Englewood residents aim to recall 4 councilmembers

BY TAYLER SHAW TSHAW@COLORADOCOMMUNITYMEDIA.COM

A group of Englewood residents has led petitions seeking to recall four of the seven members of the city council, a resident announced April 17 during a city council meeting.

Resident Kurt Suppes spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting and said that a group of registered voters in the city led petitions with the city clerk earlier that day seeking to recall Mayor Othoniel Sierra and Councilmembers Joe Anderson, Chelsea Nunnenkamp and Cheryl Wink — the four councilmembers who had been open to the possibility of allowing some multifamily development in traditional “R-1” single-family zoning areas.

e petition language had been submitted but not yet approved.

“We consider these four councilmembers to be derelict in their duties and representing their constituencies for the following reasons: ignoring legitimate concerns continually raised by Englewood residents regarding the zoning changes contemplated by CodeNext,” Suppes said.

“ is includes introducing multiplex housing into R-1 neighborhoods and allowing proli c use of ADUs (accessory dwelling units) throughout the city along with the … short-term rental options,” he added.

What is CodeNext?

CodeNext is an e ort to update Englewood’s development code, called the Uni ed Development Code. is code details what types of development and property uses are permitted in certain sections, or zone districts, of the city.

ere had been a variety of di erent changes under consideration through CodeNext, including potentially adjusting parking requirements as well as reducing barriers and accommodating accessory dwelling units in more districts, according to the city’s website.

It appeared one of the most controversial CodeNext considerations was the possibility of allowing twoto-four-unit multiplex dwellings in R-1 zone districts.

R-1 zone districts represent areas that have residential one-dwelling units, also known as single-family homes.

One of the ideas the council considered as part of CodeNext was allowing for two-to-four-unit buildings to be built on some residential lots that exist within the city’s R-1 zone districts, as long as at least one of the units was more a ordable.

However, on April 3, the city council decided to temporarily suspend the consideration of the inclusion of multifamily development types and standards within the city’s R-1 residential zone districts, in light of the proposed Colorado Senate Bill 23-213 — and by the end of Monday’s Englewood meeting, there was a council consensus to shelve the consideration of R-1 changes pending a housing study and likely task force.

‘Intend to pursue action vigorously Suppes said one of the concerns some residents have is inadequate infrastructure and nancial resources necessary to support increased density.

“Secondly, the inevitable, obvious, signi cant negative economic and environmental impact to both homeowners and renters,” he said.

“ ird, irreparable generational damage to the city’s established neighborhoods.” e fourth concern he named was “favorable voting for high-density housing projects negatively impacting adjacent neighborhoods.”

“ ese councilmembers have consistently portended that these changes will somehow preserve and protect the charm and beauty of our city, yet they refuse to conduct … impact studies including tra c, water, sewage, environmental, child safety, construction, noise and interference, just to name a few which would indicate otherwise,” Suppes said.

Suppes said the four councilmembers have “failed to address the rampant crime and drug problems that persist in the city.” e group of residents are also concerned about “issues with scal management.” All of which, he said, contributes to “ongoing civic and economic instability.”

“ ese council members have demonstrated a consistent lack of consideration for the livelihood and opinions of the people they represent, choosing instead to pursue their own personal agendas,” Suppes said. “We intend to pursue this action vigorously.”

The mayor responds

In response to Suppes’ public comment, Sierra began by saying he appreciated Suppes bringing attention to the situation.

“Are you aware that we have not — we’ve only discussed, we actually haven’t passed anything regarding CodeNext?” Sierra asked Suppes.

“I’m aware of that. I understand that,” Suppes said. “But … the continual pursuit of it … with the ADUs and everything else, so.”

“So discussing an item that is a major issue in the city, you feel we’ve gone too far with that discussion?” Sierra asked. “A major issue that is occurring within the city is housing. And so you’ve felt we’ve gone too far with that issue today?” ere are seven of us that actually pass, you know, our budget as well as make decisions regarding crime. Is there a reason why there’s only four of us instead of all seven of us?

“Yes,” Suppes said. Sierra continued: “You’ve also mentioned some other items in terms of crime, you know, nancial.

We act as a body when we pass the budget and we pass, you know …”

“I’m aware of all that,” Suppes said. “I’m fully aware. We all are.”

Sierra thanked Suppes for his time and asked the other councilmembers if anyone else had questions, to which there were none.

What is the recall process?

According to the Englewood Home Rule Charter, any elected o cer of the city may be recalled after holding o ce for six months.

To initiate a recall, one or more registered voters who are eligible to vote for the successor of the person they want to recall needs to le an a davit with the city clerk stating the reasons for the recall.

Within 48 hours of the a davit being led, the city clerk will mail a copy to the subject of the recall. at person can le a statement in defense of the charges made against them.

e city clerk will authorize a petition for recall of the elected o cer, and this petition may be circulated and signed by registered Englewood voters “who would be entitled to vote for the successor of the incumbent sought to be recalled,” according to the charter.

e petition must be signed by registered voters who are eligible to vote for the o ce in question, and the number of signatures must equal at least 25% of the voters who voted in the last general election for that o ce.

e recall petition has to have enough signatures and be led within 60 days after it was authorized. If this happens, the council will set a date for a recall election to be held within the next 60-120 days after ling of the recall petition.

If the majority of voters support recalling the o cer, the o ce will become vacant and will be lled through another election within the next 60-120 days.