|
|
|
 |
PUBLIC HEARING
MINUTES
December 1, 2004
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Tom Quinn, Chair
John Plotkin
Rich Urbanowski
Bunny Malm
Charles Choi
Andrea Hollen
STAFF PRESENT
Vince Harris, Planning Manager Dru Siley, Planner III
Chad Minor, Senior Planner John Padon, Traffic Engineer Technician
Anne Heine, Lead Development Review Engineer Jennifer Eby, Planner II
Dieter Magin, Civil Engineer II Vicki Kaufman, Plann.Comm. Secretary
Toni Spurgeon, Engineering Dev. Assistance Coordinator
___________________________________________________________________________________
The following are the minutes of the December 1, 2004 Lakewood Planning Commission
Public hearing. A permanent set of these minutes is retained in the office of
the City Clerk and a tape recording is located in the department of Community
Planning and Development, City of Lakewood.
____________________________________________________________________________________
INDEX
FA-02-003 Request of Rex Haag, Midwest Building Pros, LLC, to subdivide 6.67
acres zoned
PA-02-002 PD (Planned Development) into 28 lots for single-family detached development
at 6210 West 8th Avenue.
SU-04-003: Request of Gary Theander, Mountain States Engineering Associates, for a Special Use Permit to allow a professional office at 2130 Kipling Street.
The roll having been called, a quorum was declared and the following business was conducted:
ITEM 1: _CASE NO. FA-02-003 and PA-02-002
REX HAAG of 1565 Wright Court, Lakewood, Colorado, 80215, is representing the
applicant, Midwest Building Pros, presenting the final plat for Courseside subdivision.
Midwest Building Pros are buying the property from the owner. This project has
been in the works with Midwest Building Pros for three years.
DRU SILEY, PLANNER III, gave the staff report and showed slides. Dru said Staff does recommend that Planning Commission approve this request.
ROBERT LIPTON of 6305 West 6th Avenue, C-18, Lakewood, Colorado 80214 stated he has no argument with the Courseside Development. He believes the plan at the present time is to channelize and move the creek to the north approximately 20 feet. In doing so they will also enlarge the size of the creek from 10 feet to 20 feet. In his opinion, at the present time the creek serves adequately, only occasionally flooding when it rains real hard because this is a wetland. If they move the channel and make it ten feet wider they are destroying habitat and it will be a shallow ditch with about three feet of water and mostly mud. According to the Planning Commissions own rules, the commission is required to see that as little damage as possible is done to the area. Mr. Lipton feels this plan is completely changing a natural stream and moving it for no purpose. He feels it is a waste of time and money and a waste of the natural resource used by the people of the area for a long, long time.
ELAINE BECK of 701 Harlan St., Unit E-5, Lakewood, Colorado 80214, said she is in complete agreement with Mr. Lipton. She is very concerned about the wildlife in the area. If they scrape the gulch out, all of the wildlife will be lost. She has a list of wildlife that lives here: there are foxes, coyotes, raccoons, skunks, squirrels, muskrats, snakes, turtles, fish and a whole bunch of birds from herons to hawks, who will all loose their homes, their habitat. There are negative side effects to canalization like increased threat of flooding downstream, erosion downstream, disaster to living things in the stream. So many articles of Lakewood like Article 15 talk about preserving and enhancing our features, preserve site features; existing topography, slopes and existing trees are to be preserved. Has an environmental impact assessment been done in this area? Or has a habitat conservation plan been conducted? She has not seen either.
AXEL SJOGREN who lives at 6305 West 6th Avenue, Unit C-17, Lakewood, Colorado 80214. He is the President of the Patio Homeowners Association. Mr. Sjogren wanted to thank Dieter Magin, Civil Engineer II and Dru Siley, City Project Manager on this case, for their patience and incredible cooperation on educating them on what the process is all about and what alternatives they have as well as answering many, many questions. He said he shares some of the concerns of the two previous speakers. He is concerned about the construction and the temporary channel. He requested the homeowner association's lawyer ask the developer to provide a Surety Bond in case something might happen during construction. Mr. Sjogren understands that there will be an extensive re-landscaping plan and any potential damage to the large trees will be mitigated if possible.
