Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-04-27 (Special) Meeting Agenda• • - CITY COUNCIL MEETING -Special Apr i 1 2 7, 1981 • • - CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 27, 1981 RESOLUTION # 20, 21, 22, 23, ORDINANCE # 38, 39, 40, 41, • 0 • I • • ( • SPECI AL MEETING: • - COUNCI L CHAMBER S CITY OF ENG LEWOO D, COL ORA DO April 27, 1 981 /~ The City Co u n c il of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe County, Co l orado, met in spe cial session on April 2 7, 1981, at 7 :00 p.m. Mayor Otis, presiding, called the meeting to ord~r. The invocation was given by Council Member Thomas Fitzpatrick. The pledge of allegiance was led by Boy Scout Troop #92. Mayor Otis asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the following were present: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena ', Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. Absent: None. The Mayor declared a quorum present. * * * * * * Also present were: City Manager McCown Assistant City Manager Wanush City Attorney DeWitt Assistant City Attorney Holland Director of Community Development Powers Assistant Director of Community Development Romans Deputy City Clerk Watkins * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING AN APPEAL FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COM- MISSION DECISION ON REZONING REQUEST -CASE #2-81 -MR. GEORGE B. ADAMS. Council Member Bilo seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick', Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. • I • • I • Apr il 27, 1 98 1 P age 2 • .. Ass i stant Director of Communi t y Developmen t Do r o thy Romans, 3600 South Bannock, Apt. 204, appeared before Council and provided test i mony to the case. Ms. Romans submi t ted the c ertificat i on of posting and pub l isher 's aff i dav i t of the n o - tice published in the newspaper. Ms. Romans further submitted documents which provided background informat i on for the rezoning request of Lots 10 and 11, Blo c k 1, Centennial Industr i al Park from R-1-B, Single-family Residence, to I-1 Light Industrial. The application was filed by Mr. George B. Adams, owner of the property. Ms. Romans submitted the original petition that was submitted to the Planning Commission. The petition was signed by property owners in the area in favor of rezoning subject property. Ms. Romans reported the Planning Commission decided not to recommend the rezoning to City Council for the follow- ing reasons: 1. No evidence was presented that proved the origi- nal zoning was in error. 2. No evidence was presented that there had been changes in the area which precluded the use of the land under the present zoning. 3. No evidence was presented that the property owner was being denied the use of his property under the present zoning. * * * * * * Mr. Harold Barrett, attorney representing the applicant George B. Adams, appeared before Council. Mr. Barrett stated this case was similar to a previous case of Mr. Rex Garrett's, Case No. 6-77 of 1415 West Tufts. The similarity being a rezoning request from residential to light industrial. Mr. Barrett stated the dif- ferences between the two cases were that an industrial area already existed across the street in Mr. Adams's case and there was no ob- jection by residents. Mr. Barrett submitted a rendering of the structure p l anned for the area and noted a correction from what was said at t he Planning Commission h e ar i ng. Mr. Barrett stated there would not be outside storage. Mr. Barrett's counter reasons for the Commission's denial recommendations were : • I • • ( • ( • Apr il 27 , 1981 Page 3 • - 1 . Th e area is above the 10 0 f oo t p la in and not subject t o dis aste r f r om a flood. The origina l zoning was an edu cated g u e s s. The change in livi ng and econo- mi c s points up tha t from t i me t o tilDe fu rther change in z oning is ne cessary. 2 . Changes ha ve t aken place on the south s i de of Union both commercially and industrially. Banks are not interested in loaning money for construction of houses in this area. 3. Mr. Barrett submitted a letter from Mr. Michael F. Everett, Real Estate Department, Littleton National Bank, recommending that aome type of commercial development be considered for subject area. 4. Mr. Barrett submitted a letter from J. D. Myers ', Senior Vice President, United Bank of Littleton', recommending that the best use of subject pro- perty would be light industrial. 5. Mr. Barrett stated the present zoning will pre- clude an orderly development of the property and no housing of any kind would be considered. The property was not an asset to the City sitting idle. 6. Mr. Barrett stated the change in traffic and the altering attitude of housing units tend to favor a commercial nature of industrial development, e.g. insurance office, doctors, dentists, etc. 7 . The houses on the east belong to Mr. Adams , the applicant , who does not think the change would adversely af f ect the area, 8. Th e surr o und i ng lots are industrial; therefore ~ compa tible t o t h e proposed rezoning. 9 . 10. Lo t s 1, 2, 3 , and 4 to the north through which the Brown Di t ch runs are not of much use for construction u n til t he d i tch is vacated. This area would not be condu cive t o housing development. I n dustr i al development would strengthen the tax ba se . * * * * * * • I • • • • .. April 27, 1981 Page 4 Council Memb er Neal discussed the Rex Garr ett case not- ing the land was never developed. Mr. Neal asked wha t assur a nce could be given that Mr. Adam s 's land would be developed . Council . Mr. Barr ett asked Mr. An ton Barchesky, to appear before Anton Barchesky , 5124 W. Fair Avenu e, Littlet o n , appeared and testified that he was proposing to build on subject property. Mr. Barchesky stated he would st a rt construction wi thin six months and had his own financing. In response to Council Member Neal's que stion, Ms. Romans stated there was nothing in the Code which require d development of the land if the change were made. Ms. Romans stated Mr. Adams had a firm contract with plans to proceed; however , it would not b e anything that the City could control. In response to Council Member Keena's question, Mr. Barrett stated the homes to the south of subject property were residences. In response to Council Member Bilo's question, Mr. Barrett stated Mr. Adams has investigated other possible areas in Englewood for this kind of development. The only other land belonged to Mr. Rex Garrett. The property was not platted ~ and needed to have a street cut through it. The area was so large, Mr. Adams discounted this possibility. City Manager McCown asked Mr. Barrett if the petition signers knew e~actly what they were signing. That they were being given a choice as to whether or not they were for I-1 zoning or were they being given a choice as to the particular development as proposed. Mr. Barrett stated the property owners were given the understanding that there would be an office warehouse built on the property with industrial zoning. George B. Adams, applicant, appeared before Council and provided testimony. Mr. Adams stated he went personally to each property owner, showed them a picture of the structure and told them what was being planned. In response to Council Member Higday's question , Mr. Adams stated h e did not care that warehouse office space would be built across fr om his h ouse. Council Member Neal asked Mr. Adams if th e bill of sale provided for a contingen cy t hat the buyers have to build a particular building • • I • • ( • • - April 7, 19 1 p 5 Mr. Ad ams stat d th buy r had alre ady bou ht th wo lots and put down ea rnest mon y. Mr. Adams st ated h had a sign d contract wi h Mr . Ba rch sky t o pur chase the land sub- j ect t o zoni ng. * * * * * * Mr. Barrett gave closing remarks in that hou sing wa s aging throughout the district. The area had changed to a more functional zoning; and in the new subdivisions , none of t he houses faced a busy thoroughfare. The traffic control lights placed on South Santa Fe had enhanced it a great deal for ci r- culation of traffic and encouraged t he area to grow in a more commercial and industrial nature. Mr. Barrett asked that Coun- cil grant this rezoning request. * * * * * * Mayor Otis asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak either in favor or against the rezoning reques t . No one responded. * * * * * * Council Member Keena asked for an op~n~on from the City Attorney concerning any possibility of conflict of interests on her part since she was related to the property owners of Lot 13 and par t of Lot 14. She stated she had not spoken to her rela- tives about this case. problem. City Attorney DeWitt stated there should not be a legal * * * * * * In response to Council Member Higday's question, Ms. Roman s provided information in regard to the staff report. Ms. Romans stated based upon the information with the two present houses, it was the staff's opinion that detached houses could be bu ilt to the west or some type of housing that would be a buffer between the present houses and the development on Federal Boulevard. The position was to protect the present two houses. Council Member Higday discussed rezoning the area R-3 and noted that Council could initiate rezoning on its own. * * * * * * There were no further comments. * * * * * * • I • • • Apr il 27, 1 98 1 Page 6 • • • COUNCIL MEMBER BILO MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Council Member Neal seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes : Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * Mayor Otis stated Council would discuss the matter further in a study session prior to making a decision on the request. Mayor Otis adjourned the meeting at 8:13p.m. • I • • n ( • SPECIAL MEETING: • - COU NC IL CHAMBER S CITY OF ENG LEWOOD, COL ORADO April 27, 1981 ltZ The City Council of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe County, Colorado, met in s p eci al session on April 27, 1981, at 7 :00 p.m. Mayor Otis , presiding, called the meeting to ord~r. The invocation was given by Council Member Thomas Fitzpatrick. The pledge of allegiance was led by Boy Scout Troop 192. Mayor Otis asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the following were present : Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena •, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. Absent : None. The Mayor declared a quorum present. * * * * * * Also present were: City Manager McCown Assistant City Manager Wanush City Attorney DeWitt Assistant City Attorney Holland Director of Community Development Powers Assistant Director of Community Development Romans Deputy City Clerk Watkins * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING AN APPEAL FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COM- MISSION DECISION ON REZONING REQUEST -CASE 12-81 -MR. GEORGE B. ADAMS. Council Member Bilo seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays : Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick•, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. • 0 I • • • Apr il 27 , 198 1 Page 2 • Ass i stant Director o f Communi t y Development Dorothy Romans, 3600 South Bannock, Apt. 204, appeared before Council and provided testimony to the case. Ms. Romans submitted the certification of posting and publ i sher's affidavit of the n o - tice published in the newspaper. Ms. Romans further submitted documents which provided background information for the rezoning request of Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Centennial Industrial Park from R-1-B, Single-family Residence, to I-1 Light Industrial. The application was filed by Mr. George B. Adams, owner of the property. Ms. Romans submitted the original petition that was submitted to the Planning Commission. The petition was signed by property owners in the area in favor of rezoning subject property. Ms. Romans reported the Planning Commission decided not to recommend the rezoning to City Council for the follow- ing reasons: 1. No evidence was presented that proved the origi- nal zoning was in error. 2. No evidence was presented that there had been changes in the area which precluded the use of the land under the present zoning. 3. No evidence was presented that the property owner was being denied the use of his property under the present zoning. * * * * * * Mr. Harold Barrett, attorney representing the applicant George B. Adams, appeared before Council. Mr. Barrett stated this case was similar to a previous case of Mr. Rex Garrett's, Case No. 6-77 of 1415 West Tufts. The similarity being a rezoning request from residential to light industrial. Mr. Barrett stated the dif- ferences between the two cases were that an industrial area already existed across the street in Mr. Adams's case and there was no ob- jection by residents. Mr. Barrett submitted a rendering of the structure planned for the area and noted a correction from what was said at t he Planning Commission h e aring. Mr. Barrett stated there would not be outside storage. Mr. Barrett's counter reasons for the Commission's denial recommendations were : • I • • ( • April 27, 1981 Page 3 • - 1. The area is above the 100 foot plain and not subject to disas ter from a flood. The original zoning was an educated guess. The change in living and econo- mics points up that from time to time further change in zoni ng is ne cessary. 2 . Changes have t aken place on the south side of Union both commercially and industrially. Banks a.re not interested in loaning money for construction of houses in this area. 3. Mr. Barrett submitted a letter from Mr. Michael F. Everett , Real Estate Department, Littleton National Bank, recommending that some type of commercial development be considered for subject area. 4. Mr. Barrett submitted a letter from J. D. Myers ', Senior Vice President, United Bank of Littleton ', recommending that the best use of subject pro- perty would be light industrial. 5. Mr. Barrett stated the present zoning will pre- clude an orderly development of the property and no housing of any kind would be considered. The property was not an asset to the City sitting idle. 6. Mr. Barrett stated the change in traffic and the altering attitude of housing units tend to favor a commercial nature of industrial development, e.g. insurance office, doctors, dentists, etc. 7. The houses on the east belong to Mr. Adams, the applicant, who does not think the change would adversely affect the area. 8. The surrounding lots are industrial; therefore ', compatible to the proposed rezoning. 9. 10. Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 to the north through which the Brown Ditch runs are not of much use for construction until the ditch is vacated. This area would not be conducive to housing development. Industrial development would strengthen the tax base. * * * * * * • I • • • • - April 27, 1981 Page 4 Council Member Neal discussed the Rex Garrett case not- ing the land was never developed. Mr. Neal asked what assurance could be given that Mr. Adams's land would be developed. Mr. Barrett asked Mr. Anton Barch esky, to appear before Council. Anton Barchesky , 51 24 W. Fair Avenue , Littleton , appeared and testified that he was proposing to build on subject property . Mr. Barchesky stated he would start cons tr uct ion within six months and had his own fi nancing. In response to Council Member Neal's question , Ms. Romans stated there was nothing in the Code which required deve lo pment of the land if the change were made. Ms. Romans stated Mr. Adams had a firm contract with plans to proceed ; however, it woul d not be anything that the City could control. In response to Council Member Keena 's question, Mr. Barrett stated the homes to the south of subject property were residences. In response to Council Member Bilo's question, Mr. Barrett stated Mr. Adams has investigated other possible areas in Englewood for this kind of development. The only other land belonged to Mr. Rex Garrett. The property was not platted ·, and needed ~o have a street cut through it. The area was so large, Mr. Adams discounted this possibility. City Manager McCown asked Mr. Barrett if the petition signers knew exactly what they were signing. That they were being given a choice as to whether or not they were for I-1 zoning or were they being given a choice as to the particular development as proposed. Mr. Barrett stated the property owners were given the understanding that there would be an office warehouse built on the property with industrial zoning. George B. Adams, applicant, appeared before Council and provi ded testimony. Mr. Adams stated he went personally to each property owner, showed them a picture of the structure and told them what was being planned. In response to Council Member Higday's question, Mr. Adams stated he did not care that warehouse office space would be built across from his h ouse. Council Member Neal asked Mr. Adams if th e bil l of sale provided for a contingency t hat the buyers have to build a parti cular building • • I • • I ( • • .. April 27 1981 ag 5 Mr. Ad ams stat d th buyer had alre ddy bou ght th two lo s and pu t down earnest money . Mr. Adam s stat d he had a s1gn d contract with Mr. Bdrche sky t o purchas e t h e land sub-ject to zoning . * * * * * * Mr. Barrett gave closing remarks in that housing was agin g thro ughout the district. The area had changed t o a more functional zoning; and in the new subdivisions, none of the houses faced a busy thoroughfare. The traffic control l igh ts placed on South Santa Fe had enhanced it a great deal for ci r - culation of traffic and encouraged th e area to grow in a more commercial and industrial nature. Mr. Barrett asked that Coun- cil grant this rezoning request. * * * * * * Mayor Otis asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak either in favor or against the rezoning request. No one responded. * * * * * * Council Member Keena asked for an opinion from the City Attorney concerning any possibility of conflict of interests on her part since she was related to the property owners of Lot 13 and part of Lot 14. She stated she had not spoken to her rela-tives about this case. problem. City Attorney DeWitt stated there should not be a legal * * * * * * In response to Council Member Higday's question, Ms. Romans provided information in regard to the staff report. Ms. Romans stated based upon the information with the two present houses, it was the staff's opinion that detached houses could be built to the west or some type of housing that would be a buffer between the present houses and the development on Federal Boulevard. The position was to protect the present two houses. Council Member Higday discussed rezoning the area R-3 and noted that Council could initiate rezoning on its own. * * * * * * There were no further comments. * * * * * * • I • • • April 27, 1981 Page 6 .. • • • COUNCIL MEMBER BILO MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Council Member Neal seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * Mayor Otis stated Council would discuss the matter further in a study session prior to making a decision on the request. Mayor Otis adjourned the meeting at 8:13p.m. n.¥e·'tHY cr& 'u ~It I. "' • I • • ,I ( • SPECIAL MEETING : • • COUNCIL CH AMBERS CITY OF ENG LE WOOD, COLORADO April 27, 1981 ltZ Th e City Council of the City o f Englewood, Ar apahoe County, Colorado, met in s p ecial session on April 27, 1981 , at 7 :0 0 p.m . Mayor Otis , presiding, called the meeting to ordPr. The invocation was given by Council Me mber Thomas Fitzpatrick. The pledge of a l legiance was led by Boy Scout Troop #92. Mayor Otis asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the following were present: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena ', Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. Absent : None. The Mayor declared a quorum present. * * * * * * Also present were : City Manager McCown Assistant City Manager Wanush City Attorney DeWitt Assistant City Attorney Holland Director of Community Development Powers Assistant Director of Community Development Romans Deputy City Clerk Watkins * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING AN APPEAL FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COM- MISSION DECISION ON REZONING REQUEST -CASE #2-81 -MR. GEORGE B. ADAMS. Council Member Bilo seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes : Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick', Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried • • I • • • Apr il 27, 19 8 1 Page 2 • .. As s i s t an t Dir ec tor of Commun ity Deve lopment Dor o thy Roman s , 3600 South Bannock, Apt. 204, appeared before Counc i l a nd p rov i ded t es timony t o the cas e . Ms. Romans submitted the c ertificat i on of posting and pub lisher's a ff idavit of the n o - tice published in the newspaper. Ms. Romans further submitted docum ents which provided background informa tion for the rezon ing reque st of Lots 10 and 11 , Bl o ck 1 , Centenn i al Industria l Park from R··l-B, Single-family Residence, to I-1 Light Industrial . The application was filed by Mr. George B. Adams, owner o f the property. Ms. Romans submi tted the or i ginal pet i tion th a t was submitted to the Planning Commiss i on. The petition was signed by property owners in the area in favor of rezoning subject property. Ms. Romans reported the Planning Commission decided not to recommend the rezoning to City Council for the follow- ing reasons: 1. No evidence was presented that proved the origi- nal zoning was in error. 2. No evidence was presented that there had been changes in the area which precluded the use of the land under the present zoning. 3. No evidence was presented that the property owner was being denied the use of his property under the present zoning. * * * * * * Mr. Harold Barrett, attorney representing the applicant George B. Adams, appeared before Council. Mr. Barrett stated this case was similar to a previous case of Mr. Rex Garrett's, Case No. 6-77 of 1415 West Tufts. The similarity being a rezoning request from residential to light industrial. Mr. Barrett stated the dif- ferences between the two cases were that an industrial area already existed across the street in Mr. Adams's case and there was no ob- jection by residents. Mr. Barrett submitted a rendering of the structure planned for the area and noted a correct i on from what was said at the Planning Commiss i on h e arin g. Mr. Barrett stated ther e would not be outside storage. Mr. Barrett's coun t er reason s f or the Commissi on 's den i al recommendations we re : • I • • .· ( • Apr il 2 7, 198 1 P age 3 • - 1. The area is above the 100 foot plain and not subject to disaster from a flood. The original zoning was an educated guess. The change in living and econo- mics points up that from time to time fur ther change in zoning is nec essary. 2 . Changes have t aken place on the south side of Union both commercially and industrially. Banks are not interested in loaning money for construction of houses in this area. 3. Mr. Barrett submitted a letter from Mr. Michael F. Everett, Real Estate Department, Littleton National Bank, recommending that some type of commercial development be considered for subject area. 4. Mr. Barrett submitted a letter from J. D. Myers ', Senior Vice President, United Bank of Littleton1, recommending that the best use of subject pro- perty would be light industrial. 5. Mr. Barrett stated the present zoning will pre- clude an orderly development of the property and no housing of any kind would be considered. The property was not an asset to the City sitting idle. 6. Mr. Barrett stated the change in traffic and the altering attitude of housing units tend to favor a commercial nature of industrial development, e.g. insurance office, doctors, dentists, etc. 7. The houses on the east belong to Mr. Adams, the applicant, who does not think the change would adversely affect the area. 8. The surrounding lots are industrial; therefore ', compatible to the proposed rezoning. 9. Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 to the north through which the Brown Ditch runs are not of much use for construction until the ditch is vacated. This area would not be conducive to housing development. 10. Industrial development would strengthen the tax base. * * * * * * • I • • • • - Apr il 27, 1 98 1 Page 4 Counci l Member Neal discussed the Rex Garrett case not- ing the land was never developed. Mr. Neal asked wha t assurance coul d be given that Mr. Adams's land would be developed. Mr. Barrett asked Mr. Anton Barchesky , to appear before Council. Anton Barchesky, 5124 W. Fair Avenu e, Littleton , appeared and testified that he was proposing to build on subject property . Mr. Barchesky stated he would start construction within six months and had his own financing. In response to Council Member Neal's quest ion, Ms. Romans stated there was nothing in the Code which required development of the land if the change we re made. Ms. Romans stated Mr. Adams had a firm contract with plans to proceed; however , it would not be anything that the City could control. In response to Council Member Keena's question, Mr. Barrett stated the homes to the south of subject property were residences. In response to Council Member Bilo's question, Mr. Barrett stated Mr. Adams has investigated other possible areas in Englewood for this kind of development. The only other land belonged to Mr. Rex Garrett. The property was not platted !, and needed to have a street cut through it. The area was so large, Mr. Adams discounted this possibility. City Manager McCown asked Mr. Barrett if the petition signers knew exactly what they were signing. That they were being given a choice as to whether or not they were for I-1 zoning or were they being given a choice as to the particular development as proposed. Mr. Barrett stated the property owners were given the understanding that there would be an office warehouse built on the property with industrial zoning. George B. Adams, applicant, appeared before Council and provided testimony. Mr. Adams stated he went personally to each property owner , showed them a picture of the structure and told them what was being planned. In response to Council Member Higday's question , Mr. Adams stated he did not care that warehouse office space would be built acros s from his house. Council Member Neal asked Mr. Adams if the bill of sale provided for a contingen cy that the buyers have to build a particular building • • I • • ( • • - Apri 1 27, 1981 Page 5 Mr. Adams stat e d th buyer had alre ady bough t the two lots and put down earnest money. Mr. Adams st at ed he had a s1 gn d contract with Mr. Bar chesky to p urch a s e t h e land sub - ject t o zoning . * * * * * * Mr. Barrett gave closing remarks in that housing was agi ng throughout the district. The area had changed t o a more functional z oning ; and in the new subdivis i ons , none o f the houses faced a busy thoroughfar e . The traff ic control ligh ts placed on South Santa Fe had enhanced i t a great deal for c ir - culation of traffic and encoura ged the a rea to grow in a mor e commercial and industrial nature. Mr. Barrett asked that Coun- cil grant this rezoning request. * * * * * * Mayor Otis asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak either in favor or against the rezoning reques t . No one responded. * * * * * * Council Member Keena asked for an op1n1on from the City Attorney concerning any possibility of conflict of interests on her part since she was related to the property owners of Lot 13 and part of Lot 14. She stated she had not spoken to her rela- tives about this case. City Attorney DeWitt stated there should not be a legal problem. * * * * * * In response to Council Member Higday's question, Ms. Roman s provided information in regard to the staff report. Ms. Romans stated based upon the information with the two present houses , it was the staff's opinion that detached houses could be built to the west or some type of housing that would be a buffer betw e en the present houses and the development on Federal Boulevard. Th e position was to protect the present two houses. Council Memb e r Higday discussed rezoning the area R-3 and noted that Council could initiate rezoning on its own. * * * * * * There were no further comments. * * * * * * • I • • n • April 27, 1981 Page 6 .. • • • -. COUNCIL MEMBER BILO MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Council Member Neal seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * Mayor Otis stated Council would discuss the matter further in a study session prior to making a decision on the request. Mayor Otis adjourned the meeting at 8:13p.m. ) I • • • ( SPECIAL MEETING: • - COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ENGLE\1«)()0, COLORADO April 27, 1981 lcz The City Council of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe County, Colorado, met in special session on April 27, 1981, at 7 :00 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 Boy Scout Troop #92. Mayor Otis asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the following were present: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. Absent : None. The Mayor declared a quorum present. * * * * * * Also present were: City Manager McCown Assistant City Manager Wanush City Attorney DeWitt Assistant City Attorney Holland Director of Community Development Powers Assistant Director of Community Development Romans Deputy City Clerk Watkins * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING AN APPEAL FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COM- MISSION DECISION ON REZONING REQUEST -CASE #2-81 -MR. GEORGE B. ADAMS. Council Member Bilo seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick', Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. I • • • April 27, 1981 Page 2 • .. Assistant Director of Community Development Dorothy Romans, 3600 South Bannock, Apt. 204, appeared before Council and provided testimony to the case . Ms. Romans submitted the certification of posting and publisher's affidavit of the no- tice published in the newspaper . Ms . Rom a ns further submitted documents which provid d background information for the rezoning request of Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Centennial Industrial Park from R-1-B, Single-family Residence, to I-1 Light Industrial. The application was filed by Mr. George B. Adams, own er of the property . Ms. Romans submitted the original petition that was submitted to the Planning Commission . The petition was signed by property owners in th area in favor of rezoning subject property. Ms. Romans reported the Planning Commission decided not to r commend the rezoning to City Council for the follow- i ng reasons : 1. No evidence was presented that proved the origi- nal zoning was in error. 2. No evidence was presented that there had been changes in the area which precluded the use of the land under the present zoning. 3. No evidence was presented that the property owner was being denied the use of his property under the present zoning. * * * * * * Mr. Harold Barrett, attorney representing the applicant George B. Adams, appeared before Council. Mr. Barrett stated this case was similar to a previous case of Mr. Rex Garrett's, Case No. 6-77 of 1415 West Tufts. The similarity being a rezoning request from residential to light industrial. Mr. Barrett stated the dif- ferences between the two cases were that an industrial area already existed across the street in Mr. Adams's case and there was no ob- jection by residents. Mr. Barrett submitted a rendering of the structure planned for the area and noted a correction from what was said at the Planning Commission hearing. Mr. Barrett stated there would not be outside storage. Mr. Barrett's counter reasons for the Commission's denial recommendations were : • I • • ( ( • April 27, 1981 Page 3 • - 1. The area is above the 100 foot plain and not subject to disaster from a flood. The original zoning was an educated guess. The change in living and econo- mics points up that from time to time further change in zoning is necessary. 2. Changes have taken place on the south side of Union both commercially and industrially. Banks are not interested in loaning money for construction of houses in this area. 3. Mr. Barrett submitted a letter from Mr. Michael F. Everett, Real Estate Department, Littleton National Bank, recommending that some type of commercial development be considered for subject area. 4. Mr. Barrett submitted a letter from J. D. Myers ', Senior Vice President, United Bank of Littleton •, recommending that the best use of subject pro- perty would be light industrial. 5. Mr. Barrett stated the present zoning will pre- clude an orderly development of the property and no housing of any kind would be considered. The property was not an asset to the City sitting idle. 6. Mr. Barrett stated the change in traffic and the altering attitude of housing units tend to favor a commercial nature of industrial development, e.g. insurance office, doctors, dentists, etc. 7. The houses on the east belong to Mr. Adams, the applicant, who does not think the change would adversely affect the area. 8. The surrounding lots are industrial; therefore ~ compatible to the proposed rezoning. 9. 10. Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 to the north through which the Brown Ditch runs are not of much use for construction until the ditch is vacated. This area would not be conducive to housing development. Industrial development would strengthen the tax base. * * * * * * • I • • • • - April 27, 1981 Page 4 Council Member Neal discussed the Rex Garrett case not- ing the land was never developed. Mr. Neal asked what assurance could be given that Mr. Adams's land would be developed. Council. Mr. Barrett asked Mr. Anton Barchesky, to appear before Anton Barchesky, 5124 W. Fair Avenue, Littleton, appeared and testified that he was proposing to build on subject property. Mr. Barchesky stated he would start construction within six months and had his own financing. In response to Council Member Neal's question, Ms. Romans stated there was nothing in the Code which required developme nt of the land if the change were made. Ms. Romans stated Mr. Adams had a firm contract with plans to proceed; however, it would not be anything that the City could control. In response to Council Member Keena's question, Mr. Barrett stated the homes to the south of subject property were residences. In response to Council Member Bilo's question, Mr. Barrett stated Mr. Adams has investigated other possible areas in Englewood for this kind of development. The only other land belonged to Mr. Rex Garrett. The property was not platted •, and needed to have a street cut through it. The area was so large, Mr. Adams discounted this possibility. City Manager McCown asked Mr. Barrett if the petition signers knew exactly what they were signing. That they were being given a choice as to whether or not they were for I-1 zoning or were they being given a choice as to the particular development as proposed. Mr. Barrett stated the property owners were given the understanding that there would be an office warehouse built on the property with industrial zoning. George B. Adams, applicant, appeared before Council and provided testimony. Mr. Adams stated he went personally to each property owner, showed them a picture of the structure and told them what was being planned. In response to Council Member Higday's question , Mr. Adams stated he did not care that warehouse office space would be built across from his house. Council Member Neal asked Mr. Adams if the bill of sale provided for a contingency that the buyers have to build a particular building • • I • • ( c • • • .. April 27, 1981 Page 5 Mr. Ad ams stated t h e b u yer t wo l ots and put down ea rn e s t mo n e y. a signed contrac t w ith Mr. Ba rch e sky jec t t o z oning. had a l re ady bought the Mr. Adams stated he h a d to purchas e the lan d s u b- * * * * * * Mr. Barrett gave closing remarks in that housing was aging throughout the district. The area had changed to a more funct i onal zoning; and i n the new subdivisions, none of the houses faced a busy thoroughfare. The traffic control lights placed on South Santa Fe had enhanced it a great deal for cir- culation of traffic and encouraged the area to grow in a more commercial and industrial nature. Mr. Barrett asked t hat Coun- cil grant this rezoning request. * * * * * * Mayor Otis asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak either in favor or against the r ez oning reques t . No one responded. * * * * * * Council Member Keena asked for an op~n~on from the City Attorney concerning any possibility of conflict of interests on her part since she was related to the property owners of Lot 13 and part of Lot 14. She stated she had not spoken to her rela- tives about this case. City Attorney DeWitt stated there should not be a legal problem. * * * * * * In response to Council Member Higday's quest i on , Ms. Romans prov ided information in regard to the staff report. Ms. Romans stated based upon the information with the two present houses, it was the staf f 's opinion that detached houses could be built to the west or some type of housing that would be a buffer between the present houses and the development on Federal Boulevard. The position was to protect the present two houses. Council Member Higday discussed rezoning the area R-3 and noted that Council could initiate rezoning on its own. * * * * * * There were no further comments. * * * * * * • I • • 0 • • April 27, 1981 Page 6 • • • COUNCIL MEMBER BILO MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Council Member Neal seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * Mayor Otis stated Council would discuss the matter further in a study session prior to making a decision on the request. Mayor Otis adjourned the meeting at 8:13p.m. • I> I • • ( • REGULAR MEETING: • • COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ENGLEio«X>D, COLORADO May 4, 1981 ICJ The City Council of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe County, Colorado, met in regular session on May 4, 1981, at 1:30 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 Boy Scout Troop 1115 and 1154. Mayor Otis asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the following were present: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. Absent: Council Member Keena. The Mayor declared a quorum present. * * * * * * Also present were: City Manager McCown Assistant City Manager Wanush Assistant City Attorney Holland Director of Finance/ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer Higbee Deputy City Clerk Watkins * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 20, 1981. Council Member Fitz- patrick seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayef1 : Nays: Absent: Co unci 1 Members Higday, Neal, Fi tzpatrick 1, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. Council Member Keena. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * • I • • • • • May 4, 1981 Page 2 time. were: Ther wer no pre-scheduled visitors on the agenda . * * * * * * There were no other visitors wishing to spe ak at this * * * * * * "CoUIIIUnications -No Action RecolliDended" on the agenda (a) (b) (c) (d) Minutes of the Board of Career Service Com- missioners meeting of March 19 , 1981. Mi nutes of the Downtown Development Au- thor ity meeting o f April 22, 1981. Memorandum from the Fire Chief to the City Manager concerning out-of-state trips that Fire personnel attended. Municipal Court Activity Report for the month of March, 1981. COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO ACCEPT TIONS -NO ACTION RECOMMENDED" AGENDA ITEMS SA -SD. Member Bilo seconded the motion. Upon a call of the vote resulted as follows : "COMMUNICA- Council roll, the Ayes : Nays : Absent : Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick', Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. Council Member Keena. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * Assistant City Manager Wanush presented the minutes of the Water and Sewer Board meeting of April 14, 1981, and the recommendation contained therein regarding a request made by the Valley Sanitation District for annexation of additional land into the service area. COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO APPROVE SUPPLEMENT 14 VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT. Council Member Fitzpatrick seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: • I • • ( c • May 4, 19 8 1 Page 3 Ayes : Nays : Absent : • - Council Memb e rs Hi gday , Nea l, Fit zp a t rick , Bi l o , Br a d s h aw , Ot i s. None. Council Member Keena. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * Assistant City Manager Wanush presented the minutes of the Water and Sewer Board meeting of April 14, 1981, and the recommendation contained therein regarding a license agree- ment with the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad and the Denver and Rio-Grande Railroad for permission to place a 27" sanitary sewer line across the tracks. Council Member Neal requested that staff prepare a time line reflecting the decisions to be made in regard to the sewer line inclusive of options of some sort of culvert along Floyd or from Floyd and Elati down to the plant. Mr. Wanush replied that the Director of Public Works and the Director of Utilities were presently preparing a prelimi- nary report outlining the basic steps and decisions that have to be made on the project. Mr. Wanush stated the time line would be available to Council before any final acceptance of bids were made. Council Member Higday stated the Water and Sewer Board also discussed the opening and closing of Broadway on an untimely basis for one project or another was becoming unacceptable ; and coordination was going to be demanded. Council Member Neal stated he did not want to have Floyd Avenue torn up during Christmas because it would block the northern access into Cinderella City. Also, that Floyd Avenue was critical to the redevelopment plans of Cinderella City. COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS WITH THE ATCHINSON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILROAD AND THE DENVER AND RIO GRANDE RAILROAD FOR A 27" SANITARY SEWER LINE TO CROSS THE RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY. Council Member Bilo seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows : Ayes : Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick', Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis • • I • • 0 I • May 4, 19 8 1 Page 4 Nays : Absent : • - None. Council Member Keen a . The Mayor declared the motion carried . Council Member Neal requested further that an analysis be prepared in terms of the six quarter budget, i.e. what funds are available, what funds are allocated to projects, and what funds can potentially be allocated for this project. * * * * * * Mayor Otis presented a Council Communication from the Parks and Recreation Department requesting permission to hang a banner across South Broadway announcing Super Saturday. COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST TO HANG A BANNER OVER SOUTH BROADWAY FROM JUNE 15 -JUNE 22, 1981, ANNOUNCING SUPER SATURDAY. Council Member Higday seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as fol-lows: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. Council Member Keena. The Mayor declared the motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 38 SERIES OF 1981 * * * * * * BY AUTHORITY COUNCIL BILL NO. 41 INTRODUCTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING SECTIONS l THROUGH 16 OF CHAPTER 7, TITLE IX, OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE OF 1969 ', AS AMENDED. COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL MOVED TO PASS COUNCIL BILL NO. 41 1, SERIES OF 1981, ON FINAL READING. Council Member Bradshaw sec- onded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes : Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick', Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis • • I • • , ' ( • May 4, 198 1 Page 5 Nays : Absent : • - None. Council Member Keena. The Mayor declared the motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. SERIES OF 1981 * * * * * * BY AUTHORITY A BILL FOR COUNCIL BILL NO. 43 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF A UTILITY RIGHT-OF-WAY IN CENTENNIAL SOUTH SUBDIVISION ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LOTS 6 AND 14 1, ARAPAHOE COUNTY, COLORADO. COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO PASS COUNCIL BILL NO. 43, SERIES OF 1981, ON FIRST READING. Council Member Brad- shaw seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes : Nays : Absent: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick', Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. Council Member Keena. The Mayor declared the motion carried. ORDINANCE NO.· __ _ SERIES OF 1981 * * * * * * BY AUTHORITY A BILL FOR COUNCIL BILL NO. 44 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 22 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING OR- DINANCE, ORDINANCE NO. 26, SERIES OF 1963 , OF THE CITY OF ENGLE- WOOD, RELATING TO ADULT USES, ESTABLISHING ZONING LIMITATIONS ON THEIR LOCATION, AND PROVIDING FOR THE TERMINATION OF NONCON- FORMING USES. • I . • • May 4 , 1981 Page 6 • - Council Member Bradshaw asked for the rationale be- hind the 500 foot limitation from residential areas as opposed to the 1000 foot in the temporary ordinance. Mr. Holland stated in a recent United States Supreme Court case on this particular subject, a similar ordinance was held constitutional . The ordinance contained the requirement that a use must be 500 feet or more from residential areas. Mr. Holland stated Mr. DeWitt put in the 500 foot requirement to assure the bill constitutional; however, it would be Coun- cil's discretion to increase the limitation . COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO PASS COUNCIL BILL NO. 44, SERIES OF 1981, ON FIRST READING. Council Member Bilo seconded the motion. COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL MOVED TO AMEND THE "AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY" AFTER "USES" IN THE Council Member Fitzpatrick seconded the motion. the roll, the vote resulted as follows : MOTION AND ADD ORDINANCE TITLE. Upon a call of Ayes : Nays : Absent : Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. Council Member Keena. The Mayor declared the motion carried. Upon a call of the roll, the vote on the original mo-tion resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick•, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. Council Member Keena. The Mayor declared the motion carried. COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO SET A PUBLIC HEAR- ING ON COUNCIL BILL NO. 44, FOR JUNE 1, 1981, AT 7 :30 P.M. Coun- cil Member Neal seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll •, the vote resulted as follows : Ayes : Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick•, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis • • I • • ,.. ( c • May 4, 1981 Page 7 Nays: Absent: • - None. Council Member Keena. The Mayor declared the motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 20 SERIES OF 1981 * * * * * * A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF CHARLES C. GRIMM AS ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO PASS RESOLUTION NO. 20, SERIES OF 1981. Council Member Fitzpatrick seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick', Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. Nays: None. Absent: Council Member Keena. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO ACCEPT A PROCLAMA- TION DECLARING THE WEEK OF MAY 17 -23, 1981, AS "PUBLIC WORKS WEEK". Council Member Bradshaw seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. Council Member Keena. The Mayor declared the motion carried. Council asked the newspaper reporters to make mention of the aforementioned event in their respective newspapers. * * * * * * • I • • • May 4, 1981 Page 8 • .. Assistant City Attorney Holland transmitted and dis - cussed a memorandum from City Attorney DeWitt reg arding a draft ordinance designed to increase penal ties for mun icipal offenses . As sistant City Attorney Holland transmitted and dis- cussed a memorandum f rom City Attorney DeWitt regarding a draft ordinance regulating gold and silver exchanges. In regard to the proposed ordinance on increasing pena lties for municipal offenses, Co uncil Member Neal ask ed for information on whether or not restitution and/or fine could exceed the $1,000 limit. Also , whether or not resti- tution can be required. Assistant City Attorney Hol land stated municipali- ties do not have the authority to enact anything which would be classified as a felony. To determine whether or not some- thing is a felony, is determined by the penalty which is as- sessed for it. The minimum penalty for determination of a felony is $1,000. He stated there is some chance if the pen- alty assessed for the violation of an ordinance went to $1,000 or over a $1,000 including restitution that that would be classi- fied a felony and therefore, the City could not have an ordinance doing that. Mr. Holland stated the City Attorney's office would further research the question. Council Member Neal asked if restitution could be se- parated from the concept of a penalty. * * * * * * Assistant City Attorney Holland informed Council that the Housing Authority had paid off the loan for the new Senior Citizen Housing project. * * * * * * Council Member Higday instructed the Deputy Clerk to add his name as co-sponsor to Council Bill No. 44. Other Council Members expressed support for the bill. * * * * * * City Manager McCown presented a Council Communication from the Director of Finance concerning Computer Hardware and Software Contract with Computer Resource Management Corporation (CRMC) with a Lease/Purchase Agreement • • l I • • , ( ( • May 4, 1981 Page 9 • - Director of Finance Higbee appeared before Council and presented the information. Mr. Higbee stated final contract terms had been reached with CRMC in the amount of $266,710 of which $186,460 is for the purchase of computer hardware and $80,250 for the purchase of application software. Mr. Higbee stated the application software would be Vehicle Maintenance package, Finance Accounting package, Utility Accounting package, Payroll Personnel system, Sales Tax Accounting system, and Fire Depart- ment Incident Reporting package. Mr. Higbee requested that the City Manager be authorized to execute the contract for computer hardware and software with CRMC pending the City Council passing a resolution at some future date entering into a lease/purchase arrangement for the financing of the computer hardware and software. Mr. Higbee further requested that the City Manager be authorized to enter into a lease/purchase contract negotiations for the purpose of financing the computer hardware. Mr. Higbee stated the 1981 Data Processing Budget con- tained $118,000 for the purpose of making lease/purchase payments and also for implementation support. Mr. Higbee requested that a down payment in the amount of ~80,710 be made, leaving a total of $186,000 to be financed over a five-year period of time. Mr. Higbee stated Margaret Freeman, the City's Data Processing Manager, and Gary Svoboda, President of the CRMC •, were present if Council had any questions. Council Member Bradshaw stated the operational audit of Municipal Court showed a tremendous need for computer pro- gramming of the court. Ms. Bradshaw asked if Municipal Court's needs will be phased in. Mr. Higbee stated there would be no problem in phas- ing it in. The contract was for a one-year period of time and all of the applications he mentioned should be on board. Mr. Higbee stated the hardware has the capacity to take care of the Court's needs; and if Council directed the undertaking of Court applications this year, it would take additional workload, an- other contract, and additional money; or deletion of some of the applications. Mr. Higbee stated the applications proposed in Phase I were the current applications being run on the exist- ing computer system; and until they are on the new computer sys- tem, the old computer system can not be removed. COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A LEASE/PURCHASE CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE COMPUTER HARDWARE AND SOFT- WARE WITH CRMC. Council Member Neal seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: • ) I • • • May 4, 19 8 1 Page 10 Ay es : Nays : Absent : • - Council Me mbers Higd a y, Neal, Fit z patrick, Bilo, Bradshaw , Otis. None. Council Member Keena. The Mayor declared the motion carried. COUNC I L MEMB ER BRADSHAW MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT WITH CRMC PENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL PASS A RESOLUTION AT SOME FUTURE DATE ENTERING INTO A LEASE/PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR COMPUTER HARDWARE AND SOFT- WARE. Council Member Neal seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows : Ayes : Nays: Absent : Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. Council Member Keena. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * City Manager McCown presented a Council Communication from the Director of Engineering Services concerning an agree- ment with Urban Drainage and Flood Control District with the City of Englewood on construction and inspection of Little Dry Creek Schedule I Project. COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO DIRECT THE CITY AT- TORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE AGREEMENT. Coun- cil Member Fitzpatrick seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick!, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. Council Member Keena. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * • D I • • ( ( • May 4, 198 1 Pa ge 11 RESOLUTION NO. 21 SERIES OF 1981 • • - A RESOLUTION APPROVING A LEASE WITH MEDIA ENTERPR I SES , INC. COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO PASS RESOLUTION NO. 21, SERIES OF 1981. Council Member Bradshaw seconded the motion. contracts. Council Member Neal opposed renegot i ating existing Council Member Higday agreed wi th Mr . Neal. COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO TABLE THE RESOLUTION • Council Member Higday seconded the mot i on. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows : Ayes : Nays: Absent: Council Members Higday , Bilo, Bradshaw. Council Members Neal, Fitzpatrick, Otis. Council Member Keena. The Mayor declared the motion defeated. Council instructed the City Manager to bring up this matter at a study session to discuss the contract's impact on the water plant. Upon a call of the roll, the vote on the original mo- tion resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Absent : Council Members Fitzpatrick, Bradshaw, Otis. Council Members Higday, Neal, Bilo. Council Member Keena. The Mayor declared the motion defeated. * * * * * * Council instructed staff to send a sympathy card to the family of Vi Gardner. * * * * * * • I • • • • • • • • May 4, 1981 Page 12 Council instructed staff to send a get well card to the mother of City Attorney Rick DeWitt. * * * * * * There was no further business to be discussed. * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. 8:40 p.m. Mayor Otis adjourned the meeting without a vote at ~ 'i?UI~~ -~ [0) ~~--4/ puty City er • I • • • ( • SPECIAL MFETI NG : • - COU GIL CHAMBERS CITY OF tNGU. OD, COL ORA DO April 27, 19 81 I Th e City Cou n il o th Ci ty of Englewood , Ar apaho Coun y, Colorad o, m in p c ial session on Apr i l 27 , 1981, a 8 :25 p .m. May or Otis , pre i d i ng , called the meet i ng to or d r. Eo th th e in vo c at ion and p l ed ge o f allegian ce wer e di s- pensed with since they were spoken at the prio r meet i n g . Mayor Otis asked for roll call. Upon a call o f the rol l, the following were present : Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, ~ilo, Bradshaw, Otis. Absent : None. The Mayor declared a quorum present. * * * * * * Also present were : City Manager McCown Assistant City Manager Wanush City Attorney DeWitt Assistant City Attorney Holland Director of Community Develop- ment Powers Assistant Director of Community Development Romans Deputy City Clerk Watkins * * * * * * COUNCI L MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEAR- I NG TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO TITLE VI, CHAPTER 7, OF TH E ENGLEWOOD MUN IC IPA L CODE, ASSESSING AGAINST CERTAIN REALTY AND THE OWNERS THEREOF THE COST OF REMOVAL OF WEEDS THEREFROM BY THE CI TY OF ENGLEWOOD PLUS AN ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE AND PENALTY. Co u n- cil Me mber Fitzpatrick seconded the motion. Upon a call of the r o ll , the vote r e su l ted as f o llows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried . • 0 I • • n • • .. April 27, 1 98 1 Page 2 Assistant City Attorney Tom Holland presented the proposed ordinance. Mr. Holland stated the ordinance was au- thorized under Title VI, Chapter 7, of the 1969 Englewood Mu- nicipal Code. Attached to the ordinance was a list of the owners of particular realty for which it was necessary that the City remove weeds. The City has sent statements to the property owners concerning the cost of the weed removal and has not received payment. Mr. Holland stated the ordinance assesses the cost of weed removal as well as a penalty against those specified owners and realty. public tinel. owners Mr. Holland submitted the published legal notice of hearing published April 8 , 1981, in the Englewood Sen - He submitted also the published legal notice that all and occupants of land within the City to remove weeds. In discussing the mechanics of the ordinance, Mr. Holland submitted the notice of posting used by the Code En- forcement Division of the Community Development Department notifying the owner of and/or occupant of a property to re- move weeds. Mr. Holland stated Code Enforcement officers continue to check to see if the weeds have been cut; and if not, the work goes out for bid and the paper work forwarded onto the Finance Department. He added that the Code Enforce- ment Division makes a photographic record of their determina- tion that weeds exist, that the property has been posted, and whether or not weeds have been cut. If the City incurrs the cost for weed removal, the Finance Department sends a certi- fied statement to the owner. Mr. Holland submitted sample copies of a certified statement and a follow up letter. Mr. Holland stated the City has received and recorded six to ten responses on this matter. The people were told to come to the meeting or to write a letter should they wish to present evidence. Mr. Holland stated if Council finds the costs to be in order, the assessments will be forwarded to the County Trea- surer for collection. Council Member Bilo asked how the assessment was going to ef f ect previous owners of property who have not paid. Mr. Hol l and stated if a prior owner appears on the list and the weeds were actually removed from his property, the assess- ment is valid . If the weeds were removed from a previ ous owner's property and the City has billed the wrong person, that person would not be responsible for paying . Mr. Hol land stated the ordinance gives Council the power to correct any of those kinds of errors • • I • • c • April 27, 1981 Pag 3 • - Council Member Bradshaw noted a certain property owner on the list actually paid the bill last year. Ms. Bradshaw stated the property owner was under the impression that she still had a month in which t o write an explanatory letter. Mr. Holland stated it was his understanding that people were informed they had a certain length of time in which to write a letter. Mr. Holland suggested that Council not pass the ordinance at this meeting, but give all those who might want to come in and speak at this hearing the op- portunity to do so and all of those who have previously con- tacted the City an opportunity to write a letter. As soon as staff got the documents, the list would be updated. In response to City Manager McCown's question, Mr. Holland stated letters received after the public hearing could be considered according to the way the Code was written. Mr. Holland stated the list would be reviewed, veri- fied, and corrected by the Finance Department. Mr. Holland then submitted a letter from Robert Von Schlichting protesting the assessment amount for his property. * * * * * * Mayor Otis asked for anyone wishing to speak to Council on this matter to come forward. Robert Von Schlichting, 4308 South Pennsylvania, ap- peared before Council. Mr. Schlichting provided testimony con- cerning his protest. He suggested that people do not read legal notices and would not know their property was going to be assessed. Mr. Schichting suggested that another letter be sent to the people addressed to "Resident " in order that more people be given an op- portunity to be aware of the assessment. Mr. Schichting stated this method would be less expensive than researching real estate records. There was no other person in the audience wishing to speak on the ordinance. Council Member Keena asked if the lien was placed on the realty rather than the person. Mr. Holland stated the assessment would go against both the realty and the record owner of that realty. • I • • • April 27, 1981 Page 4 • .. Hr. Von Schlichting suggested that the letter be a general questionnaire to cover renters , past property owners, present property owners, etc. Council Member Neal stated the problem of correct ass essments would be handled properly if the matter could be processed every six months. Council Member Fitzpatrick suggested that Council make it a record to require every fall a listing as to whose weeds were cut and to what indebtedness the City has incurred to cut the weeds. Mr. Fitzpatrick then asked how many certi- fied letters were returned to the City. Hr. Holland stated many or most of the letters came back. He noted that the ordinance d id not require a regis tered notific ation to be sent to the property owners but only required the mailing of a letter and that all other forms of notice to be sufficient. Council Member Bradshaw called Susie Schneider to come forward. Susie Schneider, 2990 South Grant, appeared before Council. Ms. Schneider provided testimony in that the ord i - nance would facilitate the control of weeds in the City. Ms. Schneider stated that many of the people were perpetual viola- tors who owned severa l pieces of property but did not take care of them. Ms. Schneider stated she did not believe sending another letter would help facilitate getting the assessments paid. Most of the letters that were returned were double checked by her and with the County, many of which were found to be in estates, etc. She stated she had some concerns about assessing property owners who bought property three years ago ~ have kept it up during the three years, and were now receiving assessment notices. Mayor Otis spoke of the necessity in keeping the list up-to-date annually ; and further supported weed removal enforcement. Council Member Neal discussed the list o f assessmen ts. Mr. Neal stated he felt the penalties were too low. He requ ested the City Attorney to prepare some suggestions in recovering the t rue costs on this ordinance. * * * * * * There were no further comments. * * * * * * • I • • c • • • . . • April 27, 1981 Page 5 COUNCIL MEMBER KEENA MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEAR- ING. Council Member Bilo seconded the motion . Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: MEETING. 9:00 p.m. Ayes: Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw , Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER FITZP ATRICK MOVED TO ADJOURN THE Mayor Otis adjourned the meeting without a vote at ~~~~~ p ty City er ' • I • • ( • SPECIAL MEETI NG: • - COU NCIL C ft MBERS CITY OF ENGU.~ D, COLORADO April 27. 1981 I Th e City Co unc il of the City of Englewood, Ara pahoe County, Colorado , me t in spec ial session on April 27 , 19 8 1 , at 8 .25 p .m. Ma yor Otis, pr e siding, called the meeting to order . ~o th t h e invo ca t ion and pledge of allegiance were dis- pensed with since they were spoken at the pr i or meet i ng. Mayor Otis asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the following were present : Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, ~ilo, Bradshaw, Otis. Absent : None. The Mayor declared a quorum present. * * * * * * Also present were: City Manager McCown Assistant City Manager Wanush City Attorney DeWitt Assistant City Attorney Holland Director of Community Develop- ment Powers Assistant Director of Community Development Romans Deputy City Clerk Watkins * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEAR- I NG TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO TITLE VI, CHAPTER 7, OF TH E ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE, ASSESSING AGAINST CERTAIN REALTY AND THE OWNERS THEREOF THE COST OF REMOVAL OF WEEDS THEREFROM BY THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLUS AN ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE AND PENALTY. Coun- c il Member Fitzpatrick seconded the motion. Upon a call of the r o ll , the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw , Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried • • I • • • • - April 27, 1981 Page 2 Assistant City Attorney Tom Holland presented the proposed ordinance. Mr. Holland stated the ordinance was au- thorized under Title VI, Chapter 7, of the 1969 Englewood Mu- nicipal Code. Attached to the ordinance was a list of the owners of particular realty for which it was necessary that the City remove weeds. The City has sent statements to the property owners concerning the cost of the weed removal and has not received payment. Mr. Holland stated the ordinance assesses the cost of weed removal as well as a penalty against those specified owners and realty. public tinel. owners Mr. Holland submitted the published legal notice of hearing published April 8 , 1981, in the Englewood Sen- He submitted also the published legal notice that all and occupants of land within the City to remove weeds. In discussing the mechanics of the ordinance , Mr. Holland submitted the notice of posting used by the Code En- forcement Division of the Community Development Department notifying the owner of and/or occupant of a property to re- move weeds. Mr. Holland stated Code Enforcement officers continue to check to see if the weeds have been cut; and if not, the work goes out for bid and the paper work forwarded onto the Finance Department. He added that the Code Enforce- ment Division makes a photographic record of their determina- tion that weeds exist, that the property has been posted, and whether or not weeds have been cut. If the City incurrs the cost for weed removal, the Finance Department sends a certi- fied statement to the owner. Mr. Holland submitted sample copies of a certified statement and a follow up letter. Mr. Holland stated the City has received and recorded six to ten responses on this matter. The people were told to come to the meeting or to write a letter should they wish to present evidence. Mr. Holland stated if Council finds the costs to be in order, the assessments will be forwarded to the County Trea- surer for collection. Council Member Bilo ask ed how the assessment was go ing to effect previous owners of property who have not paid. Mr. Holland stated if a prior owner appears on the list and the weeds were actually remo ved from his property, th e assess- ment is valid. If the weeds were removed from a previous owner's property and the City has billed the wrong person, that person would not be responsible for paying. Mr . Holland stated the ordinance gives Council the power to correct any of those kinds of errors . • I • • ( ( • Apr il 27, 1981 Page 3 • - Counci l Membe r Bradshaw noted a certain p rop erty owner on the list a ctually pa i d t he b i ll last y ear. Ms . Brad s haw s t a ted t he property owner was under th e i mpr es s ion tha t she still h ad a month in wh i ch to write an e xplan a t or y le t t er . Mr. Holland sta t e d it was h i s understand i ng t hat people were informed they had a certain length of time i n which to write a letter. Mr. Holland suggested that Coun cil not pass the ordinance at this meeting, but give all thos e who might want to come i n and speak at this hearing the op- portunity to do so and all of those who have previously con- tacted the City an opportunity to write a letter. As soon as staff got the documents , the list would be updated. In response to City Manager McCown's question, Mr. Holland stated letters received after the public hearing could be considered according to the way the Code was written. Mr. Holland stated the list would be reviewed, veri- fied , and corrected by the Finance Department. Mr. Holland then submitted a letter from Robert Von Schlichting protesting the assessment amount for his property. * * * * * * Mayor Otis asked for anyone wishing to speak to Council on this matter to come forward. Robert Von Schlichting, 4308 South Pennsylvania, ap- peared before Council. Mr. Schlichting provided testimony con- cerning his protest. He suggested that people do not read legal notices and would not know their property was going to be assessed. Mr. Schichting suggested that another letter be sent to the people addressed to "Resident" in order that more people be given an op- portunity to be aware of the assessment. Mr. Schichting stated this method would be less expensive than researching real estate records. There was no other person in the audience wishing to speak on the ordinance. Council Member Keena asked if the lien was placed on the realty rather than the person. Mr. Holland stated the assessment would go against both the realty and the record owner of that realty. • I • • 0 • • • April 27 , 1981 Page 4 • - Mr. Von Schl ichti n g sugges ted t h at the letter be a g eneral questionna i re t o cov er rente r s , past pr o perty owne r s ', p resent property owners , e t c. Counc i l Member Neal stated the pr obl em o f c o r re ct assessments would be handled properly i f the matter cou ld be processed every six months. Council Member Fitzpatrick suggested that Coun cil make it a record to require every fa l l a listing as t o wh ose weeds were cut and to what indebtedness the City has incurred to cut the weeds. Mr. Fitzpatrick then asked how many c ert i - f i ed letters were returned to the City. Mr. Holland stated many or most of the letters came back. He noted that the ordinance did not require a registered notification to be sent to the property owners but only requi r ed the mailing of a letter and that all other forms of notice to be sufficient. Council Member Bradshaw called Susie Schneider to come forward. Susie Schneider, 2990 South Grant, appeared before Council. Ms. Schneider provided testimony in that the ordi- nance would facilitate the control of weeds in the City. Ms. Schneider stated that many of the people were perpetual viola- tors who owned several pieces of property but did not take care of them. Ms. Schneider stated she did not believe sending another letter would help facilitate getting the assessments paid. Most of the letters that were returned were double checked by her and with the County, many of which were found to be in estates, etc. She stated she had some concerns about assessing property owners who bought property three years ago •, have kept it up during the three years, and were now receiving assessment notices. Mayor Otis spoke of the necessity in keeping the list up-to-date annually; and further supported weed removal enforcement. Council Member Neal discussed the list of assessmen ts . Mr. Neal stated he felt the penalties were too low. He requ e s ted the City Attorney to prepare some suggestions in recovering the true costs on this ordinance. * * * * * * There were no further comments. * * * * * * • I • • ( c • • • .. - April 2 7 , 1981 Page 5 COUNCIL MEMBER KEENA MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEAR- ING. Council Member Bilo seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: MEETING. 9:00 p.m. Ayes : Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO ADJOURN THE Mayor Otis adjourned the meeting without a vote at • I • • ( • S PECIAL ME ETING : • - COUNCIL CHAMBE RS CI TY OF ENGLI:.WOO D, COLORADO Ap r il 27, 1981 l b The City Cou n cil of the Cit y of Engl ewood , Arapahoe Count y , Colorado, me t i n specia l s es sion on Apri l 2 7, 1981, at 8 :25 p .m. May or Otis, presiding , called the meeting to o rder. Eoth t h e i nvocat i on and pledge of a llegia nce wer e dis- pensed with since they were sp oken at the prior meet i ng . Mayo r Otis asked f or roll call. Upon a call o f th e roll , the following were present: Counc i l Members Higday , Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, ~ilo, Bradshaw, Otis. Absent : None. The Mayor declared a quorum present. * * * * * * Also present were: City Manager McCown Assistant City Manager Wanush City Attorney DeWitt Assistant City Attorney Holland Director of Community Develop- ment Powers Ass i stant Director of Commun i ty Development Romans Deputy City Clerk Watkins * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEAR- ING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO TITLE VI, CHAPTER 7, OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE, ASSESSING AGAINST CERTAIN REALTY AND THE OWNERS THEREOF THE COST OF REMOVAL OF WEEDS THEREFROM BY THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLUS AN ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE AND PENALTY. Coun- cil Member Fitzpatrick seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll , the vote resulted as follows: Ayes : Nays : Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick', Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried • • I • • • April 27, 19 8 1 Page 2 • .. Assis t ant Ci ty Attorney Tom Holland presented the proposed or d inance. Hr. Holland stated the ordinance was au- t h o r i zed under Ti tle VI, Chapter 7, of the 1969 Englewood Mu- nicipal Code . Attached to the o rdinance was a list of the owners of particular realty for which it was necessary that the Ci t y remove weeds. The City has sent statements to the property owners concerning the cost of the weed removal and has not received payment. Hr. Holland stated the ordinance assesses the cost of weed removal as well as a penalty against those specified owners and realty. Mr. Holland submitted the published legal notice of public hearing published April 8, 1981, in the Englewood Sen- tinel . He submitted also the published legal notice that all owners and occupants of land within the City to remove weeds. In discussing the mechanics of the ordinance , Hr. Holland submitted the notice of posting used by the Code En- forcement Division of the Community Development Department notifying the owner of and/or occupant of a property to re- move weeds. Mr. Holland stated Code Enforcement officers continue to check to see if the weeds have been cut; and if not, the work goes out for bid and the paper work forwarded onto the Finance Department. He added that the Code Enforce- ment Division makes a photographic record of their determina- tion that weeds exist, that the property has been posted, and whether or not weeds have been cut. If the City incurrs the cost for weed removal, the Finance Department sends a certi- fied statement to the owner. Hr. Holland submitted sample copies of a certified statement and a follow up letter. Mr. Holland stated the City has received and recorded six to ten responses on this matter. The people were told to come to the meeting or to write a letter should they wish to present evidence. Mr. Holland stated if Council finds the costs to be in order, the assessments will be forwarded to the County Trea- surer for collection. Council Member Bilo asked how the assessment was going to effect previous owners of property who have not paid. Mr. Hol l and stated if a prior owner appears on the list and the weeds were actually removed from his property, the assess- ment is valid. If the weeds were removed from a previous owner 's property and the City has billed the wr ong person, that person would not be responsible for paying . Mr. Holland stated the ordinance gives Council the power to correct any of those kinds of errors. • ) I • • n April 27, 19 81 Pag 3 .. • • Council Member Bradshaw noted a certain property ow ner on th e lis t actually paid the bill last year. Ms. Bradshaw stated the property owner was under the impression that she still had a month in which to write an explanatory letter. Mr. Rolland stated it was his understanding that people were informed they had a certain length of time in which to write a letter. Mr. Rolland suggested that Council not pass the ordinance at this meeting, but give all those who might want to come in and speak at this hearing the op- portunity to do so and all of those who have previously con- tacted the City an opportunity to write a letter. As soon as staff got the documents, the list would be updated. In response to City Manager McCown's question, Mr. Rolland stated letters received after the public hearing could be considered according to the way the Code was written. Mr. Rolland stated the list would be reviewed, veri- fied, and corrected by the Finance Department. Mr. Rolland then submitted a letter from Robert Von Schlichting protesting the assessment amount for his property. * * * * * * Mayor Otis asked for anyone wishing to speak to Council on this matter to come forward. Robert Von Schlichting, 4308 South Pennsylvania, ap- peared before Council. Mr. Schlichting provided testimony con- cerning his protest. He suggested that people do not read legal notices and would not know their property was going to be assessed. Mr. Schichting suggested that another letter be sent to the people addressed to "Resident" in order that more people be given an op- portunity to be aware of the assessment. Mr. Schichting stated this method would be less expensive than researching real estate records. There was no other person in the audience wishing to speak on the ordinance. Council Member Keena asked if the lien was placed on the realty rather than the person. Mr. Rolland stated the assessment would go against both the realty and the record owner of that realty. 0 I • • • April 27, 1981 Page 4 • - Mr. Von Schlichting suggested that the letter be a general questionnaire to cover renters, past property owners ', present property owners, etc. Council Member Neal stated the problem of correct assessments would be handled properly if the matter could be processed every six months. Council Member Fitzpatrick suggested that Council make it a record to require every fall a listing as to whose weeds were cut and to what indebtedness the City has incurred to cut the weeds. Mr. Fitzpatrick then asked how many certi- fied letters were returned to the City. Mr. Holland stated many or most of the letters came back. He noted that the ordinance did not require a registered notification to be sent to the property owners but only required the mailing of a letter and that all other forms of notice to be sufficient. Council Member Bradshaw called Susie Schneider to come forward. Susie Schneider, 2990 South Grant, appeared before Council. Ms. Schneider provided testimony in that the ordi- nance would facilitate the control of weeds in the City. Ms. Schneider stated that many of the people were perpetual viola- tors who owned several pieces of property but did not take care of them. Ms. Schneider stat~d she did not believe sending another letter would help facilitate getting the assessments paid. Most of the letters that were returned were double checked by her and with the County, many of which were found to be in estates, etc. She stated she had some concerns about assessing property owners who bought property three years ago ', have kept it up during the three years, and were now receiving assessment notices. Mayor Otis spoke of the necessity in keeping the list up-to-date annually; and further supported weed removal enforcement. Council Member Neal discussed the list of assessments. Mr. Neal stated he felt the penalties were too low. He requested the City Attorney to prepare some suggestions in recovering the t rue costs on this ordinance. * * * * * * There were no further comments. * * * * * * • I • • • ( • • • - April 27, 1981 Page 5 COUNCIL MEMBER KEENA K>VED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEAR- ING. Council Member Bilo seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: MEETING. 9:00 p.m. Ayes: Nays : Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick·, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO ADJOURN THE Mayor Otis adjourned the meeting without a vote at • .... I • • ( ( • SPECIAL MEETING : • .. COUNCIL CHAMB ERS CITY OF ENG LEWO OD , COLORADO Apr il 2 7, 1981 lb The City Council of the Ci ty of Englewood, Arapahoe Co u nty , Colorado , met i n special session on April 27, 1981 , at 8 :25 p.m. Mayor Otis, presiding, called the meeting to order. aoth the invocation and pledge of allegiance were dis- pensed with since they were spoken at the prior meeting. Mayor Otis asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the following were present: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, ailo, Bradshaw, Otis. Absent : None. The Mayor declared a quorum present. * * * * * * Also present were : City Manager McCown Assistant City Manager Wanush City Attorney DeWitt Assistant City Attorney Holland Director of Community Develop- ment Powers Assistant Director of Community Development Romans Deputy City Clerk Watkins * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEAR- ING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO TITLE VI, CHAPTER 7, OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE, ASSESSING AGAINST CERTAIN REALTY AND THE OWNERS THEREOF THE COST OF REMOVAL OF WEEDS THEREFROM BY THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLUS AN ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE AND PENALTY. Coun- cil Memb e r Fitzpatrick seconded the motion. Upon a call of the rol l , the vote resulted as f ollows : Ayes: Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. Non e . The Mayor declared t he motion carried • • D I • • • • • .. April 27, 1981 Page 2 Assistant City Attorney To m Ho lland p re sented the pro p osed ord i nanc e . Mr. Holland s t ated the ordinance was au- t h o r iz ed under Tit l e VI, Chapter 7, of th e 1969 Englewood Mu- n i c i pa l Co de. Attached to the ordinance was a list of the own e rs of particular realty for which it was necessary that the City remov e weeds . The Ci ty has sent statements to the property owners concerning the cost of the weed removal and has not received payment. Mr. Holland stated the ordinance assesses the cost of weed removal as well as a penalty against those specified owners and realty. public tinel. owners Mr. Holland submitted the published legal notice of hearing published April 8, 1981, in the Englewood Sen- He submitted also the published legal notice that all and occupants of land within the City to remove weeds. In discussing the mechanics of the ordinance, Mr. Holland submitted the notice of posting used by the Code En- forcement Division of the Community Development Department notifying the owner of and/or occupant of a property to re- move weeds. Mr. Holland stated Code Enforcement officers continue to check to see if the weeds have been cut; and if not, the work goes out for bid and the paper work forwarded onto the Finance Department. He added that the Code Enforce- ment Divis i on makes a photographic record of their determina- tion that weeds exist, that the property has been posted, and whether or not weeds have been cut. If the City incurrs the cost for weed removal, the Finance Department sends a certi- fied statement to the owner. Mr. Holland submitted sample copies of a certified statement and a follow up letter. Mr. Holland stated the City has received and recorded six to ten responses on this matter. The people were told to come to the meeting or to write a letter should they wish to present evidence. Mr. Holland stated if Council finds the costs to be in order, the assessments will be forwarded to the County Trea- surer for collection. Council Member Bilo asked how the assessment was going to effect previous owners of property who have not paid. Mr. Holland stated if a prior owner appears on the list and the weeds were actually removed from his property, the assess- ment is valid. If the weeds were removed from a previous owner's property and the City has billed the wrong person, that person would not be responsible for paying. Mr. Holland stated the ordinance gives Council the power to correct any of those kinds of errors • • I • • ( • April 27, 1981 Page 3 • - Council Member Bradshaw noted a certain property owner on the list actually paid the bill last year. Ms. Bradshaw stated the property owner was under the impression that she still had a month in which to write an explanatory letter. Mr. Holland stated it was his understanding that people were informed they had a certain length of time in which to write a letter. Mr. Holland suggested that Council not pass the ordinance at this meeting, but give all those who might want to come in and speak at this hearing the op- portunity to do so and all of those who have previously con- tacted the City an opportunity to write a letter. As soon as staff got the documents, the list would be updated. In response to City Manager McCown's question, Mr. Holland stated letters received after the public hearing could be considered according to the way the Code was written. Mr. Holland stated the list would he reviewed, veri- fied, and corrected by the Finance Department. Mr. Holland then submitted a letter from Robert Von Schlichting protesting the assessment amount for his property. * * * * * * Mayor Otis asked for anyone wishing to speak to Council on this matter to come forward. Robert Von Schlichting, 4308 South Pennsylvania, ap- peared before Council. Mr. Schlichting provided testimony con- cerning his protest. He suggested that people do not read legal notices and would not know their property was going to be assessed. Mr. Schichting suggested that another letter be sent to the people addressed to "Resident" in order that more people be given an op- portunity to be aware of the assessment. Mr. Schichting stated this method would be less expensive than researching real estate records. There was no other person in the audience wishing to speak on the ordinance. Council Member Keena asked if the lien was placed on the realty rather than the person. Mr. Holland stated the assessment would go against both the realty and the record owner of that realty. • 0 I • • • Apri l 27 , 1 98 1 Page 4 • .. Mr . Von Schlichting suggested that the letter be a general questionnaire to cover renters , past property owners, pr esen t property owners , etc. Council Member Neal stated the problem of correct assessments would be handled properly if the matter could be processed every six months. Council Member Fitzpatrick suggested that Council make it a record to require every fall a listing as to whose weeds were cut and to what indebtedness the City has incurred to cut the weeds. Mr. Fitzpatrick then asked how many certi- fied letters were returned to the City. Mr. Holland stated many or most of the letters came back. He noted that the ordinance did not require a registered notification to be sent to the property owners but only required the mailing of a letter and that all other forms of notice to be sufficient. Council Member Bradshaw called Susie Schneider to come forward. Susie Schneider, 2990 South Grant, appeared before Council. Ms. Schneider provided testimony in that the ordi- nance would facilitate the control of weeds in the City. Ms. Schneider stated that many of the people were perpetual viola- tors who owned several pieces of property but did not take care of them. Ms. Schneider stated she did not believe sending another letter would help facilitate getting the assessments paid. Most of the letters that were returned were double checked by her and with the County, many of which were found to be in estates, etc. She stated she had some concerns about assessing property owners who bought property three years ago ~ have kept it up during the three years, and were now receiving assessment notices. Mayor Otis spoke of the necessity in keeping the list up-to-date annually; and further supported weed removal enforcement. Council Member Neal discussed the list of assessments. Mr. Neal stated he felt the penalties were too low. He requested the City Attorney to prepare some suggestions in recovering the true costs on this ordinance. * * * * * * There were no further comments. * * * * * * • I • • • • .. • April 27, 1981 ( Page 5 • COUNCIL MEMBER KEENA K>VED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEAR- ING. Council Member Bilo seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows : MEETING. 9:00 p.m. Ayes : Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO ADJOURN THE Mayor Otis adjourned the meeting without a vote at 2/li-t.~~~~ ty City er . • 0 I . • • • • - ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Aye Nay Absent Abstain Hlgday Neal Fl tzpatn ck Keena Bllo Bradshaw OtiS &Lh d :b AfCtUu ~ 0-:f;W '=f~utuv -~ 4 f~-k y;~1 ~->6 1 ~~-~1 ~ • . ~ a..L ~fi /.... ~ /d u-~ ~ J) (_ lrU/l L v<k zJ~ ;c?t')')l~ CU~vu -J{ ~fUI't/W-7 ~t111 c/ I . • • • .. • ROLL CALL Hove d Seconded Aye Nay Absent Abstain Higday v- Neal v F I tzpat r1 ck A-- Keena ~ Bllo l,..--- Bradshaw ,_. Otis 1.-- • • I • • • • • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded A '~ Nay Absent Ab sta1n Higday I Neal I v Fitzpatnck I Keena I ,._ 8110 I Bradshaw I Ot1s \ '\... /A-. I • • • • • - ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Aye Nay Ab sent Ab stain Higdav Neal Fltzpatnck Keena Bi lo Bradshaw Otis I . • • • In • • , . • ROLL CA LL Mo v e d Seconded Aye Nay Hiqday Neal F1tzpatr ck Keena 81To Bradshaw OtiS /'YI ~t a ) t~ ~<l .~F .u/)'lt o a ~ f )twd /j?J-vu_;lf ,Mf ~fo -Ofr U-Ct ~ t lu '-lu a ru/) 1c;r -~~-"-~ _d~f IP '>')~/11 8 'l ei .:h-p ~ / _L.-1 tJ • • Absent Abstai n I . • • • • ,. • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Aye Nay Absent AbstaIn Higday Neal F tzpatrl ck Keena B•lo Bradshaw Otis ~ .&M:ur ~()ta/!L/Y) ~M ~ur -)a~~)_~r '--thurJV-~a_} ---4 ~~ -~,..,1.ie--o a/U/>L.d ~U,;tld__, ~YLP?1j /hV>~ 'f-FU l/{!-Y>~. -J-~ p_.-t tuA -~'1 ~cvnv . . .r')l'/_,1-t-0-~1 0~ t ~~~1 ~ -t2dtJ 71'1..4/ _,lj'?h'YLJ. ~ aLO ;It t~ ,tao/.. ·-t;v>~d ~-t ~~~ //Yldu-d;u~ ~n£<)~ s. (YYJ~ t_f . · -tdua~ ~~ ~/~<lk.U~J 1. ;Ia~ I f c lJ --------- !fa('-t::ILA~d 4-lr:;,M.J;~.. /k2AU ~ ~~ ~-~a/-~&4~ ~ d ~~-0 !A! c:itfl~J<2Rci . • I . • • • , . • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded A N ye ay Absent Higdav Neal Fi tzoatn ck Keena Bllo Bradshaw Otis o_,lLff1i ~/ j1 t12Ci~ 0/;} <I dJ -IdA~ ~it?') Abstain -~ fl.llllurn {p /YlVJ '1/V~t..t "'' ~,.;,__ . 7f_;ttJ -Ct11A-J~A-UfA~~t f:M-4-L jV71Ud~0 e-4 (')I ttLh.P)? if' ;J; iN dt?~LV f}n'-" no -/IW ('fll.t;,_._f.... rM fYiJ-i'd Jia.y A? M~ ';f .RMla.-~ i!ft<}d ~ ~ p~ jJ /) IJ )f-tt?'La ~ ~U-. -\{Ua-H ct p" J ~ cJA; ~ -. _ ~ ,rY~afl.v rNv~~ Gz~l' -~ t:m _ 'y)fl£tl1 cVWA-kv-cbdL~aJl . ~~j-J-v . ~ _,vC ~ .A /!fl'1/YiU/7k a_/) -}tPL~ at~ f~ 7i ~t:iLu --lnf~~~< • • C~ I . • • • .. - ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Aye N Ab ay sent Abstain HiQdav Neal Fitmtrick Keena Bi lo Bradshaw Otis I . • • • -------------- ROLL CALL Hoved Seconded Aye Nay Absent Abstain Hiaday Neal Fitzpatrick Keena Bi lo Bradshaw OtiS I . • - • • • .. • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Aye Nay Absent Abstai n Hiadav Neal FitZPatrick Keena B•lo Bradshaw Oti s ('(_u 12,~-au->JIL-~ <r~~An ~4Yu _xt u w -#'>'U-f r ---u--<tfJ ~ ~ /f.n 11tL-/WIC IJ -r ~ 114 -!1a0~ /fL~ ~c£ ~ ;t:/wm tL~ ~ ?(); ud:J-/}UJ ~ r ~ • I . • • • .. - ----- ROLL CAll Moved Seconded Aye Nay Absent Abstain Higday Neal Fitzpatrick Keena Bllo Bradshaw OtiS I . . • • • • .. • ---~- ROLL CALL Moved Seconded 4:(e Nay Absent Abstain Higday I -Neal Fltzpatrjck Keena v 8110 1 Bradshaw I Otis - I • • • • • • ROLL CALL Hove d Seconded A ye N ay Absent Abstain H1gdav Neal Fi tzpatn ck Keena Bllo Bradshaw OtiS ~~~~~ ~,'( 3'{Jf1Yl· p~c;?.M~ j~PCJYVI 'VJL-<./' 8; df S rJfYY) I . • • • ]- • ,. • ROLL CALL 1'1ove d Seconded Aye Nay Absent Abstain Hlgday Neal Fl tzpatrl ck Keena Bllo II Bradshaw Otis • 'i . I . • ........ ·lr:t lr:l • • • • ROLL CALL 11ove d Seconded Aye Nay Absent AbstaIn .... Higday \ Neal I v Fitzpatrick I Keena I Balo I -Bradshaw { Otis \ ' I • • • • ,. • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Aye Nay Ab t Ab sen stain HiQday Neal F1tzoatnck Keena BTio Bradshaw Otis ~~ ~a11d. ~<Jfa )l < c10-(1t;&, 1Ur ern ade r W-uf.-zU - (.lu.LMu~ '% _ 1 1 I~ q ;: I Y\ <:_., . . -~th..L P-r/Uz;I!.U r -ju,._,_,.,; -,/11~ ~-<2'-'-u-c£ ;: j#9 >Ji0b~~~ vt('~4. -~ t!U CUJ~d /)!Uc.M-?Uw 1;1 r!/?iv __ ~ rix> ;e ~~~L/rn.vvt.l /1) 2A/a-4J ~~ r~ tl J 0 -~ /}iJ--Y>·~ ~ ft /U~ r ~u~yu _ r/;-1 () /U or,YlA.P-<V 1 ./UU1d -rur vJev P-~ • $1)/U~ :le...Z:iLA_ A'U ~a~ 0 -~~~~t~- '!IIio-~~~~~p~ ~w~ t/ • I . • • • .. • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Aye Nay Absent Abstain Hlgday Neal Fitzpatrick Keena Bllo Bradsh- Otis o/JJ.-U tJJ>rtd -- -Ltl}'u!J~ ~1 ~u...t£ //)u--< ~ ~t--LoJj:U~ ~. 7>1--;Pub-b.-"'< '?' ;t;!br e_,-nu__, ~a~-. ~ -v(_ffJc_/& ~ ~u_) ~ t::-d . flUU~ -;Uuj ~cL A /)IUYJLI1 x-~ )at:Lu -0/J»CV>'l ci-~ ~-t w~la~ '177e&wn-~ ~ ~tk f-l'i u~ 'y£4»//J~ CJ:r'uu iZiA.U w~-.!lJ-?td-r · ~?a /)ut -~J ~~1 a ~L/l0tt. • I . • • .. • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Aye Nay Absent Abstain Hiadav Neal F i tzoat rl ck Keena 81 o Bradshaw OtiS t1m ~-~~ • " . . j.. I'_ J rr) • • I . • • • • .. • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Aye Nay Absent Abstain Higdav Neal Fi tzoatn ck Keena Bdo Bradshaw OtiS ~-?~/ )1 _,-.u ~wet._ ~ ~ ;tlt67J F()l?j ~~ljQ?1ct -~ ~ t ta~d fll fJA_~~ ~ ~~~--~~~~--------------/Jn )/~?1_ . . ------------ -~?.L zM ~a~}!.?~ ;;r e.rv-.0 aU ,k~. ~tZV;' ~~1 vtfL~ r rr? -7k -~ ~ ~/)1;-'-kt; -0}_,£a_/-~tdb _b?~ & /}1~ /--~~ ~~o?~ . • I . • • • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Aye Nay Absent Abstain Hlgdav Neal Fl tzpatn ck Keena Bllo Bradshaw OtiS I . • • • • • . . • ROLL CALL Hove d Seconded Aye Nay Absent Abstain Hiadav Neal Fitzpatrick l<eena Bi lo Bradsh..., OtiS c:;w-taeA ~.fl~~-t!L at~?1 ~ ~~-~cZip~//Jt/ -~ /f) /l_ftf/}'VU/J~ . ~ ~-o;l., ~ ;1/~ OJ ;"'YlfeH'>" ~nUwu.unu • • I . . • • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Aye Nay Absent Abstain Higday ' Neal _l Fitzpatrick 1 ,.,--Keena I v-8110 I Bradshaw I Ot1s \ ' I • • • • rtiiUSJffR 'S AFFIDAVIT <;T AJ[ O F CO RA Cc ';•,,h••j'( .. (_.!(l!.j;j•1 1 ''VIr.,,,.. o•lo f f f [lolld! •! I l •ro n fl 1! \<'1 tJ ~4'·/v 1 til•! n,h h •-.