Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-08-20 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION August 20, 2002 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic Center, Chairman Waggoner presiding. Members present: Members absent: Staff present: Mueller, Parks, Roth, Schum, Welker, Krieger, Waggoner Lathram, Willis , Diekmeier (all gave previous notice of absence) Senior Planner Tricia Langon Planner I Anthony Fruchtl City Attorney Dan Brotzman II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 6, 2002 Chairman Waggoner stated that the Minutes of August 6, 2002 were to be considered for approval. Ms. Mueller noted that on Page 14, the cited month "April" should be "August". Correc- tion was noted. Krieger moved: Schum seconded: The Minutes of August 6, 2002 be approved as corrected. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Mueller, Roth, Schum, Welker, Krieger, Waggoner None Parks Lathram, Willis The motion carried. III. FINDINGS OF FACT Table Steaks South 101 West Floyd A venue Case #CU 2002-01 Chairman Waggoner stated that the Findings of Fact for the Table Steaks South Condi- tional Use are to be considered for approval. Welker moved: Schum seconded: The Findings of Fact for Case #CU 2002-01, Table Steaks South at 101 West Floyd Avenue, be approved as written. H:\GROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutes\Minutes 2002\PCM 08-20-02.doc 1 • AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Parks, Roth, Schum, Welker, Krieger, Mueller, Waggoner None None Willis, Lathram The motion carried. IV. UNIVERSITY HOMES University Homes Planned Unit Development University Homes Subdivision Case #PUD 2002-01 Case #SUB 2002-05 Chairman Waggoner asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Krieger moved: Welker seconded: The Public Hearing on Case# PUD 2002-01 and Case #SUB 2002-05 be opened. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Roth, Schum, Welker, Krieger, Mueller, Parks, Waggoner None None Willis, Lathram • The motion carried. • Chairman Waggoner asked staff to present the case. Senior Planner Tricia Langon was sworn in. Ms . Langon testified that there are two cases that will be heard concurrently -one case is regarding a request for Planned Unit Development approval to establish the "zone district" for the site, and the second case is on a preliminary Subdivision Plat to divide the property into building sites in compliance with the PUD District. The Planning Commission will be required to render two separate decisions -the first regarding the requested PUD, and the second on the Subdivision Plan. Ms . Langon asked that the Staff Report, Notice of Hearing for the Planned Unit Devel- opment published in the Englewood Herald on July 19, 2002, and Notice of Hearing on the Subdivision Plat published in the Englewood Herald on August 9, 2002, be made part of the record of the Hearing. Letters were also mailed notifying adjacent property owners of the Public Hearing on the proposed University Homes Subdivision. Ms. Langon stated that staff recommends approval of the University Homes Planned Unit Development with the following conditions: 1) A Homeowner Association be formed, and documents pertaining to the Asso- ciation be filed against all properties with the Arapahoe County Clerk; 2) A recorded copy of the Homeowner Association document shall be provided to the City of Englewood. H:\GROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutes\Minutes 2002\PCM 08-20-02.doc 2 • • • Staff also recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat for University Homes Subdivi- sion, and that the applicant be directed to submit a Final Plat for review. If no changes are required on the Preliminary Plat , staff recommends the Final Plat be administratively reviewed and forwarded to City Council with a favorable recommendation. Ms. Langon stated that the Planning Commission must determine whether the PUD meets the requirements for the PUD District Plan and for the PUD Site Plan . The Commission must also determine whether the Subdivision Plat meets the criteria set forth in Title 10 of the EMC on land subdivision. Ms. Langon stated the subject vacant parcel has frontage on South University Boulevard, and has been commonly addressed as 3055 South University Boulevard. There is single- family residential development adjacent on the north that is in Denver; the site is adjacent to the Korean Emmanuel Methodist Church on the south that is in Englewood and zoned R-1-A. To the west , the site adjoins property occupied by the "Brown Mansion", that is also zoned R-1 -A , but was granted a variance for use as a professional office structure. Ms. Langon stated that the PUD applicant is David M. DiPane , represented by Mr. Peter Pappas of Pappas Architecture LLC. Ms. Langon pointed out that the PUD and Subdivi- sion Plat do not encompass precisely the same area. The PUD is .88 acres in size, and comprises the north sector of the ownership . The Subdivision Plat encompasses not only this main parcel, but also a "flagpole" parcel that extends north from Dartmouth A venue to the main parcel. The "flagpole" parcel adjoins the Brown Mansion property on their east property line , and adjoins the Korean Emmanuel Methodist Church on their west property line. The "flagpole" parcel will remain zoned R-1-A, Single-Family residence , and may at some point in the future be sold or transferred to an adjacent property owner. It is not required to provide utility services or access to the PUD main parcel. Ms. Langon testified that the PUD process is rezoning of a site , and establishes zone and development criteria specifically for a given parcel. The District Plan establishes regula- tions for the PUD , and the Site Plan establishes site design requirements. Ms. Langon stated the proposal is to divide the property into four building sites , and to develop four single-family homes to be accessed from and addressed on South University Boulevard. Ms. Langon alluded to previous proposed uses of the site , including an assisted living de- velopment, and a mortuary addition to the Church on the south boundary of the site , nei- ther of which were acceptable to the surrounding neighborhoods or to the City. Ms. Langon stated that the applicant has submitted all required documentation; the pro- posal has been reviewed by the Development Review Team; and the applicant has met with various neighborhood groups over the past year to explain the proposal. The pro- posed use is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, both in Denver and in Englewood. The proposed use will be limited to single family development plus acces- sory uses. Home Occupations will be permitted, but limited only to home offices for those who may be telecommuting. Lot areas will vary from 6,700 square feet to 8,400 square feet. Setbacks as commonly used in the R-1-A District will not be used in the proposed PUD; rather, a "building envelope" area is identified and all development must occur within that "envelope". This does not mean that the entire "envelope" will be filled H:\GROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutes\Minutes 2002\PCM 08-20-02.doc 3 • • • with structure; use of the "building envelope" concept yields lot coverage of approxi- mately 42% per lot. Structure height is proposed at 32 feet; this will accommodate a two- story structure with pitched roof. Ms. Langon stated that the proposed development would be accessed by a private access road from South University Boulevard. The Homeowner's Association would maintain the access drive . Each single-family devel- opment will be required to provide four off-street parking spaces -two spaces may be contained within the attached garage , and the remaining two spaces on paved driveways to private garages from the private access drive. On-street parking on the private access drive will be limited to three spaces on the north side ; no parking is allowed on the south side of the drive. An area will be designated for snow storage so that snow is not plowed onto the public street ; when snow is not stored in this area, it may also be used for addi- tional parking spaces . Ms. Langon stated that landscaping on the four single-family par- cels will be required to comply with the landscape standards set forth in the PUD , which are compatible with landscape standards established in the EMC. The landscaping of the public right-of-way is set forth on the PUD plans , and has been reviewed by the Public Works Department for visibility impacts. Ms. Langon stated the owner/applicant of the subject site has worked with the Denver Water Department and with the Englewood Utilities Department , and an intergo vernmental agreement has been developed that will allow this four parcel development to be connected to Denver water and sewer lines in South University Boulevard. A similar agreement has been developed with Metro Wastewater for sewer connection in South University Boulevard . Ms. Langon reiterated the staff recommendation that a homeowner association be formed. This association would have responsibility for maintenance of the private drive, snow plowing , and landscaping in the public areas . Ms . Langon then discussed the issue of electrical service . Service to the proposed devel- opment will be placed underground. At the present time , a power pole situated on the subject site provides overhead service to the Korean Emmanuel Methodist Church. There is no easement of record for the line to cross the subject property. The applicant proposes that service lines to the Church will placed underground in a utility easement. Ms . Langon stated that financial issues between the applicant and the Church on pro- posed undergrounding of electrical service is a civil issue and is not part of the PUD con- sideration . Ms . Langon stated that the proposed development is consistent with the overall intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is of the opinion that the Subdivision Preliminary Plat is consistent with the provisions of Title 10 of the EMC , Land Subdivisions . Ms. Langon reiterated that if no changes to the Preliminary Plat are required, staff would recommend administrative review of the Final Plat and that it be forwarded to City Council with fa- vorable recommendation . Chairman Waggoner asked about turning radius in the cul-de-sac , and any comments from the Fire Chief on adequacy of the turning radius. Ms . Langon stated that no final comments were received from the Fire Department; the applicant is providing a fire hy- drant on South University Boulevard, with Englewood specification threads. H:\GROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutes\M inutes 2002\PCM 08 -2 0 -02.doc 4 • • • Chairman Waggoner asked why the homeowner association documents need to be sub- mitted to the City; the City exercises no control over homeowner associations or cove- nants . Ms. Langon stated that staff is asking for this submittal to be assured the home- owner association document addresses issues that will be required of them. She ac- knowledged that the City has no control over homeowner associations, or enforcement of covenants . Chairman Waggoner questioned allowance of home occupations in this development. He asked if home occupations are allowed in any R-1-A District. Ms. Langon stated that home occupations are not allowed in R-1-A; they will be allowed in the PUD site only as home offices . Ms. Langon stressed that the PUD provides flexibility on "district regula- tions" that are not available through the typical zone district classification. It was asked whether home occupations are allowed in the Denver R-1 zoning that abuts the subject site. Ms. Langon