Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-03-20 PZC MINUTES,. ;_, \'(' • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 1979 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 ,P. M. by Chairman Tanguma. Members present: Carson, Draper, Lathrop, Tanguma, Becker, Bi lo Wanush, Ex-officio Members absent: Pierson, Smith, Williams Also present: Assistant Director D. A. Romans; Associate Planner Fessenden; Assistant City Attorney DeWitt II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Tanguma stated that Minutes of February 27, 1979, and March 6, 1979, were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Lathrop seconded: The Minutes of February 27, 1979, and March 6, 1979, be approved as written. AYES: Bilo, Carson,Draper, Lathrop, Tanguma, Becker NAYS: None ABSENT .: Pierson, Smith, Williams The motion carried. I I I. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Timber Lea CASE #6-79 Mrs. Pierson entered the meeting and assumed her chair with the members of the Commission. Mr. Tanguma asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing on the Timber Lea Planned Development. Carson moved: Draper seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #6-79 be opened. AYES: Becker, Bilo, Carson, Draper, Lathrop, Pierson, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Smith, Williams The motion carried. Mr. Tanguma asked the staff to present the staff report • -2-,,., Mrs. Doro thy Romans, Assistant Director of Community Develop- ment, was sworn in, and testified that notice of the Public Hearing did appear in the Englewood Herald Sentinel, and that ~ the property was properly posted the required number of days. Mrs. Romans presented the Certification of Posting to the Secretary for the record. Mrs. Romans also asked that a copy of the staff report be entered into the record of this Hearing. She pointed out that the staff report covers the matter of Planned Development and Subdivision Waiver; both requests per- tain to the same property and it was felt that the one staff report could cover both subjects. Mrs. Romans stated that the application for approval of a Planned Development was submitted by Vocate Associates, on behalf of Alsum Brothers, owners in contract of the Weakland property . Mrs. Romans also submitted to the secretary a copy of the property owners' authorization signed by Mr. Don Weakland, which document gives authorization to Mr. Vocate and Alsum Brothers , Inc. to proceed with the request for a Planned Develop- ment and Subdivision Waiver. Mrs. Romans stated that the property is to the south of East Cornell Avenue, and east of the South Clarkson Street/South Emerson Street alley extended. The greenhouse which is now on the property is a Non-conforming Use in the R-1-C, Single- family Zone District which is applied to this land. Section 22.6-4 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance provides that once the operation of a Non-conforming Use has ceased, the ~ use of the land must revert to a use permitted in that particular ~ zone district . The subject site is approximately two acres in area and is zoned R-1-C, Single-family Residence, as is the surrounding area. The property has indirect access off of East Dartmouth Place and East Cornell Avenue at the present time. The proposed Planned Development plans would provide access to the building sites from a private roadway extending south from East Cornell Avenue. The private roadway would be 25 feet in width, and no parking would be allowed along this private roadway. It is proposed that the property be divided into twelve sites; an existing house with frontage on East Cornell Avenue would remain, and eleven additional building sites for single-family detached homes are proposed. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the City will not accept dedication of the roadway or cul-de-sac even though they must be installed to City specifications, because of the width which does not meet the minimum standards. Mrs. Romans stated that the appli- cation for a Planned Development is in conformance with the Com- prehensive Plan. If the Planning Commission determines that the Planned Development should be approved, the procedure would be to refer it to City Council; the City Council may or may not hold a Public Hearing at their discretion before approving or disapproving the Development Plan by adopting Findings of Fact. Mrs. Romans stated that the Community Development Staff does • recommend approval of the request for a Planned Development on this site subject to the following conditions: .·.· e • 1. 2. -3- The private roadway is to be constructed to Englewood's street construction standards, WITH A CRASH GATE INSTALLED ON THE SOUTH END RATHER THAN ALLOWING OPEN ACCESS TO EAST DARTMOUTH PLACE. A drainage study comparing the present volume of runoff and the volume after the development is complete must be approved by the Director of Engineering Services prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 3. The location and size of water and sewer lines and ease- ments must be approved by the Director of Utilities prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 4. The private street must be designated as a fire lane and standard parking prohibition signs installed. Mr. Tanguma asked about City trash pickup in this area; would the 25 foot roadway be large enough for maneuvering for the trucks? Mrs. Romans stated that the trash pickup is a private enterprise, and the trucks use 16 foot alleys; she pointed out that there is the cul-de-sac which would provide turning and maneuvering area. Mr. Tanguma asked the proponents to present their case. Mr. Gil Vocate was sworn in, and testified that he is acting as agent for Mr. Don Weakland and for Alsum Brothers, Inc., owners in contract of the Weakland property. Mr. Vocate stated that the Planned Development will not result in a change of zoning or of the character of the area. They are asking approval of the City to change a Non-conforming Use, the green- house, to a single-family development. Mr. Vocate pointed out that it is no longer economically feasible to operate green- houses, and cited the factor of increased utility costs plus the availability of foreign-grown flowers. Mr. Vocate stated that the proposed P.D. will result in 12 building sites; they plan to retain the one existing house with frontage on East Cornell Avenue, and will have eleven additional building sites for detached single-family homes. Mr. Vocate noted that Alsum Brothers, Inc. just completed a Planned Development in the 1500 block of South Krameria Street of 34 single-family homes which is known as Linden Lea. He invited members of the Commission and audience to view this development, and noted that the pro- posed Timber Lea development would be very similar to the Linden Lea development. Mr. Vocate stated that it is their intent to have a quality, single-family residential development, with a product that people will want to buy. He stated that surveys show there is a disparity in the types of housing available, and cited high land costs, high construction costs, etc. and noted that the average American family will find it very difficult to find a moderately priced single-family home. This develop- ment as proposed will offer small but private yards, and open space around the individual single-family home. -4- Mr. Bilo asked what Mr. Vocate termed a "moderately" priced single-family home? Mr. Vocate stated that this is in the $60,000 to $70,000 range on today's market. Mr. Tanguma asked if these homes would be available to veterans? Mr. Vocate stated that the development would not be large enough to warrant getting into the matter of VA financing, etc. Mr. Bilo asked the square footage of the proposed houses? Mr. Vocate stated that the smallest would be approximately 1295 square feet, and the largest would be close to 2000 square feet. Mrs. Becker asked what the home-owners association would have in common but for the private roadway; would there be open areas they would maintain in common? Mr. Vocate indicated two very small areas that would be owned in common, and stated that they would hope to have a decorative cover and planters installed in these areas, but this isn't resolved at this time. Mr. Bilo asked if the utility lines would be placed under- ground? Mr. Vocate stated that they would not be on a develop- ment of this size. Mr. Lathrop asked if there would be open or green space around the houses, and if the garages were attached? Mr. Vocate stated that each house will have a two-car attached garage; the green area around each home will be to the tastes and de- sires of the individual single-family home owner. The average lot is approximately 50 feet x 107 feet, and some are larger. This should give space for landscaping if the individual home owner so desires. Mr. Tanguma asked if there were any opponents who wished to speak on this matter? No one indicated they wanted to speak in opposition. Mr. Tanguma asked if there were anyone else who wished to speak on the proposed Planned Development? No one indicated they wanted to speak on the matter. Pierson moved: Lathrop seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #6-79 be closed. AYES: Becker, Bilo, Carson, Draper, Lathrop, Pierson, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams, Smith The motion carried. Mrs. Pierson stated that she is delighted to see that additional single-family homes are proposed to be built in Englewood. Mrs. Becker stated that she is impressed with the proposed Plan be- cause there is room for families with children. • -5- Mr. Draper asked if the staff felt there could be any problem prohibiting parking along the private roadway/fire lane? Mrs. Romans stated there is a provision in the Municipal Code that will allow the Englewood Police Department to enforce the parking prohibition. Mr. Bilo noted that setbacks are indicated from O feet on up; he asked that this be clarified? Mrs. Romans stated that the intent of the Planned Development is to give flexibility in the locating of structures on the lot. Mr. Bilo stated that he is a strong supporter of single-family residential in Englewood, and felt the proposed development will be a real addition, and would vote in favor of approval of this proposal. Lathrop moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the Planned Development to be known as Timber Lea on the following described property: Commencing at a point on the South line of East Cornell Avenue, 213 feet east of the east line of South Clarkson Street, thence East 98 feet, thence South 134 feet, thence East 121 feet, thence South 66 feet, thence East 47 feet, thence South 125 feet, thence West 168 feet, thence South 50 feet, thence West 168 feet, thence North 250 feet, thence East 70 feet, thence North 125 feet to point of beginning, except the West 8 feet thereof. Section 35, Township 4 South, Range 68 West. This approval is recommended subject to the following con- ditions: 1. The private roadway is to be constructed to Englewood's street construction standards, WITH A CRASH GATE INSTALLED ON THE SOUTH END RATHER THAN ALLOWING OPEN ACCESS TO EAST DARTMOUTH PLACE . 2. A drainage study comparing the present volume of runoff and the volume after the development is complete must be approved by the Director of Engineering Services prior to the issuance of Building Permits . 3. The location and s i ze of water and sewer lines and ease- ments must be approved by the Director of Utilities prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 4. The private street must be designated as a fire lane and standard parking prohibition signs installed. AYES: Tanguma, Becker , Bilo, Carson, Draper, Lathrop, Pierson NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams, Smith The motion carried. -6- IV. SUBDIVISION WAIVER Timber Lea CASE #7-79 Mrs. Romans stated that the property encompassed by the Timber Lea Planned Development is not part of an approved subdivision. Mr. Vocate and Alsum Brothers, Inc., have applied for a waiver to the Subdivision Regulations requiring the filing of a sub- division plat because they are filing a Development Plan. Mrs. Romans noted that it appears there is an alley on the west of the property along what would be the South Clarkson/ South Emerson alley; however, no record can be found that would indicate this was ever dedicated to the public. Mr. Vocate and Alsum Brothers, Inc., have agreed to dedicate the west eight feet of their property to serve as the east eight feet of the alley in this particular block. This is a condition the staff would ask be imposed on the granting of the Waiver. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the matter of granting a Sub- division Waiver is not referred to City Council, but is handled by the Planning Commission. The staff does recommend that the Subdivision Waiver be granted on this property, with the condition that the west eight feet of the land be dedicated for alley right-of-way purposes. Carson moved: Lathrop seconded: The Planning Commission approve and grant the request for a waiver to the Subdivision ~ Regulations on the following described property: Commencing at a point on the South line of East Cornell Avenue, 213 feet east of the east line of South Clarkson Street, thence East 98 feet, thence South 134 feet, thence East 121 feet, thence South 66 feet, thence East 47 feet, thence South 125 feet, thence West 168 feet, thence South 50 feet, thence West 168 feet, thence North 250 feet, thence East 70 feet, thence North 125 feet to point of beginning, except the West 8 feet thereof. Section 35, Township 4 South, Range 68 West. This action is granted on the condition that the property owner dedicate to the City of Englewood the west eight feet of their property for alley right-of-way. AYES: Tanguma, Becker, Bilo, Carson, Draper, Lathrop, Pierson NAYS: None ABSENT: Smith, Williams The motion carried. V. COUNTRY CLUB JOINT VENTURE Subdivision Waiver Amendment CASE #21-78 Mr. Wanush stated that he is the Director of Community Develop- ment for the City of Englewood. The purpose of the request filed by Country Club Joint Venture is to amend a Subdivision ,·. -7- Waiver granted to Larwin Multi-Housing Corporation by the City in October of 1972. Larwin Multi-Housing Corporation has sold Phases 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of their original ownership following development of Phases 1 and 4 by that Corporation. Country Club Joint Venture is the new owner of Phases 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. This property was annexed to the City of Englewood in 1962, and was the site of the KLZ Transmitting towers. At the time the land was annexed, it was proposed that Cinderella City be lo- cated on this site. There were several court cases involving the zoning of this land, and in 1967, the site was zoned R-3-A, Multi-family Residential. This, also, was litigated, and was upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court. In 1968, protective covenants were placed on the site limiting the development to residential and limiting the development to not more than 1500 units. In 1972, Larwin Multi-Housing Corporation filed an application for a Planned Development and Subdivision Waiver; the Planned Development application was withdrawn, and conditions were placed on the Subdivision Waiver governing the development. The total site of 55 acres was approved for a multi-family de- velopment of 1500 units; of this total, some 384 units were actually constructed in Phases 1 and 4 by the Larwin Multi- Housing Corporation. This would allow an additional 1116 multi- family units to be constructed on Phases 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. The existing Subdivision Waiver, granted in October, 1972, is still in effect and if a developer wanted to build to that plan which was approved, building permits would issue immediately. Since Phases 1 and 4 were built by Larwin, no further construc- tion has taken place on the site. The office has been approached over the last year and a half by several developers, and these developers have been told that the staff would honor the Sub- division Waiver as it exists on the site, but would encourage improvement of the plan, if possible. Mr. Regan attempted to file a subdivision plat on Phases 8 and 9 in 1976, which was eventually denied by the City Council in February of 1978. Country Club Joint Venture, of which Mr. Regan is a General Partner, has control of Phases 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, and the first approach to the staff by Mr. Regan after purchasing the property was to build to the existing plans. The staff did suggest that the existing plan might be amended to improve the proposed development. Mr. Wanush contrasted the proposed amend- ment with the existing plan; the existing plan has approximately 45% open space, which includes roadways, parking space, etc. The proposed amendment would contain approximately 48% open space, which would be open space and landscaping, and would be exclusive of the roadways, parking, etc. Mr. Wanush stated that there is also a change in building height; the 1972 ap- proved plan had ten five-story buildings; the proposed amendment will contain eight 13-story buildings. The remainder of the units will be in townhouses, some of which will have basements. The total development will be condominium units rather than rental. The developer has been asked to locate as many of the three bedroom units as possible in the Englewood School District, which boundary is down South Franklin Street, extended. Parking for the high-rise units will be two stories underground, with -8- some surface parking. Parking for the townhouse units will be in two-car garages. Mr. Wanush read the following conditions which the staff recom- mends be imposed on Phases 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the site as so designated in the 1972 Subdivision Waiver: 1. Development of the subject parcel shall comply with the General Development Plan, which snall include the site plan, the landscape plan, the parking plan, the elevations of structures and the written development proposal identified as Proposed Development, which is set forth in the attached Exhibit A. The Site Plan shall be submitted in a scale of not less than 1 11 = 50'. 2. The development, which may proceed in stages, shall contain no more than 1,116 units. The units with three bedrooms which are designed to accommodate families shall be located in the Englewood School District. This is the area west of South Franklin Street, extended. 3. The development shall provide not less than 45% of the site to be set aside for open space and recreation purposes. Five lighted tennis courts shall be contained in the develop- ment with two built in the first phase of construction. ... Mr. Wanush stated that the staff is recommending that with the ~ construction of the first phase that not less than two of the ~ proposed tennis courts be constructed. This would ensure the recreational facilities are constructed as the construction of the units progresses, and not make the recreational facilities part of the "overall" development but a part of each phase. Mrs. Becker inquired whether these recreational facilities be- long to the condominium owners, or would they become part of the City recreation program? Mr. Wanush stated that the Director of Parks and Recreation Department has suggested that the rec- reational facilities be dedicated to the City, but the staff of the Community Development Department has not recommended thi~ Mrs. Becker asked about the hiking and jogging trails; would they also be dedicated to the City? Mr. Wanush stated that the Parks Director's concern was with the tennis courts, and that he felt those should be dedicated to the City of Englewood. 4. Fire lanes, emergency access, and maneuvering areas for fire equipment shall be approved by the Fire Chief. Accessi- bility for fire equipment shall be maintained at a distance no greater than ten (10) feet on a minimum of two (2) sides of each multi-story building. The applicant shall designate fire lanes and emergency access by approved signs prior to the issuance of Occupancy Permits for each phase or stage. No parking shall be permitted in designated fire lanes, and the police shall be granted the right to enforce the parking ~ restriction. 9 -~ 5. The applicant shall dedicate the west five (5) feet of the land adjoining South Lafayette Street to provide a turning lane into and from the project site. All costs of con- structing the turning lane to City specifications shall be at the developer's expense. The lane shall be constructed prior to the issuance of Occupancy Permits in that area identified as Parcel A. Mr. Wanush read Condition #6, and suggested that it be expanded to read as follows: 6. Private lanes serving townhouse garages shall be no less than 22 feet wide WHEREVER GARAGE ENTRANCE FACES GARAGE ENTRANCE to provide adequate maneuverability. 7. An agreement shall be exercised between Country Club Joint Venture and the City of Englewood for the installation of a supplemental sewer line from the development to the Bi- Ci ty Waste Water Treatment Plant. Mr. Wanush explained that the sanitary sewer lines in this area are at capacity, and the developer shall not be allowed to pro- ceed without first installing a relief sewer line from the de- velopment to the Bi-City Waste Water Treatment Plant. 8. The development of the subject parcel shall comply with the provisions of all applicable Fire and Building Codes. 9. At such time as all plans pertaining to building construction are approved, Building Permits may be issued for the develop- ment of the subject site following approval of: a. The on-site grading and storm drainage by the Director of Public Works. b. The plans for the location and specifications of on- site water lines, hydrants and sewer lines by the Fire Chief and Director of Utilities. c. The curb cuts by the Director of Public Works. d. The parking and traffic circulation plan for the parking areas for the high rise building by the Director of Planning. 10. Easements shall be provided for all water and sewer lines and for access for fire and police emergency vehicles. All water and sewer lines shall be in public ownership. Mr. Wanush noted that the water and sewer lines within the pro- posed development are to be turned over to the City after in- stallation. -10- 11. Plans for security procedures to be utilized during con- struction shall be approved by the City prior to any con-~ struction. Access for construction vehicles shall be ~ limited to the south (U . S. 285) side. 12. Minor changes in the location, setting, height or character of buildings and structures may be authorized by the Director of Community Development if required by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the development pro- gram was approved. No change authorized by the Director of Community Development may increase the size of any building or structure by more than five (5) percent, nor change the location of any building or structure by more than ten (10) feet in any direction. The Director of Community Develop- ment may not approve the relocation of any building or structure so that the building or structure is closer to any side or front property line than was approved on the general development plan. All other changes in the general development plan including changes in the site plan and in the development schedule, must be made under the procedures that are applicable to the initial approval of the Subdivision Waiver. 13. The Country Club Joint Venture agrees to be responsible for and to protect, save harmless and indemnify the City of Englewood, Colorado, adjacent or other property owners and residents from and against all loss, damage, cost and expense of every kind and description caused directly or indirectly by Country Club Joint Venture in connection with and during the entire period of development of said tract of land. Mr. Wanush stated that these conditions would supercede those imposed in 1972 on Phases 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 as identified in the 1972 Subdivision Waiver. Mr. Tanguma asked the applicant to make comments if he wished. Mr. Tom Regan stated that he is the applicant; he is a General Partner in Country Club Joint Venture. He stated that they have attempted to come up with a sound development plan and project that would be an improvement over what has been developed on the' northern portion of the site. He stated that one of the big items that must be considered is that rather than rental units, these will be condominium units throughout, and will be owned by the residents. He emphasized that all of the town- house units will have two-car garages, and there will be covered or underground parking for the multi-story buildings. The pro- posed development ·will be brick construction, and they hope to create a quality-built condominium area. Mrs. Becker noted that there is a difference in the elevation ~ of this site from the south to the north; she asked if the ~ -11- structures would be built at the elevation that exists on the site now, or would there be land-fill to change the grade? Mr. Regan stated that there is approximately a 20 foot drop from the south to the north on the site; their plans are to build to the existing grade, and there will not be a great deal of grading but for the landscaping. Mr. Bilo noted that mention was made of a "low brick wall"; he asked if this would serve as a sufficient noise barrier? Mr. Regan stated that the plans on this are not firmed up at this point, but he was considering something about four feet high along U.S. 285, with possibly wrought iron openings spaced along the perimeter of the site. Mr. Regan introduced Mr. Sternberg, architect for the proposed development. Mr. Sternberg stated that he has been an architect practicing in Colorado for 35 years; one of his earlier projects was the Arapahoe Acres residential development in northeast Englewood about 25 years ago, and he has also designed several schools in Englewood. Mr. Sternberg stated that his major interest in ' this project is to improve on the Subdivision Waiver that was approved by the Planning Commission in 1972, and to determine what could be done to assure a quality development. Mr. Sternberg stated that after studying the area he determined that what was needed was "housing in a park-like setting". He pointed out that the proposed amendment is not for a change in the density of the previously approved Subdivision Waiver, but is asking for a change in the character of the development. Mr. Sternberg stated that he feels the proposed project will be a great asset to the community, and urged approval of the amendment to the Subdivision Waiver. Gordon Allott Kent Village -stated that he had some questions he wished to have answered by either Mr. Regan or Mr. Sternberg. He asked what constituted the landscaping plan, and referred to maps on display, asking if this was purported to be the landscaping plans? Mr. Sternberg indicated that these plans do show the type of trees proposed, the green area, etc. Mr. Allott stated that if this was to be filed as a Planned Develop- ment, the landscaping plans would be as indicated? Mr. Sternberg indicated they would be. Mr. Allott then asked what constituted the recreational facilities? Mr. Sternberg stated