The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1985-11-25 (Regular) Meeting Agenda• I • • .. • City Council Meeting -Special No vember Z5, 1985 • . ' • • - 0 0 I . . • • - • SPECIAL MEETING: . I • • • COUNCIL CHAMBERS City of Englewood, Colorado November 25, 1985 The City Council of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe County, Colorado, met in special session on November 25 , 1985, at 7:30 p.m. Mayor Otis, presiding, called the meeting to order. The invocation was given by Council Member Higday. The pledge of allegiance was led by Mayor Otis. Mayor Otis asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the following were present: Council Members Higday, Van Dyke, Vobejda, Weist, Bile, Bradshaw, Otis. The Mayor declared a quorum present. * * * * * * * Also present were: City Manag er McCown Assistant City Ma nager Vargas 1\ssistant City Manager of Economic Development Powers Assistant City Attorney Grimm Deputy City Clerk Owen * * * * * * * Mayor Otis stated the purpose of the meeting was a public hearing to consider The Marks Planned Development. MAYOR PRO TEM BRADSHAW MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEl\RING. Council Member Bile seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: 1\yes: ~Jays: Council Members Higday, Van Dyke, Vobejda, Weist, Bile, Bradshaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. Mayor Otis stated the purpose the public hearing was to considered the Marks Planned Development. During the last public • I • - • • • November 25, 1985 Page 2 . I • • • hearing there were a number of questions on parking, traffic, South Franklin Street closure, and drainage problems. Assistant City Manager of Economic Development Powers presented information on this matter. Ms. Powers entered into the record certification of posting, the newspaper's publishers affidavit, and letters received since the last hearing (one from the Cherry Creek School District which in summary stated it was their practice that when developments come into their district that generate students, they either require dedication of land or payment of a fee in lieu of the dedication.) Ms. Powers stated she has talked to the City Attorn ey 's office about this, and it was staff's opinion that since the City does not have a written agreement with the Cherry Creek School District to impose these kinds of requirements on developers through the PO process or any other process, staff strongly encourages the developer to work with the school district. Ms. Powers entered into the record three letters from Cherry Hills Village, two from the Deputy City Clerk and one from the City Administrator. Ms. Powers summarized the letters to state the Cherry Hills Village City Council was concerned about the traffic and noise impact. Ms. Powers stated berms, fences, building materials used, and landscaping would mitigate the noise. Ms. Powers stated the third set of letters was from the State of Colorado Department of Highways. She entered them into the record and stated these would be discussed later. Ms. Powers read the following letter into the record: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 25, 1985 The Residents of the Waterford Project c/o Pearle Rae Kortz 1900 East Girard Avenue -11003 Englewood, Colorado 80110 RE: The Marks Project Englewood, Colorado Dear Residents: It is our desire that this letter confirm our discussions of November 21 regarding certain additional modifications and compromises to our development plan, I • • • • Nov e mb er 25, 1985 Page 3 . ' • • • 1 . We will commence development of the project at the west end of the si te and continue developing from the west end to the east end of the sit e ; 2. The bu ilding directly nor th of the Waterford Recreation Center will be moved as far west as possible on the sit e , as shown on the site pl a n atta ched her eto a nd made a part hereof (the "S ite Pl an "); 3 . The bu i ld i ng directly west o f the Waterford site will b e cut to one-half of its size, as s h own on the Sit e Plan; 4 . At any time wit h in six months from the date o f this l etter , we will eliminate the "on e -h alf " bu ildi ng referred to immediately a bov e upon p a ym e n t of $150,000 . Th e parties understand that the property is subject to industrial development bond financing and that the co ns e nt of the lender and o the r p artie s involved would have to be obtained i n the event that this option is exercised ; 5. A covenant will be pl ace on the site limiting development on wh at is commonly referred to as th e east parcel to the 3 1/2 build i ngs wh ic h we h ave agreed to , which bu ildi ngs will b e located only withi n the building envelope shown on t he Site Plan; 6 . We will participate with the Wate rford , on an equal cost basis , in constructing a fence no higher than seven fee t located along the south er n bound ary of our proper t y, as indicated in green on the Site Pl an , wh ich fence will consist of cedar fencing with brick pillars at approximately 30 to 40 foot i nter vals ; 7. We will construct, at our sole cost and e xpense , a fence no higher than seven feet located along the eastern boundary of our site, as indicated in red on the Site Plan, which fence will consist of cedar fencing with brick pillars at approximtely 30 to 40 foot intervals ; and 8. The plans and specifications for the above described fences and landscaping will be reasonably acceptable to the residents of the Waterford; q• The Marks Project will be constructed according to the plans and specifications submitted to the City of Englewood, amended only by the provisions contained in this letter; and 10 . Between this date and nine months from the date hereof, we agree to negotiate i n good faith with the Waterford Homeowner's Group or their designated representatives for the purchase of the entire east parcel, acknowledging that if a contract is entered into , such nine-month period does not include the contingency period of the contract. In the event that negotiations are entered into , we will show you all costs and expenses of acquiring , holding , and developing the entire Marks Project, • I • • • November 25, 1985 Pag e 4 . ' • • • and will make available to you the east p arcel at a price equal to the pro rata share o f such costs and expenses . The parties understand that the property is presently subject to industrial development fund financing a n d th at the property will have to be released from such financing i n t h e event that we enter into a contract as described above . I n consideration of the foregoing, the Wat e rford Hom eowner 's Group agree s to s e n d a representative to the City Council meeti n g to be held on November 25 , 1985 , and to state that the Wat e rford has n egotiated a s ettlement of its differences with the Chasewood Company and will n ot oppose the project. Sincerely, /sf Richard o. Campbell President -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms. Pow ers introduced Rick Kahm of the Engineering Services Department to discuss drainage . Rick Kahm stated the entire site was proposed for development in 1972 by the Larwin Corporation . The original site was b ounded by Floyd , Lafayette , Hampden, and Kent Village on the east with the back of houses that face Race Street. The over all development consisted of 57 .5 acres . As part of the original proposal the Larwin Corporation retained SMN consul ing engineers to do a drainage analysis and drainage plan for the proj ect . As part of that project Larwin dedicated to the City an area known today as Romans Park . Mr . Kahm stated he did the original design on Romans Park and in order to do that he had to work closely with the Larwin drainage plan. At the time the plan was done Larwin intended to develop the entire si e. Larwin was restricted in terms of what the amount could be released into the storm sewer on Floyd Avenue . At that time it was determined to be 60 cfs . Larwin showed in their original design to discharge 49 cfs at Floyd and Lafayette the area discharging directJy into the storm sewer (Kimberly Woods). The remaining area was to be taken to Romans Parks and was to be designed as a detention facility . Floyd Avenue was restricted to a release rate of 11 cfs . All the proposed development since 1972 has been required to conform with the original drainage report. As the Waterford developed along the east side they were also required to provide onsite detention and to conform with the study. The Marks is to start out with the westerly portion of the property. Originally Kimberly Woods consisted of 6.93 acres in the Larwin plan . In this particular study , 3.68 acres will continue to discharge directly into the storm sewer at Lafayette and Floyd. The remaining acreage approximately 3.2 acres will be diverted into the center of the Marks property. Originally, the easterly portion in the Larwin plan 7 .6 acres was intended to be discharged overland through Kimberly Village. In the Marks study all will b e diverted but 1.9 acres • I • • November 25, 1985 Pag e 5 . I • • • to the we st and into the central portion of the Marks plan. With the Marks study 95.3 cfs is discharging into Romans Park as opposed to 149 cfs under the Larwin plan which holds back approximately 35% of the flow . Ther e will be three detention ponds in the Marks area. Ms. Powers stated there were specific questions about the KKBNA report and the methodology and criteria used in preparation of the report. The second question concerned extension of South Franklin Street through the project. Ms. Powers stated there was a 60-inch line belonging to the Denver Water Board underneath the street and an easement that was recorded in 1928 controlling any development on top of it. There were also restrictions in the original Larwin subdivision waiver that stated any access onto Floyd was specifically prohibited except for emergency exits. Ms. Powers stated they have discussed this with the developer and asked if they would consider some additional type of contract or written documents between Chasewood and the City specifying that no access would be granted onto Floyd unless it was permitted by the City Council. Ms. Powers stated the third item of concern was the traffic problem at Girard and Lafayette. Ms. Powers stated staff has looked at the possibility of traffic lights, four-way stop, and parking restrictions. Ms. Powers e ntered into the record a letter dated November 4, 1985 from the State Highway Department offering suggestions decongesting traffic along Hampden, mitigating noise, providing for a double left lane from Gilpin coming south out of Gilpin onto Hampden Av enue. Ms. Powers discussed the impact on Kimberly Wood and Kimberly Village parking . Ms. Powers stated staff recommended both sides be restricted from parking and both sides be fire lanes because the sides are not side enough to access both sides to accomodate competing traffic. Ms. Powers discussed the impace of the development on Romans Park and stated it was dedicated by the original developers of the KLZ si te and was designed to serve the entire development not just Kimberly Woods and Kimberly Village. Joe Plizga, Traffic