denver jewish senior living

107 Pages·2017·11.69 MB·English

by  Jennifer Newton

Public Works and Development
Lima Plaza Campus – Arapahoe Room
6954 S Lima St., Centennial, CO 80112

REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ARAPAHOE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2017 @ 6:30 P.M.

GENERAL BUSINESS ITEMS

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 7, 2017 VOTE: Approved as amended.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 21, 2017 VOTE: Approved as presented.

REGULAR ITEMS

Case No. P16-026, Denver Jewish Senior Living / Final Development Plan (FDP) – Molly
ITEM 1:
Orkild-Larson, Senior Planner, Public Works & Development (PWD)
LOCATION: 2450, 2451, & 2453 S Wabash St VOTE:
ACREAGE: 2.304 Acres 7 IN FAVOR
EXISTING ZONING: SH-PUD 0 OPPOSED
PROPOSED USE: Assisted Living / Memory Care Community ABSENT
APPLICANT: The Stanton Solution on behalf of Denver Jewish Day School ABSTAIN
CASE MANAGERS: Planner, Molly Orkild-Larson; Engineer, Sarah L White
REQUEST: Positive referral to the BOCC CONTINUED TO:
MOTION SUMMARY: Recommended approval with Staff Findings and Conditions; Date: _____________
BOCC action required.

STUDY SESSION ITEMS

Presentation re: Administrative Amendment to the Four
ITEM 1 Square Mile Sub Area Plan – Larry Mugler, Planner, Public DIRECTION/ACTION
Works & Development (PWD)
PRESENTER Larry Mugler INFORMATIONAL
REQUEST: • Review and Comment on changes prior to Planning
Manager action.
Presentation and Discussion re: Cash-In-Lieu – Jason
ITEM 2 Reynolds, Current Planning Program Manager, Public DIRECTION/ACTION
Works & Development (PWD)
PRESENTER Jason Reynolds INFORMATIONAL
REQUEST: • Provide an overview of the County’s cash in lieu
requirements compared to other jurisdictions.

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

• The next regular Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for March 21, 2017.
• Planning Commission agendas, Board of County Commissioner agendas, and other important Arapahoe County
information may be viewed online at www.arapahoegov.com or you may contact the Planning Division at 720-874-6650.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS:

Mark Brummel - Present Richard Rader - Present Paul Rosenberg, Chair - Present
Diane Chaffin - Present Jane Rieck - Present Richard Sall - Present
Kathryn Latsis - Present

Arapahoe County is committed to making its public meetings accessible to persons with disabilities. Please contact the Planning
Division at 720-874-6650 or TTY 711, at least three (3) days prior to a meeting, should you require special accommodations.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ARAPAHOE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2017

ATTENDANCE A regular meeting of the Arapahoe County Planning Commission
was called and held in accordance with the statutes of the State of
Colorado and the Arapahoe County Land Development Code. The
following Planning Commission members were in attendance:

Brian Weiss, Chair Pro-Tem; Mark Brummel; Richard Rader; Jane
Rieck; and Diane Chaffin.

Also present were: Robert Hill, Senior Asst. County Attorney;
Chuck Haskins, Engineering Services Division Manager; Sue Liu,
Engineer; Jason Reynolds, Current Planning Program Manager;; Jan
Yeckes, Planning Division Manager, Caitlyn Cahill, Animal Control
Supervisor, and members of the public.

CALL TO ORDER Chair Pro-Tem Weiss called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and
noted a quorum of the Board was present.

DISCLOSURE There were no Planning Commission member conflicts with the
MATTERS matters before them.

GENERAL BUSINESS ITEMS:

APPROVAL OF THE The motion was made by Ms. Rieck and duly seconded by
MINUTES Ms. Chaffin to accept the minutes from the January 10, 2017
Planning Commission meeting, as presented.

The motion passed unanimously.

The motion was then made by Mr. Rieck and duly seconded by
Mr. Rader to accept the minutes from the January 17, 2017
Planning Commission meeting, as amended, to add the
applicant’s attorney’s name, Mr. Ragonetti, to the minutes.

The motion passed unanimously.

ANNOUNCEMENT / Mr. Weiss announced Agenda Item 2 would be heard before Agenda
AGENDA Item 1.

