Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-12-05 PZC MINUTESPage 1518 Mrs. Henning asked why the Commission is getting copies at this time, when the Charter specifically states that the Commission shall consider it prior to Council approval. Mr. Lentsch asked that this item be placed on the agenda for the next regular meeting. VI. REGENERATION OF NEIGHBORHOODS. Mr. Lentsch stated that he would suggest an ordinance be drafted which would permi~ a house "x" number of years old to be removed and replaced with a duplex. Mr. Supinger stated he felt the Commission should sit down and discuss this matter at a study session. Discussion followed. Meeting adjourned at 11:35 P.M. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION December 5, 1972 The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:05 P. M. by Chairman Lentsch. Members present: Ross; Brown; Henning; Lentsch; Vobejda; Robins; Stanley J. L. Supinger, Ex-officio Members absent: Carlson; Weist Also present: D. A. Romans, B. V. Berardini II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Lentsch stated that Minutes of October 3, October 17, and November 21 are to be considered for approval. Ross ~oved: Brown seconded: The approval of Minutes be dispensed with until later in the meeting, or until a later time. AYES: Brown; Lentsch; Robins; Ross; Stanley NAYS: Vobejda; Henning ABSENT: Carlson; Weist The motion carried. III. LARWIN MULTIHOUSING CORPORATION Subdivision Waiver -KLZ Tract CASE #20-72 Mr. Lentsch stated that this matter was tabled at the meeting of November 21st. Mr. Ross asked what was before the Commission for reconsideration? Mr. Lentsch reviewed the meeting of November 21st, at .which time Mr. Criswell spoke at length on matters pertaining to the development of the site; also Mr. Howard Brown presented petitions to the Commission that had been presented to him asking that the density be lowered. Mr. Ross noted criticism of the Commission that had been in the press, and stated that before the Commission gets into further confusion, they should determine exactly what the reconsideration is on --is it re- consideration of the application, and if so, what precisely does the application state: is it for the entire parcel, or only for part of the parcel? Mr. Weist entered and took his place with the Commission. Mr. Ross asked if there was a valid application on file with the Department of Community Development? Mr. Lentsch asked Mr. Supinger if there was an application on file for the entire site, or if it was amended to only part of the site? Mr. Supinger stated that the office does have an application on file for the entire parcel; the office also has a letter from Larwin Corporation requesting that the application be amended for consideration of the north one-half, Phases I thru IV. Mr. Supinger stated that he also recalled at one of the meetings at which time this matter was discussed, some discussion between the applicant and the Commission regarding the Subdivision Waiver on the entire site, and the Commission stated they would be willing to consider it for the entire site. Discussion followed. Mr. Brown suggested that perhaps this meeting could be termed a "study session" for the Commission; he felt more facts were needed on the matter before a determination was made. Mr. Robins agreed a study session was needed. No formal decision on the matter of "study session" vs. regular meeting was made. Mrs. Henning asked "what are we asking for in the way of additional facts?" "Are we asking further clarification of the site plan?" Mr. Ross stated that one point that bothered him was "did we actually find there were no benefits to be gained by requiring a Subdivision plat; we didn't determine on a factual basis that question, we just assumed it." Mrs. I I I I I I Page 1519 Henning stated that she did not feel that kind of discussion called for further testimony, and she would have to protest if further testimony were called for that reason. She stated that she felt the Commission had heard sufficient testimony from both sides to enable them to reach a decision. Discussion followed. Mr. Ross discussed points Mr. Criswell presented at the last meeting, which Mr. Ross feels is new information and is sufficient basis for reco nsideration. Mrs. Vobejda stated that she did not feel the point made by Mr. Criswell in regard to the drainage system --the previous developer was to expend $240,000 for off-site drainage -- applies to this matter. Mrs. Vobejda pointed out that this is a different developer than was considering the site five years ago, and she does not think there is any commitment on that fact, nor can the Commission hold Larwin responsible for what may have transpired five years ago. Mr. Robins pointed out that "this developer wants to use the former developer's idea of 1500 units; where do we go along with this and where don't we?" Mrs. Henning pointed out that the 1500 unit restriction is by covenant. Mr. Robins stated he understood there was no covenant . City Attorney Berardini stated that there is, indeed, a covenant, and that the City has always taken the position that the ~ovenant is valid and will be en- forced. Mr. Weist stated that with the majority vot~ on O~tober 17th, a number of conditions were agreed upop and attached as part of the waiver approval. He stated that he would be in favor of reconsidering the matter only in the matter of imposing density requirements on the development; he stated that he feels new information was presented to the Commission on density at the last meeting by Mr. Criswell, and he would be in favor of reconsideration on that point only. Mrs. Henning referred Mr. Weist to the City Attorney's opinion, dated December 1, 1972, Page 6, which states: "The Commission may not lawfully, in my opinion, unilaterally impose density conditions stricter than that of the zoning district in which the land is located, or stricter than those to which restrictive covenants apply." "The Commission does have the power to agree with the subdivider to create a lesser density than that which is imposed by the district R-3-A Zoning Regulations. (Please see Opinion by this office under date of November 13, 1972.)" Mr. Lentsch stated that the Commission did ask that Larwin Corporation representatives be present at this meeting. He asked that they now present their case, and to please make