Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-12-12 PZC MINUTESI 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. Page 1526 Mr. Ross referred to the staff report on the parking plan for the first four phases; Phase I, a total of 232 units, 400 spaces are provided; Phase II and III, a total of 348 units, 607 spaces are provided; Phase IV, a total of 152 units, 281 spaces provided, for a total of 1,288 parking spaces for Phases I, II, III and IV. Discussion followed on the number of units to be constructed on the north half vs. the south half of the site. It was determined that there will be a total of 732 units in the first four phases, for which permits have already been issued, constructed on the nort~ half of the site, which is less than half of the actual land area. There will be 768 units constructed on the south half of the tract. Mr. Robins stated that the original request from Larwin was for 558 units on the north portion of the site; they now want 732 units on the north half. Mr. Supinger stated that he had a~ tempted to explain to Mr. Robins at a previous meeting that . the 558 unit figure was tabulated in the office of Community Development, and that while the letter was from Larwin, they used the figure from the Community Development tabulation. Mr. Supinger stated that he had further attempted to explain to Mr. Robins that when the staff tabulated the units in Phases II and III, both of which have 174 units each, a total of 174 units was used for both Phases, thus giving the 558 unit total rather than the correct 732 unit total. Mr. Brown stated that he had three items he would like to have clarified: 1. The application. 2. Drainage -any definite plans rather than the "concept?" 3. Traffic -up-to-date traffic counts on #285 and other key streets. Mr. Supinger stated that there were, originally, two applications filed by Larwin Corporation; one for a Subdivision Waiver for the total site, and one for a Planned Development for the total site. Because Larwin was interested in initiating construction on Phases I thru IV, and because the City Attorney said building permits could not be issued on any part of the site as long as a Planned Development was pending for the entire site, Larwin withdrew the PD application, and indicated they did not feel the Subdivision Waiver provisions should apply to the site. The City Attorney indicated in an opinion that the Subdivision Regulations would apply to the site. Subsequent to that, Larwin filed a letter saying they wanted to . draw the application for Waiver back to the north 1 /2 of the tract; subsequent to this action, it is Mr. Supinger's recollection that there was mutual agreement between the Commission and Larwin at a public meeting that the waiver consideration would again be for the total site. On the matter of drainage: the plans submitted related to a conceptual plan for the entire site. Mr. Supinger stated that it has been explained to the Commission it was necessary to get approval of the conceptual plan before going ahead with a specific design based on that concept. Mr. Supinger stated that if he understood the waiver document acted upon October 17th, the Commission was saying that they approved of the concept for drainage and the assumptions and standards used in preparing that document, and it would be up to the Director of Public Works to approve specific plans in accordance with that concept before issuance of Building Permits, which could include certain temporary measures which would be used to store storm waters on the site until the City system was installed. Mr. Supinger stated that the possibility of delaying construction of one building on the northwest section has been dis- cussed; this area would be used for the temporary drainage storage. Mr. Supinger stated that in planning the over-all City storm drainage system, the storm drainage consultant made assumptions on the eventual development of the KLZ Site, and assumed a certain discharge of water from that site -60 cfs. When the actual development plans came in, Larwin was told that anything over and above the 60 cfs could not be handled by the City storm drainage system, and they would be required to store on-site anything over and above the 60 cfs, up to the amount of water created by a 100-year storm. This is ~he reason the detention ponds were devised. The water stored in the detention ponds can drain into the City system as the system can accept it. Mr. Lentsch stated that he could not understand why, in a development of 1,500 units, "in no area are they putting in a storm sewer." Mr. Supinger noted that "it's more expensive to put in an underground system than it is a surface system." When Larwin was told they would have to provide for this storage, and at that time they were also talking about the park area, they asked if the park area could be used for surface detention and the staff indicated there would be no objections from the staff. Mr. Lentsch stated that "they have to have the park for storm drainage; they could have put it underground; they aren't really giving us anything." Mr. Supinger stated that "if the people who brought this up had taken time to research the records, the statement would never have been made." Mr. Supinger stated that the drainage time from the ponds for a 100-year .storm, would be less than three hours. Mr. Supinger emphasized that this is for a 100-year storm, anticipated to occur on a 1 % probability. The park will, in no way, be under water all the time. Mr. Supinger stated that he thinks it is very unfair to criticize Larwin or the City staff for recommending the acceptance o f the park based on erroneous and unfounded information. It does a great disservice to make those accusations without attempting to research the matter. Mr. Lentsch then discussed the drainage problem in the 3100 block of South Franklin, noting that they have problems with drainage all the time, and that it does not take much water to create problems. Mr. Supinger then cited other areas in town where multi-purpose use will be made of a park- greenbelt, such as Harvard Gulch, and an area in the south portion of Englewood. Mr. Supinger stated that this type of drainage-parkway is proposed throughout the City. Mr. Ross asked if water from Floyd Avenue will drain into the park? Mr. Supinger stated that it would not; there will be curb and gutter, and the park will be bermed up at that point. Mr. Supinger stated that there will be three or four outlets from the park site into the storm drainage system. Further discussion on the drainage matter followed. Mr. Brown stated that the contracts for the construction of the Englewood drainage system have been let. He asked if Larwin really has plans they feel will work? Mr. Supinger stated that Larwin is being required to do more than any other developer has been required to do in relation to drainage, in that they must provide on-site storage of storm waters up to a 100-year storm. Mr. Ross asked what the $240,000 for off-site storm drainage by the pre- vious developer encompassed? Mr. Supinger stated that it would not have handled a 100-year storm. Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger stated that the drainage problem referred to by Mr. Lentsch does not drain from the Larwin Site. Mr. Robins stated "not now ; it's absorbed. Once you put houses and paving on there, it will be different story; it will all run off." Mr. Ross asked what have we got in the way of a study to indicate where the water will go? I I I I I I Page 1527 Mr. Supinger stated the conceptual drai n age plan for the total site, which has been approved by the Director of Public Works and the Storm Drainage consultant. Larwin has also submitted specific plans for the first four phases which have been approved by the Director of Public Works and the consultant. Mr. Ross asked if there is underground drainage or will it all run into the park? Mr. Supinger stated that the plan is broken into segme~ts, and part will flow toward the northwest corner, the remainder flowing into the detention ponds. The matter of a catch basin was considered. The following questions were asked in relation to that matter: 1. How large is the basin, and how much water will it carry? 2. If it does overflow, where does the water go? 3. What protection do the people down the street have if the basin doesn't hold it? Mr. Supinger was directed to "find out where we stand, and get it in writing." 4. What provision is made for a catch basin from the mid-rise section west? Further discussion followed. Mr. Brown s t ated he understood there would be three outlets in the City drainage system: Lafayette and Floyd; Franklin and Floyd; High and Floyd; with the retention ponds in the park to hold water until the City system can accept it. Subsurface drainage system throughout the · site was then considered. Mr. Ross asked if there was anything subsurface except where it drains into the City system? Mr. Ross asked if we have any specific drainage plans on the site? Mr. Supinger stated there were specific plans on Phases I, II, III and IV. Discussion followed. Mr. Ross asked if th e re was any reason they were beginning construction on the north 1 /2 first? Mr. Supinger stated that he could not remember the specific reasons given by Larwin for wanting to begin const r uction on the north portion. Mr. Ross asked "will Larwin begin construc t ion on Phase I first?" Mr. Ross then asked when are the drainage facilities of the City go i ng to be available that can handle the drainage from the site? Does the contract have a completion date specified? Where does the drainage system go? Does it include some kind of tie-in at Lafayette and East Floyd Avenue? Is there any other drainage system to be installed by the City which will take any drainage from this site? Mr. Supinger stated that the KLZ Site will drain to the north, and the developer must design the entrances to U. S. 285 so that