HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-09-21 (Regular) Meeting Agenda Packet'' City of Englewood
1000 Englewood Pkwy -Council Chambers
Englewood , CO 8011 O
AGENDA
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday , Sept. 21 , 2015 • 7:30 p.m.
..... JLl,,JL.LL JU .. ,,,,,, . ,F ...... ·.················· .· ... ............ . L . ..,; .. t .. L . t .. J ... L ,,
1. Call to Order.
2. Invocation.
3. Pledge of Allegiance.
4. Roll Call.
5. Consideration of Minutes of Previous Session.
a. Minutes from the Regular City Council Meeting of Sept. 8, 2015.
6. Recognition of Scheduled Public Commen t. The deadline to sign up to speak tor Scheduled Public
Comment is Wednesday, prior to the meeting , through the City Manager's Office . Only those who meet
the deadline can speak in this section . (This is an opportunity tor the public to address City Council. There
is an expectation that the presentation will be conducted in a respectful manner. Council may ask
questions tor clarification, but there will not be any dialogue. Please limit your presentation to five
minutes.)
a. Fred McHenry , of Hope Resource Center , will address Council to spread the word about the
Center's offerings to the community .
b. Garnett Stewart , Englewood resident , will address Council regarding going green.
c. Doug Cohn , Englewood resident , will address Council regarding historic preservation .
d . Elaine Hults, Englewood resident, will address Council regarding responses she's received
around the community .
7 . Recognition of Unscheduled Public Comment. Speakers must sign up tor Unscheduled Public
Comment at the beginning of the meeting . (This is an opportunity tor the public to address City Council.
There is an expectation that the presentation will be conducted in a respectful manner. Council may ask
questions tor clarification , but there will not be any dialogue . Please limit your presentation to three
m inutes . Time tor unscheduled public comment may be limited to 45 m inutes , and if limited , shall be
continued to General Discussion .)
Council Response to Public Comment.
8. Communications , Proclamations , and Appointments.
a . The Colorado Lottery will formally present Englewood Parks and Recreation with a 2015
Starburst Award for the Duncan Park Renovation Project. Staff: Jerrell Black, Director of
Parks & Rec
9. Consent Agenda Items
Ple as e note: If yo u h ave a disab ility and n eed auxi li ary aids or se rvice s, p lease n o ti fy th e City of Eng le w o o d
(3 0 3-762-2405) at leas t 48 ho urs in advan ce o f when se rvices are n eeded.
En glewood City Co un cil Age n da
Sep tem be r 2 1, 20 15
Page 2
a. Approval of Ordinances on First Reading .
b . Approval of Ordinances on Second Reading.
i. Council Bill No. 46 -Intergovernmental agreement for 2015 Community Development
Block Grant funds from Arapahoe County. Staff: Harold Stitt, Senior Planner
ii. Council Bill No. 45 -"Marmot Library Network Service Agreement with Englewood
Public Library". Staff: Dorothy Hargrove, Director of Library Services
iii. Council Bill No. 33 -Exchange of City Ditch Right-of-Way, Grant of New Right-of-Way,
and Grant of Temporary Construction License for Swedish Medical Center. Staff: Tom
Brennan, Utilities Director.
c. Resolutions and Motions.
10 . Public Hearing Items.
a. A Public Hearing to gather input on the proposed 2016 City of Englewood Budget. (Please
note: A copy of the proposed 2016 City of Englewood Budget is available for review on the
City's website http://www.englewoodgov.org/budget and at the Englewood Public Library
during regular business hours).
11. Ordinances, Resolutions and Motions.
a. Approval of Ordinances on First Reading.
i. Council Bill No. 47 The Police Department is recommending that City Council adopt a bill
for an ordinance which will authorize the Chief of Police to sign an Intergovernmental
Agreement (IGA) with the Arapahoe County Department of Human Services. Staff:
Police Cmdr. Sam Watson.
ii. Council Bill No. 48 The Parks & Recreation Department recommends City Council adopt
a bill for an ordinance to approve an Intergovernmental Agreement amending the
previous agreement (Council Bill No. 56, Ordinance No. 50 , series of 2014) which
established funding for the RiverRun Project. Staff: Recreation Services Manager, Joe
Sack
b. Approval of Ordinances on Second Reading.
c. Resolutions and Motions.
i. The Community Development Department recommends City Council adopt by resolution
the Englewood Light Rail Corridor Next Steps Study as a supplementary City plan
document in support of the original Englewood Light Rail Corridor Plan, as well as
Pl ea se note: If yo u h ave a dis abili ty and n ee d auxili ary aid s or se rv ices, pl ease no tify th e City o f Engl ewood
(303-762-2405} at leas t 4 8 h o urs in adva nce of w hen se rv ices are nee ded .
Englewood City Council Agenda
September 21 , 2015
Page 3
Roadmap Englewood: The 2003 Englewood Comprehensive Plan, and Englewood
Forward: The 2016 Englewood Comprehensive Plan. Staff: Planner II, John Voboril
12. General Discussion.
a. Mayor's Choice.
b. Council Members' Choice.
13. City Manager's Report.
14. City Attorney's Report.
15. Adjournment.
Please note: If you have a disability and need auxiliary aids or services, please notify the City of Englewood
(303-762-2405) at least 48 hours in advance of when se rvices are needed.
Ketp111 811 Ptt,le heel
H 0 Pf:esource Center
Helplng Our People Excel
H1lpln9 Our People Excel
Helping Our People Excel (HOPE) is a nonprofit hunger relief organization.
HOPE's Mission is to distribute healthy nutritious food to families and indi-
viduals in need and to engage our clients and connect them with local
community resources.
HOPE's Vision is for clients to receive the support they need to become
thriving members of healthy, vibrant communities.
HOPE's Core Values include accessibility of programs, quality of food and
services, respectfor the dignity and independence of clients, adaptability
to the diverse needs of clients, collaboration and resource sharing, and
organizational sustainability.
Shop for a Cause!
Wed-Sat, 1 Oam-6pm
3940 S. Broadway
All proceeds benefit HOPE's direct client services.
Food Distribution
Lakewood
HOPE
Helping Our People Excel
Hunger in Colorado
Almost 14% of the state's population---694,842, Coloradans-lived in poverty during 2012. That includes 18% of all
children under the age of 18 in Colorado.
More than 840,000 Coloradans-16 .2% of the population-faced food hardship in 2012, meaning that they experienced a
time when there was not enough money to buy food for themselves or their family .
More than 25% of working families in Colorado do not have enough food to meet their basic needs .
In comparison to other states , Colorado ranks 25 1h in school breakfast participation and 49th in SNAP participation.
State participation rates in the major nutrition assistance programs have improved but numbers still remain low, including:
• Food Assistance (SNAP/Food Stamps) -55%
• School Breakfast Program -46%
• Summer Food Service Program -13 .2%
In 2011, SNAP generated $763 million in revenue for Colorado . For example, each dollar spent with food stamps
equals $1.84 in economic activity ($5=$9). SNAP helps increase grocery stores ' revenue , hire new people, and helps
free up participating families ' budgets to purchase other needed items .
Senior Hunger
Across the United States we are experiencing a major demographic shift as "baby boomers" reach their 60s and
beyond . This also means that more seniors will be at risk of hunger. Colorado is not an exception:
• From 2001 to 2010 , the number of older adults experiencing a threat of hunger has increased by 78%.
• In 2009, 18% of Coloradans aged 60 or over were living at or below 150% of the poverty line, an income
that is widely considered to be insufficient to meet the basic needs of housing, food, and healthcare .
• An estimated 9 .65% of seniors in Colorado did not know where their next meal was coming from in 2010 .
Food insecurity forces seniors to make choices between food , nutrition , heat or medicine. Some just do not have the resources
to access or prepare food due to lack of transportation, functional limitations or health problems .
Childhood Hunger
Colorado has one of the fastest growing rates of childhood poverty in the nation . Between 2002 and 2010 , the rate of child
poverty increased 86% in the state .
Nearly 1 in 4 households with children (22%) in Colorado reported food hardship between 2008 and 2012.
Children aged 0-5 are most at risk of living in homes without enough food .
Children who are food insecure are two times more likely to be obese than their peers who have access to enough food at all
times.
3940 S. Broadway
Englewood, CO 80113
303.762.7986
info@hope-online.org
Helping Our People Excel
www .hope-online.org
A FAMILY EVENT WITH UVE MUSE, BEVERAGES FOR All AGES,
FOOD, VENOORS, FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT AND A SILENT AlETION .
.......................................................................................
Sata•clap
Septe111lte• 26th, 2015
ll100a111 to 6100p111
.................................. , .................. .
3940 S BROADWAY
ENGLEWOOD,
co 80113
Lou Ellis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Leigh Ann Hoffhines on behalf of Council
Monday, September 21, 2015 4:19 PM
#City Council
Lou Ellis; Sharon Washington; Stephanie Carlile
FW : Cancel speech 09 .21.15
FYI -Ms. Stewart will not be able to attend this evening's meet i ng .
Leigh Ann
Le igh Ann Hoffhines
En glewood City Man age r's Office
From: Garnett Stewart [mailto:garnettstewart@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 3:24 PM
To: Eric Keck; Council; Doug Cohn Of Englewood Historical; Tom Munds Community Editor Englewood Herald
Subject: cancel speech 09.21.15
Dear City Council and City Manager:
I must cancel my speech tonight and I apologize for the late change of plans . I have been unable to end this
migraine headache all day.
I asked candidates to bring their bios and platforms . So Torn , please collect from the candidates whatever they
bring.
If Torn is not there Doug would you please assist in this matter?
I hope the meeting is a good one and then the recordings are clear because I will be listening to them soon.
Respectfully,
Garnett Stewart
1
Doug Cohn submitted this illustration 9-21-15
Eng. Municipal Code Title 16-chapter 6 -1
Bulk Plane Requirements.
1. Intent. The bulk plane requirements in this subsection are
intended to ensure that new residential development, including
additions and expansions of existing dwellings, provides
adequate light and privacy to neighboring properties. In
addition, the bulk plane requirements are intended to assure
greater design compatibility in terms of building mass and
scale within Englewood neighborhoods.
2. The high angle is summer (70 degrees), the low is winter (30
degrees) Those are the sun angles in Denver on June 21 and
Dec. 21.
3. Solar panels are blocked from the sun.
PUBLIC COMMENT ROSTER
AGENDA ITEM 7
UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT
September 21, 2015
Speakers must sign up for Unscheduled Public Comment
at the beginning of the meeting.
Please limit your presentation to three minutes
PLEASE PRINT
NAME ADDRESS TOPIC
£HE ILG-EAJc 'j
kA'\t-\) NEA~'i 33os S'.CLAR-~So;J 7oei SEf!-VLcE
I ~
~=.!....!.-+-.!14µ=-<-!..~~~__._..'-'--+-~-=-+:..u...J..~~~~__:_:;_;:__.LL.:..-.:.J--L..""-'=<~s5:_~M~v
11 ~v;: C6o>->.W 111JD 5. g-z,.,%w4 /{o~
rrd!Ebrr~ 4/&20 S. Pv4kfl
Good Evening Council, Mayor Penn, Mr. Keck, and Mr. Brotzman.
As a long time resident of Englewood for 61 years, and in regards to the planning
for Englewood's future for the next 20 years, I agree with Councilman Joe
Jefferson's suggestion that the final report and vote be slowed down. What is the
rush when the future of Englewood is at stake?
A lot of time and effort has gone into the Comprehensive Plan, Walk N Wheels,
Next Step and Rebranding etc., which sounds wonderful and it is exciting to see
the impute from citizens and the city working together, however, what about the
financial cost and how much will the changes cost the city? I would like to know.
I agree with those who say each one of the above plans deserve thoughtful
consideration along with a process that allows citizens and the new council
members the time and opportunity to participate and evaluate the plan and cost
to the city.
With the city election coming up in a few short weeks some may say it is the
responsibility of the new members of council to know what is going on and that is
true, but how many do? The changes in our growing city are huge and there is a
learning curve that all of you council members went through yourselves and the
same will be true for them. Did you as new city council members already know all
the ins and outs of governing and what the cost of running a city really is?
Some are more informed then others and yet do they know all that has
transpired and all the changes made, do they know all the facts of the financial
cost to the city? Do the citizens know this? These new council members will be
called upon to make decisions they may not be ready for, and these decisions
decide the future of our City of Englewood.
I call upon this sitting council and for the love you profess to have for your City of
Englewood, to please consider Joe's encouraging suggestion to slow down and
not rush into these huge decisions to be made and decide our fate for years to
come. We don't want to lose more of our city because of decisions hastily made.
Thank you, Ida May Nicholl September21, 2015
• COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Date Agenda Item Subject:
September 21, 2015 9bi Intergovernmental Agreements
between the City and Arapahoe
County-2nd reading
INITIATED BY: STAFF SOURCE:
Community Development Department Harold J. Stitt, Senior Planner
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
Council passed Ordinance No. 25, Series of 2012 relating to the participation in the Urban County
Entitlement Program for CDBG and HOME funds for fiscal years 2013 through 2015; Resolution No. 71,
Series of 2013 supporting the submission of applications for 2014 CDBG funding; Ordinance 3 7, Series of
2014 approving an IGA with Arapahoe County for 2014 CDBG funding; and Resolution No. 79, Series of
2014 supporting the submission of applications for 201 5 CDBG funding.
This proposed Ordinance was approved on first reading on September 8, 2015 .
• RECOMMENDED ACTION
Approve a Bill for an Ordinance, on second reading, authorizing the execution of an Intergovernmental
Subgrantee Agreement for the 2015 Arapahoe County Community Development Block Grant Program
between the Arapahoe Board of County Commissioners and the City of Englewood.
BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED
The Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program provides grants to units of local
government and urban counties to meet housing and community development needs. The objective of the
Program is achieved through projects developed by the local government that are designed to give priority
to those activities that benefit low and moderate-income families. Funds are allocated by statutory formula
to each entitlement area. Arapahoe County is an approved entitlement area. The grant funds are
distributed by Arapahoe County to each participating city within the county.
For FY2015, funds were approved to support the following project:
$127,500 for the Energy Efficient Englewood (E3) project to provide matching grants to fifteen low to
moderate income homeowners for energy efficiency interior and exterior home
improvements; and,
An additional $22,500 of the City's $150,000 allocation of CDBG funds was approved by Arapahoe County
to support the House of Hope Staffing project. It was requested that Arapahoe County contract directly
• .vith Family Tree for the administration of this project.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The existing employees in Community Development are available to administer the projects and their
salaries and benefits are part of the City's contribution. The City will utilize a portion of the CDBG funding
from both projects (est. $4,000) to partially offset the costs of those salaries and benefits.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Bill for an Ordinance
Subgrantee Agreement
•
•
•
•
ORDINANCE NO.
SERIES OF 2015
BY AUTHORITY
COUNCIL BILL NO. 46
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER OLSON
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SUBGRANTEE AGREEMENT FOR A 2015 COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) BETWEEN THE ARAPAHOE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Englewood approved the execution of an
Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Englewood and Arapahoe County by passage
of Ordinance No. 25, Series of 2012, covering the City's participation in the Arapahoe County
CDBG Entitlement Program for funding years 2013 through 2015; and
WHEREAS, the Englewood City Council passed Resolution 79, Series of 2014, that
authorized Housing and Community Development to submit an application for 2015 CDBG
funding; and
WHEREAS, the Energy Efficient Englewood Project has been categorized as a housing
• rehabilitation activity.
•
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. The Subgrantee Agreement for Arapahoe County Community Development Block
Grant Funds -Subgrantee: City of Englewood, Project Name: Energy Efficient Englewood (E3)
Project Number: ENHS 1503, attached hereto as Attachment 1, is hereby accepted and approved
by the Englewood City Council.
Section 2. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds are Federal Housing and
Urban Development funds which are administered through Arapahoe County, Colorado .
Section 3. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Agreements for and on behalf of the
City of Englewood, Colorado .
Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 8th day of September, 2015.
Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 10th day of
September, 2015.
Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City's official website beginning on the 9th day of
September, 2015 for thirty (30) days.
Read by title and passed on final reading on the 21st day of September, 2015 .
1
Published by title in the City's official newspaper as Ordinance No._, Series of 2015, on
the 24th day of September, 2015.
Published by title on the City's official website beginning on the 23rd day of
September, 2015 for thirty (30) days.
Randy P. Penn, Mayor
ATTEST:
Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk
I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the
above and foregoing is a true copy of the Ordinance passed on final reading and published by
title as Ordinance No._, Series of2015.
Loucrishia A. Ellis
2
•
•
•
•
•
•
SUBGRANTEEAGREE1\1ENTFOR
ARAPAHOE COUNTY
COMMUNITYDEVELOP1\1ENTBLOCKGRANTFUNDS
SUBGRANTEE: City of Englewood
PROJECT NAME: Energy Efficient Englewood (E3)
PROJECT NUMBER: ENHS1503
This Agreement is made by and between the Board of County Commissioners of the County of
Arapahoe, State of Colorado, for the Community Development Block Grant Program in the
Community Resources Department (hereinafter referred to as the County) and City of Englewood
(hereinafter referred to as the SubGrantee) for the conduct of a Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Project.
I. PURPOSE
The primary objective of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as
amended, and of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program under this Title is the
development of viable urban communities, by providing decent housing, a suitable living
environment and expanding economic opportunities, principally for low and moderate income
persons.
The project by the SubGrantee known as Energy Efficient Englewood (E3) (Project) will be
carried out in accordance with the Scope of Services, attached to, and incorporated herein as Exhibit
A.
The SubGrantee may proceed to incur costs for the Project upon receipt of an official "Notice to
Proceed" from the County.
II. WORK TO BE COMPLETED BY THE SUBGRANTEE
The grant funds are to be used only to provide services to Arapahoe County residents, excluding
residents of the city of Aurora, per County CDBG guidelines.
A. Payment
It is expressly agreed and understood that the total amount to be paid by the County under
this contract shall not exceed $127,SOO. Drawdowns for the payment of eligible expenses
shall be made against the line item budgets specified in the Project Budget and in
accordance with performance criteria established in Exhibit A Scope of Services. The
parties expressly recognize that the SubGrantee is to be paid with CDBG funds received
from the federal government, and that the obligation of the County to make payment to
SubGrantee is contingent upon receipt of such funds. In the event that said funds, or any
part thereof, are, or become, unavailable, then the County may immediately terminate or,
amend this agreement. To the extent C.R.S. § 29-1-110 is applicable, any financial
1
A
T
T
A
c
H
M
E
N
T
1
obligation of the County to the SubGr~tee beyond the current fiscal year is also contingent
upon adequate funds be~g appropriated, budgeted and otherwise available.
·Upon expiration of this Agr~eme~t, as .identified by the Agreement Date and Project
Deadline (Deadline) in Exhibit A, the SubGrantee shall transfer to the County any CDBG
funds on hand at the time of expiration and any accounts receivable attributable to the use
of CDBO funds. These transferred funds shall revert to the County and be utilized for
other purposes.
B. Tiineline
All Project activities shall be completed and draw requests submitted by the Deadline unless
the Subgrantee notifies the County in writing thirty (30). days prior to the Deadline that the
funds cannot be disbursed. An extension may be granted, in writing, in which all draw
requests be submitted and Project activities shall be completed by thirty (30) days _following
the Deadline. In the event that the completion deadline falls on a weekend or holiday, the
Deadline will be considered the work day prior to the scheduled completion date. If the
project requires additional time past the extended Deadline, the Agreement must be
modified by mutual agreement of the County and the SubGrantee.
C. Performance Criteria
In accordance with the funding application submitted by the SubGrantee for the Project, the
criteria listed below are to be met during the execution of the Project as identified in Exhibit
A Scope of Services.
1. Quantifiable Goals
2. Community Impact
3. Monthly Performance Standards
D. Reporting Requirements
1. Project reports will be due within twenty (20) days following the end of each
reporting period as specified in Exhibit A Scope of Services until the Project is
completed. , .
2. , The official annual audit and/or Financial Statements for the SubGrantee in
which both revenues and expenditures for the CDBG Projects described herein
are detailed are due annually. The last completed official annual audit report
and/or Financial Statements shall be. due on May 31, and for four (4) years
thereafter on May 31 ~ .
3. Non-profit organizations that expend $500,000 or more annually in federal
funds shall comply with the Single Audit Act of 1984, as amended, as
implemented in OMB Uniform Guidance §200.501, and other applicable
federal regulations. ·
2
•
•
•
• Ill.
•
•
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SUBGRANTEE
A. Federal Compliance
The SubGrantee shall comply with all applicable federal laws, regulations and requirements,
and all provisions of the grant agreements received from the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) by the County. These include but are not limited to
compliance with the provisions of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974
and all rules, regulations, guidelines and circulars promulgated by the various federal
departments, agencies , administrations and commissions relating to the CDBG Program. A
listing of some of the applicable laws and regulations are as follows:
1. 24 CFR Part 570;
2. 24 CFR Parts 84 and 85 as applicable per 24 CFR 570.502;
3. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
4. Title VIlI of the Civil Rights Act of 1968;
5. Sections 104(b) and 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974;
6. Fair housing regulations established in the Fair Housing Act, Public Law 90-
284, and Executive Order 11063;
7. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;
8. Asbestos guidelines established in CPD Notice 90-44;
9. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (Public Law 94-163) and 24 CFR Part
39;
10. Non-discrimination in employment, established by Executive Order 11246;
11. Equal employment opportunity and minority business enterprise regulations
established in 24 CFR part 570.904;
12. Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968;
The purpose of section 3 is to ensure that employment and other economic
opportunities generated by certain HUD financial assistance
shall, to the greatest extent feasible, and consistent with existing Federal, State
and local laws and regulations, be directed to low-and very low income
persons, particularly those who are recipients of government assistance for
housing, and to business concerns which provide economic opportunities to
low-and very low-income persons.
13. Federal procurement rules when purchasing · services, supplies, materials, or
equipment. The applicable federal regulations are contained in: 24 CFR Part
85 or through 24 CFR Part 84, as applicable;
14. Lead Based Paint regulations established in 24 CFR Parts 35 and 570.608;
15. Audit Requirements established in OMB Uniform Guidance §200.501; and
16. Cost principles established in OMB Uniform Guidance §200.430 and §200.431
as applicable per 24 CFR 570.502;
17. Conflict of Interest:
a) Applicability .
3
c)
d)
( 1) In the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction, and
services by the County and by the SubGrantee, the conflict of interest
provisions in 24 CFR 85.36 and 24 CFR 84.42, respectively shall
apply.
(2) In all cases not governed by 24 CFR 85.36 and 84.42, the
provisions of 24 CFR 570.611 (2) shall apply. Such cases include
the acquisition and disposition of real property and the provision of
assistance by the County or by its SubGrantees to individuals,
businesses, and other private entities under eligible activities that
authorize such assistance (e.g., rehabilitation, preservation, and
other improvements of private properties or facilities pursuant to
24 CFR 570.202; or grants, loans, and other assistance to
businesses, individuals, and other private entities pursuant to 24
CPR 570.203, 570.204, 570.455, or 570.703 (i)).
b) Conflicts prohibited. The general rule is that persons
described in paragraph (c) of this section who exercise or have
exercised any functions or responsibilities with respect to CDBG
activities assisted under this part, or who are in a position to
participate in a decision-making process or gain inside information
with regard to such activities, may not obtain a financial interest or
benefit from a CDBG-assisted activity, either for themselves or
those with whom they have business or irmneiliatc fau.i.ily . tlc~,
during their tenure or for one year thereafter.
Persons covered. The conflict of interest provisions of paragraph
(b) of this section apply to any person who is an employee, agent,
consultant, officer, or elected official or appointed official of the
County, or any designated public agencies, or of the SubGrantee
that are receiving funds under this part.
Exceptions. Upon the written request of the County, HUD may grant
an exception to the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section on a
case-by-case basis when it has satisfactorily met the threshold
requirements of (d)(l) of this section, taking into account the
cumulative effects of paragraph ( d)(2) of this section.
( 1) Threshold requirements. HUD will consider an exception
only after the County has provided the following documentation:
i. A disclosure of the nature of the conflict, accompanied by
an assurance that there has been public disclosure of the
conflict and a description of how the public disclosure
was made; and
ii. An opinion of the County's attorney that the interest for
which the exemption is sought would not violate State or
local law.
•
•
(2) Factors to be considered for exceptions. In determining
whether to grant a requested exception after the County has
satisfactorily met the requirements of paragraph (d)(l) of this section,
HUD shall conclude that such an exception will serve to further the •
4
•
•
•
purposes of the Act and the effective and efficient administration of
the County's program or project, taking into account the following
factors, as applicable:
i. Whether the exception would provide a significant cost
benefit or an essential degree of expertise to the program
or project that would otherwise not be available; .
ii. Whether an opportunity was provided for open
competitive bidding or negotiation; ·
iii. Whether the person affected is a member of a group or
class of low-or moderate-income persons intended to be
the beneficiaries of the assisted activity, and the
exception will permit such person to receive generally the
same interests or benefits as are being made available or
provided to the group or class; .
iv. Whether the affected person has withdrawn from his or
her functions or responsibilities, or the decision making
process with respect to ·the specific assisted activity in
question;
v. Whether the interest or benefit was present before the
affected person was in a position as described in
paragraph (b) of this section;
vi. Whether undue hardship will result either to the County
or the person affected when weighed against the public
interest served by avoiding the prohibited conflict; and
vii. Any other relevant considerations.
18. The SubGrantee cannot engage in a federally funded contract with any entity
registered in the Lists of Parties Excluded From Federal Procurement or
Nonprocurement Programs.
19. Labor Standards (Davis-Bacon)
Except for the rehabilitation of residential property that contains less
than eight (8) units, the SubGrantee, and its contractor and all
subcontractors shall comply with the Davis-Bacon Act, 40 U.S.C.
276a to 276a-7, and applicable regulations of the Department of Labor
under 29 C.F.R. Part 5, requiring the payment of wages at rates of not
less than those prevailing on similar construction in the locality as
determined by . the Secretary of Labor, when the project costs total
$2,000 or more and the work is financed in whole or in part with
assistance provided under this Agreement. The applicable Davis-
Bacon wage rate schedule must be included in all bid and contract
documents, as well as the "Federal Labor Standards Provisions", Fonn
HUD-4010 .
5
20. Lead Based Paint Regulations
If the Project involves acquisition, construction, demolition,
rehabilitation, or any other activity related to residential housing, and
the building was built prior to 1978, Lead Based Paint Laws and
Regulations apply, as established in 24 CFR Parts 35 and 24 CFR
570.608. Further, all applicable federal and state laws relating to
lead-based paint must be followed, including such regulations
promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the
State Department of Public Health and Environment, including
regulations for non-housing buildings. If the SubGrantee does not
follow and document lead based paint laws and regulation
compliance, the SubGrantee will not be eligible for reimbursement.
21. Environmental Review
•
Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement, the parties hereto
agree and acknowledge that this Agreement does not constitute a
commitment of funds or site approval, and that such commitment of
funds or approval may occur only upon satisfactory completion of
environmenial review aml, if required, rel:eipt by Arapahue Cuuuty
of a release of funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development under 24 CFR Part 58. The parties further agree •
that the provision of any funds to the project is conditioned on
Arapahoe County's determination to proceed with, modify, or cancel
the project based on the results of a subsequent environmental
review.
22. Uniform Relocation Act (URA)
The Project is subject to the relocation and acquisition
requirements of the Uniform Relocation Act of 1970, as amended,
and implemented at 49 CFR Part 24; Section 104(d) of the
Housing & Community Development Act, as amended, and
implemented at 24 CFR Part 42; and Displacement, Relocation,
Acquisition, and Replacement of Housing implemented at 24 CFR
570.606. The SubGrantee must comply with the County's Anti
Displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan on file and must pay
all relocation expenses as applicable under the Act. Relocation
payment calculations, records of Relocation payments and all other
Relocation records are subject to County or federal review and
monitoring. The SubGrantee agrees that it will pay any relocation
expenses required by the Act and will reimburse the County for
any relocation payments the County paid as a result of monitoring
6
•
•
•
•
B.
review by the County or any federal agency, as required by the
Act.
Non-Appropriations Clause
The SubGrantee agrees that it will include in every contract . it enters, which relies upon
CDBG monies for funding, a non-appropriation clause that will protect itself, and the
County from any liability or responsibility or . any suit which might result from the
discontinuance of CDBG funding for any reason. Because this SubGrantee Agreement
involves funds from a federal grant, to the extent there is a conflict the funding provisions of
this SubGrantee Agreement, the federal grant and the federal statutes control rather than the
provisions of Section 24-91-103.6, C.R.S. with regard to any public work projects.
C. Expenditure Restrictions
All CDBG funds that are approved by HUD for expenditure under the County's grant
agreement, including those that are identified for the SubGrantee's Projects and activities,
shall be allocated to the specific projects and activities described and listed in the grant
agreements. The allocated funds shall be used and expended only for the projects and
activities for which the funds are identified.
D. Agreement Changes
No projects or activities, nor the amount allocated therefore, may be changed without
approval by the County and acceptance of the revised Final Statement and/or Consolidated
Plan by HUD, if required. Changes must be requested in writing and may not begin until a
modification to this Agreement is fully executed.
E. Direct Project Supervision and Administration
The SubGrantee shall be responsible for the direct supervision and administration of its
respective projects or activities. This task shall be accomplished through the use of the
SubGrantee's staff, agency and employees. The SubGrantee shall be responsible for any
injury to persons or damage to property resulting from the negligent acts or errors and
omissions of its staff, agents and employees. Because the SubGrantee is responsible for the
direct supervision and administration . of its projects or activities, the County shall not be
liable or responsible for cost overruns by the SubGrantee on any projects or activities. The
County shall have no duty or obligation to provide any additional funding to the SubGrantee
if its projects or activities cannot be completed with the funds allocated by the County to the
SubGrantee. Any cost overruns shall be the sole responsibility of the SubGrantee.
1. The SubGrantee agrees that all funds allocated to it for approved projects or
activities shall be used solely for the purposes approved by the County. Said
funds shall not be used for any non-approved purposes .
7
2. The SubGrantee agrees that the funds allocated for any approved projects or •
activities shall be sufficient to complete said projects or activities without any
additional CDBG funding.
F. Indemnity
To the extent allowed by law, the SubGrantee shall indemnify and hold harmless the County
and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents from and against any
and all losses, damages, liabilities, claims, suits, actions or costs, including attorneys fees,
made, asserted or incurred as a result of any damage or alleged damage to person or
property occasioned by the acts or omissions of SubGrantee, its officers, employees, agents,
contractors or subcontractors, arising out of or in any way connected with the Project or the
performance of this contract.
G. Bonding and Insurance
If the SubGrantee's projects involve construction activities, any Contractor it uses for said
activities shall be required to provide and maintain, until final acceptance by the SubGrantee
of all work by such Contractor, the kinds and minimum amounts of insurance as follows:
i. Comprehensive Generai Liability: In the amount of not iess than $ i ,000,000
combined single limit. Coverage to include: •
a. Premises Operations
b. Products/Completed Operations
c. Broad Form Contractual Liability
d. Independent Contractors
e. Broad Form Property Damage
f. Employees as Additional Insured
g. Personal Injury
h. Arapahoe County and the SubGrantee as Additional Named Insured
i. Waiver of Subrogation
2. Comprehensive Automobile Liability: In the amount of not less than
$1,000,000 combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage.
Coverage to include:
a. Arapahoe County and the SubGrantee as additional Named Insured
b. Waiver of Subrogation
3. Employers Liability and Workers Compensation: The Contractor shall
secure and maintain employer's liability and Worker's Compensation
Insurance that will protect it against any and all claims resulting from
injuries to and death of workers engaged in work under any contract funded
pursuant to this agreement. Coverage to include Waiver of Subrogation.
8
•
•
•
•
4. All referenced insurance policies and/or certificates of insurance shall be
subject to the following stipulations:
a. Underwriters shall have no rights of recovery subrogation against
Arapahoe County or the SubGrantee; it being the intent of the parties
that the insurance policies so effected shall protect the parties and be
primary coverage for any and all losses covered by the described
insurance.
b. The clause entitled "Other Insurance Provisions" contained in any
policy including Arapahoe County as an additional named insured
shall not apply to Arapahoe County, or the SubGrantee.
c. The insurance companies issuing the policy or policies shall have no
recourse against Arapahoe County, or the SubGrantee for payment of
any premiums due or for any assessments under any form of any
policy.
d. Any and all deductibles contained in any insurance policy shall be
assumed by and at the sole risk of the Contractor.
5. Certificate of Insurance: The Contractor shall not commence work under
any contract funded pursuant to this Agreement until he has submitted to the
SubGrantee, received approval thereof, certificates of insurance showing that
he has complied with the foregoing insurance requirements. The
SubGrantee shall also submit a copy of the Contractor's certificates of
insurance to the County .
6. Notwithstanding the provisions contained in this paragraph (H) set forth
hereinabove, the County reserves the right to modify or waive said
provisions for projects or activities for which these provisions would prove
prohibitive. The SubGrantee understands, however, that the decision to
waive or modify those provisions is fully within the discretion of the County.
In accordance with 24 CFR parts 84 and 85, the following bonding requirements shall apply
to all projects exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $100,000):
1. A bid guarantee from each bidder equivalent to 5% of the bid price;
2. A performance bond on the part of the contractor for 100% of the contract
price; and
3. A payment bond on the part of the contractor for 100% of the contract price.
H. Records
The SubGrantee shall maintain a complete set of books and records documenting its use of
CDBG funds and its supervision and administration of the Project. Records are to include
documentation verifying Project eligibility and national objective compliance, as well as
financial and other administrative aspects involved in performing the Project. The
SubGrantee shall provide full access to these books and records to the County, the Secretary
of HUD or his designee, the Office of the Inspector General, and the General Accounting
9
Office so that compliance with Federal laws and regulations may be confirmed. The •
SubGrantee further agrees to provide to the County upon request, a copy of any audit reports
pertaining to the SubGrantee's financial operations during the termof this Agreement. All
records pertaining to the Project are to be maintained for a minimum of five years following
close-out of the Project.
I. Reporting
The SubGra.ntee shall file all reports and other information necessary to comply with
applicable Federfil laws and regulations as required by the County and HUD. This shall
include providing to the County the information necessary to complete annual Performance
Reports in a timely fashion. ·
J. Timeliness
The SubGrantee shall comply with the performance standards established in Exhibit A of
this Agreement. The SubGrantee understands that failure to comply with the established
standards may lead to a cancellation of the Project and a loss of all unexpended funds.
K. Reimbursement for Expenses
The SubGrantee agrees that before the County can distribute any CDBG funds to it, the
SubGrantee must submit to the Councys Housing and Community Deveiopment Services
Division documentation in the form required by that Division 'Nhich properly and fully •
identifies the amount which the SubGrantee is requesting at that time. The County shall
have ten ( 10) working days to review the request. Upon approval of the request, the County
will distribute the requested funds to the SubGrantee as soon as possible.
L. Program Income
All program income directly derived from the Arapahoe County Community Development
Block Grant Program received by the SubGrantee will be returned to the County unless
authorized in Exhibit A Scope of Services to be retained by the SubGrantee and dispersed
for its approved CDBG Project activities. If the retention and re-use of Program Income is
Authorized, it must be dispersed for its approved CDBG Project activities before additional
CDBG funds are requested from the County. Following completion of the SubGrantee's
Arapahoe County CDBG Projects, all program income directly generated from the use of
CDBG funds will be remitted to the County.
M. Real Property
Real property acquired in whole or in part with CDBG funds shall be utilized in accordance
with the scope and goals identified in Exhibit A Scope of Services attached to and made a
part of this Agreement. Should the property in question be sold or otherwise disposed of, or
the approved property usage discontinued, theSubGrantee shall adher~ to the requirements
of 24 CPR Parts 84 or 85 (as applicable) regarding the use and disposition of real property .
10
•
•
•
•
N. State and County Law Compliance
All responsibilities of the SubGrantee enumerated herein shall be subject to applicable State
of Colorado statutes and County ordinances, resolutions, rules, and regulations.
O. Subcontracts
If subcontracts are used on the Project, the SubGrantee agrees that the provisions of this
Agreement shall apply to any subcontract.
P. Suspension or Termination
This Agreement may be immediately suspended or terminated upon written notification
from the County if the SubGrantee materially fails to comply with any term of this
Agreement. This Agreement may also be terminated for convenience by mutual agreement
of the County and the SubGrantee.
Q. Urban County Designation
In the event that the Unit of General Local Government should withdraw from the County's
"Urban County" designation, this Agreement shall terminate as of the termination date of the
County's CDBG grant Agreement with HUD .
R. Certification
The SubGrantee certifies that to the best of its knowledge and belief:
1. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on
behalf of it, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an
· officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or
employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in
connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the maldng of any
Federal grant, the maldng of any Federal loan, the entering into of any
cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal,
amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or
cooperative agreement; and,
2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be
paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or
employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of
Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this
Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, it will complete and
submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in
accordance with its instructions .
11
s. Disallowance
If it is determined by HUD or other federal agency that the expenditure, in whole or in part,
for the SubGrantee's Project or activity was improper, inappropriate or ineligible for
reimbursement, then the SubGrantee shall reimburse the County to the full extent of the
disallowance.
T. Reversion of Assets
Upon expiration of this Agreement, the SubGrantee shall transfer to the County any CDBG
funds on hand at the time of expiration and any accounts receivable attributable to the use
of CDBG funds. Any real property under the SubGrantee's control that was acquired or
improved in whole or in part with CDBG funds (including CDBG funds provided to the
SubGrantee in the form of a loan) in excess of $25 ,000 is either: .
(i) Used to meet one of the national objectives in §570.208 (formerly §570.901)
until five years after expiration of the agreement, or for such longer period of time
as determined to be appropriate by the County and specified in Exhibit A Scope
of Services; or
(ii) Not used in accordance with national objectives in §570.208 (formerly
§570.901), in which event the SubGrantee shall pay to the County an amount
•
equal to the current market value of the property less any portion of the value •
attributable to expenditures of non-CDBG funds for the acquisition of, or
improvement to, the property.
IV. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COUNTY
A. Administrative Control
The Parties recognize and understand that the County will be the governmental entity
required to execute all grant agreements received from HUD pursuant to the County's
requests for CDBG funds. Accordingly, the SubGrantee agrees that as to its projects or
activities performed or conducted under any CDBG agreement, the County shall have the
necessary administrative control required to meet HUD requirements.
B. Performance and Compliance Monitoring
The County's administrative obligations to the SubGrantee pursuant to paragraph A above
shall be limited to the performance of the administrative tasks necessary to make CDBG
funds available to the SubGrantee and to provide Housing and Community Development
Services staff whose job it will be to monitor the various projects funded with CDBG
monies to monitor compliance with applicable Federal laws and regulations.
12 .
•
•
•
•
v.
C. Reporting to HUD
The County will be responsible for seeing that all necessary reports and information
required of the County are filed with HUD and other applicable Federal agencies in a timely
fashion. · ·
EXTENT OF THE AGREEl\fENT
This agreement, including any documents attached as exhibits which are hereby
incorporated herein by reference, represents the entire and integrated agreement between the
County, and SubGrantee and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or
agreements, either written or oral. Any amendments to this agreement must be in writing
and signed by both the County, and SubGrantee. If any portion of this agreement is found
by a court of competent jurisdiction to be void and/or unenforceable, it is the intent of the
parties that the remaining portions of this agreement shall be of full force and effect. .
VI. NOTICES
Notices to be provided under this Agreement shall be given in writing and either delivered
by hand or deposited in the United States mail with sufficient postage to the addresses set
forth:
To the County: Arapahoe County Attorney
5334 S. Prince Street
Littleton, CO 80120-1136
Arapahoe County Housing and Community Development
1690 W . Littleton Blvd., #300
Littleton, CO 80120-2069
To the SubGrantee: City of Englewood
1000 Englewood Parkway
Englewood, CO 80110
Attn: Nancy Fenton
13
In Witness Whereof, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed this
_____ day of ,2015.
SubGrantee: City of Englewood
Signature
Randy P. Penn, Mayo~
N rune & Title
Board of County Commissioners
Arapahoe County, Colorado
Don Klemme on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners
Pursuant to Resolution #150211
•
•
•
14
•
•
•
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
FOR CDBG REHAB
Project Name: Englewood -Energy Efficiency Englewood (E3)
Program Name: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
CFDA #: CDBG 14.218
Project#: ENHS 1503
AGREEMENT AMOUNT: $127,500
AGREEMENT END DATE AND PROJECT DEADLINE: 4/30/2016
INTRODUCTION
This Scope of Services is attached to and incorporated into the SubGrantee Agreement between the
Board of County Commissioners of the County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado and the City of Englewood
(SubGrantee) as referenced in the Agreement. The purpose of this Scope of Services is to further
describe the project requirements referenced in Section II. C. -Performance Criteria of the SubGrantee
Agreement.
1. FEDERAL REGULATORY INFORMATION
CDBG National Objective 1: Benefit to low-and moderate-income (LMI) housing
HUD Matrix Code:
Accomplishment Type:
14A Rehab: Single Unit Residential Proposed Number of
beneficiaries*:
10 LMC Household
14
*Beneficiaries are to be counted by the number of total number of D PEOPLE or [81 HOUSEHOLDS
who will benefit from the project (including all members of a household).
The Project will be carried out under the:
D CDBG Area Benefit definition [81 CDBG limited Clientele definition
For limited Clientele Activities: Select which method of income verification will be used:
D Self-Certification [81 Verification with supporting income documentation
If income will be verified2
, select the method that will be used to determine annual household income:
D N/ A [81 Part 5 Section 8 D Census Long Form D IRS Form 1040 Long Form
1 Change to appropriate National Objective if necessary.
2 For descriptions of each income verification method and required documentation, go to:
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/training/web/calculator/calculator.cfm
This website provides an on-line income calculator for each of the three verification methods. The use of the calculator is required and a print-
out of the completed calculator for each household assisted must be maintained on file .
Page 1
2. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION/PERFORMANCE GOALS
a. Purpose (short description of program purpose)
·The E3 project will provide grants up to $8,000 with a homeowner's match of 20% for
conservation and energy efficiency repairs and upgrades to preserve the existing housing stock
in Englewood. Due to the fact that 66% of the houses in Englewood were built before 1970 and
83% of the houses were built prior to 1980, a significant number of these homes require energy
efficiency repairs and upgrades to preserve the housing stock and keep residents housed in safe
homes. The E3 program is only available to City of Englewood homeowners meeting low to
moderate income requirements (0-80% AMI). The program provides an incentive to lower
income families to encourage conservation and energy efficiency upgrades.
b. Goals and Community Impact
To provide grants to 14 single family homeowners in Englewood, preserving the city housil)g
stock supporting low to moderate income residents.
c. Project Address-throughout Arapahoe County
Sites within Englewood city limits; addresses are unknown at this time.
d. Name of Organization Carrying out the Activity-City of Englewood
Organization is: C8]Another unit of local gov't; 0Another public agency; OcBDO only; D
Subrecipient only; Ocsoo designated as subrec1p1ent
•
e. local Jurisdictions rules and regulations/ ADA •
SubGrantee agrees that it has read and understands the local jurisdiction's rules and regulations
and local codes pertaining to the work and that all work will be permitted with the municipality
and completed according to its rules and regulations. SubGrantee will perform the work in
accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
f. Detailed Program Requirements
The responsibilities of the City of Englewood for implementation of the program will include:
• Market the program;
• Accept all applications;
• Determine applicants' eligibility and approve or deny grants;
• Maintain a list of approved contractors;
• Complete a Site Specific Environmental Review;
• Contact Arapahoe County Weatherization, if eligible refer client;
• Determine needs and develop comprehensive work specifications based on
Energy Audit;
• Prepare client documentation;
• Monitor rehab activity;
• Comply with lead-based paint regulations and ensure that tenants, owners
and contractors are aware of their rights, responsibilities and options;
• Maintain program activity records and produce reports as set forth in this
contract;
Page 2
•
•
•
•
• Comply with State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Agreement for work
completed on homes SO years or older, or homes eligible for historic
preservation designation;
• Contact SHPO for war~ on homes SO years or older, or homes eligible for
historic preservation that is not included in the programmatic agreement;
• Homeowner selects company/individual to cond.uct work or purchase
materials. Company name and/or individual name must be matched against
the Federal Excluded Party List System by City staff to insure eligibility to
receive federal funds. This is completed before any work begins. Once
cleared the homeowner is instructed to proceed and to ensure appropriate
permits are obtained, if required, by the Englewood Building and Safety
Division.
• Ensure that costs are reasonable: . . .
o Does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person
under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was
made to incur the cost;
o Is consistent with sound business practices; and
o Is consistent with market prices for similar goods and services;
• Payment may be made either directly to homeowner, upon receipt of paid
invoices, or paid directly to company/individual. Reimbursement is 80% of
the total invoice when a 20% match is required. Copies of checks and
invoices are placed in file;
• Items will meet or exceed energy standards set forth at
www.energystar.gov: and
• Homeowner sign-off on the job being completed as stated in the description
of work.
• Drawdown requests must be accompanied by monthly reports, including
demographics (income, race/ethnicity) for persons served.
• Final drawdown request must be accompanied by a year-end completion
report highlighting project accomplishments, including demographics, as
well as the annual SHPO report.
g. Program Income
Program income is the gross income received by the SubGrantee directly generated from the
use of CDBG funds under this Agreement. Program income includes:
• Proceeds from the sale or lease of property purchased or improved with CDBG funds
until five years after the termination of this Agreement;
• Proceeds from the sale or lease of equipment purchased with CDBG funds;
• Gross income from the use or rental of real or personal property acquired, constructed
or improved by the SubGrantee less costs incidental to the generation of income;
• Payments of principal and interest on loans made by the SubGrantee using CDBG funds;
• Proceeds from the sale of loans or obligations secured by loans made with CDBG funds;
• Interest earned on program income pending its disposition (NOTE: interest earned on
CDBG funds held in revolving loan funds is not program income and must be remitted to
the U.S. Treasury at least annually); and
• Funds collected through special assessments on properties not owned and occupied by
LMI households in order to recover the CDBG portion of a public improvement.
Page~
The County Oauthorizes 18idoes not authorize the SubGrantee to retain Program Income to be
used for eligible CDBG activities. If authorized, Program income may be used for the following
purposes: n/a
Reporting program income: Monthly, the SubGrantee must report to the County on the
amount of Program Income received, less costs incidental to the generation of Program Income.
Any Program Income in excess of the amount of CDBG funds identified in Section i. Budget must
be repaid to the County.
i. Budget
ITEM TOTAL AMT. PD BY
BUDGET COUNTY
Admin-Personnel Costs 30,000 7856
Admin-Lead Based 7,644 7,644
Paint Testin
Grants for Energy 140,000 112,000
Efficienc
.· $177644 ' :' ' . . '· ····'·: i:·,:· .. 121,~90 .·:· ..
The amounts in each budget line Item may be adjusted with the written approval of the County; provided, however, that the
total amount of the award does not change.
Retalnage: Up to 5% of each draw may be retained to ensure that the work is completed satisfactorily. Retalnage withheld will
be paid within 50 days upon the completion and satisfactory inspection of the work.
3. DRAW REQUESTS
Draw requests are due for each calendar month by the 20th day of the following month. Draw requests
must include:
a. Draw cover sheet showing itemized list of expenditures (HCDS form)
b. Supporting documentation (check all that apply):
181 Third-party invoices or receipts
[gl Check copies showing payment cashment (cancelled checks)
D Lien Waivers
D Davis-Bacon Certified Payrolls
k8J Federal Accountability and Transparency Act form (Attachment 1)*
*Per the Federal Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 as amended, campensat/on data for certain
officials must be reported. The report form is attached herein as Attachment 1. This form must be
submitted with the first draw request and updated if there are changes
k8J Site Specific Environmental Review checklists
Note: Payments on draws submitted after May 20 may be delayed due to end-of-year HUD reporting
Page4
•
•
•
•
•
4. REPORTING
Data collection must be completed demonstrating income eligibility and achievements met towards
meeting the objectives described in Section 2 Activity Description. The disbursement of funds is
contingent upon the receipt of the required information.
Reports are due for each calendar month by the 20th day of the following month. Reports must include:
• No. of beneficiaries served during the reporting period
• Demographic information* for D the individual served, or [81 each household
• Household income* (if applicable)
• Brief narrative report on activities contained in Section 2
• Program Income
*HCDS will provide a form for the collection of beneficiary income and demographic information;
however, the SubGrantee may use its own form, or a form used for another fund source for the same
program, provided that the following information is collected:
• Unique identifier: Name and address
• Whether the head of household is female and/or disabled
• Whether the head of household is aged 62 years or older
• Total number of household members
• Total income of all household members
• Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino OR Not Hispanic or Latino of each household member
• The race of each household member:
White
Black or African American
Asian
American Indian or Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian or Other pacific Islander
American Indian or Alaska Native and White
Asian and White
Black or African American and White
American Indian or Alaska Native and Black or African American
Other Multi-Racial
NOTE: Both ethnicity AND race category must be selected for each household member
• Signature attesting to the accuracy of the information submitted.
5. RECORD-KEEPING AND MONITORING
SubGrantee shall retain on file the following documents for a period of five years beyond the final close-
out of this grant. Files shall be made available to Arapahoe County, the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, the Office of Inspector General, the General Accounting Office, or any other
federal regulatory agency, upon request for monitoring purposes.
Each property file must contain:
• 1. Agreement between County and Subrecipient
Page5
2. Draw Requests and supporting documentation (see Section 3 Draw Requests)
3. Annual audits
4. Homeowner application for assistance
5. Source documents used to determine income eligibility and income verification calculator print-
out (if HUD income calculator is used)
6. Agreement between the SubRecipient and homeowner
7. Promissory Note and Deed of Trust, including any addenda, if applicable
8. Title check or copy of deed, documenting ownership of property
9. Site Specific environmental reviews approved by the County
10. EPLS check on contractor and subcontractors used
11. Copy of Flood Insurance Certificate or Policy, if property is located in a FEMA 100-year flood plan
12. Work write-up/scope of work
13. Documentation that the work was conducted per the approved rehab standards and the local
jurisdiction's housing codes
14. Copies of initial and final inspections and check-lists, performed by a licensed contractor
15. Lien waivers obtained for progress payments and final payment from all contractors and
subcontractors
16. Beneficiary Data (see Section 4 Reporting)
FP!l CQUi,tjJJ's~9'~~~S-: ~pDE~Al !PIS·~Mo~;ft~G,
1. Performance Goal: Ocreate suitable living environments; 181Provide decent affordable housing; Ocreate economic opportunities
2. Performance Outcome: 0 Availability/Accessibility; 0 Affordability; ~Sustainability
3. Check box If project address is to be marked as confidential 0
4. Activity Purpose: 0Prevent Homelessness; 0Heip the Homeless; 0Help those with HIV/AIDS; 0Help persons with disabilities
5. 0Accompllshments to be reported at another activity: IDIS # __
6. Activity being carried out by Grantee? Dyes; 181no If yes, activity Is being carried out through: 0Employees; D Contractors; 0
Both
7. If Agreement Is with another County department, the activity will be carried out by: Ocounty employees; Ocontractors;
Death
8. Area Type: OcDFO Area; 0Local Target Area; Ostrategy Area
9. Special Characteristics: 0Presidentially Declared major Disaster Area; 0Historic Preservation Area; Oerownfleld Redevelopment
Area -indicate number of acres remediated:
10. Activity Information: Done-for-One Replacement; 0Displacement; 0Favored Activity; Ospecial Assessment; 0Revolving Fund;
0Float Funded
Page6
•
•
•
•
•
•
Attachment 1
Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA)
In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation Clause 52.204-10, reporting is required for awards of $25,000 or
more.
Information Field Response
Definitions can be found on the reverse of this fonn.
1. Agency or Jurisdiction DUNS number: Arapahoe County
2. Subrecipient name Receiving Award: City of Englewood
3. Subrecipient Parent DUNS number:
(report if different from agency number
above)
4. Location of Entity Receiving Award:
(full street address)
5. Primary location of Performance of the Award:
(City, State and Congressional District)
Answer True or False (below)
6. In the preceding fiscal year, Contractor received:
a.) $25,000,000 or more in annual gross
revenues from federal procurement
contracts/subcontracts and/or federal .financial
assistance awards or subawards subject to the
Transparency Act.
b.) 80% or more of its annual gross revenues
from federal procurement contracts/subcontracts
and/or federal financial assistance awards or
subawards subiect to the Transparency Act.
c.) The public does not have access to
information about the compensation of its five
most highly compensated Executives through
periodic reports filed through the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 or the IRS.
An answer to quesnon 7 is required ONLY when al.I answers to questions 6 are true.
7. Names and total compensation of the five (5) most highly compensated Executives for the preceding fiscal
year:
Print Name Compensation Amount
Page 7
. .
By signing below, I certify the information contained in this report is complete and accurate to the best of my
knowledge.
Signature of Responsible Administrator and Title Date
Definitions
1. The DUNS Number of the agency receiving the award, which is used as the unique entity
identifier. . .
DUNS Number -Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) -This commercial entity maintains a repository of
unique identifiers (D-U-N-S Numbers), which are nine-digit sequences recognized as the
universal standard for identifying business entities and corporate hierarchies. Any organization
that has a Federal contract or grant must have a DUNS Number.
2. The name of the entify receiving the award; Sub-Grantee, Sub-Recipient; Sub~Awardee.
. . ...
•
3. The DUNS Number of the agency receiving the award (if different than Sub-Recipi~nt in box •
#1 ), which is used as the unique entity identifier. DUNS Number' -Duri and Bradstreet (D&B)
-Tliis commercial entity maintains a repository of unique identifiers (DUNS Numbers); which
are nine-digit sequences recognized as the universal standard for identifying business entities
and corporate hierarchies. Any organization that has a Federal contract or grant must have a
DUNS Number.. . .
4. The business office location of the entity receiving the award u~der the award including the
city, state, congressional district, and country.
5. The primary location of performance under the award including the ci~, state, congressional
district, and country.
6. ThE:) names and total compensation of the five highest-paid officers of an entity if I in the
preceding fiscal year, that entity received: 80% or more of its annual gross revenues in Federal
awards, $25,ooolooo or more in annual gross revenues from Federal awards ; ancUhe public
does not already have access to data on executive compensation through reports filed under
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or section 6104 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986. ·
Page 8
•
• COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Date: Agenda Item: Subject:
September 21, 2015 9bii 2ND READING -Englewood Public Library
Service Agreement with Marmot Library Network
Initiated By: Staff Source:
Library Department Dorothy Hargrove, Director of Library Services
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
Council approved an agreement between the Englewood Public Library and the Marmot Library
Network in July 2012. The Library Department has exercised the annual renewal option in each
subsequent year as provided in the original contract.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Library Department recommends City Council approve by ordinance, on second reading,
the attached "Marmot Library Network Service Agreement with Englewood Public Library" in
order to continue the partnership for another term . The agreement becomes effective January
1, 2016 with options for three additional annual renewals.
• BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED
•
The expected benefits of membership have met or exceeded expectations . The consortium
pricing for the integrated library computer system continues to be significantly below the cost
that an independent vendor would charge and has actually been below initial estimates. The
Marmot system offers cutting-edge customer service, so much so that Marmot is able to sell its
product to other libraries throughout the United States and use the revenue to keep costs low
for full member libraries. Because of Englewood's participation in this network residents have
access to over 4 million items, whether in print or in digital format. Marmot has also been able
to negotiate favorable contracts with publishers and distributors so that the direct cost to the
Englewood Public Library for books and other library materials remains low. The IT support,
staff training, and responsiveness to local needs have all been exemplary.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The 2016 annual expense will be $29, 728 . This is approximately 15% below the 2012 expense
and should remain relatively stable in subsequent years of the proposed contract. These funds
are included in the 2016 proposed Library Department budget so no additional funds will be
required.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Ordinance
•
•
•
ORDINANCE NO.
SERIES OF 2015
BY AUTHORITY
COUNCIL BILL NO. 45
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER OLSON
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN INTER GOVERNMENT AL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD AND THE MARMOT LIBRARY NETWORK.
WHEREAS , The City uses an integrated library system (ILS) to handle basic operations; and
WHEREAS , the Marmot Library Network is a member network of libraries and library
districts, and
WHEREAS, Marmot Library Network provides cost-effective access to an up-to-date ILS as
well as access to shared items in the member libraries' collections, and
WHEREAS , this Network of libraries and library districts will also provide support and
training for library staff at favorable prices; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Englewood approved an IGA with Marmot
Library Network by the passage of Ordinance No. 42, Series of 2012, with annual renewal
options for 3 additional years; and
WHEREAS, the passage of this proposed ordinance will allow for Marmot and the
Englewood Library to continue their partnership in 2016 and provides renewals through
December 2019.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Englewood hereby authorizes the Intergovernmental
Agreement entitled "Marmot Library Network Service Agreement" by and between the City of
Englewood and the Marmot Library Network as attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 2 . The Mayor is authorized to execute and the City Clerk to attest and seal the
Intergovernmental Agreement for and on behalf of the Englewood City Council.
Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 8th day of September, 2015 .
Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 10th day of
September, 2015.
Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City's official website beginning on the 9th day of
September, 2015 for thirty (30) days .
Read by title and passed on final reading on the 21st day of September, 2015.
Published by title in the City's official newspaper as Ordinance No._, Series of 2015, on
the 24th day of September, 2015 .
Published by title on the City's official website beginning on the 23rd day of
September, 2015 for thirty (30) days.
Randy P. Penn, Mayor
ATTEST:
Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk
I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the
above and foregoing is a true copy of the Ordinance passed on final reading and published by
title as Ordinance No. _, Series of 2015.
Loucrishia A. Ellis
•
•
•
•
•
•
MARMOT LIBRARY NETWORK
SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH
Englewood Public Library
This Marmot Library Network Service Agreement ("Agreement") is made by and between Marmot Library
Network, with offices in Grand Junction, Colorado, hereafter referred to as "Marmot," and Englewood Public
Library with administrative offices in Englewood, Colorado, hereafter referred to as "Member."
RECITALS:
A. Member is a public library with one library located in Englewood, Colorado.
B. Marmot is a 501 (c)(3) membership organization providing information technology services to libraries.
C. The parties want to define services to be provided by Marmot to Member, the cost thereof, and the
rights, duties, and obligations of the respective parties.
The parties agree as follows:
1. Definitions.
a. "Member" shall include Member's branch locations, if any, provided that no operations located
at a branch location constitute a separate legal entity apart from the Member.
b. "Network Node" is either A) One telecommunications link to the Marmot Library Network by a
dedicated circuit administered by Marmot; OR B) an Internet data connection administered by
Member .
c. "Access Session" is the unit by which multiple simultaneous library staff users are measured,
limited, and licensed. Each Network Node supports multiple Access Sessions on the Marmot
Library Network.
d. "Enrichment Data" means the form and content licensed by Marmot to be gathered from web
services and displayed in the online public access catalog along with the Member's own
catalog data.
e. "Enrichment Services" means the services by which the Enrichment Data is delivered to
Member, including any software contained therein.
f. "Enrichment Providers" include, but are not limited to such organizations as EBSCO
(Novelist), Bowker (Syndetics), Openlibrary, Googlebooks, and Wikipedia. The list of
Enrichment Providers may change from time to time. Marmot maintains licenses as
appropriate, and passes specific terms and conditions to Member as required. In the event
Marmot changes any of the Enrichment Providers, this Agreement shall apply to all new or
substituted Enrichment Providers.
2. Marmot's Scope of Services. Marmot will provide the following services to Member:
a. Operate and maintain the Marmot Library Network computer systems;
b. Maintain, revise, and upgrade the Marmot Library Network computer hardware and software;
c. Provide user support to include troubleshooting, system analysis, and development;
d. Train Member employees as often as needed and as scheduled by mutual agreement;
E x
H
I
B
I
T
A
e. Inform Member of its responsibilities for the purchase of terminal equipment and materials
required and specified by Marmot to connect to the Marmot Library Network. At Member
request, Marmot will broker the purchase of computer equipment and software according to
the standard fee schedule (Attachment B) or of other equipment and software as mutually
agreed;
f. Install and maintain Marmot administered telecommunications service for Network Nodes, as
detailed in Attachment A, including telecommunications hardware and equipment; OR
Configure the Marmot Wide Area Network 0N AN) to accept user connections over the Internet
where Member opts to use its own Internet Service Provider instead of Marmot-administered
telecommunications service;
g. Support Access Sessions as listed in Attachment A;
h. Provide optional equipment maintenance service to Member for workstations and other
equipment as listed in Attachment A; and
i. Support other software and services that may be listed in Attachment A.
3. Member's Obligations. Member shall:
a. Purchase its own workstations, cables to Network Nodes, barcode readers, barcode labels,
printers, and other equipment and materials;
b. Assume responsibility for all ongoing cataloging and retrospective conversion of local
library collections;
c. Prepare all materials to accommodate use with the Marmot Library Network;
d. Maintain its own database records;
e. Follow troubleshooting procedures and emergency/downtime contingency plans provided
by Marmot;
f. Identify contact person(s); and
g. Follow Marmot policies and procedures posted at http://www.marmot.org/node/42.
4. Cost of Services, Equipment and Materials. Member shall pay Marmot the fees for service and
purchase prices for equipment and software as listed in Marmot's standard fee schedule,
referenced in Attachment B. Marmot may at any time, in its sole discretion, increase or decrease
the fees for service and purchase prices for equipment and materials. Each addition or revision
shall be effective at such time specified by Marmot, which will be at least thirty (30) days after
Marmot gives written notice of such increase or decrease. As required by Marmot bylaws, price
changes are approved by the Marmot Executive Board. In the event Marmot increases any prices
or charges under the Agreement, Member may, at its option and without liability, terminate the
Agreement by giving ninety (90) days written notice to Marmot.
5. Time of Payment. Marmot shall bill Member on a quarterly basis, in advance. Each quarterly billing
shall be in an amount equal to one-fourth (1/4) of Member's total annual service and maintenance
fees. Marmot shall bill Member for the purchase price of equipment or software when delivered to
Member.
In the event Member should request additional Network Nodes or Access Sessions for the Marmot
Library Network during any term of this Agreement, the Member's cost of services shall be prorated
from date of access and a billing sent to Member.
•
•
•
•
•
•
All payments by Member to Marmot shall be due within thirty (30) days of the date a billing is
delivered. Marmot shall bill Member late payment fees at the rate of 8% per annum.
Member may withhold any payment in whole or in part for products/services found by Member to
be defective, untimely, unsatisfactory, otherwise not conforming to the description, or not in
accordance with all applicable warranties, laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. Payment or
acceptance/use by Member shall not be deemed a waiver or settlement of any defect or
nonconformity in the products/services.
6. Default in Payment. Should Member fail to make any payment due to Marmot within the period
set forth in paragraph 5, Marmot shall give Member written notice of such default in payment. If
Member fails to correct the default within thirty (30) days after the date of such written notice,
Marmot shall have the right to discontinue services to Member.
7. Term and Renewal of Agreement. The initial term of this Agreement shall begin on [DATE],
and shall expire on [DATE]. This Agreement shall automatically renew at the end of each year
for three years as provided below unless either party provides notice to terminate in writing
ninety (90) days prior to expiration of the Initial Term or any renewal term. Notice of annual
pricing will be distributed to Member on or before September 1 of each calendar year. All the
provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect during any renewal term. The
following table clarifies these terms.
Initial Term:
Automatic Renewal 1 :
Automatic Renewal 2:
Automatic Renewal 3:
January 1, 2016
January 1, 2017
January 1 , 2018
January 1, 2019
December 31, 2016
December 31, 2017
December 31, 2018
December 31, 2019
8. Termination. Upon termination, pursuant to paragraphs 6 or 7 above, Marmot may enter Member's
facilities to disconnect or remove its equipment upon reasonable advance notice, at a time that is
mutually convenient to the parties and which will be minimize disruption of Member's operations.
Member shall pay all costs for services rendered up to the effective date of termination and shall
pay Marmot for all equipment and materials ordered by Member. Member shall also pay all costs
associated with removal from the Integrated Library System and termination of the
telecommunication circuits including, but not limited to extraction of records, deletion of scopes,
disconnect fees and Marmot staff time, in accordance with the fee schedule in Attachment 8, as it
may be amended.
9. Warranty. Warranty Disclaimer. and Limitation of Liability.
a. Marmot warrants that it owns or has rights to use all assets, including software, hardware
and equipment, necessary for the operation of the Marmot Library Network. It is expressly
agreed that there is no warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose,
expressed or implied, by Marmot with regard to any software used in connection with the
Marmot Library Network. Any workstations or peripherals that Marmot purchases on behalf
of, and delivers to, Member immediately become the property of Member, and shall only
include the warranties provided by each manufacturer. Marmot makes no warranties of any
type or nature concerning any such workstations or peripherals. Marmot does not
manufacture, assemble, or warrant hardware procured on behalf of Member. Marmot
agrees to perform the services contemplated by this Agreement to the satisfaction of
Member and with the standard of care and skill of an expert regularly rendering services of
the type required by this Agreement and in conformance with applicable law. Marmot shall
not be liable for any direct, special, or consequential damages arising out of this Agreement
by use of the hardware or software by Member or the Marmot Library Network.
b. As to Enrichment Data and Enrichment Services, Marmot makes no warranties, express or
implied, and expressly excludes all warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular
purpose. Marmot makes no warranties or representations regarding the accuracy,
adequacy, or completeness of Enrichment Data or Enrichment Services. In no event shall
Marmot be liable for any indirect, incidental, special, or consequential damages arising out
of the use of or inability to use Enrichment Data or Enrichment Services.
c. All rights in Cover Images are reserved by the original copyright owners. Cover Images
Uacket art on the covers of books, CDs, DVDs, etc.) are provided "as is," and with all faults,
without warranty of any kind. Without limiting the foregoing, as to Cover Images, Marmot
expressly disclaims any and all warranties, whether express, implied, or statutory, including
without limitation any warranties of title, noninterference, non-infringement, informational
content, merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.
10. Excusable Dela vs. The parties shall use their best efforts to perform their duties under this
Agreement in a timely fashion. However, the obligation of a party shall be postponed automatically
if the party is prevented from meeting its obligation by reason of any causes beyond its reasonable
control, except the obligation to make payment as provided in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, provided the
party prevented from rendering performance nottties the other party immediately of the
commencement and nature of such a cause, and provided that such party uses its best efforts to
render performance in a timely manner utilizing to such end all resources reasonably required in
the circumstances, including obtaining supplies or services from other sources if same are
reasonably available.
11. Enforcement. The prevailing party in any litigation concerning this Agreement shall be
reimbursed by the other party for all costs and expenses incurred in such proceeding, including
reasonable attorneys' fees.
12. Notices. All notices required or provided herein shall be in writing, and shall be addressed to the
party to whom said notice is directed as set forth below and shall be deposited in the United States
mail, certified mail, return receipt requested, with postage prepaid thereon. Such notice shall be
effective on the date of receipt.
Marmot:
Member:
Marmot Library Network, Inc.