Engineer for the City of Englewood , came forward. Under testimony, Mr. Plizga commented on the State Highway's letter re: accel and decel lanes. Mr. Plizga stated based on the projected volumes he did not feel any change to the acceleration lane needed to be provided at this time . He suggested that the developer ma ke a statement that if at some time in the future it was deemed necessary then they would provide costs to make the necessary changes. Concerning the double-left lane coming out onto the south leg of the intersection of Gilpin which would be the Cherry Hills was unnecessary. Mr. Plizga I • • - • • November 25, 1985 Page 6 • I • • • stated he could change the cycle length to provide variable cycles during various times of the day to solve the traffic problem even further . Council Member Van Dyke asked if a third party opinion was n ecessary . Mr . Plizg a stated KKBNA agreed with his recommendation. Dick Campbell, 1120 Lincoln, Denver , president of the Chasewood Company, came forward. Mr . Campbell introduced Bob Hamilton , KKBNA, w~o conducted the traffic studies within the area . Mr. Campbell stated he would be glad to participate in whatever the City and State worked out regarding acces onto Gilpin and acceleration onto Hampden Avenu e . Bob Ham ilt on, KKBNA Consulting EnginP.ers, 425 1 Kipling, WheatRidge , came forward and explained the methods and techniques that they used in conducting traffic study for the Chasewood people. Mr. Hamilton stated the study was a collection of data from traffic counts (automatic and manual) at all of the location of entrances to the site . The counts were taken at certain times of thP. day. Mr. Hamilton stat ed he supported Mr. Plizga on his position of the double-left turn lanes and speed change lanes. Mr. Hamilton stated the extension of the acceleration lane was not the thing to do, and the double-left turns were not warr a nted from a volume consideration. Mr. Hamilton stated a clarification of percent of traffic using the Girard and Lafayette intersection should be adjusted downward to 48%. Mr. Hamilton stated using the projected total traffic for that intersection at build out, the service level should be "C" which by standards of the ITE manual were good . In response to Council Member Van Dyke's question, Mr. Hamilton stated they did not perform an in-depth study of the traffic around Charles Hay School. Mr. Campbell agreed to talk with the Cherry Creek School District. He stated there were no plans to extend the use of South Franklin Street. Mr. Campbell stated the site plan has changed due to negotiations with the Waterford people and final landscaping and fencing will be worked out when the time arrived. Mayor Otis asked for comments from the audience . Edward D. Payne, 5090 South Washington, came forward. Mr. Payne stated he would be moving into the Waterford. Mr. Payne stated the apartments were pleasing to the eye and he thought Kimberly Village, the Marks, and the Waterford could live in harmony • • I • • - • November 25, 1985 Page 7 . ' • • • Sidney Parr, 3729 South Franklin, came forward. Mr. Parr expressed disappointment that the Chasewood Company did not contact him about this project and that it appeared they conta cted the Waterford residents only. Mr. Parr contended there would be an increase in traffic, he asked how renters could add stability to the community, and how rental units could be compatible with the concept of single-family residents . Mr. Parr submitted pictures of the parking problems in the area . Chris Weir, 3170 South Race, came forward. Mr. Weir stated he lived near Romans Park. Mr . Weir stated he had noticed an increase of traffic between Dartmouth and Floyd, spPcifically at the east end of Romans Park. This area was being used more and more to avoid waiting at traffic lights at University and Hampden. Mr. Weir stated there were 17 children in the neighborhood under 15 years of age. Mr. Weir stated with new apartments comes the increase of traffic. Mr. Weir stated he managed apartments and noted he always saw moving vans in the neighborhood, he never knew any fellow apartment dwellers, and never felt an obligation to improve the apartment. Mr. Weir asked Council to disapprove the development. Kirk McCombs, 1401 East Girard, manager of Kimberly Woods apartments, came forward . Mr . McCombs introduced Mr . McDermott as a representative of the management firm for the apartments. Arthur McDermott st ated they operated the Kimberly Woods even though they did not own it. Mr. McDermott stated they were in the process of residing Kimberly Woods which would start in the next 30 days and would take 9 months . Mr . McDermott stated the no parking along Girard created a handicap for his proejct b ecau se that eliminate parking in fron of the club house and prospective renters would have no place to park. Mr. McDermott favored widen ing the street. Mr. McDermo tt asked for provisions to keep the existing areas from being seriously hurt by this new project. Luis T. Romero, 3220 So. Humboldt, came forward. Mr. Romero stated the area was already saturated with people and apartments, and he wanted to see the project disapproved. Gary Robinson, 3290 South Gilpin, came forward. Mr. Robinson stated he had problems with the people in the park. He stated he eventually installed a privacy fence. Mr. Robinson statde the apartments would worsen the problem. Kevin Sugino, 3271 So. Humboldt, came forward. Mr. Sugino opposed the project on the basis that it would lower property value, and increase crime, traffic and police enforcement costs • I • • • . , • • • November 25, 1985 Page 8 William M. Hebb, 3251 South LaFayette, came forward. Mr. Hebb opposed the project on the basis that it would incre a se traffic in the area of the school and would discourage prospective home buyers. Jerry Kennedy, 3225 South Race, came forward. Mr. Kenn edy opposed the project because prope rty ownership was important and this was not so for rentors. There was a place for rental property but not at this location. Mr. Kennedy opposed the the method of financing for this project and requested that Council ask the developer if financing was eliminated would they still go forward with it. Mr. Kennedy asked Council to disapprove the pro ject and wait to see what Congress does with industrial development bond financing. Jon Binder, 2009 East Floyd Place, came forward. Mr. Binder opposed the project based on the traffic problems that would exist while children are catching buses. Mr. Binder expressed concern about the possibility of South Franklin Street being extended. Norm Kerswell, 3250 So Marion, c a me forward. Mr. Kerswell reported the road condition through the apartments and park along Girard was in poor shape. Ms. Powers asked Harold Stitt of the Planning Division to explain the improvements proposed for the Hampden and University intersection . Harold Stitt, 7000 West 24th, Lakewood, reported two weeks ago he attended a meeting held by the State Highway Departmen t that was called to review a set of plans for proposed improvements to the intersection of US 285 and South University. One improvement was to extend the left turn pocket off of South University onto Hampd en Avenue going east . Mr. Campbell came forward and rebutted earlier remarks. Mr. Campbell stated they did talk to some of the homeown ers north of the site and many were concerned over the extension of South Franklin. Concerning the traffic problems, some can not be attributed to the proposed site (Sou th University and Hampden Avenue intersection). Mr. Campbell stated maybe C-470 would provide some relief. Mr. Campbell claimed the dP-velopment met or exceeded the requirements of the City. It was compatible with the zoning requirements and requested favorable enactment. There were no further comments. MAYOR PRO TEM BRADSHAW MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Council Member Vobejda seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: • I • • - • November 25, 1985 Page 9 Ayes: Nays : . I • • • Council Members Higday , Van Dyke, Vobejda, Weist, Bilo , Bradshaw , Otis. None . The Mayor declared the motion carried . • • • • • • • MAYOR PRO TEM BRADSHAW MO VED TO RECONSIDER THE MARKS PLANNED DEVELO PMENT BASED ON THE NEW EVIDENCE AND ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS FROM THE LAST P UBLIC HEARING . Cou n cil Member Van Dyke seco n ded the motion. Council Member Higday stated he originally was opposed to the development but had changed his mind , and he now was in favor of it. Mr . Higday stated he appreciated the audience 's comments, but they were not sufficient in his mind. Mr. Higday stated the development would cause traffic problems but this was not unusal to the metro area. Since it was zoned R-3, the Chasewood Company was the best company to develop the project . Upon a call of the roll , the vote res u lted as follows : Ayes: Nays: Council Members Higday , Van Dyke , Vo bejda , Weist , Bilo, Bradshaw , Otis . tone. The Mayor declared the motion carried . • • • • • • • MAYOR PRO TEM BRADSHAW MOVED TO APPROVE THE MARKS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT BASED ON THE FOLLOWI~G: 1. A fireflow delivery rate of 4,000 gpm at 20 psi residual main pressure be made available at the site. ?.. The dedication statement on the plat be reworded to eliminate reference to streets, alleys, and rights-of-way. 3. A drainage plan be approved by the Department of Engineering Services. 4. s. An OPTICOH emergency vehicle traffic control device be installed at South Gilpin Street and u.s. 285. Fire lanes be designated and meet the requirements of the Fire Department • • I • • - .. • • . t • • • November 25, 1985 Page 10 6. Parking is to be prohibited on Girard unless the street is widened as required by the Engineering and Fire Departments. 7. Fire hydrants be located as required by the Fire Department. 8. An amenities/recreation package must b e specified and included in the Plan. 9. The tot lot is to be relocated to the west of South Franklin Street extended. 10. Legal descriptions for all water and sewer easements must be approved. Water and sewer easements are to b e labeled as such and not a s utility easements. 11. The Mountain Bell easement language is to be included on the Plat. 12. All ancillary service uses and subsequent changes in use are to be approved by the Director of Community Development . Uses such as, but not limited to , barber shops, beauty shopes, gift shops, coffee shops and dining facilities may be permitted as ancillary services for the convenience of persons living in the development. Sales tax license will be issued for construction of the ancillary services bu ilding until a list of the specific uses or businesses has been submitted, and those uses are approved by the Directoer of Community Development. Any subsequent changes in the approved businesses shall be submitted to the Director of Community Develpment for approval. 13. A traffic study shall be prepared and submitted by the applicant for review and approval by the City and State Department of Higways. 14. Public service will requ i re easements, and the easement records in Book 3663, Page 142 must be shown on the plan. 15 . Facilities are to be provided for the safe and orderly flow of pedestrians and handicapped persons either within the development or adjacent of the roadway. The roadway is not to be used for pedestrian travel . • I • - • November 25, 1985 P age 11 . , • • • 16. The roadway sys tem within the development will remain a private roadway. All maintenance, including but not limited to s treet repairs, curb , gutter and sidewalks, signing, cr osswalk painting, drainage, snow removal, sand i ng and street sweeping, must be born by the property owne r . 17. Within a five-year period from the date the Planned Development is approved, the developer will pay their prorated share of the cost of i nstalling a traffic signal at the intersection of East Girard Avenue and South Lafayette Street if the City Traffic Engin eer establishes that the intersection warrants a s i ngle. 18. Any changes to U.S. 285 adjacent to the development must conform to the Highway access code. 19 . The sit e distance analysis recommendation of the KKBNA traffic study (Octiber, 1985) must be incorporat ed into the site plan. 20. The developer is encouraged to negotiate with t he Cherry Creek School District regarding their letter of November 19, 1985 . Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Higday, Van Dyke, Vobejda, Weist , Bile, Bradshaw, Otis. none. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * * There being no further business, COU NCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO ADJOURN. Mayor Otis adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m. ~~uc~~ DUty Cltyclelt • I • - ( ( • 1. /~l Call to order, call. 1,Q 2. Public Hearinq. • I • • • AGENDA FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING OF THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 25, 1985 ,7:30 P.M. ~ \~ /GJ' invocation, pladqe of alleqiance and roll To consider the Marks Planned Development. rFa--1/o (a) -'0 -Dt '. ~s2? (}..) ?; Adjournment. 1 I -r / 1 .... Ll 1 -'~?x/ 4 ~ 0 'ufY'-AND~ c coWif~ Cit Manaqar AM/sb .()_ • • I . . ( ( • . ' • • • TO: Mayor Eugene L. Otis Members of the Englewood City Council FROM: Susan Powers, Assistant City Manager for Economic Development~ November 21, 1985 DATE: SUBJECT: The "Marks" Development In addition to the questions/answers that were addressed in the November 14, 1985 memo, there were others raised by the Council which are listed below with responses. Q. The validity of the traffic study by KKBNA was questioned. A. I have asked KKBNA traffi c e ngineers to make a brief presentation at the November 25 Public Hearing to explain the methodology used to compile the analysis . Joe Plizga, Englewood's Traffic Engineer, will also be present t o answ e r questions. Q. Can parking restrictions be placed now on approaches to the inter-· sect ions of East Girard Av e nue and So uth Lafayette St reet, and ~as t Floyd Avenue and Sou th Lafayette Street. A. The Traffic Division will install signag e to r estrict parking within 50 feet of the intersections on each of the streets mentioned. It will be done within one week. Q. Can four-way stop signs be installed at East Floyd Avenue/South Lafayette Street, and Ea st Girard Avenue/South Lafayette Street. A. J oe Plizga has been a s ked to analy ze this possibility, and will repo rt on his findings at the Hearing on November 25. Q. What are some ways traffic can be controlled around Charles Hay School? A. The developer of The Marks has discussed traffic problems with the principal of Charles Hay School, and they are exploring alterna- tives. Q. Is there any possibility that South Franklin Street could be ~ opened to Floyd Avenue in the future without the permission of the City Council • • I • • ( l • . I • • • Mayor Eugene L. Otis City Council Members November 21, 1985 Page -2- A. The developer or property owner does not have the authority to do so without permission of the City. There exists a 60" water line under South Franklin Street, and any use of the property above it is controlled by an easement. When Kimberly Woods and Kimberly Village were constructed, the adopted plan included an emergency t 4 . access along the easement. As far as we can tell from existing 0 -records,-the barrier has only been opened once to allow fire truck access. Q. How many parking spaces are being provided for the overall develop- ment. A. The zoning ordinance requires 1075 spaces, and the development includes 1079 spaces. This results in an average of 1.7 spaces per dwelling unit. Q. The Highway Department is recommending that the acceleration lane on the west side of South Gilpin Street along U. S. 285 be extended to Old Hampden Avenue. This recommendation is contrary to the opinions of both the City and KKBNA traffic engineers. There was also a sug- gestion by Council-elect member Kozacek that if the full accelera- tion lane is required, then another acceleration lane to the north also be built to allow merging into the main acceleration lane. Is this feasible. A. The issue of wh ether an acceleration lane is required the full length of U. S. 285 from South Gilp in Street to Old Hampden Avenue is still being discussed between the various parties, and an answer will be available at the Public Hearing. Joe Plizga feels that by requiring an additional acceleration lane no rth o f the main acceleration lane that c ars will be forced t o merge across two lanes in order to go westbound on U.S . 285, and the distance available to do so is too short. Therefore, a highly dange r ous situation would result, and he recommends against this design. For the Cou n cil 's reference , we have attached the conditions placed on th e development by the Planning & Zoni ng Commission when they approved the Planned Development, as well as o ther staff recommendations for con- ditions. Also attached are three letters commenting on the Marks Pro ject. • I • • .. .. t •. - ( . ' • • - CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO IN THE MATTER OF CASE NUMBER 25-85, ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO THE ) APPLICATION TO APPROVE A PLANNED ) DEVELOPMENT TO A CERTAIN PARCEL OF ) LAND PURSUANT TO SECTION 16.4-15 ) OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE ) OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO ) FILED BY: Richard 0. Campbell The Chasewood Company THE DECISION OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMIS!i_ION 1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 1515 Denver, CO 80203 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT: South Gilpin Street and East Hampden Avenue This matter came before the City Planning and Zoning Commission on September 17, 1985, upon the application of Richard 0. Campbell, President of the Chasewood Company, which company is under contract to purchase the property located at l South Gilpin Street and East Hampden Avenue. • Those Members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission who were present were: Messrs. Barbre, Carson, Stoel, McBrayer, Mesa and Allen. Messrs. Magnuson and Gourdin were absent. The applicant, Mr. Richard 0. Campbell, was present and gave testimony and evidence to the Planning Commission. The Staff Report and testimony were received by the Commission and incorporated into the Record of the Public Hearing. After considering the statements of the witnesses and reviewing the documents entered as evidence into the record of the Hearing, the Members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission made the following Findings and conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the Public Hearing was initiated by the filing of an application for a Planned Development for the property located at South Gilpin Street and East Hampden Avenue. 2. That the notice of Public Hearing was given in the Englewood Sentinel, the off icial City newspaper, on September 4, 1985; and the property was posted for no less than fifteen days prior to the date of the Public Hearing. I • • ( • • • -2- 3. That the area which was being considered is a 25.54 acre portion of the original Larwin liulti-Housing Corporation Subdivision Waiver as amended. 4. That the applicant is under contract to purchase the subject site. 5. That the subject site was annexed to the City in 1962 and was zoned R-3, High-Density Residence in 1967. 6. That Hr. Richard 0. Campbell, President of The Chasewood Company, testified: a. That the development will contain 632 units in 28 buildings with a mix of 60% one-bedroom units and 40% two-bedroom units. b. That the R-3 Zone District would permit 40 units per acre, but this development will have a density of 24.75 units per acre. c. That the landscaping will be in excess of Ordinanc e requirements. d. That off-street parking is provided in excess of Ordinance requirements . e. That the conditions stated in the Staff Repo r t are acceptable to The Chasewood Company. 7. That Pearle Rae Ko rtz, Bob Toml inson, Alyce Heanwe l l , Irving J. Schwayder and Doris Rothman, resident owners of condominiums in the Waterford Tower, and their lawyer, Bruc e Johnson, stated t heir c oncern s about the proposed development . These conc erns were : 8. a . The ef f e c t the propo s e d development wi l l h ave on the Waterford Condominiums. b . The propos e d develo pment 's bui l ding h e i gh t, landsca ping and open spac e . c. The traffic to be generated by the proposed development and ita impact on the surrounding neighborhood. d. The amount of parking to be made available to the residents of the proposed development. e. The width of East Girard Place, wh ich t h ey testified is inadequate to accommodate the proposed development a nd the existing units in the Waterford Tower, Kim b erly Woods and Ki mberly Village. That several neighborhood residents testified as to their concerns of: I • • ( l . I • • • -3- a. Tennis courts' not being provided within the proposed development. b. Fire access within the proposed development. c. Site drainage within the proposed development. 9. That the Staff recommended that the following 12 conditione be required for approval of the Planned Development. a. A fireflow delivery rate of 4,000 gpm at 20 psi residual main pressure be made available at the site. b. The dedication statement on the plat be reworded to eliminate reference-to streets, alleys, and rights-of-way. c. A drainage plan be approved by the Department of Engineering Services. d. An OPTICOM emergency vehicle traffic control device be installed at South Gilpin Street and U. S. 285. e. Fire lanes be designated and meet the requirements of the Fire Department. f. Parking is to be prohibited on Girard unless the street is widened as required by the Engineering and Fire Departments. g. Fire hydrants be located as required by the Fire Department. h. An amenities/recreation package must be specified and included in the Plan. i. The tot lot is to be relocated to the west of South Franklin Street extended. j. Legal descriptions for all water and sewer easements must be approved. Water and sewer easements are to be labeled as such and not as utility easements. k. The Mountain Bell easement language is to be included on the Plat. 1. All ancillary service uses and subsequent changes in use are to be approved by the Director of Community Development. Uses such as, but not limited to, barber shops, beauty shops, gift shops, coffee shops and dining facilities may be permitted as ancillary services for the convenience of persons living in the development. No building permits will be issued for construction of the ancillary services building until a list of the specific uses or businesses has been submitted, and those uses are approved by the Director of Community Development. Any subsequent changes in the approved businesses shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for approval. 