HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-03-09 WSB AGENDA.f
AGENDA
ENGLEWOOD WATER AND SEWER BOARD
MARCH 9, 1999
5:00 P.M.
CONFERENCE ROOM A
1. MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 9, 1999
WATER AND SEWER BOARD MEETING. (ATT. 1)
2. CITY DITCH LICENSE AGREEMENT. -3701 S. LOGAN.
(ATT. 2)
3. LETTER FROM DENVER WATER BOARD DATED 2-26-99
RE: VALLEY WATER DISTRICT. (ATT. 3)
4. LETTER DATED 2-3-99 FROM ANDREW NATHAN
RE: WOLHURST LANDING LITIGATION. (ATT. 4)
5. FAX FROM HIGHLANDS RANCH METRO. DATED 2-9-99
RE: GRANT OF SEWER LINE EASEMENT. (ATT. 5)
6. ALLEN PLANT SCHEMATIC. (ATT. 6)
7 . OTHER.
WATER AND SEWER BOARD
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 9, 1999
A TT. I
1. MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 13, 1999 MEETING.
The Englewood Water and Sewer Board Minutes from the
December 13, 19998 meeting were approved.
Mr. Burns moved;
Mr. Otis seconded:
Ayes:
Nays:
Members absent:
Motion carried.
2. NEW MEMBER -GARY KASSON
To approve the December 13,
1999 Englewood Water and Sewer
Board Minutes.
Clark, Burns, Cassidy, Otis,
Vobejda, Bradshaw
None
Habenicht, Higday
The Board welcomed Gary Kasson, the newest Englewood Water
and Sewer Board member. Mr. Kasson's appointment is
effective on February 16, 1999 and will expire February l,
2004.
3. LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHPARK & SOUTHWEST METRO.
SouthPark Metropolitan District has agreed to the City's
License Agreement and will install a 12" PVC sanitary sewer
line in a 22" steel casing under the City of Englewood's
right-of-way for the City Ditch. The proposed
infrastructure line will serve the SouthPark Subdivision
Filling No. 5 near County Line Road and Santa Fe.
The License Agreement requires SouthPark to relocate their
facilities if they should interfere with any City Ditch
relocation in the next ten years. The City engineers have
reviewed the plans and do not anticipate any interference
should occur. It is expected that the City Ditch will be
rebuilt in this area before the ten-year period is over.
The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the License
Agreement as to form.
Mr. Otis moved;
Ms. Bradshaw seconded:
Ayes:
Nays:
Members absent:
Motion carried.
To recommend Council approval
of the License Agreement with
SouthPark Metropolitan
District for a sewer line
easement for the Southwest
Metropolitan District.
Clark, Burns, Cassidy, Otis,
Vobejda, Bradshaw
None
Habenicht, Higday
4. SOUTHGATE SUPPLEMENTS #140 -#141 -#142.
Supplement #140 is a request from Southgate Sanitation
District representing the owner, James M and Joan K.
Fleming, for inclusion into the Southgate Sanitation
District for an area approximately 2.88 acres. The zoning
per Greenwood Village is R-2.5 for a single-family
residence, with the proposed use to stay the same. The
property is located north of E. Orchard Ave., south of
Belleview and west of Colorado Blvd. The address is 3700 E.
Alexander Ave.
Supplement #141 is a request from Southgate Sanitation
District representing the owner, Peter B. Kooi, for
inclusion into the Southgate Sanitation District for an area
approximately 2.5 acres. The zoning per Greenwood Village
is R-2.5 for a single-family residence, with the proposed
use to stay the same. The property is located north of E.
Orchard Ave., south of Belleview and west of Colorado Blvd.
The address is 3801 E. Garden Ave.
Supplement #142 is a request from Southgate Sanitation
District representing the owner, Marian J. Plunkett, for
inclusion into the Southgate Sanitation District for an area
approximately 2.87 acres. The zoning per Greenwood Village
is R-2.5 for a single-family residence, with the proposed
use to stay the same. The property is located north of E.
Orchard Ave., south of Belleview and west of Colorado Blvd.
The address is 3700 E. Garden Ave.
Ms. Bradshaw moved;
Mr. Cassidy seconded:
Ayes:
Nays:
Members absent:
Motion carried .
To recommend Council approval
of Southgate Supplements #140,
#141 and #142.
Clark, Burns, Cassidy, Otis,
Vobejda, Bradshaw
None
Habenicht, Higday
5. CENTENNIAL WATER & SAN. DISTRICT -GRANT OF EASEMENT.
Centennial Water and Sanitation District submitted a request
for a Grant of Easement for a utility line that is proposed
to cross property owned by Englewood, near McLellan
Reservoir in Douglas County.
The final draft of the Grant of Easement will be forthcoming
to the City Attorney for final approval.
Mr. Burns moved;
Mr. Otis seconded:
Ayes:
Nays:
Members absent:
Motion carried.
To recommend Council approval
of the Grant of Easement from
Centennial water and
Sanitation District for a
utility line crossing on a
portion of Englewood's
property near McLellan
Reservoir.
Clark, Burns·, Cassidy, Otis,
Vobejda, Bradshaw
None
Habenicht, Higday
6. McLELLAN RESERVOIR PROPERTY.
Stu discussed an outline given earlier to City Council
regarding the McLellan Reservoir Property options. Council
directed the City Manager, the City Attorney and Utilities'
legal council, David Hill, to draft a proposal for Council
regarding future plans for the McLellan Reservoir property.
7. DENVER/THORNTON CASE #96CW145
Stu reviewed Case #96CW145 between the City of Denver and
the City of Thornton regarding litigation on water quality
standards for the the S. Platte River. Denver and Thornton
have entered into preliminary settlement negotiations.
Englewood's water council, David Hill and Jack Graves, have
been communicating Englewood's settlement goals to Denver.
Stu will keep the Board apprised of this case.
8. WASTEWATER TRANSMISSION AGREEMENT.
The Board received a request to extent the Wastewater
Transmission Agreement between South Arapahoe Sanitation
District, Waste Management of Colorado and Arapahoe County.
Stu reviewed the purpose of the agreement which is to
continue to allow a recovery system which was installed in
January, 1995 at the request of the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment to prevent the migration of
low concentrations of volatile organic compounds in shallow
groundwater from the County Line Landfill. The groundwater
is discharged into the sanitary sewer belonging to South
Arapahoe Sanitation District and ultimately treated at the
Littleton /Englewood wastewater Treatment Plant under a
Wastewater Contribution Permit.
Stu noted that there have been no problems with the existing
agreement and they are asking for a three-year extension.
