Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-18 PZC MINUTES.. • • • I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 18, 2006 CALL TO OR D ER The regu lar meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:05 in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood Civ ic Center, Chair Roth presid ing. Present: Absent: Staff Present: Bleile, Diekmeier, Krieger, Mosteller, Roth, We lker, Knoth, Brick Hunt Tricia Langon, Senior Planner Robert Simpson, Community Development D i rector Larry Nimmo, Field Operations Administ rator Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney 11 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of March 21, 2006 Ms. Krieger moved: Mr. Diekmeier seconded: TO APPROVE THE MARCH 21, 2006 MINUTES AS AMENDED. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bl eile, Diekmeier, Krieger, Mosteller, Roth, Welker, Knoth None Brick Hunt Motion carried. Ill . PUBLIC HEARING Case #ZON2006-00001 3566, 3578, 3580 and 3597 South Pennsy lvania St ree t Chair Roth asked for a motion to open the hearing. Ms. Moste ll er moved: Ms. Krieger seconded: The Pub l ic Hearing on Case #ZON2006-00001 be opened. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Blei le, Diekmeier, Krieger, Mosteller, Roth, Welker, Knoth, Brick None None Hunt 1 • • The motion carried. Chair Roth asked staff to present the case. Ms. Tricia Langon, Senior Planner was sworn in . Ms. Langon stated the case before the Commission is Case #ZON2006-00001, the South Pennsylvania Street Senior Housing Planned Unit Development (PUD). The applicant is the Englewood Housing Authority. Al- ready submitted for the record are the Staff Report, proof of publication of the Hearing in the Englewood Herald on April 7, 2006 and the Certification of Posting of the Public Hear- ing. Ms. Langon stated Community Development recommends approval of the South Penn- sylvania Street Senior Housing Planned Unit Development and that the Planning and Zon- ing Commission forward that recommendation to City Council with the following condi- tions: 1. Prior to being forwarded to City Council the following two amendments shall be made to the application: 2. a. Vicinity map on sheet PUD 1 be redrawn to demonstrate the location of the parking area on the west side of South Pennsylvania Street, and b. Front and rear setbacks be established on Sheet PUD 3 for the west- ern parcel. Prior to issuance of any Building Permits the three properties on the east side of South Pennsylvania Street be combined into a single parcel pursuant to City of Englewood and Arapahoe County requirements. Ms . Langon made reference to the power point slide provided by Odell Architects as to the location of the property on South Pennsylvania Street and US Highway 285. All parcels to- gether are .81 acres in area. There are three parcels on the east side of South Pennsylvania Street and one parcel on the west side of South Pennsylvania Street. The current zoning is MU-R-3-B Mixed-Use Residential/Limited Office-Retail District. The PUD ordinance provides for rezoning of a site, which is what you are here to consider this evening. It provides for unified development control of the four parcels making up the PUD. It establishes zoning and site plan criteria specific to this rezone PUD. The PUD itself has two parts, a District Plan, which sets the District regulations or zoning code for the area and the Site Plan, which sets the site design requirements for the area. Although the MU-R-3-B District currently al- lows multi-unit residential use, the PUD is required for three basic reasons: 1. The applicant is requesting an increase in the number of allowed resi- dential units; 2. The applicant is requesting a reduction in setbacks; and 3. The applicant is requesting allowance of commercial uses that are similar to the B-1 Business District on the western parcel only. • As an overview, the Housing Authority wishes to construct a 62 unit residential building de- signed for age and income qualified seniors. The applicant will discuss this later. This inde- 2 • • • pendent, non-assisted living facility is expected to fill a gap between subsidized and private senior facility care centers. Proposed is a five-story building located on the east side of South Pennsylvania Street with 40 one-bedroom units and 22 two-bedroom units. Parking is at a total of 59 spaces, 39 spaces at grade with the four stories of residential units above and 20 spaces on the west side of South Pennsylvania Street. The required neighborhood meeting was held on January 19, 2006 and two area residents attended that meeting. The PUD was reviewed by the City's Development Review Team composed of seven reviewing departments. All issues and concerns have been resolved to the Departments1 satisfaction. Comparison of the PUD 's proposed standards to the existing MU-R-3 -B zone district stan- dards are provided in the Staff Report. Ms. Langon offered to discuss that section if the Commission wished . In conclusion, she stated Community Development believes that the PUD is consistent with the intent of the PUD criteria established in 16-2-7 Official Zoning Map Amendments Rezonings of the Englewood Municipal Code. The criteria are outlined in the Staff Report beginning on page 7. Also, the PUD meets the community need for sen- ior housing. Therefore, Community Development supports recommendation for approval with the conditions previously stated. Ms. Langon stated she would be happy to answer any questions. Ms. Langon stated the applicant, Ms. Dawn Shepherd, Executive Director of the Englewood Housing Authority, is here along with Otis Odell from Odell Architects, P.C. and Mr. Henry Burgwyn from Burgwyn Co. LLC, the developer. She stated they also would be happy to answer any questions the Commission may have . Mr. Welker had a question regarding the zoning. He said Ms. Langon spoke of two differ- ent zonings. He asked if both parcels are zoned MU-R-3-B. Ms. Langon stated that is cor- rect. He asked her to please clarify then why she spoke about the MU-B-1 zoning for the western parcel. Ms. Langon stated the request is that B-1 uses would be allowed on the western parcel. They are not being requested on the eastern parcel. The western parcel is adjacent to existing MU-B-1 zoning and it fronts on Hampden or US 285. The applicant would like the ability in the future to extend the B-1 uses around the corner from the Logan Street area. Mr. Welker asked if the Commission approves the B-1 zoning, are they approving a future change for what is now the parking lot. Ms. Langon stated that was correct. It was an op- tion for the future, but under today's application they are planning a parking lot. Therefore, if some other use would go in there parking would have to be provided elsewhere. Mr. Diekmeier noted if the parking lot was turned into a commercial use the facility then would have inadequate parking. Ms. Langon stated that was correct and that other parking would then have to be provided. Putting the use on the property would (1) allow the appli- cant the ability to use it for other purposes and (2) save them from coming back to do a rezoning to allow a potential use in the future. Mr. Bleile asked Ms. Langon to clarify condition 1 b. regarding the front and rear setbacks for the western parcel. Ms. Langon stated the condition was that they be established and written on the map . Anything that is not provided for in the PUD reverts back to the MU-R- 3 • • • 3-B, so we are recommending that they establish and set the setbacks at the existing set- backs for the parking lot. That concluded Ms. Langon's presentation. Chair Roth thanked her. Ms. Dawn Shepherd of the Englewood Housing Authority was sworn in. Ms. Shepherd thanked the Commission for hearing the Englewood Housing Authority's request. She gave a brief background of the project. She stated as the Authority looked at the parcel, they first previewed an assisted living facility, but as market research was done and the needs of the community was looked at and what was available in the greater metro area found the needs for assisted living seemed to have been met. In some cases the census was very low in some of the facilities that were available. As the Authority looked for greater need, as a result of studies that were done, the Highland Group, a very respected senior marketing study group, was asked to look at the site and research a senior complex that would be be- tween the City's subsidized units and facilities such as the Meridian, which is very high end and not available to everyone in the community. Ms. Shepherd said she had the joy of speaking to a citizen who has lived 50 years on Acoma who wanted to be the first one on the waiting list for the new complex. Ms. Shepherd explained the PUD was not approved just yet, but was happy to keep her name and number. She stated it is nice to see there is interest on the part of the public before any advertising or outreach has been done. The Authority truly feels there is a need in the community that is not being met for something that falls between the two levels of housing that are currently available. The Authority feels that this is going to be a beautiful addition to the community, the location is superb with access to many different services (i.e. medical, shopping, library through the ART bus, light rail) in the community. She said that was a short history of how we came to this point and we look forward to the presentation by our team, The Burgwyn Co. About a year ago we solicited for a development team and were lucky to get Henry Burgwyn's response along with about five other very reputable development companies who brought magnificent teams to the table. Selected were The Burgwyn Co ., Odell Architecture and Shaw Con- struction. Ms. Shepherd asked if anyone had any questions for her. Mr. Bleile asked Ms. Shepherd