drainage from the State Highway will flow across their property. Mr. Lentsch asked how the streets and parki n g lots would be drained? Mr. Supinger stated that they will be designed to flow into the system, either surface or subsurface. Mr. Ross asked if the drainage contract had been let? Mr. Brown stated that the contract has been awarded, and construction is to begin as soon as possible. Mr. Ross stated that he wa~ concerned about the completion date. Mr. Supinger pointed out that the date could not be too specific --it must take tnto account weather, etc. Mr. Ross asked if the fact that the conceptual drainage plan has been approved means it is not subject to change? Mr. Supinger stated that it has been approved as f~r as concept is concerned; he thinks it can be modified to do the job. Further discussion followed. Mr. Supinger stated that the only area that drains out the northwest corner is Phase I; all the rest drains into the detention ponds. Mr . Ross stated that about 75% of the area drains into the park in that event. Mr. Supinger s t ated that is correct. Mr. Lentsch stated "then only Phase I drains into the 18 11 pipe at the northwest corner?" Mr. Supinger stated yes. Mr. Ross asked how much drainage would be retained on site with the two-year storm? Brown stated that Mr. Waggoner has spoken to that point; he thinks Mr. Waggoner said would be very little water retained under these circumstances. Mr. Supinger pointed that .the estimated drainage time for a 100-year storm is less than three hours. Mr. there out Mr. Robins stated that a 1 11 rain isn't unusual, and further discussed the results of such a rain. Mr. Supinger stated that he had no i n tention of arguing the point with Mr. Robins, and saw no point in discussing it with Mr . Ro b ins any further. Mr. Lentsch asked if there were any further questions on drainage? Discussion of the temporary storage provisions en- sued. Mr. Lentsch noted that Larwin had agreed to leave a building site vacant until the City facilities could accept the drainage. Mr. Ross asked "will it be near Kent Village?" Mr. Supinger stated that the only site he rec a lled that was discussed was in the northwest corner of the development. Mr. Lentsch asked when will Larwin put the curb and gutter in along Floyd Avenue; will they do it now, or wait until the project is completed. Mr. Supinger stated that Larwin will rough grade the park area at the same time they rough grade their site. They will probably do some excavation in the mid-rise area at the same time they do the rough grading. The matter of traffic counts was then discussed. Mr. Supinger stated that he would try to have the latest traffic counts on U.S. 285 for the next meeting. Mr. Brown stated he would like to know the latest counts; if there is nothing available within the last six months, he would like up-to-date counts on U.S. 285, University Boulevard, Downing, Floyd and Lafayette, and any other streets the staff or Commission feel are important. The Commission then discussed the days they felt would be best for accurate counts. Mr. Lentsch stated that he felt Saturday would be a good day, while Mr. Brown stated that he felt a work-day would be good. Discussion followed. Mr. Robins stated that one year ago, there were 3,000 cars per hour on U.S. 285 between the hours of 4 P.M. and 5 P.M. In the mornings between 7 A.M. and 8 A.M., the count is slightly less. It was suggested that the counts be taken on both a week day, and on Saturday, if possible. Page 1528 A recess was called at 10:20 P.M. The meeting was called to order at 10:35 P.M. Mr. Supinger noted that it had been called to his attention during the meetings Mr. Waggoner attended, he had stated that there would date from the time the contracts for the drainage system were let. he was sure this completion time did not take into account "acts of the recess that at one of be an eight month completion Mr. Supinger stated that God'.'. Mr. Ross asked "d o we have any antici p ated completion time on Phase I, or whatever Phase Larwin begins construction on first?" Mr. Supinger .stated that he did not recall an actual date; only that the completion time of the initial construction on Larwin and the completion time of the drainage system would be "tight". Discussio n followed. Brown moved: Robins seconded: The Commission request up-to-date 24-hour traffic counts from the Traffie Engineering Division as soon as possible on the following streets: University Boulevard; Downing Street; East Floyd Avenue from University . west to Logan; South Lafayette Street from Hampden to Dartmouth; U.S. 285·. If the Traffic Engineering Division has recently made counts on these streets, within the last two or three months, new counts need not be made. Mr. Lentsch asked how many extra cars would be using Lafayette Street that would be attributed to the Larwin development? Mr. Supinger stated that projections of that have previously been given the Commission. Mr. Ross asked if those