The Board concurred with extending the agreement and
directed Mr. Fonda to facilitate the agreement.
Mr. Otis moved;
Mr. Clark seconded:
Ayes:
Nays:
Members absent:
Motion carried.
To recommend Council approval
of the Wastewater Transmission
Agreement between South
Arapahoe Sanitation District,
Waste Management of Colorado
and Arapahoe County.
Clark, Burns, Cassidy, Otis,
Vobejda, Bradshaw
None
Habenicht, Higday
9. FIRE HYDRANT PERMITS.
The Board received a Memorandum dated December 2, 1998 from
John Bock, the Englewood Utilities Manager. The memo
outlined the revision to the existing fire hydrant code
allowing enforcement of standard penalties for illegal use
of an Englewood fire hydrant.
Mr. Otis moved;
Mr. Clark seconded:
Ayes:
Nays:
Members absent:
Motion carried.
To recommend Council approval
of the code revision to #12-
lB-10, Connections to Fire
Hydrants, allowing standard
penalties for illegal use.
Clark, Burns, Cassidy, Otis,
Vobejda, Bradshaw
None
Habenicht, Higday
10. LETTER OF APPRECIATION -TOM CHESHER & TOM RIOTTE.
The Board received a copy of a memorandum from Officer M.J.
O'Connor expressing appreciation to Tom Chesher and Tom
Riotte for assisting him with an elderly woman whose car had
broken down on W. Belleview and S. Windermere on Jan. 12,
1999.
The next Water and Sewer Board meeting will be March 9, 1999
at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Room A.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathy Burrage
Recording Secretary
Date
April 5, 1999
INITIATED BY
Utilities Department
ATT. 2
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Agenda Item Subject
License Agreement -First
Church of Christ -3701 S.
Logan
STAFF SOURCE
Stewart Fonda, Director of Utilities
COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
None
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Englewood Water and Sewer Board, at their March 9, 1999 meeting , recommended
Council approval of the License Agreement for the First Church of Christ , Scientist at 3701 S.
Logan St.
BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED
The property located at 3701 S. Logan St. is owned by the First Church of Christ, Scientist.
The Church has submitted a License Agreement to maintain and pave over the City Ditch for a
parking area and to provide an ingress/egress entry. The City Ditch segment to be paved over
is located at the southwest corner of Logan and Kenyon and runs through the north portion of
the Church's property.
The Licensee expressly assumes full and strict liability for any and all damages of every nature
to person or property caused by the point or points where the Licensee performs any work in
connection with the crossing provided by the Licensee. The City reserves the right to make
full use of the property necessary in the operation of the City Ditch. The City retains all rights
to operate, maintain, install, repair, remove or relocate any of its ' facilities located with the
City's right-of-way.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
License Agreement
Bill for Ordinance
LICENSE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of the
______ day of , 19 _____ _
by and between the CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, a municipal
corporation of Colorado, hereinafter referred to as "City"
and
FIRST CHURCH OF CHRIST, SCIENTIST
, hereinafter referred to as "Licensee," ----
WITNESSETH: The City without any warranty of its title
or interest whatsoever, hereby authorizes Licensee to
maintain a parcel of land in the City's rights-of-way for
the City Ditch a parcel of land situated in the
SW 1/4 NE 1/4 of Section 3 , Township
5 SOUTH Range
68 WEST of the 6th. P.M.,
County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado and lying within the
following described lines:
"see attached"
Also known as (address) 3701 S. Logan Street
~--------------------
The above-described parcel contains
acres, more or less.
0.041
1. In granting this License, the City reserves the righ~ to
make full use of the property involved as may be necessary
or convenient in the operation of the City and the City
retain all rights to operate, maintain, install, repair,
remove or relocate any of its facilities located within the
City's property at any time and in such a manner as it deems
necessary or convenient. In the event Licensee's
installations should interfere with the City's use or
operation of its property, at any time hereafter, Licensee
shall, upon request by the City and at Licensee's sole
expense, immediately relocate, rearrange or remove its
installation so as not to interfere with any such City use
and to remove the installation of Licensee when necessary or
convenient for the City, its successors or assigns.
2. The City shall have the right to maintain, install,
repair, remove or relocate the City Ditch or any other of
its facilities or installations within the city's right-of-
way, at any time and in such manner as the City deems
necessary or convenient. The City reserves the exclusive
right to control all easements and installations.
3. The rights and privileges granted in this License shall
be subject to prior agreements, licenses and/or grants,
recorded or unrecorded, and it shall be the Licensee's sole
responsibility to determine the existence of said documents
or conflicting uses or installations.
4. The Licensee shall have the right to maintain the above
described parcel including but not limited to planting and
trimming grass, shrubbery and/or trees, fertilization and·
irrigation and removal of trash and brush.
5. Access to the parcel by City personnel must be
maintained by Licensee for inspection and maintenance.
repair or replacement of any City installation made the
expense of the Licensee.
Any
sole
6. No construction shall be allowed on this parcel without
express written permission from the City.
7. Upon abandonment of any right or privilege herein
granted, the right of Licensee to that extent shall
terminate, but is obligation to indemnify and save harmless
the City, its officers and employees, shall not terminate in
any event.
8. The rights granted Licensee hereunder may not be
assigned without the written consent of the City.
Licensee shall comply with all applicable laws and
ordinances and all rules, regulations and requirements of
any environmental standards and conditions of the premises.
If, as a result of the Licensee 1·s occupancy of the premises
and its operations hereunder, any such law, ordinance, rule,
regulation is violated, Licensee shall protect, save
harmless, defend and indemnify City from and against any
penalties, fines, costs and expenses including legal fees
and court costs incurred by City, caused by, resulting from
or connected with such violation or violations.
In granting the above authorization, the City reserves the
right to make full use of the property involved as may be
necessary or convenient in the operation of the water works
plant and system under the control of the City.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been executed
as of the day and year first above written.
ATTEST: CITY OF ENGLEWOOD,
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
LicAgr Parking Lot
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A Parcel of land, located in a portion of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of
Section 3, Township 5 South, Range 68 West, of the Sixth Principal Meridian, City of
Englewood, County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado, being more particularly described as
follows;
Commencing at the Northeast corner of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said
Section 3; Thence South 44°28'52" West, a distance of 42.69 feet, to the Northeast corner of Lot
48, Block 4 of the Wynetka Heights Subdivision, recorded in Book 4 at Page 15, in the Office of
the Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder, said point also being the True Point of Beginning;
Thence South 89°07'35" West, along the North line of said Lot 48, a distance of 47.59 feet;
Thence South 18°32'16" East , a distance of71.10 feet; Thence South 89°42'08" West, a distance
of26.32 feet; Thence North 18°32'16" West, a distance of70.82 feet, to the North line of said
Lot 48; Thence North 89°07'35" East, along said North line, a distance of 26.24 feet, to the True
Point of Beginning.