Attn: Mr. James M. Thomas
123 N. 7th Street
Grand Junction, CO 81501
Englewood Public Library
Attn: Dorothy Hargrove
1000 Englewood Pkwy
Englewood, CO 80110
13. Waiver. Any waiver by either party of any provision of this Agreement shall not imply a subsequent
waiver of that or any other provision.
14. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed
an original and all of which together shall constitute the same instrument.
15. Relevant Colorado Laws.
a. Financial obligations of Member payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon
funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted, and otherwise made available. The
parties acknowledge that appropriation of moneys by Member is a governmental function
which Member cannot contractually commit to in advance and that this Agreement does not
constitute: (i) a multiple fiscal year direct or indirect debt or financial obligation; or (ii) an
obligation payable in any fiscal year beyond the fiscal year for which funds are lawfully
appropriated; or (iii) an obligation creating a pledge of or a lien on Member tax or general
revenues. In the event Member's board does not approve an appropriation of funds at any
•
•
•
•
•
•
time during the term of this Agreement for any payment due or to become due for a fiscal
year during the term of this Agreement, Member shall have the right to terminate .this
Agreement on the last day of the fiscal period for which sufficient appropriations were
received, without penalty or expense. Member may terminate this Agreement by giving
notice in writing that (a) funds have not been appropriated for the fiscal period, and (b)
Member has exhausted all funds legally available for the payment.
b. Marmot understands that certain information, induding this Agreement and all Exhibits
thereto, are public records available for public .inspection and copying under the Colorado
Public Records Act, C.R.S. §§24-72-201, et seq. and other applicable laws.
c. No term or condition of the Agreement shall be construed or interpreted as a waiver, express
or implied, of any of the immunities, rights, benefits, protections, or other provisions, of the
Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, CRS §24-10-101 et seq. ·
16. Independent Contractor Role. Marmot shall perform its duties hereunder as an independent
contractor and not as an employee, agent, partner or joint venturer. Neither Marmot nor any agent
or employee of Marmot shall be deemed to be an agent or employee of Member.
17. Use of Intellectual Property. By signing below, Member agrees and acknowledges that the
collection, creation, and arrangement of the Enrichment Data offered by Enrichment Providers
constitutes intellectual property wholly owned by Enrichment Providers and/or their licensors.
While it is understood that the Enrichment Data will be publicly available on open electronic
networks, Member will use the Enrichment Data only for the intended purpose of augmenting
Member's library online public and student access catalog and web site.
18. Proprietary Rights. Enrichment Data and Enrichment Services made available to Member under
this Agreement are protected by copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, or other proprietary rights.
Member acknowledges that Enrichment Providers, their licensors, or both own all right, title and
interest, including, without limitation, the . copyright, in and to the Enrichment Data and the
Enrichment Services and all components thereof. The copyright and title to all property interests
in or to the Enrichment Data and the Enrichment Services are and shall remain in Enrichment
Providers, their licensors, or both as owner and this Agreement shall not grant to Member, or any
Member affiliate or agent, or any Member patron, student, volunteer, employee or user, any right
of ownership therein. Member warrants and represents that Member and Member's patrons,
students, volunteers, employees, users and agents shall not modify, remove, delete, augment,
add to, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, create derivative works from, or in
any way exploit any of the Enrichment Data or the Enrichment Services, in whole or in part. If no
specific restrictions are displayed, Member and users of the Enrichment Services may make
copies of select portions of the Enrichment Data, provided that the copies are made only for
personal use and any notices contained in the Enrichment Data, such as all copyright notices,
trademark legends, or other proprietary rights notices are maintained on such copies. Except as
otherwise permitted in this Agreement or as permitted by the fair use privilege under the U.S.
copyright laws (see, e.g., 17 U.S.C. Section 107), neither Member nor users of the Enrichment
Services may upload, post, reproduce, or distribute in any way Enrichment Data protected by
copyright, or other proprietary right, without obtaining permission of the owner of the copyright or
other propriety right.
19. Indemnification.
a. Except as may otherwise be excluded from Marmot's liability under this Agreement, Marmot
shall defend, hold harmless and indemnify Member, its officers, directors, employees,
agents and attorneys, for, from and against any and all claims, demands, suits, fines,
penalties, costs, expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees), and
losses of every nature whatsoever, ("Marmot Damages") resulting from or caused by the
negligence or fault of Marmot or its employees and agents and/or for Marmot's breach or
violation of any of Marmot's representations, warranties, covenants or agreements
contained in this Agreement.
b. Except as may otherwise be excluded from Member's liability under this Agreement,
Member shall defend, hold harmless and indemnify Marmot, its officers, directors,
employees, agents and attorneys, for, from and against any and all claims, demands, suits,
fines, penalties, costs, expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees),
and losses of every nature whatsoever, ("Member Damages") resulting from or caused by
the negligence or fa ult of Member or its officers, directors, employees, uses, students,
volunteers, invitees, patrons, contractors , subcontractors and agents and/or for Member's
breach or violation of any of Member's representations, warranties, covenants or
agreements contained in this Agreement.
20. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable
under present or future laws effective during the term hereof, such provision shall be fully
severable and this Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal, invalid or
unenforceable provision never comprised a part hereof; and the remaining provisions hereof
shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be affected by the illegal, invalid or
unenforceable provision or by its severance. Furthermore, in lieu of such illegal, invalid or
unenforceable provision, there shall be added automatically as part of this Agreement a
provision as similar in its terms to such illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision as may be
possible and be legal, valid and enforceable.
21. Entire Agreement and Amendment. This Agreement and its Attachments contain the entire
agreement of the parties. There are no other agreements between the parties. Except with respect
to Attachment B, which may be amended by Marmot in its discretion, this Agreement may be
amended, modified or supplemented only by an instrument in writ ing executed by the parties
hereto. In the event Marmot increases any prices or charges under the Agreement, Member may,
at its option and without liability, terminate the Agreement by giving ninety (90) days written notice
to Marmot.
22. Assignment. Neither this Agreement nor any right created hereby shall be assignable by either
party without the consent of the other party.
23. Attachments. The provisions of the following attachments are included as part of this Agreement:
A. Marmot Services
B. Fee Schedule
24. Binding . This Agreement shall be binding on the parties hereto and their permitted successors;
provided, however, that this Agreement may not be assigned by either party without the written
consent of the other party.
25. Effective Date of Agreement. This Agreement shall be effective as of January 1 , 2016.
MEMBER
ENGLEWOOD PUBLIC LIBRARY
Randy P. Penn
Title: Mayor
Date:--------------
ATTEST:
Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk
MARMOT LIBRARY NETWORK
Title:-------------
Date:-------------
•
•
•
Attachment A • Sample of 2015 quarterly invoice DATE
Marmot Library Network
Invoice
123 N. 7th Street
Suite 302
Grand Junction, CO 81501
BILL TO
Englewood Public Library
1000 Englewood Parkway
Englewood, CO 80110
DESCRIPTION •s~•= Sessions
..
nquirics: 970-242-3331x112 or FAX 970-245-7854
fr:;,~'.· ..
. .........-.~
• i
7/1/2015
MARMOT
LIBRARY NETWORK
SHIP TO
P.0.NO. TERMS
QTY RATE
l 750.00
13 514.00
Total
Payments/Credits
Balance Due
INVOICE#
06-07-
3834
DUE DATE
7/1/2015
AMOUNT
750.00
6,682.00
$7,432 .00
-$7 ,432.00
$0.00
Attachment B •
Marmot Library Network
Home
Schedule of Fees (Jan-Dec 2015) iiH§iip Edit Trade Arress contrcl
r· ···-· . -····--······ .... -······-·-· .... ~-----·--..... ·----·· ... . . .. . -·-·· ---·· ·-·····-· .. -.............. ,. .... ·-····· ........ ·-·· ............. ········· ..... ·······--1
i Page Sc:hedlle of Fees (Jan-Dec 2015) has been updated. 1
.................. ...-..... ......,_. """"'I . .,,, ... : .............. ~'....-.•'1'r. ''~""""''" .... -"'""''"'Ml<-:r .... -,-=r-•o-.•·_,.,-"'-L-~'Mt~ ..... ~·---, • .-.., .... ,,.,_.,..,,....., .. ,...,., ..... ~ ....... ~l~-"-"' .. '--••<"-....... ~,.,...·-~-O.'r -·''""-'" ... " .. ,_ ... ,.__,.,~•'-''~""" ........... -....... :..c-l
One-Annual ~ Library Sysblm (11.S) • oth• hasted services time Fee Fee
.. _..,,. ... ,_"' .. -..: .,..,....,.,,.,. ... ..,~ ............... .,.""~ ..................... ~ ............................ ··---"~"""" ... ,.,_,...._ .. _,_.,, ... .,. ...... ~ ...................... _._.....,, .... ~,,-.... , ..... ~" , ........ , .. "" . ~=•"-"'"~·· . -·"·~-.. .,.:.: ........... _ .. .,.._,. ,· ..... '.J'' "' ----~-.--~
Basic Systmn includes Sierra (Crculatlan, cataloging, Acquisitions, Serials, WAM. Patron
API, Web Milnilgllm8't Reports): Decisia"I Centw; Vufind (OPAC): o.t:alog EnrichmentJ
0 3,000
Training 6 Continuing Education1 Email Listservs; Council Seat; Participation in Taslc
Forcas & Carnmittel!s.
Sblf SUISions (simubnaous U58"5) 0 2,056
&.press Lilne self-check saflware l'iCl!nse and setup 3,200 700
SI:P2 5'!rVar (fur 3rd-party selkheck a. other SIP2 appliances) SCJftware license and
2,,SOO 1,000
setup • Pl'D!lp9Clur fw are paid by Mannot ta th• ~ Allianm to support 11nd hast the
Prospadar syst:am. A Prospectar subscriptiati does NOT indudm All'ianca membanhip.
Allianca meinbi!B do not pay this Mt! to Marmot, but pay tile Allfim.ce dln!dfv. .. 9,250 4,064 :_; <200,000 ·, 18,500
~) 200,000 -499,999
:·· 27,750
:~> >•500,000
INN-Reach fHs ant paid by Marmot to Innovative fur .softwant connecting Marmot ta
Prospedar. (Alfance membars paying the Allfanca directly fur Prospedor still pay this fee 0 1,020
toMarmat.}
ov_.Orivtl cast sharing is complicattld. Cont.Id the Executivw DirKUr. 0 TBO
Optional module setup {Acquisitioru;, s.ials, ~r\19 Rocm, Patron Registration, Program
~ration, and other optional modules} EAOi incur a one-time fee for setup and 2,500 0
training.
Nef:wGt>k SHVices
Broacblnd Slll'Yice (abi WAH Teleaim Servica) par mch "outside• circuit includes
telemm fees + router + Marmot sbff a. facilities. so 1,450
Local Areil Network {LAN) IP address per woricstiltion, server, or other devie11 {exmpt
n/a 138
managed routers or wirefes access points)
Wireless illXl!5S point (WAP) 100 250 •
•
•
•
~ Traffit.-shai;iing devim 1,000 450
AppAssunt Badwp for \'lind!Ms Servr (this sol.,.. limns. requints a loal 'ilCll'icstatiion
1,.000 included Qf"Sarv.r)
AppA.ssure aadwp for \flindows Si!nl9r 8i. SQL Seniv (this software lictlMie rwquires a laCill
1.soo included waricsbl:ai ar saner)
Servermaintenanat (library-onmed} • 450
Worlisbtion maintenilllal (for pOblic and sblff) • 450
EnvisianWa111 PCRes + lPTl pr worlcsbtian (Mlilnagament Consolas and RaBGA S't:al:ions 2-5hrs 58 llRindudad} ETS/site
ErwisionWare Coin-Op per devim
2-Shrs
ETS/sw 321
EnvisionWarw Mabll•Print per site
2-5 hrs
ETS/sh 1,000
Professional Services
Extended Technical Services (ETS) per hour 60 n/•
VuFind Consulting SeNices per '-.Jr 100 n/a
New msnber project management:, se.tup, and training 15,000 n/•
New member data migration {3rd-party S11rvio may nee<! to be purchas.d) TSO n/a
* Marmot leverages group buying discounts for waricstations, moniton,. printers, banxicle SGIMet'S, AppAssure badrup
solutions, etc.; and invoic::H member &bi'lllies at cost. Equipment prices v.ry by time ofyeM lilnd configuration. Contact
Marmot to ckcuss your needs •
Members paying more than $90,000/year across aO Mannat seMc:es reaaive a 5% discount on the total bill. (This does not
apply to hardwcint or softwarw purchases.)
Effective January 1, 2015 •
•
Date
September 21, 2015
INITIATED BY
Utilities Department
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
None .
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Second Reading:
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Agenda Item
9biii
Subject
Swedish Medical Center -
Exchange of Existing City Ditch
Right-of-Way , Grant of New
City Ditch Right-of-Way and
Grant of Temporary
Construction License-2nd
Reading
STAFF SOURCE
Tom Brennan , Director of Utilities
•
The Water and Sewer Board , at their April 14 , 2015 meeting , recommended Council approval , on
second reading, of the Exchange of City Ditch Right-of-Way, Grant of New Right-of-Way and Grant of
Temporary Construction License for the Swedish Medical Center.
BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED
Swedish Medical Center is expanding and has submitted a request to exchange the existing 20 ' wide
City Ditch right-of-way and will be establishing a new 20' wide City Ditch right-of-way to allow
construction of a critical care unit tower expansion for the Swedish Hospital Neurology Department.
The Grant of Temporary Construction License is for construction of the proposed improvements to
connect the new City Ditch piping to the existing City Ditch . The existing right-of-way extends in a
stra ight line mid-block from the hospital into the vacated S. Pennsylvania Street.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Exchanging the existing City Ditch right-of-way , and construction for rerouting the City Ditch into the
new right-of-way, will be done at the sole expense and liability of the licensee , HCA Health One , LLC
for the Swedish Medical Center.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Bill for Ordinance
Grant of New Right-of-Way
Exchange of Existing City Ditch Right-of-way
.Grant of Temporary Construction License
Swedish Hospital -easement vacat ion & new easement
•
•
•
BY AUTHORITY
ORDINANCE NO.
SERIES OF 2015
COUNCIL BILL NO. 33
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER WILSON
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A GRANT OF TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION LICENSE,
A GRANT OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND AN EXCHANGE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AGREEMENT
FOR RELOCATING THE CITY DITCH AT 501 EAST HAMPDEN AVENUE, ENGLEWOOD,
COLORADO IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CRITICAL CARE
UNIT TOWER EXPANSION FOR THE SWEDISH HOSPITAL NEUROLOGY DEPARTMENT.
WHEREAS, the HCA Health One, LLC (Swedish Medical Center) submitted a request to the
City for the relocation of the City Ditch in order to construct a new building for a critical care unit
tower expansion for the Swedish Hospital Neurology Department; and
WHEREAS, the existing 20' wide City Ditch Right-of-Way extends in a straight line mid-block
from the hospital in the vacated South Pennsylvania Street; and
WHEREAS, Swedish Medical Center will relocate the existing 20' wide City Ditch Right-of-
Way and City Ditch pipe to allow a building with the Exchange of Right-of-Way Agreement and
the Grant of Right-of-Way Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the relocation and reconstruction of the City Ditch must be completed prior to
April 1, 2016, the starting date for water flow for City Ditch users; and
WHEREAS, the Grant of Temporary Construction License allows the work to commence; and
WHEREAS, the Englewood Water and Sewer Board recommended approval of the Grant of
Right-of-Way, the Exchange of Right-of-Way, and the Grant of Temporary Construction License
agreements for relocating the City Ditch at 501 East Hampden Avenue, Englewood, Colorado at
their June 9, 2015 , meeting;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. The Director of Utilities is hereby authorized to sign said Grant of Temporary
Construction License for 501 East Hampden A venue, Englewood, attached hereto as
Exhibit 1.
Section 2. The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute and the City Clerk to attest and seal for
and on behalf of the City of Englewood the Exchange of Right-of-Way for 501 East Hampden
A venue, Englewood, attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
Section 3. The City hereby accepts the Grant of Right-of-Way for 501 East Hampden
Avenue, Englewood, attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
1
Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 8th day of September, 2015.
Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 10th day of
September, 2015.
Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City's official website beginning on the 9th day of
September, 2015 for thirty (30) days.
Read by title and passed on final reading on the 21st day of September, 2015.
Published by title in the City's official newspaper as Ordinance No._, Series of 2015, on
the 24th day of September, 2015.
Published by title on the City's official website beginning on the 23rd day of
September, 2015 for thirty (30) days.
Randy P . Penn, Mayor
ATTEST:
Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk
I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the
above and foregoing is a true copy of the Ordinance passed on final reading and published by
title as Ordinance No ._, Series of 2015.
Loucrishia A. Ellis
2
•
•
•
•
•
•
GRANT OF TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION LICENSE
THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of tbis-2._ day of
~1 G"-il . 2015, by and between the CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, a municipal coi:poration
of the State of Colorado, herein referred to as the Grantor, and HCA HEAL TH ONE, LLC dba
Swedish Medical Center, hereinafter referred to as "Licensee".
WHEREAS, the Grantor owns a certain right-of-way for the City Ditch; and
WHEREAS, Licensee desires to make certain improvements in the area relating to
construction on the subject property and the Grantor agrees to give Licensee a Temporary
Construction License for improvements which shall connect the new City Ditch piping to the
existing City Ditch.
WITNESSETII: the Grantor, without any warranty of its title or interest whatsoever, hereby
grants and authorizes Licensee the use of the property, hereinafter described, which Grantor now
owns for the following improvements:
See attached Exhibit A for legal description.
See attached Exhibit B for construction improvements .
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed between Grantor and Licensee that Licensee shall be
granted a construction license to make the improvements described in Exhibits A and B, subject
to the following conditions:
1. Period of Construction. Licensee's right to use the construction license area depicted on
Exhibits A ·and B shall begin no sooner than November 1, 201 S and shall terminate on
April 1, 2016, and shall not thereafter be reinstated on a temporary basis without the
express written consent of Grantor. There will be no construction during the Ditch Season
which commences normally on April 1 and ends on October 31 of each year.
2. Restoration. The Licensee will do what is necessary to restore all of Grantor's property
damaged or disturbed as a result of the project to as near its original condition as is
practical, including but not limited to seeding on the City Ditch dedicated right-of-way.
3. Exercise of Reasonable Care. Licensee will use all reasonable means to prevent any loss
or damage to Grantor or to others resulting from the construction.
4. As-Built Drawings. Licensee sbal1 supply Grantor a map that shows the construction area
and defines the construction site. See Exhibits A and B.
5. Assignment. Licensee's assignment of this Construction Agreement will not relieve
Licensee of its obligations hereunder. The provisions hereof shall inure to the benefit of
and be binding upon the successors and assigns of the respective parties hereto .
6. Indemnification. Licensee, to the extent permitted by the laws and constitution of the State
of Colorado, hereby agrees to be liable and hold harmless the City of Englewood, its
employees, tenants and guests from any and all claims, causes of action and liability which
may occur as a result of the negligent or wrongful acts of Licensee in the construction of
the Project, including cost of defending against such claims.
7. Liabilitv. Licensee hereby acknowledges that it understands that there is water flow in the
City Ditch :from April 1 to November 1 of each year and that it will assume liability for any
damage to adjoining property caused by water flow resulting from damage to the City
Ditch caused by the Licensee's construction activities.
8. Insura.nce. Licensee shall maintain in full force and effect a valid policy of insurance for
the Project in the amount of$1,000,000.00 property coverage and $1,000,000.00 liability
coverage. Licensee further agrees that all its employees, contractors, and sub-contractors
working on the Project shall be covered by adequate Workers Compensation insurance.
9. Authority to Enter into Agreement. The undersigned represents that he is an authorized
officer of Licensee and has authority to enter into this agreement on behalf of Licensee and
that Licensee will accept and abide by all the terms and conditions hereof.
This Construction License shall terminate· upon completion of said improvements and
approval by Grantor.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals on the date first
above written.
2
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO
GRANTOR:
•
•
•
•
•
•
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTYofb&~
)
)ss.
)
HCA HEALTH ONE, LLC dba SWEDISH
MEDICAL CENTER
LICENSEE:
The forego!,Jjg instrum~t 1as acknowledged before me thls ~y of.LJ.~~l::Z.--
2015, by c..J.v///h1 'fi2.tu&4 as Sr· V. f'. ofHCAHeal e,LLCdba
Swedish Medicaf Centef./ / ff~£&~
My commission expires: :J ~ / 1-ZO/~ c/YPUBLIC
A UMER
NOTARY PUIUC
STATE OF COLORADO
NOTARY 10 19904010010
t1V COtMISSION EXPIRES JULY 19, 2011
3
;
. ~.
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A 20-FOOT WIDE DITCH EASEMENT OVER AND ACROSS THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE
DOCUMENT RECORDED UNDER RECEPTION NUMBER A5116294 IN THE RECORDS OF THE ARAPAHOE
COUNTY CLERK AND REORDER; SITUATED JN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP
4 SOUTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 1)1h PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN; CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COUNTY OF
ARAPAHOE, STATE OF COLORADO; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 34,
HAVING A BEARING OF NORTH 89°59'58" WEST.
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT
RECORDED UNDER RECEPTION NUMBER A5116294, ALSO BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT
25, BLOCK 6, WEST VIEW ADDITION TO ENGLEWOOD;
THENCE NORTH 25°39'21" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 265.63 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGlNNING;
THENCE THE FOLLOWING SIX (6) COURSES;
1. SOUTH 71°23'56" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 21.06 FEET;
2. SOUTH 00•21•23• WEST, A DISTANCE OF 92.66 FEET;
3. SOUTH 44•42•32• EAST, A DISTANCE OF 34.86 FEET;
4. SOUTH 99•42'30" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 46.02 FEET;
5. NORTH 45°16'44" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 90.16 FEET;
6. NORTH 55•34•14" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 29.12 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF
THAT 20-FOOTWIDE DITCH EASEMENT DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED IN BOOK
1328 AT PAGE 457 IN SAID RECORDS;
THENCE SOUTH 79•1o·sa" EAST, ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 8.36 FEET;
THENCE THE FOLLOWING SIX (6) COURSES;
1. SOUTH 11"54'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET;
2. SOUTH 61°05'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 13.52 FEET;
3. SOUTH 45"16'44" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 101.90 FEET;
4. NORTH 89.42'30" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 62.59 FEET;
5. NORTH 44°42'32" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 51.44 FEET;
6. NORTH 00"21'23" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 107.55 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING AN AREA OF 0.146 ACRES, (6,370 SQUARE FEET), MORE OR LESS.
V:\81114-01-Swedish Med Center Design Survey\Legals\Dltch Easement.docx
Page 1of3
•
•
•
•
•
•
..
EXHIBIT ATTACHED AND MADE A PART HEREOF.
JAMES E. LYNCH, PLS NO. 37933
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF AZTEC CONSULTANTS, INC.
300 E. MINERAL AVE., SUITE 1, LIITLETON, CO 80122
303-713-1898
V:\81114-01-Swedish Med Center Design Survey\Legals\Ditch Easement.dooc
Page2of3
ILLUSTRATION TO EXHIBIT A
LOT 35
LOT 34
LOT 33
LOT 32
LOT 31
LOT JO
LOT 29
LOT 28
I
POINT OF
BE<JINNING
I
I
BLOCK 5
WEST VIEW ADDITION
TO ENGLEWOOD
:r:~
1-Ul
::> <(
0-(J')Z
<(
§~
<((/1
c.> z
<(Z
>Li.J a..
LOT 27 COLUMBIA HEAL THONE
REC.I A.5118214
LOT 26
LOT 14
EXISTING 20' CflY OITCH EASEMENT
BOOK 1328 AT PAGE 457 LOT 15
LOT 20
LOT 21
se1 ·os·oa~w
13 .52'
PARCEL CONTAINS
6,370 (SQ.FT.)
i------0.146 ACRES
LOT 23 MORE OR LESS
BLOCK 6
LOT 24 WEST VIEW ADDITION
TO ENGLEWOOD
(55' ROW)
t EAST HAMPDEN AVENUE t 7
-SOUTH UNE OF THE SE1/4 OF SEC. 34 -
N89'59'58"W 1321.70'
AST 1/16 CORNER SOUTHEAST CORNER
SEC . 34, T4S, R68W , 6lH P.M S[C. 34, T4S , R68W, 6TH P.M.
0 25 50 100 1 •• 1-1--1
1 inch = 50 fl
NO'IE: lHIS DRA'MNG DOES NOT REPRESENT A FlaD ~ONUIAEHTED SURYn AND IS ONLY INTENDm TO DEPICT THE ATIACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
l'A'IW : Y:\11114-01\p!!!
llWO NAME: SMC DITDt EASEMENT
cwo: .E. Qfll:_.aw...__
CA'IE; 4/13/2015
SCAL!: ' 1"=50'
EASEMENT EXHIBIT
SE 1/4, SEC. 34, T4S, R68W, 6TH P.M.
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO
H\IM8£ll 81114-01 3
•
•
•
•••
• I
l ~
~
~
l
i
f
i
~
~
Fi
~
j
I
I
~
~
~
I
.:!
j
• l
J • I
j
i g
..
•
•
•
•
IRR MH 1-2, S'OIA MH FLAT TOP
RIM • 5339.92
INV. OUT 1311") • 533".00 Ml
INV. OUT (36") • 5338.0Q.(E} • •• . -
CITY DITCH PLAN
•
~f
JK' _,,;,·
..-i I _,,.
I I
I I
1· I
~ ~ cu
~---~
5350 5350
~· ~~ i~ ...... ......... ....... .... . .. .. ... .............. ... .. ..... i .~...a-~.. ........... .... ... . .................. -----·-t· -. -·;-·gl-----
1mm ·• .. ;, -_: +-:~--_:--:_: ~ -•tin --_:-:_ -: =-~-·· · :· ~ -_ -~: .. hit ·
o~~ j n~~
.. ·.:-~:::·· ~;~-:~·::~~---::~_ ::·~:::·-~:-_~L ---~--· ~:::~·~-:~=:~_:·:·: -----~-:-.~ -------:-~~ ..... ··----i -~---.-~:·:·:: .:-· ...... ·:: :····· -... -:~-~~~:·~·~c-~-~~:::~:.:·.:_:_ :·:·-_:::::··::·:_·:~·::· --.. .
i
I . EXISTwo GRADE I
I L (la. OFPll'E :
. "1"'" ..... ·,._, .. I ...................... .... . ~ ...... -1 -.... ···:· ···-··------. .. _. --.'-· ·; r .... :·:: .. I~.---·-·
I t) relt>
I r---....
.... 1~--· . ::· ........ ··~·-·::~~··--· .. :·:::.~::·::-.·1 ~----
!!! PROPOSED GRADE .
~ O Cl..OFP!PE ·-• t5 ·--------·-·--···----.
"'
····-·· .. -
~
···1 ·
mo · : I I D .1 { + mo
I
i
... , .. -... --.. '1
I / ··
.. t .. ··-
l
-1·
EX.30"
CITYOITCH
... 72 LF -31" RCP 0 0.00%
i
I
,.
•2.13lF -38"RCPQO.OO,j i I ' 71.15LF-3e"RCPQ0.00%
i
-j ······ \ EX. 3,
C/TYOITCH
I I
t.2~;~ ~ 3B" ~:3~50~0~ 38" Re~~-o;o°"
~ PR~P. Vi.. CRO~~ING ,~, u ........_STA. 1+10.00
· · · · T.O.P . • 5334,08
I
!
1
i
i""
+ i -r ···
l
····· -~~-~L-~0.00%
533~ a~ !g iJ! H i~ 51 ~ ~!~ it 30
0+75 1+00 2+00
CITY DITCH PROFILE
1"•WHORZ
1"•7VERT
3+o0 4+00 4+09
NOTE
1. CITY CITCH PIPE SHAL.1. BE RCP WITH JOINTS
CONFORMING TO ASTM C443.
~
N
+ I ~ ~o 40
I
SCALE: 1" a 20'
1i1
Know what's below
Call befar1 you' dig.
Di!1 Z 2l ~, (~. ~I :S j H ~ c N D -~ !~
1. 1 I ,\~] ~...... .51 cs i: ,:.: ~
~I ~U ,I !IJ
1
11111 ii ;1 ;1
~
iii I
I
~
w
..J -z LL
0 0
~ rx:
(..)~ D.
~z ~
J: w
~ll:'. z
Cl~ :5 ~z rn ct D.
< 0.. :c (..) (IS
J: 0 0
ll:'. I-
::::> -w c
z >
I I !:::
0
I SHUT
I C-6001
•
•
•
EXCHANGE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of this day of _____ --',
2015, by and between the CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, a municipal corporation of the State of
Colorado, herein referred to as "City", and HCA HEAL TH ONE, LLC dba SWEDISH
MEDICAL CENTER whose address is 501 East Hampden Avenue, Englewood, CO 801 JO;
herein referred to as "Health One".
WHEREAS, the City owns and operates an irrigation diich known as the City Ditch for
diverting water out of the Platte River under priorities pertaining to said ditch upon and along a
Right-of-Way acquired therefore during and prior to I 860 and continuously used since that time;
and
WHEREAS, Health One desires to use a portion of said Right-of-Way for expansion of a
hospital addition and other purposes not consistent with the Right-of-Way purposes; and desires
to exchange approximately Six Hundred Fifty feet (650') of new Right-of-Way for the use of the
City Ditch, Attached herein as Exhibit A; in exchange for the City's permission and vacation of
the existing City Ditch Right~of-Way, Attached herein as Exhibit 8.
NOW THEREFORE:
For and in consideration of ten dollars ($10.00) and other valuable consideration, the premises
and the full performance of the obligations and promises set forth below, the sufficiency of
which is expressly acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:
I. For the uses hereinafter named, Health One will grant to the City the following
described property which is a parcel of land situated in the Southeast Quarter of
Section 34, Township 4 South, Range 68 West of the 61h Prindpal Meridian, West
View Addition to Englewood, City of Englewood, Arapahoe County, Colorado more
particularly described as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Said strip of land shall be twenty feet (20') in width where it crosses the subject
property shown on the attached Exhibit A where the strip shall be measured from the
"proposed centerline" of the relocated City Ditch. Which entire length shall be
surveyed by Health One and evidenced by an executed deed for Right-of-Way with
meets and bounds description as shown on attached Exhibit A.
2. Upon, over, through and across the strip of land hereinabove described, and as shown
on attached Exhibit A, the City shall have the right to construct, reconstruct, maintain,
alter, repair, en large, enclose and use a ditch or pipe for the conveyance of water under
priorities pertaining to the above mentioned City Ditch, said priority having been
originally adjudicated to said City Ditch under the name of the Platte Water Ditch, And
for any and all other uses to which the City might have put the old Ditch has this
Agreement not been made. The parties hereto agree that the primary right of
possession of areas, which must be used in common by the two parties hereto, is in the
City, for its Ditch. With this limitation, it is agreed that the City will use its best
efforts to access and maintain the City Ditch with minimal disruption to Swedish .
H
I
B
I
T
2
3. Health One will be granted a License to construct a new pipe to accommodate the
required City Ditch water flow of the City Ditch Right-of-Way consistent with the
professional engineer approved plans attached as Exhibit A consisting of three (3)
pages, along the South line of the SE Y4 of Section 34 of their property also known as
50 I E. Hampden A venue, Englewood, Colorado.
4. Health One shall construct the piping for the City Ditch in the new location in
accordance with and at the location shown on Exhibit A.
5. It is agreed that the present City Ditch is currently enclosed, is a well-constructed pipe,
from which a minimum of seepage Joss occurs. Health One and the City agree that in
all places where the City Ditch is to be altered in its course to a new location that it
will reconstruct said new pipe section in such a way that the pipe when reconstructed
will be as sound and efficient, will be reconstructed according to the plans and
specifications shown on Exhibit C.
6. Health One agrees to hold the City harmless from any defects of construction work
performed hereunder by Health One, its contractors and sub-contractors and for
damages ensuing on the operation of the City Ditch arising out of such construction or
maintenance.
7 All work to be done hereunder shall be performed to the entire satisfaction of the City
of Englewood Director of Utilities.
8. All work on the City Ditch and in connection therewith shall be done in such a way
as not to interfere with the regular and continuous flow of water therein.
9. Upon receipt of an acceptable Grant of Right-of-Way and acceptance by the City of the
new piped section of the City Ditch, the City will quit claim any other rights to the City
Ditch Right-of-Way inconsistent with the grant described in Paragraph I and as shown
on Attachment B, attached hereto.
I 0. City requires access to maintain the City Ditch and Health One agrees to execute an
access agreement acknowledging the City's right to access the City Ditch Right-of·
Way for City Ditch operation and maintenance and for storm flow operation and
inspection. This access agreement will be included in the Grant of Right-of-Way.
11. In case Health One shall fail, neglect, or refuse to fulfill any of the terms or the
provisions of this Agreement, all rights hereunder in Health One shall at once be
forfeited to the City, and the City may repossess itself of its original Right-of-Way for
said City Ditch as if this Agreement had never been made, and waiver by the City of
Enforcement of its rights on account of any breach shall not be deemed to constitute a
waiver of any subsequent breach.
•
•
•
•
•
•
12. The signatories affirm that they have authority to sign for Health One described herein.
JN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of
the day and year first above written.
ATTEST:
Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk
STATEOF {"o~tf'ctb
COUNTY Ort.!>.J'Jtt/0r
)
) SS.
)
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD
Randy Penn, Mayor
HCA HEAL TH ONE, LLC
By•~~~-
Title:_~_ __ ··-
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this:?/ day of -JI(~
2015, by :Jfk /d /af.llUj as Cf!"(} of HCA Health One, LLC.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day
an d year first above written .
My Commission Expires:_Z_ ~ _/_1_ -~ tJ/t7 --------· __
3
JUDITH A CLIMER
NOTARY PUIUC
STATE OF COL01tADO
NOTARY ID 19904010080
tlV COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 11, 2011
' '
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A 20-FOOT WIDE DITCH EASEMENT OVER ANO ACROSS THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE
DOCUMENT RECORDED UNDER RECEPTION NUMBER A5116294 IN THE RECORDS OF THE ARAPAHOE
COUNTY CLERK AND REORDER ; SITUATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP
4 SOUTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6th PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN; CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COUNTY OF
ARAPAHOE, STATE OF COLORADO; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 34,
HAVING A BEARING OF NORTH 89°59'58" WEST .
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT
RECORDED UNDER RECEPTION NUMBER A5116294, ALSO BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT
25, BLOCK 5, WEST Vl8N ADDITION TO ENGLEWOOD;
THENCE NORTH 25°39'21" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 265.63 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE THE FOLLOWING SIX (6) COURSES;
1. SOUTH 71a23'56" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 21 .06 FEET;
2. SOUTH 00"21'23" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 92.66 FEET;
3. SOUTH 44°42'32" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 34.86 FEET;
4. SOUTH 89°42'30" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 46 .02 FEET;
5. NORTH 45°16'44" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 90.16 FEET;
6 . NORTH 56°34'14" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 29.12 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF
THAT 20-FOOT WIDE DITCH EASEMENT DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED IN BOOK
1328 AT PAGE457 IN SAID RECORDS;
THENCE SOUTH 1a·1o·ss" EAST, ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 8.36 FEET;
THENCE THE FOLLOWING SIX (6) COURSES;
1. SOUTH 11•54•00• WEST, A DISTANCE OF 20 .00 FEET;
2 . SOUTH 61°05'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 13.52 FEET;
3. SOUTH 45•15·44" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 101.90 FEET;
4. NORTH 89°42 '30" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 62.59 FEET;
5. NORTH 44°42'32" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 51 .44 FEET;
6. NORTH 00°21'23" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 107.55 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING .
CONTAINING AN AREA OF 0.146 ACRES, (6,370 SQUARE FEET}, MORE OR LESS.
V:\81114-01 • Swed ish Med Center Design Survey\Legals \Oitch Easement.docx
Page 1of3
•
•
•
I
•
•
•
EXHIBIT ATTACHED ANO MADE A PART HEREOF.
JAMES E. LYNCH, PLS NO. 37933
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF AZTEC CONSULTANTS, INC .
300 E. MINERAL AVE., SUITE 1, LITTLETON, CO 80122
303-713-1898
V:\81114-01 ·Swed ish Med Center Design Survey\Legals\Oitch Ease ment.docx
Page2of3
ILLUSTRATION TO EXHIBIT A
LOT 35
LOT 34
LOT 33
LOT 32
LOT 31
LOT 30
LOT 29
LOT 28
I
f!.Q{NT OF
SEGINNINQ
I I
I
I
BLOCK 5
WEST VIEW ADDITION
TO ENGLEWOOD
::c ...,.:
t-vi
::.> <( 0-viz
<( O:J ~>-
<!:vi
c..>Z
<CZ >W a..
LOT 27 COLUMBIA HEALlHONE
REC.f "5116294
LOT 26
LOT 14
EXISTING 20' CITY OITOi EASEMENT
BOOK 1328 AT PAGE 457 LOT 15
LOT 21
S61"05'0D"W
13.52'
PARCEL CONTAINS
6,370 (SQ.FT.)
1------0.146 ACRES
LOT 23 MORE OR LESS
BLOCK 6
LOT 24 WEST VIEW ADDITION
TO ENGLEWOOD
(55' ROW) t EAST HAMPDEN AVENUE t 7
-SOUTH LINE OF THE SE1/4 OF SEC. 34 -
N89"59'58"W 1321 .70'
AST 1/16 CORNER SOUlHEAST CORNER
SEC. 34, HS, R68W, 6TH P.M. SEC. 34, T4S, R68W, 6TH PM.
0 ~ ~ 100
·' _,_, ___ ,
1 inch = 50 fl
NOIE: THIS ORA\11\NG DOES NOT REPRESENT A FIELD MONUMENTED SURV£Y AND IS ONLY INTENDED TO DEPICT THE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
PA'lll ' '1:\1111T4-01\DWC
DWC NAME: SMC DITCH EASEMENT EASEMENT EXHIBIT
owe: JEJ.. CHK:_.e...._w __
DATE: 4/13/2015
SCAJ.£; ] "= 50'
SE 1/4, SEC. 34, T4S, R68W, 6TH P.M.
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO
JOB lfUM9ER 81114-01 ~ Of' J SHttlS
•
•
•
•
•
•
EXHIBIT "B"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A 20-FOOT WIDE DITCH EASEMENT OVER AND ACROSS THE PARCEL OF LANO DESCRIBED IN THE
DOCUMENT RECORDED UNDER RECEPTION NUMBER A5116294 IN THE RECORDS OF THE ARAPAHOE
COUNTY CLERK AND REORDER; SITUATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP
4 SOUTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6111 PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN; CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COUNTY OF
ARAPAHOE, STATE OF COLORADO; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 34,
HAVING A BEARING OF NORTH 89°59'58• WEST.
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT
RECORDED UNDER RECEPTION NUMBER A5116294, ALSO BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT
25, BLOCK 5, WEST VIEW ADDITION TO ENGLEWOOD;
THENCE NORTH 44°27'51" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 273.74 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THAT
20-FOOT WIDE DITCH EASEMENT DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED IN BOOK 1328 AT PAGE
457 IN SAID RECORDS, BEING A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF BLOCK 6, WEST VIEW ADDITION TO
ENGLEWOOD, ALSO BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE NORTH OOD04'32" WEST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID EASEMENT AND SAID BLOCK 6, A
DISTANCE OF 20.44 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 78D10'58" EAST, ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID 20-FOOT WIDE DITCH
EASEMENT, A DISTANCE OF 112.14 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 11"54'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF
SAID EASEMENT;
THENCE NORTH 78"10'58" WEST, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 107.90 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING AN AREA OF 0.051 ACRES, (2,200 SQUARE FEET}, MORE OR LESS.
EXHIBIT ATTACHED AND MADE A PART HEREOF.
JAMES E. LYNCH, PLS NO. 37933
FORAND ON BEHALF OF AZTEC CONSULTANTS, INC.
300 E. MINERAL AVE., SUITE 1, LITTLETON, CO 80122
303-713-1898
V:\81114-01 -Swedish Med Center Design Survey\Legals\Ditch Easement Vacation.docx
Page 1of2
ILLUSTRATION TO EXHIBIT B
LOT 35
LOT .34
LOT 33
LOT 32
LOT 31
LOT 30
LOT 29
LOT 28
N00'04'32"W
20.44'
BLOCK 5
WEST VIEW ADDITION
TO ENGLEWOOD
/
/
/
~t;;
::::> <( 0-(!}Z
<( o>
~~
<( l/) uz
<CZ ·~ u -CL
LOT 14
EXISTING 20' CITY DITCH EASEMENT
BOOK 1328 AT PAGE 457 LOT 15
S11 '54'00"W
20.00'
PARCEL CONTAINS
2,200 (SQ.FT.)
0.051 ACRES
MORE OR LESS
LOT 21
{oT 27 COLUMBIA HEALTHOHE C LOT 22
REC.I A5116294
LOT ;:_,2 LO T 23
BLOCK 6
t..O,. 24 WEST VIEW ADDITION
TO ENGLEWOOD
(55' ROW)
t EAST HAMPDEN AVENUE t 7
-SOUTH LINE OF THE SEl /4 OF SEC. 34 -
N89'59'58"W 1321. 70'
AST 1/16 CORNER SOUTHEAST CORNER
SEC. 34, T4S, R6BW, 6TH PM . SEC. 34. T4S, R68W, 6TH P.M.
0 ~ ~ 100
•' -:~§I! -~'
1 inch = 50 ft.
NOTE: THIS DRA'MNG DOES NOT REPRESENT A AELO MONUMENTED SUR\n AND IS ONLY INTENDED TO DEPICT lliE ATIACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
PA '111 : Y:\!ltl.._01\0Ml
OWG NA...S..C DITCH VACAnON
owe: JEl. CHK:__....11..._w __
DATE! 4/13/2015
SCALE: ' J"=5Q'
AZTEC :::"rriO:-WCOLNST,
Lllllrd-. t.olo<odo Mill
......., IJAJ)TIJ.IN
CONSULTANTS, !NC. !~~~.:.....-
EASEMENT EXHIBIT
SE 1/4, SEC. 34, T4S, R68W, 6TH P.M.
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO
JOI! IMl5£R 8,,, 4-01 2or2SH~
•
•
•
;
ii
. =i ·
0
•
()
I
O')
0
0
-Jo.
...... ......
:::f. ··j , ..
'
i ;
HCA SWEDISH MC
NEURO EXPAN. & RENOVATION
CITY DITCH PLAN & PROFILE
..... ...
•
; ----· !· -·.-: ,-·---.---
'f If : ... n ·· ...
r
I
j
......
. ~
·1
.~
(')
~
0
=i
(')
:I:
. .,,
s: z
' " . •' ' '
~ ~
~ ~
~ ·~
~ ~
~ !::.!!..-.
~ ... ___
•
.. ' HU
" ~ §§&! ... ; --•,;, , \ ~~a .. ' .. e •H " "' '88 s mj
' ... . \I
••
•
•
,'
·I ;., • . I . I
• I
"I i s I :, .5"/
• i I ;~;.: ., ... 1 . ~-.!\:~ ,·•
• ~'if! I
I
I
itEDIAND ...... ~
/ Wliere Gteo1 Places Begin
80lllJ Soulh Uncdn-•JO& I ~on. co eoaz
011oot· 11100 ie1 67&1 I_,~
.... v;,
•
•
•
GRANT OF RJGHT OF WAY
THIS GRANT O~ ~HT OF WAY, made this11. day of ~~-----l-z ... ·_ f ,,,,-+---1 _____ _
_____ , 20)!:2_, by and between the CITY OF ENGLEwooD,7municipal
corporation of the State of Colorado, (Englewood) "Grantee", and HCA HEAL TH ONE, LLC
dba SWEDISH MEDICAL CENTER whose address is 501 East Hampden Avenue, Englewood,
Colorado 80110; herein referred to as "Grantor".
For ten dollars ($10.00) and other valuable consideration including the Agreement to
exchange property to allow the Grantor to build on the property located at 501 E . Hampden
Avenue the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged. The undersigned does
hereby grant unto the City of Englewood, Colorado its successors and assigns, a twenty-five foot
(25') wide Right-of-Way for Municipal purposes, to repair, maintain and inspect its City Ditch,
over and through the property described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein,
with the Street Address of:
50 l E. Hampden A venue
Englewood, CO 80113
This Right-of-Way shall be used for the City Ditch, an irrigation ditch system. The City shall
have full use of this Right-of-Way for its use including the operation and maintenance of said
irrigation ditch.
The Grantor hereby grants a right of access over and across the property know as:
501 E. Hampden A venue
Englewood, CO 80113
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Grant of Right of Way the
day and year first above written .
GRANTOR(S):
HCA HEALTH ONE, LLC dba SWEDISH
MEDICAL CENTER
BY: ~·J~lq ___ fu_1 _-.c,..___,,~~· ~k'· __
,-II \J U'\ iJ! tJ l~ Printed Name: __ .>_'-fo-=L-_\;_' 1_' ·H ___ 1 ____ _
Title: L,, u
----------------
E
x
H
I
B
I
T
3
·•"\",
STATE OF COLORADO
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day
and year first above written.
J A CLIMER
NOTARY PUBUC
STATE OF COLORADO
NOTAR Y 1[1 19904010080
MY COMMISSI ~ '· ' • PIRES JULY 19 . 2011
2
•
•
•
• EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A 20-FOOT WIDE DITCH EASEMENT OVER AND ACROSS THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE
DOCUMENT RECORDED UNDER RECEPTION NUMBER A5116294 IN THE RECORDS OF THE ARAPAHOE
COUNTY CLERK AND REORDER; SITUATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP
4 SOUTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 61h PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN; CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COUNTY OF
ARAPAHOE, STATE OF COLORADO ; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BASIS OF BEARINGS : THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 34,
HAVING A BEARING OF NORTH 89°59'58. WEST.
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT
RECORDED UNDER RECEPTION NUMBER A5116294, ALSO BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT
25, BLOCK 5, WEST VIEW ADDITION TO ENGLEWOOD;
THENCE NORTH 25°39'21" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 265.63 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE THE FOLLOWING SIX (6) COURSES;
1. SOUTH 71°23'56" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 21 .06 FEET;
2. SOUTH 00°21'23" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 92.66 FEET;
3. SOUTH 44°42'32" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 34.86 FEET;
• 4. SOUTH 89°42'30" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 46.02 FEET;
•
5. NORTH 45°16'44" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 90 .16 FEET;
6. NORTH 56°34'14" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 29 .12 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF
THAT 20-FOOT WIDE DITCH EASEMENT DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED IN BOOK
1328 AT PAGE 457 IN SAID RECORDS;
THENCE SOUTH 78°10'58" EAST, ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 8.36 FEET;
THENCE THE FOLLOWING SIX (6) COURSES;
1. SOUTH 11°54'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 20 .00 FEET;
2 . SOUTH 61°05'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 13 .52 FEET;
3. SOUTH 45°16'44" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 101 .90 FEET;
4 . NORTH 89°42'30" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 62 .59 FEET;
5. NORTH 44°42'32" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 51.44 FEET;
6. NORTH 00°21'23" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 107.55 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING AN AREA OF 0 .146 ACRES, (6,370 SQUARE FEET), MORE OR LESS .
V:\81114-01 -Swedish Med Center Design Survey\Legals\Ditch Easement.docx
Page 1of3
~II
EXHIBIT ATIACHED AND MADE A PART HEREOF. ·''"-\)0 L tel
, ~~~~ ••••.••• 4'.s::: §c:iv .• S E4~. ~ ~ ~ <:..> • .., ,.:r Ylf;,. • :c:; ~ • '::l"-.. · r'! • ~ (~{ .\ ~~}p)
\~··.J _l?l\\'l ••• -:~.1 ~ ,f' • • ~..,.;· ~ /o •••••••• , ff JAMES E. LYNCH, PLS NO. 37933 ~1.fq~WAL Lr\~_;,
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF AZTEC CONSULTANTS, INC . ""'1t111m111111111, ..
300 E . MINERAL AVE., SUITE 1, LITILETON, CO 80122
303-713-1898
V:\81114-01 -Swedish Med Center Design Survey\Legals\Ditch Easement.docx
Page 2of 3
•
•
•
ILLUSTRATION
LOT 32
L.0 1 3 1
POINT OF
BEG/NNWG
I
i------------~~; 26 I
SW COR . LOT 25,
BLOCK 5 LOT 25
TO EXHIBIT A
--·-··-·--·---~ '
I
. LOT ~L 1
·~---------' r-EXJSTING 20' CITY DITCH EASEMENT !
! BOOK 1328 AT PAGE 457 LOi 15 I
~ ---------S78'10 '58"E -----1
LOT 16 8 ·36 '
N56 ·34'14 "E
29 .12'
' i
! :--
(50' ROW)
~ EAST JEFFERSON AVENUE ~ _ 7 -v -SOUTH LINE OF THE SE1/4 OF SEC. 34 -v-
N89"59'58"W 1321. 70'
AS T 1/16 CORNER SOUTHEAST CORNER
SEC 34, T4S, R68W. 6TH P.M SEC . 34, T4S, R68W, 6TH P.M.
0 25 50 100
•' -!~~!~-~!
1 inch = 50 fl
NOTE: THIS DRAVl1NG DOES NOT REPRESENT A FIELD MONUMENTED SJRITT ANO IS ONLY INTENDED TO DEPICT THE ATIACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION .
ATH : Y:\81114-01\p!G
we NAME SMC DITCH EASEMENT EASEMENT EXHIBIT
OWG: .E. CHK :_.e...._w __
OATt: 3/13/2015
SCA\.(: r =50'
SE 1/4, SEC. 34, T4S, R68W, 6TH P.M .
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO
J08 N\UIER 81114-01 J
City of Englewood
AGENDA ITEM 10 (a)
PUBLIC HEARING ROSTER
DA TE: September 21 , 2015
1!4.. Public Hearing to gather input on the
pro ed 016 City of Englewood Budget.
PLEASE PRINT
NAME ADDRESS
30;.
3% 0 1°4%
General Fund Sources
Revenue
D Sales & Use Taxes
• Charges for Services
D Franchise Fees
D Property Tax
•Cultural & Recreation Program Fees
Intergovernmental Revenue
•Fines & Forfeitures
D Specific Ownership & Cigarette Taxes
• Licenses & Permits
• Component Units Contribution
•Other
D Interest
Total Revenue
D Other Financing Sources
Total Sources of Funds
City of Englewood, Colorado
2016 Proposed Budget Overview
1% 1% ---
2%
Amount O/o General Fund Uses
Expenditure
$ 26,863,699 61% D Police Services
2,551,862 6% • Fire Services
3,173,550 7% D Parks & Recreation Services
3,190,000 7% D Public Works
2,592,400 6% • Debt Service
1,301,662 3% D Finance & Administrative Services
1,008,350 2% • Community Development
442,050 1% D Information Technology
1,168 ,222 3% •Library Services
1,150,000 3% • Municipal Court
211,088 0% D City Attorney's Office
86,446 0% c City Manager's Office
43,739,329 • Human Resource s
350,665 1% • Legislation-City Council & Boards
• Contingencies
Total Expenditure
o Other Financing Uses
$ 44,089,994 100% Total Uses of Funds
Net Sources (Uses) of Funds
Estimated Fund Balance -January 1, 2016
Estimated Fund Balance Before Reserves
Reserves
Estimated Unassigned Fund Balance -December 31, 2016
Amount O/o
$ 13,044,532 27%
-0%
6,136,594 13 %
6,208,706 14%
1,871,644 4%
3,950,669 9%
2,134,378 5%
-0%
1,24 1,179 3%
l,058,583 2%
810,022 2%
6,586,762 14%
-0%
354,591 1%
250,000 1%
43,647,660
2,330,000 5%
$ 45,977 ,660 100%
$ (1,887,666)
9,658,951
7,771,285
(3,263,099)
$ 4,508,186
City of Englewood, Colorado
2016 Proposed Budget Overview
GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPES
January 1,
2016
Est Fund
Balance
Sources of
Funds Uses of Funds
December 31,
2016
Est Fund
Balance
General Fund is the operating fund of the City. It is used to account for all financial resources except for
those required to be accounted in another fund.
General Fund 9,658,951 44,089,994 45,977,660 7,771,285
Special Revenue Funds account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are legally restricted to
expenditure for specified purposes.
Conservation Trust 281 ,606 310,000 556,500 35 ,106
Community Develo(!ment 360,000 360,000
Donor's 364 ,705 105,000 228,000 241,705
Malley Center Trust 235,626 7,000 5,000 237,626
Parks and Recreation Trust 461 ,594 15 ,000 13 ,000 463 ,594
Open Space 276,342 735,000 937,000 74,342
Neighborhood Stabilization Program
Debt Service Fund accounts for the accumulation and payment of long-term debt principal and interest
other than long-term debt accounted for in enterprise funds .
General Obligation Bond Fund 57,792 1,102,000 1,108,113 51,679
Capital Project Funds account for financial resources to be used for the acquisition and/or construction of
major capital facilities (other than those financed by proprietary funds or special revenue funds).
Public Improvement 1,579 ,054 4,509,000 5,399 ,165 688,889
Capital Projects 662,319 1,830,500 2,242,458 250,361
PROPRIETARY FUND TYPES
Enterprise Funds account for operations financed and operated in a manner similar to private business
enterprises.
Water 9,785,231 8,378 ,247 9 ,112,957 9,050,521
Sewer 2,547,522 16,207,602 17,626,078 1,129,046
Storm Drainage 1,117 ,192 329,013 343 ,220 1,102,985
Golf Course 470,393 2,141,498 2,103,184 508,707
Concrete Utility 523,919 884,200 877,664 530,455
Housing Rehabilitation 1,685,060 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,685,060
Internal Service Funds account for the financing of goods or services provided by one department or
agency to other departments or agencies of the go vernment, and to other governmental units, on a cost
reimbursement basis.
Central Services 46,333 301 ,975 332 ,407 15 ,9 01
ServiCenter 1,194,203 2,394,408 2,267,000 1,321,611
CaEital EguiEment ReElacement 2,003 ,106 981,437 1,106 ,447 1,8 78 ,096
Risk Management 60,537 1,445,446 1,435,555 70,428
EmElo i:ee Benefits Fund 75 ,332 5,909,789 5,880,572 104,549
All Funds Total 33 ,086 ,817 93,037,109 98,911,980 27,211 ,946
AFFIDAVIT
OF PUBLICATION
State of Colorado )
Cou nty of Arapa hoe )
)SS
This Affidavit of Publication for th e Eng lewood Herald , a weekly news paper,
printed and published for the County of Arapahoe, State of Co lorado , hereby
certifies th at the attac he d legal notice was published in sa id newsp a per o nc e
in eac h week, fo r _3_ s uccessive week(s), the la st of which publicati on
was made prior to the I 0th day of September A.D., 20 15 , and that copies of
each number of said paper in which sai d Public Notice was published were
delivered by carri e rs or transmitted by mail to each of the sub scr ibers of said
paper, accordin g to their accusto med mode of business in this office.
fo r the
Eng lewood Herald, State of Colorad o
)ss
County of Arapahoe )
T he above Affidav it and Certificate of Publi ca ti on was sub scribed an d sworn
to before me by the above-named JERRY HEALEY Publisher of said news-
paper, w ho is personally known to me to be the identical person in the a bove
certificate on this 10th day of September A.D ., 20 15.
Notary Public , Notary Public, 9 137 Ridgeline Blvd., No. 2 10
Hi g hlands Ranch , Colorado 80129
BARBARA KAY STOLTE
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF COLORADO
NOTARY ID 19874196221
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 10/1212016
My Commiss ion Ex pires 10 .12 .16
Public Notice
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
on the 2016 Proposed Budget
SEPTEMBER 21 , 2015
Notice is hereby given that the City
Council of the City of Englewood,
Colorado will hold a Public Hearing
on the 2016 Proposed Budget on
Monday, SEPTEMBER 21 , 2015 , at
7:30 p.m., In the City Council
Chambers at Englewood Civic
Center, 1000 Englewood Parkway,
Englewood, Colorado. The purpose
of the hearing is to receive citizen
in put concerning the 2016 Proposed
Budget.
Interested parties may express
op in ion s In person at the Public
Hearing , or In writing, to be received
by the City Clerk by 5:00 p.m . on
September 21, 2015. Anyone wishing
to speak at the Public Hearing may
call the City Clerk's Office,
303.762.2407 , 303.762.2405 or
303 .7 83 .6846 , to schedule their
presentation or a sign-up sheet will
be available at the door.
By order of tho Englewood City
Council
Loucrishia A. Ellis, MMC
City Clerk, City of Englewood
1000 Englewood Parkway
Englewood, Colorado 80110
Legal Notice No .. 56651
First Publica tion : August 27 , 2015
Last Publication : September 10 . 2015
Publisher: The Englewood Herald'
and the Littleton Ind ependent
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
City of Englewood, Colorado
Official Website
www.englewoodgov.org
I, Loucrishia A Ellis, City Clerk, for the City of Englewood, do solemnly swear
that the attached legal notice (Notice of Public Hearing September 21, 2015
on the 2016 Proposed Budget) was published on the Official City of
Englewood Website from August 19, 2015 throug
State of Colorado )
) SS
County of Arapahoe )
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 21st day of September, 2015.
My Commission Expires: fllM~ /1, 'lOJ 1
SEAL
STEPHANIE CARLILE
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF COLORADO
UV N'\l~.l~ ID 20154010325
"'' ~EXPIRES MAACH 12, 2019
• CITY OF ENGLEWOOD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
on the 2016 Proposed Budget
SEPTEMBER 21, 2015
Notice is hereby given that the City
Council of the City of Englewood,
Colorado will hold a Public Hearing
on the 2016 Proposed Budget on
Monday, SEPTEMBER 21, 2015, at
7:30 p.m., in the City Council
Chambers at Englewood Civic
Center, 1000 Englewood Parkway,
Englewood, Colorado. The purpose
of the hearing is to receive citizen
input concerning the 2016 Proposed
Budget.
Interested parties may express
opinions in person at the Public
Hearing, or in writing, to be received
by the City Clerk by 5:00 p.m. on
September 21, 2015. Anyone wishing
to speak at the Public Hearing may
call the City Clerk's Office,
303.762.2407, 303.762.2405 or
303.783.6846, to schedule their
presentation or a sign-up sheet will
be available at the door.
By order of the Englewood City
Council
Loucrishia A. Ellis, MMC
City Clerk, City of Englewood
1000 Englewood Parkway
Englewood, Colorado 80110
PUBLISHED: August 19, 2015
Official Website of the
City of Englewood, Colorado
I U
Good Evening Council, Mayor Penn, Mr. Keck, and Mr. Brotzman.
As a long time resident of Englewood for 61 years, and in regards to the planning
for Englewood's future for the next 20 years, I agree with Councilman Joe
Jefferson's suggestion that the final report and vote be slowed down. What is the
rush when the future of Englewood is at stake?
A lot of time and effort has gone into the Comprehensive Plan, Walk N Wheels,
Next Step and Rebranding etc., which sounds wonderful and it is exciting to see
the impute from citizens and the city working together, however, what about the
financial cost and how much will the changes cost the city? I would like to know.
I agree with those who say each one of the above plans deserve thoughtful
consideration along with a process that allows citizens and the new council
members the time and opportunity to participate and evaluate the plan and cost
to the city.
With the city election coming up in a few short weeks some may say it is the
responsibility of the new members of council to know what is going on and that is
true, but how many do? The changes in our growing city are huge and there is a
learning curve that all of you council members went through yourselves and the
same will be true for them. Did you as new city council members already know all
the ins and outs of governing and what the cost of running a city really is?
Some are more informed then others and yet do they know all that has
transpired and all the changes made, do they know all the facts of the financial
cost to the city? Do the citizens know this? These new council members will be
called upon to make decisions they may not be ready for, and these decisions
decide the future of our City of Englewood.
I call upon this sitting council and for the love you profess to have for your City of
Englewood, to please consider Joe's encouraging suggestion to slow down and
not rush into these huge decisions to be made and decide our fate for years to
come. We don't want to lose more of our city because of decisions hastily made.
Thank you, Ida May Nicholl September21, 2015
3°/c 3% 0 104%
General Fund Sources
Reve nu e
D Sa les & Use Taxes
• Charges for Services
D Fra nch ise Fees
D Property Tax
• C ul tura l & Recreation Program Fees
D Intergove rnmental Revenue
• F ine s & Forfe itures
D Specific Owners hip & Cigare tte Taxes
• Lice nses & Permi ts
D Component Units Contribution
•Oth er
D Interest
Tota l Revenue
D Other Financing Sources
Tota l So urces of Fund s
City of Englewood , Colorado
2016 Proposed Budget Overview
2 %
2%
Amount % General Fund Uses
Ex pe nd iture
$ 26 ,863 ,699 6 1% D Po lice Services
2,551 ,862 6 % • Fire Services
3 , 173 ,550 7% D Parks & Rec rea t ion Serv ices
3,190,000 7 % 0 Public Works
2,592 ,400 6% • Debt Service
1,301 ,662 3 % D Finance & Administrative Services
1,008 ,35 0 2% •Comm unity Deve lopment
442 ,050 1% D Information T echnology
1,168 ,222 3% • L ibrary Services
1,150,000 3% •Municipal Court
2 11 ,088 0% D City Attorney's Office
86,446 0 % D City Manager's Office
43 ,739 ,329 • Human Resources
350,665 1 % Cl Le gis lation-City Council & Boards
• Conti ngencies
Tota l Ex pend iture
D Othe r Financing Uses
$ 44 ,089 ,994 100% Tota l Uses of Fund s
Ne t Sources (U ses) of Funds
Estimated Fund Balance -January I , 2016
Estimated Fund Balance Before Reserves
Res erv es
Esti mated Unassigned Fund Balance -December 31 , 20 16
Amount O/o
$ 13,044,532 27%
-0 %
6 , 136 ,594 13%
6,208 ,706 14 %
1,871 ,644 4%
3 ,950,669 9 %
2 ,134,378 5%
-0 %
1,24 1,179 3%
1,058,583 2%
8 10 ,022 2%
6,586,762 14 %
-0%
354,591 1%
250,000 1%
43 ,647 ,660
2,330,000 5%
$ 45,977 ,660 100%
$ (1 ,887,666)
9,658 ,951
7,771 ,285
(3 ,263,099)
$ 4,508 ,186
City of Englewood , Colorado
2016 Proposed Budget Overview
GOVERNMENT AL FUND TYPES
January l ,
2016
Est Fund
Balance
Sources of
Funds Uses of Funds
December 3 l ,
2016
Est Fund
Balance
General Fund is the operating fund of the Ci ty. It is used to account for al/financial resources except for
those required to be accounted in another fund.
General Fund 9,658,951 44,089,994 45,977,660 7,771,285
Special Revenue Funds account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are legally restricted to
expenditure for specified purposes.
Conservation Trust 281 ,606 310 ,000 556 ,500 35 ,106
Community Develo~ment 360,000 360,000
Donor's 364 ,705 105 ,000 228 ,000 241 ,705
Malley Center Trust 235,626 7,000 5,000 237,626
Parks and Recreation Trust 461 ,594 15 ,000 13,000 463 ,594
Open Space 276,342 735,000 937,000 74,342
Neighborhood Stabilization Program
Debt Service Fund accounts for the accumulation and payment of long-term debt principal and interest
other than long-term debt accounted for in enterprise funds .
General Obligation Bond Fund 57,792 1,102,000 1,108,113 51,679
Capital Project Funds account for financial resources to be used for the acquisition and/or construction of
major capital facilities (other than those financed by proprietary funds or special revenue funds).
Public Improvement 1,579 ,054 4,509 ,000 5,399 ,165 688 ,889
Capital Projects 662,319 1,830,500 2,242,458 250,361
PROPRIETARY FUND TYPES
Enterprise Funds account for operations financed and operated in a manner similar to private business
enterprises.
Water 9,785 ,231 8,378 ,247 9 ,112 ,957 9,050 ,521
Sewer 2,547,522 16,207,602 17,626,078 1,129,046
Storm Drainage 1,117,192 329,013 343 ,220 1,102 ,985
Golf Course 470,393 2,141,498 2,103,184 508,707
Concrete Utility 523 ,919 884,200 877,664 530 ,455
Housing Rehabilitation 1,685,060 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,685,060
Internal Service Funds account for the financing of goods or services provided by one department or
agency to other departments or agencies of the government, and to other governmental units, on a cost
reimbursement basis.
Central Services 46,333 301 ,975 332 ,407 15 ,90 I
ServiCenter 1,194,203 2,394,408 2,267,000 1,321,611
CaEital Eg,uiEment ReElacement 2,003,106 981 ,437 1,106 ,447 1,878,096
Risk Management 60,537 1,445,446 1,435,555 70,428
EmEloyee Benefits Fund 75 ,332 5,909,789 5,880,572 104 ,549
All Funds Total 33 ,086,817 93,037 ,109 98,911 ,980 27,211 ,946
• COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date: Agenda Item: Subject:
September 21, 2015 10a Fiscal Year 2016 Budget
Public Hearing
Initiated By: Staff Source:
City Manager's Office Eric A. Keck, City Manager
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
The City Council is required by the Colorado Revised Statutes to adopt a balanced budget for all
funds prior to the beginning of a new fiscal year. The Englewood City Council has previously
studied the proposed Fiscal Year 2015 budget at workshops conducted on June 29, July 20, July
24, and August 10th. Council had previously set the date for the public hearing on the proposed
budget for 21 September 2015 .
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends conducting a public hearing to obtain comments and concerns from the
community concerning the proposed Fiscal Year 2016 budget prior to entertaining an ordinance
for adoption of the budget on 5 October 2015.
• BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED
•
Staff is very pleased to bring forth the balanced budget proposal for the Fiscal Year 2016 period.
The budget process has been very helpful in the understanding of the organization, its culture
and priorities. The goals of the Fiscal Year 2016 process have been as follows:
1. Ensure that Englewood is on the road to fiscal health
2. "Right-size" the organization
3. Eliminate transfers in and out of the General Fund to ensure the true cost of business
performance is represented
4. Provide for significantly more funding for capital projects in 2016
5. Begin the more concerted emphasis on adhering to our reserve policy
Staff has previously provided the City Council and the community with the highlights of the
budget. This is a transition year for the City as it pertains to its current organizational structure,
hierarchy, and budgeting ethos. Further departmental consolidation will occur in 2016 with
Parks, Recreation, and Golf merging with the Library. The City will also move in earnest to the
Priority Based Budgeting methodology for the 2017 budget; however, the Council will be able
to utilize the Fiscal Health and Wellness tool in 2016 to discuss proposed changes to the budget
as well as examine the impact of capital projects upon the City's fund balances and reserves .
Staff looks forward to the input from the public on the proposed budget and will be prepared to
make any necessary amendments as directed by the Council as a result of the public hearing .
The Council will have a workshop on 28 September 2015 to address any changes.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The Fiscal Year 2016 budget is proposed to generate $43,883, 771 in revenue. Expenditures are
proposed at $43,662,660 which is $221,111 below the projected revenues for a net surplus to
the budget .
