The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1982-08-16 (Regular) Meeting Agenda-• • • City Council Meeting Regular August 16, 1982 0 - CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 16, 1982 RESOLUTION K,7,JJ!,, 39, 40, 41 ORDINANCE Kj5,36,37,38,39, • • • 0 0 • I . • • - • - Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Hlqday Neal Fltzoatrick Weist Bi lo Bradshaw Otis (' ) _ /..-~ t _/l .._, ) • /'J n ~ (J '<-J 1311 ( / { / ffe;~ ( /{ l ..J. ),(._/ Ai ,rl 1 fl 7-tp .J (. {1u I . . • • • - • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain ~1oifav ....- Neal ,_ Fitznatrick ;..-- Weist v Bi lo v- Bradshaw v- Ot i s (.,/ I • • • • • ~-I • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abs ta In Hlgday I Neal I 17 Fltzoatrick Weist Bi lo ... Bradshaw Otis I • • • • • - • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Hlgday I Neal I ........... Fl tzoat rl ck Weist Bi lo --Bradsh- Otis I • • • • • - • • ROLL CAL L Moved Seconded Aye s Na y Absent Abstain Hlodav I Neal I 1.,,..-Fltzoatrick Weist Iii lo 1./ Bradshaw Otis { C~ I • • • • • - • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Hlooay Neal Fltzoatrlck Weist Bl lo Bradshew Otis • I • • • • - • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Hlgday I Neal I ,_.--Fl tzoat r I ck Weist B 11" /' Bradshaw Otis -{~CJ [- • • I • • • • • - • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abs ta In ~fniJav I Neal I V Fltznatrlck r Weist I Al Jn V Bradshaw I Otis I • • I • • • • • - • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Hladay I Neal I .., Fltza1trlck Weist Rf l<'> V Bradshaw Otis 70-. • • I • • • • • - • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Na y Absent Abstain Hlgday I Neal I V Fl tzoatrick I Weist Bi lo V Bradshaw Otis 7b C I~ C _) ) l \..., l --I tl'•1/t )(._ r, t l /. ., ti • J r t t. ~I (l I tlf l { . J J 1·J1·1 )Y ') • • I • • • • • - • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain H1aday I Neal , V Fl tzoatrick I Weist , Bi lo I _,. -Bradshaw I Otis 1 J7 • I . • • • - • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain HIQClay I Neal I ll'V Fl tzoatrick I Weist 1 Bi lo V V Bradshaw ' Otis I 1 1 -- / • • I • • • • • - • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain H10<1av I Neal I Fl tzoatrick I Weist 1 Bi lo -Bradshaw I Otis I • • I . • • • - • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Hiqday Neal v Fltzoatrick Weist Bi lo ./ Bradshaw Otis 1 • I . • • • - • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain H1Qdav I Neal I V Fl tzoatrick I Weist 1 Bi lo I ,/ Bradshaw I Otis I ') t ,r n, • • I . • • • -• • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Hlgday I Neal I y Fitzoatrick Weist Bi lo v Bradshaw Otis 1 t 1 , t'l • I • • • • -• • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Hloday Neal Fl tzoat rick Weist ei lo Bradsh- Otis 7 I I I Q l d 1 1. I ~ , t"" • t"t ? ) 1 I J ) J • I /. I ) /. (, ")) ) ) ., /1 I I ) 1 a"'-.J -I • e I / ( )_ , ~ -i { L -- • • I • • • • - • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain H1qday Neal Fltzoatrick Weist Ai lo Bradshaw Otis -7 J ., / • • I • • • • - • .. • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Hlqday / Neal I v-Fl tzoatrick I Weist I Bi lo 7 V Bradshaw I Otis 1 ) ., • • I • • • • -• • I ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain HIQOav Neal Fl tzoatrick Wei st Bi lo Bradshaw Otis :h + 1 ~ J 7. ,, '-------4 __L,__, ( /. t l \ /; / J J)U )l C I'- J -{{/'II U ' ,u -r ~ s/c / .. f;r/1',. -c_p" ~-~ {~l,,__tl./ ~ f )y , / J /'1 J Ii ' /'l.( .__ ~ /I '- • • I . • • • l • • • • AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 16, 1982 \,- r J ~ b ~ / 7 :30 P.M. Call to o;der, invocation by Pastor Clifford Sampier, Cherry Hills Full Gospel Church, 4860 South Clarkson Street, pledge of allegiance by Boy Scout Troop #92, and roll call. rt• > '"t, \..(\ 1. Minutes. (a) Minutes of the special meeting of July 26, 1982. (Copies enclosed.) (b) Minutes of the special meeting of July 27, 1982. (Copies enclosed.) ~ (c) Minutes of the regular meeting of August 2, L{\ 1982. (Copies enclosed.) 2. Pre -Scheduled Visitors. (Please limit your pre- sentation to 10 minutes.) 3. Othe r Visitors. (Please limit your presentat i on t o 5 minutes.) 4 . Public Hearing. 5. CotD1Dunications -No Action Recomm oded. (a) Minutes of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals meetings of June 9, and July 14, 1982. (Copies enclo ed .) (b) Minu tes of the Urban Re n w l Authority meetings of July 7 and 20, 1 98 2. (Copies enclosed.} I • • • • • • • Page 2 August 16, 1982 Agenda 5. Communications -No Action Recommended (Continued). (c) Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings of July 7, 13, and 20, 1982. (Copies enclosed.) (d) Minutes of the Water and Sewer Board meeting of August 3, 1982. (Copies enclosed.) (e) Memorand\.UD from the Assistant Director - Planning Division to the Director of Community Development concerning attendance at the ALI- ABA Land Planning Conference. (Copies enclosed.) 6. Communications -Action Recommended. ..) (a) Council Communication from the Planning and Zoning Commission concerning findings of fact on the proposed amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. (Copies enclosed.) 7. City Attorney. Ordinance on Final Reading. (a) Ordinance repealing and reenacting portions of Title XI of the Englewood Municipal Code of 1969 to more precisely define acts pro- hibited in certain criminal offense ordi- nances. (Copies enclosed.) Bills for Ordinances. I , ,J (b) Bill adopting criteria to relieve sign owners ~rr' tt>+ (I.}> t 1 of undue hardship, and amending the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, 1963, by adding new section 22.2-6 c (2). (Copies enclosed.) l'I..} solutions. R solution pproving an agreement with Cindermak Associ tes regarding xtension of lease con- cerning parking lot adj cent to Cind rell City. (Copi I nclo1 d.) (d) R solution naming th Golf Course of th City I. of Engl wood, Colorado. (Copies enclos d.) • I • • - • • • • Page 3 August 16, 1982 Agenda ( (J..-0 J (L 7. City Attorney (Continued). ~(\ )(_ (\ \.,f\1' Proclamations. IJ--(e) (f) µg) Proclamation proclaiming the week of August 8 through August 14, 1982 as Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Week. (Copies enclosed.) Proclamation proclaiming September 8, 1982 as Cancer Control Day. (Copies enclosed.) Proclamation proclaiming September 7, 1982 as Peace Day. (Copies enclosed.) Other Matters. (h) Attorney's Choice. 8. City Manager. t 9. (a) Memorandwn from the Utilities Customer Service Manager to the City Manager concerning Valley Sanitation District Supplement relating to the new Northeast Englewood Sewer line. (Copies enclosed.) Manager's Choice,-t t)ll'/J<l<I "'<'-<-''"' ~/. <·).u_l,i lV ,, -,u~" /..._ "f t g ,1. lj t,'./)"\ ') JU) /1u I General Discussion. (a) Mayor's Choice. (b) Council Member's Choice. tAr:' ~J :Jou rn• AN MC CO Ci Hanger nt. AM/sb • I • • n • SPECIAL MEETING: • • • COUNCIL CHAMBERS City of Englewood, Colorado July 26, 1982 1~ The City Council of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe County, Colorado, met in special session on July 26, 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 Man ag er Mccown RESOLUTION NO. 34 SERIES OF 1982 * * Assistant City Manager Vargas City Attorney DeWitt Act ing Recording Secretary Castle * * * * * A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD FOR THE DOWNTOWN ENGLEWOOD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, AND PROVIDING FOR THE NOTICE OF HEARING ON THE PLAN. COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL MOVED TO PASS RESOLUTION NO. 34, SERIES OF 1982. Council Memb r Bradshaw seconded the motion. Upon a call of th roll, the vot resulted as follows: Ayes: Council M mbera Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Weist, Bilo, Bradah w, Otis. • I • • - • July 26, 1982 Page 2 Nays: None. • • • The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * * No further business was discussed due to meeting being of special status. COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO ADJOURN. Mayor Otis adjourned the meeting without a vote at 7:40 p.m. renda Castle Acting Recording Secretary • I • • • SPECIAL MEETING: • • • COUNCIL CHAMBERS City of Englewood , Colorado July 27, 1982 /b The City Council of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe County , Colorado, met in special session on July 27, 1982, at 5:20 p.m. Mayor Otis, presiding, called the meeting to order. The invocation was given by Council Member Thomas Fitzpatrick. The pledge of allegiance was led by Mayor Eugene Otis. Mayor Otis asked for roll call. Upon~ 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 Acting Recording Secretary Castle * * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 12, 1982, AT 7:30 P.M. 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 REQUIRE - MENTS AND REGULATIONS. Council Member Fitzpatrick seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. Nays: None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * * I • • I • • July 27, 1982 Page 2 • • • No further business was discussed due to meeting being of special status. COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO ADJOURN. Mayor Otis adjourned the meeting without a vote at 5:25 p.m. ~ t\~d4fdztte. Bren a Caste Acting Recording Secretary I • • - • REGULAR MEETING: • • • COUNCIL CHAMBERS City of Englewood, Colorado August 2, 1982 I CJ The City Council of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe County, Colorado, met in regular session on August 2, 1982 at 7:30 p.m. Mayor Otis, pr e s i d i ng, called the meeting to order. The invocat i on was given by Bob Mooney, Centennial Lu t heran Church. The pledge of allegiance was led by Boy Scout Troop 192. Mayor Otis asked for roll c a ll . Upon a call of the roll, t h e f ollowing wer e present: Council Members Hi gday, Nea l , F i tzpa trick, Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis . Ab se nt: Non e . The Mayor declared a quorum p r esen • • Also presen were: * • • • • • • City Manager Mccown Assistant City Manage r Va rgas City Attorney De Witt Deputy City Clerk Joha nn i sson • * • • • COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO APPROVE THE MI NUTES OF JULY 19, 1982. Council Member Fitzpa rick seconded the motion . Upon a call of the roll , he vote resul ed as follo ws: Ayes: Council M mbers Higday, N al , Fitzpatrick , Weist, B1lo, Bradshaw, Otis . Nays: Non . Th Mayor d cl red h mo ion c rri d. • * • • • • • • I • • • August 2 , 1982 Page 2 • • - COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEAR - ING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BOND OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD FOR PAVIN G DISTRICT NO. 28. Council Member Bradshaw 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 mot ion car ried. Steven Bell representing Hanifen, Imhoff presented i nfor- mation relating to the proposed bond issue. Mayor Otis asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the bill. No one wished to speak. COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEAR- ING. Council Memb er Bilo seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Cou n cil Members Higday, Nea l , Fitzpatrick, Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis . None . The Mayor declared the motion carried . ORDINANCE NO. 31 SERIES OF 1982 BY AUTHORITY COUNCIL BILL NO. 36 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, FOR PAVING DISTRICT NO. 28, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION OF STREET PAVING, CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK I MPR OVE MENT S, TOGETHER WITH NECESSARY INCIDENTALS ON CERTAIN STREETS WITHIN PAVING DISTRICT NO. 28; PRESCRIBING THE FORM OF THE BONDS; AND PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF SAID BONDS AND THE INTEREST THEREON. COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO PASS COUNCIL BILL NO. 6, S ERIES OF 1982, ON FINAL READING. Council Memb er Neal seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: • I • • • • • August 2, 1982 Page 3 Ayes: Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Weist, Bradshaw, Otis. Council Member Bilo. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO ACCEPT ALL COMMUNICATIONS NO ACTION RECOMMENDED. Council Member Fitzpatrick seconded the mo- tion. 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. * * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO RECEIVE THE RECOMMENDA- TION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RELATING TO THE SIGN CODE AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAW UP AN ORDINANCE. Coun- cil Member Fitzpatrick seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: TION OF MENT TO TION OF TIES. of th Ayes: Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Weist, Silo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO RECEIVE THE RECOMMENDA- THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RELATING TO AN AMEND- THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING THE APPLICA- ZONING REGULATIONS TO CITY OWNED OR OPERATED PUBLIC UTIL- Council Member Fitzpatrick seconded the motion. Upon a call roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ay s: Nay : Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpa rick, Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, O is. None. • I • • n - • August 2, 1982 Page 4 • • • The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * * Assistant City Manager Vargas presented agenda item 6 (b) ( i) relating to the recommendations by the Water and Sewer Boa rd. COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL MOVED TO APPROVE THE ANNEXATION OF SUPPLEMENT NO. 94 INTO THE SOUTHGATE SANITATION DISTRICT. 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. * * * * * * * Assistant City Manager Vargas presented agenda item 6 (b ) (i i ) relating to the recommendation by the Water and Sewer Board f o r i nclusion of l and into the Valley Sanitation District. Counci l Member Ne al requested information as to whether the new sewer pipe would be used by this addition to the sanita- tion district. City Manager Mc c own requested Assistant City Man - ge r Vargas to call S tu Fonda to determine the answer to the ques -tion. COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL MOVED TO TABLE AGENDA ITEM 6(b ) (i i ) TO TH E END OF THE MEET I NG . Council Memb er Bilo seco nd ed t h e mo tio n. Up on a call of the r oll , the vote r esulted as follo ws : Ayes: Nays: Council M mb rs Higday , N al, Fitzpatrick , Weis , Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis . None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * * BY AUT HORITY ORDINANCE NO. 32 COU NCIL BILL NO. 31 • I • • - • August 2, 1982 Page 5 SERIES OF 1982 • • • INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING PORTIONS OF TITLE XI OF TH E ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE OF '69 TO MORE PRECISELY DEFINE ACTS PRO - HIBITED IN CERTAIN CRIMINAL OFFENSE ORDINANCES. COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO PASS COUNCIL BILL NO. 31, SERIES OF 1982, ON FINAL READING. Council Member Fitzpatrick sec - onded the motion. City Attorney DeWitt discussed a change to 11-6-lO(b) which would add the words, "zip gun.• COUNCIL MEMBER BILO MOVED TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL NO. 31, SERIES OF 1982, BY ADDING "ZIP GUN" TO PARAGRAPH 11-6-lO(b). Coun- cil Member Fitzpatrick seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote on the amendment 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 ca rried • ORDINANCE NO. 33 SERIES O 1982 • • • • BY AUTHORITY • • • COU NCIL BILL NO. 32 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW AN ORDI NANCE REPEALING SECTIONS ll-~-1 4, UNLAWFUL TO POSSESS BUR - GL A TOOLS, 11-6-22, LOITERING PROHIBITED, 11-6-23, LOITERING NEAR SC HO OL PROHIBITED, 11-6-24 , UNLAWFUL CONGREGATION, 11-7-16 , TAXICAB CRUI SI NG, ANO 11-8-11, ASSAULT OR I NDE CE NT ACTS, • I • • -~ August 2, 1982 Page 6 • • • COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO PASS COUNCIL BILL NO. 3 2, SERIES OF 1982, ON FINAL READING. Council Member Fitzpa t ri c k sec- onded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resu lted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * • • • • City Attorney DeWitt recommended that a letter of thanks be sent to Loretta Huffine, the former Assistant City Attorney, who worked on these bills. ORDINANCE NO. SERIES OF 1982 • • • • BY AUTHORITY A BILL FOR • • • COUNCIL BILL NO. 3 8 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL AN ORDINANCE APPR OVING A CONTRACT WITH THE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, UNITED S TATE S DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND THE CI TY OF LI TTLET ON, S TATE OF CO LORADO, TO DEF I NE AND UNDERSTAND HYDRAU LIC COND I T IONS OF THE SO UTH PLATTE RI VER. CO UN CIL ME MB ER NEAL MOVED TO PA SS COU NCIL BILL NO. 38 , SERIES OF 1982, ON FIRST READI NG. Council Member Silo seconded the motion. Council Member N al stat d that it should b made a part of th public record that at th joint me ting with Lit leton, the City agre d to th study only if the State of Colorado would agr e to give consideration to the finding of the study in establishing permanent l vels ands ram standard for our Bi-City plan • The Stat has agreed to this. Upon Ay a: call of the roll, the vo re•ulted s follows: Council M mbtr Higday, Neal, Pi zp rick, Weis , Bilo , Bradshaw, 0 1•. I • • • August 2, 1982 Page 7 Nays: None. • • • The Mayor declared the motion carried. ORDINANCE NO . SERIES OF 1982 * * * * BY AUT HORITY A BILL FOR * * * COUNCIL BILL NO . 39 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BILO AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF ENGLEWOOD AND LITTLETON AND THE DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH REPRESENTED BY THE WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVI- SION TO CONDUCT A COMPREHENSIVE STREAM STUDY OF SEGMENT 14 OF THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVER. COUNCIL MEMBER BILO MOVED TO PAS S COUNCIL BILL NO. 39, S ERIES OF 1 98 2 , ON FIRST READING. Council Member F i tzpatrick sec- onded the mot i on. Upon a c all of the roll, the vote resulted as f o l lows : Ay es: Na y s: Co un cil Member s Higday, Nea l , F i tzpatr ic k, We ist , Bil o, Bradshaw, Oti s . None. The Ma y o r de cla r ed th e motion ca rr i ed • RESOLUTION NO. 35 , SERIES OF 1982 • • • • • • • A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FEES AND CHARGES FOR THE ENGLE WOOD MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE. COUNCIL ME MBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO PASS RESOLUTION NO . 35, SERIES OF 1982. Council Memb r Silo seconded th motion. Council Memb rs Bradshaw, Higday, and N al exprea ed con- e rn th the non-resident f es were too low • Upon a call of the roll , th vote result d aa follo ws: Ayes: Council Memb ra Higday , Neal, Fitzpatrick, ist, BUo, Breda , 0th . • I • • August 2 , 19 82 Page 8 Nays: None. • • - The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO APPROVE A PROPOSAL WITH URBAN EDGES, INC. AND THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, FUNDING THE ENGLEWOOD CONNECTION TO THE PLATTE RIVER GREENWAY. Council Member Bile sec- onded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Weist, Bile, Bradshaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO PERMIT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DEFEND A LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST THE CITY BY BEBO CONSTRUCTION CO MPANY. Council Member Fitzpatrick seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Higday, Nea l , Fitzpat rick , We ist , Bile, Bradshaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH OWEN ENGINEERING ANO MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS FOR MANAGEMENT OF THE BI-CITY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FOR A BEGINNING PERIOD TO BE DETERMINED BY THE CITY MANAGER AND AN ENDING PERIOD DECEMBER 31, 1983. Council Member Bradshaw seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ay s: Nays: Council M mbers Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. • I • • - August 2, 1982 Page 9 • • • The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * * City Manager Mccown discussed the recommended changes to the six-quarter budget. Council discussed the need to direct funds to paving more streets while paving materials are relatively inexpensive. COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO APPROVE THE SIX-QUARTER BUDGET JULY 1982 THRU DECEMBER 1983, WITH ONE CHANGE BEING THE PAV- ING DISTRICT NO. 25 FUNDS COMING FROM THE DOWNTOWN PLAN ACCOUNT AND CONTINUING ON WITH COUNCIL'S DIRECTION OF OVERLAYING AND CHIP SEAL- ING AS MANY STREETS AS POSSIBLE AT THE PRICES FOR PAVING DISTRICT NO. 28. Council Member Fitzpatrick seconded the motion. Upo~ a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Weist, Bradshaw. Council Members Bilo, Otis. The Mayor declared the motion carr i ed. Council Member Neal recommended that add i tional mon i es be approp ri ated for c hip and seal of more streets. City Manager Mc cown stated he would provide information for Counc i l. RE SO LUT I ON NO. 3 6, S ER IES OF 1 98 2 A RESOLUTION AM ENDI NG THE P UBLIC I MPRO VEMENT FUND. COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO PASS RESOLUTION NO, 36, SERIES OP 1982, AS AMENDED. Council M mber Bradsha w second d the motion. Upon a call o th roll, the voter ault d as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Memb rs Higday , N al, Fitzpatrick, W 1st , Bradshaw, Otis. Council M mber Bilo. The Mayor declared th motion carried. * • • • • * • • I • • • August 2, 1982 Page 10 • • • COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH DAVID M. GRIFFITHS AND ASSOCIATES, LTD, FOR PERFORMANCE OF A COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR THE CITY. Council Member Higday seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. Council Member Fitzpatrick. The Mayor declared the motion carried. • • • • • • • COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL MOVED TO REAPPOINT DONALD J. STYES AND R. L. LUNDERS TO THE LIQUOR LICENSE AUTHORITY. Council Member Bilo seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Hi gday, Neal, Fitzpatri c k, Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the mot i on c arr i ed. • • • • • • • Assistant City Manager Varga s was unable to c on t a c t Stu Fonda for information about agenda i tern 6 (b l (ii ). COUN CIL MEMBER NEAL MOVED TO TABL E CO NSI DERAT IO N OF AN APP LICAT I ON I NTO THE VALLEY SAN I TAT ION DISTRICT UNT IL NEXT COU NCIL ME ET I NG . Council Me mb er Bilo seconded th motion. Upon a call of the roll , the vote result d as follo ws: Ayes: Nays: Council Memb rs Higday, N al, Fitzpatrick , Weist , Silo , Bradsha w, Otis . None . The Mayor declared th motion c rrled. • • • • • • • • I • • - • • August 2, 1982 Page 11 • • • Council Member Bradshaw stated that the Parks and Recrea- tion staff were to be complimented for the outstanding ceremonies last Saturday for the opening and dedication of the new golf club- house. • • • • • • • COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Mayor Otis adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m. Clerk I I • • In • • • BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPF..ALS CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO June 9, 1982 MINUTES 5 A The regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Roger Gage. MEMBERS PRESENT : MEMBERS ABSENT : ALSO PRESENT: Kreiling, Seymour, Gage, Brown, Hallagin. Dawson, Leonard. Dorothy A. Romans, Assistant Director, Planning L. D. Yenglin, Planner I Jane Coleman, Recording Secretary * * * * * BOARD MEMBER HALLAGIN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 12, 1982 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS, Board Member Seymour s econded the motion. Upon c a ll of the roll, a ll member s present voted in the affirmative. The minutes s tand APPROVED a s writ ten . * * * * * BOARD MEMB ER SEYMOUR MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE NO. 6-82, KENNETH R. ORDELHEIDE, 3393 SOUTH CORONA, ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO; AND IN CASE NO. 7-82, BRIAN L, AND WILLI AM LEON ARD , 25 WEST QUINCY, ENGLEW D, COLORADO; AND IN CASE NO. 8-82, NADYA NIC, 3271 SOUTH GALAPAGO, ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO . Board M mber Halla ins cond d the motion. All memb ra preaent vot din th affirmativ and th Findin • of Fact ar ACCEPTED aa written. * * * * * I • • ,· BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS Page 2. June 9, 1982 CASE NO. 9-82 • • - MILLS H. FORD dba Greenford Investments 3199 S. Pearl St. 555-7 E. Eastman Ave. REQUEST: The applicant is requesting the Late Registration of this property as a Nonconforming Use. This is a variance of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Section 22.6-2b-Registration, and Section 22.6-4 Change in Use -Nonconforming Uses. Chairman Gage stated that he had verification of posting and the legal advertis- ing of this case has been given. Applicant Ford was being represented by attorney, Jerrie Eckelberger. Eckelberger stated that Ford had purchased the property in 1979 and also the property which was next door. He related that in the past the property has been used as a grocery store, preschool, for a religious organiza- tion, a wheelchair and supply business and for a carpet retail location and office. He stated that when Mr. Ford purchased the property, it was being used as a carpet business retail store. He was told at that time that the nonconformance would be no problem. The property was vacated in 1981; Mr. Ford was contacted at that time by Mr. Mark Barber, Code Enforcement Officer, who informed Mr. Ford that he should go ahead and get a tenant, and at that time deal with the nonconforming use. However, in May of 1982, Mr. Ford received another notice regarding the non- conforming use, and thusly wanted to resolve the matter. Mr. Eckelberger stated that there was no plan to expand the use, or make any changes; they wished to con- tinue with a small retail use in the top portion of the building, and maintain an apartment in the basement. Mr. Eckelberger further stated that in actuality the basement apartment has full bathroom facilities; but the upstairs, which had previously been used for a grocery and various other uses, did not. The ianediate plans, he stated, were to rent the upstairs as an office space, retail or commercial, as in the past. Regarding the parking, Hr. Eckelberger stated that they would not rent to a use that would disturb the traffic pattern or setting of the area. Hr. Eckelberger stated that regarding th apartaent, Hr. Ford was concerned that it would be safe; had installed a new furnace; and there were two ways out of the basement. At the present time there is a couple renting the base- ment apartment. Cur rent plans are top int the outside of the building. Eugene Russell, 3295 South Clarkson, Engl wood, Colorado, spoke in favor of the request. R stated that in his opinion, this area is in a state of change; n arby hospital• ar nlarging which n ceaaitatea additional parkin ; and thia area , he felt, would be C OIIIII rcial in th near future. He would voice no ob- jection to light retail; and could senor aaon why it should not b ranted . H stated he felt the area would be opening up to thia typ of zonin in the near future. Cha irman G ge aak d that th atsff report be 11Bde a part of the record of the h ring. There waa no one pres nt who apoke in oppoaition to th propoa d ddition. Stat nta w re submitted by four nei hbora atatin thy have no objection to th requeat. Diacuaaion enau d. Board M ber Seymour atated that the D partm t of C011111Unity D velopaen hea r commend d th following: • I • • • • BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS Page 3. June 9, 1982 1. That the basement apartment identified as 557 East Eastman Avenue and the house identified as 555 East Eastman Avenue, be inspected to make sure that the units comply with the applicable sections of the 1979 Uniform Building Code and the Housing Code. 2. That 3199 South Pearl Street be inspected to make sure that the business space complies with the applicable sections of the 1979 Uniform Building Code and Fire Code. 3. That an office use be permitted to locate at 3199 South Pearl Street. If any use other than office is allowed, the applicant/owner must reappear before the Board to review the use and assess it's impact on the neighborhood . Attorney Eckleberger stated that his client felt that that was a reasonable request. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MADE A MOTION THAT THE LATE REGISTRATION OF THIS PROPERTY KNOWN AS 3199 SOUTH PEARL STREET AND 555-7 EAST EASTMAN AVENUE, FOR NONCONFORMING USE, WITH THE STATED PROVISIONS KNOWN AS #1, #2, #3 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, BE GRANTED. THIS IS A VARIANCE OF THE CCMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 22.6-2b-REGISTRATION, AND SECTION 22.6-4 CHANGE IN USE -- NONCONFORMING USES. Board Member Hallagin seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. Upon a vote, all membe12:1present voted in the affirmative, and the motion was APPROVED. The Board Members gave their findings as follows: Mr. Kreiling stated that in view of the property being posted properly and having had a long history of commercial use, there being no opposition and with four people in favor of the addition, he voted yes. Mr. Hallagin stated that he voted yea since there wasn't anyone to oppose the request; there were four neighbors who were in favor of it; the property wa s w 11 maintain d; the place is not big enough for anything else except for a place of business. H feels it n eds to be registered and that they should met all of th required buildin codes. Hr. Seyaour stated that h voted yes since th th r waa no objection and the previous use established. prop rty wa s in good shape; d to be reasonably v 11- Hr. Brown stated h vot d ya sine there vas no opposition; and there were veral that wera in favor of th variance. H stat d that h felt a hard- ship h d be n shown and th owner n ded to receive a return out of his in- v staent nd yet not hurt th neighborhood. stated that th six en ral conditions v re 111St. I • • n BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS Page 4. June 9, 1982 • • • Chairman Gage stated that he voted yes since he felt the applicant had met the six requirements it takes to grant a variance; he presented a few letters of reco1111J1endation and the neighbors appeared quite pleased with the request. * * * * * CASE NO. 10-82 COBURN CHRISTENSEN 3130 S . Race St. Englewood, Colo . REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a variance from the rear yard setback of 25 feet to 5 feet for the purpose of constructing a recreation room. This is a variance from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Section 22.4-2j-Minimum Rear Yard . Chairman Gage stated that he had verification of posting and the legal advertising of this case has been given. Coburn Christensen was sworn in. He stated that he had a growing family and felt the need for the additional room; that the addition would add value to the neighborhood; that he felt it would lend itself to the residential nature and would not change the character of the area. He stated furthe r that it would not be possible for an addition to go in the front yard, and felt that this addition would be the best alternative . H also stated that the siding on the addition would mat ch the existing house; and h would be adding a solar system. Judy Pierson, 3120 South Race, Englewood, Colorado, was rn in. She stated that she, as a neighbor, would be the on most visually aff ct d by the addition and that she wished to speak in favor of the addition. Sb felt , she stated, that to come back with the addition would lose 210 aquar f t; that construction wa s well under wa y, and would be quit expensive to tear down. Th Christensen's, sh stated, have quite an investment in this addition . Daniel N. Hask 11, 3231 South Rae , Englewood, Colorado, wa sworn in. H stated that he was a neighbor and that he wou ld like to voic support for th ddition. H stated further that he bad known the Christensen's for a long time, that they were a fine family; the addition would mak the home more livable ; th ir heating bill would be more favorable; and that th con truction was bin done very well. Ch irman Gae ask d that th staff report be made a part of the hearing. Dorothy A. Romana stat d that Mountain Bell and Public Service hav been notifi d of th propoa d addition. No reply baa been receiv d from Public S rvice, but a lett r from Mount in States Telephone and Telegraph was re- c iv d atatin that they h ve no objection to the construction, providing the construction will not encroach on th xiating aa nt in any form. BOARD MEMBER BROWN MOVED THAT IN CASE NO. 10-82, COBURN CHRISTENSEN, 3130 SOUTH RACE STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM THE REAR YARD SETBACK OF 25 FEET TO 5 FEET FOR THE PURPOS OF CONSTRUCTING A RECREATION ROOM. THIS IS A VAR- IANC FROM TH COHPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 22,4- 2j-MINIMUM REAR YARD. • I • • • BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS Page 5. June 9, 1982 • • • Board MEMBER Seymour seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. All members present voted in the affirmative, and the motion was APPROVED. The Board Members gave their findings as follows: Mr. Kreiling stated that the variance is relative to the rear yard setback and inasmuch as the request of the owner or applicant is no greater than what exists with the existing building, he voted yes. Mr. Hallagin stated he felt it was a hardship case as it appeared that the house was too small as it is; it will increase the value of the property by enlarging the house; it is not going back any farther than the existing garage; and it will keep the family in Englewood. He stated further that it makes the property look at lot nicer than it is and therefore voted yes. Mr. Seymour stated that he voted yes since there was no objections from any of the neighbors, and in fact, there was support. He stated further that it seems to be a good looking addition for a growing family. Mr. Brown stated that he voted yes because he felt the addition will increase the appearance and value of the house and property and will actually benefit the neighborhood; there was no opposition; there were neighbors speaking in favor of the addition; the essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered by approval of the variance and it will still remain an R-1-A residence, single-family neighborhood. Chairman Gage stated he voted yes and concurred with the other board members on their findings. * * * * * Dorothy Romans reported that the City Council has instructed the City Attorney's office to have the Sign Code before them on June 21st, so they can take final action. Mrs. Romans also reported that on the 20th of July, the Planning Commission will hold a hearing regarding the conditions that the Board would consider in granting a variance to the Sign Code. This had been presented to the Board of Adjustment and App la previously and th Board had approv d it. There being no further business befor th Board, Chairman Gage adjourned the June 9, 1982 regular meting of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals at 9:00 p.m. * * * * * JaKeeoi.einan; Recording S cretary I • • • • - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO July 14, 1982 MINUTES The regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Roger Gage. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Kreiling, Seymour, Gage, Brown, Hallagin, Dawson, Leonard. None. ALSO PRESENT: Dorothy A. Romans,Assistant Director, Planning Tom Holland, Assistant City Attorney Jane Coleman, Recording Secretary * * * * * BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 9, 1982 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUS'IMENT AND APPEALS. Board Member Hallagin seconded. Upon call of the roll, all members present voted in the affirmative. The Chairman ruled that the minutes stand APPROVED as written. * * * * * BOARD MEMBER BROWN MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE NO. 9-82, MILLS FORD, dba GREENFORD INVES'.IMENTS, 3199 SOUTH PF.ARL STREET AND 555-557 EAST EASTMAN AVENUE; AND IN CASE NO, 10-82, COBURN CHRISTENSEN, 3130 SOITI'H RACE STREET, ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO. Board Member Dawson seconded the motion. All members pres nt voted in the affirmative and the Chairman ruled that the Finding• of Fact are ACCEPTED aa written. * * * * * CASE NO, 11-82 DON KOZA 4700 Block South Clay Court REQUEST: Th applicant is requ sting a variance from the Compreh naive Zoning Ordinance to perait the aal of th se units se single-family attach d dwell- ing unita, I • • MINUTES -BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT & APPEALS July 14, 1982 Page 2. The variances include: • • • Section 22.4-5c -Minimum Area of Lot from 6,000 sq. ft. to approximately 3,000 sq. ft. Section 22.4-5f -Minimum Useable Open Space from the required 50% to approximately 45%; 40 % of the Minimum Useable Open Space in the Front Yard to approximately 11%. Section 22.4-51 -Minimum Frontage of Lot from 50 feet to a fr ontage varying from 39 feet to approximately 9 feet. Section 22.5-5h -Private offstreet parking spaces shall not be provided in areas required as Minimum Front Yard. Chairman Gage stated that he had verification of posting and the legal advertis- ing of this case has been given. Applicant Koza was sworn in and he presented the following evidence in support of his request. Mr. Koza stated that at the time he purchased the property, there was sufficient land area for 48 units, which would be developed as doubles and triples. Six- teen of these units will face South Decatur Street and the other 32 units will be constructed on the land to the east of the South Decatur frontage. The units were approved to be investor-owned. In June of 1980 he stated further, he asked the Board to permit the division of the units and land fronting on South Decatur Street to allow the construction of single-family attached homes, to encourage owner-occupants. This would conform then to th R-1 zoning which is directly to the vest, and also to the R-1 which is to the south. Directly to the north, he continued, is the Park and directly to the east is light industrial. Since receiving the approval, he stated, all owner-occupants are in th existing units. Mr. Koza further stated that his Phase Two, which consists of th 32 units directly tot east, is ready to be started. There would b thr basic tyl s: a two-story; a bi-level; and a ranch. Some would hav attached garag sand oth rs would have detached garages. The price ran e would be pproximately in the $40's. Mr. Koza stat d that h was asking the Board to allow him to continu on with th single-family attach d hom, a designation which the Board gave approval to in 1980. H also stated that h wa s asking for offstreet parking to be changed, and that a variance b grant d also to the ller front yard and the minimum foots , du to having put in a cul-de-sac in ord r to provide ace as to th units in Phas o. Hr. Koza w nt on to xplain th smallest front yard would be 80 sq. ft., and the largest is 1713 sq. ft. and that it would avers out. All far a th offatr t parking th re re at least two spaces by the side of th houa , plus th garag. Upon a qu ation by Hr. Kreilin regarding front yard parking, Hra. R mans explained that requir d offatre t parking could not be in th front tw nty- fiv f et, and it waa her underatanding that th applicant int nds to have th requir d parking within that ar a in aom inat ncea . • I • • MINUTES -BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT & APPEALS July 14, 1982 Page 3. • • - Upon questioning by Mr. Hallagin, Mr. Koza explained the fire protection, water lines, hydrants, etc. They have a utility easement for a 6" water line which will come in from South Decatur and tie into the water line at West Union. Mr. Koza stated that he had contacted neighbors in the immediate area, showed them the proposed plan, and received no objections. This petition was sub- mitted to the Recording Secretary with thirty-three signatures. Mr. Koza stated that in his opinion, this particular project will enhance the neighborhood, will be encouraging property owners to come in, will be discouraging to the investor, and will make it into a single-family residential area. Philip Whitby, 2722 West Union, was sworn in. He declined to state whether he was speaking in favor or in objection to the proposed variances. He stated his concern is that this area is being developed, creating a situation where an area east of it is being left undeveloped, Mr. Whitby expressed his concern about the improvement of South Clay Street extended. He stated that the people who use this road continuously are of like mind and they would like to see a curb and gutter, and a firm boundary established on the east of the site by the developer of the property. He stated he understood that this road was a dedicated road to a point and is under the jurisdiction of the City of Englewood. Mrs. Romans explained that normally improvements are required at the time the property is platted. At the time this property was platted, there was a 14' dedication at what would be the South Clay Street alignment and the City asked for an additional 16', to give a 30' right of way, for South Clay Street ex- tended. The City has repeatedly tried to et the right of way for Clay Street, since this area was annexed to the City in 1961, to provide access to the dwell- ing units, and industrial property in that area. The City has been refused each time as the people were not r ady to give the right of way. She stated several cases wherein the City had r quested the right of way and in each case was re- fused. The City's position, she stated, was that they were not going to require the developer of the subject property to pave that portion of it. She stated further that it was her understanding that the d veloper would not have any access to that street; that the right of way is used primarily by those persons to the south and to th eaat, not by this d veloper. At such time as the City has a full dedication, th n certainly the City will r quire the stre t to b improved. Mr. Whitby st ted that at the tim th additional dedications are mad , the develop r will not be here; he will have completed his project and be gon and the finsnci 1 responsibility will have to b born by t r sidents to th South; that he was asking that a boundary b at and a curb and gutter plac d. He read a statement which was entered into th record as Exhibit B, and whic h was signed by fiv persona. Mr. Koza inform d the Board that wh n he first bought the property, it wa s with th understanding that h would d v lop it and nothing was said about improving a road on th east aide. As far as acceaa, h stat d, thia entir aubdiviaion waa approved by the VA and FHA. The VA requir a that a six foot f nee b put up around th boundary, to prot ct th c hildren from running into th .crest. I • • • • • • MINUTES -BOARD OF ADJUSTMEN T & APPEALS July 14, 1982 Page 4. Sherman Salazar, 4742 South Decatur, was sworn in. He stated that he bought a unit in the Phase One development after having problems locating housing for eight months. He stated he felt that the improvements are an advantage; that the first-time buyer can purchase a home. Others he had seen had no back- yards, no front yards, just one huge parking lot. He stated he felt there was adequate parking, and he hoped favorable consideration would be granted this developer, and many neighbors felt the same. Gioia Cardelli, 903 East 23rd Ave., Denver, Colorado, was sworn in. She stated that she worked for a major builder in the Denver area and was aware of the market. She stated that many townhomes did not have front yards, some did have two-car garages but had no offstreet parking. She said she felt that this plan was a good one, that it was practical, was of good value, and was a good use of the land. Discussion ensued. Mr. Whitby interjected a question that at the time the paving of South Clay Street takes place, would the people who are living in adjacent buildings be responsible? It was determined that the adjacent property owners would be responsible for paying curb and gutter and they will be assessed. Further discussion ensued. Chairman Gage asked that the staff report be made a part of the record of the hearing. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT IN CASE NO. 11-82, DON KOZA, 4700 BLOCK SOlITH CLAY COURT, BE GRANTED THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT MUST COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER APPLICABLE ORDINANCES AND CONDITION S, INCLUDING: SECTIO 22.4-5c -MINIMUM AREA OF LOT FROM 6,000 SQ. FT. TO APPROXIMATELY 3,000 SQ. FT.; SECTION 22.4-5f - MINIMUM USEABLE OPEN SPACE FROM THE REQUIRED 50% TO APPROXI- MATELY 45%; 40% OF TH.E MINIMUM USEABLE OPEN SPACE IN THE FRONT YARD TO APPROXIMATELY 11%; SECTIO 22.4-51 -MINIMUM FRONTAGE OF LOT FR~ 50 FEET TO A FRO TAGE VARYING FR~ 39 FEET TO APPROXIMATELY 9 FEET; SECTIO 22.5-5h -PRIVATE OFFSTREET PARK - ING SPACES SHALL NOT B PROVIDED I AREAS REQUIRED AS MINIMUM FRONT YARD. Board Member Hallagin econded the motion. Discussion ensued. Upon a vote all memb rs pr s nt voted in th a f firmative, and the Chairman rules that th motion was APPROVED. The Bo rd Memb rs gave their findings as follows: Hr. Kr ilin : Ther ae ma to besom difficulty r lative to th right-of-way on the eat side of the prop rty which would be djacent to the b cky rds in th propos d aubdiviaion. The pr viou prop rty own rah v d dicat d a thirty-foot right-of-way on th west sid of what is Cly Str nd until ther sr further d dicationa of right-of-w y for South Clay Str t extend d to th eaat and south, nothing further would be required oft d veloper. I also felt that he compli d with the aix conditions. Ther for , I voted y •• • I • • • MINUTES -BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT & APPEALS July 14, 1982 Pa ge 5 . • • - Mr. Hallagin: I v o ted yes bec ause the individual uni t s will be sold so young pe ople c an get a good start and be proud to have their own homes; it will build up t he population of Englewood; get more people in schools; the units will pro - vide a ff ordable housing, starting at $40,000 and actually it would be a hard- ship case not to grant it. It's a nice project and it really looks go od. I t's a dead piec e of land if we don't do something to enc our age its development. Mr. Seymour: I voted yes. It is a good project; it will provide needed housing for the first-time owners; there will be no difference in the density as provided under R-2, and I don't believe it will essentially change the c har- acter of the neighborhood. Therefore, it essential ly meets the six criteria for granting the variance and I voted yes. Mr. Brown: I voted yes. We had petitions submitted in favor of this develop - ment. I feel that it meets the six conditions for granting this type of vari- ance and also the R-2 medium density zone district allows for this density and single-family attached dwelling units are permitted uses and also, I think it will improve the area. I think it will be an addition to the community. Ms. Dawson: I vo ted yes . There were petitions and letters of approval. They a re nice first-home owner houses . The completed units demonstrate that the applic ant build s a fine home. Thirty-tw o uni t s will be added to the housing supp ly in the Ci t y and the pric e wil l be ve ry a ttrac tive t o youn g c ouples. Mr. Leonard: I vo t e d yes. I think i t's a good projec t. It generally meet s the requirements f or a variance; there will be single-f amily dwellings avail- ab l e for f irs t -home buyers a nd the unit s wil l impr ov e the neighborhood. Thirty- three name s have been s ubmitted on a signed petition for approval and there i s a need f or this t y pe of housing in Eng l ewood . Cha irman Gage: I voted yes a nd I c on c ur with t he other Board member s on thei r findings. * * * * * CASE NO. 12-82 RORY CHETELAT 3626 -3626~ South Bannock REQUEST: The applicant is requesting the conversion of this property into a two-family resid nee --an upstairs apartment and a bas ment apartment. This is a variance from th Compr hensive Zoning Ordinance Section 22.4-6c -Mini- mum Area of Lot from 6,000 sq. ft. to 5,375 sq. ft. and S ction 22.4-6j - Minimum Frontage of Lot from 50 ft. to 39 ft. Rory Chet lat, 1832 South Norfolk, Aurora, Colorado, waa sworn in. H st ted that ther should b a correction in the staff report; it shows the lot ar a as 5,375 sq. ft. It should read 4,875 sq. ft. Hr. Ch At th that h met th telat st t d th t this was his first time in buying inv tm nt prop rty. ti of purchas h felt everything was in as it should be. H stat d h d ch ck d with the Building Department and was told that h must Uniform Buildin Cod • H appro ched th Rausin Authority and was I • • MINUTES -BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT & APPEALS July 14, 1982 Page 6. • • - t o ld that he met with their requirements except that escape windows must be installed in the basement. HUD inspector said it met with their requirements but would need the escape windows. The City of Englewood Building Department made an inspection and the needed changes were listed in a letter. Mr. Chetelat stated that there was a small front ya rd and a me d ium back ya r d. He stated that he was willing to make the changes which the Building Depart- ment requires and anticipated separate utility meters to be installed. He stated that he had met some of the requirements, and would comply with the other requirements upon granting of the variances. Upon questioning regarding c omplaints from neighbors, Mr. Chetelat stated that no complaints had been received. Mr. Chetelat stated that he would cut the foundation and put in foundation windows, one for each bedroom. That would not be a major structural change, he stated. Richard Wells, 1851 South Norfolk, Aurora, Colorado, was sworn in. He stated he wished to speak in favor o f granting the variance, due to c ritical housing s hortage in the Englewood area and this would help meet this need. Cindy Porte, 3626~ South Banno c k, wa s sworn in. She stated that s he lived in the basement apartment owned by Mr . Chetelat, along with her two c hildren . She stated she had looked f or f o ur weeks before finding this apartment. She f elt that the apartment had a goo d backyard and adequate parking. She s t a ted t hat not too many peop l e wish to rent to people with c hildren . Ca therine Bowerman, 3626 So uth Bannoc k, was sworn in . She sta ted that it was her dec i s ion t o live in En glewood; that she l iked the scho ol sys tem, how eve r , i t was hard t o f ind a nic e ho u s e and one with dec ent rent. She s tated fu rther tha t she was happy wi th t he living arr angemen t there. Chai rma n Gage asked t hat the s t aff report be mad e a part of th record of the hear ing . Ther was no one pr esent wh o s poke in oppo ition to the proposed v ar iance. Discuss i on ens ued. BOARD MEMBER KREILING MADE A MOTION THAT THE PROPERTY AT 3626-26~ SOIITH BANNOCK STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE CONVERT! G THIS PROPERTY INTO A TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE --AN UPSTAIRS APARTMENT AND A BASEMENT APARTMENT. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE C REHENSIVE ZO ING ORDINANCE SECTION 22.4-6c -MINIMUM AREA OF LOT FROM 6 ,000 SQ. FT. TO 4,875 SQ. FT. AND SECTION 22.4-6j -MINIMUM FRONTAGE OF LOT FROH 50 FT. TO 39 FT. -WITH THE ADDITION OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEFICIENCIES AS POINTED OUT IN THE LETTER OF JULY 8TH FROM THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR TO THE OWNER , AND THAT THE WATER SERVICES BE ADJUSTED IN ACCORDANCE FOR A TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE. Board M ber Brown conded. Discussion enau d. Upon a vot , all memb ra pr ant vot din th and the Ch ir n rules that th IDOtion was APPROVED. affirmative, I • • MINUTES -BOARD OF ADJ USTM ENT & APPEALS J u l y 14, 1982 Page 7 . • • • The Board membe rs gav e their findings of f act a s follows: Mr. Krei l ing : The just ifica tion of the v a riance has been furni s hed by the owner, concerning the six reas ons fo r renting. The variance comp lie s with the needs o f the people. For these r e asons, I voted yes. Mr . Ha l lagin : l vo ted ye s be cause o f the shortage of housing in Englewood, and the aecondipartment will help out some. The six reasons for the var iances were a l l answered and, as to the recoanended requirements, the man ha s agreed to take care of all of them. Re will meet with Gary Pittman and take care of the building code itema , sol voted yes. Mr. Seymour: I voted yes. There was no opposition from the neighbors; it will provide needed rental units; the request meets the six c onditions ; and they are going to upgrade the property to the bill of standards, and therefore I voted yea. Mr. Brown: I voted yes. I feel that it's a hardship case that justifies this variance and it wiil provide aome needed housing in Englewood, and I fee l that this houae is adequate for two families the way he has agreed to bring it up to Code. Ms. Dawson : I voted yea. AB has been stated before, affordable housing is v ery s c arce in F;nglewood for families with children . He has agreed to bring the two units up to Code so there shouldn't be any problem with wiring , or the wa t er, and fire safety. Mr. Leonard: I voted yes . It generall y meet s the requirement for a v ariance. He has several letters of approval f rom his neighbors a nd is willin g to meet a l l c ode requireaent a. He baa o ff s treet parking f or two car s and i t would be a hardship for the aother a and t heir c hil dren i f i t wasn 't gran t ed . There was no opposition t o the reque s t . Cha inaan Ga ge: I vo t e d ye a. l f eel that we ne e d some more apartment-type housing in the City; t he request mee t s the requiremen t s for a variance; he did agr ee to me e t all the app l i cable c od es and t her e was no opposition from neighbors. * * • • • Dorothy Roaans reported that the Planning Commission is holding a public hearing Tuesday, July 20 at 7:00 p.m. on the four conditions to be consider- d in granting a variance for aigna. The Sign Ordinance, she stated, will be in effect on August 9, 1982. The Planning Department is almost through with their survey of aigns within the City. When th Sign Code is in eff ct, letters will be sent out, block by block, to own ers of prohibited, nonconform- ing, abandoned and hazar dous aigna , adv ising them of the requirements of th Sign Code. There being no further buaineaa before the Board , Chairman Gage adjourned the July 14, 1982 regular meetin of the Board of Adjustment and Appeala at 9:00 p.a. ~Col man, Recordin Secretary • I • • I. CALL TO ORDER. • • - URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY J uly 7 , 1982 The regular meeting of the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority was called to order at 5:30 P.M. by Chairman Robert G. Powell. Members present: Voth, Dickinson, Fitzpatrick, McClung, Minnick, Powell Powers, Executive Secretary Members absent: Cole Also present: Alternate Member Lawrence Novicky Assistant City Manager Pete Vargas Economic Development Planner Wm. Richard Hinson II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Powell stated that the Mi nutes of the Urban Renewal Authority meeting of June 2, 1982, were to be considered for approval. Minnick mov e d: McClung s econded: Th e Minutes of June 2, 1982, be approved as written. Th e mot i on c arri ed. II I . AMENDMEN T OF BY-LAW S . A. Mr. Po w 11 stat e d t ha t a t the l as t me ting, he had i nfo rm e d th Authori t y o( Mr. Dicki n s on's inte nt t o withdraw hi s pro po ed 8. am ndm ne e t o t he By-Law s . I t was the c on s ensus of the Authorit y t hat Mr. Dickin son should d o th is f ormally i n a pu blic m eting . Mr. Powell aske d Mr . Dickin son if it is still his intent to with- draw his proposed By-Law amen dm n ts? Mr. Dickinson stated that h do wi h to withdraw the pro pos dam ndme n ts to th By-Law th the had suggested. 11 stat d th t r - cuss d th l d t o th th Hr. F1tr.p trick ab1t ins fr Hr . Di kin on to 1 1 ch st J th t wh n m mb r of th City Council u1t state th r a on for th abat n tion. d th th flt thia provision could be aubj ct Hr. Pow 11 a tat d th th flt ra on • I • • • - -2- the Boards and CoDDDissions and on the Authority mu s t take a stand on the issues unless there is a clear conflict of interest , in which case i t should be s o stated, and the abstent ion would be in order. He asked f or a motion on the propos ed By -Law amend- ment. Minnick moved: Voth seconded: The Urban Renewal Authority adopt the follow i ng a mendment to the By-Laws of the Englewood Urban Renewal Authorit y : Article III -Meetings §6. Voting. The voting on all questions coming before the Author i t y shall be by roll c all, and the ayes, nays, and abstent ions shall be entered upon the minutes of each me e ting, ex cept on the election of officers, which ma y be by ballot. Every member of the Authority, when present, must v o te, e xcept he shall be excused from voting on matters i nvolv i ng th e con- s i deration of hi s own official conduct or wh en his personal .2.!. financial interest is involved. ~ memb e r of t he Authority must state at the time of abstention the r eason fo r abstention . AYES: Fitzpatri ck , McClung, Mi nn ick, Powell, Voth NAYS: Dickinson ABSENT: Cole Chai rman Powell stated that the mot i on c arri ed. IV . PUBLIC HEARIN G -URBAN RENE WAL PLAN. Chai rman Powe ll s tated that t he Planni ng CoDDDi ss ion is ho ld ing a Public Heari ng a t 7:00 P .M. t his even ing on the Urban Re new a l Plan , and that me mb e r s of the staf f have t o be i n attendance a t that meeting. He stated t h at he wou l d n ot be able to attend the publi c h ear i n g, but if other members could do so he encouraged their a tte nd ance. V. REPORT ON MEETING. Mr. Pow 11 st t d that h nd Mr. McClung had attended a ting with th City Council at 5:00 P.M. on July 6th; he ask d Mr. McClung to report on this eting. Mr. McClung stat d that th meting was dominat d by dis- cussion led by Mr. Paul B n d tti, special counsel appoint d by th City to b of ssistanc in th Urban Rn wal process and th downtown redevelop- m nt program. Mr. McClung stat d that Mr. B n d tti had di cuss d num b r of probl m and conflicts that may rise betwe n the various ntiti s workin on this project, and lso di1cu1 d ways of handling these problem. Mr. McClung stat d th the flt it was a succ ssful meting for th p rt, and may bring to a h ad so qu eat ions from the variou pro- c dur to b follow d tog t the proj ct compl ted. Mr. Fitzpatrick di cuss d th r aaons for ng ging the aervic s of Mr. B n d tti; h 1tat d that thi a w I initially brought up by the City Attorn y'a office appar ntly b c ua it w I not flt that th l 1 a taff h d th xp rtiae in thi1 field that would be r quir d. Mr. B n d tti • I • • • • • • -3- is very experienced and knowledgeable in the field of Urban Renewal, and will be the legal representative of the Urban Renewal Authority. Mr. Fitzpatrick further discussed the need for the Urban Renewal Authority and the City to have legal counsel experienced in the Urban Renewal laws and programs. Mr. Fitzpatrick and Ms. Powers stated that the City Attorney's office will still be available to the Urban Renewal Authority, also. Ms. Powers stated that Mr. Benedetti will be working on the Developer's Agreement that is needed, and cited other facets of the program wherein Mr. Benedetti's expertise is needed. Mr. Dickinson stated that he had felt for some time that the Authority was in need of legal expertise in the field of Urban Renewal and was glad to hear of Mr. Benedetti's appointment. Ms. Powers stated that Mr. Benedetti will be invited to attend the meeting in August. Mr. Vargas stated that a resume of Mr. Benedetti's experience would be made available to Urban Renewal Authority members if they so desired. Mr. Dickinson stated that he would like to see such a resume' . Mr. Powell discussed his impressions of the meeting with the City Council on July 6th; he stated that he felt the City and Urban Renewal Authority should take advantage of Mr. Benedetti's expertise. Mr. McClung asked who would represent the EDDA if Mr. Benedetti and the City legal staff were engaged to represent the Urban Renewal Authority and City interests? Ms. Powers stated that EDDA has a contract with a legal firm; they may call on that firm at such times as they are in need of legal consultation. Ms. Powers discussed Mr. Benedetti's suggestions on various agreements and contracts. He had expressed concern that some agreements not be approved and adopted until the Urban Renewal Plan is adopted. He is very much in favor of the Three-party Agreement between the Urban Renewal Authority, the EDDA, and the City. Part of their discussion centered on the need to advertise for other developers who might be interested in the project; Mr. Benedetti had suggested wording the ad to state that the Urban Renewal Authority would look most favorably on those develope rs who bring in to the project other property so that condemnation of any land to accomplish those plans would be minimized. Hr. Pow 11 comp! t th time. tat d th t noth r sugg stion mad by Mr. B ned tti is that em nt with Brady Ent rprises, ther b a contingency written d v lop rs in th ev nt the primary developer cannot ct. Mr. Dickin on pointed out that Mr. Brady may want with him and for him xclusiv ly. Ms, Powers stated b n discussed, nd it h snot been so stated to thi Ms. Pow rs stat d that Mr. Bend tti ha r view d the Urban Ren wal Plan, nd h s sugg std dditional wording und r th Land Acqui ition section to th ff ct th tit is n c ss ry to cquir land on both ids of Litt! Dry Cr ek, but th prop rty alon South B nnock Str t would b purch s d by the City. Mr. B n d tti h d no oth r sugg stion pertaining to th Urb an Rn w 1 Pl n • I • • • • • -4- VI. BRADY FINANCING PROPOSAL. Ms. Powers stated that copies of the proposal submitted by Brady Enter- prises had been sent to members. She stated that this is a result of the staff meeting with representatives of the Brady Enterprises and is a statement of Brady's intentions on the redevelopment program. This docu- ment was presented to the City Councl by Brady Enterprises, and does ad- dress the timetables which were of concern. December 7th is the 180th day on this timetable from the date the proposal was presented to City Coun cil , and all legal work would have to be done by that date. Ms . Powers stated that the City has formed a negotiating team, composed of City Manager McCown, Ms. Powers, Mr. Hinson, and Mr. Haviland of the EDDA; advisory staff is Steve Bell, Pete Vargas, and Paul Benedetti; these people meet with representatives of the Brady staff, and a further report on the progress of the negotiations will be made at the meeting of August 4. Discussion on the Brady presentation ensued. Mr. McClung asked if the deadline of September 1st would be met for the purposes of forming the tax district? Ms. Powers stated that if the Urban Renewal Plan is adopted by the City Council in August, this would coincide with the timing that has been projected. Ms. Powers stated that she had received a call from the School District, and they asked how they could give a positive demonstration of support for the Urban Renewal Plan; the School Board had voted in support of th Urban Renewal Plan. Ms. Powers stated that she had suggested that perhaps a resolution stating the support of the School Board could be submitted to City Council at their Public Hearing. Mr. Voth asked if there had been discussions on the proposed finan ing of the private sector development by Mr. Brady? Ms. Powers stated tha several methods of financing have been discussed, among them ar lndustrl I Revenue Bonds which the City would s ponsor; this would n ot aff ct th bonding powers of the City of Englewood. Mr. Vargas s tated that h und r - stood there could be a variety of financing vehicles, which could includ the Industrial Revenue Bond s, co-ven ture financing, etc. Mr. Vo th dis- cussed some of the concerns that he has heard expressed by p ople in th downtown area, one of the concerns being that th Tax Iner nt Bond w r to be used for th private sector finan cing. H stated th th had t- tempt d to correct this misinfonnation. Discussion ensu d. Mr. Dickinson stated th th approved the co-ventur asp ct o th financ!n ; h flt it would b better to hav more than one d v lop r involved in th proj ct. Mr. Minnick th I • • • • • • -5- Mr . Minnick stated that the Plann i ng Co mmission con ce rn s eemed to be centered on a theme for South Br oadway , rather than on the Brady pro- jec t s ; he stated that he felt the Plann i n g Comm ission wa s s ke pt ica l ab out the survival of the businesses on Sou t h Broadway. Mr. Mi nn ick s tat ed that he had attempted to make it clear t hat the public investment and i mpr ov e- ments must be made first to provide encou r agement and i n cen tive for t he p r i vate sector improvements. Mr. McClung asked about apprais als on t he prop r ties t hat wo uld have t o be acquired? Ms. Powers stated that the r ha v b e n some d isc uss ions wi t h property owner s ; however, actual negotia t ions c nnot occur unt i l the Urban Renewal Plan is adopted by the Ci t y Council. She r eporte d that Ci t y Atto rney DeWitt and Mr. Benedetti have s tat ed tha t this is t he fi r s t s tep i n imple- menting the Plan. Mr. Fi tzpatrick ha also discu ssed the process with several people, but aga i n, she empha ized that actual nego tiat i ons with people have not been started. Mr . Fit z pa t rick then r e ported on his con- tacts with some of the property own e r s a nd res ide nts along South Bannock Street; he stated that h is c on cern is wi th t h e resident-owner, and there are three or four of these i n t his block . Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that th e contacts the City will be mak i n g will b e wi th the property owners on South Ba nnock Street; i t ha s been un de r stood t h at Brady Enterprises want t o h andle n egotiations on the propert ies o n So ut h Ac oma Stree t. Mr. Fitzpatrick s tated that the City has purchased one property on South Bannock Stree t bec ause that property c ame on the marke t; the house is in good c ondition a nd can be relocated t o ano the r si t e . Discussion ensued on a ppra isals and selling price of prope rties . Mr. Fitzp a tr ick state d that not a l l o ther hou s es on South Banno c k a r e i n the condition to be relocated. Mr . McC l ung e xpressed his concern that a preced nt mi ght have been e s tablis hed on the p ur c has e price of prope rt y along tha t b loc k. Mr. Fitzpatrick s tro ngl y disagr e ed that any precedent had been set. Further discussion e n s ue d . Ms. Powe r s s tated that f i gures from a r ecent s ale may be us ed a s a compa r a ble fa c tor on o the r pro pe r ty sales . Tiie need for a s pecial mee t i n g furthe r alon g i n J uly wa s discu ss d. Mr. Voth stated that he wo uld no t be av ilable t he l as t week i n July , and Mr. Dickinson s t a t ed that he would b i nvo l ved i n i nv ento r y wo r k a t his plac of emplo}'lllent. Discu ssion ensued. Ms. Powers asked that members of th Authority mark their cal ndars for the Public Hearing on the Urban Rn w 1 Plan which is tentatively scheduled for August 9th; sh st t d that th public hearing b for th Planning Com- mission l ter this vening will giv a preview of wh t th City Council can expect to her t th ti of th ir Public Haring. Ms. Pow emphasiz d 'that th authority of th Pl nning Commission is to r th Urb n R newal Plan nd ddr s wh th r or not it i in compli 1th th Compreh naive Plan City of Englewood . Mr. Pow 11 ask d if th r w r furth r comm nts from m mb r of th Urban Ren wal Authority? H ring non , them ting wa d clar d adjourned l 6:40 P.M. • I • • I. CALL TO ORDER. • • • URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORI TY July 20, 1982 The special meeting of the Urban Renewal Author ity was cal led to order at 5 :30 P.H. in Conference Room A by Cha i rman Bob Pow ell . Members present: Minnick, Powell, Voth , Cole Powers, Executive Secretary Members absent: Fitzpatrick, McClung, Dickinson Also present: Novicky, Alternate member 5 R Chairman Powell stated that the purpose of the Special meet i n g is to dis- cuss revision of the Urban Renewal Plan, and the presentati on t o the Planning and Zoning Coanission at the meeting later this e ve n ing. Mr. Powell stated that member s of the Urban Re newal Authority initially con s idered the propos ed ch anges i n the Urban Renewal Plan a t a meeting with the EDDA on July 15 t h , and that a few add i tional changes were made; the se are inc luded i n the list o f changes before the Aut hority this evening. Mr . Powe l l s tated t hat the changes are pr i mar ily "wo rd" chan ges , and not substant i ve changes . Mr. Powell r e ported on a meeting that he and Vic e-Cha i rman Mc Clun g had earlier t h is date with Hr . Clete Gasson, newly e l ec t e d Ch airman of the ED DA, r e ga rd i ng a propo s ed resolution of the EDDA wh ich would r escind the resolution op posin g the Urban Renewal Plan presented t o the Planning Com- mission on July 7t h . Hr. Powell discussed that the r esolut ion as proposed by t he EDDA goes beyond r e scind i ng the resolut ion of July 7th , and that there are so points t hat he and Mr . HcClung i nd icated were not acceptable to the Urban Ren wa l Auth or i t y . Mr. HcCl un g e ntered the mee ting and took his plac with th oth r members of th Authority. Discu sion nsu d. It was indicated that Paragraph #1 of th ~ s o lution is th only part of the proposal that is relevant to th qu tion t hand, that bing th reeciseion of the resolution present d by the EDDA on July 7th. Ms. Pow re stated that the City Council, th EDDA, the Planning CollD.ission, and th Urban Renewal Authority have all been given copies of the propo ed change in th Plan. Mr. HcClung also report don th meetin h and Mr. Pow 11 had with Hr. Gasson. H st t d that h had lso xpress d hie opposition to P ragraph c. of the propoe d resolution, and was of th opinion that thi1 could be eliminat d, nd would only caus mor controv rey if it w r not limin t d. Mr. HcClung 1tated that it wae pointed out to Hr. Ga s s on that th Urban Rn wal Authority waa in no po1ition to abrogate th ri hts grant d to th by Stata Statute. Mr. Gasson indicated that h wa1 to t with his group followin hi1 meeting with Mr. Po 11 and Hr. McClun , and would diacu s the poasibility of eliminating thi1 para raph. Hr. P 11 1 tat d that it'• • I • • • • • -2- not clear whether the resolution to be presented to the Planning Connnission will contain Paragraph c or not. Ms. Powers stated that she understood that the EDDA resolution states that the Redevelopment Plan should be rewritten and approved as the Urba Renewal Plan and as the Downtown Development Plan, which cannot be done because the boundaries are different. Discussion ensued. Discussion of the presentation before the Planning Commission ensued. It was determined that there should be one spokesman from the Authority, and that Mr. Powell, as Chairman, should be designated as that spokesma n . Also, that if a specific statement is to be made, it should be drafted at this meeting. Ms. Cole asked if any reason was put forth as to why dissension wa s not made known until the last minute? Mr. Powell stated that the EDDA Board members state that they did not receive the Urban Renewal Plan until five days before the Hearing. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Voth suggested that the Press Release, which was sent out Mond ay, be read as the statement from the Urban Renewal Authority; h stated he felt this covered the position of the Authority, and reflects what has o ccurred during this past week. Ms. Powers pointed out that the relocation section of the Urban Renewal Plan has been removed from the revised document, and will become a separate document. It was questioned why a copy of the proposed ch nges had gone to the Planning Commission. Ms. Powers stated that the proposed changes have been sent in an effort to s how that attempts have be n made to wo rk out the differences between the EDDA and the Urban Renewal Authorit y . Mr. Minnick stated that he hated to make changes mid-vay cess; he felt that it might tend to discourage belief in stated that he strongly felt there was a ne d for a th ident ify with th project. through the pro- th program. H o r so wa y to Th support of the proposed changes in the Urb n R newal Pl n wa fur ther discussed. Mr. McClung dvocated a trong stand by the Urban Rn w l Authority against further changes in th Plan. H point d o u t that it l the r sponsibility of th Urban Ren wal Authority t o hand l th n ncin for th publi c improv nt projects, and th ti{ th finan cing for th public improv nt s is not available, th entir pro j c t will f 11. Hr. Pow 11 stated that h had att mpt d to make it clear to Mr. o n th th r was no member of th Urban Renewal Authority who had ny finan c i 1 inter st in this propos d redev lopm nt; that th prim ry int rest o f th Urb n Rn wal Authority i to g t th flood control proj ct don • t 'Furth r di cussion on th stat nt to b made by Mr. Pow 11 and th polii tlo n o f th Authority at the Plannin Co111111ission ting that tho mb rs in favor o th Urb n n wal Plan, dat d July 16, 1982, indicat HcC lun , Minnick, Pow 11, Voth, and Cole vot d Ay oppositi ssrs. Dickinson nd Fitzpatrick w r follow d. 0 I • • - • • • • • -3- Ms. Powers stated that Mr. Paul Benedetti will be asked to attend th e Urban Renewal Authority meeting of August 4, 1982 . A resume' on Mr . Benedetti was handed out to members of the Authority. Ms. Powers stated that it is hoped there will be a draft of the tri-party agreement r eady f or consideration at that time, also. Ms . Powers stated that she understood Mr. Bill Jacobson has been representin g Brady Enterprises, and is working on negotiations with Key Savings. Mr. Hinson stated that he had talked to Mr. Jacobson earlier in the day, and that he reported the negotiations are going well. Minnick moved: Voth seconded: The meeting be adjourned. The motion carried. - I • • • • • , · • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1982 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:05 P.M. by Chairman Ed McBrayer. Members present: Allen, Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma Powers, Ex-officio Members absent: Becker, Gilchrist Also present: Assistant Director of CoDDDunity Development D. A. Romans Assistant City Manager Pete Vargas Assistant City Attorney Thomas V. Holland Economic Development Planner Wm. Richard Hinson Urban Renewal Members Voth, Minnick, Mcclung, Dickinson, Novicky II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman McBrayer stated that the Minutes of the meeting of June 15, 1982, were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Tanguma seconded: The Minutes of June 15, 1982, be approved as written. AYES: Rarbre, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen NAYS: None ABSENT: Becker, Gilchrist The motion carri d. Chairman HcBray r stated that the Minutes of June 29, 198 2 , were to be consid rd for pproval, Tanguma mov d: Sarbr conded: The Minutes of Jun 29, 1982, be approved aa written. AYES: NAYS: CaraO(I, Kc:Bray r, S nti, Ste 1, Tanguma, All n, Barbr on ABSENT: 8 ck r, Gilchrist Th motion carri d, III. ALLEY VACATION CASE 113-82 Block 23, Engl wood Subdiviaion • I • • • - -2- comments to make regarding the case that were not contained in the staff report? Mrs. Romans stated that the staff had nothing further to add. Mr. McBrayer then asked if there was anyone who wished to speak on behalf of the applicants? Mr. Malcolm Taylor 4830 South Washington Street -stated that he was in attendance on behalf of the Elks Lodge; Mr. Taylor stated that their neighbors across the alley to the east had suggested the alley vacation. This consideration was discussed by the Lodge, and by a majority vote of the members of the Lodge, it was determiend that they would join in the request for vacation of the alley. Mr. Taylor stated that the Lodge was "led to believe that if the alley was vacated, they could build on that portion of the alley that would revert to the Lodge." However, some of the membership has indicated that they do not feel it would be possible to make such use of the vacated alley. Mr. McBrayer asked if there were any questions by the Commission of Mr. Taylor? Mr. Allen asked what use the Lodge had wanted to make of the alley? Mr. Taylor stated that using the alley for additions! parking area had been one possibility under consideration. Mr. McBrayer asked if there was anyone present representing the Englewood Executive Center? Mrs. Romans stated that there apparently was no repre- sentative, but that Mr. Mcllvaine had been sent a copy of the staff report. Mr. McBrayer asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in favor of the alley vacation? No one else indicated a desire to speak in favor of the request. Mr. HcBrayer asked if anyone else wished to speak on the matter of the ally vacation? Mr. Dominick sked what restrictions would be pl ced on th alley; what use would the neighbor to the east of th alley b making of the po rtion of the alley r verting to the Englewood Ex cutive C nter? Would the alley hav t o b k pt open for access? Mrs. Romans pointed out that it would b n ces ary to retain an easement for utility right-of-way in the 11 y. Hrs. Romans stated that Mountain Bell was mot mph tic that they would not relinquish their right-of-way in thi alley; th City Utilities Departm nt also registered opposition to th r qu sted vacation of the right-of-way. It was pointed out that v n if th ally war to be vacated, construction would not b allow d within the nt that would h veto b retain d. Hrs. Romans t t d that it is r comend tion of th staff that th ally not b vacat d until uch tim a th Elk Lodg nd th ngl wood Ex cutiv Center h v definite plans for utilization of th djoinin prop rty. Hr. Do !nick stat d that the Elk Lod would pref r to use th 11 y for Di1cu11ion n1u d. Mr. St l It t d that h r called som dis u sion r n St l C i1sion ting on th poasibl r location of th Elka tha this was not th position of th lka Lod8 Hr. Hcllvain concerning his int nt to att mp r y. fh requ at for vac tion of th ally in Block 2 , n l - w od ubdivi1i n b d ni d, nd th t the .. tt r not b r rr d to th City Council. • I • • • • • -)- Mr. McBrayer emphasized that Mountain Bell and the Englewood Utilities Department have strongly recoDDDended against the vacation of the alley, He stated that before this matter is again brought before the CoDDDission, he felt the Englewood Executive Center and the Elks Lodge should bring in a site plan designating the proposed use of this area, The vote on the motion was called. AYES: Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre NAYS: None ABSENT: Gilchrist, Becker The Chairman ruled that the motion to deny the request carried. IV. URBAN RENEWAL PLAN CASE 1110-82 Mr. McBrayer stated that there is a sign-in pad being circulated for those who wish to address the Commission to sign. He asked that the Public Hearing on the Urban Renewal Plan be opened. Carson moved: Allen seconded: The Public Hearing on the Urban Renewal Plan be opened. AYES: McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Carson NAYS : None ABSENT: Gilchrist, Becker The motion carried, Mr. McBrayer stated that the City Co uncil had referred the propo ed Urban Re newal Plan to the Planning Commission for their evaluation on comp lian c of the Urban Renewal Plan with the Comp rehen sive Plan, City Council al o directed th Planning Commission to hold a Public Hear ing on th Ur ban Re- newal Plan to solicit coDDDent s from the public. Mr. McBrayer asked for the s taff presentation. Mr. • nt Plann r f o r th n wa s diacu aed l l, •• tn Th I • • • • -4- goal is to maintain downtown Englewood as an a c tivity center in the face of the increasing competition from the new shopping centers. Mr. Hinson reviewed some of the aspects of the Plan which are also addressed in the policies and objectives adopted in 1981, such as the need for parking, transportation needs, the need for a transit center, and increased mean s for pedestrian traffic. There is a need and desire to maintain the charac ter o f Englewood with a small-town flavor, but to have a highly developed re- tail center to provide increased revenues. Mr. Hinson stated that the Urban Renewal Plan discussed the financing for the public improvements that are needed in the redevelopment program; the financing is proposed to be by sale of tax increment bonds by the Urban Renewal Authority. Mr. Hin s on discussed the process that would be followed in the issuance of tax in- crement bonds, and the process that would be required to pay off the s e bonds. Mr. Hinson pointed out that the financing plan "is not set in con- crete", and is only a concept. Mr. Hinson stated that the Urban Renewal Plan is not something intended to guide every step of the redevelopment, but is a concept, and stated that it is a good Plan for the revitalizat i on of the downtown area. Mr. McBrayer stated that the Staff Report and copies of the Urban Renewal Plan have been in the hands of the Planning Commission for some week s . Mr . McBrayer stated that the comment s of those individuals addressin g the Commission will be incorporated into the Minutes of thi s meeting and forwarded to the City Council along with the evaluation of the Planni n g Commission on whether the Urban Renewal Plan doe s c omply with th e Comp re- hensive Zoning Ordinance. Mr. McBrayer s tated that he wa s in posse ssion o f the s ign-in sheets , and would c all on people t o address the Comm ission, those having indicated ~hey were i n f avor would be asked to s peak first ; fo llowed b y those wh o indic ated they were in o ppo s ition. Mr . McBr ayer then c alled on Mr s. Bern ice Se n ti. Mr s . Sent i s t a t e d that s he is in fav o r of an y i mp r o vemen t of Engl wood . Mr. Larr y Dickinson 3171 So u th Che r o kee Str e t -stated th th re l iz that som t hing has t o b don to improv t h City; no matter wher you are located , t he f utur for Engl wood isn't v ry bright , and om thing must be don to main tain t he tax bas and quality of life that th citizens re accustom d to . He stated that it i imperativ to attract good quality , n w business s to this ar a, and that h fe 1 the Urban Renew 1 Plan ha addr ssed this need. Mr. Dickinson stat d that h flt th Urban Rn wal Plan was ab ginning and has a lot to off r. Hr. Dickinson diacuaaed th flood plain which runs through th downtown ar , nd pointed out th t r trictions for bui lding within flood plain are so string nt that it preclud s n w dev lopment or red v lopment. Mr. Dickinson st t d th t th improv ment of Littl Dry Cre k ia ne d db for any rd v lopment in th downtown area c n occur. Mr. McBray r sk d if th r w re anyone else who wiah d to sp kin support of the Urban & n wal Plan. No on els indicated ad air to ap ak. Mr. McBray r stat d that h would th n call on tho• persona who had indict d thy wiah d to ap akin oppoaition. Hr. Cary Chri toph r 3109 South Ch rok Str t -atat d that which ha b d th Proap ctor'a Cach , don W st Girard Av nu. I • • • - -5- He stated that he was not sure that his comments would apply to this Com- mission, but he would like to point out how the proposed redevelopment of the downtown area has affected his business. Mr. Christopher pointed out that it has been stated there are no plans for condenmation in the redevelop- ment project; however, the City d oes have the right to condenm property, and he cited articles in the Englewood Sentinel which also indicate the possibility that condenmation will be used. Mr. Christopher discussed the nature of his business, noting that it is necessary to have access for loading large pieces of equipment. Mr. Christopher stated that with the plans to develop Girard Avenue into a mall, it would not be possible for his business to stay on Girard Avenue and have the proper access for his customers. He stated that he approached EDDA to try to find out some answers, and "got lip servic e"; he then contacted Ms. Powers who explained the pro- gram to him, but again was unable to provide him with answers as to how he could remain at 25 West Girard Avenue and have proper access for his customers. Mr. Christopher stated that his lease on the building at 25 West Girard Avenue expires on July 31st; however, Mountain Bell indicated that they have to have new addresses and numbers for their listings by July 1st. Mr. Christopher stated that he spent three weeks and probably $100 worth of gas looking for a new location for his store, and finally determined that it is not viable to move any great distance from Englewood; he then determined to lease the location at 3461 South Broadway for his business. Mr. Chr istopher discussed the efforts he and his wife have ex- pended in trying to make the interior of the building at 3461 Sou th Broadway compa tible with the character of their need s. He s tated that they have pent $700 i n new carpeting for the store; three week s have been spent in oving the inventory, and 25 West Girard Avenue is now totally vacant but for one large item; he has had to pay a full month s rent on this site as w 11 as pay th lease on the property at 3461 South Broadway. There ar th exp nses entailed in changing the telephone service, and in installing th curity alan:i equipment. Hr. Christopher s tated that when he mov d two y ars ago, the cost wa s $4 ,500, and he is now near the $3 ,500 mark on this move and all the bills aren't in. He sta ted that with th p r nt st t of the economy , his business hasn't b en 11th t good. H st t d th t there is still th matter of n w sign, and h ha be n informed th t h will h v to comply with th new Sign Cod , "which isn't law, Hr. Ch ristoph r tated that his point is th th would not hav h d tor - locat his busin ss if th Urban R newal Plan hadn't b n written and th bound ri sit is presently present d. Hr. Christoph r stat d that while h did not ke pa total of th numb r of p opl that c into hf a s tore on July 6th, h did ov r $1 ,700 worth of busin as that d t ; today , July 7th , 57 p opl c into th ator, nd h did $1 ,200 worth of busin r. Christoph r st t d th t not on of th 57 customers who c into hia tod y liv din Engl wood. Hr. Christoph r th n di cu d th d Litt! Dry Cr k; h stat d that h th t th improv nt a d d ng r to downtown En 1 wo od during if Littl Dry Cr kw r sh rp turns built w ter durin hi h t walls , it ill at d th t Littl h V th th t pro- I • • • • • -6- Mr. McBrayer asked if Mr. Christopher had ever expressed his opinion on the Little Dry Creek improvements at any other public meetings? Mr. Christopher stated that he did at one meeting, but "talked to a brick wall". Mr. Christopher stated that he felt the Connnission should know how this proposed redevelopment project and Urban Renewal Plan has affected him. Mr. Christopher stated that he could stand the cost of the move, but he doesn't like it and doesn't think it's right; Little Dry Creek does not have that much effect on his property, and he might lose customers that he depends on. Mr. McBrayer stated that the Commission appreciated Mr. Christopher's comments. He then asked Mr. Barry Coleman if he wished to speak on this matter? Mr. Coleman stated that he would defer to Mrs. Barbara Holthaus, chairperson of the EDDA. Mrs. Barbara Holthaus stated that she is chairperson of the EDDA, with offices at 3535 South Sherman Street. Mrs. Holthaus read the following resolution which she stated was adopted at a meeting of the Board earlier this evening. "The Englewood Downtown Development Authority has given its approval to a downtown development plan. After this approval was given, the Englewood Downtown Development Authority entered into agreement with City Council that the Urban Renewal Authority would be used strictly as a financing vehicle and would not be used in any other fashion. "It is the opinion of the Englewood Downtown Development Authority that the expanded urban renewal role will not receive the support of the general community. "THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as of this moment, the Englewood Downtown De- velopment Authority finds that it cannot support the plan presented by the Urban Renewal Authority. "Further, th Englewood Downtown Development Authority shall not be signatore to this Urban R newal Plan. Jean tte Bush Barry F. Col man Cl tua A. Gasson Barbara Holthaua Fred Kaufaan Kn Mauaolf John C. Maxw 11 John 0. Neal Rach 1 DI William P ndleton Leonard A. Robohm s/ Jeanette T. Bush s/ Barry F. Coleman s/ Cletus A. Gasson a/ Barbara Holthaus a/ Fred Kaufman a/ Ken Mau olf •I John C. Maxw 11 (ab nt) a/ Racha / Willi ( bs nt) 1 gal July 7, 1982" th ntir in favor of th Downtown nt DOA ia oppoa d to a aajority of or to only a part o it? Hra. Holth d to the aajority of .DOA ard th th d • I • • • - -7- to create financing for implementation of the Downtown Development Plan, and that is the only facet of the program that the EDDA Board is in favor of. Mr. Richard D. Greene, stated he maintains offices in the First National Bank, and is representing the Nielsen Investment Company. He stated that as far as the Urban Renewal Plan and its acceptance by the Commission in relation to the Comprehensive Plan, the Commission must keep in mind the overall objectives of Urban Renewal. The State Statutes provide that Urban Renewal may be used to renew blighted and slum areas. Mr. Greene stated that he defied anyone in the City of Englewood to go to the 3400 block of South Acoma and determine that block is a blighted and slum area. He stated that the approval and acceptance of the Urban Renewal Plan would do away with the newest construction and the most prosperous area in down- town Englewood . Mr. Greene stated that the Nielsen family helped to develop Englewood, but this would be tearing down "those who built the City of Englewood." Mr. Greene urged the Commission to put the Urban Renewal Plan in its proper perspective: does it meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan? He urged that the Urban Renewal Plan be reviewed in further detail, and that more meetings should be held regarding the Urban Renewal Plan. He also urged that members of the Commission drive down the 3400 block of South Acoma Street to determine for themselves whether this area is a slum and blighted area. Mr. McBrayer asked the staff to address the issue raised by Mr. Greene regarding slum and blighted areas? Ms. Powers stated that the Urban Re- newal Authority was created in 1973; at that time, it was determined there was slum and blight which warranted the creation of the Urban Renewal Authority. Ms. Powers stated that the definition contained within the State Statutes on slum and blight are very general, and includes such matters as a flood plain making an area blighted. The existence of the flood plain does preclude development or redevelopment, and there is a need for urban renewal to facilitate development/redevelopment. Ms. Powers cited s tatistics that have been collected regarding the number of vacant buildings, or buildings that are not up to either the minimum Fire Cod standards or the minimum Building Code standards. Ms. Pow rs stat d that City Council will make another finding relativ to th exi tenc of lu and blighted conditions. Ms. Pow rs also pointed out that th Urban R - new l Ar a is larg r than just th downtown area, nd does not cone rn it- self with any specific buildings. Sh pointed out that the ch nn 1 of Littl Ory Creek from Clarkson on through Englewood is a p rt of th Urban Rn wal Ar , and lmprovem nts would b made all along the chann l. Ms. P rs st t d that it is th f ling of th staff and of the Urban Ren wal Authority that formation of the Urb n Rn wal Ar a has b n ju tified. Ms . Pow r point d out 1 o, that th Urb n Rn wal Plan is b don th Downtown D v lop nt Pl n, and th r is nothing contain din th Urban R - n w 1 Pl that is !neon 1st nt with th Downtown D v lopment Plan; th of th Urb n Rn w 1 Plan d lin with r loc tion was includ d to r quir m th St M. Pow rs a reed that th Urban ct s th financin vehicle for h nt Pl , but in ord r to form a nt bond a, th re must b an "urban Plan h .s b n WTitten and is b - d Urban R n wal Plan I • • • - -8- Mr. Greene stated that unless he misread the Plan, the propertie s adjacent to Little Dry Creek in the 3400 block South Acoma on the east sid e of the block are not in the flood plain; he asked if this was correct? Ms. Powers stated that the east side of the 3400 block South Acoma is not within the flood plain; however, to resolve the problem for the entire area, this block has been included. Mr. Greene discussed the acquisition of property by the Urban Renewal Authority. Ms. Powers stated that the City Council mu st give its approval to any acquisition of property. The Urban Renewal Au thority cannot take action until it is approved by the City Council, and only if it is addressed in the Plan. Mr. Dickinson again addressed the Commission; he stated that the Urban Re- newal Authority has been meeting regularly since late Fall, 1981, and tha t the meetings have been open to the public. He stated that there has been from very little to no input from the public in the drafting of the Urb an Renewal Plan. Mr. Dickinson reiterated that he feels the Urban Renewal Plan in its present form is a "start", and reiterated that s omething must be done to improve the tax base in the downtown area. He pointed out that the Cinderella City management is spending several million dollars to make improvements to the shopping center, and he strongly feels that something should be done in the remainder of the downtown area. Mr. Allen stated that some three years ago, the City Council created the Englewood Downtown Development Authority , and authorized a mill levy to support this body; he was appointed as one of the original members of the EDDA Board. As a committee, they were going to e x plore ways to rebuild downtown Englewood, and people were "not going to be driven out." A con- tract with the City, EDDA and Brady Enterprises was entered into, and the Urb an Renewal Authority was reactivated. Mr. Allen stated that the possi- bility of "bulldozing and dispossessing people" was never thought of in the beginning. He stated that it wa s decided that Little Dry Creek needed to be improved, and the improvements hav been expanded to the point wher it is now proposed that a park be made out of th creek right-of-way. H stated that he felt "we have drifted far afield from the original pr vious plan". Mr. Allen stated that he is in favor of widening the channel on Little Dry Creek , but is not in favor of th r st of th improvem nts pro- pos d, and he does not want the bu in ss p opl on South Acoma Stre t to b up-root d. Mr. Allen stated that EDDA was going to improve downtown Englewood, but now Urban Renewal is in it, nd h flt that "we hav lost track of what w set out to do." Mr. Allen stated that perhaps h hould not be on th Planning Commission becaus h is not in favor of what w are doing. H review d his trips to San Antonio du=ing hist nur as Mayor to vi w th that City; h stat d that Engl wood was con ld rln wat Authority. improvem nts in northw st Englewood t that tl !I d that Englewood did not hav suffici nt d t •r !or t1 n of an urb n ren w l area. H st t d th th did n ot nd h did not beli v 11 f1 d b possibl to impl m nt th pl n without t that the public projects and Little Ory Cr ek improv pr dominant part of the Downtown v lop nt Plan. If th I proj d ov rap riod oC fwy th t x incr m n bonds aark t d. 1b d ci1ion w by th City Council th t l Authori y would b re ctivatad to do th in cin or b nda to iaplement th Oownto v lop nt Plan. Th • I • -• • • -9- bonds would be sold through the Urban Renewal Authority. Ms. Powers reiterated that the financing would only be for the public portion of the imp r ovements; it is necessary to have a private developer(s) who is com- mitted to do the private development in conjunction with the public improve- ments. Mr. Tanguma stated that basically, he likes the Plan, but he is hearing dissent on the objectives and with the Urban Renewal Authority. He asked if i t was possible to use the Plan but not do it through the Urban Renewal Authority. Ms. Powers emphasized that there must be an approved Urban Renewal Plan before bonds can be issued. The Urban Renewal Authority has limited power, and any acquisition of property would have to be approved by the City Council. Ms. Powers stated that the EDDA is not empowered to issue bonds; the Ci ty could issue bonds on behalf of the EDDA, but the de - cision was made in 1981 to reactivate the Urban Renewal Authority for thi s purpose. Mr. Carson asked if the decision required of the Planning CoDD11ission is whether the Urban Renewal Plan complies with the Comprehensive Plan ? Ms. Powers s tated that the goals and objectives outlined in the Urban Renewal Plan were approved as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan by the Planning Co mmis sion and City Council in 1981. Ms. Powers stated that the staff re- port which was submitted to the Commission prior to their meeting of June 8 outlined these goals and objectives, and addressed the way in which the Ur ban Renewal Plan was in c ompliance with those goals and objectives. Ms. Powers reiterated that the Urban Renewal Plan is really the Downtown Develop- ment Plan, even though it is now called the Urban Renewal Plan. Ms. Powers then outlined some of the ways the Urban Renewal Plan does meet the Compre- hensiv Plan, such as calling for mixed-use development, housing in the downtown area , a transit center and improved transportation, and to link th Cinder lla City Shopping Center with the South Broadway commer cial area. Mr. McBrayer inquired of the EDDA membership present if th ir di pl asure with th Urban R newal Plan centers on the fact that the "ball gm has changed", and so busin esses along South Acoma are now bin elimin t d? Mr • Holth u stat d that th opposition is to the ntire Urb n Ren wal Pl n. Sh stat d that wh n the EDDA mt with the City Council to discuss financin , it w d cid d that the Urban Renewal Authority would b ctiv t d only for th financing. Ms. Holthus stated that th EDDA i oppo ed to th possibility of cond mnation by urban r n wal. Mr. McBray r st t d th t if h und r tood the cone rn, it is in regard to other and authoritJ s oth r than finnncin that th Urban R newal Authority b n rant d. r. Ur n stat d th th would ch 11 1 Auth rl c uld d nythin Urban Rn wal Plan, ncy on its own, and th Urb n t d that it dos encompass a nyone to d aon trate th Cit Coun il pprov 1, • I • • -0 • -10- he would challenge the statement that the Urban Renewal Authority wou ld create zoning districts, and asked for specifics that the EDDA Board is opposed to in the Plan . Ms. Owens stated that they are opposed to the "generalities" contained in the Plan. Ms. Powers pointed out that the powers of the Urban Renewal Authority would not supercede the powers of the local government. The Zoning Regulations or any changes theret o mu st come before the Planning co-ission, and would have to be approved by the Colllaission and City Council. Ha. Powers stated that the Plan does attempt to promote the "team effort" to implement the Downtown Development Plan. lbe Plan does state that a Downtown Zone District need s to be created, and this has been agreed to by the City, EDDA, and the private developer. lbis does not mean that the Urban Renewal Authority will be the bod y to do that. Ma. Powers stated that the Urban Renewal Plan is a guide for developaent; the specific roles and responsibilities of each party would be set out in an agreement. Assistant City Attorney Holland addressed the C~ission, and stated that the Urban Renewal Plan is a document that must be accepted by the City Council before further steps can be taken; the acceptance of the Plan by the Council does not give the Urban Renewal Authority power that is not given by the State Statute. Mr. Holland then discussed the three-party agreement; he stated that each party to that agreement will have to si t down and determine what responsibility and power each of the bod i e s have. Mr. John Pearce 3427 South Acoaa -asked if the staff report was made available to membe rs of the EDDA prior to the comnencement of this meeting? Ha. Povera stated that the June 8th report to the Planning Commission wa s not handed out to aeabera of the EDDA, but copies were available. Mr. Pearce then proceeded to cite soae sections of the Urban Renewa l Plan . He stated that he would "submit that when the citizens of Englewo od are faailiar with this Plan, that you will hear more than you have." Mr. Gerald Quait, attorney, stated that he represented the owners of ,o West Girard Avenue, and also that his fa11ily owns property on the no rth- east corner of Girard and Broadway. He stated that once this Plan would be adopted, control would be lost. Mr. Quait stated that his clienL$ would like the right to redevelop their property themselves. Mr. Quait al o cited various sectons of the Urban Renewal Plan and pos d qu scion re- gardina these sections. Mr. Quait discussed th augg scion con tained within the Plan that low-interest loans for renovation of xi s tlng tr ct rs be aade available to property owners. He stated that h is ell nt would b happy to participat in such a program, but they do not w nt th ir p1op rtv torn down and sold to an over-all developer. Kr. Tanguaa asked if it of property? He stat d condeaiation, and asked into the Plan? Ha. Powers Comaission is to relate th if th City Council/Urban Plan they can, but this is no Kr , Melvin Minnick stated that h ia a mb of th He pointed out that it is str sad in th Plant t th • rlt y. I • • • - -11- will negotiate with the current property owners as he deems necessary. Mr. Min nick stated that it is contemplated that the only condemnation that would occur would be in the flood plain along Little Dry Creek right- of-way. And even then, the City would try to negotiate a price with the property owner. Mr. Minnick emphasized that condemnation proceedings would be a last resort for the Urban Renewal Authority and City Council. Mr. Minnick stated for the downtown redevexopment project to work, the flood control measures for Little Dry Creek must be implemented. Mr. Minnick stated that public meetings have been held on the Little Dry Creek improve- ments, and all of the meetings of the Urban Renewal Authority have been open to the public, but the public does not get involved until the last minute. He urged that this project be a team effort as is set forth in the Urb an Renewal Plan, and that everyone should try to work together. Mr. Allen asked what would happen if negotiations between the private de- veloper and the property owner broke down? Mr. Minnick stated that if the City and/or Urban Renewal Authority were asked to step in, it could result in condemnation. Mr. Fiedelman discussed the proceedings used by the Denver Urban Renewal Authority in the condemnation of property, and expressed opposition to the Urban Renewal Plan. Ms. Powers stated that the Urban Renewal Plan, as it is written, does re- quire that before getting into condemnation proceedings, the City Council must, by Resolution, approve such proceedings on a site-by-site basis. There is nothing written into the Plan would would prevent development by private property owners. There is nothing written into the Plan which re- s tricts the project to one developer. Mr. Tanguma discussed his concerns with use of condemnation, and stated that property owners are hurt by this process. He stated that if there is no way cond mnation could be prohbiited, and that if such prohibition cannot b written into the Plan, then he could not vote for the approval of th Urban Renewal Plan. Mr. Fr d Kaufman stated that h is a member of the EDDA Board, and maintains his plac of business at 3395 South Broadway. H stated that h has b en involv din Englewood for 25 years. Mr. Kaufman stated that the idea of the improv ment of the Downtown area was drawn up by the EDDA, and they now f el that they have lost control over the Plan. He stated that there r busine men who r concern d about the development nd r dev lopm nt of downtown Engl wood, and that they would like to bring n w busin ss s into th co111Dunity. H flt th Plan should b und r th auspic s of th EDD. Mr. ufman stat d that h i not saying cond mnation isn't ne d d, r. Ol e Jn h v o lunt la ainst it. He stat d th t th re may b so prop rty the City, nd that p rhaps cond mnation s. Mr. Kaufman stated that if this is not and if th t Board doe not hav so thing not b a rubb r stamp body. Mr. Kauf n w s told that the Urban Ren wal Authority would b means to obtain financing to implement the Plan d - D v lop nt Authority. Mr. Xaufaan 1tat d th t th c nd 11111 tion with or without the Urban~ n wal Authority. n 1 tat d th r, nd h h • hu no a a mb r of th Urb n n wal Authority 1 rv don that Bo rd or th pay or n 10 • I • • • • -12- trip. He pointed out that there have been many hours de vo t e d t o t he writing of the Plan. Mr. Dickinson pointed out that the City Co un ci l f e lt the r e was a need for the Authority to be reactivated, and sin c e t h is was accomplished in the Fall of 1981, hundreds of hours have been spent by these me mbers on this project. He stated that he has nothing to gain pe r son all y by the Urban Renewal Plan. Mr. Dickinson stated he is not in favor of emin ent domain or condemnation, and that the City Council has said that if there wa s a need for condemnation, this would be the responsibility of the Ci t y Co uncil and not of the Urban Renewal Authority. Mr. Dickinson stated that the members of the Urban Renewal Authority with residents and businessmen of the City , and they will have to live with the results of the Plan jus t like anyone else. Mr. Dickinson acknowledged that the Plan i s not pe r fect , but that it is a point of beginning. Mr. Dickinson discussed the lack of input f r om the public and from EDDA in the drafting of the Plan. Mr. Allen asked what the Urban Renewal Authority would cont r ibute to the development process? Mr. Dickinson stated that the finan cing is the respon si- bility of the Authority. Ms. Powers pointed out that the City would not be o perat ing under the tradi- tional urban renewal standards adopted by HUD several years ago, and that certain federal standards would not have to be met. Ms . Powe r s stated that this Plan was drafted over a period of five months , and that the EDDA Executive Director attended those meetings; there wa s an opportunity for input if it was desired. Mr. Stoel stated that it appeared there is a communi c at ion probl em and that the groups do not know what the other groups are doin g. He asked for an accounting of this . Ms. Powers stat e d that the City of Englewood, EDDA, and Brady Enterprises contracted for the development of the Downtown Development Plan . Th Urban Renewal Authority was reactivated in the Fall o f 1981 to act as the financing vehicle f or the implementation of this plan; how e v er , th re is a process that must be followed b efore a tax increment di s tric t can b fa d and b fore tax increment bond s c an be marketed by th Urban Re newal Authority. On part o f thi s process is that an Urban Renewal Plan mu st b prepar d. Ms. Powers s t a ted that t he r e ha s been pa rtici pa t ion a t t he staff level by h o f the th r ee par ties . The P lan was made availabl to the EDDA, th• EBA, to th School Board, and oth er i nte r est d bod! s. Ms. Power reit rat d that t he r e wa p rtici ption by the EDDA , th City, and Br dy th staff 1 v 1. Ms. Pow rs further r it rat d that th r i Urban Rn wal Plan th tis different from th Downtown Plan; but for the City Council to b able to us cond mnation if it b co it mu t b mention din th Urban Rn wal Pl Mr. Sto l ask di the EDDA h been involv din h v t h op portunity to b i nvo l v d ? • Pow re fo r i nvolv nt waa th re . Ha . Pow rs stat d th Ha v i land , Hr . Hinson, Cit Ma na g r HcCown and sh t m, along with r preaentativ a from ch Br dy ~: did th opp rtunity Dir ctor 0 n otl nt rLy n- • Lin I • • • - -13- Mr. Ba rry Coleman, stated that he is a member of the EDDA Board, and has his business at 3305 South Broadway. Mr. Coleman stated that he, also , is o ne o f the original board members of the EDDA. Mr. Coleman stat e d that he wants to see Englewood become a viable place to do business, but h e doesn't want to see a beautiful, modern downtown Englewood with s tra nge names on the front doors. He stated that s ome of the existing busine ssme n ma y not be able to stay in the new stores; he suggested that before pe op l e a re told they have to move, they should know where they can move to. Mr . Co leman stated that the entire project has been taken out of the control o f the people who live here and work here. He stated that it is als o bringing i n bureaucracy, and putting responsibility into the hands of people who don't live in the "real world". Mr. Coleman stated that he felt this mu s t be brought back into the perspective it was started with --the redevelop- me nt s hould be accomplished, but it should "be Englewood the way we kn ow i t, i nhabited by people who live, work and own property in Englewood." Mr . Co l e man reiterated that it must be gotten back into the control of people "who don't want anything bad to happen." He wants support for those peo ple and businessmen who are being threatened with destruction. He stated that there are many ramifications of the Urban Renewal Plan, and asked that the CoDDD ission c onsider it. Mr . R. P . McClung stated that he is a member of the Urban Renewal.Au t ho r ity , a nd maintains his bus ines s at 2842 South Broadway. He stated that he is r e lati ve l y new to Englewood business-wi s e, but has lived in Englewood sin ce 1944. He s tated that he had offered his s ervices to the City, and that he was a ppo i nted to the Urban Renewal Author i t y . Mr. McClung stated that fo r ma ny years , he was a businessman in Denve r, and that his property wa s si tua ted i n the flood plain. In 1965 when the So uth Platte River flo od e d, he s u f f e r e d g reat damage to his building, property , and a complete loss of the ma j or i t y of hi s inventory. Mr . Mcclung s tated that he s pe nt wh at mo ney he had to try to c lean up his property and make it a paying business and t he floo d wi ped h i m out. He s tated that people in downt own En gl ewood are i n mu ch the s ame po s it i on that he was i n Denv e r; i f a ba d s t o rm com s and Litt le Dry Cr eek f l ood s ser iou s ly, the only th i ng le f t wi l l be the land; the busin essmen wi l l l ose e v e r y thing a s he d i d. Mr. McC lung s t a t e d t hat in- surance is availabl , but you cannot aff o rd t o bu y e nough i ns ur ance to sufficien tly cover i nve n tor y , etc . Mr. McC lung s t a t e d that th thrust of th program under consid ra t ion is to get r id of th f l ood plain problem that exist alon g Li t tle Dry Creek, a nd to protect th downtown area. H tated that th City should have installed dams up-stream 50 y ars ago, but this was not don • Hr. McClung cit doth r probl m in th downtown s traffic , poor circulation, lack of parking , tc., all of ddr s din th Downtown D v lopment Plan and Urban Rn w 1 Pl n. stat d th t th qu stion ros as to who would p y and how th fin nc d; it was det r111in d th t th Urban Rn w l vived to provid th fin ncing v hicl nt projects uch s th Littl Dry Cr k flood plain. t mor than half of th funds to b xp nd d on us d for improv of Little Dr y Cr k, nd th nt to th Cr k would ssure th f ty of th downtown busin •• Mr. McClung stat d that th r may so p opl who will b hurt, nd di cuse d hie xp ri nc • with th D nv r Urban~ n wal Au hority wh n prop rty was cond mn d. Hr. HcClun etated that th attitud of th n l wood City Council nd h Urb n Rn w l Authority hae b n to avoid much d y p pl • ii po eible. Hr. HcCluna point d out th public improv 11 th of Li tl Ory Cr t hie au• b d ore ud n th Pl n. • I • • n • • - -14- Mr. McBrayer stated that he didn't see how downtown Englewood can be successfully redeveloped if the community is not 99 % to 100% behind the program. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt there is a problem in communica- tion, and there are a lot of problems that need to be worked out. He stated that he would like to see this matter tabled until such time as the Urban Renewal Authority, EDDA, and other interested parties get together to work out the differences and report back to the Commission. Mr. McBrayer stated that it appeared to him that if we proceed in the present direction , we would be hurting the people we are trying to help. Mr. McBrayer stated that it appeared that many of the people in the downtown bu siness community are in opposition to this Plan. He stated that Plans can be drafted, but without support, the Plans won't do any good. He stated that he would like to see everybody working together in support of this Plan be fore it goes t o City Council and before we proceed to the next step. Mr. McBrayer declared a break at 9:05 P.M. The meeting was then called to order at 9:20 P.M. Members present: Members absent: McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Carson Becker, Gilchrist Mrs. Holthaus addressed the Commission again. She s tated that she would like to express her thanks to Mr. McBrayer for his comments preceeding the break, and that many other people have indicated they feel th same way. Mrs. Holthaus stated that EDDA wants the redevelopment program, and wants to cooperate. She stated that she felt if the EDDA Board co uld me et with the Urban Renewal Authority membership, perhaps some of the problems could be worked out, and the solutions can help a lot of th e business people i n the downtown area. Mr. Mc Brayer tated that he understood there is a deadline that th Urban Renewal Authority has been working against in forming the tax inc r em nt district . H ask d if it would b possible to arrang a me ting with the EDDA nd Urb n Renewal Authority, and table or continue this matter o r short p riod of ti ? Mr. McClung stated that he flt the Urban Rn wal Authority would b happy to try to wo rk out any problems thy could. Mr. McBray r asked Mrs.Holthau s if th City Council had asked th EDDA to re- vi w th Plan? rs. Holthaus stated that the EDDA has been k d tor - view th Plan, and submit their comments by August 9th. Mr. HcBray r ked what a continuation of thi the de dlin on formation of the tax district? City Council doea hav a deadlin on th approval tion of the tax diatrict. It must b done befor approv din S Pt mb r. Sh tat d that this will S pt r 15th, i r tot k adv nt g of th for th tax incr nt diatrict thi 1 y ar. Mr. Brayer augg 1t d that thi a b plac don th a tonight, nd that in th meanti , th m mb rs of th Authority ogeth rand try to work out so of h do to l Public H rin on C • l 2. n lnu d to July 20, I • • • • -15- AYE S: Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Carson, McBrayer NAYS: None ABSENT: Becker, Gilchrist The motion carried. Mr. Tanguma asked if the EDDA and Urban Renewal Authority members could discuss the possibility of putting condemnation up to an arbitration process ; he stated that he did not want to see any property owner hurt because of condemnation. Mr. McBrayer stated that he would like to suggest that everybody come to the meeting with a productive attitude, and have a listing of matters that they want to see changed. V. PUBLIC FORUM. No one addressed the CoD111ission under public forum. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Ms. Powers stated that the City Council did approve the Sign Code at their meeting of July 6th, and the Code will be effective in 30 days. Ms. Powers stated that a calendar of events regarding the redevelopment process will be made available to the Planning Commission; this is an out- line of what has been done, and a projected timetable for the next four or five months. Ms. Pow rs stated that she had nothing further to add on Prowswood or on the Cinderella City remodeling. The Commission goals nd objectiv for 1982/1983 were then considered. Mr. McBrayer stated that it has been suggest d that the timetable set forth on these goals and objectives should be stretch d out, that th work load on th staff and Commission h s increased to the point whereby th Commission may hav to for go the August vacation they have tak n for the past few year . Mr. McBrayer st ted that several matt ra have b en undertaken, and h fe ls a good start has b n made on the objectives; h stated that if h hard no obj c tion from oth r mb rs, he would suggest that th oals nd objectiv s b st aside for th tim bin, nd matters added to the r gul rag nd s as ti allows. Ms. Po rs stat d that th initial draft of guid lin a s hould be to th Coanisaion in a Th at ff ia al o working on a draft of th should also b to th Commissio n in a short th condominium conversion v ry s hort p riod or tim. Downtown Zone Di strict , whi ch p riod of time. Mrs. Romana Mra. Ro h aak d o am morandum from City Attorn y D Witt; th co .. iaai a draft of a Fence Ordinanc and discus, d at th n xt tina. • r mind d b r1 o a our o for 7: 0 A.M. on July 1th; all in att nd nc • adal Broth n Company nt indicat d thy • I • • • • • -16- Mrs. Romans stated that the special committee working on the data collection and promotion of Englewood project will meet Monday, July 12 th , at 7:30 A.M. Dr . Davidson of the Englewood Public Schools, Mayor Otis, Mr. Harris on of the Englewood Chamber of Commer ce , Mr. Havi land of the EDDA, and Mr. Tanguma of the Planning Commission compose the membership of this committe . Mrs. Romans stated that at the special meet ing of July 13th, members of the northwest Englewood Citizens Committee will be present to discuss the proposed R-2-C revisions that they have dra f ted. The staff has been working with this committee since last August, and the proposal is now ready for presentation to the Commission. There will be two public hearings on amendments to the Comprehensive Zo ning Ordinance scheduled on July 20th, as well as the continuation of the Public Hearing this evening. Mrs. Romans then reviewed matters that are coming up for consideration by the Commission during July and August. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBra yer suggested that the Collllllission meet as scheduled through August, and that it should be understood there will be absences for s ome member s for vacations, etc. during the summer months. VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. McBrayer stated that he has done further estimation on the construction of a display case for the City Anniversary Quilt. He stated that his estimate is $870 to construct such a case. He suggested that if each member of the Commission would contribute !/9th of this expense, it cou ld be constructed in a short period of time. Discussion ensued. Members of the staff indicated they would be willing to contribute to this project also. Mr. McBrayer stated that he would meet with Mrs. Roman s to determine the exact criteria for the construction of the display case. Mr. Tanguma asked if i t would be possible to have a copy of th part of the Minutes of the previous me eting when the Resource Data Co llec t ion was discussed for the meeting on July 12th? Mr. Barbre ask dhow much time would be involved in the tour of th Ragsdale Company? Mrs. Ro111ans stated that this would begin at 7:30 A.H. and th t they are aware peopl hav tog t to work. She stated th t cof e nd juic would be serv d. Th meetin adjourn d at 9:50 P.H. • I • • • • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZO NIN G COMMISSION July 13, 1982 I . CALL TO ORDER. 5 C The Special Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman McBrayer at 7:00 P.M. in Library Conference Room I. Members present: Stoel, Allen, Barbre, Carson, Gilchrist, McBrayer, Senti D. A. Romans, Acting Ex-officio Members absent: Becker, Tanguma Also present: Susan King, Senior Planner Assistant City Attorney Thomas V. Holland II. R-2-C ZONE DISTRICT Proposed Revisions by Northwest Englewood Citizens Committee CASE 1114-82 Mr. McBrayer asked that the staff review this case before the Commission. Mrs. Romans stated that she and Susan King have been meeting with the mem- bers of the Northwest Englewood Citizens Committee since lase October, and introduced Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Kelley and Mr. and Mrs. Ted Highland, who were present at the meeting. Mrs.Romans stated that Mr. and Mrs. Herb Mosbarger and a Mt. Holden have also been very active in these meetings . Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Dennis Kelley will make the presentation to the Commis ion regarding the proposed suggestions for the R-2-C District. Mr. Kelley stated that the meetings initially involved 20 to 25 people, but the number has d creased to the six or seven that have remained activ ly involved. Mr. Kelly stated that the meetings cam about because of con- cerns in th ne Jghborhood regarding som of th variances that had been granted to d velop rs; it was felt that th variances that had been granted were d triment 1 to th northwest Englewood area, and to the City as a whole. Mr. Kelley st ted th tin discussions, the Special Permit System was mentioned, nd thy d cid d to 1 am more about this system. Mr. Kelly discu d con - cerns th t then ighborhood h s with so of th new d v lopm nt th t has gon in in the northw It En 1 wood are , nd felt that thi was not conduciv to Ctr cting f ili • with childr n to s ttl in this r a. Mrs. B cker nter d th • ting and took hr plac with th Commi sion. • North- proposal l th pro- I • • • • - -2- is that the deve lopment will reflect the neighborhood standards, it will decrease the permit time for the developer, and there will be more flexibil ity allowed in the site design. Mr. Ca rson asked if this group was proposing the utilization of a Perm i t System only in northwest Englewood or for the entire city; he noted that s everal times Mr. Kelley has made reference to the "entire city". Mr. Kelley stated that their primary concern is in northwest Englewood, but did try to write the proposal so that it could be used in other areas of of the City as well. Mrs . Romans cited one particular block in northwest Englewood where variances were g iven to allow development of a parcel of land with units facing north and south, and also facing to the east. These variances resulted in a de- velopment that caused concern to some persons in the residential neighborhood. Mrs. Romans stated that in some instances, the proper lot area may be available, but the configuration of the lot makes it difficult to develop and meet the setbacks on front, rear and/or side yards. Discussion ensued. Mr. Kelley reiterated that this proposal would allow for flexibility, whi ch could result in a better utilization of the land, and could be of benefi t to the cieveloper and to the neighbors. Ms. King pointed out that one of the reasons for some of the variances is the construction of the "single-family attached" units, which are then sold to individual owners; if the structure were built as a duplex there woul d be no problem , but when the units are built as single-family attached and sold, there is the problem of the "zero" side lot line, which is not allowed in the present ordinance. Mr. Gilchrist asked how many vacant building sites of the odd size found in northwest Englewood are there in the City. Mrs. Romans estimated there could be 60+ building sites if some of the streets were to be extended as has been proposed. Ms. King stated that another problem is the provision of off-street parking; single-fami l y attached units require two off-street parking space per unit, but the requ ired off-street parking may not be provid d in the front yard or front 25 foot setback. Ms. King indicated on the drawing board how om developers are g tting around this provi ion by moving the building furth r to th rear, and th n providing the garag a/parking ar a to th front o f th tructure, but back of the 25 foot setb ck. Thi result in al rg bl c k - to pped ar a or concr t rea in th front yard, nd giv s a very "st rk" ppearance to the d velopm nt. Ms. King stat d th t th proposal Mr. K 11 y is discussing would llow p rking in th front setback, and indicated on o r two parking layout d signs that h d be n considered. Ms. King stat d th t this would b work d out on a cas -by-cas basis. Ms. King t t d that n attempt was m d to gain mor d sign amenities, such as landscapin , rchit ctur l d sign, etc . by bing willing to comprom i on such it ma p rking in th front yard. Mr. Kelley strea d that th y r y ar Lryln t o work out a n to asaur mor attr 88 th r tr1ctions on th d V lop rs t th • Diacu sion on rights-of-way that r propos d to be xt nd d enau d. Hrs. Ro mans at t d th t Adriatic , Balti c Plac . C pian Place and Hilla id w r s tr t s that r p roJ c t d fo r xt n ion. • I • • • • - -3- Mr. Gilchrist stated that he felt Mr. Kelley had given a very able presenta- tion on the proposal; he stated that he would be interested in hearing com- ments from the builders, developers, and realtors who are on the Planning Commission regarding this proposal. Mr. Stoel stated that he has purchased property in northwest Englewood, which is an "inside" lot; he agreed that there is no place for the required off-street parking except in the front yard under the existing regulations. Mr. Stoel asked if the residents in the area were objecting to the "look" of some of the new development? Mrs. Highland stated that screening would help. Mr. Barbre inquired on the width of the right-of-way that is projected. Mrs. Romans stated that the street rights-of-way are projected to be 50 feet. Mr. Allen, in reference to a drawing indicating a division of property that was approved by the variance procedure, stated that considering the cost of land and the construction costs, it appeared that it was a pretty good use of the land. Mr. Kelley stated that it is a poor use of the land for this area; there is no open area for children to play on these small lots. Mr. Kelley stated that it is the feeling of the residents of this area that these units with small lots will not be attractive to families with children. Mrs. Highland stated that the development in question just does not fit into the neighborhood concept. Mr. Allen asked what the neighborhood concept is? Mrs. Highland stated that it is single-family. Mr. Kelley stated that they realized the area is zoned R-2-C, Medium Density; but with the variances that have been granted, the resulting development is not what they feel the R-2-C development was to be. Mr. Kelley stated that they feel if the proposal they have developed were to be used, it would give flexibility to the developers, and still result in attractive developments for the neighbor- hood. Mr. McBrayer stated that h understood th R-2-C Zoning was imposed in that area to attract families. Mrs. Romans stated that this was correct; it was an effort to keep the school op n by attracting falllilie with children. Mrs. Highland stated that the resid nt of th area flt thy could liv with the duplex or two-family developments that they anticipated with the R-2-C Zoning; however, the trend is now to th townhouse type of development, and the smaller lots do not attract famili a. Mr. McBray r stated that h felt it w a a matter of economics that the area did not d v lop as R-1. Mr. K lley atat d that the ar a didn't rally b gin to d v lop und r th R-2-C until a coupl of y rs a o. Hrs. Romans stated that variances h v b n obtain d to s 11th units individually as town hous s; sh not d th t th majority of th concern s ms to b along South T jon Str t. Hrs. Beck r t ted th t sh would not want to s in this n ighborhood what was d v lop d further north in Denv r alon South Rarit n Str t. Hr. Gilchrist ask d for Hr. S nti's stat d th the would lik to inquir o in th v lu of th units hav n c onstruct d, and i th w s don voluntarily or wa a it r quir d ? • I • • • • - -4- the installation of the landscaping was voluntary. Regarding property values, he stated that he did not feel there had been any increase more than would normally be expected. Mrs. Romans stated that she would like to point out that installation of landscaping is a requirement contained in the R-2-C Zone District regulations. Mr. Gilchrist asked then if the landscaping was installed before the R-2-C ordinance went into effect. Mr. Kelley indicated tha t most of it was probably planted prior to the R-2-C Zone District regula- tions. Discussion ensued. Mr. Holland pointed out that the Board members consider the application for a variance, and make their decisions based on the information that is pre- sented to them; this may be by staff report, testimony, and/or viewing of the site. The variances that are granted must meet specific standards that are set forth in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Discussion ensued. Mr. Stoel stated that if he understands the concerns of the people properly, they do not want smaller lots, and do not want the density to the point that has been allowed by the division of the parcels as done along Tejon Street. Mr. Stoel stated that the CoDD11ission is con- cerned about affordable housing, and has considered ways to allow develop- ment on smaller lots. Mr. McBrayer stated that if the area didn't develop with the R-1-C Zone classification, and didn't develop under the R-2-C classification without the granting of variances, he feels that what the people in this area would rather go back to is no development rather than proceed in the present di- r ction. Mr. Kelley stated that the residents do want to see development, but want to see the development accomplished in a different manner than th granting of variances, and have the end results be a little more pleasing nd comp tible with the surrounding n ighborhood. Mr. Kelley stated that h felt there is a need for more open space around the units, and th land- sc ping nd parking location needs to b addressed. Mr. Kelley emphasiz d th t th residents who have worked on this coDD11ittee feel that th R-2-C in- corporating featur s of the sp cial permit system, would allow flexibility that would be encouraging to developers, and still giv the resident s better d v lopments in th neighborhood. Mr. stat d that he could not see where the residents would be giving r nything by using this system; h sk d just what the r sidents would b giving the builders? Mr. Kelley stat d that by building in the fl xibility ton goti t some points with th st ff, the ne d for a M pp al to th Board of Adjustment for a varianc is limin ted s; this would r sult in savings of time, which is mon y, to Mr. Allen ask din whose opinion would adv lopment necessarily Mr. Kelly pointed out that the resid nts who live in th 1110st cone rn d with th app ranc s of the developm nts. d. Mr. McBray r s u g std that inasmuch a th prop rty d rli r, p rh p it is not f sibl to d velop unl as it high rd n ity. Mr. K 11 y stat d th th would find th t Diacusaion d. ut that 11 city lots ar not th • opportunit o work with th p opl size; h flt this to h lp both th r. Cilchri t inqutr d wh th it would b better to work on a ca• -by- • ba 1• or n cro a-th -board provi ton. H alao sk d Hr. K lley . __ .___ ----~--~-------~ I • • • - -s - and Mr. Highland if either gentleman owned vacant land in this area? Mr. Ke lley stated that he owned some vacant land; Mr. Highland stated that he d i d not. Mr. Kelley stated that he would like to see his property used for single-family development, and this is probably the way it will be developed at some time in the future. He indicated that he was in no hurry to have this portion of his property developed. The dimensions of the property owned b y Mr. and Mrs. Kelley were discussed. Ms. Becker expressed concern that Mr. and Mrs. Kelley and Mr. and Mrs. Highland would leave the meeting with negative feelings regarding the reception of their proposal. Ms. Becker stated that she felt the Commission s hould consider more than just the northwest area of Englewood, and pointed out that this propos al may be a bargaining point for homeowners and builders . Mr. Holland stated that he had understood thi s wa s an application to change the R-2-C Zone District; is this correct ? Mr. McBrayer stated that it is not a formal appl i cation for a change in the zone r e gulations at this point. Mr. Kelley again stated that he felt the permit system incorporated into the R-2-C District could be of benefit to both re s idents and builders ; he e mpha si zed that the property owners are not ant i -deve lopment, and feel s that th i s proposal could work. He stated that it ha s worked s uc c e ss full y i n other areas, and feels it would be a s tep in the right direction for Englewood. Mr. Cars on asked what areas Mr. Kelley was referring to that use the permi t s y s tem ? Ms . King stated that Breckenridge uses the Permit System; Ft. Coll i n s h as a form of the permit system that it uses, and other communities in Co l o r a d o a nd Wyoming moke use of the permit system. Discussion ensued. Mr s . Becker s tated that she feels the people present at the meeting ton i ght a r e not v o i cing oppos ition to the density permitted under the R-2-C, but a r e urg i ng t he cit y to c ome up with a "good plan". Ms. Be c ker stated that s he ha s not h eard the se i ndividuals say the den s ity sho uld be cut down; sh has h ea rd in th c onve r sation a request for h e l p t o come u p wi th good -look ing ho u s ing, land scap i ng, e t c . Mr . Gil chr ist asked s tated that thi s i s the Eas t, Vs ar Av Adri tic alley on th for a defin i t ion of "n o r t hw es t En glewood ". Mr s . Romans c onsidered as the r esid e n tial area bound d by Tejon on nu on the Sou th , Zuni Stre ton the W st, and th Evan s- North. Discussion nsued . Th parking layout all owing par kin g in th f r ont 25 f twas fur t her di1cu d. Mrs. Roman stat d that she h a d iscussed with Public Wo r ks Di r ctor Wa on r th po s ibility of off-ts similar to thos p rmitted i n De nv r wh ich would a ccommod t p rt of th r qu i r d off-str t pa r kin g. Fu rth r d i scu ssion n- a u d. M ha th in th no rthw a t Engl wood p raon lly lik s t h con e pt tiv ly low coa t of th land n ot d th t building sit a a r $12 ,000 to flt this ia uniqu ar a , b ut did n ot zone d is tric t hould be 110difi d. that hr 1a nly on o th r a r in th City which ation; ther ar two va c nt lots in this ar a. Th • I • • n -n • • • -6- proposed modification of the district regulations could enable the property owners of these two vacant sites to build single-family attached units and sell the units which they cannot do now. Mrs. Romans stated that throughout the meeting with the Northwest Englewood Citizens Committee, there has been participation by Councilwoman Bradshaw, and Councilmen Fitzpatrick and Bilo, and that these people appear to feel comfortable with the process that has been developed. Mr. McBrayer thanked Mr. and Mrs. Kelley and Mr. and Mrs . Highland for their attendance and presentation; he stated that the Commission would review this suggestion, and will consider the matter further at a later date, of which they would be notified. III. LANDSCAPING STANDARDS CASE 118-82 Mr. McBrayer stated that the Commission has had preliminary discussions re- garding landscaping standards at one or two previous meetings, and agreed to have further discussion and staff presentation this evening. He asked Mrs. Romans to lead the discussion on this matter. Mrs. Romans stated that the Planning Commission asked the staff to prepare landscaping regulations, and this was one of the work goals of the Planning Commission for 1982. The primary responsibility for assignment to develop the landscaping requirements and standards was given to Tyrone Temple, a Planning Intern, who developed the proposed ordinance which was previously discussed. Mr. Temple modeled the regulations after the Lakewood Ordinance which Commission members h d said they favored. He also worked closely with the City Forester, and obtained information from other municipalities in th course of his development of the proposed standards for Englewood. The docu- ment was presented for d iscussion in June, and it appeared that there wa s some concern that the proposed ordinance might be too stringent and regulatory. Mr. Romans suggested that the staff and Commission need to determin "why" the landscaping ordinance is needed, nd "for whom" the landscaping is to be r quired. She stated that the staff has posed several questions , and h s indicated some answers that they have determined and asked the Commission for their input to these questions. The questions as posed by th staff were th n outlined nd discussed. I. Why r w con id ring 1 nd caping r gulations? An w rs sugg std by th Commission w re: For post rity and tor due mbiguity, also to reinforce th position of staff in negotiating for land- caping on d velop nts. Mr. Stoel cit d th nd not d that this th r 11 1 n d for he C ls th propo al is a mandatory, bureaucr tic, nd h is oppos d to it. Mr. Gilchrist stat d thin a and plant thins, and that inf ct, h rs i a pref r nc a should b foat red on oth ra H qu stioned why an indu1trial u ri nc the incr a1ed co1t1 o Industrial Park wh re th r attr ctiv ar a. H d1csp1n; 1 o, 1 ther • s ttin I • • • • • -7- forth the requirement of landscaping, this would give the staff some backing in dis cussions with developers regard i ng landscaping . Mr. Stoel stated that he d i d not want to see the ordinance too restric t i v e , and felt that the i n i tial draft was, in fact, too restrictive. Mr. McBrayer agreed that the staff need s something in writing to back them up when negotiating landscaping with developers . Some cases in point were cited wherein a developer had indicated that he wo uld be willing to landscape, but did not actually do so; the staff has no mean s to enforce the installation of landscaping. Discussion ensued. Mr. Allen stated that he felt one good point about Englewood was that the government has had more consideration for the indus tri al and businessman than other communities, and has not been "over-regulated"; he noted that this is "eroding", howev e r. Mr. Allen stated that he f e lt people are be i ng r e gulated constant ly , and that when you purchase a piece of land, you basic ally have no control over what you can do with it. Mr. Allen discussed his con- cerns with regulations imposed by government, noting that the cost of housing is increased by regulations that are not nece s sary. He noted that the require - ment for landscaping which is imposed in the high-density districts now only s erves to increase the per unit rental rate to the tenants. Mr. Allen stated that he did not feel there s hould be an exception for single-family develop- ments if landscaping i s t o be required in medium and high-density zone d is- tricts. Mr. Allen asked members of the Commission and staff how man y time s they had failed to go into a place o f bu s iness because of the lac k o f land- scaping and appearance of the place ? Mr s . Be c ker state d tha t she would dr i ve out of her way to go to Marina Square bec ause it is such an attractive place to shop. Mr. Allen s tated that he felt i f the matter was left up to the ini t i ative of the individua l, there would be few people who are opposed t o l andscaping. He s tated that he personally l i ke s landscaping, but didn't fee l regulat io ns s hou l d b~ i mpoaed on others j us t because of his pers ona l l i kes. Mr . McBraye r a s ked Mr. Allen if he felt his office building would rent just as well i f there were no landsc aping to make it more attrac tive ? Mr. Allen s tate d that he had not had anyon e i nd icate they were renting in his bu i lding because of l andscaping . and cit e d a d e velo pment to the s outh of his bu i ldi n g wh ich has pro vided l i ttle t o no l and sca ping , and this de- velo pme nt is f ully re n ted . Furt he r d iscussion on th mer its of l a nd sca ping ensue d. Mr . St oel stat e d t hat there we r e many things in t h o r i gi nal dra f t proposal t hat he was not in favor of , bu t that h i in fav or of s ome ty pe of requir m nt. Hr. Senti stat d that h felt an irrig tion syst m or sprinkling system is very important in th maint nanc of landscaping. H not d that h liv s in the Kiv , which w r dev lop d by Mr. Allen, nd that a sp r inkling syst m was not part of the 1 nd caping at this d velop nt. Hr. S nti stat d that it would b asier to maintain t h l wn if threw r a sprinkl r syst m install d. Hr. All n di cus d th f s for wat rt ps , a nd th r lation of tho coat to th land c ping , and th ul tima t e cos t of t h units . Hra. B ck rat d that sh und rstood wh nth Co ssion w s d iacu sin th i r wo r k pro ram for thia y ar, th t thia of major interest to th C<>1111ission, d that thia ia why it was pla nth liat of goal • a nd obj ctivea. d. Hr. McBray r ak d for a ahow of h a nds of thoae who w r uing with th p opo d landscaping r gula- ti n? iv y w r int r t din purauing thia matt r; thr w r 1 oppo iti n to th aatter of l ndacapin r • I • • n • • • - -8- Further discuss ion ensued on Question No. I . fe el i t is the responsibility of people wh o t o e nsure there are pleasant ame n ities. Mr . agree it is a responsibility, but urged that Ms. Bee r stat d that she liv and build in a community Allen tated that h would it not b mad a r quirement. Question No. I I was then conside r e d , that ques t ion bing: "For whom are we imposing the landscaping regulations ?" Aga in , th Com is ion felt that land scaping should be required for "future generat ion s" o r poste r ity. Ques tion No. III, "To whom should the regulations apply?" wa s considered . I t was a suggestion tha t low-density residential areas shoul d n o t be requ i r ed t o provide landscaping. Mr. Stoel stated that he did not feel this wa s a r e al problem in the single-family areas. Mr. Carson stated that he fel t this provision should be left in the ordinance, and the public should have an opportunity to comment on it. Mr. McBrayer noted that eliminat i on of s ingle-family areas from the landscaping requirements has tw ice be en v o t e d o n by the Commission. Ms. Becker stated that if the Commission i s , i n dee d, beginning from "scratch" with this discussion, she would agree that this provisi on should be considered and commented on by the general publi c . Mr. Al len reiterated that he felt if the provis ions were to apply t o medium and high density residential, there should be no differentiation between the l ow, medium, and high-density residential districts. He also pointe d out that land c osts in the high-density zoned areas is priced higher than single- family land. Mr . Stoel pointed out that it is the inves tor who develops the med i um and high-density developments, and if it is not feasible, he won't do it. Mr. Allen stated that this is just increasing rental costs for people who cannot afford to buy housing. He again voiced his opinion that the pro- vis ions s hould apply to everyone. Mr. Senti cited a development that Mr. Mc Braye r had done on South Acoma, and the selling price that this propert y brought with the landscaping installed. Mr. Mc Brayer pointed out that t his dev e l o pment was done "to make money", and that if he were doing something on his pe r s onally-owned residenc e, it might be a differe nt matter . Further d is- cussion e n s ue d. Mr. Allen s tated that he f e lt the present regulat ion s , o r lack ther eof , is sat is factory; he would n o t be in favor of r e qu i ring l an d- scaping. Ms . King a s ke d if cos t es timates wo uld be of help t o the Co mm ission. Mr . Bar bre s tated tha t he d i d not fee l that this would be of help a t t h is point. Mr. Ba r b r e stated t hat h e was i n favor of a land scaping ordinance, but that it should not be overly restrictive. Mr. McBray r asked how many m mbers of th Commission wanted to consid r low-d nsity residential in the landscaping provisions? Thre m mb rs in- d iet d thy w re in favor of inclu ion of the low-density rea. Four mem- b r indicat d they wer opposed to th inclusion of the R-1 area in th l nd c ping r quirem nts , and one memb r abs t ained. to 0 dvantag s of landscapin w s t hen discu ssed; trees nd it ms set forth by th staff for discussion . Disadv nta s ntioned by th Commission w re maint n nee and th fact that some an d harbor insects. if there was any program which off rd a sistanc top opl ms of insect s in th ir tr s; Hr. Stoel stat d that h was r - who could not a ford to hir spraying don and could not Mr. Holland s tat d th t infoI'lllation and dvica would b City For star; howev r th oth r typ s of servic which r ferred such as trilllllin , snd spraying, would not b don of • I • • • • • -9- Question No. V. "Ways to get input from the comm unit y ", was then considered. Mr . Stoel stated that he felt there is a need to get people involved at some point before the Public Hearing. Mr. McBrayer discussed the procedure followed in the development adoption of the Bicycle Trail System and the Sign Code. He suggested that possibly some memhers of the Commission would like to work on an ad hoc committee to determine public opinion on the question of land- scaping. Discussion ensued. Mr. Gilchrist stated that he would be willing to serve on the committee provided it was understood that the compliance would be "voluntary". Discussion ensued. Mr. Gilchrist and Mr. Stoel were designated to work on this ad hoc committee. IV . DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans stated that the Parks and Recreation Department is organizing a golf tournament in conjunction with the opening and dedication of the club house, and that the Director of Parks and Recreation has asked for name s of board and commission members who would be interested in participating in the tournament. Mr. Allen indicated that he was interested in the golf tournament. No other member of the Commission indicated they were interested. Mrs . Romans reported on the Promote Englewood committee that Mr . Tanguma is participating in. She stated that this ad hoc committee had its first meeting on July 12th, and it was determined that the committee feels it is very im- portant to publiah a brochure about Englewood. Mr. Haviland has estimated that the brochure could cost approximately $20,000. The next meeting of this committee is scheduled for August 10th. Mrs. Romans reviewed the tentative agenda for the meeting of the Co11DUission on July 20th; there are two public hearings scheduled on amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and the public hearing on the Urban Renewal Plan was continued to that date. There is also a request for a waiver to the Subdivision Regulations that may be considered on this date. V. COMMISSION 'S CHOICE. Mr. Carson stated that he had talked to three people on the Urban Renewal Authority and some of the downtown businessmen, and understands that th re has b en agreemenL on som of the points of difference between th two bodies. H stated that th Plan will no longer be call d the "Urban Renew l Pl n" but r th r will b c lied th "Downtown Pl n". He stated that h und rstood th Urb n R newal Authority and CODA hav m ting scheduled for Thursd y •v ning, the 15th of July. Mr. McBray r st t d th the h d met with City Manager McCown, who expl lned th r mifications if the Urban Renewal Plan is not approved, and dvis d Mr. McBr yer of th m ting that occurred betw en th City Council and EDDA on th 12th of July. H stated that it was also his understanding that th Plan is to b call d th "Engl wood Downtown Development Plan." Mr. McBr yer stat d that h is proud th t th Planning Commission wa in- trum nt ling ttlng thla done. Mr. McBray r stated that Mr. McCown in- diet d h flt th w s v ry good chanc that th EDDA would pr s nt l tt r to th C ion r tracting th r solution th twas pr s nted at th Public H rin July 7th. It app ar th t v rybody is workin to- g th r t this point, nd that with minor chan a, th Plan is acceptabl. Mr. McBray r atim t d that h h d r c iv d 20 phon calls since th etin • I • • n • • • -10- o( July 7th telling him how much they appreciated the respons e of the Com- mission to the concerns voiced at the meeting of July 7th, and that he has had three different Council people call him to tell him that. Mr. McBrayer stated that he thinks the Planning Commission did the right thing. Mr. Holland acknowledged that the Planning Commission was in a very awkward situation at the Hearing on July 7th; he did point out, however, that the objections raised were not to the issue before the Planning Commission, and quoted from the State Stat ute citing the responsibility of the Commission. Mr . Holland stated that Ms. Powers had pointed out to the Commission that the issue before this body is to determine whether the Urban Renewal Plan is in fact, in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr . Holland reiterated that the points raised during the course of the Hearing did not pertain to this issue. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt s001e of the points raised r egardin g slum and blight are of concern to the Commission. Mr. Holland stated that the point made at the hearing was the EDDA did not have control, and were afraid of condemnation. These points did not apply to the issue before the Commission. He stressed that the concern of the Commission is the compatibility of the Plan with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Stoel stated that there were problems that needed to be ironed out . Mr. Holland stated that at the Hearing scheduled for July 20th on the amend- ment of the Zoning Ordinance, he would withdraw as the attorney for the Com- mission, and would present some testimony on case law at that time. Discussion followed. Mr. Holland then reported on the court case involving the City and Rocky Mountain Acquisitions. He stated that the legal staff is attempting to quash the subpoenas of the Commission members, as well as the Hearing scheduled for July 26th. They are asking that a date be set for a hearing on the merits of the case the last part of August or the first part of SepLember. He stated that members of the Commission would not have to appear ln Court on July 26th. Mr. Gilchris t ask d that Commission members give him and Mr. Stoel a written lisL of locations they would lik to see tr es plant din the City of Englewood. Mrs. B k r ext nd d her pologi s for missing th meeting of July 7th; she expl,in d that th r had been an illn ss in th f mily, n cessitating her travel out of th country, and th t things had just not worked out to enable her to ttend them ting. Mrs. Beck r stated that she had injured her ankle during th travel n cessitated by th f mily illnes , nd discussed th probl ms on encount r wh n confin d to wh lchair. Mrs. B cker also ask d if members of th Commission w r still interested in a potluck dinn r th r r id nc th ft moon of July 25th? Th mbers indicated thy are looking forward dinn r. g rding th pr nt tion by memb r of th Mr. McBr yr sk d th t this m tt r 10 tim in Augu t if th ag nd would such a discussion. r di scussion on th cot of constructing • I • • • - • • -11- The meeting adjourned at 10 :15 P.M . • I • • • • • • • - CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 20, 1982 I . CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman McBrayer. Members present: Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Senti Powers, Ex-officio Members absent: Becker, Gilchrist, Stoel Also present: Assistant Director D. A. Romans Economic Development Planner Wm. Richard Hinson City Attorney Rick DeWitt Assistant City Attorney Thomas V. Holland Special Counsel George Zoellner and Brad Breslau Director of Utilities Stu Fonda Urban Renewal Authority Members: Cole, Minnick, Novicky, Mcclung, Powell Board of Adjustment 6 Appeals Member s: Dawson and Hallagin II . COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Amendment of §22.2-6c(2) CASE #9-82 Mr . McB rayer stated that this case before the Commission concerns a pro- posed amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance by adding a new section, §22.2-6c(2). He asked for a motion t o open the Public Hearing. Carson moved: Allen seconded: The Pub lic Hearing on Case #9 -82 be opened . AYES: AYS: ABSENT: Allen, Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Tanguma None B cker, Gilchrist, Stoel Mr. HcBray r stated that the motion c rri d. Mr. HcBray r stated that the legal notice of th public haring w s publi h d in the Engl wood S ntinel on June 30th, nd ask d that the public notic b made a part of the record of this meeting. Hr. HcBr yr lso ask d that the staff r port b made a part of th record. Hr. HcBray r stat d th t th propos dam ndment sets forth criteria to b us d by th Board of Adju tment and App ala in considerfng r qu st1 for vari nc to th Sign Code. Hrs. Beck r nt rd them eting and took hr chair with m mb rs of th Co111111ia1ion. Hr. HcBrayer a1k d that anyone wi1hing to aatt r co forward to th podium and iv th ir 1tat t. Hr. HcBrayer a1k d th t c at h nd • • thil d glv ii u 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 stated 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 from the Commission? Mrs. Becker stated that she felt that 112 should 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 Adjust- ment and Appeals is proper. Carson moved: Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #9-82 be closed. AYES: Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Tanguma, Allen NAYS: None ABSENT: Gilchrist, Stoel The motion carried. Mr. McBrayer asked the pleasure of the Commission on this case? Becker moved: Barbre second d: The Planning Co mmission recommend to City Council that th following am ndment to th Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be approved: f22.2-6c(2) In considering a requ st for a variance to th Sign Cod , 122.7 of the Co mprehensive Zoning Ordin n c , th Board of Adjuat nt and Appals shall determine that: 1. 2. or condition s uch uthoriz d will w ak n neith r th thia Ordinanc nor th regulation, Oietrict in which th ai n ia lo- • I • • -• • - -3- 3. The variance, if authorized, will not al t e r th e essential character of the District in whi c h th e sign is located. 