Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-09-26 PZC MINUTESI I I Page 1475 Mr. Brown suggested that maybe the City could buy this land of Mr. Brinkhoff 's for open space. Mr. Carlson interposed that there wasn't enough land to do any good. Mrs. Henning concurred with Mr .. Brown's suggestion, and stated that it could be developed with a green- belt. Further discussion followed. Mrs. Romans noted that the R-3-B Zone District permits professional type office buildings in addition to multi-family units. Mr. Lentsch stated that there will be a special meeting on September 26th at 8:00 P.M. for discussion of the proposed development on the KLZ Site by the Larwin Corporation. Mr. Lentsch asked that signs be posted on the property notifying area residents of the public meeting, and suggested that some sort of flyer be delivered to the area residents also. Mr. Supinger discussed the staff time required to prepare the mailings. Mr. Lentsch sug- gested using the aqresso-graph as is done for mailing water bills. Mr. Supinger stated it was, again, a matter of time for the personnel involved. Mr. Lentsch then suggested that perhaps some member of the Northeast Englewood Citizens' Committee could be contacted, and that perhaps members of that Committee would .deliver the flyers. Mr. Supinger stated that City Council did approve the creation of a Local Housing Authority and Urban Renewal Authori~y at their meeting of September 18th. The meeting adjourned. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 26, 1972 SPECIAL MEETING 8:30 P. M. The special meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:30 P. M. by Chairman Lentsch. Members present: Carlson; Lentsch; St~nley; Vobejda; Brown; Henning Supinger, Ex-officio Members absent: Weist; Robins; Ross Also present: D. A. Romans, Assistant Director for Plan~ing; B. Young, Planning Assistant; B. Berardini, City Attorney; E. P. Romans, Director of Parks & Recreation; K. ~aggoner, Director of Public Works Chairman Lentsch announced that this special meeting has been called to discuss the develop- ment plans by Larwin Multihousing Corporation for the former KLZ Site at U.S. 285 and South Lafayette Street. Mr. Lentsch stated that this was an informational meeting, and would be open to comments from the public after the review of the request by Mr. Supinger, and the presentation by representatives of the Larwin Multihousing Corporation. ~ ---- -- II. SUBDIVISION WAIVER Larwin Multihousing Corporation CASE #20-72B August 9, 1972 August 22, 1972 Mr. Supinger stated that the request by Larwin Multihousing Corporation, 9100 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California, is for a waiver to the subdivision regulations for the entire site. Mr. Supinger stated that the zoning on the site by the City has been up- held by the Colorado Supreme Court as R-3-A, Multi-family Residential, with the exception of an area 150 feet in depth from Floyd South, and 1,202 feet east and west, running from approximately South Franklin Street to the east boundary line of the site, which area is zoned R-1-A, Single-family Residential. Mr. Supinger emphasized that the zoning of the site is not a matter of question before the Commission, and that the proposal before the Commission at the present time does me~t the requirements of the zone district in which it is located. Mr. Supinger stated that the request is for a waiver to the Sµbdivision Regulations, as pro- vided ~or in §12-3-3b(l) of the Municipal Code, which section reads: "Whenever a tract of land is of such unusual size or shape, or its location and relation- ship to presently existing streets, alleys, utility rights-of-way and other neighboring de- velopment is such that no substantial benefits are to be gained by the City or by the public. from requiring a subdivision plat to be prepared, approved and filed therefor by the owner or owners thereof accompanied by a survey plat and a sketch plan of the proposed development, waive the necessity for the owner or owners of complying with the provisions of this Chapter.; provided, however, that the Comµiission may impose reasonable conditions upon any such waiver; and provided further, any such waiver, and the terms thereof, shall be reduced to writing and recorded at the landowner's expense, and a $10.00 waiver fee paid to the City before such waiver shall become effec~ive. (Ord. No. 17, §21.3-4, Series 1967)." Mr. Supinger stated that he felt the term "subdivision waiver" is a misnomer, because the applicant must still meet the requirements of providing for access, drainage, etc.; the waiver is only to eliminate the necessity for filing a "plat" map of the property. Mr. Supinger stated that it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to determine whether or not there is anything to be gained by the City or by the public if a subdivision plat were to be filed. Page 1476 Mr. Supinger stated that private restrictive covenants placed on the property limit the de-· velopment to ·l,500 ·units; Larwin Multi-housing Corporation has agreed to abide by these covenants which were a matter of record at the time they purchased the site. · Mr. Supinger then read the staff recommendation on the request, and the suggested conditions to be made a part of the approval. Mr. Supinger stated that the Englewood drainage system will be designed to handle a two- year storm; the Larwin Multi-housing Corporation will be required to store on the site, drainage in excess of the capacity of the Englewood drainage system, up to a 100-year or 1 % probability stor.m. Larwin will also be required to store drainage waters up to a 10 0- year storm on the site until such time as the Englewood system is completed. Mr. Supinger suggested a re-wording in condition #4, which now reads: "Applicant shall agree to dedicate, free of liens and encumbrances, approximately 4.45 acres of land as shown on the General Development Plan for public park purposes upon request of the City. Use of said land for public park purposes may be subject to intermittent storage of storm waters draining from applicant's prope~ty created by up to a 100-year storm." The suggested re- wording would be: "Use of the 4.45 acres of land as shown for public park purposes may be su b ject to intermittent storage of storm water drainage from the applicant's property up to a 100-year storm." Mr. Supinger stated that the City hopes to parlay the dedication of the 4.45 acres of land for park purposes into matching federal grant for the development of the park. This would involve $100,000+ in development funds if the grant is approved. Mr. Supinger stated that the City was informed earlier in the day from the local office of HUD in Denver, that if the City requires the dedication