Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-05-21 (Regular) Meeting Agenda-• • • City Council Meeting -Regular May 21, 1984 0 - • • • • (?_d;~ ~ l J . --7?1t.aa <X!, ;tl~ '-If~ II-~ c£ I, dcJ, d j ~ s# ~ !~ otO, ct/ • 0 0 • I . . - l / ~ 7:30 P.M. I. ( • 4 • • 5. ( • • • • -~ ·J-wsvo '! 'fd ~1 k -~-cAd:4_-it U#z.. AGENDA FOR THE '~ C):; '/b REGULAR MEETING OF THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL -7C U. :.-<1 /{~--' ~ MAY 21, 1984 /~.>~~ Call to order, invocation ~t- by ;\shop Philip Nolen, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Englewood Ward, 999 East Tufts Avenue, pledge of allegiance by Boy Scout Troop #92, and roll call, (~ Minutes, (a) Minutes of the special meeting of April 10, 1984. (Copies to be transmitted.) (b) Minutes of the regular meeting of April 16, 1984. (Copies to be transmitted.) Pre-Scheduled Visitors. (Please limit your pre- sentation to 10 minutes.) (a) Ms. Janice Gant, Buddy Poppy Chairman, will be present to accept a proclamation concerning Buddy Poppy Day. (Copies enclosed,) Other Visitors ~Pleaae .limit your presentation t ~ 5 minutea,) L )~ ~~~:-l -U {2 C OG-ai/),J ~ ·~· ~n--c~~ "--<--"--"}''--c::lo l .).'-rt u-zJ,._u_Jj_.,_~ &d . .t--n Public Hearing. Communication -No Action Recommended, (a) Kinutea of the Parka and Recreation Commisaion meeting of Karch 8, 1984. (Copies enclosed,) I • - • • ( • • • • Page 2 Hay 21, 1984 Agenda 5. Communications -No Action Recommended. {b) Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of April 17, 1984. (Copies enclosed.) (c) Minutes of the Public Library Advisory Board meeting of Hay 8, 1984. (Copies enclosed.) {d) Memorandum from the Municipal Court Administrator to the Mayor and Members of City Council con- cerning the Quarterly Report for the first quarter of 1984. (Copies enclosed.) 6. Communications -Action Recommended. (a) Council Communication from the Planning and Zoning Commission concerning an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance by adding new Section 16.8 relating to fences and re- taining walla. (Copies enclosed.) 7. City Attorney. Ordinances on Final Reading. Ordinance amending the Municipal Code of the City of Englewood and adding thereto a new chapter constituting a portion of the Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance. (Copies enclosed.) Bill for an Ordinance, (b) Bill vacating street right-of-way and a sanitary sewer easement and granting an easement for a new water line in the vicinity of South Sherman Street, U. S. 285, and South Logan Street. (Copies enclosed.) Other Mattera. t)_I.J (c) City of \,\l-.1 Opinion Englewood v. John L. Leydon -Memorandum and Order. (Copies enclosed.) (d) ij Attorney's Choice.Ae 1t • 1 _ v·(~O. 6 · J ~tt~ /hiJ.!.'I.... I • - • • ( • • • • Page 3 May 21, 1984 Agenda 8. City Manager. tY -z,O {a) . oAJ \)' Six Quarter Budget for the period April, 1984 through September, 1985. (Copies enclosed.) (b) Manager's Choice. 9. General Discussion. (a) Mayor's Choice. (b) Council Member's ~10. Adjournment. L /J;.X/i :3re2·;" -y~ ANDY C COWN Cit Manager AM/sb • I • • • • • AGENDA ITEM PRESENTED BY ------ cL~ cr oL-~ (h_,__ ~~t_7~ C )~_L 6 D ~ di-t(z ~~~-· ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent HIQday Neal Vobeida Weist Rlln Bradshaw Otis MOTION: • • Abstain I . • • • • AGENDA ITEM -----PRESENTED BY -------- ) /CW CU( ROLL CALL "<>ved Seconded Ayes ~Y Absent Absuln Hlgday I-' Neal v Vobe;da 7/ Weist J/ Bllo 1/ Bradshaw ~ Otis ,,.. MOTION: I • • • • - • • AGENDA ITEM _/_tt-___ _ PRESENTED BY -------- ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain HlgCiay I Neal I Vobeida I v Weist I L/ Bilo I • Bradshaw Otis MOTION: • I • • • • - • • AGENDA ITEM ___,/<-....r;k_.)c__ __ PRESENTED BY -------- ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain HIQday I Neal I v Vobeida I • v WeTst I Bllo Bradshaw I -Otis - MariON : I • • • • • • • • AGENDA ITEM cl t:l.-PRESENTED BY -------- ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain v Hladay Neal I Vobe1da I Weist I v Bi lo I Bradshaw I Otis - MOTION: I • • ---(ft) • • • - • • AGENDA ITEM ~~ c3. PRESENTED BY ------ ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Ab sta n Hiaday Neal Vobe1da Weist Bile Bradshaw Otis MOTION: • I . • • • • • AGENDA ITEM ~.J {)..___ -c{__ P RE SENTED B Y -------- ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes ~Y Absent Abstain HTgday ,... Neal Vo beida Weist }/ Bllo I Bradshaw I Otis - I . • • • - • • I' AGENDA ITEM PRESENTED BY ------- ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes ~y Absent Ab sta n HT(Jdav Neal v Vobe1da Weist --v Bllo Bradshaw Otis MCYriON: &L ~c-1 C /A ph c ~~~~ • I • • • • • • • • AG ENDA ITEM ----P RESENTED BY ------ Moved MOTION: ~cEcm~ -. {)_ )._ J_ U'~"J c:v"t--~t.t- ROLL CALL Seconded Ayes N.y Absent HTgday I Neal I Vobeida I Weist I Bi lo I Bradshaw I -Otis • Abstain I . • • • . . • , AGENDA ITEM Jj?~ PRESENTE D BY ROLL CALL Hoved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain HTgday Neal I • J"' Vobeida Weist v Bllo Bradsh-I Otis ..-- MOTION: • I • • • • • • • AGENDA ITEM PRE SENT ED BY, .xf2 te-l 1 • 1- ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain HlgdaY f e.--Neal I Vobe1da I Wei s t I l/ Bllo Bradsh-I Otis -- MariON: {!;{dJ /1 I . • • • • - • • AGENDA ITEM ~ ROLL CALL Hoved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Hlgday Neal Vobeida Weist Bllo Bradshaw Otis MOTION: I • • • • • • • • AGENDA ITEM PRESENTED BY Ar1 f u l~ !- ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain t11gaay 1 1/ Neal I Vobe1da I Weist I ...-Bllo I I Br-adshaw I Otis I MOTION: !; """ r s "/> ~ 2-t 1a!: (~? I ;3 • ~--IX r; c..A-"--/U--7 r II t J<---d z~ I y;-f F t:c.J!.~ • • ;:;4~ ~ a-Ce... ~ ~6os • • • • • AGENDA ITEM 7L ~ijv 1 6 ~~1 tc ~ C ~1 /Qc u ~t t r cau~ rb-J c-( ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Hlgday I v NeaT I v-Vobeida 1 Weist I Bllo T Bradsh-I OtIs v MOTION: • I • • • • • r ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Htgdav I NeaT Vobeida l/ Weist I v Bllo I Bradshaw Otis - MCYI'ION: I . • • - AGENDA ITEM --- Moved Seconded v Hladay v NeaT Vobe i da Weist Bllo Bradshaw Otis • • • • PRESENTED BY ----- ~t,\ f J_ ~ca -cun L~f( C/--.' rlD ~''n . ROLL CALL Ayes Nay Absent Abstain • I . • • - • • AGENDA ITEM ----P RESENTED BY ------ sd-! Cf f/\_.-t.uf'c~ u)--1~ --c-rv,__,,_1 t,.__ ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain HTQiJay Neal r Vobe1da I Weist I Bllo I Bradshaw I Otis .._ MOTION: • I . • • • SPECIAL MEETING: • • •' • COUNCIL CHAMBERS City of Englewood, Colorado April 10, 1984 j(L The City Council of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe County, Colorado, met in special session on April 10, 1984, at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Otis, presiding, called the meeting to order. COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING UNTIL 7:30 P.M. Council Member Vobejda seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: AyE's : Nay s : Absent: Council Members Higd a y, Vob ejdn , Dr a dsh a w, Otis. None. Council Members Neal, Bilo, Weist. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * * Mayor Otis, presiding, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and Council reconvened at that time. The invocation was given by Council Member Higday. 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, Vobejda, Weist, Bradshaw, Otis. Absent: Council Members Neal, Bilo. The Mayor declared a quorum present. * * * * * * * Also present were: City Manager McCown City Attorney DeWitt Assistant City Manager Vargas Director of Community Development Powers Deputy City Clerk Owen * * * * * * * • I • • • April 10, 1984 Page 2 • • • COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO THE ENGLEWOOD DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN. Council Member Higday seconded the motion. Upon a cal.l of the roll, th e vot e resulted as follows: Ay e s: Nays: Absent: Council Memb e r s Higd a y, Vob ejda , Bilo , Bradshaw, Otis. None. Council Members Neal, Weist. Th e Ma yor declar e d th e motion c a rri e d. Mayor Otis apologized for the delay. Mayor Otis stated the purpose of the public hearing was to consider amending the Downtown Rev e lopment Plan to list a dditional properties and leasehold interests for acquisiton by the Englewood Urban Re newal Autho r ity. The properties included 3311 South Broadway a nd leases within 3315-3386 South Broadway, 3340-3384 South Acoma Street, and 33-95 West Girard Avenue. Mayor Otis stated there was inadequate evidence before the Urban Re newal Authority to show that good faith ~egotiations have occurred between the tenants/property owners and Brady Corporation. Mayor Otis stated Brady representatives informed the Urban Renewal Authority that offers have been made but the tenants or property owners involved have not had enough time to respond. Several tenants have requested City Council not act on the amendment since they have not had enough time to consider the offers. Mayor Otis submitted for the record a letter from the Super Yarn Market dated April 5, 1984, and a letter from Atler, Zall and Haligman d a ted April 9, 1984 concerning the Physical Whimsical, Inc. Mayor Otis stated since the Urban Renewal Author i ty did not receive the necessary documentation to make a recommendation to the City Council regard i ng the leases and property requested by Br a dy representatives for acquisition by the Urban Renewal Authority, the Council would b e unable to make any decision at this meeting. Mayor Otis informed members of the audience they were welcome to a ddress Coun ci l on this subject even though a decision would not be ma d e , or they could wait until the next hearing. Mayor Otis then asked Mr. Robert Paysinger representing s. Bud Brady a nd Brady Development Corporation to come forward • • I • • • r • April 10, 1984 Page 3 • • • Mr. Paysing e r stated neg oti ati ons h ave t a k e n pl ace over the last month. Mr. Paysinger stated they have had problems obtaining appraisals and therefore the tenants have not had enough time to consider offers. Mr. Pa ysinger stated on th i s day offers were sent out to all the tenants and requested a two week continuance until Mond ay , April 23rd . Council Member Bradshaw stated she wa s und er the impression wh en he has asked for continuance of the first hearing such items would be ta ken care o f by t his dat e . Mr. Paysinger stated that was c orr ect bec ause at that time th e y were as sured by the appraisers that their document ati on would b e done . Tha t did not occur. There was nothing they could do to fulfill the obligati on s to ne gotiate in good faith until th e appraisals were received. Now that they are coming in, they have sat down wi th the te n a n ts a nd progress h as b een ma de in some inst ances . Mr. Paysinger stated that a two week continuance should give everyone a chance to review t he situation. Council Member Bradshaw had a question on the time line. She stated she did not know how a public hearing could be held on the 23rd if the tenants deadline was the 20th. How could that give the Urban Renewal time to make a recommentation. Mr. Paysinger stated he would be forwarding material to the Urban Renwal Authority throughout that period. Mayo r Otis asked for any comments from the audience. Mr. Richard I. Brown, of Alters, Zall and Haligan came forward representing Physical Whimsical. Mr. Brown stated they received their appraisal and offer at noon on this date; and in his op ini on the offer was not acceptable . Mr. Brown stated there has been no consideration given to these businessmen for reimbursement for the time and trouble caused to them in the interruption of their business and the uncertainty to their livelihood. Mr. Brown read from Mr. Paysinger's letter offer, "please review the a greement at your earliest convenience , and call me with your decision concerning this matter on or before April 20, 1984. Please note that this if our final offer on this matter. If we do not hear from on or before April 20, 1984, your lack of response will be considered a rejection of our offer." Mr. Brown then provided copies of t he subject letter . Hr. Brown stated it appeared to him the offer was a mandat e not the beginning of good faith negotiations. Mr. Brown objected to Mr. Paysinger's request for a two week extension and suggested he (Mr. Paysinger) would not be any more prepared in two we eks. Mr. Brown stated Mayor Otis has already found that there was not good faith negotiation at this particular ti me • • I • • April 10, 1984 ~age 4 • • • City Attorney DeWitt pointed out that Council would act through a quorum on the issue of good faith negotiations. Mr. Brown apologized as he had presumed that the issue had been voted when he heard Mayor Otis' statement. Mr. Brown asked Council to consider a 120 day extension to engage a professional appraiser. Mr. Brown stated good faith negotiations have not taken place i n respect to Physical Whimsical. Mr. Brown stated the first time they had heard of a number was Mr. Paysinger's letter of yesterday. Larry Rich, attorney representing Man's World Clothing Store located at 3365 South Broadway, came forward. Mr. Ric~ stated his client first received a letter dated March 26, 1984 from the Brady Corporation advising that they were to move and offering X number of dollars. Mr. Rich stated they met with Mr. Paysinger one we e k ago a nd he gave them three options: 1) one would be a buy-out at a dollar figure; 2) they would discuss moving into a new facility; and 3) if they could not agree to a dollar amount, the next step was condemnation. Mr. Rich stated the tw o week continuance was not feasible because of the time it would take to get an appraisal and entered into negotiations. Mr. Rich stated his client would have to say no to Brady in the next two weeks because they would not agree, and then Brady would ask to condemn the property. Council Member Higday stated that Brady does not commence condemnation proceedings. Mr. Rich stated Brady would initiate a request to the condemning authority then. Mr. Rich stated until his client was able to have the time to obtain their own experts to gain knowledge of what the value of their leasehold interests were they would not be able to discuss it with Brady representatives. Mr. James Kurtz-Phelan of the firm Berenbaum & Weinshienk, representing the owner of the Evans Coffee Shop at 95 W. Girard, Azik Katsnelson, came forward. Mr. Kurtz-Phelan stated they received the same letter as everyone else. Mr. Kurtz-Phelan provided personal historical background of his client coming from Russia and explained the human impact that has been experienced by Mr. Katsnelson as a result of this project . Mr. Ed Lee, Lee and Margorano, came forward representing Ted Valais, Ted's Custom Clothes at 33 West Girard. Mr. Lee stated they had received a similar letter at noon on this date. Negotiations started less than 10 days ago, and he felt that in two weeks Mr. Brady would not be in a position to come to the Council and assert that he has in fact negotiated in good faith. Mr. Lee stated Mr. Brady has indicated to these tenants that he would only pay the value of their lease and some relocation expenses under the guise of condemnation. Mr. Lee stated Mr • • I • • April 10, 1984 Page 5 • • • Brady should consider costs that businesses have in refurbishing new leasehold space and what their loss in profits would be. City Attorney DeWitt stated the condemning a uthority was the Urban Renewal Authority, not City Council. According to the statutes there was a requirement that the plan b e a pproved by th e City Council a n d City Council was considering an amendment to that plan. Oliver Giseburt, 3171 South High, businesss 3385 South Bannock of Giseburt Insurance Agency, came fonerd. Mr. Giseburt provided hi s rec ollection of the history in land development on the subject area as rela t ed to the ame ndment. Fred Kaufman, Kaufman's Big & Tall Men's Store, 3395 South Broa dw ay . He stated h i s property was not included in the discussion but want ed to add having been he a d of th e EDDA, having been responsible for bringing in the developer, that as a merchant he felt the Brady group was going to treat him fairly because he owned his property and happened t o fit into the parameters of what is envisioned for the block. Mr. Kaufman stated h e wanted what would be good for the community and h e thought other merchants felt the same. Mr. Kaufman recalled the Urban Renewal Authority was brought into the plan for only one reason and that was to finance the project. Leo Lentsch came forward and asked if 3311 South Broadway was included. Mayor Otis stated it was. Mr. Lentsch stated he did not understand why t here were negotiations going on because the property has not been sold. Mr. Lentsch stated 19 individuals from the Brady Construction Company entered his building informing him it was going to be destroyed. Mr. Lentsch stated this happened five times in one week. Council Me mber Bradshaw as k ed wh at dates this occurred. Mr. Lentsch stated the last one was two days ago. Mr. Lentsch stated people were not being treated fairly. Hr. Paysinger came forward to answer questions. Council Member Bradshaw asked when he asked for the postponement two weeks ago, was it his intent to deliver the letter at the final hour on the day of the hearing. Hr. Paysinger stated the intent was once they had final apprais a ls they were to present them to the tenants. Mr. Paysinger st a ted Lh y h a v e b ee n negotiating with all the tenants for several months. He stated he wanted to get the best offer out which was the fair ' ma rke t va lu e of property interest. He stated Hr. Brady did not want to buy bus i nesses; he wanted to buy possessory interest, leasehold interest , a less ee 's r i ght to possession for the term of the lease , and provide reloca ti ons costs. Hr. Paysinger stated Physical whimsical attorneys had I • • - April 10, 1984 {'age 6 • • • figures prior to today pursuant to tel e phon e conv ersatio n s . Mr . Paysinger stated the Brady Corporation wants the tenants to move their businesses to another location and either start up again or move to a temporary location and come back into the project. · Council Member Bradshaw queried the two week delay in timin g with final offers. Mr. Paysinger stated it ma y be prudent to exte nd the n ext hearing until the 30th so that everybody has more time. City Attorney DeWitt asked Mr. Paysinger if the appraisers would have sufficient time to have information available on ~he 30th. Mr. Paysinger stated they have been assured by the appraisers t h at they woul d hnve these docum e n ts by the 30th. Council Member Weist noted that Council was not to decide at this meeting whether or not negotiations were conducted in good faith; it was up to the Urban Renewal Authority to advise Council of this evidence. Mr. Weist stated evidence has been presented there has not been a f a ir amount of time for the tenants to gather their expert evaluation. Mr. Paysinger stated the tenants have had basically the same amount of time that they have had to put their appraisals together. When negotiations began several months ago, the tenants could have retained an appraiser for their leasehold interest. Mr. Paysinger stated there was confusion on the part of the tenants in that some of them feel Mr. Brady should buy all interests include projected profits. Mr. Paysinger stated they were only providing fair market value for leasehold interests and relocation expenses. COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO CONTINUE THE HEARING UNTIL 7:00 P.M. ON APRIL 30, 1984. Council Member Bradshaw seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Council Members Higday, Vobejda, Weist, Bradshaw, Otis. None. Council Members Neal, Bilo. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * * • I . - • • • April 10 , 1984 Page 7 • • • COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Council Member Bradshaw seconded the mo tion . Upon a call of the roll , the vote resulted ~s follows: Ay es : Nays : Absent: Counc il Members Higday , Vob ej d a , Weist , Bradsh a w, Otis . Non e . Council Members Neal, Silo. The Mayor declared th e motion carried a nd Hdjourned the meet ing at 8:25 p .m. . (C) L/; [_ )U lerk I . • - • • - • • I . • • ' • REGULAR MEETING : • • • COUNCIL CHAMBERS City of Englewood, Colorado April 16 , 1984 I h The City Cou ncil of the City of Englewood, Ar apa hoe County , Colorado, me t in regular session on April 16, 1984, at 7:30 p .m . Mayor Otis, presiding, called the meeting to order. The invocati o n was given by Reverend Bill Mante i , Centennial Lutheran Chur ch , 3595 West Belleview Avenue. The pledge of allegiance wa s l e d by Boy Scout Broo p 1115. Mayor Otis a sk ed for roll ca ll. Upon a c a ll of the roll, the followi n g wer e present: Counc i l Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist, Bilo , Otis. Absent: Council Members Bradshaw. The Mayor declared a quorum present. * * * * * * * Also present were: City Manager McCown City Att o rney DeWitt Assistant City Manager Vargas Director of WWTP Owen Deputy City Clerk Owen * * * * * • • COUNCIL MEMBER BILO MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF APR IL 2, 1984. Council Member Vobejda seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote res ulted as follows: Ay es: Council Members Neal, Vobejda, Bilo, Otis. Nays: None. Abstain: Council Members Higday, Weist. Absent: Council Member Bradshaw. The Mayor declared the motion carried. • • • • • • • • I • • - • • • • • , . • April 16 I 1984 Page 2 RE SOLUTION NO. 1 5 SERIES OF 1984 A RESOLUTION OF TH~ ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL COMMENDING CLETUS A. GAS SON FOR HIS OUTSTANDING SERVICED TO THE COMMUNITY. COUNCI L MEMBER NEAL MOVED TO PASS RESOLUTION NO. 15 , SERIES OF 1984. Council M e mb e~ Bilo seconded the motion . Upon a ca ll of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ay es: Nays: Abs e nt : Council Member s Higd a y, Neal, Vobe jda , Weist, Bilo, Otis . None. Council Member Oradsha w. The Ma yor declared the motion carried. Mayor Otis r ead the r esoluti on in full a nd presented the framed resolution and plaque to Mr . Gassen. Mr. Fred Kaufman, Chairman of the EDDA, read a resolution from the EDDA f or Mr. Gassen and mentioned it would be sent to Mr. Gassen at a l a ter time. Mr. Kaufm a n presented Mr. Gassen with a golf putter. Mr. Gassen gave appreciative remarks for the award and recognition. f t * * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO APPROVE A PROCLAMATION DECLA RING APR IL 20, 1984 AS "ARBOR DAY." Council Member Bile seconded the motion . Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Council Memb ers Higday, Neal, Vobe jda , Weist, Bilo, Otis. None. Council Memb er Bradshaw. The Mayor declared the motion carried. Colleen Stowell, City Forester, introd uced Larry Helberg who was representing the Colorado State Forest Service. • I • • t ( • April 16, 1984 Page 3 • • • Mr. Helberg presented the City with th e Tree City USA Award for the sec o nd year in a row. Mr. Helberg stated Englewood was on e of 403 communities in the United States and one of 20 com- munities in the sfate of Colorado to receiv e s uch a n a wa rd. Mayor Otis stated Arbor Day celebrations will b e April 20, 19 84 at 10:00 a .m. at the golf course and extended invitatio ns to th ose who may want to attend . * * * * * * * Mr . Tom Machiorletti, Director of the Ar apahoe Mental Health Center, ca me forward. Mr. Mac hiorl etti discussed the ser- vices avai l able a t this facility and distributed a n information sheet and annual report. Mr. Jack Olsen asked Mr. Machiorletti what the agency's inv ol veme nt would be if Municipal Court defers judgement of an in dividual until treatment is received. Hr. Machiorletti responded an individual must enter treat- ment on his/her own and asked for an opportunity to discuss the question further with Hr. Olsen after the meeting. Mr. Olsen agreed t o this. * * * * * * * Mayor Otis asked if there were other visitors in the audi- ence wishing to speak. Mr. Robert Jones, 7000 E. Quincy , came forward. Hr . Jones stated he owned property at 300 E. Hampden . Mr . Jones stated he was not notified about the development taking place near his pro- perty. Mr. Jones expressed concern about whether there would be inc reased traffic and parking problems, about the deadend being no l onger in existence, about the problems with Logan/Grant alley, about problems with the alley where houses are being moved, and about the shortage of parking when the current building is short. Mr. Jones suggested delaying the project until Council can meet with City staff and Safeway planners. Mr. Jones volunteered to help with the meetings . City Manager McCown stated he was unaware of any problems and stated he would investigate the matter with staff personnel. City Attorney DeWitt noted ordinances have been passed vacating certain parts of the property and it was his understanding the Planning Commission had resolved any questions • • I • • - ( ( • • • • • • April 16 , 1984 Page 4 Mr. Jones stated he would write a letter to the City Ma nager out lini ng these concerns. * * * * * * * Counci l Member Neal re v erted to Mr. Gasson presentation. Cou n cil Memb er Nea l stated Mr . Gassen was a roc k upon whi c h h e de pended and he (Mr. Gassen) would be sorely missed. Council Mem- ber Neal stated he very much appreciated Mr. Gassen. were: * * * * * * * "Communic ati ons -No Action Rec omm ended " on the a g e nd a (a) (b) (c) (d) Minutes of the Urban Renewal Au thority meetings of March 7 and 14, 1984. Minutes o f the Pl a nning and Zoning Commission meeting of March 20, 1984. Memorandum from the Employee Relations Director to the City Manager concerning his attendance at the 1984 NEPELRA Conference i n Clearwater, Florida. Annual City Cleanup Schedule for May, 1984. COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO ACCEPT "COMMUNICATIONS -NO ACTION RECOMMENDED", AGENDA ITEMS S(A) -S(D). Council Member Bilo seconded the moti on. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows : Ayes: Nays: Absen t : Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist, Bilo, Otis. None. Council Member Bradshaw. The Mayo r declared the motion carried. * * * * * * * City Manager McCown presented a Council Communication from the Planning and Zoning Commission concerning an amendment to I-1 zoning • • I • • - - • • • April 16, 1984 ( Page 5 ( • COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO RECEIVE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RELATIVE TO CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND REQUEST THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE ORDINANCES IN PREPARATION OF A PUBLIC HEARING.' Council Member Neal seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Council Members Higday, Ne al , Vob ejda , Weist, Silo, Otis. None. Council Member Bradshaw. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * * City Manager McCown presented a Council Communication from the Water and Sewer Board recommending the purchase of six Manning level records and four battery chargers to properly measure the changes in flows in the gathering of information for the Infiltra- tion/Inflow Study. Mr. McCown noted the Board was recomm~nding the purchase of Dipper-Type Meters from Manning Technologies, Inc. even though it was not the lowest bid it was the best bid. COUNCIL MEMBER BILO MOVED TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSAL AND PUR- CHASE OF SIX MANNING LEVEL RECORDERS AND FOUR BATTERY CHARGERS. Council Member Higday seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist, Silo, Otis. None. Council Member Bradshaw. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * * City Manager McCown presented a memorandum fro the Police Chief concerning Robert Hall (Communications/Records Manager) at- tending a law enforcement computer seminar in Newport Beach, Cali- fornia, May 14, 15, and 16, 1984. • I • • - ( • April 16, 1984 Page 6 • • • COUNCIL MEMBER BILO MOVED TO APPROVE ROBERT HALL (COMMUNI- CATIONS/RECORDS MANAGER) ATTENDANCE AT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT COMPUTER SEMINAR AT THE EXPENSE OF $890. Council Member Vobejda seconded the motion. Upon"a call of the roll, the vote result e d as fol-lows: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist, Bilo, Otis . None. Council Memb er Bradshaw. The Mayor declared the motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 14 SERIES OF 1984 * * * * BY AUTHORITY * * * COUNCIL BILL NO. 12 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WEIST AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN EASEMENT TO SOUTH SUBURBAN METROPOLITAN RECRETIONAL AND PARK DISTRICT, A QUASI-MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, FOR THE COLORADO DEMONSTRATION TRAIL. COUNCIL MEMBER WEIST MOVED TO PASS COUNCIL BILL NO, 12, SERIES OF 1984, ON FINAL READING, Council Member Neal seconded fhe motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejd a , Weist, Bilo, Otis. None. Council Member Bradshaw. The Mayor declared the motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. SERIES OF 1983 * * * * BY AUTHORITY * • * * COUNCIL BILL NO, 13 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL I • - • April 16, 1984 P.age 7 • • • AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF LITTLETON AND ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, FOR JOINT WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES TO JOINTLY OPERATE THE JOINT-USE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILIT~. COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL MOVED TO PASS COUNCIL BILL NO. 13, SERIES OF 1984, ON FINAL READING. Council Member Silo seconded the motion. COUNCIL MEMBER BILO MOVED TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL NO. 13, SERIES OF 1984, BY STRIKING THE WORDING IN ITEM 5 OF THE AGREEMENT AND SUBSTITUTING THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE, "THE REAL PROPERTY DE- SCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A IS NECESSARY FOR PRESENT USE AND ~UTURE EX- PANSI ON OF THE JOINT-USE WASTEWA'fEH TREATMENT PLANT, AND IT IS 'f HE INTE NT OF THIS AGREEMENT THAT THE PROPERTY WILL ALWAYS BE USED FOR WASTEWA'rER TREATMENT PURPOSES FOR THE BENEF £1' OF BO'rll CI'ri ES." Council Member Vobejda seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote on the amendment resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist, Bilo, Otis. None. Council Member Bradshaw. The Mayor declared the motion carried. Upon a call of the roll, the vote on the original motion resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist, Bilo, Otis. None. Council Member Bradshaw. The Mayor declared the motion carried. City Attorney DeWitt stated the council bill return for final reading in amended form at the first regular meeting in May. * * * * * * * BY AUTHORITY ORDINANCE NO. 15 COUNCIL BILL NO. 14 • I • - • • • April 16, 1984 !"age 8 SERIES OF 1984 • • • I NT RODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BILO AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN EASEM ENT TO SOUTH SUBURBAN MET - ROPOLITABN RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT, A QUASI-MUNICIPAL CORPORA- TION, FOR THE RECREATIONAL TRAIL ON THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVER BETWEEN BATES AVENUE AND HAMPDEN AVENUE. COUNCIL MEMBER BILO MOVED TO PASS CO UN CIL BILL NO . 14, SERIES OF 1984, ON FINAL READING. Council Member Weist seconded t he motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as fol-lows: Ay es: Nays: Absen t : Council Memb ers Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist, Bilo, Otis. None. Council Member Bradshaw. The Mayor declared the motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 16 SERIES OF 1984 * * * * BY AUTHORITY * * * COUNCIL BILL NO. 15 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VOBEJDA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5, TITLE XV, SECTION 5, OF THE ENGLE-WOOD MUNICIPAL CODE '69, AS AMENDED. COUNCIL MEMBER VOBJEDA MOVED TO PASS COUNCIL BILL NO. 15, SERIES OF 1984, ON FINAL READING. Council Member Bilo seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist, Bilo, Otis. None. Council Member Bradshaw. The Mayor declared the motion carried. Director Owen came forward. He stated they were in the final stages with the EPA on the pretreatment ordinance and that he was meeting with their agents on April 30 , 1984 • I • • - • • • April 16, 1984 Page 9 ORDINANCE NO. SERIES OF 1984 * * • • • * * * BY AUTHORITY A BILL FOR * * COUNCIL BILL NO. 18 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BILO AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, BY ADDING THERETO A NEW CHAPTER CONSTITUTING " A PORTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING THE HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY; TO REGULATE AND RESTRICT THE APPEARANCE, SIZE, CHARACTER, HEIGHT, AND BULK OF BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES; TO DETERMINE THE AREA OF YARDS, COURTS, AND PLACES SURROUNDING THEM; TO REGULATE THE RESTRICT THE DENSITY OF POPULA- TION; TO REGULATE AND RESTRICT THE USE OF LAND WITHIN A DESIGNATED FLOOD PLAIN OR DRAINAGE WAY; TO DIVIDE THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, INTO DISTRICTS FOR SUCH PURPOSES; ADOPTING AND INCORPO- RATING HEREIN A ZONING MAP WITH ALL THE NOTATIONS, REFERENCES AND OTHER INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON SHOWING, ESTABLISHING, AND DELINE- ATING SUCH ZONE DISTRICTS AND THE BOUNDARIES THEREOF; WHICH ORDI- NANCE IS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO AND THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF POWERS GRANTED AND ACQUIRED IN THE HOME RULE CHARTER ADOPTED IN 1958 BY THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, RECOGNIZING THAT ZONING IS UTILMATELY A LOCAL AND MUNICIPAL MATTER, THE INTENT OF THIS PORTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE BEING TO SUPERSEDE WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS AND OTHER JURIS- DICTION OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD THE GENERAL LAW OF THE STATE OF COLORADO JN CONFLICT HEREWITH, REPEALING PORTIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 26, SERIES OF 1963, AS AMENDED, AND PRESCRIBING PENALTIES AS SET FORTH IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD WHICH SHALL APPLY TO VIOLATIONS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE AND DECLAR-ING AN EMERGENCY • COUNCIL MEMBER SILO MOVED TO PASS COUNCIL BILL NO. 18, SERIES OF 1984, ON FIRST READING. Council Member Higday seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as fol-lo ws: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejd a , Weist, Silo, Otis. None. Council Member Bradshaw. • I • • • April 16, 1984 Page 10 • • • The Mayor declared the motion carried. COUNCIL MEMBER BILO MOVED TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON COUNCIL BILL NO. 18, SERIES OF 1984, ON MONDAY, MAY 7, 1984, AT 7:30 P.M. Council Member Neal seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll , the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Abs ent: Council Members Higday, Neal, Vob ejda , Weist, Bilo, Otis. None. Council Member Bradshaw. The Ma yor declared the mo t ion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 16 SERIES OF 1984 * * * * * * * A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, IN CASE NO. 13-84, THE BROADWAY DEVELOPMENT PLAN. COUNCIL MEMBER BILO MOVED TO PASS RESOLUTION NO. 16, SERIES OF 1984. Council Member Vobejda seconded the motion. Council Member Neal stated since he was absent from the meeting and not able to review the tape, he would abstain. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Council Members Higday, Vobejda, Bilo, Otis. Nays: None. Abstain: Council Members Neal, Weist. Absent: Council Member Bradshaw. The City Attorney asked for a recess to research whether or not the above poll of votes constituted p assage . The Mayor declared a recess at 8:35 p.m. Council reconvened at 8:40 p.m. Mayor Otis asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the following were present: I • • • April 16, 1984 ~age 11 • • • Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejd a , Weist, Bilo, Otis. Abs ent : Council Member Bradshaw. The Mayor declared a quorum present. City Attorney DeWitt st ated a majority of a quorum may deci de the motion. Mayor Otis declared the motion on Resolution No. 16, Series of 1984 as carried. * * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL MOVED TO APPROVE THE PROCLAMATION DECLARING THURSDAY, MAY 3, 1984, AS "DAY OF PRAYER" IN THE CITY OF ENGELWOOD. Council Member Bilo seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist, Bilo, Otis. None, Council Member Bradshaw. The Mayor declared the motion carried • • • • • • * • COUNCIL MEMBER VOBEJDA MOVED TO APPROVE A PROCLAMATION DECLARI NG THE MONTH OF APRIL, 1984 AS "CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT PREVENTION MONTH." Council Member Higday seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist, Bilo, Otis. None. Council Member Bradshaw. The Mayor declared the motion carried . • • • • • • • I • • • • • April 16 , 1984 Page 12 .. • • • City Attorney DeWitt stat ed the City has r e ceived a n ea se- me nt from the Atchison & Topeka Railroad for right of way where the depressi on projection would be relocated to. Mr. DeW i .tt stated after re view t h e ~asement appears acc urat e . COUNCIL MEMBER WEIST MOVED TO ACCEP T THE EASEMENT AND AUTHORIZE THE RECORDING THEREOF. Council Member S i lo seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll , the vo te res ult ed as follo ws: Ayes: Nays: Abs e nt: Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobe jda , Weist, Bilo, Ot is . None. Council Memb er Bradshaw. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * * City Attorney DeWitt discussed a lice nse agreement to allow Brady and others to go upon the City parking lot an d conduct exca v ati on activities . COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL MOVED TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AND THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A STANDARD LICENSING AGREE- MENT FOR BRADY ENTERPRISES TO BEGIN EXCAVATION ON THE CITY PARKING LOT . Counci l Member Silo seconded the motion . Upon a call of the roll , the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist, Bilo, Otis. None. Council Member Bradshaw. The Mayor declared the motion carried • * * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DEFEND THE CITY IN THE MATTER OF THE STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT VS THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD REGARDING THE MCLELLAN RESERVIOR PROPERTY, C-470; AND TO ENTER INTO A STIPULATION FOR IMMEDIATE POSSESSION ON TERMS THAT ARE ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY MANAGER. Council Member Bilo seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: • I • • ( f • Apr:il 16 , 1984 Page 13 Ay es : Nays: Abs e nt: • • • Council M embe~s Higday , Neal , Vob ejda , Weist , Bile, Otis. None. Council Member B~adshaw. The Mayor declared the motion ca~~ied. * * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER VOBEJDA MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY AT- TORNEY TO OBJECT TO A LAND EXCHANGE BETWEEN THE KOPPERS COMPANY AND 'l'IIE U.S . FOREST SER VICE IN GRAND COUNTY BECAUSE '!'HE EXC HANGE WOULD INTERFER WITH CERTAIN PIPELINE AND OTHER FACILITIES OWNED BY THE CI TY FOR I'l'S U'l'I L['l'Y CI\PACI'I'Y. Counc il Membor Flilo SC'C"011Ll0d t·h c motion . Upo n a call of the roll, the vote ~esulted as foll ows: Ayes: Nays: Absen t : Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejd a , Weist, Bile, Otis. None. Council Member Bradshaw. The Mayo r declared the motion carried. * * * * * * * City Attorney DeWitt stated regarding the Safeway easement and the Broadway easement additional title work has to be done. * * * * * * * City Manager McCown requested a special meeting be called for the purpose of: 1) considering an amendment to the lease w ith Brady Corporation on the City-owned parking lot , 2) designating a person to participate on the State-wide Development Corporation Board. COUNCIL MEMBER WEIST MOVED TO CALL A SPECIAL ME ETING FOR MONDAY, APRIL 23, 1984, AT 7:00 P.M. Council Member Vobejda seconded the motion . Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follo ws: Ay es : Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobe jda , Weist, Bilo, Otis. None. • I • - • • t • April 16, 1984 Page 14 Absent: • • • Council Member Bradshaw. Th e Mayor· declared the mot ion carried. Mayo r Otis asked for direction from Council on the ap- pointment to replace Mr. Gasson's position on the EDDA. COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL MOVED TO ADO THE ITEM OF REPLACEMENT FOR MR. GASSON ON THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BOARD TO NEXT WEEK'S AGENDA. Council Member Higday seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted ns follows: Ay es : Nays: Absen t: Council Memb ers lligd ay , Ne a l, Vob ejda , Weist , Bilo, Otis. None. Council Member Bradshaw. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * * Council Member Neal stated for some time he and several other members of the Downtown Development Authority have been try- ing to put together a package that would accomplish the purchase of the old Safeway building for the purpose of filling it with tenants who have been impacted by the Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Mr. Neal stated there will be an exchange of letters in an attempt to put the deal together with certain terms by August 1. Mr. Neal transmitted copies of a letter addressed to Mr. Russ Norfleet, Safeway Real Estate Division, declaring the EDDA's intent. RESOLUTION NO. 17 SERIES OF 1984 * * * * * * * A RESOLUTION APPOINTING JOHN R. OLSEN AS CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, AND FIXING HIS SALARY FOR THE BALANCE OF THE YEAR 1984. COUNCIL MEMBER SILO MOVED TO WELCOME COUNSELOR OLSEN A- BOARD AND TO PASS RESOLUTION NO. 17, SERIES OF 1984. Council Mem- ber Vobejda seconded the motion. • I • - t • • • • April 16, 1984 Page 15 Council Member Higd ay stated he wou ld vote a g a inst th e motion because there are tw o portions of the resolution. He preferred having t~o separate resolutions, one appointing Jack Olsen which he was in agreement with . He did not agree with section two; and therefore he could not vote in favor of the motion ; but h e categorically agreed with section one wh ich appointed Mr. Olsen. p .m. Ayes: Nays: Abs ent: Co uncil Members Neal , Vo bejda, Weist, Bilo, Otis . Council Member Higday. Council Member Bradshaw . The Mayor declared the motion carried . * * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO ADJOURN. Mayor Otis adjourned the meeting without a vote at 8:55 • I . ·- • - P R 0 C L A M A T I 0 N WH E REAS, The a n n u a l s ale o f Bud dy Po ppi es b y the Veterans of Foreign Wars has been officially recognized a nd endors ed by qovernmental leade r s si n ce 1 922; and WHEREAS , v.F .W. Bud d y Popp ie s a r e ass e mb led by disabled vet e rans , and the proc eeds of t h i s wor th y fund-r a i si n g campaign are used exclusively for the benefit of disa b led and needy veterans Qnd the widows and orph an s of deceased veterans ; and WHEREAS , The basic purpose of the annual sale of Buddy Poppies by the veteran s of Fo r eign Wars is el oquently reflected in the desire to "Honor the Dead by Helping the Living ". NOW , THEREFORE , I , BEVERLY J . BRADSHAW , Mayor Pro Tern of the City of Englewood , Colorado , hereby proclaim May 26 , 1904 ns BUDDY POPPY DAY in the City of Englewood , and I urge the citizens of this community to recognize the merits of this cause by c on tri bu ting generously to its support through the purchase of Buddy Poppies on the day set aside for the distribution of the s e s y mbo l s of a ppr eciation f o r the sacrifices of our honored dea d. l urg e clll paLrioLic citi zens to wear a Buddy Poppy as mute evidence of our gratitude to the men of this c o untry who have risked their lives 1n defense of the freedoms which we continue to enjoy as American citizens . GIVEN under my hand and seal this 21st day of May, 1984. </' /J~~~~ ' / ' ,, (// \ ~. . . . . __.,.. or Pro Tern • I . - P R 0 C L A M A T I 0 N WHEREAS, The annual sale of Buddy Poppies by the veterans of Foreign Wars has been officially recognized and endorsed by qovernmental leaders since 1922; and WHEREAS, v.F.W. Buddy Poppies are assembled by disabled veterans , and the proceeds of this worthy fund-raising campaign are used exclusively for the benefit of disabled and needy vet e rans and the widows and orph a ns of dece as ed veterans; a nd WHEREAS, The basic purpose of the annual sale of Buddy poppies by the Veterans of Foreign wars is eloquently reflected in the desire to "Honor the Dead by Helping the Living". NOW, THEREFORE , I, BEVERLY J . BRADSHAW, Mayor Pro Tem of the City of Englewood , Colorado, hereby proclaim May 26, 1904 as BUDDY POPPY DAY in the City of Englewood , and I urge the citizens of this community to recognize the merits of this cause by contributing generously to its support through the purchase of Buddy Poppies on the day set aside for the distribution of these symbols of appreciation for the sacrifices of our honored dead. I urge all patriotic citizens to wear a Buddy Poppy as mute evidence of our gratitude to the men of this country who have risked their lives in defense of the freedoms which we continue to enjoy as American citizens. GIVEN under my hand and seal this 21st day of May, 1984. Mayor Pro Tem • I ( • • • • l:.'ny.lowoocl J'acks and J<t.~ccea tion Co11u11issJ ou Minutes of March 8, 1984 The regulae monthly meeting of the Englewood 'Packs and Recreation Co11u11ission was called to order at 5:30p.m. by Chairman Jack Poole at the Enylewoocl Municipal c:olt.' Course Clubhouse. Members present: Allen, Boardman, Bradshaw, Gomes, Higday, Hixon, Howard, Poolo, Rademacher, Romans, ex officio Members absent: None Also present: Leon Kuhn, Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation Doug Foe, Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation Chairman l'oolo aske cl .if thoro weco an!) acl<lit .ions or cocr.octi ons to tho minutes of' Febr uary 9 , 1984. ~·here were none. J\ motion was made and seconded that the mi nutes b e approved as written. The motion passed. Director Romans reported that City Council approved the Bear Creek easement to South Suburban Recreation and Park District, and construction will begin within 3 to 4 weeks . As was discussed at the February 9, 1984 meeting concerning the liability is sue regarding portions of this trail, Commissioner Bradshaw stated that tho liabi l i ty is suo was discussed with City Council and she feels the matter has been resolved to Council's sa tis faction. Assistant Director Kuhn reported that the Belleview ballfield lighting project was started s hortly after it was approved by City Council. All caissons a~·e now in place fo~· the lighting poles, which is probablll the most difficult aspect of the project. Kulln stated the old fences have been removed from both Belleview and Spencer fields and posts have been put in for the new fences. Tho loft and right field fences at Spencer Field are now up. The contractor informed Kuhn that he expects to have the lighting and fenciny completed by March 30 at both fields. This date will be satisfactor11 since the season begins the last of April. Director Romans reported that City Council approved the contract, which was essentially the same as the 1983 contract, with the Englewood Soccer Association for use of Cit11 fie lds for the 1984 season • • I • • - • • ,. Englewood Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes of Harch 0, 1984 Page -2- • • • Director Romans announced that the City Council has cancelled their special meetin g ~· with the Commission on Harch 22, 1984, and that instead will attend the regularly scheclulC'<i Commission meeting on April 12, at which time they will discuss the interior design and furnishings for the community center. Director Romans reported that Gary Diede, Director of l'.'ny .ince.L"ing Services, .is interested in determining the official name foe the community centoJ.'. Romans <1Skocl t/I C' Recreation staff to offer suggestions to be discussed by the Commission. The staff cec- ommended that the name "The Englewood Recreation Center" be the name foe the c:ento1·. Co11u11.i ssiwwc IIi !J Ui.I!J CXJJL'ussu<l /lis opinion tlw t it woul<l l.Ju <lusil'ul.Jlu tu U•H'l'Y on tcadi tion and namu tho cuntec a ftor a desecviny ci ti :t.ell, ilS lias /Joan tiw pl·acticu wi til most Englewood pucks and facil.i ties. Conuuissionec lloward expressed that she J.'eels tilcnJ is usually a lot of controversy when a person's name is used, and she feels in this c.,su it would not be a good idea since there ace many people who have been involved over the { ,years with promoting the community center. Aftoc consi<loL·al.Jlc <liscussion, it was suggested by ConunissioneL' llowacd that if a vote is to be taken, two alternatives should be given: (1) The Englewood Recreation Center ; and (2) The Englewood Community and Recreation Center. Commissioner Gomes made a motion, seconded by Commissioner 1/owacd, to reconunond to City Council to name tho now conununi ty center "The Englewood Recreation Center". The motion passed. Chairman Poole reported he received a phone call from a citizen who was concerned that the pillars now being placed at the community center site are not being installed on any foundation. Di rector Romans assured Poole that they were, and advised him to refer such calls to Gary Diede or himself. Commissioner llixon told the Commission that the students of Englewood lligh School don't seem to be informed of the community center construction or the actlvltlos tJ~t will take place once the center is complete. llixon stated there seems to be no attempt by school officials to oduc te the students on matters of the City. Commissioner Bradshaw suggested the possibility of a ~unity center presentation being made at the high • • I • • Englewood Parks and Recreation Commission Min&Jtes of Harch 8, 1984 Page -3- • • • ~ school by the architect to show what facilities will be available. Director Romans reported on a meeting with State Park Planner, Ralph Schell, tile Mawor and the City Manager concerning funding for the South Platte River Trail 113 (from 1/ampden Avenue to Oxford Avenue). The purpose of the meeting was to exvlor:e tile poss i b- ilities of obtaining assistance for the construction of this por tion o f the trail. Rom.ll l'' stated there are three funding possibilities: (l) Tile Land ancl Water Conservation Funrl ; (2) The State Trail Fund; and (3) The Corp of Engineers. Hr. Schell administers the f .i1·s t two funds mentioned. Hr. Schell stated that . this trail was hiyh on their pL·.ior.ity list und ilo w,).-; JJL'"JXIn:cl to .:o.llut $~U,OUO to tili.;; tL'iJ .il. ~·111.-' Huyu1 · """J City MiJII<.JY '-'l ' llll'ul·mutl Mr. Schell that this was not enough to even start tile vrojuct <w<i t~skc:cl l 'oL· "'t let~st $100,000. Romans stated the total cost of the project will be $328,000, but l1e feels that the cost will be somewhat less since some engineering for the project has already been done. Besides funding from these three possibilities, which would be 50-50 matchiny f funds, Director Romans remarked it is possible that some of the 1984 lottery 1110ney may be put toward this trail construction. Director Romans reported that the construction drawing for ~·rail 1/2 shows the trail from Bates Avenue to Hamilton Place, and not Bates to Hampden Avenue as was previously reported. In checking with Bob Searns of Urban Edges, he l earn ed that funding fo1· tilis trail was $50,000 short of what was needed to construct to Hampden Avenue . Searns assured Romans that every effort will be made to obtain the additional funds needed to complete the trail to Hampden Avenue, and applications have been sent to the Gates, Piton and Johnson Foundations in hopes of obtaining more funds. Commissioner Boardman entered the meeting at 6:40 p.m. Concerning th e selection of a nominating committee to submit names for tile offices of chairman and vice-chairman of the Parks and Recreation Commission for two !Jear terms, Chairman Poole announced that he would appoint a nominating committee for eloction of officers for the Commission at the next meeting. Commiaaioner Gomes, stating that there will not be sufficient time at the Com.isaion'• April meeting, made a .ation to dispense I • • - - , • • ( l:.'nylewood l'arks <111<1 /lee.: rea tion Couuulssiou Minutvs uf Hill'<...'ll U, 1.9U4 Page -4- • • • with the nominating committee and to nominate the,.present officers, Jack Poole for Chairman, and Frances Howard for Vice-Chairman, to serve an additional two year tenu. The motion was seconded b~ Commissioner Bradshaw and passed. With regard to a letter from Hrs. Wiggins which appeared in t/w Sentinel Newspu pu •·, Chairman Poole stated /1e felt Hayor Otis' reply to Mrs. Wiygins was wull wl·ittcm .1m/ informative. Copies of the Mayor's reply were distributed to all Co11u11ission members. With regard to the drainage problem at the east nine holes of the golf course, Assistant Director Kuhn reported that the course will soon be ready for the laying of sod. 7'o date, Kulln st.:;tc:,d, approximately $25,000 JK<s JJc:c:,u spent ou tile JU'ujc:,c:t, <JIId ufttH' tl1u sodding is completed, he feels the drainage in tilis area will no lony o l ' JJc <1 Jn ·ol.Jlom. Director Romans explained that, even thouyh not yet complete, it looks like tlw sys twu will handle the large amount of water that drains and seeps under yround from Santa Vu Drive. Romans stated this drainage problem is intensified by the golf coul·se sprinkliw:J system. Assistant Director Kuhn reported that an easement was written into tile original con- tract when the golf course land was purchased from Winslow allowing for a 10 ft. deep sewer line to be installed across the number four fairway of the golf course by Winslow connecting to the large Littleton/Englewood sanitary line, wllich runs through the golf course. The City hopes to obtain some fill dirt from Winslow to build up the M4 fairway while he is digging the sewer line. Commissioner Gomes reported on the detention pond shed. He stated that Gary Diede, Di rector of Enginee ring Services, attended the last School Board n~eting to present a letter he received from three resident neighbors of the detention pond who were protesting the looks and loca t i on of the storage shed. Gomes stated that tho City will add a s/UJk a shingle roof to g i ve i t the look of a residential building, trees will be planted around it, and a wooden f e nce will be put up. Diede r e ported that the n e iqhbors would be s a tis- tied if the City made the proposed changes. Under Comm i ssi oner's choice, Commissioner Hixon asked if anyone has discussed the I • • - ( • • • • • £'nglewood l'arks ami J<ccrea tion Commission Minu to!J of Ha f.'C-'Il U, .I. 9U4 Page -5- naming of the detention pond baseball field and suggested that it be named for high school baseball coach, Harry Wise. After discussion, it was decided that this was a school matte • and Hixon, if she would, will circulate a petition at school to be signed by thos e wish- ing to have the ba .ll f i old named f or HL ·. W iscJ, .:1 well-known cmcl veri/ clud i.ca tccl 1:ut.i J."L'd school teacher from l·:nyl c wood lliyh Scl100l. 