The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1984-02-21 (Special) Meeting Agenda- It • • • City Council Meeting -Special February 21, 1984 0 I • • • • • ~ ~ ~j-L~ dif~~"-1~0 ~<»-iu~ .,. .;r: 8', q I I{) I I I ~ J-K4 . ;o, 1/,1:1 • 0 0 • I . • ___ , ( ( • 7:30 P.M. 1. 2. 3. • • • AGENDA FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 21, 1984 /(9_1,... Call to order, invocation by Reverend Don Stallbaum, City on the Hill, Church of Denver, 71 East Yale, pledge of allegiance by Boy Scout Troop 1115 and 1154, and roll call. ~ Minutes. (a) (b) Minutes of the regular meeting of February 6, 1984. (Copies enclosed.) Minutes of the special call meeting of February 7, 1984. (Copies enclosed.) Pre-Scheduled Visitors. (Please limit your pre- sentation to 10 minutes.) Other Visitors. to 5 minutes.) (Please limit your presentation 4. Public Hearing. 5. Communications -No Action Recommended. (a) Minutes of the Urban Renewal Authority mee t ing of January 11, 1984. (Copies enclosed.) (b) Minutes of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals meeting of January 11, 1984. (Copies enclosed.) (c) Minutes of the Parks and Recreation Comm i ssion meeting of January 12, 1984. (Copies enclosed.) (d) Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of January 17, 1984. (Copies enclosed.) • I • • ( • • ( • • • • Page 2 February 21, 198 4 Agenda 5. Communications-No Action Recommended (Continued). (e) Minutes of the Public Library Advisory Board meeting of February 7, 1984. (Copies enclosed.) (f) Memorandum from the Court Administrator to the Mayor and Members of City Council concerning the Municipal Court Fourth Quarter and End of Year Report fer 1983. (Copies enclosed.) 6. Communications -Action Recommended. (g) Council Communication from the Urban Renewal Authority concerning an amendment of the Englewood Downtown Redevelopment Plan and setting a public hearing. (Copies enclosed.) Council Communication from the Planning and Zoning Commission concerning the proposed right-of-way and easement vacation at the s i te of the New Safeway Store. (Copies enclosed.) Council Communication from the Parks and Recreation Commission concerning an easement along Bear Creek to the South Suburban Recreation and Park District. (Copies enclosed.) I • ( ( • • ( • • • • Page 3 February 21, 1984 Agenda 7. City Attorney. Ordinance on Final Reading. ~ (a} Ordinance pertaining to the enforcement of /1'\. ~9-.. jj / r automobile emissions control device inspection ~-J program. (Copies enclosed.) G e> S Bi Us for Ordinances. (b) Bill amending Article I, Chapter 6, Section 9, ~ c)9~~ of the Englewood Municipal Code, 1969, as amended, providing for quarterly reports rather than monthly reports from the Municipal Court to the City Council of all notices and citations issued, among other information. (Copies enclosed.) ~ (c) c.£~ (d) Bill approving an agreement between the City of Englewood, Colorado, and the Central Colorado Library System regarding reciprocal borrowing program. (Copies enclosed.) Bill approving the cost of construction and repair of sidewalks, curbs, and gutters in the City of Englewood and confirming the apportion- ment and assessment of said costs to each lot or tract of property fronting upon the same ~Jj.-/ D ~ 8. and prescribing the manner of collection and payment of said assessment. (Copies enclosed.) Other Matters. ~ (e) Attorney's Choice.-~fr'~ VS ~.ll -D.-c ~ 6-0()~ City Manager. -~~~~~ ~· (a) Council Communication from the City Manager concerning the Englewood Soccer Association Agreement. (Copies enclosed.) (b) Council Communication from the Director of Engineering Services concerning the warranty work for the Sealcoat Program for 1982. (Copies enclose d .) (c) ~ Council Communication from the Directors of Engineering Services and Parks and Recreation concerning the Belleview Softball Field Lighting and Belleview and Spencer Field Fencing. (Copies enclosed.) • I • • - • • ( • • • ---~ • Page 4 February 21, 1984 Agenda 8. City Manager (Continued). (d) Council Communication from Director of Engineering Services concerning a recommendation relating to the bids on Little Dry Creek Channel Improve- ments -retaining walls and sewer relocation. (Copies enclosed.) (e) Manager's Choice. 9. General Discussion. (a) Mayor's Choice. ~-(i) Council Communication concerning the reappointment of Mr. O'Brien to the Firemen's Pension Board. (Copies enclosed.) (b) Council Member's Choice. C..B:Jf' ~-10. Adjournment. ~?~~ PETER H. V S Acting City anager PHV/sb • I • • Jo ___ ~~ ·lo • AGENDA ITEM ---- ~ ~~~ Moved MCYI'ION: 12~~ c{ k~L- o{fo. LdJ:1 Y!wr ROLL CALL Seconded _I! I 9_dil}' Nea_!_ Vob~Qda We_lst Bllo Bradshaw Otis • • • PRESENTED BY ------- Ayes Nay Absent Abstain I . . • • • • - AGENDA ITEM ----- PRES ENTE D BY -------- ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Hlgday &.---Neal ~ Vobe_j-d a ~ Weist .....-• Bi lo ,.,.... Bradshaw ,..- Otis ~ MOTION: • I • • • • • • - AGENDA I TEM ;~~ PRES ENTED BY ROLL CALL 7 Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain HIQCay Neal c.--- I Vobeida Wefst I I Bllo ... Bradsh-I Otis r MOTION: I • • • • - • • - AGENDA ITEM __,_(_b __ _ PRES ENTED B Y -------- ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Hlgaay f:::::: _!--Neal I Vobe i da _j_ Weist I ~ JU lo I Bradshaw Otis J I • I • • • • • • • • AGENDA ITEM -----PRESENTED BY -------- ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Hlgday ... Neal I Vobeida I v Weist 1 v-Bllo Bradshaw l Otis " MOTION: I • • • • • - • • - AG E NDA ITEM 6 ~ P RE S ENTED BY lJJC_. ~ ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent AbstaIn I r HIQdav Neal -l Vobe1da I WeTst 1/ Bi lo I ,. I Bradshaw I Otis \ MOTION: • I • • • • • • • AGENDA ITEM ~ ~ ~---'----PRESENTED BY Ia(_~ ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain ...!!..!...9_1! ~ Nea...!. 1 VObtlda We_!_st ~ _!I lo 1--Bradshaw j_ Otis -' MOTION: I • CA • • • • ,.. • AGENDA ITEM 6 k 6d 6L 6f • • • PRESENT ED BY /h e ~ rtJ~ 6e,,~~~~~ J4f-<1-~_AD-~~ -r ~ ~~~-~~ ~- ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Ab sta n Hlqdav ~ v Neal I Vobeida I We i st I Ii l lo v Bradshaw I Oti s • • I . • • • • AGENDA ITEM 6 d ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain HIJl<lil}' ,.._- Neal I Vobe_jda I ,., Weist Bi lo v Bradshaw Otis MOTION: ~ ..p. 1 I • • • • • • • AGENDA ITEM 0 R___. PRESENTED B~ ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Abs t Ab en stain Hlgday -Neal 1 Vobe 'da I Wei s t 1 v Bllo v Bradshaw 1 Ot i s I I • I . • • • • • • AGENDA ITEM ~~· PRE SENTED BY~~ ROLL CALL Hoved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Hlgaay -Neal I Vo b eida I Wei s t I v Bl to I -v-Bradshaw I Otis I I • • • • • • - Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Hlqday ~ '--Neal 1 Vobeida I Weist I Bllo I v-Bradshaw I Otis l "" I . • • MCYriON~ ~ CA-7: N ~ ~ ~~~ • • • • AGENDA ITEM PRESENTED BY -------- ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain MOTION: I • • • • • - • • _....,. AG ENDA I TEM 1b. PRESENTED B Y -------- ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Hlgday -Neal I Vo b e1da 7 Weist I """' Bilo 7 V"" Bradshaw I Otis 7 T MOTION : • I • • • • D • • • AGENDA ITEM 1 (__..---' PRESENTED BY -------- ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain ~~ t.--" Neal I Vobtida 1 WeJst _j_ _y Bllo _j_ J.." Bradshaw 1_ Otis 1 MariON : • I • • • • • • • AGENDA I T EM 7 L PRESENTE D BY ------- ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Ab sent Abstain Hladay t,.-Neal 1 v Vobe "da I Weist I Bllo 1/'" Bradshaw I Otis I MOTION: • I . • • • • • AGENDA ITEM PRESENTED BY -------- ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain -rn:gaay -v Neal l Vo bejda I Wei s t I ,... Bi lo Bradshaw I Otis l ~ MOTION: • I • • • • I • • • AGENDA ITEM ~ PRESENT ED BY ------ ~-~ ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Ab t I s a n y Hlgday Neal -I Vobe1da I Weist 1 Bi lo I ,_,., Bradshaw I Ot i s I I • • MCJriON: ~ ~ oz ~ /0---o)~ {/)0 ~ ~ en-~ X--- ~ ~~ • • • • • AGEND A I T E M ~ P RESENTED BY /?Jc_ {!~ , ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain HIQ<Iav ,- Neal ' Vobeida I v Weist I Bilo T v Bradshaw I Otis ~ MariON: ar~ I • • • • • • AGENDA ITEM ----PRESENTED BY ------- ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Hlgaay v Nea_l I Vobeida I Weist I y Bilo I ,..-Bradshaw r Otis ' r I . • • • - • • AG ENDA ITEM ~ ~ PRESENTED BY@~ ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain ,..-H_!gd~ ~ Nea__! \ Vob!U_da j_ We_!_st I v-Bi lo I --Bradshaw _l Otis _1 " • I . • • • • • AGEN DA I TEM P RE S ENTED BY ---------------- ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Ab sta n Hladay -"' Neal 1/ 'I Vo be,da I __. Weist I y Bllo I Bradshaw I Otis I " MOTION: ~ I • • • • • PRESENTED BY (&-&<J ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain tfTQifay £--' Neal T Vobeida I Weist 7 t--" Bllo I L,A Bradshaw I Otis I I I • • • • a !J,' AGENDA ITEM -I -L--.!..L.'_i_ Moved Seconded H lgifay -Neal Vobeida WeTst ~ Bllo Bradshaw Otis ROLL CALL • • • PRESENTED BY ------ A yes Nay Absent Abstain .__ I I I I I ' I • • - • • AGENDA ITEM -----PRESENTED BY-------- ROLL CALL Hoved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain t11gc:lay /;/ ~ Neal I Vobeida I Weist _j Bilo ,_ Bradshaw _l Otis '- MOTION: I • • • - • • AGENDA ITEM -----PRESENTED BY -------- ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Hlgday Neal Vobejda Weist Bllo Bradshaw Otis MOTION: • I • • • • ( • REGULAR MEETING: • • • COUNCIL CHAMBERS City of Englewood, Colorado February 6, 1984 /~ The City Council of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe County, Colorado, met in regular session on February 6, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. Mayor Otis, presiding, called the meeting to order. The invocation was given by Mayor Otis. The pledge of al~ legiance was led by Boy Scout Troops IllS and 1154. Mayor Otis asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the following were present: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. Absent: None. The Mayor declared a quorum present. * * Also present were: * * * * * * * City Manager McCown Assistant City Manager Vargas City Attorney DeWitt Director of Public Works Waggoner Police Chief Holmes Deputy City Clerk OWen * * * * * Mayor Otis recognized and welcomed Council Member Carol Jonkoniec from the City of Sheridan ~ * * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 16, 1984. Council Member Bilo seconded the motion. Council Member Neal referenced his discussion on page 4 COilcerning the resolution presented at a recent EDDA meeting. Coun~ ell Member Neal stated the reason he voted no was because he did not care for the wording of the resolution • • I • • • • .. • ( February 6, 1984 Page 2 • Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Bilo, Weist, Bradshaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * * Pre-scheduled visitor, Kenneth Gloss, Director of Arapahoe County Transportation Services, was present and discussed matters relating to the Senior Surrey. Mrs. Maida Navis, InterFaith Task Force, was absent. Mr. Gloss referred to a letter dated September 1, 1983 from Kells Waggoner. Mr. Gloss stated Mr. Waggoner requested if the Coun- ty could obtain federal funding to assist transporting Englewood senior citizens. Mr. Gloss stated he contacted Denver Regional Coun- cil of Governments in trying to locate extra funding for pick up service in the case Englewood elected to transfer it over; and he was shown regulations where federal funding could not replace any exist- ing service or services. Therefore, if the service was transferred, his agency would have to get supplemental funding from the County Commissioners. Mr. Gloss stated Maida Navis, InterFaith Task Force had reviewed the program and felt InterFaith could pick up the pre- sent medical transportation calls if they remained at the current four trips a day. The other calls, i.e. grocery, shopping, and to the meal site at the Malley Center presented problems to the County because the County could not secure the appropriate federal funding for 1984. Mr. Gloss stated if senior surrey services are transferred to his agency in 1985 he needed to know shortly because his request for federal funding for 1985 had to be in by April, 1984. Mr. Gloss offered to help Englewood in dispatching efforts i n 1984 as one way to improve the current program. * * * * * * * Mayor Otis asked if there were any other visitors. Jack Sakdol, representing the Arapahoe County Fair Associ - ation, came forward. Mr. Sakdol stated he was present to answer any questions on behalf of the Assoc i ation's petition to annex the bal - ance of the fairgrounds south of Belleview • • I • • I • February 6, 1984 Page 3 • • • City Attorney DeWitt asked if there was any particular time~ frame for the adoption of the ordinance. Mr. Sakdol responded the Association would like Council to adopt the ordinance as soon as possible. In accordance with their contract with Brock Homes it is necessary for the Association to go forward with their petition for zoning; therefore, time was of the essence to get the property annexed and go forward with the zoning. Mr. Sakdol stated toward the development of new fair grounds it was very critical. COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL MOVED TO BRING FORWARD AGENDA ITEM 7F. Council Member Bilo seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Bilo, Weis~. Bradshaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. Deputy City Clerk OWen distributed copies of the annexation petition. Following distribution, City Attorney DeWitt noted each Council Member had received a copy of the annexation petition and the Mayor had received the map. City Attorney DeWitt advised Council to pass around the map for each one to review. ORDINANCE NO. SERIES OF 1984 BY AUTHORITY A BILL FOR COUNCIL BILL NO. 7 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING 30.34 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY, MORE OR LESS, AS HEREINAFTER MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED, TO THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO PASS COUNCIL BILL NO. 7, SERIES OF 1984, ON FIRST READING. Council Member Bradshaw seconded the motion. City Attorney DeWitt noted there was an emergency clause in the body of the ordinance and deferred to Council's pleasure as to whether the emergency statement should appear in the title. COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION BY ADDING •AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY• IN THE TITLE OF COUNCIL BILL NO. 7, SERIES OF 1984. Council Member Bilo seconded the motion. Upon a • I • • • • • • • February 6, 1984 Page 4 call of the roll, the vote on the amendment resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Bilo, Weist, Bradshaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. Upon a call of the roll, the vote on the original motion resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Bilo, Weist, Bradshaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * * Mayor Otis welcomed the Maypr from Sheridan, Roger Rowland, who had entered the meeting. Mayor Rowland introduced two Council Members from Sheridan who were with him. They were Council Member Marpel and Council Mem- ber Jonkoniec. Mayor Otis had recognized Council Member Jonkoniec earlier in the meeting. were: * * * * * * * •communications -No Action Recommended• on the agenda (a) (b) (c ) (d) (e) (f) Minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting of November 10, 1983 Minutes of the Board of Career Service Commis- s i oners meeting of November 17, 1983. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meet i ngs o f December 6 and 13, 1983. Minutes of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals meeting of December 14, 1983 • Minutes of the Public Library Board meeting of January 10, 1 984. Minutes of the Englewood Downtown Development Authority meet i ng of January 11, 1984 • • I • • - • • February 6, 1984 Page 5 (g) • • • Memorandum concerning Mr. Jack Poole's re, appointment to the Parks and Recreation Com- mission. COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO RECEIVE •coMMUNICATIONS NO ACTION RECOMMENDED• AGENDA ITEMS 5(A) , 5(G). Council Member Bilo seconded the motion. 5 (g) • Council Member Bradshaw draw special attention to agenda Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Bilo, Weist, Bradshaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 3 SERIES OF 1984 * * * * BY AUTHORITY * * * COUNCIL BILL NO. 1 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF SH~RIDAN, PRO, VIDING FOR MUTUAL AID FOR FIRE PROTECTION FOR BOTH ENTITES. COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL MOVED TO PASS COUNCIL BILL NO. 1, SERIES OF 1984, ON FINAL READING. Council Member Bradshaw seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes : Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Bilo, Weist, Bradshaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 4 SERIES OF 1984 * * * * BY AUTHORITY * • * * COUNCIL BILL NO. 2 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW I • • • • February 6, 1984 Page 6 • • • AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CASTLEWOOD FIRE PROTEC- TION DISTRICT, PROVIDING FOR MUTUAL AID FOR FIRE PROTECTION FOR BOTH ENTITIES. COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO PASS COUNCIL BILL NO. 2, SERIES OF 1984, IN FINAL READING. Council Member Neal seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Bilo, Weist, Bradshaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 5 SERIES OF 1984 * * * * BY AUTHORITY * * * COUNCIL BILL NO. 3 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE BANCROFT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, PROVIDING FOR MUTUAL AID FOR FIRE PROTECTION FOR BOTH EN- TITIES. COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL MOVED TO PASS COUNCIL BILL NO. 3, SERIES OF 1984, ON FINAL READING. Council Member Bradshaw seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Bilo, Weist, Bradshaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 6 SERIES OF 1984 * * * * BY AUTHORITY * * * COUNCIL BILL NO. 4 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BILO AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AGREEMENT TITLED •JOINT RECREATION AGREE- MENT• PROVIDING FOR SHARED USE OF THE ENGLEWOOD HIGH SCHOOL SWIMMING POOL. COUNCIL MEMBER BILO MOVED TO PASS COUNCIL BILL NO. 4, SERIES • I • - • • February 6, 1984 Page 7 • • • OF 1984, ON FINAL READING. Council Member Higday seconded the mo, tion. Council Member Bradshaw stated she would abstain because she was an employee of Englewood Schools. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Bilo, Weist, Bradshaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. SERIES OF 1984 * * * * BY AUTHORITY A BILL FOR * * * COUNCIL BILL NO. 5 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BILO AN ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF AUTOMOBILE EMISSIONS CONTROL DEVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM. COUNCIL MEMBER BILO MOVED TO PASS COUNCIL BILL NO. 5, SERIES OF 1984, ON FIRST READING. Council Member Bradshaw seconded the motion. Police Chief Holmes came forward at the request of Council. Council Member Higday asked how the program would be en- forced in the City of Englewood as far as knowing the vintage of a car. Chief Holmes stated if the police officer can not check the registration then he wi ll have to guess what the year is. Council Member Higday queried the reference made to the color of the tag indicating whether or not the car required an emis , s i ons sticker. Council Member Bilo stated this question had been discussed at DRCOG. The red color identifies that the car may require an emis - sions sticker and the police officier would have to check the regis- trat i on. The black color identifies that the car does not require a sticker • • I • • - • • February 6, 1984 Page 8 • • • Council Member Higday asked what impact the program would have on an officer for this additional responsibility. Chief Holmes stated it would not change the officer's re, sponsibility in terms of the bill presently being considered by Coun, ell. The officer would be able to cite unoccupied vehicles which would better enforce the state law. Also, the City would receive the revenue from it. Council Member Neal referenced news articles that were in the paper about Englewood having a high crime rate. Council Member Neal stated the actions that Council took provided good results and Englewood has received good figures since. Council Member Neal asked Chief Holmes for an update on the current situation. Chief Holmes stated the 1982 figure was accurate. The 1978 figure was inaccurate because of the error in estimating the City's population. Chief Holmes stated the City has actually gone down two full points in the crime rate from 1978 to 1982. Chief Holmes stated because of the influx of population in the City the crime rate would probably remain at the current level. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Bilo, Weist, Bradshaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * * City Attorney DeWitt noted the hearing in the Odd Fellows case was scheduled to go before the State of Colorado Supreme Court on March 12, 1984, at 1:30 p.m. * * * * * * * City Attorney DeWitt discussed the matter of municipal court quarterly reports. Mr. DeWitt stated he has received feedback on the ordinance and expected to have it available for first reading at the next Council meeting. * * * * * * * City Attorney DeWitt transmitted the ruling from the Public Utilities Commission concerning cogeneration. Mr. DeWitt this was a favorable ruling for the City which would make the cogeneration oper, ation a successful one • • I • • • February 6, 1984 Page 9 * * * * • • • * * * City Manager McCown presented the recommendation for adop- tion of the six quarter budget for January, 1984 through June, 1985. Mr. McCown referred to two resolutions, one to close out the Public Improvement Fund 1983 fiscal year, and the second to provide for the period of January, 1984 through June, 1985. Mr. McCown noted the second resolution as presented required the lining out of items under •Application of Funds• •Little Dry Creek $(1,800,000) and Urban Re- newal Authority Projects 1,800,000•. Mr. McCown stated staff would administratively take care of the 1985 planning document to put back the $540,000 from the Urban Renewal Authority budget to the Little Dry Creek account. Mr. McCown recommended passage of the two pro- posed resolutions. RESOLUTION NO. 5 SERIES OF 1984 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT FUND. COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO PASS RESOLUTION NO. 5, SERIES OF 1984. Council Member Bilo seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Bilo, Weist, Bradshaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 6 SERIES OF 1984 * * * * * * * A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT FUND. COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO PASS RESOLUTION NO. 6, SERIES OF 1984, WITH THE APPLICATION OF FUNDS LITTLE DRY CREEK $1,800,000 CROSSED OUT AND URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY PROJECTS $1,800,000 CROSSED OUT. Council Member Bilo seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Bilo, Weist, Bradshaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried • • I • • • February 6, 1984 Page 10 * * * • • .. * * * * City Manager McCown asked if Council wanted to hold another study session to discuss further the City Hall needs and the traffic study. Mayor Otis suggested holding the study session on February 21, 1984 and if there was a need to carry over discussion to hold another session on February 27, 1984. * * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING APPOINT- MENTS TO VARIOUS CITY ADVISORY BOARDS: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS CHESTER HALLIGAN, 4412 SOUTH GRANT STREET REAPPOINTMENT TO FOUR~YEAR TERM EXPIRING 2/1/88 RONALD H. FISH, 2771 SOUTH PEARL STREET FOUR~YEAR APPOINTMENT EXPIRING 2/l/88 CAREER SERVICE BOARD THOMAS R. FITZPATRICK 3155 SOUTH ACOMA STREET FOUR-YEAR APPOINTMENT EFFECTIVE 3/15/84 EXPIRING 3/15/88 COURT ADVISORY COMMITTEE VIC KLEIN, 4057 SOUTH BANNOCK STREET GLENN WADDELL, 3675 SOUTH CHEROKEE STREET 1408 ELECTION COMMISSION MELODY KOLLATH, 4690 SOUTH JASON STREET FOUR-YEAR APPOINTMENT EXPIRING 2/1/88 DAVID GOURDIN, 3221 SOUTH PENNSYLVANIA STREET APPOINTMENT EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, EXPIRING 2/l/86 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ED MCBRAYER, NO. 1 COTTONWOOD LANE REAPPOINTMENT TO FOUR~YEAR TERM EXPIRING 2/1/88 GEORGE ALLEN, 2799 SOUTH DOWNING STREET REAPPOINTMENT TO FOUR~YEAR TERM EXPIRING 2/1/88 RANDAL (RANDY) MAGNUSON, 3330 SOUTH CORONA STREET FOUR~YEAR APPOINTMENT EXPIRING 2/1/88 LIBRARY BOARD ALFRED M. QUAINTANCE, 4760 SOUTH MARIPOSA STREET REAPPOINTMENT TO FOUR ~YEAR TERM EXPIRING 2/1/88 • I • • • February 6, 1984 Page 11 • • • GERALD A. SAMPSON, 3275 WEST CHENANGO AVENUE FOUR~YEAR APPOINTMENT EXPIRING 2/1/88 JOHN PETERSON, 3963 SOUTH CHEROKEE STREET FOUR~YEAR APPOINTMENT EXPIRING 2/l/88 BRUCE HOGUE, 3844 SOUTH GRANT STREET APPOINTMENT EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, EXPIRING 2/l/85 RETIREMENT BOARD LE ROY DEVAULT, 3291 SOUTH EMERSON REAPPOINTMENT TO FOUR~YEAR TERM EXPIRING 2/1/88 MILLARD F. BOLING, 4910 SOUTH LIPAN DRIVE REAPPOINTMENT TO FOUR~YEAR TERM EXPIRING 2/l/88 WATER & SEWER BOARD WILLIS F. RESLEY, 3540 SOUTH MARION STREET SIX~YEAR APPOINTMENT EXPIRING 2/l/90 Council Member Neal seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Bilo, Weist, Bradshaw, Otis. Nays: None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * * Mayor Otis called a special meeting for February 7, 1984, at 5:30 p.m. to consider Council Bill No. 7, Series of 1984, having to do with the annexation of 30.34 acres. * * * * * * * Mayor Otis made the following appointments to the Urban Renewal Authority: James Totton, 3875 South Cherokee Street Appointment effective immediately, expiring February 5, 1986 Robert Mcintyre, 1215 East Hampden Avenue Appointment effective immediately to serve as Alternate Member with no voting rights. * * * * * * * Council Member Higday stated some citizens in District III, • I • • • February 6, 1984 Page 12 • • • some citizens in the Cherry Hills Village, and himself were not pleased with the aesthetics of the storage shed owned by Englewood High School located on the detention pond project . Council Member Higday asked staff to take a look at what could be done to the site. Council Member Bilo stated the City/School co .. ittee was going to be meeting on Thursday and he would bring up the aatter. * * * * * * * No further business was discussed. * * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO ADJOURN. Mayor Otis adjourned the meeting without a vote at 8:23 p.m. • I • • ( • • • • COUNCIL CHAMBERS City of Englewood, Colorado February 7, 1984 SPECIAL CALL MEETING: The City Council of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe County, Colorado, met in special call session on February 7, 1984, at 5:30 p.m. Mayor Otis, presiding, called the meeting to order. The invocation was given by Mayor Otis. The pledge of allegiance was led by Mayor Otis. Mayor Otis asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the following were present: Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist, Silo, Bradshaw, Otis. Absent: None. The Mayor declared a quorum present. * * * * * * * Also present were: City Attorney DeWitt Assistant City Manager Vargas Deputy City Clerk owen ORDINANCE NO. 7 SERIES OF 1984 * * * * BY AUTHORITY * * * COUNCIL BILL NO. 7 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING 30.34 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY, MORE OR LESS, AS HEREINAFTER MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED, TO THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO PASS COUNCIL BILL NO. 7, SERIES OF 1984, ON FINAL READING. Council Member Bradshaw seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Bilo, Weist, Bradshaw, Otis • • I • • - • • February 7, 1984 Page 2 Nays: None. • • • The Mayor declared the motion carried. • • • • • • • No further business could be discussed due to meeting status being special call. • • • • • • • COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO AJOURN THE MEETING. Mayor Otis adjourned the meeting without a vote at 5:35 p.m. • I • • ( • I. CALL TO ORDER. • • • URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY January 11, 1984 The Special Meeting of the Urban Renewal Authority was called to order by Robert J. Voth at 5:30 P. M. Members present: Voth, Novicky, Minnick, Fitzpatrick, Van Dyke Powers, Executive Director Members absent: Cole Also present: Economic Development Planner Wm. Richard Hinson URA Negotiator Scott McDowell II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • December 7, 1983 Chairman Voth stated that the Minutes of December 7, 1983 were to be con- sidred for approval. Minnick moved: Van Dyke seconded: The Minutes of December 7, 1983 be approved as written. AYES: Novicky, Minnick, Fitzpatrick, Van Dyke, Voth NAYS: None ABSENT: Cole The motion carried. III. NEW BUSINESS. A. Chamber of Commerce Property Acquisition. Ms. Powers suggested that this matter should be considered in Executive Session. It was moved and seconded THAT THE URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO CONSIDER THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PROPERTY. The motion carried, with Mr. Fitzpatrick voting in opposition. * * * * * Minnick moved : Fitzpatrick seconded: The Urban Renewal Authority come out of Executive Session. The motion carried. * * * * * • I • • - • • • • -2- No vicky moved: Minnick seconded: The Urban Renewal Authority approve the purchase of the Cen tennial Chamber of Co mmerce property at 180 West Girard Avenue for $80,000. The $80,000 is to include all expenses incurred in the purchase of this property. It is under- stood that the Centennial Chamber of Commerce will waive all relocation benefits, and payment of appraisal fee on this property. The purchase of the property at 180 West Girard Avenue is contingent on City Council approval of the transfer of funds from the Public Improvement Fund to the Urban Renewal Authority. The motion carried . Minnick moved: Fitzpatrick seconded: The Urban Renewal Authority approve and adopt Resolution #1, Series of 1984, A RESOLUTION OF THE URBAN RENEWAL AU- THORITY REQUESTING CITY COUNCIL TO TRANSFER MONIES FROM THE PUBLIC IMRPOVEMENT FUND TO THE AUTHORITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY AT 180 WEST GIRARD AVENUE, ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO. The amount of money requested to be transferred is $80,000. The motion carried. B. Redevelopment Agreement -Extension of Time. Ms. Powers stated that the possiblity of granting to the Executive Director the authority to grant an extension of time to the redeveloper has been dis- cussed , and requested by the redeveloper. These extensions of time would be at the discretion of the Executive Director, and would not exceed 60 days. Ms. Powers stated that Mr . Benedetti, URA legal counsel, has prepared a pro- posed Resolution for the Authority which would give such administrative dis- c retion to the Executive Director, and the proposed resolution has been re- viewed with Mr. Burgwyn of the Brady Corporation. Ms. Powers stated that she feels that the 60 day limitation on time extension is reasonable, and that any request for time extension would have to be justified. Mr. Voth suggested that the proposed resolution should contain wording that would prohibit a second administrative time extension for the same thing. Discussion ensued. It was the consensus of the Authority that Section #1 of the proposed Resolution be amended by adding at the end the phrase: "on any one request. " Novicky moved: Minnick seconded: The motion carried. The Urban Renewal Authority approve Resolution #2, Series of 1984, as amended, which resolution is entitled: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO APPROV E CERTAIN TIME EXTENSIONS IN REDEVELOPMENT AGREEM ENT . • I • • ( • • • • -3- C. Contract for Legal Services -Paul Benedetti. Ms. Powers stated that Mr. Benedetti's contract with the Urban Renewal Au- thority expired on December 31, 1983. A proposed contract for legal service s for the calendar year of 1984 has been prepared by Mr. Benedetti and is be- fore the Authority for their consideration. Discussion ensued. Members of the Authority expressed concern over the increase in the hourly rate cited in the proposed contract for Mr. Benedetti and Mr. Harm. Mr. Voth suggested that the Authority approve the 1984 contract at the prices cited, with a statement incorporated into the contract that if the Authority chooses to renew the contract in 1985, the hourly rates shall be at the 1984 quotation. Mr. Novicky suggested that the contract should be a two-year con- tract. Discussion ensued. Minnick moved: Van Dyke seconded: The Urban Renewal Authority approve the contract for legal services with Paul C. Benedetti for 1984 at the prices quoted; the contract shall be amended in Paragraph #5 to state that: If the Urban Renewal Authority chooses to extend this contract for an additional year (January 1 - December 31, 1985) the fees will remain the same as those in 1984. Chairman Voth is authorized to sign the con- tract as amended with Mr. Benedetti. The motion carried. D. Design of "Boulevard". Ms. Powers stated that City staff has been interviewing engineering firms to design the Boulevard on the Girard/Cherokee alignment. Ms. Powers stated that staff members involved in the interviews were Director of Engineering Services Gary Diede, Director of Public Works Kells Waggoner, Civil Engineer Densel Ragland, Roland Vaughn of Perez & Associates, and herself. Three firms were chosen to be interviewed, those firms being URS, Muller, and Centennial Engineering. Following these interviews, it is the opinion of the interview board that the Authority be asked to authorize negotiation of a contract with Muller Engineers to do the design work on the Boulevard. Ms. Powers stated that if the Authority feels they have sufficient information to act on this matter, she would request that they consider authorizing the contract negotiation. Ms. Powers noted that Director of Engineering Services Diede is available at the present time to discuss this with the Authority if they so desire. Mr. Voth stated that he would be willing to abide by the staff recommendation. Ms. Powers pointed out that there is an operating agreement between the City and the Authority which states that the City staff will staff the Authority, and would make recommendations of this type. Mr. Minnick stated that he would want to be notified on any matters such as the interviewing of the engineers, so he will be aware of what is coming up. Mr. Minnick stated that he does feel members of the Board should be involved as much as possible in these determiantions. Mr. Novicky asked the cost range of the engineering estimates . • I • • - i .... __ \ • • • • -4- Mr. Diede was asked to join the meeting and discuss the interview process that has been followed, and answer questions the Authority members might have. Mr. Diede stated that 10 engineering firms were initially asked to submit proposals; one firm dropped out because they did not have time to prepare a proposal. Of the nine proposals received, the staff determined to interview the three cited by Ms. Powers: URS, Muller, and Centennial Engineering. Mr. Diede stated that the staff would like the Authority to grant approval to the staff to begin contract negotiations with the Muller Engineering Company. Mr. Diede stated that there is a need to delineate the right-of-way needed for the Boulevard by February 15th. Mr. Diede stated that Muller Engineering is a Lakewood firm, and has been in business for four years. Mr. Diede dis- cussed the supporting firms who would be assisting Muller in the design of the Boulevard. COM would be used for water easements/lines; Black and Veatch would be used for the sewer easements/lines; Trans-Plan from Boulder would do the traffic analysis, and EDAW would be used on the landscaping plans. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked what qualifications were displayed by Muller Engineering firm to cause the staff to recommend in favor of them. Mr. Diede stated that they displayed a great deal of enthusiasm for the project; also, their proposed use of the consulting firms which are already familiar with the work in the City. Ms. Powers stated that Muller had spent a lot of time gathering back- ground information on this redevelopment project. They have already met with the utility companies, and she was very pleased to learn that they plan to use Trans-Plan for the traffic studies. She stated that Muller came to the interviews very well prepared. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked the range of cost estimates. Mr. Diede discussed the variables that render a cost estimate very difficult to give. These variables include such matters as water and sewer line locations, lighting, signalization of intersections, etc. Mr. Diede pointed out that the design of the boulevard encompasses more than just the design of that particular street; it will also affect at least two intersections on South Broadway and the treatment of traffic flow on South Acoma Street, as well as all the intersections along the boulevard. Mr. Diede stated that most of the firms interviewed, or even those who submitted proposals, were reluctant to give cost estimates, but basically we are talking about $1.5 to $2 million dollars. Mr. Diede stated that the fees for the companies seemed to be running about the same, and that the preliminary design fee estimate was approximately $60,000 from Muller Engineering. Mr. Diede further discussed cost factors and the need to determine early on exactly what is wanted in the design of the boulevard. Ms. VanDyke asked if any of the existing materials such as used in intersection signalization could be reused along the boulevard. Mr. Diede stated that possibly some of the equipment could be up-dated. Mr. Fitzpatrick discussed the "curve" of the boulevard from Girard into Cherokee. Mr. Diede pointed out that this curve would be part of the design to be done by the engineering firm. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked when the Authority would be asked to review the signaliza- tion plan. Mr. Diede estimated that this would be available for review approxi- mately 6 weeks into the project. He stated that the #1 priority right now is to determine the design and curve of the boulevard. Ms. Powers asked if Mr. Diede could give an estimate on the negotiation of the contract --when would this be completed. Mr. Diede stated that he felt the negotiations could be done probably within two weeks. Discussion ensued. ----------· • I • • ~~ I • • • • -5- Minnick moved: Fitzpatrick seconded: The Urban Renewal Authority autho r ize th City staff t o negotiate a contract for design of th boulevard with Muller Engineering Company. The motion carried. IV. MEMBERSHIP OF URBAN RENEWAL AUTIIORITY. Mr . Novicky asked if there had been any communication from City Council on getting new people appointed to the Urban Renewal Authority. Ms. Powers stated that she understood City Council will be interviewing for Board and Commission appointments on January 23. V. OLD BUSINESS. A. Property Report. Mr. Scott McDowell was present, and reported on progress to acquire the Swarman property on South Broadway. He stated that they are in the process of disolving the corporation, and this matter is at the office of their at- torney. He estimated it would probably be next week before he would hear further on this matter . Mr . Hinson stated that appraisals on other properties downtown will be in on January 31 . Mr. Hinson stated that he had discussed with Mr. Opperman the matter of easements back of apartment buildings. B. Urban Renewal Plan (Downtown Redevelopment Plan) Ms. Powers stated that the Downtown Redevelopment Plan should be amended to reflect the current plan . She suggested that possibly additional properties should be listed in the Plan for acquisition by the Authority. Discussion ensued. Authority members strongly disagreed on the listing of some properties they feel should be acquired by the redeveloper, but did agree that the office building at South Bannock Street and West Girard Avenue should be listed since it was in the center of the proposed Little Dry Creek improvement. Further discussion ensued. VI. Commissioner's Choice. Mr. Minnick asked Mr. Haviland what was happening at the EDDA. Mr. Haviland indicated that nothing was going on. Mr. Minnick commented that it would be helpful to receive the minutes of the EDDA meetings. Mr. Haviland indicated that he thought the Authority was re- ceiving the minutes, but would check into the matter. Mr. Novicky inquired whether anyone had discussed the relocation of the Public Service Company transformer station. Mr. Minnick stated that he I • • - • • • • -6- firmly believes that that station will remain where it is. He stated that he would strongly recommend that all utility lines in the redevelopment be underground. The·meeting adjourned at 6:55 P. M. • I • • • • • • MINUTES ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO s 8, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS January 11, 1984 The regular meeting for the Board of Adjustment and Appeals began at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Kreiling, Hallagin, Dawson, Gage, Brown, Ferguson and Seymour. None. Susan T. King, Senior Planner Larry D. Yenglin, Planner I Sheryl Rousses, Recording Secretary * * * * * Chairman Seymour called the meeting to order and stated that with seven members present, 5 votes would be required to grant a variance. BOARD MEMBER HALLAGIN MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 14, 1983, BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. Soard Member Dawson seconded the motion. Upon a vote, all seven members voted in the affirmative, and the Chairman declared the Minutes of December 14, 1983, were approved as written. * * * * * BOARD MEMBER BROWN MOVED THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR CASES NO. 33-83 AND 34-83 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. Board Member Gage seconded the motion. Upon a vote, all seven members voted in the affirmative, and the Chair- man ruled that the Findings were approved in Cases 33-83 and 34-83. * * * * * CONTINUED CASES The Chairman reopened Case No. 32-83, Ann Burney, 4241 South Logan Street, and asked that the Staff identify the request. Hr. Yenglin stated that the applicant is requesting a two-faaily use in single-family zone district . This ia a variance from the Comprehen- sive Zoning Ordinance, Section 22.4-4 b -Permitted Principal Uaea • I • - ( • Minutes Page 2 • • • The Chairman asked that the applicant come forward. Mrs. Ann Burney, 4241 South Logan, was sworn in. She offered five letters of approval from her neighbors. Mrs. Burney stated that there is a housing shortage in Englewood, and people need her apartment. There are 2200 square feet of living space on each floor, with three bedrooms, a livingroom, diningroom and bath upstairs, and two bedrooms, a living- room, family room, kitchen and bath downstairs. The basement apartment was rented when she purchased the house, and this was always a two- family unit. With two kitchens and two baths, it had to be a duplex. She stated that the whole house would be too large for her now. When she bought the house, she had six children living at home; now there are only two. She has no use for all that room. It would also be a waste of energy to heat that house for three people. Mrs. Burney stated that there is adequate parking; she is cleaning out the garage, and will remove the car from the front, and put it in the garage. Mr. Brown said that when he went down the alley that afternoon, there was a great deal of trash. Mrs. Burney stated that the tenants moved out of the basement apartment on Saturday; and the weather has been so cold that it is difficult for her to get it cleaned. Mr. Seymour asked if the basement apartment is up to Code for a rental unit. Mr. Yenglin stated that everything is up to Code. Mr. Hallagin asked why the permits were taken out for a single-family home. Mrs. Burney stated that the contractors took out the permit, and she had never said that hers was a single-family home. The Board noted that Mrs. Burney had never signed the permits. Mr. Kreiling asked if Mrs. Burney would be forced to sell the property if she were not granted a variance. Mrs. Burney stated that she was not sure. There were no further questions. The Chairman asked if there were any speakers in favor of granting the variance. Karren Schwartzkopf, 4616 South Pearl, came forward and was sworn in. She stated that she has known Mrs . Burney for many years and she is a hardworking lady who has raised her children all by herself. The apart- ment is a large part of her income, and Mrs. Burney relies on it. It would be an extreme hardship if she were to lose that income. James Goggin, 4245 South Logan, was sworn in. He stated that he lives next door to Mrs. Burney and has a registered nonconforming use for three units. He has similar parking provisions, and there never seems to be a problem with parking. There is a trash problem, but there are several dogs which run up and down the alley. He stated that he would have no objection if the permitted use of Mrs. Burney's property were changed. Mr. Ferguson stated that he understood that 4245 South Logan was registered for a duplex only. Mr. Yenglin agreed. (Secretary's note. When we checked back to 1966, the use for this property was for three units, one of them a basement unit. Over the years through clerical error, the use was listed as two units. The legal use is for "two units on one site, and a basement apartment.") • I • • • ( • Minutes Page 3 • • - There were no further speakers in favor of the variance. There were no speakers in opposition. Mrs. Burney had nothing further to add. The Staff Report was included in the Record, and the Staff had no comments to make. The Chairman closed the hearing on Case No. 32-83. The Board discussed the matter, agreeing that this is a transitional area. Mrs. Dawson said that across the street from this house is a house with many more people in it, and that is a legal use. BOARD MEMBER HALLAGIN MOVED TO GRANT A VARIANCE PERMITTING THE LATE REGISTRATION OF A TWO-FAMILY USE IN A SINGLE-FAMILY ZONE DISTRICT. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 22.4-4 b - PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES. Board Member Gage seconded the motion. Upon a vote, all seven members voted in the affirmative, and the Chair- man ruled that the variance was granted. The Chairman instructed Mrs. Burney to go into the Planning office to register this use. The members. gave their findings as follows: Mr. Kreiling stated that since the house appeared to be built in the beginning as a douhle, and there are other multi-family uses in this block, he voted "yes". Hr. Hallagin stated that there was no opposition; there was support from neighbors; and Mrs. Burney met the six conditions necessary for granting ... variance. Mrs. Dawson voted "yes" because there was a hardship; there were several letters of approval from the neighbors, and there are many multiple- family rentals in the block. Mr. Brown stated that he concurred with the other Board members, and there seemed to be plenty of parking. Mr. Gage stated that there is a hardship, and there are other multi- family houses on the block. Mr. Ferguson voted "yes" because of the hardship; and he did not feel that it would adversely affect the area or change its character, since there are other multi-units in the neighborhood. Mr. Seymour voted in favor of the variance because there was a hardship and the house is located in a transition area. Mrs. Burney generally met the six conditions necessary for a variance. * * * * * The Chairman opened Case No. 1-84. The applicants were Gage Enterprises and W. W. Wheeler and Associates, Inc. for property ut 3700 South Inca • I • ( ( • Minutes Page 4 • • • Street. The Chairman stated that he has proof of posting, and asked that the Staff identify the request. Mr. Yenglin stated that the applicant is requesting an encroachment of part of the off-street parking into the minimum front yard setback of 25 feet. Required off-street parking spaces are not permitted in the minimum required front yard in residential zone districts. This is a variance of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 22.5-5 h -Private Off-street Parking Spaces in a Residential District. The Chairman asked that the applicant come forward. Gary Thompson, 7912 South Cedar Street, Littleton, was sworn in. He stated that Gage Enterprises is a partnership of the principals in W. W. Wheeler and Associates, Inc., which is a consulting water engineering firm that has been in Englewood for many years renting office space. They designed McClellan Dam, the Englewood Pump Station and the Grant Street project for Englewood. They want to build a small office building on 3700 South Inca Street in the block east of the Post Office Annex, at the north end of the block. To the north of them is the new Englewood Executive Center. The building they are planning would have two parts, one an expansion. They would like to put seven parking spaces in the required front setback. This would have a negligible visual impact on the sur- rounding buildings, and would allow them to make full use of the property. The shape of the lot would only permit a square office building if they are not granted a variance. The building would be unattractive and uneconomical. The shape planned will allow the phase development, which could not be obtained with a square building. The zoning area is R-4, which is a transition zone between residential, industrial and office uses which are across the street. The required landscaping is 15%, and the proposed plan would provide 24%, plus an additional 1800 square feet which is Englewood's right-of-way, and which will be planted with grass. Englewood Housing Authority, which owns the duplex to the south has approved the request, through Frances Jonas. This variance would not cause a change in the use of the property, but would permit them to build a more attractive building which is compatible with the adjacent property. Mr. Ferguson asked what kind of landscaping would be placed where the future expansion will be. Mr. Thompson said it would be minimal, probably grass. Mr. Seymour asked if they would definitely have a privacy fence. Mr. Thompson said that they would have a privacy fence. Mr. Ferguson asked if there is a dedicated alley; Mr. Thompson said there is. Mr. Brown asked what the square footage for the building would be. Mr. Thompson said there would be 10,000 square feet on two floors. 80% of this would be for the use of Gage Enterprises, and 20% would be rented out to a hydrologist. Mr. Kreiling stated that it is not a matter of how many parking spaces would be there; it is a question of where they will be placed. Mr. Thompson agreed. There were no further questions or speakers in favor of the variance. There were no speakers in opposition. The applicant had nothing to add. Mr. Gage stated that he is not related to Gage Enterprises. Mr. Thompson stated that the name c omes from Qary, !1, Qeorge, Etc • • I • - c ( ( • Minutes Page 5 • • • The Chairman made the Staff Report part of the Record. There were no further statements from the Staff. The Chairman declared the Public Hearing closed on case No. 1-84. BOARD MEMBER KREILING MOVED THAT Tl!E APPLICANT BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FOR 3700 SOUTH INCA STREET, PERMITTING AN ENCROACHMENT OF PART OF THE REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING INTO THE MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 25 FEET. REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES ARE NOT PERMITTED IN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT YARD IN RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS. THIS IS A VARIANCE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 22.5-5 h - PRIVATE OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. THE PRIVACY FENCE INDICATED ON THE PLANS MUST BE BUILT. Board Member Hallagin seconded the motion. Upon a vote &11 seven members voted in the affirmative and the Chairman ruled that the variance was granted. The Chairman stated that the applicant may submit plans and apply to the Building Division for permits. 