projections included any information on the access points onto U.S. 285? Mr. Supinger stated they did not. Mr. Lentsch stated that he was under the impression that Cherry Hills Village has an Ordinance prohibiting left-turn movements on the portion of U.S. 285 that they control. Mr. Lentsch asked that this be looked into by the City Attorney, and report back to the Commission. The vote on the motion: AYES: Lentsch; Vobejda; Ross; Robins; Brown; Stanley NAYS: None ABSENT: Carlson; Henning; Weist The motion carried. Discussion followed. Ross moved: Stanley seconded: Discussion followed. The vote was called: The Chairman of the Planning Commission be authorized and directed to transmit letters to the City Manager of the City of Englewood, the City Council of the City of Englewood, and to Larwin Multihousing Corporation for the purpose of giving official notice of the action taken by the City Planning and Zoning Commission at its meeting of December 5, 1972. The letters to read in substantial text as previously presented to the Commission, with the one amendment to the letter to City Council stating that " .•• the course of action ••. may if followed result in controversy and may destroy or materially delay ... and which the Commission hopes to accomplish." AYES: Ross; Lentsch; Stanley; Brown; Robins NAYS: Vobejda ABSENT: Weist; Henning; Carlson The motion carried. Mr. Lentsch stated that he would like to know: 1. Construction standards -clarification of that portion of the Subdivision Regulations. 2. The width of streets within the project, and specifications on surfacing; will they meet standards of the City of Englewood? The matter of "specifications" was discussed. Mr. Brown stated that he felt that all specifications should be available on the street surfacing. Mr. Lentsch asked that the staff determine how many one, two and three bedroom units are contained in each phase of the development. Mr. Supinger stated that the staff would have that information in writing, and would also have the parking requirements for each phase. Mr. Robins stated that he wanted all this information before the next meeting. Mr. Supinger pointed out that the information is, as a rule, sent to the Commission Friday preceeding the meeting. Mr. Robins stated that he wanted it before that. Mrs. Stanley asked that information on whether or not Larwin has to post a bond be available. Mr. Brown asked "will the report Mr. Supinger is going to get for us include any information on drainage, or will it come from Mr. Waggoner?" Mr. Supinger stated that he would assemble written material on the drainage matter, and would also ask Mr. Waggoner to be present if so desired by the Commission. So ordered. Mr. Lentsch asked Messrs. Eitel and Harvey if they had anything to discuss with the Commission? Mr. Harvey stated that in instances such as this where the Commission has granted a waiver and Larwin has acted on that belief, Larwin is reluctant to make further statements on the matter; they do not want to waive any course of action they may have. Mr. Harvey stated that Larwin representatives would be most happy to meet informally with the Commission to discuss this matter; they cannot do it in a formal meeting. Larwin would prefer to have a meeting where they are not exposed to the confusion that arises frQm a public meeting. Mr. Harvey stated that Larwin representatives have indicated they will meet with the Commission at any date the Commission might prefer. I I I I I I Page 1529 Mr. Lentsch asked if Mr. Criswell and the City Attorney could be present at such a meeting. Mr. Harvey stated he would inquire of the Larwin people, but he didn't feel they would ob- ject to that type meeting, but they did want it to be informal, and off the record. Mr. Ross stated that he felt it was a good gesture on the part of Larwin to offer to meet with the Commission, and he felt that the Commission should plan such a meeting. Mr. Ross stated he was sure time was of the essence as far as Larwin is concerned. Discussion followed. Mr. Harvey stated that he and Mr. Eitel have made notes of the questions asked by the members at this meeting, and that if there are any other questions the Commission might want answered, if they could be communicated to the Larwin people some way, Larwin would attempt to get the answers before the informal meeting. Mr. Harvey stated that "Larwin would like to bring the information you want to you." Discussion followed. Brown moved: Robins seconded: The vote was called. The Planning Commission meet in an informal off-the-record study session with the Larwin Corporation on December 28, 1972. AYES: Lentsch; Vobejda; Brown; Stanley; Robins; Ross NAYS: None ABSENT: Carlson ; Henning ; Weist The motion carried. Mr. Ross asked what the school district boundary was on this site? Mr. Supinger stated that it is along the east side of the Franklin right-of-way. The meeting adjourned at 11:20 P.M. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *