Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-10-03 PZC MINUTESI 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. Page 1484 III. LARWIN MULTIHOUSING CORPORATION Subdivision Waiver CASE #20-72C August 9, 1972 August 22, 1972 September 26, 1972 Mr. Lentsch stated that the matter of the Subdivision Waiver as requested by the Larwin Corporation is tabled at this time. Ross moved: Henning seconded: The matter of the Subdivision Waiver request of the Larwin Corporation be moved from the Table. The motion carried. Mr. Lentsch asked Mr. Supinger to give the background of the request. Mr. Supinger stated that this matter has been considered by the Commission on several occasions; he stated that, briefly, the proposal is for development of the tract of land at U.S. 285 and Lafayette, commonly known as the former KLZ Site, with multi-family units •. A 4-1/2 acre "strip" along East Floyd Avenue extending from approximately South Franklin Street east to the eastern property line will be dedicated to the City for park purposes. The remainder of the site will be developed with 1,500 multi-family units; 10 buildings will be "mid-rise" or five- story, but not higher than 60 feet; the remainder of the structures will be two-story. The mid-rise buildings will be in the central portion of the site. Mr. Supinger stated that staff reports have previously been submitted to the Commission, and .noted that additional memorandums received by the Department of Community Development from other City Departments have also been transmitted to the Commission, as are letters from Mr. Richard Eason, Mr. Tinney for Mr. James Roman of the Larwin Corporation. Mr. Supinger asked if Mr. Lentsch would like the letters read into the record? Mr. Lentsch stated that he didn't feel it necessary to read them into the record, but that he did want them to be a part of the minutes. The letters are as follows: Mr. James Supinger, Planning Director City of Englewood 3400 South Elati Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 Dear Mr. Supinger: "September 29, 1972 In accordance with the instructions of the Planning Commission, I have obtained and presented to you, approval letters from all state, county and city officials that had to review our proposed development as outlined in the subdivision requirements. As you know, we are asking for a waiver of the requirement of filing the plat map but none of the substantive require- ments contained therein. As I stated in the public hearing, our best information on the taxes on this development will be approximately $900,000 based on tax information supplied by Arapahoe County. I feel this subdivision waiver is of great importance to Larwin and to the City of Englewood and if there is any further information I can provide, please contact me. Very truly yours, s / Bob Tinney for / James A. Roman, Director Community Relations JAR /bw" Mr. Leo Lentsch, Chairman Englewood Planning Commission Englewood City Hall Englewood, Colorado 80110 Dear Mr. Lentsch: "October 3, 1972 Re: Larwin project -KLZ Site I am writing this letter to you and the other members of the Englewood Planning Commission on behalf of myself and not in any representative capacity whatsoever. The views expressed hereinafter are mine and do not necessarily represent the views of others living in the vicinity of the Larwin project. I have followed the Larwin plans for some time now and have attended several meetings of the Planning Commission as well as meetings with representatives of the Larwin Company. I have met with the City Attorney and the Community Development Department staff concerning the sub- division waiver request and have reviewed various staff reports that have been forwarded to me by the Department. First of all, I wish to apologize to you and the other Commission members for not being in attendance at the public meeting on September 26. I was engaged in a trial with clients from out of town, and it was necessary to meet with them that Tuesday night. I feel that the Planning Commission can grant the Larwin Company a waiver of the subdivision requirements contained in Chapter 3 with respect to the northern portion of -the KLZ Site and in so doing accomplish the same result, which could be effected by a planned development application. I I I I I I Page 1485 Under the provisions of Section 12-3-3(b) (1), the Planning Commission could waive the necessity of compliance with the subdivision regulations establishing "reasonable conditions upon such waiver." In my opinion, the Planning Commission should establish the following conditions upon the grant of any waiver of the subdivision regulations: 1. All buildings and improvements to be located at locations indicated on the site plan and building heights to be limited as specified on the site plan. 2. Provisions made necessary to accomplish drainage in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the City Engineer, such provisions to be in- stalled as and when specified by said City Engineer. 3. Provisions for public areas be made by proper dedication of park area as specified on the site plan. 4. Provisions for access to and from the site and ingress and egress by the private street system established as shown on the site plan with en- trances and exits located as thereon specified. There should be appropriate declaration or conveyance of private easements, suitable to the City, to provide for such ingress and egress and private rights of way within the site. 5. Limitations on density (total living unit~ or households per acre or in the total development) should be limited not to exceed 1500 units as per the previous covenants. 6. on~site parking to be provided as specified on the site plan. 7. Landscaped areas to be installed and provided as specified and located on the site plan. 8. Emergency vehicle access through specified entrances and exits with consent to City and other State and Municipal authority vehicles to entrance upon the development, either through private roads or other specified lo- cations. 9. The waiver, together with all conditions pertaining thereto and the site plan, recorded with the Clerk and Recorder for Arapahoe County. 10. Easements for utilities located as specified on the site plan as available to utility sources such as City, Public Service, Mountain Bell. 11. Conditions established in connection with the waiver shall apply to that portion of the .site indicated and shall run with the land and be binding upon any subsequent owners, mortgagees, etc. It seems to me by establishing the foregoing, and possibly. other conditions, the Planning Commission can as effectually control the impact of the Development as through Planned Development. I recognize there are those who feel that Larwin should not be able to proceed in this manner; however, I feel that Larwin, as the owner, is entitled to proceed with its develop- ment, and by requesting a waiver, they in effect submit themselves to whatever requirements the Planning Commission imposes in the interests of the City. Very truly yours, Richard L. Eason RLE/dc" Mr. Lentsch stated that he has been informed that all Department Heads but Mr. Romans, Parks Director, were present, as were City Manager Dial and Assistant Manager McDivitt. Mr. Lentsch then asked that ·Larwin representatives speak to the request. Mr. James Roman stated that he was a representative of the Larwin Corporation. Mr. Roman stated that the Colorado State Supreme Court ruled in December of 1971 that the R-3-A Zoning of the land in question was valid. Mr. Roman stated that the restrictive covenants were placed on the property by the previous owner limiting the density to not more than 1,500 units, and that the Larwin Corporation purchased the property on the basis that it would be developed with 1,500 units. Mr. Roman stated that the total site is 55 acres of which 4.45 acres will be deeded to the City for park purposes. The development will be landscaped; there will be six private recreational areas for the tenants of the development. The develop- ment will have a security guard qn duty 24-hours a day at the main entrance on U.S. 285, and the remainder of the entrances will be controlled with access through gates by "card" actuators. Visitors to the development must pass the guard house. Over one-half of the parking to be provided for the development will be covered, either under-ground or "tucked in" under the structures. Mr. Roman stated that the proposed development meets all the City zoning and setback requirements. Mr. Roman stated that the Planning Commission has been presented with letters of approval from every local, county and state agency that would be concerned with the development; no pro~lems have been cited. Mr. Roman stated that by the Supreme Court decision, density .is no longer an issue to be considered on this property; Mr. Roman then cited the reasons given by the Planning Commission at the time the rezoning for R-3-A was recommended to City Council, and with which the Supreme Court concurred in their decision: 1. Sufficient change in the area to promote multi-family development, citing particularly 1 ithe increase in the population in the area, including the building of multi-family dwellings on the easterly border of the subject site." 2. The six-lane highway along the south boundary and the volume of traffic it carries pre- cludes development of the site for single-family use. 3. There is a need for multi-family dwelling units in the City of Englewood. Page 1486 4. It is not practical under present conditions to expect this site to be zoned for singl~ family use, and "that a multi-family zoning would be a prper development that would not be greatly detrimental nor have an adverse effect in the area ... ". Mr. Lentsch stated that he would like it entered into the record that it was not this Com- mission that recommended zoning of the subject site to R-3-A; there is only one member sitting on the Commission today that was a member at that time. Mr. Roman stated that he was speaking of the Commission as a "body" and not as individuals. Mr. Lentsch stated that he understood there were petitions to be presented to the Commission, and asked that it be done at this time. Mr. Richard Brown 3403 S. Race Street -stated that this is the third time he has appeared before the· Commission to speak to the matter under cons~deration, and thanked the Commission for the opportunity to present his opinions. Mr. Brown stated he has "a number of petitions containing 492 signatures by our count · of resi- dents of the City of Englewood living within the area bounded by University Boulevard, South Marion Street, East Girard Avenue and East Dartmouth A venue." Mr. Brown stated that he could not say what per- centage of the adult population of this area these signatures constitute, but that "the circulators have found overwhelming opposition to the pro- posed development." Mr. Brown stated that he personally had visited 40 households, and there was only one person who refused to sign the petition in opposition to the development; this person stated that he was in favor of the development. Mr. Brown stated that at least 80% of the residents with whom he came in contact are opposed to the pro- posed development. The petitions request the Planning Commission to reject the application for subdivision waiver; they also request the Commission to reject any subdivision filed that embodies this particular plan as is shown at this meeting. Mr. Brown stated the "reasons are the same as those presented by many objectors one week ago;" every citizen of Englewood in the audience at that time was opposed to this development. Mr. Brown stated he would like to call the attention of the Commission to the traffic difficulty which the petitioners feel will come about; to call attention to the proposal of storage of storm drainage water in the northwest corner of the site during construction. The petitioners believe that to permit this operation would result in stagnant water, a big mud puddle, mosquitos, a danger to children. The petitioners also feel that failure to require the dedication or conveyance to the City of the park property would leave the city with- out any right to the land; the petitioners also feel that the use of the park should come under the heading of storage of water and does not come under the heading of a "park". Mr. Brown then discussed the parking alignment along the eastern boundary of the site, and the pro- posed imposition of family units in the eastern portion of the site. Mr. Brown stated that these two proposals demonstrate a lack of con- sideration of the residents in Kent Village who would "front" on the proposed development. For all of the above reasons, the petitioners feel the request should be rejected. Mr. Brown stated that "the question before you is whether the provision of the subdivision regula- tions requiring a plat should be waived." Mr. Brown stated that this provision of requiring a plat should be waived only when it is clear . that it is proper and in the best interest of the community to do so. Mr. Brown stated that the views of the residents and electors of this area that have been presented at previous meetings make it entirely clear that in the minds of the people surrounding the proposed develop- ment the proposal is not in the best interest of the City of Englewood. Mr. Brown noted that it has been stated there will be no traffic problem on U.S. 285 with the two access points into the proposed development; he stated that he had heard on the radio at approximately 7:40 A. M. that "Hampden Avenue is bumper-to-bumper from Wadsworth Boulevard to the Valley Highway." Mr. Brown noted that the day he heard this was not what would be considered a "peak morning"; he noted that approxi- mately 2 /3 of the automobiles from the 1,500 units are to be "disgorged" onto Hampden Avenue (U.S. 285). This will compound the problems that · now exist. Mr. Brown further stated that he felt it necessary to criticize the basis for the calculation of traffic. He noted that Kent Village traffic was used as a basis for these calculations; he noted that Kent Village has "one controlled intersection"; 11 there aren't as many working bodies in Kent Village as the person who prepared the study must assume, as Kent Village has many retired people." "Many of the residents are in other parts of the country, and many of the residents have much freedom on the hours they keep." Mr. Brown stated that these three factors result in the traffic being no more than 1 /2 that calculated for the projected development for the same number of units during peak periods of use. Mr. Brown stated that he did not feel the traffic infor- mation is adequate or accurate. Mr. Brown stated that he has lived in Kent Village not quite two years; he has found the residents of the community to be delightful people; he stated that many people have said they are agitated enough to try to prevent this project. Mr. Brown directed a question on percentage of lot coverage to Mr. s .upinger-; he noted that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance restricts lot coverage to not more than 30%, but at the last meeting he understood there would be between 35% and 42% lot coverage. Mr. Brown stated that this would not meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Brown stated he would urge the Commission to require strict compliance with all provisions of City ordinances on this development, and stated he felt that he speaks for a majority of the people in the area who would be most directly affected by this project. Mr. Brown then pre- sented 23 petitions signed by residents in opposition to the proposed development to Chairman Lentsch. I I I I I I Page 1487 Mr. Ross asked Mr. Brown to cite the section of the Ordinance pertaining to lot coverage? Mr. Brown stated it was §22.4-7e, entitled "Maximum Percentage of Lot Coverage"; this is a section of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Brown stated that the petitioners ask that the developer be required to comply with all provisions of ordinances pertaining to this development. Mr. Lentsch asked that Mr. Richard Eason explain the letter that was submitted to the Com- mission earlier in the evening. Mr. Eason stated that he was unable to attend the special public meeting held September 26th; he has met several times with members of the staff on the proposed development and felt he should explain his views. Mr. Eason emphasized that this letter is ONLY an explanation of HIS views, and does not purport to speak for anyone else. Mr. Eason stated that he has set forth in this letter eleven conditions he feels the Commission should consider imposing on the subdivision waiver if granted. Mr. Eason explained that these conditions were not in- tended to be definitive, but only to bring out the areas he felt should be of concern and consideration to the Commission. Mr. Eason stated that he felt he had said in the letter that the Commission can, by the developer coming before them and asking for a waiver, im- pose reasonable conditions on that waiver, if granted. Mr. Eason stated that he felt the Commission can and should impose all the conditions on the waiver that would be imposed on a PD on this site; such conditions may relate to drainage, traffic, open space, landscaping, points of ingress and egress. Mr. Eason stated that he felt "we have embroiled ourselves in a procedural dispute here." He stated he indicates in the letter that he is not so con- cerned on the procedure as he is on the conditions and the control the Planning Commission will have over the development. Mr. Eason stated that if it is ·the decision of the Commission to grant the request for a subdivision waiver, he would urge that all conditions should be attached to that approval. Mr. Brown noted that Mr. Eason "is still living in the vicinity of the KLZ Site", and asked of Mr. Eason, if ,. in his opinion, the Commission could get the same conditions if the ap- plicant refiled for approval of a subdivision. Mr. Eason stated he "is not convinced you could". He noted that there were several con- ditions attached to approval of the waiver, one of which is the park dedication. Mr. Eason stated he felt it was commendable of Larwin to agree to the dedication of this land; he stated it was important to have a park in this portion of the City. Mr. Eason stated he isn't sure the City could require the dedication of the park land under the subdivision regulations. Another point Mr. Eason discussed is the density of 1,500 dwelling units; he noted that this is substantially less than that allowed by the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. There was a declaration of covenants by the previous owner, but Mr. Eason felt "there may be some technical problems with enforcement of those covenants." This particular develop- ment is committed to this particular limitation.