Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-02-06 PZC MINUTES. ' • • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 6, 2001 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 in Englewood Civic Center; Chairman Welker presided .' Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Rempel, Waggoner, Weber, Welker, Willis Rininger, Stockwell Senior Planner Langon Assistant City Attorney Reid (Secretary Note: Two vacancies due to terms expiring on February 7, 2007. Appointments to Commission are scheduled for February 20, 200 7.) Mr. Welker declared a quorum present. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 23 , 2000 Chairman Welker stated the Minutes of January 23, 2000 were to be considered for approval. Rempel moved: Waggoner seconded: The Minutes of January 23, 2000 be approved as written. Mr. Welker asked if there were any changes or corrections to the Minutes . None were made . Mr. Welker asked for the vote. AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT : Rempel, Waggoner, Weber, Welker None Willis Rininger, Stockwell The motion carried. Ill. ELECTIONS Chair Welker stated that elections are usually held at the first meeting in February; however, two members are absent and City Council has not yet appointed two Commissioner s. Chair Welker recommended postponing elections until February 21. The Commission agreed. H:IGROUPIBOARDSIPLANCOMMIPUD\200 1-0 1 Croig Hosp itol\Minut<S Cru ig.uoc 1 • IV. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Craig Hospital 3425 South Clarkson Street CASE PUD-2001-01 Mr. Welker stated the issue before the Commission is a Planned Unit Development for Craig Hospital at 3425 South Clarkson Street. He asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Waggoner moved: Weber seconded: The Public Hearing on Case PUD-2001-01 be opened . AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN : ABSENT : Rempel , Waggoner, Weber, Willis, Welker None None Rininger and Stockwell Motion carried. Mr. Welker set forth parameters for conduct of the Public Hearing, and asked that staff present the case. • Tricia Langon , Senior Planner, was sworn in. Ms. Langon stated the staff report, Certification of Posting and Proof of Publication were submitted to the Recording Secretary. Community Development recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Craig Hospital Planned Unit Development (PUD ) and forward it to City Council. With that recommendation, the Commission also will be asking to vacate the 1994 Craig Hospital Planned Development. • Ms. Langon stated the PUD site is located at the intersection of South Clarkson and East Girard ; it contains three parcels of land totaling 4.9 acres . For presentation purposes and to identify the parcels, Parcel 1 is at the southeast corner of the intersection. It presentl y contains the "East " building, the Friendship House, and two converted apartment buildings . Parcel 2 is north of Girard on the northeast corner and contains the surface parking lot. Parcel 3, which contains the main Craig Hospital, is on the southwest corner of the intersection. Ms . Langon continued ; the area is currently zoned R-3, High Density with the Planned Development overlay. The Planned Development Ordinance was repealed in 1996 with the adoption of the Planned Unit Development Ordinance. The PUD Ordinance provides a rezoning of the site for the purpose of unifying development control of all three parcels. It also establishes the zoning and the site plan criteria which is specific to the PUD. The PUD Ordinance contains two sections : the District Plan , containing the district zone regulations, and the Site Plan , containing the site design and requirements of the PUD. For this case , the applicant has chosen to take the District Plan and the Site Plan concurrently through the process . H:IGR OUP\BOARDSIPLANCOMMIPUD\2001 -0 I Cruig Hus puull."1 inutos CrJig .J uc 2 • • • Ms. Langon testified the intent of the Craig PUD is the West and East building, as well as the north parking lot, will remain as they currently exist. Parcel 1, containing the East building, the two apartment buildings, and the Friendship House, is the area of construction. The East building will remain ; the two apartment buildings and the Friendship House will be demolished . A 4-story family housing building with 4 7 accessible units w ill replace the 43 units which Craig Hospital currentl y uses to service family members and former patients returning for re-evaluation . Also on that site, on the southwest corner of the intersecti?n of Girard and Emerson, will be a 6-level, 333-space parking structure. Ms. Langon further stated per the requirements of the PUD Ordinance, Craig Hospital held a neighborhood meeting on December 6, 2000 and presented preliminary plans. One area resident and representatives from Swedish Hospital attended the meeting. The proposed PUD was reviewed by the City's Development Review Team. All identified issues and concerns were resolved to each department's satisfaction . The surrounding zoning is R-3, except for an area which is R-1-C, located north of Girard and east of th e alley separating Clarkson and Emerson. The City Ordinance requires 249 parking spaces for the full PUD - the hospital use and the family hous i ng unit; Craig proposed 401 parking spaces. With regard to landscaping, the applicant is providing 3 3% of the entire site. The underlying R-3 requires only 25 %. Craig exceeds both in area and also in quantity of materials . The proposed height is 80 feet. The East and West buildings are now approximately 60 feet in height without equipment on top of the buildings . The family housing and the parking structure will be 64 feet and 7 4 feet, respectively. Staff believes the overall District Plan and Site Plan are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan , and they meet the requirements of the Planned Unit Development. Staff recommends the Commission forward a recommendation to City Council to vacate the 1994 Craig Hospital Planned Development and to approve the Craig Hospital Planned Unit De v elopment. Mr. Waggoner clarified the parking structure would contain 333 parking spaces, but the overall site would pro v ide 401 parking spaces. Ms. Langon stated that was correct; there is parking to the north of Girard and also at the main hospital. Chair Welker stated he had a problem with the procedure being followed. There is no mention in the staff report that the Commission would be vacating the Planned Development. The Commission does not have any documentation showing the requirements or the limits of the PD; yet the Commission is being asked recommend vacation of the PD. The PUD ma y be compatible with the Planned Development, but he has no proof. Ms. Langon responded ; the 1994 PD was for the East building or the transitional care building. It provided some setback requirements , which are the same in the PUD . Chair Welker asked where the West building was incorporated . Ms . Lan gon stated it was also included in the PD . Chair Welker further stated that staff should have pro v ided the Commission with the PD information so they could compare it with the proposed PUD. Ms. Langon apologized for the oversight, and assured the Commission that all the items in the Planned Development are contained in the PUD . Mr. Willis asked how people were notified of the neighborhood meeting. Ms. Langon responded that the property owners were mailed notices, as well as hand delivered to the H:IGROUP\BOARDSIPLANCOMMIPUD\2001-0 I Croig Hospitul\M u1 utos Cruig .uoc 3 • • • multi-family units. Mr. Willis asked for the area covered. Ms. Langon stated the requirement is that notices be delivered within a 500 foot radius of the property. Mr. Rempel stated