1be members gave their findings as follows: Mr. Kreiling stated that the area is professional and residential. It is commercial on the north and west sides. No residences could be built in this area. Mr. Hallagin stated that this building will improve the area and give a good tax base for the City, and there will be adequate parking. Mrs. Dawson stated that they are surrounded by business offices; it is a good use of the propertY> the plans are good; and the privacy fence ana landscaping will answer some of the problems. There were three letters of approval. Mrs. Brown voted "yes" because the six conditions were generally met. There was no one present in opposition. There were letters of approval, and it will be an improvement in the neighborhood. He particularly praised 24% landscaping. Mr. Gage stated that this will improve the lot. There is co.mercial use nearby. The landscaping will be good. Mr. Ferguson voted "yes" because the applicant complied with the six conditions f or a variance. Mr. Seymour stated that this development will fit in with the adjacent property, and will be a good use for the property. • * * * * The Chairman declared the Public Hearing was open for Case No. 2-84, 4600 South Pearl ·street. He asked that the Staff identify the request. Mr. Yenglin stated that the applicant, Thomas N. Townsend, is requesting • ) I • • c ( • Minutes Page 6 • • • a reduction in the minimum required lot area from 6,000 square feet to 5,587.5 square feet and in the minimum required lot frontage from 50 feet to 44.7 feet to create a new single-family building site. This is a variance from the Comprehensive Ordinance, Section 22.4-4 c (2) (a) -Minimum Area of Lot and Section 22.4-4 f (2) (a) -Minimum Frontage of Lot. The Chairman asked that the applicant come forward. Tom Townsend, 669 East Tufts Avenue, Englewood, came forward and was sworn in. He stated that he is applying for a variance for frontage and lot area. The existing house at 4600 South Pearl was built in 1922, with an addition at a later time. This house was originally built on 100 feet of frontage. In order to create the building site and maintain the proper setbacks on the existing house, there are only 44.7 feet of frontage left for the new site. He called the Board's attention to the plot plan, and the floor plan of the house which is like the one just erected at 3975 South Delaware. The plan meets all the other require- ments of the zone district. It does provide a much-needed single-family residence. It fits in with the zoning regulations, and would not change the district. Within one block there are six homes which required var lances for lot area or lot frontage or both. Mr. Townsend stated that he has a prospective purchaser for the home. The house in which he lives is one of the house& which required a vari- ance, and this house is in this area. He intends this house to be an asset to the area. Mr. Brown asked how large the house will be. Mr. Townsend stated that it will have three bedrooms, a full basement, one bath, fireplace, an oversized one car garage and 1040 square feet on each floor, with a rough-in bath in the basement. Mr. Seymour asked if the patio/porch would be removed from the existing house, as this would encroach on the new building site. Mr. Townsend said it would be removed and added to the east side of the property. Mr. Ferguson asked if the Landscaping Ordinance is in effect. Ms. King said that it will be printed the 18th of January, and it will be in full force the 18th of February. There were no further questions. The Chairman asked if there were any other persons wishing to speak in favor of the request. Michael O'Reilly, 3060 South Logan, was sworn in. He stated that he wishes to buy the house planned by Mr. Townsend. He stated that the shortage in lot area and lot frontage was not a problem. He and his wife have one child and plan more. They would like to stay in Englewood. There were no further speakers in favor of granting the variance. The Chairman asked if there were any speakers in opposition to the request. Bill Schwartzkopf, 4616 South Pearl, came forward and was sworn in. He stated that he had lived in Englewood for 20 years. He doesn't want a house built next door to him that close. He has three teenage boys who make a great deal of noise, and this would bother neighbors. This would be too crowded, especially considering that the house on the south of him is very close to his house. Mr. Hallagin asked if the house to the south of him is a full lot. Mr • • I • • • Minutes Page 7 • • .. Schwartzkopf stated that all the lots on the block are SO feet except for one across the street which is too small to build on. Mr. Hallagin asked if he had circulated the petition. Mr. Schwartzkopf said that his wife had circulated the petition. Mr. Hallagin stated that some of the people opposing the variance on the petition had signed letters of approval. Mr. Schwartzkopf stated that some of those people had not realized that he and his wife would oppose the variance. Mr. Ferguson stated that the side setback would be 15~ feet. This is a very good setback, he said. Hr. Townsend could legally plan to set the house back from the property line only three feet. Mr. Ferguson asked why Hr. Schwartzkopf had built so close to Mr. Townsend's property. Hr. Schwartzkopf replied that he wanted to put a distance between his house and the house on the south. Hr. Ferguson stated that Mr. Townsend was also movi.ng his house away from Hr. Schwartzkopf's house more than the required three feet. Mr. Ferguson asked why Mr. Schwartzkopf had not bought the vacant land if he wanted it kept vacant. Hr. Schwartz- kopf said that he approached Hr. Smith on several occasions, but Mr. Smith had not wanted to sell at a time when Mr. Schwartzkopf could afford to buy the property. Mr. Seymour stated that the petition said that Mr. Townsend was asking for a rezoning of the property; and this is not correct. Hr Kreiling asked if he knew how far the house would be from Mr. Schwartzkopf's home. Mr. Schwartzkopf replied that he had only learned the week before the meeti.ng. Mr. Kreiling said that Mr. Townsend would be meeting the setback requirements, and would not be unduly close to Mr. Schwartzkopf's ~ome. Mr. Schwartzkopf replied that three houses were too much for that amount of property. He stated that he had been there 20 years and wants his privacy. The Chairman asked if there were any further speakers in opposition. Karren Schwartzkopf came forward and was sworn in. She stated that when they built their house wher e it is, there was plenty of space between them and their neighbor to the north. They were under the impression that this space would remain. Mr. Seymour said that Mr. Townsend was leaving more space between the houses than the law required. Hr. Kreiling and Mr. Gage asked if she would relent now that she realizes there will be 15~ feet between the houses. Mrs. Schwartzkopf said that they would have to reconsider, and had only been told about the setback when Mr. Ferguson came out over the weekend and discussed the plot plan. She asked that this setback be required if the variance is passed. Hr. Seymour said that it was in Mr. Townsend's interest to build that far from the house to the south. The Chairman asked if there were any further opposition. Arlene Watkins, 4601 South Pearl, was sworn in. She stated that she had signed the letter of approval for Hr. Townsend before she realized that the Schwartzkopf& disapproved, and she then signed the petition. She came to the Board meeting to withdraw her approval because of her friendship with the Schwartzkopfs . I • • • • • • - Minutes Page 8 Mr. Kreiling stated that the setbacks were better than the Schwartzkopfs had believed. Ms. Watkins said she was present to back up the Schwartzkopfs. There was no further opposition to the variance. Mr. Townsend stated that he has been a resident of Englewood for ten years and has renovated 12 different homes from the ground up. He has built new houses. He said he believed that the rezoning petition was so misleading that he might have signed it. He has designed the house to be compatible with the neighborhood. His house is nearby, and has improved the neighborhood. His plan was influenced by the feedback from the Schwartzkopfs and their neighbors. He has tried to give adequate setbacks; he does not have 15~ feet on either side of his own property. This is, however, a common setback in the neighborhood. The design provides for some passive solar, with large windows on the south side of the house. He stated that Englewood has too many two bedroom bungalows and he thinks that his plans will improve the neigh- borhood, and help Englewood. He stated that he had not bought the property from the Smiths until a year after Mr. Smith died. He would be willing to sell the complete 100 foot lot for a fair market value to the Schwartzkopfs. He has tried to give an adequate buffer zone in an effort to avoid hard feelings. The Chairman closed the Public Hearing in Case No. 2-84. The Chairman included the Staff Report in the Record, and asked if there were any Staff comments. There were none. BOARD MEMBER FERGUSON MOVED THAT IN CASE NO. 2-84, 4600 SOUTH PEARL STREET, THE APPLICANT, THOMAS N. TOWNSEND, OF TOWNSEND INVESTMENTS, INC., BE GRANTED A VARIANCE PERMITTING A REDUCTION IN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT AREA FROM 6,000 SQUARE FEET TO 5,587.5 SQUARE FEET AND IN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT FRONTAGE FROM 50 FEET TO 44.7 FEET TO CREATE A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY BUILDING SITE. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 22.4-4 c (2) (a) -MINIMUM AREA OF LOT AND SECTION 22.4-4 f (2) (a) -MINIMUM FRONTAGE OF LOT. THE PATIO/PORCH OF THE BUILDING TO THE NORTH OF THIS PROPERTY IS TO BE CLEARED TO WITHIN THREE FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE. Board member Dawson seconded the motion. Upon a vote, all seven members voted in the affirmative and the Chairman ruled that the variance was granted. The members gave their findings as follows: Mr. Kreiling stated that the applicant met the six conditions necessary for a variance, and the size of the reduction is only about 7%. The petition in opposition was confusing, and this influenced him. Mr. Hallagin stated that the new building site would improve the neighborhood, and there is a buyer ready for the house. He believed that the people who signed the petition will eventually agree that the variance is a good thing • I • • • Minutes Page 9 • • - Mrs. Dawson stated that there were 12 letters of approval. She believed that there had been a misunderstanding about the plans and the wording of the petition. New housing is needed in Englewood. Mr. Brown stated that the applicant met the six conditions. The new house will update the neighborhood. The single-family nature of the area will not be changed. Mr. Gage stated that the six requirements were met. This will be a nice building for this size of lot. Mr. Ferguson stated that granting the variance will not alter the essential character of the area or do any damage. The land ia vacant, and this is a hardship. The problem was created by the location of the existing house, and this was not done by the current owner. Mr. Seymour stated that the applicant met the six conditions. This is good use of the land and good for Englewood. * * * * * The Chairman declared a ten minute recess. * * * * * The meeting reconvened at 9:14p.m. with all members present. Also present were Susan T. King, Senior Planner, Larry Yenglin, Planner I and Sheryl Rousses, Recording Secretary. The Chairman declared Public Hearing 3-84 open. This hearing is for Hilda's Cafe, owned by Walter Hrom, at 4386 South Broadway. The Chair- man stated that he had verification of posting, and asked that the Staff identify the request. Mr. Yenglin stated that the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the continued use of a roof sign. This is a variance from Section 22.7-8 h-Signa Prohibited in all Zone Districts, Roof Signs. A roof sign is defined as a sign erected upon or above the roof line or parapet of the building or structure. Walter Hrom, 4386 South Broadway, came forward and was sworn in. He stated that he has owned the business at this address for 29 years. He lived in Englewood for 15 years and has lived in Parker for the last 14 years. He works from 9:00 in the morning to six or seven in the evening five or six days a week. He has a small building about 10 feet wide, and it has a sign which has been there for 28 years, with a small addition which has been there for 26 years. The sign is small --4 feet by 5 feet. It is above the roof. The City passed an Ordina~ce stating that that kind of sign must be removed. He stated that he is not against that particular Ordinance or against beautifying the City. To remove the sign will, however, coat approximately $4,000. This ia too expensive for a small businessman. He stated that there is no pluce else to put the sign. It can.'t be lowered because it would be too close to the sidewalk. He stated that his old sign is a community landmark, nnd is similar to old movies or Central City. From a financial standpoint the City Council should reconsider making small businessmen take down their old I • • Minutes Page 10 . . • • • signs. He stated that he came to the United Stated in 1952, and he is glad and grateful to the Country. He respects the law of the Country and God's law. He has never had any trouble with the law as he is a law-abiding citizen. He cannot afford to change the sign. He does not believe that it is a bad or disgraceful sign. It is not large or a danger morally to children. The sign seems beautiful to him against the blue sky. At night the sign can be seen from a block and a half away, and this is good for his business. The managers of businesses and owners of businesses for ten blocks on each side were contacted by him. None of them objected to his sign, but they do object to the Ordinance which makes them take out old signs, and put up new ones. Nobody told him of any objections in response to his posting sign. He hoped the Board would understand and permit the sign to stay. Mr. Kreiling stated that the sign is above public right-of-way, and asked if Mr. Hrom had made any changes on the inside of his building in the last 29 years. Mr. Hrom said that he had made no changes on the inside except to add a pool room about 8 years after he started the business. Mr. Kreiling suggested that the sign had served its purpose and should be retired; perhaps after almost 30 years, a new sign is needed. Mr. Hrom stated that it would cost $4,000 and his income from the business is only $15,000 to $18,000 a year. Mr. Kreiling asked how many of the customers for the business are regular customers. Mr. Hrom said about 80% are steady customers and neighbors. Mr. Hallagin asked if Mr. Hrom attended any of the meetings which helped City Council prepare the Sign Code. Mr. Hrom said that he works 5 or 6 days a week, and attending meetings is a burden to him. Mr. Kreiling said that "Hilda's" isn't on the sign which is supposed to be removed. Mr. Hrom agreed. The signs say "Mixed Drinks" and "Miller's". Mr. Ferguson stated that the signs on the buildings across the street from Hilda's are legal signs. They do a good job and are attractive. Englewood is trying to eliminate signs that obstruct the view for the improvement of Englewood. Improving the appearance of South Broadway might improve Mr. Hrom's business because people will be more likely to drive down South Broadway. Mr. Hrom stated that his signs are small and are fine; they should not have to be replaced. He would have no objection if, when he wanted to put up a new sign, this sign had to meet the Code; but he objects to having to take down a sign which suits his purposes, and has been acceptable for many years, and replacing it at great cost. Mr. Seymour stated that Mr. Hrom is allowed 113 square feet of sign area and asked Mr. Yenglin how many feet of sign Mr. Hrom has without the roof signs. Mr. Yenglin stated that Mr. Hrom has only 36 feet without the roof signs, and is allowed three signs. If the variance were granted, Mr. Hrom would still be nonconforming in area of signs. I • • • Minutes Page 11 • • - Mr. Seymour asked if it were true that the sign is over the sidewalk, and if the sidewalk has been moved. Mr. Hrom said it had always been where it is. Mr. Seymour asked Mr. ·Yenglin if the sign were high enough over the sidewalk, and close enough to the building to be within the Code. Mr. Yenglin said that had not been checked because the signs are prohibited as roof signs. Mr. Seymour asked if there is room for a ground sign. Mr. Ferguson said no, but there could be a wall sign. Mr. Hrom said there could not be a wall sign on the north because of the billboard sign next door. Mr. Yenglin said there was room for a pole sign, window signs or a wall sign; there is space on the top of the building above the window, and on the south side of the building. There were no further questions. The Chairman asked if there were any further speakers in favor of the variance. Brad Rush, 4965 South Broadway, was sworn in and asked Mr. Ferguson if he really believed that people don't drive down Broadway because of the signs. Mr. Ferguson said that he does believe that. Gary May, 4444 South Broadway, was sworn in. He stated that he had known Mr. Hrom for many years, and there would be a financial hardship if the variance were not granted. The billboard sign next door is much wor se, in his opinion. He stated that this law seemed like something which would be done in Russia. Mr. Hrom doesn't have room to put up a proper sign. lt would be a great expense to take down the sign and meet the Code. Removal of billboards would beautify South Broadwa y. Mr. Kreilin said that to move that billboard is very P-xpensive, and th co t wo uld have to be paid by the City. ln addition that sign i on privat property, while Mr. Hrom's sign is over public right-of-way. Mr. May said that if the sign has been there 29 years, that should carry aa.e we1gbt. He, too, would not object to a change in Code for a n w sign, but Mr. Hrom is satisfied with the sign he ha Mr. Kreil ing stated that everyone sympathized with Mr. Hrom, but the Sign Code should carry so.e influence. Mr. May stated that the Cod is unfair and expensive. Hr. Kreiling agreed, but said that a business- man must expect so-expenses. Tim Ausfahl, 4509 South Broadway was sworn in. He stated that the businesses up and down South Broadway are not all big corporations. He did attend the meetings on the Sign Code. Many of the signa used in the slide presentations were of signs in new communitie s, for example, Sun City , AZ. When you are putting up new signs, a Sign Code is useful. The old signs should be "grandfathered" in. You can't make an old city new overnight. Any new sign should meet the Code, but old signs should be permitted. The buildings which are across the street which have legal signs are difficult to find, and when he sends people to those businesses, he tells them they are across the street from Hilda's . He asked that Mr. Hrom's sign be permitted to remain. Gary Ausfahl, 450'9 South Broadway, was sworn in. He stated that Mr. Hrom's variance should be granted. When Plumbing and Building Codes are passed, the old homes are not made to be brought up to Code. They are only made to change when new construction is begun. The City passed the I • I.J • • Minutes Page 12 • • • law without considering the small businessmen, just as the City took prime residential and commercial land and turned it into senior citizens' homes, in an effort to make a new Sun City. He stated that he believed the Codes in the City of Englewood are a farce. Amortization still costs mone.y, and tax deductions cost money. The City should have to pay for signs to make up the difference between deductions and actual cost. There should have been a "grandfather clause" in the Sign Code. Mr. Brown said that Mr. Ausfahl should have been at those meetings. Mr. Seymour listed the four points which must be proved by Mr. Hrom in order to receive a variance. There must be special circumstances, the variance must not weaken the Ordinance, or change the essential character of the area, and must not injure the appropriate use of adjacent con- forming property. He stated that all four conditions must be met. Mr. Ausfahl said that the variance should still be granted, or no one would be able to find the buildings across the street from Hilda's. Gary May, 4444 South Broadway, of A and A Transmission, asked to speak again. He stated that if he had realized what the Sign Code would do, he would have opposed it. It is unAmerican that the City can demand that signs be taken down, and new ones put up. This could be applied to Plumbing and Electrical Codes. They could make people bring their homes up to different Codes anytime. Mr. Ferguson stated that that might be a good thing. It would improve safety; fire insurance would go down. It would be good if renters could demand a building inspection before they moved in, and if realtors could know the conditions before they sold a house. Mr. Kreiling stated that if the people oppose this Code, they should not address the Board of Adjustment; it was City Council which passed the Code, and only they can change it. Mr. Seymour stated that the Fire Department is opposed to roof signs because they are a hazard. The guy wires are dangerous. Mr. Hrom asked if the Board can recommend changing the Sign Code. Small businessmen put up signs according to old laws; will the signs have to be changed every few years? Why make changes that amount to the Old Country totalitarianism? Mr. Seymour said that the Old Country didn't have Boards of Adju s tment and Appeal s . It is not the place of the Board o f Adjustment to recommend that City Council change the laws; but the Council might listen to a group of small businessmen. Mr. Brown said that the Board could share problems with Council and tell them of the complaints made by citizens. In the meantime they must decide this case on facts and the four requirements for justifying a variance. Mr. Hrom stated that there are many small businessmen in the same situation, and he would like to ask for mercy for all of them. Tom Crump, 4466 South Broadway,was sworn in. He stated the law should not require that a legal sign be taken down until there was going to be a change made anyway. This sign was legal five years ago. The Sign Code may change in ten years, and the new sign which the Board would force Mr. Hrom to erect would become illegal; and he'd have to put up still another sign. Also Mr. Hr om ma y have to spend all this money and then a big corporation will have the Sign Code thrown out, and Mr. Hrom will be out a lot of money • • I • • n - • • • Minutes Page 13 • • • Mr. Hrom said that he had not asked these people to speak for him, but he felt that he and many other people in his category need help to obtain relief from this law. Mr. Seymour stated that the Board could not change the law; it can only grant a variance. Mr. Hrom stated that this is as if, when he had just bought a gray suit, the City asked that he wear red suits. He would have no objection, but he should be allowed to wear out the gray suit before he bought the red one. Kevin Lindgren, operator was sworn in. He stated Hrom to remove the sign. of time the man has been of the Holiday Motel at 4475 South Broadway, that six months was not long enough to give Hr. Consideration should be given to the length in business. There were no speakers in opposition to the variance. Hr. Hrom stated that his sign is not huge or ugly. It doesn't bother anybody and hasn't in the last 29 years. He will be hurt financially and emotionally if he does not receive the variance. He feels there are many ot~er businessmen in the same circumstances. He does not object to taxes and spending money for real improvements, but does object to throwing money away. The Chairman made the Staff Report part of the Record. The Staff had no further comments. The Chairman closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Ferguson asked if the sign could be changed from a prohibited sign to a nonconforming sign. Hs. King stated that an appeal had been made to the Director of Community Development concerning the classification, and the appeal had been denied. BOARD MEMBER KREILING MOVED THAT A VARIANCE BE GRANTED TO WALTER HROH FOR HILDA'S CAFE AT 4386 SOUTH BROADWAY PERMITTING THE CONTINUED USE OF A RoOF SIGN. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 22.7-8 h-SIGNS PROHIBITED IN ALL ZONE DISTRICTS, ROOF SIGNS. A ROOF SIGN IS D£FINED AS A SIGN ERECTED UPON OR ABOVE THE ROOF LINE OR PARAPET OF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE. Board Kember Hallagin seconded the motion • Discussion followed. Mr. Seymour stated that these signs are not attractive, and are the kind of signs that the Sign Code wns designed to eliminate. Upon a vote, six members voted in opposition, and one member {Mrs. Dawson} voted in the affirmative. The Chairman declared that the variance was denied, and stated that Hr. Hrom had the 180 days to make the change • The members gave their findings as follows: Mr. Kreiling stated that this sign projects into public right-of-way, and that makes a difference. Hr. Hallagin stated that the sign is a hazard and does not meet the four requirements • • I • • • Minutes Page 14 • • • Mrs. Dawson stated that she voted "yes" because, while the Board cannot change laws, relief should be given. She stated that the small businessmen should ask Council for relief. Mr. Brown stated that he had mixed feelings. These signs do not meet the four conditions and are definitely violations of the Sign Code. Mr. Gage said that this was a difficult case. He decided that Mr. Rrom had not met all of the four conditions for a variance. Mr. Ferguson stated that there was not a hardship. Signs and advertising are improtant, but granting the variance would have weakened the Sign Code. Mr. Seymour agreed with the Fire Department. The signs are over public right-of-way, and that made a difference. The applicant did not meet the four conditions, and granting the variance would weaken the Sign Code. Mr. Kreiling stated that Mr. Hrom had 180 days to approach City Council asking for a change in the Sign Code . He asked for a report telling the Board how many people have been told to remove their signs and how many people have complied. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Ms. King stated that the dinner with City Council has been scheduled for February 22, 1984, at 5:30 p.m. BOARD'S CHOICE. Mr. Ferguson stated that there will be a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on February 7 on Sign Code revisions. The meeting was adjourned at 10:42 p.m. Sheryl Rousses, Recording Secretary • s D I • • - ( • • , • • • Engl~ Parks and Recreation Camrission 5 c , Minutes of January U, 1984 The regular rronthly aeeting of the Engl~ Parks and Recreaticn Camrissicn was called to order at 5 :30 p .m. by <llainnan Jack Poole at the Engl~ ttmicipal Golf Course Clubhouse . MenDers present : Allen, Bradshaw, Ganes, Higday, Hixon, Howard, Poole, Rademacher , Ranans , ex officio t1a!bers absent : Boarcknan Also present: Leal Kuhn, Assistant Director of Parks and Recreaticn [bug Foe, Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation Coleen Stowell, City Forester Michele l<ubilus, Engl~ High Scmol Student O!ainnan Poole introduced Michele Kubilus, a student at Engla.ood High Scl"XXJl, to the Cannissioo. Michele attended the aeeting to obtain an understanding of the Canni.ssicn • s functioos. Olairman Poole asked if there were any additioos or correctioos to the minutes of NovE!!Der 10, 1983 . 'lbere were ncne. A IIDtioo was made and seccnded that the minutes be approved as written . The l!Dticn passed. Copies of the latest draft of the Scmol/City Joint Recreaticn Agreenent on the use of the high school swim pool were distributed to the Camlissicn. Director Ranans explained each revisicn fran previous drafts of the agreenent. Canni.ssiooer Bradshaw stated she was uncertain about the new agreement regarding the costs to the City for use of the high scmol pool. Ranans explained that the na~ agreenent states that for the year 1984 the City will pay 50'1. for all expenses for the pool regardless of use by either party. This seans to be agreeable with City !lanager ttCol.ll, Dr . Roscoe !Bvidscn. and the Scmol/City Caimittee. Ranans stated that an estimate of $64,000 per year has been established re- garding the maintenance of the pool, the City's share of which will bE! approximately $32,000 for the 1984 maintenance costs . 1he agreenent also states that maintenance supplies over $2,000 shall be first presented to the City and both Scmol and City are to negotiate in good faith . 1\ny capitol ~ts or repair that is necessary for the operatioo and safety of the pool over $2,000 nust be ~lt with in the same mamer . Camlissi.cner Howard voiced ccncem that at the time of the camurl.ty center c...,..isJ'l • I • • Elig l~ Pa rks anu Recreation llinnission Minutes o f January 12 , 1984 Page -2- • • • and election, the Ccmrunity Center Cmmittee understood that Engla.uod needed a pool in addition to the high sch:lol pool in order to run a full recreation aquatics program. Dir- ector Rcmlns explained that the Recreation Department has plans to use the high sctxx>l pool on a limited basis '\J1en they DDVe to the new pool for any possible program overflow and f or a few classes such as Scuba lessons, expert lap swinming, and youth diving lessons. The high school pool with its 12 ft. depth, cooler water, and diving boards makes it a logical place to offer these few special classes . lklwever, if the school continues to have budget problems and carmot renew elE!I!Bltary and middle sctxx>l swim lessons, and after the City DDves to their new pool, it will leave the high sch:lol pool vacant a great deal of the time . It does not appear at this time that the sctxx>l will be able to fill up all this vacant time with rentals. This may very well force the school to close the pool for sane l!Dlths during the year, and this WJU!d narrow the chance ~ swimners can use the pool. Depending on what type of agreanent is made with the sch:lols on charges for use of the pool after the year 1984, it is possible that the charges for the pool may be higher than the recreation program participants are willing to pay. t1r. Rcmlns reminded the Ccmnission that the high school pool was built and located for sch:lol purposes and use, and the location, parking, and access makes it difficult for the City to use the pool en a successful full scale aquatics ~am that will meet the full needs of the camunity . After ccnsiderable discussion, Cmmissicner Allen made a DDticn, seconded by Ccmni.ssicn- er Gc:Jies, that draft #3 o f the Joint Recreation Agreement be approved as presented . 'The DDtion passed. Chairman Poole inquired about the possibility of llSlbers of the Recreation staff being included in the Scmol/City Cannittee meetings, as was discussed previously, to help clear up scm= ques t ions that may ccm= u p during the meetings . Camri.ssioner Higday stated that to his lcnowledge this matter had not been discussed by City CoU"!Cil . Higday asked that Director Ranans speak with City tianager ~~ concerning this matter . Assistant Director Kuln reported that each year , the City of Engla.uod sul:.rn:i.ts a list o f projects to Urban Drainage for which they WJUld like to receive frnding . Last Fall, the tw:> projects sul:.rn:i.tted were detention pond maintenance, and wing \1811 recoostruction • I • • - • • &·agl~ Parks anu !~c reat ion Coonri.s sion Minutes of January 12, 1984 Page -3- • • • at the tt>rthwest Greenbelt, 1otrl.ch was washed out last year during a heavy rainstonn. Kuhn reported that Urban Drainage has agreed to fll1d $13, 000 for maintenance assistance of the detention pond, and $35,000 to reconstruct the outlet structure of the tt>rthwest Greenbelt. Kuhn stated the funds for the detention pond will be given directly to the City by Urban Drainage for maintenance upkeep. Urban Drainage will construct, or contract out for the outlet structure . 'The Coomission voiced appreciation for the assistance Urban Drainage contributes to these projects . Coomissioner Howard asked if Urban Drainage will contribute on a continual basis f or maintenance projects or is it always a one-time contribution . Director Romans stated these contributions are an a one-time basis and will depend on the continuance of present Urban Drainage tax levy for the district . Urban Drainage does have at present an agree- llBit with the Denver Greenway Trail Coomittee to sweep their trail ~ times per week, but they wal't maintain turf, etc ., since their funds are intended to be utilized for cleanup after flood waters and keeping the channel clear . Ccmnissioner Ganes inquired as to what the schedule for CCllllleting the detention pond will be now with the heavy soow cover. Assistant Director Kuhn stated he was infonned by the Fngineering Department that CCllllletion will be in !oily or Jtme, depending on weather conditions . Kuhn stated that once the grotnd thaws and the sod is layed, it needs to set in for about 3-4 weel-.s in order to prevent damage frcm people using the facility . Director Ranans stated the turf may not take hold right away due to the sand base of the soil. With regard to the expiring terms on February l, 1984, of Cannissioners Bradshaw , Boaranan, and Poole, <llainnan Poole reported he had received a note frcm Ccmnissioner Boaranan stating Mr . Boaranan is interested in renewing his tenn on the Coomission . It will, of course, be necessary for that appointment to cane frcm the School Board . <llainnan Poole stated that he will write a letter infonning the City Coli1Cil and School Board representatives on the Coomission that he is again interested in serving on the Coomission . Cooceming agenda item 15, Coomissioner Bradshaw explained that City Gulcil will be having infonnal dinner ~t.ings each noolh through tt>venber , 1984, with the various • I • • • .. Erigle1o.00J !'arks anJ !~creation Coomission Minutes of January 12, 1984 Page -4- • • - City boards and ccmnissioos in an effort to keep in touch with their tnelliJers . The Parks and Recreation Ccmnission will neet en March 22, 1934, at 6:00p.m. in the library confer- ence roan for a catered dinner neeting with City Council . Ranans indicated that City Manager ~Co\.n will draw up an agenda for the neeting, and anyone wishing to have an item included should let him know. Director Ranans reported that because the old storage shed at the detention pond was liiJVed so msny tinEs, it collapsed and will be replaced at the ccntractor's expense. Ccmnissicner Higday asked that City Forester Stowell write a piece for the }\arch or April issue of the EhgleloA:XXi Citizen to inform citizens what can be done to minimize the l<Wl damage fran this winter' s heavy snows . Chairman Poole stated that the City Forester's 1983 Activities Suimary, which was included in the Ccmnission's packets, was very interesting . He asked what type of response she received fran citizens loh!n they were instructed by her to take care of dangerous tree problEm~. Stowell stated she felt she was able to work with nnst people and that nnst were cooperative . Stowell also reported that she is presently working with Recreaticn l, Supervisor Carolyn Tracy to coordinate children's activities for Arbor Day. Ccnceming the deck surface for the new camunity center pool, Director Ranans re- ported that a tile surface, \ohi.ch is nnst desirable, is out of reach at today' s prices . He, alcng with Assistant Director Foe, Recreation Leader Navratil, Director of Engineering Services Gary Diede and Office Engineer Rick !:Min, viewed a pool deck surface called Qmituff at an apart:ment house in Denver. ~les of the deck surface were passed arolni to the Ccmnissicn l!elbcrs for their viewing . Ranans explained that this surface is a clear epoxy finish mixed with sand to prevent slipping . The cost to surface the entire pool area would be approximately $15,000 . In a nero. fran Gary Diede to City Manager ~Colon and a copy sent to Director Ranans , Diede asked that the deck surface be discussed at the next Parks and Recreation Camrl.ssicn neeting and asked the Ccmnission to make its recatlllE!l1daticns to City Comcil . Hr . Ranans said the Recreaticn staff is recamBlding this deck surface treaonent. After ~ discussicn, Camrl.ssicner Allen made a nntion, secalded by Ccmnissiooer Hi.xal, that the Qmituff material be adopted for surfacing of the CCIIDUlity • I • • • • Engleo.ood Parks anu !~creation Conmi.ssi.on Hinutes o f J anuary 12, 1984 Page -5- center pool deck . The l!Dstion passed . • • • Director Ranans presented rough drafts for t:wJ brass plaques to be displayed in t he new camunity center : ene listing the names of City Council , Parks and Recreation Ccmn- iss ion liBiilers, the City Manager, Director of Parks and Recreation , the architect anJ the ccntractor; and cne listing the Camulity Center Ccmnittee chairman and trenbers . Discuss- ien ensued with the suggesticn that Colbert D.lshing's name be placed en the second pla que since he, in years past, has been a leader and put forth so Ol.ICh effort to pursue a cCI!I!U\ity center for EilglE!Irn>d . It was decided by the Ca!rnission that Colbert D.lshing' s name be placed en the plaque . Ccmnissicner Allen departed the meeting at 7 :25 p .m. Director Ranans infonned the Ccmnission that Elsie !1alley is dcnating a crnputer to Malley Center . He reported that Elsie Malley was so enthused about the gift that she i s having it delivered in a few days. The gift is an Apple cattruter along with a three year maintenance agreement and with cne year of supplies . The cost of the c~ter is about $8 , 000, and with the software, etc . , the total cost will be over $16, 000. LuAnne Mickelson , Malley Center Supervisor, said that the new crnputer will assist in registraticns , prepar- aticn of the Milley bulletin and many other applicaticns. Concerning the sign at the EilglE!Irn>d Golf Course , which states no cross comtry skiing allowed, Ccmnissi.oner Bradshaw indicated that perhaps it 'tnlld be feasible for the Ci t y to pennit cross cotntry skiing en the go lf cours e during t he winter m:nths . -!\Ware o f t he problan of misuse and green dlmige , she suggested that classes be organized and an instructor c ould supervise tllf! skiers . Mr . Romans s tated tllllt since the area i s so large , unfenced and out of sight of the clubhouse, a supervised group w:>uld bring in many unsuper- vised skiers at all hours of the day . However, he 1on1ld take the matter up with staff and see if SCJ~Ething can be wx-ked out . Till! meetil"1g was adj ourned at 7 :37 p .m . I..in(L Wilk s , RL.'Curding Secret ary • I • • ( • • • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION January 17, 1984 I. CALL TO ORDER. 5 0 The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P. M. by Chairman Marjorie L. Becker. Members present: Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Steel, Tanguma Powers, Ex-officio Members absent: Venard Also present: Susan King, Acting Assistant Director for Planning II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. December 6, 1983 December 13, 1983 Chairman Becker stated that the Minutes of December 6, 1983 were to be considered for approval. Allen moved: Barbre seconded: The Minutes of December 6, 1983 be approved as written. AYES: Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Allen NAYS: None ABSTAIN : Steel, Tanguma ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. Chairman Becker stated that the Minutes of December 13, 1983 were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Tanguma seconded: The Minutes of December 13, 1983 be approved as written. AYES: Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Steel ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. III. SUBDIVISION PLAT 4755 South Santa Fe Drive CASE #1-84 Chairman Becker stated that the matter before the Commission is a Public Hearing on a Preliminary Subdivision Plat for property at 4755 South Santa Fe Drive. Mrs. Becker asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing • • I • • ...... • ( • • • .. -3- Mrs. Becker asked if the applicant, Mr. Donald Cameron, was present and if he wished to address the Commission. Mr. Dasel Hallmark was sworn in, and testified that he is the civil engineer and developed the plat for Mr. Cameron. Mr. Hallmark stated that this land has been used as a golf course for the last few years, which use is not the best use for the land, and they have been attempting to intensify the land use for some time. Mr Hallmark stated that Lot 1 is scheduled for development with mini-warehousing in the near future. Mr. Hallmark stated that he and the owner, Mr. Cameron, have met with the Fire Department, the staff of the Engineering Services Department, and with the State Highway Department. Mr. Hallmark stressed that they will coordinate points of access with the State Highway Department. They have also been in contact with Mr. Siddle and Public Service Company regarding the easements. Mr. Hallmark stated that they are trying to assure there is no conflict with the development as proposed and the high tension lines that cross the sites. Mr. Hallmark stated that they are working with the Engineering Services Depart- ment regarding the fill and floodway; he stated that they are aware there are restrictions on building in the flood plain. Mr. Hallmark then discussed the matter of the water and sewer easements, and the need to redefine the angles of these easements. Mr. Hallmark stated that he would like to receive copies of replies the property owners had submitted to the staff regarding the pro- posed subdivision; they would like to work through any problems the surrounding property owners may have. Mrs. Becker asked if there were questions of Mr. Hallmark from the Commission. Mr. Carson asked if the applicant would install the fire hyndrant. Mr. Hallmark stated that they would. The applicant is responsible for the complete water and sanitary system. Mr. Hallmark stated that the applicant is aware that an engineering report will have to be submitted; this is a necessity to obtain financing for any project. Ms. King pointed out that the letters she submitted for the record were what the staff mailed to the adjoining property owners regarding the date, time, and place of the Public Hearing; no responses from the adjoining property owners have been received. Mr. Hallmark introduced Mr. Cameron, who had entered the meeting during Mr. Hallmark's presentation. Mrs. Becker asked Mr. Cameron if he wished to add to Mr. Hallmark's statement. Mr. Cameron stated that he had nothing to add. Allen moved: Carson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #l-84 be closed. AYES: McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. Mrs. Becker asked the pleasure of the Commission on the Preliminary Plat. Allen moved: Barbre seconded: The Planning Commission approve the preliminary subdivision plat submitted by Mr. Donald Cameron, with the following • I • • • • • - -2- Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #1-84 be opened. AYES: Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. Mrs . Becker stated that the staff report regarding the preliminary subdivision plat is before the Commission, and asked if there were any questions of the staff. Mrs . Becker asked the staff if there were additional comments to be made. Ms. Susan King was sworn in, and presented for the record copies of letters sent to adjoining property owners by certified mail, which letters were notification of the date, time, and place of the Public Hearing on the pro- posed Subdivision Plat. Ms. King then addressed a concern of the Engineering Services Department, and stated that staff members are of the opinion that there is fill occurring on the subject site, and that this fill may be in the floodway of Big Dry Creek. The Engineering Services staff indicated that if this is the case, the fill dirt may have to be relocated. The Engineering Services Department is requesting an engineer's report on this site, which will identify the area of the floodway and identify the area where the fill is being done . Ms. King suggested that the submission of an engineer's report should be an additional requirement listed on Page three and four of the staff report. Ms. King defined the floodway as being the course the water would take during a flood . The flood plain was defined as being that area that would be inundated temporarily by the flood waters. Ms. King stated that the Utilities Department has expressed concern on some of the angles indicated for the utility easements; they feel these angles are too sharp to properly handle sewage flow, and that the easements and angles should be redefined. Ms. King stated that it is being suggested that the engineer for the property owner get in touch with the Utility Depart- ment to resolve the matter of angles on the easements. Mrs. Becker asked if there were questions from the Commission members for Ms. King. Mr. Allen asked if the location of the proposed fire hydrant conformed with the Fire Code. Ms. King stated that the issue of the fire hydrant would be resolved at the time the building permits are issued. The matter before the Commission at this time is the division of the property into two sites: Lot 1 and Lot 2. Mr. McBrayer stated that in his opinion, the access to South Santa Fe Drive "must" be coordinated with the State Highway Departments. He stated that he hoped the Highway Department would take into account the plans for the corridor when approving ingress and egress to developments along South Santa Fe. Ms. King stated that she was not sure that property on the west side of South Santa Fe Drive would be acquired; she acknowledged that access to and from South Santa Fe Drive would be limited • \ I • • n - • • • • • -3- Mrs. Becker asked if the applicant, Mr. Donald Cameron, was present and if he wished to address the Commission. Mr. Dasel Hallmark was sworn in, and testified that he is the civil engineer and developed the plat for Mr. Cameron. Mr. Hallmark stated that this land has been used as a golf course for the last few years, which use is not the best use for the land, and they have been attempting to intensify the land use for some time. Mr Hallmark stated that Lot 1 is scheduled for development with mini-warehousing in the near future. Mr. Hallmark stated that he and the owner, Mr. Cameron, have met with the Fire Department, the staff of the Engineering Services Department, and with the State Highway Department. Mr. Hallmark stressed that they will coordinate points of access with the State Highway Department. They have also been in contact with Mr. Siddle and Public Service Company regarding the easements. Mr. Hallmark stated that they are trying to assure there is no conflict with the development as proposed and the high tension lines that cross the sites. Mr. Hallmark stated that they are working with the Engineering Services Depart- ment regarding the fill and floodway; he stated that they are aware there are restrictions on building in the flood plain. Mr. Hallmark then discussed the matter of the water and sewer easements, and the need to redefine the angles of these easements. Mr. Hallmark stated that he would like to receive copies of replies the property owners had submitted to the staff regarding the pro- posed subdivision; they would like to work through any problems the surrounding property owners may have. Mrs. Becker asked if there were questions of Mr. Hallmark from the Commission. Mr. Carson asked if the applicant would install the fire hyndrant. Hr. Hallmark stated that they would. The applicant is responsible for the complete water and sanitary system. Hr. Hallmark stated that the applicant is aware that an engineering report will have to be submitted; this is a necessity to obtain financing for any project. Ms. King pointed out that the letters she submitted for the record were what the staff mailed to the adjoining property owners regarding the date, time, and place of the Public Hearing; no responses from the adjoining property owners have been received. Mr. Hallmark introduced Hr. Cameron, who had entered the meeting during Hr. Hallmark's presentation. Mrs. Becker asked Mr. Cameron if he wished to add to Mr. Hallmark's statement. Hr. Cameron stated that he had nothing to add. Allen moved: Carson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case Ul -84 be closed. AYES: McBrayer, Steel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. Mrs. Becker asked the pleasure of the Commission on the Preliminary Plat. Allen moved: Barbre seconded: The Planning Commission approve the preliminary subdivision plat submitted by Mr. Donald Cameron, with the following • I • • • • • • -4- conditions: 1. Enlarge the utility easement from 25 feet to 30 feet and provide a legal description for the easement. 2. The developer is to bear the cost of moving the water meter used by the Fire training facility, if necessary. 3. Access to South Santa Fe Drive is to be limited to right-tum only. 4. An engineers report identifying the floodway lines shall be provided by the property owner. Mr. Tanguma stated that there seems to be a lot of loose ends regarding this plat, and questioned what happens on the rezoning. Ms. King pointed out that the question before the Commission is not on rezoning, but on the division of the land. Ms. King agreed that there are loose ends, but pointed out that this is a preliminary plat, and that the applicant will incorporate the recommendations into the final plat before it is presented to the Commission for their review and recommendation to City Council. The vote was called: AYES: Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. IV. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE R-2-C SPS Medium Density Special Permit System Residence District. Ms. Becker asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Tanguma moved: Barbre and CASE 112-84 McBrayer seconded: The Public Hearing on Case 112-84 be opened. AYES: Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. Mrs. Becker noted that the proposed R-2-C SPS Zone District regulations were contained in the packet the Commission received several days ago. She asked if there were any questions or comments from the Commission regarding the proposed zone district. It was noted that public notice of this public hearing was published in the official City newspaper, the Englewood Sentinel, on December 28, 1983. Mr. Tanguma questioned the wording on Page 13 of the R-2-C regulations, 1111, and asked if the wording should not be " ••• design which complements adjacent • I • • • I • • • - -5- buildings ••• " rather than "similar" to adjacent buildings. Discussion en- sued. Mr. Allen questioned that the Commission should require new construction that is either similar or compatible with the adjacent buildings. After fur- ther discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that #11 should state that: "A project is ENCOURAGED to incorporate design which is compatible with adjacent buildings ••. ". Ms. Becker asked if there were further comments or suggestions. further comments, and noting that there was no audience present proposed zone district, Mrs. Becker asked for a motion to close Hearing. Carson moved: McBrayer seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #2-84 be closed. AYES: Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. Allen moved: Hearing no to discuss the the Public McBrayer seconded: The Planning Commission approve the R-2-C SPS Zone District regulations, as amended, and recommend to City Council that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be amended to incorporate this Zone District as §22.4-7. AYES: Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. IV. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE CASE #3-84 Amendment to R-3, High Density Residence Mrs. Becker asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. McBrayer moved: Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #3-84 be opened . AYES: Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. It was uoted that Public Notice was given in the Englewood Sentinel on December 28, 1983 identifying the time and place of this Public Hearing. Mrs. Becker asked if the Commission had any questions of the staff regarding the proposed amendments to this zone district, which has been reviewed in depth with the Commission on previous occasions. There were no questions from the Commission . • I • • • • • • -6- Mrs. Becker noted there was no one present in the audience to address th e Commission . Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #3-84 be closed. AYES: Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. Mrs. Becker asked the pleasure of the Commission regarding this matter. Stoel moved: Barbre seconded : The Planning Commission approve the proposed amendments to the R-3 Zone District regulations, and recommend to City Council that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, §22.4-8, be amended by incorporating the proposed changes in text . AYES : Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. V. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE CASE 114-84 R-4, Residential-Professional District Mrs. Becker asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Tanguma moved: Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #4-84 be opened. AYES: McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. It was noted that Public Notice was given in the Englewood Sentinel on December 28, 1983, identifying the time and place of this Public Hearing. Mrs. Becker asked if Commission members had any questions regarding the proposed amendments. Mr.McBrayer staed that on Page 7, N(2) lists Group Homes as a Conditional Use. He stated that he understood that group homes were to be allowed in any residential district according to State Law. Ms. King explained that the State Law regarding group homes deals with group homes for the developmentally disabled; there are other group homes that are not covered by the State definition of developmental disability and cited other groups which have requested housing for run-away children, etc . • I • 0 • • • • • -7 - Mr. McBrayer suggested that a s tatement be added at the end of the sentence to the effect : " •.