|
|
|
 |
LAKEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
PUBLIC MEETING
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 5, 2007
STAFF PRESENT:
Rebecca Clark, Director, Community Planning & Development
Timothy Gelston, Manager, Development Review
Kara Mueller, Associate Planner, Development Review
John Padon, Principal Traffic Engineer, Public Works
Anne Heine, Lead Development Review Engineer, Public Works
Dieter Magin, Project Engineer, Public Works
Walter Jauch, Secretary, Planning Commission
ROLL CALL
The roll having been called, a quorum was declared and the following business was conducted:
ITEMS 1 & 2: PA-06-001; FA-06-001, Request from Milestone Apartment Developers, Lakewood LLC, Applicant and Owner, for approval of a Preliminary Map and Final Plat for subdivision for 15.5 acres of land located at 9990 W. Alameda Avenue.
COMMISSIONER RICH URBANOWSKI - Point of Order, Asked if the cases are to be handled concurrently.
MS. REBECCA CLARK stated the cases are handled concurrently with two different votes.
MR. VINCENT HARRIS (VINCE), Baseline Planning, 1658 Cole Boulevard, Suite 120, Lakewood, CO, representing Milestone Apartment Developers presented slides regarding the subdivision of land located at 9990 W. Alameda Avenue.
MR. SCOTT ALBERTSON, Attorney with Holly, Albertson & Polk, representing the applicant, spoke regarding the approval from staff at Community Planning & Development, the community and the Alameda Homeowner's Association. The proposal is not asking for any variances from the City of Lakewood Subdivision Ordinances.
The following were present, but did not speak:
DR. HACKEY WRIGHTMAN, Milestone Development Partners
MR. ERIC FOSTER, Milestone Development Partners
MR. KEN KIKEN, Milestone Development Partners, as applicant.
MR. MATT EMMENS, Jehn Engineering
MR. SHELDON EMERY, Stahler and Henry.
MS. KARA MUELLER, Associate Planner, entered into the record the Staff Report, all attachments, case files and associated materials for Cases PA-06-001 and FA-06-001.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI accepted the items for inclusion into the case records.
Public Comment was opened at 7:39 P.M.
MS. MARY ANN LOCKWOOD, 9592 W. Virginia Drive, - Asked price range for the houses to be built.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI stated that this question will also be asked by Commissioners.
Public Comment was closed at 7:40 P.M.
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHR asked about the frontage road access connecting to South Jellison Street.
MR. HARRIS responded that the frontage road currently dead ends. The proposed intersection is to have a Stop sign and left turn on to the frontage road continuing south and adjacent to the church and connecting to Exposition at Kipling Street.
COMMISSIONER ROHR asked if there is any traffic mitigation to be done in the School Zone along the frontage road.
MR. HARRIS responded there was a traffic study that was reviewed and approved by Traffic Engineering. Vince is not aware of any specific measures or improvements required with the approval of that traffic study.
COMMISSIONER ROHR asked about the underdrain and the notes about lots requiring a underdrain system if a full basement is proposed. Is an underdrain a standard recommendation and part of the overall drainage program?
MR. HARRIS responded there is extensive engineering design for the underdrain system along the rear property lines with an easement that leads to the detention pond.
MR. HARRIS also answered the question about home price. He stated homes would be 2,500 square feet (s.f.) or larger with basements. Based on market value today the price range would be $400,000 to $500,000.
COMMISSIONER ROHR asked if Milestone is planning to construct the homes.
MR. HARRIS stated that Milestone has not focused on that yet. The focus has been on getting the approval on the subdivision plat.
MR. JOHN PADON answered questions about frontage road traffic. He stated that after the last rezoning and proposal he spoke to the church and school and they indicated most of the children are bused or dropped off by parents and do not walk to the school. Occasionally, there are walking trips to Addenbrooke Park, but they do not enter the existing frontage road area and saw no need for traffic calming. Also, the traffic numbers from residential area and the Kipling Street frontage road is 28 cars today. This is expected to double with the proposed residential area. There is an expected number of about 75 cars in the afternoon when the office parcel is constructed. The traffic study allows for a more conservative figure of approximately 125 cars.
COMMISSIONER ROHR asked if Jellison to Alameda is a right-in/right-out only movement.
MR. PADON responded it is a three-quarter movement that restricts the left-out movement.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI asked if there are stop signs each way at the intersection.
MR. PADON responded we do not know where they will place the access to the office and we just created a 'T' intersection there, not to preclude any type of access problems in the future.
COMMISSIONER JERALD GOLLEY asked if traffic turns left (west) on Alameda Avenue for both Hoyt and Jellison streets and what kind of studies were completed.
