Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-09-23 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 1980 Special Meeting I. CALL TO ORDER. S A The Special Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Judith B. Pierson at 7:10 P. M. Members present: Becker, Barbre, Williams, Tanguma, Senti, Pierson, McBrayer, Draper, Carson Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: None Also present: Director of Public Works Kells Waggoner II. PROWSWOOD, INC. CASE #28-80 Subdivision Waiver Amendment Mrs. Pierson stated that this is a public meeting regarding a request from Prowswood, Inc. for an amendment to a Subdivision Waiver which was granted R.P.R. Brothers in 1979. Mrs. Pierson emphasized that this was not a Public Hearing, and that the Planning Commission has the final determina- tion on the matter of Subdivision Waivers. She asked that the staff report be presented. Mrs. Romans stated that the matter before the Commission is a request to amend the Subdivision Waiver granted to Country Club Joint Venture in 1979 for a proposed apartment/townhouse development. Mrs. Romans displayed a picture of the original plan which was the basis for the Subdivision Waiver granted to Larwin Multi-housing Corporation in 1972, followed by a depiction of the modified plan proposed b y Country Club Joint Venture in 1979, and lastly, a depiction of the plan of development proposed by Prowswood, Inc. Mrs. Romans stated that the original Subdivision Waiver was granted to Larwin in 1972 and development of the site was to be accomplished in nine phases. Phases I and IV were subsequently developed with the Kimberly Woods and Kimberly Village apartments. The developers apparently ran into problems with financing and could not complete the remainder of the site, and it was placed on the market as a total package. Phase I and Phase IV were sold to separate owners, and the remainder of the site --seven phases -- was purchased by R.P.R. Brothers. There were covenants placed on the property previous to the time of purchase by the Larwin Corporation, which limited the development of the site to no more than 1,500 dwelling units. Phases I and IV contain 384 dwelling units, and Country Club Joint Venture and Prowswood, Inc. were both informed that whatever development went on the site could not contain more than 1,116 additional dwelling units. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the proposed development plans of Prowswood, Inc. has eliminated all the low-rise units which were proposed by Country Club Joint Venture. The development proposed by Prowswood will be six high- rise buildings ranging from 14 to 18 stories in height, with underground parking facilities. There will be a great deal of open space in this pro- posed development. -2- Mrs. Romans stated that letters had been sent to adjacent property owners notifying them of the public meeting this evening. Mrs. Romans noted that those properties within 100 feet of a site are those usually determined to • be most affected by any development on a site, and therefore, the letters were sent to the first row of homes in Kent Village, to the homes on the west side of South Lafayette Street, to the first two houses along East Floyd Avenue, and to the first row of properties in Cherry Hills Village to the south. Mrs. Romans stated that the Department has received the following letter from Mr. Gordon Allott, and that three other individuals have contacted the office in person or by telephone regarding the proposed development. GORDON ALLOTT ATTCANEY AT LAW 550 CAf"ITOL LIFE BUILDING EAST 16TH AVENUE AND GRANT STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80203 AREA CODE 303 -13.6l.--A Q.7.J.. ~j,..Q~ 861-4020 September 18, 1980 Mrs. Dorothy Romans Englewood Planning Commission Englewood City Hall Englewood, Colorado 80110 Dear Mrs. Romans: Mrs. Allott and I appreciate very much the time you spent with us yesterday afternoon and on the proposed development west of Kent Village. I have explained to you the long standing commitment to be in San Francisco on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week which would include the presentation to be made by the new developers on the evening of September 23. In a telephone conversation this morning, Mr. Prows affirmed the position stated to you that this was merely a presentation and was not a hearing in any respect and I informed him that Mrs. Allott and I would accept the plat and design as filed with the City. Please express my regrets that neither of us will be able to be there on that date and we will look forward to hearing of a favorable reaction to the design as filed. Sincerely yours, ,,. . .., _.., ..... ,~,, .... /" . ("' /)), ' '/ -. . /' 0?-j -· I '-~--·t.''/,[~7f... __ JE.~ '-1 r GORDON ALLOTT ( GA:jc • • • -3- Mrs. Romans noted that representatives of Prowswood, Inc. were present to make their presentation. Mr. Richard Prows, Partner of PWHG Associates, stated that PWHG is the contract purchase of the site, and that he is president of Prowswood, Inc., the proposed developers of the site. Mr. Prows stated that Prowswood has developed condominium projects in Salt Lake City for the last 15 years. Slides of the proposed development were shown and narrated by Mr. Prows. He stated that some of their concerns with the previous plan by Country Coub Joint Venture that were the townhouses backed to a service road system and the garages and carports to serve the townhouses were right on these service roads, which were only 24 feet in width. Also, the carports and garages were detached from the townhouses they served. Mr. Prows stated that their proposal is for six multi-story buildings, with no low rise townhouse units at all. The first building they propose to develop will be just west of the Kent Village development; this will be a 14-story structure. Mr. Prows stated that the overall height of this structure has not increased from that approved for Country Club Joint Venture; but, by using a different construction method, an extra floor has been added with- out increasing the overall height of the structure. Mr. Prows stated that they are considering a density of between 950 and 1050 units under this proposal. Mr. Prows pointed out that the parking facilities for the owners of the condominium units will be underground, with landscaping atop the parking structure. He emphasized that the only surface parking would be that parking required for guests. Mr. Prows stated that traffic patterns in condominium developments differ from the traffic patterns of the traditional apartment complex. Mr. Prows stated that the typical purchaser of the con- dominium units are the "empty nesters", or the young professional couples. He stated that families would not be restricted from purchasing units, but again emphasized that the typical condominium residents are the couples whose children are grown and who do not want the care and responsibilities that go with single-family ownership. Mr. Prows stated that he and other representatives of Prowswood have met with the property owners in Kent Village, and understand that they do not want to see a multi-story structure next to them, but he felt that there was no alternative, given today's market. Also, in order to provide a desirable amount of open space, they cannot realize the density to make the project feasible unless they go to the multi-story structures. Mr. Prows stated that they had met with resi- dents of Cherry Hills Village earlier in the evening, to present their plans and discuss the development with them. Mr. Prows stated that the first structure, which will be next to Kent Village, will be placed on the centerline of an extended street in Kent Village, which will place it between the units owned by the Allotts and the Sterlings as far as visual alignment is concerned. Mr. Prows stated that the total "phase" surrounding the initial building next to Kent Village will be land- scaped and finished before development is begun on a subsequent area. Mr . Prows stated that each building will have its own "amenity package", in- cluding an indoor pool with sundeck and strong security features, including closed-circuit TV, etc. He stated that they have found this is one of the primary features in which potential residents are interested. Mr. Prows stated that the underground parking will extend below the water level, and that the water to be pumped out of the parking areas will be used to fill the lakes, which are a fundamental feature of the landscape scheme. The lakes will also serve as a part of the storm drainage system in times of storm runoff. Mr. Prows stated that the parking will extend two or three levels below ground level. -4- Mrs. Pierson inquired if the development of the lakes was a certainty? Mr. Prows stated that once the project is underway, they would be "locked in" to building what is shown on the plans presented. Mrs. Pierson asked if the lakes would be part of the landscaping plan if approval were granted to the request? Mrs. Romans stated that she felt the lakes would be a part of the overall landscaping plan which would be part of the approval of the Subdivision Waiver amendment, if granted. Mrs. Pierson stated that she did not see any pictures that might give an idea of the vertical impact these buildings will have on the neighborhood. She pointed out that the request encompasses an increase in height of the structures from 13 stories to 18 stories, which she felt would have considerable visual impact. Mr. Prows again pointed out that by using a different method of construction, additional stories can be added without increasing the overall height of the structure. They also felt that by requesting the additional four stories on five of the proposed structures, they could have a development of only six buildings rather than the eight high-rise buildings which were approved for Country Club Joint Venture. Mr. Prows stated that they further felt that by having only the six buildings, they were reducing the visual impact even though the buildings were high-rise. He noted that the impact of buildings at "eye level" has been reduced, and that anything above the 14 stories is "sky view". Mrs. Pierson discussed her concern that residents from several blocks away will not see the trees and landscaping which will be around the structures, but will only see the height of the structures protruding into their visual range. She felt that possibly these structures would have more impact on those more distant neighbors. Mr. Prows stated that he understood the neighbors were concerned about the view of the mountains, and that the developers are of the opinion that if the number of buildings is reduced, they have made an improvement in the plans over what has previously been approved. Mr. McBrayer asked Mr. Prows what their timing on development is if they are successful in obtaining financing? Mr. Prows stated that they hope to "get into the ground" within 90 days, with a 24-month timing on the first phase. He stated that they have been working with Mr. Dean Weaver, a local builder, and are very impressed with him. Mr. Prows stated that the de- velopment would be done in stages, and would be done over probably an eight year period. Mr. McBrayer stated that he would assume the market would determine the starting date of any subsequent phase. Mr. Prows agreed that the market would play a factor in development of the site. Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt Condition #12 suggested by the staff should be clarified to state that no building permits shall be issued for later phases of construction until PRECEDING phas es are developed. Dis- cussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer asked if landscaping would have to be completed prior to beginning development of another phase? Mrs. Romans stated that she felt the landscaping would have to be completed. Mr. Prows stated that if they have adequate sales of one phase prior to completion, they might request permission to begin construction on a subsequent phase prior to the completion of the preceding phase. Further discussion followed. Mr. Tanguma asked who would determine the amount of bond to be posted by the developers? Is it based on a percentage of the work yet to be completed or what is the basis for the bond? Mrs. Romans suggested that this would be worked out with the Code Enforcement Division and Finance Department un- • • • • -5- less the Planning Commission wanted to determine the amount. She pointed out that the bond would have to be of a sufficient amount to cover the completion of any given phase. Mr. Draper stated that he felt this should be so stated in the Condition. Mrs. Pierson asked if the General Development Plan which is referred to in the suggested Conditions would cover the square footage of the units? Mrs. Romans stated that the General Development Plan would indicate only the "footprints" of the buildings. Mrs. Pierson stated that in other words, by approving this with only the "footprints" indicated, the developers could in fact, construct smaller lower-cost units than what is presently proposed? Mrs. Romans pointed out that they would still be bound by the density limitations, which is at present 1,116 units. Mr. Prows stated that by the very nature of the buildings, low-cost units would be precluded. Mrs. Pierson stated that if this approval is given by the Planning Commission, it may not be acted upon in the near future, and this is giving the ap- plicant a very broad framework. Mr. Prows reiterated that the nature of the buildings they propose would preclude the low-cost apartments that Mrs. Pierson makes reference to. He emphasized that the units they are pro- posing will sell from $100,000 to around $450,000. Mrs. Pierson asked for comments from the floor on the proposed plans. Mr. Hart Gilchrist 2338 East Floyd Place -stated that he would like to make a few comments and ask some questions. He commended Mr. Prows on his presentation, and asked if there is anything in this development that will increase the traffic on East Floyd Place? He stated that East Floyd Place runs between South Race Street and South University Boulevard. Mr. Prows stated that there is no direct access from this site to East Floyd Place, and that the traffic must use the roadways that are there. Mrs. Romans also pointed out that there is no access from this site to East Floyd Place, and that she would see no reason for persons to drive onto U. S. 285 or South Lafayette Street and go around the block to East Floyd Place. Mr. Gilchrist asked if there would be additional entrances onto East Floyd Avenue from this site? Mr. Prows stated there would not be. He emphasized that the roads are in