KENT HEBER who lives at 845 Kendall Street, Lakewood, Colorado 80214, had concerns about the construction phase of the project. He went through the construction before when the dirt was delivered and had truck traffic issues and street problems. He would like to know hours of construction. What's going to be the street impact, what's going to happen if the streets are damaged from the trucks? What are the house values to be built? What will be the impact on the schools in the area? Will the homeowners on Kendall be required to put in curb and gutter to accommodate the school children?
JOHN BAILEY of 701 Harlan, E-21, Lakewood, Colorado 80214, said he doesn't
understand the background behind some of the issues. Why is the re-canalization
occurring? What's the cost benefit? He is very concerned about the habitat.
His condominium looks out over the creek. He enjoys the ambiance of the whole
area. What are the next steps in the process? Since Courseside has been in the
works for the last eight years, with zoning, etc., what has the citizen input
been regarding re-canalization up to this point? If the Surety Bond were in
place, it would provide reassurance to the homeowners.
At this time the public comment portion of the meeting was closed.
COMMISSIONER QUINN wanted Staff to address the issue of canalization of Lakewood
Gulch; how it is going to be done, is it necessary, and would this be a permanent
change?
DIETER MAGIN, Civil Engineer II, answered these questions for Staff. Dieter
said the canalization is going to be done by routing a temporary channel off
to the north bank so that the work on the channel itself can begin and be completed
without water in the way. He doesn't know how the developer intends to do it
exactly but it makes sense that they wouldn't make the slope going up to the
pad sites without building the channel first because that way it will be a flatter
area to put the temporary channel along side and be able to do the construction.
It will be easier for the equipment and leave a larger flow regime area. Dieter
added that the bottom will be about 20 feet wide and the south embankment won't
be changing. It is the north embankment that is being widened. There is a bend
that will be straightened slightly during this project.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI asked Dieter to explain the design criteria for the channel.
DIETER MAGIN said the design criteria are accepted practices and principles within the industry. That requires that it be done within the "HEC 2" modeling. The City requires that the developer take a look at the channel, how it's behaving right now with the flow regime and the kinds of embankment, obstructions, etc. and then looks at their proposed modeling so the city knows it's not going to raise the water surface elevation. The city also watches, through the modeling, that the channel ties in on both ends so that it doesn't cause more of a problem on the downstream side.
COMMISSIONER CHOI asked Dieter about how the construction might be scheduled and be sequenced so that there is no impediment that would dam up the water during construction in the event that construction takes place during the rainy season. This was in response to the citizen who mentioned the "big event" (a major rainstorm causing much more rain than normal).
DIETER MAGIN said this is hard for him to comment on because he doesn't know how or when the developer plans to do this work. But that is why the city requires the developer to do a temporary channel to route the water around, leaving the area as wide and open as possible during construction. Dieter reiterated that he would suggest leaving the temporary channel, then do the construction on the main channel, then do the slope fill on the north embankment.
COMMISSIONER CHOI asked if this phase of the construction would be monitored by the city?
DIETER MAGIN said yes. The city would be out there with the contractor as well as Urban Drainage as the progress of the channel develops.
COMMISSIONER MALM said she noted that Item 7 of the Staff Report said storm water plans have been reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Division, what does that involve?
DIETER MAGIN said the Erosion Control Storm Water Management Plan has the temporary channel shown on it, which shows the minimum typical cross section lined with a fabric so erosion won't occur. They have rock-check dams that are placed in the same temporary channel but at a lower elevation to help catch any sediment that does run off from the site. They have slope stabilization that shows what kind of seed mix has to take place on the new slope embankment as well as landscaping.