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
•
•
•
•
•
•
City of Englewood, Colorado
Budget Advisory Committee
Annual Report to
City Council
Submitted
September 8, 2015
Prepared by
Christine McGroarty, Chair
Steve Ward, Vice Chair
John Moore
Harvey Pratt
Ben Rector
www.englewoodgov.org/budget-advisory-committee
10~
The Budget Advisory Committee is pleased to present its second annual report to the
Englewood City Council.
Background
The Englewood City Council created the Budget Advisory Committee in May 2013
(Ordinance 16 , Series 2013) with the following purpose:
The Budget Advisory Committee (BAC) is established by Council and the City Manager to
advise the City on the development, implementation, and evaluation of the annual City
Budget. Participation in the Budget Advisory Committee is an opportunity not only to
advise on the prioritization of how city tax dollars are spent, but also to advise
policymakers in their decision-making process in an open and transparent manner.
The BAC is comprised of:
Christine McGroarty , Chair
Steve Ward , Vice Chair
John Moore
Harvey Pratt
Ben Rector
Joe Jefferson, City Council Liaison
Linda Olson, Alternate City Council Liaison
The BAC has been meeting monthly along with various City staff to deliver on its charge :
Once the budgets have been reviewed and have incorporated requests for new programs
and/or personnel authorized by the City Manager, the Budget Advisory Committee shall
submit a written report of its findings and recommendations (BAC Report). The BAC
Report shall be delivered to Council prior to the public hearing regarding the budget.
Overview
Membership in the BAC affords us the opportunity to meet annually with the various city
departments. To prepare last year's report, we met with the fire , public works and human
resources departments. For this year 's report , we had meetings with community development,
police , and parks and recreation.
Each department meeting is an opportunity for us as lay citizens to learn about how each of
these city departments provides services that benefit the citizens , how each department is
managed, and what personnel or capital purchases each department needs or wants. We also
have an opportunity to see the proactive long-term planning that each department does.
Budget Advisory Committee Annual Report to Englewood City Council
September 8, 2015
2
•
•
•
• The BAC enjoyed its second year participating in the budget process, and we continue to be
impressed with the City staff we met and believe they are committed and dedicated to goals
developed by the Council:
• A City that provides and maintains a quality infrastructure
• A City that is safe, clean, healthy and attractive
• A progressive City that provides responsive and cost effective services
• A City that is business-friendly and economically diverse
• A City that provides diverse culture, recreation, and entertainment .
In this year's BAC Report, we will provide comments and recommendations around the
following issues:
• Fire department
• Parks and recreation
• Police department
• Community development
• Priority based budgeting
• Economic development and shifting demographics
• Retrospective: Review oflast year's BAC recommendations as adopted
• • Prospective: Recommendations going forward
•
Fire Department
Although Council routinely has to make difficult decisions, perhaps the most difficult decision
it has faced in several years was to the fate of the Englewood Fire Department. When Council
hired the new City Manager, Eric Keck, one of his first assignments was to provide the Council
with information to help decide if the fire department should continue as is or if there was a
better solution to address the mounting financial pressures.
Mr. Keck spent months researching the various options which included continuing a city run
fire department or contracting the services from either the South Metro Fire/Rescue Authority
or the Denver Fire Department and the Denver Health Paramedic Division (for ambulance
services).
During this time many vocal citizens became involved and contacted their council members
regarding their concerns about the options. As a result, there were several public hearings. A
major concern was why the Englewood Fire Department, whose history was over 100 years
old, should be disbanded.
After completing his evaluation, Mr. Keck reported to Council that he thought the best decision
for Englewood was to contract with the Denver Fire Department and Denver Health for
paramedic services. He explained this was the most cost effective decision, as compared to the
cost of keeping the current Englewood Fire Department or the cost of going with South Metro
Budget Advisory Committee Annual Report to Englewood City Council
September 8, 2015
3
Fire/Rescue Authority.
Many Englewood citizens attended the Council study session where the future of the
Englewood Fire Department was discussed and the City Manager's recommendation made . At
the next Council study session, Mr. Keck had several top officials of the Denver Fire
Department and Denver Health paramedic service at the meeting to discuss what services
would be provided under the contract a s well as the proposed response times. Additionally, the
Deputy City Manager of Glendale spoke about Glendale 's 10 years of experience under their
contract with Denver Fire and Denver Health. He said Glendale has been very pleased with the
arrangement. When there was a major fire all the equipment needed to fight the fire was there
and stayed until the fire was out.
There were still Englewood citizens and some Council members that were opposed to the
recommendation and wanted to delay the decision until the 2015 election when a ballot
question regarding the fire department could be put to a vote of the citizenry. It was clear to a ll
parties involved that the Englewood Fire Depaitment could not thrive or survive unless the
citizens approved additional funding. With such a short timeline , it wo uld have been difficult
to p lan for a bond issue to supply the funds needed to rebuild Engle wood's fire stations and
secure new apparatus. Despite these obstacles , Council had the option to put forth a ballot
question proposing a tax increase that would allow Englewood to keep its fire department.
When Counci l decided not to put the que stion on the 2015 ballot, the next issue was what
•
would happen to the Englewood firefighters if Denver Fire was contracted for service. During •
the Denver Fire and Denver Health presentation it was explained the Englewood firefighters
would be welcome to apply and would be given preference, although they would have to attend
the Denver Fire Academy.
A majority of the Council decided it was time to make a decision and voted to contract with the
Denver Fire Department and Denver Health. The Council directed the City Manager to begin
negotiations. Council gave final approval of the contract May 2015 with service beginning
June 1, 2015. Currently Denver Fire Department is providing Englewood fire protection and
Denver Health is providing coverage with two dedicated ambulances.
The good news is 40 members of the Englewood Fire Department joined the Denver Fire
Department and had a brief four to five week training session at the Denver Fire Academy.
Unfortunately three members were disqualified for background events , and eight members of
the Englewood Fire Department decided to retire.
Parks and Recreation
The parks and recreation department takes care of more than just our city's parks . They also
maintain medians where greenery is planted, run Pirates Cove , and share use of some fields
and recreation facilities with the Englewood School District.
Englewood's citizens make heavy use of Englewood 's parks. Many of the services provided by
the parks and recreation department are free to citizens. Other activities , such as Pirates Cove, •
Budget Advisory Committee Annual Report to Englewood City Council
September 8, 2015
4
•
•
•
generate more revenue than is required to provide the service. Rather than setting those excess
revenues aside for infrastructure improvements, upwards of $300 ,000 per year aided in the
city's operations in years of declining revenues. Sacrifices were made to accommodate the
city's more immediate needs; specifically, expensive capital projects were delayed or denied.
As an example, it costs a minimum of $250,000 to replace a restroom in a park. The cost to
replace irrigation systems is closer to $1 million. The parks and recreation department
identifies these costly infrastructure needs annually, but those funds cannot be used for
identified needs if Council assigns this money to other uses.
When major recreation facilities such as Pirates Cove, Englewood Recreation Center, or the
Malley Center are built, the parks and recreation department has traditionally used bond
proceeds. While bond money is effective in paying for these large capital costs, it is not as
effective in paying for maintenance or upgrades. A steady hand is required in order to ensure
that future expansion plans as well as ongoing maintenance do not become burdensome to the
city's overall budget.
No one questions the value of our city 's parks and recreation facilities. Members of other
nearby municipalities are paying property taxes into a special district for parks and recreation
facilities. Their payment of 8 .8 mils goes exclusively to the South Suburban Parks and
Recreation District (SSPRD). The municipal mill levy that these citizens pay is in addition to
the 8.8 mills for SSPRD. In Englewood, our parks , along with all other city services, are
supported by a smaller 8.124 mill levy. Englewood does not have any special districts adding
to the mill lev y that we pay. It's important to note that Englewood's mill levy goes to support
all city services not just parks and recreation. Additional funds come from sales and use taxes,
grants, and lottery dollars to supplement Englewood 's low property tax rate.
Englewood is blessed with a parks and recreation system that effectively meets the needs of its
citizens. Indeed, Pirates Cove is a regional attraction serving not just the citizens of
Englewood. We encourage Council to continue its support of our parks and recreation
department and to exercise extreme caution when it prioritizes other activities over long term
infrastructure needs. We are pleased to see that the proposed budget for 2016 does not include
any transfers from parks and recreation to the general fund .
Police
When we met with the police department, Chief John Collins discussed two major department
needs . The department has a significant capital need because it is housed in a 44-year-old
building. This building is afflicted with HV AC issues, a leaking roof, inadequate locker rooms,
lack of room to securely catalog and store evidence, and an overall lack of square footage for
offices. Additionally, the current public safety building is not functional as a jail because of the
issues listed above. The estimated cost for rebuilding or replacing the police building is $15 to
$16 million.
The BAC believes that it is appropriate to investigate and discuss funding options to replace
the police building. While a certificate of participation (COP) or lease purchase option might
Budget Advisory Committee Annual Report to Englewood City Council
September 8, 2015
5
be considered, we believe that a bond is a less expensive financing option. We also support the •
use of a bond rather than a COP because a bond option recognizes the citizen 's right to make
deci sions regarding the long-term finances of the city.
Chie f Collins also shared with us some concerns regarding personnel and staffing. While it is
likel y that every city department would prefer "more bodies ," the chiefs concerns extend
beyond just the number of bodies he has on staff. Acquiring and training a police officer is an
expensive and lengthy process. Some police departments in other cities can afford to choose
appli cants , pay their tuition through the law enforcement academy, and bring them on board as
full police officers after they are certified by the Peace Officers Standards and Training
(POST) Board . Unfortunately, Englewood 's budget does not allow us to hire police officers
before they are POST certified.
An increase in the police department's staffing budget would allow the city to pay for police
offi cer candidates ' POST certification and would thereby ensure that Englewood could
compete with other, larger municipalities for a larger applicant pool. This approach would
result in increased up-front hiring costs , but we believe Chief Collins when he indicates that
the investment would allow us to hire the best-qualified candidates into long-term positions.
We encourage Council to investigate this approach in hiring future police officers and consider
evaluating the results through a pilot program.
So me nearby municipalities recently received a lot of media attention for their ticketing
practices . It seems that some law enforcement agencies are focused on ticket writing for the •
purposes of revenue generation. We commend Chief Collins for overseeing Englewood 's
recent shift from a "numbers-driven" (quota) policing system where the officer who wrote the
most tickets was seen as the most effective officer to a more "hot spot" or "community-based"
mo de l. By analyzing crime statistics and focus ing police attention on areas of the city where
the highest numbers of crimes occur, our police officers are better equipped to build positive
relationships in the community. As citizens of Englewood, we support a police department that
continues to maintain focus on its primary purpose: preventing and responding to serious
crim es and providing services to victims.
Community Development
Our visit with the community development department revealed an active group that serves our
citizens in a number of ways. Community de velopment is responsible for appro ving building
plans , verifying zoning requirements , and marketing our city to potential business owners. The
department serves to aid business owners , developers , and citizens in ensuring that their
pro posed projects comply with Englewood 's requirements before ground is broken.
Additionally, community development is deepl y involved in the city 's comprehensive plan.
We believe that community development is a great asset to the city, and w ill continue to be so
we ll into the future. Sometimes , potential dev elopment is stymied by bureaucratic hurdles. In
our meeting, the officials from community de velopment made it clear that they are available to
members of the public to assist with understanding the regulatory hurdles involved in
de ve lopment. We encourage further marketing of the community development department as a •
Bu dget Advisory Committee Annual Report to Englewood City Council
September 8 , 2015
6
•
•
•
resource for business owners and homeowners to foster a collaborative rather than adversarial
relationship with the city's regulatory officials.
We would like to see continued focus on economic development and the adoption of policies
that contribute to sustained business growth in our city. Because our city is dependent upon
sales tax for much of its revenue, we would like to see continued allotment of resources to our
community development department to allow it to effectively attract and keep major retailers in
areas that will revitalize surrounding neighborhoods of our city. The success of the King
Soopers at Belleview and Federal is an example of how the work of our community
development department can serve to provide both an economic benefit and a lifestyle
convenience to the people of Englewood.
Priority Based Budgeting
The BAC is extremely interested in the results of the City's priority based budgeting initiative.
Council members and staff alike seem to be enthusiastic about the initiative and the BAC is
eager to see the impacts it will have on the budget and the budgeting process. As the BAC
often discusses which services are most important to citizens and how resources should be
allocated, the initiative's focus on results-based resource allocation is of considerable interest
to the committee. The BAC is especially enthusiastic about the outcomes of the fiscal health
and wellness initiative. Thus far the fiscal health and wellness approach seems to be
incorporating several of the issues that we raised in the 2014 BAC report (e.g., fiscal policies
and long term sustainability). The BAC looks forward to participating in and learning about
the outcomes of the priority based budgeting initiative.
Economic Development, Growth and Changing Demographics
Although there is some disagreement, the BAC believes that current growth and development
is, over all, positive for Englewood. The BAC supports the emphasis the City Manager is
placing on economic development. There is significant new construction and development
happening around the City from new grocery stores and apartments to expansion of medical
facilities. However, there is some concern among citizens about the growth in the number of
apartments in the City. The influx of new residents should have a positive impact, particularly
on growth of new and existing businesses. Inevitably there are tradeoffs between the economic
benefits of growth against the increased demands for services associated with that growth. The
BAC believes it is important to analyze both costs and benefits associated with growth and
development. For example, how many new residents can be added before an additional police
officer is needed? The BAC believes that conducting a robust analysis of costs and benefits
and including that analysis in the decision-making process is key. Consider, the State requires
that all new state legislation have an accompanying fiscal note that analyzes expenditure and
revenue implications. The BAC believes a similar approach could be valuable to the City as
projects are being considered.
There are several initiatives underway including Englewood Forward and the branding
initiative. Although change can be difficult, the BAC supports these initiatives as being critical
to Englewood's community and economic vitality. The Committee is very pleased to see the
significant effort being undertaken to involve citizens and get their input on these initiatives.
Budget Advisory Committee Annual Report to Englewood City Council
September 8, 2015
7
The BAC also applauds the cooperation of the various city departments in these development •
initiatives. Close cooperation, such as between community development and public works, is
essential to ensure that the City's infrastructure (e.g., parking and transportation) is adequate to
handle an increased number of residents. The BAC urges close collaboration between all
departments to ensure that all perspectives and costs are understood, considered and addressed
as the City grows.
Retrospective: Review of Last Year's BAC Recommendations as Adopted
In the first annual BAC Report, we addressed a number of issues from citizen involvement to
aging infrastructure. The BAC is pleased to see progress on several of those issues over the
last 12 months. The work with the Center for Priority Based Budgeting is addressing concerns
the BAC raised around the need for the City to have a reserve policy and to engage in more
long-term planning. The Council is reviewing a draft of financial policies that establish
parameters and guidelines for a number of items including reserve policies. The BAC is very
pleased to see the financial policy document and is appreciative of the opportunity to
contribute ideas to the drafts.
Infrastructure needs were a major theme of the 2014 BAC Report and continue to be a critical
issue that the BAC urges Council to keep front and center. Since his arrival in September of
20 14, the City Manager has worked with departments to develop a snapshot of Englewood's
infrastructure needs. The list of needs totaled more than $100 million over the next 20 years.
One of the intended uses for the savings from outsourcing the fire department was to bolster •
capital improvements funding. The BAC hopes that a significant portion of the savings will be
dedicated to capital infrastructure needs and will not be used to increase ongoing operating
expenses. Despite this infusion of new funding, the City's capital and infrastructure needs
remain significant. Addressing these needs continue to be a high priority issue for the BAC.
Another major theme in the 2014 BAC Report was the City 's vulnerability due to its heavy
reliance on volatile sales tax revenues. 58% of Englewood's revenue comes from sales tax.
Because sales tax revenue depends on consumer spending, it is subject to fluctuations as the
economy rises and falls. The economic downturn of 2008 had a significant negative impact on
Englewood's financial situation. While the City was able to weather those difficulties and is
currently in a strong financial position, greater insulation from the volatility of heavy
dependence on sales tax revenues remains an important issue. In the 2014 report, the BAC
discussed the need to diversify the City's revenue streams. We urge Council to continue
looking for ways to generate revenue that is more stable and sustainable than sales tax.
As referenced in the parks and recreation discussion, many citizens of nearby municipalities
pay into special districts for fire protection, library services , and parks and recreation. These
citizens can wind up paying in excess of 20 mills just to special districts. Englewood does not
have any of these special districts. The library , parks and recreation , and fire protection are all
funded from the city 's general ftmd. Unquestionably. our low property taxes make Englewood
an a ttractive place for rental properties and businesses.
Budget Advisory Committee Annual Report to Englewood City Council
September 8, 2015
8
•
•
•
•
Property taxes are a sensitive and controversial issue in any area. The members of the BAC
respectfully suggest that Council take a closer look at the property tax breakdown in
Englewood and in other nearby cities. The possibility of asking the citizens for a property tax
increase to fund the current and ongoing needs of the Englewood Fire Department was roundly
rejected by Council this year. Englewood has a lengthy list of long-tenn capital improvement
needs that will require a stable revenue source to address. We believe that if specific numbers
are presented to the citizens ahead of these funding needs, the citizenry will be better prepared
to make an educated decision as other issues similar to the fire department arise (such is
already happening with respect to the police department facility , discussed above).
Another issue the BAC discussed in our 2014 report was the issue of citizen involvement.
Increasing citizen involvement in the budget was a major factor in Council's decision to create
the BAC. In addition to developing this report, last year the BAC developed a citizens' Budget
in Brief in hopes of making Englewood's budget more accessible to citizens. Unfortunately it
does not appear as though that effort reached very many citizens. The BAC has postponed
development of a citizens' Budget in Brief until later in the year. The BAC plans to revisit the
citizen's budget and the issue of increasing citizen engagement in the fall.
Prospective: Recommendations Going Forward
As we noted in the closing of our 2014 BAC report, the annual budget process by its very
nature favors a shorter-term focus, but the long-term sustainability of the City demands that the
annual budget process include an increasing look down the road. Tremendous stress on future
budgets can be anticipated due to our aging infrastructure, and we support an explicit and ever
increasing focus on those challenges . The events with respect to the fire department this past
year highlight two issues -these challenges are real and imminent, and waiting to address them
limits options .
While the BAC commends the City Manager and Council for facing the fire department
challenge and not "kicking the can" even further down the road, we believe the delay in
addressing the problem effectively took off the table the chance for the citizens to weigh in via
a ballot measure. Rather than presuming citizens would not be willing to pay to retain an
independent, dedicated Englewood Fire Department, ideally we would have given them a
chance to express their collective opinion.
The police department facility is probably the most pressing significant capital need, and we
encourage Council to engage the citizens early in the process. But that is just the fust in a long
line of needs, and we continue to encourage Council to develop a plan to address these issues
over the next five to 10 years. We also hope to see the financial policy document finalized
before we issue our 2016 BAC report.
The BAC is invested in the City's success, and we look forward to continuing to work with
Council on the budgetary issues so that the City can continue to provide excellent services to
the citizens, long into the future .
Budget Advisory Committee Annual Report to Englewood City Council
September 8, 2015
9
2Ul6 Proposed Hudget Overview rDtt
3°/o
2 O/o 1 O/o 3 O/o 1 Oft O/o
•
2°/o
2°/o
'""'
14°/o
General Fund Sources Amount O/o General Fund Uses Amount O/o
Revenue Expenditure
Sales & Use Taxes $ 26,863,699 61 o/o [] Police Services $ 13,044,532 27o/o
• Charges for Services 2,551,862 6°/o • Fire Services -••"/ .> /b • D Franchise Fees 3,173,550 7% D Parks & Recreation Services 6,136,594 13%
D Property Tax 3,190,000 7°/o D Public Works 6,208,706 14°/o
•Cultural & Recreation Program Fees 2,592,400 6% • Debt Service 1,871,644 4%
Intergovernmental Revenue 1,301,662 3°/o a Finance & Administrative Services 3,950,669 9°/o
•Fines & Forfeitures 1,008,350 2% •Community Development 2,134,378 5%
0 Specific Ownership & Cigarette Taxes 442,050 1°/o D Information Technology -0°/o
• Licenses & Permits 1,168,222 3% •Library Services 1,241, 179 3% ° Component Units Contribution 1,150,000 3°/o • Municipal Court 1,058,583 2°/o
•Other 211,088 0% D City Attorney's Office 810,022 2%
0 Interest 86,446 0°/o D City Manager's Office 6,586,762 14°/o
Total Revenue 43,739,329 • Human Resources -0%
D Other Financing Sources 350,665 1°/o D Legislation-City Council & Boards 354,591 1°/o
• Contingencies 250,000 1%
Total Expenditure 43,647,660
D Other Financing Uses 2,330,000 5%
Total Sources of Funds $ 44,089,994 100% Total Uses of Funds $ 45,977,660 100% • Net Sources (Uses) of Funds $ (1,887 ,666)
Estimated Fund Balance -January 1, 2016 9,658,951
Estimated Fund Balance Before Reserves 7,771,285
Reserves (1.261.099)
•
City of Englewood, Colorado
2016 Proposed Budget Overview
GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPES
•
January 1,
2016
Est Fund
Balance
Sources of
Funds Uses of Funds
December 31 ,
2016
Est Fund
Balance
General Fund is the operating fund of the City. It is used to account for all financial resources except for
those required to be accounted in another fund.
General Fund 9,658,951 44,089,994 45,977,660 7,771,285
Special Revenue Funds account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are legally restricted to
expenditure for specified purposes.
Conservation Trust 281 ,606 310,000 556 ,500 35 ,106
Community Development 360,000 360,000
Donor's 364 ,705 105 ,000 228 ,000 241,705
Malley Center Trust 235,626 7,000 5,000 237,626
Parks and Recreation Trust 461,594 15,000 13 ,000 463 ,594
Open Space 276,342 735,000 937,00.Q ____ 74,342
Neighborhood Stabilization Program
Debt Service Fund accounts for the accumulation and payment of long-term debt principal and interest
other than long-term debt accounted for in enterprise funds .
General Obligation Bond Fund 57,792 1,102,000 1,108,113 51,679
Capital Project Funds account for financial resources to be used/or the acquisition and/or construction of
major capital facilities (other than those financed by proprietary funds or special revenue funds).
_P_u_bl_ic_Im__.!p,___r_ov_e_m_e_n_t ________ 1...:.,_57_9..:..,0_5_4 ___ 4....:,_5_09...:.,_00_0 ___ 5:.....,3_9_;9,:_1_65 ___ 688 ,889
Capital Projects 662,319 1,830,500 2,242,458 250,361
~-----"---
PROPRIETARY FUND TYPES
Enterprise Funds account for operations financed and operated in a manner similar to private business
enterprises.
Water 9,785 ,231 8,378 ,247 9,112 ,957 9,050 ,521
Sewer 2,547,522 16,207,602 17,626,078 1,129,046 ----
Storm Drainage 1, 117 , 192 329 ,013 343 ,220 1, 102,985 -
Golf Course 470,393 2,141,498 2,103,184 508,707
Concrete Utility 523 ,919 884 ,200 877 ,664 530 ,455
Housing Rehabilitation 1,685,060 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,685,060
Internal Service Funds account for the financing of goods or services provided by one department or
agency to other departments or agencies of the government, and to other governmental units, on a cost
reimbursement basis.
Central Services 46 ,333 301,975 332,407 15,901
ServiCenter 1,194,203 2,394,408 2,267,000 --~321,611
Capital Equipment Replacement 2 ,003,106 981,437 1,106 ,447 1 ,878 ,0 ~6
Risk Management 60,537 1,445,446 1,435,555 70,42!_
E mployee Benefits Fund 75 ,332 5,909 ,789 5,880 ,572 104 ,5 49 -All Funds Total 33 ,086 ,817 93 ,037 ,109 98 ,911 ,980 27,211,946
•
•
•
•
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date: Agenda Item: Subject:
September 21, 2015 llai Adult Protective Services
Cooperative Agreement IGA
Initiated By: Staff Source:
Police Department Commander Sam Watson
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
N/A
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Police Department is recommending that City Council adopt a Bill for an Ordinance on first
reading which will authorize the Chief of Police to sign an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)
with the Arapahoe County Department of Human Services.
BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED
This agreement provides for mutual aid and cooperation between and across jurisdictions
within the 18th Judicial District for the reporting, responding and investigation of mistreatment,
exploitation and self-neglect of at-risk adults (over 70 years of age and/or mentally disabled).
Per Colorado Revised Statute, the Police Department is required to investigate mistreatment,
self-neglect or exploitation of at-risk adults and shall develop and implement cooperative
agreements to coordinate the investigative duties of such agencies. The focus of this agreement
shall be to ensure the best protection for at-risk adults.
This agreement shall provide for special requests by one agency for assistance from another
agency and for joint investigations. This agreement further provides that each agency shall
maintain the confidentiality of the information exchanged pursuant to such joint investigation.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There are no monetary or funding impacts associated with this IGA.
LIST OF ATIACHMENTS
Adult Protective Services Cooperative Agreement
•
•
•
ORDINANCE NO.
SERIES OF 2015
BY AUTHORITY
COUNCIL BILL NO. 47
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER -------
A BILL FOR
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AN INTER GOVERNMENT AL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
ARAPAHOE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES AND THE CITY OF
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO REGARDING MUTUAL AID AND COOPERATION BETWEEN
AND ACROSS JURJSDICTIONS WITHIN THE 18rn JUDICIAL DISTRICT FOR
INVESTIGATION OF REPORTS INVOLVING POSSIBLE MISTREATMENT OR SELF-
NEGLECT OF AT-RISK ADULTS.
WHEREAS , the 18th Judicial District consists of Aurora, Bow Mar, Cheny Hills Village,
Columbine Valley, Englewood, Glendale, Greenwood Village, Littleton, and Sheridan; and
WHEREAS, this intergovernmental agreement provides for the police departments mutual aid
and cooperation between and across jurisdictions within the 18th Judicial District for the
reporting, responding and investigation of mistreatment, exploitation of self-neglect of at-risk
adults (over 70 years of age and/or mentally disabled); and
WHEREAS, to clarify the coordinated duties and responsibilities of agencies involved in
reporting, responding, and investigating reports regarding the mistreatment, exploitation and self-
neglect of at-risk adults; and
WHEREAS, Colorado Revised Statute §26-3.1 -103(21) states that each county department,
law enforcement agency, district attorney's office, other agency responsible under federal law or
the laws of this state to investigate mistreatment, self-neglect or exploitation of at-risk adults
shall develop and implement cooperative agreements to coordinate the investigative duties of
such agencies to ensure the best protection for at-risk adults; and
WHEREAS, Colorado Revised Statute §26-3.1-103(21) states the agreements shall provide
for special requests by one agency for assistance from another agency and for joint
investigations; as well as each agency shall maintain the confidentiality of the information
exchanged pursuant to such joint investigation; and
WHEREAS, Colorado Revised Statute §26-3 .1-103(21) states this intergovernmental
agreement is made to ensure coordinated response during all hours, to provide for special
requests for assistance from one agency to another, and to arrange for joint investigation(s) when
needed to maximize the effectiveness of the civil and criminal investigative processes; and
WHEREAS, it is understood that joint investigations may be used as a means to coordinate
the efforts of the involved agencies, and that each individual agency remains accountable to its
own rules, policies, and statutes; and
1
WHEREAS , it is understood that joint agencies involved in this intergovernmental agreement
shall accept reports of known or suspected mistreatment or self-neglect of at-risk adults; and
WHEREAS , the passage of this Ordinance authorizes an "Intergovernmental Agreement
between Arapahoe County Department of Human Services made to ensure coordinated response
during all hours, to provide for special requests for assistance from one agency to another, and to
arrange for joint investigation(s) when needed to maximize the effectiveness of the civil and
criminal investigative processes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado hereby authorizes an
"Intergovernmental Agreement Between Arapahoe County Department of Human Services and the
City of Englewood" for mutual aid and cooperation between and across jurisdictions within the 18 TH
Judicial District for investigation reports involving possible mistreatment or self-neglect of at-risk
adults, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 2. The Chief of Police of the City of Englewood is hereby authorized to sign said
Intergovernmental Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Englewood.
Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 21st day of September, 2015.
Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 24th day of
September, 2015 .
Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City's official website beginning on the 23rd day of
September, 2015 for thirty (30) days.
Randy P. Penn, Mayor
ATTEST:
Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk
I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado , hereby certify that the
above and foregoing is a true copy of a Bill for an Ordinance, introduced, read in full, and passed on
first reading on the 21st day of September, 2015 .
Loucrishia A. Ellis
2
•
•
•
•
•
•
Adult Protective Services Cooperative Agreement
Between
The Arapahoe County Department of Human Services
And
Arapahoe County Attorney
Arapahoe County Sheriff
District Attorney, 18th Judicial District
The Cities of: Police Department(s):
Aurora, Bow Mar, Cherry Hills Village, Columbine Valley,
Englewood, Glendale, Greenwood Village, Littleton,
Sheridan, acting by and through their respective Police
Departments .
I. SUBJECT: Arapahoe County Adult Protective Services Cooperative Agreement for
investigation of reports involving possible mistreatment or self-neglect of at-risk
adults.
II.
Ill.
IV.
PURPOSE: To clarify the coordinated duties and responsibilities of agencies
involved in reporting, responding, and investigating reports regarding the
mistreatment , exploitation and self-neglect of at-risk adults.
TERM OF AGREEMENT: This Agreement will commence upon the date of the final
signature and will be in effect for no more than five (5) years . Changes in or
termination of in the Agreement may be made at any time by mutual consent of APS
and the above mentioned cities acting through law enforcement agencies. Nothing in
this Agreement shall substitute or represent a change in either any agency's legally
mandated responsibilities.
BACKGROUND AND BASIS FOR THE AGREEMENT:
Colorado Revised Statute, Section 26-3.1-103 (21) states: In each county
department, law enforcement agency, district attorney's office, other agency
responsible under federal law or the laws of this state to investigate mistreatment,
self-neglect or exploitation of at-risk adults shall develop and implement cooperative
agreements to coordinate the investigative duties of such agencies . The focus of
such agreement shall be to ensure the best protection for at-risk adults. The
agreements shall provide for special requests by one agency for assistance from
1
E x
H
I
B
I
T
A
another agency and for joint investigations. The agreement shall further provide that •
each agency shall maintain the confidentiality of the information exchanged pursuant
to such joint investigation."
V. PRINCIPLES OF THE AGREEMENT
In accordance with C.R.S . 26-3.1 -103,the above-cited statute, this agreement is
made to ensure coordinated response during all hours, to provide for special
requests for assistance from one agency to another, and to arrange for joint
investigation(s) when needed to maximize the effectiveness of the civil and criminal
investigative processes.
It is understood that joint investigations may be used as a means to coordinate the
efforts of the involved agencies, and that each individual agency remains
accountable to its own rules, policies, and statutes.
It is understood that all agencies involved in this agreement shall accept reports of
known or suspected mistreatment or self-neglect of at-risk adults.
VI. BUSINESS AND NON-BUSINESS HOUR PROCESSES
County departments are required by APS program rule to have an established
process to receive reports during business and non-business hours.
The Arapahoe County Department, herein known as Adult Protective Services
(APS), receives reports during business hours at (303) 636-1750. Business hours
are 8:00 AM -S:OOPM, Monday -Friday.
Calls of reports should be made to (303) 636-1750 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
All reports should be made immediately to APS, regardless of the time of day. APS
does not accept reports made by fax or email. Reports made during non-business
hours are received by Arapahoe County Sheriff Dispatchers/Communications, and
ACSO is responsible for contacting the on call Arapahoe County Department
employee. Additionally, APS provides a Law Enforcement Express Hotline for law
enforcement agents in need of expedited assistance at 303-636-1761;
VII. DISPOSITION OF REPORTS
A copy of all reports of (exploitationlmistreatmentlself-neg/ectlal/) made to APS shall
be forwarded to the appropriate law enforcement agency within twenty four hours of
receipt of the report, excluding weekends, holidays, or days the county is closed.
When applicable, reports should be forwarded the next business day.
•
•
• A copy of all reports of mistreatment and self-neglect made to law enforcement and
the district attorney's office shall be forwarded to APS within twenty four of receipt of
the report.
•
VIII.
•
The report shall include: name, age, and address of the at-risk adult; the name and
address of the at-risk adult's caretaker, if any; the suspected nature and extent of the at-
risk adult's injury, if any; the nature and extent of the condition that will reasonably result
in mistreatment or self-neglect; and other pertinent information.
Reports involving criminal allegations of mistreatment, including caretaker neglect
shall be immediately referred to local law enforcement. When criminal allegations
are not initially apparent, the caseworker shall refer to (law enforcement office) as
soon as there are reasonable suspicions that a crime has been committed .
Reports of abuse, caretaker neglect, and/or exploitation of at-risk elders, 70 years of
age or older, must be reported to law enforcement. Law enforcement will forward all
reports of abuse, caretaker neglect, or exploitation of at-risk elders to APS within 24
hours . APS will review and evaluate each report to determine if the at-risk elder
meets the statutory requirements of an at-risk adult pursuant to C.R.$.
26-3.1-101 (1) before protective services are rendered.
If a report is made to APS and it is later discovered that the person is 70 years of
age or older, APS will notify law enforcement immediately. These are cases when
the reporting party is not aware of the adult 's age and makes the report to APS .
The report shall include: name, age, and address of the at-risk elder; the name and
address of the at-risk eider's caretaker, if any; the suspected nature and extent of
the at-risk eider's injury, if any; the nature and extent of the condition that will
reasonably result in abuse , caretaker neglect, and/or exploitation; and other
pertinent information.
AGENCY ROLES
Adult Protective Services is responsible for investigating reports of suspected
mistreatment and/or self-neglect of at-risk adults.
The County Attorney's Office is responsible for reviewing reports of mistreatment of
at-risk adults when a review is requested, when APS is considering filing for
guardianship and/or conservatorship of an at-risk adult, and when an investigation
involves complaints of alleged criminal activity.
Law enforcement agencies are primarily responsible for the coordination and
investigation of criminal allegations involving at-risk adults and at-risk elders.
The District Attorney's Office is responsible for reviewing reports of criminal actions
or threats of mistreatment of at-risk adults and at-risk elders to determine possibility
of prosecution .
3
IX. JOINT INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE AND GUIDELINES
Some reports may need to be jointly investigated when time and resources allow.
Any agency entering into this agreement may request assistance from another
agency entering into this agreement in the investigation and assessment of the at-
risk adult's safety and well-being. Additionally, any agency may request stand-by
assistance from another agency. (For example, in situations where an APS worker's
safety may be in question or where law enforcement needs assistance with a client
with dementia.)
When a joint investigation is required, the APS caseworker, law enforcement
officer(s), and/or the District Attorney's Office may conduct joint interviews, compare
notes, and clarify information following interviews. Law enforcement shall be
considered the lead agency in criminal joint investigations. APS shall be considered
the lead agency in non-criminal joint investigations. Developmental disability,
ombudsman or mental health staff may be present as part of the joint investigative
team.
When joint investigation is required, contact Jaw enforcement by calling dispatch, or
County Hotline Staff (303) 636-1750) and contact the District Attorney's Office by
calling 303-795-4639.
Joint investigation or stand by assistance may be utilized when any of the following
pertain to an at-risk adult:
1. There is pain and/or physical injury, as demonstrated by, but not limited to,
substantial or multiple skin bruising, bleeding, malnutrition, dehydration, burns,
bone fractures, poisoning, subdural hematoma, soft tissue swelling or
suffocation.
2. Unreasonable confinement or restraint has been imposed.
3. There is nonconsensual sexual conduct or contact classified as a crime under
Colorado law.
4. Caretaker neglect threatens the at-risk adult's safety or well-being.
5. Financial exploitation has occurred and/or is occurring and the exploitation is a
crime under Colorado law.
6. Threats of violence, presence of firearms, intoxication, or any illegal activity is
present and threatens the at-risk adult or APS caseworker's safety.
7. Specialized interviewing skills might be required.
X. CONFIDENTIALITY
Reports and investigative information shall be confidential. Disclosure of
information, including the name and address of the at-risk adult, members of the
4
•
•
•
• adult's family, reporting party's name and address, or any other identifying
information contained in reports shall be permitted only when authorized by law or
ordered by the court, as outlined in Section 26-3.1-102(7), C.R.S.
•
•
Notwithstanding any provision of Section 24-72-204, C.R.S., or Section 11-105-110,
C.R.S., or any other applicable law concerning the confidentiality of financial records
to the contrary, designated agencies investigating the exploitation of an at-risk adult
shall be permitted to inspect all records of the at-risk adult on whose behalf the
investigation is being conducted, including the at-risk adult's financial records, upon
execution of a prior written consent form by the at-risk adult, in accordance with
Section 6-21-103, C.R.,S pursuantto Section 26-3.1-103, C.R.S.
In addition, each agency shall maintain the confidentiality of the information
exchanged pursuant to joint investigations as required by Section 26-3.1-103(2),
C.R.S.
SIGNED BY:
Director, Arapahoe County Department of Human Services Date
District Attorney, 1 B'h Judicial District Date
Arapahoe County Attorney Date
Arapahoe County Sheriff Date
Chief, Aurora Police Department Date
5
• Chief, Bow Mar Police Department Date
Chief, Cherry Hills Police Department Date
Chief, Columbine Valley Police Department Date
Chief, Englewood Police Department Date
• Chief, Glendale Police Department Date
Chief, Greenwood Village Police Department Date
Chief, Littleton Police Department Date
Chief, Sheridan Police Department Date
• 6
Lou Ellis
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Lou & Stephanie,
Alison Carney
Monday, September 21, 2015 4:41 PM
Lou Ellis; Stephanie Carlile
Item llaii is pulled
Item llaii is pulled from tonight's Regular agenda. Jerrell just noticed the 2nd page of the Council Communication didn't
make it into the online packet, so without all the information, it's being pulled until the Oct . 5 agenda.
Thanks,
Alison
1
•
•
•
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date: Agenda Item: Subject:
September 21, 201S llaii Amendment to Agreement
regarding RiverRun Trailhead
Initiated By: Staff Source:
Department of Parks and Recreation Joe Sack, Recreation Services Manager
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Resolution No. 87, Series of 201S, authorizing The City's Arapahoe County Open Space grant
application for the construction of the River Run Trail head Phase II.
Council Bill No. 2S, Ordinance No. 27, series of 201S, authorizing an intergovernmental
agreement with Arapahoe County for the acceptance and use of Open Space grant funding
in the amount of $300,000 for the construction of the River Run Trailhead Phase I.
Resolution No . 6, Series of 201S, authorizing The City's Arapahoe County Open Space grant
application for the construction of the River Run Trailhead Phase I.
Council Bill No . S6, Ordinance No. SO, series of 2014, authorizing an Intergovernmental
Agreement regarding the construction of drainage and flood control improvements for
South Platte River at Oxford Avenue between the Urban Drainage and Flood Control
District, the Colorado Water Conservation Board and Arapahoe County by adding the City of
Englewood, the City of Sheridan and the South Suburban Parks and Recreation District as
participants.
Resolution No. 38, Series of 2014, authorizing $100,000 funding for River Run Project
support from Arapahoe County Open Space Fund.
Council Bill No. 41, Ordinance No. 38, Series of 2011, authorizing an Intergovernmental
Agreement accepting the 2010 Riverside Park Planning grant between Arapahoe County and
the City of Englewood, Colorado.
Resolution No. 89 Series of 2010, in support of the City's Arapahoe County Open Space
(ACOS) grant application for the Riverside Park Planning grant.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends City Council adopt a bill for an ordinance to approve an Intergovernmental
Agreement amending the previous agreement (Council Bill No. S6, Ordinance No. SO, series of
2014) which established funding for the RiverRun Project.
BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED
The South Platte Working Group is a consortium of interested parties whose goal is to make
improvements along the South Platte River . The intent is to provide better accessibility to the
river for recreational use. South Platte Working Group members include: City of Englewood,
City of Sheridan, City of Littleton, Arapahoe County, South Suburban Parks and Recreation
District, the Colorado Water Conservation Board, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District,
the Army Corp of Engineers and other interested parties.
•
•
•
ORDINANCE NO.
SERIES OF 2015
BY AUTHORITY
COUNCIL BILL NO. 48
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER -------
A BILL FOR
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT REGARDING
CONSTRUCTION OF DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS FOR SOUTH
PLATTE RIVER AT OXFORD AVENUE AGREEMENT NO. 11-07.25C BETWEEN THE CITY
OF ENGLEWOOD, THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, THE
COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD, AND ARAPAHOE COUNTY, THE CITY
OF SHERIDAN AND THE SOUTH SUBURBAN PARKS AND RECREATION DISTRICT
REGARDING RIVERRUN TRAILHEAD.
WHEREAS, the purpose of this Agreement is the construction of drainage and flood control
improvements for the South Platter River at Oxford Avenue ("Project"); and
WHEREAS, the implementation Agreement and this Amendment define the responsibilities
and financial commitments of all of the parties; and
WHEREAS, the implementation Agreement and this Amendment defines the financial
commitments and responsibilities of the parties regarding maintenance of the project; and
WHEREAS, the "Principles of Cooperation" Agreement outlines the implementation strategy
for the South Platte River at Oxford Avenue improvement project with the goal of promoting a
healthy river in an attractive setting which creates a quality recreational experience; and
WHEREAS, in 2011 the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District and the Colorado Water
Conservation Board entered into an intergovernmental agreement entitled " Agreement
Regarding Construction of Drainage and Flood Control Improvements for South Platte River at
Oxford Avenue" (Agreement NO. 11-07.25); and
WHEREAS, the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, the Colorado Water
Conservation Board and Arapahoe County entered into "Amendment to Agreement Regarding
Construction of Drainage and Flood Control Improvements for South Platte River at Oxford
Avenue -Agreement No . 11-07 .25B" which added the City of Englewood, the City of Sheridan
and the South Suburban Parks and Recreation District as participants by the passage of
Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2014; and
WHEREAS, the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, the Colorado Water
Conservation Board and Arapahoe County entered into "Agreement Regarding Construction of
Drainage and Flood Control Improvements for South Platte River at Oxford Avenue"
(Agreement No. 11 07.25C) dated March 2, 2015; and
1
WHEREAS, the Colorado Water Conservation Board's contribution for design have been
fulfilled and will no longer will be party to the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Parties now desire to add additional funding for final design to increase the
level of funding by $3,020,000; and
WHEREAS, the County Commissioners , the City of Sheridan and the City of Englewood, the
Board of Directors of South Suburban Parks and Recreation District and the Urban Drainage and
Flood Control District have authorized, by appropriation or resolution, all of Project costs of the
respective Parties and establishing funding for the RiverRun Project; and
WHEREAS, the passage of this proposed ordinance approves an Intergovernmental
Agreement amending the previous Agreement (Ordinance No . 50, Series of 2014) which
established funding for the River Run Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado hereby authorizes "Amendment
To Agreement Regarding Construction of Drainage And Flood Control Improvements For South
Platte River At Oxford Avenue" Agreement No . 1 l-07 .25C, between Urban Drainage and Flood
Control District, Board of County Commissioners Arapahoe County, City of Englewood, City of
Sheridan and South Suburban Parks and Recreation District regarding construction of drainage and
flood control improvements for the South Platte River at Oxford Avenue, attached hereto as Exhibit
A.
Section 2. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign and attest, the "Amendment to
Agreement Regarding Construction of Drainage and Flood Control Improvements for South Platte
River at Oxford Avenue" Agreement No . 1 l-07.25C, for and on behalf of the City Council of the
City of Englewood, Colorado .
Section 3 . There are no federal funds being used by Englewood on this Project. Englewood
funds are from Open Space and Shareback funds .
Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 21st day of September, 2015 .
Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City 's official newspaper on the 24th day of
September, 2015.
Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City 's official website beginning on the 23rd day of
September, 2015 for thirty (30) days.
Randy P. Penn, Mayor
ATTEST:
Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk
2
•
•
•
•
•
•
I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the
above and foregoing is a true copy of a Bill for an Ordinance, introduced, read in full , and passed on
first reading on the 21st day of September, 2015 .
Loucrishia A. Ellis
3
AMEND:MENTTO
AGREE:MENT REGARDING
CONSTRUCTION OF DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL IMPROVE:MENTS FOR
SOUTH PLA TIE RIVER AT OXFORD A VENUE
Agreement No. 11-07.25C
THIS AGREE:MENT, made this day of 2015, by and
between URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT (hereinafter called "DISTRICT"),
ARAPAHOE COUNTY (hereinafter called "COUNTY"), CITY OF ENGLEWOOD (hereinafter called
"ENGLEWOOD"), CITY OF SHERIDAN (hereinafter called "SHERIDAN"), SOUTH SUBURBAN
PARKS AND RECREATION DISTRICT (hereinafter called "SSPR"), and collectively known as
"PARTIES";
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, DISTRICT and COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD (hereinafter
called "CWCB") have entered into "Agreement Regarding Construction of Drainage and Flood Control
Improvements for South Platte River at Oxford Avenue" (Agreement No. 11-07.25) dated December 8,
2011; and
WHEREAS, DISTRICT, CWCB and COUNTY have entered into "Agreement Regarding
Construction of Drainage and Flood Control Improvements for South Platte River at Oxford Avenue"
(Agreement No. 1 l-07.25B) dated April 17, 2014; and
WHEREAS, DISTRICT, CWCB and COUNTY have entered into "Agreement Regarding
Construction of Drainage and Flood Control Improvements for South Platte River at Oxford Avenue"
(Agreement No. 11 07.25C) dated March 2, 2015; and
WHEREAS, CWCB's contribution for design have been fulfilled and will no longer will be party
to the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, PAR TIES now desire to add additional funding for final design; and
WHEREAS, PARTIES desire to increase the level of funding by $3,020,000; and
WHEREAS, the County Commissioners of COUNTY, the City Council of SHERIDAN and
ENGLEWOOD the Board of Directors of SSPR and DISTRICT have authorized, by appropriation or
resolution, all of PROJECT costs of the respective PARTIES.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, PARTIES hereto
agree as follows:
1. Paragraph 4. PROJECT COSTS AND ALLOCATION OF COSTS is deleted and replaced as
follows:
4. PROJECT COSTS AND ALLOCATION OF COSTS
A. PAR TIES agree that for the purposes of this Agreement PROJECT costs shall consist
of and be limited to the following:
1. Final design
\dcm\agrmnt\11 \110725A 1
•
•
•
E x
I-
I
E-
l
'T
•
•
•
B.
2. Construction of improvements;
3. Contingencies mutually agreeable to PARTIES.
It is understood that PROJECT costs as defined above are not to exceed $6,112,000
without amendment to this Agreement.
PROJECT costs for the various elements of the effort are estimated as follows:
ITEM AS AMENDED AS PREVIOUSLY
AMENDED
1. Final Design $1,470,000 $900,000
2. Construction 4,642,000 2,192,000
3. Contingency -0--0-
Grand Total $6,112,000 $3,092,000
This breakdown of costs is for estimating purposes only. Costs may vary between the
various elements of the effort without amendment to this Agreement provided the
total expenditures do not exceed the maximum contribution by all PARTIES plus
accrued interest.
C. Based on total PROJECT costs, the maximum percent and dollar contribution by each
party shall be:
Percentage Previously Additional Maximum
Share Contributed Contribution Contribution
DISTRICT 25.31% $797,000 $750,000 $1,547,000
CWCB 2.44% $149,000 $-0-$149,000
COUNTY 47.30% $1,546,000 $1,345,000 $2,891,000
SHERIDAN 10.23% $250,000 $375,000 $625,000
ENGLEWOOD 10.63% $100,000 $550,000 $650,000
SSPR 4.09% $250,000 $-0-$250,000
TOTAL 100.00% $3,092,000 $3,020,000 $6,112,000
The City of Englewood contribution to the project is $130,000 directly contracted
with CONSULTANT to design the Broken Tee Trailhead located on the northeast
comer of Oxford Avenue and the South Platte River .
2 . Paragraph 5. MANAGEMENT OF FINANCES is deleted and replaced as follows:
5. MANAGEMENT OF FINANCES
As set forth in DISTRICT policy (Resolution No. 11, Series of 1973, Resolution No. 49,
Series of 1977, and Resolution No. 37, Series of 2009), the funding of a local body's one-
half share may come from its own revenue sources or from funds received from state, federal
or other sources of funding without limitation and without prior Board approval.
\dcm \agrrnnt\1 1\110725A 2
Payment of each party's full share (CWCB -$149,000, COUNTY -$2,891,000, SHERIDAN
-$625,000, ENGLEWOOD -$650,000; SSPR-$250,000; DISTRICT-$1,547,000) shall be •
made to DISTRICT subsequent to execution of this Agreement and within 30 days of
request for payment by DISTRICT. The payments by PARTIES shall be held by DISTRICT
in a special fund to pay for increments of PROJECT as authorized by PARTIES, and as
defined herein. DISTRICT shall provide a periodic accounting of PROJECT funds as well
as a periodic notification to COUNTY of any unpaid obligations. Any interest earned by the
monies contributed by PARTIES shall be accrued to the special fund established by
DISTRICT for PROJECT and such interest shall be used only for PROJECT upon approval
by the contracting officers (Paragraph 13).
Within one year of completion of PROJECT if there are monies including interest earned
remaining which are not committed, obligated, or disbursed, each party shall receive a share
of such monies, which shares shall be computed as were the original shares.
3. All other terms and conditions of Agreement No. 11-07.25 shall remain in full force and effect.
WHEREFORE, PARTIES hereto have caused this instrument to be executed by properly
authorized signatories as of the date and year first above written.
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
\dcm\agnnnt\11 \110725A 3
URBAN DRAINAGE AND
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
Title Executive Director
Date ____________ _
•
•
•
•
•
For the Board of County Commissioners
ARAPAHOE COUNTY
By: ______________ _
Authorization pursuant to Resolution 120113
Title: Director, Open Space and Intergovemental Relations
Date : _________________ _
\dcm\agnnnt\11 \110725A 4
CITY OF SHERIDAN
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
\dcm\agnnnt\I l \I I 0725A 5
By~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Title
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
•
•
•
•
•
•
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk
\dcm\agrmnt\11 \110725A 6
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD
Randy P. Penn
Title Mayor
Date. ___________ _
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
\dcm\agrrnnt\11 \110725A 7
SOUTH SUBURBAN PARKS AND
RECREATION DISTRICT
Title ___________ _
Date ___________ _
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Date: Agenda Item: Subject:
September 21, 2015 11 ci Resolution Adopting the Englewood Light Rail
Corridor Next Steps Study
Initiated By: Staff Source:
Community Development Department John Voboril, Long Range Planner II
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
City Council approved a bill for an ordinance authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)
with the Regional Transportation District (RTD) on first reading May 19, 2014 and second reading
June 2, 2014. City Council approved a consultant contract by motion with Felsburg Holt and
Ullevig on September 15, 2014. City Council study sessions were held on October 20, 2014 and
February 25, and April 13, 2015 to provide updates on project progress. Study sessions were held
on June 1 and July 6, 2015 for consultant presentations on study findings and conclusions, and on
July 13, 2015 to present the draft document.
City Council held a public hearing on the Englewood Light Rail Corridor Next Steps Study at
September 8, 2015 regular Council meeting .
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends that Council approve a resolution adopting the Englewood Light Rail Corridor
Next Steps Study as a supplementary City plan document in support of the original Englewood Light
Rail Corridor Plan, as well as Roadmap Englewood: The 2003 Englewood Comprehensive Plan, and
Englewood Forward: The 2016 Englewood Comprehensive Plan.
BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED
The Englewood Light Rail Corridor Next Steps Study project was funded through a station area
planning grant from the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG).
Planning Process Scope of Work
The scope of work for the Englewood Light Rail Corridor Next Steps Study was focused in two
areas: a transportation infrastructure feasibility and alternative design analysis, and a real estate
development feasibility analysis. The transportation infrastructure feasibility and alternative design
analysis looked at transportation infrastructure projects identified in the original Englewood Light
Rail Corridor Station Area Master Plan. The real estate development feasibility analysis was charged
with evaluating the four neighborhood areas outlined in the original Englewood Light Rail Corridor
Station Area Master Plan in terms of development potential and market readiness, in order to create
an implementation strategy timeline for critical planning and infrastructure projects .
2
Next Steps Study Findings: Transportation Alternative Design Feasibility and Evaluation
Key transportation infrastructure projects identified in the Englewood Light Rail Corridor Station
Area Master Plan were analyzed for constructability, conceptualized in terms of general dimensions
and physical location, and cost estimated.
Rail Trail
The Rail Trail will connect the Big Dry Creek Trail at the southern terminus and include bridge
crossings of Oxford, Hampden, and Dartmouth Avenues to the northern terminus at Bates Avenue
and Galapago Street. The Rail Trail has been divided into three sections to be developed near, mid,
and long term.
Short Term:
Mid Term:
Long Term:
Oxford Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge
Big Dry Creek to Oxford Station (south section)
Little Dry Creek to Bates Avenue (north section)
Oxford Station to Little Dry Creek (middle section)
Oxford-Clarkson-Dartmouth Bikeway Loop
$1,602,000
$ 773,000
$2,604,000
$2 ,558,000
The Oxford route would then connect to a bicycle boulevard treatment east of Broadway, and
•
continue north on Clarkson to Dartmouth. The Dartmouth portion of the loop would incorporate a •
shared bicycle/parking lane similar to the stretch of Dartmouth east of Downing Street.
Floyd Avenue Extension
The Floyd extension idea was dropped in favor of a pedestrian bridge at Englewood Station due to
high costs. The pedestrian bridge is a long term project with an estimated cost of $7, 162,000.
Oxford Station Pedestrian Bridge/Tunnel
The original conception of the Oxford Station Pedestrian Bridge/Tunnel over Santa Fe Drive was
dropped due to difficulties in identifying as an acceptable landing spot on the west side of Santa Fe
Drive.
Southwest Greenbelt Trail
The existing Southwest Greenbelt Trail would be rebuilt to a modern 10 foot width, and would be
extended through Rotolo Park and along W. Stanford Drive. A trail easement along the north side
of Windsor Industries would allow the trail to directly connect to the future Rail Trail.
Additional Enhancement Projects
The Next Steps Study also identified an additional 25 potential enhancement projects for the station
planning area. All projects were classified as short, medium, and long term, and possible sources of
funding were identified for each project. •
3
• Next Steps Study Findings: Real Estate Development Feasibility Analysis
•
•
The four neighborhood areas originally identified in the Englewood Light Rail Corridor Station Area
Master Plan were analyzed in terms of market readiness for redevelopment.
North and South Neighborhoods
The North and South neighborhoods are on the verge of seeing the first private investments in
redevelopment come out of the ground. The City should begin working with key property owners
to develop infrastructure site plans for the North and South neighborhoods, and develop financing
mechanisms to help pay for these public amenities that will enhance the design quality of the North
and South Neighborhood areas .
North Neighborhood -Short Term Initiatives
• Continue support for housing tax credits
• Assist developers with communication to the existing neighborhood
• Work with developer to market site to employ ment prospects
• Monitor construction defects issue
North Neighborhood -Long Term Initiatives
• Sub-area planning for adjacent neighborhood
• Rail Trail Connection to Englewood Station
• Dartmouth Avenue Bicycle Improvements
• Intersection Improvements -Dartmouth at Santa Fe and Inca
South Neighborhood -Short Term Initiatives
• Improved Bicycle Markings on Oxford Avenue
• Rail Trail Connection to Oxford Station
• Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone District Regulations
South Neighborhood -Long Term Initiatives
• Develop a shared use parking plan with RTD
• Consider use of tax increment financing in conjunction with retail use for site improvements
• Continue planning for intersection improvements -Oxford at Santa Fe and Navajo
West Neighborhood
The West Neighborhood is generally not ripe for development at this time . The City of Englewood
should work closely with the City of Sheridan in order to develop infrastructure plans for the area,
as well as advance design work on the pedestrian bridge project.
CityCenter Neighborhood
The CityCenter neighborhood area is not immediately ripe for redevelopment at this time. The
current retail market for the area is saturated, and infill sites are generally not readily available .
However, there are a number of short term initiatives that the City can pursue and help facilitate
4
that will bolster economic activity and investment in the area. Chief among these initiatives are •
bicycle improvements to Floyd Avenue from Sherman to Inca Street, and the continued support of
residential infill opportunities.
Conformance with Roadmap Englewood: The 2003 Englewood Comprehensive Plan
The Englewood, Oxford, and Bates Station areas are prominently highlighted in the vision laid out in
Roadmap Englewood: The 2003 Englewood Comprehensive Plan.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Opinions of probable costs were generated for the major transportation infrastructure projects. The
sum of all project opinions of probable cost is $27, 195,000. The most costly projects include the
separated bikeway section of Oxford Avenue from Navajo to Broadway, the Englewood Station
pedestrian bridge over Santa Fe Drive, the Rail Trail. These three projects would make good
candidates for DRCOG TIP projects, where up to 80% of construction costs would be funded
through federal transportation dollars.
Adoption of the Englewood Light Rail Corridor Next Steps Study does not commit the City to any
financial expenditures. Decisions to commit City dollars towards any project will be made on an
individual project basis .
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Englewood Light Rail Corridor Next Steps Study Final Document
Planning and Zoning Commission Findings of Fact
Planning and Zoning Commission July 16 th, 2013 Public Hearing Minutes
Resolution
•
•
•
•
••
.e
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
August 4, 2015
I. CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting o f the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic Center, Chair Fish presiding.
Present:
Absent:
Staff:
E)
Bleile, Brick, Freemire, King, Kinton , Knoth , Townley, Pittinos (arrived 7:05), Fish
Madrid (Excused)
Mike Flaherty, Deputy City Manager
Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner
John Voboril , Planner II
Harold Stitt, Senior Planner
Dugan Comer, Assistant City Attorney
11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
• July 21 , 2015 Minutes
Knoth moved:
King seconded : TO APPROVE THE JULY 21 , 2015, MINUTES
Chair Fish asked if there were any modifications or corrections . There were none.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN :
ABSENT:
Brick, King, Kinton , Knoth , Townley, Fish
None
Bleile, Freemire
Madrid
Motion carried.
El
111. FINDINGS OF FACT CASE #USE2015-01 O 3555 SOUTH CLARKSON STREET, SIGNATURE
SENIOR LIVING
Knoth moved;
King seconded : To approve the Findings of Fact Case #USE2015-010 3555 South Clarkson Str ee t,
Signature Senior Living as amended.
Chair Fish asked that #4, Conclusions, be changed to read "That the height of the new structure
w ould be in c haracter with the building height limits."
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
Brick, King, Kinton , Knoth , Townley, Fish
None
Bleile, Freemire
1
ABSENT : Madrid
Motion carried.
·El
111. PUBLIC HEARING #2015-03 NEXT STEPS STUDY
Brick moved ;
Freemire seconded : To open the Public Hearing for Case #2015-03 Light Rail Corridor Next Steps
Study
AYES:
NAYS :
ABSTAIN :
ABSENT:
Bleile, Brick, Freemire, King, Kinton , Knoth , Townley , Fish
None
None
Madrid
Motion carried .
. fl1 .
Staff Presentation
John Voboril , Planner II , was sworn in. Mr. Voboril asked the Commissioners to correct dates and
information on the staff report he prepared. The changes do not have an effect on the case.
~
Staff recommends the following findings to the Commission:
•
1) That case 2015-03 was brought before the Planning and Zoning Commission by the •
Community Development Department. Notice of the public hearing was published in the
Englewood Herald July 23, 2015 , and on the City website from July 15 to August 4, 2015 .
2) That City Council voted to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Regional
Transportation District (RTD) to develop a follow up Next Steps study on the original
Englewood Light Rail Corridor Station Area Master Plan on first reading May 19 , 2014, and
second reading June 2, 2014 .
3) That the Englewood Light Rail Corridor Next Steps Study was advertised in conjunction with
The Englewood Forward Planning Campaign in the Englewood Citizen Newsletter in
September and November 2014, and January, March, May and July 2015. A postcard mailing
to 596 property owners with properties abutting proposed locations for transportation
improvements was conducted in January 2015 .
4) That e-mail notices of each Englewood Light Rail Corridor Next Steps Study meetings were
sent via the City's e-notifier system.
5) That three meetings were held by project consultants Felsburg Holt Ullevig with the purpose of
gathering public input on the transportation infrastructure feasibility alternatives design
analysis .
6) That the Englewood Light Rail Corridor Next Steps Study conforms to the vision , goals and
objectives outlined in Roadmap Englewood : 2003 Englewood Comprehensive Plan as well as
the upcoming 2016 Englewood Forward Comprehensive Plan.
7) That Planning and Zoning Commission study sessions were held on February 25, 2015, jointly
with City Council as a project progress update and on July 7 and 21 , 2015 , to review the
development and final draft of the Englewood Light Rail Corridor Next Steps Study , and that
City Council study sessions were held October 20 , 2014 , and February 25 , April 13 , July 6 and
Jul y 13 , 2015, to provide updates on project progress and review the development of the final •
draft of the Englewood Light Rail Corridor Next Steps Study.
2
•
•
•
8) That the Englewood Light Rail Corridor Next Steps Study be adopted as a supplementary
p lanning document in support of Roadmap Englewood: 2003 Englewood Comprehensive Plan
as well as the upcoming Englewood Forward 2016 Englewood Comprehensive Plan. e
Mr. Voboril provided the Commission with background information on station area master
planning activities. The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) secured funds from
the Federal Government to fund station area master planning to further the goals of Metro Vision,
the regional planning vision for the entire metro Denver area. These studies are intended to
maximize the utilization of the investments made in the Light Rail system. In addition, DRCOG
felt that this would help to minimize future traffic congestion and its effects on air quality in the
region .
El
The City of Englewood chose to take the opportunity to enhance the station areas as they are
recognized as an asset to the City as well as being the primary growth areas. The original Station
Area Master Plan was a development and preferred land use scenario and identification of major
transportation infrastructure that would be necessary to implement the land use scenario.
El
The City became eligible for funds to conduct a Station Area Master Plan and DRCOG requested
that Englewood allow the City of Sheridan to become a junior partner to the Englewood planning
project. e
The study was completed in conjunction with the Englewood Forward planning process and
reinforced by the Walk and Wheel Master Plan and the Comprehensive Plan update. The City was
well funded to complete the three planning projects in a short amount of time .
Et
The projects were well publicized and promoted in the Englewood Citizen newsletter. The key
public meetings were held on November 12 , 2014, February 11 and June 20, 2015. The June 20 1h
meeting took place at the Walk and Wheel Fest event where all three projects were able to gather
public input. e
The consultant team was led by Felsburg Holt Ullevig and utilized Bachman PR, Toole Design
Group (bicycle planning specialists), Arland (land use economics) and Design Workshop. e
Mr. Voboril reviewed the meeting process and the information that was disseminated and gathered
through the public meetings. The Next Steps Study consisted of two main components which
were examination of the major transportation connections that were identified in the original
Station Area Master Plan and the Real Estate Development Feasibility Analysis . The four areas of
study included the north area near General Iron Works, the south neighborhood including Oxford
station, the west neighborhood west of Santa Fe and the City Center neighborhood including areas
south of Hampden and east of Elati Street. Mr. Voboril presented the Commission with a map of
the four areas. e
The major areas identified in the feasibility study include the Rail Trail which is the City's top
priority project. The trail wil I serve the redevelopment that is currently under way at the Oxford
station and General Iron Works properties. The plan includes three bridges over Hampden
Avenue, Oxford Avenue and Dartmouth Avenue. Additional projects examined through the
feasibility process include the Oxford-Dartmouth-Clarkson protected bikeway loop, the Southwest
Greenbelt trail improvements and extension into the future Rail Trail , the Floyd Avenue extension
3
and the associated Englewood Parkway extension and piazza redesign. Mr. Voboril listed the
ancillary projects that were identified in both Englewood and Sheridan.
El
The projects were prioritized by cost and benefit to the identified neighborhood areas. Mr.
Voboril outlined the costs associated with each project including the Oxford station
bicycle/pedestrian bridge, the pathway extension to the south to the Big Dry Creek trail, the
section of trail from General Iron Works to Bates Avenue and trail development from Oxford
station to Englewood Station to Little Dry Creek. e
Mr. Voboril described the enhanced off street bike path alon the Sheridan section of Oxford
Avenue . The bike loop will be implemented by the use of signage and road markings. A shared
bicycle/parking lane as they are used in Denver may be an option for creating the bicycle route on
Dartmouth Avenue.
_l@
The Floyd Avenue extension is not an option due to prohibitive construction costs. A pedestrian
bridge would be viable at a lower cost. The Oxford station pedestrian access across Santa Fe from
the west is not an option due to the lack of a "landing spot" on the west side of Santa Fe. The City
of Sheridan expressed that because the majority of their citizens are further west along Oxford,
they did not see a benefit in moving the bridge to the north . The Regional Transportation District
(RTD) has long term plans to build overpasses at Dartmouth and Oxford along Santa Fe, which
would solve the problem.
6
Twenty five additional enhancement projects were identified during the study and were classified
by short, medium and long term projects with potential sources of funding. The real estate
feasibility study indicates that the north and south areas are ready for redevelopment due to the
number of projects currently underway. Mr. Voboril listed the recommendations from the
consulting team . e
The consultants recommended a shared use parking plan with RTD for the Oxford station,
potentially at the current location of Sam's Automotive at Oxford. Intersection improvements were
also recommended. The west neighborhood is not ready for redevelopment at this time; property
owners in the area are amenable to improvements but expressed that they are not ready to sell
their properties. e
City Center is not currently considered ready for redevelopment as there are not many infill
opportunities. It was determined that the area is saturated with regards to retail.
A recommendation was made by the consultants to create a Downtown Development Authority to
include City Center and South Broadway to unify the downtown areas and assist with financing
public improvements.
El
Short term suggestions include bicycle improvements to Floyd Avenue from Sherman Street to Inca
Street to create an east-west route and continued support for residential infill developments.
Bicycle improvements should commence later this year .
·D
Additional funds may be available from DRCOG for the Next Steps II and Next Steps Ill planning
projects. The Next Steps II study will include 100% engineering of the three rail trail bridges and
Next Steps Ill will be for a variety of projects .
:IJ
4
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Next Steps Study conforms to Roadmap Englewood: 2003 Englewood Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Voboril listed the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the specific outcomes of the planning
project that are in conformance.
El
Comments by the Commission
Mr. Brick asked when the marketing of the plan will begin . Mr. Voboril responded that it is not
too soon in his opinion to begin marketing employment opportunities, specifically near the
General Iron Works property. e
Ms. Townley asked if there will be education regarding the bike lane usage. Mr. Voboril replied
that there will be a white paper advocacy and incentive program to assist with the education
effort. Ms. Townley also confirmed with Mr. Voboril thatthe the Next Steps Study is an addition
to the original Station Area Master Plan. e
Mr. Kinton asked if a bike sharing program is being considered. Mr. Voboril explained that the
density is not yet to the point where a bike share program would be feasible. A bicycle "library"
may be an alternative.
El
Public Comment
No members of the public were present to comment.