a s a condition of approval of the subdivision waiver, the land would not be eligible for the City's share of matching funds for the grant. If the Larwin Corporation "voluntarily agrees" to dedicate the land to the City for park purposes, it can then be used for the City's matching funds. Mr. Supinger stated that development will initially be on the north 1 /2 of the site; the south 1 /2 of the site will be graded at the same time as the north 1 /2, but development will not begin. Therefore, the applicant must make temporary drainage provisions which will prevent silt from the undeveloped area from washing down onto the park area. Mr. Supinger stated that Floyd Avenue shall be improved with sidewalk, curb and gutter and paving along the boundary of the subject site. This would not involve a widening of Floyd Avenue. Mr. Supinger stated that to protect home-owners on the west and north perimeters of the site, all access to the site during construction, by construction vehicles, shall be restricted to points of access from U.S. 285 on the south of the site. Mr. Supinger stated that the plans on display of the proposed development are "General Site Plans", to which the applicant intends to develop. It has been suggested that any minor changes could be approved by the Director of Community Development; but, major changes would have to be approved by the Commission. Mr. Lentsch asked if members of the Commission had any questions? Mr. Lentsch then asked representatives of Larwin to make their presentation. Mr. James Roman, Assistant Director -Land Planning, Larwin Multihousing Corporation, stated that he would like to make clear the fact that the Larwin Multi-housing Corporation is, in no way, asking for a variance to any of the codes and ordinances in effect; they are only asking the requirement to file a subdivision plat be waived. Mr. Roman stated that he and other representatives have read the staff report and the suggested conditions for approval of their request; Larwin Multihousing Corporation is in full agreement with all of the con- ditions as suggested. Mr. Roman stated that Larwin Multihousing Corporation will voluntarily dedicate to the City of Englewood 4.45 acres of land along East Floyd Avenue for use as a park. Mr. Roman stated that the City of Englewood will design and improve the park. Mr. Roman stated that Larwin is proposing a "totally self-contained community"; the main entrance will be on U.S. 285, and there will be a guard-house situated at this entrance and manned 24-hours a day. There will be a second, minor point of access from U.S. 285, and three points of access on Lafayette Street. These points of access will require a "card" to activate a security gate. All visitors to the development would be cleared -through the guarded entrance from U.S. 285. Mr. Roman stated that the site will be developed in phases. There will be six swimming pools, indoor-outdoor type. There are proposed ten, five-story, mid-rise buildings in the center of the site, with the remaining development two-story. The units will rent from $200 to $350 per month, and the size of the units will be from 650 sq. ft. to 1,500 sq. ft. Mr. Roman stated that most phases will have 45% open space, which does not include the area designated for parking space. The mid-rise area will have 77% open space, with a recreation plaza including tennis cour,ts, volley-ball courts, ping-pong tables, saunas, ice skating rink, fire pits, etc. The family area of the development will have a day-care center for children. This phase is proposed for the eastern part of the site. Mr. Roman stated that there will be a landscaped buffer strip between the proposed develop- ment and Kent Village. Mr. Roman stated that parking requirements have been exceeded by the proposed development, and over 1 /2 of the parking to be provided will be under-ground. Mr. Roman stated that the landscaping for the northern p o rtion of the site is estimated to cost $368,000. Mr. Roman stated the entire project will. be under one. management, will have security control, and there will be a general rental office located on the site. I I I I I I Page 1477 Mrs. Stanley asked Mr. Roman if she had understood correctly there would be no units with more than two bedrooms, and if the number of children permitted in the family area would be limited to two? Mr. Roman stated that some units would have four bedrooms, and that families will be permitted in Phases IV and V. Mr. Roman stated that Larwin Multihousing Corporation has letters from both Englewood School District and Cherry Creek School District stating that they can accommodate all students that would live on the site. Mrs. Henning stated that she felt one of the major concerns has been the non-dedication of streets throughout .the site, but will be, rather, "private streets." She asked if, at some point in the future the site were to be "opened up", would the ·streets have been con- structed to City of Englewood standards? Mr. Roman stated that Larwin Corporation will not relinquish management of the site, and asked Mr. Eldon Von Ohlen, Chief Engineer of Meurer- Serafini-Meurer, to discuss the matter of the streets. Mr. Von Ohlen stated that they are working on the development of the ·north 1 /2 of the site, and that the streets would be con- structed to the standards of a dedicated public street, as far as base and paving is con- cerned. The width of streets is proposed at 60 ft. at points of entrance, and 30 ft. throughout the site. Mrs. Henning asked if parking would be permitted on streets? Mr. Roman asked that all parking areas are designated on the general site plan, and there will be no on-street parking permitted. Mr. Lentsch asked of the staff what the width of resi- dential streets in the City was? Mr. Supinger stated that the residential streets are 36 ft. wide from curb face to curb face. Mr. Lentsch asked about the storm sewer for the site? Mr. Roman stated that engineers for the Larwin Corporation have been working with the City engineers on the drainage and storm sewer system. Mr. Roman referred the matter to Mr. Kells Waggoner for explanation. Mr. Waggoner stated that the concept proposed by Larwin has been approvedr but that the plan has not been finalized. Mr. Waggoner stated that the concept is to drain .up to a 100-year storm on the western portion of the site at the northwest corner of the .site, down Lafayette Street through a pipe to hook onto the main system at Lafayett~ and Eastman. The rest of the site would be drained through pipe or over-ground flow into detention ponds in the park area. This would be a controlled outlet, and would drain into a storm sewer at South Franklin Street and Floyd Avenue. Mr. Waggoner stated that there is very little