· Mr. Eason again emphased "there may be some ·technical difficulties in the enforcement of the covenants." Mr. Eason stated that he felt when a developer comes in and asks for a subdivision waiver, he is asking for exceptional treatment, and the Planning Commission can impose conditions on the waiver, if approved. Mr. Eason stated he "feels you have -a better chance under the present procedure to impose the conditions you want" than under the filing of a plat according to the subdivision regulations. Mr. Brown noted Mr. Eason had been in this community all through the question of zoning and development of this land, and that Mr. Eason had been active in opposition to zoning of the land for many years. Mr. Eason stated that he was very active in opposition to the commercial zoning; he also opposed the multi-family zoning by the City of this particular site. Mr. Eason stated that the citizens challenged the zoning of the site for multi-family develop- ment, and the courts up-held the City zoning designation on the site. Mr. Eason stated that "the zoning is with us", and he feels the Larwin Corporation has the right under the zoning to develop it as multi-family, and that the City can only attempt to put reasonable conditions on the development. Mr. Eason stated that he has faith in the City and the consultants; they will do their best to protect the citizens; Mr. Eason stated he was not an expert on hydrology and traffic, and suggested that ·We should rely on the expertise brought to bear by the Depart- ments of the City. Mr. Eason did urge the Commission to impose the conditions, as suggested, on the approval of the waiver. Mr. Ross asked of Mr. Eason if he had seen a copy of the conditions proposed by the staff, and if he was in agreement with these proposed conditions? Mr. Eason stated he had seen the proposed conditions, and he feels that, substantially, the staff conditions agree with his suggestions. Mr. Eason again stated that he could not question the matter of drainage, because ·he doesn't know anything about it; this is a con- sideration for hydrologists and engineers. Mr. Eason stated that he did feel the City should assure compliance with the drainage study; he stated that adjoining areas must be protected. Mr. Ross asked what would happen if the "experts" ·were wrong insofar as the matter of drain- age is concerned? Mr. Eason stated that under Colorado laws, the owner of higher ground has the right to drain it. Mr. Ross stated "so the residents to the north would be at their own risk in the event of a 100-year storm and the proposed facilities didn't handle it." Mr. Eason stated that he understood the Colorado Laws to say that the owner of higher ground has a negative easement over lower ground. When you build on lower ground, you accept drainage from property situated higher than yours. Mr. Eason stated that the City Engineers Department has calculated the run-off of this site based on the absorption qualities of the land, lot coverage, annual rain fall, etc., and these figures have been used in designing the drainage system. Mrs. Henning asked of Mr. Berardini if he felt there might be a weakness in relying on the restrictive covenants to limit the density, or should this restriction be written into the subdivision waiver approval. Mr. Berardini stated that the Larwin Corporation has agreed to the 1,500 units, and that the staff report also supports the 1,500 units. Mr. Berardini stated it would be his opinion the condition of a 1,500 unit density limitation should be imposed, as a part of the waiver, if it is approved. Mrs. Henning asked Mr. Supinger to speak to the point of lot coverage allowed in the R-3-A Zone District. Mr. Supinger stated that the maximum lot coverage allowed in an R-3-A Zone District is 30%; under provisions suggested to the Commission for approval of the waiver, the developer would be required to comply with all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Ross asked "will they comply with it?" Mr. Supinger stated that the staff report is saying that the applicants be required to comply with all provisions of the Comprehensive Zoning Page 1488 Ordinance in effect on the date the waiver is approved. Mr. Ross stated under these con- ditions, could the buildings be constructed to a greater height? ~r. Supinger pointed out that the staff report proposed a condi tio~ to t .he waiver that the site plan as shown here tonight be recorded as "Exhibit A" attendant to approval. If the applicant wanted to exceed the height on the buildings by one story, it would be a "substantive change." and would re- quire further approval of the Commission to do so. Mr. Lentsch then asked that Mr. Charles Carroll discuss the water and sewer facilities and whether or not they can accommodate this development. Mr. Carroll stated that sewer facilities would be discussed first; he stated that the amount of sewage to be collected from the site would be fairly stable, that ~s, it would not in- crease or decrease drastically. µr. Carroll stated that in 1964, a study was conducted for the City on the matter of sewer facilities and relief lines. Development of the KLZ Site was considered with two possible developments: as a regional shopping center, or for high- rise multi-family. The matter of zoning on the site was in court at that time. The sewer lines installed were designed to handle at least 1,500 dwelling units on the site in question. Mr. Carroll stated that there is one problem, that of infiltration, but this will be repaired within two years whether this proposal f~om Larwin Corporation is approved or not. It is estimated that the site will produce 400,000 gpd of sewage, or 100 gallons per person per day. Mr. Carroll stated that this was an average used for design practice for capacity of facilities. Mr. Carroll stated "if this project were completed tomorrow, the sewer plant could handle it." Mr. Carroll stated that the present capacity of the plant is 7,500,000 gpd; the present expansion program, to be completed by the first of the year, will expand the capacity to 12,000,000 gpd. Mr. Carroll discussed the "joi11t venture" with the City of Littleton to combine the service areas and develop one site for sewer facilities. Mr. Carroll stated that with the projected growth of the Englewood sewer service area combined with the Littleton projected growth, there may be a period between 1974-75 where the capacity of the plant may be in question, but if this is true it will be known far enough ahead of time so that the City can slow down on taking on more customers. Mr. Carroll noted that the City Charter provides that the City shall provide sewage service to all residents of the City. Mr. Carroll stated that the matter of water was a more complex commodity to guarantee and furnish. He stated that the area in question is in a pressure zone which was created several years ago ; there is a booster station at Hampden and Clarkson. This site will be served by a 24" water main from this booster station. Mr. Carroll acknowledged that there are shortcomings in the distribution section; Mr. Carroll stated that there are problems caused by the "dead-end lines" that would be corrected, at least partially, by looping of the lines. Mr. Carroll stated "it would appear right now the connection fees derived from this project will off-set needed improvements"; he stated that an estimated $130,000 will be derived from tap fees on the Larwin project. This money will be funded back to improve- ments, one of which will be to run a second line, or larger line, up Clarkson Street. Mr. Carroll stated that calculations indicate that the general area of the development now uses 1,000,000 gpd without the proposed development; with the proposed development, it is estimated that 2,500,000 gpd will be used in this general area. Mr. Carroll stated that he feels the storage facilities will be sufficient; they will have to concentrate on larger mains and increasing pressure to this pressure zone. Mr. Lentsch noted that the residents were concerned about water pressure this past summer. He asked if Mr. Carroll could say whether the problem would be better or worse if lines are increased? Mr. Carroll stated that you must consider both pressure and flow. Mr. Carroll noted that problems are often caused by corrosion in galvanized pipes, and that this can cut pressure by 25%. Mr. Carroll again stated that pressure can be increased by looping the lines. Discussion followed. Mr. Ross asked if the Larwin Development is built, would booster pumps be activated to improve the pressure? Mr. Carroll stated the booster pumps are automatic. Mr. Carroll stated that as far as the Larwin project is concerned, the Department is considering installing plastic lines, and requiring Larwin to irrage at off- peak times. Mr. Ross