King moved;
Townley seconded: To close the Public Hearing for Case #2015-03 Light Rail Corridor Next Steps
Study
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Bleile, Brick, Freemire, King, Kinton, Knoth, Townley, Fish
None
None
Madrid
Motion carried.
Knoth moved;
Brick seconded : To approve Case #2015-03 Light Rail Corridor Next Steps Study and forward to
City Council with a favorable recommendation.
Bleile -Yes , the consultants have identified good opportunities for the City to implement.
Brick -Yes, the adherence to the Comprehensive Plan and the regional cooperation with Sheridan
are satisfactory. The opportunities for public input were appreciated.
Freemire -Yes, these are the next logical steps for the City.
King -Yes, the study is consistent with the direction of the new Comprehensive Plan.
Kinton -Yes , the study is consistent with the planning process and the goals of the City and will
improve access to transit.
Knoth -Yes , he is looking forward to implementation .
Townley-Yes , the plan addressed complex issues and has solid, implementable projects and good
vision . It is well aligned with the Comprehensive Plan.
Fish -Yes, concurs with the previous comments and feels that it will provide the Commission with
good direction.
5
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT :
Bleile, Brick, Freemire, King, Kinton , Knoth, Townley, Fish
None
None
Madrid
Motion carried.
·lID
IV. PUBLIC FORUM
No members of the public were present e
V. ATIORNEY'S CHOICE
Assistant City Attorney Comer did not have any comments for the Commission .
·~
VI. STAFF'S CHOICE
Michael Flaherty reminded the Commission that one of their duties is to review the Capital Plan and
he will bring it forward to the Commission in the near future.
Chris Neubecker reviewed the upcoming topics for the Commission. Accessory Dwelling Units, the
AirBnB short term rental issue and cannabis social club regulations. Chair Fish asked if the
Commission will be examining regulations regarding historic designations; Mr. Neubecker
responded that if it becomes a priority in the Comprehensive Plan or arises as an issue community
wide, it may be considered by the Commission.
El
Commissioner's Choice
Mr. Brick commented on the crosswalk at Federal and Bellewood and feels that it enhances safety
near the intersection .
Ms. Townley updated the Commission on the 100 Poppies art installation at Broadway and
Englewood Parkway .
The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p .m.
Julie Bailey , Recording Secretary
6
•
•
•
•
•
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Date Agenda Item Subject:
September 21, 2015 Intergovernmental Agreements
between the City and Arapahoe
County
INITIATED BY: STAFF SOURCE:
Community Development Department Harold J. Stitt, Senior Planner
COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
Council passed Ordinance No. 25, Series of 2012 relating to the participation in the Urban County
Entitlement Program for CDBG and HOME funds for fiscal years 2013 through 2015; Resolution No. 71,
Series of 2013 supporting the submission of applications for 2014 CDBG funding; Ordinance 37, Series of
2014 approving an IGA with Arapahoe County for 2014 CDBG funding; and Resolution No. 79, Series of
2014 supporting the submission of applications for 2015 CDBG funding.
This proposed Ordinance was approved on first reading on September 8, 2015 .
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Approve a Bill for an Ordinance authorizing the execution of an Intergovernmental Subgrantee Agreement
for the 2015 Arapahoe County Community Development Block Grant Program between the Arapahoe
Board of County Commissioners and the City of Englewood.
BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED
The Federal Community Development Block Grant {CDBG) Program provides grants to units of local
government and urban counties to meet housing and community development needs. The objective of the
Program is achieved through projects developed by the local government that are designed to give priority
to those activities that benefit low and moderate-income families. Funds are allocated by statutory formula
to each entitlement area. Arapahoe County is an approved entitlement area. The grant funds are
distributed by Arapahoe County to each participating city within the county.
For FY2015 , funds were approved to support the following project:
$127,500 for the Energy Efficient Englewood (E3) project to provide matching grants to fifteen low to
moderate income homeowners for energy efficiency interior and exterior home
improvements; and,
An additional $22,500 of the City's $150,000 allocation of CDBG funds was approved by Arapahoe County
to support the House of Hope Staffing project. It was requested that Arapahoe County contract directly
• with Family Tree for the administration of this project.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The existing employees in Community Development are available to administer the projects and their
salaries and benefits are part of the City's contribution. The City will utilize a portion of the CDBG funding
from both projects (est. $4,000) to partially offset the costs of those salaries and benefits.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Bill for an Ordinance
Subgrantee Agreement
•
•
•
• CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF CASE #2015-03
ENGLEWOOD LIGHT RAIL CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS STUDY,
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
INITIATED BY:
Community Development Department
City of Englewood
1000 Englewood Parkway
Englewood, CO 8011 0
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF THE
CITY PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION
Commission Members Present: Bleile, Brick, Fish, Freemire, King, Kinton, Knoth,
Townley
Commission Members Absent: Madrid
This matter was heard before the City Planning and Zoning Commission on August 4,
• 2015, in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic Center.
•
Testimony was received from staff. The Commission received notice of Public Hearing,
the Staff Report, and a copy of the Englewood Light Rail Corridor Next Steps Study which
were incorporated into and made a part of the record of the Public Hearing.
After considering the statements of the witnesses and reviewing the pertinent documents,
the members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission made the following Findings
and Conclusions.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THAT the Englewood Light Rail Corridor Next Steps Study was brought before the
Planning Commission by the Department of Community Development, a department
of the City of Englewood.
2. THAT notice of the Public Hearing was posted on the City of Englewood website from
July 15, 2015 through August 4, 2015 and published in the Englewood Herald on July
23, 2015.
3. THAT the Staff report was made part of the record.
4. THAT no members of the Public testified at the Public Hearing on August 4, 2015 .
5. THAT City Council voted to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the •
Regional Transportation District to develop a follow up Next Steps Study to the original ·
Englewood Light Rail Corridor Station Area Master Plan on first reading May 19, 2014,
and second reading June 2, 2014 .
6. THAT the Englewood Light Rail Corridor Next Steps Study was advertised in
conjunction with the Englewood Forward planning campaign in the Englewood
Citizen Newsletter published in September and November of 2014, and January ,
March, May, and July of 2015 and that a postcard mailing list of 596 property owners
with properties abutting proposed locations for transportation improvements was
conducted in January of 2015.
7. THAT email notices of each Englewood Light Rail Corridor Next Steps Study meeting
were sent out via the City's e-notifier system.
8. THAT three sets of meetings were held by project consultant Felsberg Holt and Ullevig
with the purpose of gathering public input on the transportation infrastructure
feasibility and alternatives design analysis.
9 . THAT Planning and Zoning Commission study sessions were held on February 25
(jointly with City Council) as a project progress update and on July 7 and July 21, 2015
to review the development and final draft of the Englewood Light Rail Corridor Next
Steps Study and that City Council study sessions were held on October 20, 2014 and •
February 25, April 13, June 1, July 6, and July 13, 2015 to provide updates on project
progress or review the development and final draft of the Englewood Light Rail
Corridor Next Steps Study.
10. THAT goals from the comprehensive plan are supportive of the Englewood Light Rail
Corridor Plan.
CONCLUSIONS
1. THAT the Study is a logical follow up to the original Englewood Light Rail Corridor
Station Area Master Plan.
2. THAT significant public outreach and opportunities for participation were made
available over the course of the Study .
3. That the Study provides the City with direction for future planning and implementation
efforts over the course of several years.
4. That the Study addresses complex issues, includes solid implementable solutions, and
is supportive of the original Englewood Light Rail Corridor Station Area Master Plan
vision.
2
•
•
•
•
5. That the implementation projects identified and investigated in the Study will improve
the Englewood community's access to transit.
6. That the Englewood Light Rail Corridor Next Steps Study (the Study) identifies
redevelopment opportunities for the City to pursue through implementation of
pedestrian and bicycle connections to the light rail stations.
7. That the Study furthers the goal of regional cooperation by including the City of
Sheridan as a planning partner.
8. That the Study conforms to the goals and objectives of Roadmap Englewood: The
2003 Englewood Comprehensive Plan.
9. That the Study is consistent with the direction of Englewood Forward: The 2016
Englewood Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
THEREFORE, it is the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Commission that
Case #2015-03 Englewood Light Rail Corridor Next Steps Study be approved and adopted
by City Council.
The recommendation was reached upon a vote on a motion made at the meeting of the
City Planning and Zoning Commission on August 4 2015, by Knoth, seconded by Brick,
which motion states:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CASE #2075-03 ENGLEWOOD LICHT
RAIL CORRIDOR NEXT STEPS STUDY AND FORWARD SUCH
RECOMMNEDA TION TO CITY COUNCIL.
Bleile, Brick, Fish, Freemire, King, Kinton, Knoth, Townley
None
None
Madrid
Motion carried.
These Findings and Conclusions are effective as of the meeting on August 4, 2015.
BY ORDER OF THE CITY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
.,
.)
RESOLUTION NO .
SERIES OF 2015
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF THE "ENGLEWOOD LIGHT RAIL
NEXT STEPS STUDY" AS A SUPPLEMENTARY CITY PLAN DOCUMENT IN SUPPORT
OF THE ORIGINAL "ENGLEWOOD LIGHT RAIL CORRIDOR PLAN, AS WELL AS
ROADMAP ENGLEWOOD : THE 2003 ENGLEWOOD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
ENGLEWOOD FORWARD: THE 2016 ENGLEWOOD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN".
WHEREAS , the Englewood City Council authorized and Intergovernmental Agreement with
the Regional Transportation District (RTD) with the passage of Ordinance No. 28 , Series of2014;
and
WHEREAS , the Englewood City Council approved a consultant contract with Felsburg Holt
and Ullevig by the passage of a Motion on September 15 , 2015; and
WHEREAS , the Englewood Light Rail Corridor Next Steps Study project was funded through
a station area planning grant from the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG); and
WHEREAS , the light rail sy stem represents a major capital investment for both the federal
go v ernment and DRCOG; and
WHEREAS, DRCOG has established a policy to encourage station area intensification
including increased employment and housing in order to increase light rail ridership , decrease
highway congestion, and improve air quality; and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing on this Plan was held by the Englewood City Council on
September 8, 2015 as required.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado , hereby approves the
adoption of the "Englewood Light Rail Corridor Next Steps Study", attached hereto , as a
Supplementary Planning Document in Support of the original Englewood Light Rail Corridor
Plan, as well as Roadmap Englewood: The 2003 Englewood Comprehensive Plan, and
Englewood Forward: The 2016 Englewood Comprehensive Plan.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 21st day of September, 2015 .
ATTEST:
Randy P . Penn, Mayor
Loucrishia A. Ellis , City Clerk
•
•
•
•
•
•
I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk for the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify the
above is a true copy of Resolution No. __ , Series of2015.
Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk
•
•
•
LIGHT RAIL CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
S T U D Y
Prepared for:
City of Englewood
1000 Englewood Parkway
Englewood. CO 80110-2373
City of Sheridan
4101 S. Federal Boulevard
Sheridan . CO 80110-5399
Prepared by:
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
6300 S. Syracuse Way. Suite 600
Centennial. CO 80111
In Association With:
Arland LLC
Bachman PR
Design Workshop
Toole Design Group
ENGLEWOOD ~Q .8 ___ ~1' BJ? t#(l(T
LIGHT RAIL CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
':"· " V D ~
Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ES-1
Acknowledgements------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ES-18
1. O I ntrod ucti on --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
2.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1-4
Study Location and Description -------------------------------------------------2
\/is ion ----------------------------------------------------------------------------5
Objectives -----------------------------------------------------------------------5
Planning Context ----------------------------------------------------------------5
141 South Santa Fe Drive Corridor Improvements Study-------------------6
142 North Englewood Small Area Plan--------------------------------------6
143 CityCenter Englewood: Redevelopment of the Cinderella City Mall --6
144 Englewood Industrial Urban Renewal Plan and the General
Ironworks Development Plan -------------------------------------------7
145 Southwest Light Rail Transit Line Major Investment Study-------------7
146 Englewood Civic Center Pedestrian Underpass Feasibility Study -----7
1-4.? Englewood and Oxford Station Area Plans-----------------------------8
148 Roadmap Englewood: The 2003 Englewood Comprehensive Plan
and Englewood Forward: 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update----------8
149 Englewood Master Bicycle Plan ----------------------------------------8
1410 City of Sheridan Comprehensive Plan ----------------------------------8
1411 Ready , Set. Action! An Urban Design Action Plan for the Englewood
Downtown & Medical Districts ------------------------------------------9
1-4 .12 Arapahoe County 2035 Transportation Plan----------------------------9
1413 2035 Metro \/ision Regional Transportation Plan -----------------------9
1414 Complete Streets Toolbox----------------------------------------------9
1415 Englewood Master Bicycle Plan Route Development Study and
Implementation Program-----------------------------------------------10
1416 Oxford Station Transit Oriented Development -Planned Unit
Development Site Plan-------------------------------------------------10
1417 Englewood Light Rail Corridor Station Area Master Plan--------------10
1418 Navajo Apartments TOD -PUD Site Plan------------------------------10
1419 Sand Creek TOD -PUD Site Plan --------------------------------------10
1420 WH Investors TOD -PUD Site Plan------------------------------------10
1421 Englewood Walk and Wheel Master Plan and Program ---------------11
Transportation System Conditions Assessment ---------------------------------------------12
2.1 Existing Conditions --------------------------------------------------------------12
2.1.1 Roadway -----------------------------------------------------------------12
2.1.2 Transit-------------------------------------------------------------------19
2.1.3 DRCOG Traffic Model --------------------------------------------------25
2.1-4 Bicycles and Pedestrians-----------------------------------------------32
2 .2 Deficiencies---------------------------------------------------------------------35
Fe fs burg Ho lt & Uffevig
•
•
•
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RAIL CORR I DOR
NEXT STEPS
s ':" v 0 v
2.2 .1 Traffic Congestion------------------------------------------------------35
2.2.2 Alternative Modes Safety Concerns -----------------------------------37
2.2 .3 Connecting Alternative Modes-----------------------------------------40
3.0 Real Estate Market Analysis and Feasibility----------------------------------------------------42
4.0
5.0
3.1 North Neighborhood -Bates Avenue I Elati Street Area---------------------44
3.2 West Neighborhood -----------------------------------------------------------44
3.3 CityCenter Englewood Area ---------------------------------------------------46
3.3.1 Near Term (5 -10 years) -----------------------------------------------46
3.3.2 Long Term (10 Years-Plus)---------------------------------------------46
3.4 South Neighborhood -Sheridan -Oxford Station Area-----------------------47
3.5 Implementation-----------------------------------------------------------------48
Environmental Overview------------------------------------------------------------------------------49
4.1 Environmental Focus Study Areas---------------------------------------------49
4.2 Analysis Methods---------------------------------------------------------------51
4.3 Parks and Recreational Resources --------------------------------------------51
4.3.1 Findings -----------------------------------------------------------------51
4.3.2 Next Steps--------------------------------------------------------------54
4.4 Historic Resources -------------------------------------------------------------55
4.4.1 Findings-----------------------------------------------------------------55
442 Next Steps--------------------------------------------------------------55
4.S Hazardous Materials -----------------------------------------------------------56
4.S.1 Findings-----------------------------------------------------------------57
4.S.2 Next Steps--------------------------------------------------------------57
4.6 Waters of the US/Wetlands---------------------------------------------------57
4.6.1 Findings-----------------------------------------------------------------58
4.6.2 Next Steps--------------------------------------------------------------58
4.7 Threatened/Endangered Species and Migratory Birds-----------------------58
4.7.1 Findings -----------------------------------------------------------------58
4.7.2 Next Steps--------------------------------------------------------------60
4.8 Floodplains and Water Quality-------------------------------------------------60
4.8.1 Findings -----------------------------------------------------------------61
4.8 .2 Water Quality-----------------------------------------------------------61
4.8.3 Next Steps --------------------------------------------------------------61
4.9 Other Resources ---------------------------------------------------------------62
Transportation Improvements Analysis ---------------------------------------------------------63
5.1 Alternatives Development -----------------------------------------------------63
5.1 .1 Previously Proposed Projects------------------------------------------63
5.1.2 Potential Complementary Transportation Improvements-------------68
5.2 Alternatives Evaluation---------------------------------------------------------70
5.3 Tier 1 Evaluation -Study Vision------------------------------------------------72
5.4 Tier 2A -Evaluation of the Floyd Avenue Extension--------------------------77
5.S Tier 2B -Evaluation of the Sheridan -Oxford Station Connection -----------80
ii
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
EN G LE WOO D
FORWARD
LIG H T RA I L CORR I DOR
NEXT S T EPS
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
:• 1J D \·
5.6 Tier 2C -Evaluation of the South w est Greenbelt Trail and Extens ion --------84
5.7 Tier 2D -Evaluation of Complementary Transportation Improvements -----88
5.8 Tier 3 -Alternative Refinement-----------------------------------------------101
5.8.1 Rail Trail (Big Dry Cree k Trail Connection to Elati Street)-------------101
5.8.2 Bikeway Loop----------------------------------------------------------102
5.8 .3 Southwest Greenbelt Trail and Extension ----------------------------103
5.8.4 CityCenter Englewood Station Platform Shelter ---------------------104
5.8 .5 Englewood Parkway Extension and Bus Transfer/Piazza Redesign-104
5.8 .6 CityCenter Englewood Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge/Tunnel ---------105
Recommended Transportation Improvements -----------------------------------------------107
6 .1 Transportation Improvements ------------------------------------------------107
6 .2 Complementary Transportation Improvements------------------------------112
6 .2.1 Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements -----------------------------------112
6.2 .2 Intersection / Access Improvements ----------------------------------112
6.2 .3 Other Improvements --------------------------------------------------113
Community Engagement -----------------------------------------------------------------------------114
?.1 Community Engagement Process--------------------------------------------114
?.2 Plan Purpose ------------------------------------------------------------------114
?.3 Communication Objectives ---------------------------------------------------114
?.3 .1 Study Areas / Audiences-----------------------------------------------115
7.4 Communication Tools/Tactics------------------------------------------------116
Action Plan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------123
8 .1 Identification and Evaluation of Projects--------------------------------------123
8 .2 Potential Funding Sources----------------------------------------------------127
8 .3 DRCOG RTP and TIP ----------------------------------------------------------135
8.4 General NEPA Requirements-------------------------------------------------135
8.S Preliminary and Final Engineering Design------------------------------------136
8 .6 Real Estate Implementation --------------------------------------------------136
8 .6.1 CityCenter Englewood ------------------------------------------------137
8 .6 .2 Sheridan -Oxford Station ---------------------------------------------139
8 .6 .3 North Neighborhood --------------------------------------------------140
8 .6.4 West Neighborhood---------------------------------------------------141
8.? Public Finance-----------------------------------------------------------------142
8.?.1 Special Authorities I Ta x Increment Financing-----------------------142
8.?.2 Improvement Districts-------------------------------------------------142
8.?.3 Retail Fees and Programs ---------------------------------------------143
8.?A City of Englew ood Tools----------------------------------------------144
8.?.5 Economic Development Incentives-----------------------------------145
References ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------146
iii
Felsb urg Ho lt & Ullevig
•
•
•
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FO RW A RD
LIGHT RAIL CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
~. u c .,
List of Figures
Figure ES-1.
Figure ES-2 .
Figure ES-3.
Figure ES-5 .
Figure 2-1.
Figure 2-2 .
Figure 2-3 .
Figure 2-4.
Figure 2-5.
Figure 2-6.
Figure 2-?.
Figure 2-8 .
Figure 2-9 .
Figure 2-10.
Figure 2-11.
Figure 2-12.
Figure 2-13.
Figure 2-14.
Figure 3-1.
Figure 4-1.
Figure 5-1.
Figure 5-2 .
Figure 5-3.
Figure 5-4.
Figure 5-5.
Figure 6-1.
Package of Recommended Transportation Improvements -Bikeway Loop
and Rail Trail------------------------------------------------------------------ES-3
Package of Recommended Transportation Improvements -CityCenter
Eng le wood Station Area -----------------------------------------------------ES-4
Pac kage of Recommended Transportation Improvements -Sheridan -
Oxford Station Area ----------------------------------------------------------ES-5
Focus Areas ----------------------------------------------------------------ES-10
Through Lanes -----------------------------------------------------------------13
Existing Intersection Configurations -------------------------------------------14
Speed Limits--------------------------------------------------------------------15
Existing Daily Traffic Volumes and Truck Data--------------------------------17
Existing Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Counts and Levels of
Service--------------------------------------------------------------------------18
Existing Tran sit Routes ----------------------------------------------------------21
Average Daily Ridership at Study Area Bus Stops-----------------------------24
Estimated Existing and Future Households and Employment by Traffic
Analysis Zone-------------------------------------------------------------------26
2035 Daily Traffic Projections--------------------------------------------------29
Estimated Existing and Future Transit Trips and Home-based Work Transit
Trips by Traffic Analysis Zone--------------------------------------------------30
Bicycle Routes and Facilities---------------------------------------------------34
Two-Hour AM and PM Existing Bicycle Movements--------------------------36
Potential Bicycle and Pedestrian Conflict Areas ------------------------------38
Major Barriers to Bicycle and Pedestrian Movement--------------------------41
Focus Areas --------------------------------------------------------------------43
Environmental Focus Study Areas---------------------------------------------50
Previously Proposed Projects--------------------------------------------------64
Previously Proposed Projects and Complementary Transportation
Improvements -CityCenter Englewood Station Area-------------------------65
Previously Proposed Projects and Complementary Transportation
Improvements -Sheridan -Oxford Station Area------------------------------66
Previously Proposed Projects and Complementary Transportation
Improvements -South of Oxford Avenue-------------------------------------67
Transportation Improvements Analysis Process ------------------------------71
Package of Recommended Transportation Improvements -Bikeway Loop
and Rail Trail-------------------------------------------------------------------109
iv
Fefsburg Holt & Ullevig
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RAIL CORR I DOR
NEXT STEPS
s v c 'Y
Figure 6-2. Package of Recommended Transportation Improvements -CityCenter
Englewood Station Area ------------------------------------------------------110
Figure 6-3 . Package of Recommended Transportation Improvements -Sheridan -
Oxford Station Area ------------------------------------------------------------111
List of Tables
Table 2-1 .
Table 2-2 .
Table 2-3 .
Table 2-4.
Table 2-5.
Table 2-6.
Table 2-?.
Table 2-8.
Table 2-9.
Table 4-1 .
Table 4-2.
Table 4-3 .
Table 4-4.
Table 4-5.
Table 4-6.
Table 5-1.
Table 5-2.
Table 5-3.
Table 5-4.
Table 5-5.
Table 5-6 .
Table 5-7
Table 6-1.
Table 8-1.
Table 8-2.
Table 8-3 .
Weekday Study Area Transit Routes -~----------------------------------------20
Average Weekday Ridership at Study Area Light Rail Stations---------------22
Study Area Light Rail Stations Mode of Access (2010) ------------------------22
Top Study Area Bus Stops by Total Daily Boardings and Alightings ---------23
DRCOG Households by Traffic Analysis Zone---------------------------------25
DRCOG Employment by Traffic Analysis Zone--------------------------------27
DRCOG Transit Total Trip Share by Traffic Analysis Zone --------------------31
DRCOG Transit Home-based Work Trip Share by Traffic Analysis Zone-----32
Bicycle/Pedestrian Crash Hot Spots ------------------------------------------39
Environmental Focus Study Areas---------------------------------------------49
Park and Recreational Resources----------------------------------------------52
Number of Parcels with Structures 45 Years Old or Greater------------------55
Potential Wetlands and Waters of the US within the Focus Study Areas ----58
Threatened/Endangered Species Located in Arapahoe County-------------59
FEMA Designated Floodplains in the Study Area -----------------------------61
Tier 1 Evaluation ----------------------------------------------------------------73
Tier 2A Evaluation -Floyd Avenue Extension---------------------------------78
Tier 2B Evaluation -Sheridan -Oxford Station Connection ------------------82
Tier 2C Evaluation -Southwest Greenbelt Trail and Extension---------------85
Tier 2D Evaluation -Potential Complementary Transportation
Improvements ------------------------------------------------------------------89
Rail Trail -Alternative Refinements Summary -------------------------------101
Bikeway Loop -Alternative Refinements Summary-------------------------102
Summary of Opinions of Probable Cost--------------------------------------108
Composite Rating of Projects-------------------------------------------------125
Summary of Potential Funding Sources--------------------------------------127
Summary of Potential Funding Sources for Recommended Transportation
Improvements -----------------------------------------------------------------131
v
Felsburg Ho lt & Ul/evig
•
•
•
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CORR I DOR
N EX T STEPS
:1 u D '1
List of Appendices
Appendix A FHW A Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEU Questionnaire
Appendix B Real Estate Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan
Appendix C Environmental Overview Summary Data
Appendix D Conceptual Plans and Opinions of Probable Cost
Appendix E Agency Coordination and Public Outreach Documentation
v i
Felsburg Holt & Ul/evig
ENG L EWOOD
F ORWARD
LIGH T RAI L CORRIDOR
NEXT S T EPS
s u c v
List of Acronyms
Americans with Disabilities Act ADA
ASTM
ATD
American Society for Testing and Materials
All Traffic Data
BFE base flood elevation
BID
COOT
CDPHE
CE RC LIS
business improvement district
Colorado Department of Transportation
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Comprehensive Environmental Response . Compensation, and Liability Information
System
CLOMR
CMAO
CML
Conditional Letter of Map Rev ision
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Consolidated Mainline
CORRACTS Corrective Action
CU University of Colorado
CW A Clean Water Act
DOA dow ntown development authority
DOT Act US Department of Transportation Act
DRCOG Denver Regional Council of Governments
DU University of Denver
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESTIP Enhanced Sales Ta x Incentive Program
FASTER Funding Advancements for Surface Transportation and Economic Reco v ery Act of
2009
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal High w ay Administ ration
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FRA Federal Railroad Admini stration
v ii
Fe!sb urg Holt & Ullevig
•
•
•
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGH T R AI L CO RR I D OR
NEXT STEPS
:• u c v
FTA
GID
GIS
HUD
!PAC
LF
LID
LOMR
LOS
LOG
LRT
LUST
LWCF
MBTA
NEPA
NESAP
NHPA
NPL
NRHP
NW!
PEL
PID
PIF
PMJM
PUD
RAMP
RCRA
REC
Federal Transit Administration
general improvement district
geographic information system
US Department of Housing and Urban Development
Information. Planning. and Conservation System
landfill
local improvement district
Letter of Map Revision
level of service
large-quantity generator
Light-Rail Transit
leaking underground storage tank
Land and Water Conservation Fund
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
National Environmental Policy Act
North Englewood Small Area Plan
National Historic Preservation Act
National Priorities List
National Register of Historic Places
National Wetlands Inventory
Planning and Environmental Linkages
public improvement district
public improvement fee
Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse
Planned Unit Development
Responsible Acceleration of Maintenance and Partnerships
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
recognized environmental condition
viii
Fefsburg Holt & Ullevig
••
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CORR I DOR
NE X T STEPS
:• u C' y
RSF
RTD
RTP
SB40
SHPO
SIB
sov
SOG
SWF
TAP
TAZ
TDM
TIGER
TIP
TOD
ULC
URA
US#
USA CE
use
USFWS
USGS
VCUP
wocc
wus
retail sales fee
Regional Transportation District
Regional Transportation Plan
Senate Bill 40
State Historic Preservation Officer
State Infrastructure Bank
single-occupant vehicle
small-quantity hazardous w aste generator
solid waste disposal facility
Transportation Alternatives Program
traffic analysis zone
Travel Demand Management
Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery
Transportation Improvement Program
Transit Oriented Development
Urban Land Conservancy
urban renewal authority
US Highway Number
US Army Corps of Engineers
United States Code
US Fish and Wildlife Service
US Geological Survey
Voluntary Clean Up
Water Quality Control Commission
Waters of the United States
ix
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
•
•
•
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RAIL CORR I DOR
NEXT S T EPS
Executive Summary
Why was the Next Steps Study conducted?
This Next Steps Study documents the results of a coordinated planning effort between the cities
of Englewood and Sheridan to improve community-wide access to the Southwest Light-Rail
Transit (LRT) Corridor Englewood (CityCenter Englewood) and Oxford -City of Sheridan
(Sheridan -Oxford) stations. to encourage transit supportive development within the corridor.
and to stimulate private investment. The cities of Englewood and Sheridan initiated the study to:
• Analyze e x isting and future challenges and opportunities for multi-modal (bicycle,
pedestrian. transit, and vehicle) connectivity to the LRT Corridor within the study area
(using the year 2035 as a planning horizon),
~ Evaluate further the previously proposed multi-modal transportation infrastructure
projects recommended in the Englewood Light Rail Corridor Station Area Master Plan and
projects identified by the cities of Englewood and Sheridan staff,
~ Identify potential complementary transportation improvements that enhance connectivity
to the LRT stations. in addition to those previously recommended,
~ Conduct a real estate development and marketing/implementation strategy for the four
areas in the city of Englewood adjacent to the LRT stations. and
~ Prepare an action plan that prioritizes and identifies implementation strategies for the
recommended transportation infrastructure projects.
What is the purpose of the improvements?
The purpose of the transportation improvements is to enhance multi-modal connections
(bicycle, pedestrian , transit, and vehicle) to the CityCenter Englewood and Sheridan -Oxford LRT
stations in a manner that enhances adjacent existing and planned land uses.
How was the community engaged in the Next Steps Study?
Open and transparent community engagement and public participation were key elements in
the process of developing the Next Steps Study. The goal of community engagement and
outreach was to increase public awareness of the study, including study goals and objectives .
and to promote community participation in the study process. Public input was solicited
throughout the entire study process (Chapter 7.0). Community engagement included open
discussion through small group meetings, stakeholder interviews. neighborhood walk-abouts. an
agency staff technical meeting, city council briefings. a developer forum. written comments,
surveys, and well-publicized public meetings. Public meetings were held on November 12. 2014;
February 11 , 2015; and June 20 . 2015 .
ES-1
Fefsburg Holt & Uflevig
ENG L EWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RAIL CORRIDOR
NE XT S T EPS
'S ; v c v
How was the package of Recommended Transportation Improvements identified?
TlerU.•
Evalwlllon of Ille
f\¥A"-!1.,..
Elctomlon
n.rae-
E-ofthe
sti.ridon-Oirf~
~ LRTStulon
Connectloq
1'1or2D·
Eval""tlan DfllHt
CoMpl•IMl!Wy
TransportaUon
~ ...
A three-tier evaluation
process identified a
recommended set of
transportation
improvements (Chapter 5.0).
Tier 1 of the evaluation
process assessed if the
planned alternatives and
proposed complementary
transportation
improvements met the
project vision . Alternatives
were then advanced from
the Tier 1 evaluation to the
Tier 2 evaluation . Each
transportation improvement
was evaluated based on
criteria relevant to that
Package of Recommended Transportation Improvements
particular improvement. The
evaluation includes:
~ Tier 2A: Evaluation of the Floyd Avenue Extension
• Above or below grade separation of Floyd Avenue with the LRT tracks . Consolidated
Mainline Railroad (CMU railroad tracks. US 85 (Santa Fe Drive). and the South Platte
River
~ Tier 28: Evaluation of the Sheridan -Oxford Station Pedestrian Tunnel/Bridge
• Alignment of the above or below grade separation with the LRT tracks. CML railroad
trac ks. US 85 (Santa Fe Drive)
~ Tier 2C : Evaluation of the Southwest Greenbelt Trail
• Alignment of the e xtension from Huron Street to the Rail Trail
~ Tier 2D : Evaluation of the Potential Complementary Transportation Improvements
Tier 3 focused on refinement of the alternatives based on feedback from the cities of Englew ood
and Sheridan. the public. and elected officials .
What improvements are included in the package of Recommended Transportation
Improvements?
Figure ES-1. Figure ES-2. and Figure ES-3 show the following transportation improvements
included in the package Recommended Transportation Improvements.
ES-2
Felsburg Holt & UI/evig
•
•
•
• • • ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
( 1(.1<1 flA11 1:n11iupnu w:r C,-<c•g'··c'°"l\"l•ie'.'tF'\a;"""•·'i"':l;t'·~1.:.iI''"Y ~.,~·•··"' ~ •
NEX T STEPS
Figure ES-1. Package of Recommended Transportation Improvements -Bikeway Loop and Rail Trail
CIJ Light Rail Stations -r--Railro ad• (_;;J City Boundaries
""""-Rtve ra Recreational Ruourcaa
Proposed Transportation Improvements
Bikeway Loop
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
e
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
• u, ... , ,,11.11 1_nvr.q11,,11.1
NEXT STEPS
tN·:T
Figure ES-2. Package of Recommended Transportation Improvements -CityCenter Englewood Station Area
CE Light Rall ltation• --R•ilrolid• (? City Boun<briH
~ ... ~ 1tec1ealiorMlfbt10U«:oR1
Previou5lf Proposed Transportation Improvements
Blkew•y Loop
-RallTrall t1 -Englewood City C•nt.,. Station Blcycle/Ped .. trlan Bridge
Englewood City Center LRT SUitlon PlaHorm Shelter
Potentia l Complementary Improvements
1111111 Englewood City Center Station ~atrien Bridge or Tunnel
Floyd Avenue (StMm'lan to Elmitl} Bicyc .. /hdestrtan
Dartmouth Avenue (Inc. to Federal} Blkeway
UtHe Dry Creek Trail ConMCtion Bicycle/Pede1trtan Improvement.
-Dartmouth Avenue {South Platte Riffr Dr to Zuni AccHa)
() ~::;:;::'::::::,!::::1:.teraootkm
Hamlllon Brtdge Blcycle/P9de1trJen
Place or FIOyd Avenue
350 •-c::==:i Feet
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
•
'
• • e
• -• •
I 1(.lf 1 'I AH ._;(llllll{H)U tN·rr E N GLE WOOD
FORWARD
NE XT STEPS
Figure ES-3. Package of Recommended Transportation Improvements -Sheridan -Oxford Station Area
CE Ught Rall Statton• -~ Rail road•
..,...__ Rive rs Re creation al Rn ou rcea
Proposed Transportation Improvements
Blkeway Loop
-RallTrall
-Southwest Greenbelt Extension
Potential Complementary Improvements
1111111 Windermere Street Shared Use Path
Q City Boundaries
Tufts Avenue (Navajo to Rall Trail} Bicycle/Pedestri an
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
e
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CORR I DOR
NEXT STEPS
S ~ U D V
~ Rail Trail (Big Dry Creek Trail Connection to Elati Street)
•
• Constructing a 10-foot-wide multi-use bicycle/pedestrian trail adjacent to the
Southwest LRT Corridor from the Big Dry Creek Trail to Elati Street with bicycle/
pedestrian bridges over Oxford Avenue. Hampden Avenue. and Dartmouth Avenue ..
~ Dartmouth Avenue. Clarkson Street. and Oxford Avenue Bikeway Loop
• Dartmouth Avenue Bikeway
o Installing a one-way couplet of buffer separated shared parking and bicycle lane
along Dartmouth Avenue from Inca Street to Clarkson Street.
• Clarkson Street Bikew ay
o Installing a bicycle boulevard along Clarkson Street from Dartmouth Avenue to
Oxford Avenue with shared lane markings. wayfinding signs for bicyclists . and
street treatments to give bicyclists priority. to slow traffic. and to improve bicycle
and pedestrian safety.
• Oxford Avenue Bikeway
•
o Installing a bicycle boulevard along Oxford Avenue from Clarkson Street to
Broadway with shared lane markings. wayfinding signs for bicyclists. and street
treatments to give bicyclists priority. to slow traffic. and to improve bicycle and
pedestrian safety. •
o Installing a one-way couplet along Oxford Avenue from Broadway to Navajo
Street at the sidewalk level separated from the parking lanes .
o Installing a 10-ft multi-use trail on the north side of Oxford Avenue from Navajo
Street to Irving Street.
o Installing a bicycle boulevard along Oxford Avenue from Irving Street to Lowell
Boulevard with shared lane markings. wayfinding signs for bicyclists. and street
treatments to give bicyclists priority. to slow traffic. and to improve bicycle and
pedestrian safety.
~ Southwest Greenbelt Trail Improvements and Extension
• Reconstructing an ex isting 8-foot-wide asphalt trail in Rotolo Park from Cherokee
Street to Huron Street with a 10-foot-wide multi-use trail and constructing a new
10-foot-wide multi-use trail from Huron Street to the Rail Trail.
~ CityCenter Englewood Station Platform Shelter
• Reconstructing the CityCenter Englewood Station Platform Shelter with a weather
shelter.
~ CityCenter Englewood LRT Station Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge
• Constructing a 12-foot-wide pedestrian grade-separated crossing of the LRT tracks.
CML railroad tracks. and US 85 (Santa Fe Drive) with an elevator and a staircase to the
CityCenter Englewood LRT Station platform.
ES-6
Felsburg Ho lt & Ullevig •
•
•
•
ENG L EWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RAIL CORR I DOR
NEX T STEPS
~t IJ [' '/
~ Floyd Avenue Bike Lanes (CityCenter Englewood UH Station to Sherman Street)
• Restriping to include 5-foot bike lanes in both directions. requiring the removal of the
center turn lane from the CityCenter Englewood LRT Station to Elati Street. and a road
diet from four lanes to two lanes with a possible center turn lane from Elati Street to
Sherman Street or a similar type of treatment.
~ Dartmouth Avenue Bikeway (Little Dry Creek Trail to Federal Boulevard)
• Extending the construction of a bi-directional. 6 to 8-foot wide bikeway along
Dartmouth Avenue from the Little Dry Creek Trail to Federal Boulevard .
~ Windermere Shared Use Path Extension (Batting Cages at Cornerstone Park Entrance to
Englewood Canine Corral Entrance)
• Replacing the e xisting sidewalk with an extension of the existing 8-foot shared use
path along the east side of Windermere Street (Belleview Avenue to the Batting
Cages at Cornerstone Park entrance) north to the Englewood Canine Corral entrance.
providing connectivity to the Big Dry Creek Trail.
~ Tufts Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements (Navajo Street to Rail Trail)
• Extending the sidewalk along the south side of Tufts Avenue to connect with the
future Rail Trail where Tufts Avenue turns north into Windermere Street.
• Painting bike sharrows and installing "Share the Road" signs .
• Installing crosswalks where Tufts Avenue turns north into Windermere Street
(including Americans with Disabilities Act [ADAJ-compliant ramps). where Windermere
street continues south from Tufts Avenue. and where Navajo Street continues north
from Tufts Avenue.
~ Little Dry Creek Trail Connection Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements (Along the frontage
road west of US 85 to Little Dry Creek Trail. Mary Carter Greenway [South Platte Traill . and
west across the South Platte River)
• Adding and improving bicycle/pedestrian facilities along the frontage road w est of
US 85 to Little Dry Creek.
• Establishing additional connections westward from the CityCenter Englewood LRT
Station Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge
~ US 85 I Dartmouth Avenue Intersection Improvements
• Providing a fourth northbound and southbound through-lane in coordination with
COOT along US 85 to the next largest intersections (US 85/Hampden Avenue and
US 85/Evans Avenue).
~ US 85 I Oxford Avenue Intersection Improvements
• Providing a fourth northbound and southbound through-lane along US 85 in
coordination with COOT to the next largest intersections (US 85/Hampden Avenue
and US 85/Belleview Avenue) .
ES-7
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
ENGLEWOOD
FORW A RD
LI GHT RA I L CORR I DOR
NEXT STEPS
~ u ;:' v
~ Oxford Avenue I Navajo Street Intersection Improvements
• Improving bus circulation in coordination with RTD to the Sheridan -Oxford Avenue
station
~ US 285 I Shoshone Street Right-In I Right-Out
• Working with COOT to construct a right-in I right-out to/from US 285 and Shoshone
Street to provide easier vehicular access to areas west of US 85 and north of US 285 .
~ Dartmouth Avenue Intersection Improvements (South Platte River Drive to Zuni Street)
• Providing intersection and access control improvements along Dartmouth Avenue
from South Platte River Drive to Zuni Street as the street grid is reestablished
(Dartmouth Avenue/Shoshone Street. Dartmouth Avenue/Ouivas Street. etcJ
~ Sheridan -Oxford Station park-n-Ride I Shared Use Parking
• Redeveloping a nearby parcel into either a RTD park-n-Ride facility or working with a
developer /landowner to construct a shared use parking structure as part of a mixed-
use redevelopment where a portion of parking would be dedicated to RTD riders
using the Sheridan -Oxford Station.
~ Hamilton Place or Floyd Avenue Bridge Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
•
• Widening the Hamilton Place Bridge to accommodate 8-foot sidewalks and 5-foot
bike lanes on each side or providing a separate adjacent bicycle/pedestrian only •
bridge and/or providing a separate Floyd Avenue Bridge over the South Platte River .
How will the proposed improvements be prioritized and potentially funded for implementation?
Experience has shown that an articulate and thoughtful action plan will help increase the
probability of funding success in the current economic environment. Good information.
collaboration. broad support. and readiness to proceed to construction are all keys to successful
project prioritization . With this understanding. the study team developed a project prioritization
process and Action Plan (Chapter 8.0) that is easy to use. objective. and easy to replicate.
The primary intent of this plan is to identify and prioritize projects so that the leadership of the
City of Englewood and the City of Sheridan can have a basis for consideration and ultimate
selection and funding of projects. To simplify the prioritization process. the approach was more
qualitative than quantitative. although there is rich information available through this Next Steps
Study to assist with a quantitative evaluation . It is designed to provide decision-makers with key
information required to effectively understand potential projects. their benefits. and their
readiness to encumber transportation funds. Key objectives of this Action Plan are to pursue
opportunities in advance of project requests. identify a variety of potential funding sources. and
to take advantage of unanticipated funding that might become available.
The short-term transportation improvement priorities (within five years) are:
~ Rail Trail (Big Dry Creek Trail Connection to Sheridan -Oxford Station)
~ Dartmouth Avenue Separated Bikeway (Inca Street to Clarkson Street)
ES-8
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig •
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CORR I DOR
NE XT STEPS
':: l.J c 'i
~ Clarkson Street (Dartmouth Avenue to Oxford Avenue) and Oxford Avenue (Clarkson
Street to Broadway) Bicycle Boulevard
~ Oxford Avenue (Irving Street to Lowell Boulevard) Bicycle Boulevard
•
~ Floyd Avenue Bike Lanes (CityCenter Englewood Station to Sherman Street)
Additional near-term (within 3 years) recommendations for real estate implementation for the
CityCenter Englewood Station area . Sheridan -Oxford Station area. North Neighborhood. and
West Neighborhood are included in Chapter 8.o .
What is the potential for development in the Study Area?
The project team conducted a market study to determine the market potential for various types
of land uses (including retail. residential. entertainment. and office I employment) for four
particular focus areas in the Englewood and Sheridan areas. defined as :
~ Focus Area 1: North Neighborhood -Bates I Elati Area
~ Focus Area 2: West Neighborhood -Area west of Englewood Station
~ Focus Area 3: CityCenter Englewood Neighborhood -Area east of Englewood Station
~ Focus Area 4: South Neighborhood -Area east and south of Oxford Station Area
These areas are shown on Figure ES-5 .
Overall. the market study revealed that although the Englewood and Sheridan communities are
landlocked and have remained fairly stable from a demographic standpoint over the last few
decades. the overall projected significant growth of the Denver metro area over the next 20 to
25 years presents notable opportunities for redevelopment that would benefit from and
leverage a number of the transportation improvements outlined in the Next Steps Study. The
Denver metro area is projected to grow from around 3 million residents in 2015 to around
4 million in 2040 , as the area continues to attract in-migration from around the country given its
overall good quality of life. Furthermore. the metro area is projected to add around 36.000 new
positions on average each year over the next ten years. as new companies continue to migrate
to the region and existing companies continue to expand. While Downtown Denver and the heart
of the city. as well as the outlying suburbs that have room available for expansion . will
ex perience a good deal of this overall economic growth in terms of new development. the
position of Englewood and Sheridan as "inner ring" suburbs enjoying relative prox imity to a
variety of key destinations in the metro area presents the opportunity for redevelopment and
economic growth in the focus areas examined as part of the Next Steps Study. The Englewood
area enjoys access to Downtown Denver and the Denver Tech Center area and is within minutes
of some of the most desirable areas in the city. including Washington Park and other highly
successful neighborhoods in south Denver. As the areas just to the north of Englewood continue
to redevelop and attract increased levels of wealth. the prox imity of the areas examined in the
Next Steps Study to this part of Denver presents opportunities for economic growth .
ES-g
Felsburg Ho lt & U/levig
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
L IGHT RAIL CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
Figure ES-4. Focus Areas
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
•
•
ES-10 •
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FO RW A R D
LIGHT RA I L CORR I DOR
NEXT STEPS
~. v c 'l
The following summarizes the key takeaways from the market study and feasibility analysis for
each of the four focus areas examined in the NSS.
North Neighborhood (Bates/ Elati Area)
The North Neighborhood focus area primarily includes the Winslow Crane property. located just
to the north of Dartmouth Street and east of the RTD southwest line. and stretches north toward
Bates Avenue. The area has the potential to tie into the existing grid system of streets to the east
in Englewood and. therefore. connect more directly to the Broadway corridor. The area is
located fairly close to a number of neighborhoods in south Denver that are redeveloping with
new residential and infill projects and enjoys good access. via the Santa Fe corridor and the RTD
rail line. to Downtown Denver. While the lack of visibility to the Santa Fe corridor is less favorable
for redevelopment. the fact that most of the area is controlled by one landowner (Winslow
Crane) makes executing redevelopment in this area much easier. Overall. the urban framework is
favorable for redevelopment.
From a market perspective, while the area lacks visibility to the Santa Fe corridor and has been
perceived to date as more of a gritty industrial area. a redevelopment of the Winslow Crane
parcel and adjacent parcels to the east could yield a successful mixed use development over
the near term (the next five to ten years) centered on the following components:
Residential Several hundred residential units. including a mixture of for-sale units (townhomes)
and for-rent units (apartments).
Retail Local-serving retail. including retail uses (coffee shop. bank. hair salon. etc.) that would
serve the everyday uses of residents in the study area. The lack of visibility to the Santa Fe
corridor limits the demand for retail beyond a small amount of local-serving retail uses .
Office: Given the orientation of the study area. the North Neighborhood would absorb only small
quantities of office uses over the long term (limited to under 20.000 square feet in aggregate)
oriented to smaller format office tenants (including medical office and small professional
offices).
West Neighborhood Wea west of Englewood Station)
The site constraints of properties in the West Neighborhood limit the potential for
redevelopment over the near term. and larger scale redevelopment of this area . to the west of
Santa Fe and between Dartmouth and Hampden. would require a more coordinated
implementation strategy from the cities of Englewood and Sheridan over the longer term. Larger
scale industrial uses dominate this area . particularly west of the South Platte River . The West
Neighborhood also lacks a good deal of infrastructure (including utilities and street facilities) that
would be necessary to execute redevelopments in the area. The properties located to the west
of the river lack visibility and direct access to the Santa Fe corridor and the LRT line and .
therefore. are more removed from the drivers of redevelopment that are moving south from the
City of Denver. The very fragmented pattern of ownership of parcels in the area presents
perhaps the largest challenge to redevelopment of this area. coupled with the fact that many of
the industrial users and existing tenants in the area have a limited desire to relocate their existing
operations .
ES-11
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
ENG L EWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RAI L CORRIDOR
N EX T STEPS
~-, -:-v C' \
From a market perspective. the West Neighborhood has the potential to support the following
mix of land uses. primarily over the longer term:
Retail: The areas directly along Santa Fe could support a small amount of retail geared to take
advantage of the adjacency to the Santa Fe corridor (including limited uses such as a coffee
shop. drive-through uses. and other inline retail), over the near term. Over the longer term. the
West Neighborhood is unlikely to develop as a larger scale retail destination. given the recent
development of the River Point area in Sheridan .
Residential Over the near term. demand may exist for a few hundred residential units (either
apartment or town home) in the area between Santa Fe and the South Platte River. but would not
be viable to the west of the river. Over the longer term. residential uses (including several
hundred multi-family or attached residential units) could be viable to the west of the river. but
development of commercial or business park uses in this area may be a better use of the land.
going forward .
•
Office I Business Park: The area between Santa Fe and the South Platte River has the potential to
absorb smaller format office uses (including medical office. smaller companies. etc.) over the
near term. However. at least over the near term. this area is unlikely to develop as a larger format
office node. serving the metro area . The area to the west of the South Platte River has the
potential to develop as a revamped business park or similar type of development. providing
space for a variety of users. including forms of light industrial. The repositioning of this part of •
Englewood could help to provide additional areas for employment-generating uses in the
community over the long term.
CityCenter Englewood Neighborhood
The CityCenter Englewood area enjoys a strategic position in the metro area. with good access
via the Southwest LRT line and the Santa Fe corridor. to Downtown Denver and to other suburbs
to the north and south. Furthermore. the local street network provides good access to the
Broadway corridor. to the east. However. the potential for redevelopment and growth in this area
has been limited by the overall perception and orientation of the area to date. Most people in the
Denver area continue to think of this part of Englewood as an area dominated by suburban big
box and junior box stores and strip commercial centers oriented along aging corridors such as
Hampden Avenue. The redevelopment of the area requires the creation of a new vision and a
more detailed plan for different parts of the neighborhood that help to create a sense of place.
From a site analysis perspective. while the area benefits from a strong grid of local streets and
access to the Hampden and Santa Fe corridors. the fractured pattern of ownership in the area.
legal restrictions in place around the CityCenter Englewood dating back to the redevelopment of
the area in the early 2000s and limiting the flexibility of developers. and the perception of the
area as a relatively tired suburban strip center area challenge prospects for redevelopment.
From a market perspective. the CityCenter Englewood area has the potential to support the
following types of land uses :
Retail: Overall. demand does not e xist fo r larger scale additional retail square footage in this
neighborhood . as the area is currently saturated across the full spectrum of retail uses. Limited
ES-12
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig •
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
F ORWARD
LI GHT RAI L CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
additional demand is possible over the longer term. However. the redevelopment of the
CityCenter Englewood area could reposition a number of retail spaces and the ex isting quantity
of retail square footage in the area into more viable and updated versions of retail. with new
tenants. and thus could help stimulate overall success of this district. In addition. potential exists
to develop a number of additional restaurant spaces in the CityCenter Englewood area.
Residential Over the longer term. the CityCenter Englewood area has the potential to support a
few thousand additional residential units (townhome or apartment) depending on how potential
redevelopment scenarios move forward (in terms of density and orientation).
Office: Over the longer term. the CityCenter Englewood area has the potential to emerge as a
small node of office development. of a few hundred thousand square feet. While the Denver
Tech Center and Downtown Denver will continue to dominate the nearby office markets. the
favorable access of the Englewood area could present the opportunity for some additional
office development over the longer term. particularly if the overall district is repositioned over
time.
Entertainment: Over the longer term. the CityCenter Englewood could emerge as a subregional
hub of entertainment uses. including family entertainment destinations (similar to concepts such
as Dave and Busters or Gameworks) and uses geared to sports (in particular. youth sports). The
area to the south of Hampden. given the larger parcel areas available for redevelopment. could
accommodate larger format entertainment uses that require larger land areas (such as a regional
youth sports or indoor aquatic center. or larger format concepts such as Top Golf).
South Neighborhood l'Area East and South of Oxford Station Area)
The presence of the elevated UH line impedes visibility of the South Neighborhood from the
Santa Fe corridor and. therefore. limits the potential market for development as residential and
related neighborhood-oriented land uses. While the properties to the south of the Sheridan -
Oxford station are owned by a diverse set of entities. the group as a whole is interested in
redevelopment and sees the area as having potential for revitalization over the near term and
long term.
The South Neighborhood has the potential to support the following land uses over time:
Residential The study area. south of Oxford and east of the Southwest LRT line, has the potential
to support up to i.ooo residential units (townhome or apartment) over the longer term. These
units would likely be oriented as part of "mixed use" developments incorporating a small amount
of retail uses as well.
Office: The South Neighborhood has limited potential for smaller format and creative office uses
of no more than 10.000 square feet in total.
Retail: Given the lack of visibility to the Santa Fe corridor. the South Neighborhood is unlikely to
attract a sizeable component of retail development. Total retail demand in this area is limited to
20.000 square feet in total and would likely include local-serving uses (such as a coffee shop ,
dry cleaner. etcJ
ES-13
Felsburg Holt & U//evig
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
";.t v !J 'i
In addition. a portion of the industrial land uses may remain in the South Neighborhood over
time. integrated with the new types of land uses that may result from redevelopment.
How can redevelopment strategies for the four neighborhoods be implemented?
The Next Steps Study outlined a set of implementation strategies for each neighborhood area
profiled in the market study. This section outlines the key strategies for each area. and the Next
Steps Study report provides additional details and implementation recommendations for the
community to use going forward.
North Neighborhood
The Winslow Crane property is the primary development opportunity in this area . Given the
nature of the neighborhood surrounding this area. this planned redevelopment could be sizeable
enough with enough critical mass to start changing perceptions of the area. Mixed income
housing can be a catalyst for area redevelopment. Metro area redevelopments have often seen
the introduction of tax credit affordable. senior and rental housing as the first housing types into
a market to help catalyze future area redevelopment. Although there is currently market support
for the development. the creation of better connectivity to the CityCenter Englewood Station . as
well as amenities along the South Platte River. is critical to attracting future residents to the area.
A stronger. vibrant. more attractive Broadway corridor would also enhance the neighborhood's
•
redevelopment potential. •
The key implementation action steps for the North Neighborhood include the following . The
Next Steps Study contains details about additional recommended action steps:
~ Support the current development proposal for mi xed income housing on the Winslow
Crane property through the CHFA Low Income Housing Ta x Credit approval process .
~ Assist the developer of the Winslow Crane property with communications with
neighborhoods and other stakeholders.
~ Continue to seek funding for rail trail improvements that would enhance connectivity
from the North Neighborhood to the CityCenter Englewood LRT station
~ Assist the developer in attracting employment uses to the area
~ Develop a subarea plan for the area
~ Assist the developer with planning for the use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) in concert
with development activities
~ Plan and pursue funding for the Dartmouth Avenue Separated Bikeway. US 85 I
Dartmouth intersection improvements. and other intersection improvements along
Dartmouth Avenue
West Neighborhood
The West Neighborhood has the potential over the longer term to redevelop as an area geared
to employment and a mixture of other land uses. However. in the near term. the cities of
Englewood and Sheridan should continue to coordinate planning activities that will lay the
ES-14
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig •
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RAIL CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
::. IJ [' .,
groundwork for redevelopment of this area over time. The implementation action items are
outlined below. and the Next Steps Study provides additional details and recommendations for
the cities to use going forward:
~ The cities of Englewood and Sheridan should develop a Cross-Jurisdictional subarea plan
identifying critical businesses to maintain in the area. potential parcels that could serve as
the locations for catalytic redevelopment projects. prioritized connections to enhance the
neighborhood and key amenities or destinations. primary infrastructure needs. and
appropriate zoning to facilitate redevelopment.
~ As part of the overall planning effort. Englewood and Sheridan should create a working
group of officials to meet regularly to coordinate ongoing redevelopment efforts in this
area.
~ The cities should plan for and pursue funding for the potential bike and pedestrian bridge
connecting the CityCenter Englewood LRT station to the area west of Santa Fe Drive .
~ The cities should continue to collaborate inter-jurisdictionally to create improved and
enhanced connections to the South Platte River .
CityCenter Englewood Area
To realize the long-term goal of creating an activated and high-quality CityCenter Englewood
station area. current market conditions require incremental infill development. phasing over time.
the use of public private partnerships. and the potential use of tools such as a Downtown
Development Authority (DDA). along with TIF . Additional potential tools include Title 32
Metropolitan Districts and Public Improvements Fees. both of which are tools not historically
used in the City of Englewood .
A new master plan for the area should be developed. in conjunction with the creation of a DDA.
The plan should be developed in concert with a detailed development strategy (planning.
design. financial. and legal) that has the cooperation and buy-in of major property owners and
large employers along both sides of Hampden Avenue. A new TIF district orchestrated through
the DDA should be put into place with both sales and property ta x TIFs used at the appropriate
times to generate revenues to help fund needed public improvements.
Given the importance of the Broadway corridor to the CityCenter Englewood area . the DDA
boundaries should include the CityCenter Englewood area and critical sections of the Broadway
corridor. Given the breadth of the area. subareas should be designated with specific plans in
place for each . Areas could be subdivided into:
~ Property and businesses west of Wal-mart. as their focus tends to be CityCenter
Englewood and the LRT station
~ Property and businesses east of Wal-mart. as the focus tends to be Broadway
~ Property and businesses along the Broadway corridor. north of Hampden
~ Property and businesses along the Broadway corridor. south of Hampden
ES-15
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CORRIDOR
N EX T S T EPS
:> u D "
The City previously had a Business Improvement District (810) along the Broadway corridor. An
expanded DOA can undertake the same types of projects that a BID typically oversees.
The following outlines the key implementation action items for the CityCenter Englewood area
and the Next Steps Study contains additional details and additional action items for
consideration :
~ The City should institute a ODA in the area . as well as other appropriate financ ial tools and
mechanisms. including Title 32 Metropolitan Districts. other special districts. and Public
Improvement and Retail Sales Fees.
~ The City should investigate and potentially modify legal agreements in place for
particular parcels in the CityCenter Englew ood area to inform or help implement
elements of the Vision I Master Plan for the area .
~ The City should outline a financial plan for redevelopment concurrently with property
owners in the area.
~ The City should continue to refine and evolve the design of the Rail Trail as it passes
through the CityCenter Englewood area to help facilitate and support redevelopment
efforts in the area.
•
~ The City should determine whether an Owner's Representative with development •
ex perience should represent the City during discussions about the CityCenter Englewood
area. or whether a relationship with a Master Developer should be pursued.
South Neighborhood
South of the Sheridan -Oxford Station . the former industrial area has begun transitioning to a
mixed-use land use orientation . Given the current activity. rail trail improvements to help facilitate
station connectivity and area redevelopment should be prioritized. Over the longer term.
development of a shared parking strategy would help enhance area redevelopment. As mi xed
use retail develops in the area. the City should consider using Urban Renewal as a financial tool
to capture sales (and property) ta x increment to help pay for shared structured parking .
The following outlines some of the key implementation action items for the South
Neighborhood:
~ The City should develop TOD zoning regulations for this area that would allow a mixture
of residential. retail. and office land uses. in addition to the existing industrial land uses
present in the area.
~ The City should work w ith developers and property owners to facilitate the creation of
shared parking facilities in the area that w ould align with RTD's Transit Access Guidelines
for parking . It should also work with RTD to secure additional parking spaces in the area
and assist with securing properties that could be used for future parking facilities . and
explore funding for additional park-n-Ride or Shared Use parking in the area . The City of
Englew ood and RTD do not anticipate acquiring property using eminent domain for
parking . The City of Englew ood and RTD would like to partner with land o w ners for
additional park-n-Ride or Shared Use parking options. •
ES-16
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
•
•
•
ENG L EWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CORR I DOR
N EXT STEPS
:-. V D '1
~ The City should continue to refine design and pursue funding of the Rail Trail that w ould
connect the south side of Oxford with the LRT station .
~ The City should continue to plan and pursue funding for intersection improvements at
US 85 I Ox ford. and at Oxford and Navajo .
~ The City should also continue planning and secure funding for the Oxford Avenue
Separated Bikeway improvements.
Public Finance Tools
The Next Steps Study outlines a roster of potential Public Finance tools available to help support
ongoing redevelopment and rev italization in the various focus areas . including TIF. Urban
Renewal Authorities. DDAs . General Improvement Districts. and Local Improvement Districts. The
Next Steps Study outlines additional tools at the disposal of the City of Englewood to support
development and to help fund public improvements associated with redevelopment or overall
community revitalization .
ES-17
Fefsburg Ho lt & Ullevig
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RAIL CORR I DOR
N EX T S T EPS
"';" . .,. v [' 'i
Acknowledgements
Englewood City Council
Randy Penn
May or. District 3
Linda Olson
May or Pro T em. D istrict 2
Rick Gillit
District 4
Joe Jefferson
District 1
Bob Mccaslin
At Large
Jill Wilson
At Large
Steven Yates
At Large
Sheridan City Council
Dallas Hall
Mayor
Bonnie Parker
Ward 1
Landau de Laguna
Ward 1
Sally Dai gle
Ward 2
Gary How ard
Ward 2
Tara Beiter-Fluhr
Ward 3
Ernie Camacho
Ward3
Englewood City Manager
Er ic Kec k
Felsburg Hott & Ulle vig
ES-18
Sheridan City Manager
Devin Granbery
Project Managers
Michael Flaherty
City M a nager's Office
Deputy City Manager
John Voboril. AICP
Englew ood Community Development
Long Range Planner II
Jennifer Henninger. AICP
Consulting Planner for the City of Sheridan
Consultant T earn
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig. Prime Consultant
Kevin Maddoux. AICP CEP
Principal
Elliot Sulsky. AICP . PE
Principal
Kath a rine Duitsman. PE
Project Engineer
Shea Suski
Tra ns portat ion Planner
Laura Ha as
Environmental Scientist
Arland LLC
Arleen Tani wa ki
Bachman PR
Lisa Bachma n
Mon ica Ramey
Design Workshop
Britt Palmberg. AICP
Jim McRae. RLA
Toole Design Group
Jess ic a Juriga. AICP . PE
A nthony Pra tt. RLA
•
•
•
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGH T RA I L CORRIDOR
N E X T STEPS
:, l_I 0 \
1.0 Introduct ion
This Next Steps Study documents the results of a coordinated planning effort betw een the cities
of Englewood and Sheridan to improve community-wide access to the Southwest Light-Rail
Transit (LRT) Corridor Englewood (CityCenter Englewood) and Oxford -City of Sheridan
(Sheridan -Oxford) stations. to encourage transit supportive development within the corridor.
and to stimulate private investment. The cities of Englewood and Sheridan initiated the study to:
~ Analyze existing and future challenges and opportunities for multimodal (bicycle,
pedestrian. transit. and vehicle) connectivity to the LRT Corridor within the study area
(using the year 2035 as a planning horizon),
~ Evaluate further the previously proposed multimodal transportation infrastructure
projects recommended in the Englewood Light Raif Comdor Station Area Master Plan and
projects identified by the cities of Englewood and Sheridan staff.
~ Identify potential Complementary Transportation Improvements that enhance
connectivity to the LRT stations. in addition to those previously recommended ,
~ Conduct a real estate development and marketing/implementation strategy for the four
areas in the city of Englewood adjacent to the LRT stations. and
~ Prepare an action plan that prioritizes and identifies implementation strategies for the
recommended transportation infrastructure projects.
This Next Steps Study was prepared in accordance with Denver Regional Council of
Governments (DRCOG) FY 14-15 Station Area/Urban Centers Studies -Project Eligibility Rules
(DRCOG , 2014) and the Regional Transportation District (RTD) Transit Oriented Development
(TOD) Po!icy(RTD. 2006). In addition. the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Planning and
Environmental Linkages (PEU Questionnaire was completed (Appendix A) to facilitate
incorporation of the study results into potential future National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
efforts. if required . due to interaction with the State Highway system or if warranted due to
potential funding scenarios.
The Next Steps Study is organized into eight chapters :
~ Chapter 1.0: Introduction. Chapter 1 .0 provides the study location. description. vision .
objectives. and planning context of the study.
~ Chapter 2 .0 : Transportation System Conditions Assessment. Chapter 2 .0 summarizes the
conditions of the existing transportation system within the study area and assesses
deficiencies within the existing transportation system.
~ Chapter 3.0: Real Estate Market Analysis and Feasibility. Chapter 3 .0 summarizes the real
estate feasibility study and implementation plan prepared as part of the Next Steps
Study.
~ Chapter 4.0: Environmental Overview. Chapter 4 .0 summarizes the ex isting environmental
conditions for several priority resources within the study area and summarizes additional
resource assessments that could be required during any future project-level analysis .
1
Felsburg Ho tt & Ullevig
ENGLEWOOD
FOR W AR D
L I G H T RA I L CO IHl l OOR
NEXT STEPS
S i i_i L '.
~ Chapter 5.0: Transportation Improvements Analysis. Chapter 5.0 describes the
development. evaluation . and conceptual engineering design of alternatives for
transportation improvements in the study area.
~ Chapter 6.o: Recommended Transportation Improvements. Chapter 6 .o describes the
package of Recommended Transportation Improvements resulting from the
transportation improvements analysis conducted in this Next Steps Study.
~ Chapter ?.O: Community Engagement. Chapter y.o summarizes the agency coordination
and public outreach conducted with federal. state. and local government officials;
regional transportation planning entities; community groups; businesses: and residents .
~ Chapter 8.o: Action Plan. Chapter 8 .o presents an Action Plan to identify and prioritize the
projects included in the Recommended Transportation Improvements and to identify
potential funding sources for these improvements.
Figure 1-1 depicts the planning process for the Next Steps Study.
• l/( o a 1/) l '
The Southwest LRT Line extends 8.y miles south from the Interstate 25/Broadway LRT station in
the City and County of Denver and includes five stations . Two stations. the CityCenter
Englewood Station and the Sheridan -Oxford Station . are located within the cities of Englewood
and Sheridan . To evaluate transportation improvements and connectivity to these stations, a
study area was established . The study area extends from approximately Irving Street on the west
to Clarkson Street on the east and from approximately Belleview Avenue on the south to Yale
Avenue on the north (Figure 1-2).
2
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
•
•
•
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
L I G H T RA I L CORR I DOR
NEXT STEPS
u c y
Figure 1-1. Next Steps Study Planning Process
Project
Initiation
Agency
eoordlnatlon
and
Community
Engag~
Plan
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
3
Englewood
Light Rail
Corridor
Next Steps
Study
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
t H .• •• olt411 1,('lllP•Pf)JI
NEXT STEPS
Figure 1-2.
(:; City 8otindariel
D StudyAr9•
tl4<T
Study Area
0
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
•
C!£!0'£~¥:~JttJ3Z~2ffe'%+"r;+'./;' " ;11 r · it"::(,; ·~~ic~~ 'l'lf'· .~~ ~ 1 .• :.:.: • .:/:.~'· .. ;;: :12£ i . ~.~. · 2 . ~ ihZ . ).
>
• • e
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CORR I DOR
NEXT STEPS
The purpose of the transportation improvements is to enhance multimodal connections (bicycle.
pedestrian. vehicle. and transit) to the CityCenter Englewood Station and the Sheridan -Oxford
Station in a manner that enhances adjacent existing and planned land use. This vision is carried
through the transportation improvements analysis process summarized in Chapter 5.0.
1 · r H >IP.(. uves
The DRCOG transportation vision for the Denver metropolitan area is of a balanced. sustainable
multi modal transportation system . The objectives of the Next Steps Study are based on the local
goals identified in the 2035 Metro Vision Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) (DRCOG. 2011) and
on the goals of the cities of Englewood and Sheridan and the general public.
I .