that they propose to construct five tennis courts, a jogging/hiking trail of approximately one mile, and three swimming pools. There will also be 7,000 square feet of community service facilities including banquet rooms, game rooms, saunas, etc. located in the multi-story structures for the use of the residents of the development. Mr. Allott stated that if they were for the use of the residents of the development, they could not be called "community facilities", but rather "con- dominium facilities"; he stated that he felt Mr. Sternberg would agree there is a difference. -12- Mr. Allott asked, since the construction is to be in "stages" or "phases", would some of the residential areas be built and A sold prior to the landscaping and recreational facilities being ~ completed? Mr. Regan stated that construction would begin on the eastern edge of the site; this would be completed as shown, plus one additional tennis court before construction began on the next phase. Mr. Allott asked if the building permits for another phase would be issued before the landscaping and recreational facilities are completed? Mr. Regan stated that the Permits would be applied for in phases; he emphasized that it will take a number of years to complete the entire project. Mr. Allott asked if there was any arrangement between the City and Country Club Joint Venture for posting of bonds to guarantee the performance of the developer with respect to all the facilities described if this .development proceeds? Mr. Regan stated that a per- formance bond has not been discussed. Mr. Allott asked what the final grade of the site would be with respect to the present grade? Mr. Sternberg stated that the proposal does not call for a lot of fill, in fact, they plan to "move as little dirt as possible", and would build to the existing elevations. Mr. Allott asked Mr. Sternberg how many yards of dirt would have to be removed to build the · 13- story building? Mr. Sternberg stated that any dirt that is removed would be used on the site to build the berms they have planned along the jogging/hiking trails. Mr. Allott stated to Mr. Sternberg "you say the grade will not be changed because of the dirt taken out of ground to construct the buildings and garages.'' Mr. Sternberg stated that this dirt would be used over the entire area. Mr. Allott further questioned the change of grade and the removal of dirt where the high-rise structures would be constructed. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt Mr. Sternberg had stated specifically that the first floor of the buildings will be built at the present grade, and that this need not be pursued further. Mr. Allott asked if Mr. Regan would commit himself that the buildings will be built on grade as this area is now? Mr. Regan stated that he would. Mr. Allott asked what the actual height of the buildings is to be? If they are to be built on the existing grade? Mr. Sternberg stated that the overall height of the townhouse units will not exceed 30 feet; the high-rise buildings will not exceed 130 feet in height. Mr. Allott commented that in some of the previous meetings he had with the applicants, it was stated there would be two levels of underground parking under the high-rise buildings. Mr. Sternberg stated that this plan is still true; there will be two levels of underground parking plus deck parking for the high-rise structures. Mr. -13- Allott asked what would be the level of the deck parking in relation to the existing grade. Mr. Sternberg stated that deck parking will be the same level as the first floor. Mr. Allott asked if the underground parking would be under the deck parking or under the building? Mr. Sternberg stated that there would be underground parking under both the deck parking and under the high-rise structures. Mr. Allott asked about access for fire vehicles on the deck parking? Mr. Sternberg stated that the applicants have met with the fire officials, and all buildings will have access on two sides as required by the Fire Department. Mr. Draper asked why construction is proposed to begin on the east end of the development rather than on the west end? Mr. Regan stated that one of the reasons is to convince the resi- dents of Kent Village that there would be a residential de- velopment next to their homes. He noted that when he applied for a Subdivision Plat for the professional office buildings on the western portion of the site, there was more concern expressed on "what would be built next to Kent Village" than over the proposed subdivision for the professional office build- ings. He stated that by beginning next to the Kent Village line, he felt this would be some assurance to those residents of tbe type of development he is proposing. Mr. Tanguma called a recess of the Commission at 8:40 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 8:50 P.M. with the following members present: Pierson, Tanguma, Becker, Bilo, Carson, Draper, Lathrop Absent: Williams, Smith Mr. Tanguma asked Mr. Allott if he wished to make a statement to the Commission. Mr. Allott stated that there have been several meetings with the Planning Commission and City Council, and there has been a lot of cooperation offered by the people of Kent Village, by the people of Cherry Hills Village, and the other residents to the west and north of the subject site. He stated that there have been four major meetings held with the applicants regarding the proposed Subdivision Waiver amendment, beginning. in June of 1978, at which time Mr. Regan and two people from the Larwin Corporation met with them. This was an attempt to solve the development of the remainder of the site; Mr. John Criswell, who represents Kent Village, was also sitting in on this meeting, and they did arrive at an agreement on the de- velopment of the remainder of the parcel. However, the agree- ment was never consummated through the fault of the Larwin Corporation; copies of the proposed agreement were sent to them for signature, and nothing further was heard from Larwin. On September 25th, there was a meeting in City Hall with the applicants. At that time, he understood that the proposed development would contain no four-bedroom units, and nothing less than 1,000 square foot in area. Discussion had centered on Parcel 5, next to Kent Village, and those present were in- formed that the construction would be of red brick and there -14- would be landscaping, etc. There was a proposal to reduce the density of this Parcel #5 from 152 units to 142 units, and no structures were to be higher than the buildings approved in e the Larwin Plans in 1972. The highest structure would be the previously approved five to six-story buildings, and the highest structure would be at least 75 feet from the Kent Village line. The Board of Kent Village gave approval to this plan and were pleased with the changes in architecture, parking, etc. that this first plan showed. On October 18th, there was another meeting with the Kent Village Board of Directors and it was at this meeting that it was mentioned for the first time that the development would be condominiums. The Board of Directors felt this was a good move --"it would bring in a more permanent and stable citizenry". The floor area had decreased on some of the units to 980 square feet, but the proposed asking price for a two-bedroom unit was approximately $60,000. At this time, the height of the high-rise buildings was raised to nine or maybe 10 stories to increase the open space. There would be covered garages and carports, and the parking along the Kent Village boundary would be reduced. The high-rise structures were proposed with the "narrow" end facing Kent Village and the low-rise units would be oriented east and west in keeping with the alignment in Kent Village. Mr. Regan was informed at that time that the residents of Kent Village did not like the high-rise structures. Mr. Allott stated that on November 14th, there was a meeting at City Hall at which time the condominium units were discussed; the price range for the units was approximately the same as Mr. Regan had previously a stated; however, the height of the high-rise buildings had been ~ increased to 10 stories --100 to 110 feet, and of the eight buildings planned, they would have to have at least half of them at a height of 12 stories with two levels of underground parking. On November 21st, Mr. Regan met with the Kent Village Board of Directors, and they discussed the fact of 75% open space to off-set the increased height of the buildings. He stated that he supposed it is conceivable to have 80% open space if you allow structures tall enough, but "what does it do to the people around you?" The height of the two-story structures was also raised from 25 feet to 27 feet. He stated that he understood Mr. Wanush, Director of Community Development, had stated that the development should proceed under the Planned Development regulations; he asked if this is correct? Mr. Wanush stated that it is. Mr. Allott stated that they have had these meetings in an effort to arrive at what they think is the most livable situation. He noted that now the height on the townhouse structures has risen to a maximum of 30 feet. He stated that at each one of these meetings, he or someone else from Kent Village asked Mr. Sternberg to tie these plans in with Kent Village, and they were assured each time that Mr. Sternberg would do so. But this has not been done. He noted that on the first plans they viewed, the high-rise buildings were situated toward the western A portion of the site; one of these buildings has now been moved ~ to within 150 feet of the Kent Village boundary. He noted that the plans have been changed continuously, and he feels this should be "looked at." -15- Mr. Allott then presented a copy of a letter from Mr. John A. Criswell, dated March 17, 1977; and read into the record the following letter from Mr. Criswell: JOHN A. CRISWELL GARY PATTERSON JOHN N. MC NA.MA.RA, JR. JOHN E . MYLES ANTHONY GARY DELL, .Ill • . HAROLD FRANK HURST LAW OF~l!B'°--·-·-----·-····-·-:·····. CRISWELL & PATTERSON March 20, 1979 Chairperson and Members Englewood Planning & Zoning Commission Englewood, Colorado Re: Larwin site Dear Commission Members: 3780 SOUTH BROADWAY ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 80110 TELEPHONE: (303) 761-0800 ~"' As you know, this firm represents certain property owners residing in Kent Village, and the Kent Village Associa- tion, itself, who are, and have been, justifiably concerned over prospective development of the ground to the west of their properties, commonly known as the "Old KLZ Ground," or the "Lal7Win site." We understand that the Planning Commission shall con- sider this evening a proposal to amend the waiver of the require- ment for subdivision platting on this ground, by substituting a new development plan for the one upon which the original waiver, granted in 1972, was based. My clients have had several discussions with representa- tives of the developer, commencing last September, and have been shown a variety of possible development plans. Frankly, the most recent plan appears to us to be more objectionable than those displayed previously. Nevertheless, the principal purpose of the appearance of Kent Village representatives at the meeting this evening shall not be so much to register any objections as it shall be to gain more information than has previously been supplied. The purpose of this letter is neither, however. Rather, its sole purpose is to draw the Commission's attention to what we consider to be a serious procedural, and substantive, problem which may be in the process of creation by these proceedings. Title XII, Chapter 3 of the Englewood Municipal Coie requires every parcel of realty within the City to have a s ·1b- division plat prepared, approved and filed before it may be divided, except in those specific instances where the Commission is authorized to grant a waiver from this requirement (§12-3-3(b)). This ordinance was adopted in 1967 and was the basis upon which this Commission grounded its original waiver. We doubt that the conditions set forth --------· ·------------ -16- Chairperson and Members Englewood Planning & Zoning Commission Page Two March 20, 19 79 in this ordinance provision were met in 1972, or that the infor- mation to be presented by the developer now shall establish the existence of those necessary criteria. Nevertheless, any waiver granted pursuant to this ordi- nance can affect only the requirement for platting it cannot, of course, affect any zoning requirement- In 1972, when the original waiver was granted by the Commission, the ground was zoned either R-3-A or R-3-B (I'm not sure which). In 1975, however, the City abolished both of these zone districts and replaced them (by virtue of the provisions of Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1975) with a single zone district known as "R-3." The subject ground was placed in this R-3 district at that time. One of the regulations pertaining to this district reads as follows (§22.4-6(b) (2) (b)): "Planned development approval is required for all multi-family dwelling units." Nothing within the City's zoning ordinance purports to allow any waiver of this requirement, save to the extent that the Board of Adjustment ~authority to grant variances. (See §22.2-6). As we see it, then, whatever this Commission's decision may be with respect to the developer's request for a waiver from the subdivision platting requirements cannot relieve the developer from complying with the zoning requirement of planned development approval, since the function of planning and the function of zoning are separate functions. See Wood Bros. Homes, Inc. v. City of Colorado Springs, Vol. 8, No. 2, The Colorado Lawyer, February, 1979, p. 244. Therefore, since a development plan for this ground must be approved, under the zoning ordinance, before building permits may issue, the present proceedings may be substantially meaningless. JAC/fmq Mrs. Pierson asked if Mr. DeWitt wanted to respond to Mr. Criswell's letter? Mr. DeWitt suggested that perhaps the attorney for the applicant would like to respond. -17- Mr. William Caskins stated that he is the attorney for Mr. Regan. He stated that when the Subdivision Waiver was granted to the Larwin Multi-Housing Corporation in 1972, it was felt that that plan was the appropriate approach to take; it is their feeling now that the Subdivision Waiver, as granted in 1972, is valid and may be amended. He emphasized that he is of the opinion that it was valid to grant the Subdivision Waiver to begin with, and it is valid to amend it. Mrs. Pierson asked if Mr. Caskins had any authority to support his feelings on this? Mr. Caskins stated that the matter was presented this evening and he has not had an opportunity to research the matter. Mr. DeWitt stated that as he understood the question, it is whether or not the 1972 Subdivision Waiver can be amended based on the 1975 Amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordi- nance. He pointed .out that a substantial number of Building Permits were issued for the development under that Subdivision Waiver, but amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance have now changed "some of the ground rules." He stated that he really didn't know how the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance amendments would affect an amendment to that Subdivision Waiver. Mr. DeWitt stated that he could not give a firm opinion on this matter at this time. Mr. Caskins pointed out that the Planning Commission gave the Waiver to the Larwin Multi-Housing Corporation, the Planning Commission is the policing body on the Waiver, and he feels that the Commission can amend the Waiver. Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt the result of this is that the Commission can ignore the question posed in Mr. Criswell's letter, and that it is at the applicant's discretion whether he wants to apply for a Planned Development or not. Richard Edsall 3295 South Franklin -stated that he felt it is very important that the staff and Planning Commission be more explicit in what is written down to ensure protection of the people "who help pay your salaries." Mr. Edsall referred to Condition #2, which reads: "The development, which may proceed in stages, shall contain no more than 1,116 units. The units with three bedrooms which are designed to accommodate families, shall be located in the Englewood School District. This is the area west of South Franklin Street, extended." Be asked if this meant that South Franklin Street would indeed be extended and opened to traffic? • Mr. Wanush stated that it does not; it means that the Englewood School District boundary is west of what would be South Franklin Street, if it were extended. -18- Mr. Edsall complained about the use of the Franklin/Floyd crash gate by the tenants of the existing apartment units. ~ Mr. Wanush stated that complaints have been registered with ,_, the Department, and the complaints have been checked out, but no actual violation has been seen. Mr. Edsall stated that he felt it should be specified just when the tennis courts are to be built in this proposed de- velopment. Mr. Edsall then questioned Condition #7, which reads: "An agreement shall be exercised between Country Club Joint Venture and the City of Englewood for the installation of a supplemental sewer line from the development to the Bi-City Waste Water Treatment Plant." He then asked paid for by "Who" and maintained by "Who"? Mr. Edsall referred to Condition #9, which reads: "At such time as all plans pertaining to building construction are ap- proved, Building Permits may be issued for the development of the subject site following approval of: a. The on-site grading and storm drainage by the Director of Public Works. b. The plans for the location and specifications of on- site water lines, hydrants and sewer lines by the Fire Chief and Director of Utilities. c. The curb cuts by the Director of Public Works. d. The parking and traffic circulation plan for the parking areas for the high rise building by the Director of Planning." Mr. Edsall asked that the welfare of the residents to the north and west of the site be taken into account when considering these matters. Mr. Edsall questioned the public ownership of the water and sewer lines as set forth in Condition #10; he asked if the public ownership would occur before or after installation? He felt that the developer should bear the cost of installa- tion and that the public ownership should not occur until after these costs have been paid. Mr. Edsall asked what assurances, bonds, etc. would be asked of Country Club Joint Venture in connection with Condition #13 which reads: "The Country Club Joint Venture agrees to be responsible for and to protect, save harmless and indemnify the City of Englewood, Colorado, adjacent or other property owners and residents from and against all loss, damage, cost and expense of every kind and description caused directly or indirectly by Country Club Joint Venture in connection with and during the entire period of development of said tract of land." He stated that he has cracks in his sidewalk which • -19- were caused by t h e cons tructio n a t the Larwin site. He stated that there is a flo od problem o n this site, which will be com- pounded with addit i o nal d e velo pm ent. Mr. Edsall referred to the statement made in Mr. Sternbe rg 's letter that "no part of the site is subjec t to the 100-year f loo ding cycle." He asserted that in Phases 2 and 3 of the original Larwin Site Plan, no buildings were pla n ned in order to lea v e this area open to catch flood wat ers . Mr. Edsall then urg ed that Condition #7 of the 1972 Su b division Waiver be incorporated into the con- ditions on the amendment, that condition b e i ng : "Floyd Avenue shall be improved, at applicant's expense , in accordance with the specific a tions of the City of Englewoo d , including sidewalk, curb, gutter an d paving. Ingress and egress from and to Floyd Avenue, other than for emergency purposes , shall not be pro- vided except u pon prior approval of the Commission." Mr. Edsall stated that parking is a probl em f or the entire surrounding area, and should be worked out now before further development takes place. Mr. Edsall again demanded that the Commission make sure all statements are wr itten and documented to protect the residents of the surrounding areas. He urged that alterna tive development schemes be c onsidered "now". Mr. Edsall discussed the problems with th e f encing surrounding Romans Park. He stated that they have see n people out there cutting the wrought iron bars to gain acc ess to the Park from the apartment complex, motorcycles go throu gh the fence, and the Parks Superint endent "won't maintain it." Mr. Lee Schlessma n #47 Sunset Drive -stated that he purchas ed h i s home 19 years ago, and is "appalled t o thi nk he will be looking at 13-st o ry buildings." He state d t hat this will de- crease the value o f the single-family h o me s in the area, will increase the pollution problems, plus the residents of the single-family home s will have to experience the residents of these high-rise bu ildings looking down into their private yards or even into their houses through binocul ars. Mr. Schlessman stated that he is a businessman in Englewood, affiliated with Key Savings & Loan , and that he strongly fe els putting 13-story buildings in t his area is a mistake. Dwight Johnson #3 Sunset Drive -stated that he asked Mr. Regan to attend a meeting of their home o wn er's association. He recalled tha t the initial plans discuss ed indicated the maximum heigh t o f structures would be five stories, and there would be a to tal of 1,114 units, which c o ul d bring in an addi- tional 2,000 t o 3,000 people . He stated that th i s plan was "much more amena ble than the eight 13-story buildings." He stated that he i s aware the land will have t o be developed, but he is concerned about the density and the traffic. He emphasized that the neighborhood would be bett er if the maximum height of the buildings could be limited to the original five stories. He s t a ted that no traffic counts or studies have -20- been presented to indicate how the additional traffic caused by this development would be handled. He urged that the Com- mission not approve the increased height of the buildings to ~ 13 stories. Paul Thompson 3145 South Gilpin Street -stated that the access at South Franklin Street is used, and that the traffic in the area with the present development is high. He stated that if the traffic using South Lafayette Street proceeds north, they would be going through a school zone, and he felt the children should be protected. Mr. Thompson took issue with the school district boundary through the sub- ject site, stating that the boundary is on Gilpin, and not on South Franklin. Mr. Thompson stated that he had talked to "Fire Chief Boston", and from what he said when the property was annexed the matter of streets wasn't considered. He stated that "Chief Boston" stated the maximum reach of the snorkel is only 75 feet, and the upper floors of the proposed 13-story units could not be reached. Mr. Thompson asked if the buildings would be sprinklered? Mr . Thompson addressed the drainage problems; he stated that he has lived in this area for 28 years and the City put in a new storm drainage system that was to take care of the existing apartments, which it does not. Mr. Thompson stated that he could see no benefit to the City of Englewood from this proposed plan, only benefit to the developer and the people who would live there. Mr. Thompson asked if the Englewood residents would be able to use the tennis courts that ~ are to be constructed on the site? He noted that people using Romans Park now park in front of his house, and he cannot get a parking space. Mr. Tanguma clarified that the tennis courts proposed to be constructed by Country Club Joint Venture would be for the use of those residents within that development. He stated that Parks & Recreation Director Romans has suggested that they be dedicated to the City; this is not, however, a recom- mendation of the Department of Community Development staff. Mr. Harold Calkins 1425 East Jefferson Avenue -stated that he is aware that everyone is unanimous in the determination that the existing plan isn't a good one. Mr. Calkins stated that he felt the Planning Commission could re- consider the total plan, particularly the density proposed for this area. He pointed out that there is a different traffic pattern now than was in existence in 1972, and that the neigh- borhood is different than it was in 1972. He pointed out that this is a stable, single-family neighborhood, and this proposed plan will "intrude high-rise construction" into the overall plan. He felt the Commission should be concerned a- bout the safety of the people using the streets in the area -- for the neighbors who live in the area, and for any new people who may be moving in. Any increase in the density will in- crease the existing problems, and he felt it would "behoove ·. -21- the Planning Commission to send the entire thing back to the drawing board and ask if it's good to have 1,100 more units on this site." He stated that he felt a more detailed report from the Fire Chief should be considered, and that there should be further analysis on the effect this will have on traffic, schools, existing residential neighborhood, etc. Tom Hudgins #43 Sunset Drive -stated that he is opposed to the high-rise buildings; he stated that the existing site plan approved in 1972 shows five-story buildings, which is adequate. He stated that it is an "invasion of privacy" to allow the 13-story buildings. Clifford Harvey 3345 South Lafayette -noted that the staff report mentions a dedication of five feet along Lafayette Street for a turning lane into the site; he noted that the new property owners could give the five feet, but that the Larwin Corporation did not. He noted that another access point is also shown from South Lafayette Street. Mr. Harvey also commented about the parking situation along the street s, and noted that on weekends, it is impossible to park in fr ont of his house. Joe Smolski 3276 South High Street -cited the "trail of broken promises" that have been made to the residents of the area regardi ng this site. He stated that in his opinion, "Englewood finds itself without friends on all sides", and cited what he feels is the lack of cooperation from the abutting and adjoining "sister cities". He stated that the City was cited into court several times to prevent the constru ction of Cin- derella City on this site. The flood problems that exist on the site are not resolved even though the new storm drainage system was suppose d to take care of the drainag e waters. He noted that former Commissioner/City Councilman Don Fullerton had gone to a great deal of work to figure out the effect the blacktopping and development of this site woul d have on the flooding, but his findings were not taken into account. He stated that apparen tly the 100-year storm is a common occurrence, and that if this development goes through, the damage caused the people to the north cannot be estimated. He stated that Cinderella City was finally located on the site of the former City Park, and that he has recently heard discussion on the possibility of flooding problems on Little Dry Creek into Cin- derella City, and the possibility of further City expense to the taxpayers to protect private enterprise from flooding. He stated that the dra inage system in Romans Park is totally in- adequate, and that the City should take into consideration the liability they cou ld be incurring when the flow of drainage is increased onto a lower area. Mr. Smolski dis cussed the Romans Park and the fencing around it between the Park and the Larwin Site; he stated that another 100 feet was torn down within the last three days, and that he has seen people with hacksaws sawing holes in the fence to get in. He stated that "there -22- have been pot parties in the Park", yet when the law enforce- ment officials are called to the area, they can find no evidence ~ "because the pot smokers have gone back to the apartments." • He stated that the apartments are advertising that there is a park for the use of the tenants right out their back door. He stated that this Park has not been of benefit to the people who live in the single-family residential area at all. He stated that the present developers aren't willing to give any guarantee or post a completion bond. He noted that signers of government contracts are required to post completion bonds. Mr. Smolski stated that the purpose of government is to represent all of the people, and not just special interest groups. Mr. Smolski stated that the residents of this area have spent a lot of time and money trying to assure a good development on this site that will not be detrimental to their homes. He urged that there be close scrutiny of this proposed development, or it could become an "instant slum". He felt that requiring a completion bond would be one way to guarantee as good a de- velopment as possible. Richard Brown 3403 South Race Street -stated that he lives in the north- westerly unit of Kent Village, right to the east of that part of the site developed by Larwin. Mr. Brown made reference to the conditions that were made part of the Subdivision Waiver when it was approved in 1972, specifically Condition #11, which reads: "Landscaping along the east boundary of subject site shall be installed as per the specific plan as ~ determined from Exhibit "B". No campers, trailers, boats or other similar personal property shall be permitted to park or be stored in the parking area on the eastern boundary of the development. Further, that all trash containers and pick-up points serving the eastern portion of the proposed development shall be located to the west of the eastern-most buildings in the Larwin Development." Mr. Brown stated that this provision most certainly has not been enforced. He stated that if the Planning Commission saw fit to amend the terms of the 1972 Subdivision Waiver, he would hope that a similar restriction would be contained in whatever is adopted. Mr. Brown noted that the homes in the Kent Village development face to the west, and they dislike the "backyards" of new units being directly in the front yards of their homes. Mr. Brown stated that four different plans have been reviewed since Mr. Regan proposed development of the remainder of the site, and in his opinion, "the entire thing must be thought over much more thoroughly by all concerned." He stated that he would urge "mature consideration" on this proposal, and in fact suggested that action on this be postponed for a time. He stated that he felt there is hope for "common ground" between Mr. Regan and the residents who object to the proposal. He stated that there is much merit in what Mr. Regan has proposed in contrast with the Larwin Site Plan approved in 1972, but still feels ~ there is a possibility to work toward a more workable develop-• ment for all concerned. Mr. Tanguma asked if Mr. Regan wished to make any comments? -23- Mr. Regan state d that reference has been made to the several plans that were discussed with the residents of Kent Village and Cherry Hi l ls Village, and the "escalatio n of height"; he stated that i n actuality, probably 25 to 30 different plans were considered at one time or another, and onl y those felt to be most feas ible were discussed with the residents ; it was an "evolution pro cess" until the applicants dete rmined that the plan be f o re the Commission this evening was the best way to work out t h e development. Mr. Regan stated that he felt it is time t o get on with the development of this site if it is going to be developed. He stated that after he had met with the Pla nning Commission on November 14, 1978, he deter- mined tha t the way to proceed was to apply for an a mendment to the Subd ivision Waiver. He stated that he would a ppreciate an answer fr o m the Commission this evening whether his applica- tion would be approved or disapproved. Mr • Tangum a read the following letter into the reco r d. . 1 c •/ . ..., 'I I t ";/ lf • 1330 East Girard Avenue Englewood, Colorado 80110 Mt: .. rch 19, 1979 Mr. Eddie Tanguma, Jr., Chairmnn City Planning & Zoning Commission 3400 S . Elati Street Eng lewo o d, CO 80110 Telephone 761-0577 Subject: Amendment on Lc:C .. n-:in Site Gentlemen: As c.. property ovmer immediately to the west of this p ro per ty, we would like to f a vor the zone change as requested. We think this piece of property is long over-due for develo pment and the proposed development would be ~n &ss et to the c ommunity and the city of Englewood • . /. B. -"'J. Smith President -24- Mrs. Becker commented that a great deal of concern was expressed regarding posting of a completion bond; she asked if it would ~ be in the best interest of this plan that the developer agree ~ to either completely finish one phase before proceeding to the next, or to post a bond so that completion could be guaranteed? Mr. Wanush stated that there is no way development of this en- tire site could be guaranteed ; this would depend in great extent on the market for units. Mr. Wanush stated that an additional condition could be included which would state that "no building permit shall be issued for a later phase of construction until the first phase of construction has been completed, or a bond posted to ensure completion." Mr. Wanush agreed that Condition #11 from the 1972 Subdivision Waiver regarding the parking of boats, campers, etc. on the Kent Village boundary could be added also. Mr. Tanguma declared a recess of the Commission at 10:15 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 10:30 P.M., the following members were present: Draper, Lathrop, Pierson, Tanguma, Becker, Bilo, Carson. Members absent were: Smith and Williams. Mr. Tanguma asked the pleasure of the Commission on this matter? Pierson moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission approve the amendment to the 1972 Subdivision Waiver as it pertains to Phases 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 as set forth in the Site Plan approved in 1972. The following conditions shall be adopted to e cover development of these Phases: 1. Development of the subject parcel shall comply with the General Development Plan, which shall include the site plan, the landscape plan, the parking plan, the elevations of structures and the written development proposal identified as Proposed Development, which is set forth in the attached Exhibit A. The Site Plan shall be submitted in a scale of not less than 1 11 '""50'. 2. The development, which may proceed in stages, shall contain no more than 1,116 units. The units with three bedrooms which are designed to accommodate families, shall be lo- cated in the Englewood School District. This is the area west of South Franklin Street, extended. 3. The development shall provide not less than 45% of the site to be set aside for open space and recreation pur- poses. Five lighted tennis courts shall be contained in the development with two built in the first phase of con- struction. 4. Fire lanes, emergency access, and maneuvering areas for fire equipment shall be approved by the Fire Chief. Accessi- bility for fire equipment shall be maintained at a distance no greater than ten (10) feet on a minimum of two (2) sides of each multi-story building. The applicant shall designate • 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. -25- fire lanes and emergency access by approved signs prior to the issuance of Occupancy Permits for each phase or stage. No parking shall be permitted in designated fire lanes, and the police shall be granted the right to en- force the parking restriction. The applicant shall dedicate the west five (5) feet of the land adjoining South Lafayette Street to provide a turning lane into and from the project site. All costs of con- structing the turning lane to City specifications shall be at the developer's expense. The lane shall be constructed prior to the issuance of Occupancy Permits in that area identified as Parcel A. Private lanes serving townhouse garages shall be no less than 22 feet wide wherever garage entrance faces garage entrance to provide adequate maneuverability. * An agreement shall be exercised between Country Club Joint Venture and the City of Englewood for the installation of a supplemental sewer line from the development to the Bi- Ci ty Waste Water Treatment Plant. The development of the subject parcel shall comply with the provisions of all applicable Fire and Building Codes. At such time as all plans pertaining to building construction are approved, Building Permits may be issued for the develop- ment of the subject site following approval of: a. The on-site grading and storm drainage by the Director of Public Works. b. The plans for the location and specifications of on- site water lines, hydrants and sewer lines by the Fire Chief and Director of Utilities. c. The curb cuts by the Director of Public Works. d. The parking and traffic circulation plan for the parking areas for the high rise building by the Director of Planning. 10. Easements shall be provided for all water and sewer lines and for access for fire and police emergency vehicles. All water and sewer lines shall be in public ownership. 11. Plans for security procedures to be utilized during con- struction shall be approved by the City prior to any con- struction. Access for construction vehicles shall be limited to the south (U. S. 285) side. 12. Minor changes in the location, setting, height or character of buildings and structures may be authorized by the Director of Community Development if required by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the development pro- *Amended April 3, 1979. -26- gram was approved. No change authorized by the Director of Community Development may increase the size of any ~ building or structure by more than five (5) percent, nor ,_, change the location of any building or structure by more than ten (10) feet in any direction. The Director of Com- munity Development may not approve the relocation of any building or structure so that the building or structure is closer to any side or front property line than was approved on the general development plan . All other changes in the general development plan including changes in the site plan and in the development schedule, must be made under the procedures that are applicable to the initial approval of the Subdivision Waiver. 13. The Country Club Joint Venture agrees to be responsible for and to protect, save harmless and indemnify the City of Englewood, Colorado, adjacent or other property owners and residents from and against all loss, damage, cost and expense of every kind and description caused directly or indirectly by Country Club Joint Venture in connection with and during the entire period of development of said tract of land. 14. No building permits shall be issued for later phases of construction until the first phase is developed, or until a bond is posted to guarantee completion of the first phase. 15. Landscaping along the east boundary of subject site shall be installed and maintained as per the landscaping plan. No campers, trailers, boats or other similar personal property shall be permitted to park or be stored in the parking area on the eastern boundary of the development. Further, that all trash containers and pick-up points serving the eastern portion of the proposed development shall be located to the west of the eastern-most buildings in the development. Mr. Tanguma asked if there was further discussion? Mrs. Pierson stated that she lives within one and one-half blocks of the Larwin Development, and would prefer that the entire area be developed for a park or for single-family residences. She stated that she shares many of the concerns that were voiced at this meeting; she is concerned about the transients in the park because her child goes to this park to play; she is concerned about the traffic. She stated that at the same time, she felt the Commission must consider the fact that Mr. Regan does own property zoned for R-3 development; he could well build to the existing plan which is on file. She noted that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance also permits other uses in the R-3 Zone District which could be more offensive than the multi-family development. She stated that from the comments made this evening, she felt that a lot of the residents -27- are upset with the existing development, and she feels that Mr. Regan should not be made to pay for the mistakes made by the Larwin Corporation. Mrs. Pierson stated that she is im- pressed with Mr. Regan's proposal; she feels he has shown sensitivity to the site and to the neighborhood, and that she would vote to approve the motion. Mr. Tanguma stated that he would vote in favor of the amend- ment; he felt that this proposal is the best that he has seen for the development of the area. He stated that he felt Mr. Regan has been very cooperative with the neighbors and with City officials, and has tried to arrive at a plan that is economically feasible for this site. Mr. Tanguma emphasized that he felt this plan was much better than the plan approved in 1972. Mr. Lathrop agreed with Mrs. Pierson and Mr. Tanguma, and stated that he felt this is the best plan so far. He did feel that there were a lot of things brought to light at this meeting that are a matter of concern; however, he feels that a great many of the concerns can be taken care of with the addition of the condition that no further building permits could be issued until the first phase of construction is com- pleted or a completion bond is posted. He stated that he would like to make it very plain when the project is started that a completion bond would have to be posted for each phase of construc tion. He pointed out that there may be matter s in each phase of development that will have to be "blended" into a subsequent phase of construction, and he felt that this can be handled through the Department of Community Development and the issuance of building permits. He stated that he did not feel it would be objectionable to have more study on this pro- posal, but was aware that Mr. Regan is anxious to get started on the project. Mr. Lathrop stated that this site is in his part of town, and he wants to see as much improvement on the existing plan as can be gotten. He noted that this plan does provide considerably more open space, even though the height of the structures has been raised; he stated he would hope that these structures could be arranged to preserve as much view for the Kent Village residents as possible. Mr. Bilo noted that the land is zoned R-3, High Density Residence; he stated that he understood Mr. Regan could build to the existing plan which was approved in 1972. He stated that he would vote for the amendment rather than see the entire site become like the existing development. The vote was called: AYES: Pierson, Tanguma, Becker, Bilo, Carson, Draper, Lathrop NAYS: None ABSENT: Smith, Williams ~ The motion carried. -28--· VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Wanush stated that he had nothing to bring to the attention ~ of the Commission. VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Bilo stated that he felt the Commission had a good choice to make on the matter of the amendment to the Subdivision Waiver in Case #21-78, and he felt the Commission made the correct choice. He stated that he thinks the condominium units will be an improvement over the Larwin development that exists now. Mr. Lathrop asked what progress is being made on the curb cut/ramping project? Miss Fessenden stated that this will be a survey published in the May issue of the Englewood Citizen. The meeting adjourned at 10:50 P.M. rtrude G. We ecording Seer .. . . • • ,. ) -29- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: March 20, 1979 SUBJECT: Timber Lea Planned Development RECOMMENDATION: Lathrop moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the Planned Development to be known as Timber Lea on the following described property: Commencing at a point on the South line of East Cornell Avenue, 213 feet east of the east line of South Clarkson Street, thence East 98 feet, thence South 134 feet, thence East 121 feet, thence South 66 feet, thence East 47 feet, thence South 125 feet, thence West 168 feet, thence South 50 feet, thence West 168 feet, thence North 250 feet, thence East 70 feet, thence North 125 feet to point of beginning, except the West 8 feet thereof. Section 35, Township 4 South, Range 68 West. This approval is recommended subject to the following con- ditions: 1. The private roadway is to be constructed to Englewood's street construction standards, WITH A CRASH GATE INSTALLED ON THE SOUTH END RATHER THAN ALLOWING OPEN ACCESS TO EAST DARTMOUTH PLACE. 2. A drainage study comparing the present volume of runoff and the volume after the development is complete must be approved by the Director of Engineering Services prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 3. The location and size of water and sewer lines and easements must be approved by the Director of Utilities prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 4. The private street must be designated as a fire lane and standa rd parking prohibition signs installed. AYES: Tanguma, Becker, Bilo, Carson, Draper, Lathrop, Pierson NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams, Smith The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. rru~e~Recording ~cretary