'l'lw p<•t .ition wou .l.cl l:lum IJ<• l:w:ll<-"1 ovur tu Commissioner Doardman to present to the School IJoarcl. Co111111issioner Hixon asked also if the Redbirds, an adult baseball team in Englewood, would be permitted to play on the detention pond field since in the past they lwve plilY'-'cl on l''nylcwood f.i <.'.lch ; .:.11cl wculc nu I."C!Jil irs 011 dilllli.l!JC cuuS<Jd by tlw.i J: L/.'1 <..' of tilu U ulcls. Director flomans stil t"cl tl1at for the 1984 suason, tlw llocll.lird s w.i.ll bu us .iuy MilluJ." 1-'.i.o.J.Ld ancl he feels an a yr.ccment can be workecl out in tile futuL·e wi tl• tlw Ncdb.inls cuiiC UL"ll illY the proper care of the fields. Commissioner Bradshaw suygestecl tlwt pw·Jwps ull il<JL"CielllullL si milar to the on e be tween tile City ancl the t.'nylewood Soccer 1\ssociation would be just- ified for the us e of the new detention pond field. Commissioner .uraclshaw inquired about the yolf course inca.ue. Director Homans state d that last year, not knowing what Jcind of attendance to expect because of weather conditions , expenses were cut, and because of this, a $100,000 excess of revenue over expenses was realized. Forty-four thousand dollars of this profit will be used for the drainaye project, and some may be used for the purchase of golf carts that will soon need replacing. commissioner Bradshaw stated it was her understanding when the carts were originally purchased that a revolving replacement fund would be set up. Romans explained the budget at that time would not allow for such a fund to be set up, but stated that it was impera- tive that such a replacement fund be set up in the next year. Couunissioncr IJoacdman indicated he would liJw to soe .:~ !·epo!'t sllowiny tJw lifu s pull of the gol f carts since they have now been stored in open storage for two winters. Die- ector Romans stated he would include this information in a report he will be preparing ( for CitW Hanager HcCown concerning setting up a replacement program for the carts. Commissione r Bradshaw stated that during a recent visit to the golf course for • I • 1'""'- ~. • t • Englewood Parks and Recreation Con~ission Minutes of March 0, 1904 Page -6- • • • f • breakfast, it was evident to her, from the loud sp.unds, that the water faucet in the lounge area is malfunctioning. Director Romans informed her that they were aware of th.is problem and several others and have notified the contractor. /Je remarked that he woul c/ ask Gary Diede to get a plumber to do the repair and send the bill to the contractor. Co~issioner Gomes asked if the City f'ocester Jws wei tten i.lll i.H'ticlo fo~· the l>'ll<;l u - wood Citizen, as was discussed at an earlier meeting, to inform citizens on the propel' care for lawns that are suffering from this year's harsh winter weather. Assistant Di~·- ector Kuhn informed him that the article will appear in the April issue of the EngleJvoocl Citizen. Con~issioner Doardman reported that the School JJo~u·d is c:onceL·necl about the l'<u·ks and Recreation Department's use of the englewood Uigll School Pool once the couuuuni ty center pool is open. It is the school's hope to be able to rent the pool to outside groups at times when the pool is not being used by either school or city. Director Roman s ~ explained <ha< "'"' Ci<y aq•a<ics progrsms oill be MO>ed <o <he new COO.•ni<y can<er pool, but there are approximately four programs that, due to the nature of the program, can logically be run at the high school pool: (l) the scuba program, (2) lap swimmers, •' (3) diving team, and (4) swim team. The cost of using the Englewood High School pool would be a large factor if these programs could be held at the high school pool. Ro1~ns stated he hopes the school will be in a position in the near future to resume its learn- to-swim program for elementary and middle school children. After much di scussion, Commissioner Bradshaw made a motion, seconded by Co~ssioner Gomes, to refer thi s matter of resolving the scheduling of the Englewood High School Pool to the School/Ci ty Co~ittee. 'The motion passed. Commiss i oner Boardman asked that Commi s sioner Hixon and Rademacher write an articl e for the Englewood High School Pirateer newspaper for the purpose of informing students of functions and activities of the Commission and Parks and Recreation Depart.ant. Nr. Rolllilns suggested that a reporter from the Pirateer check wJ.th the Parlul and R«~rNtJ.on office for news that MOUld be interesting to the hJ.gh school students • • !' I • • I' 1- I Englewood .Parks and Recreation Commission Mi nutes of Harch B, l984 Page -7- • • • Commissioner Bradshaw suggested that a letter be written to Jeff Weist, a membe r o f the Recreation Youth Council, from Chairman Poole to congratulate him and h i s team memb e L·s of the 200 yard medley rela11 team in participating in the State Swim Heet. The Co nuni s s i on concurred. Commissioner Higday asked if the School Board has discussed tile future of Duncan Building. Commissioner Boardman stated he discussed this with the Board and thev pre- ferred to take no action until the11've heard from the Parks and Recreation Commission concerning their future plans. It was the concensus of the Commission that this matter should be turned ove r to the School/City Coonittee. The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p .m. Linda Nilks, Recording Secreta ry • I • • - • • • • • CITY 01' ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 17, 1984 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P. M. by Chairman Ed McBrayer. Members present: Becker, Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen Romans, Assistant Director of Community Development Members absent: Also present: Barbre Senior Planner Susan King Planner I Harold Stitt II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. April 3, 1984 Chairman McBrayer stated that the Minutes of April 3, 1984 were to b e co nsidered for approval. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Minutes of April 3, 1984 be approved as written. AYES: Becker, Carson, Magnuson, Stoel, Tanguma, Ve nard NAYS: None ABSTAIN: McBrayer, Allen ABSENT: Barbre The motion carried. III. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT Dartmouth Industrial Park Paul Welbourne, Applicant Mr. McBrayer asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Carson moved: CASE 1120-84 Becker seconded: The Public Hearing on Case 112 0-84 be opened. AYES: Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Becker NAYS: None ABSENT: Barbre Th motion carried. Mr. McBrayer stated that the matter before the Planning Commission i s a public hearing on a request for an amendment to a Planned Development known as the Dartmouth Industrial Park. Mr. McBrayer reviewed the course of action open to the Commission on this matter: 1) approve the amend- ment to th P.O. as submitted; 2) approve the amendment with conditions; • I t.i I • • • • • • -2- 3) refer the proposed amendment back to the applicant f o r furth e r r ev i sion and/or information. Mr. McBrayer asked that anyone addres s in g th e Co m- mission be sworn in and limit their testimony to the matter und e r co n-sideration. Nr. McBrayer stated that members of the Commission have the staff report, which was delivered several days earlier, before them; are t ·her e any qu e stions of the staff. Mr. Stoel asked if this property has been before the Commission in th e rec ent past. Mr. McBrayer stated that a Mr. Tepe was before th e Co mmis s i o n recently to request a subdivision of a small parcel whic h was a part o f the Dartmouth Industrial, and which Mr. Tepe hoped t o dev e l o p . Mr. Allen stated that it appeared from the staff report that there are charges due to the City by the property owner. Mr. McBrayer stated that he understands that this is being worked out, and is not a fa c tor in c onsidering the amendment to the Planned Development. Mr. McBrayer asked if the staff had anything to add at this time. Mr. Stitt stated that the staff had no further information to present. Mr. McBrayer stated that notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Englewood Sentinel on March 28th; he asked that the staff report be made a part of the record of the Hearing. Mr. McBrayer asked the applicant to present his case. Mr. Arnold Vollmers 420 East 58th Avenue -was sworn in, and stated that he was representing Mr. Wellbourne, the applicant. Mr. Carson asked Mr. Vollmers if he had read the staff report, and the s tatements regarding the landscaping and asked if the applicant agrees with the staff recommendation. Mr. Vollmers stated that he has read the staff report, and that it is his understanding that the applicant n e eds to continue the landscaping along Dartmouth Avenue. Mr. Allen asked if the lands c aping required on the initial Planned Dev e l o p- ment wa s put in, but not maintained and allowed to die. Mr. Vo llme rs sta t e d that th e total landscaping pro po s ed under the original Pl a nn e d Dev elo pm e nt wa s no t completed. Mr. Vo llmers pointed out that th e r e is n o cu rb o r g utt e r in the area, and points of access ar e not c learly d elin e ated; motorists have driven over some of the lands c aped areas and d es tro yed what landscaping was planted. Mr. Vollmers stated that h e fe els the traffic pattern has been improved under the propo sed amendm e nt, a n d will hopefully solve the problem of destruction of the landscaping by mo t o ris t s . Mr. Mc Brayer asked if the landsc aping plan shown on the amend e d Planne d De v e l o pment complies with the City's Landscaping Ordinance . Mr. St i tt s t a t e d that this is an amendment of a Planned Development whic h wa s ap- p r o v e d in 1973; at that time, a landscaping plan was submitted. Mr. Stitt c it e d a provision in the Landscaping Ordinance which provis ion s tates that if the valu e of an "improvement" does not exceed 50% of th t o tal value, 1 nd sca ping i s not required. Mr. Stitt stated that in viewing the t o tal • I • • - • • • • • • -3- Planned Development, it is clear that the proposed new building does not exceed 50 % of the total value of the development; therefore, it is the staff 's opinion that the provisio ns of the Landscaping Ordinance do n ot apply. Mr. Stitt stated that the applicant has indicated a willingness to comply with the wishes of the Commission to add more land- scaping than was approved on the original Planned Development. Mr. McBrayer asked if there is a proposed use of the building. Mr. Vollmers stated that there is not at this time . They have had some inquiries from businessmen who are looking for a smaller space than could have been pro- vided in the other buildings in the Dartmouth Industrial Park, and these inquiries are the basis for the design of the proposed building. Mrs. Becker discussed her concern with th landscaping as shown on the Plan. Mr. Vollmers stated that the applicant is trying to work with the adjacent property owners to improve the landscaping along Dartmouth Av enue, and pointed out the areas which are to be landscaped and shown on the Plan before the Commission. Mr. Steel asked if the only place landscaping is proposed is along Dart- mouth. Mr. Vollmers stated that this is a strip of approximately 90 to 100 feet in length, by 14 feet in depth, which will be grassed. Mr. Steel stated that it is his opinion that the issue before the Co mmission is the landscaping and what is proposed for the landscaping. This information is not shown on the plan. Mr. Vollmers sta ted that as landscaping relates to this site, there would be the 14 foot strip of grass along the property frontage on Dartmouth; they will plant the grass, and put in a sprinkler system. Mr. Allen noted that the Department recommendation is that the landscaping be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; if n o landscaping is required, how can this be done. Mrs. Romans pointed ou t that the request before the Commission is an "am e ndment" to a Planned De- velopment which was approved back in 1973; the landscaping which was shown in the 1973 Planned Development was n ever actually planted; th e staff is asking that the landscaping shown on the 1973 Plan be planted, in addition to the landscaping that is proposed for the subject site prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff has tried over the years to work with Mr. Wellbourne to get the landscaping planted, but without success; now, however, Mr. Welbourne has applied for approval of the amendment, and the City is saying that the landscaping as shown on the original Planned Development is required, and must be planted prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on the proposed new building • Mr. Steel questioned the meaning of the staff recommendation; did it apply to the landscaping on the site which is the subject of the amend- ment, or to the total site. Mrs. Romans stated that the recommendation is meant to apply to the landscaping on the total site. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer suggested that the recommendation be reworded to state that "the landscaping required under the original Planned Development approved by the Planning Commission on June 19, 1973, must be installed and extended into the area newly proposed for develop- ment as shown on the amended Development Plan submitted on March 16, 1984". Further discussion ensued. • I • • • • • • Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #20-84 be clo sed. Mr. McBrayer asked that the record reflect that there was no one el s e present in the audience to address the Commission o n this matter. Mr. McBrayer then asked if Mr. Vollmers had anything else to discuss with the Co mmission . Mr. Vollmers stated that if the intent of the Commissio n is to refer to the original Plan, possibly there is a need to take into consideratio n th e modifications as shown on the latest, larger landscape plan, whi ch modifications s how the traffic control more clearly. Mr. Vollmers pointed ou t that there is no curb or gutter, and no clear indication where the edge of th e public street lies, and that people have been in the habit of cutting back and forth from private property to the s tree t at a ny point, and not at designated points of acces s . Mr. Vollmers stated that the original Development Plan did indicate the location of the curbing and the lands caping, but th e latest revisio n will modify some of the curbing . Mr. Allen asked if th e curbing will be installed now. Mr. Vollme r s stated that h e understood that this would be a requireme nt. Mr . Venard expressed concern that Mr. Vollmers 's understanding of what the Commission wa s requiring is the same as Mrs, Romans 's understanding . The vote on th e motio n t o close the Public Hearing was called. AYES; Magnuson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, All e n, Becker, Carson NAYS; None ABSENT; Barbre The motion carried, Mr. McBrayer reviewed the wording of the proposed recommendati on . Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Planning Commission approve the proposed amendment to the Dartmouth Industrial Park Planned Development, with the following condition : 1. The landscaping required under the o riginal Planned Development approved by the Planning Commission on June 19, 1973, must be installed and extended into th area newly proposed for development as shown on the amended Development Plan submitted on March 16, 1984. The required 1 ndscaping shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, Mrs. Becker stated that sh realized the Commission has no authority to requir additional landscaping than that which is shown on the original Developm nt Plan, but she is of th opinion that ther is enough parking ar a where something could be done to soften the visual impact. Mrs. Becker further st ted that she feels there is a difference betw en land- scaping and "gr ss"; she is of the opinion that landsc ping means planting of tr es, shrubs, etc., in addition to the grass. Sh stated that sh hop d the builder would consider some other kind of landscaping than just planting th grass strip along Dartmouth Avenu • • I • • .. • • • • • -5- Mrs . Romans pointed out that the Commission is being asked to amend the o riginal Development Plan, and that the Commission may ask that specific conditio n s be complied with . Mrs . Roman s stated that if the Commission members feel tha t the landscapin g on the development is inadequate, it i s her opinio n that they can ask that a plan with an improved landscaping plan be submi tted . Mrs. Becker s tated that this has been her con cern ; she understood that the Commission wa s tie d to the approved Plan of 1973 regarding the landscaping. Mrs. Becker s tat ed that if it is possible to r equire a n improved landscaping plan, she would vote in opposi tio n of the motion to approve. Mr . Carson suggested tha t if it is possible t o ask for an improved landscaping plan, he would withdra w his motion to ap prove the amendment to the Development Plan . Mrs. Becker s tated that she wants to see something mor e tha n a grass s trip alo ng Dartmo uth Av e nu e on this development . Mr . Magnuson stated that he wants to see what the original landscaping plan was, and to see a more defined landscaping plan as now proposed . Mr. McBrayer stated that as far as the landscaping proposed on the original Development Plan, he felt if the Co mmission can assure that it is in plac e prior to issuance of the Ce rtificat e o f Occupancy thi s is as much as the Commissio n can do. Mr. Allen stated that the landscaping s hown on the o riginal Development Plan either was not planted, o r was allowed to deteriorat e and die; he s tat e d that he would like to see the applicant do what they were su pp osed to do in the first place . It appea r s , based on th e Landscaping Ordinance, that additional landscaping cannot be requir e d on the total area. Mr. Stitt reiterated the provisions of the Landscaping Ordinance and the requirement that the improvement b e o ver 50 % of the value of th e existing development before landscaping can be r e quired. Mrs. Be c k e r asked what constituted an "improveme nt". Mr. Stitt s tat ed that an "improvement" may be the con s truc tion o f a new and separate building; an "improvement" n eed not be confined t o additions or improve-ments to a n existing building. Mr . McBrayer stated that it appeared that the Landsca ping Ordinance does not apply on the one hand; on the other hand, the Planned Development regulations a ppear to allow the Commission to take into account the original Development Plan, or add to it. Mr. McBrayer stated that he feels the consensus of the Commission is they would like to see a Develop- ment Plan with the provisions of the original proposal on it, and addi- tional landscaping for the property proposed for development under the proposed ame ndm ent. Mr. Allen stated that when one considers the notation in the staff re- port of the unpaid sewer charges which are due the City, when one con- sider s the poor performance on planting and maintenance of landscaping from the date the original Development Plan was approved in 1973, this do s not add up to a "good track record" for the applicant. Mr . Allen stated that he feels the Conunission "needs something nailed down." He emphasiz d he felt the landscaping proposed on the original Development Plan should be installed and maintained as was approved in 1973 • • I • • • • • -6- Discussion ensued . Mrs. Becker stated that she felt it would be better for the developer to have another attemp t to bring in what the Commissio n is looking for rather than to vote on the motion and hav e it fail. The developer s hould have th e op portunity to bring in the information required. Becker moved : Magnuson seconded: The decision on the amendment of the Dartmouth In- dustrial Park Planned Development be tabled until May 8, 1984. Mr . McBrayer asked that the staff supply copies of the landscaping pl a n as proposed on the original Development Plan, and that the applicant supply a landscaping plan that more clearly defines what the proposed landscaping plan for the "amendment" area would be. The vote was called: AYES: Steel , Tanguma , Venard, Becker, Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer NAYS: Allen ABSENT: Barbre The motion carried. Mrs . Romans pointed out that the City may not have a reproducible of the original Development Plan, and asked if it would be acceptable to incorporate the original and revised landscaping on one plan. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt this would be a good idea to have every-thing on one plat. IV. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Fences and Retaining Walls CASE 1118-84 Mr. McBrayer stated that this is a continuation of a Public Hearing that was opened on April 3rd, and continued to this date for further informa-tion. Mrs. Becker stated that since the last meeting, she has taken particular notice in driving through the City and was surprised at the number of lots that have a side yard abutting the rear yard of another property. She stated that she felt the wording which the staff has suggested: "IF THE REAR YARD OF ONE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ABUTS THE SIDE YARD OF AN ADJOINING PROPERTY, NO FENCE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ON OR ADJACENT TO THE COMMON PROPERTY LINE WHICH EXCEEDS THE HEIGHT OF 42 INCHES, UNTIL A NOTARIZED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS IS FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. IF AN AGREEMENT IS SIGNED AND FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT, THE FENCE ON OR ADJACENT TO SUCH COMMON PROPERTY LINE MAY BE INSTALLED TO A HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED 72 INCHES" is appropriate. The proposed wording would give both property owners a voice in the matter. Mr. McBrayer proposed a hypothetical situation wh rein a property owner has junk in his back yard, but would r fuse to sign an agreement for a six foot fence an abutting property own r may request for visual improve- ment. Mrs. Becker stated that the agreement would hav to be signed be- far the six foot fence could be erected. Discussion ensued • • I • • • • • -7- Mr. McBrayer stated that he could not be too sympathetic to the problem that Mrs. Becker has cited. Mrs. Becker stated that it would appear tw o rules would apply: the one for the side yard on her property, for in- stance , and the one for the rear yard o n her neighbor's property. How could such a problem be resolved if it arose. Mr. McBrayer stated that he would not want to see a six-foot fence along th e front yard portion of any property, but questioned that a six foot fence on the "side yard" is that much of a problem. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt the wording, as proposed by staff, is a good process for the resolution of possible conflicts. Mr. Venard asked what would happen if two abutting property owners could not come to an agreement on fence height; could this matter be appealed to the Board of Adjustment. Mrs. Romans stated that it possibly could be; however, the City's position has been that fence disputes are a civil matter between two property owners, and the City has not gotten involved. Mr. McBrayer suggested a provision that a six foot fence could not be built beyond the front setback line on adjacent properties; a fence in this area could not be more than 42 inches in height. Mrs. Becker stated that she is aware of an instance where a property owner constructed a six foot fence on three sides of his property; it was constructed two feet away from a chain link fence, which allowed weeds to grow in this two foot area. Is there any provision other than the weed ordinance to handle this situation. Ms. King stated that the weed ordinance would apply in this instance. Mr. McBrayer noted that there was no one present to address the Com-mission on this matter. Becker moved: Venard seconded: The Public Hearing on Case Hl8-84 be closed. AYES: Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Becker, Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer, Steel NAYS: None ABSENT: Barbre The motion carried. Discussion ensued . Mrs. Romans suggested the following wording as an addition to the Fence and Retaining Wall Regulations: "IRREGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT A REAR YARD OF ONE PROPERTY ABUTS THE SIDE YARD OF AN ADJOINING PROPERTY, THE HEIGHT OF A FENCE CONSTRUCTED IN FRONT OF THE FRONT BUILDING LINE OF THE HOUS E ON THE ADJOINING PROPERTY SHALL NOT EXCEED 42 INCHES, AND SHALL BE AT LEAST 50 % OPEN. Mr. McBrayer asked what members felt about the provision that the fence be 50% open. Mr. Allen stated that he felt the proposal is fine as was read by Mrs. Romans Mrs. Becker stated that she still felt a signed agreement between the property owners is ne ded. • I • • • Carson moved: Allen seconded: • • • -8- The Planning Commission refer the proposed Fence and Retaining Wall regulations to City Council, with the addition of the following statement: IRREGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT A REAR YARD OF ONE PROPERTY ABUTS THE SIDE YARD OF AN ADJOINING PROPERTY, THE HEIGHT OF A FENCE CONSTRUCTED IN FRONT OF THE FRONT BUILDING LINE OF THE HOUSE ON THE ADJOINING PROPERTY SHALL NOT EXCEED 42 INCHES AND SHALL BE AT LEAST 50 % OPEN. Mrs. Becker stated that she is of the opinion that the Commission does need to address the issue of the side yard. Mr. Tanguma agreed. Mrs. Becker stated that she would vote in favor of the motion, but is s till of the opinion that there should be a signed agreement required when property lines fall as they do in her block, and in other locations thro ughout the City. Mr. Tanguma stated that he would have to vote in opposition to the motion; he feels the issue of side yards abutting rear yards must be addressed. Mrs. Romans suggested that a new Section 7 be added on Page 5, which section would read: "THE HEIGHT OF MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT STORED SHALL NOT EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE REQUIRED SCREENING FENCE OR WALL." Mr. Carson asked that this provision be included as part of his motion. The second agreed. Mr. Tanguma asked that the Commission consider including an amendment requiring a signed agreement between two property owners on the issue of a six foot fence where a rear yard abuts a side yard. Mr. Allen asked if it would be appropriate to rewrite the fence code before a determination is made. Discussion ensued. Mr. Allen asked for clarification of "equipment and materials" referred to in Mrs. Romans's proposed addition to the Fence regulations. Ms. King pointed out that this provision will also be included in the industrial districts, and that fencing in the industrial districts can be of a height up to 12 feet. Mrs. Romans stated that the fence code is not retro-active according to legal coun sel . Mr. Tanguma sta ted that he did not want to vote against the proposed fence and retaining wall regulations, or the amendment proposed by Mrs. Romans, but he feels he will have to vote in opposition because it does not cover some of the problems that people have where side yards abut rear yards. Mr. McBrayer pointed out that passing the proposed fence and retaining wall regulations as written does not creat any new problems. Mr. Tanguma acknowledged this, but stated that this does not mean the present or proposed regulations are right. The vote was called: AYES: All n, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel NAYS: Venard, Magnuson, Tanguma ABSENT: Barbre Th motion carried. • I • - ' • • • • -9- V. FINDINGS OF FACT Planned Development Amendments Mr. McBrayer stated that the Findings of Fac t are to be considered for approval. Case //16-84 Carson moved : Magnuson seconded: The Findings of Fact on Case #16-84, proposed amend- ments t o the Planned Development regulatio n s , be ap- proved as written and referred to th e City Cou ncil. AYES: Allen, Becker, Carson, Magnuson, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard NAYS: None ABSTAIN: McBrayer ABSENT: Barbre The motion carried. FINDINGS OF FACT Design Guidelines for South Broadway Incentive Area Case /1 17-84 Mr. McBrayer stated that the Findings of Fact on Case #1 7-84 were to be considered for approval . Carso n moved: Stoel seconded: The Findings of Fact on Case #17-84, proposed amendments to the Design Guidelines for the South Broadway Incentive Area, be approved as written and referred to City Council. AYES: Becker, Carson, Magnuson, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen NAYS: None ABSTAIN: McBrayer ABSENT: Barbre The motion carried. VI. PUBLIC FORUM. Mr. McBrayer noted that there was no one present to address the Commission. VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans stated that members of the Commission are invited to attend the Arbor Day Activities on April 20, 10 A.M. at the Municipal Golf Course. Also, tree seedlings will be given away from noon to 3 P.M. on April 20 at Miller Field. Mrs. Romans stated that a map has been pr pared showing the school dis- trict boundaries within and adjoining th City of Engelwood. The code on the bottom of the map is as follow : 0 -D nver; 1 -Englewood; 2 -Arapahoe County Sheridan; 5 -Arapaho County Cherry Creek; nd 6 -Arapahoe County Littleton. Mrs. Romans noted th t the Brock prop rty will be split betw en the Englewood nd Littleton School Districts . I • • ...... • • • -10- VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Mr. Allen stated that he will postpone his presentation on trash collection to a later date. Mrs. Becker stated that she will be attending the APA National Conference in Minneapolis/St. Paul May 4th through May 9th, and will not be at th e next regular meeting of the Commission on May 8th. Mr. McBrayer read a draft of a letter that he has written on behalf of the Commission regarding construction of a new City Hall with historical decor; this has been done as a part of the Commission's Goals/Work Pro- gram. Members of the Commission approved the content of the letter; Mr. McBrayer stated that he would have it in final form for the next meeting. There being nothing further to come before the Commission, Mr. McBrayer declared the meeting adjourned at 8:40 P. M. I • • • • • • mNUTES ENGLEWOOD PUBLIC LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD May 8, 1984 5 Chairman Jerry Valdes called the regular meeting of the Library Advisory Board to order at 7:36 p.m. PRESENT: REGRETS: ALSO PRESENT: Jerry Valdes, Lois Sterling, Bruce Hogue, John Peterson, Al Quaintance (arrived at 7:42p.m.), Gerald Sampson, Kay Van Valkenburg Debbie Dix, Dorothy Wheelehan Sharon L. Winkle, Director of Libraries Donna Gottberg, Recording Secretary Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. Mr . Valdes turned the meeting over to Ms. Winkle for the Director's Report. Ms. Winkle noted that there have recently been proposed site changes for the Li- brary facility. This does not change plans to go ahead with the building consultant meetings as scheduled. The end of July is the target date for completion of the narrative building program. ~ts. Winkle will ask Ms. Sue King, of the City Planning Division, to address the Library Board in June regarding demographics of the City. Mr. David Smith, our building consultant will be here for his initial visit on May 12, 14 & 15 for discussions with staff and Board members. His contract should be finalized at that time also. There was a brief discussion on the survey forms sent by Mr. Smith. These forms are to be turned into Ms. Winkle by May 10 or 11. Ms. Winkle gave a brief background on Mr. Smith and why he was chosen as our building consultant. Letters have been drafted to Jefferson & Adams County public libraries and Com- missioner Tom Eggert, signed by the four public library agencies serving Arapahoe County (Arapahoe Regional Library District, Aurora Public Library, Englewood Public Library, and Littleton Public Library) and stated they would like the proposed concept of the tri-county intergovernmental agreement put "on hold" for future consideration. Ms. Winkle plans to attend the American Library Association (ALA) 1984 Annual Con- ference in Dallas in June. She plans to attend a pre-conference on Library Building and as many exhibits as possible. Ms. Winkle asked the Board's willingness to undertake a role in a Disaster Action Plan, which is now under development. In an emergency to help salvage the Library collection the Library Board members would be called on a volunteer basis after the exhaustion of other manpower sources. The Board is agreed that this is appropriate. Chairaan' s Report continued ••... • I • -• • • -2- The Board discussed recommending amendment of City ordinance #8-1-2. 84-14 MOTION: To recommend amendment cfCity ordinance #8-1-2 to read as follow s: The Public Library Board shall convene at least once each calendar month for the transaction of such business as may regularly come before it. A record of each meeting shall be kept and placed in the office of the City Clerk for public inspection. All regular meetings of the Board shall be open to the public (1962 Code, Sec. 10-2) Moved by: Al Quaintance Seconded by: John Peterson Motion carried. Mr. Valdes plans to attend the American Library Association (ALA) 1984 Annual Conference in Dallas in June and attend the pre-conferences and as many meetings and exhibits as he is able. Mr. Valdes asked for volunteers for an ad hoc Committee to prepare the 1985 Board Budget Request. Volunteers are: Mr. Gerald Sampson, Chairman, ~1r. John Peterson , and ~1s. Lois Sterling. There was a brief discussion of the Colorado Library Association (CLA) Trustees Spring Meeting to be held May 19 here in Denver. Mr. Peterson and Mr. Hogue plan to attend and report back to the Board. Members' Choice Kay Van Valkenbu·rg opened a discussion on the upcoming CLA meeting October 6-9 at Copper Mountain. She plans to attend if child care is provided. John Peterson and Bruce Hogue reported that the Board/Staff Picnic is planned for Saturday evening, July 7. More details will be forthcoming. how Mr. Hogue asked/the retrospective conversion project was progressing. Ms. Winkle noted it was on schedule, but that our entry rate {matches) was not as high as expected when the project was first begun. No committee reports. No correspondence. No unfinished business. There was no discuss i on on the Statistical Report for April, 1984. 84 -15 MOTION : That the Minutes from the April 10, 1984 Meeting be approved a s written. ~~ved by Al Quaintance Seconded by Lo is Sterling Mot i on c arried. Meeting adjourned at 9:06 p.m . 5-9-84 dg • I • • 'I ' • • • • ---------· TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Coun FROM: Carolyne J. Boettger, Court Administrator DATE : April 8, 190q SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL COURT 'S QUARTERLY REPORT FOR FIRST QUARTER 198~ Attached is the Court 's Activity Report for the first quarter of 198li. Non -parking filings indicate a 15% decrease when compared to the first quarter of 1983; however , parking filings indicate a 29% increase . Total revenue is down 10%. (Revenue for parking is up ~9% While the total of all remaining revenue sources is down 25%.) All areas of activity show a decrease (except parking) as a result of the decrease in non-parking filings. Filings for emissions violation s began in April and if the numbers (for both parking and traffic types) are significant, they will be indicated a::; a ::;epa rate entry on Lhe n e xt quar·tcr·ly reJ,JorL; howe vet·, if not significant, they will be only commented on in the memorandum. The Court now has the Parking System on the computer and training or Violations Bureau employees has begun. Thorough testing will follow before relying on the system for all parking information . The Court System, and all related systems, are currently being developed. Due to the complexities involved, there is no realistic estimate for the completion of this proJect now. The Court Starr, during starr meetings , has been addressing and resolving a number of forms problems in preparation for the electronic data processing of all cases . Our State Association , Colorado Association for Municipal Court Administration (CAMCA), in conJunction with the Front Range Community College , has developed a training program for court personnel. This is the first of its kind in Colorado and we have been able to take advantage or this (due to the decrease in activity) and send several clerks to these various one-day training classes. The reports about the classes have been quite favorable. If there is any other information that you would like supplied on these quarterly reports, please contact me. Att/2 cc: Louis Parkinson, Municipal Judge Members or the Court Advisory Committee Robert Holmes, Chief of Police • I • • I I I • • • • ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL COURT QUARTERLY _ ACT! V lTV REPORT lsi QIB lsi QIB SUBJECT 1982_ 1984 1. l£v£Nl£ SOURCE A) PARK!Nr. VIOLATICW FINES IS 16 301.08 Is 24 353.oul$ B) VIOLATIONS BUREAU FINES 13 756.00 7 34 7. 0~ c} COURT FINES 33 351. so 26.146.00 n) ....... COlMY DUI FINES 6.875.00 5 336.50 E) BOND FORFEITLRES 500.00 650.00 _F) mliiT COSTS 10 534.00 9 206 .00 G) WllNESS FEES 365,00 195.00 H) JI.Rf FFFS 75.00 25.00 TOTALS $ 81,757.58 $ 73,258 .50 $ 2. CASES FILED A) PARKING VIOLJ\TIONS 2 747 3.543 B) TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS 1,149 953 c.l..sJ:Qru.Eil "l.G.._Yl.Ql.Ail0:-,15 157 -.. ~11 ___ Di ANIIW OIIDINANC:F VlOL.ATICWS 70 47 _E) On-tER ORDINANCF lllOI.ATICWS 177 181 F) C(M)I AI NTS 6 7 ) StOl CAI...5E CITATICWS 49 36 TOTALS 4,355 4,915 3. VIOLATICJ.!S BUifAU ACTIVITY A) TRAFFic-/MISr VlOLATlJliiS• 821 4Q? PLF.A CF GUILT'i 456 247 PLF.A OF lCl' GUILT'i: 367 245 REQUEST TRIAL TO COUR'/' (335) (22'1) FI!.ED JIJFIY DF.MAND ( 32) ( 18) R) PARKING VIOLATICWS• PU'J\ OF GUIL'IY/PI\ID 2,174 2, 776 F' f I F.n 1\Pf'F/IT. '\20 '!.22 • PA<iE_l_ VTD VTD 1983 19M_ SAME SAME s $ --· ----1---· . ~II ~ I . . • • • - ENGLE~IOOD MUNICIPAL COURT QUARTERLY ACTIVITY REPORT (CONTINUED). lsr QIB lsr !iliB SUB.IECT 19~ 19_3!!. 4. COURT ACTIVITY A) ARAAI~·-···~· q46 Rf.<; PrNCXNr 234 17R GJILT'i PLF.A/PB/DIS 423 431 001' GJILT'i PLEA: 289 256 REQE'ST TR 111 L '1'0 C'OU/1'1' (273) (241) FILED J URY UEMMID ( 16) ( 15) B) COURT PRF-TRIAIC::• 833 6 79 PI'A/CCNl' 184 116 PB/DIS/CDP 544 479 SE'T FOR COURI' TRIAL 105 84 I c) JURY PRE-TRIALS. 98 64 PI'A/CCNl' 39 18 PB/DIS/CDP 48 "" SET FOR JURY TRIAL 11 2 In) TRIALS' 172 89 FTA/CCNr 42 27 PB/DIS/CDP 51 '<; 'l'IUl\I.S I !ElD : 7!J 37 COURT 7'11 I IllS (72) (.~6 ) ,JURY TRfA!.': ( 7) ( 1) E) OTHI"R MISC HEARINGS ~lR ?7n 5. OTHER ACTIVITY A) WAHI(AN 1 s/ElCECLITIONS ISSL£D 2t;t; 1Q4 . R) CASES TERM.JNATFn (PKt, FXC:l ,JI')) 1 7n? 1 'll'.n c) CASES PENDING (PKG FllrllinFO) 1,486 1,526 t.IJHt.'I •.'VJI1'1'l ON:: 11m: 11:: Jo'Of ,f ,riW::: PAGE_l_ YTD 19_83_ SAME If ---- F'/'11 = Fai Zur•(• t o at'f't!CH' YTD 19.81!_ SAME " If ---- CON1' = Cout.1:11U0d io anot/1, 'I ' cit~il' COl' = Chanuc oj' ('lea j'r•om no~ guitLu £() gui l/.u 01' uvl ' DIS = Caae diamiaaed P/J = /'lc•a /Jar'r}ain cliur·o11ition (<![]., r•uduccJ o har'(JC ) PKG ,.. Parking 'l'iakc tu • • I . • - • C 0 U N C I L DATE May 16 1984 • • • C 0 M M U N I C A'T I 0 N AGENDA ITEM eo A An Amendment to the Comprehen siv~ SUBJECT Zoning Ordinance, Adding a New Section Thereto, which will be Identif l<·d fl ,; ' ,., 0 , .I D ·' INITIATED BV City Planning and Zoning Commission • ACT I ON PROPOSED Receive the Recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Commission relat iye tg the adgptign gf Regulatigns for Fences and Retaining Walls, and Request th e ri rv Arrnrn<>v rn Pr<>n'l.re and OrdinAn""' in order that a Public Hearinll can be scheduled. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: The City Planning and Zoning Commission is in the process of reviewing the Comprehen- sive Zoning Ordinance in its entirety, and recommending those additions, deletions or corrections which are found necessary to assure clarity of interpretation, practicaliLy of application, and legality for purposes of enforcement and defense. The regulations pertaining to fences and retaining walls will be an addition to the Comprehensive Zoning Onllnancc and will b e enfo rced in the same 1uanner as other sectiun s of the Ordinance. The regulations set forth the class ification of fences and retaining walls and the height and types of fences that can be constructed in the residential, business and industrial districts. It also requires that fences be kept in good repa ir and that they not obstruct the view of the motoris t at intersections of streets and alleys or of persons on the s idewalk in th case of driveways. Assistant City Attorney DeWitt has reviewed the proposed Ordinance relative to fences and retaining walls, and his suggestions have been incorporated. RECOMMENDATION: The City Planning and Zoning Commission has considered the proposed regulations relative to fences and retaining walls at Public Hearing and has referred them to the City Council with a recommendation that they be adopted. It is further recom- mended that the City Attorney be requested to prepare an ordinance which would in- corporate the Fence and Retaining Wall regulations in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordi- nance and that a Public Hearing be scheduled, • I • - • • • • CI'l'Y PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION I~NCLI(WOOU, COI.OIU\UO IN 'fll'" MATTER OF CASE NO. 18-114 ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO ) A NEW SECTION 22.8, FENCE AND ) RETAINING 'WALL REGULATIONS, OF ) TilE COMPRI!:llf<:NST.VI•: :I.ONTNC OI<IH-) NANC'", ORDINANCE NO. 26, SERIES ) OF 1963, CITY OF F.NCLEWOOD, ) COLORADO; WHICH AMENDMENT PER-) TAINS TO THE ADDITION OF SPECIFIC ) REGULATIONS RELATIVE TO FENCE ) AND RETAINING WALL REGULATIONS. ) A Public Hearing was held in the City Council Chambers in the Englewood City Hall, on April 3, 1984 and continued to April 17, 1984, in connec- tion with Case No. 18-84. The following members of the City Plunn in~; and Zoning Commission were present: Allen, Becker, Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer, Steel, Tanguma, and Venard. Mr. Barbre was absent. FINDINGS OF FACT Upu11 r<.:vi~.:., uf till! ~.:vl.dcou;c Lalwoo l.oo tlo~.: funn uJ: t<.:Htl.onuuy, presentations, written reports and the draft of the propoaed Zoning Ordinance amendments, the City Planning and Zoning Conunission makes the following Findings of Fact. 1. That notice of the Public Heartna waa &ivan in the Englewood Sentinel, the official City newapaper, on March 14, 1984. 2. That the present Comprehenaive Zenina Ordinance waa adopted by Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1963. 3, That amendments to Ordinance No. 26, 1963, have been made; hm1ever, there has been no comprehensive reviaion 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 aonina and/or land uae iaauea are not addressed. 5. That during a codification process of the Mynicipal Code, the section of the Code pertainina to fencea and retainina walla was omitted. 6. That certain standards for fencea and retaining walls, al- though not found in the Coaoprehenllive Zonin& Ordinance of the Municipal Code, are applied when fence and retainina wall peraita are iaauad by the City staff • • I • • - • • • • -2- 7. That there is no basis for those standards bl!causc the fence and retaining wall requirements are not in the Municipal Code. 8, That the standards for constructing fences and retaining walls pertain to fence type, height, location and maintenance for ull &one classifications within the City. 9. That the regulations pertaining to fences and retaining walls should be included in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. 10, That no persons were present who wished to speak in opposition to the proposed amendments pertaining to the fence and retaining wall regulations. 11, That no persons were present who spoke in favor of the proposed fence and retaining wall regulations. 12. That the Commission considered the proposed amendments in an effort to address the issues outlined above. CONCLUSION 1. Tha t proper notice of the Public Hearing was given. 2. Tha t no persons spoke in opposition to or in favor of the p r upu~a!U .:w H.:nd!llunt!';. 'J. ThOl l Lloc renee .... ..~ rel;o lulu~ wall CC~lll.i.!t luu ,; ,;ltuuJ..J lie included in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to address the above issues. 4. That the proposed fence and retaining wall regulations have been considered in a thorough manner as part of the revisions of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. 5 . Th at the proposed amendments will assist in the efficient administration of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Therefore , it is the recommendation of the City Planning and Zon ing Commission to the City Council that the proposed amendaaonts to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, 122.8, Fence and Retaining Wall Regulations, be adopted. Upon the vote on a motion made by Mr. Carson an~ seconded by Hr. Allen, Those Commission members voting in favor of the .otion were: Carson, HcBrayer, Stoel, Uecker and Allen. 'l'hose voting in opposition to the mot ion were: Venard, Magnuson and 'fanguma. Mr, Barbre was absent. By Order of the City c~ c--ziwlV\ r • I • • n • • • • ----------------· Muy 16, .l!lll4 April 17, '1984 November 10, 1983 SECTION 16.9 FENCES AND RETAINING WALLS. A BUILDING PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ALL FENCES AND RETAINING WALLS. a. CLASSIFICATION OF FENCES AND RETAINING WALLS SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: 1. MASONRY WALLS (DECORATIVE) .•.•.•............. CLASS 1 2. ORNAMENTAL IRON •••••••.••..•.•••••••••.•.••.. CLASS 2 3. WOVEN WIRE •.•••.•...•.••••.•.••....•..•... ; .• CLASS 3 4. WOOO PICKET (HOlm THAN I'IFTY PERCENT [50%) OPEN) .••••••..•••••..•..•.••..•. ,., ••. , .• , ••• CLASS 4 5. SOLID FENCES (WOOD OR METAL LESS THAN FIFTY PERCENT [50%) OPEN) •••..•••.••••••••.••.•••••.•••..•. CLASS 5 6. HEDGES (SOLID) •••.•.•••.•••.•..••••••..••.••• CLASS 6 b. 'I'll E HEIGHT OF ALL FENCES SHALL BE MEASURED FROM FINISHED GRADE. c. FENCES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS SHALL CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS: 1. FENCES ERI':CTED IN FRONT OF THI': UUILI>INC LINE SHALl. UP. OF CLASS 2, 3, OR 4, AND SHALL NOT EXCEED A HEIGHT OF THRI':E (3) FEET SIX (6) INCHES. 2. SIDE YARD FENCES BACK OF THE FRONT BUILDING LINE KAY BE OF ANY CLASS BUT SHALL NOT EXCEED A HEIGHT OF THREE (3) FEET, SIX (6) INCHES TO THE REAR OF THE ADJACENT OWI':LLING, AND A IIEIGH'I' OF SIX (6) l~EE'I' FR~ TilE REAR OF SAID !lliELLING TO THE BACK PROPERTY LINE. 3. REAR YARD FENCES KAY BE ANY CLASS, BUT SHALL NOT EXCEED A HEIGHT OF SIX (6) FEET. SUCH FENCES SHALL NOT OB- STRUCT VISIBILITY AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE ALLEY WITII • I • • - • • • • -2- A STREET. IF A REAR YARD OF ONE PROPERTY ABUTS THE SIDE YARD OF AN ADJOINING PROPERTY, THE HEIGUT 01' A FENCE CONS'!'IWC'!'IlU IN FRONT OF THE FRONT BUILDING LINE OF THE HOUSE ON TilE ADJOINING PROPERTY SHALL NOT EXCimD 42 IN CHES, AND SHALL BE AT LEAST 50% OPEN. 4. FOR BUILDINGS LOCATED ON CORNER LOTS, SIDE YARD FENCES IN THE YARD ABUTTING A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY CAN BE OF CLASS 2, J, OR 4 IN l'IW AREA '!'IIIR'l'Y-I'IVJI (:JS) Flm'l' 111•:- HIND THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND SHALL NO'l' EXCEED A HEIGHT OF FORTY-TWO (42) inches. 5. NO FENCE, RETAINING WAU. OR SIMILAR OBSTRUCTION SHALL BE ERECTED OR MAINTAINED WHICH OBSTRUCTS THE VIEW OF PEDESTRIANS ON THE SIDEWALK, OR OBSTRUCTS THE TRAFFIC VISION AT INTERSECTIONS. FOR '!'llll l'UlU'OSil OF lli!:'!'El!MININt: COMPLIANCE TO THIS SECTION, TABLE 16.9-A SHALL BE USED TO DETERMINE INTERSECTION CROSS-CORNER VISIBILITY; SUCH DETERMINATION SHALL BE MADE BY THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER. 6. NO BARBED WIRE OR OTHER DANGEROUSLY SHARP FENCE AND NO ELECTRICALLY CHARGED FENCE SHALL BE ERECTED OR MAINTAINED. 7. IN CASE OF A FENCE ERECTED ON TOP OF A RETAINING WALL, THE HEIGHT SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE GRADE OF THE HIGH SIDE. IN CASE OF A FENCE ERECTED ADJACENT TO AND PARALLEL WITH A RETAINING WALL, UU'l' ON 'l'HE LOW SID I~ 01•' SUCH WALLS, THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE HAY BE MEASURED FROM THE TOP OF THE WALL. 8. DOG RUNS SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN THE REAR ONE-THIRD OF TilE YARD . • I • • • • • -3- 9. FENCES SHALL BE KEPT IN GOOD REl'AIR. ANY llANCIClWUS ,. FENCE SHALL BE REMOVED OR REPAIRED WI-lEN SO ORDERED UY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOl'HEN'l' Olt lllS/ll~R DESIGNEE. 10. WHEN THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE WILL BE SUB- STANTIALLY SERVED AND A NOTARIZED COPY OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS IS FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, THE DIRECTOR HAY VARY Till' REQUJ.lmHENTS OF '!'InS SEC 'I'lON '1'0 ACCOM~IOllA'I'I' SAID ACRlmHENT, d. FENCES IN BUSINESS DISTRICTS SHALL CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS: 1. FENCES SHALL BE OF Cl..ASS 1, 2, 3, 4, OR 5, BUT SllALL NOT EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF SIX (6) FEET. 2. BARBED WIRE OR SIMILAR MATERIALS HAY BP. ADDED '1'0 Tim TOP OF A FENCE WHICH IS NOT LESS THAN SIX (6) FEET ABOVE GRADE. 3. FOR REGUI..ATIONS REGARDING REQUIRED SCREENING FENCES, SEE SECTION 16.5. 4. NO FENCE, RETAINING WALL OR SIKILAi OBSTRUCTION SHALL BE ERECTED OR MAINTAINED WHICH OBSTRUCTS TRAFFIC VISION AT STREET INl'ERSECTIONS AS DETERMINED UY TilE 'rRAFF'IC ENGINEER. FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING COMPLIANCE TO THIS SECTION, TABLE 16.9-A SHALL BE USED TO DETER- MINE INTERSECTION CROSS-CORNER VISIBILITY. 5. FENCES SHALL BE KEPT IN GOOD REPAIR. ANY DANGEROUS I • • FENCE SHALL BE REMOVED OR REPAIRED WHEN SO ORDERED BY THE DIRECTOR OF COHKUNITY DRVELOPKEMT Oil HIS/HER DESIGNEE • • • -• • .. • -4- e. FENCES IN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS SHALL CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS: 1. FENCES ERECTED IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING LINE SHALL UC: · OF CLASS 1, 2, 3, 4, OR 5, AND SHALL NOT EXCEED A HEIGHT OF SIX (6) FEET. 2. SIDE AND REAR Y AB.D FENCE SHALL NOT EXCEIW A HEIGHT OF TWELVE (12) FEET AND KAY BE OF CLASS 1, 2, 3, 4, OR 5 CONSTRUCTION. J. llAilliiW WII~E OR SlHII..AK MATimiALS MAY IW USEJ> AT A IIJo:Jt:JJT OF NOT LESS THAN SIX (6) Fmn ABOVE C:RAilE. 4. FOR REGULATIONS REGARDING Rf;QUIREO SCRP.I\NTNG, FENCES, OR WALLS, SEE SECTION 16.4-13k AND 16.4-14k. 5. NO FENCE, RETAINING WALL OR SIMILAR OBSTRUCTION SHALl. BE ERECTED OR MAINTAINED WHICH OBSTRUCTS TRAFFIC VISION AT STI~ImT lNTIIRSEC'I'lONS. FOR Tim I'Uiti'OSE OF IJC:'I'I'ItMlN I Nt: THE COMPLIANCE TO THIS SECTION, TABLE 16.9-A SHALL BP. USED TO DETERMINE INTERSECTION CROSS-CORNER VISIBILITY; SUCH DETERMINATION SHALL BE HADE BY THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER. 6. FENCES SHALL BE KEPT IN GOOD REPAill. ANY DANGEROUS FENCE SHALL BE REMOVED OR REPAIRED WHEN SO ORDERED BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OR HIS/HER DESIGNEE. 7. THE HEIGHT OF MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT BEING STORED SHALL NOT EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE REQUIRED SCREENING FENCE OR WALL. f. BUILDING PERMIT REQUIRED. IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL TO COMMENCE THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANY FENCE OR RETAINING WALL UNLESS OR UNTIL A PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED THEREFOR. 1. APPLICATION FOR PERMIT. APPLICATION FOR A PERMI'l' TO INSTALL • I • • -• • • -s~ A FENCE OR RETAINING 1-JALL SHALL BE MADE TO THE DEPAR'l'M };:N'J' OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ' ON FORMS PROVIDED THEREFOR. 2. REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMITS. EACH APPLICATION l'OR 1\ Plm~H'J' TO CONSTRUCT A FENCE OR RETAINING WALL SHALL BE IN WRITING AND SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY TWO (2) COPIES OF A SITE l'LAN DRAWN 'J.'O SCALE, GIVING ADEQUA'J.'E INFOltMA'l'ION AS TO THE STREET ADDRESS OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH THE FENCE OR RETAINING WALL IS TO BE INSTALLED, THE LOCATION OF 'J'llll l'ENCI( OR IU\'l'AINTNC WAl .L ON '1'111~ l'IWI'J(J{'J'Y, '1'111\ CJ.A~S OF FENCII, 'l'llll lllUGH'l' OF THE Fl~NCI~ OR RETAIN ING WAJ.T., 'l'11E MATERIALS TO BE USED, AND SUCH OTHER DATA AND INFORMATION AS HAY BE REQUIRED BY THE DEPARTMENT TO CLARIFY THE REQUEST. IN ADDITION, FENCES OVER SIX (6) FEET IN HEIGHT AND RETAINING WALLS SHALL COMPLY WI'J'11 'l'HJo: IWQUIREHEN'l'~ OF THE UNIFORM llUIJ.DING CODE. 3. ISSUANCE OF PERMIT. IF THE PROPOSED FENCE OR RETAINING WALL AS SET FORTH IN THE APPLICATION IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE AND OTHER ORDINANCES Or' THE CI'rY OF ENGLEWOOD, A PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED. 4. DISAPPROVAL OF A PERMIT. IF THE APPLICATION FOR THE PERMIT IS NOT APPROVED, THE APPLICANT SHALL BE GIVEN A WRITTEN STATEMENT DETAILING THE REASONS FOR SUCH DISAPPROVAL. 5. NULL AND VOID PERMITS, ANY PERMIT ISSUED IN CONFLICT WITH TIIR PROVISIONS OP THIS ORDINANCE SHAl.l. BR NULl. AND VOID AND HAY NOT BE CONSTRUED AS WAIVING ANY PROVISION OF THIS ORDINANCE. I • • • - • • TABL£ 16.9-A IN'l'ERSEC'U ON CROSS-CORNEll VI SIBILITY 'l'YI>Jo: OF lN'I'l-:1\SI ·:C'I'TON .CONTROl. 1\l'PllOIICII SI>J(J·:Il X {h) y ( f 1:) xt. < r t:) " ;I ----- Local Street with . Loc:ll Street None 25 50 ~0 50 Local Street wit h Local Street 2-way Stop 25 55 15 55 Local Street ~d.tlo Local Street <1-w;~y Stop JO J5 15 ~~ Local Street with Collector Street 2-way Stop 30 55 15 55 l.cJt.:aJ. ~jt.:uct wi.t:l1 Co l J.cct:or Street <!-way Stop 35 55 15 55 Local St:rt:ut \~ith 1\rtcri:.~l Street 2-~1ay Stop 35 55 15 55 Locnl. Street with /\l'tC!I'ial Sl:l'C!CI: ?.-wa y Stop I,Q ~5 J.S ~5 Cu .l..l.l.!etor s t 1:!.!1.! t: wit:lo r;,, 1 J c:c l:rn· Stru ct 2-•1n y Stop J5 55 15 55 (\ Lulllo ctor ~jtrcc t ~d.th !II'I.CI' i ·d. St:n ol.!t: /.-\~:l y Stop JS ··--·-------55 15 ~)5 -------···--···---·-... - C.u J.J ..,cto r. Stcc.:cl wit:lo ,\r tcrial. Street 2-way Stop ItO 55 '15 55 I ~ X a fll'l , .. xb ---~ --------Ya -----~ --------- I • • I • - • ORDIIWCE t«>. I ( SERIES CF 1984 BY JW'lliORITY • • • CXXJOCIL BILL NO . 18 INTROOOCFD BY CXXJOCIL MEMBER SILO AN ORDIIWCE AH!X>It«:; 'lHE PUIIICIPAL <XDE CF 'lHE CITY CF Et«:;L&KXX), COLORADO, BY MX>It«:; 'l1iERE'l'O A ~ OiAPl'ER <XlNSTI'lUI'It«i A PORT IOO CF 'lHE aMPREHI'loiSIVE ~It«:; ORDIIIIAN:E FOR 'lHE CITY CF FloG.tloiOOD, a>LORADO, FOR 'lHE PURPOSE CF PRQ10l'It«:; 'lHE HEAL'nf , SAFETY, K>RALS AN> GENERAL WfLFARE CF 'lHE CXMUIITY; 'ro RmJLATE At<l) RESTRICT 'lHE APPEARAICE, SIZE, OiAR1Cl'ER, HEIGtrr , AY> BULK CF BUUDIICS At<l) S'l'ROC'ruRES; TO DETERMINE 'l'HE AREA CF YAROS , COORTS , At<l) PIXES SURRCUI)I~ 'llm'l; TO Rm.JIATE At<l) RESTRICT 'lHE DEM;ITY CF POPUlA- TION; ro Rm.JIATE All> RESTRICT 'nfE USE CF LAY> WI'nfiN A DESIGN1.TFD FLOOD PLA I N OR DRAINACZ WAY; ro DIVIDE 'lHE CITY CF EHiLI!)KX)[), CDLORADO, IN'ro DISTRICTS FOR SlDt PURPOSES; ADOPTit«i At<l) IlCORPO- RATit«:; HEREIN A ~~~ MAP WI'nf ALL 'lHE NOTATIONS, REFEREX:ES AW cmiER INFORH.\TION SHCiiN 'nfERfDI SIDii~, ESTABLISHI~, At<l) DELINEATIY:; SlOt ~ DISTRICTS AN> 'l'HE B(XH),\IUES 'nfER&F; WHICH ORDINAICE IS ADOPTID PURSUMn' ro 'nfE <XlNSTI'ruTIOO CF 'lHE STATE CF CXlLORADO AN> 'nfROUGH 'lHE EXEICISE CF ~ GWfl'ID AN> KX/Jl RFD IN 'nfE RJ1E RULE CliART'ER ADOPTID IN 1958 BY 'lHE CITY CF FXiLtloiOOD, RI!XXniiZIY:; 'niAT ~It«:; IS lLTIMATfl.Y A UlCAL AN> PUIIICIPAL !9.'M'ER, 'lHE IN'l'f21l' CF 'nilS llORTION CF 'nfE <Dn'REH!H;IVE ~I~ ORDIIIIAN:E BEIY:; ro SUPERSIDE WI'nfiN 'lHE TERRITORIAL LIMITS AN> O'l1fER JURis- DICTION CF 'l'HE CITY CF DIGLDIOOO 'lHE GENERAL rAW CF 'l'HE STATE CF CXlLORADO IN OH'LICT HERI!WI'nf, REPEALit«:; PORTIONS CF ORDINAtCE t«>. 