HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-07-01 (Regular) Meeting Agenda• -
• •
0
City Council Meeting -Regular
-July l, 1985
•
• -
• -
0
I . .
• •
(
•
•
• •
AGENDA FOR THE
REGULAR MEETING OF
THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
JULY 1, 1985
7:30 P.M.
Call to order.
Invocation by Reverend Tom McEwen, Grace Evangelical
Lutheran Church, 4750 South Clarkson Street.
Pledge of allegiance by Boy Scout Troop 1151.
Roll call.
5. Minutes.
6.
7.
(a) Minutes of the regular meeting of June 17, 1985.
Pre-Scheduled Visitors.
to 10 minutes.)
Non-Scheduled Vi itors.
to 5 minutes.)
(Please limit your presentation
(Please limit your presentation
8. Communications and Proclamations.
(a) Proclamation declaring the month of September, 1985
as Peace Month.
9. Consent Agenda.
{a) Ordinance on final reading transferring a one-half
interest in the real property at the Bi-City Treat-~~~ ment Plant to the City of Littleton as per agreement. gp?
•
I • •
•
• •
Page 2
July 1 , 1985 Agenda
9. Cons ent Ag e nd a (Cont i nued).
(b) Mi nutes of the Board of Career Service commiss i oners
meet i ng of Apr i l 4, 1985.
(c) Minutes of the Downtown Development Authority meeting
of May 8 , 1985 .
(d) Minutes of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals
mee t i ng of May 8, 1985.
(e) Minutes of the Plann i ng and Zoning Commission meet i ng
of June 4, 1985.
(f) Minutes of the Library Advisory Board meeting of
June 11, 1985.
lOr Publ i c Hear i ng.
j J.f-1 q-_3. (a) To ~onsider amendments to the Comprehensive zon i ng
~~# // Ord 1 nance.
U (b) To cons i der amendments to the Dow ntown Redevelopment !Jb Plan expanding the boundaries of the redevelopment
~~ ar e a and updating the text.
11. Ord i n a n ce s, Resolut i ons and Mot i ons.
(a )
?-
(b)
~
J h/g
(
~(c)
Rec ommendat i on f rom t he Planning and zon i ng Com-
missio n t ha t C i ty Counc i l rec ei v e its pr o pos ed
a mendme n t t o the Comprehens i ve z on i ng Ord i n a nce
regardi ng a u t o sa l es l ots; that a n ord i n a n ce be
prepared by the C i t y At torney and that a da t e b e
scheduled for a p ub lic hear ing.
Recommendation from the Community Development Depart-
ment to approve an Inducement Resolution for the
issuance of $35 million in multi-family Industrial
Development Bonds to the Chasewood Company to
develop the 25 .5 acre site at Gilpin and Hampden
Avenue.
Recommendation from the City Manager to approve the
award of bid for Paving D istrict No . 30 to RKS
Industries, Inc . in the amount of $602 ,084.91.
•
I • •
•
•
• •
Page 3
July 1 , 1985 Agenda
11. Ord ina nces, Resolutions and Motions (Continued).
(d) Recommendation from the Finance Department to approve
the following:
(g)
(i) Bill for an Ordinance authorizing the issuance
of special assessment bonds in the amount of
$856,000 for Paving District No. 30.
(ii) Resolution awarding the purchase of special
assessment bonds in the amount of $856,000 for
Paving District No. 30.
Recommendation from the Urban Renewal Authority to
amend the operating agreement between the City of
Englewood and the URA for the purpose of clarifying
relationships and responsibilities for the Downtown
Redevelopment Project.
Motion to set a date for a pre-budget public hearing
on July 15, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. for citizens input
concerning General Revenue Sharing funds and the
1986 operating budget.
Recommendation to approve a Bill for an Ordinance
requiring that restitution be made to victims of
crimes inv olv i ng damages and/or bodily harm by
defendants found guilty of such crimes.
12. City Manager's Report.
13. City Attorn ey 's Report.
14. General Discussion.
(a) Mayor's Choice.
(b) council Member's Choice.
1 5 . A.djournment. fl:?J).iOYf)
/) 'f}}' o Vf v
L ~~~{f.~ifYL
AM /sb
•
I • •
•
•
• •
AGENDA ITEM ---
CeuJ D 0tL1A_ ~
~/II~~
~ ~ &u.-L. -:lf;s 1
~~v~
6J;;!z
1h ,_{!fUlL;
vd).~~·
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Ab t 1 s a n
Hlgoay
Neal
Vobejda
Weist
Bllo
Bradshaw
Otis
MOTION:
• •
I . •
•
• •
AGENDA ITEM -----PRESENTED BY --------
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
Hlgdav ,....
Neal ._.-
Vobeida ~
Weist 1--
Bllo ""' Bradshaw y
Otis v
MOTION:
I • •
• •
•
./
AG ENDA I TEM -~---~---
Moved Seconded
HIQday
Neal
Vobe1da , We i s t
Bllo
y Bradshaw
Otis
MOTION:~-J
•
• •
P RE SENTED B Y ---------
RO LL CALL
Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
I • •
•
•
• •
AGENDA I T EM --L1 __ P RES ENTE D BY -----
)
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
Hlqelav
Neal
Vobe1da
Weist
Bi lo
Bradshaw
Otis
MOTION:
I .
• •
•
• •
PRESENTED BY --------
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
HIQday /
Neal /
Vobe1da v Weist J
Bllo /
Y' Bradshaw /
Otis 1/
MOTION:~
I •
• •
•
• -
PRESENTED BY --------
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
Hlgday /
Neal /
Vobeida
We1 st /
v Bllo 7 v Bradshaw /
Otis
MOTION: ?u~
I • •
• •
•
• -
AGENDA ITEM lv~
I PRESENTED BY --------
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded
y Hlgday /
y--Neal /
Vobeida ----Weist I
Bllo /
Bradshaw /
Otis
I • •
• •
• -
• -
AG ENDA ITEM ---P RESENTED BY p(j). ~~.
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain -J( -wfgday /
j/ Neal /
Vob eida -
Wel st
Bl lo /
Bradshaw /
Ot is
I
MOTION:~
I . .
• •
•
• -
AGENDA ITEM -----PRESENTED BY--------
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
tfTQaav / r Neal /
Vobeida -Weist /
y Bllo /
Bradshaw /
Otis
I • •
• •
•
• •
AGENDA ITEM I() /J . PRESENTED BY --------
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
Hlgday 7 r Neal /
Vo b eida -Weist ]
Bllo /
v Bradshaw 7
Otis
I • •
• •
•
• •
AGCNDA ITEM---PRESENTED BY -----
Hlgday
Neal
Vobe1da
Weist
Bi To
Bradshaw
Otis
MOTION:
I .
• •
•
• •
AGENDA ITEM ---PRESENTED BY ----
~~ ~ J I ~ ~ d)U., tJ..u
ci?j-.n~' A ,
.I
o/'IL p~ JieL A ~·r Absent Abstain
.. v Hlgday ...... -
Neal
Vobe:~da
Weist
Bllo
Bradshaw
Otis
MOTION:
I .
• •
•
• -
AGENDA ITEM ----PRESE NTED B Y ------
ROLL CALL
Moved Se co nded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
IITQOay /
Nea l /
vobe1da -We ist /
-v Bl l o /
7/ Bradshaw /
Ot is LT
MariON :~
I . •
• •
•
• •
AGENDA ITEM ----------PRESENTED BY--------------
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
H,qday
Neal
Vobeida
Weist
v Bl lo
v-Bradshaw
Ot i s
I • •
•
•
• -
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ay N es ay Absent Abstain
Hladay
NuT /
Vo be da -Weist
Bllo /
Bradshaw /
Otis 17
MOTION:
I . •
• •
•
• -
AGENDA ITEM I fa.,. PRESENTED B Y ~ ~ /)1.L_~
Mov e d Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
Hlgday /
Neal /
Vobe "\da -Wei st /
--.;7 Bl lo /
y' Brad s haw /
Oti s
I . •
• •
•
•
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
Hlgday / v Neal /
Vo bei da
Weist /
Bllo / p Bradshaw 1/
Otis I
I . •
• •
•
-
AGENDA ITEM ~ ~ ~ PRESENTED BY )) )c_ 6u ~
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
HIQday
I Neal
Vobeida
Weist
c...--Bllo
Bradshaw
Otis
I •
• •
•
•
. . •
AGENDA ITEM 1/c~-PRESENTED BY ~
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
v Hlgday /
v Neal /
Vobe,da
Wei s t /
-Bi lo /
Bradshaw /
Otis
/ A o . z 1 I •
• •
•
• •
AGENDA ITEM ----P RE SENTED B Y -------
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent AbstaIn
HIQday 7
v Neal /
Vobe1da -
Weist /
v Bi lo /
Bradshaw /
Otis
fl1 7 -/5" --~:J-I .
• •
•
• •
AGENDA ITEM ~ PRESENT ED BY
ROLL CALL
n Abstal
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent
HIQCiav /
Neal /
Vobe1da -
Wel s t /
v Bllo /
v Bradshaw /
Otis II
I •
•
•
• •
AGE"DA 'TEM ~ PRESENTED BY m(_ ~ '
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent AbstaIn
Hlgday /
v Neal /
Vobe1da -Weist 7
Bllo /
v Bradshaw 7
Otis 1/
MOTION: ...-~ 1:3CJ fi:_
I . •
•
•
• •
PRESENTED BY ~
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
Hlgday -... l/". Neal -
Vo be ida -
Weist -
8i lo -
~ Bradshaw 7
Otis I/"
MariON: ~If f 4 I . •
~: >vo u1JIYI .
• •
•
REGULAR MEETING:
•
• •
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
City of Englewood, Colorado
June 17, 1985
The City Council of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe County,
Colorado, met in regular session on June 17, 1985, at 7:30 p.m.
Mayor Otis, presiding, called the meeting to order.
The invocation was given by Council Member Higday. The pledge
of allegiance was led by Boy Scout Troop f92.
Mayor Otis asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the following were present:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist, Bradshaw, Otis.
Absent: Council Member Bi lo.
The Mayor declared a quorum present.
* * * * * * *
Also present were: City Manager McCown
Assistant City Manager Vargas
City Attorney Olsen
Deputy City Clerk Owen
* * * * * * *
MAYOR PRO TEM BRADSHAW MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGU-
LAR MEETING OF JUNE 3, 1985. Council Member Weist seconded the motion.
Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes: Council Members Neal, We ist , Bradshaw, Otis.
Nays: None.
Absent: Council Member Bilo.
Abstain: Council Members Higday, Vobejda.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
* * * * * * *
Mayor Pro Tern Bradshaw explained Council Member Bilo was
becaus e he was attending the public hearing by the State Highway
•
I • •
•
June 17, 1985
Page 2
•
• •
Department over the issue of transportation through Englewood between
Oxford and Belleview.
MAYOR PRO TEM BRADSHAW MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE
SPECIAL MEETING OF JUNE 10, 1985. Council Member Vobejda seconded the
motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
Abstain:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Bradshaw,
Otis.
None.
Council Member Bilo.
Council Member Weist.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
* * * * * * *
Mrs. William Coffin, 3057 South Galapago Street, was present and
introduced Mr. and Mrs. Arnie Dowd whom she had chosen to make the
presentation of an antique gun once belonging to Jacob C. Jones, the
first Mayor of Englewood.
Mr. Arnie Dowd presented the antique gift following historical
remarks about Mr. Jones. Mr. Dowd explained Mrs. Coffin was donating the
gun to be displayed in memory of her late husband Bill under the follow-
ing conditions. The gun must be kept on publ ic display in the City of
Englewood. Council may display the gun at a location of their choice as
long as it was kept there.
COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL MOVED TO RECOGNIZE THE GIFT, TO ACCEPT THE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS, TO EXPRESS APPRECIATION TO MRS. COFFIN; AND TO
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO PURSUE WHATEVER DISPLAY WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. Member
Higday seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll , the vote resulted
as follo ws:
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, We ist ,
Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
Council Member Bilo.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
* * * * * * *
I • •
-
•
•
• •
June 17, 1985
Page 3
ence.
Mayor Otis asked if there were any other visitors in the audi-
Gary Price, principal of Englewood High School, carne forward and
presented Council with a plaque in appreciation for the "After-Prom Par-
ty" at the recreation center .
Mayor Otis accepted the plaque.
* * * * * * *
Mayor Ot i s presented a letter from Bill Patterson resign i ng from
t he Liquor Licensing Author ity.
MAYOR PRO TEM BRADSHAW MOVED TO ACCEPT BILL PATTERSON 'S RESIGNA-
TION . Council Member Higday seconded the motion . Upon a call of the
roll, the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
Council Members Higday, Neal , Vobejda , Weist,
Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
Council Member Bilo .
The Mayor declared the motion carried .
* * * * * * *
Mayor Otis presented a letter from Mrs. Barbara Holthaus resign-
ing from the Downtown Development Authority .
COUNCIL MEMB ER NEAL MOVED TO ACCEPT MRS . BARBARA HOLTHAUS' RE-
SIGNATION FRO M THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Mayor Pro Tern
Bradshaw seconded the motion . Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted
as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist,
Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
Council Member Bilo .
The Mayor declared the motion carried .
Council instructed staff to send letters of appreciation for
service to Mr. Patterson and Mrs. Holthaus • I • •
(
•
June 17, 1985
Page 4
* * * *
•
• •
* * *
City Manager McCown presented a petition from the Maddox Parent
Advisory Council voicing the i r concern about the lack of guards along and
over the exposed portion of the City Ditch between Fox and Galapago
Streets on West Mansfield.
Mr. McCown stated steps have been taken by the Director of
Utilities to remedy the s ituati on a nd a specific, long-term recommend a -
tion wou ld be for hcoming .
MAYOR PRO TE M BRADSHAW MOVED TO RECEIVE THE PETITION FOR IN-
FORMATIONAL PURPOSES. Cou ncil Member Vobejda seconded the motion. Upon
a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist,
Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
Counc il Me mb er Bilo.
The Mayor decl a r ed the motion carried.
* * * * * * *
"Consent Agenda Items " were:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Minutes of the Housing Authority meetings of February
27 and March 27 , 19 85.
Minutes of the Urban Renewal Authority meetings of May
1 and 15 , 19 8 5.
Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
of May 21, 1985 .
Ordinance on final reading approving a water line
easement for Camden Place I Development located at
West Grand Avenue between South Acoma and South
Delaware Streets .
Ordinance on final reading amending the Englewood
Munic ipal Code to clarify the maximum we ight of cer-
tain commercial vehicles and equipment wh ich can be
parked within the City and restricting the parking of
trucks used to transport hazardous substances . I •
•
June 17, 1985
Page 5
(f)
•
• ..
Ordinances on final reading amending the Englewood
Municipal Code to redefine "Derelict Vehicle" for
clarification and enforcement purposes.
MAYOR PRO TEM BRADSHAW MOVED TO APPROVE "CONSENT AGENDA" ITEMS
9(A)-9(F). Council Member Neal seconded the motion. Upon a call of the
roll, the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist,
Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
Council Member Bilo.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
Consent Agenda item (d) was numbered Ordinance No. 36; (e) was
numbered Ordinance No. 37; (f) was numbered Ordinance No. 38, all Series
of 1985.
* * * * * * *
City Manager McCown presented a recommendation from the
Director of Utilities to repaint the water tower located at South Sherman
Street. The recommendation was to award the bid to M&M Tank and Tower,
the low bidder with a bid of $6,000.
MAYOR PRO TEM BRADSHAW MOVED TO AWARD THE BID FOR THE SHERMAN
TANK REPAINTING TO M&M TANK AND TOWER IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,000. Council
Member Vobejda seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote
resulted as follows :
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
Council Members Higday , Neal, Vobejda, Weist,
Bradshaw , Otis .
None.
Council Member Bilo .
The Mayor declared the motion carried .
ORDINANCE NO.
SERIES OF 1985
* * * *
BY AUTHORITY
*
•
* *
COUNCIL BILL NO. 33
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER NEAL
I •
(
(
•
June 17, 1985
Page 6
A BILL FOR
•
• ..
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF A ONE-HALF INTEREST IN
THE REAL PROPERTY AT THE BI -CITY TREATMENT PLANT TO THE CITY OF LITTLETON
ON CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS .
COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL MOVED TO PASS COUNCIL BILL NO. 33, SERIES OF
1985, ON FIRST READING. Council Member Vobejda seconded the motion.
Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
Council Members Higday, Neal , Vobejda, Weist ,
Bradshaw, Otis.
None .
Council Member Bilo.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO.
SERIES OF 1985
* * * *
BY AUTHORITY
A BILL FOR
* * *
COUNCIL BILL NO . 44
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER
AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING RESTITUTION TO BE PAID BY DEFENDANTS FOUND GUILTY
OF DAMAGING OR DESTROYING PERSONAL PROPERTY OR OF CAUSING BODILY INJURY
OR OTHER DAMAGES TO THEIR VICTIMS.
Council Member Neal prefaced his motion regarding Council Bill
No. 44, by referencing a letter from Municipal Court Judge Parkinson in
which the Judge expresses concerns about the bill. Council Member Neal
requested additional time for Council to study the Judge 's letter.
COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL MOVED TO TABLE COUNCIL BILL NO. 44, SERIES
OF 1985, UNTIL THE NEXT REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. Council Member Higday
seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as fol-
lows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist,
Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
I •
(
•
•
•
.. -
June 17, 1985
Page 7
Absent: Council Member Bilo.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
Council instructed staff to send copies of the above referenced
material to the Court Advisory Committee for informational purposes.
4580
term
* * * * * * *
There was no City Manager's report.
* * * * * * *
There was no City Attorney's report.
* * * * * * *
Mayor Otis announced his mayorial appointment of Ed Ru~hman,
South Logan, to the Board for "Meals-On-Wheels," for a three-year
expiring June 17, 1988.
* * * * * * *
Mayor Otis asked members of Council to read and consider the
letter of request for contributions submitted by the Community Arts Sym-
phony. Mayor Otis desired to take up the matter at the next regular
Council meeting.
* * * * * * *
Council Member Neal stated the EDDA recommended reappointment of
William Pendleton and Barry Coleman to the Downtown Development Authori-
ty, and therefore,
COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL MOVED TO APPOINT~ WILLIAM PENDLETON AND
BARRY COLEMAN TO ADDITIONAL TERMS ON THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
Mayor Pro Tern Bradshaw seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the
vote resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist,
Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
Council Member Bilo.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
* * * * * * *
I • •
-
•
June 17, 1985
Page 8
•
• •
ADJOURN.
8:05 p.m.
There being no further business, COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO
The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned without a vote at
•
I • •
r(
(
•
•
• -
P R 0 C L A M A T I 0 N ------------
WHEREAS, the people of the United States, with
our great strength and resources, have a special respon-
sibility to lead the countries of the world to lasting
peace by focusing our thoughts on this ultimate goal and
by combining material with spiritual activity; and
WHEREAS, the International Association for World
Peace has designated September 7 th of each year as Peace
Day, and the United Nations has designated the third Tuesday
in September as International Day of Peace and 1986 as
International Year of Peace; and
WHEREAS, Peace Day has been celebrated annually
since 19 7 8 throughout the United States as a first step
toward making every day Peace Day; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this celebration is for
p~ople everywhere to join the noontime observance of one
m1nute of silence with sincere wishes, thoughts or prayers
for world peace; and
WHER EAS , it is time to strenthen and expand this
observance in preparation for the 1986 Peace Year, and in
order to relieve the many critical problems in the world
today including the deterioration of the enviornment,
starva ti on, disease, disasters, and the threat of nu clear war;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, EUGENE L. OTIS, Ma yor of the
City of Englewood, Colorado , do hereby proclaim the month
of September, 1985 , as
PEACE MONTH
and urge all citizens to join me in one minute of silence
for world peace at noon of each day during this period in
a sincere effort to build a better city, a better state, a
better country and a better world.
•
I •
(
•
•
• ..
P R 0 C L A M A T I 0 N ------------
WHEREAS, the people of the United States, with
our great strength and resources, have a special respon-
sibility to lead the countries of the world to lasting
peace by focusing our thoughts on this ultimate goal and
b y combining material with spiritual activity; and
WHEREAS , the International Association for World
Peace has designated September 7th of each year as Peace
Day, and the United Nations has designated the third Tuesday
in September as International Day of Peace and 1986 as
International Year of Peace; and
WHEREAS, Peace Day has been celebrated annually
since 1978 throughout the United States as a first step
toward making every day Peace Day; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this celebration is for
p~ople everywhere to join the noontime observan ce of one
m1nute of silence with sincere wishes, thoughts or prayers
for world peace; and
WHEREAS, it is time to strenthen and expand this
observance in preparation for the 1986 Peace Year, and in
order to relieve the many critical problems in the world
today including the deterioration of the enviornment,
starvation, disease, disasters, and the threat of nuclear war;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, EUGENE L. OTIS, Mayor of the
City of Englewood, Colorado, do hereby proclaim the month
of September, 1985, as
PEACE MONTH
and urge all citizens to join me in one minute of silence
for world peace at noon of each day during this period in
a sincere effort to build a better city, a better state, a
better country and a better world.
Mayor
•
I • •
•
OROINAOC E NO. :!9
SERIES OF 1985
•
• -
BY A\1l'HORITY
9
COUNCIL BILL NO. 33
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER NEAL
AN ORDINANCE A\1l'HORIZING TRANSFER OF OONERSHIP OF A ONE-HALF
INT EREST IN THE REAL PROPERTY AT THE BI-CITY TREA'IMENT PLANT
TO THE CITY OF LITT LETON ON CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
WHEREAS, the City of Englewood and the City of Littleton are
Home Rule Cities operating under charters pursuant to Article XX of
the Constitution of the State of Colorado; and
WHEREAS, the power to contract with each other is within the
scope of the basic powers of both cities and within the specific
provisions of C.R.S. 29-l-201, et seq.; and
WHEREAS, by agreements dated July 2, 1973 and December 6,
1982 (amended May 7, 1984), the City of Englewood agreed to sell a
one-hal f interest in the Bi-City Treatment Plant; and
WHEREAS, the City of Englewood has agreed to transfer to the
City of Littleton a one-half interest in and to said real property
pursuant to said agreements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That a one-half (1/2) interest in the following
described rea l property be conveyed to the City of Littleton as
tenant in common:
That part of the NE l/4 of the NE l/4 of Section 33 , Township 4
South, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., County of Arapahoe, State of
Colorado, more particularly described as follows :
Cotmencing at the NE corner of Section 33 ; thence N 89 degrees
52 '02 " West 243 feet along the North line of said Section to the
True Point of Beginning , said point also being the ~ corner of a
tract of land described in Book 2290 at page 512 of Arapahoe
County Records; thence S 11 degrees 02'34" West 377 .5 feet along
the West boundary of said tract to the Southwest corner of said
tract; thence South 89 degrees 30 '18" East 19.1 feet along South
boundary of said tract to t.1"1e Northwest corner of a tract of land
described in Book 5 at page 458; thence South 12 degrees 36 ' 17"
1
•
I • •
(
•
• •
West 429.43 f eet a l ong West boundary of this tract; thence North
89 degrees 52'02" West 4.00 feet; thence South 12 degrees 36'17"
West 194.48 f eet to a point 10 feet North of the North line of the
S 1/2 of the s 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4; thence North 89
degrees 52'02" West 252.00 feet parallel to said North line;
thence South 0 degrees 07' East 10.00 feet to said North line;
thence North 89 degrees 52' 02" West 319 .00 feet along said North
line to a point 308 feet East of the West line of the E l /2 of the
NE 1/4; thence North 0 degrees 07' West 330.00 feet parallel to
said West line to a point on the North line of the S 1/2 of the NE
l /4 of the NE l/4; thence North 89 degrees 52'02" West 28.00 feet
along said North line; thence North 0 degrees 07' West 600.18 feet
again parallel to the West line of the E l /2 of the NE l /4 to a
point on the Southea sterly l i ne of South Platte River Drive Eas t ;
thence North 67 degrees 48' East 15 7 .43 feet along said South-
e a sterly line to a point on the North line of said Section 33;
thence South 89 degrees 52' 02" East 648 .51 feet to the True Point
of Beginning, containing 15.5945 acres, more or less.
That part of the S 1/2 NE 1/4 Sect ion 33 , Township 4 South,
Range 68 Wes t of the 6th P.M., County of Arapahoe, State of
Colorado , more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the NE corner SW 1/4 NE 1/4 Section 33; thence
the following 5 courses along the land described in Book 1804 at
page 343 of the Arapahoe County Records:
1) North 89 degrees 50' Wes t along the North l i ne of the SW 1/4 NE l /4 122 .80 feet;
2) South 02 degrees 01' Wes t 126.47 feet; 3) South 40 degrees 26' West 370.00 feet; 4 ) Sou t h 64 degrees 49 ' West 225.00 feet; 5) South 44 degrees 47 ' West 16 . 71 feet to a point on the
Easterly line of So uth Platte River Dr ive Ea s t , said po int being
100 feet East of the Easterly l ine of the Of ficial Cha nn el of the
South Platte River as established by Ordi nance 16 , Se r ies of 1935 ,
City and County of nver; thence South 02 degrees 17 ' East along
the Eas erly line of said South Platte River Dr ive East 321 .50
feet to a point of curva ure; thence continuing along said
Easterly lin , on a curve to the left with a radius of 705 .37 feet
and a delta of 12 degrees 22' 19" to the NW corner of a tract of
land described in Book 2918 at page 545 of Arapahoe County
Records; thence South 89 degrees 52 ' East along the No rth line and
the No rth line extended of said tract 579 .42 feet to a po int on
the East l i ne of South Lipan Street ; thence North 0 deg r ees 07 '
West along said East line 13 .60 fee ; thence South 89 degrees
53 '37 " East parallel to, and 200.00 feet South of , the North line
of the land de ribed 1n k 1995 at page 700 of Arapahoe County
2
•
I •
c
•
•
• •
Section 2. That the Mayor and ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer
are hereby authorized to sign and attest said deed on behalf of the
City and City Council.
Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 17th day of June, 1985.
1985. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the 19th day of June,
Read by title and passed on final reading on the 1st day of July, 1985.
Published by title as Ordinance No. J.!l.., Series of 1985, on the 3rd day of July, 1985
Attest: E)Jgene L. Otis, Mayor
ex officio C1ty Clerk-Treasurer
I, Gary R. Higbee, ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer of the
City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and
foregoing is a true, accurate and canplete copy of the Ordinance
passed on final reading and published by title as Ordinance
No. ~· Series of 1985.
Gary R. Hlgbee
4
•
-,
I .
-
r
(
•
•
• •
Records 100.00 feet; thence North 0 degrees 07 1 West parallel to
the West line of the SE l /4 NE 1/4 50.00 feet; thence SOuth 89
degrees 53 1 37" East again parallel to, and 150.00 feet SOuth of ,
the North line of the land described in Book 1995 at page 700 of
Arapahoe County Rec o rds 340.85 feet to the centerline of Mill
Ditch ; thence the following 7 courses all along said centerline of
Mill Ditch:
1) North 36 degrees 46 1 23" East 86.99 feet ;
2) North 61 deg rees 10 1 59" East 56.95 feet ;
3) North 32 degrees 55 1 39" East 35.95 feet;
4) North 06 degrees 46 1 19 " West 22.63 feet;
5) North 43 degrees 15 1 53 " East 16.00 feet ;
6) North 27 degrees 04 1 02" East 198 .95 feet;
7) North 12 degrees 40 1 45" East 264.00 feet
to a point on the South line of N l /2 N 1/2 SE 1/4 NE 1/4; thence
North 89 degrees 53 1 37" West along said SOuth line 750.35 feet to
the SW corner of the aforesaid N l /2 N l/2 SE 1/4 NE 1/4; thence
North 0 degrees 07 1 West along the West line of the SE 1/4 NE l /4
327 .88 feet to the Point of Beginning,
TOGETHER with two strips of land for Right of Way to SOuth
Santa Fe Drive , described as follows:
l) BEGINNING at the intersection of the SOuth line of N l /2
N l /2 SE 1/4 NE l /4 with the centerline of Mill Ditch , said point
bearing SOuth 89 degrees 53 1 37 " East 750 .35 feet fran the Sv
corner N l /2 N l /2 SE l/4 NE 1/4 ; thence along said SOuth line
368.00 feet to the Westerly line of SOuth Santa Fe Drive; thence
SOuth 17 degrees 53 1 37 " West 15 .77 feet along said Westerly line ;
thence North 89 degrees 53 1 37" West parallel to , and 15 feet SOuth
of said South line, 366.47 feet to the centerline of Mill Ditch;
thence North 12 degrees 40 1 4 5 " East along said centerline 15 .37
feet to the Point of Beginning.
2) <XM1Et-X:ING at the SOuthwest corner of the N 1/2 N 1/2
SE 1/4 NE 1/4; thence SOuth 89 degrees 53 1 37" East 750.35 feet to
the center line of Mill Ditch; thence SOuth 12 degrees 40 1 45" West
along said centerline 264.00 feet to the TRUE FOINT OF BEX>INNING,
said point also being the SOuthwest corner of a tract of land
described in Book 2193 at page 358 of the Arapahoe County Records ;
thence SOuth 89 degrees 53 1 37 " East along the SOuth boundary of
said tract 342.00 feet to the Westerly line of SOuth Santa Fe
Drive; thence SOuth 17 degrees 53 1 37" West 10 .52 feet along said
Westerly line; thence North 89 degrees 53 1 37" West parallel to and
10.00 feet SOuth of aforementioned SOuth boundary 343 .84 feet to
the centerline of Mill Ditch; thence North 27 degrees 04 1 02" East
along said centerline 11.22 feet to the Point of Beginning,
containing 18.6391 acres , more or less.
3
•
I •
-
(
•
c
•
•
• •
Section 2. That the Mayor and ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer
are hereby authorized to sign and attest said deed on behalf of the
City and City Council.
Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the
17th day of June, 1985.
1985. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the 19th day of June,
Read by title and passed on final read i ng on the 1st day of July, 1985.
Published by title as Ordinance No.~, Series of 1985, on
the 3rd day of July, 1985
Attest : fugene L. Otis, Mayor
ex officio C1ty Clerk-Treasurer
I, Gary R. Higbee, ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer of the
City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and
foregoing is a true, accurate and canplete copy of the Ordinance
passed on final reading and published by title as Ordinance
No • .J.fl._, Series of 1985.
Gary R. H1gbee
4
•
I •
(
r
c
•
•
,. •
SPOCIAL WARRANTY DEED
This Deed made this day of , 19 _ between the
CITY OF ENGL&JOOD, COLORAOO, a Colorado home rule municipal
corporation with City Hall at 3400 South Elati Street, Englewood,
Coun t y of Arapahoe, State of Colorado 80110, hereinafter "grantor",
and the CITY OF LITTLETON , a Colorado home rule municipal corpora-
tion, hereinafter "grantee;"
WITNESSETH, that the grantor, for and in consideration of TEN
DOLLARS AND OTHER GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, to the grantor in
hand paid by the grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby confessed and
acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed and by these
presents does grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm unto the
grantee , its heirs and assigns forever, a one-half (l/2) interest as
tenant in common with Grantor in the following real property si tuate ,
lying and being in the County of Arapahoe and State of Co l orado, to
wit:
That part of the NE 1/4 o f the NE 1/4 of Sect i on 33 , Towns hip 4
South, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., County of Arapahoe, Sta te of
Colorado, more particularly descr i bed as follows:
Commencing at the NE corner of Section 33; thence N 89 degrees
52'02" West 243 feet along the North line of said Sect i on to the
True Point of Beg inning, said point also being the ~ corner of a
tract of land d escribed in Book 2290 at page 512 of Ar apahoe
County Records; thence S 11 degrees 02' 34" West 377.5 feet along
the West boundary of said tract to the Southwest corner of said
tract; thence South 89 degrees 30'18" East 19.1 feet along Sou th
boundary of said tract to the Northwest corner of a tract of land
described in Book 5 at page 458; thence South 12 degrees 36 '17 "
Wes t 429.43 feet along We st boundary of this tract ; thence Nor th
89 degrees 52 '02" West 4.0 feet ; thence South 12 degrees 36 '17"
West 194 .48 feet to a point 10 feet North of the North line of the
S 1/2 of the S 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4; thence North 89
degrees 52 '02" West 252.00 feet parallel to said North line;
thence South 0 degrees 07 ' East 10.00 feet to said North line ;
thence North 89 degrees 52 '02" West 319 .00 feet along said North
llne to a point 308 feet East of the West line of the E 1/2 of the
NE l/4; thence North 0 degrees 07 ' West 330 .00 feet parallel to
said West line to a point on the North line of the S 1/2 of the NE
1/4 of the NE 1/4; thence North 89 degrees 52'02" West 28 .00 feet
along said North line ; thence North 0 degrees 07 ' West 600 .18 feet
again parallel to the West line of the E l/2 of the NE 1/4 to a
point on the Southeasterly line of Sou th Platte River Drive East;
thence North 67 degrees 48' East 157 .43 feet along said South-
easterly line to a point on the North line of said Section 33;
thence South 89 degrees 52' 02" East 648 .51 feet to the True Point
of Beginning, containing 15.5945 acres , more or less .
•
I •
•
• -
That part of the S l /2 NE 1/4 Section 33 , Township 4 South,
Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., County of Arapahoe, State of
Colorado , more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the NE corner SW 1/4 NE 1/4 Section 33 ; thence
the following 5 courses along the land described in Book 1804 at
page 343 of the Arapahoe County Records:
1) North 89 degrees 50' West along the North line of the SW
1/4 NE 1/4 122.80 feet;
2) South 02 degrees 01' West 126.47 feet ;
3) South 40 degrees 26' West 370.00 feet ;
4) South 64 degrees 49' West 225.00 feet;
5) South 44 degrees 47' West 16.71 feet to a point on the
Fasterly line of South Platte River Drive Fast, said point being
100 feet Fast of the Fasterly line of the Official Channel of the
South Platte River as established by Ordinance 16, Series of 1935,
City and County of Denver; thence South 02 degrees 17' East along
the Easterly line of said South Platte River Drive Fast 321 .50
feet to a point of curvature; thence continuing along said
Easterly line, on a curve to the left with a radius of 705.37 feet
and a delta of 12 degrees 22' 19" to the ~ corner of a tract of
land described in Book 2918 at page 545 of Arapahoe County
Records ; thence South 89 degrees 52' East along the North line and
the North line extended of said tract 579.42 feet to a point on
the East 1 ine of South Lipan Street; thence North 0 degrees 07'
West along said East line 13 .60 feet ; thence South 89 degrees
53'37" East parallel to, and 200.00 feet South of, the North line
of the land described in Book 1995 at page 700 of Arapahoe County
Records 100.00 feet ; thence North 0 degrees 07' West parallel to
the West line of the SE 1/4 NE 1/4 50.00 feet ; thence South 89
degrees 53' 37 " East again parallel to, and 150 .00 feet South of,
the North line of the land described in Book 1995 at page 700 of
Arapahoe County Records 340.85 feet to the centerline of Mill
Ditch; thence the following 7 courses all along said centerline of Mill Ditch:
1) North 36 degrees 46'23" Fast 86.99 feet; 2) North 61 degrees 10'59" Fast 56.95 feet; 3) North 32 degrees 55'39" Fast 35 .95 feet ; 4) North 06 degrees 46'19" West 22.63 feet ; 5) North 43 degrees 15'53" Fast 16.00 feet; 6) North 27 degrees 04'02" Fast 198.95 feet; 7) North 12 degrees 40'45" Fast 264.00 feet
to a point on the South line of N 1/2 N 1/2 SE 1/4 NE 1/4; thence
North 89 degrees 53'37" West along said South line 750.35 feet to
the SW corner of the aforesaid N 1/2 N 1/2 SE 1/4 NE l/4; thence
2
•
'
I • •
•
•
• •
North 0 degrees 07 1 West along the West line of the SE l/4 NE 1/4
327.88 feet to the Point of Beginning,
TOGETHER with two strips of land for Right of Way to south
Santa Fe Drive, described as follows:
1) BEGINNING at the intersection of the south line of N 1/2
N l /2 SE l /4 NE l/4 with the centerline of Mill Ditch, said point
bearing SOuth 89 degrees 53 1 37" East 750.35 feet fran the SN
corner N l/2 N l /2 SE 1/4 NE 1/4; thence along said south line
368.00 feet to the Westerly line of south Santa Fe Drive; thence
south 17 degrees 53 1 37" West 15.77 feet along said Westerly line;
thence North 89 degrees 53 1 37" West parallel to, and 15 feet south
of said south line, 366.47 feet to the centerline of Mill Ditch;
thence North 12 degrees 40 1 45" East along said centerline 15.37
feet to the Point of Beginning.
2) C<HiEOCING at the SOuthwest corner of the N l/2 N l/2
SE l/4 NE l/4; thence SOuth 89 degrees 53 1 37" East 750.35 feet to
the centerline of Mill Ditch; thence south 12 degrees 40 1 45" West
along said centerline 264.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING,
said point also being the southwest corner of a tract of land
described in Book 2193 at page 358 of the Arapahoe County Records;
thence south 89 degrees 53 1 37" East along the south boundary of
said tract 342.00 feet to the Westerly line of south Santa Fe
Drive; thence south 17 degrees 53 1 37" West 10.52 feet along said
Westerly line; thence North 89 degrees 53 1 37" West parallel to and
10.00 feet SOuth of aforementioned SOuth boundary 343.84 feet to
the centerline of Mill Ditch; thence North 27 degrees 04 1 02" East
along said centerline 11 .22 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Contains 18.6391 acres, more or less.
Together with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances
thereunto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and
reversions, rema i nder and remainders, rents, issues and profits there-
of; and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand what-
soever , of the grantor, either in law or equity, of, in and to the
above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances ; TO
HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said premises above bargained and described wi th
the a ppurtenances, unto the grantee, its heirs and assigns forever.
And the grantor, for i tself and its successors, covenants, grants,
bargains, and agrees to and with the grantee, its heirs and assigns,
tha t at the time of the ensealing and delivery of these presents, it
is well seized o f the premises above conveyed, as of good, sure,
perfect , absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in
fee simple, and has good right, full power and lawful authority to
grant , bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and follll as
3
•
I • •
•
•
• •
aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all fonner and
other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments and
encumbrances of whatever kind or nature whatsoever EXCEPT easements
and rights of way of record and the claims of Grantor as a tenant in
ccnrnon with Grantee in the above bargainerl pranises in the quiet and
peaceable possession of the grantee, its heirs and assigns against all
and every person or persons lawfully claiming or to claim the whole or
any part thereof, by, through or under the grantor, to WARRANT AND
FOREVER DEFEND.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the grantor has causerl its corporate name to be
hereunto subscr iberl by its Mayor, and its corporate seal to be here-
unto affixerl, attested by its City Clerk, the day and year first above
written.
Attest:
Gary R. H1gbee, City Clerk
srATE OF COLORAOO
COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE
) ss.
)
CITY OF E!n.fltlOOO
a Colorado municipal corporati on
Ellgene L. otis, Mayor
The foregoing instrlltlE!nt was acknowlerlgerl before me
this day of , 19 by Ellgene L. otis as Mayor and
Gary R. Higbee as C1 ty Clerk of the C1 ty of Englewood , Colorado.
My Commission expires:
4
Notary PUbl1c
Address:
•
'
I .
I • •
......
(
•
•
• ..
qb
BOARD OF CAREER SERVICE COMMISSIONERS
April 4, 1985
REGULAR MEETING & SPECIAL HEARING
PRESENT: Thomas Fitzpatrick, Cathy Pokraka, JoEllen Turner,
Don Weber
ABSENT:
OTHERS :
Janet Kerzic
Ben Craig, Attorney for Career Service Board
Betty Keena
An Executive Session convened at 6:00 p.m. with the following members
present:
Torn Fitzpatrick, JoEllen Turner, Cathy Pokraka
A quorum was established and Commissioner Pokraka chaired the
meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to nominate and elect a
Chairperson for the Career Service Board uf Commissioners to hold
office for four years. Commissioner Tur .lcr moved and Fitzpatrick
seconded that Don Weber be nominated and elected to serve as
said Chairperson from date of selection, April 4, 1985 to April 4, 1989.
Commissioner Fitzpatrick moved for a short recess.
Vice Chairperson Pokraka re-opened the meeting. Roll Call wa s taken
and a quorum was declared. Chairperson Don Weber then took over for
the remainder of the meeting.
Commissioner Pokraka moved and Fi tz patrick seconded to review the
minutes of previous meetings:
January 23, 1985: Approved with 2 abstain
January 24, 1985: Approved with 1 abstain
Let the record reflect that Betty Keena was present to approve the
following minutes:
February 7, 1985: Approved with 2 abstain
February 21, 1985: Approved with 2 abstain
February 25, 1985: Approved with 2 abstain
March 19, 1985: Approved with correction of "add withdrawal of
Petau's disciplinary appeal."
March 15, 1985: Approved with 2 abstain and add "was" substantially
ignored •
I • •
-
(
(
•
April 4, 1985
Page Two
March 21, 1985: Approved
•
• •
The next item of business was the dismissal of the Reynolds Finch
appeal. Chairman Weber read the letter. Commissioner Pokraka
moved that the letter be entered into the record.
The following bills were submitted for approval:
Ben Aisenberg -Leydon Case up to and including March 27, 1985 -
$3,709.15. The Board requested payment of this bill after Recording
Secretary Bev Bjugan receives an itemized statement of the dates and
hours.
Chairman Weber suggested that at the next meeting the Board meet with
Attorney Ben Craig and discuss expectations of the Board and Mr. Craig.
The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
Donald Weber, Chairman
•
Cather~ne M. Pokraka
Vice Chairman
I •
(
(
•
•
• -
l':'lGL<:FOOD DOPNTOv!l'' n<:V<:LO'P"'ENT AUTHORITY
1~3~ S . ~herm an -~n glewood , CO sn110
)-(1 Til"'F.S
May 8, 1985
9
Board Members Present: roleman, rreen, Vaufman , Neal, Oswald, 0wens,
Pendleton, 'T'omooka
Board Members Absent: Pol thaus, Mausolf
Staff Present: n. nietrich
Guests: Jim Bowers, Dorothy Dalquist, Susan Powers
The regular meeting of the F.nglewood nowntown Developmen t AutPor ity Roard of
Directors was called to o r der by Chairman Rill Pendleton at 12:01 PM on
May 8, 1985.
The minutes from the previous meeting were presented for approval. Mr . Kaufman
moved, seconded l,y Hr . r:reen, to approve the minutes f roJTI the April 10, l'lR5
regular meeting . The motion was passed unanimously by voice vote .
"'he Treasurer's Pepor t, "udgeted vs. Actual Expenditures, dated March 3 1, 1QB5,
was presentee! hy nan r.reen. l'r. Yaufman moved, seconded by 'r "'omooka, to
acceot the "'reasurer's Peport. The motion was passed unanimousl y by voice
vote.
Mr. Green also presente~ the revised proposed budget as it relates to expendi-
tures for puPlic improvements on ~outh Rroaclway. It has been decided that the
~nnA sponsored promotion of the downtown project and the Section II edition of
Colorado Rusiness ~agazine woulrl be more timely in 19R6. The fun~s allocated
for these proiects can now Pe used for public improvement expenditures.
Mr. Coleman moved, secondecl by }fr. Yaufman, to revise the 19R5 budget
accordingly. The motion was passed unanimous'y by voice vote.
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
Marketing Study Update -Jim Bowers, planner and consultant to Swedish M dica l
Center, presented some very initial and broad concepts that mig~t be possible
for the marketing study area. Uis presentation included image changing for
the area, traffic considerations, and zoning considerations, and opportunities
•
I • •
•
Page Two
Min utes
Hay ll , 1985
•
• -
that could result from various plans ancl ideas . }(r. Kaufman noted that it
is important to attract people into this area than can support, finan c ially ,
the services an~ uses that will he availa ble.
From this presentation, we will be meetjng with Bill Veio, Rocky ~ounta i n
Research Institute, and combining t his information. From this, we will begin
to look at some of the possible alternatives and opportunities.
Public Imp rovements for South Broadway -Recommendat ion from the Executive Com -
mittee-Because t he proposed costs of the public improvement s of Sout h Broadway ~nc reased from $195,000 to ~275,000, it was necessary to rev iew the finan -
cial commitments and long term debt service fo r this project. Mr. Kaufman moved,
seconded by !r. Coleman, to commit up to 52 75,000 for public improvements for
South Broadway, with t h e idea that the Board will borrow up to $225,000 of this.
Discussion followed . It was noted that the bal loon payment due on the Sachter
p r opert y , if refinanced, can be applied to the project t hi s year. Mr . Oswald
asked if the public improvem ents for both sides of the 3500 block were included.
Susan Powers noted that it is planned to include public improvement s for t ~i s
b loc k in the Little nry Cree k improvement s . Also, the design and a sepa r a t e
estimate fo r the 3200 block will be forthcoming . The questj on was called.
Th e motion was pa ssed unanimousl y hy voice vote.
no rothy Dalquist, City of ~nglewoon Public Relations Specialist, indicated that
she woul d help in publicizing the add i tion of public improvement s to the area as
we ll a s the promotion of tree dedication. It is hoped that t he rit y of ~n ~ PWO od
Cha mber o f Commerce will also part icipate in this p r ojec t.
Publ i c Im provements -~n~ Timing -}(s . nie trich reviewed the t<mi n g e s tima te s
fo r t his proj ect . nidding i s e s timated to he c omrleted b y Au g . 1, c ors truc t ton
comple t e d by mirl-Sept., landsca pin g com pl e t e d by the end of Sept., a n d final
clean up by t h e end o f 0ctoher .
South Santa Fe r orr i dor ~ask Force Meeting -Ms. nietrich remind e d the noard tha t
the nex t meet i n g of this Task Force i s Ma y 9, 1985 at 8:00AM .
Public Wo r ks Week -Jn honor of Public Works l~eek, there will be a to ur of t he
box co nduit a nd s urrounding area on Ma y 22 at 4:00PM at the corne r o f
Gi r a rd and Bannock.
Police Task Force -Fred Kaufman noted that he had participate d in patro l ac t ivit y
i n the downtown area to first-hand see the problems of the area. It wa s very
i n f ormative, and he encouraged the Board to do the same .
As ther e wa s no further busines s , the meet i ng was adjou rned at 1:33 PM .
•
I •
(
•
•
• -
MINUTES
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS 9 o·
May 8, 1985
The regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals began at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: ·Seymour, Hallagin, Brown, Gage, Lighthall, Ferguson, Fish.
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
ALSO PRESENT: Mary Alice Rothweiler, Planner I.
Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney.
Sheryl Rousses, Recording Secretary.
* * * * *
Chairman Fish called the meeting to order and asked the Board to consider the
Minutes from the meeting of April 10, 1985.
BOARD MEMBER GAGE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 10, 1985 MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN.
Board Member Brown seconded the motion.
Upon a vote, all seven members voted in the affirmative, and the Chairman ruled
that the Minutes of April 10, 1985 are approved as written.
* * * * *
BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR CASES 5-85 AND 6-85
BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN, AND THE TRANSCRIPT OF CASE 8-85 BE INCORPORATED INTO THE RECORD.
Board Member Gage seconded the motion.
Upon a vote all seven members voted in the affirmative and the Chairman ruled
that the Findings are approved as written and the Certified Transcript for Case 8-85 is accepted.
* * * * *
There were no Attorney's, Director's or Board's Comments and the meeting adjourned at 7:37 p.m.
•
I • •
•
•
• •
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 4, 1985
I. CALL TO ORDER .
9 E I
The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
o rder at 7:00 p.m . by Chairman Venard.
Members present :
Members absent:
Also present:
Barbre, Beier, Carson, Magnuson, Stoel, Gourdin, and Venard .
McBrayer and Allen.
Peter Vargas, Ex Officio.
Dorothy A. Romans, Assistant Director of Community
Development .
Susan T. King, Senior Planner.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES .
May 21, 1985.
Mr. Venard stated that the Minutes of May 21, 1985, were to be considered for
approval.
Carson moved:
Stoel seconded: The Minutes of May 21, 1985, be approved as written.
AYES: Barbre, Carson, Magnuson, Stoel, Venard.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Beier and Gou rdin.
ABSENT: McBrayer and Allen.
The Chairman ruled that the motion carried, and the Minutes wer e approved as
written.
III . PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, B-2, BUSINESS
DISTRICT.
Mr. Venard asked fo r discussion about the proposed amendments to the B-2 Zone
District . lr. Stoel said that he is concerned about the minimum setback, whi ch
had been c hanged to 12 inches. He asked that this be made more specific . The
Commission decided to c han ge that section to read "A minimum setback of twelve
inches from all property lines will be required."
}!r. Carson stated that lighting was mentioned in two different sections of
the proposed B-2, under site plan and under what the Planning Commissio n will
consider when deciding on a Conditional Use. It was decided to retain both
sections.
Mr. Gourdin asked that the Fence Ordinance be changed to forbid fences along
South Broadway. He said the Comprehensive Plan doesn't permit fences in commercial
dis tric ts, Rnd Mr. Gourdin gave several citations from the Plan. Mr. Carson
suggested that the B-2 regulations on which the Commission is currently working,
sta te that such fences could not be built along South Broadway. It was decided
that the B-2 district should conform to the Fence Code because there should not
•
I • •
n
(
•
•
• ..
-2-
be confl i cting laws in the Ordinance. The Commission agreed to consider
amendments to the Fence Ordinance at the next meeting.
Mr. Venard asked that Section (f) be changed to read" .... trailers, or motor-
cycles, and upon ownership change for any sales lot or business after the effective
date of this Ordinanc~'.
There were no other suggested changes in the proposed B-2 e (2) (b).
Mr. Venard said on Page 4, concerning the landscaping for car sales lots, th a t
Sections (i) through (iv) might be deleted by simply stating that the
Landscape Ordinance applies. Ms. King said that the Landscape Ordinance would
permit all the landscaping to be put anywhere on the lot the owner wishes, and
would not require that it be visible from the front.
It was decided to add in Section (g) the statement: "A landscape plan in
conformance with the Landscape Ordinance shall be submitted with the application
for the Conditional Use." It was further decided t o strike Sections (i) through
(iv) of Section (g). The landscape requirement as quoted above is to be added to
the sections of the B-2 regulations relating to motor vehicle repair businesses
and motor vehicle laundry or polishing businesses.
Mrs. Romans not~d that Section g, Development Requirements, requires a ten foot
setback for all uses in the B-2. There has never before been a setback required
in this zone district. The Commission approved this provision.
Magnuson moved:
Carson seconded: The Landscape Ordinance be amended to require that landscaping
be visible from the public right-of-way.
AYES: Barbre, Beier, Carson, Magnuson, Steel, Gourdin, Venard.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: McBrayer and Allen.
The meeting was recessed at 8:15 p.m. to consider phrasing for this c hange . The
meeting resumed at 8:30p.m., with the same people in attendance.
The Commission decided to change Section c (2) (e) (1) of the Landscape
Ordinance to read: "Minimum of 10% of total lot area must be landscaped with
no less than SO% of the landscaping installed on the front portion of the lot."
Carson moved:
Barbre seconded : The changes as proposed at this meeting be passed on to Council
with a recommendation to approve.
AYES: Barbre, Beier, Carson, }illgnuson, Stoel, Gourdin, Venard.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: McB rayer and Allen.
The Chairman ruled that the motion had carried, and stated that the Fence
Ordinance would be considered for amendment at the next meeting.
IV. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.
Steel moved:
Carson seconded: Goals and Objectives be considered at the following meeting
at 5:00 p.m. This meeting will include the Fence Ordinance
amendments •
•
I • •
•
•
• -
-3-
AYES: Barbre, Beier, Carson, Magnuson, Stoel, Gourdin and Venard.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: McBrayer and Allen.
The motion carried.
Mrs. Romans stated that there is an amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan that
is to be considered at the next meeting, also.
V. PUBLIC FORUM.
There was no one present to address the Commission.
VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE.
Mr. Vargas stated that, in response to comments from the Planning Commission,
Council and public citizens, the Code Enforcement Division will be improved.
He said there are several areas which the staff has suggested could be improved.
1. Communication. When there is a complaint, there will be a written reply
stating what has been done about the situation.
2. Clarification of responsibility in the Department .
a. Sign Ordinance . The former City Attorney slowed action because of
questions of constitutionality. The present City Attorney said that
enforcement can resume. The Planning Divsion is responsible for
issuing the permit and the Planning Division will inspect the sign.
b. Landscaping Enforcement. Susan King will do all the inspections
for landscaping, approving plans and following up with the inspections.
c. Performance bonds will be required to insure compliance with the
Landscape Ordinance. The Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is
not sufficient for this enforcement.
d. The City Forester may help Susan King regarding landscaping
maintenance.
e. Project coordination. A planner will be assigned to each projec t,
and that planner will follow the project to completion. Mrs. Romans
called this the "buddy system".
f . The summer months may require a planning technician t o provide
assistance to Code Enforcement. The specifics of this proposal have
not been decided.
Mr. Carson asked what the proper way to report violations is. He said that in
the past he had always phoned Dorothy Romans, but now tries to report to Code
Enforcement. A councilman told him that he should swear out a complaint. Mr.
Vargas said that the first step would be reporting to Code Enforcment. If the
case has to be taken to court, then a complaint might have to be sworn out, a nd
the person complaining might have to testify.
Mr. Carson said that the area across from the Post Office on Lehigh has trash
over the fence . This has been a continuous problem. When the City requires
the property to be cleaned, the owner complies, and then begins to store trash
again. Mr. Vargas suggested that Mr. Carson make a compliant to Code Enforcement
anytime he can see the problem beginning .
•
I • •
•
•
•
• •
-4-
~rs. Romans said that City Council did approve the Centennial Trade Center II
Subdivision Plat and the amended portions of the Zoning Ordinance will be
considered by City Council on July l. Two amendments to Title XIV and Title
VI of the Englewood ~unicipal Code were passed on first reading. These sections
c onc ern commercial vehicles and a limit on empty weight, and a redefinition of
derelict vehicles which eliminates the requirement that the owner be unknown.
VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE.
None.
IX. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
After the meeting adjourned, Mrs . Romans showed slides of a buses of parking
on public streets by c ar dealers.
Sheryl Rousses, Recording Secretary
•
I • •
•
•
• •
mNUTES
Englewood Public Library Advisory Board
June ll, 1985
9 F ~
Chairman Valdes called the regular meeting of the Librar y Advisory Board to
order at 7:37 p.m.
PRESENT: Jerry Val de s , Bruce Hogue, John Peterson, Gerald Sampso n ,
Dorothy 1'/heel ehan
REGRETS: Lois Sterling, Debbie Dix, Al Quaintance, Kay Van Valkenbur g
ALSO
PR ESENT: Sha ron Winkl e, Director of Libraries
Donna Got t be rg, Recording Secretary
Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present.
lr . Valdes turned the meeting over to Ms. Winkle for the Director's Report.
Ms . Winkle asked if any member of the Board would like to volunteer to help
evaluate the proposals received on the Automated Library ~lanagement System.
All bids are due from the vendors by July 1, 1985 . Mr. John Peterson vol-
unteered. The time line on reviewing the bids was briefly d iscussed .
Ms. Winkle presented a draft of the Library Department Capital Equ ipment Budg et
Request for 1986, not i ng that the Supplemental Request would be draft ed a t a
later dat e . There was brief discussion on the Capital Equipment Budget Request.
~Is. Winkle brought forward for review and di scussion, the Request for Recon-
sideration of materials pol icy. After di scu ssion, the Board felt this document
was satisfactory at the pre s ent time.
To encourage public visitation to the Library Board meeting s it wa s sugge s t ed
that we add to the agenda a time for visitors to speak.
85-13 ~l OTION: That the Board i n stitute the addition of an item on the agenda i nclud ing
time for visitors to speak (10 min. for sc heduled guests a nd 5 min.
for unscheduled guests).
Moved by Bruce Hogue
Seconded by Gera ld Sampson
~lotion carried .
The Board agenda and minutes will be posted in a public place in the Library.
Chairman 's Report
t·lr. Valdes brought forward a draft copy of the Library Advisory Board 1986
Budget Request . After discussion of certain 1 ine i terns the Board accepted the
draft as presented.
85-14 ~lOTIO To accept the draft of the Library Advisory Board 1986 Budget Request
as presented.
~loved by Dorothy l~heelehan
Seconded by Bruce Hogue
~lotion carried .
•
continued ....
I • •
•
• •
-2-
~lr. Valdes noted that we received acknowl edgement of the birthday ca rd sent to
the Peterboro, H Library on its 152nd birthday.
lr. Valdes brought forward a letter from Arapahoe Public Access to Librar ies
(APAL) to be signed by himself and 3 other Library Board Chairmen. The letter
is directed to personnel who worked with the legislature thi s year to bring
us closer to full s t ate funding of the Colora do Resource Center (CRC).
Mer.~bers ' Choice
Ms. IVheelehan gave a brief report on the Board Member Indoctrination & Educat ion
works hop s he attended in Boulder last month. With the work s hop lasting 2 days
there was no way s h e could capsulize the i nformation. She suggested we begin
the July and Augu st meeting s at 6 p.m., with an informal session of discus sion,
a nd form our job description s and duties for Board members . The Board agreed.
~lr. Va lde s and Ms. IVhe e lehan s uggested that at the August meet i ng we have Hank
Long come in at the i nformal s es sion and briefly update the automation system for the Board.
Mr. Pe t e rson noted that used books were being generously donated and sales were going well.
1r. Hogue asked if the complaints on the parking were still coming in. Hs.
Winkle said the complaints had greatly slowed down, and that s he had wo rd just
recently from Jim Espinosa that the City was negot iat i n g with the Engl ewood bank
to try t o obtain more parking space for both employees a nd visitor s to City llall.
~lr. Hogue asked what kind of signage would be placed in the Library regarding
the Securi ty System. ~ls. Winkle replied that signs will be posted pr ior to the
i n stalla tion of the system noting that the system will be installed as a money-
saving device against thef~ and that the City would have the r ight to inspect
a person 's belongings i f "rea s onable cause" is suspected. The signs will be 8~" X 11 ".
Mr. Hogue wi ll be out of town in July and Augu s t, but wi ll return in t ime for the
Board/Staff picnic, which he noted will be held August 10 at Cu shing Park beginning at 5:30p.m .
Committee Reports
No report from the Rememb r a nce Fund Committee.
There was brief discussion on the Statistical Report for ~lay 1985.
85 -1 5 ~lOTIO.'\: That the ~linute s from the ~lay 14, 1985 meeting be approved as presented. MOVed"" by: John Peterson
Seconded by: Dorothy ll'heelehan
Motion carried.
~leeting adjourned a t 9: IS p.m .
6 -12-85 dg
•
I •
-
•
PUBLIC NOTICES
YCIUr R1ght to r<Mw
• ~ __,.,c.a.n._ ·-~w ~ .. ~ ....... w. ...... ~ •• --.m~
ICftaX'/, 14.6-.. , •1 • ..,_ ~~ 16.6-U,--1111-.
U -;14 ..... U,J-I ,&.Illfr-UIL.,._ter1 u ... l\,,,D., ~---~, ........ ., ..... _ _,....~, u .... 11.~
~. -a~..._,..-....._ a-&.,.--·--~---..··--.. -~ ... -.... ... "-ft ..... IC" -1.011---...... 1-;-
=~~---'::e~~-=--:::~-:.r.~.~-=
._.,-Cott ~u ...,... .... "-u. ..... , u. ....... , u ... u, M .... u , u .... u.: u .... n -wo • ...u Mt , .. • ..,.L., -~ .. -...-.-, ... -· -·-~-., ... -~~---, ___ ~---c:.cr"-' .. _,-...
~--.... _ ~ .. --.n-..... t-.a.. .._..._ • • a cr ~'''
-.~ •• l?-.._•-c:t'ftCIII£u .• _ c:m•--.. . .....,, • ..,.._,
..... ~;,. =-..:. '::!:".::~ ... ~.':.:::. u ......
o. .... ~, 16.1-IJ, ...... ---~~-, ....... u. 1-1, ""-'
1-...c.rt&l O..Uleti Wo .a-1~, P.D., ''-......... Dlau>n1 !!;::!'~--...,..,...au ,-u ........ ..........,.-
~•-t .... ~ .. "'"'•"'ftvt P'""U ·
II 1r •-·-10 Uu o -1 U1r t '"* 1e11 .. 1 .. ., _,._,.,,
....... _,,,,_11 -·-·" .. '"'"'"''"'''' :::::=:· ..... :·::.-:::.:.:-..!·: :!':..-:--:!· ...... ~--......... ~ .. ·-.. ,, -...,,
et•a ii<M fr o...-o "' ~~o:r 1 , .. , "'"-~· --... ~ ...... -......... ----.... -·· ,,_ ..... ,_. -... , ........... .
IHIIotiiOI ,,.. •••-_., .............. IM """'"" 1-1 . "'"·-·· .......
.... , •• ,_,.,_, __ 11• ................ ··-· ........................ -..... . :.~,::.::-.. ·~~a.:::;:=..:-:=:~!....-. ..... -.... --.......
::1!:~:r:~"1:-::,. ~~~~~-~-~~=.~~~---...... .,,_.,..,.,,,,u, .. ,,., .. ,.,,l,.._
.. ·-·-u ..... -·-.. ,.,,., ... u ..... - --.... ,._ ''"· -·-" ------· ... ___ ,, ......... ,. .. ___ .... --· ~· -·· ..... -..... ._ ..... ----.....
"'' ......... ~ ... ,,. ... _,..,, -............... n •-
'" -~h .......... ·-· .... It ·-· -·-:.:.. ... :!"~'.!!!."::,-... -.................. --.. -
"'"•-•11 -oto ..,, "'"'"' .,,.,,...,, ..,,.,,.,..,,., , .. ,
PUSUC NOTICES
Your lloght to Know
•
• •
.f'.JJBUC NOTICES
V.our Rlallt tq 1\llo..,
:: ····-;.~::~;;,-· ..........
i :~_._,,,
•. "'"'li~!li'IIP.!'' " ...... -......
e , 1\ .... j :~~il--s r( P llr ... hUt, '" ..... _51 _ .. --·· ... -~~·-..... -··-.,-.. _, .. , _,_, .......... --,,
--'•1 .. • -•h--~~ -~~ -11 lor .. _ u
::::.·-_,,,. , .... , ...... h •• ,-_,,-..
t .,l row•el ••·•·•••...,-•
IIU.1!!!....1L. f.!ri:ood .,..,,,_,. •• IF' I P'ti!IC''-.. _........,.
,..,,_ -· "'' ,,_ ,..,,_, •u"'" ,,.,,,.. "--.. ..... ,,..,_,,,,.,. .. ,,,u, .. ,,,,.,,,,,.,_
,_,,., ,.,.,.,., •-torto!n .,.,.,..,...," l r ~·-· -··. _ .. ,~, ........ --· .. ,..._,. .... -............ _,, ... _ .. ,, .. _,, ...... . .... -·~ ....... -·· ........ -.. , -·· ... ,,.,..,,,...,""'"'"*-•••• .. -•.,•r~-,.,,,_,, --···· ···-""' ........ .._ ... . .... ·-......... --... ·-·--·· ........ --· rr u. coo , er-••· -__ ,,. -• _, ._,., ::!.:: :::::..::.:~~-..!.-=.-~~.".:..,, =~.r'.:!.i' ... ~.:·:. '::!."!:' ,:'!:!:. • .. Pi:::'--· --····· -··· -...... -·· -·· ......... .. 1..,-.._ •••••••• ,.,_ --... ,.,Co o, c_,, th-· Uor "-"-·-·· "'•'" ,, __ ,,.,...,.,,,,,_ll••••lloor.ru .. ..... . , ... _ .................. _ -~~~-·· ... ...
.,,,,_, .. , • -••M l t o il -~~~ •-·-•••..., --··-.,,,, .. -....... _ .... ._._,, ::.::=-=::;.!! :....~.=-!.~·:..:;:',:: ..... -" ...... _ .. _ ... ··---·----ruoo at ... .,, • ....., -•• 1o-,.,. .,., rt -•-•• .,. ,.,
Coo r ~II, .... _,.., -II .. -II -"'"-'"' .. _,,,-II lo -..... to , .. -'"'"" ..... l ro l -, •. -..w...
•. llaltl.t.t.tJ..
-· _ ....... --•• Uor • .._ __ ,_, -··-.... "'''" ........ ,-..... -...... ... .......... ··-_,_, .. ._ ....... -=~!!!.:-:.--._. ............ _ .... ..
, n il ___ , ___ ..
P&.JBUC NOTICE
'!'OUr R1gn1 to l(no w
PU!LIC NOTIC~
Your R•ibl iO'IIRIW
•·n ·r ... -u .. ., --....... _
........ _ .. ·---·-.. -~ .. ---·--..,. -••••1, • •-u•l ........ , __ -•• -··...,.. -~·----.. ., ........ ..._ ......
111 .._._.... __ u _., .. ___ .,. ____ ~.
.. .... ..,. ... _.,----. -··· -...... "' -.... -·-~~ .. -"'-.... ---..... -----""--·· .. -· .. -.-..... . ........... , .. ,,_ ...... ----·-.....
11) __ , .......... .
~1 1-l ,...,t•l-t ,•l-t --olna
(III .. I ,I •K t f-<Jfo t l -.. ..,,.,, , .. -... _ ........ _,, .. _ .. ,_,_.
:.:--.... -..!:.!:.,"" --·-· ··-"' ·-·
... -.... -....... _. ... _ .. ,_ ......
=---..:.::..~ ._... '-.,. ,,_ N •-
trl .. l,..,l ,l·l.-..,,-.....,, "' _., __ ,_ u.,.,,_, .... , __ _ -fiJ -... ..,.u_,_.,_.,.,_ .. ,_,_,,. .. ___ , :.:: .. :--. --....... It)-·-.. -
-h t U -•-o .. ·oo oloo ••-•-,_,_, ooo !:.::':::·h ... ._ .. _ .... --to .... ··-
"''-•u.u'"'•-•'-'· -· ·-•···-· .,,, .!:!!:.!· • ... ,_ .. ~~ .... &A.t_ .. u _., "'
...._ .. ~~~\2:'~ ;:.: :'~·.:::.; " ..... _._._.__, __ '-l,...,..,.,_.,.u _ .. e.t --...tt .. _ _....._ ........ ....__ ..
a.-u 111 ... aq 111.....,....., a.n-.... "_., .._ ~--· ... _---.,t.a., --........... . -='-• .--.......... ~ .... -...... -------· -l~, ~ -· .,._ .. .._ .. ~\rqol -·--~-
I .
PUSUC NDTIC£5
V aur R1ght to Kru>w
G:IKIL !ILL II), t l
~ .. ~u.
-~
.. (II)U.C.: ~,.;<D'tf~J• -----10 -~'ft ... ., --=a -.ua.:; • 16 ..... a.), --m •a--=-:
OUTIIICTi u ....... , a-1, -·-111-IICTI l6 ... ll , -llll CIJIQI.. U ICO;lt..4 -ll,I•I ,U<III'T~IIII.IWft'II I,CTJ U.,._I\,P.g ,,
,.,_ ~ Dl~l u. .•. IJ.--... _,ll&C~, , ...... u.~c..
..._...._ -o., "-'"'--.... ~-~--·---.u M ._tao• ~·-.. -Qlooflr.._lw ~Olaf!-... • ...... oc -""" .. w •-. II, l tft; ...
-.... ,._ -...... -...... ic -""-··-~ u. ::~ _,_,, .,.. .,,w:••• Cu t.....,.....,., •" a., l tlft;
---•·-a ............... u._ ..... , __ _
•-••---·-u. c:nr '~"'•-..,,., a..,.,_-.... no~--.. -~-lfldl . ~-~·-aq.o...;u ,
-· ~. • "a..!~ .. ,_ OTt CDM:U. IIIII' .. C.lft. ~.a.-,-holt-•
..,...,_I -IN rN I.,..,..-. u. _.,_ lt.,W ,
a-1, ~rf ---Ot.•n a , l t. ... l l , a-1, -~ ..... u.,.: u. ..... u, -· ... ~~~-= u .... u, 1-1 , Utlll a-.o&J. ~~~.....,,.,., ~ ... ,,, r.o., ~ raoo.o.a.....,.. ot•Uoct i u ... u.---. .. , ... u.,-, ....... ~ ..... . _ _,..,._,_
~1 ·1 •••~,_..,.,, .. ,. .. ..,.,,,,.,,,c,,
,, .. ·-·· ............ -· ..... ·-,,,,_, ..... .,_ ...... .
......... _.,1..--11 ....... ICOM I•ooii Oo U .... I I o l :;::::::·.";:':,-::.:.:·:..!-:: :!·~-:..-:!• .. ~.~·· ..... ........................ ,_ ...... ,
, ........ ,. ..... , .. ,!!! ..
U•! .. ,,,_, M M OIOO r ooo oo • __ ,,..,toot -·· •""
_,.,.., -· u.-..,wel -t ·--u u ,_ .. ..,
U l ! -··~ l oC'oi iOi o o oo.llhol••-
..... ~ .. , ............. . ..................
lo ..,l •·l -ol r .. t --111 .................. JIM I .. ~ ... ·-·· ............ _, .... .
=·~.::•:.l~..: !:.!-:: ::;:-::~..:-:=~~!... ..... .. -·-··--·--· ... ··· ::~~?!~l r::~~!!:~ :;~~~~:~~;;,;~:: .... ' t ....
-•••••"••IOfoot lw •-~•••,..•
... u •• .., ... - -.... , ............ -·-.. --.... --..... . .. --.. .._., ......... --....
---II -·• to '""_,., .. ...._,.,., -'"'" -.oo--''•
U l !t .. t .. oo.U t M ~hr l .. l -• ............... it l ... o •••-•"•'""""" ... '"""'"""'"' .. ,.,.,_,. :.:..-:::~'.!!::::.-... --...... _ ..... --· .. -
;::T'ioo'!;·:·;..~· :::i :::: .~!;:';.::!.":::~-:..;.:.:~:.-.... -••••·• ... •n ,.. .....
0 • ........... h Oifl"'o .... ,00.1\l .. !UJtHU •••
.... --..... ,_, ...................... -·· ·-··
~~ -•••-.,.,, .. , •••••• ,,, ••••••••••••• II 1-o .
............ ,.. ..................... J l ... .
u ••-•M M Lr • .. , .. ,_ .... ,.. ................... ..
~~·-···-··· = .. -::...'i.::-..... :·:~!:~·=:·!!!.:...~!!'"':!"!..:• =. ._ ........................ ····-..... -.. ·-.. .
U ... ooo ot ou \1 .. , -· ...,,...,_ ••I-,.., ,.,.-... ·~··-····~ .............. .
u • ._.,,.,,,.., .. ••-1 . .. ,...lt ......... ·-··-.-·-··· :::~::.:::•••--••·c-to l.,o o o o M =:; =~::!~~~ l o .. U , .. -lllcOO I-Ol
;::~lli~~~:;:;~: ::.:::::.·•
-••ul o •• •••••• M l oo ol -r h -• .. -:!:.:::r .. ~ ....... , ..... -....... ... ......................... ___ , ........ ..
oor r c lo ... Oi t!ut -.,11-\ot .. o oo"""• = ::;:· !:':i..":-::':!:!!:"-!! !.i::e:.-·-·•·..-c• .....
Ill M ,_,. ·--oh -~ -• -•-I• t • o I.---u. """"'·-.. -·"-... .._ .. _, _,. .. __ ,.,. u -· ... _ .... --.. --··--.. _ .......... -" .. --.. ··-----""'-· ~ ... ,..,,_1 MI ""·
........ ,.W 1•1 1eM
............, :::ur:::;::r.;:::,!:':!!""'" d ......... _ •
................ ._-.._,_ .... ~-----11--'--11-·1-... ......... ___ !. _,_·-··-
=·:.-:..~-------
~1-IUet !l •• trl•l ,
.. ~ ....
•
•
PUBUC NDTlC£$
Vour 1118hf to Know
'U8LIC NOTICES
YDiil' R•aht tQ IVIO..,
..... , ... ~a.~!ii'!.r;i' ..... u .. w u•to • ,. ...
,.~..i-·"
··~-. ... _,,!
•. ~..!;:.!'"' .. "'!.!fiT"'' !( -~~· .... ...tu!J..
•. "'"""i!:.!:i:.!'".ii' ...... '''-"·--·· .. •· U l ,,,,,_",... •• ....,_ .. , tloo -II• -hot._..,_, .. ... ·-·· ........ _ . ., .................. . ... oo lel ... o -l h -luth .. lt _ll .... t _to
~;~::::·:::.:~·.: =:· .... --·I -..
··~· ..... _., -· ,,. •••-• ..... ,.,_, "'"'n ,,..., •. !!-::.:-:!'.: ::!~:c :.:.: ~~.~~=·::::-..::: .. !·:: ~., ___
-·-· -·• o <'O!filn •c•f! loo t -• oe -·••of ................. \0 .,_,,, ... _,,,, ... _ ..... , ...
!:=..~::;-:.:.~~ :::'!.:.::::•;.=:·~:.·:-~:.:.. ..... _._ -....... ····-., .•.• o.•'--· ••. '"' •-••ouon ...,. .. .,. , ... , •• --•• ,.,., ~ -oo•l ..... c .. ,~_.u . "'"-••••.,..,....-, .. ,,_,, •
=~~-!..~~~~r.;~!~~?~~:r~:~::r-:f.~~:.-.:..,, ..... ._ ................................ --. --······ -... , ............. " .... ,_,, .... .. It! ..... ·-totool .. l -loto __ .. !r oJoo C1t 7 C-11
O!o-!tOO!I-.. w•l -t .
••-••• ,,. ..... ,..,.,.,... .... , .. -u ... o.,l .,,,.u ..
..... •• ·-Ow lot10 1•i-••• ~, •• ,_ • ., ...... , .... .... .... ,._ ......... _ ............... ,.~ ._ .. -.. ..... ..
~ ... , ...... ""' ........ _, ..... _.. ...... _._.,.
-.... -... II Pl..-lo••l-t t .. t ••ol oo ....... ,_, ....... , ·-h ···-........... -.......... . -" ,... ......... ,, . ··--···-· .... -... . • ,.,._.,..,,, .. , .. ._.., .... , ..... u ol-f!•o l lr oht car c-11, ,,.., .. , o~oo u ... .,u ...... ,, ... , ... .. .,. .. , .... u .... .-, .. ,,.,..,-,.,., .. ...,., ... _.
-·1--t l l or . I .... ,_, .l t ll _,., , ... t!J!O
:·:.!.!~.:: ~~:-"'.::,:·~--:·:~.::..·.::=:1~ .. . ........... ,_,..._,.,_ .. , ...... -............ . , ......... , ..... ---··-·· -.... 1_ .. . ~!~=~::-a:.:,:·,!;::!::,::.·· _ ... , ... lo , , ..
~-
,.... ··-.. _, __ ,, .. -···-........
:::~~10~1 t M ~-ooo PIM-UOt .. IIU!o .. ........ -................. _, __ , .. .,,. ,_,,, .. _, .. , ..... , ......... _ ........... .. -" .... ,_ ........... ,_ .. , ·-·-··· -""""'· .... -··--·· _ .. , .. . "'"'""'· ........... ,,, ........ -......... .. _,..,. .. ,_,. ,,,., •. ,.u, .. -........... ,
-II te -·-·-• _,_.,_ Uti ·-1 _ _,.., ____ ,10 16 1 ·-
_, ........ ·--ll ..... --·
-h r -II .,_,,.., .. oohau ,., --•1 .. -loo o
flo--·•-•· .,... ...... ,o il-... uoo •••-• IM t t! •-••n •oc o c .. .,,., ... , ..... _l t •••••M--•I •I•M Co o1
c-11 .......... -..... _.. _, ·-··· ..... -_,,.,_, ... .
:~:::::.~···-· ..... _, -···· ,_,_ ............. .......
~te e u etPuo M I •M IIo
-._...,_ .._,..... ·--·-·--.-... ,_ .. '
:~:-..;._::::.z~~==:r·.;~=-:-::.~-~=-:::t~:::-
.... 1• •• ,., -n.,.-,. --.-__ ,,_ r-·---· ooon111 ::.::!. .. ""-::"'f:: ::.:.--:: .• ::: ::-::: .. -. .. -::-=.!~ -~~
.. --.. .... -'" --_, --· ..... ._. ___ _. __ ............. _....,.. __ _
..a._ .. ____ ............. . ---._ .. -~ -----..... -..---... __ ___ ,.......,_
cxfl.
•
PL.IBUC NOTICE
Tour R1gn t to ~now
PUSLIC NDTIC~
Your R•illt ~
-.. tl -'"·-·-........ -.... ·-,,_,,_,_--__ .............. ----~~----·-·-
---------~ .. ---•1!0' --
t•l .... _ .. ____ , ___ ......,. ... ___ ... _ ......
_ .. , ..... -... , .... ,..,., ___ •• -.. u .. ----... --·-· ..... !11 .. , •• ._ ........
Ill :-: ::-:.-.:::.~'! .. ::•:..:·.;;::-... ::.::·:.::...~~-
·-· .......... __. .... ---...... -·---.1-., __ , ......... u .......... loo: ..
Col ~1 , ,._1, 1•!, -1•1 -nu o o
01 = ___ .._ , .. ,., ,_.,loo ---..
IU -•oo-., .. u ,_.,..,-,. ioo.o•• , .. , ol ~~-~-" .. .. a--...o....-of u .. U l l ootlt __ ,.._
-...... _ ........................ _ .. __ ... . ... ,. ........... _ .. _ ....... -........... .
tol -I II,Ui o.o-•l t l ~· ·-••••-•
""' ~· ... ••u-•"" •' .. ..,",_ -u ...,,t ..
-:-~-=:!!~'£::~ ~= :1.~~·=-..::; ~ ... ..,
-----~-~--... ~~1 -ollo£!, _..._ .. lt.t "'-~...-u-,.""'•w-....
~u ,. -aq !ll_.,.__...,...,'-•-u -a.-P"'..,.. -· .. .._--•• ~c~e . _, __ -··· __ .,.. __ _., lu•-.•~u -ot...,.lat'f. ___ _
--·~• __._,-·.:a--~ 1111 <~KIM .• _, __ ._._
...t -!5;. ::,~"':"" .... "'!:"' -:u ~~..:!::-_ .... _ ~~-.. -~----· _.,. -~--· -.-. ... -...... ~ _,_.._..,..._,_ ... .._,n •.._•-..... • .,...;, ..... --·•Woe ~~··-....... ..,.._,.,-.. ..... _ .. uou. .. __ .U _l. ....... ~~--= ... .!!' .. ~~: =~-= ____ ..__ ........ _....,,,_.,_
...._ _., .. , ..... --... _<Ill .... 1~1 --·
-... ......,.. ... "". ~t•l ,_-.. ._ . ...., aor -~ •• -......... -cl _,_ ........... ._ ..... _ ....... --...~ . ..-.--.... -~-~ ......
w..a .c._ el..., ,. .. ,_"' ~~ --· • ... --..... --· ..... ., _,,_ ...... -.. ,_---__ .. _... ... _______ ..., _ _,_ ___ _
......-........ ~~ou ... .,....-h .. ,_.. .. __ .............. ~ . ..... =~ ........ u ....... _ .. ,...,_._.,.
l t /L __ • 0..1! ..-c ........
•wndibl rtiiri
1, ..,, L ..,._, • !llhc"" Cltr O..lo ·ft--"' -
cur • .....-. CIPI••· _ _, _.,,,-"""--••-*"' ... -· ---....-........... --""'-• ......,.., .,.. .. e.u .-.,....-f .l ra """"""' • .... ,.,._.,_,,.,, .................... --l t l c....., •.•• ..._ ..,.L ....
-u c:t 11 ""'.., •'-&Mt u.. cur ~·& "' t M C llt ar ... ,_., Col a r.-, wil l ... ld •
....Uo:: .... U .. -..... t • J~otlr I, IN\, •t
l o lil •·•· ce _,..._.., ...-•1-.... u,.
o::.rUott~tttoaa.CI:II!IN",._I .. a-1 ..
Or·l -.... ,u .... u.., ..... u., .... 1~
•~-r ut , "-._ •-ltUict , -.... .. , .. ~.-.
l~t &--.u•d •u.tun, "'_.. ~~ •••u,ct, ,_ .., .-alai"" -u• . ..,. , ...... , ... ,
lU I ,..._ ... '--...., ,. Uo.!t -u.ar ld.U ., ................. u.. .... ,l_.
.,. ·~ ., ..., U •r ~u ., ..,. cu,. ••
......_....~ ........ u~,_,,, .. ,,
1-t Guy •• Ill---.. u.c~a cu.r ct.an...._. •
I • •
' f
,,
•
•
•
• •
1 OA .
BY AUTHORITY
ORDINANCE 00. f 0
SERIES OF 198_5_ COUNCIL BILL 00. 41
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
MFMBER NEAL
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS 'ro '!liE cntPREHENSIVE
WNING ORDINANCE RELATING 'ro 16.4-8, R-3, HIG! DENSITY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT; 16.4-10, B-1, BUSINESS DISTRICT; 16.4-11, DESIGN GUIDE-
LINES; 16.4-13, I-1, LIG!T INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT; 16 .4-15, P.O.,
PlANNED DEVELOI'M.Em' DISTRICT; 16.4-17, FEN::ES AND RETAINING WALLS;
16.4-18, LANDSCAPING.
WHEREAS, the City Planning and Zoning Commission has
considered amendments to certain sections of the Comprehens ive
ZOning Ordinance at a public hearing held on May 14, 1985; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of the public hearing was given in the
Englewood Sentinel, the official City newspaper, on April 24, 1985;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Sections 16.4-8; 16.4-10;
16.4-11; 16.4-13; 16.4-15; 16.4-17 and 16.4-18 in 1984 as part of
the Cootprehensive Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, minor discrepancies exist in these sections and sane
issues are not addressed, and the City Planning and Zoning
Commission has referred amendments of these sections with a
favorable recommendation to the City Council;
~. 'lliEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF 'lliE
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, as follows:
Section 1. That the following amendments to Sections 16.4-8,
R-3, H1gh Density Residence District; 16.4-10, B-1, Business
District; 16.4-11, Design Guidelines; 16.4-13, I-1, Light
Industrial District; 16.4-15, P.O., Planned Development District;
16 .4-17, Fences and Retaining Walls; and 16.4-18 , Landscaping are
hereby adopted.
•
I •
-
"'
•
•
• •
Section 16.4-8 R-3, High Density Residence District.
It is inherent in this goal that the following be considered:
* A development plan shall be submitted for all residential
developments having more than four dwelling units or for any
development of a lot having one or more acres in area.
(first * paragraph only changed)
b. Permitted Principal Uses.
(6) Retirement or senior citizen housing, rest homes, and
nursing homes. Planned Development approval is required.
(11) Public facilities and buildings.
d. Floor Area.
(l)(b)(ii) Two bedroom unit •••••••••••• §IHl 750 square feet.
k. Minimum side yard.
(1) Single -family detached dwelling ••••••••••••••• 3 feet
with a total of 10 feet for both sides
and no less than 10 feet between principal
buildings on the same or adjoining lots, whether
or not under the same ownership.
(2) S i ngle-family attached dwelling and two, three
or four-family dwelling ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 5 feet,
with a total of 14 feet for both sides and
no less than 14 feet between principal
buildings on the same or adjoining lots, whether or not
under th e same ownership. For purpose s of t otal side yard setba ck, the
setback shall apply to the entire structure, not the indiv idual un i ts .
(3) All other pe rmitt ed princi pal uses ••••••••••••••• 15 feet
for each side and no less than 15 feet betwe en
pr inc i p a 1 bu ildi ngs on th same or adjoining lots, wh ether or not
under the same o~~ersh ip.
•
I •
"'
•
•
• •
m. Minimum off-street parkin~. Off-street parking areas or lots
shall be of a hard surface, either paved with aspha lt,
concrete, or brick pavers.
o. Accessory Buildings and Permitted Accessory Uses.
(2) Storage Shed. ~e~ ~e~e -heft efte •'•••!e •he• •hall ~e pe•~'''ee pe~ •welliR!~ ~e •'e~a!e •he• ahall eweee•
199 ·~~a~e fee~ •R •~ea~
(b) Maximum total floor aref •••••••••••••••• 100 square feet.
~~t Maximum height •••••••••••••••••••••• 10 feet.
(c)
~et Minimum side yard ••••••••••••••••••• 3 feet.
(d) (renumbered only)
~•t Minimum rear yard................... 3 feet.
(e) (renumbered only)
(6) Home occupation. Occupations customarily incidental to
the principal use •• a residence when conducted in the
same dwelling, provided that the following conditions are
met:
(k) In no event shall any home occupation include the
following business or commercial activities.
( i)
( i i)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
Animal hospital or kennel.
Asphalt paving or roofing business.
Barbers, hairdressers, cosmetologists or
beauticians.
Body, mechanical repair, or modification of
motor vehicles.
The sale, storage, manufacture or assembly of
guns, knives or other weapons or ammunition
other than for personal use.
Commercial health care facilities.
Restaurants.
Towing business.
Wholesale or retail sales of any items on or
off the premises excluding Section (a) and
Section (b).
Processes involving the dispens ing, use or
recycling of hazardous or flammable substances
and materials. No regulation is intended on
the sale of flammable substances which are
properly packaged.
-2-
•
I • •
''· "'
•
•
• •
p. Environmental G~eft~er~e Considerations consistent with good civic design
shall be incorporated in all development.
(2) Parking.
(a) Parking areas shall be screened from public view by landscaping.
Q• Other Provisions and Requirements.
(1) No truck exceeding six thousand pounds empty weight (60 c.w.t.), no
automobile trailer, bus or motorized recreational vehicle exceeding 22
feet in length, and no truck-tractor or semi-trailer shall be parked or
stored on any lot.
Section 16.4-10 B-1, Business District .
b. Permitted Principal Uses.
(75) Public buildings and facilities.
Section 16.4-11 Design Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of Existing Build ings in
the South Broadway Incentive Area.
(e) Signage.
(i) b. Projecting signs shall only be located in the sign
zone and shall be no larger than 12 square feet per
face and 24 square feet total. Projecting sign faces
shall be parallel to each other with no apace between
the faces.
-3-
•
I • •
-
I C<
\
''· "'
•
•
• •
Section 16.4-13 I-1, Light Industrial.
b. Planned Development. A Planned Development shall be filed for
the d evel opment of any lot having one or more acres in area.
See Section 16.4-15 for development procedure. ....
c.
e ..
d.
1!1 ..
e.
e ..
f.
~ ..
g.
! ..
h.
h ..
i.
....
j .
; ..
k.
k ..
1.
~ ..
m.
"' ... n.
Permitted Principal Uses. etc •
(renumbered only)
Prohibited Uses.
(renumbered only)
Maxi mum Gross Floor Area in Structures.
(renumbered o nly)
Minimum Setback.
(renumbered only)
Minimum Private Off -Street Parking.
(renumber ed only)
Minimum Private Off-Street Load i ng.
(renumbered only)
Accessory Buildings and Permitted Accessory Uses.
(renumbered only)
Conditional Uses •
(renumbered only)
Limitations on Externa l Effects of Uses.
(renumbered only)
Screening.
(renumbered only)
Landscaping.
(renumbered only)
Procedure for Development of Mobile Home Parks.
(renumbered only)
ft.. Standards for Development of Mobile Home Parks.
o . (renumbered)
(2) Information to accompany the Mobile Home Park Developm ent
Plan. A complete Development Plan fot the purpose of
obtaining a Mobile Home Park Permit shall be drawn to
scale(no t sm aller than 1" equals 20') and shall show or
-4-
•
I • •
n
''· "'
•
•
• •
state:
(balance of 16.4-13 the same)
Section 16.4-15 Planned Development (P.D.) District.
a. Requirements.
(1) Development under the Planned Development District. regula-
tions shall be subject to the provisions of this Ordinance
as well as the basic zone district with which it is
combined. Where a conflict occurs between an approved
P.O. and the regulations of the underlying zone district,
the approved P.O. shall prevail. Density shall be
considered within the approval process for a Planned
Development. The density allowed by this Ordinance for
the zone district can be increased only with the approval
of the City Council. The approving agency may require
that an applicant for a Planned Development waive any
density increase permitted through variance. This shall
not preclude density averaging within a Planned
Development having an area of 10 acres or more and under
one ownership. Density averaging shall apply only within
the same zone district unless approved by the City Council
through the Planned Development.
(2) In order to encourage good design and flexibility, all or
part of the subdivision regulations applicable to the
development may be waived if all public improvements and
conveniences will be consummated through other documents
and agreements. If Planned Development approval is
withdrawn after any subdivision waiver has been granted,
or if construction of a Planned Development has not been
started with i n two years from the date of approval by the
City Council, the waiver shall be null and void and the
property shall be subject to the Subdivision Regulations.
c. Application.
(1) Development Plan. A development plan showing the major
details of the proposed Planned Development at a scale
not smaller than 1" equals SO' and in sufficient detail to
evaluate the land planning, building design, and other
features of the proposed development. The development
plan must contain, insofar as is applicable, the
following minimum information.
e. Standards.
( 1) Uses permitted. The use in the Planned De vel opment
shall be a Permitted Principal Use in the Zone Distr i ct
in which the Planned Development is located, or a use
permitted pursuant to other provisions of this
Ordinance.
(2) Th e Planned Development shall b e consistent with the
-s-
I • •
''· no
•
(6)
•
• •
intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the policies
therein.
(a) If the proposed development includes multiple
family or nonresidential bu ildings or structures
and it is adjacent to a single-family residential
use district, the development shall contain a
buffer. In order to minimize any adverse effects
on the adjacent single-family area, the buffer
shall be not less than a twenty-five (25) foot
landscaped area and an opaque six (6) foot
decorative fence shall be provided.
Section 16.4-15e(7) Density.
Density shall be considered within the approval process for a
Planned Development. The density allowed by this Ordinance for the
zone district can be increased only with the approval of the City
Council. The approving agency may require that an applicant for a
Planned Development waive any density increase permitted through
variance.
Section 16.4-17 Fences and Retaining Walls.
c. Fences in residential districts shall conform to the followin g requirements :
3. Rear yard fences may be of any class but shall not exceed a height of six (6 )1 feet. Such fences shall not obstruct visibility at the intersection of the
alley with a street.
If a rear yard o f one property abuts the side yard of an ad j oining property,
the h e ight of a f enc e co nstructed in front of the front b ui lding line of
the house on the adjoining property shall not exceed 42 inches.
9. Fences shall be kept in good repair. Any damaged or dangerous fence shall
be removed or repa i red when so ordered by the Director of Community Develop-
ment or his/her designee. Appeals of such decisions shall be directed to
the Board of Adjustment and Appeals.
d . Fences in business districts shall conform to the following requirements :
e.
2. Bereed-vire-er-ei~iier-ae~erieie-•a,-ee-edded-~e-~fte-~ep-ef-e-ienee-vftieft
ie -ftet-ieee-~ftaft-eiK-~6~-feet-eeeve-!PBdeT
2. ,3 T For r egul ations regard in g requ ired s c reen in g fe nces , s ee Section 16 .5.
No fen ce , retaining wall o r similar obstruction shall b e ere c ted or ma in tain<
wh i ch obstru c t s traffi c vision at street intersec tions a s d e t erm i ned b y t he
Traff i c Engineer. For the purpose of determining comp lian ce t o th is s ect i on ,
Tab le 16 . 4-1 7A shal l be us ed t o determine interse c tion c r oss-corne r vi s i bili
Fen c es shall be ke p t in go o d repair. Any damaged or dan gerous fen c e shal l
b e remo ve d or repaired when so ordered by the Director of Commun ity
Deve l o pment or his /he r d es i gnee.
Fences i n i ndus tr ia l d is tri c t s s ha ll c onform t o thP f o ll owin g r equ i remen t s:
6. Fence s sha ll be k<'p t in Roo d rep n1r . An y dl'mA f,E'd or da nr,C'rnus f<>n r l' sh.1J l
ht> r <>movf'd ('I T r Ppn 1 r <>d wh<>n s n ('l r d<>re d by the Jli r e r t ('I T of Com muni t Y nC>v1 · l <>t ·r
OT h i s/l 1C'T d <>~;irn('(', _,,_
I • •
•
•
• •
TABLE 16 .4-17 A
23 In aa1nta1D1na aafe traffic viaton at atreet interaecttona, the follovin&
aeuure8enta ahall be uaed. Any fence located in the ai&ht diatance tri-
anale aball be approved by the Traffic ID&ineer.
•..
ne
•
InteraecUon Si&'ht Diatance
Type of Inter-Hiniaum aequired Interae c tion
aection S2eed M.P.H. Si&ht Diat.ance
Minor Street a) Minor Street/b) Major Street
with a Major
Street 20 15' I 200'
25 15' I 250'
30 15' I 300'
35 15' I 350'
40 15' I 400'
45 15' I 450'
50 15' I 500'
Note: If the interaecting atreeta 'have the aam e claaaification on t he
Kaster Street Plan , the "Avenue" aide ahall be considered the ainor
atreet and the "Street" aide aha11 be treated a a the aajor atreet .
• ~. ~. 300 '
Major Street
Minor
Street
For 30 aph b • 300' from
curb line of intersecting
atreet.
a • 15' from curb line of
interaecting street •
I .
•
•
• •
Se c tion 16 .4-18 Lands c ape Ordinance.
a . Statement of I ntent.
(4) To require any new development or any change in use in any residential,
commercial, or industrial area to be landscaped and to require that
the landscaping be maintained .
b . Applicability of Ordinance Standards.
(1) These regulations shall apply to any change of use, to any development,
or to any property on which the principal building is remodeled, which
remodeling cost is equal to or exceeds SOX of the estimated marked value
of the property, in the following districts:
c. Deleted. Definitions are in Definitions Section 16.8.
~T Minimum Landscaping Requirements.
c (renumbered only)
(2) Individual Districts:
(a) R-1-A, R-1-B, R-1-C Zone Diatricts :
(4) One street tree is required per 40 linear feet of
frontage and is to be located a minimum of five (5) feet
behind the sidewalk.
(b) R-2, R-2~ ~-2-C/S.P.S . Zone Districts:
(4) One street tree is required per 40 linear feet of
frontage and is t o be located a minimum of five (5) feet
behind the sidewalk.
(c) R-3 District:
(4) One street tree is required per 40 linear feet of
frontage and is to be located a minimum of five (5) feet
behind the sidewalk .
(e) B-1, B-2, 1-1, and 1-2 Districts:
(1) Minimum of ten per c ent (10%) of total l ot area must be
landscaped.
(3) One street tree is required per 40 linear feet of frontage an d i !
to be located a minimum of five (5 ) feet from any paved
surface.
16.4-18 b (1) (a). Ad d R-2-C/S.P.S.
16.4-18 c (2) (b). Add R-2-C/S.P .S.
16.4-18 c (1) (e). Ad d: In a ll zone distri c ts the atreet tre e requi rements are
in additi on t o the requirements f o r minimum livin~ plant
material.
(e) be c ome s (f), (f) bc ·C'Dm l?s (r). Chanre e an d f t D d 11nd t-.
-8-
I •
-
f. .
''· ne
•
•
• •
Section 2. The following legal provisions shall apply to
this or:d1nance:
A. Separability Clause . If any article, section,
subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for a ny
reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect
t he val id i ty of the remaining portion of this Ordinance. The
Council of the City of Englewood hereby declares that it would have
phrased th i s Ordinance and each article, section, subsection,
clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or
mor e articles, sections, sentences, clauses and phrases be declared
unconstitutional.
B. Scope. This Ordinance relates to zon i ng, and it does not
repeal , abrogate, annul , or in any way impair or interfere with
existing provisions of other laws or ord i nances, except those
repealed herein. Where this Ord i nance imposes a greater
restr iction upon land, buildings, or structures than imposed or
required by such existing provisions of law or ordinance, the
provis ions of this Ordihance shall cdKtrol.
c. Violation a nd Pena lty. Any person, firm, or corporation
that violates, disobeys , om1 t s, neglects or refuses to comply with
or resists the enforcement of any of the provisions of this
Ordina nce shall be fi ned not less than ten dollars ($10) nor more
than three hundred dollars ($300) for each offense. Each day that
a violation exists shall constitute a separate offense . Any
buildings erected , razed , or converted , or land or premises used in
violation of any provisions of this Ordinance, or any amendme nt
hereto, is hereby declared to be a common nu isance and such co~n
nuisance may be abated in such man ner as nuisances are now or may
hereafter be abated .
D . Necessity. The City Council hereby finds , dete'CIIlines,
and declares that this Ord inance is necessary for the immediate
preservation of the publ ic peace, health, safety and convenience.
Section 3. Hearing. In accordance with Section 40 of the
City Charter, the City council shall hold a public hearing on this
Ordinance , before final passage, at 7:30 p .m. on Monday, July 1 ,
1985 , in City Council chambers , 3400 s. Elati, Englewood, Colorado
80110.
Introduced, read in full , and passed on first reading on the
3rd day of June , 1985.
•
,
I • •
c.
...
•
•
• •
Pub lished as a Bill for an Ordinance on the 5th day of
June , 1985.
Read by title and passed on final reading on the 1st day of
July, 1985.
Published by title as Ordinance No.
the 3rd day of July , 1985.
Attest:
ex officio C1ty Clerk-Treasurer
--' Series of 1985, on
Eugene L. Otis, Mayor
1, Gary R. Higbee, ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer of the
City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and
foregoi ng is a true, accurate and complete copy of the Ordinance
passed on final reading and published by title as Ordinance
No. __ , Series of 1985 •
Gary R. Hlgbee
•
..
I • •
PUBLISHER'S AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF COLO RA DO l
}55
COUNT YOF Arapahoe l
o. Dpnna .. A ... Sh.eo.r
do ao .. mnty awear that I am the
publ.i .s.her . .. .... ~
.the .Znglewood .. Sentinel
tt\at the Mme IS a ....._,y newspaper pubiiSheG
intn.Cttyot ...
~ng 1 e _wo_o_d .
County of ,
Arapahoe
State of Colorado and h.s a general c •r culehon
tttere•n . thet u •d newspaper hiS been pubi•Shed
eont•nuously end un•nterrupteaty •n sa •d
County ol
Arapahoe
tor 1 penod ot more th a n 52 weeks p r~or lo the
tlfst p ubt•cet•on of t he ennelttd not•ce '"''' se•d
~wspaoe r 11 entered '"the post othce et
Englewood
Colorado as seconD c tass ma•l rnatttr anCJ that
the sa•CJ newspaper 11 a newspaper w 1th •n the
mean•no ol the Itt ot the General Auembty ot
the Stalt ol ColOrad o approvea March 30. 1123.
enCS entt tlea .. Legal Not•C II and Adventsements''
end other ects retat•ng to the pnnt•ng end
pubhsh•ng of tegat notices end edverttsments
thet tne erme11.ed not•ce wll publt shed '" the
regull t 1nd enttre •nues ot n •d newsp1per.
once eech .. ek on the aame dey ot IICh w"k
tor the pet~od ot
consecut•ve tnsert•ons that the flfll
ft•oodnewso= A \)J J ~ ~5"
tt/rJ ~~
Stg natutl' end Tttle
Sublt:"bed ano s worn to betort me a Notary
\& l,'--doy of
.~
~ad u.:c...A_['·
No llry Publ+c
•
• •
'1011tt CIT PUILI C t!WIC
• OS A. ..... ll'!.~l TO TMt
.,:t'f'Oio"CI:£11(\~PU..'C
Un OT CIICU!WOOD , CDLOIADO
(toi'C"l'OW'I PQ.t\111000 atDr\'U.OP'ftl'i PIIOJLn)
Mo t te• 11 l'l t'fetl)'l l.,.n th l t I .. .,,..,lo,.....t Pl a n h ... H•t~pft'p.U14 tor
a n wrb.,n un .... al pn\•ct f DICivnr~ ln&l ...004 hduelo,..nt Pro ject) with·
In t~• C1t1 o ( lllll -4, Colora ...
A 1'...,\Lc lllearl"f, will bl Mill"" t h Clty Gaundl ol th• ChJ o f L"'l..,.ooll,
Colora do, .:.-c.a"'t -. .., -~~-..,'If ID tho-a \ta p l d hd,.,ato,..,t Pl an I n d\1
Cll)' Ca ,...dl o. .. au , ~nt c;l pal l"lldl t~t;, 1400 So<o~th U att !U raH, In
taat ~. an July 1, Ul ~. •' l lOP. 1!., o r u noon '"'•n•fur u
Ca-w\ctl c.at~t.ur t'loe .. tlt'r .
,._,.( .. u. .... t ~, S...th So••• ro trt••· .. t!.a .onh ~, woot n..,•
oM t..~ ,..,_,, -t loo _., •r tl\o Sou!l'l l roo.,.,/So,.th Ll_.l11
ollf')o _.-til• _, .. ~J \',S , fl ... }II H•Htoa to th.ll or-O to tho
_,,,, rl&ht -ot-•J ot t..lttlo Dry ,,.,._ .... , to South Ct."'-.-Strut
...-.. J acHH l••· ~I• "'' ll ~·-•• •r tho U.S . 110, rl&ht-•f-•y
-tho -rUo , t.r lAhllh A• .. u• 0" tM ''"''"· Sovt"' Cl.-'"'-lt,..t
-tloo -'· .......... , ...... ,, .... ,-'"• -'· .u-. tho or--'"t" o f U.S . II\ ..... 0.. U ttlo .,., cr.. rlpt-ool ~-r lo lM\ ... d .
•• ,...,... of 1M ..... ""-U 1.0 -1Mr __., .. ••• .... , ........ lop-
_, Pl• (11"'-.__., Pt..) to l•od..,.. , ... ,...o •tdl wtll ro.floct
Do ~~ ~ plao, _. to led ....... h i -1 ..... , ... ..Udl
.., 1oo ..,... .. ..,. ~ 1M '-l-" un. -.-o1 t or t-.'-lota-or
""-n •.
ftle ....,. •• ,._ '"'• ..._., .,.,.u l~~el.-. ,._ _...a.ua-of .... ,
p,.......c:,, ... d.tl .. _, ....-c.o or r.._.u-oof-r. &M _.,,.,.d._ of
.-uc ... .....-u s-l .. ha n ... ..-... 1 ... ,... --'.-u•. tt.o
_ _.of ea--._. ... U c --"'· 1M~-of l..U•w-1• _..._, __ _. ... ..._.......,., .. _,...,,u~~ ... ~
_, ........... ~ty .
,_, ,._ _, k ..._. .r n. .. , • ...,. tl• or t"• -.-u., ..c. for ta ....... .a_, of._.._.....,.._~, •t• 11 ..,ou•to tor ,....uc 1-
o,.-t'-•• U.. o fllco of c-ur ...,d•,...ot •• .,, .. oniLao;ry .._,_
-"·
l'hla ootlce '-' at•-~ orM• of tM hroc.tor ot rt-•· .,..fftclo
cur Cl or\.-Tr-uror, thLI ~.., of J-, ttl\,
~..._.,,,, .. ·--... .., .........
Dtuctorotrt~
oo-offtct• cur tt ... •·tr•••ror
..
I • •
t
(
•
• . . •
ClTY OF EN C:LFW OOn COLO RAfl O
UKBAN Rf.NJ:WAL A\1TIW R1 TY
RE SOLtlTl ON NO. 11 __ ;..1 ,;,;.n __
Serie!i of 1985
A RESOLUTION OF THE ENGLEWOOD URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY RECOMMENDING TO
ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL AN AMENDMENT OF THE ENGLEWOOD DOWNTOWN REDEVELOP-
ME NT PLAN.
~~EREAS, a Downtown Redevelopment Plan (Urban Renewal Plan)
has been adopted by the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority and the
Englewood City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Urban Renewal Authority has been designated by
Council as th e agency responsible for implementing said Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has recognized the propriety and im-
portance of amending the Plan from time to time so that it accurately
reflects and facilitates the most up-to-date redevelopment concept
being implemented by the Authority; and
~~EREAS, the amendment of the Plan as presented in the at-
tached Exhibit A has been deemed necessary for implementation of the
Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Englewood Urban
Renewal Authority as follows:
Section 1.
The Englewood Urban Renewal Authority has determined that
Amendment RB to the Englewood Downtown Redevelopment Plan
as presented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference is required to meet the objectives of
the Plan.
Section 2.
Based upon the determination stated in Section 1 ab ove,
the Urban Renewal Authority recommends to the Englewood
City Council that the Englewood Downtown Redevelopment
Plan be amended by making certain changes as described
in Exhibit A, "Amendment 18", attached hereto.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this _:..:S:..:t.;.;h_ day of -~Ju~n~e~--· 1985.
-~i)d=-Ro h c rtJ: Volh'
Chairman
•
I • •
-
•
•
• •
-2 -
Mo ti on by: Me-lvin Minnick
Seconded by: La~rence Novicky
Voting in Favor: James Totton, Susan VanDyke, Robert J, Voth, Melvin
Voting in Opposition: __ N_o_n_e __ -------------------------------------=--
Members Absent: Ruth Cole
Minnick, John Neal, Lawrence Novicky
-------------------------------------------
Members Abstaining: _N_o_n_e __ --------------------------------------------
•
I • •
-
I
I
•
•
• •
r.1n· 01' f.!-,(;LF.\.JOOJI , COLORADO
PLA!\t:JNG Al\ll ZONJNC CO~IJ.IISSION
RESOLUTION NO. __ 2 __ _
Serie s of 1985
A RESOLUTION OF THE ENGLEWOOD PLAN NIN G AND ZONING COM}liSSION REGARDING
CONSISTENCY OF THE A.'1E NDED DOH NTQ\..'N REDEVEl .OP}lENT PLAN \-lln'l THE GENERAL
PLAN OF THE CITY OF ENG LEWOOD.
~lEREAS, the City Council of the City of Englewood has adopted
a Downtown Redevelopment Plan (Urban Renewal Plan); and
WHEREAS, on June 5, 1985, the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority
adopted an amendment to the Downto~~ Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, the aforesaid amendment to the Downtown Redevelopment
Plan has been submitted to the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission
for revi~· and recommendations as to its conformity with the Englewood
General Plan for the development of the municipality as a whole in ac-
cordance with Section 31-25-107 (2) C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, a review of the Downtown Redevelopment Plan amendment
has been conducted by the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Com-
mission of the City of Englewood, Colorado:
ATTEST:
Section 1.
That the Downtown Redevelopment Plan, as amended, has been
determined to be in conformity with the General Plan of de-
velopment for the City of Englewood.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED THIS _l_B_t_h __
Gerry G.
Chairman
day of June • 1985.
J:.7fel.r{:1dr/f-
Secretary
•
I • •
-
•
• •
ENGLEWOOD DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
REDEVELOPMENT AREA JUSTIFICATION
(ADDENDUM #1)
•
I .
-
•
•
• •
SITE DESCRIPTION
#1
•
I .
(
•
•
• •
SITE:
SITE INSPECTION
1090 West Hampden Avenue
Englewood, Colorado 80110
DATE OF INSPECTION: June 19, 1985
CONDUCTED BY: Wm. Richard Hinson
The site at 1090 West Hampden Avenue is approximately 622,000 square feet
in size. It is bordered on the north by West Hampden Avenue, on the east
by South Jason Street, on the south by West Kenyon Avenue, and on the
west by railroad tracks and deteriorating railroad station buildings.
The lot is enclosed by a chain-link fence, which is over six feet tall.
The majority of the land area of the site is occupied by greenhouse
structures. East/west travel on the site is facilitated by several
narrow (10 -15 feet wide) dirt roads between the greenhouses. North/
south travel occurs via a 15 -20 foot wide dirt road extending from
the northern boundary to approximately 3/4 of the way through the site.
There is also a 15 -20 foot dirt road permitting travel on about 2/3
of the length of the lot's western boundary.
The structures on the site, including greenhouses, residential unit,
warehouse, and garage appear to be at least 20 -30 years old. Most
structures are in fair to good condition. However, there is evidence
of deterioration in the form of rust, chipped paint, and some rotting
wood. The chain-link fence surrounding the lot prevents access to the
site except at gate locations. Several sections of the fence appear to
be missing the vertical post, however. These sections also appear to
have been knocked in to some extent.
The topography of the majority of this site is relatively flat except
for the southern portion. There are some relatively large mounds of
earth covered with weeds and sage grass along the southern boundary.
It may be speculated that large amounts of dirt were placed at this lo-
cation to be used at a future time by the floral operation owning and
occupying the site, but the need for the soil never materialized, so the
plant material took root. Because of the complete coverage of the mounds
by grass and weeds, it is quite likely that these mounds have been there
for many years.
Most of the eastern boundary of the site is covered with buildings almost
to the fence line. The mid to southwestern boundary of the site is relatively
open inside the previously mentioned dirt road. These open areas are
being used as storage areas for outdated equipment, obsolescent vehicles,
metal tubing, pipes, tanks, wooden pallets, and what could be considered
general junk. The open areas in which the above described objects may
be seen are overgrown with weeds and sage grass.
The perimeter of the site has no sidewalks. Where there is a curb, there
is an unkempt weeded area from the fence to that curb. There are many
sections along the fence where weeds have grown tall and intertwined with
the fen ce . There is also paper refuse evident along several sections of
the fence .
•
I • •
(
•
•
• •
SITE DESCRIPTION
#2
•
I . .
(
(
(
•
•
• •
SITE INSP ECTIO N
SITE: 990 West Hampden Avenue
DATE OF INSPECTION: June 19, 1985
CONDUCTED BY: Dick Hinson
The site at 990 West Hampden Avenue is approximately 18,000 square feet
in size. It is occupied by a fast food restaurant building on the north-
west corner of the lot. This building is estimated to contain appro xi-·
mately 4,000 square feet.
On the day of inspection, the building was vacant and closed. The grass
landscaped areas around and adjacent to the building were overgrown with
weeds. Weeds were also visible growing out of the adjacent sidewalks.
The property parking lot was empty, and weeds were seen growing along
the parking lot perimeter.
•
I • •
(
•
•
• •
SITE DESCRIPTION
#3
•
I . .
•
(
•
SI TE :
•
• •
SITE I NSPECT IO N
Va c ant l ot o n the northe ast corner of South
J as o n Stre e t and West Itha ca Avenu e .
DATE OF INS P ECTION : Jun e 1 9 , 198 5
CO NDUCTED BY: Wm. Richard Hinson
The above referenced site is approximately 58,254 s quare feet in size
and occupies a little over one-half of the block on which it is located ..
Th e re are no improvements on the sit e .
The lot is overgrown with weeds and tall grass . Weeds are also visible
growing out of the cracks on the sidewalks. There is some trash scattered
ove r th e site.
•
I • •
•
• •
PHOTOGRAPHS
I .
• •
(
(
(
(
•
• •
(
DRAINAGE ANALYSIS
I . .
(
• •
I
I
I
(
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'c
I
I
•
CONiiUL'TIND
lNDIN[[Aii
Mr. Kells Waggoner
Director of Public Works
City of Englewood
3400 South Elati Street
Englewood, Colorado 80110
•
• •
SELLARDS & GRIGG, INC.
Cottonwood Pteu
L•k-OOCI, Color..SO 10215
17•S WHI Uth Awenue
(303)2)1~11
May 7, 1900
RE: Central Englewood Basin
Storm Drainage Plan
S & G Job No. 79049-41
Dear Mr. Waggoner:
We have completed the review of the proposed storm drainage
system improvements in the Central Englewood Basin as published
in the 1971 "Storm Drainage Plan" for the City of Englewood.
The results of this review are presented with this letter.
The objective of this review is to provide the City of Englewood
with a current perspective of the available alternatives and to
determine whether or not the original proposal is still the
most cost effective method ~or handling storm drainage runoff
within this basin. The summary of this review should help
the City of Englewood to make objective decisions in the
future regarding the storm drainage system in the Central Basin.
Thank you for the opportunity to serve the City of Englewood.
GDS:ddh
encl.
Very truly yours,
SELLARDS & GRIGG, INC.
·1 Q J ; ' / \tA ''fw•/jl..t4 .... 1-.
George D. Sellards, P.E.
•
..
I • •
a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
' I
' I
I
I
•
•
• ..
INTRODUCTION
Purpos e
The purpose of this study is twofold: (1) to review the storm
drainage system improvements for the Central Englewood Basin
as proposed in the 1971 "Storm Drainage Plan;" and (2) to · •
present a comparison of the alternatives now available to the City
of Englewood for effectively handling storm drainage runoff
in this basin. The study was prompted by the currently
escalating costs of land acquistion. Since the 1971 proposal
depended heavily on land acquistion for detention storage, a
current look at other available alternatives requiring less
land acquisitionseemed to be justified. A summary of the
alternatives may be found in Table 1.
Description of Basin
The Central Englewood Basin consists of 246 acres. The approxi-
mate boundaries of the basin are West Hampden Avenue on the
north, South Santa Fe Drive on the west, West Nassau Avenue on
the south, and South Cherokee Street on the east. The proposed
land use for the area is industrial, multi-family residential
and two-family residential (cf. "1990 Land Use Study, Englewood,
Colorado"). At the present time, the land use is a mix, with
substantial portions being either single family residential or
undeveloped.
-1-
•
I • •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
•
• •
Proc ed u re
In the Central Englewood Basin the natural storm runoff routes '
to the South Platte River have been obscured. As a result, there
are two general methods of conveying the storm flow out of this
basin. The first is to provide sufficient detention storage
into the existing system to alleviate the present overloading
at times of peak flows. The second is to build a large storm
sewer line that will convey the peak flow directly to the South
Platte River without detention storage. In this study,
Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 utilize the first method .whereas
Alternative 3 utilizes the second.
According to the 1971 "Storm Drainage Plan" all areas of the
City of Englewood should be protected from the localized flooding
caused by runoff from minor storms. Therefore, the drainage
systems are designed to carry runoff from a two-year storm in
residential and industrial areas and a five-year storm in commercial
and certain low lying residental areas. In keeping with these
criteria, the alternatives in this study were developed using
the runoff from the two-year storm. The design peak flow from
the two-year storm at the intersection of Kenyon and Jason
(the proposed site of the detention pond) is 160 cubic feet per
second.
-2-
•
I • •
~
I
I
I
q
I
I
' ' I
I
I
I
•
•
• •
RE C OI·lHF.NDATl O N
On th e ba s is of this review, it i s recommen ded that the City
of Englewoo d impleme nt Alt ernat ive 3 --a new dir ect disch a r ge
l ine --for the followin g reasons :
(1) It requires minimal land acquisition in these times
of escalating property values.
(2) It has a lower intital c ost than the other alternatives .
(3) It requires less maintenance and service in the future
than the proposed reservoirs in Alternati~es 1 and 2.
DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1 -Surface Detention Storage
This alternative is the original proposal published in the 1971
City of Englewood "Storm Drainage Plan." As s hown in Fig u re 1,
this alternative incorporates a surface d etention pond in
the open space north of the intersection of West Kenyon Avenue
and South Jason Street, and a number of new storm sewer lines
for collection and transmission throughout the basin. The
surface detention pond would be incorporated into a greenbelt/
park for use as a recreational area, It would be designed to
detain flow resulting from the 2 year star~ in excess of the
detention pond's outlet capacity. Flow in excess of a
2 year storm that entered the detention pond would result in
overland flow downstream of the pond structure. During time s of
low or no flow, the pond could be used as a grass-lined
-3-
•
I •
'I
I
I
J
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
•
•
• •
r ec r ea tion are a. How e v er , during the larger flows, th e prope r
fun c t i oning of the detention storage would reduc e the outflow
f rom the pon d to a rate much less than the inflow. As a tesult,
the exi s ti1'13 downstream storm drainage system could be utilized.
The p e ak flow from the 2-year storm entering the pond from the
storm sewe r lines on Kenyon Avenue and Kalamath Street would be
.. 160 c.f.s. (cubic feet per second). After detention storage
the 21" outflow pipe would have a reduced flow of 1'5 c.f.s.
In this alternative the City of Englewood would be provided with
a greenbelt/park area which would enhance the adjacent industrial
properties and serve an extensive area of planned multi-family
dwellings. Also, much of the existing storm sewer system would
be utilized, eliminating the need for construction of a large
new line under the railroad tracks and Santa Fe Drive to the
South Platte River. However, acquiring land for the detention
pond would be costly. It was determined that at least 2.3
acrea of land would be necessary to accommodate the pond. A
top dimension of 310 ft. by 320 ft. with 4:1 side slopes woul d
be adequate to handle the peak runoff . Based upon a unit cost
o f $7.00 per square foot of land, the cost of acquiri ng the prop erty
for the pond would b e $700,000 --46% of the total esti mated cost
for this alternative. This alternative would also require a
continuing future cost to the City for maintenance of the greenbelt/
park area .
-4-
I •
-
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
•
•
• •
Alternative 2 -Underground Detention Storage
This alternative is identical to Alternative 1 except that the
detention storage would be contained within an underground, covered
concrete reservoir instead of a .surface pond.· In order to handle
the peak volume of runoff, the reservoir would need to be 250
feet long, 250 feet wide, and 5 feet deep. It would consist of
a concrete floor slab and walls, and a concrete top slab supported
by round columns spaced at 20 foot intervals. The minimum
acreage required to accommodate this structure would be 1.5
acres --less than required in Alternative l. As a result,
the land -acquisition cost would be less than in Alternative 1
($455,000 versus $700,000), but still quite costly. In fact,
this alternative would incur the highest initial cost to the
City. As in Alternative l, the storage reservoir could provide
the area with a multi-purpose facility, i.e. with the concrete
top, the reservoir surface could serve as parking space,
tennis courts, e.t.c.
Alternative 3 -Direct Dishcarge Line
This alternative incorporates most of the same storm sewer lines
as Alternative 1, but replaces the detention storage with a large
line that would discharge the peak flow from the 2-year storm
(160 c.f .s.) directly into the South Platte River. As shown in
Figure 2, the new 60" diameter line would run west along West
-s-
•
I •
--
II
' II
I
II
I
II
' I
II
II
' II
' ' ' II
I
I
•
•
•
Ke nyon Av e nue under the railroad crossing and Santa Fe Drive
to the east boundary of the _proposed Englewood golf course, then
north and west to the disch~rge point in the South Plette. For
this study the existing 42" and 48" lines along West Kenyon
Avenue would be abandoned. However, in the final design,
these existing lines might possibly be utilized in parallel
with the new line if hydraulically feasible. This would allow
for a smaller 48" line along West Kenyon between Jason and the
railroad tracks, but might require some costly water and
sewer relocations and difficult hydraulic problems. Therefore,
for the purposes of this report the higher cost solution using
the 60" pipe was used. The area north of West Kenyon woulc
drain through the new lines to the existing system on Hampden
Avenue.
In this Alternative there would be minimal land acquisition
for the City. The only acquisition necessary would be for
right-of-way west of Santa Fe Drive. As a result, this alterna-
tive would incur the lowest initial cost to the City .
Alternative 4 -Detention Storage in Enlarged Storm Sewers
This alternative incorporates most o f the same storm sewer lines
as in Alternative 1, but instead of using an open pond or closed
reservoir for detention storage, the lines along West Kenyon
Avenue and South Kalamath Street would be designed large enough
-6-
•
I • •
I
I
II
I
' ' I
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' JJ
•
•
• -
to p r ovid e th e needed storage. Alternative 4 was investigated
to assess the feasibility of providing detention storage without
acquiring a large parcel of land, while at the same time eliminating
the need for a large line under Santa Fe Drive. To store the
peak flow volume from the 2-year storm, an extremely large
conduit or many conduits in series would be required. Three
possibilities were investigated : a 9 ft. by 9 ft. concrele b 'ox
culvert, a 13'x8' corrugated metal pipe arch, and a series of
48" lines laid in a parallel arrangement in the street. After
some investigation, these ideas were determined to be infeasible
for the following reasons:
(1) The large conduits would be quite expensive.
(2) The large conduits would probably cause considerable
interference with sanitary sewer lines, requiring
costly relocations.
(3) The series of smal1er .1ines might P?ssibly eliminate
the relocation of sanitary se~ers, but would be im-
practical considering the nurr~er of ~ipes needed ·to
store the required volume.
As a result of the indeterminate costs of sanitary sewer reloca-
tions and the impracticality of this alternative, a cost estimate
was not attempted.
-7-
•
I • •
q
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
•
•
• -
ESTIHATED CO S T S OF PROPO SED ALTERNATIVES
Presented herein are the estimated costs of the proposed alter-
natives considered in this review. Table 2 presents the
summarized costs for all the alternatives. Table 3 is a tabu-
lation of the unit costs used in the preparation of the
estimated costs. The unit costs are based on anticipated
"no rmal" installation conditions and have been adjusted where
necessary to account for expected increased installation costs
over the unit prices .. The unit costs are those which are
expected to be applicable in 1980. They were determined from
contractor bids and engineers' estimates for similar projects
recently completed. "Normal" installation implies a standard
depth of cover of five feet over a round storm sewer, an average
number of small water and gas line adjustments, and conditions
wh i ch allow standard trenching and excavation techniques.
Several definitions are necessary for clarification of terms
used in the estimates and are presented below.
"Additional un-itemized costs" is a conpilation of construc-
tion costs which cannot be accurately represented by
general unit costs. Typical items included in this cate-
gory are as follows: major water and sewer line adjust-
ments; establishment of detours or special access routes;
traffic control; unusual soil or construction conditions;
removal and replacement of trees, signs, or utility poles;
-8-
•
I • •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II -I
II
II -
•
• •
connections to existing storm sewe r lines and inlets;
special inlets and manholes; and a number of similar items.
"Total Estinated Construction Cost" is the estimated cost
of construction and excludes right-of-way, land purchase,
engineering and administration.
"Engr., Admin. and Cont." is the estinated cost of engi-
neering design and administration, legal services,
coordination with regulatory agencies, on-site construction
observation, and unforseen contingencies.
"Total Estimated Project Cost" is the total cost recommended
for use by the City for budgetary planning. It is the sum
of "Total Estimated Construction Cost," the "Engr., Admin.
and Cont.," and any necessary acquisition of property or
right-of-way.
The estimate for Alternative 1 is 4.5 times the 1971 estimate
for the original proposed facilities in the Central Englewood
Basin as reported in the 1971 "Storm Drainage Plan." Two
basi c reasons account for this substantial increase. First
is the effect of inflation on construction costs. It was found
that 1980 construction costs are 2.4 times those in 1971, Second
is the substantial increase in the cost of land acquisition for
the proposed d e tention storage . In 1971, land acquisition was
Ill -9 -
• •
I • •
II
•c -I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
•
• •
estimated at $75,000 whereas in the 1980 estimate it was
concluded that 100,000 S.F. at $7.00/S.F. for a total cost of
$700;ooo . was needed.
As mentioned earlier in this report, it \~as not possible to
develop an accurate cost estimate for Alternative 4 due to
the infeasible nature of its construction and unknm"n costs
for major relocations of sanitary sewer lines.
-10-
•
I • •
a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I '
I
I
•
•
• •
CONNECT TO
EXISTING 46 ' 1....:..:.--J
I
1.,1.---,-;;,..--:...:.___:._......) ' .
N
+
SCALE: 1": 600'
LEGEND
.. ~ : . :
REPLACE
EXISTING 18"
..• ··"t ••.
--EXISTING SYSTEM
_.,._.PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE
FIGURE I
PROPOSED PLAN FOR
ALTERNATIVES I 8 2 -11-
... ----~~~·~mol
--• _ ~1 ~~~e. ~ .·~ I .
ALT .. I, OPEN_ I· OJ
ALT ,.~,i"~lf.s,ERif' ·lnn o· l
,. • ~" J'l~o •"[ •
z
0
l1 c
""»
co .. ew L•• .. •
I ... ,..,, I ••
-·;-·
I
STORM DRAINAGE PLAN
CENTRAL ENGLEWOOD BASIN
APRIL , 1980
•
I . •
n
q
l r--
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
• 0 •
N
.t
SCALE ! 1": 600'
.. '
•
• •
REPLACE
EXISTING 18"
,. "''~'~r _A.,.! __ _
! •
I
I
'I
I I
. '
I .
-I
'
LEGEND
-EXISTING SYSTEM ~ i j
• :PROP,SED ALTERNATIVE ~C .~~_.-....-i -! : :fll 'll'l:n r ; I ~ II : :1 ,,. I I I
~(
I
•
•
FIGURE 2
PROPOSED PLAN FOR
ALT E RNATIVE 3
-] 2-
. ! · · 1 · r: . r 1 i , ,
STORM DRAINAGE PLAN
CENTRAL ENGLEWOOD BASIN
AP RIL , 1980
•
I .
•
I .....
w
I
•
l.
2.
3.
4.
•
• • . -·
A.L TE RNA TIVE
Flow reduction through
surface detention
storage.
Flow reduction through
underground detention
storage.
Direct transmission
of flow through large
new discharge line.
Flow reduction through
detention storage in
large storm sewer
lines.
•
• •
0
• • • • • • • -----iiil
TABLE 1
SUM11ARY OF ALTERNATIVES
' ESTIMATED COST FUTURE PRO ·1 !:S
PROJECT OF LAND PROVIDES 111\I NTENI\NCE FOR Fu ~:F'.!: , I
COST ACQUISITION GREENBELT/PARX.? REQUIRED? ~!ULTIPLE ·~!:?
1971, $700,000 n:s n:s YES I $344,700
1980,
I $1,711,500
$2,657,700 $455,000 00 YES YES
$1,613,300 $ 10,000 NO MINIMAL NO
Not Not NO NO NO
Estimated Estimated
•
• -
• •
~
II TABLE 2 -( SmlMA RY OF COST ESTIMATES FOR PR OP OSED ALT ERNATIVES
I Item 1 2 3 4
II Huron $ 56,000 $ 56,000 $ 56,000 *
Ithaca Line 158,200 158,200 158,200 * II Kalamath Line 150,000 150,000 150,000 *
Kenyon Line 105,500 105,500 105,500 * I 60" Discharge Line 0 0 384,000 • -Outfall Line 21,600 21,600 0 *
Pipe Jacking 0 0 240,000 • -Detention Pond 126,000 1,079,000 0 *
Inlets 58,100 58,100 58,100 * -Inlet Pipe 24,600 24,600 24,600 *
II Manholes 29,000 29,000 29,000 •
Pavement Removal
and Replacement 32,400 32,400 37,400 •
Additional
Unitemized Costs 47,800 47,800 47,800 •
Total Estimated
Construction Costs $ 809,200 $1,762,200 $1,290,600 •
15\ Engineering &
.Administration 121,400 264,300 193,600 •
10\ Contingencies 80,900 176,200 129,100 •
Property
.Acquisition 700,000 455,000 10,000 * I • TOTAL ESTIMATED
PROJECT COSTS $1,711,500 $2,657,700 $1,613,300 •
II *Alternative not feasible (cf. page 7 ) , therefore no accurate cost estimate possible. --14-
• •
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
•
• •
TABLE 3
UNIT COSTS USED IN PREPARATION OF COST ESTIMATES
ITEM
21" Pipe
24" Pipe
27" Pipe
30" Pipe
36" Pipe
42" Pipe
60" Pipe
Ma n h o le
Inlet
Inlet Pipe (18")
Pavement Removal
and Replacement
Detention Pond Excavation,
Lining and Appurtenances
Pipe Jacking
-15-
UNIT 1980 UNIT COST
L .F. $ 48.00
L.F. 56.00
L.F. 60 .00
L.F. 70 .00
L.F. 75.00
L.F. 95.0 0
L.F. 1 30 .0 0
Each 1,45 0.00
Each 1,32 0 .0 0
L.F. 28 .00
S.Y. 6.00
L.F. 1,000.00
•
I •
•
• •
(
0
I . •
(
• •
•
•
-
··············· ..
/o s P E A-le:_
n
u~-fl -._Yk ~~
#tVnu-a~
_k /ri"'-t""?.:f ¥{~ /r./ fMk #It -tV/))./~~ /l f! 9c lJfti/.l efC_ ~c!"~~~d -~ ..,:,w .~ _ ~ 1 ~ :)79 P ~ ~-~
•
I . .
•
RESOLUTION NO.~
Series of 1985
•
• •
A RESOLUTION OF THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND THE ENGLEWOOD DOWN-
TOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN.
WHEREAS, the City of Englewood adopted a Downtown Redevelop-
ment Plan in accordance with the Urban Renewal Statutes of the State
of Colorado; and
WHEREAS, the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority has been
designated by City Council as the agency responsible for implementation
of the Downtown Redevelopment Plan (Urban Renewal Plan); and
WHEREAS, the Urban Renewal Authority, at its June 5, 1985
meeting, adopted a resolution recommending to City Council that the
Downtown Redevelopment Plan be amended to facilitate successful imple-
mentation of the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Plan amendment reflects the most up-to-
date redevelopment concept being employed by the Au t hority, and includes
the addition of certain properties deemed necessary for implementation
of the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the Plan was referred to
the Planning and Zoning Commission for its review to determine the Plan
amendment's conformance to the Englewood Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a review
of the proposed amendment on June 18, 1985 and concluded that the amend-
ment is in conformance to the Englewood Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, official notice has been given and a public hearing
was held on July 1, 1985 to solicit comments on the proposed amendment
to the Downtown Redevelopment Plan as required by C.R.S. 31-25-107(3);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Englewood, Colorado, that:
Section 1.
The proposed amendment to the Downtown Redevelopment Plan
will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound
needs of the municipality as a whole, for the rehabilitation
or redevelopment or the Urban Renewal Area by private enter-
prise.
•
I • •
n
-
•
ATTEST:
•
• •
-2-
Section 2.
Based on the record before the Council including, but not
limited to, the Redevelopment Area Justification Addendum
#1, which was compiled by the Department of Community De-
velopment for the City of Englewood, dated on or about June,
1985, it is hereby found and determined that the area con-
tained within the amended Englewood Downtown Redevelopment
Plan consis ts of a blighted area which is appropriate for
an urban renewal project pursuant to the Urban Renewal Laws
of the State of Colorado.
Section 3.
The proposed amendment to the Englewood Downtown Redevelop-
ment Plan is deemed necessary to the successful implementation
of the Plan and is considered beneficie.l to the community as
a whole.
Section 4.
The proposed changes to the Englewood Downtown Redevelopment
Plan attached hereto and collectively referred to as Exhibit
A and entitled "Amendment 11 8", are hereby approved a nd shall
be incorporated into the Englewood Downtown Redevelopment Plan
in the appropriate sections and shall become a part thereof.
AOOPTED AND APPROVED THIS ~ day of July, 1985.
Eugene L. Otis
Mayor
ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer
I, Gary R. Higbee, ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer of the
City of Englewood , Colo rado hereby certify the foregoing is a true,
accurate and complete copy of Resolution No. -----• Series of 1985.
Gary R. Higbee
•
I • •
•
•
• •
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. _ __:2:._ __
Series of 1985
A RESOLUTION OF THE ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSI ON REG ARDING
CONSISTENCY OF THE AMENDED DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IHTH THE GENERAL
PLAN OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Englewood has a dopted
a Downtown Redevelopment Plan (Urban Renewal Plan); and
WHEREAS, on June 5, 1985, the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority
adopted an amendment to the Downtown Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, the aforesaid amendment to the Downtown Redevelopment
Plan has been submitted to the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission
for review and recommendations as to its conformity with the Englewood
General Plan for the development of the municipality as a whole in ac-
cordance with Section 31-25-107 (2) C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, a review of the Downtown Redevelopment Plan amendment
has been conducted by the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Com-
mission of the City of Englewood, Colorado:
ATTEST:
Section 1.
That the Downtown Redevelopment Plan, as amended, has been
determined to be in conformity with the General Plan of de-
velopment for the City of Englewood.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED THIS 18th day of Jun11 ' 1985.
-~k4.u!dvf-
secretary
Gerry G.
Chairman
•
I •
·j
'•
•
•
• -
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD COLORADO
URBAN RENEWAL AUTIWRI TI
RESOLUTION NO. II 10
Series of 1985
A RESOLUTION OF TilE ENGLEWOOD URBAN RENEWAL AUTilORITY RECOMMENDING TO
ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL AN AMENDMENT OF TilE ENGLEWOOD DOWNTOWN REDEVELOP-
MENT PLAN.
WHEREAS, a Downtown Redevelopment Plan (Urban Renewal Plan)
has been adopted by the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority and the
Englewood City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Urban Renewal Authority has been designated by
Council as the agency responsible for implementing said Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has recognized the propriety and im-
portance of amending the Plan from time to time so that it accurately
reflects and facilitates the most up-to-date redevelopment concept
being implemented by the Authority; and
WHEREAS, the amendment of the Plan as presented in the at-
tached Exhibit A has been deemed necessary for implementation of the
Plan.
NOW, TilEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Englewood Urban
Renewal Authority as follows:
Section 1.
The Englewood Urban Renewal Authority has determined that
Amendment 1/8 to the Englewood Downtown Redevelopment Plan
as presented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference is required to meet the objectives of
the Plan.
Section 2.
Based upon the determination stated in Section 1 above,
the Urban Renewal Authority recommends to the Englewood
City Council that the Englewood Downtown Redevelopment
Plan be amended by making certain changes as described
in Exhibit A, "Amendment 1/8", attached hereto.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this __ 5_t_h_ day of __ J_u_n_e __ , 1985.
~b.{if~ipli
Chairman
Susan Powers, Executive Director
•
j)
I •
• -
• •
-2-
I
/
Motion by: Melvin Minnick
Seconded by: Lawrence Novicky
Voting in Favor: James Totton, Susan VanDyke, Robert J. Voth, Melvin
Minnick, John Neal, Lawrence Novicky
Voting in Opposition: ~N~o~n~e~---------------------------------------
Members Absent: Ruth Cole -----------------------------------
Members Abstaining: _N_o~n~e~------------------------------------------
•
• I •
• •
1 4a
2 4b
3 16
4 16a
5 17
6 18
7 19
8 20
9 21/22
10 Map 5
11 Map 6
12 22
•
13 23
• 14 24
15 25
16 26
•
•
• •
URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT S
Change
Exhibit A
Amendment 118
Enlarge Urban Renewal area
Enlarge Urban Renewal area
5/29/85
Change "$15,000,000" to "$20,000,000" and
"$85,000,000" to "$65,000,0()0".
Alter Map 4 to reflect increased Urban Renewal
area.
Increase Little Dry Creek Flood Control cost to
$14,000,000.
Increase Englewood Parkway cost to $6,000,000.
Delete Utilities Improvement.
Change total to $20,300,000.
Change last numb e r on page to $14,000,000.
Change Civic Center Bou levard to Englewood Parkway.
Delete Utility Improvemen ts and Relocation.
Change Civic Center Boulevard to Englewood Parkway .
Insert latest map.
Delete
First Paragraph: Delete "athletic health clubs ".
Change "civic events" to "city hall" center.
Delete last sentence •
Second Paragraph: Change Civic Center Boulevard to
Englewood Parkway in three places.
Redescription of private improvement elements (see
attached),
Redescription of private improvement elements (see
attached).
Redescription of private improvement elements (see
attached).
Second Paragraph: Chang to Englewood Parkway from
Civic Center Boul vard.
Third Paragraph: SamP .
•
I • •
Item Page
17 27
18 28
19 29-30
20 31-32a
21 35
22 36
23 40
24 43
•
•
•
• •
-2-
Fourth Paragraph (list) -Sam •
Under 3a and 3b: Change Boulevard to Parkway.
Under 4b and 4c: Change Boulevard to Parkway.
Delete description of Land Acquisition and insert
the following: (attachment)
Add properties as indicated : (attached)
Title: Change to AGREEMENTS BETWEEN DEVELOPER AND
URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY.
First Paragraph: Delete "City or" second line.
First Paragraph: Delete the sentence: "The Urban
Renewal Authority agrees to reimburse ••• ".
Second Paragraph, 1st line: Delete "the City or".
Last Paragraph: Change Civic Center Boulevard to
Englewood Parkway.
Second Paragraph: Change donating to leasing, 4th
sentence.
Fifth sentence: Add "or lease" after " ••• sell. •• ".
Sixth Sentence: Add "or lease" after "The sale .•• " •
•
I • •
6
NORTH
'•
•
Prtntlco
IIi IIi
~ 8 ~ . ~ ~ . ... c
i
•
• •
MAP 2
DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT AR EA
•
.;
0
..;
8 ..
N
I • •
•
• -
..
11!'1)
'""
l>..
5 ..,_ I i:i ~I
!J!JI
;I I ...... • •
-
,I
I
I
I
I
! i
I-. -. -·-. -. -. _.., .....,,...,;.,...,.------J
•
•
• •
UG£HD
1111 lnTu •• Cft(a
E::J ot:T[NT""' •0000
!:ZZ) '"" uaro
r::::::J -.. -. ......
~ -•om•.-r•Mo
§3 'LOYD I ... OADWAY lHA611POf" ~·u ...... ,
•
0
MAP 4
PUBLIC IMPR OVE!!ENT PR OJECTS
N
OCAU J .... ,...,.. .
0 •><
•
•
•
•
• •
ATTACHMENT FOR ITEMS #I3, #14, and #15.
Analysis of the Denver Metropolitan Area performed by Hammer, Siler,
George and Laventhol & Horwath have indentified the following elements
as supportable within the downtown Englewood Urban Renewal Area given
current market conditions:
1. ~ Complex. This element would include a 25,000 square fo o t
multi-screen theatre featuring first-run movies and a multi-level
parking structure providing 400 parking spaces for theatre patrons
and retail shoppers.
2. Convenience Shopping Complex. This development will include approxi-
mately 50,000 square feet of convenience retail shops and a new
51,000 square foot King Sooper's Store. Surface parking and a one
level s tructure will provide parking spaces f o r 44 0 vehicles.
3. Specialt~ ~ ~· This group of structures will house ap-
proximately 85,000 square feet of specialty retail shops and related
uses.
4. Financial Institution~ Building. This structure could pro-
vide approximately 150,000 square feet of space for financial in-
stitutions and other office uses.
5. ~and Athletic Center. This development would provide 50,000
square feet for health and athletic facilities. In addition, a
10,000 square foot restaurant could be placed on the site .
•
I • •
•
•
• •
-2-
6. Hotel. A multi-storied hotel containing appro ximately 250 rooms
with adjoining parking facilities containing spaces for 35 0 vehicles
would be constructed next to the lake area.
7. City Hall Building. This multi-story structure comprised of ap-
proximately 85,000 square feet of space would house city offices
and the Englewood Library.
8. Residential. A combination of multi-story structures and townhouses
is proposed. The marketing studies indicate a demand for 100-150
units per year for an eight-year buildout. The amount of develop-
ment of housing may be reduced if the market for office space
strengthens over the next few years.
•
I .
•
•
•
• -
ATTACHMENT FOR ITEMS 019 and 020.
VI . IMPLEMENTATION.
A. Land Acquisition.
In the course of implementation of the Urban Renewal Plan, it
is recognized that certain privately-owned pro p e r ties will n eed
to be acquired to facilitate comprehensive redevelopment of
the area. The Urban Renewal Authority shall be responsible
for acquiring all properties required for the construction of
public and private improvements to assure uniform treatment
of all property owners. Properties acquired for the public
purpose shall be used for infrastructure improvements, flood
control improvements, or any other projects which will further
the goals of the Urban Renewal Plan and benefit the community.
The Authority may , from time to time, be requested to acquire
properties required for the construction of priva tely-owned im-
provements or public improvements in conjunction with private
improvements within the Urban Renewal Area. The terms governing
the acquisition and dispositio n of such parcels shall be specifically
set forth in separate agreements and contracts between the Au-
thority and private developers.
For the purposes of this Urban Renewal Plan, all properties
falling within the boundaries of this Plan, as delineated on
Map 2 and Map 3, shall be considered subject to purchase by
the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority. Nothing stated or im-
plied by this section shall be co nstru ed to mean that the Au -
thority is required to purchase any or all of the properties 1dthin
the Plan boundaries.
•
I •
'
•
•
• •
C 0 U N C I L C 0 M M U N I C A T I 0 N
DATE
.liiD P 2~ lQR~
AGENDA ITEM
JOb
SUBJECT Resolution Amending Downtown
Redevelopment Plan
INITIATED BY En~] ewood Urban RPnPwal Authority
ACT I ON PROPOSED Approve thP Respl uti pn Amepdin~ thP Dowptpwp RedPyel opmPpt pJ an.
INTRODUCTI ON AND BACKGROUND:
In August , 1982, the City Council approved the Downtown Redevelopment Plan to serve
as a guide for redevelopment in Downtow n Englewood . There have been several amend -
ments since that time to make it reflect the current plan. At each time, the ame n d-
ments have been reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission to establish the r e -
lationship to the Comprehensive Plan . The Commission has always found the Plan and
amendments to be in conformance with the goals and objectives of the Com prehensive
Plan .
The present amendments to the Plan are being recommended by the Englewood Urban Re-
newal Authority, and are outlined on the attached sheets. There are two major c hanges
The first is in the boundaries of the Downtown Redevelopment Area: the current Park
Floral site bound by Santa Fe Drive, Hampden Avenue, South Jason Street, and Wes t
Kenyon Avenue, and the block boun d by South I nca Street, Hampden Avenue, South Jason
Street , and West Ithaca Avenue. These sites would be offered for redevelopment by
a private developer . In the process of redeveloping the site, the EURA would con-
struct storm sewer improvements on the south side of the Park Floral property ad-
jacent to West Kenyon Avenue. The storm drainage problem in the industrial area has
been studied for many years, and this presents an opportunity for the problem to be
resolved.
The other ch ange in boundary is adjacent to the Safeway Store , where the new border
will be north of the old Safeway Store. This is proposed to guarantee that any re-
development of that property is consistent with the Downtown Redevelopment Plan.
Maps reflecting the new district boundaries are attached to this report.
The second type of change is in the text of the Plan to bring the Plan up-to-date .
These specific changes are listed 0n the attached sheet.
On June 18, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed amend-
ments, and found them to be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan of the
City of Englewood. Resolution #2, Series of 1985, was passed to reflect the
Planning and Zoning Commission approval.
I • •
r
•
•
•
• •
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommend e d that the City Council adopt Amendment 11 8 by Resolution, and direct
the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority to carry out the Plan.
SUGGESTED ACTION:
MOVED BY ______________________________ _
SECOND ______________________________ ___
YES _____________ ,NO ____________ ~BSENT __________________________ _
I • •
•
•
• -
C 0 U N C I L C 0 M M U N I C A T I 0 N
DATE
Jun e 26 1985
SUBJECT Proposed Amendments t o the Com-
prehensive Zoning Ordinance,
§16.4-12 B-2 Business District
INITIATED BY City Planning and Zo ning Commissio n
ACT I ON PROPOSED Receiv e the recommcndat ion of the Planning Com mission r elative to
certain amendments to the Comp rehen sive Zoning Ordinance, and request the City
Attornev to nrf>nare Ordinances in nre naration o f a Public Hearinl>.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND:
At the request of the City Council , the Planning Commis sio n has reviewed the B-2,
Business District regulations to determine whether or not they impose adequate re-
quirements for new and used car sales lots to minimize the n e gative impact of those
businesses on adjacent resid e ntial areas and to reverse th e appearance of deterioration
that is intruding into the B-2 Zone District, most especially along South Broadway.
The Commission memb e rs have given considerable thought to this issue , including the
testimony received at the Public Hearing, statements made by ca r dealers at subse-
quent public meetings, information ob tained from commercial insure rs, and from other
jurisdictions and the staff report, all of which has formed th e basis for their de-
cision . Members have also driven the Broadway area, paying particular attention to
development along its length, and several members hav e driven through other jur isdic-
tions t o co mpare the development along South Broadway in Englewood with that in Denve r,
Lakewood, Aurora, and Littleton.
The Planning Commissio n members concluded that all automobile-relat ed businesses can
have similar effect upon adjacent uses for the following reaso ns:
--The uses typically generate a fairly high volume of traffic from customers and
emp loy ees and usually r ely upon adjacent st r eets for parking .
--The layout of th e property and th structures have quite often been designed for
other uses and do no t adequately a ccommodate the auto-related use.
--The lots are n ot always properly designed and surfaced t o ac ommodate runoff from
washing th e cars , and the water ponds in the alleys.
--Th e use of the car sales lots is typically maximized with inadequate room for
emergency access and maneuvering of inventory without using adjacent right-of-way.
--The owners/operators have not made an effort to comply with minimal landscaping
requirements and the uses detract from, rathe r t~an furthering, the desired
image to be c r eated along South Broad·.tn], whic'l is set forth in the Com pr ehen-
sive Plan .
•
I • •
(
(
•
•
• •
-2-
With these issues in mind, the Planning Commission is of the opinion that all auto-
mobile/vehic le related uses should be permitted only as a Conditional Use in the B-2
Business District . Automobile car laundries and polishing businesses and motor re-
pair businesses have been Conditional Uses for some time . The Commission would recom-
mend that sales lots and filling stations also be permitted only as a Conditional Use.
In this way, each specific automobile/vehicle-related business will be considered at
a specific location and any foreseen or anticipated problems can be addressed and
resolved before the use is approved. The provisions would apply to all new sales
lots and upon a change of ownership for any sales lot or business after the effective
date of the Ordinance . If the sales lot approved as a Conditional Use were to be
sold, the new owner would have to reaffirm compliance with any conditions imposed at
the time of the initial approval.
To this end, the following sections of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance would be
repealed: §16.4-12 c (4) Automobile sales or lease not including commercial vehicle
wrecking, dismantling or junk yards, §16.4-2 c (8) Gasoline and oil service stations,
§16.4-12 c (10) Mo t or vehicle sales or lease, §16 .4-12 c (14) Recreational vehicle
sales or lease to inc lude boats, trailer, motorcycles and other recreational vehicles.
A new §16.4-12 e (2) Sales lots for n~· and used automobiles, motor v ehicles, recre-
ational vehicles, boats, trailers, or motorcycles, and §16.4-12 e (3) Automobile
service stations, would be adopted. Section 16.4-12 e (2)(b) and (c) set forth
information to be provided with the site plan at the time of application for the
sales lot Conditional Use and the matters to be specifically considered by the Corn-
mission when reviewing the site plan. Section 16 .4-12 e (3) also cites specific
criteria for service stations .
There are some issues which th e Planning Commission feels should apply to all
businesses in the B-2 Zone District, not just t o sales lots. These include re-
strictions relative to fencing along street frontages, the percent of landscaping
to be in the front of the lot and setbacks. As to fencing and landscaping , th e
Commission members are of the opinion that any amendments should be addressed in
§16.4-17, Fences and Retaining Walls, and §16.4-18 Landscape Ordinance, as they
wo uld apply to all businesses rather than in the B-2 Zone District as they would
apply to one specific use. The Commission has initiated these changes and will co n-
sider th e m at Public Hearing.
As to setbacks, the Commission would recommend that a new section, §1 6 .4-12 9 (2)
Setbacks, sub-sections (a) and (b) b e added, which would require a minimum setback
f o r any buildings o f 10 feet on non-co rner lots and a minimum setba ck of five (5) feet
for the first 100 feet from the co rn e r o n a corner l ot , and 10 feet for any frontage
in excess of the 100 feet.
Becaus e the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance already i ncludes requirements for the sur-
facing of sales lots, minimum o ff-street parking r e quirements and signage, the Com-
mission members did not feel it was ne cessary to address those issues specifically in
the B-2 regulations relative to sales lots. To do so could c reat e a point of conflict
between the different sections and make enforcement difficult.
The Planning Commission co nsidered the attached revision of the B-2 Business District
at a Public Hearing held on May 14, 1985, and at two subsequent meetings, and have
voted to send the proposed amendments to the B-2 Business District regulation t o
the City Council for its consideration •
•
I • •
(
•
•
• •
-3-
The Findings of Fact were considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their
meeting on June 18, 1985, and it was the decision of the Commission that these
Findings of Fact should also be accepted and referred to City Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
After giving careful consideration to the drafting of the proposed amendments to the
B-2 Zone District regulations, and after considering the proposed regulations at a
public hearing and at two subsequent regularly scheduled meetings, it is the opinion
of the Commission that the City Council should give consideration to the proposed
amendments to the B-2 Business Zone District regulations. The members of the Commis-
sion further recommend that the City Attorney be request ed to prepare an ordinance
for the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and that a Public
Hearing be scheduled to consider the proposed amendments to §16.4-12 of the Compre-
hensive Zoning Ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. The B-2 Zone District regulations as proposed to be amended.
2. The Findings of Fact for the June 18, 1985 meeting.
3. The Minutes of the June 4 meeting.
4. A memorandum to the Commission regarding regulations from other communities.
5. The Findings of Fact for the May 14, 1985 Public Hearing .
6. The Minutes of the May 14, 1985 meeting.
7. The Minutes of the May 7, 1985 meeting.
8. The Minutes of the April 16, 1985 meeting.
9. Memo dated April 8, 1985 from Peter Var~as to the Planning Commission, with
attached memo from D. A. Romans to Peter Vargas (complete).
SUGGESTED ACTION:
MOVED BY ____________________________ ___
SECOND ______________________________ _
YES. _____________ NO. ____________ ~BSENT __________________________ _
•
I • •
•
•
• •
/,
Secti on 16.4-12 B-2 Business District.
This District is composed of certain land and structures used primarily to pro-
vide urban residential use, retailing and personal services to the residents
of the City and surrounding area. The B-2 District ia usually located on major
access routes and is easily accessible from the surrounding residential area
which it serves.
a. General Regulations. The provisions found in this Zone District shall be
subject to the requirements and standards found in Section 16.5, General
Regulations, unless otherwise provided for in this Ordinance or an amendment
hereto.
b. Planned Development. A Planned Development ahalrbe filed for the develop-
ment of any lot having one or more acres in area. See Section 16.4-15 for
development procedure.
c. Permitted Principal Uses. No building, structure, or land shall be used; and
no building or structure shall be erected, structurally altered, enlarged
or maintained unless otherwise provi ded for in this Ordinance, except for
one or more of the following uses.
(1) Any use permitted in the B-1 Business District.
(2) Animal hospitals, kennels to be enclosed and runs enclosed by a
fence aix (6) feet high.
(3) Auction houses.
{4) Drive-in atin or drinking establishments.
(5) Feed a nd s ed stores (excluding the sale or storage of ha ).
(6) Food locker storage.
(7) Hospitals and convalescent homes.
(8) Mortuaries.
(9) Motels.
(10) Pawn shops and second-hand stores.
(11) Residential use: Must conform to the development requirements of the
R-3, High-Density Residence District.
(12) Any similar lawful use, which in the opinion of the Commission, is
not objectionable to nearby property by reason of odor, dust, smoke,
fumes, gas, heat, glare, radiation or vibration, or is not ha zardo us
to the health and property of the surrounding area through danger of
fire or explosion.
d. Accessory Uses.
(1) Any use incidental to the above Permitted Uses, when located on the
same building site as thE' Permi ttcd Usc.
(2) Swimming Pools --semi-private, st>m1-puhlic, and puhlic. See
General Rerulation~ .
•
I •
(
•
•
• •
-2-
e . Conditional Uses. Provided the public interest is fully protected and the
following uses are approved by the Commission. Section 16.6 of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.
(1) Adult Entertainment and/or Service Facility.
(a) No adult entertainment or service facility ahall be located on
any site unless auch site is not less than the distance limitation
aa required by this section.
(i) 1,000 feet from the location of another such adult
entertainment or service facility .
(ii) 500 feet from the boundary line of any residential district
defined in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, as amended,
including, but not limited to, R-1-A, R-1-B, R-1-C, R-2,
R-2-C, R-3, or R-4 or similar residential zone district
in an area adjoining the City of Englewood, or any religious
institution, public park, public library, community center,
or educational institution, whether within or without the
City of Englewood.
(b) Measurement of distanc e. All distances provided herein shall be
measured as follows .
(i) With respect to the distance between a location for which
an adult entertainment or service facility is proposed and
a location where such a facility exists, the distance shall
be measured by following a straight line from the nearest
point of the property line of the proposed licensed premises
to the nea rest p oint of the property line of the existing
licensed premises.
(ii) With respect to the distance from the boundary line of a
residential district or any religious institution, public
park, public library, community center, or edu cat ional
institution, the distance shall be measured by following a
straight line from the nearest point of the property line
of the propo sed licensed premi ses to the neares t point of
t h e district boundary line; or in the case of a religious
institution, public park, public library, community center,
or educational institution, the distance shall be measured
by following a straight line from the nearest point of
the property line of the proposed licensed pre~ises to the
nearest point of the property line of a religious institution,
public park, public library, community center, or educational
institution .
(iii) Where the proposed location of an adult entertainment or
service faC'ility is a vacant parcel of land upon which no
permit has been issued for the construction of a building,
all distances shall be measured from the nearest point of
the property line of the land proposed as a ]~cation for
an adult entertainment or servic e fncili ty. Where the
proposed location of an adult entertainment or service
fa c ility is a va ca nt parcel of land up on whi ch a permit
has been issued for the const ruC'ti on of a p C'rr.l:tncn l t-ulldinr,
f o r surh usc, all distances sh :'lll he m<·asu re d fro m tht·
•
I •
(
•
•
• ..
-~
the nearest point of the property line as shown on the
survey of such parcel of land.
(2) Sales lots for new and used automobiles, motor vehicles, recreational
vehicles, boats, trailers, or motorcycles.
(a) The sale of new and used automobiles, motor vehicles, recreational
vehicles, boats, trailers, or motorcycles at retail shall be by a
dealer licensed by the State of Colorado and such business may
include service and accessories, but shall not include the rebuilding,
overhauling or steam cleaning of motors, repairing or repainting of
bodies, or reupholstering, except as a use incidental to the said
sales, and except where entirely conducted in an enclosed structure.
Recapping of tires shall not be permitted under any circumstances.
(b) Site plan submitted. The applicant for approval of a sales lot
for new and used automobiles, motor vehicles, recreational vehicles,
boats, trailers or motorcycles shall submit a site plan at a scale
no smaller than one inch equals fifty feet (1" • SO') to the
Department of Community Development in conformance with Section
16.5-21 of this Ordinance. This site plan shall include:
(c )
* A drainage plan.
* A layout of the portion of the site to be devoted to the display
and/or storage of inventory, including, but not limited to,
number, type and/or size of units to be displayed or stored,
their arrangement and location in relationship to front and
side property lines. The maximum number of vehicles to be
permitted on the lot shall be posted (see Section (d)). A
minimum setback of 12 inches from all property lines will be
required.
* The location and type of lighting.
* Surfacing specifications.
* A landscaping plan in conformance with Section 16.4-18 of this
Ordinance.
* De signation o f parking spaces for employees and customers in
c o nformanc e with Se c tion 16.5-5 of the Ordinan c e.
* The proposed signa ge (see Se c tion 16.4-19 of t h is Ordinan ce).
* Th e l o cation, type and h eight of fencing , if any (see Se c tion
16.4-17 of thi s Ordinanc e.)
* An y other information which will facilitate th e revi e w of the
app l i ca tio n.
I n r e viewing the site plan and a c companying data , the Pla nning
Comm i ss i on s hal l also c o nsid er the f o llowing :
(i)
(ii)
Li ghting s h a l l b e d i r ec t ed s o that the b eam , i f an y , s hines
on t he p r emises .
Th e drains~ plan and s urfa c e at ~rad e l1 as b ern a pp r o vtd h y
th e n ~pa rtm r nl of En ~in r rrin ~ Servi c e s .
•
I • •
-
(
•
•
•
,• •
-4-
(d) The max imu m numb e r of nut omo bllcs, mo tor v e hicles, recreational
vehicle s , boats, trailers, or motorcycles allowe d for all purposes
shall be specifically approved on the site plan, and the maximum
number of said vehicles permitted on the premises shall be posted
in a conspicuous spot on the premises. More than the permitted
maximum number of parked or standing vehicles on the site shall
be a violation of this Ordinance.
(e) Approval of Conditional Use.
(i) Approval of the sale of new and used automobiles, motor
vehicles, recreational vehicles, boats, trailers, or
motorcycles shall be conditional in compliance with the
foregoing requirements.
(ii) The Conditional Use may be amended from time to time as
requested by the owner of the premises in the same manner
as a new application for Conditional Use.
(f) Applicability of this Ordinance. The provisions of this Section
shall be implemented by all new uses for the sale of new or used
automobiles, motor vehicles, recreational vehicles, boats, trailers,
or motorcycles, and upon ownership change for any sales lot or
business after the effective date of this Ordinance. When there
is a change in ownership of a sales lot or business which has been
approved as a Conditional Use, the new owner shall appear before
the Planning Commission to reaffirm the conditions of the approved
Conditional Use.
(3) Automobile service station::&t'a ndah!s ( The following performance and
development standards shall apply to all pa .. t~ted-automobile service
station uses.
(a) Uses permitted. An automobile service station shall be a retail
place of business engaged in the sale of motor fuels and in
supplying goods and servic es generally required in the operation
and maintenance of automotive vehicles and the fulfilling of
motorists' needs . Major automotive repairs, painting , body and
fender work are prohibited.
(b) Building line regulations. Building setback line for all
structures shall be twenty (20) feet from the ultimate street
right-of-way line, except canopy roofs over pump islands and
lighting fixtures may be cantilevered to within five (5) feet
of the ultimate street right-of-way line.
(c) Exterior displays and trash and storage. No displays or storage
of merchandise, automobiles, parts or refuse shall b e located
closer than twenty (20) feet from the ultimate street right-of-
way line, and all trash and refuse shall be stored in a building
or within an area enclosed by a wall at least six (6) feet high.
(d) Lighting. All lighting shall be designed and lo ca ted so as to
confine direct rays to the premises.
(e) Outside activity. All activi ties, ot her than the sale of motor
fuels and the n o rm a l services inc idental th ereto, are prohibited
outsfd of the main bufldin~ .
•
I •
(
•
•
• •
-5-
(f) Screenin g . A masonry wall shall be installe d and maintained along
property lines where the premises abut a residential area. Such
wall shall have a total height of not less than six (6) feet,
except within twenty (20) feet of any ultimate street right-of-way
line, where the height shall be not less than three (3) feet nor
more than three and one-half (3~) feet.
(g) Landscaping. A landscape plan in conformance with the Landscape
Ordinance shall be submitted with the application for the Conditional
Use ;
(4) Motor vehicle repair businesses, not including body or fender work,
dismantling or collision repair, and provided that:
(a) Motor vehicles being serviced or stored or waiting to be
serviced or called for are not parked on streets, alleys,
public sidewalks or parking strips.
(b) All work is performed within an enclosed structure.
(c) No materials or parts are deposited or stored on the premises
outside of an enclosed structure.
{d) An y area subject to wheeled traffic or storage is screened from
adjacent or adjoining residential districts ~by a closed-face
wood fence, or block or brick wall.
(e) Landscaping. A landscape plan in conformance with the Landscape
Ordinance shall be submitted with the application for the Conditional
Use.
(5) Mo tor vehicle laundry or polishing business, which shall com p l y with the
followin g conditions.
(a) A minimum o f three (3) parking spaces shall be provided on the
s i te f or each washing stall .
(b) The site shall b e p aved t o t h e spec if icat ions of t h e Depa rtment
of Engineeri ng Servi c e s.
(c) All waste water shall be discharged into t h e sanitary sewer line
after having been run through a sand trap.
(d) All lights used to illuminate the area shall be directed away
from adjacent residential properties.
(e) Landscaping. A landscape plan i n conformance with the Landscape
Ordinance shall be submitted with t h e appl i cation for the Conditional
Use.
(6) Amusement establishments including, but not limited to, bill i a r d halls,
bowling alleys, coin-operated games, dance halls, electronic or video
games, night clubs, outdoor commercial r ecreational facilities, pool
halls or skatin~ rinks .
•
I •
(
(
•
f.
•
• -
-6-
Prohibited Uses.
(1) Manufacturing.
(2) Outdoor storage of materials, supplies, and equipment on private and
public property.
(3) The outdoor display, storage or sale of household appliances, furniture,
or other items commonly used in a home, whether on private or public
property.
(4) Warehousing of products or items not sold on the premises.
(5) Sale at wholesale.
(6) Sales or service activity shall not be allowed from any temporary
structure or vehicle unless a building permit application has been
submitted for a permanent building or structure to replace the
temporary structure.
g. Development Requirements.
(1) Maximum height of buildings. Sixty (60) feet.
(2} Setbacks.
(a) Minimum setback for noncorner lots shall be ten (10) feet.
(b) Corner lots shall have not less than a five-foot (5') setback
the first one hundred (100) feet from the corner. Mo re than one
hundred (100) feet from the corner shall have a ten-foot (10')
setback.
(c) Where a property zoned B-2, Business, abuts up on any pro perty
zoned "R" Residential District, the residential front yard
requirement of the abutting Residential District shall apply t o
that portion of the property in the B-2 Business District except
as to side yards on corner lots.
(3) Minimum Off-Street Private Parking and Loading. See General Regulations.
(4) Liquefied Petroleum Gas Installations. Liquefied petroleum gas installa-
tions shall be permitted only for the purpose of supplying fuel for
approved heating equipment. Liquid petroleum gas tanks in exc ess of
500 gallons (water capacity) will not be permitted in this Zone District.
Liquefied petroleum gas installations shall conform to current Fire
Code requirements.
•
I • •
(
•
•
.. -
CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO
IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. 10-85,
CONSIDERED AT A PUBLIC HEARING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION, FINDINGS OF
FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDA-
TIONS RELATING TO AMENDMENTS TO
THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDI-
NANCE IN §16.4-12, B-2, BUSINESS
DISTRICT.
Following the Public Hearing on Case No. 10-85, which was held on
May 14, 1985, the City Planning and Zoning Commission continued considera-
tion of the proposed amendments to §16.4-12, B-2, Business District, on
May 21, 1985 and on June 4, 1985. These meetings were held in the City
Council Chambers in the Englewood City Hall, and the public was given
verbal notice by the Chairman of the time and place of these discussions.
Messrs. Barbre, Carson, Magnuson, Stoel and Venard were present at
the May 21, 1985 meeting; Messrs. Beier, McBrayer, Gourdin and Allen were absent.
At the June 4, 1985 meeting, Messrs. Barbre, Beier, Carson, Magnuson,
Steel, Gourdin, and Venard were present with Messrs. McBrayer and Allen
absent.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Upon review of the Findings of Fact of May 14, 1985 and of the
evidence taken in the form of presentations, reports and the draft of
the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance concerning
the amendments to the B-2, Business District, the City Planning and
Zoning Commission makes the following Findings of Fact.
1. That at the public hearing on May 14, 1985, the Commission
announced the study session of May 21, 1985.
2. That at the study session of May 21, 1985,
Mr. Greg Thompson of 4528 South Broadway addressed the Planning Commis-
sion. llr. Thompson stated that it would be difficult to make
guidelines regarding the amount of square feet per car requirement which
would be fair to every vehicle sale dealer because of a wide variety
in size of vehicles being sold. (Mr. Thompson had attended the public
hearing of May 14, 1985.)
3. That if car dealers are parking in the public right-of-way, the
city should solve the situation by enforcing the existing city ordinances.
4. That no other public was present at the May 21 meeting.
• •
I • •
(
•
•
• -
-2-
5. That at the May 21, 1985 study session, it was announced that
the next discussion of the B-2 would be at the June 4, 1985 Planning Commission meeting.
6. That three car lot dealers were present at the June 4 meeting
who were also present at the May 14 public hearing; however, they did
n ot address the Commission and left before the discussion was concluded,
7. That currently motor vehicle repair and motor vehicle laundry
are conditional uses, and motor vehicle body repair is excluded from commercial zone districts.
8. That to be consistent with the current courses of action in
the Comprehensive Plan, planning tools should be implemented to evaluate
and set standards for the redevelopment of the South Broadway corridor.
9. That in order to implement the Comprehensive Plan, the Commis-
sion recommends that all automobile related uses be designated as Con-
ditional Uses including sales lots and gasoline service stations.
10. That the conditional use for sales lots includes new and used
automobiles, motor vehicles, recreational vehicles, boats, trailers, and motorcycles.
11. That minimum development standards should be considered in the applicant's application.
12. That dev elopment standards shown on and accompanying the site
plan shall be co nsid ered as a part of the Conditional Use application
and shall includ e, but not be limited to:
a. Relating to Sales Lots:
1) A minimum 12" setback from all property lines.
2) 50 ~ of the required landscaping shall be located in
front of the building line.
3) A layout of the off-street parking for customers and
employees .
4) The number of inventory and the location on the lot.
5) The access lanes.
6) The lighting.
7) The signage as required by the Sign Code, 116.4-19.
8) A drainage plan.
9) The specifications of the parking lot surface .
10) Fencing as required by the Fence Ordinance, §16.4-17.
b. Relating to Automobile Service Stations:
1) Building, canopy , and pump island setbacks.
c .
2) Exterior displays, trash and storage.
3) Lighting.
4) Type of outside activity.
5) Screening.
6) Landscaping.
As t o motor vehicle repair, in addition to the existing con -
ditio ns, a landscaping plan shall be provided •
•
0
I • •
•
•
•
. . ..
-~
d. As to motor vehicle laundries, in addition to the existing
conditions, a landscaping plan shall be provided.
13. That there should be a minimum setback of ten (10) feet for all .
new structures in the B-2 Zone District because of the changing character ·
of strip commercial zones and to bring the B-2 Zone District into con-
formance with the Comprehensive Plan.
14. That auto display racks stored above ground level are compatible
in the B-2 area and need not be regulated.
15. That a goal set forth in the Comprehensive Plan would prohibit
fences in the front of the property in the B-2 commercial district.
16. That the Commission will consider revisions to the Fence Ordi-
nance at their next meeting on June 18, 1985 instead of trying to amend
the B-2 regulations to take care of any fencing concerns.
17. That it was the opinion of the Commission that these provisions
should not be retroactive and should only apply to all new businesses
concerned with the sale of new or used automobiles, motor vehicles,
recreational vehicles, boats, trailers, and motorcycles, and upon a
change in ownership of any such business.
CONCLUSION
1. That a public hearing was held on May 14 to consider amendments
to certain sections of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, including
Title 16.4-12, the B-2 District. Following the public hearing, it was
determined that additional study was necessary relative to this section
and it was announced at the May 14 Public Hearing that a study session
to discuss the amendments would be held on May 21, 1985.
2. That at the May 21, 1985 meeting, it was decided to continue the study session to June 4.
3. That two persons addressed the Commission concerning two of the
specific regulations at the May 21 meeting, and three people attended the June 4 meeting.
4. That no one spoke in favor of or in opposition to the proposed amendments at the May 21 meeting.
5. That all automobile related uses shall be a conditional use.
6. That th e design elements including: a 12-inch setback from all
property lines, locating 50% of the required landscaping in the front
portion of the lot, off-street parking for customers and employees,
fencing, lighting, sign code provisions, a drainage plan, surfacing
specifications, and inventory being stored and displayed, shall be in-
cluded in the site plan as a part of the application for Conditional Use.
7. That the Planning Commission shall review the site plan and
application at a Public Hearing prior to approving any automobile-related use.
•
I • •
•
•
• •
-4-
8. That the conditional use applies to sales lots for new and used
automobiles, motor vehicles, recreational vehicles, boats, trailers and
motor cycles as well as automobile service stations.
9. That the conditional use shall be implemented for any new or
used sales lots and upon an ownership change of any sales lot or gasoline
station after the effective date of the proposed revisions.
10. That the landscape provisions shall be added to conditional
uses for motor vehicle repair businesses and motor vehicle laundry and polishing businesses.
11. That further study of the Fence Ordinance is necessary to refine the requirements.
12. That the proposed amendments to the regulations of the B-2,
Business District, Title 16.4-12 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance,
address the areas of concern addressed by the City Council and by the
Planning Commission set forth in the Findings of Fact for the May 14, 1985 Public Hearing.
RECOMMENDATION
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning
Commission to the City Council that the proposed revisions to the Compre-
hensive Zoning Ordinance as amended following the Public Hearing on May
14, and considered at public meetings on May 21 and June 4, be adopted
and passed onto City Council with a recommendation to approve.
Upon a motion made at the regular meeting of the City Planning and
Zoning Commission held on June 4, 1985 by Mr. Carson and seconded by Mr.
Barbre. Those members voting in favor of the motion: Messrs. Barbre,
Beier, Carson, Magnuson, Stoel, Gourdin, and Venard.
Messrs. Allen and McBrayer were absent.
By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission.
gw
•
I • •
•
•
• •
'3. -CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 4, 1985
I. CALL TO ORDER.
The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Venard.
Members present:
Meobera absent:
Also present:
Barbre, Beier, Carson, Magnuson, Stoel, Gourdin, and Venard.
McBrayer and Allen.
Peter Vargas, Ex Officio.
Dorothy A. Romans, Assistant Director of Community
Development.
Susan T. King, Senior Planner.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
May 21, 1985.
Mr. Venard stated that the Minutes of May 21, 1985, were to be considered f or approval.
Carson moved:
Stoel seconded: The Minutes of May 21, 1985, be approved as written.
AY ES: Barbre, Carson, Magnuson, Stoel, Venard.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAI N: Beier and Gourdin.
ABSENT: McBrayer and Allen.
The Chairman ruled that the motion carried, and the Minutes were approved as
written .
III . PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE , B-2 , BUSINESS
DISTRICT.
Mr. Venard asked for discussion about the proposed amendments to the B-2 Zone
District. Mr. Stoel said that he is concerned about the minimum setback, which
had been changed to 12 inches. He asked that this be made more specific. The
Commission decided to change that section to read "A minimum setback of twelve
inches from all property lines will be required."
Mr. Carson stated that lighting was mentioned in two different sections of
the proposed B-2, under site plan and under what the Planning Commission will
consider when deciding on a Conditional Use. It was decided to retain both
sections.
Mr. Gourdin asked that the Fence Ordinance be changed to forbid fences along
South Broadway. He said the Comprehensive Plan doesn't penllit fences in commercial
districts, And Mr. Gourdin gave several citations from the Plan. Mr . Carson
suggested that the B-2 regulations on whi ch the Commission is currently working,
state that such fences could not be built along South Broadway. It wa s decided
that the B-2 district should conform to the Fence Code because there should not
I • •
•
•
• •
-2-
be conflicting laws in the Ordinance. The Commission agreed to consider
amendments to the Fence Ordinance at the next meeting.
Mr. Venard asked that Section (f) be changed to read " •••• trailers, or motor-
cycles, and upon ownership change for any sales lot or business after the effective
date of this Ordinance".
There were no other suggested changes in the proposed B-2 e (2) (b).
Mr . Venard said on Page 4, concerning the landscaping for car sales lots, that
Sections (i) through (iv) might be deleted by simply stating that the
Landscape Ordinance applies. Ms. King said that the Landscape Ordinance would
permit all the landscaping to be put anywhere on the lot the owner wishes, and
would not require that it be visible from the front.
It was decided to add in Section (g) the statement: "A landscape plan in
conformance with the Landscape Ordinance shall be submitted with the application
for the Conditional Use." It was further decided to strike Sections (i) through
(iv) of Section (g). The landscape requirement as quoted above is to be added to
the sections of the B-2 regulations relating to motor vehicle repair businesses
and mo tor vehicle laundry or polishing ~usinesses .
Mr s. Romans noted that Section g, Development Requirements, requires a ten foot
s e tback for all uses in the B-2 . There has never before been a setback required
in this zone district. The Commission approved this provision.
Magnuson moved :
Carson sec onded : The Landscape Ordinance be amended to require that landscaping
be visible from the public right-of-way.
AYES: Barbre, Be i er, Carson, Magnuson, Stoel , Gourdin , Venard.
NAYS : None .
ABSENT : Mc Brayer and Allen.
The meeting was r e cessed at 8 :15 p.m . to consider ph r asing f or this change. The
mee ting resumed at 8 :30p.m ., with the same peop le i n attendanc e .
The Commission decided to c ha nge Section c (2) (e) (1) of t he Landscape
Ordinance to read: "Minimum of 10% of total lot area must b e landscaped with
no less than 50% of the landscaping installed on the front portion of the lot."
Carson moved:
Barbre seconded: The changes as proposed at this meeting be passed on to Council
with a recommendation to approve.
AYES: Barbre, Beier, Carson , Magnuson, Stoel, Gourdin , Venard.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: McBrayer and Allen.
The Chairman ruled that the motion had carried, a nd stated that the Fen ce
Ordinance would be considered for amendment at the next meeting.
IV. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.
Stoel moved:
Carson seconded: Goals and Objectives be considered at the followin g meeting
at 5:00 p.m. This meeting will include the Fence Ordinance
amendments •
•
I •
-
•
•
• •
-3-
AYES : Barbre, Beier, Carson, Magnuson, Stoel, Gourdin and Venard.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: McBrayer and Allen.
The motion carried.
Mrs. Romans stated that there is an amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan that
is to be considered at the next meeting, also.
V. PUBLIC FORUM.
There was no one present to address the Commission.
VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE.
Mr. Vargas stated that, in response to comments from the Planning Commission,
Council and public citizens, the Code Enforcement Division will be improved .
He said there are several areas which the staff has suggested could be improved.
1. Communication. When there is a complaint, there will be a written reply
stating what has been done about the situation.
2. Clarification of responsibility in the Department.
a. Sign Ordinance . The former City Attorney slowed a c tion because of
questions of constitutionality. The present City Attorney said that
enforcement can resume. The Planning Divsion is responsible for
issuing the permit and the Planning Division will inspect the sign.
b. Landscaping Enforcement. Susan King will do all the inspections
for landscaping, approving plans and following up with the inspections.
c. Performanc e bonds will be required to insure compliance with the
Landscape Ordinance, The Temporary Certificate of Oc c upancy is
no t sufficient for this enforc ement.
d. Th e City Forester may help Susan King regarding landscapi n g
maintenan c e .
e. Project coordina t i on. A planner will be as signed to each project,
and that planner will follow the project to completion. Mrs. Romans
called this t h e "buddy system".
f. The summer mon ths may require a planning technician to provide
assistance t o Co de Enforcement. The specifics of this proposal have
not been decide d.
Mr. Carson asked what the pro per way to report viola t ions is. He said that in
the past he had always phon ed Dorothy Romans, b u t now tries to report to Code
Enforcement. A councilman told h im that h e should sw ear out a complaint . Hr.
Vargas said that the first s tep wou ld be reporting t o Code Enforcment. If the
case has to be taken to cou rt , t hen a complaint might have to be sworn out, and
t he person complainin g might have to testify.
Mr. Carson said that t h e area across from the Post Office on Lehigh has trash
over the fence. This has b een a continuous problem. When the City requires
the property to be cleaned, the owner complies, and then begins to store trash
again. Mr. Vargas suggested that Mr. Carson make a compliant to Code Enforcement
anytime he can see the problem beginning .
I • •
-
0
•
•
•
• •
-4-
Mrs. Romans said that City Council did approve the Centennial Trade Center II
Subdivision Plat and the amended portions of the Zoning Ordinance will be
considered by City Council on July 1. Two amendments to Title XIV and Title
VI of the Englewood Municipal Code were paaaed on first reading. Theae sections
concern commercial vehicles and a limit on empty weight, and a redefinition of
derelict vehicles which eliminatea the requirement that the owner be unknown.
VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE.
None .
IX. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
After the meeting adjourned, Mrs. Romans ahoved slides of abuses of parking
on public atreets by car dealers.
Sheryl Rousses, Recording Secretary
I •
)(In • ~
•
•
•
• •
4.
TO: Planning Commissioners
FROM: Planning Staff
DATE: May 21, 1985
RE: B-2 Section of the Comprehenaive Zoning Ordinance
After the May 14 Public Hearin& on the proposed B-2 aection of the Compre-
hensive Zoning Ordinance, aome Commission membera asked about ordinances
regarding automobile-related businesses in other parte of the metropolitan
area. Attached is a aummary of information gathered from neighboring
municipalities.
Aurora and Boulder make use of Conditional Use hearing& to permit new and
used car lots in some zone districts. Other communities permit the use
in business districts, with some limitations. New businesaes in every case
must meet landscaping requirements and provide off-street parking for
customers and employees. All other communities alao require paved parking
lots for both new car and used car sales.
Most of the other planning departments contacted have aome form of site
development review process for new proposals. In Lakewood, where the
zones have recently been chanaed, pre-existing auto busines sea in zones
1-C through 4-C are declared nonconforming uses, but the use cannot be
enlarged, nor can it be passed to another owner.
•
I • •
-
CITY
Denver
Aurora
(695-7250)
Jim Jones
Co mmer c e
City
(289 -3674)
Lakewood
(98 7-7500)
Steve
Gl ue c k
Lit t let on
(795-3751 )
Rocky
Marquez
•
ZONE PERMITTED
DISTRICT USE
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-7
B-8
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
C-3 X
General
Conanunity
Business
5-C X
CONDITIONAL
USE
X
X
X
(Old lots may be nonconforming
use in 1-C through 4-C)
B-2 X
B-3 X
•
• •
0
CAR ORDIN SURVEY
CONTROLS
3/4 ton, R.V.'s and mobile homes up to 22 feet Car sales, trucks ';IP to
long.
Autos, trailers, trucks
Auto sales, but no auto
" "
up to 1~ ton. Need not be enclosed.
wrecking, dismantling, or junk yards. ..
" .. .. " South Broadway is B-4.
Maintenance requirements: Paved parking lots.
Off-street parking: One space per 300 gross square feet.
Lighting must not disturb neighbors by day or night.
Off-street parking must be provided for customers and employees.
No parking in grass strip of right-of-way.
Service stations also allowed in B-2.
All need minimum landscaping.
Pilling station peraitted uae.
Heavy use district. Also includes auto repair, filling stations same
in B-4.
All zones dedicate fire lane where needed. New dealers' lot plans must
identify cars for sale, cars for e.ployees, customer parking, cars
waiting for repairs. Any change, .uat bring in new site plan and comply.
Must have paved site. 10% of site landscaped, 50% of that in grass,
aajority visible froa public right-of-way. One shrub for every 300
square feet, one tree for every 800 square feet. Must provide on-site
parking for employees and customers. If 90% angle parking on the
lot, there must be 20' to 24' open lane for e.ergency access. Two-way
access (ingress and egress curb cuts).
Must ~et site develo~nt review requireaenta.
New developments and those re.odeling projects which increase 20% of
gross floor area or parking area .ust allocate 15% to open apace.
(Article 15, Chapter 15.)
Lot design (fences, setback, etc.) controlled by Development Review
eo..ittee, which reviews all new proposals. .
B-2 requires 20% landscaped, 50% of which 8Ust be evenly distributed
along public right-of-way.
B-3 requires 10% landscaping, SO% of which 8U&t be evenly distributed
along public right-of-way •
•
•
CAR ORDINANCE SURVEY
Page 2
CITY
Northglenn
ZONE
DISTR.ICT
C-5
PERMITTED
USE
X
Boulder
(441-3270)
Cary
Kretschmer
All X
•
Industrial
Zones
Regional
Business
District
CONDITIONAL
USE
X
X
•
• •
0
CONTR.OLS
Limited to vehicles up to l~ ton capacity.
Motor vehicle and mobile home displays shall be set back not less than
25 feet from any property line fronting on a street.
Any expansion or enlarge.ent of existing sales lot requires a new
application.
Off-street parking -one space for each two e.ployees at the largest shift
plus two spaces for each 300 square feet of repair or aaintenance area.
Service Stations. Gas puaps .oat be 40' froa any property line which
abuts a street and 151 froa all other property lines. Where 40' setback
is required, the first 25' is for landscaping and ingress and egress.
No artificial trees, shrubs or plants in landscaping.
Major Street Setback ordinance requires an exclusive landscaped strip,
25' from curb to lot, which is landscaped to screen any displays from
the street. New applicants are encouraged to locate their buildings at
the front of the property.
Off-street parking aust be provided for employees and customers based
on the square feet of building aDd display areas. Applications aust
distinguish between parking areas for eaployees/cuatoaers and cars
for sale or awaiting repair.
Service stations are permitted by Special Review wherever they are to be
located. They are never peraitted in residential zones.
•
•
-
•
•
• •
CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO
IN THE HATTER OF CASE NO. lD-85, )
CONSIDERED AT A PUBLIC HEARING )
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING AND )
ZONING COMMISSION, FINDINGS OF )
FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOH-)
MENDATIONS RELATING TO AMEND-)
KENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE )
ZONING ORDINANCE IN 116.4-8, )
R-3, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENCE )
DISTRICT; 116.4-10, B-1, )
BUSINESS DISTRICT: 116.4-11 )
DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE )
REHABILITATION OF EXISTING )
BUILDINGS IN THE SOUTH )
BROADWAY INCENTIVE AREA; )
§16.4-12, B-2, BUSINESS DIS-)
TRICT ; §16.4-13, 1-1, LIGHT )
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT; )
§16.4-5, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT )
(P.D.) DISTRICT; §16.4-17, )
FENCES AND RETAINING WALLS )
AND §16.4-18, LANDSCAPING )
ORDINANCE. )
$,
A Public Hearing was held at a Special Meeting of the City
Planning and Zoning Commission on May 14, 1985, in connection with
Case No. 10-85 in the City Council Chambers in the Englewood City Hall.
The following members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission were
present. Messrs. Barbre, Carson, Beier, Magnuson, Venard, Stoel, and
Gourdin. Mr. McBrayer and Mr. Allen were absent.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Upon review of the evidence taken in the form of testimony,
presentations, reports, and the draft of the proposed amendments to the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance concerning the R-3, High Density Residen ce
District; the B-1, Business District; the Design Guidelines for the Re-
habilitation of Existing Buildings in the South Broadway Incentive Area;
the B-2, Business District; the 1-1, Light Industrial District; the
Planned Development (P.D.) District; Fences and Retaining Walls; and
the Landscaping Ordinance, the City Planning and Zoning Commission make s
the following Findings of Fact:
1. That proper notice of the Public Hearing was given in
the Englewood Sentinel, the official City Newspaper, on April 24, 1985.
2 . That these sections of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
were adopted by the City Council in 1984 as a part of a comprehensive
updating and revision t o the Ordinance.
•
I •
•
•
• •
-2-
3. That in working with these sections of the Ordinance, it
has become apparent that minor discrepancies exist and some issues are
not addressed.
4. That the problem areas pointed out are as follows:
a. In 116.4-8, R-3 High Density Residential District:
1) A development plan shall be required for a develop-
ment having one or more acres in area.
2) A development plan approval shall be required for
retirement or senior citizen housing, rest homes
and nursing homes.
3) Minimum separation between principal buildings
should be clarified.
4) Home Occupations should be clarified.
5) Specific truck weight standards are necessary.
b. In 116.4-10, B-1, Business District:
1) Public buildings should be included as a Permitted
Principal Use.
c. In 116.4-11, Design Guidelines for the Rehabilitation
of Existing Buildings in the South Broadway Incentive
Area.
1) Projecting sign faces should be parallel with no
separation between the faces.
d. In the B-2 Zone District, 116.4-12:
1) Conditional Use approval should be required for
sales lots for new and used automobiles, motor
vehicles, recreational vehicles, boats, trailers
or motorcycles subject to the following conditions:
a) The dealer should be licensed by the State of
Colorado.
b) A minimum 10 foot front yard setback which
is landscaped should be provided. On corner
lots, the sideyard setback should be 5 feet
for a distance of 100 feet behind the front
property line.
c) A minimum of four parking spaces should be
provided for customer and employee parking.
d) There should not be more than one car for
each 200 square feet of exterior car sales
lot space •
•
I •
-
•
•
• •
-3-
e) A clear 12 foot wide drive lane should be
provided.
f) Lighting should be directed onto the premises.
g) Signs should comply with the Sign Code.
h) Vehicles should not be displayed with the
bumpers more than four feet above the ground.
i) Fencing along the front yard should not exceed
42" in height and should not be of woven wire material.
j} A drainage plan should be submitted.
k) A site plan should be submitted.
2) Conditional Use approval should be required for
automobile service stations with the following
standards:
a) Automotive repair, painting, body and fender
work shall be prohibited.
b) There shall be no less than a 20 foot setback
for the building and a five foot setback for
the pumps.
c) Standards shall be given for setback of displays
and of stored merchandise along with screening of trash.
d) Lighting shall be directed onto the premises.
e) Outside activity except for sales of motor
fuel shall be prohibited.
f) There shall be screening where the use abuts
a residential area.
g) Landscaping shall be provided.
3) There shall be development requirements for minimum
setbacks for interior and corner lots.
4) That all of the above conditions for sales lots
and gasoline service stations shall be taken into
consideration by the Planning Commission before
approving the proposed Conditional Use.
e. In 116.4-13, I-1, Light Industrial District:
1) A Planned Development shall be filed for d evelop-
ment of any lot having one or mor e acres in area •
•
I • •
-•
• •
-4-
f. In 116.4-15, Planned Development (P.D.) District:
1) A density increase through the variance process
shall not be allowed without the approval of the
City Council.
g. In 116.4-17, Fences and Retaining Walls:
1) The issue of being able to have a closed face
fence on the front of the lot has been made con-
sistent throughout the requirements.
2) Provision for repairing damaged fences is included.
3) Barbed wire is prohibited in business zone districts.
4) Sight visibility is addressed for corner lots with
the sight distance defined.
g. In 116.4-18, the Landscaping Ordinance:
1) Property will be required to comply with the Land-
scape Ordinance when there is a change in the use
of the property as determined in the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance.
2) Clarification is made that street trees are in
addition to the minimum living plant material re-
quirement.
5. That the Planning Commission and Planning staff, after
working with these subject sections of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance,
have identified the above problems.
6. That no one testified to the proposed changes to §16.4-8,
R-3; 116.4-10, B-1; 116.4-11, Design Guidelines; 116.4-13, I-1; 116.4-15,
Planned Development, 116.4-17, Fences and Retaining Walls, and 116.4-18,
Landscaping.
7. That the following persons testified in relation to the
proposed amendments to 116.4-12, B-2 Business District:
a. Greg Thompson, 4528 South Broadway (Classic Cars).
b. Lloyd Dreiling, 3247 South Broadway (Kearns).
c. John Seago, 3131 South Broadway (Coach).
d. Bob Bahne, 4550 South Broadway (Valley Motors).
e. Dan O'Bryan , 4201 South Broadway (O'Bryan's Motors).
f. John C. Cook, 3150 South Broadway (South Broadway Best).
g. Phil Palmer, 4264 South Broadway (Watson Motors).
h. Larr y Corwin, 3232 South Broadway (Credit Mo tors).
I • •
•
•
•
• •
-5-
i. Bruce Cairns, 4732 South Broadway (Cairns Conomy Cars).
j. Thomas Gerlick, 4808 South Broadway (Gerlick Motors).
k. Ken Kauffman, 4400 South Broadway (Ken's Quality Cars).
1. Bernice Taylor, 2290 and 4490 South Broadway.
m. Jim Bahne, 4550 South Broadway (Valley Motors).
n. Richard Funk, 3787 South Broadway (Richard's Motors).
o. Lavinia Weems, 4851 South Lincoln (neighbor).
p. Dave Wegner, 4677 South Broadway.
q. Harry Lester, 5155 South Broadway (Harry's Specialty Auto).
r. James Higday, 4970 South Washington (Councilman District III).
8. That the nature of the testimony received relative to the
proposed amendments to 116.4-12 were:
a. The minimum 10 foot front yard setback and five foot set-
back for a distance of 100 feet on the short street side
of corner lots would restrict the use of the property by
taking away valuable display area for car inventory and
that this would cut the space available to display in-
ventory by as much as 40%.
b. The requirement providing four customer and employee
parking spaces is too restrictive, and that on-street
parking is available for customers and employees.
c. The 200 square feet of exterior car lot space for the
display of one car is excessive and should be reduced.
d. The 12 foot-wide drive lane should not be necessary
for emergency access because the lots along South
Broadway are only 125 feet deep.
e. Complying with the lighting requirement ·should n ot pose
a problem.
f. Complying with the Sign Code requirements should no t
pose a problem.
g. The auto display rack regulation was not an issue .
h. The ability to install a woven wire fence a c ross the
front of the property to a height of six feet is
ne cessary to stop car and petty theft and would d e-
c rease th e c o st of insurance to the auto dea ler .
I •
•
• ..
-6-
i. A drainage plan would not be a burden.
j. Many of the auto dealers who testified wanted to know why
the regulations were imposed, and what problems are
caused by the sales lots.
k. All the dealers testifying felt the Ordinance should
not be retroactive.
9. Mrs. Lavinia Weems, 4851 South Lincoln Street, a property
owner in the vicinity of an auto sales lot business also testified, and
a letter from Mrs. Dorothy Schmidt, 4085 South Lincoln Street, was en-
tered into the record.
10. Testimony received from Mrs. Weems was as follows:
a) Employees from the car dealers park on residential
streets.
b) The car dealer parks inventory on residential streets.
c) The alleys are used for washing and moving vehicles
from the auto dealership and make it inconvenient for
adjacent residents to have access to their property
and/or to park in front of their property.
11. Testimony from Hr. Jim Higday, 4970 South Washington Street,
and City Councilman from District II, called attention to complaints he
has received from citizens that:
a ) There have been violations to ordinances such as the
Sign Code and Landscaping Ordinance by car dealers.
b) In some cases, the car dealers have created a dangerous
situation for Englewood citizeRs by parking cars over
the sidewalk, thus denying pedestrians unobstructed
pathways.
c) Many problems have come to the attention of City Council
through citizen complaints.
12. That after hearing the testimony of Mrs. Weems and Mr.
Higday, some car dealers present during the testimony felt the problems
could be corrected by enforcing current codes.
13. That some car dealers who were present indicated a willing-
ness to work with the City to develop reasonable regulations.
14. That the memorandum dated Hay 1, 1985, and addressed to
the attention of the City Planning and Zoning Comndssion was entered
into the record identifying the proposed changes to the cited sections
of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.
15. That the Publi c Hearing was closed at 10:00 P. M.
16. Thot the proposed changes to sections 16.4-8, 16.4-10,
I • •
•
•
• •
-7-
16.4-11, 16.4-13, 16.4-15, 16.4-17, and 16.4-18 of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance which were considered at the Public Hearing, were ap-
proved by the Commission and referred to the City Council.
16. That after consideration of the testimony submitted relative
to §16.4-12, B-2 Business District, a study session is necessary to refine
the proposed amendments.
CONCLUSION
1. That proper notice of the special Public Hearing was given.
2. That 16 persons addressed the Commission in opposition to
amendments to 116.4-12, B-2 regulations.
3. That two persons addressed the Commission concerning problems
that adversely affect the public as a result of the motor vehicle sales
businesses.
4. That no one spoke in favor of or in opposition to the
other sections of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance which were the sub-
ject of the Public Hearing.
5. That additional consideration is necessary to refine the
proposed requirements which would set minimum land use standards for
motor vehicle sales dealers within the City.
6. That the proposed regulations to the R-3, B-1, Design
Guidelines, I-1, Planned Development, Fences and Retaining Walls, and
Landscaping sections of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance will address
the areas of concern pointed o-u.t by the Planning Staff.
RECOMMENDATION
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Planning and
Zoning Commission to the City Council that the proposed revisions to the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, 116.4-8, R-3 High Density Residence Dis-
trict; §16 .4-10, B-1, Business Zone District; §16.4-11, Design Guidelines;
§16.4-13, I-1 Light Industrial Zone District; 116.4-15 Planned Develop-
ment District; §16.4-17 Fences and Retaining Walls and §16.4-18 Landscaping
Ordinance, be adopted, and that further consideration by the City Planning
and Zoning Commission be given to §16.4-12, B-2 Business District.
Upon the vote on a motion made at the Public Hearing held
Ma y 14, 1985 by Mr. Magnuson and seconded by Mr. Stoel. Those members
voting in favor of the motion: Messrs. Barbre, Beier, Carson, Magnuson,
Venard, Stoel, and Gourdin.
Messrs. Allen and McBrayer were absent.
By Ordpr of the City Planning and Zoning Commission.
G. Venard, Chafrmnn
•
I • •
•
•
• -
CI TY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Ma y 14, 1985
I . CALL TO ORDER.
The Special Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission vas called to
order b y Chairman Venard at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Barbre, Beier, Carson, Magnuson, Stoel, Gourdin, Venard.
MEMBER S ABSENT: Allen, McBrayer.
ALSO PRESENT: D. A. Romans, Assistant Director of Community Development.
Susan T. King, Senior Planner.
II.
Jack Olsen, City Attorney.
PUBLIC HEARING.
Proposed Changes in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance:
Section 16.4-8, R-3, High Density Residence District
Sec tion 16.4-10, B-1 Business District
CAS E #lQ-85
Se c tion 16.4-11, Design Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of Existing
Buildings in the South Broadway Incentive Area
Sec tion 16 .4-12, B-2 Business District
Sect i on 16.4-13, I-1 Light Industrial District
Section 16.4-15, Planned Development (P.D.) District
Se c tion 16.4-17, Fences and Retaining Walls
Se c tion 16 .4-18, Landscape Ordinance
Carson moved:
Beier seconded: The Public Hearing be opened for Case #10-85.
AYES : Ba rbre, Beier, Carson, Ma gnuson, Stoe1, Gourdin , Venard.
NAYS: None .
ABSE NT: Allen, Mc Bray er .
ABSTA I N: No ne .
The Chairman stated that he ha d proof of public n o tice that the p ro pose d changes
were pub l ished in the Englewood Sentinel on April 24 , 1985. He stated that the
Commi s sion would hear testimony on each o f the Sections i n o r d er.
Se c t ion 16 .4-8 , R-3. There were no spe akers i n f avo r of or opposed to this Se c t ion.
Section 16.4-10, B-1. There were no speakers in favor of or opposed to this Section.
Section 16.4-11, Design Guidelines. There were no speakers in favor of or opposed
t o this Section.
Se c tion 16.4-12, B-2 . Mr. Venard asked if there was a Staff presentati on .
Mrs. Romans narrated slides showing many of the used and new car sales lots in
En g lewood along South Broadway in the B-2 Zone District. A slide was also
shown of a car l o t in an I-1 district, which car lot was not screen ed fr om the
ad jacent residential district.
Mr. Venard said that the first Section of t h e B-2 to be considered wa s "c",
Permitted Princi pal Uses.
Mr. Greg Thompson
4528 South Broadway -was swo rn in for testimony. He asked if the us es listed in tl.
Section were the only uses p r mitted in the B-2 Zone District. Mrs. Romans
•
I • •
•
•
• -
-2-
s aid that any use permitted in the B-1 would also be permitted in this district .
No type of car dealership would be included as a Permitted Use.
The Chairman asked if there were any speakers who wished to speak concerning
Section "e" of the proposed Conditional Use Section. Because there were lllllny
people wishing to address this issue, a Sign-in Sheet was used, and the Chairman
called names from this Sheet.
Lloyd Dreiling, Kearns Jeep
3247 South Broadway -was sworn in for testimony. He stated that some of the
requirements proposed would affect whether his business could stay in Englewood.
He said that he agr.eed that some of the conditions of car lots should be changed,
but the City and the dealers should work together to solve those problems. He
asked that the Commission think before doing something which, in his opinion,
everyone would regret later. He said that his business has a payroll of $352,000,
with Federal taxes of $28,000, State taxes of $78,000, unemployment of $27,000,
sales taxes of $30,000. If his business is restricted on space, they would have
to look for a new location.
Mr. Dreiling objected t o the setback requirement in front and the required grass
which would make the ground soft. He stated that many years before they had
grass, and people would drive across it. The business needs a fence. There were
thefts and vandalism twice a week before the fence was installed, and the fence
lowered the insurance rates, and saved aggravation.
Mr. Stoel asked if there were any parts of the proposed changes which Mr.
Dreiling could support. He said there were not. In our country, people have
always been able to go into busines s by themselves, and this proposal would
discourage people from starting businesses.
John Seago, Coach Exchange
3131 South Braodway -was sworn in for testimony. He said that he had been on
that corner for 8 years in the car business. He said he was opposed to the
proposed changes. If he had to give ten feet from the front of the lot and
five feet on the side, his inventory would be cut 40%; and, therefore, his
business would be cut 40%. He has a fence around the property, and this fence
has protected his lot from vandalism and theft. Before the fence was installed,
he lost eleven or twelve cars, 30 to 40 t oppers, several hundred batteries, tires
and wheels. He called the Police Department many times. Once all his keys were
stolen ; the police said they would watch the lot, but one of his cars was stolen .
His insurance company required that he fence the property. He tried 42 inch
poles with chains, but thieves either cut the chains or drive cars right through
or over the chains.
He described several thefts that his business had suffered. He said that most
of the crimes were commit ted by juveniles, and even when they were caught, no
restitution was made, and the cases were not prosecuted. He finally put in a
six foot fence, and the thefts have ceased. He has an ala rm in th building .
He s aid that he runs a small business, and if his business is cut 40 ~, he will
be out of business. The police cannot give him the prote c tion h needs without
a fenc . The c han ges are atta cking his livelihood.
Ther were no questions from the Commission.
Bob Bahne, \'alley Motors
4550 South Braodway -was sworn in for te s timony. He stated that, in his opinion,
the proposal t o impose lands caping , inv ntory and fen cing re gula tions on the car
dealers in Englewood is unfair, anti-business , discriminat o r y and shows a restraint
of trad He said that Valley Mo tors is a model dealership, and ha an excellent
overall appearance. He said that th r are b e tter pla c e s t o b gin be au tification
I • •
(
•
• ..
-3-
programs , and po inted out that in the 3400 block of South Braodway , a fire
a buil d ing 2 ~ years ago , and the siteis still waiting for beautification.
pointed to all the unpaved alleys with mudholes and weeds. There are many
and bus inesses which need more attention than car dealerships. Soon there
be enough beautification to drive out all the businesses from the City of
En g lewood. He said that the new regulations should not be passed.
ruined
He
areas
would
Mr . Venard asked if any of the regulations would be acceptable. Mr. Bahne said
that some planting would be acceptable, but the ten feet of property required
would be very expensive, especially since their business had already given up
ten feet at the rear of the lot because of requirements for loading. They cannot
afford any more. He has geraniums planted on his property, and would be in favor
of a tree. He said he is in favor of trees and vegetation, but not when they
interfere with his livelihood. There were no further questions of Mr. Bahne.
Dan O'Bryan, O'Bryan's Motors
4201 South Broadway -was sworn in for testimony. He asked if the planting and
setbacks of ten feet in front and five feet on the sides were just strictly for
car lots. Mrs. Romans said that this particular section of the ordinance refers
only to car businesses, but there is a landscaping ordinance that applies to
a ll businesses.
Mr . O'Bryan asked if the p u rpose of the pro posal was to hide the cars . He said
30% of h i s business wa s de p enden t on people wh o drive by the lot seeing cars,
a nd c oming in to buy .
Mr. Carson said that the p ur po s e o f the hearing was to listen to wh a t the dealers
th ink about the matter.
Mr. O'Bryan said it i s absu r d t o take ten f eet from his property and force him
t o mov e all his cars back. Th ere wer e n o further questions of Mr. O'Bryan.
Joh n C. Cook, South Broadwa y 's Be st
31 50 Sou t h Broadway -was sw o r n i n f o r tes t imon y . He said h e moved to this location
in 197 5, and this property wa s a ma jor inves t me nt for l1im . He is now the landlord
of that l ocat ion, a nd colle cts hi h rent . Th e lot l o oks g ood, the buildings are
n ice, a n d it is ma int ained we ll. He s aid n o imp r ovements need t o be made. He
is part icularly op posed t o t he requ ired ten fo ot setba ck , one car per 200 square
f e et , a n d t he tw elve foot land requ iremen ts . He said that tho s e requirements
would take 50% of t h e display a r e a. His rent would go down 50%. He collects
$30 ,000 a y ear i n rent. Departme nt stores and sho e s tor es h ave showc ases and
displays u sing all of their a rea. Car lots need t o u s e all t h eir area for
display. His lot will be worth less than he paid for it ten years a go i f the
regulations are passed. He said that other parts of t he proposal are obj e c tionab le,
but those three issues are his principal objection.
Phil Palmer, Watson Motors
4267 South Broadway -was s worn in for testimony . Mr . Palmer said tha t h e
had testified during the hearings for the Sign Code, a nd lost that case. He
said the businesses are fighting for their lives i n th is matter. He h ad n o
objection to nature or beauty, but the lots need their square footage t o
advertise and show th ir cars. Every square foot is needed . The City t ook
away much of their adv rtising ability with the Sign Code, and now wants t o
r gulate their invent ory. H consid red this poor management, whi c h wou ld hurt
the large businesses and would drive t he small businesses out of business.
He said most of th slides shown early in the meeting showed attractive lots.
There are only a few which need some regulations, and t hey will be out of
business because customers will n o t go to those lots to buy. Mr. Palmer s aid
that if the proposals ar passed, we will have a color-coordinated city, and the
only things that will surviv ar the shrubs , not the businesses, and certa i nly
•
I • •
(
•
•
• •
-4-
not his b usi ness . There wer e n o questions from the Commission for Mr. Palmer.
Larry Corw in , Credit Mo tors
3232 South Broadway -was sworn in for testimony. He said that, in his opinion,
the proposed changes were ill-advised. He said that car dealerships bring in
people to the City, n o t just for cars, but also to Cinderella City and nearby
restaurants. He said most of the car lots look good. He said he could not
afford to give ten feet for greenery. The lots should be neat, but he and
his family, life, workers, and 2,000 people would be affected when these
businesses fail. He said that h e agreed that the lots should be cleaned and
no cars should be parked on the sidewalk. Many lots in Denver are smaller. He
said that he thinks the car dealerships are being discriminated against and the
City is trying to drive them out of business.
Bruce Cairns, Cairns Conomy Cars
4732 South Broadway -was sworn in for testimony . He said that he appreciates
the procedure which gives opportunity for the dealers to give information . Mr.
Cairns said that Englewood and car dealers should be working together to promote
the fact that the car dealer strips along South Braodway give more variety of
cars presented in a good way than any anywhere else. The Urban Renewal should
help t he lots tha t are not up to standard, and this would help all the City.
He asked if there had been complaints about the lots. Mrs. Romans , in response
to the Commission's question, said that she had not received any personally.
Mr. Cairns asked that this be noted in the record. He said that car businesses,
like other businesses, are concerned with meeting the payroll. Mr. Venard asked
that Mr . Cairns keep his testimony concerned with the proposed changes to the
Ordinanc e .
Mr. Cairns particularly objected to the ten foot setback requireme nt, and warned
that the changes would be unconstitutional and would result in litigation because
the car d ealers have n o t been confronted with the witnesses a gainst them, and it
is unreasonable seizure of property. He said that car dealers would need help
paying for these regulations. He said that the front ten feet are the most
valuable in the car business; and, after asking for a show of hands in the audience,
he asked that the record show that no one in the audience disagreed with him.
Mr. Cairns said that making these businesses Conditional Uses would discriminate
against his business. The car dealers need the fences, and without them would
need much heavier police protection. He said that the Fire Department can reach
any p lace on his lot without an acc ess lane. He said that passing these proposals
would be making ex post facto laws; and the dealers worry not only about being
forced to meet these requirements, but new ones later. The rules should be
limited only to businesses which are new or being remodeled.
Mr. Magnuson asked Mr . Cairns to look at the proposed ordinance on page 3
(see attached proposed ordinance pages 2, 3, and 4). He stated that Mr. Cairns
had opposed Sections (i), (iii) and (viii), and asked if he would address (ii),
parking for customers and employees. Mr. Cairns said that South Broadway has
tw o -hours parking on Broadway, and until recently this was strictly enforced. He
said there is no need to provide four spaces for parking.
Mr. Ma gnuson referred to Section (v), concerninR the directin of lighting. Mr.
Cairns said that 11 hts ar need d for protection and adverti.inp, but should
not be allow d to bother th neighbors.
Mr. Magnus o n ask d about the Si n Code, Section (vi). Mr. Cairns said h did
no t kn ow.
Mr. MaRnuson asked about (vii), the regulating of the display racks which
position bumpers more than four feet above th e ground. Mr. Cairns says it is
•
I • •
•
•
• •
-5-
a marketin g te c hnique , and while he is not affected, it should be a free market
d ecision .
Mr. Ma gnus on asked about {viii). Mr. Cairns said that existing businesses
should not be required to comply. Passing this Section would require greater
investment of time by the police department. Some people do not want fences,
but it should be up to the dealer.
Mr. Magnuson said that this Public Hearing was intended to receive testimony
from anyone affected by the proposed ordinance, and the testimony should be
restricted to that so that the Commission can make an informed decision.
Mr. Gourdin asked if the dealers would accept a peer group as a regulating
authority. Mr. Cairns said that there is already an organization, Independent
Auto Dealerships . He suggested that the City contact that organization.
There were no f u rther questions of Mr. Cairns.
Thomas Gerlick, Gerlick Motors
4808 South Broadway -was sworn in for testimony. He stated that his three main
objections to the proposed changes were the ten foot setback with required
lands c aping, the 12 foot access drive and the minimum of four spac es of off-street
p arki ng. Of lesser c onc ern is the 200 square feet required for ea ch car. He
sa i d t h e s mall lot owners would not be able to comply and remain in business.
The y purcha sed the property in good faith, and if the proposal s are p a ssed,
the i r a bility to make a liv ing will be jeopardized. He had no obj ections to the
othe r items.
Mr. Ca r s on asked Mrs. Romans about {iv). Mrs . Romans said this would require
a tw e lve f o ot lane on the site available for access by emergenc y vehicles. Mr.
Ge r li c k said any e mer gency vehic le should be able to reach anything when the
dep t h o f the l o t is usually only only about 125 feet deep.
Mr. Barbre asked how mu c h square footage is used for each o f Mr. Ge r lic k's
cars. He s a id he uses about 180 square feet, and this is one of his lesser
o bj e c tions .
Ke n Kauffman, Ken's Qua l ity Cars
44 0 0 Sou t h Broadw ay -wa s swo r n in fo r testimony . He asked t h e Commis sion to
consider how the p rop osed laws would affect hi s busines s . Con c erni n g t h e setback
and parking requirements, he s aid he has 7 5 feet o f f rontage and the lot is not
very deep. He has 30 cars on display. Wi th the ten f oot setback, a nd the five
foot side setbacks, and the 200 square foot r equirement, his inventory would
be reduced and only 19 units could be displayed. He could not survive a s a
business. He already has a drive lane, and has no objection to the lightin g
and Sign Code requirements, but the display rack has never injured anyone,
and, while risky to the dealer from a theft of parts standpoint, should be
permitted. He said the fencing would lower insurance rates, although he does
no t like the fences. He said h~ has been fortunate in not being seriously
affect d by thefts of cars , but he has had petty theft and vandalism.
Ther were no questions of Mr . Kauffman.
Bernie Taylor , o•~er of 2900 and 4490 South Broadway -was sworn in for testimony. She stat ed
th a t her husband h as been in the car business for 15 years. At 2900 South
Br oadway they sold classic cars for three years, puttin~ up a six foot
fence after tw o y ars. They prefer a corner lot because there is mo re frontaGe.
They wer driven off of South Broadway because of the thefts. She said that the
b a utification attempt seems to be directed to only car dealers. Mr. Venard
•
I •
•
•
•
• •
-6-
said this Section does apply only to car dealers, but there is a landscape
ordinance which applies to the other businesses. She said any new laws should
apply only to new businesses, and passing this ordinance would take away
property from the owners. She had no objection to sign regulation and lighting
regulations, but asked that their property not be confiscated.
Mr. Venard asked if there would be objections if these regulations applied only
to new businesses. Mrs. Taylor said she agreed that there are areas of South
Broadway in need of beautification, but it cannot be done immediately, and the
City cannot confiscate property that has been owned for some time.
Mr. Jim Bahne, Valley Motors
4550 South Broadway -was sworn in for testimony. He stated he opposed every
item of the proposed changes except the adherence to the Sign Code. He aaid
that not all the regulations would directly affect his business, but not all
businesses are the same. He said that, in his opinion, the proposals are
discriminatory. He said downtown Englewood looks bad, and asked why only car
dealers were being regulated. The State and Federal laws are already a burden
with meaningless laws (window stickers were given as an example). He invited
the Planning Commission to visit his lot. He said the proposed law would take
ten feet of his property which is needed for display and parking. He asked that
the Planning Commission thoroughly research the subject. He said that of all
of the car dealers present, Mr. Higday contacted only the largest dealer.
Mr. Carson said he had walked by all the lots. Mr. Bahne asked Mr. Carson to
come in and have a cup of coffee, and Mr. Bahne would show him how the business would be negatively affected.
Richard Funk, Richard's Motors
3787 South Broadway -was sworn in for testimony. He said that he has artificial
landscaping , which is more efficient. He has 12,500 square feet of property, and
about 1,662 square feet is used for the building. The new requirements would
take 3,81 3 square feet, leaving him 7,025 square feet for car display. Using the
price h e p a id for the property, he would be donating to the City $51,322, and
he thinks the land is worth more than that.
He s a id he has a chain link fence on the back of the property because he sells
Corvet tes . He has made many complaints to the police about theft and vandalism,
and has yet t o hav e o ne d o llar returned. He is insured, but there is $1,000
d educt i ble. He has been c onsidering building a showroom for security or adding
a fence in fro n t. The new regulations would prohibit either option for protection.
He said he had n o obj e ct i o n to the Sign Code regulation, but needs to have good lighting to prevent thef t.
There were no q uestions of Mr . Funk.
Mrs . Lavina Weems
4851 South Lincoln -was swo rn in for testimony . She stat e d that she is a neighbor
of one of the car lots. She said tha t Bi l l Crou c h's Mi ts ubishi e mp l o ye e s park
in front of her h ouse. Ne w ca r s are p arked on the street f o r we e k s at a time.
She said that they shoul d be l i mi ted t o parkin g o n the i r l o t . Sh e s a id tha t
the rec r ational vehicle lot on 4 800 So u th Bro adw ay was h es the v e hi c les near
the alley, the water drains into t h e unpaved a ll ey and ma k es the a l ley a mudh o le.
The r sidents are una b le t o u s e the alley be c au se o f th e mud. Th e l o t s sho uld
be requir d t o h ave dr ain s o n th e lots or t o pav e the all eys. Th e asphal t on
the lots makes the wa t er r un i n t o the al ley. Sh e said Br o adway will b e like
Colfax if any mo r e car dealer s move i n. There we r e n o q u e s ti o n s of Mrs. We ems .
•
I •
•
•
• •
-7-
Dav e Wegner
4677 South Broadway -was sworn in. He stated that he is opposed to the new
ordinance. He has a leasing company which moved into Englewood two months
ago, and he would not have located in Englewood if he had known of these
proposed regulations. He said that the regulations are discriminatory, and will
prevent business. He said they are ill-prepared, and the Commission should agree with him.
Hary Lester, Harry's Specialty Auto
5155 South Broadway -was sworn in for testimony. He said that he is confused
about the intention· of the ordinance; he asked if it is to beautify Englewood,
bring in revenue or get rid of all the used car dealers on South Broadway.
He said that it appears that the intent is to get rid of all the used car
dealers. He said he has a chain link fence around his lot, and that it has
kept him in business. The theft was horrendous. He said the building next
to his property is right on the sidewalk. They should have to remove their
building if he has to provide ten feet alo~g the front of his property. He
said that there is a Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News stand attached to a
bus bench in front of his property; and this stand looks much worse than anything
on his lot. He said that people come from out of state to see his car lot because
they have heard about his lot. He said bad car lots will go out of business.
He maintains his property, and the new rules would only cost money and would not help Englewood.
Jim Higday
4970 South Washington -was sworn in for testimony. He stated that he is the
Englewoo d Councilman for District III. He said that this is a serious situation
for the people in District III. There have been many people who responded to
it. The City has received a lot of response. He said the Planning Commission
will consider the matter, pass, reject or ammend it and send it on to City
Coun cil for final decision. He said that the motive for the regulations was
that there had been many complaints. He said that there is a serious problem,
and he asked that the Planning Commission consider the matter carefully. He
said that what is done about the problem may be negotiable, but something must
be done. He said there are many car dealers along South Broadway who are welcome
assets to the City, but there are some who, in his opinion, shouldn't be in Englewood.
Hr. Steel asked what the problem is. Hr. Higday said that the problem is the
increasing number of used car lots. Nearly every time a property is vacant a
car dealer moves in. He said that he had no objections until citizens said the
lots were blatantly disregarding the Sign Code and Landscaping Ordinance even
after repeated requests to comply. There has been a safety problem because
autos are being parked on the sidewalk, leaving no place for people to walk.
If people walk across the lot, they are ordered off. There is no place for
employees to park, and in many cases, no place to park emergency equipment. Cars
are so close together that a fire would spread through the cars, and the Fire
Department could not prevent that . Some of the cars for sale are being parked
on South Br oadway. Some of the dealers appear to care neither for safety nor
aesthetics. Revenue to Engelwood is not the point; he is interested in the
safety, convenience and welfare of the people and the City and the ability of the
Fire and Police Departments to provide emergency service.
Mr. Corwin stated that h had not heard that anyone had been injured because
of sidewalk parkin g. H asked for specifics. He said that it is usually
custome rs wh o park on the sidewalk, and he has always asked them to move.
The problem has nothing t o do with the car dealers. The dealers want t o make
a living and get alan~ with the City. He quoted ~lr. Higda y 's remarks to the
•
I • •
•
•
• •
-8-
Englewood Sentinel, saying that the atmosphere on South Broadway is not
conducive to used car lots. Hr. Corwin said that it is conducive, or they
would not remain on South Broadway. Mr. Corwin said that, if there had been
such a tremendous uproar from the citizens, more than one citizen would have
attended the meeting. He said there are houses in Englewood that are health
hazards, and the City should do something about that.
Mrs. Romans entered a letter into the record, which was read by Mr. Venard:
TO: Gerry Venard, Chairman Planning Commission and
TO: Councilman Higday
For Meeting May 14, 1985
FROM: Dorothy Schmidt
4085 South Lincoln
I am unable to attend your hearing, but I took pictures May 3, 1985
and am attaching these with notations. Our neighborhood has had
a constant battle with car dealers, repair shops who use our streets
as a dumping area for car (sic) in all states of repair and disrepair, some unlicensed.
It seems that in line with the Council's new sign ordinance and the do~~town area renewal that helping residents keep the streets free
of extra cars would not be unreasonable.
Hy understanding is that from the alley west to Broadway is zoned
business. From the alley east to Lincoln is zoned R-2. How then
can car dealers use our streets as a parking lot?
First picture--"Corner of Broadway and Nassau. Taken 5-3-85." with a note
stating "Junked for weeks" with an arrow to a car on the south side; on the
north side "a sign by door 'Hack's Little Lot' apparently from a dealer who
moved out further South on Broadway. Sign overhead is Little Wheels Saab repair.
3998 South Broadway." There is also a notation "drive way to AMCO".
There were also two pictures taken on 5-3-85 showing cars with no license, a
blocked driveway to a garage. The garage belongs to Bob Neudock, 3997 South
Lincoln . Picture three showed a c ar parked on the street with a dealer tag.
On page 4 of the letter were two more pictures taken 5-3-85. One showed a car
with no license wh ich was parked going the wrong way on Nassau, near the same
property, and there is a note saying that the car stayed there the 3rd, 4th and 5th of May.
Pi cture 5 was another view of the same car. On page 5, two more pictures show
a car with a dealer tag parked in front o f a residence east of the alley.
Mrs. Schmidt continued:
Th is morning May 14, 1985 the following cars are on the street
East of the alley along Nassau from Broadway to Linc oln.
1-F-150 White pickup with d ealer insignia Colorado Chrysler Plymouth
2-Unlicensed blue Chevrolet (old in disrepair)
3-Unlicensed AHC Eagle
•
I • •
•
•
• •
-9-
They are using these streets as a lot to conduct business. Could
I do that? How long can I leave my car unlicensed?
Councilman Higday, I hope you are able to implement the proper
ordinances to at least keep our streets free from these nuisances.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Dorothy Schmidt
4085 South Lincoln
This letter was entered into the record as Exhibit I, and Mr. Venard said that
it could be viewed if anyone in the audience wished to see it.
Mrs. Romans asked that in Section 16.4-12 e (1) (a) (ii), that the R-2-C/S.P.S.
be added. This is a new zone districtly recently created by the Council, and should be included.
Hr. Bob Bahne, who had already spoken, asked to answer the letter from Mrs.
chmidt. He said it did not apply to the new ordinance. The parking problem
can be solved by enforcing the present ordinance. The cars should be ticketed,
and, if necessary, towed away. He said that the point of the letter was that
the neighbor does not like car dealers. He said that car dealers want to do
the job right. He said if any dealer violates the law, he should be ticketed,
and if it continues, the car should be towed away. He said the main problems
with the proposed ordinance are the ten foot setback, fencing and driveways.
The Chairman declared a five-minute recess at 9:25 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 9:35p.m., with the same people present.
The Chairman asked for further comments. There were none. Mr. Venard thanked people for coming to give input to aid the Commission,
Mrs. Romans asked that additional changes be made in the Landscape Ordinance:
Section 16.4-18 b (1) (a), include R-2-C/S.P.S., also in Section 16.4-18 c (2) (b).
In Section 16.4-18 c (1) (e), add "In all zone districts the street tree
requirements are in addition to the requirements for minimum living plant
material"; (e) becomes (f), (f) becomes (g). It was also noted that Sections
e and f should be changed to d and e in the Landscape Ordinance.
Carson moved:
Gourdin seconded: That the Public Hearing be closed.
AYES: Barbre, Beier, Carson, Magnuson, Stoel, Gourdin, Venard. NAYS: None.
ABSEN T: Allen, McBrayer.
The public hearing was closed.
The members agreed that the B-2 section of the proposed ordinance would requ ire further study.
Ma gnuson moved:
Stoel seconded:
That the changes as published and suggested at this meeting be accer
and passed on to Council, with the ex c eption of the B-2 district.
AY ES: Barbre, Beier, Carson, Magnuson, Stoel, Gourdin, Venard. NAYS: None.
AB SENT: Allen, McBrayer .
•
I • •
•
•
• •
-10-
The motion carried.
Open discussion on the B-2 followed. Hr. Carson suggested a study session to
be held in conjunction with the meeting to be held on Hay 21, 1985. The Commission agreed.
Mr. Steel suggested that the Commission review what had taken place at the
meeting and list its concerns and conclusions from this meeting. He said
that he is not clear as to why the changes were suggested because there does
not seem to be a major problem. The current laws should be enforced. He
said the retroactive nature of the phrasing of the proposed ordinance is,
in his opinion, out of the question; but he would accept the Conditional Use
status for car lots. He suggested keeping Sections (v), (vi) and (vii), permitting
fences, and keeping the drainage and site plan regulations. He said that the
dealers cannot do much landscaping. Items (i) through (iv) should be removed,
in his opinion. The Conditional Use application and he.aring should take care
of problems, and should not require heavy guidelines.
Mr. Beier said that many of the lots are very small with little depth. They
may not be able to meet setbacks. He toured the lots on the north end of
South Broadwa y . The lots seemed acceptable, having driving lanes and no
parking on the sidewalk. The areas should be policed and the ordinance
enforced. Fencing must be allowed. Sections (iv) through (vii) and (ix) should
be retained, and (i) through (iii) and (viii) should be taken out of the proposed
ordinance. He said that he does not think the dealers can pol ice themselves.
Mr. Gourdin said Section (viii) is necessary. Fencing is offensive, and makes
Englewood look like a crime area. He concurred that Sections (i) through (iv)
be removed, and (v) through (vii) and (ix) should be retained. He agreed that
the auto dealers should be conditional uses, and should supply site plans.
Mr. Magnuson said that there should be some setback with landscaping, although
it might not have to be ten feet, and bumpers could stick out over the grass.
He suggested removing (ii), and (iii) should have modification. He said an
access lane was probably not necessary, but suggested keeping (v) and (vi).
He disagreed with (vii) and (viii). The rest was fine. He suggested that
the City should pave all the alleys.
Mr. Barbre agreed that the car lots should be conditional uses, and suggested
reducing the setback to five feet. He said making the law retroactive would
wipe out some of the businesses. He said that there are only a few dealers
causing the problem. He said that other businesses use the curb for customers.
Employees often drive the lot's cars. Section (iii) might be reduced from 200
feet, and (iv} could be reduced. He suggested keeping (v) through (ix).
Mr. Carson disagreed with (i), felt there should be a place for employees to
park, suggested reducing (iii) to 150 square feet, disagreed with (iv), suggested
keepin g (vi) and (v), had no objection to auto display racks above ground level,
and, unless there were evidence that there is a great deal of crime, would agree
with the fencing section.
Mr. Gourdin suggested drafting a letter to the Independent Auto Dealerships,
asking that p eer pressure be applied for improvement in conditions. Mr.
Venard said that some of the 0~1ers of car lots have not been good responsible
cit izens. Some of the speakers offered to meet with the Commission, and he
would like to see a group formed to encourage things to improve. H~ s aid that
he would like the Commission to take plenty of time to make a decision .
•
I • •
-
•
•
•
• •
-11-
Mr. Beier said there should be a minimum lot area required. Mr. Stoel said
that each applicant could bring the matter before the Commission.
Mr. Beier, Mr. Gourdin and Mr. Magnuson, suggested further research into how
neighboring communities are handling this problem.
Mr. carson said there are no fences along Havana or in Littleton and Aurora.
Mrs. Romans said the lots are conditional uses, or require special per.its
in those cities.
Mr. Barbre asked that it be considered that a change in ownership vould require
another conditional uae hearing. Mrs. Romans said that could be stipulated.
Mr. Stoel said that the wave of the future will be indoor showrooms.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Sheryl Rousses, Recording Secretary
•
I • •
•
•
• •
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 7, 1985
I. CALL TO ORDER.
1.
The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called
to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Venard.
Members present: Venard, Allen, Barbre, Beier, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel
Members absent : Magnuson, Gourdin
Also present: D. A. Romans, Assistant Director of Community Development
S. T. King, Senior Planner
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
April 16, 1985
Chairman Venard stated that the Mi nutes of April 16, 198 5 were to be
considered for a pproval .
Carson moved:
Stoel seconded: The Minutes of April 16, 1985 be approved as written.
AYES : Allen, Barbre, Beier, Carson, Stoel, Venard
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: McBray er
ABS ENT: Magnuson, Gourdin
The motion c arried.
III. CENTENNIAL TRADE CENTER II
Subdiv ision Plat
CASE 119 -85
Mr. Venard stated that this matter i s a Public Hea r ing on a preli mina ry
subdivision plat, and ask ed for a mo t i on to op e n the Pub lic He aring.
Carson moved:
Beier seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #9-85 be opened.
AYES: Barbre, Beier, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Venard, Allen
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN : None
ABSENT: Magnuson, Gourdin
The motion carried.
Mr. Venard outlined the procedure to be followed in conducting the
Public Hearing. He stated that statements from t h e applicant and
members of the audience will be taken, and asked that persons speaking
b efore the Commission come to the podium, and be sworn in. Mr. Venard
asked if the staff had anything to add to the staff r e port .
•
I • •
-
•
•
• •
-2-
Ms. King stated that Mr. Clark, property owner and applicant is not (
present, but has designated Miss Jane Ross as his agent, and Miss Ross
will be making the presentation before the Commission. Ms. King presented
Mr. Venard with a letter from Mr. Clark regarding Miss Ross's designation
as his agent. Mr. Venard read the letter aloud, and asked that it be
made part of the record of the hearing.
Mr. Venard asked that Miss Ross come forward.
Miss Jane Ross was sworn in, and testified that she is acting on behalf
of the applicant. Miss Ross stated that she had nothing further to add
to the information that has been submitted to the Commission.
Mr. Carson asked if Miss Ross and the applicant have read the staff re-
port and the staff recommendations. Are the applicant and Miss Ross
willing to incorporate the staff recommendations into the application.
Miss Ross stated that she and the applicant have read the staff report,
and will amend the plan to incorporate the staff recommendations.
Mr. McBrayer asked the types of businesses that are proposed for the de-
velopment. Miss Ross stated that there will be eight businesses in the
complex, one of wh ich will be leasing approximately one-half of the space;
this business is concerned with manufacture of parts for heart and kidney
machines . One buildi ng will belong to the developer, and the remainder
will be leased and/or sold to businesses.
Mr. Venard noted that some problem on drainage had been mentioned in the (
staff report. Mis s Ross stated th e problem is the drainage into the lake;
the City wants the developer to enlarge the detention pon~ on his site to
inhibit the drainage int o the lake. Mi ss Ross stated that plans for the
enlarged detention pond will be submitted to the Department.
Mr. Venard asked if anyone else in the audience wished to speak in favor
of the proposed subdivision plat. No one else spoke in favor of the pro-
posed subdivision. Mr. Venard asked if anyone wished to speak in opposi-
tion to the proposed subdivision. No one spoke in opposition.
Allen moved:
Stoel/Beier seconded: The Public Hearing on Case 09-85 be closed.
Mr. Gourdin entered the meeting.
The vote on the motion was called:
AYES: Beier, Carson, McBrayer, Steel, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Gourdin
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Magnuson
The motion carried.
Mr. Venard announced that notices to adjoining property owners were sent
by Certified Mail.
Mr. Venard outlined the courses of action open to the Commission on the
preliminary subdivision plat, and asked the pleasure of the Commission .
•
I •
•
Carson moved :
Stoel seconded:
•
• •
-3-
The Planning Commission approve the Preliminary Plat of
Centennial Trade Ce n ter II; the following four recom-
mendations are to be incorporated in the Final Plat when
it is submitted for Commission review:
1) The fire hydrant location on Sheet 2 of 4 shall be
consistent with the site plan, and fire lanes ahall
be posted.
2) The sidewalk along South Clay Street shall be four
feet wide.
3) Paving design shall be to Englewood standards.
4) Detention shall be increased to alleviate the sur-
charge conditions.
AYES: Carson, Gourdin, McBrayer, Steel, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Beier
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN : Non e
ABSENT: Magnuson
The motion carrie d.
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT CASE 117-85
Gregg Home s , Inc. Subdivision Waiver
Mr. Venard stated that the Findings of Fact on the Subdivisi on Waiver ap-
prove d for Gregg Homes , Inc . are to be considered for approval.
Barbre moved:
Beier sec onded : Th e findings o f Fac t on Ca se #7-8 5 be approved a s written.
AYES: Go urdin , Stoe l, Vena r d, Allen , Barb r e , Be i er, Carson
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: McBrayer
ABSENT: Magnuson
The motion carried.
V. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE.
Proposed Amendments
Mrs . Rom ans stated that members of the Commission wo u ld recall that she
had polled them by telephone to discuss the possi hili ty of setting a hea r ing
on May 14 to consider amendments to several sections of the Comprehensive
Zon ing Ordinance. One of the proposed amendments would concern the regula-
tions in t h e B-2 Zone District on the automotive sales lots. At the last
Commission meeting on April 16, followi n g a discu ssion of certain conctrn s
of the City Council, it was move d by Mr. S t oel th a t all uses pe r tainin g to
vehicles should be made a Conditional Use in the B-2 Zone District, which
motion was adopt d. There were several other issues that arose following
•
I •
•
•
• •
-4-
initial review by the Oity Council of other districts and sections of the
Ordinance, which are proposed to be amended, and it was the opinion of
staff and counsel that a hearing before the Commission should be scheduled
to consider these issues before they were transmitted to City Council.
This public hearing before the Commission has been scheduled for May 14
at 7:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers. The Commission members were
sent copies of the proposed amendments, and Mrs. Romans asked if the Com-
mission wanted to review the proposed changes point-by-point, or to ask questions on concerns they may have.
Mr. Gourdin asked why barbers, beauticians and cosmetologists are pro-
hibited from operating from their homes in the R-3 Zone District. Mrs.
Romans stated that this has been a practice for many years, and is primarily
related to health factors; no separate facilities are permitted in a home
occupation, and kitchen faciliites may not be used for the washing of
hair, etc. By putting in the separate sink and facilities to accommodate
the "home occupation", it is getting away from the intent that a home oc-
cupation is incidental to the primary use of the residence, and is be-
coming a "business" --not a home occupation.
Mr. Olsen entered the meeting at 7:20P.M.
Mr. Beier asked if there were a number of such "home occupations" operating
out of the home. Mrs. Romans stated that there are not, to her knowledge.
Mr. Gourdin stated that cosmetologists are registered by the St ate Health
Department, and are licens e d. If they me et the other criteria for a home (
occupation, such a s square footag e , etc., why can this operation not be
approved as a home occupation in the R-3 Di stri c ts, or even in the R-2
or R~l Districts . Mrs. Romans di s cusse d the prohibition of this type of business a s a hom e occupation.
Mr. Beier asked for clarification of t he term "development plan". Mrs.
Romans stated that the requirement of a development plan on some tYPes
of development will give a degree of con t rol on the location of the
structures , parki ng, access, etc . Mrs. Roman s cited difficult s i tuations
that have ari s en wi th large de velopments where in no deve lopment p lan wa s
required , and the u ltimate loc a tion o f the b ui lding is not i n the be s t
inte r est o f the surrounding n ei gh borh ood , b ut becaus e no de v elopme n t plan
wa s req u ired , the develop e r could site the building on t h e lot as he c h ose.
Mr s . Romans pointed ou t t h at a development plan would require a public
hearing before the Commission, which would afford adjoining property
owners an opportunity to view the development plans and voice their opinions.
Mrs. Romans cited one a r e a where redevelopment may occur; t h is is in a n
area that is currently zoned for single-family, but the redevelop er will
n ot be interested in single-family redevelopm nt. Mrs . Romans discussed
the con cer n expressed by th e City Council about rezonings involving single-
family areas, and pointed out that if an application for rezoning is
f i led, and specific plans are cited, a development plan would be req u i r ed .
Following approval of that development plan and its subsequent reco r di ng ,
the prop erty owner/develop er would have to comply with tha t approved p l an .
Th is wo u ld give n otice to the adjoining property owners of the specific
tYP e of development or use that is propose d for a subject sit and would
g ive the City Council better control over proposed development .
•
(
I • •
{
•
•
• ..
-5-
Mr. Gourdin asked why mobile home parks were included in the industrial
district as a permitted use. Mrs. Romans stated that until recently,
mobile home parks were not a permitted use in any zone district in Engle-
wood. WHERE, a group of mobile home owners/residents along South Santa
Fe Drive and Dartmouth Avenue, has formed a co-op for the mobile home
park residents in the area. Santa Fe Drive is to be widened, and the
State could not relocate these residents. The residents indicated they
wanted to remain in this area, and asked the City for assistance in im-
proving their mobile home parks. In order to secure financing, they asked
that mobile home parka be made a permitted use in the light industrial dis-
trict, which the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council, and
the City Council ultimately approved.
Mr. Gourdin expressed concern about the high noise levels along Santa Fe
and the industrial area, and the effects this noise level would have on
families and children residing in the mobile home parks. He asked if
the noise level from adjoining businesses can be controlled. Mrs. Romans
stated that the City does have a noise control ordinance, enforced by the
Police Department. This noise control ordinance applies to the entire
City. Further discussion ensued.
Mr. McBrayer pointed out that this group of people, WHERE, came to the
City and pleaded to remain in this area and for assistance in improving
the mobile home parks. They asked to become a permitted use in the in-
dustrial zone district. The City complied with the wishes of the residents
of the area.
Mr. Venard asked if Mr. Go urdin was aware that sound barriers will be in-
stalled by the State Hi ghway Department. Mr. Gourdin stated that he is
aware of the proposed sound barriers, but pointed out that wooden sound
barriers do not have that much impact on reducing the noise level, and
that the people will not really be protected with a wooden barrier.
Mr. Venard asked for clarification on the proposed change of signage in
the Design Guidelines section. Mrs. Romans stated that this amendment
was devised in an effort to solve some of the problems that have been
experienced in working with the ordinanc e.
Mr. Stoel stated that at the last meeting, he did make a motion that all
auto-related uses be a Conditional Use in the B-2 Zone District; however,
he is of the opinion that the proposed restrictions will not achieve what
he wanted, and will drive people out of business. Mr. Stoel stated that
he wanted to see a set of guidelines developed, and that approval for
the used/new car sales lots would be given on a one-to-one basis after
applying to the Commis3ion. Mr . Stoel stated that he is not in favor
of making the regulations retroactive as is proposed. He is further of
the opinion that some of the proposed regulations and restrictions are
ambiguous.
Mrs. Romans stated that each regulation or restriction contained in the
proposal addresses a specific problem that has been noted in the existing
new or used car lots along Broadway. These regulations were drafted by
the City Attorney's office following meetings with members of the City
Coun~il and staff.
Mr. Stoel stated that he f lt if a used car dealer wanted to install a
chain-link fence along his property, h should have that right. Mr •
•
I • •
•
•
• •
-6-
Gourdin asked what need there is for chain-link and barbed wire fencing; (
has the EPD been contacted to determine the number of thefts from vehicles
on the lots.
Mr. Allen asked how the installation of landscaping and lighting would
put these used car dealers out of business. Mr. Allen noted that other
businesses are required to install landscaping and to make other improve-
ments on the property; he asked why the car dealerships should be exempt
from these same provisions. Mr. Stoel stated that his concern is for
the car lots that are in existence at the present time. Mr. Allen stated
that he is in favor of giving them time to make the modifications, and
felt that until 7/1/87 was a reasonable amount of time to comply with
the ordinance.
Mr. Barbre suggested that compliance should be required when the car lot
changed ownership. Mr. Barbre pointed out that there are some smaller
lots along Broadway that might have space for two vehicles if they were
required to provide the driving lanes, employee/customer parking, etc.
that is required in the proposed regulations.
Mr. McBrayer noted that the cost of real estate on Broadway at the present
time seems to be conducive to putting in small car lots vs. constructing
new office buildings.
Mr. Carson stated that he sees no problem with the car lots, but wants
to clean up the City as much as possible. He does see a problem with
putting people out of business.
Mr. Stoel stated that he did not like to see lots where veh icles are parked
all over and across sidewalks; if these lots are creating problems, he
feels the y should have to come before the Commission on a one-to-one basis.
He does not want to see a lot of rules and regulations enacted for one
specific type of business. Mr. Allen pointed out the need for rules and
regulations in order to d eal with the car lots even on a one-to-one basis.
Mrs. Romans asked the reaction of the Commission if the "grandfather"
clause was eliminat ed, and it was worded that the car lot would have to
be brought into compliance when the bus iness changed hands; would this
be more acceptable. Mr. McBrayer stated that he would like it better.
Mr. Barbre asked if all the existing car lots were developed under the
existing laws. Mrs. Romans stated that there are not really any City
laws governing the sale of n e w and used vehicles. They have not had to
provide parking for customers or for employees; they do not have to pro-
vide a driving lane for emergency vehicles. Further discussion ensued.
Mr. Beier suggested that the enactment of these rules and regulations
might force property owners and tenants to adopt the highest and best
use of the land; the highest and best us e of the land might b e an of-
fice building rather than us e as a car sales lot.
Mr. Stoel stated that he agreed the issue needs to be addres s ed, but
suggested that the regulations and restrictions proposed are "a little
much."
Mr. Venard suggested on Item g, Page 5 of a summary, that the wording
be changed to "either bumper" rathe r than "b ump e rs". He d id not f ee l
•
(
I • •
•
•
• •
-7-
the p resent wording eliminated the 45 ° angle of some display vehicles.
The issue of fencing was again discussed. Mr. Gourdin stated that he
doe s not feel it is aesthetically pleasing to see barbed wire atop a
chain-link fence. He would prefer no fencing along car lots. Mr. Stoel
suggested that perhaps insurance companies are requiring that the lots be fenced.
There was no further discussion; the proposed amendments will be considered at Public Hearing on May 14.
VI. PUBLIC FORUM.
There was no one to address the Commission under Public Forum.
VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE .
Mrs. Romans stated that the City Council, at their meeting of May 6,
1985, approved the administrative and general regulations sections of
the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; also the R-1 and R-2 residential
sections and other sections not previously approved by Council. The
ordinance will become final 30 days after publication.
City Council approved the request for rezoning of 3511 South Downing
Street, !~h i ch wa s f i led by Mr. James Plummer, to accommodate a parking
lot for Fratelli's Re staurant .
The City Council approved the Warren/Pecos right-of-way vacation.
Mr s . Romans stated that she was leaving for Philadelphia, PA . on Ma y 8
to attend a Land Us e Law ses sion. If members of the Commission had any
questi ons on Pl anning ma t ters, they were requested to c all Susan King, Senior Planner.
VI II. COMMIS SION 'S CHOICE.
Mr. Allen stated that he wanted to meet with Mr. Carson and Mr. Gourdin
after the meeting to discuss the issue of trash.
Mr. McBrayer reported on the APA Conference in Montreal, which he at-
tended. He stated that he was impressed with the vibrant do~~town area,
and that shopping "malls" are unfamiliar to the people of Montreal. Mr .
McBrayer stated that he did notice a lack of greenery in the City Center.
Mr. McBrayer reported on issues discussed at the Conference itself, such
as the efficiency of the professional staff and staff support of the
Planning Commission; it is a healthy process to discuss to consensus on
an issue after a Hearing is closed, even though members of the audience
may be waiting for a decision; there should be a provision in by-laws
of the Commission for submission of a "minority report" if so desired ;
this should be included with the "Findings of Fact" on each case. Other
issues that were discussed included matters such as: Planning Commissioners
should have input into the hiring and firing of staff; th e Planning Com-
mission may call public hearings for any reason, at an y time if members
I • •
•
•
•
• •
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
April 16, 1985
I. CALL TO ORDER.
The regular meet~ng of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order by Chairman Venard at 7:00 P. H.
Members present: Beier, Carson, Magnuson, Stoel, Venard, Barbre,
Gourdin
Vargas, Ex-officio
Members absent: McBrayer, Allen
Also present: D. A. Romans, Assistant Director of Community Development
S. T. King, Senior Planner
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
April 2, 1985
Hr. Venard stated that the Minutes of April 2, 1985 were to be con-
sidered for approval.
Mrs. Romans pointed out that Messrs. Vargas and Olsen should be shown
as being in attendanc e at the me e ting of April 2. Also, on page three
of the Minutes, Mr s . Roman s noted corrections under "Director's Choice",
these being the striking of the word "possible" in the second line, and
in the fifth line, changing "and" to "or".
Carson moved:
Stoel seconded: The Minutes of April 2, 1985 be approved as amended
on Page s #1 and #3.
AYES : Carson, Stoel, Barbre, Beier
NAY S: Non e
AB STAIN: Ma gnu son, Vena rd , Gourdin
ABSENT: McBrayer, Allen
Chairman Venard ruled the Minutes approved, as amended.
III. GREGG HOMES , INC.
Subdivision Waiver
Parkin g Lot Layout Case 117-85
Case 118-85
Chairman Venard stated that the request filed by Gregg Homes is for con-
sideration of a waiver to the Subdivision Regulations, and for considera-
t ion of the off-street parking layout. Mr. Venard suggested that both
requ es t s be considered duri ng the one discussion , inasmuch as both cases
p ertain to t he same property.
Hr. Allen entered the meeting at 7:10 P. H .
I • •
•
•
• •
-2-
Mr. Venard asked if the staf f had any th i ng t o add t o the s t aff re p ort.
Mrs. Romans stated that the staff had nothing to add, but would answer
questions posed by the Commission.
Mr. Venard asked that the applicant come forward.
Mr. Carson asked if the applicants were in receipt of the staff report,
and if they had read the report. Mr. Jim Wagner, representing Gregg
Homes, replied in the affirmative. Mr. Carson asked if the applicant
agreed with the recommended conditions contained in the staff report,
and if they would agree to amend their application to encompass these
conditions. Mr. Wagner stated that they would agree to do so.
Mr. Stoel stated that f rom viewing the plans submitted with the staff
report, the proposed development appears to be very nice.
Mr. Wagner stated that this is the first commercial development Gregg
Homes has done, and they are trying to emphasize design and appeal of
the development; he noted that the City of Englewood is try ing to up-
grade the Santa Fe corridor, and they feel that th e proposed develop-
ment will be an attractive addition to the area. Mr. Wagner stated
that this location will be the site of their headquarters, and they
will also be leasing of f ice /warehouse space to othe r businesses . The
total deve l opment will be approximately 55,000 sq . f t.
Mr. Allen inquired a bou t th e access to the prope rty. Mr . Wagner s tated
that t h e access is from So uth Platte River Drive on the wes t side.
Mr. Vena rd a s k e d i f t he r e wa s f urther d iscussion on th e p r o p osed sub-
d i vision waiver a nd p arking layou t .
Steel moved :
Cars on seconded: The Planning Commiss i on approve t he reques t of Gregg
Home s , Inc. for a waiv er to t he Subd i v ision Regulations
a s they wo uld apply to property d escr ibed a s:
That part o f the Wes t one -half Southeast quar t er of
Section 33, Township 4 South , Range 68 West of the
6th P.M., being more par ticularly d escribed as fol-
lows: Beginning at point of intersection of the
South line of Northwest quarter Southeast quarter
with Easterly right-of-way line of South Platte
River Drive, said point being also the Southwest
corner of a tract of land described as Parcel A, in
Book 1966 at Page 541; thence South 53 degrees 22'
56" East along the Southerly line of said described
parcel a distance of 268.43 feet to a point on the
Easterly line of a tract of land described in Book
1959 at Page 382; thence South 35 degrees 10' West
along the Easterly line a distance of 370.5 feet to
a point on the Southerly line of said described in
Book 1959 at Page 382; thence West along said
Southerly line a distance of 382.0 feet to a point
on said Easterly right-of-way of South Platte River
Drive; thence Northeasterly along said Ea s terly right-
of-way line on a curve to the right whose radius is
896.28 feet and whose long c hord be a rs North 34 d e gree s
(
I •
(
(
•
•
• •
-3-
33' East a Chord distance of 296.9 feet to a point
of tangency; thence continuing along said Easterly
right-of-way line North 43 degrees 54' East a distance
of 302.16 feet to the Point o f Beg i nning. County of
Arapahoe, State of Colorado . Contains 3.3996 Acres
more or less therein.
The Planning Commission also approves the parking
layout for the above described property as set forth
on the Site Plan/Subdivision Waiver Plan filed by
Gregg Homes. This approval is made with the following
conditions, which have been agreed to by the applicant :
1. Curb, gutter, and sidewalk shall be installed to
meet with City standards and approved by Engineering
Services Department.
2 . Utility plans indicated on the waiver plat shall
be designed to City specifications, and approved
by the Utilities Department.
3. Th e Fire lane shall be posted no parking.
4. Development shall conform to all other City codes
and requirements.
AYES: Magnuson, Steel, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Beier, Cars on, Gourdin
NAYS: None
ABSENT: McBrayer
ABSTAIN: None
The motion c arried.
Ms. King stated that the staff is very pleased with the cooperation
that has been shown by the appli c ant in developing the plans for the
proposed office/warehouse comp l ex.
IV . USED CAR LO TS CA SE 1/1 0-85
Mr. Venard asked Mr. Vargas and Mrs. Romans to discuss this issue.
Mr. Vargas stated that City Council asked the staff to look into the
proliferation of used car lots along South Broadway , and to present
some options to cont rol this type of operation. Mrs . Roma ns wr ote a
r eport setting forth two methods of control, namely making new a nd
u sed car lots a Conditional Use , o r by establishing mi nimum lot sizes
for such a use. Since the last P lanning Commission meeting when this
issue was initially raised, ther e have bee n fu r t her meeti n gs with t he
City Council and with the City Attorney's Office. Assistant City At-
torney DeWitt is drafting an ordi n ance setting forth criteria for this
type of use. Th e criteria will include such matter s as t he disp l ay of
the vehicles on the lot, the squar e footage of th e lot, landsca ping
requirements, and other pertinent guidelines. Mr. Vargas stated t h at
as he understood it, the discussion is now centered on whether this
should be written as a separate ordinance to be incorporated into the
I • •
..,
(
•
•
• •
-4-
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance at a later date, or to try to have it
drafted for consideration by the Council at the Public Hearing on April
22nd. The City Council has asked that the Commission study the problem
of the used car lot proliferation, and submit a recommendation to them
on a means of control of these uses.
Discussion ensued. Mr. Vargas stated that there is a special study
session on the Zoning Ordinance scheduled for Thursday evening, April
18th, and that Mr. DeWitt has indicated he wanted to have the draft of
the proposed regulations prepared by that time.
Mr. Beier asked whether the proposed amendment would have to be published
before the Hearing before the City Council. Mr. Vargas stated that the
amendments that are made to the proposed zoning ordinance will be published
after the Hearing; the meeting on April 22 is concerned with the Public
Hearing, and is not the second reading of the ordinance, which would re-quire publication.
Mrs. Romans discussed a meeting that she had with Mr. De Witt earlier
on this date, and reported that it is Mr. DeWitt's proposal to draft
regulations which would include new and used car lots as Conditional
Uses in the Comprehensive Zon i ng Ordinance. Mrs. Romans pointed out
that at the present time, automotive repair shops, laundry and polishing
businesses are permitted as Conditional Uses in the B-2 District of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. The proposal would mean that all busi-
nesses relative to cars would be Conditional Uses in the B-2 Zone Dis-
trict. This proposal would inc lude both new and used car s ales lots
as Conditional Uses. An applicant would have to file a site plan,
which would be required t o s h ow s e tbacks, lands caping, the number of
spaces for cars that are for sale , parking for c ustomers, parking for
employees (these spaces need not be separately identified), but the
total number of spaces provided must be indica ted on the site plan.
Bumpers of display vehicles may not be elevated more than four feet
above the grade and the adjacent right-of -way . Lighting standards
and signing will hav e to be shown on the site plan. Setbacks on cor-
ner lots will be d e lineated in the guide lines.
Mr. Allen asked i f "m i n i mum " ligh t ing wi ll b e r e quired under th e pro-
posed guidelines. Mr s . Romans stated t h at mi nimum l i ght i ng wi ll not
be required; but lighting plans will have to be shown o n t h e si.te p lan.
Mr. Allen asked about the parking surface of th e lot s. Mrs. Romans
stated that the parking surface will have t o be "ha rd surface".
Mrs. Roma ns p rese n ted slides of the va r ious used and new car sales l ots
along South Broadway, and pointed out problems which these car lots are
ca using, o r could cause , such as bumpers p r ot rud i ng in t o the s i dewalk
a r ea; car s b eing par ked dir ectly across the s idewalk area ; lack of
ma neuverabili ty within the lots wh ich could prohibit the access by
emergency v e h icles; no landscaping; signs coverin g chain link fencing, etc .
Mr. Carson questio ned whet her t here would be a "grandfather clause " which
would apply to the e x isting c a r lo t s a long Broadwa y . Mrs. Romans stated
there has been some discussion about including a n "amo rtization period"
whereby existing businesses would be given a set time to com e into
compliance with som of these criteria ; if the bu s in ess i s no t brought
int o compliance, it would have to be taken through the a ppeal pro c ess .
•
(
(
I •
•
•
•
• •
-5-
Further discussion ensued.
Mr. Gourdin expressed concern about the auto sales lots depicted in the
slides which were fenced with chain link fencing and barbed-wire fencing
atop; he commented that it appeared "prison-like"; he asked what research
had been done on the number of vehicle thefts these lots had experienced,
and if any data had been collected to justify reduction of the number of
vehicles that could be allowed on a lot of a given size because of access
and maneuverability dema n ds.
Mr. Allen stated that most of the discussion h as centered on the used
car lots; he noted that the congestion can be just as bad on the new
car lots. Mrs. Romans stated that the guidelines would also apply to
new car sales lots.
Discussion ensued. Mr. Vargas stated that he felt City Council is looking
for a recommendation from the Planning Commission on control of the new
and used car sales lots, and whether this proposed amendment should be
incorporated into the Council public hearing on April 22nd. Mr. Vargas
suggest e d that as soon as the criteria and proposed amendment is drafted
by Mr. DeWitt, copies can be given to the Commission and they are wel-
come to attend the publi c hearing on April 22nd, or a special meeting
could be scheduled to review the proposed amendment.
Mr. Steel stated that he thought it would be wisest to have all auto-
related bu s inesse s classified as Conditional Uses in th e B-2 Zon e Dis-
trict. He quest ioned that anything could be don ~ about existing bus i -
nesses, but that additional automo tive-related businesses wou ld have to
meet the n ew criteria.
Mr. Allen pointed out that a l ot of the small used car lots change owner-
ship every year, or more often; he s ugg ested that whenever the ownership
changes that perhaps the new own e r could be required to conform t o the
guidelines.
Steel moved:
Carson seconded : The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that
all car-related businesses in the B-2 Zo ne District be
designated as "Conditional Uses."
Discussion ensued. Mr . Carson questioned that this motion would cover
all points of the issue. Nr. Vargas stated that Mrs. Romans' report to
him was background information, and that he-is of the opinion that Mr.
Steel's motion is adequate.
Mr. Barbre questioned if the Conditional Use category is app r oved, and
a business is sold, can that business continue without r eapplying for
approval under the nam~ of the new owner . Mrs . Romans stated that Mr .
DeWitt is also consid~ring a business li cense provision to apply to new
and used car sales lots; this would provide a double approach to the
proliferation problem.
Mr. Allen asked if vehicle r epai r would also he restricted on these
car sales lots. Mrs. Romans stated that v hl cle repair would be per-
mitted as part of the buhiness, but surh work would have to be done
within a building.
•
I • •
•
•
•
• •
-6-
Enforcement of the provisions of this proposed amendment and other ordi-
nances was discussed. Mr. Vargas mentioned some avenues that may have
to be reviewed to ensure better enforcement of the various codes.
The vote on the motion was called.
AYES: Stoel, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Beier, Carson, Magnuson, Gourdin
NAYS: None
ABSENT: McBrayer
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried.
V. FINDINGS OF FAcr
West Warren Avenue/South Pecos Street
Right-of-way Vacation
CASE 116-85
Mr. Venard stated that the Findings of Fact on the vacation of the
right-of-way along West Warren Avenue and South Pecos Street are to
be considered for approval.
Carson moved:
Stoel seconded: The Findings of Fact on Case 116-85, right-of-way
vacation on West Warren Avenue and South Pecos Street,
be approved as written.
AYES: Stoel, Allen, Barbre, Beier, Carson
NAYS: None
ABSENT: McBray e r
ABSTAIN: Venard, Magnuson, Gourdin
The motion carried.
• ••••
The meeting recessed at 8:10 P. H., and members moved to Conference Room
A, where the meeting reconvened at 8 :15 P . H.
VI. GOALS AND OBJEcriVES.
1985/1986
• • • • •
Mr. Venard stated that the Commission has a copy of the tentative goals
carried over from 1984; he asked the pleasure of the Commission in con-
sidering the goals and objectives.
Mr. All n addressed the issue of TRASH COLLECTION. and discuss~d a
meeting that h had with City Manager McCown on thi issu . r1r. Bei r
asked if DRCOC was looking into the matter of a regional trash coll~c
tion program. Mr. Vargas stated that he und rstood that DRCOG had
looked at this issue several years ago; at that tim , Denver wa & con-
sidering an incin ration program, and th conclu. ion wa s reachLd that
it was not cost-ff ctive at that tim . Hr. Vargas stated that hP felt
the matter of trash collection/incin ration is a regional problem, and
•
(
(
I • •
•
•
• •
TO: Gerry Venard, Chairman, and Members of the Planning
and Zoning Commission
FROM: Peter H. Vargas, Acting Director of Community Dev~lopmen~~
DATE: April 8, 1985
SUBJECT: Used Car Sales Lots
Several weeks ago, City Council Member Higday requested that
the staff review the apparent proliferation of used car lots
in the City of Englewood, particularly along the Broadway
Corridor. At the study session held, April 1, 1985, the City
Council reviewed the staff generated report and requested that
a copy of that report be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning
Commission for their review and comment. Attached please
find a copy of the memorandum prepared by Dorothy Romans out-
lining several options for controlling used car lots in the
City. It is the City Council's intent that if parameters are
to be established for the use of used car lots in the City of
Englewood, that these parameters should be included in the
proposed zoning ordinance now before the City Council. As
you are aware, a public hearing has been scheduled by the
City Council on the zoning ordinance for April 22, 1985. The
City Council would like to have a recommendation from the
Planning and Zoning Commission with regards to these used car
sales lots parameters by April 22, 1985.
If the staff can be of any assistance to the Commission re-
garding this issue, please contact us.
•
I .
•
•
• •
TO: Peter Varg~s. Assistant City Manager
~~ FROM: Dordtny A. Romans, Assistant Director of Community Devel opment
DATE: March 18, 1985
SUBJECT: Used Car Sales Lots
Both new and/or used car sales lots are now permitted in the B-2,
Business District and in the I-1 and I-2, Industrial Districts by
inclusion of all of the B-2 Permitted Principal Uses. At this time,
any new lots would be subject to the provisions of the Landscape
Ordinance and the Sign Code, as well as the Supplementary Regulations,
Section 22.5 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, as to drainage,
surfacing, maintenance, etc. Were someone to merely take over an
existing lot, it would be difficult to require the new owner to
comply with the Landscape Ordinance if the pers on were not incl ined
to do so; but the Sign Code would be applicable at such time as the
enforcement of the Code is clarified by the Attorney's Office.
In a field check of automobile sales lots along South Broadway, it
wo uld seem that most of the used car lots are on small sites, from
50 to 100 feet in frontage, and are quite often located on sites
whi c h were developed as filling stations or some other use. Any
structure on the property was situated in a particular location to
accommodate that original use, and it may or may not be compatible
with the use of the property as a used car sales lot. Most particularly
if the lot is tnid-block, the owner may paint the existing structure
yellow or some equally attention-grabbing color, and put up strings
of lig hts, banners, pennants and v~lan c es to attract the att e ntion of
the mo toring publi c . The profit margin on used car sales i s no t hi ~h.
so the de ~ler typic ally tries to put as many cars on the lot a s h e
c an. To ma :·dl".i ze the sp a ce, m~neuvering aisles are minim ~l a nd r.~rs
are pnrke d pi~~v -ba c k in all directions. Prefer~bly, it would s e em,
the re n re no ••Is les to waste space and the street and/or sid e walk is
us e d t o pr o vid ~ acc ess to ~ particul~r car by moving the c nrs nround
1 il<e th e w n nd~n squ .11 es in the puzzle which hns one vncnnt space , .,ntl
tht' o h l •'C t I s t o mnv, the squares nround until they nrc In~ p .,rt1 r ul~r
S l.'C'}lll..'n cc .
lln til<• ll th o•r h .orul, h r l .trl',l'r O<'W nne! nt'W and II S cd l':tr d N I]f •r<;, So 11""'fl
1\urt, C r t>ll l'h .11111 1\t llol pf, h .IVl• l:trj ~t'r Site,.;, .111d tl11 •y tr y t n III,,X {III f ~, lh t.'
v f •q ldlitv of t.h ,•l•· •·a r s by df s pL•ylnr. tlu •m fn f.til'l v nrd o•rl y r .. w .. ~o.l 1 h
""'''1 1111 1' ITH 111 l.'UV L'f'll '~ ,lf --;J,,:;. H.tlph s,·hl llll jl h .ts ·•r prn>:l m.tl t•ly f~tnr ,)1 It •&.;
.tt l d ~o.t rn ,~lf'W IH\d l n tdnt ·~o..;, .tn d It f :; fn .td.·qn .tlt •, ht'f H l ' h f 'l 1111'\'t' (tl
I • •
-
•
•
• •
-7-
'" l.ittl .. t o u, ~l os t uf lht• lar~·.<·r d<!<~ll'rs hav" ll)',hl fixtur l's ratht•r
tk111 .-tdn,·.s nf liJ·.ht s mal h :1v<' comp11<'<1 with the Sign Cndc. tlntt·
flurt, p:1rticular1y, hns tri<'d to install some lnndsc.,pinr. in front of
ld s n<'wer dc<Jlerships.
The ~-2 Zone District requires a Planned Development to be filed for
the development of any lot havin~ an area of one or more acres and
this would provide some control over any new large dealership.
The problems with the appearance of the majority of the used car lots
seems to boil down to two: the size of the lot in ratio to the number
of cars and the method of attracting attention to the lot through the
use of bright colors, lights, and signage. It would follow that ~o
improve the appearance of the lots, larger sites could help as well as
stricter enforcement of the Sign Code.
At this time, there are no minimum lot size requirements in the B-2
Zone District, and the only setback requirements are in those instances
in which the B-2 property abuts ~pon a property in a residential district.
To single out used car lots as the only use for which a minimum lot area
is required may be of concern to the City Attorney unless such require-
ment could be related to protecting the public health, safety, morals
or welfare. An equally effective procedure to provide some form of
quality control over the used car lots may be to make both new and
used car lots Conditional Uses. Through the Conditional Use procedure,
a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission would be required and
the Commission would have to determine that the specific use at a
specific location would be in harmony with the general purpose and
intent of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. At this time, motor
vehicle repair businesses and motor vehicle laundry and polishing
businesses are Conditional Uses, and it would seem appropriate to
require all automobile related uses, including sales, to fall in
that category. To this end, a proposed revision to the B-2 Zone District
is attached for consideration.
•
I • •
-
•
•
• •
Ht ·J••·:tl S«·l'tinn lfl.lt -12 «' (it), Aulnmnh111' ,;,,Jc s nr lell t<l ' not 1nducl1nr. l'omm•·rdal
vl'ldcl«• wrl'ck ing, dismantling or 1unk yards. kepcnl Sc·l'tion 16.4-12 c (10), Mo tor vclaiclP sales or lea se.
Chnngc Section 16.lt-12, Conditional Uses:
e.
Add (2) Automobile/motor vehicle sales lot, repair business, and laundry
or polishing business.
Add (a) (1) and (11), (b) and (c) ss shown.
•
I • •
-
•
•
• •
S~ctlnn lL.4-l7 k-2 Business District.
TI1i ~ DJ r.t rict is composed of certain land end structures used primarily .to pro-
vid~ urban residential use, retailing and personal services to the residentt of
th£· City and surrounding areD. TI1e B-2 District is usually located on Vlojor
acc~•s route s and is easily accessible froVl the surrounding residential area
\Ohich it serves.
a. G£·n£:ra1 Rcrulations. The provisions found in this Zone District shall
be subject to the requirements and standards found in Section 16.5,
General Regulations, unless otherwise provided for in this Ordinance
or an amendment hereto.
b. Planned Development. A Planned Development shall be filed for the de-
velopment of any lot having one or more acres in area. See Section 16.4-15
for development procedure.
c. PerVlitted Principal Uses. No building, structure, or land shall be used
and no building or structure shall be erected, structurally altered, en-
larged or Vlaintained unless otherwise provided for in this Ordinance, ex-
cept for one or more of the following uses:
(1) Any use permitted in the B-1 Bu siness District.
(2) Animal hospitals, kennels to be enclosed and runs enclosed by a
fence six (6) feet high.
(3) Auction houses.
f-lo-} ~-e·H.-e 1ltti-ee _. -i~ !'let 'incl.tnH:n& cunm•etcirl ~wrecking,
e(s~BI'Itl'il'lt OT junk yards~
(5) Drive-in eating or drinking establishments.
(6) Feed and seed stores {excluding the aale or storage of hay).
(7) Food locker storage.
(B) Gasoline and oil service stations.
(9) Hospitals and convalescent homes.
(10) ..ll.l.)_ Mortuaries.
(11) ...(l.2+.-Mote16.
(12) ...(..1..»-Pawn shops and second hand stores.
(13) ..(.U..)-Recreational vehicle sales or lease to include boats, trailers,
motorcycles and othcr recrelltional vellicles .
(lt.) -(-P.r)-llt ·s idcntiul U s~.:: must conform to th ~.: dt·velopmcnt rcquire111t'nts of
till' R-3, llit;h -Ot ·n s ity Rcr.idcncl' llfstrict.
• •
I • •
I
•
•
• •
-]-
(]~) -<·H..t--Any similar lawful U Sf.:, whiclo, in tloc opinion or the Con omission,
i s not objectionable to nearby property by reason of odor, du s t,
smoke, fum~s. ga ~, heat, glare, radiation or vibration, or is not
hazardous to the health and property of the surrounding area
through danger of fire or explosion.
d. Accessory Uses.
(1) Any use incident to the above Permitted Uses, when located on the
same building site as the Permitted Use.
(2) Swimming Pools --semi-private, semi-public, and public.
See General Regulations.
e. Conditional Uses. Provided the public interest is fully protected and
the following uses are approved by the Commission IN COMPLIANCE WITH
SECTIO N 16.5-21, CONDITIONAL USES.
(1) Adult Entertainment and/or Service Facility.
{a) No adult entertainment or service facility shall be located on
any site unless such site is not less than the distance limita-
tion as required by this section:
(i) 1,000 feet from the location of another such adult
entertainment or service facility.
{ii) 500 feet from the boundary line of any residential
district defined in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordi-
nance, as amended, including, but not limited to,
R-1-A, R-1-B, R-1-C, R-2, R-2-C, R-3, or R-4 or
similar residential zone district in an area adjoining
the City of Englewood, or any religious institution,
public park, public library, community center, or ed-
ucational institution, whether within or without the
City of Englewood.
{b) Measurement of distance. All distances provided herein shall
be measured as follows:
{i) With respect to the distance between a location for
which an adult entertainment or service facility is
proposed and a location where such a facility exists ,
the distance shall be measured by following a straigh t
line from the nearest p oint of the property line of
t he proposed licensed premises to the nearest point
of the property line of the existing licensed premises.
(ii) With respect to the distance from the boundary line of
a res iden tial district or any religious institution,
public park, publi c library, community center, or ed-
ucational in st itution, the distance shall be mca r.ured
hy following a stroir,l •t linr: from th l· n ea r est point
o f r h 1.: prope rty lin<· o f th <: pr(lpo s<:d l i rcn!'C'J pr~.:mis<·r:
t o t he n ca rt·t:t p o int of tlw dif;tri ct boun.Jnry 11m·; o r
I •
]
•
•
• •
-.,,,_
J n lla r· <'<HH ' o f a rC'li r,i o u s instit u tion, puhli r. pnrk,
pu h lJ t· li b r a r y , c ommunity CC'nl e r, o r edu ca tionn l in-
s tituti on, th e di s tan ce s hall h e me .1surcd by following
a str a i ght line from thC' neare st poi n t of th e property
line of the rroposcd licensed premises to the nearest
p o int of the property line of a religious institution,
public park, publi c library, community center, or
educational institution.
(iii) Where the proposed location of an adult entertainment
or service facility is a vacant parcel of land upon
which no permit has been issued for the construction
of a building, all distances shall be measured fr~m
the nearest point of the property line of the land
proposed as a location for an adult entertainment or
service facility. Where the proposed location of an
adult entertainment or service facility is a vacant
parcel of la nd up on which a permit has been issued for
the construction of a permanent building for such
use, all distances shall be measured from the nearest
point of the property line as shown on the survey of
such parcel of land.
(2} AUTOMOBILE/MOTOR VEHICLE SALES LOT, REPAIR BUSINESS, AND LAUNDRY OR
POLISHING BUSINESS.
(a) AUTOHOBILI:/M OTOR VEHICL E SALES LOT -NEW OR USED.
(i) AUTOMOBILE h!O TOR VEHICLE SALES AT R.I:TAIL BY A DEALER LI-
CE NSE D BY THE STA TE OF COLORADO, I NCLUDING SERVICES AND
ACCESSORIES, BUT NOT INCLUDING, EXCEPT AS A USE
I NCID EN TAL TO THE SAID SALES, AND EXCEPT WHERE CON-
DUCTED IN ~~ ENCLOSED STRUCTURE, THE REBUILDING, OVER-
HAULING OR STEAM CLEANING OF MOTORS, REPAIRING OR
REPAINTING OF BODIES, OR REUPHOLSTERING. RECAPPING
OF TIRES SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED UNDER ANY CIRCUM-
STANCES.
THIS SECTIO N DOES NOT APPLY IF A PLA NN ED DEVELOPMENT
HA S BEEN FILED UNDER SECTION 1 6.4-12 b , PLA NNE D
DEV EL OPMENT .
(ii) AUTOMOBILE/MOTOR VEHICLES SALES LOTS MUST CO~LY WITH:
a. Section 1 6.4 -1 7 d OF THE FE NCE ORDIN ANCE.
b . SECT I ON 16.4-18 OF THE LANDS CAPE ORDI NANCE.
c.
d.
(',
SECT IO N 16.4 -19 OF THE SIGN CODE.
SECT I ON 16 .5-5 a (2), PARKIN G REGU LA TION S OF
THE GENE RA L REGUL ATI ONS.
SEC.T JO!\ 16.5-3 a, d , e , AND f OF THE GENERAl.
REGULATIO NS .
I • •
-
•
•
• •
-)1·-
(b) hli'I 'OMOHIJ.I-:/t·lotor v c ldclt• Rt ·p :lir hu~ltoC',;,;c•~<, tHll ln<'ludlng
body or ft•11 dcr work, di!;mantlin~ or collit<lon rC'pRJr,
1111
d
provided th ,t;
(i) Motor vehicles being serviced or stored while waiting
to be serviced or called for are not parked on streets,
alleys, public sidewalks or parking strips.
(ii) All work is performed within an enclosed structure.
(iii) No materials or parts are deposited or stored on the
premises outside of an enclosed structure.
(iv) Any area subject to wheeled traffic or storage.is
screened from adjacent or adjoining residential districts
by a closed-face wood fence, or block or brick wall.
(v) THE SITE SHALL BE PAVED TO THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES.
(vi) ALL WASTE WATER SHALL BE DISCHARGED INTO THE SANITARY
SEWER LINE AFTER HAVING BEEN RUN THROUGH A SAND TRAP.
(vii) ALL LIGHTS USED TO ILLUMINATE THE AREA SHALL BE
DIRECTED AWAY FROM ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
(c) AUTOMOBILE/motor vehicle laundry or polishing business,
which shall comply with the following conditions:
(i) A minimum of three (3) parking spaces shall be
provided on the site for each wash i ng stall.
(ii) The site shall be paved to the specifications of
the Department of Engineering Services.
(iii) All waste water shall be discharged into the sanitary
sewer line after having been run through a sand trap.
(iv) All lights used to illuminate the area shall be
directed away from adjacent residential properties.
(4) Amusement establishments including, but not limited to: billiard
I • •
•
•
•
.. •
-4-
h::•ll s , l oOI .. •linf, nllt>ys, coin-opl•rnted games, dane£' hall!', elec-tronic
or vidl·o games, night cluhs, outdoor commercial recreational facil-
ities, pool halls or skating rinks.
f. rrohihitcd Uses.
(1) ~lanufacturing.
(2) Outdoor storage of materials, supplies, and equipment on private and
public property.
(3) The outdoor display, storage or sale of household appliances, furni-
ture, or other items commonly used in a home, whether on private or
public property.
(4) Warehousing of products or items not sold on the premises.
(5) Sale at wholesale.
(6) Sales or service activity shall not be allowed from any temporary
structure or vehicle unless a building permit application has been
submitted for a permanent building or structure to replace the tem-
porary structure.
g. Maximum Height of Buildings. Sixty (60) feet.
h. Setbacks. No setbacks shall be required; provided, however, that where
a property zoned B-2, Business, abuts upon any property zoned "R" Resi-
dential District, the residential front yard requirement of the abutting
Residential District shall apply to that portion of the property in the
B-2 Bu s iness District except as to side yards on corner lots.
i. Minimu m Off-street Private Parking and Loading. See General Regulations.
j. Liquefied Petroleum Gas Installations. Liquefied petroleum gas installa-
tions shall be permitted only for the purpose of supplying fuel for approved
heating equipment. Liquid petroleum gas tanks in excess of 500 gallons
(water capacity) will not be permitted in this Zone District. Liquefied
petroleum ga s installations shall conform to current Fire Code requirements.
I • •
***
•
•
• •
HXI' OF SJ:C'J'JONS REFERREilTO JN SECTlON 16.4-12 e (2) (A) (1) anti (11).
1. H•.4-12 h, Planned DPvt!lopment. "A Planned Development shall be filed
for the development of any lot having one or more acres in area. See
Section 16.5, General Regulations, unless otherwise provided for in this
Ordinance or an amendment hereto."
2. 16.4-17 d, Fence Ordinance. "Fences in business districts shall conform
to the following requirements:
1. Fences s.hall be of Class 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, but shall not exceed the
height of six (6) feet.
2. Barbed wire or similar materials may be added to the top of a
fence which is not less than six (6) feet above grade.
3. For regulations regarding required screening fences, see Section 16.5.
4.
5.
No fence, retaining wall or similar obstruction shall be erected or
maintained which obstructs traffic vision at street intersections
as determined by the Traffic Engineer. For the purpose of determining
compliance to this section, Table 16.9-A shall be used to determine
intersection cross-corner visibility.
Fences shall be kept in good repair. Any dangerous fence shall be
removed or repaired when so ordered by the Director of Community
Development or his/her designee."
3. 16.4-18 d (2) (e) of the Landscape Ordinance. "B-1, B-2, I-1 and I-2
Districts.
(1) Minimum of 10% of total lot area must be landscaped.
(2) 50% of the area required to be landscaped shall be devoted to living
plant materials.
(3) One street tree is required per 40 linear feet to be located a minimum
of 2~ feet from any paved surface."
Other sections which might apply: Parking design requirements: All
Zone Districts, and Maintenance . (Sections e and f)
4. 16.4-19 Sign Code. Commercial District requirements.
5. 16.5-5 a (2) of the General Regulations, Private Off-Street Parking
Standards: "Auto !Ralerships (new and used) --one space for each two (2)
employees at maximum employment on a single shift, plus two (2) spaces for
each three hundred (300) square feet of sales/office, repair or maintenance space." I • •
•
•
• •
h . ](,,~-] C:,·nc·r :ol H•·••ul a tJ"""• l'uh]J ,· (;;o ru g t •s , F 1lll n 1~ Stati o n s , Parking
Art·:o ::, ;ond Car Sa lc•s l.ots . l'ropo !-t •tl Tt •l;u l a li o n s .
a. "llr a Jn :o!.j (', s urfa c 111 t; a nd m u int f'nan c ~. ArPas subj ec t t o wh e£•l e d traffi c
s ltall be properly graded for drainag e, provJdp on-s itP <IPt e ntJon of
sto rm ru n -off, and bP surfac e d with concrete, a s phaltic con c r c t.e,
a s p h alt, or brick pavers, subject to the approval of the Department
of Eng ine ering Services. Such areas shall be maintained in good
condition, free of weeds, dirt, trash and debris."
d. "Bumper, Curbs, Wheel Stops: To insure the proper maintenance and
utilization of these facilities, public parking areas shall be designed
so that a parked vehicle does not overhang the public right-of-way,
or public sidewalk. A permanent curb, bumper, wheel stop, or similar
device, shall be installed which shall be adequate to protect 'the
public right-of-way, or public sidewalk from vehicular overhangs and
to protect any structure from vehicular damage. If such protection
is provided by means of a method designed to stop the wheel rather
than the bumper of the vehicle, the stopping edge shall be placed
no closer than two (2) feet from the edges of the public right-of-
way, public sidewalk or building. A parked vehicle may overhang
a landscaped area and up to two (2) feet of such landscaped area may
be included as a part of the length of the parking stall."
e . "Entrances and Exits. Areas subject to wheeled traffic shall be
provided with entrances and exits so located as to minimize traffic
congestion. Vehicular ingress and egress to major or minor arterials
from off-street parking shall be so combined, limited, located,
designed and controllec with flared and/or channelized intersections
as to direct traffic to and from such public right-of-way conveniently,
safely and in a manner which minimizes traffic interference and
promo tes free traffi c f low o n t he s treets wi thout e x cessive interruption .
f. "Li ghting. Li gh ting fa c ilities shall be so arranged thatc;;>neither
unreason ably disturb occupants of adjacent residential properties nor
interfere with traffic. Lighting facilities shall not exceed ·
twenty-five (25) feet in height.
•
I • •
-
•
•
• •
(~~--~~~~-rH~~;~-r~~~~-~hK~~-~~-"~~"W~~-ih-th~-H -~-A -KM~-H-~-~
~ H~~t4-Fa~i~y-RP"id~fttih~-~i~t~iPt"-~"8-t~~-R-~-~h8-R -~-B~a4HP8~
3 IH !It Pi e.te-f!h~y ..
4 ~4~--P~~~iP-~ee~e-ehell-~e-allewe8-ift-the-B-l-eh8-B-~-B~aihe88
5 9iatPiete-ehly ..
6 Secti~n 16.5-21 Co nditional Use.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
24
25
26
27
2H
:?\I
a.
b.
Legislative Purpose and Intent,
It is recognized that there are some uses which, subject to certain
conditions and safeguards, can conform to the general character of
the neighborhood to which the proposed use will apply. A Conditional
Use Permits the inclusion of uses into the zoning pattern which are
considered to be essentially desirable to the communit y as a whole
or to a specific area, but where the nature of the use or conditions
which it ma y create, such as traffic congestion, denist y , noise, etc.,
influence aga i nst its location in a specific zone district without
restrictions or condition s tailored to fit the special problems which
the use ma y present .
The authority is granted to the City Planning and Zoning Commission
to approve Conditional Uses in specific cases after public notice and
hearing. The granting of such use shall be subject to appropriate
conditions and safeguards as set forth in this section if it is
determined that the au t h orization of t he use wil l b e in harmony with
the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance.
Application Pr ocedure.
(1 ) An a pp lic a nt mu s t demonstrat e t o the Ci t y Planning a nd Zoning
Co mmi ssion that the Condi t i on a l Use application mee t s all of
th e r equ i r em en t s o f t h e Eng lewo od Mu n icipa l Co de , a s
a men d£>d , a nd pri o r t o f i nn l appr ov al o f th e Co nd i t ioua l Ur;c, a ll
r t-quircmru t s of t h1 • E.H.C. ntu b t b e m1·t .
I • •
•
•
• -
(1) Thr appl 1rilnt mu~.t lw an r:>wnrr r:>r drmonatratr a suhtHIInt 1al,
2 continuing interrst in thE-property drsiRnated for the
3 Conditional Use.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2':1
c.
d.
Information To Be Submitted.
(I) Written Statement. A written statement must be submitted with
the Conditional Use application and shall contain the following
minimum information:
(a) A statement of the present ownership and a legal desctiption
of the land. If the applicant is not the owner of land,
the relationship of the applicant to the request must be
be stated.
(b) An explanation of the objectives to be achieved by the
proposed use, including a description of the number and
type of major users of the facility.
(c) If either new construction or remodeling is involved, a
development schedule indicating the approximate date when
the construction or remodeling can be expected to begin,
the stages of construction, and the time of completion shall
be given.
(d) Copies of any special agreements, conveyances, restrictions,
or covenants which will govern the use, maintenance and
protection of the development and public areas,
(e) Other information or exhibits the applicant deems pertinent
to the evaluation of the proposed Conditional Use.
(f) A boundary survey.
Site Plan. The applicant must submit a preliminary plan showing the
major details of the site on which the proposed Conditional Use is
to be located. This site plan is to be put on a scale of not less
than 1" -20' and in sufficient detail to evaluate the land pln nntng,
I •
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
;>8
2~
e.
•
• •
hul ltllllf'. d<'hll'."• <~nd P lht·r fl'otul l'E< of tl•t· prC1pUE<l'd dl'vrlClprn<'nt. 1'h<'
pr<'limlnnry plnna must co11toin, insofar aa is applicable, the following
minimum inform.,tion.
(1) The location of the property with names of adjoining strects ·and
other public ways.
(2) The existing zoning of the land.
(3) The proposed land uses.
(4) The existing topographic character of the land.
(5) The location of all existing and proposed buildings, structures
and improvements, including typical elevations and showing the
maximum height.
(6) The major points of access to public rights-of-way, the internal
traffic and circulation systems, off-street parking areas, service
areas, and loading areas.
(7) The location, height and size of proposed signs, fences, lighting
and advertising devices, including typical elevations.
(8) Areas within the 100-year flood plain.
(9) A general landscape plan with major types of materials designated
as to purpose.
Requirements and Findings of Fact. Before approving a Conditional
Use, the City Planning and Zoning Commission shall make written
findings that the Conditional Use will implement the purposes of
this Ordinance and will, in addition, meet the following requirements.
(1) Uses Permitted. The use must be permitted as a Conditional Use
in the Zone District in which it is proposed to be located.
(2) The Conditional Use must be consistent with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan and the policies therein.
(3) The rclolionsh:fp of the Conditional Usc to its surroundinr. area
,;hall he CC\n&idt •r<'d :In ordt'r to minim17P advcr!lt· Pfff'ctE< to
•
I •
n
•
• •
-.11 -
b~>lh the £•xisting and future d('vclopmcnt indi calt·d by till· <.:omprC'h('n t<ivc
Zoninr Ordinnnee, hy traffic circulation, building hC'i~hl or b ulk , lack
3 of screenin~. or intrusions of priva~y. noise, li~ht, impa~t on hou si ng,
schools, public utilities, or governmental services.
5 (4) The number of off-street parking spaces shall not be less than the require-
ments of Chapter 16.5-5 of this Ordinance UNLESS EVIDENCE PRESE~TED TO
7 THE PLAN~ING COMMISSION WOULD JUSTIFY THE REDUCTION OF OFF-STR~ET FARKING
6 REQUIRD:ENTS.
9 (5) The Conditional Use shall meet all other applicable ordinance provisions
1u of the Englewood Municipal Code.
11 (6) Other factors which, in the opinion of the Commission, will protect
12 and promote the health, safety and welfare of the citizens.
13 f. Application Processing.
(1) Upon receipt of the application, the Department of Community Development
15 shall be responsible for coordinating the review of the application by
16 the various City departments and appropriate public agencies, culminating
17 in the submission of an advisory report and recommendation to the City
lS Planning and Zoning Commission. A copy of advisory report and recommends-
19 tions shall be furnished to the applicant.
zo (2) The Commission, after proper public notice, shall hold a public hearing
2 i on the application.
(3) The City Planning and Zoning Commission shall make ~ritten findings, eithc1
L3 approving, conditionally approving, or disapproving the Conditional Use.
24 (a) The City Planning and Zoning Commission shall be the approving
agency for any Conditional Use.
(b) A copy of the decision or recommendation of tlte Planning Commission I •
shall b~ provid~d to the applicant.
(C') All npprovt·d plnu~> for tht· <.:unditionnl U"t', inl'ludJng all
• 'I nao difl !'n tinn h I •T !'<•nclition !-o IIII·H ·to, ,.la a ll l •1· t •Jt<l oH.•·<ll •y
•
-
(
I
•
2
3
4
s
6
7
•
• •
thl· Cloairman 0f tlo t-City rlanning and Zonin g C0n un is s ion and
shall l>c rccordt:d in the office of thl' Arapahoe County Cll'rk
and Recorder.
(d) Any person or persons jointly or severally aggrieved b y the
decision of the City Planning and Zoning Commission may appeal
the decision by the appropriate legal a ction to a Court of Record
having jurisdiction thereof.
8 (e) An y person applying to a Court of Record for a review of any
9 decision made u nder the terms of this s ection shall a pply for a
10 review within thirty days (30) after the date of decision and shall
11 be required to pay the cost of preparing a transcript of
12 proceedings and the application for review shall be in the nature of
13 certiorari under Rule 106 (a) (4) of the Colorado Rules of Civil
14 Procedure.
15 g. CO~~LIANCE. ~~ PERSON OR PERSO~S USING PROPERTY UNDER A CONDITIO NAL USE
lf> SHALL OPERATE SUCH USE IN C0:1PLIANCE ~ITH ALL TER!-IS OF THE APPROVAL OF THAT
17 CONDITIONAL USE.
16 Section 16.5-22 STRUCTIJRES, TD~ORARY -USE AND TER.'1.
19 ALL TEMPORARY STRUCTIJRES SHALL CONFORI-1 TO THE OCCUPANCY OR USE FOR THE ZONE
20 DISTRICT IN WHICH THEY ARE TO BE LOCATED AND SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED UNLESS AN
21 APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED FOR A PERI'~ENT STRUCTURE. SUCH TEMPORARY STRlCTURE
22 SHALL NOT EXIST FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX CONTI~~OUS MONTHS UNLESS OTHCR~ISE
23 APPROVED BY THE CODE ENFORCDIENT DIVISION FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCELD AN ADDITIO:iAL
2 4 SIX MONTHS.
25 Section 16.5-23 FALLOUT SHELTERS.
26 PRIVATE AND PUBLIC FALLOUT SHI:LTERS SHALL BE PERI'IITTED AS AN ACCI:SSORY USE IN ANY
2 7 ZONJ. Pl S1 Rl CT 1 Till': m :sl GN Of \<.'Hl CH SIIELTER SIIAl.L Cll~ll'L Y ~!lTII TJ :E llNlrliR'l Jllll LI JJ NC:
2R COilf., 11N lf0".H rJ HF. COlli, TJ :J: fi:JI E!\111. r:~lf.HC:J:NCY Mf1Nfi(:L'!~.N1 AGJ'NCY fiNII Till HI Gl 1LA1lC o
IIJ OJ 1111 llll 'AHT:li'I'T (I) llt:rrl~SI --111.1 Ulrl. CJVI!. J•HLI 'Allllliii'SS fi(,J'N(')' •
I • •
•
•
• •
C 0 U N C I L C 0 M M U N I C A T I 0 N
DATE
J un e 25, 1985
AGENDA ITEM
Jib
SUBJECT Inducement Resolut i on for the
Issuance of Multi-family
Housing Revenue Bonds (!DB's) for Chasewood C
INITIATED BY Susan Powers , Assistant City Manager for Eco nomic Development
ACTION PROPOSED Approve the Induce ment Resolution for the Issuance of Multi-family
Ho using Revenue Bonds (!DB 's) for Chasewood Company.
BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION.
The City o f Englewoo d has rece ived an application from the Chasewoo d Company for the
issuance of $35 ,000 ,0 0 0 in mult i -family h o using revenue bonds to develop the 25 .5
a c r e site west o f th e Wat e rfo rd project. The site will house 600 units of rental
housing in th e price range of $430 -$660 p e r month. The developers expect to begin
co n s t ruct i on in l ate s umm e r, wi t h the c ompletio n date scheduled for April, 1987.
The bo n ds a r e no t a l i ability o f the City o f Englewoo d , even tho ugh the City's tax
exempt stat us is pass ed on t o t he d e v e l o per.
As r equir ed by Federal law , 20% o f t h e units will b e r ese r v ed fo r low t o mode r a t e
i n come families o r i n dividu als . These units will b e s c att e r e d throughou t t he pro -
j e c t.
The Inducemen t Resol u tion is the f i rst st e p in the pro cess, and will be followed by
tRe bond ordin an ce which will be p r e s e nted t o the Coun c i l wi thin th e nex t month .
The d evelopment itself will follo w th e no rmal proces s with a Planned Development
reviewed by bo th the Pl anning and Zo n ing Co mmission, an d by t he City Cou n c il .
The documents and applic atio n have been r e v iewed by t h e Finan ce Depa rtme n t and t he
City 's finan ci al advise r, Hanifen-Imhoff , a n d bo t h par ties are r ecommendin g a pproval.
RECOMM ENDATION:
It is recomme n ded t h at th e Ci t y Co un c il pass th e Induce me nt Res olution f o r t he i s -
suance of multi-family housing r e venu e bonds fo r the Ch as ewo o d Comp an y. I • •
-
•
~ -------II -~
I
I
I
I
•
•
• •
CHERRY HILLS COURT VENTURE, LTD.
PROJECT SUMMARY
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Acreage
Number of Units
Density
Approximate Unit Size
One Bedroom
One Bedroom/Den
Two Bedroom
Average Unit Size
Total Apartment Area
Estimated Rental Price
AMENITIES
One Bedroom
One Bedroom/Den
Two Bedroom
Fireplaces
Washer/Dryer Connections
Security System
Swimming Pool
Laundry Facilities
Recreation Buildings
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Project Construction
Start Date
Project Construction
Completion Date
Contractor
Architect
DEBT REQUIREMENTS
Type
Term
Amount
+ 25.542 acres
oOO
23.49 units per acre
600 and 735 sq. ft.
874 sq. ft.
879 and 1,000 sq. ft.
813 sq. ft.
487,650 sq. ft.
$430 and $515 per month
$595 per month
$600 and $660 per month
Approx. 65~ of Units
Approx. 50~ of Units
100~ of Units
Yes
Yes
Yes
June, 1985
April, 1987
The Chaser Company
The Martin Organization
Tax-exempt Multifamily
Housing Bond
12 Years
$34,000,000
(including $2,380,000
Qualified Debt Service
Reserve Fund). I •
I
" i
•
(
(
I
•
RESOLUTION NO. c1J..,
SERIES OF 1985--
•
• •
A RESOLUTION DOCLARING THE INTENT OF THE CITY OF ENGLEl<JOOD, /
COLORADO, TO ISSUE BONDS TO PROVIDE FINAOCING FOR A MULTIFAMILY~
_.-r_. itWRESIDENTIAL PROJOCT TO BE UNDERTAKEN BY €iffi!Ut"f lttr:L.'! eotlftT ~T 1
I CVt' A €ei'J6AABe LIMITI ~HIP, THE MANAGING GENERAL PARTNER CF
WHICH WILL BE;illfQ eetJft'f 'ft!lfl'eRE, LTD. 1 AS DESCRIBED HEREIN
,~cr> FOR PERSONS OF LCM AND MIDDLE INC<l1E; PRESCRIBING CERTAIN TERMS AND t\f\''1 :1 1) CONDITIONS OF SUCH BONDS; AND CONTAINING OTHER PROVISIONS RELATING
TO THE SUBJOCT.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the County and Municipality Development
Revenue Bonds Act, Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 29, Article 3,
Sections 29-3-101 et seq. (the "Act"), the City of .Englewood,
Colorado, (the "Issuer") is authorized to issue revenue bonds for
the purpose of providing financing for residential projects located
within the boundaries of the Issuer and intended to be occupied by
persons of low and middle income, as determined by the governing
body of the Issuer; and
WHEREAS, Section 103(b) (4) (A) of the Internal Revenue Code,
as amended (the "COde"), provides that the interest on obligations
issued by or on behalf of a state or a political subdivision
thereof substantially all of the proceeds of which are to be used
to provide projects for residential rental property shall be exempt
from federal income taxation if, among other requirements, at least
twenty percent (20%) of the units thereof will be occupied by
individuals of low or moderate income, within the meaning of the
Code Section 103(b) (12) (C) at all times during the qualified
project period set forth in Code Section 103 (b) (12) (B); and
WHEREAS, it is proposed that the Issuer issue its revenue
bonds in on e or more series for the purpose of providing financing
for a multifamily rental residential project consisting of
approximately 638 apartment units for rental to low and moderate
income tenants to be located on approximately 25.542 acres of real
estate located north of Hampden Avenue near the intersection of
Gilpin Street and Hampden Avenue, as more fully described in the
proposal of the OWner referred to below, within the boundaries of
the Issuer (the "Project") , which will be owned by Cherry Hills
Court Venture, a Colorado limited partnership (the "OWner") the
managing general partner of which will be Cherry Hills Court, Ltd.,
which is comprised of certain principals of Trammell Crow
Residential Companies and the Olasewood Company but only in the
event that all matters relating to the plans and specifications of
the Project, its zoning and all other real estate concerns be
satisfactory in all respects to City; and
1
•
I • •
•
•
• •
WHEREAS, the Owner has indicated its willingness to enter
into contractual arrangements wi th the Issuer providing assurance
satisfactory to the Issuer that the dwelling units of the Project
will be occupied at all times by persons of low and middle incane,
as determined by the governing body of the Issuer, and that at
least twenty percent (20~) of the units of the Project will be
occupied by individuals of low or middle incane within the meaning
of Code Section l03(b) (12) (B); and
WHEREAS, the Owner has indicated its willingness to enter
into contractual arrangements with the Issuer providing assurance
satisfactory to the Issuer that the dwelling units of the Project
will be occupied at all times by persons of low and middle incane,
as determined by the governing body of the Issuer, and that at
least twenty percent (20%) of the units of the Project will be
occupied by individuals of low or middle incane within the meaning
of Code Section 103(b) (12) {B); and
WHEREAS, the Issuer wishes to declare its intention to
authorize an issue of its revenue bonds in one or more series for
the purpose of paying the cost of financing the Project, when so
requested by the Owner, upon such teons aro coroi tions as are
contained herein, aro as may then be agreed upon by the Issuer, the
Owner, and the purchaser for the boros;
N<M, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COlJICIL OF THE
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. In order to benefit the residents of the Issuer
and to 1nduce the Owner to locate the Project within the boundaries
of the Issuer, the Issuer hereby declares its intent to issue its
multifamily housing revenue boros in one or more series (the
"Boros") in an affJroximate aggregate principal amount of
~3§1 999 1 888, which amount is estimated to be sufficient: (a) to
fund a loan to provide financing for the acquisition and construc-
tion of the Project; and (b) to pay certain costs incurred in
connection with the issuance of the Boros. 'lhe Boros will be
issued by the City only subsequent to the affJroval in all respects
of the plans and specifications of the Project by the City and only
in the event that all matters relating to such plans and specifica-
tions for the Project, its zoning and all other real estate
concerns be satisfactory in all respects to the City.
Section 2. 'ltle Boros shall be special limited obligations of
the Issuer payable solely fran the revenues derived fran or in
connection with the loan to provide financing for the Project.
2
•
(
l I • •
-
C.
•
•
•
• -
Section 3. '!he governing body of the Issuer hereby finds,
determines, recites and declares that the Bonds shall not consti-
tute the debt or indebtedness of the Issuer, the State of Colorado
or any other political subdivision of the State, and shall not
constitute nor give rise to a pecuniary liability of the Issuer or
a charge against the Issuer's general credit or taxing powers, nor
shall the Bonds ever be deened to be an obligation or agreement of
any officer, director, agent or employee of the Issuer in such
person's individual capacity, and none of such persons shall be
subject to any personal liability by reason of issuance of the
Bonds.
Section 4. '!he issuance of the Bonds shall be subject to:
(a) the execut1on by the owner and the Issuer of contractual
arrangements providing assurance satisfactory to the Issuer that
the dwelling units of the Project will be occupied at all times by
persons of low and middle incane as determined by the governing
body of the Issuer, and that at least twenty percent (20%) of the
units in the Project will be occupied by persons of low or moderate
incane within the meaning of Code Section 103(b) (l2)(C) at all
times during the qualified project period set forth in Code Section
l03(b) (12) (B); (b) the receipt of an unqualified approving opinion
of Kutak Rock & Campbell, as Bond Counsel; (c) the unqualified
obligation of the owner to pay all expenses and fees of the Issuer
in connection herewith; and (d) the issuance of the Bonds within
twelve (12) 100nths of the date hereof.
Section 5. '!he governing body of the Issuer hereby finds,
determ1nes, recites and declares that the issuance of the Bonds to
provide financing for the Project will pranote the public purposes
set forth in the llct, including, without limitation, assisting
persons of low and middle incane to obtain decent, safe and
sanitary housing at rental they can afford.
Section 6. '!he governing body of the Issuer hereby f i nds,
determ1nes, recites and declares the Issuer's intent that this
Resolution constitute an official indication of the present
intention of the Issuer to issue the Bonds as herein provided ; that
the adoption of this Resolution is and constitutes the taking of
affirmative official action of the Issuer acting by and through its
governing body toward the issuance of the Bonds within the meaning
of Section 1.103-B(a) (5) (iii), Title 26, Code of Federal
Regulations, as amended, and applicable rulings of the Internal
Revenue Service thereunder; and that the adoption of this
Resolution is intended to induce the owner to undertake and locate
the Project within the boundaries of the Issuer for the benefit of
the residents of the Issuer; all to the end that the Bonds may
qualify for the exemption provisions of Code Section 103(b) (4) (a)
3
•
0
I •
-
•
•
•
•
• •
and that the interest on the Bonds will therefore be excludable
from the gross incomes of the holders thereof under the provisions
of Code Section l03(a) (1).
Section 7. All actions not inconsistent with the provisions
of the Resolut1on heretofore taken by the governing body of the
Issuer or officers of the Issuer in furtherance of the undertakings
herein described are hereby ratified, approved and confirmed.
Section B. All prior acts, orders or resolutions, or parts
thereof of the Issuer in conflict with this Resolution are hereby.
repealed, except that this repealer shall not be construed to
revise an act, order or resolution, or part thereof, heretofore
repealed.
Section 9. If any section, paragraph, clause or provision of
this Aesolutlon shall be adjudged to be invalid or unenforceable,
the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph,
clause or provision shall not affect any of the remaining sections,
paragraphs, clauses or provisions of this Resolution, it being the
intention that the various parts hereof are severable.
AOOPl'ED AND APPROVED the 1st day of July, 1985.
!).)gene L. ot1s, Mayor
Attest:
ex off1c1o C1ty Clerk-Treasurer
I, Gary R. Higbee, ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer of the
City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and
foregoing is a true, accurate, and complete copy of Resolution
No. __ , Series of 1985 •
4
•
[
0
l
I • •
•
•
• •
C 0 U N C I L C 0 M M U N I C A T I 0 N
DATE J une 26, 1985 AGENDA ITEM
J/c
SUBJECT PAVING DISTRICT NO. 30
INITIATED BY City Mana ger
ACTION PROPOSED Award of Construction Contract for Paving District No . 30
BACKGROUND
On May 20 , 1985 City Council approved on final reading Ordinance No. 30 , Series
1985, creating Paving District No. 30.
FINANCIAL
The c osts of Paving District No. 3 0 improvements are borne by both the adjacent
property owner, through special assessments levied for work done adjacent to
their property, and the Ci ty, through budgeted monies in the PIF for street and
alley intersection work, incidental storm sewer construction , fence relocations,
tree removals, engineering and inspection services , etc. The following breakdown
and comparison of estimated expenditures and funding relative to the total project
cost is provided for your information:
Estimated Expenditures:
Construction (per bid )
Paving District No. 30
Const . Contingency .
Misc. Contract Const.
Engineering & Surveying
Misc. Assessments Costs
Legal/Fiscal Fees
Bond Interest
2\ Assessment Amt.
$602 ,084.91
60 ,208.49
25,010.00
55,300 .00
23,700 .00
19,000.00
114,000.00
11,800.00
$911 ,103 .4 0
Funding:
Assessments
City of Englewood
$596 ,903.40
314 ,200 .00
$911 ,103 .40
Funding for the City 's portion of Paving District No. 30 is presently available in
the PIF -$360 ,000.00 . Bonds are being sold for the assessable portion of the
project . The assessment total shown above is considerably lower than thetot3l bond
sale due to the high volume of private concrete construction and extremely low bid
prices. Any surplus funding from the sale of bonds can be utilized in redeeming
bonds at an early date .
•
I •
-
•
(
•
•
• •
-2 -
RECOMMENDATION
Five bids were received for the construction of Pav ing District No. 30 as follows:
RKS Industries, Inc.
Kiewit Western
sttuminous Roadways
Asphal t Paving Co.
Western Paving Const. Co.
The Engineer's estimate was:
$602,084.91
683 ,164.65
716,0 86.94
727 ' 792 .4 0
734,477.11
760,000.00
We recommend that the construction of Paving District No. 30 be awarded to the low
bidder , RKS Industries, Inc. in the amount of $602 ,084 .91.
RKS Industries, Inc. is a large, well-established firm with which we have had
good experience on several occasions over the past many years. Their most recent
City of Englewood project was Paving District No . 27, 1980.
PK/lo
•
I • •
-
(
(
•
•
•
• •
C 0 U N C I L C 0 M M U N I C A T I 0 N
DATE
June 26 , 1985
INITIATED BY
ACTION PROPOSED
AGENDA ITEM
1/d_ SUBJECT Special Assessment Bonds for
Paving District No. 30
Ga ry R. Higbee, Director of Finance
Pass a resolution awardinq the purchase of and a bill for
the issuance of s-p-e-c~i-a:l __ a_s_s_e_s_s_m_e_n_t~bo~n-d~s~f-o-r-=P-a-v~i-n-q-=D~i-s~t-r~i-c~t-=N~o-.~3~0~.-------------
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend that City Council pass the resolution for the purchase of special
assessment bonds for Paving District No. 30 as well as pass an ordinance
issuing the bonds.
BACKGROUND:
On May 20, 1985, the City Council passed an o rd inance (Ordinance No. 30 , Series
of 1985) creating Paving District No. 30. The next step on the schedule of
events is to issue bonds to help pay for the special assessment.
On July 1, 1985, at 2:00p.m. bond bids will be received, evaluated, and later
that day presented to City Council by a representative frOM Hanifen, Imhoff with
a recommendation for award.
•
I • •
•
BI DOER:
YEAR
~
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
•
$856,000
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO
PAVING DISTRICT NO. 30
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS
AUGUST 1, 1985
Summary of Bids
Kirchner Moore & Company
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT 'A' INTEREST RATE
$301 '000 6.oos
145,000 6.50S
120,000 7.00S
85,000 7.50S
85,000 8.oos
60,000 8.25S
60,000 8.50$
~·
'B' INTEREST RATE
1.625i
1.625S
1.625S
1 .625S
1.625S
1.625S
1.625$
'B' Interest: 8-1-85 to 8-1-86
calculation (which is not part of this bid ) of the
net interest cost from the above is:
Gross Interest Cost $200 ,920 Total Interest Cost $200 920
Net Effective Int. Rate 8.oh96i ~ Less Any Premium $ -0 -
------------------
BI DOER: Dain Bosworth Incorporated
YEAR PRINCIPAL AMOUNT 'A' INTEREST RATE 'B' INTEREST RATE
~ $301,000 6.75i 4. 50S
1987 145,000 7.00$ 4. 50$
1988 120,000 7. 50$ 4.50S
1989 85,000 7.75$ 4. 50$
1990 85,000 8.00$ 4.50$
1991 60' 000 8.25$ 4. 50$
1992 60,000 8.375$ 4. 50$
'B' Interest: 9-1-85 to 2-1-86
calculation (which is not part of this bid) of the
net interest cost from the above is :
Gross Interest Cost $208,892.50 Total Interest Cost $208,892.50
Net Effective Int. Rate 8 .3691 Less Any Premium $ -0-
-----------------
BIDDER: E.F. Hutton/Hanifen 1 Imhoff Inc .
YEAR PRINCIPAL AMOUNT 'A' INTEREST RATE 'B' INTEREST RATE
~ $301,000 6.ooi 2.1oi
1987 145,000 6.50$ 2.70$
1988 120,000 7.00$ 2.70$
1989 85,000 7.501 2.701
1990 85,000 8.001 2.701
1991 60,000 8.251 2.701
1992 60 '000 8.50$ 2.701
'B' Interest: 8-1-85 to 8-1-86
calculation (which is not part of this bid) of the
net interest cost from the above is:
Gross Interest Cost $210 1 122
Less Any Premium $ -0-
Total Interest Cost $210 122
Net Effective Int. Rate B.h18i
•
I •
•
BI DOER:
YEAR .,-ggo
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
•
$856,000
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO
PAVING DISTRICT NO. 30
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS
AUGUST 1, 1985
Summary of Bids
Kirchner Moore & Company
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT
$301,000
145,000
120,000
85,000
85,000
60,000
60,000
'A' INTEREST RATE
6.ooi
6.50'£
7.00'£
7.50'£
8. 00'£
8.25'£
8.50'£
'B' INTEREST RATE
1.625i
1.625'£
1.625'£
1.625'£
1. 625'£
1.625'£
1.625'£
'B' Interest: 8-1-85 to 8-1-86
calculation (which is not part of this bid) of the
net interest cost from the above is:
Gross Interest Cost $200,920 Total Interest Cost $200 920
Net Effective Int . Rate 8.o496i ~ Less Any Premium $ -0-
-----------------
BI DOER: Dain Bosworth IncorEorated
YEAR PRINCIPAL AMOUNT I A I INTEREST RATE 'B' INTEREST RATE .,-ggo $301,000 6.75'£ 4. 50i
1987 145,000 7.00'£ 4. 50'£
1988 120,000 7.50'£ 4. 50'£
1989 85,000 7.75'£ 4. 50S
1990 85,000 8 .00'£ 4. 50'£
1991 60,000 8.25'£ 4. 50'£
1992 60,000 8. 3751 4. 50,
'B' Interest: 9-1-85 to 2-1-86
calculation (which is not part of this bid) of the
net interest cost from the above is:
Gross Interest Cost $208,892.50 Total Interest Cost $208,892.50
Net Effective Int. Rate 8.3691 Less Any Premium $ -0-
BI DOER: E.F. Hutton/Hanifen 1 Imhoff Inc.
YEAR PRINCIPAL AMOUNT I A I INTEREST RATE 'B' INTEREST RATE .,-ggo $301,000 6.ooi 2.70i
1987 145,000 6.501 2.70'£
1988 120,000 7.001 2.701
1989 85,000 7.50'£ 2.701
1990 85,000 8.00'£ 2.701
1991 60,000 8.25'£ 2.70'£
1992 60,000 8.50'£ 2. 70'£
'B' Interest: 8-1-85 to 8-1-86
calculation (which is not part of this bid) of the
net interest cost from the above is:
Gross Interest Cost $210 6122
Less Any Premium $ --
Total Interest Cost $210 122
Net Effective Int. Rate 8.4181
•
I • •
(
(
•
RESOLUTION NO.~
SERIES OF 1985
•
• •
A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR THE
PURCHASE OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS IN THE
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $856,000, FOR PAVING
DISTRICT NO. 30, IN THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD.
WHEREAS, in order to provide funds for the construction
and installation of street paving, curb and gutter and sidewalk
improvements, together with necessary incidentals, the City
Council has determined to issue special assessment bonds of the
City for Paving District No. 30; and
WHEREAS, notice of the sale of bonds in the principal
amount of $856,000 has been published in the time and manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the notice of sale has been forwarded
to investment banking firms, banks and others who might bid on the
issue of bonds; and
WHEREAS, all bids for the purchase of the bonds which
were received prior to 2:00 P.M ., on Monday, July 1, 1985, have
been opened and tabulated , and considered by the City Council; and
miEREAS, it is in the bept interest of the C~ ~ssue
and sell said bonds to~ ~ d ~·
Denver, Colorado, the be t bidder therefor, in accordance witJ
their proposal;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ENGLEWOOD , COLORADO:
1. That special assessment bonds of the City of
Englewood for Paving principal amount of
$856,000, be issued and sold to -t~~~~~~~~~~~~d.~~~~--~·
Denver, Colorado, the best bidder
•
I • •
-
•
•
(
•
•
• •
2. That the City Council and officers of the City of
Englewood are authorized to do any and all things necessary to
complete the delivery of the bonds to the purchaser thereof.
RESOLUTION ADOPTED AND APPROVED This 1st day of July,
1985.
( S E A L )
Mayor
ATTESTED:
Director of Finance
I, GARY R. HIGBEE, ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer of the
City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and
foregoing is a true, accurate, and complete copy of Resolution No. ____ , Series of 1985.
Gary R. Higbee
-2-
I •
•
•
• •
~~~Q1Q.!.!.Q!! No. 85-__ _
A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR THE
PURCHASE OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS IN THE
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $856,000, FOR PAVING
DISTRICT NO. 30, IN THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD.
WHEREAS, in order to provide funds for the construction
and installation of street paving, curb and gutter and sidewalk
improvements, together with necessary incidentals, the City
Council has determined to issue special assessment bonds of the
City for Paving District No. 30: and
WHEREA?, notice of the sale of bonds in the principal
amount of $856,000 has been published in the time and manner
required by law: and
WHEREAS, a copy of the notice of sale has been forwarded
to investment banking firms, banks and others who might bid on the
issue of bonds: and
WHEREAS, all bids for the purchase of the bonds which
were received prior to 2:00 P.M., on Monday, July 1, 1985, have
been opened and tabulated, and considered by the City Council: and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to issue
and sell said bonds to f.. 1~ (t ( 't.~c /.-lco u: t C<"' ~
Denver, Colorado, the best bidder therefor, in accordance with
their proposal:
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO:
1. That special assessment bonds of the City of
Englewood for Paving District No. 30, in the principal amount of
$856,000, be issued and sold to A.. tf./1 ~d j/,-''"'' _. "'('.
Denver, Colorado, the best bidder for the purchase of the bonds.
-40 -
•
I .
-•
• •
BY AUTHORITY
COUNCIL BILL NO . ~
I NTRODUC ~UNCI L
MEMBER •
ItL FOR
I NG THE ISSUANCE OF
S IN THE PRINCIPAL
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD,
t STRICT NO. 30;
THE BONDS, AND
'i E BONDS AND THE
City of Englewo od ,
1 985, finally pass e d
District No. 30,
, and install i n g
nts, tog e ther
i ty; and
s for the
1 s been
, June
~ed
l n the
,. (!~_
t or the issuance
CIL OF THE CITY OF
and Bond De t ails . That by
1 ty Charter a n d the procedure
-43 -
•
I • •
•
•
• •
CORRECTION
THE PRECED!fi!G DOCUMENT OR ELANK FRAME HAS EEE:'I
REMICROF!Llv!ED TO ASSURE LEGIEILJTY AND
ITS IMAGE APPEARS IMMEDIATELY HEREAFTER.
•
I . .
-
•
•
•
•
• •
2. That the City Council and officers of the City of
Englewood are authorized to do any and all things necessary to
complete the delivery of the bonds to the purchaser thereof.
198 5.
RESOLUTION ADOPTED AND APPROVED This lst day of July,
( S E A L )
Mayor
ATTESTED:
Director of Finance
-41 -
•
I • •
-
•
•
• •
ORDINANCE NO.
SERIES OF 1985
BY AUTHORITY
COUNCIL BILL NO. ~
I NTRODUC ~UNCI L
MEMBER ·
A BILL FOR
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS IN THE PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF $856,000 OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD,
COLORADO, FOR PAVING DISTRICT NO. 30;
PRESCRIBING THE FORM OF THE BONDS, AND
PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE BONDS AND THE
INTEREST THEREON.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Englewood,
Colorado, has, by Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1985, finally passed
and adopted on May 20, 1985, created Paving District No. 30,
within the City, for the purpose of constructing and installing
street paving, curb and gutter and sidewalk improvements, together
with necessary incidentals on certain streets in the City; and
WHEREAS, Notice to Contractors to submit bids for the
construction of the improvements in the District has been
advertised and bids for such construction were received on June
1 7 , 19 8 5 ; a nd
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that special
assessment bonds of the City for the District should be issued in
the amount of $856,000 for the payment of part of such
construction cost; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the City Charter and a
resolution passed on May 20, 1985, the City Council has advertised
for the sale of Special Assessment Bonds and said bonds in the
amount of $856,000 have been awarded to I. <'1-'At:-Jl. J./r (',
__________________ ; and
WHEREAS, it is now necessary to provide for the issuance
of such bonds and the form and payment thereof;
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO:
Section 1. Authorization and Bond Details. That by
virtue of and pursuant to the City Charter and the procedure
-43 -
I •
•
•
• •
Section 1. Authorization and Bond Details. That by
virtue of and pursuant to the City Charter and the procedure
Ordinance of the City (Chapter 12 of the Municipal Code), Special
Assessment Bonds of the City of Englewood for Paving District No.
30 (the "Bonds") shall be issued for the purpose of paying part of
the costs of local improvements to be constructed and installed in
the District. The Bonds shall be in the principal amount of
$856,000, dated August 1, 1985, and be in the denomination of
$1,000 each. The Bonds shall be issued only as fully registered
bonds without coupons and shall be due and payable on August 1,
1996, subject to prior redemption in accordance with Section 3
hereof.
The Bonds shall bear interest payable semiannually on
each February 1 and August 1, commencing on February 1, 1986, as
follows:
"A" Initial Interest Amount Bond Numbers Rate
$301,000 R-1 to R-301, incl. ,C' % 145,000 R-302 to R-446, incl. fr ·-..... 120,000 R-447 to R-566, incl. 1 .G 85,000 R-567 to R-651, incl. 7,5 85,000 R-652 to R-736, incl. 0 (. 60,000 R-737 to R-796, incl. ~ ,-
-.) ,._, 60,000 R-797 to R-856, incl.
In addition to the "A" interest rate indicated above, Bonds numbered to < :..:;t.inclusive, shall bear additional "B"
interest for the period from At {•~,-.:)7 1, 1985 to the dates
indicated below, or to the redemption date of the Bond, whichever
is the earlier date, such "B" interest being payable on the same
dates as the "A" interest, during said period of time:
Bond Numbers "B" Interest
Rate
-44 -
For Period
To
I • •
•
•
• •
Such "B" interest shall be evidenced by an appropriate
instrument, which shall be fully registered.
The maximum net effective interest rate authorized for
this issue of Bonds shall be 14.00% per annum.
ff . . . ~ { 4't (.;, e ect1ve 1nterest rate 1s ~% per annum.
The actual net
Section 2. Payment of Bonds; Paying Agent and Bond
Registrar. The principal of the Bonds is payable in lawful money
of the United States of America to the registered owner of each
bond upon presentation at the principal office of The First
National Bank of Englewood, in Englewood, Colorado, or its
successor, as paying agent (the "Paying Agent"). Notwi thstand inq
anything contained in this Ordinance to the contrary, interest on
any Bond is payable to the person in whose name such Bond is
registered, at his address as it appears on the registration books
maintained by or on behalf of the City by The First National Bank
of Englewood, in Englewood, Colorado, or its successor, as Bond
Registrar (the "Bond Registrar"), at the close of business on the
fifteenth (15th) day of the calendar month next preceding each
interest payment date (the "Record Date"), irrespective of any
transfer or exchange of such Bond subsequent to such Record Date
and prior to such interest payment date. Such payment shall be
paid by check or draft of the Paying Agent.
The principal of and interest on the Bonds shall be paid
in accordance with terms of a "Bond Paying Agent and Registrar
Agreement" between the City and The First National Bank of
Englewood, in Englewood, Colorado.
Section 3. Prior Redemption. The Bonds are subject to
call and prior payment on any interest payment date, in direct
numerical order, upon payment of par and accrued interest. Notice
of such prior redemption will be given by the Bond Registrar by
mailing a copy of the redemption notice by first class mail
(postage prepaid) not less than 15 days prior to the date fixed
for redemption, to the registered owner of each Bond to be
redeemed at the address shown on the registration books maintained
by or on behalf of the City by the Bond Registrar. Notice of
prior redemption shall also be given by advertisement once a week
-45 -
•
I • •
-
•
•
• •
for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation
in the City, in accordance with Section
to give such notice by mailing to any
therein, shall not affect the validity
redemption of other Bonds. All Bonds
31-25-536 C. R. S. Failure
Bondowner, or any de feet
of any proceeding for the
so called for redemption
will cease to bear interest after the specified redemption date,
provided funds for their redemption are on deposit at the place of
payment at that time.
Section 4. Form and Execution of Bonds. The Bonds
shall be signed with the facsimile or manual signature of the
Mayor, sealed with a facsimile or manual impression of the seal of
the City, attested and countersigned with the facsimile or manual
signature of the Director of Finance, ex-officio City Clerk-
Treasurer. Should any officer whose facsimile or manual signature
appears on the Bonds cease to be such officer before delivery of
the Bonds to the purchaser, such facsimile or manual signature
shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes.
The Bonds shall be in substantially the following form:
-46 -
•
I • •
-
•
•
•
No. R-___ _
•
• •
[Form of Bond]
[Front of Bond]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD
s ___ _
PAVING DISTRICT NO. 30, SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BOND
"A"
INTEREST RATE MATURITY DATE
AUGUST 1, 1996
REGISTERED OWNER:
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS
ORIGINAL
ISSUE DATE
AUGUST 1, 1985
The City of Englewood, Arapahoe County, Colorado, for
value received, hereby promises to pay out of the special fund
hereinafter designated, but not otherwise, to the registered owner
named above, or registered assigns, on the maturity date specified
above, the principal amount specified above, and in like manner to
pay interest on such principal amount (computed on the basis of a
360-day year of twelve 30-day months) from the interest payment
date next preceding the date of registration and authentication of
this Bond, unless this Bond is registered and authenticated prior
to February 1, 1986, in which event this Bond shall bear interest
from August 1, 1985, at the "A" interest rate per annum specified
above, payable semiannually on February 1 and August 1 each year,
commencing on February 1, 1986, until such principal amount is
paid, unless this Bond shall have been previously called for
redemption and payment shall have been duly provided for or made.
In addition to the "A" interest rate set forth above, this Bond
shall bear supplemental "B" interest, at the rate of • ___ _ % per
annum, for the period from 1, 198_, to
198_, or to the redemption date of the Bond, whichever
earlier date, payable on the same dates as the "A" interest
said period of time. Such "B" interest shall be evidenced
- 4 7 -
•
1,
is the
during
by one
I •
1
•
•
•
• •
or more separate instruments which shall be fully registered. The
principal of this Bond is payable in lawful money of the United
States of America to the registered owner upon presentation at The
First National Bank of Englewood, in Englewood, Colorado, or its
successor, as Paying Agent.
Payment of each installment of interest shall be made to
the registered owner hereof whose name shall appear on the
registration books of the City maintained by or on behalf of the
City by The First National Bank of Englewood, in Englewood,
Colorado, or its successor, as Bond Registrar, at the close of
business on the . fifteenth (15th) day of the calendar month next
preceding each interest payment date (the "Record Date"), and
shall be paid by check or draft of the Paying Agent mailed to such
registered owner at his address as it appears on such registration
books.
REFERENCE IS HEREBY MADE TO FURTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS
BOND SET FORTH ON THE REVERSE HEREOF, WHICH FURTHER PROVISIONS
SHALL FOR ALL PURPOSES HAVE THE SAME EFFECT AS IF FULLY SET FORTH
IN THIS PLACE.
This Bond shall not be valid or become obligatory for
any purpose or be entitled to any security or benefit under the
authorizing Bond Ordinance until the certificate of authentication
hereon shall have been signed by the Bond Registrar.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the City of Englewood, Colorado,
has caused this Bond to be executed in its name with the facsimile
signature of the Mayor, sealed with a facsimile of the City seal,
-48 -
·l
~\~-.----------------~~~.-.~~~----~~~~.Jn
I • •
-
•
•
•
•
• •
attested and countersigned with the facsimile signature of the
Director of Finance, ex-officio City Clerk-Treasurer, all as of
the 1st day of August, 1985.
(FACSIMILE
S E A L )
ATTESTED AND COUNTERSIGNED:
By: (Facsimile Signature)
Director of Finance, ex-
officio City Clerk-Treasurer
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, ARAPAHOE
COUNTY, COLORADO
By: _____ (~F_a~ __ cs_i_m~i~l_e~S __ i 6g_n_a_t_u_r_e~> __ __
Mayor
[Form of Bond Registrar's Certificate of Authentication]
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION
This Bond is one of the Bonds of the issue described in the within mentioned Bond Ordinance.
Date of Registration
and Authentication: The First National Bank of
Englewood,
Englewood, Colorado,
as Bond Registrar
By: __ ~A~u~tLh-o~r~i-z-e~d~S~i-g_n_a~t-o~r-y ____ ___
-49 -
•
I •
___ !) .
"
•
-
•
•
•
• •
[Back of Bond]
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS
This Bond is one of a series aggregating Eight Hundred
Fifty Six Thousand Dollars ($856,000) par value, all of like date,
principal amount, maturity date, tenor, and effect except as to
number, and interest rate, issued by the City of Englewood, in the
County of Arapahoe and State of Colorado, for the purpose of
paying part of the costs of constructing and installing street
paving, curb and gutter and sidewalk improvements, together with
necessary incidentals, in Paving District No. 30, in the City of
Englewood, Colorado. The Bond is issued under the Authority of
the City Charter, the procedure Ordinance of the City adopted
pursuant to the City Charter (Chapter 12 of the Municipal Code)
and the Ordinance authorizing the issuance of Bonds of the City
duly adopted, approved, published and made a law of said City
prior to the issuance hereof. Pursuant to Chapter 12 of the
Municipal Code, such recital shall conclusively impart full
compliance with all of the provisions thereof, and all bonds
issued containing such recital shall be incontestable for any
cause whatsoever after their delivery for value. It is hereby
recited, certified, and warranted that all of the requirements of
law have been fully complied with by the proper officers in
issuing this Bond.
Payment of this Bond and the interest thereon shall be
made from, and as security for such payment there is pledged, a
special fund designated as "Paving District No. 30 Bond and
Interest Fund", which Fund shall contain initially any moneys in
the construction account remaining after the cost of improvements
has been paid in full and thereafter to contain the proceeds from
special assessments to be levied against the property included
within the District and specially benefited by the construction
and installation of improvements therein. The assessments to be
levied will constitute a lien on and against each lot or tract of
land in the respective amounts to be apportioned by an ordinance
of the City. Pursuant to the City Charter, and the Ordinance
-50 -
•
I • •
-
•
•
•
• •
authorizing the issuance of this Bond, whenever four-fifths (4/5)
of the Bonds of this issue have been paid and cancelled, and for
any reason the remaining assessments are not paid in time to take
up the final Bonds and interest thereon, then the City shall pay
said Bonds when due and interest due thereon and reimburse itself
by collecting the unpaid assessments due the District,
It is hereby certified and recited that the total issue
of Bonds of the City for the District, including this Bond, does
not exceed the amount authorized by law; that every requirement of
law relating to the creation of Paving District No. 30, the
construction of ~aid local improvements, and the issuance of this
Bond has been fully complied with by the proper officers of the
City, and that all conditions required to exist and things
required to be done precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond
to render the same lawful and valid, have happened, been properly
done and performed, and did exist in regular and due time, form,
and manner, as required by law.
This Bond does not constitute a debt or an indebtedness
of the City of Englewood within the meaning of the City Charter ,
or any constitutional or statutory limitation or provision, and
shall not be considered or held to be a general obligation of the
City. The payment of this Bond and the interest thereon is not
secured by an encumbrance, mortgage, or other pledge of property
of the City except for such special assessments and other moneys
pledged for the payment of Bonds, as set forth above. No property
of the City, subject to such exception, shall be liable to be
forfeited or taken in payment of the Bonds.
For the payment of this Bond and the interest thereon,
the City pledges to exercise all of its lawful corporate powers to
collect the assessments.
Bonds of this issue, of which this Bond is one, are
subject to call and prior payment on any interest payment date, in
direct numerical order, upon payment of par and accrued interest •
Notice of prior redemption shall be given by mailing a copy of the
redemption notice not less than fifteen (15) days prior to the
date fixed for redemption, to the registered owner of this Bond at
-51 -
•
I • •
•
•
• •
the address shown on the registration books maintained by the Bond
Registrar, in the manner set forth in the authorizing Bond
Ordinance. All Bonds called for redemption will cease to bear
interest after the specified redemption date, provided funds for
their redemption are on deposit at the place of payment at that
time.
The City and the Bond Registrar shall not be required to
issue or transfer any Bonds: (1) during a period beginning on the
Record Date and ending at the close of business on the ensuing
interest payment date, or (2) during the period beginning on any
date of selection of Bonds to be redeemed and ending on the day on
which the applicable notice of redemption is given. The Bond
Registrar shall not be required to transfer any Bonds selected or
called for redemption, in whole or in part. The City, the Paying
Agent, and the Bond Registrar may deem and treat the registered
owner of any Bond as the absolute owner thereof for all purposes
(whether or not such Bond shall be overdue) and any notice to the
contrary shall not be binding upon the City, the Paying Agent, or
the Bond Registrar.
This Bond is transferable by the registered owner hereof
in person or by his attorney duly authorized in writing, at the
principal office of the Bond Registrar, but only in the manner,
subject to the limitations, and upon payment of the charges
provided in the authorizing Bond Ordinance and upon surrender and
cancellation of this Bond. This Bond may be transferred upon the
registration books upon delivery to the Bond Registrar of this
Bond, accompanied by a written instrument or instruments of
transfer in form and with guaranty of signature satisfactory to
the Bond Registrar, duly executed by the owner of this Bond or his
attorney-in-fact or legal representative, containing written
instructions as to the details of the transfer of the Bond, along
with the social security number or federal employer identification
number of such transferee. In the event of the transfer of this
Bond, the Bond Registrar shall enter the transfer of ownership in
the registration books and shall authenticate and deliver in the
name of the transferee or transferees a new fully registered Bond
-52 -
•
I • •
•
•
• •
or Bonds of authorized denominations of the
interest rate for the aggregate principal
registered owner is entitled to receive
practicable time. The City shall pay for
same maturity and
amount which the
at the earliest
any transfer fee
required by the Bond Registrar relating to the transfer of such
Bond, but the City or the Bond Registrar may charge the owner of
such Bond for any tax or other governmental charge required to be
paid with respect to such transfer. The sequential numbers shall
remain the same (i.e., R-1 will be reissued as R-lA, then R-lB,
etc.) following each transfer of ownership.
-53 -
•
I •
Jo .
"
•
•
•
• •
[Form of Transfer]
ASSIGNMENT
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned sells, assigns, and
transfers unto
SOCIAL SECURITY OR FEDERAL EMPLOYER
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE
(Name and Address of Assignee)
the within Bond and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint
, attorney,
7t-o--,t=-r_a_n_s-;f:-e-r--=s-a....,i"""'d:---:B;::-o--n-:;d-o-n-7t-;-h-e--b;-o--o-;-k-:s-.k:-e--p-;-t--,f;:-o-r--:r-:e-:g:-;i"":s~t:-r=-a-:-t_ ion the reo f
with full power of substitution in the premises.
Dated: _________________ __
Signature of Registered Owner:
NOTICE: The signature to this
assignment must correspond with the
name of the registered owner as it
appears upon the face of the within
Bond in every particular, without
alteration or enlargement or any
change whatever.
Signature guaranteed:
(Bank, Trust Company, or Firm)
-54 -
•
I • •
-
•
•
•
•
• •
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD
PAVING DISTRICT NO . 30, SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BOND
"B" INTEREST CERTIFICATE
REGISTERED OWNER :
The City of Englewood, Arapahoe County, Colorado (the
"City"), hereby promises to pay to the registered owner named
above, or registered assigns, the amount represented as "B"
interest on the outs tanding principal amount of the Special
Assessment Bonds, of the City for Paving District No. 30, dated
August 1, 1985, issued in the principal amount of $ (the
"Bonds") numbered at the rate of _% per
annum, for the period from _, 19_, to ,
19 , or to the redemption date of the Bond or Bonds, whichever is
theearlier date. The "B" interest shall be payable on the same
dates as the "A" interest for each Bond, during said period of
time. Such interest shall be computed on the basis of a 360-day
year of twelve 30-day months, from the interest payment date next
preceding the date of registration and authentication of this
Certificate, unless this Certificate is registered and
authenticated prior to February 1, 1986, in which event this
Certificate shall represent interest from 19 , at
the rate set forth above. -
The Bonds and the "B" interest thereon represented by
this Certificate have been authorized by an Ordinance finally
passed and adopted by the City on July 15, 1985. The Bonds are
issued as fully registered bonds, and mature, bear interest, and
are subject to redemption, all as specifically set forth in the
authorizing Bond Ordinance cited above. Notice of prior
redemption of the Bonds shall be given by The First National Bank
of Englewood, in Englewood, Colorado (the "Bond Registrar"), by
mailing a copy of the redemption notice, not less than fifteen
(15) days prior to the date fixed for redemption, to the
registered owner of this Certificate at the address shown on the
registration bo oks maintained by the Bond Registrar, as more
particularly set forth in the Bond Ordinance.
The "B" interest on said Bonds represented by this
Certificate shall be payable by the Bond Registrar to the
registered owner hereof, at his address as it appears on the
registration books maintained by or on behalf of the City, at the
close of business on the Record Date, such date being the close of
business on the fifteenth (15) day of the calendar month next
preceding the interest payment date: such payment shall be paid by
check or draft of the Bond Registrar.
-55 -
•
I • •
•
•
• •
The Bond Registrar shall maintain the books of the City
for the registration of ownership of each Bond and this "B"
Interest Certificate, as provided by the Bond Ordinance
authorizing the issuance of said Bonds.
REFERENCE IS HEREBY MADE TO FURTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS
CERTIFICATE ATTACHED HERETO, WHICH FURTHER PROVISIONS SHALL FOR
ALL PURPOSES HAVE THE SAME EFFECT AS IF FULLY SET FORTH IN THIS PLACE.
This Certificate shall not be valid or become obliqatory
for any purpose or be entitled to any security or benefit under
the Bond Ordinance authorizing this Certificate until the
certificate of authentication hereon shall have been signed by the
Bond Registrar.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the City Council of the City of
Englewood, Arapahoe County, Colorado has caused this Certificate
to be executed in its name with the manual or facsimile signature
of the Mayor of the City, sealed with a manual or facsimile of the
seal of the City, attested and countersigned with the manual or
facsimile signature of the Director of Finance, ex-officio City
Clerk-Treasurer, as of the lst day of August, 1985.
( S E A L
ATTESTED:
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD,
ARAPAHOE COUNTY, COLORADO
By:(Manual or Facsimile Signature) By:(Manual or Facsimile Signature)
Director of Finance, ex-officio Mayor
City Clerk-Treasurer
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION
This "B" Interest Certificate is the instrument
evidencing the "B" interest described in the within mentioned Bond
Ordinance.
Date of Registration
and Authentication
By:
The First National Bank of
Englewood
Englewood, Colorado, as Bond
Registrar
Author1zed S1gnatory
-56 -
I • •
-
•
•
•
• •
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS
The City and the Bond Registrar shall not be required to
issue or transfer any Certificate during a period beginning at the
close of business on the fifteenth (15th) day of the calendar
month next preceding any interest payment date and ending at the
close of business on the interest payment date. The City, the
Bond Registrar, and the Paying Agent may deem and treat the
registered owner hereof as the absolute owner hereof (whether or
not this Certificate shall be overdue) for the purpose of
receiving payment of or on account of the interest represented
hereby and for all other purposes, and neither the City, the Bond
Registrar, nor the Paying Agent shall be affected by any notice to
the contrary.
This Certificate is transferable by the registered owner
hereof in person or by his attorney duly authorized in writing, at
the principal office of the 8ond Registrar, but only in the
manner, subject to the limitations, and upon payment of the
charges provided herein, and upon surrender and cancellation of
this Certificate. This Certificate may be transferred upon the
registration books upon delivery to the Bond Registrar of the
Certificate, accompanied by a written instrument of transfer in
form and with guaranty of signature satisfactory to the Bond
Registrar, duly executed by the owner of the Certificate to be
transferred or his attorney-in-fact or legal representative,
containing written instructions as to the details of the transfer
of sue h Certi fie ate, along with the social security number or
federal employer identification number of such transferee. In all
cases of the transfer of a Certificate, the Bond Registrar shall
enter the transfer of ownership in the registration books and
shall authenticate and deliver in the name of the transferee or
transferees a new fully registered Certificate or Certificates of
the same interest rate which the registered owner is entitled to
receive at the earliest practicable time. The City or Bond
Registrar may charge the owner of this Certificate for every such
transfer of a Certificate an amount sufficient to reimburse it for
its reasonable fees and for any tax or other governmental charge
required to be paid with respect to such transfer •
-57 -
I • •
-
•
•
•
•
• •
ASSIGNMENT
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned sells, assigns and
transfers unto
SOCIAL SECURITY OR FEDERAL EMPLOYER
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE
(Name and Address of Assignee)
the within "B" Interest Certificate and does hereby irrevocably
constitute and appoint----------------~~------~~--~----~------~
, attorney to transfer said ~c'""e-r-,t'""1..-. ""f.,..i_c_a...,.t_e __ o __ n---:t-:h-e--,-b-o-o-:-k-s---:-k-e-p-:t--""fo-r reg is t ration the reo f w i t h full
power of substitution in the premises.
Dated: ________________________ ___
Signature of Registered Owner:
NOTICE: The signature to this
assignment must correspond with the
name of the registered owner as it
appears upon the face of the within
Certificate in every particular,
without alteration or enlargement or
any change whatever.
Signature guaranteed:
(Bank, Trust Company, or Firm)
-58 -
I • •
-
•
•
•
• •
Section 5. Authentication. No Bond shall be valid or
obligatory for any purpose or be entitled to any security or
benefit under this Ordinance unless and until a certificate of
authentication on such Bond substantially in the form hereinabove
set forth shall have been duly executed by the Bond Registrar, and
such executed certificate of the Bond Registrar upon any such Bond
shall be conclusive evidence that such Bond has been authenticated
and delivered under this Ordinance. The Bond Registrar's
certificate of authentication on any Bond shall be deemed to have
been executed by it if signed by an authorized officer or
signatory of the Bond Registrar, but it shall not be necessary
that the same officer or signatory sign the certificate of
authentication on all of the Bonds issued hereunder.
Section 6. Delivery of Bonds. Upon the adoption of
this Ordinance, the City shall execute the Bonds and deliver them
to the Bond Registrar, and the Bond Registrar shall authenticate
the Bonds and deliver them to the purchasers thereof as directed
by the City, and in accordance with a Bond Purchase Agreement
between the City and 1(. jL(Oli~ ..J 1
Section 7. Registration and Transfer of Bonds; Persons
Treated as Owners. The Bond Registrar shall maintain the books of
the City for the registration of ownership of each Bond as
provided in this Ordinance. Bonds may be transferred upon the
registration books upon delivery of the Bonds to the Bond
Registrar, accompanied by a written instrument or instruments of
transfer in form and with guaranty of signature satisfactory to
the Bond Registrar, duly executed by the owner of the Bonds to be
transferred or his attorney-in-fact or legal representative,
containing written instructions as to the details of the transfer
of such Bonds, along with the social security number or federal
employer identification number of such transferee. No tra11sfer of
any Bond shall be effective until entered on the registration
books •
In all cases of the transfer of a Bond, the Bond
Registrar shall enter the transfer of ownership in the
registration books and shall authenticate and deliver in the name
-59 -
•
I •
-
•
•
•
•
• •
of the transferee or transferees a new fully registered Bond or
Bonds of authorized denominations of the same maturity and
interest rate for the aggregate principal amount which the
registered owner is entitled to receive at the earliest
practicable time in accordance with the provisions of this
Ordinance. The City shall pay for any transfer fee required by
the Bond Registrar relating to the transfer of any Bond, but the
City or the Bond Registrar may charge the owner of a Bond for any
tax or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect
to such transfer.
The City and Bond Registrar shall not be required to
issue or transfer any Bonds: (1) during a period beginning on the
Record Date and ending at the close of business on the ensuing
interest payment date, or (2) during the period beginning on any
date of selection of Bonds to be redeemed and ending on the day on
which the applicable notice of redemption is given. The Bond
Registrar shall not be required to transfer any Bonds selected or
called for redemption, in whole or in part .
New Bonds delivered upon any transfer shall be valid
special obligations of the City, evidencing the same obligation as
the Bonds surrendered, shall be secured by this Ordinance, and
shall be entitled to all of the security and benefits hereof to
the same extent as the Bonds surrendered .
The City, the Payinq Agent, and the Bond Registrar may
deem and treat the registered owner of any Bond as the absolute
owner thereof for all purposes (whether or not such Bond shall be
overdue), and any notice to the contrary shall not be binding upon
the City, the Paying Agent, or the Bond Registrar •
Section 8. Destruction of Bonds. Whenever any out-
standing Bond shall be delivered to the Bond Registrar for
cancellation pursuant to this Ordinance and upon payment of the
principal amount and interest represented thereby, or whenever any
outstandinq Bond shall be delivered to the Bond Registrar for
transfer pursuant to the provisions hereof, such Bond shall be
cancelled and destroyed by the Bond Registrar and counterparts of
-60 -
•
I •
•
•
• •
a certificate of destruction evidencing such destruction shall be
furnished by the Bond Registrar to the City.
Section 9. Lost Bonds. Any Bond that is lost, stolen,
destroyed, or mutilated may be replaced or paid by the Bond
Registrar in accordance with and subject to the limitations of
applicable law. The applicant for any such replacement Bond shall
post such security, pay such costs, and present such proof of
ownership and loss as may be required by applicable law, or in the
absence of specific requirements, as may be required by the Bond
Registrar.
Section 10. Disposition and Investment of Bond
Proceeds. The Bonds shall be issued and sold for the purpose of
paying part of the costs and expenses of constructing and
installing improvements in said District and all other costs and
expenses incident thereto. In the event that all of the proceeds
of the Bonds are not required to pay such costs and expenses, any
remaining amount shall be paid into the bond fund for the purpose
of call inq in and paying the principal of and interest on the
Bonds. Neither the original purchaser of the Bonds nor any
subsequent owners shall be responsible for the application or
disposal by the Issuer or any of its officers of the funds derived
fr~ the sale thereof.
All or any portion of the Bond proceeds may be
temporarily invested or reinvested, pending such use, in
securities or obligations which are lawful investments. It is
hereby covenanted and aqreed by the City that the temporary
investment or reinvestment of the original proceeds of the Bonds,
or of any moneys treated as proceeds of the Bonds within the
meaning of Section 103(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as
amended (the "Code"), and pertinent regulations, rulinqs, and
decisions, shall be of such nature and extent, for such period,
and at such yield, that the Bonds shall not be or become arbitrage
bonds within the meaning of Section 103(c) of the Code and
pertinent regulations, rulings, and decisions.
Section 11. Incontestable Recital in Bonds. In
accord a nce with Section 12-1-13 of the Municipal Code of the City,
-61 -
•
I • •
•
•
• •
each bond shall recite that it is issued under the Authority of
the City Charter and the procedure ordi nance or ordinance s ad opted
pursuant to the City Charter ; such recital shall conclus ively
impart full compliance with all of the provisions thereof, an d all
bonds issued containing such recital shall be incontestable for
any cause whatsoever after their delivery for value.
Section 12. Limitation of Action. In accordance with
Section 12-1-12 of Chapter 12 of the Municipal Code, any person
filing with the City Council at the time of the hearing on the
creation of the district a complaint, protest, or objection, shall
have the right, within thirty (30) days after the final passage of
the ordinance creating the district or the ordinance authorizing
the issuance of bonds, to commence an action or suit in any court
of competent jurisdiction to correct or set aside any
determination by the City Council or questioning the authority or
proceedings taken by the City Council relating to the creation of
the District, the issuance of bonds, the method of assessment, or
the construction of improvements.
Section 13. Pavinq District No. 30 Bond and Interest
Fund. The Bonds and the interest thereon shall be payable solely
from the local improvement fund, designated as the •paving
District No. 30 Bond and Interest Fund", which shall contain
initially any moneys in the construction account remaining after
the cost of improvements has been paid in full and thereafter to
contain the proceeds from special assessments to be levied against
the property within the District and specially benefited by the
construction of improvements therein.
When there is on hand a sufficient amount to pay
six months ' interest on outs tandinq Bonds for the District, the
City shall call for payment, on the next interest payment date,
outstandinq Bonds in direct numerical order with funds available
therefor .
After the expiration of the period for cash
paymen ts of assessments in full, the City shall, to the extent
possible , pay each year not less than 10% of the total amount of
-62 -
•
I • •
-
•
•
• •
Bonds outstanding after the payment of the Bonds with the proceeds
of such cash payments of assessments in full.
Section 14. Additional Security for the Payment of
Principal and Interest. Pursuant to the City Charter, whenever
four-fifths (4/5) of the Bonds of this issue have been paid and
cancelled, and for any reason the remaining assessments are not
paid in time to take up the final Bonds and interest thereon, then
the City shall pay said Bonds when due and interest due thereon
and reimburse itself by collecting the unpaid assessments due the
District.
Section 15. Assessment of Costs. Upon completion of
the local improvements, or upon completion from time to time of
any part thereof, and upon acceptance thereof by the Council, or
whenever the total cost can be definitely ascertained, it will
cause a statement showing the total cost of the improvements to be
prepared and filed in the office of the Director of Finance. The
City Council shall further cause assessments to be levied against
the property included within the District and specially benefited
by the construction and installation of such improvements, in
accordance with law.
Section 16. Repealer. All Ordinances or resolutions,
or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
Section 17. Severability. Should any one or more
sections or provisions of this Ordinance be judicially determined
invalid or unenforceable, such determination shall not affect,
impair or invalidate the remaining provisions hereof, the
intention being that the various provisions hereof are severable.
Section 18. Ordinance Irrepealable. After said Bonds
are issued , this Ordinance shall be and remain irrepealable until
said Bonds and the interest thereon shall have been fully paid,
satisfied and discharged.
Section 19. Hearing. In accordance with Section 40 of
the City Charter, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on
this ordinance, before final passage, at 7:30 P.M. on Monday, July
15, 1985.
-63 -
•
I • •
-
•
•
•
•
• •
Section 20. Publication and Effective Date. This
Ordinance after its final passage, shall be numbered and recorded,
and the adoption and publication shall be authenticated by the
signature of the Mayor and the Director of Finance, ex-officio
City Clerk-Treasurer, and by the Certificate of Publication. This
ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after
publication following final passage.
Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading,
the lst day of July, 1985.
Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the 3rd day of
July, 1985.
( S E A L
ATTESTED:
Director of Finance, ex-offlClO
City Clerk-Treasurer
Mayor
I, Gary R. Higbee, ex-officio City Clerk-Treasurer of
the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and
foregoing is a true, accurate and complete copy of a Bill for an
Ordinance, introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading
on the 1st day of July, 1985.
Gary R. Hlgbee
FINALLY PASSED AND ADOPTED This 15th day of July, 1985 •
( S E A L
Mayor
ATTESTED:
Director of Finance
-64 -
•
I • •
-
•
•
•
•
• •
ORDINMCE t«>.
SERIES OF 198_5_
BY AlJl'HORITY
A BILL roR
CXlUOCIL BILL t«>. 47
1m'~ BY C:OUOCIL
tm1BER 1 J..._
AN ORDINAN:E APPROVING AN AGREaiENl' BE'IWEEN 'ntE CITY OF ENGLE)iOOD
AND "niE ENGUW(X)[) URBAN RE!mliAL Al1l'HORITY PROVIDING roR OPERATING
STAFF, a:JUIPMENT, REIATFD SUPPORT AW DEFINING RESPONSIBILITIES.
WHEREAS, the City aoo the Authority have determined that for
purposes of econany and efficiency of operation, it is in the best
interests of the public that the operating staff of the Authority
be provided by the City through its anployees, subject to the terms
and conditions of that certain ~rating Agreement contained in
Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1983; and
WHEREAS, the Authority and the City desire to clarify the
respective duties of the parties with respect to the &lglewood
Downtown Redevelopnent Plan (the "Urban Renewal Plan") and to
supplanent the ~rating Agreement by and between the parties dated
February 22, 1983;
~. 'llfEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY "niE CITY COU!CIL OF "niE
CITY OF~. OXDRAOO:
Secti on 1. 'lbe agreement entitled "~lanent to ~rating
Agreement" (Supplanent No. 1) between City of &lglewood and the
&lglewood urban Renewal Authority is hereby approved, a copy of
which Agreement is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference.
Section 2. The Mayor and ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer are
hereby auth0r1zed to sign and attest said SUpplement to ~rating
Agreement for and on behalf of City Council and the City of
&lglewood.
Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the
lst day of July, 1985.
PUblished as a Bill for an Ordinance on the 3rd day of
July, 1985.
Attest:
hiCjene L. Otls, Mayor
ex officio city Clerk-Treasurer I • •
-
•
•
• •
I, Gary R. Higbee, ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer of the
City of &lglewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above a00
foregoing is a true, accurate a00 canplete copy of a Bill for an
Ordinance, introduced, read in full, a00 passed on first reading on
the 1st day of July, 1985.
Gary R. Higbee
•
(
I • •
-
•
•
•
• •
SUPPLEMENT TO OPERATING AGREEMENT
THIS SUPPLEMENT TO OPERATING AGREEMENT dated as of -----
1985, ("Supplement No. 1") is made by and between the CITY OF ENGLEWOOD,
COLORADO, a municipal corporation and home rule charter city organized and existing
under the Constitution and laws of the State of Colorado (the "City"), and the
ENGLEWOOD URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY, a body corporate and politic organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Colorado (the "Authority").
RECITAL:
The Authority and the City desire to clarify the respective duties of the parties
with respect the Englewood Downtown Redevelopment Plan (the "Urban Renewal Plan")
and to supplement the Operating Agreement by and between the parties dated February
22, 1983.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties
hereby agree as follows:
Section 1. Utility Relocation in Urban Renewal Project. The parties acknowledge
and agree that under the approvals of the Urban Renewal Plan given by the City, all
matters involving public utilities in the Urban Renewal Area are under the direct
supervision and control of the City and are to be governed by applicable franchise
agreements by and between the City and the respective public utility companies or by
common law; and, further, that the City agrees that all requests, directives, communi-
cations and orders to be issued to or directed to any public utility in connection with
the execution of the Urban Renewal Plan shall be the sole responsibility of the City
I •
-
•
•
•
• •
acting by and through the ~ Department. It is the intention of the parties
that, as between the City and the Authority, the City shall be responsible for carrying
out any and all utility relocation, upgrading, installation modification or any other
matter requiring action or activity by any public utility operating within the area
covered by the Urban Renewal Plan.
Section 2. Effect of Supplement. Except as supplemented and clarified by this
Supplement No. 1, the Operating Agreement by and between the City and the Authority
dated February 22, 1983, shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement as of
the day and year first above written.
ATIEST:
ATIEST:
City Clerk
(SEAL)
Secretary
(SEAL)
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO
By ________ -n~=----------------Mayor
ENGLEWOOD URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
By _______ ~~==~-----------Chalrman
- 2 -
--~~-·--------------~----~~---·~~~--------~~1
I • •
•
• •
C 0 U N C I L C 0 M M U N I C A T I 0 N
DATE
JunP 25 1985
AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT
11~
INITIATED BY Enwlewood Urban Renewal Authority
Bill for Ordinance Supplementing
the City /EURA Operating Agree-
ment to Clarify Responsibilities
ACTION PROPOSED_.....!:!A.t:P.t:P~r~o.:.v,:e_t=.h!..!.e~B~i~l~l~f~o~r:......::O~r~d!..:in:!!.!:an~c'-5e:.....li!s:1!u!Eo~p:,~.l.!il.emmenent:s;.J.!,.n!:!!a:L.:t>JhlleiL.IC,;.;iiJt;;Jv!l.lctEJ.U!.I:RAI8...._
Operating Agreement.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND:
In February, 1983, the City Council approved an agreement between the Englewood
Urban Renewal Authority and City of Englewood to define staff relationships and
responsibilities for the Downtown Redevelopment project. In the agreement, it
states that the City will provide engineering services for the Urban Renewal Au-
1 thority efforts. This has meant that the Department of Engineering Services has
been responsible for overseeing all construction projects (Englewood Parkway,
Little Dry Creek). In that regard, the issues of utility relocations have been
handled.
•
Recently, a question has arisen as to whether the Englewood Parkway is a "City"
project or an "Urban Renewal Authority" project. Clearly, the entire project is
a City project even though the Urban Renewal Authority has certain defined responsi-
bilities. In order to further clarify the responsibilities related to utility re-
location, the operating agreement between the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority and
City of Englewood is being amended to state that the City (utilizing applicable
sections of the franchise agreements with utility companies) is responsible for the
relocation of utilities as necessary to implement the Downtown Redevelopment Pro-
ject.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Bill for Ordinance supplementing the City/Englewood Urban
Renewal Authority operating agreement be approved.
I • •
(
•
•
• •
C 0 U N C I L C 0 M M U N I C A T I 0 N
DATE AGE ND A ITEM SUBJECT
Jtme 25, 1985 1/
Stxn:STIONS FOR REVISING
OOUNCTI.. BilL !:{). 44
INITIATED BY ------~Qnu~~lvne~~J~·~Boe~~tt=g~er~.~~~~t~Aamni===· =·~s=tr~a~to~r~-----------
CDNCERNS ABOUT AND Sw:;ES'IED REVISION OF OOUNCTI.. BilL !:{). 44
ACTION PROPOSED·------------------------------------------------
Previously the Judge sul:.mitted his concerns regarding the passage of this ordinance ,
rut there are a few other concerns I have which :i.u1'act the Court operations. Cllr-
rently, the Court considers restitution in all these matters and there are s <XI£
probl ems created by f onmlizing these procedures in an ordinance.
1. Presently a clerk can handle a release statement fran a victim in these
cases , re<hlcing the I1ll'lDer of penalty hearings required.
2. The incl usion of an unsuspended 30-day jail sentence in thes e cases cannot
be :i.np:>sed on j uvenil e s .
3. Since there is a lready a srort check ordinance and the ability to collect
a f ee on srort checks, i t appears that it would be r:ore advantageous to
have the higher f ee ($15 v s. $5) included in that ordinance rather than
in this one.
4. Paragra ph "C" a ppears S<Ille\.tla t redundant if i nsurance has covered the c o sts
of damages.
I recomnend that the ordinance be srortened considerably and rewritten as follows:
In inposing the penalty, the Court shall take into consideration as aggravating
or mitigating circumstances what responsible action the defendant has taken to
compensate the victim for damages caused .
CJB /jm
cc -Jack Olsen, City Attorney
•
I • •
(
•
•
• -
BY AUT HORITY
/
/
ORDINANCE NO.~
SERIES OF 1985\
A BILL FOR
COUNCIL BILL NQ. 44
INTRODUC:7LBY {:ouNC I L
MEMBER ~4 J
AN ORDINANCE REQUIRI NG RESTITUTION TO BE PAID BY DEFENDANTS FOUND
GUILTY OF DAMAGING OR ~ESTROYING PERSONAL PROPERTY Of OF CAUSING
BODILY INJURY OR OTHER DAMAGES TO THEIR VICTIMS .
(
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado ,
is concerned th at there are an increasing number/of victims o f
violators of city ord i nances who suffer undue 9a rds hi p by virtue of
physical i n jury or lo ss of ~roperty ; and
WHEREAS, persons found guilty of caus ·ng such suffering
should be under a moral and l~gal obligatipn to make adequate
restitution to the injured by ~heir conduc t; and
WHEREAS, restitution prov ~·ded by iolators of Englewood
ordinances to their victims may e an nstrument of re ha bi lita tion for violators;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAI ~6 BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO , AS F ~OWS:
Section 1. That Englewoo ~ Mun ~i pa l Code '69 is hereby
amended by adding Chapter 20.5 to Tit\e I, which section shall read as follows :
1-20.5-1: RESTITUTION Td VICTIMS 0 ~ ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS
(a) Upon conviction o a defendant i\ any offense in whic h the
conduct of the defendant re sulte d in los~\or damage to the property
of another or cause bodi1y injury to aneth r, the court shall, as a
condition of probation ~t as a mitigating f ctor in imposing any
punishment, provide that the defendant make r estitution to the
victim of his conduct ior the actual damages which were sustained.
Such restitution shall be ordered by the court as a condition of
probation or as a condition of mitigating any ~unishment . The
amount of such restitution shall be based on th actual pecuniary
damages sustained by the victim , the ability of he defendant to
pay and the defendant's obligation to support his dependents and
other family obligations . Such restitution may be paid to the
office of the C~ty Att orney for deposit into the City's treasury
and repayment therefrom to the victim . If the cour finds , b ased
upon clear and convincing evidence, that such restit tion shall
work an undue /hardship on the defendant and his famil , the court
may waive thr. making of such restitution , in whole or n part. The
court 1s a~horized to monitor such payment of restitut on by
setting p&nalty hearing at reasonable intervals to recei reports
of partial payments made and , for this purpose, may conti e the
1
•
/
I •
(
•
•
•
.. •
penal t y hearings at periods within a 24-month period. If the
defendant fails to make restitution as ordered by the court, any
sente nce imposed will include unsuspended confinement of not less
than 30 days. The court has the authority to delay imposing a
punishment until either the defendant has satisfied the paying of
restitution or the Court has determined that no restitution will be paid.
(b) When as a result of a plea bargain agreement or when a
defendant is ordered to make restitution pursuant to Section 1
above, the City Attorney's office supervising the collections of
such restitution may assess a charge of $15 to the defendant upon
rece iv ing of a bad check as restitution payment. For this section,
a "bad check" means a check or similar site order for the payment
of money which is dishonored by the bank or other drawee because
t h e issuer does not have sufficient funds upon deposit with the
ban k or other drawee to pay the check or order upon presentation
withi n thirty days after issue.
(c ) Upon a determination based upon clear and convincing
evidence that the defendant had a liability insurance policy in
effect at the time of the injury or the damage or loss of property
resulted to another and such injury, damage, or loss was reported
to such insurance policy company, and the identity of that
i nsurance policy and company has been made known to the victim, the
court will find that further restitution is not required, provided
that the liability insurance policy was equal to or greater than
the amount of injury, damage, or loss.
Introduced, read in ful l , and passed on first reading on t h e
day of , 1 985.
1985.
Publ i shed as a B il l for a n Ordi nance on the ____ day of
Attest:
Eugene L. Oti s, Mayor
ex off1c1o C1ty Cl er k T rea s u rer
I , Gary R . Hig b ee , ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer of t h e Ci t y
of Englewood , Colora do, he r eby cert i fy that the above and f orego i n g
is a true , acc u rate a nd comple te copy of a Bill for an Or di n a n ce ,
introduced, read in full , and p ass ed on first read i ng on t h e
day of , 1985 .
Gary R. Hl gbee
2
•
I • •
•
•
• -
r
ORDIN.ZU.CE NO.
BY AUTH ORITY
S ER IES Of 198'~5---
A BILL FOR
AN ORDINAN:E REQUIRING RESTITUTION TO BE PAID BY DEFEND.l\NTS FOUND
GUILTY OF DAMAGING OR DESTROYING PERSONAL PROPERTY OR OF CAUSING
BODILY INJURY OR OTHER CWiAGES TO THCIR VICTIMS.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado,
is concerned that there are an increasing number of victims of
violators of city ordinances who suffer undue hardship by virtue of
physical injury or loss of property; and
WHEREAS, persons found guilty of causing such suffering
should be under a moral and legal obligation to make adequate
restitution to the injured by their conduct; and
WHEREAS, restitution provided by violators of Englewood
ordinances to their victims may be an instrument of rehabilitation for violators;
NGJ, THEREFORE, BE IT OR!ll>.INED BY THE CITY COUNCIL Of THE
CITY OF ENGL~OOD, COLORADO, AS FOLLCWS:
Section 1. 'Itlat Englewood 1'\lnicipal Code '69 is hereby
Cll1ended by adding Olapter 20.5 to Title I, which section shall read as follows:
1-20.5-1: RESTITUTION TO VICTIMS OF ORDINAN:E VIOLATIONS
(a) Upon conviction of a defendant in any offense in which the
conduct of the defendant resulted in loss or damage to the property
of another or cause bodily injury to another, the court shall, as a
condition of probation or as a mitigating factor in imposing any
punishment, provide that the defendant make restitution to the
victim of his conduct for the actual damages which were sustained.
Such restitution shall be ordered by the court as a condition of
probation or as a condition of mitigating any punishment. The
amount of such restitution shall be based on the actual pecuniary
damages susta i ned by the victim, the ability of the defendant to
pay and the defendant's obligation to support his dependents and
other family obligations. SUch restitution may be paid to the
office of the City Attorney for deposit into the City's treasury
and repayment therefran to the victim. If the court finds, based
upon clear and convincing evidence, that such restitution shall
work an undue hardship on the defendant and his family, the court
may waive the making of such restitution, in whole or in part. The
court is authorized to monitor such payment of restitution by
s e tting penalty hearing at reasonable intervals to receive reports
of partial payments made and, for this purpose, may continue the
1
•
I • •
•
•
• -
pena lty hearings.~ peE4-eas w+t.RiR a ~-iti9Rf.R peEiee... If the
defe ndant fails to mak e restitution as ordered by the court, any
sentence imposed will include unsuspended confinenent of not less
than 30 days FOR AN ADULT DEFENDANT. '!Tie court has the authority
to delay imposing a punishment until either the defendant has
satisfied the paying of restitution or the COurt has determined
that no restitution will be paid. 'IliE REQUIREliENT OF RESTITl1I'ION
SHALL BE DEEMED SATISFIED IF THE DEFENDANT PRESENTS A SlQlED AND
NOTARIZED "RELEASE" FR<l'1 THE VICTIM TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT UPON
A FORM PROVIDED BY THE PROSECUTING ATI'ORNEY. THE CLERK AND/OR 'ruE
PROSECUTING ATI'ORNEY MAY CONTACT THE VICTIM TO VERIFY THE
AUTHENTICITY OF THE EXEI:UTION OF THE "RELEASE" PRIOR TO
SATISFACTION OF THE REQUIREliENT OF RESTITUTION.
(b) When as a result of a plea bargain agreenent or when a
defendant is ordered to make restitution pursuant to Section 1
above , the City Attorney's office supervising the collections of
such restitution may assess a afia~ &£ ~§ A REASONABLE CHARGE to
the defendant upon receiving of a bad check as restitution
payment, SOCH CHARGE TO BE BASED UPON THE REASONABLE COST OF
PROCESSING A REQUEST FOR AND OBTAINING 'IliE PAYMENT DUE FR<M 'IliE
DEFENDANT. For this section, a "bad check" means a check or
similar site order for the payment of money which is dishonored by
the bank or other drawee because the issuer does not have
sufficient funds upon deposit with the bank o r other drawee to pay
the check or order upon ~esentation within thirty days after
issue.
(c) Upon a d wpeA el-eilE iiRS -Wi-AIJ
w.we-BY 'IliE defendant had a liability insurance
policy in effect of the injury or the danage or loss of
property r esult r and such injury , danage, or loss was
reported to s uch 1nsur po icy canpany, and the identity of that
insurance policy and company s been made known to the victim, the
court ~* SHALL find that further rest itution is not required,
provided that the liability insurance policy was equal to or
greater than the amount of injury, damage, or loss.
(D) THE TER1S AND PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDI!WCE SHALL 00'1'
PREEMPT 'IliE RIGITS , IF AN'i, OF PERSONS TO SEE K OR RESIST CIVIL
REliED IES IN AN'i COURT OF lAW.
(E) Bal'H 'lliE DEFENI:~Mfl' AND THE VICTIM, PERSOWU..LY OR BY AN
ATI'ORNEY, HAVE STANDING TO PRESENT EVIDEN::E AND AIGJMENT TO 'IliE
COURT ON THE ISSUE OF RESTITl1I'ION, BUT THE COURT AS CCMPLETE
DISCRETION TO LIM I T SUCH EVIDEN::E AND ARGUMENT PURSUAm' TO ITS am
RULES AND MAY CHOOSE 00'1' TO CONDUCT A RESTITUTION HFARING SEPARATE
FR(M 'IliE DEFENDANT Is SENTEN::ING.
Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the
1st day of July, 1985.
2
•
I •
-
•
•
•
• •
1985. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the lOth day of July,
Attest:
fugene L. Ot1s, Mayor
ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer
I, Gary R. Higbee, ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer of the City
of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing
is a true, accurate and complete copy of a Bill for an Ordinance,
introduced, read in full, and passe:'! on first reading on the 1st day
of July, 1985.
Gary R. Higbee
3
•
I • •