HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-06-28 (Regular) Meeting Agenda• -
• •
-
0
-
•
•
• •
{!J,, ~~ -l'J~ ~-:f. ttlf+
~~ #4s; ot6, a1, z.r
~=II=~ o?1 &S, 02.6
•
0
0
•
-I . •
(
(
•
•
• •
AGENDA FOR THE
SPECIAL MEETING OF
THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
JUNE 28, 1984
5:00 P.M. Call t o order, invocation, pledge of allegiance,
and roll call.
1. Public Hearing.
(a) To consider an Ordinance on Final Reading
ratifying adoption of the Englewood Downtown
Redevelopment Plan; ratifying certain find-
ings previously made and actions heretofore
taken; approving implementation of the Plan
in all pertinent parts, and declaring an
emergency. (Copies enclosed.)
2. Adjournment.
/l '
l );f17 '
/ hW:' /A:£ .. ~~ (_/'~ MCCOWN
c · y Manager
AH /sb
•
I • •
( OROINAN::E NO.z 3
SERIES OF 1984
•
• -
BY AlJI'HORI TY
ClXJK:IL BILL NO. 22
IN'I'R()[){£ID BY ClXJK: IL
MfMBER NFAL
AN ORDINAOCE RATIFYit«:i AOOPI'ION OF 'ffiE ENiLEWOOD ~
REDEVELOPMENr PLAN; RATIFYit«:i CERTAIN FINDit«;S PREVIOOSLY MADE AND
ACTIONS HERETOFORE TAKEN; APPROVIt«; IMPLEMENI'ATION OF 'ffiE PLAN IN
AU. PERTINEm' PARTS, AND DEX:LARit«; AN EMERGEOCY.
WHEREAS, through Resolution No. 16, Series of 1982, the City
Council directed the &lglewood Urban lenewal lluthori ty to prepare
an Urban Renewal Plan consistent with the adopted Downtown Plan;
and
WHEREAS, the Urban Renewal Authority prepared the Downtown
Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, the &lglewood Planning and Zoning Camtission
reviewed the Plan and found it consistent with the goals of the
&lglewood Ccmprehensive Plan and passed Resolution 1, Series of
1982, on Jul~ 20, 1982; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received cc::mnents fran
individuals businesses and governmental entities and taken these
cc::mnents into consideration in foDllulating the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council amended the Plan on Decenber 21,
1982, March 26, 1984 and ~ril 30, 1984 (the Plan, as so amended,
being herein referred to as the Urban Renewal Plan) ; and
WHEREAS, an independent market analysis by a reputable fiD11
(Browne, Bortz & Coddington) indicated a strong market exists which
may be captured if a canprehensive approach is tmdertaken; and
WHEREAS, a financially attractive method exists to fund
redevelopment utilizing Tax Increnent and other financing; and
WHEREAS, an independent financial analysis by a reputable
fiD11 (Laventhol & ft>rwath) shows adequate tax increments and other
revenue sources to cover debt service needs;
NarJ, THEREFORE, BE IT ORD.\INID BY 'ffiE CITY ClXJK:IL OF 'ffiE
CITY OF DG.EWOOD, CX>LORADO, AS ~S:
Section 1. Notice as required by Colorado Revised Statutes,
31-25-107 (3), has been properly given on the July 28, 1982, August
4 and 11, 1982, October 27, 1982, February 29, 1984, March 7, 1984,
March 21, 1984, March 28, 1984, ~ril 4, 1984, and will be given
June 13, 1984 in the &lglewood Sentinel having a general
circulation in the City of &lglewood, lltlich notice described the
time, date, place and purpose of the hearing on the Urban Renewal
Plan and its snenr:bents and generally identified the Urban Renewal
1
I •
-
•
•
•
• •
area covered by the Plan and outlined the general scope of the
Urban Renewal project I.Dlder consideration.
Section 2. On the 23rd day of August, 1982 at the hour of 7:30
P.M. 1n City Council Clambers in City Hall at 3400 S. Elati Street,
!hglewood, Colorado 80ll0, City Co~.neil held a public hearing as
required by CRS 1973 (as amended) 31-25-107 (3), on the Urban
Renewal Plan/Downtown Aedevelopnent Plan. Presented at this
meeting was an Urban Renewal Plan titled !hglewood Downtown
Redevelopnent Plan.
Section 3. '1tle proposed Urban Renewal Plan incll.D!s the follow-
lng area:
Bounded on the west by South Santa Fe Drive, on the north
by West Flo~ and Eastman Avenues, on the east by the South
Broadway/South Lincoln alley, and on the south by U.S. 285.
In addition to this area is the entire right-of-way of
Little Dry Creek east to South Clarkson Street and adjacent
land. 'lhis area is bomded by the u.s. 285 right-of-way on
the north, East Lehigh Avenue on the south, South Clarkson
Street on the east, and South Sleiinan Street on the west.
Also, the area north of u.s. 285 along the Little Dry Creek
right-of-way is included.
Section 4. 'lhe scope of the Urban Renewal Plan incliD!s the acqui-
Sltlon of real property, inclining any easanents or rights-of-way,
the construction of public improvanents, the method or methods of
financing the public improvanents, the relocation of individuals
and businesses within the Plan area and developnent or redevelop-
ment of private property. A full and canplete copy of the Urban
Renewal Plan is on file with the Clerk of the City of !hglewood and
the !hglewood CmlniXlity Developnent Department.
Section 5. '1tle City Co\Xleil of the City of !hglewood finds that
the Urbiln Renewal Plan, known as the DowntCM'I Aedevelopnent Plan,
meets the following criteria of State statute:
(a) A feasible method exists for the relocation of
businesses, individuals and families lotlo will be displaced by the
Urban Renewal project in decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling
accarmodations or facilities within their means and without undue
hardship to such businesses, individuals or flllllilies;
(b) The Urban Renewal Plan confoiins to the general plan
of the miXl i cipali ty as a loklole; and
(c) The Urban Renewal Plan will afford maxim1J11 ORX>r-
tunity, consistent with the so\Xld needs of the ftiU'licipality as a
lltlole, for the rehabilitation or redevelopnent of the Urban ~1
area by private enterprise.
Section 6. A feasible method exists for the financing of aaid
2
•
(
l I • •
-
•
•
•
• •
Urban Renewal project utilizing the tax allocation financing plan
described in Section 31-25-107 (9), CRS 1973 (1977 replacenent
Vol\JIIe 12), as anended by Senate Bill 142 which became effective on
.July 1, 1981.
Section 7. In accordance with the requirements of Section
31-25-107(9) (d) 1 CRS 1973 (1977 replacement Volume 12),(as
anended), School District No. 1, Arapahoe Comty, Colorado, has
been pecnitted to participate in an advisory capacity concerning
project financing described in the Urban Renewal Plan.
Section 8. Based on the record before the Comcil, inclu:Hng, but
not l1m1ted to, the Aedevelopnent Area .Justification which was
canpiled by the Deparbnent of Comii.Wlity Developnent for the City of
Englewood, dated April, 1982, it is hereby foi.Wld and detecnined
that the Urban Renewal area described in the Urban Renewal Plan
consists of a blighted area, as defined in the Urban Renewal Law,
IIIlich is appropriate for an urban renewal project pursuant to the
Urban Renewal Law of the State of Colorado.
Section 9. '1'he contanplated acquisition requires goverrmental
action &!Cause of blighted conditions in the area.
Section 10. '1'he Urban Renewal Plan is hereby ratified, and the
Englewood Urban Renewal Authority is authorized to take any and all
appropriate action as provided by the Urban Renewal Plan.
Section 11. Hearing. In accordance with Section 40 of the City
Charter, the City Comcil shall hold a public hearing on this
Ordinance, before final passage, at 5:00 P.M. on 'lhursday, .June 28,
1984.
Section U. '1'he City Comcil finds and detemines that the
Englewood Urban Renewal Authority is inmediately prepared to
mdertake financing pursuant to the Urban Renewal Plan and that
ratification of the foregoing will serve to support and facilitate
action by the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority. It is therefore
declared that there exists an emergency, and it is necessary for
the inmediate preservation of the public property, health, peace
and safety that this Ordinance shall take effect inmediately upon
final passage •
IntrodOC'ed, read in full, and passed on first reading on the
11th day of .June, 1984.
3
•
I • •
•
•
• •
-----~--···------·-------·-·---------·------~----~-----·-------
1984.
Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the 13th day of .June,
Gead by title and passed on final reading on the 28th day of June, 1984.
Published by title as Ordinance No. ___ , Series of 1984, on
the 4th day of July, 1984.
Attest: &lgene L. Otls, Mayor
ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer
I, Gary R. Higbee, ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer of the City
of l!hglewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing
is a true, accurate and canplete copy of the Ordinance passed on
final reading and published by title as Ordinance No. , Series
of 1984. ---
Gary R. Higbee
•
[
r
I • •
•
ORDINAOCE NO. eX .3
SERIES OF 1984
•
• •
BY A\Jl'HORITY
COUNCIL BILL NO. 22
INTROOlX:ED BY CXXJlCIL
MEMBER NEAL
AN ORDINAOCE RATIFYIN:; AOOPI'ION CF 'niE !N:>LEWOOO ~
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN; RATIFYIN:; CERTAIN FINDIN:;S PREVIOUSLY HADE AND
1Cl'IONS HERETOFORE TAI<EN; APPROVIN:; IMPLtMENI'ATION OF 'niE PlAN IN
ALL PERTINENT PARTS, AND DEX::LARIN:; AN EMERGEOCY.
WHEREAS, through Resolution No. 16, Series of 1982, the City
Council directed the D'lglewood Urban Aenewal 1\uthority to ~epare
an Urban Renewal Plan consistent with the adopted Downtown Plan;
and
WHEREAS, the Urban Aenewal 1\uthority prepared the I:loi.Kitown
Redevelopnent Plan; and
WHEREAS, the D'lglewood Planning and Zoning Omnission
reviewed the Plan and found it consistent with the goals of the
D'lglewood Cmtprehensive Plan and passed Aesolution 1, Series of
1982, on Ju~ 20, 1982; and
WHEREAS, the City Coi.Ilcil has receivoo carments fran
individuals businesses and governmental entities and taken these
cxmnents into consideration in foiinulating the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council anended the Plan on Decanber 21,
1982, March 26, 1984 and llpril 30, 1984 (the Plan, as so anended,
being herein referred to as the Urban Renewal Plan) ; and
WHEREAS, an independent market analysis by a reputable fiiin
(Browne, Bortz " Coddington) indicated a strong market exists ~ich
may be captured if a canprehensive approach is tndertaken; and
WHEREAS, a financially attractive method exists to fund
redevelopnent utilizing Tax Incranent and other financing; and
WHEREAS, an independent financial analysis by a reputable
fiiin (Laventhol " Horwath) shows adequate tax incrEments and other
revenue sources to cover debt service needs;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINFD BY 'niE CITY CXXJlCIL OF THE
CITY OF Eta.EWOOD, OOUJRAOO, AS FOILC:loiS:
Section 1. Notice as required by Colorado Revised Statutes,
31-25-107(3), has been properly given on the July 28, 1982, August
4 and 11, 1982, October 27, 1982, February 29, 1984, March 7, 1984,
March 21, 1984, March 28, 1984, April 4, 1984, and will be given
June 13, 1984 in the D'lglewood Sentinel having a general
circulation in the City of D'lglewood, ~ich notice described the
time, date, place and purpose of the hearing on the Urban AenE!'ollll
Plan and its .-nerdnents and generally identified the Urban AenE!'ollll
1
I • •
-
•
•
• -
area covered by the Plan and outlined the general scope of the
Urban Renewal project under consideration.
Section 2. On the 23rd day of August, 1982 at the hour of 7:30
P.M. 1n City Council Olambers in City Hall at 3400 s. Elati Street,
D'lglewood, Colorado 80ll0, City Co~r~cil held a public hearing as
required by CRS 1973 (as amended) 31-25-107 (3), on the Urban
Renewal Plan/Downtown Redevelopnent Plan. Presented at this
meeting was an Urban lenewal Plan titled &lglewood Downtown
Redevelopment Plan.
Section 3. 'nle proposed Urban lenewal Plan incl\Des the follow-
ing area:
Bounded on the west by South Santa Fe Drive, on the north
by west Flo~ and Eastman Avenues, on the east by the South
Broadway/South Lincoln alley, and on the south by u.s. 285.
In addition to this area is the entire right-of-way of
Little Dry Creek east to South Clarkson Street and adjacent
land. 'nlis area is bolrlded by the u.s. 285 right-of-way on
the north, East Lehigh Avenue on the south, South Clarkson
Street on the east, and South 9\eirnan Street on the west.
Also, the area north of u.s. 285 along the Little Dry Creek
right-of-way is incliDed.
Section 4. 'nle scope of the Urban lenewal Plan incl\XIes the acqui-
Sltlon of real property, inclu:ling any easements or rights-of-way,
the construction of public improvements, the method or methods of
financing the public improvanents, the relocation of individuals
and businesses within the Plan area and development or redevelOP-
ment of private property. A full and complete copy of the Urban
Renewal Plan is on file with the Clerk of the City of thglewood and
the thglewood Comt~r~ity Development Department.
Section 5. 'nle City Cowcil of the City of &lglewood finds that
the Urban lenewal Plan, known as the Downtown ledevelopnent Plan,
meets the following criteria of State statute:
(a) A feasible method exists for the relocation of
businesses, individuals and families ~o will be displaced by the
Urban lenewal project in decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling
accatmodations or facilities within their means and without undue
hardship to such businesses, individuals or families;
(b) 'l'he Urban lenewal Plan confoirns to the general plan
of the m~r~icipality as a ~ole; and
(c) 'l'he Urban Renewal Plan will afford maxim\111 oppor-
tunity, consistent with the aolrld needs of the m~r~icipality as a
lltlole, for the rehabilitation or redevelopnent of the Urban Renewal
area by private enterprise.
Section 6. A feasible method exists for the financing of aaid
2
(
l
I • •
-
•
•
•
• •
Urban Renewal project utilizing the tax allocation financing plan
described in Section 31-25-107(9), CRS 1973 (1977 replacement
Vol\JTle 12), as 5nerded by Senate Bill 142 which became effective on
.July 1, 1981.
Section 7. In accordance with the requirements of Section
31-25-107(9)(d), CRS 1973 (1977 replacement Volume 12),(as
amended), School District M:>. 1, Arapahoe County, Colorado, has
been peD!Iitted to participate in an advisory capacity concerning
project financing described in the Urban Renewal Plan.
Section 8. Based on the record before the Council, inclooing, but
not hnnted to, the Redevelopnent Area .Justification which was
compiled by the Department of COmmunity Development for the City of
E)lglewood, dated April, 1982, it is hereby found and deteD!Iined
that the Urban Renewal area described in the Urban Renewal Plan
consists of a blighted area, as defined in the Urban Renewal X.w,
which is appropriate for an urban renewal project pursuant to the
Urban Renewal X.w of the State of Colorado.
Section 9. '!be contemplated acquisition requires goverrmental
act1on &!Cause of blighted conditions in the area.
Section 10. '!be Urban Renewal Plan is hereby ratified, and the
EngleWOOd Urban Renewal Authority is authorized to take any and all
appropriate action as provided by the Urban Renewal Plan.
Section ll. Hearing. In accordance with Section 40 of the City
Olarter, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on this
Ordinance, before final passage, at 5:00 P.M. on 'lhursday, June 28,
1984.
Section U. '!be City Council finds and deteDnines that the
EngleWOOd Urban Renewal Authority is imnediately prepared to
Wldertake financing pursuant to the Urban Renewal Plan and that
ratification of the foregoing will serve to support and facilitate
action by the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority. It is therefore
declared that there exists an anergency, and it is necessary for
the imnediate preservation of the public property, health, peace
and safety that this Ordinance shall take effect Unnediately upon
final passage.
Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the
11th day of .June, 1984 •
3
•
I • •
•
•
• •
Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the 13th day of .June,
1984.
Read by title and passed on final reading on the 28th day of
.June, 1984.
Published by title as Ordinance tb.d 3 , Series of 1984, on
the 4th day of .July, 1984.
Attest:
'\ . ~ ~ )[{s .... , '-r...·({l( ..
( effi ie Cit) Cl1!rk 'l'EeeB!2r-H :·$-to,.d ·u.. C ~<<.. :_-~Q,:_j.>_
. I, ~~-'Jilg~fe~C:t~'ti~~c~ik~~Jfer of the City
of D"lglewoOd, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing
is a true, accurate and canplete copy of the Ordinance Vssed on
final reading and published by title as Ordinance tb.-, Series
of 1984.
4
•
[
l
I .
-
•
•
SPECIAL MEETING:
•
• •
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
City of Englewood, Colorado
August 23, 1982
!b
The City Council of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe
County, Colorado, met in special session on August 23, 1982, at
7:30 p.m.
Mayor Otis, presiding, called the meeting to order.
The invocation was given by Council Member Thomas Fitz-
patrick. The pledge of allegiance was led by Mayor Eugene Otis.
Mayor Otis asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll,
the following were present:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Weist,
Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
Absent: None.
The Mayor declared a quorum present •
• • • • • • •
Also present were: City Manager McCown
Assistant City Manager Vargas
City Attorney DeWitt
Director of Engineering Services
Diede
Director of Community Development
Powers
Director of Public Works Waggoner
Deputy City Clerk Watkins
• • • • • • •
COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEAR-
ING TO CONSIDER CITIZEN INPUT AND TESTIMONY REGARDING THE DOWNTOWN
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN. Council Member Bilo seconded the motion. Upon
a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick,
Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis •
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried •
•
I •
-
•
•
August 23, 1982
Page 2
•
• •
Mayor Otis stated the purpose of the hearing was to consi-
der the downtown plan.
Director of Community Development, Sue Powers, appeared
before Council. Ms. Powers entered into the record the following:
Item 11 -Englewood Redevelopment Area Justification, dated April,
1982; Item 12 -Resolution No. 1, Series of 1982, passed 7-20-82 by
the Planning & Zoning Commission, recommending adoption; Item 13 -
Letter from Englewood Board of Education President, Selwyn G.
Hewitt, dated 7-21-82, recommending adoption; Item 14 -Resolution
No. 2, Series of 1982, passed 5-19-82 by Urban Renewal Authority,
recommending adoption; Item tS -Letter from David A. Edstrom of
Lamm, Edstrom, Braymer & Wisor, dated 8-23-82, stating the plan
meets the requirements and criterion set forth in Colorado Re-
vised Statutes relating to an urban renewal plan; and Item 16 -
Downtown Development Plan, July, 1982. Ms. Powers also entered
into the record the publisher's affidavit to show the hearing was
properly noticed in the newspaper. Ms. Powers discussed the his-
torical background of the plan. Ms. Powers stated the method of
financing would be tax increment bonds. Ms. Powers noted the Ur-
ban Renewal Authority was reactivated to assist in the redevelop-
ment plan. Ms. Powers stated the plan calls for public and pri-
vate development and she discussed the projects planned under each
area. Ms. Powers stated the private development would be phased to
support public development. Ms. Powers stated the City would pay
for Little Dry Creek improvements. Ms. Powers discussed the Coun-
cil Communication which requested two amendments to the plan.
In response to Council Members Neal and Higday's ques-
tions, Ms. Powers stated Council has control within the Zoning Or-
dinance to determine building height restrictions.
Mayor Otis opened the forum to the audience.
Larry Dickenson, 3171 South Clarkson, came forward. Mr.
Dickenson stated he was member of the Urban Renewal Authority. Mr.
Dickenson acknowledged a need for redevelopment and the plan was
acceptable. Mr. Dickenson stated his questions dealt with the de-
veloper's capability to provide the necessary capital for the pro-
j ec t s; but his apprehension was diminished prior to this hearing.
Norita Hathaway, 3143 South Cherokee, came forward. Ms.
Hat haway stated she also owned property at 3095 South Cherokee . Ms.
Hathaway stated she favored the overall plan but had some questions
regarding portions of the plan. Ms. Hathaway asked if placing RTD
on public areas would reduce residential traffic •
Ms. Powers stated it was not the project's intent to stop
residential RTD service • I •
-
•
August 23, 1982
Page 3
•
• •
Ms. Hathaway asked if office towers were necessary and
rentable when so many are presently empty.
Ms. Powers stated a study shows the downtown area can
support an office tower right now, and another one if major im-
provements in the downtown area are made.
Council Member Neal explained the City would not own the
office space, the owner of the office would; who in turn would be
responsible for paying property taxes.
Ms. Hathaway asked if the City had received any commit-
ments from companies willing to develop in Englewood.
Council Member Fitzpatrick stated the plan must first be
adopted and then advertised before any commitments can be made.
Council Member Higday stated the City has hired someone to
publicize the activities of the downtown redevelopment area.
Ms. Hathaway asked what Council planned to do about ce-
locating businesses.
Council Member Neal stated the plan has minimum require-
ments and Council will do everything possible to help the busi-
nesses. Council would be fair and equitable. Mr. Neal stated
there was a chance some of these businesses may move out anyway if
nothing is done.
Steve Bell, Hanifen, Imhoff, Inc., came forward to explain
tax increment bond financing. Mr. Bell stated there was no debt
service on the residents. The mill levy is fixed and capital is
based on increased revenues created by the new construction. These
are not City of Englewood bonds. They are issued by the Urban
Renewal Authority. The City of Englewood's monies can not be
called upon for debt payment. Mr. Bell stated the financing was
relatively new; furthermore, the City of Boulder was the only
municipality in the State of Colorado that has a tax increment
issue.
Paul Benedetti, 3704 Penrose Place, Boulder, Colorado,
special counsel for the downtown development, stated the Authority
would not be able to sell the bonds until the redeveloper has
financing with no obstacles. Mr. Benedetti stated he also repre-
sents the Boulder Urban Renewal Authority and the Denver Urban
Renewal Authority.
•
I • •
-
•
August 23, 1982
Page 4
•
• •
Cletus Gasson, Chairman of the Englewood Downtown Develop-
ment Authority, came forward. Mr. Gasson stated the Authority
favored the redevelopment plan if Council agrees to assist the mer-
chants and property owners along the development in relocating.
Council Member Higday stated Council has committed to
assisting the merchants in relocating under legal guidelines.
Fred Kaufman, 3395 South Broadway, came forward. Mr.
Kaufman endorsed the redevelopment plan. Mr. Kaufman believed
there was sincerity between Council and staff to help displaced
businesses.
Council Member Neal asked for Mr. Kaufman's opinion on the
consequences of what would happen if the redevelopment plan was not
implemented.
Mr. Kaufman stated the downtown area needs quality build-
ings to entice businesses and others to renovate the area. Mr.
Kaufman stated the area may lose existing businesses if nothing is
done.
Oliver Giseburt, 3171 South High, came forward. Mr. Gise-
burt questioned whether the City Charter allowed for the issuance
of bonds.
Mr. Benedetti stated under the Colorado Revised Statutes
the Urban Renewal Authority may issue tax increment bonds. They
are not to be issued by the City.
Richard L. Banta, 2108 E. Dartmouth Circle, came forward.
Mr. Banta took issue with the statement the project would not cost
the citizens anything. Mr. Banta asked where the additional funds
would come from to pay for City services. Mr. Banta stated it
appeared taxes would have to be raised to pay for the services.
Mr. Benedetti stated tax increment financing involves the
freezing of assessments not taxes.
Mr. Banta stated the results of this project would not be
realized for years. Mr. Banta argued the possibility that financ-
ing would still could go back to its citizens.
Bill Forrington, 3422 South Bannock, came forward. Mr.
Forrington stated he has owned property in a blighted area for 20
years. Mr. Forrington favored the redevelopment plan because he
would never have done the improvements himself.
•
I • •
-
•
August 23, 1982
Page 5
•
• •
Gary Christopher, 3461 South Broadway, came forward. Mr.
Christopher stated he operated an arcade vending business and saw
no need to stay on the proposed mall area. Mr. Christopher re-
ported he was unhappy with the number of pigeons that flock the
streets in this area. He received no response from the humane
department to control the pigeons. Mr. Christopher alleged there
was illegal activity in the alley behind his business and two doors
down. Mr. Christopher stated he did not understand the need for
flood control improvements.
Robert Garrison, 3422 South Bannock, came forward. Mr.
Garrison inquired about the timeframe under which businesses would
be evicted.
Ms. Powers stated nothing would be imposed until develop-
ment in an area began. At that point and time, 120 days would be
the period of time given to move.
Larry Dickenson who had spoken earlier asked what would
happen if nothing was done; would the downtown area still be mak-
ing money.
Ms. Powers stated according to a study conducted by
Boettcher and Company, the downtown area is not paying its way now;
and the situation would only get worse.
Mayor Otis read into the record a communication from Bob
Powell, Chairman of the Urban Renewal Authority, recommending
adoption of the redevelopment plan.
There were no further comments on this matter.
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEAR-
ING. Council Member Fitzpatrick seconded the motion. Upon a call
of the roll, the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick,
Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
RESOLUTION NO. 39,
SERIES OF 1982
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ENGLEWOOD DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
PREPARED PURSUANT TO PART 1, ARTICLE 35, TITLE 31, COLORADO RE-
VISED STATUTES, 1973, AS AMENDED, AND AUTHORIZING IMPLEMENTATION
PRESCRIBED THEREIN • I • •
•
August 23, 1982
Page 6
•
• •
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO PASS RESOLUTION NO. 39,
SERIES OF 1982. Council Member Neal seconded the motion.
COUNCIL MEMBER BILO MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION AND ADD TO
THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ON PAGE 39 BEFORE THE LAST PARAGRAPH THE
PROPERTY LISTINGS (ADDENDUM fl); AND TO ADD ON PAGE 30, CHANGE
PHASE I TO READ AS FOLLOWS: •PHASE I: THE FIRST PHASE OF DEVELOP-
MENT INCLUDES PARCELS D, F, AND H. A PRIVATE DEVELOPER CURRENTLY
HAS AN OPTION ON A LARGE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IN PARCEL D, AND
IS INTERESTED IN DEVELOPING THE SITE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REDE-
VELOPMENT PLAN •••• • (ADDENDUM 12). Council Member Higday sec-
onded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote on the amend-
ment resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick,
Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
Upon a call of the roll, the vote on the original motion
resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick,
Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
Mayor Otis adjourned the meeting without a vote at
9:10 p.m.
•
I • •
-
•
r
•
REGULAR MEETING:
•
• •
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
City of Englewood, Colorado
March 19, 1984
f()_
The City Council of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe County,
Colorado, met in regular session on March 19, 1984, at 7:30 p.m.
Mayor Otis, presiding, called the meeting to order.
The invocation was given by Reverend George I. Welch, Saint
George's Episcopal Church, 3600 South Clarkson Street. The pledge of
allegiance was led by Boy Scout Troop 192.
Mayor Otis asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the
following were present:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw,
Otis.
Absent: None.
The Mayor declared a quorum present •
• • • • • • •
Also present were: City Manager McCown
• • •
Assistant City Manager Vargas
City Attorney DeWitt
Director of Community Development Powers
Deputy City Clerk Owen
• • • •
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE
REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 5, 1984. Council Member Bilo seconded the mo-
tion. Upon call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Council Members Higday, Vobejda, Weist, Bilo,
Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
Council Member Neal.
The Mayor declared the motion carried •
• • • • • • •
•
I • •
-
•
March 19, 1984
Page 2
•
• •
COUNCIL MEMBER VOBEJDA MOVED TO APPROVE THE PROCLAMATION DECLAR-
ING THE WEEK OF MARCH 18 -MARCH 24, 1984 AS "DEMOLAY WEEK," Council
Member Higday seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote
resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
The Mayor
Mayor Otis
DeMolay.
There were
Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist,
Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
declared the motion carried.
presented the proclamation to representatives
* * * * * * *
no other visitors at this time before Council.
* * * * * * *
of
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO
CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE ENGLEWOOD DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN. Coun-
cil Member Weist seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote
resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist,
Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
Mayor Otis stated the purpose of the hearing was to consider an
amendment to the Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The amendments consisted
of major changes to the text of the Plan that resulted from a change in
the developer's proposal for downtown Englewood. The changes would be
outlined in more detail by Susan Powers, Director of Urban Renewal Au-
thority. The other change is that the Urban Renewal Authority was re-
commending that additional properties would be listed in the Plan for
acquisition by the Authority. The only properties considered at this
hearing were:
3401 South Bannock Street
3415 South Acoma Street
3427 South Acoma Street
3447-93 South Acoma Street
3448-90 South Acoma Street I •
•
March 19, 1984
Page 3
•
• •
Mayor Otis stated if Council decided to list the properties for
acquisition, then it was the respons i bil i ty of the Urban Renewal Au-
tho r i t y to negotiate a purchase price with the owners of the properties.
