Commerce City to consider Monaghan Farms storage appeal Nov. 16

Commerce City Council is scheduled to hear Monaghan Farms’ appeal Nov. 16 over storage and warehouse uses at two East 64th Avenue properties. The company wants the city to recognize office use at 6075 E. 64th Ave. and office and retail use at 6085 E. 64th Ave., with storage allowed as an accessory use—or, alternatively, protected as a legal nonconforming use.

The appeal challenges a Sept. 1 city determination denying verification of warehouse and outdoor-storage uses at both properties. The city’s appeal report says the Planning Commission is scheduled to consider the appeal Nov. 3 and make a recommendation; City Council will make the final decision.

Monaghan Farms describes 6075’s primary use as an auxiliary office, with indoor and outdoor storage of records and equipment incidental to company operations. At 6085, it says office and retail are the primary uses, with warehouse and outdoor storage accessory to them. Its appeal letter asks the city to confirm those arrangements. Alternatively, the company seeks recognition of the warehouse and storage uses as legal nonconforming uses—uses that may continue if they were legally established before current zoning rules and not discontinued for 180 days or more.

The city found that Monaghan Farms had not established that the warehouse and outdoor-storage uses were legally in place before the 2009 Land Development Code or continued without a long enough break, according to the Sept. 1 determination. The city said the owner bears the burden of proving a nonconforming use. Its review of historical zoning codes, aerial images, business licenses and permits did not establish that the uses qualified.

The city’s report says aerial imagery showed no outdoor storage at either property from 1963 through 2009, with storage at 6075 appearing in 2009 and a small boat at 6085 in 2018. It says the properties were zoned C-1 in 1962 and C-3 from 1964 onward, and that the codes it reviewed did not allow warehouse or outdoor-storage uses in those districts.

Monaghan Farms disputes the city’s account. Its applicant presentation says aerial images show outdoor storage at both properties in 2007 and other years. The company also cites a 1996 completion record listing a B-2 office/warehouse at 6075, along with older city files and AAMCO records it says document warehouse or storage activity at 6085. It argues that leases and business licenses for restaurants and food retailers at 6085 cover only the front 1,800 square feet, not the warehouse space. The city says those records document commercial activity but do not establish warehouse use or continuous outdoor storage.

The council’s decision will determine whether the city verifies the requested accessory-use arrangements or recognizes the warehouse and storage uses as legal nonconforming. If the council upholds the denial, those uses will not be verified as legal nonconforming under that decision; the city says the properties may still be used for uses allowed in the C-3 district.

The dispute followed a May 22 code-enforcement notice at 6085 requiring removal of outdoor storage, including a boat at the rear of the property, by May 29.