~ Improve the efficiency of the transportation system
~ Integrate with and support the social. economic. and physical land use plans of the cities
of Englewood and Sheridan
~ Provide mobility choices for people and goods that are safe. environmentally sensitive.
efficient. and sustainable
~ Protect and enhance the natural environment and local community while improving the
performance of the transportation system
I !.iii II JI I-J < Of1Tf:::::'X l
Many plans apply to the study area and inform the objectives and planning context of this study.
These plans are described in the following sections and include:
~ South Santa Fe Drive Corridor Improvements Study (Tri-City Planning Group. 1992)
~ North Englewood Small Area Plan (City of Englewood. 1997)
~ CityCenter Englewood: Redevelopment of the Cinderella City Mall (City of Englewood.
2000)
~ Englewood Industrial Urban Renewal Plan and the General Ironworks Development Plan
(Englewood Urban Renewal Authority. 2000)
~ Southwest Light Rail Transit Line Major Investment Study (RTD . 2000)
~ Englewood Civic Center Pedestrian Underpass Feasibility Study (City of Englewood.
2002)
~ Englewood and Oxford Station Area Plan (City of Englewood. 2003)
~ Roadmap Englewood: The 2003 Englewood Comprehensive Plan (City of Englewood.
2003) and Englewood Forward: The 2016 Englewood Comprehensive Plan
~ Englewood Master Bicycle Plan (City of Englewood. 2004)
~ City of Sheridan Comprehensive Plan (City of Sheridan. 2004)
5
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CORRIDOR
NEX T STEPS
s ; u c ', •
• Ready. Set. Action! An Urban Design Action Plan for the Englewood Do w ntown & Medical
Districts (City of Englewood. 2009)
• Arapahoe County 2035 Transportation Plan (Arapahoe County. 2010)
• 2035 Metro Vision Regional Transportation Plan (DRCOG . 2011)
• Complete Streets Toolbox (City of Englewood. 2011)
• Englewood Master Bicycle Plan Route Development Study and Implementation Program
(City of Englewood. 2011)
• Oxford Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) -Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Site Plan (Littleton Capital Partners. 2012)
• Englewood Light Rail Corridor Station Area Master Plan (City of Englewood. 2013)
• Navajo Apartments TOD -PUD Site Plan (Elsey Partners. 2012)
• Sand Creek TOD -PUD Site Plan (Sand Creek Investors. 2012)
• WH Investors TOD -PUD Site Plan (WH Investors. 2013)
• Englewood Walk and Wheel Master Plan and Program (City of Englewood. 2015)
141 South Santa Fe Drive Corridor Improvements Study
The cities of Englewood. Sheridan . and Littleton formed the Tri-City Planning Group in 1991 to
work with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) in relation to the South Santa Fe
Drive expansion project. The South Santa Fe Drive Corridor Improvements Study (Tri-City
Planning Group. 1992) was developed from the Tri-City's planning process. This study,
collaboration among the three cities. local businesses. and CDOT. resulted in an overall
development concept for improving the attractiveness. desirability. and accessibility of South
Santa Fe Drive between Dartmouth Avenue on the north and C-470 on the south .
142 North Englewood Small Area Plan
In August 1997, the City of Englewood staff began to develop an amendment to the Englewood
Comprehensive Plan. the North Englewood Small Area Plan (NESAP) (City of Englewood, 1997).
Working with citizens in North Englewood. staff identified problems and opportunities affecting
the Bishop Elementary School area north of Floyd Avenue to the city limits at Yale Avenue and
between South Santa Fe Drive and South Broadway. The range of issues included traffic.
environmental. land use. light rail. investments in infrastructure. and private property. The project
centerpiece was the proposed redevelopment of the General Ironworks site. The Planning
Commission did not adopt this small area plan at the staffs request due to neighborhood
opposition .
1.4.3 CityCenter Englewood: Redevelopment of the Cinderella City Mall
•
•
Englewood 's Cinderella City Mall. which was located immediately east of the CityCenter
Englewood Station . closed in 1997. Community engagement identified the desire to create a
multi-use development that w ould include civic
6
and mixed use retail. residential. and office uses •
Felsburg Holt & Ul/evig
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CORR I OOP
NEXT STEPS
S IJ D \
east of the CityCenter Englewood Station, in addition to a major big box retailer. To achieve this
vision. the City took on the role of master developer and completed the CityCenter Development
Plan (City of Englewood. 2000). The new project would become known as CityCenter
Englewood. Metro Denver's first TOD.
1.4.4 Englewood Industrial Urban Renewal Plan and the General
Ironworks Development Plan
The Englewood Urban Renewal Authority became involved with the area around the General
Ironworks site as a result of the NESAP (City of Englewood. 1997) process and the recognition
that the area and the General Ironworks site offered a significant development opportunity for
the City . The Authority also recognized potential impediments to redevelopment of this area that
included environmental. economic, infrastructure. and land use and zoning issues (Englewood
Urban Renewal Authority, 2000 : Englewood Urban Renewal Authority. 2002).
Acquisition negotiations between the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority and RTD began in
2000 and progressed. along with the request for proposal issued by the Englewood Urban
Renewal Authority for development of a portion of the General Ironworks site. anchored by a
new LRT station located at Bates Avenue. As planned. RTD would acquire the entire site. retain
the northern portion for the LRT maintenance facility, and transfer the southern portion to the
Englewood Urban Renewal Authority for redevelopment. RTD acquired the northern portion for
the Light Rail Maintenance facility. but redevelopment of the southern portion of the site did not
occur.
1.4.S Southwest Light Rail Transit Line Major Investment Study
RTD initiated a Major Investment Study to evaluate rapid transit alternatives for the Santa Fe
Drive corridor between downtown Denver and Littleton in 1992 . LRT was selected as the
preferred technology in 1994, effectively extending the existing Central corridor running through
the heart of Denver (RTD. 1994). Construction of the Southwest extension began in 1997 and was
completed in 2000. opening to the public in July of that year.
1.4.6 Englewood Civic Center Pedestrian Underpass Feasibility Study
In 2002 . the City of Englewood completed a design and cost feasibility study for a pedestrian
underpass underneath Santa Fe Drive approximately 600 feet north of the intersection at
Hampden Avenue and Santa Fe Drive (City of Englewood. 2002). The recommended alternative
consists of a 350-foot underpass accessed from the east via a staircase at the northwest corner
of the Englewood Civic Center parking structure and from the west via a staircase located in the
center of the existing Santa Fe Drive frontage road cul-de-sac. The primary objective of the
study was to assess the physical and financial feasibility of boring a pedestrian tunnel under
Santa Fe Drive that would serve a new RTD park-n-Ride. The study did not include the potential
for multimodal east/west access. such as bicycle connectivity .
7
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
ENGLEWOOD
FORWAR D
L IGH T RAIL CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
::. u c ''(
1.4.7 Englewood and Oxford Station Area Plans
In 2002. the Englewood Community Development Department applied for and received a
Heritage Planning grant from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs . The focus of this
planning effort was to determine the extent of the influence the CityCenter Englewood Station
and the Sheridan -Oxford Station would have on redevelopment opportunities (City of
Englewood. 2003). The Station Area Plans provided the framework for future development and
redevelopment around these stations to build on the region's investment in mass transit.
Three components make Up the station area plans: land use inventory. market analysis. and
master plan. The land use inventory identifies current uses within the LRT Station influence areas
and provides a detailed land values analysis as a baseline for further analysis. The market
analysis focuses on determining the most appropriate mix of uses for the station area and the
critical mass of such uses necessary to ensure long-term sustainability. The master plan
describes and documents preferred long-term development patterns surrounding the LRT
Station areas.
148 Roadmap Englewood: The 2003 Englewood Comprehensive Plan
and Englewood Forward: 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update
•
The City of Englewood is currently updating its comprehensive plan. Roadmap Englewood 2003 •
Englewood Comprehensive Plan. in 2015 (City of Englewood. 2015). The 2003 Comprehensive
Plan emphasized working with RTD to increase ridership through the creation of high-quality
transit. bicycle. and pedestrian connections to LRT stations and focusing capacity improvements
on pedestrian. bicycle. and transit modes. The revised Plan will establish a vision for Englewood's
future and set forth broad principles to guide topics such as land use. housing. parks and open
space. business and employment. transportation. and sustainability. Based on these principles.
detailed policies and objectives outline how the vision can be realized . Strategies will be
organized around the Plan's vision and will include monitoring and management
recommendations for long-term implementation.
149 Englewood Master Bicycle Plan
In 2004. the City of Englewood prepared a Master Bicycle Plan (City of Englewood. 2004) to
serve as an addendum to the 2003 Comprehensive Plan . The Master Bicycle Plan presented a
more refined vision of a community-wide bicycling system to be achieved over the next
20 years. The plan provided justification for a series of bicycle routes. identified key missing links
in the bicycle trail system. and provided a series of amenities to promote cycling by making it
more convenient and safe.
1410 City of Sheridan Comprehensive Plan
The City of Sheridan is in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan (City of Sheridan. 2015).
The previous Comprehensive Plan was prepared in 2004 (City of Sheridan . 2004). The purpose of
the 2004 Comprehensive Plan was to guide development and redevelopment over the 2004 to
2024 twenty-year planning period . Objectives were to redevelop from Union Avenue to
Hampden Avenue. west of Santa Fe Drive and e~st of the South Platte River: redevelop the Old •
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORW A R D
LIGHT RA I L CORR I DOR
NEXT STEPS
u [J y
Hampden area : improve the Oxford Avenue and Platte River frontages: and construct pedestrian
crossings over /under Santa Fe to improve access to the LRT stations.
1411 Ready. Set. Action! An Urban Design Action Plan for the Englewood
Downtown & Medical Districts
The City of Englewood developed conceptual streetscape designs in Ready, Set Action/ An
Urban Design Action Plan for the Englewood Downtown and Medical Districts (City of
Englewood. 2009) for segments of Broadway and Old Hampden Avenue in the City's Downtown
and Medical Districts . The Downtown District is Englewood's night life and entertainment district
along Broadway. and the Medical District serves the retail and dining needs of the local residents
and the Swedish Medical Center and Craig Hospital users and employees. The CityCenter
Englewood District. which is the location of the CityCenter Englewood Station. was not included
in the plan. The emphasis of the streetscape designs was to improve the pedestrian experience.
1412 Arapahoe County 2035 Transportation Plan
Arapahoe County completed a 2035 Transportation Plan in November 2010 . The 2035
Transportation Plan evaluated future road needs based on land use projection. population
growth. daily traffic volumes. and commuting destinations. Only 2 percent of residents within
unincorporated Arapahoe County commute to work within the City of Englewood. as defined by
DRCOG . Because the plan focuses on the unincorporated portions of Arapahoe County. no
proposed transportation improvements were identified in the vicinity of the study area .
2035 Metro Vision Regional Transportation Plan
The DRCOG 2035 Metro Vision RTPidentified the needs. corridor strategies. and projects
anticipated to be constructed over the next 20-plus years . The RTP consisted of both fiscally-
constrained and fiscally-unconstrained vision components (DRCOG. 2011). In the 2035 Metro
Vision Regional Transportation Plan. the key fiscally constrained multimodal improvements
included :
~ Expanding the CityCenter Englewood Station park-n-Ride to 1.350 parking spaces. and
~ Reconstructing Oxford Avenue between Federal Boulevard and Clay Street in the City of
Sheridan .
1.4.14 Complete Streets Toolbox
In 2ou. the City of Englewood conducted the Englewood Complete Streets Project and
prepared the Complete Streets Toolbox(City of Englewood. 2011) as an initiative to take steps
toward a community vision for mixed-use. pedestrian oriented development patterns in
Englewood's Downtown and Medical Center Districts. The Englewood Complete Streets Project
was identified as a critical next step project in the Ready, Set Action/ An Urban Design Action
Plan for the Englewood Downtown and Medical Districts planning process. The Complete
Streets Toolboxprovided a series of recommended facilities. such as street restriping. asphalt
overlays. traffic signal designs. etc .. that could be implemented as funding was identified and
made available .
9
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
ENGLEWOOD
FOR W AR D
LIGHT RA I L CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
5 u [ '{
1415 Englewood Master Bicycle Plan Route Development Study and
Implementation Program
The City of Englewood conducted an Englewood Master Bicycle Plan Route Development Study
and Implementation Program (City of Englewood, 2011) to focus on immediately implementable
improvements to the on-street bicycle system and to develop a comprehensive and
understandable on-street bicycle route system . The implementation recommendations were to
provide additional signs along Oxford Avenue. regional route signage (numbered routes). local
route signage. comprehensive and understandable route mapping, and guide/destination
signage. These recommendations were implemented by March 2012 .
1416 Oxford Station Transit Oriented Development -Planned Unit
Development Site Plan
In 2012. Littleton Capital Partners proposed a development plan for the 3.5-acre former Martin
Plastics site located at the southwest corner of the Navajo Street and West Oxford Avenue
intersection . The development plan includes 252 dwelling units within two five-story buildings,
underground parking with 140 spaces. and a surface lot accommodating 195 spaces (Littleton
Capital Partners, 2012).
1417 Englewood Light Rail Corridor Station Area Master Plan
In 2013, the City of Englewood prepared the Englewood Light Raif Corridor Station Area Master
Plan (City of Englewood, 2013) in coordination with DRCOG and RTD to encourage transit
supportive development for the Southwest LRT Corridor in Englewood. The plan identified
complementary functions. character. uses, and design elements for each station area and
associated public infrastructure to link to the corridor.
1418 Navajo Apartments TOD -PUD Site Plan
Elsey Partners prepared a proposed development plan for the 2.13-acre property located south
of the Martin Plastics site at 4201 S. Navajo Street. The development plan includes 130 dwelling
units within two 5-story buildings and a surface lot accommodating 192 spaces (Elsey Partners.
2012).
1419 Sand Creek TOD -PUD Site Plan
In 2012. Sand Creek Investors prepared a proposed development plan for the 10 .61-acre
property consisting of two parcels located at 601 W . Bates Avenue. which is located northwest
of the Bates Avenue/Elati Street intersection. The development plan includes 12 buildings with
336 residential units and associated parking.
WH Investors TOD -PUD Site Plan
WH Investors prepared a proposed development plan for the 6 .12-acre site consisting of several
parcels generally located east of S. Galapago Street. south of W . Bates Avenue. north of
10
Fe lsburg Holt & Uflevig
•
•
•
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGH T RA I L CORR I DOR
NEXT STEPS
".i u c 'y
W. Dartmouth Avenue. and east of the CML railroad tracks and LRT Line . The development plan
includes seven buildings with 224 residential units and associated parking.
1421 Englewood Walk and Wheel Master Plan and Program
The City of Englewood is preparing a citywide pedestrian and bicycle plan. Englewood Walk and
Wheel Master Plan and Program. in 2015 (City of Englewood. 2015). The purpose of the
Englewood Walk and Wheel Master Plan and Program is to evaluate the City's current walking
and bicycling conditions and activity. develop recommendations to strengthen walking and
bicycling connectivity in Englewood. and encourage more people to include walking and
bicycling in their daily activities. The Englewood Walk and Wheel Master Plan and Program will
build on the previous Bicycle Master Plan completed in 2004 and the community-wide bicycle
route signage program completed in 2012 and will identify Englewood's top priority projects for
making upgrades to the bicycle and pedestrian networks throughout the community .
11
Felsburg Holt & Uflevig
ENGLEWOOD
F ORWARD
LIGHT RAIL CO RR I DOR
NEX T STEPS
s 1) c \
2.0 Transportat ion System Conditions Assessment
To provide transportation improvements that increase multimodal (bicycle, pedestrian. transit.
and vehicle) connectivity to the CityCenter Englewood Station and the Sheridan -Oxford Station.
an assessment of the existing facilities and conditions was performed. The following chapter
presents existing transportation system data collected for the study area (Figure 1-2) and an
assessment of deficiencies.
2.1.1 Roadway
Roadway data collected includes network characteristics within the study area. and traffic
volumes from field visits and available sources. Documenting these elements of the study area
roadways assists in determining what kinds of improvements are appropriate and needed for
motorized travel and transit. bicycle. and pedestrian modes (alternative modes).
Network Characteristics
Network characteristics involve the physical orientation of a roadway and how it is intended to
function . The City of Englewood has established street classifications as part of their
comprehensive plan, which defines the role of roadways within the city. Arterials. which include
expressways and freeways. provide regional connections and are designed to carry large
volumes of vehicles . Collectors are generally designed to provide access between arterials and
local roads. which access residential areas and commercial centers. Figure 1-2 shows the
roadways and their classifications within Englewood, which have been extended into the City of
Sheridan . The number of lanes along a roadway also plays a role in the capacity and character of
a roadway. Figure 2-1 shows the number of through lanes for non-local classified roadways.
while Figure 2-2 shows intersection layouts for important intersections within the study area.
In addition to regulation of legal traffic speeds, speed limits also play a role in how comfortable
travelers might be to use alternative modes on the roadway. In general. arterials have higher
speeds than collectors and local roads. The highest speed limits in the study area are on the
ex pressways I freeways (US 85 and US 285 west of US 85), while the slowest speed limits are in
busy and/or denser areas such as CityCenter Englewood. around the Swedish Medical Center -
Craig Hospital complex. and retail uses southwest of the US 85 I US 285 interchange. These
areas have larger volumes of pedestrians. bicyclists, and vehicles making turns into or out of
parking facilities . Figure 2-3 shows speed limits within the study area for non -local classified
roadways.
12
Fels burg Holt & Ullevig
•
•
•
• ENGLEWOOD
F o R w ARD tfc';:T ( .:.:.:'niji . .-• .,.".".Z 1 .: ·-
•. H)••' 1r11111 c nu p 1r11>u
NE XT STEPS
Figure 2-1. Through Lanes
-2 ......
--3L•nn(2WB,tE8)
-•Lanu
-SL•nes
Q c1iveouoo1n ..
•1 D StudyAru
o A 2.000
•--==::j Feet
1 Inch = 2,000 feet
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
•• • e
·= ·'·" =·-· *-' ~ ~ ~ l
;;.,' ri. ~-'1.·-~-
. 1 ~ ri ~
VI c::
0
~
:J
O>
~
0 u
c::
0
~
~
2 c::
O> c::
~ ·x w
C\i
I
N
~
:J
O>
i.L
\ ~
c, ~]J!. 1 ,,. ~
i a..~
0
•
•
•
• ENGL E WOOD
FORWARD
1 i(H~' ft~1~ c nui11pou
NEXT STEPS
tN·rr
Figure 2-3. Speed Limits
aJ Ught Rall Station•
Speed Limit
-20MPH
-25MPH
30MPH
-35MPH
40MPH
-45MPH
-55MPH
(:; City Boundariea
O studyArea
~~·~
0 • 2,000
1111--=:=::J Feet
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
• • e
ENGLEWOOD
FORWA R D
LIG H T RA I L CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
5 f u 0 y
Existin g Traffi c
Daily traffic volumes and the percentage of those
volumes that are trucks were obtained from CDOT and
DRCOG, with supplemental counts conducted as part
of this study by All Traffic Data (ATD). Daily traffic
volumes and truck percentages help determine how
much a roadway is being used. They also help identify
what bicycle and pedestrian facilities might be needed
to make users feel comfortable and safe using a
particular route.
Figure 2-4 shows the collected daily traffic volumes.
Peak hour morning and evening turning movement
counts were also conducted at select intersections
throughout the study area to determine each
intersection's level of service (LOS). LOS is a based on a
letter grade measurement of how well the intersection
operates. The LOS of an intersection is measured A to
F. with A representing free-flow conditions and F
representing highly congested . The Arapahoe County
2035 Transportation Plan generally accepted standards
indicate a LOS of D or better as the desired peak period
LOS for urban arterials and LOS of C or better as the
desired level for all collectors.
Figure 2-4 shows the peak hour turning movements
and LOS for each selected intersection. Intersections
with a LOS not meeting these levels include:
~ US 85 and West Dartmouth Avenue
(AM and PM)
~ US 85 and West Oxford Avenue (PM)
~ South Federal Boulevard and West Oxford
Avenue (PM)
16
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
Intersection LOS Definitions
No vehicle wa its longer
than one ,----~
signal ind ication .
On rare occas ions vehicles
wa it through more than .----
one signal indication .
Intermittently vehicles wait
through more than one
signal indication , ..-----.•.-
occasionally backups
may develop , traffic flow
still stable and acceptable .
Delays at intersections may become
elClensive , but enough cycles with
lower demand occur to permit
periodic clearance ,
preventing excessive
backups. LOS D has
historically been regarded
as a desirable design objective in
urban areas .
Very long queues may
create
len gthy delays
Backups from locations
downstream restrict or ...-:--=-,,,-
prevent movement of
vehicles out of approach
creating "grid lock" condition
•
•
•
• ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
I,, ... : C1Au 1.;.nur11pl)U
NEXT STEPS
tra·:r '"""-'"' • •.. ~ .,,,. ··<' ..... ,'·:··-_->--,_-·.·· -· -----·--..-(-'•-·-'" --~ -... • ____ ,,,_,.. _:l_,J.., •
Figure 2-4. Existing Daily Traffic Volumes and Truck Data
-Ertgttwood OtftMd
Truck Aou'"
• • • OCMr Routet Llllefy
Usff byTNcks
r-1 (.,_r City 801.1rld1riew
D StudyArea
0 • 2,000
111111-c:=:lfeet
1 Inch = 2,000 feet
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
e
e
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FO RWARD
LIGHT RAIL CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
s • ·-' r
N@rr
Figure 2-5. Existing Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Counts and Levels of Service
AM(PM) Peak Ho ur Turning Movement Counts
AM(PM) Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service
CE Light Rail Stations --Railroads Q City Boundaries
0
~
Fetsburg Holt & Ullevig
6~ ~v~ ~*~1· C\I C\I "' •
53(15)
28(4)
• 0(3)
18
(<)
<Or::'~ . u. .. .C.~i'O ' 84(170) f 't ~~~ • 86(52) '
·" _ .. ;--48(71)
20{21~_j •••
43(68 • C'>6<0
25(106 1 ~~
~··· :g rt;~ ....
• 4(11)
4(6}
4(1)
~~~ .... .,... (')
(;)(O
(') C\I
C\I
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
5 IJ r Y
Trucks
•
The study area is home to many industrial land uses that rely on trucks to move goods. The City
of Englewood has defined truck routes to designate which roadways trucks should use when
traveling through the area . In addition to daily traffic volumes. Figure 2-4 shows these truck
routes and the percent of daily traffic volumes that is truck traffic. Englewood 's truck routes are
generally along state highways and other arterials. with some collectors defined as truck routes
to provide access between industrial uses and arterials .
Truck percentages were collected along West Oxford Avenue and were available for all state
highways from COOT. In general. a truck percentage under 2 percent would be considered low .
with 2 to 5 percent considered moderate truck activity and greater than 5 percent considered
high truck activity. All locations with available truck percentage data were along truck routes and
have moderate or higher truck activity . Locations along US 85 and West Oxford Avenue west of
US 85 e x perience high truck activity. with percentages of 7 to g percent observed .
2.1.2 Transit
RTD serves both the City of Englewood and City of Sheridan. RTD's Southwest LRT corridor runs
parallel to US 85 and bisects the study area . Several bus routes serve the area . primarily the
CityCenter Englewood and medical uses around Swedish Medical Center -Craig Hospital.
Lines. Stops. and Frequency
Two LRT lines serve the study area : one running between the Littleton -Mineral Station and Union
Station . and the other between the Littleton -Mineral Station and 30th -Do w ning Station . Si x bus
routes provide service seven days a w eek. and four additional routes operate weekdays only.
Table 2-1 summarizes operating periods and frequency for each transit line serv ing the study
area . w hile Figure 2-6 illustrates their routing .
19
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
L IGHT RAIL CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
".> U L Y
Table 2-1. Weekday Study Area Transit Routes
Frequency {minutes)
Weekday Span of Weekday
Route ID Days of Service Service Weekday Peak Off-Peak
Light Rail
Union Station to c Littleton -Mineral Line 7 day s/wk 4:45 am -Boo pm 30 30
Station
30th _ Dow ning to D Littleton-Mineral Line 7 days/wk 4:00 am -1:45 am 6-15 15-60
Station
Bus
South Broadway 0 7 day s/wk 3A5 am -2:30 am 10 30
South Broadway OL Weekdays only 5:30 am -TOO pm 6-15 N /A Limited
Do w ning / 12 7 days/w k 4:30 am -1:00 am 15 30-60 N . Was hin gton
Yale Avenue 27 7 days /wk 6 :00 am -8 :00 pm 30 30
Riverbend 29 7 days/wk 5:45 am -1:00 am 30 60
Hampden Av enue 35 Weekdays only 4:45 am -8:00 pm 30 30
Fort Logan 36 7 day s/wk 5:00 am -12 :00 pm 60 60
Fort Logan 36L Weekday s only 5:00 am -?:OO pm 30 N /A Limited
Sheridan Blv d. 51 7 day s/wk 6 :00 am -11 :00 pm 30 30-60
ART ART Weekdays only 6 :30 am -6 :30 pm 15 15
Source: RTD . 20 15
20
Felsburg Holt & Ul/evig
•
•
•
• • • e
ENGLEWOOD ~ '~ ~A~• ~•~n? tN<T ).
NEXT STEPS
Figure 2-6. Existing Transit Routes
Light Rall
-Cline
-Oline Bus
-AR T -0 Ol
12
-27(111 S.lect Stops)
-29 -35 -38
-36l
-51
R.a"llltdonM ft.ltaowrcn
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CORR I DOR
NEXT S T EPS
u p (
Ridership
Table 2.2 displays daily boardings and a lightings (e x its) for the t w o LRT station s for the past four
RTD schedule periods. along w ith the st ation's ridership ranking w ithin RTD 's LRT system for
each period .
Table 2-2. Average Weekday Ridership at Study Area Light Rail Stations
Northbound Southbound S ystem
Period Board Alight Board Alight Total Rank
CityCenter Englewood Station
May '14 2.219 35 1 373 2.037 4,980 10/44
January '14 2.43 1 380 332 2.388 5,531 10/44
A ugust '13 2.294 367 318 2.255 5,234 10/44
April '13 2.228 360 367 2.169 5,124 9/44
Sheridan -Oxford Station
May '14 521 72 76 450 1,119 35/44
January '14 521 72 76 450 1.119 36/44
August '13 484 75 78 427 1.064 37/44
A pril '13 436 77 79 411 1.003 35/44
Source: RTD. 2015
Of the t w o LRT stations w ithin the study area . CityCenter Englewood Station has the highest
ridership . ran king wi th in the top quarter of LRT stations over the past yea r. Thi s is due to th e
station 's 910-space park-n-Ride and the presence of the City Cente r Engle w ood 's dense and
di v erse Land uses. Revie w of 2010 RTD Pa rking and Mode of Access data to the CityCenter
Englew ood Station and the Sheridan -Oxfo rd Station sho w s 55 percent of those accessing the
CityCenter Englew ood Statio n do so by driv ing directly to the station , w hereas 70 percent arrive
to the Sheridan -Oxford Station b y bus tran sfers . Table 2-3 summarizes the mode of acces s data
from RTD . The Englewood Station park-n -Ride averaged go percent utilization of its 910 parking
spots from 4th quarter 2013 through 3rd qu ar ter 2014 .
Table 2-3. Study Area Light Rail Stations Mode of Access <2010)
' Mode of Access Englewood Station Oxford-City of Sheridan Station
Wal k Directly
Drive Direc tly
Bus Transfe rs
10%
55 %
35 %
·Does not include vehicles that park along South Windermere Street
22
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
30 %
0 %"
70 %
•
•
•
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
L I G H T RA I L CORR I DOR
NEX T STEPS
1_1 L 'v
·rr
The 2010 data report contains information on how far people drove to park at the CityCenter
Englewood Station park-n-R ide. Just over 10 percent traveled between o.s to 2 miles. Another
27 percent drove between 2 to 5 miles. while nearly half drove 5 to 10 miles and 15 percent
drove over 10 miles. December 2013 park-n-Ride patron origin maps from RTD show most
drivers came from west. southwest. or south of the station beyond the 2-mile radius. However. a
dense cluster of origin dots are also from the residential areas just east of the station . particularly
north of US 285 between South Broadway and South University Boulevard . and some even west
of South Broadway. There is also a small cluster of origin dots at the multi-family complex
located in the northwest corner of the US 85 I US 285 interchange. wh ich is just over 0 .5 mile
away. Table 2-4 presents daily ridership for bus stops with over 150 total boardings /alightings
within the study area.
Table 2-4. Top Study Area Bus Stops by Total Daily Boardings and Alightings
Stop(s) Boarding ALighting Total
Ci tyCenter Englewood Station · 1.284 1.151 2.435
Englew ood Parkway/South Acoma Street 378 295 673
Engle wood Parkway/South Elati Street 218 246 464
Sheridan -Oxford Station · 79 104 183
South Federal Boulevard/West Girard Avenue 97 70 167
South Federal Boulevar d /West Hampden Avenue 88 63 151
·Light rail station Source: RTD, 2015
The top three bus stops in terms of total daily boardings and alightings are all within the
CityCenter Englewood. Bus boarding and alighting are by far most active at the CityCenter
Englewood Station . which is to be expected given the number of routes that serve the station .
The stop at the Sheridan -Oxford Station is the next highest. The two remaining stops are both
on South Federal Boulevard near West Hampden Avenue.
Most other notably busy bus stops are along South Broadway within the study area . likely due to
the frequency of service the o and ol routes provide. Some stops along South Federal
Boulevard and near Swedish Medical Center-Craig Hospital are also active. Figure 2-7 shows all
bus stops within the study area within ridership ranges (ridership by stop was not available for
the ART shuttle) .
23
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
i 101o 1 •••1. c.nco:nru)P
NEXT STEPS
Nta<T ~··-··-si·~-~-em;·-.. ~o·~-~-"-E±iftW#'~, -:-~~;~_ We"' ·g'""--giip ·~£· fr;>;tit"$d'~t~-.~~-~t8'f&~e?Q!f'~1'7ftf~:.~·
Figure 2-7. Average Daily Ridership at Study Area Bus Stops
Total Boardings and Allghtlngs
< ••
50-150
• 150 -300
* >300
CE Light Rill St1tion1
-U9h1 R1ll
eu1 Rou tn
r' (,,f Clly 8 ound1r1 ..
0
OstudyAre.
Felsburg Holt & Ul/evig
•
'
• • e
•
•
•
ENG L EWOOD
F O R W AR D
LIGHT RA I L CORRIDOR
NEX T STEPS
u l1-y
2.1.3 DRCOG Traffic Model
The DRCOG travel demand model w as used to estimate future traffic conditions and see w here
the Metropolitan Planning Organization anticipates households and employment grow th w ithin
the study area .
Households and Employment
The DRCOG travel demand model uses the placement of households and employment w ithin
traffic analysis zones (TAZ s) to estimate future traffic volumes. Figure 2-8 illustrates households
and employ ment by T AZ for 2010 (the base ex isting conditions year) and 2035 , along w ith the
g ro w th e xperienced betw een 2010 and 2035 . Table 2-5 and Table 2-6 provide the actual
hou seholds and employ ment by T AZ w ith in the DRCOG models.
Table 2-5. DRCOG Households by Traffic Analysis Zone
T AZ 2010 2035 Growth T AZ 2010 2035 Growth
1586 1,367 1.492 125 2123 137 450 313
159 5 273 309 36 2124 39 50 11
2103 18 1 202 21 2125 363 368 5
2104 408 415 7 2126 776 8 55 79
2106 93 11 3 20 2127 553 579 26
2107 20 1 491 290 212 8 209 220 11
211 3 1.179 1.298 119 2129 36 57 21
2114 744 869 12 5 2130 400 543 143
2115 339 492 153 2131 824 923 99
2116 380 445 65 2132 571 676 10 5
2117 36 187 151 2133 602 641 39
2118 488 879 391 2134 972 1.117 145
211 9 737 775 38 21 35 297 307 10
2120 619 727 108 2136 9 16 7
2121 583 goo 317 2137 716 745 29
2122 783 8 7 6 93 Total 14,91 5 18.0 17 3,102
Source: DRCOG 2010 and 2035 Travel Demand Models
25
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
• • • ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
4 lhU' nAH 1~r)Q IH ,'}OU -------~-~~~~--~--
NEXT STEPS
Figure 2-8. Estimated Existing and Future Households and Employment by Traffic Analysis Zone
Estimated Existing and Future Households by TAZ
Estimated 2010 Households by TAZ
[] < 250 500. 750 .. > 1,000
[] 250 • 500 750 -1 ,000 [J Study Area
[] <250
[] 250-500
500 . 750 .. > 1,000
750 • 1,000 CJ Study Area
Estimated Household Growth by TAZ
[] < 50 100 -200 .. > 350
[] 50 • 100 200 • 350 CJ Study Area
...
NORTH 0 5,000
llll••c:==::lFeet
1 Inch = 5 000 feet
0 5,000
llll••c:==jfeet
1 Inch = 5 000 feet
...
NORTH 0 5,000
llll••ic==:::l Feet
1 Inch = 5 000 feet
26
Estimated Existing and Future Employment by TAZ
Estimated 2010 Employment by TAZ
[] < 250 500 -1,000 .. > 2,000
[] 250 • 600 .. 1,000 • 2,000 [J Study Area
[] < 260 500·1,000
c:'.J 250 • 500 .. 1,000 • 2,000
Estimated Employment Growth by TAZ
.. >2,000
[J Study Area
c:'.J < 50 .. 200. 500 .. > 1,000
• 50 • 200 .. 500 • 1,000 CJ Study Area
...
0 NORTH 5,000
llll••c:==::l Feet
1 Inch = 5 000 feet
0 5,000
llll••c:==::lFeet
1 inch = 5,000 feet
0 5,000
llll••c:==jFeet
1 Inch "5,000 feet
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
LI y
Table 2-6. DRCOG Employment by Traffic Analysis Zone
• • • • T AZ 2010 2035 Growth
1586 317 322 5 2123 1.306 1.447 141
1595 3 3
2103 553 553
o I 2124 761 761 0
0 2125 2,599 2.599 0
2104 804 861 57 2126 520 553 33
2106 1.030 2.005 975 2127 216 216 0
2107 326 418 92 2128 473 473 0
2113 197 244 47 2129 1.574 1.583 9
2114 2.115 4,199 2.084 2130 1,011 1.064 53
2115 977 977 0 2131 356 363 7
2116 273 476 203 2132 401 412 11
2117 1.529 1.820 291 2133 22 24 2
2118 1.464 2,220 756 2134 337 355 18
2119 414 414 0 2135 858 858 0
2120 397 431 34 2136 1.208 1,213 5
2121 1.867 2.264 397 1 2137 978 978 0
2122 500 562 62 Total 25,386 30,668 5,282
Source: DRCOG 2010 and 2035 Travel Demand Models
Most households in 2010 were located along the eastern third and western fringe of the study
area. with the largest concentrations within the extreme northwest corner and just north of the
Swedish Medical Center -Craig Hospital complex. This pattern holds true in 2035 , with most of
the growth in households being east of US 85 and the railroad tracks . specifically around the
CityCenter Englewood area . Growth is also anticipated for the land located in between West
Dartmouth Avenue. US 85, US 285, and the South Platte River .
The study area is home to a significant amount of employment. which is primarily aligned along
US 85. although the T AZ with the highest amount of employment is the one in which the
Swedish Medical Center -Craig Hospital complex lies. Significant employment growth by 2035 is
expected for the Swedish Medical Center -Craig Hospital area as well. along with areas around
the CityCenter Englewood and the T AZ west of the South Platte River and north of US 285 .
27
Fe lsburg Holt & Uflevig
ENGLEWOOD
F O R W A RD
L I GHT RA I L CORR I D O R
NEXT STEPS
3-1_1 r v
Future Traffic
Figure 2-9 shows daily traffic projections for 2035 that were developed at existing traffic count
locations by using growth results from the DRCOG travel demand models. As expected.
freeways/expressways such as US 85 and US 285 . along with state highways such as SH 88
(South Federal Boulevard and West Belleview Avenue). are projected to experience the highest
net growth. However. points along West Oxford Avenue between Broadway and South Federal
Boulevard are projected to experience some of the highest growth in the study area . West Floyd
Avenue west of Broadway and South Clarkson Street north of US 285 are also expected to
experience a significant increase in traffic by 2035 due to the growth in land use around those
areas. In general. the growth in traffic volumes is projected to be between 10 and 50 percent.
with growth above 50 percent along some roadways north of US 285 , primarily near the
CityCenter Englewood.
Transit Use
The DRCOG travel demand models perform mode selection for each person trip when assigning
traffic to the transportation system. Figure 2-10 shows the percent of each T AZ's trip generation
assigned to transit in 2010 and 2035 , along with the same information but only for home-based
work trips (commuting trips between the home and workplace). This information helps show how
attractive transit is. and home-based work trips are specifically highlighted because they are
typically the most likely to be taken by transit. Table 2-7 and Table 2-8 provide the percentages
displayed in Figure 2-10.
28
Fefsburg Hort & Ullevig
•
•
•
• ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
t ICO•• f/Al l <.;OV IO•Ot)ll
NEXT STEPS
Figure 2-9 .
l.eaend
(? City BoundlriH
D StudyAr91
tla·:T
2035 Daily T raffic Projections
0
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
• • e •
•
• ENGL E WOOD
f-Ol~WARO
j l(i!I T ll"AH t.nirn t tH)ll
N E X T STEPS
•
Figure 2-10. Estimated Existing and Future Transit Trips and Home-based Work Transit Trips by Traffic Analysis Zone
0 ::;
ID
1111 6-8*/e
1111 9-11 %
2125
Estimated 2035 Transit Trips by TAZ
2122
2130 2131
2136 2134
c::J Study Area
2135 213'
LJ 0-2% .. 6-8% CJ Study Area
1111 9-11 %
2120
2132
0 4,000
•••ic:==:::l Feet
1 Inch • 4,000 feet
•••ic:==:::l Feet
1 Inch = 4 000 feet
Estimated Existing and Future Home-
based Work Transit Trips by TAZ
Estim ated 2010 HBW Transit Trips by TAZ
c'.J 0-2% c'.J 6-8 % c::J study Area
0 4,000
llll••c:==jFeet c'.J 3-5 % .. 9-11 % 1 inch = 4 000 feet
Estimated 2035 HBW Transit Trips by TAZ
c'.J 0-2'!. E:J 6-8 % CJ Study Area
0 4,000
llll••c:==jFeet c'.J 3-5 % .. 9-11 % 1 Inch = 4 000 feet
30
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
L I G H T R A I L CO l<RI D O R
NEXT STEPS
S, I_:
Table 2-7. DRCOG Transit Total Trip Share by Traffic Analysis Zone
T AZ % in 2010 % in 2035 Increase T AZ % in 2010 % in 2035 Increase
1586 3% 4% 1% 2123 2% 3% 1%
1595 2% 3% 1% 2124 1% 1%
2103 1% 1%
: I
2125 1% 1%
2104 2% 2% 2126 2% 3% 1%
2106 1% 1% 2127 2% 3% 1%
2107 2% 3% 1% 2128 2% 2%
2113 3% 4% 1% 2129 1% 1%
2114 2% 2% 2130 2% 3% 1%
2115 2% 3% 1% 2131 2% 3% 1%
2116 3% 3% -I 2132 2% 2%
2117 2% 2% 2133 2% 3% 1%
2118 4% 5% 1% 2134 2% 3% 1% • 2119 2% 3% 1% 2135 1% 1%
2120 2% 3% 1% 2136 1% 1%
2121 2% 4% 2% 2137 1% 1%
2122 2% 3% 1%
So urce: DRCOG 2 010 and 2035 Travel Demand Models
• 31
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
•
ENGLEWOOD
FOR W AR D
LIGHT RA I L CORR I DOR
NE XT S T EPS
:, u r '1
Table 2-8. DRCOG Transit Home-based Work Trip Share by Traffic Analysis Zone
T AZ % in 2010 % in 2035 Increase T AZ % in 2010 % in 2035 Increase
15 86 5% 8% 3% 2123 4% 6% 2%
1595 4% 6% 2% 21 24 2% 2%
2103 2% 3% 1% 21 25 2% 3% 1%
2104 4% 5% 1% 2126 4% 6 % 2%
21 06 2% 2% 2127 4% 6 % 2%
21 0 7 4% 6% 2% 2128 3% 4% 1%
2113 7% 11 % 4% 2129 2% 2%
2114 5% 5% 2130 3% 5% 2%
2115 6% 8% 2% 2131 4% 6 % 2%
2116 6% 7% 1% 2132 5% 7% 2%
2117 4% 6% 2% 21 33 5% 8% 3%
2118 8% 11 % 3% 21 34 5% 6% 1%
2119 5% 8% 3% 2135 2% 3% 1%
212 0 6% 8% 2% 213 6 1% 1%
2121 5% 8% 3% 2137 3% 4% 1%
2122 4% 6% 2%
So urce: DRCOG 2010 a n d 2035 Trave l D em an d Models
Fe w TAZs e xceed 3 percent of all their current and future (2035) trips by transit. The TAZ (TAZ
2118) with the highest e x isting and future transit percentage contains the CityCenter Englew ood
Station (4 percent e x isting . 5 percent in 2035), while other notable T AZs (T AZs 1586. 2113, and 212)
are adjacent to the CityCenter Englew ood Station or near major bus routes .
When evaluating home-based w ork trips. transit percentages are significantly higher. Most TAZs
have an e x isting percentage of 3 percent or greater. and many have a percent of 6 percent or
higher by 2035 . The CityCenter Englew ood Station T AZ (T AZ 2118) and the T AZs north of the
Sw edish Med ical Center-Craig Hospital complex (T AZ 2116 and 2118) have the highest
percentages. w ith 7 to 8 percent of ex isting home-based w ork trips occurring on transit and
11 percent occurring in 2035 .
2 .1.4 Bicycles and Pedestrians
On-Street Bicyc le Facili ti es
The study area includes many bike routes signed on local and collector lev el streets. as sho w n
on Figure 2-11. The only dedicated bic y cle facility w ithin the stud y area ha s striped sha red
bicycle and parking lanes on each side of West Oxford Avenue from South Lipan Street to South
Acoma Street. These l a nes are roughly 10 feet in w idth and occas ionally ha ve small 5-foot-w ide
32
Fe lsburg Holt & Ul/evig
•
•
•
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
F ORW A RD
L I GHT RA I L CORR I DOR
NEXT STEPS
;, u ,. '\
raised median buffers that create a short bike-only lane protected from the adjacent travel lane.
Figure 2-11 shows these shared lanes along with local and regional bike routes traversing the
study area.
Sidewalks
The study area is well connected with sidewalks given the grid nature of the roadway network.
although many sidewalks are narrow within the older residential areas. Older portions of
neighborhoods a few blocks east and west of Broadway tend to have wider sidewalks, including
detached facilities. Analysis into missing pedestrian connections can be found in the subsequent
section that discusses deficiencies.
Shared Use Trails
Many shared use trails provide regional and local access within the study area . Figure 2-11
illustrates the shared use trails within the study area in addition to the other bicycle facilities. The
Little Dry Creek Trail provides east-west connectivity along the Little Dry Creek, including access
into and through the CityCenter Englewood via wide sidewalks. The trail is one of only two non-
roadway crossings of US 85, and provides a connection to the Mary Carter Greenway, which is a
major north-south regional trail running along the South Platte River . The Mary Carter Greenway
provides a non-roadway crossing of US 285 and connects with the Bear Creek Trail that runs
west along the south side of US 285 . The Greenway also connects with the Big Dry Creek Trail,
which runs southeast from near Centennial Park to Littleton High School, providing a crossing of
US 85 and West Belleview Avenue and passing through Belleview Park.
Other smaller but notable trails include the Southwest Greenbelt, which is a local trail that runs
along a drainage facility through Rotolo Park, providing a pathway through an area whose grid
road network is often interrupted by rapidly changing topographical features . The Oxford
Avenue Trail is a wide sidewalk path that runs along the north side of West Oxford Avenue from
US 85 to South Clay Street, and the Clarkson Street Trail is a discontinuous paved path along the
east side of numerous segments of South Clarkson Street between East Belleview Avenue and
the Little Dry Creek Trail. These segments of pathway link with the Belleview Avenue Trail and
Quincy Avenue Trail, both of which run eastward from South Clarkson Street to the University
Boulevard Trail, which is a major regional north-south trail.
33
Fefsburg Holt & Ullevig
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
• ,,_,. ftA.11 nur.•f1f)O l\N<T
NEX T STEPS
Figure 2-11. Bicycle Routes and Facilities
CE Light Rall Stations
-Sh1red UH Trails
-Bike Roules
Shared Bike and
-P•ldng Lann
-Ptanned Rall Trail
PtanMd Southwest
-Greenbelt Ext•n .. on
Phlnned Protected
Bikeway
(';J City Bounda~e•
D StudyArea
o A 2.000
---==:l Feet
1 Inch= 2,000 feet
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
•
•
• • e
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
F ORW A RD
LIGHT RA I L CORRIDOR
NEXT S T EPS
u [ y
Bicycle Counts
Bicycle counts . shown in Figure 2.12. were extracted from the vehicle turning movement counts,
w ith additional counts provided by the Engle w ood Walk and Wheel Master Plan and Program.
These counts include bicycles on the roadway and on the sidewalk from 7 to g AM in the
morning and 4 to 6 PM in the evening . Intersections w ith Broadway. East Dartmouth Avenue. and
South Clarkson Street had the highest number of bicycle movements. while intersections w ith
US 85 had the Least. although some bicyclists likely crossed US 85 via dirt paths along US 285
gi ven counts at the US 285 I Inca Street intersection . The US 285 I Elati Street and Englew ood
Parkway I Inca Street intersections also had a large number of bicycle movements during the
observation periods. The high number of movements from and onto Broadw ay is a bit surprising ,
though Broad w ay offers connections to high-frequency bus routes . Numerous movements w ere
also observed near the CityCenter Englew ood Station .
?. et1c1enc1es
2.2.1 Traffic Congestion
Existing peak hour traffic conditions for at-grade crossings of US 85 (West Dartmouth Avenue
and West Oxford Avenue) are at or approaching a failing level. With US 285 having limited
access west of US 85, these poor operations could mean any redevelopment along US 85 could
e xperience difficulties accessing employment and/or shopping locations on the opposite side of
the e x pressw ay . Given increases in future daily traffic projections for these crossings. it can be
assumed that congestion at these intersections will only continue to worsen . Adding crossings of
US 85 could help improve access along the corridor. Specifically, improving bicycle and
pedestrian crossings and their connections could help reduce the dependency on driving to
these attractions. especially since trip d istances could be shortened to acceptable Levels for
travel by alternative modes .
35
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
1 1(.;11 """'~ c:.n u1:1 1fH11<
NEXT STEPS
w:r
Figure 2-12. Two-Hour AM and PM Existing Bicycle Movements
..
~
\'
XXX(XXX) = 7 -9AM(4 ·6PM) Bicycle Turning Movement Counts
·H = No AM or PM 2·Hour Bicycle Movements
* = Count provided by the Walk and Wheel Master
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and Implementation
Program
CE L4Qtti ""*' tt•1'°'1• -""'-ro-d• (;jJ CttyBo~.r-
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
•
•
•
•
:l ~i!r
• e
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
-"" u f. y
2.2.2 Alternative Modes Safety Concerns
Bicycle and Large Vehicle Conflicts
Many local and regional bike routes traverse the study area on the road network without any
dedicated bicycle facilities. such as bike lanes. Furthermore. these routes occasionally overlap
and/or intersect routes used by large vehicles such as transit buses and trucks. potentially
creating safety conflicts that can lead to conditions that may deter some travelers from traveling
by bike. Figure 2-13 combines bike routes. bus travel routes. and truck routes to identify road
segments that may benefit from improved bike facilities or the possibility of redirecting a mode's
routing to avoid the conflict.
When looking at where bike routes overlap with routes of large vehicles. several locations stand
out. One of the greatest overlaps occurs along West Dartmouth Avenue between South Federal
Boulevard and South Broadway. where a bike route without striping exists and both transit buses
and trucks use this roadway for nearly its entire length. Furthermore. much of this stretch of
West Dartmouth Avenue currently has higher daily traffic volumes compared to other roadways
with an un-striped bike route. The Little Dry Creek Trail is a shared use trail running parallel to
West Dartmouth Avenue with a grade-separated crossing of US 85; however. it only runs
between Inca Street and the South Platte River .
West Oxford Avenue has a similar overlap between South Federal Boulevard and South
Broadway and also has higher existing and future projected daily traffic volumes compared to
other roadways with an un-striped bike route. However. it does have a shared bike and parking
lane along each side between South Lipan Street and South Broadway and also has the Oxford
Avenue Trail running along the north side of the roadway from US 85 to South Clay Street. Gaps
between these facilities do exist. including through the busy intersection with US 85 . The City of
Sheridan Oxford Avenue Construction project. which will begin construction in 2015 . includes
construction of an 8-foot sidewalk between Federal Boulevard and Clay Street on the south side
of Oxford Avenue.
Other overlaps of notable distances include bike routes and truck routes running along :
~ South Windermere Street from West Tufts Avenue to West Belleview Avenue.
~ West Quincy Avenue from South Fox Street to South Broadway. and
~ A bike route and transit bus route along South Elati Street from West Floyd Avenue to
West Kenyon Avenue.
Figure 2-13 highlights these overlaps. along with other shorter overlaps not listed and crossings
of bike routes with truck routes and /or transit bus routes .
37
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
1 ·~I· f1A11 1.,.n.,.i;qir,u.1
NEXT STEPS
w:r
Figure 2-13. Potential Bicycle and Pedestrian Conflict Areas
CE Ughl Riii Stauont
0 Pottnti•I Connkl
lnttrMCtiof'lt
•
Bicycle/P•de•lri•n
Crnh Hot Spott
--BMltROUIH
--llu.Rouln
E09 ... ood 0.fkMd
-Truck Roul n
OtMr Rout•• Llhty
• • • UM d by lhKkt
POftl'IUal Conftkl
Segnwnt•
(_;J City 8oundtrttt
OstudyArH
o A 2.000
11111-c::=::l Feet
1 Incl>• 2,000 feet
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
•
. .
•
~---~--,J·
• e
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
L!GHT RA I L CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
U L Y
Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Hotspots
COOT provided data on crashes involving bicycles and pedestrians from 2009 through 2013 at
major intersections and along important roadway segments throughout the study area to
determine if there are any locations of concern. Any location with three or more incidents over
the five-year analysis period was flagged as a "hot spot" for possible conflicts between
motorized vehicles and bikes or pedestrians. Figure 2-13 shows these "hot spots." along with bike
routes and large vehicle routes . Table 2-9 lists the number of crashes at each location. including
the number of crashes involving bicycles and the number involving pedestrians.
Table 2-9. Bicycle/Pedestrian Crash Hot Spots
#of Crashes
Location 2009-2013
US 285 at South Broadw ay
US 28 5 near South Inca Street
US 285 east of South Logan Street
US 285 at South Galapago Street
W est Dartmouth Avenue at the South Platte Ri ve r
South Br oa d way at Dartmouth Avenue
South Br oa d way at Ke ny on Av enue
South Bro ad way at Oxford Avenu e
South Broad way at Chenango Av enue
<Bike/Ped)
8
(5 /3)
6
(1 /5 )
6
(2 /4)
4
(2/2)
3
(2 /1)
3
(1/2 )
3
(3/0)
3
(2/1)
3
(211)
A notable crash trend was found at the US 285 I South Broadway interchange. the highest
bicycle/pedestrian accident location. Based on the crash reports. four of the five crashes
involving bicyclists occurred with bicyclists traveling northbound on South Broad w ay and the
vehicle traveling eastbound on the exit ramp from US 285 to South Broadway. This pattern
suggests the bicyclists are riding on the sidew alk along the west side of South Broad w ay . and
vehicles ex iting the ramp do not see the bicyclists traveling in that direction .
Although there were five crashes that involved pedestrians at US 285 near South Inca Street. a
consistent pattern was not present. Because this is a busy area with significant commercial and
office land uses nearby. driver attention may be an issue. Some crashes also involved
pedestrians illegally crossing a road w ay .
Lastly. nearly all bicycle crashes at intersections w ith South Broad w ay . other than US 285 ,
occurred along a bicycle route crossing of South Broadway .
39
Fefsburg Holt & Uf/evig
ENGLEWOOD
FORW A RD
LIG H T RA I L CORR I DOR
NEXT STEPS
5 u [' y
2.2.3 Connecting Alternative Modes
Barriers to Alternative Modes
Barriers to alternative modes prevent connectivity and access. and force travelers to go out of
their way to make a connection . Although these barriers can be assets to the area for other
reasons such as recreation or vehicular travel. they can lead to unsafe travel or discourage the
use of alternative modes. These barriers can exist in many forms. both natural and man-made.
Many common forms of barriers to alternative modes include limited-access highways,
interchanges. railroads. and bodies of water. Figure 2-14 identifies barriers to bicyclists and
pedestrians within the study area .
The largest barriers in the study area are US 85 and the railroad tracks that run parallel to the
expressway. The railroad is grade-separated with West Dartmouth Avenue and West Oxford
Avenue. The railroad crosses over the remainder of the expressway. Railroad tracks cannot be
crossed with the exception of two shared use trail crossings (one at West Dartmouth Avenue
and one near West Layton Avenue). Should any of the industrial parcels along US 85 be
redeveloped into higher density residential. especially west of US 85, travel by alternative modes
to the LRT stations would be difficult. This is already prevalent at the interchange of US 85 and
US 285. which does not have any sidewalk or path facilities along US 285 through the
•
interchange, yet dirt paths have been formed by pedestrian travelers wishing to travel this route •
to access commercial uses and the Englewood LRT station .
The other major barrier within the study area is the presence of large industrial and big box land
uses . These uses. although important for employment and tax revenue. often take up large tracts
of land that cannot be traversed because there is no public street structure connecting through
them or large areas of parking make doing so unsafe.
Other major barriers are US 285 west of US 85 and the South Platte River . However. a number of
crossings of US 285 exist. and there is Likely less demand for a crossing in other locations given
the industrial nature of the area along US 285 and the presence of the Broken Tee Englewood
Golf Course. which itself is a large barrier. Likewise, the South Platte River has several crossings.
including both roadway crossings and non-roadway crossings.
40
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig •
• • E N GLE WOOD
F ORWAR D
'•(·" 1tA11 n11uqH)ll tfa·:T
N EX T STEPS
Figure 2-14 Major Barriers to Bicycle and Pedestrian Movement
CE Ught Rall Sl atton•
• Interchange
.._.. Cro.t ~ng of Ba rT itr
-FrH w•ylExpr•HWl y B1rrler
-Rl11road/llghtrall Barrier
.. Waler Barrier
~ Laroe Land Uae Block
c;'.;J City Boundaries
c:J studyAr••
o A 2,000
1111-c:::::::l Feet
l Inch = 2,000 feet
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
•
• e
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
L I G H T RA I L CORR I D O R
NEXT STEPS
s u r v
-----~•
3.0 Real Estate Market Analysis and Feasibility
Chapter 3.0 summarizes the real estate market analysis feasibility study and implementation plan
prepared as part of the Next Steps Study. Appendix B includes the full real estate feasibility
study and implementation plan .
The study team analyzed the local real estate markets and the feasibility of real estate
development for four study areas within the Englewood and Sheridan communities:
~ The "North" Neighborhood (including the area east of the LRT line. generally west of
Delaware. north of Dartmouth. and south of Yale);
~ The "West" Neighborhood (the areas in both Sheridan and Englewood. to the north of
Hampden Avenue. south of Dartmouth Avenue. and west of Santa Fe);
~ The CityCenter Englewood Station area (including areas between Floyd Avenue and
Kenyon Avenue. and between the LRT line on the west and Broadway on the east);
~ The "South" Neighborhood anchored by the Sheridan -Oxford Station (including areas
both north and south of Oxford Avenue. and east of the LRT line)
These areas are shown on Figure 3-1 .
•
The City of Englewood and the City of Sheridan are centered strategically in the Denver metro •
market. midway between Downtown Denver and some of the most rapidly revitalizing and
growing inner neighborhoods of Denver (including Washington Park . Highlands. Golden Triangle .
and others) and some of the more wealthy southern suburbs in the metro area (including
Littleton. Centennial. Cherry Hills Village. and nearby communities). Demographers and market
analysts expect the Denver metro area to continue to grow at rates far above the national
averages (percentage-wise) in terms of population and employment. over the next few decades.
Current estimates from the Metro Denver Economic Development Council project that the
overall population of the Denver-Aurora-Lakewood MSA will grow from around 3 million (in 2014)
to over 4 million by 2035. Projections from DRCOG indicate that a good deal of the growth (in
terms of residential development and nearby retail development that would serve residential
growth) will occur to the north and east of Denver. along the l-25 corridor and near Denver
International Airport. However. based on recent trends in real estate development in the region . a
good deal of the population growth and development will occur along and near the LRT lines
that serve the region. including the LRT line that connects from Denver through Englewood and
Littleton. and in "infill" areas that enjoy adjacency and prox imity to the various amenities present
in the heart of the metro region .
Over the long term . the continued growth and economic strength of the Denver metro region will
translate into a strong opportunity for Englewood and Sheridan to capitalize on their pivotal
location in the region . at the junction of major arterials (Hampden Avenue. Santa Fe Drive) and
with the LRT line. If the community is able to work with the private sector to guide
redevelopment and create highly marketable districts and projects. The four study areas have
the potential to redevelop as office. residential. retail. and entertainment districts.
42
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig •
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD ... .,..~
FORW A RD ~·~·
LIGHT RA I L CORR I DOR
NEXT STEPS
~ u )
Figure 3-1 . Focus Areas
Fefsburg Holt & Ullevig
43
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
L I GHT RA I L CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
u f y
Over the short term. however. various site attributes of the four study areas may limit the real
estate potential of each area . Various impediments of the four study areas . in terms of Limited or
insufficient access. Less than ideal visibility. issues with parcel assemblage. and the overall "look"
and "feel" of the particular areas. Limit the short term potential of each study area. to varying
degrees. for near-term real estate development.
The following outlines the overall conclusions of the market study and feasibility analysis for
each study area. for both short term (next five years) and long term (beyond five years. and up to
20 years) perspectives.
~ 1 n n e1ahh rh d Ba tee; A /Pn11e / f la ti St eel Area
This area suffers from lack of visibility from the Santa Fe Drive corridor and historically has been
perceived primarily as a gritty industrial area. However. strong interest in the potential
redevelopment of the Winslow Crane parcel and adjacent parcels to the east. toward Delaware
Street. could yield a successful mi xed use development over the near term (within the next five
to ten years) centered on the follow ing components:
Residentia~ The North Neighborhood study area could absorb several hundred residential units.
including a mixture of for-sale units (townhomes) and for-rent units (apartments).
•
Retai~ Given the lack of visibility from Santa Fe and other key arterials. the North Neighborhood •
study area would Likely be able to support only Local-serving retail needs (such as a coffee shop.
bank. hair salon. etc.) that would serve the everyday needs of residents in the study area . and
residents of adjoining areas of Denver and Englewood .
Office: Given the orientation of the study area. the North Neighborhood study area would Likely
absorb only small quantities of office uses over the Long term (Limited to less than 20 .000 square
feet [SF] in aggregate). This study area is not positioned to serve as a regional office hub. for
e xample. and would be a more logical Location for smaller format office (including medical
office. small professional offices. etc.). The area has the potential to serve as an area for creative
employment uses. given the relative prox imity of the area to the southern portion of the City and
County of Denver and the access provided by the Santa Fe corridor to the larger metro area.
Office development in the North Neighborhood area may also benefit from the rapidly
escalating rent rates for office in Downtown Denver and nearby districts in the city. The North
Neighborhood area could serve as a higher quality. yet cheaper. option for smaller companies
looking to operate in a Location central to the metro area.
Entertainment: Given the lack of visibility of the North Neighborhood area to major transportation
corridors and the LRT . the North Neighborhood area is less Likely to contain any entertainment
components (of a material size) in the future .
12 West Netohb rhood
The eastern edges of the West Neighborhood. between the South Platte River and Santa Fe
Drive. enjoy greater visibility from the LRT line and the Santa Fe corridor. and are more likely to
redevelop over the near term (next five to ten years) compared to the area west of the South
44
Felsburg Holt & Ul/evig •
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CORR I DOR
NEXT STEPS
I J I~ Y
-----------•
Platte River (which is more Likely to develop over a much Longer time frame). The overall
redevelopment of the entire neighborhood is challenged by fragmented patterns of ownership
throughout the area and the presence of industrial and commercial uses that are unlikely to
relocate or convert to redevelopment anytime soon . The overall area west of Santa Fe Drive and
north of Hampden Avenue has a very industrial flavor. with a sewer plant and a wide range of
industrial uses present to the north of Dartmouth Avenue. that are not Likely to change over time .
In addition. as one travels farther to the west from Santa Fe Drive . the surrounding environment is
more and more removed from the drivers of "energy" that may help to translate redevelopment
energy and buzz south from Denver (including the Santa Fe and Broadway corridor). The area to
the west of the South Platte River is surrounded by Less affluent communities to the west that
are Less Likely to redevelop over the next few decades.
Discussions with various stakeholders in the area indicate that this part of Englewood and
Sheridan . along and west of the South Platte River . represents some of the Last areas in the heart
of the Denver metro area where Larger scale commercial businesses and industrial users may
operate. As marijuana grow houses and mixed use redevelopments have replaced traditional
industrial areas in the core of the Denver metro area over the Last 10 to 15 years. the core of the
metro area now has a reduced inventory of Land available for traditional commercial and
employment-driving Land uses. Businesses seeking Lands for operations now must Look to the
fringes of the metro area (near DIA and along the I-76 and north l-25 corridors) for available
properties. Given its central Location in the metro area . parts of the West neighborhood may be
best positioned to serve as higher quality employment generators for this part of the metro area
over the long term.
Retail Overall. demand does not e x ist for Larger scale additional retail square footage in this part
of the metro area . given the recent development of River Point in Sheridan and the potential
development of the Gates property at l-25 and Santa Fe Drive into some retail-related uses. Over
the near term. a mi xed use development along the west edge of Santa Fe Drive could attract a
small amount of retail uses to take advantage of adjacency to the Santa Fe corridor (including a
coffee shop. drive through uses . and other in line retail). However. the right in/right out (as
opposed to full movement) intersections along the west side of Santa Fe Drive (between
Dartmouth Avenue and Hampden Avenue) Limit the potential for Larger scale retail development
along the west side of Santa Fe Drive .
Residential: Over the near term. demand ex ists for a few hundred residential units (either
apartments or townhomes) in the area between Santa Fe and the South Platte River. assuming
that a developer could assemble a sufficient area of Land I parcels to e xecute a viable
residential project. Residential uses would not be viable in the short term. to the w est of the
South Platte River . Residential development wou ld Logically proceed from east to w est. from
Santa Fe Drive to the west. over time. Over the Longer term. residential uses may be viable to the
w est of the South Platte River . but the feasibility analysis suggests that commercial or business
park uses may be a better use of this part of the study area . going forward .
Office I Business Park: The area between Santa Fe and the South Platte River has the potential to
absorb smaller format office uses (serving smaller tenants such as medical offices. smaller
companies. etc.) over the near term. However. at Least in the near term. this area is unlikely to
45
Felsb urg Ho lt & U/levig
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
I_! ["" 1
------··
develop as a larger format office node. serving the metro area. The area to the west of the South
Platte River has the potential to develop as a revamped business park or similar type of
development. providing space for a variety of users . The repositioning of this part of Englewood
could help to provide additional areas for employment-generating uses in the community over
the long term.
Entertainment: The development of entertainment land uses to the west of Santa Fe Drive would
likely succeed based primarily on access from and adjacency to the Santa Fe corridor. The
market for movie theaters and similar land uses appears satisfied in the local market. over the
short term and long term. A developer could attempt to include certain entertainment land uses
(such as a Dave and Busters or similar concepts) in this area . given its regional connectivity via
Santa Fe Drive. However. this type of land use is more likely to succeed as part of a mixed-use
redevelopment of parts of the CityCenter Englewood area .
/-trea
3.3.1 Near Term (5 -10 years)
Residential: The overall CityCenter Englewood area has the potential to support an additional
one to two apartment or condo projects (750 to i.ooo total units)
•
Office : The CityCenter Englewood area has the potential to support a relatively small area of •
additional office uses. geared to smaller users (medical offices. small businesses. etc.) and
encompassing no more than an additional 20.000 SF in aggregate.
Retail: The overall market area centered on the CityCenter Englewood area is currently saturated
across the full spectrum of retail uses . The feasibility study suggests limited additional retail
demand over the next five to ten years .
Entertainment: The market area centered on the CityCenter Englewood area may support
smaller entertainment land uses (including a pub or similar) of a few thousand square feet.
Hotel: The area around the CityCenter Englewood has the potential to support one limited
service hotel (100 to 150 keys). such as a Hampton Inn. Holiday Inn Express. etc.
3.3.2 Long Term (10 Years-Plus)
Residential: Over the longer term. the CityCenter Englewood area has the potential to support a
fe w thousand additional residential units (apartment or condo) depending on how potential
redevelopment scenarios move forward (in terms of density and orientation).
Office : Longer term. the CityCenter Englewood area has the potential to emerge as a sub-
regional node of office development of a few hundred thousand square feet. This level of office
development could encompass a handful of larger scale corporate offices. Office development
in the CityCenter Englewood area would move forward most likely in a scenario in which the
CityCenter Englewood was repositioned as a higher quality mi xed use redevelopment or district
(similar to Belmar in Lakewood). Given the access. the area enjoys to the greater metro area (in
terms of not only arterials such as Hampden Avenue and Santa Fe Drive . but also from the LRT
46
Fefsburg Holt & Ullevig •
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
~ t_I
system). the CityCenter Englewood area could evolve into a key office and employment node of
a few hundred thousand square feet. over the longer term. This level of office development
could encompass a handful of larger scale corporate offices. Office development in the
CityCenter Englewood area would move forward most likely in a scenario in which CityCenter
Englewood is repositioned as a higher quality mi xed use redevelopment or district (sim ilar to
Belmar. in particular).
In addition to a larger scale repositioning of the overall CityCenter Englewood area , this change
would also require development of larger areas south of Hampden Avenue.
Entertainment: Over the longer term. the CityCenter Englewood could include some
entertainment uses that may draw from a regional or sub-regional audience. including concepts
such as a Gameworks, Lucky Strikes. or similar entertainment concepts (similar to Dave and
Busters) that combine food service and drinking options with entertainment components (such
as golf. bowling. etcJ The area south of Hampden Avenue. given the larger parcel areas
available for redevelopment. could also accommodate larger format entertainment uses serving
a regional market (such as a regional youth sports center combined with food and beverage
options . or larger format "concepts" such as Top Golf, etcJ
1.4 South /\IP1nhborhood ':>nertdan Oxfnrrl ~talion Art?a
The presence of the LRT Line impedes visibility of this study area from the Santa Fe corridor. In
addition. discussions with stakeholders indicate that the Meadow Gold dairy and other uses to
the north of Oxford Avenue are unlikely to change over the near to mid term. Therefore , the
focus of the real estate feasibility analysis was on properties to the south of Oxford Avenue. and
east of the LRT line. The following outlines the potential for various real estate types in this area
around the Sheridan -Oxford Station :
Residential The study area south of Oxford Avenue has the potential to support up to i.ooo
residential units (to w n home or apartment) longer term as part of two or three different projects.