• except f or tho se which are r equi r ed to be accepted by State Law ." He s t a t ed t ha t the way this statemen t is writt e n n ow, it ap- p ears that the City wo uld be attempting t o place group homes allowed by State Law under the provisions of a Conditional Use . Ms . King s tated that following discussions wi th City Co uncil members, it is her belief that the Council is concerned about group homes clu ster i n g i n any one area. Ms . King cit ed the 3200 block South Sherman Street as an example , where a group home is in existence, and the organization running this h ome is buying additional property within the same block for another group home . The neighbors have expressed deep concern o n the number o f g roup homes tha t could develo p in any one block, or in a given n e ighborhoo d. The s taff is investigating the possibility of placing rest ric tions on the number of group homes that can develop in a block, c iting distances between group homes, or so man y in a given block area. Discussion ensued. Hrs . Becker suggested that the staff in corpo rate proper language to clarify the intent of this provision. Ms. Powers asked if the Commission was interested in considering s tandards to limit distances between group homes. Ms . King stated that the staff is considering r egulations t o require 800 feet between tw o g r oup homes, and that no more than three group homes may be within a four block distance. Ms. King stated that g roup homes affiliated with correctional institutions would not be allowed. Ms. King pointed o ut that fo s t e r home s that take in more than four child r e n would also be in the group home classifica tio n, and would have to be ap- proved by Conditional Use . Mr. McBrayer asked why an all-encompassing statement coul d not be included to state that "it is the intent to alleviate the clustering of g r oup homes in this Zone District ", and n ot include specific standards . Mrs. Becker stated that she felt it would be better to have specific standards to follow rather than such a general statement. Discussion ensued . Ms . Powers stated that the City Council did discuss distance limitations on group homes for the R-1 and R-2 Districts that they are con sidering . Mr . Stoel suggested that perhaps this should be checked out with the City Attorney. Mr. Steel asked for clarification on the reason foster families would be considered a "group home". Ms. Powers stated that if more than four children are cared for in the home, it would have to be consider ed as a group home. Once classified as a group home by the State Law , families wanting t o care for foster children must have the home inspected by the Fire Marshal . Ms. Powers stated that City Council does und erstand t he concerns of the School District, which wants to encourage some group h omes caring for foster Children, but is also co n cerned about the impact on neighborhoods that group homes can have. Discussion ensued on the licensing of group homes by the State, and the placing of restrictions on the location of group homes . Mrs. Becker s tated that i t is the consen sus of the Commission that the s taff be requested to amend this §N(2) on Page 7 by further describing the group homes to be considered as a Conditional Use. Mrs. Becker stated that the staff i s also r e quest ed to i n clude distance requirements between group homes as has been discussed this evening . • I • • • • • • • -8- Ms. Powers pointed out that distance limitations would have to be incorporated in all residential zone districts to cover all the group homes. Mrs. Becker noted that there was no one in the audience to address the Com- mission on this matter. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #4-84 be closed. AYES: Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, §22.4-9, be amended by in- corporating the proposed amendments in the text of the ordinance. The proposed amendments are to be enlarged to include the dis- cussion on distance restrictions on group homes, and further clarification on which group homes are subject to approval by Conditional Use. AYES: Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. VI. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE B-1 Business District Mrs. Becker asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Tanguma moved: Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #5-84 be opened. CASE #5-84 AYES: Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. It was noted that Public Notice giving notice of the date, time, and place of this Public Hearing was published in the Englewood Sentinel on December 28, 1983 • Mrs. Becker stated that members of the Commission have received the proposed amendments to the B-1 Zone District, and asked if there were questions or comments from the Commission. Ms. Powers stated that on Page 8, d(3), the staff wants to know if the Com- mission would consider expanding this statement to include outdoor storage of materials, supplies, and equipment on PRIVATE or public property. Ms. Powers cited several instances wherein merchandise is displayed outdoors, • I • • • • • -9- but is not on the public right-of-way. Discussion ensued. Ms. Powers pointed out that this could not be made retroactive, and the provision would not apply to the B-2 Zone District. Mrs. Becker stated that there is no one in the audience to address the Com- mission on this matter. Carson moved: Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #5-84 be closed. AYES: Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. McBrayer moved: Stoel seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, §22.4-10, be amended by in- corporating the proposed amendments into the text. Section d(3) on Page 8 of the proposed amendments is to be expanded by adding "PRIVATE" and public property •.. " AYES: Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. VII. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE B-2 Business District Mrs. Becker asked for a motion to open th e Public Hearing. Barbre moved: Carson seconded: the Public Hearing on Case 11 6-84 be opened. CASE 116-84 AYES: Becker, Carson , McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. It was noted that the Public Notice giving the date, time and place of this Public Hearing was published in the Englewood ~entinel on December 28, 1983. Mrs. Becker asked if the members of the Commission had any questions or com- ments on the B-2 section following their review of the proposed amendments. Mrs. Becker then noted that there was no one present in the audience to ad- dress the Commission. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #6-84 be closed. • I • • • • • - -10- AYES: Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker NAYS: No n e ABSENT : Venard The motion carried. Tanguma moved: Allen seconded: The Planning Commission recommend t o City Council that the Comprehensive Zo ning Ordinance, §22.4-11, be amended by incorporating the proposed amendments into the text. AYES: McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson NAYS : None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried . Mrs . Becker stated that she felt it is important to note that there was no audience to address the Commission on any of the amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. VIII. PUBLIC FORUM . There was no one present to address the Commission. IX. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Ms. Powers asked that Commission members mark their calendar for a joint City Council/Planning Commission dinner meeting on May 31, 1984. Ms. Powers pointed out that this is on a Thursday evening, and the meeting will be in the Library Conference Room. Ms . Powers stated that the next meeting of the Planning Commission will be on February 7, 1984, at which time the request of Safeway Stores for approval of an off-street parking layout will be considered, along with request for vacation of rights-of-way. Ms. Powers stated that a Planned Development on the Pasternak property will be coming in in the near future. Ms. Powers gave an update on the downtown redevelopment, and discussed the plans for the new King Soopers to be constructed on the City Parking Lot. This would be a 56,000 sq. ft. King Soopers store. Brady Development Corpora- tion has purchased a majority of the west side of the 3300 block of South Broadway; King Soopers hopes to break ground in May, and to have the building ready for occupancy by late fall. Most of the buildings on the west side of the 3300 block South Broadway will be demolished; new structures will be built, but there will be open spaces between the buildings to provide visability to the development to the west. A parking structure of one level will be con- structed in conjunction with the development. Interviews have been conducted with engineering firms on the designing of the Boulevard, and that Muller Engineering Firm has been selected as the design firm. A contract is being negotiated at the present time. Mr. McBrayer asked what is planned for the present King Soopers building • • I • • ( • • • • -11- Ms. Powers stated that they will have to get out of the lease with KRAVCO. There is a possibility this building could be used for tenants that are being relocated from other areas on a temporary basis. Mrs. Becker asked if the facade of the proposed King Soopers will be like all the other King Sooper stores. Mr . Allen stated that the new King Soopers downtown does not look like all the other Kings stores. Ms. Powers stated that the proposed store will be like the one that was built on Speer, and will have the same square footage. Mrs. Backer stated that she hoped the facade of the proposed store would be more compatible with the new develop- ment than the traditional Kings' facade. Discussion ensued. Mr. Allen stated that he felt both the King Soopers and Safeway stores would be excellent temporary relocation spots for tenants that are being displaced. Ms. Powers stated that the timing on the Safeway development is not good f o r that. Ms. Powers stated that the Urban Renewal Authority is beginning to acquire properties acquired for the flood control project in the downtown area. Agreement to purchase the Chamber of Commerce property at 180 West Girard Avenue was reached at the last Urban Renewal Authority meeting, and appraisal s on other properties along South Bannock Street are to be submitted by the last of January. Mr. Allen stated that the Chamber of Commerce members are not aware that the property has been purchased. X. COMMISSION'S CHOICE . Mr. Carson stated that he felt the Planning Commission should recommend to City Council support of the new Englewood Chamber of Commerce, which is b e ing formed. Mr. Allen stated that a group of people are in the process of forming a new Englewood Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Allen discussed negotiations with the Centennial Chamber of Commerce, and noted that the Centennial Chamber "is trying to deny us the use of the words 'Englewood Chamber of Commerce'." Mr. Allen stressed that this group is in the process o f forming a new Chamber of Commerce, and that EDDA did go on record in support of this new Chamber. Mr. McBrayer stated that a s an individual, he believes there is a need for a Chamber of Commerce in Englewood, but until it is a fact, he doesn't think that the Planning Commission should be on record in support of something that doesn't exist. Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt support of the new Chamber of Commerce is important, and that h e has not been satisfied with the performance of the Centennial Chamber of Commerce for Englewood. Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt it was important for both individuals and the Commission as a body t o support the Englewood Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Allen stated that he s aw no reason to wait to give the support, that the issue would be to support the formation of a new Englewood Chamber of Commerce. Mrs. Becker questioned that this is the function of the Planning Commission, and would expec t some kind of advice from the City Council on the responsi- • I • • • • • • -12- bility of the Commission to support such a group; she noted that the Chamb e r is not a governmental agency. Mr. Allen stated that he considered the Chamber to be a quasi-governmental agency. Ms. Powers pointed out that the Chamber is a private, non-profit agency. Discussion ensued. Mr. Allen stated that there has been no objection registered on the forma- tion of the new Chamber, and it has the support of Council. Ms. Becker likened the Chamber to private agencies such as Lions Club, Rotary Club, etc., which are also private service-oriented groups, but the City does not go on record in support of them. Mr. McBrayer stated that he does not believe the Centennial Chamber of Com- merce has demonstrated any regard for the City of Englewood as far as trying to promote Englewood, and that he personally is in favor of the formation of a new Chamber. But, before the Commission as a body goes on record, he would want more information on the proposed Chamber. Mr. McBrayer stated that he strongly believes it is a little premature for the Planning Commission to actively recommend support of the new Chamber and asked (1) is it in our realm of responsibility; and (2) he wants to see what it is all about. Mr. Allen discussed the efforts to form the new Chamber, and noted that for the Planning Commission to recommend in support or not will not make a lot of difference. Mr. Allen stated that the use of the old logo "Progress Country USA" would be the logo for the new Chamber. Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt there should be a formal motion on the floor, and that the Commission should determine by vote whether or not to recommend support. Mr . McBrayer asked if City Council has made any kind of general determination on the new Chamber . Mr . Allen stated that Mayor Otis is trying to get it promoted, and is a member of the group that is meeting on the formation. Tanguma moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Conmission direct the staff to write a letter to the City Council from the Commission stating that the Planning Commission is in full support of the new Chamber of Commerce, and recommending support of the Council as well. Mr. Stoel stated that he felt very uncomfortable having to vote on this motion; while a person may be in favor of the formation of the new Chamber personally, they may also question whether the Commission should be on record at this point in time in support of the new Chamber. If a vote is cast against the motion, it appears one is voting against the new Chamber which may not be the case. Mr. Stoel stated that he did not think the Planning Commission should take this position now, and that if one feels that strongly about it, they should get involved on an individual basis. Mrs. Becker stated that she would have to vote no on the motion. She agreed that Englewood does need a Chamber of Commerce, but questioned that it is the responsibility of the Commsision to say yes or no on this situation right now. Mr. Tanguma pointed out that when the Commission "hears an issue, we don't wait until after the fact to decide whether we like what is happening, we decide before the fact"; he stated that he feels this Chamber of Commerce should be formed whether the Commission says yes or no as individuals • • I • • - ( • • • • -13- Mr. Stoel and Mr. McBrayer both questioned what form the support of th e City Council might take. Mr. Allen stated that the Council would probably approve membership and pay annual dues. Mrs. Becker reiterated her opinion that at this point in time, it is a City Council charge, and is not a responsibility of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Mrs. Becker called for the vote: AYES: Tanguma, Allen, Carson NAYS: Barbre, Becker, McBrayer, Stoel ABSENT: Venard Mrs. Becker ruled that the motion did not carry. She po inted o ut that this vote means only that the Planning Commission will not make a public statement of support at this time. Mr. McBrayer stated that he would welcome a presentation from the group trying to form the new Chamber, and would hope to hear from them what they are trying to do, and what they hope to achieve with the new Chamber. Maybe after that, he could support a motion in support of the new Chamber. Mr. Allen extended an invitation to members to attend the meetings which are held at 7:30 A. M. in the Library Conference Room. Mr. Tanguma discussed a Planning Commissioner's workshop which he attended on January 13th; this was sponsored by the Denver Regional Council of Govern- ments and dealt mainly with cities that have a lot of land available for development. Mr. Tanguma stated that he had hoped the discussion would center more on "in-fill", but this was touched on very briefly. Ms. Powers suggested that members should receive notification of the meetings sponsored by the Colorado Chapter of the APA; some of these programs are very good, and announcements of these meetings will be sent to the members. Mr. McBrayer briefly discussed a recent visit he made to areas in Florida Ft. Lauderdale, Key West, and Boca Raton ---and the methods they use in their Planning in that area of the country. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 P. M. • I • • c • • • - ENGIEWX)D PUBLIC LIBRARY ADVISOF<:f 001\RD February 7, 1984 Vice-01ainnan Jerry Valdes called the regular meeting of the Library 1\dvisocy Board to order at 8:20 p.m. The meeting followed a tour of the Library arrl a dinner as welcare to the new Doard lllE!!bers. PRESENI': Jerry Valdes, Bruce Hogue, John Peterson, Al Quaintance, Gerald Sanpscn, IDis Sterling, Kay Van Valkenl:urg, D:l=thy Wheelehan REX>Rm'S: Debbie Dix JlJ..S) PRESEm': Ann TrcWridge, Teri Met.Ios, I.eiOna Koestner (Library staff lllE!!bersl Sharon L. Winkle, Director of Libraries D:lnna G:>ttberg, Recording Secretary Roll call was taken arrl a gu:>run declared present. Mr. Valdes opened the floor for n:minatioos for Chai.Iman or a slate for Chainnan/ Vice-01ainnan. l-18. Wheelehan n:minated Jerry Valdes for Chai.Iman ani IDis Sterling for Vice-01airman. 84-4 IDI'IOO: That the n:minations be closed, ani the slate accepted. ~:Al Quaintance Seconded by: Gerald sarrpson fobtion carried lDlaninously. Ms. Winkle noted that Bob CUrrie has agree:i to represent the Library in the Book Sale, but has asked for a Board I'IEIItler to act as liaison. Ms. Sterling naninated D:lrothy Wheelehan to act as liaison with Bob CUrrie for the Book Sale. The Board agreed, ani Mr. Quaintance vollDlteered to help as needed. Chainnan Valdes tumed the meeting over to Ms. Winkle for the Director's Repc?rt. Ms. Winkle int=duced the visiting staff members to the Board. Ms. Winkle highlighted items in the Narrative Annual Report along with the help of Ms. Ann Trowbridge. Ms. Winkle discussed the Annual Statistical Rep:>rt ani presented graphs to acc:x:rrpany the figures. There was a brief discussion on the Report fran the Planning camri.ttee regarding the rea:mrendation of hiring a b.J.ilding oonsultant to help Board arrl staff prepare a narrative b.J.ilding p=gram. 8 4-5 MJI'IOO: 'lb accept the report fran the Planning camri.ttee as presented. l-Dved by: Al Quaintance Seconded by: Gerald Sanpson !obtion carried. oontinued •••• • I • • • • .. - -2- Ms. Winkle explained the fm:mation an:i background and =rent status of the Plan- ning Ccmnittee for the new Board nenbers. Mr. Peterson volunteered to join the Ccmnittee. Ms. Winkle introduced the FY1984-1988 contract for the Central Colorado Library Systan (ccr.s) Reciprocal Borrowing Program an:i gave background infonm.tion on the pro- gram. The contract this year is a lllllti-year docunent. 84-6 M:Yl'ION: To reoc:mrend the FY 1984-1988 ccr.s Reciprocal Borrowing Program agrearent to City Council for its awroval. f.t)ved by: John Peteroon Seconded by: Gerald Sarrpoon There was a brief discussion. f.t)tion carried. Ms. Winkle gave a report fran the Arapah:le County Library Directors' Meeting re- garding guidelines for Tri-cotmty Metropolitan Library District (Mill) fonnation. A reninder of the joint neeting of the Arapahoe County Boards at the Littleton Li- brary at 7: 30 p.m. on February 13th. Chainnan' s Choice Mr. Valdes asked the staff manbers present about the new programs of checking out videogames an:i miCI.'tXXI!plters. Ann ~ridge an:i Teri Metros an:i Leiana Koestner resporxled. Members' Choice Ms. Sterhng noted for the new manbers that this Board is an .Advisory Board only an:i this Ill.ISt be kept in mind in its discussions. Ms. Wheelehan asked that three ite!!ls be put on future agendas. 1) To be put on COUncil's list again next January to have a joint dinner neeting with them. 2) M:lke plans to have a camri.ttee find a site for the Board/Staff picnic. 3) Have a discussion on a Library Support Grrup. Ms. Van Valk~g noted row nuch she enjoyed the dinner with Council in January. 84-7 M:Yl'IOO: To roy red carnations for Valentine Is Day for the staff manbers in appreciation ---of all their extra work. f.t)ved by: Al Quaintance Seconded by: John Peterson f.t)tion carried. Mr. Peteroon thanked all the staff for the extra tine an:i effor they put forth. Mr. Hogue noted that a letter six>uld be sent to Bob CUrrie, Barbara Br<J¥ an:i Marietta Brown thanking than for their services. Let it be noted here the new Board manbers and their length of awointments. Alfred Quaintance, reappointed to 4-year term expiring February 1, 1988. Gerald Sanpson 4-year awointment expiring February 1, 1988. John Peteroon 4-:year appointment expiring February 1, 1988. Bruce Hogue (filling out unexpired term of Marietta Brown) awointment effective imnediately, expiring February 1, 1985. continued .... I • - • • • • • -3- The Statistical Report for January 1934 was briefly discussed. 84-8 r.orroo: That the tlinutes fran the January 10, 1984 fleeting be approved as written. f·bved by: lois Sterling Secorrled by: Al Quaintance tbtion carried. Ms. Sterling noted that the f.buntain Plains Library Assoc. (MPIA) will have its conference May 2-5 in Cheyenne. Meeting adjourned at 9:53 p.m. 2-8-84 dg • I • • • • • ME tl Q ~ ~ N D g .M TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL FROM: CAROLYNE J. BOETTGER, COURT ADMINISTRATOR DATE: FEBRUARY 9, 1984 SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL COURT FOURTH QUARTER AND END OF YEAR REPORT FOR 1983 Attached is a copy of the Court's quarterly activity report. Page three contains a commentary on the figures listed on page one and two. During 1984, the format of this report will remain basically the same except for the following: -Bad check ordinance filings (since they have remained so small in number) will not be listed separately. They will be contained in the "Other Ordinance Violations". -Dr i ver school revenue and attendance will no longer appear since the school has been discontinued. -If after the emissions ordinance is passed, and the number of filings appear to be significant, they may be listed. -Appeal fees revenue (since it has been minimal) will not be a separate item. It will be included in court costs. If there are any items that do not appear now that you would like to have included, please let me know. cc: Louis Parkinson, Municipal Judge Court Advisory Committee Members Robert llolmes, Chief of Police Dorothy Dalquist, Public Relations Specialist Charles Grimm, Prosecuting Attorney I • • (, I • • • - ENG LEWOO~ MUNICIP AL COURT 4TH QUAR c YEAR END ACT !V1T Y REPORT -·-. - ! 11 Ill Q'[g liJij oa SUBJECT I _g_a_z l9_u I ' l. Pff.I-IUE SOU .~CE I T ' I N eAB.~ltSG l::IQI.AT!C!S EI~E:S Is 1s !!3Laa I~ 16.018 ()0 B) VIOLATIONS FIURFAU FINES 17 ~81 <;O j 7 r;8CJ oo r) rot Jln' F 1 NF~ ·<~ foH~ Ll H n C hll .llO n) ARAPN1nF rnL.NTV DU' FJ NF<;. ~ 1')2. 50 c. 445.00 F) PllND FORFF I TURF<: 800,00 1 250.00 F) COURT CQST!\ <J R8Q 60 · 8 538.50 _G) WITNF'SS FF'ES 180.00 251.00 H) .II ~Y F!=FC: 75 Oil -0- 1 ) APPFJ\L FEES I -0--0- J ) DR!IJFP C>CioiOOL FC:r.<' I • 3CJ O.OO -0 - TOTALS 1$ 83,424.08 1$ 62,748.50 2, CASES F 1 L£1) I A) PAPJc:TNr. VIOl liTIONS 3 494 2 951 R) TRAI=Flr VIOlATIONS I 4!7 tn4 .JJ. C:HO PI 1 FTTNr. VIOLJ\TIONS 161 139 n) RAn rHF rJc: Vlf\1 4T l~ -0--0- ~) ANTMt.l ncrm.t M•JrF VIOLJ\TIONS 38 43 F ) OTriER OR nl NliNrF . V 1 Ol.A Tl ONS 173 134 .cJ_c.QMP I A!~C: 12 12 H) SH Ot.' CAU~~" C!TATl OI\:S 23 29 TOTALS I 5,318 4,142 3. V lO lA TI O~!S BUREA U ACT! V; TY I I I /\) TAAFFTrfMTC::r VI Ol liTT ON"' 978 464 PLI::A CF GUILTY <;R' 74h Pl.Efl OF NCJI' GUILTY : ~C)r; ?11! 11/:'0UE.'JT 1'R IAL 1'0 COIJI('J' (X .C,7 J (191) I i$ $ - 1:1 U.'/J ,///flY /Jl \'MiiNfJ ( 38) ( ?.7) 1\J Pll.fll( IN(; Vl 0 11\T ! ON<;' l:'llil\ OF GUIL'l'YlPi\ID 2 398 1 .991 F f! J-:n 1\PT'l·:J\L '><;1 '>71 • PAGE_l_ Y fD YTD 19Jl..2_ 19u 62 129.1!7 Is 61 163 . 13 (>11 721 .00 47 239.00 1·1!1 tL\U. ·1'! ILU ~h2.t1~ 14 202.:.0 25' 172 .50 4 085.00 3,850.00 41 383.00 37,971.00 1 165.00 1,071.00 4~.u .ou :wu.uu -0-1. 50 2 415.00 270 .00 336,581.86 $ 297,900.62 12 601 10,931 :, ·1 I 3 4' 127 656 538 -0-3 161 258 937 767 4h 33 104 137 19,918 16,794 3 724 2 726 2.21[) 1 . 568 1 514 1 158 I . • ( 1 '56H) (1 029) ( Jt1G J ( 129). !) 19~ I! 260 1 I I R I If~ 1 l ( • • • • ENGLEWOOD -MUNI CiPAL COURT 4TH QUAR [, YEAR END ACTIVITY REPOR T (CONTINUED) - I 4 TH OTR ' -I 11It:l QIB SUB .J ECT 19 _ _!!1 19 8.2 ~-- 4. COURT ACTIVITY I I I I NARRA.l .~ ..... ~. 1 ,021 I 911 FTA/o:Nl' 2<>4 ' 25:~ GUILT'i PLFJVPB/DI S 43!1 :H!:I NCYl' GUILT'i PLEI\: I 318 275 I RC.'QF.:ST TR I AL TO r;OUR'f (295 ) (263) I-'/ /J,'D J IIRY /JF.'/11/lN!J ' ( ?.:1) ( I.'?) B ) COURT PRF-TR!ALS' 837 i 574 FTA/OO:i~r I 194 I 175 PB/DIS/CO P 542 :ns SIT FOR COURr TRil\L i 101 64 . C) JURY PRF-TRIALS · I 93 I 72 I· • I 'fV CXJ.\fl' 26 ! ")C I -" PB/D IS/COP 56 47 :;r.r FDR J URY TRJ N" 11 -0 - ~D) TRTAI S • I 110 98 P l'A/ co.v r 20 27 I'B/DIS/COP 32 29 TJUJ\IS HElD : I 58 42 {."{)///('/' '/'/(/ 11/,.': I ( :i!i ) (1:U - .111 /i'Y TII'JII J,r; I ( 3) ( OJ 1:) OTHICR M~ SC l:lEJ\.'1.1 tJCS 310 ~ 254 ,... OTHER ACT 1 V 1 TY I i ), I ' 1\)_11ABfW:IISL EXECI.li I Q~~ I S.S.UE.D I 23 0 24 0 ~ DR! VFR SCHOOL A~~"" '"~ 28 I -0- ~.Jff.G...m!-UD) 1,730 I 1 133 r:> (/\';[" rCNDlNC {r>KC f"XI "I 11111 "1)) ' 1 ,6fl9 1 ,6'l9 Mt!iNf.'VJ/.TI ON:: Ill!/," II.': 1-'0i.f.r:w::_: PAGE _2_ I YTD 19 _1! 'i I ' ' I I 4 243 I !)!)3 2 l)l.l : I 239 l (1 150) ( /1 [1) I 3 100 I 617 2 082 I 401 I ' 368 11 2 206 50 I 530 111 I 161 258 (.'!10) ( 18) I 1,216 I I 858 206 I 7 079 I -.-- fo'l'l! = FaUw•e to af'f'Cal' YTD l9 __ a__3 3 889 l 0 20 l 77~ I 095 (1 034) ( (i 1) 2,741 667 I 742 332 339 11!) 193 27 534 140 156 238 (?.20) ( 18) 1,237 958 28 6 035 --- CONT .. Cont1:nuod t.o another rlate COP = Change of plea j'r•om noi guaty io yuUty or• nolo DIS • Caae diamiaacd fJfJ = PZoa !Jar•g cd.n ~:/?:v f JODil-'lOn (eg. • l'c:duood ahaioge) PKG • Parking Ticketa • I . • - • • • • • • I. REVENUE SOURCE: • • • MUNICIPAL COUilT END OF YEAR REPORT COMPARISON OF 1983 WITH 1982 PAGE 3 -Fines, fees, forfeitures, and costs coliected during 19133 were down 11.5% compared to 1982 as a direct result of the 15.7% decrease in the total filings. I I. CASES FILED: -Parking cases show a 13.25% de1=rease from 1982. This decrease (along with the decrease in shoplifting) may be connected to the opening of Southwest Plaza and the reconstruction of Cinderella City; however, statistics are not kept specifically on fi l ·i ngs generated from Ci ndere 11 a City to cou1pare with previous years. -Traffic tickets were down 28.8%. Reports from a few police officers indicate that a number of tickets which would have been written into this Court had to be written into County Court because lhe defendunt wus <Jlso in viulution of the "proof of insurance" law (enforced 7/83). This could be a fdctor since statistics for previous years indicate filings for the second half of the year are increased anywhere from 6% to 12% over the filings in the first half. During 1983, however, filings for the second half decreased by 23% from the first half. -Animal and show cause filing were the only areas of increase this year. I I I. VIOLATIONS BUREAU ACT! V ITY: -Per volume of filings the activity in the Violations Bureau is not significantly different. IV. COURT ACTIVITY: -Based on the comparison of filings for both years, there was an increased ~ercentage of cases coming before the Court during 1983 in all areas of activity listed. While non-parking filings are down, the complexity of cases filed require more hearings. V. OTHER ACTIVITY: -Warrants are still increasing. During 1982 statistics indicate that 1 out of every 8.5 non-parking case could be expected to have a warrant issued. During 1983 this figure has become 1 out of every 6 cases . -The driver school was discontinued earlier this year because it was no longer serving the Court's needs. MISCELLANEOUS: The co mputer programs are still being developed and tested. Several systems & subsyste ms are nearing completion (eg., entire parking system, jury. & bonding systems, and Violations Bureau subsystem for gui 1 ty pleadings 8o fine assessment); how ever, the Court system and subsystems are in very primary stages. This entire system will be quite complex. For example, just one of the subsystem~, computer aided docketing, ideally will allow docketing of cases based on type of hearing, estimated Court time, "ninety-day rule", avclilable Court time & days, and 111ultiple officer's schedules (shift, vacation, etc.). Additionally, it has to allow for exceptions to each of these areas. It may be Fall before these systems are all complete and then will need extensive testing before live data is entered . I • • • Mr. &~gene L. otia, Mayor City of Enslewood 3400 South Elati Street Enslewood, Colorado 8o110 Dear Mayor Otie: • • • 3675 Soatb Cherokee Street # 4o8 Englewood, Colorado 8o110 February 9, 1984 Pl ... e accept wy reeignation fr·om the &lglewood Election Co.~iaeion, effectbe i-ediately. I wieh to erpreae my appreciation for the fine cooperation of all city enaployeea vi th whom I had the occaaion to work aa I vaa a -.mber of the Election C~aeion. They certainly aade .y tenure moat enjoyable. Sincerely, ~~~ A ) )_~ r.:/J.· J,4/ //at7ee , Glenn M. Waddell cc: Mr. Andy McCown, City Manat;er Mr. Gary Higbee, Director of Finance/ City Clerk I • • - • • • • • C 0 U N C I l C 0 M M U N I C A T I 0 N DATE February 10, 1984 AGENDA ITEM (o8 SUBJECT Metropolitan Denver Sewage Disposal District No. 1 INITIATED BY ------~E~n~g~l~ew~o~o~d~W~a~t~e~r~a~n~d_S~e~w~e~r~B~o~a~r~d ____________________ ___ ACTION PROPOSED ____ ~A~p~p~ro~v~a~l~of~t~h~e~Me~t~ro~p~o~l~it~a~n~De~n~v~e~r~S~e~w~a~ge~D~i~sp~o~s~a~l ____ ___ District No. 1 BACKGROUND The City of Denver and the Metropolitan Denver Sewage Disposal District No. 1 (Metro) recently executed an agreement which will lease the Denver Northside Treatment Plant to Metro and will transfer most of Denver's interceptor system to Metro for future operation and maintenance. The transfer will effectively transfer the transmission and treatment of all metropolitan Denver sanitary sewage to the control and responsibility of Metro. The City of Denver is terminating all serv i ce arrangements with its Connectors, effective January 1, 1984. Metro has indicated that it will be negotiating with the terminated Connectors to provide sanitary services. This agreement is the result of the negotiations. The area i nvolved is approximately at Yale and Downing, also covering a few homes in the northern portion of Scenic View . This area involves eleven properties, which are : 2120 W. Baker Ave. 2155 W. Baker Ave . 2167 W. Baker Ave. 2200 W. Baker Ave. 2396 W. Baker Ave. 3095 S. University 1997 W. Iliff Ave . 2250 S. Tejon St. 2315 S. Tejon St. 1990 W. Baltic Pl. 2200-2280 S. Raritan The only alternative to serving the area in questions would be with the construction of a lift station . This would serve a relatively small number of residences and provide unacceptable operating and odor problems . I • • , • • • • (BACKGROUND CONTINUED) Negotiations with Metro proceeded over a several month period. The City Attorney raised several areas of concern. It was his opinion that Metro's standard contract could not be used without several modifications. These modifications generally involved the removal of limitations from Metro's standard agreement which restricted the districts served by Metro from providing their own sewage treatment facilities. Metro has agreed to make exceptions on every request made by the City of Englewood and the contract lists all of these exceptions. On one point, however, Englewood could not agree with Metro. This involved Metro's desire to have a 45-year contract. Their reasoning is that they must protect their customer-based revenue to guarantee their long-term bonds. Englewood's staff now believes that we can agree to this provision because it is basically fair and reasonable. Their entire system is dependent upon receipt of long-term revenues which must be guaranteed at the time Metro commits to provide service. Attached is a letter from Mr. Ted Hackworth to Councilman Bilo further explaining Denver's position. The letter states Denver's position that they must no longer provide us service since they no longer have facilities to do so. This places Englewood in a very uncomfortable bargaining position. It would be very undesirable for Englewood to be a non-contract special connector since the City would then enjoy none of the rights or guarantees provided by this contract. In fact, it is probably better to have a required 45-year commitment for service to this area, than no contract at all. It is only academic that we have any ability to withdraw since, as a practical matter, the City would not desire to withdraw in the foreseeable future. FINANCIAL DETAILS The new agreement will have the same billing schedule and approximately the same rate structure as the pre-existing agreement. The rate structure under Hetro will result in a slight reduction of charges to the City of Englewood. I • • • • • ... .J\I ty Hl.!yiiUIIJ~t r\oOC1\ CttOCI .. 1\1 LUIIJ<I Ill LUI[IO Ot SII!C I 1 CITY COUNCIL Nfcvt:~ f'l•tc/ Mt:\HIIIU HuJwellhn l.luvt.o , Jt Snlv;u luc "Sui " C:mptu Cathy llJnohue WtllmrnR Autx:tl!<! \JI :,t•u l (Jt•.tu tlll Ut·,hu l•• D•~litt.l II W tlham ,' "B•II " SciiCtiiCf T 'i eo ·· HaCk>M>I'Ih ..• Ot&UICI 2 OISIItCI 3 OiSIIiCI. OtS\IICI 5 Ot!;tnct 6 Sam" Sll"•ldos . h.,.. an•e A Foo te Pau l l Swaim . .Jar kt e l tntou l>t•,tlul l .x-..nn J "Btg .t.>iln" S tiCfllli , • Meellngs Monclay Even•llQi at 6 30 C1ty 111d Colllty S...tdlng Councilman Joe Bile City of Englewood 4095 South Jaaon Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 Dea r Joe, ROOM 451 e CITY & COUNTY OLIXl DENVER . Ca.ORIIOO e 110:102 ARE~ CODE 1303) 575·3012 December 30, 1983 This is a follow up letter in regard to the problem we discussed about your City contracting with the Metropolitan Sewage District. First, a little history -Denver, although a member of the Metropolitan Sewage Dis- trict, has continued to serve a group of connectors and provide primary treatment for 311 the Denver as well as the connector flows. Since our primary treatment plant was over 40 years old, lt could not be operated as effic.l.ently as a new plant, forcin~;: Denver and its connectors to pay a higher cost for primary treatment than did other members of the District. Uenve r requ<:sLed thaL the M<:tropolitan Sewage IJ.l.stricL prov.l.dc total t;ervice to Denver and its connectors to establish a more equitable fee structure. As we discussed this arra ng ement, it became apparent that Metro Sewer not only had to expand their plant, b~t had to own the common interceptor lines as well. We finally reached an agreement Hhereby Denver would lease, at $1.00 per year, our Northside Treatment facility until Metro could enlarge their plant and Denver would aleo transfer the ownershop of all i ts common interceptor lines to Metro as well. This is to take place on January 1, 1984. The ~!etrop olitan Sewer District has been working with Denver connectors to establish special connector contracts effective January 1, 1984. These contracts reflect the improv ed fee structure. Denver is charging you $670.00 per M.G. and the new Metro con- tract provides for a cost of $508 per M.G. This is a reduction in your costs of almost 25%. You r city Attorney has objected to the contract because it is a 45 year term. He wanted 2 year termination. The Metro District agreed that Englewood could be considered a spe- ci'a.l case, so they offered a contract providing that the agreement could be terminated by either party with a 2 year written notice. Your attorney has rej~cted this contract, saying he wants Metro to live with the 45 year conunitment while providing Englewood with a 2 year option. Joe, that seems very inappropriate. • I • • 1- • • , Councilmbn Joe Bilo Dt.t.:t:anber 30, 1983 Page 'f • • • Therefore, I request that you review this matter at a work session with your City ~tanager. I am enclosing copies of the letters from Hr. DeWitt as well as the letter from the Metro Sewer District. I a• also enclos:l.ng n letter on the Metro llJBtrh·l's policy for non-contract special connectors as well as the re11olution 11upporting that position paaaed by the Board of Directors at their Deceaber 20, 1983 meeting. (Note the charge will be $1420 per million gallons.) 'l'he motion was made to again submit the 45 yenr contract to gngl cwood and cons :l <lor tlo(•lll a non-contract apecial connector if they refused to aign at the last meeting of the Metro District, I requested the motion be tabled until the next meeting on January 19, 1984 so I could contact the deciaion makera of Enslewood. Mr. DaWitt haa statad Danver has a long tarm aareemant to provide service to Englewood, but you'll find that Denver has notified you we will no longer have the facilities available after January 1, 1984 to provide service. It's obviuns thnt H j,.; ht•nt •fi c :l.a] to both Uenv"'r unu .l!:n~~ol"'woou bu11eu on th"' t.o11t of ~o~torv.lc"'. l ur~~oe th"' (;uuucil Lu tuk"' action to assure the success of this new procedure for dealing with the sanitary sewer need s of the metropolitan area. · If I can provide any ·additional information I would be most happy to do so, and I'm sure Dick Johnaton of the Metro District would also be happy to diacuss this with your Council if they so desired. cc: Mayor Eugene Otis Mr. Dick Johnston TH/sm • Yours truly, Tad Hackworth Denver City Councilman • I • • • • • c 0 u N C I L C 0 M M U N I C A T I 0 N DATE AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT Proposed Comprehensive Amend- February 14, 1984 (uG ments to the Comprehensive Zo ning Ordinance Sections 22 4-6 throuah 22 4-10 INITIATED BY ~1tx flann1ni ang 'gn1ni ~g111111i:oli1gn ACTION PROPOSED Receive the Recommendation o f the Planni~ Commission Relative to the Amendment to the Com2rehensive Zonin s Ordinance 1 and reguest the City Attorney to prepare Ordinances in oreoaration of a Public Hearin2. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: The 1979 Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted by City Council Resolution No. 49, Series of 1971, sets forth specific goals for the City and identifies courses of action to be taken t o implement those goals. Sin ce that time, the Planning Corn - mission has proceeded to address the courses of action through its work p ro g ram. The proposed revisions t o the R-2-C SPS, Medium Density Residence Di str ict Special Permit System, R-3 High Density Residence District, R-4, Residential/Professional Dj_strict, and the B-1 Business District of the Co mprehensive Zoning Ordinance are a by-product of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, which was adopted by City Council Ordinance No. 26, Se ries of 1963, is in need of comprehensive revision. The Planning Commission is looking at e e ch section of the ordina n ce rather t h a n the e ntire zoning ordinance t o ahly handle the comprehensive revisions. The proposed revisions were developed by the Planning Commissioners after meeting with members of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and Planning staff , researching regulations in other municipalities, studying the types of variances granted by th e Board and after considerable dis- cuss ion among the members. The Planning Commission held Public Hearings on January 17, 1904, and tb~x ate sending th~ g[o2osed R-2-C SPS 1 R-3 1 R-4 1 ~nd B-1 Zo n e District regulations on -to the Citx Council for stud~. The proposed amendments are designed to ad- dress the problems experienced with the 1963 Zoning Ordinance. No members of the audience spoke in favor of the ame ndments at the Public Hearing before the Commissio~ there was no opposition expressed at the Public Hearing. The Findings of Fact were considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their meeting on February 7, 1984. It was th e decision of the Commission that these Findings of Fact be accepted and referred to City Council. I • • RECOMMENDATION: After giving careful consideration to the drafting of the proposed Medium density, • • - • @I • • • • High density, Residential/Professional, and Business zone district regulations, and after considering the proposed regulations at a Public Hearing, it is the opinion of the Commission that the City Council should give favorable consideration to the proposed zone district amendments. The members of the Commission further recommend that the City Attorney be requested to prepare an ordinance for the proposed amend- ments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and that a Public Hearing be scheduled for the proposed amendments . SUGGESTED ACTION: MOVED BY SECOND YES 140 ABSENT I • • - • • • • CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO IN THE HATTER OF CASE NO. 2-84, ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RELATING ) TO THE ADOPTION OF A NEW ZONE ) DISTRICT WHICH WILL BE DESIGNATED ) AS THE R-2-C SPS MEDIUM DENSITY ) RESIDENCE/SPECIAL PERMIT SYSTEM ) DISTRICT, WHICH ZONE DISTRICT ) WOULD BE HADE A PART OF THE ) COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, ) ORDINANCE NO. 26, SERIES OF ) 1963, CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, ) COLORADO. ) A Public Hearing was held on January 17, 1984, in connection with Case No. 2-84, in the City Council Chambers in the Englewood City Hall. The following members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission were present: Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Steel, Tanguma. Mr. Venard was absent. FINDING OF FACT Upon review of the evidence taken in the form of testimony, presentations, reports and the draft of the proposed zone district regu- lations, the City Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following Findings of Fact. 1. That proper notice of the Public Hearing was given in the Englewood Sentinel, the official City newspaper, on December 28, 1983. 2. That the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance was adopted by Ordinance No, 26, Series of 1963. 3. That amendments to Ordinance No. 26, 1963, have been made; however, there has been no comprehensive revision to the ordinance over the past twenty years. 4. That in working with the present ordinance, it has become apparent that discrepancies exist and some zoning and/or land use issues are not addressed. 5 . That the R-2-C Zone District which has been in effect since February 9, 1976, is not meeting the needs of the citizens in some areas of the City, 6, That the Planning staff and citizens met to discuss changes to the ordinance which would provide development standards that would ac- commodate the type of developme nt that is desired in certain areas of the City . • I • • • • • • -2- 7. That as a result of these meetings, it was determined that it would be desirable to make the following changes, additions or deletions to the R-2-C Zone District regulations as they would apply in certain areas of the City: a. Permitted home occupations should be identified and procedures set forth for their operation. b. Single-family attached dwellings, i.e., two-family dwellings with each unit and the land under the unit and the land adjoining the unit on at least three sides being under separate ownership, are not permitted yet they offer a new option for the first time or low and moderate income family who wish to purchase a home. c. Single-family attached dwellings have been permitted in the R-2-C Zone District by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. d. Group homes for the developmentally disabled and the elderly are not permitted contrary to State law. e. Current minimum lot area requirements are not realistic when applied to certain permitted uses such as public buildings, religious and educational institutions. f. Current lot coverage requirements are inflexible. g. There are discrepancies in the regulations between attached and detached garages and carports and current height limits imposed on garages are unrealistic. h. Because of the lot configuration, restricting off- street parking f~om the front yard creates a burden for the property owner in those areas in which there are no alleys. i. Shared housing (family care units) for the elderly and other persons in need of housing in a family environment is not addressed. j. In addition to the traditional zoning considerations, design standards are important to consider in new development • 8. That the Planning staff and Planning Commission have studied the applications to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals for variances to identify those regulations for which repeated variances are sought. 9. That because of unrealistic and/or impractical regulations, the property owners have cause to apply to the Board of Adjustaent and Appeals for variance requests for matters that would beat be addressed in the zone district regulations • • I • • • • • • -3- 10. That the Planning Commission is of the opinion that the zone district regulations should not be enforced through the variance procedure. 11. That the R-2-C SPS Medium Density Residence/Special Permit System zone district is a new zone classification which will be added to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and then applied to appropriate areas of the City following required public hearings. 12. That the R-2-C SPS Medium Density Residence/Special Permit System District regulations implement the courses of action outlined in the 1979 Comprehensive Plan. 13. That the R-2-C SPS Medium Density Residence/Special Permit System District is patterned after the Special Permit System which was presented in a City-wide seminar for the City Council, Planning Conunission, and citizens throughout the Community, and much interest was expressed in the system. 14. That no persons were present who wished to speak in opposition to the proposed R-2-C SPS Medium Density Residence/Special Permit System Zone District regulations. 15. That no persons were present to wished to speak in favor of the proposed R-2-C SPS Medium Density Residence/Special Permit System Zone District regulations. 16. That the Commission considered the new zone classification as an effort to address the issues outlined above. CONCLUSION 1. That proper notice of the Public Hearing was given. 2. That no persons spoke in opposition to or in favor of the proposed R-2-C SPS Medium Density Residence/Special Permit System Zone classification. 3. That in an effort to address the problems in the current ordinance, the following regulations are proposed: a. To permit home occupations in the R-2-C SPS Medium Density Residence/Special Permit System Zone District, which are well defined and which have stated guidelines. b. To permit single-family attached dwellings in the R-2-C SPS Medium Density Residence/Special Permit System Zone District. c. To decrease the minimum lot area requirement for public buildings, religious and educational institutions in order that these uses will have the same development requirements in all zone districts and be more compatible with single and two-family uses in the saae area. d. To permit group homes for the developmentally disabled and the elderly which are addr essed in the Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended • I • • - • • • • • -4- e. To increase the maximum percent of lot coverage which is compatible with the setback requirements and allows for more flexible use of the lot. · f. To create the same setback requirements for attached or detached garages and carports. limitations. g. To permit shared housing within certain identified h. To allow for off-street parking in the front setback subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer and the Department of Community Development. i. To consider specified Design Criterion when buildings are being designed. 4. That the proposed R-2-C SPS Medium Density Residence/Special Permit System Zone District regulations are being considered in a compre- hensive manner as a part of the revision of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. 5. That the proposed R-2-C SI'S Medium Density Residence/Special Permit System Zone District will assist in the efficient administration of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council that the proposed R-2-C SPS Medium Density Residence District/Special Permit System, be adopted. Upon the vote on a motion made at the meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission on January 17, 1984 by Mr. Allen, and seconded by Hr. McBrayer. Those voting in favor of the motion: Messrs: Allen, Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, and Mrs. Becker. Those voting 1n oppoaition to the motion: None. Members absent: Hr. Venard By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission ~--/~ ~r' Chairman • I • - • • • • • • 11 -2 ]-ll:J 22.4-7 R-2-C SPECIAL PERMIT SYSTEM -MEDIUM RESIDENCE DISTRICT. This District provides essentially for a transition from single-family areaf. to areas of a higher intensity of use, such ss high density multi-family or commercial areas. The regulations for this District are designed to stabilize and protect the essential characteristics of the District, to promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life and to prohibit activities of a general commercial nature except certain registered Ho .. Occupations, which are controlled by specific limitations governing the size and extent of such non-residential activities. To these ends, this District is protected against encroachment of general commercial or industrial uses while the regulations permit development consistent with the concentration of persons and land valuation in the area. Permitted Principal Uses are limited to single and two-family dwellings, religious and educational institutions, and certain accessory uses thereto, plus certain facilities which provide service to the residents of the area, and those uses which are required by State Law. a. Supplementary regulations. The provisions found in this Zone District shall be subject to the requirements and standards found in Section 22.5, Supple .. ntsry Regulations, unless otherwise provided for in this Ordinance or an amendment hereto . • I • • - • • • (5-1) (1-4) (4-3-b) (4-3-c) (5-1) b. c. d. • • • Permitted Principal uses. 1) Single-family detached dwellings. + 2) Single-family attached dwellings -no~ more thun ~wo single-family units shall be attached on one building site. (For the purpose of calculating sections 22.4-7f and 22.4-7k, the single-fa•nily attached units will be considered as one building.) 3) Religious institutions. 4) Educational institutions. 5) Public facilities. Prohibited uses. No use shall be permitted within the District which, by emitting an obnoxious or dangeroua'de- gree of heat, glare, odor, radiation or fumes or undue ax- -2- cessive noise beyond any boundary line of the lot upon which the usa is located, would become a nuisance to othe1· v11lidly existing usea in the areu. Hiniy area of lot. 1) Sinala-faaily detached dwell ins 6,000 sq. ft. 2) Sinsle-family utcuched dwelling 3,000 sq. ft. 11er dwelling unit. 3) All other permitted uses 24,000 sq. feet. • I • • • (4-13) (1-1) (4-5-a) e. f. 8. h. • • .. • Minimum floor area. 1) Single-family detached dwelling * 2) Single-family attached dwelling Maximum percentage of lot coverase. Maximum percentage of lot coverage -3- 850 tiC(. fc. 850 sq. fc. pt!r unit with not less than 14% of the 1uinimum lot area to be covered by the footpr:lnt of the dwelling unit. (includina all iu1peraaeable surfaces such as side- walks, driveways, carports, garages, patios, houses, etc.). Higt.ua frontaae of lot. 1) Single-family detached dwelling 50 feet 2) Single-family attached dwelling 25 feet per 3) unit All other permitted uaes 200 feet Maximum hei&ht. Principal buil~ing 25 feet • I • • • - • • (l-2) 1. Minimum -4- front )!&rd. (2-2) + 1) All principal permitted uses ~t for exceotions see l22.5-9a. +2) Corner lots 15 feet on the short street side of an oblong block. 25 feet on the long stree 1 side of Ull oblong block. (l-2) j, Minimum aide)!ard. (2-2) 1) Single-family detached dwelling 3 feet (10· foot totul for both Hides). +. 