REGULAR ITEMS:

Planning Commission February 7, 2017 Page 1 of 5

The audio recording is the official County record of this meeting.
Written minutes are a summary of the meeting and provided as a courtesy only.
Item 2: Case No. P16 -012, Schuck Restoration / Minor Subdivision (MS)
- Sherman Feher, Senior Planner, Public Works and
Development (PWD)

Ms. Yeckes introduced the case on behalf of Mr. Feher, who could
not be in attendance. She indicated staff had provided findings, in
support of a recommendation for approval with conditions, as
outlined in the staff report. She answered questions about the level
of environmental review, required for the property, in relation to
comments from Tri-County Health Department (TCHD) and the City
of Sheridan due to the proximity of the property to an old landfill.
Ms. Yeckes indicated a Phase I review to check for methane gas in
the soils was recommended due to some risk that methane gas could
have migrated to the site from the landfill. She explained that work
was typically done in conjunction with the development more than
the subdivision process. Ms. Yeckes reported staff was
administratively processing an Administrative Site Plan application
in conjunction with the minor subdivision under the conventional
zone district of B-4 (business and commercial uses). She stated no
change to the zoning was planned, so the related site plan would not
come before the Planning Commission (PC).

Jerry Davidson, on behalf of the applicants, stated a Phase I
environmental review had already been completed and the site was
determined to be clean. Mr. Davidson also addressed comments
from other review agencies and noted the status of work to comply
with those requirements.

Mr. Weiss disclosed he was working with Mr. Davidson in a
professional capacity on some unrelated projects, which he just
realized when Mr. Davidson introduced himself.

No concerns were voiced.

The hearing was opened for public comments. There were no public
comments. The public hearing was closed.

It was moved by Mr. Brummel and duly seconded by Ms. Rieck,
in the case of P16-012, Schuck Minor Subdivision, that the
Planning Commission read the staff report and received
testimony at the public hearing and found themselves in
agreement with all staff findings, as well as, all plans and
attachments as set forth in the staff report dated January 24,
2017, and recommended this case favorably to the Board of
County Commissioners, subject to the following conditions :

Planning Commission February 7, 2017 Page 2 of 5

The audio recording is the official County record of this meeting.
Written minutes are a summary of the meeting and provided as a courtesy only.
1. The applicant must make all modifications to the Minor
Subdivision/ Final Plat as requested by the Public Works and
Development Department.
2. The applicant shall address all Engineering Services Division
comments and concerns, as identified within their reports,
prior to signing of the mylars.
3. The applicant shall address all Tri-County Health
Department’s comments regarding landfill gas per the
referral comments .
4. The applicant shall address Century Link’s comments
regarding utility equipment per the referral comments.
5. The applicant shall address Colorado Department of
Transportation’s comments regarding right-of way, permits,
and access per the referral comments.
6. The applicant will secure documentation of service
commitments from Denver Water for water and South
Englewood Sanitation District for sewage services.

The vote was:

Mr. Weiss, Yes; Ms. Rieck, Yes; Ms. Chaffin, Yes; Mr. Rader,
Yes; Mr. Brummel, Yes.

Item 1: Case No. W17 -001, Floodplain Regulations Updated Flood
Insurance Study (FIS) – Land Development Code (LDC)
Amendment – Chuck Haskins, Engineering Division Services
Manager, Public Works and Development (PWD)

Mr. Haskins introduced the County-initiated amendment to the
Floodplain Regulations to comply with the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) requirements. He provided some history of
participation in the NFIP and the County’s responsibility. He
reported September, 2014 was the beginning of the project with the
new floodplain mapping for six drainage-ways within Arapahoe
County. He said public meetings were held in October, 2014, the
decisions were published in September, 2015, and no appeals were
received. Mr. Haskins explained two sections of the County’s
regulations were being amended to change the effective date from
December, 2010 to February 17, 2017. He reported the agency and
property owner outreach was held primarily in conjunction with
updating the maps and included three public meetings and letters
mailed to every affected property owner. He said, for that reason,
extensive agency review was needed for the code update.
Mr. Haskins stated one map change resulted in several structures
within the Inverness Business Park going into the designated
Planning Commission February 7, 2017 Page 3 of 5