10 . That two additional conditions were entered into the record of the Public Hearing; those conditions were: , I • • - ( ( ( • . I • • • -4- a. A traffic study shall be prepared and submitted .~y the applicant for review and approval by the City and State Department of Highways. b. Public Service will require easements, and the easement recorded in Book 3663, Page 142 must be shown on the Plan. 11. That the Marks Planned Development is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 12. That the proposed density is less than that previously approved by the City for plans submitted by J. J. Carey, The Larwin Corporation, Thomas Regan, and the Prowswood Company. CONCLUSIONS 1. That proper notice was given of the Public Hearing held on September 17, 1985. 2. That Chasewood Avenue is Residence the application filed by Mr. Richard 0. Campbell, President, The Company, for property located at South Gilpin Street and East Hampden in compliance with the Planned Development and R-3, High-Density District regulations. 3. That the proposed Planned Development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City Comprehensive Plan. 4. That the fourteen conditions recommended by the staff were incorporated into the approval of the proposed Planned Development. RECOMMENDATIO N Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Commission to the Englewood City Council that the application of Mr. Richard 0. Campbell, on behalf of the Chasewood Company, for a Planned Development to construct a 632 unit apartment complex, be approved, with the following conditions: a. A fireflow delivery rate of 4,000 gpm at 20 psi residual main pressure be made available at the site. b. The dedication statement on the plat be reworded to eliminate reference to streets, alleys, and rights-of-way. c. A drainage plan be approved by the Department of Engineering Services. d. An OPTICOM emergency vehicle traffic control device be installed at South Gilpin Street and U. S. 285. e. Fire lanes be designated and meet the requirements of the Fire Department. f. Parking is to be prohibited on Girard unless the street is widened as required by the Engineering and Fire Departments. g. Fire hydrants be located as required by the Fire Department. h. An amenities/recreation package must be specified and included in the Plan. • I • - ( ( • • • I • • • -5- i. The tot lot is to be relocated to the west of South Franklin Street extended. j. Legal descriptions for all water and sewer easements must be approved. Water and sewer easements are to be labeled as such and not as utility easements. k. The Hounta~n Bell easement language is to be included on the Plat. 1. All ancillary service uses and subsequent changes in use are to be approved by the Director of Community Development. Uses such as, but not limited to, barber shops, beauty shops, gift shops, coffee shops and dining facilities may be permitted as ancillary services for the convenience of persona living in the development. No building permits will be issued for construction of the ancillary services building until a list of the specific uses or businesses has been submitted, and those uses are approved by the Director of Community Development. Any subsequent changes in the approved businesses shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for approval. m. A traffic study shall be prepared and submitted by the applicant for review and approval by the City and State Department of Highways. n. Public Service will require easements, and the easement recorded in Book 3663, Page 142 must be shown on the Plan. Upon a vote of the Commission on a motion made by Hr. McBrayer and seconded by Hr. Carson, the following members voted in favor of the Marks Planned Development: Messrs. Barbre, Beier, Carson, McBrayer, Mesa, Allen and Stoel. Messrs. Gourdin and Magnuson were absent. This Decision and these Findings of Fact and Conclusions are effective as of the Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission held on October 1, 1985. BY ORDER OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. Walter Stoel, Chairman • I • • ( • • • • ,,..P~H tt •' 'd f't : f ; ;'UII !''f "' ••• t(J '., /, nr ;r • 1~85 MEMORANDUM TO: Dorothy Romans, A~~nt Director of Community Development FROM: Joseph B. Pliz1.fCity Traffic En1ineer DATE: October 25, 1985 SUBJECT: THE MARKS I basically concur with the KKBNA Traffic Study pertaining to the proposed development ot THE MARKS, but have the following comments: 1. Eastbound traffic on U.S. 285 occasionally queues back to S. Gilpin Street during the evening peak hour. This condition will not be alleviated until improvements are made at the U.S. 285 and University intersection. 2. Colorado Division of Highways should review and comment on the proposed development. 3. "OPTICOM" emer~tency pre-empt equipment should be l!ldded to the ai~tnalized intersection at U.S. 285 and S. Gilpin Street (City forces will provide the coat of labor and technical expertise pertainin~t to the installation). 4. Parkin~t ia to be prohibited on both aides ot Weat Girard Avenue within the proposed development. 5. Facilities are to be provided tor the sate and orderly flow ot pedestrians and handicap persona either within the development or adjacent to the roadway. The roadway ia not to be uaed tor pedestrian travel. 6. Provisions should be made for school buaea to pull oft ot the roadway tor the aafe boardin~t and deboarding ot school children. 7. The roadway ~;yatem within the proposed develop10ent waa not deai~tned o r· constructed in accordance with En~tlewood Htandarda and therefore will remain a private roadwa y. All maintenance includin~t, but not limited to, street repairs, curb, lUtter and sidewalks, ai~tnin~t, croHawalk paintin~t, draina~te, snow removal, sanding and a treE t Rweeping must be borne by the property owners. JBP/an I • • /' L . ( DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS O ISirtCt 6 2000 South Holly Street Denver, Colorado 80222 (303} 757-9011 NovembeP 4, 1985 Harold J. Stitt, PZannel' City of Englewood Planning Department 3400 South Elati StPeet Englewood, Colorado 80110 . I • • • STATE OF COLORI\00 OEJI..AKTMENr 01' COMMUt-,JY DEVELOPMENT ~nu-wooo. r.mn'"""" ~ov ~ 198S Re: The t:arke, 632 wzit lza:ury apartment comple:r at West Hampden Ave. /Gilpin St. DeaP Harold: We have 1•eviewed this pPoposaZ. and offeP the foZ.Z.owing: The acceleration Zane for Gilpin should be e:rtended to Old Hampden E:rit. Also, the Gilpin south Z.eg should be modified to include double left tUPns out and a right tUPn Zane. Access to t l:is development has been previously detel'mined. !.'o add1:tional acaess to the Higl u.'ay wiZ.Z be gPanted. lve would no J•m aZZy respond to dra i nage conaerns, but none wePe shown. We PesePva approval of drainage until. a drainage grading pZ.an is SW'Ibit ted. We now have a right-of-way corPidoP fop Hampden Avenue (S.H. 285) of 120 feet - 90 feet of L'hich is noPth of the Section Line in Hampden Avenue. This develop- ment should not encPoach upon this coPPidOP (see attached reduced Right-of-Way plan sheet). The deveZopeP should pPovide adequate noise mitigation measUPes in the building constl'uation to minimize the impacts of traffia noise on any residential buildings. Any work within the Highway right-of-way wiZ.Z. Pequire a PePmit fPom this office at 5640 East Atlantic Place, Denver, ColoPadO 80224 If you should have any questions, please aaZZ Don Burkho lder at 757-9514. Ver y tPuly youPs, RICHARD J. BRASHER District Engineer r-_1:.., ;R /' ~f-:__ -·'--c-P ·,' ~~ /( , ~ ORVILLE A. RHOADES Maintenanae Supe Pintcndent OA R/DB /ssa rC": BraRh .?l'/Foue c G. F'Y'c"ltie ::; FUP (5 .11. 28b)R • • • I • • CHERRY HILLS ~·· . ,.,., t • I o ,.,. ------.--- Cl I . """ ' I I .. .,_I • . ' • • • 0 r&IOCb 1.() C•"'£11 (~ A c:<U•" e roo.r-e'"ft• C.orpc & O.to .. ~fiCO<pl --r=--- 5( 114 S"c. l!J T'*S R68W ~-'------! C A M E N I S C H GARDENS ~ ·---;---: '.::.----·move --- ·-' I I ~ L r i ;-I : L....! ,-• I i r-! T I ,. ... IC. .... .._ _ _, t-.o • T •• J... -~ • l I' i"L::-:L ~UJ . I. :±i rl I LLLLld::LL rt- • ------'=-_·.:.· ____ ---.--- ' ... I ; ,_j -~ 'I _, ..L_I L.LI L , UL COUNTRY HOME S -o lO'!. i i_j_......_L"1 . • • • ( • 24 !'>0 t , Q UJO !") A \"e l lllf' F:njCI! wond . Colo radu 8011 0 No ve mber 20 , 1905 Eug e ne Otis, Mayor City of Englewood 3 400 S. Ela ti En glew oo d, CO 80110 Dear Mayor Oti s: . ' • • • CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE COLORADO I '(W " Vlll•e<· C~n h'r Telrpho n .. 789-2!H J Last ni ght the Cherry Hills Villag e City Council had an opportunity t o review a proposed development in your co"'"unity known as "The Marks." It was reporte d to me mbe r s of the Cherry Hills City Council that the letters fro m Priscilla Wr i ght, Cherry Hills Village Deputy City Clerk, dated 1Jover.1 ber 4, and llovember 14, 19 85 , may have been misconstrued as supportive of "The Marks" development. The Council felt it necessary to clarify any misunderstanding because it defin i te l y has reservations in regard to that project. In a ddi tion to the concerns stated in the above-noted letters in regard t o n0ise mi t i gat i on and the appearance of Hampden, the Cherry Hills Vi llage City Counc il i s also concerned about the volum e of traffic generated and the consequen t safety prob 1 ems. Of course, our concerns in this regard are influen ced by the poss i bility of additional traffic from a resort hotel on the corner of Hampde n and Un i versity, which also would affect both entities. In closing, we hope you will study "The Marks" development carefully in l i ght of the sign i f i cant impact it wil l have on both our communities. Sincerely , ~~-/~ Charles S. Cow ard Ci ty tlan ager cc : Cher ry Hi lls Vi llage City Coun ci l I • • • • • - Hov~Mb~r 11. 1985 TO: fROM: SUBJECT: Susan P~~rs. Rsslstent City Manag~r ~or Econ~lc D~u~loJ)I1ent d R. R.· Kahrt. Of~ic~ Engine~.-® final Draineg~ Study for "Th~ Marks" Th~ pr~liMinery drainag~ study for "Th~ Marks" was pr~per~d by th~ Holland Corporation in August. 1985. end subMitt~d to th~ City of Engl~wood. for r~vi~w by th~ O~pertM~nt of Engin~ering 5~ruic~s in S~pt~Mb~r. 1985. Du~ to our extr~M~ly h~avy workload at that tiM~ end th~ coMpl~xity of this proj~ct. th~ consulting firM of Gr~iner [ngin~~ring Scienc~s was r~tain~d to provid~ en in-d~pth r~ui~w of th~ pr~liMinary dreinag~ study. Gr~in~r Engin~~ring Sci~nc~s id~ntified s~v~rel areas of concern r~quiring additional ett~ntion in th~ d~u~lopM~nt <•f an acc~ptable final Droinog~ Plan for this proj~ct. Th~ final Drainage Study. dat~d HoueMber 6. 