All t enants would be provided relocation benefits as outlined i n the
Urban Renewal Authority Relocation Handbook. It was not the responsi-
b i l ity of the City Council to consider the purchase price of propert i es
or relocation benefits.
Mayor Otis asked that speakers confine their comments and ques-
tions to the amendments of the plan as previously mentioned.
Mayor Ot i s stated at the end of the public hearing, the Council
would receive a recommendation from the Urban Renewal Authority to list
additional properties for acquisition. This request included the fol-
lowing properties:
1. Parking lots south of First Interstate Bank
2 . 3311 South Broadway
3 . Le ases wi t hin 3315-3386 South Broadway
3340-3384 South Acoma
33-95 West Girard Avenue
Mayor Otis stated Council would cont i nue this public hearing on
the above mentioned properties to next Monday, March 26 at 5:00 p.m.
Council Member Neal stated it was appropriate to point out the
error made last week on the subject of a leaflet that found i ts way
through part of the downtown area. At last Wednesday's Downtown Au-
thority meeting there was quite a spirited discussion that evolved around
the current development negotiations with some of the lease holders in
what is known as the Herzog property develope d by Brady who currently
owns the prope rty. One o f the le a se holder s on that block who was at the
me e t i ng was concerned abou t the approach tha t wa s being taken and also
t h e l a ck of i nformat i on i n regard t o right s und er the Urban Renewal Au -
thority P lan. Aft e r a rat h er sp iri ted d i s c u ssion a nd it wa s a good d i s-
cussion he (Council Member Neal) i n str u cted the City Manager t o prepa re a
short letter that was to go to the lease holders in the area kn own as the
Herzog property, from Physical Whimsical down to but not including Kauf-
man's and then west along Girard. Those lease holds were the only ones
be i ng considered for inclusion in the meeting next week. The leaflet was
to be distributed as information to those lease holds strictly within
that defined area, and apparently it gained a much broader distribution
then intended. Council Member Neal stated he did not n ecessarily l o ok o n
that as a negative b ut appare n tl y it did create s o me contro v ersy f o r
people whose property was not now b eing asked to be listed. Co un cil
Member Neal stated there was an error i n the broader distribution a n d
apologized.
•
I •
-
•
•
March 19, 1984
Page 4
•
• •
Mayor Otis asked Director Powers to make the staff presentation
to outline in more detail the changes.
Director Powers stated the plan that they were now proposing had
been approved by the Urban Renewal Authority. The major changes in-
cluded: the construction of a boulevard and would replace Girard Mall
which originally went from Broadway over to Cinderella City. The reason
this change was made was the market for retail and office space along the
mall disappeared when office construction accelerated several years ago.
Therefore, the marketing study came back saying that retail activity and
office buildings located along the mall would not make a successful mall.
The boulevard would connect Broadway to Hampden US 285. Another im-
portant change was that King Soopers building, which had originally in-
tended to be later in the program has moved into the first phase of it
and called for the King Soopers building to be located on the City park-
ing lot, which has always been the location for it, but the construction
would start in May of this year. There is still a hotel proposed at the
intersection of US 285 and Cherokee, a new office building that may house
city hall if the City chooses to do so, retail businesses that would line
Little Dry Creek from Hampden Avenue going up towards Girard, a parking
structure for the east side of Acoma in the 3400 block, a convention
center north of the hotel to serve the hotel for meetings as well as
potentially the City as a library site. The northwest quadrant would
have townhouse development in a townhouse style and low-rise buildings.
There would not be any buildings located here any higher than the two
bank buildings which are presently located. The northwest quadrant would
end up being residential.
Director Powers stated public improvements for Little Dry Creek
remained the same. There was some change in the design because the mar-
keting study indicated that people liked to be closer to the water and
rather than have a creek that is 14 feet down with waters flowing through
it they would rather have it at the surface, i.e. lake features.
The buildout of it is anticipated to begin May of this year with
the King Soopers building to be the first building. The hotel was sup-
pose to start sometime late this fall and the other buildings would fol-
low. The other major change was the other properties listed for acqui-
sition that are suggested by the Urban Renewal Authority. These pro-
perties included: 3401 South Bannock, west side of Acoma 3400 block (the
width of it indicated the south side of the intersection has to be widen-
ed), the buildings effected by flood control improvements, and part of
the of the east side of Acoma 3400 block since it had common ownership
with the west side of Acoma the 3400 block •
Mayor Otis stated it was not the responsibility of Council to
consider the purchase price of properties or relocation benefits. They
could be obtained from the staff of the Urban Renewal AutHow-
ever, if anyone wished to address Council on these amendments to the plan
•
I •
-
•
•
March 19, 1984
Page 5
•
• •
presented by Director Powers, he would allow five minutes for each person
to speak.
Mayor Otis asked if there was anyone wishing to address Council
at this time.
David Clayton, residence address at 4509 South Acoma Street and
business address at 3401 South Bannock, came forward. Mr. Clayton stated
the present requirements specified that ~11 expenses no matter how small
required three bids. Mr. Clayton stated in his opinion this was going to
create unnecessary paper work. He suggested that if basic information
was put together by the Community Development Department or a division of
the department for minor items, one bid should be sufficient and would
cut out approximately half of the paper work. Mr. Clayton then asked if
money was going to be available so that people who have to move can go
ahead with the arrangements that were necessary.
Mayor Otis stated the questions were more proper for Ms. Susan
Powers the Director of Urban Renewal Authority to answer.
Director Powers stated three bids were required for moving ex-
penses, but it would be appropriate for staff to go back and address this
question.
Mr. Clayton stated his next question was the manner in which
settlement would be made with people who hold leases, in particular would
it be done before moving.
Director Powers stated no negotiations would start until money
was available. She then introduced Mr. Marlin Opperman, the EURA eminent
domain counsel, to answer Mr. Clayton's question.
Mr. Opperman stated generally with respect to the lease situa-
tion the best procedure was for the claimant to turn in the relocation
bids from the appropriate bidding agencies to the Urban Renewal Authority
as quickly as possible. Some of the types of claims would have to go.
through more of an intensive review procedure for eligibility of payment,
some of them would be paid in advance or at the time of the initial sub-
mission of bids for moving, and others would be paid as the moving pro-
cedure goes along with some of them possibly being either denied or con-
tested.
Mr. Clayton asked what that did
the businessman was required to move and
was going to be reimbursed for expenses •
quite sizeable.
to the overall situation wherein
did not know whether or not he
Some of these expenses were
•
I • •
.......
March 19, 1984
Page 6
•
• ..
Mr. Opperman responded that the businessman should try to obtain
bids with the cooperation of the Urban Renewal Authority as soon as pos-
sible in the process.
Mr. Clayton asked if leases would be negotiated ahead of time.
Mr. Opperman asked if he was talking about lease hold values.
Mr. Clayton stated yes.
Mr. Opperman stated lease hold values were handled in two ways,
where the developer, Mr. Brady, and his company already owns the under-
lying fee ownership. In that situation there would be a acquisition of
only the lease hold interest or the leases themselves, that property
represented by the individual holding the lease. In that case the ne-
gotiation would be with the leasee. In the situation where the property
has not been acquired from the owner and where there may be acquiring not
only the real estate involved but also any tenants rights, then negoti-
ations would be with both the land owner and the tenant. If there was a
controversy between the land owner and the tenant as to who gets what of
the total amount then the procedure for the Urban Renewal Authority is to
establish a fair market value for all the property interests as a total
sum. The total sum is either then paid over to all the owners of the
property or, if necessary, deposited into court for condemnation action.
The statutes and the legal authority point out that at that time the
Urban Renewal Authority is out of the problem and it is between the owner
and the tenant to settle the division of total compensation.
Mayor Otis asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak with
respect to 3401 South Bannock, 3415 South Acoma, or 3427 South Acoma.
Mr. Pearce who operates a hardware store at 3427 South Acoma
referred to a resolution passed by City Council on August 23, 1982 and
the section stating that a "feasible method exists for relocation of
businesses, individuals, and families who will be displaced by the Urban
Renewal project." Mr. Pearce asked for clarification and definition of
"feasible method." ·
Council Member Higday stated he thought the resolution referred
to the means that were in the lawful guidelines to assist people in the
endeavor of relocating.
Council Member Neal stated Council was trying to be creative and
reasonable under the guidelines with a commitment of trying every con-
ceivable basis to make satisfactory arrangements in relocating people.
Mayor Otis stated Council has set up the Urban Renewal Authority
as the vehicle for setting into implementation that feasible method what-
ever it may be •
• •
I • •
•
March 19, 1984
Page 7
•
• •
Mr. Pearce stated he had alot of confidence in this Council, and
he was only interested in staying in business.
Mayor Otis asked if anyone else wished to speak with connection
to 3427 South Acoma, 3447 to 93 South Acoma, 3448 to 90 South Acoma.
COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL MOVED TO RECEIVE THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE
URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY TO LIST THOSE ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES FOR ACQUISI-
TION AND SET A PUBLIC HEARING ON THOSE AT 5:00 P.M. ON MARCH 26, 1984.
Council Member Bradshaw seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll,
the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist,
Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING
UNTIL NEXT MONDAY, MARCH 26, 1984, AT 5:00 P.M. Council Member Higday
seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as fol-
lows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist,
Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
* * * * * * *
"Communications -No Action Recommended" on the agenda were:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Minutes of the Urban Renewal Authority meeting of
February 8, 1984.
Minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission
meeting of February 9, 1984.
Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting of February 22, 1984.
Report from Mayor Pro Tern Bradshaw, Council Mem-
bers Bilo and Neal, and City Manager McCown con-
cerning their attendance at the National League of
Cities Conference in Washington, D.C •
•
I • •
-
•
•
March 19, 1984
Page 8
•
• •
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO ACCEPT "COMMUNICATIONS -NO
ACTION RECOMMENDED" AGENDA ITEMS 5(A) -5(D). Council Member Weist sec-
onded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as fol-
lows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist,
Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
* * * * * * *
City Manager McCown presented a Council Communication from the
Planning and Zoning Commission concerning a planned development in the
5200 block of South Broadway. Mr. McCown stated Council may wish to hold
a public hearing on the plan.
At the request of Council Member Bradshaw, Director Powers
clarified that the original plan was the one to be considered. The re-
visions which came later were presented as suggestions.
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO RECEIVE THE COMMUNICATION AND
SET A PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR MONDAY, APRIL 9, 1984, AT 7:30 P.M. Coun-
cil Member Weist seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote
resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist,
Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
* * * * * * *
City Manager McCown presented a Council Communication from the
Urban Renewal Authority concerning a fund transfer to the Urban Renewal
Authority for property acquisition and a construction project.
RESOLUTION NO. 8
SERIES OF 1984
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT FUND •
•
I • •
•
• •
March 19, 1984
Page 9
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO PASS RESOLUTION NO. 8, SERIES
OF 1984. Council Member Bilo seconded the motion. Upon a call of the
roll, the vote resulted as follows:
•
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist,
Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
* * * * * * *
City Manager McCown presented two Council Communications from
the Water and Sewer Board. One recommended approving the vacation of the
existing water line easement and the concurrent dedication of the new
easement. The second recommended obtaining a proposal from Black &
Veatch to design improvements to prevent overloading of the sewer system
downstream of the Community Center.
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO
PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR THE VACATION OF THE EASEMENT. Council Member
Bilo seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as
follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist,
Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
City
Utilities Stu
munications.
he would have
Attorney DeWitt expressed appreciation for Director of
Fonda's help in providing legal descriptions in the com-
This would help expedite the writing of the ordinance and
it ready for consideration on April 2, 1984.
COUNCIL MEMBER BILO MOVED TO ACCEPT BLACK & VEATCH FOR DESIGN
IMPROVEMENTS TO PREVENT OVERLOADING OF THE SEWER SYSTEM DOWNSTREAM OF THE
COMMUNITY CENTER AND TO PRESENT A CONTRACT FOR APPROVAL. Council Member
Bradshaw seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted
as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist,
Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried •
•
I • •
-
•
March 19, 1984
Page 10
* * * *
•
• •
* * *
City Manager McCown presented a Council Communication from the
Parks and Recreation Commission concerning a proposed name for the new
Englewood Community Center, which was "The Englewood Recreation Center."
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO RECEIVE THE COMMUNICATION.
Council Member Bilo seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the
vote resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist,
Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
* * * * * * *
City Manager McCown presented a Council Communication from the
Library Advisory Board concerning a building consultant contract.
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO APPROVE AWARD OF CONTRACT TO
DAVID R. SMITH AND APPROPRIATE $13,980 TO THE LIBRARY DEPARTMENT IN 1984
TO BE EXPENDED OVER THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT. Council Member Weist sec-
onded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as fol-
lows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist,
Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 11
SERIES OF 1984
* * * *
BY AUTHORITY
* * *
COUNCIL BILL NO. 11
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER BRADSHAW
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE METROPOLITAN DENVER SEWAGE
DISPOSAL DISTRICT NO. 1 PROVIDING FOR SPECIAL CONNECTOR STATUS FOR THE
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD. I • •
•
• •
March 19, 1984
Page 11
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO PASS COUNCIL BILL NO. 11,
SERIES OF 1984, ON FINAL READING. Council Member Bilo seconded the mo-
tion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows:
•
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist,
Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 12
SERIES OF 1984
* * * *
BY AUTHORITY
* * *
COUNCIL BILL NO. 6
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER NEAL
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH CHERRY HILLS FIRE PROTECTION
DISTRICT PROVIDING FOR MUTUAL/AUTOMATIC AID FOR FIRE PROTECTION FOR BOTH
ENTITIES.
COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL MOVED TO PASS COUNCIL BILL NO. 6, 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:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist,
Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
* * * * * * *
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO APPROVE A PROCLAMATION DE-
CLARING MARCH 18-24, 1984, "POISON PREVENTION WEEK." Council Member
Higday seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted
as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist,
Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
* * * * * * * I •
-
•
•
•
Ha r c h 19, 19 8 4
Page 12
•
• •
COUNCIL MEMBER WEIST MOVED TO APPROVE A PROCLAMATION DECLARING
APRIL, 1984 "FAIR HOUSING MONTH." Council Member Vobejda seconded the
motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes: Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist,
Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
Nays: None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
* * * * * * *
City Manager McCown stated he had 1983 city attorney salaries
survey as requested by Council Member Bilo. Hr. McCown recommended add-
ing 7\ to amounts for estimated 1984 rates.
* * * * * * *
Council Member Bradshaw expressed appreciation to Hr. Clayton
for his conduct during the public hearing.
* * * * * * *
There was no further business discussed.
* * * * * * *
COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO ADJOURN.
Mayor Otis adjourned the meeting at 8:47 p.m. without a vote.
~uty C1ty Clerk
•
I • •
•
SPECIAL MEETING:
•
• •
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
City of Englewood, Colorado
March 26, 1984
\'b
The City Council of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe County,
Colorado, met in special session on March 26, 1984, at 5:00 p.m.
Mayor Otis, presiding, called the meeting to order.
The invocation was given by Council Member Higday. The pledge
of allegiance was led by Mayor Otis.
Mayor Otis asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the
following were present:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
Absent: Council Member Weist arrived at 5:15 p.m.
The Mayor declared a quorum present.
* * * * * * *
Also present were: City Manager McCown
* * *
Assistant City Manager Vargas
City Attorney DeWitt
Director of Community Development Powers
Deputy City Clerk Owen
* * * *
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO
CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE ENGLEWOOD DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN. Coun-
cil Member Bilo seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote
resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda,
Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
Council Member Weist.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
Mayor Otis stated the purpose of the hearing was to consi-
der amendments to the Downtown Redevelopment Plan.
)
I • •
•
March 26, 1984
Page 2
•
• •
Mayor Otis stated last Monday night the Council held a hearing
on several amendments to the Plan which included changes to the text of
the Plan and the listing of properties for acquisition by the Urban Re-
newal Authority. The properties discussed at last week's hearing were
still under consideration and included the following:
3401 South Bannock Street
3415 South Acoma Street
3427 South Acoma Street
3447 -93 South Acoma Street
3448 -90 South Acoma Street
Mayor Otis stated there were other properties which the develop-
er, Brady Development Corporation, has requested the Urban Renewal Au-
thority to acquire. These include the following:
3311 South Broadway
--Leases within 3315 -3386 South Broadway
3340 -3384 South Acoma
33 -95 West Girard Avenue
Mayor Otis stated even though Council held a public hearing last
week, people would be free to address the Council again. Mayor Otis
stated he would call out addresses and people could speak if they were
interested in a particular address.
Mayor Otis stated Council would also consider listing the park-
ing lot south of First Interstate Bank for acquisition since this pro-
perty was required for the construction of the new roadway through the
downtown.
Mayor Otis asked Sue Powers, the Executive Director of the Urban
Renewal Authority to summarize the amendments to the plan.
Director Powers stated the plan included a boulevard connecting
Broadway and u.s. 285 along the current alignment of Girard and Che~okee.
There would be improvements to Little Dry Creek starting late this fall.
Also, some improvements to South Cherokee and the boulevard simultaneous-
ly with improvements to the creek. Major changes reflected in the plan
were different from the existing downtown redevelopment plan and had to
do with the boulevard rather than the mall. One change was less office
construction than what was in the previous plan due to a marketing study.
Director Powers stated a hotel was still being planned with a convention
facility; an athletic club which was always anticipated; and a King Soop-
_ers complex which would be located on the City parking lot. King Soopers
was anticipated but not this early in the buildout. Director Powers
stated the hearing tonight concerned itself with properties presently
owned by Brady Enterprises, Lewan Associates, Cindermak (the owner of
Cinderella City) and First Interstate Bank •
•
I • •
•
March 26 1 1984
Page 3
•
• •
Director Powers submitted the findings of fact from the Planning
and Zoning Commission for the record. The findings stated the amend-
ments to the downtown redevelopment plan as outlined conform to the
Englewood Comprehensive Plan. Director Powers also presented a resolu-
tion amending the plan to reflect the changes.
Mayor Otis entered into the record a letter from Naylor's Custom
Wind Repair and a letter from Popular Poppers.
Council Member Weist entered the meeting at 5:15 p.m.
Mayor Otis stated the first item to be considered would be the
properties discussed last week. Mayor Otis asked if there was anyone
wishing to speak concerning 3401 South Bannock. No one responded.
Mayor Otis asked if anyone was present wishing to speak on 3415
South Acoma. No one responded.
Mayor Otis asked if anyone was present wishing to speak on 3427
South Acoma. No one responded.
Mayor Otis asked if anyone was present wishing to speak on 3447-
93 South Acoma Street. No one responded.
Mayor Otis asked if anyone was present wishing to speak on 3448-
90 South Acoma Street. No one responded.
Mayor Otis asked if anyone was present wishing to speak on the
parking lot.
City Attorney DeWitt stated he had heard that Amendment 16 which
is 3311 South Broadway and the lease properties in 3315 South Broadway to
3340 South Acoma and the one at 33 West Girard Avenue would be requested
for postponement until April l01 1984 by Brady representatives.
Mr. Paysinger 1 attorney for Brady Company 1 stated Amendment· 16
at this time was not ready to be proposed to Council because negotiations
were incomlete. Mr. PRysinger stated he anticipated having them done by
April 10 1 1984.
Council Member Neal asked if the focus of the negotiations
were with long-term leases and if there was any work being done with
month-to-month leases.
Mr. Paysinger stated all leases were being treated the same.
"Appraisals were being done for economic value and then they would negoti-
ate with tenants for purchase of lease-hold interest along with reloca-
tion costs.
Mayor Otis stated Mr. Paysinger's comments were an indication
that Mr. Brady was trying to work to the needs of the people involved;
I • •
-
•
March 26, 1984
Page 4
•
• •
however, he would go ahead and read the addresses for anyone still want-
ing to speak.
Mayor Otis asked if there was anyone wishing to speak on 3311
South Broadway.
Council Member Neal asked Director Powers to review the process
of the expectations from Brady.
Director Powers stated in order for Brady Development Company to
come to Council and ask to list properties for lease-hold interest for
acquisition by the Urban Renewal Authority, the Council must first re-
ceive documentation that they have made good faith efforts to negotiate
and that those efforts have failed. Good faith efforts must include
appraisals, written and oral offers, rejections, and anything else that
can be used as evidence to show that they have made an effort. Since
that information has not been presented on these properties was the rea-
son the developer was withdrawing; and Ms. Powers noted this action is
provided for in the contract between the URA and the developer. In the
event Council finds good faith efforts have been made it would be the
responsibility of the Urban Renewal Authority to acquire the property or
the lease-hold interests.
Mayor Otis asked if anyone present wanted to speak on 3311 South
Broadway. No one responded.
Mayor Otis asked if anyone wanted to speak on leases within 3315
-3386 South Broadway.
Hr. Leo Zerkoman, stockholder of Physical Whimsical, 3315 South
Broadway, stated he had not had any conversation yet with Brady and had
no objection to the continuance.
Hr. Gene Isen, 3365 South Broadway, owner of Han's World, asked
for special consideration for his business since the business had only
been in Englewood for 6 months. Hr. Isen stated he had gone to a lot of
expense to start his business, and it looked like he would have to start
all over again. Hr. Isen questioned if they would be treated equally
when not everyone's ailments were equal.
Hr. Hike Fitzpatrick, Executive Vice President of F&H, Inc which
holds the lease-hold interest in Popular Popcorns at 3384 South Acoma
stated he would waive statement until next week.
Hr. Wi lliam R. Layhee, on behalf of Ali Baba at 3370 South
·Acoma, asked of the status of the developer deposits according to the
agreement and if the second deposit had been made.
Director Powers stated the second deposit had been made •
•
I • •
•
March 26, 1984
Page 5
•
• ..
Mr. Layhee asked if 3370 South Acoma was in the sixth amend-
ment.
Council confirmed that it was in the amendment being considered
April 10, 1984.
Mr. Layhee asked about Council's feeling on whether or not any
distinction was being made between parcels that are owned by individuals
other than Brady, parcels that are currently owned by Brady, and parcels
that are City property.
Council Member Neal stated the purpose of the public hearing was
to solicit public comments and he was not sure this was the appropriate
forum to gain Council's opinions and feelings.
City Attorney DeWitt agreed and advised Hr. Layhee this public
hearing was not the place to cover philosophical statements from Council.
Mayor Otis asked if there was someone present wishing to speak
regarding 33-95 West Girard.
Ted Vasilas, Ted's Custom Clothes, 33 West Girard, stated he
appreciated the news given at the hearing. He needed time to plan and
find a new place.
Bob Thomas, owner of Almost New Shop at 59 West Girard, agreed
with Mr. Vasilas.
Tom Gros, leasee of 50 West Girard, stated he was very much in
the dark. The owner, Hr. Feidleman had not even been contacted.
Council Member Neal stated the south side of Girard was not
being listed at this time.
Mayor Otis asked if there was anyone wishing to speak on any
matter relating to the amendments.
Fred Kaufman, Kaufman's Big & Tall Store, 3395 South Broadway,
stated his property was not listed in the present ones but as it fits
into the plan would be called by the Brady Company. He stated he had two
meetings with Hr. Brady's group and had the distinct feeling they wanted
to work something out. Mr. Kaufman stated many people have hired at-
torneys at $150/hour and these continuances were going to cost people a
lot of money so he asked Council to take this into consideration. An-
other consideration was the inconvenience and interference that would
impact his business by dirt, dust, and getting freight into this store if
the engineers go ahead as proposed. Mr. Kaufman hoped these issues could
be negotiated and through good faith the community could have the kind of
project that was envisioned •
•
I • •
-
•
•
March 26, 1984
Page 6
•
• •
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO CLOSE ON AMENDMENTS NO. 4 AND
NO. 5 AND CONTINUE THE HEARING AS TO AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO APRIL 10, 1984 AT
7:00 P.M. Council Member Bilo seconded the motion. Upon a call of the
roll, the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist,
Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
RESOLUTION NO. 9
SERIES OF 1984
A RESOLUTION OF THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND THE ENGLEWOOD DOWN-
TOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN.
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO PASS RESOLUTION NO. 9, SERIES
OF 1984, AND TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION BY CROSSING OUT "AND AMENDMENT 16"
UNDER SECTION 3: AND TO CROSS OUT AMENDMENT 16 ON EXHIBIT B WHICH IS
ATTACHED TO RESOLUTION NO. 9, SERIES OF 1984. Council Member Higday
seconded the motion.
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist,
Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
* * * * * * *
There was no further business to discuss due to the meeting being special status.
COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO ADJOURN.
Mayor Otis adjourned the meeting without a vote at 5:45 p.m.
~£()_~ eputyffiy Clerk .
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:
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
Council Members Higday, Vobejda, Bradshaw,
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
Deputy City Clerk Owen
* * * *
•
Powers
I •
-
•
•
April 10, 1984
Page 2
•
• •
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO OPEN THE
CONSIDER AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO THE ENGLEWOOD DOWNTOWN
Council Member Higday seconded the motion. Upon a
vote resulted as follows:
PUBLIC HEARING TO
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN.
call of the roll, the
Ayes: Council Members Higday, Vobejda, Bilo,
Bradshaw, Otis.
Nays: None.
Absent: Council Members Neal, Weist.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
Mayor Otis apologized for the delay.
(
Mayor Otis stated the purpose of the public hearing was to
consider amending the Downtown Revelopment Plan to list additional
properties and leasehold interests for acquisiton by the Englewood Urban
Renewal Authority. The properties included 3311 South Broadway and
leases within 3315-3386 South Broadway, 3340-3384 South Acoma Street, and
33-95 West Girard Avenue.
. . . b f h ( Mayor Ot1s stated there was 1nadequate ev1dence e ore t e Urban
Renewal Authority to show that good faith negotiations 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
dated April 9, 1984 concerning the Physical Whimsical, Inc.
Mayor Otis stated since the Urban Renewal Authority did not
receive the necessary documentation to make a recommendation to the C i ty
Council regarding the leases and property requested by Brady
representatives for acquisition by the Urban Renewal Authority, the
Council would be unable to make any decision at this meeting.
Mayor Otis informed members of the audience they were welcome to
address Council on this subject even though a decision would not be made,
or they could wait until the next hearing.
Mayor Otis then asked Mr. Robert Paysinger representing S. Bud
Brady and Brady Development Corporation to come forward •
•
I •
-
•
April 10, 1984
Page 3
•
• •
Mr. Paysinger stated negotiations have taken place over the last
month. Mr. Paysinger stated they havp had problems obtaining appra i sals
and therefore the tenants have not had enough time to consider offers.
Mr. Paysinger stated on this day offers were sent out to all the tenants
and requested a two week continuance until Monday, April 23rd.
Council Member Bradshaw stated she was under the impress i on when
he has asked for continuance of the first hearing such items would be
taken care of by this date.
Mr. Paysinger stated that was correct because at tha t time they
were assured by the appraisors that their documentation would b e don e .
That did not occur. There was nothing they could do to fulfill the
obligations to negotiate in good faith until the appraisals were
received. Now that they are coming in, they have sat down with the
tenants and progress has been made in some instances. Mr. Paysinger
stated that a two week continuance should give everyone a chance to
review the 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.
Mayor 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 opinion 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 uncertai nt y
to their livelihood. Mr. Brown read from Mr. Paysinger's letter offer,
"please review the agreement at your earliest convenience, and calf 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 no ,
hear from on or before April 20, 1984, your lack of response will be
considered a rejection of our offer." Mr. Brown then provided cop ie s of
the subject letter.
Mr. Brown stated it appeared to him the offer was a mandate not
the beginning of good faith negotiations. Mr. Brown objected t o Mr.
Paysinger's request for a two week extension and suggested he (Mr.
Paysinger) would not be any more prepared in two weeks. Mr . Brown stated
Mayor Otis has already found that there was not good faith negotiation a t
this particular time •
•
I • •
-
•
•
• •
Apr i l 10, 1984
Page 4 (
City Attorney DeWitt pointed out that Counc il wo u ld act through
a quorum on the issue of good faith negotiations.
Mr. Brown apologized as he had presumed that the issue had b ee n
voted when he heard Mayor Otis' statement. Mr. Brown asked Counc il to
consider a 120 day extension to engage a professional appraisor. Mr.