the turnout for the neighborhood meeting was low and asked if that was typical. Ms. Langon stated it depends on how interested people are in the project, as well as how controversial the topic. Mr. Rempel asked whether Ms. Langon had a sense whether people felt fairly neutral about the project. Ms . Langon stated the one gentlemen who attended the neighborhood meeting lives diagonally across from the proposed parking garage . When asked if he had any concerns being that close to the hospital, he responded that he had no issues with the hospital. Mr. Willis asked whether the parking area to the north of Girard was used solely for Craig Hospital. Ms. Langon stated it was solely for Craig Hospital's use; however, she is unaware of whether Craig has a policy of monitoring the parking area and a Craig representative could better answer that question. Dennis O' Malley, President of Craig Hospital, was sworn in . Mr. O ' Malley stated Mark Williams of H+L Architecture would also be presenting and representatives from Phipps Construction are available to answer questions if needed . Mr. O'Malley testified th at there are two components to the project. One is the patient and famil y housing facility which will consolidate the use within the existing two apartment buildings. The hospital currentl y leases the third apartment building. Approximately 50 % of Craig 's patients are from outside the metro area. Famil y members of patients need a place to sta y, and the hospital has provided housing for families which has worked very well. The buildings currentl y occupied are getting old; do not justify much more capital expenditures; and are not very "friendl y" to people in wheelchairs . The facility would also be used for patients who return for re-evaluation and need housing. Even though it will be a new facility it replaces an existing function. The actual units within the proposed facility are very similar to those in the East building Mr. O 'Malley further testified that the second phase of the project is the parking structure . Craig has been somewhat dependent upon leased parking space from Swedish. As Swedish expands and grows, Craig feels it is important to take care of their own parking needs. The proposed parking structure will allow Craig to be more independent and will allow for future growth. Since the family house has been in place for some time, the hospital anticipates a very small increase in staff; 3-4 new employees at most. It is also very important to Craig that the hospital fit into the neighborhood. When the bridge was constructed across Clarkson, the hospital tried to do it in a way that added to the neighborhood and was aestheticall y pleasing. The hospital desires to continue its harmonious relationship with the neighborhood . With regard to the low turnout at the public hearing, Mr. O 'Malley stated he hoped that was because Craig has tried to communicate with the neighborhood. Also , to the immediate east of the project is a parking lot and a Swedish Senior Day Center; to the west is Craig Hospital; and to the south is Swedish and Craig land only . It is only on the north where homes and residents are affected . When the facility is finished, there will be a green space buffer on the corner of Girard and Clarkson which does not currently exist. H:IGROUPIBOARDSIPLANCOMMIPUD\2001 -0 1 Craig Hospitall."1inutc s Cra ig.doc 4 • • • Mr. O 'Malley continued; the hospital is concerned with the impacts of the construction and parking during construction. Craig has been working with Swedish to lease a large portion of their new surface parking lot during construction. Craig is also looking at other alternatives, such as shuttling employees to remote parking sites during construction. Mr. Weber clarified that the apartment building to the south is not owned by Craig. Mr. O'Malley stated that was correct. Mr. Weber stated that the parking lot to the south of that apartment building is shown on the plans as being owned by Swedish. Mr. O 'Malley stated that was correct. Mr. Willis asked whether Craig owned the apartment building on the corner of Girard and Clarkson. Mr. O'Malley stated it did. Mr. Willis asked how the transition will affect the people currentl y li v ing there . Mr. O 'Malle y responded that the way the project is phased the fam i ly housing facility will be constructed while still keeping the existing units operational during the full construction period. Those units will be demolished onl y after the construction of the new facility is complete; they will then start construction on the parking structure . Chair Welker state d that the other buildings are suited for future expansion and asked whether the parking garage or the apartments are planned for expansion . Mr. O 'Malley responded that Craig is intending to build the parking garage one time and not to have additional capacity. The housing structure can accommodate 47 units . At this point, the hospital is evaluating whether to finish 34 or all 47 units initially. When the East building was built, one floor was finished and the second floor was shelled ; however, a y ear later the y finished the shelled floor. The design of the building is for 4 7 units, and there is no capacity bey ond that. Chair Welker also stated that there currently is a small building where the first building will be located. Mr. Welker clarified that the function within that building will transfer to another facility. Mr. O 'Malley responded that building is the Friendship House and is a facility families can use for 3 hours on weekends or during holida y s for famil y gatherings . A Friendship Center will be located in the new patient and family housing facility. The function will be relocated into the new facility . During construction, Craig is looking at relocating that function to the therapeutic recreation room and a few other patient education rooms i n order to "make due " until the new facility is complete . Chair Welker stated that south of the building is an existing parking lot, which is part o f the site where the first building will be constructed . Since that parking lot is not available during construction, Chair Welker asked whether there would be enough parking during construction . Mr. O ' Malley responded that approximately 45 spaces will be lost with that parking lot during construction . The new lease with Swedish provides 140 spaces on the old greenhouse property. The hospital believes that will provide adequate parking during construction. Further, Swedish is making some parking changes on their campus, and Craig will have more information in approximately 2 months, but Craig anticipates using the Swedish parking lot in approximately 2-4 weeks . Mr. O'Malley stated from their calculations he believes there will be sufficient parking during construction. As a safeguard, H:IG ROUP\BOARDSIPLA:-ICOMMIPUD\2001-01 Croig Hospual\Minu«s Craig .doc 5 • • • Craig has looked at remote parking areas and providing a shuttle . Craig will have a definitive answer prior to starting construction. Chair Welker clarified there are 140 parking spaces on Swedish property and approximately 60 parking spaces on the north lot of Girard . Mr. O'Malley stated that was correct and there is also wheelchair accessible parking around the existing apartments, which will remain during construction. There is also parking on the west. There are approximately 245 parking spaces, not including street parking, available during construction. Chair Welker asked what area would be used as the construction stage area. Mr. O'Malley responded that it will be a "tight" site, but there have been a number of pre-construction meetings with Phipps Construction. Access to the site will be from Emerson Street; Clarkson Street is too busy . Some of the area between the Friendship House and the parking lot will be utilized for construction staging, and on-site material will need to be limited since there isn 't much room for staging. Chair Welker stated that he had issues regarding construction hours and construction equipment. He understands Emerson has a 60-foot right-of-way, but it is approximatel y a 30-foot wide street; a lane each way. Chair Welker stated there may need to be some parking restrictions on Emerson for construction traffic. Mr. O' Malley stated they would agree . Chair Welker stated it is public right-of-way and not under Craig's control, but the City will deal with that issue. Chair Welker stated Craig is presenting a bit of a problem to the neighborhood, even though Craig and Swedish are primary uses of that street. Chair Welker stated there is an apartment building to the south, and he is concerned with the impact to that property. Mr. O'Malley stated that building is 100 percent leased by Craig Hospital. It is used exclusivel y for family/patient housing. The parking requirements associated with that building are nominal because the majority of the occupants are temporary, short-term, and from out of state . There are adequate parking spaces around that building and those spaces will not be interrupted during construction . Chair Welker stated that there is a potential conflict with access to that parking area because on the north side of the building is onl y 15 feet from the property line . Mr. O 'Malley stated that the alle y immediately north of the building will remain intact during construction to provide access from the north and south of the building. Chair Welker clarified that Craig was requesting a vacation of the alle y between the East building and the new construction. Mr. O 'Malley stated that it was vacated in conjunction with the East building construction . Chair Welker asked w hether the alle y would still be used for access because north of the East building there is a drive coming through along the proposed parking structure. Mr. O' Malley responded that the only access to the parking garage will be from Emerson Street, but not through the entire property . Chair Welker clarified; there currently exists a private "L-shaped" drive along the north side of the East building which goes north to Girard. Chair Welker asked if that drive would stay. Mr. O'Malley stated that it is not involved in the access to the parking way; it will still be necessary to use it during construction to provide access to the north entrance of the north building. It will continue to be used for a drop off and a pass through area to get through to Girard. It will never be used to access the parking garage. H:IGROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\P UD\200 1·0 1 C raig Hospi 1al\Min u1<s Cr,ig.doc 6 • • • Chair Welker clarified that the remaining vacated area will be landscaped and the area between the garage and the Friendship House will be a pedestrian area. Mr. O ' Malley stated that was correct; there will be some landscape area between the two buildings but because of the height of the buildings there is only a certain amount of green space that will grow. The area on the north, the corner of Girard and Clarkson , will be a green space. Chair Welker clarified that the only vehicular access to Friendship House will be along its south side, adjacent to the other apartment building. Mr. O 'Malley stated that drive will be maintained during and after construction . There are some oxygen tanks and other items that need to be accessed by trucks on a regular basis. Chair Welker asked whether traffic surveys had been done to show impacts on Emerson , Girard, Hampden, and Clarkson Streets . Mr. O 'Malley stated that he cannot produce a professional stud y, but the hospital has done its own analysis. The access on old Hampden will remain the same, and there should be no impact as a result of the new construction. There will be some impact on Girard, but there should be no increase on Clarkson. There also will be some increase on Emerson because it is the only entrance and exit to the garage ramp . Chair Welker clarified that construction traffic would use Hampden and Emerson . Mr. O ' Malley stated he would defer that question to the architect and/or construction company . Mr. Willis asked whether Craig was aware of Swedish 's proposed expansion , and whether Craig 's construction would be done concurrentl y with Swedish 's construction . Mr. O 'Malley stated there would be some overlap . Mr. Willis asked whether Craig has been in c ontac t w ith Sw edish to c oordinate the construction traffi c since a large area is under construction at the same time . Mr. O' Malley stated they have talked with Swedish regarding the construction . The Swedish construction will be from the main hospital to the south and will probably impact old Hampden. Craig's activity will be approximatel y 2-3 blocks away from Swedish. There may be some additional traffic in that area , but access to Craig's site will be fairl y separated from Swedish . The bigger question is : What happens to the added volume of construction workers who need parking? That question is what lead the two hospitals to the joint plan of Craig moving to the east so Swedish could conserve as man y spaces as possible closer to their building. Mr. Willis clarified construction traffic would stay off of Girard and sta y more to the south. Mr. O'Malley stated they were try ing to keep their access to the south. Of all the streets around the project, Emerson is the street with the least amount of traffic. It has limited traffic by neighbors; most is by campus employees . Craig intends to keep construction traffic on Emerson and to access it from the south to minimize the impact to the neighbors on the north. There are no residences south of Girard. Chair Welker asked whether Craig has talked to City staff regarding the capacity of Emerson handling the heavy construction vehicles. It is probabl y a minimal street as far as pavement and maybe even sub-surface. Mr. O 'Malley stated he would need to defer that question . Chair Welker stated it would be an issue for City staff to verify, but the question H:IG ROUPIBOARDSIPLANCOMMIPUD\2001·01 Craig Ho spital\Mi11u 1es Cr.1ig .Jo<: 7 • • • was whether Craig had talked to the City. There is a comment in the staff report regarding that issue on Emerson. Mr. Rempel stated he was interested in the height of the structure; it is considerably higher than what currently exists. He asked if any of the Swedish representatives had a particular perspective for the senior daycare center and how they felt about the parking structure being directly to their west. Mr. O'Malley stated no concerns have been expressed. The Johnson Center has no overnight residents; it is a day treatment program. The Corona residence has been made aware of the proposal and were invited to the neighborhood meeting. In terms of elevation, they are higher and should have no difficulty seeing over the new building. Chair Welker asked for the height of the Craig building in comparison with the top of Swedish buildings. Mr. O 'Malley stated he was unaware of the height of the Swedish building, but it is a 10-story facility . Craig 's structure will be considerably lower than the top of that facility. Mr. Willis asked whether there were plans for future expansion. Mr. O 'Malley stated they do not have any such plans. The number of occupied beds today has not changed since 1974. There are additional facilities and buildings, but Craig does not believe its future is in caring for more patients. The system is sized, in terms of patient flow, at its practical maximum. There are no plans for additional