2) Single-family attached dwelling 5 feet (1.4 foot (1-4) total for both aides) 0 feet where the units are attached at the co1111110n lot line. 3) All other principal uses 25 feet. (50 feet total for both Gides). +4) Corner Lots Subject to aite plan review and ~pproval by the Department of • Co111111unity I • • Developll8nt, k. Minimum rear yard (1-2) All principltl permitted uses 25 feet + Corner J,ot 15 feet • • 1 \ ll-1) (4-8) (4-12) • l. m. n. • • • -J- Minimum off-street parkina. l) All residantJal uses If the property has frontage on a local street, alternative Plana for off-street parking within the front yard setback and adjacent to the public right-of-way, will be permitted subject to approval of the Department of Couununity De- velopment and the City Traffic Engineer, construction and maintenance of which shall be at the expanse of tho p1·op- erty owner. Off-street parking spaces shall be of a hard surface, 2) 3) either paved with asphalt or concrete. All other principal permitted · uaes -see 122 • 5-5 • . Off-street parking for non-residential uses is ~·quired to be buffered or screened and landscaped. Bu1ld1na !fterial. All principal permitted uses and accessory buildinsa: No unpaintod auetal aiding, sheet metal, corrugated metal or reflective slaaa shall be used. il·'i ~ permitted accessory usea, Accessory bu · "· ngs 111\u - - (1) GARAGES AND CARPORTS All ATTACHICD OR DBTACHBD GARAGB OR CARPORT MUST CONVORM TO THE VOLLOWING aBQUIIUDWIT81 • I • • - l \ • c • • • • -6- (A) MAXIMUM ' HEIGHT.,,,,, •• ,,,.,,,, ••• ,,, ••• ,, ••••• , •• 18 FBB'l' (B) MINIMUM i'IONT YAaD,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , t5 FBBT (C) HIHIHUH SIDE YARD,;,,,,,,,,,,, ••• ,,,,,,,,,,,.,.,, 3 FBBT . (D) NIHDIUN llJWl YAaD: (i) IP BHTRAHCB FACES P'llOHT OR SIOB.,, ••••• ,,,,, 3 FEEl' (11) Ii' INTIANCB FACBS RBAa.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 6 FEBT (B) KAXIHUN TOTAL FLOOa ARBA •••••••••••••••••••••• l,OOO SQ, FT. (F) I1 GAIMI 01 CA&Po&T IS COIIVUTBD TO ANOTHQ USB, All BQUIVALBNT AMOUNT OF OPP-5TREET PARKING MUST BE PROVIDED. (2) STORAGE BHBD, HO'l' HOKE l'HAN ONB Sl'OIWlU SHWl SliALL lJB PIWliT'l'Wl l'llll UWELLIHG, NO S'L'OUACU SlillU StlALL llXCllBll 100 liQUAllll 11££'1' IN o\QA, (A) SHALL Bl LOCATio ON THB lBAa ONB-THIRD OF THB LOT, (B) HAXIICUM HllGHT,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,, .10 PBBT (C) NINIHUN IIDI YAaD,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, •• ,,,,,,, ,·,,,, 3 FliT NO SBTBACit IS llBQUIRID IF THE WALL ADJACENT TO THE PROPEaTY LINE r ~; CONSTRUCTID OF ONE HOUR FIRE RESISTIVE MATERIAL. (D) HINIHUM iBAa YAaD.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,, a FliT NO SBTBACIC IS llBQUIRID IF THI WALL ADJACENT TO TH& PIOPEilTY LINE IS CONSTRUCTED OF ONE HOUR FIRE RESIS'l'IVE HA'l'llltiAL. +~3) Home occupation, Occupations customarily incident to the principal use as a residence when conducted in the 11aoae dwelling, provided that the follow ins conditions are met, a) Sales on the Premises, The sale on the premises of any item which has not been made, grown, or prepared on the premisea shall be prohibited, b) Sales of!' the l're1aises. SaJ.c11 off the prCIMiaus by the occupant sellins household soods such as thoae products offered by Avon, ~ay, Fuller lruah, I • • • c) • • .. • Watkins, etc., shall be permitted. The occupation shall .be operated within its en- tirety within the dwelling unit and only by the person or persons maintaining a dwelling unit therein. -7- d) No assistants shall be employed. e) The hours and manner of such uses and the noise created thereby shall not interfere with the peace, quiet or dignity of the neighborhood and adjoining properticli, f) Signs shall be limited to one unlighted, unani11111tod name plate not exceeding 144 square inches in area for any perudtted home occupat~on. The dgn ahall be affixed to the building and ahall not extend over any property line or above Cile roof line. a> The office or home occupation ahall not have a •aparate outside entrance. h) Incidental storage shall be allowed for items made on the premiaea and/or sold off the premises, i) The office or occupation, including storage of aaterials, equipment, inventory and/or •upplie•, shall not utilize more than three hundred (300) square feet; provided, howuver, that thi11 does not apply to foster family care, j) A day care home of one to four children may be peraitted a• a Ho .. Occupation • I • • - \ 0 • • o. • k) • • • -8- The use of electric motors shall be limited for power, with a total limitation of one and one-half (1-1/2) horsepower, and no single unit over three-quarter (3/4) horsepower. 1) In no event shall any home occupation include the m. following business or commercial activities: 1) Anima! hospital or kennel; 2) Barbers, hairdressers, cotmetologists or bet£uticians; 3) Body, mechanical repnir, or modification of motor vehicles; 4) The sale, atorage, manufacture or aaseably of guns, knives or ocher w• :apons or aiiiiDUnition other than for personal us~; 5) Comwcrcial health care facilities; 6) Restaurants; 7) Wholesale or retail uses of any items on or off of the premises excluding Ia and lb. 8) Processes involving the dispensing, use, or recycling of hazardous or flammable aubstances. All Home Occupations shall be registered with the Department of Community Development upon co~letion of an inspection of the premises by the Code Enforce .. nt Division and the Fire Department. Conditional Use. Provided the public interest is fully protected and the following use is approved by the co .. ission: Saall Child care center with 5 to 12 children • I • • - • (5-3) ' (1-3) • p. • • • Undeveloped lots. 1) Tl\e owner of a building site it~ required to dedi cate that portion of the lot wh;l.ch is required for public right-of-way as shown on the Master Street Plan before any building permit will be issued on said lot, 2) In no case will a building permit be issued for the construction of a structure to be built "!.ithin the proposed right-of-way whether or not the right-of-way has been dedicated. +*q, Family Care Unit. ('Io be considered a secondary 1·esidencial use to the principal residential usc.) 1 ·) 0111\ family care unit shall be perudtted in an existin~ detached single-family dwelling, or :in a proposed detached sinale-family dwellin~; provided ... a) The existing structure is in conformance to all City codes. b) The family care unit has at least one party wall and a co.-on roof with the detached single-fumily unit. c) Either the detached single-faalily dwelling or thl! family-care unit is owner-occupied. + d) The family care unit is to be occupied by no niore than one person. 2) Additional require1ucmts for u l>'umily Care Unit: a) Minimum floor area 320 square feet Maximum floor area 450 square feet • -9- I • • - • (Sec. 1208 UBC) • • • -10- + b) A smell kitchen 11rea cont11ining a kitchen sink, a cooking appliance, refrigeration facilities and working space 30 inchas in front of the appliances which in total does not exceed 40 square feet in area, may be maintained. c) No additional off-street parking is required, d) Any acldJtion should be barrier-free .for persons with handicaps or limited mobility. e) Design review -A family care unit will be sub- ject to design review and site plan review by the Planning Division staff when any change to the ex- terior of the structure is made. f) Registration - a family care unit shall be subject to a yearly registration which is to be f:l.led wi th the Community Development Department. r. Other provisions. 1) Protection clause: If a person seeking co build an attached single-family project which does not conform to the provJ td.ons in chis section, Chon the attachu<i single-f .. ily project will not be allowed by right, 2) Deaian criterion. Any development will be judged on bow it .. ets with the following design criterion. A devalopment will have to get an overall score of aero or above on the design criterion policies before,the project will be issued a building permit • • I • • • • • • -ll- (3) No structure or vehicle on the same lot with the principal dwelling shall be used f~r 'residential purposes. (4) No truck exceeding seven thousand pounds, empty weight, 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 zone lot. (5) Two units must have at least one party wall and a common roof. (6} Liquefied petroleum gas installations shall be permitted only for the purpose of supplying fuel and for approved heating equipment. Tanks in excess of 500 gallons (water capacity) will not be per.ttted in this zone district. Liquefied petroleum gas installations shall conform to Current Fire Code Requirements. • I . - - • • • Design Criterion '~ (2-l) 1. Passive Solar -A project is ENCOUIU\G~O to u11e design, con:H ru..:Uon and land11caping techniques wl~ich will rl!duce heating mul cooliug costs. Exa~ples are building11 with solar orientation, uuc or deciduous trees on the south for shade i n au111111er (but not on the north aide) and uain& evergreen trees on the north for protection aaainst the wind, but not on the south side of the lot which would block solar access. A project which does not u11e passive solar ( (3-2) technique& 1a DISCOURAGED. .2 Screening of Off-Street l'a rkinB -Off-street parking areal! are ENCOURAGED to be covered, bermed, buffered, landscaped and maintained. (4-l) 3.Buildina Scale-The scale of a buildina (its heiaht, bulk, set- back, and lot covuraae) .i.11 i::NC:OUIU\L;Im to be cUIIIt•a&:.i.blc .i.n au:alc with ne1&bbor1Aa buildinaa whish are in conforaance with the aini-reaulationa of the ~onina Ordinanctt. A ~tcalu which ial inso.patible vitb neiahborin& buildinaa and with ainiaua require- ments of the Coaprehensive Zoning Ordinance is DISCOURAGED. • {4-2) 4 .. Buildins Oriontat!on -'i'he long axis of a building is ENCOURACW> to have an eaat/weat orientation. A building with the long axis oriented nort:h/sout:h l u ll lSCOUI{ACW>. (4-~ 6. Screenina -On new construction, acreenins of fixed .. chanical equipment, fixed storage areas, fixed trash receptacles and non- reaidential parking areas from t:hu L'esidc.mtll view through the use of berms, fences, landscaping, or other acceptable aeana is ENCOURAGED, I • • - (4-5-b) ' (4-6) (4-7) (4-9) l (4-10) (4-11) • • • 6. Open Space -on the site is ENCOURAGED to be greater than 40% of the area. 7. Trees -A project is DISCOURAGED from removing any existing healthy trees on the building site and is ENCOURAGED to de- sign around existing healthy trees or replace a tree if it is removed during construction of a project. 8. Landscaping -Open space within a project is ENCOURAGED to be landscaped and mainta1nedand provide for visual amenities and create a pleasant environment for outdoor activities. 9. Color -A project is ENCOURAGED to be painted an earth tone color. 10. Building Exterior Design - A project is ENCOURAGED to incor- porate design which is compatible with adjacent buildings in terms of color, material, texture and finish. A project is DISCOURAGED from incorporating design which is not compatible with adjacent buildings. 11. Architectural Style -Incompatible architectural styles such as geodesic domes, basement structures which rise less than one-story above ground and free-form structures are DISCOURAGED in an area which is conventional in architectural style. How- ever, if the site, because of its topography, lends itself to earth shelter construction which conforms to the Uniform Building Code, negative points will not be assessed for an approved earth shelter home. -.l.-..;::::._. _____________ ........._ ___ _:___..o.ojL__~ ____ ?" ')< I n I • • ' ( • • • • CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO IN THE HATTER OF CASE NO. 3-84 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RELATING TO AN AMENDMENT TO 122.4-8, R-3 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENCE DISTRICT, OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE 26, SERIES OF 1963, CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO; WHICH AMENDMENT PER- TAINS TO THE SPECIFIC ZONE DISTRICT REGULATIONS RELATIVE TO THE R-3 ZONE DISTRICT. A Public Hearing was held on January 17, 1984, in connection with Case No. 3-84 in the City Council Chambers in the Englewood City Hall. The . following members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission were present: Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma. Hr. Venard was absent. FINDINGS OF FACT Upon review of the evidence taken in the form of testimony, presentations, reports, and the draft of the proposed zone district amendments, the City Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following Findings of Fact. 1. That proper notice of the Public Hearing was given in the Englewood Sentinel, the official city newspaper, on December 28, 1983. 2. That the present Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance was adopted by Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1963. 3. That amendments to Ordinance No. 26, 1983, have been made; however, there has been no comprehensive revision to the ordinance over the past twenty years. 4. That in working with the present ordinance, it has become apparent that discrepancies exist and some zoning and/or land use issues are not addressed. 5. That the problem areas pointed out in the R-3 High Density Residence District are as follows: a. Specific permitted home occupations are not identified and procedures are not given for their operation. b. Single-family attached dwellings, which are structures having two units separated by a party wall, with each unit and the land under and on at least three adjoining sides of the unit under separate ownership, arc not per- aitted, yet they offer a new option for the first tiae • I • • ' <: • • • • -2- or low and moderate income family wishing to purchase a home. c. Not being a Permitted Principal Use in the R-3 Zone District, single-family attached dwellings have been permitted by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. d. Group homes for the developmentally disabled and the elderly are not permitted contrary to State law. e. Current minimum lot area requirements are not realistic when applied to certain permitted uses such as public buildings, religious and educational institutions. f. Current lot coverage requirements are inflexible. g. Discrepancies in the regulations llctwcen attached and detached garages and carports exist and current height limits are unrealistic. h. Requiring a Planned Development for three or four dwelling units in a high density district is unduly restrictive. i. The density bonus, given for land accumulation, which al- lows a maximum density of 70 units to the acre, is not feasible if minimum off-street parking and landscaping requirements are met and should be eliminated. j. Floor area ratios for office conversion or new office developaent is not mentioned in the current R-3 Zone District. 6. That the Planning staff and Planning Commission have studied the applications to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals for variances to identify problem areas; that is, those regulations or standards for which there are repeated requests for variances within the R-3 Zone District. 7. That because of these inadequacies, the property owners have cause to apply to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals for variance requests for matters that can best be addressed in the Zone District regulations. 8. That the Planning Commission is of the opinion that the zone district regulations should not be enforced through the variance procedure. 9. That no persons were present who wished to speak in opposition to the proposed amendments to the R-3 Zone District reaula- tions. 10. That no persons were present who wished to speak in favor of the proposed amendments to the R-3 Zone District Regulations. 11. That the Commission considered the amendments in an effort to address the issues outlined above • I • • - ( • It ( • • • • -3- CONCLUSION 1. That proper notice of the Public Hearing was given. 2. That no persons spoke in opposition to, or in favor of, the proposed amendment. 3. That in an effort to address the problems in the current R-3 regulations, the following amendments are proposed: a. To define home occupations which are permitted in the R-3 Zone District and to establish guidelines therefor. b. To permit single-family attached dwellings in the R-3 Zone District as a Permitted Principal Use. c. To decrease the minimum lot area requirement for public buildings, religious and educational institution in order that these uses will have the same development require- ments in all zone districts and be more compatible with other permitted uses in the same area. d. To permit group homes for the developmentally disabled and the elderly which are addressed in the Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended. e. To allow for more flexibility in development standards by dropping the lot coverage requirement while protecting development c oncerns by providing for open space, height restriction, setbacks, landscaping, and off-street parking and loading. f. To create the same setback requirements for attached or detached garages and carports. g. To require a Planned Development for more than four dwelling un i t s . h. To set ma ximum d e nsity levels a t 40 dw e l l ing units to the acre . i. To res trict the ma x imum gros s f loor area f or offic e use t o no g r eat e r than 1 .5 times t h e area of the de- velopmen t pa rcel. 4. That the proposed ame ndme nt s t o the R-3 Zon e District regula- tiona are being considered in a comprehensive manner as a part of the re- vision of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance • 5. That the propose d amendments will assist in the efficient administration of the Comprehens i ve Zoning Ordinance. I • • - ( • ( • • • -4- RECOMMENDATION Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council that the proposed revisions, along with the amendments made at the Public Hearing, to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, 122.4-8, R-3 High Density Residence District, be adopted. Upon the vote on a motion made at the meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission on January 17, 1984 by Hr. Stoel, and seconded by Mr. Barbre. Those voting in favor of the motion: Stoel, Tangu.a, Allen, Barbre, and H·rs. Becker. to the motion: None. Mr. Venard was absent. Messrs. Carson, McBrayer, Those voting in opposition Uy Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. I • • D ...... • ( • • .. 122.4-6 R-3, High Density Residence District. February 15, 1984 October 28, 1983 It is the goal of the e!e!eefts CITY of Englewood to encourage a variety of housing to meet the needs of the differing income levels and the varying family structures by emphasizing quality of development through the use of new developmental procedures that will encourage innovative well-designed developments. THOSE USES WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO BE LOCATED IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT BY STATE LAW SHALL BE PERMITTED. It is inherent in this goal that the following be considered: 1. A development plan should be submitted for all RESIDENTIAL develop- menta HAVING MORE THAN FOUR DWELLING UNITS. 2. New high-density residential AND OFFICE proj~cts should be sensitized to the character of adjacent development. The siting of vertical ( structures should respect the topographic features of the land. 3. High-density residential AND OFFICE development should be located on land parcels of sufficient size to ensure proper site design, identity, and to warrant the installation of desirable amenities. 4. Where possible, the view of the mountains should be preserved and efthsftee4T BUILDINGS ORIENTED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO MAXIMIZE THE OCCUPANT VIEW OF THE MOUNTAINS. The R-3 District is composed of THOSE AREAS WHICH ARE CONDUCIVE TO high- density residential a•ees ei ehe G!ey, •••!fta•i*y AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE DE- VELOPMENT WHICH MAY BE located between single and two-family residential areas and commercial areas, plus certain open areas where similar development appears likely to occur. The regulations for this District are designed to stabilize and protect the essential characteristics of the District, to promote and en- courage, insofar as is compatible with the high intensity of land use, suitable environment for family life, and to permit certain professional uses of a character unlikely to develop a concentration of traffic, e.-w .. ei , .. , •• • I • • - <( ( • ( • • • • -2- aa4 sene••~ eve4eep a4¥ePei&ift8,. AND PEOPLE. To these ends, this District is protected against the encroachment of general industrial uses and certain commercial uses while the regulations permit high development consistent with the high concentration of persons and land valuation. Residential types of structures as well as various institutions are permitted, plus structures for professional uses conforming to the pattern of the District. a. Suppleaentary reaulations. The provisions found in this Zone Dis- trict shall be subject to the requirements and standards found in Section 22.5, Supplementary Regulations, unless otherwise provided for in this Ordinance or an amendment thereto. b. Permitted principal uses. ~i~ Aft~ vee peraie•e4 in R-~ iefte 9iee•ie•,. (1) SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING. (2) SINGLE-FAMILY A'f'I'ACIII!:D DWI!:LLING. (3) TWO-FAMILY DWELLING WITH AT LrrAST ONE PARTY WALL UNDER A COHHON ROOF. ~~~ (4) Hulti-faaily dwellings. PLAmJED DEVELQ!'KENT APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR MORE THAN FO!JR UNITS. ~"-~4 It~ Qp4,. lih ~iT l~edee ei ~fJ7H ~-~ lie• •• eMeee4 ie••~ ~4Q~ ~iee pe• ae•eT ••••P• •• previ4e4 ift s~ .. uea if~,.l\~ w ... P~eftfte4 ~eveiepaeft• ap~~·••~ !a •eqvi•e4 ie• aii •v~ei f-Uy 4.,e~Uftl vJti•a ... ~~~ (5) Hospitals aoj clinics, but not animal hospitals or clinics. ~·~ (6) Retirement or &'!::;!or citizen houai113, rest homea, and nuraing hoaes. ilnal offices in which chattels or goods, wares or merchandise ~•e not commercially created or sold • I • - ( ( • ( • • • -3- (8) CHILDCARE CENTERS. (i~ (9) Educational institutions. (~~(10) Religious institutions. (8} (11) Public Facilities. SUBSECTIONS "c" THROUGH "m", INCLUSIVE SHALL NOT APPLY TO PUBLIC FACILITIES SUCH AS STREET, ALLEYS, SIDEWALKS, OTHER PUBLIC WAYS, OR TO WATER AND SEWER LINES AND FIRE HYDRANTS. c. Mi~ area ei le~T MINIMUM LOT AREA. (1} PARCELS OF LAND UNDER 43,~60 SQUARE FEET ~l~ Siaale-iaaily evellifti&TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTiTOOQ ·~T ·~T ~a~ Meet¥a-eeft&i~y evellift89TTTTTTTTTTT TTTTTTTT{See a-~ See~i&ft~ ~~~ Mwtti-faattY evetttft88TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT4a,ooo 8~T i£T (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING ....••. 6,000 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLING •••...• 3,000 SQ. FT. PER DWELLING UNIT TWO-FAMILY DWELLING ................... 6,000 SQ. FT. THREE-FAMILY DWELLING •••••••.•...•..•. 9,000 SQ. FT. FOUR-FAMILY DWELLING .•••••••••••••••. l2,000 SQ. FT. EACH ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT OVER FOUR DWELLING UNITS •••.••••••••••••.•••.••• 1,000 SQ. FT. (2) PARCELS OF LAND CONTAINING 43,~60 SQUARE FEET OR MORE HAY BE DEVELOPED AT A DENSITY OF ONE UNIT PER 1,089 SQUARE BEET. ~·~ i4¥ea~ieaal tft&~t~~~t&ft&; relist•~• ift&~i~w~ieft&T pwalte feeititie8TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT4aTQQQ 8~T ~·T (~~ (3) All other permitted principal us es .••••... 24,000 sq. ft • (THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE CON- VERTED TO ACCOMMODATE A pERMITTED PRINCIPAL USE IF NO OTHER LAND IS AVAILABLE AND IF THE MINIMUM REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING IS PROVIDED.) I • • ( • l • -4- ST Perai•~· eeaeity &eave eye•ea. {i~ Bea~e fer ei&e aeeea&iase~ • • • Permitted ease eeasityTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT4Q STMT/ae& ae•e BoaMe for iaereaaed iot aaaembiy,,,,,,,,,T,~ STMT for eaeh ae- ei•!eaal •Tooo e~T i&T aee-&letiT {~~ HaKiaMa deaei&y wi&h &oaM&e&TTTTTTTTTTTTTTT79 STMT/ae& aere eT MiaiaMa ileer ereaT d. FLOOR AREA. (1). MINIMUM RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA. (a) Single-family dwellings .••..•••.•..••••••••••. 850 sq. ft. (b) Metiiwa eeae!&y aae hish eeaei&y &well!ase~ ALL OTHER dwellings. (i} Efficiency and/or one bedroom unit ••••••• 650 sq. ft. (ii) Two bedroom unit ••••••••••••..••••••••••• 750 sq. ft. (iii) Three bedroom unit •••••.•••••••••.•.••.•• 9 50 sq. ft. (iv) Each additional bedroom •..•..••••.•••..•• 110 sq. ft. (2) MAXIMUM OFFICE FLOOR AREA. (a) '111E SUM TOTAL OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA IN ALL STRUCTURES ON THE LOT, EXCLUDING THE GROSS FLOOR AREA OF PARKING STRUCTURES, SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 1. 5 TIMES '111E AREA OF THE LOT ON WHICH THE STRUCTURES ARE LOCATED. f. MaNia-pereeft&eae ei le• ee¥ereaeT . MaataMa p8r&8ft.81S8 8£ let 88'¥8W818TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTYTTTT3§X tPerkiaa •••~e•~•esT sereaeeT eerper&e ere aee !ael~tieti !a *•• eevereaeT~ • I • • ( ( • • • • -5- Mia..._-.... ~~-epee-epeee~TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTa§IT fA-eeyere~-perkiaa-eer~ee~re-wieh-lea~eeapiaa-ea-eep-aey-ee i&el~lee-ae-apea-apaeeTt g. Minimum usable open space. e. f. ~T g, kT MINIMUM USABLE OPEN SPACE .•.•.........•..•........••••• 25% OF LOT AREA. OPEN SPACE AREAS SHALL BE PROPERLY LIGHTED FOR SECURITY. Utilities. Utilities service to buildings in new ~evelepmenee SUBDIVISIONS MUST be placed underground. ~a'-wa-~5!1!-•'-~e5T-MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE. fa1--Me~•~•-eeaeiey~~welliaa-------------------------tsee-a-a Bieeriee-Rea~laeieaaT (1) SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING .....••••...•..••.. SO ft. (2) SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLING, TWO-FAMILY DWELLING, THREE- FAMILY DWELLING, FOUR-FAMILY DWELLING •••••••.•.•..••.• , •.•.•••••.... , .••••.•••• 25FT. PER UNIT. (3) All other permitted principal uses •••••••..••••••• none. Ma.~~"!•-e~-&.i~~r MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT. tl1--6tftlt8-ieaity-Sft~-8e~t~·-··ft8tey-~8tttfti8TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT tat--Att-8~P-peraie•ee-ppifteipat-~aa8TTTTTTTTTTTTTit¥8-~§t ••••iee-pl~•-s••eea-lavelT-~~•-••e-hiaher-ehaa-•'-•y-~iQ~ ieeey--tAlee-eee-s~ppleaeaeel-Res~laeieaeT-Saeeiaa-aaT§-~r~ • I • • - • • • • • -6- (1) SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED AND ATTACHED DWELLING AND TWO, THREE, AND FOUR-FAMILY "DWELLING •.•••••••••••.•••.•• 25 FT. (2) ALL OTHER PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES •..•••.•...•••••• 60 FT. (ALSO SEE SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS, SECTION 22.5-7.) *T h. Minimum front yard. (1) All permitted principal uses: Up to three stories ••••.•••.•••••••.••••..•.•.•.••• 15 ft. Four or five stories .••••.•••••...•.•••••...•••.•.• 20 ft. More than five stories .••••••••••..•.•.•••..•..•••• 25 ft. MT 1. Minimum side yard. (1). Single-family DETACHED dwelling •.•.•.••..•....•••••. 3 ft. (Total 10 feet for both sides) {~} Me4~wa 4eftei~YTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTiee R-a iee~~eft {~} All e~he• pe•ai~~e4 p•iReipel H&e&TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT*~ •~T {2) SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLING AND TWO, THREE OR FOUR- FAMILY DWELLING ••••••.••••••••.••.•••••••••.••••.••• 5 FT. (TOTAL 14 FEET FOR BOTH SIDES) (FOR PURPOSES OF TOTAL SIDEYARD SETBACK, THE SETBACK SHALL APPLY TO THE E.NTIRE STRUCTURE, NOT THE INDIVIDUAL UNITS.) (3) ALL OTHER PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES .••••.••••••.•••. l5 FT . (FOR EACH SIDE.) ftT j. Minimum rear yard. All permitted principal uses .••••.•••••••••••••••••••••• 25 feet BT k. Minimum off-street parking. OFF-STREET PARltiNG SPACES SHALL BE OF A HARD SURFACE, EITHER PAVED WITH ASPHALT OR CONCRETE. (1) SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING ••••••••••••••••••••••.•.•••• 2 SPACES (2) All other permitted principal uses ..•••.••• See Section 22.5-5 • • I • • • • • -7- PT 1. Minimum off-street loading requirements. (See Supplementary Regulations. m. Accessory "ldings and permitted accessory uses. ~%~ Priva~e &•••sea er earper~sT Priva~e sarasee er earper~e ee- aisne4 e• ~see ier ~he e~erege ei ae~e• vekielee &VRee ep epePe5ee ~Y •he eee~p.ale ei lhe priRaipal &~ileiast hewaverT aaamaraiel vah,alaa akall &a liai5e4 5a a lh•a•-~~·•••• ~a~4~ 5aa •••r,iag eapaei~yT ~a~ HaKi•~• kei&h~, siRgle-iaaily er me6i~m-densi•YTTTTTTTTT ~e+ Gi4e ye.eTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTi iET ~d~ Rea• ye•&TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT~ f~T (1} GARAGES AND CARPORTS. AN ATTACHED OR DETACHED GARAGE OR CARPORT MUST CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS: (A) MAXIMUM HEIGHT •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 18 FEET (B) MINIMUM FRONT YARD •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 15 FEET (C) MINIMUM SIDE YARD ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 3 FEET (D) MINIMUM REAR YARD: (i} IF ENTRANCE FACES FRONT OR SIDE •••••••••• 3 FEET (ii} IF ENTRANCE FACES REAR ••••••••••••••••••• 6 FEET (E) MAXIMUM TOTAL FLOOR AREA ••••••••••••••••• :.l,OOO SQ. FT. (F) IF GARAGE OR CARPORT IS CONVERTED TO ANO'niER USE, AN EQUIVALENT AMOUNT OF OFF-STREET PARKING MUST BE PROVIDED. (2) STORAGE SHED. NOT MORE THAN ONE STORAGE SHED SHALL BE PERMITTED PER DWELLING. NO STORAGE SHED SHALL EXCEED 100 SQUARE FEET IN AREA • • I • • -• • • -8- (A) SHALL BE LOCATED ON REAR ONE-THIRD OF THE LOT. (B) MAXIMUM HEIGHT •..• · •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 10 FEET (C) MINIMUM SIDE YARD .••.••.•••••••••••••.•••••••• 3 FEET (NO SETBACK IS REQUIRED IF THE WALL ADJACENT TO THE PROP- ERTY LINE IS CONSTRUCTED OF ONE HOUR FIRE RESISTIVE MATERIAL.) (D) MINIMUM REAR YARD ••...••••....••••••.••.•.•••• 3 FEET (NO SETBACK IS REQUIRED IF THE WALL ADJACENT TO THE PROP- ERTY LINE IS CONSTRUCTED OF ONE HOUR FIRE RESISTIVE MATERIAL.) ~a* (3) Non-commercial parklng lots. Required parking may be provided within 400 feet of the property, either within the same district or within a district which per- mits non-commercial parking lots. Such parking lot must be main- tained as long as THE principal permitted use is .. intained, OR ALTERNATE PARKING PROVIDED. ~~~ (4) Service units or facilities. Service facilities or units such as, but not limited to, barber shops, beauty shops, gift shops, coffee shops, dining facilities and day care centers, may be permitted for the convenience of the tenants. n. HOME OCCUPATION. • OCCUPATIONS CUSTOMARILY INCIDENT TO THE PRINCIPAL USE AS A RESIDENCE • • WHEN CONDUCTED IN THE SAME DWELLING, PROVIDED THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE MET. (1) SALES ON THE PREMISES. THE SALE ON TilE PREMISES OF ANY ITEM WHICH HAS NOT BEEN MADE, GR(JoJN, OR PREP AilED ON TilE PREMISES SHALL BE PROHIBITED, (2) SALES OFF THE PREMISES. SALES OFF THE PREMISES BY TilE OCCUPANT SELLING HOUSEHOLD GOODS SUCH AS THOSE PRODUCTS OFFERED BY AVON, • I • • - • • • • • • -9- AMWAY, FULLER BRUSH, WATKINS, ETC., SHALL BE PERMITTED, (3) THE OCCUPATION SHALL BE. OPERATED ENTIRELY WITHIN THE DWELLING UNIT AND ONLY BY TilE PERSON OR PERSONS MAINTAINING A DWELLING UNIT mEREIN. (4) NO ASSISTANTS SHALL BE EMPLOYED. (5) mE HOURS AND HANNER OF SUCH USES AND mE NOISE CREATED THEREBY SHALL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE PEACE, QUIET OR DIGNITY OF mE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ADJOINING PROPERTIES, (6) SIGNS SHALL BE LIMITED TO ONE UNLIGHTED, UNANIMATED NAME PLATE NOT EXCEEDING 144 SQUARE INCHES IN AREA FOR ANY PERMITTED HOME OCCUPATION. mE SIGN SHALL BE AFFIXED TO mE BUILDING AND SHALL NOT EXTEND OVER ANY PROPERTY LINE OR ABOVE THE ROOF LINE, (7) THE OFFICE OR HOME OCCUPATION SHALL NOT HAVE A SEPARATE OUTSIDE ENTRANCE. (8) INCIDENTAL STORAGE SHALL BE ALLOWED FOR ITEMS MADE ON THE PREMISES AND/OR SOLD OFF THE PREMISES. (9) THE OFFICE OR OCCUPATION, INCLUDING STORAGE OF MATERIALS, EQUIP- KENT, INVENTORY AND/OR SUPPLIES, SHALL NOT UTILIZE MORE THAN THREE HUNDRED (300) SQUARE FEET; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO FOSTER FAMILY CARE OR A DAY CARE HOME, (10) A DAY CARE HOME FOR THE CARE OF ONE TO FOUR CHILDREN HAY BE PERMITTED AS A HOME OCCUPATION. (11) THE USE OF ELECTRIC MOTORS SHALL BE LIMITED IN POWER, WITH A TOTAL LIMITATION OF ONE AND ONE-HALF (1-1/2) HORSEPOWER, AND NO SINGLE UNIT OVER THREE-QUARTER (3/4) HORSEPOWER. (12) IN NO EVENT SHALL ANY HOME OCCUPATION INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES: (a) ANIMAL HOSPITAL OR KENNEL; • I • • - • • • • • • -10- (b) BARBERS, HAIRDRESSERS, COSMETOLOGISTS OR BEAUTICIANS; {c) BODY, MECHANICAL REPAIR, OR MODIFICATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES; (d) THE SALE, STORAGE, MANUFACTURE OR ASSEMBLY OF GUNS, KNIVES OR OTHER WEAPONS OR AMMUNITION OTHER THAN FOR PERSONAL USE; (e) COMMERCIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITIES; (f) RESTAURANTS; (g) WHOLESALE OR RETAIL USES OF ANY ITEMS ON OR OFF THE PREMISES EXCLUDING SECTION {1) AND SECTION (2). (h) PROCESSES INVOLVING TilE DISPENSING, USE OR RECYCLING OF HAZARDOUS OR FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES AND MATERIALS. (NO REGULATION IS INTENDED ON THE SALE OF FI..AMMABLE SUBSTANCES WHICH ARE PROPERLY PACKAGED.) (13) ALL HOME OCCUPATIONS SHALL BE REGISTERED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT UPON COMPLETION OF AN INSPECTION OF THE PREMISES BY Til E CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. U&NViR9NKKNf~ GVl8~iN&&U o. ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS. (1) Solar and wind exposure. Tall structures located adjacent to major open spaces should be sited to insure maximum sunlight on the open spaces during the winter months . The grouping of tall buildings should be sited to allow for proper air circulation . Tall buildings should be sited upon the north aide of pedeatrian spaces to provide protection from witer storms. Wind breaks such as tree groupings should be provided in all major open spaces . I • • • • • • -11- f:l~ n8ftU1tST Plan~ aa~eriala aheHld .&e aelee~ee Eraa ¥arie~iee ane epeeiea ~hat are aeeliae~ea ~er epeeial eliaa~ie eendi~ieae ieHne wi~hin ~he Bnsleweee areaT A~~entien aheHld &e Si¥ea ~· ~he eiee e~te ehawaa5ew ei aa5ewiale whieh will P*&eYae 5he eeaiwae le~teeeapee efiee~T Pre¥ieiena aheHid &e made ier irrisatien ae feeeiJtS a,.a~eaa atul plaeeaea~ ier preper .. in~-•nee ane pretee~ien ~· iRaHre aa~Hre srewth ei ~he plan~aT fa~ Plan~ materials sheHld be arransed in a Manner te eeapleaeft~ the erehi~ee~Hral ~eelity ei pla~a ereesT . ~h} »aa~we 5raee eheYle he ¥See iR pleea awaaa 5e ellew &YR- lizh• eYriR& 5he wia5er uen•h•T f~~ (2) Parking. (a) Parking areas should be screened from public view by landscaping. (b) The use of berms should be encouraged along the major etreet system to complement the planting effect and to provide a protective separation and screening device be- tween pedestrian and vehicle. PT p. OTHER PROVISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS. (1) NO TRUCK EXCEEDING SEVEN THOUSAND POUNDS, EMPTY WEIGHT, 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 ZONE LoT. (2) LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS INSTALLATIONS SHALL BE PEilMITrED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPLYING FUEL FOR APPROVED HEATING EQUIP- MENT. TANKS IN EXCESS OF 500 GALLONS (WATER CAPACITY) WILL NOT BE PERMITTED IN THIS ZONE DISTRICT. LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS INSTALLATIONS SHALL CONFORM TO CURRENT FIRE CODE RF.QUIREMENTS • I • - • • • • • - CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. 4-84 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO AN AMENDMENT TO 122.4-9, R-4, RESIDENTIAL/PROFESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE NO. 26, SERIES OF 1963, CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO; WHICH AMENDMENT PER- TAINS TO THE SPECIFIC ZONE DISTRICT REGULATIONS RELATIVE TO THE R-4 RESIDENTIAL/PROFESSIONAL ZONE DISTRICT. A .Public Hearing was held on January 17, 1984, in connection with Case No. 4-84 in the City Council Chambers in the Englewood City Hall. The following members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission were present: Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma. Hr. Venard was absent. FINDING OF FACT Upon review of the evidence taken in the form of testimony, presentations, reports, and the draft of the proposed zone district aaendaents, the City Planning and Zoning Co.miasion makes the following Findings of Fact. 1. That proper notice of the Public Hearing was given in the Englewood Sentinel, the official City newspaper, on December 28, 1983. 2. That the present Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance was adopted by Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1963 • 3. That amendments to Ordinance No . 26, 1963, have been made; however, there has been no comprehensive revision to the ordinance over the past twenty years. 4. That in working with the present ordinance, it has become apparent that discrepancies exist and some zoning and/or land use issues are not addressed. 5. That the problem areas pointed out in the R-4 Residential- Professional District are as follows: a. Permitted Home Occupations should be identified and procedures set forth for their operation • I • • ~-'n • • • • -2- b. Single-family attached dwellings, which are two-family dwellings with each unit and the land under and on three adjoining sides of · the unit under separate ownership are not permitted, yet they offer a new option for the first time or low and moderate income family interested in home ownership. c. That not having provided for single-family attached dwelling units, they have been permitted by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. d. Group homes for the developmentally disabled and the elderly are not permitted contrary to State Law. e. Current minimum lot frontage requirements are not realistic when applied to certain permitted uses such as public buildings, religious and educational institutions. f. Current lot coverage requirements are inflexible. g. Discrepancies in the regulations between attached and detached garages and carports exist and current height limits are unrealistic. h. The regulation relative to commercial trucks parked in this District are insufficient and unclear. i. In addition to group homes permitted by State Statute, the current ordinance is unclear whether or not other types of group homes are allowed. j. Child care facilities are not mentioned in the current regulations. 6. That the Planning staff and Planning Commission have studied the applications for variances which have been submitted to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals to identify problem areas. 7. That because of unrealistic or inadequate regulations and standards, property owners have cause to apply to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals for variance requests for aatters that can best be addressed in the Zone District regulations. 8, That the Planning Commission is of the opinion that the zone district regulations should not be enforced through the variance procedure. 9, That no persons were present who wished to speak in opposition to the proposed amendments to the R-4 Zone District regula- tions. 10. That no persons were present who wished to speak in favor of the proposed amendments to the R-4 Zone District regulations. 11. That the Commission consider the amendments in an effort to address the issues outlined above • • I • • • • • - -3- CONCLUSION 1. That proper notice of the Public Hearing was given. 2. That no persons spoke in opposition to or in favor of the proposed amendments. 3. That in an effort to address the problems in the current R-4 Zone District regulations, the following amendments are proposed: a. To define home occupations which are permitted in the R-4 Zone District and to set forth guidelines for those home occupations. Zone District. b. To permit single-family attached dwellings in the R-4 c. To increase the minimum lot frontage requirement for public buildings, religious and educational institutions in order that these uses will have the same development requirements in all zone dis- tricts and be more compatible with residential uses in the same area. d. To permit group homes for the developmentally disabled and the elderly which are addressed in the Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended. e. To permit certain other types of group homes as a Conditional Use. f. To allow more flexibility in development standards by increasing lot coverage requireaents while protecting development concerns by imposing requirements for open space, setbacks, height restrictions, landscaping and off-street parking and loading. g. To create the same setback requirements for attached or detached garages and carports. h. To permit small child care facilities within certain identified limitations. i. To permit large child care centers as a Conditional Use. 4. That the proposed amendments to the R-4 Zone District Regulations have been considered in a comprehensive manner as a part of the revision of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. 5. That the proposed amendments will assist in the efficient adainistration of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. • I • • • • • • -4- RecoDIDendation Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Co ... ission to the City Council that the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, 122.4-9, R-4 Residential/Profes- sional District, be adopted. Upon the vote on a JDOtion made at the meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission on January 17, 1984 by Mr. Carson and seconded by Hr. Stoel. Those voting in favor of the JDOtion were: Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel. Those voting in opposition to the IDOtion: None. Mr. Venard was absent. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. KaTori~ Chairman • I • • - • • I • • • • Section 22.4-9 R-4 Residential-Professional District. Re v ist•d 5 -l J-8 :.1 10-14-83 10-28-83 This district is designed to achieve stability of land use and land value through minimizing the adverse effects of adjoining incompatible Districts . To these ends, development is limited to a medium-high concentration and permitted uses are typically single-family and two-family dwellings, Yarte~• tae~t~~teaey-ea4 certain professional uses compatible with the District AND PRIVATE OFF-STREET PARKING LOTS. This District should be applied only in sufficient size to properly perform the above objective. This is normally construed to mean at least one-half (~) block in depth and one (l) full block in length. ntOSE USES WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO BE LOCATED IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT BY STATE LAW SHALL BE PERMITTED. a. Supple.entary regulations. The provisions found in this Zone District shall be subject to the requirements and standards found in Section 22.5, Supplementary Regulations, unless otherwise provided for in this Ordinance or an amendment hereto. b. 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 provided for in this Ordiance, except for one or more of the following uses. (1) ANY USE PERMITTED IN THE R-2 ZONE DISTRICT. (2) Administrative and professional offices, provided that neither merchandise is handled for sale nor merchandising services are rendered on the premises, except such as are incidental or accessory to the principal use . (3) Nursing and rest homes. (4) ~~~ Medical and dental and/or optical laboratories • • I • • , • • • • -2- (5) SHALL CHILDCARE CENTERS. (6) H·t Boarding or rooming house's. (7) ~it Private off-street parking lots, the surface of which shall be of a eae.-free-..~rietT HARDSURFACE, EITHER PAVED WITH ASPHALT OR CONCRETE. c. Minimum a~e'-~C.LOT AREA. (1) RESIDENTIAL USES ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• SAME AS R-2. (2) All other permitted uses ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 24,000 sq. ft. d . Minimum Floor area. (1) RESIDENTIAL USES ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• SAME AS R-2. (2) ALL OTHER PERMITTED USES ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1,000 SQ. FT. THIS SHALL NOT APPLY TO PRIVATE OFF-STREET PARKING LOTS. e. USABLE OPEN SPACE. MINIMUM USABLE OPEN SPACE ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 30% f. Minimum h•••••-·-~r LOT FRONTAGE. (1) RESIDENTIAL USES ................................ SAME AS R-2. (2) ~~t All other peraitted uses •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• lOO feet • • I • • • • • • -3- h. s~ M&Mim~m-Aet!A~-e~-e~i~etft@ST-MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT. Princ ipa l building ........ ~we-s~eries ................ 25 f t. h. Minimum front yard. Principal building ............ ; ............................ 15 ft. 1.. Minimum side yard. ~at--iWe-ieai~y-e.e~~·ft~TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT-§-iee~ (1) RESIDENTIAL USES •••..••...•..•••.••.••.•....•••••• SAME AS R-2. (2) Ht All other permitted uses ............................... 25 feet j. Minimum r ea r yard. Principal building ..••..••••..••.....•....•...•....••. 25 feet k . Minimum off-street parking. OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES SHALL BE OF A HARD SURFACE, EITHER PAVED WITH .ASPHALT OR CONCRETE. (1) SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING •••••••••••••••••• ,, •••••••••• ,., ••.• 2 SPACES (2) All other permitted principal uses •.... See Section 22.5-S 1. Accessory buildings and permitted accessory uses. (In addition to the following, see Supplementary Regulations.) f~t--Privete-s•~see-eft4-ee~erteT--~ve«e-a•~aee-eftd-~~-ee.taaee ~et--"'ftt~~-y~-eee-&.ppie-.ft~-Rea-ieeieft8~ ~e,--Giee-ye94~~TT~•••t-if-eeteehe8-e .. -e.-9eer-efte thire ~ • I • • • • ........ .... ........................ ...., > ...... n as > o !Z I ...... ~ ..... I ~ ...... ,_.. f"'4 C') • s >> • ;: r ·~ :c :c ! -= ::1~ .,.. .,.. 't" ~ i i I i 1: I i * t l I l I t s t l t i f II f f ~ f l T f ~ Cl> ...., = i f;l~ ~ i ~ ;: I , f f t f r 1 1 t ~ ! i ; a~ ¥ f l f t t l t f t i ! t · t £ t f t ' I ~ o< : B Q~ ~ i ~ l t t f t l t I ~ f ~ ~ i r I I f i : ~ : ~ ~?' J i" l t f ! ~ t i f ! '" * l f { J r [ ~ ft t*i'"f~~'f It: [t I~ rr~ ~ t ; : ~ * r i ~ ~ r;. I f;l tt tf·{rt 1 · I~r 1 ltr~~·!;l n v~~T , "tftfZ' £'"-.=rr_!r e ""i. ~~ftttt ~~ ,1~ ~ ~ Ei• trll f f;l ·1ftll"rJ..,..4 rtf1 I [1 rll" t-3 f .. , ~I~ 'Vf It' I It-~ .. l r f""t!{f• .. a--i·l~tr r~ en f~ ~ fi I i' C I :P f I C ~ • II' I t-3 t .r ~ r ~ . ... • ~ .. ~ 8 ~ ~ft~lf. fl· ;rt iiEEljr ~ ~f•· ttr-fit.i,rr"r,-.= ... t,~..t . . . fi · t r ;-J ~ ~t s:. .. , .:.. ;:: : l _. t r t r ~ ...... " .,... r~~·,,,~, ... i .... ' zcrrriiC """':;; ~ tr~rjtft•r, lr;r 1~":rrE ....,....,...., 1'1" .. ~ "fi I I :PI 1'1 .~Itt~ 1'-eae ~ iirt 'tf~"r·IHr· f~r: ~lr"f:~ l'lfi' "I "J. .. ,....,.,... ...... "I 'fir~~ ~(j)ii ·-.=rr.:..;-....... ;-• f.,~r ... .r i~r ~~ :~~r It' • I I II' I r " f • • I .t- 1 I : . , • - • • • • -5- (D) MINIMUM REAil YARD: (i) IF ENTRANCE FACES FRONT OR SIDE ••••••••••••• ~ FEET (ii) IF ENTRANCE FACES BEAR··•••••••••••••••••••• 6 FliT (E) MAXIMUM TOTAL FLOOR A&BA •••••••••••••••••••••• 1,000 SQ. FT. (f) IF GAUGE OR CAIPORT IS CONVUTED TO ANOTHEll USE, AN EQUIVALENT AK>UNT OF OFF-STREET PARXING IWST BE PROVIDED. (2) STORAGE SHED. NOT MORE THAN ONE STOilAGE SHED SHALL BE PERMITTED PU DWELLING. NO STORAGE SHED SHALL EXCEED 100 SQUARE FElT IN ARIA. (A) SHALL Bl LOCATED ON TRE BEAR ONE-TRiaD OF TRE LOT. (B) MAXIMUM HEIGHT •••••••.•.••••••••....••••••••••••• 10 FEE'f (C) MINIMUM SIDE YARD ••••.••.•.•••••••••.•••••.•••• •• 3 FliT (NO SETBACK IS REQUIRED IF THE WALL ADJACENT TO TRE PROPERTY LINE IS CONSTRUCTED 01' ONE HOUR FfRI\ RESISTIVE MATERIAL.) (D) MINIMUM REAil YARD •.•••••• ,., •••••••••••• • •• • •. • • • 3 FElT (NO SETBACK IS REQUIRED IF THE WALL ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY LINE IS CONSTRUCTED OF ONE HOUR FIRE RESISTIVE MATERIAL.) m. ROME OCCUPATION. OCCUPATIONS CUSTOMARILY INCIDENT TO THE PRINCIPAL USE AS A RESIDENCE WREN CONDUCTED IN TRE SAME DWELLING, PROVIDED THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE MET. (1) SALES ON THE PllfMISES. TRE SALE ON TRE PREMISES OF ANY ITEM WHICH HAS NOT BEEN MADE, GROWN, OR PREPARED ON TRE PREMISES SHALL BE PROHIBITED. (2) SALES OFF THE PllfMISES. SALES OFF THE PllfMISES BY TRE OCCUPANT SELLING HOUSEHOLD GOODS SUCH AS THOSE PRODUCTS OFFUED BY AVON, AMWAY, FULLER BRUSH, WATKINS, ETC., SHALL BE PERMITTED • • I • • - • • • • • -6- (3) THE OCCUPATION SHALL BE OPERAT ED ENTIRELY WITHIN THE DWELLING UNIT AND ONLY BY THE PERSON OR PERSONS MAINTAINING A DWELLING UNIT THEREIN. (4) NO ASSISTANTS SHALL BE EMPLOYED. (5) THE HOURS AND HANNER OF SUCH USES AND THE NOISE CREATED THEREBY SHALL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE PEACE, QUIET OR DIGNITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ADJOINING PROPERTIES. (6) SIGNS SHALL BE LIMITED TO ONE UNLIGHTED, UNANIMATED NAME PLATE NOT EXCEEDING 144 SQUARE INCHES IN AREA FOR ANY PERMITTED HOME OCCUPATION. THE SIGN SHALL BE AFFIXED TO THii BUILDING AND SHALL NOT EXTEND OVER ANY PROPERTY LINE OR ABOVE THE ROOF LINE. (7) THE OFFICE OR HOME OCCUPATION SHALL NOT HAVE A SEPARATE OUTSIDE ENTRANCE. (8) INCIDENTAL STORAGE SHALL BE ALLOWED FOR ITEMS MADE ON THE PREMISES AND/OR SOLD OFF THE PREMISES. (9) THE OFFICE OR OCCUPATION, INCLUDING STORAGE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, INVENTORY AND/OR SUPPLIES, SHALL NOT UTILIZE MORE THAN THREE HUNDRED (300) SQUARE FEET: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO FOSTER FAMILY CARE OR A DAY CARE HOME. (10) A DAY CARE HOME FOR THE CARE OF ONE TO FOUR CHILDREN MAY BE PERMITTED AS A HOME OCCUPATION. (11) THE USE OF ELECTRIC MOTORS SHALL BE LIMITED IN POWER, WITH A TOTAL LIMITATION OF ONE AND ONE-HALF (lis) HORSEPOWER, AND NO SINGLE UNIT OVER THREE-QUARTER (3/4) HORSEPOWER • I • • • • • • ---·---------- -7- (12) IN NO EVENT SHALL ANY HOKE OCCUPATION INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING BUSINESS OR COMKERCIAL ACriVITIES: (a) ANIMAL HOSPITAL OR KENNEL; (b) BARBERS, HAIRDRESSERS, COSMETOLOGISTS OR BEAUTICIANS; (c) BODY, MECHANICAL REPAIR, OR MODIFICATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES; (d) THE SALE, STORAGE, MANUFACTURE OR ASSEMBLY OF GUNS, KNIVES OR OTHER WEAPONS OR AMMUNITION OTHER THAN FOR PERSONAL USE; (e) COMMERCIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITIES; (f) RESTAURANTS; (g) WHOLESALE OR RETAIL USES OF ANY ITEMS ON OR OFF OF THE PREMISES EXCLUDING SECTION (1) AND SECTION (2). (h) PROCESSES INVOLVING THE DISPENSING, USE, OR i:ECYCUN'" lll!' UA::t.:Wil<J S OR FLAKKABLE SUBSTANCES AND MATERIALS. (NO :'l.El;ULATION I!J IUJ.'E l!:l i·:'J ON THE SALE OF FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES WHICH ARE PROPERLY PACKAGED .) (13) ALL HOME OCCUPATIONS SHALL BE REGISTERED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT UPON COMPLETION OF AN INSPECTION OF THE PREMISES BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. n. CONDITIONAL USE. PROVIDED THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS FULLY PROTECTED AND THE FOLLOWING USE IS APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION: (1) LARGE CHILD CARE CENTER SERVING 13 OR MORE CHILDREN. ACCESSORY PLAY EQUIPMENT SHALL BE LOCATED IN THE SIDE AND REAR YARDS ONLY. (2) GROUP HOMES, WHICH ARE LICENSED BY THE STATE OF COLORADO, AND WHICH PROVIDE 24-HOUR SUPERVISION. (a) NO GROUP HOME CIIALL DE LOCATED WITJIIN AN 800 FOOT RADIUS OF THE PROPOSED CROUP JIOME· (b) GROUP HOMES MUST PROVIDE OFF-STREET PARKING FOR EACH MEMBER OF THE STAFF ON DUTY • • I • • • • • • • -8- a. Other provisions and requirements • {l) Screening. All non-residential uses, when adjoining or ad- jacent to an existing residence or a Residential District, shall provide and maintain along such adjoining or adjacent lot linea, the following minimal screening; provided, however, that on the aide lot line such screening shall comply with the Fence Ordinance regulations. (a) An opaque buffer strip of trees and shrubs in a healthy growing condition, not less than five (5) feet in height, or (b) An opaque fence of decorative type not leas than five (5) feet in height. (2) NO TRUCK EXCEEDING SEVEN THOUSAND POUNDs, EMPTY WEIGHT, NO AUTOMOBILE TRAILER, BUS OR MOTORIZED RECREATIONAL VEHICLE EXCEEDING 22 FEET IN LENGTH, AND NO TRUCK-TRACTOR OR SEMI- TRAILER SHALL BE PAIXED OR STORED ON ANY ZONE LOT. (3) No use shall be peraitted within the District which, by eaittin& an obnoxious odor, radiation, or fumes, or undue or excessive noise beyond any boundary line of the lot upon which the use is located, would become a nuisance to other validly existing uses in the area. (4) LlQUIWUW l'll'l'ltoi.V:UM GAS INS'!'ALLA'!'IONS SIIALL -Uil I:'EKMl'i"l'IW UNL¥ I•'U!t 'l'IIE I'UIU'OSE Of SUI'l'L¥lN(; !•'UUL fOK AI:'I:'KUV~I> tU~'l'LN(; EQUll'MENl' • TANKS LN EXCESS 01•' 500 GALLONS (WA'!'Eit CAl'ACl'L'¥) WILL NOT BE PERMITTED IN THIS ZONE DISTRICT. LIQUEFIED l'l i'l'ltoi.IWH GAS J.NS 'I'ALLA'1'10NS SIIAI.J , CUN!o'OKM 'L'U CUitltEN'l' l"i!Ui CODE REQUIREMENTS • • I • • - • • • • • CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. 