·• 11 ohh'!,'t•r1 (.I)Oif'••')"'lt:t•·J ·' '•·••.p •t·l~ I I COuf'l, n • 'o• ~ :-e•-oo .:'1 ' ..... ;_"f' '"'·"' 'i~"' 11\t~t•lo,., P••u• I•~ It •' • 151 ::'1..0 c-at 0 "' ~·:rot? anne •t'<t IIO itCt • lf!.tt ">-1•\l .,ewsoao~· s e r-:e•e-a ,., •r-e post o lf tc ~ u Coto•-.diJ as S~"-t;.'~''l'l c;l ass mad m atlflt and that tn~ ">a r; ~'~'?W SV ·H •~f •-; a newspapPr w !nlfl l t'f' Mea 'l•~"g ot thF :~c t ot tnt'! Gener a! A co mbtyo o t tne Sta•P. o • Co.o raoo aop r ov~'>d March 30 1°23 a na er'l tt!leo Legal No:-c es an d Adven •sem cnts ana otner acts rela•·ng to the prmtu1g and p ubl•shtng o t regal not1ces ano a d vP f!•~mf'nt~ t n a t the an ne 11 ec not •Cf" w ac; puhltsrH~ m lt1t> •eouta r ll"d p n · ,,. Su(>c; ('If o;.l•c:.l nt•w-.n ••n••• ()t ,.CP o-'.JC.., <'\P&h ~ ... ,., •l fTto> rlol, f )J •'l Ctl \\•'i''i.. tnr tr-nunr JO•' 1 Aor i 1 q IQ , .. , 1 •'·'•' ,• ,,t •1 ·••' r •· w::~-, 1-'i r •<:.·,u• l AT'1·i 1 ~ "1 ~~ f-. 1-+il~ • • • • I,- I i I ~ I I • • • • • .. • M IC HAEL F EVERETT V tt;E-P R£S•OC.NT LittlEton National Bank • April 17, 1981 Kr. George Adams 2929 W. Union Englewood, CO 80110 Dear Mr. Adams: 573' S P'RiWCf ST P O BOX 321 LtnLETON COLO 90160 13031 195-6611 I have inspected your two building sites near Federal Boulevard on West Union (Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Centennial Industrial Park). I do not believe that we would be able to provide any financing for detached single family residences on those sites. The heavy traffic flow on West Union and the proximity of commer- cial businesses to these lots would, in my opinion, detract significantly from the value of a home to be built on them. I would recommend that some type of commercial construc- tion be considered for these properties. Michael F. Everett Real Estate Department MFE/ly • 0 • I • • ~In 88 5601 Sou1h B ro..twey Lottle1on . Col or8do 80120 Telephone · (303 ) 7!M _.291 April 22 , 1981 Mr. George B . Adams 2929 West Union Avenue Englewood, Colorado 80110 Dear Mr. Adams: • • .. • Upon the request of Mr . James Barrett, I have inspected Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Centennial Industrial Park. Although I would entertain an application for any financing on that property, it is my opinion that the obvious best use would be for a commercial or light industrial project . There is very little residential area adjacent to this particular piece of property ; and, in fact, the entire area either presentlY is being used for industrial purposes or would appear as though it should be. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call upon me. 0 • I • • ·t o - c • • - C 0 U N C I L C 0 M M U N I C A T I 0 N DATE AGENDA ITEM SUBJE'CT Appeal from Planning Commission Decision on March 31, 1981 Rezoning Request -Case *2-81 INITIATED BY George B. Ad-, ApPlicant ACTION PROPOSED Set a date for a Public Hearing • BACKGR:>UND: The City Planning and ZOning Commission held a Public Hearing on March 17, 1981, to consider a request filed by Mr. George B. Adams to rezone Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Centennial Induatrial Park from R-1-B, Single-family Residence to I-1, Light t Industrial. This property is located on the north side of West Union Avenue, 125 feet east of South Federal Boulevard. After conaidering the evidence presented at the Public Hearing, it was the op~n~on of the majority of the Planning Commission members that they could not recommend the rezoning to the City Council because the criteria for the change in zoning was not present. It was not demonstrated that: 1. The original zoning was in error. 2. There have been changes in the area which would preclude develo~nt under the existing zoning. 3. That the owner is being denied the use of the land under the present zoning. The applicant was informed that the Planning Commission would not refer the rezoning request to the City Council with a favorable recommendation, but that he might appeal that decision to the Council. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: In a letter addressed to Mayor Otis dated March 25, 1981, Mr. Adams stated that he wants to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission because he does not feel adequate consideration was given to changes that have taken place since annexation. In response to this request to appeal the decision of the Commission, the City Council should set a date for a Public Hearing. The City Clerk's office will then publish the notice of the Hearing in the official City newspaper and the Planning Division will notify Mr. Adaas of the posting requirements • • I • • ( ( • '. City of Fne lew~~d E nglew~o d , Co lo. ttn: ~uga ne Otis • • • Harch 25, 1 981 R r-f' .-~ ' ;' ,-r -, 1 C \_1 t. I • 1: J CIIY MANA~ER '~ vH:c : ENG LEVIOOD f.1ey~r or Englewood Dear Str: Re: Request f or Re z~n1n g ~n L:>ts 10, 11, Blk 1 Centennial Industrial Park I w~uld like to appeal the decisi on ~f the Planning and Z ~n1ng B~ard durin g the meeting March 17, 1981 to the City Council. I d~ not fe e l adequate c~ns1derat1 ~n was g iven to crPn g es trflt l:eve taken place over t'hc years . ~u~;;v~ Geor e;e B. Adams • 0 I • • ( ( • • - C 0 U N C I L C 0 M M U N I C A T I 0 N DATE AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT Findin s of Fact: Case #2-81 INITIATED BY City Pltnnin& and Zoning Ca.aission ACT I ON PROPOSED Bccciye the Findings of Fact approved by the City Planning and • Zoninl Cgppteeion re: Planning Ca.aission Case No. 2-81. (The rezoning of two corner of South Federal Boulevard/West Union Avenue). INTRODUCTION: The City Planning and Zoning Co..tssion held a Public Hearing on March 17, 1981, to consider the rezoning of Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Centennial Industrial Park, from R-1-B, Single-faaily Residence, to I-1, Light Industrial. The application was filed by the property owner, Mr. George B. AdaJU. After having considered the testimony presented at the Public Hearing, the members of the Ca.aission voted not to refer the rezoning request to the City Council with a favorable reca..endation, finding that it bad not been established that the original zoning was in error or that the property could not be developed under the existing zoning. The co .. ission approved the Findings of Fact and Conclusion in regard to this case at the aeeting on April 7, 1981. The applicant has appealed the Planning Ca.mission's decision on his request to the City Council, and the Council bas scheduled a Public Hearing on April 27, 1981, at 7:00 P. H. CONCLUSION AND JECOHHENDATION: The approved Findings of Fact and Conclusions in Planning Coamission Case #2-81 are submitted to the City Council for its consideration. It is recommended that these Findings be received and entered into the record of the Public Hearing before the City Council which is to be held on April 27, 1980. • I • • ( J ( • • .. CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. 2-81) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSION S ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATI NG ) TO AN APPLICATION FILED BY ) GEORGE B . ADAMS FOR THE RE-) ZONING OF AN AREA IN THE 2900 ) BLOCK OF WEST UNION AVENUE ) FROM R-1-B, SINGLE-FAMILY ) RESIDENCE, TO I-1, LIGHT IN-) DUSTRIAL. ) A Public Hearing was held in connection with Case No. 2-81 on March 17, 1981, in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood City Hall . The following members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission were present : Mr. Barbre, Mrs. Becker, Mr . Carson, Mr. Draper, Mr . McBrayer, Mrs. Pierson, Mr. Senti and Mr. Tanguma. No members of the Commission were absent . FINDINGS OF FACT Upon the review of the evidence taken in the form of testimony, presentations, reports and filed documents, the City Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following FindinRS of Fact : 1. That proper notice of the Public Hearing was given. 2. That the application for rezoning was filed by the owner of the property, George B. Adams, 2929 West Union Avenue, Englewood, Colorado. 3. That the propert y for which rezoning is sought is described as follows: Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Centennial Industrial Park , together with the North 1/2 of West Union Avenue adjoining Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Centennial Industrial Park . (Located in the 2900 block of West Union Avenue .) 4 . That the area sought to be rezoned by this ap- plication was annexed to the City of Englewood by Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1960 and was zoned R-1-A, Single-family Residence, which zone classification was changed to R-1-B, Single-family Residence, in 1963 . • I • • ( ( • I ( • • - -2- 5 . That the zoning of the property to the west and northwest of the subject site is I-1, Light Industrial ; to the north and northe ast, R-3, High De nsity Residence ; to the e ast, R-1-B, Sin g le -family Re s iden c e ; a nd t o the south, R-1 -B, Sin gle -fami ly Res i den c e . 6 . Tha t there is a fi l l ing s tation , c arwa sh a nd ret a i l outlet to t h e we s t an d northwest o f the sub j ect site i n the I-1, Light I ndus t r i al area ; bec a u s e of whi c h dev e lop - ment the applicant has reque sted the rezoning o f the sub j e c t property . 7 . That t h ere a re t wo single-family r esidences im- mediately to the east of t he subject site at 2929 and 2939 West Union Avenue ; to the south, there are single-family residences fronting on West Union Avenue between South Federal Boulevard and South Decatur Street , and the area west of South Federal Boulevard is developed with single-family residences . 8 . That the property to the north and northeast of the subject site was rezoned from I-1, Light Industrial , to R-3-A, Multi-family Residential in 1971 ; however , no develop- ment has taken place on the property to this time . 9 . That property identified as Centennial South Subdivision located between South Decatur Street and South Clay Street to the south of West Union Avenue, was zoned R-2 , Medium Density Residence in 1976 and is now being developed with single-family attached housing . 10. That Centennial Park is at the northeast corner of West Union Avenue and South Decatur Street . 11 . Tha t 13 persons signed a petition stating that they, as property owner s in the adj acent area, did not object to the zoning chan g e a s reque s ted b y Mr . George B. Adams . 12 . That t he 1979 Compreh ensiv e P lan states that t he Indu str ial zoning a pp lie d to the land on the east s i de o f South Feder al Boul e var d b etween We s t Union Avenue and We st Tufts Av e nue should be re -ev a luated because of its p r oximit y to the residential neighbor hood on the wes t and t he Centenn ial Park on the east . 13 . That a Goal of the 197 9 Comprehensive Plan is to maintain the residential neighb orhoods as the cornerstone of our commun i t y . CONCLU SIONS 1 . That proper notice of the Public Hearing was duly given ac c ord i ng to §2 2.3-4 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance . • I • • ( • • • .. -3- 2. That no evidence was presented which demonstrated that the original zoning of the subject site was in error . 3. That since the subj e ct site was annexed to the City by Ordinance No. 24 of 1969, the following development has occurred : a) Centennial Park has been developed less than one-half block to the east; b) The property to the north and northeast has been zoned from Light Industrial to High Density Res i dence ; c) Construction of single-family attached dwellings in the Centennial South Subdivision one block to the southeast of the subject site has been undertaken ; leading the members of the Planning Commission to the conclusion that the principal changes in the area have been of a residential nature . 4. That Lots 1 through 5, inclusive , of Block 1, Centennial Industrial Park , which property has frontage on South Federal Boulevard, are zoned I-1, Light Industrial and are undeveloped. 5 . That an expansion of the light industrial zoning into the single-family residential area would not be in con- formance with the 1979 Comprehensive Plan . RECOMMENDATION Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council that the above described property which is the subject of a rezoning application filed by George B . Adams, should not be rezoned from R-1-B , Single-family Residence, to I-1, Light Industrial, for the following reasons : 1. The applicant has not demonstrated that the original zoning was i n error . 2 . No sign ificant changes have occurred in the area since the original zoning that would preclude development under the present zonin g and render the subject property more suitable for industrial use . 3. The character of the neighborhood to the west of South Federal Boulevard , to the south of West Union Avenue, and to the immediate east of the subject site is low-density residential and the extension of the ·industrial district would not be compatible with this development . • I • • • • • • 4. Other lots in Centennial Industrial Park are zoned for industrial use and are undevelop ed , and no proof has been presented indicating that there is a need to expand the industrial zoning onto the subject site . Upon the vote on a motion made at a meeting of the City Planning and Zon i ng Comadssion on March 17, 1981 : Those members voting in favor of the motion : Mr . Barbre, Mr. Carson, Mr. Draper , Mrs . Pierson, Mr . Senti, Mr . Tanguma and Mrs. Becker . Those members voting in opposition to the motion : Mr . McBrayer. BY ORDER OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION . • I • • ( • • - C 0 U N C I L C 0 M M U N I C A T I 0 N DATE AGENDA ITEM SUBJE'CT March 31, 1981 City and Planning Zoning Commission Action on Case No. 2-81 INITIATED IY The City Planning and Zoning COIIIIIlission ACTION PROPOSED No action would be necessary unless the applicant , George B. Adams, appeals the Ca..ission's action INTFIODUCTION: The City Planning and ZOning Commission held a Public Hearing on March 17, 1981 to consider the rezoning of Lots 10 and 11, Block l, Centennial South Subdivision from R-1-B, Single-faaily Residence to I-1, Light Industrial. This is land owned by George B. A~ which is on the north side of West Union Avenue and 125 feet east of South Federal Boulevard. The parcel adjoins an area zoned I-1, Light Industrial on the east side of South Federal Boulevard, within which area there is a filling station, a car wash, a retail outlet and several undeveloped lots which are also owned by Mr. Adaas. There is single-family residential development to the east and south of the subject site, an undeveloped parcel to the north which is zoned for high-density residential use, and the Centennial Park is just to the east of this area. The area to the vest of South Federal Boulevard is developed with single- family residences and a new medi~density development is underway to the south east in the Centennial South Subdivision. After considering the information presented at the Public Hearing, it was the op1n1on of the majority of the Comaission members that the present single-family residential zoning is correct; in as much as proof was not established that: 1. The original zoning was in error; or that 2. There have been changes in the area which would preclude the use of the land under the present zoning; or that 3 . The property owner is denied the use of the land under the present zoning. Findings of Fact in this case will be considered by the Commission on April 7, 1981, and will be forwarded to the City Council. CONCLUSION: Section 22 .3-4c of the Ca.prehensive ZOning Ordinance addresses the procedure to be followed if the Planning C~ssion disapproves a request for rezoning. In that event, the Ca..ission •ust -.ke a report to the City Council and there would be no further • I • • • • • • action required by the Co~mcil unless the applicant should choose to appeal the eo.aission ..-bers' decision. If the applicant is dissatisfied with the recommendat~o n and report of the C~ssion and appeals that re~ndati on to the City Council , the Ci ty Council would then set a date for a Public Hearing on the matter. The City Council .. y approve the rezoning request following the Public Hearing and after hav ing reviewed the Planning eo.aission 's report, if a aajority of the ..-bership of the Council 'V'Ote s in the affi ~tive. SUGGESTED ACTION: MOVED BY ____________ _ SECOND _____________________ ___ YES ______ ~HO _____ ~ABSENT ______________________________ _ • I • • • • • .. - MEK>IWfDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE : Karch 17, 1981 SUBJECT : lezonina l.equest on Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Centennial Industrial Park Subdivision. ACTION : Becker moved: Carson seconded: That the request filed by Mr. George B. Adams to rezone Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Centennial Industrial Park Subdivision from R-1-B, Single-family Residence, to I-1, Light Industrial, not be referred toCity Council with a favorable recommendation for the following reasons: 1 . The applicant has not demonstrated that the original zoning was in error. 2. No significant changes have occurred in the area since the original zoning that would preclude development un- der the present zoning and render the subject property more suitable for industrial use. 3 . The character of the neighborhood to the south and im- mediate east is low-density residential, and the extension of the industrial district would not be compatible with this development. 4. Other lots in Centennial Industrial Park are zoned for industrial use and are undeveloped. No proof has been presented indicating that there is a need to expand the industrial zoning onto the subject site. AYES : Draper, Carson, Becker, Barbre, Tanguma, Senti, Pierson NAYS : McBrayer The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. • , I • • ( • STAFF REPORT Page -1- STAFF REPORT RE: • - REZONING REQUEST Case If 2-81 Re z on i ng o f Lots 10 and 11 , Block 1 , Centennial I n- dus tri a l Park , from R-1 -B, Si ngle-family Residence, to I -1 , Light I n du stri a l. DATE TO BE CONSIDERED : March 17 , 1981 NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT : George B. Adams 2929 West Union Avenue Englewood, Colorado 80110 NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROPERTY OWNER : George B . Adams 2929 West Union Avenue Englewood, Colorado 80110 RELATIONSHIP OF APPLICANT TO REQUEST : Mr. Adams is the owner of the subject property . LOCATION OF PROPOSED CHANGE : The subject property is located 125 feet east of South Federal Boulevard on the north side of West Union Avenue . ZONE DISTRICT : R-1-B , Sin gl e-family Residence . DESCR I PTI ON OF RE QUE ST : The applicant requests the rezoning of his property from R-1-B , Single-family Residential, to I-1 , Light Industrial, in order that he can construct warehousing on the site. RECOMMENDATION FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT : The Planning Division staff recommends that the City Planning and Zoning Commission deny the request for rezoning of Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Centennial Industrial Park, from • I • • • STAFF REPORT Page -2- • .. R-1-B to I-1 for the following reasons : REZONING REQUEST Case ~2-81 1. The applicant has not demonstrated that the original zoning was in error . 2. No significant changes have occurred in the area since the original zoning that would pre- clude development under the present zoning and render the subject property more suitable for industrial use. 3. The character of the neighborhood to the south and immediate east is low-density residential, and the extension of the industrial district would not be compatible with this development. 4 . Other lots in Centennial Industrial Park are zoned for industrial use and are undeveloped. No proof has been presented indicating that there is a need to expand the industrial zoning onto the subject site. DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT SITE AND ADJACENT AREAS: The subject property is situated on the North side of West Union Avenue, 125 feet east of South Federal Boulevard. The site is comprised of two lots of 15,000 square feet each. These lots are currently unimproved. The area directly to the east is zoned R-1-B, and is the location of two single-family dwellings, one of them occupied by Mr . Adams. The area directly to the north of the subject property is a two acre undeveloped site which is zoned R-3, High Density Residential. The western boundary of the site along the east side of South Federal Boulevard, is developed with commercial uses: a gas station at the northeast corner of West Union Avenue and South Federal Boulevard, and a carwash and a retail store to the north. To the south of West Union Avenue is a single-family residential development, Centennial Acres, Fourth Filing. This subdivision was completely developed before the area was annexed to Englewood. Centennial Park is in the area to the north and east of the subject site, and the unimproved Centennial Industrial Park to the north . • D I • • ( • STAFF REPORT Page -3- • • REZONING REQUEST Case #2-81 BACKGROUND OF PREVIOUS CITY ACTION RELATING TO THE SITE : The subject site was part of a 54 .3 acre area annexed to the City by Ordinance No . 24 of 1960. The two lots and the two lots adjacent to the east were zoned R-1-A , the most restrictive single-family zone district, at that time . These four lots were rezoned to R-1-B at the time the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance was amended in 1963 . The rest of the sub- division was zoned M-1, Manufacturing, following annexation and was designated I-1, Light Industrial, in 1963. The lots to the east of South Decatur Street were purchased from Mr . Adams by the City in 1969 and were developed as Centennial Park, which is the current use . The site adjacent on the north was rezoned from I-1, Light Industrial, to R-3 , High Density Residence, in 1971. It has not been developed to this time. RELATIONSHIP TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN : Industrial development on the subject site would be in conflict with the 1979 Comprehensive Plan . The Comprehen- sive Plan designates the portion of the Centennial Industrial Park along South Federal Boulevard as an area for future com- mercial development, stating : " ..... because of its frontage on Federal and its proximity to a residential neighborhood on the west and to Centennial Park on the east, industrial zoning should be re-evaluated for this property." In the Housing section of the Plan, the general area in which the property is located is seen as being receptive to more residential development . COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS : Comments were requested from the Fire Department, Public Works Department, Engineering Services Department, Utilities Department and the Code Enforcement Division. No negative reports were received . Comments were also requested from the Valley Sanitation District; no response has been received at this time. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS: The criteria for evaluating _the merits of a rezoning request are clearly stated in the City Planning and Zoning Commission's Handbook. Applying these standards to the cur- rent request leads to this Department's negative recommendation: • I • • • • ( • STAFF REPORT Page -4- • • .. REZONING REQUEST Case 1 2-81 1 . The subject property was not zoned in error following annexation or at the time the 1963 Comprehensive Zoning Map was adopted . This strip of land was zoned residentially when the subdivision was annexed to the City to accommodate the houses owned by Mr. Adams . 