clear whether or not the application on file is for the entire site or not. Mr. Tom Eitel, 4301 South Broadway -stated he was representing the applicant, Larwin Multihousing Corporation. Mr. Eitel commented that he didn't know why the applicant was present, and noted that there "seems to be some qu'estion in the Commission's minds." Mr. Eitel referred to Minutes of the Planning Commission meetings at which times the Larwin Corporation application has been considered, and referred specifically to Minutes of Sep- tember 26, 1972, a Special Meeting of the Commission, at which meeting Mr. Supinger is quoted as stating that "the request by Larwin Multihousing Corporation, 9100 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California, is for a waiver to the subdivision regulations for the entire site." Mr. Eitel stated that it seems to him "without question, that what was before the Commission was the entire parcel, and the waiver was for the entire site." Mr. Eitel discussed the staff reports that have been submitted to the members of the .Commission on several occasions, and stated that the staff reports are directed to the "entire site", as are the Minutes. Mr. Ross referred to Minutes of August 9th, at which meeting Mr. Supinger is quoted as stating "that the Larwin Multihousing Corporation is asking the waiver for the north 1 /2 of the site." Mr. Ross then asked Mr. Eitel "are you aware also of the letter from the Larwin Corporation amending the application, dated August 30th?" Mr. Eitel stated that he was aware of such letter, and stated that after that date, action was taken on the entire site. Mr. Eitel stated that the application, dated June 8, 1972, was for the ent.ire tract; the Minutes of the Commission speak to the entire tract; all plans and every- thing that has been recorded also speak to the entire tract. Mr. Eitel stated that everything that has happened has affected the entire tract. Mr. Ross stated "the fact that something is filed by mistake doesn't make it right." Mr. Eitel stated that the Waiver Resolution was signed by Chairman Lentsch, and he assumed that it was proper. Discussion followed. Mr. Ross stated that the "question is was something done by mistake; was the action taken erroneous. This is a debatable fact." Mrs. Henning pointed out that "this isn't the opinion of the entire Commission." She stated that she knew of nothing that has changed the applica- tion, and pointed out that Mr. Supinger ~as in error when he made the statement referred to by Mr. Ross on August 9th, that the waiver was fo~ the north 1 /2 of the site. Mr. Ross again referred to the letter of August 30th from Larwin Corporation. Mrs. Henning stated that the Commission referred to the entire site plan in September and October, and that the action was for the entire site. Mr. Robins also referred to the letter of August 30th, and stated that "nobody knows what will happen to the south 1 /2". Mrs. Henning pointed out that the Com- mission has seen and filed the entire site plan. Mr. Eitel stated that he understood drainage studies were presented to the Commission; utilities studies were presented also, all of whic.h did, in fact, relate to the entire site. Mr. Eitel stated that "it appears you have considered a PD via the Subdivision Waiver." Mr. Eitel pointed out that the buildings shown on the Site Plan are all to scale, the storm drainage was considered as it related to the total site. Mr. Eitel asked "what wasn't set forth about the s 'outh 1 /2 of this development." Mr. Robins interposed that "they only asked for Phases I thru IV; as far as drainage, it doesn't mean a thing --it's surface drainage." Mr. Eitel stated that open space restrictions are tied into the plan; Larwin feels it was for the entire tract. He stated Larwin's legal counsel has done a great deal of investigation on this matter; right now what has taken place is there has been approval of what is a matter of record before the Commission and in the Minutes. Based upon that, Larwin was of the opinion the entire site was being considered by this Co~ission and has spent considerable money on this matter --$9,0001000 of contracts based on the action of this Commission have been let. Seven hundred building permits have been issued already for construction on the northern half of the site. Upon a query from Mr. Ross, Mr. Eitel stated that building per- mits have issued for Phases I, II, III, and IV. Discussion followed. Mr. Eitel stated that ''the way this entire matter has been treated is in accordance wjth the application of June 8th; that has been the controlling application, notwithstanding the letter from Larwin of Aug~st 30th." Mr. Eitel stated that it appeared to him from everything done by the Commission and of record, this Commission, Larwin and the Planning staff treated this development as an entity. The 1500 unit restriction seems to say it was for the entire tract as opposed to the north 1 /2 of the tract. Mr. Eitel reiterated that all action has related to the entire tract of land. Mr. Robins referred again to Larwin's letter of August 30th, and stated that information contained within this letter was what the Commission was considering. Mr. Eitel stated that he had previously pointed out to the Commission that notwithstanding the Page 1520 letter of August 30th, every action of the Commission, all references of staff reports and Minutes, refer to the total site. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Ross referred to Attach- ment B of the Resolution approving the Subdivision Waiver, and directed attention to the wording of #2 under "Conditions to be made part of Waiiver approval", which paragraph states: " •.. which shall be approved by the Commission and attached hereto ... " Mr. Eitel stated that he felt that "shall" in this context was "directory", but the wording was not his, and he could not determine what may have prompted such wording on Mr. Ross' part. Mr. Ross stated that when he wrote this wording, it was with the intent of applying the Subdivision Waiver only to the north 1 /2 of the site; he stated that the Commission "talked about the north 1 /2 all along". Mr. Ross further stated that when he drafted the amendment to the conditions he had in mind what he had heard with respect to the north parcel and what should be done in the future on the south parcel; Mr. Ross stated that it was