MR. PADON stated Kipling Street is the main street, state highway and most times lights are green going north and south and there are adequate gaps to make left turns onto Alameda.
COMMISSIONER JOHN PLOTKIN asked if there will NOT be a left turn off of Jellison Street onto Alameda heading west.
MR. PADON responded No.
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN asked if Hoyt Street is signaled and if signalization would be considered.
MR. PADON responded No to both, and that the Traffic Study had investigated this issue.
COMMISSIONER ROHR asked if we see an increase in traffic at Exposition will there be left-turn/right turn lights.
MR. PADON responded Yes.
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN asked about the plans for the ditch and if there is a license agreement with the ditch company and what else is contemplated with the ditch before the office is developed.
MR. HARRIS responded that was correct, there is a license agreement and currently there are no specific arrangements for the ditch other than the crossing where it has to go underneath the road, hence the need for the license agreement. In the future, the ditch may be piped, but did not know in what configuration. When the office parcel has a site plan application, the property owners will have to work with the ditch company on location and piping and enter into a revised agreement with the ditch company.
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN stated he did understand that these issues are not before the Commission at this time but needed confirmation that each home will require building permits, the independent evaluation of each house with respect to building codes, soil studies and the like.
MR. HARRIS confirmed all the above is correct.
COMMISSIONER GOLLEY stated he noticed the plot widths of the Milestone Subdivision compared to existing homes along West Dakota are narrower and very close together and how they anticipate the development happening.
MR. HARRIS stated the existing houses are ranch homes, don't really have basements and spread out with wider lots and in the range of 8,800 s.f. and the Milestone lots are generally 6,500 s.f.
COMMISSIONER GOLLEY asked if they are proposing multiple level homes.
MR. HARRIS answered the opportunity will be for ranch or two-story homes and zoning allows them.
COMMISSIONER GOLLEY asked if they would be supporting basements.
MR. HARRIS responded that they would make sure to go through engineering reports to make sure every lot could support basements.
COMMISSIONER GOLLEY asked about anticipation of start and finish time.
MR. HARRIS stated Milestone has not tried to market the property and wants the approval first. There is not a specific schedule.
COMMISSIONER GOLLEY asked if there were time frames associated with the start and finish of building the houses.
MS. MUELLER responded there is no requirement. They are currently in the process of an Article 15 Site Plan, which would further define the Alameda Right-of-Way, the tract treatment, and landscaping, and that Site Plans are good for two years but the Director could extend the period upon request and showing of cause. Once a plat is approved and recorded the land remains in the newly platted lot configurations unless re-platted in the future. There is no expiration on an final plat.
COMMISSIONER GOLLEY asked about maintenance of the other three tracts, other than Tract 'C'
MR. HARRIS responded that Tract 'A', 'B' and 'D' would be owned and maintained by residential Homeowner's association (HOA).
MS. MUELLER stated that the HOA has to be formed prior to building permits being issued and that there was a note on the plat to that effect.
COMMISSIONER TRACY SHEFFIELD asked if there were any meetings with the general neighborhood.
MR. HARRIS responded No, that Milestone was willing, but it was determined by persons on the HOA board that the meetings were not necessary.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI asked if the Performance Based Review meeting approach was applicable to Preliminary Maps and Final Plats, as opposed to rezoning.
MS. CLARK responded that staff advises all applicants to continue to meet with the neighborhoods and Milestone chose this route with the neighborhood. She stated that Performance Based Review applies specifically to Zonings, Rezoning, and Special Use Permits.
COMMISSIONER SHEFFIELD asked for comment regarding Tract 'C' and South Jellison Street, specifically regarding maintenance not being included with the HOA.
MR. HARRIS responded the project will be completed in two phases (Residential & Office), and that the grading will not be completed until both phases are done. In addition, if portions of the street connection's landscaping and grading were done with the first phase, this would need to be ripped out once the street construction for the final phase is completed. Milestone felt this to be unnecessary. But, Milestone is willing to work with staff on the fencing and notes, and are willing to commit to building the fence across Tract 'C' in the beginning, assuming the residential is built first.
COMMISSIONER SHEFFIELD asked for comment regarding the minimum buffer between the office area and residential lots (specifically Lots 1 and 19 of Block 2) and why the maximum density being proposed seems contrary to the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan for the city.
MR. HARRIS responded that currently they do not know the orientation or access points for the office parcel and that the road along with landscaping on the west side of each lot is the buffer area. In addition, the density proposed is allowed by the current zoning.
COMMISSIONER SHEFFIELD asked if the current agricultural ditch is a dedicated forty-foot easement or would it have to be relocated and abandoned.