COMMISSIONER MALM asked if Dieter's review leaves him satisfied with the safety and appropriateness of the changes?
DIETER MAGIN said it meets Engineering regulation requirements and design modeling and so he is satisfied with the result.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI asked Dieter if this is a FEMA Regulatory Flood Plain? And their criteria have been satisfied as part of the Urban Drainage Review.
DIETER MAGIN said that is correct, FEMA has reviewed the design and approved the modeling.
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN wanted to clarify what the Planning Commission is required to review tonight.
DRU SILEY said the zoning and the allowance for twenty-nine single-family lots were both approved in 1996. The action of actually subdividing the property and creating the legal document that creates the lots is what is being reviewed this evening. The consideration of impacts on wildlife, traffic, construction impacts on the neighborhood has all been satisfied per the Lakewood Engineering Standards and Traffic Standards. Now the approval request is for whether or not the subdivision creation of the lots meets the criteria in the official development plan (ODP).
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN asked why is the widening of the channel being contemplated?
DIETER MAGIN said the widening of the channels is so that the Courseside development would not be in a 100-year flood zone. There is potential for flooding now. The widening would eliminate any flooding problems for the new homes and would reduce the 100-year flood risk to the existing homes.
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN walked the property and wondered how there could be a flooding situation for the existing homes up on the hill. Would there be quite a bit of fill in there?
DIETER explained that you have to build the pad sites up to build that many homes and then you have to drop back down in order to meet the existing grade, which would be the north embankment of the channel. The intent is to accommodate building that many new homes and keep them out of a flood area. Dieter added there would be quite a bit of filling.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI asked the applicant if he would address:
1. The applicant's understanding of the criteria that necessitated the changes
to the channel.
2. The need for that and the reason why plot #13 has gone away.
RICHARD ROMBERG, of Lane Engineering Service, located at 9500 West 14th Avenue, Lakewood, Colorado, 80215, has been responsible for the preparation of the plans for the subject subdivision. He said the subdivision of the property into useable residential lots can be accomplished only by removing a portion of the site that is now in a flood plain as a backwater only because it is a low-lying area, not part of the physical channel and not carrying the run-off in the gulch but simply flooded by it. There is presently erosion along the south bank of the gulch and in recent years the channel itself has changed and developed a bend that is subject to erosion. Part of the criteria imposed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is that work in these flow ways can be done if it shows that the work will have no adverse consequence. In this case the proposed work will lower the water surface elevation during major storms. It will make things safer for the surrounding area and put the proposed development well above the flood plain and stabilize the gulch to prevent further erosion of the south bank that has been occurring. Much of the work is in stabilizing the channel so that it will remain in a planned configuration. The United States Army Corp of Engineers is charged with enforcing Section 404 of the Clean Water Permit, which concerns itself with the environment and it's various aspects. They have reviewed this project and referred this plan out to other wildlife and environmental agencies and considered their comments. The Army Corp of Engineers issued a Section 404 permit saying that this is in keeping with acceptable standards for maintaining environmental quality. The work in the channel is to stabilize the banks, to allow passage of the water at lower elevation than present without causing any changes upstream or downstream and making much of that site available for single-family housing.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI asked if the appropriate submittals were sent to FEMA and Urban Drainage previously.
RICHARD ROMBERG said yes, the appropriate submittals were sent to FEMA and Urban Drainage as an application for a conditional letter of map revision, which does include a map and a drawing that does address these specific concerns regarding flood plain. It shows graphics that are important to FEMA and Urban Drainage and to the City.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI said that both Richard Romberg and Dieter Magin showed that the flood plain actually drops in this area and the preliminary map shows water lines that go very, very close to the south side of the stream. The proposed development shows flood plain lines very close to the existing buildings. You have actually improved the flood plain significantly.
