Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-06-04 PZC MINUTES• • • I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMI SSI 'ON JUNE 4, 1974 CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:05 PoMo by Chairman Arthur Martin. Members present: Jorgenson;-Lentsch; Martin; Smith; Wade Supinger, Ex-officio Members absent: Anderson; Brown; Tanguma; Weist Also present: Assistant Director Romans; Assistant City Attorney Lee; Planning Assistants House and Young; Councilman-elect Jones. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Mr. Martin stated that Minutes of May 7, 1974, and May 21, 1974, were to be considered for approval. Lentsch moved: Smith seconded: The minutes of May 7, 1974, and May 21, 1974, be approved as written. AYES: Jorgenson; Lentsch; Martin; Smith; Wade NAYS: None ABSENT: Brown; Tanguma; Weist; Anderson The motion carried. III. LARWIN CORPORATION. Mr. Martin stated that the Commission had invited representatives from Larwin corporation to attend to give a "progress report" on the development of the former KLZ Site. Mr. Martin pointed out that this is not a "public hearing", and that possibly if members of the audience wished to express their opinions and views, such a public hearing should be scheduled. Mr. Martin stated that he hoped questions from the Commission would be the extent of the discussion on the matter of the Larwin develop- ment at this meeting. Mr. Alan Weinstein, Larwin, stated that they intend to fully build out the two projects under construction. Mr. Weinstein stated that Larwin has expressed their intent to build on the north 1/2 of the site; however, they may market a portion of the total site to another developer • • • • -2~ Mr. Weinstein stated that he had appeared before City Council a few weeks ago to discuss the development; at that time, City Attorney Berardini stated that the development of the site is "locked into this plan", and there can be no variations even if a portion of the parcel were to be sold. The developers will have to build to this plan. Mr. Weinstein stated that no commitments for sale have been made. Mr. Weinstein stated that the adult section is 60% completed; the family section is 51% completed. They are preparing to plant along the Kent Village/Larwin complex boundary line. Mr. Lentsch referred to the conditions set forth in the Sub- division Waiver; he asked Assistant City Attorney Lee if Larwin has fulfilled their obligations as set forth in the conditions attached to the Waiver. Mr. Lee stated they have not met all conditions, because the total site is not com- pletely developed, and some of the conditions were based on . complete developmento Mr. Lentsch inquired of Mr. Weinstein if Larwin plans to ful- fill all obligations on the waiver? Mr. Weinstein stated that they did, and even if Larwin were to market part of the site to another developer, that developer would have to fulfill the obligations . Mr. Lentsch stated that he had never liked the development, and that it is the worst he has ever seen. Mr. Lentsch asked about the fencing for security purposes; he noted that the fencing is down and has been for the better part of the con- struction time, and gets worse as the construction progresses. Mr. Weist entered and took his place with the Commission. Mr. Lentsch asked Mr. Weinstein what they proposed to do about the fencing, etc.; he noted that people were complaining to him about the development. Mr . Lentsch noted that Mr. James Roman, of the Larwin Corporation, had stated tl:nt there would be no sale of the site, or any portion thereof. Mr. Weinstein stated that Larwin has "made every effort to cooperate with the City." Mr. Martin referred to the landscaping, and questioned whether it would be done. Mr. Weinstein stated that the buildings under construction will be landscaped --they have agreed to do that. Mr. Tanguma entered and took his place with the Commission • • • • .l ,. -3- Discussion followed. Mr. Weinstein stated that "as soon as we had any idea we might want to sell, we talked to James Supinger and Mr. Dial". Mr. Weinstein stated again that "nothing has been consummated" as far as sale. Mr. Lentsch asked "if you sell phases 1 and 4, who will manage them?" Mr. Weinstein stated that Larwin would retain management of the phases even though they might be sold. Mr. Martin stated that he unqerstood there was to have been "tuck-in" parking on the site·; he asked what the status was on the parking? Mr. Kinrade of Larwin stated that the parking is as shown on the approved plan. Mr. Martin stated that he understood quite a bit of the fence along Floyd Avenue was down. Mr. Kinrade stated that this portion of fence is down so that City equipment can get into work; he stated that they are nearly ready for installation of the V-Pan and the wrought iron fence between the park and the site itself. Mr. Martin asked what this did to security? · Mr. Kinrade stated that the corporation has a four-wheel drive vehicle with off-duty firemen and policemen patrolling the area constantly. Mr.Smith asked what portion of the site Larwin is completing? Mr. Weinstein stated they are constructing 384 units of a total of 1,500 units. Mr. Supinger noted that the total site was 55 acres; the area of the park is 4.5 acres. He noted that the area under development would be a little more than 1/3 of the total land area, but less than 1/3 of the total units. Mr. Martin stated that he understood that some residents were concerned with the financial status of the Larwin Corporation as it would affect this development. Mr. Weinstein stated there were no problems with the financial status of the Larwin Corporation. He acknowledged that "last year was a bad year for Larwin and its parent company, CNA". Mr. Weinstein stated that Larwin and CNA have determined to "restrict" or cut back where they can for their own good; they have closed regional offices, of which the Englewood office is one. Mr. Weinstein emphasized that "this doesn't mean Larwin isn't financially stable; it doesn't mean Larwin will not continue to build." Mr. Lentsch noted that there were residents in attendance that would like time to speak. Mr. Martin emphasized that this is not a public hearing. Mr. Martin noted that perhaps a public hearing could be called and thereby give all residents con- cerned about the Larwin project an opportunity to express their opinions. Mr. Lentsch stated that he felt a public hearing was warranted . 1. • • • -4- Mr. Weinstein stated that he felt this would be repetitious; he noted that he had recently appeared before City Council to report on the Larwin project. Mr. Martin pointed out that there are several new members on the Planning Commission who were not involved in the initial discussions with Larwin, and if only to bring them up-to-date and maintain continuity, he felt the hearing did have merit. Mr. Weinstein stated that he doesn't feel the "continuity" has been disrupted; he has only stated that "another party may be coming in." Discu~sion followed. Mr. Martin pointed out that the Commission represents the citizens of Englewood; when people begin having some doubts about some big development, he stated he felt it was the duty of the Commission to honor the opinion of the people, and at least listen to their concerns. Mr. Martin stated that if nothing more than clearing the air is accomplished, the meeting would be worthwhile. Mr. Smith stated that he would have to agree that a public hearing is warranted. Lentsch moved: Smith seconded: The Planning Commission have a public hearing July 9, 1974, to allow people to express their feelings and douqts on the Larwin Development. AYES: Jorgenson; Lentsch; Martin; Smith; Tanguma; Wade; Weist NAYS: None ABSENT: Anderson; Brown The motion carried. Mr. Supinger asked what the Commission wanted the staff to do in regard to notification, materials available, etc. Discussion followed. Councilmen Anderson and Brown entered and took their places with the Commission. Mr. Lee pointed out that a Public Hearing would have no effect on the development. Mr. Martin noted that it's apparent a considerable number of people are concerned about the development; he stated that he felt the public hearing may allay some of the questions the people may have about the Larwin development. Mr. Smith stated that he felt the hearing might alleviate problems Larwin could be faced with:in the future, and could be to the b~nefit of all concerned . • • • -5- Discussion followed. Mr. Lee stated that the legal effect of the plan was determined a long time ago by the decision of the Planning Commission and concurrence of the City Council. The waiver which was granted is binding. If there is a breach of the waiver, the City would have to take action to enforce compliance; there is nothing further of a legal nature that needs to be done unless such a breach does occur. Mr. Lee stated that no matter whether the up-coming meeting is termed a "public hearing" or a "public meeting", it will have no legal effect whatsoever on the fact that a subdivision waiver has been granted and the development plan approved. Mr. Lee stated that the action of granting the waiver and approving the plan "cannot be rescinded by you or any one else." Mr. Weinstein stated that if a public forum was what the Com- mission had in mind, he would more than happy to talk to people, but he didn't really understand the reasono Discussion followed. Mr. Martin stated that, in an effort to give some idea of the questions in the minds of the residents, he would allow members of the audience to speak. Mr. William Ross, 3120 South Race, stated that he was in favor of a public hearing, and that he wanted it called a public hearing. Mr. Ross stated that "there is clear indication that one of the exits from this project onto Floyd Avenue has been used; one of the conditions was that no construction vehicles were to be allowed to use Floyd or Lafayette." Mr. Ross stated that this is but one example of resident concern. Mr. Ross stated "this Commission has an on-going responsibility to police this project --to see the conditions of the waiver are followed." Mr. Ross noted "there is a fair JllOSsibility it won't continue under Larwin"; he stated he felt it was necessary for this Commission to have progress reports from time-to-time. Mr. Ross further stated that he did not feel the drainage provisions had been met; he noted there was to be a "drainage pond" on the site to prevent flooding of properties down-grade from the subject site. Mr. Ross noted that there could be 4,500 to 6,000 people living on the site when completed; this development does have•gr~at impact on the City of Englewood, and the Planning Commission does have a responsibility to the City. Planning Commissioner Brown stated that he concurred with Mr. Ross's statements. Mr. Weinstein pointed out that the City does have inspectors to enforce agreement and compliance with the subdivision waiver. Mr. Weinstein stated that the Floyd exit was used at the request of Public Works Director Waggoner, and it is "City trucks" that are using this exit. Mr. Weinstein again stated that "if Larwin is in any violation, the City has the power and people to enforce compliance." Mr. Weinstein pointed out that Larwin has hired off-duty firemen and policemen in addition to their own security force to patrol the site at all times. • • • Mr. Anderson asked if it was the duty of the Commission to "police" projects once approval or recommendation has been -6- made? Mr. Lee stated that he would not give a definite opinion until he had read the powers of the Planning Commission; how- ever, he stated that he felt the duties of the Commission would be to hold public hearings, review zoning requests, subdivision plats and waivers, annexation, etc. The Commission would make recommendations to the City Council. After Council decision, it is the responsibility of the administration to assure en- forcement. Mr. Lee stated that he did not know of any author~ty on the part of the Planning Commission to find a developer in violation of an ordinance and take action. Mr. Martin stated that perhaps the function of the Commission is not to enforce, but on the other hand, it does seem there· is certain responsibility on the part of the Planning Com- mission to, in a very general way, serve as a watch-dog on developments. If there is no need for that, the Commission could serve as a sounding board, at the very least. Discuss~on followed. Mr. Supinger suggested that possibly a special meeting might be set rather than hold the public hearing on a regular meeting night. Further discussion followed. It was finally determined that July 9, 1974,be scheduled for the public hearing, and that it be held in the Community Room of Englewood City Hall. Further discussion followed. Mr. Richard Brown, 3403 South Race Street, Kent Village, stated he felt the public hearing was an excellent idea. However, he stated that there were residents of the area that were under the impression that questions could be asked at this meeting; there are some people who may not be able to attend the public hearing. Planning Commissioner Brown asked if Mr.Brown felt that if questions were allowed at this meeting a public hearing might not be necessary? Mr. Brown stated that he felt questions asked at this meeting might make the public hearing "more productive". Mr. Tanguma stated that he saw no reason the questions could not be held until the public hearing. Dis- cussion followed. Mr. Martin stated that he would allow dis- cussion until 9:15 p.m ., at which time this portion of the agenda would be carried over to July 9th. Mr. Brown stated that he is confused by the statements from Larwin representatives; it has been stated they might sell the south 1/2, and that Larwin will continue to manage Phases 1 and 4. He asked if Larwin contemplates sale of all or part of the site? Mr. Weinstein stated that Larwin will have to retain control of Phases 1 and 4, those which are under con- struction at the present time • • • • -7- Mr. Brown stated that at a "very early meeting we were advised by Larwin representatives (Tapking, Gleim) that all parking would be "tuck-in", and that it would be partly excavated; there would be 1/2 story for parking, one story for occupancy, and the roofing structure." Mr. Brown stated that there has been a change, and asked why. Mr. Supinger stated he did not re- call the 1-1/2 story structures. Mr. Supinger stated that the approved development plan for this site designates the height for every building on the site. The developer is working in compliance with the approved. plan. Mr. Lentsch asked what the height of the wall between Kent Village and the Larwin Development was supposed to be? Mr. Supinger stated that he recalled it was to be a 6 ft. wall. Mr. Brown stated that he understood the parking along the Kent Village area was to be out of view of the Kent Village resi- dents. Mr. Brown then referred to Planning Commission minutes of October 3, 1972, wherein Mr. James Roman of the Larwin Cbrporation stated that "over one-half of the parking to be . provided for the development will be covered, either under- ground or 'tucked-in' under the structures." Mr. Brown noted that all of the parking he has seen is at ground level. Mr. Supinger noted that Mr. Brown's quotation from the Minutes is correct and still applies to the parking. Mr. Supinger noted that along Floyd Avenue there is surface parking, as is shown on the approved plan. There is tuck-in parking at the rear of the structures . Mr. Lentsch noted that the grade along Lafayette is about 18 ft. above street level. He stated that he didn't know what "grade level" is. Mr. Supinger discussed the topography and grading of the site. Mr. Brown charged that the tuck-in parking "would be a ground level garage without doors", and stated that "there wasn't significance attached to it" at the time of the initial discussions. Mr. Supinger stated that he agreed with the lack of discussion on this particular matter. He stated that at the time the subdivision waiver was being discussed, this matter of tuck-in parking did not get the attention other facets of the development did. He stated that the City has no way to require the buildings to be constructed any other way than they are being built. Mr. Supinger emphasized that "they do meet the Code." Mr. Ross asked Mr. Supinger's definition of a "two-story building". Mr. Supinger stated that it would be two stories above grade. Mr. Ross asked if a garage is a "story"? Mr. Supinger stated that it could be, but is not in this case because of the grade. He also pointed out that the development plan indicates the height of each and every building. Mr. Supinger stated that it is the difference of grade of the site that has permitted the developer to do what has been done. A gentleman of the audience stated that residents of the area were left with the impression that "grade" was the "original grade and not an altered grade." Discussion followed. Mr. Ross corroborated the statement that residents were under the • • • impression the grade would be the natural unchanged grade. Mr. Ross stated that he felt this should have been made clear to the Commission at the time it was considered, and he stated that it was not. Mr. Supinger stated that the matter of grade was discussed in relation to the drainage. Mr. Supinger stated that the approved drainage plan does indicate the grade as it is now. Mr. Supinger stated that one of the conditions of the waiver was that the drainage plan was to be subject to the approval of the Public Works Director. Discussion followed. Mr. Lentsch referred to the development along South Lafayette street, and noted that there is an area where the grade had not been increased as it has on either side. He stated that he felt the building just north of this "open" area is a three story building. Mr. Supinger stated that according to the code it is not a three-story building. Mr. Royce Robins, former Planning Commission member, stated that Larwin representatives assured the Commission that the development would be single-story dwellings along the perimeter, then two-story dwellings on the interior of the development, with three-story buildings in the center of the development. Mr. Supinger stated that this statement is incorrect. Mr. Richard Brown again referred to minutes of October 3, 1972, regarding the landscaping along the Kent Village boundary; Mr. Roman is quoted as stating there will be a landscaped strip lfr to 25 feet wide between the property line and the first line of parking. Mr. Brown asked if this was still in effect? Mr. Paul Kinrade of Larwin stated that the landscaping will be done as per the approved plan. Mr. Supinger noted that the exhibit shows a 10 ft. landscaped strip between the property line and the first row of parking; there will, how- ever, be approximately 80 ft. between the property line and the first building. Mr. Ross asked if the site plan was incorporated in the approval of the subdivision waiver. Mr. Supinger stated that the approved site plan is a sepia drawing that has information on the height of buildings, etc. included on it. Also included, are two ex- hibits on the decorative wall between Kent Village and this development; all exhibits have been recorded with the Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder. Mr. Lentsch stated he understood that Larwin had initially applied and received permits for 750+/~ units; he asked how many units were under construction? Mr. Supinger stated they are now constructing 384 units. Mr. Lentsch asked how long a building permit was effective, inasmuch as they have not begun construction on all units covered by the permits? Mr. Supinger stated this would be looked into • • • • -!1- Mr. Ross asked that legal counsel review whether or not the "waiver is assignable." Discussion ensued. Mr. Martin asked Mr. Lee to render an opinion on whether or not the waiver is assignable in the event Larwin does sell a portion of the land. Mr. Lee stated that he -wanted to be clear on the question: is it whether the waiver is assignable, or is the matter restraint of alienation of property? Mr. Lee noted that one cannot re- strain the developer from the alienation of property. Mr. Lee stated that he would review the matter of assignability of the waiver. Mr. Martin requested that the Englewood Herald advertise the public meeting. He also requested that background material be submitted to the Commission on the matter of the Larwin development. IV. SOUTH OF UNION EAST OF DECATUR Mr. Supinger stated that this is a report to the Commission following their meeting with property owners of the area. Some of the property owners met with Mrs. Romans and other staff members on a possible change of zoning in the area. Mr. Anderson asked if all property owners had agreed to the rezoning? Mr. Supinger stated that they had not; the property owners are to try to work out something themselves before filing formal application. Discussion followed . V. BIG DRY CREEK Mr. Supinger stated that the information on improvement of Big Dry Creek would be available at the next meeting. Mr. Weist stated that he was interested in the recommendation of the Parks & Recreation Commission on the improvements they want along Big Dry Creek. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Supinger stated that he had nothing to bring before the Commission at this time. VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE Mr. Lentsch again discussed the Larwin project. Mr. Supinger stated that the only legally binding document is the approved subdivision waiver. Further discussion followed. Mr.Brown reported on the City Council meeting of June 3, 1974. The Sign Code was passed on second reading 5-1. Mr. Brown stated that there was a member of the audience in opposition to the Sign Code; many others were speaking in favor of it • Council passed a noise-control ordinance on first reading. • • • Mr. Brown>referring to the Larwin discussion, stated he felt it is a good idea to give the people a sounding board; he stated it was a big project, and there are a lot of rumors going aroundo Mr. Martin stated his report on the ASPO Convention would be available for the next Commission meeting. Mr. Lentsch stated that he felt the dinner meeting with the Planning Commissioners from Arapahoe County jurisdictions was extremely good. Mr. Martin agreed, and stated that Greenwood Village is to host the next meeting in September. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 PoM •