MS. MUELLER responded that the ditch is Right-of-Way (ROW) and the applicant and staff has met with the ditch company and drafted the note on the final plat. If the future holds changes to the ditch ROW, the Agricultural Ditch Company would need to approve such changes.
COMMISSIONER RAY SCHOCH asked what is the gross and net density of the project.
MS. MUELLER stated it is not in the Staff Report but typically 3-R zoning for single-family is 6,000 s.f or about 7 net dwelling units per acre.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI had a comment that on Final Plat sheet 1 of 6 the secretary line has John Brown III and should be George Brown III. Also, commented about third party acceptance language in the Agricultural Ditch note.
MS. MUELLER stated the City's Attorney and Agricultural Ditch Company's attorney drafted, reviewed, and agreed to the ditch note language.
MS. CLARK commented regarding reserving the right for staff to work with the applicant regarding fencing issues and the notes on the Final Plat. Also, Commission should be voting on the Preliminary Map first, then the Final Plat.
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN made a MOTION for APPROVAL of Preliminary Case #PA-06-001 based on the evidence presented, the findings of fact and recommendations of staff subject to the following conditions in accordance with the City's conditions:
1. The applicant shall submit a paper copy of the Preliminary Map, incorporating any changes required by the Planning Commission to staff for the case file, within 15 days of the Planning Commission approval.
· The fence be extended along the south property line of Tract 'C'
· A fence be constructed along sides of Tract 'D'
· A single unified fence to be constructed along the southern boundary
of the subdivision
a. The applicant, Ken Kiken for Milestone Apartment Developers, Lakewood LLC, has submitted an application requesting approval of a preliminary map for a major subdivision in order to subdivide a parcel of land into 48 residential single-family lots, four (4) tracts and one (1) office lot; and
b. Notice of Public Hearing was sent to the fee owners of the property and residents within 500 feet and registered neighborhood associations within 1,000 feet was made as required by the Lakewood Subdivision Ordinance; and,
c. The Preliminary Map conforms with the regulations as outlined in the OF, 3-R, 2-R and 1-R zone district standards; and
d. The Preliminary Map applications was reviewed by the appropriate outside referral agencies and no adverse comments were received; and
e. The applicant has met the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and the preliminary map is consistent with the City's Engineering Regulations and Major Street Plan; and
f. The Preliminary Map is in conformance with the City of Lakewood Zoning Ordinance, the Subdivision Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable regulations.
Motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER SCHOCH
COMMISSIONER GOLLEY is concerned about the density of the homes with respect to the surrounding neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN stated the previous rezone application was vigorously opposed by the neighborhood and had a much higher density and was soundly defeated by City Council. Applicant has now followed existing density laid out in Zoning Ordinance.
MS. CLARK commented that the application before the Commission today, Preliminary Map and Final Plat, is not a rezoning request. Milestone has met the densities required of them in the Zone District. Furthermore, the Commission can only address and evaluate this case based upon the criteria set out before them through the Preliminary Map and Final Plat requirements and it's technical merit.
COMMISSIONER SHEFFIELD stated he didn't feel that it meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
MS. CLARK responded that it is only a Zoning item, not a Subdivision item.
COMMISSIONER SHEFFIELD commented it meets the lines of the code of the Zoning Ordinance and that he would strongly urge applicant to look at the Comprehensive Plan and to how it integrates with the existing neighborhood. He is concerned that South Jellison Street will become a shortcut from Kipling Street to Alameda Avenue.
MS. CLARK responded that Commission can bring these concerns up at discussion and provide direction to staff when the Site Plan comes into the office.
COMMISSIONER GOLLEY commented about his concern that South Jellison Street is not being developed all the way to the frontage road of Kipling Street until the office parcel is being developed and he encourages that the street be developed at the onset.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI stated that construction phasing is not under the purview of the Commission.
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN commented that if the office parcel does not ever get built, Jellison could never be completed under the current plan and that is concerning.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI noted the comment and requested staff take note, too.
COMMISSIONER SCHOCH shares the same concerns, and likes fencing on the interior. Finally, has concern how this fits the Master Plan, especially with the cost of the homes being $400,000 and $500,000 or higher and the median income being in the $50,000 range. He thinks it fits the existing zoning and it is efficient use of the land.
COMMISSIONER ROHR commented the developer has reviewed and discussed issues brought up last time. Developer has looked at neighborhood concerns based upon the existing zoning.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI concurred.
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN asked if there is a possibility of amending the motion to add a condition about completing Jellison with first phase.
MR. PADON responded that Jellison is a major component of the office parcel and the single-family parcel does not drive the need for connection based on the traffic study. A Public Improvement Agreement has already been signed with specific requirements.