his intent that the entire de- velopment plan would be approved in the future. Mrs. Henning pointed out that five members of the Commission voted in favor of the Subdivision Waiver, who f elt they were approving the waiver for the total parcel of land. She also took issue with Mr. Ross speaking as though he were speaking for the entire Commission membership, as he was not. Mr -. Ross stated that he felt he was speaking from "my view." Mr. Eitel stated that "by this language you approved, in your mind, only the north 1 /2; if this is the case, you didn't approve anything." Mr. Ross stated "this is correct." Mr. Eitel then asked "what action did you take that evening; why was this recorded?" Mr. Ross stated he called the Building Division after having gotten a copy of the approved conditions from the staff; he called at the request of the Chairman to suggest that the Commission still had further action to take in regard to the Subdivision Waiver. Mr. Ross stated he was criticized for calling the Building Division, but he felt it would be put-ting the City out on a limb if he did not offer such advice to the Building Division. Mr. Ross emphasized that the language of the Conditions was intended to have future action with respect to the General Development Plan, and he thinks there was a question in the minds of some of the Commission members on what was going to happen to the South 1 /2 of the site. Mr. Eitel noted that in the Minutes of October 17th, at· which time the Waiver was approved, it was Mr. Ross who asked that Larwin donate 5.7 acres for park land on a 10%-basis<; Mr. Eitel stated this was based on the entire site. An attempt by Mr. Ross to lower the density to 1200 units was also based on the entire tract of land. A stopulation that there be 40% open space is based on the err tire tract. All these facets of the case indicate approval would have to have been related to consideration of the entire site. "This led Larwin to believe you were referring to the entire site." Mr. Ross stated that "we are talking about the first four phases; when you take those buildings into consideration --they effect the entire parcel, but this doesn't mean I intended to approve the entire parcel." Mr. Ross pointed out that the park is lo- cated in the north 1 /2 of the parcel, and the size of the park would affect the development of the north 1 /2 of the parcel, even though the percentage was based on the total land area. As to the figure of 40% open space, Mr. Ross stated that "those are Larwin's figures, not mine." Mr. Eitel sta·ted "you had to be re la ting to the entire parcel; the entire thing has been under consideration accor9ing to the record --Minutes, staff reports, action, etc. all relate to the "entity". None of them speak to the north 1 /2 of the property." Mr. Ross asked why he would have drafted the amendment to the conditions to contain the language "shall be a ·pproved" if he didn't intend it for only the north 1 /2? Mr. Eitel stated he "will accept it that you drafted it;" but it is his consideration that "shall is directory." Mr. Eitel noted there was no reference to "Parcel A and Parcel B." Discussion followed. Mr. Lentsch asked why the letter of August 30th from Larwin was submitted i~ it was Larwin's intent that the total site be considered? Mr. Eitel stated that the request was an ad- ministrative internal matter on Phases I, II, III, and IV. Mr. Eitel reiterated that 700+ building permits have been issued for the first four phases. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Robins stated that "this meeting we had at that time (October 17th, 1972) was strictly illegal; we made a motion to reconsider action of October 3rd. Everything is null and void. There was no motion made to reconsider at the meeting of October 17th." Mr. Berardini stated that at the meeting of October 17th·, the vote was taken 5/4 in favor of gra·nting the requested waiver. No objection was made on Chairman Lentsch's ruling that it would be considered as a new application and given a new case number. Mr. Brown stated that at the October 3rd meeting, when the 4 /4 vote was taken, he was of the opinion the Commission was considering the entire site. At the October 17th meeting, "every- thing was discussed," and the vote was taken. At the November 21st meeting, "we heard new facts" and he felt there was question on whether the Commission approved the north 1 /2 or the entire site. Mr. Brown stated that he had received a copy of the City Attorney's opinion at the Council meeting on December 4th, and wished the opinion had been made available to the Commission members in time to read and digest ·prior to the meeting tonight. Mr. Brown stated that as he understands the City Attorney's opinion, the Commission may reconsider the waiver; if the Larwin Corporation does not want to agree to conditions that may be determined, they have the option of filing a Subdivision Plat. Mr. Berardini stated that he does feel a waiver has been granted to Phases I thru IV, for which building permits have been issued; he feels the Commission has the power to reconsider the waiver for the balance of the site. However, City Manager Dial disagrees. Mr. John Criswell 3755 South Broadway -stated he had read the City Attorney's opinion; it is his opinion that "what is being said and done tonight is for naught in any case. Mr. Dial is saying that it doesn't make any difference what the Planning Commission does; he will issue Building Permits until a Court Order tells him differently." Mr. Criswell stated that he feels the Commission should be advised that in spite of the City Attorney's view point, that building permits will be issued until the City Manager gets an order from City Council or the Court. Mr. Criswell stated that he felt this procedure was wrong, and "if this is ·the view of the administration, you are forcing their hand." Mr. Brown asked Mr. Berardini when his opinion was completed and submitted to Mr. Dial. Mr. Berardini stated it was submitted to Mr. Dial the afternoon of December 4, 1972. Mr. Weist asked of Mr. Brown "what in your opinion, is the feeling of the Council; do you think the Council will give redirection to the City Manager?" Mr. Brown stated that he feels the Council "would like to see the development get started; they would like to see this de- velopment go; they would like to see it go to 1500 units." Mr. Brown stated he had tried to I I I I I I Page 1521 tell the Council that the Commission has a job to do; in the granting of the Subdivision Waiver, the Commission has the full authority; he tried to explai~ to them they should look at the project more closely, and that the density should be decreased. "They have backed Mr. Dial; he was told to go ahead and grant permits." Mr. Weist stated that inasmuch as the Commission can reconsider the matter, maybe they should not back down and assert the authority they do have. Mr. Berardini stated that he wou1d like to emphasize that he does not feel the Commission has the power to restrict the density beyond what the covenant sets forth. The Commission does not have power to restrict density. Mr. Brown asked "isn't it true that this Commission has the right to reconsider and put this as a condition asking for 1200 units and the Planning Commission could say if Larwin doesn't agree that they may not have the waiver?". Mr. Berardini stated that the Commission does not have the power to say to a subdivider that they must agree to a set density. Mr. Lentsch stated that he had discussed the matter with "one of the best attorneys in the state", and it was this person's opinion that "it couldn't be a covenant unless it's in the Subdivision Waiver." Further discussion followed. Mr. Ross stated that he would have to take the position that for whatever purpose, the covenants were entered into, and the Court agreed it's there; he doesn't know what effect it has on this application. Mr. Supinger stated that it was asked of a Larwin representative at one of the meetings if they (Larwin) agreed to the restriction; Larwin did agree to the 1500 unit restriction. Mr. Lentsch asked if the covenants were recorded, and by whom were they signed? Mr. Berardini stated they were recorded by J. J. Carey on January 2, 1968, and were signed by J. J. Care~ Mr. Berardini pointed out the covenants were recorded before the decision in the Roosevelt case was rendered; Larwin Corporation has always been aware of the covenants; the matter was discussed with them shortly after the decision came down from the Supreme Court. Mr. Berardini stated he considers the covenants valid and enforceable. Mr. Berardini emphasized that the decision of the State Supreme Court had nothing whatsoever to do with the covenants, nor with the Subdivision Regulations. The only two issues before the Court were the validity of the City Council vote, and the arbitrariness of R-3-A zoning on the site. Further dis- cussion followed. Mr. Lentsch asked if the City had signed the covenants? Mr. Berardini stated that the City did not sign; the land owner restricted himself and subsequent land owners to 1500 unit density. Mr. Leonard Campbell Security Life Building -stated that in connection with this covenant, it was part of the record that went to the Supreme Court, and was a matter of record before it went to the Supreme Court. Mr. Campbell stated he was one of the attorneys at the time, as was Mr. Criswell. Mr. Campbell stated that one of the arguments of the opposition was that there could be 4,000 units built on the site. Mr. Carey, developer in- terested in the site at that time, placed the covenants on the property restricting it to 1500 units. Mr. Campbell stated that while the Supreme Court decision was not rendered on the basis of the 1500 -unit restriction, the covenant was part of the record be- fore the Court. Mr. Campbell stated that this particular covenant was recorded and was made available prior to the time the zoning was put on the land. Mr. Weist asked of Mr. Brown if he agreed with all of the conditions made a part of the Waiver approval by the Commission by the action of October 17th but the condition dealing with density? Mr. Brown stated he "is most concerned with density; there may be one or two-conditions we would want to look at again, but is most concerned with density." Dis- cussion followed. Mr. Weist pointed out that the 700+ building permits issued "seem to be a vested interest for Larwin," and the only action on reconsideration would be on the re- maining phases of construction. Mr. Brown pointed out that at the meeting of November 21st, it was the determination of the Commission that permits issued in Phases I and IV at that time could stand, but that no further permits issue. Mr. Brown stated that he disagrees with the City Manager's decision to issue further permits following that meeting of the Commission. Discussion followed. Mr. Berardini stated that he thinks Mr. Dial feels that issuing permits for a large portion of the site is a .vested -interest on Lar in's side, and he is relying on the waiver as a "unit" and not two separate units. Mr. Berardini stated that he does feel that Mr. Dial feels the waiver was for the entire site, and that Larwin has acted in reliance of that Waiver. Mr. Lentsch stated that "Mr. Dial is saying we cannot reconsider; the Planning Commission as a group says we haven't done anything." Mr. Berardini further discussed the action of the City Manager; he stated that he felt Mr. Dial's opinion that the waiver ap- plied to the entire tract with a density of 1500 units was based on the fact that this de- velopment is contemplated as a unity of development rather than as parcels; it cannot stand in "parcels"; it is designed and contemplated to be maintained and built as a whole rather than in parts. Mr. Robins stated that at the first meeting he attended with .Larwin representatives, it was stated that the development would be built in phases and would be sold as each phase was completed; that the City would have no control over the site, and that Larwin would "keep control over it forever." Mr. Robins stated that when he made the -motion on November 21st to reconsider the matter, he asked that a plan be presented which would encompass the en- tire site. Mr. Robins stated that the only phases discussed by the Commission and con- sidered in the waiver were the first four phases; "we have never OK'd the south half of it." Further discussion followed. Mr. Lentsch .asked of Larwin representatives present: "If we lower density, what would be your action; what is your feel_.ing?" Mr. Eitel stated that "it has been the position of Larwin through this meeting that what has been done has been done; it is over with and has been approved. It is Larwin's position that they have a restriction of 1500 units, and they are entitled to build to that density under the action of the Commission of October 17th." Mr. Lentsch asked "are you telling me there is no use for me to be here for reconsideration?" Mr. Eitel stated that "as I view it, that is correct." Mr. Eitel stated that "Larwin does not want to imply that they would participate in any reconsideration; they feel it is over and done with." Page 1522 Mr. Brown commented that from the feeling of the Planning Commission, they are in complete opposition to Larwin's stand. He thinks "it will have to be proven who is wrong and who is right; it is still a free country." Mr. Robins discussed the number of units for which permits have been issued in Phases I thru IV; as he understands it, there are 700+ units with permits issued. Pr~vious statements were that there would be a total of 558 units in the northern four phases. Mr. Robins charged that "something is going on that we don't know anything about." Mr. Supinger explained that the initial computation of 558 units was in error; Phases II and III have 174 units each, and only 174 units was included for both phases. Mr. Lentsch asked Mr. James Roman if he could explain why there are 732 units on the north four Phases, but it appears there is more land on the south five phases. Mr. Roman stated that Phases II and III are higher buildings, and are two 174-unit areas, only one of which was included in the initial computation, as stated by Mr. Supinger. Discussion followed. Mr. Ross asked what would happen if the Commission reconsidered the matter and approved the waiver with respect to the north one-half of the site only? Mr. Berardini stated it is conjectural; Larwin Corporation takes the position that the Waiver is g~anted for the entire development. Mr. Ross stated that, if he understood Mr. Berardini correctly, Larwin has vested rights only on the north 1 /2 of the site, assuming the action taken on October 17 was not erroneous. Mr. Berardini stated that Larwin does have vested rights, and relied on the action of the Commission, to their detriment. Mr. Ross stated only with respect to the north one-half. Mr. Berardini stated that the period of time from October 17th to November 21st must be considered; Larwin could have acted on what they saw in the Minutes and action of the Commission, and in fact, did rely on ,the action of the Commission. There is a vested right and cannot be revoked for any reason. Further discussion followed. Mr. Eitel stated that it is Larwin's position that the facts have been presented many times since January, 1972; they have a vested right in the site development; they feel the plan was approved in its entirety, a .nd that further action by the Planning Commission would be improper. The development is an "entity", and Larwin would consider any further action or non-action to be improper. Mr. Weist stated that he felt new information had been presented to the Commission, and he would reconsider the matter on that basis. He stated that it was demonstrated several years ago that this area could be developed with 1120 units and be a feasible development. Is Larwin of the opinion that they cannot reasonably develop the site with less than 1500 units? Mr. Eitel stated that Larwin is of that opinion; 1500 is the minimum they feel is feasible. Mr. Eitel pointed out that under the existing R-3-A zoning on the property, one could consider 3500 to 4000 units on the 47 acre tract . Over the past 6 to 8 years, many compromises have taken place, ma~y of which have been agreed to since Larwin assumed control of the site. Mr. Eitel pointed out tha.t the density has been cut down to 1500 units at the present time, which is one of the compromises .reached in regard to development of the site. Mr. Robins reviewed Mr. Criswell's testimony of November 21st; he noted that Mr. Criswell stated that Mr. Carey had indicated he could develop the site with 1120 units and have a feasible development; the 1500 units was a negotiation point. Mr. Eitel pointed out that that was in 1967, and this is 1972. It is the position of Larwin Corporation that they cannot economically do it. Mr. Campbell stated that he had attended the sessions when the 1120 unit figure was dis- cussed, and this was not applied to plans and specifications for construction. Determination was also based upon the cost of the land, which is entirely different from the land cost to- day. Mr. Campbell estimated that the land cost has doubled in the five year period. In reply to an ~arlier inquiry about the development of Kent Village with 8 units per acre vs. 30 units per acre on the Larwin site, he stated that the land costs and other factors are not comparable. Mr. Robins interposed that he "didn't care about the cost of this property," and he knew all about inflation --''everything goes up at the same rate; if the land cost goes up, so does the rent." Mr. Campbell pointed out that Mr. Carey did not pursue the de- velopment of the site, and in fact dropped out of the matter. Mr. Campbell reiterated that the development costs of Carey's time aren't applicable today. Mr. Lentsch asked of Mr. Campbell "why are you here; who do you represent?" Mr. Campbell stated that he was involved in the original law suit on the property at the time of the R-3-A zoning, and represents Larwin Corporation in conjunction with Mr. Eitel. Mr. Criswell stated that Mr. Campbell did not become involved in the matter until it reached the Supreme Court. Mr. Criswell stated that he "never meant to suggest that Larwin is pound by the exact figures Carey gave to the City;" he does suggest however, that at the time they were told they would have to expend 1 /4 million dollars which today they don't have to ex- pend --on drainage facilities off-site; all of the parking would be underground, and that in spite of these two facts they could build between 1100 and 1200 units. Mr. Criswell stated that the developer will now save the 1 /4 million dollars on drainage; they won't have under- ground parking, and they are going to 1500 units. The 1500 units was not a compromise -- the 1200 unit suggestion was turned down by the neighbors, and the 1500 unit covenant was executed and presented to Council, Mr. Criswell stated that the primary purpose of the covenants was to give assurances there would not be 3000 or 4000 units on the site, and the 1500 unit figure was chosen for the simple reason so that after litigation started they would have negotiating room. No negotiations were successful. Mr. Criswell stated that a copy of his letter to the members of the Planning Commission dated November 6th was sent to the Larwin Corporation by the Director of Community Development, so Larwin Corporation was indeed aware there were serious problems in relation to the action of the Planning Commission. Mr. Criswell emphasized that this Commission has no authority to waive more than that which was requested. Mr. Criswell stated that while floor plans, landscaping plans, etc. were re- corded, the General Development Plan is the only thing that is under consideration. Mr. Criswell stated that he felt the Commission could, at this point, move the reconsideration of Areas V thru IX, at the very least. Mr. Criswell stated that if the Commission deter- mined to grant a waiver on the remaining portion of the ground, he would suggest .it be by a new resolution. Mr. Criswell emphasized that "if you say you are willing to waive the filing of a subdivision plat, that is the only portion of the Subdivision Regulations the Commission is waiving. Other restrictions in the Subdivision Regulations, such as construction standards whereby it states that all building sites .must front on a dedicated roadway, will still apply. If Larwin continues with the plan which has no dedicated roadways throughout they must also obtain a waiver of that portion of the Subdivision Regulations." Mr. Crisweil emphasized that if the Commission determines they will grant a Subdivision Waiver, and impose conditions, I I I I I I Page 1523 that if Larwin does not want to . agree to the conditions imposed, they may follow the Ordinance . and file a Plat. Mr. Criswell stated that "this is probably the last piece of ground in Englewood that will be devoted to a substantial single-type development for mult~ family housing; it will exist near and within one of the most substantial single-family areas in the City. This piece of ground presents an opportunity to the developer and City to prove to people that a multi-family project is not incompatible and can be integrated with a substantial single-family area." Mr. Criswell stated that he does not think this plan does this. Discussion followed. Mr. Criswell stated that in his view there is no way the Planning Commission can justify the waiver on this ground; "to say someone will develop 57 acres and for the City not [to] gain anything is ludicrous." Mr. Criswell stated that there is "no City with the population of the City of Englewood in this metro area that would approve a plan like this with no public streets." Mr. Criswell referred to the fact that easements will be provided, "but you haven't said where the easements are going to be." Mr. Criswell stated that Arapahoe County would not accept the area proposed for park, and noted that the Commission can require park land by way of a subdivision plat; he stated that he did not know if it could be required by way of a waiver. Mr. Criswell stated that a bond has not been required of the developer to insure proper utilities, etc. He emphasized that "the Ordinance says these must be put in before Building Permits are issued." Mr. Criswell stated that he feels Larwin is a good developer and a good builder; he is suggesting that "the City officials have a higher obligation than to say they have a good developer here, and we don't have to worry about it." Mr. Criswell stated that this plan is "cimpletely inward looking", and would create a "pocket" so to speak. Mr. Criswell stated he felt this development would be "taking without giving" anything to the City; he asked "how is it integrated with the City of Englewood, there is no access to it the public can use. There is no adequate means of carrying traffic in, out, and across the site. This developer has said you shall not use this ground for your traffic." Discussion followed. Mr. Ross asked if this Commission should have made "findings of fact" on this matter, and Mr. Criswell replied that the Commission should have done so. Upon a query from Mr. Ross, Mr. Criswell stated that traffic, congestion of buildings, drainage, etc. all relate to the question of density, and this is why they are mentioned in the Subdivision Regulations. Further discussion followed. Mr. Criswell commented that he does not think anybody knows what you can and cannot do under the waiver; he thinks it is a mistake for this project. Mr. Criswell indicated that he had met with Larwin representatives earlier in the day, and that "Larwin indicates they are flexible on some matters." Mr. Criswell stated he felt that density was an important matter, but "there are other problems." Discussion of the Construction Standards followed. Mr. Criswell cited §12-3-64 of the Sub- division Regulations. Mr. Criswell reiterated that all the Commission has <lone to this point is to waive the requirement of filing a plat; the remaining requirements of the Sub- division Regulations still apply. They may be waived by the Commission, but this is a different procedure and a different action. Mr. Lentsch stated that if this is the case, then how could the. build.ing permits be issued. Mr. Criswell stated that he did not know. Mr. Criswell stated he wished to point out that no variance was granted to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, which says there shall be only one building on a "lot"; there shall be no use of other buildings on the same lot for residential purposes. Mr. Criswell stated that these are some of the issues that have arisen from the Commission action of October 17th. Discussion followed. Mr. Berardini pointed out that the Subdivision Regulations were drafted by Mr. Criswell when he was City Attorney. Mr. Berardini stated that he feels there was provision for cluster development, and that there are public streets abutting the area. Mr. Berardini agreed that no public street would abut each building. Mr. Berardini cited in- stances where developments were inward, such as Cherry Hills Village, Bowmar, Windsor Gardens, Hallcraft, Polo Grounds, etc. Mr. Berardini stated that "what Mr. Criswell does, and he does it well, is to paint a black picture; this is not an unusual development, and it is inward oriented much as Kent Village is."