The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004-06-29 PZC MINUTES• • • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING June 29, 2004 I. CALL TO ORDER The special meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:05 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic Center, Chair Krieger presiding. Present: Absent: Staff: Roth, Schum, Welker, Adams, Bleile, Diekmeier, Mosteller, Mueller, Krieger None Robert Simpson, Director of Community Development Tricia Langon, Senior Planner Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney Ken Ross, Director of Public Works Ladd Vostry, Traffic Engineer Chair Krieger declared a quorum present. II. DENVER SEMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Case #2004-05 Chair Krieger stated that this is a continuation of the Public Hearing begun on June 22, 2004. Chair Krieger asked that staff present the supplemental information sent to the Commission in their packet for the meeting. Tricia Langon, Senior Planner, was sworn in and stated that the supplemental information is a matrix listing issues that were raised during the course of Phase 1 of the Public Hearing, and re- sponses to those issues. Commissioner Roth stated that he would like to have two pieces of correspondence entered into the record: 1) a copy of e-mail correspondence from Patricia Montgomery to Tricia Langon dated June 28, 2004; and 2) a letter submitted to members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission from Elizabeth and John Matteson, dated June 28, 2004. Mr. Roth presented copies of this correspondence to the Recording Secretary for the case record. The following individuals were sworn in and presented testimony to the Commission. • Kathleen Johnson • Ron Pickens • Ray Carmichael • Peter Pappas • Nina Burford • Audrey Heidtbrink • Louise Myers • Elizabeth Matteson • Cheryl McKnight H :IGROUP\Current Planning\PLANCOMM\Minutes\PCM 06-29-04.doc 1 • • • Kathleen Mclnter • • Additional sworn statements were received from John Forstmann, John Welles, David Tryba and Jeff Ream (representative of Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig). Members of the development team presented and discussed the "shadow study", and answered questions on the traffic study prepared by Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig. The Commission recessed briefly at 8: 15 p.m., and reconvened at 8:25 p.m. Ms. Mueller ex- cused herself, and left the meeting. Members of the Commission posed questions to the development team regarding traffic data, location of bus stops along South University Boulevard, vehicular stacking lanes on South Uni- versity Boulevard, density, height of structures, retail uses, parking garage height and turning radii, construction materials, roofing materials, window treatments and excessive use of glass, fencing height, location of employee parking, dedication of land for right-of-way purposes, building setbacks, entrance/exits for underground parking structure , and signage. Chair Krieger asked if there were additional questions. Hearing none, she asked for a motion to close the Public Hearing. Bleile moved: Schum seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #2004-05 be closed. AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Schum, Welker, Adams, Bleile, Diekmeier, Mosteller, Roth, Krieger None None Mueller The motion carried. Chair Krieger asked the pleasure of the Commission. Bleile moved: Mosteller seconded: The Planning Commission approve the proposed Denver Seminary Planned Unit Develo pment with the following five conditions; the Com- mission further recommends the proposed Denver Seminary Planned Unit Development to City Council for favorable action. 1. 2 . 3. Dedication of the South University Boulevard continuous right tum lane shall be by Major Subdivision. Construction of the public improvements as proposed. Prior to recording any Development Restrictions and Covenant documents, the City shall review such documents to assure that the documents are consistent with the PUD. H :\G RO UP\C urrent Planning\PLANCOMM\Minutes\PCM 06-29-04.doc 2 • • • 4. Applicant shall provide two recorded copies of all Development Restrictions and Covenant documents to the City. 5. Clarification of Notes 4 and 7 on Sheet PUD-4 regarding enclosure of private balconies and terraces to provide definition of "enclo- sure". Members of the Commission discussed the proposed PUD. Mr. Welker stated that in his opinion the traffic study isn't 100% accurate, but the developer has offered a great deal in mitigation ef- forts , not only for projected increased traffic but to improve the existing traffic situation. He stated that his two main concerns are: 1) height of the proposed fencing -10 feet is in excess of the standard six foot height allowed in Englewood, and in his opinion the height could be re- duced -and 2) that a "generous building envelope" is provided. Mr. Welker would like to see lower elevations on the buildings, but did not think that shadows cast by the structure would be a big problem. Mr. Schum discussed his concerns regarding the University Boulevard/U. S. 285 intersection -it is a problem now and will only get worse. He advocated depressing one of the streets under the other to eliminate intersecting traffic altogether. Mr. Schum agreed the developer has committed a lot to mitigate traffic congestion , but the intersection will still be congested even with the im- provements. Mr. Schum also discussed concerns with maneuverability within the parking struc- ture; he expressed concern regarding height of the levels and width of parking stalls to allow for large SUVs, and turning radii required by these larger vehicles. Mr. Schum discussed concerns regarding a possible car wash in the underground parking area. Mr. Schum also expressed con- cern regarding height of the structures, would like to see the height "spread out" to other build- ings . He agreed that the proposed redevelopment is great for Englewood. Mr. Schum com- mented that neighbors may have requested the 10 foot high wall as a "safety" issue -six foot fences can easily be scaled if someone wants to do so. Mr. Bleile noted that the 10 foot fence/wall was requested by neighbors during negotiations be- tween the developer and neighbors of the site. He commented on efforts the developer has ex- pended to work with the various neighborhood groups to mitigate concerns and impacts of the proposed development. Mr. Roth commented that the entire traffic study is premised on development of a double left- turn lane from southbound University to eastbound U.S. 285. Chair Krieger pointed out that the right-of-way for the left turn lane as well as the continuous right turn lane will be dedicated from the present seminary site prior to redevelopment. Ms. Krieger stated that she understands many of the neighbors are not pleased with the proposed structure height, or the density. She pointed out that the present zoning of the site is MU-R-3-B , which would permit a much higher density than is proposed. If the developer chose to do a pro- ject that fit into the MU-R-3-B use-by-right category, there could be higher density and they would not have to undertake any traffic improvements. Ms. Krieger stated that she does want to commend the development team for their efforts in working with the neighbors on the proposal. She also expressed her appreciation to all those who have taken of their evenings to attend and participate in the hearing process. H:\GROUP\Current Planning\PLANC OMM\Minutes \PCM 06-29-04.d oc 3 • Ms. Mosteller concurred with Chair Krieger. The proposed Planned Unit Development is much better than what could occur under the present zoning restrictions. Ms. Mosteller pointed out that the PUD also addresses some of the goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, particularly regarding a diversity in housing types. Mr. Diekmeier commented that a lot of the traffic concerns are based on the present congested conditions; he further commented that he did not think that the "shading" will adversely impact adjoining properties. He stated that any redevelopment project raises negative issues, and this is no exception. Mr. Roth agreed that the developer has done a good job trying to work through issues with the neighbors; this has been reflected in much of the testimony received during the course of the hearing. The vote was called: AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Welker, Adams, Bleile, Diekmeier, Mosteller, Roth, Schum, Krieger None None Mueller • The motion carried. • Assistant City Attorney Reid reminded members they need to make "findings" on the issue, and to state those findings for the record. Chair Krieger cited the following criteria to be considered when approving a PUD: PUD District Plan 1. The PUD District Plan is, or is not, in conformance with the District Plan requirements and the Comprehensive Plan. 2. All required documents, drawings, referrals, recommendations, and approvals have been received. 3. The PUD District Plan is consistent with adopted and generally accepted standards of de- velopment in the City of Englewood. 4. The PUD District Plan is substantially consistent with the goals, objectives, design guide- lines, policies and any other ordinance, law or requirement of the City. 5. When the PUD District Plan is within the Englewood Downtown Development Authority (EDDA) area, the Plan is consistent with the EDDA approved designs, policies and plans. PUD Site Plan 1. The PUD Site Plan is, or is not, in conformance with the District Plan requirements. 2. All required documents, drawings, referrals, recommendations, and approvals have been received. 3. The PUD Site Plan is consistent with adopted and generally accepted standards of devel- opment of the City of Englewood. H:\GROUP\Current Planning\PLANCOMM\Minutes\PCM 06-29-04.doc 4 • • • 4. The PUD Site Plan is substantially consistent with the goals, objectives and policies and/or any other ordinance, law or requirement of the City. Bleile moved: Schum seconded: The Planning Commission finds that the Denver Seminary Planned Unit Development is in compliance with the District Plan requirements and in compliance with the Site Plan requirements as cited by Chair Krieger. Members of the Commission discussed the compliance of the Denver Seminary Planned Unit Development with the District Plan and Site Plan requirements. Chair Krieger commented on various amenities and mitigation steps that will be provided by the developer; the PUD meets goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, and in her opinion it is in conformance with the neighborhood-citing the height of the Waterford tower, and the density of The Marks and Kimberly Woods and Kimberly Village developments . The proposed PUD also exceeds minimum parking standards . Members of the Commission concurred that the PUD does meet the requirements for the District Plan and for the Site Plan. The vote was called: AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Adams , Bleile, Diekmeier, Mosteller, Roth, Schum, Welker, Krieger None None Mueller The motion carried. Chair Krieger announced that the motion carried ; the Denver Seminary Planned Unit Develop- ment has been approved by the Commission, and will be forwarded to City Council with a favor- able recommendation. She thanked everyone for coming, and stated that the Hearing is closed, and the meeting is adjourned. Se c retarv's Note : A complete transcript of the Public Hearing testimony and proceedings is ap- pended hereto and is hereby made a part of the Minutes of the June 29, 2004 special meeting. Gertrude G. Welty, Recording Secret y H:\GROUP\Current Pl annin g\PLANCOMM\Minutes\PCM 06-29-04.doc 5 Transcript of Proceedings City of Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission June 29, 2004 Reported by: Cheryl M. Robinson Professional Shorthand Reporter Transcript provided by: ~&s~ . .ue 3131 S.d"&'~ ~. S~ 224. ~. ~ 10014 720-449-0329 • ~,,IX 720-449-0334 • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 • 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 • 25 &.e.~l}EIED COPY CITY OF ENGLEWOOD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS -VOLUME II June 29, 2004 Proceedings had on Tuesday, June 29, 2004, at 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado, commencing at the hour of 7:02 p.m., before the following Board: For the City of Englewood: For the Applicant: Kent Diekmeier Dennis Schum Stefanie Mosteller Carl Welker Cyndi Krieger, Chair Patricia Mueller Brian Bleile Michael Adams Don Roth A P P E A R A N C E S Tricia Langon, Senior Planner Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney Robert Simpson, Director of Community Development John Forstmann, President JVF, LLC David Tryba, Architect David Owen Tryba Architects John Wells, Executive Vice President JVF, LLC Jeff Ream, Traffic Operations Engineer Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 98 • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 • 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 • 25 I N D E X Presentation by Ms. Langon Testimony by Ms. Johnson Testimony by Mr. Pickens Testimony by Mr. Carmichael Testimony by Mr. Pappas Testimony by Ms. Burford Testimony by Ms. Heidtbrink Testimony by Ms. Myers Testimony by Ms. Matteson Testimony by Ms. McKnight Testimony by Ms. Mcintee Presentation of the Shadow Study Questions from the Commission Discussion by the Commission Shadow Study Traffic Study E X H I B I T S Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC Page Number 101 102 104 106 111 115 117 119 121 122 123 126 146 187 Initial Reference 126 147 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 99 100 • 1 P R 0 C E E D I N G S 2 CHAIRPERSON: I'm calling this meeting of the 3 Planning and Zoning Commission to order. 4 I'll remind everyone to put on their mikes. 5 Please call the roll. 6 MS. WELTY: Mr. Roth? 7 MR. ROTH: Here. 8 MS. WELTY: Mr. Shum? 9 MR. SCHUM: Here. 10 MS. WELTY: Mr. Welker? 11 MR. WELKER: Here. 12 MS . WELTY: Mr. Adams? • 13 MR. ADAMS: Here. 14 MS. WELTY: Mr. Bleile? 15 MR. BLEILE: Here. 16 MS. WELTY: Mr. Diekmeier? 17 MR. DIEKMEIER: Here. 18 MS. WELTY: Ms. Mosteller? 19 MS. MOSTELLER: Here. 20 MS. WELTY: Ms. Mueller? 21 MS. MUELLER: Here. 22 MS. WELTY: Ms. Krieger? 23 CHAIRPERSON: Here . 24 MS. WELTY: We have nine present . • 25 CHAIRPERSON: The purpose of this meeting is Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 101 • 1 the continuation of the public hearing for Case 2004-05, 2 Denver Seminary Planned Unit Development. 3 We had some supplemental information in our 4 packet, and so we'll start off with a brief presentation 5 by Tricia Langon. 6 MS. WELTY: Would you raise your right hand, 7 please. 8 TRICIA LANGON, 9 a witness herein, having been first duly sworn, testified 10 on her oath as follows: 11 MS. WELTY: Will you please state your name, 12 spell your name, and give your address and any business • 13 affiliation for the record. Thank you. 14 MS. LANGON: I'm Tricia Langon, L-A-N-G-0-N, 15 senior planner with the department of community 16 development. 17 In your packet this evening was supplemental 18 information. And in that packet was a matrix of the 19 issues that were identified last week at the public 20 hearing and status of those issues and concerns and also 21 the traffic report that you had requested. I just wanted 22 to identify those pieces for the record. 23 Other than that, staff has no additional 24 information at this time or comments at this time. • 25 MR. ROTH: Madam Chairwoman? Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 102 • 1 . CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 2 MR. ROTH: We do have two pieces of --one 3 e-mail and another letter that were sent to me. And I 4 would like to enter those into the record. 5 MS. WELTY: Thank you, sir. 6 CHAIRPERSON: The next person up to speak is 7 Pat Montgomery who sent us a letter, so I assume she's not 8 here. 9 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Pat Montgomery is out of 10 town, but she did supply a letter to Tricia Langon. 11 CHAIRPERSON: Right. We have that. Thank you. 12 Kathleen Johnson? • 13 MS. WELTY: Would you raise your right hand, 14 please, ma'am. 15 KATHLEEN JOHNSON, 16 a witness herein, having been first duly sworn, testified 17 on her oath as follows: 18 MS. WELTY: Thank you. Would you please state 19 your name, spell your name, give your address and any 20 affiliation for the record, please. 21 MS. JOHNSON: I am Kathleen Johnson. That's 22 K-A-T-H-L-E-E-N, J-O-H-N-S-0-N. I live at 2308 East Floyd 23 Place, and I'm speaking for myself. My property adjoins 24 the seminary. • 25 In a neighborhood meeting earlier this year I Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 103 • 1 voted in favor of the development with some modifications. 2 That is still my decision. A modification that I would 3 like to see is a reduction in the height of the towers. I 4 do understand that my house will not be completely shaded. 5 But I do believe that at the present height proposed, they 6 will be overwhelming to our neighborhood and to the area. 7 I also understand any developer's desire to 8 build high-rises. And I'm wondering if maybe it's 9 misplaced blame in this case, because I believe that the 10 City of Englewood has been remiss in not passing the 11 right-to-solar-access law. 12 I would also like to be assured that any • 13 exterior light that is visible to me from my home and from 14 my yard be shaded in such a manner that the source of the 15 light is not visible to me. 16 It's going to be a very difficult time for all 17 of us if this development is approved. The construction 18 time is going to be very stressful to all of us. However, 19 Mr. Tryba and Mr. Forstmann have been very attentive and 20 very courteous in addressing our concerns and our 21 questions. And they are going to take certain measures to 22 help relieve that stress to us, and that includes the 23 construction of the south wall at the back of our property 24 before construction starts. And I do believe that they • 25 will consider us during that construction time. Thank Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 104 • 1 you. 2 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ron Pickens? 3 MS. WELTY: Would you raise your right hand, 4 please, sir. 5 RON PICKENS, 6 a witness herein, having been first duly sworn, testified 7 on his oath as follows: 8 MS. WELTY: Thank you. Would you please state 9 your name, spell your name, give your address and any 10 affiliation for our record . Thank you. 11 MR. PICKENS: I'm Ron Pickens. And it's 12 P-I-C-K-E-N-S. I'm a property owner who resides at • 13 2298 East Floyd Place and is adjacent to the north 14 property line of the Denver Seminary. I'm also president 15 of the architectural control committee, Hampden Hills 16 blocks 8, 9, and 10; but I'm speaking on my own behalf. 17 First, I want to thank the commission for the 18 opportunity to speak tonight. Second, since the first 19 public meeting was held on January 13, 2004, I have had 20 many questions and concerns about this redevelopment. 21 In the course of the last six months, I have 22 talked with Tricia Langon, senior planner, community 23 development for the City of Englewood. And she has been 24 very helpful and answered a lot of questions concerning • 25 the existing R3 and proposed PUD. Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 105 • 1 Third, I met with the developer, Mr. Forstmann, 2 and with the architect, Mr. Tryba, with many concerns and 3 questions concerning this project and how would the Denver 4 Seminary redevelopment be phased and completed. They have 5 responded back to me with answers to each of my questions 6 and with additional information pertaining to the 7 redevelopment, if approved. They have been very 8 cooperative and willing to share with me any details that 9 I have needed clarification on. 10 I have now reviewed all the information 11 provided by Tricia Langon, senior planner; the developer, 12 Mr. Forstmann; and the architect, Mr. Tryba. • 13 Phil and Diane Mumford, and that's 14 M-U-M-F-0-R-D, who live at 2368 East Floyd Place, Dave and 15 Liv Messiner, M-E-S-S-I-N-E-R, who live at 2338 East Floyd 16 Place, who both own adjacent properties to the north 17 property line of the Denver Seminary, could not be here 18 tonight, but they wanted me to speak for them. 19 They, along with myself, are all in agreement 20 and support the rezoning of the Denver Seminary property 21 from the existing R3 to the new proposed PUD. 22 Again, thank you for your time. And do you 23 have any questions of me? 24 (No response.) • 25 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Jane Soderberg? Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 106 • 1 (No response.) 2 CHAIRPERSON: Heather Mirahill? 3 (No response. ) 4 CHAIRPERSON: Yasmine When? 5 (No response. ) 6 CHAIRPERSON: Ray and Linda Carmichael? 7 MS. WELTY: Would you raise your right hand, 8 please, sir. 9 RAY CARMICHAEL, 10 a witness herein, having been first duly sworn, testified 11 on his oath as follows: 12 MS. WELTY: Would you please state your name, • 13 spell your name, give your address and any affiliation you 14 may have for the record. 15 MR. CARMICHAEL: Yes. Ray Carmichael, 16 C-A-R-M-I-C-H-A-E-L. My situation is all about safety. 17 I'm speaking for myself. 18 The safety situation as it stands --the 19 traffic is really bad. It's been bad for the 26 years 20 that I've lived here. And it's been so bad that five 21 years ago, my wife, crossing the street at Floyd Avenue, 22 was hit by a car. At that time she got injured. She had 23 major back surgery it cost $63,000 --and she has a lot 24 of titanium in her back now holding her bones together. • 25 I'm trying to draw a picture that this is a bad Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 107 • 1 situation. This traffic is terrible here. It should be 2 addressed at this point in time, long before the project 3 begins even. 4 But my situation is simple. By the way, my 5 wife had 40 stitches in the front and 40 stitches in the 6 back, and it was a long surgery. She had two years of 7 rehabilitation. And that's why I'm a little irate about 8 the traffic situation. 9 And like we said at the last hearing --it came 10 up at the last meeting --it wasn't a meeting; it was a 11 hearing --the traffic's bad, and putting something in the 12 west northwest corner more than what is there right • 13 now, with people coming and people going, it's going to 14 make the situation a little worse. 15 And I'd like to say that I saw the traffic 16 what would you call that? The traffic thing on the 17 computer where the little cars were moving by like little 18 soldiers going in the right direction and doing everything 19 correctly. I haven't seen it here tonight; maybe it's 20 going to be here, I don't know. 21 But when I saw that I was wondering, well, 22 where's the buses? Where does the buses stop? You know, 23 we have bus stops on that --that area straight across, I 24 believe, from the entryway on the University side of the • 25 project, there's a bus stop on both sides of the road. Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 108 • 1 And it congests the traffic right back. Sometimes the 2 traffic backs up as far as Dartmouth. And it's only going 3 to get worse. You can't put as much in that corner as you 4 wanted to and not make it worse. 5 It's a safety situation. And I'm putting it 6 that way because I want to go on record as saying that we 7 have a safety situation. And I can attest to that with 8 what happened to my wife. And I'd like it to be 9 addressed. 10 Does anybody have any questions for me? 11 MR. SCHUM: Do you know about how many bus 12 trips stop at those two stops today? • 13 MR. CARMICHAEL: No. But I'm sure someone in 14 the room might. Does someone know? 15 MR. ADAMS: I think RTD would have a schedule 16 for that. 17 MR. CARMICHAEL: I'm sure that RTD would. 18 MR. ADAMS: I have a question: With the new 19 development, does the bus stop move over to the new right 20 lane? 21 MR. CARMICHAEL: I don't know. 22 MR. ADAMS: I don't believe I saw one. 23 MR. BLEILE: If you had your choice, what would 24 you like to see happen in regards to the traffic flow? • 25 MR. CARMICHAEL: I'd like regular housing to be Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 109 • 1 put in that area, so that we wouldn't have a traffic 2 problem. Because I could see it this way: You could put 3 a cornfield there and in five to seven years --and that's 4 the length that this project's supposed to be --in five 5 to seven years, you're still going to have more traffic 6 than you have now, even if it was a cornfield or a 7 hayfield. 8 I mean, we're progressing here. This city's 9 growing. We're going to have a lot more people. And I 10 just think the project is too big. And I'm so glad that 11 one of my friends back here just spoke and said the 12 building's too high, because it's ridiculous to have it • 13 that high and shade people's homes. 14 Their homes are solar collectors. And let me 15 explain that. Even though they don't have a solar 16 collector on their home, the sun hits their home when the 17 sun is in the south in the winter. And it hits it because 18 the shade trees lose their leaves. And with blocking the 19 sun with some of those buildings being high --there 20 again, I can't show it to you because it was supposed to 21 be here at this meeting; I think that it's going to be. I 22 don't know if we're going to take a look maybe at the 23 shade. 24 That's why I've come tonight to see the shade • 25 situation and the traffic situation. And that also deals Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 110 • 1 with safety because of the ice that's going to be created 2 from the shade. 3 I don't know, maybe I went overboard answering 4 your question. 5 MR. ROTH: One other thing, Mr. Carmichael. I 6 think you neglected to give your address. 7 MR. CARMICHAEL: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm not a 8 public speaker and I'm not into this. My address is 2108 9 East Floyd Place, Englewood, Colorado 80113. I'm the 10 third house from the end by Race. I'm about ten houses 11 away from the situation. 12 And if you want me to go on, I can say some • 13 more things about this project that I would like. 14 MS. MUELLER: Thank you. I think your time is 15 up at this point. We're only allowing five minutes per 16 speaker. 17 MR. CARMICHAEL: Okay. Thank you. 18 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Would your 19 wife like to speak? 20 MRS. CARMICHAEL: No. I have nothing to say. 21 I've sent enough letters. I think you have my opinions. 22 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Jenna 23 Norgren? 24 (No response. ) • 25 CHAIRPERSON: Jack Bradbury? Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 111 • 1 (No response. ) 2 CHAIRPERSON: Peter Pappas? 3 MS. WELTY: Would you raise your right hand, 4 please, sir. 5 PETER PAPPAS, 6 a witness herein, having been first duly sworn, testified 7 on his oath as follows: 8 MS. WELTY: Would you please state your name, 9 spell your name, give your address and any affiliation for 10 the record. Thank you. 11 MR. PAPPAS: My name is Peter Pappas, 12 P-A-P-P-A-S. My address is 1701 East Cornell Avenue in • 13 Denver. I'm a resident of the Cherry Hills Vista 14 neighborhood, which is the neighborhood immediately north 15 of the City of Englewood, north of Dartmouth. 16 Ginger Heck from my community association gave 17 a talk --a presentation to you last time you were here. 18 And I think she very well represented what the 19 neighborhood that I live in feels about this project, 20 which is that it is a very positive project. 21 I am an architect and, in fact, have had the 22 pleasure of meeting before this board about a year or so 23 ago on the property at Dartmouth and University, just 24 behind the Korean church, where I have just gone under • 25 contract to purchase that property and build four houses Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 112 • 1 there. So I guess I could be called a developer now, 2 also. 3 But, I think, as you look at this project you 4 have to look at how any project is developed with respect 5 to smart growth, economics, traffic, safety, quality of 6 life, and all of those issues. 7 And when you take this project as a whole, look 8 at the people that put it together working with the City, 9 with Tricia Langon, Ken Ross, everyone else in the City, 10 planning staff, engineering staff; look at the developer, 11 look at the architect, who is the architect who I believe 12 designed this building, designed the municipal building, •• 13 the Webb municipal building downtown. 14 David Tryba is one of the better architects 15 practicing in the state right now. He has a commitment to 16 quality design, quality development, and responsiveness to 17 a way of life that contributes to everyone's way of life 18 around the project. 19 When a project like this is planned, the 20 architect, the developer, and city staff spend hundreds of 21 hours working through details upon details upon details. 22 They meet with neighborhood groups. They meet with 23 neighbors and such. What you're seeing here tonight is a 24 culmination of all of those meetings. • 25 You will find things that may be --might be Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 113 • 1 better if you did it this way, it might be better if you 2 did it this way, it might be worse if you did it this way. 3 What you have is probably the best result of all of the 4 work that was done for this project to make it work well 5 in the City of Englewood. 6 Englewood will benefit in many, many ways. It 7 will benefit financially from the tax base. It will 8 benefit financially --or it will benefit from quality of 9 life by bringing in quality residences, a quality 10 development, quality retail to the site. 11 It will benefit with traffic. This 12 intersection is --will not be improved through public • 13 funds any time in the next, probably, ten years. What 14 you're looking at is the intersection at University and 15 Hampden, which I drive through every day, being improved 16 to a very high-class state, a very --probably the safest 17 it could possibly be in the next five or ten years through 18 the use of private funds of the developer, which he is 19 contributing to --making this intersection work probably 20 ten times better than it works now. 21 Those funds would not be available either 22 through Arapahoe County, through Cherry Hills Village, or 23 through Englewood any time in the near future. We are 24 getting the benefit of that, making this intersection work • 25 better. It will make it much safer, it will control the Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 114 • 1 traffic, it will control the turns, it will look at mass 2 transit, it will look at widening it, it looks at 3 providing a sound wall on the east side of the property 4 or the east side of University, which is not even on the 5 developer's property, providing that for the neighbors 6 there. 7 Also, you need to look at the fact new urbanism 8 is smart growth. We're living in a city right now that 9 the reason we see traffic on University is because the 10 people from the south, Highlands Ranch, south of 470, 11 corning down University every day, that traffic is still 12 going to happen. • 13 When this development happens, you bring 14 development to the inner city. It actually helps the 15 traffic situation, because you're not bringing traffic 16 from further south, further east, and further west. 17 You're centralizing it in the city, you're providing 18 retail here. People who live in this development will use 19 retail; they won't be leaving the center to go to a 20 restaurant, say, someplace else. 21 So when you look at all the pieces together, 22 what you get is a development that is probably the best 23 development that could be built right here at the time. 24 You could have worse things and I don't like to • 25 say it could be worse, but you could have higher density, Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX: (720) 449-0334 115 • 1 you could have lower-quality construction, lower-quality 2 housing .. But what we've got here is a very high-quality 3 project all the way through. 4 And I think what you need to look at is this 5 project as a whole and say, based on all the work that's 6 been done by the city staff protecting the interests of 7 the people of the City of Englewood, by the developer, by 8 the architect, by the neighborhood groups -- 9 MS. MUELLER : Time's up. Can you please wrap 10 up your comments. 11 MR. PAPPAS: Yes. I think what you do is you 12 look at this project as a whole and say it may not be • 13 perfect for everyone in the room, but it's pretty darn 14 close. And I think you should vote in favor of sending it 15 to City Council tonight. 16 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Nina Burford? 17 MS. WELTY: Would you raise your right hand, 18 please. 19 NINA BURFORD, 20 a witness herein, having been first duly sworn, testified 21 on her oath as follows: 22 MS. WELTY: Would you please state your name, 23 spell your name, give your address and any affiliation 24 that you may have for the record. Thank you. • 25 MS. BURFORD: Nina Burford, B-U-R-F-0-R-D. I Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 116 • 1 live at 3361 South Race Street. And my interest is as a 2 homeowner. 3 I have attended several of the meetings since 4 January about this seminary redevelopment, and I have 5 written a letter to several of you in this room regarding 6 any concerns that I've had throughout this process. 7 I am opposed to this particular plan because of 8 its density, only because of its density, because of the 9 huge increase in traffic that's already undesirable; and 10 the undesirable shading to the area that is a result of 11 the extreme height of the buildings that are proposed. 12 I was able to see the shade study at a • 13 neighborhood meeting a while back and was not reassured b y 14 seeing that shade study. Summer is a great time to be in 15 shade and the trees that we have in Englewood provide 16 that. The rest of the year is not a great time to be in 17 the shade. 18 The downtown type of shade that will come with 19 this proposed development is not what most of us are 20 looking for. It's bringing downtown shade into a 21 nondowntown area. 22 In the afternoon during winter months, 23 according to the way I remember seeing that shade study, 24 shade would extend all the way across --east across • 25 University Boulevard, all the way to the east side fences. Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224 , Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 117 • 1 I think that, at the minimum, would probably cause an 2 icing problem that needs to be addressed. 3 The traffic study was also not reassuring to 4 me. It looked like at least 75 percent of the traffic to 5 this proposed retail and residential project will enter 6 and leave via University, because access via Hampden is 7 only for westbound Hampden traffic. I don't believe the 8 extra lanes and the light on University would have enough 9 of an impact, especially given all of the construction and 10 delivery traffic that would be taking place while the 11 place is be i ng built. 12 My objection is not to this mixed-use • 13 redevelopmenti it's just to the density of this mixed-use 14 redevelopment. 15 Thank you for the opportunity to speak. 16 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Audrey Heidtbrink? 17 MS. WELTY: Would you raise your right hand, 18 please. 19 AUDREY HEIDTBRINK, 20 a witness herein, having been first duly sworn, testified 21 on her oath as follows: 22 MS. WELTY: Would you please state your name, 23 spell your name, give your address and any affiliation you 24 have for the record. • 25 MS. HEIDTBRINK: My name is Audrey Heidtbrink, Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 118 • 1 H-E-I-D-T-B-R-I-N-K, and my address is 2208 East Floyd 2 Place. 3 And I'm opposed to the project at this time. I 4 think what I have to say may not even be germane, because 5 I have been not been --or it maybe repetitious, because I 6 have not been to the meetings, because I was out of town. 7 Anyhow, but when I looked at the layout that 8 was given to me by the developer, I was in shock and awe. 9 I felt that --the awe standing for awful, is what 10 everybody says. It's the awful density, it's the awful 11 height, and it's the awful traffic. 12 And I think --then when I saw the shadow • 13 studies, I went into shock; because my house is the eighth 14 one, which is the farthest-west home. And if you will 15 look at the shadow studies, oh, my God, I'm going to be 16 living in a cave. And not only that, I can't really have 17 a lot of candles in my home because of this (indicated) . 18 So I'm going to have to be using an awful lot of 19 electricity and gasoline --now, this was told to me by a 20 NORAD engineer --that I'll be paying an awful lot of 21 utility bills. 22 And I just feel that the shade study and I 23 have it here --it doesn't even give me any sun in the 24 winter until about 4:30, and then the sun sets. • 25 At any rate, I notice that everybody has been Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 119 • 1 thanking the council. Thank you. You are not the 2 council; you're the planning commission, right? 3 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 4 MS. HEIDTBRINK: My --I would like it if they 5 would move the buildings to the south. And I would really 6 like it if they would not build the cheek-to-cheek 7 three-story homes, because I think the three-story homes 8 are one of the big factors in the shadowing. 9 I am against the development at this time, but 10 I think that there are ways that they can make it 11 wonderful. I see these things --now, this would not be 12 our street, of course, this development; and that's great. • 13 But I think they should consider us a lot more than they 14 have. And I think the architect and I think the developer 15 have the means to create a really happy situation with all 16 of us. Thank you. 17 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Louise Myers? 18 MS. WELTY: Would you raise your right hand, 19 please. 20 LOUISE MYERS, 21 a witness herein, having been first duly sworn, testified 22 on her oath as follows: 23 MS. WELTY: Will you please state your name, 24 spell your name, give your address and any affiliation for • 25 the record. Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 120 • 1 MS. MYERS: My name is Louise Myers, and it's 2 spelled M-Y-E-R-S. I live at 2269 East Floyd Place, and I 3 am a homeowner. 4 At a meeting I attended early on in these 5 debates, Mr. Simpson and the planning board stated that 6 Englewood really needed the added revenue that this 7 development would generate. I realize a lot of the tax 8 money the City collects is plowed back into the community. 9 But this development, as it is currently planned, is way 10 out of proportion to the surrounding neighborhood. 11 I don't want to live on a street where the snow 12 doesn't melt until spring because the sun doesn't shine • 13 there anymore and where I'm greeted by a brick wall 14 160 feet high when I go out to pick up my morning paper. 