Brown stated good faith negotiations have not taken place in 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. Rich 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. Pays i nger one week ago and he gave them
three options: l) one would be a buy-out at a dollar figure; 2) they
wo u l d d i s c uss mov i ng i nto a n e w facil i ty; and 3) if they could no t agr ee
to a d o lla r amount, the next step was condemnation. Mr. Rich sta t ed t he
two week con ti nuance was not feasible because of the time it would take
to g et a n a ppra i sal and entered into negotiations. Mr. Ri ch stated h i s
client wo uld ha v e to say no to Brady i n the next two weeks because they
wo u ld no t agree, and then Br a dy would ask to condemn the property.
Counc i l Member Higday stated that Brady does not commence
c ondemn ati on proceedings.
(
Mr. Ri ch state d Brady would i nit i ate a reques t to the cond emning
a uthority t h en. Hr . Ri c h st a ted un ti l h i s cl i ent was able to h a v e th e
time t o obt ai n th ei r own experts to g ai n knowledg e of wha t t he v al u e o f
their lea s e hold i ntere s ts were they would not be a ble to d i s c uss it with
Brady repr e s ent a t i ves.
Mr . Jame s Ku rtz-Ph ela n o f t h e fi rm Ber enbaum & Wei nsh ie n k ,
representing the owne r o f the Ev an s Coffee Shop at 95 w. Girard, Azik
Katsnelson, came for ward . Mr . Ku r tz-Phelan stated they re c eived the same
letter as everyone else. Mr . Kurtz-Phelan provided personal histor1c a l
background of his client comi n g from Russia and explained the human
impact that has been experienced by Mr. Katsnelson as a result of th i s
project.
Mr . Ed Lee , Lee and Margorano , came forward representing Ted
Valais, Ted 's Cust o m C l o t hes at 33 West Girard . Mr . Lee stated they had
received a similar letter at no o n on this date. Negotiati o ns started
less than 1 0 days ag o, a nd h e felt that in t wo weeks Mr . Brady would not
be in a position to c o me t o t h e Council and assert that he has in fact
-negotiated in go o d faith. Mr . Lee stated Mr. Brady has indicated to
these tenants that he woul d o nly 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 authority was the
Urban Renewal Authority, not City Council. According to the s tatutes
there was a requirement that the plan be approved by the City Council and
City Council was considering an amendment to that plan.
Oliver Giseburt, 3171 South High, businesss 3385 South Bannock
of Giseburt Insurance Agency, came fo~. Mr. Giseburt provided his
recollection of the history in land development on the subject area as
related to the amendment.
Fred Kaufman, Kaufman's Big & Tall Men's Store, 3395 South
Broadway. He stated his property was not included in the discussion
but wanted to add having been head of the 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
to fit into the parameters of what is envisioned for the block. Mr.
Kaufman stated he wanted what would be good for the community and he
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 there 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 Member Bradshaw asked what dates this occurred.
Mr. Lentsch stated the last one was two days ago. Mr. Lentsch
stated people were not being treated fairly.
Mr. Paysinger came forward to answer questions. Council Memb e r
Bradshaw asked when he asked for the postponement two weeks ago, was
h i s i ntent to deliver the letter at the final hour on the day of th e
h ea ring.
Mr. Paysinger stated the intent was once they had final
appraisals they were to present them to the tenants. Mr. Paysinger
stated they have been negotiating with all the tenants for several
months. He stated he wanted to get the best offer out which was the fa i r
.market value of property interest. He stated Mr. Brady did not want to
buy businesses; he wanted to buy possessory interest, leasehold interest,
a lessee's right to possession for the term of the lease, and provide
relocations costs. Mr. Pays i nger stated Physical Whimsical attorneys had
•
I • •
-
•
April 10, 1984
Page 6
•
• •
figures prior to today pursuant to telephone conversations. 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 timing with final offers.
Mr. Paysinger stated it may be prudent to extend the next
hearing until the 30th so that everybody has more time.
(
City Attorney DeWitt asked Mr. Paysinger if the appraisors would
have sufficient time to have information available on the 30th.
Mr. Paysinger stated they have been assured by the appraisors
that they would have these documents 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 fair
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
appraisor 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 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 and adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m.
•
I • •
•
SPECIAL MEETING:
•
• •
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
City of Englewood, Colorado
April 30, 1984
I r!J
The City Council of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe County,
Colorado, met in special session on April 30, 1984, at 7:00 p.m.
Mayor Otis, presiding, called the meeting to order.
The invocation was given by Council Member Higday. The pledge
of allegiance was given by Mayor Otis.
Mayor Otis asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the following were present:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist, Bilo,
Bradshaw, Otis.
Absent: None.
The Mayor declared a quorum present •
• • • • • • •
Also present were: City Manager McCown
City Attorney Olsen
Assistant City Manager Vargas
Director of Community Development Deputy City Clerk Owen
• • • • • • •
Powers
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO
CONSIDER AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO THE ENGLEWOOD DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN.
Council Member Bilo seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the
vote resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist,
Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
Mayor Otis stated the purpose of the public hearing was to
.consider the amendment to the Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The Mayor
stated properties to be considered were 3311 South Broadway, and the
leases within 3333 South Broadway, 3315 South Broadway, 3365 South
Broadway, 3378 South Acoma, 3370 South Acoma, 3340 South Acoma, and 33 West Girard Avenue.
•
I • •
•
April 30, 1984
Page 2
•
• •
Mayor Otis stated Council received Resolution No. 13 from the
Urban Renewal Authority which was approved on April 25, 1984 stating that
the Authority determined the developer fulfilled his obligation for good
faith negotiation. The Mayor stated Council would decide whether the
proposed amendment was necessary to the implementation of the plan; and
if the amendment was adopted, the Urban Renewal Authority would begin
negotiations with property owners and leaseholders.
Mayor Otis asked the Executive Director of Urban Renewal
Authority Susan Powers to address the Council regarding the EURA's
recommendation.
Director Powers provided background information leading to the
amendment and confirmed that the EURA determined the developer fulfilled
his obligation as outlined in his agreement with the EURA under Section
1.2. Ms. Powers entered into the record a copy of the EURA Resolution
No. 13.
In response to Council Member Neal's questions, Ms. Powers
stated 19 properties were initially involved and 12 have settled. The
other seven remain on the list before Council.
Mayor Otis asked for comments from the audience of those people
who signed up to speak.
Eugene Issen, owner of Man's World Shop at 3365 South Broadway,
came forward. Mr. Issen expressed objection to the amendment. He stated
he has not been treated fairly. He wanted to continue his business.
Richard Brown, attorney representing Physical Whimsical at 3315
South Broadway, came forward.
City Attorney Olsen informed City Council that the City was
currently in litigation with Physical Whimsical.
Mr. Brown stated the lawsuit dealt specifically with the parking
lot adjacent to 3315 South Broadway which was apart from the issues of
this hearing.
Mr. Brown discussed the problems his client has had in trying
to find a relocation place. Hr. Brown argued there was no evidence
indicating the area to be blighted. Mr. Brown further argued there has
not been good faith negotiations, and relayed what conversations have
taken place with Brady representatives.
Mr. Ed Lee, attorney representing Ted's Custom Clothers, 33 West
Girard, came forward. Mr. Lee questioned whether his client's property
was within a blighted area under the urban renewal statute. Mr. Lee I • •
•
April 30, 1984
Page 3
•
• •
suggested amending the relocation guidelines in the EURA handbook because
the amount was too low.
Mr. William Lahey, attorney for Ali Saba, came forward. Mr.
Lahey asked Council to defer its decision on the amendment and allow for
continue negotiations. Mr. Lahey acknowledged there was parking in the
area but it was some distance f~om the restaurant. The distance and the
area under being construction caused problems for people walking in at
night time.
Larry Rich, attorney representing Man's World, came forward.
Mr. Rich agreed with the previous speakers. Mr. Rich indicated
negotiations have been negative; and there has been no evidence proving
that Mr. Issen's property should be included in the amendment.
Melinda Wetzsell, owner of Other Mothers' Store in the 3400
block of South Broadway, came forward. Ms. Wetzsell stated the
redevelopment would cause rent to increase and quiered what type of
businesses would be drawn into the downtown area. Ms. Wetzsell stated
the downtown economy was not able to afford $12-$18 /square foot for
rent.
Barry Coleman whose name appeared on the sign up list declined
to speak.
George Allen, 2799 South Down, representing the Englewood
Chamber of Commerce, came forward. Mr. Allen stated alot of people were
coming into his office expressing they were being "railroaded" and given
ultimatims which were unfair. Mr. Allen suggested establishing some form
of monitoring to make sure there was fairness.
Paul Lewan, owner of the old first national bank building, came
forward. Mr. Lewan stated Brady representatives wanted his property free
of leases. He stated it was impossible to get appraisals in the present
timeframe. Mr. Lewan stated he was not able to find a comparable
building or location. Mr. Lewan stated he was told by Brady
representatives that his building was not valuable because he did not
have a tenant on the first floor. Mr. Lewan stated he has not been
treated fa i rly and asked Council to defer its decision and investigate if
good faith negotiations have taken place.
At the request of City Manager McCown, Director Powers stated
the boundaries of the urban renewal area. Ms. Powers stated the
properties which are the subject of this meeting have been in that area
since 1982 when the area was adopted.
Mrs. R.E. Evans whose name appeared on the sign up list declined
to speak. I • •
•
April 30, 1984
Page 4
;,
•
• •
Mrs. Margaret Manning whose name appeared on the sign up list
declined to speak.
Mr. Rich came forward again. Mr. Rich noted the boundaries
included Cinderella City which apparently meant that not every property
located within a particular boundary should be included in any
redevelopment plan.
City Attorney Olsen asked for a short recess since the public
section appeared to be concluded and he wanted to ask Mr. Opperman the
attorney for the Urban Renewal Authority some questions.
Mayor Otis declared a recess at 8:25 p.m. Council reconvened at
8:35p.m. Mayor Otis asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the
following were present:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw,
Otis.
Absent: None.
The Mayor declared a quorum present.
At the request of City Attorney Olsen, Director Powers came
forward. Ms. Powers stated these properties have always been listed in
the plan, not always for acquisition but always listed in the urban
renewal district. Ms. Powers stated the Urban Renewal Authority
concluded that good faith negotiations as outlined in Section 1.2 of the
Redevelopment Agreement have been met by the developer.
City Attorney Olsen asked Ms. Powers if Council passed the
amendment then the next step would be for the leaseholders to enter into
new negotiations with the Urban Renewal Authority. Mr. Olsen asked if
Council did not pass the amendment then negotiations would resume with
Brady representatives.
Ms. Powers stated the statements were correct according to her
understanding. Ms. Powers stated if EURA began negotiations it would
be obliged under law to offer only fair market value; whereas, Brady
representatives have the leaway to offer more.
In response to Council Member Weist's question, Mr. Opperman,
attorney for the Urban Renewal Authority, explained the two approaches in
determining leasehold values and how terms of a lease were important to
the value. Mr. Opperman stated he thought appraisers took into
consideration the various terms as well as the economic situa t ion in
evaluating leasehold appraisals or leasehold amounts. I • •
•
April 30, 1984
Page 5
•
• •
Attorneys Brown and Rich requested time to ask questions of Ms.
Powers during this public meeting. Mayor Otis denied their request under
the advice of City Attorney Olsen.
There were no further comments at this time.
COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Council Member Bilo seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the
vote resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Vobejda, Weist,
Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
RESOLUTION NO. 18
SERIES OF 1984
A RESOLUTION OF THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND THE ENGLEWOOD
DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN.
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO PASS RESOLUTION NO. 18, SERIES
OF 1984. Council Member Neal seconded the motion.
Council Member Weist spoke against the amendment and the effects
the urban renewal law has on the merchants. Hr. Weist recognized the
benefits of the urban renewal plan but did not like being put into a
situation of saying the plan was beneficial to all because it was not.
Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Bilo, Bradshaw,
Otis.
Council Members Vobejda, Weist.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
* * * * * * *
COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO ADJOURN.
Mayor Otis adjourned the meeting without a vote at 9:00 p.m.
I • •
-
•
•
•
•
• •
Hoved Seconded
Higday
Neal
Fltzoatrick
Weist
Bi lo
Bradshaw
Otis
0 ~lu -GC D CL-ti.Y-u (J_-t~~
~vt :;:LC'J c/J-<-~;lJ
~qyJ ~ (9_;Ch
Qilio ~ aa(lbyJ
Gn/);~
jh_CN)<)
tttr
I . •
•
•
• •
ROLL CALL
Moved Secon ded Aye s Na y Ab s ent Absta i n
Higday .__
NeaT v
Fitzoatrick J,..--
Wei s t v--
Bi lo 1./"
Bradshaw v--
Otis 1...--
I • •
• •
•
• •
ROLL CALL
Mov ed Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
Hlqdav -
Meal
t"'• \,I
Weist
j/ 8i lo v Bradshaw
Otis -
I • •
• •
•
• •
ROLL CALL
Hoved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
igday
NeaT
..10._' ·\/ -Weist
Bi lo
Bradshaw
Otis
I . •
• •
•
• •
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
~iqdav
Neal
....... " Weist
Bi lo
Bradshaw
Otis
• I .
• •
•
• •
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ay es N ay Absent Ab st ain
r/ iq(av
V' Neal -.F'•• v -Wei st
Bi lo
Bradshaw -Otis
I .
•
• •
-
•
• •
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconde d Ayes Nay Absent Ab t · s a1 n
igday
Neal
Fitzpatrick
Weist
Bi lo
Bradshaw
Otis
' 'f,b_~-C m~_ '(; [) 5 <t cf-1>-'-5'1 i{j?JC
• '?La c_,v>---t 5 9 /) -o
~~ c) p ~V3fi-t-s-
• f l tt I 1/ I I ' (p-,
~~--
• •
I . •
•
• •
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Na Ab y sent Abstain
Higday
Neal
Fi tzoatrick
Weist
Bi lo
Bradshaw
Otis
I .
•
• -
• •
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
1/ Higday -Neal -
F • v -Weist
Bi lo -~ Bradshaw -
Otis -
I • •
• •
• -
• •
ROLL CALL
Hoved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Ab s tain , __
Higday
L7 Neal -'tk \/ -
Weist -Bi lo -Bradshaw -Otis --
•
• I • •
• •
•
• •
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
Hiqday I.--
Neal {..----
.s;_ :k v-
Weist ~
Bi lo v
Bradshaw t--
Otis v
(J_k'Y'l -YL«LcYJ
V &r'(' ~~: (wet K ~~ 0
~ -:6 (YlLOJ<--tL 1f'
I . .
• •
, ...--I -· t-·
I {
< ---\ '-
'
\.
)
/
ENGLEWOOD DOWNTOWN
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN {'
)
-
.,
•
• •
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD
DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
Prepared and Approved by:
Englewood Urban Renewal Authority.
Robert G. Powell, Chairman
R. P. McClung, Vice Chairman
Ruth Cole
Larry Dickinson
Thomas R. Fitzpatrick
Melvin Minnick
Robert J. Voth
Lawrence M. Novicky, Alternate Member
Susan Powers, Executive Director
Wm. Richard Hinson, Economic Development Planner
Jeri Linder, Planning Technician
Gertrude G. Welty, Recordin~ Secretary
Rick DeWitt, City Attorney
Paul Benedetti, Special Counsel to Redevelopment Project
Bill Lamm, Bond Counsel, Lamm, Edstrom, Braymer & Wi s or
Steve Bell, Financial Advisor, Hanifen-Imhoff
Approved by:
Englewood City Co un cil.
Eugene L. Otis, Mayor
Beverly J. Bradshaw, Mayor Pro Tern
Joseph V. Bilo, Jr.
Thomas R. Fitzpatrick
John D. Neal
James L. Higday, Jr.
Robert B. Weist
Andy McCown, City Manager
Pete Vargas , Assistant City Manager
August 23, 1982 As Amended: December 21 , 1982
March 26 , 1984
April 30 , 1984
·------------------------------------------------~ • •
I • •
-
•
•
•
RESOLUTION NO. 3q
SERIES OF 1982
•
• •
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ENGLEWOOD IXJio'NTOf.IN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN PREPAI<lm
PURSUANT TO PART 1, ARTICLE 25, TITLE 31, COLORADO REVISED S'J'A'l 'U'l'l::S , 1~"/J ,
AS AMENDED, AND AUTHORIZING IMPLEMENTATION PRESCRIBED THEREIN.
WHEREAS, through Resolution No. 16, Series of 1982, the City Co unci l
directed the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority to prepare an Urban lle n<:!wu l
Plan consistent with the adopted Downtown Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Urban Renewal Authority prepared the Downtown
Redevelopment Plan (Urban Renewal Plan); and
WHEREAS, the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the
Plan and found it consistent with the goals of the Englewood Compreh<msive
Plan and passed Resolution 1, Series of 1982, on July 20, 1982; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received comments from individua l s
businesses and governmental entities and taken these comments into
consideration in formulating the Plan; ar.d
WHEREAS, an independent market analysis by a reputable firm (Browne ,
Bortz & Coddington) indicated a strong market ex ists which y be c pLured
if a comprehensive approach is undertaken; and
WHEREAS, a financially attractive method ex!SLS to fund redcv~.o~·~nL utilizing ·rax Increment and other financ i ng; and
WHEREAs, an independent financial analysis by a reputab f rm
(Hanifen, Imhoff, Inc.) shows adequate tax increments and o h r r ve• e
sources to cover debt service needs and substant ial mone tary benef1 t to taxing entities;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE I'!' RESOL VED BY 'lliE C!'l"f OOUNClL OF 'nit: Cl'I'Y Ol:' ENGL~D, COLORAOO, THAT:
Section 1. Notice as required by CRS 1973 (as amended) 31-25-107(3) has
been properly given on the 28th day of July, the 4th and llth of August,
1982 in the Englewood Sentinel having a general circulation in the City of
Englewood, which notice described the time, date, place and purpose of the
hearing on the Plan and generally identified the Urban Renewal area covered
by the Plan and outlined the general scope of the Urban Renewal pro ject under consideration.
Section 2. On the 23rd day of August, 1982 at the hour of 7:30 P.M. i n City
Council Chambers in City Hall at 3400 s. Elati Street, Englewood, Colorado
80110, City Council held a public hearing as required by CRS 1973 (as
amended) 31-25-107(3), on the Urban Renewal Plan/Downtown Redevelopment
•
0
I •
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• I
I
I
•
•
• •
Plan. Presented at this meeting was an Urban Renewal Plan titled Englewood
Downtown Redevelopment Plan, consisting of 60 pages plus maps und appendix ,
marked Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference us though fully set
forth.
Section 3. The City Council of the City of Englewood finds that the Urban
Renewal Plan, known as the Downtown Redevelopment P1an, meet s the followin g
criteria of State statute:
(a) A feasible method exists for the relocation of businesses ,
individuals and families who will be displaced by the Urban Renewal project
in decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling accommodat ions or facilities within
their means ~~ without undue hardship to such businesses, individuals o r
families;
(b) The Urban Renewal Plan conforms to the general plan of the
municipality as a whole; and
(c) The Urban Renewal Plan will afford maximum opportunity,
consistent with the sound needs of the municipality as a whole, for the
rehabilitation or redevelopment of the Urban Renewal area by private
enterprise.
Section 4. A feasible method exists for the financing of said Urban Renewal
proJect utilizing the tax allocation financing plan described in Section
31-25-107(9)(d), CRS 1973 (1977 replacement Volume 12), as amended by Senate
Bill 142 which became effective on July 1, 1981.
Section 5. In accordance with the requirements of Section 31-25-107(9) (d),
CRS 1973 (1977 replacement Volume 12),(as amended), School District No. 1,
Arapahoe County, Colorado , has been permitted to participate in an ~dvisory
cupacity concerning project financing clc::;cribcd in the Urb.:in Renew.:~] Pl<m.
Section 6. Based on the record before the Council, including, but not
limited to, the Redevelopment Area Justification which was compiled by the
Department of Community Development for the City of Englewood, dated on or
about April, 1982. It is hereby found and determined that the Urban Renewal
area described in the Urban Renewal Plan described in Section 2 hereof
consists of a blighted area which is appropriate for an urban renewal
project pursuant to the Urban Renewal Law of the Stutc of Colorado.
Section 7. The contemplated acquisition requires governmental action
because of blighted conditions in the area;
Section 8. The Downtown Redevelopment Plan, as attached hereto as Exhibit A
and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth, is hereby
approved, and the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority is hereby authori~ed to
take any and all appropriate action as provided by said Plan •
2
•
I • •
-
•
•
r
n
u
D
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
•
• •
AOOPTED AND APPROVED this 23rd day of August, 1982.
Attest:
Eug~e L. Ot1s, Mayor
{e$) /.~ fe ~~ ex officio c~'Cet'k=Trsurer
I, Gary R. Higbee, ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer of the City of
Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true,
correct and complete copy of Resolution No.~, Series of 1982, passed on
theQ'.3/?dday of August, 1982.
3
•
I •
-
r
[
0
u
u
II
fl
I •
I
I •
I
I
I
•
RESOLUTION NO. 2
Series of 1982
•
• •
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLO "·' DO
URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORIT Y
A RESOLUTION OF THE URBAN RENEWAL AUTHOR I TY ADOPTING THE URBAN RENEWAL
PLAN OF MAY, 1982.
WHEREAS, the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority was directed by
the Englewood City Council to prepare an Urban Renewal Plan to imple-
ment the adopted Downtown Plan; and
WHEREAS, the development of the Downtown Plan involved extensive
public meetings and incorporated public comments; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to formally adopt a plan and present the
plan to both the City Planning and Zoning Commission for comments and
to the City Council for formal ratification.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLV~D by the City of Englewood Urban Renewal
Authority as follows:
Section l.
The Englewood Urban Renewal Authority recommends adoption of the
Urban Renewal Plan of May, 1982.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED THIS _..;;;1.;;.9;;;.;th"---day of ----"Ma=-o.y __ , 1982.
Chair.ao
ATTEST:
Secretary
•
I • •
-
-
{I
n
I.
u II.
n III.
IV.
v.
II
II VI.
II
II
Appendix
I
I
I
I
•
•
• •
ENGLE\o/OOD DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPHENT PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction and Planning Proces s ....••.............•............. 1
Description of Redevelopment Area .....•...•...•..•..•.•...•....... 4
Urban Ren ewal and Redevelopment Area Justificat ion ••.............. 5
Objectives and Policies of the Plan .....•.....•.•.•.•.....•..•.... 8
Development Plan .........•.••........•...•.•.•••.•...•.......•... 11
A. Existing Land Use .•.•...••...........•................•...... 11
1. Building Condition .....•••.....•.•.....•••...•.•...•.••.. 12
2 . Land Ownership •••....•.........•.....••...............•.. 13
3 . Existing Utilities •..........••.....•••.•...•.....••....• 14
4. Environmental Analysis ..•.•...•.•.....••............•..•. 15
B. Public Improvement Projects ...•..........•...•.•....•..•...•. 16
1. Little Dry Creek Flood Control •....•....•.•..•••......... 17
2. Civic Center Boulevard ........•.•........•.•...•.....••.. 19
3. Broadway Corridor Improvements •..••.•••...•..•....•.....• 19
4. Utility Improvements and Relocation ....••..••.•....••.... 20
C. Private Projects •...•.•.•.....•...•.•.•.•.•..•.•••.....•.•..• 21
D. Transportation Planning ..•..••...••..•...•.....•............. 26
Implementation ••.•.••........•...•.•.••..•.•....•..•.........••.. 29
A. Land Acquisition ••••••••••••••••••••••••.•.•••••••..•.•...... 29
B. Land Disposition ..•..•.•.........•.•...•.•.•...••....•.•.•..• 33
C. Development Guideline s .....•.•......•...........•....•.•...•. 34
D. Agreements between Developer, Urban R newal Authority
and City .•..•..•••.....•..•.••.•.•••..••••.•..•..•.....•• 35
E. Comm rcial Rehabilitation ..•••.•.••.••.•.••••.•...•.......••. 37
F. Public/Private Management Entity ..•..••.••.••.••.......•..••• 38
G. Finane ing ••.••••..••.•.•.....•.•.•.•.•....••.•..•.......••••. 39
I • •
-
I'
I
I
Introduction
•
•
II
IJ
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
u
I
•
I.
•
• •
-1-
INTRODUCTION AND PLANNING PROCESS.
The City of Englewood is an older suburb located 10 miles south of
downtown Denver (Map 1). It was incorporated in 1903, and has de-
veloped as one of the few full-servic e cities in the metropolitan
region. While Englewood developed as many other suburban communities,
in the late 1960's the selection of Englewood as the site for Cinderella
City Shopping Center dramatically changed the communi t y. A large park
suddenly gave rise to the largest shopping center in the world, and
Englewood became a major retail center of the Denver metropolitan
region. The Center also became the focus for retail trade within
Englewood, thus reducing the s trength and vitality of the downtown
Broadway shopping area. During the 1970 's, Cinderella City maintained
its ability to serve as a regional shopping mall despite the opening
of several other malls within the trade area. The downtown section of
Englewood never did recover from the opening of Cinderella City .
The City of Englewood has remained concerned about the future vitalit y
of its downtown for many years . Various reports have been prepared
for the City and the Englewood Downtown Development Authority that
indicate that th re is a potential for economic growth in the down-
town. These reports have also indicated that the Broadway corridor
within the downtown is in serious need of revitalization.
The development of other shopping centers in the Denver Metropolitan
Areawill place an even greater strain on the Cinderella City Shopping
Center, located in downtown Englewood. In 1977, the voters in down-
town Englewood approved the creation of the Englewood Downtown Develop-
ment Authority, and authorized a five {S) mill levy on their property
to assist the Authority in dev loping plans to address the apparent
•
I • •
I
I
II
II
II
II
!I
II
II
II
ll
II
I
II
II
II
II
ll
I
•
.,.,)
.,
-·~(;
I
/
•/
·\.1 /·
'I r'",....-
/
I
·I','
I" . --
• I' ~I '· 'I
•
• •
-la-
MAP 1 ' IJ ,
'>c. • ....... t •• ""' DENVER METROPOLITAN AREA
=:· r : I
' I
/ II '
I ' I -· -"'~ ,. ~
I ..... .
I .. ·
r'
,.~.---,·--. .-. ·.· --/ • -·.·;r ... •1 • './·.
I \
J \' ; -)\_
r'''-~ ) )
(. '
( I
•
I .
\
I
I • •
-
•
•
f
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
•
•
• •
-2-
redevelopment n eeds . The es tablis hm e nt of this Authority launched
the driv e t o r edev elo p downtown Englewood. An additional incen tive
was provided by a private developer , Brady Ent e rprises , who wa s i n-
t e r es ted in developing ce rtain vacant parcels in th e d owntown a r ea .
The develope r felt that the most appro pria t e way t o gu a rantee the
s ucces s of a project was to jointly pla n it with th e public secto r
from the beginning. This resu lted in a thr ee-party agreement to pre-
pare a development guide fo r downtown En g l e wo od . Th e pa r ti es were
the City of Englewood, the Englewood Downt own Development Auth o rity,
and Brady Enterprises. A plan for redevelopment was prepared in 1981,
with the involvement of th e local business comm unity as well as t he
parties to the agreement. The planning p r ocess to develop this plan-
development guide during 1981 is detailed i n the adop t ed Englewood
Downtown Development Plan.
The City of Englewood form ed an Urb an Renewal Authori ty i n 1973 , but
the Authority was not active during th e 1970's . At the reques t of the
Mayor of Englewood, with the concurrence of th e Englewood Downtown De-
velopment Authority, th e Ur ban Renewal Author it~· was reactivated in the
Fall of 1981 to consider their role as the fin ancing vehicle for the
public improvements in the Plan. In adopting this Englewood Urban Re-
newal Plan, the Urban Renewal Authority has agreed to assume this crit-
ical role. The other entities (City, Eng lewood Downtown Development Au-
thority , etc .) will have other roles a nd responsibilities in this over-
all redevelopment effort, wh ich are explain ed elsewh ere in this report.
The Urban Renewal Authority, i n ca rrying out this Plan, agrees to con-
sult with the Englewood Downtown Dev elopment Authority, but the responsi-
bility for adoption and amendment of the Plan remains with the City
Council •
•
I •
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
•
•
• •
-3-
The preparation and adoption of this report by the various Boards and
Commissions indicates the general agreement for the direction to be taken
in the downtown. While there are specific elements of public commitment
and private commitment, it is understood that the success of this effort
lies with the partnership approach which has been evident from the in-
ception of this project.
The approach taken in this Urban Renewal effort is not the traditional
Urban Renewal method . It is not the intent of the City of Englewood or
the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority to acquire all of the properties
within the Urban Renewal Area. As will be discussed in further detail
under the implementation section of this Plan, it will be necessary for
the City or Urban Renewal Authority with the cooperation of the EDDA to
acquire certain properties for the Little Dry Creek flood control improve-
ments.