These units would likely be oriented as part of "mi xed use" developments incorporating a small
amount of retail uses as w ell.
Office: This study area has limited potential for smaller format office uses of no more than 10.000
SF in total and focused on smaller format offices for local tenants (including medical offices or
smaller companies). The study area enjoys access via the Santa Fe corridor to the larger metro
area . However. the Sheridan -Oxford Station area is not centrally located at the junction of two
key arterials (as is the case at Hampden Avenue). While this area may support a small collection
of offices. integrated into a mi xed use orientation . it is unlikely to develop into a larger scale
"node" of office development. It is likely that office demand in the Sheridan -Oxford Station area
would result over the longer term (10 years plus) given that the character of the area would need
to materially change to attract a sizeable number of potential office users. The most Likely
scenario for the Sheridan -Oxford Station area w ould involve residential development moving
forward initially , follow ed by office development in later stages.
Retail: Given the lack of visibility of the Sheridan -Oxford Station area from the Santa Fe corridor,
this area is unlikely to attract a sizeable component of retail development. Any retail
47
Fefsburg Holt & Ul/evig
ENGLEWOOD
FOR W A RD
L IGHT RA I L CORR I DOR
NEXT STEPS
u r
·rr ~-----~•
development in this area would be local serving (such as a coffee shop. dry cleaner. etc.) and
w ould likely serve only the residents of the immediate area. east of Santa Fe . Total retail demand
in this area wou ld likely not exceed 20.000 SF in aggregate. Retail development is more Likely in
the Sheridan -Oxford Station area over the longer term (beyond five to ten years). after initial
residential developments move forward and materially change the character of this study area .
Entertainment : Given the lack of visibility of the study area to the Santa Fe corridor. this study
area is unlikely to develop entertainment components over either the short term or the long
term.
~ /:; lmolemental!
There are differing development and implementation strategies for the four areas with varying
levels of public investment needed. depending on market timing and developer interest.
~ The primary development opportunity at the Bates Avenue I Elati Street area would
require a private joint venture with the family owning the land . The biggest challenge in
this area is lack of visibility and connectivity to transit Lines and stations . The suggested
public and transportation improvements focusing on this area. particularly any around
Dartmouth Avenue. should be timed wi th new development activity in this area.
•
~ While both Sheridan and Englewood have indicated a long-term desire to see the West •
neighborhood transition to a more mixed use community. there are critical infrastructure
challenges . A cross-jurisdictional subarea plan for this area is recommended. recognizing
the important role of industrial as well as better connections to the South Platte River .
Public infrastructure is a challenge in this area . Working with the Urban Drainage and
Flood Control District. exploring special district tools for sidewalk and street
improvements. and prioritizing capital improvements through each City's Capital
Improvement Plan would be necessary to address these critical issues and make the area
more attractive for development.
~ In the CityCenter Englewood area. interviews with major businesses and other
stakeholders in the area indicated a strong interest in revitalizing the core CityCenter
Englewood area . Recommendations include developing a detailed vision with these
property owners focused on creating additional density in critical locations and
addressing the legal agreements currently in place so as to not inhibit change. A potential
tool to help finance necessary public improvements would be the creation of a
Downtown Development Authority (DDA) to help generate Tax Increment Financing (TIF).
~ At the Oxford Station. a developer is leading land use change on the south side of Oxford.
Working with property owners on developing shared parking south of the station as well
as better connections through a General Improvement District and prioritizing the Rail
Trail connection in this area. would help catalyze development south of Oxford Avenue
more quickly.
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig •
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
L I G H T RA I L CORR I DOR
NEXT STEPS
1) ~ y
4.0 Environmental Overview
This chapter summarizes the existing environmental conditions for several priority resources
wi thin the study area (Figure 4-1) and summarizes additional resource assessment needs that
could be required during any future project-level analysis. The environmental overview was
conducted to identify potential environmental issues that could influence any future
transportation improvements. such as the type. location, or design of improvements
recommended as part of this study.
1 n /1ronmental rocus Studv Areas
Section 1.1 describes the study area for this project. Environmental resources were analyzed
within five environmental Focus Study Areas based on the main transportation infrastructure
study elements. including the protected bikeway loop, rail trail. Southwest Greenbelt Trail and
Extension . Floyd Avenue Extension/ CityCenter Englewood Station . and the Sheridan -Oxford
Avenue Station (Appendix C). Table 4-1 defines the Focus Study Area buffers. The Focus Study
Areas represent the areas surrounding the proposed improvements that could have direct or
indirect impacts during any future construction activities (Figure 2-14).
Table 4-1 . Environmental Focus Study Areas
Focus Study Area Study Area Buffer
Bikeway Loop
Floyd Avenue Extension/ CityCenter
Englewood Station
Rail Trail
Sheridan -Oxford Station
Southwest Greenbelt Trail and Extension
Adjacent parcels
500 feet -Flo yd Avenue Extension
CityCenter -0.25 mile
500 feet east of the exis ting rail
o 25 mile radius
Adjacent parcels
49
Felsburg Holt & Ul/evig
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
I 1(,.1< UAt~ L nUJ(lfHHI tra·rr
N EXT S T E P S
Figure 4-1. Environmental Focus Study Areas
CE Light Roil Stotion
.,...,__ Rivers/Streams
r-1 ;,r City Boundariea a Rail Trail Study Area
0 City C•nl•r Station 1nd
Floyd Avo Study ArH a Oxford LRT Study Area
Protected Bikeway
Study Are•
D Southwest Greenbelt
Study Area D Overall Study Area
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
•
o A 2.000
11111-c::=::l Feet
t Inch a 2,000 feet
•
•
• • e
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CORR I DOR
NEXT STEPS
1_1 I l
nalvs1s Method
Existing conditions were assessed by conducting a desktop review of informati on for several
priority resources, including previous studies. geographic information system (GIS) data. and
other available information from relevant agencies, such as the City of Englewood and the
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Figures C-1. C-2. C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6. C-7, C-8. C-g, and
C-10 in Appendix C). Priority resources include those that can potentially affect any future
alternatives development and selection process, including:
~ Parks and Recreational Resources
~ Historic Resources
~ Hazardous Materials
~ Waters of the US/Wetlands
~ Threatened/Endangered Species and Migratory Birds
~ Floodplains/Water Quality
Future resources analysis needs will depend on the type of transportation improvements and
funding sources and will need to be determined at the project-level stage . Other resources that
were not considered at this planning-level stage but may require future inventory and analysis at
the project-level include air quality. noise. vegetation/noxious weeds. social resources (including
environmental justice). and archaeological/paleontological resources.
Pan<. nd Rec. e tt n t HP.source
Parks and recreational resources are important community facilities that warrant consideration
early in the planning process. specifically when a project has federal agency involvement. These
resources include parks. trails. and open space areas that offer opportunities for recreation.
including both passive and active activities.
Information was collected about existing and planned parks and recreational resources within
the Focus Study Areas by reviewing GIS data and parks and recreation master plans. Additional
details about parks and recreation resources. such as ownership. size. and amenities. were
obtained from accessing the City of Englewood and City of Sheridan websites in
November 2014. The following documents were reviewed :
~ City of Englewood Parks and Recreation Master Plan (City of Englewood, 2006)
~ South Suburban Parks and Recreation Website (2014)
4.3.1 Findings
Table 4-2 identifies parks and recreational resources. Section 2.1.4 discusses in detail bicycle and
pedestrian trail facilities. including Little Dry Creek Trail. Mary Carter Greenway , Bear Creek Trail.
Southwest Greenbelt Trail. Oxford Avenue Trail. and Clarkson Street Trail .
51
Felsburg Holt & Ul/evig
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RAIL CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
Table 4-2. Park and Recreational Resources
•
Resource Name Location Description Resource Type Managed by
Focus Study Area : Protected Bikeway
Broken Tee Golf North of Oxford Amenities: Public Golf City of
Course 1 Avenue/West of Open year-round. driving Course Englewood
Santa Fe Drive range I practice area. Parks and
Address : 2101 W. 18-hole golf course Recreation
Oxford Avenue
Ho sanna Athletic Adjacent to Size : 18 .21 acres Sports Complex City of
Complex1 Englew ood High Amenities: Engle w ood and
School Baseball I softball field. Englewood
Address : 3750 S. two soccer I football School District
Logan Street fields. 8 tennis courts with (tennis courts)
Lights. restrooms. off-street
parking. and concessions.
Adjacent to Little Dry Creek
greenbelt.
Sheridan 3325 W . Oxford Amenities : Community Park South Suburban
Community Park2 Avenue Tennis courts. basketball I Parks and
multi-purpose court. skate Recreation
park. baseball I softball
field. soccer field. picnic
shelter. restrooms. minor
trails .
Little Dry Creek North side of Hosanna Size : 14 .20 acres V isual Green City of
Open Space1 Athletic Complex Space Englewood
Parks and
Recreation
Cushing Park1 South of Dartmouth Size : n.15 acres Community Park City of
Ave. and East of Ameni ties: Englew ood
Ex isting LRT Line Picnic areas. two picnic Parks and
Address: 700 W. shelters. one playground. Recreation
Dartmouth Avenue informal baseball/softball
field. basketball court.
horseshoe pits. multi-
purpose playfield.
skateboard park. Limited
bicycle I pedestrian path .
off-street parking.
restrooms . Little Dry Creek
trail runs through the park .
52
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
•
•
•
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LI G H T RAIL CORRI D OR
NEXT STEPS ~----•
Resource Name Location Description Resource Type Managed by
Eng lewood
Recreation Center
Cushing Park'
Mary Carter
Greenway/South
Platte River Trail
Englewood
Recreation Center
Felsburg Holt & Uf/evig
1155 W . Oxford
Avenue
South of Dartmouth
Ave. and East of
Existing LRT Line
Address: 700 W .
Dartmouth Avenue
Amenities:
Indoor track. swimming
pool. gymnasium. sand
volleyball courts.
racquetball courts.
cardiovascular training
area. and weight training
area.
Focus Study Area: Ra il T ra il
Size : 11.15 acres
Amenities :
Picnic areas. two picnic
shelters. one p layground.
informal baseball I softball
field. basketba l l court.
horseshoe pi t s. multi-
purpose playfield.
shuffleboard courts.
skateboard park. limited
bicycle I pedestrian path .
off-street parking,
restrooms . Little Dry Creek
trai l runs throug h the park.
Recreation
Center
Community Park
Focus Study Area : Floyd Avenue Extens ion/CityCenter Englewood Station
N/ A An eight miles multi-use Multi-use Trail
trail along the South Platte
River from Chatfield State
Park to the City of
Englewood
Amenities :
Whitewater facility along
the South Platter River .
Bicycle I pedestrian
concrete trai l and adjacent
crusher fines trail.
Parking facilities .
Focus Study Area: Sheridan -Oxford Station
1155 W . Oxford
Avenue
Amenities :
Indoor track. swimming
pool. gymnasium. sand
vo l leyball courts.
racquetball courts.
cardiovascular training
area . and weight training
area.
53
Recreation
Center
City of
Englewood
Parks and
Recreation
City of
Englewood
Parks and
Recreation
South Suburban
Park Foundation
City of
Englewood
Parks and
Recreation
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
f_I I 'l
Resource Name Location Description Resource Type Managed by
Focus Study Area : Southwest Greenbelt Trail and Extension
Jason Park1 4299 S. Jason Street Size : 8 .11 acres Neig hborhood
Rotolo Park1 4401 S. Huron Street
Southw est Rotolo Park to
Greenbelt and Trail' S. Cherokee Street
City of Englewood . 2006
Amenities : Park
Basketball court. soccer
field. multi-purpose
playfield. baseball I
softball field . playground.
picnic shelter. restrooms.
off-street parking.
designated off-leash dog
area .
Size : 3.25 acres
Amenities :
Picnic tables . baseball I
softball field. multi-
purpose playfield w ithout
goal. playground. and
restrooms . Connects to
Southwest Greenbelt.
Size : 5.51 acres
Amenities :
Bicycle I pedestrian path.
picnic tables. scattered
benches. Trail through
Rotolo Park -extends to
S. Cherokee Street.
Neighborhood
Park
Open Space I
Local Trail
South Suburban Parks and Recreation Website
4.3.2 Next Steps
City of
Englew ood
Parks and
Recreation
City of
Englew ood
Parks and
Recreation
City of
Englew ood
Parks and
Recreation
Future projects could require an additional evaluation for parks and recreational resources ,
including a Section 4(f) evaluation and Section 6(f) evaluation , which are described below.
Additionally. the park boundaries and amenities for the resources identified in Table 4-2 should
be verified during any future project-level analysis.
Section 4(f) Evaluation
Section 4(f) resources are protected under the US Department of Transportation Act (DOT Act),
as defined in 23 Code of Federal Regulations 774 and include publicly-owned parks. recreational
areas . wildlife and waterfowl refuges. or public and private historical sites.
If any future project with federal funding involves the use of a Section 4(f) property. then a
Section 4(f) evaluation would be required for that particular resource .
54
Felsburg Holt & Ulfevig
•
•
•
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FOR W ARD
L I G H T RA I L C ORR I DOR
NEXT STEPS s. u f y
Section 6(f) Evaluation
Section 6(f) resources include land or facilities that have been purchased or improved with Land
and Water Conservation Funds (L WCF). Section 6(f) would apply to all transportation projects
involving possible conversions of any Section 6(f) land or facility and would need to be
considered for any projects with COOT involvement (including oversight).
,d d HIS Ort Heso1 Jrt PS
Historic resources include buildings. bridges. railroads. roads. and other structures that are at
least 50 years old (45 years old for transportation projects). Resources that meet this age-
eligibility criteria are potentially eligible to be included on the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP). The Arapahoe County Assessor 's Office database was reviewed to determine whether
parcels within the environmental Focus Study Areas contain structures that meet the minimum
age requirement of 45 years old . This study did not include a COMPASS database search (Office
of Archaeology and Historic Preservation).
4.4.1 Findings
Table 4-3 summarizes the number of parcels within the Focus Study Areas (defined in
Section 4.1) that have structures that meet the minimum age-eligibility requirement of 45 years
old.
Table 4-3. Number of Parcels with Structures 45 Years Old or Greater
Focus Study Area Number of Parcels
Flo y d Av enue Extension /City Center Englew ood
Stat ion
Bike w ay Loop
Sheridan -Oxford Station
Ra il Trai l
Southw est Greenbelt Tra il and Extension
83
234
64
87
102
Table C-1 in Appendix C includes address information for parcels with buildings that meet the
minimum age-eligibility requirement of 45 years old and considered potentially eligible to the
NRHP .
4,4.2 Next Steps
Any future projects w ith federal funding or federal agency involvement w ould require
compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). w hich requires the
consideration of the effects of their undertakings upon significant NRHP-listed or eligible historic
properties . Section 106 of the NHPA. as amended . requires federal agencies to: identify historic
properties . evaluate effects to those properties. and dev elop mitigation for adverse effects to
55
Fe lsburg Ho lt & Ullevig
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
5 1...1 r. •,
•
properties. The process involves consultation with the State Histor ic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
and other interested parties. know n as consulting parties .
Any future project would require a review of the COMPASS database to determine whether
previously determined eligible or listed historic properties are present. Any future project would
also require a field assessment. Also. if a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit is required
for any future project. a Section 106 clearance is also required before a permit can be issued .
This hazardous materials overview includes a review of sites within the Focus Study Areas
(Figure 4.1) with known (current and historic) soil and/or groundwater contamination . which are
distinguished as sites with recognized environmental conditions (RECs). The American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard 1527-13 defines RECs as : " ... the presence or likely
presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions
that indicate an existing release. a past release. or a material threat of a release of any hazardous
substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground.
groundwater. or surface water of the property ." When potential regulated materials concerns
could not be confirmed without additional inspection or investigation. the sites are distinguished
as sites with potential RECs .
•
Sites with known or potential RECs include facilities with indications of an ex isting release. past •
release. or material threat of a release of any regulated materials into the ground (soil),
groundwater. or surface water: the possibility of migration from the contaminant source: and the
potential to present a materials management and/ or work health and safety issue during the
construction of any future project. Examples include:
~ Sites with reported hazardous materials releases. such as National Priorities List (NPU .
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action (CORRACTS).
Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation. and Liability Information
System (CERCLIS). and Voluntary Clean Up (VCUP)
~ Mine. landfill (LF). or solid waste disposal facility (SWF) sites. RCRA large-quantity
generator (LOG) sites. RCRA small-quantity hazardous waste generator (SQG) with
reported violations
~ Facilities with active/closed leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs)
The methodology used to identify sites with potential hazardous materials concerns included
reviewing previous studies conducted by the City of Englewood in the vicinity of the study area
(E-21 Engineering Inc. and Major Environmental Services. Inc . 2003a ; 2003b; 2003cl and a review
of previously collected local. state. and federal environmental agency databases obtained from
Satisfi . Inc .
Fefsburg Ho lt & Ullevig •
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
F ORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CORR I DOR
NEXT STEPS
u r· 't
4.5.1 Findings
The review identified total of 120 sites w ith RECs or potential RECs within the study area
(Table C-2 in Appendix C). Most of these are associated with LUST. RCRA CORRACTS. and VCUP
sites .
Hazardous materials are most Likely to be encountered during ground-disturbing activities near
sites with recognized or potential environmental conditions. LUST sites that are closed still have
the potential to have residual contamination present and should be investigated more
thoroughly during any future project. Additionally. any development along the South Platte River
has the potential to encounter Landfill materials from historic in-filling along the banks of the river
over time.
4.5.2 Next Steps
ALL hazardous materials sites Located within the environmental Focus Study Areas (defined in
Section 4.1) have the potential to present a materials management and worker health and safety
issue during future construction. This overview was prepared with a level of detail appropriate
for the development and screening of future design alternatives. During any future project
development. a formal hazardous materials assessment. including site verification. to identify any
hazardous materials issues would be required . The purpose of conducting a more detailed
hazardous materials assessment is to provide information needed to plan for known and
potential hazardous issues and assist with future avoidance options or material management I
mitigation measures that may be required during construction .
n water. of tht=i t JS/Wettanos
Waters of the United States (WUS). including wetlands. are protected under Section 404 of the
CW A (33 United States Code [USCI 1344). The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) defines
WUS as all navigable waters and their tributaries. all interstate waters and their tributaries. all
wetlands adjacent to these waters. and all impoundments of these waters. The USACE definition
does not include wetlands that Lack a surface connection to and . therefore. are isolated from.
regulated waters. However. isolated wetlands are protected under Executive Order 11990
Protection of Wetlands (Environmental Protection Agency. 1977). Wetlands. as defined by the
USACE. include:
"those areas inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support and under normal circumstances do support. a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for Life in saturated soil conditions ."
Potential wetlands were identified through a review of the US Geological Survey (USGS) National
Hydrological Dataset. The initial purpose of this revie w w as to identify areas of kno w n surface
water. including streams. ditches. ponds. and lakes that w ould be areas containing potential
wetlands or open w ater that would be considered WUS. The USFWS National Wetlands
In v entory (NWI) was also reviewed to identify any specific Locations of wetlands within the Focus
Study Areas (defined in Section 4.1) .
57
Felsburg Holt & Uflevig
ENGLEWOOD
FORWAR D
LIGHT RAIL CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
s u r' )
4.6.1 Findings
Table 4-4 identifies potential wetlands and WUS.
Table 4-4. Potential Wetlands and Waters of the US within the Focus Study Areas . . .. -..
Floyd Avenue Extension/CityCenter
Englewood Station
Bikeway Loop
Description
Potential wetlands are associated with the South
Platte River at Floyd Avenue Extension over the
South Platte River.
Potential wetlands are associated with Little Dry
Creek at the crossing of South Clarkson Street.
and the South Platte River along Oxford Avenue.
Also. potential wetlands are associated with a
private property in the southeast corner of
Hampden Avenue and South Clarkson Street.
No potential wetlands were identified in the Rail Trail. Oxford Avenue LRT Station. and
Southwest Greenbelt Trail Extension Focus Study Areas. Additional areas with potential wetlands
and WUS in the vicinity of the transportation improvements include Big Dry Creek and the City
Ditch.
4.6.2 Next Steps
Any future project. regardless of funding source or other agency involvement (i.e .. FHW A/
CDOT I Federal Transit Administration IFTA]) would require a formal wetland delineation to verify
the accuracy of the WUS/wetland resource areas identified through the GIS mapping
assessment and identify any additional WUS/wetlands within the Focus Study Areas that may
not have been identified as part of the preliminary desktop assessment.
7 I nreatenea/ t..n n ere ~ ec1e. dnd Mtaratorv Birds
Federally listed threatened and endangered species are protected under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) (16 USC 1531 et seq.). Under Section 7 of the ESA. a consultation and clearance
process with the USFWS is required if federally listed species or its habitat will be affected by
project activities. A preliminary assessment was conducted to identify potential habitat for
federally listed species within the Focus Study Areas (Figure 4-1). The preliminary assessment
included collecting data from the USFWS Information. Planning, and Conservation System (IPAC)
to identify any potential species within the Focus Study Areas . A detailed habitat evaluation was
not performed as part of this assessment.
4.7.1 Findings
Table 4-5 lists threatened and endangered species Located in Arapahoe County and potentially
within all Focus Study Areas.
58
Felsburg Holt & U//evig
•
•
•
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
L I GHT RA I L CORR I DOR
NEXT STEPS
u r v
-----~•
Table 4-5. Threatened/Endangered Species Located in Arapahoe County
Name
Preble's meadow jumping
mouse (PMJM)
(Zapus hudsonius prebfei)
Interior least tern
(Stema antiffarum
athafassos)
Mexican spotted owl
(Strix occ1dentafis fuc1da)
Piping plover
( Charadrius mefodus)
Whooping crane
(Grus Americana)
Pallid sturgeon
(Scaphirhynchus afbuS!
Ute ladies'-tresses orchid
(Spiranthes difuviafis)
Western prairie fringed
orchid
(Pfatanthera praecfara)
Status
T
E
T
T
E
E
T
T
Description
Mammals
Inhabits riparian areas near standing or running water
in lowland areas that are dominated by forested
wetlands. shrub dominated wetlands. and grass/forb
dominated wetlands between 4,000 and 8.ooo ft in
elevation. The project area is located in the Block
Clearance Zone for PMJM in the Denver metro area.
Birds
Water depletions in the South Platte River may affect
the species and/or critical habitat in downstream
reaches of the Platte River in other states.
Nest in steep canyons with dense stands of large
ponderosa pine or pinyon-juniper with Douglas-fir.
and in mature to old-growth mixed-conifer forest w ith
high canopy closure and open understory. Favored
stands generally are multi-storied. with snags and
downed logs .
Water depletions in the South Platte River may affect
the species and/or critical habitat in downstream
reaches of the Platte River in other states.
Water depletions in the South Platte River may affect
the species and/ or critical habitat in downstream
reaches of the Platte River in other states.
Fish
Water depletions in the South Platte River may affect
the species and/ or critical habitat in downstream
reaches of the Platte River in other states.
Plants
Occurs a long riparian edges. gravel bars . old oxbows.
high flow channels. and moist to wet meadows along
perennial streams.
Water depletions in the South Platte River may affect the
species and/or critical habitat in dow nstream reaches of
the Platte River in other states.
T =Threatened Species; E ~ Endangered Species
Source: USFWS. IP AC. 2013 . Accessed January 1. 2014 .
Natural Di versity Information Source -Colorado Parks and Wildlife (http:/ /ndis .nrel.colorado.edel. accessed
Janu ary 1. 2014 .
59
Felsburg Holt & Ul!evig
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CORR I DOR
NEXT STEPS
I J r ''(
·rr
Migratory birds. including raptors. are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
•
(16 USC §§ 703-712). The M BT A also prov ides protection for the eggs and active nests of
migratory birds. The M BT A prohibits activities that may harm or harass migratory birds during the
nesting and breeding season . This includes the removal of active nests. which could result in the
loss of eggs or young . The environmental overvie w did not include a detailed habitat evaluation
for migratory birds. However. suitable migratory bird habitat may be present.
4,7.2 Next Steps
Any future project. regardless of funding sources and agency involvement (i.e .. FHWA/ CDOT I
FT A) would require an updated review of threatened/ endangered species. a field survey within
the Focus Study Areas . and the completion of a coordination and clearance process with the
USFWS.
Projects w ith CDOT involvement (including oversight) would also be required to consult with the
Colorado Parks and Wildlife on any project affecting streams. stream banks. and any tributaries
under Colorado Senate Bill 40 (SB 40). A programmatic SB 40 certification process and
documentation or formal SB 40 certification process and documentation would be required .
depending on the level of impact from any future projects.
Migratory Birds
Field surveys would be required to identify locations of any nests before construction of any
future project. regardless of funding source or agency involvement (i .e .. FHW A/CDOT).
d 1-/00 t.a1ns an
Major floodplains were analyzed for the Focus Study Areas . Floodplains were identified by
reviewing Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM)
for the study area . Floodplains in the study area have one or more of the following flood zone
designations:
~ Zone AE corresponds to the 1-percent-annual-chance (100-year) flood hazard area where
a detailed study has occurred and base flood elevations (BFEs) have been determined.
~ Floodway corresponds to the channel of the stream. plus any adjacent floodplain areas .
that must be kept free of encroachment so that the 100-year flood can be carried without
substantial increases in the flood heights. In Colorado. that increase is defined as a
maximum of o.s feet.
~ Zone X corresponds to areas outside the 0 .2-percent-annual-chance (500-year)
floodplain. areas within the 500-year floodplain. areas of 100-year flooding where
average depths are less than 1 foot. areas of 100-year flooding where the contributing
drainage area is less than 1 square mile. and areas protected from the 100-year flood by
levees. No BFEs or base flood depths are shown within this zone .
60
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
•
•
•
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
L IGHT RA I L CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
~ l_t I I
4.8.1 Findings
Table 4-6 and Figure C-11 in Appendix C identify drainageways with FEMA designated
floodplains in the study area .
Table 4-6. FEMA Designated Floodplains in the Study Area
Drainage way
South Platte River
Little Dry Creek
Big Dry Creek
4.8.2 Water Quality
ZoneAE
Zone X
ZoneAE
Flood way
Zone X
ZoneAE
Floodway
Zone X
Description
This study did not assess water quality conditions associated with the South Platte River . Bear
Creek, Big Dry Creek. and Little Dry Creek. Water resources are managed through federal. state.
and local regulations that establish the standards and management actions necessary to protect
the water quality. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) Water
Quality Control Commission (WQCC) has the authority to establish and enforce water quality
standards within the state. The primary water quality concern associated with transportation
infrastructure results from the discharge of stormwater to receiving waters.
4.8.3 Next Steps
Any future project. regardless of funding sources and agency involvement (i.e .. FHW A/ COOT I
FTA), that involves work within the floodplains of the South Platte River. Bear Creek. Little Dry
Creek. and Big Dry Creek will require an assessment of potential floodplain impacts.
If the affected drainageway has a floodplain and floodway. impacts to the floodplain can be
incorporated without triggering the Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR)!Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR) process. However. any impacts to the floodway will require analysis at the
project-level to determine if a "no rise " condition can be achieved . A "no rise" condition means
that there is a o .oo foot rise in the water surface elevations when comparing the e x isting
conditions to proposed conditions. If a "no rise" condition cannot be achieved . the CLOMR/LOMR
process will be triggered. If the affected drainageway has a floodplain but no flood way.
relatively small impacts to the floodplain may be incorporated without triggering the
CLOMR/LOMR process. but the drainageway will need to be analyzed at the project level to
determine the impacts .
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CORRIDOR
NEX T STEPS
:.i u 0 v
Additionally. if any proposed w or k associated w ith future projects occurs in an ex isting surface
w ater resource. such as the South Platte River . Bear Creek. Little Dry Creek. or Big Dry Creek. a
w ater quality assessment and coordination w ith the CDPHE will be necessary .
o ner Hesour
Future environmental resource analysis needs are dependent on project funding sources and
individual project characteristics and may include:
~ A project noise analysis following relevant methods (e .g .. FTA or FHWA)
~ A project air quality analysis following relevant methods (e .g .. FT A or FHW Al
~ An evaluation of m inority and Lo w -income populations (i.e .. environmentaljustice
populations)
62
Felsburg Holt & Ul/evig
•
•
•
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
S: 1) f
5.0 Transportation Improvements Analysis
Chapter 5.0 describes the development. evaluation. and conceptual engineering design of
alternatives for transportation improvements in the study area . Included in the alternatives
development and evaluation process were public involvement and outreach efforts with the
cities of Englewood and Sheridan and with Local businesses and neighborhoods. Chapter ].0
summarizes the community engagement activities conducted for this project.
A A Prna i'V~ e:ilupmAnr
5.1.1 Previously Proposed Projects
The alternatives development began with the identification of seven multimodal transportation
infrastructure projects recommended in the Englewood Light Rail Corridor Station Area Master
Plan (City of Englewood. 2013). and those the cities of Englewood and Sheridan had previously
identified (Figure 5-1, Figure 5-2, Figure 5-3. and Figure 5-4), including :
• Rail Trail (Big Dry Creek Trail Connection to Bates Avenue)
• Constructing a 10-foot-wide multi-use bicycle/pedestrian trail with bridges over
Oxford Avenue. Hampden Avenue. and Dartmouth Avenue
• Oxford Avenue. Dartmouth Avenue. Clarkson Street Separated Bikeway Loop
• Constructing a bi-directional 6-to 8-foot-wide protected bikeway along Dartmouth
Avenue from Inca Street to Clarkson Street. Clarkson Street from Dartmouth Avenue
to Oxford Avenue. and Oxford Avenue from Clarkson Street to Irving Street
• Southwest Greenbelt Trail Improvements
• Reconstructing the existing 8-foot-wide asphalt trail in Rotolo Park from Cherokee
Street to Huron Street with a 10-foot-wide multi-use trail and constructing a ne w
10-foot-wide multi-use trail from Huron Street to the Rail Trail
• Englewood Parkway Extension and Bus Transfer /Piazza Redesign
• Extending the 29-foot-wide Englewood Parkway roadway (two 12-foot through lanes
with 2.5-foot curb and gutter) and associated bus transfer /pedestrian piazza from Inca
Street to the CityCenter Englewood access road
• CityCenter Englewood Station Platform Shelter
• Reconstructing the CityCenter Englewood Station Platform Shelter
• Floyd Avenue Extension (Inca Street to Zuni Street)
• Extending the 59-foot-wide Floyd Avenue roadway and associated bicycle and
pedestrian improvements (two 12-foot through Lanes with 2.5-foot curb and gutter.
10-foot sidewalk. and 5-foot bicycle Lanes) from Inca Street to Zuni Street. with grade
separated crossings of the LRT tracks. CML railroad tracks. US 85 (Santa Fe Drive). and
the South Platte River.
• Sheridan -Oxford Station Connection
• Constructing a 12-foot-wide pedestrian grade-separated crossing of the LRT tracks .
CML railroad tracks. and US 85 (Santa Fe Drive) at the Sheridan -Oxford Station .
63
Felsburg Holt & Ul/evig
ENGL E WOOD
FORWARD
I i(,t• 0.-.1 1 OUQ1f1 1 ·11
NEXT STEPS
tN-IT
Figure 5-1. Previously Proposed Projects
LEGEND
CE Ught Rall Station s --Raitroadt (;}-City Boundorl"'
~ Rlvere. Reereatk>n.al R•tourc H
Proposed Transportation Improvements
Separated Blkeway
-Floyd Avenue Extensi on
-Oxford Stellon Ped Bridge/Tunnel
-Englewood City Center Station Platform
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
•
••
• • e
• • ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
t•<"•'" uA.11 c n1u111\011 ~:r
NEXT STEPS
Figure 5-2. Previously Proposed Projects and Complementary Transportation Improvements -CityCenter
Englewood Station Area
LE GEND
CD UgMMISt.MkMI• -fllittNcf9 (;le.,-.. ..,..
~-.. RM.fffdoftfll~
0
Proposed Transportation Improvements
l.oop 8ikew1y
-AallTrall
-Floyd Aqnue Ellt9n•lon
-Englewood Cit)' C•lllef St•llon Pletform
-.. EnQl.v~ood P~rkwayl8u1 Tr41n1ftt/Pl11u Rff .. fgn
Potential Complementary Improvements
lllllU Engs.wood Cily C•ntw Statlon Pedftlri•n 8ridg• or Tunnel
Floyd Av.nu• (ShMman lo El•tl) Bicycleo/PedHtr1en
flatl SUffl (Kenyon 10 Ftoyd) BlcycJ1/Pedestrlen
Dartmouth Avenue (l.nc• to '•dat"1l) 8'kew•y
Litt!• Ory Creek Trait Connection 81cyc;lt/Pltdfllfh•n lmprovtments
-0•,tmouO't Avenu. (South P !at1 t River Dr to %(.H'll .A<:ctH)
: ..
0~: Hampden Avtnue/ShoshoM Str"t Jnterae~tlon
.. ,.,.. US 85/01rtmouth Av1n1,1e lnl.,ttetlon
bttm an Av•nuel lnc• Stl'fft 8M;:ycl1/P1dHtrltn
H1 m1 non Bfida• BJcyel•IP•dt•ttl•n
P11c:1 or Floyd A.,.nu.
•--==:l Feet
Fefsburg Holt & Ulfevig
• • e
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
• •\·•• llAll 1;nu~•l1n<1
NEXT STEPS
wrr
Figure 5-3 . Previously Proposed Projects and Complementary Transportation Improvements -Sheridan -
Oxford Station Area
LEGEND
DJ Ughl fttH St.tion• --R1\lroada
.--. Riwrt ft9tl'HtioMI Rffoutc"
Proposed Transportation Improvements
Loop B'k•way
-Ral1Tr1ll
-Oxford Stalion PMtHttl1n Brido• or Tonn.I
Potential Complemenlary Improvements
n1111t City Ditch Pedestrtan/B~)'tla
(~ Ctly Boundat1es
RI~ Point P•rkw•y IS Pl110o Rh•or Tr•ll to O•ford A"•) Bleyi;:I•
M11nafield Annue 01111• L.a~•
.•"•. US &$/Oxford Av•nue lnte,...ctlon
~...... 0.tord Avanue!N•v•jo StrHt lrH~\lon
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
•
••
• • e
• • ENGL E WOOD
FORWARD
I U,t• llAH L nl<'R1n1;u.1 ~rr
N EXT STEPS
Figure 5-4. Previously Proposed Projects and Complementary Transportation Improvements -South of
Oxford Avenue
CIJ U ght Rall St•tlona --Ra11roada
""""'"' Rivera Recreatio nal RHOurc u
Proposed Transportation Improvements
Loop Blkeway
-RallTrall
Potential Complementary Improvements
1111111 Quincy/City Oltcll/Stanlord Pedestrian/Bicycle
Windermere Street Shared Use Path
Tutts Avenue (Navajo to Rall Trail) Bicycle/Pedestrian
Union Avenue (Federal to Centennlel Park) Bicycle/Pedestrian
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
•
• e
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
1.J [ ....
·rr
5.1.2 Potential Complementary Transportation Improvements
In addition to the previously identified planned alternatives. an analysis was conducted to
identify additional transportation improvements that could complement the existing
transportation system or the previously proposed projects. This analysis is based on specifically
improving bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to the CityCenter Englewood Station and the
Sheridan -Oxford Station and on addressing traffic congestion and safety conflicts to improve
vehicle and bus access to the stations. Consequently. the previously proposed projects were
supp lemented wi th 24 potential Complementary Transportation Improvements (Table 5-1 and
Figure 5-1 , Figure 5-2. Figure 5-3 , and Figure 5-4).
These Complementary Transportation Improvements include bicycle/pedestrian improvements.
intersection/access improvements. and other improvements.
Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements
~ Eastman Avenue/Inca Street Area Bicycle/ Pedestrian Improvements
• Widening the existing sidewalk between the Inca Street and Cushing Park parking lot
to a shared use trail cross-section
• Developing a shared use trail connection along the south side of the Cushing Park
parking lot between the existing sidewalk and Eastman Avenue
~ Floyd Avenue Bike Lanes (CityCenter Englewood Station to Sherman Street)
• Restriping to include 5-foot bike lanes in both directions. requiring the removal of the
center turn lane from the CityCenter Englewood Station to Elati Street. and a road diet
from four lanes to two lanes with a possible center turn lane from Elati Street to
Sherman Street
~ Dartmouth Avenue Separated Bike Lanes (Platte River Trail to Federal Boulevard)
• Extending the construction of a bi-directional. 6 to 8-foot wide protected bikeway
along Dartmouth Avenue from the Little Dry Creek Trail to Federal Boulevard
~ Elati Street (Kenyon Avenue to Floyd Avenue) Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements
• Adding/improving bicycle/pedestrian facilities. including at the intersection with
us 285
~ Kenyon Avenue or Mansfield Avenue Bike Lanes (Logan Street to Rail Trail)
• Restriping to include 5-foot bike lanes in both directions to connect a possible
bicycle/pedestrian overpass over US 85 and all railroad tracks with access from one
of these roadways, requiring the removal of on-street parking
~ City Ditch Shared Use Path (Rotolo Park to Oxford Avenue)
• Developing a paved shared use path along the City Ditch easement
~ Windermere Shared Use Path Extension (Ba tting Cages at Cornerstone Park Entrance to
Englewood Canine Corral Entrance)
• Replacing the existing sidewalk with an extension of the ex isting 8-foot shared use
path along the east side of Windermere Street (Belleview Avenue to the Batting
68
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
•
•
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LI G H T RA I L COR R I DOR
NEXT STEPS
'.) c '•
Cages at Cornerstone Park entrance) north to the Englewood Canine Corral entrance,
providing connectivity to the Big Dry Creek Trail.
~ Tufts Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements (Navajo Street to Rail Traill
• Extending the sidewalk along the south side of Tufts Avenue to connect with the
future Rail Trail where Tufts Avenue turns north into Windermere Street
• Painting bike sharrows and installing "Share the Road" signs
• Installing crosswalks where Tufts Avenue turns north into Windermere Street
(including ADA compliant ramps), where Windermere Street continues south from
Tufts Avenue. and where Navajo Street continues north from Tufts Avenue
~ River Point Parkway (South Platte River Trail to Oxford Avenue) Bicycle Improvements
• Adding/improving bicycle facilities
~ Union Avenue (Federal Boulevard to Centennial Park) Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements
• Adding/improving bicycle/pedestrian facilities
~ US 85/Hampden Avenue Interchange Pedestrians Improvements
• Extending the existing sidewalk along the north side of Hampden Avenue through the
US 85/Hampden Avenue interchange to South Platte River Drive
~ Little Dry Creek Trail Connection Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements (Along the frontage
road west of US 85 to Little Dry Creek Trail. Mary Carter Greenway [South Platte Traill . and
west across the South Platte River)
• Adding/improving bicycle/pedestrian facilities along the frontage road west of US 85
to Little Dry Creek
Intersection/ Access Improvements
~ US 85 I Dartmouth Avenue Intersection Improvements
• Providing a fourth northbound and southbound through-lane along US 85 to the next
largest intersections (US 85/Hampden Avenue and US 85/Evans Avenue)
~ US 85 I Oxford Avenue Intersection Improvements
• Providing a fourth northbound and southbound through-lane along US 85 to the next
largest intersections (US 85/Hampden Avenue and US 85/Belleview Avenue)
~ Oxford Avenue I Windermere I Navajo Street Intersection Improvements
• Improving bus circulation to the Sheridan -Oxford Station
~ US 285 I Shoshone Street Right-In I Right-Out
• Working with COOT to construct a right-in/right-out to/from US 285 and Shoshone
Street to provide easier vehicular access to areas west of US 85 and north of US 285
~ Dartmouth Avenue Intersection Improvements (South Platte River Drive to Zuni Street)
• Providing intersection and access control improvements along Dartmouth Avenue
from the South Platte River Drive to Zuni Street as the street grid is reestablished
(Dartmouth Avenue/Shoshone Street. Dartmouth Avenue/Ouivas Street. etc.)
• 69
Fe fsburg Holt & Ullevig
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RAIL CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
'· [
Other Improvements
~ Sheridan -Oxford Station park-n-Ride I Shared Use Park ing
• Redeveloping the nearby parcel into a RTD park-n-Ride facility or working with a
developer to construct a shared use parking structure as part of a mi xed-use
redevelopment where a portion of parking would be dedicated to RTD riders using
the Sheridan -Oxford Station
~ Hamilton Place or Floyd Avenue Bridge Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
• Widening the Hamilton Place Bridge to accommodate 8-foot sidewalks and 5-foot
bike lanes on each side or providing a separate adjacent bicycle/pedestrian only
bridge and/or providing a separate Floyd Avenue Bridge over the South Platte River .
A three-tier evaluation process w as used to identify a recommended set of transportation
improvements. The following is a general overview of the alternatives evaluation process
depicted in
Tier 1 of the evaluation process assessed if the planned alternatives and proposed
Complementary Transportation Improvements met the project vision (Section 1.2). Alternatives
•
were then advanced from the Tier 1 evaluation (Section 5.3 and Table 5-1) to the Tier 2 evaluation . •
Each transportation improvement w as evaluated based on criteria relevant to that particular
improvement. The evaluation included:
~ Tier 2A: Evaluation of the Floyd Avenue Extension (Section 5.4 and Table 5-2)
• Above or below grade separation of Floyd Avenue with the LRT tracks. CML railroad
tracks. US 85 (Santa Fe Drive). and the South Platte River
~ Tier 2B : Evaluation of the Sheridan -Oxford LRT Station Connection (Section 5.5 and Table
5-3)
• Aligning the above or below grade separation with the LRT tracks. CML railroad tracks .
US 85 (Santa Fe Drive)
~ Tier 2C: Evaluation of the Southwest Greenbelt Trail and Extension (Section 5.6 and
Table 5-4)
• Aligning the e xtension from Huron Street to the Rail Trail
~ Tier 2D : Evaluation of the Potential Complementary Transportation Improvements
(Section 5.6 and Table 5-5).
~ Tier 3 focused on refining the alternatives based on feedback from the cities of
Englewood and Sheridan . the public. and elected officials (Section 5.6 and Table 5-5) .
70
Fefsburg Holt & Ulfevig •
• • EN GLE WOOD
FORWARD
I!(. .. • l1Ai.•1 n ... lr11 U ) tN·:T • • c.;-b% :;;;J ;:;;:~Zl%m1'rt.¥•~~~?!\~~i~~,~~~~1'CV~-'~·~i'f:::t~-~,~-;'.1~~~~r~M-~~!~~wff1f£~1!Jf'.~?;~~·~7~~'~'··-.~~-~_G::-.'~~~¥.~~~t~~~
NE XT STEPS
Figure 5-5. Transportation Improvements Analysis Process
Tier2A-
Evaluation of the
Floyd Avenue
Extenslon
Tler2B-
Evaluatlon of the
Sheridan-Oxford
LRTStation
Connection
Tier2C-
Evaluatlon of the
Southwest
Greenbelt Trail
Extension
Tler2D-
Evaluatton of the
Complementary
Transportation
Improvements
Package of Recommended Transportation Improvements
Fefsburg Holt & Ulfevig
e
ENGLEWOOD
F ORWARD
L IG H T RA I L CORR I DOR
NEXT STEPS (":) u [ 't
Criteria for developing and evaluating alternatives were
established through a public process that was responsive to
the vision of the project: project goals that are consistent
with DRCOG's 2035 Metro Vision Regional Transportation
Plan: the potential for transportation benefits. real estate
feasibility. and environmental resources within the study area . A
list of evaluation criteria based on the vision. project goals.
and input from the cities of Englew ood and Sheridan was
developed to evaluate alternatives. These criteria focused on
seven categories: safety. alternative travel modes.
connectivity, constructability. environmental. community. and
implementability. For each level of the alternatives
evaluation process. the study team chose evaluation criteria
from these categories and prepared evaluation measures for
each criterion.
I). 9 I 1Ar 1 t valuation Studv Vision
Project Vision:
The purpose of the transportation
improvements is to enhance
multi modal connections (bicycle.
pedestrian. vehicle, and transit)
from the adjacent neighborhoods
to the Englewood -CityCenter
Station and the Sheridan -Oxford
Station in a manner that enhances
adjacent existing and planned
land use.
In the Tier 1 Evaluation. the seven previously proposed projects and the 24 Complementary
Transportation Improvements were evaluated solely on their ability to effectively enhance
multimodal connections (bicycle. pedestrian. vehicle. and transit) from the adjacent
neighborhoods to the CityCenter Englewood Station and the Sheridan -Oxford Station .
Table 5-1 summarizes the Tier 1 Evaluation process .
The following transportation improvements did not meet the project vision and were not carried
forward for further evaluation:
~ Elati Street (Kenyon Avenue to Floyd Avenue) Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements
~ City Ditch Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements (Rotolo Park to Oxford Avenue)
~ River Point Parkway (South Platte River Trail to Oxford Avenue) Bicycle Improvements
~ Union Avenue (Federal Boulevard to Centennial Park) Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements
Although these improvements may provide a regional connection, they were not carried forward
as part of this study because the alternative does not provide a direct connection to either the
CityCenter Englewood Station, the Sheridan -Oxford Station. or the proposed Rail Trail.
72
Fefsburg Holt & Ullevig
•
•
•
• ENGLEWOOD
FO RWARD
'·~~· rl,\11 l.:rt"t1 •{hllol
NEXT STEPS
Table 5-1.
• • t#(l·:T •
Tier 1 Evaluation
Alternatives MV~~ th7is Summary Notes 1s1on
Ra il Trai l (B ig Dry Creek T ra il
Con nection to Elati St reet)
Oxford. Dartmouth. Clarkson Protected
Bikeway Loop
Southwest Greenbelt Tra il
Improvements
Eng lewood Parkway Exte nsio n and Bus
Transfer /Piazza Redesign
CityCenter Eng lewood Station Platform
She lter
Floyd Avenue Extension -Grade
Sepa ration
Sheridan -Oxford Station Connection
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Potential Complementary Transportation Improvements
CityCenter Eng lewood LRT Statio n
Pedestrian Tu nn el/Bridge
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
Yes
Carried forward to Ti e r 3 for co nceptual
engi neerin g design refi nement.
Ca rr ied forward to Tier 3 for conceptual
engineering design refinement.
Ca rried forward to T ier zc for conceptua l
engineering desig n refinement.
Carried forward to T ie r 3 for co nceptual
engineering design refinement.
Ca rried forward to Tier 3 for co nceptua l
engineeri ng design re fi nement.
Carried forward to Tier zA for evaluation
of g rade separatio n.
Carried forward to Tier zB for eva l uation
of ali gnment and grade separa ti on.
Carried forward to Tier zD for the
potential Co m p le m entary Tra nsportation
Improvem ents
Carr ied forward as part of this study because t he alternative
provides a direct connectio n to both th e CityCenter
Eng l ewood Statio n and t he Sheridan -Oxford Station .
Conceptual engineering design at the CityCenter Eng lewood
Station is dependent on t he resu lts of t he Fl oyd Avenue
Extens ion evaluatio n (T ier zA).
Carr ied forward as part of this study because the altern ative
provides a direct connectio n to both t he Sheridan -Oxford
Station and t he proposed Ra il Trai l.
Carried forward as part of this study because t he a lternative
provides a direct connection to the pro posed Ra il Trail.
Carr ied fo rwa rd as p art of t hi s stu dy beca use t he a lte rn ative
enhances t he CityCenter Englewood Station .
Conceptual engineering des ig n is dependent on the resu lts of
the Floyd Avenue Ex tension eva l uation mer zA).
Carried forward as part of t his study beca use the alt ernative
enhances the CityCenter Eng lewood Station.
Carried forward as part of this study because the alternative
prov ides a d irect co nnection to t he CityCe nter Eng lewood
Station .
Carried forward as part of this study because the alternative
prov ides a direct connection to the Sheridan -Oxford Station.
Carried forward as part of t his study because the alternative
prov ides a direct co nnectio n to the CityCenter Eng lewood
Station.
Improvement depends on the results of the Floyd Avenue
Extension evaluation (Tier zA).
e
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
1 ,,;,. n~n cnw i:unnw
N!OXT STEPS
tlc'l·:T
Alternatives M:~~is Summary Notes
US 85/Dartmouth Avenue Intersection
Improvements
Floyd Avenue Bike Lanes (Englewood -
CityCenter Station to Sherman Street)
Eastman Avenue/Inca Street Area
Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements
Elati Street (Kenyon Avenue to Floyd
Avenue) Bicycle/Pedestrian
Improvements
City Ditch Pedestrian/Bicycle
Improvements <Rotolo Park to Oxford
Avenue)
Quincy Avenue (City Ditch to Rail Trail)
Stanford Avenue (Lipan Court to Rail
Trail)
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
•
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Carried forward to Tier 2D for the
potential Complementary Transportation
Improvements.
Carried forward to Tier 2D for the
potential Complementary Transportation
Improvements.
Carried forward to Tier 2D for the
potential Complementary Transportation
Improvements.
Not carried forward
Not carried forward
Carried forward to Tier 2C for the
potential Complementary Transportation
Improvements
Carried forward to Tier 2C for the
potential Complementary Transportation
Improvements
•
•
Carried forward as part of this study because the alternative
would improve vehicle access to the CityCenter Englewood
Station.
Carried forward as part of this study because the alternative
would improve bicycle/pedestrian access to the CityCenter
Englewood Station .
Improvement depends on the results of the Floyd Avenue
Extension evaluation (Tier 2A).
Carried forward as part of this study because the alternative
would improve bicycle/pedestrian access to the CityCenter
Englewood Station .
Not carried forward as part of this study because the
alternative does not provide a direct connection to the
CityCenter Englewood Station. the Sheridan -Oxford Station.
or the proposed Rail Trail.
The alternative would provide a regional connection in the
bicycle netwo rk.
Not carried forward as part of this study because the
alternative does not provide a direct connection to the
CityCenter Englewood Station. the Sheridan -Oxford Station.
or the proposed Rail Trail.
The alternative would provide a regional connection from the
Southwest Greenbelt Trail to the protected bikeway along
Oxford Avenue.
Carried forward as part of this study because the alternative
would improve bicycle/pedestrian access to the proposed
Rail Trail.
Carried forward as part of this study because the alternative
would improve bicycle/pedestrian access to the proposed
Rail Trail.
• e
• • • ENGLEWOOD
FO RWAR D ~:r CW!_aS":,rrnm: .. =..::::_._,,...,.."''''""""'""'~'··:;:..,.;;,:rw:i,-:, Y"''="~N'<f·~•''3WF~w-u·ia:;~:;~· • 11.0 i'IAt1 1.f'llll:/1{101-1
NEX T STEPS
Alternatives M:~~is Summary Notes
Kenyon Avenue (Inca Street to Rail
Traill
US 85/0xford Avenue Intersection
Improvements
Sheridan -Oxford Avenue LRT Station
park-n-Ride
Windermere Shared Use Path
Extension (Batting Cages at
Cornerstone Park Entrance to
Englewood Canine Corral Entrance)
Tufts Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian
Improvements (Navajo Street to Rail
Traill
Oxford Avenue/Navajo Street
Intersection Improvements
Hampden Avenue/Shoshone Street
Intersection
Dartmouth Avenue Protected Bikeway
(Inca Street to Federal Boulevard)
Hamilton Place or Floyd Avenue
Bridge Bicycle/Pedestrian
Improvements
Dartmouth Avenue (South Platte River
Drive to Zuni Street)
Access/Intersection Improvements
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
carried forward to Tier 2C for the
potential Complementary Transportation
Improvements
carried forward to Tier 2D for the
potential Complementary Transportation
Improvements.
carried forward to Tier 2D for the
potential Complementary Transportation
Improvements.
carried forward to Tier 2D for the
potential Complementary Transportation
Improvements.
carried forward to Tier 2D for the
potential Complementary Transportation
Improvements.
carried forward to Tier 2D for the
potential Complementary Transportation
Improvements
carried forward to Tier 2D for the
potential Complementary Transportation
Improvements
carried forward to Tier 2D for the
potential Complementary Transportation
Improvements
carried forward to Tier 2D for the
potential Complementary Transportation
Improvements
carried forward to Tier 2D for the
potential Complementary Transportation
Improvements
Carried forward as part of this study because the alternative
would improve bicycle/pedestrian access to the proposed
Rail Trail.
Carried forward as part of this study because the alternative
would improve vehicle access to the Sheridan -Oxford
Station .
Carried forward as part of this study because the alternative
would improve vehicle access to the Sheridan -Oxford
Station,
Carried forward as part of this study because the alternative
would improve bicycle/pedestrian access to the proposed
Rail Trail.
Carried forward as part of this study because the alternative
would improve bicycle/pedestrian access to the proposed
Rail Trail.
Carried forward as part of this study because the alternative
would improve vehicle and bus access to the Sheridan -
Oxford Station .
Improvement depends on the results of the Floyd Avenue
Extension evaluation (Tier 2Al .
Carried forward as part of this study because the alternative
would improve bicycle/pedestrian access to the proposed
Rail Trail.
Carried forward as part of this study because the alternative
would improve bicycle/pedestrian access to the CityCenter
Englewood Station.
Carried forward as part of this study because the alternative
would improve vehicle access to the CityCenter Englewood
Station.
Improvement depends on the results of the Floyd Avenue
Extension evaluation (Tier 2Al .
e
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
t ,-:~.. OA11 n11,11nno
NEX T STEPS
Nr<l·rr •
Alternatives M:~~~is Summary Notes
River Po int Parkway (South Platte River
Trail to Oxford Avenue) Bicycle
Improvements
Union Avenue (Federa l Bou levard to
Centennial Park) Bicycle/Pedestrian
Improvements
US 85/Hampden Avenue Interchange
Pedestrian Improvements
Little Dry Creek Pedestrian Connection
(West of US 85)
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
•
No
No
Yes
Yes
Not carried forward
Not carried forward
Carried forward to Tier 2D for the
potential Complementary Transportation
Improvements
Carried forward to Tier 2D for the
potential Complementary Transportation
Improvements
•
•
Not ca rried forward as part of thi s study because the
alternative does not provide a direct connection to the
CityCenter Englewood Station. the Sheridan -Oxford Station.
or the proposed Ra il Trail.
Provides a regional connection from the South Platte River
Trail to the protected bikeway along Oxford Avenue.
Not carried forward as part of thi s study because t he
alternative does not provide a direct connection to the
CityCenter Eng lewood Station . the Sheridan -Oxford Station.
or the proposed Ra il Trail.
Provides a regional con nection along Union Avenue to the Big
Dry Creek Trail.
Carried forward as part of th is study because the alternative
would improve bicycle /pedestrian access to t h e CityCenter
Englewood Station .
Carried forward as part of this study because the alternative
wou ld improve b icycle/pedestrian access to the CityCenter
Englewood Station .
• e
•
5320
528o t
T
5270 !
5260 1
5250 l
I
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
L I GH T R AIL CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
~ tJ [ ,,
l valuation o tht? I vd A venue xtension
The Tier 2A Evaluation assessed the feasibility of the grade separation (either above grade or
below grade) of the Floyd Avenue Extension (Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2) with the LRT tracks. CML
railroad tracks. US 85 (Santa Fe Drive), and the South Platte River from approximately Inca Street
to Zuni Street. Figure 5-6 depicts the above grade and below grade profiles for Floyd Avenue
from Inca Street to the South Platte River. Each grade profile was evaluated against a series of
evaluation criteria based on :
~ Access to the LRT stations
~ Constructability
~ Environmental
~ Community
~ Implementability
Figure 5-6. Floyd Avenue Extension Grade-Separation <Above and Below) Profile
Table 5-2 summarizes the Tier 2A Evaluation process. Of the two grade separation options for the
Floyd Avenue Extension . neither option was carried forward for further evaluation as part of this
study because the alternative does not provide sufficient travel time benefit to justify the cost
and impacts to construct. Existing travel time by vehicle from both the Floyd Avenue I Ouivas
Street intersection and the Riverton on the Platte Apartments to the CityCenter Englewood
Station is five minutes. The above grade separation option would be three minutes. and the
below grade separation option would be two minutes .
77
Fe lsburg Holt & Ullevig ~~---------------.......... ..
ENGLEWOOD
F ORWAR D
f •(.>•• tlAll 1_ tllll./lf'nl.I tN·:T --~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--.
NEXT STEPS
Table 5 -2. T ier 2A Evaluation -Floyd Avenue Extension
Evaluation Criteria
Community lmplementabiLity
Alte t' Property and . Summary/
rna ives Access to LRT Stations ConstructabiLity Environmental Business P:~~:J' ~~!l Cost-effective Independent Notes
Impacts and Land Use Improvements
Displacements
-------------
Floyd Avenue Travel time by vehicle To achieve a minimum Two sites with Roughly six The Floyd T he The Floyd Not carried
Extension (Inca assuming a 25 mph speed grade for clearance of potential hazardou s properties would Avenue estimated Avenue forward as part
Street to Zuni) -wou ld be 3 minutes from the LRT catenaries and material concerns be acquired for Extension cost for Extension of thi s study
Above Grade both the Flo yd Avenue/ the minimum vertical and two sites with right-of-way. would construction could be because the
Separation Ouivas Street intersection distance for freight buildings greater About 20 provide of the above phased in alternative
and the Riverton on the trains along the CML. than 45-years of age residences and additional grade three stages: does not
Platte Apartments to the the Floyd Avenue/Inca (requiring evaluation 25 businesses access to structure construction provide
CityCenter Englewood Street intersection for historic eligibility) would be planned ranges from of the above sufficient travel
Station . Additional travel time would be closed. The would be impacted. displaced. residential $so to $15 grade time benefit to
would be required because grade separation A trailer park would The access to and million. separation justify the cost
the Flo yd Avenue/Inca structure (bridge) would be acquired and the parking commercial from Inca and impacts to
Street intersection would not begin to ascend east of require relocation . structure of the land use west Street to construct.
be accessible from the grade the existing intersection. The new bridge over apartment of US 85. South Platte separation . Exi sting travel The existing roadway the South Platte River complex at the River Drive. time by veh icle from both the providing access to the would potentially southwest construction Floyd Avenue/Ouivas Street CityCenter Englewood impact wetlands and corner of the of the new intersection and the Riverton Station for buses would
on the Platte Apartments to be closed at Floyd the South Platte River Flo yd Avenue/ bridge over
the CityCenter Englewood Avenue . (The existing floodplain. Inca Street the South
Station is 5 minutes. roadway would be intersection Platte River .
approximately 30 ft. would require and Travel time by pedestrians below the structure.) relocation . as construction assuming a 3 mph speed and
The Floyd Avenue/ would the of Floyd a staircase to the CityCenter access
Englewood Station from the South Platte River Drive driveways to the Avenue from
grade separation from both intersection would need CityCenter the new
the Floyd Avenue/Ouivas to be elevated 2 to 5 Engle wood bridge to
Street intersection and the feet to match the grade Station park-n-Zuni Street.
Riverton on the Platte of the structure before Ride .
Apartments would be 10 crossing the South
minutes. Existing travel time Platte River . Any
by pedestrians from both the intersections with the
Floyd Avenue/Ouivas Street structure between
intersection and the Riverton US 85 and South Platte
on the Platte Apartments to River Drive would be
the CityCenter Englewood elevated 5 to 15 feet
Station is 20 minutes. above ground level.
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
• • • e
• • • e
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD wa·rr • '1(>•• fl ... 11 """'l fH JU
NEXT STEPS
Evaluation Criteria
Community lmplementabitity
Alternatives Property and Exist! d Summary/
Access to LRT Stations Constructabitity Environmental Business Pla nJ ~n l C t ff t' Independent Notes
l_mpacts and ~~~ U~ca 05 -e ec ive Improvements
Displacements
-------~~---~----
Floy d Avenue Travel time by vehicle To clear the minimum Two si tes w ith Roughly six The Floyd The The Floyd Not carried
Extension -assuming a 25 mph speed structure depth required potentia l hazardous properties would Avenue estimated Avenue forwa rd as part
Below Grade wou ld be 2 minutes from for LRT and CML material concerns be acquired for Extension cost for Extension of this study
Separation both the Floyd Avenue/ bridges over Floyd and two sites w ith right-of-way. would construction could be because the
Ouivas Street intersection Avenue. the grade buildings greater About20 provide of the a bove phased in alternative
and the Riverton on the separation structure than 45-years of age residences and additional grade three st ages: does not
Platte Apartments to the (tunnel} would begin to (requiring evaluation 25 businesses access to structure con struction provide
CityCenter Englewood descend east at the for hi stori c eligibility). would be planned ranges from o f the above sufficient travel
Station. Existing travel time existing Floyd as well as the NHRP-displaced. residential $so to $75 grade time benefit to
by vehicle from both the Avenue/Inca Street e ligible CML railroad and million. sepa ration j u stify the cost would be impacted. The access to Floyd Avenue/Ouivas Street intersection. Th e the parking commercial from Inca and impacts to intersection and the Ri verton existi ng roadway A trailer park would structure of the land u se west Street to construct. on the Platte Apa rtments to providing access to th e be acquired and apartment of US 85 South Platte the CityCenter Englewood Ci t yC enter Englewood requ ire reloca tion. complex at the River Drive. St ati o n is 5 minutes. Station for buses would Th e new bridge over southwest construction
Travel time by pedestrians be closed at Floyd the South Platte River corner of the of the new
assuming a 3 mph speed and Avenue The ex isting would potentially Floyd Avenue/ bridge over roadway wou ld be a stairca se to the CityCe nter about 20 ft. below the impact wetlands and Inca Street the South Englewood Station from the structure). The Floyd the So uth Platte Ri ver intersection Platte Ri ver. grade separation from both
Avenue/South Platte floodplai n . wou ld require and the Floyd Avenue/Ouivas River Drive intersection relocation. as construction Street inte rsection and the would rema in at existing wou ld the of Floy d Ri verton on the Platte access
Apartments would be 10 grade. Any intersections driveways to the Avenue from
minutes. Existing travel time wi th the structure CityCenter the new
by pedestrians from both the between US 85 and Englewood bridge to
Floyd Avenue/ Ouivas Street South Platte Ri ver Drive Station park-n-Z uni Street.
intersection and the Riv e rton wou ld be depressed 5 Ride.
on the Platte Apartments to to 15 feet below ground
the Ci tyCenter Englewood level.
Station is 20 minutes.
•
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RAI L CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
;, 'J 0
For pedestrians. the e x isting travel time is 20 minutes. and a grade separation option (either
above or below) would improve travel time to 10 minutes. Consequently, a bicycle/pedestrian
option was evaluated further in Tier 2C and Tier 3.
r.t al
nn e tin
tall n
The Tier 28 Evaluation assessed the alignment of a grade separated (either above grade or
below grade) bicycle/pedestrian bridge or tunnel with the LRT tracks, CML railroad tracks. US 85
(Santa Fe Drive) to provide a connection to the Sheridan -Oxford Station . Each alignment was
evaluated against a series of evaluation criteria based on :
~ Safety
~ Multimodal
~ Access to the LRT stations
~ Environmental
~ Community
~ Implementability
•
Table 5-3 summarizes the Tier 28 Evaluation process. Of the five alignment options to provide a •
connection to the Sheridan -Oxford Station . three alignment options were not carried forward
for further evaluation as part of this study:
~ Sheridan -Oxford Station Alignment -Not carried forward as part of this study because
the alignment is duplicative of the connection provided by the separated bikeway along
Oxford Avenue for bicyclists and pedestrians: the alignment would require partial
acquisition of the Costco parking lot: full acquisition of the property at the northwest
corner of the US 85/0xford Avenue intersection: and displacement of one business .
~ Quincy Avenue Alignment and Radcliff Avenue Alignments -Not carried forward as part
of this study because the alignments are not compatible with ex isting land use west of
US85.
Figure 5-7 depicts the alignments of a bicycle/pedestrian bridge across the LRT tracks. CML
railroad tracks. and US 85 (Santa Fe Drive) for the Kenyon Avenue and Mansfield Avenue
alignments. An opinion of probable cost was prepared for both alignments based on the
conceptual level of engineering design (Figure 5-7). The opinion of probable cost for both
alignments is $g.14 million . although the alignments differ slightly in length . Due to the opinion of
probable cost and the distance from the Sheridan -Oxford Station . the decision w as made not to
carry this project forward to Tier 3 as part of this study.
80
Fefsbu rg Holt & Ulfevig •
•
•
•
E N GLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RAIL CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
Figure 5-?. Sheridan -Oxford Station Connection -Kenyon Avenue and Mansfield Avenue
Alignments
Sheri dan-Oxford Avenue LAT Stat i o n
B i cycle/Pedestria n Bridge
-Mansfield Avenu e Alignme nt
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
81
ENGLEWOOD
FOR W ARD
I U;U (t•ll l.OIHtl!Hhl
NEXT STEPS
Table 5-3.
t-N·rr ···-·~~·
Tier 28 Evaluation -Sheridan -Oxford Station Connection
Evaluation Criteria
Multimodal Community Implementability
AUgnments RT Summary/Notes
Safety Effective Alt ti T l Access to L Property and Existing and
Sheridan -Due to the
Oxford proximity of
Station the station
and the
number of
transit users.
both a tunnel
and bridge
would provide
a safe
connection to
the Sheridan -
Oxford St at ion.
Kenyon Due to the
Avenue distance from
the station. a
bridge with
greater
visibility was
considered a
safe
connection to
the Sheridan -
Oxford Station.
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
•
Movement of ern~ ~e rave Stations Business Impacts Planned Local Land
People 0 es and Displacements Use
A tunnel or A tunnel or A tunnel or
bridge located bridge located bridge locat ed at
at the Sheridan at the Sheridan the Sheridan -
-Oxford Station -Oxford Station Oxford Station
would be would be would provide a
duplicative o f approximately direct connection
the connection 3,800 ft. from to the station for
provided by the the South Platte transit users.
separated River Trail.
bikeway along
Oxford Avenue
for bicyclists
and
pedestrians.
A bridge A bridge A bridge located
located along located along along Kenyon
Kenyon Avenue Kenyon Avenue Avenue would
would be would be require out-of-
approximately approximately direction travel
2.380 ft. from 2.700 ft. from for pedestrians/
the Sheridan -t he South Platte bicyclists to
Oxford Sta t ion. River Trail and access the
provide regional Sheridan -
connectivity. Oxford Station.
A tunnel or
bridge located
at the Sheridan -
Oxford Station
would require
partial
acquisition of
the Costco
parking lot and
full acquisition
of the property
at the northwest
corner of
US 85/0xford
Avenue.One
business would
be displaced.
The bridge
along Kenyon
Avenue would
require
acquisition of
property from
RTD .
. .
•
A tunnel or
bridge located at
the Sheridan -
Oxford Station is
not compatible
with exist ing land
use west of
US 85 but may
be compatible
with future land
use.
The bridge along
Kenyon Avenue
is compatible
with existing land
use and future
land use.
