The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1982-08-12 (Special) Meeting Agenda- City Council 11eetJng·Specla1 AuguSt 12, l982 • • • 0 • • • - City Council Meeting August 12, 1982 RESOLUTION # 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 ORDINANCE # 3~. 35, 36, 37, 38 • 0 0 I • • - • • • • • -~-A -oJ t/J/)"LU.M-?21 )~_yr;;:~_ I ROLL CALL v ~ Id, 111. 7 , 0( !' •l Moved Seconded Ayes H1qday Neal Fitzoatrick Wei st Bi Jo Bradshaw Otis e I... c' +-f. r> ?_) ~ __;f"1 1 . r'.! { l( ()'I :::hlaa•tu /...., t.___.; .) (tJ,,_ {!J (~o .) u/ < 4 ~!/[)) ) 0 f) )c. (1it. l • d ?r-0. /11 LIL • I . • • - • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Hlgday , __ Neal 1-- Fl tzoatrick v Wei st 1.,- 8i lo J,,- Bradshaw ....... Otis v • I • • • • • - • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain HtQday V Neal ' ....---Fltzoatrick I Wei st 7 Bi lo I v Bradshaw I Otis \ • I • • • • • - • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain H1odav Neal Fl tzoatrick Weist Ri lo Bradshaw Otis /Lt l I /_ 1 tt (' '-J )(. i !L l l L ( ~ I- /}LI,( I ,l <'l<.) lu-t.. ._ { (_ f'. -d , Y>) )( )1 , ~ 7 () <. C (. " J . t ~t t {I" J ,J .) {~ ti ( !/ t,1.. .. t ,>J » I / 1c I' '-•' ,~ V ,(:l. t./(' )l ,tv// 'J2 J I-;, ,~:, -I- Cl l fl ) '1 ') ,c.,,a_/ C t L.< Y ,; ( I... l~ "l.\l fl1. d, >,/'<( '<', ..; <,1( 22 1 <2<. {/.t1/- ) .. ) • l ) ~ ' l (.,/ t< t Ive. I.. , J )) (I I l (.,/ I • • /J?.t / _.I " t, ll l 1 J ; .. .1/1 ,n, /. ~} t; I I • • - • • • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded ) 0 ?l! /i (J(!_j ('Fu.1 t <d ·c(1)u._ f d l ' / IL{l /(,;Aa? -/(' / t" Cl <! }I d ' ({ I. )1 I) ( Ii I >, tl { { I l,( ( Ayes Nay Absent Abstain r 7 -(I I ,,I:_ ) /~ v A " A ._ tl I lfd & \1), I I_ ( (' ) {/ ( ) ) < , )( ' Gt 1/ /NI ;J,, ( I /I tt1ttV..1 · / ,. I . • • • • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain H1qday Neal Fl tzoatrick Weist Bi lo Bradshaw Otis ,/ Zi.,( z;_ ~ ) (1t-Jl( C .-.) It ~ L, ( l u 1 • ()l ) 'H < l ) t t cl. -./ i ,{ ) (I >l (I{ I J L (! ') ~ /1-' ')/( t.f {'I ,J LI l.. I L t .; < ) (, I u .) • I ) I rJ,. ) i ('. i "·-'/lt< '/.. 1 <"h / V /. "6 & )Jc o .,<,.( L f 1-/ ,, )l(. 1 4 I , J {{ ,t 7U / .; l , z( n ~ t: I.< ) J t:: '1 1: ')] ") i ( J ,o • .__J C< i < ,.,. . >-\) II. (l( • I • • - fJJ- • '_,; • • • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded R1adav Neal Fi tzoatrick Wei st Bi lo Bradshaw Otis ILh ~ ,f ;f j__h .1c a;!_}__,11 1·/Vr --/Lr au l -/-u.C ,<.f I /'J,;7) I ) J Ayes Nay Absent (L (. r ' &nu . ( l t Jl Ab s tain t ) l. 1, '2 ~ (, U .. ,cf J 1')) ,., / /. / (1,J t 1 ~· -{L 1?, le /, I -< ') r I J • 1 1 n }' t? ,, ,r2,-,. ,l ~ ')}6 I " J t J > (! .. t.' -...J ... I . • • - • • 'f" ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Hlqday Neal Fltzoatrick Wei st Bi lo Bradshaw Otis _l{) -t H(. ..,~/l{_,! ')'}"l.. JJ /'.,,,7.J Z.,(.j, & )? 1---I-1.,l ')71 12.I ) (1_ l.l ,1.J I X ;(,r£1-, ~1v -/) {J?_lf 1' 1,1 > ( ~,.,(,/ 1 /u )1 "~ t I ~ 11_,rtj % {t !1 .I /L '/U x-/"I( I C' /... ih 1• { In/ v 1 Jt1 .( /(1 >G /) I/-IQ / It 't 1' ;) l l l u :; I ,I _, .,. <"'I (l 5 6 /l , ) ) <!~...) J I • • !, /' '!J '} I ') /U'l <...) d <. ? (_,( f, Tl /)1 1 • • - • • • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain H1gday Neal Fltzoatrick Weist Ri lo Bradshaw Otis ( 1 'I ')''l.0 01<U.. (j L ( (fl(l, r ' un I A.( n tl do (;r\ v..) -"'l"-f"v /)Lit I ~.f (1 ?'? o u ')Jl o,,, u 1 u r..., Cu} ' • lll 1 /uf ( ,,-/,['1 '"''L , ;/ ( Ile~ It , Yt'l "-- -<J ~..-)luC!;(i11 I x1 l.J_ ' ) ) > I .{ j' ( tf?_ s ,.1j} > > 1'1 / t ) ) (, t.i I J L 12. (' },} J ,.;! / I ?) #)) l) l( l':J "'. ,p !"' { L) l t J • "' I . • - '13 0 -{. • • • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain H1qdav Neal Fltzoatrick Weist Ri lo Bradshaw Otis <J41{),w -~L o 1:t_,n "l j ; )1 ? t/LM Q I t.µ~ -')') ( 1 /U '<-t?..l. (ll ..,. -CAt1-1 c:/j_ · ~7<.,ll ,, ..._{ 2,t,z_C O' 1 "' :J l..i ,/lLl ~ ,,(. ?I t ") ul2« , A_, Y-( / 7 v d / /u) lclUd< YJ (J l (_ ;. ....-1 1,L tl-J /la ) l_.( ~ ...... t/) I c ( lu .. C ,, ) )) , {) } }{)< )), { , ti '-' _./} /Y,-) t? I-< 1 ,-) ")1 ,'.-< r ) ,2. J xL '{_(. )I /_ (.,( ( (f )7. 0 " l • l rl ?l ;J 1 )1' ....... , ,(/ <._/ fa 1 ·,; _.,;,( ~ lt via{,.,· ,c1 ,,I..__ 't I J}lU JU{ , • • f )l<, I } f (/ // <'( <...) -I" ( I J2 / ] I ) l~v /.. &,. / l, • J • I • • n • - • • --.w ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain H1qday /_,- Neal I ,__. Fltzoatrick 1 Wei st I Bi lo I ,__. Bradshaw ( Otis '- - • I • • • • • - • • --·-- ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Ab st ain I I H1odav I I l v Neal -, ..-Fl tznatrick Weist --Bi lo - 1~ Bradshaw Otis I I -< C I p 0 ,4 L I.) {• t l,.U (/t ,t ,,_,, (. (? l ,.J , '1., I . {,1 (._t I ,._, ,'<C< (-V ,,J,1<,J I ] ? 1 / j ~ J /, }) I l lJ / (_/ '. ' I • • I. I ,.; • • • - • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain H1aday - Neal .....- Fl tznatrlck -Weist -Ri lo __.. Bradshaw . ..-- Otis - J, 1j 1--61 ,L L/ fl<. / cl 17 ) .,J /1 l<. ,.--r d J/.4 J {:>'>I ) I .Gf /11 ,rL( f)L I.I / • I • • • • • - • • -------~---------... ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Hiodav .....-Neal '\ Fl tzoatrick I Wei st I Ri lo I V"' Bradshaw I Otis \ (./?I )1 • I . . • • I n • • • / ·-··--------1 • C O U N C I L C O M M U N I C A T I O N DATE AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT AuJ!,USt 4, 1982 Findings of Fact -Case #11-82 INITIATED BY City Planning and Zon ing Commission /\CT I ON PROPOSED The City Council accpt the Findings of Fact on Case #11-82 as adopted by the City Planning and Zoning Commission ~NTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: The City Planning and Zoning Commi ssion held a Public Hearing on th e pro- posed amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, §22.1-6, on July 20, 1982. The proposed amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance pertains to the exemption of public utilit ies presently owned or operated by the City of Englewood and public utilities to be owned or operated by the City of Englewood . No member of the audience spoke in favor of the proposed amend- ment at the Public Hearing, and no opposition was expressed at the Public Hearing. The Findings of Fact on Case #11-82 were considered by the City Planning and Zoning Commission at their meet i ng of August 3, 1982. It was the decision of the Commission that these Findings of Fact be accepted and referred to the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: Thal th l'lndlngs of Fact for Cas e Ull-82 be approv d as written, and referred to the City Council. • I I I • • J - • • • • _.,,_,..... _____ _ j ------------- C O U N C I L C O M M U N I C A T I O N DATE AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT Aul!ust 4. 1982 Findin2s of Fact -Case #11 -82 INITIATED BY City Planning and Zon i ng Commission /\CT ION PROPOSED The City Council accpt the Findings of Fact on Case #11-82 • as adopted by the City Planning and Zoning Commission INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: The City Planning and Zoning Commi ssion held a Public Hearing on the pro- posed amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, §22.1-6, on July 20, 1982. The proposed amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance pertains to the exemption of public utilities presently owned or operated by the City of Englewood and public utilities to be owned or operated by the City of Englewood. No member of the aud ience spoke in favor of the proposed amend- ment at the Public Hearing, and n o opposition was expressed at the Public Hearing. The Findings of Fact on Ca e #11-82 were considered by the City Planning and Zoning Commission at their mee ting of August 3, 1982. It was the decision of the Commission that th s Findings of Fact be accepted and r eferred to the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: That Lhe l'lnd!ng !I of !'act for Ca!le 111-82 be pproved a!I written, and referred to the City Council . • I • • I I ' I • • • • -·-. CITY PLANNING AN D ZONING COMMISSION ENGLEWOO D, COLORADO IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. 11-82, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION RELATING TO AN AMENDMENT TO §22.1-8 OF THE COMPREIIENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE NO. 26, SERIES OF 1963 , CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO; WHICH AMENDMENT RELATES TO THE EXEMPTION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES PRESENTLY OWNED OR OPERATED BY THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD AND PUBLIC UTILITIES TO BE OWNED OR OPERATED BY THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD. A Public Hearing was held on July 20, 1982, in connection with Case No. 11-82 in the City Council Chamber s in the Englewood City Hall. The following members of the City Plnnning and Zoning Commission were present: Mrs . Becker, Mr. Tanguma, Mr. Allen, Mr. Barbre, Mr. Carson, Mr. McBrayer, and Mr. Sent i. The foll owing members were absent: Mr. Gilchrist and Mr. Stoel. FINDIN OF FACT Upo n review of the evidence taken i n the form of tes timony, p resentntlons, reports and filed do cu ments, the City Planning and Zo n i n g Commission makes th following Find i ngs of Fact. 1 . That proper not ice of the Public Hearing was given. 