The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1977-03-08 PZC MINUTES• CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 8, 1977 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Pierson at 7:00 P.M. Members present: Don Smith, Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Jorgenson, Owens, Parker, Pierson Wanush, Ex-officio Members absent: None Also present: Assistant Director Romans Associate Planner House Assistant City Attorney DeWitt II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Pierson stated that Minutes of the meeting of February 23, 1977, were to be considered for approval. Tanguma moved: Ed Smith seconded: The Minutes of February 23, 1977, be approved as written. ' AYES: Pierson, Don Smith, Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Jorgenson, Owens, Parker NAYS: None The motion carried. Addressing the persons seated in the audience, Mrs. Pierson stated that Englewood is in a very unusual position, in that we have a very active citizenry. She noted that the City Council are elected officials, who appoint volunteers to the various Boards and Commissions. All members of the Council, Boards and Commissions are Englewood citizens. Mrs. Pierson noted that Board and Commission terms expire the first of each year, and those members of the audience who are interested in serving on any of the boards or commissions should write the City Council indicating such an interest. Mrs. Pierson stated that the Planning Commission is beginning a periodic review of the Comprehensive Plan, which project will take a great deal of time and effort. The Commission is seeking help from interested persons who would serve on advisory com- mittees during this review of the Plan. Mrs. Pierson then set forth the order of the meeting. She noted that there is quite a large crowd present, and asked that all parties refrain from smoking during the meeting; there will be breaks at which time individuals who wish to do so may smoke in the halls. -2- III. HAMPDEN PROFESSIONAL PARK Final Plat CASE #31-76D February 23, 1977 January 18, 1977 January 4, 1977 October 19, 1976 Mrs. Pierson stated that this meeting is concerned with the re-opening of the Public Hearing on the Final Plat submitted by Mr. Regan. Don Smith moved: Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #31-76, be opened. AYES: Parker, Pierson, Don Smith, Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Jorgenson, Owens NAYS: None The motion carriedo Mrs. Pierson reviewed the procedure to be followed in the conduct of the Public Hearingo The staff will be heard first, followed by the applicanto The floor will then be opened for statements from the audience --those in favor of the proposed Plat, followed by those in oppositiono There will be a short period of time for questions from the audience. Mrs. Pierson noted that the Commission may have to restrict time for those who wish to speak. She asked for a count of hands of persons wishing to speak on this matter. Mrs. Pierson then asked for the staff report. Upon being sworn in, Mrs. D. A. Romans testified that she is the Assistant Director of Community Development in the Planning Divisiono Mrso Romans stated that the re-hearing is on the proposed Hampden Professional Park Subdivision -Final Plat. Notices of the Public Hearing were mailed to property owners immediately adjacent to the total "Larwin" site by certified mail; this included property owners on the west side of South Race Street, the Kent Village Association, those on the south side of U.So 285, on the west side of South Lafayette Street, and on East Floyd Avenue. Mrs. Romans stated that the proposed Subdivision Plat was considered at a Public Hearing on January 4, 1977; she asked that the staff report pertaining to Case #31-76, which was submitted to the Commission at that time, be made a part of the record of this Hearing. Mrs. Romans identified the area encompassed in the proposed Hampden Professional Park Subdivision as Phases 8 and 9 of the Subdivision Waiver granted to the Larwin Multi-Housing Corporation in 1972, which area encompasses approximately 12 acreso The area is zoned R-3, High Density Residence, and was so zoned in 1975. The area was previously zoned R-3-A, ,. • -3- Multi-family Residence, and when the R-3-A and R-3-B Zone Dis- tricts were •Combined into the R-3 Zone District, that designa- tion was applied to those properties that had previously carried the R-3-A or R-3-B designations. Mrs. Romans stated that land to the west of the subject site is zoned R-3 and B-2 along Hampden Avenue; to -the north is R-3 zoning, to the east is R-3 zoning, and to the south is a commercial triangle at Lafayette and low-density residence zoning in Cherry Hills Village. Access to the proposed Subdivision would be from U.S. 285 and from South Lafayette Street on the west. The streets within the Larwin development were not dedicated to the City at the time the Subdivision Waiver was granted to Larwin. At the re- quest of the City, Mr. Regan, the applicant, now proposes that the streets both adjoining and through his development will be dedicated. The proposal is to divide the property into two blocks, with a total of 15 sites, each of which will be at least 1/2 acre in area. The subject area is not within a 100- year flood plain. The site referred to as the Larwin site, or the old KLZ site, was annexed to the City in 1962. The property has been zoned for high-density residence use since 1968 by Ordinance, and by Court decision since 1971. When Larwin Multi-Housing Corporation submitted their application to the City Planning Commission requesting a Waiver to the requirement of platting the entire site, they submitted, in lieu of a plat, a site plan or general development plan designated as Exhibit A. ' If developed as proposed by the Larwin Multi-Housing Corporation, Phases 8 and 9, as identified on Exhibit A of the Larwin Waiver, would have accommodated 356 dwelling units --240 low rise units in Phase 8, and 116 mid-rise units in Phase 9. The maximum density for the entire Larwin site was to have been limited to 1,500 dwelling units. Building Permits were issued for Phases 1, 2, 3, and 4, as shown on Exhibit A; Phases 1 and 4 were developed, but the permits for Phases 2 and 3 were not exercised. Phases 1 and 4 apparently changed ownership sometime in 1973. At the invitation of the Planning Commission, a representative of Larwin, a Mr. Pogue, met with the Commission a little over a year ago, at which time Mr. Pogue was told that the total property would have to be platted. This meeting was followed with a certified letter stating that the property would have to be platted, and that the streets would have to be dedicated. The Fire Department has expressed concern about access to the portions of the developed site for fire-fighting purposes be- cause of the inadequacy of the roadways. Mr. Pogue informed the Commission at the meeting of one year ago, that Larwin was selling off all of their holdings outside the State of California, and that the Larwin Multi-Housing Corporation is not going to be able to continue with their development. Mrs. Romans stated that the City is faced with a plan for approximately 50 acres of land which will not materialize; -4- how can we now best protect the area and ensure proper develop-~ ment? As has been discussed previously with the Commission, ~ the staff felt that if the total site could not be considered, as the Commission had requested, that as phases of the site were sold off, platting could be required of the new owner, and dedication of streets obtained. R.P.R. Brothers, Ltd., has an option to purchase Phases 8 and 9, and has submitted a Subdivision Plat for those two phases. Mr. Regan has gotten the Larwin Corporation to join in the Plat to get dedication for the streets that border his property. The proposed Hampden Professional Park Subdivision Plat does comply with the area restrictions of the R-3 Zone District as set forth in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. The Plat was approved by the Public Service Company, by Mountain Bell, and by the City Utility, Public Works, and Fire Departments. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the legal documents that are required by the Subdivision Regulations. The monuments are in place as required. The drainage system will conform to the drainage plan approved for the initial Larwin development, with the addition of an inlet at East Floyd Avenue and South Lafayette Street. An addendum to the original drainage plan was submitted to the City, and Mrs. Romans asked that this addendum be made a part of the record of this Hearing. The Planning Commission had expressed concern on traffic volumes. Mr. Regan, while not sure what the development of the proposed Subdivision will be, did present some assumptions based on the 356 dwelling units approved for Phases 8 and 9, and assumptions based on a professional office development. The traffic generation assumptions for the dwelling units was 2,581 trips per day, and for the two-story professional office complex, the assumption was 2,715 trips per day. These assumptions were based on information from the Institute of Traffic Engineers. Mrs. Romans stated that she would conclude her remarks at this point. She stated that she had talked to one or two individuals who could not be in attendance, and they had asked her to enter their concerns into the record. She asked Chairman Pierson if she wanted these remarks made at this point, or later in the meeting? Chairman Pierson stated that these comments would be received at the time the audience is permitted to make their comments. Don Smith asked, for the benefit of the audience, if Mrs. Romans would review the permitted uses in the R-3 High Density Zone District, and also some of the restrictions in that Zone Dis- trict. Mrs. Pierson stated that it should be made clear that this will be for information only; the question before the Commission is the matter of subdividing land, and the Commissio n -~ is not addressing zoning. -5- Mrs. Romans discussed the combination of the R-3-A and R-3-B Zone Districts in to the one R-3, High Density Residence Dis- trict in 1975. She pointed out that the R-3 Zone District does have greater restrictions on development than the previous R-3-A Zone District, and cited the fact that 42,000 sq. ft. is now the minimum lot area for a multi-family development, contrasted to the previously permitted minimum of 12,000 sq. ft. The minimum lot area for a professional office building is now 24,000 sq. ft., again contrasted to the previously per- mitted 12,000 sq. ft. minimum. Minimum floor areas for the multi-family use have been increased, based on the number of bedrooms contained in the unit. There is a maximum lot coverage of 35% with a 25% open space requirement, and a 25% landscaping requirement. Utility lines to the development must be under- ground. The maximum permitted height remains the same, five stories or 60 ft. The front, rear and side yard setbacks re- main the same. Religious, educational and public buildings are permitted in all zone districts; in the R-3 Zone District the minimum area is, again, 42,000 sq. ft. Mr. Criswell, representing the Kent Village Association, stated that he would like to ask questions of Mrs. Romans. Mrs. Pierson asked that Mr. Criswell wait until the applicant has made his presentation. Mr. Thomas J. Regan 4981 South Clinton Street -was sworn in, and stated that he felt the staff had given a very adequate presentation regarding his application for approval of a Subdivision Plat; he stated he would be happy to answer any questions asked of him. Mrs. Wade asked Mr. Regan if he had purchased the property, or still had only an option to purchase? Mr. Regan stated that he has an option to purchase Phases 8 and 9 of the site. Mrs. Pierson asked if there were any members of the audience who would like to speak in favor of the Subdivision? No one indicated they wanted to speak in favor of the proposed sub- subdivision. Mr. John A. Criswell 3780 South Broadway -was sworn in, and stated that he represents the Kent Village Association. Mrs. Pierson asked that Mr. Criswell at this time limit his remarks to questions of the staff and applicant. Mr. Criswell directed several questions to Mrs. Romans of the staff. He asked if Mrs. Romans had asked that a copy of the 1972 staff report on the Larwin Site be made a part of the record? Mrs. Romans stated that she did not. Mr. Criswell asked Mrs. Romans if she remembered the staff recommending that the Subdivision Waiver be granted to Larwin only if a PD was -6- adopted? Mrs. Romans stated not specifically. Mr. Criswell asked if it is the intent of the staff that if the Commission approves the Subdivision Plat, that this would release that portion of the ground from those conditions set forth at the time the Waiver was granted? Mrs. Romans stated that it is her personal understanding that the Subdivision Waiver will not be followed by Larwin, and that new development by other developers will take place. Mr. Criswell asked if this Com- mission had revoked the Subdivision Waiver granted in 1972, or any of the conditions made a part of that Waiver? Mrs. Romans stated "no". Mr. Criswell asked if Mrs. Romans considered those conditions imposed at the time the Subdivision Waiver was granted to be still binding? Mrs. Romans stated that she would have to defer to the Assistant City Attorney's