Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-12-12 (Special) Meeting MinutesSPECIAL MEETING: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO December 12, 1977 The City Council of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe County, Colorado, met in sp ciu s ssi n n Ve emb r J '', 19'('(, at '(:JO p.m. Mayor T~lor, presiding, called the meeting to order. The invocation was given by Councilman Brown. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by M~or T~lor. Mayor T~lor asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the following were present: Council Members Williams, Sovern, Smith, Mann, Brown, Cl~ton, Tfzylor. Absent: None. The Mayor declared a quorum present. Also present were: City Manager Mccown Assistant City Manager Curnes City Attorney Berardini Director of Community Development Wanush Deputy City Clerk Watkins • • • • • • Councilman Smith left the meeting at 7:35 p.m. COUNCILMAN WILLIAM> MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON HAMPDEN PROFESSIONAL PARK SUBDIVISION. Councilman Sovern seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: N~s: Absent: Council Members Brown, Cl~ton, Williams, Sovern, Mann, T~lor. None. Council Member Smith. The M~or declared the motion carried. • * • • • • December 12, 1977 Page 2 Councilman Smith re-joined the meeting at 7:40 p.m. * * * * * * City Manager Mccown asked Director of Community Development Wanush to appear before Council and make the staff presentation on the Hampden Professional Park Subdivision Final Plat. Director of Community Development Wanush stated the purpose of the public hearing was to review the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Director Wanush reviewed briefly the background on the plat and the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to this case (#31-76) which was to approve the Hampden Professional Park Subdivision with the following conditions: 1. Buildings in the development of Hampden Professional Park shall not exceed two stories. 2. All development of the Hampden Professional Park Subdivision shall be accomplished under a Planned Development. 3. If the Hampden Professional Park Subdivision is developed with professional office buildings, the definition of "Professional Office" shall be enforced throughout this development. Director Wanush entered into the record the "MEK:>RANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION" dated March 22, 1977, and the staff report relating to case (#31-76). Director Wanush stated that the Council is being asked to alter the former subdivision waiver that was granted in 1972 which is done by approving the subdivision plat. Director Wanush further stated that the alteration would effect only part of the land, i.e. Phases 8 and 9, and the remaining land would still be under the subdivision waiver and all the conditions that apply. Director Wanush summarized the development plan of the Larwin Site noting that the project was to be completed in nine phases; but only Phase 1 and Phase 4 have been completed and Phases 8 and 9 were up for discussion at this meeting. Director Wanush pointed out that Phases 8 and 9 were planned for 356 units originally. Director Wanush stated that permits were issued for Phases 2 and 3 but were never used. Director Wanush pointed out also that the original plan included height restrictions. Director Wanush then entered into the record Resolution No. 8 of 1972 that approved the Larwin Plan with the restrictions; the Larwin Site Plan itself; and restrictive covenants of 1968. Director Wanush stated that the zoning changed from R-1-A to R-3 in 1971. December 12, 1977 Page 3 Councilman Smith asked City Attorney Berardini if the City should get involved in restricted covenants. City Attorney answered stating that there could be some legal problems and that restricted covenants really have no place in the City's affairs and should not be accepted by the City. City Attorney Berardini further stated that the zoning ordinances themselves act as restrictions on land use. Director Wanush stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission contends that the documents are not binding and that the City Council has the right to alter some of the conditions outlined therein. Director Wanush informed the Council that the applicant is R.P.R. Br o thers wh o is joined by Larwin Multi-Housing Corporation, the actual owner of the property. Director Wanush further informed the Council that the R.P.R. Brothers has the option to purchase the property. Director Wanush briefly discussed the proposed plans of R.P.R. Brothers on the land use stressing that the zoning is R-3 and will remain so. Co uncilman Williams asked Director Wanush to define "waiver" as the wo rd is being used at this meeting. Director Wanush stated that the subdivision waiver was granted in 1972 and in effect removed certain processes for the completion of a sub- division, i.e. dedication of streets, parks, etc. because the entire tract of l and was g oing to be a single ownership and all developments were going to be internal to their own use. Therefore, the subdivision waiver was granted with c o nditions. Director Wanush stated that other City departments were contacted to check the drainage, etc., and the checks were approved. Director Wanush also stated that outside concerns granted approval as well, i.e. Mountain Bell, Public Service, Highway Department and the Denver Water Board. Director Wanush stated that the matter raises several issues. Those issues are 1) there will be no zoning change but a change from the old development plan; 2) all commi ttments or conditions can be changed by the Planning and Zoning Conmission and the City Council; 3) moral committments are involved; and 4) not all the conditions on the plat are reasonable especially the requirement of a PD for each separate building permit. Director Wanush entered into the record the "Findings of Fact" dated April 15, 1977 from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to this matter. * * * * * COUNCILMAN SOVERN MOVED TO ACCEPr THE EXHIBITS AND OOCUMENTS PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS A PART OF THE RECORD. Councilman Mann I December 12, 1977 Page 4 seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Brown, Clayton, Williams, Sovern, Smith, Mann, Taylor. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. • • • • • • Mayor Taylor asked the representative of the R.P.R. Brothers to come before Council and speak on their behalf. · William Caskins, business address 2785 N. Speer Blvd., Denver, appeared as legal counsel for R.P.R. Brothers. Mr. Caskins stated that a verbal agree- ment among the Larwin representative, the Kent Village Association and his client was reached some months ago, in which restrictions and conditions were concurred upon. Mr. Caskins stated that Mr. Criswell, representative of Kent Village, drew and presented a written agreement to the Larwin group based on the meeting. Mr. Caskins stated that there has been a corporate change in the Larwin organization and the representative that was here can no longer represent Larwin on this matter. Now, Mr. Caskins stated, the Larwin organization will not sign any covenant what- soever. Mr. Caskins stated that he and his client then met with Mr. Calkins group and informed Mr. Calkins' group that R.P.R. Brothers were willing to place covenants on their part since Larwin would not agree to signing any covenants of their own. Mr. Caskins proposed that this plat be approved subject to obtaining acceptable covenants with the Kent Village group· and to the four property owners immediately south of the property who were to be controlling members of the covenants with the Cherry Hills people in 90 days. Mr. Caskins stated that if the convenants could not be obtained in 90 days then the plat would be withdrawn. Councilman Smith asked Mr. Caskins if the only objection his client had was the height limitation. Mr. Caskins stated that his client did object to the height limitation and a PD on each individual lot. Councilman Smith asked City Attorney Berardini if the Council could legally approve an issue that is based on t"urther private covenants. City Attorney Berardini stated that the Council probably could not approve a plat based on conditions of a private covenant. City Attorney Berardini stated that this policy is not good. City Attorney Berardini commented that time was given to work out any problems among the people involved and final presentation should be given to Council at this meeting with no further stipulations. December 12, 1977 Page 5 Councilman Williams asked Mr. Casldns if he considered a PD on the entire area. Mr. Caskins stated that he and his client might consider a PD. Mr. Thomas Regan, 4981 s. Clinton St., stated that the City did suggest a PD on his first approach; but he did not want to do a PD because of the amount o f time involved narrowing the flexibility in developing and selling sites in this location. • • • • • * Mr. H. Haro l d Calkins 1425 E. Jefferson, appeared before the Council as legal counsel and interested citizen for property owners directly south of the Plat. Mr. Calkins stated that he and his group were originally opponents to the development but now have been convinced that Mr. Regan can not economically develop the property within the height limitation as proposed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Calkins stated that he and his group have considered the possibility of having the development controlled by the City Development Ordinance but they think the ordinance is not workable in this situation because Mr. Regan is a land developer and separate owners will acquire the land at a later date, requiring the City to study a PD everytime Mr. Regan wants to develop a lot. Therefore, Mr. Calkins stated, his group would like to arrange to have private covenants put on the property so the people in the neighborhood would enforce them and free the City from being any party to these covenants. Mr. Calkins outlined some of the terms of the agreement which were 1) some areas could have more than two stories but must comply to the City's ordinance in measurement of heights; 2) all buildings would meet R-3 zoning requirements; 3) all buildings adjacent to Hampden be set back 40 feet from Hampden right-of-~ so to deflect any traffic noise; 4) assured landscaping extending 24 feet from Hampden; 5) offices would be for limited use according to the professional office zoning ordinances. Mr. Calkins reiterated that this is a departure from the original recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission in two respects: 1) his group is willing to change the building height to more than two stories and to lift the burden of submitting a PD with each development. Co uncilman Williams stated that he appreciated Mr. Calkins' view on the restrictions of Phases 8 and 9 which only concern him; however, he was concerned over what might happen east of this land and was in favor of restrictions imposed by the City. A lengthy discussion ensued over the requirement of a PD for each I individual development site if an encompassing PD was not submitted prior to the deve lopment of whole area. Mr. Regan stated he was under the opinion that if a subdivisi on plat was approved then all the developer would have to do is apply f o r a building permit and show proof that the developer is complying with any covenants on that piece of ground and with the zoning ordinances. City Attorney Berardini stated that the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning December 12, 1977 Page 6 required a PD for each site. City Attorney Berardini explained that a PD must be submitted in this particular case when tmder ordinary circumstances a PD would be an option. * * * * * * Cotmcilman Sovern expressed concern over the need for ground rules on this issue. Councilman Sovern stated that the Council needs to know what they can do and what they can not do, e.g. can the City approve another subdivision waiver with restrictions; can the land owners use covenants as well as the City; if the City can not do anything, then what are the alternatives; and lastly, can the City give the applicant any direction because no one can agree on the objectives of this property. * * * * * * Mayor T~lor asked Director Wanush to briefly restate what Council needs to consider at this meeting. Director Wanush appeared before Council and explained that the Council needs to consider if Mr. Regan should be allowed to divide a piece of property into 15 separate parcels. Director Wanush stated that the area is R-3 which allows a lot of different type of buildings to be constructed in the area and because there is some neighborhood opposition, conditions on the development have been raised. The Planning and Zoning Cormnission responded to the visual obstruction by limiting the buildings to two stories and place the requirement of a PD on each separate piece so that people would be kept informed on each plan of development. Director Wanush advised the Cotmcil that a PD on each piece is the wrong w~ to go because Mr. Regan will not be the developer on the whole area and will not exercise control on the whole area. Councilman Sovern stated that the timeframe to solve this problem is too limited to allow for further deliberation. Councilman Sovern stated that the conditions and to what degree the Council can enforce the conditions must be made known. If the City does not put conditions on then there is nothing binding the developer to put the covenants on in a concurrent fashion Councilman Sovern stated. Director Wanush stated that this is true; however, the only thing binding would be what the Council dictates plus the zoning ordinance. Director Wanush advised the Council to first hear all ~he sides of the issue and then decide what the ground rules should be. City Attoi11ey Berardini also advised the Council to allow the remaining sides to voice their approvals and objections then the Council should review all the material and arrive at a decision. Councilman Sovern also pointed out that in effect if Cotmcil approvals the subdivision, the waiver is removed and can be replaced with another waiver on whatever conditions Council decides to impose. December 12, 1 977 Page 7 • • • • • • Mayor Taylor declared a recess at 9:15 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:30 p.m. Upon a call of the roll, the following were present: Council Members Williams, Sovern, Smith, Mann, Brown, Clayton, Taylor. Absent: None. The Mayor declared a quorum present. • • • • • * John Criswell, business address 378o South Broadway, appeared before Council on behalf of the residents of Kent Village. Mr. Criswell entered into the record a list of the residents of Kent Vil lage who were present at the meeting. Mr. Criswell reviewed the history and sequence of events leading to this meeting and entered into the record a memo from himself to the Mayor and Members of City Council dated May 9, 1977 Mr. Criswell stated that what this Council is being asked to do is the same thing the Council in 1972 was asked to do -approve something with conditions, and if the present Council approves the plat then Mr. Larwin is released of any further compliances on this piece of land. Mr. Criswell entered into the record a letter with attachments from himself to Mr. Jerenzy-D. Van Ness of the Larwin group and Mr. William Caskins relating to the restrictive covenants that were discussed in the meeting last summer and to which a verbal agreement was made. Mr. Criswell then stated that Mr. Van Ness called him on September 15, 1977 to inform him that the bank would not agree with the covenants and would his people approve a PD. Mr. Criswell stated that he has not heard from the Larwin group since that call. Mr. Criswell expressed concern over what was the equivalent of Phases 8 and 9 on the development plan and if the plan was amended would it change the concept entirely. Mr. Criswell stated that Larwin has not followed the plan in good faith, one example is that Larwin has not complied with the landscaping plan and the City has not done anything to enforce any such compliance. Mr. Criswell suggested that the City confront Larwin and force the organization to do something. Councilman Smith pointed out to Mr. Criswell that any future Council or Planning and Zoning Commission could change the zoning for that land ten years from now and that no decision would be permanent necessarily. Councilman Smith asked Mr. Criswell if his group was more concerned about the additional commercial buildings that might take place in this area or what is planned to be built and those buildings blocking their view. Mr. Criswell stated that his group is fearful of backing up onto a commercial strip, which would