4. The variance, if authorized, will not subs tant ially or permanently injure the appropr iate use of adjacent 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 1111-82 Mr. McBrayer asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Tanguma moved: Carson seconded: The Public Hear i ng on Case 1111-82 be opened. AYES: Carson , McBrayer, Senti, Tanguma, Allen, Bar bre, Becker NAYS: None ABSENT : Gilchris t, Stoel The motion carr ied. Mr. McBrayer s t ated that legal notice of the public hearing appeared in the Englewood Herald Sentinel on Jun e 30, 1982, and asked that t his be made a part of the record of this hearing. Mr. McBrayer sta t ed that the matter before the Commi ssion is a proposed amendment to the Co mprehensive Zoning Ordinance which would exempt public and city-owned utilities from having to comply with the restriction s of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. McBrayer stated that this proposed amendment was discussed previously by the Planning Commission and legal staff, and the public hearing was scheduled to gain in- put from the community. Mr. McBrayer again asked that anyone wishing to address the Commission come foI'\olard to the podium nd identify thems lves nd giv their statement. Mr. McBr yr sked if m mbers of th Commission had any qu stions r rding th taff r port, or ny qu stions of the Planning staff or legal st ff? Mr. Allen sked if trash collection would be term d a "public utility" nd b covered by this proposed am ndment? Mr. McBray r tat d that it would not. Mr. McBray r stat d th t ash reads the proposed m ndm nt, if it is p s d th City of Englewood will not h v to comply with any r strictions of the C pr h n ive Zoning Ordinance if thy wish to construct a public utility in any area; h a k d if this is correct? A sistant City Attorn y Holland stat d that thia 11th wa y h reds th propos d Ordin nc. Mr. McBray r aak d th ataff if thy had anything furth r thy dd t thia point? Mrs. ROlllal\1 aak d that the ataff report b of th r cord of th H arin • to part Mra. B ~ker aak d if th th water tow r could b propoa d ndm nt m ant that a utility auch a built and not m t compli nee of h alth, •• ty, • I • • • • -4- e tc. restrictions ? Mr. Holland stated that City Attorney DeWitt had a s hort 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 Eng l ewo od. He stated that the recommendation from the staff has been mad e t o a pprov e th e propo sed amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mr. DeW i tt stated that he had three people who would address the Comm i ssion on th is matter: Mr, Holland would speak on the matter of exemption of public us es ; Mr. Zoellner, special counsel for the City in relation to the water tower case, would discuss that case; and Mr. Stu Fonda, the Director of Utilities, would address the Commission. Mr. DeWitt asked that Mr. Holland make hi s 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 i s 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 restric tions c ontained in the zoning ordinanc e s . Mr. Holland stated that a governmental function is on the order of police protection, while a propr i etary fun c tion is one from which the municipality can gain revenue. Mr. Holland then briefly reviewed some case law i n Colorado, and cite d Statutes p e rtaining t o this i s sue. He s tated that 30-28-1-10 §1 bas ically provides that no publ ic structure may be built within a county wh e r e there are count y z on i ng regulat i ons unless the pro- posal ha s been s ubm i tte d t o a nd a pprove d by the County Planning Commi ssion; there are exc eptions , how e ve r, wh ic h s tates that if a public s truc ture does not fall within the provi n c e o f th County Commi ss ione r s , and the Count y Planning Commission has d isapproved the request, the local body whi c h s ub- mitted the request may ove rru le the d ecis ion of the County Planning Com- mission. He stated that thi s s tatute has been applied in two c a s e s in Co l o r a do, one with the Lakewo od Sa n itat i on Dis tric t in 1 961, and the s econd bein g the Blue Rive r De ve l op me n t Co mm i tt ee vs, the Town of Silverthorne. Mr. Ho lland then d iscussed s t a tut es whi c h provi de for the exemption of pub lic b uild i ng s or s truc tures f r om zonin g r egu lat ion s through a prov ision c ontaine d in th z on i ng o rd inance, wh en such pu blic bu ildin gs o r s truc tures a r e for the reasonable neces ity , convenienc and welfar of t he pu blic. Mr. Holland c ited som municipal u th t might b exempt from compliance with provi ion of th zoning ordinanc, uch t nks, a municipal gar ge, a parking lot for municipal v hicl , or nd fir facilities . co uns sev ral y ars g n r l coun would con trol p rti 1 xc ption , Zonin g Ordin n c such s propo in constructing public utiliti s. th r is so bl nch authority on th how v r, that th r public utilities th t th Court h not in compli n Zonin • He s t at d that he is matte r s , a nd hash d Water Board t h ir Zo n i n g Ord i nan ce wh ich n p r o v i d f o r e x c ptiona , n am ndment to th th d d fl x i b ility nts . nt i n g a car t poin t d out , n su r such llner stat d City is 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 collapsed, it would drop straight down between the struts which support it . Mr. Fonda stated that with the supporting strut design of the tower, it is 90% open. Mr. Fonda then discussed means of increasing 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 stated that a point to be considered by the Coimnission is that municipal services are different; thes services re not to be compared with a typical drug-store that is not needed on an everyday 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 ha is its independence. Mr. DeWitt stated that the purpose of the propsed amend- ments is to n sure that independence into the next century, and to giv the City the ability to expand and develop logically. Mr. DeWitt stress d th difference betw en the constantly needed municipal services and th typical c ommercial service which is needed intermittently. Mr. McBray r ask d if th re was anyon who wish d to ddress th Co ission regarding th propo d amendment ? No memb r of th audience spok on thia matter. Hr. HcBray r ask d if ther wa s furth r discusaion on th propo al from the Coaaiaaion ? Threw re no furth r co nta b th co .. issi n. Seek r mov d: Carson AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: cond d: Th Public Haring on Cas 111-82 b clos d. McBray r, S nti, T nguma, All n, Barbr , Non Gilchriat, Sto 1 ck r, Carson Th moti n c rri d. d: Th th Ordin r coaaend to Ci ty Co un cil th to th Co111>r h nsiv Zonin • I • • • • - -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 contractors who build or assist in building any City-owned or operated utility. Mrs. Becker spoke in favor of the proposed amendment, statlng that she felt there is a need to protect the public utilities, that she agreed the City 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 carte 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 body --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 to amend the motion to suggest that the following statement be added: "The City must present satisfactory proof to a public hearing body that the proposed City building or structure is reasonably 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 that she did not envision a major utility being in s talled without being closely monitored by the City Council; she noted that it would b extremely expensive, and that major expenditures are required to have Council action. She questioned that any public utility could be installed or contructed without Council approval. Mr. DeWitt noted that th matter of the water tower was before the City wa s th location and construction of a new in th matter of th fir station, th re wa ring to gain public input, but th r t •h would dd d to th Mr. nti call d or th h d indict dad •ir qu ation. to •P k. t th City Co un cil dos h v th means stated lh t th Council p ople do not coamiunlty cont ct, nd r c ive input is ion memb r that it is •uch ntial such Mr. HcBra r r co niz d Mr. All n, who r. All n tat d that h ha n d v lop- • I • • -• • - -7- me nts such as this "string out for years because people had the right to attack it", and gave the Foothills Project as an example. He stated that he did not feel the City should be subjected to this type of problem. The vote on the motion was called: AYES: Senti, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson NAYS: McBrayer ABSENT: Stoel, Gilchrist The motion carried. III . UR BAN RENEWAL PLAN CASE 111 0-82 Mr. McBrayer stated that the Public Hearing on the Urban Renewal Plan was continued from July 7, 1982, and that the Commission had asked that members of the DDA and the Urban Renewal Authority get together to attempt to iron out some of the differences that became apparent at that time. He stated that the goal wa s to gain as much support from as many people as possible for the Urban Renewal Plan. Mr. McBrayer stated that the Conunission has received a list of proposed changes to the Plan, which have been agreed to by the EDDA and members of the Urban Renewal Authority, and asked that this be made a part of the record of this meeting. Mr. McBrayer s tated that the primary purpose of the Commission consideration is to determine whether the Urban Renewa l Plan is in compliance with the Ci ty's Comprehensive Plan. Mr, McBrayer then asked if the staff had any up-date to present on the matter. Mrs. Becker stated that before we get further into testimony from members of the staff and audience, that she would like to apologize for missing the meeting of July 7th due to an illness i n her family ne cessitating her travel out of the country . Mrs. B cke r stated that she had reviewed a draft of the minutes of that meeting, and that it b came apparent to her that many items of di cussion at that meeting w re not pertinent to the issue before the Commission, that being to d termine compliance of th Urban Renewal Plan with the Compreh nsive Plan. She t ted that sh hop d the t stimony offered this evening would more clos ly ddr s the issu at hand --does the Urban Ren wa l Plan comply with th dopt d Compr h nsiv Plan. M. Pow rs stated that s tated that Commission th goal and objectiv th • Sh 1 ) 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 stated 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 delay in the adoption of the Plan which could unfavorably impact the downtown development efforts. The City Council would request favorable action by the Planning Commission on the Plan at this meeting. Mayor Otis stated that it is his understanding that the EDDA will be presenting to the Commission during the course of this meeting, a resolution which will rescind the resolution opposing the Plan they pre- sented on July 7th. Mayor Otis stated that the City Council would like to point out that the issue before the Planning Commission is consideration of whether or not the Urb an Renewal Plan/Downtown Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and that other issues are not under consideration at thi s time. Mr. Otis stated that he would lik to clarify the urgency for approval of the Plan. He stated that on January 19, 1981, Brady Enterprises, EDDA and the City of Englewood entered into an agreement to prepare a redevelopment plan for the City; Design Workshop, Inc. was selected to prepare the plan. Mayor Otis stated that this was done with the recognition of all parties concerned that furth rd terioration in the downtown area was occurring. In November, 1981, the Planning Com- mission and City Council amended the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the downtown goals nd objectives, and the EDDA and City Council approved the Downtown Plan. It was at this point that th determination was mad to reactiv te th Urban Ren wal Authority , which was done for th primary purpos of providin a financing v hicl for th public projects n d d as outlined in th Downtown Plan. Th condary purpo e, was that th Urb an Ren w 1 Authorit wa to activ ly assist in th implementation of the Plan. Mayor Otis s tated that land acquisition my only be don with the approval of th City Council; th Urban Rn wal Authority cannot do so on its own. Th City ng g d Wright-McL ughlin Engineers to begin d sign work on th improv nt of Littl Dry Cr k. Mayor Otis stress d th t th 100-ye r flood pl in on Littl Dry Cr k mus b liminated throughout th City, and th t nothin c n occur in the downtown ar unl s and until thes improv menta are m d • Th d sign choa n for improvem nt on Littl Dry Cr k calla for an op n c hann l throu h th downtown area, with oth r wt r f turea incorporat d into th d aign sth tic purpos Th City is din on a d v lopm nt with Brady Ent aettin r qutr m nta nd rol I m mb r of this nt. Th Urb Pl n/R d v lop nt Pl n dopted b for th Tri- ia approv d and ai n d, d v lop r's agr nt th Tax Iner n nda c n b ,old, the Plan muat b Diatrict ailt b c rtifi d to th County no • I • • • • • -9- later than September 15th if we are to take advantage of the assessment increases this year. Mayor Otis stated that a good numb er of people have pu t in many hours working on the development of this program , and that he fel t everyone had to work together, and that mutual trust must be i n evidence if we expect to reach our goal. He acknowledged that "all of u s may have to make some sacrifices", but the City would gain from t he redevelopment program . Mayor Otis reiterated that the only question before the Planning Commission is whether the Urban Renewal Plan is con sistent with the Co mpre- hensive Plan, and stated that the City Council requ ests favorab le approval by the Commission. Mr . Ta nguma noted that Mayor Otis had stated that the City Cou n cil is the only body with the right to exerc ise eminent doma in; he noted a sta t ement that sta tes the City Council OR Urban Renewal Authority will be required to acquire title to privately owned land~ he stat ed that he felt the inclusion of the word "OR" was giving away that right of the Ci t y 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 City Cou n cil . Ms. Powers stated that the Urban Renewal Authority would step in only on authorization and request of the Ci ty Council, and that acquisition of any parcel of land must be on a case-by-case approval and resolution of th City Council. Mr. All n as ed for explanation of Tax Increment Bonds. Mayor Otis stated that nc a Tax Increment District is formed, th tax revenues would be frozen at th pr sent level; any increase in revenues would b used to re- tir th Tax Iner ment Bonds. Hr. Rob rt G. Powell 0 South Kalamath Street -addressed the Commis ion. Mr . Powell stated that he is Chairman of the Urban Renewal Authority, and r d the following statement: "Th En lewood Urban Ren wal Authority is pl as d to announc that it has arriv data tentative agreement with the Engl wood Downtown Developm nt Authority on ending controversial aspects of the Englewood Urban Renew l Pl Th se asp cts w re brought out at a public haring on th Plan h ld Plannin and Zoning Coaaission on July 7, 1982. Through this past • ri s of etings hav b n held among City Council , EDDA, and Urb n b rs to iron out th probl m. A k yr sult of th mphasis on EDDA p rticip tJon in th has be n chang d to th En lewood lo - m nt Plan. more accurst ly r fl cts th r lianc priv t d velopers and busin ssmen for 1 nd cquiaition and impl m ntati on of the majority of th propos d action Th Urb n Rn wal Authority w 1- co the newly formulated partn rship with EDDA and th City ao that mis- cone ptions about the Plan c n b corr ct d ands s pirit of community involv - ment can b g n rat d for th red v lopm nt of Downtown Engl wood. Th Urban Rn wal Authority agr s that th a c hang a tha r propos d raak th Down- town R d velopm nt Plan conaiat nt with th City C mpr h nliv Plan." • 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 pre sented on J uly 7th. Mr. Gasson s tated that there are still some areas of c oncern, but the EDDA Board f eels c omfortable wi th the Plan, and would like to endorse i t. Mr. Harry Fleenor 3383 South Corona -Mr. Fleenor s tated that he ha s lived in th Englewood area f or man y years , and rec alle d h is s upport of the Cinderella City propo s al when i t was initially slated f or construc tio n on t he f ormer ICL Z tower s s ite . One o f the benefits and advantage s ci t ed by t he pro ponents of t he Cinde r e lla Ci t y Shopping Center wa s that t he tax bas fo r t he cit y wou ld i n c r ease ; t h o pponent s felt that i t wou l d not , an d t hat t he "old d owntown En glewood a r ea would rot away"; h s t a t e d t ha t whil this a r ea has s u ffe r d some d t e r iorat i on, he doe s not feel that i t h s rott d away, an d can be salvaged if ac t ion i s take n now . He s t a t ed t hat h was in favor of the construction of Cinderella City Shop p i ng Center, and h is in favor of th downtown d velopment proposal at this tim. Mr. Fl enor stated that there re vacant buildings in th down town a r a, and h f ls th pro- poa d redev lopm nt pl n would incr as th tax b a for th City again. Mr . J. D. Pe re documents to th should accept th Mr. McBr yer 11t P arc want to Planning Commi complianc with Hr. ar to th to ddr ss th Commis ion , and to pr nt copi o iaaion. Mr. All n stat d that h flt th Commission Mr . P rce wa n t to pres nt. in h arin what Mr. that th job of th lop nt Plan 1 in f la th upportive h haa pr ant d for the Co1m1iaaion. ha h would lik on th ffect th action of th City Council, i n ia approv d, would hav n hia buain aa , and on th ir Mr. P arc atat d that h nd hi• fath r ar a Ciliated r , )427 South Aco11a Str Th bu1in 11 • and • 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 reasonab le design can be built and occupied before improvements are made to Little Dry Creek . Mr. Pearce cited the Downtown Redevelopment Plan (Urban Renewal Plan), wherein it is stated that there ma y be occasions when the City o r the Urban Renewal Authority will be required to acquire title to privately 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 eliminated, and consideration was centered on Alternates 3 and 4. Alternative #3 was 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 wip e out 15 Englewood businesses encompassing 250 years of retail experience, and that the oldest retail business in the City would be eliminated. Mr. Pearce sta ted that if the Planning Commssion approves the Downtown Re develop- ment Plan, this will be "rubber stamping" the City Council 's decision to pursue only the one avenue of flood control on Little Dry Creek. Mr. Pearce discussed the course of the channel improvements on Li ttle Dry Creek as proposed in Alternate #3 . Mr. Pearce pointed out that by choosing Alternative #3 , the s tructures and businesses in the 3400 block of South Acoma may be condemned and/or destroyed without provision of a timely or s uitable r e- location plan. Mr. Pearce stated that Councilman Ne al made a motion on June 7, 1982, which motion was passed, that the City proceed on the basis to de sign and build Option #3 on the Little Dry Creek Improvements; thi s was the n amended to hold a Public Hearing on the matter on June 28th; how- ever, Mr. Pearce stated that it wa s reaffirmed to him prior t o the meeting of J un e 28th by member s of the City Council that they had already chosen Alternative 113 . Mr. Pearce sta ted that while the City Council may have led members of the Commission to believ that only Al t e rnat iv 113 is con sis tent with the Plan , he felt that Alt mate 14 should be con sid red. Alternate #4 calls for a covered conduit, which would be a continuation of the existing cov ered con- duit, and would end t Hampden Place. Open chann 1 improvements would b made further up-stre m. Mr. Pearce referred to a copy of a memo from th D sign Advisory Committ nd Wright-McL ughlin Engin ers which indicates th t th water featur • could be incorporated in both alternativ s 83 and #4, nd th t furth rmor , Altern te #4 provid b tt r access b twe nth shops, nd provld s good ss to the mall. Alt rnst #4 is lso 1 ss xp nsiv than Alt Alternativ 14 deprive the busin s - m non South Acoma Str t of th ir plac of , would solv th flood control probl m, nd atill allow for so atures, and would b con i t nt with th id ala nd d air s of busin ssmen. Mr. P arc point d out that if the Downtown Rd v lop nt Plan is pprov din its pr s nt form, th City Council will hav no re son to pur u furth r solutions to th flood plain probl m, nd th t th Engl wood Hardwar would hav to clo1 its doors aft r 72 y are of doing business in th t lo ca tion. Mr. John Perce, Engl p r di CUIS d th th if th Urb n Dry Cr k auat b • d th Hr. It t d of Lit ntlr 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 Co u rt on cond emnation, the City would have immediate possession . Mr. Pearce s t a t e d that they were led to believe that the City Council had not made any decisions regarding improvements on Little Dry Creek; however, after readin g the Minutes of June 7th, it was apparent that the City Council had given approval to Alternative #3. This was well before the June 28th Public Hearing on the improvement of Little Dry Creek; Mr. Pearce corroborated the statement by J.D. Pearce that at a study session on June 28th at 5:30 P.M., members of the City Council indicated that their minds were 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 definit ion of double jeopardy would be 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 was the City Councilman from District #3 , and stated that he would like to point out that Alternative #3 and #4 both require the same amount of land acquisition. Mr. Higday stated that he fe lt there were other statements made by representatives of Englewood Hard- ware that were misleading and inaccurate, but he would not go into that be- cause i t was not relevant to the issue at hand. Mr. Higday stated that speaking for himself, h e wanted to assure the representatives of Englewood Hardware and nyone else that this Plan has b en pursued with impeccable integrity, total honesty , and that this will continue in this manner. He stated that there is huge support from the citizens on this project. Mr.. Higday stated that whil it t ook a great deal of time and comp r omise, he felt the concerns of the EDDA have been d alt with, and that after every meeting, the bodies involv d have been able to compromis and will continu to do so. Mr. Higday s ured that no one's land would b tak n from th m unless it is pprov d by City Council, nd only th n would a •ini Ulll amount of land be tak n. Mr. Higday stated th tit is th int nt of v ry council member that the raid nti 1 charact r of Englewood b pr serv d. Hr. Higday reiter t d th t the City will not bet king l nd if it is not and then only by City Council decision. Hr. Higd y Council wants tom ke sur that the prop rty own r mark t valu for th ir land, and i willing to buy own r's choic in th City of Engl wood d giv th Cou ncil is lao willing to participat to a r on bl th bu ins a th t r directly ff ct d by this. Hr. Higday stat d that th int nt is not to h nn anyon • Hr. Higday discuss d th proc ss that wa nt il din th d v lopm nt of Cind r lla City; h noted that th down - town Engl wo d r h d t riorated, partly b caua of th imposition of th ahoppin d that 11 of th r aid nts in ngl d want so thing d n • y tated that this rd v lop nt proj ct is not goin to "g t out Hr. Higday stat d nt d to promh that I • • I r _ • • • -13- the members of the Englewood City Council and the City staff will be honest, open , and willing to help in e veryway possib le on this project. Mr . Fred Kaufman stated that he is a member of the EDDA Board, and has been involved in the redevelopment project since its inception . Mr. Kaufman stated that he has been in business in Englewood for many years, and feels that h is business has added something to Englewood. Mr. Kaufman s t ated that plans for the improvement of Englewood have been worked on for man y yea rs, and that a solution to the problems facing downtown Englewood mu st be reached. Mr. Kaufman stated he does bel i eve in the City Council 's avowal that they will do what is needed as far a s relocation is concerned and reaching an amiable solution with the displaced tenants and property own e rs. He does feel these people will be taken care of properly. Mr. McBrayer asked if anyone else wished to s peak ? The r e was no one else present who wished to addre ss the Commission. Carson moved: Becker seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. AYES: NAYS: Senti, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Be c ker, Carson, McBrayer None ABSENT: Stoel, Gilchrist The motion c arried. Mr. McBrayer asked the pleasure of the Commission? Carson moved: Becker s e conded: The Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the Englewood Downtown Redevelopment Plan, as amended, does c omply with the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1979; the Planning Commission asks that the City Council approv the Englewood Downtown Redevelopment Plan, as amend d. Mr . Tanguma s tate d he wished th is decision did not hav to be so difficult; he stated he liked the Plan, but feels the decision and r commendation should cov r more than the narrow concept of whether or not the Pl n compli s with th Comprehensive Plan. He would like to see a recomm ndation mad to City Council that they consider a chang in the s ction pertaining to Land Acquisition, particularly that dealing with emin nt domain, and that the recommend tion stat that only the City Council may ex rcise the right of min nt domain. H felt it should be more specifically st forth wh r the City may us minent domain, that th prop rty be h ld for public use, nd that th right of minent domain not xt nd b yond that n eded in the Littl Dry Cr k are , so that ad veloper may not us min nt dom in as am ans to acquir prop rty. Mr . B ck r st ted sh h d und rstood Mayor Otis to Council is th only body that ha th authority to min nt d in. tat that th City x rcis th r1ght of Hr. Holland stat d that Mayor Otis quot d from th Plan wh n h s id that no prop rty aay b acquir d without th approval of City Council by re olu ion. ~r. T n aa aak d what obj ction th r tton into thia • ction of th Pl n, could b to incorporating hi• au - H xpr •• d cone rn abou ch • 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 further 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. Rolland 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 pr sented this evening b read for the benefit of th audienc Mr. McBrayer pointed out that the Public H ring is now closed, and th t Mrs. Holthaus should hav made hr r qu st b fore closing th Haring. Hr. J . D. Perce asked if the Planning Commission had rad th resolution ? Hr. HcBray r stated that th c opy of th resolution w pr sent d to th er tary; th Planning co .. isaion do hav th t stimony of Hr. Gas on that opposition to th Pl n by th EDDA wa withdr wn and the Plan, a nd d, w s now support d by th EDDA. Hr. Hr. tated that p ople hav indicat d th t thy C lt th Planning d gott n of( th subj ct of th matter b fore them by allowing probl 1th th Urb n Ren wal Plan. H st ted h felt Commi11ion, by encouragin b tt r communica tion b tw en Urban Rn wal Authority, th EDDA, and oth rs, y hav giv n the Plan tt r ov r 11 chanc of u c as . McBr Y r C 11 d for th vot on th motion. T B rbr , 8 k r, C r on, HcBray r, S nt1 Cilchria aott n C rri d. r call d • r 0 th in • • I • • • • - -15- The meeting reconvened with the following members present: Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Senti Absent: Stoel, Gilchrist V. PUBLIC FORUM. Mrs. Becker discussed her concerns about business people who may be displace d under the redevelopment program. She stated her belief that these business es should remain in Englewood and not be forced to seek accommodations in 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 Cou ncil, and everyone concerned would consider all possibilities. Mr . McBrayer noted that there are several vacant buildings on South Broadway in the 3400 block; he asked if it might be satisfactory for 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 hardwar e 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 r eloca tion for the 15 businesses that will be destroyed by Little Dry Creek Alternative HJ has been addressed. Mr. J. O. Pearce stated he felt the businesses in the 3400 block of South Acoma were unique. One of the main problems facing these businesses is th "double move" --first to temporary quarters if they can be found, and th n back to the redeveloped area. Re stated that a doub le mov e would be v ry impractical for the Hardware Company. Mr. Pearce further discu ssed his concerns with the displacement of the busin sses and the relocat ion. H stated thy would welcome creative suggestions from anyone on this problem. Mr. McBray r aug eat d that it 11ay b too early in th planning of this pro ram to t down tor location sp cific R not d that th tax district &till has to b formed. H atat d h felt th r would b many mor tings and discusaiona before the actual point of r location begin • Discusaion follow d. Ms. Pow rs revi d the study don 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 questionnaire 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 such 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 busines s operation must have to be able to locate another site for that business. Discussion followed. Ms. Becker stated she foresaw a lot of work ahead, and pointed out that there must be a degree of compromise on all sides 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 were chos n, only a couple of feet off the rear of their property would be re- quired. Ms. Powers pointed out that Urban Drainage personnel are not the design engine rs on the Little Dry Creek proj ct, and that it has been estimated that at least 10 feet into the building would be required with 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 thy r locat d ? Mr. Pearce discussed th forth by th National Hardwar Aasociation, which by wh th r th location is rural or metropolitan, nd high or low proc de from th bu in as. Mr. McBray r ask d if it would b for th Planning Commission to tran mit to City Council along with th resolution approving th Plan, a 1 tter explaining th concerns of th Pl nning Commission bout the reloca- tion pl n, asking for at ntativ ch dul , nd urging that a r location plan b approv d. Ms. Pow rs stat d that sh did not b 11 ve such an action on the part of th Collllllission would do ny hara, but point d out that th adoption of the Urban newal Pl / t Plan and a relocation plan ar p rat issu s. Mr. HcBray r tat tin • Oise Authority, by pl Sh al in th Urb n nt • I • • • • • -17- Plan as approved by the Planning Co11D11ission. She noted that a relocation plan would be a document separate and distinct from the Redevelopment Plan. She stated that the relocation plan does have specific standards set forth 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 requi re- ments of the Urban Renewal Authority. Mrs. Becker stated she felt the concerns of the Planning Co11D11ission s hould 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 discuss. Mrs. Romans stated the Proaote Englewood Committee will have their next meeting on August 10th. The Landscaping Coaaittee will aeet on July 22nd at 7:30 A.H. The next aeeting of the Planning co .. ission will be August 3rd . VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. McBrayer stated that the Quilt Display Case is under construction, and will be installed this week. Mr. McBray r stated that after all the bills are in, he would let the C<>11111isaion memb rs know what their share is. Mrs. Becker reminded Coaaisaion members and staff of the potluck dinner at her house on July 25th at 4:00 P.M. The eting adjourn d at 10:05 P.H. I • • ~- • • • • MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCI L REGARDIN G ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONIN G 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 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be approved: §22.2-6c(2) In considering a request for a variance to the Sign Cod e , §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 o f buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lot s or within the adjacent public right-of-way, which would substant i ally restric t the effectiveness of the s ign i n question; provided, however, that such special circumstanc es or conditions must be peculiar to the part i cular bus i ness or enterprise to which the applicant des i res t o draw attention, and do not apply gen e rally t o all business e s or enterprises. 2 . The variance, i f authorized will weaken ne i ther the gene ral purpos e o f this Ordinanc e nor the regulat ion s prescr i bed for the Di s trict i n wh i ch the sign is lo- c ated. 3. The va r iance , if authorized, wi ll n o t alter the essent ial cha r acter of the Dist rict in which the sign is located . 4. Th variance, if authoriz d , will not s ubstantially or p rman ntly injure th appropriate u e of adjac nt con- forming property . AYES: Beck r, Cars on, McBrayer, S nti, Tanguma , Allen , B rbre NAYS: on ABSENT: Gilc hri s t, Sto 1 Th motion c arri d. By Order of th City Planning and Zonin g Comniaaion . • I • • n • • • • 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 Comaission recommend to City Council that the following amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be approved. §22.1-8 Applicability of Regulations. The regulatioos, 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. AYES: Senti, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson NAYS: McBrayer ABSENT: Stoel, Gilchrist The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Colllldssion. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary • • I • • - • • • • MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DATE: July 20, 1982 SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION: Carson moved: Becker seconded: Compliance of Englewood Downtown Redevelopment Plan with the Comprehensive Plan The Planning Conanission reco111111end to the City Council that the Englewood Downtown Redevelopment 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, KcBrayer, Senti NAYS: Allen ABSENT: Stoel, Gilchrist The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Conanission. ~~4~.1:4-Certrude G. Welty 7 Recording Secretary • I • • - • • Resolution No. Series of 1982 • • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO Planning and Zoning Commission A RESOLUTION OF THE ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING 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 Co11DDission for review and recomnendations 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 Co11111ission. 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 recouaendation for approval of the Downtown Redevelopment Plan shall be forwarded to the Englewood City Co un cil. ADOPTED AND APPROVED THIS 20th day of July, 1982. ~w,,M~ Chairman ATTEST: ~~4-cretary • I • • - • • • • WATER AND SEWER BOARD August 3, 1982 Regular Meeting The meeting was called to order at 5:10 p.m. Stewart Fonda declared a quorlffll present. s n Members present: Cook, Best, Fitzpatrick, Fullerton, Giseburt Members absent: Also present: Haviland, Higday, Otis, Lay Stewart Fonda, Director of Utilities Gordon Nelson, Evergreen Metropolitan District Paul Cockrel, Attorney for Evergreen Metropolitan Ted Campbell, Blatchley and Associates 1) EVERGREEN METROPOLITAN DISTRICT. Paul Cockrel of Evergreen Metropolitan District presented a proposal for exchanging water and storage rights Evergreen would acquire from Denver in exchange for an additional interest in HcBroom Ditch. Paul Cockrel stressed the deadline for Evergreen to participate in the Denver program is September 7, 1982. The Board expressed an interest in considering Evergreen's written proposal, when submitted. Evergreen is interested in our intentions to use as a basis for their decision with Denver. Stewart Fonda discussed the advan- tages and disadvantages of the project. It was the opinion of the Board they would be receptive to further discussion if a proposal was submitted. Don Fullerton suggested copies of this proposal, when received, be sent to City Council for review. 2) SOUTHGATE SUPPLE MENT #95. Mr. Fonda reviewed Southgate Sanitation District's request to annex 8.668 acres to the district. This property is under contract to Mr. Frank Progar, who intends to construct 42 cus tom attached and detached single family units. The units will vary from 2,200 sq. ft. to 4,500 sq. ft. Inclusion of this land does not increase the nllllber of taps allocated to Southgate. Mr. Fullerton moved; Mr. Fitzpatrick seconded: To rec nd to Council approval of Supplement #95 to Southgate Sanitation District. Pag 1 of 3 • I • • • Ayes: Nays : Members absent: Motion carried. • • • Cook, Best, Fitzpatrick, Fullerton, Giseburt None Haviland , Higday, Ot i s, Lay 3) WRIGHT-MCLAUGHLIN PROPOSAL ON BOREA S PASS. Stewart Fonda rev i ewed with the Board a propo s al by Wright Mc-Laughlin Engineers to study improvements needed to develop the water rights on Boreas Pass . A motion was made that Ci ty Coun ci l approve the Boreas Pass study, the cost of wh i ch is not to ex ceed $6,000.00 . Mr. Giseburt moved; Mr. Fullerton seconded : Ayes : Nays : Members ab s ent : Motio n carried. Tha t Ci ty Coun ci l approve the Wright- Mc Laughlin proposal to study improvements needed to develop the City's water rights on Boreas Pass, the cost of which is not to exceed $6,000.00. Cook, Best, Fitzpatrick, Fullerton, Giseburt None Havi l and, Higday, Otis, Lay 5) CL AY STR EE T WA TER US ER S ASS OCI ATIO N. There was a ge nera l discussion on American Colemen's request for an addition to their existing service. The Board concurred the matter be tabled. Mr. Giseburt moved; Hr. Fullerton seconded: Ayes: Nays : Absent : Motion carried. To table the Clay Street Water Users Association request for additi ona l taps for future discussion. Cook, B st, Fitzpatrick, Fullerton, Gfseburt No Havil1nd, Higd1y, Otis, L1y Pag 2 of 3 • I • • In -r., -• • • 6) GREENBELT SANITATION DISTRICT. Stewart Fonda updated the Board on Greenbelt's response to the letter sent by the Board to Greenbelt in July. 7) SHERMAN TANK WATER TOWER UPDATE. Stewart Fonda updated the Board on the litigation status of the water tower. General discussion followed. Mr. Fonda will infonn the Board of any developments. The meeting adjourned at 6:38 p.m. The next Englewood Water and Sewer Board meeting will be September 14. 1982 at 5:00 p.m. in the Library Conference Room A. Respectfully submitted. ~ fL-r Cathy Burrage Recording Secretary Page 3 of 3 I • • - • • • • • SE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Susan Powers, Director of Couaunity Development ,.,drr -.. , D:·A: Romans, Assistant Director -Planning Division August 9, 1982 SUBJECT: ALI-ABA Land Planning Conference The report on the ALI-ABA Land Plan.~ing and Regulation of Development is attached. Becauae of the nature of the aaterial presented at the meeting, I have gone into 11<>re detail oo. aoae of the issues which are being or have be!n considered in Englewood. ~ Going to a conference such as this seems to put so many of the situations in Englewood into a different perspective. One soon finds that very few issues are unique to our city; other municipalities sll over the United States are addreaaing the aaae issues: adult businesses, billboards, re- developaent, condoainiua coo.versions, the need for flexibility in land use regulation• and on and on. It is always helpful to hear how others handle these matters --what worlul and what doesn't work. Now that so aany issues are prone to litigation, it behooves all of us to be aore aware. gw • I • • • • • - A REPORT ON THE LAND PLANNING AND REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE. The Land Planning and Regulation of Development Conference was held in Boston, Massachusetts, June 3 thru 5th. The Conference was sponsored by the American Law Institute and American Bar Association, and co-sponsored by the Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education -New England Law Institute, Inc. The topics which were addressed included: 1. The Rights and Responsibilities of "Unpopular" Land Uses. 2. Billboards and Other Unspeakable Acts. 3. Urban Renewal Revisited: New Legal Issues in Central City Revitalization. 4. Will the Courts Say Yes to the No-development Alternative? 5. Chopping Up Space and Time: Regulatory Issues. There were nine persons on the faculty: four were practicing attorneys, two professors of law, one a City Attorney from Sanibel, Florida, an Assistant Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and an instructor in the Graduate School of Urban Design at Harvard University in my opinion, the most effective speaker. Let me say at the outset that, as to two of the subjects in which I was specifically interested --signs/billboards and adult uses, it was obvious that our own Tom Holland is as well-briefed on the subjects as any member of the faculty. 1. Unpopular Uses. The list of things people don't like is growing, and the problem is that lmost everything on the 11 tis essential to our society: group ho s, homes for unwed mothers, (water t<Ners), landfill, etc. People re more politically astute and are willing to fight local issues with th ame verve once res rved for abortion and nuclear disa nt. Th p ople making th decisions, the City Council, live in the coaaunity and are nee asarily politically sensitiv and sometimes find it n cesaary to tak the course of 1 ase resistance. Others t ke th "less sophisticated" approach and take th position "au us if you don't lik it." This is OK for the wealthy neighbor- hood or wealthy developer, but the quasi-governmental ag ncies sponsoring the group home , etc. can't always afford to fight. Manufactur d housin& has the s ae uniformity of construction stan- dards as a site-built house, it 1a difficult to lagialate it out, and most of the recently 'built units do conform to local codea. Th beat thing to do is try to locate the so they don't intrude into n ighbor- hoods of "high r valu ho-•;" but it is inconsistent to li•it th• to I • • • • • • -2 - e x c lus i ve subdivisions with park-l ike settings. People want to pl a ce them on individual lots and the argument tends to prevail. They c an- not be regulated to industrial zones or other unsatisfactory areas • •• Group Homes is a generic term applied to a home for six, eight, or ten handicapped persons --often young people --who have physic al or mental problems, are in penal or c orrectional custod i an s h i p, i n dru g rehabilitation programs, etc. The group homes are resisted s omewhat unevenly --some types are more a c ceptable than others. The gre ates t c oncern is with the mentally disturbed who are seen as an intrus i on i nto the "fabric and tranquility" of the neighborhood. It is eas i er to get a group home for the physically handicapped accepted into a ne i ghbor- hood than a home for the mentally ill or emotionally d is turbed . The problem arises when the neighborhood capacity t o re sist is pitted against the local officials' desire to cooperate with the s pon sor ing o r ganization. The Courts have gone two ways: one, finding there is an overri d i ng public purpose and a duty to assimilate the people with a c onvnona lit y of purpose i nto a neighborhood, but poss i bly restricting the number to six, eight or ten persons. A second direction taken by the Court s was i n Ha i ne, in which instance the Court decided tha t the people i n these c ircumstances are not a "family". The Courts usually give deference to local control, but most of the facilities are serving regional needs --not strictly local needs. I t gets down to social needs vs. the powers of local government and i n the case of regional social needs, the loca l unit may ha ve the po wer, but not the responsibility. Th e p r oblem was analy zed, but n o fi rm solut i on gi ven. This is an issue which will have to be addr essed i n t he con siderat ion of Englewood 's revised Zon i ng Ordinance ba sed on a pp licable Sta te regulations and Court decisions . As stated above , the decisions have gone both ways, and it will be important to presen t a "rational basis" for our determination. Englewood has had everal group home ; one has be n of particular concern to some of the neighbors. One possibility may be to require them to be dispersed • •.• Hazardous Waste facilities ar undergoing an e x plosion of litigation. They have come t o b e reg ionally n cesaary, but locally objectionable, and numerous citations ar available froaa N w Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhod Island , etc. The e x clusion of Low an d Mod e r ate Housing has been litigated numerous times; in fact, fiv pag s of references were listed. Th peaker dwelt on U.S. v s Pal'll&, 661 Fe d . 2nd 562 198 1 , wh ich was a fair hou aina case inv olvin g a co111111un ity on tha ou tsk irts of Cleveland with a population of 100,000 p ople --50 of the• b lack, Th City refua d to pass a resolu tion ''welcoain& to the City of Paras, all persona of good will." Th failure to approv tha resolu tion i ndicated • I • • 2. • • • - -)- intentional discrimination. The problem went on with the City re- fusing to achieve housing goals, answering "O" when asked the City's goal for low-income housing in the next 12 months, and on and on. The relief: Parma was required to develop an educational program for its officials, adopt a resolution welcoming persons of all creeds and color, and to reaffirm nondiscrimination in housing, to take out news- paper ads and to distribute copies of the Court decision, take action to apply for funds for housing, adopt a plan for Section 8, a nd severa l other measures that should have taught them a lesson . Other cases cited all lead to one conclusion: a City cannot intentionally exclude or di~criminate because of race, creed, or income, and must strive for a balanced coaaunity, (renters were not specifically addres sed), and a City has an obligation to take its fair share of low-cost housing. I would say Englewood is in good shape, and has a very envi able attitude. Billboards and Other Unspeakable Acts. The Courts scrutinize: Content-based restrictions; Time, place or manner restrictions; and Total ban in cases involving such uses as nude dancing and billboards under the doctrine of freedom of speech. We were advised to use visua l materials in litigation and the instructor did so. Comparing in my mind the description of "our BUSI NESS" given in testimony at our hearings, I would say that an adult business in San Diego is an adult busines s in Englewood, and all of th things th police officials described in more or le s d tail were shown in the slides. (The agenda stated that no minors w r to be admitted to the session.) This con- firmed to me that the Police D partment 's concerns expressed at our hearings are very real --this is big busin sa and w 11-organized throughout th Country. Furth r, aa to adult businesses , w w r told that in th ap aker'a opinion, th Supr me Court d cisiona hav b n bas don the wrong facts. An ab olut ban on liv enc rtainment cannot b justifi d, but obsc ne c tivity should not be call d "nud dancin " wh n it iii not "dancing". Th speaker dmonish d that th towns should hav found out what was oing on wh n the adult busin ss open d, and bann d all obscen activity b cause obscenity ia not protect d. on-obacen acta, using th average-p raon-applying-coaaunity-atandarda doctrin , is protected. ln the ca e o! "Claudio ", the woun who worlt d 1n th buaine a in San Diego, ah worlt din the nude, but ah wasn't dancing. In Engle- wood, in reapon to a qu ation fro• th Planning Colllli11ion about what goea on in th booth , the r pr entativ of th adult buain 11 1aid th woaan wa givin s x education le11ona. In one co1111Unity, th 1tr t providin ace 11 to th parking lot tor th adult bu a in w a aade on -way a atn t turna froa th djac nt • I • • • • • ,· • -4- arterial ---the you-can't-get-there-from-here traffic theory. The study outline on Metromedia, Inc. vs. City of San Diego was pre- sented by Anne Rogers, Assistant Attorney General, CoDDDonwealth of Massacuhsetts. In Metromedia, a plurality of the Supreme Court set First Amendment limits on the regulation of billboards. The Court adopted a bifurcated approach whereby it examined separately the im- pact of the San Diego ordinance on commercial speech and noncommercial speech. A majority of the Court found the ordinance unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's analysis evaluated the San Diego ordinance separtely for its effect on co11111ercial and noncommercial speech. The four-part test set forth in Central Hudson v. Public Service CoDDD'n. 447 U.S. 557 (1980) was the standard of review of the effect of a restriction on conaercial speech: 1. Protection is afforded only to messages which are not misleading and not related to unlawful activity. (This was not at issue in Metromedia). 2. The issue must implement a substantial governmental interest. The Court accepted traffic safety and the appearance of the City as substantial governmental interests. These in- terests have been accepted in at least three other cases, the citations for which are available. 3. The restriction must directly advance the governmental interest. The Court found the ban on off-preaia coaaercial signs to directly advance the interest of traffic aafety on three grounds: The purpose of billboard• ia to attract th driver's attention. The legislative judgment that billboards are distracting is not unrea enable; and Many courta hav found billboards to be real and substantial hazarda. In John Donn lly and Sons, Inc. v. Caapb 11 (citation available) the Court aaid that a substantial connection betw en the r atriction and traffic safety aust b shown ---includin that off-preaise aigna are aor hazardous th n on-preai • aigna. 4. Th re triction hould be no broad r than n ca ary to aerv ita purpoae. Th plurality found th t, •• a r ult of th C ntral Hudaon analyaia, off-aita co ... rcial billboard• aay ba prohibited. At th a ti .. , on-aite c rcial billboard• aay b peraittad • I • • rt • • • - -5- The rationale supporting the off-site/on-site distinction was that a municipality may reasonably decide that businesses and the public have a stronger interest in identifying busi- nesses than the municipality has in regulating signs. The plurality's basis for finding the restriction on noncommercial speech unconstitutional is specific to the case: if there is a standard of review, it must be inferred. The restriction may not give greater protection to commercial speech than to noncommercial speech. The restriction may not distinguish between different non- commercial messages. Two substantial problems are left unresolved by Metromedia according to Ms. Rogers: 1. The difference between commercial and noncommercial speech was not stated or defined in Metromedia, and 2. Determining what the difference is will be important to those who draft ordinances regulating commercial and noncommercial speech differently. Other cases cited which address the issues decided by Metromedia were: John Donnelly and Sons, Inc. v. Campbell, 639 F. 2d 6, 11 (lat Cir. 1980), aff'd. aea., 49 U.S .L.W. 3978 (July 2, 1981). Oklahoma v. Pile, 603 P, 2d 337 (Okla. 1979) Cert. den. 49 U.S.L.W . 3979 (July 2, 1981). Baldwin V. Redwood City, 540 F. 2 d 1360 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. den., 431 U.S. 931. City of Lakewood v. Colfax Unlimited Ass'n.1 Inc., 634 P. 2d 52 (Colo. 1981). City of Lakewood provides guidelines for restrictions on noncommercial speech and was cited as a valuable case for those seeking practical guidanc The court approved th following restriction& on signs carrying ideological speech: Size, type, and setback r quir ments. Prohibition of political aigna in resid ntial, agricultural and conservation zoned districts. The court disapprov d provisions concerning ideological ape ch which exeapted soae ideological si1ns froa th definition of "sign", while not euapting others. Th court found that th city could ex mpt id ological aiana, I • • r • • - -/,- uniformly , from all or some regulations that apply to commercial signs, i.e., exemption of political signs from a l l r es t riction s except that limiting the zoning districts in which they could be placed. Citing Donnelly, the court found that the City could not forbid changes in content in connnercial signs. Van V, Travel Information Council, 628 P . 2d 1217 (Ct . App. Or e . 1981). --This case addresses the restrictions on polit i cal s peech. City of Lake Wales v. Lamar Advertising Ass'n. (Fla., No. 60, 635 , April 8, 1982). The reactions of San Diego, Maine, and Lake Wales, Florida, were gi ven. San Diego imposed a one-year status-quo ordinance which i mposed s i z e, s pacing and height restrictions. The size restriction was base·d on the number of vehicles per day on the adjac ent r i ght-of-wa y. Ha ine prohibited off-premise commercial signs and exempted noncommer c ial signs from regulation. Lake Wales has drafte d a new ordi nan c e wi th Metromedia in mind which i t will submi t for enac tment a f t er cur r ent lit i gation is conc luded . I f the City's goal i s to el i minate b i llboards and other o ff -premise signs and to regulate other signs , Hs. Rogers suggested : 1 . Prohibiting off -premise commer c ial s i gns; 2. St ating t hat n on commer cial si gn s a r e s ub ject t o t he o rd i nance; 3. I mpo sin g size , s pac ing and se tback requ irement s on non c ommer cial sign s and de f i n i ng "nonc ommer cial" s igns i n such a wa y a s t o e x- clud e comme r cial s peech f r om s uc h sign s , i .e., con tain i n g only civic, philant h r o pic , c har ita ble , r eli g i ou s , histor ic , c u ltur al, or political messages; 4. If there are exemptions for noncommercial signs, k eping the number low, If pos ible, such exemptions should be separately classified, I:'e., governmental signs. Do not e x empt any commeccial signs if you have not exempted noncommercial signs. Don't Just Do It , Say It! The Ramifications of th Commercial Sp ech Doctrine for Land Use Re gulations. The sp aker point d out that during the 1970's , the Un it d States Su pr Cou rt declared for the first time t hat c o11111ercial sp ech waa protected by th First Amen dment. Th• caaea h a ve barely be gwi to x plore the ramifications of the coaaercial apeech doctrine for land planning and r gulation of dev lopaent. The case, to date have focu ed priaarily on t wo eubjects: nd adult uae,. Th queetion waa rai ed aa to whether or land use, aught b able to claia aucce11fully that land u• infringe on th ir right to coaaunicate, • billboard not oth r regulation11 I • • 3. • • • - -7- In the days before conunercial speech was determined to be protected by the First Amendment, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the distinction between "speech" and "conduct" as it related to political- type activity such as picketing and demonstrations. The court established a fairly rigorous test for evaluating the regulations of such activity, saying it was justified if (1) it is within the co nstitutional power of the government, (2) it furthers an important or substantial govern- mental interest, (3) the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression, and (4) the incidental restriction on alleged first amendment freedoms is no greater than essential to the furtherance of that interest. Meanwhile, the court has been developing a series of tests to evaluate regulations of commercial speech. The current standard was established in Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, supra. This test begins by insisting that co1D111ercial speech is protected only if it relates to lawful activity and is not deceptive. If it passes this test, the government must show that the regulation is based on substantial state interest, that it advances that interest directly rather than indirectly and that the regulat ion is not more extensive than necessary to serve that in terest. In comparing the test used to analyze regulations of political con- duct and the test used to analyze regulations of comme rcial speech, one finds at least two comaon elements: 1 . The regulation must further a substantial governmental interest; and 2. The restriction must be no greater than is necessary to serve that interest. Most land use involves soae communication elements and for many com- mercial uses, the coaaunicative eleaent is quite important. Al l re- tailing wh ich involves the sale of goods to consumers on the premi ses has an important co11111W1icativ compon nt. Ev n where sales or services on the premises are not involved, coaaercial activities may place an important aphasia on the app arance of th praises --communicat ing the appropriat imag • At this tiae, it is impossible to determine how far th Court will ext nd th protection of th First Alllendaent to land u es for which coaaunication plays a subordinate but important role --uch as comaunicatin& to th public th availability of houwing. It may b c n c ssary wh n draftina l d us regulations to carry th burd n of proof that th r ulation s rve a substantial govern- ntal interest and satisfy th 1 t reatrictiv alt rnativ test. Urb n An anatoay w s giv n relativ to a land nt for including her pro rty tn a local in violation of the Fourt nth Aaendaeftt. hr colll)laint counts all &inl aonopoliaation in violation o def nd nt1 w re th Mayor, but which had n exclud d !roa the rd v cOllflict of interest", th Council, and th • vitaliution . ar a, district "to avoid ra, an archit ct I • • • • • • • -8- and real estate broker involved in development on land adjoining the plaintiff's land. In brief, the issue involved condemnation for public use vs. for public purpose. The plaintiff claimed, among other things, that she was not given an ample hearing, that the procedure was vague and had inadequate standards. This case is currently being litigated. Another case cited, Canton v. Crouch, was filed on behalf of a tenant whose premises were included in a redevelopment plan pursuant to the Illinois Tax Increment Financing Act. Deficiencies in the Illinois Act were noted --most of them revolving around the lack of standards to guide the municipality in the implementation of the redevelopment plan. Some of the points made by the speaker were: Us While a private developer may benefit from taking l and for public purpose, the primary purpose must be of benefit to the public -- the public purpose may be furthered by having private parties in- volved --the quantum and breadth of public purpose must outweigh the advantage to a private developer. "Blight" refers to an area --usually defined under the "pick-any- five rule" when a list of factors is given in the enabling legislation. A governmental agency can condemn one piece of ground which is in good shape to improve an entire area, if it is not suitable to c arve out the specific property, A boundary line has to be drawn somewhere . Economic d velopment is not enough to ju tify cond anat ion. Contracts betw en ci t ies and private parti a should b carefully drafted. nd Kiaus of Inc ntive Zoning. Many ma}or citi hav off rd 1uba t ntial bonu ea to d v lop rw who would build what th city sought. The ap a r point d out some of th problem and discuss d alternatives. So of th a niti to have provid dare: d aiac llan oua r quir Op n apace, plaaaa, arcad 1; Certain typ I of facade,; Public art; Landacapin; Str tacapin ( i n1, b nch , l ); Cultural facilitie1; Sub idiz d bou in ; • nta th citi a want I • • -• • • -<J- Parking; Direct cash contribution for capital improvement projects, etc. The incentives provided through a "manipulation" in the zoning are: Density or bulk bonus (additional office or res i dent ial space); Floor area ratio; Waive parking requirement; Building Code waivers; Mixed uses; Lot merger; Transfer of development rights; Height, lot coverage and/or setback waivers, etc. Traditional zoning is a negative instrument and may take away value. Incentive zoning tries to give value. An incentive is necessary if the amenity won't be provided voluntarily or if the city can't mandate it ---or if the city can't afford to pay for it. The incentive is sufficient if it covers the cost of the amenity, plus. New York undertook incentive zoning to address special problems such as the theatre district (Times Square) and Fifth Avenue. They con- sidered incentives that would be "as of right" with no special review. Other provisions offered a residential bonus for providing a special kind of retail use, gave a special permit in return for public amenities, and provided incentive rezonings and incentive variances ---a variance not requiring a proof of "hardship" but given in return for an amenity. San Francisco gives a bonus floor area for such things as rapid transit access or proxiaity, access to parking, observation decks, arcades, shopping plazas, roof gardens, street trees, climate controls, and public restaurants. Orang County in California gives a bonus for providing affordable ho using --for each low-moderate income house built, the dev loper can build another unit. Other incentive that are offered by citi s are : a waiver off cs, exemption from local ordinances that increase coat , and exemption from taxes, etc. Th dv nt gs to inc ntiv zoning: Th city g ta desired a nities nd incurs littl or no cost - private capital is mobiliz d to a public end. It ncourages good development and th provision of desired nities . It wor well in th busin ss district if th re is a atrong aarket tor th incentive (resid ntial bonus increased floor ar a etc.) It ia a aarket-teat d t chniqu • I • • • • • • -10- It is supported by developers and the real estate conununity. Disadvantages are: It only works if there is a strong market for development. The quality of the amenities provided has been mixed --it is difficult to draft adequate standards. Increased bulk incentives can increase congestion in an area. A city may not get more tax revenue just because there are more buildings --there may be an increased vacancy rate if there isn't a market for the bonus area. Other comments: There should be a bargaining calibration --a city shouldn't over- compensate for receiving minimum amenities. Some incentives may bring about political opposition height and bulk may be opposed. increased It may be unnecessary to give incentives to receive a quality de- velopment. Should the city be involved in shaping urban design? Shaping urban design is not an issue of public health, safety and welfare. Let the market guide urban design --don't tell the private market what to do. Incentive zoning has yet to face a legal test --usually there is cooperation between the city and the develoepr, so who is to sue? The sp aker proposed two categories of land use: 1. Those p rmJ.tted by right, which may be: -ndat d; mandat d with an incentive; optional with ap incentive. 2. Tho which ar discretionary which may be: mandat d; • nd ted with an inc ntiv ; option 1 with an incentive. Th se may b "Kapp d" or th y aay be "floating". Som requir ta hould b vide o thin& it abouldn't 111&ndat d, th ni ty auat : aand t d --i th d v loper aubj ct to an inc tiv • l. 2 . no 1 &•lb rri r; • hould pro- lf it ia I • • • • - -I I- 3. There should be no economic barrier (the developer can afford to provide it), and 4. There should be no political barrier (the developer will accept it). If a mandate is provided with an incentive, it is because: 1. The city doesn't feel comfortable about 2, 3, and 4 above ; or 2. If the developer doesn't want to provide whatever is mandated, he may go somewhere else if he doesn't get an incentive. If a mandate is optional with an incentive, it may be because the amenity is not absolutely essential or, again, because of 2, 3, and 4 above, the city is less confident about the requirement. Good design is not subject to a formula and it is difficult to draft rules. There has to be a correlation between the value of the incentive and the requested amenity. It usually gets down to a case-by-case negotiation --forcing inter-action between the city and the _developer. In considering uses "as of right" vs. discretionary, there is an attraction of certainty in uses as of right. "Discretionary" builds in compromise and creates a "momentum" of discretion --he received it, so I should. A regulation that is "mapped" applies to a specific location or area -- the amenity is only appropriate in that area --it forces thinking in advance. If the provision is "floating", it can apply anywhere --there is no need for geographic specificity. There is more flexibility in the "floating" approach --thing,; change. Example: The City wants the developer to provide a plaza; it is easy to provide a lousy plaza --you can't spell out quality, so make it discretionary to bargain for quality. Don 't map something if it is "discretionary" --only map "as of right" regulations. N w, costing out th nity --how do you correlate th cost of the m nity to th valu of th incentiv? Cet th unit coa t of the amenity nd s e that th value of the inc ntive cov rs that cos t plus an incre- ment to mak it worth whil : Th cost of the amenity~ by th valu of th bonus x th effici ncy factor x the plu factor• th total valu of th requir d bonus or inc ntiv Th city should w rry about th maint nance of th nity aft r thy et it, and r quir a aaint nance acr nt, a perforaance bond to b p ted or a re trictive cov n nt runn nc ro th n i&hbors with bt ding to nforc it. Ev n with 1oa of th probl ahould b con id rd. , inc tiv zonina i a aood tool nd • I • • • • • - -12- The Ten ant s Re bellion and I ts Impact. Condominium conversions have stimulated much local legislation designed to preserve the position of existing tenants. Most particularly, the co nversions create a problem fo r the low a nd middle income persons , the elderly and the single-parent family unit. Ordinances limiting conversion of apartments to condominiums are enacted pursuant to the police power and are undergoing a r evival . The problems that are created by the conversions include: A reduc tion in the supply of units available to the low and moderate i ncome, the elderly and the single-parent. 75 % -90 % of those residing in the unit prior to convers ion cannot afford to buy a unit after conversion. Tenants are forced out of the area and into denser stock. All of this has given rise to c ondo conversion controls. These may include: Adequate notice to the tenant --may be tied to the length of time the tenant occupied the unit; Give the tenant right of first refusal at reduced option price; Relocation assistanc e; Co ndom inium conversion permits required have to comply with zoning and building code s ; Moratorium on conversions if vacancy rate of rental un its in the ci ty is lower than a certain p rcentage; Con v rsion quotas --only bo many units can be conv rted in a given tim --first co , first conv rt; Haintcn nc of a cert in cl Sb of renter (eld rly for xampl or long-t rm rent rs, famili a , tc. in th conv rted unit). The b n fita to the city from th conv raion 111&y be to hav th prop rty upgr d d by privat inv tor , thus increasing tax sand attracting a segment of th society back to th City from th suburbs. Some peopl my b abl to purchaa a convert d condomin i um who could not afford a ingle-family hou e. If carefully drat d, both r nt control and condoainiua conv rsion cont rols are sustainable und r th police pow r. Ac utJon --no on n y tow rd le in go into th pur h aon y --c ntrol hav of r nt l µrop rty with to r a onabl • th hi h-11 ht o th aajor i us diacu d t t Plannin • I • • n -• • - -]3- Some c oncluding tips to keep in mind: If a developer wants to do something, the burden of proof should b.e on him that it won't harm the environment. Cases are won or lost on the basis of an administrative record -- the City Attorney should advise the staff and board and commission as to what makes a good record, how to run an admin is trative hearing, etc. Be sure materials are relevant to the case and based on fact --get experts in --be familiar with the regulations. Be sure the administrative record is complete. Be able to prove the action taken is to prevent harm to the public. Try to work things out. • I • • -• • • r----------------------------------------, I C O U N C I L C O M M U N I C A T I O N DATE AGENDA ITEM ltJ a_ SUBJECT August 9, 1982 Findings of Fact -Case #9-82 INITIATED BY __ ........,C-1ut~y......,.P~J~e~oo ...... 1o~g!l,,-'eMDMd ...... Z.a~o~1~o6g_...ca~rnrn ...... 1~swsu1.o~o.._ __________ ~ ACT I ON PRO PO SED __ Th_e_C_i_t_y'--C_o_un_c_i_l_a_c_ce_p_t_t_h_e_F_in_d_in_g"'-s_o_f_F_a_c_t_on_c_a_s_e_fl_9_-_8_2 __ as adopted by the City Planning and Zoning Commission. • INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing on the pro- posed amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, 122.2-6, on July 20, 1982. The proposed amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance pertains to the establishment of variance criteria to be used by the Board of Adjust- ment and Appeals in considering variance requests to the newly adopted Sign Code, 122.7 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. No member of the audience present at the time of the Public Hearing spoke in favor of the proposed amendments, and there was no opposition expressed at the Public Hearing. The Findings of Fact were considered by the Planning and Zoning co-ission at their meeting on August 3, 1982. It was the decision of th Co-1ssion that these Findings of Fact be accepted and referred to the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: That the Findings of F ct for Ca e 19-82 be approved as written, and referred to the Englewood City Council, I • • • • • CITY PLANNING AND ZONING CO MMISSION ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. 9-82, ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO ) AN AMENDMENT TO §22.2-6 OF THE ) COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, ) ORDINANCE NO. 26, SERIES OF ) 1963, CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, ) COLORADO; WHICH AMENDMENT RE-) LATES TO THE VARIANCE CRITERIA ) ESTABLISHED RELATIVE TO ) VARIANCES FROM §22. 7 OF THE ) COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, ) SIGN CODE. ) A Public Hearing was held on July 20, 1982, in connection ~ith Case No. 9-82 in the City Council Chambers in the Englewood City Hall. The following members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission were present: Mr. Tanguma, Mr. Allen, Mrs. Becker, Mr. Barbre, Mr. Carson, Mr. McBrayer and Mr. Senti. The following members were absent: Mr. Gilchrist, ar.d Mr. Stoel. FINDINGS 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 th following Findings of Fact. 1. That proper notice of the Public Hearing was given. 2. That upon the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Commission, th City Council adopted a new and revised Sign Code for the City of Englewood by Ordinanc No. 29, Series of 1982, on July 6, 1982, and that Engl wood citizens, property owners, and business people participated in the dev lopm nt of that Sign Cod . 3. That upon th r co ndation of th City Planning nd Zoning Commission , th City Council adopted a Comprehensive Plan for the City of Englewood by R solution o. 49, Series of 1979, on December 3, 1979, nd th t 113 Englewood citiz ns activ ly participat din the development of that Plan. 4. That in approving th Compr h naive Plan, the City Council dopt d certain goals for the City, which goals affirm the desire of th citiz ns of Engl wood to, inter alia: Encour g nd uppor th vitality nd th vari ty of establish d business a; xlsting Provid th cliaat or attr ctin& n w buain sa a, thua incr asing our tax baa ; and I • • - • • • • -l- I mp r ov e the vi sual as pec t s of bus inesses bo th i n the central business district and along commerc i al strips. To this end, attention must be given to sign control in these areas. I mprov e the visual qu ality of the City . 5. To improve and enhance the aesthetic characte r of t he City and prot e ct the r e sidential, commer c i al and i ndu s tr i a l areas in t he Cl t y, it was necessary to seek the removal o f sign s wh ich detrac t f r om t he aesthetic standards of the co111111unit y or which pos e a threat to the pub lic health, safety and welfare, in the mos t e x ped i t iou s mann er possible. 6. That the criteria by which t he r eque st for a variance to other sections of the Comprehensive Zoning Ord i nance is weighe d are not necessarily applicable to requests for variances to the Sign Co de, and for this r eas o n, new criteria has been developed which wi ll pertain speci fic a lly t o the re- quests for variances from the regulations pertaining t o signs . 7. That the repealed Sign Code had no amortizat i on pr o v ision and "grandfathered" in al l signs which were i n exi stence at t he t i me i t wa s adopte d. 8. That many s igns are i n exis tence thro ugh o ut the Ci t y wh i ch wi ll not be permitted under the new ordinance, and steps wi l l be taken to no tify the owner or lessee of all signs which must be remove d or brought into comp lian ce wi thin a specified t i me period. 9 . Til at i f the owner or les s ee of th sign wh ich is no t i n c omp lian ce wi th t he new Si gn Code wishes to appeal the no t ice, an ap peal is fi r s t mad e to the Direc tor of Commun i ty Deve l opment. 10. o r p r ohibit ed a p peal can be of hazardous Th at if t he owner or lesse e of th abandon d, noncon formi ng , sign is no t s at is f i ed wi th th d ecision of th Di r ector, an mad to th Board of Ad j ustaient an d Appals (with th xc p t ion igns). 11. That th proc dure which must b follow d by th Board of Adju cm nt nd Appals tn considering r qu sea for v riances to provi lonM of th Compreh nsiv Zoning Ordin nc is at forth in th nd d f22.2-6c Vari nc 12. Th t p rsons and busin ss • which did not confona to th r gula- tions of this n wand r vis d Sin Cod b giv n a recours to y actions t ken upon th m by th City of Engl wood. lJ. That by st bli hing n w vari nc crit ria r latina p cific lly to Sign Cod re gulations concise r e v i w proc dur c n b d velop d to aore ffectiv ly d al with v a r i anc a f r 011 thi 1 Co d 14. d sire to th propoa d Th no raona pp rd a th ddr •• th Co aaiaaion eith r in nd nt to 122.2-6 o th Co • rin wh indict d or in opp ition co Z in Ordin c I • • • • • -3- CONCLUSIONS 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 address the Commission in regard to this matter. 3. That the Goals for the long-range planning for the develop- ment of the City of Englewood, Colorado , were approved by the City Council in Ordinance No. 29 , Series of 1982, upon the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Commission and recorded in the office of the Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder. 4. That the following goals of the City of Englewood as stated in the Comprehensive Plan are germane to the issue at hand: To encourage and support the vitality and the existing variety of established businesses; To provide the climate for attracting new businesses, thus increasing our tax base; and To improve the visual aspects of businesses both in the central business district and along commercial strips. To this end, attention must be giv n to sign control i n thes areas. To improv th visual quality of th City. 5. Th t the Comaission is of th opinion that consid rin n ~ ndment to the varianc crit ria pr ntly stablish d wh ich would p cific lly addr ss v riances from §22.7 of th Co pr hensiv Zonin Ordinance, ign Cd , will furt h r goals of th 1979 Compr h nsiv Plan. Th r for , it is the rec ndation nnin nd i a!on to th City Council, that th Zonin Ordin nc , dding 122.2-c(2) ri s of 1963, as b 122.2-6 (2) Zoning Ordinanc r qu st for a varianc to th Sign Cod , 122.7 of th Compr h nsiv Zonin ah 1. Bo rd of Adjust nt d App ala th t: • I • • . I - • • • • -4- 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 located. 3. The variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential character of the District in which the sign is located. 4. The variance, if authorized, will not substantially or permanently injure the appropriate use of ad- jacent conforming property. Upon the vote on a motion made at the meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission on July 20, 1982. Those members voting in favor of the motion: Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre. Those members voting in opposition: None. Absent were: Gilchrist and Stoel. By Order of th City Planning and Zoning Commission. • I • • • • - 7fJ BY AU'rnORITY OODINANCE NO. 0o< SERIES OF 1982 <XXH:IL BILL NO. 31 INTROIXJCED BY COUNCIL MEM3ER BRAOOHAW AN OODINANCE REPEALIN:; AND RE~CTIN:; PORTIOOS OF TITLE XI OF fflE D(;LD«)()[) PUJICIPAL CODE OF '69 TO PUI.E PRFX:ISELY DEFINE ACTS PRCIIIBITED IN CERTAIN CRIMINAL OFFENSE OODINANCES. wffEREAS, it is deemed necessary by the Englewood City Council to repeal certain criminal offense ordinances and to amend certain criminal offense ordinances to more precisely define the acts prohibited. NCM, 'fflEREFORE, BE IT 000,.INED BY fflE CITY OXJNCIL OF fflE CITY OF EM.LD«)()[), COLCRADO: Section 1. That certain chapters and sections of Title XI are hereby repealed and re-enacted as follows: 11-2-8: ~LAWFUL TO POOSESS IN PUBLIC; ~LAWFUL PUROIASE ~ POOSESSIOO BY MIN<R> (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to have in his possession or ~er his control in any public place any intoxica- ing liquor in any container of any kind or description which is not sealed or on which the seal is broken. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person under age eighteen (18) to purchase or have in his possession any intoxicating liquor of any kind i n any manner whatsoever. (c) It shall be ll'llawful for any person to have in his possession or l.l'lder his control any intoxicating liquor in any container of any kind or description, which is not sealed or on which the seal is broken, in any vehicle in those areas accessible to the driver and passengers of said vehicle when such vehicle is in a public place. (d) The word •container• shall include but not decanter, bottle, jar, thermos bottle or jug. limited to any (e) The word •seal• shall include the regular and original tax se 1 wlied by order of the United Stat s Governnent over the cap of ach and every container of intoxicating beverage • (f) •Public Place• means any place open to the general public, either fr or by payment of an entrance f , but shall not includ any stablislwlen properly licensed to Nll and di 1 • I • • • • • intoxicating liquor. •public place• shall include, but is not limited to, any sidewalk, street, alley, parking lot, park, pool room fieldhouse, stadil.811, or ball park. (g) 'Ibis section shall apply to (X>ssession of intoxicating liquor in a vehicle, in areas of the vehicle accessible to the driver or passengers, when such vehicle is in a public place. 11-2-12 SOLICITATIOO OF llUNKS (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to frequent or loiter in cabaret or night club, with the pur(X>se of soliciting any other person to purchase drinks. (b) It shall be tmlawful for the proprietor or operator of any such establisl'lllent to knowingly allow the presence in such establisl'lllent of any person who violates the provisions of this Section. 11-4-1: LIABILITY FOR <nlIXJCT OF ANcmtER, CCH>LICITY A person is legally liable as principal for the conduct of another constituting a criminal offense if, with the intent to promote or facilitate the comnission of the offense, he aids, abets, or advises the other person in planning or C011111itting the offense. 11-5-1 (a) It shall be unlawful for a person, by any threat or physical action, to knowingly place or attempt to place another person in fear of irrminent bodily injury. (b) Bod ily i nj ury means any phy sical pain, i llness, or any impairment of physical o r ment al condit i on . 11-5-2 : ASSAULT It shall be unlawful for a person to intentionally, knowingly , or recklessly cause bodily injury to another person. Bodily injury is defined in 11-5-l(b). 11-5-3: REX:l<LESSLY ElmW;ERIN'j AN<7mER PERSOO It shall be unlawful for a person to recklessly engage in conduct which creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person. Bodily injury is defined in 11-5-l(b). 11 -6-1: DI~ERLY <nlIXJCT It shall unlawful for any person to engag in disorderly conduct i n th City of Englewood, A person camiita disorderly conduct if he or sh knowingly or int ntionally, or r le ly: 2 • I • • - r • • • • (a) abuses or threatens another person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner. (b) makes a coarse and obviously offensive utterance, gesture, or display which tends to incite a breach of the peace. (c) fights with another in a public place, except for professional or amateur contests of athletic skill. (d) makes l.llreasonable noise in a public place or near a private residence which he or she has no right to occupy. 11-6-3: DISTURBANCE OF 'mE PF.ACE It shall be unlawful for any person to disturb the peace of a neighborhood by offensive conduct, or by loud or unusual noises, or by profane or offensive language, calculated to provoke a breach of the peace; or for any person to permit any such conduct in any house or upon any premises owned or possessed by him or Wlder his manage- mentor control, when within his power to prevent, so that others in the ne i ghborhood are or may be disturbed thereby. 11-6-6: It shall be unlawful for a person, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person, to: (a) strike, shove, kick or otherwise touch any person; or (bl repeatedly insult, taunt or challenge another in a maMer likely to provoke a violent or disorderly response; or (c) mak e a telephone call , or cause a phone to ring repeatedly, without purpose of legitimate camunication; or (d) make repeated camunications, or otherw ise, by telephone or at inconvenient hours or in offensively coarse language; or (e) engage in conduct which alarms or seriously annoys another person and which rves no legitimat purpo 11-6-7: LOITERIM:; (a) It shall be unlawful to: (1) loiter for th purpo of begging; or (2) loiter in or about school building or ground, not having any r ason or relationship involving custody of or re ponai- bility for a pupil, or any other specific and legiti11111te reason for being ther , and not having written rmiuion fr°"' a ac:hool inistr tor; or 3 • I • • r • • • (3) loiter in a place, at a time , and in a manner not usual and appropriate for the place, or where circumst~nces warran t ala r m or concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity. Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether such alarm is warranted is the fact that such r,erson takes flight upon appearance of a peace officer , r efuses to identify himself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself, or conceal or dispose of any object. Unl ess f light by the person or othe r circumstance makes it impracticable , a peace officer shall , prior to any arrest for an offense under this section, afford such person an opportunity to dispel any alarm wh ich would otherwise be warranted by request ing him to identify himself and explain his presence and conduct . No person shall be convicted of an offense under this section if the peace officer did not comply with the p r eceding sentence , or if it appears at trial that the e xp lanation given by the person was true and, if be lieved by the peace officer at the time , would have dispelled the alarm . (4) loiter so as to interfere with the free and unobstructed use of a public way or place by other persons. (bl for purposes of this section, "loiter " means to be dilatory , to stand idly around , to linger, delay, or wander about , or to tarry in a public place. 11-6-10 : POSSESSI()!I OF IL LEX:iAL WEAPC't-1 5 (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to po ssess an illegal weapon . (b) As used in this Section, "illegal weapon" means a blackjack, bomb, firearm silencer , zip gun, gas gun, machine gun , short shotgun , short rifle , metallic knuckles , gravity knife, switchblade knife, nunchukas or throwing stars . (c) Machine gun is defined as a fully automat ic apon capable of fi ring rrore than one time automatically with a single pull of I c trigg r. A short hoLgun or rt rifle is defined s ~pon having an overall barr 1 length of less than 18 inch (d) It shall an affirmativ to this r n has a valid permit nd pursu nt for such weapon, or that such rson is a peac offic r or of th rmed forces or National Gu rd acting in l wful dischar of his duties. 4 • I • • • • • - 11-6-11: FOOFEITURE CF~ In every case lohere a person is charged with a violation of this chapter involving a weapons offense shall forfeit to the City such dangerous or illegal weapon. 11-6-15: RESISTANCE, INTERFEREK:E wrm A POLICE CFFICER CR FIRDo!AN (a) It shall be iitlawful for any person to resist a peace officer, lilder color of official authority, from effecting the arrest of any person, by the use or threat of physical force or violence, or any other means lohich creates a substantial risk of physical injury. (b) It shall be 1.nlawful to knowingly obstruct or interfere with or hinder a peace officer or fireman in the discharge of his duties. 11-6-16: AIDil«. ESCAPE I t shall be 1.nlawful for any person to rescue, or to aid or abet, offer or endeavor to assist another person to escape from custody or conf i nement. 11-8-1: It shall be 1.nlawful for any person to knowingly, intentionally or negligently cause or penni t a child to be placed in a situation that may endanger the child's life or health, or exposed to the inclemency of the weather, or abandoned, tortured, cruelly confined, or c r ue lly pun i shed, or deprived of necessary food or shelter, lohere any i n j ury r e sulting to the child i s less than serious bodily i n j ury. Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 19th day of July, 1982. Published a Bill for an Ordinance on the 21st day of July, 1982. Read in full and passed as clllellded on the 2nd day of August, 1982. Published in full as amended on the 4th day of August, 1982 as Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1982. 5 • I • • - • • • • • • 1982. Read by title and passed on final reading on the 16th day of August, Published by title as Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1982, on the 18th day of August, 1982. Eugene L. Otis, Mayor Attest: ex officio City Clerk=1reasurer I, Gary R. Higbee, ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer of the City of Engl~, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true, accurate and c:omplete copy of the Ordinance passed on final reading and published by title as Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1982, on the 18th day of August, 1982. Gary R. Higbee 6 • I • • • • • BY AUTHORITY ORDINANCE NO. SERIES OF 198-2~~- A BILL FOR 18 COUNCIL BILL NO. 40 INTRODUC~ MEMBER ) FOR AN ORDINANCE AOOPTIOO CRITERIA TO RELIEVE SIGN CMNERS OF UNDUE HAROOHIP AMENDIOO THE <ntPREHENSIVE ZCtUOO ORDINANCE 1963 BY ADDIOO NEW SECTION 22. 2-6 C (2). WHEREAS, the City of Englewood recently revised and reenacted a Comprehenbsive Sign Code regulating signage within the City of Eng l ewo od ; and WHEREAS, said Sign Code was enacted to meet the City's needs t o revitalize and redevelop the City as a major regional retai l shopp i ng a rea and to control signage within the City and preserve its correl ative charac ter of strong family residential values; and WHEREAS, it i s the intent of the Sign Code to contro l s ignage f o r traffic safety and esthetic reasons and t o have a comnunity wh ich is beautiful, healthy, c lean, well-balanced and safe; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Ci ty Council to ma int ai n strict compli~nce with said Sign Code to accomplish its purposes, bu t the Council recognizes there may be limited instances where it would work t oo exte nsive a hardship to require persons to comply with all provisions of sa id Code; and WHEREAS, the Ci ty Planning and Zoning Conmiss i on ha s propo sed c r ite r i a to relieve persons from stric t compliance with sa i d S ign Code upon a s how i ng of undue hard s h ip, and the Council determines it i s proper to do so , so long as the purposes of the Sign Code remain complied with; and WHEREAS , the City Plann i ng and Zo n ing Comn ission has her tofor e held public hea r ings upo n this ma tte r and issued fi nd i ng s of legisla iv fact which a r e herel:7/ adopted b'f the City Council and cons id red in conjunction with the legislative record upon which the Comprehensive Sign Cod is based; , 'llIBREFOIB , BE IT ~INED BY nt£ CIT'i COUNCIL OF THE CIT'i fl(;U),,00(), COI..CRIWO: Sec ion 1. That Section 22 .2-6 of th Comprehensiv Zoning Ordinanc is nded by the adcli tlon of a new subsection 22. 2-6 c (2), which 11 r d: 22.2-6 c (2) In considering a req st for vari nc the Sign Cod , Section 22,7 of the Compreh nsiv Zoning Ordin nee , th Board of Adjus n and ls shall determin tha I • • • • • • substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question; provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions nust 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. 'lbe variance, if authorized, will weaken neither the general purpose of this Ordinance nor the regulations prescribed for the District in which the sign is located. 3. 'lbe variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential character of the Distric t in which the sign is located. 4. 'lbe variance, if authorized, will not substantially or permanently injure the appropriate use of ad j acent conforming property. Introduced, read in fu l l, and passed on first reading on the 16th day of August, 198 2. Published as a Bill for an Ordinanc e on the 18th day of August, 198 2. Attest : Eugene L. Otis , Mayo r e x officio City Clerk-T r easurer I, Gary R. Higbee, ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer of th City of Englewood, Color do , hereby certify that the bove and foregoing is tru , occume and °""'lete ®Pl' of, Bill fo, n O,dlna~, 1~ ln full, and passed on first r ading on th 16 "(./) day of , 1982. Gary R. Hig -2- I • • • • • BY AlmlORIT'i ORDINANCE NO. SERIES OF 198.~2~~- A BILL FOR 18 COUNCIL BILL NO. 40 INTRODUCED r COUNCIL MEMBER '"1 ' FOR AN OODINANCE AOOPTit«i CRITERIA TO RELIEVE SIGN Cltt'NERS OF UNDUE HARL6HIP AMENDite THE <XNPREHENSIVE ZG!Ite OODINANCE 1963 BY ADDite NEW SECTio-1 22.2-6 C (2). WHEREAS, the City of Englewood recently revised and reenacted a Comprehenbsive Sign Code regulating signage within the City of Englewood; and WHEREAS, said Sign Code was enacted to meet the City's needs to revitalize and redevelop the City as a major regional retail shopping area and to control signage within the City and preserve its correlative character of strong family residential values; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Sign Code to control signage for traffic safety and esthetic reasons and to have a corrm..mity which is beautiful, healthy, clean, well-balanced and safe; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to maintain strict compliance with said Sign Code to accomplish its purposes, but the Council recognizes there may be limited instances where it would work too extensive a hardship to require persons to comply with all provisions of said Code; and WHEREAS, the City Planning and Zoning Corrmission has proposed criteria to relieve persons from strict compliance with said Sign Code upon a showing of undue hardship, and the Council determines it is proper to do so , so long as the purposes of the Sign Code remain complied with; and WHEREAS, the City Planning and Zoning COlffllission has heretofore held public hearings upon this matter and issued findings of legislative fact which are hereby adopted by the City Council and considered in conjunction with th legislative record upon lo'hich the Comprehensive Sign Code is based; , THEREFORE, BE IT OOIY.INED BY THE CIT'i COUNCIL OF THE CIT'i ... ~~ ......... vu, COLCRAJX>: Section l. That Section 22.2-6 of the Compr h nsive Zoning Ordinance is nded by the addition of a new subsection 22.2-6 c(2), lo'hich shall read: 22 .2-6 c (2) In considering a request for a variance to th Sign Cod, Section 22.7 of th Compreh nsive Zoning Ordin nee, th Board of Adjus nt and Appe ls sh 11 d termin that: I • • • • • • substantially restr i ct the effectiveness of the s i gn i n quest i on; provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions lll.lst be peculiar to the particular business or enterprise to lo'hich the applicant desires to draw attention and do not apply genera l ly to all businesses or enterprises. 2. 'Ille variance, if authorized, will weaken neither the general purpose of this Ordinance nor the regulations prescribed for the District in lo'hich the sign is located. 3. 'Ille variance, if authorized, wi ll not alter the essentia l character of the Distr ict i n lo'hich the s i gn is located. 4. 'Ille variance, if authorized, wil l not substantially or permanently injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming property. Introd uc ed, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 16th day o f Augus t , 1982. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the 18th day of Augus t , 198 2 . Attest: Eugene L. Ot i s , Mayo r ex officio City Cle r k-Treasu r e r I , Gary R. Higbee , ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer of the City of Englewood , Colorado , hereby certify that the above and fo r egoing is a true , accurate and complete copy of a Bill for an Ordinance , introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the day of -------1982 . Ga r y R. Hig -2- • I • • - • • • • RESOLUTION NO. · 1 SERIES OF 1982 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH CINDERMAK ASSOCIATES REGARDING EXTENSION OF LEASE CONCERNING PARKING LOT ADJACENT TO CINDERELLA CITY. WHEREAS, pursuant to People's Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1964, City of Englewood sold certain real property to the New Englewood Company; and WHEREAS, pursuant to said agreement, the City would agree to parking on certain portions of said property for at least 60 years; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the current owner of Cinderella City to extend the parking period over a portion of the property to November 3 , 2068; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend and clarify other portions of said agreement ; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO : That the City of Englewood, Colorado, by and through its City Council, approves of that contract titled Afreement Clarifring and Amending Deed Provisions,consisting o pages, includ ng Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B", attached hereto-;---which entire agreement is incorporated herein by reference. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign for and in behalf of the City of Englewood and the Director of Finance ex officio City Clerk- Treasurer to attest to the same. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 16th day of August, 1982. Eug ene L. Otis, Mayor ATTEST : ex officio City Cl rk-Treasurer I, Gar y R. Hi gb ee, e x officio City Clerk-Treasurer of the City of En gl wood , Colo r a do, hereby ce r tify that the above is a tru, accurate a n d comp lete co py of Resolution No. , Series of 1 98 2 • • I • • -• • • AGREEMENT CLARIFY!?-(; AND AMrnDI?-(; DEED PROVISIOOS THIS AGREEMENT made this ___ day of -------'' 1982, by and between the CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, a municipal corporation organized pursuant to the provisions of Article XX of the Colorado Constitution ("City"), and CINDERMAK ASSOCIATES, a joint venture of which THE EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF 'll!E UNITED STATES, a corporation, and DEN'\AK ASSOCIATES, a limited partnership, are co-venturers ("OWner"); I. PREMISES A. On or about April 7, 1964, the qualified electors of the City adopted People's Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1964, ("Ordinance No. l") authorizing the City to convey to New Englewood Company, a Colorado corporation, a certain parcel of realty in Exhibit A attached hereto, authorizing the City, subsequently, to accept a reconveyance of a certain portion of said realty subject to certain conditions set forth in Ordinance No. 1. B. The provisions of Ordinance No. 1 were, and have been, fully implemented, and on or about November 3, 1968, the City accepted a reconveyance of a portion of that realty 1:7,' deed ("Deed·) from capital All iance Company, a general partnership, and New Englewood, Ltd., a limited partner hip, which Deed is recorded in Book 1807 comnencing at page 713 of the records of the Clerk and Recorder of th County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado. C. Ordinance No. 1 required that the realty described in the Deed be d voted to free public short-term parking for a period of at least sixty (60) y rs. Both Ordinance No. l nd th Deed r served to th granters, th ir cc ssors and signs, th right to us up to five perc nt (5) of th pare 1 reconv yed to the City for any COM ted with th s ing I • • -• • - made of that portion of the realty described in Exhibit A hereto not reconveyed to the City. D. The term "free public short-term parking" was not defined in Ordinance No. 1, but the provisions of the Deed defined such term to mean, inter alia, that no person shall be permitted to park upon the reconveyed parcel for a period longer than three (3) hours, which definition has never been approved by a vote of the City's electors. In addition, the provisions of the Deed authorized the City and the granters, their successors or assigns, to increase or decrease such parking time limits. E. Owner is the present owner of that portion of the realty desc ribed on Exhibit A hereto, which portion was not reconveyed to the City by the Deed, and is the successor in interest, lnder Ordinance No. 1 and the Deed, to New Englewood Company , capital Alliance Company and New Englewood, Ltd., for the purposes of all rights and obligations arising out of either such i nstnnents. F. Owner desires to further exercise its reserved rights to make use of not nDre than five percent (51) of the area of the realty reconveyed to the City by the Deed by using not lll)re than one (1) acre thereof upon which to erect a structure for a use, or uses, connected with the uses made of the structure presently existing upon that portion of the realty described in Exhibit A which has not be n reconveyed to the City. G. City and OWner agree that the provisions of this agreement titled "Agreement Clarifying and Amending Deed Provisions• is intended to apply to that real property described in Exhibit B attached hereto and by this ref rence mad a part hereof, which real property is a portion of that real property described in th Deed and not th entire parcel described in th Deed. 2 ·-~-- I • • • • - H. The City intends and the OWner agrees and consents that the real property to the east of South Elati Street shall be l:x>und by the terms of the Deed and not by the terms of this agreement. I. Both OWner and City are desirous of clarifying the terms of the Deed and of memorializing such clarification in writ i ng. I I. AMENt'MENTS Based upon the foregoing considerations, the parties hereto mutually agree that with respect to that real property described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, the Deed and agreement dated November 3, 1968 and recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Arapahoe County, State of Colorado, shall be amended as follows: A. That paragraph 1. •park ing Covenant" shall read as follows as applied to the premises described in Exhibit B: •1. Parking Covenant. (a) Grantee covenants and agrees with Granters that the Premises shall be devoted to free public short-term parking terminating November 3 , 2068. The term •free public short-term parking" shall mean: (i) that no payment shall be required of persons parking; (ii) that neither party may limit or deny the parking right, except that it may be denied to any person ""'10 persistently violates the rules and regulations herein described; (iii) that no person (including parties hereto) shall be permitted to park in the Premises for a period longer than ten and one-half (10-1/2) hours and that no overnight parking shall be allowed, provided that Grantee, cting by and through its legally authorized officials, and Granters (or their successors or assigns), may from time to time enter into agreements increasing or d creasing the parking time limits that shall constitute free public short-term parking for one or more specified areas within the Premises as described in Exhibit B, or for all of such Premises, and defining the manner and extent of enforcement thereof; and (iv) th t the Premises, exc pting those parts devoted to Granters' reserved rights, shall be used solely for th parking of pass nger utanobiles and other 3 • I • • • • • - family-type vehicles, bicycles, motorcycles and the like (not including trucks, buses and similar vehicles, except to the extent and for the periods of time reasonably necessary in connection with the loading, LD1loading, delivery and receipt of passengers, goods, wares, merchandise and materials to and from the Premises and the Adjacent Property) and for the related ramps, driveways, servicing and maneuvering areas, and for landscaped areas substantially equal in area to those now provided. (b) From and after November 3, 2068, the Premises may be used for any other purpose or purposes not inconsistent with the exercise of the rights reserved by Grantors in Section 2 herein or the enjoyment of the benefit of Grantee's covenants set forth below in Section 3. (c) Grantee accepts the Premises subject to such covenants and each of the other terms and conditions hereof.• B. 'nlat paragraph 4 "Further Covenants Respecting Parking" shall read as follows as applied to Exhibit B: "4. Further Covenants Respecting Parking. Grantors and Grantee covenant and agree that LD1til November 3 , 2068: (a) Grantors shall, at their expense, repair, maintain, light, stripe, and clean the Premises, keeping the Premises in good order and condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted, at least equal to the order and condition of parking areas maintained for comparable retail and cannercial areas in the Denver, Colorado, metropolitan area. (b) The location and means of access, ingress, and egress to, from, over, on and across the Premises and the direction and means of regulating the flow of traffic on and in the Premises as presently established on the date of this Deed, shall not be changed in any material respect without the approval of both Grantors and Grantee . (c) Grantee shall provide such police protection and traffic supervision for th Premises as may reasonably be required to maintain safe and orderly conditions and compli nee with law and with the rules and regulations adopted pursuant to this instn.1nent. • C. With r spect to that real property not described in Exhibit B, th agr ement n the parties as found in th Deed dated Novent>er 3, 1968 and recorded in Book 1807 COllllll!ncing at pag 713 of th records of th Cl rk and Record r of Ar County, State of Colorado, sh 11 r-.,in in full force 4 • I • • • • • • and effect. III. CIARIFICATIOOS A. It is recognized by the parties hereto that Owner has the right to use not rrore than five percent (51) of the total surface area of the Premises described in Exhibit A under paragraph 2 of the Deed, for uses connected with the uses made by Owner of the parcel retained by them; that the total surface area subject to such right equals approximately 1.7 acres; and that Oomer has utilized, or is in the process of utilizing, approximately .63 acres thereof for the purpose of the erection and construction of additional parking facilities. B. City agrees that Owner has the right to make use of not rrore than an additional one (1) acre of the parcel described in the Deed, under paragraph 2 of the Deed, for the purpose of erecting a structure, or structures, physically connected to the structure presently existing upon the realty owned by Oomer (which structure is popularly referred to as •cinderella City•), for use as a facility for retail sales and services. c. The part ies hereto acknowledge that insofar as the covenants contained within the Deed are covenants running with the land , pursuant to paragraph 5 of the Deed , any successors or assigns of Oiolner, including any tenants of the property described on that pcrtion of Exhibit A which has not been reconveyed to the City, shall have the benefits of any covenants benefiting the Oiolner thereunder and the Oiolner may grant rights to such tenants, provided no such grant is inconsistent with th terms of the Deed. D. The amerdnents set forth in paragraph II, A through C, may impl nted i lately upon the effective date of this agr nt, exc p that that tho ta shall be utomatically rescinded, 11 ther fter be 5 • I • • - • • • • • • completely null and void, and the parties' rights and obligations with respect thereto shall be governed, exclusi vely, by the terms and provisions of the original Deed unless, on or before January 1 , 198 6 , the Owner shall complete construction of the structure, or structures, which shall contain a minimum of One Hundred Ten Thousand (ll0,000) square feet and shall, by that date, be available for occupancy by a department store or stores, not presently a tenant in Cinderella City, it being INlderstood that the issuance of an occupancy certificate by the City of Englewood for the entire One Hundred Ten "nlousand (ll0,000) square feet and the recording of a copy thereof, shall be conclusive and irrebuttable evidence of the satisfaction of this condition. E. Except to the extent that the provisions of the Deed are clarified or amended, as set forth above, the parties hereto confirm and ratify all other provisions of the Deed. IN WI'IWESS loliEREOF, the parties hereto and set their hands and seals the day and year first above wr i tten. Attest : Director of Finance ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer Att st: 6 CITV OF fXiLfXlOO, COLCIWlO a nun i cipal corporation By--,=---~--,,.,....---,-,------Eug en e L. Otis, Mayo r CI NOERfW< ASSOCIATES , a joint v nture by its co-venturers THE EQUITAB LE LI FE ASSURANC E SOCIETV OF THE ~!TED STATES B'i"------------ • I • • - (CORPORATE SF.AL) Attest: (~TE SF.AL) • • 7 • • • • DE»IAK ASSOCIATES, a 1 imi ted partnership BY: KRAVCO, INC ., a general partner By _____________ _ I • • • • - EXHIBIT "A" The following de scri bed parcels situate in the SW 1/4 of Section 34, Towns hi p 4 Sou th, Rang e 68 West of the 6th P.M., Arapahoe County, State of Col orado , mor e part icul ar l y described as follows: PARCEL A: All that part of the North 1/2 Nl'l 1/4 SE 1/4 SW 1/4, Section 34, township 4 South , Range 68 West, lying West of the West line of South Bannock Street as conveyed to the City of Englewood by Deed recorded November 18, 1929 in Book 295 at page 154. PARCEL B: A tract of land in the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 34, Township 4 South, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., described as follows: BEXiINNING at a point which is South 89 Degrees 40 Minutes East 486 feet and 658.76 feet North of the SW corner of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of said Section; thence North 79 Degrees 20 Minutes West 185.78 feet; thence due West 311 feet , more or less, to the West line of said SE 1/4 SW 1/4; thence North along said West line 276.5 feet, more or less, to the SW corner of N 1/2 Nl'l 1/4 SE 1/4 SW 1/4 of said Section 34; thence East along the South line of said N 1/2 Nl'l 1/4 SE 1/4 SW 1/4 a distance of 484.5 feet; thence South 336.74 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. PARCEL C: N 1/2 SW 1/4 SW 1/4; SW 1/4 SW 1/4 SW 1/4, except that part described in Book 1032 at page 135 as modified by descr i pt i on i n Book 1273 at page 425 and except right of way for Hampden Avenue; W 1/2 SE 1/4 SW 1/4 SW 1/4, lying West of South Elat i Street, except right of way f o r Hampden Avenue. PARCEL D: Lots 1 , 2 , 6 , 7 and 8, Bl ock 1 , FLOOD'S ADDITictl TO EN:;LEH)()[) • SUBJECT, '™EVER, to the fo llow i ng: 1. Lease i n favo r of Mountain Vi ew Golf Company, Inc., recorded in Book 1112 at pag e 251 a s mod i fied by instr1..111ent s r eco rded i n Book 1112 at page 258 ; Boo k 1117 at page 203 ; Boo k 1122 at page 6 ; and Book 1273 at pag e 428 . 2 . Lease in favo r of the Colo rado Na tional Guard r eco rded in Book 944 at page 158 . 3 . Lease in favor of Eng l ewood Lions Club r eco r ded in Book 578 at page 451 as supplemented by instnunent in Book 588 at page 289 . 4. Granted and existing r ights of way and easements for ditches, roads, highw ys and public utility lines and installations insofar as any such may affect th subject property . TO:.ETHER WI'ni all of the right , title and interest , if any, of seller in and to all strips and gores of land separating the parcels above d scri from nearby adjacent lands or streets, roads, avenues and 11 ys. EXCEPT that portion of Pa r cels A, B, and D herein referred to as the "retained pare l ", mor particularly described as follows: BEXiINNING at th Southeast corner of Lot 2, Flood 's Addition ; th nc st rly along th South lin of said Lot 2 extended , a distance of 233.5 f t to a point; th nc Northerly and parallel with the We st lin of South Bannock Str t 175 f t to a point; th nc Easterly and parallel with the South lin xt nded of id Lot 2, 233. 5 f t to a point on th West line of South Bannock Str , th nee South rly and along th s lin of South nnock Str 175 f to th point of inning. county or Arap ho, Sate of Color do . • I • • - • RESOLUTION NO. ~rz SERIES OF 1982 • • • A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH CINDERMAK ASSOCIATES REGARDING EXTENSION OF LEASE CONCERNING PARKING LOT ADJACENT TO CINDERELLA CITY. WHEREAS, pursuant to People's Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1964, City of Englewood sold certain real property to the New Englewood Company; and WHEREAS, pursuant to said agreement, the City would agree to parking on certain portions of said property for at least 60 years ; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the current owner of Cinderella City to extend the parking period over a portion of the property to November 3, 2068; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend and clarify other portions of said agreement ; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO: That the City of Englewood, Colorado, by and through its City Council, approves of that contract titled Afreement Clarifling and Amending Deed Provisions,consisting o pages, includ ng Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B", attached hereto-;-w'hich entire agreement is incorporated herein by reference. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign for and in behalf of the Cicy of Englewood and the Director of Finance ex officio City Clerk- Treasurer co attest to the same. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 16th day of Augus t , 1982. Eugene L. Otis, Mayor ATTEST : ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer I, Gary R. Higbee, ex officio City Clerk-Treaeurer of the Cicy of Englewood, Colo r ado , hereby certify that th above,..,ift, a crue, accurate nd comp lete copy of R eolution No . ,;,J_J_, Serie• of 19 8 2 • • I • • - r • • • • AGREEMENI' ClARIFYIN'.. AND AMDIDIN'.. DEED PROVISICH, THIS N.REDIENT made this ___ day of-------·' 1982, by and between the CITY OF El'(;LEl\'OOD, a municipal corporation organized pursuant to the provisions of Article XX of the Colorado Constitution c•city•J, and CINDERMAK ASSOCIATES, a joint venture of which THE EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF 'fflE lJIIITED STATES, a corporation, and DE1f14AK ASSOCIATES, a limited partnership, are co-venturers c•awner•J; I. PREMISES A. <l'l or about April 7, 1964, the qualified electors of the City adopted People's Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1964, c•ordinance No. 1•) authorizing the City to convey to New Englewood Company, a Colorado corporation , a certain parcel of realty in Exhibit A attached hereto, authorizing the City, subsequently, to accept a reconveyance of a certain portion of said realty subject to certain conditions set forth in Ordinance No. 1. B. The provisions of Ordinance No. 1 were, and have been, fully impl emented, and on or about November 3, 1968, the City accepted a reconveyance of a portion of that realty by deed c•0eea•i fran Capital Alliance Company, a general partnership, and New Englewood, Ltd., a limited partner hip, which Deed is recorded in Book 1807 comnencing at page 713 of th records of th Clerk and Recorder of th County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado. c. Ordinanc No. l required that th realty described in the Deed devoted to free public short-term parking for a period of at least sixty (60) y ara. Both Ordinance • l and the Deed reserved to the grantora, ir sora and , the right to up to fiv perc nt (5\) o the parcel reconveyed to Clty for any connected with the • ing • I • • • • • made of that portion of the realty described in Exhibit A hereto not reconveyed to the City. D. The term "free public short-term parking" was not defined in Ordinance No. 1, but the provisions of the Deed defined such term to mean, inter alia, that no person shall be permitted to park upon the reconveyed parcel for a period longer than three (3) hours, which definition has never been approved l:7f a vote of the City's electors. In addition, the provisions of the Deed authorized the City and the granters, their successors or assigns, to increase or decrease such parking time limits. E. ().mer i s the present owner of that portion of the realty described on Exh i bit A hereto, wh i ch portion was not reconveyed to the City l:7f the Deed, and is the successor in interest, under Ordinance No. land the Deed, to New Englewood Company, capital Alliance Company and New Englewood, Ltd., for the purposes of all rights and obligations aris i ng out of either such i nstnnents . F. ()iff\er de si res to further exercise i t s reserved r i ghts to make use of not mor e than fi ve perc ent (51 ) of the a rea of the realty reconveyed t o the City l:7f the De ed l:7f usi ng no t roor e than one (l) ac r e thereof upon wh ich to erect a structure for a use , o r uses , connected with the uses made of the structure pre ntly existing upon that portion of the realty described in Exhibit A which ha not n reconveyed to th City, G. City and r agr that th provisions of this agr nt titled •Agr t Clarifying and Amending Deed Provisions• is intended to pply to that r l pro rty described in Exhibit B attached hereto and l:7f this reference property de a part hereof , which real pro rty is a portion of that r al rl in the Deed and not the entire parcel described in th 2 • I • • • • • H. 1he Ci ty intends and the o.>ner agrees and consents that t he r eal property to the east of South Elati Street shal l be tx>und by the terms of the Deed and not by the terms of this agreement. I. Both OWner and City are desirous of clarifying the terms o f the Deed and of memorializing such clarification in writing. I I • AMffiIJotENTS Based UPon the foregoing considerations, the parties hereto m..itual l y agree that with respect to that real property described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, the Deed and agreement dated November 3, 1968 and recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Arapahoe County, State of Colorado, shall be amended as follows: 0 A. 1hat paragraph 1. •parking Covenant• shall read as follows as applied to the prem i ses described in Exhibit B: •1 . Park i ng Covenant. (a ) Grantee covenants and agrees with Grantors that the Premises shall be devoted to f ree pub lic s hort-term park i ng term i nat i ng November 3 , 20 68. 1he te rm •f ree i:ut,lic sho rt-term parking• sha ll mean: (i) that no payment sha ll be requ i red of persons park ing ; (ii) tha t ne ither par t y may l imit or deny the parking right , exce pt that it may be den i ed to a ny person who persistently violates the rules and r egulations herein described; (iii) that no person (including parties hereto) shall permitted to park in the Premises for a period longer th n ten nd on half (10-1/2) hours and that no overnight parking shall allowed , provided that Grantee , acting by and through its legally authorized officials , and Grantors (or their succ ssors or assigns), may from time to time enter into agre nts increasing or decreasing the parking ti limits that shall constitute free i:ut,lic short-t rm parking for on or r specified areas within the Pr ises as described in Exhibit B, or for all of such Premis s, and defining th mann r and extent of nforc n thereof; and (iv) that th Pr is s , e xcepting thos parts voted to Gr ntors' r rved rights , shall used solely for th parking of pa ng r utanobil s and oth r 3 I • • • • family-type vehicles, bicycles, motorcycles and the like (not including trucks, buses and similar vehicles, except to the extent and for the periods of time reasonably necessary i n connect i on with the loading, unloading, delivery and receipt of passengers, goods, wares, merchandise and materials to and from the Premises and the Adjacent Property) and for the related ramps, driveways, servicing and maneuvering areas, and for landscaped areas substantially equal in area to those now provided. (b ) From and after November 3, 2068, the Premises may be used for any other purpose or purposes not inconsistent with the exercise of the rights reserved by Grantors in Section 2 herein or the enjoyment of the benefit of Grantee's covenants set forth below in Section 3. (c) Grantee accepts the Premises subject to such covenants and each of the other terms and conditions hereof." B. 'lllat paragraph 4 "Further Covenants Respecting Park i ng" sha ll read as fo l lows as appl ied to Exh i bit B: "4. Fur t her Co venants Respecting Parking. Grantors and Grant e e covenant and agree that until November 3 , 2068: (a ) Granto rs sha l l, at their expense, repair, ma i ntain, light, str i pe, and c lean the Premises, keep i ng the Premises in good o rde r and condit i on, ordinary wear and tear exc epted , a t least equal to the order and cond i t i on o f parking areas maintained for comparable reta il and corrmercial a r eas in the Denve r, Colorado, metropo lita n area . (bl The location and mean s o f acce ss , ing ress , and egress to , f r om , over , on and ac r oss the Premises and the direction and rreans of regulati ng the flow of traffic on and in the Premises as presently established on the date of this Deed, shall not be changed in any material respect without the approval of both Grantors and Grantee. (c) Grant shall provide such police protection and traffic supervision for the Premises as may reasonably r uired to maintain safe and orderly conditions and compli nee with 1 and with the rules and regulations adopted pursuant to this instrll!lent." C. With r spect to that r al property not described in Exhibit B, th agre nt be n th foW'ld in the Deed dated Noveri>er 3, 1968 nd recorded in Book 1807 ~-\eing at peg 713 of th record of the Cl rk and partie Record r of Ar hoe Coun y, State of Colorado, ah 11 r 4 in in full fore I • • - • • • • ! ... \.. ' ,; and effect. III. CI.ARIFICATICtlS A. It is recognized by the parties hereto that Owner has the right to use not more than five percent (51) of the total surface area of the Premises described in Exhibit A lnder paragraph 2 of the Deed, for uses connected with the uses made by Owner of the parcel retained by them; that the total surface area subject to such right equals approximately 1.7 acres; and that Owner has utilized, or is in the process of utilizing, approximately .63 acres thereof for the purpose of the erection and construction of additional parking facilities. B. City agrees that Owner has the right to make use of not more than an additional one (1) acre of the parcel described in the Deed, l.Wlder paragraph 2 of the Deed, for the purpose of erecting a structure, or structures, phys i cally connected to the structure presently existing upon the realty owned by OWner (which structure i s popularly referred to as •cinderella Ci ty"), fo r use as a facility for retail sales and servi ces. C. The parties hereto acknowledge that insofar as the covenants conta i ned with i n the Deed are covenants runn i ng with the l and, pursuant to pa r agraph 5 of tl'le Deed , any successors or assigns of Oolner , including any t nants of th property described on that portion of Exhibit A which ha not n reconveyed to the City, shall have the nefi ting the r thereunder and the nefits of any covenants r may gr nt rights to such t nants , provided no such grant is lnconsist nt with the terms of the D. The ndrnents set forth in paragraph II , A through C, may i""l nted ilffllediately upon the effective date of thi agr nt , exc p tha that tho nts shall be automatically rescinded , shall ther af r s I • • -• • • 1~:... . , ,, completely null and void, and the parties' rights and obligations with respect thereto shall be governed, exclusively, by the terms and provisions of the original Deed unless, on or before January 1, 1986, the CMner shall complete construction of the structure, or structures, which shall contain a minimum of One Hundred Ten 'nlousand {110,000) square feet and shall, by that date, be available for occupancy by a department store or stores, not presently a tenant in Cinderella City, it being understood that the issuance of an occupancy certificate by the City of Englewood for the entire One Hundred Ten niousand (110 ,000) square feet and the recording of a copy thereof, shall be conclusive and irrebuttable evidence of the satisfaction of this condition. E. Except to the extent that the provisions of the Deed are clarified or aanended, as set forth above, the parties hereto confirm and ratify all other prov isions of the Deed. IN WITNESS~. the parties hereto and set their hands and seals the day and year first above wr itten. Attest: Director of Finance ex officio City Clerk-Tr a urer Attes 6 CITY Cl g,:;UXXI), COL£JWX) a 111.W\icipal corporation By---~~-.-------Eug e ne L. Otis, Mayor CI~ A.5SOCIATES, a joint venture by its co-ventur rs fflE EQUIT"8LE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY Cl 'fflE IMITED STATES BY. ___________ _ • I • • J n - (CORPORATE SF.AL) Attest: (CORPOOATE SF.AL) 7 • • • • j~ ~... ·~' ,_: OENolAK ASSOCIATES, a limited partnership BY: KRAVCO, INC., a general partner By _____________ _ • I • • n -• • • ! .•• EXHIBIT "A" The following desc ribed parcels situate in the SW 1/4 of Section 34, Township 4 South, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Arapahoe County, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows: PARCEL A: All that part of the North 1/2 NW 1/4 SE 1/4 SW 1/4, Section 34, township 4 South, Range 68 West, lying West of the West line of South Bannock Street as conveyed to the City of Englewood by Deed recorded Novent>er 18, 1929 in Book 295 at page 154. PARCEL B: A tract of land in the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 34 , Township 4 South, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., described as follows: BEX.INN!~ at a point which is South 89 Degrees 40 Minutes East 486 feet and 658. 76 feet North of the SW corner of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of said Section; thence North 79 Degrees 20 Minutes West 185.78 feet; thence due West 311 feet, more or less, to the West line of said SE 1/4 SW 1/4; thence North along said West line 276 .5 feet, more or less, to the SW corner of N 1/2 NW 1/4 SE 1/4 SW 1/4 of said Section 34; thence East along the South line of said N 1/2 NW 1/4 SE 1/4 SW 1/4 a distance of 484.5 feet; thence South 336.74 feet , more or less , to the point of beginning. PARCEL C: N 1/2 SW 1/4 SW 1/4; SW 1/4 SW 1/4 SW 1/4, except that part described in Book 1032 at page 135 as modified by descr iption in Book 1273 at page 425 and except right of way for Hampden Avenue; W 1/2 SE 1/4 SW 1/4 SW 1/4, lying West of South Elati Street, except right of way for Hampden Avenue. PARCEL D: Lots 1 , 2 , 6, 7 and 8, Block 1, FLOOD'S ADOITIOO TO EN:;LE)il()OO. SUBJECT,~. to the following: 1. Lease in favor of Moun tain View Golf Company, Inc., recorded in Book 1112 at page 251 as modified by instruments recorded in Book 1112 at page 258; Book 1117 at page 203; Book 1122 at page 6; and Book 1273 at page 428. 2 . Lease in favor of the Colorado Nationa l Guard recorded in Book 944 at page 158. 3 . Lease in favor of Englewood Lions Club recorded in Book 578 at page 451 as supplemented by instrument in Book 588 at page 289. 4. Granted and existing rights of way and easements for ditches, roads, highways and public utility lines and installations insofar as any such may affect the subject property. TCGETH.ER WITH all of the right, title and interest , if any, of seller in and to all strips and gores of land separating the parcels above described fran nearby adjacent lands or streets, roads, avenues and alleys. EXCEPT that portion of Parcels A, B, and D herein referred to as the •retained parcel•, more particularly described as follows: BEX.INNll)lj at the Southeast corner of Lot 2 , Flood's Addition; thence West rly along th South line of said Lot 2 extended , a distance of 233.5 feet to a point; thenc Northerly and parallel with the West line of South Bannock Street 175 f t to a point; thence Easterly and parallel with th South lin extended of said Lot 2, 233 .5 feet to a point on the west lin of South Bannock Stre t, thence Southerly and along the We st line of South Bannock Stre t 175 f t to the point of beginning. County of Arapaho , Stat o! Colorado . • ) I • • • ..)']_ r:: RESOLUTI~ NO •. ~~~ SERIES OF 1982 • • • 1.:: ... ~--. .' •..: A RESOLUTI~ NAM:n,i; 'lliE GOLF COURSE OF 'mE CIT'i OF ENJLM)()I), COLORADO. WHEREAS, the City Cooocil of the City of Englewood, Colorado, is desirous of publicly acknowledging the combined efforts of the citizens of Englewood; and WHEREAS, it is especially appropriate that the golf course of the City of Englewood should be named the •Englewood Golf Course•; /1 1, JI It. \•f NOri, 'mEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY 'lliE CIT'i C0UNtIL OF 'mE CIT'i OF ENJID«JOD, COLORADO, AS FOLLCMS: 'nlat the City Cooocil of the City of Englewood, Colorado, does hereby name the golf course of the City of Englewood, Colorado, the ·Englewooo 1Golf Course•. AIX>PTED AND APPROVED this 16th day of August, 1982. Eugene L. Otis, Mayor Attest: ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer I, Gary R. Higbee, ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer of the City of Englewood, Colorado, do hereby certify that the above is a true, accurate and complete copy of Resolution No. __ , Series of 1982. Gary R. Higbee • I • • - • RESOLUTIOO NO. JI SERIES OF 1982 ,· L'. ... • • • . ·- A RESOLUTIOO NAMit«i 'lllE GOLF COURSE OF THE CIT'i OF EMiL~, COLORAOO. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado, is desirous of publicly acknowledging the combined efforts of the citizens of Englewood; and WHEREAS, it is especially appropriate that the golf course of the City of Englewood should be named the •Englewood,1Golf Course•; /hlAriic.i pA.\ NCM, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED B'i 'IliE CIT'i COUNCIL OF 'IliE CIT'i OF EN,lD«)()I), COLOOAOO, AS FOLLCMS: That the City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado, does hereby name the golf cours e of the City of Englewood, Colorado, the •Englewoodl\Golf Course•. ..h.. V rH.h'\i C..1~"-.I AOOPTED AND APPROVED this 16th day of August, 1982. Eugene L. Otis, Mayo r Attest: ex officio City Cle rk-Tre asure r I, Gary R. Higbee , ex officio City Clerk-Treas ure r of the City of Englewood , Color , do he reby certify tha t the a bove is a t rue , accu r ate and ~le copy of Resolution No. __ , serie s of 198 2. Gary R. Higbee • , I • • ( - 7 F .. P R O C L A M A T I O N WHEREAS, Multiple Sclerosis is a disease affecting the nervous systems of young people in the prime of their lives; and WHEREAS, there are 2,000 people in the State of Colorado with Multiple Sclerosis, Colorado having one of the highest per capita rates of :'1ultiple Sclerosis victims in the ~rld; and WHEREAS, the Colorado Multiple Scl erosis Society is committed to the c ure and managernent of the disease, as well as various types of assistance to MS people and their families; and WHE~EAS, Colorado Mult iple Sclerosis Awareness Week will provide to the comnunity answers to many questions about the disease, its victims, and ava·lable resources to them; CM , 'IliEREFORE, I, ElJGENE L. arr s , Mayor of the City of Englewood, Co orado , do hereby proclaim the week of Sunday, August 8, through S urday , August 14, 1982 , as MULTIPLE SCLEROSI S AWARENESS WEEK in the City o( Engl wood. GIVEN und r my hand and seal this 16th day of August, 1982 . Eugene L. Otis, Mayor • ) I • • - 7 \- P R O C L A M A T I O N WHEREAS, according to highly qualified scientists in cancer research, we are walking around with a little time bomb in us from the environmental carcinogens that we have in our systems; this bomb may well explode on us in future years; and WHEREAS, demographic and health trends suggest that deaths from cancer may number about Eight Million annual ly by the year 2000, according to the World Health Organization report; and WHEREAS, the United Cancer Institute has proposed a Cancer Control Program to set up mini-cancer detection facilities throughout the nation to give to those who can 't afford it a free cancer check-up during September 7 through 11, 1982; and WHEREAS, the early detection and treatment of cancer in its early stages would result in the savings of millions of lives each year. NOW, THEREFORE, I, El.JGENE L. JI'IS, Mayor of the City of Englewood, Colorado , do hereby proclaim September 8 , 1982 to be CANCER CTlNTROL Oll.Y in the City of Englewood and urge all residents to seek early check-ups in their convnunities. GIVEN under my hand and seal this 16th day of August, 1982. Eugene L. Otis, Mayor • ) I -• • - 1 °o ,./ / \. / PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, 'l1le citizens of the United States and of the world have become increasingly aware of the meaning of freedom and peace; and WHEREAS, people in the United States have given little tho.ught to the rewards of living in a peaceful society, having been saved the tragedies o f i nt ernational conflict in the continenta l American states; and WHEREAS, even though the ma j ority of men and women in our Armed Forces are now home where they can enjoy their peace, the citizens of the United States and all people in the \o\'.lrld 1t1.1St do their part to continually pray for peace; and \olil:REAS, September 7, 1982 has been designated ·PF.ACE o,..y• by various organizations in the United States and around the world; NO.ti, ~. I, El,x;El'E L. Ol'IS, Mayor of the City o f Eng l ewood do he r e by proclaim Monday, Septent>er 7 , 198 2 as : in Englewood as a reminder that our citizens ha ve to wor k to maintain the peace that we enjoy now and to keep that freedom for all the children of the world. I ask that all our citizens join me for one minute of silence at 12:00 o'clock noon on that day with sincere wishes , thoughts, and prayers for \o\'.lrld peace. GIVDI ll'lder my hand and seal this 16th day of August, 1982. Eugine L. Ot i s , Mayor • I • • - P R O C L A M A r I O N WHEREAS, Multiple Scle rosi s i s a disease affecting the nervous systems of young people in the prime of their lives; and WHEREAS , there are 2,000 people in the State of Colorado with Multiple Sc lerosis, Colo rado having one of the highest per capita rates of Multiple Sclerosis victims in the world; and WHEREAS, the Colorado Multiple Sclerosis Society is corrvnitted to the c ure and management of the disease, as well as various types of assistance to MS people and their families ; and WHEREAS, Colorado Multiple Sclerosis Awar e ness Week wi ll p r ovide to the comm unity answers to many quest~ons about the disease, its victims , a nd available resources to them; NCM , THEREFORE, I , Elx:.ENE L. arr s, Mayor of the City of Englewood , Colo rado , do hereby proclaim the week of Sunday , August 8 , through Satu rday, Augu st 14 , 1982 , as MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS AWARENESS WEEK in the City of Engl d . GIVEN und r my hand and seal this 16th day of August, 1982 . • I . • • - :... 1 Cf;- \ PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, The citizens of the United States and of the world have become increasingly aware of the meaning of freedom and peace; and WHEREAS, people in the United States have given little tho.ught to the rewards of living in a peaceful society, having been saved the tragedies of international conflict in the continental American states; and WHEREAS, even though the majority of men and women in our Armed Forces are now home where they can enjoy their peace, the citizens of the United States and all people in the world llllSt do their part to continually pray for peace; and WHEREAS, September 7, 1982 has been designated "PEACE IY\Y' by various organizations in the United States and aroWld the world; NCW, '11lEREFCIU:, I, ElKi~E L. OrIS, Mayor of the City of Englewood do hereby proclaim Monday, Septeat>er 7 , 1982 as: in Englewood as a reminder that our citizens have to work to maintain the peace that we enjoy now and to keep that freedom for all the children of the world. I ask that all our citizens join me for one minute of silence at 12:00 o'clock noon on that day with sincere wishes, thoughts, and prayers for world peace. GIVEN under 'll'lf hand and seal this 16th day of August, 1982. • I • - P R O C L A M A T I O N WHEREAS , according to highly qualified scientists in cancer research, we are walking around with a littJe time bomb in us from the environmental carcinogens that we have in our systems; this bomb may well explode on us in futur~ years; and WHEREAS , demographic and health trends suggest that deaths f rom cancer may number about Eight Million annually by the year 2000, according to the World Health Organization report; and WHEREAS, the United Cancer Institute has proposed a Cancer Control Program to set up mini-cancer detection facilities throughout the nation to give to those who can 't afford it a free cancer check-up during September 7 through 11 , 1982; and WHEREAS, the early detection and treatment of cancer in its early stages would result in the savings of millions of lives each year. NOW, THEREFORE, I, ElXiENE L. arrs, Mayor of the City of Englewood, Colorado , do hereby proclaim September 8 , 1982 to be CANCER CXlNTROL DW in the City of Engle d and urge all residents to seek early check-ups in their convnunities. GIVEN under my hand and seal this 16th day of August, 1982 . • I - • • • • E:... .: ,_: MEMORANDUM TO: Andy McCown, City Manager FROM: Kay Roberts, Utilities Customer Service Manager DATE: August 12, 1982 SUBJECT: Supplement #15 Valley Sanitation District Relation to Northeast En~lewood Interceptor Trunk Line. The plans submittea by Valley Sanitation's engineer, Rich Cassens, reveal that the sanitary sewer connection will be made on the 21" trunk line belonging to Valley Sanitation. Attached is the engineer's design for clarification. The City would not be able to collect a surcharge fee from this tap . ¥d-~ Kay fuerts Utilities Customer Service Ma nager City of Englewood KR/cb Att. I • • n - I' l' • • ) ) •• I• ,, •• 1 .... L • • J ,1 I.J I I i ' I • • -• • - C O U N C I L C O M " U N I C A T I O N DATE July 28, 1982 AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT Supplement 115 o Request for inclusion ll l'.'.l_.., to Valley Sanitation District t----------......L--.:;_.,~;;.__---1, _____ ...::..:.._:_:~:!.....:.:.:.:..:..:.::.::..:...:.:.:....:..:..::..::.~=---· INITIATED JY ____ Mr_._Ph_i_l_li"""p_No_l_e_n"-, _own_e_r_of_t_he_Ham__:pd_e_n _B_u_si_n_e_ss_Ce_nt_e_r __ ACTION PROPOSED ___ Ap......_p_ro_v_a_l_o_f___.ap~p_l_ic_a_t_io_n_f~or_i_nc~l_u~si_o_n_in_t_o_V~a~l_le~y;__ __ _ Sanitation District • INTRODUCTION : Mr. Phillip Nolen applied for an inclusion to Valley Sanitation District for an office/warehouse complex, the Hampden Business Center. Mr. Nolen had nearly c011Pleted the development process when the Valley Sanitation/ Englewood policy was changed to prohibit any addition of land in Sheridan to the Valley Sanitation District . BACKGROUND INFOR*TION : The HIJlll)den Business Center is located south of HIJlll)den Avenue and east of South Platte Ri ver . The developaent consists of 239,360 square feet of office/warehouse fac i lities and 397,632 square feet of office space . FI NANCI AL DETAILS : None . RECQfM:NDATlON: To appro ve Suppleinent 115 for inclusion into Va lley Sa ni tati on Distri ct, noting this is an exception because of prior application befo re the pol icy was passed prohibiting any additions . I . • - • • • • INCLUSION AGREEMEN 'l THIS INCLUSION AGREEMENT 1• entered into thi• day of , 1982, by and between Phillip w. Nolen (herein- after referred to aa •101en•), and Valley Sanitation Diatrict, a quaai-aunicipal corporation of the State of Colorado (herein- after referred to aa •oiatrict"). W I T I I I S I T H TH A T1 WHIRIAS, Nolen deaire• to include certain land• (the "Property•), aore particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto, within the bounclariee of the Diatrict and to obtain aewer eervice through the Diatr ict aewer ayatea, and lfllllllAI, the Diatrict ia intereated i n including the Property within the boundarie• of the Diatri~t, end providing aewer .. rvice to the Property, purauent to the rule• and regula- tion• of the Diatrict which have been or aay be adopted by the loard of Director• of the Diatrict, and aubject to the further ter•• and condition• of thia A9reeaent 1 and lfHIRL\8, the .... , ayat .. of the Diatrict connect• with the ayatea of the City of l"9lewood1 and lfHllllAS, the Diatrict ia bound by a Connector'• A9reeaent, entered into with the City of Inglewood, whereby Inglewood agree• under certain ter•• and condition• to receive and treat the ae~•9• collected by the Diatrict1 and WHIRIAS, the part iea hereto agree that aewer aervice be liaited to collection of u~ to 44,800 gallon• per day of effluent froa • propoaed office and warehouae facility to be located on the Property, end lfBIRIAS, the Diatrict 1• willing to i nclude the Property to allow aervice connection• upon the tee•• and condi- tion• of tbia A9reeaent, provided, however, that a auppleaent to the Conneotor•a Agre .. ent between Valley and the City of Inglewood i a approved by the City of Inglewood to allow expan- aion of the area covered by auch Connector'• Agreeaent to include the Property , and provided that approval, if neceaaary, ia received froa the appropriate aunicipal entity for the i natallation in ita atreeta of aewer aaina •• here inafter deacribed 1 and alao provided that prior to any obligation• eriaing for the Diatrict to provide aervice to Property, all atatutory requlreaenta and contractual obligation• e re aet and aatlafied1 and WIIIRIAS, the a tatutea of the State of Colorado peralt tha Diatrict and Nolen to enter into thia Agre .. ent, and aaid a t a tute a further provide auch A9ceeaent la binding upon the Diatrict and Nolen, their aucceaaoca, tcenafereea and aaai9na1 NOW TIIIRIPOll&, ln conaidecetion of autual covenant• her e inafter ae t forth, it ta agreed by thft partiea hereto aa followe 1 I • • I. • • • CONDITIONS PRECEDENT A. 8, c. Section 32-1-201 et .. q. C.R.&. 1973, aa Repealed and Ra-enacted 1981. 1. The Diatrict waa organized prior to the adoption of the •control Act.• Therefore, the Diatrict haa not bean required to file a aervica plan purauant to .. id Act. The Board of Directors of the Diatrict therefore have deterainad that the proviaiona •et forth in .. id Act, in particular Section• 32-1-207(2), C.R.S. 1973, Repealed and Re-enacted 1981, are not applicable to the District or ita action•. 2. If, at any tiae, an agency of cOllpatent juriadiction daterainaa that the •control Act,• specifically is applicable to the District and its actions , and that the incluaion of the Prop- erty conatitutea a change of a basic or aaaen- tial nature of the Diatrict requiring the filing of a Service Plan with, and aub .. quant approval of aaid Service Plan by the Board of County C01111iaaionara of Arapahoe County, all action nacaaaary to coaply with auch requiraaanta shall be at the sole expan .. of Nolan. 3. The Dlatrict shall not be liable to Nolen for any daaegaa or coat• resulting froa auch datar- aination1 fro• any auapanaion of thi• Agraaaant ordered in con necti on tharawith1 or frOII any del.aya exper iancad in auch datarainetion, or in the creat ion of aaid Service Plan , and in obtaining app rov a l of the Service Plan fro• the aoard of County co .. i aa ionar• of Ar apahoe County. 4 . In the avan t that any Service Plan, if au ch i a required, i • not approved by the Board of Co unty co .. iaa ionara of Arapahoe County, auch act ion ahell not conatituta a breach by the Diatrict, and thi a Agraaaant shall be null and void and of no further fo rce or affect, at the option of tha Dia tr let. Connector•• Ag ree aent. Thia Agr••••nt la subject to ell of the tar•• a nd condition• ••t forth and contained in the praviouely rafarancad Connector'• Agreaaent, or any aaandaanta or a upplaaanta thereto, whi ch era axpraaaly a ada a part hereof by rafaranca. It i• •xpraaaly a cknowl- edged end agreed that this agraaaant la conditioned upon the approval of a aupplaaant to the Connector'• Agraaaent by Inglewood to allow the herein con- t aaplatad aarvica. u .. of Public Roedwaya. Thi a Ag raaaant ia aubjact to all tar•• and condition• i apoaad by the applicable juriadiction in con nection with the inatall a tion of .. war ••in• and /or connec- tion• in public roadways, if nacaaaary . Satisfa ction o f th••• raquir aaa nta includ1ng pay•ant of a ny faaa •••ociatad therewith, ahall bathe sol• raaponaibility of Nol n. -2- • I • • I' . , • • • • II. COVENANTS AND AGREEMBNTS1 A. •• Payment of F••• and Costa. 1. Nolen agrees to pay the f••• or coats of all professional consultants, including but not liaitad to, engineering consultants, legal con- sultants and financial consultants, incurred by the District in respect to this Inclusion A9ree- ••nt. Such aaount shall be due and payable to the Diatrict fro• Nolan iaaadiataly upon billing to Nolan. Valley hereby acknowledge• receipt of a dapoait of $1,000 to be applied toward said coata. 2. The partiaa acknowledge and agree that upon coaplation of incluaion of the Property within the aoundariaa of the Diatrict, the owner of the Property will be liable for the t•••• for the purpoaa of retiring the Diatrict'• bond•. It 1• further acknowledged and agreed that applicable atatutaa provide that thia liability will aria• whether or not the Property ia aver aarved by the Diatrict, and will continua if the Property or a part thereof i• later excluded froa the Diatrict, •• to bonded indabtadn••• axiating at the tiaa of axcluaion. Such liability will be governed by the applicable atatutaa fro• ti•• to ti•• in affect. 3. In addition to all other aaounta due hereunder, Nolan •hall pay to the Diatrict •• a tap fee the aa6unt of Fifty-Ona Thouaand Two Hundred Dollar• ($51,200.00) concurrent with the execution of thi• agraaaant by Nolan, which aua ia equivalent to the charge for one hundred twenty-eight (128) aingle faaily .. war tap• at Four Hundred Dollar• ($400) per tap. 4 . All faae, rate• or charges including, but not liaitad to, inapaction, tap or treataant charge• to be paid to the City of lnglavood, llhall be paid by Nolan, in addition to all other fee•, charge• and aspen .. • provided herein. Nolan hereby agra•• to hold the Diatrict har•l••• for any and all auch fee• or charge•. Conatruction of Facilitiea • 1. Nolan agr••• to con atruct, at hi• aole expan .. , a ll aewar aarv ica faciliti•• to aarva the Prop- erty, including, but not liaited to, all aain and .. var .. rvica line•, a lift 1tation, a force aain, a gravity aain, and all necaaaary appur- tenance• thereto, required to provide .. var .. rvica to the Property, all in conforaance with the general plan for aervica enunciated 1n the latter attached hereto•• lxhibit I, and aa depicted on lxhibit C hereto. Nora apacifically , a. Conatruction of Gravity lever. Nolen agree• to extend a <~> inch gravity ••var -3- • I • • n n . I :) ·, • • • • ••in•• llhown on Exhibit c, •••tward froa the Diatrict•a exiating twenty-one inch (21") aain along the weat boundary of the Property. Thia new line ahall be the aole property of Nolen and llhall be operated and aaintained by Nolen. b . Conatruction of Force Nain. Nolen •hall conatruct a ( ) inch force aain •• ~on B'iiiibit C along the north boundary of the Property. Thia new line •hall be the aole property of Nolen and llhall be operated and aaintained by Nolan. c. Conatruction of Lift station and Storage~. i. Nolen agr••• to conatruct, at hla aola expanae and for hia aole uaa, a lift atation to be located•• depicted on lxhibit C, and a atoraga tank, to be located on the Property in euch place•• the Diatrict'• engineer •hall direct, for the pur- poaa of holding and later releaalng any affluent accuaulated fro• the opera- tion• on the Property, daacribad in Exhibit B hereto, and further detailed in thia Agraaaant. ii. i U . Nolen agr••• that the daily flow of affluent froa the property into the Diatrict'a eyat•• ahall not exceed 44,100 gallon• par day and that the Dietcict ahall have the eight to enjoin any greater flow . Nolen agr••• that .. nd and gr•••• trapa , if requ ired by the Ci t y o f I ng l ewood , llha ll be inata llad to apecifica - tlona of the City ot B1>9 l ew ood be t wee n fa ciliti•• and lift atat on. iv. Colorado D apoaa l a gr••• th a t a ll e fflu e nt froa the f a cilitia a ah a ll be h e ld in th e ato cage t a n k , a nd th a t a uch effluent be puaped into the Diatrict'• •Y•t•• only d uring t he f our hour period between tha hour• of 1100 •·•· a nd 5100 a .a. -•-I • • ....... ·I ·i I J . •' . , • • • - v. Nolen further agree• that ••id lift atation and acorage tank, inatalled to the Diatrict'• apecifica- tiona, ahall be owned and operated aolely by Nolen, and that Nolen 1• 110lely reaponaibl• and liable for the 11ft atatlon and atorage tank and any daaag• or coat ariaing fro• the operation or failure thereof. 2. Nolen agr••• that all plan• and apecification• in reepect to .. 14 eewer .. rvice f a cilitie• be aubaitted to and eubject to approval of the enginaer for the Diatrlct 1 and that .. id angineer ahall inapect and approve all conatruction of the facilitiea and ahall hav• the right to approve or diaapprove .. 14 cona truction. In the event of di .. pproval, Nolen ahall reaedy tbe reaaon therefor. c. Future lacluaion. The Diatrict agr••• to cooperate in any excluaion of the Property froa within the boundari•• of the Diatrict upon the requeat of both Inglewood and the City of Sheridan1 pro- vided, however, that the proviaion• of c.a.s. 1973, I 32-1-501 et .. q., a• .. pealed and Re-enacted 1981, a• th• .... aay be ... nded in the future, including proviaion• regarding election by landowner•, ahall be deterainative of eacluaion of the Prop- erty , Purther, in the event of auch an eacluaion Nolen hereby apecificelly ackoowledg•• end agr••• that the Property ahall be aubject to levy for payaent of any bonded indebtedne•• incurred by the Diatrict pr ior to the excluaion and further Nolen hereby acknowledge• and agr••• that no part of the coat• incurred by hi• hereunder , including tap f•••, llhall be refunded to Nolen, and further that Nolen aha ll be reaponaible for payaent of all coat• incurred by Valley in connection with auch an excluaion. D. Niacellaneoua Covenant•. l. 2. Nolen agr••• to pey for any daaag•• wh ich aay raault to the Diatrict'• property or aewer ayat••• by reeeon of the laying or conatructlon of the .. wer aaina or ••rvice line• or fa cillti•• which a re the a ubject of thia Ag r e•- aent . Th• Dlatrict doe• not guarantee or warrant by thi • Agraeaent that the City of Inglewood will continue it• .. rvic• and treataent of .. wage and effluent diacharge• into the line by Nolen, and if for any reaaon not the fault ot lhe Diatrict, the City of Englewood ahall fall or refu .. to furniah the .. rvic•• called for in it• Con - nector'• Agr••••nt with the Diatrict, •• aaendad, the Dlatrlct llhall not ba liable to Nolan. It i• further underatood and agreed that the Dlatrict la providing i n thi• Agree•ent only for the u .. of it• aawer line by lncluaion into the Diatrict, and not for the treat•ent of the aewage or effluent dlacharged by Nolen. Th• grenting of au ch u•• of it• aewer line to Nolen and the incluaion of the Prop~rty ahall not be conatruad a• an offering to the publi c generally of auch aervica. -5- • I • • - ·l ', 'l • • • • • l. Thi• Agreeaent shall continue in force and effect 80 long a• the Di•trict, it• •ucceaaor• or a•aign•, aaintaina the ownerahip and opera- tion• of the eaiating .. wage gathering systea or any aodificationa thereof to which Nolen ia hereby authorised to connect. ,. TIits Agr .. aent shall run with the land and inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the aucce•sor• and a••igna of the partiea hereto. If the Property i• •ubdivided into aultiple ownerships or sold as a whole to aultiple owners, aach auch ownerahip or owner ahall be jointly and .. verally liable for the obligation• of •olen hereunder. Any aaaignaent of this Agreeaent by llolen, except to a purchaser of all or a portion of the Property, au•t receive the prior written approval of the Diatrict. I• WITalSI WIIIRIOP the underaigned have aet their hand• and .. ala aa of the date firat above written. ATTIIT1 lecnury STATI Dr COLOIIADO COUNTY or VALLIY SANITATION DISTRICT Sy '---------:-::-::-::-,-,=:-:---Preaident Phillip w. Nolen ss. The foregoing instruaent waa acknowledged before as thia day of , 1912, by •• Pnaiaeiit,""" and by aa Secretary of the VALLIY aAIIITATIO. DI8T1Icf, a quaal-aunlcipal corporation of the State of Colorado. Ny COlllliaaion expire•, Notary Public Add r BH I -•-I • • • STATI or COLORADO COUNTY or ss . • • • The foregoing inatruaent vaa acknovledged before •e thia _____ day of , 1982, by Phillip w. Nolen. Ny cOlllliaaion expire•: Notary Public Addceaa1 _,_ • I • • - ·1 • • • • SUPPLEMENT NO . ...uL_ TO CONNECTOR'S AGREEMENT Sewer Contract No. THIS AGRUIIBNT, made and entered into by and between the CITY OF BNGLEWOOD, actinc by and throuch ita duly authorized Mayor and CitJ Clark, hereinafter referred to aa City, and VALLIY 8AJIIITATIOIC DISTRICT, Arapahoe County, Colorado, hereinafter r e ferred tn aa Diat rict ; Wll&Jl&Aa, on the 5th day of Sept .. ber, 1973, the City entered into a Connector'• Acr .... nt with the Diatrict concerning the connection of the District aewer collec tion f a cili ti es to th" City'• ... ace ayat .. , and IJIIS1l&A8, said Acre ... nt provided that additional service areas could be included within tba li•ita of tbe Diatrict with tba written conaent of the City ; NOW T~10IUI, in conaideration of the premiaea and of tbe •utual covenant• of the partiea hereto, it ia acreed aa follows : 1. The City does hereby conaent to the incluaion of the additional area deacribed on Bxbibit One hereto into Vall e y 8aaitation Diatrict and acreea that aaid additional area may be .. rved with the a ... r facilities of the Diatrict, and that the . City will treat the aawace diachar1ed into the District'• sanitary a .. ac• ayat .. and into tba City•a trunk line froa aai d add i t i on al area, all in accordance with tba Connector'• Acre ... nt dated Saptallber 5, 1973 between tbe City and th• Diatrict. Accord i nc l Y, paracrapb 1 of said Connector'• Acra ... nt ia hereby amended to iacluda the addi~lonal real property deacribed on Bxbibi t One h ereto . Tbe owner of aaid property ia Phillip W. Nolan. 3. &acapt for tbe acraoaent• set forth i n para1raph 1 bareinabove, each and every other prov i aion of aaid Connec tor'• Acre ... nt reaaina uncbancad and continue• in full force and effect, and tbe additional area herein included aball be subject to all of tbe teraa and acre ... nta contained in aaid Conne c tor '• ....._.t . IW WITIQl88 .....OP, tba partiaa hereto have caused their ..... aad aaala to be bere1111to aubacribed and affixed t hi• d~ of , 19 __ • ATTEST : c ity clerk ATTEST : -, / ,· . ~,,s·/= (4,,g,., creta ry CITY OP ENGLEWOOD ll y : ..,,u .. a-,-o'"'r _____________ _ VALLIY SANITATJOtl DISTRICT 11,:_{]__~ );,~d.:_ T 1 '.,e.7 P realdent • I • • ( • • - EXII I HJT ONE rl\RCEL A A PARCE\.. OF LANO LOCATED IN THE NORTliWEST QUARTER IN' SECTION 4, TOIJIJSHJP :, scum. RI\NOE 69 IIE9T, ,,ND THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 3J, TOWNSHIP 4 SOVTH, RANCE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL l'IERIDIAN. co~ o,r AAAPAHOlt, &TATE DI" COI..ORADO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRJDF-D ~9 FOLUJW9 : C01'111ENC1NO AT A rDlNT ON THlt BOUTliERLY LIN£ DI" WEST HAl'\l'l:EN AVE:lf.JE, FllOl1 ~ICH rDINT THE NORTH OVARTER CORNEIi o,r SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP & SOUTH, RA. .. C:I 68 WEST BEAR8 8 a:, Cl:C:REE9 48 ltlNUTES 13 SECONDS E, A DISTANCE~ 860,4S FEET1 THENCE 8 00 DEGREE& 11 "INVTES 30 6EC~~0S W, PARM.LEI. WITH THE EAST LINE DI" SAID 6ECT1DN 4, A DlliTANCI!: OF 791.46 ~Tl THENCE S 72 l>EC:REES :t6 "INUTES W, A DISTANCE OF 490.66 FEET1 THENCE II 38 DECREE& 42 "11-NTES W, A DISTANCE OF 448. 69 FEET, ll1£NCE N 66 DEOREES 43 "INUTE8 44 8ECDN08 W, A DISTANCE DI' 1206.:tl nET t10IIE OR L£118 TO A POINT DN TlfE CENTERLINE 01' ABANDONED COI..ORADO AND SOU'Tl-iERN RAIUOAD RlOHT-Dr-WAV1 n!ENCE N 10 DEOREES 34 "Jt.'UTES 11!:, AL.ONO THE CE~TERLINE C-F &AID A•ANOON~D COLORADO AND SOUTHERN RAILROAD RIOKT-C:-W\Y, A DISTANCE OF Ul6. 36 FEET, 'Th'ENCE 8 79 . DEQREE8 26 NINVTEII E, A DISTANCE DF 90. 0 ll"EET TO A POINT O'N THE EASTERLY Rl<IHT-OF-wAY LUC DI' ne CDLOilADO Nm BOU™c:AN 'RAILROAD CDl'1PN1Y1 TH!HClt N 10 DE1o11EE8 34 CIINVTE8 E, ALDND TH£ IEASTEilLY RJCHT-0."-UAY LINS DF THE COU>RI\DO AND &OVTMEJIN RI\IL.ROI\J) CO:W'AHV, A DISTANCE 01' 130. 2 FEET1 THiNCE 8 79 DEDRE£8 26 NINVTEB It, A DISTANCE 01' :IC>. D FttT1 THENCE 8 10 DE0IIEE8 34 NINVTEB W, PARM.UL WITH THE EAIITULY RIOHT-GF-WAY LINE OF THE COLORADO AND BOUTHl:JIN RAILROAD CDIYANY, A D18TANCII: OF 1~7. l6 FEl:T1 THENCE 8 S8 D£0REEII :,2 "INUTES E, A DIHANCE DF 2fl. 31 FEET1 THENCE 8 71 DEGREES 46 "INUTE8 E, A DISTANCE DF 240. 0 FEET1 THENCE N 00 DE0REE8 01 "llll/TEB 87 SECOtC>S E, A DISTANCE DI" ••s . :rs FEET TO A ro1NT ON THE liOVTHERLY LUC DF WE8T HNV'DEH AVEHVE1 1'1€111CE 8 88 D€0REEII 48 "INUTU 11: AI..ONO 1l4E S0U1')£WLY LUE OF ~T HN1P1'EN AVENU£ A D18TANCE OF l0Sl . T.J n£T, THENCE 8 B3 DECREEI 49 '11111\JTEI I, AUINO THE &OUTHPLY LIi£ OF WEST HAl'l?DEH AVENUE, A Dl9TANCE OF :Zl4. 13 FEET, l'IOIIE OR LE111 TD THE POINT OF IEOINNINO, AND EXCUT THAT PORTION Pllll:YIOU8LY CONIICVED TO THE DEPARTl'IENT DF HlOHWAYW, STATI: Of' COUJRADD, Al'P'EAIUNO AT BOOK 1223, P'~li ~a:, OF THE REAL P'RC.£11TY RECOIIIDI DF ARAl'N<>E Co.MY, COLOR""DO /\ND EXCEl"T THAT PORTION PREVIOUBl.Y CONVEY£D TO l'\.YINO S AUCER 1-0IILE P'ARK , INC ., Al'P'EARINO ~T BOOK 1732, PACE 266, AND RE -RECORCE D lN ID<* 173:t, P"'C:E 178 AND EXCUT THAT P'ART CONYE~D TO CJTY CONCRETE IN BOOK 24'~ AT P'ACE 249. PA L I IN TH SW l/4 OF S CTJON 33, TOl,INSHIP 4 • I .