· Mr. Berardini stated that the developers are entitled to present what they think is salable. Mr. Robins stated that Bowmar has public streets. Mr. Berardini stated he was referrint to the "exclusion of the public". Mr. Berardini stated that he didn't think there was a mandatory requirement for public streets in this type of development. The matter of density was then discussed. Mr. Berardini emphasized that if the Commission attempts to lower the density from that permitted by the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, or by the Covenants in this case, they are exercising legislative power, which they do not have. Further discussion followed. Mr. Brown stated that he feels the Commission does have grounds to reconsider this matter; "if we reconsider this tonight and decide to grant the waiver on what has been asked for by Larwin --my question is this --if we do this, I would like to see it denied on everything done in the past and start all over --include some density restrictions." Discussion followed. Mr. Berardini pointed out that building permits are issuing; he does not know if there are any permits issued for the south 1 /2 of the site. Discussion followed. Mr. Lentsch called a ten minute recess at 10:55 P.M. The meeting was called to order at 11:15 P.M. Members present: Members absent: Ross; Stanley; Weist; Brown; Lentsch; Robins Vobejda; Carlson; Henning Mr. Brown reviewed the petitions that have been presented to the Commission; about 650 signatures were presented asking that the waiver not be granted. At the last meeting, he presented petitions that had been presented to him, containing about 350 signatures, asking that the density be lowered. Mr. Brown stated that the people in the neighborhood know the development will go in, but they would like it to be compatible. Mr. Brown stated that he felt the Commission should make sure it's best for the people. Mr. Ross referred to comments made earlier on the matter of Larwin selling each Phase as it was completed. He asked Larwin representatives if this was the plan? ~r. Eite~ stated that the determination has not been made. Mr. Eitel reiterated that building permits have issued on Phases I thru IV and Larwin will proceed with all due speed on construction of buildings on those phases.' Discussion followed. Mr. Robins reviewed the meeting ~e attended at which it was stated that the project would be sold off phase by phase. Mr. Supinger stated that at the meeting he recalled, Mr. Tapking, who was Director of Land Planning for Larwin at that time indicated that they may or may not decide to sell off one or more phases to a group of inv~stors. If this were done, they would maintain control for a minimum of five Page 1524 years over the entire development. Mr. Supinger stated that Mr. Tapking stated that a de- velopment of this kind, with limited access, must be under one management group. Mrs. Stanley asked if Larwin has sold other projects they have constructed? Mr. Roman stated that this procedure is done when financial circumstances are favorable. Further discussion followed. Maintenance of streets and other common areas if the project were sold phase-by- phase was then discussed. Mr. Ross asked what would prevent the maintenance of these areas from becoming the responsibility of the City in the event the investment group does not actually retain control? Mr. Supinger stated that there is nothing to require the City of Englewood to accept maintenance unless the City agrees to accept the responsibility; this would be at the discretion of the City Council. Ross moved: Brown seconded: The Commission raise from the table the matter of reconsideration of the application for Subdivision Waiver acted upon at the meeting of October 3, 1972, Case #20-72. Mr. Weist questioned whether or not this motion encompassed too broad an area, inasmuch as it states reconsideration of the "application", and not specific phases? Mr. Berardini stated that he felt it was, and that he was not sure Phases II and III could be reconsidered now; at the time his opinion was written, permits had not issued for those two phases. Mr. Weist then asked Mr. Criswell if it was his opinion that the Commission could reconsider the entire matter, and not restrict themselves to Phases V thru IX? Mr. Criswell stated that the City says that Building Permits expire within six months, and that there has been no activity on the site thus far. The vote was called: AYES: Stanley; Weist; Brown; Lentsch; Robins; Ross NAYS: None ABSENT: Vobejda; Carlson; Henning The motion carried. Ross moved: Brown seconded: The Planning Commission rescind the waiver, if any was granted by this Commission, and any action taken at the meeting of October 17th, 1972. Discussion followed. Mr. Brown stated that at the last meeting, the Commission voted to re- consider the waiver, and requested that no more building permits be issued; "the way we stand now is that this Commission feels that permits should not have been granted the last few days. This Commission feels the City Council and City Manager are taking things in their own hands; we are just sitting here making a decision on our own." Mr. Brown stated he feels the Commission is doing the right thing in reconsidering the matter. The vote was called: AYES: Robins; Ross; Stanley; Weist; Brown; Lentsch NAYS: None ABSENT: . Vobejda; Carlson; Henning The motion carried. Mr. Robins stated that he felt "we should get together as soon as we can and come up with some decision as to what we are going to request from Larwin." Mr. Robins stated that he does not intend to be unreasonable, but the Commission mu~t decide on what is best for the City of Englewood. Mr. Lentsch commented that he felt Commission should have a meeting with. Larwin to discuss this in depth. Discussion followed. Mr. Ross suggested that the Commission meet on December 6, 1972. Mr. Robins asked how soon a "detailed map" could be available? Mr. Roman indicated the site plan, and stated "it's right here; it's been at every meeting." Mr. Ross asked if this site plan showed the location of easements? Mr. Supinger stated that it did not. Discussion followed. Mr. Ross asked "can this kind of project be consistent with the Subdivision Regulations without public streets, etc.?" Discussion of materials desired by the Commission for their consideration at the next meeting ensued. Mr. Weist