This Plan has been prepared to comply with the provisions of the Urban
Renewal Law of the State of Colorado, Part I of Article 25, of Title 31,
CRS 1973 (1977 Replacement Volume 12), as amendeu.
•
I •
-
I
Description of Redevelopment Area
L
1.
•
•
• •
-4-
II. DESCRIPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
The majority of the Redevelopment Area is commonly known as downtown
Englewood, bounded on the west by South Santa Fe Drive, on the north
by West Floyd and Eastman Avenues, on the east by the South Broadway-
South Lincoln alley, and on the south by U.S. 285. In addition to
this area is the entire right-of-way of Little Dry Creek east to South
Clarkson Street and adjacent land. This area is bounded by the U.S.
285 right-of-way on the north, East Lehigh Avenue on the south, South
Clarkson Street on the east, and South Sherman Street on the west.
In addition, the area north of U. S. 285 along the Little Dry Creek
right-of-way is included. The boundaries of the Urban Renewal and
Redevelopment Area are delineated on Maps 2 and 3.
I .
• -
• -
-4a-
MAP 2
DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT AREA
I
I
I
&; p
I
,-
I •
•
• -
• •
• I i
~
)...
' 5 I
_,. ~ • ,
~ I • •
f
I
• •
\ .')
"-~
(
r , _ _)
-
Redevelopment Area Justification
•
I
•
•
• •
-5-
III. URBAN RENEWAL AND REDEVELOPMENT AREA JUSTIFICATION.
The designation of the Urban Renewal and Redevelopment Area in down-
town Englewood is based on several factors. The presence of the Little
Dry Creek flood plain throughout the downtown and the under-utilization
of property are the two primary incentives for improvement and redeve lopment .
The Little Dry Creek channel runs directly through the area and its
flood plain comprises over half of the designated area . The flooding
potential of Little Dry Creek discourages future development. In
addition, the presence of deteriorating structures and vacant build-
ings contribute to a negative impression of the downtown area. Due
to blighting conditions, no significant development has occurred in
recent years. This has created a serious economic liability for
Englewood.
The Englewood Central Business District-Cinderella City retail/com-
mercial area is currently rated the second major retail activit y center
in the Denver Metropolitan Area, and it is the major tax generating
source in Englewood. However, major retail/commercial developments
are planned in the surrounding communities, such as the Southwest
Plaza Mall, Centennial Race Track redevelopment, and the Littleton
Riverfront Redevelopment project. These developments pose a serious
competitive threat to the Englewood business district, and if the
City is to retain its comp etitive edge, redevelopment is necessary.
The business district east of Cinderella City is not as strong an
conomic center as Cinderella City. While there are several very
successful businesses located within th area, there ar many busi-
•
I • •
-
•
•
•
•
• •
-6-
nesses which are marginal and do not contribute to the economic
stability or vitality of the downtown. At the current time, there
are 18 vacant stores in the downt own portion of the Redevelopment
Area. Another indication of the di stress of thi s area is reflected
in the sales tax receipts. This section of the Broadway commer~ial
strip is the only area which has experienced a decrease in sales tax
revenues over the past few years .
The under-utilization of property is another indication of the need
for redevelopment in this area . The designated Urban Renewal and Re-
development Area is 176 total acres in size, of which forty (40) acres
(or 23%) are public rights-of-way, and seven (7) acres (or 4 %) is
developable land in the downtown area.
The 100-year flood plain of Little Dry Creek encompasses over half of
the Redevelopment Area. In accordance with the Englewood Flood Plain
Ordinance and Federal Regulations, flood control improvements must
be made before certain types of development can occur in the downtown
area. Without improvements to Little Dry Creek, the opportunities
for development continue to be severely constrained .
Another factor which indicates the need for redevelopment is the con-
dition of existing buildings. In a recent survey of exis ting buildings
within the downtown, it was es tablished that 24% of the buildings are
in poor condition relative to conformance with City Building and Fire
Code standards. Thls r presents 28 of the 118 existing buildings.
Of the remainder, 33 % (39 buildings) are in marginal condition and
43% (51 buildings) are in good condition. In many c s s, poor build-
•
I • •
•
•
• •
-7-
ings share common walls with good buildings, thereby jeopardizing
a greater number of buildings than the figures may indicate .
The blighted conditions within the district as described above, have
seriously impaired growth of the downto~~ as evidenced by the lack
of development when compa r ed with the strong market demand which
currently exists. Englewood is currently "built out" with no annex-
able land available, necessitating redevelopment to sustain growth
in hou sing, services , employment and public facilities .
The absence of development and growth in the downtown distri ct , in-
flating costs of public services and decreasing tax revenues is
creating a serious economic liability fo r the community . The re-
newal effort is necessary to reverse thi s trend.
•
I • •
-
/'
I
I
Objectives and Policies
•
II
I!
•
• •
-8-
IV . OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE PLAN.
In November, 1981, the Englewood City Council, Planning and Zoning
Commission, and the Englewood Downtown Development Authority adopted
a series of policies which were the basis of the Downtown Plan.
These policies are also a basis o f this Urban Renewal and Redevelop-
ment Plan, and are listed below.
1. A concentration of high activity uses should be encouraged in
the downtown to provide a focal point for the City. Downtown
should be a location for work, shopping, living and playing
with aesthetically pleasing areas for rest and relaxation.
2. To provide housing for workers and encourage home ownership,
residential condominiums should be provided within the Down-
town District.
3. To preserve and protec t the existing s ingle-family res i dent ial
nature of the surround i ng area from commercial en c roachment,
Floyd and Eas t man s hould be s trengthened as barrier s t o f ur ther
commercial e x pan sion to t he north.
4 . Downtown should be main tained as a regional a ctivity cen ter
with high concen trat ion s o f r e t ail, office a nd residential uses.
5. The down town area should be de v eloped under a coordinated theme.
6. The arrival points to the downtown, U.S. 2 8 5 a nd South Broadway,
U.S. 285 and Elati, Broadway and Floyd, should be strengthened
viaually to identify the ar a •
•
I •
-
•
•
,,
II
II
II
•
•
• •
-9-
7. Public transit should be strengthened with a transit center
linking the downtown to the regional transit network.
8.
9.
10.
Off-street parking capacities should be increased and should
be enhanced with landscaping.
Parking should be provided between development parcels and
on the perimeter of the downtown with access from the internal
street system.
To provide for better vehicular circulation, some intersections
in the downtown area should be realigned.
11. The proposed redevelopment should be linked to surrounding
neighborhoods with safe pedestrian connections.
12. Existing utilities and new utility service should be placed
underground.
13. Usable open space should be created in the downtown .
14. To create an open space climate , Little Dry Creek should be-
come a focal point with a variety of uses developed along its
banks •
15. The image and character of the redevelopment should be aesthetically
pleasing to attract people •
•
I • •
-
•
•
• •
-10-
16. Alternative energy sources (solar, etc.) should be used where
possible.
17. To i nsure an adequate level of public services including police
and fire protection and maintaining public areas.
18. New ways to finance the redevelopment should be determined and
initiated.
19. A marketing package should be developed to promote the redevelop-
ment.
•
I • •
-
)
r
Redevelopment Pla n I
-
•
•
• •
-11-
V. DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
A. Existing Land Use.
The Redevelopment Area contains 176 acres, of which 62 % is
private and 38% is public land use. The boundaries for the
Plan have been extended to include the upstream improvements to
Little Dry Creek. Therefore, existing land use has increased
to include the property south of U.S. 285 to the Englewood
High School with South Clarkson Street bordering on the east.
The public and private iaprovements outlined in the Plan refer
primarily to the downtown area. Improvements proposed for the
area south of U.S. 285 include channel improvements to Little
Dry Creek and a detention pond on the Englewood High School
athletic field. No other improvements to the area are proposed,
but private develop.ent is encouraged.
The downtown area contains 120 acres, of which 76%, representing
92 acres are currently developed. There are seven (7) acres of
property which are vacant, and 16 acres are being used for at-
grade parking. Cinderella City provides an additional 37 acres
for parking. A total of 22 acres are public streets, alleys
or right-of-way for Little Dry Creek. The majority of developed
property is being utilized as retail or office. There are
currently 269 individual retail uses representing 1,682,760
gross square feet in the area, and 490,645 gross square feet of
office space. There are 65 residential units located along South
Bannock Street, West Ha.pden Avenue, and U.S. 285, with several
second story residential units in the 3400 block of South
Broadway. To the west of South Elati Street is Cinderella
City, a 1,217,100 square foot regional shopping center .
•
I • •
-
•
•
• •
-1 2-
The most apparent characteristic of the downtown is the amount of
vacant and under-utilized property. The downtown plan further de-
tails existing land use in this area.
Existing land use east of the South Broadway/South Lincoln alley
consists of a mixture of residential, retail and office use s. The
area contains 56 acres, representing 63% of public uses and 37 % of
private land use. The Dry Creek Shopping Center adds an additional
29,550 square feet of retail space in the Redevelopment Area.
The majority of proposed improvements in the Redevelopment Area
occur in downtown Englewood. For this reason, the following land
use breakdown and analysis refers to the downtown area and does not
include the area east of the Broadway/Lincoln alley.
l. Building Condition.
The buildings in the downtown area vary from one and two-
story brick structures to ten-story office towers. As part
of the preparation of the downtown plan, a visual survey of
the existing structures in the downtown was conducted by the
Building and Fire Departments. While this survey did not
include the buildings in the entire Redevelopment Area,
•
I • •
•
•
• •
-13-
it did cover the major downtown area. There were 118 build-
ings identified, and 28 were judged to be in poor condition,
39 classified as marginal, and 51 buildings were found to be
in good condition. This was a visual survey from the street
and does not represent a building-by-building analysis 0f
quality. It does give some indication of the general need
for rehabilitation of the downtown. The age of the buildings,
especially those along South Broadway, is mostly responsible
for the rather poor condition. Host of the structures were
built in the 1920's, and because of the non-resident owner-
ship pattern, the degree of maintenance has been limited in
many cases. A map indicating the condition of buildings in
the downtown is found in the Downtown Plan.
Two high-rise buildings existing in the downtown were built
in the mid-to late 1960's, and are in very good condition.
2. Land Ownership.
There are 158 business owners within the downtown Redevelop-
ment Area not including Cinderella City. Of that total, 88 %
are absentee owners of property which makes revitalization ef-
forts more difficult. The size of the properties vary greatly,
but there are a few large parcels which are singularly owned.
The larger property owners include First National Bank, First
Interstate Bank, KRAVCO-Equitabl Life, Nielsen Investment Co~pany,
City of Englewood, Jeansco Enterprises, and Englewood Plaza,
Ltd. On of th assuaptions of this plan is that one or more de-
•
I • •
•
•
• •
-14-
velopers will begin to assemble properties for redevelopment
according to the Plan. This is, in fact, already occurring
with one developer, and it is considered the key to the suc-
cess of this effort.
3. Existing Utilities.
The existing utility system serving the Urban Renewal Ar ea is
generally adequate to serve the projected development with
certain improvements. The changes that are necessary are due
to required relocation of utility lines and some capacity in-
creases to water, sewer and storm sewer systems. The existing
utility system involves overhead electric and telephone lines
which are aesthetically unpleaseant. The Urban Renewal Au-
thority would strongly recommend that all utilities, including
power and telephone, be placed underground.
Within the recent past, the City has installed a 15 inch sew r
line along West Floyd Avenue, and a 12 inch sewer line along
South Acoma Street. The sewer interceptor lines in West
Floyd Avenue and South Bannock Street are large enough to
carry an increased population density of 60,000. The net-
work of wat er mains has been strengthened with larger mains
in South Lincoln Street to support lhe proposed development.
These improveaents will assist the development within the
Redevelopment Area by providing additional capacity to the
utility system •
•
I •
-
•
•
•
• •
-1 5-
4. Environmental Analysis.
The major environmental constraint in the Redevelopment Area
is the presence of the 100-year flood plain through mo st of
the downtown. A major public investment will be made to c on-
fine the 100-year storm to the Little Dry Creek channel.
Without this improvement, the downtown area of Englewood will
continue to be potentially exposed to flooding and any new
structures would have to be c onstruc ted in conformance with
the City of Englewood flood plain regulations. These regula-
tions do not prohibit development , but the physical standards
that need to be aet certainly inhibit development. The pro-
posed development plan could not be built out within the
liaits of the present flood plain regulations because of
the elevation of the first floor of the proposed building.
There do not appear to be any unusual probleas due to soils
that would affect construction in the area. The depth and
type of construction will be liaited by the water table •
I .
-
----~---
•
• •
-16-
B. Public Improvement Projects.
The Redevelopment Plan will be accomplished through both
public and private investments. The cost of the entire pro-
ject is estimated at $100 million, of which $15 million is
estimated for public improvements, and $85 million for private
development.
In order to attract private investment to the Urban Renewal
Area, certain public capital improvements are required (Map
4). The cost estimates for the public improvements are pre-
liminary figures and until more design work is accomplished,
these figures cannot be finalized. There are obvious relation-
ships between certain public projects that would necessitate
close coordination over the timing of the projects. Many
decisions affecting all of the projects must be made as
part of the Little Dry Creek improvements since the Little
Dry Creek flood control project will set thE' tone for thE' de-
sign of th entire redev lopment effort.
•
I • •
• -
• •
•
I . .
• •
I
•
•
• •
-17-
As each improvement is discussed its importance to the area
will be evident. The timetable for improvements is discussed
in the phasing section of this report.
Summary of Public Improvement Projects.
Project Type Estimated Cost
$12 ,000,000. 1. Little Dry Creek Flood Control
2.
3.
4.
Civic Center Boulevard
Broadway Corridor Improvements
Utilities Improvement & Relocation
Total
$ 2,000,000.
$ 300,000.
$ 1,000,000.
$15,300,000.
1. Little ~ Creek Flood Control.
The greatest public investment in the plan is the improve-
ment to Little Dry Creek, which is required to contain a
100-year flood within the channel. As part of the improve-
ment, a detention pond will be located on the Englewood
High School athletic field. This is a precautionary measure
to reduce the amount of water flowing through the downtown
area in the event of a 100-year flood. Additional improve-
ments include widening the entrance to the Cinderella City
box conduit, replacing or rebuilding the bridges at West
Hampden Avenue, South Sherman Street, South Broadway, and
U. S. 285, and widening and improving the channel from
Clarkson to the Cinderella City conduit •
•
I • •
n
-
•
•
• •
-18-
The entire Redevelopment Area will benefit from the improve-
ments to Little Dry Creek. The proposed detention pond and
the increased capacity of the channel will eliminate the
flooding potential of Little Dry Creek. By containing the
flood waters within the banks of Little Dry Creek, it in-
creases the amount of land which can be built upon without
restriction, thus increasing the development potential and
land value in the area. The total improvements to Little
Dry Creek are estimated to be completed in two years.
The design for Little Dry Creek emphasizes an aesthetically
pleasing open space area. The proposed improvements in-
clude the construction of lakes, landscaping along the
channel, bicycle paths, and a pedestrian walkway separating
the Creek and the retail uses constructed adjacent to the
Creek in the downtown section.
The City of Englewood and the Urban Drainage and Flood
Control District have allocated a total of $4,411,954 for
Little Dry Creek improvements. Of this amount, the City
has designated in the Public Improvement Fund a total of
$3,736,954 for the period between 1982 to 1985, and Urban
Drainage and Flood Control District has allocated $675,000.
Additional funding sources are required to cover the en-
tire cost of the project, estimated at $12,000,000.
•
I • •
• •
•
• •
-19-
The cost of the project cannot be reduced by doing only
a portion of the project since the downtown must be re-
moved from the 100-year flood plain, and all upstream im-
provements are necessary.
2. Civic Center Boulevard.
A 100-feet wide boulevard will be constructed in the first
phase of the project to facilitate traffic flow through
the projec t area. This boulevard will begin at the inter-
section of West Girard Avenue and South Broadway, and curve
in a westerly direction to end at the intersection of South
Cherokee Street and U. S. 285. A 20-feet wide median planted
with trees and shrubs will separate the four lanes of
traffic. There will also be trees and shrubs lining both
sides of the boulevard for its entire length. All reloca-
tions and improvements to City-owned utilities that are
directly required as a result of the construction of the
Boulevard are part of this project.
3. Broadway Corridor Improvements.
Broadway serves as an important entrance into the project,
and as such, is carefully considered in the redevelopment
plans. Public improvements to the South Broadway corridor
are estimated at $300,000. The proposed improvements in-
elude street lighting, paving, signage, landscaping, and
street furniture. A downtown theme will unify the area
and provide guidelines for both public and private pro-
jecte . In order to create a pleasing area, landscaping
•
I • •
• -
• •
-
-20-
will be used to act as a barrier between vehicular and
pedestrian traffic. By creating a common theme with
plantings, paving, signage, lighting and street furniture,
a pleasant atmosphere would be developed.
4. Utility Improvements and Relocation.
Utility improvements and relocation are estimated at
$1,000,000. Redevelopment in the area will increase the
demand on the present utility system . While the capacity
of the existing utility system is adequate, there must be
some increase in capacity to provide for the additional
demand on the water, sewer and storm sewer systems .
Utilities along West Girard Avenue and Little Dry Creek
will be relocated to assist in the development and main-
tenance of the waterway and boulevard .
•
I • •
•
•
,. •
-21-
C. Private Projects.
The public improvements are proposed with the understanding
that private development will occur simultaneously. Since
the City and Urban Renewal Authority do not have control over
most of the land within the Urban Renewal Area, the proposed
private development description shall serve as a guide for the
redevelopment of the privately-owned parcels of property. Re-
development of private sites within the Urban Renewal Area shall
I be consistent with the Redevelopment Plan. The private develop-
r ment ia needed to finance a large portion of the public improve-
ments through the property and sales tax generation and will
include a variety of uses.
The Urban Renewal Area is a mixed-use urban focal point for the
City of Englewood. It provides locations for work, shopping,
living, and playing, along with a planned integration of the
private and public areas to provide aesthetically pleasing areas
for rest and relaxation. This mixed-use concept calls for
vacation of some existing streets and alleys to create large
redevelopment parcels and the dedication of new streets, alleys,
and other public rights-of-way to improve auto and pedestrian
traffic.
The private improvements in the Urban Renewal Area, as illustra-
ted on Map 5, can be divided into four separate major redevelop-
ment areas: I • •
1. The first, which is encompassed by a new Civic Center
~ • •
• -
• •
,,
• •
r •
'· -:
--:-. * "" -.
::.
:; ~ I
I . •
• -
• •
•
•
• •
0
ldJ
--Fulvi>
----1 HAMPDEN PARKING
2 HOTEL I ATHLETIC CLUB I
CONVENTION CENTER
3 ACOMA (WEST) RETAL
4 G1RAD OFFICE I ACOMA (EAST)
RETAL I THEATER & PARKING
5 CIVIC CENTER OFFICES
8 KING 800PER8 RETAL I
PARKING I OFFICE
7 KING 800PERS
8 CIVIC CENTER OFFICE 11ULD1NG
RESI)ENTIAL PHASE 1
RESmENTIAL PHASE 2
MAP 6
-
f
•
•
• •
-2 2-
Boulevard connecting Girard with Cherokee, is also bounded
by Broadway and U. S . 28 5. This area is considered the new
Civic Center Complex, and will include retail shops, hotels,
restaurants, athletic health clubs, a cinema complex, an
office building and a new civic events cen t er surrounding a
major water feature. A new City Hall build ing may be located
in the center of this c omplex.
2 . The northwest quadrant of the downtown, which is bounded by
Elat i, Floyd, Bannock, the new Civic Center Boulevard and
the area north of the First National Bank, will contain multi-
famil y housing, supporting retail and certain office functions
along with t he new Civic Center Boulevard. Development will
take place around water features and a public plaza area .
The new Civic Center Boulevard will improve the accessibility
and exposu r e of First Interstate Bank which is presently lo-
cated in the quadrant. If the market for office space changes
dramatically, this portion of the Plan may be changed to
allow development of office buildings.
3. The northe a st quadrant of the downtown includes development
of a new large scale King Soopers, retail uses, and associated
parking.
4. The land parcel which is located in the southwest quadrant of
the downtown, and surrounds the First National Bank, will be
delineated by a new street approximately 300 feet north of
U. S. 285 on the north, U. S. 285 on the south, Cherokee on
•
I •
-
•
•
•
• •
-23-
the east, and Elati on the west. Plans for this quadrant
of the project include the development of a parking struc-
ture adjacent to the First National Bank building.
The Redevelopment Plan provides a strong downtown image necessary
to make Englewood a destination for area shoppers, as well as a
prime location for housing and office users. Of major importance
is the development of a viable hotel. The close proximity of
parking and pedestrian access should help strengthen retail along
Broadway.
An analysis of current market conditions in the Denver Metro-
politan Area performed by Hammer, Siler, George and Laventhol &
Horwath have identified the following as elements of the Urban
Renewal Area:
1. Cinema Complex -This structure will include a 25,000 square
foot multi-screen theatre that will feature first-run movies
with four levels of parking containing 400 parking spaces for
theatre patrons and retail shoppers.
2. Convenience Shopping Complex -This development will include
100,000 square feet of convenience retail shops and structured
parking for 600 cars. Included in thia figure is a new 56,000
square foot King Soopers Store. Surface parking will also be
available adjacent to the King Soopers.
3. Specialty Retail Plaza -This group of structures will house
•
•
I • •
'l
•
•
• •
-24-
approximately 50,000 square feet of specialty retail shops
and related uses.
4. Financial Institution Buildings -These are two multi-story
structures planned to provide 100,000 square feet of space
for financial institutions and other office uses.
5. Health and Athletic Center -This three-story structure will
provide 50,000 square feet for health and athletic facilities.
In addition, a 10,000 square foot restaurant will be included
to provide amenities for the hotel.
6. Hotel - A ten story hotel containing 200 rooms with an ad-
joining parking structure for 600 cars will be cons tructed
adjacent to the lake. An additional 100 rooms will be added
as the market indicates demand.
7. City Hall Building-The multi-story structure will provide
approximately 60,000 square feet of office space.
8. Civic Events ~ -This 50,000 square feet structure will
provide meeting and conference facilities, spaces for cultural
and artistic events and for a city library.
9. Residential -A combination of multi-story structures and
townhouses are proposed. The marketing studies indicate a
demand for 100 -150 units per year for an eight-year buildout.
The amount of development of housing may be reduced, with the
•
I • •
ll
i!
•
•
• •
-2 5-
approval of the City and the Authority, if the market for
office space strengthens over the next few years.
The Redevelopment Plan is intended to serve as a general guide
for development within the Project Area . Since all elements of
the Plan will not be constructed immediately, changing market
conditions over time could alter the scope and nature of the
various sub-projects. The Plan should be considered flexible
in adapting to such market changes.
•
I • •
-
•
•
•
• •
-26-
D. Transportation Planning
Modifications to the existing street sys tem will be necessary
to accommodate the increased volume of traffic which will be
generated in the downtown area. The following modifications
are being considered:
1. Civic Center Boulevard. This arterial road, which was
described in the Public Improvement section of this Plan,
is the major proposed transportation improvement. It will
begin at the West Girard/South Broadway intersection and
curve in a westerly direction to end at the intersection
of South Cherokee Street and U. S. 285.
2. Intersections. The creation of the Civic Center Boulevard
will require adjustments to intersections of existing roads
with the new street. Among these intersections are:
a) West Girard/South Broadway
b) Acoma/Civic Center Boulevard
c) Bannock/Civic Center Boulevard
d) Cherokee/Civic Center Boulevard
e) Cherokee/U. S. 285.
Additionally, the West Floyd/South Broadway intersection
is the sixth most dangerous intersection in Englewood, and
realignment of this intersection is necessary to accommodate
the increased traffic flow generated by the redevelopment.
This must occur during the redev lopm nt process if proper
ast/west ace ss is to occur •
•
I • •
r
•
II
I
I
I
J
I
I
•
•
• •
-27-
A final consideration is the intersection of what is
currently West Hampden Place and South Broadway . Under
the proposed transportation system, West Hampden Place
will become part of a realigned South Acoma Street and
will bear increased traffic for the redevelopment occurring
on the east side of Little Dry Creek.
3. Street Vacations. Little Dry Creek improvements and re-
developmenr elements will require the vacation of portions
of certain streets in the area. Among these are:
a. South Acoma from Floyd to the new Boulevard. This
street will become part of the King Sooper's parking
area.
b. South Bannock from the Boulevard to U. S. 285. The
site of this street portion will be occupied by the
Little Dry Creek, the proposed Convention Center , and
the hotel.
c. West Girard from South Cherokee Street to South Elati
Street. This street would become a part of a residential
and/or office development site.
d. West Hampden Place from South Acoma Street to South
Bannock Street. This area will become part of Little
Dry Creek flood control improvements •
4. Street Realignments.
The three main street realignments which will need to be
considered to facilitate the redevelopment effort are:
•
I • •
,
J
•
'
•
•
• •
-28-
a. West Girard Avenue. To accommodate Little Dry Creek
improvements and form a new intersection with South
Cherokee Street.
b. South Acoma Street. From the current intersection with
West Hampden Place to South Broadway in order to facili-
tate access for the Acoma development from the Boulevard
and South Broadway •
c. West Hampden Place from South Cherokee Street to South
Elati 3treet. To provide a more functional access to
the Boulevard.
Regional north/south access to the Redevelopment Area is pro-
vided on South Santa Fe Drive. Planned improvements to the
Santa Fe corridor will decrease the traffic volume on South
Broadway. The proposed light rail system along South Santa
Fe Drive will also reduce vehicular traffic. East/west access
to the area is presently provided by U. S. 285, but it is
anticipated that the proposed C-470 in the southwest metro
area will relieve some of the traffic pressures on U. S. 285.
I .
-
__.,...--'
J
I.')
Implementation I
•
'I
. II
II
II
VI.
•
•
• •
-29-
IMPLEMEN TATION.
A. Land Acquisition.
The City of Englewood, the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority , and
the EDDA, propose that to the greatest extent possible, the pri-
vate sector purchase the propert i es that are required for the imple-
mentation of this plan. There are occasim1s when the City or Urban
Renewal Author i ty will be required to acquire title to privately
owned property , with the ass i stan c e and cooperation of EDDA. The
most apparent example involves the improvement of the Little Dr y
Creek channel. In order to develop the channel in a manner that
will allow the 100-year storm waters to remain within the banks of
the channel, it will be necessary to acqu i re property along the
existing channel. A wider channel is required throughout the Urban
Renewal Area. In the event the City or Urban Renewal Authority is
unable to acquire the private property at established fair market
value, the Ci t y or Urban Renewal Authority may exerci s e the right
of eminent domain. The prope rty would only be ac quired if required
for the implementation of the Red e velopment Plan. All development
that occurre d on the pro p e rty would be c on sistent wi th the Re de velop-
me n t Plan . This p rocedure will only be used as a last resort , af t er
consultation with the EDDA, when negotiations with the property owner
fail. The properties to be acquired for Little Dry Creek improve-
ments will be formally designated and i dentified by the City Council
and the Urban Renewal Autho r ity. Both the City Cou n cil and Urban
Renewal Au thority will state that t h e p roper t ies are r e quired to
meet the objectives and provisions of this adopted Urban Re ne wal
Pl an •
•
I • •
n
-
-
" I' .,,
•
•
•
•
•
.. •
-30-
Acquisition of property will also be necessary in order to
develop the required widths of various public streets in the
Urban Renewal Area as well as the Girard Avenue Mall. The
western portion of Girard Avenue will be realigned to provide
a c ontinuous st r aight mall.
The services of the EDDA will also be used to facilitate the
private acquisition of other properties that are required for
successful redevelopment consistent with the Plan.