5-84, ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO ) AN AMENDMENT TO 122.4-10, B-1 ) BUSINESS DISTRICT, OF THE COH-) PREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, ) ORDINANCE 26, SERIES OF 1963, ) CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO; ) WHICH AMENDMENT PERTAINS TO ) THE SPECIFIC ZONE DISTRICT ) REGULATIONS RELATIVE TO THE ) B-1 BUSINESS DISTRICT. ) A Public Hearing wa s held on January 17, 1984 i n connection with Case No. 5-84 in the City Council Chambers in the Englewood City Hall. The following members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission were present: Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma. Hr. Venard was absent. FINDING OF FACT Upon review of the evidence taken in the form of testimony, presentations, reports and the draft of the proposed zone district amend- ments, the City Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following Findings of Fact. 1. That notice of the Public Hearing was given in the Englewood Sentinel, the official City newspaper, on December 28, 1983. 2. That the present Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance was adopted by Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1963. 3. That amendments to Ordinance No. 26, 1963, have been made; however, there has been no comprehensive revision to the ordinance over the past twenty years. 4. That in working with the present ordinance, it has become apparent that discrepancies exist and some zoning and/or land use issues are not addressed. 5. That at this time, the major land use issue within the B-1 District is the redevelopment of the downtown business diatrict. 6. That in order to facilitate the redevelopment, the Englewood Downtown Redevelopment Plan was prepared and approved by the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority and approved by the Englewood City Council by Resolution No. 39, Series of 1982, following a Public Hearing on August 23, 1982. I • • - • • t • • • • -2- 7. That the Downtown Redevelopment Plan states that resi- dential uses should be permitted within. the B-1 Zone District and that standard~ ohould be established for those uses. 8. That other problems that have been experienced in the ad- ministration of the B-1 District are: a. Certain uses which are now permitted in the B-1 District should be prohibited because they are not compatible with the existing or projected development. b. Current height limits are not realistic and could impede plans for the redevelopment. c. Residential uses are not permitted. d. Flexibility in off~street parking requirements is not an option under the present ordinance, even though it can be substantiated. 9. That the land use focus within the B-1 area should be to accommodate the needs of the people in the area including places to live, opportunities for employment, shopping, personal services and cultural and recreational activities. 10. That no persons were present who wished to speak in opposition to the proposed amendments to the B-1 Zone District regula- tions. 11. That no persons were present who wished to speak in favor of the proposed aaend.ents to the B-1 Zone District regulations. 12. That the citizens committee which advised the Planning co .. ission on the Downtown Section of the Comprehensive Plan reco .. ended that the zoning regulations be amended to incorporate the changes set forth therein. 13. That at an earlier Public Hearing held on Karch 22, 1983, the Englewood Downtown Development Authority expressed support for the uses that are proposed within the downtown area. 14. That the Commission consider the amendments in an effort to address the issues outlined above. CONCLUSION 1. That proper notice of the Public Hearing was given. 2. That no persons spoke in opposition to or in favor of the proposed amendaents. 3. That in an effort to address the problems in the current B-1 Zone District regulations, the following matters are addressed: a. Permitted Principal Uses. b • Conditional Uses . • I • • ' • • • • -3- c. Prohibited Uses. d. Requirements for Development such as minimum floor area, maximum building height, off-street parking, landscaping and utilities. 5. That the proposed amendments will facilitate the redevelop- ment of the Downtown. RECOMMENDATION Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning co .. ission to the City Council that the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, 122.4-10, B-1 Business District, be adopted. Upon the vote on a motion made at the meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission on January 17, 1984 by Mr . McBrayer and seconded by Mr. Stoel. Those voting in favor of the motion were Mrs. Becker, Messrs. Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma and Allen. Those voting in opposition to the motion: None. Hr. Venard was absent. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission Marjorie L. Becker Chair.an • I • • - • • • • Section 22.4-10 B-1 Business District. DRAFT: February 15, 1984 December 20, 1983 December 7, 1983 June 7, 1983 May 18, 1983 December 21, 1982 THE B-1 BUSINESS DISTRICT IS A MIXED-USE DISTRICT WHICH IS APPLIED TO THE CENTRAL BUSINESS SECTION OF ENGLEWOOD. THE DISTRICT IS DESIGNED TO CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT HAVING URBAN CHARACTERISTICS WITHIN A RELATIVELY SHALL AREA OF LAND THROUGH THE CLOSE PROXIMITY OF ACTIVITIES, THE INCREASED SOCIAL AND CULTURAL OPPORTUNITES AND THE POSSIBILITY OF CHOICE IN ONE'S CONTACTS AND ASSOCIATES. WITHIN THIS DISTRICT, THE TREND WILL BE AWAY FROM THE MONOTONY OF SEPARATORY LAND USE AND TOWARD THE VARIETY OF LAND USE ALTERNATIVES WHICH ACCOMMODATE THE CURRENT LIVING PREFERENCES. The e•rHe•HFe& USES •here~ft WITHIN THIS DISTRICT are H&ea pF~aarily THOSE WHICH provide retailing and personal services to residents WITHIN THIS AREA AND TO RESIDENTS of the City and the surrounding area. IN ORDER TO HAKE THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT VIABLE 24 HOURS A DAY AND NOT JUST DURING THE TRADITIONAL BUSINESS HOURS, MEDIUM AND HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL UNITS ARE ENCOURAGED. The uses permitted within this District are those that will provide the maximum amount of service to residents of the Giey AREA and will be eeftaeeeieft ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT. a. Supplementary regulations. The provisions found in this Zone Dis- trict shall be subject to the requirements and standards _found .in 22.5, Sup- plementary Regulations, unless otherwise provided for in this Ordinance or an aaendment hereto, b. Permitted principal uses. No building, structure, or land shall be used and no building or ,;tructure shall l>e erected, structurally altered, enlarged or maintained unless otherwis e provided for in this Ordinance except for one or more of the following u s es : I • 'l . (( • (1) Ambulance service; (2) ANTIQUE STORE; -2- • • • (3) Assembly halls or auditoriums; {~~ My 11ee u~efttiee ~a praville •-eeaen~ ar enter~einaen~ an peyaeae ef a fee ar ellaieeiaa ehet'leT (Repealed by Ord. #28 Series of 1982). +4~ Aa7 ••e iftteallell te pt'e¥ille health ~•eetaeae fe• •he p•J•ea• ef a fee1" (4) {~~ Apparel and accessory stores; (5) {6~ Appliance stores; (6) {~~ Art galleries OR STUDIOS; {i~ A11te eelee er repair; h11~ ne ee .. ereie~ vreekiftiT lli ... a•liftiT er f~tnk yerlieT My e11~1t repair ehep shell he en eeeeeeeFy 111te tit eft e11~e eeiee 11ee 1 ene 11eell ear leta ere per•itte4 when wee4 ill eenf•netien with enll as en ifttearal pert ef e nev eat' eethliah- aeat1" p-•i4e4T h-evei'T the -ell ••• *•• eh•** he -~fee• te the •e.-i• .. eate •• •••*iae4 ia •he '•pp;a.eaeate., ~letieftay (7) {9~ Bakeries, retail; HG~ 1-u: (8) (9) (10) (11) HH Barber shops; {;a,.n Beauty shops; H. a~ Bicycle stores; H4~ •••• • ..... t Hn Book stores, NOT INCLUDING ADULT BOOK STORES; {16} a-;a.'-1 •*l.,at {;a,~~ l•il4iaa aa•••'-* a•*•• ..... { .. a;a..4iaa ;a...-.. '1•1'4• •• e~tteilla • .. ••ae~1- (12) Hi} Business machine ateree OR COMPUTER STORES; • I • • - ( t • t • • • • -3- (13) {~9t Camera and photographic supply stores; (14) {aQt Candy, nut and confectionery stores ; (15) {a~t Caterers; (16) CHILD CARE CENTER; (17) CHINA, CRYSTAL, AND GLASSWARE STORE; (18) {i3~ Cleaning with non-inflammable cleaning agents only; (19) tii~ Collection and distribution station for laundry and dry cleaners; (20) {i4~ Clinics, dental, &P medical, OR OPTICAL; {i~~ SPatint SePvieet (21) {ie} Dairy products stores ; (22) tait Dance studios for private instructions; (23) ti#~ Diaper service; (24) ti9~ Delicatessen stores; (25) {;lQ}- UH (26) t~t (27) Uit (28) t~ (29) Ui~ Departaent stores ; ~ee ... kiaa •~pet Drua atorea; Dry goods stores; Eatin& or drinking establishments, NEED NOT BE ENCLOSED, BUT NOT INCLUDING DRIVE-IN; Educational institutions; ill aa4 pe~~•r, stares taa a~•~ahte•iaa; evieeera•ia&T plvakiaa •• 4reeeiftatt (30) t~#~ Electrical contractor shops, provided it is incidental to a retail aales room and ia liaited to equipment eaploying not more than five (5) horsepower; (31) t~i~ Electric substations; (32) H9t Exterminators; • I • • ( • • • • -4- (33) FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS; HO} P4:~e e~a~4:ettet (34) HH Floral shops; Hi!} P-4 leelter plett~ ~rett~4:ftS ettly 4:ft44:¥4:4Yal leeltere ier heae e••~~ eee~ese ei iee4; 4:1\elYeittS eele a~ re~a4:*T eY•~4:ftS atte peeltasittS ei ieeeT ae&*e att4 sa•eT eY~ ttee 4:ttelve4:ftS eieqheer4:fts a~ e¥4:aee•ae4:as ahereei}t ~4~} P-e preeeea4:fts ~reea4:l ett prea4:aee}t ~44} F-4:• e•e•eet (35) H!H Furniture stores; (36) {46} Garden supplies stores; (37) H·H Gas regulator stations; (38) ~48} Gift, novelty or souvenir stores; {39) {49} Grocery stores; {40) HO} Halls, renting for meetings or social occasions; {41) ~jl} Hardware stores; {42) HEALTH TREATMENT FACILITEIS; (43) ~ja} Hobby supply store; (44) ~j~} Home furnishings stores; (45) U4} Hotels AND CONVENTION CENTER; (46> un Interior decorators; (47) H6t Jewelry stores; (48) H~} Laboratories, dental, a• medical, (49) Hi} Laundries; {50) LEATH D. GOODS AND LUGGAGE STORES; {51) ~ji} Library or reading rooas; (52) ~iOt Liquor stores (sale by package); (53) ~6lt Linen supply; • OR OPTICAL; I • • - • • • • -5- (54) ~~~ Locksmith; ~~~ wnase a&&Hat (55) ~64~ Hail order houses; (56) H•n Meat, fiahT POULTRY, or seafood stores; ~"~ Me~ •• .,.~. ••••••t (57) MUNICIPAL FACILITIES; (58) ~·~~ Music stores; (59) ~·~~ News stands (for the sale of newspapers, magazines, etc. only); (60) ~·9~ Notions stores; (61) HQ~ Office buildings, PROFESSIONAL OR BUSINESS; ~~lt 9p~ieianat (62) OFFICE SUPPLY SHOWROOM; (63) ~~a~ Optic41 and scientific instrument shops; (64) ~~~~ Paint and wallpaper stores; (65) ~+4t Painting and decorating contractors; ~~§t Pawa ehepa aR4 aeeeR4 haft4 •~•••• ~e~eh ~•• ahall he eeft4~e~ea eRet.aly wiehia aft eRele .. a a~..-~··•~t (66) PARKING FACILITIES; (67) ~~·~ Pet storea; (68) ~~~~ Picture framing; (69) ~~~~ Photographic studios; (70) ~~9~ Photostating and blueprinting ; (71) PHYSICAL FITNESS CENTER; (72) ~iQ} Pluabing shops, provided they are incidental ·to a retail sale• rooa and are liaited to equipment not eaployin& .are than five (5) horsepower. ~ilt Peltee ••••ieRat ~&at Pe.. effie••t • I • • • • • • -6- {I~~ PreeeiftiT al~eriftl afte repairifts ei weariftl apparelt (73) {14~ Printing, publishing and allied industries, provided that such operation shall not be hazardous or objectionable due to noise, smoke, fumes, air pollution, heat, glare, radiation or vibration; (74) {i~~ Private clubs, lodges, fraternities; (75) {ii~ Public ._~1• FACILITIES; {i+~ ... ~~ .. ft~· {fte~ iftel.eiftl eri¥e-ift ~pe~t (76) {II} Religious institutions; (77) RESIDENTIAL, MULTI-FAMILY, CONDOMINIUM OR Lr!ASE; (78) {19} Shoe repair OR SHOE SHINE shops OR STAND; (79) {9Q~ Shoe stores; (80) {91} Sign painting shops; (81) {9a} Sporting goods stores; (82) {9~} Stationery stores; {94} ........ t (83) {9i~ TailoriNG ehepe AND DRESSMAKING SHOPS: (84) TAXI CAB STAND; (85) {96} Telephone exchanges; (86) ~9n Telegraph offices; (87) {91} Theaters (not including drive-in type OR ADULT MOVIES OR PRODUCTIONS); (88) ~99} Theatrical studios; (89){1QQ~ Tobacco stores; (9o>Hon Toy stores; (91) TRADE OR BUSINESS SCHOOL; (92) TRANSIT CENTER; (93) TRAVEL AGENCY; • I • • ' • -7- (94) ~lQa~ Upholstering shops; ~lQi~ Va•!eey a-.•e•t ~lQ4~ Vea•••~*• .... eat ~lQ~~ ~ • .-e •• e~a!aeaa aehaalt • • • ~lQ~ Wea•iftl appa•el ~iee•!ea•iea en& p•aeeaeia~t (95) Any similar lawful use which, in the opinion of the Com- mission WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH OTHER USES IN THE AREA AND WHICH WOULD NOT BE !a nee objectionable to nearby property by reason of odor, dust, fumes, gas, noise, radiation, heat, glare, or vibration or is not hazardous to the health and property of the surrounding areas through danger of fire or explosion. c. Conditional~ (1) ~eaent establishments including, but not limited to: Billiard Halls, Bowling Alleys, Coin-operated Gaaes, Dance Halls, Electronic or Video Gaaes, Night Clubs, Outdoor Com- mercial Recreational Facilities, Pool Halls, or Skating Rinks. HI~ .W11lt1 a.Mifhift-• aa4fe• iawiea Faai*iey ... ~-~ Na ae~le eaee•eeia.eae •• •••¥iae iea!li•y ahall ~· leeaee4 ea any eiee 11aleee a11eh a!ee !a aae lea• ehea ehe eiaeaaee l~ieaeiea aa •e1~i•ee ey eh!a aees!ea• ~l~ l 1 QQQ ieee i•a• ehe laeee!ea ai eaeeha• •••h ••~*• eaee•eeia.eae •• e~iee iaeili•yt aae U~ §QQ t••• haa eha ea-utry u-at _, ........ .,.. e!ae•iee eetiae4 ia ehe Gear••haaai¥a laaiaa Q94i- aaaeeT 9........ Me... a6T ,..... ., •e6aT •• ... •••• T !ftel•eiaa, e11e ••• liaiea& ••• i-l-AT a-l-•T i-l-'T • I • • ( e. • • • • -8- a-a; a-a-,, a-~, •• a-4 o• eiatta• •ee~aea~tat eoae atelrie~ ia aa area aateiaiag ~ke Gi~y ei &agleweea, er aay reliaieve iae~i~vliea, pvetie park, pvelie lierary, ee.-vai•y eea•er7 er eavea~ieaalr iae5ilv5iaa, whe5ker wilkia er wilkevl lhe 'ily ai ~R&tewaeaT d. PROHIBITED USES. e. (1) ADULT ENTERTAINMENT AND SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS; (2) MANUFACTURING; (3) OUTDOOR STORAGE OF MATERIALS, SUPPLIES, AND EQUIPMENT ON PRIVATE AND PUBLIC PROPERTY; (4) WAREHOUSING OF PRODUCTS OR ITEMS NOT SOLD ON THE PREMISES; (5) (6) SALE AT WHOLESALE; 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. Accessory Uses. Any retail or service use not prohibited in this District which is provided for the accommodation of the tenants, clients, patrons or customers of the Permitted Principal Use, and which is located in the same building or structure. The Accessory Use must be subordinated and clearly incidental to and customary in connection with the Permitted Principal Use. An. Accessory Use could be, but not limited to, such uses as a radio or TV antenna, a swimming pool, a tennis court, heliport, etc. ~H Aay vee iJtetHftl U lhe etteve p..UMea ve .. T vhea *""" ea ~he .... evilraiag ••~• •• •h• pe .. i.ae4 vee • • I • - ( ( • • • • • -9- Ad.ertie~ •*BB• reia~ias ~o ~he euaiaeaa eeae•eeee oa •he , ... '-.. ehell ae ·pe•-'•••4t p•eviee4T heweve•T '"•' eW4A .~ ... ekall •• pl .. .e ee ae as• •• ••aa•• •• iaiw•iewe eiiea5 ., '~•·a •• ., s•••• •• .., ••••ewaa••a .......... . --aa4 ekall .. , eeaili•• "''" •••'"• lia"• •• ••••.we• .a. v~aw ei .. ._.,.,e. ~ie p•evieiea shell ••• ee &e ... & •• ,.._, -•••• .. --"•* eeva!MHHI eaviaaa "'*"._ •hie ae.te il!HriHT {~~ Gwt..ias Peele----eeai-p•iva•eT eeai-pwelie, aae pwelieT- f. REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT. (1) {8~ Maximum height of bui1dings ..•••.•...• One hundred (100) feet. {a~ GQY~M 8R9A9WAV INGGNIIYG AaGA---------Fti,y-iive-{i~~-iee•T fe~ Ahh ~sa 8-l ARGA&-------------------&eve .. y-Eive-{~~~-Eee•T {e~ HaM..._ heith• ei ewil8tft18-----------&eveaty-ii¥e-{~~-iee•T (See Section ____ for Height Exceptions.) {a~ Repeale4 ey ~-T NeT ai, ,..... •• l9iiT (2) fe~. Hinimua ye•ee SETBACK. eT &eY~H 8RQA»WAV INGKN~IYi Ai&AT {l~ l &~&a¥ IUI~ING-----------------------------NQNi fi~ NiW GQN&tRYGtiQN a QR ~ &tQRV 8YJ~glNG-------li-F99* &&~IAGK F&a FIR&t F~T {~~ 4-&tQR¥ 8Yib91NG----li FQQt iitBAGK~QR Fla&t AN9 I'QVRH RoQQRiT {4~ A~l. 8Yl~iNG& AacJQlNlNG A WAI.KWRQUGM &a Qll A GQIUiiR 1.9~----J.a F~ ii~IAGK FeR F'H~ AD F8Uilill. BT Al.l. QtWBR 8-l AR~T • I • - ( • • • • -10- No ,. ••• SETBACK shall be required; provided. however. that where PROPERTY IN THE 'a B-1 Business District abuts upon any PROPEilTY IN any "R" Residential District situated in the sa.e block. the residential FRONT yard requirement& ei ~he ~~ Reeiaea~ial 8ie~••e~ shall apply to that p••~teft ei PROPERTY IN the R-1 Business District. vi~ktft ewek &leek eKaep~ .. .. •"-7aN& eft eene• le .. T f~ Sera~ lee•~ 9ft eeraer leee eke ee~eeek ire• the freat of ~he kwilaiag shall eeaply vi~k ~ke se~~eek re~ttireMeR~& df ~he ~~ree~ wrea wkiek ~lte freai: Hf ~lte kttiltliR!. feee1:1..-~he side ef ~lte ett•laifta ehall ee ee~ eaak ~· ae' lees '"aa sae-heli {lla~ ei '"e f••"* ee,eaek re~ttirea ier ewtleiags eft le'e frea,iag wpea ~he et8e •~••••T .-aep~ ~h•• where •here ere ae la•e iraa•iRI wpaa .na4 ••• .. •T •he etae yare r~wireaea'e eRly shall applyT Where aa epeaiftl wpea a eiaa •• peepe••Y liRe .ay &e praviaaa ie• pea••••'•" --T a tiaHNa aa•aau ai •k••• {3~ i••• shall ae prav-iaall. (3) MINIMUM FLOOR AREA TOTAL DISTRICT. (a) RESIDENTIAL USE EFFICIENCY OR STUDIO •••••••••••••••• SOO SQUARE FEET ONE BEDROOM ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 650 SQUARE FEET TWO BEDROOM ••••• , ••••••••• , ••••••••• 750 SQUARE FEET EACH ADDITIONAL BEDROOM ••••••••••.•• 110 SQUARE FEET (b) ALL OTHER PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES ••••••••••••• NONE {4~ MAXIMUM 8UlL8lNG RUbK T ~-~ '9ViH 819A8WAV lM,iWilVi AI&ATTTTTTMAXIMUM Wl81A ~§ Pili ~-~ llUi 9P 8-l 8l'Ul~ ~H MAXIMUM Wl&iH l§Q PiG ti~ MAXiMYM loiNGiH 9P 8Ullo8lNGnTTTMQ; M9Ri iliAII iHUi UMK' Hi W I~M 9P iMi 8Ullo»>~• • I • - (5) I• ( • • • • • -11- Mint.wa off-street parkin& ea4 *ee4~aa i9~Ab 8i&iai~. DEVELOPERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO PROVIDE PARKING IN MULTI-LEVEL STRUCTURES IN ORDER TO CONSERVE LAND. IF IT IS NOT FEASIBLE TO DO SO, SURFACE PARKING AREAS SHOULD BE SCllEENED FROM THE VIEW OF PEDESTRIAN WAYS BY MEANS OF DECORATIVE WALLS OR FENCES, LANDSCAPED BERMS, OR MATURE SHRUBBERY. PARKING SHALL BE LOCATED NO MORE THAN 400 FEET FROM THE USE IT SERVES. IF THE DEVELOPER SUBMITS A MARKETING OR PARKING STUDY PRE- PARED BY A QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL, AND IT IS APPROVED BY THE COHHUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AND THE CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER, THE FO~ING MINIMUM STANDARDS MAY BE WAIVED. IF THE DE- VELOPER DOES NOT SUBMIT A MARKETING OR PARKING STUDY TO TilE CITY, THE FOLL~ING PARXING REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE APPLIED: (a) RESIDENTIAL UNITS : (1) EFFICIENCY AND ONE BEDROOM ONE (1) SPACE/DWELLING UNIT. (2) TWO AND THREE BEDIO<ItS •••••••• ONE AND OHE-HALP (1-1/2) SPACES/DWELLING UNIT. (3) MORE THAN THREE BEDROOMS •••••• TWO (2) SPACES/DWEU.ING UNIT. (b) RETAIL SPACE •••••••••••••••••••••• ONE (1) SPACE Pll 300 SQUARE FElT OF RETAIL OR SERVICE Alllw\ • • I • • - • • • • • -12- (c) OFFICE SPACE ..••.•.•••.••••••••.•. THREE (3) PARKING SPACES PER 1,000 SQ. FT. OF NET RENTABLE AREA. (d) OTHER USES •••••.•...•.•.•.•••.•••• TO BE DETERMINED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DI- RECTOR AND THE CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER. (6) LOADING TOTAL AREA. ACCESS FOR LOADING SHOULD BE PROVIDED OFF OF THE ALLEY; OR, IF THE PROPERTY HAS NO ACCESS TO AN ALLEY, FROM THE STREET. H~ l:.ldlaiGAPiNG. IJdiB&G.\PiNG Ai MAY iii R~IIUK" ill ~Hi I.AN»iGIJliNG 96iNANGK. (7) ~~~ UTILITIES. UTILITY SERVICE TO BUILDINGS IN NEW DEVELOPMENT MUST BE UNDERGROUND. (8) ~9~ LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS INSTALLATIONS SHALL BE PERMITTED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPLYING FUEL FOR APPROVED HEATING EQUIP- MENT. TANKS IN EXCESS OF 500 GALLONS (WATER CAPACITY) WILL NOT NOT BE PERMITTED IN THIS ZONE DISTRICT. LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS INSTALLATIONS SHALL CONFORM TO CURRENT FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS. hT Geftet•ieaal ~T P .. vieee ~he ~~lie ift•e•ee~ is ~lly , ........ efta ~he iellevtft8 ~see ere a~prevea by ~he GeMMteeteft ~22T§-2l ei &he GeM- preheneive iefttft8 Qratftaftee~~ lT Ae~l~ &fteereaift.efte aftel•• Se.viee ¥aeili~YT ~·~ No ... l• ea•e• .. ift8ea• •• •••viee iaeilt•J ehell ~· ~ ..... eft eaJ ei•e ¥ftleee e¥eh ei•e ie a•• lees •heft •he 4ie•eftee lia*•••*•ft •• •e~¥ire4 ~Y &hie eee•teft~ ~l~ l;9QQ iee£ •••• &he leeeeteft •• eftaehe• 8¥8h ea¥1• .. ~.5~-~~ 85 ••••••• , ... l.•Jt ... • I • • • • • -13- ~4~ ~00 tea• £5oa ~ ~••Y ~tfte ef &fly •eeieeH~ie~ 4~•••'•• -..~ +n *he Seap•eheMive ieftift8 9reifleftee; 0~4iaa-a ~ .aiT ie.tee ef i96-3T ee etleftOHT i1\e~~eifl1!1 h~ ft8t! ~...... .. ~~ a-i-~, R-i-€; Q-i; ~-~-6; ~ ..-&-4 -·-'•U-fte.-Miei ·•fte tli_..iet! '"8ft ••aa elite~ *he stt!y e4! Bftsi-eeeT " -'1 ~,,,._ tMt!H~iettr· ,.WH ,eft.r INMte -ite-~T -~·)' e-"~ " eti~~eMieftei iftet!it!~ieftT 'llhet!~ vit!Mft o~ lA~ .aw ~, ei &fts~--IIT ~-~ Mee~•elleftt! ei eiet!efteeeT AS~ etet!eneee ,.evieetl he•etft aa.u 1ta ....... ~~ ee "~-*-•+ ~ wua ceapee• .. .-... 46..-ee ee.wee" • •••d• ~ .,... -e4tit! -·H .. ttllleftt! H .-.viae feriiit!y u ( ,..,.. .. -· e ieeefl-wfteft -ft e feftit«y eMH8T • t!fte etet!eftee ehe~i ee llee8tlft0 e,. ~iewtft8 .... eish~ iHe 4HII *he _... pftM ei *he ptrepefty tiM e{ •he ptr.,..ee Meeaeee ptrellieee 4!8 *he •--• pet:M ei .-fte JK'8pH4!1 tiM ef *he ettiet!tftS *-• tweeeeh ~~~ Wit!h fl!ttpeet! te t!fte tliet!e~tee &-*he eetlftde•y Htte ef e weeitle~tt!iei eieewiee H 8ft)' ft~isi..a iftet!it!~t!ieftT ,WiH pe•itT ,Wite ttlt•eW)'T -ftM'1 eeMUT H aaveet!eftei ifl&tit!~teft; the diet!~ eheii Oe ~··tt•ed lty ~ievins e et!•eish• iifte f•e~ t!he nee•ee• peiftt! ef the pW8fleWt!y ttfte e{ t!he I'Wepeeea. Heefteeil twelri:eell .. .tle fte._.. tte*tt• ef the tliet!Wtet! ee.st'~i~Hy ~._.. " ~a •ae ~• ~ a -.••s!ette !ftet!tt~tienT ~ie pe•k; • I • • - . . ( • • • • -14- p~~··~ ~b&a&¥7 ~~~ Q~R~w£T 9£ ~tit~ee~ierte± irt- "'•vttetly -the eiMe..ee ekaii lte IIII!Utsl'ee lty ~eiiewirt~ e .. .-ei!M Utte ~ -the ttettl'eai! pe'i:fti! ri tile !"1'9t'eilei! i•eetteee ,_...._.. +a tile ftelll'ee-t pet"* ei tile pl'epel'~Y *"• " • ••"•'-• .._.. .. _.ettr ,..t.t•• ,.." ,..eue ~~ --~ _.."" .. tHhtett-t'-i ••-t<i:-tvt<i:etl .. ~~+ Wh-• -the ,.-.,..n ieeerieft ei et1 ell..-ie etttel'Htfta~et~-t " -••e feeiiuy ill • we•"* ,..-eei ri iefte tspetl vhUh M ,...... ftM --H-H fel' -the -•.-.e-tbft ef e wiilii ..... tii _._.efteee ekeH lte -etll't!a Hlttft eile tteefttle pe"'* ef -the ,.-epH-ty Ufte ei -efte iefte pl'epeeee ee e leeMiet1 Ml' 11ft Mti~ eftle.--teiftiiii!M - ~a '-'~· Wheee eft& pl'epeee4 -. .... " ei et1 aat~ie etli!el'-tlltftiiii!M 8l' et!~'i:ee iee,ii-ty <i:e e weeftl paeeti ef ieftli _,n whuh e pe..-e Me Milt\ 6:eettee i- •IHI _..,_. .... " • ,..,__. wt:ili*"• ffl -• tteey ~ tl.iiMaaaae ••U M -lltPH Hea ~ _ _. pMM N .ate ,..,..,.,. Utte .. eheWft et1 tile _.,.,. ei e.eh ,._" .. iefllh ~A• -4&4 t1y &H6:ttettee ~4-y iefl:ee ei ~ •" "'-•-•• ee•eeUeha.Me 6:Mill4itla-f W-t •• Ullli•ell +a-t *'**"•" Heiie., llewi6:ft& ldieye., GMft-e,te-i!eli Ge8eftT Beftee ilaiH., Ren'l•6:e -¥ill-~T Ntflk• Gi.HT ~Netieel' &e.- .... t:ei Re•••••6:eftei ieeiii.._e., Peei Heii.., .. &ke-tiftl BS~ .. ~Ae -••4 1ty 9'1litftttftee #•iy ieriee ef HI» I • • ( • • • . . • COUNCIL C 0 M M U N I C A T I 0 N DATE February 15, 1984 AGENDA ITEM CAD SUBJECT Fund Transfer to Urban Renewal Authority for Public Improvement and Design r.nnf'r .. rf'Q INITIATED BY Urban Renewal Antbor1 ty ACTION PROPOSED Transfer of $409,470 from the City Public Improvement Fund to the Urban Renewal Authority for preliminary design of Little Dry Creek Downtown· prelimina y and final desi2Il nf CiviC' c .. n .... r RnulPvard• """ rPf',.inina ,,.,, rnnaf'rnrf'in· It-y sewer relocation adjacent to the new Safeway Site. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: City Council adopted the Englewood Downtown Redevelopment Plan (Urban Renewal Plan) on August 23, 1982, and amended that Plan on December 21, 1982. It has been the ex- pressed desire of City Council for the Urban Renewal Authority to be the lead agency in the implementation of that Plan and for the Urban Rertewal Authority to undertake supplementary activities that further the goals of the Plan. Since bonds have not as yet been issued for the projects outlined in the Plan, Council has provided an annual budget to the Authority for operating expenses and transferred funds from the Public Improvement Fund to the Authority to acquire property, relocate structures, and pay for other project-specific expenses. The Urban Renewal Authority has negotiated two contracts with engineering firms to design public improvements within the Redevelopment Area. The contract for prelimin- ary design of the downtown portion of Little Dry Creek will be with McLaughlin Water Engineers and amounts to $117,400, The contract for preliminary and final design of Civic Center Boulevard is wi~h Muller Engineering Company and amounts to $198,070. An additional $4,000 has been included for reimbursable expenses such as the printing o f construction specifications, design documents, etc. A request for a transfer of $90,000 from the P.I.F. to the Urban Renewal Authority is also included in this communication. These funds will be utilized to construct retaining walls and relocate the sanitary sewer along the Little Dry Creek floodway and adjacent to the new Safeway Store site. By constructing this segment of the Little Dry Creek flood control improvements in conjunction with the construction of the new Safeway Store considerable cost savings can be realized by the Urban Re- newal Authority by avoiding a duplication of excavation and related expenses. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the transfer of $409,470 from the City Public Improvement Fund to the Urban Renewal Authority for the purposes described above be approved l__py City Counci.4-l------------------------------------------------------------~ • , I • • - • ( • RESOLUTION NO. _3 _ Series of 1984 • • • CITY OF ENGL~OOD, COLORADO URIIAN RENI~WAJ. AUTIIOHT'I'Y " A RESOLUTION OF THE URBAN RENI'lo/AL AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY AT 3550-54 SOUTH RHOAOWAY, ENr.t.I':WDpll, COJ.ORAOO ANO '1'0 AII'I'HOHTZJ •: TilE J•:XJ~CII 'I'TVE DIRECTOR OF THE AU 'i'HORl'i'Y 1'0 EXI!:CU'l'E THE INSTRUMENT OF SALE. WHEREAS, City Council has indicated that the Urban Renewal Authority should have the primary responsibility for implementation of the Downtown Redevelopment Plan (Urban Renewal Plan}; and WHEREAS, land acquisition has been recognh:ed us an approJ>rl:~t<• activity for the Urban Renewal Authority in the implementation of the l'lan; and WHEREAS, the acquisition of the property located at 3550-54 Sou th Broadway, Englewood, Colorado, has been identified in the Downtown Rede- velopment Plan as necessary for flood · control purposes; WHEREAS, the owner of said property and representatives of the Authori ty have negotiated a selling price deemed reasonable and equitable to both parties; Wllf.REAS, the Authority .desires for its Executive l)lrt·<·Lor tu Ill• its representative and agent at property acquisition proceedings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Englewood Urban Renewal Authority as follows: ATTEST: Secretary Section 1. The l!:nglewood Urban Renewal Authority offers to purchase the property at 3550-54 South Broadway from the owner of record for a selling price of $164,000. Section 2. The Englewood Urban Renewal Authority authorizes its Executive Director to execute the instru.ent of sale for the aforementioned property on its behalf. ADOPTED AND APPROVED THIS __ Bt_h __ DAY OF February • • 1984. I • • ( • • • • RESO LUTION NO . _7 ___ _ Series of 1984 A RESOLU TION AMENDING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT FUND. WHEREAS, the City Council of Englewood, Colorado, adopted the Englewood Downtown Redevelopment Plan on August 23, 1982; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Englewood determined that the implementation of said Plan should be accomplished by the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority; and WHEREAS, certain design and construction activities are necessary at this time to further the progress of the Plan; and WHEREAS, the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority has requested through Resolution a transfer of funds to accomplish these activities consistent with the Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado, that: ATTEST: Section 1. The following appropriation of funds is hereby made in the Public Improvement Fund: Application of Funds Little Dry Creek Englewood Urban Renewal Authority ($409,470) $409,4 70 1) Muller Engineering -Boulevard Pre- liminary and Final Design -$198,070. Reimbursable expenses - $ ~-1,ooo 2) McLaughlin Water Bngineers -Little Dry Creek Preliminary Design (Downtown) -$117,400. 3) Retaining walls and sanitary sewer relocation adjacent to the new Safeway Store - $ 90,000 Section 2. The City Manager and Director of Finance are hereby authorized to make the above changes to the 1984 budget of the City of Englewood. ADOPTED AND APPROVED THIS __ day of-------' 1984. Eugene L. Otis, Mayor Ex-officio City Clerk-Treasurer 0 I • • - • • • • • • • • C 0 U N C I L C 0 M M U N I C A T I 0 N DATE February 14 1984 INITIATED BY AGENDA ITEM (aE SUBJECT Amendment of Englewood Down- town Redevelopment Plan Englewood Urbap Renewal Authority ACTION PROPOSED Amend the Downtown Bedeyelopment plap to reflect a recognition gf current market conditions and ipclude additional properties which need to he INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND. The Englewood Downtown Redevelopment Plan (Urban Renewal Plan) was adopted by City Council on August 23, 1982, and amended on December 22, 1982. This Plan was com- prised of public and private development elements which reflected market conditions at that time. Recent economic analyses have indicated the necessity of amending the Plan's redevelopment scenario to take advantage of current market opportunities. Also, additional properties have been identified which the Authority will have to acquire to implement the Plan. Since this is a substantial amendment, it will be necessary for a review of the Plan to be conducted by the Planning and Zoning Commission to determine if the Plan is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the Plan should be referred to the Planning Commission prior to City Council holding a public hearing on the amendments. RECOMMENDATION: The following is recommended to City Council: 1. Refer the amended Downtown Redevelopment Plan to the Planning and Zoning Com- mission for review of Comprehensive Plan conformance; 2. Receive the Planning Commission comm ents, and conduct a public hearing in accordance with the Colorado Urban Renewal Statutes CRS 1973 (as amended) 31-25-107{3); and 3. Amend the Englewood Downtown Redevelopment Plan in accordance with the attached Addendum 1/4. I • 2 3 9 10 14 16 16a 17 18 19 20 • 20 -21 • 21 • • • • Urban Renewal Plan Amendments Amendment nclctc the laRt half of the 1 :lRt Rl'nt e ncc• In l"ht• r i r ,; ,. paragraph, "and is the basis parties." Delete the third sentence of the third paragraph, "This would not be ••• Plan." Delete objectives 8, 9 and 15 Delete objective 20 First sentence, third paragraph: Delete "past six months"; replace with "recent past." Fl rst paragraph: Change project cost cstllltutcs to $100 million for entire project, $15 million for public im- provements, and $85 million for private improvetuents. Second paragraph: Delete the third and fourth sentences "These figures •• ;Redevelopment Area" and the last sentence "For instance ••• project." Replace map with new map. Change "SUIIIDI8ry of Public Improvement Projects" to the following: 1) Little Dry Creek Flood Control 2) Civic Center Boulevard 3) Broadway Corridor Improvements 4) Utilities Improvement and Relocation Total $12,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 300,000 $ 1,000,000 $15 ,JOO,OOO Third paragraph: Delete the third word "guidelines". In- sert "the construction of lakes" after "improvements include" in the second sentence. Replace the last number on the page "$14,000,000" with "$12,000,000." Delete all of the "2. Pedestrian Mall" description. Re- place with new description of the Civic Center Boulevard. Change the cost of llroadwny Corridor_Tmprovc•tncnts from "$865,000" to "$300,000," Delete all of the "4, Skerritt Park Redevelopment" description, Renumber "Utility Improvements and Relocation" to 14. Change the eati .. ted cost to $1,000,000, • I • • - 21 (Co nt.) 22 23 24 25 -29 30 -35a 36 -37 39b 41 42 4J 45 48 48 • 49 • • • • -7- tlnrll'r U_t _l _l_i!.J. _T-"'f.!"."Y."!'~l '!l_l:!!_, fourth ""nl·<·n<.,•, ,·Jt:on J•.•· ll11 • last word "mallt~' to waterway and bouJ t!Vanl. llel.ctc the remainder of the page, from "The following is a hn•a kdown ••• " to "out of the project." Delete the whole page. Delete the whole page. Del e te the whol e rar.C!. Delete the whole section on .~.£i _vat_e _ _l'_r.!.'j _t:<,_t;~ and lnsl'rt the new description and two maps of the proposed projects. Delete the whole section on Site Planning. Delete the section on T_r _a_n_R.[>O_rt_a _t _ion _l'l _an_nl _n.ll. <•xn•pl 1·1"' last para~ruph on l'a~c J7, and replace with the ll<.'W de- scription of the proposed transportation system. Hake add it ions to the "Property to be Acquired" list. First paragraph, second sentence: Delete "prepared and presented to the" and replace with "used by". Also delete "for their use" in that sentence. Fourth sentence: Delete "downtown zone district" and replace with "zoning ." Delete the last sentence in the first paragraph: "The development ••• time to time." Delete the second and third paragraphs on the page. Delete the whole page. Chan ge "E" ~o "0" .. Change "F" to "E". Delete the section and replace with the new section. Delete the last three sentences of the second paragraph, "In consideration ••• constructed in two phases:" and replace with three new sentenceo;. Thi rd paragraph, first sentence: delete "estiiiUlted to be $10,000,000." Delete the third sentence, "The design phase .•• by January, 1983." Fourth paragraph, first sentence: delete "are to be con- structed" and "and new construction". Change "compl_!ment" to "compl!_ment" • Delete the first paragraph and replace with a new sentence "These illproveaents ••• " • I • • 49 50 51 51 -52 53 -60 • • • • -1- Second paragraph, las t s entenc e in pa n •ntl.,·,; I ": l!c ·p 1 ;u ·<· "Table 1 " with ~'Schedule H" and insect "I'CUI'crty" a f t er ·"suuunary of ." Add the following to the end of the first paragra ph: "(Refer to Schedule C for a su111111ary of sales tax incre- ment projections)". Third paragraph, second sentence: Delete "as demonstrated 1.n Tahle TTl." Delete this entire paragraph, from "Tah)P. JTI of this section" ••• to " ••• Downtown Development Authority." Replace with a new paragraph referring to Schedule D. Delete all the Tables on these pages and replace with Schedules A -D. • I • • - ADD I TIONAL PROP ERTIES TO BE ACQUIRED Address 3401 South Bannock Street 3415 South Acoma Street 3427 South Acoma Street 3447-93 South Acoma STreet 3448-90 South Acoma Street • • • • • • • P. P. I. NUMBER 1971-34-3-19-022 1971-34-3-19-028 1971-34-3-18-016 1971-34-3-18-017 1971-34-3-18-018 1971-34-3-18-019 1971-34-3-18-020 1971-34-3-18-021 1971-34-3-18-022 1971-34-3-18-023 1971-34-3-17-022 I • • • • • • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Prepared and Approved by: Englewood Urban Renewal Authority. Robert G. Powell, Chairman R. P. McClung, Vice Chairman Ruth Cole Larry Dickinson Thomas R. Fitzpatrick Kelvin Kinnick Robert J. Voth Lawrence M. Novicky, Alternate Kember Susan Powers, Executive Director Wm. Richard Hinson, Economic Development Planner Jeri Linder, Planning Technician Gertrude G. Welty, Recordin~ Secretary Rick DeWitt, City Attorney Paul Benedetti, Special Counsel to Redevelopment Project Bill Lamm, Bond Counsel, Lamm, Edstrom, Braymer & Wisor Steve Bell, Financial Advisor, Hanifen-Imhoff Approved by: Englewood City Council. Eugene L . Otis, Mayor Beverly J. Bradshaw, Mayor ProTem Joseph V. Bilo, Jr. Thomas R. Fitzpatrick John D. Neal James L. Higday, Jr. Robert B. Weist Andy McCown, City Manager Pete Vargas, Assistant City Manager August 23, 1982 A3 o\menc!ed: Decel!lber 21, 1982 I • • - • • • - ' RESOI:.UTIOO NO. 3q SERIES OF 1982 • • • A RESOLI1l'ION APPROVll'o(; 'niE ENGLEW:lOO ~ REDEVELOPMENT PLAN PREPARED PURSUANT TO PART 1, ARTICLE 25, TITLE 31, COLORADO REVISED S'l'A'l'U'l'ES, 19'13, AS AMENDED, AND AUTHORIZING IMPLEMENTATIOO PRESCRIBED 'niEREIN. WHEREAS, through Resolution No. 16, Series of 1982, the City Council directed the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority to prepare an Urban H(mewal Plan consistent with the adopted Downtown Plan; and WHEREAS, the Urban Renewal Authority prepared the Downtown Redevelopment Plan (Urban Renewal Plan); and WHEREAS, the Englewood PlaMing and Zoning Convnission reviewed the Plan and found it consistent with the goals of the Englewood Comprehensive Plan and passed Resolution 1, Series of 1982, on July 20, 1982; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received comments from individuals businesses and governmental entities and taken these comments into consideration in fornulating the Plan; and WHEREAS, an independent market analysis by a reputable firm (Browne, Bortz & Coddington) indicated a strong market exists which may be captured if a comprehensive approach is undertaken; and WHEREAS, a financially attractive method exists to fund redcve l o~a~nt utilizing •rax Increment and other financing; and hllEREAS, an indeperident financial analysis by a reputable firm (Hanifen, Imhoff, Inc.) shows adequate tax increments and other revenue sources to cover debt service needs and substantial monetary benefit to taxing entities; NON, '11iER£FORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY 'niE C!'!Y COUNCIL OF 'lli~ CI'l'Y Oc' EOOI.ao.OOD, COLORADO, 'lliAT: Section l. Notice as required by CRS 1973 (as amended) 31-25-107(3) has been properly given on the 28th day of July, the 4th and 11th of August, 1982 in the Englewood Sentinel having a general circulation in the City of Englewood, which notice described the time, date, place and purpose of the hearing on the Plan and generally identified the Urban Renewal area covered by the Plan and outlined the general scope of the Urban Renewal project under considerati on. Section 2. On the 23rd day of August, 1982 at the hour of 7:30 P.M. in City Council Chambers in City Hall at 3400 s. Elati Street, Englewood, Colorado 80110, City Counc i l held a public hearing as required by CRS 1973 (as amended) 31-25-107 (3), on the Urban Renewal Plan/Downtown Redevelopment I • • • - • • • • .. - Plan. Presented at this meeting was an Urban Renewal Plan titled Englewood Downtown Redevelopment Plan, consisting of 60 pages plus maps and appendix, marked Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. Section 3. The City Council of the City of Englewood finds that the Urban Renewal Plan, known as the Downtown Redevelopment Plan, meets the following criteria of State statute: (a) A feasible method exists for the relocation of businesses, individuals and families Who will be displaced by the Urban Renewal project in decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling accommodations or facilities within their means and without undue hardship to such businesses, individuals or families; (b) The Urban Renewal Plan conforms to the general plan of the municipality as a whole; and (c) The Urban Renewal Plan will afford maxLmum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the municipality as a whole, for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the Urban Renewal area by private enterprise. Section 4. A feasible method exists for the financing of said Urban Renewal proJect utilizing the tax allocation financing plan described in Section 31-25-107(9)(d), CRS 1973 (1977 replacement Volume 12), as amended by Senate Bill 142 which became effective on July 1, 1981. Section 5. In accordance with the requirements of Section 31-25-107 (9) (d), CRS 1973 (1977 replacement Volume 12), (as amended), School District No. 1, Arapahoe County, Colorado, has been permitted to participate in an advisory capacity concerning project financing described in the Urban Renew~) Plun. Section 6. Based on the record before the Council, including, but not limited to, the Redevelopment Area Justification which was compiled by the Department of Community Development for the City of Englewood, dated on or about April, 1982. It is hereby found and determined that the Urban Renewal area described in the Urban Renewal Plan described in Section 2 hereof consists of a blighted area which is appropriate for an urban renewal project pursuant to the Urban Renewal Law of the State of Colorado. Section 7. The contemplated acquisition requires governmental action because of blighted conditions in the area; Section a. 'nle Downtown Redevelopnent Plan, as attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth, is hereby approved, and the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority is hereby authori~ed to take any and all appropriate action as provided by said Plan • 2 I • • - • • • • • • • • • AOOPTEO AND APPROVED this 23rd day of August, 1982. Attest: I, Gary R. Higbee, ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the ~ve and foregoing is a true, correc~ and ccmplete copy of Resolution No.~, Series of 1982, passed on the,.; Qddliy of August, 1982 • 3 • I . • - • • • • • • RESOLUTION NO. Series of 1982 2 • • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY A RESOLUTION OF THE URBAN RENEWAL AUTHOI.ITY ADOPTING THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN OF HAY, 1982. WHEI.EAS, the ED&lewood U~ban l.eDeval Autho~ity vas di~ected by the Englewood City Council to p~epa~e an Urban Renewal Plan to imple- ment the adopted Downtown Plan; and WHEREAS, the develo~t of the Dovntovo Plan involved extensive public .. etin&a and incorporated public ca..ents; and WHEREAS, it is necessa~ to for.ally adopt a plan and present the plan to both the City Planning and Zonin& Co.aiaaion fo~ co..ants and to the City Council for foraal ratification. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLV.LU> by the City of En&lewood Urban Renewal Authority aa follows: Section 1. The Englewood Urban baeval Autho~ity Rc,_nda adoptioa of the Urban Renewal Plan of Hay, 1982. ADOPTED AND APPI.OVED THIS __;1::.:9;..::t;;;;.h __ clay of __ Ma;;.;;;;;.<y __ , 1982 • ATTEST: Secretary • I • • - • I. II. III. IV. v. • VI. Appendix • • • • • • • ENGLEWOOD DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Planning Process ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•• 1 Description of Redevelopment Area •••••••••••••••••••••.•••••.••..• 4 Urban Renewal and Redevelopment Area Justification ••••••••••.••.•. S Objectives and Policies of the Plan ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•• 8 Development Plan ••••••••••••.•••••••••.•••••••••••••••.•••••••••• 11 A. Existing Land Use •••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••.••• 11 1. Building Condition ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 12 2. Land Ownership .•••••••••••••••••.•••••.•.•••.•••••••••••. 13 3. Existing Utilities •••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•• 14 4. Environmental Analysis •••••••.•••••.••••••••••••••••••••• 15 B. Public Improvement Projects •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•• l6 1. Little Dry Creek Flood Control ••••••••••••••••••••••••.•• l7 2. Civic Center Boulevard •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.• 19 3. Broadway Corridor Improvements ••••••••••••••••••.•••••••. l9 4. Utility Improvements and Relocation •.•••••••••••••••••••• 20 C. Private Projects •••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••• 21 D. Transportation Planning ••••.••••••••.•.•••••••.•.•••.•••••••• 26 Implementation ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••.•••••.. 29 A. Land Acquisition ••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••.•••••.••. 29 B. Land Disposition ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••.•• 33 C. Development Guidelines ••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••. 34 D. Agreements between Developer, Urban Renewal Authority and City ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 35 E. Co11111ercial Rehabilitation •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 37 F. Public/Private Management Entity •••••••••••••••••••.••••••••• 38 G. Financing •••••••.••••••••••••••..•••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 39 • I • • • • • • ......__,. /-·--'--1 \_,.-r /(~ ~(_/ Introduction I - • • • • • • • • -1- I. INTRODUCTION AND PLANNING PROCESS. The City of Englewood is an older suburb located 10 miles south of downtown Denver (Hap 1). It was incorporated in 1903, and has de- veloped as one of the few full-service cities in the metropolitan region. While Englewood developed as many other suburban communities, in the late 1960's the selection of Englewood as the site for Cinderella City Shopping Center dramatically changed the community. A large park suddenly gave rise to the largest shopping center in the world, and Englewood became a major retail center of the Denver metropolitan region. The Center also became the focus for retail trade within Englewood, thus reducing the strength and vitality of the downtown Broadway shopping area. During the 1970's, Cinderella City maintained its ability to serve as a regional shopping mall despite the opening of several other malls within the trade area. The downtown section of Englewood never did recover from the opening of Cinderella City. The City of Englewood has remained concerned about the future vitality of its downtown for many years. Various reports have been prepared for the City and the Englewood Downtown Development Authority that indicate that there is a potential for economic growth in the down- town. These reports have also indicated that the Broadway corridor within the downtown is in serious need of revitalization. The development of other shopping centers in the Denver Metropolitan Areawill place an even greater strain on the Cinderella City Shopping Center, located in downtown Englewood. In 1977, the voters in down- town Englewood approved the creation of the Englewood Downtown Develop- ment Authority, and authorized a five (5) mill levy on their property to assist the Authority in developing plans to address the apparent I • • • • • -la- • , . I ::;:. -~ '· 1<_,:•.··~~} I . / . ·~ ;v..,. 9/ . , .. {}-. r. ·"i x MAP 1 DENVER METROPOLITAN AREA • I • • • • • (t • • • • • • -2- redevelopment needs. The establishment of this Authority launched the drive to redevelop downtown Englewood. An additional incentive was provided by a private developer, Brady Enterprises, who was in- terested in developing certain vacant parcels in the downtown area. The developer felt that the most appropriate way to guarantee the success of a project was to jointly plan it with the public sector from the beginning. This resulted in a three-party agreement to pre- pare a development guide for downtown Englewood. The parties were the City of Englewood, the Englewood Downtown Development Authority, and Brady Enterprises. A plan for redevelopment was prepared in 1981, with the involvement of the local business community as well as the parties to the agreement. The planning process to develop this plan- development guide during 1981 is detailed in the adopted Englewood Downtown Development Plan. The City of Englewood formed an Urban Renewal Authority in 1973, but the Authority was not active during the 1970's. At the request of the Mayor of Englewood, with the concurrence of the Englewood Downtown De- velopment Authority, the Urban Renewal Authority was reactivated in the Fall of 1981 to consider their role as the financing vehicle for the public improvements in the Plan. In adopting this Englewood Urban Re- newal Plan, the Urban Renewal Authority has agreed to assume this crit- ical role. The other entities (City, Englewood Downtown Development Au- thority, etc.) will have other roles and responsibilities in this over- all redevelopment effort, which are explained elsewhere in this report. The Urban Renewal Authority, in carrying out this Plan, agrees to con- sult with the Englewood Downtown Development Authority, but the responsi- bility for adoption and amendment of the Plan remains with the City Council. • I • • • • • • • • • -3- The preparation and adoption of this report by the various Boards and Commissions indicates the general agreement for the direction to be taken in the downtown. While there are specific elements of public commitment and private commitment, it is understood that the success of this effort lies with the partnership approach which has been evident from the in- ception of this project. The approach taken in this Urban Renewal effort is not the traditional Urban Renewal method. It is not the intent of the City of Englewood or the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority to acquire all of the properties within the Urban Renewal Area. As will be discussed in further detail under the implementation section of this Plan, it will be necessary for the City or Urban Renewal Authority with the cooperation of the EDDA to acquire certain properties for the Little Dry Creek flood control improve- ments. This Plan has been prepared to comply with the provisions of the Urban Renewal Law of the State of Colorado, Part I of Article 25, of Title 31, CRS 1973 (1977 Replacement Volume 12), as amended. • I • • • • • • I • Description of Redevelopment Area - ( . •• • • • • -4- II. DESCRIPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT AREA. The majority of the Redevelopment Area is commonly known as downtown Englewood. bounded on the west by South Santa Fe Drive. on the north by West Floyd and Eastman Avenues. on the east by the South Broadway- South Lincoln alley. and on the south by u.s. 285. In addition to this area is the entire right-of-way of Little Dry Creek east to South Clarkson Street and adjacent land. This area is bounded by the u.s. 285 right-of-way on the north. East Lehigh Avenue on the south. South Clarkson Street on the east. and South Sherman Street on the west. In addition. the area north of U. S. 285 along the Little Dry Creek right-of-way is included. The boundaries of the Urban Renewal and Redevelopment Area are delineated on Maps 2 and 3. I • • ~l o • - • • -4a- • MAP 2 DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT AREA ( • I . • ' • • - • • -4b - ... z ZZL. I ... :1 l~: f !2 I ...J ! ; I I ii I I I ~I ,_, ( I . . c • • • - Redevelopment Area Justification I • ( (_ ( • • • • -5- III. URBAN RENEWAL AND REDEVELOPMENT AREA JUSTIFICATION. The designation of the Urban Renewal and Redevelopment Area in down- town Englewood is based on several factors. The presence of the Little Dry Creek flood plain throughout the downtown and the under-utilization of property are the two primary incentives for improvement and redevelopment. The Little Dry Creek channel runs directly through the area and its flood plain comprises over half of the designated area. The flooding potential of Little Dry Creek discourages future development. In addition, the presence of deteriorating structures and vacant build- ings contribute to a negative impression of the downtown area. Due to blighting conditions, no significant development has occurred in recent years. This has created a serious economic liability for Englewood. The Englewood Central Business District-Cinderella City retail/com- mercial area is currently rated the second major retail activity center in the Denver HetropolitanArea, and it is the major tax generating source in Englewood. However, major retail/commercial developments are planned in the surrounding communities, such as the Southwest Plaza Mall, Centennial Race Track redevelopment, and the Littleton Riverfront Redevelopment project. These developments pose a serious competitive threat to the Englewood business district, and if the City is to retain its competitive edge, redevelopment is necessary. The business district east of Cinderella City is not as strong an economic center as Cinderella City. While there are several very successful businesses located within the area, there are many busi- • I • • ( • • • • -6- nesses which are marginal and do not contribute to the economic stability or vitality of the downtown. At the current time, there are 18 vacant stores in the downtown portion of the Redevelopment Area. Another indication of the distress of this area is reflected in the sales tax receipts. This section of the Broadway commercial strip is the only area which has experienced a decrease in sales tax revenues over the past few years. The under-utilization of property is another indication of the need for redevelopment in this area. The designated Urban Renewal and Re- development Area is 176 total. acres in size, of which forty (40) acres (or 23%) are public rights-of-way, and seven (7) acres (or 4%) is developable land in the downtown area. The 100-year flood plain of Little Dry Creek encompasses over half of the Redevelopment Area. In accordance with the Englewood Flood Plain Ordinance and Federal Regulations, flood control improvements must be made before certain types of development can occur in the downtown area. Without improvements to Little Dry Creek, the opportunities for development continue to be severely constrained. Another factor which indicates the need for redevelopment is the con- dition of existing buildings. In a recent survey of existing buildings within the downtown, it was established that 24% of the buildings are in poor condition relative to conformance with City Building and Fire Code standards. This represents 28 of the 118 existing buildings. Of the remainder, 33% (39 buildings) are in marginal condition and 43% (51 buildings) are in good condition. In many cases, poor build- • I • • - ( • ( • • • • -7- ings share common walls with good buildings, thereby jeopardizing a greater number of buildings than the figures may indicate. The blighted conditions within the district as described above, have seriously impaired growth of the downtown as evidenced by the lack of develo~nt when compared with the strong market demand which currently exists. Englewood is currently "built out" with no annex- able land available, necessitating redevelopaent to sustain growth in housing, services, employment and public facilities. The absence of development and growth in the downtown district, in- flating costs of public services and decreasing tax revenues is creating a serious economic liability for the community. The re- newal effort is necessary to reverse this trend • I • - I Objectives and Policies - • • c • • • • -8- IV. OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE PLAN. In November, 1981, the Englewood City Council, Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Englewood Downtown Development Authority adopted a series of policies which were the basis of the Downtown Plan. These policies are also a basis of this Urban Renewal and Redevelop- ment Plan, and are listed below. 1. A concentration of high activity uses should be encouraged in the downtown to provide a focal point for the City. Downtown should be a location for work, shopping, living and playing with aesthetically pleasing areas for rest and relaxation. 2. To provide housing for workers and encourage home ownership, residential condominiums should be provided within the Down- town District. ). To preserve and protect the existing single-family residential nature of the surrounding area from commercial encroachment, Floyd and Eastman should be strengthened as barriers to further commercial expansion to the north • 4. Downtown should be maintained as a regional activity center with high concentrations of retail, office and residential uses • 5. The downtown area should be developed under a coordinated theme. 6. The arrival points to the downtown, U.S. 285 and South Broadway, u.s. 285 and Elati, Broadway and Floyd, should be strengthened visually to identify the area • • I • • - ( • c -\ \.. • • • • -9- 7. Public transit should be strengthened with a transit center linking the downtown to the regional transit network. 8. Off-street parking capacities should be increased and should be enhanced with landscaping. 9. Parking should be provided between development parcels and on the perimeter of the downtown with access from the internal street system. 10. To provide for better vehicular circulation, some intersections in the downtown area should be realigned. 11. The proposed redevelopment should be linked to surruunding neighborhoods with safe pedestrian connections. 12. Existing utilities and new utility service should be placed underground. 13. 14. 15. Usable open space should be created in the downtown. To create an open space climate, Little Dry Creek should be- come a focal point with a variety of uses developed along its banks. The image and character of the redevelopment should be aesthetically pleasing to attract people. I • • n - • • c • • • • -10- 16. Alternative energy sources (solar, etc.) should be used where possible. 17. To insure an adequate level of public services including police and fire protection and maintaining public areas. 18. New ways to finance the redevelopment should be determined and initiated. 19. A marketing package should be developed to promote the redevelop- ment • I • • - -··-) ( --- ) Redevelopment Plan I - c v. c • • • • DEVELOPMENT PLAN. A. Existing Land Use. The Redevelopment Area contains 176 acres, of which 62% is private and 38% is public land use. The boundaries for the -11- Plan have been extended to include the upstream improvements to Little Dry Creek. Therefore, existing land use has increased to include the property south of U.S. 285 to the Englewood High School with South Clarkson Street bordering on the east. The public and private improvements outlined in the Plan refer primarily to the downtown area. Improvements proposed for the area south of u.s. 285 include channel improvements to Little Dry Creek and a detention pond on the Englewood High School athletic field. No other improvements to the area are proposed, but private development is encouraged. The downtown area contains 120 acres, of which 76%, representing 92 acres are currently developed. There are seven (7) acres of property which are vacant, and 16 acres are being used for at- grade parking. Cinderella City provides an additional 37 acres for parking. A total of 22 acres are public streets, alleys or right-of-way for Little Dry Creek. The majority of developed property is being utilized as retail or office. There are currently 269 individual retail uses representing 1,682,760 gross square feet in the area, and 490,645 gross square feet of office space. There are 65 residential units located along South Bannock Street, West Hampden Avenue, and U.S. 285, with several second story residential units in the 3400 block of South Broadway. To the west of South Elati Street is Cinderella City, a 1,217,100 square foot regional shopping center • • • I • • ( • • • • -12- The most apparent characteristic of the downtown is the amount of vacant and under-utilized property. The downtown plan further de- tails existing land use in this area. Existing land use east of the South Broadway/South Lincoln alley consists of a mixture of residential, retail and office uses. The area contains 56 acres, representing 63% of public uses and 37% of private land use. The Dry Creek Shopping Center adds an additional 29,550 square feet of retail space in the Redevelopment Area. The majority of proposed improvements in the Redevelopment Area occur in downtown Englewood. For this reason, the following land use breakdown and analysis refers to the downtown area and does not include the area east of the Broadway/Lincoln alley. 1. Building Condition. The buildings in the downtown area vary from one and two- story brick structures to ten-story office towers. As part of the preparation of the downtown plan, a visual survey of the existing structures in the downtown was conducted by the Building and Fire Departments. While this survey did not include the buildings in the entire Redevelopment Area, • I • • - ( • • • • -13- it did cover the major downtown area. There were 118 build- ings identified, and 28 were judged to be in poor condition, 39 classified as marginal, and 51 buildings were found to be in good condition. This was a visual survey from the street and does not represent a building-by-building analysis of quality. It does give some indication of the general need for rehabilitation of the downtown. The age of the buildings, especially those along South Broadway, is mostly responsible for the rather poor condition. Host of the structures were built in the 1920's, and because of the non-resident owner- ship pattern, the degree of maintenance has been limited in many cases. A map indicating the condition of buildings in the downtown is found in the Downtown Plan. Two high-rise buildings existing in the downtown were built in the mid-to late 1960's, and are in very good condition. 2 • Land Ownership. There are 158 business owners within the downtown Redevelop- ment Area not including Cinderella City. Of that total, 88 % are absentee owners of property which makes revitalization ef- forts more difficult. The size of the properties vary greatly, but there are a few large parcels which are singularly owned. The larger property owners include First National Bank, First Interstate Bank, KRAVCO-Equitable Life, Nielsen Investment Company, City of Englewood, Jeansco Enterprises, and Englewood Plaza, Ltd. One of the assumptions of this plan is that one or more de- I • • • • • • -14- velopers will begin to assemble properties for redevelopment according to the Plan. This is, in fact, already occurring with one developer, and it is considered the key to the suc- cess of this effort. 3. Existing Utilities. The existing utility system serving the Urban Renewal Area is generally adequate to serve the projected development with certain improvements. The changes that are necessary are due to required relocation of utility lines and some capacity in- creases to water, sewer and storm sewer systems. The existing utility system involves overhead electric and telephone lines which are aesthetically unpleaseant. The Urban Renewal Au- thority would strongly recommend that all utilities, including power and telephone, be placed underground. Within the recent past, the City has installed a 15 inch sewer line along West Floyd Avenue, and a 12 inch sewer line along South Acoma Street. The sewer interceptor lines in West Floyd Avenue and South Bannock Street are large enough to carry an increased population density of 60,000. The net- work of water mains has been strengthened with larger mains in South Lincoln Street to support the proposed development. These improvements will assist the development within the Redevelopment Area by providing additional capacity to the utility system • I • • - • ,. ' • -15- 4. Environmental Analysis. The major environmental constraint in the Redevelopment Area is the presence of the 100-year flood plain through most of the downtown. A major public investment will be made to con- fine the 100-year storm to the Little Dry Creek channel. Without this improvement, the downtown area of Englewood will continue to be potentially exposed to flooding and any new structures would have to be constructed in conformance with the City of Englewood flood plain regulations. These regula- tiona do not prohibit development, but the physical standards that need to be met certainly inhibit development. The pro- posed development plan could not be built out within the limits of the present flood plain regulations because of the elevation of the first floor of the proposed building. There do not appear to be any unusual probleas due to soils that would affect construction in the area. The depth and type of construction will be liaited by the water table. I • • • • - (t • • • • • • -16- B. Public Improvement Projects. The Redevelopment Plan will be accomplished through both public and private investments. The cost of the entire pro- ject is estimated at $100 million, of which $15 million is estimated for public improvements, and $85 million for private development. In order to attract private investment to the Urban Renewal Area, certain public capital improvements are required (Hap 4). The cost estimates for the public improvements are pre- liminary figures and until more design work is accomplished, these figures cannot be finalized. There are obvious relation- ships between certain public projects that would necessitate close coordination over the timing of the projects. Many decisions affecting all of the projects must be made as part of the Little Dry Creek improvements since the Little Dry Creek flood control project will set the tone for the de- sign of the entire redevelopment effort • • I . • - • • • I - (t 0 • • • • • -17- As each improvement is discussed its importance to the area will be evident. The timetable for improvements is discussed in the phasing section of this report. Summary of Public Improvement Projects. Prolect Type 1. Little Dry Creek Flood Control 2. Civic Center Boulevard 3. Broadway Corridor Improvements 4. Utilities Improvement & Relocation Total 1. ~ ~ Creek Flood Control. Estimated Cost $12.000.000. $ 2.ooo.ooo. $ 300.000. $ 1.ooo.ooo. $15.300.000. The greatest public investment in the plan is the improve- ment to Little Dry Creek. which is required to contain a 100-year flood within the channel. As part of the improve- ment. a detention pond will be located on the Englewood High School athletic field. This is a precautionary measure to reduce the amount of water flowing through the downtown area in the event of a 100-year flood . Additional improve- ments include widening the entrance to the Cinderella City box conduit. replacing or rebuilding the bridges at West Hampden Avenue. South Sherman Street. South Broadway. and U. S. 285. and widening and improving the channel from Clarkson to the Cinderella City conduit. • I • • (t ( • • • • -18- The entire Redevelopment Area will benefit from the improve- ments to Little Dry Creek. The proposed detention pond and the increased capacity of the channel will eliminate the flooding potential of Little Dry Creek. By containing the flood waters within the banks of Little Dry Creek, it in- creases the amount of land which can be built upon without restriction, thus increasing the development potential and land value in the area. The total improvements to Little Dry Creek are estimated to be completed in two years. The design for Little Dry Creek emphasizes an aesthetically pleasing open space area. The proposed improvements in- clude the construction of lakes, landscaping along the channel, bicycle paths, and a pedestrian walkway separating the Creek and the retail uses constructed adjacent to the Creek in the downtown section. The City of Englewood and the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District have allocated a total of $4,411,954 for Little Dry Creek improvements. Of this amount, the City has designated in the Public Improvement Fund a total of $3,736,954 for the period between 1982 to 1985, and Urban Drainage and Flood Control District has allocated $675,000. Additional funding sources are required to cover the en- tire cost of the project, estimated at $12,000,000. • I • • t • • • • -19- The cost of the project cannot be reduced by doing only a portion of the project since the downtown must be re- moved from the 100-year flood plain, and all upstream im- provements are necessary. 2. Civic Center Boulevard. A 100-feet wide boulevard will be constructed in the first phase of the project to facilitate traffic flow through the project area. This boulevard will begin at the inter- section of West Girard Avenue and South Broadway, and curve in a westerly direction to end at the intersection of South Cherokee Street and U. S. 285. A 20-feet wide median planted with trees and shrubs will separate the four lanes of traffic. There will also be trees and shrubs lining both sides of the boulevard for its entire length. All reloca- tions and improvements to City-owned utilities that are directly required as a result of the construction of the Boulevard are part of this project. 3. Broadw~ Corridor Improvements. Broadway serves as an important entrance into the project, and as such, is carefully considered in the redevelopment plans. Public improvements to the South Broadway corridor are estimated at $300,000. The proposed improvements in- clude street lighting, paving, signage , landscaping, and street furniture. A downtown theme will unify the area and provide guidelines for both public and private pro- jects • In order to create a pleasing area, landscaping • I • • ( • • • • -20- will be used to a c t as a barrier between vehicular and pedestrian traffic. By creating a common theme with plantings, paving, signage, lighting and street furniture, a pleasant atmosphere would be developed. 4. Utility Improvements and Relocation. Utility improvements and relocation are estimated at $1,000,000. Redevelopment in the area will increase the demand on the present utility system. While the capacity of the existing utility system is adequate, there must be some increase in capacity to provide for the additional demand on the water, sewer and storm sewer systems. Utilities along West Girard Avenue and Little Dry Creek will be relocated to assist in the development and main- tenance of the waterway and boulevard. • I • • 1 - ( • • • • • -21- C. Private Projects. The public improvements are proposed with the understanding that private development will occur simultaneously. Since the City and Urban Renewal Authority do not have control over most of the land within the Urban Renewal Area, the proposed private development description shall serve as a guide for the redevelopment of the privately-owned parcels of property. Re- development of private sites within the Urban Renewal Area shall be consistent with the Redevelopment Plan. The private develop- ment is needed to finance a large portion of the public improve- ments through the property and sales tax generation and will include a variety of uses. The Urban Renewal Area is a mixed-use urban focal point for the City of Englewood. It provides locations for work, shopping, living, and playing, along with a planned integration of the private and public areas to provide aesthetically pleasing areas for rest and relaxation. This mixed-use concept calls for vacation of some existing streets and alleys to create large redevelopment parcels and the dedication of new streets, alleys, and other public rights-of-way to improve auto and pedestrian traffic. The private improvements in the Urban Renewal Area, as illustra- ted on Map 5, can be divided into four separate major redevelop- ment areas: 1. The first, which is encompassed by a new Civic Center • I • • • ( !'f'!_~! .. !W_!~l .. ~~t.'> la'\tM/ \II IIIIH 'I"- :r ~':'":.'':'•':;~';. • • • n-.;.\1. I'll \SE 1>0\\':'\'l'<l'\Y'..: E'..:(ii.E\\001> H.Eill ·:n :L<JI"IE:\'1' l'l«ljl·:<:r l."aJ \\l •• l. lUAlll \IKl • Q MAP~ • 1.1 • • • ( 0 ' \ '\ I • • 0 l_::P __ _ novo 1 HAMPDEN PARKING 0 2 HOTEL I ATHLETIC CLUB I CONVENTION CENTER 3 ACOMA (WEST) RETAI. 4 GIAAD OFFICE I ACOMA (EAST) __ RETAL I THEATER & PARKING 5 CIVIC CENTER OFFICES 8 KING SOOPERS RET AL I PARKING I OFFICE KINO SOOPER8 CIVIC CENTER OFFICE BUILDING 9 RESIDENTIAL PHASE 1 1 0 RESIDENTIAL PHASE 2 . ~ -- MAP 6 - (f • • • • • • • -2 2- Boulevard connecting Girard with Cherokee, is also bounded by Broadway and U. S. 285. This area is considered the new Civic Center Complex, and will include retail shops, hotels, restaurants, athletic health clubs, a cinema complex, an office building and a new civic events center surrounding a major water feature. A new City Hall building may be located in the center of this complex. 2. The northwest quadrant of the downtown, which is bounded by Elati, Floyd, Bannock, the new Civic Center Boulevard and the area north of the First National Bank, will contain multi- family housing, supporting retail and certain office functions along with the new Civic Center Boulevard. Development will take place around water features and a public plaza area. The new Civic Center Boulevard will improve the accessibility and exposure of First Interstate Bank which is presently lo- cated in the quadrant. If the market for office space changes dramatically, this portion of the Plan may be changed to allow development of office buildings. 3. The northeast quadrant of the downtown includes development of a new large scale King Soopers, retail uses, and associated parking • 4. The land parcel which is located in the southwest quadrant of the downtown, and s urrounds the First National Bank, will be delineated by a new street approximately 300 feet north of u. S. 285 on the north, U. s. 285 on the south, Cherokee on • I • - • • • • • -23- the east, and Elati on the west. Plans for this quadrant of the project include the development of a parking struc- ture adjacent to the First National Bank building. The Redevelopment Plan provides a strong downtown image necessary to make Englewood a destination for area shoppers, as well as a prime location for housing and office users. Of major importance is the development of a viable hotel. The close proximity of parking and pedestrian access should help strengthen retail along Broadway. An analysis of current market conditions in the Denver Metro- politan Area performed by Hammer, Siler, George and Laventhol & Horwath have identified the following as elements of the Urban Renewal Area: 1. Cinema Complex -This structure will include a 25,000 square foot multi-screen theatre that will feature first-run movies with four levels of parking containing 400 parking spaces for theatre patrons and retail shoppers. 2. Convenience Shopping Complex -This development will include 100,000 square feet of convenience retail shops and structured parking for 600 cars. Included in thi• figure is a new 56,000 square foot King Soopers Store. Surface parking will also be available adjacent to the King Soopers. 3. Specialty Retail ~-This group of structures will house • I • • • • • • • -24- approximately 50,000 square feet of specialty retail shops and related uses. 4. Financial Institution Buildings -These are two multi-story structures planned to provide 100,000 square feet of space for financial institutions and other office uses. 5. Health and Athletic Center -This three-story structure will provide 50,000 square feet for health and athletic facilities. In addition, a 10,000 square foot restaurant will be included to provide amenities for the hotel. 6. Hotel -A ten story hotel containing 200 rooms with an ad- joining parking structure for 600 cars will be constructed adjacent to the lake. An additional 100 rooms will be added as the market indicates demand. 7. City Hall Building -The multi-story structure will provide approximately 60,000 square feet of office space. 8. Civic Events Center -This 50,000 square feet structure will provide meeting and conference facilities, spaces for cultural and artistic events and for a city library. 9. Residential - A combination of multi-story structures and townhouses are proposed. The marketing studies indicate a demand for 100 -150 units per year for an eight-year buildout. The amount of development of housing may be reduced, with the • I • • - • • • • • -2 5- approval of the City and the Authority, if the market for office space strengthens over the next few years. The Redevelopment Plan is intended to serve as a general guide for development within the Project Area. Since all elements of the Plan will not be constructed immediately, changing market conditions over time could alter the scope and nature of the various sub-projects. The Plan should be considered flexible in adapting to such market changes. • I • • • • • • • -26- D. Transportation Planning Modifications to the existing street system will be necessary to accommodate the increased volume of traffic which will be generated in the downtown area. The following modifications are being considered: 1. Civic Center Boulevard. This arterial road, which was described in the Public Improvement section of this Plan, is the major proposed transportation improvement. It will begin at the West Girard/South Broadway intersection and curve in a westerly direction to end at the intersection of South Cherokee Street and U. S. 285. 2. Intersections. The creation of the Civic Center Boulevard will require adjustments to intersections of existing roads with the new street. Among these intersections are: a} West Girard/South Broadway b) Acoma/Civic Center Boulevard c) Bannock/Civic Center Boulevard d) Cherokee/Civic Center Boulevard e) Cherokee/U. S. 285. Additionally, the West Floyd/South Broadway intersection is the sixth most dangerous intersection in Englewood, and realignment of this intersection is necessary to accommodate the increased traffic flow generated by the redevelopment. This must occur during the redevelopment process if proper east/west access is to occur • •• • • - • • • • • • • • • -27- A final consideration is the intersection of what is currently West Hampden Place and South Broadway. Under the proposed transportation system, West Hampden Place will become part of a realigned South Acoma Street and will bear increased traffic for the redevelopment occurring on the east side of Little Dry Creek. 3. Street Vacations. Little Dry Creek improvements and re- development elements will require the vacation of portions of certain streets in the area. Among these are: a. South Acoma from Floyd to the new Boulevard. This street will become part of the King Sooper's parking area. b. South Bannock from the Boulevard to U. S. 285. The site of this street portion will be occupied by the Little Dry Creek, the proposed Convention Center, and the hotel. c. West Girard from South Cherokee Street to South Elati Street. This street would become a part of a residential and/or office development site. d. West Hampden Place from South Acoma Street to South Bannock Street. This area will become part of Little Dry Creek flood control improvements • 4. Street Realignments. The three main street realignments which will need to be considered to facilitate the redevelopment effort are: • I • • - • • • • • • • • • -28- a. West Girard Avenue. To accommodate Little Dry Creek improvements and form a new intersection with South Cherokee Street. b. South Acoma Street. From the current intersection with West Hampden Place to South Broadway in order to facili- tate access for the Acoma development from the Boulevard and South Broadway. c. West Hampden Place from South Cherokee Street to South Elati Street. To provide a more functional access to the Boulevard, Regional north/south access to the Redevelopment Area is pro- vided on South Santa Fe Drive, Planned improvements to the Santa Fe corridor will decrease the traffic volume on South Broadway. The proposed light rail system along South Santa Fe Drive will also reduce vehicular traffic. East/west access to the area is presently provided by U. S. 285. but it is anticipated that the proposed C-470 in the southwest metro area will relieve some of the traffic pressures on U. S. 285 • • I • • • • - -....._/ -·--1 ( ''- G-;_JO • I Implementation • VI. • • • • • • -29- IMPLEMENTATION. A. Land Acquisition. The City of Englewood, the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority, and the EDDA, propose that to the greatest extent possible, the pri- vate sector purchase the properties that are required for the imple- mentation of this plan. There are occasions when the City or Urban Renewal Authority will be required to acquire title to privately owned property, with the assistance and cooperation of EDDA. The most apparent example involves the improvement of the Little Dry Creek channel. In order to develop the channel in a manner that will allow the 100-year storm waters to remain within the banks of the channel, it will be necessary to acquire property along the existing channel. A wider channel is required throughout the Urban Renewal Area. In the event the City or Urban Renewal Authority is unable to acquire the private property at established fair market value, the City or Urban Renewal Authority may exercise the right of eminent domain. The property would only be acquired if required for the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan. All development that occurred on the property would be consistent with the Redevelop- ment Plan. This procedure will only be used as a last resort, after consultation with the EDDA, when negotiations with the property owner fail. The properties to be acquired for Little Dry Creek improve- ments will be formally designated and identified by the City Council and the Urban Renewal Authority. Both the City Council and Urban Renewal Authority will state that the properties are required to meet the objectives and provisions of this adopted Urban Renewal Plan • • I • - • • • • • • • -30- Acquisition of property will also be necessary in order to develop the required widths of various public streets in the Urban Renewal Area as well as the Girard Avenue Mall. The western portion of Girard Avenue will be realigned to provide a continuous straight mall. The services of the EDDA will also be used to facilitate the private acquisition of other properties that are required for successful redevelopment consistent with the Plan. The following properties are being designated for acquisition by the City Council and the Urban Renewal Authority, and are required to meet the objectives of this Plan. These properties are required for the successful completion of the Little Dry Creek flood control project. After adoption of the Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the Urban Renewal Authority and City will initiate negotiations for the acquisition of these properties, and in the event that negotiations are unsuccessful, the City or Urban Renewal Authority will utilize eminent domain power to acquire the property. The decision to use the City or Urban Renewal Authority for this purpose will depend on the future use of the property. If the entire property is required for flood control improvements, the City may choose to handle the acquisition activity. If a portion of the acquired property is to be resold for redevelopment purposes because it is not all required for flood control purposes, the Urban Renewal Authority will be re- sponsible for the acquisition process . • I • • • - • • -31- ( . Address P. P. I. Number 180 West Girard Avenue 1971-34-3-18-015 3422 South Bannock Street 1971-34-3-00-018 1971-34-3-18-001 1971-34-3-18-002 1971-34-3-18-003 3426-28 South Bannock Street 1971-34-3-00-017 1971-34-3-18-004 3430 South Bannock Street 1971-34-3-00-016 1971-34-3-18-005 3444 South Bannock Street 1971-34-3-18-007 1971-34-3-18-014 3456 South Bannock Street 1971-34-3-18-008 3460 South Bannock Street 1971-34-3-18-009 3464 South Bannock Street 1971-34-3-18-010 ( . 3466-68 South Bannock Street 1971-34-3-18-011 16 West Hampden Avenue 2077-03-2-00-022 so West Hampden Avenue 2077-03-2-00-003 140-44-46 West Hampden Avenue 2077-03-2-01-001 3550-54 South Broadway 2077-03-1-07-009 3560 South Broadway 2077-03-1-07-010 Parcels along South Bannock with no address: 1971-34-3-18-012 1971-34-3-18-013 3787 South Clarkson Street 2077-03-1-00-009 ct 3767 South Clarkson Street 2077-03-1-13-031 3800 South Logan Street 2077-03-1-00-008 3705 South Clarkson Street 2077-03-1-00-010 • 777 East Ken10n Avenue 2077-03-1-14-024 I 1666 South l'earl Street 2077-03-1-14-005 • • (. 3655 South Pearl Street Z077-03-1-13-047 3655 South Pennsylvania Street 2077-03-1-13-046 • • ( . • • • 3638 South Logan Street 3601 South Logan Street 3575 South Logan Street 3522 South Broadway Parcels with no address: u. s. 285 R.O.W. u. s. 285 R.O.W. u. s. 285 R.o.w. u. s. 285 R.o.w. 3401 South Bannock Street 3415 South Acoma Street 3427 South Acoma Street 3447-93 South Acoma Street 3448-90 South Acoma Street • • • -32- 2077-03-1-13-002 2077-03-1-13-001 2077-03-1-12-002 2077-03-1-05-004 2077-03-1-07-025 2077-03-1-13-019 2077-03-1-13-006 2077-03-1-03-027 2077-03-1-07-022 2077-03-1-07-016 2077-03-1-07-023 Bk. 782, Pg. 535 Bk. 991, Pg. 151 Bk. 1845, Pg. 539 Bk. 1925, Pg. 792 1971-34-3-19-022 1971-34-3-19-028 1971-34-3-18-016 1971-34-3-18-017 1971-34-3-18-018 1971-34-3-18-019 1971-34-3-18-020 1971-34-3-18-021 1971-34-3-18-022 1971-34-3-18-023 1971-34-3-17-022 Any other acquisition by the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority or the City of Englewood shall be consistent with the Urban Renewal Plan. No property shall be acquired by eminent domain without the approval of the Englewood City Council acting by resolution. • I • • ( t • • • • • • -33- B. Land Disposition. Except for land disposed of to the City of Englewood for develop- ment of public improvements or facilities, the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority shall, in all agreements, deeds, leases, and other instruments from or between the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority and to or with a developer, impose covenants running with the land for a period of thirty years from the date of the Deed. These covenants shall require purchasers of land in the Redevelopment Area to: 1. Agree to develop and use the property in accordance with the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan • 2. Agree to begin and complete the improvements within a period of time determined by the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority to be reasonable; and 3. Agree to not discriminate upon the basis of race, color, creed, sex or national origin in the sale, lease, rental, use or occupancy of the property, or of any improvements erected or to be erected thereon, or any part thereof. • I • • - • • • • • • • -34- C. Development Guidelines. In order for development to occur in accordance with the adopted Redevelopment Plan, guidelines for development must be prepared. A document containing such guidelines will be used by various developers in the design of buildings. The guidelines will in- clude the quality elements of construction such as building materials and design. The quantity elements, such as height and bulk, will be controlled through the zoning regulations • • I • • • • • • • -35- D. Agreements between Developer, ~Renewal Authority, and City. A final mechanism to implement the Redevelopment Plan involves agreements between developers and the City or Urban Renewal Authority, which will establish the responsibilities of each party. These agreements will specifically outline the financial coaaitments of the parties, and the timetable for construction of the public and private improvements. This agreement is the basis for the Urban Renewal Authority to initiate the sale of tax increment bonds for the financing of the public improvements. The City and the Urban Renewal Authority recognize that a coopera- tive effort between the entities is required in order to carry out the plan. To further this effort, the City agrees to pro- vide the necessary staff to the Urban Renewal Authority to assist the Authority with its operation. When consultants, such as architects and engineers, are required for the design of a public improvement, the City agrees to pro- vide such services. The City will further assume the responsibility of administering the design and engineering contracts for the public improvements. The Urban Renewal Authority, City, and EDDA will jointly review the design work throughout the project. The City agrees to provide customary City inspection services during the construction of these projects. The Urban Renewal Authority's primary responsibility will be to coordinate the financing arrangement for the specific public im- provements. The City agrees to provide accounting services and • • I • • (t c • • • -36- such other services that are required to successfully administer the Urban Renewal program. The Urban Renewal Authority agrees to reimburse the City for the cost of certain administrative ex- penses as approved by the Authority. In addition to agreements between developers and the City or Urban Renewal Authority, it is recoa.ended that the City of Englewood, the EDDA, and the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority enter into a Tri-party Agree.ent to establish the respective roles and responsibilities of each party. This agreement should be signed by all parties prior to any party signing a Developer Agreement with a developer. I • • t c • • • • • -37- E. Commercial Rehabilitation. There is a definite need for the rehabilitation of existing buildings within the area, particularly along the South Broadway corridor adjacent to the Redevelopment Area. Through the use of Co.-unity Development Block Grant funds provided by the Federal Governaent and the State of Colorado, the City of Englewood has established the Broadway Facade I~rovement Program. This pro- gram provides a limited amount of free design assistance to prop- erty owners and merchants in the 3200 -3500 block of South Broadway and a low-interest loan program for property improvements in this area. Also, the City has adopted Design Guidelines to regulate rehabilitation in this segment of South Broadway. The Urban Renewal Authority strongly supports the City in its efforts to revitalize older commercial sections of downtown Englewood so that they may contribute to and benefit from the major Redevelopment Project. • I . - • • • • • -38- F. Public/Private Management Entity. Unlike a shopping center, downtowns are typically fragmented with no single management focus. To compete successfully, it is important that a permanent management structure be created. Such a management entity could be responsible for a wide range of activities, including: 1) Public space maintenance, security and operations. 2) Public space programming and use approval. 3) Marketing and promotion of downtown. 4) Tenant leasing and mix. 5) Technical assistance to businesses. 6) Design management for development, signage, facades, etc. The objective is to create a permanent, centralized management entity to coordinate design, maintenance, tenant mix, marketing efforts consistent with the market position which the downtown is attempting to achieve. Also, the specific form that a manage- ment entity should take has not been proposed yet, and will be detailed in a separate report. It is iaportant that a management structure be agreed to as a part of any development agreement • • I • - c • • • • -39- G. Financing. 1. Financing Overview. The Englewood Urban Renewal Authority is authorized to finance the proposed public improvements by those methods available to the Authority within the Urban Renewal laws of the State of Colorado. This section of the Redevelopment Plan sets forth estimates of the proposed redevelopment and the feasibility of financing the needed public iaprovements. The financing parameters demonstrated including interest rates and maturities are not to be interpreted as representation of any obligation of the Urban Renewal Authority and do not represent a guarantee by the Urban Re- newal Authority. The financing structure utilized by the Urban Renewal Authority for constructing necessary public improvements may include revenues from any one or combination of the following revenue sources: a, Property tax increment financing. b. Sales tax increment financing. c. Intergovernmental cooperation with the City of Englewood. d. Investment of funds in property or securities in which public bodies may legally invest. e. Advances, loans, grants and contributions from the federal government • • I • • ( ( • • • • -40- f. Sale or lease of property as specified in the Redevelopment Plan. It is contemplated by the Authority that revenues from all of the above mentioned sources will be made available for repay- ment of municipal bonds or other obligations that will be issued to finance the public improvements. In consideration of the revenue sources, the Authority proposes a Redevelopaent Project comprised of the elements delineated in Schedule A. Estimated construction cost of this private development is approximately $50,000,000. The accompanying public improvements contemplate an expenditure of $15,300,000 and are comprised of: 1) Improvements to the flood control capabilities of the area (Little Dry Creek). This project ia paramount to the redevelopment plan in that the reduction of the 100-year flood plain must occur prior to the issuance of any building permit. Once the flood plain project is initiated, private development may occur concurrently with its construction; 2) Public improvements which will complement the private sector redevelopment. These improvements include Broad- way corridor improvements, utilities improvements and relocation, and the construction of the Civic Center Boulevard which will facilitate increased traffic volume in the area • • I • • - ( • • • • -41- 2. Revenue Summary. a. Property Tax Increment. Following the effective date of the Redevelopment Plan adoption, the property taxes generated from the redevelopment area, in excess of those ad valorem revenues received by all taxing entities currently assessing a mill levy within the redevelopment area, shall be deposited in a special fund and pledged for the repayment of any ob- ligations of the Urban Renewal Authority. This increment shall be segregated from other property tax revenues for a period not to exceed twenty-five years following the adoption of the Plan. Upon retirement of any obligations of the Urban Renewal Authority, those monies generated from ad valorem tax collections shall be reallocated to the appropriate public bodies (school district, city, county, etc.). The tax in- crement caused by the redevelopment shall represent an ir- revocable pledge of the Urban Renewal Authority to repay principal, interest, premiums, or other expenses of issuing bonds or other obligations of the Authority for the financing of public improvements. (Refer to Schedule B for a summary of property tax increment projections.) b. Sales Tax Increment. Following the effective date of the Urban Renewal Plan, the sales tax revenues collected with- in the redevelopment area for the 12-month period preceding the effective date shall be frozen and distributed in the same amount to the City of Englewood on an annual basis. Sales tax revenue in excess of the base amount shall be • I • • ( ( ( • • • • -42- deposited in a special fund of the Urban Renewal Authority and may be irrevocably pledged for the payment of principal, interest, premiums, and expenses of issuing bonds or other obligations of the Authority. (Refer to Schedule C for a summary of sales tax increment projections.) It is anticipated that the City of Englewood will determine on an annual basis that those sales tax revenues collected within the Cinderella City shopping complex shall not be pledged to the sales tax increment special fund as created by the Urban Renewal Authority (see Section 31-25-107 (9) (a} (II) of Colorado State Statutes). c. Intergovernmental Cooperation Within the City of Englewood. The City of Englewood has committed resources and funds to assure the completion of the Redevelopment Plan. Over the next two years, the City will set aside in a segregated fund approximately $4,000,000 that is dedicated to providing pub- lic improvements for the redevelopment. In addition, the City has committed to utilize available use tax revenues collected on a city-wide basis which are dedicated to capital improvements in accordance with the City Charter. It is the intent of the City to assist in any way possible to insure that the redevelopment occurs. d. Hotel Room Tax. The City is contemplating the assessment and collection of a hotel room tax within the city boundaries. This tax, in the opinion of bond counsel, may be pledged as • I • • - ( ( • (( • • • • -43- a sales tax increment within the redevelopment area and utilized to further secure the bonds of the Urban Renewal Authority. The hotel tax rate is proposed to be a 5% tax on the room charge rate. e. Sale of Property. The City of Englewood maintains owner- ship of two parcels of land valued at $1,900,000 and $1,684,000. The City contemplates selling the land at a minimal cost to the Authority, or donating the land to the Authority. The Authority may then sell the property for fair value for uses in accordance with the Plan. The sale of the land will assist in reducing the cost of the public improvements or to provide additional revenue for debt service. f. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. This district collects an ad valorem tax levy and then redistributes the revenue back to the areas that have been assessed for pur- poses of flood and drainage control. The revenues distributed to the City of Englewood are to be dedicated to the Little Dry Creek project. Schedule D of this section illustrates the cost of financing various levels of pub.lic improvements at varying interest rates. By examining this Schedule in conjunction with the projected tax increment totals at the bottom of Schedule C, an estimate of the feasibility of financing the proposed • I • • ( ( ( • • • ,. • -44- public improvements can be generated. The tax increment projections and financial analysis have been developed by Hanifen. Imhoff. Inc. in coordination with the City of Englewood. the Urban Renewal Authority. and the Englewood Downtown Development Authority. • I • • ·In - ( Hanifen . Imhoff Inc lnv&51ment Bonkers Building Type Specialty Shops Convenience Retail Cinema /Retail Retail Parking Athletic Facility Civic Center Restaurant Civic Events Center Hotel with Parking • • .. • Schedule A CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY ·AUGUST 22, 1983 Proposed Development Summary -45- Square Footage Construction Value (Estimated)* 50,000 13,500 25,000 300,000 50,000 10,000 50,000 @ $50/sq.ft. ~ $50/sq. ft. @ $50/sq.ft. @ $15/sq.ft. = @ $60/sq.ft. @ $50/sq.ft. @ $60 sq.ft. @ $70 sq.ft. $2,500,000 (,'(!). 000 1,250,000 4,500,000 3,000,000 ( · Finance /Office 120,000 100,000 90,000 145,000 120,000 @ $70 sq.ft. = @ $70 sq.ft. 500,000 3,000,000 8,400,000 7,000,000 6,300,000 5,800,000 6,000,000 ( • City Office Structure Residential Tower Broadway Store @ $40 sq.ft. @ $50 sq.ft. = *C onstruction value estimates based upon information supplied by Ron in Econometrics, Inc,, Boulder, Colorado. SHB:km 8/22/83 • I • • - ( ( ( • Hanifen . Imhoff Inc lm;&stm&r lt Sanker!. Building Type Specialty Shops Convenience Retail Cinema /Retail Retail Parking Athletic Facility Civic Center Restaurant Civic Events Center Hotel with Parking Finance /Office City Office Structure Residential Tower Broadway Store • • • Schedule B CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY AUGUST 22, 1983 Property Tax Increment Construction Ratio to Value A.V. $2,500,000 .17 675,000 .17 1,250,000 .17 4,500,000 ,17 3,000,000 .17 500,000 .17 3,000,000 .17 8,400,000 .17 7,000,000 .17 6,300,000 .17 5,800,000 .105 6,000,000 .17 Total Assessed Valuation $ 425,000 114 ,750 212,500 765,000 510,000 85,000 510,000 1,428,000 1,190,000 1,071,000 609,000 1,020,000 Tax Revenue *E stimated ratio provided by Arapahoe County Assessor's Office. SHB:km 8/22/83 -46- Revenue @ HO Mill s ----- $ 34.000 9,180 17,000 61,120 40,800 6,800 40,800 114. 240 95,200 85 ,680 48,720 81,600 $635,140 I • • - ( ( • ( • • • Honifen . Imhoff Inc lr :veSHne nt Ba rw.er~ -47- Building Type Specialty Shops Convenience Retail Cinema /Retail Retail Parking Athletic Facility Civic Center Rest. Civic Events Center Hotel/Parking ( 1) Finance/Office City Office Residential Tower Broadway Store Schedule C CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY AUGUST 22, 1983 Rev./Sq.Ft. $150 100 n/a $150 n/a 200 rms. n/a n/a n/a n/a Sales Tax Increment Gross Sales $7,500,000 1,350,000 Estimated Estimated $1,500,000 X .03 X .03 X .03 Total Sales Tax Increment (1) Revenue due to hotel room tax calculated at 5.0% per room, a room charge of $50 and occupancy rate of 55% per annum. SHB:km 8/22/83 • Tax Increment Total Property Tax Sales Tax $ 635,140.00 450,875.00 $1,086,015.00 • $450,1!75 I • • • Honifen . Imhoff Inc ln veslrr.em Bo rlk ers Principal Amount $7,000,000 8,000,000 9,000,000 10,000,000 SHB:km 8/22/83 • • • Schedule D CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY AUGUST 22, 1983 Estimated Debt Service Payments Interest Rate 9% 10% 11% 9% 10% 11% 9% 10% 11% 9% 10% 11% • -48- Average Annua l Paym er~.t $ 766,850 (20 Ye a r s ) 822,220 879,060 876,400 (20 Years) 939,680 1,004,640 985,950 ( 20 Ye an;) 1,057,140 1,130,220 1,095,500 (20 Years) 1,174,600 1,255,800 I • • - -..__/ -.-J ( ---- (_,...r . /(~ ~(_/ I Appendix ( • • • • i Relocation Plan. As previously mentioned, it is not the intent of the City or Urban Renewal Authority to displace businesses through the redevelopment process. It is recognized that existing businesses are an important component of our downtown environment, which needs to be integrated into any plans for change in Englewood. There may be times when certain properties are required to fulfill the redevelopment plans and strengthen the downtown for the future. In these cases, the City and Urban Renewal Authority will offer relocation assistance to businesses and tenants in an effort to minimize the impact of these public decisions. The following benefits will be available to the commercial and resi- dential tenants if relocation is required. 1. Commercial Uses Displaced £y Acquisition. The business owner displaced as a result of acquisition of real property by the Urban Renewal Authority or the City in carrying out this Plan shall be eligible for the following relocation benefits: a. The Authority shall give a 120-day notice to any business owner who will be displaced. b. Displaced business owner shall receive the reasonable cost established by competitive bid associated with packing, crating, boxing, moving, and transporting all movable per- sonal property, for a distance of no more than 50 miles • • I • • • • r • • • ii c. Displaced business owner shal l receive the reasonable cost as determined by the Urban Renewal Authority, for certain property made obsolete by displacement, such as stationery, business forms and signs. d. Displaced business owner shall receive the cost of insurance of property (inventory) for moving. e. The benefits listed in items b, c, and d may total a maximum of $10,000, unless a larger amount is specifically approved by the Urban Renewal Authority due to special circumstances. f. Property owner shall not be eligible for the benefits listed \ ~ above for displaced business owner unless the property owner also operates a business at the same location. ( • g. The Authority shall not be responsible for loss of business and good will, or personal injury or legal fees. 2. Residential ~ Displaced ~Acquisition. The property owner or tenant displaced as a result of acquisition of real property by the Urban Renewal Authority or City in carrying out this Plan, shall be eligible for relocation benefits according to the applicable category, as follows: a. Renter occupied residential unit tenants are eligible for the following: • I • • \ n r, • • • • iii 1) The Authority shall give a 90-day notice to any tenant who will be displaced. 2) Displaced tenants shall be eligible for the cost of packing, crating, and moving personal property for a maximum distance of 50 miles to a replacement dwelling unit. The cost will be established by competitive bidding. 3) Displaced tenants shall be eligible for the cost of in- surance of personal property for moving. 4) Displaced tenants shall be eligible for an amount equal to the rent paid by tenant for past year in current unit. If tenant resided in unit for less than one year, tenant is eligible only for pay.ent equal to rent paid during occupancy. This aaount is necessary to lease a comparable dwelling within 50 m.iles. 5) The benefits listed in 2, 3, and 4 may total a maximum of $2,500 unless a larger amount is specifically approved by the Urban Renewal Authority due to special circumstances. 6) If the tenant is eligible based on income or handicapped, they will be given priority consideration for eligibility in ERA housing projects • • I • - \ • • • • • b. Owner/occupant of residential units is eligible for the following: iv 1) The Authority shall give a 120-day notice to any owner/ occupant who will be displaced. 2) Displaced owner/occupant shall receive the cost of packing, crating and moving personal property for a maximum distance of 50 miles to a replacement dwelling unit. The cost will be established by competitive bidding. 3) Displaced owner/occupant shall receive the cost of in- surance of personal property for moving. 4) Displaced owner/occupant shall receive the amount, if any, which, when added to the acquisition cost of the dwelling acquired equals the reasonable cost of a co.parable replac~t dwelling which is a decent, safe and sanitary dwelling adequate to accommodate such displaced person • 5) The benefits listed in items 2, 3, and 4 may total a maximum of $5,000. 6) If the property owner is eligible based on income and handicap, and desires to rent a housing unit, they will be given priority consideration for eligibility in an EHA housing project • • I • - ( \ ( ' • • ( • • • • 3. General Provisions. a. All claims and documentation must be submitted to the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority within six (6) months following the date the costs are incurred. • v I • - • • • • COUNCIL C 0 M M U N I C A T I 0 N DATE AGENDA ITEM Februarv 14 1984 U. F SUBJECT Proposed Right-of-Way and Easement Vacation at the Site of the N<>~ c .. ~. "'' INITIATED BY City Planning and Zoning Commission at the reguest of Safeway. ACTION PROPOSED Receive the Recommendation of the Planning Commission relative to the Reguest by Safeway Stores. Inc. to yacate a oortion of the 3500 block South Grant St:rPo>t-A nnrt"inn nf t"h<> r...-,.nr-/T.na"n ,.1].,, in r-h<> 1'i00 hlnrlc """ "" necting the two, and request the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for the vacatio INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: Safeway is proposing to construct a new store at the Dry Creek Shopping Center at I South Logan Street and U. S. 285. Safeway has purchased the shopping center and several properties to the north, and is planning to demolish the structure in o rder to build a new super store. Safeway is requesting that the City vacate the portions of South Grant Street, the Grant/Logan alley and an existing easement which are lo- cated on the redevelopment site. Attached is the Planning Commission staff report and maps which explain in more detail the request. (' . • The Planning Commission considered the vacation request at a public meeting on February 7, 1984 , and they are sending the proposed vacations on to the City Council for st udy . No members of the audience spoke in favor of or in opposition to the proposed vacations. The proposed vacations are located entirely on property owned by Safeway. RECOMMENDATION: After considering the proposed right-of-way and easement vacations at a public meeting it is the opinion of the Commission that the City Council should give favorable con- sideration to the proposed vacations with the attached conditions. The members of the Commission further recommend that the City Attorney be requested to prepare an ordinance for the vacation request and to include the recommended conditions. • I • • • • • • • STAFF REl'Oifl' IUGII'I'-01'-WAY VACATIONS ~e-_-_!