asked when these would be installed? Mr. Carroll stated before their full development is completed; again, the tap fees to be realized from this project will be put right back into improvements. Mr. Ross then asked what authqrity was granted to the Director of Utilities to require a development to irrigate at specific times? Mr. Carroll stat~d that the Director has certain discretionary powers, many of which may be considered arbitrary ; he cited the water rationing which occurred in 1963-1964 when there was a shortage of water for the City. Mr. Stevenson, 3275 South Race, stated it appeared to him "there will be a problem if they are going to be required to irrigate at certain times." He noted that Mr. Carroll has stated the $130,000 to be realized from tap fees for Larwin "will probably" take care of all the necessary improvements; but, "will probably" doesn't seem to cover it as far as he is con- cerned. Mr. Carroll stated that the Department puts in all the improvements; they may not recover all the costs from the property. Mr. Carroll cited the "loops installed in the Avenues"; these improvements do not return the costs from the property owners. Mr. Lentsch asked "if this doesn't pay for itself, would you have to raise the water fees?" Mr. Carroll stated not necessarily, that funds could be obtained from the general fund of the Utilities Department. Further discussion followed. Mr. Stuart Fry, 3195 South Race, cited figur~s mentioned by Mr. Carroll of 1,000,000 gpd for the area now, vs. 2,500,000 gpd if the Larwin Development is built. Mr. Fry then contrasta:l these figures with those contained in a memorandum from Mr. Carroll, date of October 3, which memorandum states: "With 1,500 units and a density ·of 2.5 persons per units, the water demands for Larwin should be an annual average of 120 gcd. Summer demand should approach 180 gcd, for a daily maximum of 675,000 gallons. This alone will not tax the present treat- ment capacity." Mr. Fry stated he felt there were discrepancies in these statements, and asked that they be explained. Mr. Carroll stated that during the hottest days of the summer you experience ratios above the average day; the per capita would approach 180 pcd, and the maximum you can expect is 2.4 million. Mr. Fry then cited a paragraph in a memorandum from Mr. Carroll dated September 29th, which reads: "According to the newspaper, Mr. Supinger noted that the water treatment capacity was .sufficient for a population of 55,000. This is not entirely true. Englewood owns sufficient water to satisfy a population of 55,000; .however, the treatment plan can serve less than 42,000 persons at the present rate of summer peaking demands." "When this point I I I I I I Page 1490 is reached, a new plant will be built. This will require several million dollars, thereby necesaitating increases in tap fees and water rates." Mr. Fry then stated he had received a "bulletin" with his water bill earlier in the day; he asked "how near in the future can we expect to build the new water treatment plant?" Mr. Carroll stated that the Department hoped to get a broader view of customer opinion of the meter program by including the "bulletin" with the water bill. Mr. Carroll stated he felt we .were .looking toward the new plant between 1978-1980. Mr. Fry noted that at the last meeting, it was stated that Englewood's population was ap- proximately 35,000; Mr. Carroll states that the treatment plant can serve only 42,000. If the estimated 3,750 persons are added in the Larwin Development, this only brings the point of total capacity that much closer and the construction of the new plant will have to occur that much sooner. Mr. Carroll stated that at the highest point this year the plant was processing 24,000,000 gpd; last year the plant processed 26,000,000 gpd. Mr. Carroll stated that this factor varies from year to year. Mr. Carroll stated that the total water service area for the Department is about 36,000 population. Mr. Thompson stated "you are saying that if we experience a 10% increase in Englewood's population, which Larwin would represent, then ~e would be confronted with property tax in- creases for construction of the new plant that much sooner than he would be if the Larwin development were not built." Mr. Carroll stated that there would be no tax burden on the property owners; they would sell tax revenue bonds. Mr. Thompson then asked if, to retire the bonds, would they increase the water bill? Mrs. Henning suggested that a motion be considered on the request. She pointed out that by making a motion, it will be the responsibility of the Commission to make the decisions and ask questions that pertain to the site. Mrs. Henning stated she did not want to cut off legitimate questions on the part of the audience, .but this matter has been considered at several meetings, and she felt that perhaps discussion should now be confined to the Com- mission. Mr. Lentsch stated that he felt it was a serious problem, and .that there were com- mission members who had not attended all of the meetings when the matter was previously dis- cussed. Mr. Carlson stated he wanted to ask the same question of City Attorney Berardini, and of Mr. Eason. He stated that the same Departments of the City are going to control this whether its done under a waiver or ,by the subdivision regulations. Would Mr. Eason know if the covenant and conditions made a part of the ~aiver, whether the people living in the area lose anything by going the waiver route? Mr. Eason stated that he felt he has indicated that the Commission can insure additiunal rights to the community by approving the waiver with reasonable conditions. Mr. Eason stated he felt the Commission can require more in the way of conditions following the. subdivision waiver procedure than they c.an by .following the plat procedure. Mr. Eason stated that , he felt the surrounding area could be protected by setting forth the right conditions as a requirement of the waiver. Mr .. Carlson ·thanked Mr. Eason for his opinion, and stated that he didn't want anyone to feel that the waiver gives anything away. Mr. Carlson then asked Mr. Berardini the same question. Mr. Berardini .noted that the request for a waiver is only for the requirement of filing a subdivision plat. Mr. Berardini stated that he didn't feel the Commission could waive any of the requirements of .the Sub- division Regulations other than the requirement of filing a plat; drainage, utilities, etc. would all still have to meet the requirements of the Regulations, and the Commission would have the same power over these matters which ever procedure was followed. Mr. Paul Spencer, 3411 South Race, asked "why are they asking for a waiver if they don't get anything?" He noted that the plat will delineate the . various factors involved in developing this site. Mr. Spencer stated that he felt the request for denial of the waiver is in order. Mr. James Roman stated that the request is made in order to save the Larwin Corporation time; he stated that every day the site "sits idle", it costs a great deal of money in interest, taxes, etc. Mr. Roman stated that the plat, ·if one were requ ired to be filed, would show the same as the site plan on display. There would be 1,500 units, streets will not be dedicated; Mr. Roman stated there would be far less services required for this proposed de- velopment. than other residential uses would require, less maintenance of streetc, etc. for the City, yet the owner will pay the same amount of taxes as .everyone else does. Mrs. Lockwood, 3265 South Marion, noted that "in our world today we see too much of the future limited to a dollars /cents matter." She suggested that one visit Charles Hayes School --all the trees hav.e been removed; she stated she liked to "walk on the site and hear the meadowlarks." Mrs. Lockwood stated she didn't see how the argument on develop- ment of the site could be limited to the fact that someone pays taxes and has a right to develop it as they please. She felt beauty should be preserved, also. Mr. Howard Brown stated he is in sympathy with , the people; he has tried to represent the people, and he is listening to them tonight; but, he hopes that the petitions the people signed are not misleading. He hopes the people understood they were signing against the waiver, an.d not against th.e development as is proposed to be built. He hopes we won't be the loser and come up with less than we could have if the waiver is denied. Mr. Lentsch asked Mr. Richard Brown to answer whether or not signers were clearly informed of the question before the Commission? Mr. Richard Brown stated that he thinks the attitude of people who signed the petitions so far as he ~an speak for them --he and Mrs. Brown got 10% of the signatures --he thinks everybody knows it is a fine tract of land, and realize in the long range interest of the City of Englewood and justification o f the rights of the property owners the land should be developed. Mr. Brown discussed the view of property owners in Kent Village --all the way from Pikes Peak to Longs Peak; this development will destroy that view. He stated that they can't keep it from being developed, but they can see that it is developed in a way that is