judgement. Mr. Criswell stated that he felt this was ~n important point. If this Commission grants the landowner or anyone else approval of a Subdivision Plat, it would release the land from the con- ditions of the Subdivision Waiver as approved in 1972, which conditions required that the site only be developed for resi- dential use. Mr. DeWitt stated that he felt Mr. Criswell's question would more properly be addressed to City Council or to the City Manager. Mr. Criswell asked if he could be advised what the Commission is considering? Will the conditions set forth in the 1972 Subdivision Waiver be abolished? Is the Commission considering release of this ground from those conditions? Mrs. Romans stated that she would say this is the question before the Commission. Don Smith stated that he felt if this Plat is approved, the conditions of the Waiver would not follow the new land owner. He pointed out that no change of use or zoning is being dis- cussed, only that of platting the land. Mr . Criswell stated that if the conditions set forth in the Waiver are released, the land could be put to "more use"; there is a development plan on file, which calls for residential de- velopment. Mr. Criswell asserted that Mr. Regan had notice of that document when he entered into a contract for purchase of the land. He stated that by releasing the conditions on the development of this land "you are increasing the use to which this land may be put." Mr. Criswell asked of Mrs. Romans "would you say the develop- ment of Phases 1 and 4 has been consistent with the Development Plan?" Mrs. Romans stated that the development is not consistent to the extent that Larwin was to provide recreational facilities ,. for the tenants of the development. They did give land to the ~ City for a public park, but they were also to provide recreational .., facilities for those persons living within the development. This, in her opinion, they have not done. Mrs. Romans stated that this was one point which was discussed with Mro Pogue at the meeting with Larwin approximately one year ago. -7- Mr. Criswell asked if residents of the area received notice of that meeting with Mr. Pogue of Larwin? Were any other property owners notified of this meeting? Mrs. Romans stated that it was primarily a meeting with the tenants of the project, and not with the neighboring residentso Mr. Criswell asked how many dwelling units are developed on the site? Mrs. Romans stated there are 231 dwelling units in Phase 1, and 152 dwelling units in Phase 4. Mr. Criswell asked if traffic counts had been taken to deter- mine the amount of traffic generated by these 384 dwelling units? Ms. Romans stated that she assumed the Traffic Engineer has taken counts on Floyd Avenue. Mr. Criswell asked if counts had been taken on Gilpin, or on Girard? Mrs. Romans stated not to her knowledge. Mr. Criswell stated that one of the conditions of the Develop- ment Plan as approved, was that the entire project was to have 45% open space. He asked if this was correct? Mrs. Romans stated that this was the intention for the over-all development. Mr. Criswell then asked of Mr. Regan "what interest do you have in this property, and can I i:?ee some evidence of it." Mr. Regan stated that he presented a copy of the contract with his application. Mr. Criswell asked of Mr. Regan "when you contracted to pur- chase this ground, did you find restrictive covenants running to the Planning Commission?" Mr. Regan stated "no". Mr. Criswell handed Mr. Regan a copy of restrictive covenants, which document was recorded in January of 1968. Mr. William Caskins, counsel for Mr. Regan, asked if this document purported to cover that portion of land Mr. Regan has an interest in? Mr. Criswell stated that the restrictive covenants set forth in the document cover the entire site known now as the "Larwin Site". Mr. Regan stated that he has not previously seen a copy of this document. Mr. Criswell stated that these covenants run to the City Planning and Zoning Com- mission of the City of Englewood. Mro Caskins stated that he felt Mr. Cr.iswell is abusing the questioning process. Mr. Criswell withdrew the question. Mr. Criswell then asked of Mr. Regan if, when looking up the title to this land, he found a Development Plan had been re- corded for the entire site? Mr. Regan stated that he did noto Mr. Criswell asked "did you find a copy of a resolution of this Planning Commission recorded against this property?" Mr. Regan stated that he did not. Mr. Criswell asked what effort Mr. Regan put forth to investigate the title to this -8- property? Mr. Regan stated that he has a title guarantee, of which Mr. Criswell may see a copy. Mr. Criswell indicated to Mr. Regan a document he would present to the Commission, and pointed out that a copy of the covenants is attached to the title commitment itself. He asked of Mr. Regan "are you saying you were unaware of a development plan which was approved by this Commission and recorded?" Mr. Regan asked if Mr. Criswell referred to the date he took option on the property, or later? Don Smith raised a point of order; he stated that he felt the covenants and resolution of which Mr. Criswell has copies should be presented under the formal presentation by Mr. Criswell. Mr. Criswell asked that it be noted he did present the Assistant City Attorney with a copy of all documents. Mr. Criswell asked Mr. Regan if arrangements had been made to settle any liens on the property, as well as the payment of taxes, etc.? Mr. Regan stated that this has been taken care of. Mr. Criswell asked if Mr. Regan planned to close on the purchase of the land before or after the City gives approval to the Subdivision Plat. Mr. Regan stated that if the Plat is approved, they would close on the purchase. Mrs. Pierson asked if there were any further questions of Mr. Regan or the staff? Mr. Don Smith suggested that possibly a time limitation should be imposed on those members pf the audience who wish to speak on this matter. Mrs. Pierson agreed, and announced that a five-minute time limit would be placed on speakers. Those who are representing large groups will not be bound by the time limitation. Mrs. Pierson again asked if there was any further testimony from persons in favor of the proposed Sub- division Plat? No one indicated they wanted to speak in favor of the proposed Subdivision. Mrs. Pierson stated the Com- mission would then hear testimony from those persons opposed. Mr. Dick Clark 2260 East Eastman Avenue -stated that he is president of the Hampden Hills Homeowner's Association, and is representing that group. The Hampden Hills Homeowner's Association encompasses property owners in an area bounded by East Dartmouth Avenue on the north, South University Boulevard on the east, South Gilpin Street on the west, and by East Floyd Place on the south. There are approximately 250 to 300 residences in this area, and there is a great deal of interest in the City government in this area. He stated that residents of this area took a very active part in the discussions leading to the Larwin development, and he has received about 40 phone calls at his home pertaining to the proposed Subdivision. He stated that residents of this area had received no formal notification of this meeting but were made aware of it by ~ residents of the Kent Village and Cherry Creek [Hills?] area. ~ Mr. Clark stated that the concern seems to be basically that of traffic congestion and a decrease in property values. Those -9- residents living closest to the apartment complex are concerned because they feel the new development will increase the traffic congestion in the area, and this congestion would in turn de- crease their property values. There is also adamant objection and concern based on the homeowners' understanding of the 1972 Subdivision Waiver. Mr. Clark stated that he understood there was a "lot of give-and-take" to get the conditions hammered out and a part of the Resolution. Mr. Clark stated he also understood that the park Larwin dedicated to the City was a part of the give-and-take. Mr. Clark stated that he under- stood it was the feeling of the residents in the area that the conditions imposed at the time the Waiver was granted were binding, and the conditions required that the land be used for residential purposes, multi-family apartments, and certainly not for professional office buildings. The people in his association feel that if this proposed Subdivision Plat is approved, the City will "have let them down". Mr. Clark stated that from a legal point of view, he feels this is a serious matter, and should be studied by the City Attorney's office. He asked why conditions should be placed on anything if those conditions are not to be honored. Don Smith pointed out that when the new R-3 Zone District was adopted, the restrictions were made greater than they had been in the R-3-A Zone District. Mr. Tanguma noted that the Commission had conducted a Public Hearing on this Subdivision Plat on January 4th and that very few people had indicated an interest in the matter up until this time. He asked what suddenly caused the great interest among the citizenry? Mr. Clark stated that he did not feel people had been notified of the previous meeting, and that notice this time was by word-of-mouth. Mrs. Pierson asked Mr. Clark if he had read the documents pre- sented to Mr. DeWitt by Mr. Criswell? She asked if it is his feeling that the restrictions run with the land? Mr. Clark stated he had read one or two of the documents; the conditions are attached to the Waiver and the Development Plan itself, and one of those conditions does state that the site shall be developed for residential use. Discussion ensued. Mr. DeWitt asked Mrs. Romans if the City is a party to the covenant with Mr. Lou Carey? Mrs. Romans stated that the covenants were presented to the City Council. Mr. DeWitt stated that it appears the covenants stipulate that if the property or any part of it is developed for residential purposes, there shall be a maximum of 1500 dwelling units, but he would have to re- view the covenants in depth before making a final determination. Mrs. Pierson asked if he could determine if the covenants run with the land? Mr. DeWitt stated that it would be difficult to do so at this time. Mr. Clark stated that the residents are concerned about the statements that were made during the Larwin discussions by members of the Commission that this site would be used for residential purposes. Don Smith stated that he felt those -10- statements were made during the course of the Larwin project discussions, and that the project under consideration at that time was that of an apartment complex on the entire site. Mr. Smith felt that the discussions centered around the fact of residential development of the site at that time, and stated that he felt the documents recorded would reflect the dis- cussions of that time --that of the residential development which was then being considered. He pointed out that no other use was under consideration at that time. Mr. Tanguma pointed out that traffic generation from a pro- fessional office use would be primarily a "day-time" generation; whereas traffic from an apartment complex could be day and night generation. Mr. Clark stated that the majority op1n1on of the Hampden Hills Homeowners Association seems to be that the professional office building development is "only the tip of the ice berg." He asked if the Commission allows the resubdivision of this portion, what will stop Larwin from resubdividing the rest of the property? What will stop them from putting in any one of the uses per- mitted in the R-3 Zone District? He predicted if the proposed Subdivision is permitted, that in five years time, there will be a commercial/office development all along Hampden/U.S. 285, and that this is the very beginning. He stated that the resi- dents of the area do not want to see that. Mr. Tanguma asked if it was .the intent of the opponents that nothing be developed on the site? Mr. Clark stated that they would have no objection to the original plan. They want to see the recreational facilities developed for the site that were promised. Don Smith asked "do you want another 1,200 units in there like they have in there today?" Mr. Clark pointed out that the Waiver and conditions were passed by the City, and "we are stuck with it". If the City changes the conditions again, what happens a year from now? What about the property abutting Kent Village? Mr. Clark stated that the homeowners have to have something they can rely on in the future. He stated that "you can't keep changing the rules all the time." Mrs. Romans stated that she wished to point out the fact that her description of the area to which notices were sent per- tained to the notices sent for the Public Hearing this evening. Mrs. Romans stated that the Subdivision Regulations and State Statutes require that notice be sent to homeowners "immediately adjacent" to that land being platted, which ruling was adhered to in sending notices for the Hearing on January 4th. The notices for this Public Hearing tonight were sent to a wider area than that required by law. Mr. Clark stated that none of the people he has spoken to in the Hampden Hills Homeowners Association have received notice by certified mail. Mr. Tanguma asked if restrictions go with the land? Mr. DeWitt stated that generally this would be correct. • -11- Mr. Parker noted that the