|
<br />Earl Green, 365 West 27th Place, recounted history of annexation and the previ-
<br />ous proposed development to accommodate a rest 'home. James Redden, architect,
<br />700 Country Club Road:, showed slides of the prope,rty and sketches ;of development
<br />proposed under R..,..2 and RE. . He maintai:q.ed single-family zoning .would not allow
<br />economically feasible development, but that RP would allow buffering alop.g
<br />Centennial and multiple-family to the :q.orth(proposed construction to be for
<br />"singles" apartments)' would. be buffered by natural barriers. Rick Cleveland,
<br />attorney, 200 East 11th Avenue, elaborated on propos'ed deveJ.:opment un.der R-2
<br />and RP and detail~d the services to th~ area taken into consideration for the
<br />type of development envisioned. He estimated the tax return as a result of t~e
<br />proposed development and cited the need for single-apartment living in the area,
<br />suggesting 'the service' load of the proposal under' R-2and RP would. be less than
<br />RA with greater return to.the community.
<br />
<br />Councilman Williams asked whether Planning staff agreed' with the Commission"s
<br />recommendation of RArather than R-2 and RP. Jim Saul, planner, said the
<br />Commission at the time of rezoning adjace.nt proper:ties to accommodate,lodges
<br />and clubs made it clear there was no intent to indicate that type of ,zoning
<br />appropriate for the entire area. The Commission recognized different' ownerships
<br />of adjacent properties felt encouraging RP districts would be contrary to the
<br />intep.t of the General Plan. While the petitioner has indicated the proposedR-2
<br />area would be developed for singles living, there is no way the Commission can
<br />ensure that, and they are concerned with the impact of development which could
<br />occur under the R-2 'and RP zoning on schools and traffic'in the area. .
<br />
<br />Councilwoman Beal inquired whether the capaci:ty in the Sorrel Way trunk allotted
<br />previously to Mr. Green for 'this property would be su~[icient to service. the
<br />type of development he is. now proposing. ,Manager recounted the agreement allow-
<br />ing a maximum capacity for the one parcel's use, other properties would not ,be
<br />allowed to connect to that line. Public WQrks Director said the contractual
<br />arrangement with Mr. Green allows discharge into the Sorrel Way trunk of 15
<br />gallons per minut.e; estimated discharge for the pl'i'pposed development wou.ld' be
<br />46t gallons p.er minute.' '. .
<br />
<br />Councilwoman Beal said it' appeared the istaff, and Commission were concerned with
<br />overall development:-of the area, not so muchtrhat the proposed development would
<br />noi5 be a good use. Mr. Saul said the Commis,sion would definitely. object to any
<br />RP u~e.The General Plan does iridicate a low density in this entir~ area, and
<br />RA does provide' the 'developer with opportunity to subdivide similar to that
<br />occurring south of' Oentenriial.PUD procedure would also be av:ailabl"e.
<br />
<br />Council Bill No. 221 - Rezoning to RA area .south of 1-105 east of Centennial
<br />and nopth of Kins Row was submi,t:tJ~d, ana, read the first time by council bill
<br />number and title only, there being no . councilman present .requestingthat it be ."
<br />read in full. . .~ ._
<br />
<br />.-
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />--- '--.; ,-' ;, - ,.,' ~ ~. -:. - ~ ;~- .. " . . . ~ .' -.. . . .
<br />~ ;M:r,s. B~-<al moved sec0xlded by Mr. William$::lhat.,i"he, bill,.' be read.> the ~s'ecQI}d-
<br />. .- ',- -~ .. . , --.~ '-, ~ - - -. . . ^ n,'--' _
<br />tiI]1e~:ty 'council.,bill number, ,ohly, ,:~ncL.~ha,t enac-ttnept,DE? consideresF:,~'iS t:his
<br />, .time:~' :r:'TO:ti0H=f:a-:p~:i,e~.<! ..:A:ll~ .9o~nG~l~ep.' pp8s.ept.- yot,ing';~ye:.e)~c ~pt 'lV!r.-Hershne.r
<br />Li?-,,~;t~~}~;.~~~.€;.~..a9:9' the :bl~i-.w?-s: read: .~he . s,~90nd, tlme 'by-c'oun'cl.1. b~n:g.m~er -only:
<br />
<br />
<br />~~~r~; e~~~;~n~h~~~g~~~ e~e~~~'~~~~"fr~~~~~~s Id~~g%~g:-fBI~~~~ ~~h~~r~gH1~ ~Ii~~c i ~ i es
<br />
<br />were ca.:;Lculated on the maximum number of units which would be allowed under the
<br />R~2 and RP zoning ona per capita basi~. Planning Director added that there is
<br />no way to limit development unde:r the' requested zones withoutplanne9-~eie:r9pm'2n.:t.~
<br />requirement or some type of. contractual arrangement. .
<br />
<br />counc~l,marLW20d, asked yv:hether,'~a~tern~ii.:vej'"wer_e: suggest~d under,the,:..RK'zon'ing - ,_
<br />which would limit a-:Lss:harge to 15 gallons per minute. Mr. Saul replied that the
<br />sewage flow was not d:l:sGussed by the Commission, it was understood it'would have
<br />to be limited to 15 gallons per minute regardless of th~ type of development.
<br />He said in further response to Mr. Wood that the discharge.limit conceivably
<br />could be maintained through planped gevelopmflJ.t arrangements. Discussion continued '~
<br />on capacity of the Sorrel Way trunk and limit of discharge contracted for from
<br />Mr. Green's property. It was explained that there is no way of determining what
<br />type of zoning or development would use a 15-gallon-per-minute capacity. Calcula-
<br />tions in this instance were based on average capacity of the Sorrel Way trunk and
<br />worked back to possible density under the proposed zoning. Manager said the
<br />physical limitations have nothing to do with the particular use intended, that
<br />even w~th RA zone under planned development, if. the density would create a sewer
<br />demand greater than l5 gallons it would not be possible to proceed on that
<br />density.
<br />
<br />...
<br />...-,: .
<br />~ ,
<br />'..
<br />
<br />:, 19
<br />
<br />4/23/73 - 6
<br />
|