The following properties are being designated for acquisition by
the City Council and the Urban Renewal Authority, and are required
to meet the objectives of this Plan. These properties are required
for the successful completion of the Little Dry Creek flood control
project. After adoption of the Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the
Urban Renewal Authority and City will initiate negotiations for the
acquisition of these properties, and in the event that negotiations
are unsuccessful, the City or Urban Renewal Authority will utilize
eminent domain power to acquire the property. The decision to use
the City or Urban Renewal Authority for this purpose will depend on
the future use of the property. If the entire property is required
for flood control improvements, the City may choose to handle the
acquisition activity. If a portion of the acquired property is to
be resold for redevelopment purposes because it is not all required
for flood control purposes, the Urban Renewal Authority will be re-
sponsible for the acquisition process •
•
I • •
•
,•
Address
180 West Girard Avenue
3422 South Bannock Street
3426-28 South Bannock Street
3430 South Bannock Street
3444 South BanPock Street
3456 South Bannock Street
3460 South Bannock Street
3464 South Bannock Street
3466-68 South Bannock Street
16 West Hampden Avenue
50 West Hampden Avenue
140-44-46 West Hampden Avenue
3550-54 South Broadway
3560 South Broadway
•
• •
Parcels along South Bannock with no addre ss :
3787 South Clarkson Street
3767 South Clarkson Street
3~00 South Logan Street
'3705 South Clarkson Street
777 East Ken yon Avenue
'3666 South Pearl <;treet
3655 South Pearl Street
3655 South Pennsylvania Street
•
-31-
P. P. I. Number
1971-34-3-18-015
1971-34-3-00-018
1971-34-3-18-001
1971-34-3-18-002
1971-34-3-18-003
1971-34-3-00-017
1971-34-3-18-004
1971-34-3-00-016
1971-34 -3-18-005
1971-34-3-18-007
1971-34-3-18-014
1971-34-3-18-008
1971-34-3-18-009
1971-34-3-18-010
1971-34-3-18-011
2077-03-2-00-022
2077-03-2-00-003
2077-03-2-01-001
2077-03-l-07-009
2077-03-1-07-010
1971-34-3-18-012
1971-34-3-18-013
2077-03-l-00-009
2077-03-l-13-031
2077-03-1-0G-008
2077-03-l-00-010
2077-03-l-14-024
2077 -03-1-14-005
20 77-03-1-13-047
2077-03-1-13-046
I • •
-
•
•
•
• •
3638 South Logan Street
3601 South Logan Street
3575 South Logan Street
3522 South Broadway
Parcels with no address:
u. s. 285 R.O.W.
u. s. 285 R.O.W.
u. s. 285 R.O.W.
u. s. 285 R.O.W.
3401 South Bannock Street
3415 South Acoma Street
3427 South Acoma Street
3447-93 South Acoma Street
3448-90 South Acoma Street
Parking Lot -Northwest corner of South
Bannock Street/West Girard
Avenue
Southern end of Parking Lot -Northeast
corner of South Cherokee/West Girard
3311 South Broadway
Leases within the following properties:
3315 South Broadway
3333 South Broadway
3365 South Broadway
•
-32-
2077-03-1-13-002
2077-03-1-12-001
2077-03-1-12-002
2077-03-1-05-004
2077-03-1-07-025
2077-03-1-13-019
2077-03-1-13-006
2077-03-1-03-027
2077-03-1-07-022
2077-03-1-07-016
2077-03-1-07-023
Bk. 782, Pg. 535
Bk. 991, Pg. 151
Bk. 1845, Pg. 539
Bk. 1925, Pg. 792
1971-34-3-19-022
1971-34-3-19-028
1971-34-3-18-016
1971-34-3-18-017
1971-34-3-18-018
1971-34-3-18-019
1971-34-3-18-020
1971-34-3-18-021
1971-34-3-18-022
1971-34-3-18-023
1971-34-3-17-022
1971-34-3-19-28
1971-34-3-19-24
1971-34-3-00-14
1971-34-3-16-001
1971-34-3-00-022 I • •
•
3340 South Acoma Street
3370 South Acoma Street
3378 South Acoma Street
33 West Girard Avenue
•
• •
-32a-
Any other acquisition by the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority or
the City of Englewood shall be consistent with the Urban Renewal
Plan. No property shall be acquired by eminent domain without
the approval of the Englewood City Council acting by resolution.
•
I • •
•
•
•
• •
-33-
B. Land Disposition.
Except for land disposed of to the City of Englewood for develop-
ment of public improvements or facilities, the Englewood Urban
Renewal Authority shall, in all agreements, deeds, leases, and
other instruments from or between the Englewood Urban Renewal
Authority and to or with a developer, impose covenants running
with the land for a period of thirty years from the date of the
Deed. These covenants shall require purchasers of land in the
Redevelopment Area to:
1. Agree to develop and use the property in accordance with the
provisions of the Redevelopment Plan.
2. Agree to begin and complete the improvements within a
period of time determined by the Englewood Urban Renewal
Authority to be reasonable; and
3. Agree to not discriminate upon the basis of race, color,
creed, sex or national origin in the sale, leas e, r e ntal,
u se o r occupancy o f the prope rty , o r of any improveme nt s
erect e d or t o be e r ec t e d there on, o r an y pa rt the r eof .
•
I • •
-
II
II
ll
r
•
c.
•
• •
-34-
Development Guidelines.
In order for development to occur in accordance with the adopted
Redevelopment Plan, guidelines for development must be prepared:
A document containing such guidelines will be used by various
developers in the design of buildings. The guidelines will in-
clude the quality elements of construction such as building
materials and design. The quantity elements, such as height
and bulk, will be controlled through the zoning regulations.
•
I • •
-
•
•
•
•
• •
-35-
D. Agreements between Developer, Urban Renewal Authority, and City.
A final mechanism to implement the Redevelopment Plan involves
agreements between developers and the City or Urban Renewal
Authority, which will establish the responsibilities of each
party. These agreements will specifically outline the financial
commitments of the parties, and the timetable for construction
of the public and private improvements. This agreement is the
basis for the Urban Renewal Authority to initiate the sale of
tax increment bonds for the financing of the public improvements.
The City and the Urban Renewal Authority recognize that a coopera-
tive effort between the entities is required in order to carry
out the plan. To further this effort, the City agrees to pro-
vide the necessary staff to the Urban Renewal Authority to assist
the Authority with its operation.
When consultants, such as architects and engineers, are require d
for the design of a public improvement, the City agrees t o pro-
vide such services. The City will further assume the responsibility
of administering the design and e ng ineering contracts for the
public improvements. The Urban Renewal Authority , City, and EDDA
will jointly review th e design work throughout the project. The
City agrees to provide customary City inspection services during
the construction of these projects .
The Ur ban Renewal Authority's primary r es ponsibility will be to
coordinate the financing arrange~ent for the specific public im-
provements. The City agrees to provide accounting s rvi ces and
•
I • •
-
•
•
• •
-36-
such other services that are required to successfully administer
the Urban Renewal program. The Urban Renewal Authority agrees
to reimburse the City for the cost of certain administrative ex-
penses as approved by the Authority.
In addition to agreements between developers and the City or
Urban Renewal Authority, it is recommended that the City of
Englewood, the EDDA, and the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority
enter into a Tri-party Agreement to establish the respective
roles and responsibilities of each party. This agreement should
be signed by all parties prior to any party signing a Developer
Agreement with a developer .
~~~-·--------------~~------~~·~~-~--------~~~,In
I • •
-
•
•
•
• •
-37-
E. Commercial Rehabilitation.
There is a definite need for the rehabilitation of existing
buildings within the area, particularly along the South Broadway
corridor adjacent to the Redevelopment Area. Through the use of
Community Development Block Grant funds provided by the Federal
Government and the State of Colorado, the City of Englewood has
established the Broadway Facade Improvement Program. This pro-
gram provides a limited amount of free design assistance to prop-
erty owners and merchants in the 3200 -3500 block of South
Broadway and a low-interest loan program for property improvements
in this area. Also, the City has adopted Design Guidelines to
regulate rehabilitation in this segment of South Broadway .
The Urban Renewal Authority strongly supports the City in its
efforts to revitalize older commercial sections of downtown
Englewood so that they may contribute to and benefit from the
major Redevelopment Project •
•
I • •
-
•
•
•
•
• •
-38-
F. Public/Private Management Ent i ty .
Unlike a shopping center, downtowns a re t y p ically fragme nte d
with no single management focus. To compet e suc c ess fully , i t
is important that a permanent management s tructure b e c r e ate d.
Such a management entity could be responsible for a wide range
of a c tivitie s, including:
1) Publ ic s pace maintena nce, securi t y and o perations.
2) Public s pac e programming and use appro val.
3) Market i ng and promotion of downtown.
4) Tenant leasing and mix.
5 ) Technica l a ssistance to business e s .
6) Des ign man a gement for de ve lopment, signage, fa cades , e t c .
The objective is t o c r eate a permane n t , cent ralized management
entity to coordinate design, maintenance, tenant mix, marketing
efforts consistent with the market position which the downtown
is attempting to achieve. Also, the specific form that a manage-
ment entity should take has not been proposed yet , and will be
detailed in a separate report. It is important that a ma nagement
structure be agreed to as a part of any development agreement.
•
I •
-
•
•
•
•
•
,. •
-39-
G. Financing.
1. Financing Overview.
The Englewood Urban Renewal Authority is authorized to finance
the proposed public improvements by those methods available to
the Authority within the Urban Renewal laws of the State of
Colorado. This section of the Redevelopment Plan sets forth
estimates of the proposed redevelopment and the feasibility of
financing the needed public improvements. The financing parameters
demonstrated including interest rates and maturities are not to
be interpreted as representation of any obligation of the Urban
Renewal Authority and do not represent a guarantee by the Urban Re-
newal Authority.
The financing structure utilized by the Urban Renewal Authorit y
for constructing necessary public improvements may include revenue s
from any one or combination of the following revenue sources:
a. Property tax increment financing.
b. Sales tax increment financing •
c. Intergovernmental cooperation with the City of Englewood.
d. Investment of funds in property or securities in which
public bodies may legally invest.
e. Advances, loans, grants and contributions from the federal
government •
•
I • •
•
•
• •
-40-
f. Sale or lease of property as specified in the Redevelopment
Plan.
It is contemplated by the Authority that revenues from all of
the above mentioned sources will be made available for repay-
ment of municipal bonds or other obligations that will be issued
to finance the public improvements. In consideration of the
revenue sources, the Authority proposes a Redevelopment Project
comprised of the elements delineated in Schedule A. Estimated
construction cost of this private development is approximately
$50,000,000. The accompanying public improvements contemplate
an expenditure of $15,300,000 and are comprised of:
1) Improvements to the flood control capabilities of the
area (Little Dry Creek). This project is paramount to
the redevelopment plan in that the reduction of the
100-year flood plain must occur prior to the issuance
of any building permit. Once the flood plain project
is initiated, private development may occur concurrently
with its construction;
2) Public improvements which will complement the private
sector redevelopment. These improvements include Broad-
way corridor improvements, utilities improvements and
relocation, and the construction of the Civic Center
Boulevard which will facilitate increased traffic
volume in the area •
•
I • •
-
0
•
•
•
• •
-41-
2. Revenue Summary.
a. Property Tax Increment. Following the effective date of th e
Redevelopment Plan adoption, the property taxes generated
from the redevelopmen t area, in excess of those ad valorem
reven ues received by all taxin g entities currently assessing
a mill levy within t he redevelopmen t area , shall be deposited
in a special fund and pledged for the repayment of any ob-
ligations of the Urban Renewal Authority. This increment
shall be segregated from other property tax reven ues for a
period not to exceed twenty-five years followin g the adoption
of the Plan. Upon retirement of any obligations of the Urban
Renewal Authority, those monies generated from ad valorem tax
collection s shall be reallocated to the appropriate public
bo d ies (school district, city, county, etc .). The tax in-
crement caused by the redevelopment shall represent an ir-
revocable pledge of the Urban Re n ewal Authority to repay
principal, i n terest, premiums, or other expenses of issuing
bonds or other obligations of the Authority for the financing
of public improvements. (Refer to Schedule B for a summary
of property tax increment projections.)
b. Sales Tax Increment. Following the effective date of the
Urban Renewal Plan, the sales tax revenues collected with-
in the redevelopment area for the 12-month period preceding
the effective date shall be frozen and distributed in the
same amount to the City of Englewood on an annual basis.
Sales tax revenue in excess of the base amount shall be
•
I • •
-
•
•
•
• •
-42-
deposited in a special fund of the Urban Renewal Author.ity
and may be irrevocably pledged for the payment of principal,
interest, premiums, and expenses of issuing bonds or other
obligations of the Authority. (Refer to Schedule C f o r a
summary of sales tax increment projections.)
It is anticipated that the City of Englewood will determin e
on an annual basis that those sales tax revenu es collected
within the Cinderella City shopping complex shall not be
pledged to the sales tax increment special fund as c r eated
by the Urban Renewal Authority (see Section 31-25-107 (9)
(a) (II) of Colorado State Statutes).
c. Intergovernmental Cooperation Within the Ci ty £f Englewood .
The City of Englewood has committed resources and funds to
assure the completion of the Redevelopment Plan. Over the
next two years, the City will set aside in a segregated fund
approximately $4 ,000,000 that is dedicated to providing pub-
lic improvements for the redevelopment. In addition, the
City has committed to utilize available use tax revenues
collected on a city-wide basis which are dedicated to capital
improvements in accordance with the City Charter. It is th e
intent of the City to assist in any way possible to insure
that the redevelopment occurs.
d. Hotel Room Tax. The City is contemplating the assessment
and collection of a hotel room tax within the city boundaries.
This tax, in the opinion of bond counsel, may be pledged as
•
I .
-
II
1
1
1
•
I
'
•
•
• •
-43-
a sales tax increment within the redevelopment area and
utilized to further secure the bonds of the Urban Renewal
Authority. The hotel tax rate is proposed to be a 5% tax
on the room charge rate.
e. Sale of Property. The City of Englewood maintains owner-
ship of two parcels of land valued at $1,900,000 and
$1,684,000. The City contemplates selling the land at a
minimal cost to the Authority, or donating the land to the
Authority. The Authority may then sell the property for
fair value for uses in accordance with the Plan. The sale
of the land will assist in reducing the cost of the public
improvements or to provide additional revenue for debt
service.
f. Urban Drainage~ Flood Control District. This district
collects an ad valorem tax levy and then redistributes the
revenue back to the areas that have been assessed for pur-
poses of flood and drainage control. The revenues distributed
to the City of Englewood are to be dedicated to the Littl e
Dry Creek project.
Schedule D of this section illustrates the cost of financing
various levels of public improvements at varying interest
rates. By examining this Schedule in conjunction with the
projected tax increment totals at the bottom of Schedule C,
an estimate of the feasibility of financing the proposed
•
I •
-
-
•
•
, . •
-44-
public improvements can be generated. The tax increment
projections and financial analysis have been developed by
Hanifen, Imhoff, Inc. in coordination with the City of
Englewood, the Urban Renewal Authority, and the Englewood
Downtown Development Authority.
•
I .
-
•
I
J
•
Honifer ,, lmr1off lr ,c..
lrl ... e s:r,.~e.-. Oor\Kers
Building Type
Specialty Shops
Conven ience R<:tail
Cinema /Retail
Retail Parking
Athletic Facility
Civic Center Restaurant
Civic Events Center
Hotel with Parking
Finance /Office
City Office Structure
Residential Tower
Broadway Store
•
• •
Schedule A
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORAD O
URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
AUGUST 22, 1983
Proposed Development Summary
-45-
Sg,uare Footage Construction Value (Estim a t ed)'
50,000 @ $50/sq.ft. $2,500,000
]3,500 (!_\ $50/;;q. f l. (,'(',. 000
25,000 @ $50/sq.ft. 1 ,25 0 ,0 00
300,000 @ $15/s-q. ft. 4,500,000
50,000 @ $60/sq. ft. 3,000,000
10,000 @ $50/sq.ft. 500,000
50,000 @ $60 sq. ft. 3,000,000
120,000 @ $70 sq. ft. 8,400,000
100,000 @ $70 sq. ft. 7,000,000
90,000 @ $70 sq. ft. 6,300,00 0
145,000 @ $40 sq.ft. 5,800,000
120,000 @ $50 sq. ft. 6,000,000
*Construction val ue estimates based upon information supplied by Renin Econonwt1·i<'s,
Inc . , Boulder, Colorado,
SHB:km
8/22/8 3
I • •
-
-
•
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
Harufer ,, lrnhoN lr1c
lr .v&slrr 't:' · bar tf'E:f~
B uilding Type
Specialty Shops
Convenience Retail
Cinema /Retail
Retail Parking
Athletic Facility
Civic Center Restaurant
Civic Events Center
Hotel with Parking
Finance /Office
City Office Structure
Residential Tower
Broadway Store
•
• •
Schedule B
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO
URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
AUGUST 22, 1983
Property Tax Increment
Construction Ratio to
Value A.V.
$2,500,000 .17
675,000 .17
1,250,000 .17
4,500,000 • 17
3,000,000 .17
500,000 .17
3,000,000 .17
8,400,000 .17
7,000,000 .17
6,300,000 .17
5,800,000 .105
6,000,000 • 17
Total
Assessed
Valuatio11
$ 425,000
114,750
212,500
765,000
510,000
85,000
510,000
1,428,000
1,190,000
1,071,000
609,000
1,020,000
Tax Revenue
*Estimated ratio provided by Arapahoe County Assessor's Office.
SHB:km
8/22/83
•
-46-
Revenu e @
HU Mill ,, --···----
$ 34 . 000
9, 180
17 .00 0
61. 120
40,800
6,800
40,800
114 ,l40
95,200
85,6 0
48, 72()
81.600 ----
$635, 140
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
• •
Hanifer ,.lrnhoff l11c.
1r v&strr.f:=r•l Be nt e-r5
Buildin g T:n~e
S pecialty Shops
Convenience Retail
Cinema /Retail
Retail Parking
Athletic Facility
C1vi c Center Rest.
Civic Events Center
Ho tel/Parking ( 1)
Fm ance /Office
C i ty Office
Re s i dential Tower
B roadway Store
Schedule C
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO
URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
AUGUST 22, 1983
Sales Tax Increment
Rev./Sg.Ft. Gross Sales
$150 $7,500,000
100 1,350,000
Estimated
n/a
Estimated
$150 $1,500,000
n/a
200 rms.
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
X .03
X .03
X ,03
Total Sales Tax lncrcmcn t
-47-
(l) Revenue due to hotel room tax calculated at 5. 0% per room, a room charge o f I $50 and occupancy rate of 55% per annum.
I
I
I
I
I
•
SHB:km
8/22/83
Tax Increment Total
Property Tax
Sales Tax
$ 635,140.00
450,875.00
$1,086,015.00
•
Increme n t
Revenu e
$2 2 5,00 0
40,500
35,000
5,00 0
~5 .000
10 0 ,1 7 '>
I • •
•
• •
I Han1fer,, Imhoff Inc
1r ._..~:-surer· Oa r, .. ers -48-
I
I Schedule D
I CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO
I URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
AUGUST 22, 1983
I Estimated Debt Service Payments
) Principal Amount Interest Rate Average Annua~~f"0t :n l
I $7 ,000,000 9% $ 766,850 (2 0 Y<.!an;)
10% 822,220
I 11% 879,060
I
8,000,000 9% 876,400 (20 Years)
10% 939.680
11% 1,004,640
I
9,000,000 9% 985,950 ( 20 Y..:a1·s)
I 10% 1,057,140
11 't. 1,130,220
I 10,000,000 9% 1,095,500 (20 Yean;)
10% 1,17<\,600
I 11% 1,255,800
I
SHB:km
I B/22/83
I I • •
I
I
• •
-
--../
/-··-'-)
·v.-r /r~
~(__
Appendix I
-
•
l
l
I
t
'l
•
•
• •
Relocation Plan.
As previously men tioned, i t is not the intent of th e City o r Urban
Renewal Authority to displace businesses through the r edevelopment
process. It is recognized that existing businesses ar an important
component of our downtown environment, which needs to be integrated
into any plans for change in Englewood. There ma y be times wh en
certain properties are required to fulfill the redevelopment plans
and strengthen the downtown for the future. In th ese cases, the
City and Urban Renewal Authority will offer r e location assistan ce
to businesses and tenants in an effort to minimize the impact of
these public decisions.
The following benefits will b e available to the commerci al and resi-
dential tenants if relocation is required.
1. Commercial Uses Displaced EY Acquisition.
The business owner di splaced as a result of acquisition of real
property by the Urban Renewal Authorit y or the City in carrying
out this Plan shall be eligible for the following relocation
benefits:
a. The Authority s hall give a 120-day notice to any business
owner who will be displaced.
b. Displaced business owner shall receive the reasonable cost
established by competitive bid associated with packing,
crating, boxing, moving, and transporting all movable per-
sonal property, for a distance of no more than 50 miles.
•
I • •
I
•
•
• •
ii
c. Displaced business owner shall r eceive th e r easonabl e cos t
as d e t ermined ~y the Urban Ren e wal Authorit y , for ce rt a in
property made obsolete b y di splacement, s uch as statione r y ,
business forms and s igns .
d. Displaced business owner s hall r eceive th e cost of ins uran ce
of property (inventory) for movi ng .
e. The benefits listed in items b, c , and d may total a maximum
of $10,000, unles s a larger a mount is specifically approved
by the Urban Renewal Authority due to special circumstances.
f. Property owner s hall not be eligible for the benefits liste d
above for displaced business owner unle ss the property owner
also operates a business at the same location.
g. The Authority shall not be respon si ble for lo ss of bu sin ess
and good will, or personal injury or legal fees .
2. Residential Uses Displaced £y Acquisition.
The property owner or tenant displaced as a result of acquisition
of real property b y the Urban Renewal Authority or Ci t y in carrying
out thi s Plan, s h all be eligible for relocation benefits according
to the a p plicable cat egory , as follows:
a. Renter occupied residential unit tenants are e ligible for
the following: I • •
-
I.
I
•
•
• •
iii
1) The Authority shall give a 90-da y no tice to an y tenant
who will be displaced.
2) Displaced tenants shall be eligible for the cost of
packing, crating, and moving personal property for a
maximum d istance of 50 miles to a replacement dwelling
unit. The cost will be established by competitive
bidding.
3) Displaced tenants shall be eligible for the cost of in-
surance of personal property for moving.
4) Displaced tenants shall be eligible for an amount equal
to the rent paid by t e nant for past year in current unit.
If tenant resided in unit for less than one year, tenant
is eligible only for payment equal to rent paid during
occupancy. This amount is necessary to lease a comparable
dwelling within 50 miles.
5) The benefits listed in 2, 3, a nd 4 ma y total a maximum
of $2 ,500 unle ss a large r amount i s s peci fi c all y approv e d
by the Urban Renewal Author i t y du e t o special ci r c um s tances .
6) If the tenant i s eligible based on income or handicappe d,
they will be given priority c ons ideration for eligib i lit y
in EHA housing proj e cts.
•
I • •
•
• •
iv
b. Owner/occupant of residential units is eligible for the
following:
1) The Authority shall give a 120-day notice to any owner/
occupant who will be displaced.
2) Displaced owner/occupant shall receive the cost of packing,
l crating and moving personal property for a maximum distance
of 50 miles to a replacement dwelling unit. The cost will
be established by competitive bidding .
3) Displaced owner/occupant shall receive the cost of in-
l surance of personal property for moving.
l
•
4) Displaced owner/occupant s hall r eceive the amount, if
any, which, when added to the acquisition cost of the
dwelling acquired equals the reasonable cost of a comparable
replacement dwelling which is a decent, safe and sanitary
dwelling ad eq uate to accommodate such displaced person.
5) The benefits listed in items 2, 3, and 4 may total a
maximum of $5,000.
6) If the property owner is eligible based on income and
handicap, and desires to rent a housing unit, they will
be given priority consideration for eligibility in an
EHA housing project •
•
I • •
-
•
•
L
•
•
• •
3 . General Provisions.
a. All claims and documentation must b e submitt e d t o the
Englewood Urban Renewal Authority within s ix (6) month s
following the date the costs are incurred .
•
v
I • •
• -
• •• . '
I . . • I
~
• •
•
• •
(
ENGLEWOOD -
REDEVELOPMENT AREA
JUSTIFICATION
April, 1982
•
-vu.buj;I:L,J__ {~ J 3 ~ k l-
Q_ ~ tAulV.:U
.lUJ.. :J)FI u .:Jf.Y--c. ·, (o -.-.2 2-2 f
C.ci.J-C.t_--u 1t o_J '
I . •
l
•
•
• •
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
I . Findings Required by City Council to Approve Urban R~n~w~l Plan,
April, 1982, Prepared by Jeri Linder, Planning Technician.
II. Building Condition Summary,
Englewood Downtown Development Plan, Appendix II, May, 1981.
III. Flood Plain Map, City of Englewood
Flood Insurance Rate Map, U.S. Department of HUD, December, 1979.
IV. Flood Plain Ordinance, City of Englewood
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 22.48, April, 1978.
V. Land Use Maps, City of Englewood
April, 1982.
VI. Economic Market Potential
Downtown Englewood, Colorado
Brown, Bortz & Coddington, August, 1981
Section 1, pages 1 -19
VII. Field Survey of Downtown Englewood
April, 1982, Performed by Jeri Linder, Planning Technician.
•
I • •
•
1-
• •
(
I .
• •
I.
•
•
• •
Findings Required by City Council to Ap~rove Urban ~e~~l Plan,
April, 1982, Prepared by Jeri Linder, Planning Technician.
•
I .
-
•
•
• •
FINDINGS REQUIRED BY CITY COUNCIL I N THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN April , 1982 .
1) Relocation Plan is set forth in Urban Renewal Plan.
a) Assistance to displacees will be provided by City staff.
b) Moving expenses (to a reasonable limit) will be reimbursed.
c ) Additional payments are provided for which will ald relocation
and minimize hardship.
2) Public hearing and review have been conducted by the Planning and
Zoning Commission and their recommendation, based on a finding of
conformity to the General Plan, is that the Urban Renewal Plan
should be adopted by Council. (Resolution by Planning and Zoning
Commission to be adopted on July 7, 1982.)
3) The Urban Renewal Plan offers a joint venture between local govern-
ment and private enterprise. Infrastructure improvements will be
conducted by government, while const~uction of residential, office,
and commercial facilities will be undertaken by a private developer.
Rehabilitation of existing .s tructureli will be conducted by private
interests with public assistance. The Plan has addressed the various
aspects of development within the total project area insuriag maximum
utilization of the available acreage.
DETERMINATIONS TO BE MADE:
1) Open land used for residential purposes:
a) Housing shortage.
i. Limited amount of vacant land zon~d residential ~xlsts,
67.65 acres, of which 7 acres are vacant in the downtown
area.
ii. In 1980:
13,358 housing units
592 vacant
Vacancy rate of 4.4%.
iii. 73% of houses were built prior to 1959; 18.4% of hous!n~
stock has at least one serious aajor defect.
i v. Vacancy rate for rental units in 1980 was 1.3% •
b) Need for houain& iDcreued by c:luriq alua area».
i. Clearing so• areu will require thtt d..-olltlon of IIIUIIK:
houaea, thus decreasing the avMil&bility of housing.
H. The creation (or expaoaion) of a downtown eJIPlOyiiOnt center
will increaae the deaaDd for bouaina, so worker» can J.J.vu
cloaar to their joba.
• •
I • •
-
•
•
• •
c) Blight and housing shortag<~ contribute to crime and create
menace to public welfare.
i. Older housing is more susceptible to crime (burglaries);
easier to break into.
d) Acquisition of land for residential purposes is essential part
of city's program.
Goals of Comprehensive Plan:
i. Insure a balance among the residential, industrial and
commercial uses of the city.
ii. Provide the environment necessary to maintain a stable
population.
City has been losing population over the last decade: 1970 -33,000;
1980 -30,000. Shortage of housing could be one of the main
reasons for decrease.
2) Open land for non-residential purposes:
a) Uses are necessary to facilitate community growth to meet stated
objectives.
Coaprehensive Plan recoaaends focusin& hi&h-density, high activity
uses within the downtown are to support downtown as a regional
activity center. Such uses are described in the Plan as retail,
office, hi&h-density residential, and a hotel/convention center.
b) Conta.plated acquisition aay require governaental action because
of being in a bli&hted area.
Potential acquisitions lie in designated flood plain. Existence
of flood plain is deterrent to developaent due to construction
requireaents. Current owners may not feel threatened by flood
potential and be unwilling to sell their property. For maxiaiza-
tion of development potential, the aforementioned sites aust be
acquired to construct flood channel iaprovements. Governaental
action may be necessary.
•
I .
• -
• ••
•
• •
..... .....
I •
• -
• •
(
II. Building Condition Summary,
Englewood Downtown Development Plan, Appendix II, May, 1981.