buildings; any expansion would be "up." Craig has chosen not to add footings to the proposed building for additional stories; adding additional stories is also very disruptive to operations, as well as expensive . That was one of the main reason for building the East building rather than adding stories onto the West building. Chair Welker stated that this overlaps with his concern about the Planned Development regarding the height. He assumes the PD gave Craig the right to "go up" on both the West and East buildings. He wants to confirm that the PD reserved the maximum height without "blessing " the proposed PUD without that stipulation . Mr. Weber stated the Friendship House is a relatively new building and asked whether there was any salvation for the building. Mr. O'Malley responded that Craig has talked to a home mover that has previousl y moved some homes from the site ; however, the way the facility is constructed does not allow it to be moved "as is ." It is a slab on grade construction; the mover is looking into saving as much of the building as possible . Mr. Willis asked how old the apartments were that will be demolished . Mr. O'Malley stated he did not know; the building on the corner of Girard and Emerson was originally purchased by Swedish in 1972. Craig purchased the other building, which is the older of the two buildings, approximately 8-10 years ago . His guess is they are approximately 50 years old . Mark Williams, H+L Architecture, was sworn in. Mr. Williams stated he had a brief Power Point presentation . On the first slide, Mr. Williams pointed out Clarkson Street, the West H:IG ROUP\BOARD SIPLANCOMMIP UD\2001 ·01 Craig Huspirn l\Minutos Craig .Joe 8 • • • building, Swedish 's campus, old Hampden Street, the East building, the parking lot on the north side of Girard, and the area of the proposed development. The second slide shows a site map of the entire Craig property. Mr. Williams pointed out the West building, the East building, the bridge connecting across Clarkson Street, the parking lot on the north side of Girard Street, and the parcel of land which is the primary topic of the PUD for development. The third slide is a proposed site plan which shows the proposed development. Mr. William pointed to the parking structure, the family housing building, and the park-like area which will be developed. Mr. Williams also pointed out the drive going under the north canopy of the East building, which exits onto Girard Street and will not access the parking structure. The major change in that drive is the reduction of some surfacing parking. Mr. Williams stated with regard to the phasing of the site, the anticipated start of construction of the family housing building is in early Summer 2001 with an anticipated completion in Spring 2002. Due to moving patients from existing apartment buildings into the famil y housing building prior to demolition, the demolition of those buildings will start immediatel y after th e famil y housing building is completed in Spring 200 2. The parking structure will start construction immediately thereafter with an anticipated completion date of Fall 2002. The vehicular circulation will be similar to what is currentl y occurring on the site. The primary areas of parking for Craig Hospital occur off of Emerson ; and they do not anticipate increased traffic on Emerson. The construction traffic will be primarily along Hampden and Emerson. There have been discussions with the City Traffic Engineers regarding the construction, and Craig understands the contractors will need to have permits to use those streets for construction. Also, the routing of traffic during construction will be gone o v er with the City Traffic Engineers. Further, an y damage caused by the construction to Emerson Street w ould be repaired b y Craig Hospital. Mr. Williams continued ; there are 34 units on 3 floors of the family housing building; the building itself is 4 stories, with the fourth floor being shelled for future build-out. There will be 13 additional units on the fourth floor when it is completed, which will be a total of 47 units in that building. The parking exceeds the City's zoning requirements, and the parking structure will house 333 vehicles. Mr. Williams stated that there are anticipated setbacks along Emerson and Girard Streets of 10 feet for the new development. There is no anticipated construction along Clarkson Street or Parcel 3; the setbacks will conform to the R-3 requirements. The landscape plan currentl y exceeds the R-3 requirements of 25 %; Craig is proposing 33 %. All of the existing landscape on the parcels will not be altered with this project. The lands cape areas primaril y consist of the major pedestrian circulation which will occur between the three buildings; pedestrian access between the parking structure and the family housing building; and the park-like green space on the north side of the East building. There is also green space along the perimeter of the parking structure to provide some pedestrian scale and relief at the street level. There is a significant amount of hardscape on the pedestrian routes to provide access for people in wheelchairs. The landscape plan is designed to provide facility patients in wheelchairs access to the landscaped areas as part of their therapy . H:IGROUPIBOARDSIP LANCOMMIPUD\200 1 ·0 I Cruig Hos pi tu l\M i11 u<« Craig .Joo 9 • • • Mr. Williams continued; a proposed canopy at the secondary entrance to the family housing building will project into the setback 5 feet. Mr. Williams showed the primary elevations that face the major streets. The height of the family housing building is 64 feet to the top of the roof, and the height of the majority of the parking structure is 64 feet. The overrun of the elevator on the parking structure and the stairs to the upper parking deck is 70 feet to the top of the stair tower; however, it steps down toward the periphery of the site . The family housing building shows the massing of the building broken up to help minimize the scale of the building at the street level. The masonry proposed is the same masonry used on the other Craig facilities to tie all the buildings together as a campus. The sloped roof is an effort to accentuate the residential character. The location of the windows is more in character with an apartment building, rather than an institutional building. The parking structure is proposed to be a pre-cast structure . Once the family housing building is completed, the parking structure will go up in pieces; therefore, there will not be the same need for construction staging as there is for the other building. The pieces will be lifted off the truck and set in place. The pre-cast elements of the parking structure are proposed to be exposed aggregate and colored concrete in order to tie it in with the colors of the masonry being used on the remainder of the campus . Chair Welker clarified that the canopy is on the third level. Referring to the slide, Mr. Williams pointed out where the canop y would be located; it is a very simpl y cantilever that will project from the building, similar to the canopy that projects onto the west side of the East building. Chair Welker clarified that the building will be recessed at the second floor and there is a bridge across. Mr. Williams stated there will be a small balcony on the third and fourth floors to help break up the massing of the building and provide some shadow and interest. Chair Welker stated he was trying to understand the transition between the darker and lighter brick. Looking at the west elevat ion , the north third of the building is light brick, but on the north elevation there is dark brick. Chair Welker asked whether the dark and light brick joined at the corner. Mr. Williams stated it did not; there is an error in the ele vations, but the dark brick actuall y turns the corner. The idea is to use the darker brick at the corners of the building to solidify those corners . Chair Welker asked for clarification on the recess in the roof. Mr. Williams stated the roof is being used as a character element, as well as screening for the mechanical systems . Chair Welker clarified that the top of the elevator tower, on the southwest corner of the parking structure, is 175 feet 9 inches. Mr. Williams stated it is 70 feet to the top . Chair Welker referred Mr. Williams to Sheet PUD-6. On the right-hand elevation in the middle, it indicates the top of the roof is 1 75 feet 9 inches. Chair Welker asked what that measurement referred to if it isn 't the top of the stair tower. Mr. Williams stated there are some dimensional elevation inaccuracies. Chair Welker asked whether there was any structure within the PUD that was 1 75 feet 9 inches above grade . Mr. Williams stated if the fourth floor were added to the East building, which it was structurall y designed for, it would be 74 feet high . Chair Welker asked if the 1 72 feet also referred to that imaginary line . Referring to the plans, Chair Welker stated that there are two elevations; one indicates 175 feet 9 inches above finish floor top of roof. Mr. Williams stated that was inaccurate. Chair Welker again asked what the 172 feet is in reference to; it doesn 't appear because below that it indicates that the top of the parapet is 163 feet 8 inches. Mr. Williams stated the 1 72 H:IG ROUPIBOARDSIPLANCOMMIPUD\2001-01 CrJig Hospital\Miu utcs CrJ ig .Joc 10 • • • feet is the top of the screen portion of the roof. Chair Welker stated that didn 't correspond with the other drawings; it indicates the top of the parapet as 163 feet 8 inches. Chair Welker stated he is trying to determine the top of the building. Mr. Williams stated that the top of the building is 64 feet to the ridgeline of the roof. Chair Welker clarified that the 1 72 feet does not exist. Mr. Williams stated that was correct. Chair Welker further clarified that the 179 feet 9 inches does not exist. Mr. Williams stated that was correct. Mr. Williams stated initially Craig was considering a 5-story building. Chair Welker stated it indicates Craig presented a 5-story building to the neighborhood. Mr. Williams stated that was also an inaccuracy . Due to budgetary concerns, one floor was removed to make it a 4-stor y building. Chair Welker clarified that the Commission is considering a 64 foot buildin g; the other two dimensions need to be removed from the drawing. Mr. Williams stated that was correct. Chair Welker asked whether the highest point of the el ·ev ator or stairwa y on the p arking structure is 69 feet 4 inches . Mr. Williams stated that was correct. Chair Welker stated a 64 foot building and a 69 foot building are being proposed, w ith no pl ans for future height. Mr. Williams stated that was correct; neither structure is designed for future capacity . Ch air Welker aske d if Phi pps Construction would present to address issues of construction, equipm ent, and tra ffic. Mr. Williams stated the y would present if there were questions he could not sufficientl y answer. Chair Welker stated he asked most of the questions before and asked whether Mr. Williams was capable of answering those questions, or would they be de f erred to Phipps Construction . Mr. Williams stated he attempted to respond to the concerns regarding the construction staging; but if it wasn't adequate, representatives from Phipps Construction can answer those questions. He stated he also attempted to respond to the traffic concern . Craig has been in contact with the Traffic Engineers, and they are aware of the project. Ch air Welker stated the other parts of the question are th e ty p es of equipment used and materials, and asked if Mr. Williams could answer those questi o ns or should the y be def erred . Mr. Williams stated if there is a crane there will need to permits and coordin ation with the Traffic Engineers to deli v er the crane to the site . Phipps Construction built the East building, as well as the bridge across Clarkson Street, and are ver y familiar w ith w hat is necessary to coordinate with the City. Chair Welker stated he wants to know the height of the crane, its position, and how it impacts the helipad on Swedish . Mr. Williams stated he would defer those issues to the construction compan y. Mr. Weber stated there are currentl y mature trees around the site , and the proposed plan onl y shows one remaining after construction. Mr. Weber asked whether the mature trees in front of the apartment buildings were too close and why the y can 't be sa v ed . Mr. Williams stated those trees are sta y ing; the y are trying to save as man y of the trees as po ssible . Internally to the site, there is a large green space between the Friendship House and the East building; there are no trees in that area. There is a row of trees along the current parking, which will be removed with the PUD . Those trees are approximately 2-2.5 caliber trees . Mr. Weber referred his attention to the Emerson elevation and pointed out the trees in front of the apartment building. Mr. Weber asked if those were existing trees . Mr. Williams stated there were some existing trees at that location, and they will try to save those as much as they can. On the site plan , there is a drop off that will eliminate one or two of those existing trees . Mr. Weber asked wh y smaller trees were chosen for in front of H :IGROUP\BOARDSIPLANCOMMIPUD\2001-0 1 Cruig Hos pitul\Mi11 u«s Crnig .doc 11 • • • the parking structure. Mr. Williams responded the size of the tree is as large as the budget allows. Mr. Weber clarified the trees were different species. Mr. Williams stated that was correct; there is a cost difference between different sizes and types of trees. Chair Welker stated the landscape plan is inconsistent with his testimony. The landscape plan shows existing trees along the Girard/Clarkson corner, but it does not show any existing trees remaining along Emerson except for one spruce. Chair Welker asked if that was correct. Mr. Williams stated that was correct. Chair Welker continued; the existing trees along Emerson will be new. Mr. Williams stated that was correct. Chair Welker stated he didn 't run the calculations on the landscape area , but asked whether there is more landscaping than required. Mr. Williams stated the current zoning requirement for R- 3 is 25%, and Craig is at 33%. Chair Welker asked if he excluded the northwest corner, the park, would there be 25% landscaping. Mr. Williams stated he was not completely sure, but believed it would not meet the 25% requirement; the park is part of the calculated 33%. Chair Welker stated he wanted it in the record that the Commission has considered that area because in the future someone may wish to amend the PUD and build a structure on that corner. Mr. Williams stated that area is important to the neighborhood, the site, and the project. Again, the minimum 25% landscaping could not be met without that area. Chair Welker asked if there was an intent to detail that area further with hardscape . Mr. Williams stated that could be considered if it was desirable. Currently there is a large open space between the Friendship House and the East building. Chair Welker stated the problem with that space is that it is confined with buildings; there won't be much sun in that area . He believes people will want to wheel their chairs to the green space where they can actually be in the sun. Mr. Weber stated he didn't understand the calculation . On the cover page of the plans, it indicates the total site is 214,000 square feet, which appears to be the number on which landscaping is calculated. However, regarding lot coverage, it indicates total built is 240,000 square feet. Chair Welker asked if that included any right-of-way landscaping. Mr. Williams stated he didn 't know, but if the right-of-way landscaping is typically calculated, it probably is included . Chair Welker stated the City Ordinance allows the right-of-way landscaping to be included in the landscaping calculation . Chair Welker stated that may be an answer as to wh y the numbers do not add up. Mr. Weber stated the plans indicate lot coverage, not including the parking structure, is larger than the total square footage calcuJation for landscaping. Mr. Williams stated if the right-of-way landscaping were not included in the calculation, the landscaping would still exceed the required 25%. Chair Welker stated in the site data it indicates 6,000 square feet of landscaping in the public right-of-way . Mr. Weber stated on the front page of the plans, there is a square footage calculation of 214,000 square feet and below that there is lot coverage, not including the parking structure, of 240,000 square feet. Mr. Williams stated that according to the Zoning Ordinance you do not have to calculate the parking structure into the landscaping percentages . Mr. Weber asked why the 240,000 wasn't used as the calculation for landscaping; he still doesn't understand how 214,000 square feet was used rather than 240,000 square feet. Further, he assumes the entire lot is not covered. Chair Welker stated in the first square footage calculation there is a total landscape space of approximately 70,500 square feet. He asked if other items in the site data block were totaled in, would it H:IGROUP\BOARDSIP LANCOMMIPUD\2001-0 I Craig Hospiiol\M u1utes Craig .Joe 12 • • • reach 240,000 square feet. Chair Welker stated he believes the m1ss1ng number is somewhere between the excess landscaping space and the lot coverage of the parking structure. Chair Welker referred Mr. Williams to the top left corner; there are 3 square foot areas. First is the total demolished building; second is the total footprint; and third is the total landscape space . Those three approximate 213 , 936 square feet. Mr. Williams stated that was correct. Chair Welker asked if that was the total site square footage within property lines. Mr. Williams responded that was site coverage . Chair Welker stated the lot coverage, not including parking structure, exceeds 213 , 936 square feet. Mr. Williams stated it 'includes the floor levels. Chair Welker clarified that it wasn 't lot coverage it is actual built square footage. Mr. Williams stated that was correct. Chair Welker further clarified that it is not indicating lot coverage in the second paragraph of the plan; it actually refers to built square footage . Even though you are allowed to go to 1.5 times the lot area in your total square footage, it is called lot coverage in your presentation. Mr. Williams stated it is not lot co v erage ; it is built square footage and he understands the confusion . The calculation is for determining the allowable lot coverage . Chair Welker stated 321 ,000 square feet of floor area is allowed, and it should be clarified in the presentation whether it is an allowable lot coverage calculation, which is what it is, but that it reall y deals with floor area not lot coverage. One number is allowable lot .coverage, and the other part of the calculation is proposed total square footage of floor area. Mr. Williams stated that was correct. Mr. Rempel stated he was curious about the aesthetic quality of the pre-cast units for the parking structure and asked that Mr. Williams describe the color and the texture; he asked whether the color was comparable to the drawings. Mr. Williams responded ; the drawings are schematic ele vations, but the intent is to match the brick which has been used on other Crai g facilities . Chair Welker clarified that part of the East building is pre-cast. Mr. Williams stated that building is all brick. Scott Bonner, Senior Project Manager of Gerald H. Phipps, was sworn in. Chair Welker stated he is concerned with the construction impact on the neighborhood -traffic, equipment, etc. He is interested in the construction staging area, where equipment and materials w ill be stored, and ho w it w ill be protected. He is also interested in the type and height of the crane, lighting, and how long the crane will be on site. Mr. Bonner responded that the company has been fortunate enough to work with Craig Hospital, as well as Swedish , on previous projects . He was involved in the East project and the logistics necessary to build the bridge across Clarkson Street, as well as the helipad project at Swedish . Both of those projects created very challenging opportunities to work with the neighborhoods. By working on the helipad at Swedish , the company has extensive knowledge with the flights in and out of the Swedish campus and the need to provide appropriate lighting and communication with the crane operators when there are helicopters in the area so there isn 't a public safety issue. On the East building, they spoke with the Air Life representatives and were able to re-route the helicopter traffic around the project; it worked very well. When constructing the helipad at Swedish, there was communication with the crane operators. He is confident the appropriate measures can be taken to ensure public safety and accommodate Swedish. H:\GROUP\BOARD S\P L ANCOMMIPU D\200 1-01 Craig Hos pi101\Mu1 u1<s CrJig .Joc 13 • • • Chair Welker clarified there would be a mobile crane. Mr. Bonner stated it was their intent to locate the crane in a position which minimizes traffic impact, as well as allowing them to construct the building. As the design progresses, they will continue to meet with the City to coordinate efforts with the Engineering Department. Having worked for Craig previously, he belie v es Craig goes the extra mile to ensure the contractors conform to the requirements . There will be a crane on site, and it will be internalized as much as possible to keep it off the street. There will be a staging area between the existing apartment houses which will help keep the equipment off the street. Chair Welker asked for clarification as to whether the first building will be wood or metal frame construction . Mr. Bonner responded it would probably be steel frame building, and access to the site will be from the south in order to keep as much construction traffic away from the neighbors on the north . Chair Welker asked where the construction materials would be staged. Mr. Bonner reiterated there will be a staging area between the existing apartment houses along Girard Street. One of the first phases of the construction will be to demolish the Friendship House and utilize that area as construction staging for the family housing project. The area will be fenced and the appropriate safety measures taken to keep the public out of the construction area. Chair Welker asked for the construction hours. Mr. Bonner responded they would stay within the City Noise Ordinance; they normally work between 7 a.m . to 4 p .m . If there is an issue with the neighbors, they will make the appropriate adjustments. Also, one of the advantages of using pre-cast is that it goes together very quickly, and it minimizes the construction traffic. Chair Welker asked what route would be used for deliveries. Mr. Bonner stated he would like to continue the discussion with the City Engineering and Traffic Department to ensure they take the appropriate measures ; but it is his intent to access the site from the south side of the project. It is a problem that is not insurmountable; he has done it before