stated she could not answer the question. Mr. Welker stated that he has a copy of the Denver Zoning Code , and home occupations are allowed in the R-1. Ms. Mueller asked if a maximum floor area is established other than within the building envelope. Ms . Langon stated that a minimum is established , but not a maximum . Mr. Schum asked about height restrictions in Denver. Are they greater or lower than the proposed 32 feet. Ms. Krieger asked why the increased height is proposed. Ms. Langon stated that 32 feet will allow a two-story structure with a reasonably pitched roof. Mr. Parks asked if the "style of homes" is relevant to this discussion. Ms. Langon stated that it is not; the EMC does not address design criteria, and stipulation of specific build- ing styles could be onerous for the applicant. Chairman Waggoner inquired about drainage -was a drainage report filed. Ms. Langon stated that a drainage report was submitted, and reviewed by the Public Works Director. It has been referred to the City of Denver for their review. All drainage issues will be addressed through the permitting process. Brief discussion followed. Mr. Welker stated that the Denver Zoning Ordinance allows 30 ft. height for structures on a 50 ft. lot; increase in lot size can result in an increase in allowable height. Chairman Waggoner asked for clarification of the off-street parking to be provided. Ms . Langon stated that each building site will be required to provide four off-street parking spaces , two of those may be in the attached garage, and two may be on the private drive- way leading to the garage. There may be three on-street parking spaces on the north side of the private access drive, and two in the area designated for snow storage when this area is not used for snow storage . Chairman Waggoner stated it appeared that there is access to the Church from the private access drive . Ms. Langon stated that there is access from the private drive to the individ- ual driveways, but this access does not go through to the Church. H:\GROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutes\Minutes 2002\PCM 08 -2 0-02.doc 5 • • • Ms. Mueller asked what traffic impact this proposed development might have on South University Boulevard. Ms . Langon stated that the Public Works Department will require dedication of right-of-way for an ingress lane and an egress/merge lane to and from the development. Mr. Roth inquired whether permitted signage conforms to the City Code. Ms. Langon stated that R-1-A permits no signage; any signage permitted by the PUD will meet re- quirements established in the PUD approval. Mr. Schum asked whether sidewalks within the development will converge with side- walks on University. Ms. Langon stated that there are no sidewalks on South University Boulevard, either to the north or to the south of the subject property. Chairman Waggoner asked if a calculation has been made of the total square footage of homes that could be constructed on the subject site. Ms. Langon responded negatively. Chairman Waggoner asked how much of University Boulevard is within the corporate limits of the City of Englewood . Ms. Langon stated that one-half of the street is within Englewood for the distance that it forms the east boundary of the City . Chairman Waggoner inquired whether there is a written agreement to allow the Fire De- partment to use Denver water, inasmuch as the site will be serviced by Denver Water De- partment. Ms. Langon noted the location of the new fire hydrant as part of the proposed development. Chairman Waggoner asked if members of the Commission had further questions of staff. No further questions were posed at this time . Chairman Waggoner then asked that the applicant present his case . Mr. Peter Pappas was sworn in . Mr. Pappas testified that this project has been in the works for nearly 18 months -meetings with neighbors, staff, etc. He noted that some members of the Commission might be familiar with the site and previous development proposals that have been advanced, but did not reach fruition. Mr. Pappas discussed the progression of development in the subject area: single-family homes on East Dartmouth Circle, the relocation of the Brown Mansion , and development of the Hampden Hills Baptist Church. The Brown Mansion, built in the late 1800's, has been placed on the State Registry of Historical Structures. The Mansion is once again for sale , at a reported asking price of $1.2 million. The "flagpole" parcel, designated as "Tract A" on the PUD and Subdivision Plats, was created during this period of time. Mr. Pappas stated that he has been a resident of Denver since the late 1970's, and resides about two blocks north of the subject site. The subject parcel is in his "neighborhood". He noted that approximately two years ago, he spoke to the new owner of the subject site regarding possible development. They researched possible development that could be allowed under the existing R-1-A zoning. Mr. Pappas noted that municipalities are deal- ing with "sprawl", and are doing "in-fill" projects such as the subject site. Mr. Pappas H:\GROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutes\Minutes 2002\PCM 08-20-02.doc 6 • • • stated the site has 155 feet of frontage on South University Boulevard. R-1-A zoning re- quires that each building site have a minimum of 75 feet of street frontage. This would have allowed only two building sites on the parcel. Several development scenarios were explored and some possible development plans would have required granting of vari- ances. The complexity of developing the parcel is compounded by water and sewer ser- vice issues. The Englewood sewer line is 800 feet to the south, and the water line would have to be extended and looped. The City of Denver has water lines in South University Boulevard. Mr. Pappas stated that he worked