15 The R3 code reads in part: It is inherent in 16 this goal that the following be considered: New 17 high-density residential and office projects should be 18 sensitized to the character of adjacent development. The 19 siting of vertical structures should respect the 20 topographic features of the land. Where possible, the 21 view of the mountains should be preserved and buildings 22 oriented in such a way as to maximize the occupant's view 23 of the mountains. 24 Now, this is simply showing a courtesy to the • 25 surrounding neighborhoods, and it is what I bought into Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 121 • 1 when I moved to East Floyd Place. 2 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Liz Matteson? 3 MS. WELTY: Would you raise your right hand, 4 please. 5 ELIZABETH MATTESON, 6 a witness herein, having been first duly sworn, testified 7 on her oath as follows: 8 MS. WELTY: Would you please state your name, 9 spell your name, give your address and affiliation for the 10 record, please. 11 MS. MATTESON: My name is Elizabeth Matteson, 12 E-L-I-Z-A-B-E-T-H, M-A-T-T-E-S-0-N. I live at 2309 East • 13 Floyd Place, and I'm a homeowner. 14 My letter of June 28th was delivered by hand to 15 the zoning commission's secretary. We can assume each of 16 you have received your individual copy and have read it. 17 If you need an additional copy, I've brought them, but the 18 question is if you haven't received it. 19 The mission of zoning and its administration is 20 to serve and protect residents, not to accommodate a 21 developer's financial benefit. The seminary land is 22 properly zoned for Englewood's need. A need for developer 23 Forstmann's concept has not been demonstrated. The 24 Forstmann plan creates devastating shadowing to • 25 surrounding Englewood properties. Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 122 • 1 Zoning should be changed to serve a need, not a 2 developer's desire. The Forstmann plan for the seminary 3 cannot be afforded by 80 percent of Englewood residents. 4 Thank you. 5 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Kathleen Johnson? 6 MS. JOHNSON: I spoke already. 7 CHAIRPERSON: You spoke. Okay. Thank you. 8 Cheryl McKnight? 9 ~MS. WELTY: Would you raise your right hand, 10 please. 11 CHERYL McKNIGHT, 12 a witness herein, having been first duly sworn, testified • 13 on her oath as follows: 14 MS. WELTY: Would you please state your name, 15 spell your name, give your address and any affiliation for 16 our record. 17 MS. McKNIGHT: My name is Cheryl McKnight, 18 M-C-K-N-I-G-H-T. I am the estate manager for the Buell 19 Mansion Owners' Association located at One Buell Mansion 20 Parkway, Cherry Hills Village. 21 I'm here to represent the homeowners of Buell 22 Mansion and voice our concern about the proposed seminary 23 redevelopment project. 24 The homeowners at Buell Mansion are very • 25 concerned with basically the same issues the neighbors Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 123 • 1 are: With the density, the traffic issues, the shading, 2 and I think mostly it's the height. The views from the 3 property at Buell, which are catty-corner from it, we 4 believe are going to be severely impacted by the height 5 and the density of this project. 6 In a meeting with the developer, we did ask to 7 see a visual picture of what it would look like from our 8 intersection. All the pictures that have been shown are 9 either from the interior of the property or showing small 10 development or the model. We have yet to see anything 11 that shows us what it's going to actually look like. 12 And I guess, we have visions of when you drive • 13 up Colorado Boulevard and you look over and you see the 14 Hotel Giorgio, and you go, Oh, my. 15 And our biggest concern is I don't think .16 anybody really knows or understands what it's really going 17 to look like from the outside, because I don't think the 18 model really does justice and gives you the full impact. 19 And that was our biggest concern. Thank you for your 20 time. 21 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Kathleen Mcintee? 22 MS. WELTY: Would you raise your right hand, 23 please. 24 KATHLEEN McINTEE, • 25 a witness herein, having been first duly sworn, testified Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 124 • 1 on her oath as follows: 2 MS. WELTY: Would you please state your name, 3 spell your name, give your address and any affiliation for 4 the record. 5 MS. McINTEE: My name is Kathleen Mcintee. I 6 live at 3233 South Adams Way in Denver, right off Floyd 7 Avenue. My affiliation with this is that I'm on the board 8 of directors for the Cherry Hills Heights Homeowners' 9 Association. 10 And I am one of the people who put together a 11 group of homeowners approximately representing over 5,000 12 homes when we started the discussion in February regarding • 13 this project. We had several homeowner associations come 14 to meetings at my home, where we had several 15 representatives from many of the homeowners' associations. 16 During that time, we reviewed the plans, we 17 reviewed the effect on Englewood, we reviewed the effect 18 on Denver, and several of the people in the meetings are 19 very well educated --architects, accountants, MBAs --to 20 the point where we knew that we were dealing with a group 21 of people that had enough focus and interest in this to 22 evaluate it properly. 23 Subsequent to several meetings, we met with the 24 developer at the architect's office. The meeting, we • 25 thought, went very well and we outlined our concerns. Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 125 • 1 Mr. Forstmann was very receptive to our concerns except 2 for the height of the buildings and the density, which we 3 understand from the financial aspects of the project and 4 how it will be financially viable for him to complete the 5 project. We do not argue that point at all. 6 The developer --we met with the developer two 7 more times. We have now received an offer from the 8 developer to help us mitigate the major traffic concerns 9 that we have, which are primarily, from our standpoint, 10 focused on Floyd Avenue, which is a major cut-through 11 street for anybody going north on University or going 12 south on University. • 13 Right now the traffic speed limit on that 14 street is 25 miles an hour. On an average day, over 3-to 15 400 cars go through that through street; and they go 16 between 40 and 60 miles an hour. We know that cannot be 17 solved through this process, but we do believe there will 18 be significant increase in traffic cut-throughs on Floyd 19 Avenue. 20 However, the developer has met with us and has 21 made an offer. We are considering that offer to help 22 mitigate the traffic. We believe that that offer will be 23 somewhat accepted by the homeowners' associations around 24 Floyd Avenue. However, the offer is incomplete as it • 25 stands now. We are waiting for the final offer from the Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 126 • 1 developer and then we will determine our support or no 2 support for this project as our major concern is the 3 traffic mitigation within the area that we live. 4 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Is there anyone else 5 present who has not spoken yet to us that would like to? 6 (No response. ) 7 CHAIRPERSON: I assume we still would like to 8 see the shadow study. Do you have that? 9 MR. FORSTMANN: Good evening. John 10 Forstmann --I've been sworn in. 11 MS. WELTY: I was under the impression that I 12 had to reswear everybody, sir. • 13 MR. FORSTMANN: Okay. That's fine. 14 JOHN FORSTMANN, 15 a witness herein, having been first duly sworn, testified 16 on his oath as follows: 17 MS. WELTY: Will you state your name, spell 18 your name, give your address and your business 19 affiliation, please. 20 MR. FORSTMANN: John Forstmann. I live in 21 Avon, Colorado, and I'm president of JVF. 22 We did bring the shadow study, but I thought 23 that it would be helpful to give you a little briefing and 24 I've asked John Wells, who has been working with the staff • 25 and has an expert piece in both the shadow --and has been Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora , Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 127 • 1 working with different members and the traffic, et cetera, 2 to take it from here. 3 One of the things when we did the shadow study, 4 which was done as a courtesy to Ron Pickens who 5 represented Hampden Hills, was to really see what the 6 shadows at different times of the year would be. What we 7 did not take into consideration was the fact that the -- 8 many of the trees that you will see --could you --there 9 are deciduous trees; there also are evergreens. A lot of 10 the evergreens are in the back backing up to the seminary 11 property. 12 What the shadow study could not do is could not • 13 show the shadows that are created by the trees. And, as a 14 consequence, what you're going to see is the shadows as if 15 there were no trees. That is not a --that will not give 16 you a true a true --a true reading of what the shadow 17 is. But, on the other hand, we said we would do it, and 18 we did it. 19 I can tell you that the majority of the people 20 that live in --neighbors to our north have been satisfied 21 with the study and --would you give me another slide. 22 That is in the summertime. You will see both the --there 23 are both the evergreens, as well as --back --that's the 24 third. • 25 All I'm telling you is there are significant Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 128 • 1 trees that are there today; and that this study does not 2 take that into consideration, because it can't. 3 But nonetheless, I do believe --as I think you 4 have probably seen or heard --we do believe in the spirit 5 of fairness. We are we have listened and listened 6 carefully. But what is a little troubling to me is this 7 is not a community without significant trees that really 8 shade us and then the neighbors --it's in the back. The 9 trees many of the trees toward us toward the 10 seminary are bigger than these. And all I'm telling you 11 is we could not --and it does not reflect them. 12 With that, I would like to turn this over to • 13 John Wells, who is our executive VP and responsible for 14 relations with the Englewood staff. And as --I'm sure 15 he'll answer any questions you might have. Thank you. 16 JOHN WELLS, 17 a witness herein, having been first duly sworn, testified 18 on his oath as follows: 19 MS. WELTY: Would you please state your name, 20 spell your name, give your address and your affiliation 21 for the record. 22 MR. WELLS: John Wells, W-E-L-L-S, Avon, 23 Colorado, and I'm the executive vice president of JVF. 24 I brought with me a letter which I'll give to • 25 the staff they can insert it in the record --which was Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 129 • 1 written to us by the company that did the shadow study for 2 us. This is a very complicated undertaking. And before 3 we commissioned it, we asked David Tryba to put us in 4 touch with the best people in the country to do this job. 5 We awarded this job to Company 39, which has an 6 office here in Denver, but is a wholly owned division of 7 Parsons Brinckerhoff, which is one of the largest 8 engineering firms in the world. 9 Let me read you part of his letter, which I 10 think will help you to understand the manner in which this 11 study was prepared. And then I'm going to ask David t o 12 fill in some of the gaps so that you will understand the • 13 basis upon which this company used their sophisticated 14 computer program to complete the study. 15 Company 39 is a visual communications firm 16 which specializes in architectural and engineering design 17 visualizations. It is a wholly owned division of Parsons 18 Brinckerhoff, a global engineering firm. Parsons 19 Brinckerhoff has been in business for over 100 years and 20 has over 300 offices globally. 21 Company 39 provides design visualization 22 services to Parsons Brinckerhoff clients, as well as 23 commercial real estate developers. Company 39 produces 24 over 300 simulations a year. • 25 And just as an example of the value in which Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 130 • 1 this company is held for such purposes, they were called 2 upon to do a shadow study in connection with the Twin 3 Tower redevelopment in the lower Manhattan redevelopment 4 area. They have been hired with the Denver Regional 5 Transit Authority, the U.S. Department of Transportation. 6 They were involved with the United Nations New York City 7 transit project in New York City. So they are well 8 respected in this field. 9 Using planned and elevation data, they accept 10 microstation and Autocad files that are provided to them 11 by their client. They generate a volumetric study of the 12 proposed and existing buildings in the project area. Once • 13 the 3-D geometry is complete, a light source is used to 14 accurately calculate the location and length of shadows 15 based on the season, location, and time. 16 This functionality is found inherent within the 17 3-D max application that the company uses to produce its 18 3-D imagery. The information is accurate and based upon 19 calculated solar trajectories detailing a full solar 20 cycle. 21 Now, with that detailed introduction, let me 22 call on David Tryba to explain what data David gave to 23 this company so that they could utilize their 24 sophisticated procedures to produce the study that you're • 25 going to see. Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 131 • 1 MS. WELTY: Would you raise your right hand, 2 please, sir. 3 DAVID TRYBA, 4 a witness herein, having been first duly sworn, testified 5 on his oath as follows: 6 MS. WELTY : Would you state your name, spell 7 your name, give your address and your aff i liation for the 8 record. 9 MR. TR YBA: My name is Davi d Try ba, T-R-Y-B-A. 10 My office is located at 1620 Logan Street in Denver, 11 Colorado. I'm the architect for the project. 12 To be very specific about the information • 13 supplied to Parsons Brinckerhoff and Company 39, it 14 relates directly and exactly to the building envelope 15 described in the PUD documents before you. 16 I remind you that these envelopes are the 17 absolute gross boundaries within --and we can move around 18 the buildings that we're proposing. 19 I ask you to look at the model and look at the 20 plans. The model --the buildings are significantly 21 smaller and have the ability to move back and forth and up 22 and down within those envelopes. 23 In order to be absolutely conservative --to be 24 above reproach in this study --we used the volumetrics • 25 that do not include any sloped roofs, any setbacks, or any Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 132 • 1 sculpting of the buildings within those spaces. 2 MR. WELLS: We can run this more than once, but 3 you'll notice in the lower left-hand corner it will talk 4 about the time of year and the time of day. And you will 5 notice that the shadows move back and forth as the time of 6 day changes and will be different depending on the season. 7 Each of the points in the seasons that we 8 selected are for instance, winter is the long --is the 9 shortest day of year, which was selected as the benchmark. 10 Why don't you go ahead and run that, Dean. 11 This is 9:00 a.m., 10:00 a.m., 11:00 a.m., 12:00, 1:00, 12 2:00, and 3:00. We did because of the time of year, we • 13 didn't have them extend it beyond three o'clock because 14 it's getting dark. 15 Why don't you run it again, Dean. You can see, 16 if you watch, most dwellings that are affected are not 17 affected for very long. 18 And, remember, that as John Forstmann pointed 19 out to you, we did not have data, nor perhaps could the 20 computer assimilate that much data, to map out for you in 21 this study the effect of the existing buildings --and 22 each of those buildings will have their own --cast their 23 own shadows today, nor do we show the effect of the very 24 substantial trees. And even those that lose their leaves • 25 have substantial branch structures in the wintertime. Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 133 • 1 Why don't you change to a different season -- 2 MR. TRYBA: I just want to point out, you also 3 see the shadows from the one-story buildings existing on 4 Floyd, and how those houses are affecting, in their 5 existing condition, the shadows along Floyd. At the very 6 end of the day, the shadows are extremely long, even for a 7 one-story building. 8 MR. WELKER: Could you briefly identify the 9 buildings of the project and the sides of the property. 10 MR. WELLS: And the what --on the sides of the 11 property? 12 MR. WELKER: Well, around the property. • 13 MR. WELLS: This is Kent Village, and this is 14 Floyd Place, this is University, and this is Hampden. Is 15 that what you wanted? 16 MR. WELKER: And the buildings on the property 17 that you're proposing. 18 MR. WELLS: The buildings on the property. 19 These are, as David explained, the extreme --these are 20 the town houses in the --on the edges of the property. 21 And these are the towers. 22 MR. TRYBA: You'll notice that the town 23 houses --and this is December 21st, at the worst 24 condition --you'll notice that the town houses do not • 25 cast a shadow on the houses directly to the north. They Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 134 • 1 are in sun. So I think it's important to very carefully 2 look at that. 3 And if you go backward, Dean, you will see 4 throughout the day, the houses on the north side as you go 5 from 9:00, you will see the shadows go back into the 6 street about 10 o'clock, hit the street at 11:00, and do 7 not actually touch the houses on the north --this is the 8 absolute worst case. 9 You will also notice as the shadows go across, 10 they hit the houses between an hour and an hour and a half 11 at the worst case. Throughout the day they move across 12 the site . But you'll see the houses directly adjacent to • 13 the propert y come --start in the sun in the morning and 14 come back into the sun in the afternoon, and the shadow 15 has about the same time frame across. 16 If you go to the equinox, which is the absolute 17 average throughout the area it represents April --or 18 March 21st and September 21st --and it's this really 19 is the absolute average. And you see, in fact, the houses 20 to the north are casting their own story shadows. 21 And you can see that the townhomes are cast as 22 three stories, where they're, in fact, the --most of -- 23 the combination between two stories and three stories, 24 they're not solid three stories all the way across. • 25 They're also casting the shadows as if they were a solid Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 135 • 1 box like what's there now, rather than with sloping roofs 2 to the center of the building. 3 MR. WELKER: Would you go to the end of the day 4 there for a moment. So the two buildings on the north of 5 the center section are the tall towers? 6 MR. WELLS: No. Those are the --the two 7 buildings on the north are town houses. 8 MR. WELKER: Right. In the center of the 9 property --those two are the towers. 10 MR. WELLS: Yes. 11 MR. WELKER: The tallest towers. 12 MR. WELLS: That's correct. • 13 MR. WELKER: And you're telling me that their 14 shadow is barely reaching the town houses on the north? 15 MR. TRYBA: That's correct. 16 MR. WELKER: And they're how tall? How tall is 17 the tallest building? 18 MR. TRYBA: That's the envelope. The envelope 19 is a 179 feet. Now, at noon it's actually quite a simple 20 calculation using a protractor. So it doesn't get 21 complicated until you go off of high noon where the arc of 22 the sun gets a little bit more complicated. 23 But at noon it's a direct angle from the top of 24 the building and you don't have to hire Parsons • 25 Brinckerhoff to figure this out. You can --my Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 136 • 1 fourth-grade daughter can actually draw this --the extent 2 of the shadow. 3 So this is about the easiest particular 4 calculation. And, in fact, it actually gets much better 5 as we go towards June 21st, which is the other half of the 6 year. I think you have to take into consideration this is 7 the midpoint, and it gets better for half of the year than 8 what we're showing you. 9 And, of course, you know that in the summertime 10 in the morning and in the evening we get the sun corning 11 from the north and brushing on the north side of the 12 buildings. • 13 As John mentioned to you, the trees that you 14 see from the aerial photograph are not indicated except on 15 our site. We're only showing the shadows from our own 16 trees. But you see how --this is from an actual aerial 17 photograph --none of this is made up --you see that 18 the --on the north side there, the south side of the 19 up against our property is almost solid trees. And, then 20 again, on the south side of the north side of the street, 21 it's pretty heavily treed, which is terrific. I mean, 22 when you look down the street you can't see a house, and 23 that's a good thing. 24 MR. ADAMS: I have a question about the • 25 wintertime thing, again. Do you have a picture of this Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 137 • 1 without the development there? Do you have a computer 2 simulation of what it looks like currently? 3 MR. TRYBA: Currently with the Denver Seminary? 4 MR. ADAMS: Yes. 5 MR. TRYBA: We don't. But the buildings are 6 taller than the three-story buildings that we're 7 showing --the existing buildings over on the left side 8 and on the east --and on the north side are actually 9 taller than the buildings we're proposing. 10 MR. ADAMS: So those old apartments would be 11 removed? 12 MR. TRYBA: Yes. • 13 MR. ADAMS: The question I had was that the 14 people on East Floyd who, right now, their backyards are 15 filled with sunlight, and in the wintertime it appears 16 that they are kept in the shadow. 17 MR. TRYBA: The yards? 18 MR. ADAMS: Yeah. The yards. The backyards 19 are. But these buildings are actually lower -- 20 MR. TRYBA: Than the existing buildings. 21 MR. ADAMS: Yeah. So is there, basically, 22 could you deduce rationally --would think that their 23 backyards are in kind of shaded conditions for most of the 24 winter in the current condition? • 25 CHAIRPERSON: Except, Mike, the current Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 138 • 1 buildings are probably 40 or 50 feet away from the 2 property line, whereas these would be 20 feet away from 3 the property line. 4 MR . ADAMS: Okay. So you're saying it changes 5 the shadowing -- 6 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 7 MR. TRYBA: However, they -- 8 MR. ADAMS: What I'm concerned about is the 9 loss of light in their backyards --the loss of the 10 southern lighting, because that is a --passive solar 11 design works that way and . . 12 MR. TRYBA: That's exactly why we modified over • 13 time --severa l times we've modified the bulk plane to 14 allow that angle to --to allow sun to get on all the 15 houses; even in the very worst case in the wintertime, 16 you'll see that the sun will hit the floor of every house 17 throughout the day. 18 From December 21st it just gets better and 19 better, but there will be sun on every house throughout 20 the day in the morning and the evening and throughout the 21 middle of the day. 22 MR. ADAMS: Right. Well, what I saw in the 23 simulation, it looks like it --it looks like the roof 24 lines stay clear of the backyards --• 25 MR. TRYBA: That's correct. Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 139 • 1 MR. ADAMS: --but the ground was actually 2 still shaded, which -- 3 MR. TRYBA: That's correct. 4 MR. ADAMS: --could cause snow buildup and 5 whatnot. 6 MR. TRYBA: Now, remember this is still without 7 any sloping roofs on those town houses, and as though they 8 were all built to the maximum height. And if you look at 9 the actual number, the number is a very significant height 10 for the peak. And, you know, from building a two-to 11 three-story town house that we'll be well within the 12 boundaries of that envelope. • 13 MR. ADAMS: Right. I know your model assumes a 14 real cube shape. 15 MR. TRYBA: Correct. 16 MR. ADAMS: So, again, once you gable the roof 17 over, you get --that corner drops down in there. Okay. 18 MR. WELKER: Would you go back to winter, 19 please. And what time would we start casting shadows on 20 University from the retail and office buildings? 21 MR. TRYBA: Well, in the after --as soon as 22 the afternoon starts, we begin to see it at noon. But the 23 advantage of University is that it's north/south. And so 24 that it has the ability to --all morning and part of the • 25 afternoon --you see that after two o'clock, there's still Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 140 • 1 sun there at the intersection. It's dappled. And, again, 2 these are the maximum heights, which, we know, that we'll 3 be building below these maximum heights. 4 It's hard to say trust me, but we know that -- 5 we are more than comfortable with these heights, that we 6 have plenty of room for --these heights include the kind 7 of --protrusions of elevator cores, but we brought the 8 entire building up --the envelope to that height, because 9 we're not exactly sure where that elevator core will pop 10 17 feet above the parapet. So we're saying the entire 11 bulk is set up to that height. 12 And if you take 17 feet on 170 feet, that's 10 • 13 percent. That's the kind of stuff that's normally above 14 the parapet of the roof. And then we're taking the roof 15 and sloping it down from there. 16 MR. WELKER: What are you proposing as a wall 17 face on the east side? This is the wall face in reality 18 that would not include the roof. You talked through some 19 of that in the last hearing where you gave me the 20 floor-to-floor heights. I think you said that the first 21 floor was 16, and the second one was 12, and I thought the 22 third was 10. Is that going to be, then, the eave line or 23 the spring line along the east side face of the retail 24 off ice buildings? • 25 MR. TRYBA: I mean, that's what we're prepared Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora , Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 141 • 1 to live within. It could be less. But we would like to 2 have a 16-foot floor-to-floor, which gives us maybe a net 3 of 12 to 13 feet after structural and mechanical on the 4 retail. The residential would be significantly less than 5 that. 6 MR. WELKER: But I'm talking about the office 7 retail buildings along University and Hampden. 8 MR. TRYBA: Yes. 9 MR. WELKER: And so we're expecting those wall 10 faces to be somewhere in that 48-foot range? Or is that 11 38 feet? 12 MR. TRYBA: The roof line of the third floor • 13 will --I mean, will start at the top of the roof and the 14 second and third floor start that setback at the time 15 of -- 16 MR. WELKER: Do you follow what I'm trying to 17 get at? I'm trying to under -- 18 MR. TRYBA: The 19 MR. WELKER: of the street-faced wall site 20 on University and Hampden, not with the dormers and the 21 other protrusions that might be above that. Because 22 that's something that we have to look at that we won't be 23 less than. So that's what I want to understand: What 24 that height is. • 25 MR. TRYBA: You said 38 feet. I think that's Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 142 • correct. 2 MR. WELKER: But I was adding up what you were 3 giving me 4 MR. TRYBA: That's correct. 5 MR. WELKER: But now you're saying that the 6 roof is going is to come down to the top of the second 7 floor, which would be like 48 feet. 8 MR. TRYBA: But it will vary. And what we want 9 to be able to do is have the opportunity to have some 10 variety there . We don't want to be held to that 28 feet. 11 And that's why the documents are showing it higher , 12 because we want to have the maximum building envelope . • 13 And that's --the height that we're showing will allow us 14 to live within that as if it were a giant box. But, I 15 think as you can see from the renderings and from the 16 model 17 MR. WELKER: I understand that, but when we 18 give you a restriction that would be 57 feet, then we must 19 live within that whether or not you do what you're saying 20 you're going to do by this picture. 21 MR. TRYBA: That's correct. 22 MR. WELKER: And that's the problem that I want 23 to deal with. I want to understand what we really are 24 going to see. You're telling me we have gotten now • 25 somewhere a roof line --an average roof line of about Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 143 • 1 28 feet, 30 feet, whatever. And now we are doubling that 2 to a maximum height of 57 feet according to the documents. 3 What am I going to get really? Because if I 4 give you a building envelope that is 57 feet high, I can't 5 go to you and say, Well, you can't go that high, because 6 we've already approved that. And so I want to understand 7 what we're really going to have. 8 You didn't give us cross-sections like you did 9 at the town houses where you showed roof lines, roof 10 pitches, and were able to give us an explanation of what 11 the walls might be at particular places on the building 12 profile. • 13 And I want to understand that. That's why I'm 14 asking that. Because part of the issue is shading, but 15 part of the issue is height of walls, distance from the 16 street, from sidewalks and so on. And you didn't provide 17 those profiles for us and that's why I'm trying to get 18 that information. 19 MR. TRYBA: Well, Carl, that's a fair question. 20 And all I can say is that we have 5,000 square feet of 21 office on the third floor of a 30,000-square-foot floor 22 plate. And we need those two heights not --for the first 23 two 30,000-square floor plates, and we're going to put 24 that office space on the third floor, and it needs to • 25 function with this --the ceiling height that we've Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 144 • 1 described. And we want to put a roof over the whole 2 thing. 3 We want to have the ability to be creative and 4 make it look attractive. And we haven't designed the 5 building. This is, you know, with no disrespect, it's a 6 zoning hearing, meaning we want to be able to design the 7 building through the zoning process, but we haven't 8 designed --architecturally 9 MR. WELKER: I'm not trying to get you to tell 10 me that detail, but I am trying to understand and I want 11 everybody here to understand what we really are going to 12 have for a mass on those street roofs. • 13 MR. TRYBA: Well, the mass will go up, for 14 sure, the 16 plus the 12. 15 MR. WELKER: Okay. 16 MR. TRYBA: And then we will --we have 5,000 17 square feet that has to function as off ice space above 18 that. And we haven't designed the exact roofline in that 19 volume, but we 're very comfortable that we can live well 20 within the means of that. 21 MR. WELKER: Okay. Would you consider putting 22 wording in here that can define maximum ridge line height, 23 which I think is far more important than establishing the 24 heights of the building relevant to an elevator shaft, or • 25 something like that? Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 145 • 1 MR. TRYBA: We actually have that --that is 2 this maximum ridge line height that we're using. And that 3 would be a maximum ridge line. 4 MR. WELKER: That would be this? 5 MR. TRYBA: That would be the maximum ridge 6 line. 7 MR. WELKER: Okay. That's not how it was 8 indicated. And I see an elevator shaft. I think that's 9 what I'm seeing. 10 MR. TRYBA: The clock tower. That's the chock 11 tower. 12 CHAIRPERSON: That's the tower, which was also • 13 specified. 14 MR. WELKER: But that's not the elevator in the 15 tower? 16 MR. TRYBA: The elevator's in the center of the 17 clock tower, correct. 18 MR. WELKER: I'll let you continue with your 19 presentation, and I've got a number of other questions. 20 MR. TRYBA: I think we're ready to receive your 21 questions. 22 CHAIRPERSON: Maybe we should take a break for 23 our court reporter for five minutes, give her fingers a 24 rest. And then we'll resume with questions. • 25 (A recess was taken from 8:12 p.m. until Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 146 • 1 8:23 p.m.) 2 CHAIRPERSON: Would everyone please take their 3 seats. Does anyone else have questions they want to ask? 4 You do? 5 MR. ROTH: Something specific? Or are we 6 still -- 7 CHAIRPERSON: Well, we're -- 8 MR. BLEILE: David, is everything complete from 9 the presentation standpoint? 10 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Yes. 11 MR. SCHUM: Do we want to close the public 12 hearing part of it? • 13 CHAIRPERSON: No. We're still asking them 14 questions and that's still part of the public hearing. 15 Don, do you have a question? 16 MR. ROTH: My questions would relate to traffic 17 so ... 18 CHAIRPERSON: Go ahead. 19 MR. ROTH: Actually, I'm not sure who would 20 answer. 21 One of the things I was curious about in the 22 traffic study, I notice that the basis for their traffic 23 volumes was a single day's worth of data. Is that normal 24 or sufficient? • 25 MR. REAM: That would be me. Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 147 • 1 MS. WELTY: Would you raise your right hand, 2 please. 3 JEFF REAM, 4 a witness herein, having been first duly sworn, testified 5 on his oath as follows: 6 MS. WELTY: Would you please state your name, 7 spell your name, and give your address and your 8 aff i liation for the record. 9 MR. REAM: My name is Jeff Ream, R-E-A-M. I'm 10 with Felsburg Holt & Ullevig, U-L-L-E-V-I-G, 6300 South 11 Syracuse in Greenwood Village. We prepared the traffic 12 study for the sites. • 13 It is standard operating procedure to do one 14 day's worth of data. In this case we also had a second 15 set of data collected in April of this last year, and the 16 same volumes that we recorded were recorded at that time 17 period, as well. 18 MR. ROTH: There's a number of references 19 and I do have another question on it since you were 20 involved with the traffic issue. 21 There's a number of references to pass-by 22 rates. Could you explain that, pass-by trips? 23 MR. REAM: A pass-by trip is a trip that is 24 already on the road traveling down University or Hampden • 25 that turns into the site on the way home, stops, and then Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 148 • 1 continues on its way. It's not a trip that's new to the 2 road system; it's one that simply diverted into the site. 3 MR. ROTH: That's all I have. 4 CHAIRPERSON: Does anybody else have any 5 questions on the traffic study? 6 MR . DIEKMEIER: Yeah. I could not find in 7 here --there's a lot in here it refers to the LOS. 8 And where do I find what that is now? 9 MR. REAM: There should be a paragraph in there 10 that describes LOS, which stands for level of service, at 11 the beginning of existing conditions section. 12 Level of service is the methodology that we use • 13 to quantify traffic operations. It's done so in a 14 letter-grade fashion similar to your school grades. Level 15 of service A represents conditions with very little or no 16 delay; up to level of service E, which is capacity 17 conditions. And level of service F signifies conditions 18 where you're overcapacity and you see some queuing 19 occurring. 20 MR. DIEKMEIER: Yes, sir, that paragraph I 21 found. I guess I'm wondering, do we know in this study, 22 what is the condition now? Or the level that it was? 23 MR. REAM: Yes. The existing conditions 24 section of the study, if you look at the figure --I • 25 believe it's Figure 3 shows the existing level of Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora , Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 149 • 1 service out there to where it is right now. The 2 University and Hampden intersection operates at level of 3 service E in both the morning and the afternoon. 4 MR. SCHUM: I still have a question. It was 5 mentioned earlier. I think it was a question I had in my 6 mind, was the bus service in that area. 7 What did you do as far as calculating how that 8 service is going to change the traffic pattern in this 9 area? By adding more people to the buses, I would 10 assume and more length of time on that stop there, and 11 will that stop still be in that area? 12 MR . REAM: We contacted RTD as part of this • 13 project, let them know that we were going to do some road 14 improvements in the area, and they indicated they'd be 15 willing to move the location of the bus stop to the area 16 that best works. 17 I believe --John, can you answer that question 18 a little more completely about the final location? The 19 last I spoke with RTD, they hadn't finalized the location. 20 MR. WELLS: Dave or Dean, do you know? 21 MR. SCHUM: Did you actually use the buses in 22 any part of the traffic study? 23 MR. REAM: We did not include the bus 24 operations in the traffic study. We do include heavy • 25 vehicles, which would include buses, which do affect Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 150 • 1 operations, but we didn't include the bus stop there. 2 Typically a bus stop at an intersection --the bus service 3 in this area is infrequent enough where the extra delay is 4 not significant over the course of the hour that we do our 5 analysis. 6 MR. SCHUM: And you don't see that changing in 7 the future 8 MR. REAM: No. 9 MR. SCHUM: being more of a delay to what it 10 is currently? 11 MR. REAM: No, I don't. 12 MR. TRYBA: We are actually moving the bus • 13 location so it's in a more favorable and logical place for 14 the traffic. So it's in the new right-hand turn lane that 15 starts --went significantly back, so that the through- 16 traffic lanes are now --will now be unimpeded. 17 So it's actually a significant upgrade from 18 what currently the bus traff --stops in the through- 19 lanes. And so we'll essentially have a pull-off lane for 20 the buses, which should really help both of those two 21 through-lanes move traffic southbound. 22 MR. SCHUM: You're saying possibly, then, it 23 will come all the way off of University? Or just a stop 24 in the right-hand turn lane? • 25 MR . TRYBA: It's going to be off of the two Javernick & Stenstrom. LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 151 • 1 through lanes, which is currently stopping on the right 2 through lane. So we we're adding a new lane, which is 3 the right --the continuous right-turn lane. It's in the 4 middle of that right-turn lane towards the south. Right 5 now it's much more towards the north, and this gets it 6 past the intersection and allows for free movement. 7 And we coordinated that with RTD and we talked 8 about the most favorable location for that bus stop: (a) 9 for the neighborhood, and (b) for the traffic. And it's 10 located on your drawing on Sheet 4. 11 MR. SCHUM: On Sheet 4. Okay. What --one 12 question along those same lines with that is that: You • 13 guys still don't see that it's going to be an increase in 14 bus traffic that you're going to have there, as far as the 15 pass-through rides corning out of this area? 16 MR. REAM: There may be a few more riders. The 17 nature of housing on the site --it's not a big draw for 18 bus traffic. If it was an apartment, I would expect a 19 little bit more. 20 As is, loading and unloading a bus --a few 21 extra passengers, again, is not going to significantly 22 alter the operation of the roadway. 23 MR. SCHUM: Also, with the T-REX number, you 24 guys indicate in your report that T-REX --and it says in • 25 there a few times --will probably, once it's completed, Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 152 • 1 the flow on University will lessen. 2 First off, I wanted to know if you know of any 3 study previously that said that traffic on University 4 increased a certain percentage due to T-REX. 5 And then also along --comparing that number, 6 what is the constant percentage of growth that you're 7 going to see on University each year anyhow? And would 8 the two just offset each other? 9 MR. REAM: T-REX did not do any studies --any 10 traffic counts in the area, so I can't provide that 11 information. The traffic growth that we've assumed is 12 approximately .2 percent a year. That was derived from • 13 the Denver Regional Council of Government's traffic model 14 for the area looking at all the roadways in the area and 15 the average growth that they're projecting over the course 16 of the next 20 years. 17 MR. SCHUM: Okay. And also on this right-hand 18 turn lane, I see --I brought this up at the previous 19 meeting on this turn. Do you see that traffic will be 20 able to come out of that turn pretty fast and we would 21 have a problem with an acceleration/deceleration lane 22 altogether right there? 23 MR. REAM: No. I actually encouraged the 24 design that's being proposed. I would like to see a • 25 longer turn lane there. The queue for the through lanes Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 153 • 1 back up and could allow right-turn vehicles to get out of 2 that queue and go to --to handle it a little sooner. It 3 will improve the overall operation of the intersection. 4 Typically, right-turning vehicles coming out of 5 the site are going to be stopped and then accelerate. So 6 they're not going to be turning very fast. 7 Likewise, the turn lane to the north of where 8 the driveway is not --not too significantly long. I 9 don't see the vehicles moving down there at a high rate of 10 speed. 11 MR. SCHUM: So you're telling me there's plenty 12 • 13 of length between this corner and this driveway here, that the acceleration from University going onto westbound 14 Hampden, along with the turnover and the deceleration 15 coming into this driveway here. 16 MR. REAM: Yes. That lead area there, yes. I 17 think that's sufficient. 18 MR. SCHUM: Okay. That's it for me right now. 19 MR. WELKER: I'm not seeing in the study, and I 20 believe from the letter from the planner from Arapahoe 21 County there are some concerns --and I have them --about 22 traffic stacking from the new intersection, new signal, to 23 the north in the afternoon. 24 Has that been looked at? Do you have any • 25 specifics that you've looked at on how it stacks up and Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224 , Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 154 • 1 . blocks the intersections north, particularly on Floyd 2 Place and Floyd Avenue and whatever else is north between 3 this new signal and the Dartmouth signal? 4 MR. REAM: I would refer you to Table 5 in the 5 study. We discuss various scenarios that we've looked at 6 for queuing. Under existing conditions right now, we have 7 queues that back up 6 --600 feet or so. In the 8 long-range future with the site, they will go up to about 9 750 or 800 feet. It's about 925 from Hampden to Floyd 10 Place. 11 MR. WELKER: Can we assume that that same kind 12 of backup is going to occur north of the new signal at • 13 that site? 14 MR. REAM: That actually includes the new 15 signal for the future. We took into consideration that 16 the new signal intersection is about 60 feet wide. And 17 that area wouldn't be available for queuing, so that was 18 added to the queue length. 19 So when the queues are longer from Hampden, the 20 queue from the traffic signal at the site driveway gets 21 absorbed into the Hampden queue. It's kind of a 22 complicated queuing process, but we considered all --all 23 facets of the queuing along that roadway. 24 MR. WELKER: So 600 and 700 feet from the • 25 Hampden intersection is the number you're talking about? Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 155 • 1 That would include the new intersection and move probably 2 as far north as Floyd Place and then some? 3 MR. REAM: It's just south of Floyd Place. 4 MR. WELKER: What's the distance between the 5 intersection at Floyd Place and the new traffic light, 6 approximately? 7 MR. REAM: About 500 feet. 8 MR. WELKER: Now, that's from the new one to 9 Hampden? 10 MR. REAM: That's from the -- 11 MR. WELKER: Are you saying there's another 12 500 feet north? • 13 MR. REAM: It's about 925 feet from Hampden to 14 Floyd Place. 15 MR. WELKER: Okay. 16 MR. REAM: And the new driveway is about 17 450 feet --500 feet from Hampden. So it's really 18 splitting the difference between the two. 19 MR. WELKER: Have you looked at any change in 20 position --not that I'm requesting one but has your 21 study looked at any change in location of that 22 intersection improvement or no difference or anything like 23 that? 24 MR. REAM: Moving it back and forth doesn't • 25 make much of a difference on the queue as far as north or Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 156 • 1 south from the location. 2 MR. WELKER: How does that stacking increase 3 over 20 years with the increased traffic in there? Is 4 that going to make any difference? 5 MR. REAM: It increases by --no, these numbers 6 that I --that are presented in the table represent 7 conditions 20 years in the future. 8 Again, we don't see a significant amount of 9 growth on Hampden or University, because they're very 10 high-volume arterials and you just can't put more traffic 11 on in a peak hour than what's there right now. People 12 take other routes. This is what the traffic models that • 13 we use to project reflect. 14 MR. WELKER: Did you study stacking space 15 on-site, particularly out of the east intersection back 16 into the residential gates or out of the development? How 17 many cars at a peak time are we talking about backing up, 18 either turning north or south? I assume north would be 19 the worst of them, but did you study that and, if so, what 20 are those 21 MR. REAM: We looked at that. I don't have 22 those numbers available off the top of my head right now. 23 I'm sorry. My recollection is you're looking at stacking 24 of five vehicles per cycle, so approximately 100 feet. • 25 MR. WELKER: So that would be into the Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 157 • 1 intersection between the inner circle drive and --we're 2 less than 100 feet from the center lane --that 3 intersection at University? 4 MR. REAM: Yes. These would occur during the 5 afternoon peak. Obviously, the queues would be shorter at 6 other times of the day. 7 MR. WELKER: As far as traffic, that's all I 8 have. 9 MR. BLEILE: Two questions. You had mentioned 10 currently as the intersection is, it's a level of service 11 E. With the proposed changes, does that increase the 12 level of service? Does it become a C or D? • 13 MR. REAM: No. It maintains the E. Yeah. The 14 improvements that we're adding reduce the delay, but 15 reducing the delay by 10 percent isn't enough to get it 16 from level of service E to level of service D; we have a 17 larger range. But it does make the operations there 18 better. 19 MR. BLEILE: So the proposal actually won't fix 20 the traffic problem? It will be an improvement. Net 21 impact is 22 MR. REAM: To be a net improvement in the area. 23 MR. BLEILE: Okay. 24 CHAIRPERSON: Does anyone have any further • 25 questions of any nature? Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 158 • 1 MR. ROTH: One more traffic question. It 2 appears that most of these numbers that we're looking at 3 are premised on a double left turn on southbound 4 University; is that correct? 5 MR. REAM: Yes. 6 MR. SCHUM: On the trips generated from the new 7 site, are those considered for if the shopping is a big 8 success or if it's just kind of a moderate success? How 9 do you go about that? I mean, I'm sure there's like a 10 middle point you hit too. 11 But my question on this here is: If this place 12 is a big success, are all these traffic study numbers out • 13 the window because we, all of a sudden, have a thousand 14 more trips generated per day? 15 MR. REAM: The source that we used, the 16 Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation 17 Manual, collects data from all over the country for 18 similar projects. And for the land-use code that we 19 selected --the shopping center --we have quite a few 20 data points. We have over 300 data points. So that 21 represents shops, some that are successful; some that 22 aren't successful; some of them more successful than this 23 one; some might be a little bit less. 24 We feel very comfortable --it's been my • 25 experience of going back and doing follow-up studies on Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 159 • 1 other projects that I've worked on, that the numbers that 2 we've used for this type of site represent a very 3 conservative analysis. 4 MR. SCHUM: A conservative analysis? 5 MR. REAM: Yes. That they will --it will be a 6 very good representation of a worst-case scenario. 7 MR. SCHUM: Okay. So you're saying it's more 8 into the high than the low? 9 MR. REAM: Yes. 10 MR. SCHUM: What would be the worst-case 11 scenario? That it's not more to the low end of 12 development, 3 percent growth a year or something like • 13 that. I'm not saying that by any means, but ... 14 MR. REAM: Yes, correct. 15 MR. SCHUM: Thank you. 16 I did have a follow-up question. Would a 17 thousand more trips generated by this site a day really 18 affect your traffic study considerably? 19 MR. REAM: I can't really answer that question. 20 CHAIRPERSON: Anyone else have any other 21 questions? 22 MR. WELKER: Not about traffic, but some other 23 things. 24 CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Go for it. • 25 MR. WELKER: Okay. I'm going to ask a couple Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 160 • 1 of obvious questions, and I don't know which of the 2 representatives of the applicant would like to address 3 them. 4 But the first one is an obvious one to me that 5 maybe somebody else has asked you but I haven't heard any 6 testimony about it. And that is: Why not move the towers 7 to the south part of that center court? 8 MR. TRYBA: We actually studied that, and 9 because the grade slopes 15 feet to the north, we have the 10 ability to knock off almost two floors of the height of 11 the development by putting it towards the center, the 12 north part of the center section. And you have to allow • 13 me to flip the model around so you can see it from the 14 cross-sectional perspective. But it has a significant 15 reduction in the height of the building. 16 It also, from the perspective of all the 17 neighbors to the south and to the east, it --the 18 buildings in the foreground, when you actually put your 19 eye down at traffic level --and this model, again, is a 20 higher gross scale --it allows the buildings in the 21 foreground to mask the height of the buildings in the 22 background. So it has an overall reduction. 23 You basically just see the rooftops. And then 24 it was carefully crafted so that from that intersection • 25 from the neighbors to the north, to the south and the Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 161 • 1 east --the towers would essentially go away into the 2 rooftops of the buildings in front of them all the way 3 down to the retail buildings. 4 And you can --it's a scale model, you can put 5 your eye down at the car level or 20 feet --you know, 6 stand at the top of a double decker bus, and you'll see 7 that effect, that perspective effect. So it was twofold. 8 MR. WELKER: I assume that there was some 9 formula for the number of units that you were trying to 10 put on this property, especially the high-rise types of 11 units. If I look at the model --explain why we have one 12 tower that's much taller than the one on the south. • 13 Couldn't you simply put three floors of units 14 that would be in the higher part of the upper tower on one 15 of the lower buildings and have the same numbers? 16 MR. TRYBA: The answer is yes, but it takes the 17 buildings to a more uniform, static approach; and it 18 continues to block views for everyone in the development 19 rather than opening up the views. So you see the lower 20 buildings are to the west and they spiral around so that 21 all the views are protected for everyone internally as 22 much as externally. 23 And it doesn't --I mean, the overall effect of 24 a much more uniform project that's, you know, is not as • 25 attractive as one that has varying heights that mask the Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 162 • 1 heights of the buildings. 2 MR. WELKER : Well, take that logic and take me 3 to the office or retail space. We've got a very long 4 frontage if you total both the east and south sides. And 5 yet, compared to the massing of the office complex or 6 the residential complex in the middle, we've got a fairly 7 massive building from the position of many of the people 8 that are going to experience this project. 9 What are you thinking of doing or planning on 10 doing or what can you do to mitigate that? 11 MR. TRYBA: I'm glad you brought up the 12 question, because the model shows there were 90,000 square • 13 feet on that corner, and i t shows because we didn't 14 know exactly where that 5,000 square feet would be on the 15 third floor, we just showed the entire --you know, the 16 block, what is represented by the PUD document. 17 But by the very nature of the square footage 18 restrictions, we can't have 90,000 square feet or 30,000 19 square feet of office; we can only have 5,000 square feet 20 of office, which is on that third floor. 21 So this shows really --you know, showing 100 22 percent of what's available, and we'll only be using now 23 5,000 versus 30,000 square feet. So that --the essential 24 characteristic will be that the height of that building • 25 will be lowered on 5/6ths of that floor plate. Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 163 • 1 MR. WELKER: So what we have for building 2 coverage on the site is 30,000 square feet of retail 3 off ice space? That you have two stories of retail and 4 some third story of off ice? 5 MR. TRYBA: Which, by the PUD document, is 6 restricted to 5,000 square feet, although the model shows 7 30. So it would be a 25,000-square-foot reduction and 8 that roof height will go down. 9 And that's why, when I --that's a perfect 10 example, when I honestly told you that this represents the 11 envelope rather than the design. That's a perfect 12 indication of how we will be living with lower heights and • 13 how the buildings will actually shrink. This represents 14 the maximum buildout envelope. 15 MR. WELKER: Okay. But the site coverage for 16 this is the 30,000 square feet of building coverage of 17 this complex, the footprint. The 30,000 square feet 18 represents one-half of the retail space proposed? 19 MR. TRYBA: It's actually even a little bit 20 less than that, because we have a retail pad that's a 21 separate small building that's shown by that single 22 building at the entrance. So it's slightly less than 23 30,000. The numbers we're using are inflated to you 24 know, to talk grossly about the square footage, but it's • 25 actually less than that. Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 164 • 1 MR. WELKER: If you go through --just for a 2 refresher of my memory of how the retail space is 3 committed at this point. There's some discussion about 4 certain businesses: Catering, things like that. And I'd 5 like to understand that a little bit more, where those -- 6 have you given thought to that? And then there's going to 7 be some left over for a number of other things. And I'd 8 just like to have that discussed again. 9 MR. FORSTMANN: That's one I can talk to. 10 The --one of our companies is called Belle Fare. 11 B-E-L-L-E, and in French that means beautiful. And Fare 12 in the English is food. • 13 This concept will be --in fact, different 14 magazines have asked us about it --and it will be a total 15 food experience. Everything to do with food will be 16 contained in this building. And we will be taking the 17 majority of the space. We're still trying to figure out 18 exactly how much. 19 But it will be --gourmet food will be --have 20 a restaurant, there will be tabletop, which --pots and 21 pans --there will be a cooking school. Everything to do 22 with food will be contained in this particular building. 23 Then, with what is remaining, we are talking to 24 different day spas. We are talking to possibly a dry • 25 cleaner just to pick up and leave off --a small dry Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 165 • 1 cleaner. And then the freestanding pad will be a bank. 2 So the --basically, in answer to your question 3 is most of the space is already spoken for. 4 MR. WELKER: And in the general PUD documents, 5 the first page you list the number of uses. And based on 6 the discussion that we had earlier when I talked about car 7 wash and things like that 8 MR. FORSTMANN: Right. 9 MR. WELKER: the intent of at least a 10 portion of the remaining space would be service-type 11 businesses that would serve the tenants primarily, not 12 people coming down the highway. Is that a reasonable • 13 assumption? 14 MR. FORSTMANN: It --certainly we would hope 15 that our residents use the all of our amenities. And I 16 would imagine also that some of the people who live in the 17 neighborhoods would also enjoy it and use these different 18 facilities, we hope. 19 MR. WELKER: Okay. The restaurant itself would 20 probably be a major attraction to people from outside the 21 complex itself; is that correct? 22 MR. FORSTMANN: I would hope, again, without 23 being redundant, that lots of people that live there would 24 enjoy the restaurant. And I would also hope that people • 25 in the different communities --and certainly the people Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 166 • 1 that we've talked to, it appears, would be very interested 2 in taking advantage of our restaurant. 3 MR. WELKER: Okay. In some of the concerns 4 that --in letters from the citizenry --there was some 5 specific, quote, restaurants that were undesirable to 6 them: The fast-food restaurants. I assume that these are 7 excluded? 8 MR. FORSTMANN: I certainly can assure you we 9 would not have Micky Ds is not part of the --our 10 thought process. 11 MR. WELKER: I just thought that should be 12 stated. • 13 MR. FORSTMANN: That --that we can clear up 14 really quickly. 15 MR. SCHUM: That would probably change the trip 16 generation in that area. 17 MR. ADAMS: I have a question about --some of 18 the people out there have requested the buildings be moved 19 south. And upon looking at the site plan, is there any 20 way to, like, shorten Building B and Building E to the 21 point where you can move everything back? 22 MR. FORSTMANN: I really --I couldn't hear the 23 first part of your question. And it might be David's. 24 MR. ADAMS: This is in reference to -- • 25 CHAIRPERSON: Didn't Carl just ask that Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 167 • 1 question? 2 MR. ADAMS: I don't know. 3 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Carl just asked that 4 question. 5 MR. ADAMS: I'm sorry. I didn't hear it. What 6 was the answer? 7 MR. FORSTMANN: I really didn't hear the first 8 part of his question. I don't know whether I answered it 9 or not. 10 MR. ADAMS: My question was --apparently I 11 missed it there but since --some of the people who 12 were interested in moving the site back to the south, it • 13 looked like. Had you considered shortening Building B and 14 Building E in order to accommodate a move south? 15 MR. FORSTMANN: I believe Mr. Tryba answered 16 that question. And I think that's -- 17 MR. ADAMS: Can I have that answer? Was that 18 when you turned the model around? 19 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 20 MR. BLEILE: That had to do with the footprint 21 and the retail and all that. But, essentially, the answer 22 was the types of building, the heights and such and so 23 forth, that it should be 24 CHAIRPERSON: And the various heights on the • 25 plan make it a more interesting development than if it was Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 168 • 1 more uniform. And they put the tallest building at the 2 lowest plate of the topography. 3 MR. BLEILE: To paraphrase, was that 4 essentially your answer? 5 MR. ADAMS: Well, no. That doesn't do anything 6 for me because, I mean, I look at the site, and from a 7 civil engineering prospect, there's a significant amount 8 of earth moving that goes on in there and just --and the 9 place will be a mess, a big open field with a lot of 10 construction going on and a lot of earth being moved 11 around. So anything could happen . 12 So as is right now, that may be the most • 13 economical choice, but it still doesn't answer the 14 question whether or not --if it's just 15 MR. TRYBA: We want to keep the natural grade. 16 Obviously, we have to keep the natural grade as we meet 17 our neighbors. And so rather than having large retaining 18 walls, we wanted to meet them shoulder-to-shoulder or 19 ankle-to-ankle and not tower up above them from 20 manipulation of the existing grades. 21 And, frankly, it was --we thought a huge 22 opportunity to go ahead and use the natural site and slope 23 to minimize the impact of a higher part of the project in 24 that north center section. • 25 MR. ADAMS: Okay . Well, your answer -- Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 169 • 1 MR. TRYBA: It probably, actually, would be 2 less expensive if we just, you know, went straight across 3 at the higher grade, because then the parking wouldn't be 4 underground and we wouldn't have to ventilate the garages, 5 and the buildings would be higher. 6 But because we stepped with the natural 7 topography, it's increased the cost and kept the parking 8 below grade. 9 We have two stories. If we just went straight 10 across, you're right, there would be --you know, we could 11 do anything we wanted to on this site because it's 12 basically going to be a blank slate. We could bring both • 13 of those levels of parking --if we just went straight 14 across, so we would have two levels of parking above 15 grade, which would, frankly, be a lot less expensive. 16 MR. ADAMS: Those ideas had been talked about 17 in public meetings? 18 MR. TRYBA: Uh-huh. 19 MR. ADAMS: Okay. And everybody came to a 20 comfortable conclusion that this was the best solution? 21 MR. TRYBA: And I think the testimony reflects 22 that from the neighbors. 23 MR. ADAMS: Okay. 24 MR. WELKER: I've got more. • 25 MR. FORSTMANN: Any other questions of me or Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 170 • 1 should I retire to the 2 MR. WELKER: In looking, again, at the retail 3 and office space, and looking particularly at the model, I 4 see a cavity along the ridge line. Is that intended to 5 hide the mechanical and to reduce the overall heights of 6 the buildings? 7 MR. TRYBA: That's correct. 8 MR. WELKER: So we won't see any mechanical 9 systems as far as street level use? 10 MR. TRYBA: That's correct. That's our intent. 11 MR. WELKER: I see buildings for the office and 12 retail that are introverted, meaning that entrances are --• 13 at least in the drawings that we've seen --are from the 14 courtyard or from the interior. 15 What entrances, walk-throughs and things like 16 that might be for anybody --pedestrian or for the 17 neighborhood --coming in from the street? I know there's 18 no parking there, but are there entrances and things like 19 that planned? 20 MR. TRYBA: The pedestrian entrances are 21 coordinated with the automobile entrances and the bus 22 stop. And --but there will be --the exterior elevations 23 will look very similar to the interior elevations, and 24 there will be windows and sha --you know, display windows • 25 and the whole --the outside will be as articulated as the Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 171 • 1 inside. 2 But the entrances are from the street on the 3 inside versus the outside. There are no particular store 4 front entrances, because all the parking is on the inside 5 rather than the kind of retail we're used to right now. 6 Normal retail has all the parking out on the street, and 7 when you drive by, you just see the ocean of parking and 8 then the retail is set 100 feet back. 9 MR. WELK.ER: Would you talk about building 10 materials roof materials, face materials, treatment of 11 glass, other things like awnings and the gable ends and 12 things on both sides of the building. • 13 MR. TRYBA: There are a variety of materials, 14 which we believe will help to modulate the scale. I would 15 say the predominant material would be masonry. In all of 16 the renderings, we're showing some stucco and limestone 17 type --cast stone elements for a variety. So it's not 18 just a giant masonry project, but it has some variation to 19 give it visual delight. 20 We're thinking that the roofs will have the 21 effect of slate. We'll probably be using a material that 22 is not individual pieces of slate. I know we're showing 23 kind of a gray slate roof --but I know the model shows 24 red. But the roofs will not be red. They will be gray to • 25 match the variety --the vast majority of the gray roofs Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 172 • 1 all the way through all of the developments around. And I 2 think if we went to the very first slide, you'll see that 3 we did this model early on. 4 They will probably be out of metal, but there 5 will be a metal --they'll be pressed to look exactly like 6 slate. So that when we have high winds or anything, it 7 will be a single, solid material and be safer than 8 individual pieces of slate. 9 MR. WELKER: Slate is not one of my particular 10 favorites, but we'll pass on that. Window treatment 11 demonstration. The drawings show areas of windows, rather 12 than punch windows. Surfaces on the floor line are a • 13 continuous band or continuous area with multiple panels, 14 perhaps some spandrel glass or things like that. Is that 15 what we can see on both sides of these buildings? 16 MR. TRYBA: I think there will be a lot more 17 variety than you see here. This represents, again, that 18 sort of 90,000-square-foot massing. So now that we know 19 we're going to be at 65,000 square feet, so that the 20 entire third floor will not be as uniform and as 21 homogenous. 22 I don't think we'll have as much glass all the 23 way around the second floor, but we'll have probably more 24 punched windows. • 25 As we actually get into the design, we are Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 173 • 1 imagining that the center portion is a two-story space 2 that has a banquet room on the front of it, and then the 3 two-story volume for the retail as we showed you in the 4 slides. 5 We do have a banquet room to the right, the 6 community banquet room, which will have quite a bit of 7 glass over in here. So I think that's probably 8 indicative. 9 I think there'll be more variety. And as the 10 design evolves, I think it will be more attractive than 11 what we're actually showing. 12 MR. WELKER: I guess one of my points is the • 13 comment made in one of the letters commenting on things, 14 and that was the reflectiveness of glass. 15 There are some buildings, you know, in 16 particular, that cause problems to neighborhoods because 17 of large quantities of reflective glass. And I think that 18 that could be mitigated by smaller windows and some 19 shading patterns and protrusions around, and putting the 20 glass surfaces out --necessarily out level with 21 everything so that the surface is relatively smooth. We 22 have some things that mitigate that kind of thing. 23 I like the character generally that you talk 24 about essentially European village. I don't find that • 25 these necessarily represent what I would assume is a Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 174 • 1 European village. 2 MR. TRYBA: We have had that criticism from the 3 client, as well. So I think we're getting it from both 4 ends. 5 MR. WELKER: But in the sense that it's germane 6 in this discussion is that I don't like to see reflective 7 glass surfaces along the street sides, particularly that 8 will affect traffic and blind people and things that make 9 it worse. So that's why -- 10 MR. TRYBA: It's not our intent to use 11 reflective glass, but to use clear, low E glass 12 throughout. • 13 MR. WELKER: But I'd like to see residential in 14 scale rather than commercial ones. 15 MR. TRYBA: That is our intent. 16 MR. WELKER: I would like to see the building 17 cross-section, but I'm not going to get that, I suspect . 18 That's fine, but I have some questions. The 19 site plans and all of the drawings show property lines was 20 not land dedicated on the street. And if we dedicate some 21 more property, we shorten the distances between what is 22 actually street and the building faces. 23 On the --both east and south sides along the 24 retail, those become some issues, because they were fairly • 25 tall and close to streets where we have a number of Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way , Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 175 • 1 people --anybody could drive through the city and look 2 through where we have tall buildings in this neighborhood, 3 even looking at the Waterford and other things, and those 4 buildings are considerably back. All the residential 5 properties, the Buell on the south, and even east of here, 6 have quite a bit more setback between the streetscape and 7 the building fronts. 8 Do --first of all, do we have an idea of how 9 much land is going to be dedicated? Are those dimensions 10 that are in the 20-, 25-foot range now going to be 10 feet 11 from new property lines to the building level? 12 MR. TRYBA: No. No. No. That's the minimum • 13 dimension. And so what's here will not --will not be any 14 less. We have to live completely within the boundaries 15 and in most cases --or in many cases we'll exceed these 16 dimensions. As you understand, these are maximum 17 envelopes. 18 I would also mention that the high-rise --that 19 the highest and tallest building is set, actually, back 20 further than the Waterford. And so we're --we were 21 considerably set back from the street on the north and the 22 south. 23 CHAIRPERSON: The retail will be 25 feet, 24 though, from the street. • 25 MR. TRYBA: Correct. Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 176 • 1 MR. WELKER: But we're not establishing the 2 minimum setback there in the traditional sense that it's 3 set back from the property line? 4 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we are. 5 MR. WELKER: So we're saying there's a minimum 6 of 25 feet? 7 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 8 MR. WELKER: Okay. Employee parking. Is that 9 going to be underground? 10 MR. TRYBA: Correct. 11 MR. WELKER: Okay. One last group of issues 12 and that is dealing with these wall fences around the west • 13 and north sides of the property. Describe for me how we 14 arrived at a nice 10-foot maximum? 15 MR. TRYBA: The 10-foot height that has been 16 selected was at the request of our neighbors. And we 17 tried to accommodate their request. 18 MR. WELKER: Is that going to be the maximum 19 height of the finial on the column? How does the wall 20 itself the wall that's on the south side of the village 21 is a relatively uniform height. There are columns and 22 finials and then cast elements on top of them like there 23 are in a number of other places. 24 For reference, the walls to the south, the long • 25 dual --are in the 8-foot range. The variance that was Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 177 • 1 given Kent for the sound wall was partially because of the 2 height of Hampden above their property. And we don't have 3 that issue here. That was a sound wall primarily because 4 the traffic generates a tremendous amount of noise, and we 5 have buses and trucks and everything on that that we do 6 not have on this property. 7 When we basically look at the perimeter on the 8 west and the north, we have the back of a relatively 9 low-rise town house, which is taller in your case than 10 what's there now. 11 But these buildings have been shown --the 12 profiles tell me that we're basically limited to 17 or • 13 18 feet and will be lying on the backs of these buildings. 14 And 20 feet or so away, we have a 10-foot-high fence, 15 which, I think since we're not blocking noise because 16 we don't have the trucks in that area on either side of 17 the fence, it may be excessive. 18 And that's why I'm concerned about it. We're 19 talking about fences or walls that are 6-and 700 feet 20 long and 10 feet high. I realize there's going to be some 21 stepping and some other kinds of things, but I -- 22 MR. BLEILE: I don't know. That was -- 23 MR. WELKER: --I think to give you a maximum 24 of 10 feet was excessive, because our city standard is 6. • 25 I also realize that 6 may not do it. But I Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 178 • 1 think that we need to look at what we're getting here, 2 what's being promised. And I understand that --because I 3 don't like to see that barrier drawn between the existing 4 houses and the new development of having a moat -- 5 courtyard around the castle, if you will, that separates 6 them. 7 MR. WELLS: Well, I'm sure you would like to 8 accommodate the neighbors who have requested this. If 9 they would request us to make it lower, I'm sure we'd 10 consider it. 11 MR. BLEILE: Well, there was more public 12 testimony • 13 MR. WELKER: I realize that. But --that's why 14 I was asking about the history of it and 15 MR. WELLS: We did not pick the number. 16 MR. WELKER: Okay. That's what I want to know, 17 because I have some difficulty in supporting the number 18 that is showing up on there. I would certainly not have a 19 problem if the height of the wall were one thing and the 20 top part of the highest part of it were 10 feet. That 21 doesn't bother me. 22 But I think the higher wall, which is, again, 23 the worst that we could get --but that's somewhat similar 24 to the 8-foot wall on the south of Kent Village now, • 25 because it's about 10 feet above the Kent Village land Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 179 • 1 there. 2 MR. WELLS: Well, I think part of that existing 3 Kent Village wall now is even higher than 10 feet. 4 MR. FORSTMANN: It's 15 feet. 5 MR. WELKER: It is in places. 6 MR. WELLS: But, again, we're simply trying to 7 respond to our neighbors' requests, and they wanted a 8 10-foot wall. 9 MR. WELKER: But rather than discussing this 10 after you've had a chance to respond to it, I thought we 11 could talk about it and you give me what you know about 12 it. • 13 Okay. I don't have anything else written down. 14 MR . SCHUM: I want to talk a little bit more 15 about the parking --the parking structure. 16 CHAIRPERSON: Okay. 17 MR. SCHUM: I would assume that the National 18 Parking Association was the same guidelines they used at 19 the Denver City's parking garage. And I can't drive my 20 truck in there under normal conditions to make the turns 21 to make it all the way down to level 4 if there's traffic 22 coming up. 23 And this question is very particular to the 24 parking underneath. It seems like the parking spaces are • 25 pretty close. I mean, 7 foot is --on bigger vehicles is Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 180 • 1 not much room is that what I'm seeing in here. Nine foot 2 on the angles. 3 So I want to know just a little bit more about 4 some of these turns, because it seems like it's going to 5 be kind of tight coming down to this parking garage and 6 turning to get down to the bottom area. 7 MR. TRYBA: Well, we worked with the City on 8 this, and we manipulated the parking back and forth. But 9 it's my understanding that we left it with the City that 10 these slightly exceed the standards --the City --for any 11 public parking. And that would include larger SUVs and, 12 you know, larger cars that would normally be parked out, • 13 you know, in front of any large department store or 14 Wal-Mart or Safeway or something like that. 15 So we've gone back and forth with the City and 16 made some adjustments on the turning ranges and throughout 17 all of the structures and have changed that several times 18 and I think they're comfortable with what we have. 19 I think your question is a good question. And 20 we have accommodated that for, you know, these larger 21 units which we'd assume have larger cars. 22 MR. SCHUM: That's the reason for the question, 23 is that a lot of times underground parking for people that 24 have SUVs becomes very cumbersome and very hard. And I • 25 don't know what the height is as far as the requirement in Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 181 • 1 Denver there. I didn't find it on anything. Do you know 2 what that is, about? 3 MR. TRYBA: We haven't actually designed 4 specifically how deep the project is going to go into the 5 ground yet. But, you know, we'll have to, obviously, 6 accommodate the people that are going to be buying units 7 in here and we have to coordinate that. Code says minimum 8 of 7 feet, and we have to then add on top of that 9 sprinkler system, the mechanical ventilation, and the 10 lights. 11 So it would be overall considerably more than 12 that. But we haven't gotten into the detailed engineering • 13 of how low we're going to go into the ground. 14 MR. SCHUM: Okay. You guys also spoke of a car 15 wash that could be placed in this parking garage. Could 16 you talk about the location of that and if that is still 17 something that's being considered. 18 MR. TRYBA: We've only wanted to leave it as an 19 opportunity that underneath the retail section of the 20 building there could be a space somewhere down below the 21 retail to have someone's car washed. But it wouldn't be a 22 big kind of operation like a Firehouse Car Wash or 23 something like that. It would be much more of a --help 24 me out here, John. • 25 MR. FORSTMANN: It would be like One Polo Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 182 • 1 Creek. 2 MR. TRYBA: We experienced this when we went to 3 look at other similar kinds of projects in Denver. And 4 One Polo Creek, which is the project that's just south of 5 Cherry Creek shopping center on University --at the other 6 end of University by that --where University turns into 7 First Avenue, there is a service for the residents who 8 work in --or live in the building. And there's a bay 9 where they can pull in their car and they can get their 10 car washed. 11 So it's not really a large commercial kind of 12 car wash; it's an inhouse boutique type of thing. While • 13 you're shopping, you could leave your car with the valet 14 and then you would come out clean. 