The audio recording is the official County record of this meeting.
Written minutes are a summary of the meeting and provided as a courtesy only.
floodplain. He reported the golf course was in a floodplain, but not
in a FEMA floodplain. He said a portion of the golf course and
family center would now be in the FEMA delineated floodplain.
Mr. Haskins reported, out of six drainage-ways remapped, only four
structures within Inverness were potentially impacted. He said
Engineering Services had contacted those property owners to let
them know there was a window of opportunity to purchase
floodplain insurance prior to the effective date of this change, which
might provide insurance at a lower cost than would be available after
the effective date of the new maps and regulations. Mr. Haskins
reported the change would go to the Board of County Commissioners
on February 14, 2017 for approval and in order to bring the code into
compliance with federal regulations, prior to the February 17, 2017
effective date.
In response to a question from Mr. Brummel, Mr. Haskins indicated
flood insurance could be purchased without being within a
floodplain. H e explained any mortgage holder, on any affected
property, would be notified of the pending c hange. He said,
typically, a mortgage holder would require the property owner to
purchase flood insurance when located within a FEMA delineated
floodplain. He explained there was some increased risk being
adjacent to a floodplain.
Mr. Weiss asked a question about a recent hearing on a wastewater
treatment plant and its proximity to a floodplain in contrast with the
Inverness wastewater treatment plant, which would now have some
structures within the new floodplain.
Mr. Haskins noted floodplains changed over time and the County
could not regulate outside of the currently-designated floodplains.
He explained two different types of floodplains were considered in
relation to new development. He stated Community Floodplains
(Flood Hazard Area Delineations, or FHADs) were based on future
development and how added development and runoff were
calculated to affect existing floodplains. He reported the County
evaluated the worst case of the FEMA and the FHAD maps,
whichever was greatest, and regulated to that standard. Mr. Haskins
explained, in the Box Elder drainage, the FHADs were usually more
restrictive than the FEMA maps. He said FHADs could be impacted
by significant land use development that was not anticipated.
Planning Commission February 7, 2017 Page 4 of 5

The audio recording is the official County record of this meeting.
Written minutes are a summary of the meeting and provided as a courtesy only.
Mr. Weiss made comments about a flood disaster in Iowa and
concerns that situation brought to mind in relation to new projects
close to floodplains.
Ms. Rieck asked how often FEMA reviewed floodplains.
Mr. Haskins noted the maps were changed from paper to digital in
2010 (now called D-FIRMs or Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps).
He explained it was important to have the latest flood mapping
information and to regulate land use accordingly. He reported FEMA
evaluated to the 100 year floodplain, and Arapahoe County regulated
to the 100-year floodplain.
Mr. Weiss opened the hearing for public comments. There were no
public comments. The public hearing was closed.
It was moved by Ms. Rieck and duly seconded by Mr. Brummel,
in the case of W17-001 – Floodplain Management Regulations,
Land Development Code Amendment, that the Planning
Commission found itself in agreement with staff findings one (1)
through five (5), including all plans and attachments as set forth
in the staff report dated January 24, 2017 and recommended
approval to the Board of County Commissioners, subject to the
following conditions.

1. All minor modifications to the text were required prior to
incorporation into the existing Land Development Code.
2. The amended Floodplain Management Regulations would
be effective and integrated into the existing LDC on
February 14, 2017.

The vote was:

Mr. Weiss, Yes; Ms. Rieck, Yes; Ms. Chaffin, Yes; Mr. Rader,
Yes; Mr. Brummel, Yes.

ANNOUNCEMENTS Ms. Yeckes reminded the PC the February 21, 2017 meeting was
scheduled to be held at the Arapahoe County Administration
Building, East Hearing Room, at 6:30 p.m. She said a reminder
email would go out confirming that information.

ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning
Commission, the meeting was adjourned.

Planning Commission February 7, 2017 Page 5 of 5

The audio recording is the official County record of this meeting.
Written minutes are a summary of the meeting and provided as a courtesy only.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ARAPAHOE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2017

ATTENDANCE A regular meeting of the Arapahoe County Planning Commission
was called and held in accordance with the statutes of the State of
Colorado and the Arapahoe County Land Development Code. The
following Planning Commission members were in attendance:

Paul Rosenberg, Chair; Richard Rader; Jane Rieck; Richard Sall; and
Kathryn Latsis.