1985. has b~en r~ceiv~d by our DepertM~nt. Our r~ui~ of this Study indicates that storM drainage ~or this project hes b~~n edequat~ly ed d r~ss~d. end w~ find th~ Study end proposed drainage plan to be ec c ~pteble. Si to: Hi story Th~ or i ginal sit~. known as the "KLZ sit~";'"Lerwin sit~" consisted of a perc~l of ground bound~d on th~ north by floyd Rv~nu~. on th~ south by U.S. Highway 285 . on th~ w~st by lafay~tt~ Str~~t. and on th~ ea s t by K~nt Uillag~ and th~ back lot -lin~s of a nUMb~r of houses fronting on South Rae~ 5tr~~t. Th~ Larwi n Corporation of California originally propos~d th~ d~v~loM~nt of epartM~nts on th~ entir~ site. In conjunction with the propos~d d~u~loPMent. Larwin Corporation contrect~d with M5M Consult1ng Engin~~rs to pr~par~ a storM drainag~ plan ~ncoMpasing surfac~ drainag~ on th~ ~ntir~ sit~. As a pert of the drainage plan. the Lerwtn Corporation dedicated to the City of Englewood. a piec e of ground known today a s "ROMl!lns Perk" to provide open space for the area l!lnd on -sit~ detention ponding r~quireM~nts for their ov~r -all develop,ent. Th e f 1rst two phases of Larwin con s truction consists e d of what <!!I re todl!l y kn~n a s: 1) KiMberly Uillage ApartMent s and. 2 > KlMbe r ly Uoods ApartMent s. for ~cono,l c .-~<!!son s . th e Larw1 n • I • • ( • • • - Corporation did not proceed with the re~ining develoPMent phesea of the project. In subsequent years, lerwin sold both kiMberly Uillege end kiMberly Uoods to third parties, end the reMaining undeveloped ground frOM the original site to the Prowswood Corporation for the developMent of the Ueterford CondOMiniUMs. Prowswood also proposed a phase type of develoPMent for this ground. Phase one, lying directly south of, and uphill frOM, KiMberly Uillege, is now coMplete. Prior to any develoPMent, Prowswood Corporation retained the services of MSM Consulting Engineers to handle their storM drainage requireMents in that MSM has been assoc1ated with the engineering on this parcel frOM the beginning . Prowswood/MSM incorporated ell of the requireMents frOM the original larwin drainage plan into all phases of their developMent. both coMpleted end proposed/abandoned. Again. I assuMe that, for econoMic reasons. additional phases of the Ueterford DevelopMent were abandoned by the Prowswood Corporation end the balance of the reMaining undeveloped ground froM the original site has been optioned/sold to the Chasewood CoMpany for developMent of "The Marks" The Holland Corporation, in developing a drainage plan for "The Marks" has also been required to incorporate ell the requireMents froM the original larwin Drainage Plan into their final Drainage Study. In Larwin•s original drainage plan, Most site drainage frOM the property was to be taken overlend vie streets to the south boundary of the detention pond which they provided to the City <ROMans Perk). Uith the lower portion of the property originally developed by larwin consisting fo KiMberly Uillege end KiMberly Uoods in existence, end the Ueterford•s drainage conforMing to the lerwin plan, it seeMs only logical that "The Marks" develpMent be allowed/required to conforM to the or igi nally -a pproved plan and discharge their storM waters overland via the streets to the detention pond in ROMans Park. Based upon the final Drainage Study by the Holland Corporet1on, when '"The Marks " developMent is coMplete. the overlend drainage probleM at KiMberly Uillage and KiMberly Uoods will be considerab :t y reduced in that this plan incorporates additional on -site de t ention pending of storM waters that would have been directly d i scharged downhill end across earlier developMent s under the •lrigi nel Larwi n plan. Additionally, drainage froM several ac r·es of developMent that was originally directed toward KiMberly U1llage has been re-directed across "The Hark s" end discharged directly into ROMans Park. RAK/ldo • I • { • • - ------- / ,..; CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE COLORADO 24110 E . Quincy Avenue En ··'~woocr . Colorado 10110 VW.ce Ceater Teleplaoae ,..2541 • November 4. 1985 Mr. Harold J. Stftt Planner II Cfty of Englewood 3400 s. Elatf Street Englewood. CO 80110 Dear Mr. Stftt: We apologize for not responding to you on •The Marts" development before the Cfty Council meeting on October 28. 1985 . We do. however. want you to be informed of our review of this development and hope you will keep us informed of any future developments •.. After reviewing the referral material on this development and the September 17. 985 Minutes of the Cf~ of Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission. we had the following comments. A. The plan .presented permits 26.6 units per acre although the zoning would allow 40 units per acre. Thfs present plan fs good in that we believe the present zoning should be maintained. B. The plan does provide for good landscaping along Hampden Avenue. Thfs fs also good and should be retained and/or enhanced as the approval process continues. c. An area of concern for Cher~ Hills Vfllage would be the traffic fmpact on the area. We have received a copy of the completed traffic stu~ but our planning consultant has been out of town and has not yet had an opportunity to revfew thfs. We will respond on thfs ftem at a later date. D. A second area of concern fs the anc i llary serv~ces proposed at the entrance to the development. According to the Minutes of the Planning Commission. any proposed ancillary service use or subsequent change f n use . must be ap ,proved by the Of rector of Community Development. Thfs 'approach fs satfsfacto~: however. we would appreciate being notified of any requests for approval of such ancilla~ services. • I . - . I • • • ' __ ,_ -----c---- 1 .. · .: ... ,. J. Stitt £( ~!age 2 .ovember 4, 1985 ( • We would appreciate receiving a copy of the Cfty Councfl Mfnutes of October 28, 1985 once they are available for dfstrfbution and befng kept fnfon.ed of any future developments on the project. Thank you for gfvfng us the opportunity to comment on thfs proposed development. Very truly yours, Priscilla B. Wrfght Depu~ Cfty Clerk • ' ... I . . - ( ( • ( • 2~ E . Quincy Avenue -.:nclewood, Colondo 10110 November 14, 1985 Mr. Harold J. Stitt Planner II City of Englewood 3400 s. Elati Street Englewood, CO 80110 Dear Mr. Stitt: . ' • • ,. • CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE COLORADO We have completed our review of "The Marks Traffic Study," dated October 1985 by KKBNA, Inc., Consulting Engineers, and have the following comments. 1. We fee 1 the appearance of Hampden Avenue could be improved by providing better landscaping along the sides and in the median. 2. Noise mitigation techniques should be fnvestfgated for the benefit of residents both north and south of the Highway. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on this proposed development. Very truly yours, Priscilla B. Wright Deputy City Clerk • I . • • • J • • • TO : Mayor Eugene L. Otis Englewood City Council Members FROM: Susan Powers, Assistant City Manager for Economic Development DATE: November 21, 1985 SUBJECT: Additional Comments on The Marks Development Today we received the attached letter from the Cherry Creek School Dis- trict. They were asked to look at the proposed development in order to inform us if areas were needed for bus stops. Their letter goes quite a step further, and addresses their interest in having land or cash in lieu of dedication given to the District. The City does not have a written agreement with Cherry Creek School District that provides for such cash requirements to be imposed on developments. Therefore, the staff recommends that the developer negotiate directly with Cherry Creek School District. gw • I • • - ( • . , • • • CHERRY CREEK SCHOOLS November 18, 1985 Mr. Harold Stitt Planning Department City of Englewood 34 00 So. Elati Street Englewood, CO 80110 RE: The Marks Dear Mr. Stitt : ~ ~f Plann ing and Commu nity Services ~ 4700 South Yosemit e Street DD:Ewooo, COlDMDO Englewood , Colorado 1101 11 NOV 2f1985 m -11 84 On b ehalf of Cherry Creek School District #5, I have reviewed the pro- posed development plan for The Marks. The portion of this d evelopment which lies within the boundaries of Cherry Creek District is expected to generate approximately 20 students. Presently, students from this area are assigned to Cherry Hills Village Elementary School (K-6), West Middle School (7-8) and Cherry Creek High School (9-12). The enrollment at Cherry Hills Village is currently at its building ca- pacity, therefore, the actual elementary school assignment will not be d etermined until these units are initially occupied. To help mitigate the student impacts from new developments, the Dis- trict has a standard request for land dedication or cash-in-lieu of land equivalent to four percent of residential areas. In this case, the District does not need a school site and is formally requesting a cash equivalent to .56 acres, as determined by the market value of the subject property . The District is aware that this request is unusual for developments within the City of Englewood and, therefore, we would be happy to disc uss other means to determine an equitable way to mitigate the impacts this proposal will have on the District. Lastly, in response to your inquiry about school bus routes in this area, the District does not an ticipate using Girard Avenue as a bus route. However, if unforeseen circumstances require a change in our bus routes, Girard Avenue may become a street used by school buses. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Sincerely, 2::::~/~ Coordinator of Planning PC: Dr. Leo A. Gerst Mr. John W. Buckner Mr. Bob DeJiacomo • I • • • . ' • • • I 1-!JS/85 -;.· 3(_ 'j /7). AGENDA ITEM ----PRESENTED BY ------ Moved Seconded MCYl'ION: c__( ) ct 11 o-u )(Ju 11<--)~'---' J rl t 1.-.f /r)c C[u ROLL CALL IITQOav Neal Vobe 'da Wei s t Bi lo Bradshaw Otis leU- Ayes Nay Absent Absu ln • I . . • • • AGENDA ITEM -----PRESENTED BY -------- ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Hlqday v ~1 1/;;.,,.~1· .lb v Vo b eida v Weist v Bllo i / Bradshaw v Otis v MOTION: I • • • • . I • • .. • AG ENDA I TEM -----PRESENTED BY -------- ROLL CAll Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain nagoay Nea..!._ Vobeid a We_!_st v--Bl lo v--Bradshaw Otis MOTION : I • • • . ' • • • ,.,. -• • = AGENDA ITEM ----PRESENTED BY ------ ----1 L-{1 1..12 c)/ .... .<./) l Lu /L2 CAL (t_ Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain HlgCiay Neal Vo b eida Weist Bi to Bradshaw Otis MOTION: I . • • , I • - • • ~----... ·l""""" ..... ·r=r-----------,~-.. ·------'--- AGENDA ITEM ---PRESENTED BY ------ _A-':JL tu .. U c--t 'U ch ./t ~ Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain _11_1 gday Neal Vobe1da Weist __8_1 to Bradshaw Otis MOTION: • I . • • ttr AGENDA ITEM ----_ prukY -~1-V:! dL L d3 de_i; ·n.i.J.A"f--.-1 'f1'll.al.c Moved Seconded HTgday Meal Vobe1da Welst Bllo Bradshaw Otis MCYriON: .. , I • • • < ~~. PRESENTED BY ------ ROLL CALL Ayes May Absent Abstain I . • • . I • • • ,$1 -----khz ,.,_ P~EmEDBY __________ __ AG ENDA ITEM ------ ~ C/~ -t~ --zvnul t>L {u ~~ ~'-'1 ~/{ Oo//h;''D-r· dccJ.PAA~~ -!1-4-?5 ft~..A-j ' ?.a./ (Ul J1~~ ~~~'ff t ; • /I..A '· t..A.