COMMISSIONER GOLLEY commented he cannot support the plan.
MS. CLARK asked for the reason.
COMMISSIONER GOLLEY stated it doesn't meet the nature of the general area as developed now.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI commented that it complies with the zoning and that they are voting on whether or not it is appropriate and in accordance with city requirements.
MS. CLARK stated that the Commission is voting if the plan meets the technical merit for a plat. Concerns of the compatibility to the surrounding areas is not the issue before the Commission and that this is not a zoning case.
COMMISSIONER SHEFFIELD commented he is voting for the measure, but is disappointed that developer did not meet with the public as recommended by staff.
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN stated that his motion will stand as originally put forth.
COMMISSIONER GEORGE BROWN III commented there is a remarkable difference with the previously submitted plan and based on technical merit he will support the motion.
VOTE taken -
6 Ayes - Commissioners Sheffield, Plotkin, Urbanowski, Brown, Schoch and Rohr.
1 Nay - Commissioner Golley
MOTION PASSED.
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN made a MOTION for APPROVAL of Final Plat Case No. FA-06-001 based on the evidence presented, the findings of fact and recommendations of staff subject to the following conditions in accordance with the City's conditions:
1. The applicant shall submit a correction free photo Mylar of the final plat, incorporating any changes required by the Planning Commission to staff for the case file, within 15 days of the Planning Commission approval.
· The fence be extended along the south property line of Tract 'C'
· A fence be constructed along sides of Tract 'D'
· A single unified fence to be constructed along the southern boundary
of the subdivision
a. The applicant, Ken Kiken for Milestone Apartment Developers, Lakewood LLC, has submitted an application requesting approval of a final plat for a major subdivision in order to subdivide a parcel of land into 48 residential single-family lots, four (4) tracts and one (1) office lot; and
b. Notice of Public Hearing was sent to the fee owners of the property and residents within 500 feet and registered neighborhood associations within 1,000 feet was made as required by the Lakewood Subdivision Ordinance; and,
c. The Final Plat conforms with the regulations as outlined in the OF, 3-R, 2-R and 1-R zone district standards; and
d. The Final Plat application was reviewed by the appropriate outside referral agencies and no adverse comments were received; and
e. The applicant has met the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and the final plat is consistent with the City's Engineering Regulations and Major Street Plan; and
f. Public improvements are required and a PIA has been signed; and
g. Cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication fee is required with this subdivision. A fee in the amount of $700 per lot has been paid for the proposed new lots; and
h. Cash-in-lieu of school land dedication fee is required with this subdivision. A fee in the amount of $1,133 per lot has been paid for the proposed new lots; and
i. The Final Plat is in conformance with the City of Lakewood Zoning Ordinance, the Subdivision Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable regulations.
Motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER SCHOCH
VOTE taken -
6 Ayes - Commissioners Sheffield, Plotkin, Urbanowski, Brown, Schoch and Rohr.
1 Nay - Commissioner Golley
MOTION PASSED.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes from the Public Hearing of July 18, 2007 approved by unanimous vote.
GENERAL BUSINESS:
MS. CLARK informed Commission that reading materials will continue to be supplied
to them in their packets. Commissioners should have received the fifty-percent
increase in compensation for this paycheck.
There will be Public Hearings on:
· Wednesday, September 19, 2007
· Wednesday, October 3, 2007
· Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Park Plan previously presented in Study Session to be presented in joint City
Council and Planning Commission meeting
· Monday, October 15, 2007
Lighting Site visit with Planning Commission, Town of Morrison Planning Commission
and Board of Trustees, and Joint Project Review Committee for Rooney Valley:
· Thursday, October 11, 2007
City Council and administration have selected a contract attorney of Widener and Michou, with Tim Cox as the point of contact and will start on September 10, 2007 and will come before Commission on September 19, 2007.
COMMISSIONER SCHOCH commented on the 'Best Practices for Smart Growth' training session he recently attended.
MS. CLARK commented that this evenings' discussion was excellent. She further stated Performance Review cannot be applied to plats and can only be applied to Zoning, Re-zoning and Special Use Permits. Staff does try to impress upon applicants to visit with whole neighborhood and if staff needs assistance from Commission they are to place these concerns in the Staff Report.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI stated that Commissioners are not, in general, supposed to take information directly from the people while in the areas being considered, and should be obtained from the Staff Report.
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN asked if tonight's proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding.
MS. CLARK stated that it is not, and people are sworn out of caution, form,
and we were previously advised to swear in audience because of technicalities
in Colorado Statutes.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:05 P.M.
Walter M. Jauch, Secretary to the Planning Commission
 |
||
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Notice |
||