sur- face water that would exit the site. Mr. Waggoner stated that during the temporary construction phase, Larwin will be asked to store drainage on their site until the Englewood system is completed. Mr. Waggoner stated that the contract for the Englewood drainage system is to be awarded on December 4th. Mr. Waggoner stated that this temporary storage of storm waters would be done by retention ponds on the Larwin site, and would then be pumped out. Mr. Supinger .commented that the temporary storage of storm waters on the site might delay the construction of one or more buildings in Phase I. After the Englewood system is con- structed and the retention ponds drained, the buildings will be constructed on the site. Mr. Waggoner discussed the financing of the Englewood system, and stated that it is financed through the Public Improvement Fund. Englewood has a 3 % City Sales Tax, of which 1 % is ear- marked for the Public Improvement Fund. This fund has now accumulated 2.9 million dollars for storm drainage; the City has $645,000 from federal grants to pay for installation of the Northeast and Northwest Englewood Storm Drainage system. Mr. J. Smellie 3285 s. Race -asked if he understood correctly that the flow of drainage on ' Floyd Avenue would be reversed to run to University? Mr. Waggoner stated that the pipe would go back to University Boulevard to pick up the water at University and Floyd, and would come down Floyd to Franklin, then to Eastman Avenue. A gentleman in the audience stated that he understood the proposed storm sewer was to have been started last November; he stated "you want to drain the trash and dirt in front of my house." Mr. Supinger pointed out that part of the drainage system has had to be coordinated with Denver, as part of our system will drain to Harvard Gulch, and the system within Denver must be constructed before the Englewood system ties onto it. Mr. Lentsch stated that many people are concerned about when the system will be completed. Mr. Waggoner reiterated that the contract for the Englewood system will be awarded December 4th, and the contractor will have eight months to complete the Northeast Englewood and Northwest Englewood drainage basins. Mr. Donald Fullerton 3265 South Race Street -asked about the detention ponds in the park, and also about the oils that would drain onto the park area from the street, whether or not the oils would kill the grass. Mr. Waggoner stated that Parks & Recreation Director Romans has designed concrete swales to carry the "every day" water from watering, etc.; as to the oil draining onto the park area, Mr. Waggoner noted "it doesn't kill weeds." A gentleman from the audience asked whether or not the Englewood system had been designed with the drainage from the subject site in min:l? Mr. Waggoner stated that the Englewood system did take into consideration drainage from the subject site. Mr. Waggoner stated that the design had projected multi-family development on the site, and allowed 60 cfs for a two- year storm; the Larwin development will be allowed to let out the 60 cfs and store the rest of the drainage up to a 100-year storm until the Englewood system can handle the drainage. Mr. Buchannan 3319 S. Lafayette ~ asked if Franklin Street was to be opened through the subject site to Hampden Avenue (U.S. 285)? He also asked where the cuts were that will take care of parking areas on the western portion of the site? Mr. Waggoner stated that South Franklin Street will not go through the project. South Franklin is an easement for .the Denver Water Board, and will remain an easement, but it will not be opened up as a street. Mr. Waggoner stated that the access points along U.S. Page 1478 285 will be at the present median openings at approximately South Gilpin Street and at ~un~et Drive. Mr. Waggoner stated that the main access point on South Lafayette Street opens into East Girard Avenue, and would form an "intersection" at that point; the other two openings on South Lafayette Street are access to the .immediate parking areas. Mr. A. L. Goosman 3335 S. Lafayette -noted that the northernmost curb cut on South Lafayette is directly opposite Mr. Buchannan's bedroom window; he stated that may be a minor . cut in the curb, but there can logically be 1,261 cars in Phase I, most of which he feels .will use that particular cut. Mr. Goosman stated that he had read through the staff .report, in which is noted that the Police Department has stated that .they will have some difficulty patrolling the area because of the access through security gates, past a guard house, etc. Mr. Goosman asked what time the security gates would be closed, and what time they would be opened in the mornings? Mr. James Roman stated that the guard house will have someone on duty 24-hours a day; the other security gates may be opened with a plastic card which the police department will be given. A member of the audience questioned the capacity of the Englewood water plant and sewage facilities? Mr. Supinger stated that the Director of Utilities has stated that the water supply and sanitary sewer plant capacity is adequate to accommodate this development. Tap fees from the proposed development will be used to provide the lines to insure the capacity to the site. Mr. Supinger stated that the water plant has a capacity at the present time 1o adequately serve a population in Englewood of 55,000 people; the present population is approximately 35,000. Mr. Supinger noted that the growth of population in the City has not been very rapid, and that the City has, in fact, considered selling some water rights they now have. Mr. Supinger stated that the sewage treatment plant is being rehabilitated to increase the capacity, and the City of Englewood is working with the City of Littleton to have a joint sewer treatment facility. Mr. Supinger emphasized that there is no problem with either of these utilities in regard to the capacity to accommodate the proposed develop- ment. Mrs. Henning stated she would like to clarify the matter of the sale of water rights; the sale is because of non-productivity and not because the City administration feels they do not need these rights. A gentleman in the audience stated he had called the State Water Pollution Board, and they stated that the present capacity of the sewage plant is 8,000,000 gallons. This gentleman stated "you are in the processing of adding 4,000,000 gallons per day; a total production of 100 gallons per person per day in this site, you will exceed the capacity by 1.1 million." Mr. Don Fullerton stated that he felt there was an error in the statement of the gentleman regarding the sewage produced by the site; he stated it would be 450,000 gallons rather than 4,000,000+. Mr. Fullerton stated