2. No significant changes have occurred in the area to necessitate a zoning change. To the contrary, the changes that have taken place in the development of Centennial Park and the rezoning of part of the Industrial Park as high density residential are in the direction of lessening the applicability of Industrial zoning in this area. 3. No proof has been presented that the owner of the property is denied the use of his land due to the existing zoning. The Industrial Park has never been ~eveloped and con- tains five undeveloped parcels which can be used for light in- dustrial purposes. 4. The property does not complete at least one city block of compatible zone classification. The land contiguous to the sites is residential except for the filling station at the corner of West Union Avenue and South -Federal Boulevard . 5. No proof has been presented which indicates that there is a demand and need for enlarging the industrial area. 6. The proposed rezoning does not comply with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. All of the evidence reviewed by this Division leads the staff to the conclusion that it would not be in the best interest of the surrounding community to have the rezoning approved . • 0 I • • • • I • J ·a AV E. J .. • . . '!OM -W. TUFTS AVE. 0 .. , • ' . . ,_ > VIONITY MAP ...J ... ..., ID en - •• OR . s DfPAitTM!NT 0' COMMUNITY DMLOPM!NT 001 <II CITY Of' fNGLfWOOD, COLO . ... -, 3 -12-8 1 , ... I - II "' -,_ ... • ... ' CENTE~IAL PARK . .. -.... _ .... .. ...J ·: "' a:: ,. -. ... ; • II North ... ~ 0 ... ; -... "" ~ Sc o tt ' .. '200 ' • ·a ,. • ... I~ " . . ... II>' . .. -·-·-"M&. •• ·-tr'·-·-·- I • • ( -... CDI • 004 ' ODS • ... • • • - ?e br u ary 17, 1 9 81 8i y :Jf En g ew:Jod P1rm!1 in g Cornm . 3400 S . E1 a 1 S • Fng1e woo d , Co lo . 8011 0 P. tn : Ju d i P arson , CJ--m . Dear ~s . P iers:Jn : Pe : 7on 1n g C an g e Feque s Lo s 1 ~-1 , Bl k . 1, e~tenn1al Indu s t r ial P er k f r :Jm P -B to I -1 e wis :J con v ey het we es pr:Jper y owners do no objec to he zoning change of h e above m~1tioned lo s , and r e - q ue st rat y u gra:1 such era1 g e o urtrer he rderly devel p~e n of re rea . arne o f Prope r ty Owne r Add r e ss or L ot o . f .0o S, &0P-4L LtP?; {p ~ 7 x-c;z6 v<l , M z-g /. c/;c/c;:' -1-d1-cfl • I . • • • • Pebruery 17, 1981 City of Englewood Plann in g Ccn • 3400 S. Eleti St. Fnglewood, Colo. 801 10 ftt n: Judith Pierso ~, Chm . Deer Ms . Pierson: Re: 7 ~ng Chenge Fequest Lots 10-11, Blk . 1, Centennial Industr1el Perk from R -1 B to I-1 We wish t-:> convey t het we es property owners do not object to the zoning ch ange of t~e above me~tioned lots, end re- q~est that you gre~t sue~ e chan g e to further tre orderly development of t~e area. N eme of Property 0\o.'!le r I Address or Lot No. ~, '>' .. :.,J ..... , .... -'l- • I . • ( • • • ,. • AGENDA FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL APRIL 27, 1981 7 :00 P.M. Call to order, invocation, pledge of allegiance, and roll call. 1. Public Hearing. (a) Council Communication concerning an appeal from the Planning and Zoning Commission decision on Rezoning Request -Case #2-81 - Mr. George B. Adams. (Copies enclosed.) 2. Adjournment. • I . • ~In ( ( • - C 0 U N C I L C 0 M M U N I C A T I 0 N DATE AGENDA ITEM SUBJE'CT Appe al from Planning Commission Decision on March 31, 1981 Rezoning Request -Case *2-81 INITIATED BY George B. Adams, Applicant ACTION PROPOSED Set a date for a Public Hearing • BACKGROUND: 'The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing on March 17, 1981, to consider a request filed by Mr. George B. Adams to rezone Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Centennial Industrial Park from R-1-B, Single-family Residence to I-1, Light () Industrial. This prope rty is located on the north side of West Union Avenue, 125 feet east of South Federal Boulevard. After considering the evidence presented at the Publi c Hearing, it was the op~n~on of the majority of the Planning Commission members that they c ould not re commend the rezoning to the City Council because the criteria for the change in zoning was not presen~ It was not demonstrated that: There have been changes in the area which would preclude development un der the existing zoning. !1 The original zoning was in error. . That the o wne r is being denied the use of the land under ~-------t_h_e~p resent zoning. The applicant was in formed that the Planning Commission would not refer the rezoning request to the City Council with a favorable recommendation, but that he might appeal that decision to the Council. CONC LUSION AND RECOMMENDAT ION: I n a letter addressed to Mayor Otis dated March 25, 1981, Mr. Adams stated that he wants to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission because he does not feel adequate consideration was given to changes that have taken place since annexation. In response to this request to appeal the decision of the Commission, the City Council should set a date for a Public Hearing. The City Clerk's office will then publish the notice of the Hearing in the offi cial City newspaper and the Planning Division will notify Mr. Adams of the posting requirements . • I • • ( ( • 0 ( • Cit y of Englewood Englewood, Colo. Attn: Eugene Otis • • - March 25, 1981 R r ( ~-'.,' f .-•~ I \j I" I ~ I t.-' \ ._ ,_. CIIY Ml NA..ilR ':> •J~r : ~ Eli G~E ViQ OD Mayor of Englewood Dear Sir: Re: Request for Rezoning on Lots 10, 11, Blk l Centennial Industrial Park I would like to appeal the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board during the meeting March 17, 1981 to the City Council. I do not feel adequate consideration was given to chAn ges that r ave taken place over the years. ~"";.~~ George B. A dams • • I • • • - C 0 U N C I L C 0 M M U N I C A T I 0 N DATE AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT ADril 15 1981 Findinas of Fact: Case 12-81 INITIATED BY City Planning and Zoning Commission ACTION PROPOSED Receiye the Findings of Fact approved by the City Planning and • Zoping Commission re: Planning Commission Case No. 2-81. (The rezoning of two lots near the northeast corner of South Federal Boulevard/West Union Avenue). INTRODUCTION: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing on March 17, 1981, to consider the rezoning of Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Centennial Industrial Park, from R-1-B, Single-family Residence, to I-1, Light Industrial. The application was filed by the property owner, Mr. George B. Adams. After having considered the testimony presented at the Public Hearing, the members of the Commission voted not to refer the rezoning request to the City Council with a favorable recommendation, finding that it had not been established that the original zoning was in error or that the property could not be developed under the existing zoning. The Commission approved the Findings of Fact and Conclusion in regard to this case at the meeting on April 7, 1981. The applicant has appealed the Planning Commission's decision on his request to the City Council, and the Council has scheduled a Public Hearing on April 27, 1981, at 7:00 P. M. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDAT ION: The approved Findings of Fact and Conclusions in Planning Commission Case 12-81 are submitted to the City Council for its consideration. It is recommended that these Findings be received and entered into the record of the Public Hearing before the City Council which is to be held on April 27, 1980. • I • • ( • - CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. 2-81) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING ) TO AN APPLIC ATION FILED BY ) GEORGE B . ADAMS FOR THE RE-) ZONING OF AN AREA IN THE 2900 ) BLOCK OF WEST UNION AVENUE ) FROM R-1-B, SINGLE-FAMILY ) RESIDENCE, TO I-1, LIGHT IN-) DUSTRIAL. ) A Public Hearing was held in connection with Case No. 2-81 on March 17, 1981, in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood City Hall . The following members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission were present: Mr. Barbre, Mrs . Becker, Mr . Carson, Mr. Draper, Mr . McBrayer, Mrs. Pierson, Mr . Senti and Mr. Tanguma . No members of the Commission were absent . FINDINGS OF FACT Upon the review of the evidence taken in the form of testimony, presentations , reports and filed documents, the City Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following Findin~s of Fact: 1. That proper notice of the Public Hearing was given. 2 . That the application for rezoning was filed by the owner of the property, George B. Adams, 2929 West Union Avenue, Englewood, Colorado. 3 . That the property for which rezoning is sought is described as follows: Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Centennial Industrial Park, together with the North 1/2 of West Union Avenue adjoining Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Centennial Industrial Park . (Located in the 2900 block of West Union Avenue.) 4. That the area sought to be rezoned by this ap- plication was annexed to the City of Englewood by Ordinance No. 24 , Series of 1960 and was zoned R-1-A, Single-family Residence, which zone classification was changed to R-1-B, Single-family Residence, in 1963 . . ~----~====~~------------~ • I • • 0 I ( • • .. -2 - 5. That the z oning o f the p roperty to the we st a nd nor t h we st of the subject site is I-1, Light I ndus tria l; to the nor th and northeast , R-3 , High Density Residenc e ; to the east , R-1 -B, Single-family Residence ; and to the south, R-1-B , Single -family Residence . 6 . That there is a f i lling station, carwash and r e tail o u tlet to the west and northwest of the subject site i n the I-1, Light Industrial area ; because of which develop - men t the applicant has requested the rezoning of the subject p r operty . 7. That there are two single-family residences im- mediately to the east of the subject site at 2929 and 2939 West Union Avenue; to the south, there are single-family residences fronting on West Union Avenue between South Federal Boulevard and South Decatur Street, and the area west of South Federal Boulevard is developed with single-family residences. 8 . That the property to the north and northeast of the subject site was rezoned from I-1, Light Industrial, to R-3-A, Multi-family Residential in 1971; however, no develop- ment has taken place on the property to this time. 9. That property identified as Centennial South Subdivision located between South Decatur Street and South Clay Street to the south of West Union Avenue, was zoned R-2, Medium Density Residence in 1976 and is now being developed with single-family attached housing . 10. That Centennial Park is at the northeast corner of West Union Avenue and South Decatur Street. 11. That 13 persons signed a petition stating that they, as property owners in the adjacent area, did not object to the zoning change as requested by Mr . George B. Adams . 12 . That the 1979 Comprehensive Plan states that the Industrial zoning applied to the land on the east side of South Federal Boulevard between West Union Avenue and West Tufts Avenue should be re-evaluated because of its proximity to the residential neighborhood on the west and the Centennial Park on the east . 13 . That a Goal of the 1979 Comprehensive Plan i s to maintain the residential neighborhoods as the cornerstone of our community . CONCLUSIONS 1. That proper notice of the Public Hearing was duly given according to §22.3-4 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance . • I • • I 0 ( • • .. -3 - 2 . That no evidence was presented which demonstrated that the original zoning of the subject site was in error . 3. That since the subject site was annexed to the City by Ordinance No . 24 of 1 969 , the following development has occurred : a) Centennial Park has been developed les s than one -half block to the east ; b) The pro per ty t o the north and northeast has been zoned from Light Industrial to High Dens ity Residence; c) Construction of single-family attached dwellings in the Centennial South Subdivision one block to the southeast of the subject site has been undertaken; l eading the members of the Planning Commission to the conclusion that the principal changes in the area have been of a residential nature. 4 . That Lots 1 through 5, inclusive, of Block 1, Centennial Industrial Park, which property has frontage on South Federal Boulevard , are zoned I-1, Light Industrial and are undeveloped . 5 . That an expansion of the light industrial zoning into the single-family residential area would not be in con- formanc e with the 1979 Comprehensive Plan . RECOMMENDATION Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council that the above described property which is the subject of a rezoning appl ication filed by George B . Adams, should not be rezoned from R-1-B , Single-family Residence, to I-1, Light Industrial, for the following reasons : 1. The applicant has not demonstrated that the original zoning was in error. 2 . No si~nificant changes have occurred in the area since the orig1nal zoning that would preclude development under the present zoning and render the subject property more sui tab le for industrial use . 3. The character of the neighborhood to the west of South Federal Boulevard, to the south of West Union Avenue , and to the immediate east of the subject site is low-density residential and the extension of the ·industrial district would not be c ompatible with this development . • ) I • • ( • • • - -4- 4 . Other lots in Centennial Industrial Park are zoned for industrial use and are undeveloped , and no proof has been presented indicating that there is a need to expand the industrial zoning onto the subject site . Upon the vote on a motion made at a meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission on March 17, 1981 : Those members voting in favor of the motion: Mr . Barbre, Mr. Carson, Mr. Draper, Mrs . Pierson, Mr. Senti, Mr. Tanguma and Mrs . Becker . Those members voting in opposition to the motion : Mr . McBrayer . BY ORDER OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION . • • I • • (. ( ( • • - C 0 U N C I L C 0 M M U N I C A T I 0 N DATE AGENDA ITEM SUBJE'CT March 31, 1981 City and Planning Zoning Commission Action on Case No. 2-81 INITIATED BY Th e City Planning and zoning Commission AC TI ON PROPOSED No a ction would be ne c essary unless the applicant, George B. Adams , appeals the Commission's action INTRODUCTION: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing on March 17, 1981 to consider the rezoning of Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Centennial South Subdivision from R-1 -B, Single-family Residence to I-1, Light Industrial. This is land owned by George B. Adams which is on the north side of West Union Avenue and 125 feet east of South Federal Boulevard. The parcel adjoins an area zoned I-1, Light Industrial on the east side of South Federal Boulevard, within which area there is a filling station, a car wash, a retail outlet and several undeveloped lots which are also owned by Mr. Adams. There is single-family residential development to the east and south of the subject site, an undeveloped parcel to the north which is zoned for high-density residential use, and the Centennial Park is just to the east of this area. The area to the west of South Federal Boulevard is developed with single- family residences and a new medium-density development is underway to the south eas t in the Ce ntennial South Subdivision . After considering the information presented at the Public Hearing, it was the opinion of the majority of the Commi ss ion members that the present single-family residential zoning is correc t; in as much as proof wa s no t established that: 1. The original zoning was in error ; or that 2. There have been c hanges in the area which would preclude the use of the land under the present zoning; or that 3 . The property owner is den ied the use of the land under the present z oning . Findings of Fact in this case will be c onsidered by the Commission on April 7, 1981, and will be forwarded to the City Co uncil. CO NCLUSION: Section 22.3-4c of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance addresses the procedure to be followed if the Planning Commission disapproves a request for rezoning. In that event, the Commission must make a report to the City Council and there would be no further • I • • 0 • ( • .. { action required by the Council unless the applican should choose to appeal the Comndssion members' decision. If the applicant is dissatisfied with the recommen dation and report of the Commission and appeals that recommendation to the City Council, ( • the City Council would then set a date for a Public Hearing on the matter. The City Council may approve the rezoning request following the Public Hearing and after having reviewed the Planning Commission's report, if a majority of the membership of the Council votes in the affirmative . SUG GESTED ACTION: MOVED BY ________________________ __ SECOND ________________________ ___ YES. ________ NO ________ ~ABSENT ____________________________________ _ • I • • 0 • J ( • • .. MEHOIANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RE COMME NDATI ON OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION . DATE : Karch 17, 1 98 1 SUBJECT : Rezoning Request on Lots 10 and ll, Block 1, Centennial Industrial Park Subdivision . ACTION : Becker moved : Carson seconded : That the request filed by Mr . George B. Adams to rezone Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Centennial Industrial Park Subdivision from R-1-B, Single-family Residence, to I-1, Light Industrial, not be referred toCity Council with a favorable recommendation for the following reasons : 1 . The applicant has not demonstrated that the original zoning was in error. 2 . No significant changes have occurred in the area since the original zoning that would preclude development un- der the present zoning and render the subject property more suitable for industrial use. 3 . The character of the neighborhood to the south and im- mediate east is low-density residential, and the extension of the industrial district would not be compatible with this development. 4 . Other lots in Centennial Industrial Park are zoned for industrial use and are undeveloped . No proof has been presented indicating that there is a need to expand the industrial zoning onto the subject site . AYES : Draper, Car son , Becker , Barbre, Tanguma, Senti, Pierson NAYS : McBrayer The motion carried . By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission . • I • • ( ( 0 ( • STAFF REPORT Page -1- STAFF REPORT RE : • .. REZONING REQUEST Case # 2-81 Rezon ing of Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Centennial In- dustrial Park, from R-1-B, Single-family Residence , to I-1, Light Industrial. DATE TO BE CONSIDERED : March 17 , 1981 NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT : George B. Adams 2929 West Union Avenue Englewood, Colorado 80110 NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROPERTY OWNER : George B. Adams 2929 West Union Avenue Englewood, Colorado 80110 RELATIONSHIP OF APPLICANT TO REQUEST : Mr . Adams is the owner of the subject property . LOCATION OF PROPOSED CHANGE : The subject property is located 125 feet east of South Federal Boulevard on the north side of West Union Avenue . ZONE DISTRICT : R-1-B, Single-family Residence . DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The applicant requests the rezoning of his property from R-1-B , Single-family Residential, to I-1, Light Industrial, in order that he can construct warehousing on the site. RECOMMENDATION FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: The Planning Division staff recommends that the City Planning and Zoning Commission deny the request for rezoning of Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Centennial Industrial Park, from • I • • ( 0 ( • STAFF REPORT Page -2- • • R-1-B to I-1 for the following reasons: REZONING REQUEST Case #2-81 1 . The applicant has not demonstrated that the original zoning was in error . 2. No significant changes have occurred in the area since the original zoning that would pre- clude development under the present zoning and render the subject property more suitable for industrial use. 3. The character of the neighborhood to the south and immediate east is low-density residential, and the extension of the industrial district would not be compatible with this development . 4. Other lots in Centennial Industrial Park are zoned for industrial use and are undeveloped . No proof has been presented indicating that there is a need to expand the industrial zoning onto the subject site. DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT SITE AND ADJACENT AREAS : The subject property is situated on the North side of West Union Avenue, 125 feet east of South Federal Boulevard. The site is comprised of two lots of 15,000 square feet each . These lots are currently unimproved. The area directly to the east is zoned R-1-B, and is the location of two single-family dwellings, one of them occupied by Mr . Adams . The area directly to the north of the subject property is a two acre undeveloped site which is zoned R-3, High Density Residential. The western boundary of the site along the east side of South Federal Boulevard, is developed with commercial uses : a gas station at the northeast corner of West Union Avenue and South Federal Boulevard, and a carwash and a retail store to the north . To the south of West Union Avenue is a single-family residential development, Centennial Acres, Fourth Filing. This subdivision was completely developed before the area was annexed to Englewood. Centennial Park is in the area to the north and east of the subject site, and the unimproved Centennial Industrial Park to the north . • I • • ( • ( • STAFF REPOR T Page -3- • .. REZONING REQ UEST Case #2-81 BACKGROUND OF PREV IO US CITY ACTION RELATING TO THE SITE : The subj ect site was part of a 54.3 acre area anne xed to the City by Ordinance No . 24 of 1960 . The two lots and the two lots adjacent to the ea s t were zoned R-1-A, the most restrictive single-family zone district , at tha t time . These four lots were rezoned to R-1-B at the time the Co mprehens ive Zonin g Ordinance was amended in 1963 . The rest of the sub- division was zoned M-1, Manufacturing, following annexation and was designated I -1, Light Industrial, in 1963 . The lots to the east of South Decatur Street were purchas ed from Mr . Adams by the City in 1969 and were developed as Centennial Park , which is the current use . The site adjacent on the north was rezoned from I -1, Light Industrial, to R-3, High Density Residence, in 1971 . It has not been developed to this time. RELATIONSHIP TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Industrial development on the subject site would be in conflict with the 1979 Comprehensive Plan . The Comprehen- sive Plan designates the portion of the Centennial Industrial Park along South Federal Boulevard as an area for future com- mercial development, stating: " ..... because of its frontage on Federal and its proximity to a residential neighborhood on the west and to Centennial Park on the east , industrial zoning should be re-evaluated for thi s property ." In the Hou sing section of the Plan, the general area in which the property is located is seen as being receptive to more residential development. COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS : Comments were requested from the Fire Departmen t , Pub l ic Works Department, Engineering Services Department , Utilities Department and the Code Enforcement Division . No negativ e reports were received. Commen ts were also requested from the Valley San itat ion District ; no response has been received at this time . DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS : The criteria for evaluating _the merits of a rezoning request are clearly stated in the City Planning and Zoning Commission's Handbook. Applying these standards to the cur- rent request leads to this Department's negative recommendation : • I • • n ( ( ( • STAFF REPORT Page -4- • • REZONING REQUEST Case #2-81 1 . The subject property was not zoned in error following annexation or at the time the 1963 Comprehensive Zoning Map was adopted . This strip of land was zoned residentially when the subdivision was annexed to the City to accommodate the houses owned by Mr . Adams . 