RICHARD ROMBERG said it improves the flood plain quite a bit for those existing buildings. The high water line in the near proximity to the buildings is the existing condition according to FEMA. That is the legal flood plain limit. The proposed improvements will move the flow entirely within the channel. It will lower the elevations and reduce the width of the flood plain. That is a requirement of FEMA and the reviewing agencies, that you make it better and that you offer some appreciable solution to the existing situation. The flood criteria do have to do with the hundred-year flood event.
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN asked if that solution also applies to downstream?
RICHARD ROMBERG answered that it has to be shown that there are absolutely no adverse affects downstream or upstream.
COMMISSIONER QUINN said he thought that Commissioner Urbanowski was referring to the line that's marked as the northerly limit of 100-year flood plain after LOMAR. What is LOMAR?
RICHARD ROMBERG said that is the "letter of map revision" that FEMA would issue at the end of construction. After the changes have been made. FEMA will require a new flood plain study be done after the project is completed and if it is in accordance with their approved plans FEMA will alter the official flood plain boundaries.
COMMISSIONER QUINN said he understands that a portion of the wetlands that are in the floodplain will be filled.
RICHARD ROMBERG said a portion of the site, the northwest portion, is low-lying and is subject to the backwater flooding just because it's low. Water backs into that area during a major storm. That area can be filled in if it can be shown that it would have no adverse affects upstream or downstream or on neighboring properties and that is what the flood plain study has shown that has been reviewed by all the various agencies. This would be a specific 404 permit requirement.
COMMISSIONER HOLLEN wanted to know how they are taking measures to preserve and protect the wildlife habitat or how does the developers approach to modify the stream take into account any wildlife habitat, or native vegetation beyond the wildlife?
RICHARD ROMBERG said they would remove material from the flow area at all times, not putting material into it. By removing material from the flow area it will be possible to lower velocity of the flow thereby reducing potential for erosion and lowering the water surface elevation during major storms. He also said he has not personally seen any wildlife on the site. He did say the Army Corp of Engineers, in their review, determined this area is not a significant habitat environment.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI asked if Mr. Romberg would talk about standard industry practice for performing projects in waterways in terms of risk of flooding that could occur while projects are underway.
RICHARD ROMBERG stated it is an important concern. The process would involve the removal of material from the potential flow path at all points. There will be nothing done that would restrict or obstruct flow, but only widen and improve conditions through all the phases. There is no part of the proposed improvements that will add material to the channel.
COMMISSIONER HOLLEN asked City Staff about the designation or identification of this area in terms of habitat.
DRU SILEY said the city in this case would defer to the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers who felt in part that what we have is a landscape plan that will revegitate the site in excess of what is there. It's not just a replacement process; they are replacing and adding to the vegetation. The Army Corp of Engineers didn't designate this area as any kind of habitat area that would be negatively impacted through these modifications to the gulch but required additional vegetation so that they would create potential habitat in the future.
COMMISSIONER HOLLEN asked if Staff knew if the gulch as it exists today is part of a wildlife movement corridor that would respect the connections upstream and downstream?
DRU SILEY said probably the entire gulch is a habitat corridor but we are dealing with a very discreet portion of the gulch. It is not designated by the city as a wildlife corridor. We have no such designation.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI asked what the length of the channel was that was subject to impact. It is approximately 400 feet.
COMMISSIONER HOLLEN asked if an environmental study had been done or an EIS or Conservation Plan.
DRU SILEY responded saying an Environmental Study would only be done if the Federal funding were involved in the project or if there was a known contamination on site. Neither one is the case. As far as Conservation Study, the city does not require that.
COMMISSIONER HOLLEN asked about the Surety Bond.
DRU SILEY explained that a request was made by the Homeowner's Association to the applicant to post a private bond during the construction phase to cover any potential damage to the properties. That would be a civil issue between the homeowner's association and the applicant. However, the city will require the applicant to post collateral to be held by the city until it is sure there are no erosion issues and that the development has been completed as planned.
COMMISSIONER CHOI asked why, on the original plans, there were 13 or 14 lots to be built in the existing flood plane with detention ponds. Is there a major shift in policy now or is this a desire by the developer to get the lots out of the flood plain?
DRU SILEY said actually the official development plan as it was approved in 1996 may not reflect modifications to the gulch but practically, in order to construct to the lots as shown in the development plan, the modifications as proposed would have to occur. All the engineering studies that have been discussed this evening have been reviewed and approved by the appropriate agencies. That would have to occur before Staff would forward such a case on to Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER QUINN asked if retaining walls on lots 8, 9, 13, 14 & 15 are needed due to topography.
DIETER MAGIN said there would be retaining walls on lot 14 and east to about lot 24 and along the north side of the detention pond. They will be short walls on the north side of the pond.
COMMISSIONER QUINN asked if the developer would bring in higher quality fill?
DIETER MAGIN said there is a lot of loose fill that was dumped illegally on the site, some of the erosion could have come from that. As far as the fill goes, the developer intends to take the fill that is un-compacted and unconsolidated and remove it, prepare the ground for proper fill, and then properly place the fill to eliminate any problems with subsidence.
COMMISSIONER QUINN then asked if the geotechnical study showed any further problems on the site that the commission should be aware of?
DIETER MAGIN said none that he found. The study referred to the loose fill nobody knows where it came from. This fill is unconsolidated and uncontrolled. It needs to be dealt with and the city did get assurance through the approval process that refers to these particular issues. There will be someone on site, weekly meetings and weekly inspection reports to be sure everything is taking place properly.
COMMISSIONER QUINN asked if he heard correctly that the new vegetation would actually improve conditions both for flood control and wildlife? Will the developer be required to use native vegetation as part of their landscape plan? Will existing mature trees be protected?
DRU SILEY said the new vegetation would improve conditions for flood control and wildlife. Dru said the developer would use vegetation that is regionally appropriate. Article 15 has a requirement for the developer to follow that refers to making every effort to preserve existing mature trees. However, because of the extent of modification of the flood plain in order to develop the site, how many existing trees will be preserved cannot be determined at this time. The re-vegetation plan exceeds city requirements and meets the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers requirements.
COMMISSIONER QUINN wondered if any comments were received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning re-vegetation on this site?
DRU SILEY said there were no comments that he was aware of although the Army Corp of Engineers would have requested comments from the Fish and Wildlife Service and forwarded those comments on with their response to the City Engineering Department.
COMMISSIONER MALM asked Dru if there is a side bar arrangement emanating from the cul-de-sac for some of the lots? Her concern was if West Metro Fire Department had approved the plans.
DRU SILEY said the tracts providing access to block 2 lots 4-9 accessing off Kendall Circle and block 2 lots 27 & 28. The tract on the end of Kendall Circle appears to be 20 feet wide. It is just for private access and utility access. Tract G is 30 feet wide. Dru said West Metro approved the plans back in 1996 and have reviewed them and approved them now.
COMMISSIONER HOLLEN wanted to be sure we cover the questions asked by citizens. She asked what the impact would be on the adjacent schools and how would that be covered. Then she asked about the impact to pedestrian safety along 8th Avenue.
DRU SILEY said the project was referred to Jefferson County School District who reviewed the plans for the impact on adjacent schools. The applicant was required to pay a fee per lot to the school district and the district found the impact would be acceptable for the adjacent schools.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI said one of the residents asked if the residents would be required to provide curb and gutter for access to adjacent areas.
DRU SILEY said no. None of the residents will be required to provide curb and gutter along their properties along 8th Avenue. They would only be required to add curb and gutter if the residents come into the city with changes to their particular properties.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI moved to approve case FA-02-003, the Final Plat, finding that city criteria have been met and there are no outstanding issues that face this commission.
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN seconded the motion.
COMMISSIONER QUINN wanted to point out that while the roll of the Planning Commission is primarily confined to review of the proposal in the context of it's compliance with technical requirements of the zoning ordinance, the commission is not prohibited from considering issues of public health, safety and welfare from this proposal.
Motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
COMMISSIONER MALM moved that case PA-02-002, the Preliminary Map, be approved subject to requirements set forth in Item 1 of the Staff Report.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI seconded the motion.
COMMISSIONER QUINN said the commission understands the concerns of the public, specifically the issues related to the flood plain, wildlife habitat on the site. Commissioner Quinn has many of the same concerns after visiting the site. However, after hearing the testimony and having questions answered by Staff relating to this proposal, it appears that the habitat on the site will be enhanced as a result of these improvements. During his inspection of the site it did appear to be disturbed by prior development in the area and other problems that actually degraded the quality of the habitat on site. The U.S. Corp of Engineers is required and does consult with the U.S. Fish and Game Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency with regard to re-vegetation on sites that are disturbed as a result of re-canalization.
Motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
ITEM 2: CASE SU-04-003
GARY THEANDER of Mountain States Engineering Associates, 2130 Kipling Street,
showed pictures of the area. He acknowledged that they have some landscaping
to do as a part of Article 15 and some parking lot areas to create. There are
four spaces of proposed parking in the rear of the business and two proposed
spaces in the front.
JENNIFER EBY, PLANNER II, gave the Staff Report entering into record the site plan, the Lakewood Zoning Ordinance, the Lakewood Comprehensive Plan, Article 15 and the North Kipling Strategic Plan, Jennifer then showed slides. Staff suggests approval of this case.
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN said it appears the project is already underway. Is that being done with the proper permits?
CHAD MINOR, SENIOR PLANNER, said the construction has started on the project. He has obtained the proper permits. The applicant today could pull the permits for a single-family house. He just wanted to get the work done before snowfall.
COMMISSIONER MALM having personally reviewed the site and taking into consideration the Staff Report and noting that this proposal does not include any addition or alteration to the outside of the existing building and that the office use proposed will generate no more traffic than a single-family home would generate, and further finding that this Special Use Permit has been reviewed by all appropriate agencies and found to be in conformance with the Neighborhood Referral Plan, subject to Items 1-3 in the Staff Report, Commissioner Malm moved that SU-04-003 be approved.
COMMISSIONER HOLLEN seconded the motion.
CHAIRMAN QUINN has inspected the site and it appears to be a good location for this type of use.
Motion carried by a vote of 6-0.
ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 17, 2004 PUBLIC HEARING
Meeting minutes for November 17, 2004 were approved.
ITEM 4: GENERAL BUSINESS
VINCE HARRIS let the commissioners know Mike Rock wanted to have an Executive
Session with them regarding the economic situation with the city's budget and
how that relates to land development in the City of Lakewood. The commission
needs to direct Vince to put a notice in that there will be an Executive Session
on January 5, 2004.
VINCE HARRIS also told the commissioners about Roger Wadnal moving upstairs
and working as an Economic Planning Manager. He will work on special projects
and corridors and work in the Economic Development area. All of Development
Review and Neighborhood Planning and Comprehensive Planning will now be under
Vince Harris.
ITEM 5: COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Andrea Hollen said it is with great sadness she will turn in her resignation
letter to Commissioner Quinn tonight. She explained that she has moved all her
projects to the east coast and will be overseeing the care of her parents who
are ill. She wished all her commissioners the very best especially with their
work on the Performance Based Standards, which she thinks are truly exceptional.
Also Andrea gave her thanks to staff from whom she has learned so much and she
said are a truly exceptional staff.
COMMISSIONER MALM said she is very sorry to hear of Andrea's resignation and she will miss her greatly.
CHAIRMAN QUINN said he will accept Andrea's resignation with great regret but the commission certainly understands her situation.
Meeting was adjourned at 9:10.
ADJOURNMENT
Vicki Kaufman, Secretary to the Lakewood Planning Commission
 |
||
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Notice |
||