with the Denver Water Board, Metro Wastewater, and the Englewood Water and Sewer Board to develop an inter- governmental agreement to allow service from the existing water and sewer lines. Mr. Pappas stated that economics have to be taken into consideration when contemplat- ing any development. He stated that infrastructure costs, in addition to water and sewer service, is estimated between $200,000 to $250,000. The proposed development will al- low four residential building sites smaller than the R-1-A minimum requirements. The applicant is proposing construction of mid-priced single-family homes. Mr. Pappas em- phasized that there has been a continuing dialogue with the adjoining neighborhoods, with the City of Englewood, and with the City of Denver. The basic concept of the de- velopment has been molded around the R-1-A District; they want to build an "enclave development" that is a neighborhood in itself, served by a private access drive that will be maintained by a homeowners association . Mr. Pappas displayed schematics of the proposed development and pointed out that the two western-most lots will be 8,400 square feet in size, and the two lots fronting on South University Boulevard will be 6,700 square feet in area. The "building envelope" areas on each lot were indicated; the building envelope concept is used in lieu of street frontage requirements. Mr. Pappas emphasized that the only use allowed in the proposed PUD is single-family homes -no church, school, public building, or philanthropic institution will be allowed. All garages must be attached to the residences, but will not face the access road; one storage shed will be allowed and the structures must all be constructed within the building envelope. Home occupations in the form of home offices that are auxiliary to off-site offices will be allowed; residents will be able to telecommute. No businesses will be run from the homes. No Conditional Uses, such as day care homes, will be al- lowed in this PUD. While the lot area of the building parcels is reduced, the minimum floor area will be increased to 2,000 square feet. The maximum envelope build-out would be 46.2% of the lot area. The proposed structures will not cover the entire lot. Only swimming pools may be constructed outside of building envelopes. Mr. Pappas addressed the existing overhead utility lines for Xcel Energy; these lines will be placed underground to serve the residential parcels. They are working with Church representatives to resolve utility issues, inasmuch as service to the Church has crossed private property without benefit of easement. Mr. Pappas reiterated that all telephone, electrical, or cable service lines will be on the north side of the development, and will be placed underground . H:\GROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutes\Minutes 2002\PCM 08-20-02.doc 7 • • • Mr. Pappas discussed drainage. The historic flow from the Brown Mansion property has been onto the subject site, and they have to accommodate the historic flow. A drainage channel is proposed that will drain from west to east along the north boundary line of the subject site. Mr. Pappas acknowledged that five homes on the north side of the subject site have experienced problems with drainage from the Brown Mansion and the subject site; a berm was created against the common fence line on the north property line of the subject site, but it has proven inadequate to solve the drainage issues . Mr. Pappas stated that close cooperation with homeowners on the north will occur during construction of the proposed University Homes development. He discussed the commu- nication that has occurred with the adjoining neighborhoods, including mailings to all residents within 500 feet of the subject site property lines, public meetings, one-on-one meetings if so desired -all in effort to explain the proposal. A new cedar fence will be placed around the perimeter of the subject property. He also discussed elevations of the screen walls, and of the planter and signage walls. Eight-foot screen walls are proposed along South University Boulevard. These will assist in sound mitigation for residents of the Lots 2 and 3 that will front on South University Boulevard. Six-foot screen walls will be along the private access road for a short distance on Lots 2 and 3, again to mitigate sound and to provide privacy. The flagpole portion of the ownership, identified as "Tract A", is not included as part of the PUD. It is, however, included as part of the University Homes Subdivision . At some point in future, this parcel may be sold or transferred to an adjoining property owner. Mr. Pappas stated that 12 feet will be dedicated to the City for acceleration/deceleration lanes. Sidewalks and handicap curb ramps will also be installed, and maintained by the homeowners association, as will the screen-walls and fences. Mr. Pappas stated that the proposed PUD is in compliance with criteria contained in the PUD Ordinance. The University Homes PUD will create an opportunity for development of a small enclave of single-family homes; will encourage flexibility and unity in the de- velopment of the homes by sharing common drives. The PUD, when developed, will en- sure consistency with the Englewood Comprehensive Plan . Mr. Pappas stated that the applicant does ask for approval of the PUD and of the University Homes Subdivision Preliminary Plat. Mr. Welker questioned Mr. Pappas regarding drainage on the site. Mr. Pappas stated that a drainage plan has been submitted and reviewed by the Public Works Director. A final report will be submitted with the building permit applications . Mr. Pappas stated that drainage from the subject site, and from the Brown Mansion site, will drain to University Boulevard. Mr. Welker asked if there is any drainage from the Church property that flows onto the subject site. Mr. Pappas stated that there is very little storm runoff from the Church; their site has quite a bit of unpaved area, which absorbs a great deal of rain and snowmelt. He reiterated that Public Works Director Ross reviewed the drainage plan. H:\GROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutes\Minutes 2002\PCM 08-20-02 .doc 8 • • Mr. Welker asked about garbage pickup -is the cul-de-sac of sufficient turning radius to allow maneuvering for garbage trucks. Mr. Pappas stated that the cul-de-sac has a 30- foot radius to the back of sidewalks; a 30-foot radius is sufficient for fire personnel to maneuver fire engines. Mr. Welker asked about traffic turning left onto University Boulevard from the develop- ment. Mr. Pappas cited trip-per-day figures of 10 per residence; that could result in 40 trips per day from the development. He pointed out that the Dartmouth A venue/South University Boulevard intersection is signalized, and this will provide traffic breaks for motorists wishing to turn left onto South University Boulevard. He suggested that there will be considerably less traffic generated by this development than generated by the Baptist Theological Seminary. Mr. Welker asked for clarification of the fencing and wall construction. Mr. Pappas stated there will be a wall eight feet in height from the north property line extending south to the private access drive, and from the private access drive extending south to the south property line. There will be a six-foot high wall extending along both sides of the private access drive for a short distance along Lots 2 and 3. The walls of this height will provide privacy and mitigate noise impacts from University Boulevard. The wall will be stone construction with pillars . The six-foot high fences will be cedar. Mr. Welker asked why the eight-foot wall height. Mr. Pappas reiterated they will serve as sound walls, and cited recently adopted guidelines for sound walls and construction of such a wall along U.S. 285 on the southern boundary of the Kent Village development. Mr. Pappas stated that all residences will be addressed on South University Boulevard. Ms. Krieger asked if South University met the criteria to support construction of sound walls. Chairman Waggoner inquired about maintenance of structures and private areas; is this by the homeowners association. What about the landscaped area and individual homes . Mr. Pappas stated that the private access drive, landscaping in public areas and common areas will be maintained by the homeowners association; landscaped areas and individual homes will be the responsibility of individual homeowners. Mr. Schum asked if fencing is allowed between lots. Mr. Pappas stated that fencing be- tween lots is permitted; however, no fencing between lots in the front setback areas will be allowed. Mr. Welker asked for clarification regarding the utility easement; why does it need to be extended to the south property line. Ms. Krieger stated that the easement will provide for electrical service to the Church property. Mr. Pappas reiterated that all utility lines on the subject property will be placed underground. The Church does have other options for electrical service; he emphasized that the Church has received electrical service across • private property without benefit of easement for at least 20 years. H:\GROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutes\Minutes 2002\PCM 08 -20-02.doc 9 • • • Mr. Welker questioned the width of the private access drive and the allowed on-street parking at eight foot minimum; this access drive is to accommodate two-way traffic -is the 22.6 feet sufficient width. He stated that this seems "tight" to him. Mr. Pappas stated that the street width is 22 feet curb-to-curb. The City suggested the parking stall width. Mr. Parks asked for more information on University Homes. Will Mr. Pappas build the homes and the homes then be offered for sale. What is the intention of the applicant. Mr. Pappas stated they anticipate the PUD and Subdivision may not be approved and final- ized until late this year; infrastructure construction could take six to eight months. It is the intent of the applicant to proceed as soon as possible. Mr. Pappas stated that he hopes his architectural firm is engaged to design the homes, but he is not contracted to do so as yet. Mr. Welker asked for clarification of the landscaping proposed. Mr. Pappas reviewed the plans, and stated that 35% of the total area must be landscaped. Mr. Welker asked what percentage is required to be living plant material, and what may be rock, mulch, or other landscape features. Mr. Pappas stated that the landscaping requirements will conform to the EMC. Mr. David DiPane was sworn in . Mr. DiPane stated that he is the applicant. He stated that Mr. Pappas and Ms. Langon have covered the proposal very well, but he will respond to questions members may have . Chairman Waggoner asked if the applicant will build "spec" homes. Mr. DiPane stated that this is difficult to determine at this time . Each residence could have its own design; he anticipated that the development would not be "spec" homes, but custom-design, cus- tom-built homes. Mr. George Bodley, 2300 East Columbia Place, was sworn in. Mr. Bodley stated that he lives directly to the north of the subject site, and has lived there since 1966. Mr. Bodley provided a verbal history of the area over the time since he began residing there . He stated that the drainage problems began with the relocation of the "alleged mansion" and permission was granted to convert it to office use. The conversion to office use from residential use triggered paving of an extensive portion of the lot to provide parking; a landscaped berm was placed along the north property line right against the fences of property owners on East Columbia Place. This resulted in a bowing and rotting