that the residents of Northeast Englewood have had considerable water pressure problems during the summer months; he asked if this problem would be increased with the proposed development? Mr. Supinger stated that this matter has been discussed with Utilities Director Carroll, an:l Mr. Carroll is of the opinion that some areas of Northeast Englewood may have increased water pressure because of the development, in that some of the lines will be "looped". Mr. Supinger stated that Mr. Carroll emphasized that this would not apply to the entire North- east Englewood area. Mr. Supinger further stated that there will be a new 6,000,000 gallon water reservoir completed shortly at South Clarkson and East Belleview Avenue, which would also aid in the problem of water pressure. A gentleman in the audience asked about the valuation of the proposed development: What does Englewood expect to gain per year from this development? Mr. Supinger stated that he could not give the figures on the amount of taxes that would be coming in from this development; he stated that the City of Englewood does, as a matter of fact, receive a very small portion of its income from property taxes. Mr. Supinger poi~ted out that the City of Englewood has one of the lowest mill levies in the State of Colorado, and again emphasized that the City does not gain much of its revenue from property taxes. The gentleman stated that he couldn't agree with Mr. Supinger, and noted that Kent Village pays $100,000 per year in property taxes. He stated that he wanted comparative figures for the proposed development. Mr. Supinger stated that there are many other taxing bodies other than the City of Englewoal which do receive revenue from property taxes, and cited Arapahoe County and the School Dis- trict as two. The gentleman again stated that he wanted comparative figures on the revenue to be realized in property taxes_ He further stated that regarding the proposed development, "the back end of the entire thing is our front yard." He cited a situation where someone living in the proposed development --a duck hunter --would be leaving early in the morning and "revving up the motor." This gentleman stated that he wanted the front of the buildings to face the front of their units in Kent Village. Mr. James Roman stated that an estimate of the taxes to be realized from the proposed de- velopment is $900,000. Mr. Roman asked Mr. Don Roark, architect for part of the develop- ment, to discuss the design of the proposed development. Mr. Roark stated that "the state- ment that the units back on Kent Village property isn't quite true." and noted there is a landscaping buffer plus two rows of parking between the Kent Village property line and the first buildings in the proposed development. Mr. Roark stated this would be about 75 feet between the building and the property line. Mr. Roark stated that this design came as a result of meeting with the people in Kent Village, and the developers agreed to move the buildings in their proposed development further away from the property line. Mr. Roark also noted that some of the units in the proposed development are lower in height than those in Kent Village. Mr. Roark stated that he was the architect for the Kent Village develop- ment also. Mr. Roark stated that the residents of Kent Village had objected to the initial proposal of garages near the property line; Mr. Roark stated these have been removed. The developer now proposes the landscaping and the two rows of parking. Mr. Roark stated that the depth of the landscaping along the property line is 15 to 25 feet. I I I I I I Page 1479 A member of the audience stated that at the initial meetings with the developers, it was agreed that the buildings .would be angled, and that parking would be on the other side of the buildings so that the Kent Village residents would not see it. This person disagreed that the landscaping will be a "buffer" because the Kent Village land is higher. It was also agreed that the family units in the proposed development would not be p+aced near the Kent Village development, as Kent Village does not allow children in their development and the residents wanted to retain these amenities in their area. It was also stated that the parking should be "in front o f your buildings rather than in front of ours", and that the Kent Village residents would be subjected to engine noise and exhaust fumes from the pro- posed development. Mr. Roark stated that he felt the buffer and the grade separation would be of bene f it to the residents of the Kent Village area. Mr. Fullerton noted that information available indicates that while 1 /3 of the site is in Englewood School District, and does not allow small children in this portion of the develop- ment, it is estimated there will be 136 secondary-level students to attend Englewood schools; 2 /3 of the site is in the Cherry Creek District, and this 2 /3 o f the site is the portion that allows families, yet the estimate is only for 113 children from this area. Mr. Fullerton questioned the difference in the figures. Mr. Supinger stated that the figures for the Englewood School District were compiled by the Department of Community Development, and that the figures for the Cherry Creek School Dis- trict were compiled by school personnel in that district. Mr. Fullerton questioned that the Cherry Creek Schools could handle the children from the proposed development? Mr. Supinger stated that plans for the development were submitted to the Cherry Creek School District officials, and they were .asked if their schools could handle the students. Mr. Supinger stated that the office was informed that the Cherry Creek Schools could handle the students from the proposed development. Mrs. Henning stated that it was her understanding that Larwin Corporation would have no objection if the entire site were to be incorporated into the Englewood School District , but that Cherry Creek District does not want to give up the land. Mrs. Henning stated this would take action of the school boards of both districts to change the district boundaries. Mr. James Hilger 3166 S. Vine St. -discussed the taxes to be realized from the proposed development. He stated that Mr. Roman had stated that an estimate is $900,000; he asked if this was f or the entire site, and how many years would it take to complete the development? . Mr. Roman stated that it would take four to five years; the $900,000 estimate was for the entire site. Mr. Roman stated that the Arapahoe County Tax Assessor sets the evaluation on property, that the Larwin Corporation does not. Mr. Hilger stated he wanted to know how much .the City of Englewood would receive from , this property per year. Mr. Hilger asked how Larwin Corporation could determine that their pro- posal would be a profitable enterprise if they didn't consider the matter of taxes? Mr. Hilger $tated he also wanted to know how much the services to the development such as police, fire, and utilities were going to cost the City of Englewood . . Mr. Supinger stated that he had tried to make clear in his previous statements that no residential development in the City of Englewood will pay enough in property taxes to the City to pay for the services given to the residential property. Mr. Supinger pointed out that the City depends mostly on sales tax revenue for most of the operati~g budget ; very little of the money in the general fund, from which services are paid for, comes f rom property tax revenue. Mr. Supinger again emphasized that no residential property in the City of Englewood would pay enough in property taxes to pay for the services rendered . Mr. Hilger then discussed the proposed park area. He noted that the drawings of the site development do not now show the "drainage pools" as were previously shown. Mr. Hilger stated that "if the land is to be dedicated to the City free of encumbrances, then why do we have the obligation to say this will be used f or drainage'?" Mr. Von Ohlen stated that the area to be used for retention ponds would be approximately two acres , and that 98% of the time these two acres will be available f or other uses. Mr. Von Ohlen stated that Mr. Romans,Parks & Recreation Director, and the project engineer are still working on the design. Discussion followed. Mr. Packy Romans discussed the proposed park development; he noted that the final design is not completed, but among the facilities pro- posed are four tennis courts. Mr. Romans stateg that they propose to lower the elevation o f the park one foot to help hold storm drainage waters from the 100-year storm, which will drain into a pipe system. Small shelter houses with flower gardens, all purpose courts, and possibly a fountain are proposed for the park. Mr. Romans stated that the City will make application for Federal Aid on December 30th, and the application must be suomitted to the State of Colorado Parks Department. In March of 1973, the City will know whether or not the grant has been approved; as soon as the grant is approved, an architect will be hired to draw it up, and the total park will be built as soon as possible. Mr. Lentsch asked what would be done in the event Federal funds are not approved for the park development? Mr. Romans stated that an appeal for funding would be made to City Council. Mr. Romans stated that he felt the possibility of approval was very good, but it could be disapproved. Mr. Supinger stated that it might again be stated that the reason the City wants to delay accepting dedication of the park until after the Federal Aid grant is approved, is that the City can then use the value of the land that is dedicated as our matching share of 50% of the total cost of the improvement of the park. A member of the audience asked i f the tennis courts as proposed in the Larwin development itself wo~ld be lighted? Mr. Roman stated they would be. Mr. Goosman asked what progress had beeQ made within the last two weeks in regard the ease- ment for the Fire Department thru the park? Mr. Supinger stated that Chief Hamilton has stated that access through the park will not be necessary; there will be a "crash gate" at the west end of the park area. Page 1480 Mr. Goosman commented that from what he has seen of fire lanes in other developments, it will be difficult to prevent people from parking in these fire lanes. Mr. Goosman asked why the point of access through the crash gate couldn't be used for an exit? Mr. Goosman further stated that in ·the time he has lived on Lafayette Street, he "has never seen Fire trucks coming down Floyd." Mr. Hilger commented that he had a "great amount of faith in Packy Romans to give the people the best park we can have ; however, it would be much better if they could get the total 4.5 acres rather than the 2.5 acres" after the storm drainage retention ponds are full. Mr. Hilger stated that "Floyd Avenue has always been a boundary" and that residents in the area "have always been told there would be no access from Floyd or to Floyd." "Do we have any definite proof that Floyd will never be open to this development?" Mr. Supinger stated that the only answer he could give would be that the proposed develop- ment plan, if approved, must be recorded with the County Clerk & Recorder, and if there is any substantive change in the plan, it must come back through the Commission. Mr. Supinger stated that no one can guarantee there will "never" be access onto Floyd Avenue. Mr. Hilger asked "do you know any reason to grant such modifications?" Mr. Supinger stated "not at thie time." Mr. Hilger again stated that people of northeast Englewood were assured of no access from this site onto Floyd Avenue; he feels that it is important to preserve the integrity of the . community. Mr. Hilger stated he "does not think what is given to Larwin should over-ride what the citizens want." Mr. Hilger then asked that "assurance be given to the citizens of Englewood that they will not have any increase in their taxes on sewage and water as a result .of the burden placed upon us by this 'gleaming albatross'." Mr. George Thompson 3110 South High St. -stated he was tired of hearing someone he pays defend the Larwin Corporation. Mr . Clifford Harvey 3345 S. Lafayette -stated he was concerned about traffic on South Lafayette. Mr. Harvey noted that the "card access" as mentioned by Larwin Corporation .will tie up a lot of traffic. Mr. Harvey asked if there was "any assurance that if this doesn't work out and Lafayette must be widened where the property will come from?" Mr. Harvey asked why was a guarantee given that there would be no access onto Floyd Avenue? Mr. Harvey then discussed the parking ratio of 1-1/2:1; he noted that "lots of apartment dwellers have boats, campers, visitors --it sounds good on paper, but it may not work, and this should be considered now." Mr. Lentsch stated that the parking ratio had recently been raised, and that the development is providing parking in excess of the requirements. Mr. Supinger pointed out that parking requirements are 1-1/2 spaces for efficiency, one and two-bedroom units ; for more than two- bedrooms, the requirements is two spaces per unit. Guest parking must also be provided, one space for each five units. Mrs. Fry asked "who would be the primary people who would be renting these units?" Mr. Roark stated that all types of people would live in this development, and cited young adults, single people, professional people. Mr. Roark stated that the prime factor would be the ability to pay the rent. Mrs. Fry stated that on two-bedroom units there could be four adults living in such a unit, and you could expect four cars. Mr. Roark cited a complex of 1,000 units, where the parking ratio is 1-3/4:1; and stated that it is working out very satisfactorily. Mrs. Fry stated that 11 it looks very dense." Mr. Grohusky 3111 South Race -asked if the Larwin Corporation could proceed at all if the request for waiver is not approved? Mr. Berardini stated that the Planning Commission must determine whether or not to grant the waiver; if approved, the applicant may proceed on the development; if disapproved, they may not proceed, but may appeal to City Council. Mr. Grohusky asked what criteria was used to determine whether a development such as is pro~ posed could be approved or disapproved? Mr. Berardini cited the Subdivision Regulations, which sets forth standards for public access, alleys, utilities, etc. Mr , Berardini pointed out that this application meets all the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations but one, and this one is the fact that no public streets are proposed through the site; rather, all streets will be privately owned and maintained. Mr. Grohusky asked why the matter of economics was not part of the criteria for approval, and the majority vote of the people in the surrounding area should also be part of the approval criteria. Mr. Berardini pointed out that the economics as discussed at this meeting lie outside the jurisdiction of the City; the valuation and .assessment is determined by the County Assessor. Mr. Grohusky stated that he felt a report on the economic factor of this development should be made public and asked "can we expect such a report analyzing the economics and opinions of people" in the area? Mr. Berardini stated that he felt there would be some information .available, but didn't know whether there was a definite analysis. Mr. Berardini pointed out that the policy of the City is that the majority part of city services would be finances by sales tax --not property taxes. Mr. Roman stated that the residents of this development and the property owner will pay as much in taxes as anyone else; as far as the drain in city services for the development, there would be less, inasmuch as there will be no dedicated streets to be maintained by the City. Larwin Corporation will be responsible for maintenance of streets, cleaning of streets; garbage and trash removal will be the responsibility of Larwin Corporation. Mr. Roman stated that he felt the proposed development will be an asset to the City. Mr. Roman further stated that Larwin Engineers have been working with the City Engineers, and they have determined there are no problems on drainage, etc., and that you "must give credance to their knowledge and training." Mrs. Thompson asked "where is the traffic going to go that will be coming out of here?" Mrs. Thompson noted that Hampden Avenue, South Downing and South University Boulevard cannot handle the traffic. I I I I I I Page 1481 Mr. Roman stated that the City Traffic Engineer has stated the streets can handle the traffic. A member of the audience asked if the State Highway Department had approved access cuts onto Hampden at Gilpin? Mr. Bob Johnson of Don Roark Architects, stated that these points of access have been approved; if traffic warrants it, a signal will be installed at this point. A member of the audience questioned the possibility of access at the southwest corner of the site (South Lafayette and Hampden Avenue /U.S. 285). Mr. Supinger stated that access at this particular point is not desirable because it would occur on a curve. Mr. Supinger stated that access onto Hampden Avenue from U.S. 285 will be closed, and traffic wanting to have access to the Highway will have to travel either to Downing to make a left turn to go east, or have access to the Highway on a west-bound movement only. A gentleman in the audience stated he lived at the northwest corner of the site, and that "you can't back out without someone running into you"; "they are going· down to Floyd; you will overload the street' go through Kent V.illage and two .or three · access points of Floyd Avenue." Mr. Howard Brown stated that he wished to thank the members of the audience for attending this meeting, and stated that he knew they were concerned about the proposed development. Mr. Brown pointed out that he, Mrs. Henning, and Mr. Lentsch all live in the general area. Mr. Brown stated that some of the rumors that have been circulated about the proposal are "unbelieveable." Mr. Brown pointed out that the Commission was unaware it was "back to school night" for the Cherry Creek School ·District when the meeting was set for this date; he emphasized that "we didn't ,deliberately plan it this way." Mr. Brown stated that he was disappointed that all the answers to the audience questions were not available tonight. Mr. Brown pointed out that the City co_uld not say "you can't develop this property because of the taxes, etc."; he pointed out that if they meet the requirements, they can build. Mr. Brown stated he had considered the matter of water and sewer service many times, and feels that the City is in good shape. Mr. Brown pointed out that the City of Englewood is helping Littleton at the present time in the matter of sewage treatment. Mr. Brown urged the members of the audience to go to the Utilities Department and discuss the matter with them, and to view the facilities that Englewood has. Mr .. Brown stated he felt the drainage problem can be worked out; he stated he was sorry that the City does not have its drainage system installed at this time. Mr. Brown stated he has seen some of the homes in the northeast portion of the City that have been flooded during heavy rain storms; he pointed out that "we have done something; it isn't in the ground yet, but this Council has done something." Mr. Brown pointed out that the City of Denver has held up part of the drainage system, but the system will be developed. Mr. Brown stated as far as the question of the park area was con- cerned, he is "grateful the Larwin Corporation is giving almost five acres of land for park purposes." Mr. Brown stated he felt the City needed all the green space they can get, and he "can't see complaining because part of it will be used to solve a drainage problem." Mr. Hilger retorted that "it's nice to know our wishes are being listened to; there isn't one person here in favor of this particular project." "If our wishes have one iota of in- fluence on this Commission, I hope they will heed our opinions." Mr. Hilger stated he had appeared before City Council asking that there be 12 -15 acres of this land set aside for park purposes; "we have people who came in here from California ; they are looking at the use of the land, and will give us smog, people, kids, problems with water pressure.'' Mr. Hilger stated there was "no reason to approve this project but to enrich the coffers of Larwin;" "They don't have the guts to get up and answer our questions; we are being taken." Mrs. Henning stated that she did not feel that some of the comments made at this meeting have been constructive. She acknowledged that there have been some valid questions ; how- ever, she pointed out, the matter of zoning on the land has been through court, and that the R-3-A Zoning of this land has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Colorado. It has been ruled .that this land will be developed as multi-family and it's out of the hands of the City. Mrs. Henning stated that "it's obvious you would like to have 55 acres of open space;" the whole point of holding the meeting was to get comments and opinions of residents in the area, and to possibly make changes in the proposal to improve the plan. Mrs. Henning stated that it "doesn't do any of us any good to stand up and call names." Mrs. Henning stated that she hoped "we can go ahead and make this a good development." Mrs. Peggy Spargur asked where the family units were proposed to be? Mr. Roman stated that Phases IV and V were family-t.ype units; there would be in the Cherry Creek School District. Mrs. Spargur stated that the Cherry Creek School District is "very over-crowded." She asked "have you asked to be released from Cherry Creek and go into Englewood School District?" Mr. Roman stated that Larwin Corporation representatives have had meetings with representatives of both school districts, and they will be happy to do whatever the two districts decide. Mr. Roman stated that there will be 304 family units in the Cherry Creek District, and that the Cherry Creek officials indicate they estimate 113 children from these units. Mr. Goosman asked the age of children permitted in the adult units? Mr. Roman stated they would be 18 years and up. Mr. Goosman pointed out that there could be three cars per unit in this case. Mr. Goosman asked where points, of access for electrical and telephone service would be? Mr. Von Ohlen stated that he didn't feel any body knew exactly where the access would be; he stated that all lines would be underground. Mr. George Thompson asked if he understood that the primary Qoncern at this meeting was the matter of a subdivision waiver? Mr. Lentsch stated th~t it was to inform the people; the re- quest from Larwin Corporation is for a subdivision waiver. Mr. Thompson asked i f there was a precedent for approving subdivision waivers? He stated he understood a subdivision was a plat of the land. He asked "what really are the reasons for the waiver other than it will save them a quarter million dollors?" Mr. James Roman stated there would be no saving of any sort for Larwin Corporation. Mr. Roman emphasized that Larwin Corporation will meet all requirements of the codes and ordinances of the City; and that the recommendation of the Department of Community Development is that the waiver be approved only if Larwin agrees to all the conditions set forth in the staff re- port. Mr. Berardini stated he felt there was a precedent for subdivision waivers; the Commission has granted such waivers many times in the .past. Mr. Berardini stated that a waiver may be Page 1482 granted by the Planning Commission if they feel that there is nothing to be gained by requirjng a subdivision plat to be filed. Mr. Berardini noted that a great deal of information h~s been submitted by the applicants on this property, and cited a site plan, drainage plan, etc. Mr. Richard Brown 3403 South Race St. -stated the same question has come up on the matter of the waiver several times; if this subdivision waiver is approved, then the Planning Co~­ mission has in substance adopted and approved the over-all plan. Mr. Brown stated he was of the opinion that if the City approved the request for a waiver,. the Planning. Commission was satisfied that the City and citizens would be protected. Mr. Brown stated he felt it was evident restrictions placed in the Subdivision Regulations make it clear that the Planning Commission could consider the community as a whole and not just the benefits of one property owner. Mr. Brown questioned the construction of 1,500 units; he noted that no more than 1,500 may be built because of restrictive covenants placed on the property. Mr. Brown stated that "this plan calls for their building of all units they possibly can build." Mr. Brown stated that he 11 thinks the boundaries of the park coincide exactly with the boundaries of the R-3-A Zone"; Mr. Brown further stated that he didn't approve of the park area being used for storage of drainage waters, but feels "Larwin should provide for their own drainage." Mr. Brown stated that he is a resident of Kent Village; he feels th:ls plan has given no consideratio.n to the problems of Kent Village; they are the only neighbors that have no street dividing their property from the subject site. Mr. Brown stated that on three of the four sides of the site, structures are oriented so that they front on the streets, and "face the outside world." The front of the structures that are along the Kent Village boundary do not face into Kent Village; rather, the residents of Kent Village wil~ face the rear of units on the Larwin site. Mr. Brown stated "they gave us rears, two rows of parking, trash cans, boats, etc." Mr. Brown noted that the first row of parking has 107 spaces; the second row has 94 spaces. Mr. Brown stated that Kent Village has five parking areas, each able to take two cars which would front on Kent Village traffic. Mr. Brown stated this would be 1 /4 mile of parking exposure right against one of the "finest residential developments in the area." Mr. Brown stated he felt it would be reasonable of the Planning Commission to require of Larwin Corporation that steps be taken to reduce density and alleviate the problems of traffic congestion, school over-crowding, drainage, water and sewer, etc. Mr. Brown stated that he believes the Planning Commission has the power to withhold the approval of the waiver on "such conditions as you see fit." Mr. Brown stated that "if Larwin should go the subdivision route the requirements you are entitled to make could enforce a lower density." Mr. Brown stated that he felt the heart of the problem is the density which ex- ceeds the neighboring area and the ability of the utilities to serve the area. Mr. Roark noted that at the time Kent Village was developed, some of the same objections were voiced. Mr. Roark stated that circumstances aren't that much different. A gentleman of the audience asked Mr. Roark the density of the proposed development and the density of Kent Village? Mr. Roark stated that the proposed development will have 28 units per acre, and that Kent Village has 8 units per acre. Mr. Roman stated he would again like to make it clear that the request is only for a waiver on the requirement of filing a subdivision plat; he noted that there have been no objections to this request from the City Departments. Mr. Roman stated that Larwin Corporation has agreed to the conditions as set forth in the staff report if the waiver is approved. Mr. Thompson stated that he felt density was a factor on whether or not the waiver should be granted. Mr. Thompson addressed Mr. Roman, and stated "I haven't heard one reason as to why you want out of the requirement of filing a plat." Mr. Roman stated it was a matter of saving time for Larwin. Mr. Howard Brown asked the City Attorney's opinion as to whether the Planning Commission had the power to make changes and lower the proposed density? Mr. Berardini stated that he would have to disagree with statements from the floor to that effect; Mr. Berardini agreed that reasonable conditions could be imposed on the granting of the waiver, but noted that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance zones this land as R-3-A, and was upheld in the Supreme Court. Mr. Berardini stated that the property may, therefore, be developed in accordance with the R-3-A standards, and to place restrictions on the development in violation of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance would be "unreasonable." Mr. Richard Brown stated that he still felt that the waiver could be refused for any reason . the Commission saw fit; the Larwin Corporation could then be required .to file a subdivision plat, and at this point, the Commission would have the power to restrict the density. Mr. Berardini stated that one of the main reasons for requiring a subdivision plat was to assure the dedication of public streets; the developers of the site do not propose to have public streets within the complex. Mr. Berardini stated he didn't know if density could be affected by requiring street dedication. Mr. Berardini stated that the applicant is en- titled to present a plan to the Commission that they feel would be beneficial to them, and not harmful to the neighbors. Mr. Berardini stated that to disapprove a plan in an attempt to lower the density would not be a proper action. Mr. James Roman noted that the Commission has exercised "leverage", and noted the conditions to which Larwin has agreed that have been attached to the approval of the request. Mr. Roman stated that at the last meeting with the Commission, Larwin was asked to present to the Commission a statement from every department and agency involved in regard to the Larwin request for a waiver; Mr. Roman stated they have complied with this request, and no objections have been voiced. Mr. Roman stated he "thinks you must abide by the experts." Mr. Thompson stated he agreed with Mr. Richard Brown in regard to the needs of the neighbor- hood; he stated he knows the "color of the experts", and thinks neighborhood opinion should be considered right along with engineer's statements, etc. I I I I I I Page 1483 Mr. Howard Brown asked Mr. Roman if he saw any possibility o f making any changes next to Kent Village to try to satisfy some of their demands? Mr. Roman stated that the plan on display at the present time reflects changes that have been made with the Kent Village residents in mind. Mr. Roman noted that the buildings have been set back 75 feet from the property line andthat landscaping has been instituted; Mr. Roman stated ''there will be a lot less traffic going up and down the parking lane than there will be on Lafayette, for instance." Mr. Quinn stated he wasn't quite clear on the drainage situation; is the park to be used for a storage area during construction? Will this site collect drainage off of Floyd and store it until Englewood's drainage system is constructed and ready to handle it? Where were the points o f drainage fr om the site? Mr. Waggoner stated that the total run-off allowed from the site is 60 cfs; 'water in excess of this amount will be stored in the park area until the .Englewood system can accommodate it. Drainage will be taken off the site at three points: the northwest corner of the site, Lafayette and Floyd; Franklin and Floyd; and High and Floyd. The total o f these three out- lets may not exceed the 60 cfs. Mr. Waggoner stated that the temporary storage facilities will depend on phasing o f construction. Mr. Quinn stated that he felt a big mistake was made as far as Kent Village drainage was con- cerned; he stated it was a "headache for Englewood". Another gentleman in the audience agreed, and stated that he "gets all the .trash and drainage from Kent Village" in his front yard when there is a hard rain storm. Mr. Howard Brown suggested that, because o f the hour, the meeting be closed. Mr. Lentsch noted that there was another item on the agenda; however, he didn't feel that the Commission could take action on this matter at this time. Henning moved: Vobejda seconded: The motion carried. Consideration of the off-street parking plan for Larwin Corporation be tabled until October 3, 1972. III. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Supinger stated that the RTD Board of Directors had scheduled a meeting at Englewood City Hall on September 28th, 3:00 P.M. to consider Englewood and Arapahoe County transporta- tion needs; he suggested that perhaps members of the Commission would want to attend this meeting. Mr. Lentsch thanked members of the audience for attend;i.ng and stated that the matters per- taining to the Larwin Corporation development would again be considered at the next meeting of the Commission on October 3rd. The meeting adjourned at 11:35 P.M. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 3, 1972 The Regular Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to orde r at 8:10 . P.M. by Chairman Lentsch. Members present: Lentsch; Robins; Carlson; Ross; Weist; Brown; Stanley; Henning Supinger, Ex-officio Members absent: Vobejda Also present: City Attorney Berardini; Assistant Director o f Community Development Romans; Utilities Director Carroll; Public Works Director Waggoner; Fire Chief Hamilton; Police Chief Clasby; Director of Libraries Lute; Finance Director Nollenberger; City Manager Dial; Assistant City Manager McDivitt. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Mr. Lentsch stated that the Minutes of the Regular meeting of September 19th were to be considered f or approval. Brown moved : Stanley seconded: The Minutes of September 19, 1972, be approved as written. · The motion carried.