Said parcel contains 0.041 acres (1,774 square feet), more or less .
Bearings are based on said North line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said
Section 3, being North 89°07'35" East, a distance of 1,321.28 feet.
.,·.\'.'qp;n~: '; ... '~;_;>:,JJ;// .r,_,,, .,,,,.,,,,,,u..r-,:/)f~-,,':,'.:~-.:;\:.::..
Du Wayne . !PhiUiP,:~ PLS #93 29 \\
For and on B~half\;rr sz::o ( · · -., ;f
Rocky Moundin Consultants, Inc ~//
8301 E. Prentic~·Ave.'.'st~'.''l'Ol -«.<~);·
., • ! I ; .: ·\·
Englewood, Co. 80'1'1.l..,;;-.>-.\•·::·'
(303) 741-6000
Date:_&_._/;_J~/,_9 __
EXHIBIT
P.O.C.
NW COR, SW 1/4, NE 1/4
NO CAP SOUTH LOGAN
SE COR, SW 1/4, NE 1/4
SEC . 3 T5S, R68W, 6TH PM
FOUND NO. 5 REBAR .
NO CAP
STREET SEC. 3 T5S , R68W, 6TH P7 FOUND NO. 5 REBAR
1323 05'(R) CITY OF ENGLEWOOD MAPS
_______ J_OB_N_O . ·D~33 .001 SHT 7 OF 13 SEPT. 198H
S 00'09'51" E 1323.16'(M)
<.;
30'
a::
io
N
26 . 75'(R) 25'(R)
(\j
__J
26.69'(R) 25'(R)
25'(R)
25'(R)
I ~
0
I")
25'(R)
CH URCH
BLDG .
25'(R) 25'(R)
l[)
~~~@ ~~~j{
THIS EXHIBIT DOES NOT REPRESENT
A MONUMENTED SURVE Y. IT IS ONLY
INTENDED TO DEPICT THE A TI ACHED
DESCRIPTION.
30'
LINE
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS, INC .
SCALE : 1 "= 30'
BEARING DISTANCE
s 44'28'52" w 42.69'
s 89'07'35" w 47 .59'
S 18'32'16" E 71 .10 '
s 89 '42'08" w 26 .32'
N 18'32'16" W 70.82'
N 89'07 '35" E 26.24' :tmc
SHEET 2 OF 2
8301 E. Prentice Ave . Suite 101 Englewood , CO 80111 (303) 74 1-6000 FAX (303) 741-6106
Ch_esmt.dwg
JOB NO. 2882.007.00 DATE 02 18 99 VRI REVISED
Denver Board of Water Commissioners
William J. Shoemaker, President
William R. Roberts, 1st Vice President
Denise S. Maes
Richard A. Kirk
Ronald L. Lehr
February 26, 1999
Andy McMinimee
City Manager
City of Littleton
2255 West Hinsdale Drive
Littleton, CO 80165
Stu Fonda
Utilities Director
City of Englewood
3400 S. Elati
Englewood, CO 80110
Dear Andy and Stu:
Hamlet J. Barry, Ill, Manager
ATT. 3
1600 West 12th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80254
303/628-6000
Fax 303/628-6509
hjb@water.denver.co.gov
Denver Water has been asked whether the City of Englewood can continue to serve an
area within the boundaries of the City of Littleton once the Valley Water District
dissolves. Denver Water has no desire to serve the area and has no objection to
Englewood's continued service. The problem arises from paragraph 14 of Littleton's
Total Service Contract with the Board, which states:
[Littleton] agrees that it will neither directly nor indirectly furnish, nor
authorize the furnishing, of any water service within the Contract Service
Area or through use of any of its facilities except as herein provided.
While the Contract Service Area generally coincides with Littleton's municipal
boundaries , differences are permiss ible under the Total Service Contract. The Contract
Service Area is defined by legal description in Exhibit A to the contract. It would be a
simple enough matter to exclude the Valley Water District area from the legal
description of the Contract Service Area. In that event, paragraph 14 would not apply.
If either of you can send us a legal description of the affected area, we will process the
change in the Contract Service Area.
Paragraph 14 is a relic, reflecting the concern in 1970 when the Total Service Contract
was executed over having enough customers. Nowadays, we have plenty of
customers, but worry instead about water quality. For that reason, the new form of
distributor contract allows water service from others, so long as the quality of our water
is not affected. Paragraph 2.11 of the new contracts provides:
CONSERVE
Except as provided herein, potable water Furnished hereunder shall not
be commingled with water from any other source. [Distributor] may supply water
from another source by means of a completely separate water distribution -
system.
I mention this only to remind you that the new distributor contract (actually it's the 1993
version) is available for Littleton to sign. It replaces several anachronistic provisions in
the old contracts. We can certainly address the annexation issue and establish a more
functional working relationship, and I still hope this will occur. In the meantime, we can
resolve the Valley Water District issue consistent with the terms of the old contract.
?!;el~
H.J. Barry
Manager
eze
McMin imee/Fonda
2
NATHAN, BREMER, DUMM & MYERS, P.C.
ATIORNEYS AT LAW
J. ANDREW NATHAN
HOWARD W . BREMER
MARKH. DUMM
ANNE SMITH MYERS
ELLIS J . MAYER
MARKE. MACY
HE IDI J. HUGOAHL
KAREN R. WELLS
MICHAEL R. LANCTO
ANDREW J . FISHER
BERNARD WOESSNER
NINA HAMMON JAHN
ALLYSON C. HODGES
BENJAMIN E. TRACY
950 So th Cherry Street, #800
Denver, CO 80222
RE: Claimant -Wolhurst Landing
City Member -City of Englewood
D/L -5115/96
Claim No. -4770
Dear Nile:
February 3, 1999
DENVER CENTERPOINT
3900 EAST MEXICO AVE NUE
SUITE i OOO
C&lvER CCLCRAOO Pn21o.3S.LS
PHONE: (303) 891 ·3737
FAX : (303) 757·5108
RETIR=:O:
PETER W ATSO N
Attached please find a copy of a letter that I received from plaintiff's counsel regarding
settlement. As you can see, Wolhurst Landing has rejected our requirement that any proposal
eliminate any future City liability and has countered with a proposal to cap City liability at
$25,000.00. By copy of this letter to Dan Brotzman and Stu Fonda, I am requesting their
tho~ghts and comments. Even if we can reach an agreement in principle concerning the
structure of a settlement, we still have to negotiate the precise terms. Nevertheless, from my
previous conversations with Stu Fonda, it appears to me that this proposal is not sufficient to
prompt further settlement negotiations.