2. That upon the recomm ndation of the City Planning and Zonlng Comml:,slon , the Cl ty Councll .idoµted Comprchen1:1lvc I' lan for the City of Englewood by Re elution No. 49 , S ries of 1979, on Dec mb r 3 , t979, and that 113 Englewood citizen , property owner1:1, nd busi n ss people participated in the d v lopment of that Comprehen iv Plan. 3. That ln approvin g th !! Compr hensiv e Plan, th City Council doptcd c rtain goal for the City which w re developed by th Comnrchcnsive Plan R vi w Committ e , whi ch goal ffirm the de sir of th citizen s of Engl wood, th pri ry go l being Lo continu tom int in Englewood a on' of only thr full-rvic c ommun itl in the D nv r M tropolitan area. 4. That full- r• ponbiblllty t~ provld• th within the City. rvi cc city , the gov mm nt n c , ry municip 1 rvlc 5. Th t th 11rovision ol Lh rvic s ls 1 " m.1 Int n In I lw hr ,11 l h , .. n f y, w,• 1 f , r , • propertJe ,; nt J 1 in order of th C'ommunlty . I • • • • . . - 1.~-.r" ....... ,.;. -~- 6. That the City-owned and operated water and sewer service is provided to residents of the City of Englewood and it is essential that these services be maintained. 7. That at this time, water and sewer services are the only city-owned utilities; but in the future, the City may find it desirable and n ecessary to provide others. 8. That the Comprehens ive Zoning Ordinance regulations are ambiguous as to the application o f t hat ordinance to the construction of any city-owned and operated public utili ties and this issue should be remedied. 9. That by exempting Cit y-owned and operated utilities f rom the provisions of the Comprehensive Zon i ng Ordinance which may be conflicting, the City can fulfill its obligation to provide and ma i ntain the n ecessary Cacilitles for the health, safety, welfare and convenience of its resident s . 10. That the Water and Sewer Board and the City Council review the i n stalla tion of City-owned and op erated utilities and will evaluate the necessity of s uch installation to the public before giving approval. 11. That no persons appea red at the Public Hearing who indicated a desire to address the Commission ei ther in favor of or in opposition to the proposed amendment to §22.1-8 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinanc e. CONCLUSIO NS 1. That proper notice of the Public Hearing was given in compliance with §22 .3-4 of the Compre hensive Zo ning Ordinanc. 2 . That no persons present wished to address the Commission in regard to this matter. 3. That the goals for th e long-range planning for the desired development of the City of Englewood , Colorado, were approved by the City Council in Resolution No. 49, Series of 1979, upon the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Commi ssi on and recorded in the office of the Arapaho County Clerk and R corder. 4. That Article VIII, Part II, Section 58 of th Home Rule Chart r of th e City of Engl wood, Colorado. s ets forth th duties of the City Plannin g 11:,d Zo n i ng Commission, seating tha l "it shall prepare and recomm nd to the Ci Ly Council , a Compr hensive Zonin g Ordinance or proposed amendm nts or r visi ons ther to with such provi sions s th Commission shall deem necesi,ary or dcsi rabl e for th promotion of th h alth, 11a£ ty, morals, and g n ral w H re of th inh bit nts of th Cicy." 5. Th t th Co111111ission is of th opinion that th proposed am nd- m nt to §22.1-8 of th Compreh n iVl' Zoning Ordinanc x mpting City-owned nd op rat d public utilities from regulations o( id Ordinance will further th go ls of th 1979 Compr h nsiv l'l n nd will carry out th dir ctiv of th City Ch rt r. h. Thill th• W.itcr a nd s ,,w r II .rd and City Coun ·ll r,•vi,•w LIil' • I • • - • • • • ,· • -----. -~..-,----'"t'": -')- installation of City-owned and operat ed utilities and will evaluate the necessity for the installation to t he public before giving approval. REC OMM EN DA TION Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Counc il, that the Comprehensive Zon i n g Ordin ance, Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1963, a s amended, be amended by adding §22 .1 -8 to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinan ce , which states: §22.1-8 Applicability of Reg ulations The regulations, requirements, limitations and pro- visions of the Ordinance shall not apply to publ ic utilities present ly owned or operated by the City of Englewood and public utilities to be owned or operated by the City of Englewood. However, this does not r e - lieve from the duty to obtain building permit s tho s contractors ,,,ho build or assist in building any City- owned or operated utility. Upon the vote on a motion made at the meet ing of the City Planning and Zoning Commission July 20, 198 2. Those members voting in favor of the motion: Mr. Allen, Mr. Barbre, Mrs. Becker, Mr. Carson, Mr. Sent i, Mr. Tanguma. Those members vot i ng i n opposition to the motion: Mr. McBr aye r. Those members absent: Mr. Stoel and Mr. Gilchrist. By Order of the Clty Planning and Zo ning Commlss1on. / • I • • c-l • • • • .. • AGENDA FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 12, 1982 tJ, Ju /(YJW / jil,'>/f '-/U C ,. {)-'Ll ~ 7 :30 P .M. Call to order, invocation, pledge of allegiance, and roll call. l. Public Hearing. (a) To consider an Ordinance adding Paragraph 22.1-8 to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to clarify the exemption of City owned or operated utilities from its requirements and regulations. (Ordinance and Council CoDJDunication from the Planning and Zoning Connission enclosed.) 2 . Adjournment . / J ~ ' ' I </) I I • I ;d.,~/; I ( C :'V. ...,,.._ AND'f C COWN Cit Manager AM/sb • I • • - • • • • q ,.J BY AUTHORITY ORDINANCE NO. ./ COUNCIL BILL NO. 20 INTRODUCED BY <X>UNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK SERIES OF 1982 AN ffiDINANCE ADDit{; PARAGRAPH 22.1-8 TO 'lliE COMPREHENSIVE Z00It{; ORDINANCE TO CLARIFY THE £Xil,\Pl'I00 OF CITY Cl\'NED OR OPERATED UTILITIES FROM ITS REQUIREMENTS AND REX:iULATIOOS. WHEREAS, the public necessity, health , welfare, and convenience demand that the City have the right to construct and maintain necessary public utilities free from zoning restrictions. NON, THEREFORE, BE IT CJIDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EN,L™X:>D, <X>LORAOO: Section 1. That Section 22.1-8 be added to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance as follows: 22.1-8: APPLICABILITY OF REX:iULATICtlS. The regulations, requirements, limitations and prov1s1ons of this Ordinance shall not apply to public utilities owned and/or operated by the City of Englewood. However, this does not relieve from the duty to obtain building permits those contractors who build or assist in building any City-owned or operated utility. Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 17th day of May, 1982 . 1982. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the 19th day of May, 1982. Read by title and passed on final reading on the 12th day of August, Published by title as Ordinance No. ____ , Series of 1982, on the ___ day of August, 1982. Eugene L. Otis, Mayor Attest: ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer I • • n • • • • • I, Gary R. Higbee, ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above is a true, accurate and complete copy of the Ordinance passed on final reading and published by title as Ordinance No.~~-' Series of 1982. Ga ry R. Hig bee • I • • I n - • • • • C O U N C I L C O M M U N I C A T I O N DATE AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT Au ust 4 1982 I a-Findin s of Fact -Ca se #11-82 INITIATED BY City Planning and Zoning Commis s ion ACT I ON PROPOSED The City Council accpt the Findings of Fact on Case #11-82 as adopted by the City Planning and Zoning Commission INTROD UCTION AND BACKGROUND: The City Planning and Zoning Coamission held a Public Hearing on the pro- posed amendment of the Comprehensive Zon i ng Ordinance, §22.1-8, on July 20, 1982. The proposed amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Ord i nance pertains to the exemption of public utilities presently owned or operated by the City of Englewood and public utilities to be owned or operated by the City of Englewood. No member of the audience spoke in favor of the proposed amend- ment at the Public Hearing, and no opposition was expressed at the Public Hearing. The Findings of Fact on Case #11-82 were considered by the Ci ty Planning and Zoning Colllllission at their meeting of August 3, 1982. I t was the decision of the Conani ss ion that these Findings of Fact be accepted and r efe rre d to the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: That th Findings of F ct for Case #11-82 b approve d as writt n , and r ferred to the City Council. • I • • • • - CITY PLANNING AN O ZONING COMMISSION ENGLEWOO D, COLORADO IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO . 11-82, ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, ) AND RECOMMENDATI ON RELATING TO ) AN AMENDMENT TO §22.1-8 OF THE ) COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, ) ORDINANCE NO. 26, SERIES OF 1963, ) CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO; ) WHICH AMENDMENT RELATES TO THE ) EXEMPTION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES ) PRESENTLY OWNED OR OPERATED BY ) THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD AND PUBLIC ) UTILIT IES TO BE OWNED OR OPERATED ) BY THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD. ) A Public Hearing was held on July 20, 1982, in connection with Case No. 11-82 in the City Council Chambe rs in the Englewood City Hall. The following members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission were present: Mrs. Becker, Mr. Tanguma, Mr. Allen, Mr. Barbre, Mr. Carson, Mr. McBrayer, and Mr. Senti. The following members were absent: Mr. Gilchrist and Mr. Stoel. FINDING S OF FACT Upon review of the evidence taken in the form of testimony, presentations, reports and filed documents, the City Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following Find J ngs of Fact. 1. That proper notice of the Public Hearing was given. 2. That upon the recomm ndation of the City Planning and Zo ning Co ission, the City Council adop ted Comµrehensive Plan for the City of Engl wood by Resolution No. 49, Seri s of 1979, on Dec mb r 3, 1979 , nd that 113 Engl wood cit iz ni;, prop rty owncrll, and bu1,inc111, (l(!Ofll(! particip t din th dev lop nt of th t Compreh nsiv Plan. 3. That in pproving th Co mpr h nsiv Pl n, th City Council doped c rt in goals for the City wh ich w r d v lop d by th Compreh n sivc Pl n R vi w Committ a , which go l s ffirm th desire of the citiz ns of Englewood, th µrimary goal bing to continu tom intain Englewood one of only thr full-a rvice communiti • in the D nv r Metropolitan are 4. That a a full-• rvic city, the govetl\ nth a asum d th re pon 1b lity to provid th n cess ry municipals rvic a to th proµcrti a Within th City. 5. That th provision of ton int in th h 1th, ~arty, w lC r, rvic is s nt1 l in ord r niunc of th cOllllunity . • I • • -• • • '- 6. That the City-owned and operated water and sewer service is provided to residents of the City of En~lewood and it is essential that these services be maintained. 7. That at this time, wat e r and sewer services are the only city-owned utilities; but in the future, the City may find it desirable and necessary to provide others. 8. That the Comprehen siv0 Zo n ing Ordinr,nce r cg ulaU ons an, ambiguous as to the application of that ordinance to the construction of any city-owned and operated public utilities and this issue should be remedied. 9. That by exempting City-owned and operated utilities from the provisions of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance which may be conflicting, the City can fulfill its obligation to provide and maintain the necessary facilities for the health, safety, welfare and convenience of i t s r sident~. 10. That the Water and Sewer Board and the City Council review the installation of City-owned and operated utilities and will evaluate the necessity of such installation Lo the public before giving approval. 11. That no persons appeared at the Public Hearing who indicated a desire co address the Commission either in favor of or .in opposition to the proposed amendment to §22.1-8 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. CO CLUSIONS 1. That proper notice of the Public Hearing was given in compliance with §22.3-4 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. 2. That no persons present wished to ddress the Commission in regard to this matter. 3. That the goals for th long-rang planning for the desired development of the City of Englewood, Color do, w r pprovcd by th City Council in Resolution No. 49, Sri s of 1979, upon the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Commi sion and r cord din th offic of the Arapaho CoWlty Clerk nd Record r. 4. That Artie! VIII, P rt of th City of Engl wood, Colorado, s ..tn<l Z nlng Co mmisi.ion, i.t ting that "it 1oh 11 City Council, Compr hensive Zoning Ordinanc r visions th reto with such provisions aa th or d i rabl for th promotion of the health, w lf re of th inhabit nts of the City." 5. That the co .. iaaion i of th opinion th t th propo d nd- m nc co 122.1-8 of ch Coepr h naiv Zonin Ordin nc x mpcfna City-own d op rac d publl util ci a from r aul tion o • id Ordln nc will furth r o la of th 1979 Compnh naiv Pl n and will carry out th dir ctiv of City Ch rt r. b. Th t th W t r nd S •w r U rd d C ty W\ 1 r V!o,W th • I • • - • • • • • \· installation of City-owned and opera ted utilities and will evaluate the necessity fo r the installa tion to the public before giving approval. RECOMMENDATION Therefore, it is the recomme ndation of the City Planning and Zoni n g Co mm ission to the City Coun cil , that the Comprehensivu 7.oning Ord inan e <", Ordinance No . 26, Se r ies of 1963, a ~ ame nd e d, be amended by uddlng §ll .1-8 to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinan ce , wh ich s t ates: §22 .1-8 Appl icability of Reg ulations The regulation s, requirements, limitations and pro- vi sions of th e Ordi nance shall not apply to public utllitles p r esently owned or uperated by the City ol Englewood and pu blic ut ilities to be owned or operated by the City of Englewood. However, this doe s not re- lieve from the duty to obtain building permits those cont ractors wh o b uild or assist i n building any City- owned or operated utility. Up on the vote on a mot ion made at th meeting of the ,:1ty Plannin g and Zoning Commission July 20, 1982. Those m mbers voting in fa vor of the motion: Mr. Allen, Mr. Barbre, Mrs. Becker , Mr. Ca r s on, Mr. Sent i, Mr. Tanguma . Those member s vot ing in opposition to the motion: Mr. McBr aye r. Those members absent: Mr. Stoel and Mr. Gilchrist. Uy Order of the Cily Planning and Zoni ng ConuulssJon. • I • • • • • • PUBLIC HEARING Before The CITY COUNCIL ~ on " /0, ;qf~ TELEPHONE t BSERVER ~ I C ' I WISH TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL IN FAVeR IN ePPeSITieN I Nt POSITION )< 'I • ")<. • • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 20, 1982 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Co mm ission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman McBrayer. Members present: Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Senti Powers, Ex-officio Me mbers absent: Becker, Gilchrist, Stoel Also present: Assistant Director D. A. Romans Economic Development Planner Wm. Richard Hi nson City Attorney Rick DeWitt Assistant City Attorney Thomas V. Holland Special Counsel George Zoellner and Brad Br eslau Director of Utilities Stu Fo nda Urban Renewal Authority Members: Cole , Minnick, Novicky, Mcclung, Powell Board of Adjustment & Appeals Members: Dawson and Hallagin II. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Amendment of f22.2-6c(2) CASE 119-82 Mr. McBrayer stated that this case before the Commission concerns a pro- posed amend111ent of the Comp rehensive Zoning Ordinance by adding a new section, §22.2-6c(2). He asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Carson moved: Allen seconded: Th Public Hearing on Case #9-82 be opened. AYES: AYS : ABSENT: Allen, Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Tanguma None B cker, Gilchrist, Stoel Mr. Mc Brayer s tat d that th motion c arried. Mr. McBrayer stat d that th legal notic of th public he r i ng wa s publ i h d in the Englewood Sentinel on June 30th, and sked that th public notic b made a part of the record of this m ting. Mr. McBr yr als o k d th t the staff report b m de a part of the r cord. Mr. McBray r a t t d that th proposed am ndment sets forth crit ria to b u a d by th Board of Adjustment and App ala in consid ring request s for varianc to th Sign Code. Hr s . B ck r nte r d th m ting and took hr c hair with m mb r s o f th Commiuion . Hr. McBrayer aak d that anyone wiahin to addr a a th matt r c o forward to th podium and iv th ir n th ir stat nt. Hr . McBrayer ask d that co nta b a t h nd. • th is d i ve i ssu I • • • • • • -2- Mr. McBrayer stated that the Planning Commission has received copies of the staff report; he asked if there were any questions or comments from members of the Commission regarding this staff report? Hearing no questions from the Commission members, he then asked if the staff had any further information or comments they wished to make on this matter? Mrs. Roman s s tated that the staff had nothing further to add, but would be willing to answer questions. Mr. McBrayer asked that Mrs. Romans read the proposed amendment for the benefit of the members of the audience. Mrs. Romans complied with Mr. McBrayer's request. Mr. McBrayer asked if any member of the audience wished to speak regarding the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance ? No one spoke on this amendment. Mr. McBrayer again asked if there were questions f rom the Commission? Mrs. Becker stated that she felt that #2 s hould be changed grammatically for clarification. Mr. Allen stated that he was not in favor of the new Sign Code, but it was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council; he does feel that the appeal procedure to the Board of Ad j us t- ment and Appeals is proper. Carson moved: Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #9-82 be closed. AYES: Barbre , Be cker , Ca rson, McBrayer, Senti, Ta nguma, Allen NAYS: None ABSENT: Gilchrist, Stoel The 1110tion c arried. Mr. McBrayer asked the pleasure of the Commission on this case? Becker move d: Barbre second d: The Planning Commission recommend to City Co uncil that the following amendm nt to the Comprehen sive Zoning Ordinance be approved: f22.2-6c(2) In considering a request for a varianc to th Sign Code, 122.7 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordin nc , th Board of Adjustm nt and Appeals shall determine that: 1. Th rear sp cial circumstanc s or conditions such a th exist nee of bulding , topography, veg tation, sign structur or other matt rs on adjacent lots or within th adj c nt public right-of-way, which would ubst nti lly r strict the ffectiv neas of th sin in qu stion; provid d, how ver, that such sp ci 1 circumst nc s or conditions must b peculiar to th p rticular bu ins or nt rprise to which th applic nt d sires to dr watt ntion, nd do not apply n rally to 11 busin nterpris s. 2. Th w n n 1th r th this Ordin nor th re ulation1 District in which th ai n J1 lo- I • • • • - -3- 3. The variance, if authorized, will not a lt e r the essential character of the District in whi ch the sign is located. 