HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-10-17 PZC MINUTESI
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.
Page 1496
Brown moved:
Henning seconded: The Minutes of September 26, 1972, be approved as written.
Mr. Lentsch then discussed the motion considered at the October 3, 1972, meeting, which
motion was to approve the granting of the Larwin Multihousing Corporatioq Subdivision Waiver,
resulting in a 4 /4 vote. Immediately after the vot~ had been _ called, a motion w~s.made t~
table the matter. Mr. Lentsch asked ,an interpretation from City Attorney Berardini on this
matter. Mr. Berardini stated that it would be his view that the motion failed; he realizes
that the motion to table takes precedence, but he does feel the motion to approve did fail.
Mr. Berardini pointed out that the matter could be "reconsidered."
The vote on approval of 4he Minutes of September 26th was called; the motion carried.
III. LARWIN MULTIHOUSING CORPORATION CASE #31-72
Mr. Weist entered and took his place with the Commission.
Discussion followed on whether or not the matter is "tabled" and to be reconsidered under
Case #20-72; or whether it should be ruled a new consideration, and given a new Case number.
Mr. Berardini stated that he felt the Commission could reconsider the matter from last
meeting. Mr. Robins stated that "according to Roberts Rules of Order the only time you can
reconsider a motio~ is at the same meeting, or the next day." Mr. Berardini stated that he
did not feel this was the case. Further discussion followed.
The Chairman ruled that the application for a Subdivision Waiver filed by Larwin Multi-
housing Corporation would be considered as a "new case", and shall be given the Case Number
31-72. Mr. Lentsch then asked Mrs. Romans ~ acting ex-officio member, to review the matter.
Mrs. Romans pointed out that members of the Commission received a copy of a memorandum from
Community Development Director Supinger on October 13, 1972, in which memorandum 'is set forth
revised conditions as suggested by members of the Commission at the meeting of October 3rd.
Mrs. Romans then reviewed each condition set forth, and noted areas where changes had been .
made. Mrs. Romans noted that attached to the memorandum from Mr. Supinger, is a new plan
for the possible widening of South Lafayette Street from Floyd Avenue south to U.S. 285;
this has been prepared by Public Works Director Waggoner, and indicates the existing traffic
flow on Lafayette, and two alternate proposals. '
Mr. Ross stated he wished to question at whose expense the improvement of Floyd Avenue, as
set forth in Condition #7, shall be? Mrs. Romans stated that it would be at the expense of
the Larwin CorJX>ration, inasmuch as the improvements needed are on the south side of the
street.
Mr. Ross, referring to two plans, identified as "Exhibit B", for screening and landscaping
the east side of the Larwin site, asked "are the two exhibits before us tonight the exhibits
to be considered and to be filed?" Mrs. Romans stated that they are, and noted that there
are two alternate proposals, one using a wrought iron fence and the other a masonry wall;
it will be the responsibility of the Commission to determine which proposal is to be re-
quired and to so stipulate. If one of the plans is selected prior to the recording of the
waiver, that plan will then be filed as a condition to the waiver; if the Commission does
not select a plan, they will both be recorded as alternate plans. Mrs. Rom~ns noted that
it had been suggested by City Manger Dial that the landscape plan might be approved subject
to the approval of Mr. Packy Romans, Parks & Recreation Director, and let Mr. Romans work
with the applicants on the final planning of the landscaping.
Mr. Ross stated that it seems to him after having gone through this case a number of times,
that the Commission should be at a point where it can make a determination tonight whether
or not the members are going to approve or disapprove the application; but, the Commission
is also at a point where he feels it should have been several months ago. Mr. Ross stated
that there have been a number of discussions on this matter, some of which he has not been
able to attend. As a result of some of these discussions, there has been at least some
agreement between the developer, the Community Development Department, this Commission,
and other departments of the City. Mr. Ross stated that he thinks it might be in order to
review just exactly what it is the Commission can consider in determining the conditions,
if the Commission is so inclined to grant the waiver. Mr. Ross stated that he had spent
most of the day going through the Subdivision Regulations, and that he is going on the premise
that the Regulations are reasonable and that they place reasonable conditions upon the de-
velopment of a subdivision. If this premise is correct, and he stated that it is his own
legal opinion that it is, it would appear th~ cqnditions the Commission might want to con-
sider at this meeting would be those taken --at least in part --from the Subdivision Regula-
tions. Mr. Ross stated he would like to review the matter for Commission consideration and
to develop in more depth the basis for the decision. Mr. Ross cited the purpose of the
Subdivision Regulations, and quoted: "The purpose of this Chapter, and of the requirements
contained therein, is to provide for the proper arrangements of proposed streets, alleys
and other public ways in relation to the presently existing or planned streets, alleys and
other public ways and in relation to the City's master plan; to assure adequate, convenient
and accessible spaces and areas for vehicular and pedestrian travel, utilities, spaces and
areas for vehicular and pedestrian travel, utilities, fire-fighting and police equipment,
recreation, light and air; to avoid congestion of population; to avoid the crowding and
congested building of improvements; to restrict use of flood plain areas so as to avoid
potential flood damage; to allow the orderly planning and development of areas within the
City with a special view toward adequate storm drainage, sufficient traffic flow and proper
rendition of other municipal services thereto; to permit the transfer and conveyance of
realty within the ~ity with more facility and ease, and to establish standards and pro-
cedures for the attainment of these purposes and for the enforcement of this Chapter."
Mr. Ross stated that assuming the application for a waiver to the Subdivision Regulations
was rejected by the Commission, the developer would have to prepare a~d submit a plat to
the Planning Commission. The Commission would then have to consider all the matters pre-
viously cited from the Subdivision Regulations in making a decision on that Plat. Mr.
Ross then discussed the materials that would have to be submitted with the filing of a
plat, such as a vicinity sketch reflecting the location of the n~arest public and private
schools; all previously dedicated or deeded streets, whether opened or not within 1300
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 1497
feet of each boundary of the site; the nearest commercially zoned district, whether the
same is within or without the boundaries of the City of Englewood; and the nearest park or
other recreational facility. Mr. Ross further reviewed the duties of the Commission in
considering a subdivision plat, both the preliminary plat and the final design. Mr. Ross
stated that the Subdivision Regulations also provide certain planning principles the Com-
mission can consider --they are guide lines only, but they are factors in the consideration
of the approval or disapproval of the plat .. These principles include: consideration of
the Master Plan, Storm Drainage Plan, Master Street Plan, Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
and the general requirements of the community, the particular requirements of the neighbor-
hood, the topography of the land, and the best use of the land to be subdivided. Particular
attention is to be given to the matter of parks, playgrounds, school sites, public building
sites, principal roads, adequacy of street connections and the suitability of the land for
development. Mr. Ross noted there may be "reserve strips on the outer boundaries of a sub-
division to control access"; the Commission may also require "suitably located open spaces"
in a multi-family development which open spaces will be used for parks, playgrounds and
recreational purposes within such area. These spaces shall be dedicated for the common
use of the public, or be established by covenants or other conditions in deed or deeds for
the use of the public. Mr. Ross stated that among the final provisions in the Subdivision
Regulations, is the statement that "irrespective of whether the land upon which the building
or other improvement is to be constructed is a part of a subdivision plan approved pursuant
to the provisions of the ordinance, the Director of Public Works must certify in writing
that the construction of the same shall not substantially increase the amount of surface
drainage in the area, or, in lieu thereof, the owner installs such adequate and sufficient
storm sewers or other drainage structures approved by the Director of Public Works to
safely carry the increased runoff without danger or damage to other properties." In lieu
of the above provisions, the land owner may provide a cash or approved letter of surety
from a bank, savings and loan institution, insurance company or other qualified lending
institution, or have a letter from FHA or the VA evidencing that sufficient monies have been
escrowed to guarantee the completion of the improvements within such period as shall be
determined by the Commission.