We will proceed to respond to the other points raised in Mr. Short's letter.
We will keep you further ad vised .
JAN /pc ~,.
cc: Daniel Brat an, Esq.
Stu Fonda·
Bill McCormick
Colleen Caudill
Sincerely,
J. Andrew Nathan
ORTEN & Hn<o>.L-\~
.L.·~·,·~· c· . .\ ! . t )··:l··
T;t."'!~··· J. Hrn.:· i ... ':
L.:u!·1:.l. (ii/1 .:1 ··
./din:. \l.F. F1 •.. :
Tii.•1::,1.' \I. IJ ,,:;,!'
\\:·1L:,:;.: H . ).th··:
Qi Coun; ... I
1099 Eighteenti1 <;1-e·cl
5ui1~ 2 ~30
D~m·ec . CO 8021l c-!"c-
31)_~· 19 2-9')1}'1
to n lrei::· 800/Dl/.L.J .2...!~
la, 303 :~:..J -2 1 :-~,
e -17li:lil
h 0 J.IG\v·fi ortenh!n:ln1ti:1.com
~-· ( l \ •.,::'.I: )~ ( :i li ) '. ~;
NON-ADMISSIBLE OFFER OF COMPROMISE PURSUANT TO C.R.E. 408
January 28, 1999
]. Andrew Nathan, Esq.
Allyson C. Hodges , Esq.
Nathan, Bremer, Dumm & Myers, P.C.
3900 East Mexico A venue, #1000
Denver, CO 80210
Re: \Vollwrst Land ing Owners A ss ociation, Inc. v. City of Englew ood
Case: No.: 98 CV 18S -f, Di vision 4
Our File No .: 8712 )027
Dear Mr. Nathan an d Ms. Ho dg es :
I met with the Bo ard of Directors of Wolhurst Landing on January 20, 1999 in
order to discuss the current settlement "proposal." Obviously, the tentative
nature of your proposal creates concern for my client. While my client would
like to explore settlement, it will not be productive without the City's
commitment to the proces s and the result.
In order to put more flesh on your proposal. I outline the following factors,
which I will expla in further in the body of the letter. Please refer to the
enclosed copy of RG Con sulting Engineers, Inc. proposal dated May 9, 1989
(\VOL "'375-387). Options 3 and 5 may be more cost-effective for the City than
option 4 (the current suggested remediation) because the disturbance to the
buildings and decks is n o t nece ssary, yet the same result may be achieved.
Wolhurst Landing proposes to have the City contract to engineer and perform
such remedial work along the approximate 1,200 feet of property where the
canal runs adjacent to Wolhurst Landing. In addition, the City would pay a
sum to be determined in compensation for damages arising from the 1996
flood . ln exchange, Wolhurst Landing would agree to cap the City's liability
for negligence at $25 ,000. This fi gure is what Wolhurst Landing believes will
b e the deductible for an y affo rd a ble catastrophic flo o d in surance which it may
b e a b le t o secure for t he buildings and found a ti o ns. Finall y, the City would
reaffirm ic s on goi n g o b ligacion t o r epair a nd maintain the ditch.
I think thi s re sult addresse s the interests of b o th parties. The City would like
t o eliminate its po tentia l liability, whereas Wolhurst Landing cannot control
Englewoo d's maintenan ce of the ditch, and accordingly cannot assume the risk
of lo ss which would result from a catastrophic flood. Nevertheless. because
\'(! olhurs t Landi n g belie ves affordable flood in surance is a v ailable for the
structures, it is wil li ng t o cap the City's liabilit y at the po int where the
in surance applies. i.e. $25,00 0 . I w i ll advise you promptly of any developments
concerning flo o d insuran ce.
Becaus e m o st o f th e pri o r leak his to ry has in v ol v ed small periodic leaks, it is
hoped on e of the lo wer-co st soluti o ns set forth in the RG Consulting
Engineers' report will be money \Veil-s pent b y the City, by halting the periodic
leaking which has plagu ed this ditch in the area of Wolhurst Landing since
--.. ;--. \~'. ~;:-_ ·: ,.1 ~.: : . ./ L. '.-:
ORTEN & HIND:-.!.-\~
Page 2
J. Andrew Nathan, Esq.
Nathan. Bremer, Dumm & Myers. P.C.
January 28, 1999
1981. As the City's own records demonstrate (\VOL *340), the City has been
expending considerable resources on addressing problems with the ditch after
the fact, and we hope proactive maintenance and the suggested repairs will
eliminate future flooding. Wolhurst Landing is entitled to compensation for
the losses which it incurred in connection with the 1996 flood, and a monetary
settlement should be a part of this overall settlement.
Since it may impact how you evaluate the attractiveness of this settlement
offer, 1 would like to address the thrust of your defense and discovery requests
with a few comments. First, 1 believe the City accepted Mr. Johnson's work for
the ditch, and because that allegation (Complaint, paragraph 16) was denied "at
this time" in the City's Answer, your disclosures should have included either an
affirmative document to that effect or the minutes of the City Council or
Water Board concerning acceptance or rejection. I infer no such document
exists due to the City's nondisclosure and failure to amend the denial in the
Answer. The course of conduct over the years, as shown by the City's
document production, demonstrates the City did accept the work, because the
City made no warranty claim during the one year warranty period, and
performed maintenance and repair on the portions of the relocated ditch
without claiming Mr. Johnson's work under the License Agreement was
defective. If there was any doubt about whether the City had accepted the
work through the years by its course of conduct, any such doubts were
removed once the City Attorney's office revie\ved the License Agreement and
recorded it after notifying the Department of Utilities in 1994.
As to any indemnification language in the License Agreement, a license is
personal to the parties, and Mr. Johnson's obligation does not bind the
Association. Even if it did, the indemnification clearly relates to the relocation
process, and it was not an assumption of liability for the ditch in perpetuity.
This fact is evidenced by Englewood's assumption of the obligation to repair
and maintain the ditch after relocation. Paragraphs 11and14 of the License
Agreement can only be harmonized by limiting Mr. Johnson's indemnification
to the relocation process itself, after which the City was solely responsible for
the condition of the ditch.
Paragraph 9 of the License Agreement did not require gunnite and the City
accepted the ditch with partial gunnite lining. The Right-of-Way Agreement
provided for a one year warranty, and l have seen no evidence that there was
any objection to the construction work as performed. Since the warranty
period has long since expired, it falls back to the City's nondelegable duty
pursuant to the License Agreement (and because the City is operating a water
facility under C.R.S. § 24-10-106), to exercise reasonable care with respect to
repair and maintenance. Repair and maintenance has been spotty and reactive
over the years, resulting in the many leaks. The City itself hired engineers in
1992 who recommended piping the ditch. but the City backed away from doing
so. This shows the City was aware of the problems with the ditch, built in
1860, yet simply would not spend the money to modernize the ditch.
Documentation of the prior leaks is found in the following City document
production: \VOL 222. *268. 33?., 341, 375. Since there is an eight year gap from
1981 to 1989, 1 trust you will supplement your production.
I still have not seen any written records from the City of Englewood proving
Page J
J. Andrew Nathan . Esq .
Nathan. Bremer . Dumm & Myer s. P.C.
January 28. 1999
the contention that the water had chlorine in it. and l would suggest that any
such field tests were unreliable, and would be overwhelmed by the report from
the Denver Water Board. As regards the prior leak history and the comments
in this letter. please look at the following documents Bates labeled with the
prefix \VOL: 121-128, 222. 268, 279. 288-289, 332, 339, 341, 375.
With reference to the remainder of your discovery requests, you have the
documentation from Plaintiff's Rule 26(a)(l) Disclosures and as found in
Wolhurst's records, and lam not aware of any significant additional
docu men ta ti on.
I propos e th e followin g: Plaintiff needs to disclo se experts by April 23rd, and
ahead of that de a dline I would need t o do a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the City
and depose Mr. McCormick and Mr. Fonda.
l am committed t o a nother matter in the end of March , sol would li ke t o
ex plor e whether setclemenc is pos sible by the end of February. If you are
agreeable to a furth er extension in re s po nding to the City's discovery through
and including the end of February to allow the settlement discussi o n s co
continue, please let me know.
In summary, 1 submit the proposed settlement addresses the valid concerns of
b o th parties an d allows for a forward-looking solution to the ongoing leak
problem s. On behalf of \V o lhurst Landing, 1 request the City's seri o us
consider a tion of this equitable off er.
Very truly you rs, I / lJ -~ 1)-.
110
1 JCLu:;r-
•• ( I I · {I/ I -'\]I L/ '.../ ·->--.•
\'<'i lliarn H Short
ORTEN & HINDMAN, P.C.
\\'HS/ CZ
c: l~oud elf Di rectors. W1 i lhursr l.•nJ;ng Owners As>ociarion (w/cnc.)
c/o Hammer:'mirh ~lana~t.:mt.:nr
Elaine.-\. Wohlnc r. Esq.
Thomas). Hinc.Jrna11 . Es'l.
\lyra J. L•nsky. t >'l·
\V:\CLIENT \ \\'OLHLIR~T\:\A TH .~ :--:.no)
ATT. 5
February 9, 1999
Meeting Minutes · ~ "
Prepared by: Connie Cowles~Biederbeck ..... ~
. .
RE: Sanitary Sewer-Line across Englewood Property
Attendees; Ross Brazil -THK
Ed Hyatt -THK
Bill Rapp • RMC
Connie Cowles-Biederbeck • CWSD
A meeting was held on Feb. 8, 1999 at RMC's office with the attendees
listed above to discuss the sanitary sewer alignment. We reviewed
a preliminary site plan layout for the Englewood parcel, along with a plan and
profile of the sewer line, both of which had been prepared by RMC.
The group reviewed RMC' s plan and Connie pointed out that the sewer line
was placed along the drainage way with a minimum of 1 O' of cover. This
should permit a limited amount of cut to occur in this area and still provide
sewer service for a building site that may have a basement.
Ross presented a sketch plan that THK had prepared, utilizing RMC's plan as
the base. The THK plan modified the proposed "loop" road and included a
potential lot layout for the whole parcel. The purpose of the plan was to
demonstrate how the site could work with the sewer in the drainage way.
All parties agreed that both the horizontal and vertical alignment of the sewer
meet the needs of both CWSD & Englewood, given the information that is
known at this time. Ross indicated that he will call Stu Fonda and follow up
with a letter to him, relaying this concurrence.
· The Grant of Easement form was discussed and Ross had a concern about
the length of time stated in "Article 7. -Grantor's Rights to ReJocatew. The
paragraph states that the grantee shall have 9 months to relocate the line, if
the need should arise. Connie stated that she would review this length of
time and determine if it could be changed.
Connie stated that RMC would begin preparing the legal description for the
sewer alignment and that as soon as this was done, the whole package
would be sent to Stu for his acceptance.
cc: Stu Fonda
John Hendrick
Jeff Case
Jerry Poston
'9
~
I-
<(
I
I
I
I
I •
80 MG Reservoir
Pretreatment
Coagulation
Flocculation
Sedimentation
Sludge Removal •
Union
Avenue
Intake
City Ditch
~-----i T
WashWater Sludge De-Watering : ·-------Reservoir ~---------~------------------•
r -----------.,.._ ____ _
l I Settled Sludge
I ·---J !
I
I
I
I
'----------' I --------------------L
-------------------------· GAC Filters
South Platte River
:---------·
I
--·---:
Filter
Backwash
Water ----.
______________ ..,.. Clearwell _______ ..,.. Distribution System
Pumps
'-Depending on time of year and quality , raw water may be taken from the South Platte River , City Ditch or 80 MG Reservoir or any combination of the three .
the raw water flows to the pretreatment facility where chemicals are added, the water is mixed in three chambers from rapid mix to slow mix and flows
through plate settlers befo re going to the Granular Activated Carbon Filters . The filtered water is then disinfected and pumped to the Distribution System
for consumption.
Sludge removed from the raw water can be either processed immediately or stored in the WashWater Reservoir and processed later.
MAA-~4 .'39 09:45 FROM:-~HEA HOMES 303-791-8560 T0:7622300
SheaHomes
March 3, 1999
Via Fax and US Mail
Stu Fonda, Director of Utilities
City of Englewood
3400 South Elati Street
Englewood, Colorado 80110
Dan Brotzman. City Attorney
C ity of Englewood
3400 South Elati Street
Englewood, Colorado 80110
Re: Highlands Ranch Business Park
Gentlemen:
Attached is a sketch of the "Zone A'' and "Zone B" map which John Kil row has
prepared in connection with the "Restrictions Agreement" discussion.
Please call Chetter Latcham, John or me with your questions or comments.
Sincere~
iclf!. Donelson
Division Counsel
JHD/akm
Attachment
cc : Teryl Gorrell, Esq. (Moye, Giles, O 'Keefe, Vermiere & Gorrell, LLP)
Christopher Payne, Esq. (Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll LLP)
Dennett L. Hutchinson, Esq. (Steiner. Darling, Hutchinson & Wilson LLP)
Chetter Latcham
John Kilrow
I
i!822 S. Ridgeli11~ Blvd., Highlands Ran.-:!1, CO 80126 tel: 303 ·791 ·8180
PAGE:02
M
IS)
llJ
~
([
CL
IS)
IS)
M ru ru
ill
l'-
0
I-
IS)
ill
If) m
d
lJ'I
l'-
1
M
IS)
M
(J) w
E
-~
([ w
I
. (J) ...
i::
0
O'..
l.L
ill
<;t
CTI
IS)
ffi
<;t
IS)
I'
~
E
0
~HIGHLANDS RANCH
L._~ BUSINESS PARK
--·. ~ ·6 ~~(f ~ •c.,:;;,_.,t ,.,,,,,.,s~; ,,;~-2~(f '
__________ ...l_llj~lf ~ j ~il ~~~i;rd
tlGHlANOS
RANCH
GOLFCLUfJ
/I-, I ..J MILES TO
'f--' SANTA FE DRIVE
N
I
1500FT. 3000 FT.
HIGHLANDS
RANCH
TOWNCENTUt
,--,•.
t~~~
8
ACt4·tf~~~~I~t~~. OPENS.PACE
6.IAC
':-::;.~ .. ;·~:"~-1~n
[l(iO:CAC !
f~:i-Wi:1i~~
-~--?-.:.:.• ... .,.,,
"·
2.0AC
SheaProperties
8822 South RiJgdine Bh·,l • Highlands Ranch, CO 80126
Td: JOJ-791-8180 • F.ui: JOJ . 791 -8564
y;,a V•pt.l s t-.~cn~ •tdtl ~ wtd ..... '9:h_..~
~~ •lr..mrM •t54AtU ht tt it:t b ~ P""~ -...ti. :&n.llo":.M. • d
lM\d ~ saQN ... 0111 j,,Tfl~ ·d t'• •flo,rWO f\&"'dl P'a:..,#1.Ccmm.infl CSJd Dft•...,_ U....
City of Englewood
September 11 , 1998
Mr. Chester Latcham
Shea Properties
8822 S . Ridgeline Blvd .
Highlands Ranch , CO 80126
Re : Development Standards, Highlands Ranch Business Park
Dear Chetter:
3400 S . Elati Street
Englewood , Co lorado 80110-2304
Phone (303 ) 762-2300
(303 ) 762-2301
FAX (303 )789 -1 125
The City of Englewood shares the concerns expressed by Lucent Technologies related to
the broad range of uses allowed under the current zoning. The City would like to point
out that the current zoning was developed by Highlands Ranch . The City's goal at that
time was to be an integral part of the development of Highlands Ranch and that position
has not changed .
Ther efore, the City is ready and willing to immediately join Shea Homes and Lucent
Technologies in developing standards for the Highlands Ranch Business Park which
exceed the zoning requirements and would apply to the entire business park. At this time ,
it is the City's position that such standards would not be binding on the City unless Lucent
Technologies has committed to a phased development on property within the Highlands
Ranch Business Park.
While all such commitments are subject to City Council approval , the proposed
development standards would be consistent with the Council's goal for a first-class
business park of the type exiJting and planned at Highlands Ranch Business Park. The
City is prepared to immediately commit resources to this project. If anyone from Lucent
Technologies has questions on this issue or would like to simply discuss the City's position
further, I am available at (303) 762-2636 .
Sincerely,
Director of Utilities
City of Englewood
I
SEP-10 98 15:26 FROM~" T0:303 762 2 337
[CITY OF ENGLEWOOD STATIONERY]
September 11 . 1998
Mr. Chetter Latcham
Vice President
Shea Properties
8822 South Ridgeline Boulevard
Highlands Ranch. Colorado 80126
PRGE:03
Re: Approximately 40-Acre Parcel (Planning Area 81 ). Highlands Ranch, Colorado
(''property")
Dear Chetter:
This letter sets forth the agreement of the City of Englewood with respect to the above
referenced Property as follows :
1 . The City of Englewood recognizes the value of including the Property into the
overall development of Highlands Ranch Business Park and the related property
owners association. The City will pursue only those development opportunities
that are consistent with a first-class business park of the type existing and
planned at Highlands Ranch Business Park. In addition, the Property will be
subject to the architectural, maintenance and use standards and restrictions in
place for the balance of Highlands Ranch Business Park.
2 . The foregoing agreements by the City are subject to :
a. Approval by Englewood City Council; however, it is my belief that such
approval should be forthcoming.
b. The commitment to a phased development totaling a minimum of 500,000
square feet of space on a portion of the approximately 30-acre site
(located at the NEC of the intersection of Highlands Ranch Boulevard and
Plaza Drive) for occupancy by Lucent Technologies, Inc. (or related
entities).
Sincerely.
Stewart Fonda
Director of Utilities
City of Englewood
CLLl'1'i910-1
I
FROM BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWs&'rNGERSOLL (TUE) 3. 9' 99 10: 46 /ST. 10: 36 /NO. 42 00000730 P 3
LAND 'USE lllSTBICTIONS
BIGllLA.NDS UNCB BUSINESS l AIU(
(Peraltlcbedmap)
I
A. Administra1ive and profcuianal oftices, 2) hotel& and 3) NJ! servic:c
lit down l'CllllW'aDU.
8. The approved uses in A above plU. service commemal and retail.
I
,...~------~------------------... ------~ /. = Of"f"K£. 1 ~EJ,, ~ .-UL'--;s::
"'"'
0
~ ~: .. · ... , A::.:<;.~\\: ·:,_;, .. ,~~O\ii.,:.,_1:
:r_\~.'..;i..:::t~~:!~;_,:.~~~
.-;· W•"'"'•f
....UNO&
!UNCH
GOLFCUlll
..-L-a 1.3 MIL.ES TO
T-6 SANfA FEONVE
N
I
---
1500FT. 3000FT.
~HIGHLANDS RANCH
~~BUSINESS PARK
A,• f{:f',,,c;.e. f,\ T OOloft& g;
Pf.1.'T~,.._..n. ::=::
•• orPKL, $lll""e ~,, ~
I.I '6V-•'-(.I~~. CJ
tlGtLANDS
AAfOt
TOWN CENTER
2.0AC
\ ·--<·-~
SheaProperties
8822 South Rldadinc 1\1.d. • Hi&hlanda Raach, mai 126
Td: JOJ .791-8 180 • Fax i JOl-791 ·8'i64 ........................................ --. ___ .. .,. .. ~..---.-___ ..... _"' .......... --~----
= -0 ::» ::c:: = >-. = CJ = tT1
::=E = ?:" :
= 0
1-rJ := = = r-
r-
·-~ = ,,l
\,_;_)
-.CJ
-.CJ
-.CJ
'=
·""" \Jl
:----..... = -J
=
\,_;_)
°' = 9
"""" r--.J = = = = = --J
\,_;_) =
-0
r--.J
MAR-04 99 11:12 FROM:SHEAHOMES 3037918564 T0:303 762 2337 PAGE:02
' '
Mr. John Kilrow
Director
Shea Properties
8822 South Ridgeline Boulevard
Highlands Ranch. Colorado 80126
Re . Lucent Technologies Campus
Dear John :
Thank you for the opportunity to review the landscape plan for the above referenced
project. For your information, we have no objection to the installation of 20 Ponderosa
Pine trees on the property north of the Lucent campus. nor with any associated
irrigation . If you have any questions. do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Stewart Fonda
Director of Utilites
I
To:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
Mr. Stu Fonda; Director of Public Works, City of Englewood, Colorad ~
Dan Broztman; City Attorney, City of Englewood, Colorado
Christopher Payne; Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP
February 26, 1999
Restrictive Use Agreement \
Plannin Areas 76 77 78 80. 81 & 85. Highlands Ranch Business'
This firm represents Townsend Capital LLC ("Townsend") in connection wit e
purchase and development of a portion of Planning Area ("PA") 77 in Highlands Ranch, Douglas
County, Colorado and construction of a Lucent Technologies Inc. ("Lucent") office campus.
Following discussions with counsel for Lucent and counsel for Shea Homes
Limited Partnership ("Shea"), the following memo proposes use /development restrictions within
two areas neighboring PA 77 ("A" and "B" Zones ). We h ave used the existing Highlands Ranch
Development Guide as a base and enclose a current copy of the Development Guide for your
information. Townsend, Lucent and Shea each wish to stress that the enclosed represents an
initial draft and all points have not been confirmed by each party . Accordingly , this proposal
remains subject to further review and modification b y Townsend, Lucent and Shea. We are
pleased, though, with the opportuni ty to openly discuss restrictions that we hope will ensure
quality development in this area and look forward to discussing your comments in preparation
for the upcoming meeting of the Englewood Utilities Commission .
In general, the objecti ve of the restrictions below is to concentrate high quality
office buildings and allowable accessory uses in Zone A and provide for a transitional Zone B
with broader allowable uses neighboring the more retail intensive zones of Highlands Ranch.
Boundaries: Entire Boundary of Restrictions: PAs 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 85
A & B Restriction Boundary to run along Town Center Drive and
Monument Drive
A-Zone: PAs 76, 77, 81, 85, northern portion of78
B-Zone : PA 80 and southern portion of 78 below Monument Dr.
Under separate cover from Shea, please expect to receive a map depicting the
above boundaries . For purposes of your review, the Development Guide refers to the parcels
owned by the City ofEnglewo1d as PA 81and85.
CO_DOCS_A 27071 v 4
Use Restrictions
A-Zone:
1. Administrative offices and professional offices.
2. Service commercial, primarily to serve the employees in the industrial
park including, but not limited to restaurants (excluding drive-thru
facilities), banks, barber shops, cleaners, recreation facilities, and day care
facilities.
3. Hotels and motels.
4 . Public and quasi-public buildings and structures , including but not limited
to: police stat ions, fire stations , libraries , public recreation , and emergenc y
care facil ities ; excluding public ut ilities.
5. Transit facil ities or other facilities , located within specified areas , designed
to enhance the use of public transit.
6. Automobile service stations as provided in Section XI of the Development
Guide , except that permitted uses shall only include sale of petroleum
products, minor automobile maintenance, incidental food and beverage
sales, and signs .
7. Accessory buildings and uses primarily to serve the employees of a
building/project with a permitted use, including but not limited to
lunchroom, cafeteria and recreational facilities not intended for public use .
8. Signs, as set forth below.
9. Off-street parking as provided in Section XVI of the Development Guide,
excluding free standing parking structures that are not associated with a
permitted use .
B-Zone:
1. Scientific and applied research, development and testing ; and similar non-
offensive light industrial uses related to the fabrication and processing of
products and materials for experimental purposes; excluding the
manufacture or assembling of products for sale and excluding any
operatio)1 that emits excessive amounts of dust, smoke, fumes, gas,
noxious odors or noise beyond its boundaries .
CO_DOCS_A 27071 v 4 2 2126199 5 :05 PM
2. Administrative offices and professional offices.
3. Service industries [discuss further clarification].
4. Service commercial and recreation commercial, primarily to serve the
employees in the industrial park including, but not limited to , restaurants
(excluding drive-thru facilities), banks, barber shops, cleaners, recreation
facilities, and day care facilities .
5. Hotels and mo t els.
6. Retail commercial including, but not limited to, stores for the sale of
baked goods, clothing, flowers , jewelry, shoes , sporting goods , toys ;
excluding "big box" retail facilities and any sexually oriented business .
7 . Public and quasi-publ ic bui lding s and structures, including but not limited
to: police stations, fire stations, libraries , public recreation, and emergency
care facilities ; excluding public utilities . ·
8 . Public and pri va te schools and technic a l schools.
9. Transit facilities or other facilities , loc a ted within specified areas, designed
to enhance the use of public transit.
10. Automobile s.~rvice stations as pro v ided in Section XI of the Dev elopment
Guide, except that permitted uses shall only include sale of petroleum
products , minor automobile maintenance, incidental food and beverage
sales , and signs .
11. Community information centers .
12. Accessory buildings and uses, primarily to serve the employees of a
building/project with a permitted use, including but not limited to
lunchroom, cafeteria and recreational facilities not intended for public use.
13. Signs, as set forth below .
14. Off-street parking as provided in Section XVI of the Dev elopment Guide,
excluding free standing parking structures that are not associated with a
permitted use .
I
CO_DOCS_A 27071 v 4 3 2126199 5 :05 PM
Development Standards
The following Development Standards are intended to supplement the Development
Standards set forth in the Development Guide pertaining to PAs 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 85.
1. Minimum lot area: 50,000 square feet, unless such development is
designed as a project or projects, and in such case there is no minimum lot
area.
2. Minimum lot width and depth: 200 feet (width) x 250 feet (depth), unless
such development is designed as a project or projects, and in such case
there is no required minimum lot width or depth.
3. Maximum building height: 90 feet, except as increased by the Board of
County Commissioners of Douglas County, and 50 feet for buildings in
Planning Areas 78, 76, and 85 .
4 . The following setback is required :
a. Minimum setback of 30 feet shall be required in areas abutting
perimeter and interior public streets and 40 feet in areas abutting
the boundaries of the Industrial Park Planning Area, provided such
setback shall be 50 feet wherever such boundaries abut, without
street separation, Residential Planning Areas or existing dwelling
units, and provided further , that with respect to a flag or panhandle
lot , the length of the corridor or access way shall be excluded in
applying such minimum to such lot.
b. No setback shall be required adjacent to property lines which
merel y separate uses .
5. All lighting shall be designed and located to reduce power consumption to
its lowest pract ical level and to direct light rays to the lot or project.
6 . All loading and unloading shall be performed on the lot or project.
Loading platforms and areas shall be screened from view from adjacent
streets, highways and residential areas in a manner prescribed by the
Development Guide.
7 . Trash and storage areas shall be shielded from view by placement within
buildings, or enclosure within opaque walls or fences not less than 6 feet
in heighy Wall and fence materials shall complement exterior building
materials .
CO_DOCS_A 27071 v 4 4 2126199 5 :05 PM
8. All permitted uses and their resulting products shall be contained entirely
within a fully enclosed structure, excluding therefrom such uses as off-
street parking, trash storage, and outdoor dining.
9. Landscaping shall be installed along all property lines abutting streets to a
depth of not less than 15 feet, excluding therefrom driveways, alleys and
street openings.
10. Except as supplemented herein, all standards set forth in Section X-A(C)
of the Development Guide shall apply .
The following standards are intended to supplement the Development Standards set forth
in Section XV of the Development Guide and solely pertain to PAs 76, 77, 78, 80 , 81 , 85.
General Standards
Paragraphs 1 through 3 , and Paragraphs 9 through 11 , Section XV(B) of the
Development Guide shall continue to apply without supplement herein, and the
following Paragraphs 4 through 8 shall be substituted for the similar paragraphs
set forth in Section XV(B).
[Discuss Section XV~~ 3(b) and 11 re standards for signs visible from C-470]
4. The following directional signs for the aid of those traveling within
Highlands Ranch are permitted:
a. Temporary signs directing the public to various model complexes,
sales offices, leasing offices, and community facilities are
permitted for up to 5 [discuss] years, provided such signs do not
exceed 100 square feet in surface area per sign face nor project
higher than 15 feet above ground level.
b. Permanent signs directing the public to emergency and community
facilities and residential and nonresidential sales offices, using
words or maps , provided such signs do not exceed 100 square feet
in surface area each nor project higher than 10 feet above ground
level.
5. Signs informing of special community events are permitted in each
Planning Area, provided such signs are erected or displayed no earlier than
2 weeks ,Preceding the event and area removed no later than 2 days
subsequent to the event.
CO_DOCS_A 27071v4 5 2126/99 5 :05 PM
6. Temporary signs informing prospective community residents of land uses
being constructed or to be constructed in the future; or identifying project
name, owner, architect, engineer, construction company, etc. are permitted
for up to 5 years [discuss] after erection, provided that no such sign shall
exceed 100 square feet in surface area nor shall project more than 10 feet
above ground, and all such signs shall be uniform in color, size and
materials throughout Highlands Ranch and consistent with its architectural
theme.
7. Signs permitted under paragraph 7 of Section XV(D) of the Development
Guide shall not be permitted in the area governed by this Restrictive Use
Agreement.
8 . The following signs are prohibited in Highlands Ranch :
CO_DOCS_A 27071 v 4
a. Any portable sign located on one or more wheels .
b. Any re vol ving beacon , fountain , flashing, and rotat ing sign , and
any other sign with an y type of mo v ement or intermittent lighting
effect.
c . Any flag, banner, or other device designed to wave, flap, rotate, or
otherwise mo ve with the wind , excluding therefrom any flag or
emblem of an y government or governmental agency or of any
civil, charitable, religious, or fraternal organization.
d. Any sign for purposes of advertising of products or services
availab le elsewhere than on the lot or project where such sign is
situated.
e. Any sign attached to a building which:
(1) Projects perpendicular to the building, except as provided
in Section XV(D)(2) of the Development Guide.
(2) Is parallel with a wall of the building but projects more than
36 inches from such wall.
(3) Extends above the roof line or above the top of the parapet
of the front wall, whichever is higher.
f. ;ny sign which hinders the visibility of traffic control devices or
directional signs.
6 2126199 5 :05 PM
g. Any sign painted upon the exterior of a building.
Nonresidential Area Signs. In the area governed by this Restrictive Use Agreement and
in substitution of the standards set forth in Section XV(D) of the Development Guide, the
following signs are permitted, subject to the following standards:
1. For each principal building, one free-standing sign that does not project
higher than 15 feet above the ground and one wall-mounted sign attached
parallel to an within 18 inches of the wall of the principal building is
permitted for each building face. No such sign shall exceed 200 square
feet in surface area.
2. One additional sign identifying each principal use is permitted , provided
such sign shall be unlighted; shall be affixed to the front wall or door,
suspended from an overhang , or placed in a front window of the principal
building; and does not exceed 6 square feet in surface are a.
3. Within the Industrial Park Planning Area , four double-faced or single-
faced signs identifying the Industrial Park , lighted or unlighted , are
permitted provided such signs shall be low-silhouette signs, shall not
project higher than I 0 feet above ground, and shall not exceed 150 square
feet each in surface area per display face.
4. Temporary signs advertising the sale or rental of land or nonresidential
space are permitted for up to two years, provided that not more than 2 such
signs are located adjacent to each street abutting the project, each sign is
unlighted, the surface area of each sign does not exceed 100 square feet
per sign face, and each sign does not exceed 12 feet in height.
5. Within a nonresidential project containing from two to ten buildings , or
lots, one sign identifying the buildings, lots and building tenants within the
complex is permitted per entry provided such sign shall not exceed 100
square feet and such sign shall not project higher than 10 feet above the
ground. For nonresidential projects containing more than 10 buildings or
lots, such sign shall not ex c eed 200 square feet and such sign shall not
project higher than I 0 feet above the ground.
Again, thank you for your consideration . Once we have agreed on the substantive
matters above, this firm will prepare a recordable instrument for execution by the parties . Please
call me at 303 /299-7345 if you would like additional information.
cc : Teryl R. Gorrell, Esq. (yia e-mail)
Jeffrey H . Donelson, Esq. (via e-mail)
Dennett L. Hutchinson, Esq. (via e-mail)
CO_DOCS_A 27071 v 4 7 2126199 5 :05 PM