with the removal of the homes where the East building is currently located. Chair Welker stated his concern is with the largest pieces that are pre-cast and how and when they are delivered . Mr. Bonner stated he will work with the company supplying the pre-cast and the Traffic Engineers to choose the most appropriate and safe route to the job site . When the East building and Friendship House were built, they were able to access along Emerson and use that street for construction. Ms. Langon distributed copies of the Minutes and Findings of Fact from the 1994 PD case to the Commission . Chair Welker stated he wants to ensure that height, landscaping, and drainage, which might be mentioned in the original PD , are similarly included in the PUD. Ms. Langon stated the 1994 PD was the R-3 zoning with some minor modifications; the PD allowed modification of setbacks, landscaping, and parking. The remainder of the Ordinance held to the R-3 requirements. By recommending approval of the PUD, it, by default, removes the PD. Chair Welker stated he understood, but wanted to be sure that nothing contained in the PD is violated. Chair Welker stated he would entertain a motion to recess to allow the Commission to peruse the new information. Mr. Waggoner moved; Mr. Willis seconded: TO RECESS FOR 15 MINUTES H:IGROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOM M\PU D\200 1-01 Cr.iig Hospi1al\M in u1cs Cr.ii~.J <>c 14 • • • AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Rempel, Waggoner, Weber, Willis, Welker None None Rininger and Stockwell Motion carried . The Commission reconvened at 9:20 p.m.; Chair Welker called for the roll. Members Present: Members Absent: Rempel, Waggoner, Weber, Welker, Willis Rininger, Stockwell Chair Welker stated he wanted to bring into the record the issues talked about during the recess. He talked with staff and the Findings of Fact in the 1994 PD case gives Craig approval on the original PD on the East property . He stated he also had the Minutes from that case , and staff can provide Craig with copies for their record. The Commission did not find the PD which governs the west part of the site , so there isn 't a complete paper trail on how the City gave Craig what the y currently have . He is not debating the issue , except for one point. The 1994 PD , which he has seen , does not address specific maximum building height. The assumption is made that the default of a non-residential building height in the Zoning Ordinance applies, which is 60 foot maximum height. That is what Craig would have been allowed, regardless of whether it was 3 or 4 stories. The Ordinance required the maximum height of any part of the building be 60 feet. The request before the Commission is an 80 foot maximum height. Chair Welker stated what he doesn 't understand is what was allowed on the west parcel and wonders if that part was originally part of the Swedish campus and governed b y their PD. He is trying to determine what was allowed so the Commission knows what it is getting into. Chair Welker asked for explanation on the need of a maximum height of 80 feet because the tallest structure proposed is 64 feet. Mr. Williams responded ; he believes on the west building the structure was originally designed for 10 floors ; however, he does not have any information on the documentation of the PD or discussion with the City. Chair Welker clarified that the building was designed for 10 floors. Mr. Williams stated that at one time, it was reasonable to consider building the infrastructure for that building to be 10 floors. It is considerably higher than the 80 feet requested, and it is more in line with the existing Swedish buildings . On the east side of Clarkson Street, the building was designed to add an additional floor in the future which is what generated the 80 feet. Chair Welker stated the PD addressed it in "floors ", but not in maximum height. Mr. Williams reiterated that the additional floor was what generated the 80 foot request, as well as allowing the flexibility on the West building to add an additional floor. Chair Welker stated the request for 80 feet extends to the entire property; even though the structure on the original west side might be allowed to go taller, the 80 foot is the limit specifically discussed . Chair Welker stated that is why he is asking Mr. Williams to clarify that request and to understand it. Mr. Williams stated it was a decision that was discussed with Craig Hospital, and there are no plans to add on the fourth floor of the East building nor add any floor space on the roof of the West building. Chair Welker clarified that Craig is requesting the right to add on the additional floor by asking for the 80 feet. H:IGROUPIBOARDSIP LANCOMMIPUD\200 1 ·0 I Craig Hos pital\Min utes Craig .doc 15 • • • Mr. Williams stated they wanted to allow for the future floor and rather than trying to make it more complex than necessar y with different heights on different portions on the site, the y choose to put a limit of 80 feet on the East and West building. The two new structures are limited by their structural capacity . The open space on the north side of the East building will alwa y s remain open; it will be necessary that it remain open in order to maintain the lot coverage. Chair Welker clarified that they are excluding the 80 foot requirement from that part of the PUD . The normal procedure is 80 feet governs the entire site, not portions . Mr. Williams stated it will be 80 feet maximum height throughout the project. His point is that it will only appl y to the East and West buildings because the remainder of the site is built out; there is no opportunity to build further. Chair Welker made it clear that the 80 feet is for the entire site . The two new buildings under the PUD are 64-70 feet in height. While there is no current proposal to go higher, ... there will be an 80 foot "cap" on the entire campus. Chair Welker stated he wanted everyone to be clear on what is being asked for and w hat might be granted. For ev er y one 's information, the PD was unrestrictive; there w ere a few chan ge s in setbacks so the East building could be built. Crai g is not askin g anything be y ond th at, and the PUD actuall y becomes more restricti v e than the R-3 zonin g. M r. Welker asked if there were further comments or quest ions an d indicated no members of the public w ere pr es ent. He asked for a motion to close the Hearing. Waggoner moved: Willis seconded: The Public Hearing on Case PUD-2001-01 , Craig Planned Unit Development be closed . A YES : NAYS: Rempel , Waggoner, Weber, Willis, Welker None ABSTAIN : None A BSENT : Rininger, Stockw ell The motion carried . Waggoner moved: Rempel seconded : The Planning Commission recommend that City Council approve the application for Case PUD-2001-01 , Craig Hospital Planned Unit Development. Mr. Rempel stated the pl an is a tremendous amenity to the neighborhood and the City. He expressed his appreciation for the care and planning Craig has put into the project; Craig Hospital is a v ery highl y valuable asset. Mr. Willis stated he had a concern with the simultaneous construction of Swedish and Crai g; he believes it w ill impact the neighborhood. Chair Welker asked whether an ything could be done b y power of limitations or conditions on the PUD that would enhance that other than it is a concern . Mr. Willis stated he did not; he believes it is a "tight" area and there isn 't an y thing Craig c an do but be aware of the situation and be sensitive to the neighborhood . H:IGROUP\BOARDSIPLANCOMMIPUD\2001-01 Craig Hos pillll\Min utos Craig .do< 16 • • • Mr. Waggoner stated there were several concerns raised by City departments in the staff report, and he assumes those conditions do