R-3, High Density Residence District encompasses more than just high density housing; it also includes professional office buildings, and public, educational, and religious institutions. Mr. Clark stated it is their contention that the conditions run with the land, which would restrict development of this site to high-density residential use. Mr. William Caskins, attorney for Mr. Regan, stated that he has had a brief time to study the covenants filed on January 2, 1968. Mr. Caskins stated that in paragraph three of the covenants, it does not say the site shall be developed for single-family or residential use only. Mr. Caskins added that the covenants do not appear to run with the land; but, rather they run to this body --the Planning Commission; and this body, or Planning Commission, has the authority to change, or amend the covenants as they see fit. Mr. Caskins emphasized that it does not appear that the covenants run with the land, but rather to the Planning Commission. Mr. Caskins stated that the majority decision of the Commission could change or amend the covenants. The covenants do not restrict the use to residential, but do restrict a residential development to 1,500 units. Mrs. Pierson called a recess of the Commission at 8:20 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 8:40 P.M., with the following members present: Williams, Jorgenson, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Don Smith, Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade. Mr. Richard Edsall 3295 South Franklin Street -stated that he is a property owner. Mr. Edsall pointed out that City Council members are elected by the people of Engle- wood to serve the people of Englewood, and the rest of the boards and commissions are volunteers appointed by t he Council to serve the people. In 1972, during the discussion of the Larwin project, Mr. Edsall stated, it was the "people against the Planning Commission and Larwin." He stated that he would hope this Commission would keep an open mind and make a valid judgement --this Commission has to represent the "people". Mr. Edsall stated that during the Larwin discussions, surrounding property owners were assured there would be no on-street parking in actuality, there is bumper-to-bumper on-street parking, which blocks private drives, alleys, etc. "Every time someone moves in, they have to be trained; it usually takes about five tickets to train them." Mr. Edsall stated that the emergency access gate onto South Franklin was to be kept closed, but has called Larwin many times in reference to the gate, and has also called the Department of Community Development many times about the gate. He asked, with the proposed development what would happen on South Franklin Street? Mrs. Romans pointed out that this proposed subdivision has no access to or from South Franklin Street, and that the gate will remain closed but for emergency access. Mr. Edsall stated that the park on Floyd Avenue was to be a public park, with Larwin providing recreational facilities -12- for their tenants within the site. He stated that they "have developed a park for the people in Larwin", and that residents of the area who wish to use the park "can't get by the dogs or kids" of the Larwin residents. Mr. Edsall stated that he did not want to see Larwin "get off the hook", and that they should be made to live up to their commitments before changing anything regarding the Waiver. He asked that Larwin be made to fence the area in so they won't have on-street parking. He noted that Mr. Regan, the applicant, won't feel obligated to live up to Larwin's promises. Mr. Edsall stated that he was asking the Commission, as his representative, to make Larwin live up to their commitments. Mr. Don Smith asked if Mr. Edsall was saying that he was not opposed to the replatting, but did want Larwin to live up to their commitments? Mr. Edsall stated that he would have to disagree with the proposal right now. He stated that after the concerns of the neighborhood concerning traffic, parking, recreational facilities, etc. are taken care of, then he might want to talk about changing the Waiver. Mr. John A. Criswell 3780 South Broadway -stated that he did not feel the neighbors and land owners should have to come before this Commission to fight the developer and the Commission. He stated that the abutting land owners and the adjoining neighbors are more concerned than the developer. Mr. Criswell stated that he did not think there ~s "anyone in this room that agrees the development on Phases 1 and 4 is anything to be proud of." Mr. Criswell stated that he appreciated the concern of the staff in trying to get dedicated streets in the area. Mr. Criswell stated that he appeared before the Planning Commission in 1972, and "stated they were crazy to think a development of this size would have private streets." He stated that he felt "you will recognize this Commission made a mistake of sorts in 1972." Mr. Criswell noted that one of the basic problems with City Governments is that "people don't stay around"; he pointed out the membership of the Commission has changed since 1968, since 1972, etc., and it is impossible for the present members of the Commission to understand the people or actions taken by previous Commissions and Councils. Mr. Criswell stated that he has been connected with this site since 1964, and he would yield to only two persons present this evening who would have more knowledge of the site --Mrs. Romans and Mr. Welles. Mr. Criswell stated that Mr. Von Frellick owned the land when it was in the County; he asked the County for commercial zoning, and shortly thereafter requested annexation to the City of Englewood. The property was annexed to the City in 1962, and in 1963 or 1964, was zoned for shopping center use, and was to be the site of Cinderella City. The residents of the area took the City to Court, and the zoning was invalidated by the lower Court. The matter was taken to the Supreme Court, but a decision was never made on that particular case, and was withdrawn several years later. The land was declared zoned R-1-A by Court action, -13- In 1967, Security Life purchased the land, and · a Mr. Lou Carey applied for R-3-A zoning. The City Council asked the City Attorney, at that time, Mr. Criswell, if there was some way the development could be controlled if the land were to be zoned to R-3-A, which was a high density residence classification. Mr. Criswell referred to his opinion of that time, and stated that he felt it is still his opinion today. His opinion stated that the City Council had the authority to place restrictions over and above those which were contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The Subdivision Regulations authorizes the Planning Commission to impose reasonable conditions in granting of a Subdivision Waiver or approval of a Subdivision Plat. To show his good faith, Mr. Carey did in fact place a covenant on the land limiting the development to a maximum of 1,500 residential units. Mr. Criswell made reference to letters from Mr. Bob Mock, attorney for Mr. Carey, to the City indicating the applicant understood the limiting of the development on the ground through the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Criswell stated that it was about this time that the City Council adopted the Subdivision Regulations, and following the adoption of those Regulations, the land was zoned R-3-A, Multi-family Residential. Mr. Criswell indicated that Mr. Donald Fullerton, a resident of the area was on the City Council at that time, and Mr. Criswell asked that Mr. Fullerton testify as to his recollections of that time. Donald Fullerton , 3265 South Race Street -stated that his residence is to the north of the park site on East Floyd Avenue. He stated that his recollection is basically as out- lined by Mr. Criswell. He stated that he was very concerned as a resident of the area and as a representative of Council District #2. There was concern from the standpoint they did not want to see a high-density development on the former KLZ Site. When Larwin came before the City, they were apprehen- sive, and wanted some limitation imposed on the density, height of structures, traffic control, parking and other amenities . The residents of the area were assured this would be done by the conditions attached to the Waiver. Mr. Don Smith made reference to the information presented the Commission by Mr. Criswell, and noted that he did not find in any place a restriction stating that the property could be used ONLY for residential purposes; rather the restrictions seem to indicate that IF the land is developed for residential purposes, then there shall be no more than 1500 dwelling units permitted. Mr. Criswell pointed out that the Commission must understand the restrictive covenants were filed four years prior to the filing of the Waiver. From the very beginning, it was repre- sented it would be only residential development on this ground. He emphasized that "from the beginning, the City Council and Planning Commission looked on the development as residential." -14- He stated that he is not relying on the restrictive covenants as a legal document, and that the covenant "is not that legally important, but under that covenant it [the land] cannot be de- veloped for more than 1500 unitso" Mro Criswell stated that his clients are concerned about the proposed development of professional office buildings in an R-3 District. Mr. Criswell asked if this Subdivision Plat is approved, what will happen on this site, and what will happen on the site to the east next to Kent Village --will it remain vacant? Mr. Criswell further discussed the Larwin application before the City in 1972. He noted that Larwin had initially applied for a Planned Development and a Subdivision Waiver --"if you go P.D., it's logical to waive the Subdivision Regulations", and referred to the Planning staff report, referenced as TAB 5 on Mr. Criswell's presentation. Mr. Criswell stated that the Planning Staff Re- port recommends the Waiver to the requirement of platting only on the condition the entire parcel is developed under the pro- visions of the Planned Development District. Mr. Criswell reiterated that the staff recommendation at that time, was that the Subdivision Regulations should not be waived, unless the development was a Planned Development. In a short period of time, the request for a Planned Development approval was withdrawn by the Larwin Corporation, and the Commission granted a Waiver to the Subdivision Regulations, which would require platting of the property. Mr. Criswell stated that the Waiver was granted with very strenuous conditions attached to and made a part of the Waiver, and he referred to TAB 6 and TAB 7 which are a copy of the resolution and the conditions passed by the Commission in 1972 approving the Waiver to the Subdivisio n Regulations, which have been recorded in Book 2069 at Page 29. These are the conditions under which the Commission said they could waive the requirement to file a plat for the entire parcel. Mr. Criswell pointed out that the 1500 dwelling unit maximum is again referred to in these conditions. The conditions stated that the development of the site must comply with a General Development Plan, which was filed with the Subdivision Waiver and the conditions. Mr. Criswell reiterated that the Subdivision Waiver was granted subject to compliance with the General Development Plan. Mr. Criswell then called on Mr. William Ross, former member of the City Planning and Zoning Commission, to testify as to his recollection to the action of the Planning Commission in 1972. Mr. William Ross was sworn in and stated that he was ·a member of the City Planning and Zoning Commission in 1972. The Com- mission did give a great deal of consideration to the matter of the Larwin request for a Subdivision Waiver. There was a great deal of "emotion" from the neighborhood, and from Larwin to contend with. There were many important aspects involved in the consideration, not the least of which was what the Com- mission thought was a covenant with the people. Mr. Ross cautioned that he could not speak for the entire membership of the Commission at that time, but this is his recollection. Mr. Ross stated that the Waiver was approved by a one-vote ,._. ••• -15- margin, of 5 to 4. Mr. Ross stated that those who were closely involved in trying to work this out in the best interest of the neighborhood felt all along what they were doing was trying to get Larwin to go along with the idea of a Planned Development. He stated that he thinks this is what the membership of the Commission thought. He stated that he is sure the Chairman of the Commission felt the same way --he was satisfied that what the Commission had done was to adopt a plan that was referred to in the Resolution as a Development Plan that in effect was a Planned Unit Development. It was the understanding that the site would have to be developed to the specifications of this plan, that the buildings would be built to the height specified, they would be placed according to specific locations indicated on the plan. Effort was made to determine which portion of the development would be for family use because of the school district boundaries. The Commission felt they were "really nailing it down", and the development was to be built as shown on the plan. Mr. Ross stated that the Commission went through each one of the