to explain the difference between age income qualified resi- dents versus assisted living. Ms. Shepherd said the assisted living program deals with people who have needs for daily care and 24 hour oversight whereas this complex will be inde- pendent living. Residents will be required to be 62 or older and if the Authority is successful in getting the tax credits that will help finance the facility there will be some income guide- lines. The income guidelines will be higher than the subsidized guidelines that are in place for Orchard Place and Simon Center. They will target the moderate income citizen in Engle- wood. Mr. Otis Odell of Odell Architects was sworn in. Mr. Odell said his firm was fortunate enough to be the architect and planner selected by the Housing Authority for this great pro- ject. At this time Mr. Odell gave a power point presentation. The building is situated be- tween The Normandy to the north and Highway 285 to the south. The building itself is lo- cated on the eastern portion of the site. The site to the west will be for parking. They are proposing in the PUD language that the southern setback be at 10 feet. Currently the build- 4 • • • ing is set back 2 7 feet with the southern portion of land being used as a buffer in hopes they can develop landscape and gardening opportunities at that location while serving to buffer the building itself somewhat from Highway 285 . Access to parking is off South Penn- sylvania Street with a one-way drive under the complex that exits back onto South Pennsyl- vania. The driveway is aligned with the parking lot across the street for ease in circulation. Mr. Odell went on to review the rest of the slides showing the five different levels of the project, including the garage level with bicycle parking and trash enclosure, the four resi- dential levels and the massing and bulk of the building. Mr. Welker asked Mr. Odell to talk briefly about the height of the building and what is 64 feet and what is 62 feet. Mr. Odell stated the accent wall to the south is 62 feet at the tip. The basic building height allowed is 60 feet and they are generally at 60 feet. On the south elevation there is a stairway element. That stairway enclosure extends to 64 feet so that one can access the roof from the stairway. Mr. Bleile asked what the structure was going to be constructed of. Mr. Odell said it was brick and stucco. Also proposed are metal panels in some locations and fiber cement sid- ing, which is like a lap siding. It holds up very well, holds paint better, requires less mainte- nance and is a very durable product. Ms. Mosteller asked if the parking area was enclosed. Mr. Odell stated it is open, but se- cure. It is not completely walled around the back on the alley side. It is being kept open for proper ventilation without expensive ventilation systems and exhaust fans. They are trying to maintain a 50% open parking structure, sensitively screening particularly from the south and west. Mr. Diekmeier asked how the garage is secure. Mr. Odell stated several options are being considered. Among them is a metal pipe or bar system, maybe a black vinyl coated chain link. Something along those lines to deter people from entering who are not supposed to be entering. Ms. Mosteller asked Mr. Odell to briefly discuss the screening on the Hampden Street side. Mr. Odell said currently that is a brick retaining wall that steps down at the corner. The wall provides screening for the garden/landscaped area that will be between the wall and the building. Mr. Bleile asked what the height of the brick wall was proposed to be. Mr. Odell said the final height at this location was not determined at this time. It does have to step down to about three feet at the corner for the sight triangle. That concluded Mr. Odell's presentation. He asked if there were any questions. Ms. Mosteller said she had a concern regarding the pedestrian safety and the walkways, given the parking lot is across the street. She wanted to know if there is anything proposed such as striping on the street or something that would give drivers a heads up that there could be more pedestrians than they are used to se eing cross in that area. Mr . Odell re- sponded that they had had discussion with the design review team regarding that issue . As he recalled, it was not desirable to do a mid-block crossing. What has been done is to align the driveways so that there is a logical point where traffic will be crossing. The expectation 5 • • • is the pedestrians will go to the intersection and use the crosswalk. He stated he believes Englewood's parking ratio for senior housing is .75 spaces per unit plus visitor spaces. He stated he expects the majority of the residents will be parked under the building and the primary use of the parking lot will be for visitors. Mr. Welker stated he felt it was a concern. He suspected a fair number of not only the us- ers but the visitors will be elderly people or people with grandchildren. He felt the Commis- sion needs to make sure it is something that is being addressed. He shared concerns about parking, the one-way drive, the detention pond, making sure the garage is secure and the number of handicap spaces currently provided. Mr. Bleile asked about the square footage of the residential units . Mr. Odell stated the range is approximately 660 square feet to 850 square feet. There are several different unit types. Ms. Mosteller asked about the proposed lighting for the east and west parcels. Mr. Odell stated that lighting locations have not been finalized at this time. Mr. Bleile asked if the outdoor atrium areas were on different levels. Mr. Odell stated they are. He said they are exploring other opportunities for outdoor spaces at the various levels . They have not been finalized yet. The spaces will all be community spaces . Mr. Bleile wanted to know if the units will be for sale. Mr. Odell said no, they are rentals. Ms. Mosteller asked if there would be on-site management. Mr. Odell stated there would be on-site management. Mr. Welker asked to go back to the request by the City to have both parcels included in the PUD proposal. Mr. Odell stated the application has been put forth with both parcels as part of the PUD . The requirement or condition is that we define the setbacks on the western parcel for the proposed parking lot so it has been included. Mr. Welker stated he under- stood that, but was asking about the discrepancy in the numbers on several pages of the plans. He would like to see them consistent throughout the entire document. Mr. Odell said they would look at that and it may be best to show the parcel square footage separately and as a total. Mr. Welker also wanted to know if there is any property line fencing on the north or east side in addition to the screening at the building line between the parking and the landscape zone. Mr. Odell said none was planned at this time. Mr. Welker stated on PUD 5 and PUD 6 there is a storm sewer that is on the adjacent Normandy property, but on PUD 5 is appears to have an overlap with the sanitary sewer in the alley . He wanted to make sure they are separate. Mr . Odell said they are existing and they are certainly sepa- rate. Mr. Welker asked for clarification on the roof drainage system. Mr. Odell said the drainage is collected from all areas of the building and directed to the detention pond. Mr. Bleile asked for clarification on the rezoning of the west side lot. He wanted to know if changing that lot to B-1 is because the owner may eventually want to do something with the lot or is it something that could be removed from the ownership and then someone new could address it. Ms. Shepherd stated that it is not necessarily for the Housing Author- 6 • • • ity's use but to give the property flexibility since it is contiguous with the Logan Street prop- erty. She stated it was in cooperation with the Community Development Department and Mr. Simpson feeling that it gave the community flexibility. She stated the Authority was at- tempting to be cooperative. That concluded Mr. Odell's presentation. Chair Roth thanked Mr. Odell. Ms. Bev Bradshaw was sworn in. Ms. Bradshaw stated that several parents of friends and families she has known have ended up moving to Riverpoint in Littleton because there was no place for them in Englewood. They did not qualify for low income at the Simon Center or Orchard Place and they did not have the income to afford the Meridian. This project will fill a niche that is desperately needed in this community. The community has looked at as- sisted living and it is not financially feasible. She feels that need is being met on several dif- ferent levels with the various nursing homes and extended care facilities already in Engle- wood. There is a giant gap, and this project will fill that gap. Mr. Bleile wanted to know if she felt the 62 units are too much or not enough. She stated she didn't really know. She felt if may be the beginning of many different complexes along that corridor. She felt it is a good use of land. Her only concern is she doesn't want any more of Englewood's citizens moving to Littleton. She noted it came to light when the Englewood Citizens of the Year were being chosen and the candidates all lived in Littleton at Riverfront. Ms. Linda Ferentchak was sworn in. She and her husband own the property at 3567-3569 South Pennsylvania, which is across the street from the proposed development. She stated they had several concerns with the development. Number one is the parking. She felt by setting up the parking across the street the Authority is creating a definite safety issue. She also questioned if enough parking is being provided. Being on South Pennsylvania everyday she said there is no open parking on that street. She also asked about providing bus park- ing. She felt the people parking in the lot are not going to walk down to Hampden to cross. She stated the police are always pulling people over at the intersection of Hampden and South Pennsylvania and she feels it is a dangerous area for older people. She said a stop light will be needed at Old Hampden and South Pennsylvania due to the increase in traffic. She was also concerned about rezoning the west lot for business development. Having a small duplex sitting across the street she said she really would hate to see them get fenced in by high-rises with the potential of another high-rise on the corner if that lot is developed commercially. She felt the facility should be built with parking accessible within the same block and on the same side for safety. She felt the Authority is trying to overbuild the site to get in the number of units they are looking for and not really looking at a lot of the consid- erations with respect to parking. Mr. Welker asked Ms . Ferentchak if she owned the properties just north of the proposed parking lot. She stated yes, she owned two properties north. Mr. Welker asked if they are presently duplexes. She stated they are . Mr. Jim Ferentchak was sworn in . He stated he and his wife own the duplex at 3567-3569 South Pennsylvania. His concern was property values and what he expects this develop- ment to do to his property value. He stated his property is not highly valuable as it stands. It 7 • • • is a duplex of approximately 1,000 square feet. He asked for the PowerPoint slide showing the street and the lot to be shown again. He pointed out the lot that he owns . His concern is currently north of that lot there is a three-story apartment building and across the street is a five-story apartment building. He said now you are talking about a five-story on the east side of the street and the potential for the lot on the west side to be built up. He said basi- cally, they are going to get boxed in. The small lots are going to find themselves isolated and not big enough for any potential development. He feels the proposed redevelopment is going to hurt the value of his property. He did not have a problem with the concept of the senior housing, but felt the concept of crossing the street is problematic. Mr. Roth asked if there was anyone else in the room who would like to speak. There was no one. Ms. Krieger asked if there were any height restrictions on the parking lot or was it the same as the other lot at 60 feet. Ms. Langon stated it was the same. Ms. Mosteller asked if there was a left-hand turn lane off Hampden onto Pennsylvania when traveling east. Ms. Langon stated there was not. Ms. Mosteller wanted to know what con- siderations the Development Review Team talked about regarding the mid-block crossing. Ms. Langon stated there were quite extensive discussions on that subject. The Housing Au- thority proposed a mid-block crossing and even suggested lighting in the street, but both suggestions were opposed by the Traffic Engineer for safety reasons because the drivers coming around the corner from westbound Hampden would not be prepared to make that stop so quickly as they are making the turn. It is a very short distance. They are turning and accelerating and then suddenly to have pedestrians in that area was not safe. The Traffic Engineer thought that having people go to the corners would be safer especially for wheel- chair bound or handicapped people. Even though the Housing Authority was interested in it, it was determined by the Traffic Engineer to not be a safe crossing area. Mr. Welker agreed, but felt the problem still was not answered. People are going to walk between the two parking lots and very likely they will not go down to the corner. He said if anything, they might move more toward mid-block. Ms. Langon stated that's true, but you cannot leg- islate where someone walks. Ms. Mosteller wanted to know where the front door of the facility was located. Ms. Langon pointed it out on the drawing. Ms. Mosteller noted it was north of the access way to the west parking lot. Mr. Bleile stated that Planning and Zoning and Community Development have talked about future economic development for the City of Englewood and one of the topics they have looked at is parking. He said more along the lines of decreasing parking than anything else. He asked if this parking lot would be needed eighteen months or twenty-four months from now if they looked at some type of change to the parking code to remove the current park- ing requirements. Ms . Langon stated this area as a PUD would have it's own zone district requirements and be established at whatever is approved. Whatever happens with other zone district parking requirements with the rest of the Code would not apply here . Also, this parking is at a reduced rate based on senior housing. Mr. Welker stated there is virtu- ally no place for anybody else to park. He said it had already been pointed out that the block is already parked 24 hours a day on both sides of the street. Ms. Langon stated the 8 • • • proposal is providing 59 spaces in addition to what is there today. Ms. Krieger asked if there was a problem in the future if someone could go to the Traffic Engineer and see about getting a pedestrian crossing in that area or a light around Swedish. Ms. Langon said that was correct. As for the bus situation, there would be a loading area, but that will be subject to potential change by the Traffic Engineer if it is deemed to be creating issues . Mr. Welker stated parking is being taken away from that block due to the ingress and egress of the parking garage and the loading area. He said maneuvering a bus on the street would be very difficult. Ms. Langon stated that is why there is a designated loading area for the bus right in front of the building. Ms. Langon clarified the term "bus" to mean an access-a-ride type bus that could pick up residents of the facility to take them to Safeway, Malley Center, etc. The City is not looking at something like the ART Shuttle. Ms. Mosteller said Code aside; in somebody's professional opinion would the 39 spaces under the building be enough. Ms. Krieger stated she basically thought that question had been answered and that the City was expecting that those parking spaces will be enough. She said she believes the 39 spaces may very well handle the residents from her own personal experience. Mr. Welker stated he felt it was going to be very difficult from the information given to make that kind of analysis. He questions the fact that the 39 spaces may be too many under the building. Maybe some should be larger. He stated he agrees that the requirement for tenant parking diminishes rapidly for senior living facilities with residents 75 or older. Mr. Bleile in- quired as to how the under ground parking spaces would be distributed to the tenants (i.e. purchased, assigned, first come first served). Ms. Shepherd stated that has not yet been de- termined . Ms. Mosteller asked if something can be done, such as signage that would encourage peo- ple to go to the corner to cross the street. She also asked if striping could be done at the corner on Pennsylvania and lights added on Hampden so people turning onto Pennsylvania will have an idea of what is coming. Ms. Langon stated she felt all of those ideas can be looked at by the Traffic Engineer. Mr. Brick asked the Chairman if those things could be made an Amendment before the Commission ratifies. Chair Roth asked for a motion. Ms. Langon stated she would caution that if the Commission is considering that, that it be something that can be brought before the Traffic Engineer to review or consider. To require something that may not be something that the Traffic Engineer can approve or feels is a safety issue, that is only going to require Staff and the Commission to come back to remove that condition if it is put on there. She asked they be very cautious in wording the Amend- ment. Mr. Bleile stated one of the feedback items the homeowner's brought forth is the point that there is a possibility if the City develops MU-R-3-B type developments on the parking lot, the properties to the north may potentially become worthless because they won't be large enough for MU-R-3-B uses. Ms. Langon stated all of the properties can be developed with the MU-R-3-B zoning. It is a matter of individual ownership and size of property. If they meet the Code under MU-R-3-B then the City would approve a project. As the zoning stands now, every one of those properties could be developed at 60 foot he ight limits . Mr. Bleile noted in reality if those lots are only 100' wide or so, if they do not have some type of assemblage like the Housing Authority grouping of four lots, with the current Code they may be potentially limited to what they could develop. Ms. Langon stated it is the same 9 • • limit those owners have today. Ms. Mosteller asked if the parking lot is curre ntly zoned for commercial. Ms . Langon stated it was not and that is why the PUD is looking at the MU-B-1 zoning for that lot. Ms. Krieger stated she felt those owners will not be limited any more than they are today. Mr. Bob Simpson, Community Development Director, was sworn in. Mr. Simpson felt it is important to note that this particular project is certainly filling a niche in the community, but more than that it is also addressing a lot of what Staff sees as future development patterns within the south Swedish area . Staff has noted to the Commission previously that the area needs to undergo a small area plan. He believes this project is reflective of that neighbor- hood and its future. He does not believe it is limiting anybody's ability to develop property, to develop it consistent with the new character or to develop it with existing patterns. Properties have the ability to aggregate. There are a lot of properties in Englewood that do not meet current development pattern standards. They may b e too shallow, too small or not the right zoning. It is Community Development's task to determine where the City is going in the future. For the record, he said it was at his urging that the City begin to think about that future relative to that parking lot. He noted it probably would have been Engle- wood Housing Authority's desire to leave the lot alone and make it simple. The reality is he feels that there have been many instances in the past whereby the City has seen six months or twelve months later something has come along and there has been a real need to have additional flexibility to address adjacent development patterns. He said the City needs to work towards that flexibility issue. He said we need to do quality development, but in order to do that we need to figure out where that future is going. He stated he hears and under- stands the concerns from the neighbors attending tonight and is hopeful that the City can meet their needs and flexibility so they can take advantage of area patterns for future de- velopment. It is important to know with this particular project that the City has tried to take into account many of those needs for the future. He firmly believes the parking needs have been fully met on this project. He said when you look at International Transportation Engi- neer's Standards the recommended parking ratios are about 43 . That could all be met pretty much on that single block, but the reality is the Englewood Housing Authority is go- ing above and beyond that. If Commission can recommend to the Traffic Engineer to take a second harder look at the project and a pedestrian crossing he believes it is one of those important things we need to do. As Ms. Langon stated, it is hard to legislate where people walk and how they access. It is also equally hard to say if you cross there that we are not going to have accidents . It's a tough situation. Mr. Bleile moved: Mr. Diekmeier seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #ZON2006-00001 be closed . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bleile, Diekmeier, Krieger, Mosteller, Roth , Welker, Knoth, Brick None None Hunt • The motion carried . 10 • • • Discussion ensued . Ms. Krieger moved: Ms. Mosteller seconded: THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE PRO- POSED ZONING CHANGE FROM MU-R-3-B MIXED-USE RESI- DENTIAL/LIMITED OFFICE-RETAIL DISTRICT TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR CASE #ZON2006-00001 TO AL- LOW THE PROPOSED SOUTH PENNSYLVANIA STREET SEN- IOR HOUSING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FAVORABLE ACTION WITH THE FOLLOW- ING CONDITIONS: 1. PRIOR TO BEING FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL THE FOLLOWING AD- JUSTMENTS SHALL BE MADE TO THE APPLICATION: a. VICINITY MAP ON SHEET PUD1 BE REDRAWN TO DEMONSTRATE THE LOCATION OF THE PARKING AREA ON THE WEST SIDE OF SOUTH PENNSYLVANIA STREET, b. FRONT AND REAR SETBACKS BE ESTABLISHED ON SHEET PUD 3 FOR THE WESTERN PARCEL, 2. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS THE THREE PROPERTIES ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH PENNSYLVANIA STREET BE COMBINED INTO A SINGLE PARCEL PURSUANT TO CITY OF ENGLEWOOD AND ARAPAHOE COUNTY REQUIREMENTS, Mr. Welker offered a friendly amendment to Ms. Krieger's motion. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE PRO- POSED ZONING CHANGE FROM MU-R-3-B MIXED-USE RESI- DENTIAL/LIMITED OFFICE-RETAIL DISTRICT TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR CASE #ZON2006-00001 TO AL- LOW THE PROPOSED SOUTH PENNSYLVANIA STREET SEN- IOR HOUSING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FAVORABLE ACTION WITH THE FOLLOW- ING CONDITIONS: 1. PRIOR TO BEING FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL THE FOLLOWING AD- JUSTMENTS SHALL BE MADE TO THE APPLICATION: a. VICINITY MAP ON SHEET PUD1 BE REDRAWN TO DEMONSTRATE THE LOCATION OF THE PARKING AREA ON THE WEST SIDE OF SOUTH PENNSYLVANIA STREET, 11 • • • b. FRONT AND REAR SETBACKS BE ESTABLISHED ON SHEET PUD 3 FOR THE WESTERN PARCEL, 2. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS THE THREE PROPERTIES ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH PENNSYLVANIA STREET BE COMBINED INTO A SINGLE PARCEL PURSUANT TO CITY OF ENGLEWOOD AND ARAPAHOE COUNTY REQUIREMENTS, 3. TRAFFIC ENGINEER REVIEW AGAIN THE POTENTIAL FOR A MID-BLOCK CROSSING, AND 4. RECHECK THE SUBMITIED PLANS FOR CONSISTENCY OF NUMBERS ON ALL SHEETS. Ms . Krieger and Ms. Mosteller agreed to the amendment. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bleile, Diekmeier, Krieger, Mosteller, Roth, Welker, Knoth, Brick None None Hunt The motion carried . Ms. Mosteller thanked everyone who attended the meeting. She said it was great to see Englewood's citizens participating in Public Hearings. She also added that she does like the project and it fills a need in Englewood's housing gap and goes far in helping Englewood achieve its housing diversity goal in the Comprehensive Plan, which is very important. Mr. Bleile stated he felt it is a very positive step for Englewood. Mr. Brick also thanked everyone who attended. He said through the public discussions to- night the Commission is now thinking about safety and the pedestrian's crossing the street. Chair Roth called for a five minute break at 8:50 before hearing the next case. APPEAL HEARING Case #VAR2006-00003 3170 South Humboldt Street Englewood, Colorado 80113 Chair Roth stated the Commission will now hear CASE #VAR2006-0000 3. Ms. Reid stat ed this case is an Appeal from the Flood Plain Administrator, also known as Mr. Robert Simp - son . Ms. Tricia Langon, Senior Planner was sworn in. The subject of this Hearing is an Appeal to the Flood Plain Administrator's decision regarding a fence. The applicant is Austin Gom es 12 • • • of 3170 South Humboldt Street. The request is an appeal to Mr. Simpson's decision to per- mit construction of a solid fence at 3160 S. Humboldt Street, the property adjacent to Mr. Gomes. The Commission, pursuant to 16-4-15: A of the Englewood Municipal Code, is au- thorized to hear and decide appeals to the Flood Plain Overlay District. There are no crite- ria outlined in the Unified Development Code for the Commission to use hearing the Ap- peal. The Appeal consists of only the testimony and the decision. The issue before the Commission is not the design of the fence or the style of the fence; it is the Flood Plain Administrator's decision. The options for the Commission are: 1. To uphold the Flood Plain Administrator's decision to allow the fence, 2. To reject the decision to allow the fence, or 3. To remand the Appeal back to the Community Development Depart- ment for further review. For background, all provided for in the Staff Report, on March 28, 2006 the homeowner, Jerad Harbaugh at 3160 South Humboldt submitted a fence permit application to the Build- ing Department. Per City policy, Ms. Langon reviewed the site plan over the counter for compliance with standards of 16-6-6 Fences and Retaining Walls. The permit was issued that day as being in compliance with fence standards. Mr. Gomes became aware of the fence construction and contacted the Public Works Department with concerns of potential flooding to his property if a solid fence was constructed on the adjacent property at 3160 South Humboldt Street. The property was investigated and identified as being within an area identified on Plate 4 of the City's Storm Drainage Plan of 1971 as an area of "flood danger" from local 100 year storms. Plate 4 is listed as part of the Flood Plain District Boundaries in 16-6-2C of the Unified Development Code. Community Development Staff was not aware of the existence of the maps identified in 16-4-2 C. Such areas are not identi- fied on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as being part of the standard material that would be used for Flood Plain identifica- tion . Although all development is subject to all requirements of 16-4: Flood Plain Overlay District, the City's standard practice for more than 20 years has been to not review fences under this Chapter based on a previous administration's decision that fence permits would be issued on an "over the counter" basis without going through standard routing to all De- partments. The current procedure does not provide opportunity for review by all Depart- ments. To resolve the issue, Mr. Simpson reviewed the fence proposal with assistance from the City Manger, the Public Works and Utilities Departments and the Community Devel- opment Department. As Flood Plain Administrator, Mr. Simpson determined as follows; 1. A solid fence could be allowed if it ran longitudinally to any potential flood 2. 3. 4 . waters; To allow fences that run perpendicular to the flood waters designed to allow the water to pass through them; The design of the fence would be up to the property owner with review by Public Works Department Engineering Division; and The property owner would be noticed of potential liability in flood conditions and be required to sign a Release and Waiver of Claim for the City in order to construct the fence. 13 • • • That decision was made based on keeping the needs of both parties in mind, legal consult with the City Attorney's Office because the permit had already been issued and the intent of the Flood Plain Overlay District, particularly 16-4-5 A 3 that states the structure or struc- tures if permitted will be constructed and placed on the building site so as to offer the minimum of obstruction to the flow of flood waters and 3A whenever possible structures will be constructed with the longitudinal access parallel to the direction of the flow of flood waters. The property owner has submitted a site plan and has agreed the perpendicular fencing will be an open wrought iron style to allow water to pass through. It is the solid fence between the two adjacent properties that is in question. The sold fence is in longitu- dinal access with the direction of potential water flow. Again, the decision before you is the decision itself by the Flood Plain Administrator. Mr. Welker asked if the applicant had complied with the City's request based on the flood patterns. Ms. Langon stated he had. Mr. Welker asked if the appeal was by the neighbor, not the applicant. Ms. Langon stated that was correct. He asked if the neighbor still con- tends it is an issue. Ms. Langon stated she believed so and made reference to a letter from Mr. Gomes dated April 13, 2006 to Mr. Robert Simpson, Director of the Community De- velopment Department, which was included in their packet. Ms. Langon said there was an intervening design that she believed was at one time agreed to on the perpendicular fenc- ing that was partially open at the bottom and solid at the top. Mr. Bleile asked if the fence application was a solid only longitudinally, but open perpendicularly design. Ms. Langon said yes that is the current fence application. Mr. Bleile asked if that is what the Community Development Department had approved as an allowed use. Ms. Langon stated that was correct. Mr. Welker asked if it was that design that was being appealed. Ms. Langon stated it is the solid portion only. Ms. Mosteller wanted to know if there was a flood event, would just one or would both properties be impacted if this fence was solid. Ms. Langon stated Mr. Larry Nimmo of the Public Works Department was at the hearing and was more qualified to answer the techni- cal questions. Mr. Larry Nimmo of the Public Works Department was sworn in. He stated historically Mr. Gomes has lived at his present address for over 40 years. He was there through a flood some years ago where the waters were coming through with such a force it picked up a car in the driveway of the property that is planning to build the fence and pushed it completely across the street and ran it into a tree. He is concerned that if you put anything solid be- tween the two properties the water could potentially hold more on his property and not diversify across the width of the two properties. The two houses then become the blocking agent. They are roughly 15 to 18 feet apart. Mr. Bleile asked if the storm sewer drain in the alley was more in line with the 3170 ad- dress. Mr. Nimmo stated he did not know exactly where it is in relation to the property lines. Mr. Bleile asked if there was any way to enlarge the storm sewer in the alley. Mr . Nimmo said yes, at a cost of $1.4 million. The storm sewer runs continuously between the properties down to Charles Hay. Mr. Bleile asked if it empties into the ditch a few blocks 14 • • • over. Mr. Nimmo stated it goes into the storm facility at the Charles Hay Elementary School. A new line has been installed at Eastman which he believes is a 54 inch pipe. Based on the 1999 Turner Collie & Braden report, which is the latest report we have, in order for us to convey a two year storm we would need to run a parallel pipe all the way from Floyd and University to the school again starting at 27 inches and increasing in size to the 54 inch pipe. To get a true five year conveyance the cost is $1.4 million. The Sellards & Grigg, Inc. 1971 map is based on the 100 year storm. Somewhere in between there if there was a 20 -30 year storm, a lot of water could move through that area . Based on the Sellards & Grigg, Inc. map at that point coming through there is 960 cubic feet per second of water in a 100 year event. The Turner Collie & Braden report in that area has actually increased those volumes in a 100 year event. Mr. Bleile stated he didn't think a solid fence was going to help either party. Ms. Reid asked Mr. Bleile if that was a question or was he discussing. She informed him that you can dis- cuss at any time you want, but wanted to know if the Commission was finished asking questions of Mr. Nimmo. Mr. Bleile stated he did not know who to ask the question to. He went on to say the applicant has tried to erect a solid fence before, but had been denied. Mr. Bleile wanted to know by whom. Was that because of the flood potential on his prop- erty or because of Community Development and Code standards. Ms. Reid stated that would be something Mr. Gomes would need to answer. Mr. Welker asked Mr. Nimmo is he was saying that the fence as presently proposed, being solid in one place and open in another, would not be a dam to the water flow across that area. Ms. Reid informed Mr. Nimmo that she did not know what his answer would be, but he needed to qualify his answer regarding that question. Mr. Welker's question asked for a conclusion and that is actually a decision to be made by the Flood Plain Administrator. She stated Mr. Nimmo could give his opinion . Mr. Bleile then asked if anything in the way of the water could be a potential problem. Mr. Nimmo stated yes, it would be. If you put a fence post in the middle of a river it will collect debris. Mr. Welker asked in absence of any fence in that area with the flows you have described in five years or more, there would be a high water level going down between the two properties . Mr. Nimmo stated that was correct. With the storm sewer system currently in place per the 1971 report, it cannot handle a two year event. In order to get to a five year event it would require approximately $1.4 million of work at the detention facilities and new parallel pipes. This area takes in 41 7 acres be- fore it ever hits Englewood. Mr. Welker asked if the flow line between the two houses was the only relief for that flow of water that you are describing or is there another channel that goes between two other houses. Mr. Nimmo asked for clarification as to whether Mr. Welker was asking about a 100 year event or a five or ten year event. There is an inlet in the alley and in front of 3160 South Humboldt. Mr. Nimmo described how the water is fun- neled between the two houses. He stated he does not know what it does after that before it hits Lafayette. That area is the low point. That is why the inlet is behind the property and in front of 3160 South Humboldt. Chair Roth asked if anyone had any further questions for Mr. Nimmo. There were no further questions. Chair Roth thanked Mr. Nimmo for his testimony. 15 • • • Mr. Austin Gomes was sworn in. He stated he was at the Hearing to ask the Commission's assistance in keeping excess flood water out of his property. He stated he has lived at 3170 South Humboldt for 45 years and has been flooded three times . His basement has had as much as two feet of water in it. He stated he has a chain link fence along the back of his property next to the alley and the water comes down from Wellshire Golf Course, goes down Gilpin and Eastman, north on Gilpin to the low point and then comes straight across through the houses between Gilpin and Franklin, across the alley through and over the chain link. He said that is the amount of water that comes through that area, 960 cubic feet per second, which is a .lot of water. You can fight fire, but you can 't fight water. When the water comes through it saturates his property and then spreads, which is a help for him. If the solid fence is built it makes his property a detention pond and he stated he did not need a detention pond right now. During one flood it picked up the neighbors car at 3160 South Humboldt and floated it across the street and jammed it up against a tree at 3151 South Humboldt. The basement at 3161 South Humboldt has been flooded from the ground to the lower portion of the living room floor. The water eventually goes out and ends up in the Charles Hay. Mr. Gomes stated he met with Mr. Paul Harbaugh and he sug- gested an 18" section of chain link at the bottom and the solid wood up above. To be a friendly neighbor he agreed to that since it would allow some water to disperse. He said suddenly the plans have changed. He stated Mr. Simpson said the City had made an error in issuing the fence permit and there was nothing he could do about it now. He asked why he should be the scapegoat for the City making an error. Mr. Brick asked if Mr. Gomes had heard any reason why the 18 inch chain link fence below the solid fence was not going to be installed. Mr. Gomes stated he had no idea and did not know who changed it or why, but that was the agreement between two suppose to be gentlemen . Mr. Brick asked Chair Roth if the Commission could ask if anyone in the room could answer that question. Ms. Reid stated if someone wanted to address the Commission they could. Mr. Paul Harbaugh raised his hand, but was instructed to wait his turn to speak. Mr. Bleile asked Mr. Gomes if he had attempted to install a solid fence around his property. Mr. Gomes stated after his first flood he approached Mr. Kells Waggoner, who was the Director of Public Works at that time, and was told he could not obstruct the natural flow of water. When that storm drain between the two properties fills the water then goes above ground and follows the same track as the storm drain so if he installed a solid fence he would be blocking the natu- ral flow of water. Ms. Krieger asked Mr. Gomes if he originally thought a fence might help him with the flooding and has since decided it would not. Mr. Gomes said he thought if he installed a solid fence it would keep the water out of his property, but was told by Mr. Waggoner that he could not block the natural flow of water. He stated the water not only comes from the east, but also from the north . The water coming down Dartmouth comes straight down Humboldt. Even with a one hour rainfall the water on Humboldt Street is from curb to curb because the small drain cannot handle the flow. He stated he has two foot high metal guards around his basement windows and the water goes over them into the basement and also comes in the back door and goes down the basement steps. He said no one realizes the amount of water that comes through the area. Years ago Mayor Kreiling came out to see for himself the amount of water that flows through the area . After the Mayor's visit Mr . Gomes said he approached Council and asked them to install the storm sewer down Eastman, but at 960 cubic feet per second, that storm sewer alone cannot handle the water. He stated he just hopes and prays there is not another downpour like 16 • • • that one. He said if it does happen he would be under water again. Mr. Diekmeier asked Mr. Gomes if he had a pond in his yard tonight would that water run off by going off his property or the neighbor's property. Mr. Gomes stated without the fence it would saturate, with the fence it will stay on his property for several days before it drains out onto Hum- boldt. There is approximately a three to four foot area between 3160 and 31 70 South Humboldt where it drains. 3150 South Humboldt has erected a wall to protect them from another flood. He said that means more water into his place. Mr. Welker asked for clarifica- tion as to what fences are now on the property. Mr. Gomes stated there is a chain link fence between 31 70 and 3160, a chain link fence at the back of 31 70, and no fence along the back of 3160 because they have just constructed a garage there . Mr. Welker asked if the fence between the two properties would replace the chain link fence that is currently between the two properties . Mr. Gomes said no. Mr. Harbaugh agreed that the chain link fence would stay there and he would use it for the 18 inch clearance and the wood would be above that. That was the agreement they came to at his suggestion. There were no further questions for Mr. Gomes . Chair Roth thanked Mr. Gomes for his tes- timony. Mr. Paul Harbaugh was sworn in. He stated a permit was issued on March 28, 2006 for a fence to extend six feet up from the ground . At that time the contractor received the permit and began to do whatever contractors do. After the posts were in the ground a stop work notice on the fence was placed on the front door of 3160. He stated he did not understand what was going on. He said this was the second time since his son, Jerad Harbaugh, pur- chased the property two years ago that work on the property has been stopped. The first time was when he applied for a permit to build a garage. The plans and drawings were ap- proved and a stop work notice came about because they needed to move the garage away from the area that was close to the drainage ditch to appease the neighbor at 3170 South Humboldt Street. The foundation was moved over to accommodate the new requirements so the water would be able to flow between the two houses . Following the stop work no- tice for the fence Mr. Harbaugh was notified by Mr. Gomes or someone else, he could not remember who, that the fence could proceed if there was a 24 inch opening at the bottom of the six foot fence. Knowing they had a permit for a six foot fence that goes down to the ground they were flabbergasted that the stop work notice was issued . He was told by the City to talk to Austin Gomes about it and whatever Austin agreed to would happen . He stated he does not know who makes the policies, the City Engineer or the neighbor. Follow- ing this and trying to figure out how things work in the City of Englewood they found out in a letter from Nancy Reid, the Assistant City Attorney, that in her opinion the City's Ordi- nances provide for development in that area and also in the same letter states that the area is not designated as a flood plain. Ms . Reid concluded that certain structures can be al- lowed and she supported that by referring to the Unified Development Code Section 16-4- 4. In 3 A it states that whenever possible a fence or whatever structure is going to be built will run longitudinal to the parallel of the direction of water flow. In speaking with Urban Drainage, Mr. Bill DeGroot mentions that in situations like this when flood plain rules are written there needs to be some sort of consistency and predictability so that an applicant will know what they are up against. He stated they did not apply for the permit, the con- tractor did. He said I think Mr. Nimmo stated that anything that is in the middle of a river is 17 • • • going to obstruct the flow of water. There is a pre-existing chain link fence there and we all know weeds do grow up that, so there is already a barrier there. Mr . Harbaugh stated Mr. Gomes's property is approximately six to eight inches higher than his son's property, at 3160 South Humboldt Street. He responded to an earlier question posed by Mr. Diekmeier asking if there were a pond existing at 3170 South Humboldt today where would the water flow . He stated it would flow through his son's yard. In the alley there is a storm grate that is shared equally, as Mr. Gomes stated, by both properties. Mr. Harbaugh stated he had not been to the property during a flood, but has been told water does come out of the grate. He said it seems to him that the water will flow equally onto each property if both proper- ties are at the same elevation. In the construction of the garage a parking slab was poured on the south side of the garage, which is next to the drain. He was always under the im- pression you would have a slab drain into a road or whatever. He said after taking a look at the slab he finds somehow the slab is slanted into his son's yard, which is another reason why water, if it does come out of the grate, it is going to flow directly into 3160, not 3170 . As far as the question asking if this is the only flow line existing between the two houses, there is a line that goes between the two houses but there is also the new flow line which was built over on Eastman which takes quite a lot of the water problem away from this area. He stated he could be corrected if he is wrong. Also, the two houses in question are not the only low point in the area where the ditch runs. As we all know water flows down- ward, not upwards. He stated he and his wife followed the flow of water downward and photographed at least eight different addresses that have fences that run parallel to the ditch and also run perpendicular across it. They also assume those fences were constructed with a permit through the City . If there is a flood, both houses are going to flood, and he assumes probably the house that is lower is going to get the most water. He stated Mr. Gomes could probably answer better than he when the flood did occur, was 3160 also flooded. Mr. Gomes did mention that it was flooded across the street where it is lower. The permit that was issued was for a fence that would be six feet from the ground up. A solid fence, I expect, is going to divide the water and allow it to flow fairly evenly. If you take a look at the back of Mr. Gomes' yard you will find that there are various elevated areas that are running perpendicular to the flow of water. This would divide that water pushing it per- pendicular to that. He stated he feels the back area has been designed pretty well to push as much water as possible to 3160 South Humboldt. What we are looking for tomorrow is if the situation does arise there should be some predictable, consistent and unified policy so that a contractor can apply for a fence permit and proceed without problems. He asked if anyone had a question for him. Mr. Brick stated he still had not heard the answer as to why the 18 inches of chain link be- low the wood fence is not being constructed. Mr. Harbaugh stated they had a permit for a solid fence. Mr. Harbaugh stated he and Mr. Gomes did talk about that and Mr. Gomes said it would have to be 24 inches. He stated he was not sure where that decision came from, the City as he has not seen it in writing or was it a citizen making policy. Would it make a difference if the fence is 6 inches or 24 inches off the ground as both properties are going to receive the same amount of damage? Mr. Bleile asked Mr. Harbaugh if he origi- nally spoke to Mr. Gomes and came to a gentlemen's agreement for the 18 inches of chain link at the bottom. Mr. Harbaugh stated that was after the stop work notice was placed on the door . He stated he was told it had to be 24 inches off the ground, but he didn't know if 18 • • that was true . He said if a permit was originally issued for a fence to be from the ground up how did it get to the point of being 24 inches off the ground. Mr. Bleile stated since you are potentially going to be flooded 15, 20 or 30 years from now why even build the fence at all. Mr. Harbaugh stated there is already an existing chain link fence there and this is a deci- sion my son made. He has a dog and we have a dog that visits and it is nice to know your dog is not going to be out in the road running around. Also, I think why Mr. Gomes' origi- nal request for a fence was denied was because it was going to be perpendicular to the flow of water. The proposed fence along the back of the property is wrought iron which is going to allow a lot of water to flow through. With the new parking slab that allows the wa- ter to flow directly into my son's yard, this is going to be a bonus for Mr. Gomes. It will take a lot more water into my son's yard since it is lower and also with the grate. Mr. Bleile stated he would not necessarily say that the parking slab is going to run directly into his son's yard. He said he had driven down the alley numerous times and looked at it and the parking slab is definitely sloping, but it is going to do as much to keep water out of the ga- rage as it is direct the flow of water. Ms. Mosteller asked if he had noticed any changes with the flow of water since the garage was built. Mr. Harbaugh stated there hadn't been much rain this year and his son has not been there that long to really know there is a