4. The variance, if authorized, will not substantia l l y or permanently injure the appropriate use o f ad j a cent conforming property. AYES: Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre NAYS: None ABSENT: Gilchrist, Stoel The motion carried. III. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Amendment by adding §22.1-8 CASE 11 11-82 Mr. McBrayer asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Tanguma moved: Carson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #11-82 be opened. AYES: Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becke r NAYS: None ABSENT: Gilchrist, Stoel The motion carried. Mr. Mc Brayer s tated that legal notice of the publi c hearing a pp a r ed i n th Eng lewood Herald Sentinel on June 30, 1982, and a s ke d th a t t his b mad e a part o f the record of this hearing. Mr. Mc Braye r s tated tha t th matte r be f o r e the Commi s sion is a pro po s ed amendment t o the Com pr e he nsiv Zo ning Ord i nance whi ch would exempt pub l i c and c i t y-own e d ut ilities from hav i ng t o comp ly with the restric tions o f the Zoning Ord i n anc . Mr . McBrayer sta t e d th a t this propos dam ndment wa s d iscu ssed prev iously by th Pl nn ing Commission a n d legal s t af f, a nd th pub lic hearin g was scheduled to gain in- put from th commu ni t y . Mr . Mc Brayer again ask d that anyon wishing to addr ss th Co mm ission co forward to the podium and identify th ms lv s and give th ir statement. Mr. McBray r sk d if m mb rs of th Co ny qu stiona r g rdin th staff r port, or any qu stions of th Pl nnin taff or 1 gal st ff? Mr. All n sked if tr sh collection would b termed "public utility" nd b cov rd by this propos d nd nt? Hr. McBray r stat d th tit would not. Mr. McBray r stat d that ash reds th d nd nt, if it is pas d th City of Engl wood will not h v ny r triction of th C pr hen i v Zonin g Ord i nanc if thy wiah to conatruct public utility in any ar a ; h aa k d if thia ia corr ct? Aaaiat nt City Attorn y Holl nd atat d th t thia ia t h way h r da th propoa d Ordin nc . Hr. d r aak d if th propo d tow r could b buil nd d to p rt nt that a utility auch a 11 n o h 1th,•• ty, • I • • • -4- e tc. restrictions ? Mr. Holland stated that City Attorney DeWitt had a sho rt presentation to make, and he felt response to Mrs. Becker's question would be made at that time . Mr. DeWitt stated that he was City Attorney for the City of Englewood. He stated that the recomme ndation from the staff has been made to approve the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mr. DeWitt s tated that he had three people who would address the Comm ission on this matter: Mr. Holland would speak on the matter of exemption of public use s; Mr. Zoellner, special counsel for the City in relation to the water tower c ase, would disc uss that case; and Mr. Stu Fonda, the Director of Utilities, would address the Commission. Mr. DeWitt asked that Mr. Holland make his presentation at this time. Mr. Holland stated that he has prepared a short over-view on the issue of whether municipal uses/public facilities are subject to the regulations set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Holland stated that the answer is not concise on whether municipal uses are subject to the controls of zoning ordinances. He stated that the courts determine whether the municipal use is governmental or proprietary in nature, and proprietary uses have been ruled to be subject to the restrictions contained in the zoning ordinances. Mr. Holland stated that a governmental function is on the order of police protection, while a proprietary function is one from which the municipal ity can gain revenue. Mr. Holland then briefly reviewed some case law in Colo rado, and cited Statutes pertaining to this issue. He s tated that 30-28-1-10 §1 basically provides that no public structure may be built with i n a county wh ere there are count y zoning r egulat ion s unless the pro- posal has been s ubmitt ed to and approved by the County Planning Commission; there are e xceptions, however, which states that if a public s tructure do es not fall within the province of the Co unty Commi ssioners, and the County Planning Commission has disapproved the requ s t, th local body which sub- mi tted the request may overrule the decision of the Coun t y Planning Com- mission. He s tate d that thi s s tatute has been applied in two cases in Colorado, one with th Lakewo od Sanitation District in 1961, and the second being the Blue River Development Committee vs. the Town of Silverthorne. Mr. Holland then discussed s tatutes wh ich provid fo r the e x mpt ion of public buildings or structur from zoning regulations through a provision contained in the zoning ordin nee, when such public building or structures a r e for th r sonable n c ssity , conv nienc nd w lf r of th public. Mr. Holland cit d o municipal us s th t mi ht b x mpt fr0111 compli with provision of th zoning ordin uch rt nk, a municipal , a parkin lot for municipal , or nd fir facilitf a. n • d OU, uch d I • • • • - -5- Mr. Allen asked why, if the staff felt the water tower was constructed in compliance with the zoning regulations, there has been so much problem with the courts? Mr. Zoellner stated that the Courts do not agree with the staff interpretation of the zoning regulations, and have ruled that the tower is not in compliance with the zoning regulations. Mr. Zoellner further dis- cussed the need for approval of the proposed amendment. Mr. Stu Fonda, Director of Utilities, addressed the Commission regarding the need for the proposed amendment. Mr. Fonda stated that the zoning regulations governing height restrictions are difficult to interpret, and that the various legal representatives in the case still have not agreed on what the setbacks actually would be to accommodate the height of the tower. Mr. Fonda stated that the tower is designed so that if it ever coll apsed, it would drop straight down between the struts which s upport i t. Mr. Fonda stated that with the supporting strut design of the tower, it is 90% open. Mr. Fonda then discussed means of increas i ng water pres- sure for the southern end of the City; the use of a water tower is the best system that the City could get. Mr. Fonda discussed the reasons that pumping systems are not the most satisfactory, and cited problems that could occur during power failures. The Fire Department is also very con- cerned about the problem of water pressure. Mr. Fonda discussed the possi- bility, during extreme low pressure times, of contaminants being introduced into the potable water system, and that this possibility would not occur if the water tower use is approved. Mr. Fonda also pointed out if the height of the tank were lowered, there could still be pressure problems because of the terrain of the area to be served. Mr. DeWitt s tated that a point to be considered by the Coamission is that municipal services are different; these services are not to be compared with a typical drug-store that is not needed on an e veryday basis. Water service is an essential day-to-day service, as are fire and police protection. Mr. DeWitt stated that one of the strong points the City of Englewood has is its independence. Mr. DeWitt stated that the purpose of the propsed amend- ments is to ensure that independence into the next century , and to give the City the ability to expand and develop logically. Mr. DeWitt stressed the differen ce between the const antly needed municipal services and th typical commercial service which is needed intermittent ly. Hr. McBrayer asked if there wa anyone who wished to address the Commission r gerding th propo d ndment? No mber of th audience spoke on this tt r. Hr. HcBray r asked if th re was further discussion on th proposal from th Commission? Th r wer no furth r comm nts by th Commission. Beck r mov d: C rson s cond d: The Public Re ring on Ca 111-82 be closed. AYES: NAYS: McBray r, S nti, Tanguma, Allen, Barbr , B cker, Carson Non ABSENT: Gilchri t, Stoel Th motion carri d. ck r mov d: T n uma s cond d: Th Planning Co11111ia1ion reco11111 nd to City Council tha the follovin nd n to th Compr h naiv Zanin Ordinanc b approv d: • I • • n • • - -6- §22.1-8 Applicability of Regulations. The regulations, requirements, limitations and provisions of the Ordinance shall not apply to public utilities presently owned or operated by the City of Englewood. However, this