conditions and amended them and reworded them. There were seven or eight amendments offered to each of these conditions, and some were adopted; some were not . Each of those conditions were considered with the idea they would be a commitment and a covenant with the City of Englewood. Mrs. Pierson stated that Mr. Ross' statements were very sub- jective. She asked if Mr. Ross recalled the nature of the final findings of the Commission at that time; was the Waiver made conditional? Mr. Ross stated absolutely; the Commission would not have granted the Waiver if they didn't have those conditions; there is no question but that this Waiver was granted conditionally. Those conditions were a part of the granting of that Waiver and covenant. Mr. Don Smith asked of Mr. Ross if he was saying that the Planning Commission, in 1972, passed the Subdivision Waiver with the idea that nothing would ever be built on that site but high density residences, and that the development would be restricted to those 1500 units? Mr. Ross stated that this is his recollection. Mr. Ross stated that Mr. Lou Carey had agreed to satisfy a very emotional concern on the number of units that could be placed on this piece of property, but this was not the single issue. There was concern on "what type use there would be" --concern on the design of the structures, and on the density. Mr. Ross stated that he felt the 1500 unit restriction was based on economics. The neighbors sur- rounding the site had originally worked out an agreement whereby the site would be limited to 1200 dwelling units. Mr. Ross stated that in all the Planning Commission delibera- tions, it was understood there would not, at any time, be a commercial development on this site. Mr. Ross stated that the question of commercial activities was raised, and that the Commission was assured that commercial activity was not permitted, and there was no provision for any commercial activity in the approved General Development Plan. -16- Don Smith pointed out, based on correspondence cited by Mr. Criswell, that it appeared the intent was not to restrict R-3 usage, but to restrict the density to a maximum of 1500 dwelling units. Mr. Smith stated he understood Mr. Ross to be saying, based on his personal interpretation of the Commission's action, that the development of the site could be only high density residences with a maximum of 1500 units. Mr. Ross stated this was the interpretation at the time. The discussions at the time centered on residential development -- t hey were not considering any other kind of development, but were considering only residential; they were discussing "this plan", and Mr. Ross indicated the General Development Plan filed by Larwin with their application in 1972. Don Smith pointed out that the documents cited by Mr. Criswell do not limit the development exclusively to high-density resi- dential. He asked Mr. Ross "do you feel the intent was to limit the use of the property to the development proposed by Larwin?" Mro Ross stated he did feel this was the intent of the Planning Commission o Don Smith asked Mrso Romans if this was her understanding of the action taken by the Commission in 1972? Mrso Romans pointed out that at that time, the Commission was discussing a specific plan that was proposed by Larwin. It was understood the development would be to that plan. At that time, neither the staff nor the Commission· were aware the land would be sold off, and that the project would not be completed by Larwin. Mro Ross verified that the City was assured there would be 1500 residences and that the required parking would be on site, plus the land would be dedicated to the City along Floyd Avenue from Franklin Street to Race Street for a public parko Mr. Pierson asked if the Commission, in 1972, ever contemplated "What if"? Mro Ross stated that they had no reason to do so. Mrs. Pierson asked if there was anything in the office records that might clarify this? Mrs. Romans stated office records show that the site was to be developed as shown on the General Development Plan. She stated she felt this was Larwin's intent at the time the Waiver and conditions were approved. Mrs. Pierson asked if there were any questions of Mr. Ross? Mr. Caskins asked of Mr. Ross if he believed that because the general development plan, Exhibit A, was approved and recorded, that the type of development which exists in Phases 1 and 4 is the only type of development which should be allowed on the vacant property now? Mr. Ross stated that he did not think that the development on Phases 1 and 4 should have been permitted. -17- Mr. Caskins noted that Mr. Ross was a member of the Planning Commission that approved the general development plan, or Exhibit A, and because that plan was approved, it is implied that nothing different can be done with the land. Discussion ensued. Mr. Ross suggested that the developer should re- negotiate with the Commission. Mr. Criswell pointed out that the general development plan -- Exhibit A --is referred to in the Waiver, and was recorded with the Arapahoe Clerk and Recorder. Anyone looking at the title to the Larwin site would find the Resolution granting the Waiver and the conditions, which are part of the Resolution. Mr. Criswell stated he appeared before the Commission in 1972, representing the Kent Village Association, to oppose this general development plan. They opposed it in 1972 because they felt then that it could lead to the proposed type of de- velopment. However, the people in the Kent Village Association decided not to go to court when the Commission approved the Plan with the conditions made a part of the approval. They felt these conditions gave "some certainty". They did get Larwin to give consideration to landscaping, height limitations on structures and other amenities. Mr. Criswell pointed out that people in the Kent Village Association have spent substantial sums of money in reliance on this "plan" and the conditions thereto. Mr. Criswell asked Mr. Gordon Allott to testify. Mr. Gordon Allott , 3427 South Race Street -stated it was the conditions imposed on the Larwin development which led to his purchase of property in Kent Village. He stated that when he first considered moving to Kent Village, he had some concerns about the site owned by Larwin. While he found the Kent Village development very attractive, he found the Larwin development along Floyd Avenue unattractive . Mr. Allott stated that he called the City Clerk and indicated their in- terest and concern in the area, and to ask about zoning of the site, permitted uses, etc. on the Larwin site . Mr. Allott stated he was referred to Mr. James L. Supinger , the Director of Community Development at that time. Mr. Allott stated he met with Mr. Supinger on April 1, 1974, to discuss the site. It was in reliance on this meeting, that he purchased his property in Kent Village. Mr. Allott stated that he has long felt that a "view" is one of the most valuable assets a home can have. Mr. Allott stated he was assured by Mr. Supinger the site was zoned for residential development; the units then under con- struction were to be completed within the month. The remainder of the site would not be subject to sale, but would be developed by Larwin and would have to comply with the recorded plan. Mr. Allott stated he was informed the property owner could petition for revision or amendment of the plan. Mr. Supinger stated the plan called for a double aisle of parking on the east side of the development; there would be a 10 foot strip of landscaping along the Kent Village boundary, then the two aisles of parking, thus giving a setback of approximately 75 -18- feet from the Kent Village boundary to the first structure in the Larwin site. Those structures proposed for the eastern side of the Larwin site were to be "low-rise" --a permitted height of 22 feet as set forth in the plan. These structures would increase to a maximum height of 60 feet near the center of the Larwin property. The total development was to be con- structed in such a way that it would limit the view on only the northern 1/2 of the site. Mr. Allott stated he asked Mr. Supinger if he could see any displays used by Larwin in the Public Hearings before the Commission; he was told there were displays, but they were not available at that time. Mr. Allott stated that Mr. Supinger informed him the units to be built in the Larwin site would be parallel to the Kent Village construction. Mr. Allott stated this meant to him the main line of construction would be north/south with the east /west routes to carry traffic. Mr. Allott stated he was told access to the site would be from U.S. 285 in two places, and on South Lafayette at East Girard Avenue. The closest entrance to the Larwin development from U.S. 285 was to be no less than 1/2 mile west of the Kent Village property line; Mr. Allott stated in actuality, the entrance is less than .4 of a mile west of the property line. Mr. Allott stated he relied on the information he obtained before purchasing his property, and he felt there may be others who did the same. Mr. Allott stated he felt the neighboring property owners are entitled to rely on the Commission's action and statements; ti not, it may be that many property owners purchased their homes with the prospect of loss on their property unless the develop- ment of the Larwin site is controlled in accordance with the Waiver as granted . Don Smith asked what Mr. Allott's major objection is; is it one of height of the buildings vs. a view of the mountains? Are there other objections to the proposed Plat? Mr. Allott stated he relied on the stated height of 22 feet for the structures proposed on the original plan. He now finds that the permitted height in the R-3 Zone District is 60 feet. He stated it would be very objectionable to permit a development that would eliminate the view of property owners to the east; there should be certain lanes kept open to the west to give an "open" feeling. The buildings should be arranged in such a way as not to form a solid screen for the people in Kent Village looking west. The feeling of openness is one of the most valuable things in their residential de- velopment . Don Smith asked, "it's not the type of development, but the height you object to?" Mr. Allott stated that he does object to the proposed type of development. He has been assured de- velopment of the Larwin site was not intended to be anything other than residential. When Mr. Supinger discussed the de- velopment, it was not proposed to be anything other than resi- dential. Mr. Allott stated that if you build a professional office complex, this could allow CPA's, real estate offices, insurance offices, and the like. Mr. Allott made reference to -19- a list of names attached to Exhibit A, or the general development plan, and stated that he presumed this list represented pro- fessional men contacted by Mr. Regan; several doctors names appear on the list. All names on this list are out-of-state and are located in the Washington, D.C., Maryland and Virginia areas. Mrs. Romans explained to Mr. Allott that this list of names represents partners in the Corporation which has ownership of Phase 4 of the Larwin Development. It is so entitled, and has nothing to do with Mr. Regan's proposal, nor was it represented as such by the staff. Mr. Allott stated that he objected to the proposed Subdivision Plat. Mr. Criswell stated he feels the evidence presented by his clients has proven that the "City has always contemplated, whether it is legal or not, that development on the Larwin site would be residential." Mr. Criswell ref erred to the general development plan and the resolution approving the Subdivision Waiver in support of his contention. He stated the Commission has heard testimony of former City Councilman Fullerton and former Planning Commissioner Ross that the de- velopment was contemplated to be residential. Mr. Criswell stated that the evidence and testimony show that: (1) From the beginning of time, wliatever the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance said, this site was never intended for professional office use. (2) The evidence shows that action on zoning, the Subdivision Waiver, whatever, has concerned this land as a "total". Mr. Criswell stated that in his opinion, this Commission, by approving the proposed Subdivision Plat, will destroy the general development plan. He asked "does it mean that, again, a developer like Larwin can come in and flimflam us?" Mr. Criswell stated that his clients and other members of the audience are present "because Larwin didn't live up to the conditions" of the Waiver. He stated he felt there might be more cooperation forthcoming from a trustee of the site than from the property owner. Mr. Criswell stated that if there is a justifiable reason to change the development plan and conditions imposed in 1972, :it should be forthright. If the property owner feels they cannot live up to the development plan --if it is a justifiable reason for changing the plan, the Commission should tell the property owner to file a Planned Development for the entire site --not just for a portion of the land. Mr. Criswell stated that until this occurs, the Commission would be making a very serious mis- take and it would be a breach of faith with the adjoining land- owners. -20- Mr. John Welles 3602 South Gilpin -stated he has been involved in discussions ~ on the development of this