place. Mrs. Romans pointed out that Prowswood does not own any land that abuts Floyd Avenue, and it has been the City's position from the start that there would be no access from Floyd Avenue to this site other than the emergency access for fire/police and emergency vehicles. Mrs. Pierson asked if there was any way that this emergency accessway could be converted to use as a public right-of-way. Mrs. Romans reiterated that the City policy from the beginning has been that there would be no public access to and from East Floyd Avenue. She stated that this is a 60 foot easement that is owned by the Denver Water Board, and that it is doubtful they would consent to a public right-of-way on this easement. Mr. Gilchrist asked if this same restriction would apply to the portion of land in Kimberly Village and i ts easterly fence line; would there be no further ingress/egress along that fence line? Mrs. Romans emphasized that it is not the intent of the City to have additional access; the pri- mary access is from U. S. 285 on the south. -6- Mr. Harold Calkins 1425 East Jefferson • Cherry Hills Village -stated that this is the third meeting he has been through on the development of this parcel. He stated that the initial meeting he attended was concerned with a possible medical office complex development on the southwest one-quarter of the property, at which time the developer was discussing buildings no higher than six stories; the next proposal was that of the Country Club Joint Venture, at which time the height of some of the structures was projected to eleven or twelve stories, and now, at this meeting, the height of the buildings is increased to 14 to 18 stories. Mr. Calkins stated that to this point, there has not been any commitments obtained to limit the height of these buildings, and that the people who are the most affected by the development are "put upon." Mr. Calkins stated that with each progressive sale of the site, the land is more expensive, and the developers have to increase the height of the buildings as a justification for the price they had to pay for the land. Mr. Calkins stated that he felt there should be some way, if the Connnission so wished, to impose height restrictions and to in fact go back to the heights that were proposed under earlier development plans. He suggested that the City might also ask for a reduction in the density in return for an increase in the height of the structures. He pointed out that if the density were to be decreased, there would be no need for the structures to be quite so high. Mr. Calkins expressed concern over the width of the roads within the pro- posed development and suggested that members of the Planning Commission should drive through the site. He stated that even with the density that is on the site now, the roads are mostly one lane because of permitted parking along the sides of the accessways, and with an additional 950 to 1050 units, the area will be so impacted that it will be extremely difficult ~ for people to get in and out of the site. He noted that it will impede access and maneuverability for emergency vehicles. He strongly urged that the Planning Commission increase the width of the roadways through the site. Mr. Calkins stated further that he feels the development of the lakes will be a problem because this is an "arid" area and questioned that the de- velopers would have the access to sufficient water to maintain those lakes. He pointed out that without adequate water, the lakes will become swampy areas. Mr. Calkins also urged that it be determined whether the Fire Department has the means to get people out of the higher stories of these buildings in case of an emergency, and also whether there would be sufficient water pressure to combat a fire in one of these high-rise buildings. Mr. Prows responded to Mr. Calkins' statements. He stated that at the present price of the land, the only way they can justify the project is to make the development as marketable as possible, and this means in this instance asking for an increase in the height of the structures. Mr. Prows stated that they have committed to a decrease in the density from the per- mitted 1,116 units to a maximum of 1,050. He pointed out that the height of the buildings was also increased to reduce the number of structures on the site. Mr. Prows stated that the roadways through the site have been established, and that they have not made provisions to widen any of the roadways. Mr. Prows pointed out that the water will have to be pumped • out of the underground parking structure because it will be below the water table; this water will be used to maintain the lakes in the landscaping plan. He emphasized that a ll buildings will be constructed to meet the requirements o f the Fire Department, and that the buildings will be sprinklered. • -7- Mr. McBrayer asked if it was not true that Prowswood, Inc. could sell the site to some other developer for a profit. Mr. Prows stated that this is always a possibility. Mr. McBrayer stated that the developers are not committing to lower density on the site, but asking for higher buildings. Mr. Prows emphasized that Prowswood is committing to lower density. He stated that they were asking for the height limitation of 14 to 18 stories because they feel they need that kind of "lid" to work with. He stated that their intent is to reduce the density as far as possible. Mr. McBrayer asked if it would be possible for Prowswood to sell the site after obtaining the approval for the increased height of the buildings, and still build the 1,116 units that are presently permitted on the site? Mrs. Romans stated that this would depend on the approval of the Planning Commission. She pointed out that if Prowswood is willing to commit to only the 1,050 units, this could be placed in the conditions of approval, which would lower the density. Mrs. Pierson asked if the sprinkler system will be adequate on the 18th floor; there will be sufficient water pressure to activate the sprinklers? Mrs. Romans stated that the Utilities Department has stated there will be adequate water pressure for the sprinkler system in the buildings. Mr. Prows stated that the fire equipment would hook into the buildings and pro- vide supplemental pressure on the upper floors in the event of emergency. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the applicants have been to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals on the matter of fire protection, and they will also have their plans approved by a Fire Inspection Engineer. Mr. John Welles 3602 South Gilpin Street Cherry Hills Village -noted that the first hearing on this particular site took place 20 years ago this month. Mr. Welles inquired how many units are presently on the total KLZ site? Mrs. Romans stated there is a total of 384 apartment units that were de- veloped by the Larwin Multi-Housing Corporation. Mr. Welles asked what the total investment on this site is estimated to be? Prowswood representatives stated that they estimated a total invest- ment of $130,000,000. Mr. Welles stated that the surrounding neighborhood bears the risk of each sale of this property. Mr. Welles stated that the neighbors to the east of the property and just to the south would prefer to see a fewer number of high rise buildings, and that those neighbors might prefer to see a larger number of buildings with a lower height. Mr. Draper asked Mr. Welles what was proposed on the Temple Buell site at South University Boulevard and U. S. 285? Mr. Welles stated that he was not up-to-date on those plans for that site. Mr. Calkins stated that he understood there were some plans for the site, but no specific development proposals. He stated that he understood it was zoned for a resort hotel or motel type development, but does not know what will happen on this site. Mr. Welles stated that the development of the former KLZ Site will be a difficult undertaking, but that he wished the Prowswood representatives luck in their undertaking. -8- Mr. Prows stated that they do feel the current development proposal is a definite improvement over what has been proposed. He stated that he felt • the condominium approach to development is much better than the townhouse/ apartment complex development. Mrs. Pierson asked if there was anything that would require that these condominium units be owned; they could be rented out, could they not? She noted that a blanket approval of the development plan would allow the developer to have apartments, and not condominium units that would be owned by the occupant. Mr. Prows stated that he could not state that there would not be rentals; it is their intent to have a condominium development. He pointed out that some single-family detached homes are "rentals". Mrs. Pierson stated that she wanted to be very clear on what was proposed for approval. Mr. Draper asked what the alternative would be in the event the lakes cannot be completed? Mr. Prows stated that they would have to come back to the Commission for an amendment to the plan. Mr. Goodsen of Prowswood, Inc. stated that they have done tests, and that there is water in the ground that will have to be pumped out to accommodate the underground parking areas. Mr. Calkins pointed out that there are problems with drilling wells to get water; he felt the Commission should require some evidence of the ability of the developer to do what is portrayed on the plan. Mr. Prows stated that if for some reason the lakes cannot be developed and maintained, they would still cover the open space with landscaping and other aesthetic features. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Pierson asked if water rights would be needed to use this underground water? Mr. Reed Harding of Prowswood, Inc. stated that the soil test indicates the water table is 15 feet below the surface. This will require pumping to enable them to construct the parking structures, and also to keep the parking structures dry after construction. The water that is pumped from this area would have to be put into the storm drainage system, or it could be used in the lakes. If it is pumped into the drainage system, it is lost to this site, whereas if it is used in the lakes, it will, through absorption, be reused. Mr. Harding emphasized that the lake system they are considering is a "shallow" depth, and if the de-watering system they use for the parking structures doesn't provide sufficient water it will have to be supplemented. He stated that they did not intend to apply for water rights, and did not believe that they had to. Mr. Harding stated that the water depth varies on the site, and it is their feeling that this underground water that is pumped from the parking structure area can be better used by developing the lake system than pumping it into the storm drainage system. Mr. Richard Brown 3403 South Race Street -stated that he resided in the northwesterly-most unit of Kent Village, and is closest to the existing development that was done by Larwin, known as Kimberly Village. Mr. Brown • stated that Mr. Prows had indicated that buildings to the west on the site would be no taller than the 14 story building on the east of the site in terms of the number of feet above sea level. He asked that this be explained. • -9- Mr. Prows pointed out that there is a 20 foot difference in elevation on the site from ea£t to west. This difference in elevation, plus the dis- tance factor must be taken into consideration. Mr. Brown pointed out that five of the proposed six buildings will be 18 stories in height, and the full 20 foot difference in grade is not realized until you get to the western portion of the site. Mr. Brown stated that he was concerned about the willingness of the developers to commit to build no more than one building east of the existing access road next to the Kent Village development. Mr. Prows stated that at the time of the meeting with the Kent Village residents, he was asked to write a letter committing his firm on the first phase of construction. He stated that such a letter has been written, and gave a copy to Mr. Brown for his perusal. This letter states that there will be no more than one building east of the easternmost access road, which building shall not exceed 14 stories, or 130 feet in height. He stated that if, in the event the property should be sold, that future owners would be committed to the controls that are being stated this evening. Mr. Prows pointed out that before construction is started, they must file the equivalent of a subdivision plat and the general develop- ment plan, which would lock them into a given development plan. Mr. Brown asked that he be given an opportunity to read the letter and appear before the Commission later in the meeting if he should have further questions. Mrs. Pierson stated that Mr. Brown was excused and could reappear before the Commission. Mrs. Susan Fonda 3500 South Franklin Street Cherry Hills Village -stated that they have been trying to get something on this site that would be compatible to the neigh- borhood. She asked if there has been any discussion regarding the traffic on U. S. 285? Mr. Prows stated that there is no question that when additional people are living on the site there will be additional traffic using the highway. He pointed out that if the originally approved development had materialized, there would be 1,500 apartments on the site. He stated that he felt one of the advantages to the current proposal is the nature of the residents that will be living there; he stated that the more mature families will not impact the traffic system to the same degree that other residential-styles do. Mrs. Fonda asked Mr. Prows what the State Highway Department has said in regard to this proposed development? Mr. Prows stated that they have not discussed the proposed development with the Highway Department; he pointed out that the same points of ingress/egress will be utilized as are in existence. Mrs. Fonda suggested that Mr. Prows and other Prowswood repre- sentatives should be at the site at 8:00 A. M. and at 5:00 P. M. to see for themselves the traffic congestion. She stated that there have been a number of accidents and four people have been killed at the South Gilpin Street/U. S. 285 intersection. She urged that the developers confer with the State Highway Department before they consider increasing the density. Mr. Richard Edsall 3295 South Franklin Street -stated that he has lived at that address for 10 years. He stated that in regard to the -10- access gate at South Franklin Street and East Floyd Avenue which is to be used only be emergency vehicles: he closed the gate earlier this evening, • and it is now strapped shut with a nylon strap. Mr. Edsall continued that this about the tenth time that he has had to close the gate himself and that the gate is always down, broken, etc. He predicted that traffic on both East Floyd Avenue and East Floyd Place will increase. He noted that he can make a left-turn onto South University Boulevard from East Floyd Place quicker than he can get through the signalized intersections at U.S. 285 and South University Boulevard or East Floyd Avenue and South University Boulevard because of the timing on the lights. Mr. Edsall stated that Romans Park was a "swap off", which was to be "our" park, and the Larwin Develop- ment was to provide their own recreational facilities for their tenants. This did not materialize. Mr. Edsall stated that in the agreement with the Larwin Corporation, there was to be a fence surrounding Romans Park separating it from the Larwin Development, with no means of access to this park from the apartment complex, but somewhere along the line this agreement was ignored. Gates have now been put in, and about 40 feet of the fence has been taken out. He emphasized that the City staff approved this without coming back to the Commission, even though it was in conflict with what was agreed upon. Mr. Edsall strongly urged that the Planning Commission "put enough restrictions on this approval that they cannot be ignored." Mr. Edsall stated that after 20 years of fighting over the site, the opposition is being worn down; he stated that he felt the Planning Commission would "buy" this proposal also. He stated that the entire site should have been purchased as a park in the beginning, but the City didn't do it. Mr. Edsall stated that he is especially concerned about the location and height of the northernmost structure. He stated that the apartments that were developed by Larwin Corporation are supposed to be 30 feet in height. He stated that he wants to know where ~ the shadow line of the northernmost building will be in the wintertime --~ December 21st. He stated that there are several persons along Floyd Avenue who are interested in putting in solar units, and the shadow line of this building could have an adverse effect on such units. He stated that the apartments create enough of a problem along Floyd Avenue as it is; they have a snow and ice bank on East Floyd Avenue all winter long because the sun cannot melt the snow and ice off. Mr. Edsall urged that the northern- most building be moved to the south to assure that the shadow line will not fall into or beyond East Floyd Avenue. Mr. Prows stated that he could not answer where the shadow line would ex- tend from the northernmost structure. Mr. Edsall suggested that the Prowswood representatives should look at the structure in regard to the shadow line and move the structure to the south. He again strongly urged that the Planning Commission "tie this thing down" in regard to the proposed develop- ment. Mr. Edsall stated that the Planning Commission is the first line of defense for the property owners, and he urged them to look at the proposal in light of what it would do to the adjacent property owners. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt one reason there is not an over-flow crowd of people present this evening is that Mr. Prows and others from Prowswood, Inc., have met with several of the groups separately and explained the pro- posal to them. Mr. Richard Brown 3403 South Race Street -stated that he has reviewed the letter which Prowswood has sent to Mr. Hugh Terry, President of the Kent Village Association, and that the letter is responsive to their request in that they commit to construction of no more than one building on • • -11- the eastern part of the property. However, they do not state that this shall be a covena nt running with the land. Mr. Brown stated that he felt the background Mr. Edsall gave will make the Commission and developers better understand the adjacent property owners' desire to have some points committed to as to what shall be built on the subject site. Mr. Brown stated that over the years, they have seen the ownership of this property change hands many times, and that each successive owner comes before the Planning Commission with new plans for development. Mr. Brown stated that he personally feels this plan is materially better than the original Larwin Development plan, and better than the intermediate plans that have been considered. Mr. Brown stated that, speaking for himself, he has no basic objections to this plan as proposed by Prowswood, but would like to see it pinned down. He stated that he did not want to have to come back to the Planning Commission in another year or two to consider yet another plan of development for this site. Mr. Brown reiterated the point of view of the Kent Village residents: they want only one building built on the eastern portion of the property, and want the developers to place covenants to that effect which would run with the land and which would be to the benefit of the property owners adjoining on the east side. Mrs. Pierson asked if the plan as presented to the Commission is approved, would this lock the developers in to the specific plan? Mrs. Romans stated that if approval is granted to this proposal, it would be recorded, which means that the developers would have to develop to the recorded plan. Mr. Brown pointed out that the plan originally approved for the Larwin Multi-housing Corporation was recorded; this is a departure from that re- corded plan, and there could be departures from this plan in the future. He stated that it is for this reason they use the term "covenant" which would run with the land. This would give the property owners the right to use the courts to prevent any departures from this covenant, and would also prevent future Planning Corrunissions from allowing departures from this particular covenant. Mr. Prows questioned if they imposed a covenant on their own property whether anyone else could enforce them. He stated that if the Planning Commission wanted to impose any strong feelings they may have, they would be reflected in the minutes and record of this meeting. He also pointed out that when the record of survey and plans are recorded and when the first units are sold, they would be locked into the plan. Mr. Brown stated that the Kent Village residents want to go beyond that point; he said they would be willing to abide by the opinion of the City Attorney, as to whether a covenant could be imposed that would run with the land that would confer benefits to the adjacent property owners. Mr. Calkins stated that he would recommend that the Planning Commission obtain advice on how to tie down some of the points discussed at this meeting. He stated that he felt there are ways to get commitments on some of the points discussed, namely that the structures are actually located as shown on the footprint plans, the development of the lakes, etc. He stated that he felt the developer should be willing to reduce the density to the maximum of 1,050 units from the present maximum of 1,116. Mr. Prows reiterated that they are prepared to limit the density of their proposed development to no more than the 1,050 units, and will commit to that figure. Mr. Prows stated that he would like to amend his presentation to the Commission to the degree that if what Mr. Calkins fears proves true, and the lakes landscaping feature cannot be accomplished, that they will come back to the Commission. At that time, they would propose that the -12- open space the lakes would have occupied would be landscaped to make it as attractive as possible. He would ask that the Planning Commission con- sider the alternative of landscaping if there p r oves to be insufficient • water to do the lakes feature. Mr. Prows emphas i zed that it is the position of the developers that this proposed d e v e lopment plan is an improvement to the neighborhood and to the city over t he original plan, and over the plan approved by the amendment of 1979. Mr. Goodsen of Prowswood pointed out that this proposal contains 85% green open space. Discussion on the proposed plan ensued. Mr. Edsall again asked that the northernmost building be locate d far enough to the south so that its shadow will not fall onto East Floyd Avenue. Mr. Allen Lovenberg 3580 South Marion Street -noted that the northernmost structure on the proposed plan is oriented so that the length of the structure runs east and west; this would make the broadest part of its shadow extending to the north. If the structure were to be oriented so that its length was from the north to south, there would not be as much shadow cast by the building to the north. He noted that if the lakes can- not become a reality, he felt the upkeep on the landscaping would be as much as the maintenance of the lakes themselves. He stated that there will be a lot of traffic generated by the development for the entire area. Mrs. Myrna Hudgins 43 Sunset Drive Cherry Hills Village -stated that they had met with Mr. Prows and his representatives earlier in the evening, and expressed the following concerns in relation to this plan: they are concerned about the increased traffic because of the general traffic congestion on U. S. 285 and the U.S. 285/Gilpin Street intersection; they are concerned about a decline in their property values, and are concerned about an invasion of their privacy because people living in the high-rise buildings will be looking down into the backyards of those individuals who own the adjacent properties. Mrs. Pierson announced there would be a 10 minute break. The meeting reconvened at 9:20 P. M. with the following members present: Draper, Carson, Becker, Barbre, Williams, Tanguma, Senti, Pierson, McBrayer. Members absent: None Mrs. Pierson asked what the pleasure of the Commission was on this matter? She noted that it is not required that a decision be made at this meeting. Mrs. Becker noted that "time is money" to the developer. Mrs. Pierson stated that she had problems accepting the height of the structures in this request; she felt that the height of these buildings is "out of place in this location", and will "consume the neighborhood completely." Mrs. Pierson stated that she feels that each successive owner and prospective developer of this site has come to the Commission to ask for "more than is rea s onable", and that she has reached the point where she can no longer go along with the arguments of the developers. She stated that she would prefer the lower profile, even if the site did appear more "cluttered" with structures. Mrs. Pierson again expressed concern on the vertica l i mpact this development would have on the area. • • • -13- Mrs. Becker stated that she felt the condominium style of living is be- coming a way of life for many people. While the 18 stories is high, there is the open space, underground parking, and reduction of the overall number of units to which the developer has connnitted. Mrs. Becker stated that she was of the opinion that the proposal should be approved. Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt the Commission must consider the "trade- offs." Mr. Tanguma discussed the concerns that the Commission had felt over the initial plan of the Larwin Multi-Housing Corporation, those con- cerns being the density and impact on traffic that the development would have. He acknowledged that the structures proposed in this plan by Prowswood are by far the highest structures proposed for Englewood, but he felt that the aesthetics would off-set the impact of these high-rise buildings. Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt the additional green area and open space would be of benefit to no one but the residents on that site; it would be of no benefit to persons living some distance from the site, but who will be impacted by the visual aspect of these high-rise buildings. Mrs. Becker stated that she would have to disagree with that; she noted that when she is driving by a development, anything above two stories is a visual hindrance, and she concentrates on the open area and landscaping. Williams moved: Senti seconded: The Planning Commission approve the amendment to the Subdivision Waiver as requested by Prowswood, Inc., with the following conditions: 1. Development of the subject parcel shall comply with the General De- velopment Plan, which shall include the site plan, the parking plan, the landscape plan, the elevations of structures and the development proposal identified as Proposed Development which is set forth in the attached exhibit. The Site Plan shall be submitted in a scale of not less than l" = 50'. 2. The development, which may proceed in stages, shall contain no more than 1,116 units. 3. Fire lanes, emergency access, and maneuvering areas for fire equip- ment shall be approved by the Fire Chief. Accessibility 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. 4. 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. If required by the Director of Public Works, the applicant shall dedicate the west five feet (5) of the land adjoining South Lafayette Street to provide a turning lane into and from the project site. All costs of constructing 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. Any further widening of South Lafayette Street from Girard Avenue north to Floyd Avenue shall utilize additional required right-of-way on the east side of the street. -14- 5. The developer must comply wi th all Utility Department requirements for water and sewer service. 6. The development of the subject parce l s hall comply with the provisions of all applicable Fire and Buildi ng Codes . 7. At such time as all plans pertaining to building construction are ap- proved, Building Permits may be issued for the development of the sub- ject 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 and sewer lines by the Director of Utilities, and the fire hydrants by the Fire Chief. 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 buildings by the Director of Planning. 8 . Easements shall be provided for all water and sewer lines and for access for fire and police emergency vehicles. 9. Plans for security procedures to be utilized during construction shall be approved by the City prior to any construction. Access for construction vehicles shall be limited to the south (U. S. 285) side. 1 0 . If it is deemed necessary, an agreement shall be reached between Prowswood, Inc. and the City requiring sprinkling to control the amount of dust raised during the construction process. The opera- tion of any equipment used in the construction activities shall be prohibited during the hours of 9:00 P. M. of one day and 6:00 A. M. of the following day. (Section 6-8-5(e) of the 1969 E.M.C., as amended.) 11. Any changes in the general development plan, including changes in the site plan, must be made under the procedure s that are applicable to the initial approval of the Subdivision Waiver. 1 2. 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. 1 3. Landscaping in each development phase shall be installed and maintained as per the landscaping plan. 14. All trash containers and pick-up points serving the eastern portion of the proposed development shall be located to the west of the e a sternmost building in the development. 15. It is understood that all streets, roadways, lanes, and ways shall remain private. It is the clear intention of the Planning and Zoning ~ Commission that these s t reets, roadways, lanes and ways shall never be dedicated to the City. • • 16. 17. -15- It is understood that the heights of all buildings shall be measured from existing grade . Prowswood, Inc. 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 in- directly by Prowswood, Inc. in connection with and during the entire period of development of said tract of land. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Pierson noted that several changes had been dis- cussed during the course of the meeting, among them the matter of moving the northernmost structure further to the south, the matter of determining the amount of bond, and density. Mr. Tanguma pointed out that the matter of landscaping the area where the lakes are proposed was also mentioned as an alternative if the lakes cannot be developed. Mr. McBrayer stated that he would oppose including this alternative at this time; he stated he would pref er that the Commission make the developers at least try to develop the lakes. Mr. Tanguma made reference to Condition #16, and asked as of what date would the existing grade be figured? Mr. McBrayer stated that the developers would have elevations of the site, and it would be figured from those elevations. Mrs. Becker discussed the comments regarding solar units; she stated that she is very interested in solar units, and that if the solar units were in place in the homes to the north of Floyd Avenue, then the building should not be allowed to be constructed where it could impair the function of those units. If, on the other hand, the solar units are not in at this time, she felt it would be improper to require the relocation of the northern- most building based on the possibility of the future installation of solar units. Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt the Commission could require re- location of the building; that property owners have a right to the sun whether or not they make use of it. Discussion ensued. Mr. Draper stated that one of his primary concerns was the traffic impact of the proposed development. He stated that he did not feel that it could be solved at this point in time, but would have to be worked out by the City and State Highway Department after the development is completed. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the developers have been told they have to use the same points of access that have been previously approved; there are fewer units proposed by Prowswood than could be built on the site. She noted that Public Works Director Waggoner was present, and that the Traffic Division is part of his department. Mrs. Pierson asked Mr. Waggoner if he would like to comment on the matter of traffic impact? Mr. Waggoner stated that he did not wish to comment at this time. Mrs. Pierson asked Mr. Williams if he would include the amendment to Con- dition #2 limiting the density to no more than 1,050 units, and the rewording of #12 to state: "No building permits shall be issued for later phases of construction until all previous phases are developed, including landscaping, or until a bond is posted to guarantee completion of the preceding phase. The amount of bond is to be determined by the Director of Community Develop- ment." -16- Mr. Williams stated that he would accept the amendment to Condition #2 to limit the density to no more than 1,050 units; he would not include the rewording of Condition #12 in his motion. Discussion ensued. Carson moved: Barbre seconded: The motion to be amended to include the rewording on Condition /112 to read: "No building permits shall be issued for later phases of construction until all previous phases under construction are completed, including landscaping, or until a bond is posted to guarantee completion of the preceding phase. The amount of bond is to be determined by the Director of Community Development." AYES: McBrayer, Draper, Carson, Becker, Barbre, Tanguma, Senti, Pierson NAYS: Williams The motion carried. Mr. McBrayer stated that he feels the increase in traffic is something that will have to be endured. He stated that he is of the opinion that the resi- dents of Kent Village and other property owners generally feel that this is a good plan. He commended the developers for the amount of open space and greenery that is proposed, and stated that he felt it is a good amendment. The vote on Mr. Williams' motion, as amended, was called. The motion reads: "The Planning Commission approve the amendment to the Subdivision Waiver as requested by Prowswood, Inc., with the following conditions: 1. Development of the subject parcel shall comply with the General De- velopment Plan, which shall include the site plan, the parking plan, the landscape plan, the elevations of structures and the development proposal identified as Proposed Development which is set forth in the attached exhibit. The Site Plan shall be submitted in a scale of not less than l" = 50'. 2. The development, which may proceed in stages, shall contain no more than 1,050 units. 3. Fire lanes, emergency access, and maneuvering areas for fire equip- ment shall be approved by the Fire Chief. Accessibility 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. 4. 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. If required by the Director of Public Works, the applicant shall dedicate the west five feet (5) of the land adjoining South Lafayette Street to provide a turning lane into and from the project site. All costs of constructing 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. Any further widening of South Lafayette Street from Girard Avenue north to Floyd Avenue shall utilize additional required right-of-way on the east side of the street. • • • -17- 5. The developer must comply with all Utility Department reqirements for water and sewer service. 6. The development of the subject parcel shall comply with the provisions of all applicable Fire and Building Codes. 7. At such time as all plans pertaining to building construction are ap- proved, Building Permits may be issued for the development of the sub- ject site following approval of: a. The on-site grading and storm draiaage by the Director of Public Works. b. The plans for the location and specifications of on-site water lines and sewer lines by the Director of Utilities, and the fire hydrants by the Fire Chief. 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 buildings by the Director of Planning. 8. Easements shall be provided for all water and sewer lines and for access for fire and police emergency vehicles. 9. Plans for security procedures to be utilized during construction shall be approved by the City prior to any construction. Access for construction vehicles shall be limited to the south (U. S. 285) side. 10. If it is deemed necessary, an agreement shall be reached between Prowswood, Inc. and the City requiring sprinkling to control the amount of dust raised during the construction process. The opera- tion of any equipment used in the construction activities shall be prohibited during the hours of 9:00 P. M. of one day and 6:00 A.M. of the following day. (Section 6-8-5(e) of the 1969 E.M.C., as amended.) 11. Any changes in the general development plan, including changes in the site plan, must be made under the procedures that are applicable to the initial approval of the Subdivision Waiver. 12. No building permits shall be issued for later phases of construction until all previous phases under construction are completed, including landscaping, or until a bond is posted to guarantee completion of the preceding phase. The amount of bond is to be determined by the Director of Community Development. 13. Landscaping in each development phase shall be installed and maintained as per the landscaping plan. 14. All trash containers and pick-up points serving the eastern portion 15. of the proposed development shall be located to the west of the eastern- most building in the development. It is understood remain private. Commission that be dedicated to that all streets, roadways, lanes, and ways shall It is the clear intention of the Planning and Zoning these streets, roadways, lanes and ways shall never the City. -18- 16. It is understood that the heights of all buildings shall be measured from existing grade. 17. Prowswood, Inc. 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 in- directly by Prowswood, Inc. in connection with and during the entire period of development of said tract of land. AYES: Carson, Becker, Barbre, Williams, Tanguma, Senti, McBrayer, Draper NAYS: Pierson The motion carried. Mrs. Pierson stated that if adjacent property owners were to want to appeal the decision of the Commission on this matter, the appeal would be through the Court system, and not to City Council. Mrs. Romans stated that this is the procedure that has been followed in the past. Mr. Prows thanked the Commission for their consideration, and stated that they plan to do their very best to develop the site. Mrs. Romans stated that the resolution will be prepared and recorded along with the documents on the general development plan at the expense of the developer. IV. MARION STREET VILLAS Subdivision Plat CASE tl2 7-80 Mrs. Pierson stated that this matter is a Public Hearing, and asked for a motion to open the Hearing. Draper moved: Carson seconded: The Public Hearing on the Marion Street Villas Sub- division Plat be opened. AYES: Pierson, McBrayer, Draper, Carson, Becker, Barbre, Williams, Tanguma, Senti NAYS: None The motion carried. Mrs. Pierson stated that the matter before the Commission is the matter of a resubdivision on the west side of the 3500 block South Marion Street. She asked that the staff report be presented. Mrs. Dorothy Romans was sworn in and testified that she is the Acting Director of Community Development. This matter before the Commission is a Public Hearing on the replatting of a subdivision that was approved in 1910. Mrs. Romans discussed the original platting of this property, in which some lots were oriented north and south, and other lots ran east and west. There were also two "T" shaped alleys, and a street which ran east/west through the center of the block which was called Verona Place. Verona Place has been vacated, as was a part of the "T" shaped alley, and the Planni ng Commission recently vacated excess right-of-way on the • • • • -19- west side of South Marion Street. The writing of legal descriptions for this area is quite involved, and when Mr. Payne, developer of the property, initially discussed his proposed development, it was suggested that he should replat the subject site to clarify the writing of the legal descriptions. The staff does recommend that the subdivision plat of Marion Street Villas be approved and recommended to City Council. Mr. McBrayer asked if by approving the subdivision plat, this would increase or decrease the number of units that could be placed on the land? Mrs. Romans stated that it would not affect the density to which the land may be developed. She pointed out that Mr. Payne had appeared before the Board of Adjustment and Appeals to obtain variances on his proposed develop- ment of attached single-family units. Each individual unit will be sold. Mrs. Pierson asked if the applicant wished to address the Commission? Mr. Arlen Payne 5470 West Princeton Drive -was sworn in. He stated that the resubdivision plat of this area was only an attempt to clarify legal descriptions to facilitate obtaining financing and issuance of building permits. Mrs. Pierson asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of this sub- division? Mr. Anthony Monte 3527 South Marion Street -was sworn in. He asked if a duplex could be constructed on a 25 foot lot? Mrs. Pierson stated that the question before the Commission is only on the division of the land; it does not change the type of development that may be put on the land. Mrs. Romans stated that a minimum of 50 foot frontage would be required for the construction of a duplex. Mr. Monte asked if the subdivision plat of Marion Street Villas clarified the legal descriptions of the property in which Mr. Payne had an interest, would it affect the legal descriptions of his property? Mrs. Romans stated that it would not. There were no other persons present who wished to address the Commission relative to this matter. Carson moved: Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. AYES: Senti, Pierson, McBrayer, Draper, Carson, Becker, Barbre, Williams, Tanguma NAYS: None The motion carried. McBrayer moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the Marion Street Villas Subdivision Plat be approved. AYES: Tanguma, Senti, Pierson, McBrayer, Draper, Carson, Becker, Barbre, Williams NAYS: None -20- The motion carried. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans stated that interviews for the Director of Community Development were held on September 22, 1980. Mrs. Romans stated that there is nothing scheduled on the agenda for the Planning Commission meeting of October 7th. The Englewood Downtown Develop- ment Authority is having an all-day retreat in Idaho Springs on that date, and she and Mr. Wanush would be attending that retreat. She stated that she would assume that she would be back in town in time for the meeting if the Commission determines they want to hold a meeting that evening. It was the concensus of the Commission that inasmuch as there was nothing on the agenda for the meeting of October 7th, the meeting should be cancelled. The meeting adjourned at 10:05 P. M. Ci'u/~ tj:_ ~4-· G rtrude G. Welty ~ fc:rding Secretarytf' • • • • • • MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: September 23, 1980 SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION: McBrayer moved: Carson seconded: Marion Street Villas Subdivision Plat The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the Marion Street Villas Subdivision Plat be approved. -21- AYES: Tanguma, Senti, Pierson, McBrayer, Draper, Carson, Becker, Barbre, Williams NAYS: None The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning & Zoning Commission. --· c: q~rtrude G. Welty / 4lecording Secretan