2 . No significant changes have occurred in the area to necessitate a zoning change. To the contrary, the changes that have taken place in the development of Centennial Park and the rezoning of part of the Industrial Park as high density residential are in the direction of lessening the applicability of Industrial zoning in this area . 3 . No proof has been presented that the owner of the property is denied the use of his land due to the existing zoning. The Industrial Park has never been ~eveloped and con- tains five undeveloped parcels which can be used for light in- dustrial purposes . 4. The property does not complete at least one city block of compatible zone classification. The land contiguous to the sites is residential except for the filling station at the corner of West Union Avenue and South Federal Boulevard . 5. No proof has been presented which indicates that there is a demand and need for enlarging the industrial area . 6. The proposed rezoning does not comply with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. All of the evidence reviewed by this Division leads the staff to the conclusion that it would not be in the best interest of the surrounding community to have the rezoning approved. • I • • n- D.J I I .. I • J I .. a AVE . .. .. OR . } ••• 01 t 011 I II I U U "'IJ ,. ... ... .., ; .. --AVE. ''/ .,~ -. ... -... = ~·· .... ..t......... • -~ 1 -... · . .... ': Otl: 011 I • ; .. ; ... J ... -·-·.I.W-···-..-·-·-·- • • W. TUFTS AVE. c > ~ ; ... .. ., ~ ·- ....., ____ .. # ""--.... ---· I 001 ; ..,. ... -J :~-----.--~~ ~ ~ ~ ; 001 ... ! I! @ ... l ... ,..--. ... - ' a•tt.-•L t-u" .,.. • 4 ~ :' . 2 / ... .. '---I.IIUII---...,.,~ .. -.... ........... " tj-• e-3! 011 ... ... 1 SUBJECT , .... -• TY i~~;~~:~-~~~~.~~"~:--~~.~!~~~:~·~ :wEST ••• UNION .. __ , . ..../foo· • • ... l ... l i i i :I li l i i i i I i .. I() .... "i ., II " .... -... VIONITY MAP D[PAitTM[NT 0' COMMUNIT Y O[V[LOPMENT CITY 0' ENGL[WOOO, COLO 3 -12 -8 1 CENTEf\NIAL PARK ••• No"h Scolt ' 1"' 200 ' -~---, . ..... ·-- I • • ·on ( ( • .. City of Englewood Planning Department 3400 S. Elati Street Englewood, Colo. 80110 • • • March 12, 1 981 Dear Ms. Pierson: Re: Zoning Change Request Lots 10-11, Blk 1, Centennial Ind. Perk From R-lB to I-1 As purchaser of the above mentioned property, our construction plan would be to erect the office-warehouse structure on the easterly portion of the property in such a manner as to somewhat shield the homes to the east from the present commercial area to the west. Yours very truly, Baroewaki Const. Co. ag:~~ Anton Beroewski • 1 1 ~8 1 I • • ( ( • • • Fe bruary 17, 1981 City of Englewood Plann i ng Comm . 3400 S . Elati St. Englewood, Colo . 80110 Pttn : Jud i th Pierson, Chm. De ar Ms. Pierson: Re : 7 oning Ch ange Re ques t Lots 1 0 -11, Blk. 1, Cent ennia l Industrial Park from R-1 B to I-1 We wish to convey that we as property owners do no t obj ec t to the zoning change of the above menti~ne d l ots, end r e - quest th at y~u grant such a change to furt h er t~e orderly de ve lopment of the ares. Name ~f Property Owner Address or Lot N~. 4-s~o S, /j0F~<4L L~?; (; ~ 7 ¥4'%6 ,_,-/ :zf;,C:~~d /'" c:7!r/0 (J (ti(',-J() • I . • ( • • • .. - February 17, 1981 City of Englewood Plannin g Co r11.: .. 3400 s.-Elati st. Englewood, Colo. 80110 Attn: Judith Pierson, Chm. Deer Ms. Pierson: Re: 7.cn ing Change Request Lots 10-ll, Blk. 1, Centennial Industrial Perk from R-1 B to I-1 We wish to convey that we as pr:>perty owners do not object to the z:>ning change of the ab:>ve menti~ned l~ts, and re- ~uest that you grant such a change to further the orderly developm~nt ~r the area. Address :>r Lot N~. l .; 3 I ..... . I -(._, .. ( .• l .( ~, , ... • ) I • • • • • CERTIFICATION OF POSTING Attached is a photograph of a sign as it is erected on the following described property :_L.....;;,.....;.f_. __,_f._'P __ ,..___;,I..!..,I _ __::B~I..!../\..!,..__..I'--~0....s~...::"':.....~/;.~" .!.!".:..;' r:..:...,...:.J __ _ J. ),,ft.,/ J friYK E/lrtk~Q£ Legal Description I hereby certify under oath that the above described property was posted continuously for a period of I C days, from --L~~:....._-.....!,.7 __ .!:1t=~--- ;f 1 J J , 19 _fL, to ---4.4r..L...pt>~r.::;.." L-/ ____ ....~:2.;1..4-2--· 191/_. r 1 State of Colorado ) ) ss County of Arapahoe ) -h~ /krn/tt41ft ~~ ~ hgnature 1 ~ nat~J'r-. If'~ Subscribed and sworn to before me this --.ft-__ day of 19 75/ ~~ if: ' &at-'lV ~t;; . No)"ary Pu1C · . /7.?~~~~ ~ . :;?f/Y~ A separate certifjca ti on shall be presented to the Department of Community Development for each Notice of Hearing sign. Such certification should be submitted to the Department prior to the Publi c He aring in order that it can be included in the information presented to the Public body before whom the Hearing is being held. tO«--~ac ~~~ "!-a1-t1 dc,.'-r~ • • I • • • • .. - To the of NOTICE Is hereby given that there exists upon this property an accumulation of weeds or articles of rubbish which has not ~n removed and disposed of, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 6-7-3 & 6-5-20 of the Municipal Code of the City of Englewood. CHy of Englewood Department of Community Development Code Enforcement Division of NOnCE Ia further given that, unless the same is remo"ed and disposed of within ten (10) days from , the City of Englewood may cause the same to be removed and disposed of, in which event the owners and occupants of this realty shall be liable for all costs, expenses and penalties therefor as set forth in Title 6, Chapters 5 & 7 of the Municipal Code of the City of Englewood. Date: By: • • • -------------------------------------------- CITY Of 1NGL1W00D a.-10. un n. INVOICE INCKIWOOD, COLO. 10110 Ne 1915 ACCOUNT NO ... .Q£:QQ::l_ill_ DATE. •. .W.t ... z.:l. .........• 19 •.. 8.0. ... TO • Maxine Ledull Stanley 2310 West Harvard Englewood, CO 80110 Please detach end retum upper portion with vour remittenm. $ .... J~--~!1.~.?..~·-······-·· -----------------------------------------·----- DATE 6-18-80 • ITEM AMOUNT Cut and remove weeds from vacant lot 120.75 Vacant lot west of 2222 West Harvard (lots 5 &6, Block 12, South- lawn Gardens Annex) BAlANCE $120.75 • 0 • I • • • • • 0 I • • • • • • .. - • • • • City of Englewood November 10, 1978 Ralph Chumley 3550 s. Cherokee Englewood, Colorado 80110 Dear Sir : • • - 3400 S. Elato Street Englewood . Colorado 80110 Phone (303) 761-1140 The followin6 invoice(s) for debris removal remain unpaid : Invoice lj Date Amount 438 7 /13/77 $20.78 Please submit payment on or before November 27 , 1978, to avoid certification to the County for collection. If certi- fied an additional amount in penalty and interest will be char0 ed and a le i n a g ainst your property will be in effect . S i n cere lf yours, jlw ANY QUESTIONS IN REGARD TO THIS MATTER CAN BE ANSWERED BY CALLING 761-1140, EXTENSION 728 AND ASK FOR SHARON YOST . • I • • • "'"' l NnOWY 3JNY'IY9 ':~ ~ (' .. •.; .. , ~~n ::.~, ~ .. :., ·~ • I 'j ... t. ~ :!, ;~· : • · ·~ · .,:Jp:·~r fi ~·~ .~:, ~ 0:--:-:. 3 0 ~:)c~:) 'I J ~) { £>/ ~ ::: ':! W~ll IUIUO ''II:tlU:tJIIIf '1 : r '"1 'r-..•• : .. • ~I uvo ------------------------- · ··························$ ·eJue.,!WeJ JnO ~ '#!""' UO !IJO d J-n UJnjeJ pu. !pejep ~d ~,H; .. ...,, •: C·.~· • ;.' '! 1.): , .... ,. !"·•· 1o ~ •. "" • OJ. ···········6l '······ ·····-· ' ...... H YO ............... ··········oN l N OOJJY 8 £17 3::>101\NI oN 0 I I 01 '010:) 'OOOMilONI 'lS I!Yll -~ OOH OOOMJlf)N; ::!0 A.U:> • :...,,. SENDER Como!ete •lems 1 2 a.l'K: 3 ~ Add y our addtess ''l 1-e R ETU R 'I TO soace o!'l : reve rse !l =1 1 .• ThejPitbw~ng servic e •s req uested (check one). ~ 'Et"Show to whom and date Cel•vered . . __ c 0 Show to whom, date. and ac dress of delivery _c 0 RESTRICTED DELIVERY ~ Show to whom and date cel•vered __ c 0 RESTRICTED DELIVERY fll Show to wh om. date. and address o f delivery s_ ;:! (CONSULT POSTMASTER FOR FEES) ~ 2 ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO: ~ ~~ g .ss-S?> ..J. ~ '1i ~b •·trd, C.. ¥cod ; 3 ARTICLE ~SCRIPT IO N · ~ REGISTERE D N O CE RTIF IED NO i IN SURED NO c;; ~·--~~~~~~=-~~~~ ~ I 9 I have recetvM thP ;art,,..lo A~M .a..~...~ -'--I have recetvea me a• ................. ..-. •• ..-":;;\,.J ouvvt:: SIGNATURE ., Addre ssee~ = Authnnzed aGent /i) · 11 (' I f ; V.~G.J.f~.._, _ ~fY-,·vz l!_~ 0 L _ DATE OF &EL 1VERY J POST~K ;;-I~-/!::;.>-"' c. I :.L._> -I. '~·'\P~ ADDRESS ICOI"p'el e only ol '""'.,"'"'/\' ~~ ~' <'" \: <?. •• 0 1 6 UNABLE TO DELI VE'R BEC->US:O ;:: ~ ~----------------~.-,~ ... ~.---J • • • 0 t • Sf ATEOr COLOAADO ( I JNTYO,... • ~-: ... rl y s Dur1111 do so6emnty s wear that ! am the Editor , .. I Eng lewood Sentinel . that the Mme II 8 ..-ty ,..,..,..., puOtiefted 1n the Ctty o t Engtewooc'l ~ow1tyot State o f Colorado and hat 1 general C lf C~ tnere tn that U td newspaper hu been PUbtillted cont.nuousty and u n•nterrup tedl)' m Nfd Ar~p.qhoe County of lo• a oeood of more th an 52 w..-s puor to the llrst o uohcat•on or the anne11if<! noltce . 11'\at Nicl nPwspaper rs entered m the POll office at Englewood Colo• ado as second class matt mallet' ancl that me sard n ewspaper •s a newspaper W1ll'l•n the meanmg o t tne act o l the General AnemtNy of Ute Sta te ot Colof.oo. IPProved March 30, 1123. nnd cnti!IOd -legal No t.ce s and Actvertisements " .utol ••lhtot o~r:t -. rr•l:•hnq to lltfl prlntlnfl nnd puiJII-.IIIIIt.j Ul hJ(j.il l lt.JIIt.u•, lll ll.l ,KJYOfiiSmOUIS, th .ll •nc annoko<J not.ce was published in the 'equtar and cn!~r e ISSues o l aa•d newspaper. on<:"<> cacti w ef'l< on l he same d a y of each week lu1 thQ , ... ,,00 ol l ~ •nsc1t10n s , lhal l he tusl J m re 4 •s ~Q,.,'"" l:;tsl pubhc11110n o t u•d not•ce ••• m !he laaue ot Subscn be.:l and s wOt n lo betOI"'' fTW!. • Notary 1.0t h day of .. • • • -----IIOnea roau-. .... -.. .. ~ 1 -~~---... co,.,......__ ..... =--:-:-............ r:--· ..... ,... . ....., ........... . _ ... ____ ... ----...... :::.:... "':': =-=::: ,:_'": =::....-..=.:..~= ................................ ------.. -------... -=..----........ ... -...... ___ _ ;;:. ":..:' ~-;.::; :"::':! = ... .::......,----·-·--::::; ... :-4-:-----... a::.~ --~ --. -·-.._ri~··- 0 I • • PU ' &HEll'S AFFIDAVIT ST A F (' cou ~. J" oo ·'l't''~.,,.,. .,.,.,,. '~'1'! tm '"" SPn i.or Edi to ~ En <!lPWOOd S~>r ti n"1 tnll tne same s a .-. ldy newspaPt"r Pulll•"'hed En g l('W()o~ Co~,ont , of Stat,. of CoiOI.tdO ~tno na5 a general '''C1•ia 11on theretn tnat sa d ne•soaper has be{"n PIJblt'iheel c ontinuously and un•ntcnuotec;Jiy m saac1 Arllln,.hon County ct f o r • oenoo o • mort> thA n 52 Wf'('l>.!· pno• 1<1 tfl, .... ttrst oubllca!ton o t the anne•ea no t•Ce lh,ll 't:l•d newspaper ,, ~·e•eo '" tne post ofl ·c~ at Enalf'woorl CcM o rad u as s~t;!i'l d rlass marl matter ana tn<tt tne 'iB•O n~w~oaoPr t'i a newspaper w•thm the meantng o l the act o l the General A s~mbt y o f the S tate ot Colorado approved March 30 1923 ana entttled ·Legal Nottces and Adverttsements and o tner acts relatm g to the p rm ttng <tnd p ubltsnmg ot l egal nottc-es and ad ven•t~mf'n t that tne anne•ed nouce was p ubhsh<'d "' .'he regula• and ent•re •ssues o t SAtd n c~o;ooapt •• once eacn wee~. on tn~ sa me day ot each wC>N 'o r :ne o~>•too o' l consecutt\ff> 1nsert1ons. mat the lrst ouDI•C.::tt•f')n "' s;;.o newspape r dateo !'1 ~1 • • - IO!Iq fW ...,, .... IIIC ... h• I • hue..,,,.._ t"-t ltMr. et U '-• ,..lit -.u., oa .. ~:.-c.-rr =.!:.-;c;~, l:;i' ~~~:.;:\ , ......... 1-.., C. I ...... , ••• _, .. , .......... ,..,._. ... , te Tit l e ¥1 , Cllepcu 1, of tllloe ,.,,.._., ,_.ltiH J C..., -·-•- I ..... IMt COtUi n NeltJ a.4 1'--·· .... ,_, tM t .. l at r--.J of ••4• Ulo•or,_ ~, tiW Cl t r of r:...:....,. pi• n ....................... ,...1._,. M7 ,., •• ..,•lrhf to .,. tMor• ..,_ llilh •nor •r ..,._, 01 the 11 .. o n4 'loco"' for lll<f "'"'co ..... , .. , .. ,_'" ,...,,.,.,~. 11 ...._,or th• CltJ' r .... IOC'II "' tl\eo CttJ' or t:ne:l •-.t, Colo ro do~ •r Ju-u•,-•rrtle , ltfiJ. Pub:"~ ~C\!•1 8 1q11 (r>q~S.-n t·neJ 1•1 c.,, •........ ••of tlrlo(tt 1 Ci e,II-Tr-,.,.., RECEIVED APR 16 1981 OEPl . (IF Fl N '\f'iC£ £.N G~I:.I-v0J 0 • ~ l-h/k- StQI'<J111'f" .111 '·11·~ ~1 ~/)')~ ry &tr a ~t 'duu;;, -1-IX 7-PI • • I • • • • • ,. - AGENDA FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL APRIL 27, 1981 8:00 P.M. Call to order, invocation, pledge of allegiance, and roll call. 1 . Public Hearing. (a) Ordinance on Final pursuant to Title VI, Chapter 7, of the Englewood Municipal Code, assessing against certain realty and the owners thereof the cost of removal of weeds therefrom by the City of Englewood plus an administrative charge and penalty. (Copies enclosed.) 2. Adjournment. ?JJ!~ City Manager • • I • • 0 • I FROM : CITY OF ENGLEWOOD 3400 So. Elati St . Englewood, Co. 80110 Nete ~ N fJ ~~-.I { .1~ I'# ~_~, I ,.} • ,d e, :n ,;;o ;;,<~J- ,J 'I 'I • • ,. • 0 • I • • • ) J -/-() _,/ d <::r ) :s 7-~0 7 J • • • 0 0 I . . • ORD INANCE NO. SERIES OF 198 _1 __ __ • .. BY AUTHORITY COUNCIL BILL NO. 37 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK AN ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO TITLE VI, CHAPTER 7, OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE, ASSESSING AGAINST CERTAIN REALTY AND THE OWNERS THEREOF THE COST OF REMOVAL OF WEEDS THEREFROM BY THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLUS AN ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE AND PENALTY. WHEREAS, the Municipal Code of the City of Englewood requires an owner of realty to remove we e d s therefrom upon notice to do so being published by said City; a nd WHEREAS, the Municipal Co de provid s that upon the owner's failure to do so, the City Mana ger is au horized to ca use the removal of said weeds, c harge the owner h cost thereof, and notify the owner of sa id costs; and WHEREAS, the Munic ipal Code provides that upon the owner's failure to pay the City the cost of weed removal, the City Co uncil shall enact an ordinance assessing the cost of weed r e moval, administrative costs , and p e nalty . NOW BE IT THEREFORE ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO: Section 1. Administrative Procedures Completed. The City Council hereby finds that procedures for weed removal and owner assessment of the cost therefor, which are provided in the Municipal Code of the City of Englewood, Section 6-7-2 through 6-7-6, has previously occurred and that the removal of weeds on the below-listed realty within the City of Englewood, Colorado, was neither accomplished nor paid for by the owners of said real property. Section 2. Assessment Against Realty and Owner; Assessment Becomes Lien. The City Council hereby assesses against each parcel of below- listed realty within the City of Englewood, Colorado, and the owner thereof the cost of weed removal therefrom plus an administrative fee of 15% of said cost and a penalty of 10% of said total. The total amount of each assessment is listed with each tract of realty. Said list of realty, with the owners thereof, and weed r e moval costs, administrative costs and penalty, is incorporated herein by reference. Each assessment shall constitute a perpetual lien on the appropriate tract of land • • I • • c • • • .. Section 3. Collection of Assessment. The Director of Finance shall certify each assessment to the County Treasurer who shall collect each assessment in the same manner as ad valorem taxes are collected. Section 4. The Director of Finance shall send to each person having a record interest in the realty listed below a copy of this ordinance along with the page(s) containing the assessment of the realty of said owner. Section 5. Notice. Notice shall be published in the Englewood Sentinel within ten (10) days of passage of this Bill upon first reading. Notice after final passage shall be by reference publication. Section 6. Hearing. The City Council shall hold public hearing on this ordinance before final passage at 8:00 P.M. on April 27 , 1981. Section 7. Publication, Authentication and Effective Date. This ordinance, after its final passage, shall be numbered and recorded, the adoption and publication shall be authenticated by the signature of the Mayor and the Director of Finance, ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer, and by Certificate of Publication. Introduced, read in full and passed on first reading on the 6th day of April, 1981. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the 8th day of April, 1981. Read by title and passed on final reading on the ________ day of ____________________ , 1981. Published by title as Ordinance No. , Series of 1981, on the day of , 1~ Attest: ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer -2- Eugene L. Otis, Mayor • I • • 0 • ( • • • .. I, Gary R. Higbee, ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, accurate and complete copy of the Ordinance passed on final reading and published by title as Ordinance No. _____ , Series of 1981. Gary R. Higbee -3- • I • • REMOVAL f~S~ • NAME Don G. ' Ylrglnle Fr..,z_, Don G. ' Vlrglnle Fr..,zMn Delores SMith Abner J. ' Gr-Perry Abner J. ' Gr-l'erry Abner J. ' Gr-Perry John J. lei In John J. hlln John J. lelln John I. hlln John J. lelln Th...,.s 'LYCille C. F..,ton llr ' Mrs AI.., Weber Donna J. King 301 Corp. ' Cl..,ce I . lloll..,d 301 Corp . ' Cl..,ce 1. Nollend Jeann rose ' Gene levy Ange l o J . Cowt ' Sidney Hert-. Car 1 H. Ryberg IIIVOICE IIUMIE~ 573 Sll 57~ 1117 ~5 560 SM 771 1327 6o2 ~]1 ~53 • • • NIOUNT 12.65 37.g5 12.02 31.63 107 .53 25.30 12.65 10.12 g8.04 31.63 98.67 25.30 37.95 37.95 30.36 35.42 86.02 22 .77 22.14 • lEI:AL OESC~ I PT I 011 OF PROPERTY 0 City of Englewood (Record e d -Plat) Arapahoe County, colo. 322D-22 S. Huron, lot 7, Ilk. 1, Franzman Folkererts Sub Aoencled PPI 11971-3~-3-08-003 3220 S . Huron, 3230-32 S . Huron , lots 6' 7, Ilk. Fr..,z .... -Fo lkerst Sub . "35 S. Peorl, Lot 20, Blk. ~6, South Bclwy Hts. lo0o5 S. Cherokee, lots ~3 ' ~~. Ilk . 1), Jackson ldwy Hts . lo005 S. Cherokee, lots ~3 ' 4~. Ilk . 1), Jackson ldwy Hts . lo0o5 S . Cherokee, lots ~3-~~. Ilk . 13, Jackson lclwy . Ht s. 3053 S . Galepego, lots 35-36, Ilk . 2 . Taylors Add. 31109 S . lroadwey, lots 21-22-, Ilk . 9 H-Ilton' Kill l es ldwy . Hts. 250 E. St..,ford Ave., E. 75 Ft. of lot ~5 ' ~. ~7 ' ~8 Ilk. 5~, South lclwy Hts . 3053 S. Galepago, Lots 35 ' 36, Ilk . I, Taylors Add . 250 E. Stenford Ave., N 3' of l. ~~ & W 50 ' of lots 45-~8 Ilk. 5~. South lclwy Hts. 3067 S . Lincoln, Lots Nl/2 of lot 31 & lot 32, Ilk . 8 Streyers lclwy Hts . ~520/~522 S. Lowell, Lots 1 & 2, Ilk . I, Pleuent Vi ew 2nd . fig . 2977 S . Oelewere, Lot 29-30, Ilk. 3, S .G. Hamling Add. Vecent Property known es 221~ W. Evens, Lot 8, Ilk . i~ Evans Park Estates 2200 W. Evens, Lots 9 ' 10, Blk . 1~. Evens Park Estates Vecant Ground W of 2100 W. College, Lots 9.10 ,11,12 ,13 Ilk. 21, South 1.-. Gerdens i033 \I.Dert1110uth, leg . 291. ~ ft . E. of S.W . Corner of SE, 1/~ of ME 1/~ Sec . 33, Thence E. 175 ft., N 384.2 ft. to center of lliliDitch, Centerline S .ll. of Ditch to a point 291.~ ft . E. of II line of SE 1/~, S 178ft. to beginning Exc . S 30ft' exc . the easterly .067 ft, South of 3210 So . Clarkson, Lots 5 & 6, Ilk. 21 Eva nst on Bwy . Add . • .. REMOVAL ASSESSMENT NAIIE Dorothy Bruner, Patricia Zl_r_, 8. P. Mal_, Anthon I o ' llary Cordova &Ioria z ... ra Gloria z_,ra C. J . lerardln I John ' Ruth Wagner Ralph Ch-ley Helen Ora.., Fabco Canstruc:tlon Co. Industrial Ur.,l- David .......... Je•n Moore Robert H. lr .... rry Julia Januls Julia Januls K. L. ' S. II. Andlar lru~:e R. ' llarllyn leban Rayi!Dnd J . Goltz Douglas ' 51\aron E....., John Littlejohn Roy E & Elenor I -.y& Sus11n 8(aJIIIIBn Roy Rosenburger Hazel I slake ( • INVOICE IIUIIIU 1109 558 ~17 1173 ~2 ~58 ~38 ~36 ~22 ~~7 567 6o3 590 6o~ 1105 751 752 710 786 1102 1111 1110 11~2 • • • NIOUHT 11.00 6.33 315.15 130.26 18.98 6.33 22.86 25 .30 31.63 6.33 11.39 43.65 59 .46 18.66 67 .05 31.76 31.93 44.28 36.06 126.50 32.89 50 .60 93.61 • City of Englewood (R e corded-Plat) LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Arapahoe County, Colo. )002 S. Galapgo, lot 2,2,3, Blk. 2, Tay lores Addit i on 2'~2 S. Etatl, S 1/2 13,1~ Blk . 3, S .G. Hamlins Addition 2001 W. Harvard Ave. lot 15 , Ilk. 3 Southlawn Gardens Vaeant Ground, 2000 W. 118rvard, lot 15, Ilk. 3 Southl.wn Gardens Annex. 250 W. l~th, lots ~~-~5, Ilk . 5, Higgins Engl_,.,d Gardens 32~ S. Huron, lot 5, Ilk . I Franzman Folkerts Sub . 3550 S. Cherokee, lots 17-18, Ilk . 2, Englewood, CO 3320 S . Pennsy I • .., Ia, lots II & North 1/2 of lot 12, Ilk. 3, West v1-Add. 11065 S. Fox, lots 28, 2,, 30, 31, Blk . 10, Jackson ldwy Hts. 32'5 S. Fox, lot 10, R.C. White Sub Division -ded 2'17 S . a.nnock, lots ~3-~~. Ilk. 19 Spears ...,. Add . ~735 S. Elatl, lots 38-39, Blk . 3, Leeland HTS. 32~ W. Yale, E. 77' of lots 1-~. Blk . 12 Idlewild Sub. 3985 S. Sherm8n, lots 27, 28, Blk. 7 South Bwdy. Hts . "85 S. sherman, lots 27, 28, Ilk. 7, South ldwy. Hts. ~396 S. Grant, lots 23 '2~. Ilk . 37, ldwy Hts. 2nd Fig. ~525 S. Pearl, lots ~3 ' ~~, Blk. 51, South ldwy Hts. 2923 S. Delaware, Lots ~3 & ~~. Ilk. 3 S.G . H-1 ins Add. 2,85 S. Elatl, lot 27, Ilk. 2, S.G. HMiins Add. Vacant lot rear of ~)OS S. Lipan, 99ft. W. )0 ft. S. of ME Corner of the 1111 1/~ of the ME 1/4 of Sec. 9 T_,ship 5, Range 68 W of the 6th P .ll ., thence 67 ft, thence S )00 ft. to point ~f beginning, containing .46 acres more/less ~~I S. Logan, lots 33-3~. Blk . 21, South Bdwy. Hts . lot South of ~633 S. Pearl, Lot ~0. Blk. 62, South ldwy Hts. 2828 S. Grant, lots 8-10, Blk . I, Corning 8 Kllllus Resub . • .. PAGE DEBRIS REMOVAl ASSESSIIEIIli~ INVOICE NAil[ 11\NU Dorothy E. Nl,holl ll~l Alolse Wiser 1137 Robert Tell ll35 Weyne l. I Petrl,le llaberu ll5D Willi .. S. I R«el L. Loudy ll55 Larry K. I N. Maol• llg 1157 PIHWezlr ll65 Ke I th Mart In 1 Sharon Hiller ll67 w ' P llolleru 1316 K ' F Vanllyke 1317 P. lonaal 1320 D. Melwok 1323 Stevens/lollendunk 1326 Bradford I les l ie Sell• It 1335 l. T. larrett 1336 c lim . w. sus.. Dgg 1338 Security Peclflc ...,..tgage 13~0 Fischer AISoc:letes 13~1 Gemc:o Hfg . 13~3 • D. Osthoss 1353 Miley, Blythe 8 & Karen S. 1356 ( • • • - AIIOIMT 63.25 56 .93 44.28 50.60 183 .43 56.93 33.00 58.83 82.23 30.36 6.33 88.55 44.25 18 .98 50.60 18.98 145.48 379.50 94.88 29.98 37.95 • City of Englewood(Recorded-Plat) Arapahoe county, Colo. LEQAL DESCRIPTIOI OF PROPERTY }2~7 S. E•rson, Lots 37 ' 38, Ilk . 21 Evanston ldwy Add . }28o s. E•rson, Lou 1'·20, Ilk . 22, Evanston ldwy Add . }285 S. Ogden, Lots 25 I 26, Ilk. 22, Evanston ldwy Add. lo650 S. Broadway, Lots 13-18, Ilk . 57, South ldwy Hts. }1'0 S . High, Lot 10, Ilk . 9 [venston Bdwy Add. 2nd . Fig . 2818 S. Cherokee, Lot 8, No rth 1/2 of Lot 9, Ilk . I~ Idlewild 8~3 [. Dart.auth, Lot }, Overl.,d Add . 2!60 S. lennoc:k, Lots 16 I 17, Ilk 18, Speers ldwy. Add . lt7" S. Lincoln, Lou }} ' 36, Ilk. 72, Harle• 218o S. Tejon, Lot~. Ilk. I, Englewood Industrial Park }056 s. Galap8f0, Lots 1~-15, Ilk. 2, Teylor Add. Veunt Ground 2201 II . laltlc Pl., S 1/2 of Lot 10, Blk . 16 , Evans Park Estete Except So. 26 ft fo r road. •• S . Broadway, Lots }0-31, Ilk . 12, Jackson ldwy Hts . 3067 S. Lincoln, Lot 32 II 1/2 of Lot 31, Blk . 8 Strayer's ldwy. Hu. 375 & 377 W. Dart.auth, Lots 23-2~. Blk. 21, Speer's ldwy Add. 2'1o6 S. Downing, Lots II & 12, Ilk . 