• I • •
•
•
• •
\ \
>"' !'..ii d:·. •:Oo 1Y:' .:i!·.):il-1 u::vi::I/)<' .. J ·::~r
f',.li l di.ng Condit i o n su,T.r:..J ty
:·~ -~y , 19 8 1
'·. 'Jl-'~~ID l X II
Bldg . Foot p cint No .of Gross *C o nfonr.?J nce Probl e m/ i'JO . Sq..:_'::':.:_ __ F.l oocs F'lc .1·1 •'·1 1 .. ; ~·c-;_ ~c·~ lc ·l~, ;2<.!~~~;>.?:~ ·i<?.0_ii~ Q;c•; _ rL u n~x...l.:2' ~ ·:;_ ---·-·-
Bl oc<; A 1 65 ,20 0 65,200 3 3 !3-1 Ki ng S00]?2 r 2 14 ,600 14,6 00 3 3 3-1 Vc:wa n t Rest. lr-,,,Jt 3 3 ' r)o o 1 ,',,1 0 3 3 1! -?. T . .; ,.X>
ll c·.::~ 3 2 13 ,7 30 10 39 , '!i:i O 3 3 13-1 Co.1t i n:nta l i3a.J ~/
Ac c hit ectucal
Landma rk 2,615 1 2 ,625 3 3 B-1 Drive-In f or R'l'll< 10,350 3 31 ,050 3 3 !3-1 Off: i ce Bui.ldi ng
Block C 19,000 19,000 Yello..r Ft·ont
Block D 16,150 10 161,500 3 ' 3 I-1/B-2 First National
Bank/Archi tectural
Landmark 2 57 ,800 2 115,590 3 3 I-1 Ci t y Ha ll 3 3 ,000 1 3,000 3 3 !3-1 !'lo wer S hop
Block E 10,650 10,650 3 3 B-1 Midland Savings/
Good Archit e c tu 1·a1
Stock 2 11750 2 3,500 2 2 B-1 Retail 3 1,830 1 1,830 3 & 3 & B-1 Retail 4 1,350 1 1, 350 1 1 B-1 Residence 5 1, 000 1 1,000 ,. 1 B-1 Residence 6 6,600 2 13,200 3 3 B-1 Office Build ing
Block F 1 900 1 900 1 1 B-1 Residence 2 2,400 1 2,400 1 1 B-1 Res idenCE. 3 800 1 800 2 2 B-1 Res idence 4 1,575 1 1,575 2 2 B-1 Residence 5 1,000 1 1,000 2 2 B-1 Re~id e nce 6 1,200 1 1,200 3 3 B-1 Reside nce 7 1,100 1 1,100 2 2 B-1 Reside nce 8 1,350 1 1, 350 3 3 B-1 Residence 9 875 1 875 1 1 B-1 Re sidence 10 1,630 1 1,630 3 3 B-1 Ch. 1nber of
Co uu~1·ce 11 9,130 9,130 j 3 B-1 Retail 12 5,450 5 ,4 50 3 3 B-1 Ret ail 13 3,500 3 ,500 2 2 B-1 Retail
14 4,000 4,000 ,1 1 B-1 Retail I 15 3,300 3,300 1 1 B-1 Retail • • 16 1,930 1,930 1 1 B-1 Retail 17 2 , 750 2,750 2 2 B-1 H<"L ail 18 6,000 6,000 2 2 13-1 Retail 19 5,850 5 ,850 3/1 3/1 B-1 Retail
• •
•
• •
J· ~;;r)·:.·!."JJ D ro·. ! ,.-~'· •. ~ DJ:VU Di':·it:::-r r
i3 Ji l cli.ng Co ndition S u;n n>ty
~la y , 198 1
AI?PFND IX II
Bldg. Footprint No . of Gross *ConfOl::n:'n ce ?coblc;n,l 1\'o . :-q:Ft_.__ f-')O')CS Flr.l\rr a l-~(1~0.. r~<:?:i~ ~l~J~_Cr~~-Y,:0~ { ·~'i 0 1 ·: ,Jrt.un i Ly _ • )~ 1 ... 5 --·---·-
Block G 1 7,80 0 7,800 3 3 B-1 Reta il 2 3 ,130 3 ,1 30 3 3 B-1 Rr->ta il 3 f1 ,2S O G, /.',0 3 3 13-1 r lil 9 , l'iO
I) a 7,20 0 2 14,1\0 0 3 3 13 ··1 Otric:..: flll i 1·1 i ''~ 4b 8,200 8,20 0 3 3 13-1 Office 5 6,250 6,250 2/1 2/1 B-1 11ovie Th eate r 6 85 0 850 1 1 B-1 :R etail 7 2,000 2,000 2 2 B-1 Reta il 8 5,050 5,0 50 2 2 !3-1 Rc·ta il
Block H 1 3,350 1 3,350 3 3 B-1 Retail 2a 2,500 2 5,000
2b 2,630 1 2,630 3 ) B-1 Retail 3 2,350 1 2,350 1 1 B-1 Retail 4 900 1 900 1 ,. B-1 Retail 5 1,800 1 1,800 3 3 8-1 Reta il 6 2,250 1 2,250 1 ·1 B-1 R"'tail 7 3,000 1 3,000 1 1 B-1 Retail 8 900 1 900 1 1 B-1 Retail
Block I 1 8,550 1 8,550 3 3 B-1 Kaufmans 2 18,000 1 18,000 3 3 B-1 Retail 3 7,030 2 14,060 3 3 B-1 Furniture Mart 4 20,400 1 20,400 3 3 B-1 Retail 5 5 ,630 2 12,260 3 3 B-1 Retail 6 19,800 2 39 ,600 3 3 B-1 Foersters 7 2,900 1 2,900 3 3 B-1 Retail Sa 4,800 3 14,400 3 3 B-1 1st National Ba nk 8b 3,080 1 3,080
Block J 1 5,250 2 10,500 2 2 B-1 Retail 2 5,000 2 10,000 2 2 B-1 Retail 3 1,630 1 1,630 2 2 B-1 Retail 4 4,000 1 4,000 2 2 B-1 Retail 5 4,000 1 4,000 1 1 B-1 Retail 6 2,250 1 2,250 1 1 B-1 Retail 7 2,500 1 2,500 1 1 B-1 Retail 8 4,850 1 4,850 3 3 B-2 Post Offic:e 9 9,380 1 9,380 3 3 B-1 Retail
I • •
• •
• -
• •
Y;I, ':!.:OD i.V.·.',l'C . .'.: 1 Dc~Vl::l OP!·ISI>I'r
; 1ilding Co;1dition Su1rma ry
. : J'j , 198 1
;,~'?E.'NDI X II
!1l t1<]. Fc>Olp c i nt No . or: Gco!;s :.runf Cl l Jnt•nt ·c i)l·oh lc nl/
!o . Sq.Ft . Fl().)CS Flr .llrca fire ·code -Bidg .Code toning 0!'. -.XLU olily l\ll o.:s
Rl i< K 2 17,000 1 17,00 0 3 3 B-1 R:--ai l
3 1 , (.;1 0 1 '3 ,0 lO /. 2 13 -1 ; ~ ·l il
4 3 ,..10 0 1 3 , )IJ O 2 2 !3-1 .~,. 1 il
5 ?,630 1 5 ,630 3 3 13-1 Re-.:I il
6 71430 1 7,4 30 3 3 13-1 R c·~a i l
7 5 14 50 1 5 ,4 50 2 2 13-1 Reta il
8 6,500 3 191500 2 2 B-1 Re;:ai l
9 61 25 0 1 6,250 3 3 B-1 Retai l
10 3 ,7~0 2 7,50 0 2 2 13 -1 Hv.:a i l
11 4,400 1 4,4 00 2 2 B -1 Re::ail
12 6,250 1 61250 3 3 B-1 Retail
13 6,380 1 61380 2 2 B-1 Retail
14 2,250 1 2,250 1 1 B-1 Re::ail
15 6,000 1 6,000 3 3 B-1 Ret ail
16 4,500 2 9,000 3 3 B-1 Re t ail
17 2,250 3 6, 750 3 3 B-1 Re t ail
18 3, 750 1 3,750 3 3 13-1 Retail
Block L 1 12, 500 2 25,000 3 3 B-1 Retail
2 2,750 2 5,500 3 3 B-1 Ret ail
3 6,000 2 12,000 3 3 13-1 Relail
4 11500 1 1,500 2 2 B-1 Retail
5 730 1 730 2 2 B-1 Retail
6 3,850 1 3,850 2 2 B-1 Retail
7 1,600 1 1,600 2 2 B-1 Retail
8 1,600 1 11600 2 2 B-1 Retail
9 1,130 1 1,130 2 2 B-1 Retail
10 1,200 1 11 200 2 2 B-1 Retail
11 31230 1 3 1230 2 2 13-1 Retail
12 61000 2 121000 3 3 B-1 Retail
13 1,130 1 11130 2 2 B-1 Retail
14 31200 1 3,200 2 2 B-1 Retail
15 2, 500 1 2 1 500 1 1 B-1 Retail
16 450 1 450 1 1 B-1 Retail
17 2,400 1 2,400 1 1 B-1 Retail
18 3,130 1 3,130 1 1 · B-1 Retail
Block M 1 1,500 2 3,100 2 2 B-1 Residence
2 500 1 500 2 2 B-1 Rcsi o c nce
3 21460 1 2,460 2 2 B-1 Residence • 4 2,900 1 2,900 2 2 B-1 Reside nce I 5 6,350 2 12,700 3 3 B-1 Bank (Key Savings) • •
• •
-
•
Ei,GLt..;:OC.) DJ.\~,;CJ,-,N DE\/J:;UX·J·it:: r
Bui l di ng Cond itio n S ur.>n il ry
·a y , 19 8 1
1\PP C:.''i DIX II
fll dg .
No.
Olo c:ic N 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Fool:pci nt
Sq .Ft.
900
1,1 0 0
4 ,3 /5
61000
31850
11500
31000
No ,o f
FlOO!:S
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
•
• •
Gr.or;s *Co nfocrn 'l rtcc Pc ob l <'t n/
Flr.Are a f'Trec<Xle8Idg-:c:cd e -zori{n<j ~c tun ily uote s
90 0 3 3 R· S l:.1 tll'•'l l1t 3 , •100 1 1 t\i V : tV i llJ:i ' <; ll , I ~ 0 2 2 OC f i.ce 61 0 00 2 2 R.:ta il 3,850 2 2 He l:ail 11500 1 1 Re t ail 31 0 00 1 1 Vacant
I • •
•
•
• •
(
I .
• •
-
•
(
•
•
• •
III. Flood Plain Hap, City of Englewood
Flood Insurance Rate Hap, U.S . Department of HUD,
December, 1979
•
I • •
(·
( '\
•
•
• •
•
1-4 <:
I .
• -
• •
IV. Flood Plain Ordinance, City of Englewood
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 22.4B, April, 1978.
• I • •
• •
•
•
Englewood, Colorado
FLOOD PLAIN ORDIMANCJ:
An Ordinance repealing and re-enactiac chapter 22.48, and aaendinc
chapter 22.8 entitled, 'Flood Plain (FP)', and 'Definitioaa•
respectively, relating to the identification of areas of special
flood hazard; and adoptinc boundary aape therefor; prohibitinl
certain uses dan1erous to life and property within said areas ;
restricting uses hazardous to public health; requirimc those
uses peraitted in flood plain districts to be protected a1aiaat
floods by flood proofinc ; re1ulatinc the design and aethod of
construction of all structures within said district and 1enerally
to protect the public froa the burden of extraordinary financial
expenditures in a aanner coaaistent with reasonable flood plain
aanageaent and to preserve the water carryinc characteristics
and capacities of water courses both natural and artificial for
the conveyance of stora and flood waters.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of
the City of Englewood, Colorado, as follows :
Section 1.
That Chapter 22.4B of the Coapreheaaive ZoDiDC Ordinance,
(Ordinance No. 26, Series 1963 as aaended) is hereby repealed and
re-enacted to read as follows:
t22.4B-l Lecislative Purpose and Intent
To proaote the health, safety and welfare of the public,
to ainiaize flood losses in areas subject to flood hasards ; and
to proaote wise use of the flood plain, this zone district has
been established to regulate the uses within the lOG-year flood
plain. The areas of special flood hazard are identified by the
Federal Insurance Adainistration on Flood Hazard Boundary Mape and
Flood Insurance Rate Maps, which aaps are on file in the Knclewood
City Hall in the office of the City Clerk. By adoptinl this zone
district, the following purposes are intended ;
(a) To reduce the hazard of floods to life and
property throuah :
(1) Prohibitina certain uses which are
•
I • •
•
..
dangerous to life or property in time of
flood;
(2) Restricting uses which would be hazardous
to the public health in time of flood;
(3) Restricting uses which are particularly
susceptible to flood daaage, so as to alleviate
hardship and reduce demands for public expenditures
for relief and protection;
<•> Requiring peraitted flood plain uses, in-
cluding public facilities which serve such uses,
to be protected against floods by providing flood
proofing and general flood protection at the
tiae of initial construction.
(b) To protect flood plain occupants from a flood
which is or aay be caused by their own, or other, land use
and which is or aay be undertaken without full realization of the danger, through:
(1) Regulating the manner in which structures
designed for huaan occupancy may be constructed
so as to prevent danger to human life within
such structures;
(2) Regulating the aethod of construction of
water supply and sanitation systems so as to
prevent diaease, contaaination and unsanitary
conditions;
(3) Delineating and describing areas that could
be inundated by flood so as to protect individuals
froa purchasing flood plain lands for purposes
which are not in fact suitable.
(c) To protect the public from the burden of extra-
ordinary financial expenditures for flood control and relief by
regulatiD& all uses within the flood plain areas so as to produce
a aethod of construction and a pattern of development which will
ainiaize the probability of daaage to property and loss of life
or injury to the inhabitants of the flood hazard areas.
(d) To protect the natural areas required to convey
flood flows so that they develop in a manner consistent with
reasonable flood plain aanageaent.
-2-
•
I •
•
..
(e) To protect and preserve the water-carrying
characteristics and capacities of all water courses, including
gulches, sloughs, and artificial water channels used for the
conveyance of storm and flood water.
§22.4B-2 Definitions
(See §22 .8 at the e nd of THIS Secti on)
§22.4B-3 General Provisions
(a) Description of District. The Flood Plain Dis-
trict covers that area of the City which is within the 100-
year flood plain, which i s defined by computing the 100-year
flood plain limits under existing channel and flood plain c on -
ditions .
(b) Jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of this zone
District includes all lands adjacent to any watercourse with -
in the City of Englewood that would be innundated by the 100 -
year flood for that watercourse as defined in the Definition s
Section of this Chapter .
*(c) Flood Plain District Boundaries . The boundarie s
of the Flood Plain District shall be identical to the areas of
special flood hazard identified by the Federal Insurance Ad-
ministration on the Flood Hazard Boundary maps for the Ci ty
of Englewood , Colorado , sheets H-01 through H-04, and the Flood
Insurance Rate Maps for the City of Englewood, Colorado , I-01
through I-04 , dat ed June 24, 1977 . The boundaries of t he Wes t
Ha r vard Gulch Flood Hazard Area shall be as shown on Shee ts 13
an d 14 i n a repor t ent i tled "Fl ood Hazard Area Delineat ion,
Ha rvard Gulch, West Harvard Gulch , and Dr y Gulch" dated De c e mb e r,
1 9 79, prepared by Gingery Associates, Inc., and approve d by
the Co lorado Wa t e r Conser vation Board on January 30, 19 8 0 .
Th e Fl oo d Hazar d Boundary Maps and Flood Insurance Rate Maps
pre pare d by the Fe d eral I n s urance Administration and Sh ee ts
13 and 14 of the Flood Haz ard Area Delineati on Harvard Gulch,
West Harvard Gulch, and Dry Gulch, De c emb er , 1 979 , Gi n g e ry
Associates, Inc., are hereby declared to b e a part o f this
Ordinance, and the official maps shall be on fil e in the of-
fice of the City Clerk, Englewood City Hall, 3400 South Elati
Street, Englewood, Colorado.
(d) Applications for Building Pe rmits shall be re-
viewed on a case-by-case basis by the Flood Plain Zoning Ad-
ministrator to assure :
(1) That the building site will b e reasonably
safe from flooding.
(2) That all necessary permits have been ob-
tained from the Federal, State or Local govern -
mental agencies from which prior approval is
required.
-3-
•
I •
•
-
(3) That where the building s i te is in a l o -
c ation tha t may have a flood h azar d , all new
construction and substantial repa irs , imp rove-
ments , or alterations will be floo d -proofed in
accordance with the minimum flo od-proofing
c r iteria specified in S22 .4B-8(e)(l).
(e ) Interpretation. I n t heir i nterpre t a tion a n d
application, the provisions of this C h apte~ sha ll be h e ld to
be minimum requirements and shall h e: lilJ crnll)• constru e d in
f nvor o f the g overning body.
{f ) Warning and Disclaime r o f L iability. Th e
degree of flood protection intended t o be provided by this
Chapter is considered reasonabl e for r e~u l n t ory pur po se s and
i s ba s ed on e n g inee rin g and sc i entific methods of study.
Larger flood s may occur on occa s ions , or th e f lood h e i g ht may
be increased by man-made or natural cau s e s , s uch as i ce jams
and bridge opening s restricted by debri s . T h i s Chapt er does
not imply that t h e areas outside of th e flood pl a in a r e a
b oundaries or l a nd use s perm itted wi t hin s uch a rea s wi ll a lways
be totally fre e from f looding or floo d d a mages. Nor s h a ll
there be liability on the part of, or a cau se of act i on a g a i n s t,
t he City of En g l e wood or any o ff icer or e mploye e th e reof for
any flood dama g es that may result from reliance on this Ch a pt e r.
(g) Effect of Flood Plain Regulations. The regula-
t ions s et forth i n this Ch :1 p ter for t he Flood Plain Di s tric t ,
s hall appl y to t hose land s wi t h i n t h <: 100 -y ca r flood plain as
ma ppe d a nd d esig n ate d on t h e o f fic ia l Floo d Ha za rd Boundar y
Map a nd The F lood Ins ur a nc e Rate Mnp. The regulations of this
Chapter sh a ll be c ons tru e d a s bei n g s u ppleme ntary t o the
reg ulat i ons imposed on t he s ame land s by th e underlying Zone
c l as sifica tion. Wh e n th e Flood Plain Distr ict a nd the under-
lying Zone District re~ula ti on s co nf l ict with o n e anot h e r,
the mo st rest r ictiv e r eg ul :1tion s s h all c on trol .
§22.4B-4 Special Provisions .
The following regu l atio ns shall apply to a l l uses
within the Flood Plain District , notwithstandin~ that such uses
may be s pecifically permitted u n der the terms of this Chapter.
(a) The flood protection elevation or height shall
correspond to a point one foot (1') above the elevation or
"Flood Profile" shown on or attached to the :t.onin g Map.
(b) No flood p la i n uses shall adv e r sely affect the
efficiency of, or unduly restrict the capacity of any channel,
nny tribut:1ry to nny main strenm, drainn~c ditch, or nny other
drainag e facility or systems ; nor shall any watercourse be
a ltered or restricted unless t h e flood carrying capacity of
the watercours e s hall be maintainPd •
•
I •
..
(c) Until a regulatory Iloodway is designated, it
n•ust be demonstrated that the cumulntive effect of the proposed
deve lopment, when combined with all other existing nnd antici-
pated development, will no t increase the water surface elev at ion
of the Base Flood more thnn one foot at ~ny point, before any
new construction, substantial improvements or other development,
including fill, is permitted within zones Al-A30 as shown on
the FHBM /FIRM.
122.48-5 Description of Uses.
(a) Peraitted Uses. The followinc open uses shall
be peraitted within the Flood Plain District to the extent
tbat tbey are not prohibited in a particular area by any under-
lyinc Zone District classification:
(1) Agricultural uses sucb as : 1eaeral faraiDC
and the raisinc of plants, flowers and nursery
stock;
(2) Public and private recreational uses DOt
requiring peraanent or teuporary structures
designed for huaan habitation such as : Parks,
swi .. inc areas, golf courses, drivina ran1es,
picnic grounds, fishing, and hiking and bikiDC
trails.
(3) Utility facilities such as : flowace areas,
transaission lines, pipelines, water aonitorinc
devices, roadways, and bridces.
(4) All uses allowed by the underlyina Zone
District classification within the Flood Plain
District shall be peraitted as loDC •• the
conditions set forth in Section 22.48-6,
Developaent Peraits, are coaplied with.
122.48-6 Developaent Peraits.
Any use enuaerated in this Section aay be peraitted
only upon application to the Flood Plain Adainistrator as
provided in 122.4B-7(d), Process to be Followed for Develop-
aent Peraits.
(a) Structures Accessory to O~n Uses. Structures
accessory to open uses peraltted in Sect~n 22.4&-5, Description
of Uses, whether teaporary or peraanent, aay be peraitted only
upon a deteraination by the Adainistrator pursuant to a findiDI
under the procedure required by Section 22.4B-7(d), Process to
be Followed for Developaent Peraits, that :
(1) Structures will not be desicned for huaan
habitation;
•
I •
•
-
(2) Structures will have a low flood daaage
potential;
(3) The structure or structures, if peraitted,
will be constructed and placed on the building
site so as to offer the ainiaua obstruction to
the flow of flood waters;
(a) Whenever possible, structures will
be constructed with the long itudinal axi~
parallel to the direction of flow of flood
waters, and
(b) So far as is practicable, structures
will be placed so that their longitudinal
axis are approxi.JIIately on the same line as
those of adjoining structures.
(4) Structures will be firmly anchored to prevent
the •tructure or building from floating away and
thu• threatening to further restrict bridge openings
and other restricted sections of the streaa or
river; and
(5) Service facilities such as electrical equip-
aent will be at or above the flood protection
elevation for the particular area.
(6) Structures will be constructed with materials
and utility equipaent resistant to flood daaage.
(b) Other Structures, Temporary or Peraanent, to be
· Occupied b7 ~~le. Other structures, whether teaporary or
peraaneAt, whlc are to be occupied by people, may be permitted
only upon a finding by the Flood Plain Administrator that :
(1) SUch structures shall comply with Section
(a) (3), (4), (5) and (6) above.
(2) The first floor or baseaent floor of any
•tructure to be erected, constructed, reconstructed,
or ao't·ed on or within the Flood Plain District,
shall be constructed at or :1bove a point one (1}
foot above the 100-year flo•:>d elevation for the
partic111lar area and the fill shall extend at
such e :Levation at least fif ·teen (15) feet be-
yond the limits of any stru·cture or building
erected thereon.
(3) Nc• baseaent shall be permitted in any
resider1tial structure,
•
)
I •
•
•
(c) Fills c•r Deposition of llate:t'ials. Fills or
deposition of .. terlal.s .. y be permitted o11ly upon a finding
by the Adainistrator t :hat:
(1) Any fill or deposition of aaterials will
coaply with Section 4, Spec:S•al Provisions, and
(2) The fill or deposition of aaterials will
have •~ beneficial purpose and the a.ount
thereof will not be greater than is necessary to
achieve that purpose, as demonstrated by a plan
subaitt ed by tbe owner show1.ng the final diaensions
of the proposed fill or othar aaterial and the
use to which the filled land will be put;
(3) The fill or depositior. uf aaterials does
not encroach on that portion of the flood plain
which would have significant and perceptible
flow during the flood, and which for that reason
would help convey the flood waters. Any addition-
al filling reduces the hydraulic capacity and re-
quire• appropriate hydraulic studiea and a review
of the urban iapact of such reduction.
(4) The fill or other aaterials will be protected
against erosion by rip-rap, strong vegetative
cover or bulkheading.
(d) The Storage or Processinc of Materials. The
storage or processing of aaterials tbit are buoyant, fla ... ble,
explosive, or in tiae of flooding, could be injurious to hu .. n,
aniaal, or plant life, shall be above the flood protection
elevation for the particular area or flood proofed in coapliance
with 122.48-8 Flood Proofing. Solid waste diapoaal facilities,
such as junkyards or areas for the duaping of refuse or the
storage of non-operable vehicles shall not be peraitted.
(e) Mobile Hoaes.
(1) All new or replaceaent mobile hoaes placed
within existing or new aobile hoae parks or· sub-
divisions after the effective date of this
Ordinance, shall be anchored to resist flotation,
collapse, or lateral aoveaent by providing over-
the-top and frame ties as follows:
•
I .
-
(a) Mobile Hoaes
(Less than 50
feet long.)
•
-
Over-The-Top Ties
3 per side (one at each
of the four corners plus
one additional tie per
side)
Frue Ties
6 per side (one
at each corner
plus four addi-
tional ties per side.)
(b) Mobile Ho11es
(Greater
than 50 feet
long.)
4 per side (one at each of
the four corners plus two
additional ties at inter-
llediate locations.)
7 per side (one a t
each corner plus
five additional
ties per side at
intermediate lo-
cations.)
(c) All c011ponents of the anchoring
system shall be capable of carrying a
force of 4,800 pounds, and aanufacturer•s
specifications of the coaponents to be
used in the anchoring systea shall be sub-
mitted to the Administrator to deaonstrate
compliance with this requireaent.
(d) Any additions to the Mobile Hoae shall
be similarly anchored.
(2) After the effective date of this ordinance,
all new Mobile Boae Parks and Mobile Holle Sub-
divisions and all existing Mobile Hoae Parks and
Mobile Hoae Subdivisions which are expanded, or
in which parks or subdivisions the repair, re-
conatruction or iaprov-ent of the streets,
utilities and pads equals or &Kceeds 50 percent
of the value before the repair, reconstruction
or laprov ... nt bas co.aenced, shall coaply with the following:
{a) Stands for lots shall be elevated on
coapacted fill or on piling so that the
lowest floor of the Mobile Hoae will be
at or above the Base Flood Level;
(b) Adequate surface drainage and access
for a hauler shall be provided; and,
(c) In the instance of elevation on
pilings:
--Lots shall be large enough to pex•it
steps,
--Piling foundations shall be placed in
stable soil no more than ten feet apart; and
--Reinforceaent shall be provided for
pilinca .are than six feet above the
1round level.
•
I •
•
• ..
(3) Ko Mobile Hoae shall be aaintained for
teaporary or peraanent living purposes upon
any private or public property in the City of
Englewood, Colorado, unless the property is
registered as a Mobile Hoae Park.
<•> The City shall establish an evacuation
plan for Mobile Roae Parks and file the saae
with the appropriate disaster preparedness
authorities.
(f) liailar Uaea. Uses very siailar in nature to
peraitted uaea a&J be allowed by the Flood Plain Adainistrator,
provided that tbey are conaistent witb tbe provisions of this
Chapter.
122.48-7 A~1n1strat1on.
(a) Flood Plain Administrator. The Director
of co .. unity Developaent or his assignee shall be the
Flood Plain Adainistrator and shall enforce the provisions
of this Chapter.
(b) Flood Plain ZoniDI Permit. A Flood Plain Zonin,
Perait aust be obtained froa the Flood Plain Adainistrator
before a Building Perait can be issued for any use subject to
the provisions of the chapter and before any watercourse can
be altered or relocated. In the event of an application re-
questing an alteration or relocation of a watercourse, all ad-
jacent co .. unities and the State Coordinating Office shall be
notified prior to any action. Copies of said notification
shall be aubaitted to the Flood Insurance Administration.
(c) Mapping Disputes. The following procedure
shall be used by the Flood Plain Administrator in deciding
contested cases in which the location of a Flood Plain District
boundary is disputed:
(1) In all cases the person conteatin, the
location of the District boundary shall be
given a reasonable opportunity to present hia
case to the Administrator and to subait his
own technical evidence if he so desires.
The Administrator shall not allow deviations
from the boundary line as mapped unless the
evidence clearly and conclusively establishes
that the mapped location of the line is incorrect.
(d) Process to be Followed for Developaent Peraits.
(1) Application For. Any use listed in this
Chapter as requiring a Development Perait aay
be allowed only upon application to and the
issuance of a Development Permit by the Flood
Plain Administrator.
•
I • •
•
•
•
(2) Procedure for Passing on Development Peraits.
(a) Upon receiving an application for a
Development Permit involving the use of
fill, construction of structures, or
storage of materials, the Administrator
shall require the applicant to submit the
following:
(1) Two (2) copies of an aerial
photograph of the area, or a plan
certified by a registered engineer
competent in open channel hydraulics,
which nccurately loca tes the flood
plain proposal with respect to the
District limits. channel of the streaa,
existing flood plain developments, to-
gether with all pertinent information
such as the nature of the proposal;
legal description of the property;
fill liaits and elevations; building
floor elevations; and flood proofing
aeasures.
(2) If it is deemed necessary by the
Administrator to have the elevation of
the effects of the proposal upon flood
flows and flood plain storage in order
to render a decision on the proposed
flood plain use, the Administrator may
require the applicant to furnish the
following additional information:
(a) A typical valley cross-section I
showing the channel of the stream,
the flood plain adjoining each
side of the channel, cross-sectional
area to be occupied by the proposed
developaent and high water informa-
tion.
