staff noted a frequent real‑world problem: a building registered historically as a “grocery” may not legally be able to operate as a coffee or ice‑cream shop under the current use definitions. As staff explained, “they came to us saying, you know, we want to be a store that sells ice cream… To fit into the definition of that grocery store, they have to sell their product packaged. Ice cream cone is an immediate consumption use.” The staff example underscored how current definitions restrict small business activity and can keep buildings vacant if an appropriate tenant cannot be found.

Members identified tradeoffs and guiding principles. Several commissioners said they want to preserve neighborhood character and support walkable, corner‑store uses that serve nearby residents. At the same time, they expressed reluctance to expand uses that are inconsistent with residential character (for example, large surface parking lots, automobile sales or noisy industrial uses). Commissioners repeatedly raised the need for clear, administrable standards so property owners and staff interpret the rules consistently.

On process, the commission discussed a tiered approach used elsewhere (Spokane was cited by staff) in which modest changes could be approved administratively while larger or more controversial changes would trigger public notice and a hearing. Commissioners voiced a preference to keep most approvals on the lower end of the procedural spectrum for the existing set of properties so changes would not be prohibitively time‑consuming or expensive for small businesses.

After extended discussion, the commission gave direction that can be summarized as: allow neighborhood‑beneficial commercial uses for the existing nonconforming properties under a clearer, more flexible framework than strictly tying each parcel to its underlying residential standards or to MUR‑3A; exclude surface parking and auto sales as desirable reuse options; and favor by‑right or administrative review for common, low‑impact changes while reserving hearings for larger departures. Chair Martinez summarized the request for clarity: commissioners sought “preserving, allowing change in use, within some set of framework of community beneficial use or neighborhood beneficial use, and also the ability to change, the, to expand, if needed.”

Staff said they will continue outreach with property owners and neighborhood nights, and return with draft code language and recommended procedures. Planning staff also pointed to an early‑August public hearing and a council study session as upcoming steps in the timetable for any formal code changes.

Votes at the meeting: commissioners approved the minutes from the May 20 meeting by roll call. The record shows the motion passed with votes recorded as yes from Commissioners Haggerty, Montiel, Hupka, Kaplan, Cicero and Chair Martinez.

What remains unresolved: the commission requested a follow‑up study session and draft language that would (1) define a short list of allowed neighborhood‑serving uses, (2) specify which building and site improvements would be permitted by right, and (3) recommend a procedural pathway (administrative approval with an appeal/hearing mechanism, or a two‑tier approach similar to the Spokane example). Staff will return with those specifics after continued outreach to property owners, the Historic Preservation Commission and neighborhood meetings.

Community examples and names cited in the discussion included God Save The Cream (a small business whose permitted classification prompted the conversation), Quincy Barber Shop and Mutiny Cafe. The commission and staff also discussed properties on Dartmouth, Washington and Bellevue and noted that some sites have historic commercial cores adjacent to residential lots.

The commission’s guidance narrows the staff’s next steps: draft a set of clear, administrable standards for the existing nonconforming commercial properties that support neighborhood‑serving businesses while protecting adjacent residential character, and bring the draft back to the commission and council for further public review.