of the fences, and did not contain storm runoff. He stated that all of the property owners on the north have had to install drainage pipes. Mr. Bodley stated that he is present this evening to seek assurance that this will not occur again. He stated he has discussed the proposed project with Mr. Pappas, and has some concerns regarding some aspects of the proposal. Mr. Pappas has made commitments to the adjoining property owners, but it appears the applicant/property owner isn't sure what development will occur, and that Mr. Pappas may not even be hired to continue the project. Mr. Bodley stated that he is asking language on the PUD regarding installation of new fencing be changed from "may be erected" to "will be erected". Mr. Bodley stated that H:\G ROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutes\Mi nutes 2002\PCM 08-20-02 .doc 10 • • • residents to the north along East Columbia Place want the new fence that has been prom- ised to them. Mr. Bodley then discussed his concerns regarding the spill barrier, or concrete drainage channel. Mr. Bodley stated that the north wall of this channel is proposed to be higher than the south wall to prevent spillage of storm waters onto the neighboring properties to the north. He is asking that language in the PUD be modified to require the drainage channel to have a raised curb on the north side of approximately six (6) inches. Mr. Bod- ley reiterated that the drainage problems in this area were created with the relocation of the "alleged Mansion " and the paving of that parking lot. Mr. Bodley stated he realized that "any storm can be a 100-year storm", and in that event , the drainage channel may overflow to the north; he wants to be assured , however, that any overflow drains to the south before draining to the north. He wants to be assured that the developer of the sub- ject site and the City of Englewood have made a "good faith effort" to resolve the drain- age problem. Mr. Bodley stated that the subject site is three to four feet higher in eleva- tion than the properties to the north. Mr. Bodley emphasized that the drainage issue is of great importance to residents on E ast Columbia Place. Mr. Bodley discussed the proposed height of 32 feet. He suggested that the height be limited to "two stories ". He suggested that rather than a two-foot measurement between floors; it is more like 14 inches. Mr. Bodley felt that the 32-foot proposed height would allow a three-story house . This is not acceptable to the East Columbia Place residents . Mr. Bodley supported the proposed eight (8) foot height of the wall along South Univer- sity Boulevard. He stated that traffic on South University Boulevard generates a lot of noise, and the eight-foot wall will help mitigate the noise. Mr. Bodley stated that he is, basically , in favor of the proposal with the reservations he has set forth. He reiterated that he wants to see verbiage modifications to tighten prom- ises down, and asked that the Commission give consideration to the drainage and height issues . John Dicker, 2810 South Gaylord Street, was sworn in. Mr. Dicker stated that he lives two blocks north of the proposed development. In his opinion, a residential development on the subject property will be beneficial to the neighborhood, and will help sustain or improve property values. Chairman Waggoner asked if Lucy VanDusen, Peter VanDusen, or Dan Dulaney wished to speak. There was no response from anyone in the audience. Gerald Radetsky , 3030 South High Street, was sworn in. Mr. Radetsky testified that he has been a resident of Denver most of his life. The subject site has been a blight to the area, just collecting trash and weeds. He stated that in his opinion, the proposed devel- opment is a "wonderful proposal". He stated that he agrees that the wall along South University Boulevard should be eight feet in height -it will help mitigate noise impacts. H:\GRO UP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutes\Minutes 200 2\PCM 08-20-02 .doc 11 • • • Mr. Radetsky stated that it appears the applicant and Mr. Pappas have gone to a great deal of effort to protect the property owners, both to the north and to the south . Chairman Waggoner asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Harold Kwan and Edison Cutright indicated neither of them had any comments. Ms. Nancy Flannigan was sworn in. Ms. Flannigan stated that she has been before the Commission on previous occasions in opposition to proposed uses of the subject parcel. She stated that as a resident of the neighborhood, she is delighted to see a proposed resi- dential development on the subject site. Chairman Waggoner asked if anyone else wished to address the Commission. No one indicated a desire to speak. Mr. Welker discussed landscaping requirements, and tying the proposal more closely to the landscaping ordinance . Ms . Langon voiced concern with "tagging" provisions to a specific ordinance , citing enforcement difficulties when ordinance changes are enacted. She suggested that landscaping specifics might better be spelled out in the general regula- tions governing the PUD , and addressed in the District Development Standards. Mr. Welker stated that it seemed to him the landscaping should comply with the Ordinance. The wording on the PUD states that no less than 35 % of a total lot shall be landscaped, but it does not spell out the percentage that must be living landscape material. Ms. Lan- gon reiterated that it is a "cleaner issue", and easier to enforce, if the specifics are in- cluded as part of the PUD. Mr. Welker stated that clarification of the landscaping provi- sions should be made. Mr. Welker asked if anyone in "utilities" has looked at the drainage study. Ms. Langon reiterated that the drainage study was submitted to, reviewed by , and accepted by Public Works Director Ross. Ms. Langon also