considerate of the interests and rights of the people who live nearby, and when it is completed will be something that the City and residents can be proud of. He stated that their whole objective is to get Larwin to revise aspects of this plan that will be more compatible with homes of. people in the neighborhood; he stated they are aware that many more units coula be built on this land under the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, "but this plan is conceived for the benefit of the developer and the benefit of the people who will occupy it and not enough for the people who live surrounding it." Mr .. Brown referred to tlE Page 1490 'purposes of requiring a subdivision plat and stated that when you waive application of those ordinances, you must be convinced nothing will_ be gained by the City. When you waive it, you say there is nothing better we can do for the City and the people; they feel there are things the Commission could do, such as .imposing additional conditions upon the waiver or by requiring the filing of a plat which gives the City and this Commission the power to request the placement of buildings, etc. Mr. Brown stated their petitions that the waiver be denied are directed to the plan as has been presented to the City and the .people; he stated that changes in the plan might make the basic proposal acceptable to some of the people. Mr. Lentsch noted that "you did say that it would be developed; the zoning cannot be changed; what would you suggest?" Mr. Brown discussed the problems of the proposed plan; the people living along Lafayette Street have expressed concern about the traffic on Lafayette; the materials submitted to the Commission by the staff on an analysis of t~affic is erroneous, as he feels the staff failed to analyze the character of the Kent .Village residents, but he didn't feel there was any intention of mis-information on the part of the staff when this material was submitted. Mr. Brown stated that he thinks at peak periods the Lafayette points of access will have 100% more traffic than what has been estimated. Mr. Brown stated that Lafayette cannot handle this traffic, and that some way must be found to introduce the traffic onto the system of the City and the State in a location which can be reasonably absorbed with no hardship on people living on Lafayette or on the general public. Mr. Brown then discussed at some length the matter of parking aisles bordering the east boundary of the site --''right against Kent Village." Mr. Brown $tated that this is o~ extreme personal interest to people living in Kent Village, and they are in attendance at this meeting in a self-interest capacity. The drainage issue to most of them seems to be a matter of the cart-before-the-horse; he has never before heard of a public park being used for storage of drainage waters, nor has he heard of drainage waters being stored on a part of the site during time of development. Mr. Brown stated that some attention to these problems by the Larwin people could result in a development which could be acceptable. Mr. Brown stated in answer to Mr. Lentsch's initial question that he didn't think there was any intent of people signing the petitions to keep Larwin in a vacant lot. Mr. Carlson asked: "Do you feel the people in the area would be better satisfied if all streets went through from Floyd to Hampden and we put Girard through?" Mr. Brown stated he didn't think so; he would "have to say that what is here has received a lot of thought"; the views expressed to the Commission are strong. Mr. Brown stated he "would have to give any alternate plan some thought." Mr. Ross asked with respect to the parking along Kent Village, what Mr. Brown would propose? Mr. Brown stated he would propose "that this end be turned around; let their residents look at their parked cars." Mr. Brown stated that no where in Englewood, or maybe even in Arapahoe County, has anybody lined up two rows of parking 1 /4 mile along beside one of the finest residential areas there is. Mr. Brown stated he considered this an affront to the people of Kent Village, and considers this as evidence of the complete inflexibility of the Larwin Corporation. Mr. Ross stated "you would have them build buildings along the line?" Mr. Brown stated that he felt they should allow a "substantial distance --the width of the two parking lanes." Mr. Lentsch asked of Mr. Roman if this proposal would be practical as far as their develop- ment was concerned? Mr. Roman stated that it would not; it would, in essence, split their development. Mr. Roman stated that they have, indeed, revised this site plan; the buildings on the eastern portion do now face into the Kent Village area rather than into the green- belt which Larwin has provided in their site plan; their tenants will also, as a result of this revision in an effort to placate the Kent Village residents, face the two lanes of parking. Mr. Paul Spencer charged that the maneuvering area between the two lanes of parking will be a "Honda Highway", for the kids who may have motorcycles but are not allowed to have them on public streets. Mr. Spencer stated th~t he realized kids have to exercise somewhere, but deplored such activity next to Kent Village. Mr. Roman stated that no motorcycles will be allowed ~ithin the complex; there will be speed bumps throughout the entire site. Mr. Roman stated that there will be a landscaped strip 15 to 25 feet wide between the property line and the first line of parking. Mr. Roman again emphasized that there will be no motorcycles allowed in the development. Mrs. Henning stated she wished to discuss several points made by Mr. Brown. As regards the traffic on Lafayette, she stated that the original question was whether or. not the street was wide enough to provide for left-turn pockets; information from Public Works Director Waggoner indicates that it is, and a drawing has also been submitted showing lanes and widths. Mrs. Henning stated that Mr. Waggoner has suggested an additional condition, which might read: "At such time as the Director of Public Works determines a need for the widening of Lafayette Street from East Floyd Avenue to East Hampden Avenue to provide for a left or right-turn lane, then the developer shall cause the necessary work including removal and replacement of sidewalk, curb and gutter; installation of basecourse, pavement, etc., to. be completed in accordance with the plans prepared by the Director of Public Works." Mrs. Henning stated that this type of condition could provide that if the traffic on Lafayette becomes congested from turning movements, we could go back and require the develo~r to widen the street and improve that portion. Mrs. Henning stated she further understood that the traffic gates at access points into Larwin have been moved back, and turn-around areas provided in front of the gates. Mrs. Henning stated she was aware that this may not be a totally satisfactory solution, but she did feel it was a step in the right direction. Mrs. Henning then discussed the parking on the eastern boundary next to Kent Village; she stated that the parking area is four feet lower than the Kent Village property, and is "bermed" up; the line of view of the Kent Village residents will be into the units in the Larwin Development, and will be over the parking area. Mrs. Henning reviewed the use of the park area for storage of drainage waters; this has been done in the past, is proposed in the northwest Englewood Greenbelt /Park, and is being considered in at least one other location in the southern part of town. It will provide open space for the citizens, and will serve two purposes at the same time. Mrs. Henning stated that it has been stated that the storage time in the park area will probably not exceed four or five hours .. I I I I I I Page 1491 Mrs. Henning stated that as to storage of water in the northwestern port~on of the site, this was to accommodate the City after it had been determined by the City and by the De- velopers that it would be the best way to handle the matter. Mr~. Henning emphasized that this storage of water was at the request of the City. Mr. Lentsch stated that he was concerned about the size of the drainage pond needed to accommodate a 100-year storm for the western portion of the site. Mr. Waggoner stated that the drainage system will allow Larwin to emit 49 cfs from the western 1 /3 of the site. The size of the drainage pond would be calculated to meet this stipulation. Mr. Roman stated that one of the conditions attached to approval of the waiver is that this storage of drainage water be calculated and accommodated before a building permit may be issued. Mr. Ro man stated that Larwin Corporation had agreed to all the conditions as 'outlined in the staff report. Mr. Robins stated he felt the development will be there a long time, and he felt it should be done right in the first place. Mr. Robins stated that he felt the park should be "square" instead of rectangular in shape. Mr. Robins stated he would suggest that there be about three traffic outlets onto Floyd Avenue; he noted that when the cars exit onto South Lafayette Street they are going to use Floyd Avenue as access to University Boulevard anyway, and why not give them direct access to Floyd? This could also distribute the traffic more evenly entering and leaving the site. Mr. Robins stated that if the park was in a square shape, there would not be the collection of storm water on the park; he stated he felt there should be underground storm sewers. Mr. Robins noted that "engineers are not infallible", and cited instances to substantiate his point of view. Mr. Robins stated that he felt if his three suggestions were followed, (1) to make the park square; (2) three traffic outlets onto Floyd Avenue, three onto Lafayette, and two onto Hampden Avenue (U.S. 285); (3) an under- ground storm ·sewer · system, that a lot of problems would be eliminated. Mr. Lentsch stated he would entertain a motion. Henning moved: Carlson seconded: The Planning Commission grant ,th~ request for Subdivision Waiver as requested by the Larwin Multiho~sing Corporation, subject to the following conditions as enumerate~ in staff report #20-72, and adding the condition as suggested by Public Works Director Waggoner regarding South Lafayette Street, which conditions read: 1 •. Development of the subject parcel shall comply with the provisions o! the Comprehensive Zoning · Ordinance effective on the date of this approval. 