land for 17 years, and that he can appreciate the problem confronting the Commission. Mr. Welles stated that the neighboring property owners assumed, under the R-3 zoning, this land would be developed --if not en- tirely for residential purposes, at least it would be developed predominately residential. Many of these residents spent many hours negotiating with Mr. Carey on the density for the site, and reached a compromise of 1150 dwelling units to be placed on the site. This compromise was presented to the neighborhood; the matter was taken to Court, and the density was stipulated at a maximum of 1500 dwelling units. The property owners of the area would never have agreed to the 1500 units unless the the total site was to be developed. Mr. Welles then discussed the matter of traffic generation by the proposed development vs. that of the apartment complex, as originally planned for the site. Mr. Welles referred to a three-page letter written by him on January 27, 1977, in which letter he set forth his computations on the traffic projections. Mr. Welles pointed out that his brief analysis indicated there could be as much as four times as much traffic as indicated by the Sternberg Partnership traffic projections, based on theo- retical maximum capacity professional office building develop- ment. There could be, according to Mr. Welles' calculations, 8-1/2 times the traffic generated by the professional office building development over that generated if developed with multi-family use, as originally intended. Mr. Tanguma asked what factors Mr. Welles used to reach his conclusions? Mr. Welles stated he used the ratios set forth by the Sternberg Partnership in their traffic study, but based on his personal recognizance. He stated the Sternberg report had used a floor area of 1,250 sq. ft. minimum for their computations, while he uses a minimum floor area of 643 sq. ft., which he feels is nearer the actual average office size. Mr. Welles stated he also used the maximum height of five stories for the structures rather than the two-story figure used in the applicant's report. Mr. Welles stated that by this method, he arrived at a traffic generation factor of four to five times as much traffic as projected by the applicant for a professional office building complex. These figures were also used to con- trast with the projections shown by the applicant for an apart- ment complex. A member of the audience asked if the State Highway Depart- ment had been contacted regarding the proposed Subdivision and development? Mr. Welles stated he did not contact the Department, but he did send a copy of the January 27th letter to the State Highway Department. Mrs. Romans stated that a copy of the proposed Plat was sent to the State Highway Department. The Highway Department had -21- no objection to the proposal; however, the Department of Highways stated that no additional curb cuts onto U.S. 285 would be per- mitted. Mrso Susan Ann Fonda 3500 South Franklin -stated she lives directly across the street from the Gilpin/Franklin/U.S. 285 intersection. Mrs. Fonda stated that when discussing the Sub- division Waiver in 1972, she asked if the Waiver were passed, if the site would be developed only for residential purposes and what guarantee they had that the total site would be so developed? The Chairman of the Planning Commission at that time stated "it was proposed for residential, and that is what it would be." Mrs. Fonda then discussed the traffic situation at the Gilpin U.So 285 intersection; traffic backs up there so badly one cannot get across on a green light. She pointed out the fact there have been four persons killed at this inter- section in recent years, all in separate accidents. Mrs. Fonda stated that it is a very dangerous intersection, and asked that serious consideration be given to this traffic hazard. Mrs. Pierson asked if there were additional comments from the audience. Mrs. Romans asked to present the comments of a Dr. Thomas, who was unable to be in attendanceo Mrs. Romans stated that Dr. Thomas had talked to her earlier in the afternoon regarding the requesto Dr. Thomas now resides at 3535 South Franklin Street, and ' has his practice at 3500 South Lafayette Street. Dr. Thomas is a native of Englewood, and did at one time live in Kimberly Village on the Larwin site. Dr. Thomas is concerned about the ecology, and feels people no longer care about their community; they litter streets, and do not take care of property, be it their's or someone else's property. Dr. Thomas is concerned about what is going to happen to this site and others in the area --how is it going to de- velop? Is the Commission going to be concerned that the land be developed as an asset and not as a detraction to the neigh- borhood? Dr. Thomas is also concerned about traffic, feeling that there are very serious problems with access to and from U.S. 285. Dr. Thomas asked that his very deep interest in the community be expressed, and asked that the Commission keep the matters of ecology and traffic in mind in making their decision . Don Fullerton 3265 South Race Street -stated that he has been a part of this "battle" for 16+ years. One of things he feels should be brought out is that there has been a "lot of turmoil over this particular issue for way too long." Mr 0 Fullerton stated he has served on the City Council and on the Planning Commission. The residents of the area have had many promises made to them regarding the development of this site. He stated the residents have placed their confidence and trust in the fact the development was to proceed as set forth in the Larwin general development plan; but, recreational -22- facilities for the Larwin tenants have not been completed, and these tenants are using the public park. Mr. Fullerton stated that there was to be only one point of entrance on South Lafayette Street, and that we are now talking about three entrances. The matter of underground parking which was discussed at the time the Subdivision Waiver was considered, turned out to be parking "back of a dirt wall". There was to be enough parking so all tenant/visitor cars would be parked within the complex --in reality, there is bumper-to-bumper parking along all the streets north of Floyd Avenue. There was to have been a Planned De- velopment for a residential complex for the site. Mr. Fullerton stated he hoped the Commission would look at this matter ob- jectively --the people in the neighborhood want a residential development; they do not want any deviations from commitments that have been made on the development of the site. For clarification, Mrs. Pierson read the following definition of a Professional Office, which definition is contained in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance: Professional Office: The office of a person engaged in any occupation, vocation, or calling, not purely commercial, mechanical or agricultural in which a professed knowledge or skill in some department of science or learning is used by its practical application to the affairs of others, either advising or guiding them in serving their interest or welfare through the practice of an act founded thereon, such as medical doctors, dentists, attorneys- at-law, architects or engineers. ' Mrs. Pierson stated that she would now hear comments in re- buttal, and asked the applicant to begin. Mr. William Caskins, counsel for applicant Regan, pointed out that when Larwin had an application before the Commission, the use being considered was residential. The discussion at this meeting appears to have centered around a maximum of 1500 dwelling units, and only that possible use. There was no discussion at the time the Larwin application was being con- sidered of a professional office complex. Mr. Caskins stated the covenants, resolutions, conditions, etc. presented by Mr. Criswell do refer only to a residential development, but this was the request before the Commission at that time. If the covenants were designed to exclude any use but residential, it would say so in the body of the covenant, but it does not t h ere is no "exclusion" of use. Mr. Caskins stated that any attorney knows how to draw covenants, and it is clear that these covenants presented by Mr. Carey do not so restrict any use to residential. Mr. Caskins stated it is also clear that few people --if any --really want the total site developed to comply with Exhibit A, the general development plan. Mr. Caskins stated that a Waiver of the Subdivision Regulations was given for this --Exhibit A --but the total development did not take place. Mr. Regan is not asking for a Waiver, but ~ is going through the proper process to plat the land. Mr. ~ Caskins asked if there were restrictions in the Subdivision Regulations limiting "who may subdivide?" He stated his client's -23- request to the Commission is reasonable and proper, and asked that the Commission consider the application favorably. Mr. Criswell stated there is no requirement that anyone developer own all the property in order to subdivide it. He suggested that the applicant could go to Larwin and say that the Commission would not approve the platting of only a portion of the land; but that the entire site must be platted. J. D. Willis Sternberg Partnership -stated he had prepared the traffic generation report for the applicant. Mr. Willis took issue with Mr. Welles' projections on the traffic generation. He pointed out that Mr. Welles had used a theoretical floor area approximately 1/2 the area used by Sternberg, but had used the same trip factor to arrive at the total traffic generation projection. Mr. Willis stated there was no correlation on Mr. Welles' projection. Mr. Welles had also projected the structures to five stories. While the Com- prehensive Zoning Ordinance does permit a maximum height of five stories, Mr. Willis stated it would be very difficult and impractical to erect a five-story building and meet the parking requirements, landscaping, open space and other amenities re- quired by Ordinance on a one-half acre lot. Underground parking would be required if a structure did go to the five-story max·imum, and ramp systems and provision for fire equipment access would make this alternative prohibitive from an economic point of view. Mr. Willis noted that the traffic factors he used in the pro- jections were from the Institute of Traffic Engineers. Mr. Criswell asked Mr. Willis if he had taken any traffic counts in Phases 1 . and 4 of the Larwin site? Mr. Willis stated he had not. Mr. Criswell asked if it would not be a fairer method of arriving at the projected amount of traffic to compare that generated by the residential development on the site rather than relying on "arbitrary figures found in textbooks." Mr. Willis stated that the Institute of Traffic Engineers is a nationally recognized organization, and factors cited by this organization in computing traffic generation are used nation- wide. A member of the audience noted that Mr. Willis had stated it would be economically unfeasible to construct five-story buildings in the proposed Subdivision. He asked if Mr. Willis could guarantee there would be no five-story buildings con- structed if the Subdivision is approved? Mr. Willis stated he could give no such guarantee. Mrs. Pierson asked for further comments and questions? Wade moved: Ed Smith seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #31-76 be closed. AYES: Owens, Parker, Pierson, D. Smith, Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Jorgenson Nays: None -24- The motion carried. A recess was called at 10:20 P.M. The meeting reconvened with the following members present: Wade, Williams, Jorgenson, Owens, Parker, Pierson, D. Smith, Ed Smith, Tanguma. Chairman Pierson declared a quorum present, and stated the Planning Commission will now deliberate on the proposed Hampden Professional Park Subdivision. Don Smith moved: Wade seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the Hampden Professional Park Subdivision, as set forth in Case #31-76, with the following conditions made a part of the approval: (1) Buildings in the development of Hampden Professional Park shall not exceed two stories. (2) All development of the Hampden Professional Park Subdivision shall be accomplished under a Planned Development. (3) The following definition of "Professional Office" shall be enforced throughout this development: "Professional Office: The office of a person engaged in any occupation, vocation, or calling, not purely commercial, mechanical, or agricultural in which a professed knowledge or skill in some department of science or learning is used by its practical application to the affairs of others, either advising or guiding them in serving their interest or welfare through the practice of an act founded thereon, such as medical doctors, dentists, attorneys-at-law, architects or engineers." Mr. Parker stated he would have to vote against the motion. The majority of citizens, from the very beginning, have been under the impression the total site would be a residential development. Mr. Parker stated he felt the citizens of the area have the right to continue their reliance on residential development. Mr. Tanguma stated he felt this Commission had been "put in a bind", by the Commission of 1972. Mr. Tanguma stated he felt the proposed development for this portion of the site "would be the best thing right now", otherwise, the land will be "dormant". However, this Commission does have to honor pre- vious commitments and promises. Mr. Tanguma stated that it is clear Larwin cannot complete development of the total site as previously planned; and it will "take a great deal of money to buy the entire site and to enforce the wishes of previous Commissions and Councils". Mr. Tanguma stated the residents of the area have appeared enmasse to voice opposition to the proposed subdivision. -25- Mr. Williams stated he felt the Commission should follow the intent of past Planning Commissions and City Councils, and should honor the wishes of the audience. Mr. Parker stated he did not feel there was any "bind" on the Commission. He stated this Commission is free to make its own decision, and is not under any pressure. Mr. Tanguma stated that he did not think the Commission is legally in a bind; he does feel the commitments made by pre- vious Commissions and Councils, whether or not these commitments are legal, does set a precedent. Mr. Tanguma asked, "do we ignore the wishes of the people and legally approve the sub- division?" He stated he would like to see something developed on the remainder of the Larwin site, and feels Mr. Regan's proposal is very good, and the restrictions imposed in the motion are very good. But, Mr. Tanguma said, he felt the Commission must te responsive to the wishes of the people. Don Smith stated that the testimony seemed to primarily concern itself with traffic and the view of the residents in Kent Village. .With a two-story restriction, there would be less interference with the view, and would result in considerably less traffic. Mr. Smith stated he did not feel there is any one who wants the entire site developed as the north one-half of the site is developed. He stated he feels the proposal, with the proposed restrictions, will be considerably better and will have less traffic than projected. Don Smith pointed out that the only concern of the Commission at this time is the portion of the site encompassed in the proposed Subdivision. Mr. Smith addressed the concern on ecology and traffic; he stated that he felt, with the restrictions he proposed, there would be less congestion. He pointed out the fact that this land is zoned R-3, High Density Residence, and that if someone purchased this property they could put it to its "rightful use". He stated he felt it would be of benefit to the area to develop the site with the restrictions as proposed. Mrs. Pierson stated she does feel a bit of pressure; she stated ihis is the first opportunity she has had to view the documents the covenants and resolution --presented by Mr. Criswell. It appears there are restrictions imposed on the land. The docu- ments and testimony have brought out the fact that the Commission must live up to the promises of preceeding Commissions. Mrs. Pierson stated she thinks Mr. Regan's proposal would be a good addition ·to the neighborhood, but the City does have obligations to the neighborhood. It is true Larwin cannot develop the re- mainder of the site for residential purposes, but this does not mean someone else cannot so develop it. Mrs. Pierson stated it is well and good to say the Commission is considering only that property contained in the proposed Plat, but the "domino theory" is a very real danger. If some development other than residential is approved for this site, this "will break the residential back of that neighborhood." Mrs. Pierson noted that under the zoning, -26- a property owner could develop the land with other uses; but, she stated, she felt the "zoning" is irrelevant in light of restrictions placed on the land. Mrs. Pierson stated she would vote against the motion. Don Smith stated that under the current Subdivision Waiver, it appears that a motel development would be very acceptable. Mr. Jorgenson stated he feels that past Commission members were sincere in what they did. They did feel the Larwin project would be completed. Mr. Jorgenson pointed out that the majority of the site is vacant, and he sees no chance of additional residential units developing there. Because Larwin failed in their commitment does not mean the land should remain vacant. Mr. Jorgenson stated he felt the Subdivision Waiver should be approved. Mr. Parker questioned, in light of the covenants and restrictions on the land, that any use but residential could be developed on the site. Ed Smith stated he does feel the applicant's proposal would be an excellent development, but he also felt the Commission must bow to the wishes of the area residents. Th:is Commission must honor previous commitments. The vote on Don Smith's motion was called. AYES: Jorgenson, Owens, Don Smith, Wade NAYS: Parker, Pierson, Ed Smith, Tanguma, Williams Mrs. Pierson declared the motion failed. Williams moved: Parker seconded: The Planning Commission deny approval of the Final Plat of the Hampden Professional Park Subdivision. AYES: Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Jorgenson, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Ed Smith NAYS: Don Smith The motion carried. Mrs. Pierson thanked the audience for their attendance, and advised applicant Regan to discuss with the staff procedure to be followed if he wished to appeal the decision. IV. SINCLAIR PARK PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Findings of Fact CASE #2-77 Chairman Pierson stated Findings of Fact on the Sinclair Park Planned Development are to be considered. -27- Williams moved: Tanguma & Jorgenson seconded: The Planning Commission accept the Findings of Fact on Sinclair Park Planned Development, Case #2-77, as attached, and recommend to City Council that these Findings be approved and adopted. AYES: Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Jorgenson, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Don Smith NAYS: None The motion carried. V. HOUSE MOVING/DEMOLITION ORDINANCE Proposed Amendments Mrs. Pierson asked for discussion on this issue. Wade moved: CASE #1-77 Tanguma & Ed Smith seconded: That §3-8-6, as proposed, be deleted. AYES: Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Jorgenson, Owens, Parker, Pierson NAYS: Don Smith The motion carried. Wade moved: Williams seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the attached draft of the amended House Moving and Demolition Ordinance, dated March 8, 1977, and that copies be forwarded to the Council for its consideration. AYES: Pierson, Don Smith, Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Jorgenson, Owens, Parker NAYS: None The motion carried. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Wanush and the Commission briefly discussed the decision of the Commission on the Hampden Professional Park Subdivision, and the problems pertaining to any development of the vacant ground in the Larwin site. VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. There was nothing brought up for discussion under Commission's Choice. The meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M. 1/ftf kwlba # ertrude G. W lty Re:ording Se~etary -28- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: March 8, 1977 SUBJECT: Findings of Fact -Sinclair Park Planned Development RECOMMENDATION: Williams moved: Tanguma & Jorgenson seconded: The Planning Commission accept the Findings of Fact on Sinclair Park Planned Development, Case #2-77, as attached, and recommend to City Council that these Findings be approved and adopted. AYES: Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Jorgenson, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Don Smith NAYS: None The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO IN THE MATTER OF CASE #2-77, ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO ) THE APPLICATION OF THE PLANNED ) DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REGULATIONS ) TO A CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND IN ) THE CITY PURSUANT TO §22.4A-l ) OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ) ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO. ) -29- A Public Hearing was held in connection with Case No. 2-77, on February 23, 1977, in the City Council Chambers at the Englewood City Hall. Those members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission who were present were: Mr. Jorgenson, Mr. Owens, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Pierson, Mr. Don Smith, Mr. Ed Smith, Mr. Tanguma, Mrs. Wade and Mr. Williams. No members were absent. FINDINGS OF FACT Upon review of the evidence taken in the form of testimony, presentations, reports and filed documents, the Commission makes the following Findings of Fact. 1. That proper notice of the meeting to consider the Planned Development application was given by publishing and posting. 2. That the area which was being considered is described as: A portion of Section 10, Township 5 South, Range 68 West of the 6th PM, Arapahoe County, State of Colorado, more par- ticularly described as follows: Beginning at the South Quarter Corner of said Section 10; thence S. 89°57'40" W. a distance of 1016.66 feet; thence N. 0°37'53" E. a distance of 220.66 feet to the true point of beginning; thence N. 0°37'53 11 E. a distance of 410.00 feet; thence S. 89°58'14" W. a distance of 165.29 feet; thence S. 0°37'48" W. ~ distance of 410.00 feet; thence N. 89°58 1 14 11 E. a distance of 165.29 feet to the true point of beginning, containing 1.556 acres more or less. -30- 3. That the application was filed by Mr. Gene Johnson, 3400 South Acres Green Drive, Littleton, Colorado 80124, the individual proposing to develop the project which is to be identified as Sinclair Park, a twenty-unit garden apartment development. 4. That the applicant holds an option to purchase the above described land. 5. That the subject area was annexed to the City of Englewood by Ordinance No. 13 of 1953 and the present zoning, R-2, Medium-Density Residence, was imposed by Ordinance No. 50, of 1975; which District permits the construction of residential units not to exceed 14 units per acre. 6. That the property which is the subject of this appli- cation is somewhat unique in that it is 165 feet in width, 410 feet in depth and is situated between two developed subdivisions, each being oriented away from the subject site. 7. That because of the dimensions of the site and its location between the rear yard of one Subdivision and the side yard of another, it is desirable to create a site-oriented environment rather than to conform to the inflexible require- ments of typical Euclidian Zoning. 8. That the purpose of the Planned Development District is to permit and encourage d~versification in the location of structures and the appropriate relationship of the structures to the site without inhibiting the potential advantages of new and imaginative techniques and concepts of design. 9. That the proposed Planned Development has taken into account the uniqueness of the site and is one that will improve the quality and usefulness of the land. 10. That the applicant has filed all of the required data, plans and maps and has agreed to construct the driveway and maneuvering area in the parking lot to the specifications of the Fire Department and Department of Public Works and to comply with all applicable codes and ordinances. 11. That the Planned Development is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. CONCLUSIONS 1. That proper Notice was given of the Public Hearing which was held on February 23, 1977. -31-·. 2. That the application for approval of a Planned Develop- ment to be applied to the construction of a medium-density resi- dential development which was submitted by Mr. Gene Johnson and which is to be located on property lying 410 feet south of West Grand Avenue between the Cherokee/Delaware alley, extended, and South Cherokee Street extended, is in compliance with and will implement the purposes and requirements of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, most particularly §22.4A, Planned Development District, and §22.4-5, R-2, Medium Density Residence District. 3. That the Plan has been designed to create a site- oriented environment for the residents of the development. 4. That the Planned Development would be compatible with the adjacent area and will have no adverse effect on the adjacent properties in relation to storm run-off, off-street parking, traffic circulation, building height, bulk or structure location. 5. That the Planned Development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Englewood, Colorado and the policies therein. 6. That the authority to consider the subject Planned Development and to make a recommendation thereon to the City Council is granted to the City Planning and Zoning Commission in §22.4A of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of Englewood, Colorado. ' RECOMMENDATION Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado, that the application of Gene Johnson, Case #2-77, for approval of a Planned Development for the con- struction of a twenty-unit garden apartment Planned Develop- ment on the following described property be approved. A portion of Section 10, Township 5 South, Range 68 West of the 6th PM,. Arapahoe County, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the South Quarter Corner of said Section 10; thence S. 89°57'40 11 W. a distance of 1016.66 feet; thence N. 0°37 1 53 11 E. a distance of 220.66 feet to the true point of beginning; thence N. 0°37 1 53 11 E. a distance of 410.00 feet; thence S. 89°58 1 1411 W. a distance of 165.29 feet; thence S. 0°37 1 4811 W. a distance of 410.00 feet; thence N. 89°58 1 1411 E. a distance of 165.29 feet to the true point of beginning, con- taining 1.556 acres more or less. -32- Upon the vote of the Commission on a motion made at a regular meeting on February 23, 1977, the following members voted in favor of the Planned Development: Mr. Jorgenson, Mr. Owens, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Pierson, Mr. Don Smith, Mr. Ed Smith, Mr. Tanguma, Mrs. Wade and Mr. Williams. There were no persons voting against the motion and no members of the Commission were absent. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. v.hidith B. Pierson Chairman -33- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: March 8, 1977 SUBJECT: House Moving and Demolition Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Wade moved: Williams seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the attached draft of the amended House Moving and Demolition Ordinance, dated March 8, 1977, and that copies be forwarded to the Council for its consideration. AYES: Pierson, Don Smith, Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Jorgenson, OWens, Parker NAYS: None The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. rtrude G. Welty/ 'Recording Secretary -34- 3-8-1 I 3-8-2 3-8-3 3-8-4 3-8-5 3-8-7 3/8/77 HOUSE MOVING AND DEMOLITION ORDINANCE Definitions .. o o o o o o. o o o Q o. o o ••• o. o •• o. o ••••• o o.. 1 House Moving o •••••• o •• o o . g •••••• o •• o •• o o. o •• o o.. 1 Mover's License -Application -Fee - Insuranceo .... o. o •••• o ••• o •• o. o o ••• o. o Q. o o. 1 (a) Mover's License required •.••.••••••. o·••·o· 1 (b) Mover's License fee ••.•••.••. o ..•.•••.••. o o 2 (c) Certificate of insurance required .o•••••••·· 2 (d) City to be held harmless. • . • • . • • . . • . . • • • • • . 2 Moving Permit. o •••••• o • o •• o •• o •• o ••••• o •••• o • o o o 2 (a) Moving Permit required •••••••.••.••••••••.• 2 (b) Exceptions ••.•..•.•••.••.•.•••••••••.•.••.• 3 Permit -Application .•....•.•.•..•..•.•••.••.•.. 3 (a) The application form •••••.••.•..•.••.•••.•.• 3 General Provisions/Structures Located in the City o o • o o o o o •• o • o o • o o ••••• o •• o • o a •• o •• o •• o • o 3 (a) Structures moved within or into Englewood o •• o •• o • o ••• o o • o • o o • o •••• o •• o • 3 (b) Structures to be moved onto a foundation •••• 4 (c) Additional information required if structure to be located in Englewood ••• 4 -.PG&~:i-Bf; ~~~fS~le-~~~~ Yir~~rrrrrrrrrrr••r-S. (Deleted by Commission action 3/8/77) Planning Commission Approval: Commercial Buildings and two or more dwelling units •.••.•••.•••• 5 (a) No permit to issue without Commission approvalo 0 0. 0 0 •• 0. 0 •• a •• 0. 0 0 0. 0 •• 0. 0.. 6 (b) Twenty copies of information required •••... 6 (c) Staff to prepare a report .•.••••••••.•••••• 6 .. 3-8-8 3-8-9 3-8-10 3-8-11 3-8-12 3-8-13 3-8-14 3-8-15 3-8-16 3-8-17 3-8-18 3-8-19 3-8-20 -35- (d) Commission to hold a Hearingo•o• •O••o•ooo•o 6 (e) Commission Findings o •.• o .. o .• o . o o •• o o ••. o o o 6 (f) Reasons for Disapproval •• o••o••O••••o•••••o 7 Inspection Requiredo. o .• o. o o •• o •• o. o •. o •••. o o o o. 7 Permit -Fee -Expiration.o••••••••o•·o••o•oo••o 7 Performance Bonds --Structure Mover and Owner. o • o •• o • o o •••• o •• o •• o • o o • o • o o • o o ••• o • • 7 (a) Structure Mover ••••••••••• 0.00•0••••0•0•••0 7 (b) Owner o o • o ••••• o •• o o o o •• o • o o o •••••• o •• o • o o o • 8 Cash Deposit o •• o •• o • o ••• o •• o • o o • o •••• o o ••• o o o • o o 9 Use of State Highway -Prior Approval Requested. 9 Structure Moved to Another Jurisdiction.o•o•••o• 9 Preparation for Moving A Structureoo••••••••o•oo 10 (a) Requirements of App~icanto·•••O••••O•O•O••• 10 (b) 48-Hour Restrictiono .• o .• o o •• o •. o. o •. o ••..• 10 Site Maintenanceo•••·o••••••O•O••o·••·o••O•ooooo 11 Traffic Hazard: Preventive Measures •••• o••••••O• 11 (a) Escort May be Required at Mover's Expense.o 11 (b) Warning Lights on Structure •• oo•O••o•oooo•• 11 Advance Posting of Routeo•o•oo•oo•••••O•O•••••oo 11 Time of Movement. o . o .. o . o •••••••• o • o •.••.•. o o . • . 12 Notice to Utility Companies.o•••o••••••·•··•·o•o 13 Stripping, Salvaging, Sales -Prohibitedoo·•·•o• 13 3-8-21 through 3-8-25 --Reservedo•o•oo••••••·•··•·o•·•••• 14 II 3-8-26 Demolition of Structuresoo •o·•••o••o•o••••O•••oo 14 Demolition License Required; Fee; Insuranceo.ooo 14 (a) Demolition License requiredo•oo••••oo•o•••• 14 -36- 3-8-27 3-8-28 3-8-29 3-8-30 (b) Fee o • o •• o • o o ••• o • o •• o • o •• o • o • o o • o • o • o o • o • o o 14 (c) Insurance Required .•..•.••.••.•.•••..•••.•• 14 Demolition Permit Requirements.o•·•••••••••••••• 15 (a) Permit Required •••.•..•..•.••.•.•••.••.•.•• 15 (b) Permit to be Kept on Premises .•..•..••. o··• 15 (c) Permit Fee and Expiration.oo•·••·o•••••••·• 15 (d) Performance and Completion Bond Required ••• 15 Application for Demolition Permit .••.•••••.••.•• 16 Miscellaneous Requirements •.•..•.•••.••.•.••.••• 16 Penalties: Nuisance ••.••.•..•.••••••••.••.•..•• 17 CHAPTER 8 HOUSE MOVING AND DEMOLITION ORDINANCE 3-8-1 DEFINITIONS 3-8~2 As used in this Chapter, the following words and phrases shall be deemed to me~n the following: (a) "Structure Mover": any person, firm or corpor a - tion engaged in the movement or transportation of houses, buildings, structures, or any portions thereof, within or through the City of Englewood (b) "Structure": any house, building, edifice, or portion thereof; EXCEPT A MOBILE HOME WHICH WILL NOT BE PLACED ON A PERMANENT FOUNDATION. (c) "Necessary Constructi<;>n": all foundation, structure, electrical, plumbing and heating construction AND/OR INSTALLATION required to bring the structure into compliance with the current Building Codeo (d) "Demolition": razing , burning, or otherwise destroying a structure. ARTICLE I -HOUSE MOVING MOVER'S LICENSE-APPLICATION -FEE -INSURANCE RB~B~RBMBN ~B (a) No "structure mover" as defined herein shall make application for a ~ving ~rmit without first having applied for and received a "Mover's License" from the City License Officer. (Seco 9-1-1) ---------· -38-(2) 3-8-3 (b) Said Mover's License Fee shall be $50.00 annually which sum shall accompany the application for said license. (c) Prior to issuance of any license, the applicant shall provide proof of insurance by submitting a certificate of insurance to the Director of Finance indicating that the following minimum insurance coverages are in effect: PUBLIC LIABILITY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE Death or injury to any one person Total liability in any accident Property damage Over three (3) stories: $1 million, or excess, "Umbrella" Policy. $100,000. 300,000. 50,000. (d) The insurance shall cover the liability of the Mover with respect to all work performed by and any vehicles used by him or his agents, subcon- tractors, ~~afl~~ or employees, and shall hold the City harmless from any liability arising out of the work authorized by the permit. MOVING PERMIT REQUIRED (a) No person, firm or corporation fioid~fl~ a ¥ftiid Me¥eF~s h4eeHseu; shall perform any of the following without first having secured a Moving Permit from the Code Enforcement Division of the Department of Community Development: (1) Move or raise eRiy ANY structure from its foundation. 3-8-4 3-8-5 -39- ( 3) (2) Move any structure to a site within the City~ (3) Move any structure along or across any public street of the City. (~ Exceptions: A Moving Permit shall not be required TO MOVE A ~e~ construction shack8 as determined by the Chief Building Official or for PORTABLE structures having a maximum floor area of 100 SQUARE PERMIT -APPLICATION (a) THE FORM FOR AN application for a Mover's Permit shall be furnished by the Code Enforcement Division of the Department of Community Development and shall contain the following information: (1) Name, address an~ telephone number of the applicant. (2) Address of present location of structure. (3) Address of proposed location to which the structure is to be moved. (4) Date and time of proposed movement of structures. (5) Proposed route to be used in movement of structure. (6) Description and size of the truck and other equipment proposed to be used in the movement of the structure. GENERAL PROVISIONS/STRUCTURES LOCATED IN THE CITY (a) All ea~d structures MOVED WITHIN OR INTO THE CI'IY OF ENGLEWOOD shall comply with all provisions of the Uniform Building Code for new structures and -40-(4) all required MOVING permits therefore shall be obtained prior to any work being performed. (b) No structure shall be moved ONto a site within the City until the necessary foundation therefor has been completed, inspected and approvedo (c) If the structure is proposed to be located on a site within the City of Englewood, the following additional ~reee~ttres sfia±± ft~~±y ~fie £e±±ew~ftg information shall be submitted with the application: (6 copies of each document): (1) A plot plan, drawn to scale with appropriate dimensions giving the legal description and measurements of the proposed site; the pro- posed location of the structure or structures on the proposed site and any proposed addi- tions; size and location of any existing or proposed buildings on or to be constructed on the proposed site. (2) Elevation sketches, drawn to scale and with appropriate dimensions, representing at least two sides of the structure(s) as they are pro- posed to appear after the structure is moved to the proposed site and all necessary con- struction is completed. (3) A floor plan sketch, drawn to scale and with appropriate dimensions, showing the structure(s) as proposed to be completed on the proposed site. -41- ( 5) (4) A statement describing the size, spacing and span of floor joists, the size and spacing of studs, the ceiling heights of rooms, size and spacing of roof rafters, type of roof and covering, type of heating plant and plumbing and type of construction (frame, brick, etc.). (5) A statement describing proposed addit1ons, repairs, and remodeling. (6) Certificates assuring that bonding and in- surance requirements have been met. 3-8-6 'P6S'f1tNEt ftE'E}l:ttftEBfeNE1 'f\Yfe A:NB 'f\HREE PA:Mtb\' HNt'FS 3-8-7 Ne hESS 'f\HlrN SEY.EN frr BA:\'S PRfeft 'P0 'fHB BA:'fE Pt 0NE' ~we 6ft 'fHREE-PA:Mfh¥ ftESfBE~eE S'f\ftl:te'fl:fRE ts 'f6 BE Me¥BB 6 N re Ir Sf'f1E Wf'f1HfN ~HE et'f¥;-N611teE 6P 'ffiE PftePeSEB ftEhOetrTfON-OF THE STftl:fe'f'fjftE SH/rhh BE 6fY.EN 8¥ PeS'ffNa SAr9 s~~E~ SYSH P9S~lN6 SHAbb SQNi*8~ Q~ A gi~~ ~~ hESS ~HAN ~HREE f6r ~ ~YR ~4r ~EE~ lN sigE bQSA~EQ ~YR ~4r ~EE~ A89¥E 6R9YNQ ~~ A ge~gpicygyg PLACE A~Q Rf6H'P-0~-WA¥; AN9 SHAbb S~A~E~ ~HE QA~ ~HE 8~RYC~YRE Wrhh BE BR9Y6H~ 'ff} 'tlHE s~~E AN9 ~HE NAMES Q~ ~HE M0¥ER ANB 9WNER 9F 'fHE S~RYS~YRE~ A SbEAR PrS~YRE Q~ 'fHB S'fRYe'ffJRE 9N f'fS PRESEN~ s~~E SHAbb BE A~~l~E9 ~ 'fHB Sf6N. * PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL: BUILDINGS IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS AND FOUR OR MORE DWELLING UNITS. * Delet e d by Planning Commission Action on March 8, 1977. -42- (a) ( 6)- No permit for moving A BUILDING FOR WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT IS REQUIRED INTO A COMMERCIAL ZONE DISTRICT OR FOR a structure HAVING FOUR (4) OR MORE DWELLING UNITS to a site within the City shall be issued until plans therefor have been submitted to and approved BY THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. (b) TWENTY-FIVE COPIES OF THE INFORMATION REQUIRED IN §3-8-4(a) AND IN §3-8-5(c) SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATIONo (c) THE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF SHALL REFER COPIES OF THE APPLICATION, TOGETHER WITH ALL OTHER DATA, TO ALL APPLICABLE AGENCIESo THE STAFF SHALL PREPARE A REPORT THEREON FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE ' PLANNING COMMISSION. (d) THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SHALL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION; NOTICE OF SUCH HEARING BEING GIVEN BY POSTING THE PROPERTY AND BY NOTICE IN THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER FOR NOT LESS THAN FIFTEEN DAYS PRIOR TO SAID HEARING. (e) PRIOR TO APPROVING THE APPLICATION, i~ the Com- FIND that the proposed development will not be -43-( Ga ) detrimental to the neighborhood by reason of traffic congestion, restriction of light and air or unusual characteristics of the proposal. -44-( 7) . (f) The City Planning and Zoning Commission may dis- approve the application if the proposed structure is out of character with the structure(s) in the block or facing block of the proposed site by reason of s~y±e BULK, height,er siting character- istics, OR DESIGN SO AS TO CAUSE SUCH STRUCTURE TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD OR TO CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL DEPRECIATION IN PROPERTY VALUES IN THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD. 3-8-8 INSPECTION REQUIRED. ±Be~eet~eft e£ ~fie All structures proposed to be moved INTO THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD shall be INSPECTED mftde by both the Code Enforcement and Traffic Engineering ' Divisions prior to issuance of a permit. 3-8-9 PERMIT -FEE -EXPIRATION A Moving Permit fee for A structure to be moved to a site within the City of Englewood shall be $50.00 and for structures to be moved through or out of the City shall be $25.00. All said Moving Permits shall expire sixty (60) days after date of issuance. 