>-.--.... '-1 I t1 Ll Lt.JL, Y~f :r .J!'--1.-L -z-n uv -~~J . --;,s;c t'J a-ff 1'Q.e 'fJtJ t.lG<-11-J':, .A.A. ~ '. . Lu0 )Pt. t7 1L (:1....U. [ 'J n 7. ROLL CALL Moved Seconded IITCiOaV Neal Vobe 1da Wei s t Bllo Bradshaw Otis MOTION : Ayes May Absent Abstain I . • ,, . :::&:: • • • PRESENTED BY ------ AGENDA ITEM ---- L 1 fd-JG 't.s( ~ · ~ Cl1 n , " r '1_) u ;r "ft! Je_, o 1 ()..J--/u_J ) u 6u_Q__t. LLJ h ta i:u.t!-&. v-J'l-0 e.Jtj__,,._: 'j» ~ ,.1-oi'-<>LJ ~d- ~c.;n o 7!..-0 jJo_ c. ~ u ~ a I u !_ ? -;J_ ~ , )'?L '?'n.u ·?u ~ •1 '" 7J _/"] _hJ ~tV (! 1 eL f' rz, 'fo"t "/arflc ju._ J:~ '1 u ~~ 1/1 .a ('CUI.--r cU. c. /c rLlj}-(f U C eLi < ~ ~ 6' .V )J J0"-' ~ /" /c 'J t {i eo_C · ~_.., />V<Ji ><><' "'f JU!v ._ _...~ ~ 'f.-_.t 'R._) t UJ !--U IJj_ Lft-./ '--/J ,"\ " , 'j-Cl ~· L j_, i.tt"'t.~-J m (' I t "J ~' )!_, YJ '1---L _/)V' U-o.<> .tf-Lj-._A\..6-L _,2 ')I t"'U..'r z ~ >"'--~ Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Moved ll1g0ay Neal Vobe1da Weist Bllo Bradshaw Otis MOTION: -• I . • ,\:::;&:: - AGENDA ITEM ---- 1/2 c ~/)al . I • • • P~E~EDBY ______ _ f{ K [3/(H ,. 11 J lL 6J tJ_I i.l :u "---" -Yf t t-.f. >J J. .J' /JI -:J. L{ -C .6 (. C.:~ (J((U . l~d k-- Moved Seconded HTQday Neal Vobeida Weist Bi lo ~--;-t2 t1 f~ ~L~r <I I 7 1 -e j__ '-11..ru1.-o 7 ->' 3 ( tl "'--</ . 3 {~ - Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Bradshaw Otis MOTION : • I . • • . ' • • • AGENDA ITEM ----PRESENTED BY ------ ~) 3) 1VJ ~Cj ~ ~) 9o p ../ 2L )/ ~ ~ 1Lf.J ~ ( ~ '-< -~~ l < ~ r; 1-t:h--- /(_ 9-->-- -1 ~'7., ~~ t (;._~ o.~~ ~ ~,s ~ o -6)~ l ' o) Y-' c. t ~.__I ;1 /-tt·£i -- ti.10 t: _...,, ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Ab t I s a n Hlgday Neal Vobeida Wei s t Bi lo Bradshaw Ot is MOTION: I . • • • • - AGEND A ITEM PRESENTED BY ---------- -f o,'-_,t Yl (l ~'o~ 5{1% /1 ~i 02u.) w -~ (!_ ~~ . .L J ,x21LW1 t G /d 1f ( .'),.._.) -~ u 6--. 6 -~ ;fwry)) ~ ¥ tt.1. aJ!;J_ _,{ 1v c; ,~~ --{ J {. 'l'---;<.u.tfL -;e;-<A--~ n ~ • Lt__t, ~ (c ~ S I 1 ).._0(_t n l -_fir-z. <--b '( ~ < 2:_, eL.~ (..! { /<1 (l kfLl ~ /lw.-f U. rz~ 'l k..t · /1,.. ( t __. ~1-L -l: ~ -< i hl U-1 ( _/{ ?t1 1 0 L' t ~)c:C. • (l' u. ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain H•·aday NeaT Vobeida Weist Bi lo Bradshaw Ot i s MOTION: I . . ' • - • • ,) AGENDA ITEM ----PRESENTED BY ------- {'V--'0 c .. -v~ ~ J c.-<-' ....-iA ?.)J 0~ fo t'-"' (. Hoved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Hlgday Neal Vobe1da Weist Bllo Bradshaw Otis MOI'ION: I . • . I • • • l I ~ AG EN DA ITEM PRESENTED BY ----------- J{U'U-<r ~L lc '/ c£t?l L<-lc. tJc, J !/ /]4.. fi H' r-u o L<.J>-~ ()'~ c"-' 0 1~ (, .o+,q<), ~J_/vv-itc,-{;:s '~ -u__.c lu. x::u.-i c' 6--f ~l~f l( A v ( 1 J l ) ) l (' (._ ~ .... J _d6." l { :> ")"\l ' .... ~ j Moved Seconded en Ayes Nay Abs t Ab sun Hlgdav Neal Vobeida • Wei s t Bllo Bradshaw Oti s MOTION: • I . • • • • • ,-'Itt AGENDA ITEM ---- P~EmEDBY __________ __ -~~ t-,.. e~"'f1<jt: '-. t.-t· -';_1}1--:J'>l.x-.--L o<N _ __. _ _., J /!{_eLf/~-< -~ / t ou ct ri '---[_ 6 ~~~-----c:L<__~<.!. £r ~ t;tW · ~4/Lit r;;/ e..N t OA.U • r 'fb. 1L--< '-'--'f'' ~ V-'-nu' ¢'... J c ~l'>~ ('t n ftid- Z (f_ t-~L-~----Lt( Ja_-u ruP ~-~~ d {J c-z. c~ c ~. ( v (_ ~ '77~ -Jiz1 2.• c ()'Lt)J c iJd/ '-/1 ..? u /)1 7rcrz 7. ( · Lt o Yfe(P'U ~ ;]' - -t 'd---71 ~~ u -U.t..;U. t7 JU _.,Mcp . Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Hlqdav Neal Vobeida Weist Bllo Bradshaw Otis MOTION: I . • • . ' • • • ':all! AGENDA ITEM ---- P~E~EDBY _________ __ > ( 1.c.J....t. ' ) I I -n c:-(!. t.. 01.1 ~ z (;.J: t £· ~a J1-...J --c.,)~~ J-~~ -1<- -J ">' c._ ·[1? a/ <-----Jv-trc_£ ?? ·u ~ V ; r:jO<- L • ~.:.<L r (.(7 (? tff/? j -u / ~ u el-f (J'/o% 1'"1 ;I !L7 , !?-t4.1 ~ -/1 c2h.u2 U ?L-1:!:/J (--d.-L '--/.!} /'~ -~/)'...--tlA./-:0 ~C.. u ' ~ ·---u )~ww t£;f_ttUJJLl' 2.£ .2/! a,j~ ~ ~~o ~ ·-/7 )lt .. ~~ arcj. 2.1 ?)U. ..,~ -p. '1?.,._ -<~ r )'-'--PL _!!.-<J , + ;Lpu.,<JJr!-Cl<....--~ a£LA...:IU.~ ~'-Ctf~t.l>JU-...1 - .,,. J ROLL CALL v:--<--1. L<. 'L.J'' ' Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain H••Qdav Neal Vobe1da Weist Bllo Bradshaw Otis MOTION: • I . . • • I • - • - '~• AGENDA ITEM ----PRESENTED BY ------- ·t l~ /11 (_(t-tl'> -o '/J )"-' ~. , w .l' J;f ~ Ze r t) o I ".1-o f & J::k l t'J-1.. L •tf_ L L?X.t ?"L ~ ( _, <' ·'7 t -t::<-... <._( t , 0/-..-/ t r ~t:.. j~ Hoved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain -Higday Neal Vobe1da Weist Bl lo Bradshaw Ot i s MCYI'ION: I . • • • • • • • .. - -(. AGENDA ITEM ----PRESENTED BY ------- ft2__,m u~ 3 2 z 0 s.; /Ju_ ')) 1- Moved MCYriON: eli )L_.- .?f-J t '-----J ~ ; " ) Seconded HTQday Neal Vobe1da Weist Bllo +a -(1?_-t"m~-~.-t') l .o o~.... <--t.' J) ' ) G. U tL.. U.JL u L , c c l 1-LL...- { dL t?.. 1 /Jt.. z )k t '~ u 1:./ 'tc £ L ._ ~ 1 ''j ~ ROLL CALL Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Bradshaw Otis I . . . I • • • AGENDA ITEM -----PRESENTED BY ------- t (?. --zy <J.u {• (i -6-U .'c. t.... t:t. z..t.J f) ~.U ?V•J J'l......l f(l-&i~ u 2(.f/ (?_.. }:J L 1-I 'o ( r ,, -'c. y-'7~ '"~C. e~ {• t1.. il }!( ( l( t l J! 0(1 t..LLf2 ~ L..J --l.<C" /[{L ...___.-ci t 'Lt 'l\ r1 ~ ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain H,goav Neal Vobeida Weist Bi lo Bradshaw Otis MOTION : I • • • • • • - AGENDA ITEM PRESENTED BY ------- ~ 3211 ~ ~ -~2 ~L/ f k-{ p ~~ ;. ~ -J.. 1c ~ /2.12 a <J..J<_ _1. 1'--' ~ v. n Lit__ -i )/{'?J!()(L_,_. ./1--T1c t-~~~C!../-d (.J 7 c .l_ ~ ·,f...J /L tu " .L Moved Seconded MOTION : ' (~(_ CL--XJ l<--t 2LA-(k.. !v. 1-d /1-l'r.( / '1.-L,/lfLu!.d U ~ J 1.() ~ /~ (__ 1 ROLL CALL c ... ~ tc ~<~cV: _.L 'P.P 1 "'??JJ Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Hlgday Neal Vobe]da Weist Bi lo Bradshaw Otis I . - • • • 1 • • • AGENDA ITEM ----PRESENTED BY ------- u.r /)'Lc.~ytl.Zt-~ .-A J c l - -Lru/ < .__ / ;0 (" 4 ( ~ , __ ·----:J-:'7 ' ? 2 c: s· S Koc.c.-- t-'--<--;J<i-·11 ~ .<.~ nz_.'t:. VJ-Yr ( / -3r ~.-{y.J 1u <CU'c& 7?.1--· ? t F 2-~ I 2-1 .. ''7 Z/1 ~ ). )) f/ LU )-/- / --Ia ..L"' 1'-Jw () ~ .?--' ~ /) _.:-~ u pt.-{-r,. ltt -,/! (Q P I ~ ~_..~ ->Z ft:Lf ~ ') ./r', .. J-,..£"' t?J')I. ~ c(.__ c::." (').J '? l (' t )I_ 7 () {. ROLL CALL 7 f C/' . 1 (_'f )/;. · J L .Lt. ~'J J Hoved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Hlqdav Neal Vobe1da Wei s t Bi lo Bradshaw Ot i s MOTION: I . - • • • • AGENDA ITEM PRESENTED BY ----------- J )'La. nl. t~U/ .A--t. ?AJ--t-_.,___, / Zc _ex cu.L..2 _, a_/ L .---. -o! !<. ·,')l CJU;) 0 \Z /e_ clc.-'7. Moved M<JriON: ' -f--_ • -;/ -l £{~ ~ 1 '-~ )' c ..., j .._..<-( ~ •J _/ -' ?')' </li.<J-Vd --U/TLdd ~I~ ,x£Zu<.-f SO t1J )Lt0-~ -_;() >.a-c. />'1 ~ {_ /.. .• -n> ~ l'L ·c:A. 2.-i.J-~ l e , -J~--"-.rv c:;W..Ilo ~/),<__) • 4,!-4-~ :r .,C..r?U tJ c./;. .-,. cr ~t 7 c.e.J! p t...a./l-·-~ .Jlf <-"t '--Y --r-t b-do -~iClt~?J ROLL CALL Seconded Ayes ~Y Absent Abstain Hlgday Neal Vob~d a Weist Bllo Bradsh- Ot i s • I . . • • - AGENDA ITEM ----PRESENTED BY ------- -/ aj !L c...-:;.j.h:-6 t!J._t_ >v? J '-1; t_ r? {; u I;Ji t.i_, ! L C./ t c t 1 luLu (!_ {;._{_( 7J ~-l ( f,-4... 6 t((.y d ( . 6 t r ) ')' -~-t 1 u 7't u; iA. t 1-I< ( } J A &_.(Lti 0 ~zs St:: /)Lt. u.---tt.:.__ ex ~ C' rl' ::..t 2-<. ~ f. .1:. t 1:.11. tll.. ... j ----c:... ych/L-{ 1{ (J ~ . ) ,A_/>-' ' • }M t (._ ,c;-{ u !Q_. ___. ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Hlqday Neal Vobe1da Weist Bllo Bradsh- Otis MOTION: I . . • . I • • - AGENDA ITEM ----PRESENTED BY ------ ,y !'U -r:tJ -'fj /th f l.b t~!i 6 ~// I " (u(JV W Z 'f ct, :,j· (1.. 1 t rt1cX " ""--d ./)} Tj ~ b.._(J_ 1 -.5 u L -VYtA~ e., c-v'_ .A'Ii vA '"~'"~ j L r l~ J -(t U ..-'>---fl. L:...c_ 1-t~-"~ ~ A z;l2 J._. 1- ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain ~ Neal Vobe,da Weist Bllo Bradshaw Otis MOTION: • I . • • • • • ~---------------------------L '---- AG ENDA I TEM ----PRESENTED BY ------- -~ L6>.//) Hoved l./ ¥.-L t-,_ f. ·{ '-" t_, . 4.-:~ 4-(c i Ci ·'"\.U.J{· /)._JI J . ,.e{Y'Ltu.J u.:t:i" j-'-Q.-4 '1 0 U }-u/J 'to c~ 1 e .. -l_ tJ ~ !u!J-<-u ~, '}' .J:; + .-1 ")._ 'c ).)V·~ ROLL CALL Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Hlqdav Neal " Vobeida Wei s t Bi lo Bradshaw Otis MOTION: c. { '--"' • I . . . ' • • - ~------------------------------L~ AGENDA ITEM -----PRESENTED BY -------- ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Htg<lay v Neal Vobe1da Weist Bi l o v Bradshaw Otis M<YI'ION; '/ f 6 ~ ')I ?u 0 I...-(· 'l,..C. <1 ( /") "-"-<. ~ j ·-I • • ')Gfllt u_v.-lt.(.../ 'il (J l.l ) J ../ • • • • AG ENDA ITEM ----PRESENTED BY ------- {. ~ l<J-, '(l r~ IV-()I ~ /-/)~ ~-() '!t!C ·' -~~a {0 J J x:') t ')lu Ll2 t 1 J' Z Y.-<-~ ·-. jt)1J' --L£ a Moved Seconded MOI'ION : Hlgdav Neal Vobe,da Weist Bllo Bradshaw Ot i s c ILK.'.. c-L ~;{. L :ct., -y J ? U ·~ ~ ~ o ~· u ??r -L-0./ z~ ~ t - J ROLL CALL Ayes Nay Absent Abstain / 7 I I \ " I . . . I • • • AG ENDA ITEM -----PRESENTED BY ------- ROLL CALL Hoved Seconded Abstain HTgday v Neal I Vobeida I Weist I Bllo I v Bradshaw I Otis I • • MOTION: -) _/) ) ( -v h c • • • • - AGENDA ITEM -----PRESENTED BY ------- ~JL{v Ct---t· 1: ,4bJ £7 ( et...{ ,/U-.J i U I ( l ~.:. p p~ ~I >>< t L:~<.:- i {_ c-~f-. ROLL CALL ;/-z J- Hoved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain HIQday Neal Vobe1da We 1st Bi lo Bradshaw Otis MOTION: • I . • . ' • • - TO: City Manager McCown FROH: Susan Powers, Assistant City Manager for Eoooo•i< Dev•lo,..., <;;~ DATE: Dec-ember 3, 1985 SUBJECT: Conditions of The Marks Planned Development Approval I Approval of The ~:arkc !'lanned :>evE.::.op;n.:nt by City Council on Novr!llber. 25, 1985, was subject to the following conditions: 1. A fireflow delivery rate of 4,000 gpm at 20 psi residual main pressure be made available at the site. 2. The dedication statement on the plat be reworded to eliminate reference to streets, alleys, and rights-of-way. 3. A drainage plan be approved by the Department of Engineering Services. 4. An OPTTCOM emergency vehicle traffic control device be installed at South Gilpin Street And U. S. 285. 5. Fire lanes be designated and meet the requirements of the Fire ' Department. 6 . Parking is to b~ prohibite~ o~ Cirnrd unlecs the ~treet is wt~·~•A AS required by the Engineering and Fire Departments. 7. Fire hydrants be located as required by the Fire Department. 8. An amenities /recreat ion package must be specified and included in the Plan. 9. The tot lot is to be relocated to the west of South Franklin Street extended. 10. 11. 12. Legal descriptions for all water and aPWer esqements mu st be ap~roved. Wnt e r and sewer ensemPnts are to bp lnh r>l l:'d oq surh 11nd not as utility easements. The Mountain Be ll ea jement language is to be included on the Plat. All anclll nry serv l ~e ust's and !IUhAequ<'nt l'hang•s in u11e are to be appro ved by the Dir ec tor o f Commun ity D~vel o p e nt. U11ea 11uch a s , but not limited to, barber ahops, beauty shop~, gift shops, co ff ee s h ops and dining fa c ilities may be permitted as ancillary • I • • '. • • • .. - City ~tanager McCown December ;Y, 1985 Pagp -2-(I ~-?~((~ services~ the convenience of persons living in the development. No ~8 Ptim1ts will be issued for construction of the ancillary services building until a list of the specific uses or businesses has been submitted, and tho s e uses are approved by the Director of Community Development. Any subsequent changes in the approved businesses shall b e submitted to the Director of Community Develop-ment for approval. 13. A traffic study shall be prepared and submitted by the applicant · for review and approval by the City and State Department of Highways. 14. Public Service will require easements, and the easement recorded in Book 3663, Page 142 must be shown .on the Plan. 15. Facilities are to be provided for the safe and orderly flow of pedestrians and handicapped persons either within the development or adjacent to the roadway. The roadway is not to be used for pedestrian travel. 16. The roadway system within the development will remain a private roadway. All maintenance, including -but not limited to street repairs, curb, gutter and ~idewalks, signing, crosAwalk painting, drainage, snow removal, sanding and street sweeping, must be born~ by the property owner. 17. Within a five-year period from the date the Planned Development is approved, the developer will pay their prorated share of the cost of in s talling a traffic signal at the intersection of East Girard Avenue and South Lafay ~tte Str ~e t if•the City Traffic tngineer estab lishes that the intersection warrants a signal. ' 18. Any changes to U.S. 285 adjacent to the development must conform to the Highway access code. 19. The site distance analysis recommendation of the KKBNA traffic study (October, 1985) must be incorporated into the site plan. 2 0 . o w ct:rCc"t wood Com~arc The developer is encouraged to negotiate with the Cherry Creek School District regarding their letter of November 19, 1985. • I • • • - c TilE CHASEWOOD COMPANY A Trammell Crow Residential Company November 25, 1985 The Residents of the Waterford Project c /o Pearle Rae Kortz 1900 East Girard Avenue -#1003 Englewood, Colorado 80110 Re: The Marks Project Englewood, Colorado Dear Residents: It is our desire that this letter confirm our dis- cussions of November 21 regarding certain additional mod- ifications and compromises to our development plan. 1. We will commence development of the project at the west end of the site and continue developing from the west end to the east end of the site; 2. The building directly north of the Waterford Rec- reation Center will be moved as far west as possible on the site, as shown on the site plan attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "Site Plan"); 3. The building directly west of the Waterford site will be cut to one-half of its size, as shown on the Site Plan; 4. At any time within six months from the date of this letter, we will eliminate the "one-half" building referred to immediatel y above upon payment of $150,000. The parties understand that the property is subject to Industrial De- velo p ment Bond financing and that the consent of the lender and other parties involved would have to be obtained in the event that this option is exercised; 5. A covenant will be placed on the site limiting development on what is commonly referred to as the east parcel to the 3~ buildings which we have agreed to, which buildings will be located only within the building envelope shown on the Site Plan; Western Division I -:~...~-II u._ ~ 1/:-- J' II 2\- 11 20 Lincoln Street I Suite 1515 / Denver, Colorado 80203/ Phone 303/832 -452 2 • I • • • . . • • .. c Page Two November 25, 1985 6. We will participate with the Waterford, on an equal cost basis, in constructing a fence no higher than seven feet located along the southern boundary of our property, as indicated in green on the Site Plan, which fence will con- sist of cedar fencing with brick pillars at approximately 30 to 40 foot intervals; 7. We will construct, at our sole cost and expense, a fence no higher than seven feet located along the eastern boundary of our site, as indicated in red on the Site Plan, which fence will consist of cedar fencing with brick pillars at approximately 30 to 40 foot intervals; and 8. The plans and specifications for the above de- scribed fences and landscaping will be reasonably acceptable to the residents of the Waterford; 9. The Marks Project will be constructed according to the plans and specifications submitted to the City of Engle- wood, amended only by the provisions contained in this letter; and 10. Between this date and nine months from the date hereof, we agree to negotiate in good faith with the Water- ford Homeowner's Group or their designated representatives for the purchase of the entire east parcel, acknowledging that if a contract is entered into, such nine-month period does not include the contingency period of the contract. In the event that negotiations are entered into, we will show you all costs and expenses of acquiring, holding, and de- veloping the entire Marks Project, and will make available to you the east parcel at a price equal to the pro rata share of such costs and expenses. The parties understand that the property is presently subject to Industrial De- velopment Bond financing and that the property will have to be released from such financing in the event that we enter into a contract as described above. In consideration of the foregoing, the Waterford Homeowner's Group agrees to send a representative to the City Council meeting to be held on November 25, 1985, and to state that the Waterford has negotiated a settlement of • I • • • Page Three November 25, 1985 ,. c . I • • • its differences with the Chasewood Company and will not oppose the project. ROC /glw ply, Richar~pbell President • I . PUB~ ISHER'S AFFIDAVIT STATE OF COLORADO I In ( COUNTY OF Arapahoe 1 r •. Df)nna .A .. Shear do 106emnly twelf that I am the ... publisher ... -the Eng l ewood Sentinel "* the urne tl a wreekt _. newapaper publ,..._ .,,.,.Cnyot . -~ngl ew_ood Count.,of • Arapahoe State ot Color acto anCI has 1 general c uculahon tt\4tr e tn , thll Sltd newspaper has bffn publtShed COf\t tnuovstr-a nd untnterru ptedty '" Utcf Couf'ltyof Ara pahoe tor a ~rt od ot more th an 52 weeks pr~or to the '"'' p u bhc a tton of tne enne•eo not•ce that litO ne..,.paper •I entered '"the p ost oH •c:.e at .Englewood Colorado as second ctus ma•t mane r a na that 1M u ro newSDiper '' a newspapet wtlhtn the meentng ot the l et of tl"'t ~ne r a t Assembly o f tne State or Color ado appro¥ad March 30 1123. ~ .,,,,._d -legal Nottees af\d Ad...,e n •aements .. ~ ot~ actt. ret a t•no to the cmnttng and OUOftsh•ng of legal not<n a nd ach-e rt ts"nants thet the a nMa ed no1tce .,., p ubltShed .n the tegul•r •ncs ent ~t • ,.,Uft of .. ld news~per once each wee\ ofot t'\e ume d•y of e ech week lor the per.OCI of c:onsecutrve U'llef't•ons that tf'le ,.,II 1i~dthe S~.o~biCf•~O and •*~o~~ .. me a Notary I-LV ~u ·~ ,,, \J.: ctay of • • • • ::!::.!: :::;-:.t!-:-..:::. -:::=: ~~ =.::: ::. ~::-::· ,,,. ..... •• t.lle cJt,. c.-u ~,.. , ... .._. a.u ••-t . t.• :::'!.;~'~ :.::-:. !:::::!::.~-::-:..-::·:. ::...::,:':"'..!. .. .!: ::.~·.:; :::.. ~-.:r. ~ !: =:::--:. ~=~~~··· •"••· cet.r"' ... , ...... ,... -...u. .... , ... , .... ~ :!: =::.,: ~.~! -n. ctty"' .., ....... c.a ..... .-u• ....... .. ,., ... , ........ -•rr•••• ~,, n •• _..._,_ ·='=" .. _ I • • L oV" A .. 11-.:a.s ·85 • 0 0 0 • • CERTIFICATION POSTING Board of Adjustment and Appeals , City Planning and Zoning Commission City Council Attached ia a photograph of a aign a s it is ere cted on the follovina daacribed property . Addreaa: West Hampden Avenue and South Gilpin Stree t Legal Deacription: PPI Numbers 1971-35-3-00-004; 1971-35-4-00-00 7 I he reby certify that t he above de scribed property was poated continuoualy f or a period of _ __.::l _/.:___ da ys, f rom __ \-A__;,.......,l))..,,.o.<=M""""oo""""4"""'ty.-!2=_,_....;P::.-_____ _ to -~-.;....__.;_;_-_.;;.._.....;.__;;>-5...;:;...__ ~~()~ Signature Pro ject Coo r dinato r Relation to property Novem ber 25 1985 Date State of Colorado IS County of Arapahoe Subacribed and sworn to before ae this ;2 5C~ 19 eo-. Ndary Public/ Address My Ca.aiaaion expires~//) lfcf-6 ,:7 / t! / (!_(. U.j~ tj ~~~ A aeparate certification should be presented for each Notice of Hearing /.3 1 Sign . Su ch certification may be s ubmitted to the Department of Community De ve lopment prior to t he Hear i ng or presented at the Hearing. /f~a s-~s • I • • - 0 0 0 • . ' • CERTIFICATION POSTING Board of Adjustment and Appeals City Planning and Zoning Commission City Council Attached ia a photograph of a aign as it is erected on the follovina deacribed proparty. ~dreaa: West Hampden Avenue and South Gilpin Street Legal Description: PPI Numbers 1971-35-3-00-004 ; 1971-35-4-00-007 I hereby certify that the above described property was posted continuously for a period of I] days, from __ \ll,--t.....lo....A~b"'~::=..=..::.1o.<kV{::.o:::";;.4.......1f)1..::..... _____ _ to ·~ a-s State of Colorado ) ) as County of Arapahoe ) Signature Project Coordinator Relation to property November 25 1985 Date Subacribad and sworn to before ae thh ,;25 -c:J, dayof 7J~ 19 ps= Address Hy Ca-iuion expirea~ It) lf,P..h . cJ~'t,;L~L A separate certification should be presented for each Notice of Hearing ~ ~- Sign. Such certification may be submitted to the Department of Co~a~~nity Development prior to t he Hearing or presented at the Hearing. 11 -~s -g~ • I • • 0 0 0 • • CERTIFICATION POSTING Board of Adjustment and Appeals City Planning and Zoning Commission City Council Attached ia a photograph of a sign as it is erected on the following described property. Addreaa: West Ha mpden Avenue and South Gilpin Street Legal Description: PPI Numbers 1971-35-3-00-004; 1971-35-4-00-007 1 hereby certify that the above described property was posted continuously for a period of \/ days, from --~-..:.....;::;.::o:=;...;;;;;=~==.__t?J_, ____ _ to ~d--S ~0 ,~ Signature Projec t Coordinator Relation to property November 25 1985 Date State of Colorado ) ) .. County of Arapahoe ) Subscribed and sworn to before ae thb :Js-di 19 fb . Address My Colaiaaton expires~ lo ;f/<11 v ' A aeparate certification should be presented for each Notice of Hearing ~~ Sign. Such certification lillY be submitted to the Department of Co-mity !1-c;? S·S'{i Development prior to t he Hearing or presented at the Hearing • • I • • 0 0 0 • CERTIFICATION OF -POSTING Board of Adjustment and Appeals City Planning and Zoning Commission City Council Attached ia a photograph of a aign as it is erected on the follovina deacribed property. Addreaa: West Hampden Avenue and South Gilpin Street Legal Description: PPI Numbers 1971-35-3-00-004; 1971-35-4-00-007 I hereby certify that the above described property vaa poated continuously for a State of Colorado ) ) as County of Arapahoe ) ~Q ,~ Signature Project Coordinator Relation to property November 25, 1985 Date Subscribed and IVOrn to before 1M! thia C)_!)e4 19 to-. No iVy Public Address 3 1/tJ {) ../ &.2[; .,/J( · Hy Ca..ieaion expire ~ /tJ If# v I a ~<Jr:?a d lh Pol/ t2 L3---L{J-.. A separate certification should be presented for each Notice of Hearing iC( ~ Sign. Su ch certification may be submitted to the Depart.ent of Community I~ Development prior to t he Hearing or pruented at the Hea r ing. //·.;!