2. Development of the subject parcel .shall comply with the General Development Plan (Exhibit "A") and shall b~ limited to a maximum of 1,500 dwelling units plus ancillary structures for recreation and security.purposes. · 3. Development of the subject parcel may proceed in stages subject to approval of the followiµg items prior to the issuance of Building Permits: a. Compliance with the provisions of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. b. Approval of on-site grading and storm drainage plans by the Director of Public Works. Such approval may, at the discretion of the Director of Public Works, require the on-site storage of storm drainage water, up to a "10 0 -year storm", until the completion of the Northeast Englewood Basin storm drainage system by the City to handle a "two-year storm". c. Approval of on-site grading and storm drainage plans by the Director of Public . Works so as to limit peak discharge at the 100-year storm to 60 cfs and storage of the balance of the run- off on either the applicant's property, or that dedicated to the City by the applicant for public park purposes. d. Approval of fire lanes and emergency access by the Fire Chief. (Applicant shall agree to designate, and ~dentify by signs acceptable to the Fire Chief, said fire lanes and spotting ~amps prior to the issuance of Occupancy Permits ~or each phase or stage.) e. Approval of plans for the locations and specifications of on- site water lines and hydrants by the Fire Chief and the Director of Utilities. Easements shall be provided for lines intended to be in public ownership. f ~ Approval of plans for the locations and specifications of on- site sanitary sewer lines by the Director of Utilities. Ease- ments shall be provided for lines intended to be in public owner- ship. g. Approval of curb cuts by the Director of Public Works requiring that primary access points match with street intersections and median openings (applies to one access point on Lafayette at Girard, and two access points on U.S. 285 at median openings) . . (State Highway Department approval and permits for construction are required for entrances onto U.S. 285). 4. Use of said land for public park purposes may be subj.ect to inter- mittent storage of storm waters draining from applicant's property created by up to a 100-year storm. 5. Applicant and the City shall jointly conceive a grading plan for the public park area based upon a design for the park by the City. Applicant will complete rough grading for the park and will retain the, topsoil from the park area for City's use in improving the park. Page 1492 ) 6. Temporary drainage provisions shall be made by applicant to prevent silt from unimproved areas of the property from being deposited in the park area. 7. Floyd Avenue shall be improved in accordance with the specifications of the City of Engle~ood, including sidewalk, curb, gutter and paving. 8. Plans for security procedures to be utilized during construction shall be approved by the City prior to any construction. 9. Access, both ingress and egress, for construction vehicles shall be prohibited on the north and west sides and shall be permitted only on the south (U. S. 285) side. 10. All plans for the proposed development shall be recorded, with the subdivision waiver, in the office of the County Clerk of Arapahoe County at the applicant's expense, and all construction shall be in general conformance with said documents as determined by the Director of Com- munity Development with the advice of other City Department Heads in their fields of expertise. 11. At such time as the Director of Public Works determines a need for the widening of Lafayette Street from E. Floyd Ave. to E. Hampden Ave. to provide for a left-or right-turn lane, then the developer shall cause the necessary work, including removal and replacement of sidewal~ curb and gutter; installation of basecourse, pavement, etc., to be completed in accordance with the plans prepared by the Director of Public Works. Discussion followed. Mr. Ross asked if it would be in order to offer amendments to the conditions? He suggested that Condition #1 be amended to include language stating that maximum lot coverage shall not exceed 30%, and that the height of the structures not ex- ceed the permitted five stories or 60 feet. Mrs. Henning stated that she felt these pro- visions would be covered by Condition #2. Mr. Supinger suggested that the blueline print of the site development be used as Exhibit "A" for purposes of recording; the building height maximums and lot coverage maximums are contained in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and as Condition #1 requires that the development comply with the provisions of the Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance it is felt that these points are covered. Mr. Ross stated that he would like to see all the points possible clarified and "nailed down". Mr. Eason asked to speak to the point, and stated that he assumed the structures as indicated on the site plan could not exceed the two-story height, with the exception of the ten, five-story buildings indicated on the plan. Mr. Robins interposed the question: "How many bedrooms will these buildings have?" Mr. Supinger stated that relative to the height of the structures, if it is the desire of the Commission, the staff can bring back to the Commission a site plan with the heights indicated thereon for each structure. Mr. Ross stated he had no objection to this suggestion, and asked that Condition #2 be amended to include: The Site Plan shall have indicated thereon the height of each individual structure, the maximum lot coverage, and said site plan shall be recorded. Mr. Robins again asked how many bedrooms these units would have, and asked specifically how many two bedroom units and three bedroom units there are~ Mr. Roman stated that this in- formation has been previously presented to the City; this also varies with every phase of construction. Mr. Supinger concurred that this information has been presented to the Depart- ment. Mr. Ross stated he was concerned about the drainage situation, particularly about the resi- dents living at lower elevations who might suffer damage from waters diverted on this site. He urged that a condition be imposed that Larwin Corporation hold the City harmless and indemnify the residents, owners and occupants of the residences from any damage done as a result of drainage waters during and after construction until such time as the City drainage facilities are constructed to handle the waters. Discussion followed. Mr. Ross stated that his suggestion would mean that if, during construction there was a 100-year storm, and the storage pond did not contain all the drainage waters, and the buildings on the site were impeding the flow of waters or directing the flow of the water onto other residences, there would be compensation to those owners for damages done. Further discussion followed. Mr. Thompson suggested that a bond could be deposited with the City of Englewood to cover any damage to residents caused by drainage from the site during construction. Mr. Berardini. discussed this proposal, and stated that the City has designed their facilities to handle as much water as possible. He stated that he did not know of any bonds required for damage caused by flood, and that he had not seen any bonds for the purpose of protection against flood damage. Mr. Ross further clarified his intent by stating that he is not suggesting provisions for flooding from "an Act of God"; rather, he is suggesting that there is going to be interference with the topography of the land, and if the proper drainage facilities are not there to handle it, a flood situation could be caused by this construction, then there should be some indemnification for those residents who would suffer from damage. There is no doubt that if there were a flood tonight on that fiel~ and it went across Floyd Avenue, it would be considered an Act of God; but, he is saying there will be interference with the lay of the land, and he is concerned about drainage during construction. Mr. Berardini stated that he felt the only basis for a lawsuit for damages would be if Larwin increased the amount of drainage coming from that property; if this happens, they would be liable. If there is a natural grade in the area, it must take all the water it normally takes; if the run-off is increased and thereby increases the velocity of the drainage, there is an element of damage. Mr. Ross stated that diverting drainage is also cause for liability. Mr. Robins stated "when this project is completed they will definitely generate more water; there will be no place to absorb water." Discussion followed. Mr. Berardini noted that traditionally if a land owner increases drainage, he would be held liable. This is the reason the engineers are wanting to "pond" the drainage on the site in question. Further discussion followed. Mr. Berardini stated that Meurer-Serafinj-Meurer and Sellards & Grigg have been working to- gether on this site; he understands that the "concept" has been approved. Mr. Ross further discussed his reason for wanting an indemnification clause written into ~he conditions. Mrs. Henning asked if such a clause can be written into the conditions? Mr. Berardini stated it could be done. Mr. Weist asked if the City has had to defend such a suit in court? Mr. I I I I I I Page 1493 Berardini stated ~hat the insurance companies for the City have had to do so, but not more than once or twice in the past five or six years. Mr. Brown asked "in relation to the thought we are on right now, how much land are we talking about t for the subdivision waiver; is it just the northwest corner?" Mr. Supinger stated that the request for a waiver encompassed the total site, with the exception of the 4.45 acres which will be given to the City for park development. Mrs. Henning asked the Larwin representatives if they felt the Corporation would agree to such indemnification clause? Mr. Roman stated that he felt they would agree to a revised version -if the Corporation is proven negligent is written into the clause, they would agree to such a clause. Mrs. Henning asked that such wording be incorporated into the suggested condition. Mr. Anderson, 3180 S. Franklin -stated it looks like Kent Village residents were well represented; he discussed the drainage from the Kent Village development. He noted "you say that if the water runs off from this site (Larwin property), they will have to pay damages; we get all the water from Kent Village and it runs down to my house; the rete n tion poind is in front of my house; can we sue Kent Village?" The water from Kent Village floods houses and garages. "This one may not suit them, but it's much better than their's is." Mr. Anderson stated that he couldn't see many improvements in the plan that Larwin Corporation could make; he stated that he was happy with the retention pond concept. He stated "! don't think we will have as much trouble from this site as from Kent Village." Mrs. Henning asked if the Commission would accept the condition on drainage indemnification as outlined by Mr. Roman? Mrs. Henning then asked that City Attorney Berardini draft such a condition for review by the Commission. Mr. Ross fur~her discussed the conditions pertaining to drainage as suggested by the staff. He suggested that Condition #3b, be changed to read: "of not less than a 100-year storm." Mr. Ross stated he would further suggest that if there is to be some kind of storage pond --he stated he didn't know what design the staff had in mind, but if it's six feet deep and 15 feet wide, it could make a "nice swimming pool"; he felt some kind of fencing should be required to keep people out of it. He suggested that the provisions be amended to re- quire whatever fending and protection would be in order and necessary. Mr. Robins reiterated that "if you would require an underground collection system, you would eliminate this whole thing." Mr. Lentsch inquired of Mr. Waggoner what the traffic count out of: the .site onto Lafayette is estimated to be? Mr. Waggoner stated that the staff has assumed 1 /3 of the total cars in the site would be using the Lafayette points of access; this would be 417 automobiles during peak hours. Mr. Lentsch asked "about how many cars per hour use Girard now?" Mr. Waggoner stated that he could not say. Mr. Lentsch suggested possibly 1,000? Mr. Waggoner stated that he did not feel that figure would be correct. Mr. Ross stated he wished to have a little further discussion on the matter of drainage. He asked for clarification of the storage on park lands; he is co.ncerned how long there will be two feet or three feet of water in the park. Mr. Waggoner then reviewed the total drainage plan; the westerly 1 /3 of the site will drain to the northwest corner of the site at Lafayette and drain into the City system at Eastman and Lafayette. Mr. Waggoner stated that the Larwin Corporation has been allowed to drain 60 cfs into the City system; there will be three points of drainage outlet : the northwest corner of the site; .at South Franklin and East Floyd; at South High and East Floyd Avenue. Mr. Waggoner stated that the 100-year flow from the . westerly 1 /3 of the site is 49 cfs; this gives an additional 11 cfs that may be drainaged into the City system during peak hours from the remainder of the site. Mr. Waggoner stated that the eastern 2 /3 of the site has 141 cfs drainage, of which 11 cfs may be released to the City system; this requires storage of remainder until such time as .the City system can accommodate it. The storage ponds in the park are designed to hold approximately six acre feet. Mr. Waggoner further discussed some of the park design as presently proposed. Mr. Waggoner also discussed increasing the size of the pipes in the Englewood system, and a gate- valve system; if this could be accomplished; he felt the storage time could be cut to 2 - 2-1 /2 hours. Mr. Ross asked if there would be storm waters draining into the park from any where other than the subject site? Mr. Waggoner stated that there will be some drainage crossing this site to the storage area from the Highway; the State Highway Department is requiring that curb cuts slope away from the Highway, thereby allowing highway drai n age waters access to the site ~ Mr ~ Waggoner stated that there would be no drainage ~rom Floyd Avenue draining into the park storage area. Mr. Lentsch again discussed the traffic situation on Lafayette Street. Mr. Lentsch noted that Mr. Waggoner's suggested condition requires the developer to accomplish the "necessa ry work including removal and replacement of sidewalk, curb and gutter; installation of base course, pavement, etc.," at such time as it is felt necessary to widen the street. Mr . Lentsch asked about the setbacks that the developer has proposed for the structures? Mr. Roman stated that whatever setbacks are set forth in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance have been met by the developer. Mr. Waggoner stated that in his .memorandum he states that the City now has the necessary right-of-way to widen the street; he pointed out that parking could be eliminated on the east side of the street, and the street widened four ~eet. This would give an eight foot parking lane on the west side; two ten-foot lanes; two twelve-foot lanes. Mr. Clifford Harvey, 3345 South Lafayette -asked if the elimination of parking and widening of the street would be of much help? He noted that the homeowners on the west side of Lafayette may have need for parking on the east side of the street. Mr. Harvey stated that he would suggest that if there is a possibility of needing more room, the provisions should be made now; Larwin isn't giving up anything. Mr. Harvey stated that he was sure that residents of the apartments which front on Lafayette will also want to park on Lafayette; this will make it a mess for the residents on the west side, because some of the apartment residents may park in front of the homes on the west side. Discussion followed. Mr. Roman stated there would be no fencing along the Lafayette Street side; there would be landscaping. Page 1494 Mrs. Lynn Thompson asked "where are they going to put extra cars?" Mr. Lentsch noted that the developer has provided parking spaces over .and above that required by the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; that there are extra spaces which would accommodate some of the "extra cars." Mr. F. M. Stevenson asked if boats and campers would be permitted within the development, and if so ., where? He noted that boa ts and campers are not a !lowed in Kent Village, and he "would hope that Larwin will have the same restriction." Mr. Roman stated that Larwin has provided more parking spaces than what the Ordinance requires; he assumed if boats and campers were allowed within the development, they would be assigned one of the extra spaces. Mr. Paul Spencer asked if it was known where these assigned sp~ces for boats and campers would be located? Mr. Roman stated that he did not know where. Mr. Lentsch asked Mr. Roman "could we in any way give some consideration to. the problems on Lafayette?'' by providing additional space for widening of the street? Mr. Roman stated ye~, if the City would reduce the required setback by the amount of land Larwin would give for street widening. Condition #4 was then considered. Mr. Supinger stated that this condition is to be amended to read: Use of the 4.45 acres of land as shown on the site plan for public park purposes may be subject to intermittent storage of storm waters draining from the applicant's property up to a 100-year storm. Mrs. Henning stated that she was sure the people in the area are going to be concerned that the City is not "requiring" the dedication of the land for the park. She asked if there was some way that this assurance could be obtained, and not jeopardize the hope of obtaining Federal funds for development of the park? City Attorney Berardini suggeste~ that possibly the deed could be placed in escrow, or maybe a public. statement by Larwin of their desire 1o dedicate the land would be sufficient. Discussion followed. Mr. Roman suggested that possibly an option on the land, with two years for acceptance, could be worked out. Mr. Berardini suggested that whatever is worked out will have to be cleared through HUD, as it is their concern that the dedication of the land not be a "requirement" or condition on approval of the subdivision waiver. Mr. Ross asked if it would be possible to have a statement to the effect that the "applicant shall agree to and shall offer" the dedication of the land to the City? Mr. Roman also asked if the City could accept a statement in a public meeting that Larwin will dedicate the property to the City. He also referred to the Site Plan, which shows the park area, and stated that the City will be recording the site plan as Exhibit A. Discussion followed on Conditions #5 and #6; it was noted that the wording will have to be revised to avoid reference to the "park"; rather use "Parcel A11 or "Parcel B". Condition #7 was then considered. Mrs. Henning stated that she wished ciarification on one point; she then asked Public Works Director Waggoner. whet~er the trees along East Floyd Avenue have already been designated for removal? Mr. Waggoner stated that they have been designated for removal by the County Forester because of Dutch Elm disease. Condition #8 was considered. Mr. Ross stated that he felt this provision would take care of his concern about fencing around the storm drainage storage pond. Conditions #9 and #10 as suggested by the staff report were considered; no changes indicated. Condition #11, as suggested by Public Works Director Waggoner, was incorporated into the staff report, and is to be included as conditions set forth for the compliance of the de- veloper. Mr. Lentsch stated that he was still concerned about the traffic on Lafayette; if we don't widen it now or make provisions to widen it, he felt it would be doing the residents on Lafayette and injustice. Mr. Waggoner stated that the City now has 60 ft. right-of-way on Lafayette. Mr. Waggoner stated that this is the average width of all the streets in the City; the only ones wider are Yale Avenue and Oxford Avenue. The proposal is to move the sidewalk, curb and gutter, four feet to the east; this would provide for left-turn and right- turn movements. Mr. Waggoner stated that he could not see where the residents of the develop- ment would need parking on the street; there would be parking provided in close proximity within the development itself. Mr. Waggoner emphasized that parking on street is not a right; the street is to move traffic and not to provide parking. Mr. Thompson, 3110 South High Street, referred to Mr. Roman's comment that Larwin would pro- vide land for widening the street if the required setback were reduced by that amount, and asked if the widening just outlined by Mr. Waggoner reduced the required setback. Mr. Waggoner stated that it did not. Mr. Rich Clark, 3397 South Lafayette, stated he did not understand why there were no exits onto Floyd; this would relieve some of the problems that are being forced onto South Lafayette; he also suggested putting a street on the east side of the development along Kent Village, and he felt this could eliminate some of the problems of access to Hampd~n. Mr. Roman stated that the City's position has been that there will be no points of access other than emergency access onto Floyd Avenue; the Larwin Corporation has designed the site plan according to the desires of the City officials. Mr. Ed Nelson, 3355 South Lafayette, stated he feels there could be some outlet onto Floyd; this could reduce traffic on South Lafayette and U.S. 285. He also questioned the "security" provisions of the site, and asked why the property lines will not be fenced? Mr. Brown stated that he felt one reason there is not access onto Floyd is that the City needs as much park land as we can get, and that to have access points through the park will reduce the amount of l~nd to be devoted to park purposes. Mr. Goosman, 3335 South Lafayette, stated th~t about three weeks ago, Mrs. Henning had stated something about a "verbal agreement" that there should be no access to or from Floyd Avenue. He pointed out that Mr. Brown was in attendance at that meeting. Mr. Goosman stated that a verbal ag~eement of 10 years ago does nothing for the people living in the area at the present time. I I I I I I Page 1495 Mrs. Henning stated that this does bring up a legitimate point; she discussed the assurances that had been giv.en to residents living on Floy.ct Avenue in this area that there would not be access to or from Floyd, and also assurances given to residents on West Floyd Avenue that there would be "triangles" placed in intersections to prevent through traffic from the shopping center. Mrs. Henning stated that she felt the City has been lax in making these "verbal agreements", and that they should have been put in ordinance or. resolution form and passed by the Council so they would be a matter of record. Mr. ·Ross stated that he felt it should be kept in mind, as Councilman Brown pointed out, this is the first time there ~s a park of any kind provided in the northeast part of the City; if you change the design of the park you would diminish many uses that the Parks and Recreation Department have proposed for this particular site. Mr. Robins stated that he distinctly remembered Mr. Packy Romans stating that he did not like the shape of this park as is proposed by the developer. Mr. Ross then· referred to the · proposal by Mr. Robins of an underground storm water storage system; he asked who is going to pay for this? Mr. Robins stated that the whole thing is tied together; getting the park in the right shape, the drainage, access to Floyd Avenue to distribute traffic more evenly. Mrs. Henning asked if there is anything that would prevent future access to Floyd Avenue at Franklin Street? Mr. Waggoner stated that he felt there was a drainage aspect that would prevent access; a 11 bump 11 will be installed at this point to prevent drainage waters from passing onto Floyd Avenue, and to divert them to storage areas in the park. Mr. Nelson noted that there is an emergency access point at South Franklin; he asked why it couldn't be opened for general traffic 'use if the fire trucks can use it. Mr. Waggoner noted that the fire trucks will be traveling at a lower rate of ·speed than the average motorist, and will be able to get over the bump without losing control of the vehicle. Mr. Harvey reiterated that "if they can't do anything on Floyd then something should be done along Lafayette to widen it." Mr. Lentsch asked Mr : Harvey ·if he would be satisfied if the street were to be widened immediately? Mr. Harvey stated he didn't feel it was necessary at this point, but that provisions should be made for additional space to widen the street · at such time as it is necessary. Mrs. Henning pointed out that it is the decision of the City when and where to restrict on- street parking; she reiterated Mr. Waggoner's st~tement that on-street parking is not a right; if the City, should go ahead and have the street widened four feet, and restrict parking, it is the City's responsibility. Mrs. Henning stated that streets are to move traffic. The vote on the motion was called: AYES: Henning; Ross; Weist; Carlson NAYS: Brown; Lentsch; Robins; Stanley ABSENT: Vobejda ABSTAIN: None The motion failed. Henning moved: Ross seconded: The matter be tabled. The motion carried. Mrs. Henning suggested that because of the hour, the meeting be adjourned. So ordered. Meeting adjourned at 11:40 P. M. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * -* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 17, 1972 8:00 P. M. I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Lentsch at 8:00 P.M. Members present: Carlson; Lentsch; Ross; Vobejda; Stanley; Robins; Brown; Henning Romans, Acting ·Ex-officio Members absent: Weist Also present: City Attorney Berardini; Planning Assistant Young; Public Works Director Waggoner; Fire Chief Hamilton; Utilities Director Carroll; Director of Finance Nollenberger, and Parks & Recreation Director Romans. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Mr. Lentsch stated that the Minutes of the Special Meeting of September 26th, 1972, were to be considered for approval.