3-8-10 PERFORMANCE BONDS --STRUCTURE MOVER AND OWNER (a) STRUCTURE MOVER A Performance and Completion Bond, or other in- surance bond acceptable to the Chief Building Official, TOGETHER WITH aBd proof thereon in writing by the insuring company, shall be posted by the Structure Mover prior to issuance of the Moving -45~Y (8) Permit. ~he bond; 0£ ftt ieas~ $670007 enai~ inettre ~ne neeessftry ees~ SAID BOND SHALL BE IN AN AMOUNT DETERMINED BY THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL BASED ON THE ESTIMATED COST of raising the structure from the existing foundation, moving the structure to the new site, placing the structure on the new foundation, as well as the cost of cleaning, filling, and leveling the site from which the structure was moved in the City of Englewood, within 48 hours of the removal. Sft4d bend sfift~~ etteh eftse; a bond ft~ ~eas~ e~ttft~ ~e ~fie amettft~ e~ . (b) OWNER A Performance and Completion Bond, or other in- surance bond acceptable to the Chief Building Official, TOGETHER WITH and proof thereon in writing by the insuring company, shall be posted by the owner of the site to which the structure is moved prior to issuance of a permit for necessary construction. The bond of at least $5,000, shall insure the COMPLETION OF THE necessary construction, the moved structure into compliance with the ettPPeft~ Btti~din~ €edea APPLICABLE CITY CODES. Said bond shall be increased above the minimum $5,000 if the -46-(9) Chief Building Official determines that the antici- pated costs of the necessary construction as above set out will exceed $5,000. In such case, a bond IN AN AMOUNT at least equal to the ftM6ttft~ SUM of the anticipated costs shall be required. 3-8-11 CASH DEPOSIT A cash deposit in the amount of one hundred dollars ($100), shall be posted by the Structure Mover with the Chief Building Official prior to issuance of any Moving Permit. Said Deposit may be used to repair damages to public property in the event the Structure Mover does not repair the damages within thirty (30) days of written notice by the Chief Building Official. 3-8-12 USE OF STATE HIGHWAY -PRIOR APPROVAL REQUmED ' No M0¥BR Mo~~~g Perm~t propo~~~g ~o tt~~~~~e-a S~a~e IF A STRUCTURE IS TO BE MOVED FROM A SITE IN ENGLEWOOD AND THE MOVER PROPOSES TO UTILIZE A STATE HIGHWAY AS PART OF THE ROUTE, THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION SHALL NOTIFY THE STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT OF THE PROPOSED MOVE ON THE DAY THE MOVING PERMIT IS ISSUED OR BEFORE NOON ON THE FOLLOWING WORK DAY IF THE PERMIT IS ISSUED AFTER 4:00 P.M. 3-8-13 STRUCTURE MOVED TO ANOTHER JURISDICTION. If the structure is proposed to be moved from a site in Englewood to a site in another jurisdiction, the Code Enforcement Division shall ~&t~~~ GIVE WRITTEN NOTICE TO • -47- (9a) the appropriate official in the jurisdiction exercising control over the site to which the structure is to be moved. Such notice mfty SHALL be by ~hone; in wri~in~, o~ by di~ee~ eon~fte~ GIVEN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER THE PERMIT IS ISSUED and is made to insure that the timing of the move can be coordinated between the two jurisdictions. • -48-(10) 3-8-14 PREPARATION FOR MOVING A STRUCTURE (a) In preparation for moving a structure, the applicant shall, or shall cause: (1) The openings in the vacated structure TO BE protected with suitable coverings to prevent unauthorized entry or vandalism • (2) The power to all service lines TO BE shut off and all such lines disconnected outside of the property lines. (3) The disconnection and capping of all gas, water, steam,sewer and other service lines outside of the building line, curb line or at the main transmission line as directed by the company providing the service. ' (4) The notification, in advance, of all utility companies providing service to the site and their approval obtained prior to the dis- connection. (5) The payment of all costs of utility dis- connections, capping, and bills for service. (b) No structure shall be raised from its foundation in preparation for moving until within forty-eight (48) hours of the approved time OF MOVING. The €fiie~ Blii±6iB~ 0~~ieia± DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT may, upon show of DUE cause by the structure mover, issue written approval for an extension of the above time. 3-8-15 SITE MAINTENANCE -q~ ( 11) ~ The structure mover shall clean or cause the cleaning of the site from which the structure was taken by re- moving all debris, material or equipmento Further, said mover shall fill all holes and irregularities of the site within forty-eight (48) hours after removal of the structure to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official. 3-8-16 TRAFFIC HAZARD €REA~EB; E8€0R~; E*PENBE; b~6H~S 0N 8~R~€~aRE : PREVENTIVE MEASURES (a) If, in the judgement of the Traffic Engineering Division, the moving of a structure may create a traffic hazard, a police escort, or other escort, may be required to be.provided by the Structure Mover for the purpose of regulating traffic along the route of the move. Where such escort is re- quired, the expense shall be borne by the Structure Mover. The escort shall not have the authority to waive or vary any of the requirements of the permit or applicable sections of the Code. (b) A flashing red light shall be required at each main corner of the structure being moved and at the end of any projection thereon when the structure is lo- cated within a public right-of-wayo 3-8-17 ADVANCE POSTING~-N0~i€E OF ROUTE WHEN IT IS DETERMINED BY THE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION THAT wfien the movement of a structure along an approved route would be impeded by vehicles parked within the public right-of-way, as fte~ermineft ey ~he -so-(12) eftttse ~e ftft¥e ~es~ed7 e~ the Traffic Engineering Division SHALL POST No Parking signs along such rights-of-way at least 48 hours prior to the structure moveo THE STRUCTURE MOVER SHALL PAY THE COST OF Fees ~e~ posting THE said "No Parking" signs sfia~l ee es~ael'.ished AS DETERMINED by the Traffic Engineering Divisiono The Traffic Engineering Division is hereby authorized to move, or cause to be moved, any vehicle parked in violation of such signso 3-8-18 TIME OF MOVEMENT THE time of movement of a structure shall be approved by the Traffic Division, the Police Department and the Fire Department, AND IF THE STRUCTURE IS TO BE MOVED ' OVER A STATE HIGHWAY, THE TIME OF SUCH MOVE SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT. The Structure Moving Permit shall become null and void un- less the move is completed within the specified time approved on the permit; provided, however, that the Director of Community Development may extend the time period of the move FOR 48 HOURS after consulting with the Traffic Division, the Police Department and the Fire Department. Such extensions shall be permitted only when the moving at the original time is rendered impractical by reason of inclement weather, strikes, or other causes beyond the control of the Structure Mover. 3-8-19 NOTICE TO UTILITY COMPANIES -51-( 13) AT LEAST THREE (3) DAYS PRIOR TO THE PROPOSED MOVE, the Structure Mover shall notify all utility companies maintaining poles, lines or equipment within the public right-of-way of the approved route. ft~ lefts~ ~ftPee dftys 3-8-20 STRIPPING; SALVAGING; SALES -PROHIBITED Stripping, salvaging and/or sales of parts or materials OF A STRUCTURE is prohibited on the premises from which the structure is to be moved or to which the structure is to be moved. PBNAb~¥j Nl:f 16AN€B in ~ioiat±on of any prov±~ion of ~ft~s Arti*eie is aeFee~ dee%ared to be ft pttb~ie Bttisanee ftftd tt~en a~~~*ea~ieB ~aa~ AF~ie±e ii ~Wreekiag~ Bee~iea ~~, €ae~~eF 8 7 !±tie tff of the •e9-!7M:e~ ts hereby repeaied and sa±d ~rt±cie -52-(14) 3-8-21 through 3-8-25 Reserved. ARTICLE II. DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES. 3-8-26 DEMOLITION LICENSE REQUIRED; FEE; INSURANCE (a) No person, firm or corporation shall make applica- tion for a Demolition Permit without first having applied for and received a Demolition License from the City License Officer. (See Section 9-1-1). (b) Said annual Demolition License fee shall be $50.00 which sum shall accompany the application for said License. EXCAVATING CONTRACTORS LICENSED BY THE CITY SHALL NOT B~ SUBJECT TO THIS FEE. No license fee shall be required of an owner OFA SINGLE-FAMIIX DWELLING doing such work OR HAVING SUCH WORK DONE IN COMPLIANCE WITH AN ORDER ISSUED • BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION ON HIS OR HER OWN PREMISES. (c) Any such person, firm or corporation having re- ceived a Demolition License and applying for a permit to demolish any structure shall be covered by public liability and property damage insurance at least in the following minimum amounts: Death or injury to any one person Total liability in any one accident Property damage $ 50,000. $300,000G $ 50,000. The insurance shall cover the liability of the permit holder with respect to all work, and vehicles -53- ( 15). used by THE PERMIT HOLDER h~m or his agents, subcon- tractors, ser¥ftR~s or employees and shall hold tre City harmless from any liability arising out of the work authorized by the permit. 3-8-27 _DEMOLITION PERMIT; REQUIREMENTS (a) No structure within the City of Englewood shall be demolished unless and until a permit therefor has been issued by the Code Enforcement Division of the Department of Community Development. (b) A separate :1)3molition Permit shall be required for each structure to be demolishedo The permit shall be kept on the premises during the demolition, and shown, on demand, to any authorized agent of the City of Englewood. (c) The permit fee shall be $50.00 and shall expire sixty (60) days after the date of issuanceo No ~9~m~~ 9~ fee shall be required of ft ~r~¥a~e-fieme- ewRer AN OWNER OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING doing such work on his own premises OR FOR THE OWNER OF A BUILDING FOR WHICH A DEMOLITION ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION. (d) A Performance and Completion Bond shall be required by the person, firm or corporation proposing to complete the demolition prior to the issuance of any permit. Said bond shall be in an amount TO BE DETERMINED BY THE CHIEF BUILDING fNSPB€~0R OFFICIAL BASED ON THE ESTIMATED COST TO BRiN6 ~HE 8~RB€~FRB -54-(16) f nepeetor ~hott%d be determine ~hft~ tt-~rea~er ameti.B~ ~ ~~ neeeeettry ~o ft~~ttre eo~ertt~e e£ eom~ie~ieB ees~s~ Sttid bond ~s ~o ~ttr~her assure completion of the proposed work, including that work necessary to clean, fill and level the site within 48 hours after the structure is demolished. 3-8-28 APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION PERMIT. (a) PERSONS HOLDING A DEMOLITION LICENSE CAN OBTAIN AN application for a Demolition Permit ~by ~hose Enforcement Division of the Department of Community Development. ftfl~ THE APPLICATION shall contain the following information: (1) Name, address and telephone number of the applicant. (2) NAME, ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF THE OWNER OF THE STRUCTURE TO BE DEMOLISHED. (3) Address of the proposed demolition. (4) Starting date and proposed time period during which the demolition would occur. a. WHEN THE DEMOLITION HAS COMMENCED, IT SHALL BE DILIGENTLY PROSECUTED AND COMPLETED WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME. (5) Description of the proposed method of demolition as proposed methods of public protection (such as dust control, security, etc.). 3-8-29 MISCELLANEOUS REQUIREMENTS. PRIOR TO THE DEMOLITION OF ANY STRUCTURE: (a) The power to all service lines SHALL BE shut off -55- (17) and all such lines SHALL BE disconnected outside of the property lines. (b) ~he dieeonneetion and ea~~~n~ o~ All gas, water, steam, sewer and other service lines outside of the building line, curb line or at the main trans- mission line SHALL BE DISCONNECTED AND CAPPED as directed by the company providing the serviceo (c) Notification SHALL BE GIVEN in advance e£ TO all OF THE utility companies providing service to the site and their approval SHALL BE obtained prior to the disconnection. (d) Pfty7 e~ ea~se ~6 fiftve ~a~d; All costs of utility disconnections, capping, and bills for service SHALL BE PAID. (e) Special traffic, parking and/OR pedestrian pro- visions SHALL BE PROVIDED AT THE APPLICANT'S EXPENSE IF THEY ARE required by the Chief Building ex~enee~ (f) THE sale of ANY parts or materials FROM THE STRUCTURE SHALL BE PROHIBITED on the premiseso 6~ ~fie-deme- (g) THE SITE SHALL BE CLEANED, FILLED AND LEVELED WITHIN 48 HOURS AFTER THE STRUCTURE IS DEMOLISHED. 3-8-30 PENALTIES; NUISANCE The MOVING OR demolition of any structure within the City of Englewood in violation of any provision of this -56-(18) Article is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and, upon application of the Director of Community Development, the City Attorney is hereby authorized and directed, without the necessity of further authority of the City Council, to institute such legal proceedings as may be necessary to obtain a judicial abatement thereof. In addition, the violation by any person of any pro- vision of this Article may be prosecuted as other violations of Municipal Ordinances and shall subject the violator to those fines and penalties as are pro- vided for in Chapter 2 of Title I of this Code. ..