(b) Plan (surface view) showing
elevation or contours of the ground;
pertinent structure, fill or storage
elevations; size, location and
spatial arrangeaent of all proposed
and existing structures on the site;
location and elevations of streets,
water supply, sanitary facilities,
and soil types and other pertinent
inforaation.
(c) Profile showing the slope of
the bottoa of the channel or thalweg
of the streaa •
•
I •
•
..
(d) Specifications for building
construction and materials, flood
proofing, filling, dredging,
grading, channel improvement,
storage of aaterials, wate~ supply,
and sanitary facilities,
(3) Decision of Adainistrator to be based on
Certa1n factors. the deteralnatlon of the
Xdilnistrator on each Developaent Perait shall
be based on the effects of the proposed project
with respect to the objectives and purposes of
this Chapter as stated in the Stateaent of
Purpose, Section 22.48-1 (a) (1), (2), (3), and 4,
(4) The Adainstrator ehall act on an
application in the manner above described
within 30 days from receiving the application.
(e) Conditions Attached to Developaent Peraits,
Upon consideration of the factors listed above and
and the purposes of this Chapter, the Flood Plain
Adainistrator shall attach such condition, in
addition to those required by the Developaent Perait,
as is necessary to further the purposes of this
Chapter. Such conditions may include specifications
for, without liaitation because of specific enuaera-
tion, aodification of waste disposal aethods and facil-
ities, landscaping, period of operation, operational
controls, sureities, deed restriction, and adequate
flood proofing,
122,48-8 Floodproofing.
(a) All new construction and substantial iaprov~ents
of non-residential structures within zones Al-A30 on the FHBM/FIRM
which do not have the lowest floor, including baseaent, elevated
to or above the Base Flood Level shall be flood proofed, All
flood proofed structures, together with attendant utility and
sanitary facilites, shall be so designed that below the Base
Flood Level, the structure is water tight with walls substantially
iaperaeable to the passage of water and with structural coaponent•
having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynaaic
loads and effects of buoyancy. The Adainistrator shall require
that the applicant subait a plan or docuaent certified by a
registered professional engineer that the flood proofing mea•ures
are consistent with the flood protection elevation for the parti-
cular area.
(b) Flood Proofing aeasures aay include the following :
(1) Anchorage to resist flotation and lateral
movement.
(2) Installation of watertight doors,
bulkheads and shutters.
(3) Reinforcement of walls to resist
water pressures,
•
I • •
•
-
(4) Use of water-pro of paints, Membranes
or mortars to reduce seepage of wat r
through walls.
(5) Addition of aa ss or weight to stru c -
tures to resist flo t a t i o n.
(6) Installation o f pump s to l o wer wa ter
levels in s truc t u r es .
(7) Construction of new and replacement
water supply and waste treatment
systeas to prevent the entrance of
flood waters into the sy s tem and to
prevent discharges from the system
into flood waters,
(8) Puaping facilities for subsurface
drainage systeas for buildings to
relieve external foundation wall and
baseaent floor pressures.
(9) Construction to resist rupture or
collapse, caused by water pressure
or floating debris.
(10) Cutoff valves on sewer lines or the
eliaination of gravity flow basement
drains.
(11) on-site waste disposal systeas shall
be located to avoid iapairaent to them
or contaaination fro• thea during
flooding,
122,48-9 Certificate of Coapliance.
(a) No vacant land shall be occupied or used and
no buildinc shall be hereafter erected, altered, or moved on
the flood plains of any water course, nor shall such buildings
be occupied, until a Certificate of Compliance shall have bee n
iaaued by the Flood Plain Adainistrator,
(b ) Th e applicant shall submit a certi f ica tion by
a re1istered professional encineer to the Flood Plain
Adainiatrator that the finished fill and building floor
elevations, flood proofing aeasures, or other protection
factors were accoaplished in coapliance with the provisions o f
this Chapter, This certification shall also state whether or
not the structure contains a baseaent. Within ten days after
receipt of auch certification froa the applicant, the
Adainistrator s hall issue a Certificate of Compliance only
if the buildinc or preaises and the proposed use thereof,
c onfora with all of the requireaents of this Chapt e r, and
shall aaintain a peraanent record thereof,
•
I
•
-
122.48-10 A .. o~nts.
The boundaries of th.e Flood Plain District shall be
subject to periodic review and shall be aaended in the manner
provided by law, to confora with any revised, corrected or
additional hydrological data available froa Federal, State or
regioual a1encies or froa a consulting engineer retained by
the City.
122.48-11 Mon Conforaing Uses.
kKlsting Non-conforaing Uses in the Flood Plain Dis-
trict aay be aodified, altered, or repaired to incorporate
floodproofing aeasures; but such Non-conforming Uses shall not
be expanded.
122.48-12 Subdivision Plats.
(a) All subdivision proposals shall be designed to
ainiaize flood daaage;
(b) All subdivision proposals shall have public
utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and
water systeas located and constructed to ainiaize flood daaage ;
(c) All subdivision proposals shall have adequate
drainage provided to reduce exposure to flood daaage; and,
(d) Base Flood Elevation Data shall be provided
for subdivision proposals and other proposed developaent which
contain at least 50 lots or 5 acres which ever is less.
§22.48-13 Variance Procedure.
A. ftppeal Board
(1) The Board of Adjustaent and Appeals as
established by the City of Englewood, shall hear
and decide appeals and requests for variances
froa the requireaents of this ordinance.
(2) The Board shall hear and decide appeals when
it is alleged there is an error in any reQuireaent,
decision, or determination aade by the Flood Plain
Adainistrator in the anforceaent or adainistration
of this Ordinance.
(3) Those aggrieved by the decision of the Board
of Adjustment and Appeals, or any taxpayer, aay
appeal such decision to a court of record having
jur1sdiction thereof.
(4) In passing upon such applications, the Board
shall consider all technical evaluations, all
relevant factors, standards specified tn other
sections of this ordinance, and:
•
I •
•
• -
(a) The danger that materials may be swept
onto other lands to the injury of others ;
(b) The danger to life and property due to
flooding or erosion damage;
(c) The susceptibility of the proposed
facility and its contents to flood daaage
and the effect of such damage on the
individual owner;
(d) The importance of the services provided
by the proposed facility to the community;
(e) The availability of alternative locations,
for the proposed use which are not subject
to flooding or erosion damage.
(f) The coapatibility of the proposed use with
existinc and anticipated developaent;
(g) The relationahip of the proposed use to
the Coaprehensive Plan and Flood Plain
Manageaent Prograa for that area;
(h) The safety of access to the property in
tiaes of flood for ordinary and emergency
vehicles;
(i) The expected heights, velocity, duration,
rate of rise, and sediment transport of
the flood waters and the effects of
wave action, if applicable, expected
at the site; and,
(j) The costs of providing governmental
services during and after flood conditions,
including aaintenance and repair of public
utilities and facilities such. as sewer, gas,
electrical, and water systems, and streets
and bridges.
(5) Variances aay be issued for new construction
and substantial iaproveaents to be erected on a
lot of one-half acre or less in size contiguous
to and surrounded by lots with existing structures
constructed below the Base Flood Level, providing
ite .. (a-j) in 122.48-13{4) have been fully con-
sidered. As the lot size increases beyond the
one-half acre, the technical justification required
for issuina the variance increases.
(6) Upon consideration of the factors of 122.48-13
(4) and the purposes of this ordinance, the Board
of Adjustaent and Appeals aay attach such conditions
to the granting of variances as it deems necessary
to further the purposes of this Ordinance •
•
I •
--
• •
(7) Tbe Flood Plain Adainistrator sball maintain
tbe recorda of all appeal actions and report any
variances to the Federal Insurance Adainistration
upon request.
B. Conditions for Variances.
Section 2.
(1) Variances aay be issued for the reconstruction,
rehabilitation or restoration of structures listed
on the National Register of Historic Places or the
State Inventory of Historic Places, without regard
to the procedures set forth in the reaainder of
this section.
(2) Variances shall only be issued upon a deter-
aination that the Variance is the ainiaua necessary,
considering the flood hazard, to afford relief.
(3) Variances shall only be issued upon:
(a) A showing of good and sufficient cause;
(b) A determination that failure to grant
the Variance would result in exceptional
hardship to the applicant; and
(c) A deteraination that the granting of a
Variance will not result in increased
flood heights, additional threats to
public safety, extraordinary public
expense, create nuisances, cause fraud
on or victimization of the public as
identified in 122.48-13(4), or conflict
with existing local laws or Ordinances.
(4) Any applicant to whoa a Variance is granted
to build the lowest floor elevation below the
Base Flood Elevation shall be given written notice
that the cost of flood insurance will be co .. ensurate
with the increased risk resulting from the reduced
lowest floor elevation.
That Chapter 22.8 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
(Ord. #26, Series of 1963, as amended) is hereby aaended by add-
ing new definitions as follows :
Definitions
Appeal : A request for a review of the Building Inspector 's
or the Flood Plain Administrator's interpretation of any provision
of this Ordinance or a request for a Variance thereto.
Area of Special Flood Hazard : The land in the flood
plain within the City of Englewood which is subject to a one
percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year.
Ba se Flood : Th e f lood having a one perc n t c hance
of being equ3 lle d or e x ce ded in any give n ye ar •
•
I •
-
Channel: A natural or artificial watercourse of
perceptible extent, with definite bed and banks to confine and
c onduct continuously or periodically flowing water. Channel
flo w thus is that water which is flowing within the limits of
the defined channel.
Develo~nt: Any aan-aade change to improved or unimproved
real eatate~ncludinl but not liaited to buildings or other
structures, aining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation
or drillinl operations located within the area of special flood
hazard.
Encroachment Linea: The liaits of obstruction to flood
flows. These lines are generally parallel to the stream. The
linea are established by assuming that the area landward (out-
side) of the encroachment lines aay be ultimately developed in
such a way that it will not be available to convey flood flows.
The streaa channel and adjoining flood plains between these
linea will be aaintained as open space and will be adequate
to convey the 100-year flood without adversely increasing one
(1) foot.
Equal Dearee of Encroachment: The degree of encroachment
established by considering the effect of encroachment on the
hydraulic efficiency of the flood plain along a significant
reach of the streaa on both sides.
Exiati~ Mobile Hoae Park: A mobile hoae park existing
within thety of ln1lewood on the effective date of this
Ordinance or existing on the date of annexation within territory
annexed to the City of Englewood subsequent to the effective
date of this Ordinance.
Expansion to an Existing Mobile Hoae Park: The preparation ~
of additional aobile hoae spaces or the construction of facilities
for servicinc the aobile hoae space on which the mobile homes
are to be affixed, including the installation of utilities,
final site 1rading or pouring of concrete pads or the construction
of streets.
Flood: The water froa a river, streaa, watercourse, lake
or ot~dy of standing water that temporarily overflows or
inundates adjacent lands and which aay affect other lands and
activities through stage elevation backwater, and/or increased
ground water level.
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): The official map on
which the Federal Insurance Adainistration has delineated
both the areas of Special Flood Hazards and the Risk Premium
Zones applicable to the City of Englewood.
Flood In.urance Study: The official report provided by
the Federal Insurance Administration that includes flood profiles,
the Flood Boundary-Floodway Map and the water SUrface Blevation
of the Base Flood.
-16-
•
I •
•
• •
flood Plain: The relatively flat or lowland area adjoiniac
a river, atreaa, watercourse, lake, or other body of standinc
water which has been or aay be covered teaporarily by flood
water. for adainistrative purposes, the flood plain aay be
defined as the area that would be inundated by the "Standard
Project Flood" (Cor.,_ of Bneineera) or the "llaxiaua Probable Flood" (TVA).
Flood Plain District: That portion of the flood
pLain subJect to inunditlon by the 100-year flood. Ita width
is deterained by the lOo-year flood. Ita length or reach is
deterained by natural bounds such as a lake, or by political
or legal bounds. This equals the interaediate regional flood
as defined by the Corps of Bncineers.
Flood Profile: A eraph or loncitudinal profile
showing the relationship of the watersurface elevation of a
flood event to location alone a atreaa or river.
Floodproofing: Any coabination of structural and
non-structural additions, chances, or adjuataents to properties
and structures, priaarily for the reduction or eliaination of
flood daaaee to lands, water, and sanitary facilities, structures, and contents of buildings.
Flood Protection Elevation: An elevation one (1)
foot above the elevation or "flood profile" of the 100-year
flood under existing channel and flood plain conditions. It
is one (1) foot above the elevation of the flood for the Flood
Plain District as shown on the Flood Hazard Boundary llap/Flood
Insurance Rate llap for Enelewood, Colorado.
Flood Sta1e: The height or elevation of a flood ••
referred to soae datua. It is also coaaonly used to refer to
the elevation at which a atreaa will overtop ita noraal ata1e banks.
Habitable Floor: Any floor usable for livinl purposes,
which includes workinc, sleepinc, eating, cookine or recreation,
or a coabination thereof. A floor used only for atora1e pur-
poses is not a "Habitable Floor".
llobile Hoae : A detached, single residential dwelliftl
unit which has all of the following characteristics :
(a)
(b )
(c)
It i s deaiened for long-tera occupancy and eontaina
a flush toilet, tub or shower bath, kitchen facilities,
and sleeping accoaaodations.
It is desiened to be transported after fabrication
on its own whe e ls, on a flatbed or other trailer.
It arrives at the site where it is to be occupied
as a dwelling coaplete, including aajor appliances
and furn i ture, and ready for occupancy except for
-17-
•
I • •
•
..
ainor and incidental unpacking and asseably opera tions,
location on jacks or other supports, connection to
utilities, and the like.
Double-Wide or Triple-Wide Mobile Hoae: A Mobile Hoae
consi sting respectively of two or three sections conbined
hori zontally at the site to fora a single dwelling, while
still retaininc their individual chassis for possible future
aoveaent.
Expandable Mobile Hoae: A Mobile Ho•e with one or aore
rooa sections that fold, collapse, or telescope into the
principal unit when beinc transported and which can be expanded
at the aite to provide additional living area.
Mobile Hoae Park: A tract of land either in single owner-
ship or divided into block• and/or lots which aay be in separate
ownership, which has been developed with all necessary facilities
and services in accordance with a site development plan, aeeting
all of the requireaents of this Ordinance and which is intended
for the express purpose of providing a satisfying living en-
vironaent for aobile hoae residents on a long-tera occupancy
basis.
Mobile Hoae Space: A plot of ground within a Mobile Home
Park, desi1ned for the acco.-odation of one aobile home.
New CoD8truction: Structures for which the start of
coD8tructlon coaaenced on or after the effective date of this
Ordinance.
New Mobile Ho .. Park: A Mobile Hoae Park for which the
construction of facllltles for the Mobile Hoae spaces or for
servicina the Mobile Hoae spaces, including but not liait~d to,
tbe 1D8tallation of utilities, final site grading, the pouring
of coDCrete pads and the conatruction of streets is coapleted
on or after the effective date of this Ordinance.
aeacb: A hydraulic engineering tera to describe longi-
tudinal ae1 .. nts of a streaa or river. A reach will generally
include the se1•ent of the flood plain where flood heights are
prlaarilJ controlled by aan-aade or natural flood plain obstruc-
tions or restrictions. In an urban area, the segaent of a stream
or river between two conaecutive bridge crossings would aost
likely be a reach.
Mobile ao .. Park -Start of Construction: The date on
which the construction of facilities for servicing the sites
on which the aobile hoaes are to be affixed, including but
not liaited to the construction of streets, final site grading,
pourinc of concrete pads, and installation of utilities is
co .. eDCed.
Ri~: A facing of aasonry or the like for protecting
an .. bi nt. Riprap shall consist of field atone or rough
-18-
•
I
(
•
•
unhewn quarry stone as nearly rectangular as is practicable,
Broken concrete aasonry or concrete paveaent aay be used if
approved by the Director of Public Works, The atone shall
have a specific gravity of at least 2,25 and shall be resistant
to the action of air and water, Flakinl or fra1aental rock
will not be peraitted. Stones shall have a ainiaua thickness
of 3 inches and a aintaua voluae of one cubic foot and at least
50 percent by weight shall have a voluae of two cubic feet or
aore. The riprap sball be placed to conform to the specifica-
tions of tbe Director of Public Works. ·
The voluae of apace
Structure: Anything constructed or erected which requires
location upon or under tbe ground or attached to aoaething
having location upon or under the ground.
Substantial iaproveaent: Any repair, reconstruction, or
iaproveaent of a property, the cost of which equals or exceeds
50 percent of the fair aarket value of the property either (a)
before the iaproveaent is started or (b) if the property has
been daaaged and is being restored, before the daaage occurred.
Substantial iaproveaent is started when the first alteration
of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of the
buildina co ... nees,
Variance. A srant of relief froa the requireaents of
this Ordinance which would perait the use of land or construction
on the land in a aanner that would otherwise be prohibited by
this Ordinance.
Watercourse: The channel of a atreaa or a natural or
aanaade channel used for the conveyance of water.
Flood Plain Adainistrator: The Director of Co .. unity
Developaent or his assignee shall be the Flood Plain Adainiatra-
tor, also referred to as the Adainistrator.
Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the 22nd day of
March, 1978.
Read by title and passed on final reading on the 4th day
of April, 1978.
Published by title as Ordinance Mo. 2, Series of 1978, on
the 5th day of April, 1978.
-19-
•
I • •
•
• -
A.....,_.""",...,._ • • flefll.,..... .... Tile ...... et tile ... .,,._
..... llluetrotw o .. u., locetlell wit~...., 1 "'' eftlle ... _...., .. , ...... Tile ..... -.. ............ ""." ... ,......._ .................. , ...... 111--··
,.,..... ,, "" ... -•tlflclllt, ....... , ......... filM ......
-UrMII ••wei._,.,,., ltlot II c-.ot• wltlt 1 floe• ....,.llcotiool. Ill tllll
._ .. ,,., ... ,lite -ef tlte ..,.... "-111111 e4ju111411 te ..,_.. -·--, .... ,_.
•
I • •
• -
• •
(
(
•
('
I . •
• •
• -
• •
-
V. Land Use Ma~
City of Englewood, April, 1982.
(
I .
(
• •
-
v.
•
(
•
•
• •
LAND USE MAPS, City of Englewood, April, 1982.
Land Use Maps, which are maintained and updated regularly by
the Planning Division of the Englewood Community Development
Department, were utilized to determine the s tatus of parcels
within the designated Redevelopment Area. These maps are
available for public inspection at the Planning Division's
offices:
Englewood City Hall
3400 South Elati Street
Englewood, Colorado 80110
•
D
I • •
• -
• •
• •
< .....
I .
-
•
•
VI. Economic Market Potential,
Downtown Englewood, Colorado
Brown, Bortz & Coddington,
August, 1981
Section 1, pages 1 -19.
•
• •
I • •
•
I
I
•
•
• •
ECONOMIC MARKET POTENTIAL
Downtown Englewood
-Prepared for -
City of Englewood, Colorado
Englewood Downtown Development Authority
Brady Enterprises, Inc.
-Prepared by -
John M. Gunyou
Browne, Bortz & Coddington
155 South Madison Street
Denver, Colorado B020g
August 1981
•
I . .
-
•
•
•
• •
SECTION I. RETAIL MARKET POTENTIAL
In this section, the market potential of retail businesses in Downtown
Englewood is evaluated. It includes an analysis of commercial potential for both
convenience and comparison retail outlets, with an examination of appropriate complementary new businesses.
Retail Market Overview
Characteristics of the existing retail market in the vicinity of Down-
town Englewood are identified. The study area presently includes Cinderella
City, a major regional retail shopping center serving the southern Denver Metro-politan Area.
Regional retail market. Retail sales at DMA retail outlets increased
by over 13 percent annually during the 1970's, but have slowed during recent
years. Fluctuations in market shares among retail establishments generally
reflect recessionary and recovery periods during the past decade.
The Denver Central Business District (CBD) presently accounts for the
largest retail market share of any single commercial district in the region, with
an estimated 5.8 percent share of retail sales. Downtown Englewood, the Aurora
City Center and Cherry Creek area, are the next largest retail districts:(!)
Retail Area
Denver CBD
DOWNTOWN ENGLEWOOD
Aurora City Center
Cherry Creek Area
Buckingham Area
Villa Italia
University Hills Area
Southglenn Mall
Northglenn Mall r
Westland Center
Subtotal
Other Areas
Total DMA
Percent of Total DMA
Retail Sales at Retail
5.8S
3.8
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.2
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.2
Establislvnents
33.5~
~
100.~
A significant portion of retail sales takes place at retail estaulish -
rn ents not located within the major shopping centers of the DMA. Nearly two-
thirds of the retail market is captured by the .any retail centers and individu a l
sto r es not among the ten largest commercial centers in the DMA.
Major retail centers have generally declined in importance as shopping
has become less concentrated a.ong the .any new ~diu. sized centers whi ch hav e
•
I • •
•
•
• •
2
opened during recent years. Major centers such as the Denver C80, Cherry Creek
area, Cinderella City, Aurora Mall, Buckingham Square, Villa Italia, Southglenn
Mall and Northglenn Mall have generally maintained their market shares, with some
diluti on as competition has increased. Centers generally maintaining a stronger
market share include the Aurora Mall, Cherry Creek area and Southglenn Mall.
Retail sales trends. According to data maintained by the Englewood
Finance Department, sales 1n the Downtown Englewood Area have not kept pace with
retail sales growth in the City of Englewood or the Denver Metropolitan Area.
Over the 1g75-1979 time period, taxable retail sales in the Downtown Englewood
Area experienced an annual growth rate of 9.3 percent. Taxable sales in the
Denver Metropolitan Area grew by 16.7 percent annually and in the City of Engle-
wood by 11.3 percent over the same time period. As a result, sales at Downtown
Englewood businesses have been accounting for a lower percentage of overall city
and OMA taxable sales:(2)
Taxable Retail Sales Downtown
{millions} Englewood
Downtown City of Denver as Percent of
Year Englewood Englewood Metro Area Cit,l DMA
1975 s 97.3 $143.3 $5,074.8 67.91 1.91
1976 106.2 160.0 6,013.g 66.4 1.8
1977 112.8 176 .7 6,887.3 63.8 1.6
1978 128.4 200.0 8,080.7 64.2 1.6
1979 138.8 220.0 9,414.4 63.1 1.5
1980 NA 248.0 10,149.0 NA NA
While detailed data for Downtown Englewood are not available, the
proportion of total Englewood retail sales attributable to retail businesses is
generally CQIIIParable with that of the Denver Metropolitan Area. The auto-
oriented establis~ts on South Broadway account for a relatively large propor-
tion of Englewood sales in CQIIParison with auto sales region wide. Englewood
apparel stores also account for a relatively large proportion of DMA clothing
sales in ca.parison with total retail sales:
Percent of Total
1980 Retail Sales
Denver Englewood
City of Metro as Percent
Business Cate~rl Englewood Area of OMA
Building Materials 4.41 4.61 4.51
General Merchandise 6.0 6.0 4.9
Food Stores 6.6 11.1 3.6
Auto Related 25.1 16.0 6.5
Apparel Stores 3.2 2.7 7.1
Furniture Stores 3.0 3.2 5.7.
Eating ' Drinking 3.1 5.7 3.2
Miscellaneous Retail 9.5 11.6 5.4
Other Businesses _1!:! _1!:! _2_.6
Total Sales 100.01 100.01 !i.7~
•
I • •
•
•
•
• -
3
Businesses in the City of Englewood experience a relatively higher
degree of season a 1 i ty than retail businesses region-wide. As is the case
throughout the Denver Metropolitan Area, the fourth quarter (October-December)
accounts for the greatest relative portion of annual sales:
Citl of Englewood Denver Metro Area
1980 Retail 1980 Retail
Sales Percent Sales Percent
Quarter (mi 11 ions} of Total (millions} of Total
January-March $198.4 20.8S $ 3,637.6 22.8%
April-June 216.7 22.7 3,809.9 23.9
July-September 224.8 23.5 3,982.2 24.9
October-December 315.4 33.0 41 544.0 28.4
Total Year $g55.3 100.0% $15,973.7 100.0%
Cinderella Citl· Downtown Englewood includes one of the largest en-
closed shopping malls in the country. The Cinderella City complex opened in 1968
and presently includes approximately 1.3 million square feet of gross leasable
area, with well over 200 businesses. Cinderella City sales presently account for
over one-third of all sales at Englewood retail business establishments.
Retail sales at Cinderella City grew strongly during the early 1970's
but experienced a downturn in 1g75 with the opening of the Southglenn Mall.
Sales during 1g76 and 1g77 were relatively level and 1978 business declined in
response to increasing competition, as well as upkeep and •aintenance problems at
the Mall. Sales recovered during 1g7g and reached the highest square footage
level in history during 1980.
Cinderella City owners have announced plans for a $20 million expan-
sion and renovation progra. over the next two and one-half years. Expansion of
the center will accommodate a new Broadway Department Store and a Food Court Mall
which will include several new restaurants. Parking expansion 1s also planned,
along with new lighting, ceiling and wall treatments. The 150,000 square foot
Broadway Store will join the Denver, Joslins and J.C. Penney as anchor tenants in
Cinderella City.(3)
Market Area Definition
The first major task of any retail market analysis is to determine the
primary and secondary market areas which apply to project area businesses. The
primary market area is that area from which convenience retail establishments can
expect to receive the majority of their business. The secondary market area
represents the area from which comparative outlets will draw the bulk of their
sales. Since each specific business will have its own unique market area, the
primary and secondary areas defined in Figure 2 for this analysis represent
general approximations for the two classes of retail firms (convenience and
comparison) •
Convenience versus crr;arison. Unlike traditional shopping malls
which someti~~es cater specificalyto either regional, c011111unity or neigl•huriH)O!I
markets, the Downtown Englewood Area includes two basic levels of retail outlet ~;
conven i ence goods and comparison goods businesses. There are approx im.Jlt•ly
•
I • •
•
• •
FIGUR E 2 .
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY MARKET AREAS FOR DOWNTOWN ENGLEWOOD
'I' '
___. :_........._;_ ·.-.. --:~ .-_._. ;.:.·'----~---
.. :., .... '' -. .'i · ... -... , .. I
--·
r:
\( -, '
-·. ~·· -
\
\
• •
---} 4
I • •
•
•
• -
5
310,000 square feet of convenience goods outlets in Downtown Englewood, while compar i son goods comprise 1,170,000 square feet.(4)
Both convenience and comparison outlets have specific market charac-
teristics. Convenience goods are generally low cost items with little product
differentiation. Convenience outlets include supermarkets, drug stores, book-
stores, liquor stores, hardware stores, record shops and delicatessens. The key
factor in convenience goods shopping involves convenience of location since products are basically similar.
Comparison outlets serve a much larger and more loosely defined market
area than do convenience businesses. Customers are generally more willing to
travel greater distances for comparison goods as this type of shopping involves
purchases of more expensive items. The economic potential of many such outlets
is related to the economy of the entire Denver Metropolitan Area (DMA) rather
than the characteristics of residents in the surrounding neighborhood.
The study area includes a mnber of comparison goods outlets, in-
cluding such businesses as department and variety stores, clothing and shoe
stores, jewelry stores, furniture and appliance stores, and major restaurants.
Goods handled by these outlets tend to be more expensive, with a greater degree of comparison shopping involved.
Market area factors. A variety of factors were considered in the
delineation of the primary and secondary market areas, including the character-
istics of the study area, the location of competitive retail areas, shopper
access, parking facilities, physical barriers and historical trends in sales
activity. Certain of these factors are discussed in more detail:
• Convenience. Convenience goods outlets generally handle
low cost iteas which offer little product differenti-
ation. Driving times to neighborhood convenience stores
are relatively brief, often a maxi~mn of five minutes.
The size of the primary market area directly reflects the
convenience orientation of neighborhood businesses.
Convenience is less a factor for comparison goods busi-
nesses since customers are generally drawn from a much
larger market area. Accessibility via major transporta-
tion arterials is a more important consideration.
• Accessibilit,>:. Access to the study area businesses is
provided along Hampden Avenue (U.S. 285) which is t he
major east-west arterial, and South Broadway, the major
north-south arterial. Secondary access is furnished pri-
marily from Santa Fe Drive and several of the less heav-
ily traveled roads in the area, such as Floyd Avenue, Old
Hampden Avenue, Logan Street and Grant Street.
Hampden carries a considerable volume of traffic through
the study area. Traffic volw.es on the east side of
Downtown Englewood have increased fro. 33,100 in 1975 to
42,100 in 1979.(5) A similar change is evident on the
west side of the study area where volumes on Hampden
•
I •
(
•
•
• •
increased to 50,200 in 1979, a 5,600 increase since 1975.