prob- lem . Mr. Bleile said as you indicated if your property does in fact sit lower than 31 70 then putting a fence could potentially keep more water in the yard at 3160 thereby doing further damage to the property. Mr. Harbaugh said probably not. Chair Roth stated that would probably require an engineer's determination . Chair Roth asked if there were any more questions for Mr. Harbaugh. There were none . Chair Roth thanked Mr. Harbaugh for his testimony. Teresa Harbaugh was sworn in. She said it seemed arbitrary to her when the fence went from 24 inches of open area to 18 inches and originally it was the full six feet. She stated one of the problems is the permit was granted, a 50% deposit made to the contractor, all the material purchased and the lumber is now sitting in the driveway. It is difficult to cut two feet off 50 to 60 feet of linear fence and try to figure out how to attach it. The posts are in and the rails are up 18 inches to two feet off the ground. She stated they have a small dog and it could get in between that space. She wanted to know how it is going to keep the dog in. She said they did propose to modify the alley side and the driveway side with better than chain link, which is the wrought iron fence so that more water could go through. It is a huge expense because it is in addition to whatever was already purchased. She stated the storm drain is equally between the two yards. The flow of water starts at Wellshire and keeps going to Charles Hay and on. The whole path is a problem. Why choose one area and make strong rules or changes for one homeowner when you see that there are other fences and structures along the whole path. She would like the Commission to look at the whole picture. She stated they want to comply and they don't want to cause a flood or anybody's home to be damaged, but if water is going to come she believes it's going to go the way it wants to and a parallel fence may make two streams instead of one big one. • Chair Roth thanked Ms. Harbaugh for her testimony. 19 • • • Ms. Reid stated that the person filing the appeal can do a rebuttal, but is usually limited in time. Mr. Austin Gomes again approached the podium. He stated the water comes through the driveway across the alley from his property and over the fence into his ya rd . If the solid fence is built they claim it's going to be horizontal and the water will run evenly on both sides. That is incorrect. Also, the slab on the side of the garage Mr. Harbaugh spoke about slopes towards my yard. The garage is higher than his yard and the slab has a gentle slope towards 31 70. The water is not going to go through 3160 because it comes into 31 70 first and saturates. Water does not usually go uphill, but in this case it does. 3180, which is higher than 3170, has also had water in their basement. He said nobody realizes the amount of water that comes through. He said when 3160 applied for the garage permit Public Works did not realize that the plans were on file. When Mr. Gomes asked Public Works what was going on they looked back at the files and found the plans and saw that they had made an error. It was the same thing with Mr. Simpson, he does not know the amount of water that comes through the area. 960 cubic feet of water is a lot of water and that is going to stay in my detention pond if this fence is built. He thanked the Commission. Ms. Krieger asked if the City had anything further regarding this issue. The City did not. Mr. Bleile stated he had driven to the area to help try to come to a conclusion. He said after having been involved in some of the processes that he sees Community Development go through, when you apply for a fence permit you look at the fence, does it match the Code, is it going to keep the dogs in, keep the neighbors out, is it made of wood ... such and so forth. Yes, you rubber stamp it and down the road it goes. He said he can totally under- stand that. He believes this is an extenuating circumstance that it is sitting in a particular piece of property that floods every x amount of time. Looking back you can see the whole picture and how we got to the situation that we are in, but he believes he would have to weigh more heavily on the experience Mr. Gomes has with his flooding. You have to look back historically and see what has happened to have an accurate gage of what might hap- pen in the future. If he has been flooded as bad as he says and he does have the grates around his windows it may be advantageous for the 3160 address to not put up the fence so water does disperse equally across both properties. He stated he would be inclined to say erecting the solid fence would probably have more of a negative repercussion than positive one. Mr. Brick asked if anyone on the Commission thinks that when you look at 16-4-15, which talks about a flood plain variance, that those would be issued. Mr. Brick went on to read the paragraph. He stated while he knows what is being discussed is a decision made by the Flood Plain Administrator if we uphold or if we deny it are we creating a variance or are we looking at this as a variance from the rules of the flood plain statues having to do with Plat 4. He asked the other Commissioners if that made any sense to them. Mr. Bleile said he was concerned about setting precedence. Mr. Welker stated if he wanted to be conservative and error in that direction for safety he would say withdraw the permit and not allow any fence. Perhaps even the one that is there restricts the flow of water. There is also some logic to the description of what would be al- 20 • • • lowed by having the fence that is parallel to the flow of water and not perpendicular to it. In that sense also looking at a fence that is solid offers the kind of privacy that the property owners are entitled to ask for. He does not know if it is remanded to Community Devel- opment for further review that they would look at it any differently. Perhaps they could take something into account that the Commission cannot. Ms Reid addressed Mr. Brick's question. She stated this is not a request for a variance of the flood plain so the criteria are not for variances. That would be like asking the Board of Ad- justment for a setback or height. That is a permanent change in the zoning. What Mr. Go- mes is appealing is a decision made by the Flood Plain Administrator, which was a decision to whether or not the conditions that he put on the fence mitigated the issues. The condi- tions are different than from a variance. Chair Roth reminded the Commission that for a variance there are certain legal conditions that have to be met in order to be granted. For an appeal you do not have any conditions to meet. Mr. Welker reviewed the three options available to the Commission. Ms. Mosteller asked procedurally how the vote works. Ms. Reid stated you make a motion to uphold the decision of the Flood Plain Administrator. If it fails then someone can make a motion to remand. If you reject the Flood Plain Administrator's decision then the fence may not be built and the permit is revoked. Mr. Bleile stated half of the fence is already built. Ms. Reid stated that is not a legal issue and not one for discussion at this meeting. Mr. Diekmeier stated at almost 1,000 cubic feet per second, there are very few days a year that the Platte River runs that much water. He feels that with that much water it doesn't matter what type the fence is . He stated he felt Mr. Gomes' issue is with the dissipation of the water. He stated he is inclined to remand. Mr. Welker said the Commission has the criteria that a solid built fence along the flow line is acceptable by the present decision. The other part of that is any fence that is perpendicu- lar to that has to be as open as possible and what he understands has been agreed to is a wrought iron fence that is far more open than closed. Mr. Bleile stated he is still concerned with the historical aspect that at one point in time the City had indicated no solid fencing in that area due to the possible restriction of water flow. Ms. Krieger said that was on the alley side, which is not the issue here tonight. The alley side fence will be open. It is the fence between the two properties that is in discussion. She stated that historically there is a problem if all the other people in the neighborhood have solid fences that are along the flood line and now suddenly this owner is being told they cannot have what everyone else has. Mr. Bleile agreed and said it is a tough decision. Ms. Krieger said she tended to agree with the people pulling the permit that if there is a flood it will flood everyone. It may potentially flood Mr. Gomes more, but it is going to flood eve- ryone if you get that kind of water. The fence is not really going to change that. 21 • • • Mr. Welker again reviewed the Commission's options. If they accept the decision the fence will be built. If they remand or turn down the decision the recourse is to resubmit an appli- cation on another design. That is action that the owner can still take. He assumes there is still an appeal to what the Commission decides through the courts. Even though the owner followed the process, the process may be flawed. Mr. Welker said we are just trying to make things as right as we can because we are being asked to make a decision. We have the power to reverse a decision that has been made, embarrassing or not. Chair Roth said historically Mr. Waggoner may have been here when the 1971 drainage plan was formulated and it has been forgotten in his absence. Mr. Welker stated we are not talking about a large flow of water in a five year flow. We are not talking about a 100 year flow. Those are all circumstances that can happen and there is probably going to be flooding. A flood cannot be prevented, fence or no fence . Mr. Bleile stated he thought the Commission would like to