Mr. Ross stated that he felt one of the most important considerations is that of congestion
of traffic, and that a second most important consideration is the matter of whether or not
proper and adequate facilities are available, or will be available with reasonable certainty,
to carry off any drainage that is unnaturally diverted. A third consideration is whether
or not there are proper provisions for, or proper consideration being given to, the school
system into which the children in the area will go --which school system can best handle
the school population that will be living in the site? Fourth, Mr. Ross stated that at the
last meeting, he had felt the conditions that had been proposed to and by the Commission
were sufficient ~n his own mind to justify approval of the waiver. Since that meeting,
however, Mr. Ross stated that he has decided there is a need for additional conditions to
be imposed, and there is also need for amendment to the conditions as proposed in the
staff report. Mr. Ross stated that the authority is imposed on the Commission by the Sub-
division Regulations that they must take into consideration the particular requirements of
the neighborhood. In that connection, it seems proper to him to consider that the conditions
attached to the waiver, if it should be granted, are such that the development fits in with
the particular neighborhood in which it is located, so there is not drainage facilities to
accommodate the development. Mr. Ross stated that he felt the Commission should take into
consideration the plans for the drainage system that the City has in mind, and the con-
struction scheduling of this proposed system, sothat it can be assured when this proposed
development is built, the drainage facilities will be available to carry the water. Mr.
Ross stated that he felt when the raw land was "turned into concrete", the water runoff
would be increased, and that drainage facilities must be there to meet the need. He
stated that he thinks everybody realizes that at some point this property is going to be
developed, and there is no question in anybody's mind that this particular piece of property,
and the size of the property, is unusual and that the land is expensive. Mr. Ross stated .
that the subject site is probably one of the most choice tracts of open land in the metro-
Denver area. Mr. Ross stated that he felt the Commission will want to consider all the
things of which he has spoken in making their decision. Mr. Ross stated that he felt the
Commission members must consider what they and the people want Englewood to be in the
future. He noted that there are a number of people living in Englewood who live here be-
cause it is a community that is not one of "high-density". Mr. Ross stated that he has
reviewed the Comprehensive Plan, and doesn't like the projected high-density areas in the
City. Mr. Ross cited the development of Arlington, Virginia, and stated the beauty was
taken away by making it nothing more than a bedroom of Washington, D.C. Mr. Ross stated
that he is one of those who live in Englewood, and make their living in Denver; but he does
care what happens to Englewood. Mr. Ross stated that the projected high-density in Englewood
from Dartmouth nearly to Belleview will mean congestion of traffic, cars, doubling of
the population. Mr. Ross stated that there is a thoroughfare through Englewood now, which
carries traffic from one end of the metropolitan area to the other, and that this traffic
goes right along the south boundary of the proposed development. Mr. Ross stated that he
felt another thing that is very important is the fact that the Commission can impose con-
ditions with respect to open space --land that can be used for parks and recreation and
other open space uses. Mr. Ross reviewed the meeting of the Planning Commission with the
Parks & Recreation Commission in March of this year; at that time it was pointed out that
there were standards being developed and recommended for adoption on the amount of open
space required in ratio to population. One of the standards set forth is a minimum of 10%
of undeveloped land shall be reserved for open space purposes. Mr. Ross pointed out that
DRCOG already has a standard of 10.5 acres of open space/park area for 1,000 population.
Mr. Ross stated that even though we are basically "redeveloping" the City, he felt we should
attempt to get as close to the minimum standards as possible; in this case, require that at
least 10% of the total land mass be set aside for public park purposes. Mr. Ross stated
that he felt it is interesting to note that if the subject site were to be platted, at least
25% of the land would be devoted to public streets and alleys --this would be eight or nine
acres in streets and alleys. Mr. Ross stated that he can see a great problem developing with
respect to the traffic on South Lafayette Street; this plan calls for three access points
onto Lafayette Street itself, one of which will be at the Girard intersection. There are
only three main access points to the entire site --the one at Girard on Lafayette, and two
onto U.S. 285, Mr. Ross stated that it is within the authority of this Commission to impose
a condition requiring additional dedication of land for widening of South Lafayette Street
to take care o f the traffic generated by this development. Mr. Ross stated that he realized
no one knows at this point just how the traffic pattern will develop, but in any event, this
Commission does have authority to place this type of condition on the developer. Mr. Ross
stated at this point that he has devised a list of conditions he would like to see imposed
on the Larwin Multihousing Corporation, if the Commission determines that the waiver should
be granted. The conditions as written by Mr. Ross are as follows:
Page 1498
1. Development of the subject parcel shall comply with the provisions of 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") which shall be approved by the Commission and attached hereto and by reference made
a part hereof and shall be limited to a ~ximum of 1,200 dwelling units plus ancillary
structures for recreation and security purposes •. The General Development Plan shall pro-
vide for not less than 45% of the total land mass of the tract to be set aside for open
space and recreational purposes. Dwelling units for families of school age children
shall be located in the school district of the City of Englewood. The site plan, which
shall become a part of the General Development Plan, subject to approval of the Commission,
shall have indicated thereon, the height of each individual structure, the maximum lot
coverage, and said site plan shall be recorded.
3. Development of the subject parcel may proceed in stages subject to approval of the
following items prior to the issuance of Building Permits:
a. As a further condition, the Larwin Multihousing Corporation agrees to be responsible
for and to protect, save harmless and indemnify the City of Englewood, Colorado,
adjacent or other property owners and residents from and against all loss, damage,
cost and expense of every kind and description suffered or sustained by the said
City of Englewood, or for which said City may be held or become liable by reason
of injury, including death, to persons or property, or other causes whatsoever in
the event an attempt should be made to hold the City liable therefor, and by the
said adjacent or other property owners and residents, caused directly or indirectly
by Larwin Multihousing Corporation in connection with and during the entire period
of development of said tract of land.
b. Compliance with the provisions of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.
c. 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, of not less than a 11 100-year storm", up.til the
completion of the Northeast Englewood Basin storm drainage system by the City to
handle a "two-year storm". In the event of any increase in or unnatural water run-
off during the development of said tract of land which causes danger or damage to
facilities of the City of Englewood or to adjacent or other property owners and
residents, then the Director of Public Works shall have the right to order the
stoppages of any further development until such time as the Larwin Corporation pro-
vides adequate safeguards to any such danger or possible future damage.
d. 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 runoff on either the applicant's property, or that dedicated to the
City by the applicant for public park purposes.
e. Approval of fire lanes and emergency access by the Fire Chief. (Applicant shall
agree to designate, and identify by signs acceptable to the Fire Chief, said fire
lanes and spotting ramps prior to the i~suance of Occupancy Permits for each phase
or stage.)
f. 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 pro-
vided for lines intended to be in public ownership.
g. Approval of plans for the locations and specifications of on-site sanitary sewer
lines by the Director of Utilities. Easements shall be provided for lines intended
to be in public ownership.
h. 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. The City of Englewood gratefully acknowledges applicant's offer to dedicate to the Cit~
approximately 5.45 acres of land, so designated (Parcel. "A") on the General Development
Plan (Exhibit "A"), for public park purposes at such time as the City is willing to
accept the same. Use of said land for public park purposes may be subject to intermittent
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 Parcel "A", based upon
a design for Parcel "A" by the City. Applicant will complete rough grading for Parcel
"A", and will retain the topsoil from the parcel for City's use in improving said parcel.
6. Temporary drainage provisions shall be made by applicant to prevent silt from unimproved
areas of the property from being deposited in Parcel "A".
7. Floyd Avenue shall be improved in accordance with the specifications of the City of
Englewood, including sidewalk, curb, gutter and paving. Ingress and egress from and to
Floyd Avenue, other than for emergency purposes, shall not be provided except upon prior
approval of the Commission.
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. 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 additional
traffiG cap~city, the Applicant shall dedicate five feet (5') of land for said purposes.
Unless otherwise determined by the said Director of Public Works, or this Commission,
such dedication may not be required sooner than two (2) years nor later than five (5)
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 1499
years from the date of approval. Installation of any such improvements shall be at
applicant's expense.
11. Landscaping along the east boundary of subject site shall be installed as per the
specific plan as shown on Exhibit B. At .least .50% of the space along said eastern
boundary as originally proposed by Larwin be relocated inside the development with the
said eastern boundary landscaped in such manner so as to permit an esthetic buffer to
Kent Village without reducing substantially the view of Kent Village residents to the
West; and, further, that all trash facilities pertaining to those easterly buildings
in the project be provided for pick-up and otherwise on the west side of said buildings.
12. 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 Community Development with the advice of other City Department Heads
in .their fields of expertise.