9, W. H. letts First Add . Vaunt Ground Approx . }~01 S. Sherman & 3450 S . Lincoln Lots 6-8, 17-2~, Ilk. 6 Premier Add . 1101 W. Dart-th, PPI 1971-33-1-00-052 Vacant Ground North of 2927 S. Wyandot, Lots 2 & 9, Ilk. 2 VIsta Hts ., 2nd. Flg . lt21t9 S. Washington, Lots 39-40, Ilk . 31, S. Bdwy Hts. lt}20 s. Pennsylvania , S 1/2 of Lot 5, All Lots 6-7, Ilk . 35 So . Bdwy Hts. • t BR IS REMOVA L ASS ESSM ENT HEOULE 11 A11 • NAIIE Platte River LTD . % 11 . lucar 1 12191 Ralston Rd . Andrew S. Stucker Myron C. ' C. E. lott J ohnny ' Amand• lei in . . INVOICE NUIIIER 13~9 1350 1354 1352 • • • AHOUNT 440.00 66.00 55.00 66 .00 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 4 Vacant acres 2500 West Union C i t y of Englewood(Reco r d ed-P l a t) Ara pahoe Count y, Colo . 2709 South Logan St., Lots 14,15 , Blk . 8, Anna ndal e Subd i v i s i on 3101 So . O"'·mi ng, Lots 49,50, Blk 17 Ev•n s t on Broadwa y Add i tion' Vacant 1/2 all ey 3091 So . Wash i ngton, Lots 25,26 ,27, Bl k . 6 TLH Fr i bourgs Belvede ri er 1st fi 1 ing -~ ··--·' ~ PACE DEBRIS REMOVAL ASSESSHENT NAI1E Alta Se 1 fer & Culen -d Peter C. Fogel Peter C. Foge 1 Joseph Cebb I en (Jacquelyn L. Oelburt J. & Muriel lllller lobby I bbotson Johnny lei In Ste II a A, &.n Partner ldos L. ' '"-'• J . Col*n Lloyd C. ' Ava Fo>< Johnny J. & -...da lei In llobert A. ' Prlscella Moel lenJa•ln .. ,.., 11e1 .. Allee Lucas Dorothy lr..,ner & lonj Coodwrl , Nicholson, F•gurstr• Leo ' Hergl Lenten Talentha llosley Gloria Zamora Patrick Durr1n 111 chae I Deans Tate Well Enterprises SEC . Pac . Mortgage Corprat ion c '·- • • • .. • I•VOICE IIIIIIER AAOUIIT 1662 91.83 1660 31.63 '"' 31.63 1657 43.05 1655 50.60 1~5 75.90 1~3 88.55 '* 101.20 "77 31.63 .-eo 42.38 152~ 75.90 1522 42.06 1516 63.25 151~ 143.58 1513 31.63 .~,2 107.53 1525 62.62 1511 79.07 1509 107 .53 1508 139.15 1507 65.46 1505 91.08 1~93 398.48 City of En glewood (Record e d -Plat ) LEGAL DESCRIPTIO. OF PROPERTY Ara pahoe County, Colo . 3925 S. lroa-y, Lou ~~-~~. Blk . 1, Jackson-ldwy Hts. 3532 S. Grant , Lots 9, 10, Ilk . ~.B i rch's add . 2nd . Fig. 3528 S . Grant, Lots 7-8, Ilk . ~.Birch 's Add . 2nd Fig . ~26-28 S. Lincoln, Lots 7-8, Blk . 58 , South Bdwy Ht s . ~321 S. Grant, Lots ~3-~~. Ilk. 38, South ldwy Hts . 3~5 S. Galapago, Lots 25-28, Ilk. 4 Longandale Sub-div i sion 250 E. Stanford, East 75 ft . of Lots ~5.~.~7 ' ~8 Blk. 5~ South ldwy Hts . 37~7 S. lroa-y, Lots 36-38, Blk. 8 Ha•llton Ki llles ldwy Hts . ~335 S. Grant, Lots 39-~0, Ilk. 38 So. ldwy Hts. •303 S. Ac..,., Lots ~7-~8. Ilk 2, llolenwebers ldwy Hts . 3053 S. Calapago, Lots 35 & 36, Ilk . 1 Taylors Addition ~ 100 S. Grant Lots 1 & 2, II k 21 South ldwy . Hts . Vacant Lot North West Corner Fo>< & Jefferson , Lots 15 & 16 Ilk. 15, Englewood 29~7 S. Fo><, Lot 37 & South 1/2 of Lot 38, Blk . 1 S. C. Hemlln's Add i tion )002 So . Galapago, Lot 1, Ilk. 2 Taylors Addition ~708 S. Cherokee, Lou & ~. Blk. 8 Leeland Hts . ~18 E. Floyd Ave . Lots I ' 2 Blk. 4 llestview Addition ~735 S. Eletl, Lots 38 & 39, Blk . 3 Leeland Hts. *cent Lot appro><. 2001 11. Harvard, Lot 15, Blk. South 1-. Gardens Anne><. 3020 S . Fo><; Lots 6 & 7, Ilk. 3 Taylors Addition 3285 S. Ogden, Lots 25 & 26, Blk . 22 Evanston lrdwy Addition Vacant Lot appro>< 3030 So. Fo><, Lots 8 & 9, Blk 3 Taylor Addition Vacant Ground appro>< 3~00 S. Sherman, Lots 17-24 B I k . 6 Premier Add . • PAGE OEBR I S REPIOVAL ASSES SilENT • MAllE A'''"" Brothers Lanelc• oa .. port Ja .. s George "'II IIppe J-• George "'1111- Peter Fogel OpportunIty lull den Dolores N. Ostoff Jaansco '""· eo. J . Kant Wrltht ' Lan<ll u lee ... Ia Judy Aofer Patricia St ....... s William Cutter ~ert lra ... rry Thomas & Kathl•n Klttlns Martha Pencost lenjlmin Mal..., Charlu L ' Jan Pitter David & Karen Nlzley Russell E1tewt, Cr1h.,. kussel I Nary Jane Wilkie, Fred Patrick II . . IIVOICE ... u 1500 1626 1627 1628 1636 16}~ 16}0 16}1 1650 1~9 1~7 1~5 1653 1652 1651 1663 1665 1667 58 59 6o • • • NIOUIIT 37.95 25.30 44.28 44.28 75.90 349 .78 95.89 189.12 189.75 44.28 253.00 59.46 253.00 85 .39 288.42 35 .42 49.34 31.63 44.28 63 .25 55.03 • LEGAL DESCIII PT I 011 OF PROPERTY 0 City of Englewood (Recorded-Plat) Arapahoe Count y, Colo. 3S,8 S. lnce ' 3S,5 s . Huron, Lots 26 ' 27 Blk . I~ Longenda I e SubdIvIsion lo075 S. Clarkson, Lots 29 ' )0, Ilk . 16 South Br~ Hts. lt087-S, So . Clarkson, Lots 26 ,27 ' 28, Blk . 16 So . Bdwy Hts Vacent Lot South of lo089 So . Clarkson, Lot 25, Ilk. 16 South lr~ Hts . 35~~ So. Grant, Lots 11, 12, 13, ' 1~. Ilk . ~. Blrch ;s Add . 2nd. Fig. 2150 S. Tejon, Lots 1,2,3 & ~.Ilk. 6 Al ta Vi sta ~2~9 S . Washington, Lots 39 & loo, Ilk . )I Bdwy Kts . 3555 S. Grant, Lots ~ ' 37, Ilk . 3 8 i rch' s Add . } lots South of 5050 S. Huron, East 133ft. of lots 6-7-8 , Ilk. I. Vogeler Subdivision 3219 S. Clarkson, Lots ~3-~4, Ilk . 8, Hawt ho rn Subd ivi sion 3692 S. Logen, Lots 23 & 2~, Ilk. 5, Hi gg in s Engleooood Gardens }287 S. HUIIIbo It, Lots North 12/ of 2 7 & oil of 28 & 29 lreymaler Subdivision 32~ W. Yale, Eut 79 ft. of lots I ,2,3 & 4, Blk . 12 ldleoolld ~}08 S. Pennsylvania, Lots 3, ~ ' llo . liZ of 5, Ilk . 35 South lr....,.y Hts. }278 S. HUIIIbolt, Lot 8, Ilk. 28 Evonston Bdwy Add . 2nd fig . 3365 S. Pennsylvenio, Lot 30 ' North 1/2 of lot 31, Blk . West VI-Addition . ~195 S. Grant, Lots 25 ' 26, Ilk. )8 . South B~ Hts. ~710 S. Pennsylv..,la, Lot 5, Ilk. 67 , South ~ Hts. ~201 S. Washington, Lots ~7 & ~8, Blk . )I, Brdwy Hts . }915 S. Clarkson, Lots ~3.44, ~5 & 46 , Bl k I So. Brdwy Hts . 3659 S. Grant, Lot 5, Ilk. 3. Hoppe 's fie-subd i vision • v D .. ~E~VAl ASSESSIENT IIIVOICE IWIE IIUIIIU O.vld Fist Ill 1672 Lori C.lent-167~ Guido 0 ' Co.-.olle -·· 62 C.ntruy Wood Specl .Inc. 1677 o. .. ley Allison 168lo L..,rence ' Consuel o Dutcher 1615 ~uter St ... l, Carl Fox, J. Chancier 1616 )01 Corp . & Claude ""I lend 1617 '•ul Welbou....., '"3 -.rt ' Joyce Mil h 16,~ Charles c .... les, Rlcloerd Venturelle 1"5 Jerall G ' Shirley .. ld '"' John J . Littleton 16,8 Johnle J . '11.1 -· lelln 16, lloneld L ' Delores S.lth 0' .. 1 1700 Gordon Sheles, Jr 1703 Lee " ' J. Lee Holi-k 170~ Mike Richerd Dress 1705 Steve A ' Eloy E. C.stro 1706 \IIIIi.., R 'Melva R. -ey ·~ Mrs . Lloyd Pen jon 1711 Oelores H. Osthoff 1712 • • • • MOUNT 139 .15 79.07 234 .03 297.28 197.58 118 .28 108.08 170.78 309.93 220 .14 211.26 31.63 88.55 53.13 44.28 94.88 50.60 113· 85 60.72 94.88 53.77 31.63 City of Englewood (Recorded-Plat.) Arapahoe Cocn ty, Colo. LEGAL DESCR I PT I 011 OF P~O,UTY 302' S. Sher_,, Lots ~I ' ~2. Ilk. 7 Strayer 's ldwy Hts . foOl 11. Oxford, Lots 2~ ' 25, 8lk. 12, Jackson ldwy Hts . 2180 S. Vallejo, also ze,o S. Vallejo, Lot 3. Ilk 3 Yale 'Tejon Industrial hrk Vacant lot approx . Vallejo ' Cornell , Lots ~.5,6 '7 Ilk . Z, VIsta HU, 2nd filing 2210 II. Evens, ... r of 2325 II. \lerren, Lots 1~-15, Blk. ~ Except II. 25 ft of Ilk. I~ Evens Perk Estates loOOo II . O.rtmouth Ave ., PPI 1'71-33-4-056 2"5 S. Shoshone, Lou 8-' Ilk. 5, Vi sta Hts 2nd. filing ... r of 2201 11 . Eveni, lots '-10, Ilk. 1~ Evens '•rk Estates 1100 II . O.rtmouth, PPI 1,71-33-~-00-03~ 21M 11. \lerren Ave ., Lot 3, Ilk 15, Evens Park Estates lot II, Ilk 15, Evens '•rk Estates Te j on ' hltlc 2810 S. AeON, lots 20 ' 21, atk . 16 l dl-i ld Vacant Ground Approx 1250 II .Qulncy, PPI 2077-~-1-00-05' 250 II. Stanford, East 75 ft of lots 45,~,47 ' ~8. Ilk . 54 South lroeclwey Mel ghts ~~35 S. 'earl, lot 20, Ilk. ~6, South 8clwy Hts . "55 S. Lincoln, Lots 3~-36, Ilk ~1. South lclwy Hts. ~107 5. Ac00111, lot ~3.~~. Ilk . 18 Jackson 8clwy Hts. "51 5 . Logan, lots 35-36, Ilk. Zl So . lclwy HU. ~77 5. Clarkson, lots 3~-36, Ilk. 64,So . lclwy Hts. Vacant ground north of ~168 s. ~. Lots 14, 15 ' Korth liZ of 16, Ilk. 17 Jackson Bclwy Hts . 3000 S. Lincoln, lots 1 end north 1/2 of Lot 2, Ilk . Strayers lclwy Hts . ~2~' 5 . \leshlngton, Lots 39 ' loa, I lk . 31 8rclwy Hts . ---~--~--- PAG E DEBR I S REIIOVAL ASSESSMENT IIIVOICE HAllE ... Ell w..,n L. ~ Patricia llaMrts 1713 Daniel A 'Har911ret A. K,.hl 1725 Loran 0 ' Jerry A. Ward 1165 Beverly A. Clark 1166 Platln..., Properties l A. J. ~hter 1168 VIctor J . liard ina 1870 A. llellney, Inc . 1879 l'eter ' J-"-tor 1•2 JOe I ' Sh I r 1.., H. Lucaro 1187 Jeansco, Inc. Ill! Ja•s Otto Anderson 111!10 !loy llone ... rger 1.,3 J-s "· Gol .... 1.,7 Od is H. Ulibarri 1.,8 Pat C. & Jolin D. Niche I 1~1 John A. Ll ttleford 1,.,7 Joe R. Atenc lo 1,.,8 Dorothy E. Mlchols l Dorothy Halstr010 1,.,9 Audic.e M.U1ibarri ,10 South Harion St . Venture 1,18 Owi ght & Lois Yates 1,20 ( • • • • NICMIT 29 .79 50.60 61.36 75.90 316 .25 221.38 57.56 25.30 94.88 158.13 37.95 65.78 37.95 30.36 44.28 78.43 42.38 80.33 50.60 145.53 72.74 • City of Englewood (Recorded-Pl a t ) LE~L OESCRI PT ICII Of PROPERTY Arafahoe Count y, Colo . ~21802' s. Ac010a, Lots 5 '6, Ilk. 32 Jackson ldwy Hts . ""S . 'rant, Lots 17 ~ 18, Ilk 76, Harlem ~235 s. Bannock, Lots 3' ' ~0, Ilk. 30 Jackson ldwy Hts . "56 S . fox, Lots 13' 1~. Blk. II. Wollenweber 's Bdwy Hts 200 W. lei levi--K-Hart Plue, South 1/2 of Lot, Interurban Add ' areas adjacent to Lehow Avenue . 2,.,5-2~7 So. Elatl, Lots ~-~8, Ilk . 2, S .G. Hamlin Add . lt53' S. Logan, Lots 39 ~ ItO, Ilk. 53, So . Bdwy Hts . -5 S. Jason, Lot 7, Ilk. 3, Loffreda Sub-division )1120 S . &.Iapage>, Lou 6,7, & 8 , Ilk . 2 Taylors Add. 3552 S. 6hermen, Lots 12 ~ 13, Ilk. 3 81ach 's Add . 3'20 S. Pennsylv.,la, Lou 5 '6, Ilk . 3, So . lldwy Hts . One Lot South of ~33 S. Peark, Lot 40, Blk 62, So . ldwy Hts . J71t0 S . Lincoln, Lots 13 ~ 14, Ilk. 2 Wynetka Hts . lt262 S . Huron, Lots 16' 17, Ilk 25, Jackson Bdwy Hts . 2,.,8-10 S. Lincoln, Lots 3 ~It, Ilk 2, Strayer's ldwy Add. '7~~ E. Maplewood, )026 S. Pennsylvania , Lots 9 ' 10, Blk . 4, T.L.H . Frlbeurgh's Belvedere , 1st . f i I i ng )0~5 S. lrdawy, )liltS S. lroadway , Lots 17, Ilk 24 Spears lrdwy AddItIon 118 S . Gaylord, )21t7 S. Eooerson, Lots 37 ~ 38, Ilk . 21 Evanston Broadway Addition lt262 S . Huron, U62 s . Huron, Lots 16' 17 , Blk . 25 Jackson Broadway Heights 3'15 S. Hillcrest Or., 3500 S . Marion , Lot 2 Ex E. 5' of 2 and all lots 3-6, Ilk . 2 2~ S . Holman Wy., Vacant land east o f Stop/Stay Motel on Dartmouth Avenue • .. ~-__ :':...~--~ .... ·~ ·-- PAGE 8 DEBRIS REIIOVAL ASSESWIIT ( • IINIE J-s Inven-t Co. lfr..,kel Cubon ..,d Ribbon Co . Sterling Stainless TuM CO<lt · Centurl.., Partnership Rdtert "-'-r Centurl.., Part~~ershlp David II . ' 1111• L. lurne Frenk 11. lyer ' Piau.--L. Marrlsan Larry L. llr..,t .... rt A. ' E. Joyca IIIIIs lllorla z. z-ra 111111-J. Jerpnsen llark E. Ill chardson Jean Gumllck Linda Sue ' Jane llarle Head Johnnie J ' D.J. -da lei In Kent J. Wright & Lottie Lee 1,25 1,27 ,,za 1!37 2133 2126 2129 2130 2135 • • • 0 . ·-·--. -------. 91.72 91.72 158.13 63 .25 13l. 83 259.33 88.50 202.40 113.85 202.40 31.63 55.34 99.31 50.60 79.07 189.75 • City of Englewood (Recorded -Plat) Arapahoe County , Co lo . LEGAL DESCRIPTIOII OF PROPERTY P. 0. lox 597, Strip on South side of II. Dartnouth fr010 Platte Dr to 1600 II. Dart..,..th lloOO 11. Dartnouth, Strip on South side Dartmouth from Platte Dr to 1600 II . Dart-uth 3521 S. L~, 2060 II . Iliff, Lots 13 ' 1~, Blk. Southl...., ;ardens Annea. ""I S . Cedar, Vaaont Lot "It of 2141 \1. Huvard, Lots II '12 Ilk. 3, Southl-llardens Annex P. 0. lok 27lo60, Vaaont lot -st of 2232 \1 . llarvard, Lots 7 ' 8 Ilk. 12, South I-llardens Annex )S21 S . L~. Lot West of 2111 11. Ili ff, Lou 17' 18 Ilk. 15, Ev..,s Park htates 2070 w. Iliff, Lot Eut of 2111 \1 . Ili ff, Lots 1,, Ilk . 15 Evans Park Estates P. 0 . lo1< 36275, 238o West Moorvard, N 1/2 of Lot I, Ilk 12 Southl...., llardens Avenue 50 S. StMie St ., Suite 500, Sout-lt Corner of Tejon and IIniey, Lot 15, Ilk . 2, Southl...., C.rdens Annek 211111 II . Warren, 211111 II. Warren, Lot 3, Ilk. 15 Evans Park Estates 7020 Canosa Ct., Sout-5t Corner of Baker ' Tejon, Lot 15 Ilk. 3, South!-llardens Annex. 2060 II. Baker, 2060 \1. Iaker, II 1/2 of Lot 13, Ilk . South 1...., Gardens Anne.. 3195 S. Bellaire, ~96 S . Lincoln, Lots 22,23,2,, Blk 10 South Broadway MelghU. 3119 S. Unl.verslty, 3119 S. University, Lot 2,, Ilk I ~den Hilt:> ~71t6 S. Lincoln, Lot 13, 1,, Blk 71 , Harlem 3181 S. Downing, 3053 So. C.lapago , Lot 35 & )6 , Blk I lay lors AdditIon P 0 Box 816, Vacant Lot at 5098 So . Huron, W 133ft of Lots 7-8, Blk 1, Vogelmar Subdivision ,. ~-·-~·_....__ ·--~---~-- REI~VAL ASSESSIIENT ( NNIE Richard ' llobert lloffschlnel•r Jol>n W. ' ~thy S. r.outh C.T. Cook Row lrlnlr.off -~~~~·-J-s M. QoiMn Me><lne L. st .. lav Rhona ltl"'lJ Mary Jane Wilkie Ronald L. o••i I El li ot lratt 'Mercllle -· Joe R. AtM\clo Carol E. ' llchard w. Henlnrlclr. IYithryn S. llelol>er Mark E. Richardson Michael Richard Drees W. R. Goodwin, Nicholson, Fagerstrc. Frederick E. ' Ado lt. ltllloer Ciordon D. S10l th IIMIICE ... Ell 21)8 21111 2185 11116 21118 1189 21,0 • • - 316.25 50.91 284.63 208.73 208.73 51.24 132.83 67.67 84.76 70.84 85.38 56.93 82.23 80.33 55.66 183.43 202.38 132.83 56.93 ( LEG.AL. DESCRI PT I 011 OF PROPERTY City of Englewood (Recorded -Plat ) Arapahoe County , Colo . 26)5 S. Eaton PI, Vacant Lot at ))0 W. kllevi ew, Lot 6 EJU:e~~t W 75ft. M\d ucept I acre, lnterlor ban Addit i on ~25 w. O>tford, Lots 22-2), Ilk 12, Jackson 8dwy Hts . 52'5 S. Broadway, VacM\t lot W of 250 W. Lenow, Plot 1,2,3 Rafferty lOudens e><cept 11. part plot I ' 2 52'5 S. Broadway, Plots 1~,15,16,17 ,1 8' 19 . Rafferty GArdens ~'28 S. Bannock, 3595 S. Fo><, Lots 15,16 . Bl k 15 )71o0 S . Lincoln, Lots 13.1~. Ilk . 2 llyneda Heights 2)10 W. Harvard, Vacant Lot W of 2222 W. Harvard Lots 5 ' 6 Ilk. 12 Soutnl-c;ardens Iinne>< m5 S. 0.1-re, lo2~5 S . Del-re . Blk 28 , Jackson lroadwav Heights, Lot " ' loO 6~7 Wlndfleld Ave., )6lo' S . Gr..,t, Blk 3 , \lest Hiner Sub . Lotl'2 )069 s. Pal• Dr., lolo35 s . Pearl, Ilk. ~. S. 8rdwy Hts Lot 39 ' loO 1626 S. Sherman, 260 W. Jefferson, Skerrltts Addition 2nd fig . Lot lo-6 & Est. 15 ft of Lot 3 ,.5 S. lroadway, Lots )7, Ilk Zlo, Speers Brdwy Add i tion 7718 S. Valentia, 150 S. Fo><, Lots 12 -13, Blk. 22 , Jackson I roadway He I gh ts lo251 S. Fo><, Lots 35-36, Ilk 26, Jackson Bcl\<y Heights 3195 S. lellaire, lo096 S. Lincoln, Lots 22 ,2 3,2lo, 8lk 10 South I roadway He lghts lol51 S. Lo~n, Lots 35-36, Ilk 21, So . lrdwy Heights ~708 S. Cherokee, lo706 S . She.--., Lots ) & 4, Ilk . 6 L.eelond Heights ~3)1 S. Cherokee, Lots 38-39, Ilk 411ellenwebors Bdw Hts )290 S. Penn, 525 E. Floyd Ave, Lot s 23-24 . Blk 6 ~horne Subdivision • PAGE 10 OEBRI S ~EIIOVAL ASSESSPIENT J-• E ' Ietty V. Hertlnez lerry R. Friefieh Devid Fiste11 Plurph y Corporet i on lr l ooo ' lonMr Anderoon Don T•ute Joyce E l.rnett JO & HA C.rl son • .. IIIVOIC£ ... Ell 2172 73 71t 21lt6 211t7 2160 2161 2162 2163 2164 • • - 94.88 76.70 113.85 55.83 56 .93 132 .83 107 .53 113.85 113 .85 88.55 113.85 79.11 69 .58 50.60 ( • City of Eng lewood (Record ed -P l a t) Ara pahoe c o un ty, co l o. LEGAL O£SCIII PT I 011 OF PIIOI'E~TY 2051 W. Herv•rd, V•cant Lot nst of 20 5 1 W. Ha r v•rd S 1/2 of lot 1~. Ilk 3, Southl...., IOA r dens Annex 1097 S . Teller, 1026 S. Penn ., lots 9 -10, Bl k ~ Frlbourchs lelvedere , 1st fll i ng 55" E. Vlll•ge Green , )095 S . l'url , lots 25-26 , I lk 5 Frlbourghs lelvedere, 1st . Fig . 2'15 South Gr8ftt, Lots ~3-~~. Ilk 3, Stroye rs lro8dway Heights 1660 Alb i on Street, Suite 309, 555 South Grant , lots 36 '37, Ilk 3, llrch's Addition, 2nd Fi ling 1029 South Sher-, S i of lot lt2 •II of lot"· Ilk 8 Str•yers lr...-y Heights 3535 South She.-, SE Comer of Lin co ln & H_.sen, lots 1-5, Ilk 2 , lirch's Add i t i on to Sou t h lreadwoy He i ghts 750 West "-den, liE Corner of Jason & lthac i n , lots 17- 25, Ilk 6, Engl.-ad 2~91 South J•o•ine, NE Corner Jeffers on & Hur on , lot s i 7- 26, Ilk lit, Engl...od ~157 South Elati, Lot 36-37, Ilk 22, J.ckson lra.dway Heights 1655 South Pearl, 3650 South Pennsy l anvi•, lots '-14, Ilk 6 , Higg i ns Engl...od G.rdens 2828 llorth H .. ke 11 Ave, lt60 1 South 8 roa-y, leg inn i ng 535' II & 50' W of SE Corner of 1111 l , Secti on iO thence W 125' thence II '5 -32' E 125' S 95 -32 to Beg i nn i ng 3~131 South Pe.rl, lots ~1 & 42 , Ilk 3, Broadway He i gU ~381 South Sher-.,, Lots 29 & 30, I lk 39. South Broadway Heights • I I ASSESSMENT NAME Oov i d 8 & L L Cox Eugene D. Johnson C A Grits inger, Gl.,n Coolbllllck Will i oto ~. Jackson Peter J. Fogel Jock H & ~11th • Wi nt.., Jonnny J ' DJ -da Belin Greenford lf'tvestments Soreh School dt Gor y ~oblnson Dorothy Ni chols ( • .. III'IOIC[ 111M[~ 2165 2166 2167 2169 2170 2171 2250 2251 • • • 65.78 2 53.00 75.90 94.88 63.25 68.31 2269.41 113.85 75.90 45.18 91.71 75.90 108.79 ( • City of Engl ewood (Recor ded-Plat) LE'-'1. DESC~IPTIOII OF P~OPE~TY Arapahoe Count y, Co lo. 3715 South Sher_,, Lots ~~-~2 . Ilk 2, Wynet ko He igh ts ~ Acres Cireen Or ., Vac..,t lot E of Gr¥id & De: 1wa r e on Gr..,d, PPII2077-10-2-00-019 P 0 lox 907, VoCM'It lot •E Corner Be l l ev i ew & Fox, PP I 12077-15-2-01-011 333 West H-elen Suite 800, 1 2~ W Quincy, PP I 12077 -0'- 1-00-025 5"0 South Yosemite, 2861 South Cherokee , Lots 33-34, Ilk 1}, Idlewild 2)15 South Molly Pl., Vec.,t lot N of 323~ South Washington, lots 7 & 8, Ilk 8, H-thorne Subdivision )181 South Down i ng, 2 50 E Stanford Ave, II 50 ft of Lo ts ~5 ~. ~7. ' ~8. II 50 ft of the N 3 ft of lot 44 Ilk 54, South lroodway Heights 880 Buchtel llvd, 3185 South Pearl, Lots 27 & 211, Blk 2 , lank AddIt Ion 32~5 South ~ce, Lots 37-3,, Ilk 32, Evenston lroodwoy 1511 Eost Floyd, E 63' of lot 9, Ilk 28, Evanston 8ro..,.y Addit i on 32~7 South E.,.rsan, Lot 37 & )8, Ilk 21 Evanston lroo-Y Add iti on }58) South .Ogden, Lots )0-32, Ilk 3, Hi99ins S lroodwoy Heights 2050 West Ioker, N i of lot 13, Ilk 3, South!_, Gardens Annex .. PAGE 12 OEB R IS RotiOVAL ASSESSMENT NAME llllllam Jergenson 2253 Harle Bullock 225~ • • I ( • • - 94.93 37.95 ( LECiAL DE SCRIPTION Of PROPERTY City of Englewo od(Recorded-Plat) Arapahoe County , colo 2060 II hker , Lot E of 205 1 II -.rd, 5i of l ot 14, Bl k 3 South l awn Gardens Anne" 1018 E floyd, E 72.5 ft of Lots 1-5 Blk ~2 . Evanston I roadway Add I t I on • • ROBERT VON SCHLICHTING -308 SO. PENNSYLVANIA ENGLEWOOD, CO. 80110 TO WHOM IT HAY CONCERN; • • • R ('• I • • '--i .. J..l' f' .• .l ·' l Cl MA~'' , ;-· '.HI li.:t £N!::L<I",Gi> -, I J I NOTICED ON PAGE 28 OF THE ENGLEWOOD SENTINEL (APRIL 8 ISSUE) INVOICE 11652 CITING A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY I PRESENTLY OWN. HOWEVER, THE NAME OF GERALD POWELL (NOT POWER) PERTAINS TO THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED. SINCE I ACQUIRED THE DWELLING AND PROPERTY ON THIS LOCATION IN OCT. 1979 THIS ASSESSEHENT WAS LEVIED ON HR. POWELL AND THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED BEFORE I PURCHASED SAID PROPERTY LIEN-FREE. PLEASE EXAMINE YOUR RECORDS ON INVOICE 11652 AND SEND HE A RESPONSE VERIFYING THAT-lHIS HATTER HAS BEEN CORRECTED. • I . • • - STATEMENT OF SE'ITLEMENT SELLER'S 0 PURCHASER'S [] PROPERTY ADDR~~$~---4-~ __ s_s_. __ P_E_N_NS_Y_L_V_AN __ IA ____________________________________________ __ S ELLER~ ___ w_E_I_D_MAN ____ &_c_o __ ._a __ c_o_l_o_r_a_d_o~C~o~r~po~ra~t~i~o~n~--------------------------------------------- SCHLICHTING AND VICKIE L. VON SCHLICHTING DATE OF PRORATION OCTOBER 21, 1979 North 1/2 of Lot 5, Block 35, SOUTH BROADWAY HEIGHTS • • I • • • ----------------------- aTY Of 8tGUWOOD INVOICI a.-10. aAn ST. v INGI.MOGD. COlO • .... N2 1652 I ACCOUNT NO ... , ., 'I ~TE. ·"-- TO • ,, ·a.!.tt v,·. "',\ .... ' .... ' 'l ..-.J. Y 1 \! lui"' I" ' ', ' 1 Ple•M d.tadl end ,.turn --'ion w ith YGIK --· •-------------------------------------------------- • I TEM C n i: c1:1d i'CttH"'I''.'J ~ 1""' ·p e d s •l'"!":·r,t 1::: ,, ... ·i.:y . 1 .tr :ar n t-J. f.t~ .... •;l•..,,.i~J ; L t :; 1 ,1', hl~'·'· ·• .. t. :·,,,.:: Bl.C:•c~d\,l f'~' It .i.,_;! BALANCE ' . 7. .I l ~,; I ; • 1 ~ ... ,e n ~ ••·• ........ , .... , ~ /~::r~'::ft-~ /)~ ~,...;-<!-C<.. __£; ~ """------ 4 ~ ~~ ?2?-V~ e-7 .4a_._/ __.;: ____ ~~. --?k~ .$£..-£-d/ ...U ~ rt..~ ~ -d~ .-C"<--/""a...;/ .. • • I • • D ( • • ( • ,. ROBERT VON SCHLICHTING 4 308 SO. PENNSYLVANIA ENGLEWOOD, CO. 80110 TO WHOM IT HAY CONCERN; • • • ~u~ 1 ;: 1 ~-(;, CI T)' MM' ;;t ;·; · 1;n 11 ;:: EN GL Lii0(;() I NOTICED ON PAGE 28 OF THE ENGLEWOOD SENTINEL (APRIL 8 ISSUE) INVOICE 11652 CITING A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY I PRESENT LY OWN. HOWEVER, THE NAME OF GERALD POWELL (NOT POWER) PERTAINS TO THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THAT PROPERTY DESC RIBE D. SINCE I ACQUIRED THE DWELLING AND PROPERTY ON THIS LOCATION IN OCT. 1979 THIS ASSESSEMENT WAS LEVIED ON MR. POWELL AND THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED BEFORE I PURCHASED SAID PROPERTY LIEN-FREE. PLEASE EXAMINE YOUR RECORDS ON INVOICE 11652 AND SEND ME A RESPONSE VERIFYING THAT-l~IS HATTER HAS BEEN CORRECTED • • I . • ...... ··rtalt.:f ,."" ..• , Ud. ,.,... .,~ ~ ... C.l ... ._ a-t Ltai.e C.••'-1" Hl!l.,.._f.fll • • • STATEMENT OF SETI'LEMENT SELLER'S 0 PURCHASER'S []. PROPERTY ADDR&~~~q~----4~30~8~S~·~PEN~N~S~Y~L~VAN~I=A~------------------------------------------ VON SCHLICHTING DATE OF PRORATION OCfOBER 21 , 1979 l/2 o f Lot 5, Block 35, SOUTH BRO ADWAY HEIGHTS Debit C redit 1. Sellinc Price 53 . 0()() 00 ~II---;-::::;-1-;::;;:-- -~~~De~po~~~-~~pa~~id~~~~W~E~IMDMAN~~&~QO~~--~~------·-------r----t---~l---~5~0~0~0 0~-­ S. Trust Deed, payable to 4. Trust Deed, payable to RP:LI AN CE FUNDING 51,450 00 6. Trust Deed, payoff to 6. Interest on Loan Assumed 7. Title Ina. Premium 1aloo 8. Abstractinc: Before Sale -----·----------------------+---+---it-----t---- ~9~·~~~---.~A~fte=r~Sal==e~------------------·---~----~---11------+----- 10. Title Exam. by -·------------+-------;::l=---H-------+---- 11. Recording: Warranty Deed~.:.::...-·----------------------------11-----';2'1--::0o-=o--l~----+--- 12. Trust Deed 6 00 g Release ~ Other 16.~~=--u_m_e_n~~-y~F~ee~----------------·------1----.5~30v.-~l 16. Certificate of Taxes Due 17. Taxes for Precedi.:.::n::..g ~Y;.::e=ar-("s') --,1m9 71rPArrnD""$"'2,3-.:-5 ...... ~.-., 'o,-----------+---+---ll-----+--- 18. TuesforCurrentYear ($235.98) 294 davs @ .6465 oer dav ~TaxReserve 9 months 177 _0_3_ 20. Special Taxes =::;_ _______ -_-_ -~---_______ --·--------;-----1-----l~----1--- 21. Personal Property T::.:a:.::x:.::e.::.s ______ ·-------------·----~----+----1 11-----t----- 22. Hazard Ins. Prem. A ssumed--Policy No.--·--,eo,.,-. --------------t----1----lf-----+---- $ Yr. Term Expires Premiu m $ Days Unused at t per day 2~3~.-.P~r~c~m~i~u~m~f~o~r~N~e~w-.ln~s-u~r~an-ce~----~~~~~~~------------~~~~~r---~1~6~5~0~0~-41 ~-------+--·--- 24. Hazard Ins. Reserve 2 months 27 50 25. FHA Mortgage Ins. Ass umed -------------·-------t----C~~:__--IIf----+--- 26. FHA Mortgage Ins. Reserve 1 month __________ · 21 39 27. Loan Sen•i ce Fee (Bu ye r) 514 50 28. Loan Discou nt Fee (Seller) 29. Interest on New Loan 148 00. SO. Survey and/or Credit Report SURVEY $40.00 j CREDIT REPORT PAID 40 00 34. Security Deposi ts 35. Loan Transfer Fee ( Loan Payment Due ~ .. ~B~r~o~k~er~·~s~F~ee~~~--------------------------------------------~------4-----~~-------+----- EXTENSION OF APPRAISAL 25 00 -------------------------------------------------------------~----4------l~------~--- • • I • • • • • ·-·----------------------- CITY Of INGLEWOOD ,_so. ~~An ST. INCMaOOD, COLO. 10110 N2 INVOICE 1652 i\"'··' ( .. '1 1 ? ACCOUNT NO •• ·-·------DA~.:.~~ 19_,_. -·· TO • t :~t..! .. ~(.)ltl W. P t a·lll 1 :•: I S "J 11tl1 l'r.1 ~.·c.y l .111 i" 1•: ·•1 1 r \ ,'1 ()11 ,. ('1' i I .ll \'1 PleeM det..::h end retum _, -'ion with your ....,itt-. $-·-·-·----··-- ----------------------------------~--------- DATE ,, , u;J tt~;t l •_ I '} ITEM C 11t n:"!d .Lemovo 1 1·.a t·;~ed s f r o rll ,·,rr.·H1ri.:y . .1 Jt 1 f , :~in ut-h P r ~l n 'i:-y l ~t ~n i u; Lot :; :1 ,'', N o . 1' ,c 1 ~]~"'Hl;:s';, ~~ .. ~~·tit B~r:.,~dh'fi Y I t •.i ':Jl i 1 ::. BALANCE AMOUNT $1 7 .1.1 0 I • • D