Also present were: Robert Hill, Senior Asst. County Attorney;
Chuck Haskins, Engineering Services Division Manager; Spencer
Smith, Engineer; Molly Orkild-Larson, Senior Planner; Bill Skinner,
Senior Planner; Jason Reynolds, Current Planning Program
Manager; Jan Yeckes, Planning Division Manager, members of the
applicant’s team, and members of the public.

CALL TO ORDER Chair Rosenberg called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and noted
a quorum of the Board was present.

DISCLOSURE There were no Planning Commission member conflicts with the
MATTERS matters before them.

GENERAL BUSINESS ITEMS:

APPROVAL OF THE The Planning Commission (PC) determined to move the acceptance
MINUTES of the February 7, 2017 minutes to the next regular agenda because
only two members of the PC, at tonight’s meeting, were present for
th
the February 7 meeting.

REGULAR ITEMS:

ITEM 1 Case No. P16-03, BGS Subdivision #02, Lot 1 Block 1 / Minor
Subdivision (MS) – Bill Skinner, Senior Planner, Public Works
and Development (PWD)

Mr. Skinner introduced the case and indicated the public hearing had
been appropriately noticed and the PC had jurisdiction to proceed.
He reported the property was located in the unincorporated
community of Byers. He stated staff recommended approval with the
conditions and findings noted in the staff report. He said the
applicant was present to answer any questions the PC might have.

Planning Commission February 21, 2017 Page 1 of 6

The audio recording is the official County record of this meeting.
Written minutes are a summary of the meeting and provided as a courtesy only.
Mr. Rosenberg opened the hearing for public comment. There were
no public comments. The public hearing was closed.

It was moved by Ms. Rieck and duly seconded by Mr. Rader, in
the case of P16-031, BGS Filing No. 2, Lot 1 Block 1 / Minor
Subdivision, that Planning Commission read the staff report and
found themselves in agreement with staff findings, including all
exhibits and attachments as set forth in the staff report dated
February 13, 2017, and recommended approval of the
application to the Arapahoe County Board of County
Commissioners, subject to the following condition:

1. Prior to signing of the final mylar copy of these plans, the
applicant shall addresses all Public Works and Development
Staff comments.

The vote was:

Ms. Rieck, Yes; Mr. Rader, Yes; Mr. Sall, Yes; Ms. Latsis, Yes;
Mr. Rosenberg, Yes.

ITEM 2 Case No. Z16-001, Platte Canyon Villas / Preliminary
Development Plan (PDP) – Molly Orkild-Larson, Senior
Planner, Public Works and Development (PWD)

Ms. Orkild-Larson introduced the case and distributed five
additional opposition emails to the Planning Commission (PC),
which were received after the staff report was published. A copy of
the additional emails were retained for the record. She reported the
proposed development was a revision to an application the PC
recommended for denial on August 2, 2016. She explained, as a
result, the applicant made several changes to the proposed
development, including the reduction of the number of two-
family/duplex units from 50 to 40, reduction of density from 8.85
dwellings/acre to 7.08 dwellings/acre, limiting the W Bowles Ave
access to emergency vehicles only, the addition of a school bus
pickup / drop-off on S Platte Canyon Rd, and an increase in open
space from 30% to 35%. Ms. Orkild-Larson said staff had received
a lot of letters, emails, and phone calls from the public with the
majority expressing their opposition to the project. She stated staff
found the additional landscape buffer and reduction in units
supported a recommendation of approval, with conditions.

Site Dynamics, JR Engineering (engineers), SM Rocha (traffic
engineers), and Valerian (planners/landscape architects) presented a
PowerPoint on on behalf of the applicant, KB Homes -– Colorado, a
Planning Commission February 21, 2017 Page 2 of 6

The audio recording is the official County record of this meeting.
Written minutes are a summary of the meeting and provided as a courtesy only.
copy of which was retained for the record. They explained that they
reduced density and were proposing a 40- unit duplex development
served by private drives and alleys. The proposed homes would be
priced starting in the high $300,000 range with all fronts of homes
facing greenspace. They had originally sought 58 units with an
annexation to the City of Littleton but the city staff indicated that
they couldn’t support the proposal. As a result, the applicant applied
to Arapahoe County. With the revised plan presented, the applicants
proposed a 30-foot wide landscaped setback/buffer with both
evergreen and deciduous trees around the perimeter of the site, 30-
foot maximum building height, and side yard setbacks of 7.5 feet (15
feet between buildings). They addressed both traffic and
compatibility concerns. It was stated the proposed access would be
full movement with no traffic signal on S Platte Canyon Rd; they
worked with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT),
who controls the road, and received support for the access. The
applicant noted the site would generate about 232 vehicle trips per
day, which was far less than multi-family or commercial, and similar
to the 209 vehicles per day a lower density single-family
development, like Wilder Lane (in Columbine Valley directly across
the street). They showed cross-sections illustrating their buildings
and nearby property lines, explaining that even though the buffer was
30’, the closest any building would be is 39’ from the property line.
They said the odd shape of the lot and having the site on major
arterial streets helped support this type of development. They also
pointed out higher densities (12+ dwellings/acre) on the north side
of W Bowles Ave.

The PC asked questions about guest parking, pedestrian/trail
connections, detention pond variances, property maintenance/snow
removal, and potentially increasing the size of initial landscaping.

The applicant responded that they were willing to increase the guest
parking ratio, that they were providing sidewalk connections to the
South Suburban trail adjacent to the property, that the Southeast
Metro Stormwater Authority (SEMSWA) variance would allow
some retaining walls around detention ponds, that the HOA would
be responsible for snow removal, and that they could look at planting
sizes.

Many residents attended the public hearing. The Chair noted 17
people indicated they were opposed but did not wish to speak.
Fourteen people spoke against the proposal (or provided letters,
which were read into the record by staff), including the Littleton City
Council member for District 1. Those who spoke noted that at least
170 people wrote in to voice opposition and said the community did
Planning Commission February 21, 2017 Page 3 of 6

The audio recording is the official County record of this meeting.
Written minutes are a summary of the meeting and provided as a courtesy only.
not want this sort of development. Concerns included compatibility
with single-family homes, density, traffic – especially on Platte
Canyon (many spoke about the traffic issues in the area), potentially
dangerous emergency access on W Bowles Ave, potential to
eliminate that access by adding fire sprinklers to the homes, the
applicant’s unwillingness to meet with neighbors, building heights
of 30’, impact on property values, impact on nearby historic homes,
potential displacement of children from nearby schools, conflicts
with portions of the Comprehensive Plan, and lack of parking. One
member of the public spoke in favor of the project, expressing a
desire for more affordable starter homes in this area.

The applicants responded that they met at a neighbor’s house and
hosted a very well-attended neighborhood meeting. They reported
the meeting generated a lot of comments and they tried to design in
response to those comments. They talked about how neighborhood
outcry several years ago resulted in the property owner having to
demolish a newly-constructed barn on the property. They explained
that they did not believe single-family development was
economically feasible at two busy roads and said that the lower-
density single-family Wilder Lane across the street has not been
selling very well. They said that fire sprinklers were not required and
could potentially burden future homeowners; they said they reduced
density in response to the compatibility concerns. They were willing
to increase the guest parking requirement from 0.25 guest spaces per
unit to 0.5 guest spaces per unit, which would provide 10 additional
guest spaces above the County’s requirement. They also referenced
one member of the public who argued against installing larger caliper
trees, stating that person was correct and smaller caliper trees tend to
survive better. They said they will do their best with the final
development plan to show how the landscape would work. They
pointed out that the two-family structures were similar in mass to
nearby single-family homes, so the 20 proposed structures would be
comparable to nearby neighborhoods from a massing perspective.
They clarified that the access point on S Platte Canyon would not
have a traffic signal.

Mr. Haskins described the current state of the W Bowles Ave./S
Platte Canyon Rd. intersection as level of service E, which means
it’s operating pretty much at capacity. He reported the County, City
of Littleton, CDOT, and Columbine Valley had been discussing how
to improve that intersection but there wasn’t currently a plan for
improvements. He said one likely improvement would be to add
another right turn lane onto W Bowles Ave. He said the County
would continue having discussions with the other jurisdictions, to
improve the level of service, however, the cities had a lot of
Planning Commission February 21, 2017 Page 4 of 6

The audio recording is the official County record of this meeting.
Written minutes are a summary of the meeting and provided as a courtesy only.