( .:5 if5 • • I • 0 0 0 • CERTIFICATION POSTING Board of Adjustment and Appeals City Planning and Zonilg Commission City Council Attached ia a photograph of a sign as it is erected on the follovina deacribed property. Addreaa: West Hampden Avenue and South Gilpin Street Legal Description: PPI Numbers 1971-35-3-00-004; 1971-35-4-00-007 I hereby certify that the above described property was poated continuously for a period of __ _.\._/---. days, from __ \-t__.-''""'&M..N""""""'-".._<C...,.~;;;;.;::,.==.;.....__Ji _____ _ ~?-<; to Project Coordinator Relation to property November 25, 1985 Date State of Colorado ) ) .. County of Arapahoe ) Subacribed and aworn to before 11e thia q< ?:-d; 19 f'~. day of ~ Address _.3 #tJ J C/42 ..Jk 7&"'· I ~ fa/1 42 .,. '-'""'oo '"''"" g,10 I<" ,Pt; }' C ~t~t ~ A aeparate certification should be presented for each Notice of Hearing /3 s- Sign. Such certification may be submitted to the Department of Coaaunity Development prior to the Hearing or presented at the Hearing. 1/-.;{5 -g5 • • I • • . ' • CERTIFICATION POSTING 0 Board of Adjustment and Appeals 0 City Planning and 0 • Zoning Commission City Council Attached is a photograph of a sign as it is erected on the follovina described property. Address: West Hampden Avenue and South Gilpin Street Legal Description: PPI Numbers 1971-35-3-00-004; 1971-35-4-00-007 I hereby certify that the above described property was posted continuously for a period of 17 _days, fro111 to ~cYZ o5 State of Colorado ) ) ss County of Arapahoe ) Project Coordinator Relation to property November 25, 1985 Date !? Subscribed and sworn to before 11e thh c;;?s-d day of~+-' My Co.aiuion expirea$f /0 ;fj6 y ) 0 4_L ~;(( A aeparate certification should be presented for each Notice of Hearing J- Sign. Such certification may be submitted to the Department of Coaaunity /:3G Development prior to t he Hearing or presented at the Hearing. //-..:;. 5 -gS • I • ( . I • • • CHERRY CREEK SCHOOLS November 18, 1985 Mr. Harold Stitt Planning Department City of Englewood 3400 So. Elati Street Englewood, CO 80110 RE: The Marks Dear Mr. Stitt: GllliMn'M!NT ~f Planning and Community Services ~ 4700 South Yosemite Street ~ COl.OM1lU Englewood, Colorado !Kl111 • m -1184 NOV 21 ·1985 On behalf of Cherry Creek School District #5, I have reviewed the pro- posed development plan for The Marks. The portion of this development which lies within the boundaries of Cherry Creek District is expected to generate approximately 20 students. Presently, students from this area are assigned to Cherry Hills Village Elementary School (K-6), West Middle School (7-8) and Cherry Creek High School (9-12). The enrollment at Cherry Hills Village is currently at its building ca- pacity, therefore, the a ctual elementary school assignment will not be determined until these units are initially occupied. To help mitigate the student impa c ts from new developments, the Dis- trict has a standard request for land dedication or cash-in-lieu of land equivalent to four percent of residential areas. In this case, the District does not need a school site and is formally requesting a cash equivalent to .56 acres, as determined by the market value of the subject property. The District is a ware that this request is unusua l for developments within the City of Englewood and , therefore, we would be happy to discuss othe r means to determine an equitable way to mitiga te the impacts this propo sal will have o n the District. La stly , in resp on se t o yo ur inquiry a bout school bus routes in this area , t h e Distric t d oes not anticipate u sing Gira rd Avenu e a s a bus rou te . Ho wever, if unforeseen circumstances require a c han ge in o ur bus routes , Girard Avenue may become a street u sed by s c hool bu ses . If you have any questions or need a dditional informat ion , p l e a s e do not hesitate to give me a call . Sincerely , 2::=/~ Coord inator o f Pla nning PC : Dr . Leo A. Gerst Mr. J ohn W. Bu c kner Mr . Bob DeJiacomo I • • • • • 2'50 E. Qlliner Avenue E,. .. ,o:wood, Colorado 10110 CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE COLORADO VW.p Ceat.r Teleplloae 71f.U4J ( ( November 4, 1985 Mr. Harold J. Stitt Planner II City of Englewood 3400 s. Elati Street Englewood, CO 80110 Dear Mr. Stitt: We apologize for not responding to you on •The Marks" development before the City Council meeting on October 28, 1985. We do, however, want you to be informed of our review of this development and hope you will keep us informed of any future developments •.. After reviewing the referral material on this development and the September 17, '.985 Minutes of the City of Englewood Planning and Zoning Conrnission, we had the following comments. A. The plan _presented permits 26.6 units per acre although the zoning would allow 40 units per acre. This present plan is good in that we believe the present zoning should be maintained. B. The plan does provide for good landscaping along Hampden Avenue. This is also good and should be retained and/or enhanced as the approval process continues. c. An area of concern for Cher~ Hills Village would be the traffic impact on the area. We have received a copy of the completed traffic stu~ but our planning consultant has been out of town and has not yet had an opportunity to review this. We will respond on this item at a later date. D. A second area of concern is the ancillary services proposed at the entrance to the development. According to the Minutes of the Planning Commission, any proposed ancillary service use or subsequent change in use, must be approved by the Director of Community Development. This 'approach is satisfactory: however, we would appreciate being notified of any requests for approval of such ancflla~ services. ~ ~f Gf.iu_ tu 1 -D I ;I-2 .) -8~ • I • • . I • • - -j'· H .. n>ld J. Stftt f,,~~ge 2 ( ( Jovember 4, 1985 ( • We would appreciate receiving a copy of the Cfty Council Minutes of October 28, 1985 once they are available for distribution and being kept fnfonaed of any future developments on the project. Thank you for giving us the opportuni~ to comment on thfs proposed development. Ve~ truly yours, Priscilla B. Wright Deputy Cfty Clerk • ' ... I . . - ( • 2450 E. Quincy Avenue Enclewood, Colondo 10110 November 14, 1985 Mr. Harold J. Stitt Planner II City of Englewood 3400 s. Elati Street Englewood, CO 80110 Dear Mr. Stitt: . ' • • • CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE COLORADO VW.ce Center Telephone '718-%541 We have completed our review of "The Marks Traffic Study," dated October 1985 by KKBNA, Inc., Consulting Engineers, and have the following comments. 1. We feel the appearance of Hampden Avenue could be improved by providing better landscaping along the sides and in the median. 2. Noise mitigation techniques should be investigated for the benefit of residents both north and south of the Highway. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on this proposed development. Very truly yours, Priscilla 8. Wright Deputy City Clerk • 0_~C:4~ I I-z ..s--<6 5' I • . _, • ( ( • ( • 24~H) J· Q un w~ A vt..'n~u F.u ~h 11 o .. d Colorado 1011 0 ~ovem~er 20 , 1985 Eugene Otis, Mayor City of Englew ood 34 08 s. Elati Englewood, CO 801 10 Dear Mayor Otis: . ' • • • CHERRY HlLLS VILLAGE COLORADO f. c \' (' 1 em ii.l·W -;.-;. ~ uri .:.:: E' ... :n) Vlllae• C•nl• r T~lephonw 78P 2!'>4 1 last night the Cherry Hi lls Village City Council had an opportunity t o r evi ew a proposed development in your community known as "The Marks." It was re po rted t o mem bers of the Cherry Hills City Council that the letters from Priscilla Wrigh t , Cher ry Hills Village Deputy City Clerk, dated IJovem ber 4, and !Jovember 14, 19 8 5, may have been misconstrued as supportive of "The Harks " development. The Council felt it necessary to clarify any misunderstanding because it definitely has reservations in regard to that project. In a ddi tion to the concerns stated in the above-noted letters in regard to noise mitigation and the appearance of Hampden, the Cherry Hills Village City Council is also concerned about the volume of traffic generated and the consequent safety problems. Of course, our concerns in this regard are influenced by the possibility of additional traffic from a resort hotel on the corner of Hampden and University, which also would affect both entities. In closing, we hope you will study "The Marks" development carefully in light of the significant impact it will have on both our communities. Sincerely , Charles S. Coward City 11 anager cc: Cherry Hills Village City Council • I • - / L . • DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS 0 1Si riCI 6 2000 South Holly Street Denver, Colorado 80222 (303) 757-901, No vembe r 4, 1985 Harold J. Stitt, PZanner City of Englewood Planning Department 34 00 South EZati Street En glewood, Colorado 80110 . I • • • 0£P..AHTMENr OF COMMUr-TY Dt:VELOPIWENT m"U""OOD. f.Oli)IUfW'I ~ov :-1985 Re: The !:arks, 632 unit ZUXUJ'y apartment oompZe:r at West Hampden Ave. /Gilpin St. De ar Haro Zd: We ha ve l'eviewed this proposal and offer the following: The acoeZeration Zane for Gilpin should be e:rtended to Old Hampden E:rit. Also, the Gi l pin south leg should be modified to include double left turns out and a r i ght turn Zane. Aooess t o t his development has been previously detePmined. !.'o add1:tionaZ aocess t o t l;e Hi glll..'ay wiZZ be groante d . l1 1e would no)•m:zZZy res pond to drainage oonoerns, but no"!e were shown. We roeserv.a approval of drainage until a drainage grading plan is sW'lbit zed. We now l:ave a right-of-way corridor for Hampden Ave11ue (S.H. 285) of 120 feet - 90 feet of L'hich is north of the Section Line in Hampden Avenue. This develop- ment should not encroach upon this corridor (see attached reduced Right-of-Way p Zan sheet). The developer should provide adequate noise mitigation measures in the buiZd1:ng construotion to minimize the impaots of traffio noise on any residential bu i ldings. Any wo rk wi t hin the Highway right-of-way will require a Permit from this off ice at 56 40 East Atlantic Place, Denver, Colorado 80 224 If y ou should have an y questi ons, please call Don Burk ho lde~ at 757 -95 1 4 . Ver y t r uly you rs, RICHARD J . BRA SHER Di stri ct En .1ineer .. o~-~zr~// ~£._ , - ORVI LL E A. RHOA DES Ma i ntenance Sup eri n tendent OA R/DB /s sa r'C': BroaRhel'/Fo ue.c G. lTc"'t is c Fi7r (S ,I/. Z8 5)R (!;_ ~?; -fu.~(-f II-5 ~ ~ • I • • c • S'Lt&uvo e I >.d<lf,.Y 1/Y V'U'~ I -• PUBLIC HEARING Before The CITY COUNCIL on ,·~k~-~~~ r ~-~-:e..;-es J~ I WISH TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ADDRESS TELEPH ONE OBSERVER IN FAVOR NO POSITION ~0 5 t;L/1~ ~:l./ f ~ v ~ I 4JtiL II II ~ ~ /I II ~ " ~s ~ v :J-..d ?P £, ~./JI'. V'" 3?--_r-o So -bee~ v ? • • NAME ADDRESS o~cv-\ 1oo ~ V CO ~4Y/IF 307o JJ ,/ • ~ -;;?' 4.d2._ ~ 2-}.-o s, ~ • • PUBLIC HEARING Before The CITY COUNCIL TELEPHONE 7 6o?. 0 J"l ~ -zc 2.. (I~ 7~ 70'1-22,.?-f' OBSERVER {/' p I WISH TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL IN FAVOR IN OP POSITION I NO POSITION c.-- c..-----'- ~ v • v ~ L-- (