This represents an increase of almost 13 percent. A
somewhat more modest growth is apparent along Broadway
south of the study area where increases of two and four
percent were evidenced at Kenyon Avenue and Oxford
respectively. A decline in traffic volumes of 10 percent
took place along Broadway north of the study area.
• Physical barriers. Physical barriers limit the primary
market area in several directions. Santa Fe Boulevard
and the South Platte River limit the market area to the
west while I-25 and University Boulevard limit the market
area to the north and east. Belleview Avenue provides
somewhat of a barrier in the south. Physical barriers
play a less important role for comparison goods busi-
nesses as compared with convenience outlets.
• Competitive influences. The locations and drawing power
of competitors is also an important factor in retail po-
tential, especially for comparison goods businesses.
Major conmercial areas offering similar goods and ser-
vices represent the primary competition considerations to the study area.
University Hills, the Southglenn Mall and the Bear Valley
Shopping Center represent primary competition and a limit
to the drawing power of area businesses. Retail estab-
lishments which line Broadway, Federal, Hampden and
Belleview are also competitive influences. Competition
is discussed in more detail in a subsequent portion of this section.
• Orawin ower of local businesses. The neighborhood and
convenience out ets 1n the stu y area benefit from the
drawing power and traffic volumes generated by the shop-
pers goods outlets in the same area. In order to deter-
mine the existing trade areas of businesses for a pre-
vious BBC study, a check cashing survey was performed at
a major retail outlet in the study area considered repre-
sentative of convenience-oriented businesses. Customer
addresses were also plotted for a major Downtown Engle-
wood financial institution. The dot-plots closely cor-
respond with the defined market areas illustrated in Figure 2.
Cinderella City currently holds a rela-tively strong pos1tion wit n the retail market, but future prospel:ls fur
maintaining this market position are uncertain as a result of increasing crnnpcti -
•
6
)
I •
•
•
• -
t ion. A relatively high portion of DMA shoppers currently frequent the mall over
a 30 da y period, but fewer visit Cinderella City weekly:{6)
Shopping Center
Aurora Mall
Buckingham Square
Downtown Denver
Villa Italia
Cherry Creek
CINDERELLA CITY
lakeside
Southglenn Mall
Greater University Hills
Northglenn Mall
Westland
North Valley
Westminster Mall
Westminster Plaza
Bear Valley
DMA Shopping Area Preference
(Percent Shopped)
Past 7 days Past 30 days
10% 15%
10 16
9 11
9 15
8 16
8 19
8 11
8 9
7 14
7 9
7 11
5 8
5 9
4 7
3 8
7
The most direct competitive influence on Cinderella City is the South-
glenn Mall. The 900,000 square foot shopping center is a major regional level
complex which was opened in 1974 and includes three major department stores: The
Denver with 136,400 square feet, May O&F with 121,500 square feet and Sears with
131,200 square feet. University Hills and the Bear Valley Shopping Center
represent two other major competitive influences which currently exist in the
vicinity of Downtown Englewood. In total, existing major and minor commercial
centers near Downtown Englewood account for over 3.3 mill ion square feet of
leasable area:(7)
Shopping Centers in the
Vicinity of Downtown Englewood
Southglenn Mall
University Hills
Bear Valley Shopping Center
Orchard Plaza
Alameda Shopping Center
Sheridan-Alameda Shopping Center
Sheridan Southwest Shopping Center
Brookridge Shopping Center
Centennial Shopping Center
Arapahoe Center
Centennial Square
Cherrywood Square
Turf Club Center
Cherry Crest Shoppette
King Soopers Shopping Center
lincoln Shopping Center
leasable Area
(Square Feet)_
goo,ooo
583,000
366,500
165,000
288,600
156,000
374,000
53,000
85,000
24,100
67,000
90,000
81,400
15,500
64,000
11,500 ---------------------·-· --
•
I . •
•
• -
8
The most ser i ous future competition to Downtown Englewood is t he
Southwest Plaza Mall, which will be the largest shopping center in the Denve r
Metro poli tan Area when completed.(S) The 1.4 million square foot reta i l mall is
curre ntl y under construction at South Wadsworth Boulevard and Bowles Avenue i n
Jeff er son County. The Southwest Plaza is scheduled for completion i n 1983 and
wi 11 contain more than 200 stores on a 100 acre site. It is the first major
sh opp i ng center to be built in the Denver Metropolitan Area since the Southglenn
Ma ll opened in 1974 and the Aurora Mall in 1975. The Southwest Plaza will
i ncl ude May D & F, Joslins, The Denver, Montgomery Wards and Sears. The five
maj or retail department stores have never before shared space in the same mall.
A 100,000 square foot Target Store is also scheduled for completion in 1982 near
the si te .
The r e are a number of oth er serious competitive threats to Downtown
Engle wood. It was recently announced that the Centennial Race Track, only two
mil es south on Santa Fe Drive, is to be developed as a large retail and commer-
ci a l project. The City of Littleton is actively planning redevelopment near
Santa Fe and Littleton Boulevard and this Riverfront Redevelopment project
in c l udes retail uses. The Denver Tech Center and Greenwood Plaza are adding
r etail s pace at an accelerating rate, and major new add i tions to Green wood Plaza
have been proposed. To the west, the Governor's Ranch shopping complex i s mov i ng
ahead wi th seve r al ma j or tenants, i ncluding Sears. The Southbridge and Southpark
projects i n so uthern Li ttleton wi ll also add substantial new reta i l and commer -
cia 1 capacity.
To the north , the Cherry Creek area currently includes about 700,000
square feet of retail space. Major plans for redevelopment of the existing
Cherry Creek Shopping Center were recently announced and call for 1.5 million
squar e fe et of retail development, incorporating some ex i st i ng stores. Th e
proje ct is s cheduled to be i nitiated in 1982 , with construction completion by
1984.
Downtown Engelwood has several competitive advantages over most comp e-
titive area s . It is centrally located with excellent ac cess vi a Hampd en Av enue
and South Santa Fe Dri ve . It a 1 so appears that the area wil l be exce pt i on a 11 y
we 11 served by RTD . Add i t i onally, the s tudy area i s s ur r ound ed by a s ubs taut i a 1
population base, a large porti on of whic h is affluent. Further , area businesses
benefit from an established base of customers and the drawing power of Cinderella
City .
However, it is becoming increasingly evident that without redevelop-
ment on a large scale, businesses in the Down t own Englewood area w'ill lose ~ales
un d become less profitable as competition intensifies. This in turn will lead lo
a decline in the sales and property tax base for the City of Englewood.
Convenienc e Goods Potential
This subsection evaluates the market potential for convenience goods
sales in the Downtown Englewood Area.
Convenience goods demand. Primary market area inc0111e and expl!ndilurc
factors were applied to personal income to derive convenience goods retail de-
mand . The following relationships applied to personal inca.e and its expenditure
i n the Unite d States during 1g80:(9)
•
I • •
•
Total personal income
Disposable income
Consumption expenditures
Retail expenditures:
Durable goods
Nondurable goods
Non retail expenditures
•
• -
Amount
(mi 11 ions)
$2,160.2
1,821.6
1,672.3
887.3
211.9
675.4
785.0
Percentage of
Total Personal
Income
100.0%
84.3
77.4
41.1
9.8
31.3
36.3
These data indicate that during 1980, about 41 percent of total per-
sonal income was spent on retail goods. Services, some of which are considered
to be retail purchases, are defined as non retail expenditures in this analysis.
Convenience goods purchases in 1980 accounted for an estimated 42
percent of total retail expenditures of $887.3 billion:(10)
Convenience Outlets
Grocery and food stores
Liquor stores
Drug stores
Hardware stores
Minor eating and drinking places
Other convenience outlets
Total Convenience Goods
Percent of
Tot a 1 Retail
Expenditures
22.0%
1.7
3.2
1.0
6.0
8.1
42.0%
Comparison goods and other general retail purchases make up the re-
mainder of retail expenditures. These national statistics were believed to be
representati ve of this market area and were used to estimate convenience yoods demand.
Total market area personal income is the product of market arc.1 hou~c
holds and median family income. The total retail sales potential was derived by
applying the percent of personal income spent on retail sales to personal income.
Finally , the proportion of retail sales which are spent on convenience goods was
mul tiplied by total retail sales potential to derive convenience goods sales poten tial.
As shown in Table 1, households in the primary market area for busi-
nesses in the Downtown Englewood Study Area are expected to accouul for an
estimated $60.5 million in convenience goods tlemand by 1985. Very moderate
household growth is expected in the primary 11arket area, w1th increases in demand
related primarily to real growth in personal income. All dollar amounts in the
analysis are presented in constant 1981 dollars. Demand for specific types of
co nvenience goods are derived by applying previously developed consumption fac-tors.
•
9
I • •
-
•
(
•
•
• •
TABLE 1. MARKET ANALYSIS OF CONVENIENCE GOODS SALES POTENTIAL
IN THE PRIMARY MARKET AREA OF THE DOWNTOWN ENGLEWOOD STUDY AREA
Market Area Demand
1. Population (Primary Market Area)
2. Per capita income
3. Market area personal income--
millions (1 x 2)
4. Retail demand--millions (411 of 3)
5. Convenience goods demand--
millions (421 of 4)
Study Area Share
6. Convenience goods demand captured
by all businesses in primary market
area--millions (80S of 5)
7. Square footage necessary to
service demand--thousands
(6 .. $125)
1g85
37.000
sg.5oo
$351.5
$144.1
$ 60.5
$ 48.4
387.2
10
1ggo
38.000
$10.000
$ 380.0
$ 155.8
$ 65.4
$ 52.3
418.4
8. Potential capture of primary
market area demand by Downtown
Englewood Businesses
g_ Total square footage of convenience
goods retail outlets justified in
Downtown Englewood Area--thousands
(7 X 8)
92%
10. Additional square footage
justified--thousands (9 less 310.0
existing)
11. Percent increase over existing
square footage (10 t 310.0
existing)
348.5
38.5
12.41
304.9
74.g
24.2%
Sources: Assumptions are explained in the text and reflect updated inforntdlion
previously developed for Downtown Englewood Economic Market ~•Q }tsi s
and Development Plan. June 1980.
•
I • •
•
• -
ll
The next step of the market analysis is the estimation of what share
co nven i ence outlets in the study area will capture from the overall convenience
goods demand in the prirAary market area. As indicated previously. existing
convenience goods outlets in the study area presently account for an estimated
310,000 square feet. Retail sales generated by the convenience goods outlets can
be estimated through an analysis of median sales per square foot of gross leas-
able area for typical convenience goods stores. An average of $125 in sales per
square foot for area convenience goods retail space was estimated.(11)
Potential market capture. Competition outside the trade area will
attract a portion of total potential sales within the market or trade area. The
capture rates within the trade area are affected by the definition of the trade
area and vary by type of goods. The strongest influence within the study area
will be exerted nearest to the site. This influence diminishes gradually as
di stance increases. The cumulative attraction resulting from grouping of com-
plementary stores increases the distances from which a commercial area can
attract potential customers. Thus. both size and distance are factors in con-
sidering the effect of competition on capture rates.
There are several other convenience goods outlets located both within
the primary market area and outside the area that will be competitive with the
Downtown Englewood Study Area. Based on the characteristics of the current
market area. convenience outlets in the primary market area can expect to capture
about 80 percent of the total market. with the study area competing for a major
share of this market. The total 1g90 market of $65.4 million as noted in Table 1
i s discounted by 80 percent so that a convenience goods market of $52.3 million
is available to outlets in the primary market area. This represents a need for
418.400 square feet of convenience goods retail space to service the demand in
1990.
A detailed inventory of existing square footage at other convenience
goods outlets in the primary market ~rea other than the Downtown Englewood Area
was beyond the scope of this analysis. However. certain general conclusions can
be drawn. Due to the size. location and competitive influences within the market
area, the Downtown Englewood Study Area should be able to capture about 90 and 92
percent of the 1985 and 1990 markets respectively. This would represent a total
square footage requirement in 1985 of 348.500 or 38.500 of additional space
beyond the existing inventory of 310.000 square feet. In 1990. 384.900 or 74.900
ad di t i onal square feet beyond the existing capacity will be requ i red. The
es t im ate of 1990 potential for convenience goods space requirements refl ects an
increas e of 24.2 percent above existing inventories.
Several factors will affect the relative future market share whi ch is
captured by convenience-oriented businesses in the Downtown Englewood Study
Ar e a. While study area businesses currently capture a relatively large per-
ce nt age of primary market sales, this situation could change over lhe next
sever al ye ars. There exists both the potential to increase that share and lhc
possi bi lity that it IAay decline sa.ewhat. The latter situation is not likely to
occu r i n this area unless the downtown deteriorates to a level were it b c c~•~s
mor e att r active for the prospective buyers to go outside the pri•ary market area.
Business •ix. An evaluation of the ~arket potential for d s pec ifi c
conveni ence outlet would necessitate an individual ~~arket analysis for e ach
sp ecific product line. Because a detailed market analysis for each good line was
•
I • •
•
•
• -
12
be yon d the scope of this study, a generalized evaluation of convenience busi-
nesses best suited for the study area is presented.
The general calculations in previous studies indicate that study area
businesses are presently providing a relatively greater amount of space than
justified by existing demand within the market area for minor eating and drinking
establishments. A variety of other miscellaneous convenience outlets are also
i ndicating a similar •oversupply• situation. However, a sizable portion of the
square footage for minor eating and drinking establishments is supported by
people passing through the area. While the nonresident population, not living
within the primary market area, provides an additional source of demand for these
types of outlets, no substantial demand for additional minor eating and drinking
space appears justified.
At the other extreme, drug stores are currently not represented within
the study area. This conclusion is somewhat misleading in that it does not
account for that portion of King Soopers and Safeway space devoted to drug store
type goods. This will offset the lack of supply to a certain degree, but it is
evident that there is a demand for additional drug store space.
It is i!IIPortant to note that the potential for expansion by certain
outlets is tempered by COIIIPetitive considerations. While convenience businesses
in the Downtown Englewood Study Area enjoy a general convenience advantage in tl1e
primary market area over other competitive outlets, residents in the outlying
portions of the 11arket area are apt to patronize convenience stores in other
areas. Additionally, the defined market area applies to convenience outlets in
general, but might not accurately reflect the market area for a specific busi-
ness.
This situation is reflected soaewhat in grocery or food store outlets
where existing square footage in the study area represents about 90 percent of
the total demand. A .ajority of the re~~aining ten percent is being absorbed by
surrounding businesses such as the King Soopers Shopping Center at South Broadway
and Littleton Boulevard. As a result, any future un.et ~d for grocery store
space in the market area will probably be 11et by a business outside of the
Downtown Englewood Study Area. Limited expansion of existing stores is generally
more appropriate than the addition of major new facilities.
Comparison Goods Potential
This subsection evaluates the market potential for comparison ~oods
s al es i n t he Downtown Englewood Study Area.
Comparison qoods demand. Secondary market area data are appli ed lo
der i ve comparat1ve goods retail demand. As noted previously, approxim~lcly 41
pe r ce nt of total personal income was spent on retail goods in 1980. Conv en i ence
•
I • •
•
•
• •
goods purchases accounted for an estimated 42 percent of total retail expendi-
tures with the remaining 58 percent attributable to comparative purchases:(l2)
Comparison Outlet
Furniture and home furnishings
Building materials and supplies
Automotive related stores
Department and variety stores
Apparel and shoe stores
Major eating and drinking places
Other comparison outlets
Total Comparison Goods
Percent of
Total Retail
Expenditures
4.8%
3.7
22.6
11.4
4.7
2.6
~
58.0%
Unlike convenience goods purchases, a portion of comparison goods
sales are at businesses which would be incompatible with Downtown Englewood. For
example, auto dealerships would not be a suitable business for the study area.
In order to determine potential demand for comparison good outlets suitable for
Downtown Englewood, the total retail expenditure factor for comparison goods was reduced from 58 to 45 percent.
Similar to the convenience goods analysis, retail expenditure factors
are applied to secondary market area personal income to determine total market
area comparison goods demand. The total market area personal income is a product
of total population and per capita incomes. The percentage of personal inco~~
spent on retail sales is then applied to personal income to determine total
retail sales potential. Finally, the proportion of retail sales made for com-
parison goods is multiplied by total retail sales potential to determine total
comparison goods demand for the secondary market area. These calculations are
presented in Table 2. Using the same general methodology as with the convenience
goods analysis, demand for specific types of comparison goods were derived by applying previously developed consumption factors.
Potential market capture. Similar to the situation that occurred with
convenience goods, not all of the retail potential in the secondary market can be
captured by comparison goods stores within the area. Strong competition from
certain of the exisitng and planned large shopping complexes in the surrounding
areas will capture a substantial portion of the comparison goods market.
Major shopping centers usually benefit from an effect known as cumu-
l ative attraction. Cumulative attr,,ction occurs among stores adjaccut to each
other. Shoppers are attracted to commercial areas with the greates t variety of stv;~s and selection. More efficiency is insured when customers can satisfy a
variety of needs at one place. This factor reflects the attractivcne!ts of shopping centers.
In the past, Cinderella City has provided this type of drawing force
for the Downtown Englewood Area. However, during recent years it is questionable
whether the shopping center ca.ands the drawing power that it once did. The
deteriorating parking facilities and general lack of visual attractivenes s of
the center contribute to the possible decline. This situation is expl!c.t cd to
•
13
I •
-
•
•
• -
TABL E 2. MARKET ANALYSIS OF COMPARISON GOODS SALES POTENTIAL IN THE
SECONDARY MARKET AREA OF THE DOWNTOWN ENGLEWOOD STUDY AREA
•
14
(
(
•
•
• •
15
impro ve with the accomplisrunent of improvements now underway and planned for the
near future. Additionally, while sales at Cinderella City have grown modestly
during recent years, the center has generally maintained its market share within
the DMA as competition has strengthened.
Based on these and other characteristics of the current market, com-
pari son out lets in the secondary market area can expect to capture about 75
percent of the total available market. Combined with a 20 percent demand at-
tributable to customers from outsid~ the area, the 1985 market will support an
estimated 1.2 million square feet of comparison goods retail space. Table 2
illustrates the square footage requirements in the market area that are necessary
to service the comparison goods demand. Because the market characteristics of
each type of outlet will vary substantially, these calculations should be viewed
as general approximations.
The Downtown Englewood Study Area has an existing inventory of
approximately 1,170,000 square feet of comparison goods retail space. While
current potential is limited, an aggressive marketing campaign combined with
redevelopment efforts aimed at improving the study area's image and providing a
defined character for Downtown Englewood, the potentia 1 demand for addition a 1
square footage could be expanded to over 180,000 additional square feet by 1990,
a 16 percent increase over existing inventories. Further, Cinderella City with
its planned improvements should provide continued support to the entire downtown
area by strengthening its position as a retail focal point in the southcentral
Denver Metropolitan Area.
Business mix. A detailed analysis of the study area mix for comparison
outlets is not meaningful in the context of this study as market characteristics
of each business type vary so substantially. A generalized evaluation is pro-
vided as a guideline for future development.
As with the convenience goods analysis, the square footage guidelines
can be compared with existing inventories to indicate those businesses most
suitable for expansion. However, actual figures can be misleading since market
areas for specific individual businesses can vary substantially from the gen-
eralized second ary market area definition. This is especially true with compari-
son goods outlets since specific business types ~ave the potential to draw from a
substantially larger market area than the generalized secondary market area used
for this analysis.
For example, a relatively high percentage of comparison goods <;fJII••re
footage in the study area is accounted for by department and variety ~lorcs,
furniture related retail outlets and apparel and shoe stores. This reflects the
relative strength of the area as a regional shopping focus for the southern
Denver Metropolitan Area and the propensity for these types of bu sinesses to
concen trate in order to benefit from cumulative attraction. Future expansion by
existing businesses of these types within the study area is reasonable.
Major eating and drinking establishments appear to be under rcl)rc-
sented in the study area. The eMPlo~nt center aspects of the Downtown Engle-
wood Area are favorable for the expansion of these types of better dining c~tab
lishments. Future expansion of office oriented uses would further reinforce the
potential for high quality eating and drinking establishments •
•
I • •
(
....._,
(
•
•
• -
16
The estimate that approximately 20 percent of total retail business
for comparison goods outlets is generated by customers outside of the market area
is based on an analysis of actual retail sales data obtained from the Colorado
Depa rtment of Revenue and City of Englewood. This estimate would vary for
specific types of businesses, as will the other assumptions of market share
capture. For example, the strength of drawing power exerted by the Cinderella
City complex enables such comparison goods businesses as department, variety,
apparel and shoe stores to capture a relatively greater portion of the available
market within the secondary market area. Additionally, these types of businesses
probably experience a greater portion of their total sales from customers resid-
ing outside the defined market area than the 20 percent estimate which applies to
overall sales of comparison goods. Conversely, the secondary market area prob-
ably loses a relatively large portion of sales for other comparison goods to
areas outside of the market area. A net outflow of business occurs to the
benefit-of business concentrations on South Broadway.
Summary of Development Potential
Conclusions regarding overall retail market potential in Downtown
Englewood are provided. Guidelines for retail types are also outlined.
General development ~otential. Downtown Englewood currently repre-
sents a major retail focus for the southcentral Denver Metropolitan Area With
Cinderella City, the area has generally maintained its market share during recent
years, but increasing competition could have a serious effect on the area's
future. In particular, completion of the Southwest Plaza and redevelopment of
the Cherry Creek area could adversely effect Downtown Englewood unless redevel-
opment activities are undertaken.
While retail expansion potential is somewhat limited in the Downtown
Englewood Area, especially for convenience oriented outlets, it is important
that improvements and aggressive marketing activities take place in order to
maintain the current market share. Because the Denver Metropolitan Area commer-
cial market is not static, the downtown area could potentially lose its market
position as competition strengthens. In other words, a certain amount of im-
provement is necessary to maintain existing market conditions as other retail
areas undertake aggressive marketing campaigns. Additional expansion of market
share will necessitate an even more aggressive improvement program.
The estimates of market potential calculated in this section reflect a
certain limited degree of redevelopment activities and marketing efforts.
Implications on market potential associated with a major redevelopment effort~
and substantial public improvements are outlined in Section V. The potential for
an additional 100,000 to 250,000 square feet of retail space exists in Dowutown
Englewood during the next five to 10 years:
Additional Square Footage
Supportable in Downtown Englewood
[Thousands)
Retail Tl~e 1985 1990
Convenience 38.5 7-1.9
COIIIParison 56.1 167..?
Total 94.6 257.1
•
I • •
•
•
• -
17
Retail types and design considerations. Demand for additional con-
venience goods outlets is generally more limited than comparison outlets.
In creased demand over the next decade will be primarily dependent on the redevel-
opment program and eventual project mix. As an example. residential development
i n Downtown Englewood would have a positive effect on convenience goods marke t
potential since presently limited market growth opportunities would be enhanced.
The new character and planned mall setting of the development plan
offer additional opportunities for businesses complementary to existing retail
outlets and planned residential, office and hotel activities. Various specialty
shops. such as boutiques. hobby stores. card stores. maternity shops and gift
stores represent compatible businesses for the type of development proposed in
Downtown Englewood. Additional retail outlets to serve the expanding residen-
tial base of the area would also be appropriate. If properly designed, shops
could be easily accessible by both automobile oriented clients and also cater to
pedestrian traffic entering the area.
A combination use with office buildings might be the most attractive
and effective way to incorporate specialty shops into the land use design for the
project. It might be possible to incorporate specialty shops along the ground or
garden level of office and professio~al buildings. Consolidating businesses in
this manner provides an attractive visual environment as evident in certain
buildings in the Cherry Creek area. Personal and business services might also be
incorporated into office buildings in the same manner.
A retail use particularly applicable for redeveloped Downtown Engle-
wood is higher priced restaurants. Such establishments typically serve two
distinct markets:
• Lunch market consisting mostly of people employed within
five minutes driving time of the restaurant. Certain
nearby residents will also comprise a part of the lunch
market.
• A dinner market generally consisting of people residing
within 10 to 15 ~inutes driving time of the restaurant.
In general. demand for higher priced restaurants is related to the size
of the dinner market area population base and the lunch market area emplo~1~nt
base. The population base of the market area offers an attractive market.
Residential growth associated with area redevelopment represents a favoral.lle
market for quality restaurants. The lunch market employment base is also hroad
and would be further enhanced by office development in the area. Service differ-
entials might be considered to offer lower-cost meals during noon business hour ~
as induceme nts to new trade.
A brief review of potential demand for quality restaurants in Llic ..area
and compe titive facilities near Downtown Englewood indicates that there h unn~t
demand wh ic h will increase as office development takes place. It is likely lhat
area residents and eaployees are substituting dining at lower priced restaurants
because of ina dequate supply of quality establishMents.
It is suspected that a subs tant 1a 1 port ion of restaurant t.lernand is
escaping to other areas. As a general observation, it does not appear that the
•
I • •
-•
• •
... supply of restaurants in the market area sat i sfies existing demand and future
deve 1 opment wi 11 increase the imba 1 ance. As a resu 1 t, the area represents an
attractive restaurant market with potential for more high class restaurants as redevelopment takes place.
(')
•
In order to mini•ize negative iiiiPacts of locating restaurants near
office buildings, a ground floor location should be considered. Since higher
priced restaurants rely primarily on their reputations to attract customers, as
opposed to passing traffic, location within a main office building is acceptable.
In order to enhance the attractiveness of this option, a highly visible, well
designed sign should be included and special architectural considerations dif-
ferentiating the restaurant fro. office development should be en.ployed. Restau-
rants and specialty shops are particularly ca.patible in this type of arrange-ment.
The existance of high quality restaurants in the area also serves as an
attraction for office and residential uses. Restaurants generally pay similar
rates as office tenants, but lease concessions are sometimes made during initial
years to attract the facilities by lowering front-end overhead expenses. An
ideal lease would provide a percentage of the restaurant's gross sales with a guaranteed monthly minimum.
•
18
I • •
(
•
•
• -
SECTION I. REFER ENCES
(1) Estimates of retail area market share trends based on U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Retail Trade, Colorado, selected
data from Major Retail Centers, 1967, 1972 and 1977 editions; The Denver
Post, Consumer Analysis, selected annual editions.
(2) DMA and City of Englewood data are derived from Colorado Department of
Revenue, Research and Statistics Section, unpublished data; and Downtown
Englewood data from Frank Dobbins, Englewood Finance Department; DMA sales
data reflect the Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, Douglas and Jefferson
six county area; Downtown Englewood area sales figures reflect area
bounded by Santa Fe on the west, Sherman on the east, Dartmouth and Yale on
the north and Hampden and Kenyon on the south.
(3) "Cinderella City plans expansion, renovation,• Rocky Mountain News. June
25, lg81; and •cinderella City plans major face lift,• Englewood sentinel, June 24, 1981.
(4) Updated estimates based on detailed survey information reported in Browne,
Bortz & Coddington, Economic Market Analysis and Development Plan for Downtown Englewood, June 1980.
(5 ) Traffic volume information was obtained from Colorado Department of High-
ways, DMA Traffic Volume Maps. 1975 and 1979; reflects most recent data ava i1 able.
{6) Characteristics of Aurora Mall customers are BBC estimates based on data
reported in •where Denver Families Shop,• The Denver Post, 1981 Consumer Analysis Survey.
(7 ) National Research Bureau, 1980 Shopping Center Directory, The West, 21st Edition.
{8) In f ormation on competitive areas was obtained from BBC interviews wi t h
se lected area developers and leasing agents.
(9 ) U.S. Department of C011111erce, Bureau of Economic Analys i s, Su r vey of...£!!::.
rrent Business, Volume 61, Number 7, July 1981 .
{10) BB C est i mates ba sed on data reported by the U.S. Department ot Coueuercl!,
.Q.P.· cit.
(11) Urb an Land Institute, Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers, 1980 edition .
(12) BBC est i mates based on data reported by the U.S. Department of C011 11tercc ,
.Q.P.. c i t.
•
19
I • •
• -
• -
0
"' ~
o-i ......
0 z
< ...... ...... • I r • •
• •
(
(
•
•
• ..
VII. Field Survey of Downtown Englewood , April, 1982
Performed by Jeri Linder, Planning Technician.
•
I .
-
(
•
•
•
•
• •
VII. FIELD SURVEY OF DOWNTOWN ENGLEWOOD, April, 1982
Performed by Jeri Linder, Planning Technician
A walking survey of the downtown Englewood area was undertaken
by Planning Technician Jeri Linder to determine vacanci e s of
the buildings in the area. At the time of the survey, eighteen
buildings were visually vex·ified as being vacant.
•
I • •