Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-07-09 PZC MINUTES• •• • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING JULY 9, 1974 I • CALL TO ORDER. The Special Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at· 8:05 P.M. by Chairman Martin. Members present: Brown; Jones; Jorgenson; Lentsch; Martin; Tanguma; Wade; Weist Supinger, Ex-officio Members absent: Smith Also present: Assistant Director Romans; Planning Assistant House; City Attorney Berardini; Assistant City Attorney Lee; Councilmen Sovern, Taylor, Mann; Assistant Director Brokate; Acting City Manager and Public Works Director Waggoner; Fire Chief Hamilton; Police Chief Clasby; Parks Director Romans. II. PUBLIC HEARING Larwin Corporation Mr. Martin expressed his appreciation to the audience for their attendance at this special public hearing. Mr. Martin stated the purpose of the meeting is to allow persons who have questions regarding the development an opportunity to have those questions answered. Mr. Martin stated there were repre- sentatives of the Larwin Corporation present to answer questions. Mr. Martin then asked Mr. Supinger to give an outline of pre- vious action regarding the site. Mr. Supinger stated that the former KLZ site contains 55 acres, more or less, and is bounded on the north by East Floyd Avenue, on the east by the Kent Village Development (66 units on 12+/- acres), on the south by U.S. 285, and on the west by South Lafayette Street. The site was used for radio transmitter lines between 1935 and 1962. In 1940, the property was zoned residential and agricultural by the Cherry Hills Planning Dis- trict; in 1941, the first Arapahoe County zoning resolution was adopted, which confirmed the zoning given by the Cherry Hills Planning District. In 1941,the property was zoned to R-2-A by the Arapahoe County Planning Dept.; this was a single- family zoning requiring 1/2 acre lots. In 1960, a request to rezone the parcel to commercial was filed in Arapahoe County; the request was later withdrawn. The City of Englewood adopted Ordinance #21, Series of 1961, which annexed the parcel to the City of Englewood and zoned it as C-3, Shopping Center District. A 1962 Court ruling invalidated the ordinance. Ordinance #17, Series of 1962, was adopted by the City of Englewood annexing the site. The Zoning Ordinance at that time provided that all property annexed to the City was automatically R-1-A until ' • • • -2- another classification was placed on it. Ordinance #23, 1963, zoned the site to C-3, Commercial. A 1963 Court Decision in- validated the C-3 zoning; the property reverted to R-1-A zoning. Ordinance #26, Series of 1963, the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, was adopted, and the property was designated as B-3, Commercial. A 1964 Court ruling invalidated the B-3 zoning on this land, and it again reverted to R-1-A. Beau Monde applied for a change of zoning from R-1-A, Single-family Residence to R-3-B, Multi-family Residence; in 1965; the application was withdrawn. Mr. J. J. Carey applied, in 1967, for a change of zoning from R-1-A to R-3-A, Multi-family Residential. Ordinance #28, Series of 1967, was adopted by the Council, and the property was zoned R-3-A. Covenants on the property restricting the development to 1,500 dwelling units were filed by Mr. Carey. In December, 1971, the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the zoning of the site to R-3-A, Multi-family Zoning. The site is, today, zoned R-3-A, with the exception of a strip 150 ft. in depth extending from South Franklin Street east to the east boundary line of the site, which strip is zoned R-1-A, Single-family Residence. In early summer of 1970, members of the City Council, Planning Commission and staff attended a meeting at Writers Manor, at which time the Larwin Company discussed a possible purchase of the land if the zoning was upheld. Sub- sequent to the Court decision in December, 1972, Larwin did exercise its option to purchase the land, and meetings with city staff and area residents began. Mr. Supinger stated that Larwin initially considered applying for rezoning for the 150 ft. strip of R-1-A; the requested change would have been to R-3-A, as is the remainder of the site. The staff discouraged the rezoning application, and Larwin subsequently agreed to deed the 4.45 acres contained in the 150 ft. depth to the City of Englewood for park purposes. Mr. Supinger then reviewed the provisions of the R-1-A and R~3-A Zone Districts regarding lot coverage, frontage, setbacks, permitted uses, etc. Mr. Supinger stated that calculations based on the minimum standards indicate that 5,000 units could be constructed on the site. Mr. Supinger stated that the matter of access was discussed with the Larwin representatives, as was the matter of building heights. It was determined that the primary access points would be from U.S. 285, and Lafayette at Girard Avenue. There would be no access from East Floyd Avenue but for emergency vehicles. It was agreed that the perimeter of the site would be developed with "low-profile" buildings, with the center of the site de- veloped with "mid-rise" buildings. Larwin Corporation also agreed to provide a 100-year storm drainage system for the site, if the City would agree to "ponding" of drainage waters in the park area. The City did agree. The matter of the school dis- tricts was considered; part of the site is in the Cherry Creek School District, and an attempt was made to have the total site transferred to the Englewood School District. Cherry Creek School District officials would not agree to this proposal • • • • -3- An application for a subdivision waiver was filed June 10, 1972; a Planned Unit Development application was also filed, but .subsequently withdrawn. The Planning Commission con- sidered the matter of the Subdivision Waiver on August 9, August 22, September 26, October 3, and determined that the waiver should be granted at a meeting on October 17, 1972. The waiver was recorded after approval, as were the following exhibits: A-1 to A-3 --Development Plan; B-1 and B-2, alternative proposals -for the eastern property line of the site (B-2 was chosen by the Kent Village residents); C-1 and C-2, topography plats; D-1 to D-3, exterior elevations, and E-1 to E-3, F-1 to F-3, were floor plans. Exhibits G-1 and G-2 are parking plans for Phases II and III; Exhibits H-1 and H-4 are parking plans for Phases I and IV. Mr. Supinger then read the conditions attached to the Waiver and approved by the Commission October 17, 1972. The waiver and conditions were recorded in the office of the County Recorder of Arapahoe County, Colorado on October 20, 1972. The Commission again considered the matter of the Larwin re- quest on November 21, 1972, and on December 5, 1972, the Commission voted to rescind the action of October 17, 1972, at which time the requested waiver had been approved. An opinion from the City Attorney, at the request of the City Manager, determined the action of the Commission in rescinding the action unlawful, and the City Manager directed the Director of Community Development to issue building permits. Permits for Phase I were issued November 9, 1972; this phase contains 19 buildings, 232 adult units. A permit was issued March 16, 1973, for the recreatio~ building for Phase I. Permits were issued on November 9, 1972, for Phase IV; this phase contains 15 buildings, 152 family units. The permits for the recreation and day care centers were issued March 16, 1973. Permits for Phases II and III were issued on December 5, 1972; the permit for the two level parking structure was issued December 12, 1972. Each phase contains three five-story buildings, with 174 adult units, each phase. Permits have not been issued for Phase V, 152 units; Phase VI, 116 units; Phase VII, 144 units; Phase VIII, 240 units, or Phase IX, 116 units. Phases II, III, VI and IX are the mid- rise phases; the remaining phases are "low-profile". Mr. Supinger stated that he had approved two "minor" changes to the plan, per his authority granted by the conditions of the waiver; the first, August 31, 1973, approved the moving of the recreation building in Phases II and III into the central recreation area. Minor changes to the six mid-rise buildings were approved, including permission to enclose the balconies • • • -4- and put facade balconies on the buildings if they so desired • The bu ildings remain in the same "footprints" as approved by the Commiss i on. A letter to the Larwin Corporation dated June 4, 1974, approves the substitution of landscaping materials along the eastern boundary. Mr. Supinger stated that he checked with a landscape architect and the Parks Department on the substitutions, and they were approved. Mr. Supinger discussed the purpose of the Department, which is to assist any property owner or developer with projects in the City of Englewood, whether the development be residential, commercial or industrial, whether it is single-family or multi- family . Mr. Supinger emphasized that this does not mean any codes or ordinances will be violated; on the contrary, it is the duty of the staff to see that all codes are met and that regulations and laws are enforced. Mr. Supinger stated that the Department is attempting to assure the best development for the City; he noted that building per- mits cannot be withheld so long as a project meets the existing codes of the City. Mr. Supinger stated that he felt it is worthwhile to note that the Larwin Development meets or eiceeds all the City codes and regulations. No other development in Englewood has deeded any latid to the City for park purposes; and no other development in Englewood except Cinderella City has provided for control of the water flow for a 100-year storm. Mr. Martin stated that he felt Public Hearings lend themselves to misunderstandings because they are oral rather than written communications. Mr. ·Martin asked ·the audience to listen care- fully to each question and each answer in an effort to avoid repetition as far as possible. Mr. Martin stated that one person at a time would be recognized and that person would give their name and address for the record and give their comments. Mr. Martin stated that questions may be directed to specific persons but the request is to go through the Chair, and the person to whom the question is directed is to be identified. Mr. Martin asked that there be no "verbal outbreaks" at the meeting, or those responsible would be requested to leave the meeting. Mr. Martin stated that the reason the Public Hearing was called was the Commission felt the residents of the area had legitimate questions re- garding the development by the Larwin Corporation. Mr. Lentsch stated that he had a question for Mr. Supinger: how much open space is there actually on the site? He stated that he remembered the figure of 46.9% open space, excluding the paved areas and asked if this figure was correct, and if in fact, the development would have 46.9% open space when completed? Mr. Supinger ststed that he had not run a recent calculation on the open space, and that he did not recall the 46.9% figure; however, the dP.velopment is in compliance with the approved development plan. • • • -5- Mr. Lentsch then asked about the exits on Lafayette? Mr • Supinger stated that the plan as considered and approved in- dicated three openings on South Lafayette, the main exit which would be on Girard Avenue. The two minor exits to the north and south of Girard Avenue are to the parking areas, and would probably be used by the tenants served by the parking areas. He stated the use of access points on South Lafayette was not limited by the Subdivision Waiver. Mr. Lentsch asked Mr. Supinger to indicate the play grounds which Larwin Corporation was to provide for the family units, and the recreation areas to be provided for the adult units on the site? Mr. Supinger stated that there are six recreation areas on the site; there will be six swimming pools in the nine phases of development. Mr. Supinger pointed out that the City Codes don't require provision of any recreation space. Mr. Lentsch stated that at the time the plan was being con- sidered, it was stated there would be recreation areas for the children living on the site. Mr. Supinger stated that there will be play areas forthe children, and that the Larwin Corporation is providing 2 day care centers for the family phases. Mr. Lentsch asked if the park area would be fenced? Mr. Supinger stated that the park area dedicated to the City will be fenced on the south .and west ends of the park, with wrought iron fencing. Where the parking abuts the park area there will be opaque fencing to screen the parking areas. Mr. Howard Brown stated that he was concerned about what would happen in the future if the property is sold. He commented that he didn't like what was being built. Mr. Gluck, of the Larwin Corporation, stated that he would be happy to respond to direct questioning. He pointed out that their Company has no application before the Commission at this time. Mr. Gluck stated that the Corporation had no presentation to make, but he was present to answer direct questions. Mr. Martin asked what Mr. Gluck's relation was to the Larwin Corporation? Mr. Gluck stated that Larwin Group, Inc., is a subsidary of CNA Finance Company. Mr. Richard Dittemore 2239 E. Floyd Place -stated that the neighborhood feels in- sulted with the appearance of the develop- ment; he asked why the architect didn't design a more tasteful development to be compatible with the neighborhood? Mr. Gluck stated that he was not present to defend the architect. Mr. Kennedy 3225 South Race -stated that Mr. Supinger had stated that a maximum of 5,000 units could be built on the site; he stated this was not correct, in that covenants limiting the development to 1,500 units had been filed, and the statement • •• • -6- has no bearing on the fact. Mr. Kennedy then discussed the matter of storm drainage; he asked if any thought was given to the annual rain fall at the time the Cinderella City system was approved, or at the time the Larwin site system was approved. Mr. Supinger stated that the storm drainage system designed for the City is based on a two-year storm. Mr. Kennedy referred to the structural repair going on at Cinderella City, and charged this was the result of improper storm drainage provision. Mr. Supinger stated that the City has hired consultants to study the structural damage at Cinderella City; the management of Cinderella City has also hired consultants to study the damage; not one .of these consul tan ts has implied that the structural damage is due to storm drainage waters. Mr. Kennedy then addressed Mr. Gluck, and asked "on what basis did your organization prescribe the insult to the community on the building design? Is it your view that adults will want to identify with that type of community?" Mr. Gluck again stated that he was not present to discuss the merits of the design chosen by the architect. Mr. Kennedy asked if it was the Plan of the Larwin Company that the remaining 50% of ·the site will be developed with the same style buildings? Mr~ Gluck stated that the development would be in accordance with the plans submitted to and approved by the City. Mr. Kennedy stated that he would like it noted that the Larwin Corporation "is poorly represented by Mr. Gluck". Mr. Howard Brown asked if it was the intention of the Larwin Corporation to sell any of the land? Mr. Gluck stated that there are no contracts for the sale of the land; Larwin has had discussions with potential buyers, but no contracts have been signed. Mr. Gluck discussed the changes Larwin has had to make in planned developments due to the market conditions; he noted that plans to proceed with Phases II and III were stopped just because of the market conditions. Mr . Gluck stated that if there were a buyer available who was interested in the project, and who had the money, the Company would certainly talk to him; the buyer would, of course, be bound by all con- ditions set forth on the approval of the site. Mr. Gluck stated that he could not say whether or not Larwin intends to build the remainder of the project, or whether, if the property were to be sold, the new buyer might not want to make some changes in design or whatever. Mrs. Mary O'Donnell 3391 South Race Street -asked if Larwin has sold off any of the property? She asked if, in the event there has been a sale, whether they would have to get approval of another waiver to the subdivision regulations? • •• • -7- Mr. Gluck stated that the only division at this time has been the deeding of 4.45 acres to the City of Englewood for the park. Mr. Berardini stated that Larwin would not have to have approval of another subdivision waiver if the property were to be sold. Don Fullerton 3265 South Race -noted that Mr. Gluck stated that there could be some changes in the plan as submitted; he asked if these changes might be the elimination o f the recreation areas? Mr. Gluck stated that he did not mean to imply there would be changes in the plan as submitted; he noted that Larwin does not contemplate making changes in the plan, and there would be no postponement of the recreation areas construction. The recreation area would be constructed as each phase is con- structed. Charles Biederman 5 Sunset Drive -asked if there were any City codes pertaining to esthetic quality for developments? Mr.Supinger stated that there were no esthetic guidelines in the City codes. Mr. Supinger noted that too Larwin Corporation did submit elevations of the development; the elevations were approved and recorded. Mr. Biederman stated that "we shouldn't be crucifying the developer because of lack of requirements in the City codes to assure esthetic developments." Mr. Biederman stated that he hoped a lesson would be learned from this and that the Codes would be amended to include esthetic regulations. Mr. Supinger recalletj, and stated that he was sure Mr. Lentsch also recalled, his attempts to have an architectural review board established in the City; but, the proposal "never got off the ground." Mr. Biederman stated that he had worked with Larwin before, and that generally they have striven to provide a nice develop- ment. Mr. Biederman stated that he understood Mr. Roark, who Mr. Gluck indicated earlier had designed these units, also designed the units at Kent Village. Mr. Biederman asked if the City had to approve Phases V, VI, VII, VIII, and IX as they were designed, or can we benefit by the lack of agreement on Phases I thru IV, and try to achieve something better? Mr. Berardini stated the City as well as the land owner is bound to the existing plan as approved and recorded, unless the City and land owner agree to any changes; the changes cannot be done unilaterally. Mr. Biederman suggested that the City should prevail on Larwin to change the architectural design and possibly the same approach could be taken with the new land owner, if the site is indeed sold. Mr. Lentsch stated that at one time Mr. Berardini gave the Commission an opinion pertaining to the rescinding of Commission • •• • -8- approval of the Waiver; it was determined that inasmuch as permits had been issued for Phases I and IV, the Commission could not rescind action on those phases; he asked who approved the Plan after the Commission rescinded the approval of the Waiver? Mr. Lentsch noted that Mr. Berardini had indicated that permits could be obtained for Phases I, II, III and IV. Mr. Lentsch asked "are you saying that this is final now and are you saying the motion didn't mean anything?" Mr. Berardini stated that what has been recorded is firm; he stated that in 1972, he felt that no further permits need be issued but for Phases I and IV; that opinion was not adhered to, and he has a copy of a letter from Mayor Senti condoning the Commission approval of the plan. Mr. Richard Brown 3403 South Race Street -noted there have been changes in the City Council and Planning Commission since the approval of the Plan; heasked if Mr. Berardini felt the way is open for the Commission to consider the matter again and possibly to rescind action that was taken? Mr. Berardini stated "no". Mr.Richard Brown asked if there was any limit on the time Larwin may take to develop the property? Mr. Berardini stated there is a time limit on the validity of the Building Permits, which may be renewed; on the ultimate development, there is no time limit. Mr.Richard Brown stated his home had a view to the southwest and overlooked a good portion of the Larwin Site. He noted there are slabs of concrete which have been moved six or eight times lying on the site; a ditch was dug along the boundary line, and partially filled in; there is a dust problem, and there are "two blue-and-white privies" in the line of vision, as well as scrap lumber, etc. Mr. Brown stated that he would like to ask Mr. Gluck if Larwin has any plans to get these objects out of sight? Mr. Gluck stated that he was on the site earlier in the day, and the housekeeping isn't the best or the worst for a con- struction site. He stated that they have reached the stage of construction where they can begin moving some of the scrap materials and he had discussed this with Mr. Kinrade, the construction head. Mr. Brown suggested that the privies be moved more to the center of the site. Mr. Brown again dis- cussed the dusty conditions neighbors experience as a result of the construction. Mr. Gluck stated that they do attempt to keep the dust down by sprinkling. Mr. Brown noted that it has been stated Larwin has no firm plans to go beyond Phase IV; if this is the case, most of the dusty area will remain in- definitely --until it is developed by Larwin, or sold and developed by someone else. Mr. Gluck stated they would make every effort to control as much of the dust as possible; he noted that the units they are building now will soon be avail- able for rent, and they don't want their tenants to put up with dust eitfier. • •• • -9- Mr. Gluck stated that he had come to Denver in April for a meeting with former City Manager Dial to discuss the drainage of the site; Larwin must make arrangements to handle the drainage on phases that are not yet begun. Mr. Brown again asked about the "ditch" that had been dug; would this be left unplanted and unsprinkled? Mr. Gluck asked Mr. Brown to meet with Mr. Paul Kinrade regarding the ditch. Mr. Brown noted that one of the conditions of the waiver was landscaping on the eastern boundary of the site. He asked when this will be done? Mr. Gluck stated that the landscaping along the eastern property line would be planted along with the landscaping on Phases I and IV, and will probably be done in the month of August. Mr. Brown asked if the portion of the eastern boundary that lies south of the boundary of Phase IV would be landscaped also? Mr. Gluck stated this would be planted at the same time. Mr. Gluck stated that he was con- cerned that this particular area might not be maintained properly inasmuch as it is not a part of a particular phase under construction at this time. Mr. Brown asked if Mr. Supinger recalled there were commitments on alterations in the water conduits and water supplies? These alterations were to be completed prior to the renting of the units. Mro Supinger stated that as he remembered, the Utilities Director indicated the City would be "looping" the water lines in the area to increase the water pressureo Mro Don Fullerton stated that he was a member of the Water and Sewer Board; the City is currently working on an agreement with the Denver Water Board to tie into a Denver Water Board conduit on Franklin to provide additional pressure until the City can complete the looping. This will be a temporary measure only. Mr. Dittemore asked when the residents of the area would have· the use of the Park? Mr. Romans stated that the City was ready to begin their work in three or four weeks. Mr. Romans stated that the City is waiting until the land is leveled before beginning. Mr. Romans stated that this park will have a "nature theme", playground apparatus, and tennis courts. Mr. Romans stated that there will be several kiosks (small shelter houses) throughout the park; these kiosks will provide shelter to six people, and will be in the shape of a mushroomo There will be two wooden "seed pods" that will also be a shelter type facility. Mr. Romans stated they are going to try to install a fountain on the eastern end of the park • • •• • -10- Ms. Adele Klusener 3240 South Humboldt -stated that she did not see that the park as outlined by Mr. Romans would serve the adults of the neighborhood. Mrs. Klusener asked how many cars would be exiting this area; she stated "it's an ugly development". Mr. Romans stated that the fencing around the park will have no gates, and the Larwin tenants will have facilities in the development they may use. Mr. Supinger pointed out that Phases IV and V are family units; there will be a day care center in Phase IV; this is an attempt by Larwin to serve their own needs. Mr. Supinger stated there can be no guarantee Larwin residents or any other persons won't use the Floyd Park or any other park in the City. Mrs. Klusener asked, regarding the storm drainage provisions, if this gave protection to residents only during the time of construction? Mr. Berardini stated that this was the intent of the condition made part of the Waiver. Mr. Supinger stated that he felt the owner of this property, just as owners of any property, have property rights and they have the right to develop the property as long as it complies with the rules and regulations of the City. Mr. Supinger stated he was sure there are some who believe the City didn't require enough of Larwin, but the development does meet all regulations and codes of the City. Mro Howard Brown pointed out that the City just spent $1,500,000 on drainage system for that area of the City so that the drainage waters will not be a problem. John Welles 3602 South Gilpin -asked if the units are to be rented or sold? He then asked if the units are being rented now, or when they will be rented? How many have been rented or sold to date? Mr. Gluck stated that Phases I and IV are rental units, but are not offered for rent at this time. They will be rented as soon as they are finished and a Certificate of Occupancy is obtained from the City. Mr. Gluck stated that he didn't expect any move-ins before August or early September. Mr. Gilchrist 2338 E. Floyd Place -asked Mr. Gluck if the development is contingent on the outcome of law suits filed against CNA? Mr. Gilchrist referred to the lawsuits by A & C of Switzerland, and by the Lowes Corporation of New York . • •• • -11- Mr. Gluck stated that the lawsuits are a proxy fight for con- trol of CNA Finance Corporation, but there is nothing regarding the lawsuits that would affect this development in any way. At the present time, the instructions are to develop the property as far as it is economically feasible. Mr. Weist stated that he wanted some clarification on whether or not part of the site has been sold. Mr. Weist stated he understood from Mr. James Roman of the Larwin Corporation that when the financing was obtained, it was financed by phases and might be sold by phases, but that Larwin would insist on retaining control for five years. Mr. Gluck stated that the Larwin Multi-family Corporation business is not to build and own multi-family projects, but is to build, sell and manage multi-family projects. Mr. Gluck stated that in late 1972, Phases I and IV were sold to limited partner groups, but Larwin does retain management. Mr. Gluck stated that he had misunderstood an earlier question on the sale of the site; he reiterated there has been no sale of undeveloped property. Mr. Ma r tin stated that it is then the policy of Larwin that once a phase is completed, it will be sold and Larwin will re- t ain management. Mr. Gluck stated that Larwin still has sub- stantial financial interest in Phases I and IV, and will retain management for 15 years. Mr. Gluck stated there are no projects anywhere in the United States that the Larwin Corporation owns, but for those they have been unable to sell . Mrs. Hudgens 32 Sunset Drive -asked if, in the event the undeveloped land is sold, would the new owner have to come before the Planning Commission to have the architectural design approved? ., Mr. Martin stated that it has been previously stated that the new owner would not have to appear for any waiver or approval. Mr. Berardini reiterated that any new owner must conform to the plans as adopted. A lady in the audience stated that there was to be one exit on U.S. 285 and one exit on Lafayette. She stated there is broken curb and gutter in the northwest corner of the site where access is apparently to be; she asked how many more breaks there would be for access before the site is completed and occupied? Mr. Supinger again indicated on the map the exits on Lafayette, U.S. 285, and the emergency exit on Floyd. He reiterated there would be two minor exits on Lafayette as well as the major exit at Girard. Mr. Supinger stated that the broken curb and gutter was not acceptable upon inspection . The lady then asked about the access point on South Franklin? Mr. Supinger stated that the access on Floyd at South Franklin was for emergency vehicles only; at the completion of con- struction there is to be a crash gate to restrict normal traffic. • • • -12- Mr. Supinger stated there have been some problems with use of this access in violation of the conditions included in the Waiver. Mr. Supinger pointed out that there are persons working on the Floyd Park who have used this point of access; but there have also been some of the Larwin construction crew using the access illegally. Mr. Supinger stated that every attempt has been made to cite those using the access illegally, but the City cannot justify the placing of a patrol car or a building inspector at that location all of the time. Mr. Supinger stated that the City is attempting to limit access by Larwin construction crews to U.S. 285, but we cannot guarantee that the City con- tractors working on the park won't use the Franklin-Floyd access. The lady then asked what the City would be able to do to be sure the traffic would be controlled to access points on U .S. 285 and Lafayette once the units were rented? Mr. Martin pointed out that the Commission is an advisory arm of Counc il, and that he felt the matter of traffic control would be an administrative matter. Mr. Howard Brown reiterated there would be a crash gate on South Franklin at East Floyd, limiting .this access point to emergency vehicles. Mr. Charles Dykstra 3150 South Lafayette -commented that the elevations of the total site have been changed; he asked how the developer can get away with changing the elevations. He stated that the developer has raised the ground level and put in "underground" parking. Mr. Supinger stated that he didn't believe either Larwin representatives or the City staff ever indicated there would be underground parking at the northwest corner of the site ; it was stated there would be tuck-under parking. Mr. Supinger stated that the development has occurred in accordance with the approved plan, and does meet the City requirements. Mr . Supinger stated that he is not completely satisfied with the development, but the construction is in accord with the approved plan. Mr. Weist asked whether the height as indicated on the approved plan was as measured from the grade before the change in eleva- tion occurred, or after the elevations and topography was changed? Mr. Supinger stated it is measured from grade; the developer changed the grade according .to the approved plan. Mr. Herbst 3116 South Vine -stated that it seemed the project started with good intention, but that fact won't help the community. Mr. Herbst noted that according to Mr • Lentsch, there was to be 46.9% open space excluding the paved areas; now it seems there will not be 46.9% open space. He asked if it is found the builder has deviated from the 46.9% opens space, would this be corrected even if it means tearing a building down? • • • -13- Mr. Supinger stated that he did not feel the builder has deviated from the plan, and stated that he did not compute the 46.9% figure. Mr. Supinger stated that he cannot say . what amount open space there is today; he stated that he could say t hat the construction for Phases I and IV, and ~hases II and III for which building Permits have been issued, will be in accordance with the development plan. Mr. Herbst asked "does this mean you will enforce it if we find the contractor isn't in compl i ance with the Plan? On what premise did Mr. Lentsch make the statement '?" Mr. Lentsch stated that he had gone through the site; 46.9% is nearly 50% and there isn ·'t 50% open space. Mr. Herbst then discussed the egresses on Lafayette Street; he asked what guarantee existed that other tenants than those living in the abutting phases wouldn't use the two "minor" exits? Mr. Supinger stated that there was no guarantee, nor was there such a condition attached to the waiver. Mr. Stevenson 3275 South Race -asked about the repair on Floyd Avenue? Mr. Waggoner stated that Larwin Corporation is not responsible for this; the storm drainage lines were installed and the soil has settled following the installation. This is the responsi- bility of the City to repair. Mr. Stevenson stated that it is the responsibility of the Planning Department to be of service to the people--there is a moral responsibility to the people who live in Englewood. Mr. Supinger stated that he has been willing to talk to and meet with any one who feels there is a problem. He pointed out that he recently met with a group of neighbors at Mrs. O'Donnel's house. Mr. Fullerton stated that so far people who don't like the development have been heard; he asked if there is anything that can be done to improve the development on the phases that have not been begun? Mr. Fullerton noted that this is being constructed under a Subdivision Waiver rather than a Planned Development. He asked if it was a possibility a Planned Development could be approved for the remainder of the site? Mr. Fullerton asked Mr. Gluck if he would be willing to approach it from the point of view just outlined? Mr. Gluck stated that Larwin will not give up tiriilaterally any of the legal rights they now possess. He stated that he did not feel Larwin would be unresponsive to a request by the City to reconsider this Plan. He stated that he would not say Larwin would abandon the existing Plan, and they will not consent to the designing of the Plan by a committee or body of neighbors. Mr. Fullerton stated he hated to see the south half of the site developed as the north half is developed. • • • -14- Mr. Gluck stated that he didn't know when they would break ground on the balance of the property; he stated he felt Larwin will be willing to consider the suggestions made by the citizens. Mr. Fullerton asked Mr. Gluck "you would be willing to go into a Planned Development as long as you have the existing criteria?" Mr. Gluck stated that he felt Larwin would be willing to discuss it. A lady in the audience asked if Larwin would be adverse to c hanging the architecture of the remaining phases? Mr. James Hilger 3166 South Vine -stated "we should all feel a debt of gratitude to Larwin"; he stated that absentee landowners do not know the desires and wishes of the Community, and this has proved the point. Mr. Hilger noted that the Larwin repre- sentative cannot answer questions, and isn't sure about anything but that Larwin will not give up any of their rights. Mr. Hilger asked who the limited partners are who have purchased Phases I and IV? Mr. Supinger stated that he didn't know the name of the owners. Mr. Gluck stated that he didn't know the specific name of the partnerships • A lady asked how they could find the name of the new owners? Mr. Berardini stated that this could be determined through the Arapahoe County records. Mr. David Clayton 4509 South Acoma Street -asked what percentage of ownership the limited partners had; who was the major stockholder? Mr. Gluck stated there are no stockholders. Mr. Clayton asked if Larwin was the major owner? Mr. Gluck stated that Larwin has no interest other than the fact they are the general partner and retain management. Mr. Clayton asked who appointed the Board of Directors? Mr. Gluck stated there is no Board of Directors. Tilere are 20 limited partners; Larwin finances the building of the develop- ments. Larwin has retained financial interest in this develop- ment for 15 years. Mr. Clayton stated there is really no reason the information isn't public; does Larwin hold enough interest in it to control the project for the next fifteen years? Mr. Gluck stated that Larwin has the responsibility of managing the property for the limited partners who have purchased Phases I and IV; he noted that the general partner takes all liability, and the limited partners would not want to make decisions that could make them assume liability. • •• • -15- Mr. Clayton asked "are you saying that all financial liability belongs to Larwin?" Mr. Gluck replied it did. Mr. Clayton asked if the entire fina ncial liability belonged to Larwin and not to the other partners? Mr. Gluck stated that the liability of the limited partners is limited to the amount of their investment. Mr. Kennedy stated that "the community has been desecrated". Mr. Kennedy asked Mr • .Supi nger if the elevations had been approved for the total de velopnent, and if it would be a repetition of Phases I and IV. Mr. Supinger stated that the elevations on the low-rise units are the same; the elevations for the mid-rise phases are the same. There are four phas es of mid-rise units with the same elevations; five phases of low-rise units with the same ele- vations. Mr. Supinger noted that permits have been issued fa two mid-rise phases. Mr. Kennedy stated that in other words, 50 % of the total de- velopment is low-rise. He asked if Mr. Supinger would have any serious mis-givings on anything being developed on a repetitive basis? Mr. Supinger stated that he does have mis - givings about repetitive material; he stated he believes the City should raise the standards, not only for multi-family development, but for other types of development as well, and he has so suggested. He stated the Department of Community Development is currently worki ng on a proposed change of standards for multi-family developments. Mr. Kennedy stated if he had known there would be 500 to 800 units architecturally identical , he would have been outraged; he stated the City shoul d take serious consideration on the matter of repetition. Mr. Kennedy stated he was "appalled the Planning Commission didn't consider this matter." Mr. Martin noted that the membership of the Commission has greatly changed since the Larwin Development was approved. Mr. Ke nnedy noted that "there is a little concrete toad stool placed in the center of the development; is it there for some reasons?" Mr. Martin noted that as Mr. Romans had explained, this is not part of Larwin but part of the park development; it has nothing to do with the Larwin development itself. Mr. Keith Parker 3235 South Williams -stated that he had lived in Englewood 10 years . He noted that the neighborhood is stuck with the Larwin Deve lopment as it is to this point. Councilman Brown asked Fire Chief Hamilton about the fire hazard the development presents; he noted that the buildings are very close together, and of fl ammable construction. Fire Chief Hamilton stated that any development in theCity, the Fire De- partme nt staff will meet with other City staff and work out water flows, plugs, etc. Chief Hamilton stated they did meet • •• • -16- with Ci ty Personnel as well as Larwin representatives on the Larwin development; accordi ng to the plans filed, there will be adequat e plugs and wate r. Chi ef Hamilton acknowledged that the devel opment does pose the p roblem of a major conflagration, and tha t the Fire Department wil l do the best they can to pre- vent suc h a disaster . Mrs.Susan Fonda 3500 Sou th Franklin -asked if, i n the event the property was sold, and the new owner wanted a commercial developme nt, what procedure woul d have to be followed? Mr. Mart in pointed out that the n ew owners would be bound by the subdivision waiver, as approved. Mrs. Fonda then aske d if there was to be tuck-under parking under the five-story struc tures? Mr. Supinger stated there will be a two-story parkin g structure, a substantial part of which will be below present grade . Mrs. An n Brown 3403 Sou th Race -stated that she is one of ten or eleven people living on the e astern boundary of the Larwin- Kent Vi llage site. She no ted th at the Larwin Corporation had imposed parking in front of their property, and there is a pro- vision there will be no campers, boats, etc. parked or stored in this parking area. She asked who will enforce this provision? Mr. Sup i n ger stated that the staff of the Code Enforcement Divis i o n will be required to enf orce this provision. Mrs. Brown stated that the citizens were assured there would be on ly one access point on South .Lafayette; she asked "how do you get around the two minor acce ss points on Lafayette?" Mr. Sup inger stat ed that the two minor access points have always been on the plan. Mrs. Br own stated that she personally asked Mr. Roman of Larwin about t he curb cuts on South Lafayette, and he assured her there wou ld be only the one cut at Girard Avenue. Mr. Supinger pointe d ou t that the two minor access points t o the park ing area are on the approved plan. He stated that at the time of the ini tial discussions on the total plan, it was mentioned that there woul d be "auto gates or card operated gates" at these two poi nts. A lady in the audience pointed o ut that nothing was said about the thre e ingress-egress points on Lafayette at the meeting in April , 1974. Mr. Supinger stated that he was not in attendance at the Ap ril meeting. Mr . Clif ford Harvey 3345 Sou t h Lafayett e -noted that Mr. Gluck had stated that none of t he units would be rented until a Cert ificate of Oc cupancy had b een granted; in view of the prematur e Subdivision Waiver, he didn't feel the Certificates of Occupancy should be granted un til Phases I and IV are • • •• • -17- com pleted. Mr. Harvey s tat ed the re have been too many concessions made in t he past. Mr. Supinge r stated that t he Co mmission has received a copy of a l etter s en t to Mr. Gluck which included a list of items, in- cluding stor m dr a inage system, la ndscaping, etc., which must be complet ed prior to i ssu ance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr . Supinger stated that Larwin i s aware of this provision, an d will have to conform or a Ce rtificate of Occupancy will not be issued . Mr . Harvey c ommented th at he didn't feel Chief Hamilton was too happy wi t h the fire fi ghting facili ties in the project. Chief Hamilton sta ted that he was as sat isfied with the fire fighting facilitie s a t this deve l o pme nt as he is at others, Cinderella City, for example; ther e is good access, adequate plugs, water, e tc. Mr . Harvey st ated he und e rst ood the r e is access to the units o nly from th e front; th ere i s no r ear access to any of the un its. Mr . Supinger sta ted this i s correct. Mr. Harvey stated th is d i d not seem wise, a n d t hat i t seemed to be poor planning. Mr. Hilge r a sked how th e resi dent s of Northeast Englewood can be assure d t hey won't s uffer any loss of water pressure when th e deve lopment is com plete d? Mr . Martin stated that it has bee n poi n t ed out the Ci ty i nt ends to loop the water lines; unt il that i s completed, En glewood and Denver are working out an a greeme nt that woul d all ow En glewood to tie into a Denver wate r line o n South Fra nkli n. Mr . Hi lger a sked if there i s any way the Planning Commission o r Commu nity Devel o pnen t cou ld gu arantee a very high standard o f maintenance on this p roperty? Mr. Martin stated that this would be the responsibil ity of the Code Enforcement Division; he c omme nted he felt confid en t th at when the units are completed there will be compliance. Mr. Su pinger noted that there are no requi r e me nts for maintena nce i n the subdivision waiver; in f act, at such point as ma in tenanc e must be enforced through the Hous ing Code, condi tions are pr etty bad. The City must d epend on the property ow ner to k eep the buildings maintained. Mr . Hilge r stated that he ha d seen some developments 10 -15 ye ars old th at have been b ea utifu lly maintained, and others th at have j ust been "let go ". Mr. Hilger stated that he did n ot re c a ll three entrances on Laf ayette either. Mrs. O'Donne ll stated that the construction crews have begun to "pound a nd saw" at 5:00 A.M.; s he asked if there was any- thing that c ould be don e about thi s? Mr. Berardini stated the re shou ld be some und ers tanding with Larwin and the contractors on t he hou rs of constru c tion • Mrs. O 'Donnell asked who wa s responsible for grading the park a rea? Mr . Supinger stated t hat Larwin is responsible for the rough gra d ing of the p a r k area. Mr . Gluck stated they would have p referred to gr a de t he park a rea a long time ago. • • • -18- Mrs. O'Donnell stated she understood Larwin was to plant Buffalo Grass on part of the site immediately to cut down on dust conditions. Mr. Supinger stated he understood he was supposed to try to get Larwin to do so; but they were not ameniable to the suggestion. Mr. Gluck stated that the request was received; Buffalo Grass is extremely expensive; he stated they are exploring other solutions to the problems of dust, etc. Mrs. O'Donnell stated that Larwin is trying to get as much as possible for as little · as possible. She stated that the Company should have some ecological concern, but it appears they have no concern for the environment, ecology or human concerns. She stated that the units in the Larwin Development are very flammable; she asked if there were any building requirements that would assure better future developments? She noted that the Larwin development "is made of lousy materials". Mr. Supinger stated that the City of Englewood operates under the 1970 Uniform Building Code, and these structures meet the requirements of that Code. Mr.Brokate, Assistant Director for Code Enforcement Division, noted that the UBC required that individual units be separated by a one hour minimum firewall. This provision is to contain the fire in one unit, if possible. As to the exterior structure, there are no requirements, nor are there in single-family develop- ments. Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger stated that any changes in the UBC must be recommended by a building inspector, and he is of the opinion that such changes would make construction uneconomical. Mr. Brokate noted that in the 1973 edition of the Building Code a fire detection system is required. Mrs. O'Donnell asked what taxes the City realized from this site? Mr. Supinger stated that the property taxes the City of Englewood realizes from this or any other residential develop- ment will be minimal, because the property tax levy is very low; most of the tax income for the City is derived from the sales tax. Mr. Supinger stated that most of the property tax paid by this development would be for other than City of Englewood levies --schools would probably receive the greatest portion. Mrs. Klusener stated that she "does not like it, but you said you made decisions for the good of the community over one individual"; she asked what this plan would do for her? Mr. Supinger stated that he does not have authority to establish zoning on this site, that is a decision of the legislative body, and was accomplished prior to his employment with the City; he does try to carry out the rules and regulations in existance, make recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Supinger stated that he can promise the City will make Larwin, just as any other development, live up to all the regulations in the City, in particular the conditions of this Subdivision Waiver. Mr. Supinger stated that he could not say there would be a change in what has been approved, but could say it would be enforced. • • • -19- Mrs. Kluesener asked what Council planned when they approved this? Mr. Brown noted that the zoning was approved on a decision from the Colorado Supreme Court; the City had no choice but to allow development on the site. Mr. Brown suggested that possibly the residents would care to appear before Council and ask that funds be allocated to purchase the undeveloped portion of the site for a park. Mr. Lentsch asked whose responsibility it is to determine that the "plan" is carried out. He asked if the staff had measured out the 46.9% open space exclusive of paved areas and club houses? Mr. Supinger stated that it is the responsi- bility of the Community Development staff to make sure that the Larwin plan meets theprovisions of the Subdivision Waiver as well as of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Building Code, storm drainage, etc. The Department is responsible to inspect the construction as it proceeds and make sure it meets the codes before the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Supinger stated that the staff has done this, is doing this, and will continue to do so. Mr. Lentsch asked what was the correct number of units for which permits have been issued? Mr. Supinger stated 732; permits have been issued for Phases I thru IV. Mr. Lentsch asked how long a Building Permit was in effect? Mr. Berardini stated that it is initially . good for 60 days; some work must commence within the 60 days or thepermit must be renewed • Mr. Lentsch stated that he would assume that permits for Phases II and III are no longer valid; Mr. Berardini stated that if no work has commenced on those two phases the permits would have to be renewed. Mr. Lentsch stated that some mont~s ago parking for this site was discussed; he asked for what phases parking was approved? Mr. Supinger stated Phases I thru IV have approved parking plans filed. Mr. Lentsch asked for the definition of ground level? Mr. Brokate cited the definition from the Building Code. Mr. Lentsch asked for an opinion whether or not it is legal for the Planning Commission to rescind a motion, and whether there is a length of time applicable to such rescinsion. Mr. Lentsch stated he wanted to know if the Commission had the right to rescind any motion, and if so, how was this waiver approved without the Commission approval. Mr. Berardini noted that the City Council had taken a stand on the initial approval by the Commission. Mr. Weist noted that most of the audience had departed; he stated he appreciated the attendance of representatives from Larwin and the attendance of the residents of the area. He stated that he was encouraged by Mr. Gluck's response on possible architectural changes, and feels the City should • ·.~ • • -20 - proceed immediately in whatever direction necessary in d i s - cussions with Larwin so we may be ahead of additional develop- ment on the site. Mr. Weist stated he hoped the City had learned a lesson --don't look at the pretty pictures the developer presents. Mr. Weist referred to comments by Mr. Biederman regarding other Larwin Developments, and noted that Mr. Biederman had stated that other developments are good . Mr. Weist stated he was hopeful some change could be made in the future development ·of the site. Mr. Martin stated he would like to thank everyone in attendance; he stated the Commission would do whatever it can to carry out the wishes of the people. The meeting adjourned at 11:50 P.M •