Mr. Ross stated that these are the conditions he would propose. He stated that he recognizes
the conditions he has proposed i~clude some that are rather drastic, but that he has con-
sidered the request in relation to congestion of traffic, popula t ·ion, and drainage, citing
that in his opinion, there is a drainage problem in the area now, and that ~e don't know
what the scheduling of construction is to have proper drainage facilities constructed by
the City to accommodate the development. Mr. Ross stated that it is the City's responsibility
to provide the drainage facilities; he pointed out that the City drainage system has not yet
been started, and there is a possibility of drainage being increased from the subject site
as a result of construction on the site. Mr. Ross stated that he would like to state he
feels this application for subdivision waiver "got off on the wrong foot; I don't feel all
the home-work that could have been done and coordination that could have been done was done
with respect to the extent that this Commission was informed." Mr. Ross stated that he was
surprised to find in the Larwin file, a letter which indicates that the granting of an ap-
plication for waiver by the Commission was pro forma. Mr. Ross stated that he feels this
kind of statement should have been discussed by the staff with the Commission when it was
made relative to property of the kind and type being considered at this time. Mr. Ross
stated that he would have hoped that this Commission could have sat down with Larwin rep-
resentatives in the very beginning and worked out many of the problems that have finally
been indicated after many weeks of discussion. Mr. Ross stated he can't help but be
sympathetic to the Larwin Corporation; he knows that the project is costing them considerable
money, and that it is unfortunate the matter has developed in the way it has. Mr. Ross
added that he thinks the Commission is at a point where it can make some decisions, and that
the members can come to a conclusion of the matter if they can get agreement of kinds of
conditions to be placed on the Subdivision Waiver.
Mr. Robins stated he concurred with Mr. Ross that the Commission should have been informed
a long time ago on what was going on and that there should not have been anything said or
done without the knowledge of the Commission. Mr. Robins asked Mr. Kells Waggoner why the
Engineering Department "insists drainage collection be on Floyd?" Mr. Waggoner asked what
Mr. Robins would suggest? Mr. Robins stated it should be put underground,. and asked what
will be done with the silt draining into the park. He stated that, in his opinion, this
park is primarily for the collection of drainage waters and not for park purposes. Mr.
Waggoner asked if Mr. Robins felt that 1 % is "primary?" Mr. Robins stated that he felt the
"collection of water is primary." Mr. Waggoner stated that he felt the park would be termed
"multi-purpose." Mr. Robins then further discussed his opinion of the drainage matter, and
suggested that larger pipes should be considered to accommodate the drainage. Mr. Robins
why the sizing of the pipes was set as it is? Mr. Waggoner stated that the pipe size was
determined by the City Council --Council hired the consulting firm who set up the criteria
for a two-year storm. Mr. Waggoner stated that the entire drainage system for the City is
based on a two-year storm, and the two-year storm drainage from the subject site is 60 cfs;
this has determined the size of the pipe used for the drainage system. Mr. Waggoner stated
that it would be a matter of economics as far as increasing the size of the pipe is concerned.
He estimated that it would cost in the neighborhood of $300,00Q to increase the size of the
pipe by 6 11 in this particular area. Mr. Robins stated he felt the estimate was "a matter
of opinion". Mr. Waggoner agreed that it was, indeed, "a matter of opinion."
Mr. Robins then discussed the traffic to be generated from the subject site, and the dis-
persal of that traffic onto City streets. Mr. Robins stated that he felt "we should put
the traffic where we want it; once this is built, you can never change the traffic pattern."
He suggested that the park should be square and should be located on the northeast corner
of the site, and that access should be given to and from Floyd. Mr. Robins pointed out that,
in his opinion, a majority of the traffic will exit on Lafayette and thence to Floyd Avenue
anyway, so why not disperse traffic directly onto Floyd?·
Mr. Ross stated that he felt possible wording should be added to the conditions to the ef-·
feet that if the time comes when there needs to be access to Floyd Avenue, that access
points should be located so they are "mid-block", and do not intersect with streets extending
north of Floyd Avenue; it is his feeling that this arrangement will divert traffic onto
Floyd Avenue and will be of some protection to the through residential streets north of
Floyd Avenue.
Mr. Robins stated that he is not against the project but he feels some things have to be
done; it will be there 50 .to 75 years, and the City and developer should make it right in
the first place and have it over with. Mr. Robins stated he felt there won't be much
traffic going on 285 from the site; but that all of the traffic is going to go onto
Lafayette and spread out from there.
Mr. Howard Brown stated he wished to address some remarks to the matter of the park; he
stated that he felt the citizens of the Northeast Englewood area worked very hard to get
the park in the community. Mr. Brown stated he agreed with Public Works Director Waggoner
that this park will serve several purposes. Mr. Brown stated he is very grateful the City
is going to have a park in the NGrtheast area of the City. Mr. Brown stated he "thinks the
develoi::er realizes it's something they don't have to do, but they are doing it ·anyway." Mr.
Brown then discussed the matters of drainage and traffic. Mr. Brown stated that he had
great respect for the City personnel who are in charge of studying the matter of drainage
and traffic; he added that "l haven't had experience with drainage .and traffic; we could
question their judgement, but I question our right to put ourselves above them." Mr. Brown
stated h~ felt the City was paying good money to hire personnel with the expertise required
Page 1500
for a particular department. Mr. Brown stated that he fe~t if the Co~ission doesn't have
faith in our personnel and respect their determ~nations,_"then we are .in ~rouble." Mr. Brown
stated that "for Mr. Robins' information, the City Council has been studying th~ matter of
drainage since 1969; this is the first Council that has even come close to solving t~e problems
that exist as far as drainage is concerned." Mr. Bro~n stated that Denver has ~xperienced
some delays as far as the drainage system extending from Yale to Harvard Gulch is concerned,
and this has, therefore, delayed the start of construction on the Englewood system. M~.
Brown stated that the Council feels they have now reached the answer as f~r as ~he draina~e
matter is concerned, and it is now time to have a little faith in the people paid for their
expertise.
Mr. Ross stated that he agreed with Mr. Brown; however, he asked "when is the drainage
project that will serve this development going to begin?"
Mr. Brown stated that he understood contracts will be let in the early part of December;
the construction will begin in the Northeast Englewood basin, which is the #1 priority. Mr.
Waggoner expanded on this, and stated that a federal application was approved in the amount
of $645,400 for the drainage system in the northwest and northeast Englewood basins; Denver .
has approved the final design for their portion of the system, and the final design for
Englewood is almost completed. The City expects to open bids on November 29th on the North-
west Englewood area, on No.vember 30th on the Northeast Englewood area, and to award the
contracts on December 4, 1972. Mr. Waggoner pointed out that HUD must approve the contracts;
contractors will be given eight months completion .deadl.ine and separate contracts will
probably be awarded to different contractors for each area.
Mr. Lentsch stated that right now he didn't care what Council was doing, and he didn't want
to get into any further discussion of that matter. Mr. Lentsch stated that he was a little
disgusted at this point --that the Commission should be looking at what they want to have
in the way of conditions on the waiver, and what the recommendation should be. He asked if
there were any questions from the CoIIlijlission . .
Mrs. Henning stated that she did agree with one of Mr. Ross' conditions, that of ingress
and egress on Floyd Avenue; she agreed that this should not be changed except on approval
of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Ross stated with respect to the authority grapted the Commission under the Subdivision
Regulations --the authority to require such conditions as may be reasonable --it seems to
him that one of the most important of those factors the Commission should consider is the
effect the development will have on the particular neighborhood, and with special reference
to congestion of traffic. He stated he felt the Commission will want to keep in mind that
the majority of the residents in the area adjacent to this particular site own the property
on which they live; the proposed development is totally a rental-development, which gives
it an entirely different character from the neighborhood to which it is adjacent. Mr. Ross
stated that he "isn't suggesting renters are less responsible than property owners, but in
my view it does make a difference." He stated that "it seems it is important to consider
the population that would . be living in the area and the kinds of appurtenances these people
will bring with them.'.' Mr. Ross stated that with a total of 1500 .units, and an average of
three persons per unit, there would be a possible population of 4,500 on the site, and the
kinds of . traf;fic congestion this would create would be "substantial and immense." Mr. Ross
stated that the matter of congestiop is a proper consideration of the Commission, and in
his opinion, it is within the power of the Commission to grant the waiver conditioned upon
the number of people to be in this particular development with respect to their causing the
kinds of cong~stioµ to which he has referred. Mr. Ross stated that his proposal of limiting
the units to 1200 would reduce the expected congestion by at least 20%. Mr. Ross then dis-
cussed his proposal that the Director of Public Works be given the power to place a stop
order on construction in the event the drainage system doesn't get built in time for this
project, or the scheduling is such that it doesn't coincide with the location of drainage
problems. This provision gives the Director of Public Works the authority to stop con-
struction until such time as the Larwin Corporation makes provision for adequate safeguards
to any danger or possible damage. Mr. Lentsch asked Mr. Waggoner if he felt such a condition
would be satisfactory. Mr. Waggoner stated that he saw nothing wrong with it. Mrs. Henning
stated that she felt this particular prov~sion was so broadly worded that it goes beyond
the Commission's authority. If this is what the Commission wants, then it should be
authorized by Council and pertain to all construction throughout the City. Mr. Ross dis-
agreed; he stated that the "Subdivision Regulations provide that if conditions are unacceptable
to the developer he may then appeal the matter to City Council." Mr. Ross stated he didn't
feel it is an unreasonable condition to be placed on this project or any other; neither did
he feel it needed Council approval because the Commission has authority to place reasonable
restrictions or reasonable conditions on the developer. Mr. Ross again stated that he felt
this condition is perfectly reasonable.
Mrs. Stanley stated that she agreed with Mr. Ross; in this particular situation "we do have
a very serious draina~e matter."
Mr. Waggoner stated he felt the City was covered in this matter at the present time; the con-
ditions state that the Director of Public Works can require on-site retention of 100-year
storm waters until the City system is in, and still provides for retention on-site of waters
in excess of the 60 cfs allowed to drain from the Larwin site. Mr. Waggoner stated 11 if it
comes over a 100-year storm, God help us all"; he cited the 1965 flood on the Platte River,
a 250-year storm, and stated that "you cannot cover every eventuality." Mr. Waggoner stated
he felt to require Larwin to provide over a 100-year storm is completely unreasonable,
adding that the City's doesn't even design bridges for over a 100-year storm. Mr. Ross
stated that his condition only says the Director of Public Works would have authority to
stop construction.
Mr. Berardini questioned the 1200 unit limitation as suggested by Mr. Ross; he asked if Mr.
Ross felt this was a reasonable condition? Mr. Ross stated that he did, in view of all other
considerations. Mr. Berardini stated that he would nave to view it as a type of legislation
which would be in conflict with Gounc~l's power. Mr. Berardini pointed out that the R-3-A
Zone Dist~ict would allow approximately 5,000 units on this particular site; the covenants
placed on the property by the pre~ious .property owner limit the density to 1,500 units. Mr.
Berardini stated that whatever can be done in regard to the density should be consistent
with legislative powers. Mr. Berardini stated that if the Commission t elt they could re-
strict the devel~pment to such a point, they should zone the property back to R-1-A; he did
not feel they had the power to restrict the units below the 1,500 as Mr. Ross suggests. Dis-
cussion followed.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 1501
Mr. Brown stated he wished to apologize to the members of the Commission and to the audience
for getting ·upset in relation to the drainage matter. Mr. Brown stated that he felt Mr. Ross
had presented some very good points; he questioned what would happen if the Commission im-
posed additional conditions on the granting of the waivex, and the applicant does not accept
the conditions and filed a subdivision plat --can the Commission still require the conditions?
Mr. Ross pointed out -that the applicant could always apply for a Planned Development.
Mr. Robins stated that Mr. Ross' suggestions are completely new and the Commission has not
had ·an opportunity to consider them in depth.
Robins moved: The Commission have an executive meeting and consider in depth all
conditions proposed to determine the final recommendation of the
Commission.
There was no second to the motion.
Mr. Lentsch stated that he felt the Commission should be able to resolve this matter at
this meeting; he did not see that there was a need for still further meetings on this par-
ticular question.
Mr. Robins pointed out that there is one set of recommendations before the Commission from
the staff, and that Mr. Ross has proposed some very importa~t recommendations; will the Com-
mission accept the conditions as proposed by the staff, or those proposed by Mr. Ross? Dis-
cussion fellowed.
Ross moved:
Henning seconded: The application for a Subdivision Waiver submitted by Larwin Multihousing
Corporation be granted for the following reasons:
1. The intent · and purpose of the Subdivision Regulations, as set forth
in §12-3-l(b) will be met by compliance with the conditions to which
the approval is subject, as well as the recording of all documents,
plans and agreements as set forth · herein;
2. No substantial benefits would be gained by the City or by the
public from requiring a subdivision plat to be prepared, approved
and filed, subject to compliance on the part of Larwin Corporation
to the foll0wing amended revised conditions as contained within the
Staff Report:
1. Development of the subject parcel shall comply with the pro-
visions of 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 be limited to a maximum
of 1,500 dwelling units plus ancillary structures for recreation
and security purposes. The site plan shall have indicated there-
on the height of each individual structure, the maximum lot
coverage, and said site plan shall be recorded.
3. Development of the subject parcel may proceed in stages subject
to approval of the following items prior to the issuance of
Building Permits:
a. As a further condition, the Larwin Multihousing Corporation
agrees to be responsible for and to protect, save harmless
and indemnify the City of Englewood, Colorado, from and
against all loss, damage, cost and expense of every kind
and description suffered or sustained by the said City of
Englewood, or for which said City may be held or become
liable by reason of injury, including death, to persons or
property, or other causes whatsoever in the event an attempt
should be made to hold the City liable therefor, in connection
with the negligence of Larwin Multihousing Corporation during
the entire period of development of said tract of land.
b. Compliance with the provisions of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance.
c. Approval of on-site grading and storm drainage plans by the
Director of Public Works. Such approval may, at the dis-
cretion of the Director of Public Works, require the on-site
storage of storm drainage water, of not less than a 11 100-year
storm", until the completion of the Northeast Englewood
Basin storm drainage system by the City to handle a 11 two-
year storm."
d. 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 runoff on either the applicant's property, or that
dedicated to the City by the applicant for public park purposes.
e. Approval of fire lanes and emergency access by the Fire Chi·ef.
(Applicant shall agree to designate, and identify by signs
acceptable to the Fire Chief, said fire lanes and spotting
ramps prior to the issuance of Occupancy Permits for each
phase or stage.)
£. 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.
Page 1502
g. 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
ownership.
h. 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. The City of Englewood gratefully acknowledges applicant's offer to
dedicate to the City, approximately 4.45 acres of land, so designated
(Parcel "A") on the General DevelopmE;mt Plan (Exhibit "A") for public
park purposes at such time as the City is willing to accept the same.
Use of said land for public park purposes may be subject 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
Parcel "A", based upon a design for Parcel "A" by the City. Applicant
will complete rough grading for Parcel "A", and will retain the top-
soil from the parcel for City's use in improving said parcel.
6. Temporary drainage provisions shall be made by applicant to prevent
silt from unimproved areas of the property from being deposited in
Parcel "A".
7. Floyd Avenue shall be improved in accordance wit~ the specifications
of the City of Englewood, 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. 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 additional traffic capacity, the Ap-
plicant shall dedicate five feet (5') of land for said purposes.
Such dedication may not be required sooner than two (2) years nor
later than five (5) years from the date of approval. Installation
of any such improvements shall be at applicant's expense.
11. Landscaping along the east boundary of subject site shall be in-
stalled as per the specific plan as shown on Exhibit B.
12. All plans for the proposed development shall be recorded, with the
subdivision waiver, in the office of the Couµty 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 Community Development with the advice of other City Department
Heads in their fields of expertise.
Mr. Ross stated he would now like to offer amendments to the conditions.
Condition #1 was not amended.
Condition #2 in the staff report was considered; Mr. Ross offered the following amendment:
Ross moved:
Robins seconded: Development of the subject parcel shall comply with the General Develop-
ment Plan (Exhibit "A") which shall be approved by the Commission and
attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof and shall be limited
to a maximum of 1,200 dwelling units plus anpillary structures for recre-
ation and security purposes. The General Development Plan shall provide
for not less than 45% of the total land mass of the tract to be set
aside for open space and recreational purposes. Dwelling units for
families of school age children shall be located in the school district
of the City of Englewood. The site plan, which shall become a part of
the Genera~ Development Plan, subject to approval of the Commission,
shall have indicated thereon the height of each individual structure,
the maximum lot coverage, and said site plan shall be recorded.
Mr. Robins discussed the Supreme Court decision on the matter of the zoning. Mrs. Henning
pointed out that the Supreme Court ruling is that the R-3-A zoning by the City is proper; the
covenants placed on the land for a density limitation of 1,500 units runs to the Planning
Commission, and were placed on that land by the previous owner. Mr. Berardini also informed
Mr. Robins that the ruling of the Court was that the R-3-A zoning was proper. Mrs. Henning
stated that she felt the Commission had to abide by the City Attorney's opinion that the
lowering of the density to 1,200 units would be out of the Commission's authority. Mr.
Carlson also pointed out that the Commission does not have the aµthority to decide what
school district a parcel of land will be in; until the two school districts get together and
decide what to do, there is nothing the Commission can do about it.
Mr. Ross stated that he would again comment that, in his opinion, it is within the power of
this Commission because it is within the power of the Commission on approval of subdivision
waivers to take into consideration the matters of congestion, etc. Mr. Ross pointed out that
the Subdivision Regulations also speaks to the matter of schools available to a proposed de-
velopment. In this particular instance,. Englewood School District is losing population,
and the Cherry Creek District is rapidly growing. According to the information Mr. Ross has,
the Englewood School District will welcome additional students in the system.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 1503
Mrs. Henning pointed out that the Commission has received. notification from school officials
of both school districts that students from tbis site can be accommodated. Mrs. Henning
questioned whether the Commission could go beyond that point, and again emphasized that the
Commission does have approval from both school districts. Mr. Ross stated that he felt by
requiring the family units to be within the Englewood School District, it v.ould assure "young
citizens in the city"; he stated that he understood that some of the aims of the City ad-
ministration was to attract families.
The vote was called on the amendment:
AYES:
NAYS:
Stanley; Ross; Lentsch; Robins; Brown
Henning; Vobejda; Weist; Carlson
The amendment carried ..
Mrs. Henning stated that she felt the Commission had gone beyond their prerogative, and
that she saw no further reason to consider further amendments. Discussion followed. Mr.
Carlson stated that this Planning Commission cannot take students out of one school dis-
trict and put them into another school district. Mrs. Henning also pointed out that the
matter of density is out of the jurisdiction of the Commission.
Henning moved:
Vobejda seconded: That amended Condition #2 be further amended by striking the figure
1200 and re-inserting 1500 dwelling units.
AYES:
NAYS:
Weist; Carlson; Henning; Lentsch; Vobejda
Stanley; Brown; Robins; Ross '.
The motion carried.
Mr. James Roman, representing the Larwin Multihousing Corporation, discussed the placement
of the family units on the eastern portion of the site. Mr. Roman pointed out that there
is less street exposure on ~he eastern portion, and it was felt that this was a safety
factor that roust be considered in placement of the family units. The family area would be
bounded by the proposed park on the North; Kent Village on the east; a small street front-
age on U·. S. 285 on the south, and by the central portion of the development on the west.
Mr. Roman then discussed the matter of the school districts; Larwin Corporation has written
to both districts, and both districts have replied that they can handle the children from
the site. Mr. Roman stated that Larwin has met with representatives of both School Districts
to initiate annexation of the entire site to the Englewood School District; it is now beyond
Larwin's control, and he feels it is also beyond the control of the Planning Commission.
Condition #3 in the staff report was considered.
Ross moved:
Robins seconded: Condition #3a be amended as follows: As a further condition, the
Larwin Multihousing Corporation agrees to be responsible for and to
protect, save harmless and indemnify the City of Englewood, Colorado,
adjacent or other property owners and residents from and against all
loss, damage, cost and expense of every kind and description suffered
or sustained by the said City of Englewood, or for which said City may
be ' held or become liable by reason of injury, including death, to persons
or property, or other causes whatsoever in the event an attempt should
be made to hold the Cit~ liable therefor, and by the said adjacent or
other property owners and residents, caused directly or indirectly by
Larwin Multihousing Corporation in connection with and during the entire
period of development of said tract of land.
Discussion followed. The vote was called:
AYES:
NAYS:
Carlson; Brown; Lentsch; Robins; Stanley; Ross
Weist; Vobejda; Henning
The motion carried.
Ross moved:
Stanley seconded:
The vote was called:
Condition #3c be amended to read: 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 Wo_rks, require the
on-site storage of storm drainage water, of not less than a 11 100-year
storm", until ·the completion of the Northeast Englewood Basin storm
drainage system by the City to handle a "two-year storm". In the event
of any increase in or unnatural water runoff during the development of
said tract of land which causes danger or damage to facilities of the .
City of Englewood or to adjacent or other property owners and residents,
then the Director of Public Works shall have the right to order the
stoppages of any further development until such time as the Larwin
Corporation provides adequate safeguards to any such danger or possible
future damage.
AYES:
NAYS:
Ross; Robins; Stanley; Carlson; Brown; Lentsch
Weist; Vobejda; Henning
The amendment carried.
Staff conditions #3d, 3e, 3f, 3g, and 3h were not amended.
Staff condition #4 was considered:
Ross moved:
Stanley seconded: Condition #4 be amended to read: The City of Englewood gratefully
acknowledges applicant's offer to dedicate to the City, approximately
5.45 acres of land, so designated (Parcel "A") on the General Develop-
Page 1504
ment Plan (Exhibit "A"), for public park purposes at such time as the C~ty
is willing to accept the same. Use of said land for public park purposes
may be subject to intermittent storage of storm waters draining from ap-
plicant's property .created by up to a 100-year storm.
Mrs. Henning commented that this matter has been considered and discussed in depth previously,
and she does not feel it is a question at this point.
Mr. James Roman stated that the Larwin Corporation will voluntarily dedicate 4.45 acres of
land to the City; they do not feel they can dedicate more. Mr. Roman pointed out that the
project as proposed will have 46% of open space within the development itself. Further dis-
cussion followed. Mr. Ross pointed out that standards set forth indicate at least 10% of
the total land mass should be devoted to public park and recreational purposes; the 5.45
acres would be closer to the minimum standards than the 4.45 acres. Mrs .. Henning discussed
the matter of obtaining Federal Aid for development of the park, and expressed fear that
requiring 5.45 acres would jeopardize the possibility of obtaining that Federal Aid. Mr.
Ross pointed out that he was "only suggesting a change in figures --it is not a language
change."
The vote was called:
AYES: Robins; Stanley; Brown; Ross
NAYS: Vobejda; Lentsch; Carlson; Henning; Weist
The motion failed.
Staff conditions #5 and #6 were not offered for amendment.
Staff condition #7 was considered.
Ross moved:
Henning seconded:
The vote was called:
Condition #7 be amended to read: Floyd Avenue shall be improved, at
applicant's expense, in accordance with the specifications of the City
of Englewood, including sidewalk, curb, gutter and paving. Ingress and
egress from and to Floyd Avenue, other than for emergency purposes,
shall not be provided except upon prior approval of the Commission.
AYES:
NAYS:
Vobejda; Weist; Brown; Carlson; Henning; Lentsch; Robins; Ross; Stanley
None
The motion carried.
No amendments were offered to staff conditions #8 and #9.
Staff condition #10 was considered.
Ross moved:
Stanley seconded: Condition #10 be amended to read as follows: 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
additional traffic capacity, the Applicant shall dedicate five feet
(5') of land for said purposes. Unless otherwise determined by the
said Director of Public Works, or this Commission, such dedication
may not be required sooner than two (2) years nor later than five (5)
years from ~he date of approval. Installation of any such improvements
shall be at applicant's expense.
Mrs. Henning questioned the purpose of this amendment? Mr. Ross stated that it intended to
clarify that in the event traffic on Lafayette becomes so bad prior to two years passing of
time, the Director of Public Works or this Commission have the authority to require that the
street be dedicated sooner than originally proposed to handle the traffic problem. Mrs.
Henning pointed out that if this were to be required before the two-year tim~ periqd set
forth, this could necessitate revision of the site plan in the event no structures have
been placed along Lafayette; she pointed out that the Commission does not have the power to
vary setbacks, and it is possible that the Board of Adjustment would not approve the request
for a variance if no structures had been built. Mr. Robins suggested that the time limitation
on both ends --that is, not before two years, and not after five years --be eliminated.
Mr. Ross asked City Attorney Berardini if it is correct that, were the two-year time limitation
removed and the dedication required before that time, the entire site plan would have to be
changed? Mr. Berardini stated that he did not know the construction phasing for the develop-
ment. Mr. Berardini stated that the Commission does not have the power to grant variances.
Mr. Ross suggested that wording might be included to the effect: "subject to granting of
such waivers or such actions as may be necessary by other City Departments."
Mr. Berardini stated he felt Mrs. Henning was correct in stating that if additional land were
required prior to construction, it would effect the entire site plan. If, on the other hand,
the buildings were in, and the developers were required to provide the additional land, a
variance would not be required.
The vote was called:
AYES: Ross; Stanley
NAYS: Lentsch; Vobejda; Brown; Carlson; Henning; Robins; Weist
The motion failed.
Condition #11 was considered.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ross moved :
Robins seconded:
Page 1505
Condit ion #11 be amended to read: "Landsc'aping a·long t'he east boundary
of subject site shall be installed as per .the specific plan determined
from Exhibit "B". At least 50% of the space a.long said eastern boundary
as originally proposed by Larwin be relocated inside the development
with the said eastern boundary landscaped in such manner so as to permit
an esthetic buffer to Kent Village ~ithout T€ducing substantially the
view of Kent Village residents to the West; and further, that all trash
facilities pertaining to those easterly buildings in the project be pro-
vided for pick-up and otherwise on the west side of said buildings.
Mr. Lentsch asked of Mr. Richard Brown which of the two landscaping proposals is preferred?
Mr. Brown stated he had seen the ·proposals only five minutes before the meeting began and
he has no authority to speak for the Kent Village residents as to which plan would be most
acceptable, or if either of them would be acceptable.
Mr. F. M. Stevenson stated he was Chairman of the Board in Kent Village, and he would be
happy to ·make .a survey and transmit the results to the Commission.
Mrs. Henning pointed out that the clause in the motion pertaining to parking will, again,
require change of the total site plan.
Mr. James Roman stated that Larwin Corporation is of the opi~ion that with the landscaping
proposed along the eastern boundary, they have made ~very effort possible to insure an
esthetically attractive development. Mr. Roman pointed out that a parking area, ~ot a thru
roadway is propqsed on the eastern boundary.
Mr. Lentsch asked if Larwin would agree to restrictions on the location of trash cans and
pick-up points? Mr. Roman stated that Larwin will go alo.ng with that restriction. Mr.
Roman pointed out that the eastern structures have also been redesigned to face into Kent
Village.
Mr. Ross asked Mr. Roman if Larwin Corporation has made a decision on what facilities will
be provided for parking of boats, campers, etc? Mrs. Henning pointed o ut that Larwin has
provided more parking spaces than the .minimum number required by Ordinance. Mr. Ross asked
if they were to be parked along the easterri properiy line, and if this would be acceptable
to residents of Kent Village?
Mr. Stevenson noted that the eastern end of the site is a "dead-end area", and would be the
most probable place for anyone to park campers and boats; it would become, in his opi~ion,
"the most unsightly junk-yar_d in Englewood."
Mr. James Roman stated he did not agree that the eastern end o f the site is a "dead-end"
area, and suggested that the Commission may want to make it a "condition" that no campers
or boats would be parked on the eastern boundary.
f
Mr. Richard Brown stated he wanted to direct some remarks to Mrs. Vo.bej da. Mr. Brown stated
"you cannot escape the fact that it's nothing more or less than a parking lot." Mrs. Henning
has previously asked if it would be possible to locate some of the parking elsewhere and Mr.
Roman has stated it would be impossible to do so. Mr. Brown pointed out that the proposed
development has no parking along the other three perimeters, and he "submits that the only
impossibility is within Larwin's mind and that their refusal to consider such a change is
surely representative of their fotal intransigence to Kent Village residents." Mr. Brown
then questioned the scale on the proposed screening plan. He stated he felt Larwin could
come up with a change of plan which ~ould give some reasonable consideration to the resi-
dents of Kent Village inasmuch as they are residents of the community, and have been there
for some time and are deserving of the consideration of the Commission. Mr. Brown said he
feels strongly that this Commission should require a cha~ge of the type Mr. Ross has proposed
in his amendment. Mr. Brown urged the adoption of the amendments proposed by Mr. Ross. Mr.
Brown stated with regard to parking, "they should go back to the drawing board."
Mr. Roman stated he understood Mr. Brown 1 i concern . He stated this is the 15th or 20th re-
vision of the plan --it hai been changed many times to meet the desires of the residents;
this plan on display is the best possible compromise. He stated he felt the proposed land-
scaping will block most of the view of the parking area. Mr. Roman stated the landscaping
plan as displayed is drawn to scale. I f the location of parking was changed, the entire
site plan would have to be revised.
The vote was called:
AYES: Brown; Ross; Stanley; Robins
NAYS: Carlson; Weist; Vobejda ; Lentsch; Henning .
The motion to amend failed.
Ross moved:
Henning seconded:
The vote was called:
Condition #11 be amended to read: Landscaping along the east boundary
of subject site shall be installed as per the specific plan as deter-
mined from Exhib_it "B". No campers, trailers, boats or other similar
personal property shall be permitted to park or be stored in the parking
area on the eastern poundary of the development. _Further, that all
trash containers and pick-up points serving the eastern portion of the
proposed development shall be located to the west of the eastern-most
buildings in the Larwin Development.
AYES:
NAYS:
Brown; Stanley; Vobejda; Carlson; Weist; Robins; Ross; Henning; Lentsch
None
The motion carried.
Mr. Ross asked if Condition #8 included proper fencing around the storage pond? Mr. Roman
stated the pond would be fenced and lighted.
Page 1506
Discussion followed. Mrs. Henning stated she would like to discuss Condition #2 further, with
particular discussion on the matter of school district boundaries. Mr. Carlson stated he felt
this was a problem for the two districts to resolve, and that reference to that factor should
be deleted from Condition #2.
Mr. Berardini stated that district boundaries and facilities are determined by District Boards,
and the City has nothing to do with it. Mr. Berardini pointed out that letters have been
received from both districts stating they can accommodate the children from this develop-
ment.
Mr. Ross pointed out "there are no students there now", and it is not a school board question
at this time. Mr. Ross stated that if he owned the total parcel, and he knew the parcel was
divided between two school districts, where he would build the family units would determine
the school district those children would attend; since there are no children on the site now,
he does not see why the Commission cannot say that provision be made that the family units
be placed in one school district or the other. Mr. Ross pointed out that the Englewood School
system is losing students; Cherry Creek, on the other hand, has increased. Therefore,-it
seems logical that family units would be placed in the Englewood School District. Mr. Berardini
pointed out that both Districts have stated by letter that the students from the site can be
accommodated ..
Mr. Don Fullerton asked to speak to the matter of schools; he stated that his home is in the
Cherry Creek School District. Mr. Fullerton stated that the High School now has about 3,500
students; it was built for 2,800 students. They now have a 700 student "over-load" at the
present time. ·Mr. Fullerton stated there are no accommodations at the Cherry Creek High
School; students would have to be transported to onher schools in the District. Mr. Fullerton
stated that he felt it is a problem of timing --he feels the District is suggesting that the
bond issue approved by Cherry Creek families will allow them to take care of the children to
be realized from the subject site, but there is the matter of the time limit. Mr. Fullerton
pointed out there are six major subdivisions in the Cherry Creek District that are not yet
fully developed. These subdivisions will yield 3,800 to 4,000 pupils before the new schools
are functional.
Mrs. Henning asked "why did the School District write such a letter saying they can take care
of the children from the subject site?" Mr. Fullerton stated he felt the School Administra-
tion was in error.
Mr. Roman stated that he had met with Mr. Felix of the Cherry Creek School District; Mr. Felix
knows exactly where the district boundaries are, and what development plans of the subject
site are. Mr. Roman stated that he understood the concern of the Commission is to make sure
there is a school available for children from the subject site; Mr. Roman stated that Larwin
Corporation has gone to the extent of getting each District to review the development plans,
and both districts have stated the children can be accommodated.