be a mixture of traffic, height and noise. • • • • •• December 12, 1977 Page 8 Senator Gordon Allot, 3427 s. Race Street, appeared before Council and stated that when he was looking for a house in Englewood, he called the City Clerk's office who in turn referred him to Mr. James Supinger, Director of Community Development at that time, to find out what future development was planned for land west of the property he was interested in. Mr. Supinger drew out some plats and discussed the situation. Senator Allot stated he was concerned about any building obstructing his view to the west. Senator Allot recalled that Mr. Supinger told him not to worry about any developments obstructing the scenic view. Senator Allot stated that he relied on this information and, therefore, purchased his house in Kent Village. Senator Allot also stated that he too has been convinced that Mr. Regan could develop the property maintaining the scenic view. City Attorney Berardini asked the Senator if his suggestion was to deny the approval of the plat and hold the developer Larwin, in this case, to the original submitted plan. Senatory Allot stated that approval or disapproval should be withheld until Larwin is contacted and placed in a position to do something on the rest of the plat. Councilman Mann asked what Mr. Criswell thought of that suggestion. Mr. Criswell stated he preferred the approval with limitations those being the height limitation and the PD over a straight approval. Upon a suggestion from Mr. Richard Brown, Mr. Criswell stated that possibly Council could accept this application from R.P.R. Brothers and force Larwin to submit plans for the remaining portion of land. City Attorney Berardini asked Director Wanush if he had received any evidence that Larwin could not develop the land as they had originally proposed. Director Wanush stated that he did not know if Larwin could or could not develop the land; however, when Mr. Pogue met with the Planning and Zoning Commission he indicated that the Larwin group had no intention to develop it. Mr. Criswell stated the Mr. Pogue indicated to his group that Larwin was going t o start developing this land for apartments. Mr. Caskins added that he was also at the meeting with Mr. Pogue and Mr. Criswell and Mr. Pogue threatened to develop the land exactly as originally planned if things did not get started soon. City Attorney Berardini stated that the fact was clear that Larwin ~ sell the property but whoever buys the property is subject to the original plan unless the plan is changed. December 12, 1977 Page 9 Councilman Smith stated that Larwin has not complied with the land- scaping factor on Phases 1 and 4 thus opening up an opportunity for the City to take issue on the rest of the matter. Councilman Brown stated that Mr. Criswell's presentation was accurate I and the Planning and Zoning Commission did what was best at the time. Councilman Brown agreed that Larwin should be contacted and forced to do what is best for this area now. Councilman Sovern recalled that Larwin would have to build Phases 2 and 3 which included the Recreation Zone after a certain development took place and asked Director Wanush if he remembered any such restriction. Director Wanush did not recall that specific restriction but did remember that Phases 1 and 4 would have to be built first because they were residential and that supportive Phases would follow. Councilman Sovern stated that he distinctly recalled this restriction and thought that such a restriction would have a propriety bearing on Council's action. • • • • • • COUNCILMAN SMITH t«>VED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE HAMPDEN PROFESSIONAL PARK SUBDIVISION. Councilman Mann seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Brown, Clayton, Williams, Sovern, Smith, Mann, Taylor. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. • • • • •• COUNCILMAN SMITH t«>VED THE COUNCIL ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION. Motion died for lack of a second. • • • • • • COUNCILMAN SMITH MOVED THAT THE HAMPDEN PROFESSIONAL PLAT SUBDIVISION I BE PRESENTED AT THE STUDY SESSION ON DECEMBER 19, 1977. Councilman Sovern seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Council Members Brown, Clayton, Williams, Sovern, Smith, Mann, Taylor. Nays: None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. • • • • •• December 12, 1977 Page 10 COUNCILMAN SMITH K>VED THAT THE MATTER OF 'IBE HAMPDEN PROFESSIONAL PARK SUBDIVISION BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON DECEMBER 19, 1977. Councilman Sovern seconded the motion. City Manager Mccown stated that there were two other important items that Council wanted to discuss at the study session -the Civil Defense issue and deciding what streets will be included in the Paving District next year. City Manager McCown asked the Council if study session should be moved up one hour. General consensus of the Council was to move the study session up to 4:00 p.m. Mayor ~aylor asked that the letter from Consensus be placed on the study session agenda, also. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Brown, Clayton, Williams, Sovern, Smith, Mann, Taylor. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. • • • • • • COUNCILMAN WILLIAM> MOVED TO ADJOURN THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL. Councilman Sovern seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: 10:55 p.m. Ayes: Nays: Council Members Brown, Clayton, Williams, Sovern, Smith, Mann, Taylor. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried and the meeting adjourned at ~· ~uty City Clerk