No additional Not carried forward as part of
improvements this study because the
are required . alternative is duplicative of the
connection provided by the
separated bikeway along
Oxford Avenue for bicyclists
and pedestrians: would require
partial acquisition of the Costco
parking lot and full acquisition
of the property at the northwest
corner of US 85/0xford
Avenue: and displacement of
one business.
No additional Carried forward to Tier 2E as
improvements part of this study because the
are required . bridge would provide regional
east-west connectivity across
US 85. the CML. and the LRT.
• e
• • • ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
• tt;".•• ll.lH r"lllAlf'IO
t#(l·:'r
NEXT STEPS
Evaluation Criteria
Multi modal Community lmplementabiLity
AUgnments A t LRT Summary/Notes
Safety M~!~~~~ of Altern~ti~e Travel c~i:io~s s:~~~:S~ma;a~ts Plan:~tiC~c~7CCand
Mansfield Due to the
Avenue distance from
the station. a
bridge wi th
greater
visibility was
considered a
safe
connection to
the Sheridan -
Oxford Station.
Quincy Due to the
Avenue distance from
the station. a
bridge with
greater
visibi lity was
considered a
safe
connection to
the Sheridan -
Oxford Station .
Radcliff Due to the
Avenue distance from
the station. a
bridge with
greater
visibility was
considered a
safe
connection to
the Sheridan -
Oxford Station .
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
People 0 es and Displacements Use
A bridge A bridge A bridge located
located along located along along Mansfield
Mansfield Kenyon Avenue Avenue would
Avenue would would be require out-of-
be roughly approximately direction travel
1.050 ft. from 2.200 ft. from for pedestrians/
the Sheridan -the South Platte bicyclists to
Oxford Station. River Trail and access the
provide regional Sheridan -
connectivity. Oxford Station .
A bridge A bridge A bridge located
located along located along along Quincy
Quincy Avenue Quincy Avenue Avenue would
would be would be require ou t -of-
approximately approximately direction travel
1.700 ft. along 3,900 ft. from for pedestrians/
the Rail Trail the South Platte bicyclists to
from the River Trail and access the
Sheridan -provide regional Sheridan -
Oxford Station. connectivity. Oxford Station.
A bridge A bridge A bridge located
located along located along along Radcliff
Radcliff Avenue Radcliff Avenue Avenue would
would be would be require out-of-
approximately approximately direction travel
2.250 ft. along 4500 ft. from for pedestrians/
the Rail Trail the South Platte bicyclists to
from the River Trail and access the
Sheridan -provide regional Sheridan -
Oxford Station. connectivity. Oxford Station.
The bridge
along Mansfield
Avenue would
require
acquisition of
property from
RTD and the
landscaped area
along US 85 in
the River Point
development.
A bridge along
Quincy Avenue
would require
partial
acquisition of a
property west of
US85.
A bridge along
Radcliff Avenue
would require
partial
acquisition of a
property west of
us 85
. •
The bridge along
Mansfield
Avenue is
compatible with
existing land use
and future land
use.
The bridge along
Quincy Avenue is
not compatible
with existing land
use west of
US 85 but may
be compatible
with future land
use.
The bridge along
Radcliff Avenue
is not compatible
with existing land
use west of
US 85 but may
be compatible
w ith future land
use.
No additional Carried forward to Tier 2E as
improvements part of this study because the
are required . bridge would provide regional
east-west connectivity across
US 85. the CML. and the LRT
Access to the Not carried forward as part of
Sheridan -this study because the
Oxford Station alternative is not compatible
would require with existing land use west of
construction of US85.
the Rail Trail.
Access to the Not carried forward as part of
Sheridan -this study because the
Oxford Station alternative is not compatible
would require with existing land use west of
construction of US85.
the Rail Trail.
e
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RAI L CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
s '..J 0 y
·rr
V4 Lu t eenbelt Trail c n
The Tier 2C Evaluation assessed the alignment of the Southwest Greenbelt Trail and Extension
from Rotolo Park to the Rail Trail (Figure 5-4). Each alignment was evaluated against a series of
criteria based on :
~ Safety
~ Multimodal
~ Access to LRT stations
~ Constructability
~ Environmental
~ Community
~ Implementability
Table 5-4 summarizes the Tier 2C Evaluation process. Of the three alignment options to provide a
connection from Rotolo Park and the Southwest Greenbelt Trail and Extension. two options were
not carried forward for further evaluation as part of this study:
•
~ Quincy Avenue (City Ditch/ Jason Street to Rail Trail) -Not carried forward as part of this •
study because of its conflicts w ith the truck route along Quincy Avenue and the need for
a north-south connection w ith the Southwest Greenbelt Trail and Extension. of which the
City Ditch option was eliminated in Tier 1 screening.
~ Stanford Avenue (Huron Street to Rail Trail) -Not carried forward as part of this study
because it is the furthest alignment from the Sheridan -Oxford Station . has the highest
local impacts. and is not as direct of a connection compared to Radcliff. which is likely
close in cost.
Figure 5-4 depicts the alignment options. The Southwest Greenbelt Trail and Extension along
Radcliff Avenue (Rotolo Park to Rail Trail) was carried forward to Tier 3 evaluation .
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig •
ENGL .OD
FORWARD
I 11.1~ l0111 l n"fl1rH)'1
NEXT STEPS
• ~·:T
Table 5-4. Tie r 2C Evaluation -Southwest Greenbelt Trail and Extension
Quincy Would be Provides a Creat es a
Avenue (City placing bicycle and dedicated
Ditch/ Jason bicycle pedestrian shared use
Street to Rail and connection path for
Traill pedestrian from the bicycles
traffic Southwest and
along a Greenbelt pedestrians.
truck Trailand
route. Extension
to the Rail
Trail along
a
dedicated
facility .
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
Completes
a missing
link
between
the
Southwest
Greenbelt
Trailand
Extension to
the Rail
Trail.
roughly
1.470 ft
from the
Sheridan -
Oxford
Station.
Could be
completed with
bike lanes/
sidewalk
improvements
along Quincy
Avenue or a
shared use trail
along one side
of Quincy
Avenue .
No anticipated
impacts
. •
Conflicts with
truck traffic
using Quincy
Avenue .
Serves
local
residences
and
employees
but
conflicts
with
existing
industrial
uses along
Navajo
Street and
trucks
using
Quincy
Avenue.
Depending
on the
facility(ies).
could be as
simple as
applying low-
cost bike lane
striping or
providing a
paved path
that would be
more
expensive.
• e
In addition to Not carri ed
needing the fo rwa rd as part
Southwest of this study
Greenbelt because it
improvements conflicts with
and Rail Trail. the truck route
would require along Quincy
a facility along Avenue and
the City Ditch there is a need
that was not for a north-
carried south
forward from connection
Tier 1 with the
screening. or Southwest
another north-Greenbelt Trail
south and Extension.
connection. of which the
City Ditch
option was
eliminated in
the Tier 1
screening .
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
I •(oi l+ rt ll.tl lf•IHll!Hli.1 Nta·rr
NEXT STEPS
Radcliff
Avenue
<Rotolo Park
to Rail Traill
Places
bicycle
and
pedestrian
traffic
along a
separated
facility or
low-
volume
discontin-
uous
streets.
Provides a
bicycle and
pedestrian
connection
from the
Southwest
Greenbelt
Trail and
Extension
to the Rail
Trail along
a
dedicated
facility .
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
•
Creates a Completes Would require
dedicated a missing a shared use
shared use link path from
path for between Rotolo Park.
bicycles the along the City
and Southwest Ditch (west of
pedestrians. Greenbelt the park). down
Trail and an
Extension to embankment
the Rail from the City
Trail. Ditch ridge. and
roughly alongside
2.120 ft. Radcliff
from the Avenue. Would
Sheridan -also require
Oxford intersection
Station. improvements
at Navajo
Street.
No anticipated
impacts
. ••
•
Embank-ment
and path along
Radcliff
Avenue west
of the City
Ditch would
result in some
private and on-
street parking
loss. but
business
access would
be retained .
Serves
local
residences
and
employees
but
conflicts
with
existing
industrial
uses along
Navajo
Street.
Would
require a
four-way
stop at the
intersection
with Navajo
Street.
which
could
burden
truck traffic
in the area
if the four-
way stop
remains at
Quincy
Avenue .
Most direct
route with
least
conflicts.
possibly
justifying any
increased
cost
compared to
the Quincy
Avenue
alignment.
Requires th e
Southwest
Greenbelt
Trail and
Extension ..
•
Carried
forward as part
of this study
because it
provides the
most direct
connection
between the
Southwest
Greenbelt Trail
and Extension.
has the fewest
conflicts/local
impacts. and
does not need
any additional
connection
project to be
implemented.
• e
ENGL .OD
FORWARD
1 1(.h UA11. t..nw iur,n~ tN<T
NEXT STEPS
Stanford Places Provides a
Avenue bicycle bicycle and
<Huron and pedestrian
Street to Rail pedestrian connection
Traill traffic from the
along low-Southwest
volume Greenbelt
discontin-Trailand
uous Extension
streets. to the Rail
Trail along
a
dedicated
facility .
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
Creates a
dedicated
shared use
path for
bicycles
and
pedestrians.
Completes
a missing
link
between
the
Southwest
Greenbelt
Trailand
Extension.
roughly
2.810 ft.
from the
Sheridan -
Oxford
Station .
Could be
completed with
bike lanes/
sidewalk
improvements
along Stanford
Avenue or a
shared use trail
along one side
of Stanford
Avenue . At
Lipan Court. an
embankment
would be
required to
descend the
ridge. which
would remove
access to
buildings using
Stanford
Avenue west of
the City Ditch .
•
No anticipated
impacts
. .
• e •
Embank-ment Serves Like ly similar Requires the Not carried
and path along local to cost as the Southwest forward as part
Stanford west residences Radcliff Greenbelt of this study
of the City and alignment. improvements because it is
Ditch would employees but further and Rail Trail. the furthest
result in loss of but away from along with a alignment
access for conflicts the Sheridan small north-from the
business along with -Oxford south Sheridan -
Stanford existing Station and connection to Oxford Station.
Avenue w est indu strial would have near Rotolo has the highest
of the City uses along greater local Park. local impacts.
Ditch . Navajo impacts. and is not as
Street. Thus . not direct of a
worth any connection
cost compared to
differences Radcliff. which
(saving s or is likely close
increase) in cost.
compared to
other
alignments.
ENGLEWOOD
F O R WARD
LIGHT RAI L COl'lRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
~ 'J 0 '(
entr: rtation
The Tier 2D Evaluation assessed the potential complementary improvements that w ere
developed to address deficiencies in the existing transportation system. in addition to the
previously proposed project. Each improvement was evaluated against a series of criteria based
on :
~ Safety
~ Multimodal
~ Access to LRT stations
~ Constructability
~ Environmental
~ Community
~ Implementability
Table 5-5 summarizes the Tier 2D Evaluation process. Of the remaining 17 potential
complementary improvements that were not evaluated in Tiers 2A. 28. or 2C . six potential
complementary improvements were not carried forward . Figure 5-1 . Figure 5-2. Figure 5-3, and
Figure 5-4 depict the potential complementary improvements.
88
•
•
•
• • • e
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
1 •fi•• lrAn 1.n11i;<1p1JU ~ r;:;;· L5' !!7' '. w ,<,,,,.., iii ,;c/*"" , '';:. :;;;;;, -Jll ; . Mitt ;FIL ~~-
NE XT STEPS
Table 5 -5 . Tier 2D Evaluation -Potential Complementary Transportation Improvements
Evaluation Criteria
Multimodal Access to LRT Stations
ConstructabiUty Alternatives Safety Balanced Future (2035) Effective Movement of Alternative Travel Modes Improved Connectivity
System People
CityCenter Englewood The bicycle/ pedestrian Provides an Provides a direct Promotes bicycle/ Travel time by The connection can be
Station Bicycle/ connection would provide alternative to vehicle-connection to the pedestrian access to pedestrians assuming accomplished through
Pedestrian Tunnell direct access to the only or limited CityCenter the CityCenter a 3 mph speed to th e seve ral options. Option 1
Bridge CityCenter Englewood pedestrian/bicycli st Englewood Station Englewood Station CityCenter Eng lewood provides an ADA-
Station from the wes t side access to the from the west si de of and to region al trai l Sta t ion from the co mpliant ramp west of
of US 85, provide an Ci t yCenter US 85 for bicyclists facilities and routes. Riverton on the Platte US 85 to a bridge over US
alternative. more direct Englewood Station and pedestrians to Apartments would be 85. the CML. and the LRT
rou t e to address unsafe from the west side of connect to tran sit at 10 minutes. Exis ting w ith a conn ection to th e
pedestrian access along US 85 for bot h the the LRT station. as travel time by LRT st ation platform via
Hampden Avenue ci ties of Sheridan and well as the buses pedestri ans from the an elevator /stairc ase.
through the existing US Englewood and accessing the LRT Riverton o n the Platte Option 2 provides an
85/ Hampden Avenue planned resi dential st ation. as well as Apartments to the ADA-compliant ramp
interchange to the LRT and commercial use additional access to CityCen t er Englewood w est of US 85 to a bridge
stat io n . and reduce and densi f ica t ion , the South Platte River Stat io n is 20 minutes. over US 85, the CML. and
potential vehicle/ such as along Old Trail an d the De nver the LRT wi th a connection
pedestrian conflict at the Hampden Avenue. metropolitan regional to street level via an
US 85/Hampden Avenue trail sys tem. eleva tor /stairca se.
interchange. Opt ion 3 provides a tunnel
underneath US 85, the
CM L , and the LRT alo ng
the Floyd Ave nu e
alignment
US 85/Dartmouth The existing peak hour Additional capaci t y Add itional capacity at Improved vehi c ular Trave l time for To improve operational
Avenue Intersection intersection LOS for thi s w ould be necessa ry thi s intersection would access to the vehicles accessi ng the capaci ty. a fourth
Improve ments intersection is E in the AM at thi s intersection in improve north-south CityCe nter Ci t yCe nter Englewood northbound and
and E in t he PM . The LOS 2035 to prov ide an mobility along US 85, Englew ood Station Station park-n-Ride so ut hbound through -lane
w ill be furthe r degraded adequate LOS for as well as east -west park-n-Ride would be and . consequently. would be required The
in 2035. v ehicles accessi ng mobility along limited by the number transi t would be through lane would
the CityCenter Dartmouth Avenue. of parking spa ces in improved. continue alo ng US 85 to
Englewood park-n -the existing fa c ility, the next largest
Ride and LR T st ation . unless treated as a in tersections
kiss-n-Ride faci lity . (US 85/'Hampden
Ave nu e and US 85/Evans
Avenue).
:•
Fetsburg Holt & Ullevig
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
I !f,;." RAtl L..(>Uttl!llHI
NE.XT STEPS
tra·rr
Evaluation Criteria
Multimodal Access to LRT Stations
Alternatives Safety Balanced Future (2035) Effective Movement of Alternative Travel Modes Improved Connectivity
System People
Floyd Avenue Bike Bike lanes bring greater The primary concern Provides a more direct Promotes bicycle use Pro vi des a direct east-
Lanes (CityCenter v isibi lity to bicyclists. with adding bike lanes and dedica ted bicycle from the Ci tyCen t er west dedicated
Englewood St at ion to especially through would be the fac ili ty from the Englewood Station bicycle facility
Sherman Street) intersection s such as reduction in capacity CityCenter and future Rail Trai l connection to the
Broadway. for motorized Englewood Station w ith major st ation and future Rail
vehicles. 2035 and future Rai l Trail destin ation s such as Tra il.
forecasts show wi th bicycle routes the Broadway
growth along Floyd servi ng major commercia l corridor
Avenue that ma y destinations such as and th e Craig
need th e existing lane th e Broadway Ho spi tal/Swedish
configuration ; commercia l cor r idor Medical Center.
however. this and the Craig
projection represents Hospital/Swedish
volumes usi ng all Medical Cen ter.
east-west access to
the CityCenter.
Englewood Park way
and other access
points a long US 285
ha ve ava ilable
capacity to
accommodate any
disp lacement of
vehicles.
Eastman Avenue/Inca Separates bi cyclist s/ Pro vi des a se p ara te The expan sion of the Promotes increased Makes the connection
Street Area Bicycle/ pedestrians from p arking facility for bicyclists sidewa lk and ad dition bicycle and w ith the CityCenter
Pedestrian lot traffic. and improves existing of a shared use trai l pedestrian ac ti vi t y Eng lewood Station.
Improvements pedestrian facilities t o would increase th e wi th added and more friendly to use
access th e shared use capacity and use of expanded facili t ies . for residents eas t of
path along Inca Street existing facilities. the area.
to th e CityCenter w hich c urrently are
Englewood Station. narrow or non -
existent.
••
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
• •
~·
Constructabllity
The proj ect could be
accom plished through a
road diet. converting th e
ex istin g 3 and 4 lane
cross-sections of the
existing Floyd Avenue to
a 2 lane f acili ty with bike
lanes in both directions.
all wi thin the exis ting
pavement w idth .
Expanding the existing
si dewa lk to be a shared
use tra il is possible;
however. extending this
cross-section along the
south side of the parking
lot cou ld be d ifficult due
to utilities infrastructure
w ithin the available space
th at is part of the park.
• e
• • • e
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
r •l).h ltAtt 1.nwo1H(lf)l.I
t#(l·:T •™a•
NEX T STEPS
Evaluation Criteria
Multimodal Access to LRT Stations
Constructabllity Alternatives Safety Balanced Future (2035) Effective Movement of Alternative Travel Modes Improved Connectivity
System People
Kenyon Avenue Bike Would separate bicyclists No anticipated Would facilitate more Promotes bicycling by Semi-direct route No anticipated impacts
Lanes (Logan Street to from traffic with a impacts to 2035 traffic bicycle travel making it easier to between Englewood
Rail Traill dedicated facility volumes and would between Englewood cross Broadway and High School. Rail Trail.
between Englewood High provide additional High School. Rail Trail. access Englewood and Sheridan -Oxford
School. Rail Trail. and facility to move and Sheridan -Oxford High School. Rail Trail. Station crossing of
Sheridan -Oxford Station bicyclists to the Rail Station crossing of and Sheridan -Oxford US85
crossing of US 85 . Would Trail and a possible US85. Station crossing of
also improve safety of crossing of US 85 . US85.
crossing Broadway.
However. portion would
be along a truck route.
Mansfield Avenue Bike Would separate bicyclists No anticipated Would facilitate more Promotes bicycling by Direct route between No anticipated impacts
Lanes (Logan Street to from traffic with a impacts to 2035 traffic bicycle travel making it easier to Englewood High
Rail Traill dedicated facility volumes and would between Englewood cross Broadway and School. Rail Trail. and
between Englewood High provide additional High School. Rail Trail. access Englewood Sheridan -Oxford
School. Rail Trail. and facility to move and Sheridan -Oxford High School. Rail Trail. Station crossing of
Sheridan -Oxford Station bicyclists to the Rail Station crossing of and Sheridan -Oxford US85
crossing of US 85 . Would Trail and a possible US85. Station crossing of
also improve safety of crossing of US 85 . US85.
crossing Broadway.
US 85/0xford Avenue The existing peak hour Additional capacity Additional capacity at Improved vehicular Travel tim e for To improve operational
Intersection intersection LOS for this would be necessary this intersection would access to the vehicles accessing the capacity. a fourth
Improvements intersection is E in the AM at this intersection in improve north-south Sheridan -Oxford Sheridan -Oxford northbound and
and E in the PM . The LOS 2035 to provide an mobility along US 85, Avenue kiss-n-Ride Station kiss-n-Ride southbound through-lane
will be further degraded adequate LOS for as well as east-west with access to the and. consequently. would be required. The
in 2035. vehicles accessing mobility along Oxford LRT Station and transit would be through lane would
the Sheridan -Oxford Avenue. access to alternative improved. continue along US 85 to
Avenue kiss-n-Ride travel modes. the next largest
and LRT Station. intersections
(US SS/Hampden Avenue
and US 85/ Belleview
Avenue).
Sheridan -Oxford Provides a safe A park-n-Ride would Additional parking The facility would Using the Rail Trail One acre would equate to
St ati on park-n-Ride connection to the provide additional capacity at the encourage transit use. would provide a safe 75 parking spaces and the
Sheridan -Oxford Station capacity for transit Sheridan -Oxford connection for transit location of the facility
for transit users from a users at the Sheridan Station potentially users across Oxford should meet RTD transit
park-n-Ride. -Oxford Station would increase transit Avenue. guidance related to
because current use. distance from the LRT
parking is on-street station.
only.
•
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
I •Q t• '>A ll l..r>\lf0!1(1M IR·rr )jr~"_·ll',.j i·a T""''"~ '"Jf',.qf ~-• ·;v.s ··-~" • •··~"'p--.-~--';') :,-·· _.._. ,...,--,, ... -·IV·-··--~·~·
NEXT STEPS
Evaluation Criteria
Multimodal Access to LRT Stations
ConstructabiUty Alternatives Safety Balanced Future c2 035) Effective Movement of Alternative Travel Modes Improved Connectivity
System People
--------------------
Windermere Shared Use Removes the conflict of Provides a separate Provides a dedicated Promotes increased Although the Littleton Enough space exists
Path Extension (Batting truck route traffic with facility for bicyclists bicycle and improved bicycle use with a Downtown Station is along the east side of
Cages at Cornerstone bike route traffic by and improves existing pedestrian facility to dedicated facility likely closer for this Windermere Street for a
Park Entrance to placing bicyclists on the pedestrian facilities to connect the Rail Trail separated from area. its access is not widening of the existing
Englewood Canine shared use path . access the Rail Trail (via Big Dry Creek vehicular traffic. as bicycle friendly for sidewalk.
Corral Entrance) and the Sheridan -Traill with Belleview especially trucks. land uses north and
Oxford Station . Park. Cornerstone west. This
Park . and land uses improvement. along
south of Belleview with the Rail Trail.
Avenue. would make an easy
dedicated facility to
the Sheridan -Oxford
Station.
Tufts Avenue Bicycle Increases awareness of Provides a separate Provides an improved Makes the connection Improves the Enough space for
and Pedestrian drivers that bicyclists and facility for bicyclists connection to the with the future Rail connection to the extending the south side
Improvements <Navajo pedestrians may be and improves existing future Rail Trail. Trail more friendly to future Rail Trail. which sidewalk to the Rail Trail.
Street to Rail Trail! present while traveling pedestrian facilities to use for residents east will provide direct Crosswalk and sharrows
to/from the Rail Trail access the Rail Trail of the area . access to the Sheridan can be applied to existing
where few or none and the Sheridan --Oxford Station. pavement. ADA ramps
currently exist. Oxford Station . can be installed to
existing sidewalk.
Oxford Avenue/ Navajo Improves safety for Improves access to Additional capacity at Improved vehicular Travel time for To improve operational
Street Intersection vehicles. trucks. buses. the Sheridan -Oxford this intersection would and bus access to the vehicles accessing the capacity and achieve
Improvements pedestrians. and bicyclists Station for buses. improve north-south Sheridan -Oxford Sheridan -Oxford geometric requirements
accessing the Sheridan -vehicles . pedestrians. mobility along Navajo Avenue kiss-n-Ride Station kiss-n-Ride for truck and bus turning
Oxford Station. and bicyclists. Street. as well as east-with access to the and. consequently. movements. a widening
west mobility along LRT Station. transit would be and redesign of the
Oxford Avenue. improved. intersection would be
required.
Hampden Avenue/ Introduces an additional Improves access to Additional Improved vehicular Travel time for Current access requires
Shoshone Street intersection and potential the parcels west of connectivity with a access to the vehicles accessing the out-of-direction travel
Intersection conflict point for vehicles US 85 and north of new right-in/right-out CityCenter parcels west of US 85
exiting and entering Hampden Avenue. intersection would Englewood Station and north of Hampden
westbound Hampden which are planned for provide additional park-n-Ride with Avenue would be
Avenue. commercial and access to the parcels access to the LRT improved.
residential use in west of US 85 and station .
2035. north of Hampden
Avenue.
•
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
• • • e
• ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
t 1f .h lt1111 Lnll,o'lflflll
NEXT STEPS
• '*'l·rr
Evaluation Criteria
Multimodal Access to LRT Stations
Alternatives Safety Balanced Future (2035) Effective Movement of Alternative Travel Modes Improved Connectivity
System People
Dartmouth Avenue Provides separation of Provides a separate Provides a more direct Promotes bicycle use Provides a direct east-
Separated Bikeway (Inca bicyclists from trucks and facility for bicyclists and dedicated bicycle from the CityCenter west dedicated
Street to Federal a high volume of vehicles. along Dartmouth facility from the Englewood Station bicycle facility
Boulevard) Avenue. a road CityCenter and future Rail Trail connection to the
projected to have Englewood Station to wi th areas west. station and future Rail
significant traffic by areas west. including including uses in Trail. while also
2035 , uses in Loretto Loretto Heights. providing an improved
Heights. connection to bus
rou tes currently
operating along
Dartmouth Avenue.
Hamilton Place or Floyd Improves sa fety for Accommodates Provides bicycle and Provides a connection Would require the
Avenue Bridge bicyclists/pedestrians bicyclists and pedestrian facilities to the South Platte CityCen ter Englewood
Bicycle/Pedestrian crossing the South Platte pedestrians across where there are River Trail. as well as bicycle/pedestrian
Improvements River . the Hamilton Pla ce currently none. along Old Hampden bridge/tunnel to
bridge or a se parate Avenue. provide direct access
bicycle/pedestrian to the CityCenter
only bridge. and/or Englewood Station.
provide a separa te
Floyd Avenue bridge
and improves access
to the South Platte
River trail on the west
side of the South
Platte River .
Dartmouth Avenue Introduces additional Improves access to Additional Improves vehicular Travel time for
(South Platte River Drive intersections and conflict the parcels west of connectivity w ith new access to the vehicles accessing the
to Zuni Street) Access/ points for vehicles. US 85 and north of intersections would CityCenter Sheridan -Oxford
Intersect io n pedestrians. and bicyclists Hampden Avenue. provide additional Englewood Station Stat io n kiss-n-Ride
Improvements along Dartmouth Avenue. which are planned for access to Dartmouth park-n-Ride with and. consequently .
commercial and Avenue and the access to the LRT transit would be
residential use in CityCenter st ation. improved.
2035. Englewood Station
park-n-Ride .
•
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
• e
ConstructablUty
Due to tr affic volumes
along Dartmouth Avenue.
a separated bikeway
facility would be required .
The existing Hamilton
Place bridge over the
South Platte River is
st ructurally deficient and
does not include
pedestrian or bicycle
facilities. Due for
reconstruction in 2015.
Intersection
configurations and
locations would depend
on change in land use
between the South Platte
River Drive and Zuni
Street.
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
'1<.t• ftAll l l'\ll+il!lOU
NEXT STEPS
w:r ~'>HWlllW1"i~'"-~)·
Evaluation Criteria
Multimodal Access to LRT Stations
ConstructabiUty Alternatives Safety Balanced Future (2035) Effective Movement of Alternative Travel Modes Improved Connectivity
System People
US 85/Hampden Introduces pedestrian and The effectiveness of Additional Improves pedestrian Travel time for Higher traffic and
Avenue Interchange vehicle conflict points at a this improvement is connectivity for the access to the pedestrians accessing pedestrian volumes may
Pedestrian higher speed interchange reduced with parcels immediately CityCenter the CityCenter require signalization of
Improvements facility without signalized increased traffic north of Hampden Englewood Station . Englewood Station the north and southbound
intersections volumes at this Avenue/west of would marginally on-ramps to US 85 from
interchange US 85 to the improve because of westbound Hampden
CityCenter continued out-of-Avenue.
Englewood Station direction travel.
park-n-Ride.
Little Dry Creek Provides a direction Improves access to Additional Improves pedestrian Travel time for Acquisition of property for
Pedestrian Connection connection to Little Dry the parcels west of connectivity to the access to the pedestrians accessing right-of-way would be
(West of us 85) Creek Trail from the US 85 and north of Little Dry Creek Trail. CityCenter the CityCenter required for a direction
frontage road west of US Hampden Avenue. the South Platte River Englewood Station. Englewood Station connection to the Little
85 which are planned for Trail. and the Rail Trail would marginally Dry Creek Trail.
commercial and improve because of
residential use in continued out-of-
2035. direction travel.
. '
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
• • • e
• • • ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
',,... 4'AU LnW orlf10U tra·:r • NEX T STEPS
Table 5.S. Tier 20 Evaluation (continued)
Evaluation Criteria
Environmental Community lmplementablLity
Alternatives Environmental and . Property and Existin and Planned . Independent Summary/Notes
Cultural Resources Business Impacts and L 9
1 La d U Cost-effectiveness 1 ts
Impacts Displacements oca n se mprovemen
CityCenter Englewood No anticipated impacts No anticipated
LRT Station Pedestrian impacts
Tunnel/Bridge
US 85/ Dartmouth Widening of US 85 Widening of US 85
Avenue Intersection between Evans Avenue between Evans
Improvements and Hampden Avenue Avenue and
to accommodate the Hampden Avenue
additional through lane to accommodate
would potentially the additional
impact a number of through lane would
sites with hazardous require acquisition
material concerns and of several
sites that may be properties for right-
historic. as well as the of-way and
Little Dry Creek Trail displacement of
and floodplain. businesses and
residents.
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
Provides easier
bicycle I pedestrian
access to the
CityCenter
Englewood Station
for existing
residences and any
future development.
Would affect existing
land use through
acquisition of
property.
•
For the cost of t he
structure and ongoing
maintenance of the
elevator. travel time for
pedestrians accessing
the CityCenter
Englewood Station
would be halved. a
pedestrian safety issue
through the
US 85/Hampden
Avenue interchange
would be addressed.
and an incentive for
further residential
redevelopment in the
area between US 85
and the South Platte
River provided. as well
as improved access to
the City of Sheridan Old
Hampden Avenue area .
Would require
evaluation of regiona l
mobility to justify cost.
Project not
dependent on other
projects: however.
coordination with the
CityCenter
Englewood Station
platform shelter
project would be
required .
Project not
dependent on other
projects.
Carried forward as part of
this study because travel
time for pedestrians
accessing the CityCenter
Englewood Station would be
halved. a pedestrian safety
issue through the US
85/Hampden Avenue
interchange would be
addressed, and an incentive
for further residential
redevelopment in the area
between US 85 and the
South Platte River provided.
as well as improved access
to the City of Sheridan Old
Hampden Avenue area .
Carried forward as part of
this study because of the
level of congestion at the
intersection: however. CDOT
should pursue this
improvement in relation to
the US 85 corridor.
e
ENGLEWOOD
FO R WARD
l ''·'" lt.\11 .;r,wi;iq l fJtl
NEXT STEPS
Nra·:T
Evaluation Criteria
Environmental Community Implementability
Alternatives Environmental and . Property and Existin and Planned . Independent Summary/Notes
Cultural Resources Business Impacts and L 9l L d U Cost-effectiveness Imp m nts
Impacts Displacements oca an se rove e
Floyd Avenue (Sherman No anticipa ted impact s No anticipated Provides easier On ly res t riping would Provides benefits Carried forward as part of
Street to Elati Street) impacts bicycle access for be required. which is whether other this study because of
Bicycle/ Pedestrian existing residences relative ly low cost. projects are built or improved bicycle access
Improvements and any future not. from the Broadway
development. while commercial corridor and the
motorized vehicle Craig Hospital I Swedish
access remains in Medical Center to t he
place. CityCenter Englewood
Station.
Eastman Avenue/Inca No anticipated impacts May require Provides easier If relocation of utilities is Provides benefits Not c arried forward as part of
Street Area Bicycle/ reloca t ion of bicycle/pedestrian necessary, could be whether other this study because the cost-
Pedestrian utilities. access to the cost-prohibitive. Actual projects are built or effect iveness relative to the
Improvements CityCenter use of new facilities not. study goals is not significant
Englewood Station compared to cost could enough. The improvements
for existing residents. also be cost-prohibitive. are still valuable and should
be considered with any
improvement projects to the
park.
Kenyon Avenue Bike No anticipated impacts Possib ly involves Would be beneficial Only restriping would Full potential is Not carried forward as part of
Lanes (Logan Street to loss of on-street to existing residents. be required. which is realized only if a this study because the
Rail Trail) parki ng. Would co-Englewood High relatively low cost. crossing of US 85 is Sheridan -Oxford Station
exist with a truck School students. and built at the Kenyon crossing of US 85 is not
route. future Avenue/ being carried forward.
redevelopment of Windermere Street decreasing the potential
industrial areas. intersection. Sti ll need and use of the facility.
Would conflict with beneficial if only Rail Connectivity to the Rail Trail
industrial uses. Trail is built. At least in this case would primarily
one of these facilities be a regional benefit and
is needed for this would be a worthy project on
project. its own or as part of another
study .
••
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
• • • e
• ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
I''·" f#,\11 1.ril'"l{llHI
• t#(l·:'f • --~----~--)It
NEXT STEPS
Evaluation Criteria
Environmental Community lmplementabiLity
Alternatives Environmental and Property and Existin nd Plann d . 1 d nd nt Summary/Notes
Cultural Resources Business Impacts and L gl ~ d U e Cost-effectiveness 1 n epe e ts
Impacts Displacements oca n se mprovemen
Mansfield Avenue Bike No an tic ipa ted impacts Possibly involves Would be beneficial Only restriping would Full potential is Not carried forward as part of
Lanes (Logan Street to loss of on-street to existing residents. be required. which is realized only if a this study because the
Rail Traill parking. Englewood High relatively low cost. crossing of US 85 is Sheridan -Oxford Station
School students. and Would be partially built at the Mansfield crossing of US 85 is not
future duplicating connectivity Avenue/ being carried forward,
redevelopment of provided by any Oxford Windermere Street decreasing the potential
industrial areas. Avenue improvements. intersection. Still need and use of the facility.
Would conflict with beneficial if only Rail Connectivity to the Rail Trail
industrial uses. Trail is built. At least in thi s case would primarily
one of these facilities be a regional benefit. one
is needed for this that is provided by any
project. Oxford Avenue
improvements.
US 85/0xford Avenue Widening of US 85 Widening of US 85 Would affect ex isting Would require Project not Carried forward as part of
Intersection between Belleview between Belleview land use through evaluation of regional dependent on other this study because of the
Improvements Avenue and Hampden Avenue and acq ui sition of mobility to justify cost. projects. level of congestion at the
Avenue to Hampden Avenue property. intersection; however. CDOT
accommodate the to accommodate should pursue this
additional through lane the additional improvement in relation to
would potentially through lane would the US 85 corridor.
impact several si tes require acquisition
with hazardous material of several
concerns and sites that properties for right-
may be historic. as well of-way and
as th e Big Dry Creek displacement of
Trail and floodplain. businesses and
residents.
Sheridan -Oxford Depending on the The park-n-Ride The conversion of Developing a shared Access to the Carried forward as part of
Station park-n-Ride location of the park-n-facility will require property to a park-n-used facility and Sheridan -Oxford this study because of the
Ride facility. the full acquisition of a Ride facility is less locating a facility to Station may depend potential benefit of a shared
property acquired may parcel. desirable than a benefit redevelopment on the Rail Trail. use facility; however. th is
be a si te with potential shared use parking of adjacent parcels may depending on the improvement should be
hazardous material facility. justify the cost. location of the park-pursued in coordination with
condition s or n-Ride facility . RTD and private developers
considered historic . in the area of the Sheridan -
Oxford Station .
•
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
e
ENGLEWOOD
FOR W ARD
I •(•h tfA11 1 n11U1(1f'fl,I
NEXT STEPS
tN·:T •
Evaluation Criteria
Environmental Community Implementability
Alternatives Environmental and . Property and Existing and Planned . Independent Summary/Notes
Cultural Resources Bus1~ess Impacts and Lo l Land Use Cost-effectiveness Improvements
Impacts Displacements ca
-~~~-~~----------------------
Windermere Shared Use Improves access to No anticipated Provides easier Would be cost-Would still be a Carried forward as part of
Path Exte nsion (Batting nearby resources . impacts bicycle and beneficial t o provide benefit wi thout th e thi s study because of the
Cages at Co rnerstone especially parks and pedestrian access ad ditional access to the Rail Trail by providing improvem e nt to region al
Park Ent rance to trails. for nearby Big Dry Creek Trail and an improved access to th e Big Dry Creek
Englewood Canine residences and future Rail Tr ai l for connection with the Trail and Rail Trail. wh ic h
Co rral Entrance) parks. areas sou th of Big Dry Creek Tr ail. subseque ntly improves
Belleview Avenue. but thi s would not access to the Sheridan -
Improved access to th e f ac ilitate improved Oxford Stat ion .
Rail Trail would also access t o a LRT
provide better access st at ion .
to th e Sher id an -
Oxford Sta tion .
Tufts Avenue Bicycle No antici p at ed impac ts Property may be No compat ibi lity Stripi ng and signage are Rail Trail is needed Carried forward as part of
and Pedestrian acq uired for the issues an ti cipa t ed. relatively low cost. before the project is th is study beca use of th e
Improvements (Navajo sidewa l k extension Sidewalk extension is implemented. improved access to th e Rail
Street to Rail Traill from the adjacent for a shor t d is t ance and Trail. and subsequently the
property owner. ADA ramps would Sheridan -Oxford Station.
require minimal
changes to ex ist ing
infras t ructure.
Oxford Avenue/ Navajo Depending o n Property m ay be Addressi ng Due t o the cons tra ined Coordination with the Carried forward as part of
Street Intersection intersect ion design. the acq u ired for th e geometric and sa fety nature of th e sepa rated bi keway thi s study beca use of the
Improvements properties in th e in t ersecti on from iss ues at th e intersection . acq u isi t ion along Oxford Avenue recognized need; ho wever.
so uth west. so utheast. th e adj acent intersection would of right-of-way may wou ld be req uired. would require modification
and northeast property owners. benefit adjacent make th is improvement of RTD buses accessing th e
quadrants are si tes wi th existing and future cost-prohibitive. Sheridan -Oxford St ation
potential haza rd o us land uses. and redevelopment o f
material conditions and adjacent parcels t o warrant
may be considered further analysis .
hi stori c.
Hampden Aven ue/ The intersection is in an Property would be Would provide Would be cost-Project not Carried forward as part of
Shoshone Street area w ith the potential acquired from the additional access for beneficial to provide dependent on other thi s study to provide
Intersect ion for haza rdou s material adjacent property ex isting an d future additional access to the projects. addition al access to the
condi t io ns. owner. land uses west of areas west of US 85 areas west of US 85 and
US85. and north of Hampden north o f Hampden Ave nu e.
Avenue.
·=
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
• • • e
• • • e
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
',,_., G o\11 1..n~w 1flfl1o1
t#(l-:f ~~>'! ·.1;<~f~~i\.'i1"i-·~~r,...-r}'l:::.r-· ~~~i§;~J":.1·~,: f.;!·~+'-~M7~~1·\~ ij~f ~_,·t. ~ '';\]··-~ ~ <'"".:.-::"'"2~.:j,.~./~'Y ~; ... _,.~~:. ~ ~ -~~ ~ '~~~1'<"k;4'.:· .. ~t.-,~k~~~l~<~~'r~:~~ ~,; ' ; .. ~ .~ ~
NE XT STEPS
Evaluation Criteria
Environmental Community lmplementabiLity
Alternatives Environmental and Property and Ex. r d Pia d 1 d d t Summary/Notes
Cultural Resources Business Impacts and 1~ ingl ~n d U nne Cost -effectiveness 1 n epen ents
Impacts Displacements oca an se mprovemen
Dartmouth Avenue No an t icipated impacts No an tic ipated Provides easier Possible Can be constructed Carried forward as part of
Protected Bikeway (Inca impacts bicycle access for redevelopment in the independently to this study because it
Street to Federal existing residences area could justify the have benefits. but improves safety and
Boulevard) and any future cost. but the safety and reaches full potential con nectivity for bicyclists
development. while connectivity benefits for wi th the Rail Trail and west of US 85, including
motorized vehicle those west of US 85 are a separated bicycle better access to the Engl
access remains in the primary benefits facility along CityCenter Englewood
place. that are equally Dartmouth Avenue Station. It also provides
important to the other east of US 85 . network continuity with any
separated bicycle facilities along Dartmouth
facilities being planned Avenue east of US 85
along Dartmouth/
Clarkson/Oxford.
Hamilton Place or Floyd Construction of the No anticipated No compatibility The existing bridge is Project not Carried forward as part of
Avenue Bridge Bicycle/ bridge replacement impacts issues anticipated. structurally deficient dependent on other this study because of
Pedestrian would potentially and will require projects. bicycle/pedestrian
Improvements impact the South Platte replacement. The connectivity to the Old
River Trail. as well as bicycle/pedestrian Hampden Area of the City of
wetlands along the improvements would Sheridan.
South Platte River be an additional cost
floodplain. but not significant.
Dartmouth Avenue No anticipated impacts Property may be Would provide Would be cost-Project not Carried forward as part of
(South Platte River Drive acquired for the additional access for beneficial to provide dependent on other this study to provide
to Zuni Street) Access/ intersection from existing and future additional access to the projects. additional access to the
Intersection the adjacent land uses west of areas west of US 85 areas west of US 85 and
Improvements property owners. US85. and north of Hampden north of Hampden Avenue;
Avenue. however. would be
dependent on
redevelopment of parcels
and establishment of the
street grid .
US 85/Hampden No anticipated impacts No anticipated No anticipated Would be cost-Project not Not carried forward as part of
Avenue Interchange impacts impacts beneficial to provide dependent on other this study because of safety
Pedestrian additional access to the projects. issues with the introduction
Improvements areas west of US 85 of pedestrians to the free
and north of Hampden flow. higher speed
Avenue. US 85 /Hampden Avenue
interchange .
••
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
ENGLEWOOD
FO RWA RD
I''-'" ~•u I n1o1o11(\Ul.I
NEX T STEPS
tra·rr
Evaluation Criteria
Environmental Community Implementability
Alternatives Environmental and Property and Existin and Planned . Independent Summary/Notes
Cultural Resources Busl~ess Impacts and Lo~l Land Use Cost -effectiveness Improvements
Little Dry Creek Trail
Connection
Bicycle/Pedestrian
Improvements (Along
the frontage road west
of US 85 to Little Dry
Creek Trail. Mary Carter
Greenway [South Platte
Traill. and west across
the South Platte River)
Impacts Displacements
No anticipated impacts Property may be
acquired for the
intersection from
the adjacent
property owners.
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
•
Would impact
existing land use but
would be compatible
with future land uses
west of US 85.
••
•
Would be cost-
beneficial to provide
additional access to the
areas west of US 85
and north of Hampden
Avenue.
Project is not
dependent on other
projects. although
the project could be
completed as part of
future
redevelopment of
parcels.
Ca rried forward as part of
this study to provide
additional access to the
areas west of US 85 and
north of Hampden Avenue;
however. would be
dependent on
redevelopment of parcels.
• e
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIG H T RAI L C OR RI DOR
NEXT STEPS
s lJ [. "
tl. 8 Tier 1 Alf Prnati~ Refinement
•
Following completion of the Tier 1. 2A 2B. 2C. and 2D evaluations. the previously proposed
projects were carried forward for conceptual engineering design and development of an opinion
of probable cost. In addition. the potential complementary improvement of the CityCenter
Englewood Station Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge/Tunnel was carried forward for conceptual
engineering design and development of an opinion of probable cost. The remaining potential
complementary improvements carried forward from the Tier 2D analysis (Table 5-5) were
recommended for further evaluation. but conceptual engineering design and an opinion of
probable cost were not prepared for the remaining potential complementary improvements.
As part of the conceptual engineering design development. each improvement was refined
based on public feedback and agency coordination . This section summarizes the refinements
that occurred during the Tier 3 Evaluation .
5.8.1 Rail Trail {Big Dry Creek Trail Connection to Elati Street}
The previously proposed project of the Rail Trail includes construction of a 10-foot-wide multi-
use bicycle/pedestrian trail with bridges over Oxford Avenue. Hampden Avenue. and Dartmouth
Avenue. Appendix D includes the conceptual engineering plans and opinions of probable cost for
the Recommended Transportation Improvements. Table 5-6 summarizes the alternative
refinements that were conducted but not carried forward for the Rail Trail.
Table 5-6 . Rail Trail -Alternative Refinements Summary
Rail Trail Segment Refinement Summary
Removing the bridge over Oxford Avenue
Big Dry Creek to the Sheridan and relocating the trail along Navajo Street
-Oxford Station through the Oxford Avenue/Navajo Street
intersection
Sheridan -Oxford Station to
Little Dry Creek Trail
Felsburg Ho lt & Ul/evig
Removing the bridge over Hampden Avenue
and relocating the trail along Kenyon Avenue
to Jason Street/Inca Street and through the
Hampden Avenue/Inca Street intersection
and along Inca Street to the CityCenter
Englew ood Station
Installing bike Lanes on the road w ay through
the bus transfer area at the CityCenter
Englew ood Station
Installing the Rail Trail at the base of the
ex isting retaining w all through the bus
transfer area at the CityCenter Englew ood
Station
101
Not carried forward as part of this study
because of safety concerns for bicyclists
and pedestrians w ith v ehicle. truck. and bus
traffic at the Oxford Avenue/Navajo Street
intersection. out-of-direction travel for trail
users. and the possibility of providing a direct
connection to the Sheridan -Oxford Station
for properties south of Oxford Avenue
Not carried forward as part of this study
because of required improv ements to the
existing sidewalk facilities and potential
acquisition of property for right-of-w ay : out-
of-direction travel for trail users : and the
possibility of providing a direct connection to
the CityCenter Englew ood Station for
properties south of Hampden Avenue.
Not carried forw ard as part of this study
because of safety concerns related to
potential conflict betw een bicy cli st s and
buses on the roadw ay
Not carried forward as part of this study
because of a resultant need to shift the
roadw ay to the east and reconfigure the
existing bus stations and pull-outs w ith a
potential Loss in capacity
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CORR I DOR
NEXT STEPS
::> 1J [= '•
Rail Trail Segment Refinement Summary
Little Dry Creek Trail to Bates
Avenue
Removing the bridge over Dartmouth
Avenue and relocating the trail through the
Dartmouth Avenue/Inca Street intersection
Connecting the Rail Trail to Elati Street
(approximately north of Amherst Avenue)
5.8.2 Bikeway Loop
Not carried forward as part of this study
because of out-of-direction travel for trail
users: and the possibility of a direct
connection to the CityCenter Englewood
Station for properties north of Dartmouth
Avenue.
Not carried forward as part of this study
because of the required acquisition of
property for right-of-way or an easement.
The previously proposed project of the Separated Bikeway Loop includes construction of a
bi-directional. 6-to 8-foot-wide protected bikeway along Dartmouth Avenue from Inca Street to
Clarkson Street. along Clarkson Street from Dartmouth Avenue to Oxford Avenue. and along
Oxford Avenue from Clarkson Street to Irving Street. Appendix D includes the conceptual
engineering plans. cross-sections. and opinions of probable cost for the Recommended
Transportation Improvements. Table 5-7 summarizes the alternative refinements that were
conducted for the Separated Bikeway Loop.
Table 5-7 Bikeway Loop -Alternative Refinements Summary
Bi~~~;,~op Refinement Summary
Dartmouth
Avenue (Inca
Street to Clarkson
Street)
Clarkson Street
(Dartmouth
Avenue to Oxford
Avenue)
Installing a one-way couplet of buffer separated
shared parking and bicycle Lane
Installing a one-way couplet of separated bicycle Lane s
at sidewalk Le vel separated from the parking Lanes .
Installing a two-way separated bicycle Lane at sidewalk
Level
Installing a one-way couplet of separated bicycle Lanes
at sidewalk Le vel sepa rated from travel Lanes by
parking or Landscaping .
Installing a bicycle boulev ard w ith shared Lane
markings, wayfinding signs for bicyclists. street
treatments to give bicyclists priority and to slow traffic
and improve bicycle and pedestrian safety
102
Felsburg Holt & U//evig
Carried forward as part of this study because
it maintains on-street parking. does not require
the acquisition of property for right-of-way.
and minimizes impact to encroachments on
the right-of-way.
Not carried forward as part of this study
because of the removal of on-street parking at
driveways and alleys to provide adequate
sight distance and public concern of the
potential acquisition of property for right-of-
way.
Not carried forward as part of this study
because of the removal of on-street parking
on one side of the street and public concern
of the potential acquisition of property for
right-of-way .
Not carried forward as part of this study
because of the removal of on-street parking .
Carried forward as part of this study because
it uses the existing neighborhood street.
maintains two Lanes for vehicle travel. and
generally maintains on-street parking on both
sides of the streets (some Limited removal
depending on the street treatments).
•
•
•
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
IJ L '•
Bikeway Loop Refinement Summary
Segment
Oxford Avenue
(Clarkson Street
to Broadway)
Oxford Avenue
(Broadway to
Navajo Street)
Installing a bicycle boulevard with shared Lane
markings. w ayfinding signs for bicyclists. street
treatments to giv e bicyclists priority and to slow traffic
and improve bicycle and pedestrian safety
Installing a one-way couplet of buffer separated
on-street bicycle Lanes
Installing a one-w ay couplet at sidew alk Level
separated from the parking Lanes
Carried forw ard as part of this study because
it uses the existing neighborhood street.
maintains two Lanes for v ehicle travel. and
generally maintains on-street parking on both
sides of the streets (some limited remo val
depending on the street treatments).
Not carried forward as part of this study
because of the desire to have bicyclists at
sidewalk Level.
Carried forward as part of this study because
of the safety benefits of separated bicycle
lanes and the similarity to traditional flo w of
bicycle traffic that one-way facilities prov ide.
Not carried forward as part of this study
Installing a two-way separated bicycle Lane at sidew alk because of the non-traditional flow of
Level on the north side of Oxford Avenue bicyclists on one side of the roadway and
multiple cross street intersections.
Oxford Avenue
(Navajo Street to Installing a 10-ft multi-use trail on the north side of
the South Platte Oxford Avenue
River)
Installing a 10-ft multi-use trail on the north side of
Oxford Avenue Oxford Avenue
(South Platte
River to Irving
Street)
Oxford Avenue
(Irving Street to
Lowell
Boulevard)
Installing a one-w ay couplet at sidewalk Level
separated from the parking lanes.
Installing a bicycle boulevard with shared lane
markings. wayfinding signs for bicyclists. street
treatments to give bicyclists priority and to slow traffic
and improve bicycle and pedestrian safety
Carried forward as part of this study because
of the existing multi-use trail on the north side
of Oxford Avenue west of US 85
Carried forward as part of this study because
of the existing multi-use trail on the north side
of Oxford Avenue west of US 85
Not carried forward as part of this study
because of the existing multi-use trail on the
north side of Oxford Avenue w est of US 85
Carried forward as part of this study because
it uses the existing neighborhood street.
maintains two Lanes for vehicle travel. and
generally maintains on-street parking on both
sides of the streets (some limited removal
depending on the street treatments).
5.8.3 Southwest Greenbelt Trail and Extension
The previously proposed project for the Southwest Greenbelt Trail and Extension includes
reconstruction of the existing 8-foot-wide asphalt trail in Rotolo Park from Cherokee Street to
Huron Street with a 10-foot-wide multi-use trail and construction of a new 10-foot-wide multi-
use trail from Huron Street to the Rail Trail. Appendix D includes the conceptual engineering
plans and opinions of probable cost for the Recommended Transportation Improvements. The
following alternative refinements were made for the Southwest Greenbelt Trail and Extension:
~ Provide a connection to Cherokee Street both north and south of the Southwest
Greenbelt Trail Extension
~ Shift the alignment of the trail to the north in Rotolo Park to provide access to the existing
playground
103
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGH T R A I L CORR I DOR
NEXT STEPS
°5 U L '•
~ Extend the Southwest Greenbelt Trail along Stanford Drive to the south along the
roadway in front of the single residence on the north side of Stanford Drive instead of
routing the trail to the north of the residence
5.8.4 CityCenter Englewood Station Platform Shelter
The previously proposed project of reconstructing the CityCenter Englew ood Station Platform
Shelter included constructing w eather shelters at the CityCenter Englew ood Station . Appendix D
includes the conceptual engineering plans and opinions of probable cost for Recommended
Transportation Improvements.
5.8 .5 Englewood Parkway Extension and Bus Transfer/Piazza Redesign
•
The previously proposed project for the Englewood Parkway Extension and Bus Transfer /Piazza
Redesign included constructing a 29-foot-wide Englewood Parkw ay road w ay (tw o 12-foot
through lanes with 2.5-foot curb and gutter) and associated bus transfer /pedestrian piazza from
Inca Street to the CityCenter Englewood access road . The Englewood Parkway Roadway would
be widened to accommodate RTD bus turn movements in the area of the bus transfer. Widening
w ould require demolishing and reconstructing the e x isting pedestrian access bridge to the
CityCenter Englewood Station or acquiring or partially demolishing the ex isting apartment
complex to the northeast. Consequently. this previously proposed project was not carried
forward as part of this study. Figure 5-8 depicts the Englewood Parkw ay Extension and Bus •
Transfer /Piazza Redesign .
• 104
Felsburg Holt & Ul/evig
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LI G H T RA I L C ORR I DOR
NE XT STEPS
'S U C 'r
Figure 5-8 Englewood Parkway Extension and Bus Transfer /Piazza Redesign
5.8.6 CityCenter Englewood Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge/Tunnel
Since the Floyd Avenue Extension was not carried forward as part of this study. a
pedestrian/bicycle bridge/tunnel with access to the CityCenter Englewood Station was
evaluated. Figure 5-9 depicts the options of a bicycle/pedestrian bridge across the LRT tracks .
CML railroad tracks, and US 85 (Santa Fe Drive). An opinion of probable cost was prepared for
each option based on the conceptual level of engineering design (Figure 5-7). The opinion of
probable cost based on the conceptual engineering was:
• Option 1 Bridge with an elevator /staircase to the station platform -$12 .18 million
• Option 2 Bridge with an elevator /staircase to street-level -$12 .51 million
• Option 3 Tunnel -$14 .59 million
Based on cost. Option 1 was further refined . Appendix D includes the conceptual enginee ring
plans and opinions of probable cost for the Recommended Transportation Improvements .
105
Fe/sburg Holt & Ullevig
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
lj i '·
Figure 5-9 CityCenter Englewood Station Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge/Tunnel Options
Englewood -City Center LRT Station
Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge/Tunnel Options
Option 1 -Bridge Elevator to Station Platform
-Option 2 -Bridge with Elevator to Street Level
-Option 3 -Tunnel
106
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
•
•
•
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGH T RA I L CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
'S v c "
6.o Recommended Transportation Improvements
Chapter 6.o describes the package of Recommended Transportation Improvements resulting
from the analysis conducted in this Next Steps Study. Figure 6-1. Figure 6-2. and Figure 6-3, show
the package of Recommended Transportation Improvements. Appendix D includes the
conceptual engineering plans and opinions of probable cost for the Recommended
Transportation Improvements. Conceptual engineering plans and opinions of probable cost were
not prepared for the Complementary Transportation Improvements.
o ar1i n Ir vemen
~ Rail Trail (Big Dry Creek Trail Connection to Elati Street)
• Constructing a 10-foot-wide multi-use bicycle/pedestrian trail adjacent to the
Southwest LRT Corridor from the Big Dry Creek Trail to Elati Street with
bicycle/pedestrian bridges over Oxford Avenue. Hampden Avenue. and Dartmouth
Avenue .
~ Dartmouth Avenue. Clarkson Street. and Oxford Avenue Bikeway Loop
•
•
Dartmouth Avenue Bikeway
o Installing a one-way couplet of a buffer separated shared parking and bicycle lane
along Dartmouth Avenue from Inca Street to Clarkson Street.
Clarkson Street Bikeway
o Installing a bicycle boulevard along Clarkson Street from Dartmouth Avenue to
Oxford Avenue with shared lane markings. wayfinding signs for bicyclists. street
treatments to give bicyclists priority, to slow traffic. and to improve bicycle and
pedestrian safety .
• Oxford Avenue Bikeway
o Installing a bicycle boulevard along Oxford Avenue from Clarkson Street to
Broadway with shared lane markings, wayfinding signs for bicyclists . street
treatments to give bicyclists priority. to slow traffic. and to improve bicycle and
pedestrian safety.
o Installing a one-way couplet along Oxford Avenue from Broadway to Navajo
Street at sidewalk Level separated from the parking lanes .
o Installing a 10-ft multi-use trail on the north side of Oxford Avenue from Navajo
Street to Irving Street.
o Installing a bicycle boulevard along Oxford Avenue from Irving Street to Lowell
Boulevard with shared lane markings. wayfinding signs for bicyclists. street
treatments to give bicyclists priority. to slow traffic. and to improve bicycle and
pedestrian safety .
107
Felsburg Ho lt & Ul/evig
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CORR I DOR
NEXT STEPS
'J
·rr
~ Southwest Greenbelt Trail and Extension
• Reconstructing the existing 8-foot-wide asphalt trail in Rotolo Park from Cherokee
Street to Huron Street with a 10-foot wide multi-use trail and constructing a new
10-foot-wide multi-use trail from Huron Street to the Rail Trail
~ CityCenter Englewood Station Platform Shelter
• Reconstructing the CityCenter Englewood Station Platform Shelter with a weather
shelter
~ CityCenter Englewood Station Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge
• Constructing a 12-foot-wide pedestrian grade-separated crossing of the LRT tracks.
CML rai lroad tracks. and US 85 (Santa Fe Drive) with an elevator and a staircase to the
CityCenter Englewood Station Platform
Table 6.1 summarizes the opinions of probable cost for the transportation improvements.
Table 6-1. Summary of Opinions of Probable Cost
Transportation Improvement
Rail Trail (Big Dry Creek Trail Connection to Elati Street)
Rail Trail (Big Dry Creek Trail to Sheridan -Oxford Station)1
Bridge over Oxford Avenue
Rail Trail (Sheridan -Oxford Station to Little Dry Creek Trail Connection to South Platte River Traill1
Bndge over Hampden Avenue
Rail Trail (Little Dry Creek Trail Connection to South Platte River Trail to Bates Avenue)1
Bndge over Dartmouth A venue
Dartmouth Avenue. Clarkson Street. and Oxford Avenue Bikeway Loop
Dartmouth Avenue Bikeway (Inca Street to Clarkson Street)
Clarkson Street Bicy cle Boulevard (Dartmouth Avenue to Oxford Avenue)
Clarkson Street Bicycle Boulevard (Dartmouth A venue to Oxford Avenue) -Pavement Markings Only
Oxford Avenue Bicycle Boulevard (Clarkson Street to Broadway)
Oxford Avenue Bikew ay (Broadw ay to Navajo Street)
Oxford Avenue Bikew ay (Navajo Street to Irv ing Street)
Oxford Avenue Bicycle Boulevard (Irv ing Street to Lowell Boulevard)
Southwest Greenbelt Trail Extension
CityCenter Englewood Station Platform Shelter
CityCenter Englewood Station Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge
Notes:
(1) Includes bridge cost for segment.
108
Felsburg Holt & Ul/evig
$5.043.000
$2.375.000
$773.000
$1566.000
$1,038.000
$1.102.000
$1.456.000
$u.050.ooo
$204.000
$297,000
$JO,OOO
$26,000
$g.163.ooo
$1.347.000
$13,000
$2,959,000
$200,000
$7.162.000
•
•
•
• E N GLEWOO D
FORWARD
'•Y•• flA.11 nwJ<•pn11
NE XT ST EP S
WIT • -• MntMmllllBF~'itliililWAiitiiiiiii11!it~Atil~·
Figure 6-1. Package of Recommended Transportation Improvements -Bikeway Loop and Rail Trail
·.....-==---.-r ~"'E =:r=-~~""M ,_, ~..-_--.. -_s:.·· rt-,,.~
if~··
11111: (;,J City Boundariea
LEGEND
g:} Light Rail Stations --Railro1d s
~ Rtvers Recreational Resources 1E ':fj
Proposed Transportation Improvements
Blkeway Loop
••
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
e
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
1 1(.." 1<.l11 n"'R•nnu
NEXl SlEPS
~·:r •
Figure 6-2. Package of Recommended Transportation Improvements -CityCenter Englewood Station Area
0 CttyBoal""-"'•
AICJH tk>rnllR1soutc1s
Prewio usly Prop ose d Transportatio n Impr ovements
Blk•way Loop
-Rall Trail
-Engltwood City Center Stall011 Blcyc'9(Pette11rl•n Brtdgt
EnglewOOd Clly Cenl er LRT Sl1!tion PlatrOl"m Shelter
Po len lla l Com pl ementary Improvemen ts
111 111 1 Englewood City Center Station Pedu1rtan Bt1dg• or Tunn el
Floyd Avenue (Sherman to Et .. i) Btcycle/P.ctHtrian
Dartmouth A"enoe (IBCtll to F9<1eral) Blkeway
Little Dry Creek Trail Connection Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements
-Dartmouth Annue (South Platte Rlwer Dr to Zuni Aecett)
( .. : H1mpden Avenue/Shoshone Street lnteraecUon
•.,.. US 86/0artmouth Av~ue fnter.ec;tlon
Hamilton Bridge Blcycl9/PHiHtrfan
Pta ce or Ployd Avtinue
illl-c:=::lFert
110
Fefsburg Holt & Ullevig ~-------------------~ • • • e
• • E NG LE WOOD
FORWARD
I l(.h It.lo~• 'nllf<l!HJll IR·:'r
NEXT STEPS
Figure 6-3. Package of Recommended Transportation Improvements -Sheridan -Oxford Station Area
CE Light Reil Station s --Rallro1d1
,,.,,,.___ Rive ra Recreatio nal RnourcH
Proposed Transportation Improvements
Bikeway loop
-RailTrall
-Southwest Greenbelt Extension
Potential Complementary Improvements
111 111 1 Windermere Street Shared Use Path
Fetsburg Holt & Ullevig
Q City Boundarln
• • e
ENGLEWOOD
F ORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
~ 1.J [. "
Comf.)/emen
·rr
rtafl Im o~ 1 Je t
The following represent the Complementary Transportation Improvements.
6.2.1 Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements
~ Floyd Avenue Bike Lanes (CityCenter Englewood Station to Sherman Street)
• Restriping to include 5-foot bike lanes in both directions. requiring the removal of the
center turn lane from the CityCenter Englewood Station to Elati Street. and a road diet
from four lanes to two lanes with a possible center turn lane from Elati Street to
Sherman Street or a similar type of treatment.
~ Dartmouth Avenue Bikeway (Platte River Trail to Federal Boulevard)
• Extending the construction of a bi-directional. 6-to 8-foot-wide protected bikeway
along Dartmouth Avenue from the Little Dry Creek Trail to Federal Boulevard.
~ Windermere Shared Use Path Extension (Batting Cages at Cornerstone Park Entrance to
Englewood Canine Corral Entrance)
• Replacing the existing sidewalk with an extension of the existing 8-foot shared use
path along the east side of Windermere Street (Belleview Avenue to the Batting
Cages at Cornerstone Park Entrance). north to the Englewood Canine Corral Entrance .
providing connectivity to the Big Dry Creek Trail.
~ Tufts Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements (Navajo Street to Rail Traill
• Extending the sidewalk along the south side of Tufts Avenue to connect with the
future Rail Trail where Tufts Avenue turns north into Windermere Street
• Painting bike sharrows and installing "Share the Road " signs
• Installing crosswalks where Tufts Avenue turns north into Windermere Street
(including ADA ramps), where Windermere Street continues south from Tufts Avenue.
and where Navajo Street continues north from Tufts Avenue
~ Little Dry Creek Trail Connection Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements (Along the frontage
road west of US 85 to Little Dry Creek Trail. Mary Carter Greenway !South Platte Traill. and
west across the South Platte River)
• Extending the sidewalk along the frontage road west of US 85 to Little Dry Creek Trail
6.2.2 Intersection/ Access Improvements
~ US 85 I Dartmouth Avenue Intersection Improvements
• Providing a fourth northbound and southbound through-lane along US 85 to the next
largest intersections (US 85 /Hampden Avenue and US 85/Evans Avenue).
~ US 85 I Oxford Avenue Intersection Improvements
• Providing a fourth northbound and southbound through-lane along US 85 to the next
largest intersections (US 85/Hampden Avenue and US 85/Belleview Avenue).
112
Felsburg Holt & Ul/evig
•
•
•
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWA RD
LIG H T RA IL C ORR I DOR
NEXT STEPS
lJ L 'i
~ Oxford Avenue I Windermere I Navajo Street Intersection Improvements
• Improving bus circulation to the Sheridan -Oxford Station
~ US 285 I Shoshone Street Right-In I Right-Out
• Working with COOT to construct a right-in I right-out to/from US 285 and Shoshone
Street to provide easier vehicular access to areas west of US 85 and north of US 285
~ Dartmouth Avenue Intersection Improvements (South Platte River Drive to Zuni Street)
• Providing intersection and access control improvements along Dartmouth Avenue
from the South Platte River Dri v e to Zuni Street as the street grid is reestablished
(Dartmouth Avenue/Shoshone Street. Dartmouth Avenue/Ouivas Street. etc.)
6.2.3 Other Improvements
~ Sheridan -Oxford Station park-n-Ride I Shared Use Parking
• Redeveloping a nearby parcel into a RTD park-n-Ride facility or working with a
developer to construct a shared use parking structure as part of a mixed-use
redevelopment where a portion of parking would be dedicated to RTD riders using
the Sheridan -Oxford Station .
~ Hamilton Place or Floyd Avenue Bridge Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
• Widening the Hamilton Place Bridge to accommodate 8-foot sidewalks and 5-foot
bike lanes on each side or providing a separate adjacent bicycle/pedestrian only
bridge and/or providing a separate Floyd Avenue Bridge over the South Platte River .
113
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
ENGLEWOOD
F ORWARD
LIGHT RAIL CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
'::, IJ [. 'r
7.0 Community Engagement
Community engagement for the Next Steps Study was conducted simultaneously with two other
City of Englewood major planning studies that directly impact the future of transportation in and
around the community:
~ Englewood Comprehensive Plan Update
~ Englewood Light Rail Corridor Next Steps Study
~ Walk and Wheel Master Plan and Program
Although three separate consultant teams were contracted to work with City staff on each study.
the overall process was branded as Englewood Forward Conducting the studies simultaneously
and in collaboration with each other reduced citizen public meeting fatigue, enabled the public
to see firsthand the integration of the studies and how one fits or impacts the other. enabled
consistency in recommendations among the studies. increased effectiveness of the study
process . and resulted in more efficient and effective agency and stakeholder involvement. There
were specific instances where public and agency involvement activities took place specific to
the goals and objectives of one of the individual studies. but generally. community engagement
and outreach was conducted simultaneously and seamlessly for all three studies.
arnmun1tv t n
Open and transparent community engagement and public participation were key elements in
the process of developing the Next Steps Study. The goal of community engagement and
outreach w as to increase public awareness of the study and its goals and objectives and to
promote community participation in the study process. Public input was solicited throughout the
entire study process. Public participation included open discussion through small group
meetings. stakeholder interviews, neighborhood w alk-abouts. an agency staff technical meeting,
City Council briefings. written comments. surveys and well-publicized public meetings.