Mr. Ross asked of Mr. Roman which of these two school districts he would prefer to be able
to tell prospective residents their children will attend? Mr. Roman stated that he felt it
was irrelevant which school district the children will attend; he stated ~hat Larwin Corpora-
tion will cooperate in efforts to get the site into one School District. While this issue
is being decided, however, they have been informed that either District can handle the
children from the site. Mr. Roman again point·ed out that the design of family units on the
eastern portion of the site was a "safety matter for the children", and pointed out that
there is minimal street exposure for the children in this area.
Carlson moved:
Henning seconded: The Commission reconsider Condition #2,
Condition #2 as amended the following:
of school age children shall be located
·City of Englewood."
as amended, and delete from
"Dwelling units for families
in the school district of the
Mr. Ross stated he felt Englewood School District had a very good school system; he again
pointed out the School District is losing population, and relocating the family units could
bring a substantial number of students into ~he school system. Mr. Ross stated that he feels
the chances of the two districts getting together and working out an agreement, and of Cherry
Creek District giving up the school tax money to be realized from the site are very, very
limited.
Discussion followed. Mrs. Henning pointed out that a relocation of the family units will
necessitate another complete site plan, and this will have to be considered by the Commission.
Mrs. Henning stated that she felt the "interior" design for the protection of the children
was very sound and follows good Planning principles. Mrs. Henning stated that she felt the
Commission must also be cognizant of the fact that they have a responsibility to the people
who will be living in the subject development, as well as those living adjacent to the site.
Mr. Lentsch stated that he agreed with Mrs. Henning's statements, but disagreed with the
idea that it "cannot be done."
Mr. Ross stated that he has the feeling the aversion to revising the site plan with respect
to the location of the family units expresses a preference for the Cherry Creek School Dis-
trict. Mrs. Henning stated that she did not appreciate such a statement; she pointed out that
her children will attend the Englewood School system·. Mrs.Henning stated that she agreed with
Mr. Ross' statements about increasing the school population in the Englewood School District,
but questioned whether this· 1s the proper way to do it. Discussion followed.
The vote on the amendment was called:
AYES:
NAYS:
Lentsch; Henning; Carlson; Weist; Robins; Vobejda; Brown
Ross; Stanley
The motion carried.
The vote on the motion to approve the application for a Subdivision Waiver submitted by
Larwin Multihousing Corporation, as amended, was called.
AYES:
NAYS:
Henning; Vobejda; Weist; Carlson; Lentsch
Stanley; Ross; Brown; Robins
The motion carried.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 1507
Conditions to be made part of waiver approval are:
1. Development of the subject parcel shall comply with the provisions of 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"), which shall be approved by the Commission and attached hereto , and by
reference made a part hereof, and shall be limited to a maximum of 1,500 dwelling units
plus ancillary structures for recreation and security purposes. The General Develop-
ment Plan shall provide for not less than 45% of the total land mass of the tract to
be set aside for open space ~nd recreational purposes. The Site Plan, which shall be-
come a part of the General Development Plan , subject to approval of the Commission,
shall have indicated thereon the height of each individual structure, the maximum lot
coverage, and said site plan shall be recorded.
3. Development of the subject parcel may proceed in stages subject to approval of the
following items prior to the issuance of Building Permits.
a. As a further condition, the Larwin Multihousing Corporation agrees to be responsible
for and to protect, save harmless and indemnify the City of Englewood, Colorado,
adjacent or other property owners and residents from and against all loss, damage,
cost and expense of every kind and .description suffered or sustained by the said
City of Englewood, or f or which said City may be held or become liable by reason
o f injury, including death, to persons or property, or other causes whatsoever in
the event an attempt should be made to hold .the City liable therefor, and by the
said adjacent or other property owners and residents, caused directly or indirectly
by Larwin Multihousing Corporation in connection with and during the entire period
of development of said tract of land.
b. Comp1iance with the provisions of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.
c. 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, of not less than a 11 100-year storm", until
the completion of the Northeast Englewood basin storm drainage system by the City
to handle a "two-year storm." In the event of any increase in or unnatural water
runoff during the development of said tract of land which causes danger or damage
to facilities of the City of Englewood or to adjacent or other property owners and
residents, then the Director of Public Works shall have the right to order the
stoppages of any further development until such time as the Larwin Corporation pro-
vides adequate safeguards to any such danger or possible future damage.
d. 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 runo f f on either the applicant's property, or that dedicated to the
City by the applicant for public park purposes.
e. Approval of fire lanes and emergency access by the Fire Chief. (Applicant shall
agree to designate, and identify by signs acceptable to the Fire Chief, said fire
lanes and spotting ramps prior to the issuance of Occupancy Permits for each phase
or stage.)
f. 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 pro-
vided for lines intended to be in public ownership.
g. Approval of plans for the locations and specifications of on-site sanitary sewer
lines by the Director of Utilities. Easements shall be provided for lines intended
to be in public ownership.
h. 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. The City of Englewood gratefully acknowledges applicant's offer to dedicate to the City,
approximately 4.45 acres of land, so designated (Parcel "A") on the General Development
Plan (Exhibit "A"), for public park purposes at such time as the City is willing to
accept the same. Use of said land for public park purposes may be subject to intermittent
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 Parcel "A", based upon
a design for Parcel "A" by the City. Applicant will complete rough grading for Parcel
"A", and will retain the topsoil from the parcel for City's use in improving said parcel.
6. Temporary drainage provisions shall be made by applicant to prevent silt from unimproved
areas of the property f rom being deposited in Parcel "A".
7. Floyd Avenue shall be improved, at applicant's expense, in accordance with the specifica-
tions of the City of Englewood, including sidewalk, curb, gutter and paving. Ingress
and egress from and to Floyd Avenue, other than for emergency purposes, shall not be
provided except upon prior approval of t he Commission.
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. 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 addi-
tional traffic capacity, the Applicant shall dedicate five feet (5') of land for such
purposes. Such dedication may not be required sooner than two (2) years nor later than
Page 1508
five (5) years from the date of approval. Installation of any such improvements shall
be at applicant's expense.
11. Landscaping along the east boundary of subject site shall be installed as per the
specific plan as determined from Exhibit "B". No campers, trailers, boats or other
similar personal property shall be permitted to park or be stored in the parking area
on the eastern boundary of the development. Further, that all trash containers and
pick-up points serving the eastern portion of the proposed development shall be located
to the west of the eastern-most buildings in the Larwin Development.
12. 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 Community Development with the advice of other City Department Heads
in their fields of expertise.
IV. PARKING LAYOUT
Larwin Corporation
Mr. Lentsch asked Mrs. Romans to review the request.
CASE #27-72
Mrs. Romans stated that the Commission has a staff report before them, which report was pre-
pared for the September 26th meeting. Mrs. Romans stated that the number of parking spaces
proposed exceeds the number of spaces required by Ordinance. Parking for Phase #I, 232
units, 400 off-street spaces are required by Ordinance; 400 spaces are being provided, of
which 232 are "tucked-in" under the buildings or in carports. Phases II and III, the mid-
rise section, requires 592 spaces, including guest parking; 607 spaces are provided, and
all but 61 of these spaces will be under-ground. Phase IV requires 269 spaces; 281 spaces
are being provided, 152 of which will be in carports or "tucked in". Mrs. Romans stated
that the design of the parking area has been approved by the Director of Public Works.
Mrs. Romans pointed out that bumper stops and curbs are shown on the plans. Fire lanes
that have been provided throughout the site, and will be so designated; subject lanes have
been approved by the Fire Department.
Discussion followed. Mrs. Henning commended the Larwin Corporation for providing as much
under-ground parking as they have for this proposal; she noted that under-ground parking is
a "novelty" in Englewood.
Carlson moved:
Vobejda seconded: The Parking Plan for Phases I, II, III, and IV of the Larwin Multihousing
Corporation development be accepted and approved.
Mr. Robins commented that "they aren't putting in underground parking because they are doing
it for Englewood, but because they can get more land use out of it."
The vote was called:
AYES: Henning ; Stanley; Vobejda; Ross; Carlson; Robins; Lentsch; Brown
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Weist
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried.
V. WILMARK CINEMA, INC.
Parking Layout
CASE #29-72
Mrs. Romans stated that a Subdivision Waiver was granted to Wilmark Cinema, Inc., on
September 19, 1972, for construction of a twin-theater on the southwest corner of the GEM
property on South Broadway. A parking plan for this particular development has been sub-
mitted and approval by the Commission requested. Mrs. Romans stated that the Commission
received a copy of the staff report prepared on this matter on October 13, 1972.