26, SERIES CF 1963, AS N1EII>I!D, All> PRJ!3::RIBIY:; l'DIM.TIES AS SET I"'R'nf IN 'nfE PUIIICIPAL CXDE CF 'nfE CITY CF FloG.tloiOOD WHICH SHALL APPLY ro VIOLATIONS CF 'nfE PROVISIONS CF 'nilS ORDINAICE AN> Dtn.ARI~ AN ~Y. NCJ~i, 'nfEREl'ORE, BE I T ORDo\INID BY 'lHE C I TY CXXJOC IL CF 'lHE CITY CF fXiLfi«X)), COLORADO, AS ~: Section l. 'lbere is hereby added to the Fng 1ewood l'tJn icipa1 ())de of 1963, as amended , Ti tie XVI, \oi'lich shall r ead as foll ows : I • - c • • • • • Section 16.4-8 R-3, Hi&h Density Residence District. It i .s the goal of the City of Englewood to encourage a v a rie Ly f 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 proc~dures that will encourage innovative, wel l -designed developments. It is inherent in this goal that the following be considered: * A development plan should be aubaitted for all residential developments having more than four dwelling units. * New high-density residential and office projects should be sensitized to the character of aJjacenL development. The siting of vertical structure,; should respect the topographic features of the land. * High-densiLy residential and office development should be located on land parcels of sufficient size to ensure proper site design and identity and to warrant the installation of desirable amenities. * Where possible, the view of the .auntains should be preserved and buildings oriented in such a way as to aaxiaize the occupant view of the mountains. The R-3 District is co~osed of those areas which are conducive to high-density residential and profesaional office development which aay be located between single and two-fa•ily 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 pro.ate and encourage, insofar as is c~atible with the high intensity of land use, suitable environaent for faaily life, and to per.it certain professional uses of a character unlikely to develop a concentration of traffic 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-density development con- sistent with the high concentration of persona and land valuation. Reaidential types of structures as well as various institutions are permitted, plus struc- tures for professional uses conforming to the pattern of the District. a. General Re&ulatione. The provisions found in this Zone District shall be subject ot the require.ents and standards found in Section 16.5, General Regulations, unless otherwise provided for in this Ordinance or an amendment thereto. b. Per•itted Principal Uses. (1) Single-family detached dwelling. (2) Single-fa•ily attached dwelling • (3) Two-family dwelling with at leaat one party wall under a common roof • • I • - ( • • • - -2- (4) Multi-family dwellings. Planned Development approval is required for more t han four units. (5) Hospitals and clinics, but not animal hospitals or clinics. (6) Re tire.ebt or senior citizen housing, rest homes, and nursing homes. (7) Professional offices in which chattels or goods, wares or merchandise are not co..ercially create d or sold. (8) Child care centers. Accessory play equipment shall be located in the rear yard. (9) Educational institutions. (10) Religious institutions. (11) Public facilities. c. Mi nimum Lot Area for Permitted Principal Us es. d. (1) Parcels of land under 43,560 square feet. (a) Single-faaily detached dwelling .••••••••••••.. 6,000 square feet. (b) Single-faaily attached dwelling .•..•••..•.•.•• 3,000 square feet per dwelling unit. (c) Two-faaily dwelling ••••••••••••..••••••••..••• 6,000 square feet. (d) Th ree-faaily dwelling •.••••••••••••••••••••••• 9,000 square feet. (e) Four-faaily dwelling .••••••••.••••••••••••••. 12,000 square feet. (f) each additional residential dwe lling unit over four dwelling unite ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1,000 square feet. (2) Parcels of land containing 43,560 square feet or more may be developed at a density of one unit per 1,089 square feet. (3) Al l other peraitted principal uaes •••••••••••••••• 24,000 square feet. (4) This section shall not apply to an exiating structure converted to acc~te a peraitted principal use on a lot having less than 24,000 square feet if no other l and is available and if the miniaum required off-street parking is provided. Floor Area. (1) Kini.ua residential floor area. (a) Sinale-faaily dvellinae ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 850 square feet. (b) All other dvellin&•· (i) Efficiency and/or one bedroo• unit •••• 650 aquar f t • I • • ( • • • • -3- (ii) Two bedroom unit. .•.•........••.••.. 7500 square feeL . (iii) Three bedroom unit ..•••••••.•••••••. 950 square feet. (iv) Each additional bedroom •••.•••••.... 110 square f ee t. (2) Maxi.ua office floor area. The 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 the area of the lot on which the structures are located. e. Kini.u• Usable apen Space. Kinial• uNble open apace ••••••••••••••••••.••••••••• 25% of lot area . Open apace areas aball be properly lighted for security. f. Hiniau• Landscaping. Refer to landscaping requirements in the Landscaping Ordinance. g. Utilities. Utility service to buildings in new Planned Developments or subdivisions must be placed underground. h. Miniaum Lot Frontage. (1) Single-family detached dwelling ••••••••••••••••••••••• 50 feet. (2) Single-family attached dwelling, two-family dwelling, three-family dwelling, four family dwelling ••••••••••• 25 feet per unit. (3) All other permitted principal uses •••••••••••••••••••••.• None. i. Maxt.u• Build ill& lle1Jht. j. k. (l) Single-faaily detached and attached dwelling and two, three and four-faaily dwelling •••..••••.•••••••••••••• 25 feet. (2) All other peraitted principal uses •..••••••••••••••••• 60 feet. Also see General Regulations, Section 16.5. Kiniaua Front Yard. All permitted principal uses: (1) Up to three stories ................................... 15 feet. (2) Four or five stories .................................. 20 feet. (3) Hor than five stories ••••••••...••••••.•••••.•••••.•• 25 feet. Miniau• side yard. (1) Single-fa•ily detached dwelling •••••••••••••••••••••••• 3 feet wilh a total of 10 feet for both sides • • I • • ' • • • • • -4- (2) Single-family attached dwelling and two, three or four-faaily dwelling •....•.....•...•...•.....••.•....... 5 feet, with a total of 14 feet for both sides . For purposes of total sideyard setback, the setback shall apply to the entire structure, not the individual units. (3) All other peraitted principal uses .....•.••.•....•........ 15 feet for each side. 1. Minimum Rear Yard. All perlllitted principal usea ..•...•••.•••••••.••••••••••••.•••• 25 feat. m. Minimum off-street parking. Off-street parking areas or lots 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 16.5. n. Minimum Off-street Loadins Require.enta. See General Regulation&. o. Accessory Buildings and Peraitted Accessory Uses. (l) Garages and carports. An attached or detached garage or carport must confora to the followins requireaenta: (a) Kaxiaua height •••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••.• 18 feet. (b) Hinimua front yard •..•••••••.••••.•••••.••.•.•..•.••• 15 feet. (c) Mini-aide yard •••.•••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 3 feet. (d) Minimua rear yard: (i) If entrance faces front or aide ••••••••••.•. 3 feet. (11) If entrance faces rear ••••••••..••••.•••••.. 6 feet. (e) Maxiaua total floor area •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1,000 square feet This appliea only to garages for single-family dwellings. (f) If garage or carport is converted to another use, an equivalent amount of off-street parking must be provided. (2) Storage Shed. per dwelling. area. Not more than one storage shed shall be permitted No atorage ahed ahall exceed 100 square feet in (a) Location ••.•••• shall be located on the rear one-third of the lot • (b) Kaxiaua height •••••••.••••••..••••••••••••••••••••••. 10 feet. (c) Hini-aida yard ..................................... 3 feet. No aetback ia required if the vall adjacent to the property line is constructed of one hour fire resistive aaterial • • I • • - ' • • • - -5- (d) Minillklm rear yard •.••••••••••••••.•...•.•..•.••...••.. 3 feet. No setback is required if the wall adjacent to the property line is constructed of one hour fire resistive material. {3) Noncommercial parking lots. Required parking may be provided wi thin 400 feet-of the property, either within the same district or within a district which permits non commercial parking lots. Such parking lot must be maintained as long as the principal permitted use is maintained, or alternate parking provided. (4) Service units or facilities. Service facilities or units such a,;, but not limited to, barber shops, beauty shops, gift shops, coffee shops and dining facilities may be permitted for the convenience of the tenants. (5) Home occupation. Occupations c ustomarily incident to the principal use as a residence when conducted in the same dwelling, provided that the following condit ions are met: (a) Sales on the premises. The sale on the premises of any item which has not been .. de, grown, or prepared on the premises shall be prohibited. (b) Sales off the preaises. Sales off the premises by the occupant selling household goods such as those products offered by Avon, ~ay, Fuller Brush, Watkins, etc ., shall be permitted. (c) The occupation shall be operated entirely wi thin the dwelling unit and only by tbe person or persons maintaining a dwelling unit t herein. (d) No assistants shall be eaployed. (e) The hours and manner of such uses and the noise created thereby shall not interfere wi th the peace, quiet or dignity of the neighborhood and adjoining properties. (f) The office or home occupation shall not have a separate outside entrance. (g) Incidental storage shall be allowed for items made on the premises and/or sold off the premises. (h) 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. (i) A day care ho.e for the care of one to four children may be permitted as a home occupation. (j) The use of electric .ators shall be liaited in power, with a total limitation of one and one-half (1~) horsepower, and no single unit over three-quarter (3/4) horsepower • I • • ...... ' • • • .. -6- (k) In no event shall any home occupation include the following business or commercial activities: (i) (il) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) Animal hospital or kennel. Barbers, hairdressers, cosmetologists or beauticians. Body, .echanical repair, or modification of motor vehicles. The sale, storage, manufacture or assembly of guns, knives or other weapons or ammunition other than for personal use. Co-.ercial health care facilities. Restaurants. Wholesale or retail sales of any items on or off the preadses excluding Section (a) and Section (b). Processes involving the dispensing, use or recycling of hazardous or flammable substances and materials. No reaulation is intended on the sale of fla..able substances which are properly packaged. (1) All ho.e occupations shall be registered with the Depart.ent of Co.-unity Develop .. nt upon co~letion of an inspection of the preadaea by the Code Enforce .. nt Division and the Fire Depart .. nt. p. Environ .. ntal Standards. (1) Solar and wind exposure. (a) Tall structures located adjacent to .ajor open spaces should be sited to insure aaxi~• sunlight on the open spaces during the winter months. (b) The groupina of tall buildings should be sited to allow for proper air circulation. (c) Tall buildings should be sited upon the north side of pedestrian spaces to provide protection fro• winter storaa. (d) Wind breaks such as tree groupings should be provided in all aajor open apacea. {2) Parking. {a) Parking areas should be screened fro• public view by landscaping. {b) Th use of beras is encouraged along the major street system to co~le .. nt the planting effact and to provid a protective aeparation aod acreenina device between pedestrian and vehicle • • I • • • • • • -7- q. Other Provisions and Requirements. (1) No truck exceeding seven thousand pounds, empty weight, no automobile trailer, bus or .atorized recreational vehicle exceeding 22 feet in length, and no truck-tractor or semi-trailer shall be parked or stored oa any lot. (2) Liquefied petroleua gas installations shall be permitted only for the purpose of supplying fuel for approved heating equipment. Tanks in excess of 500 gallons (water capacity) will not be permitted in this Zone District. Liquefied petroleua gas installations shall conform to cu rrent Fire Code requir ... nts. I • • - - ·. • • • • • • Section 16.4-10 B-1 Business District. 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 anvironaent having urban characteristics within a relatively small area of land through the. close proxillity of activities, the increased social and cultural opportunities 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 acco..adate the current living preferences. The uses within this District are those which provide retailing and personal services to residents within thia area and to residents of the City and the surrounding area. In order to .. ke the central buainesa 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 maxi- mum amount of service to residents of the area and will he compatible with adjacent development. a. General Regulations. The provisions found in this Zone District shall be subject to the requireaents and standards found in Section 16.5, General Regulations, unless ·otherwise provided for in this Ordinance or an amendment hereto. b. Peraitted Principal Uses. No building, structure, or land shall be used and no building or structure shall be erected, structurally altered, en- larged or maintained unless otherwise provided for in this Ordinance ex- cept for one or .are of the following uaea: (1) Ambulance service. (2) Antique store. (J) Assembly halls or auditoriums. (4) Appa rel and accessory stores. (5) Appliance stores • (6) Art galleries or studios. (7) Bakeries, retail. (8) Barber shops. (9) Beauty shops • (10) Bicycle stores. (11) Book stores, not including adult book stores. (12) Business aachine or co•puter stores. (13) Caaera and photographic service and supply stores • • I • • • • • -2- (14) Candy, nut and confectionery stores. (15) Caterers. (16) Child care center. (17) China, crystal, and glassware store. (18) Cleaning with noninflammable cleaning agents only. (19) Collection and distribution station for laundry and dry cleaners. (20) Clinics, dental, medical, or optical. (21) Dairy products stores. (22) Dance studios for private instructions. (23) Diaper service. (24) Delicatessen stores. (25) Department stores. (26) Drug stores. (27) Dry goods stores. (28) Eating or drinking establishaents, need not be enclosed, but not in- cluding drive-in eating or drinking establishments. (29) Educational institutions. (30) Electrical contractor shops, provided it is incidental to a retail sales room and is limited to equipment employing not more than five (5) horsepower. (31) Electric substations. (32) Exterminators. (33) Financial institutions. (34) Floral shops. (35) Furniture stores. (36) Garden supplies stores. (37) Gas regulator stations. (38) Gift, novelty or souvenir stores. (39) Grocery stores • • I • • - • • • • • -3- (40) Halls, renting for meetings or soc i a l occas i ons . (41) Ha rdwar e s t o r e s. (42) Health treataent facilities. (43) Hobby supply store. (44) Home furnishings stores. (45) Hotels and convention center. (46) I nterior decorators. (47) Jewel ry s tores . (48) Laborato r ies, dental, medical , or optical. (49) Laundries . (50) Leather goods and luggage stores . (51) Li brary or reading rooms. (52) Liquor stores (sale by package). (53) Linen s upply. (54) Locksmith. (55) Hail o rder houses. (56) Meat, poultry, or seafood stores. (57) Municipal facilities. (58 ) Music stores. (59) News stands (for the sale of newspapers, magazines, etc. only). (60) Notions stores. (61) (6 2) (63) (64) (65) (66) (67) Office buildings, professional or business. Office s uppl y s howroom. Optical a n d sc ientific instrument shops • Paint and wall pa p er stores. Painting a nd deco rat i n g contractors. Parking facilities. P t stores • • I • • r • • • • -4- (68) Picture framing. (69) Photographic studios. (70) Photostating and blueprinting. (71) Physical fitness center. (72) Plumbing shops, provided they are incidental to a retail sales room and are lll8ited to equipment not employing more than five (5) horsepower. (73) 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) Private clubs, lodges, fraternities. (75) Public buildings. (76} Religious institutions. (77} Residential, multi-family, condominium, or lease. (78) Shoe repair or shoe shine shops or stand. (79) Shoe s tores. (80) Sign painting shops. (81) Sporting goods stores. (82) Stationery stores. (83) Tailoring and dressmaking shops. (84) Taxi cab stand. (85) Telephone exchanges. (86) Telegraph offices. (87) Theaters, not including drive-in type or adult m~ies or productions. (88) Theatrical studios. (89) Tobacco stores. (90) Toy stores. {91) Trade or business school. {92) Transit center. {93) Travel agency • • I • • • • • -5- (94) Upholstering shops. (95) Any similar lawful use which, in the opinion of the Commission, would be coapatible with other uses in the area and which would not be 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 Uses. Amusement establishments including, but not limited to: billiard halls, bowl'ing alleys, coin-operated games, dance halls, electronic or video games, night clubs, outdoor commercial recreational facilities, pool halls, or skating rinks. d. Prohibited Uses. (l) Adult entertainment and service establishments. (2) Manufacturing. (3) Outdoor storage of materials, supplies, and equipment on private and public property. (4) The outdoor display, storage or sale of clothing or household ap- pliances, furniture or other itelllS commonly used in a home, whether on private or public property. (5) Warehousing of products or items not sold on the premises. (6) Sale at wholesale. (7) Sales or service activity shall not be allowed from any temporary structure or vehicle unless a building perait application has been submitted for a permanent building or structure to replace the tem- porary structure. e. 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 sa.e 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 is not limited to, such uaes as a radio or TV antenna, a swimming pool, a tennis court, heliport, etc. f. Requirements for Development. (l) Maximum height of buildings •••••••••••••••••••••••• Sixty (60) feet Sec Section 16.5 for Height Exceptions . (2) Minimum setback. No setback shall be required; provided, however, that where property in the 8-1 Buaina.a District abuts upon any prop rty in any "R" Residential District situated in the same block, the residential front yard requireaents shall apply to that property in the 8-1 Business District. • • I • • • • • • -6- (3) Minimum floor area. (a) Residential use: (i) Efficiency or Studio ••••.••....•.•.. 500 square feet (ii) One Bedroom •.•...••...•......•.••••• 650 square feet (iii) Two Bedroom ......................... 750 square feet (iv) Each Additional Bedroom .••.••.•••..• 110 square feet (b) All other permitted principal uses •••••••.••...•••..••... none (4) Minimum off-street parking. (a) Developers are encouraged to provide parking in multi-level structures in order to conserve land. T.f it is not f e asible to do so, surface parking areas should be screened from the view of pedestrian ways by means of decorative walls or fences, landscaped berms, or mature shrubbery. (b) l'arking shall be located no more than 400 feet from the use it serves. (c) If the developer submits a marketing or parking study prepared by a qualified professional using reasonable professional stan- dards, and it is approved by the Co.-unity Developaent Director and the City Traffic Engineer, the parking standards in the General Regulations aay be waived. If the developer does not subait a aarketing or parking study to the City, the parking requir--t• in the General h&ulationa shall be applied. (5) 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. (6) Landscaping. Landscaping as may be required by the Landscaping Ordinance. (7) Utilities. Utility service to buildings in new development must be underground. (8) Liquefied petroleum gas installations. Liquefied petroleum gas in- stallations shall be permitted only for the purpose of supplying fuel for a pproved heating equipment. Tanks in excess of 500 gallons (wat er capacity) will not be permitted in this Zone District. Liquefied petroleum gas installations shall conform to current Fire Code re- quirements. • I • • - • t • • • • • Section 16.4-11 B-2 Business District. This District is composed of certain land and structures used primarily to pro - vide urban residential use, retailing and personal services to the residents o f the City and surrounding area. The B-2 District is usually located on major access routes and i~ easily accessible from the surrounding residential area which it serves. a. General Regulations. The provisions found in this Zone District shall be subject to the requirements and standards found in Section 16.5, General Regulations, unless otherwise provided for in this Ordinance or an a.endment hereto. b. Planned Development. A Planned Development shall be filed for the de- velopment of any lot having one or more acres in area. See. Section 16.4-15 for development procedure. c. l'er•itted Principal Uses. No building, structure, or land shall he us e d and no building or structure shall be erected, structurally altered, en- larged or maintained unless otherwise provided for in this Ordinance, ex- cept for one or .are of the following uses: (1 ) Any use permitted in the B-1 Business District. (2) Animal hospitals, kennels to be enclosed and runs enclosed by a fence six (6) feet high. (3) Auction houses. (4) Automobile sales or lease not including co..ercial vehicle wrecking, diaaantl1ng or junk yards. (5) Drive-in eating or drinkina establialuaents. (6) Feed and seed stores (excluding the sale or storage of hay). (7) Food l ocker storage. (8) Gasoline and oil service stations. (9) Hospitals and convalescent homes. {10) Motor vehicle sales or lease. {11) Mortuaries. (12) Hotels • {13) Pawn s hops and second hand stores. {14) Recreational vehicle sales or lease to include boats, trailers , .atorcyclea and other recreational vehicles. {15) Res i d ntial Use : must confor• to the development requirements of the R-3, High-Density Residence District • • I • • f • • • • -2- (1 6) Any s imilar l awful use, wh i c h , in t h e op in i on of the Co mm iss i on , is not ob jec tionable to n ea rby property by reason of o dor , du st, smoke , fumes, gas, heat, glare , rad ia tion or v ibration , or is not haz a rdous to the health and property o f the s urrounding are a through danger of fire or explosion. d. Accessory Uses. (1) Any u se incident to the above Permitted Uses, when located on t he same building site as the Permitted Use. (2) Swimming Pools --semi-private, semi-public, and public. See General Regulations. e. Conditional Uses. Provided the public interest i s fully p ro t ec t ed a n d the follow i ng uses are approved by the Commission. Sectio n 16.6 o f the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. (1) Adu lt Entertainment and/or Service Facility. (a) No adult entertainment or service facility shall be loc ated on any site unless such site is not less than the dis tanc e limita- tion as required by this section: (i) 1,000 feet from the location of another such adul t entertainment or service facility. (ii) 500 feet from the boundary line of any residential district defined in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordi- nance, as amended, including, but not limited to, R-1-A, R-1-B, R-1-C, R-2, R-2-C, R-3, or R-4 or siailar residential zone district in an area adjoining the City of Englewood, or any religious institution, public park, pub l ic l ibrary, c ommun i ty c en ter, or ed- ucational institution, whet he r within or without the City of Englewood. (b) Meas u r emen t of distance. Al l d i stances provided herein shall be measured as follows: (i) With respect to the distance between a location for which an adult entertainment or service facility is proposed a n d a location where s u ch a facility exists, the distance shall be meas u red by followi n g a straight line from the nearest poin t of the property line of th proposed licen serl premises to the nearest point of the proper t y lin e of the existing licensed premises. (ii) With respect to the distance from th boundary line of a resident ial dis trict o r any religious institution, public park, public library, community center, or ed- ucationa l ins t i tut i on, the d ista nce shall be measured by following a straight lin e from the nearest point of the property line of the proposed licens d premises to the nearest poin t of t he d istrict boundary lin ; or • I • ( • • • • -3 - in th e c a s e of a religious institution , public park, public l i bra r y , commu nity cent er, or e d ucational in- stitution, t h e distan ce shall b e measured by foll owing a straight l in e from the n earest point of the property line of the propo sed licensed premises to the nearest point of the p roperty line of a religious institution, public park, pub lic library, community center, or ed- ucational inst i tut ion . (iii) Where the proposed loc ation of a n adul t enterta inment or s ervice f acil ity is a vacan t parce l of land upon which no permit has been issued for the construction of a building, all distances shall be measured from the nearest point of the p r operty line of the 1 nd proposed as a location for a n adult entertainment or service f ac ility. Wh e r e t h e p ro posed location of an adult entertainment or service f a cility is a va cant p a r cel of land up o n wh ich a permit has been issued f or the construc tion o f a p e r ma n ent building for su h us e , all dista n ces s h all be measu red f r om the nearest point of the property line as shown o n t he survey of such parcel of land. (2) Motor Vehicle Repair businesses, not including body or fender wo rk, dismantling or collision repair, and provided that: (a) Motor vehicles being serviced or stored while waiting to be s erv ic ed or called for are not parked on s treets, alleys, pub - lic sidewalks or parking strips. (b) All work is performed within an enclosed structure. (c) No materials or parts are deposited or stored on the premis e s outside of an enclosed structure. (d) Any area subject to wheeled traff ic or s torage is screened from adj a c en t or a dj oining r es i dential distr ict s by a closed - face wood fen c e , o r b l ock or brick wall. (3) Motor Vehicle Laundry or Polishing business, which s hall comply with the following conditions: (a) A minU.um of three ( 3) parking spaces a hall be provided on the site for each washing stall. (h) The s ltc s hall be paved to the specificat lons of the Departme nt of Engineering Serv ices . (c) All waste water shall be discharged into the sanitary sewer lin after having been run through a sand trap. (d) All lights u sed to illum inate the area shall be direct d away froo1 djacen t re idential properti a. (4) Amu a nt establishments including, but not limited to: billiard • I • - r , • ( • • • • -4- halls, bowling alleys, coin-operated games, dance halls, electronic or video games, night cl ubs, outdoor commercial recreational facil- ities, pool halls or skating rinks. f. Prohibited Uses. g. (1) Manufa cturing . (2) Outdoor storage of materials, supplies, and equipment o n private and public property. (3) The outdoor display, storage or sale of household appliances, furni- ture , or other items commonly used in a home, whether on private or public property. (4) War ehousing of products or items not sold on the premises. (5) Sale al wholesale. (6) Sal es or service activity shall not be allowed from any temporary structure or vehicle unless a building permit application has been submitted for a permanent building or structure to replace the tem- porary structure. Kaxt.um Height of Buildings. Sixty (60) feet. h. Setbacks. No setbacks shall be required; provided, however, that wh ere a property zoned B-2, Business, abuts upon any property zoned "R" Resi- dential District, the residential front yard requirement of the abutting Residential District shall apply to that portion of the property in the B-2 Business District except as t o side yards on c orner lots . 1. Mintaum Off-street Private Parking and Loadina. See General Reaulations. j. Liquefied Petroleum Gas Installations. Liquefied petroleum gas installa- tions shall be permitted only for the purpoae of aupplying fuel for approved heating equipment. Liquid petroleum gas tanks in excess of 500 gallons (water capacity ) will not be permitted in this Zone District. Liquefied petroleum gas installations shall conform to current Fire Code requirements . • I • • (( , • • • • Section 16.4-15 Planned Development (P.D.) District. The purpose of this subchapter is to permit and encourage dive r sification ln the location of structures and the appropriate relationsh ip of va rious uses and structures to their sites without inhibiting the potential advantages of new and imaginative-techniques and concepts of design of urban land use. The se regulations ar e further intended to insure improved pedestrian and vehicular circulation facilities and the provisio n of usable open space while insuring adequate standards relating to the public health, safety, welfare and conve- nience in the use and occupancy of buildings and facilities. The amenities and compatibilities of the Planned l>e vclo pment classlflcatlon are to be in- sured by the adoption of a development plan, which shall consist of maps, dia- grams and written statements setting forth land use relationships and develop- ment standards. The Planned Development classification is to be applied to land only upon specific application by the owner or owners of the land, and after approval by the City Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Construction on said land shall take place only after the approval of the ap- proved plan and its attendant documents have been record ed in the Offi.ce of the Clerk and Recorder of Arapahoe County, Colorado. a. Requirements. (1) Development under the Planned Development District regulations shall be subject to the provisions of this ordinance as well as the basic zone district with which it is combined. Where a conflict occurs between an approved P .D. and the regulations of the underlying zone district, the approved P.D. shall prevail, except with regard to per- mitted uses, and dwelling unit density. This shall not preclude den- sity averaging within a Planned Development having an area of 10 acres or n~re and under one ownership. Density averaging shall apply only within the same zone district unless approved by the City Council through the Planned Development. (2) In order to encourage good design and flexibility, all or part of the s ubdivision regulations applicable to the development may be waived by City Council if all public improvements and conve- niences will be consu..ated through other documents and agreements. If Planned Development approval is withdrawn after any subdivision waiver has been granted, or if construction of a Planned Development has not been started within two years from the date of approval by the City Council, the waiver shall be null and void and the property s hall he s ubject to the Subdivision Regulations . b. Pre-Application Conference. A pre-application conference shall be held with the staff of the Department of Community Development in order for c. the applicant to become acquainted with the Planned Development procedures and related City requirements. Application. An application for approval of a Planned Development shall be filed by the owner or owners of the land. The application shall be made on a form provided by the City and shall be accompanied by plans and written stalements showing the following information: • I • • ( • • • • • -2- (l) Devel v pment Plan. A development plan showing the major details o f th e pro posed Planned Development at a scale of not less than 1" -50' and in sufficient detail to evaluate the land planning, building d e - sign, and other features of the proposed development. The develop- ment plan must contain , inso far as is applicable, the follo wing 1uin inuun information: (a ) A boundary survey. (b) The existing topographic character of the land. (c ) The proposed land uses. (d ) The location of all existing and proposed buildings, structures a nd improvements. (c ) The density and type of dwellings, including typical elevations an d s howing maximum h eight. (f ) The major points of access to public rights-of-way, the internal t raffic and circulation systems, if applicable, off-street parking areas, service areas, and loading areas. (g) The location, height and size of proposed signs, fences, lighting and advertising devices including typical elevations. (h) Areas which are to be conveyed, dedicated purposes, including, but not limited to: areas, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, o r other public purposes. or reserved for public parks and recreational easements for utilities, {i) Areas subject to a 100-year flooding cycle. (j) A general landscape plan with major types of materials designat ed ab to purpose, source of water and type of sprinkling system. (k) 0 ainag plans. (1) D signa tion of various stages for construction, if applicable. (t•t ) A mylar of the approved development plan shall be submitted fur recording in the office of the Ar apahoe County Clerk and Recorder. (2) Written statement. The written statement with the Planned Develop- ment .!pplication s hall contain the following mini.mum i n formatio n : (a) A st tem nt of the present ownership and a legal description of all of the land included in the Planned Development. (h) An e xpl nation of the obj c tives to b achi ved by th develop- ment, inc luding building descriptions, sketches, or levations .J S may b n cesaary to d scribe the obj ctives. (c ) A d velopm nt schedul e indicating th approxim te date when • I • • • • • • -3- construction of the development o r stages of the development c an be expected to b egin and to be completed. (d) Copies of any special agreements, conveyances, restrictions, or covena nts which will govern the use, maintenance and pro- tection of the development and public areas. (3) The appl i can t may submit any other information or exhibits deemed pertinent to the evaluation of the proposed Planned Development. d. Review a nd Approval. (1) Upon receipt of the application, the Department of Community De- velopment shall b e responsibl e for coordinating the review of the develo pment plans by the various City d epartm e nts and app ropriate pub lic agencies c ulminating i n the s ubmission of an ad v lsory repoct and recommendation to the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Sub- miss i.on of the report and r ecommc nd a t i ons shall be nccomp l is h e d w:ith- in thirty (30) days after the filing of the complete application. A copy of the advisory report and recommendations shal l be furnished to the applicant. (2) Within thirty (30) days after having received such report, the Com- mission shall hold a public hearing on the application. The appli- cant shall post the property of the proposed Planned Development, in a form prescribed by the Department of Community Development, and the Department of Community Development shall be responsible for publishing the legal notice of the public hearing. (1) Within thirty (30) days from the date of the public hearing, the City Planning and Zoning CoDDission shall make written findings recommending to the City Council that the proposed plan is either approved, conditionally approved, or disapproved. A copy of said findings shall be furnished to the applicant. If the plan is ap- proved or conditio nally approved, the plan shall be sent to City Council. I f the plan is disapproved, the plan shall be returned to the applicant together with the findings setting forth the reason for disapproval. The applicant may make the necessary revision and resubmit to the City Planning CoiDIIIission, or the decision of the City Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant. A second public hearing shall not be required by the City Planning Commission on the revisions. The City Council at its discretion may require a public hearing prior to consideration of the proposed Planned Development. Such hearing shall be scheduled i.n a timely manner. Within thirty (30) days following the City Council's public hearing, if held, or within thirty (30) days following receipt of the Planning Commission recommendation if no hearing is held, the City Council shall make findings either approving, conditionally approving, or disapproving th proposed plan. A copy of aaid findings shall be furnished to the applicant. If the City Council find th t a pl n is disapprov d, the applicant shall b giv n th r aaona for th disapproval. The applicant may make any necessary corrections and I • • (1 • • • • -4- resubmit the corrected plan to the Department of Community Develop- ment for appropriate action. (4) The approved development plan including modifications or conditions, shall be endorsed by the Chairman of the City Planning and Zoning Commission and the Mayor, and shall be recorded in the Off ice of the Ara pahoe County Clerk and Recorder. (5) Any person applying to the courts for a review of any decision made und er the terms of this Ch a pter shall do so within thirty (30) days of the date of the decision and shall be requ ired to pay the cost of preparing a transcript of proceedings and the application for review shall be in the nature of certiorari under Rule 106 (a)(4) of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. e . Standard s . llefore approving a Planned De velo pm e nt, the ap prov ing a~,~cncy shall mak e written findings that the Planned Dev elopment will im plement the J>urposcs of this Ordinance a nd of t his Chapter , and , i n add itJ on, meet the foll owing requirements: (1) Uses permitted. The use in the Planned Development must be a Per- mitted Principal Use in the Zone District in which the Planned De- velopment is located, or a use permitted pursuant to other provisions of this Ordinance. (2) The Planned Development must be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the policies therein. (3) The Planned Development's relationship to its surrounding shall be considered in order to avoid adverse effects to the existing and possible future developaent caused by traffic circulation, building height or bulk, lack of screening, or intrusions of privacy. (4) Minim um requirements for usable open space shall be met through the overall design and amenities proposed for the development. Private park and/or recreational areas, owned in common, may be considered to meet the minimum usable open space requirements if it is deter- mined that such areas will meet the following requirements: (a) The area will be of sufficient size to adequately serve the entire development for which it is designed. (b) The area is accessible and available to all of the occupants for whose use it is intended. (c) The area shall be suitable and shall be used for landscaping and recreational purposes. (5) The numb r of off-street parking spaces in the proposed development shall not be less than the requirements of Section 16.5 of this Ordinance, provided, however, that the City Council may, upon the reco111111endation of the Planning and Zoning Co.Ussion, waive up to and Lncluding twenty-five (25) percent of said requirement in any zan district if one or more of the following factors are found to exist: I • • • • • - -6- (a) The probable number of automo bil es owned or used by occupants of a nd visitors to th e proposed development will be less than typically found in similar development s . (b) Th e parking needs of non-resident ia l us es will lessen t he over- a ll parking n eeds of the develo pment. (c) v ... y i ng time perio ds of usage by mixed uses in the develop- me nt will lessen overall parking requirements. (d) Th e property o wners will participate in a parking district which will adequately meet the off-street parking needs of the developa~ent. (6) Site Pl a nn ing. The approving agencies shall be sat i sifed that the s ll e plan for the Planned Devel o pment meets all of the follo win g req1ri r m •nt!i: (a) ll th e proposed developm e nt includes multiple family or non- r esidential bu ildings or struc tur es and it is adjacent to a single-family residential use district, the develo pment must c ontain a buffer. In o rd er to minimize any adv erse effects on the adjacent single-family area, the buffer shall be not les s than a twenty-five (25) foot landscaped area, an opaque six (6) foot decorative fence, or a combination of landscaping and fencing if approved on the development plan. (b) Within the Planned Development, sufficient space must be pro- vided between buildings and structures, giving consideration t o their intended use, their location, design a nd height, the pla cem ent and extent of facing window areas, and the topography and such other natural features as will assure privacy and a pleas ant environaent. (c) 11 the area of the development is such that an internal stre et circulat ion system is necessary, such system shall be designed f or t h e type of traffic that will be generated, a nd a ll curbs al e ntrances and other access points shall have ramps to faci l - itate a ccess for the handic apped and for bicycl es . Al l Plann e d Dev elopments must have access to public streets. Private, in- te rnal streets may be permitted if they comply with City standards . (d ) BJ ·y le and pedestrian trails are to be provided where the City bicycle and/or trail plan or the Regional Bicycle Transportation Plan shows such trail or trail corridor. Trail or walkway systems o r lanes are to be provided, where feasible, to s chools, shopping areas, parka, greenbelts, and other facilities as necessary. Tra il systema and walkways through open apace areas are encouraged s an alternate to pedestrian sidewalk requirements and may be used upon approval by the City providing the follo wing criteria are 111et: (i) Th s ystem provides at least the sam lev 1 of s e rvice as would the applicable sidewalk requirement • I • • • • - -7- (ii) Easements or open ways are plotted and dedicated to the system. (iii) Trails or walkway s are either paved, trea ted or con- structed from selected material to provide a suita ble all-weather surface that is easily maintained. The type of construction shall be compatible wi th the anticipated use. (iv) A perpetual association or corpora tion or other su it- able means is established for maintenance. (v) Pedestrian walkways and bicycl e trails are not com - bined. (vi) Where th e area considered for Planned Developme nt is less than 5 acres, bicycle trails are not required. (e) The s ite plan shall provide for the maximum preservation of natural drainage areas, vegetation and other desirable natura l features. f. Development in Stages. The .approving agencies may authorize the implementa- tion of the development plan in stages. However, at the time of construc- tion of the first stage of the Planned Development, any private or public recreational facilities required by the development plan shall be con- structed to serve the dwelling unit density for the entire development. g . Changes in t he Developaent Plan. Except as provided hereafter, no changes may be made in the approved Planned Development during its impl e mentat ion: h. (1) Minor changes in the location of buildings and structures may be authorized by the Director of Community Development if required by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the development program was approved. No change authorized by the Director of Community Development under this Section may increase the density of the development, nor change the location of any bu ilding or structure by more than is necessary to correct the engineering or related problems; and provid ed that the Director of Community Development may not approve the relocation of any building or structure so that the building or structure is closer to any side or front property line than wa s approved on the development plan. (2) All other changes in the Planned Develo pment plan, including changes in the site plan and in the development schedule, must be made under the procedures that are applicable to the initial approval of a Planned Development. Review for Conformance. The Department of Community Development shall review all building permits which have been issued for the Planned De- velopment and shall examine the construction which has taken place on the site to insure conformance with the approved development plan. If the construction is not in conformance with the approved development plan, a Stop Work Or der shall be placed on all construction until such time as the discrepancies are resolved, If it is not brought into conformance I • - (\ • • • • -8- with the approved development plan within thirty (30) days, the Department shall report the violation and the terms and conditions of the approved developmen t plan to the Planning Conunission. The CoDllllission shall give written notice to the Planned Development applicant and all the owners abutting the Planned Development, and shall hold a public hearing on the report of viol~tions submitted by the Department. Upon review of the alleged violations, the Commission may, if it deems necessary, require that appro priate action be taken to remedy the violations. The Commission may approve such a~~~endments and modify the approved development plan. If the amend•..ents or modifications are not approved, the applicant shall bring the project into conformance, or the Co1111nission shall recommend to the City Council that the approval of the Planned Development should be revoked, giving written findings therefor. i. Annual Review. If the application for building permits has not been made within two (2) years of the Planned Dcvelop111ent approval, the applicant shall be not ified in writing and requested to give cause why the Planned Developmen t approval shall not he withdrawn. If the owner docs nut respond within sixty (60) days, the City Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council that the Planned Development approval should be withdrawn; the approved developaent plan may be declared null and void by the City Council, and written notice given to the property owner. Any subsequent Planned Development shall comply with the procedure set forth above. j. Completion of the Planned Development. Upon the completion of the Planned Development, the Director of eo .. unity Development shall issue a certificate for the Planned Developaent certifying the completion and shall note the issuance of the certificate on an office copy of the official Zoning Hap and on the site plan. After completion, the uae of land and the construc- tion, modification, or alteration of any buildings within the Planned De- velopaent will be aoverned by the approved development plan. k. Fee. The City Council aay eatablish a fee schedule for Planned Develop- ment applications to cover the costs of processing and review. 1. Approving Agency, As used in this Chapter, "Approving Agency" shall mean the City Council acting after having reviewed the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. • I • • - (' • • • • • Section 16.4-11 Design Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings in the South Broadway Incentive Area. a. Le&islative Purpose and Intent. This section of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance has been designed to implement the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the Englewood Downtown Redevelopment Plan as they pertain to that portion of South Broadway in the 3200 through 3500 blocks which shall be referred to as the South Broadway Incentive Area. The South Broadway Incentive Area (S.B.I.A.) is created in order to develop a positive i-ge for this area which will encourage new businesses and to create the fra.evork for redevelopment of existing structures through architectural co-eatibility to provide bette~ insight into the design aspects of existing buildings and the potential of . properties along South Broadway. To t his end, criteria by which individual properties can be n :tlevcJopcd or res tore d arc het·c ln s"L forth: (1) Reestablish and uni fy the buildin~ facade c haracter throu~h emphasis on original construction materials and structural modules. (2) Reaove unnecessary visual clutter from the buildings not consistent with t he original construction. (3) Improve the quality of the pedestrian experience along Broadway. (4) Reestablish upper level office and residential uses. (5) Facilitate pedestrian access to Broadway from parking areas. (6) Upgrade t he appearance of rear of buildings. (7) Improve service access along rear of buildings. b. Administration. The review of the plans shall be the responsibility of the Director of co .. unity Development or a designee for con formance with these regulations. No building permit shall be issued for the reconstruction of the exterior of any building unless the improvement conforms with these guidelines. c. Facade/Deaisn Criteria. (1) General Facade Zone. (a) Window sill zone -2 feet to 3 feet, 6 inches from ground level. (b) Display zone -Window area between window sill a nd first floor ceil ing level. (c) Signage zone -From first floor ceiling to second floor window sill level. If there is no second floor, the signage zone s h 11 be from Lhe first floor ceiling to the Lop of the parapet wa ll. • I • - ' • • • • • • -2- {d) Upper floor commercial/residential zone -Second floor window sill to top floor ceiling. {e) Architectural roofline zone -From top floor ceiling to top of parapet. (2) Design criteria for upgrading and restoring existing front facades. {a) Facade exterior. {i) The renovation of existing facades shall respect the relationahip of first floor store fronts and upper stories and shall be consistent with the original architectural character. (ii) lbe removal or alteration of any historical or distinctive architectural detailing shall be discouraged. (iii) Reco.-ended building materials: a. Permitted cladding shall be brick, stucco or other aaaonry material. b. Permitted window casings: Wood, bronze or black anodized aluminium, painted or baked enamel steel. c. Permitted trim: Wood, stucco, stamped metal or brick. (iv) Building cladding colors shall be earth colora. {v) Building tria colora shall complement the colors of adjacent buildings. (vi) Glass areas: a. First floor -Maximum 60% vertical surface. b. Second floor -Maximum 40% vertical surface. c. Third floor and above -Unrestricted. {b ) Height and scale. (i) The height and scale of buildings should relate to the architecture and scale of adjacent buildings. (ii) Overall height is limited to four stories maximum. (c) Setbacks . (i) Mandatory 0 foot setback wherever possible. (ii ) On buildings two s tories and above, a 1 2 foot f irst f loor setback for weather protection is encouraged • I • - • • • • • -3- {d) Architectural projections into right-of-way. {i) Unless otherwise permitted, no new meta l canopies, roof overhangs, or other permanent architectural elements may project into the right-of-way. Canvas awnings are encouraged. (ii) No structural element may project into right-of-way. {e) Signage. {i) In addition to the Englewood sign requirements specified in Section 16.8 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, the following requirements shall also apply to the South Broadway Incentive Area. In the event that these requirements and those of the more general Sign Code requirements c onflict, these regulations shall apply. a. Wall signs shall only be located in the sign zone. b. Projecting signs shall only be located in the sign zone and shall be no larger than 12 square feet per face and 24 square feet total. c. Signs painted on windows shall be permitted in windows above the first floor and shall identify the business located on the premises only. d. Individual letters shall be the only type of internally illuainated or backlit sign permitted. e. Banners which do not contain commercial advertising shall be peraittad when uaed for decorative purposes. (ii) Any sign which was lawfully erected and maintained prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, but which does not conform to the limitations established by this Ordinance, shall be a Nonconforming Sign, and must be brought into conformance or terminated and c ease to exist if any one of the following conditions occur: a. b. Whenever the sign is damaged more than 50% of its total replacement value, or destroyed from any cause whatsoever, or becomes obsolete or substandard under any applicable ordinance of the municipality to the extent that the sign becomes a hazard or a danger. Whenever there is a change in the lessee, ownership of the business or use to which the sign pertains . c. Whenever there is a request for a permit to change the sign. d. Whenever there is a request for a permit to make i~rov ... nts to the facade of the building on which ~he sign is located • I • • ·• I (t • • • • -4- (iii) Appeals shall be handled in the mann r sp cified in Section 16.8 of the Sign Code. (f) Awnings. (i) Two types of canvas awn ings may be used : a. Individual awnings located at entries to shops and second story windows . b. Large awning s covering the entire building frontage. (ii) Awnings shall be attached below the sign zone. (iii) Awning s are permitted over windows on upp er floors . (iv) Haximuru depth of awnings shall be 8 feet . (v) Color scheme of awnings shall complemen t t he col ors of the equipment. (g) Mechanical equipment. (i) Mechanical equipment projecting from facade into the right-of-way shall not be allowed. (ii) All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened with some type of architectural element which is consistent with the original facade o f the building. (3) Upgrading and restoring facades of rear of buildings. (a) Rear facades shall be coordinated with color of front facade through painting with a limited palette of earth tone colors. (b) All paving at rear of buildings shall be asphalt or concrete except at pass throughs where special paving such as brick, tile, or block pattern shall be used. (c) All service areas (trash, etc.) shall be consolidated and screened with noncombu stible material. • I • • • • • • • Section 2. The prov1s1 ons of Chapter 22 , the Comprehensive Zoning Ordi nance of 196 3, Ordinance No. 26 , Series of 1963, a r e incorporated by reference into Title XVI of the Englewood Municipal Code of 1963, as emended, as though set forth in full. Section 3. Sections 22.4-6, 22.4-10 , 22.4-11, 22.4A, and 22.4C of Chapter 22, Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1963, are hereby repealed. Section 4. ord1nanc e: The following legal provisions shall apply to this A. Separability Clause. If any a rtlcle, section, subsection, sente nce, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutiona l, such decision shall not affect the validi ty of the renaining portion of this Ordinance. The COuncil of the City of Englewood hereby declares that it would have phrased this Ord i nance and each article, section, subsection , c l a use or phrase hereof, irrespective of the f a ct that any one or more articles, sections, subsections , sentences, c lauses and phrases be declared unconstitutional. B. Scope. This Ordinance relates to zoning, and it does not repeal , abrogate, annul, or in any way impair or i nterfere with existing provisions of other laws or ordinances, except those repealed herein. ~re this Ordinance imposes a greater restriction upon land, buildings, or structures than imposed or required by such existing provisions of law or ordinance , the provisions of this Ordinance shall control. C. Violat ion and Penalty. Any person, firm , or corporation that violates, disobeys, omits, neglects or refuses to com pl y with or resists the enforcenent of any of the prov isions o f this Ordinance shall be fined not less than ten dollars ($10) nor more than three hundred dollars ($300) for each offense. Each day that a violation exists shall const itute a separate offense. Any buildings erected , raised, or converted or land or premises used in v1olation of any provisions of this Ordinance, or any anendnent hereto , IS hereby declared to be a cannon nuisance and such catmon nuisance may be abated 1n such manner as nuisances re now or may hereafter abated. D. ~sit y. The City COunc1l reby flnds , determines, and declares that this Ordinance is necessary for the immed iate preservation of the public peace , health, safety and convenience • • I • • - • • • • Section 5. In the op1mon of the City Council, an anergency exists. 'nlerefore, this Ordinance shall take effect and be i n force fran and after its final passage and publicat ion. '!he anergency is that the current ordinances of the City of Englewood do not address land use issues necessary for the proper develop- ment of the City. 'Ibis ordinance shall address those deficiencies. Introduc:ed, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 16th day of April, 1984. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the 18th day of April, 1984. 1984. Read, Clllended and passed as amended on the 7th day of May, Published in full as emended on the 16th day of May, 1984. Read by title and passed on final reading the 21st day of May, 1984. Published by title as Ordinance No. if_, series of 1984, on the 23rd day of May, 1984. 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 forego ing is a true, accurate and canplete copy of the Ordinance passed on r:nal reading and published by title as Ordinance No.__tL, series of 1984. Gary R. Hlgbee • I • • • BY AUTHORITY ORDINANC E NO . SERIES OF 198-=3--- A BILL FOR • • • 1f3 COUNCIL BILL NO. 17 INT RODUCED~Y COUNCIL MEMB ER . {:) t_(_c AN ORDINANCE VACATING STREET RIGHT OF WAY AND A SANITARY SEW ER EASEl'1ENT AND AO:EPTING AN EASEMENT FOR A NEW WATER LINE IN THE VICINITY OF SOUTH SHERMAN STRE ET, U.S. 285, AND SOUTH LOGAN STREET. N(J(l, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, as follows: Section 1. The hereinafter described property l ocated in the Cl ty of Englewood, Arapahoe County , Colorado, be and the same is hereby declared vacated pursuant to . the provisions of Part 3, Article 2, Title 43, Colorado Revised Statutes, and title thereof shall vest in SAF~Y STO RES, INCORPORATED , a Maryl a nd COrpor ation, said vacated land being more particularly described as follows: South Grant Street vacation: A. That portion of vacated South Grant street Which is adjacent to the west side of Lot 1 2 through LOt 16, Block 4, Birch's }lddition to South Br oadway Heights, Second 't"iling , and adjacent to the east side of Lot 35 through Lot 39, Block 3, said South Broadway Heights. The City shall retain an easement on the foregoing parcel for utility purposes through a utility agreement as found in Exhibit A. B. South Grant Street/South LOgan Street alley to be vacated: Tha t portion of vacated Grant/LOgan alley which i s adjacent to the east side of LOt 12 through LOt 18 and adjacent to the west side of LOt 33 through Lot 39 , Block 4, Birch's Pddition to South Broadway Heights , Second Filing. The City shall retain an easement on the foregoing parcel for ut1lity purposes through a utility agreement as found 1n Exhibit A. c. Parcel A. All of LOt 17, Block 4, Birch's Addition Second F1l1ng, to South Broadway Heights. Parcel B. Conmencing at the Northwest corner of said LOt 17, thence Southerly along the West line of LOt 17 to the Southwest corner of said Lot 17; thence Wester ly along the extended South line of LOt 17, a distance of 40 feet; thence Northerly and parallel to the west line of said LOt 17 , a distance of 25 feet; thence Easterly along the extended North line of LOt 17, a distance of 40 feet to the point of beginning • • I • • • • • • All in the County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado. Section 2. That SAFEWAY Sl'ORES, INCORPORATED, a Maryland Corporat1on, shall grant to the the City of Englewood a utili t y easement over, in and through the hereinafter described real property located in the City of Englewood, County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado, with appropriate title policy for the same: An easement for utilities located 1n Block 3, Birch's Addition to South Broadway Heights, Second Filing , and in a portion of vacated South Grant Street adjoin ing said Block 3, Arapahoe County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows: All of LOt 12 and the North 5 feet of LOt 13 together with all of that part of the vacated alley lying East of LOt 12 and the North 5 feet of LOt 13, and the North 20 feet of LOt 39 together with the west 50 feet of vacated Grant Street lying East of the North 20 feet of LOt 39 , and the west 20 feet of LOts 13 through 21, inclusive, and the North 10 feet of the West 20 feet of Lot 22. 'rtle form of said easement shall be as found on Exhibit A hereto. Section 3. SAFEWAY STORES, INCORPORATED, a Maryland corporation, shall grant to the City of Englewood an easement over, in and through the following described property for alley and public right of way purposes with appropriate title policy for the same: A portion of Lots 11, 12 and 13 , Block 4, in Birch's Addition to South Broadway Heights, being the Second Filing, together with a part of vacated South Grant Street and a part of the vacated alley 1J11ch is located east of said LOts 12 and 13, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of said LOt 12 extended west IJ"Iich is 22 feet west of the Northwest corner of said Lot 12; thence on a curve concave to the Northeast an arc distance of 43.33 feet and whose long chord bears S 51 degrees 19'04" E a distance of 40.10 feet to a point that is 9.25 feet East of the Northwest corner of said LOt 13 and lies on the North line of said LOt 13, said curve has a central angle of 77 degrees 34'58", a tangent length of 25.72 feet and a radius of 32.00 feet; thence S 89 degrees 53' 27" E along the North line of said LOt 13 a distance of 83.99 feet; thence along a curve to the left an arc distance of 50.08 feet to a point on the East line of said LOt ll, said point also being on the West line of said alley, said curve has a central angle of 89 degrees 39' 36", a tangent length of 31.81 feet, a radius of 32.00 feet and whose chord bears N 45 degrees 16'43" E a distance of 45.12 feet; thence 2 • I • • • • • • S 89 d eg r ees 34 1 05 " E a d i s t ance of 16 fee t to the Ea s t l i ne of said alley; thence along a curve concave to the Northwest an arc distance of 75.12 feet and whose long chord bears s 45 degrees 16 1 34" W a distance of 67.68 feet to a point that is 16 feet South of the North line of said Lot 13; said curve has a central angle of 89 degrees 39 1 58", a t angent length of 47.72 feet and a radius of 48.00 feet; thence N 89 degrees 53'27" Wand parallel with the North line of said Lot 13, a distance of 83.94 feet to a point of curve; thence along said curve to the right an arc distance of 68.56 feet, said curve has a central angle of 81 degrees 49 1 58", a tangent length of 41.60 feet and a radius of 48.00 fee t and whose chord bears N 49 degrees ll' 33" W a distance of 62 .88 feet; thence 89 degrees 53 1 27" E a distance of 16.26 feet to the point of beginning; all in the County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado, containing 3,580 square feet (0.0822 acres) more or less. The form of the easement shall be as found in Exhibit B hereto. Section 4. This vacation ordinance shall become effective to vacate said property when the Mayor and ex officio City Clerk- Treasurer execute a copy hereof and deliver to SAFEWAY STORES, INCORPORATED. Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 21st day of May, 1984. 198 4. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the 23rd day of May, Attest: ex offic1o City Clerk-Treasurer ~·E-1 ~ I, Gary R. Higbee , ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer of the Ci t y of Fl'lglewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true, accurate and complete copy of a Bill for an Ordinance, i ntroduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 21st day of May, 1984. Gary R. Hlgbee 3 • I . • • • • • GRANT OF U'l'ILI TY EAS EM ENT nus GRANT of a uti l ity easane n t (this "Gr ant") i s made this day of , 1984 by SAFEWA Y STORES, IOCORPORATFD, a Maryland Corpora tion, ("Grantor") whos e address is NO. 5 Parker Place , 2600 Parker Road, SU ite 250, Aurora , CO 8001 4 , in favor of the CI TY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, ("Gran t ee") who se address is 3400 South Elati Street, Englewood, CO 80110; 'Ibe parties covenant and agree as follows: 1. Easanent Proeerty. 'Ihe "Easanent Pr operty" shall mea n the real property l ocated 1n the County of Ar apahoe , State of Co l orado , more particula rly desc ri bed a s follows: A. A parcel of r eal propert y l ocated in Bl ock 3 , Bi r ch 's Add ition to So uth Broadwa y Hei g hts, Second Filing , and i n a portion o f vacated South Gr a nt Street adj o i n ing said Block 3 , Arapahoe County, Col orad o, more part i cularly described as f ollows : Al l of Lo t 12 a nd the NO r th 5 feet of Lot 13 t oge t her wi t h al l of t hat part of the vac a ted alley lyi ng Eas t of Lo t 12 and the NOrth 5 feet of Lot 13, and the NOr th 20 feet o f Lot 39 together with the West 50 fee t of vacated Gran t Street lying East of the NOr th 20 feet o f Lot 39 , and the We st 20 feet of Lo ts 13 through 21, i nclusive , a nd the North 10 feet of the west 20 feet of Lot 22. South Grant Street: 'Ihat portion of vacated South Grant street wh ich is adjacent to the west side of Lot 12 t hrough Lot 16, Block 4, Birch 's Addition to South Broadwa y Heights , Second Filing, and adjacent to the east side of Lot 35 through Lot 39, Block 3, said South Broadway Heights. B. South Grant Street/South Logan Street alley: That portion of vacated Grant/Logan alley which is adjacent to the east side of Lot 12 through Lot 18 and adjacent to the west side of Lot 33 through Lot 39 , Block 4 , Birches Addition to South Broadway Heights , Second Filing. 2. Consid ration. As consideration for this Grant, Grantee has paid Grantor th Sll11 of Q'le Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration , the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by Grantor. Exhibit A • I • • • • • • 3 . Grant of Utility Ea sement. Grantor hereby grants to Grantee, its successors and ass1gns , a perpetual, nonexclusive easanent (the "Utility Easanent") over , under, across and through the Ea senen t Property for the purpose of constructing, opera ting, maintaining, repairing, replaci ng, ranoving and enlarging the "Lines and Appurtenances", as hereinafter defined. '!he "Lines and Appurtenances" shall mean one or more utility pipel ines and all necessary underground and surface appurtenances thereto necessary or desirable for the transmission of water, sewer , electr ical bnpulses or other ut ilities, including, but not limited to, ma i ns, conduits, vaults , ventilators, electric or other control systems, cables , wires and connections. 4. Access. Grantee shall have the perpetual, nonexclusive right of ingress and egress in, to, over, through and across the Easement Property for any purpose necessary or des i rable for the full e njoyment of the rights granted to Grantee under this Grant. 5. Restoration. Grantee agrees that after the construction, maintenance , repair, replacement, or enlargement of any of the Lines a m Appurtenances, Grantee shall restore the surface of the Ea senent Property as nearly as reasonably possible to the grade and condition it was in immed iately pri or to said construction, maintenance, repair, replacanent, or enlargenent , except as may be necessary to acc:annodate the Lines and Appurtenances. Grantee agrees to restore and repair any improvanents of Grantor on the Easenent Property which are dCITiaged, modified or altered by Grantee durir.g said construction, maintenance, repair, replacanent or enlarganent. Grantee further agrees to replace any topsoil ranoved from any cultivated or agricultural areas on the Easement Property and to ranove any excess earth resulting f rom said construction , maintenance, repair, replacanent or enlargenent, at Grantee's sole cost and expense. 6 . No Improvenents . Grantor covenants and agrees not to construct, erect, place or plan any "Improvements", as hereinafter defined , on the Easenent Property without obtaining the prior written consent of Grantee. "Improvements" shall mean any structure or building. Grantee shall have the right to remove, without any liability to Grantor, any improvements constructed, erected, placed or planted on the Easement Property without Grantee's having obtained the prior written consent of Grantor. 7 . Subjacent an::l Lateral SUpport. Grantor covenants and agrees that Grantee shall have the right of subjacent and lateral support on the Easement Property to whatever extent is necessary or desirable for the full, complete and undisturbed enjoyment of the rights granted to Grantee under this Grant. B. Rights of Grantor . Grantor reserves the full right to the undisturbed ownership, use , and occupancy of the Easement Property insofar as said ownership , use, and occupancy is consistent with a~ does not bnpair the rights granted to Grantee in this Grant. 2 • I • • - ( ' • • • 9. Aba ndomte nt. In the event that Gr antee s hall abandon th'-' rights granted to it under this Grant, a l l r i ght, t itle and inter est hereunder of Grantee shall cea s e a nd terminate, and Gr a ntor s hall hold Easanent Property, as the sam e may then be, free fran t he rights of Grantee so abandoned and shall own all materials a nd structures of Grantee so abandoned, provided that Grantee s hall hav e a reasonable period of time after said abandonment in which t o remove any or all Lines and Appurtenances from the Easement Property. In the event that Easement is abandoned by Gran t ee, Grantor shall have the right, at its sole option, to require Gr a ntee to remove or neutralize any improvements constructed in the Easement by Grantee. 10. warranty of Title. Grantor warrants and represents that Grantor is the fee simple owner of the Easement Property and that Grantor has full right, title and authority, that this Grant is effective to grant and convey to Grantee the Utility Line Easement, and that this Grant of an easement is superior to all other grants. Grantor further covenants and agrees to indennify, defend and hold Grantee harmless fran and against any adverse claim to the title of the Easement Property by all and every person or persons lawfully claiming or to claim the whole or any part thereof. ll. Binding Effect. This Grant shall extend to and be binding upon the heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns of the respective parties hereto. The terms, covenants, agreements and conditions in this Grant shall be construed as covenants running with the land. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Grant of Utility Easement the day and year first above written. GRANTOR: Attest: STATE OF COLORADO ss. COUNTY OF Acknowledged bef ore me this ___ day of , 19 as -----------ana-----------------___________________________________ as ------------------------ My COmm issi on expi res: 3 Notary Pub lic .Address: I • • l ( • • • • GRANI'EE: Attest: Title : STATE OF COLORADO ss . ClXJNTY OF ARAPAHOE Acknowledged before me this day of _____ , 19 by ___________ as-------------and --------~--as _______________ __ My COmmission expires: 4 Notary Public .Address: I • • - • • • - GRAN'!' OF FASlliENT THIS GRANT of alley easanent (this "Grant") is made t his day of , 198 by ---~--~~-~ ----("Grantor") who se address is ~------~~~--~~--~~----~~--~~~~· i n f a vor o f the CITY OF ENGLEWCXXl, COLORADO, ("Grantee") whose add r e ss is 340 0 S. Elati, Englewood, CO 80110. The parties covenant and agree as follows: 1. Easement Property. The "Easement Property" shall rrean t he r eal property located in the County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado, more particularly described as: A portion of Lots 11, 12 and 13, Block 4, in Birch's Add ition to South Broadway Heights, being the Second Fi ling, together with a part of vacated South Grant Street and a part of the vacated alley which is located east of said Lots 12 and 13 , more particularl y described a s follows: Beginning at a poi nt on the North line of said Lot 12 extended west wh i ch is 22 feet west of the Nor t hwest corner of s aid Lot 12; thence on a curve conca ve to the Northeast an arc distance of 43.33 feet a rrl whose long chord bearsS 51 degrees 19'04" E a distance of 40.10 feet to a point tha t is 9.25 feet East o f the Northwest corner of s a id Lot 13 arrl lies on the North l i ne of sa i d Lot 13, sa i d curve has a central angle of 77 degr ees 34'58", a t a ngen t l ength o f 25.72 feet arrl a r adius o f 32.00 feet; thence S 89 degrees 53' 27 " E along t he North line of sa i d Lo t 13 a di stance o f 8 3.99 feet; thence a lan::~ a c ur v e to the l e f t an arc distance of 50.08 feet to a point on t he East l ine o f said Lo t ll , sa i d point also be i ng on the Wes t line of said alley , said curve has a centra l a ngle of 89 degrees 39'36", a tangent length of 31 .81 feet, a r adius o f 32 .00 feet and whose chord bears N 4 5 degrees 16 '43 " E a distance of 45.12 feet ; thence S 89 degrees 34'05" E a distance of 16 feet to the East llne of said alley ; thence along a curve concave to the Northwest an arc distance of 75.12 feet and lotlose l ong chord bears S 45 degrees 16 '34 " W a d1stance of 67.68 feet to a point that is 16 feet South of the North line of said Lot 13; said curve has a central angle of 89 degrees 39' 58", a tangent len::~th of 47 .72 feet arrl a rachus of 48 .00 feet; thence N 89 degrees 53 ' 27" W and parallel with the North llne of said Lot 13, a distance of 83 .94 feet to a point of curve; thence along said curve to the right an arc distance of 68 .56 feet , sa1d curve has a central a ng le of 81 degrees 49' 58", a tangent len::~th of 41.60 f t and a radius of 48 .00 f t arrl whose chord bear s N 49 degrees ll ' 33 " W a distance of 62.88 feet; thence 89 degrees 53 ' 27 " E a distance of 16 .26 f t to the point of beginning ; all in the County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado, containing 3 ,580 square feet (0 .0822 acres) mor e or less. EXHIBIT B • I • • • • • • • 2. Consideration. As consideration for this Grant , Grantee shal l pay to Grantor the sum of one Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration paid by Gr a ntee, receipt of wh ich is hereby acknowledged by Grantor. 3 . Grant of Easanent. Grantor hereby grants to Grantee, its successors and assigns, and all pub lic utilities or those with proper license or franchise, a perpetual, nonexclusi ve easanen t (the "Alley Easanent") over, unde r, across a nd through the Ea sanent Property for the purpose of constructing, operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, ranoving and enlarging those structures or improvanents of Grantee that Grantee finds necessary or desirable f or pub lic utility purposes, includ ing , but not limited to, electrical equipment, telephone equipment, communica tion equipment, ~r equipment, water equipment , and for public right of way and alley purposes. 4. l\ccess. Grantee shall have the perpetual, nonexclusive right of ingress and egress in , to, over, through and across the Easanent Property for any purpose nece ssary or desirable for the full enjo~nt of the rights granted to Grantee under this Gr ant . 5. Subjacent and Lateral Suppc;>rt. Grantor covenants and agrees that Grantee shall have the r1ght of subjacent and lateral support on the Easement Property to wh atever e xtent is necessary or desirable for the full , comp lete and undisturbed enjo~nt of the rights granted to Grantee under this grant . 6. Rights of Grantor. Grantor reserves the full right to the undi scurbed ownership, use, and occupancy of the Easanent Property insofar as s aid ownership, use, and occupancy is consistent with and does not impa ir the rights granted to Grantee in this Grant. 7. No Lmprovanents. Grantor covenants and agrees not to construct , erect, place or plan any "Lmprovanents," as hereinafter defined , on the Easement Property without obtaining the prior written consent of Grantee. "Improvanents" shall mean any structure or building. Grantee shall have the right to ranove, without any liability to Grantor, any Unprovanents constructed, erected, placed or planted on the Easanent Property without Grantee's having obtained the prior written consent of Grantor. 8 . Warranty of Title. Grantor warrants and represents that Grantor is the fee sUnple owner of the Easanent Property and that Grantor has full right , title and authority , and that this Grant is effective to grant and convey to Grantee the Alley Easanent. Grantor further covenants and agrees to indannify , defend and hold Grantee harmless from and against any adverse claUn to the title of the Easement Property by all and every person or persons lawfully claUning or to claim the whole or any part thereof. 2 • I • • • • • • 9. Bi nding Effect . 'ltlis Grant s hall extend to and be binding upon the heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns of the respective par t ies hereto. 'ltle terms, cove nants, agreements and conditions in this Grant shal l be construed as covenants running with the land. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed thi s Alley Easement the day and year first above wr i tten. GRANTOR: Attest: By ________________ __ Title: Title: GRANI'EE: CITY OF EN:;LEWOOD, COLORADO Attest : By~~--~~~--~---E>Jgene L. Otls, Mayor Gary R. Hlgbee oft1cio City Clerk-Treasurer ST~T OF COLORADO ss. OF ARAPI\HOE 'ltle foregoing ins t n.rnent wa s a cknowl edged bef ore me thi s day of , 1984 by as ----------and attested to by ----------- as o f ----------------- Witness my hand and official seal . My comm ission expi r e s: 3 Notary Pllbhc llddress: • I • - ' • • .. • • • .. • STATE OF <X>LORAOO ss. <lXJNTY OF ARAPAHOE The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19 by Eugene L. Otis as Mayor and Gary R.-- Higbee as ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer of the City of Englewood, Colorado. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 4 Notary Publ1c 3400 S. Elati Englewood, CO 80110 I • - • • 0 (" ( -./ • • • - IN THE UNITED .STATES DISTRICT COUPT FbR THE DISTRICT OF COLOPADO Civil Action No, JOHN L, LEYDON, PlAintiff, v. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, Defendant. 80-C-1643 ·I . ;:I LEo Uljtfro ITArra ooar~ocr coun. DENVER, COLOAAoo MAY 14 ·19~.·! L- JAMEs R. MANSi'H ~,~~~ C!. E::tl{ MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Police Sergeant John L, ("Larry") Leyden brought this action against the City of Englewood, Colorado claiming that he was denied promotion to lieutenant in the Englewood Police Department because of his exercise of First Amendment rights to mak e public statements on public issues, and because of his union activism, He alleged violations of rights protected by 42 u.s.c. § 1983 and by the Englewood City Charter, Jurisdiction is founded on 28 u.s.c. S 1343, Trial was to the court March 28 to April 2, 1984. This opin i on constitutes my findings of fact and con- clusions of law as required by Rule 52(a), Fed, R. Civ. P. I note at the threshold that the defendant's motion to str i ke certain of the plaintiff's evidence, timely made during trial , and renewed at the close of the trial, is denied, I have c onsidered all the evidence admitted at trial. The plaintiff joined the Englewood Police:Department in 1967, a nd s i nce then has been active in the Englewood Police I • - • • • • • Benefit Association ("EPBA"). The EPBA is an independent employee organization. During all relevant }~mes, the EPBA represented uniformed officers in the City's police department, incluning ser- geants, lieutenants, and captains. Only the Chief of Police was not represented by the EPBA. Plaintiff was promoted to the rank of sergeant in 1975 and remains a sergeant today. () In September 1980, one lieutenant's position became a- vailable in the department through the resignation of Lieutenant Jerry Vaughn. Sergeant Leydon and four other sergeants were eli- gible for and applied for this opening, All five eligible ser- geants met with Chief of Police Robert R~ Holmes on September 29, 1980 to determine a competitive procedure for ranking the can- didates on an eligibility list. Established city personnel pro- cedures required the Chief to nominate for lieuten~nt one of the () top three persons on the list. Actual appointment authority was in the City Manager. • All five applicants agreed to a procedure by which each \ would be examined orally for forty-five minutes by a board com- prised of three police chiefs from comparable Colorad o police departments. Pursuant to the candidates' request, the interview board was given no information about their past performance re- cords . The oral examination was conducted October 29, 1980. The interview board ranked Sergeant Leydon first, Sergeant Ponalrl Medford second, and Sergeant Kenneth Leff third,, As already indicated, career service appointments are sub- ject to the "rule of three," that is, the appointing official must 2 • I • • - • • • • • - select one of the three top-ranked applicants. Whil~ the City Manager is the le~~lly designated appointing official, as a prac- tical matter, the police chief makes the actual decisions in police department appointments. To assist his decision process in the instant appointment, Chief Holmes gathered information on Sergeants Leyden and Medford Q fr·om several sources. He communicated by telephone with two of the three police chiefs who had comprised the examining board to determine their reasons for the ranking. In addition, he had Sergeants Leyden, Medfo'rd and Leff examined by a psychologist, .:~ncl considered the resulting written psychological report on each. He also solicited recommendations from his command staff, the depart- ment's lieutenants and captains. Finally he personally inter- viewed Sergeants Leyden and Medford, reviewed their performance -·~l records and checked their seniority rankings. -··· On Sunday, November 9, 1900, Chief Holmes recommended to City Manager Andy McCown that Sergeant Medford be selected for \ promotion, Medford was promoted and still serves as a lieutenant in the department. Plaintiff asserts that he was impermissibly denied pro- motion to lieutenant because of his prior activities on behalf of the Englewood Police Benefit Association. He asserts that these were advocacy activities protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and by section 1n of the Englewood City Charter which guarantees city employees the 3 • I • • • • • right to engage in collective bargaining,! It is undisputed that the actions of the Chief of Police and City Manager were the actions of the City of Englewood. Relief is sought under 42 u.s.c. s 1983. Both parties agree that this case is controlled by ~ Healthy School District v. Doyle, 429 u.s. 274 (1977 ), To obtain () <elief the plointiff most show thot his condoct wos constito- tionally protected and that such protected conduct was a "sub- stantial" or "motivating" factor in the City's decision to promote Medford rather than hi~. If the plaintiff carries that burd~n the City must go forward and demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have reached the same decision absent the protected conduct, Throughout his employment by the police department, the C:l plaintiff has been active in the EPBA and in otherwise re- presenting police officers in employment relations with the City. He has served as an officer of the EPBA, including its president, • on several occasions, has served on numerous negotiating com- mittees, and has acted as a spokesman for police employees, ad d iti o n , h e has been elected by the employees to serve on the In Po l ice Pension Board which passes upon police retirement applicati o ns . 1 The City of Englewood ie a home-<ole city o<gantzed PU<suant to Article XX of the Colorado Constitution, 4 I • • • • • • In a number of these situations, the plaintiff's duties lu represent the interests of police officers have required him to ,, . advocate positions contrary to those of the City administration. In effect he has been an adversa~y to City officials. The in- cident which the plaintiff believes is primarily responsible for his failure to obtain promotion occurred on August 25, 1980. The () administration bed prepared certain proposed amendments to the City Charter's collective bargaining provisions. These proposed amendments, if adopted,:w~uld have substantially reduced the number of subjects ove; which the City would have been required lo bargain. The subjects were significant and included medical insurance benefits and the choice of an insurance carrier. More- over, these proposals would have removed from the City's Career Service Board the responsibility for testing and selection of J employees. Various organizations representing C.i ty employees, i ncl uding EPBA, were invited lo appear before City Council on August 25, 1980 to state their views on the pending Charter amend- 1· ments. Sergeant Leydon was asked by the EPBA to appear on its behalf and he did so, At this August 25 City Council meeting, an attorney represented both the EPBA and another employee organization. In addition several City employee's appeared, A fairly extensive written outline of the employees' positions was presented and oral remarks by selected employees were coordinated tq expand upon the wr itten outline, Sergeant Leydon•s remarks were germane to the issues. Among other things, he decried the necessity of frequently being s • I • • • • • required to assume an "adversary" role against the City, com- Plained of certain restrictive interpretations which had been 1 placed upon employees' rights to appeal to the Career Service Board, and noted that, since under the proposed amendmenta, the Career Service Board would no longer be assigned administrative dut.ies, the City's Personnel Director should no longer be an~ c:> officio member of the Board. Chief Holmes was not present at this City Council meeting nor did he review a transcript of it prior to the commencement of this litigation. Howev~r, the City's Personnel Director was present, and on the day after the meeting informed the Chief that he considered that Leyden's remarks were inappropriate and constituted ~ personal attack on hi~. In addition, the Personnel Director told Leydon, in essence, that if Leyden wanted to ge t () personal, he could do the same from his position as Personnel Director. City Manager McCown concurred in the Personnel Dir ~c- • tor's assessment of the plaintiff's presentation. \ I find and conclude that Sergeant Leyden's appearance and statements at this City Council meeting were protected by the Fi rst Amend ment. As the Supreme Court stated in Mt, Healthy, s u pra, 429 u.s. at 284: "[Th e ] question of whether speech of a government e mployee is constitutionally protected expression necessarily entails striking 'a balance between the i nterests of the [emp l oyee] as a citizen, in comm enting upon matters ot public concern and the interest of the state, aa an employer, in ·promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.' Pickerin§ v. Boac~ of Education, 391 u.s. 563, 568 (196 )," Here, the plaintiff was unqueati~nably addressing a matter of 6 • I • • • • • • public conce<no P<oposed Cho<te, amendments to be submitted to o PUblic vote. The ,plointiff was not me<ely add•essing a pe•sonnel ,~· complaint •Peclfic to him. Comea~ Connick y. ••••s, _____ u.s. -----· 103 s.ct. 1684 (1963). Hie eppea<ance befo,e the City Council, the<efo<e, could not permiaeibly be used against the plaintiff by the City in deciding on his application for pro- C) motion. Perry v. Slndermtg, 406 u.s. 593 (1972)1 Bertot v. School District No • ..l, 522 P.2d 1171 I lOth Cir. 1975). It appearo obviouo that the plaintiff'a other advocacy activitiee on behalf of the EPBA We<e aleo Protected by the Pl<st Aooendment and the City Charter, Having found that the plaintiff engaged in constitutionall y protected activitiee, the next gueetion to be determined Is Whethe, these activltiee we•e a "substantial• o• "motlvotlng• -, facto, In Chief Holmes• decision to P•omote Se<geant Medfo•d ••the, than Leydon. Inqul•y int o motivation Is always difficult. Impe<misoible motiveo are seldom P<ovable by di<ect evidence. 1 I' Pla inti ff ottempted to aecu•e di<ect evidence In this case. · When the Chief called Leydon on November 9, 1960 to inform him that he had decided to P<omote Sergeant Medford, Leydon . stated that, bacause ot his union activitieo, hs wae not eurpriood: The Chief •••ponded that that may have been a pe•t of it but ouggeoted that they speak further in person. Leydon met with Chief Holaea the next day and, without the chief's knowledge, tape-recorded this converaat!on. eoth the tape and a si xty-one page transcript ot the convorootion wore aub•itted as evidence. In brief, the Chief exploined that the choice be- 7 • I • • • • tween Leydon and Medford had been close and therefore difficult. In response to the plaintiff's cont~nued assertions that his "union activities" and appearance before City Council influenced the Chief's decision, the Chief indicated that they may have played a part and that he could not say whether his decision would have been the same had Leydon not engaged in such activities. The () Chief, however, testified at trial that these statements were . ..- meant to be conciliatory, to soothe Leyden's feelings, and that he had not distlosed the true reasons for his decision not to promote Leydon. Th~ chief also testified that he understood the plain- tiff's use tf the term "union activities" to encompass virtually all of his uctivities, not merely the advocacy activities such as appearing before City Council or participating in negotiations. I find that Chief Holmes was a credible, persuasive wit- (~ ness. Reading the transcript of this private, post-promotion conference in the context of Chief Holmes• asserted effort to conciliate a disappointed employee, I do not find sufficient ~ evidence in this discussion alone to amount to an admission that the plaintiff's constitutionally protected activities im- permissibly motivated Chief Holmes' promotion decision. Examination of the City's policy and practice of retaliation against employees for exercising their First Amendment rights, however, leads me to conclude that the plaintiff 's ac- tivities on behalf of the EPBA had some influence in the Chief's decision not to promote him. A number of incideAts demonstrating this policy and practice will be detailed here. During contract negotiations in 1973, then Officer Leydon 8 I • -• • • had served as one of the EPBA's negotiators and then Assistant City Manager Andy McCown had served as the City's chief negotiw-,, . tor. After that year's agreement was negotiated, a dispute arose as to its meaning. The dispute was referred to the Career Service Board for resolution, In the proceedings before the Board, Leydon and McCown presented conflicting testimony regarding the events e:> which had transpired ~uring the negotiations, The Board, ac- cepting Leydon's version and rejecting McCown's, ruled in the EPBA'a favor, Shortly after Chief Holmes assumed office in 1975, he recommended to McCown, then City Manager, that Officer Leydon be promoted to sergeant. HcCown told Chief Holmes that he oppo sed that promotion because he consid~red Leydon an "arrogant son of a bitch" but would not block the Chief's recommendation. I find and ~; conclude that the City Manager's opposition to that promotion can be attributed, at least in part, to the 1973 conflict arising out • of Leyden's exercise of First Amendment rights and rights pro- tected by the City Charter. In 1975, shortly after McCown became City Manager, three police officers gave interviews to a local newspaper and their comments, critical of the City administration, were published, As a result, the City issued the three written reprimands, On appeal the reprimands were upheld by the City's Career Service Board, but a state court ordered them withdrawn, In 1980, the City administration proposed City Charter amendments relating to the career service system, These proposed amendments were the subject of the August 25, 1980 City Council .· 9 • I • • • • • meeting discussed above, Prior to that meeting, the then presi- dent of the EPBA, Steven R. Knoll, prepared a memorandum to EPBA members detailing the proposed amendments and his opposition to them. The memorandum was posted on the EPBA bulletin board in t he police station to inform t~e membership and to request their support at the upcoming Council meeting, City Manager McCown was () so displeased with Officer Knoll's memorandum that he abruptly summoned him to a 9r30 a.m. meeting even though Officer Knoll had worked a shift until two o'clock that morning. I find that this memorandum was neither inflammatory nor objectionable, but was well within the EPBA president's rights and duties to inform its membership of public issues of concern to them. The proposed Charter amendments, in substantially modified for m, were adopted by a vote of the City's electors in the Spring (') of 1981. In late 1982, proposed ordinances were submitted to City Council, designed to implement ~he Charter amendments. Believing that these proposed ordinances were not proper, and fearful that City Council would not hear their complaints, the employee or- ganizations purchased an advertisement in a local newspaper to publicize their opposition to the ordinances. When City Manager McCown became aware of this advertisement, he summoned employee representatives to a meeting at which he informed them that, if he could, he would fire the employees responsible for the adver- tisement. That meeting was followed by a threat~ning letter to the organizations signed by all members of the Cfty Council. I find that the City Council and City Manager McCown overreacted to this informational advertisement which conatituted advocacy on a 10 • I • • • • • public issue addressed to the City's voters. By threatening retribution against those who had thus exercised First Amendment rights, the City administration impermissibly attempted to chill its employees' right to free speech, The First Amendment does not limit its protection to ideas pleasing to those in power, If it did, it would seldom be invoked, Its value is the shelter it accords those who express ideas opposed to concepts already ap- proved, in the hope that their inherent merit may persuade those with the ultimate power of decision, Freedom to appeal to the electorate, as here, is at the heart of the First Amendment. The incidents above summarized, along with the criticism directed at Sergeant Leydon after the August 25, 1980 City Council meeting, demonstrate policies and practices of Englewood's City administration to threaten or retaliate against employees who « '. exercise First Amendment rights, While the City may not have -. ...) opposed unions Qer se, it certainly has in these incidents im- • permissibly opposed public expression of views on public issues .by members of employee associations comprised of its employees. Such policies and practices are bound to have a chilling effect on First Amendment rights, and therefore cannot be tolerated, The City has asserted that Sergeant Leyden's union ac- tivities could not have been a substantial motivating factor in its decision not to promote him because Sergeant Medford had a similar record of union activity, Both served as !PBA officers and contract negotiators on numerous occasions. ~owever, Sergeant Medford does not have a similar record of RUbli£ union activity, When questioned at trial as to whether he had ever appeared in ll • I • • • • • • public in opposition to city policy, Medford responded that he may have so appeared once in the early 1970's. '~· City Manager McCown is the legally designated appointing official in Englewood. The incidents detailed above go primarily to his attitude toward public union or employee association ac- ti~ity in general and t~ward Sergeant Leyden's activities in 0 particular. Chief Ho .lmes, however, made the actual promotion decision, He has testified, and I find as a fact, that the City Manager played no direct role in his decision. However, Chief Holmes serves at the pl'easure of the City Manager and no doubt is sensitive to, if not directly responsive to, the attitudes, poli- cies and practices of the City Manager and City Council. I find that the City's impermissible policy and practice of attempting to chill the exercise of its employees' First Amendment rights in- () directly influenced Chief Holmes, The Chief, in his tape-recorded conversation with Lcydon and in_ his testimony in court, did ex- press his belief that employee-employer disputes should be re- solved by going through channels within the police department. Based upon all the evidence submitted I find and conclude that Sergeant Leyden's long-time activities as a union advocate, as well as his latest appearance before City Council to oppose proposals supported by the City administration, waa one of the factors which motivated Chief Holmes to pass him over for pro- motion to lieutenant. The final question to be decided is wheth•r the City has met its burden of proving that the plaintiff would not have been promoted to lieutenant in November 1980 regardless of any con- 12 • I • • • • • • stitutionally protected conduct. Answering that question requires a review and compadson of the two f-inalists• respective qualifi- cations, Sergeant Leyden's claim rests on the fact that he was ranked first on the eligibility list after an oral examination conducted by three police chiefs. Nothing, however, requires that () the first ranked applicant be promoted. Rather, the Chief of Police may select any one of the top three. Prior to Sergeant Medford's promotion in ~ovember 1980, three of the four sergeants Chief Holmes had promoted had ranked first, Subsequent to Sergeant Medford's promotion, however, neither of the two ser- geants promoted ranked first, After the oral examination, Chief Holmes communicated with two of the three police chiefs on the board to determine their 1 ,.) reasons for the ranking, He was informed that two chiefs had wanted to rank Medford first but the third disagreed because he believed that Medford had oversold himself; consequently Leydon was ranked ahead of Medford, Since the decision between the two was so close, and because Chief Holmes believed that the dis- senting board member's appraisal of Medford should be discounted in view of his own greater familiarity with Medfor.d's personality and style, Holmes considered other factors. Taking into account all of these factors, Chief Holmes decided that Medford was the more qualified candidate, Medford had scored significantly higher t~an Leyden on the psychological examination, Especially sivnificant to this pro- motion were Medford's higher scores on intellectual capability , ll • I • • • • • • . ------------. supervisory skills, and conflict resolution. Medford had senior- ity over Leyden in terms of overall police experience, time on tlac Englewood police department, and time in the rank of sergeant. The police department command staff, with whom the newly promoted lieutenant would work closely, favored Medford. In the important area of past performance, Medford's record compared favorably to () the plaintiff's. Both had received commendations. However, disciplinary action had never been taken against Medford whereas the Chief was aware of two incidents for which Leydon had been disciplined. Chief Holmes was particularly concerned about one such incident which he characterized as raising questions about Leyden's judgment and capacity for decisive action. That was a serious police brutality incident in 1976, which had occurred while Leyden was the supervisory officer in charge. Chief Holmes hesitated before finalizing his decision to promote Medford because he was concerned that if Leyden were not promoted, he might take retaliatory action which would create a I strain in the department. After much consideration, Chief Holmes decided to recommend Sergeant Medford for promotion and City /lanager McCown accepted the recommendation. Considering all of these factors, I find that the City has met its burden of proving that Sergeant Medford waa the more qualified applicant. The plaintiff consequently is not entitled to relief. I have been guided in this decision by the Supreme Court's statement in Mt. Health~: , "A borderline or marginal candidate should not have the employment question resolved against him because of constitutionally protected conduct. But that same candidate ought not to be able, by • I • • - 0 ' 0 • • • • • engaging in such conduct, to prevent his employer from assessing his performance record and reaching a decision not to rehire on the basis of that record, simply because the protected conduct makes the employer more certain of the correct- ness of its decision." 429 u.s. at 206. Accordi.ngly, IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff's claim for relief under 42 u.s.c. S 1983 be dismissed with prejudice. Each party shall bear his or its own costs. The Clerk ot the · court shall enter judgment accordingly. Dated at Denver, Colorado, May 14, 1904. 15 • ENT!R!D ON THe DOCICET MAY 15 1984 I • • 0 • • • • IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO ,,. JUDGE JIM R. CARRIGAN CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I ce~tify that I mailed a true and correct copy of the Order signed by Judge Carrigan on May 14, 1984, toa City Attorney City of Englewood 3400 s. Elati Englewood, co BOlla John A. Criswell, Esq. 37 80 s. Broadway Englewood, co 00110 Brad W. Breslau, Esq. 7 23 Sherman St. Denver, CO 00203 Datea May 14, 1984 Re; 80-C-1643 • I . - • • • RESOLUTION NO. r$ Q SERIES 0!' 1984 • • • A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT FUND WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado, desires to make certain changes within the Public Improvement Fund, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of: the City of Englcwooa, Coloruuo, YS follow~: Section 1 The following appropriation of funds are hereby made in the Public Improvement Fund: Source of Funds: Fund Balance ~_plication of Funds: Paving District *30 Belleview Train Tracks sss,ooo $35,000 20,000 $5!:,000 /\DOPTim /\NO /\PPROV!O:O this ____ clay of _______ , 19U4. Eugene L. Otis, Mayor ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer I, Gary R. Higbee, ex officio City Clerk-Treaaurer of the City of Englewood, Colorado, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true, accurate and complete copy of Resolution No. ____ , Series of 1984, Gary R. Higbee • I • • • ( • 1. Star. Drainage General 2. Little Dry Creek 3. llDimtown Drainage " Traffic Iaprove.ents 4. 'lraffic r.provements 5. Little Dry Creek Enqrg. 6. REad and Bridge 1. Ri-r Development Pbase II 8. Ri-r Development Pbase III '· sute.ellt aepair 10. Pistol llange 11. am-.1. Central Shelter 12. • l'lellce Relocation 13. aa-ID!J aehabili tation 1C. a-mity Center Phase I 15. Brl.tge aepair 16. aa -.Dthru-woest side 11. Dlwtowb Desi.gn Guidelines 18. 1ldml 88Dewal Auth. Projects 19. Fi.ft 'J'raiJUDg Facility 20. CMy sa-t DrainllCJe 21. P'Dtllre ,.YiD!J Districts 22. IJ.ttle Dry er.k-Detn. Pom 23. Milley ~kiuq Lot 13 ,.. a-~ ProcJr- 25. ~,. O..ign ProcJr- SIX QIJARTER BIJDGE'l' Apri l , 1984 -Septembe r , 1955 EST PROJ COST APPRO P.T.D. EXP BAL P.T.D. $ 415,000 $ 4 14 ,4 21 $ 407,889 6 ,300,000 1,362,943 1,342,607 180,000 135,000 1,016,000 625 ,000 721 ,300 1 '100,000 120,000 32,000 33,000 2,000 200,000 4,743,000 60,000 120,000 19,000 3,500,000 3,000 3,500 7,000 1 ,846, 000 263,000 104,750 100,000 150 ,000 1 35 ,000 796,150 604,242 395,850 1,100,986 111,500 30,000 33,000 2,000 200,000 4,663,000 60,000 115,000 19,000 2,924,470 2,500 3 ,400 6,000 1,845,614 26),000 104,750 100,000 22 ,898 1,81 6 793,454 293,997 356,923 1,093,563 30,004 4 31,000 0 0 4,141,563 0 86,675 19,000 2,963,940 2,500 2,930 1,127 1,748,616 PROJ 2ND BAL Q'm .Q:Y31 /S~ 1984 3RD QTR 1984 $ 6,532 $ 0 s 0 2 0,336 500,00 0 2 45,000 1 27 ,102 13 3,184 2,696 310,245 38,927 7,423 81,4 96 29,996 2,000 2,000 200,000 521,437 60,000 0 0 0 285 ,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ .._,.De-lop/Platte River 50,000 11 1,899 100,000 17,500 400,000 20,000 20,000 50,000 111,899 100,000 154,837 84,360 21,152 50,000 28,325 0 (39,470) 0 47 0 4,873 96,998 108,163 20,390 78,848 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27. El:aa Adllin. Badqet 28. a.pdeD/S&nta Fe Landscaping 29. Snuw Plows 30. Panng District t3o 31. Belleview Train Tracks 32. Pl!!llper Inventory GRA.~: ~:...; .. -• 17,500 0 0 0 0 0 15,542 0 0 0 111,899 100,000 1,958 0 0 0 35,000 20,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 ,00 0 ------------------------------------------------------------ $22,367 ,949 $15,722,225$13,666,397 $2,055,828 $ 890 ,000 ~ 265 ,0 CO =========c: =========== ========== ========== ==--======= ========= - 4TH QTR 1984 $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0,000 0 0 0 0 TOTAL APPRO 1984 1ST QTR 1985 s 0 $ 0 540,000 1 ,495,000 0 0 0 306,652 0 0 50,000 0 0 0 100,000 12,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 1,899 100,000 0 35,000 2 0,000 2 0,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---------------------------- s 1 0 0,000 5 2 ,25 0 ,5 51 ~ sc r ,coo ========= ==--======= ====~~=== 2ND QTR 1985 $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q· 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365,000 0 0 S3E5 ,00 0 3RD QTR 1985 $ 0 0 0 0 0 285,000 0 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s 3::~.cco I • - • • • C 0 U N C I L C 0 M M U N I C ~·T I 0 N DATE May 15, 1984 AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT SIX-QUARTER BUDGET 0 A /\P~!'·' 1984 TIIROUGII 0 ~EP I Hili!: I{ l9U5 1----------.L..-.---~...:.,_--"------~~~~~"-------·· I INITIATED BY City Manager ACTION PROPOSED Cgnsideration of adggting a resglutign for the Six-Oyarter ~B~yd~g"e~t~-~A~p~r~j~l~·~l~9~84~t~h~r~oy~g~h~Se~p~t~e~m~b~er~.~l~98~5~----------------------------- • BACKGROUND: The Public Improvement Fund (PIF) Six-Quarter Budget process was adopted in the su mmer of 1973. The essence of the Six-Quarter 13udget is that the City hus u continuing budget which extends one-and-one-half years into the future. [very qu arte r, t he Ci ty Counc i l reviews und unulyzes this budyet, und if projects a r e de l ayed due to unavoi dable c i rcumstances, they are dropped back in this budget, v1hi l e pro j ects ready to go are moved forward. The most current revenue forecasts ar e used, and if additional funds become available, specific projects could he move:d f(J tv liJ r d ond cu lll plell!d uhl!ud of scliedu ·l!! or a nl:!w or l:!lueryency projl:!ct could be added. 1984 CHANGES : Paving District #30 is the first year of the ten-~ear paving district program to i mprove the City streets to meet our standards. $35,000 has been appropriated in the 2nd quil r t er of 19134 to begin surveying and design to 111eet the 1985 construc- t i on schedule. These funds are presently available in the PlF balance. The 2nd qu ar te r 1985 budget has been reduced by this same amount, from $400,000 to $365,000 to keep the total project costs at $400,000. Be ll evi ev1 Tr a in Tra cks i s a new project to repair the train tracks at Belleview Park on a 50/SO bas i s with the Englewood Lions' Club. $20,000 has been appro- pri ated in t he 2nd quarter as the City's share to complete this work. These funds are ava il abl e in th e PIF balance . Pum pe r In ve nto ry r ece i ved $20,000 in the 3rd quarter from the PlF fund balance to pur chase ca pi ta1 equip ment for pumper inventory in the Fire Department . . · 1985 CHANGES : Road & Bri dge project to overlay and sealcoat streets and pay the rotomill annual l ea se /purcha s e pay me nts received $285,000 in the Jrd quarter, which is consistent wi t h t he fi ve-year plan in the 1984 budget. • I • • - ( { • • • • ~~-.--------------------------------·-·· -2- Sidewalk Repa i rs project to repair deteriorated .sidewalk, curb & gutter a nd cro ss- pans received $50,000 in the 3rd quarter in accordance with the five-year plan in the 1984 budget. PIF Balance as of 3/31/84 Lottery fund transfer Less PO #30 Less Belleview Tra i n Tr ijcks Less Pumper Inventory New PIF Balance RECOt~MEN~ T ION~: $95,355 +12,000 -35,000 -20,000 -20,000 $32,355 The resolution which adjusts the Public Improvement Fund as described above is attached for your consideration. SUGGESTED ACTION: I'IOV ED BY SECOND YES .NO .ABS ENT • I • • • I { • • • • May 17, 1984 TO: The Englewood Lions' Club FROM: Gary R. Diede, Director of Engineering Services, City of EngleWOOd SUBJECT: BIDS ON THE RENOVATION OF THE BELLEVIEW PARK RAILROAD TRACKS Bids for the subject work were opened on Friday, May 4, 1984 at 2:00 o'clock p.m. Three bids were received. Results are as follows: United Railroad Services 9800 East Alameda Denver, CO 80231 Railroad Builders 4039 S. Santa Fe Englewood, co 80110 Rocky Mountain Railcar 12393 E. 30th Avenue P. 0. Box 38531 Denver, CO 80238 $28,134.70 $36,745.00 $36,853.75 In discussions with the recommended contractor, two changes have been suggested: 1) guard rails should be insta lled on the iusi<lu of thu track. along each curve, extending through the length of the curve1 2) ballast should extend outside the ties a minimum of four inches and then slope to the side guard planks. Estimated cost for this additional work is $2,500 to $3,000. This is in addition to the bid price of $28,134.70, but since it is to reflect changes to the work, it is assumed the other bidders would also have increased their costs if they had been selected to do the job. Finally, it is recommended that an additional $3,000 be added to the budget to handle other contingencies , should they develop . Total budget requested is as follows: Bid Price Changes Contingencies Total $28,134.70 3,000.00 3,065.30 $34,200.00 Recommendation: Award the contract to United Railroad Services Co. for a b~d price of $28,134.70. Approve known changes for eatima~ed price of $3,000, and estimated contingencies of $~65.30, for a total budget of $34,200. Should the coat of the work exceed $34,200, the City of EngleWOOd would return to the Lions'Club to discuss the need for additional funds. • I • • ( ( • 'I'he En glewood Lions' Club -2- Start work date 16 working days to complete Date for completion • • • May 17, 1984 May 9, 1984 May 31, 1984 I would like for you to authorize your president to sign a contract with United Railroad Services. Gary R. Diede, Director of Engineering Services DR/lo • I • •