reiterated that when properties are developed, drainage plans specific to a subject site are reviewed with the Building Permit process . Chairman Waggoner noted that the northwest corner of the property is higher; how will the drainage swale be placed around that corner and tie into the east/west drainage chan- nel. Mr. Welker stated in his opinion neighbors to the north have legitimate concerns re- garding drainage. He stated that there is no development on the subject site now, and with development, storm water runoff will increase. He suggested that the proposed channel will not handle a great deal of water. Ms. Krieger asked if, after the drainage channel is constructed, and there is a 100-year storm that floods over to the properties on the north, will they have any recourse. Mr . Welker stated that one must take into account the natural slope of the land, what portion of the site can absorb water and what portion is paved over -just make sure that the drainage concerns have been addressed. Ms. Langon again reiterated that the drainage plan was submitted to and reviewed by Public Works Director Ross who found it to be acceptable. Mr. Schum pointed out that the homeown- ers association will be responsible for maintenance of the channel , to keep it cleaned out so that drainage can flow . H:\GROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutes\Minutes 2002\PCM 08-20-02 .doc 12 • • • Chairman Waggoner questioned whether height of structures can be limited to two sto- ries. Ms. Langon pointed out that there is no definition or numerical criteria to establish what constitutes a "story". Mr. Welker discussed his calculations for a two-story struc- ture : 1 foot above grade ; 9 feet per floor; 1 foot between floors, and a 6: 12 pitch for the roof -he figured this could equal between the 29 to 30 feet. Discussion ensued. Ms. Krieger questioned that the two feet difference -32 feet versus 30 feet -makes that much difference. Further discussion ensued. Chairman Waggoner asked Mr. Pappas about the elevation of the northwest corner of the subject property , and how the drainage swale will be constructed around that corner. Mr. Pappas discussed the elevation of the property, and noted that the northwest corner is ref- erenced as a "pond site" on the Preliminary Subdivision Plat. A number of years ago , the landscaped berm was built across the north property line in an attempt to alleviate the storm runoff from this site, and from the Mansion site, from flowing onto the properties to the north. Mr. Pappas stated that the entire subject site will be graded as part of the development efforts , and errors of 20 years standing will be corrected. Mr. Pappas stated that the drainage plan was reviewed twice by Public Works Director Ross, and was ac- ceptable to him. Chairman Waggoner asked if there is any reason the northern wall of the drainage swale could not be raised three inches or more. Mr. Pappas stated there is no reason it could not be raised . Mr. Welker stated that the west to east drainage appears to be a one-foot fall in 300 feet -this is a pretty flat piece of property from west to east. Mr. Pappas agreed . Mr. Pappas suggested that if the drainage ditch is made a little deeper -the northern wall increased in height -more south to north drainage would be retained on the site . Chan Lee was sworn in, and stated he is affiliated with the Korean Emmanuel Methodist Church . Mr. Lee expressed concern that the Church property could "float" if homes are built on the property to the north . Mr. Pappas stated that drainage from the church property would drain to the west at the southern end of that property. Drainage flow from the church property will not change. Chairman Waggoner asked if there were more comments . Mr. Bodley again addressed the Commission, and read the following paragraph of his letter into the record. "Finally it is hard for an ordinary citizen or even the architect to determine from the plot plan exactly the what and where of the proposed grading, the ex- act location, and the exact elevation of the drainage channel in respect to our properties . Therefore , I'm asking that if the concrete drainage channel is in fact elevated above the height of the property directly to the north, that it will be supported by a masonry retain- ing wall or masonry faced embankment." Chairman Waggoner asked if Commission had more questions of staff, of the applicant , or of anyone who has offered testimony. No further questions were asked . H:\GROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutes\Minutes 200 2\PCM 08 -20-02.doc 13 • • • Schum moved: Parks seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. AYES: NAYS: Schum, Welker, Krieger, Mueller, Parks , Roth, Waggoner None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Lathram, Willis The motion carried. Chairman Waggoner asked the pleasure of the Commission . Krieger moved: Parks seconded: The Planning Commission approve Case #PUD 2002-01 , for Uni- versity Homes at 3055 South University Boulevard, with the fol- lowing conditions: 1. A Homeowner Association be formed and documents per- taining to the Association be filed against all properties with the Arapahoe County Clerk. 2. A recorded copy of the Homeowner Association document be pro v ided to the City. 3. The north wall of the drainage channel on the north prop- erty line of the subject site shall be raised four inches in height. 