prevent the potential for flood damage. Ms. Mosteller said you cannot speculate where it would happen, what kind of flow, or what kinds of things people are building upstream of that that could change the flow of water. Mr. Welker asked if the Commission remands the appeal for further discussion, ultimately will those issues be resolved. Ms. Mosteller said she did not believe so. Mr. Welker said if the Commission is trying to make a decision on the basis of engineering knowledge the Commission does not have enough information to do that. If the Commis- sion is trying to keep the problem from happening and giving it another chance I think the Commission votes to deny the permit because there is a chance to build a fence with addi- tional information. If the Commission allows the fence to be built the problem will exist to whatever extent it is going to exist. Ms. Mosteller said she thinks the Flood Administrator's decision appears to be a compro- mise of a very difficult situation. Chair Roth asked for a motion. Ms. Mosteller moved: Ms. Krieger seconded: TO UPHOLD THE FLOOD PLAIN ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Krieger, Mosteller, Knoth Diekmeier, Brick, Welker, Bleile, Roth None Hunt Chair Roth asked if there was further discussion or if the Commission wished to vote. Mr. Bleile stated he felt this was a way for the Flood Plain Administrator to take another look at any potential solution and he feels another alternative needs to be looked at. Mr. Welker agreed. 22 • • The motion failed. Ms. Reid explained to the Commission they could now vote to remand the appeal at this time. If no one makes such a motion the appeal is denied. Chair Roth asked for a motion. Mr. Welker moved: Mr. Brick seconded: TO REMAND THE APPEAL TO THE COMMUNITY DEVEL- OPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR FURTHER REVIEW AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bleile, Diekmeier, Krieger, Mosteller, Roth, Welker, Knoth, Brick None None Hunt The motion carried. IV. PUBLIC FORUM No one was present to address the Commission . V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Simpson stated he had nothing further to bring before the Commission. VI. ATIORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid stated she had nothing further to bring before the Commission . VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Ms. Mosteller stated to those of you who talked about how much you enjoyed the China House at the last meeting the restaurant is closed . Ms . Bleile said he would like to see an amicable solution worked out between both parties. The meeting adjourned at 10: 15. 23 • • • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF CASE #ZON2006-00001 ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO REZONE ) THE PROPERTY FROM MU-R-3-B ) MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL/LIMITED ) OFFICE-RETAIL DISTRICT TO PLANNED ) UNIT DEVELOPMENT ) INITIATED BY: Dawn Shepherd Englewood Housing Authority 3460 South Sherman Street Englewood, Colorado 80013 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS Of THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Commission Members Present: Brick, Bleile, Mosteller, Diekmeier, Knoth, Krieger, Roth, Welker Commission Members Absent: Hunt This matter was heard before the City Planning and Zoning Commission on April 18, 2006, in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic Center. Testimony was received from Staf( from the applicant and from area residents. The Commission received notice of Public Hearing, Certification of Posting, Staff Report and supp lemental info rmation from Staf( which were incorporated into and made a part of the record of the Public Hearing. After consider in g statements of the witnesses, and reviewing the pertinent documents, the members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission made the following Findings and Conclusions. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THAT the request to rezone the property from MU-R-3-B Mixed-Use Residential/Limited Office-Retail District to Planned Unit Development was filed by Dawn Shepherd of the Englewood Housing Authority on March 7, 2006 . 2. THAT Public Notice of the Public Hearing was given by pub li cation in the Englewood Herald on April 7, 2006 . 1 • • • 3 . THAT the propert y was posted as req uir ed, said posting setti n g forth the date, time, and place of the Public H ea ring. 4. THAT Senior Planner Langon testifi ed the req u est is for approva l to rezone the property from MU-R-3-B Mixed-Use Residential/Limited Office-Reta il District to Planned Unit Development. Ms. Langon testified to th e c rit e ri a the Commission must consider when reviewing a rezoning app li cati on. Ms. Langon further testified that Staff recommends approva l of the rezon in g application w ith conditions. 5. THAT testimony was received from the app li cant team, Ms . Dawn Shepherd and Mr. Otis Odell. 6. THAT testimony, both supportive and in oppositio n, was received from residents regard in g the proposed redevelopment of the site. Concerns were voiced abo ut impacts anticipated from traffic, building heights and property va lu es. 7. THAT the app li catio n is in conformance with the Comprehe n sive Plan and the Unified Development Code. 8. THAT th e app li cation is co nsistent with adopted and ge n era ll y accepted sta nda rds of development in the City . 9. THAT the application is co nsist ent with the goa ls, objectives, design gui de lines, policies and other ord in an ces, laws, or requirements of the City. 10. THAT the property cannot be developed un der the existing zoning witho ut an unreasonab le number of Zoning Variances or Adm ini strative Adjustments. 11. THAT the res ultin g rezo ned property wi ll not have a signifi cant negative im pact on those properties su rroundin g the rezoned area and that the ge n era l pub li c health, safe t y and welfare of the comm unity are protected . CONCLUSIONS 1. THAT the app li cat i on was filed by Dawn Shepherd of the En glewood Housing Authority seeking approva l to rezone the property from MU-R-3-B Mixed-Use Residential/Limited Office-Retail District to Planned Unit Development. 2. THAT proper n otifi cation of the date, time, and place of the Public Hearing was give n by publication in the offic ial City n ewspaper, and by posting of the property fo r the required le n gth of time. 3. THAT all testimony received from staff members, app li cant team members, and the general public has been made part of the record of the Public Hearing . 2 • • • 4. THAT testimony, both supportive and in opposition, was received from residents regarding the proposed redevelopment of the site. Concerns were voiced about impacts anticipated from traffic, building heights and property values. 5. THAT the app lication is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Code. 6. THAT the application is consistent with adopted and genera ll y accepted standards of development in the City. 7. THAT the application is consistent with the goa ls, objectives, desig n guidelines, polici es and other ordinances, laws, or requirements of the City. 8. THAT the property cannot be developed under the ex isting zoning without an unreasonable number of Zoning Variances or Administrative Adjustments . 9. THAT the resulting rezoned property will not have a significant negative impact on those properties surrounding the rezon ed area and that the genera l public health, safety and welfare of the community are protected. DECISION THEREFORE, it is the decision of the City Planning and Zoning Commission that the application filed by Dawn Shepherd of the Englewood Housing Authority to rezone the property from MU-R-3-B Mixed-Use Residential/Limited Office-Retail District to Planned Unit Development be recommended to City Council for approval. The decision was reached upon a vote on a motion made at the meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission on April 18, 2006, by Ms. Krieger, seconded by Ms. Mosteller, which motion states: The Planning Commissio n recommends the proposed zoning change from MU-R-3-B Mixed-Use Residential/Limited Office-Retail District to Planned Unit Development for CASE #ZON2006-0000 7 to allow the propos e d South Pennsylvania Street Senior Housing Planned Unit Developm ent to City Council for favo rabl e action with the following conditions: 1. Prior to being forwarded to City Counci l the following adjustments shall b e made to the application: a. Vicinity map on sheet PUD 7 be redrawn to demonstrate the lo ca tion of the parking area o n the west side of South Pennsylvania Street b . Front and Rear setbacks be established on she e t PUD 3 for the w es tern parcel, 3 • • • AYES: NAYS: 2. Prior to issuance of any Building Permits the three properties on the east side of South Pennsylvania Street be combined into a single parcel pursuant to City of Englewood and Arapahoe County requirements, 3. Traffic Engineer review again the potential for a mid-block crossing, and 4. Recheck the submitted plans for co nsistency of numbers on all sheets . Brick, Bleile, Diekmeier, Knoth, Krieger, Mosteller, Roth, Welker None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hunt The motion carried . These Findings and Conclusions are effective as of the meeting on April 18, 2006. BY ORDER OF THE CITY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Don Roth, Chair -· ·--·· 4 • • • The recording secretary conducted a poll of eight (8) Planning and Zoning Commission members via telephone for the approval of the Findings of Fact for CASE #ZON2006-00001 Englewood Housing Authority rezoning. The Findings of Fact in Case #ZON2006-00001 Englewood Housing Authority PUD were approved. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Bleile, Knoth, Roth, Krieger, Diekmeier, Welker, Brick None Mosteller Hunt