AURORA | A proposal for a 171-acre master planned home development between East Jewel Avenue and East Yale Avenue in Murphy Creek — which has been criticized for its design and proximity to a superfund site — is once again slated for discussion Monday by the Aurora City Council.
Back for a second time, city council voted down a previous plan in May, which had been approved by the city’s planning commission.
The massive development is represented by Lennar Homes and Norris Design.
A plan for the development was originally approved in 2002 for 894 units, a majority of which were to be single-family detached homes. Now, the developer wants to eliminate the multi-family components that were originally planned. This amended plan must now get a green light from the city council.
“These housing types will include front-loaded single-family homes, motor courts with single-family homes, townhomes fronting streets and townhomes fronting green courts,” according to city documents.
The developer also wants to incorporate smaller lot sizes.
Murphy Creek residents have been critical of the proposal, citing traffic impacts, design of the homes, and environmental impacts from the neighboring Denver Arapahoe Disposal Site landfill (DADS) and the Lowry Landfill Superfund site, which is located to the south.
The developer says the homes with be built in theme with the existing neighborhood and will have elements of “country farmhouse,” “craftsman,” “Colorado rustic” and “Denver tudor” styles.
Opponents liken the design to “three-story walk ups,” which have become immensely unpopular in Aurora in recent years.
Some residents worry the homes won’t be safe, as they’re being built near a plume of underground toxic waste from an Environmental Protection Agency-designated superfund site.
Murphy Creek is located directly west of the site. The proposed development would be the closest residences to the north boundary of the superfund site, which officials say is leaking waste.
The plume is carrying 1,4 dioxane – a cancer-causing chemical used for de-greasing metal – miles outside of the superfund site boundary through the Murphy Creek wash.
An environmental consultant hired by Lennar describes the contaminant as “emanating from the Lowry Landfill and traveling north through the DADS facility, contacting north via the Murphy Creek drainage.”
The consultant, CTL Thompson, says “there are no obvious indications of groundwater impacts beneath the site” of the development.
McGinnis and Associates, a longtime technical consultant for area residents, disputes the CTL Thompson study and concluded the land should be considered impossible to safely develop.
A city staff member also told city council members at a May 20 hearing of the proposed development that it’s “unknown” whether the superfund site will impact the proposed homes.
The developer said it will design the homes to include “a vapor barrier and venting measures to protect against any potential contamination leaching from below the homes,” according to city documents.
Residents say the system could be ineffective. 1,4 dioxane could be harmful to residents who ingest Murphy Creek water, and the plume could also carry other toxic compounds absorbed through the skin or inhaled.
Potential homeowners will also be notified about the nearby landfills.
At the May 20 city council meeting, about 30 people, mostly Murphy Creek residents, attended the meeting to voice concerns about the development. Then, council members decided on an 8-1 vote to deny the plan.
Only council member Bob Roth voted in favor.
Council member Franocise Bergan, the Ward 6 council member, called up the item to be heard again claiming that there’s new information available about the proposed development. At-large council member Johnny Watson seconded Bergan’s request. The call up is the only way council members can bring back a measure that’s already been heard.
It’s not clear what that new information is, but the developer is hoping to push back the discussion until August.
Without a majority of council members agreeing to do so, the development will once again be considered Monday night.
*This report has been updated to reflect that Francoise Bergan made the motion to call up the development decision. Johnny Watson seconded her request.
— Grant Stringer contributed to this report