does not relieve from the duty to obtain building permits those contrac tors who build or assist in building any City-owned or operated utility. Mrs. Becker spoke in favor of the proposed amendment, stating that s he felt there is a need to protect the public utilities, that she agreed the Ci ty of Englewood does have independence because of owning our utilities, and that this should be preserved. Mr. McBrayer stated that as the proposed amendment is presently written, he would be in opposition to it. He stated that he did not feel the City should be given the c arte blanche right to put in any kind of facility in any area without first having the property posted and going through a public hearing procedure before some bod y --either the Planning Commission or City Council. He stated that he would hate to see this ordinance passed without some hearing procedure built into the process. He asked Mrs. Becker and Mr. Tanguma if they would be willing t o amend the motion to suggest that the following s tatement be added: "The City must present satisfactory proof to a public hearing body that the proposed City building or structure is r e asonably necessary for the health and welfare of the public." He asked if the Commission would feel comfortable with such an addition to the amend- ment? Mrs. Becker stated t hat she did not envision a major utility being installed without being closely monit o r ed by the Ci t y Council; s he noted that it wou ld be extremely xpen sive, and that ma jor expend itures are required to have Co un cil action. She qu stion d that any public utili t y could be installed or cont ructed without Co un cil approval. Mr. D Witt noted that the matter of the Hr. nti c lled for th h d 1ndicat d d air qu etion. Hr. H to IP k. Hr. All ogniz d Hr. All n, who that h h d v lop- • I . r • • - -7- me nts such as this "string out for years because people had the r ight to attack it", and gave the Foothills Project as an example . He s t a t e d tha t he did not feel the City should be subjected to thi s t y pe o f pr o b lem. Th e vote on the motion was called: AYES: Senti, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Cars on NAYS: McBrayer ABSENT: Stoel, Gilch rist The motion carried . III. URBAN RENEWAL PLAN CAS E #1 0-82 Mr. McBrayer stated that the Public Hearing on the Urban Re ne wa l Pl an was co nt i nued from July 7, 1982, and that the Commission had asked tha t me mb e r s of the DDA and the Urban Renewal Authority get toge the r t o atte mpt t o i r on out s ome of the differences that became apparent at that t i me . He s t a t e d that the goal was to gain as much s u pport from as man y people as po ssible fo r the Urban Renewal Plan. Mr. McBrayer s tated that the Coounission has r eceived a list of proposed changes to the Plan, wh ich have been agr eed to by the EDDA and members of the Urban Renewal Author i t y , and asked that this be made a part of the r ecord of this meeting . Mr. Mc Brayer stated that the primary purpos e o f t he Cooun ission consideration is to determine whether the Urban Renewal Plan is i n complian ce with the Ci ty's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Mc Brayer then asked i f the s taff had an y up -d a t e to presen t on the matte r . Mr s . Beck e r state d that before we get fur the r into t es t imony from members of the s t aff and aud i ence , tha t she wo uld lik e to a po logize for missing the mee t i ng o f J uly 7th due to an i llness in he r fami ly necessitating her travel o ut of t he c ountry. Mr s . Beck e r s tated tha t s he had reviewed a d raft of t h e mi nutes of that me e t i ng, and tha t i t becam apparent to her that many items of discussion at that mee t ing were not p rtinent to the is u before the Commission, that bein g to determine complianc of th Urb n Renewal Plan with the Comprehensive Plan. She stat d that sh hop d th t stimony offer d this evening would mor clo ly addr ss th issu at hand --does the Urb n Ren wal Pl n comply with th adopt d Compr h neiv Pl n. I • -• • - -8- the EDDA will be expected to play in the implementation of this Plan. Ms. Powers stated that Pages 38 and 39 of the Plan have had considerable revision, these pages having to do with "land acquisition". Ms. Powers stated that this is not directly related to the issue before the Planning Commission, but is a result of work done by the Urban Renewal Authority and the EDDA since July 7th. Mr. Allen asked if a copy of the Plan is available with the changes in- corporated into it? He noted that it is very difficult to refer back and forth between the Plan as it was presented and the proposed changes. Ms. Powers stated that there has not been time to incorporate the changes into the Plan itself. Mr. McBrayer s tat ed that the Commission would now hear from members of the audience who wished to speak on this matter. Eugene L. Otis stated that he is the Mayor of the City of Englewood and that he was appearing before the Commission to express the concern of the City Council in any further de lay i n the adoption of the Pl an which could unfavorably impact the downtown development efforts. The City Council would request favorable ction by the Planning Co mm ission on the Plan at this meeting. Mayor Oti stated th tit is his understanding that the ED DA will be presentin to th Coanission durin th cours of this meting, a resolution which will rs ind th r olution oppo ing the Pl n they pre- Mayor ti tat d that th City Council would like to b for th Plannin Coamis ion is consid ration lan/Downt Rd v lopm nt Plan is Pl , and that oth r issu are ti st t d that h would like Plan. H stat d that on January City of En lewood nt rd in t o pl n for th Ci t y ; sin Workshop , or Otis d that this • I . • - -9- later than September 15th if we are to take advantage of th e a s ses sment increases this year . Mayor Otis stated that a good number of peop le hav e put in many hours working on the development of this program, and that he felt everyone had to work together, and that mutual trust must be in e v id e nce if we expect to reach our goal. He acknowledged that "al l of u s ma y have to make some sacrifices", but the City would gain from the re development program . Mayor Otis reiterated that the only question before the Planning Commission is whether the Urban Renewal Plan is consistent with the Comp r e- hensive Plan, and stated that the City Council requests favorab l e appro val by the Commission. Mr. Tanguma noted that Mayor Otis had stated that the City Counc i l is the only body with the right to exercise eminent domain; he noted a s tateme n t that states the City Council OR Urban Renewal Authority will be require d to acquire title to privately owned land --he stated that he felt the inclusion of the word "OR" was giving away that right of the City Council. Mayor Otis pointed out that the way the Plan is written, there can be no condemnation or acquisition of land without the authorization of the Ci t y Council. Ms. Powers stated that the Urban Renewal Authority wo ul d step in only on authorization and request of the City Coun c il, and that acqu isition of any parcel of land must be on a case-by-case approval and r esolut ion of the City Council. Mr. Allen asked for explanation of Tax Increment Bond s . Mayo r Otis s t ated that once a Tax Increment District is formed, the t a x revenu es would be frozen at the present level; any increase in revenu es would be used to re- t i re the Tax Increment Bonds. Mr. Robert G. Powell 4880 South Kalamath Street -addressed th Co mm ission. Ir . Po w 11 stated that h is Ch ai rm a n of the Ur ban Re n wal Authority, and rea d the fol l owing statement : is pl s d to annou nc that it has • Dev lopmen t Urb n Renewal th Plan h ld p d I . -• • - -10- Mr. Tom Fitzpatrick 3155 South Acoma -stated that he was addressing the Commission as a citizen who lives within one block of the area to be redeveloped. He stated that he has lived in this community for many years. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that he believes a Plan has been developed that is compatible with the living ideals and conditions of this City. As a resident, he feels the vacant stores along South Broadway should be used, and feels that the pro- posed Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Clete Gasson addressed the Commission, and stated that he is the re- cently-elected Chairman of the Englewood Downtown Development Authority. Mr. Gasson stated that former Chairman Holthaus had appeared before the Commission on July 7th, and submitted a resolution in opposition to the Urban Renewal Plan. It was suggested by the Commission at that time that the Urban Renewal Authority members and the members of the EDDA get to- gether to work out a compromise to the differences that had become apparent. Mr. Gasson stated that the EDDA has met with the Urban Renewal Authority and with the City Council, and that a number of changes in the proposed Plan have been agreed to. Based on these changes that have been proposed, and the dialog between the EDDA and the Urban Renewal Authority and City Council, the EDDA has passed a resolution rescinding the resolution which was approved by that board and presented to the Planning Commission on July 7th; the resolution which Mr. Gasson is presenting this evening does rescind the resolution presented on July 7th. Mr. Gasson stated that there are still some areas of concern, but the EDDA Board feels comfortable with the Plan, and would like to endorse it. Mr. Harry Fleenor 3383 South Corona -Mr. Fleenor stated that he has lived in th Englewood area for many years, and recalled his support of the Cinderella City proposal when it was initially slated for construction on the former KLZ towers site. One of the benefits and advantages cited by the proponents of the Cinderella City Shopping Center was that th tax base for the city would increase; the opponents felt that it would not, and that the "old downtown Englewood area would rot away"; he stated that while this area has suffered some deterioration, he does not feel that it has rotted w y, and can be salvaged if action is taken now. He stated that h was in favor of the construction of Cinderella City Shopping C nter, nd h is in f vor of th downtown development proposal at this tim. Hr. Fl nor stated th t th re are v cant buildings in th downtown res, and h f ls pos d rd velopment plan would increa th t x bas for th City Hr. J. O. P re sk d to ddr s the ColllDi ion, nd to pr docum nta to the Co mmie ion. Mr. All n s tat d that h felt should ace pt th docum nts Hr. Pe re want to pr sent. Hr. HcBr yr stat P re Pl ning C co lianc • in h arin what Hr. that th job of th lop nt Plan is in I • • • • • -11- homes in the 3400 block of South Acoma, west side, back up to the banks of Little Dry Creek. They are in the heart of the redevelopment area. He stated that the majority of downtown Englewood is in a federally- designated flood control area, and that no new buildings of a reasonable design can be built and occupied before improvements are made to Little Dry Creek. Mr. Pearce cited the Downtown Redevelopment Plan (Urban Ren e wal Plan), wherein it is stated that there may be occasions when the City o r the Urban Renewal Authority will be required to acquire title to priva tely owned property, and that the most apparent example involves improvement of the Little Dry Creek channel. City Council reviewed four alternate pro- posals for improvements of Little Dry Creek; Alternates 1 and 2 were eli mi na t ed , and consideration was centered on Alternates 3 and 4. Alternative #3 wa s selected as the plan of improvement for Little Dry Creek, which alternate is an open channel with water features built into the improvements. Mr. Pearce stated that by approving Alternate #3, the City Council will wipe out 15 Englewood businesses encompassing 250 years of retail experience, and that the oldest retail business in the City would be eliminated. Mr. Pearce stated that if the Planning Commssion approves the Downtown Re d ev e l op - ment Plan, this will be "rubber stamping" the City Council's decision to pursue only the one avenue of flood control on Little Dr y Creek. Mr. Pe arce disc ussed the course of the channel improvement s on Li ttl e Dr y Cree k a s proposed in Alternate #3. Mr, Pearce pointed out that b y c hoo sing Al t e rna t ive 11 3, the s tructures and businesses in the 3400 block o f South Ac oma ma y b c ondemned and/or destroyed without provision o f a t i me ly o r s u i table r e- location plan. Mr. Pearc e stated that Coun c ilman Ne a l mad e a mot ion on June 7, 1982, which motion was passed, that the City pr oceed on th e basis to design and build Option #3 on the Little Dry Creek I mpr ov e ment s ; th is was then amended to hold a Public Hearing on the matter on J un e 28th; how- e ver, Mr. Pearce stated that it was reaffirmed to him prior t o th e me e t i n g of June 28th by members of the City Council that they had al read y c hosen Alternative 11 3. Mr . Pear ce s tate d chat wh i le the City Council ma y have l e d me mb e r s of t he Co mm ission t o believ e that only Alternative #3 i s c on sis t e nt wi t h the Plan , h felt that Al t e rnate 4 s ho uld be c onsidered. Alternate #4 calls for a covered condu i t, which wo ul d b a c ontinuation o f the e xistin g cover d con- duit , n d would e nd at Hampden P l ace. Op e n c hannel i mp r ovem nts would b mad further up-s tream, Mr. Pe arc e r eferred to a copy of m mo from th D sign Advisory Co mm i t te nd Wrigh t-McLa ugh lin En gin rs which indicate that th wat r featur e could be i n cor po rat ed in both alt rnativ 1 3 nd #4 , nd th t furth rmor , Altern t D4 p r ovide b tt r b tw s hops , nd provid good s to th ma ll . Alt rnat l so xpen iv th Altern t H4 th m non South Aco St r of control probl m , consist nt with th P arc poin t d out olutions would hav loc tion. v nor ason to pureu that th ngl wood H rdw r rs of doing busin ss in that • I • • • - -12- project will die. Mr. Pearce stated that he feels the business people in this area are being "short-changed". He stated that a few months ago, he was told by the City Manager under the direction of the City Council, that the building he occupies would be condemned and taken from them at a "fair market value." Mr. Pearce stated that it was indicated to him that this was planned to occur as early as January of 1983. Mr . Pearce stated that the City Council says to "trust" them, but he was told by the City that if the matter went to Court on condemnation, the City would have immediate possession. Mr. Pearce stated that they were led to believe that the City Council had not made any decisions regarding improvements on Little Dry Creek; however, after reading the Minutes of June 7th, it was apparent that the City Council had given approval to Alternative #3 . This was well before th June 28th Public Hearing on the improvement of Little Dry Creek; Mr. P arce corroborated the statement by J,D, Pearce that at a study session on Jun 28th at 5:30 P.M., members of the City Council indicated that their minds wer made up and that Alternate #3 was their choice for the improve- ments on Little Dry Creek. Mr. Pearce stated that actions like this lead him to believe that important decisions affecting the citizenry of Englewood are being made before holding Public Hearings to gain input from members of the community. Mr. Pearce stated that he has also been told by the City Manager that the City Council was told by Brady Enterprises to "butt out" on negotiations and contracts with property owners on South Acoma Street, and that Brady would "take care of them". Mr. Pearce stated that his definition of double jeopardy would b to have businesses on the 16th Street Mall in Denver, and in the 3400 block on South Acoma Street. Mr. Jim Higday stated that he • I • -• • - -13- the members of the Englewood City Council and the City staff will be hon es t, open, and willing to help in everyway possible on this project. Mr. Fred Kaufman s tated that he is a memb er of the EDDA Board, and has been involved in the redevelopment proje c t since its inception. Mr. Kaufman stated that he has been in business in Englewood for man y years, and feels that his business has added something to Englewood. Mr. Kaufman stated that plans for the improvement of Englewood have been worked on for many yea rs, and that a solution to the problems facing downtown Englewood must be reached. Mr. Kaufman stated he does believe i n the City Council's avowal th a t they wi ll do what is needed as far as relocation is concerned and reaching an amiable solution with the dis placed tenants and property owners. He does feel these people will be taken care of properly. Mr. McBrayer asked if anyone else wis hed to speak? There was no on e else present who wished to address the Commission . Carson moved: Becker seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Senti, Tanguma , Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer Non e Stoel, Gilchrist The motion carried. Mr. McBrayer asked the pleasure of the Commi ssion? Ca rson moved: Beck r seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the Englewood Downtown Redevelopment Plan, as am nded, does comp ly with th Compreh nsive Plan adopted in 1979; th Planning C011Dission asks that the City Council approv th Englewood Downtown Red v lopment Plan, as am nd d. Mr. Tanguma stat d h wis d tbi decision did not hav to b so diff icult; h s tated h liked but f els th dec ision and r comnend tion hou ld cov r more than th narrow the Plan compli s 1th th Compreh nwiv Plan. H a r c o nd tion d t o CJt y Coun c il that thy consider a c h n • c tion p rtaining to L Ac qui si t ion , p rticularly that d alin with ain nt domain, and th t th ti o n i t t that only the City Council may x rcis th right of in. H flt it hould b more sp cifically t forth wher th min nt domain, th t th property b h ld for public u ri ht of emin nt domain not ext nd b yond that n d din th s o that a dev lop r may not u min nt do in as Mr s . B ck r a t t d ah had und ratood Mayor Oti s to Counc il ia th only body th t haa th uthority to min n domain. r. Holl nd at t d that Mayor Otis quot d r prop rty may b cquir d without th pproval o ~r. T n um.a k d wh t obj ction th r ion into t is cti o th Plan. could b H • th City ri ht o( rat1n rn ab u hi s th u - no n. I • • • - -14- governing body being able to acquire land for the overall purpose of re- development outside of the land to be used by the public improvements. Mr. Holland pointed out that Chairman McBrayer has indicated that the issue before the Planning Commission is whether or not the Downtown Redevelopment Plan is in conformance with the General Plan as a whole. He suggested that the Planning Commission might act on that issue through resolution. If there is something furt her the Planning Commission wants to send to the Council, it may be appropriate in a separate action. Mr. Tanguma reiterated his belief that the Council had made the decision more difficult by setting out such a narrow scope of consideration in their request. Mr. Holland stated that the narrowness of the issue was not deter- mined by the City Council, but by the law. Mr. Allen discussed his concerns with eminent domain, and stated that it appeared to him that the property owner is not protected at all if what the City wants to condemn is consistent with the Plan. He asked how the Hardware Store would be protected, for instance? Ms. Powers stated that eminent domain would be used only as a last resort, and that property owners would be paid fair market value. If the condemnation was under- taken within the parameters of the Plan, the property owners and/or tenants would have relocation benefits payable to them. Mr. Allen stated he questioned how this redevelopment project could work when the business community objects to it. Mr. Holland reminded the Planning Commission of the testimony that has been received, and of the fact that the EDDA submitted a resolution which rescinded their resolution of opposition of July 7th. Mrs. Barbara Holthaus asked that the EDDA resolution presented this evening be read for the benefit of the audience. Mr. McBrayer pointed out that th Public Hearing is now closed, and that Mrs. Holthaus should have made her request before closing the Haring. Mr. J. D. Pearce asked if the Planning Commission had rad the resolution? Mr. McBrayer stated that th copy of the resolution wa pres nted to th secretary; the Planning Commission dos hav the testimony of Mr. Gasson that opposition to th Plan by th EDDA was withdrawn and the Plan, a amend d, wa now supported by th EDDA. Mr. McBray r st t d th t p ople hav indicated that thy felt th Plannin Commission had gott n off th subject of th matter b fore them by allowing p opl to discuss problems with the Urb n R newal Plan. He stated he felt th t th Planning Commission, by encouraging b tter communication betw n th Urb n R newal Authority, th EDDA, nd oth rs, may hav given th Pl n b tter overall ch nc of success. Mr. McBrayer call d for the vot on th motion. • B rbr , B ck r, C rson, McBr yr, S nti Sto 1, Gilchriat IIIOtion carri d. Mr. McBr y r C 11 d arc•• of th • ting • • I • • • • • -15- The meeting reconvened with the following members present: Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Senti Absent: Stoel, Gilchrist V. PUBLIC FORUM. Mr s . Becker discussed her concerns about business people who may be displaced under the redevelopment program. She stated her belief that these businesses s hould remain in Englewood and not be forced to seek accommodations i n another jurisdiction. She stated that she felt that some temporary location should be found for these businesses until their area has been redeveloped. She stated that this would require two moves for these businesses , which they might not like, but she would hope that the Planning Commission, EDDA, City Council , and everyone concerned would consider all possibilities. Mr. Mc Brayer noted that there are several vacant buildings on South Broadway in the 3400 block; he asked if it might be satisfactory fo r some of the businesses to relocate to this area temporarily? Mr. John Pearce pointed out that the former Public Service building has recently been sold; the new owner has spent considerable funds to renovate the building , and it is doubtful he would want to lease to a hardware operation. He stated that the former Penney Building would not be satisfactory for the hardware operation because of lack of adjacent parking and the narrow alley which would hinder loading/unloading procedures. Mr. Pearce stated he did not feel the problem of relocation for the 15 businesses that will be destroyed by Little Dry Creek Alternative #3 has been addressed. Mr. J. D. Pearce stated he felt the businesses in the 3400 block of South Acoma were unique. One of the main problems facing these businesses is the "double move" --first to temporary quarters if they can be found, and then back to the redeveloped area. He stated that a double move would be very impractical for the Hardware Company. Mr . Pearce further discussed his concerns with the displacement of the businesses and the relocation. He stated they would welcome creative suggestions from anyone on this problem. Mr. McBrayer suggested that it may b too early in the planning of this program tog t down to relocation specifics. H not d that the tax district still has to b formed. He stated h flt there would be many more etings and discussions b fore the actual point of relocation begins. Discussion follow d. Ms. Powers r view d th study and consideration that has been don lmprov m nt of Little Dry Creek and the entire redev lopment Alt rnatives #3 and #4 were first considered, it was d termin on both sides of the er ek in the 3400 block would h v to b staff was instruct d tom t with th Acoma rchants to d n ds, but it was th d cision of th s merchants and prop thy want d to d al with Brady Enterpris s nd not with has back doff on contact• and discussion s with th Aco th City staff would b 110re th n willin to h lp the , dir ction. • Pow ra phasized th willingn H of th City to b ssist nee, but also stressed th reluct nc to interf re nd Br dy Enterpris s. . Pow ra stated that nod velop • on th Wh nta I • • • - -16- been made with Brady Enterprises at this time, but that Mr. Brady has said he would take responsibility for negotiations and relocation for the Acoma Street merchants. Mr. Brady has expressed the desire to keep these merchants in the downtown area. Ms. Powers reiterated that there is no development agreement with Mr. Brady, and cannot be until the Urban Renewal Plan/Down- town Redevelopment Plan is adopted. Ms. Powers noted that a survey questionna ire was developed to indicate the needs and desires of the Acoma merchants, and that Mr. Hinson talked to Messrs. Pearce and asked that they complete this survey and return it to the office. No response has been received to this request, and the staff was informed verbally that the Messrs. Pearce wanted to deal with Mr. Brady --not the City. J. D. Pearce discussed the many factors that must enter into consideration of needs for a business s uch as the hardware store. Mr. Pearce said that Ms. Powers was correct when she stated that they did not want to deal with the City, but incorrect in the statement they wanted to deal with "Brady". He stated they would prefer to negotiate with a private developer. He stated that they have talked to Mr. Brady, but that he is not prepared to negotiate with them at this point in time. Mr. McBrayer stated it was important to have the parameters of what a busine s operation must have to be able to locate another site for that bu in ss. Discussion followed. Ms. Becker stated she foresaw a lot of work ah ad, and pointed out that there must be a degree of compromise on all sid for the program to be successful . Mr. J. D. Pearce stated that they wanted to see the redevelopment plan go thru, but they want to stay in business. Mr. John Pearce discussed the Little Dry Creek improvements, and stated that the Urban Drainage personnel indicated that if Alternative #4 wer chosen, only a couple of feet off the rear of their property would be r - quired. Ms. Powers pointed out that Urban Drainage personnel are not the design engineers on the Little Dry Creek project, and that it has been estima ted that at least 10 feet into the building would be required wit • either Alternative #3 or #4. Mr. Allen inquir d what effect the increas d cost of land and construction would have on th hardwar company if they relocated? Mr. P arc discus d th verage costs st forth by th National Hardware Associ tion, which costs r brok n down by wh th r th loc tion i rural or metropolitan, and wh ther th r r high or low pro d from th busin s. Mr. McBrayer a k d lf it would b in ord r for th letter expl inlng th tion plan, asking for pl n be approv d. Ms. Pow rs on the part of th Commission doption of th Urb n R newal ar ep rte iaau a. r location plan Mr. Mc8ray r stat d he would dr ft such 1 tt r or r vi w at th n x meting. Discus ion nsu d. Ms. Pow rs pointed out th t the Urb n Rn wal Authority, by State Statut , has the reaponaibility to d v lop a relocation plan. Sh 110 point d out that a propoa d r location had be n includ d in th Urban Rn w 1 Plan, but was r v d from th Downtown d v lo nt • I • • • • • - -17- Plan as approved by the Planning Commission. She noted that a r e locat ion plan would be a document separate and distinct from the Redevelopment Pl an. She stated that the relocation plan does have specific standards set fo rth as it is written. Mr. J. D. Pearce agreed that the relocation plan was 'written with specific standards, and that it was "scary as hell". He questioned that it really addressed the problems of relocation, but rather spoke to the legal require- ments of the Urban Renewal Authority. Mrs. Becker stated she felt the concerns of the Planning Commission should be heard, and that perhaps the letter should be sent to the Urban Renewal Authority, indicating the interest of the Planning Commission in keeping the displaces businesses in downtown Englewood. Mr. McBrayer stated he would direct the letter to the Urban Renewal Authority with copies to City Council. VI . DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Ms. Powers stated she had nothing further to dis cuss . Mrs. Romans stated the Promote Englewood Co11111itte e will have their ne x t meeting on August 10th. The Landscaping Colllllittee will meet on J uly 22nd at 7:30 A.M. The next meeting of the Planning Co11111ission wi l l b e Augus t 3r d . VI I. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr . Hc Brayer s t a t ed that the Qui l t Displ a y Ca e is un der con st ruc t i on, a nd will be i n s t all d this week . Hr . McBrayer s tated that after all th e bills are in , h wou ld le t th Co11111 i s s i on memb ers know what their sha r e is . Mrs. Becker reminded CO!mllissio n members and staff of th potluck dinner at her hous on July 25th at 4:00 P.H. The me ting adjourn d at 10:05 P .K. • I • • • • • - MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: July 20, 1982 SUBJECT: Amendment of Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Becker moved: Barbre seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the following amendment to the Comprehens ive Zoning Ordinance be approved: §22.2-6c(2) In considering a request for a variance to the Sign Code, §22.7 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals shall determine that: 1. There are special circumstances or conditions such as the existence of buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent public right-of-way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question; provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions must be peculiar to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention, and do not apply generally to all businesses or enterprises. 2. The variance, if authorized will weaken neither the general purpose of this Ordinance nor the regulations prescribed for the District in which the sign is lo- cated. 3. The variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential charac t er of the District in whi ch the sign is located. 4. Th vari nee, if authorized, will not substantially or p naanently injure the appropriate use of adjacent con- forming property. AYES: B ck r, Carson , HcBray r, Senti, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre AYS: Non ABSENT: Gilchrist, Stoel Th •otion carri By Ord r of th City Plannin and Zoning Commis ion . • I • • • • • • - MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: July 20, 1982 SUBJECT: Amendment of Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Becker moved: Tanguma seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the following amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be approved. 122.1-8 Applicability of Regulations. The regulations, requirements, limitations and provision s of the Ordinance shall not apply to public utilit i es pre s- ently owned or operated by the City of Englewood and pub lic utilities to be owned or operated by the City of Englewood. However, this does not relieve from the duty to obta i n build- ing per.its those contractors who build or assist in bu ild i n g any City-owned or operated utility. AYES: Senti, Tanguma, Allen, !arbre, Becker, Carson NAYS: HcBrayer ABSENT: Stoel, Gilchrist The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Coanission. Gertrude G. Welty Re c ording Secreta r y I • • n - • • • • - MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DATE: July 20, 1982 SUBJECT: Compliance of Englewood Downtown Redevelopment Plan with the Comprehensive Plan RECOMMENDATION: Carson moved: Becker seconded: The Planning CoDD11ission recommend to the City Council that the Englewood Downtown Redevelopaent Plan, as amended, does comply with the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1979; the Planning Commission asks that the City Council approve the Englewood Downtown Redevelopment Plan, as amended. AYES: Tanguma, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Senti NAYS: Allen ABSENT: Stoel, Gilchrist The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Coamission. ~M~L4-Certrude G. Welty 7 Recording Secretary • I • • ... ...... • Resolution No. 1 Series of 1982 • • - CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO Planning and Zoning Commission A RESOLUTION OF THE ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDIN G APPROVAL OF THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN OF JULY, 1982. WHEREAS, a Downtown Redevelopment Plan has been prepared by the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority; and WHEREAS, the City Council has submitted the Downtown Redevelop- ment Plan to the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission for review and recommendations as to its conformity with the General Plan for the develop- ment of the municipality as a whole in accordance with Section 31-25-107(2) C.R.S. 1973, as amended; and WHEREAS, a public hearing and review have been conducted by the Englewood Planning and Zoning Co1111ission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Com- mission of the City of Englewood, Colorado: Section 1. That the Englewood Downtown Redevelopment Plan has been determined to be in conformity with the General Plan of development for the City of Englewood; and Section 2. That a recoaaendation for approval of the Downtown Redev lopment Plan shall be forwarded to the Englewood City Council. ADOPTED AND APPROVED THIS 20th day of July, 198 2. ATTEST: I • • r STAFF REPORT Pa ge -1- STAFF REPORT RE: • • - ORDINANCE AMENDME NT Case #11-82 An ame ndment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance relat i v e t o City-owned or o perated public utilities. DATE TO BE CONSIDERED: July 20, 1982 ACTION TO BE TAKEN: If, following the Public Hearing, the ma j ority of the members of the Commission find that the proposed amendment to the Compr e hensive Zo n i ng Ordinance is necessary, a motion would be approved referr ing the matter t o the City Coun cil for i t s act i on . BAC KGROUND: The City of Englewood is one of three full-service citi e s i n the Denver Metropoli tan a rea and t he primary goal o f the 1979 Com pr e hen- sive Plan * is t o c onti nue t o ma i ntain Englewood as a full-serv i c e commu nity. As a f u ll-ser vice city , t h e government has assumed the respons i b ility to prov i de t he nece~sary mun icipal services to the properties within the City. The p r ov ision of these services is essential in order to maintai n t he health, safety , welfare , and convenience of t h e c oanunity. Englewood is extremely fortunate that far-sighted members of fo naer City Co un cils prov i ded for City-owned and operated water an d sewer serv ice, and i t is e ssent ial t hat these services be maintained. At this t i me, these are t he on ly city-owned utilities; but in the future, the City may find it desirable a nd necessary to provid others. The Compr h nsiv Zoning Ordinance is unclear ss to th applica- tion of that Ordinanc to the construction of any City-owned and operat d public utility and th Ci ty Attorney's office has advised the Commi sion that this issue should be clarifi d. 0th r citi s hav experienced th sa situation and addr ss d th i u by exempting th construction of necessary public utilities from compliance with th zoning regulations. In th csse of sp cial dis- tricts, th law exempts th construction of n cess ry public utili ti from complying with zonin r quir m nt • *A op d by City Council R olu f n o. 9, Sri o 197 . • I • • - • STAFF REPORT Page -2- RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: • • • ORDINANCE AMENDMEN T Case 011-82 The proposed amendment would provide the tool to implement the 1979 Comprehensive Plan, which Plan sets forth as the primary Goal to "maintain Englewood as a full service co~nity". The provision of necessary public utilities to the properties within the City is paramount to the execution of that Goal. AMENDMENT BEING CONSIDERED: The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance would add a new section, 122.1-8, entitled APPLICABILITY OF REGULATIONS. The proposed addition would state: "The regulations, requirements, limitations and provisions of the Ordinance shall not apply to public utilities pres- ently owned or operated by the City of Englewood and public utilities to be owned or operated by the City of Englewood. However, this does not relieve from the duty to obtain build- ing permits those contractors who build or assist in building any City-owned or operated utility." COMMENTS FROH OTHER DEPARTMENTS. The Director of Utilities, the Fire Chief, and the Ci ty Attorney have requested the proposed amenchlent be approved i n order to clarify the procedure that must be followed in carrying out their assigned respon sibilities to provide service to the properties within the City. RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF: The staff recolllael\ds that the proposed amendment be referred to the City Council for its consideration and favorable action. • I • • • • - 0 0 I . . •