_-_ ·-·-. -·· _ . _______ .. ___________ . _____ .. _____ . _ . _ . . . . . . . Ca'i;'. //11-Hio STAFF REPORT RE: . An application for the vacation of a portion of South Grant Street in the 3500 block; a portion of the Grant/Logan alley in the 3500 block; and an easement connecting the two. NAME AND ADDRESS OF AL'l'LICAN'l' A}.ID OWNI!:l{: Safeway Stores, Inc . No. 5 Parker Place 2600 Parker Road -Suite 250 Aurora, Colorado 80014 ZONE DISTRICT: B-1, Business LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: The vacation requests are all located in the 3500 block between South Sherman Street and South Logan Street, and are as follows: 1) South Grant Street-the South 125 feet and the full 60 foot wl<lth. 2) Grant/Logan alley -approximately the south 175 feet, and the full 16 foot width. 3) Easement -the full 25 foot width and 185 foot length of the easement granted to connect the alley and South Grant Street. A new ew;eoue nt will he ~ran leu eonnectln~ lite alley and South Grant Street to eliminate the need for a cul-de-sac at the end of each right-of-way. PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED: The Planning Commission's recommendation will be referred to the City Council for its action on the requested vacations. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Safeway, Incorporated, is proposing to constru~ a new facility at this location. Though the structure itself will not be constructed over any of the exi•tin& ri&ht•-of-wey, the parkin& lot will be, and the vacated sections of the rights-of-way are needed to develop an adequate and effective parklng layout plan. Safeway is requesting the vacation of a portion of South Grant Street, a portion of the Grant/Logan alley and an existing easement, all of which are located on their property. See Vicinity Map 1 • • I • • ( t • STAFF REPORT Page -2- • • • RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATIONS __ ---·-~-u : ... •. _V_fi _-_B_t,_ South Grant Street is not a through street in thfa block, ending behind the Little Dry Creek Shopping Center. Safeway ts pro- posing to dedicate an easement which will connect the southern portion of South Grant Street with the southern portion of the Grant/Logan alley to the east, thereby eliminating a dead end for the street or the alley, and eliminating the need for any kind of turn around. See Vicinity Map 112. DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA: The property involved is the south half of the 3500 blocks between South Sherman Street and South Logan Street. The Little Dry Creek Shopping Center ts currently 1 ocated here, as well as a smalll'r building housing a Ury Cleaners and Laundry. To the north of the Shopping Center are 12 single-family homes, a converted house being used as an office, an office building, a small shoppette and the Englewood Masonic Temple. The shopping center, the Dry Cleaners, and all 12 homes will be removed for construction. COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS: Public Service -Gas --There is a gas main in South Grant Street and we will require an easement in order that this line can be maintained. Mountain Bell --This company is not opposed to the vacation of the alley, as long as Mountain Bell can maintain its current plant and be given a private easement. They also have no conflict with moving the existing plant, as long as the developer accepts financi·al responsi- bility for ita relocation and provides easements to feed the existing customers in the project area. Code Administration --A minimum 20 foot wide access drive connecting the Logan/Grant alley with South Grant Street muat be provided. Public Works --No objections as long as there is no dead-end for the alley or South Grant Street, and drainage is not blocked. Engineering Services --No objections. Public Service Company -Electric --There is an overhead electric line in the alley. We request that reservations be made for the continued operation and maintenance of the facilities locat~ within the proposed vacations. Utilities --No comment. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COHPRHENSIVE PLAN: The 1979 Generalized Land Use Plan designates this area ss part of the Central Buaineaa District • • I • • - • • • ,. • STAFF IWI'ORT IUCII'I'-OF-WAY VACA'I' J ONS I~_s_c __ -_3_-___ . ____ ··-. ____ . _____ . ___ . __ . _ _ _ _ _ ____ ... ____ . _ _ _ C;,,~. //ll-1!11 DEL'AirfMt:NT OF COMI'IUNI'i'Y DEVt:LOl'MENT ANALYSIS: At t l•e prt<sent time, South Grant Street and the Crant/Lu~an alley dead-end approximately 430 feet south of East Hampden Avenue. The rights-of-way for the south portion of the Grant/Logan alley and South Grant Street were vacated at the time the Dry Creek Shopping Center was constructed, and an easement connecting the alluy and Suut·h Crunt Street ~o~as pruvlded to cl'lmlnate the need fur a cul-de-suc at cuch end of the vacated right-of-way. The proposed vacations will not affect anyone currently using these rights-of-way and all structures located adjoining the portions to be vacated will be removed. The rights-of-way which are proposed to be vacated are adjoined on each side by Safeway property. There will be an easement granted on the Safeway property to connect Liou South Cranl SLrccl uml the Crant/J.ugun allL·y Ln urdcl' Lu pruv idl! continuous access to both. DEPARTMENT 01' COMMUNITY DEVELOL'MP.N'I' RECOMMENDATION: The Department of Community Development recommends that the alley, street and easement vacations be approved; however, an easement should be retained across the vacation portion of the alley and the street for utility service. The rights-of-way are not necessary tu the public and the owner needs the flexibility provided by the vacation in order to develop the property in · the most efficient no:tnncr. Tht•rC'furC', the request is recouunended to be approved, with the following conditions: 1) An easement is to be retained in the vacated right-of-way in both South Grant Street and the Grant/Logan alley for Public Service Company to maintain the existing gas main and for the continued maintenance and operations of other facilities located within these rights-of-way. 2) An easement shall be provided for Mountain Bell to main- tain the existing plant, and to provide service to the existing customers. 3) A 16-foot easement shall be given to the City which will provide an access drive to connect the Grant/Logan alley and South Grant Street. 4) Drainage shall .not be blocked for South Grant Street or the alley and shall be approved by the Department of Engineering Services. 5) A 20-foot wide fire lane shall be designated across the parking lo~to connect South Grant Street and the Grant- Logan alley • • I • • -• • • L\ 'I '7 . uu j :,j·~ .. 'LJ ~4P ·:I ~r j .'0·~-~-: ·Dcj .· _.) L-:·· EAST I ~ I ~ z GRANT VACATION 11111111111 ALL&Y VACATION -NIW IASIMINT • 53301\ 0 5 3 30 3 I D )\ / Cj! D ---5330 285 ,/ ' ( HAMPDEN J SIC .'\j • !;JJO -~ . I '\ L. L J ., r J l -II 0 G"> )> z 1 r I en -1 ::tl rrl rrl -t (\ ..... , '- 0 . / ~-. [" J __ ,. [" I • • • - • • N Q. <t ~ c T •• 10 ICIILl ,. ·.sa· ( • • 0 ALLEY EASEMENT 1 o f 2 JOel NU 6 2·71 DEC . 14 , 1983 ..... ~ ~ Cl)" ~ ~ c ...,J Ctj • ... ' • • • • LEGAL DESCHIPTIUN FOH ALLEY EA~EMENT A PORTION OF LOTS .ll, 12 &: l:J, ULOCI\ 4 IN UlltCH'S AUJJI'I'ION TO SOU I 'll BROADWAY liiiWHTS, BEING THE SgCON U FILING, TOCE'I'I-IIHt, WI'J'II 1\ l'Ait'l ' OF VACATED SOUTH GltAN'I' S'l'llEC:T AND A PAJtT 011 'I'IJE VACATED Al..t.;Ey WIIICII IS LOCATED EAST OF SAID LOTS 12 AND 13, MORE 1'1\H'I'ICUJ.AHLY DESCitiUIW AS FOLLOWS: BeGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NOii.TH LINE 01' Sl\lll LOT J:l EXTENDED WEST WHICH IS 22 FEET WEST OP THE NOit'I'HWEST COitNEil OF SAW LOT 12; 'f'IIENCI\ ON A CUitVE CONCAVE TO Tl·fE NOfl'f'IIEAS'f ' AN /\ftC fliS'f'ANCE OF 43.33 1 1 1WT ANU WIIOSI~ I.UN(i CIIOIW IIE/\US S 51u I!J' U•l" 1i 1\ lliST ANCE OF 40.1.0 FEET TO 1\ POINT THAT IS !J.:l!i FEET EAST OF TIW NUHTIIWI·:ST COftNfi fl UF Sl\fl) LOT t:J AND LIES ON THE NOilTI-J f,fNE OF SAW [,0'1' 13, SAil> CUftVE liAS A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 77° 34 1 58", A 'f'ANtiENT LENGTH OF :.!5.72 F E ET ANll A flAflfUS OF :12.UO Ff ·:Wr; THENCE S 11!1° 53' '1.7" Ji ALONG 'I'HE NOit'l'f-1 LfNf ~ OF SAID LOT lJ A DISTANCE UJI 83.99 FEET; TffENCE AI.ONU A C:UitVfi 'l'U TilE LEFT AN AHC IIISTANCE OF !ill.llll FEET TO 1\ POINT ON TilE EAST f,INJi OF Sl\ff) f,()'f' I 1, SAflll'UfN'I' ALSO 111-:INU UN Tlili WliST LINE OF S/\IIJ 1\f.l.liY, SAIIl CUilVli IJAS 1\ CEN'f'ftAJ. 1\NCLE OF 11!1° 3!1' 36", A TANUENT LENUII'f' UJI :Jl.81 FEET, A ltAUIUS OF 32.00 FEET ANlJ WHOSI ·: CHOHD BEAHS N 45° Hi' 43" E A DISTANCE Ol•' 45.12 FEET; 'f'llliNCE S 89° 34' 05" E 1\ DISTANCE OF 16 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID ALLEY; THENCE 1\f,ONU J\ CUilVE CONCAVE TO TilE NOit'L'I-IWEST AN AHC IJIS 'I'ANCE OF 75.12 l'l!ET AND WHOSE LONG CI-IOHO llEAllS S 45° 16' 34" W A DISTANCE OF 67.68 FEET TO A POINT THAT IS lG 1 1 £ET SOUTH OF THE NOHTli LINE OF Sl\lll LOT 13; SAIU CUll VIi llAti 1\ CENTHAL ANGLE OF U!l 0 3!J' 58", A TANGENT f,ENU'I'H OF 47.72 FEET /\NO A RADIUS OF '111.00 FEET; Tl-IENCE N 11!1° 53" 27" WAND PAHALLEL WJTf-1 TilE NOil'l'fl LINE OF SAID LOT 13, 1\ DISTAN(;E Ufo' 83.!14 FEET TO A l'UINT OF CUUV!i; TIWNCfo: ALONG SAID C UHVE TO TI-lE li.IG/IT 1\N Altc UIS'f'ANCE OF ll11.51i FEET, S/\IIJ CUitVE liAS 1\ CENT HAL ANGLE OF 111° 4!1' 511", A TANUHNT LENUTU OF 4LIJO FEET AND A HADIUS OF 48.00 FEET AND WHOSE CHORD BEARS N 4!1° ll' 33" W A DISTANCE OP 62.88 FEET; THENCE 811° 53 1 27" F. A DISTANCE OF 16.21l FEET '1'0 TilE POINT 01-' BEGINNING; ALL IN THE COUNTY 0!-' Ali.APAHOE, STATE OF COLO-RADO. CONTAIN INU 3,~110 SQ. FEET (O.OH22 A(;JUO:S) MOllE Oil. LESS. December 19, 1911:1 Card 116811 PADON ENGINEERING, INC. 5335 WEST 48TH AVENUE IHINVrm, COLO!i.ADO 80212 Job No. 8271 Sheet11 2 oC 2 I . I • • • • • C 0 U N C I L C 0 M M U N I C A T I 0 N DATE AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT February 15, 1984 i.DG INITIATED BY The FAgl~ Parks and Recreation Ccmnission ACTION PROPOSED Preliminary approval, or approval in coocept, of an easement als:Jn& &mr Creek: to the South St.lb.lrban Recreation and Park District. Backgromd With City Council's approval, there appears to be three trail sections that will be constructed on City CMted property and/or within F.ngl~ city limits in the near future. For trails no. 1 and no. 2, it will be necessary for the City to provide easE!!Blts to the South Suburban Recreation and Park District, wh::> has agreed to maintain both of these trails. Trail No. 1 is called the "Colorado Deumstration Trail" and will be about 30 miles in le11gth. This trail m1te starts at Haq)den 1 eads up w tbe north sic!e of the South Platte River t~ ~of Bear Creek ~s ~ Bear Creek to ~1~ St. , ~Mi rprtb to ~ff ~ADa tbm f&i fra 6 s east al '? the 1 to ~y Hill wberpitjo.instheDenypr Gremway Trail t6<d.n.t ~ -I tion The section of this trail that effects the City is when the trail fran ~ hits the City-owned land at the III)Uth of Bear Creek. The trail crosses Bear Creek w a foot bridge onto a small island, then extends across a second foot bridge over to the F.ngl~ Golf Course land, and continues along the 16th fairway to Clay Street. Trail No . 2 will start at Bates Avenue ~e th · 'Oenver Greenway Trail ends and will continue on the west side of the South Platte Ri · to~ Avenue. The plans and specifications are now being ~leted and a tequest by South Suburban Recreation and Park District for an easement for this trail will ccme before the City ColDcil within a week or t:w. The plans for the trail and raising of the fmds are being handled by the South SubJrban Recreation and Park Fmndation, with the South Suburban ~ e • I • • • • • -2- Recreation and Park District planning to do the constructioo and maintenance of the trail. Engl~ gave $50,000 to this trail. Trail ~-3 travels bet:Yleen the east and ~st portioos of the golf course and will start 'Where trail ~-2 ends at Ha!Ipden alcng the South Platte River . The trail will then travel on the east side of the river to the golf course walk bridge, cross the bridge and then head south for a soort distance to Oxford Averue. This trail will need to be planned, crostructed and maintained by the City of Engl~. Several sources of funds for this trail are being pursued. ttrre ca:q>lete information will be made available to City Council at the City Crnncil/Parks and Recreation Ccmni.ssioo dinner on March 22, 1984. Financial The City will have no financial obligation on the easement alcng Bear Creek as far as crostructioo or maintenance of the trail is concerned. There may be possible costs arising fran the liability fran use of the trail which the City Attorney can best speak on. Recamdnatioo The Engl~ Parks and Recreation Ccmni.ssioo reccmuends that the City Co\ncil approve the easement to South Suburban Recreation and Park District for constructioo and maintenance of the ~. 1 trail which travels along Bear Creek fran the !IDUth of Bear Creek to Clay Street. The Camd.ssioo, ~ stated in the attached official correspood- ence, recaiiiBlds that the City investigate troroughly the liability involved and include it in the easements. Several inp)rtant legal concerns need to be clarified : a) \oh> is legally responsible for the trail? b) If the City is liable, will the City feel ccmfortable to have other than themselves do the maintenance? c) Can the City actually release itself completely from all liability for the trail if it is constructed on City-owned property? Recreation Trailway Easement and official recameldatioos fran Parks and Recreation Ccmni.ssion attached. SUGGESTED ACTION: MOVED BY ____________________________ ___ SECOND ________________________________ __ YES ____________ ~NO ____________ ~BSENT ______________________ __ • I • • - • • • • RECREATION TRAILWAV EASEriENT THIS .INDENTURE, made this ---o--....:day of -------• 19_, between SOUTH SUBURBAN METROPOLITAN RECREATION ANO PARK DISTRICT, a quasi-municipal corporation, herein referred to as Olstrfct, and CITY OF ENGLE\1000 of Arapahoe County, Colorado, herein referred to as Grantor . .!!.ll!!.U .. H.I!!_:_ WHEREAS, the Grantor is the owner of the hereinafter described lands; and WHEREAS, the Ofstrlct Is desirous of constructing and maintaining 1 recreat I on111 tr•l I across the lands of the Grantor; NOW, THEREfORE, In consideration of the sum of $1 & other considerat i on s paid by Ofstrlct, receipt 1nd sufficiency of which Is hereby 1cknowledged by Grantor , and the coven1nts and conditions hereinafter set forth, the Grantor hereby grants, bargins, sells, and conveys to the District, It's successors and assigns, a perpetual easement for the construction, maintenance, removal and replacemen t of a recreational trail in accordance with the plans hereto attached under the following-described property situate in the County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado, to-w i t : Town1hlp 2077 Sect ion 05 Quarter Sect ion I Block 00 Lot• 021, 027' 050 Exhibit B (a point-to-po i nt survey provided by a register ed engineer and dr•wn on ArApAhoe County •s sessor's maps showing the center 11ne of the constructed trail and ducr lblng the euement a• 6'-0" on each 1lde of that center line a long with a written ducrlptlon of the ourvey) will be prov i ded upon completion of tra il construction and Is hereby Incor porated Into th is contract. TO HAVE AND TO HOLO the right herein granted unto District, it's successors and assigns forever for the purposes herein described, provided, ho~<ever, that at such time as said easement be no longer used for these purposes, this easement, without legal process, shall 027, forthwith revert to the then -o~<ner of Lots 021 & OSQ, Block.__;O::.,:O,__ __ ----------'Subd ivlsion_"'n"'/.;;;.a ______ Arapahoe County, Color .• • ' .. • ! t i l l 'I ·~ I' '' I • • • • • • DISTRICT COVENANTS AND AGREES : 1. To maintain the easement in 1 clean and sanitary ~ondition and the in.,rovements the~eon iri good repair. 2. To commence construction within fifteen (15) d1ys of the date hereof and complete the contempl~ted improvements in a reasonable period of time. 3. To hold Grantor harmless from any liability arising from the use of said easement by any persons whatsoever and to maintain liability and property damage insurance adequate to so protect Grantor. 4. Acc~ss onto property shall be confined to the shortest feasible route from the nearest street. 5. Vehicles all.owed on the easement property will only be those necessary for the work to be performed. No private vehicle parking will be allowed. Upon completion of project, all wheel damage will be repaired as described in No. 7. 6. All natural materials will be returned to their original condition 1fter completion of the project. All destroyed shrubs will be replaced by nursery stock. All existing shrubs 1n the path of the work will be stored near the site. The stor1ge will be done in 1 Nnner to maximuze the chance for survival. 7. All work concerning utilities (gas, telephone, water, sewer and service mains) will be coordinated with the respective companies and any damage incurred in construction will be reimbursed to the involved company by the builder. B. Top soil will. be scraped 2" deep and stockpiled beside each trench for replacement as top soil before soil preparation. 9. Backfilling of the trench shall be compacted to 97S of the density of the existing soils . Physical tamping will be done between max imum 6" layen of backfilling . Puddling will be done to saturation for the ent i re length of each trench . 10. The trenched and backfilled surface will be scarified af lt' replacing the stored top soil. • ' .. . . 'l • ! ! i t ! I l I .i 'l t · . . ~' . ' I I • • - • • • • • 11. Excess materi~l will be removed from the site. 12. The within Trailway Easement shall extend to and be for the use and benefit of the Distrift. its contractors and work- men for the term above described. 1]. The Grantor reserves the right to close the tra i l to the publ ic in the event it determ i nes an unsafe cond i tion exists or the tra i I is not being properly maintained for the public safety. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the District has subscribed its name and seal the day and year first above written. DISTRICT: SOUTH SUBURBAN METROPOLITAN RECREATION AND PARk DISTRICT b : t itle: STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE GRANTOR: Cl TY OF ENCLEIIOOD b : title: ss . The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before 111e this ------- city of , 1g_, by -------------- Witness my hand and official seal . ~ commis sion expires : STATE OF COLORADO COUIIT Y OF ARAPAHOE ss . NOTARY PUBU c The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ------- day , 19_, by ----:-------- ~itness my hand and official seal. f·ly conmission expires: · NOTARY PUBU C .1'' • .. • i i j l 1 I • • • • • ;; --- / COLORAOO GftEE NWlY 0£MCNSTRATION LOOP 'TRAIL • • • • - ,, . t ! .! I .1 ·i I • COLORADO CREENWAY DEMOfoiSTRATION LOOP TRA IL • • ORDINANCE 00. i SERIES OF 198:-:4--- • • • BY Al1l'HORITY COONCIL BILL 00. 5 INI'RODUCID BY COONCIL MEMBER SILO AN ORDINANCE PERTAIN!~ '00 'IHE ~OF Al1l'OHCIHLE FMISSIONS CCNI'ROL DEVICE INS~IOO PROGRAM. WHEREAS, the City of &lglewood has observed the large m.wtber of motor vehicles 1otlich, contrary to State Emissions Law, are not properly inspected and do not display proper certification of emissions control, which has an adverse impact upon the health, safety, and peace of the citizens of this City; oow I 'IHEREFORE I BE IT ORDAINED BY 'IHE CITY OXJNCIL OF 'IHE CITY OF ENGLDi<X>D, OOLORAOO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Title XIV, Chapter 2, Section 8, Englewood Municipal Code '69, is hereby amended to read as follows: 14-2-8: FMISSIONS FROM GASOLINE-POWERID !K>INES No pet!&eR IIAaU aM~ OWNER 00 OPERA'OOR OF ANY VflfiCLE SHAlL CAUSE 00 PERMIT '00 BE FMITTID fran any gasoline-powered engine any visible air contaminate(s). Such anissions that are a direct result of cold-engine start-up shall be exempt. 14-2-8.1: ~llOMENl' OF AU'OOHCIHLE FMISSIONS CONTROL DEVICE INSffrl'IOO Mil RF.AOOUS'nmfl' PROGRAM (a) IT IS WLAWFtL FOR ANY PERSC:lJ '00 l:lUVE, STOP, PARK, 00 fOR 'IHE OWNER OR ~ IN OiARGE OF ANY VEHICLE '00 CAUSE 00 I<N<MI~Y PERMIT '00 BE DRIVDI, STOPPID 00 PARKID 00 ANY STREET 00 HIGHWAY WITHIN 'IHE CITY OF n«;LDQ)() ANY V!HICLE WHICH IS REC(JIRID t:H:>ER 'IHE IAWS OF 'lHE STATE OF CX>LORAOO '00 BE INS~ID PURSUANT '00 'IHE Al1l'OH(EILE INSftrl'IOO AND REAOJUS'l!mn' PROGRAM, ESTABLISHED PURSUANT '00 StX:'l'IONS 42-4-306.5 '00 42-4-316 OOLORAOO REVISID STA'ru'l'ES !l«.ESS StXlf VEHICLE HAS BEEN INS~ID AT AN Al1l'HORIZID INS~IOO STATIOO AND HAS ATTAOfiD 'IHERETO, IN PROPER POSITIOO, A VALID Mil IMEXPIRID CERTIFICATIOO OF FMIS- SIOOS CONTROL, AS REQUIRID BY 'IHE LAWS OF 'IHE STATE OF COLORAOO. (b) IN ANY PROSEX:UTIOO OF 'lHE PR)VISIONS OF 'IHIS StX:TIOO, PROOF 'IHAT 'lHE V!HICLE DESCRIBID IN 'lHE c:D1PLAINT WM DRIVDI, PARI<ID OR STOPPID IN VIOLATIOO OF 'IHIS StX:'l'IOO, TOGETHER WITH PROO~ 'IHAT 'IHE DEFDI>ANT tW1fD IN 'IHE CDtPLAINT WM AT 'lHE TIME OF SUCH DRIVI~, STOPPI~ 00 PARK!~, A REGISTERID ~ OF 'lHE p A I • - • • • • • VDUCLE, 9WL CDISTI'IUTE PRIMA FACIE EVIDnD 'IHAT 'lHE DEFENDANT Wl\5 'lHE PERSOO Nl> IRJVE, PARKED, STOPPID ~ KNOW- ItG.Y PERHITTID 'ID BE OOIVI!N I STOPPID ~ PARI<ID I SUOi UNATTDI>ID VEHICLE AT 'lllE PLACE WHERE AND FOR 'lHE TIME allOt SUOi VI<XATION cx::cuRRI!D. Section 2. Section (a) of Title'XIV, Olapter 1, Section 1 is amended to ·add · subsection (5) to read as follows: (5·) Section 19-7 of Article XIX ·, is Deleted. Introduced, read in full, and passed en first reading en the 6th day of February, 1984. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance en the 8th day of February, 1984. Read by title and passed en final reading en the 21st day of February, 1984. PUblished by title as Ordinance No. ___ , Series of 1984, en the 22nd day of February, 1984. I!Ugene L. Otis, Mayor Attest: 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 oanplete copy of · the Ordinance passed en final reading and published by title as Ordinance No. , Series of 1984. --- Gary R. Higbee • I • • • ORDINANCE NO. SERIES OF 198'~4--- • • BY AUTHORITY COUNCIL BILL NO. 5 INTRODUCED BY OOUNC IL MEMBER BILO AN ORDINANCE PERTAINit«:J TO 'mE mFORCEHml' OF At11'0MCBILE EMISSIONS COOTROL DEVICE INSPEX:TIOO PmGRAM. WHEREAS, the City of &lglewood has observed the large numer of motor vehicles ..tlich, contrary to State Emissions Law, are not properly inspected and do not display proper certification of enissions control, ~ich has an adverse impact upon the health, safety, and peace of the citizens of this City; ~, 'lHEREFORE, BE IT CIIDAINID BY 'mE CITY CDUNCIL OF 'mE CITY OF ENGLDiOOO, <DLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Title XIV, Olapter 2, Section 8, Englewood ~icipal COde ' 69, is hereby <mended to read as follows: 14-2-8: EMISSIONS FROM GASOLINE-POWERID mGINES No peMeA IIRaU elM~ OWNER ~ OPERATOR OF ANY VDIICLE SHAlL CAUSE ~ PERMIT TO BE EMITTID fran any gasoline-powered engine any visible air contaminate (s) • SUch en iss ions that are a direct result of cold-engine start-up shall be exenpt. 14-2-8.1: mFO~ OF AUTOHCEILE EMISSIONS CONTROL DEVICE INSPB:TIOO AND REAnJtJSTMDn' PmGRAM (a) IT IS !K.AWFUL FOR ANY PERSai TO !:tUVE, STOP, PARK, ~ FOR 'mE ~R OR PERSOO IN mARGE OF ANY VDIICLE TO CAUSE OR ~It«:it.Y PERMIT TO BE DRI~, STOPPID ~ PARIQD 00 ANY STREET OR HIGIIoiAY WITHIN 'mE CITY OF ENGLDiOOO ANY VDIICLE .,.UOi IS ~IRID t.H>ER THE LAWS OF 'lHE STATE OF CX>LORAOO TO BE INSPB:TID PURSUANT TO 'mE AUTOHCJHLE INSPB:TIOO AND RF.ADJIJS'nomiT PRX>RAH, ESTABLISHID PURSUANT TO SEn' IONS 42-4-306.5 ro 42-4-316 <DLORADO REVISED STATUTES t.m.ESS SUOf VDIICLE HAS BEEN INSPB:TID AT AN AU'lHORIZID INSPEX:TIOO STATIOO AND HAS ATTACHID THERETO, IN PROPER POSITIOO, A VALID AN) ~XPIRID CERTIFICATIOO OF EMIS- SIONS CONTROL, AS REC(JIRID BY THE LAWS OF 'lHE STATE OF COLORADO. (b) IN ANY POOSEOJTIOO OF 'mE PROVISIONS OF 'lHIS SfX:TIOO, PKIOF THAT THE VDIICLE DESCRIBID IN 'lHE <XJHPLAINT ~ DRIVDI, PARKID ~ STOPPID IN VIOLATIOO OF THIS SfX:TIOO, TOGE'niER WITH P~F THAT 'mE DEF'EM)ANT NAHID IN THE <nou'LAINT ~ AT 'DiE TIME OF SUOf DRIVING, STOPPit«:J c.R PARKING, A REGISTERID ~ OF 'mE • I • • - • • ( • • • • WUCLE, 9WL cn.STI'lUTE PRII'P. FACIE EVID!lCE 'mAT 'ftfE DEFENDANT ~ 'DIE PERSQI Nl> J:R)VE, PARKID, Sl"'PPED at m:M- It«iLY PERMITTED 'lU BE I:IUV!N, Sl"'PPI!D at PARKID, SUOi t&TTI!H>ED V!HICLE AT 'ftfE PLliCE WHERE JH> POR 'DIE TIME MUOi SUOi VI<X..ATIOO OXURRED. Section· 2. Section (a) of Title 'XIV, Q\apter 1, Section 1 is anen:ied to ·add · subsection (5) to read as fol101o11: (5·) Section 19-7 of Article XIX·, is Deleted. Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 6th day of Pebruary, 1984. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the 8th day of Pebruary, 1984. Read by title and passed on final reading on the 21st day of Pebruary, 1984. PUblished by title as Ordinance No. the 22nd day of Pebruary, 1984. Attest: ex officio city Clerk-Treasurer r , Series of 1984, on !U}ene L. 0t1a, Mayor I, Gary R. Higbee, ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer of the City of Fllglewood, COlorado, hereby certify that the above and . foregoing is a true, accurate and oamplete copy of · the Ordinance~ on final reading and published by title as Ordinance No.~, Series of 1984. Gary R. HiCjbee • I • • - • • • • • 'I BY At11'HORITY ORDINANCE N:>. SERIES CF 198~'4 __ _ A BILL FOR AN ORDINA!CE AH!H>ING ARTICLE I, atAPl'ER 6, SEX:TI~ 9, CF 'ftfE ENGLIMOOD 1'1.6ICIPAL <XlDE 1969, AS AKDI>I!D, PROVIDING FOR ~ARTERLY REPORTS, RATHER 'lliAN I'Dfl'HLY REPORTS, FlO'l 1'1.6ICIPAL CXXJRT TO 'mE CITY COONCIL CF ALL N:>TICES AM> CITATIOOS ISSUED, llf1<:NG cmfER INFOilHATION. WHEREAS, Council has received a recarmendation of the Englewood Court Advisory Camtittee; t«JW, 'lHEREFORE, BE IT ~INI!D BY 'mE CITY ClXJNCIL CF 'mE CITY CF OG:.IMOOD, CXX.ORAOO, AS l!"'O.LCMS: Section 1. 'lhat Article I, Olapter 6, Section 9, of the ltC of 1969, as amended, is hereby amended to read as foll~: 1-6-9: The Yiel:aeteM ~ CWRT shall keep records and sul:mit 8\lll'llarized MR~l:y ~ARTERLY reports to the City Counci 1 of CASES FILED, al:1 NIHeee aM el-4!HMM Hellell aRII ~~HeMe llllllie fel! wiel:aeieM e( 4!he ee11e • •lliMMea e( ~-ill ~, aM e( al:1 4!he fines, CXXJRT (D;TS All> cmfER MliiiCIPAL FtlllS collected, NMRANTS ISSUED, HEARitG'i HELD, All> SlDI Ol'HER All> rumtER ~TIC:. Nl!lCESSARY ~ ~LE IN 'DfE CIIOJ1STAICES. ~the Yiel:aeieM 11iHeH _. • the fiAti •••••liei• • ,....e...._ • eYelfy _.. e( wiel:aei• e( the ,.."''-'-e( ..-11h • ......... ...... ·-··-~ --_, ... , ... ----al:l ~ e( •tiel:aei .. aRII the Metie e( eaeh. Said records shall be public records, ElCEPT AS amERWISE PIIOVIOI!D BY LAW. Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 21st day of February, 1984. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the 22nd day of February, 1984 • Attest: EUgene L. Otls, Mayor ex officio city Clerk-Treasurer • I • • - • • • • 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 OCIIIPlete copy of a Bill for an Ordinance, introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 21st day of February, 1984. Gary R. H1gbee I • • - .. ORDINAlCE t«>. SERIES CR 198:":'4 __ _ • • • BY AtmtORITY A BILL FOR CCMCIL BILL t«>. 8 ~a:AJOCIL AN ORDINAICE H1!K>It«; ARTICLE I, OfAPl'ER 6, sa:TICW 9, CF 'nfE I!2GJ!W<XD .U.ICIPAL CXDE 1969, AS AMJH>ID, PROVIDit«; FOR ~ARTERLY REPORTS, RA'niER 'DIAN ~y REPORTS, Ji'lUol ~ICIPAL CDJRT 'ro 'ftiE CITY CCMCIL CR ALL NJTICES »«> CITATICWS ISSUID, liMCH; O'niER INFORMATION. WHERFAS, Cotmcil has received a reccmnendation of the Er¥Jlewood COurt Advisory CCIIInittee; tiM, 'lHEREPORE, BE IT ~INID BY 'nfE CITY a:AJOCIL CF 'nfE CITY CF I!IIOLENaD, aLORAOO, AS POLLOWS: Section 1. 'lbat Article I, 0\apter 6, Section 9, of the I!H: of 1969, as iiiiiE!Dded, is hereby lllllended to read as follow: 1-6-9: The TJia~eeiaM a.-CDJRT shall keep records and sul:mit amnarized -ett~y CCARTERLY reports to the City COtneil of CASES FILID, M* Mtlieee eM eiaeiaM ..._. eM HHH11 Jallllle fM wia~eei-ef *e 88lle • •lli-•ee ef ~ ~, eM ef til 4!Re fines, CDJRT aJSTS »«> amER KIIICIPAL rtHlS collected, NIUmANTS ISSU!D, HEARIIIOS HELD, »«> su:H amER Mil rumtER ~TICW ~y ~ REASC»>ABLE IN 'nfE CIIDJ1S'l'NCES. lly --TJieMtli-lllllfeH ... -*e fiRM .,., .... , ... -............ -e¥etfY .... ef '+'ieNtti• ef *e ,.wiai-ef ..-nl! • ... , ....... , .......... ~ --_, .... , .... --..., ell..-ef oidetli-_.tiNt tiMeH ef .... Said records shall be public records, ElCEPT AS Ol'HEIIfiSE PICVID!D BY LAW. Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 21st day of Pebruary, 1984. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the 22nd day of Pebruary, 1984. Attest: FAJgene L. 0t1s, 111lyor 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 and foregoing is a true, accurate and canplete oopy of a Bill for an Ordinance, introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 21st day of February, 1984. Gary R. Higbee • I • • - • • • • • BY AIJl'HORITY ORDINAtCE 00. SERIES CF 198:...,.4-- A BILL FOR <lmCIL BILL 00. 9 IN'l'IQJUCm BY <lmCIL ~~---------- AN ORDINAtCE APPROVING AN ~ BE'1W!ZN 'DfE CITY CF ~. COLORADo, Ml> 'DfE CENTRAL CDL0RA00 LIBRARY SYST!H RI!XiMOING lm:IPRlCAL I!JORIQiiNG PRJGRAH. WHEREAS, Central Colorado Library Systaa (CI:U;) ia the Regional Library Service System in llotlich Englewood PUblic Library partici- pate; and WHEREAS, said a:r..s has subnitted an agreaaent to the City of Englewood for continuation of a progr• currently in effect, llotlich agreement relates to the reciprocal borrowing PE"ogr•, a copy of said agreement is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; NJW, 'DfEREFORE, BE IT <RlAINED BY 'DfE CITY <DM:IL CF 'DfE CITY CF !Kil.I!WOOO' a>LORADO: Section 1. '!bat the City of Englewood, Colorado, shall enter into an agreement with the Central Colorado Library System relating to reciprocal borrowing program ccamencing October 1, 1983 through September 30, 1988. Said program generates income for the City and affords Englewood residents direct access to materials owned by participating libraries. Said agreement consists of three typewritten pages and is incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A. Section 2. '!bat the City Cotneil of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby authorizes the Mayor of Englewood to subscribe his name to said agreements for and in behalf of the Englewood Public Library and the Director of Finance, ex officio City Clerk- Treasurer, attest the same. Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 21st day of February, 1984. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the 22nd day of February, 1984. Attest: EUgene L. Otls, Mayor ex offic1o City Clerk-Treasurer • ., c I • • - • • • • • • I, Gary R. Higbee, ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer of the City of !DJlewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true, accurate and ocmplete copy of a Bill for an Otdinance, introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 21st day of February, 1984. Gary R. Higbee I • ~~~-·----------------------~~~~·--~--~--------~~~v~ILDL_ ______ ~~ • - • ( • • • • A&reement for Participation in the Central Colorado Library System Public Library Reciprocal Borrowin& Program Wherea 8 , City of Englewood is a political subdivision of the State of Colorado located ~ithin the boundaries of the Central Colorado Library System, aud maintains and operates a public library, the Engle~od Public Library and Whereas, ____ C_i_t~y~o_f __ En __ g~l_e_w_o __ o __ d ______________________________ _ desires to participate in the Public Library Reciprocal Borrowiug Program operated and administered by the Ce"tral Colorado Library Sy s t e••; now Thcrefore, __ C_i_t_y __ o_f __ En __ g __ l_e_wo __ o_d _________________ hereby agrees: 1) To participate in the Public Library Reciprocal Borrowing Pro&ra• for the period ca.mencing l October 198) and continuing through )0 Septeaber 1988. 2) To endorse, abide by, and be aubject to the rulea for Operation and Administration of the program, which Rules are attached hereto and incorporated as a part of this agreement. It is understood that this agreement is a joint inteq~overnmental agreement among the progr11a1 participants, and that the Central Colorado Library Systc• functions, in administration of the program, as the agent of the body of participants. Central Colorado Uhrary Sy•tcm :iM05 Marsllilll ~lrt.:l'l Wh eal l{id~t·. Colorado (:10:1) ~U -1 1 :.u Suill'l0~ HIKJ :I:I • I • • I n ,.. ( ( ( • • • • Page 2 It ia further understood· that this agreement may be terminated at the end of any ·one-year period after 1 October 1983, at the option of the participating jurisdictions. Notic e of intent to ter.inate participation must be made in writing to the Director of the Central Colorado Library System, not later than sixty (60) days preceding the date of intended termination. It is agreed that termination of participation is considered a permanent act, and that no warranties regarding reinstatement of a terminated participant are made by the body of participant& or the Central Colorado Library System. Agreed this ___ day of------------------- 19 __ at ______________ , Colorado. ______ _ (Seal) A Colorado Political Subdivision by: _________________________________________ ___ Title ________________________________________ __ Received: Central Colorado Library Syatem by: __________ ~----------- Title'------------------------------------------- O.te _______________________ __ • I • • - ( ( • ( • • • BY AU'ntORITY ORDINAK::E 00. SERIES Cl!' 198'74 __ _ A BILL~ AN ORDINAICE APPRJVIl«i AN AGRm4DIT BE'lWI!ZN '1HE CITY Cl!' ~, COLORADO, At«> '1HE a:H'1'RAL CDLORADO LIBRARY SYST!M ~It«; Im:IPIO::AL IOUOill«> PIIOGRAH. WHEREAS, Central Colorado Library Systan (<l:LS) is the Regional Library Service System in which Englewood Public Library partici- pate; and WHEREAS, said a:r.s has sutmitted an agreement to the City of Englewood for continuation of a program currently in effect, which agreement relates to the reciprocal borrowing program, a oopy of said agreement is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; t«JW, 'IHEREFORE, BE IT CRIP.INI!D BY 'DfE CITY CDnCIL Cl!' 'DfE CITY Cl!' EN:;La«XJD, CDLORAOO: Section 1. 'ftlat the City of &lglewood, Colorado, shall enter into an agreement with the Central Colorado Library System relating to reciprocal borrowing program cxmnencing October 1, 1983 through September 30, 1988. Said program generates income for the City and affords Englewood residents direct access to materials owned by participating libraries. Said agreement consists of three typewritten pages and is incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A. Section 2. 'ftlat the City Co~n:il of the City of &lglewood, Colorado, hereby authorizes the Mayor of Englewood to subscribe his name to said agreements for and in behalf of the &lglewood Public Library and the Director of Finance, ex officio City Clerk- Treasurer, attest the same. Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 21st day of February, 1984. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the 22nd day of February, 1984. Attest: EUgene L. Otls, Mayor ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer ~~~--·------------------~---------·----~--~---------~~L-1 I • • ( • • • I, Gary R. Higbee, ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer of the City of Fhjlewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true, accurate and OCIIIplete copy of a Bill for an Ordinance, introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 21st day of Pebruary, 1984. Gary R. Higbee I • • ( ( • • • • Agreement for Participation in the Central Colorado Library Syatem Public Library Reciprocal Borrowing Program Whereas, City of Enalewood is a pulitical subdivision of the State of Colorado locat~d ~ithin the boundaries uf the Central Colorado Library System, ~ud rnaint~ins and operates a public library, the · Englewood Public Library and Whereas, ____ C_i_t~y~o_f __ En~g~l_e_wo __ o_d ________________________________ _ desires to participate in the Public Library Reciprocal Borrowing Program operated and administered by the Central Colorado Library System; now Therefore, __ C_i_t~y __ o_f __ En~a~l_e_wo __ od _________________ hereby agrees: 1) To participate in the Public Library Reciprocal Borrowina Program for the period co.mencing 1 October 1983 and continuing through 30 September 1988. 2) To e~dorae, abide by, and be subject to the rules for Operation and Administration of the program, which Rules are attached hereto and incorporated aa a part of thia agreement. It is understood that this agreement is a joint intet·governmental agreement among the progr1111 participants, and lh~t the Central Colurado Library Syste• funcliuns, in administration of the program, as the agent of the body of participants. Central Colorado Ubrary Sy•tem JMU 5 Marshall :w~l'l Sti ilt• :.w-1 Wheal Rid~<·. Colorado liOO :I:I (:10:1) ~ll -11 5 0 • I • • ( ( ( • • • Page 2 It i1 further underatood· that thl.s agreement may be terminated at the end of any ·one-year period after October 1983, at the option of the participating jurisdictions. Notic e of intent to ter.inate participation •uat be made in writing to the Director of the Central Colorado Library Syetem, not later than sixty (60) days preceding the date of intended termination. It is agreed that termination of participation is considered a permanent act, and that no warranties regarding reinstatement of a terminated participant are made by the body of participants or the Central Colorado Library System. Agreed this ___ day of------------------- 19 ___ at ________________ , Colorado. ______ _ (Seal) A Colorado Political Subdivision by: _________________________________________ ___ Title, _________________________________________ __ Received: Central Colorado Library Sy1t~ by=------------------~----------------------- Title'-----------------~------------------------- Dat•------------------------------------------ I • • • ~~------------------~---~~--·~~-------------------2~~L-~-------·~~~·Jn ( \ ( • • • - C 0 U N C I L C 0 M M U N I C.A T I 0 N DATE Feb. 10, 1984 AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT Central Colorado Library System (CCLS) ~Eciprocal Dorro.~ing Program INITIATED BY Libr~ Adviaary Board ACTION PROPOSED COUncil awrove agreanent via ordinance. INl'RDJCl'ICii: At its meeting of February 7, 1984, the Engl.el.iood Public Library Ad- visory lloard approved the CCLS Reciprocal Dorrowi.ng Progrum 1\grearent for FY 1904- FY 1988 for rea:mnendation to City Council. The Agreanent covers the time pericxl October 1, 1983 to September 30, 1988 BI\CKGIOH): ~ ~ary. ~t has participated i~ the CCLS Reciprocal BorrowinCJ Program sJ.nCe l.ts inceptl.Oil m 1976. The program provides access to area pubhc h- braries for Engl.eloaxl residents. Conversely it provides for direct use of ti--e Engle- loOOd Public Library circulation services for Engleloald l¥lfl-residcnts. Ttl:! proqmm pralDtes the effective use of public library reao.Jrces throughc:A.lt the Denver metro- politan area. F~: Participat:inq aqencies are re.inblraed at the rate of $0.55 per net loan iMd8 Wider the program. Of this aaa.mt $0. 275/net loan is paid by the State of ca:ur rado through OCI.S am $0. 27 5 is a local match.inq pa)'lllent. OCI.S does not guarantee tre cxmtinui.ng a vailability of the State subsidy tlu:ougrout the life of tile nulti- year agreanent. Tre subsidy has been in effect since the inception of the prCXJram in 1976. The Engl&«Xld Public Library has been and, I believe, will canti!Ule to be a net lender under the program. 'lllerefore the Agresnent generates :incx:Jlle for the City of Engla.lood. This inaDe fluctuates fran year to year depending on ,..ru.ch library jur:iadi.ct:.i.als participate in the program. Income from the FY 1983 agreanent was $19, 330 • .Effective October 1, 1934, intracounty activity will ro longer be reirnt:Alrsed via the Agreement. This neans that the City will no longer be rei.ntlursed for net loans made to residents of Aurora and Littleton. (Net loans to Araparoe Regi~l Library District (ARID) r e sidents a r c rei.nburscd v ia an individual contruct which i s in pl....-.ce thL'lJU(_]h Decelltler 31, 198•.) Elimination of intraoounty transactions fran its OCLS program r oduoe annual illlnt! to the City by approx.imately $3,400.00. Furthemcrc, eliminati of intracounty transactions fran the CCLS 1\greeanent nay .i.Jlliirectly affect f uturo.! in- cane generated by the ARID agreement. ~ ACri~: It has ~ evident in the past fa.t years that the OCIS Re- c i procal llorroWl n<J Proyrau ls not very ~t;II.Jlc . Major cllill¥JCS i.n p.:u:ticif:.ICltion thrllli<Jh a series of years have weakened the prCXJram. The rapid growth of the Denver MetJ;O- • I I I • ( ( • ·. • • • Aareeaent for Participation in the Central Colorado Library Syatea Public Library Reciprocal Borrowing Program Whereu, City of Enalewood is a political subdivision of the State of Colorado located ~o•ithin the boumlaric¥ of the Central Colora.Jo Lil>r;11·y SyHc111, .anJ maintains and operates a public library, lhe Englc~od Public Library and ~~~. ____ c_t_t~y __ o_f __ En-=a~l~e~w~o~o~d------------------------------- desires to participate in the Public Library Reciprocal UorruwinH Program operated and admini¥tered by the Central Colorado Library Systc111; now Therefore, __ c_t_t_y __ o_f __ En~a~l_e_wo __ o_d _________________ hereby agrees: 1) To participate in the Public Library Reciprocal Borrowing Proacaa for the period ca.aencing 1 October 1983 and continuing throuah 30 September 1988. 2) To elJdorse, abide by, and be aubject to the rulea for Operation and Adainiatration of the proaram, which Rulea are attached hereto and incorporated aa a part of this aareement. It ia underatood thut thia a,ree•ent is a joint intergovernmental aareeaent amona the program participants, and that the Central Colorado l.ibrary Systc• fun c t i on», in administration of the progrum, .u the agent of the body of purtic i punts. Centt·al Colcwudo Ubrary Sy•tem :11~Wi Mars ll.a ll ~l wl'l Whcut ltid l(l ', l"olontdu (:Ill: I) -1~;!-11 ~~~~ Stu ll' :w~ Hllu:l :l • I . - • • • • plex and related decline in the insularity of area camunities have also oontributed to prcbl.aDs in the program and support for it. Therefore, the Program may cease to exist u we know it in the next few years. The staff LetUIIUeudation is to continue participation in the program as long as it oontinues to eKist thereby pLOViding sane .incane for the City. It is irr{lortant to wte that the basis for this LetUiiueudati.on is the Library Advisory Board's defini- tion of the OCIIIIIlllity whi.ch the Library serves which includes in:tividual Enqlewxxi residents, Wsinesses and their eq>loyees/clients, and institutioos and their oon- stituenc.ies. '!be Board ooncurs with the staff reconmeudatioos. •, SUGGESTED ACTION: MOVED BY _____________ _ SE CON D ______________________ __ YES ______ J.O ______ nBSENT _______________________ ___ I • • - • ( • ·. • • • Agree.ent for Participation in the Central Colorado Library Syatea Public Library Reciprocal Borrowing Program Whereas, City of Englewoo<l is a political subdivision of the State of Colorado located ~o~ithin the buun<laric~ uf the Central Colur:ulo Lil>rat·y Syslew, "'"' maintains and operates a public library, lhe Engle.:.Oou Public Library and ~~. ____ c_i_t~y~o_f __ En __ =g_l_e_w_o_o_<l ________________________________ _ <lcsires tu p;u·ticipate in the l'ubl ic Program operated and administered by Syste••; now Therefore, City of Englewood l.ibrary Rccipn>cal llo.-ruwin~ the Central Colora<lo Library hereby agrees: I) To participate in the Public Library Reciprocal Borrowing Proara• for the period c-encing I October 198] a~t~l continuing throuah JO Septe•ber 1988. 2) To e~doue, abide by, and be subject to the ruin for Operation and Ad•inistration uf the program, which Rules are attached hereto and incorporated aa a part of thia agreement. It ia undeutood that thia agreciDcnt is a joint intcrgovenuuental agree•ent aaaong the progra• part ic ipilnt 11, 11nd lhat lhc Central Culura<lo Library Syste• funcl ions, in administration of the progra111, aa the 1111ent of lhe body of purticipants • Centrad Culunulu Uhrary Sy111em :1xo:. M.a.-~11.111 ~,,.. ... Wh cul ltitllll', l'oloradu (:lll:IJ 1~:!-11 r.o Sauh-:!11'1 HOU :I:I • I • - • • • • • Page 2 It ia fu~t h e~ u nd e ~atood that th i a ag~eeaent may be te~alinated at tbe end of any "one-yea~ period afte~ 1 Octobe~ 1983, at the option of the pa r ti c i patina ju~iadictiona. Notice of intent to terainate pa~ti c i pat i on auat be made in writing to the Di~ecto~ of tbe Cent~al Colo~ado Lib~•~Y Sy1tem, not late~ than aixty (60) days p~ecedin& the date of int~nded termination. It ia agreed tbat ter~~ination of participation ia conside1·ed a pe~manent act, and that no wa~ranties ~egarding reinstatement of 1 terminated participant are made by the body of pllrticipant& or the Central Colorado Library Syate.. Ag~eed thia ___ duy of------------------- J 9 __ 4t ______________ , Co)o,·ac:Jo. ______ _ (Seal) A Color4do Political Subdivision by: _________________ . ________________________ _ Title _______________________ _ Received: Central Colorado Library Syatem by: __________________ ~------------------------ Title. _______________________ __ Dat•------------------------------------------- I • • ( • • • • - BY AlmiORITY ORDINAtCE 00. SERIES CF 198'""'3 __ _ A BILL POR AN <H>UWCE APPIIOVII«> THE a:JST CF CDNS'l'ROCTIClol All> REPAIR CF SIDDlAU<S, CORBS, All> CV1"l'ERS IN THE CITY CF JH;[.EW(Xl[) All> CDWIRHit«; THE API'ORTICHVNT All> ASSFA94ENT CF ~ID CXlSTS 'ro EliCH LOT ~ 'mACT CF PIW)PERTY I!"Raft'It«; UPON THE SAME All> PREOCRIBit«; THE HANNER CF <JJLL!X::TIClol All> PA!M1'2rl' CF ~ID ASSESSHfBl'. WHEREAS, City Cot.mCil for the City of Englewood, Colorado, dete[lllined it necessary that certain sidewalks, curbs, and gutters be constructed or repaired; and WHEREAS, City Coulcil caused notice in writing to be sent to owners or agents in charge of the property fronting sidewalks, curbs, and gutters requesting that construction or repairs be made by said owners or agents; and WHEREAS, certain owners and agents did not make such repairs within 30 days after service of the notice, and City Cot.mCil ordered such construction or repairs to be made by the City; and WHEREAS, said construction or repairs have been ma3e, and City Council approved the cost of said construction and repairs in the amount of $18,183.60; and WHEREAS, lmder authority granted by C.R.S., Sections 31-2Q-105 and 31-2Q-106, and by Englewood ~icipal Code 1969, as amended, Sections 12-2-34, 12-2-35, and 12-2-36, City may assess property owners fronting said construction and repair and iqlose a lien for paJIIIIent thereof for failure to pay for said construction and repair; NJW, 'DiEREPORE, BE IT ORDAINID BY 'IHE CITY <DUtCIL CF 'DiE CITY CF ~. CDLORAOO: Section 1. Notice of Assessment. City Coulcil hereby notifies each owner or agent of owner of property, by publication and certified mail, of the cost of construction and repair of sidewalk, curb, and gutter fronting said lot or tract as set forth in the asaes~Dent roll attached hereto as Exhibit A. • I • • - • • • • • Section 2 a. Pa:yment of .Assessment Lien on Lot or Tract. 'nlat the assessments shall be due and payable at the office of the Director of Finance/City Clerk of the City of F.nglewood within thirty (30) days after final pmlication of this Ordinance without demand. If the assessment is not paid within said thirty (30) days after final pmlication, the assesenent shall constitute a lien on the lot or tract and the City Clerk shall certify the assessnent to the COmty Treasurer , lobo shall place the same I:{XIt'l the tax list for the current year to be collected in the same manner as other taxes are collected with penalty of ten percent (10%) thereon to defray the cost of collection. All laws of the State of COlorado for the assessment and collection of general taxes, incl\ding the laws for the sale of property for taxes and their redeap:ion of the same, shall apply and have as full effect for the collection of all such IIUlicipal taxes as for such general taxes. Section 2 b. Discomt on Payment of Assessments. Payments may be made to the Director of Finance at any time within thirty days after the final pmlication of this Ordinance, and an allowance of five percent (5%) will be made on all payments made during such period but not thereafter, 'ftle diacooot of 5% shall apply to all such payments, lotlether the payment is the entire amount of assessment due or a part of the assessment. IDIDediately after the expiration of such thirty-day period, the assesenents shall be certified by the County Treasurer of Arapahoe County, COlorado, for collection as provided by law. Section 3. COooty Treasurer 9\all COllect and Allnit. 'ftle Oolrlty Treasurer , at the close of every month, shall pay over to ftlnicipal Treasurer of the City of F.nglewood all monies collected by her I:{XIt'l the presentation to her of a copy of this Ordinance signed by the Mayor and Clerk of the City of F.nglewood. Section 4. Publication. Notice shall be pmlished in the Fllglewood Sentinel for ten (10) days as defined in CRS, 24-70-106, once each week for three (3) successive weeks. Section 5. Hearing. 'ftle City CO~n:il shall hold (llblic hearing on this Ordinance before final passage at 7:30 o'clock p.m. on April 2, 1984. 2 • I • • ·I • • • .. • Section 6. Publication and Effective Date. 'this Ordinance, after its final passage, shall be [Uii)ered and recorded; the adoption and publication shall be authenticated by signature of the Mayor and Director of Finance ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer, and by Certificate of PUblication. Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 21st day of February, 1984. Published as a Bill for an Ordinarx:e on the 22nd day of February, 1984. Attest: Eugene L. Otls, Mayor ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer I, Gary R. Higbee, ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer of the City of l!bglewod, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true, accurate and oaq>lete copy of a Bill for an Ordinance, introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 21st day of rebruary, 1984. Gary R. H1gbee 3 • I • • • - • •' • DfSCRIP!ION Of PIIOI'UIY NAMf AND ADDIIESS Lot llloc;k SUIIOII/ISION 1971 34 l 09 10 13, Killi•• Aeaub. Becker, Richard B . ' Dorothy N~ of II. 14 2756 So. Bcoa,lwuy $315.07 Englewood, co UOllO 1971 34 2 01 013 25-28 9 Idlewild Gosch, Henry ' Netti L. ' (2795 so . Broadway) Jerry 2790 s. $210.04 Paplow, Dennie J. " Julie L. 3 2801 So. Broadway $525.11 Englewood, co HOllO 1971-34-2-10-028 45-41 16 Idlewild Paplow, Dennie J. ' Julie L. 4 2815 So. Broadway $674.92 Englewood, co 80ll0 1971 34 2 10 030 42-43 16 Idlewild Saith, Bertraa P. " Huberta 5 202 3 SO. Broadway $105.02 Englewood, co HOllO 1911 34 l 10 006 s~ ll, 4 Xilliea Moub. Shea, Helen E . all 12 (2842 So. Broadway) 6 5365 So. Lo9•n Dr. $368.23 Littleton, co 80121 1971 34 2 10 020 37-38 16 Idlewild Ecord, Georqia 7 2845 So. Broadway $315.07 Enqlewood, co 80110 1971 34 2 10 018 31-H 16 Idlewild carpenter, '!'h._. M. (2861-65 &. Broad-y) • 4614 Bryant St. $273.28 Denver, co 80211 1971 34 l 10 009 18-21 4 Xilliea Sub • .... 6/7 Cohen, Helen G. ' &t.>n, (2880 So. Broadway) 9 Jeanne c., Jt Ten $1,086.57 16!i3 Vine St. wattera, Paul P. (2885 So. Broadway ) 10 2543 So. Broadway $315.07 Denver, CO 00210 • 1971 34 2 l7 018 44-48 l7 Speera Bdwy. Addn. Four Corura Aaeociatea (2911 So. Broadway) 11 6000 c. Evana Ave. $105.02 Denver, co 00222 1971 34 l ll 025 5-16 1 Str&yora Bdwy. lllli. Bear Fr ... " Axle Service 12 2946 So. Broadway $.420.08 t.:nql cwoocl, co UOl10 • 1971 34 2 17 019 21-40 l 7 Speen Bdwy. Addn . I weatern Stalea Finance Corp. • • 13 C/O Ralph !L SchOIIIP $315.07 2949 So. Bcoa<lway ( co 00110 Strayer• Bdwy. Hta. Bear P'raae ' Axle Service Co . (2960 so. BrOAdway) 14 liUU Stout Sl. $210.04 Denver, co 90204 1971 34 l ll 007 19-20 5tcayon lldwy. Hta. Bo•r PraM ~ Axle Service Co. (21JUO So . Bc0ild1•h~y) $525.11 15 111111 Stout Sl . u~nvcr, co UU204 • • • - • • D£SCIIIPTIOH Of PIIOPHTY -· ·-·------------ NAME AND "OORES6 lot -5UIOIVIIION =. 1971 34 2 18 027 42, 24 Speera Bdwy. Addn. Jefferson, Richard L. ' Shiou N l/3 (3015 So. Bdwy.) Yun, Jt Ten 41 $437.59 1 2207 E. Dartmouth Cir. Eng l ewoot.l , co 00110 1971 3 4 2 18 026 N 2/3 24 sp .. ra Bdwy. Addn . J efferson, Richard L. ' Shiou 40, (3021 So . Bdwy .) 2 Yun, Jt Ten s 2/3 $105.02 2207 E. Oart•outh Cir. 41 Englewood, co 80110 19 ll J4 l ._ OU4 b-9 6 Strayers Bdwy . Ills. Jack., Frank ' Mary E. 3 3020 So. Broadway $112.55 Enqlcwood, co 00110 1971 34 2 lB 021 35-36 24 Speera Bdwy. Addn . Mch&lt, Alexander S. ' Frieda 4 3051 So. Broadway Englewood, co 00110 $105.02 ----- 1971 34 2 10 020 33-34 24 Speeu Bdwy. .llddn . Foe rater, Laurence P.' et al 5 3057 So. Broadway Engl-. co UOHO $131.94 1971 34 1 u 028 lO-ll a Strayer• Bdvy . Ht.a. Scha.p, Mary MargAret ' Liaa ( 3000 so. Broadway) 6 J. ' Caroline ' Roberta, John s. $315.07 2949 So . Broadvay Englewood, co 80110 -I , 7 1971 34 l 12 027 13-24 0 Strayers Bdwy . llts. IIIEX COrp. c/o I I llalph Schc.,p'o Olcl .. tobile $315.07 2949 SO. Broadway Envlewood, co 80110 1971 H 4 OB 020 l, 2, 4 ..... Addn. Burt Prcpertiea, Inc. II 15' of (llOO So . lr...-y) • 5200 So. Broadway 3 $420.08 Englewood, co 80110 1971 34 3 01 022 45-48 1 Uee'a Addn . Axtell A8aociatea, Inc. (3101 So. Broadway) $210.04 10 . 10641 u.s. Hwy. 85 Littleton, co 80120 1971 34 4 OB 018 4-7 4 Rose Addn. Burt Propertiea, Inc. (3120 So. Broadway) $280.06 11 5200 So. Broadway '£nqlcwood, co 80110 1971 34 3 01 020 39-41 l Hee•a Addn. Noreen, Stanley (3139 So. Broadway) $1,160.88 1l 6071 So. Franklin St. Littleton, co 80121 1971 34 3 Ol Ol& 36-37 1 Bee• a Addn . lAntach, Marg1e Leone (3147 so. Broadway) $105.02 13 1550 E. Oartaouth Englewood, ~'() 00110 I • • ( 1971 34 J 01 016 32-33 1 lluv•a Mdn. I llaidon, Marilyn R. 14 Jl6J so. Broad way $714.82 Enq lewood, co U0110 11-H 4 Ro .. Addn. Firot Baptiot Church $1,814.06 15 3170 so. Broadway EnQlewood, CO 00110 A-~ ----- • • • • • OESCIIPTJOH Of PIOI'fRTY NAME AND ADORES& "" lllod< SUBD IVISION ~ - I 19 71 34 3 01 013 2 5-27 1 Hee 's Addn . DeSena Assoc. (3195 So . Br.oadway ) $105.02 1660 So . 1\lb1.on St ., Sui te 302 I Denver, co U0222 1971 34 4 009 001 1-3 5 Roae Addn . Har ick , I nc. (320 0 So . Broadway ) 2 c/o !l arry D . Richardson $616.58 5 5 55 so . Monac o St. Englewood , co 0011 0 ~:;~n •;.;t~=r~~~p 21->4 4 s. G. II amlin 's Bdwy . Addn. (3211 So . Broadway) 3 1515 Arapahoe St., Suite 1 6 0 0 $465.25 Den v er , co 8 0 202 1971 34 4 09 002 4-8 5 110oe Addition Mosko, Aaron ' Jean 13 232 So . BroAdway ) 4 4050 So. Broadway $1,041.55 Eng l ewood, co 80110 ---------- 1 971 34 4 O'J OOJ 9 -11 ~ kO::iC Addu . Pr i t chard , Robe rt E. ' 5 lloscma ry 1:. $289.47 J24 2 So . Dro •. uJway Eng l ewood, co 00110 19 71 34 4 09 004 . 1 2 -15 5 Roae Addn. Pr itcha r d, Robert £:. (3250 So . Bro adway ) 6 7711 So. RA c e St. Littleton, co 00122 $31 5.07 .. 1971 34 3 00 037 Beg . at Pt . of Intersec. of w. line of I McLaughlin , Frank B . s . Bdwy. ' N . line of Elt of ~a, o f Sit of $1,072.80 7 1014 1\daas St. NE~ of SW\ oC Sec. 3 4-4-GU ; Th. S. 11 1q . W. Denver, co uo 09 line of Ddwy . 50 ': Th . w. 129 ~'' 111. N . 50'' Th . E . 129 ~' to l"t . o f Beq. 34-4~8 . (l2LJ So. Urua..Jwuy) • 1971 34 4 09 005 16-20 5 Roae Addn. S ofa Fac tory of Denver, Inc. (3 264 so. BrOAdway ) 9 3270 so. Broa dwa y $260.11 Enqlowood , co 00 110 ----··--· -· .. ·-·------·--1971 H 4 0~ 006 21 -2 4 ~ Rose 1\Lldn. Bedore, Melv in L. ' She lle y L . 10 329C So. Bdwy . $555.2 2 Englewood, co 00110 ---- 1971 34 3 00 023 E . 150' Blk, 7 , Normandy NJdn ., olOW • Col--.n , Barry P . ~ Jeannette vaca t ed 11 3305 so. Broadway $315.07 englewood, co 00110 1971 34 3 17 020 4 6-4 7. l Cnwood Addn • Fiedela&n, Stua rt ' Ruf ' s 16' (3405 so. Broadway) 12 Hepne r, Jtoaalon of 48 $210.04 3515 so . llillcroat Dr . Denver, co 00237 • '"' JO J L 019 44 -4 5 1 Cnwoot.l Alldn • Friodaan, Gertrude (J4 15 So. Broadway) 13 1201 -lUth St . $420.08 0CHV\Jt', co U0202 I • • ' 197 34 3 17 017 4 0-41 l Enwood Addn, 0' Brecht, Mary c. ' Dran•feldt, (3431-35 so. Broadway) $297.56 )~ Fred ' Cwohilrt ' Fav111, IIA ( P . o. Oox 16 l•o.~rke c, co li0J l4 1911 34 ) l/ 0 1) 32-34 l Cnwood 1\.Jw o. l.uok, lteury ' Kurn II . 0457-61-63 So . BrNdw ~y) $114 .4 3 15 ~~~ -l7lh St. fld .>~ln vur, co 00.1 0~ --·------·· • • 'I • 2 3 5 6 7 I 9 10 II 12 13 1. 15 1 9 71 34 03 17 011 Ho l t hau&, Barbara c/o Nicltoe n Inv . Co. 3 4 93 So. Acoma St. Engl e wood , CO BOliO • • • DESCIIIPTION fY PIOrEITY lot Block 29 -J O Enwood Addn .. (3473 So. !!roadway) $114.43 I • • A -~ n - \ I • • • • - C 0 U N C I L C 0 M M U N I C A T I 0 N DATE February 15, 1984 AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT INITIATED BY Directgr gf Engineering Seryices ACTION PROPOSED Passage of ordinance BACKGROUND ORDINANCE RELATING TO ASSESS- MENTS FOR CONCRETE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM 1983 (Bdwy. concrete) In August, 1983, City Council authorized the Department of Engineering Services to issue concrete replacement notices for certain properties adjacent to South Broadway. The required concrete work consisted of curb and gutter repairs necessary prior to the City project consisting of profiling and overlaying South Broadway. FINANCIAL The total cost of said improvements, consisting of construction costs, engineering costs, administrative costs , and interest, amounts to $18,183.60. The total cost was charged against budgeted monies in the PIF (concrete replacement account) and will be reimbursed to the City as the assessments are paid by the individual pro- perty owners. It is anticipated that these funds will be received between May 1, 1984 and April 1, 1985. RECOMMENDATION We recommend passage of the ordinance establishing assessment costs. Also included for your information and approval, is a completion schedule for Concrete Replacement Program 1983. Please note that it calls for a public hearing on assessments at the regular Council meeting of April 2, 1984. It also allows for a 5\ discount on any part of assessments paid prior to June 8, 1984. I • - , • • • • TIME SCHEDULE FOR .COMPLETION OF BROADWAY CONCRETE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 1983 TUESDAY, Feb. 21, 1984 WEDNJ::SDAY, i·'eb. 29 , 1984 FRIDAY, February 24, 1984 WEDNESDAY, March 7, 1984 WEDNESDAY, March 14, 1984 MONDAY, April 2, 1984 MONDAY, Apr il lG, 19114 WEDNI ~SIJAY, 1\pr.il 18, 1984 MONDAY, May 7, 1984 WEDNESDAY, May 9, 1984 FRIDAY, June 8, 1984 FRIDAY, June 0, 1984 FRIDAY, June 8, 1984 IWC/ldo 1/23/84 Rev. 2/10/04 Bill for ordinance assessing costs and calling for public hearinC) Bill with list of assessments published first time. Mail notices of assessments and public hearing. Second public.~ t.ion of Ail 1 Third publication of Bill Public hcariu<.J on assessmunts Consider amendauents to bill for ordin•uu.:u. Publish b ill ror onlin.:ua:u iu rlu.aJ ronu if necessary. Consider ordinance on final reading. Publish as an ordinance, by title. Ordinance in full force and effect. Last day for 5\ discount Last day for full payment without 10\ cost of collection penalty • I • • f • • • • BY AlmJORITY ORDINAOCE 00. COONCIL BILL 00. 10 SERIES <F 198'"'3 __ _ ~IL A BILL POR AN ORDINAM:E APPROVING 'DfE rosT <F CXlNSTROCTIOO Nl> REPAIR <F SIDEWAU<S, CURBS, Nl> CIJTl'ERS IN 'lHE CITY <F Da.EWOOO Nl> CONFIR'IING 'lHE APPORTI<Hmfl' Alol> ASSESSMfNl' <F SAID rosTS 'ro EACH LOT OR TRACT <F PROPERTY FRONTING UlQI 'lHE SAME Nl> PRESCRIBING 'lHE MIWNER <F OJLL!X:'l'IOO Nl> PA'!M!Nl' <F SAID ASSESSMfNl'. WHERFAS, City Co~.neil for the City of Englewood, Colorado, determined it necessary that certain sidewalks, curbs, and gutters be constructed or repaired; and WHERFAS, City Council caused notice in writing to be sent to owners or agents in charge of the property fronting sidewalks, curbs, and gutters requesting that construction or repairs be made by said owners or agents; and WHERFAS, certain owners and agents did not make such repairs within 30 days after service of the notice, and City Council ordered such construction or repairs to be made by the City; and WHERFAS, said construction or repairs have been made, and City COlncil approved the cost of said construction and repairs in the amount of $18,183.60; and WHEREAS, lnder authority granted by C.R.S., Sections 31-20-105 and 31-20-106, and by Englewood Pblicipal Code 1969, as amended, Sections 12-2-34, 12-2-35, and 12-2-36, City may assess property owners fronting said construction and repair and iqlose a lien for paJIIliEilt thereof for failure to pay for said construction and repair; t«JW, 'DfEREFORE, BE IT ~INID BY 'lHE CITY <DnCIL <F 'DfE CITY <F EHiLDICXD, (X)L()RAOO: Section 1. Notice of Assesanent. City Council hereby notifies a~~ch CM~er or agent of CM~er of property, by pJblication and certified mail, of the cost of construction and repair of sidewalk, curb, and gutter fronting said lot or tract as set forth in the assesanent roll attached hereto as Exhibit A. I . ( • • • • Section 2 a. Payment of Assessment Lien on Lot or Tract. ~t the assessments shall be due and payable at the office of the Director of Finance/City Clerk of the City of Englewood within thirty (30) days after final publication of this Ordinance without demand. If the assessment is not paid within said thirty (30) days after final publication, the assessment shall constitute a lien on the lot or tract and the City Clerk shall certify the assessment to the Comty Treasurer, "*'o shall place the same tp)n the tax list for the current year to be collected in the same manner as other taxes are collected with penalty of ten percent (10\) thereon to defray the cost of collection. All laws of the State of Colorado for the assessment and collection of general taxes, including the laws for the sale of property for taxes and their redemption of the same, shall apply and have as full effect for the collection of all such 11Ulicipal taxes as for such general taxes. Section 2 b. Disoomt on Payment of Assessments. Payments may be made to the Director of Finance at any time within thirty days after the final publication of this Ordinance, and an allowance of five percent (5\) will be made on all payments made during such period but not thereafter, 'lbe diaco~mt of 5\ shall apply to all such payments, ~ther the payment is the entire amount of asses&IIE!I'It due or a part of the asseslllll!nt. ~iately after the expiration of such thirty-day period, the asses~ts shall be certified by the Cowlty Treasurer of Arapahoe Cowtty, Colorado, for collection as provided by law. Section 3. Co~mty Treasurer Shall Collect and Rllllit. 'lbe Co~mty Treasurer , at the close of every IIICII'Ith, shall pay over to !tlnicipal Treasurer of the City of Englewood all IIICII'Iies collected by her ~ the presentation to her of a copy of this Ordinance signed by the Hayor and Clerk of the City of Englewood. Section 4. Publication. Notice shall be published in the Englewood Sentinel for ten (10) days as defined in CRS, 24-70-106, once each week for three (3) successive weeks. Section 5. Hearing. 'lbe City Council shall hold public hearing on this Ordinance before final passage at 7:30 o'clock p.m. on April 2, 1984. 2 • I • • ( ( • • • • Section 6. Publication and Effective Date. ~is Ordinance, after its final passage, shall be I'Uiilered and recorded; the adoption and publication shall be authenticated by signature of the Mayor and Director of Finance ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer, and by Certificate of Publication. Introduced, read in full, and passed m first reading on the 21st day of February, 1984. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance m the 22nd day of February, 1984. Attest: Eugene L. Otls, 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 passed on first reading m the 21st day of Pebruary, 1984. Gary R. Higbee 3 • I • • • - • • DUCRIPIION Of PIIOf'ERIY NAME AND Al>lltiESS lot llock SUIOIVISION 34 l 09 10 13. Killies Reaub. r, Richard B . ' Dorothy N~ of 1\. 14 27 56 so. B roadway $315.07 En~l c wood, t:O U0 110 1971 34 2 Ol 013 25-28 9 Idlewild Gosch, Henry ' Hetti L. ' (2795 So. Broadway ) 2 Jerry H., Trustees 2790 S . Grant St. $210.04 co 80110 Pap low, De nnia J. " Julie L. 2801 So. Broadway $525.11 Englewood, co U0110 1971-34-~-10 -0~8 45-47 16 Idlewild Paplow, oennia J. ' Julie L. 4 2815 So. Broadway $674.92 Englewood, CO 80110 1971 34 2 10 030 42-43 16 Idlewild Saith, Berte a~~ F. ' Huberta 2023 so. Broadway $105.02 Englewood, co HOllO 1971 34 l 10 006 s~ u, 4 Jtilli .. Reaub. Shea, Helen E. all 12 (2842 So. Broadway) 6 5365 So. LOgan Dr . $368.23 Littleton, 1:0 80121 1971 34 2 10 020 37-38 16 Idlewild f £cord, Georgia 7 2845 So. Broadway $315.07 Englewood, co 80110 1971 34 ~ 10 018 31-H 16 Idl-ild carpenter, Tho.aa II. (2861-65 &. Broad-y) I 4614 Bryant St . $273.28 Denver, co 80211 1971 34 l 10 009 18-21 4 ltilliea Sub • .... 6/7 Cohen, Helen G. s~. (2880 So. Broadway) 9 Jeanne c., Jt Ten $1,086.57 1653 Vine SL. Wattera, Paul P'. (~885 So. Broadway) 10 2543 so. Bro adway $315.07 Denver, co 00210 • 1971 34 2 17 018 44-48 l7 Speera Bdwy . Addn . Four Cornera A8aociatea ( 29 11 So . Broadway) 11 6 0 0 0 1:. Evan s !t.v e. $10 5 .02 De n ver, co 0 0 22 2 1971 34 l ll 025 5-16 1 Strayors Ddwy . ll tw . Bear Fr ... "AXle Service 12 2946 So . Broadway $.420.08 englewood , co UO llO • 1971 34 2 17 019 21-40 l 7 Speera lklwy . Addn . I weatern StaLe• Fi nance Corp. • )3 c/o Ral p h s. SchOtlp $315.07 '-.. 294 9 So. Broa~w •y St r aye r• Bdwy . Hta . ( 2960 So. Broadway) 14 Sl. $2 10.04 90204 3 4 l II 007 19-20 &t rayar• lldwy . Hl•. Pra.-c 4. Ax le Se r vice Co. (1'JUO So. Broa~w;ay) $52 !;.11 15 Sto\lt SL. Oonvcr, co U0204 • • - • • DESCIIPTION Of PIIOPHTY ---··------------- NAME AND AOORES6 lol -SUIOIVIIION """"'--· ,-1971 34 2 18 027 42, 24 Speero Bclwy. Addn . J efferson, Richard L • • Shiou N 1/3 (3015 So. BdWY..) Yun, Jt Ten 41 $437.59 I 2207 E. Dartmouth Cir. Enq 1 ewOO<l, co 00 110 1971 3 4 2 18 026 N 2/3 24 Speero Bdwy. Addn. Jeff erson, Richard L. • Shiou 40, (3021 So. Bdwy .) 2 Yun, Jt Ten s 2/3 $105 .02 2207 E. Dartmouth Cir. 41 Englewood, co 60110 l ~ /1 J4 l " 004 b-9 H Strayers Bdwy. Ills . Jack., Frank ' Mary E. 3 3020 So. Broadway $112 .55 Enqlvwood, co 00110 1971 34 2 18 021 35-36 24 Speero Bdwy. Addn. Rach&Jt, Alexander S. • Frieda 4 3051 so. Broadway Englewood , CO 00110 $105.02 ----- 1971 34 2 10 020 33-34 24 Speece Bdwy. Addn . Foerster, Laurence P.' et al 5 3057 So. Broatlway Englewood, co UOHO $131.94 1971 34 1 12 028 10-12 8 Strayer• Bdwy. Hta. Sch~, Mary Margaret ' Lisa (3000 So. Broedway) 6 J. ' Caroline ' Roberts, John S. $315.07 2949 So. Bro.tlway Englewood, co 80110 - ( 7 1971 34 1 12 027 13-24 0 Strayers Btlwy. llts. IIIEX Cocp. C/O I Jlalph Scha.p • • 01do.obile $315.07 2949 SO. Broedway £nv1ewood, co 80110 l~7l )4 • ou 020 l, 2, • JloH Addn • Burt Prapertiea, Inc. • 15' of (3100 So . Broe-y) ' 5200 So. Broad,..y 3 $420.08 Englewood, co 00110 ·-·- 1971 34 3 01 022 45-48 l nee's Addn . Aatell Maociatea , Inc. (3101 So . Broadway) $210.04 10 10641 u.s. Hwy . 8~ Uttleton, co 80120 l97l 34 4 OB 010 4-7 4 Rose Addn. • Burt Propertiea, Inc. (31 20 So. Broadway) $280.06 11 5200 so. Broadway 'Engl e wood, co 80110 l97l 34 l 01 020 39-41 1 ltee'• Addn . Noreen, Stanley (3139 So. Broadway) $1,160.88 12 6071 So. Franklin St. Littleton, co 80121 1971 34 3 01 0111 36-37 1 Hee'a Addn . Lentach, Margie Leone (3147 so. Broe4weyl $105.02 13 1550 c. oart1110uth l!nql ewood, (.'() 00110 I • • 1971 34 l Ol 016 )2-33 .1 lluw' • Addn . f ll&ldon, Mar ilyn R. $714.82 14 3l6) so. Broadway Enqlcwood, co 001 10 ll-24 • -· Addn. Firet Baptiat Church $1,814.06 15 ll70 So. Broadway Enq1ewood, co 00110 A,..2. --·-- • • - • • OHCIIIPTIOH Of' PROPfRT Y NAME AND AOOIES& lot -SUIOIVISIOH -- 1971 34 3 01 013 25-27 1 Hee•e .1\ddn . DeSena Assoc . (3195 S o. Br.oadway) $1 05 .0 2 lGGO So. Al b1.on St., Suite 302 1 Denvec, co U0l22 1971 34 4 009 001 l -3 5 Roe e Addn. Har .1c k, Inc. (3200 So. Broadwa y ) 2 c/O !larr y D. Richardson $616.5 8 555~ So. Mona co St . Eng l ewood, co 80 110 -1971 34 3 1 5 0 06 21 -2 4 4 s. G. II am lin 's Bd wy . .1\ddn. Hu ron Partnereh i p (3211 So. BrOAdway} 3 151 5 Arapahoe St., S uite 1600 $4 6 5.25 De nver, co 8 0 2 02 1971 34 4 09 002 4-8 5 lloaa Add i t i on Mosko , Aar on ' J e an (3 23 2 S o . Br oadway) ~ 4 050 So . Broadway $1 ,041.5 5 Englew ood , co 8 0 110 -·------·-· 1n1 3 4 4 OY OOJ Y-11 ~ ko~c t\ddn. Pritchar d, Robert E . • 5 Hosceaa r y IL $289 .4 7 J 21 2 So . DcoaUway Englewood, co 00110 1971 3 4 4 09 004 . 12-15 5 Ro ae Mdn. Pritchard, Robert ll . (3250 s o . B ra.dway) 6 77ll so. Ra ce St. L.1. ltlcton, co 00122 $315 .07 -- 1971 34 3 00 037 Beg. a t Pt . of lnt.eraec. of w. l ine of McLaughlin, Frank B . s . Bdwy. ' N. line of Eit of ::;-, of Sit of $1 ,072 .80 7 1014 lldaaa St. NE 'a of SW\ of Sec . 34-4 -60 ; Th. s. lllg . ... Denver, co 00209 1 ine of Bdwy . so·: Th. ... 129~'; 'l'h. N, so·, Th. E. 129 ~· t.o rt. of l eq. 34 -4-68 . (J2(d So . UroatJw..ay l I 1971 34 4 09 005 16-20 5 aoae Addn. Sofa Fa ctory o f Denver , lnc. (3264 So. Broadway) 9 3270 So. BroadwAy $260 .11 Englewood, co OOllO ----------------1971 H 4 O'J OO(I 21-14 ~-AIJ Bedore, Melv in L. ' Shelley L. 10 3290 so. Bdwy . $555 .22 En9l•vood, co 00110 ·--- 1971 34 3 00 023 c. 150' B k . 7, nu.ndy AIJdn •• olOW Col -.an, larry r. ji .Jeannette VACAted 11 3305 So. Broadway $315.07 tnqlcwood , co 80110 1971 34 3 17 020 46-4 7. 1 Cnwood Ad du • Fiedel.a&n, Stuart ' be! • s 16 1 (3405 so. Broadw•y ) 12 Hepner, lloaalon o f 48 $210.04 3515 So. Jtillcrcat Or. O<Hivc r, co OO~J7 1971 34 3 1. 019 44-4 ~ 1 &nWOCM.I Alldn . FriodaAn, Gertrude (HIS So. Broadway ) . 13 1201 -lO th St . $420.08 Ot'n VUl , co U0202 I • • 197 3 4 3 17 017 40-41 1 £nwood Add n . O'Brecht, Mary C. ' ocanefeldt, ()431-35 So. &roadway) $297.56 14 rr d ' Gw>hlltl ' l'avill. lUI r . o. oox 16 J•wr~ e c, c.:o OOlJ4 [1?71 34 3 l7 Oil 32-34 l C:nwood 1\ddn • l .uo~, II nry ' Karn II. (3457-61-63 so . Broad .. ay) $114.43 15 li~~ -17th St. Ad a~..,nvor, co 00.1 0~ ------·· .------------------------~~~ • • 2 3 6 7 • ' 10 " 12 13 I NAMf AND ADDIIESS 1971 34 OJ Holthau s, a!7 011 c/o Niels rbara 3493 So :n lnv. Co. Enqlew~ t:oma St. • co 80110 L1 5 29-JQ • • • -SUIOtVISION l Enwood Ad (3473 So dn •. • !!roadway) II -!~ • $114.43 I - - • • • • • • C 0 U N C I L C 0 M M U N I C A T I 0 N DATE February 15, 1984 AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT INITIATED BY Director of Engineering Seryices ACTION PROPOSED Passaqe of ordinance BACKGROUND ORDINANCE RELATING TO ASSESS- MENTS FOR CONCRETE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM 1983 (Bdwy. concrete) In August, 1983, City Council authorized the Department of Engineering Services to issue concrete replacement notices for certain properties adjacent to South Broadway. The required concrete work consisted of curb and gutter repairs necessary prior to the City project consisting of profiling and overlaying South Broadway. FINANCIAL The total cost of said improvements, consisting of construction costs, engineering costs, administrative costs, and interest, amounts to $18,183.60. The total cost was charged against budgeted monies in the PIF (concrete replacement account) and will be reimbursed to the City as the assessments are paid by the individual pro- perty owners. It is anticipated that these funds will be received between May 1, 1984 and April 1, 1985. RECOMMENDATIOO We recommend passage of the ordinance establishing assessment costs. Also included fo r your information and approval, is a completion schedule for Concrete Replacement Program 1983. Please note that it calls for a public hearing on assessments at the regular Council meeting of April 2, 1984. It also allows for a 5\ discount on any part of assessments paid prior to June 8, 1984. • I • • J- • • • • • TIME SCHEDULE POR .COMPLETION OF BROADWAY CONCRETE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 1983 TUESDAY, Feb. 21, 1984 WEDNI!:SDA't, l•'eb. 29, 1984 FRIDAY, February 24, 1984 WEDNESDAY, March 7, 1984 WEDNESDAY, March 14, 1984 MONDAY, April 2, 1904 MONDAY, April 16, l91l4 WEDN r-:smw, llpril 10, 1904 MONDAY, May 7, 1984 WEDNESDAY, Muy 9, 1984 FRIDAY, June 8, 1984 FRIDAY, June 0, 1984 FRIDAY, June 8, 1984 RAX/ldo l/23/84 Re v. 2 /10/04 Bill for ordinance assessing costs ilnd calling for public hearinC) Bill with list of assessments published first time. Mail notices of assessments and public hearing. Second public,,tion of Ril.l Third publication of Bill Public hcariu\j on assessm~uts Consider amendmuuts to bill for ordin'lu~;e , Publish ui l J for onliuau~;u iu f luaJ. funu if necessary. Consider ordinance on final reading. Publish us illl ordinance, by ti tlc. Ordinance in full force and effect. Last day for 5\ discount Last day for full payment without 10\ cost of collection penalty • I • • • • • • C 0 U N C I L C 0 M M U N I C A T I 0 N DATE AGENDA ITEM February 15, 198 8 (a) INITIATED BY City Manager SUBJECT Englewood Soccer Association Agreement ACTION PROPOSED ___ A_P_P_r_o_v_e __ t_h_e __ a_t_t_a_c_h_e_d __ a_g_r_e_e_m_e_n_t __ w __ it_h ___ th __ e_E_n __ g_l_e_w_o_o_d __ Soccer Association. BACKGROUND Last year the City was approached by the Englewood Soccer Association for permission to use City fields and facilities for soccer association games. At that time, the staff was directed to draft an agreement with the Englewood Soccer Association. That agreement, which was for a period of one year, was approved by the City Council at their February 17, 1983 regular meeting. The Englewood Soccer Association has again contacted the City regarding an agreement for 1984. The Soccer Association feels that the present contract, as written, is fair and reasonable and requests that the City Council approve the same conditions for a 1984 agreement. City staff have had an opportunity to review the existing contract and conclude that no modifications are necessary at this time. At their regular monthly meeting of February 9, 1984, the Englewood Parks and Recreation Commission, by a unanimous vote, approved a motion recommending to the City Council the approval of the contract between the City of Englewood and the Englewood Soccer Association for the use of the City's playing fields for the year 1984. The only recommended change to the existing contract would be the designation of the Association's President, Mr. Phil McGehee, as the contact person for the Association. • I • • • • • • -2- For Council's information, the agreement provides for the following: 1. A one year agreement. 2. Designates Bates-Logan Park, Cushing Park, Duncan Park and Jason Park for the use by the Association. 3. A fee of $2.00 per game assessed to the Soccer Association. 4. Practice sites are not guaranteed to the Association. 5. The Association agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Englewood against all claims, damages and losses. 6. The Association must provide evidence of having insurance as an organization as well as for the individuals participating. This insurance policy shall also name the City as co-insured and have benefits of liability totalling $100,000/$300,000. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council move to adopt the attached agreement between the City of Englewood and the Englewood Soccer Association. SUGGESTED ACTION: MOVED BY ______________________________ __ SECOND ________________________________ __ YES ~0------------~BSENT __________________________ _ • I • • - • • r • • • • AGREEMmr BE'IWEEN THE CITY OF Dl>LD«JJD AND THE Dl>L&«JJD SOCCER ASSOCIATICII 'ltlis Agreement, made and entered into by and between the City of Englewood, Colorado, acting by and through its duly authorized Mayor and City Clerk, hereinafter referred to as •ci ty, • and the Englewood Soccer Association, Englewood, Colorado, hereinafter referred to as •Association,• witnesseth: WHEREAS, the Englewood Soccer Association has presented to the Englewood Parks and Recreation Commission and the Englewood City Council a proposal for the use of public fields and parks; and WHEREAS, the City Council and the Parks and Recreation Commission concur that an Agreement would be in the best interests of the City; NCW, THEREFOOE, BE IT AGREED as follows: Conditions of Use 1. 'ltle City will provide four (4) public fields for league games use by the Soccer Association. 'ltlis would be done accordingly to current permit procedures established by the Englewood Parks and Recreation Department. 'ltle four (4) fields designated for use by the Soccer Association include the following: Bates-Logan Park Cushing Park Duncan Park Jason Park 2. A fee of $2.00 per game will be assessed to the Soccer Association. 'ltle Association at its cost must provide the City with the following information prior to the beginning of its season: A. Schedule of all games, tournaments, contests, practices, etc. B. List of names, addresses and phone mmbers of all registrants participating in the program. All fees due to to the Parks and Recreation Department must be received in the Parks and Recreation Office prior to the beginning of the season • • I • - • • • • -2- 3. Practice sites will not be guaranteed to the Association. Practice sites would be the responsibility of each team coach and would be on a first-come first-serve basis. 4. 'lllis Agreement is for a period of one year. 5. 'llle Soccer Association shall line the playing fields with City approved materials. 6. 'llle Soccer Association is to use portable goals on fields where permanent goals have not been constructed by the City. 7. 'llle City shall have final approval of the schedule of games played on its fields. Responsibility of Soccer Association 1. 'llle Soccer Association will be responsible for the following: A. Clean up of illlllediate area, surroWlding use area. Failure to adequately perform the above will result in the Association being charged for the necessary clean up. B. Having a responsible adult present at all times during the field or park area use. c. Proper conduct of participants and spectators during field or park area use. D. Keeping all activity confined to area designated on permit. E. Notifying the Recreation Department of any problems with the field or use area. F. SUbmitting a written report to the Recreation Office within 48 hours of an accident or injury occurring on City athletic fields. G. Not permitting or allowing the consllllption of alcohol or drugs by players, staff or spectators while on City property. H. Any damages beyond normal wear and tear to City property will be the responsibility of the Association. I. Provide evidence of having insurance as an organization as well as for the individuals participating. 'lllis insurance policy shall also name the City as co-insured with the Association. Limits of liability shall be $100,000/$300,000. Park and Field Use Conditions 1. If in the opinion of the Recreation Department, the field(s) or park areas are not playable due to weather, overuse, on-going maintenance or other • I • • - ( • • • • • • -3- similar reasons, the use of these areas will be restricted or denied until the situation has improved to the City's satisfaction. 'nle Association shall be reimbursed for $2.00 per ga~~~e not played. 2. All maintenance to fields and permanent equipnent will be the responsi- bility of the Parks and Recreation staff. 'nlis includes watering of grass, mowing, fertilizing, etc. 'nle Association will not be permitted to perform any maintenance on City facilities except clean-up. 3. 'nle Association is responsible for providing its own equipment and shall not store such equipnent on City property. 4. No portable or permanent structures or equipnent may be erected on any City field or facility without the consent of the Recreation Division. Other 1. 'nle Association may not charge, collect or solicit funds from spectators or other individuals on City facilities. 'nle sale of items or services on City property must first be approved by the Recreation Department and coq:>ly with all ordinances of the City. 2. 'nle Association through its duly authorized agent does hereby agree to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Englewood and its agents and employees from and against all claims, da~~~ages, losses, and expenses including reasonable attorney's fees. 3. If breach of contract by the Association occurs, the City may terminate the contract on ten (10) days notice to the Association. 4. 'Any COllllllllication shall be sent to the following person who is the responsible party for the Association: Mr. Phil McGehee, 4500 South Huron Street, Englewod, Colorado 80110. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties above have caused their names and seals to be hereunto subscribed and affixed this day of February, 1984. 'nlis Agree- men t shal l expi r e on February 21 , 1984 • ATI'EST: Ci ty Clerk I • • - \ • • • • C 0 U N C I L C 0 M M U N I C A T I 0 N DATE February l, 1984 AGENDA ITEM ~B SUBJECT WARRANTY WORK FOR SEALCOAT PROGRAM 1982 INITIATED BY pirectgr of Enqineerjnq Services ACT I ON PROPOSED Passage of OJQtign ratj fyj ng agreement for warranty work BACKGROUND On July 19, 1982, the City of Englewood entered into a contractual a<Jreement with Gil-Son Paving Company for the construction of Sealcoat Program 1982. Due to a construction conflict with concrete work in Paving District No. 28 and an aggre- gate shortage in late summer of 1982, this contract work was not commenced until late fall of 1982. Inclement weather in the fall allowed completion of only 75'l. of the work. The balance was completed in 1983. That work which was completed in 1982 proved to be unsatisfactory, i.e., loss of chips (rock). The work done in 1983 appears to be acceptable. The unsatisfactory work done in 1982 was covered under warranty relative to faulty workmanship and/or materials. However, the con- tractor denied responsibility, and the Engineering Services Department, after research and testing, was never able to determine a definite cause for the fail- ures. This agreement for warranty work is a result of many months of negotiation between the contractor, the Engineering Services Department, and the City Attorney. FI NANCIAL Total project cost Total paid to date Total amount retained to date under contract Add itional payment required to con- tractor for work under this Agree't. $122,474.0 5 112,008.81 $ 10,465.24 $ 18,000.00 This money is available in the Road & Bridge section of the PIF. The work that the contractor is performing under this agreement has a contract value of approxi- mately $90 ,000 for re-sealing 50 blocks . In this document, we have agreed to participate in the amount of $18,000 so that the contractor will completely re-do the streets rather than to have the City end up with a patch-like product on the s treets. We consider this agreement a fair resolution and conclusion of this project and recommend approval of the agreement. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move that we approve the agreement with Gil-Son Paving company and agree to pay the $18,000 for the City 's portion to re-chip 50 blocks of the 1902 Sealcoat Program." • • I • • • • • ,. • Dl-11983 AGREEl·tENT FOR WARRANTY HORI~ THIS .AGREEMENI', made this 24th day of Januacy, 1984, by and between: The CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado, and GIL-SON PAVING COMPANY, a Kansas cor- poration authorized to do business in the State of Colorado, WITNESSETH WHEREAS, on the 19th day of July, 1982, the parties entered into an agreement entitled "City of Englewood, Colorado, Plans, Specifications and Contract Documents for Sealcoat Program 1982"; and WHEREAS, the streets were resealed; however, the resealing is not satisfactory; and WHEREAS, the cause of the defect in resealing is not entirely clear; and WHEREAS, the contractor denies that the defect in resealing was as a result of faulty workmanship and materials; and WHEREAS, the parties seek to resolve their differences; NOW, THEREFORE, be it agreed by the parties as follows: 1. The contract of July 19, 1982 shall be closed out according to its terms, and full payment made to Gil-Son Company according to ~he contract and law~ 2. The Final Receipt and Guarantee as contained on page 25 of the contract dated July 19, 1982 shall be deleted as a require- ment of the contract. Contractor, in lieu of giving warranty as p rovided in said July 19, 1982 contract, shall perform the work as described in paragraphs 3 and 4 hereof. No warranty shall be given for the work as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4 under this agreement. 3. That the contractor shall perform the work in accordance wi th the plans and specifications as attached heretq and marked "Exh i bit A" titled "Warrant:/ Hork Sealcoat Project 1982". 4. The City a g rees to pay to the · contractor for the work performed under "Warranty Work Sealcoat Project 1982" and in one lump sum at the end of the work, the amount of Eighteen Thousand Dollars ($18,000) • 5. Jurisdictionz By signing this agreement, the contractor c onsents to the · jurisdiction of the Colorado State· and federal courts for purposes of resolving disputes hereunder • • .; 1- I • • - • • ATTEST: • • • • Ik WITNESS WJU::REOr, tho porUoa hovo cou~o~od thoao . preaenta to be ~i"nod peraonally or by ·thoir duly authorised officer• or Glenta and thoir soala affixod and duly attoatod, the day and·YOD~ firat above written. Thia Contract ia exocutod in 3 ---counterparts . CITY OF BNGLKWOOD By ______________ ~~~---------iiayor PAR'rY ·OF THE FIRST PART Directof of ttbibci APPROVED AS TO FORM onVractor 1 / .v L.y ~ ___ ___,....,........,,_,..-------ay P? /2 . c>?-et' -~-? ctty Attorney k,;~&.e.J PARTY OF THB SECO D~ PART ATTBST: .. • .-2~ ............. ~!.''! ... ··~ ... •· . • I . • • • (j - Bond No . C-c-71057-33 PAYMCNT BOND KNOW ALL MEN BY 'l'IIESE PRESJo;NT, that we, the undersigned GU.-SON PAVING CCMPANY , hereinafter referred to as "Contractor", ---------------------- a corporation organized under the lows of the Massachusetts and authorized to transact business in the State of Colorado, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City of Englewood, a municipal corporation under the laws I of the State of Colorado, hereinafter referred to as the "City", in the pe na 1 sum of EIGHI'EEN 'IHXlSAND J\ND N0/100--------------------- -----------------Dolla rs ($ 18,000. 00---------------- l~wful money of the United States of America, for the payment of which sum, well ond truly to be ~ade, ~e bind ourselves and our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and.severally by the presents: THE CONDITlONS OF THE FOREGOING OBLIGATION IS SUCH THAT: WHEREAS, the above bounded Contractor has, on the 24th day of January 19 ~4 entered into written Contract with the aforesaid City for furnishing all materials, equipment, tools, superintendence , and other facilities and accessories, for the construction of certain i mprovements as designated, designed and de~cribed in the said Contract and conditions thereof , and in accordance with the Specifications and Plans therefore; a copy of pa~d Co n tract b e ing attached hereto and made o part hereof : NOW TH EREFORE, if the said Contractor shall and will , in all pa r t iculars well an~ulfnd faithfully observe, perform and Co ntract , and the c ; n , ci i Plans and other abi de ty each and e [~· BD.nd part of said Co n t ract Documents · a ta ·. d , o ~ y erence, mode a pa rt thereof, accor 1 d meaning in each cas e , tt.en this obligation sha e a me · null and void ; ot herwise it shall remain in full force and effect : * warranty ~k Soolcoat Pro ject 198 2 "\. . • I • • -• • , . • PHOVlUED }'UK'i'lii!:K, that U the said Contractor :!ails to duly pay for any labor, materials, equipment hire, sustenance, provisions, gasoline, lubricating oils, fuel oils, grease, c9al, or any other supplies or materials used or consumed by said Contractor or his su~contractors in performance of the work contracted to be done, the Surety will pay the same in any amount not exceeding the amount 9f this obligation, together with interest as provided c by law: PROVIDED FURTHER, that the said Surety, ~or value received, hereby stipulates and agreeY that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Contract, or the work to be performed thereunder, or the Specifications and Plans accompanying the same, shall in ~nywise affect ita obligntion • on this bond and it does hereby waive notice of any change, ex-tonsio~ of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Contra,t, or to the work, or to the Specifications and Plans. IN WITNESS WHRREOP', said .~ontractor and said surety have executed these presents this 24th day of _J;:..a;:..n;..:u;..;..a.;;;.ry~---- 19_!!_· ATTEST GIIr~ PAVlNG cx:MPAN'i Cont:-:-r-c tor CXIH:ICIAL UNICN INSURA0CE CJMPANY ., g;.!A'-(!g\r.llg: ¥c £ (Accompany this bond with Attorney-in-fact's authority from lhe Surety to execute the bond, certified to include the date of t he bond.) Approved for the City of Englewood : B y ____ ..,.....,....,..,.,..------Mayor Approved as to form: At torney !or t~e City of Eng1dwo6d • -II- -•• • the Talbert corporation SU~lT Y I ONOS "NO INSII~ ... NCI '· 0 . lOX ""· OINVI~. CO. MIOI ........ 0011 1111111 -1 771 . ............... _..... . I • • - .. ( Cil • • • • WARRANTY WORK 1982 SEALCOAT STREETS 3100-3300 s. Lincoln St. 000-300 E. Eastman Avenue 3400-3600 s. Sherman St. 3700 s. Huron St. • 3700-4000 s. Grant St.-(No work 3700 s. Grant St.) 4000 s. Lincoln St. 3900-4100 s. Pearl St. -( 13' strip in middle of 4000 Blk .) 4000 s. Washington St. 4200-4300 s. Sherman St. 4300-4500 s. Linco·ln St. 4300 s. Acoma St. 4500 s. Lipan Ct. -(No wor~ 4600 s. Delaware St. 4900 s. Pearl St. -(No wor~ 000-300 w •.. Lehow Avenue 2800-2900 w. Tanforan Avenue 2800-2900 W. Layton Avenue 2800-2900 w. saratoga Avenue 2800-2900 w. Chenango Avenue 4500-4600 s. Julian St. 4500-4600 s. Knox Ct. 4500-4600 S. King St. 3300-3500· w. Tufts Avenue 3000-3200 w. Grand Avenue 3000-3200 W. Monmouth Avenue 3000-3200 w. Bellewood Avenue 5000 S. Grove St. 5000 s. Hawthorne St. 5000 s. Hobker St. 5000 s. Irving St. 5000 s. Julian St. 5000 s. Keenland Ct. 5000 s. Linden Dr. • I . • • - • • Warranty" Work Sealcoat ~ • Cit y ot ~nglewood · I . . • I • • • --·-----··· c 0 u N c I L c 0 M M u N I :C :A T I 0 N '' DATE February l, 1984 AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT Belleview Softball Field Light - <6C ing and Belleview and Spence r Fi .. ld F .. n.-ina Director of Parks & Recreation INITIATED BY gj[a,,or of ~ngineering Services ACTION PROPOSED ~i!r~ of bid for Belleview Softball Field Lighting & Belleview and S~encer Field Fencing. Backsround: The relighting of Belleview Softball Field has been proposed for two previous years to provide Increased candlepower for safe play and a more efficient operating system. New 8' baseline & outfield fencing was budgeted in 1984 to replace the exist- ing 4' fence to provide for safe play. Incidents of player injury have occurred due to low height of the 4' fence when chasing fly ba 11 s. The bid proposal specified two types of lighting fixtures, Widel ite or Holophane 1500 watt Ketal Halide which produces an extremely powerful lighting system with only 28 fixtures as compared to lOB existing 1500 watt incandescent fixtures. The Holophane System installed@ Spencer Field in 1981 has reduced operating cost by less than 1/3 of previous operating costs and has t r i p led the candle ower p output. We are recommending the use of 60' poles@ Belleview as at Spencer Field for lighting distribution and uniformity. Financial In 1984 $18,480.00 was budgeted for ballfield fencing in the departn~nts capital outlay program' Council approved $65,000 from lottery funds for rei ighting of Belleview Softball field. Selection of the recommended bid leaves a balance of $6,179 for ballfield fencing and $7,469 for Belleview field softball lighting, the total balance being $1],648.00. Engineering Estimate Belleview Field Lighting-------$61,000.00 Bell~Oiew (Spencer Field Fencing---16,000.00 Total Estimate for both projects - - -$77,000.00 RecommendatIon It is recommended to accept the low bid for Electrical Proposal I I qnd Ballfield Fe nc i ng by Kaupin Electric, in the amount of $69,832 . Although O.E .C., Inc. was low bidder on the fence, they did not wish to do fencing on ly. Maupin Electric, by means of letter verification, agreed to accept the low fe nce bid of O.E.C ., Inc., thus giving the City of Englewood the lowest bids for bolh I i ghting & fencing. Attnchment: Did T. bulntlon Sheet • -- I • • ( Bidder Electrical Electrical _I'!'oposal 1 Proposal II \Jaynes Electric 61,485.00 60,917 .00 Hllupin Electric 58 ,100.00 ~.531 .~ O.E.C. Inc . 58,324 .00 57,578.00 Steel-Loclt Fence N/8 N/8 !bard Elec . 78,000.00 77,000.00 Gothlml Fence N/8 N/8 Ufe Time Fence N/8 N/8 • • • BID TAI!liATICfi SHEET IIEUEVIBi S!FDWl. FlEUl UCHriK: .A..., IIEI.UVII!li 6o SPDU:R FlEUl nx:IK; Electrical Electrical Prqloeal 111 ProooeallV 56,046.00 56,331.00 52,582.00 52,857.00 53,062.00 53 107.00 N/8 N/8 72,700.00 72 400 .00 N/8 N/8 N/8 N/8 0 F~ l'ropoe8l. . 13,174.00 '-u.JOl~ 12,700 .00 \ -I _G.zJfJl-;;1 - 13.848. fVl 12.327. fVl 12,784 .77 13,560.00 *After O.E.C . Inc . relinquished low fence bid of $12 ,301.00 to Hlupin Electric at the contract bJy out of $12,301.00 . • • Electrical Proposal II and Fencinlt Total 74 091. ~ 832-:Y 70;!3L 69.879 IIQ ~?7 b- • \ • • • ,. • C 0 U N C I L C 0 M M U N I C A T I 0 N DATE February 16, 1984 AGENDA ITEM ~ BIDS ON LITTLE DRY CREEK SUBJECT CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS, RETAIN- ING WALLS, & SEWER RELOCATION INITIATED BY Director of Engineering Services ACTION PROPOSED Recopppendation relating to hida on Little Dry Creek channel improvements, retaining walls, and sewer relocation. BACKGROUND Several weeks ago, the Engineering Services Department asked City Council to allow the bidding of the retaining walls and sanitary sewer relocation work on Little Dry Creek in conjunction with Safeway's new store. The bidding process used to solicit bids for the channel improvements was to allow only those bidders who pre-qualified to build the Safeway Store. The reason for this was to try to get the same con- trac tor f or both the Safeway Store and the Little Dry Creek Improvements because of t he c lose coordination desired. I NF ORMA TION The b i d s fo r b o th o f t h ese proj e c t s were received on February 15, 1984. Safeway received nine (9) bid s , o n ly s ix (6) o f wh ich inc lud ed bids f or the channel wo rk. Safeway 's low b idd er wa s Saunders Cons truc t i on; however, their bid f o r t he r e t a in- ing walls and sewer r eloca t i on wa s t h e highe st of t he six b i d s , a t $23 4,192. we are now faced with the fact that we will h ave two different contractors. The list of bidders is below: Afcon Construction, Inc. Palace Construction Company Roche Constructors, Inc. Dow-Ammon Builders, Inc. E. J. Haselden Construction Saunders Construction Co. *Hath corrections made. RECOMMENDATION $148 ,130 .00 $148,629.96 * $172,503.39* $188 ,014.10 $194,274.7 5* $234 ,192.00 All of the bids received were in excess of the budget we have established for the c hannel improvements; therefore, we recommend that all bids be rejected for the • I • • '""' r._ ~In ...... r • • • -2-February 16, 1984 Little Dry Creek channel improvements, retaining walls, and sewer relocation. The project will be re-bid in the next few weeks, which does not greatly concern Safeway. Our feeling is that more bidders, and perhaps even smaller contractors than those who pre-qualified for the Safeway Store, could result in more favorable bids for the City's work. Because the project is within the Englewood Downtown Redevelopment Project, the re-bidding will be coordinated through the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority. GD/lo SUGGESTED ACTION: MOVED BY ____________________________ ___ SECOND ______________________________ __ YES ~0----------~ABSENT ______________________ ___ • I • • • • • C 0 U N C I L C 0 M M U N I C A T I 0 N DATE AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT February 14, 1984 '/LL.i Appo~tment to Firemen's Pension Board INITIATED BY ___ Ma_._Y_or __ ~ __ is ________________________________________ __ ACTION PROPOSED· ___ Re __ a_ppo __ In_._tm __ en_t __ o_f __ in_~ ___ n_t __ T_Uoo __ th __ y __ M_._o_'_B_r_i_en __ t_o __ th_e ________ _ Firemen's Pension Board Backgrmmd The tenn of office of the appointment of TUoothy M, O'Brien expired February 1, 1984. Mr. O'Brien has been contacted by the City Manager's staff and he has indicated his interest and willingness to serve another tenn of office. Appointments to the Firemen's ~ .,ens ion Board are for a tenn of three years . Reconmendation City Council consider this reappointment and advise staff of action to be taken. • • I . ( • • • • ORDINANCE NO. SERIES OF 198~-:4--- BY AUTHORITY A BILL FOR AN ORDINAOCE APPROVIt(; AN .1\GREEMmr WITH OiERRY HILLS FIRE PROT&:TION DISTRICT PROVIDit(; EUR MUI'UAL/AU'OOMATIC AID EUR FIRE PROT&:TION FOR BOTH ENTITIES. WHEREAS, assistance fran other fire protection agencies provides a higher level of protection for the City of Englewood; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINID BY '1HE CITY OXJNCIL FOR THE CITY <F ENGL~, CDLORADO: Section 1. That an agreement entitled "Mutual Aid/Automatic Aid Agreement (Fire) 1984" is hereby approved by the City Council, said agreement provides as follows: MUIUAL AID/AU'OOMATIC AID AGREEMENT (FIRE) 1984 THIS AGREEMmr, made by and between the CITY <F EMiL~, CDLORADO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "Englewood," and OIERRY HILLS FIRE ~IOO DISTRICT, hereinafter called "Olerry Hills," WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Englewood is a IIRlnicipal corporation organized and existing pursuant to Article XX of the COlorado Constitution, its Charter, and Ordinances; its territorial jurisdiction generally is the legal boundaries of the City of Englewood, COlorado; and WHEREAS, Cherry Hills is a fire protection district organized and existing under Part 3, Chapter 32, of 1973 C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, each of the parties hereto maintain emergency equ i{Xnent; and WHEREAS, emergencies may arise in one or the other of the jurisdictions of the parties resulting in greater demands than the manpower and equiiJnent of that party can handle; or emergencies of such intensity may occur that they cannot be handled solely by the equi{Xnent of the party in whose jurisdiction the emergency occurs; and 1 • I • • • • • • WHEREAS, it is to the interest of each of the parties that they may have service of and fran the other party to aid and assist them in the purpose of fighting fires or responding to other emergencies; ~, THEREFORE, IT IS MtJI'UAU.Y AGREID by and between the parties as follows: I • MtJI'UAL AID: 1. For and in cxmsideration of the promises of Olerry Hills, hereinafter set forth, Englewood agrees with Cherry Hills that in the event there are energencies in the territory served by Cherry Hills which are beyond the control of the fire department of Cherry Hills, whether because of use of their equipnent at other places or because of the intensity of the energency, or otherwise, Englewood agrees, subject to the limitation hereinafter set forth, to aid and assist Olerry Hills by causing and permitting its fire department and its equipoent to be used in responding to emergencies in the territorial area of Olerry Hills, and the need for such aid and assistance shall be determined by the fire department of Olerry Hills, subject, however, the the following limitations: Englewood shall be excused fran making its equipoent and services available to Cherry Hills in the event of the need of the emergency equipoent and the manpower within the territorial area of Englewood, or their prior use at any place, llilich decision of availability shall be made by the fire department of Englewood, and which decision shall be conclusive. 2. For and in consideration of the pi:anises of Englewood, hereinafter set forth, Cherry Hills agrees with Englewood that in the event there are fires or other energencies in the territory served by Englewood lotlich are beyond the control of the fire department of Englewood, lotlether because of use of their equipoent at other places or because of the intensity of the energency, or otherwise, Olerry Hills agrees, subject to the limitation hereinafter set forth, to aid and assist Englewood by causing and permitting Cherry Hills Fire Department and equipment to be used in responding to anergencies in the territorial area of Englewood, and the need for such aid and assistance shall be determined by the fire department of Englewood, subject, however, to the following limitation: Cherry Hills shall be excused fran making its equipment or service available to Englewood in the event of the need of the emergency equipment or need of the manpower within the territorial area of Olerry Hills, or their prior use at any place, lotlich decision of availability shall be made by the fire deparbnent of Cherry Hills, and which decision shall be conclusive. 2 • I • • - ·. • ( I • • • • 3. The services rendered by one party to the other are of equal value to the services rendered by the other party, and there shall be no charges made by the one party for the services rendered to the other party, except that in the event of equipment damage by reason of the action of the enployees of the other party, the liability and loss shall be determ~ on the basis of the fault or negligence of any ett>loyee. If the employee is determined to be at fault or negligent, the party employing that employe shall be liable for the loss. 4. Each party shall be expected to maintain its equipment and organize its anergency response method with both manpower and equi~t to the degree necessary to oope with the ordinary and routine anergencies arising within its boundaries and for which the party is organized. Neither party shall expect the other to respond to snergency calls 11b!re the snergency arises due to a failure to organize available manpower or maintain equipment in proper working order and in sufficient quantity to meet the respective demands of the persons and property within each of the parties' respective jurisdictions. II. AUTOMATIC AID: 1. It is understood and agreed that the Englewood Fire Department (pumper units) will respond from Jefferson Station and/or Acoma Station into Cherry Hills Fire Protection District as part of the initial response through automatic dispatching by Englewood dispatchers into the below defined areas. DEFINID AREA -CHERRY HILLS: generally extending east and west from the east city lhnits of Englewood to Little Dry Creek on Franklin Street, north and south from u.s. 285 to East Belleview Avenue (5100 Block) • 2. It is understood and agreed that the Cherry Hills Fire Department will respond fran Station 11 into Englewood's district as part of the initial response through automatic dispatching by Englewood dispatchers into the below defined areas. DEFINID AREA -Et«;;.QoiOOD: generally extending east and west fran the east city lhnits to South Logan Street, north and south fran Darbnouth Avenue to TUfts Avenue. III. OTHER PROVISIONS: 1. Either party hereto may terminate this contract without cause upon thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the other. 3 • I • • ·. ( • • • • IN WITNESS WHERroF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement this __ day of , 1984. Attest: Gary R. Higbee, ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer Attest: Secretary CITY <P JH;LI!I«X)(), OOLORADO a municipal corporation OfERRY HILLS FIRE PR:>'l'!X:TIOO DISTRICT By ______ -=~~~~~ Board President By-------~~~~~--Fue Ouef Section 2. The City Council of the City of Engewood hereby author1zes the Mayor and ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer to sign and attest the same for and in behalf of the City of Englewood. Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 21st day of February, 1984. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the 22nd day of February, 1984. Attest: e x offi c i o City Clerk-Treasurer 4 &lgene L. Obs, Mayor • I • • - ·. '• ( ( I ( I • • • • 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 oanplete copy of a Bill for an Ordinance, introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 21st day of february, 1984. Gary R. H1gbee 5 • I • • • • • C 0 U N C 1 L C 0 M M U N 1 C A T 1 0 N SUBJECT Mutual and Automatic Aid Agreement with Cherry Hills Fire ~----------------L-------------------~-~p~~~:i~lo~n_n~l~iaa•~~-r~·~;·~~·~~----------------· DATE AGENDA NO, February 16, 1984 INITIATED BY ____ ~F~~~·r~e~A~d~m~i~n~i~s~t~rsa~%~io~nu_ ________________________________ __ ACTION PROPOSED Enter into an automatic aid agreement in cgmhjnation with the existing mutual aid agreement. I NTRODUCTION The fire department is endeavoring to expand it~ suppression capabilities without increasing its costs. Automatic aid allows the closest fire companies to respond on the initial alarm, thereby providing better ~esponse time, HISTO RICAL INFORMATION Eng lewood and Littleton have successfully operated an automatic aid program for almost two years. Englewood and Cherry Hills have his- torically exchanged resources on a mutual aid basis for many years. FWAfl CIAL DETAILS The cost of our responses into Cherry Hills will theoretically be off- set by their responses into Englewood, LEGAL OPINION -The city attorney has drafted this agreement and reviewed subsequent changes, · (L--_____________ .\ • • I -• • • CONFLICTS AND/OR COMPLICATIONS Some Englewood residents may be surprised to find a Ch e rr ~ ll i l ls un i t P am o ng the units re s ponding to their .call. This has not prov~n to be a problem with the Littleton program, but some comments may occur. CO NCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Automatic aid is not designed to "reduce our response, but to enhance it. It is to the advantage of the citizens of both communities to encourag e thi s program. The fire administration of Englewood strongly recommends th is action. SUGGESTED NOTI ON Tt i s recomme nded that the City Coun cil ap prov e th e b il l f o r a n ordin a nc e a s prese nt e d . S GGESTED ~OT IO N : I~O VE D BY ___________ _ SE CO ND _____________ __ YES. ____ NO. ______ ABSENT ____ _ • • I I I D I • •