4. No less than 35 % of the required landscaping shall be live plant material. Mr. Welker stated that in his opinion, the biggest issue is that of storm water drainage. He stated it is not clear to him whether an added "four inch lip " on the north wall of the drainage channel will adequately handle the storm runoff. He stated that he questioned the adequacy of the drainage plan , and asked that it be reviewed with a very "cautious eye". Mr. Schum stated that people living to the north feel they will be flooded every time it rains. Ms. Krieger pointed out that Mr. Bodley had stated he wanted assurance that the applicant and City have made "good faith efforts" to resolve the drainage issue ; she also pointed out that testimony has been received that the drainage plan was reviewed and approved by Public Works Director Ross. Mr. Parks stated that drainage is an issue, and suggested that the Commission ask Director Ross to "share his logic " with them. He stated that the drainage is of concern to the citizens and to the Commission members. Chairman Waggoner asked about the proposed height of the structures. Mr. Welker stated that it isn't really an issue. Mr. Schum stated that it could be the difference be- tween a three-story, flat-roofed adobe structure and a two-story pitched-roof structure. Ms. Krieger stated that economics will dictate what is ultimately developed on the site . Mr. Welker reiterated that the height is not an issue . H:\GROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutes\Minutes 2002\PCM 08-20-02 .doc 14 • • Discussion ensued. Mr. Brotzman advised that if the Commission has additional ques- tions, or wants to receive additional information for the record , they should reopen the Public Hearing, and continue proceedings to a date certain. Schum moved: Krieger seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #PUD 2002-01 be reopened . AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Krieger, Mueller, Parks, Roth , Schum, Welker, Waggoner None None Willis, Lathram The motion carried. Welker moved : Schum seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #PUD 2002-01 be continued to Sep- tember 4 , 2002. The applicant is asked to clarify verbiage con- tained in the General Regulations "A", and clarify landscaping re- quirements that no less than 35 % of the required landscaping shall be of live plant materials. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Krieger, Mueller, Parks , Roth, Schum , Welker, Waggoner None None Lathram, Willis The motion carried . Chairman Waggoner expressed the appreciation of the Commission to the applicant team, and to members of the audience , and stated that the Public Hearing has been continued to September 4, at 7:00 p.m . V. PIF/CIP REVIEW AND PRIORITIZATION Ms . Langon stated that projects submitted by City Departments for funding through the Public Improvement Fund or the Capital Improvement Project fund are to be considered by the Commission. Ms. Langon referenced the memorandum from Mr. Flaherty that was included in the packet, citing the limited funding anticipated for the PIF/CIP pro- jects. The Commission typically reviews the project requests, determines which projects support the Comprehensive Plan, and recommends a priority of projects. Brief discussion ensued. Chairman Waggoner asked why maintenance issues are not in- cluded in the operating budget rather than in public improvement/capital improvement request for funding. Ms. Langon suggested that inclusion of any project in the capital • project budget is dependent on the cost of the project. H:\GROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\M inutes\Minutes 2002\PCM 08 -20 -02 .doc 15 • • • Schum moved: Parks seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to the City Manager the following list of Capital Improvement Project/Public Improvement Fund projects . The Commission finds that the cited projects sup- port the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, and recommend funding of these projects. No priority is suggested. PROJECT Transportation System Upgrade South Broadway Action Plan Bates Street Light Rail Station Permit Tracking System Transportation Action Plan Centennial Landscaping Pocket Parks South Broadway Street Furniture Entryport Monumentation 285 Pedestrian Bridge Englewood Parkway Construction Dartmouth A venue Pedestrian Bridge AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Mueller, Parks, Roth, Schum, Welker, Krieger, Waggoner None None Lathram, Willis The motion carried. VI. PUBLIC FORUM No one was present to address the Commission . VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE AMOUNT $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 160,000 275,000 250,000 42,500 150,000 50,000 100,000 100,000 $ 100,000 $1 ,2 00,000 $ 600,000 $ 200,000 Ms . Langon distributed a tentative meeting schedule for the Commission . This tentative schedule encompasses the months of August, September, October, November, and De- cember, and indicates that the Commission may be required to meet every Tuesday eve- ning to complete the review, public hearing, recommendation and referral of the Uniform Development Code to City Council in compliance with deadlines established by the City Council. Ms. Langon reiterated that this is a "tentative" schedule, and is subject to change. Ms. Langon introduced Mr. Anthony Fruchtl to the Commission. Mr. Fruchtl is a Plan- ner I with the Department of Community Development, and will be preparing staff re- ports and case presentations before the Commission. H:\GROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Mioutes\Mioutes 2002\PCM 08-20-02.doc 16 • VIII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE • • Mr. Brotzman reminded the Commission of the Board and Commission recognition eve- ning scheduled for August 26; this celebration will be held in the Community Room of the Civic Center, and will begin at 5:30 p.m. IX. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Nothing was raised for discussion under Commissioner's Choice . The meeting was declared adjourned at 10 p .m. /, /' . z / -. ' /" / r;:-1.,,r ' .y /•/?.-~ '(,./ Gertrude G . Welty , Rec'ording Secretru:: H:\GROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutes\Minutes 2002\PCM 08 -2 0-02 .doc 17