15 MR. SCHUM: I guess that's kind of --kind of 16 leads me to the thing about this. I perceive, you know, 17 if you have a lot of car washes --you know, car washes 18 can get pretty big and cumbersome as far as the amount of 19 traffic that goes in there. 20 And, you know, the scale of it would be a big 21 concern. Because if it's something small like you talked 22 about where it's for the people around there and stuff, 23 it's not really a big deal. But if it's something that, 24 you know, people suddenly find they have a car wash they • 25 can wash their car in between Yale and Orchard, this could Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 183 • 1 suddenly be a big trip generator for the shopping center. 2 MR. TRYBA: We would agree. 3 MR. SCHUM: And that's why I bring up an issue 4 like that . And I -- 5 MR. FORSTMANN: Let me tell you on the car wash 6 because that --the only reason it is there --it would be 7 done, there'd be no equipment per se. It's not going to 8 be go-through. It's simply --and we may not do it --but 9 it's simply as a convenience, if indeed we decide that 10 there were enough people asking for it. And, frankly, if 11 ten people want to get it done and we can accommodate 12 three, seven are going to be disappointed. • 13 It's not --it's just a convenience. It is 14 not --we could not, in one's wildest imagination, be 15 considered a bus i ness . 16 MR. SCHUM: It's just amazing to me on 17 Broadway how long people will wait in traffic on 18 Broadway to get their car washed. 19 MR. FORSTMANN: We're not --we're not 20 really -- 21 MR. SCHUM: I worry about this at University, 22 because this is an intersection where the if we don't 23 watch what we do there and we put something in there to 24 generate that kind of traffic is not a fit for that • 25 facility, it becomes a problem. Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224 , Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 184 • 1 MR. FORSTMANN: This really --when you --it 2 is --we may not do it at all. And if it's --we're not 3 even sure that we are doing it. It is a tiny, tiny, tiny 4 part of our business if we do do it. And it is not to 5 make any money. It is basically just to be a convenience. 6 MR. SCHUM: As a service. Okay . 7 MS. MOSTELLER: Before we leave the underground 8 parking, I just have one question about the entrances and 9 exits for the underground parking to make sure I'm 10 understanding the plan correctly. 11 Is there only one entrance to the retail 12 parking garage? One entrance and one exit? • 13 MR. TRYBA: That's correct. 14 MS. MOSTELLER: And my question, then, is if 15 that poses any kind of safety concern or not? Or if 16 that's been addressed by staff? 17 MR. TRYBA: From a safety standpoint, there 18 would be multiple ways one automobile entrance, just 19 like when you're going to the Republic Plaza or Tabor 20 Center or any of the giant hotels downtown. 21 But there'll be multiple egress points to 22 the --international building code that require for any 23 life safety exiting, as well as the emergency exhaust 24 systems for carbon monoxide and all of the code-required • 25 elements. Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 185 • 1 So from a safety standpoint, we're more than 2 covered by code. And convenience getting in and out of 3 the stores we're not exiting any people at the ramp, 4 just the cars in and out. 5 MS. MOSTELLER: Okay. 6 MR. WELKER: Question on signage. I realize 7 this is a PUD and we have a sign code, but I don't 8 remember anything here that specifically talked about any 9 differences or anything specific that would talk about 10 proposed signage for the property. But I just would like 11 to discuss it briefly. Namely, are we going to stick 12 within the current s i gn regulations or • 13 MR. TRYBA: Yes. And we'll not only meet those 14 codes, but exceed, and it's on PUD Sheet 11. 15 MR. WELKER: Okay. 16 MR. BLEILE: Madam Chairperson, I'd like to 17 propose a motion to close the hearing. 18 CHAIRPERSON: Anyone have any more questions? 19 MR. SCHUM: I'll second. 20 CHAIRPERSON: Dennis has seconded and Brian has 21 made the motion. 22 MS. WELTY: Close the hearing? 23 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Would you call the roll, 24 please . • 25 MS. WELTY: Mr. Schum? Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 186 • 1 MR. SCHUM: Yes. 2 MS. WELTY: Mr. Welker? 3 MR. WELKER: Yes. 4 MS. WELTY: Mr. Adams? 5 MR. ADAMS: Yes. 6 MS. WELTY: Mr. Bleile? 7 MR. BLEILE: Yes. 8 MS. WELTY: Mr. Diekmeier? 9 MR. DIEKMEIER: Yes. 10 MS. WELTY: Ms. Mosteller? 11 MS. MOSTELLER: Yes. 12 MS. WELTY: Ms. Mueller is absent. • 13 Mr. Roth? 14 MR. ROTH: Yes. 15 MS. WELTY: Ms. Krieger? 16 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Is it the Commission's 17 pleasure to push through tonight to try to finish up here 18 if we can? Push through to try to finish up tonight? 19 I would entertain a motion. 20 MR. BLEILE: I would like to make a motion to 21 approve the public hearing --approve the PUD. 22 CHAIRPERSON: With the conditions -- 23 MR. BLEILE: With the conditions set forth by 24 staff . • 25 CHAIRPERSON: A second? Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 18 7 • 1 MS. MOSTELLER: I'll second. 2 CHAIRPERSON: Discussion? 3 MS. LANGON: Ms. Krieger? 4 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 5 MS. LANGON: Could I just suggest that that 6 motion be per the staff --the second set of staff 7 recommendations, because the --they did meet the one 8 condition of supplying the traffic study. 9 CHAIRPERSON: So the five conditions? 10 MS. LANGON: Correct. As stated on the 11 June 29th Supplemental Report. 12 CHAIRPERSON: And the briefing for us. • 13 MS. LANGON: Thank you. 14 MR. WELKER: Do we need those to be read in? 15 CHAIRPERSON: We'll read them in when we get 16 there. 17 MS. REID: You can if you want to, but you 18 don't have to. 19 MR. BLEILE: I would make a motion to clarify 20 my previous motion to affirm the PUD as PUD Case Number 21 2004-05 according to the staff report dated June 29th with 22 the five recommendations. 23 MS. MOSTELLER: And I'll clarify my second to 24 match that. • 25 CHAIRPERSON: Discussion? Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 188 • 1 MR. WELKER: I'll start it. You're probably 2 not surprised by that at all. 3 CHAIRPERSON: You get five minutes too. 4 MR. WELKER: I didn't make summary types of 5 comments during the public hearing itself, but I think 6 it's appropriate now for me to do so. 7 My feeling on the traffic study and things like 8 that is that it probably isn't 100 percent accurate. But 9 I do feel that a tremendous amount of mitigation has been 10 offered in the sense of reworking the property and adding 11 lanes and things like that along the two adjacent streets. 12 I don't know that there could be much more • 13 regardless of what the traffic study said. So much of it 14 is beyond their control. I don't really believe that this 15 property is going to add a huge percentage of difficulty 16 to it except perhaps that we have one more signal. 17 So I guess that throughout all of this, I don't 18 think that traffic is going to be majorly impacted by this 19 project. That's my opinion. 20 MR. BLEILE: I would add to that, Carl, I am 21 rather impressed that the developer and the applicant has 22 actually given up land to accommodate the additional 23 turning lane and pay for the widening and so forth. And I 24 think that shows they are willing to address that same • 25 concern. So I would agree with that statement. Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way , Suite 224 , Aurora , Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 189 • 1 MR. WELKER: I think that there's some things 2 beyond the scope of this particular PUD that maybe should 3 be mentioned. And that is the steps they're taking to 4 mitigate the impact of traffic presently on University by 5 offering to put a sound wall on the east side and some 6 landscaping to improve it. 7 I'm curious to know what the mitigation was 8 that was offered to stop traffic from cutting through 9 Floyd Place and Floyd Avenue. But since that really is 10 not in the City and the purview of this, I'm not going to 11 visit that, but I 'm curious. 12 My two main concerns about this: One is the • 13 height of the fenced wall around it. I think that that 14 really could be mitigated if you cut it down and define 15 the issues more clearly so that it doesn't end up to be a 16 10 feet tall. I think it could be described as excessive 17 and it could be a little bit less than that. 18 My concern is that we are exceeding what we 19 normally have as a 6-foot-wall standard throughout the 20 city. And we have had many, many, many discussions about 21 it, and the only time that we have exceeded that is when, 22 like along the south side of Kent Village, there is really 23 something that we need to protect. Here I don't think 24 we're protecting anything except that someone decided that • 25 10 foot would be nice to have. So I think in this case Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way , Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 190 • 1 that I would recommend that that be lessened somehow or 2 described more fully so that we could understand it. 3 I went out and measured some walls that we've 4 got. I measured the wall south of this property, and it's 5 in the 8-foot range, and there is one that's a little 6 taller than that. 7 I went out and measured the wall that is behind 8 Wal-Mart along Floyd where we have tremendous bus and 9 truck traffic, and we're trying to protect the whole 10 neighborhood. The wall is 8 foot 6, and the finials are 11 about 9 foot 3. And that seems to do the job. And it 12 isn't built to this standard at all. It basically is 3 • 13 inches of masonry at the best. And I think it does the 14 job. 15 So I think that we could offer some relief. 16 And I don't think we need to build a 10-foot-high fence 17 around this thing. So that's my one concern there. 18 I am also concerned that we have given generous 19 envelopes. And I realize that the applicant doesn't 20 really intend to build 57 feet tall around the retail 21 space. But that's a problem to me, because in my line of 22 business sometimes we've pushed the envelope as much as we 23 can in places and might cause problems. But since the 24 letter of the law is what we've stated to be in this PUD, • 25 I have some concerns about that. Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 191 • 1 And I'd like to see it more specifically 2 explained at a lower elevation that would still give 3 potential for architectural interest and things like that. 4 I never wanted architects to be limited by these numbers; 5 but in this particular case, I think there's some issue 6 about that. 7 That also goes with the height of the upper 8 buildings. But, frankly, I don't think the shadows cast 9 are going to be all that big a problem. So I'll state 10 that too and I'll shut up. 11 MR. SCHUM: Well, I want to agree a little bit 12 on the roadway. I think the biggest problem there is the • 13 fact that the State of Colorado hasn't tunneled Hampden 14 underneath University yet. And I think that's just the 15 clearest way to state it. 16 There's a big problem with that intersection 17 for the fact that you have two major roads hitting each 18 other constantly. And regardless of what we do, the 19 outlook isn't much better, because we're going to always 20 have more traffic down University and up Hampden. And so 21 this situation is only going to get worse until the State 22 steps in and does something as far as putting one road 23 over the other. 24 And I would have to say that I think that this • 25 developer has gone a long way in giving up a lot of land Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 192 • 1 to facilitate a better intersection. 2 I tend to disagree with the traffic study. I 3 think that this intersection is a bad intersection, and 4 this isn't going to make it much better for the long term. 5 We might see a couple --you know, maybe two 6 years of some better congestion at that intersection, but 7 at the very best it's going to be better congestion. It's 8 still going to be congested, and it's still going to be a 9 mess. 10 I have some problems with the parking garages. 11 And typically they really center around the mobility that 12 people have in the parking garages. And this developer • 13 really, really utilizes them. So I think that I should 14 say out there that, you know, people look at the 15 development by how easy it is to get in and out and to 16 move around in that development. And I hope that as you 17 guys continue along with the parking garage structure you 18 remember that and continuously try and make more room for 19 individual parking spaces and turns within that parking 20 garage, because they get so tight and very difficult to 21 maneuver around in. 22 The heights of these buildings, I'm really at 23 issue with; because I feel sorry for people that have to 24 l i ve next to a big tall building and deal with the • 25 shadows, especially if this is a yard or a house that's Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way , Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 193 • 1 never had to deal with these kind of shadows. 2 Obviously, your grass has already grown a 3 certain way and understands a certain amount of sunlight 4 throughout the day. And all this changes everything with 5 the vegetation on your property. 6 But I think it's limited to a certain amount of 7 houses. And while it seems to me that those neighborhoods 8 are pretty much split down the middle as to how much it 9 personally hinders them either way, good or bad. And I 10 feel that it would have been nice if we could have spread 11 out the total height of these buildings like Carl said and 12 cut off the overall top size of it. Because I think the • 13 minute you cut off the top part of this building, you 14 really cut out a lot of the shadow issues that you see 15 going over across University. 16 But I would have to say that this development 17 is a great development for Englewood for the fact that it 18 kind of offsets what's going on right down here in the 19 City Center. It's a little bit different as far as the 20 marketing structure and who you're going after. And I 21 think in different economies they kind of off set each 22 other in a good way. 23 When the economy is really good, I would hope 24 that this center does really, really well with people with • 25 a lot of excess money to spend. And I would feel that Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 194 • 1 people up in this area are also going to be able to leave 2 this area and come down to places like the City Center to 3 spend a lot of their money, also. Because I don't see a 4 Wal-Mart or any kind of a store that's in that retail 5 center that's going to provide some of those things. 6 So I think that it's really going to be helpful 7 for Englewood from that aspect. And I think it's going to 8 be nice to have two bigger type of retail areas. And, you 9 know, they're nice mixed-use areas within Hampden, but a 10 nice distance away from each other. 11 I also do feel that a little bit more could 12 have been done in this project to facilitate the • 13 transportation things that we've tried to do as a City 14 down here as far as the bus and that kind of thing, by 15 maybe trying to make more of a pull-off, or more of a 16 place that says, you know, This is where RTD is, we want 17 you to get on the bus and we want you to ride the bus 18 instead of using your car. 19 And I just didn't see much of that in this. In 20 fact, it was hard to find any support for the buses. But 21 I think that that's something that this developer could do 22 a little bit more of, is trying to get the bus transit and 23 that kind of stuff involved in this corridor. 24 That's it from me. • 25 MR. WELKER: We are going to get more shading Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 195 • 1 from a 10-foot-high wall, including the landscaping, than 2 we are going to get from a 180-story-tall --180 --I've 3 been watching too much PBS, I guess. 4 But that 10-foot-high wall is going to make a 5 tremendous problem for people trying to grow something in 6 their yards. 7 MR. SCHUM: At the same time, for security and 8 privacy, maybe some of these people are afraid that people 9 may be able to get into their backyards. I can clear a 10 6-foot fence real easy, but if I put my hands on the top 11 of --at 10 foot I look kind of silly at the bottom trying 12 to get my hands up there. • 13 And I kind of believe that that's maybe what 14 the neighbors are saying; is that that 10-foot wall would - 15 be a true separation so that people couldn't just jump 16 into their backyards. 17 MR. BLEILE: I guess I wouldn't have a --the 18 thoughts I have about the fence are: Most of the 19 testimony that we've heard from the public has been for 20 the fence. They have said more often than not, I am happy 21 that the developer is putting this fence in. I'm happy 22 they're putting it in first to mitigate construction noise 23 and dirt and all the other such and so forth. 24 My biggest driver would be --they told me and • 25 what I heard was that that 10-foot fence was what they Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 196 • 1 wanted. 2 MR. WELKER: But we don't allow two neighbors 3 to set a standard between themselves that exceeds the City 4 standard just because they agree to do it. 5 MR. BLEILE: I will give you that. 6 CHAIRPERSON: I still agree that this --yeah, 7 that this is --they're giving up a whole lot in 8 getting --in allowing this development, encouraging this 9 development, and I think if they want a 10-foot fence, we 10 should give them a 10-foot fence. 11 MR. SCHUM: Well, let's think about it, guys. 12 Every foot of the fence, it's going to cost you more • 13 money. The developer would love to say, Hey, how about a 14 4-foot fence? That would be a lot cheaper than a 10-foot 15 fence. 16 And I think it goes a long way for the 17 developer when they say, Hey, if it's going to be a matter 18 of a couple more feet, and you're going to feel better, 19 I'm spending the extra money. And I think that that's 20 something that's been said throughout this project. 21 MR. BLEILE: In addition, not only are they 22 doing it in Englewood, but they're doing it across the 23 street on University over there in Arapahoe County. 24 MR. WELKER: But the difference between a wall • 25 along a heavy traffic noise area and between two Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 197 • 1 residential areas is tremendous. One's necessary, and the 2 other's overkill in my opinion. 3 MR . BLEILE: I guess I would just like to go on 4 record to say I've seen --I think this is a tremendous 5 step for the City and the developer and the residents. 6 And I think there was obviously a lot of meetings, a lot 7 of planning that has gone into this before even meeting 8 before us. 9 And obviously there were enough neighborhood 10 discussions with, not only the folks on Floyd, but across 11 the street in Arapahoe County, in Cherry Hills, the whole 12 area, areas that technically we shouldn't even consider. • 13 But the developer did --they did it on their behalf, at 14 their expense. They've accommodated a lot of people, I 15 believe. 16 Granted it's been give-and-take, and obviously 17 we're not going to --it would have been, I guess, unfair 18 to ask them to make the tallest building only 40 foot. 19 But I think they've gone above and beyond what has been 20 asked by both the City, this Commission, and the 21 residents. And I think that is to be recommended. And I 22 wish --in the little time that I've dealt with things of 23 this nature, I wish that more developers and architects 24 and folks of this caliber would offer that give-and-take. • 25 My experience in other properties have been Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224 , Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 198 • 1 less --less of that give-and-take and more just push the 2 envelope and I'll take what's rightfully mine. They're 3 not pushing the envelope on density, they're not pushing 4 the envelope on height, they're -- 5 MR. SCHUM: They tripled the height that's 6 currently on the -- 7 MR. BLEILE: Okay. I take that back as far as 8 height. Still it doesn't alleviate the fact that they 9 have done give-and-take and --met with the neighbors and 10 they've met with the homeowners' associations, the 11 communities, and there was a lot of give-and-take. And I 12 think that's to be commended. • 13 CHAIRPERSON: And they did do some 14 give-and-take --although they insisted on the height on 15 their tallest buildings, they did do some give-and-take 16 and they made sure that the buildings on the surrounding 17 edges were lower and tried to mitigate the height issue 18 from a visual standpoint. 19 MR. ROTH: You don't see 20 MS. REID: We can't hear you, Mr. Roth. 21 MR. ROTH: Sorry. I was just making a side 22 comment that you don't see very often the 10-foot walls. 23 MR. SCHUM: And that reminds me too. One 24 thing, I think on that turn lane, I see a lot more • 25 problems right there. And I know it's not something that Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 199 • 1 everyone's saying, but right there turning onto Hampden, 2 every time I've gone through there it's like a big fight, 3 people trying to get into traffic right there at rush 4 hour. And then people trying to get out of this 5 development, I think that's going to be a little bit of a 6 fight there. 7 MR. WELKER: But I think what they've done is 8 an improvement over what's there now. What more can they 9 do? 10 MR. SCHUM: I think they're going to be pulling 11 a lot more traffic into that short area to turn into 12 there. And that's going to be the difference on that. • 13 MR. ROTH: Yes. But there is no lane now. So 14 they've --you know, they've improved it from that 15 standpoint. 16 MR. SCHUM: Yeah, but sometimes -- 17 MR. ROTH: But the big thing, at least from my 18 point of view on the traffic, is they've premised this 19 whole thing on a double left-hand turn lane. And Arapahoe 20 County has already given its testimony that that's not 21 going to happen, because it's on land they're not going to 22 dedicate. 23 CHAIRPERSON: No. They're dedicating the land 24 out of their property. • 25 MR. ROTH: For the right-hand lane. Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 200 • 1 CHAIRPERSON: No. And the left lane. 2 MR. SCHUM: Unless they provide the scenario 3 that they're both -- 4 MR. ROTH: There's not enough room. 5 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 6 MR. ROTH: I was out there and there's not 7 enough room. If they had --they have two lanes in order 8 to get the double left-hand turn lane. 9 CHAIRPERSON: Exactly. And that's what they 10 have agreed to do. 11 MR. ROTH: I did not see that. 12 CHAIRPERSON: Yeah. • 13 Well, from my standpoint I know that the 14 neighbors are not thrilled with the height or the density. 15 And I do understand that and sympathize with you. 16 I also understand the developer's viewpoint. 17 Unfortunately for the neighborhood, the zoning is what it 18 is and it's R3. And it's worth a lot of money as R3, and 19 the Denver Seminary is vacating the property. It's not 20 going to request a lesser zoning that's going to make 21 their property worth less. 22 And I think, in general, as I know most of you 23 are aware, this is probably a better development than you 24 would get as a use by right. You would end up with • 25 probably 60-foot buildings all over that and no traffic Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 201 • 1 improvements. That was one of the reasons why I 2 personally was not too concerned with the traffic study, 3 because basically they develop it this way or they develop 4 it as a use by right with 450 units with more traffic that 5 way and no traffic improvements. 6 So it's the best of a bad situation, I think, 7 for a lot of the neighbors. 8 I do commend the developer for all his work 9 with the neighbors and it certainly made our job easier 10 that he did the give-and-take in the discussions with them 11 that led to some of the solutions to the problems. So 12 that by the time he got here, we had a very clear idea of ,. 13 exactly where everyone stood. 14 I really appreciate all of you coming in and 15 giving your input. We do appreciate it, and we really do 16 want to hear from you. And it's wonderful to actually 17 have people come out and talk to us. 18 As far as the parking garage goes, I hear what 19 Dennis is saying, and I think it's in their best interest 20 to have a workable parking garage. People aren't going to 21 buy their --their condominiums if they can't get their 22 SUVs in there. So I do believe that it's in their best 23 interest to make that work. So I think that probably will 24 happen. • 25 That's about all I have to say on that subject. Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224 , Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 202 • 1 Does anyone have anything more to say? 2 MR. WELKER: One more thing. And that is that 3 I don't think that this retail is the same as a strip 4 retail center. I think that this retail is connected very 5 closely to the development of the whole. And even though 6 there's a restaurant and some things that might draw 7 people from outside the project, they're very definitely 8 connected. The bank and the restaurant are the two big 9 things to me that might generate a number of trips in and 10 out that people come from off the site. 11 But a lot of other things which support it are 12 inclusive to the point that if you're involved in the food • 13 development here, you don't come and go all day long. 14 It's not like a restaurant or fast-food business or any 15 kind of convenience store or the kind of things where we 16 get a lot of things. I pray to God, we don't put a 17 Starbucks in here, and some things like that that throw 18 off these traffic calculations and blow it up completely, 19 even though they may have some kind of thing. 20 I think that that isn't going to be to draw on 21 the corner; that many of the developers would certainly 22 look at putting over there. 23 So I think they've got a concept that works, 24 that the retail is not, in my opinion, detrimental to the • 25 location of the intersection of one of the busiest two Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224 , Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 203 • 1 streets in the city. And I don't think it's going to be 2 necessarily causing a problem there for people who come 3 and go to these retail spaces. 4 CHAIRPERSON: Anyone else have anything to say? 5 MS. MOSTELLER: I just wanted to mention that I 6 concur with Ms. Krieger in that I think that what has been 7 proposed is a --the development itself, plus all of the 8 public improvements that go along with it, is a much 9 better and higher use for the site than just what could 10 happen under its current zoning. 11 I also appreciate the fact that the developer 12 and his team have worked so diligently with the • 13 neighborhood associations and groups and residents. 14 And I also appreciate the fact that the 15 development meets some of the goals of the comprehensive 16 plan, particularly dealing with the objectives in the 17 housing section and also the business and employment 18 sections. 19 MR. DIEKMEIER: I think of all the public 20 concerns and objections that we've heard, it seems as 21 though the traffic concerns are based predominantly on how 22 bad it is now. The State terms that the minimum 23 acceptable level of service at that intersection is bad. 24 According to the study, it will actually be a • 25 little better in the mornings and a little worse in the Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 204 • 1 afternoon. Minimal impact on traffic. 2 The shading issue --according to the study, I 3 saw it. I didn't think it had much impact over the 4 existing conditions to the buildings that are there now 5 and the shade issues that are there now. It didn't seem 6 to have a great impact. 7 I think some of the fence issues, I didn't hear 8 anyone objecting, the citizens objecting. I heard a lot 9 last week, they wanted the fence; they liked the fence. 10 I think some of the negative issues that have 11 come about with a project like this is just the nature of 12 the community redevelopment. I'm glad we've had the • 13 chance to hear as many opinions on it as we have. 14 CHAIRPERSON: Anything else? 15 MR. ROTH: I would like to comment that I, too, 16 think that the developer and his team have done a good job 17 here, based on the written comments that we received in 18 our packets, and then the verbal testimony of some of the 19 same people. Quite of few of them have done an 20 about-face. So I think that's a real feather in their 21 cap, that they really are trying to accommodate as many 22 people as possible. 23 Obviously, there's a few that you're never 24 going to --there's always someone that's going to get • 25 their toes stepped on. It seems like that this has Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 205 minimized that. 2 MR. SCHUM: I would like to agree with Don. I 3 think they stated at the beginning their 75 years of 4 experience between the two of them, and it really shows in 5 the way they've handled this project and the way they've 6 outreached to the neighbors. 7 CHAIRPERSON: Gertrude, will you call the roll. 8 MS. WELTY: Mr. Welker? 9 MR. WELKER: Yes. 10 MS. WELTY: Mr. Adams? 11 MR. ADAMS: Yes. 12 MS. WELTY: Mr. Bleile? • 13 MR. BLEILE: Yes. 14 MS. WELTY: Mr. Diekmeier? 15 MR. DIEKMEIER: Yes. 16 MS. WELTY: Ms. Mosteller? 17 MS. MOSTELLER: Yes. 18 MS. WELTY: Ms. Mueller is absent. Mr. Roth? 19 MR. ROTH: Yes. 20 MS. WELTY: Mr. Shum? 21 MR. SCHUM: Yes. 22 MS. WELTY: Ms. Krieger? 23 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 24 MS. WELTY: I have eight in favor, one absent. • 25 CHAIRPERSON: Eight in favor, one absent to Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 206 • 1 pass Case 2004-05, Denver Seminary Planned Unit 2 Development with a positive recommendation to City 3 Council, with the following recommendations: 4 That there would be a --dedication of the 5 South University Boulevard continuous right turn lane 6 shall be by major subdivision. 7 Construction of the public improvements as 8 proposed. 9 Prior to recording any development restrictions 10 and covenant documents the City shall review such 11 documents to assure that the documents are consistent with 12 the PUD. • 13 The applicant shall provide two recorded copies 14 of all development restrictions and covenant documents to 15 the City. 16 And clarification of Notes 4 and 7 on Sheet 17 PUD-4 regarding enclosure of private balconies and 18 terraces to provide definition of "enclosure." 19 MS. REID: If I may, you all have done a vote, 20 but before it gets away from us, you do have findings that 21 you need to go through each individually and discuss those 22 findings. You had your discussion; and normally in 23 situations such as this, when you have had your 24 discussion, the findings come afterwards. • 25 So if you would --along with your vote, if you Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224 , Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 207 • 1 would explain your vote, yea or nay, and I forgot the 2 count, I'm sorry, as to who voted which way, and discuss 3 those findings based on your criteria for the PUD in 4 Englewood. Thank you. 5 CHAIRPERSON: By the way, the findings are on 6 page 15 of the staff report. 7 We need to find whether: 8 "The PUD District Plan is, or is not, in 9 conformance with the District Plan requirements and the 10 Comprehensive Plan." 11 Whether "All required documents, drawings, 12 referrals, recommendations, and approvals have been • 13 received." 14 "The PUD District Plan is consistent with 15 adopted and generally accepted standards of development in 16 the City of Englewood." 17 And "The PUD District Plan is substantially 18 consistent with the goals, objectives, design guidelines, 19 policies and any other ordinance, law or requirement of 20 the City." 21 And the EDDA requirement of the City is not 22 applicable. 23 As far as the PUD site plan goes: 24 "The PUD site plan is, or is not, in • 25 conformance with the District Plan requirements." Javemick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 208 • 1 "All required documents, drawings, referrals, 2 recommendations, and approvals have been received." 3 "The PUD Site Plan is consistent with adopted 4 and generally accepted standards of development of the 5 City of Englewood." 6 And "The PUD site plan is substantially 7 consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and/or 8 any other ordinance, law or requirement of the City." 9 Do you want each of us to . 10 MS. REID: You can do it either way you want 11 to. You can either --someone can make a motion that they 12 find all these in the affirmative, or you can discuss your • 13 decision; you can say something on the order of I voted 14 for this because I thought it met the five --four four 15 or five criteria that are required by the PUD, and I 16 thought it met the criteria for the site plan. Or you can 17 discuss each one of them. However you want to do it. 18 MR. BLEILE: For the sake of simplicity, I 19 would like to just make a motion that we approve based on 20 all of the recommendations in the affirmative. 21 CHAIRPERSON: That you find all these 22 conditions to be fulfilled? 23 MR. BLEILE: Yes. 24 CHAIRPERSON: Anyone second that? • 25 MR. SCHUM: I'll second. Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 209 • 1 CHAIRPERSON: Any discussion? 2 (No response. ) 3 CHAIRPERSON: I know that one of the concerns 4 of Arapahoe County and a few people that were here was 5 that these --that a PUD was not required, because it did 6 not meet enough of the extra amenities. And I believe 7 that they --by offering the traffic improvements and 8 the --there were requests from the neighborhood and the 9 quality of development as opposed to a use by right, I 10 believe that there's enough amenities within that to 11 definitely warrant a PUD. 12 MR. WELKER: The fact that it has retail or • 13 office space warrants PUD, because that's a change in what 14 we allowed. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. But they also did meet 16 those requirements as far as -- 17 MR. WELKER: Okay. 18 CHAIRPERSON: And I know some people have 19 brought up that they don't feel that it meets a couple of 20 the roadmap of Englewood requirements or goals, but I do 21 believe it meets a lot of the other goals that are in the 22 comprehensive plan. 23 And I don't really find I know it's a 24 difference of opinion among people but I don't really • 25 find that this is necessarily not in keeping with the Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 210 • 1 neighborhood. The architecture is somewhat --within a 2 short distance, you have the Waterford, and you have the 3 density at Kimberly Village and the Marks. And the 4 Waterford had the option of putting in eight buildings, 5 which would have made it very much in keeping with this as 6 far as that goes. And I suppose they still have that 7 right to a certain degree. 8 So as far as not fitting in with the 9 neighborhood, I think they certainly attempted to do so, 10 to the best of their ability considering what the zoning 11 was even to begin with. 12 MR. WELKER: I think, again, that it 's not • 13 exactly what was originally zoned for this property. When 14 you make changes and you look at things like that --we 15 talk about impact on those neighborhoods, the changes -- 16 the impact on the streets and traffic, I don't think that 17 this is going to have negative impacts. 18 Some of the things, particularly the addition 19 of retail in this particular case, tend to support the 20 residential development and the project as a whole, rather 21 than have negative impacts. 22 If this were simply a retail development or had 23 some of the kinds of things that we don't necessarily want 24 to see that generate a lot of trips, fast food and things • 25 like that, then we would have some other issues; but those Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 211 • 1 are particularly excluded in the plans for this 2 development. 3 And I think that those, then, have been 4 mitigated. So that in the sense that it doesn't adhere 5 exactly to every letter of the roadmap of Englewood in 6 this case, I don't think that's a problem. I think that 7 it has been mitigated, and I would support it. 8 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. As far as meeting or 9 exceeding the standards, I think the fact that they 10 exceeded the parking standards is also a good thing 11 because, as we know, sometimes the parking standards 12 really aren't sufficient to meet the demand. • 13 And I know that was a big concern in the 14 neighborhood --the parking would branch over into their 15 neighborhood. Although I, personally, don't think that's 16 probably very likely that people are willing to walk 17 several blocks to get to retail --to park on Floyd Place. 18 But it is a possibility; and I think by exceeding the 19 standard as far as the parking goes, once again, I think 20 they've helped to mitigate a potential problem. 21 Anyone else have any comments? 22 (No response. ) 23 CHAIRPERSON: Would you call the roll, please. 24 MS. WELTY: Mr. Adams? • 25 MR. ADAMS: Yes. Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 212 MS. WELTY: Mr. Bleile? 2 MR. BLEILE: Yes. 3 MS. WELTY: Mr. Diekman --Mr. Diekmeier? I'm 4 sorry. 5 MR. DIEKMEIER: Yes. 6 MS. WELTY: Ms. Mosteller? 7 MS. MOSTELLER: Yes. 8 MS. WELTY: Ms. Mueller is absent. Mr. Roth? 9 MR. ROTH: Yes. 10 MS. WELTY: Mr. Schum? 11 MR. SCHUM: Yes. 12 MS. WELTY: Mr. Welker? • 13 MR. WELKER: Yes. 14 MS. WELTY: Ms. Krieger? 15 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 16 MS. WELTY: Eight in favor, one absent. 17 CHAIRPERSON: The vote was eight in favor, one 18 absent to approve the motion that we believe that all of 19 the conditions for the district plan and the site plan 20 have been met. 21 And with that, we will close the hearing and 22 close the meeting. 23 (The proceedings were concluded at 9:56 p.m., 24 on Tuesday, June 29, 2004.) • 25 Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 • 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 • 25 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE I, Cheryl M. Robinson, Professional Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of Colorado, do hereby certify that said proceedings were taken in shorthand by me at the time and place hereinabove set forth and was thereafter reduced to typewritten form under my supervision, as per the foregoing transcript; that the same is a full, true, and correct transcription of my shorthand notes then and there taken. I further certify that I am not related to, employed by, nor of counsel for any of the parties or attorneys herein, nor otherwise interested in the event of the within action. My commission expires February 25, 2007; and I have hereunto set my hand this July 9, 2004. Profe~ ~~~t~rter and Notary Public Javernick & Stenstrom, LLC 3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FAX (720) 449-0334 213