Mr. Carlson asked why it is recommended by the staff that bumper. stops be required on this
particular development, when none are required throughout the remainder of the GEM site?
Mrs. Romans stated that it is the feeling of the Director of Community Dev~lopment that
traffic can be better directed and controlled if bumper stops are required. Mr. Lentsch
pointed out that the Commission has been requiring bumper stops for the last few years.
Mr. Frank Weav~r of Wilmark Cinema, Inc., stated that he forsees some problems on this
particular site if bumper stops are required. Mr. Weaver emphasized that no new parking is
being designated; the theaters will be using parking that is already designated withi~ the
area encompassed by the Subdivision Waiver. Mr. Weaver discussed the parking area as
presently designed, and noted that if bumper stops were required, this would realign the
entire layout. Mr. Weaver stated. that he felt there would be further problems in that if
the theater is required to have bumper stops, and GEM is not, when there is snow on the
ground someone might not realize the bumper stops were in place on part of the site and
attempt to driYe across them; Mr. Weaver questioned who would be liable for damage to the
car in such an event? Mr. Weaver again pointed out that the theater is asking to make use
of an existing parking area --not a . new area which would fall within the jurisdiction of
the Commission to require bumper stops. Mr. Weaver again stated that if bumper stops are
required, it will necessitate the complete revision of the entire lot.
Mrs. Henning stated that considering the manner of parking at times in Cinderella City where
no bumper stops are required, she would concur with the staff requirement that bumper stops
be installe.d in the subje.ct site. '
Mr. Carlson asked if consideration had b~en given to moving the curb cut to the north, and
whether this would alleviate any of the problems that might result from requiring bumper
stops. Discussion followed.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Brown moved:
Ross seconded:
Page 1509
The parking plan as submitted by Wilmark Cinema, Inc., be approved
with the following stipulations:
1. Designation of a fire lane on the west and south sides of the
theater to the specifications of the Fire Chief and with appropriate
signing.
2. Omission of three (3) spaces shown with red X's on the approved
plan, a copy of which has been submitted to Mr. Weaver previously.
AYES: Brown; Carlson; Vobejda; Ross; Lentsch; Stanley; Robins
NAYS: Henning
ABSENT:. Weist
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried.
VI. BRINKHOFF REZONING
Findings & Conclusion
CASE #23-72
Henning moved:
Vobejda seconded:
So ordered.
The Findings and Decision of th~ City Planning and Zoning Commission
on the Brinkhoff Rezoning request be approved and forwarded to City
Council.
VII. WINDERMERE WAREHOUSE, INC. CASE #30-72
Subdivision Waiver
Mr. Carlson stated that he would like to question the access to a particular property,
namely the "Danks" property. Mr. Carlson noted that no access to this particular parcel
of land is shown on the map prepared by the staff. Mr. Armstrong stated that there is a
30 ft. easement which gives access to this property. Mr. Carlson stated that he does not
feel this is the proper way to get access to property. He asked if it would not be better
to have the necessary right-of-way along Stanford Avenue to get to this property? Mr.
Armstrong stated that Stanford is dedicated 1075 ft. east from Windermere, and that the
dimensions on the map attached to the staff report is in error. Discussion followed. Mr.
Armstrong stated that Public Service Company has agreed to dedicate 30 ft. to the City for
right-of-way, but they will not dedicate any more land. Mr. Armstrong stated that he plans
to construct a 45,000 sq. ft. warehouse on Parcel "A", which warehouse will be leased.
Access will be over the 30 ft. easement or over the 30 ft. dedication which Public Service
will give.
Brown moved: Due to the many considerations on this matter, I move the matter be
tabled for further study and discussion at the next regular meeting,
Discussion followed. Mr. Armstrong stated he proposes to have no more than two buildings;
there is access by easement of long-standing, and Public Service has agreed to grant the
30 ft. dedication to the City. Mr. Brown asked what provisions have been made for protection
of the adjoining properties? Mr. Armstrong stated that he will provide a 25 ft. planting
strip along the north side of the property; on the east side there are Cottonwood and Elm
trees along the City Ditch. Mr. Armstrong pointed out that the property west of the City
Ditch drops about 20 feet from the Ditch line; the zoning is proper for the proposed use.
Mr. Armstrong stated that he has checked into the matter of drainage and will comply with
the requirements on that matter.
Mr. Lentsch, at this point, ruled Mr. Brown's motion out of order.
Henning moved:
Vobejda seconded: The Planning Commission grant the Subdivision Waiver as requested by
Windermere Warehouse, Inc., subject to the following four conditions:
1. Public Service Company to dedicate to the City the 30 ft. right-
of-way.
2. An adequate landscaped screening strip shall be maintained along
the eastern boundary of the site.
3. Maintenance of an adequate landscaped screening of 25 ft. depth
along the north boundary of the site.
4. The Parcel is to be treated as a whole, and there shall be no
further subdivision of the property.
Mr. Carlson asked whether the proposed 30 ft. dedication is satisfactory for this industrial
area? Mrs. Romans stated that the Director of Community Development feels it is .
Discussion followed. Mr. Armstrong stated that he was providing parking .on a 1:1 ratio.
Mr. Brown stated that he felt approval of this request with the 30 ft. access would be
setting a precedent, and he would have to vote against the request.
Mr. Armstrong stated that he understands the need of wider streets, but this property has
access through property over which he does not have ownership; there is no other access ex-
cept but by land the Public Service Company owns. Mr. Armstrong stated that Mr. Supinger,
Director of Community Development, has talked to Public Service Company about an additional
30 ft. dedication, and was informed that Public Service will not dedicate land above the 30
ft. right-of-way.
Page 1510
The vote was called:
AYES: Robins; Ross; Carlson; Lentsch; Henning; Stanley; Vobejda
NAYS: Brown
ABSENT: Weist
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried.
VIII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE
Mrs. Romans stated there was nothing further to come before the Commission at this time.
IX. COMMISSION'S CHOICE.
Chairman Lentsch stated that he strongly disapproved of members of the Planning Commission
leaving a meeting prior to adjournment when there are people in the audience who have yet to
present their case to the Commission. Mr. Lentsch stated that persons desiring to appear
before the Commission have the right to expect that members of the Commission in attendance
at the meeting will give their request due consideration. Mr. Lentsch asked that his opinion
be reflected in the record of this meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 12:15 A.M. Wednesday, October 18, 1972.
Gertrude G. Welty
Recording Secretary
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
I. CALL TO ORDER.
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1972
The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:00
P.M. by Chairman Lentsch.
Members present: Stanley; Henning; Vobejda; Robins; Lentsch; Brown; Ross
Supinger, Ex-officio
Members absent:
Also present:
Carlson; Weist
City Attorney Berardini; Assistant Director Romans; Utilities Director
Carroll; Finance Director Nollenberger.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
Chairman Lentsch stated that Minutes of October 3, 1972, and October 17, 1972, were to be
considered for approval.
Ross moved:
Brown seconded: The Commission dispense with approval of Minutes until later in the
evening.
AYES: Brown; .Vobejda; Stanley; Ross; Lentsch; Robins
NAYS: Henning
ABSENT: Weist; Carlson
III. KENT VILLAGE ASSOCIATION
John A. Criswell
Mr. Criswell stated that he was sure when the Commission took the vote on October 17th, that
they felt the matter of the Subdivision Waiver requested by the Larwin Corporation was finalized.
Mr. Criswell noted that he had thought the same on many occasions in regard to the KLZ Sit~
He stated that he "isn't here to commence litigation again." Since 1961, the City has been .
in trial court four times on this site, and before the Supreme Court three times. Mr. Criswell
reiterated that he is not present to suggest and threaten litigation; rather, he is present
to pre~ent litigation. Mr. Criswell stated he was contacted by the Kent Village Association
rather belatedly, (two weeks ago), and he doesn't really know what has transpired in previous
meetings of the Commission.
Mr. Criswell stated that as far as he could determine, this request began on June 8th, at
which time Larwin Corporation filed a petition for a waiver to the Subdivision Regulations
on which application it was stated that the ''applicant proposes to develop an apartment '
project under the PUD Ordinance." Accompanying the application for a Subdivision Waiver
was an application for PD approval; there was also a staff report written at that time in
support of the request of the waiver only if the development was accomplished .under the
PD Ordinance. ~~
I
I
I