was excused from the meeting. Mr. Ross stated that he determined from Mr. Criswell's statements that there must be findings to support the decision of the Commission on the Waiver; the Commission must find and sub- stantiate that there is no benefit to be gained by following the requirement of filing a sub- division plat. Mr. Ross stated he wants to get as many of the legal questions raised by Mr. Criswell eliminated as possible; he doesn't want to see either the City or Larwin Corporation tied up in a Lawsuit. Further discussion followed. Mr. Robins stated that unless the Com- mission considered the entire parcel, he would not vote in favor of the waiver, and asked if the Commission could receive a request from the applicant encompassing the entire parcel? Mr. Robins indicated he wanted dimensions, easements, streets, how many outlets are proposed from the site, etc. available for consideration by the Commission. Further discussion followed. Mr. Brown stated that the Commission was asking that Mr. Supinger provide the Com- mission with as much information as he feels would be helpful to them in reaching a decision. Mr. Supinger stated that he felt all the necessary information had been submitted to the Com~ mission already. Mr. Supinger stated that the staff feels that there is sufficient informa- tion available, it is a good development, and meets the requirements of the Ordinances, and they should proceed. Further discussion followed. Mr. Lentsch stated that he wanted to get an application for the entire site. Mr. Robins asked Larwin representatives "do you have any objection to putting in a request for the entire project?" Mr. Roman stated that as far as Larwin is concerned, they have applied for the entire project, and it has been approved. Mr. Brown asked about a stay of execution on the site pending a decision of the Commission. Discussion followed. Ross moved: Robins seconded: The Planning Commission meet in Special Meeting ~ednesday evening, December 6, 1972, at 8:00 P.M. AYES: Lentsch; Robins; Ross; Stanley; Brown NAYS: None ABSENT: Vobejda; Weist; Henning; Carlson The motion carried. I I I I I I Page 1525 Discussion followed. Ross moved: Robins seconded: The staff notify all members of the Special Meeting at 8:00 P.M. December 6, 1972, for ·the purpose of discussing action taken at this meeting and proposed action with respect to development of the KLZ Tract. AYES: Lentsch; Robins; Ross; Stanley; Brown NAYS: None ABSENT: Henning; Vobejda; Weist; Carlson The motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 12:30 A.M. Wednesday, December 6, 1972. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION December 12, 1972 SPECIAL MEETING The Special Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:05 P.M. by Chairman Lentsch. Members present: Lentsch; Vobejda; Ross; Stanley; Robins; Brown Supinger, Ex-officio Members absent: Carlson; Henning; Weist Also present: D. A. Romans; Messrs. Criswell, Eitel and Harvey II. LARWIN MULTIHOUSING CORPORATION Subdivision Waiver -KLZ Tract CASE #20-72 Mr. Lentsch suggested that possibly the Commission members would want to devote the first half hour to one hour to a study session at this meeting, off-record, and determine what direction the Planning Commission wants to go on the matter of the requested Subdivision Waiver for Larwin Multihousing Corporation. Mr. Lentsch asked that members present bring up any matter that may be of concern to them for discussion at this time. Mr. Ross stated that if the matter was to be discussed informally, it would be better if it were off-record. An informal study session ensued. Brown moved: Ross seconded: The meeting be opened and of record. AYES: Stanley; Lentsch; Vobejda; Brown; Robins; Ross NAYS: None ABSENT: Carlson; Henning; Weist The motion carried. Mr. Lentsch asked how much open space was to be retained under the plan as presented? Mr. Supinger stated that Exhibit "A 11 which was previously recorded with the action of October 17th, indicates there shall be a minimum of 46.9% open space, excluding paved areas, and club houses. There are six club houses proposed; these figures are for the total develop- ment. Discussion followed. The Commission asked the percent of paved areas, percent used for streets and parking sites? Mr. Robins asked what was meant by "open space?" Mr. Supinger noted that he was not in attendance at the meeting of October 17th, at which time it was determined that such notations would be indicated on the site plan; however, to him open space means an area that would be uninhibited by development and open from the ground up. Mr. Ross asked if this definition could include trees and shrubs. Mr. Supinger stated that it would include trees and shrubbery; however, it would not include paved areas and structures not intended for use in open space activities. It is conceiveable it would in-· elude a "shelter" type use such as is commonly found in parks; it would not include dwelling units or parking space. Mr. Ross asked if the figures for open space include "Parcel A", which is the park proposed for dedication to the City? Mr. Supinger stated he could not answer that question, and would investigate the matter. Mr. Lentsch asked how many parking spaces are there going to be? Mr. Supinger stated that he did not · have the figure available; the development will have · to meet the requirements of the Ordinance. Mr. Supinger noted that approval of the parking plans is a separate action of the Commission. Mr. Lentsch asked "Are you saying they don't have a plan of the whole site?" Mr. Supinger stated that he is saying "to have detailed parking, building and plans for the entire site would not be typical of the type of plans submitted for your approval; it would not be required for your approval in my estimation." Mr. Supinger pointed out that a general development plan is "conceptual" and after review of the Commission, if the Commission determines they are in agreement with the "concept"; the applicant should be in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and Building plans before building permits may be issued. In the waiver that was acted upon October 17th, one of the attached conditions set forth is that it will be the responsibility of the staff to determine that all building · permit applications are in conformance with the general development plan, Exhibit A.