ebook img

denver jewish senior living PDF

107 Pages·2017·11.69 MB·English
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview denver jewish senior living

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.

See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.