10-5-17 Villager E edition

Page 1

MIDDLE EAST MEETS WEST

COPING IN THE DEMENTIA ZONE

A brief history of Lebanon from Ambassador Sam Zakhem

Program helps kids live with the new normal

GUEST COLUMN | PG 9

S O U T H

SMELL, SAVOR, DANCE TO THE MUSIC

Taste of Greenwood Village is a treat for the senses LOCAL | PG 24

SENIOR CHOICES| PG 13

M E T R O

VOLUME 35 • NUMBER 46 • OCTOBER 5, 2017

Since 1982

www.villagerpublishing.com

TheVillagerNewspaper

@VillagerDenver

Centennial candidate forum keeps it cordial

Many observers of the Centennial mayoral race between District 4 Councilmembers Stephanie Piko and C.J. Whelan say the candidates are similar in style and substance. The two squared-off politely Sept. 25 for Centennial Council of Neighborhoods. Photo by Peter Jones

Mayoral and council hopefuls speak to CenCON

Two sitting members of the Centennial City Council who hope to become the next mayor, two council incumbents up for re-election, and seven

newcomers to municipal politics made their cases last week for the Centennial Council of Neighborhoods. The largely friendly 90-minute forum on Sept. 25, held in anticipation of next month’s election, saw the current and potential city leaders discuss such subjects as taxes, economic development and transportation with little disagree-

ment, leaving voters to decide whose temperament and grasp of the issues would be best suited to lead Centennial.

Mayor

The two candidates for the city’s top elected position are both sitting councilmembers. They not only represent Centennial’s far-eastern District 4, but many in the community

say the two are similar in both style and substance. Both Stephanie Piko and C.J. Whelan touted credentials as fiscal conservatives who would hit the ground running, with emphases on “smart” transportation and infrastructure. “I think I have the experience, the knowledge and the vision,” said Whelan, a tele-

communications business owner with degrees in finance and engineering and a onetime president of Cunningham Fire Protection District. The candidate said because the 16-year-old debt-free city had survived the recession and made its mark in such areas as public safety, technological Continued on page 2

Landmark Village continuance highlights differences on density and traffic City Council kicks the ‘development’ can In an Oct. 2 session that ended after 11 p.m., Greenwood Village City Council moved to continue its deliberation on the proposed Century Communities project, Landmark Village, to Oct. 16. The decision was due to the late-

ness of the hour and the complexity of the four-part decision, which includes whether to approve the preliminary plat, a special-use permit and site-development plan, and a subdivision improvement agreement with Century Land Holdings. In the absence of a subarea plan, the council’s decision would be based on its interpretation of the city’s Master Development Plan and the Comprehensive Plan.

If approved, the proposed 13.1-acre site located at 5555 Greenwood Plaza Blvd., east of Quebec Street and south of Berry Avenue and zoned “town center,” would add 37 single-family detached homes and 152 single-family (townhomestyle) attached homes. All would be high-end for-sale residences selling from $800,000 to $1.2 million. The proposed 14.4-units-per-acre project would cover 23 percent of the site in buildings and include a 1.07-acre central park. The proposal devotes 29 percent to parking and 48 percent to open space, both exceeding city minimums. The location has been a community lightening rod. In 2007, the council approved the European Village, a lowerrise residential element of the Landmark plan, but economic conditions sidelined that project. The lot has been vacant since the original office structures were demolished in 2008. In 2012, a special-use permit process

was approved, allowing for residential use. The recent Orchard Station Subarea plan for the area, which would have included mixed-use space and high-rises, went down to overwhelming voter defeat in June. Public comments during this week’s hearing indicated continued divisiveness, although it became clear that residents did not necessarily agree on how to interpret the voters’ decision this summer. Some seem to think it was a vote against density, others said traffic, and others thought it was simply a vote against the subarea plan. More than a few thought it was a vote against allowing any further residential to be built. “They are requesting increasing the number of residences in the city by 3 percent, and this is not satisfying. This has ripped the city apart,” resident Randy Davis told the council.

Continued on page 2


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.