not need to be placed on the PUD to ensure those concerns are addressed. Chair Welker stated the Commission would need to add conditions for those items that are missing or unresolved. Chair Welker stated that one issue he doesn't believe is documented is the traffic impact, to the extent the Commission might require other groups to conduct a traffic study or prove the issue "had been addressed other than talking about it at a meeting. Chair Welker stated he didn 't know if that is a requirement since it isn 't a bigger building; it is a parking structure and a compilation of 3 other buildings on the site. He isn't sure it is something the Commission can require, but it is a big issue during construction. Mr. Willis asked how that would be worded to City Council. Chair Welker stated it is in the dialogue of the Commission's discussion, and Council should see it in the Minutes . Mr. Willis stated th .at the park area on Girard should have a path so it doesn 't limit people 's access. Chair Welker asked if that needed to be required. Mr. Willis stated it doesn 't need to be a requirement, but it should be noted that a path would enhance the usage of the park. Mr. Weber stated the staff report indicates the parking structure is being built due to a severe parking shortage on the campus ; however, Craig appears to exceed the City's parking standards . Perhaps that is something that should be looked into when revising the Zoning Ordinance. Chair Welker clarified that he was stating the minimum is not enough. Mr. Weber stated that is a possibility . Chair Welker stated that there are definite parking problems in that area , and every parking space built seems to be filled . Mr. Weber stated that perhaps the minimum of 1 space for every 2 beds, plus a space for every employee is not enough. He points it out only so it will be considered when revising the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Weber suggested asking the Parks and Recreation Department to contact Craig Hospital about the Friendship House; perhaps they could find a use for it. Chair Welker stated that for the sake of discussion, the Commission needs to address the requirements on Pages 4 and 5 of the staff report. Chair Welker stated the first requirement is that the PUD District Plan is, or is not, in conformance with the District Plan requirements and the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Welker stated he believes it has a very strong presence which the City wants and has acknowledged in the Comprehensive Plan. The District Plan does not change what is happening in the neighborhood; and the proposed parking and landscaping are in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and the existing conditions in that area. Regarding the second requirement under the PUD District Plan, Chair Welker stated there was some issue with height and comments on the first page of the plans that he would, by reference and discussion, ask that Craig correct and amend those drawings before they are presented to City Council. With regard to the third requirement, Chair Welker stated it is H:IG ROUPIBOARDSIP LANCOMMIPUD\2001·01 Cr,ig Husp ital\Minutes C r,ig.<loc 17 • • • consistent with accepted development standards established by the City of Englewood. There was no discussion on the third requirement. Regarding the fifth requirement, Chair Welker stated EDDA does not exist and is not applicable . With regard to the PUD Site Plan requirements, Chair Welker stated the first requirement is initially the same requirement under the District Plan. Mr. Waggoner stated the second requirement has been met. Chair Welker stated the third requirement is met. Regarding the fourth requirement, Chair Welker stated the Commission has already made the staff report part of the record for the public hearing. Chair Welker asked if there were further comments . Being none, Chair Welker asked the recording secretary to call the roll . AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Rempel , Waggoner, Weber, Willis, Welker None None Rininger, Stockwell The motion carried . Chair Welker informed the applicant that the Commission has recommended approval to City Council. As discussed , minor amendments need to be made and worked out with staff prior to presenting the case to City Council. IV. PU BLIC FORUM No one was present to address the Commission. V. AlTO RNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid stated the questions of a quorum and voting arise frequentl y; therefore, she has prepared a memo discussing those items. She asked the Commission when they would like to discuss the memo. Chair Welker suggested the memo be in the next packet and that it be discussed at the next meeting. Ms. Reid further stated that the current Commission Handbook is actually a draft, and it has not been approved. Mr. Waggoner asked Ms. Reid to also address abstaining from voting on a set of Minutes if a Commissioner has not been at a meeting. Mr. Waggoner stated he believes a Commissioner should be allowed to vote on Minutes, rather than abstaining, as long as the Commissioner has read the Minutes. Ms. Reid stated that she has a concern with a Commissioner voting on the Findings of Fact if they were not present at the meeting, but had reviewed the Minutes . Chair Welker stated all those issues should be discussed at one time . H:IGROU P\B OAR DSIPLANCOMM IPUD\2 001 -01 Cro ig Hospitol\Minu«s Cr.ii ~.<l"" 18 • • • VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Ms. Langon reminded the Commission that the next meeting is February 21, which is a Wednesday. Mr. Rempel stated he would not be able to attend and asked if that created a problem with voting on the Findings of Fact. Ms. Reid stated that it would not; three of the five Commissioners present at this meeting voting to approve the Findings is sufficient. Ms. Langon stated she prepared a letter from Chair Welker to City Council regarding Mr. Rininger.· She was informed the procedure is to present it to Council under the Communication Section, and Council will consider that request. Chair Welker stated he spoke with Mr. Rininger, and he indicated that he was still living in Englewood and wished to remain on the Commission . However, he also indicated that he would be at tonight's meeting, and he wasn 't. Chair Welker stated the position needs to be filled with someone who can regularly attend. Mr. Waggoner agreed. Chair Welker directed staff to do what was necessary for City Council to appoint a new Commissioner. VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Willis asked whether Council filled the two vacancies. Ms. Reid stated that Ms. Lathram and Ms. Krieger will be reappointed to the Commission on February 20. Ms . Langon stated the reason the y are not at tonight's meeting is because their term expired Februar y 1; therefore, the y technicall y are not on the Commission and have no voting rights until the y are reappointed on February 20 . Discussion ensued. Chair Welker asked that Ms. Reid research conducting telephone polls to approve Minutes, Findings of Fact, and items that do not require discussion or a meeting. Mr. Waggoner stated that Findings were approved at tonight's meeting, but asked why the Findings of Fact will need to be approved at the next meeting. Ms. Reid clarified the Commission made the Findings of Fact tonight; the recording secretary reports them in w riting; and as part of the procedure, the Commission reviews what the recording secretary re c orded and then approves those Findings of Fact if there are no errors. There was no further business brought before the Commission for discussion. The meeting was declared adjourned . H:IGRO UPIB OARDSIPLANCOMMIP UD\200 1 ·01 Craig Huspi1al\Mi 11u 1<s Craig.J oc 19