At the beginning of the study, a detailed Community Engagement Plan was developed to
describe public and agency participation methods and objectives to identify where each activity
fit into the schedule. The Integrated Studies Community Engagement and Outreach Plan guided
all outreach activities for ma x imum effectiveness.
ommunt t1ve
Objectives of community engagement w ere to:
~ Increase public aw areness of the study. promote public participation in the process . and
collect public input/feedback.
~ Provide direction for the stud y through focused . effective. and efficient input from
stakeholder groups, as w ell as to efficiently obtain broader public v iews and opinions .
114
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
•
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LI G H T RA I L C ORR I DOR
NEXT STEPS
s u l ..,
•
~ Develop a variety of proactive. efficient. and cost-effective public outreach tools/tactics
to inform. involve. and generate community buy-in leading to continued project support.
The tools/tactics used publicized all public meetings at least two weeks in advance of
each meeting .
~ Encourage public participation in the study process to ensure input is gained from a
broad range of community leaders . agencies. elected officials . citizens . and organizations
that have an interest in the outcome of the study. Provide involvement opportunities for
area citizens. neighborhoods. businesses and community leaders/organizations. including
underserved populations based on income. ethnicity. age and/or disabilities.
~ Ensure public meetings were easily accessible to the public to encourage broad
participation . Preference was given to the use of the Engle wood Civic Center as the
primary meeting venue due to its accessibility to public transit routes . in accordance with
ADA
~ Ensure residents were informed and had timely access to meeting proceedings and the
decision-making process. which encouraged participation and feedback. Public meeting
summaries and materials were posted to the project website within two weeks of each
meeting .
Documentation and evaluation methods included a combination of the following :
• ~ Meeting summaries (who attended/what was achieved)
•
~ Meeting attendance/sign-in to document participation at every meeting
~ Documentation of all public and stakeholder comments/input
~ Response to public queries/questions
~ Response rate of online survey questions
~ Establishment of the project website as the most authoritative source of study
information
7.3.1 Study Areas/ Audiences
Each Study Team. City of Englewood and City of Sheridan staff. and others responsible for
engaging the public throughout the study process used the Integrated Studies Community
Engagement and Outreach Plan . The plan was used as a guide to implement public involvement
activities and engage stakeholders in and around the study areas to provide valuable input and
to help inform the decisions within each study.
Englewood Light Rail Corridor Next Steps Study
Study Areas/Target Audiences
~ Englewood Station-West Neighborhood: The West Neighborhood is located betw een
Dartmouth and Hampden Avenues on the north and south. and Santa Fe Drive and Zuni
Street on the east and west. and includes the South Platte River . The area is currently
developed with industrial uses and is not directly connected to the CityCenter Englewood
Station .
115
Fe/sburg Holt & Ullevig
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
u G 'f
~ CityCenter Englewood Neighborhood: The Englewood Light Rail Corridor Plan envisioned
the development of additional multi-unit residential developments immediately adjacent
to the CityCenter Englewood Station over current RTD and City parking areas .
~ Oxford Station -South Neighborhood: The Englewood Light Rail Corridor Plan envisioned
the development of two parks located north and south of Oxford Avenue that would
serve to attract higher quality multi-unit residential housing . including for-sale units.
~ Bates Station -North Neighborhood: The Bates Station-North Neighborhood primarily
consists of the Winslow Crane and General Ironworks properties. PUDs were recently
approved for both properties that allow redevelopment for multi-unit residential use.
without establishing site plans.
Community and stakeholder input/involvement was based on the following goals:
~ Provide the most cost-effective means of providing next steps to deliver transportation
improvements that enhance the CityCenter Englewood TOD
~ Provide multimodal connections to the CityCenter Englewood and Sheridan -Oxford
Stations
~ Trigger substantial private investment in Englewood and Sheridan
~ Increase transit ridership
Agency Coordination
FHU coordinated with the City of Englewood staff about specific coordination needed with the
agencies to keep them informed about the progress of the studies .
~ Agencies were included in the Agency Technical Workshop.
~ City of Englewood staff provided the agencies monthly progress reports or briefings on
the Next Steps Study.
Project Management Team
FHU Project Management Team and the cities of Englewood and
Sheridan's technical staff met as needed throughout the duration of the
Next Steps Study timeframe to address project challenges and
opportunities.
4 Com nun1 at1 a ti c;
Brand/Logo/Templates
·rr
LIGHT RAIL CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
S T U D v
A key strategy in assuring awareness of the three studies was to establish an overall project
brand/logo for Engle w ood Forward along with three compatible individual study logos and
communication material templates. These w ere produced to give a similar look and feel
between online and print materials across all projects and were used in creating all
communication materials .
116
Felsburg Holt & Ul/evig
•
•
•
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
F ORWAR D
LIG H T RA I L C ORR I DOR -~~----• NEXT STEPS
'J u r
Webstfe
~ ENG L EW O OD
~FORWARD
--·-· 11:::::1 -----
All study-related information and materials. study purpose and
scope. study timeline. public meeting schedule. public meeting
presentations. meeting summaries. photos. displays and maps
were posted to the project website and updated following each
public meeting. Citizens also learned about other ways to get
involved in the studies through the website and the calendar of
meetings/activities and had an opportunity to provide feedback
through online surveys. Nearly 2 .300 unique visitors have visited the Englewood Forward
website.
£-News! etters
E-newsletters were developed and distributed to 521 contacts in the
database. including agencies. stakeholders. and members of the
general public who requested information on the project. The
e-newsletters included a project update summary paragraph . a
synopsis of public involvement. links to additional information on
the specific study project webpages. and dates of the next public
event (if available). Thee-newsletters were distributed at the start
of the year-long process. before each public meeting event and
after each public meeting with a summary from each study.
Public Meetings
~EN G L£WOO O :.,F o r:.w:.r.c
---_..., __ __
-,,,.-~ ... Clllllli
Three public outreach meetings were held in which the three studies presented information and
gathered public feedback through a variety of interactive tools and discussions. Videos were
produced from the first two public meetings. The videos provided an overall introduction by City
of Englewood Mayor Randy Penn . a project description from each project leader. and citizen
interviews. The videos were placed on the Englewood Forward website to provide citizens an
additional opportunity to obtain information presented during the public meetings.
Meeting dates and locations were as follows :
~ November 12. 2014, 6 -g p.m .. Englewood Civic Center
~ February 11 . 2015, 6 -g p.m .. Englewood Civic Center
~ June 18. 2015. 6 -g p.m .. Englewood Civic Center outdoor concert
~ June 20. 2015. 1-5 p.m .. outdoor street festival
~ September 26 . 2015, 1 -5 pm. outdoor street festival
Pubfictfy Tactics Used to Promote the Public Meetings
The following communications tools were used to publicize each public meeting:
~ Landing page of Englewood Forward w ebsite
~ Englewood Forwardwebsite calendar
117
Fe /sburg Holt & Ullevig
ENGLEWOOD
FOR W A RD
LIGH T RA I L CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
s 'J c \
~ City of Englewood website "eNotifier" subscribers
~ City of Englewood, City of Sheridan, and others (Chamber of Commerce, school districts)
posting to their websites and on City Bulletin Boards
~ Social media/Facebook posts (City of Englewood and City of Sheridan)
~ News releases developed by the consultant team and distributed to local news media by
the City of Englewood and City of Sheridan
~ Community calendars of local news media
~ Englewood Citizen and Sheridan Citizen newsletters
~ E-newsletter (distributed two weeks and two to three days
before each public meeting) to a database of more than 500
and distributed to community business and civic
organizations, which then redistributed them to their
database of constituents
~ Englewood Police Department "Next Door" online social
network
~·"""*1Y--........ Of~8'°"'•..,.-W.lo.rtmoutll,.o..tisori,Odlwll.
lillwla.~lllca,~"-'-r.Soi.lltrwnl~~-""""'
~llMIMlly~•locMllchtr.1 ........... 0tyof~---ltn
..,l!Mt9don.,.....ln~,___. ,_,.._ .... ,..otnillleH .......... ~
...,~U..Mw.of~endS!Mttdan,IMluClnlyour~
...,.._~--........... -~---.. --~ -..-.....--................... ____ ......._-..,__ _____ _,_.__,.,_.i..i, ...... -...-. ......... ...,._""' ___ ..,....,, ____ ...,.__ ... ____ _
.......... l!Oll, ... _ .. .._......,. ______ ... _., ...... __
_ ... a....,,_ .... r.....-•-·--..........,-.. __ _ ---..-.......-... --·--... ---=---~--.......--....... _ -~-_.,~ ... ---... --.~-
~tNGt.c\lil'O OO :,r i.. .... 1.r
~-,... .........
_.....,. f-.-,U. au.,_.,....
~CM<C-.C--*f-
2""-.-~,.,.._, ---,...-~--......... -~ ..................... ... , .. .,
~ Flyers to public locations throughout the community and to businesses. real estate
offices. schools, apartment complexes, and local homeowner associations
•
• Postcards to property owners along key corridors (Dartmouth. Clarkson , Oxford, Navajo,
Windermere. Inca, Englewood Parkway and Southwest Greenbelt) before the second •
public meeting . Property owners were made aware of the study process, public meetings.
and website address.
• Project Biz Cards : 1.000 business cards were printed and handed
out during the Holiday Bazaar. The study team was provided 250
business cards to distribute as needed.
• Electronic billboards that promoted the public meetings within
two days of each meeting .
November 12, 2014 Meeting Information
As the first opportunity for public engagement in the planning process,
the purpose of the November 12 kickoff public meeting was to:
• Explain the consolidated planning process and project goals for
each plan/study
• Identify issues and priorities of the Next Steps Study
ENGLEWOOD
FOR WARD
• Articulate elements of an updated community vision to revitalize. redevelop, and reinvent
• Gather thoughts. ideas. and desires from the community regarding opportunities and
issues rela ted to the Next Steps Study
City of Englewood Mayor Randy Penn began the meeting with a welcome and presentation.
followed by short presentations by each study consultant team project manager. Following the
formal presentation . citizens visited stations for each study. provided input. and discussed with
the consultant teams . More than 50 local citizens attended the public meeting .
118
Felsburg Holt & U/levig
•
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGH T RA I L CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
s •J i '
Other participants included:
• Councilman Rick Gillitt. City of Englewood
• City Manager Eric Keck. City of Englewood
• City of Sheridan Planning Commission members
• Additional City of Englewood staff
February 11, 2015 Meeting Information
•
The second public meeting also involved an introduction by City of Englewood Mayor Randy
Penn and separate stations for each study. The study team presented results of its data
collection and conditions assessment work including:
~ Ex isting and projected daily traffic volumes and truck data
~ Ex isting peak hour intersection turning movement counts and levels of service at all
intersections within the corridor study area
• Existing transit routes
• Potential bicycle and pedestrian conflict areas
~ Analysis of several proposed transportation improvements
Overall Feedback (Comments and Questions) From the
Public Meetings
Citizens of various groups from the cities of Englewood
and Sheridan provided input and feedback throughout
the public meetings. Common themes heard from the
public included :
~ Parking
~ Floyd Street Extension -costs/benefits/ options
• Serving senior citizens
~ Infrastructure for pedestrians along Hampden
Avenue for better access to LRT station
~ Auto snow melt area
• Cover for RTD ticket machines
• Covered waiting area
• Redevelopment of properties at both the CityCenter
Englewood Station and the Sheridan -Oxford Station
• Bikew ays
• Additional LRT stops
• Land use
• Increased connectivity for w alking and biking
119
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGH T RA I L CORR I DOR
NEXT STEPS
"S 'J ' ..
Contact Database (Stakeholder/Public)
-------•
A contact database was developed and expanded throughout the study to include all
stakeholder and groups/individuals interested in or potentially impacted by the study. Email
addresses were collected from interested parties and residents via the website and during the
public meetings. In addition to citizens . the contact database also includes community
organizations. boards and commissions. government agencies. developers. local businesses . etc.
A link was posted on the website and on other communication materials for interested parties to
sign up fore-newsletter notifications throughout the project. There are currently 521 contacts in
the Englewood Forward database.
Media/News Releases
At the beginning of the study and before every large public gathering. press releases were
written and provided to the cities of Englew ood and Sheridan for distribution to print and
electronic news media. These press releases were provided at key project milestones and to
announce public meeting events. News media outlets included Englew ood Weeklies
(Englewood Herald and The Vtf/agen. the Denver Post and Denver Post YourHub .com (Arapahoe
County).
Neighborhood Outreach/Business Walk-Abouts
•
Each neighborhood in the study areas is different in nature and in demographics. Thus. •
neighborhood concerns and desires had the potential to be different from other stakeholders.
Walk-abouts were conducted in which the Next Steps Study consultant team visited more than
100 business owners/managers in the study area. obtained contact information. provided
project-related information and solicited their input. concerns. and suggestions .
Land/Property Owner Outreach
The City of Englewood provided the contact list of 600 property owners from the previous
station area planning study. Outreach focused on property owners who own key parcels that
may represent redevelopment opportunities in the vicinity of key focus areas (such as around
the Sheridan -Oxford Station . to the west side of Santa Fe across from the Englewood station .
and property owners south and east of Hampden and Santa Fe). A postcard mailing was sent to
these property owners before the second public meeting. In addition to the mailing . the
consultant team visited a number of key property owners.
Developer Roundtab/e (February 20, 2015)
A roundtable forum of real estate developers from around the metro area. as well as developers
familiar with the Englewood market. w as convened to discuss the findings of the market study
for the four study areas in Englew ood. Input was gathered on how to potentially move for w ard
with implementation of development concepts for each study area .
120
Fe lsburg Holt & Ul/evig
•
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CO!lR I OOR
NEXT STEPS
U [ 'r
Agency Technical Workshop -Light Rail Corridor Next Steps Study (January 22 2015)
The study team hosted an initial kickoff to the Light Rail Corridor Next Steps Study on January 22.
2015. involving agency staff. elected officials. key community groups. and stakeholders with an
interest in learning details and participating in the
study. More than 25 people joined in the workshop.
Invited agencies included :
• City of Englewood staff
• City of Sheridan staff
• Arapahoe County staff
• Elected officials from the cities of Englewood
and Sheridan and Arapahoe County
• DRCOG staff
• RTD staff
• City of Englewood Transportation Advisory
Committee
• City of Englewood Urban Renewal Authority
• CDOT staff
• FHWA staff
• Railroad representatives
Workshop discussions focused on :
• Goals for the Next Steps Study
• Project overview
o Previous planning efforts
o Study area
o Project goals
o Schedule I key decision points
o Critical project elements
o Community engagement
• Data collection efforts
o Real estate feasibility
o Transportation system
o Environmental overview
• Alternatives development. evaluation . and design
o Screening process
o Preliminary screening results
o Feedback
o Conceptual design
~ Action Plan
121
Felsburg Holt & Ul/evig
ENGLEWOOD
F O RWAR D
LIGHT RA I L CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
IJ t ....
•
Englewood and Sheridan City Council Briefings (February 25 2015 Uointl _lune 1, 2015,' _lune 22,
2015; _iuly 6, 2015· _iuly 13 2015)
The study team updated the City Councils on the project findings based on data collection.
public input. transportation improvements analysis. and the real estate development feasibility
analysis.
RTD Coordination (February g, 2015; April JO, 2015)
The study team coordinated with RTD regarding potential Locations of the Sheridan -Oxford
Station park-n-Ride/Shared Parking facility. the Englewood Parkway Extension. as well as
provided conceptual design for the Rail Trail and the CityCenter Englewood Station Weather
Shelter for review. Comments received from RTD are included in Appendix E and were
addressed as appropriate on the conceptual plans (Appendix rn .
Public Involvement Outcomes
The community engagement process for the Next Steps Study has been systematic and
inclusive and has informed and provided guidance to the alternatives analysis and
recommendations. Public outreach consisted of stakeholder interviews. an agency technical
workshop (26 attendees), neighborhood walk-abouts (more than 100 personal contacts). and
public meetings (combined attendance over 150 citizens after two public meetings). Study
information and meeting notification took place through flyer distribution (400 flyers). community
calendars (Local media. chambers of commerce. and school districts), press releases to the Local
media. direct mailings (600 property owners), e-newsletter (521 contacts). digital signage and
e-mails. A project website provided those who were not able to attend meetings direct access
via the internet to all project materials and presentations throughout the extent of the planning
effort. Information and feedback gathered through these public meetings. stakeholder
interviews. property and developer interviews has helped shape the alternatives and will inform
the final recommendations .
122
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
•
•
•
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIG H T RA IL CORR I DOR
NEXT STEPS
8.o Action Plan
Experience has shown that an articulate and thoughtful action plan will help increase the
probability of funding success in the current economic environment. Good information.
collaboration. broad support. and readiness to proceed to construction are all keys to successful
project prioritization .
The primary intent of this action plan is to identify and prioritize projects so that the leadership of
the City of Englewood and the City of Sheridan can have a basis for consideration and ultimate
selection and funding of projects . To simplify the prioritization process. the approach was more
qualitative than quantitative. although there is rich information available through this Next Steps
Study to assist wi th a qualitative evaluation . It is designed to provide decision-makers with key
information required to effectively understand potential projects. their benefits. and their
readiness to encumber transportation funds. A key objective of this Action Plan is to pursue
opportunities in advance of project requests. identify a variety of potential funding sources. and
take advantage of unanticipated funding that might become available.
The study team identified projects for consideration in the action plan using input from the cities
of Englewood and Sheridan. public feedback. and the transportation improvements analysis
(Chapter 5.0). The package of Recommended Transportation Improvements summarizes the
projects identified.
The study team developed evaluation criteria to qualitatively rate the projects' characteristics
that cumulatively identify project benefits for the traveling public and the cities of Englewood
and Sheridan . The study team identified five evaluation criteria :
., Project readiness
., Safety benefits
., Multimodal benefits
., Community benefits
., Estimated cost
Project readiness evaluates how quickly a project could go to construction . This considers the
approximate length of time for preliminary and final engineering design , if property is required
for right-of-way acquisition, and if environmental clearances can readily be obtained (if required
by funding). Evaluation thresholds are as follows:
., Low : Advertisement (for bidding) would likely require more than 18 months
.. Medium: Can likely be advertised (for bidding) between 6 and 18 months
.. High : Can likely be advertised (for bidding) in less than 6 months
Safety benefits evaluate the need for safety improvements and the potential for improving
conditions. Hot spots for crashes and potential vehicle. bicycle. and pedestrian conflict points are
123
Felsburg Holt & Ul/evig
ENGLEWOOD
F ORW AR D
LIGHT RA I L CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
s 1J I~ '(
~-----•
considered when evaluating the need for safety improvements. Evaluation thresholds are as
follows:
~ Low: Little anticipated benefit
~ Medium : Moderate anticipated benefit
~ High: Significant anticipated benefit
Multimodal benefits evaluate if a project is likely to improve access to and use of transit. bicycle.
and pedestrian modes. as well as vehicular movement. Improvements to bicycle. pedestrian. and
transit facilities are considered when evaluating multimodal benefits. Evaluation thresholds are
as follows:
~ Low: No anticipated enhancements to bicycle. pedestrian. or transit facilities or access to
those facilities
~ Medium: Anticipated enhancements to a single modal facility. bicycle. pedestrian, or
transit facilities or access to those facilities
~ High: Anticipated enhancements to a combination of bicycle. pedestrian . or transit
facilities or access to those facilities
•
Community benefits evaluate if the project enhances or furthers the realization of the goals and
plans of the cities of Englewood and Sheridan. including those for economic development. The •
study team considered specific input provided during public meetings. project management
team meetings. public official meetings, the developer forum. and specific stakeholder input and
information from relevant comprehensive and transportation planning documents. Evaluation
thresholds are as follows:
~ Low: No stakeholders identified the project as a priority and the project is not supported
by the relevant planning documents
~ Medium: Stakeholders identified the project as a priority or the project is supported by
relevant planning documents. but not both
~ High: Stakeholders identified the project as a priority and the project is supported by
re levant planning documents
Estimated cost evaluates the opinion of probable cost for preliminary and final engineering
design and construction . including acquisition of property for right-of-way if necessary . for each
project. Evaluation thresholds are as follows:
~ Low: Greater than $10 million
~ Medium: $soo.ooo to $10 million
~ High: Less than $soo.ooo
The study team rated all of the projects as low. medium. or high based on the identified criteria .
as summarized in Table 8-1. These ratings are based on the information developed through this
study. Once the cities of Engle w ood and Sheridan advance specific projects . these criteria could
be updated accordingly.
124
Felsburg Holt & U/levig
•
• ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
I •(·" ftAH ,_nll lH{\I)"
NEXT STEPS
Table 8 -1.
• wrr
Composite Rating of Projects
Evaluation Criteria
• •
Transportation Improvement P . t Safety Multimodal Community Estimated Prioritization rojec t
R d . Benefits Benefits Benefits Cos ea iness
Ra il Trail (Big Dry Creek Trail Connection to Sher idan -Oxford Medium H igh High High Medium Short-term
Sta ti on)
Ra il Trai l (Oxford Station to Little Dry Creek Traill Low High High Medium Medium Long-term
Rail Trail (L ittle Dry Creek Trail to Bates Avenue) Medium High Medium High Medium Mid-term
Dartmouth Avenue Separated Bikeway (Inca Street to Clarkson High Medium Medium Medium High Short-term
Street)
Clarkson Street (Dartmouth Avenue to Oxford Avenue) and Oxford High Medium Medium Medium High Short-term
Aven u e (C larkson Street to Broadway) Bicycle Boulevard
Oxford Avenue (Broadway to Navajo Street) Separated Bikeway Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Long-term
Oxford Avenue (Navajo to Irving St reet) Separated Bikeway Medium Medium Med ium Medium Medium Mid -term
Oxford Avenue (Irving Street to Lowell Bou levard) Bicycle Boulevard High Medium Medium Medium High Short-term
Southwest Greenbelt Trai l Improvements and Extension Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Mid-term1
CityCenter Eng lewood St ation Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge Medium High High High Medium M id-term2· 5
CityCenter Eng lewood Station Platform Shelter High Low Low Medium High Mid-term
Complementary Transportation Improvements
Floyd Ave n ue Bike Lanes (CityCenter Englewood Station to Sherman High Medium Medium Medium H igh Short-term
Street)
Dartm outh Aven ue (South Platte River Drive to Federal Boulevard) Medium Medium Medium Low Medium M id-term
Separated Bikeway
Windermere On-Street Shared Use Path Extension (Batting Cages at High High Medium Low High Mid-term1
Cornerstone Park Entran ce to Englewood Canine Corral Entrance)
Tufts Avenue Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements (Navajo Street to High High Medium Low High Mid-term1
Rail Traill
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
e
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
1 ''·" f?All t: nur11pog
l\N-:T C~if<!#\l'il;~f§'~%ii&\2it.;iJ;4#¥i'i&<ftt,ri!&bJ!E!bh~lf&%&.dF%#Mf?:i:M¥¥¥¥H914@KQUU 44t.";;;q;4 . ..t~J Jk.Mi4.irnM .. !,.# ... ;,.
NEXT STEPS
Evaluation Criteria
Transportation Improvement . t Safety Multimodal Community Estimated Prioritization ProJec
R d . Benefits Benefits Benefits Cost ea 1ness
Little Dry Creek Trail Connection Bicycle /Pedestrian Improvements
(Along the frontage road west of US 85 to Little Ory Creek Trail. Mary
Carter Greenway [South Platte Traill . and west across the South
Platte River)
US 85/0artmouth Avenue Intersection Improvements
US 85/0xford Avenue Intersec tion Improvements
Oxford Avenue/Navajo Street Intersection Improvements
US 285 (Hampden Avenue)/Shoshone Street Right-in/Right-out
Inte rsection
Dartmouth Avenue Intersection Improvements (South Platte Ri ver
Dri ve to Z uni Street)
Sheridan -Oxford Station park -n-Ride or Shared Use Parking
Hamilton Place Bridge Bic y cle/Pedestrian Improvements or
se p ara t e adjacent bicycle/pedestrian only bridge and/or Flo yd
Avenue Bridge over the South Pl atte River
Notes:
Prioritization is funding dependent.
Medium
Low
Low
Low
M ed ium
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium Medium Low
High Me dium Lo w
High Medium Low
High High Low
Low Low High
Low Low High
Lo w Medium Low
High Medium Medium
(1) Requires construction o f Rai l Trai l t o provide connectivity to ei th er the Ci tyCe nter Englewood Station or the Sheridan -Oxford Station
(z) Could be implemented sooner if parcels west of US 85 redevelop and inst al l adequate bicycle/pedestrian facilities along fro ntage road
(3) Should be pursued by COOT in relation to the US 85 corridor
Medium
Low
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
High
(4) Would requi re modification of RTD buses accessi ng th e Sheridan -Oxford Stati o n . as well as redevelopment of adjacen t parcels to wa rrant further
analysis
(5) Wou ld provide additional access t o th e parcels west of US 85
(6) May be implemented sooner as parcels in the vici nity of the Sheridan -Oxford Station redevelop
(7) Requires construction of the CityCe nter Englewood Station bicycle/pedestrian bridge t o optimize conn ecti v ity to the station
Long-term2
Long -term 3
Long -term 3
Mid-term4
Mid-term5
Long -term
Long -term6
Mid-term7
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
126
~--------------------• • • e
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWAR D
L IGH T RA I L CO R RIDOR
NEXT STEPS
~ lj '•
Based on the ratings (Table 8-1). projects were prioritized into three categories: short-term (within
5 years). mid-term (5 to 10 years). and long-term (greater than 10 years). Projects. such as the
Tufts Avenue Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements. that require completion of another project
(such as the Rail Traill were categorized as mid-term projects . Projects. such as the Little Dry
Creek Trail Connection Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements. that wou ld require acquisition of
property for right-of-way or redevelopment of parcels. were categorized as long-term projects.
It is important to note that all prioritization is funding dependent.
!-10 en 1at f-una1na ::> 1 r. p
There are many options worth exploring for suitability for funding the package of Recommended
Transportation Improvements. These strategies require coordination and participation among the
departments of the cities of Englewood and Sheridan. as well as RTD. DRCOG, and COOT.
among others. A concerted team effort will most likely result in successfully securing funds for
the improvements as well as the need for matching local funds. The presence of a champion to
guide this effort is important.
The potential funding sources outlined in Table 8-2 are proposed for consideration. in addition to
funding opportunities through COOT and DRCOG . It is likely that a mix of the strategies will form
a final funding package for Recommended Transportation Improvements. Table 8-3 matches
potential funding sources with the package of Recommended Transportation Improvements.
• Table 8-2. Summary of Potential Funding Sources
•
Funding Source Description
US DOT Transportation
Investment Generating
Economic Recovery (TIGER)
grant
US Department of Interior
National Park Service Land and
Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF)
State Infrastructure Bank (SIB)
Federal Highway Administration
Transportation Alternatives
Program (TAP)
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
The TIGER discretionary grant funds capital investments in surface
transportation infrastructure.
The LWCF Program provides matching grants to states and to Local
governments for the acquisition and development of public outdoor
recreation areas and facilities.
The SIB is in effect a bank funded by the state. It provides Loans for
infrastructure projects at a Low rate of interest. For planned
improvements. the SIB could provide the up-front capital to form a
Local match against CDOT or FHWA dollars. The cities could then
pay back the SIB by dedicating a small amount of its revenues over
a period of several years .
This program for non-motorized forms of transportation activities
includes fac ilities for pedestrians and bicyclists. safety and
educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists: and conversion
of abandoned railroad corridors to trails. Administered through the
DRCOG Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) .
127
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
I L ...
·rr •
Funding Source Description
Federal Highw ay Administration
Recreational Trails Program -
funds draw n from larger TAP
Colorado State Recreational
Trails Grant Program (Colorado
Parks and Wildlife)
COOT Bridge Pool Funding
COOT Funding Advancements
for Surface Transportation and
Economic Recovery Act of 2009
(FASTER) Safety Improvements
COOT FASTER Colorado Bridge
Enterprise
COOT FASTER Transit Grants
COOT Responsible Acceleration
of Maintenance and Partnerships
(RAMP)
COOT Federal Dis cretionary
Funds
DRCOG Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality (CMAQ) grants
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
This program focuses on the maintenance and restoration of
exi sting trails ; development or rehabilitation of trailside and trailhead
facilities and linkages; acquisition of necessary easements;
associated administrative costs ; and new trails and educational
programs. Administered through the DRCOG TIP.
This program administers funds for trail layout. design. engineering.
feasibility studies. inventory. use studies. analysis of ex isting and
proposed trails. master plans. or prepares plans to build a volunteer
organi za tion or increase capacity. and trail training .
This funding pool provides for the construction. repair. and
replacement of off-system bridge projects based on performance
measures. as w ell as public safety. engineering judgment. project
readiness. and funding limits. Administered through the DRCOG TIP.
This funding pool provides for the construction. reconstruction. or
maintenance of projects that are needed to enhance the safety of a
state highway. county road . or city street. Administered through the
DRCOG TIP .
This program finances the repair. reconstruction. and replacement
of bridges designated as structurally deficient or functionally
obsolete and rated "Poor." Administered through the DRCOG TIP .
FASTER transit funds are split between local transit grants
($5 million per year) and statewide projects ($10 million per year).
The $5 million in local transit grants is awarded competitively b y
COOT regional offices. Local recip ients are required to provide a
m inimum 20% local match. Types of projects that have been
awarded include those that improve transit access
(bicycle/pedestrian access. park-n-Ride facilities. bus shelters. etc.).
Administered through the DRCOG TIP .
Program funding will be revisited annually by the Transportation
Commission . To be eligible. a project must be constructed within 5
years . be consistent wi th the Long Range Statewide Transportation
Plan and COOT Policies. incorporate on-system improvements or be
integrated w ith the state highway system. and provide project-
specific sufficient information on additional eligibility and evaluation
criteria. Administered through the DRCOG TIP .
Program funding is through the DRCOG TIP for projects using
federal discretionary funds.
These grants are provided for projects that reduce congestion and
improve air quality for the people of Colorado. including
bicycle/pedestrian improve ments. Administered through the
DRCOG TIP .
128
•
•
•
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L COIHUOOR
NEXT STEPS
'J L· \
Funding Source Description
COOT and DRCOG CMAO Travel
Demand Management (TOM)
Pool
US Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD)
Sustainable Communities
Regional Planning Grants
FTA Urbanized Area Formula
Grants-5307 Funds (Urbanized
areas of more than 200.000
people)
Federal Transit Administration
Enhanced Mobility of Seniors
and Individuals with Disabilities -
5310 Funds
Arapahoe County Open Space
Grants
Great Outdoors Colorado Grants
Fe lsburg Holt & Ul/evig
These grants facilitate mobility options for residents of the Denver
region while reducing single-occupant vehicle (SOV) travel by
eliminating or shortening trips. changing the mode of travel. or
changing the time of day a trip is made. It includes actions that
increase transportation system efficiency through the promotion
and facilitation of transportation options such as. but not limited to.
carpooling. carsharing. vanpooling. transit. bicycling . bike sharing
and walking. Administered through the DRCOG TIP .
This grant program supports locally led collaborative efforts that
bring together diverse interests from the many municipalities in a
region to determine how best to target housing. economic and
workforce development. and infrastructure investments to create
more jobs and regional economic activity.
This program provides grants to urbanized areas for bicycle routes
that connect to transit. Administered through the DRCOG TIP .
This program provides grants for bicycle improvements that provide
access to an eligible public transportation facility and meet the
needs of the elderly and individuals with disabilities. Administered
through the DRCOG TIP .
This program funds projects in Arapahoe County that provide trail
connections and provide for park development.
Local gove rnment grants typically fund community parks. trails . and
recreation facilities like skate parks. bike parks. ice rinks . pools. and
other amenities that help communities gain easy access to the
outdoors .
129
ENGLEWOOD
F O R W ARD
LIGH T RA I L CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS s IJ [ 'J
Funding Source Description
Foundation and Company Grants • People for Bikes Foundation Community Grants
This grant program provides funding for important and
influential projects that leverage federal fund ing and build
momentum for bicycling in communities across the U.S. These
projects include bike paths and rail trails. as well as mountain
bike trails. bike parks. BMX f acilities. and large-sca le bicycle
advocacy initiatives.
• Gates Family Foundation Capital Grants
The Urban Land Conservancy (ULC). Enterp rise Community
Partners. the City and County of Denver. and several other
investors have partnered to establish the first affordable housing
TOD acquisition fund in the country. The purpose of the Denver
TOD Fund is to support the creation and preservation of over
1.000 affordable housing units through strategic property
acquisition in current and future transit corridors.
• Mile High Connects
This program supports projects that establish and improve safe
•
connections (connected and intact sidewalks. bike routes. •
pedestrian bridges. ADA-accessible amenities. addressing
safety concerns. etc.) to and from transit stops and destinations.
Railway-Highway Crossing
Hazard Elimination
City of Englewood and City of
Sheridan Bonding
Fe/sburg Holt & Ullevig
The program provides funding for safety improvements at both
public and private highway-rail grade crossings along federally
designated high-speed rail corridors. Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) and FHWAjointly administer the program.
The cities of Englewood and Sheridan can issue bonds to raise local
revenue for transportation improvements.
130 •
• Ill ~ c CD
E
CD > 0 .... a.
E
c
0
:+:i
C'O
t:::'. "> "> 0 a.
Vl c
C'O "> "> ....
I-
"'O
CD "> ">
"'O ' c
CD
E "> "> ">
E • 0 u "> "> CD " c:: .... T""i .e (V)
"> T""i
Vl
CD u .... "> "> "> ::l
0
Cf)
0) "> c "> ">
:.a c
::l "> "> LL ....... co
:+:i "> "> c
CD .......
0 a.. "> ">
'+-0
t ~ "> "> "> C'O .S?l I E :s E ~
::l "> "> "> 5 Cf) °"' 0 0 ~
O a:: ~"' "> "> "> "> "> "> 0
o < :; 0. ci> :r:: 'uJ I ~~ c ,...
(X) e> "' . ,... ~ 0 -t t3 E Q) ~ ..J ee ·x .... ~ <1l co ~ Q) Ol ..0 .~o • uJ ..c c: <1l3 a. <1l ~ U) fg c Ol c: JC! c: Ol :<2 'O ;z C'O Q) a. _J <{ 2 e .g :2 ['? E ce .S~-m(J) I-~ c:
W lL I-<{ <{ <1l a. <1l <1l (J C1l Cll :l ;u.g 6 -~ 3 3 ~ ,g)
'-(1) I/) I... I-LL
0.. Q) :;:; c O(J:-:0) o~
~~~~~ Cll I I CD ['? o Q) ~ e 0 g
i7i LL LL er I-u er 1-a. uo..
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
j •I,." (IA!I nut:H(11)U
NEXT STEPS
Funding Source
"{!!
I-
"iij
0:
COOT FASTER
Safety
Improvements
COOT FASTER
Colorado
Bridge
Enterprise
COOT FASTER ./
Trans it Grants
COOT RAMP ./
COOT Federal
Di scretionary ./
Funds
DRCOG CMAQ ./
grants
C OOT and
DRCOG C MAO ./
TDM Pool
t>N·:T
.B
1
Vi Ql
::l g c:
Ql
:::: ~ ,...
~ "E
.!? Ql .;,< 5 iii
"C Ql c: ::l "' C::;:i -a; Ql Ql ~~ ~ :5 V) Ul
::l c: c:
o~ 0 ~ ~.!!! .!!I
Cl u u
./ ./
./ ./
./ ./
./ ./
./ ./
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig •
0 -~
"' .B z -a; .B !!! ,... Vi ~ "E 0
"C "iii' "' "' > ~ c:
0 e "' ~ Ql e CD 0 >. ,... CD "{!! ~~ ~ ~ 2 I-
u ~ o CD Cl> Ql ,...
.;,< .;,< u ~ c: iii iii iii c: ~~ ~ Cl> Ql Ql
::l ::l ::l L£i Ql c: c::;:> c: (!) ~ -g Cl> Ql Ql Cl> 1i) ~ ~~ ~ Cl> a. Ql c' "E :;:> "C Vl ! 1 G>2 ~ Ol ~~ s a: ~~ :; x ~ .5l 0 Vi (}iii
./
./ ./ ./
./
./
./ ./ ./ ./ ./
./ ./ ./ ./ ./
./ ./ ./ ./ ./
./ ./ ./ ./ ./
•
Package of Recommended Transportation Improvements
Ql
::l ~ c:
E .!!I ~
a. <(
~ .c } :5~
O"C a. Ul ~ c: u.
c: ~"' I 0 c: 0 0 ,... > :;::> 0 :;::> ~~ ~ :;::> ' Bl Ql l'! "C "' ::l ~ c: Ql Ql 0 c: 1 Ul "' "C c: -"'-CD Ql Ql 0 Ql I-Cl> 0 j iii~ > ::l -~ c 5 Ol j ~ -~ <( c: Vi -"C Ql Cl> Cl> Cl> "' Cl> .c z "E ~ .;,< ::l "C I-> Ql ::l
iii c: Ql .;,< :; <( ' c: c: ~ Ol Ql u. 0 Ql 0 ~ .l!l Cl>
c: Ql > 0 Ql ~ E "E ::l .c J§ UJ ::l <( ... ~ ::l ~ c: "' <( c: 0 c: .c Cl> c: u t: Ql 0 .c Cl> a. 2 Ql .c I Ql ~-~ E Cl> "' ~ .., E c: ~ > ~ Cl 0 Ul ::l Ql c: c: ~ ~t Q; <( Cl ' ' "E '° 0 > "' g Cl> Ql Ql -g_ '° '° CX) E e "C .E .g> u :: "C £! ~ CX) CX) .£! N ·c: -'=' Ql c: t: a. Ql
a6i .9 "'-~ ~ ::l Ul Ul 5 (/) 8 .E .c m·i::: u. Cl 0: I-;::) ;::) ;::) Ul ICD
./ ./
./ ./
./
./ ./
./ ./ ./ ./
./ ./
./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./
./
./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./
./
./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./
./
./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./
e
•
0 0
O n::
0 <( ~3
..J er
•~o
W LL
ENGLEWOOD
FORW A RD
'1f h UA.11 , n~Ci 1 p+lll
NF.:XT STEPS
Funding Source
-~
I-
·n;
a:
People for
Bikes
Foundation ./
Community
Grants
Ga t es Family ./
Foundation
Capital Grants
Mile High ./
Connects
Railway -
Highway
Crossing
Hazard
Elimination
City of
Englewood
and City of ./
Sheridan
Bonding
l\N•:T
.9
I Q) ::J ~ c:
c: ~ "' >-~ "E
.E ~ x
iD 0
-0 Q) c: ::J "' c: '.;:>
(I) (I) 1 ~ ~
£ Vl VJ
::Jc: c:
00 0 ~~ ~ .,3 19
OU u
./ ./
./ ./
./ ./
Fefsburg Holt & Ullevig •
0
·~ .8 z Qi .8 ~ >-~ "E 0
-0 ·~ ~ c: "' 3 0 e "' ~ Q) co 3; ::J
0 -;. >-co -~ ~~ "' ~ 3 I-
ii u :!:I oCO ~ Q) (;' ~ .:.:: ;!I c: iD iD iD c: ~~ Q) Q) Q) ~ ::J ::J ::J c: Q)
c: c: '.;:> c: 0 ~al ~ g! $ (I)
"81 ~ Q) a.
<( .b C:' -0 '.;:> -0 IJ) -0 ~ <D2 ~ Q) ~ Cl ~ ~~ .E Q) .E c: d~ ti~ ~ uiD
./ ./ ./
./
./
./
./
./ ./ ./ ./
./
./ ./ ./ ./ ./
Package of Recommended Transportation Improvements
Q)
::J
~ c:
E 19 g!
i a. <(
.r:: -0
:; ~ >-~ a. O°E c: !!! ~ c: al 0 c: 0 0 ~3 "' .Q ' "' 5l u ~ -0 2 ;!I ::J Q) ~ II) ::J c: IJ) Q) Q) 0 1 "' c: .:.:: co c: 0 Q) -0 j iD ~ Q) Q) -~ c I-Q)
0 ~ ::J a: Cl 0 ~ -~ f6 VJ -...J -0 Q) (I) "' (I) ;!I Q) .r:: z "E ·i::: .:.:: ::J -0 I-~ Q) ::J 3 iD c: Q) :; ' c: c: co
Cl (I) LL .:.:: 0 (I) 0 (I) II) .E Q)
c: Q) > 0 (I) ~ E "E ::J .r:: >-x u
UJ ::J <-~ ::J ~ c: II) <( c: 0 19
~ c: .r:: Q) Q) c: u ~ Q) 0 .r:: Q) I a.
2 (I) -> E Q) "' > .r:: -E c: ~ ::J ·-~ ~ 0 0 <( IJ) ::J Q) c: c: ~ ~~ 0 ' ' "E "' 0 > "' g Q) Q) (I) (I) "' "' CX) ~e -0 U:!:I -g_ -0 ~ ~ ·c: ·-Cl
~1! c: CX) CX) .E N Q) E -o .9 m.2: ~ ::J IJ) IJ) ti IJ) "' a. .r:: l'O "t:
UV> LL 0 a: I-::> ::> ::> o§ IJ) I CO
./ ./
./ ./ ./ ./
./ ./
./ ./ ./ ./
./
./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./
134 -• • e
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGH T RA I L CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
s v [: .,.
DRlOGR!f and TIP
---------··
The Metro Vision Plan serves as a comprehensive guide for future development of the Denver
metropolitan region with respect to growth and development. transportation, and the
environment. One component of the Metro Vision Plan is the Regional Transportation Plan . The
RTP presents the vision for a multimodal transportation system that is needed to respond to
future growth and to influence how the growth occurs . The fiscally-constrained RTP defines the
specific transportation elements that can be provided by the planning year based on reasonably
e xpected revenues . The DRCOG RTP is amended on a si x -month cycle.
The Transportation Improvement Program is a short-term capital improvement program that is
consistent with the Long-range RTP. The TIP is updated every four years and includes a six-year
planning horizon . ALL projects to be granted federal funds through the TIP must implement the
improvements and/or policies in the Metro Vision RTPand abide by federal and state Laws .
u nerat r.Jf-f ~ ~u1ren1en ~
This study provides a framework for the Long -term implementation of the transportation
improvements as funding becomes available. Although NEPA will not apply to all projects and
will depend on funding sources and interaction with COOT facilities . this Next Steps Study is to
be used as a resource for future NEPA documentation . Chapter 5.0 of this study has identified
issues that will require additional evaluation in any future NEPA documentation.
Funding for the package of Recommended Transportation Improvements has not been
identified at this time. However. the identification of a package of Recommended Transportation
Improvements is consistent with FHWA's objective of analyzing and selecting transportation
solutions on a broad enough scale to provide meaningful analysis and avoid segmentation . Fiscal
constraint requirements must be satisfied for FHWA and COOT to approve further NEPA
documentation . Before FHWA and COOT can sign a final NEPA decision document (Record of
Decision. Finding of No Significant Impact. or programmatic or non-programmatic Categorical
Exclusion). the proposed project. as defined in the NEPA document. must meet the following
specific fiscal-constraint criteria :
~ The proposed project or phases of the proposed project within the time horizon of the
RTP must be included in the fiscally-constrained RTP. and other phase(s) of the project
and associated costs beyond the RTP horizon must be referenced in the fiscally-
unconstrained vision component of the RTP.
~ The project or phase of the project must be in the fiscally-constrained TIP , which includes:
• At Least one subsequent project phase. or the description of the next project phase
(For project phases that are beyond the TIP years. the project must be in the fiscally-
constrained RTP and the estimated total project cost must be described within the
financial element of the RTP and/or applicable TIP).
• Federal-Aid projects or project phases and state/locally funded . regionally significant
projects that require a federal action .
• Full funding is reasonably available for the completion of all project phase(s) within
the time period anticipated for completion of the project.
135
Fe lsburg Ho lt & Ullevig
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGH T RA I L CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
..,. u [-',
In cases where a project is implemented in more than one phase. care must be taken to ensure
that the transportation system operates acceptably at the conclusion of each phase. This is
referred to as "independent utility," the ability of each phase to operate on its own . Additionally. it
must be demonstrated that air quality conformity w ill not be jeopardized. Any mitigation
measures needed in response to project impacts must be implemented with the phase in w hich
the impacts occur. rather than deferred to a later phase.
Once funding is secured. the environmental planning process can be initiated . The environmental
process will build on the environmental work. public outreach. and agency outreach conducted
by this study.
CatE xs are the most common NEPA documents and are for actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant environmental impact. are e xcluded from the requirement to
prepare an EA or an EIS , and do not have substantial public controversy. CatE xs are defined in
23 CFR 771 .117. meet the definition from the Council on Environmental Quality in 40 CFR 1508.4.
and are based on the past e x perience with similar actions of FHW A
r
Appendix D includes the conceptual engineering plans and opinions of probable cost for the
Recommended Transportation Improvements. Additional information is necessary to proceed to
preliminary and final engineering design. such as survey, verification of property ownership and
boundaries. public right-of-way (Englew ood. Sheridan . RTD . and COOT}. geotechnical
information. verification of utilities. etc .. In addition . further coordination with RTD will be required
in regard to:
~ RTD right-of-way. access to gates and other maintenance activities
~ Crime prevention through environmental design strategies along trail sections
~ Preparation of a Threat and Vulnerability Analysis
~ Aesthetics and signage. including pedestrian and bicycle safety
~ Compliance with NFPA 130
R6 ntation
The prioritized transportation improvements must work with complementary economic
development initiatives and activities to fully realize the potential of Englewood 's station areas
and key neighborhoods in Englew ood and Sheridan . The following section outlines the project
team's recommendations pertaining to future land use activities and public policies . The
CityCenter Englewood and Sheridan -Oxford station areas are discussed first. followed by a
discussion of the North Neighborhood focusing on the redevelopment site at Bates and Elati
Streets. and the West neighborhood. which is the area west of Santa Fe and north of Hampden.
The associated market study more fully discusses these areas . the market potentials. and the
outreach conducted that informs the implementation recommendations .
136
Fefsburg Holt & Uflevig
•
•
•
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
8.6.1 CityCenter Englewood
To realize the long term goal of creating an activated and high-quality CityCenter Englew ood
station area . current market conditions require incremental infill development. phasing over time.
the use of public private partnerships. and the potential use of tools such as a DDA. along w ith
TIF. Additional potential tools include Title 32 Metropolitan Districts and Public Improvements
Fees . both of w hich are tools not historically used in the City of Englew ood .
A new master plan for the area should be developed in conjunction with the creation of a DDA
The plan should be developed in concert with a detailed development strategy (planning .
design . financial and legal) that has the cooperation and buy-in of major property ow ners and
large employers along both sides of Hampden Avenue . A new TIF district orchestrated through
the DDA should be put into place with both sales and property ta x TIFs used at the appropriate
times to generate revenues to help fund needed public improvements.
Given the importance of the Broadway corridor to the CityCenter Englewood area. the DDA
boundaries should include the CityCenter Englewood area and critical sections of the Broadway
corridor. Given the breadth of the area . subareas should be designated with specific plans in
place for each .
Areas could be subdivided into:
• Property and businesses west of Wal-mart. as their focus tends to be CityCenter
Englewood and the UH station
• Property and businesses east of Wal-mart. as the focus tends to be Broadway
• Property and businesses along the Broadway corridor. north of Hampden
• Property and businesses along the Broadway corridor. south of Hampden
The City previously had a Business Improvement District (BID) along the Broadway corridor. An
expanded DDA can undertake the same types of projects that a BID typically oversees.
Other potential tools include:
~ Title 32 Metropolitan Districts have been successfully used in urban infill developments.
such as Belmar. to help offset the cost of public infrastructure. One of the impediments to
the use of this tool in CityCenter Englewood may be the fractured pattern of ownership in
the area . These districts are typically most effective when property is under one
ownership .
~ Public Improvement Fees (PIFs). which are added on top of sales ta xes . are currently
being used at River Point and Belmar. The River Point PIF of 1 percent was established to
pay for the River Point public improvements. including environmental remediation. open
space and trails . public roads and bridges. public street lighting. regional stormwater
facilities. and water quality and protection . A Retail Sales Fee can also be considered . At
the Centerra development in Loveland . retailers collect a PIF and a Retail Sales Fee (RSF)
w ithin The Promenade Shops. Centerra Marketplace. and Centerra Motorplex .
137
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
ENGLEWOOD
F O R W A RD
LIG H T RA I L CORR I DOR
NEXT STEPS
; u [ ...,
·rr
The following table outlines specific recommendations with suggested time frames .
CityCenter Englewood Station Action Items S(ohortyTerm) M,-~;~m (L
8
ongyTerm)
-4 ears <s-? Years) -10 ears
Institute a Downtown Development Authority ,/
Institute other financial tools and mechanisms as ,/ ,/
appropriate including Title 32 Metropolitan Districts. other
special districts, Public Improvement and Retail Sales
Fees
In conjunction w ith the current visioning process at
CityCenter Englewood. obtain strateg ic development
advice from organizations like the Urban Land Institute
Technical Advisory Panel program. the University of
Denver (DU) or University of Colorado (CU)
Develop detailed master I vision plan for the properties
east of Wal-mart
Develop detailed master I vision plan for the immediate
CityCenter Englew ood area (north and south side of
Hampden) with major property o w ners
Investigate current legal agreements at CityCenter
Englewood with an attorney to determine if agreements
can /should be modified to inform or help implement the
Vision /Master Plan .
Determine the future role of the Englewood
Environmental Foundation
Develop a financial plan concurrently with the major ,/ ,/
property owners
Re zone appropriately based on outcomes of Vision I ,/
Master Plans
Pursue shorter term residential infill opportunities aligned ,/
with the longer term vision of property o w ners
Determine w hether an Owner's Representative w ith ,/
development ex perience should represent the City during
discussions about the immediate CityCenter Englew ood
area or w hether a relationship with a Master Developer
should be pursued
Develop TOD Overlay District Regulations ,/
Sta y in touch with and determine the role of major ,/
employ ers in the area including Sports Autho ri t y.
Wal-mart
Explore. w ith property managers. a w ider range of shorte r
138
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
•
•
•
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGH T RA I L CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
s, u , .... ..,
Medium
CityCenter Englewood Station Action Items S(ohortyTerm) Term (L9ongyTerm)
-4 ears (5-7 Years> -10 ears
term uses for unsuccessful ground floor retail
Continue to refine alignment of the Rail Trail Section in
CityCenter Englewood area as a Vision I Master Plan is
developed
Regularly follow up with area developers and developers
who participated in the forum
Pursue funding for Station Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge at
Englewood Light Rail Station
Construct Floyd Avenue Bike Lane
Continue to coordinate with RTD and pursue funding for
LRT Station Platform Shelter
8.6.2 Sheridan -Oxford Station
South of the Sheridan -Oxford Station . the former industrial area has begun transitioning to a
mixed-use land use orientation . Given the current activity. rail trail improvements to help facilitate
station connectivity and area redevelopment should be prioritized. Longer term. development of
a shared parking strategy would help enhance area redevelopment. As mixed use retail
develops in the area . the City should consider using Urban Renewal as a financial tool to capture
sales (and property) tax increment to help pay for shared structured parking .
. . Short Term
Oxford Station Action Items (o-3 Years)
Develop TOD zoning regulations to accommodate
industrial mixed use areas
Work with area developers and property owners to
facilitate area redevelopment and shared parking in
locations that fit within RTD's Transit Access Guidelines
for parking . ideally south of Oxford
Proactively work with the development community to
acquire properties for shared parking I development
Work with RTD on providing additional commuter parking
spaces
Institute Urban Renewal as area redevelopment includes
retai l and restaurant uses
Continue to refine design and pursue fund ing for Rail Trail
connection in this segment
Pursue Oxford Avenue Separated Bikew ay short-term
actions in addition to long-term improvements. Short-
139
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
Medium
Term
(3-5 Years)
Long Term
(6-10 Years)
ENGLEWOOD
FORWAR D
L IG H T RA I L C ORR I DOR
NEXT STEPS
';:> IJ L· ',
term improvements could include painting the section
from the Sheridan -Oxford station area to Broadway
Plan and pursue funding for US 85/0xford Intersection
Improvements
Plan and pursue funding for Oxford Avenue I Navajo
Street Intersection Improvements
Plan and pursue funding for Sheridan-Oxford LRT Station
park-n-Ride or Shared Use Parking
8 .6.3 North Neighborhood
The Winslow Crane property is the primary development opportunity in the North Neighborhood.
Given the nature of the neighborhood surrounding this area. this planned redevelopment could
be sizeable enough with enough critical mass to start changing perceptions of the area . Mixed
income housing can be a catalyst for area redevelopment. Metro area redevelopments have
often seen the introduction of tax credit affordable, senior and rental housing as the first housing
types into a market to help catalyze future area redevelopment. Although there is currently
market support for the development. better connectivity to the Englewood -CityCenter Station
•
and amenities along the South Platte River is critical to attracting future residents to the area. A •
stronger. vibrant. more attractive Broadway corridor would also enhance the neighborhood's
redevelopment potential.
Medium . . Short Term Long Term North Neighborhood Action Items (0-3 y ) Term (6 _10 y ) ears (3_5 Years) ears
Support current development proposal for mixed income v'
housing development through CHFA LIHTC process.
Facilitate letters of support from City. Urban Renewal
Authorities (URAs). neighborhood organizations.
affordable housing groups. and others.
Assist the developer of the Winslow Crane property in v'
communicating with neighborhoods about the overall
master plan for the development project
Continue to plan and seek funding for Rail Trail
improvements commensurate with the timing of
development
Develop strategies and programs that encourage exterior
home/yard improvements in the single family residential
neighborhoods surrounding the North Neighborhood
Work closely with the developer on identifying and
attracting appropriate employment to the station area
140
Felsburg Ho lt & Ullevig
•
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L COl<R I DOR
NEXT STEPS
':, IJ c '·
Medium . . Short Term Long Term North Neighborhood Action Items (0-3 y ) Term (6 _10 y )
The Winslow Crane property is within the General
Ironworks URA Work with the developer on the potential
timing of triggering the TIF mechanism to offset I assist
with public infrastructure costs .
Develop subarea plan for the North Neighborhood
focusing on neighborhood revitalization and connectivity
Work with developer I help with publicizing I branding of
the area.
ears (3 -5 Years) ears
Monitor the construction defects issue and consider ./
taking action if it is not resolved in the state legislature.
Lakewood and Lone Tree have passed local ordinances
allowing "right to repair" before litigation and modifying
the requirements of Homeowners Association's ability to
sue
Develop appropriate TOD overlay regulations
Plan and pursue funding for the Dartmouth Avenue
Separated Bikeway
Plan and pursue funding for US 85 /Dartmouth Avenue
Intersection Improvements
Plan and pursue funding for Dartmouth Avenue
Intersection Improvements
8.6.4 West Neighborhood
The most critical challenges with redevelopment in the West Neighborhood are the current
industrial nature of the area and the potential jurisdictional issues . The inadequacy of
infrastructure in the area and the lack of connectivity to the surrounding street network are also
significant barriers to redevelopment. On the other hand . the regionally central location of the
area. coupled with the prospect of improved connectivity to the east side of Santa Fe and the
potential to create enhanced amenities along the South Platte River. will enhance the viability of
future real estate development. Additional planning by both Englewood and Sheridan is critical in
realizing this potential.
Medium . Short Term Long Term
Action Item <o-3 y ) Term (6 -0 y )
Develop Englewood and Sheridan cross-jurisdictional
subarea plan . w hich would identify critical businesses to
maintain. potential catalytic parcels. prioritized
connections, infrastructure needs. appropriate zoning
141
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
ears (3_5 Years) 1 ears
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
U G Y
As part of this effort. create a w orking group of
Englewood and Sheridan officials who w ould meet
regularly to focus and coord ina te redevelopment efforts
in this area and a long the Santa Fe corridor (including the
Sheridan -Oxford station area)
Plan and pursue funding for CityCenter Englew ood/ LRT
Station Bike I Pedestrian Bridge
Continue to work inter-jurisdictionally on the creation of
improved and better connections to South Platte River
8/ vbli Finance
8.7.1 Special Authorities I Tax Increment Financing
./
./
./
Special authorities are quasi-municipal organizations intended to address and redevelop
deteriorating or "blighted" areas . Two types of special authorities exist: Downtown Development
Authorities and Urban Renewal Authorities . Both can employ TIF . which is a special fund
consisting of increases in property or sales tax (or both) revenues generated within the specified
areas . A base property valuation or base sales tax Level is identified or "frozen." The ta xing
•
jurisdictions continue to receive the revenue in the base. and the TIF entity collects the revenue •
generated by the Levy on the incremental increase above the base.
A mayor-appointed authority board governs these authorities . which are designed to address
multiple projects over a period of time. The team is recommending the establishment of a DDA
for the CityCenter Englewood area . which would also encompass parts of the Broadway
Corridor. to potentially provide revenues for needed public improvements in the CityCenter
Englewood area and in strategic locations along the Broadway Corridor.
There are important differences between DDAs and URAs :
~ The timeframes for TIF districts for URAs are 25 years and 30 years for DDAs .
~ URAs require a resolution stating that blight is being eliminated while DDAs require a
statement indicating that blight is being prevented.
~ The City Council or a separate board can administer a URA. A separate board must be
created to administer a DDA.
~ URAs don't require a public vote to establish a district and issue bonds. DDAs require a
vote to establish the district. They do not have the ability to issue bonds on their own
behalf (although they can work with an entity that does have the authority). They do have
the ability to levy taxes.
~ URAs have condemnation authority while DDAs do not.
8 .7.2 Improvement Districts
There are a number of different types of improvements districts.
142
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
F ORW A RD
LIGHT RAIL CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
Business Improvement Districts
BIDs are formed by petition and election by commercial property owners to provide services
such as planning. management of development activities. promotion or marketing. business
recruitment. and/ or maintenance.
Public Improvement Districts I General Improvement Districts I Local
Improvement Districts
A General Improvement District (GID) in a city is a public infrastructure district that applies an
additional property tax or assessment to a specific improvement area to pay for new public
infrastructure. GIDs are commonly used to fund shared infrastructure facilities . They can be
initiated by a majority of property owners. Boulder has used a GID to pay for shared parking
facilities in its downtown. its University Hills neighborhood. and its Transit Village area .
A Local Improvement District (LID) is a public infrastructure district that assesses specific
improvement costs to abutting property. It charges an assessment for a specific capital
improvement project. A LID is best applied for very specific infrastructure costs relating to a
discrete number of abutting properties that directly benefit from the improvements. They are not
separate entities but rather are under the full control of the City. The City of Denver created a LID
to help pay for the streetscape amenities of the South Broadway street reconstruction .
• Title 32 Metropolitan Districts
•
Title 32 Metropolitan Districts (Metro Districts) are often seen particularly in large scaled master
planned new development and redevelopment projects where there are major property owners .
Several TOD sites in Metro Denver have metro districts including Alameda Station (BMP Metro
District) and Belleview Station (Madre Metro District). A metro district is a quasi-governmental
entity and political subdivision of the state formed to finance , construct. and maintain public
facilities . A wide array of public improvements can be addressed . including: street
improvements. water. sewer, drainage. parks and recreation . fire protection, public transportation
systems. ambulance. solid waste. and limited security. Metro districts are most often created by
a land developer (but require the City's approval of the service plan) to apply an additional mill
levy to future development to help pay for infrastructure costs. There is a statutory ma x imum of
50 mills but no time limit on the duration of the district. Metro Districts have the power to issue
general obligation and revenue bonds and have limited condemnation powers.
8.7,3 Retail Fees and Programs
There are several fees and prog rams in place that specifically leverage retail sales ta xes for local
improvements. Tools such as PIFs and Retail Sales Fees (RSFs) have been used in large scale
developments in Lakewood and Loveland , for instance, but so far not in Englewood .
Public Improvement Fees
A PIF is a fee imposed by the developer on retail and service tenants to fund public
improvements. PIFs are used to finance public improvements and are collected as a fee charged
on sales within a set of negotiated categories and a designated geographic boundary. General
143
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
ENGLEWOOD
F ORWARD
LIGHT RA I L COR R IDOR
NEXT STEPS
'J ~
·rr ------•
obligation or revenue bonds may be issued. Because PIFs are fees. they become a part of the
cost of the sale or service and are subject to sales ta x. The fee is administered through
covenants on the retail Lease and is usually collected by a metro district established as part of a
project. Because the additional fee can result in a higher effective ta x rate. the center can
potentially be at a disadvantage to competitive retail destinations so cities sometimes forego a
portion of the e x isting sales ta x rate to offset the cumulative impact of the PIF. PIFs have been
used at Belmar and River Point.
Retail Sales Fee
Similar to a PIF . a RSF is imposed by developers on retail tenants as a percentage of the retail
transaction . It is typically used for retail operations. primarily in the form of marketing . events and
promotions. RSFs are administered through covenants on the retail Lease and collected by a
metro district or similar entity. Although this tool has been used at the Centerra project in
Loveland. it tends not to be widely used .
Enhanced Sales Tax Incentive Program
•
Cities use an Enhanced Sales Ta x Incentive Program (ESTIP) to promote new development
and/or provide funding for renovations or improvements to Local businesses. ESTIPs allow Local
sales taxes generated from specific new businesses to be earmarked for Local development
improvements. ESTIPs do not require that the project be Located in a special district and are •
often e xecuted through a formal development agreement on a case-by-case basis .
8.7.4 City of Englewood Tools
Enterprise Zones
All of the station areas e xamined as part of the Next Steps Study are Located in enterprise zones .
The enterprise zone program p rovides tax incentives to encourage businesses to Locate and
ex pand in designated economically distressed areas . defined as areas with high unemployment
rates . Low per capita income. and/or slow er population growth. The program encourages job
creation and capital investment by providing tax credits to businesses and projects that promote
and encourage economic development activities. Costs eligible for ta x credits include:
~ 3 percent investment ta x credit for equipment acquisition
~ $soo per employee ta x credit for new and e x panding business facilities
~ Tw o-year credit of $200 per employee. for a total of $400. for employer sponsored health
insurance programs for new and ex panding businesses
~ Tax credit of 10 percent for e x penditures on job training and school-to-career related
programs
~ Ta x credit of up to 25 percent of e x penditures to rehabilitate vacant buildings at Least
20 years old and vacant for a minimum of 2 years
144
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
•
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
L I G H T RA I L C ORR I DOR
NEX T STEPS
IJ .,
8.7.5 Economic Development Incentives
The incentives outlined below are provided by the City of Englew ood. at the sole discretion of
City Council. and are considered on a case-by-case basis .
Building Use Tax Reimbursements
The City may consider a re imbursement of construction and equipment use ta x generated by
the development of a project. All proceeds of the use ta x re imbursement must be used for
purposes such as public infrastructure. eliminating obstacles or eyesores to development. or
public improvements such as public spaces . Building use ta x rebates shall not e xceed
50 percent (with a max imum rebate to be determined by cost/benefit analysis) of the actual use
ta x collected.
Furniture Fixtures and Equipment Use Tax Reimbursements
The City may consider partial or full reimbursement of the use ta xes paid for furniture fi xtures
and equipment generated by a project. All proceeds of the use ta x reimbursement must be used
for purposes such as public infrastructure. eliminating obstacles or eyesores to development. or
public improvements such as public spaces. Rebates of up to 100 percent (with a ma x imum
rebate to be determined by cost/benefit analysis) may be granted for furniture, fi xtures. and
equipment use tax .
City Property Tax Reimbursement
The City may consider partial or full reimbursement of the City 's portion of property ta x
collections for a finite period of time.
Reduction in Fees
The City may consider offsetting all or a portion of the development fees for commercial or
residential projects that meet the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and Subarea
Plans (if applicable). and provide a unique and quality project in terms of product type. tenant
mi x. and overall physical environment.
Rebates of up to 100 percent (with a max imum rebate to be determined by cost/benefit
analysis) may be granted for building permit fees and development application fees . not to
include plan review fees or other contractual fees .
145
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
L IGHT RA I L CORRIDOR
NEXT STEPS
S 1J C 'r
g.o References
Arapahoe County . 2010 . Arapahoe County 2035 Transportation Plan.
Denver Regional Council of Government (DRCOG). 2011. 2035 Metro Vision Regional
Transportation Plan. February 16 .
DRCOG . 2014 . FY 14-15 Station Area/Urban Centers Studies -Project Eligibility Rules .
City of Englewood. 199?. North Englewood Small Area Plan.
City of Englewood . 2000. City Center Englewood Redevelopment of the Cinderella City Mal!
City of Englewood. 2002 . The Engle wood Civic Center Pedestrian Underpass Feasibility Study
City of Englewood. 2003 . Englewood and Oxford Station Area Plan.
City of Englewood. 2004. Master Bicycle Plan.
City of Englewood. 2006. Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
City of Englewood . 2009. Ready, Set Action! An Urban Design Action Plan for the Englewood
Downtown & Medical Districts. October.
City of Englewood. 2011. Complete Streets Toolbox
City of Englewood . 2012. Master Bicycle Plan Route Development Study and Implementation
Program
City of Englewood. 2013. Engle w ood Light Raif Corridor Station Master Plan. June.
City of Englewood. 2014 . Comprehensive Plan Update.
City of Englewood . 2014 . Walk and Wheel Master Plan and Program
City of Englewood . 2015 . Roadmap Englewood 2003 Englewood Comprehensive Plan Update
E-21 Engineering Inc. and Major Environmental Services. Inc. 2003a . Modified Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment Area 1. South Santa Fe Drive Comdor. Englewood. Colorado.
September 30 .
E-21 Engineering Inc. and Major Environmental Services. Inc. 2003b. Modified Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment Area 2. South Santa Fe Drive Corridor. Englewood. Colorado.
September 30 ..
E-21 Engineering Inc. and Major Environmental Services . Inc. 2003c . Modified Phase I
En vironmental Stfe Assessment Area 3 South Santa Fe Drive Comdor. Englewood. Colorado .
September 30 .
EDA W I AECOM . 2006. Englewood Parks and Recreation Master Plan. September.
Elsey Partners . 2013 . Navajo Apartments TOD -PUD Stfe Plan.
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD
FORWARD
LIGHT RA I L CORR I DOR
NEXT STEPS
~ '.J c ..
Englewood Urban Renewal Authority. 2000 . Englewood Industrial Urban Renewal Plan.
Englewood Urban Renewal Authority. 2002 . General Ironworks Development Plan.
Littleton Capital Partners. 2012. Oxford Station TOD-PUD Site Plan.
National Research Center. 2014. The National Cttizen Survey Englewood CO, Community
Livabiltfy Report
Regional Transportation District (RTD). 2000. Southwest Light Rail Transit Line Major Investment
Study
RTD . 2006 . Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Policy .
South Suburban Parks and Recreation Website. Accessed November 20. 2014 at
http:/ /www.ssprd.org/Parks
City of Sheridan . 2004. Comprehensive Plan. October.
Tri-City Planning Group. 1992 . South Santa Fe Drive Comdor Improvements Study
WHI Investors. 2013 . TOD -PUD Site Plan.
147
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig