denver jewish senior living

M E M O R A N D U MArapahoe County is committed to making its public meetings accessible to persons with disabilities. Please contact the Planning Division at 720-874-6650 or TTY 711, at least three (3) days prior to a meeting, should you require special accommodations.
Public Works and Development
Lima Plaza Campus – Arapahoe Room 6954 S Lima St., Centennial, CO 80112
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ARAPAHOE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2017 @ 6:30 P.M.
GENERAL BUSINESS ITEMS
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 7, 2017 VOTE: Approved as amended. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 21, 2017 VOTE: Approved as presented.
REGULAR ITEMS
ITEM 1: Case No. P16-026, Denver Jewish Senior Living / Final Development Plan (FDP) – Molly Orkild-Larson, Senior Planner, Public Works & Development (PWD)
LOCATION: 2450, 2451, & 2453 S Wabash St VOTE: ACREAGE: 2.304 Acres 7 IN FAVOR EXISTING ZONING: SH-PUD 0 OPPOSED PROPOSED USE: Assisted Living / Memory Care Community ABSENT APPLICANT: The Stanton Solution on behalf of Denver Jewish Day School ABSTAIN CASE MANAGERS: Planner, Molly Orkild-Larson; Engineer, Sarah L White REQUEST: Positive referral to the BOCC CONTINUED TO: MOTION SUMMARY: Recommended approval with Staff Findings and Conditions;
BOCC action required. Date: _____________
STUDY SESSION ITEMS
ITEM 1 Presentation re: Administrative Amendment to the Four Square Mile Sub Area Plan – Larry Mugler, Planner, Public Works & Development (PWD)
DIRECTION/ACTION
PRESENTER Larry Mugler INFORMATIONAL
REQUEST: • Review and Comment on changes prior to Planning Manager action.
ITEM 2 Presentation and Discussion re: Cash-In-Lieu – Jason Reynolds, Current Planning Program Manager, Public Works & Development (PWD)
DIRECTION/ACTION
PRESENTER Jason Reynolds INFORMATIONAL
REQUEST: • Provide an overview of the County’s cash in lieu requirements compared to other jurisdictions.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
• The next regular Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for March 21, 2017. • Planning Commission agendas, Board of County Commissioner agendas, and other important Arapahoe County
information may be viewed online at www.arapahoegov.com or you may contact the Planning Division at 720-874-6650.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS:
Mark Brummel - Present Richard Rader - Present Paul Rosenberg, Chair - Present Diane Chaffin - Present Jane Rieck - Present Richard Sall - Present Kathryn Latsis - Present
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ARAPAHOE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2017 ATTENDANCE A regular meeting of the Arapahoe County Planning Commission
was called and held in accordance with the statutes of the State of Colorado and the Arapahoe County Land Development Code. The following Planning Commission members were in attendance: Brian Weiss, Chair Pro-Tem; Mark Brummel; Richard Rader; Jane Rieck; and Diane Chaffin. Also present were: Robert Hill, Senior Asst. County Attorney; Chuck Haskins, Engineering Services Division Manager; Sue Liu, Engineer; Jason Reynolds, Current Planning Program Manager;; Jan Yeckes, Planning Division Manager, Caitlyn Cahill, Animal Control Supervisor, and members of the public.
CALL TO ORDER Chair Pro-Tem Weiss called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and noted a quorum of the Board was present.
DISCLOSURE MATTERS
There were no Planning Commission member conflicts with the matters before them.
GENERAL BUSINESS ITEMS:
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
The motion was made by Ms. Rieck and duly seconded by Ms. Chaffin to accept the minutes from the January 10, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, as presented. The motion passed unanimously. The motion was then made by Mr. Rieck and duly seconded by Mr. Rader to accept the minutes from the January 17, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, as amended, to add the applicant’s attorney’s name, Mr. Ragonetti, to the minutes. The motion passed unanimously.
ANNOUNCEMENT / AGENDA
Mr. Weiss announced Agenda Item 2 would be heard before Agenda Item 1.
REGULAR ITEMS:
Planning Commission February 7, 2017 Page 2 of 5
The audio recording is the official County record of this meeting. Written minutes are a summary of the meeting and provided as a courtesy only.
Item 2: Case No. P16-012, Schuck Restoration / Minor Subdivision (MS) - Sherman Feher, Senior Planner, Public Works and Development (PWD) Ms. Yeckes introduced the case on behalf of Mr. Feher, who could not be in attendance. She indicated staff had provided findings, in support of a recommendation for approval with conditions, as outlined in the staff report. She answered questions about the level of environmental review, required for the property, in relation to comments from Tri-County Health Department (TCHD) and the City of Sheridan due to the proximity of the property to an old landfill. Ms. Yeckes indicated a Phase I review to check for methane gas in the soils was recommended due to some risk that methane gas could have migrated to the site from the landfill. She explained that work was typically done in conjunction with the development more than the subdivision process. Ms. Yeckes reported staff was administratively processing an Administrative Site Plan application in conjunction with the minor subdivision under the conventional zone district of B-4 (business and commercial uses). She stated no change to the zoning was planned, so the related site plan would not come before the Planning Commission (PC). Jerry Davidson, on behalf of the applicants, stated a Phase I environmental review had already been completed and the site was determined to be clean. Mr. Davidson also addressed comments from other review agencies and noted the status of work to comply with those requirements. Mr. Weiss disclosed he was working with Mr. Davidson in a professional capacity on some unrelated projects, which he just realized when Mr. Davidson introduced himself. No concerns were voiced. The hearing was opened for public comments. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. It was moved by Mr. Brummel and duly seconded by Ms. Rieck, in the case of P16-012, Schuck Minor Subdivision, that the Planning Commission read the staff report and received testimony at the public hearing and found themselves in agreement with all staff findings, as well as, all plans and attachments as set forth in the staff report dated January 24, 2017, and recommended this case favorably to the Board of County Commissioners, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant must make all modifications to the Minor Subdivision/ Final Plat as requested by the Public Works and Development Department.
2. The applicant shall address all Engineering Services Division comments and concerns, as identified within their reports, prior to signing of the mylars.
3. The applicant shall address all Tri-County Health Department’s comments regarding landfill gas per the referral comments.
4. The applicant shall address Century Link’s comments regarding utility equipment per the referral comments.
5. The applicant shall address Colorado Department of Transportation’s comments regarding right-of way, permits, and access per the referral comments.
6. The applicant will secure documentation of service commitments from Denver Water for water and South Englewood Sanitation District for sewage services.
The vote was: Mr. Weiss, Yes; Ms. Rieck, Yes; Ms. Chaffin, Yes; Mr. Rader, Yes; Mr. Brummel, Yes.
Item 1: Case No. W17-001, Floodplain Regulations Updated Flood Insurance Study (FIS) – Land Development Code (LDC) Amendment – Chuck Haskins, Engineering Division Services Manager, Public Works and Development (PWD) Mr. Haskins introduced the County-initiated amendment to the Floodplain Regulations to comply with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements. He provided some history of participation in the NFIP and the County’s responsibility. He reported September, 2014 was the beginning of the project with the new floodplain mapping for six drainage-ways within Arapahoe County. He said public meetings were held in October, 2014, the decisions were published in September, 2015, and no appeals were received. Mr. Haskins explained two sections of the County’s regulations were being amended to change the effective date from December, 2010 to February 17, 2017. He reported the agency and property owner outreach was held primarily in conjunction with updating the maps and included three public meetings and letters mailed to every affected property owner. He said, for that reason, extensive agency review was needed for the code update. Mr. Haskins stated one map change resulted in several structures within the Inverness Business Park going into the designated
floodplain. He reported the golf course was in a floodplain, but not in a FEMA floodplain. He said a portion of the golf course and family center would now be in the FEMA delineated floodplain. Mr. Haskins reported, out of six drainage-ways remapped, only four structures within Inverness were potentially impacted. He said Engineering Services had contacted those property owners to let them know there was a window of opportunity to purchase floodplain insurance prior to the effective date of this change, which might provide insurance at a lower cost than would be available after the effective date of the new maps and regulations. Mr. Haskins reported the change would go to the Board of County Commissioners on February 14, 2017 for approval and in order to bring the code into compliance with federal regulations, prior to the February 17, 2017 effective date.
In response to a question from Mr. Brummel, Mr. Haskins indicated flood insurance could be purchased without being within a floodplain. He explained any mortgage holder, on any affected property, would be notified of the pending change. He said, typically, a mortgage holder would require the property owner to purchase flood insurance when located within a FEMA delineated floodplain. He explained there was some increased risk being adjacent to a floodplain.
Mr. Weiss asked a question about a recent hearing on a wastewater treatment plant and its proximity to a floodplain in contrast with the Inverness wastewater treatment plant, which would now have some structures within the new floodplain.
Mr. Haskins noted floodplains changed over time and the County could not regulate outside of the currently-designated floodplains. He explained two different types of floodplains were considered in relation to new development. He stated Community Floodplains (Flood Hazard Area Delineations, or FHADs) were based on future development and how added development and runoff were calculated to affect existing floodplains. He reported the County evaluated the worst case of the FEMA and the FHAD maps, whichever was greatest, and regulated to that standard. Mr. Haskins explained, in the Box Elder drainage, the FHADs were usually more restrictive than the FEMA maps. He said FHADs could be impacted by significant land use development that was not anticipated.
Mr. Weiss made comments about a flood disaster in Iowa and concerns that situation brought to mind in relation to new projects close to floodplains.
Ms. Rieck asked how often FEMA reviewed floodplains.
Mr. Haskins noted the maps were changed from paper to digital in 2010 (now called D-FIRMs or Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps). He explained it was important to have the latest flood mapping information and to regulate land use accordingly. He reported FEMA evaluated to the 100 year floodplain, and Arapahoe County regulated to the 100-year floodplain.
Mr. Weiss opened the hearing for public comments. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed.
It was moved by Ms. Rieck and duly seconded by Mr. Brummel, in the case of W17-001 – Floodplain Management Regulations, Land Development Code Amendment, that the Planning Commission found itself in agreement with staff findings one (1) through five (5), including all plans and attachments as set forth in the staff report dated January 24, 2017 and recommended approval to the Board of County Commissioners, subject to the following conditions. 1. All minor modifications to the text were required prior to
incorporation into the existing Land Development Code. 2. The amended Floodplain Management Regulations would
be effective and integrated into the existing LDC on February 14, 2017.
The vote was: Mr. Weiss, Yes; Ms. Rieck, Yes; Ms. Chaffin, Yes; Mr. Rader, Yes; Mr. Brummel, Yes.
ANNOUNCEMENTS Ms. Yeckes reminded the PC the February 21, 2017 meeting was scheduled to be held at the Arapahoe County Administration Building, East Hearing Room, at 6:30 p.m. She said a reminder email would go out confirming that information.
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned.
Planning Commission February 21, 2017 Page 1 of 6 The audio recording is the official County record of this meeting. Written minutes are a summary of the meeting and provided as a courtesy only.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ARAPAHOE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2017 ATTENDANCE A regular meeting of the Arapahoe County Planning Commission
was called and held in accordance with the statutes of the State of Colorado and the Arapahoe County Land Development Code. The following Planning Commission members were in attendance: Paul Rosenberg, Chair; Richard Rader; Jane Rieck; Richard Sall; and Kathryn Latsis. Also present were: Robert Hill, Senior Asst. County Attorney; Chuck Haskins, Engineering Services Division Manager; Spencer Smith, Engineer; Molly Orkild-Larson, Senior Planner; Bill Skinner, Senior Planner; Jason Reynolds, Current Planning Program Manager; Jan Yeckes, Planning Division Manager, members of the applicant’s team, and members of the public.
CALL TO ORDER Chair Rosenberg called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and noted a quorum of the Board was present.
DISCLOSURE MATTERS
There were no Planning Commission member conflicts with the matters before them.
GENERAL BUSINESS ITEMS:
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
The Planning Commission (PC) determined to move the acceptance of the February 7, 2017 minutes to the next regular agenda because only two members of the PC, at tonight’s meeting, were present for the February 7th meeting.
REGULAR ITEMS:
ITEM 1 Case No. P16-03, BGS Subdivision #02, Lot 1 Block 1 / Minor
Subdivision (MS) – Bill Skinner, Senior Planner, Public Works and Development (PWD) Mr. Skinner introduced the case and indicated the public hearing had been appropriately noticed and the PC had jurisdiction to proceed. He reported the property was located in the unincorporated community of Byers. He stated staff recommended approval with the conditions and findings noted in the staff report. He said the applicant was present to answer any questions the PC might have.
Mr. Rosenberg opened the hearing for public comment. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. It was moved by Ms. Rieck and duly seconded by Mr. Rader, in the case of P16-031, BGS Filing No. 2, Lot 1 Block 1 / Minor Subdivision, that Planning Commission read the staff report and found themselves in agreement with staff findings, including all exhibits and attachments as set forth in the staff report dated February 13, 2017, and recommended approval of the application to the Arapahoe County Board of County Commissioners, subject to the following condition: 1. Prior to signing of the final mylar copy of these plans, the
applicant shall addresses all Public Works and Development Staff comments.
The vote was: Ms. Rieck, Yes; Mr. Rader, Yes; Mr. Sall, Yes; Ms. Latsis, Yes; Mr. Rosenberg, Yes.
ITEM 2 Case No. Z16-001, Platte Canyon Villas / Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) – Molly Orkild-Larson, Senior Planner, Public Works and Development (PWD) Ms. Orkild-Larson introduced the case and distributed five additional opposition emails to the Planning Commission (PC), which were received after the staff report was published. A copy of the additional emails were retained for the record. She reported the proposed development was a revision to an application the PC recommended for denial on August 2, 2016. She explained, as a result, the applicant made several changes to the proposed development, including the reduction of the number of two- family/duplex units from 50 to 40, reduction of density from 8.85 dwellings/acre to 7.08 dwellings/acre, limiting the W Bowles Ave access to emergency vehicles only, the addition of a school bus pickup / drop-off on S Platte Canyon Rd, and an increase in open space from 30% to 35%. Ms. Orkild-Larson said staff had received a lot of letters, emails, and phone calls from the public with the majority expressing their opposition to the project. She stated staff found the additional landscape buffer and reduction in units supported a recommendation of approval, with conditions. Site Dynamics, JR Engineering (engineers), SM Rocha (traffic engineers), and Valerian (planners/landscape architects) presented a PowerPoint on on behalf of the applicant, KB Homes -– Colorado, a
copy of which was retained for the record. They explained that they reduced density and were proposing a 40-unit duplex development served by private drives and alleys. The proposed homes would be priced starting in the high $300,000 range with all fronts of homes facing greenspace. They had originally sought 58 units with an annexation to the City of Littleton but the city staff indicated that they couldn’t support the proposal. As a result, the applicant applied to Arapahoe County. With the revised plan presented, the applicants proposed a 30-foot wide landscaped setback/buffer with both evergreen and deciduous trees around the perimeter of the site, 30- foot maximum building height, and side yard setbacks of 7.5 feet (15 feet between buildings). They addressed both traffic and compatibility concerns. It was stated the proposed access would be full movement with no traffic signal on S Platte Canyon Rd; they worked with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), who controls the road, and received support for the access. The applicant noted the site would generate about 232 vehicle trips per day, which was far less than multi-family or commercial, and similar to the 209 vehicles per day a lower density single-family development, like Wilder Lane (in Columbine Valley directly across the street). They showed cross-sections illustrating their buildings and nearby property lines, explaining that even though the buffer was 30’, the closest any building would be is 39’ from the property line. They said the odd shape of the lot and having the site on major arterial streets helped support this type of development. They also pointed out higher densities (12+ dwellings/acre) on the north side of W Bowles Ave. The PC asked questions about guest parking, pedestrian/trail connections, detention pond variances, property maintenance/snow removal, and potentially increasing the size of initial landscaping. The applicant responded that they were willing to increase the guest parking ratio, that they were providing sidewalk connections to the South Suburban trail adjacent to the property, that the Southeast Metro Stormwater Authority (SEMSWA) variance would allow some retaining walls around detention ponds, that the HOA would be responsible for snow removal, and that they could look at planting sizes. Many residents attended the public hearing. The Chair noted 17 people indicated they were opposed but did not wish to speak. Fourteen people spoke against the proposal (or provided letters, which were read into the record by staff), including the Littleton City Council member for District 1. Those who spoke noted that at least 170 people wrote in to voice opposition and said the community did
not want this sort of development. Concerns included compatibility with single-family homes, density, traffic – especially on Platte Canyon (many spoke about the traffic issues in the area), potentially dangerous emergency access on W Bowles Ave, potential to eliminate that access by adding fire sprinklers to the homes, the applicant’s unwillingness to meet with neighbors, building heights of 30’, impact on property values, impact on nearby historic homes, potential displacement of children from nearby schools, conflicts with portions of the Comprehensive Plan, and lack of parking. One member of the public spoke in favor of the project, expressing a desire for more affordable starter homes in this area. The applicants responded that they met at a neighbor’s house and hosted a very well-attended neighborhood meeting. They reported the meeting generated a lot of comments and they tried to design in response to those comments. They talked about how neighborhood outcry several years ago resulted in the property owner having to demolish a newly-constructed barn on the property. They explained that they did not believe single-family development was economically feasible at two busy roads and said that the lower- density single-family Wilder Lane across the street has not been selling very well. They said that fire sprinklers were not required and could potentially burden future homeowners; they said they reduced density in response to the compatibility concerns. They were willing to increase the guest parking requirement from 0.25 guest spaces per unit to 0.5 guest spaces per unit, which would provide 10 additional guest spaces above the County’s requirement. They also referenced one member of the public who argued against installing larger caliper trees, stating that person was correct and smaller caliper trees tend to survive better. They said they will do their best with the final development plan to show how the landscape would work. They pointed out that the two-family structures were similar in mass to nearby single-family homes, so the 20 proposed structures would be comparable to nearby neighborhoods from a massing perspective. They clarified that the access point on S Platte Canyon would not have a traffic signal. Mr. Haskins described the current state of the W Bowles Ave./S Platte Canyon Rd. intersection as level of service E, which means it’s operating pretty much at capacity. He reported the County, City of Littleton, CDOT, and Columbine Valley had been discussing how to improve that intersection but there wasn’t currently a plan for improvements. He said one likely improvement would be to add another right turn lane onto W Bowles Ave. He said the County would continue having discussions with the other jurisdictions, to improve the level of service, however, the cities had a lot of
competing priorities. Mr. Haskins reported CDOT had done some studies for widening S Platte Canyon Rd but the challenge in that corridor was with the intersections more than with the number of travel lanes. It was moved by Ms. Latsis and duly seconded by Mr. Sall, in the case of Z16-001, Platte Canyon Villas / Preliminary Development Plan, that the Planning Commission read the staff report and received testimony at the public hearing and found themselves in agreement with staff findings 1 through 3, including all plans and attachments as set forth in the staff report, and recommended approval of this application to the Arapahoe County Board of County Commissioners, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant agrees to modify the plans and reports to
comply with all conditions of approval and requirements of the Public Works and Development Department prior to completing the mylar for the Preliminary Development Plan.
2. Provide a 30- foot wide landscaped buffer along the west
property line. This buffer shall not contain any buildings, roads, sidewalks or parking.
3. All four sides of the buildings shall have architectural
treatment and foundation landscaping. 4. All access entering and exiting the subject property shall be
permitted by and meet the access and design standards of the applicable governing agency.
5. At Final Development Plan, the applicant shall provide
Arapahoe County staff with evidence that Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District will serve the subject property.
6. The applicant will pay cash-in-lieu fees at Final Plat or Final Development Plan to the applicable school, fire, library and park districts using the Appraised Value method of calculation established within the Land Development Code (Section 14-111.05.02).
7. The applicant will comply with all conditions and
requirements listed in the Littleton Fire Protection District referral letter at Final Development Plan.
8. The amendments to the design of the Platte Canyon Trail and parking lot shall be to the satisfaction of South Suburban Parks and Recreation, Arapahoe County Open Spaces and Denver Water.
9. The school bus stop location south of the main entrance of
the development along S. Platte Canyon Road shall be further designed to the satisfaction of Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver Water, Littleton School District and Arapahoe County at Final Development Plan.
And with the following additional condition: 10. The applicant will increase guest parking from 0.25 to 0.50
spaces per unit as suggested by the applicant’s representative.
The vote was: Ms. Rieck, No; Mr. Rader, No; Mr. Sall, Yes; Ms. Latsis, Yes; Mr. Rosenberg, Yes. The PC members who voted in favor of the project expressed their sympathy for the neighborhood’s concerns; however, felt the paired homes represented a compromise over something with more density. They expressed their appreciation for the improvements/density reduction since the last PC hearing, the 30-foot landscape buffer, the compatibility of the massing, and the importance of offering housing options under $400,000 to improve affordability. The PC members who voted against a favorable recommendation cited traffic, potential long-term problems, impacts on existing and future residents, and not meeting Comprehensive Plan objectives as their primary concerns.
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned.
P16-026 – Denver Jewish Senior Living Final Development Plan PC Public Hearing Staff Report
Page 1 of 13
MARCH 7, 2017 6:30 P.M.
SUBJECT: P16-026 – DENVER JEWISH SENIOR LIVING FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
MOLLY ORKILD-LARSON, SENIOR PLANNER FEBRUARY 27, 2017
LOCATION: The Denver Jewish Senior Living Final Development Plan (FDP) is proposed at 2450, 2451 and 2453 S. Wabash Street, Denver, Colorado and is west and adjacent to the Denver Jewish Day School. It is also situated in Commissioner District No. 4. The subject site is 2.3 acres in size.
Cherry Creek
Country Club
Vicinity Map
Page 2 of 13
Zoning Map
ADJACENT SUBDIVISIONS, ZONING, AND LAND USES: North and West: Land to the north and west of the site is owned by the Cherry Creek
Valley Water and Sanitation District and used for regional water detention and storage. The zoning is Agricultural-2 (A-2). North of the Denver Jewish Day School is a single family residence and Cherry Creek Country Club subdivision including the club house parking lot and single family homes. These parcels are zoned Mixed Use (MU).
South: Arapahoe County’s Wabash Trailhead and Cherry Creek, zoned
Agricultural-2 (A-2). East: Denver Jewish Day School zoned Residential PUD – Moderate Density
(R-PM). The Cherry Creek Country Club subdivision is east and adjacent to the Denver Jewish Day School and is zoned MU.
SITE
Page 3 of 13
PROPOSAL: The applicant, The Stanton Solution, on behalf of the property owner, Denver Jewish Day School, is seeking approval of Case No. P16-026, Denver Jewish Senior Living FDP. The FDP is zoned Senior Housing - Planned Unit Development (SH-PUD). The application is for a 82,500 square foot three-story, 100 unit (106 beds) assisted living and memory care residential facility for individuals 55 years of age and older. This facility will have 28 memory care and 72 assisted living units. Both the assisted living and memory care are to have a safe and secure 24-hour living environment. The assisted living will provide its residents with support and access to personal care services (without medical care), three meals per day, bathing, medication reminders, dressing, housekeeping, maintenance, activities and transportation. The memory care portion of the facility will be similar to the assisted living, but is designed for those with neurocognitive disorders making it unsafe for them to remain at home. Memory care allows a person experiencing memory loss to maintain a level of independence while relying on the safety and security of being in a residential community with professional staff. The maximum height of the structure will be 42 feet (includes rooftop mechanical) and 38 feet to the top of the building parapet. No residents within this facility will drive a vehicle. To accommodate the facility’s staff, visitors and deliveries, 44 parking spaces are proposed on-site and 12 off-site on the adjacent Denver Jewish Day School property. The parcel can be accessed from S. Wabash Street at two locations. The north access will be used by the facility along with the Denver Jewish Day School’s staff and faculty. The south access enters into the Denver Jewish Day School parking lot which then visitors and/or employees can walk to the senior living facility. The following exhibit shows the relationship of access points to the realigned S. Wabash Street and the proposed senior living facility and school property.
Page 4 of 13
Site Plan
RECOMMENDATION: Staff: Staff recommends the application be approved based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval outlined herein.
I. BACKGROUND The site consists of three parcels, which are all zoned SH-PUD. Two of the three parcels are vacant; the northern most property contains a vacant single family residence, which will be demolished when the site is developed. The three parcels are unplatted and were created when S. Wabash Street was realigned and road right-of-way was vacated in 2011 (Case No. V11-003). These parcels are presently being reviewed through the Final Plat process (P16-025) to create one lot on which the facility is to be located.
II. DISCUSSION Staff review of this application included a comparison of the proposal to: 1) applicable policies and goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan; 2) review of pertinent zoning regulations; and 3) analysis of referral comments.
Page 5 of 13
1. The Comprehensive Plan
Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan): This application complies with the following Goals and Policies of the Comp Plan, as follows:
Goal GM 4 – Promote Compact Growth in the Urban Service Area. The proposed development maximizes existing public facilities.
Policy GM 4.3 – Promote Infill Development and Redevelopment in the
Urban Service Area. The proposal provides infill development.
Goal PFS1 – Plan for Adequate Public Facilities and Services in Growth Areas. Based on responses from service providers, adequate public facilities and services are present in the area.
Policy NH 1.2 – Promote a Diversity of Housing Types in Growth Areas
Countywide. If approved, the proposal would promote a housing type that is in demand.
Policy NH 3.2 – Support Provision of Special-Needs Housing in Growth
Areas. The proposal supports the provision of elderly housing.
Four Square Mile (4SQM) Subarea Plan: The Comp Plan’s 4SQM Subarea Plan designates this site as Multi-Family (MF). As per this plan, the primary uses of MF include multi-family residential structures such as apartments, cooperatives, condominium dwelling units with shared or designated on-site parking, open space and recreation facilities for residents; the recommended development density is 13 to 25 dwelling units per gross acre. The proposed senior housing (assisted living and memory care) use generally aligns with the 4SQM Subarea Plan designation.
2. Land Development Code (LDC) Review
Senior Housing Zone District: The LDC includes a zone district for Senior Housing (SH) under Chapter 6 Residential Zone Districts, Section 6-500. A principal, permitted use is housing for residents age 55 and older. This zoning designation requires use of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process and approval of a FDP to establish some criteria, (such as the 35% open space requirement) while others are directed by the LDC (such as the lighting standards, etc.). The SH-PUD zone district for a senior living
Page 6 of 13
facility with 102 units and a density of 44.3 dwelling units per acre was approved by Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on March 1, 2016. The applicant is proposing 100 units/43.4 du/ac which complies with the maximum number of units and density approved by the PDP.
Section 6-506.01 states senior housing should be accessible to: A. Established public transportation routes.
A bus stop is located within 700 feet of the site on E. Iliff Avenue. Employees and visitors of the facility have the option of taking public transportation, if desired.
B. Existing or proposed shopping areas. Given the nature of the residents of this facility, the need for being close to shopping centers is less than independent senior housing. However, there is a small shopping center approximately 700 feet north of the site at the intersection of S. Wabash Street and E. Iliff Avenue.
C. Public or private recreational amenities. The development will provide secure outdoor and internal common areas. Again, given the nature of the residents, the need for recreational amenities is diminished compared to other senior housing. Staff and visitors will have access to the Cherry Creek bike path, located just south of the proposed facility.
D. Other residential areas to minimize senior citizen isolation. The proposed facility is approximately 450 feet from the multi-family development to the south and 250 feet away from the Cherry Creek Country Club. Both the proposed facility and school are within close proximity to residential development. The senior facility will have connectivity to the Denver Jewish Day School whereby school children are encouraged to visit with senior family members.
E. Situated to minimize traffic and emergency vehicle access impacts to
surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed facility’s entrance faces Denver Jewish Day School, which will direct traffic movements and parking to the east side of the site and away from S. Wabash Street. Emergency vehicles can access the site from S. Wabash Street and from both the north and south access points off of S. Wabash Street.
F. Medical facilities. The facility is 4.4 miles from the Medical Center of Aurora.
Page 7 of 13
Section 6-506.02 requires the placement of a note on the FDP “prescribing a minimum age limit for one occupant of each unit in the project at 55 years of age or older. The restriction may be released for rental units which are advertised for 270 consecutive days and not occupied by one or more qualified individuals. Those unoccupied units, and those only, may then be rented to person(s) of any age. In the event that such unit is occupied by a non-senior, and later vacated, the 270-day period shall apply to that unit.”
The applicant has placed this note on the FDP.
Section 6-506.03 provides some options for facilities that are non-profit. The applicant does not plan on this facility being a non-profit subsidized facility; therefore, this section of the LDC is not applicable.
Planned Unit Development: The FDP complies with the PDP by adhering to the PDP’s development criteria approved by the BOCC in March 2016 and FDP standards set forth in the LDC. Chapter 13-100, Planned Unit Development (PUD) of the LDC, states the PUD process is intended to prevent the creation of a monotonous urban landscape by allowing for the mixture of uses, which might otherwise be considered non- compatible, through the establishment of flexible, development standards, provided said standards:
A. Recognize the limitations of existing and planned infrastructure, by thorough
examination of the availability and capability of water, sewer, drainage, and transportation systems to serve present and future land uses. Water and sanitation is located in easements within the vacated S. Wabash Street. Stormwater drainage and detention for the site can be accommodated on the parcel to the west. Cherry Creek Valley Water and Sanitary District is willing and able to serve the proposed development. Traffic congestion and flow in the area has been improved with the realignment of S. Wabash Street and construction of the Yale-Wabash Bridge.
B. Assure compatibility between the proposed development, surrounding land uses, and the natural environment.
The Denver Jewish Day School and the applicant seek to provide a senior living community that will promote community cohesion. This facility will allow grandparents and other relatives of students of the Denver Jewish Day School to live near their families and have an opportunity to be
Page 8 of 13
involved in their families’ educational activities. The project will also include a plaza for the school and families to drop off their children and visit their senior family members. The existing school screens and provides a buffer between the Cherry Creek Country Club residences and the proposed facility. The land west, north and south of the site is vacant and is used for regional water storage and as open space/trail corridor. These open areas will also serve as a buffer between the facility and the residential developments to the north, west and southwest.
C. Allow for the efficient and adequate provision of public services. Applicable public services include, but are not limited to, police, fire, school, parks, and libraries.
The proposal will be served by existing public services. The property is close to Cunningham Fire Protection District Station 61 (1.6 miles) and Medical Center of Aurora (4.4 miles). The facility will also be adjacent to the Denver Jewish Day School, where interaction between the students and residents will be encouraged. This facility is near the Cherry Creek trail but given the nature of the residents, outdoor activities will be kept to the secured internal or outdoor areas within the development. Staff and visitors will have access to the trail.
D. Enhance convenience for the present and future residents of Arapahoe
County by ensuring appropriate supporting activities, such as employment, housing, leisure time and retail centers are in close proximity to one another.
The proposed development will provide employment opportunities and a housing type that is needed in the area. Given the nature of the facility’s residents, the need for close shopping centers is diminished. Staff will have proximate access to shopping at E. Iliff Avenue and S. Wabash Street, as well as the shopping center at E. Iliff Avenue and S. Quebec Street.
E. Ensure public health and safety is adequately protected against natural, and
man-made hazards, which include, but are not limited to, traffic noise, water pollution, airport hazards and flooding.
The site is outside the 100-year floodplain and airport influence area.
Page 9 of 13
Tri-County Health Department’s referral letter indicates an old landfill is 1,000 feet to the northwest of the site and advises the applicant conduct a flammable gas investigation to determine if flammable gas (methane) is present in the subsurface soils of the site, or, in lieu of an investigation, install a flammable gas control system. Staff has set a condition for the applicant to address this matter to the satisfaction of the Tri-County Health Department before the signing of the FDP mylar.
F. Provide for accessibility within the proposed development and between the
development and existing adjacent uses. Adequate on-site interior traffic circulation, public transit, pedestrian avenues, parking and thoroughfare connections are all factors to be examined when determining the accessibility of a site.
Access: The site has two points of access from S. Wabash Street. The north access point is to be shared with the proposed facility and Denver Jewish Day School’s faculty and staff; whereas, the south access will be used by the school’s parents, students and visitors, the public using the trailhead and the proposed facility’s employees and visitors. Parking: None of the residents within the proposed facility will drive. The applicant is proposing 44 on-site parking spaces for employees, visitors and deliveries, and 12 parking spaces on the Denver Jewish Day School property. Public transit: A bus stop is located within 700 feet of the site on E. Iliff Avenue, and could be utilized by the facility’s employees and visitors.
G. Minimize disruption to existing physiographic features, including vegetation,
streams, lakes, soil types and other relevant topographical elements.
No significant physiographic features exist on, or adjacent to, this site.
H. Ensure that the amenities provided adequately enhance the quality of life, in the area, by creating a comfortable and aesthetically enjoyable environment through conventions, such as, the preservation of mountain views, the creation of landscaped open areas and the establishment of recreational activities.
The proposed FDP sets requirements in the form of a minimum open space requirement, which the applicant will meet with the proposed 38.5% open space.
The proposed development will contain secure court yards for the memory care residents and other gardens and amenities for the assisted living residents,
Page 10 of 13
staff and visitors. The project will be connected to the surrounding area by a plaza for pick up and drop off of resident’s family and visitors.
I. Enhance the usable open spaces in Arapahoe County and provide sufficient unobstructed open spaces and recreational areas to accommodate a project’s residents and employees. The FDP allocates 38.5% of the property to be unobstructed open space, a minimum of 35% is required.
3. Referral Comments
Referral Agency Comments Arapahoe County Engineering Services Division
Staff is working with the applicant to address all engineering comments.
Arapahoe County Mapping Staff is working with the applicant to address mapping comments.
Arapahoe County Open Spaces No comments received.
Arapahoe County Zoning Staff is working with the applicant to address zoning comments.
Arapahoe County Building
Construction drawings that are submitted to the Building Division will need to meet the applicable codes. This will be addressed at the time of building permit.
Arapahoe County Assessor No comments received.
Arapahoe County Sheriff
The facility will need to work with the Fire District and Sheriff’s office to ensure appropriate safety measures in the event of a walk-away. Sheriff encourages lights along S. Wabash Street. The applicant is willing to work with both agencies and install pedestrian lights along Wabash.
Arapahoe County Library District No comments received.
Cunningham Fire Protection District
This District has provided conditions that will need to be met. Staff has set conditions of approval for the applicant to meet these conditions.
Arapahoe County Parks and Rec. District No comments received.
Post Office Growth Coordinator No comments on the project.
Cherry Creek School District No comments received.
Tri-County Health Department
Since a closed landfill was within 1,000 feet of the site, this agency recommends a flammable gas investigation be conducted to determine if methane is present in the subsurface soils. If the applicant does not conduct an investigation, a flammable gas control system shall be installed. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant address the potential presence of flammable gas to the satisfaction of the
Page 11 of 13
Tri-County Health Department prior to the signing of the FDP mylar. Plans for serving food to the public must be reviewed by this agency. Encourages community design to promote physical activity. The applicant is willing to work with this agency on the above items.
Four Square Mile Neighborhoods No comments received.
West Arapahoe Conservation District No comments received.
RTD No comments received.
Century Link No objections.
Xcel Energy
Xcel indicates they own and operate existing electric distribution facilities within the proposed project area and for the applicant to contact them and complete the application process before developing the site. The applicant is willing to comply with this request.
Southeast Metro Stormwater Authority (SEMSWA)
See engineering comments.
Cherry Creek Valley Water and Sanitation (CCVW&S)
The subject site is within CCVW&S’s district and the district can serve the facility.
Urban Drainage No response received. Denver Jewish Day School No response received.
Cherry Creek Country Club
No response received.
4. Meetings
Four Square Mile Neighborhoods Association: The applicant met with the 4SQM group on January 11, 2017. The applicant presented the proposed senior facility. The only concern that arose was how dark S. Wabash Street was and that street lights should be installed to improve the safety of this road. The individual that voiced his concern at the meeting also sent an email. See email from Kevin Gross. No street lighting exists from E. Iliff Avenue to S. Syracuse Way with the exception of a light at an entrance of the multi-family developments south and west of the proposed development. Staff has checked with the County’s Transportation Division and records indicate only one bicycle accident occurred at the intersection of Wabash and Iliff within the last five years. Staff has reached out to the sheriff’s department and they recommended additional lighting in this area. The applicant is willing to put pedestrian lighting along S. Wabash Street and the
Page 12 of 13
conditions of approval include a requirement for additional pedestrian lighting (12’-6” in height).
STAFF FINDINGS: Staff has visited the site and reviewed the plans, supporting documentation, referral comments and citizen input in response to this application. Based on the review of applicable policies and goals, as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, review of the development regulations and analysis of referral comments, our findings include: 1. The proposed Final Development Plan for senior housing, to include assisted living
and memory care, generally conforms to the overall goals and intent of the Arapahoe County Comprehensive Plan and the Four Square Mile Subarea Plan in regards to the policies set forth in those plans and nature of the development.
2. The proposed Final Development Plan is consistent with development standards enumerated in the Arapahoe County Land Development Code.
3. The proposed Final Development Plan complies with the process and requirements
outlined in Sections 6-500 SH Senior Housing (SH-PUD) and 13-100 Planned Unit Development (PUD) of the Arapahoe County Land Development Code.
4. Complies with and follows the approved Preliminary Development Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Considering the findings and other information provided herein, staff recommends approval of Case No. P16-026, Denver Jewish Senior Living FDP, with conditions recommended in this report. DRAFT MOTIONS: Recommended Conditions of Approval: In the case of P16-026, Denver Jewish Senior Living Final Development Plan, the Planning Commissioners have read the staff report and received testimony at the public hearing and find ourselves in agreement with staff findings 1 through 4, including all plans and attachments as set forth in the staff report, and recommend approval of this application, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to signature of the final mylar copy of the Final Development Plan, the applicant
agrees to address the Planning Division, Mapping Division, and Engineering Services Division comments and concerns, as outlined in their reports.
2. The applicant is required to provide a minimum of 56 parking spaces (minimum 28 parking spaces to be on-site) which can be satisfied in part by an agreement with the Denver Jewish Day School for the additional parking spaces needed. This agreement shall be recorded with the Arapahoe County Office of the Clerk and Recorder prior to
Page 13 of 13
Arapahoe County signing the Final Development Plan. This agreement shall be a permanent agreement that will run with the land and secure the use of the parking rights for the assisted living/memory care residential facility for the duration of its operations.
3. Prior to the signing of the Final Development Plan mylar, the applicant shall address
the potential presence of flammable gas (methane) to the satisfaction of the Tri- County Health Department.
4. The applicant shall comply with all the conditions set by the Cunningham Fire
Protection District. 5. Install a minimum of four 12’-6” tall pedestrian lights along the west perimeter of the
development along S. Wabash Street. Alternative Motions – The following motions are provided as alternatives to the recommended motion for Conditional Approval: Recommend Denial: In the case of P16-026, Denver Jewish Senior Living Final Development Plan, we have read the staff report dated February 27, 2017 and received testimony at the public hearing. Based on the information presented and considered during a public hearing, we recommend the Board of County Commissioner deny the request for the Final Development Plan based on the following findings:
a. State new, or amended findings in support of denial.
b. …
Continue to Date Certain: In the case of P16-026, Denver Jewish Senior Living Final Development Plan, I move to continue the hearing to [date], 6:30 p.m., [location] to obtain additional information and to further consider the information presented.
Attachments: Application & Exhibits Engineering Staff Report Referral Comments Meeting Information Supporting Material
Arapahoe Public Works and Development Land Development Application
2!Y APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE: Susan Stanton
ENGINEERING FIRM:
Manhard Consulting
6924 S. Lima Street Centennial, Colorado 80112 Form must be complete
Phone: 720-87 4-6650 Land Development App lication materials received after 2pm
www.arsir;isihQegQv g;im shall be date s tamped received the following working day.
ADDRESS:
PHONE: 303-957-7078 FAX: EMAIL: [email protected] ADDRESS:
2450 S. Wabash Street, Denver, CO 80231
PHONE: 303-369-0663 FAX: 303-369-0664 EMAIL: anaze11,g1aenveraJs.org
ADDRESS: 7442 S. Tucson Way, Centennial, CO 80112
PHONE: 303-708-0500 FAX: EMAIL: [email protected]
SIGNATURE:
TITLE: Principal SIGNATURE:- NAME: Av,· /-/ vi I -z e f
TITLE: !-4 c?f / co CONTACT PERSON:
Dan Rodriguez, PM 303-531-321
Pre-Submittal Case Number: Q-16-037 Pre-Submittal Planner: Molly Orchild - Lars Pre-Submittal Engineer: Sarah White Parcel ID no. (AIN no.) Parcel ID's - 1973-28-4-00-066, 067 & 068) Parcel Address or Cross Streets: 2450. 2451 & 2453 S. Wabash St. Subdivision Name & Filing No.: N/A
Related Case Numbers: (Preliminary/Final Development 215-003 Denver Jewish Senior Living PDP Plan Rezoning, and / or Plat )
EXISTING PROPOSED Zoning: SH-PUD Same Case/Project/Subdivision Name: Site Area (Acres): 2.304 2.304 Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Density (Dwelling Units/Acre): Building Square Footage: 848 sf Disturbed Area (Acres):
CASE TYPE (Administrative Case types are shaded in Gray)
D Preliminary Development Plan or D
Location & Extent or D Administrative Site Plan D Preliminary Plat Major Amendment D Major Amendment D
D Master Development Plan or D Rezoning - Conventional D Administrative Amendment to D Final Plat Major Amendment D (PDP, FOP, etc.)
0 Final Development Plan or D
Land Development Code D Technical Amendment to D Minor Subdivision
Major Amendment D Amendment (PDP, FOP, etc.)
D Planned Sign Program or D
Use by Special Review or D Commercial Mobile Radio Service D Subdivision Exemption
Major Amendment D Major Amendment D (CMRS/cellular antennas)
D Vacation of Right of D
Use by Special Review - Oil and D Plat Correction D Replat {Major) Way/Easement/Plat Gas
D 1041 - Areas & Activities of State D
Special District Tide 30 D D Administrative Oil & Gas Use by D Administrative Replat
Interest - Use by Special Review D TiHe32 D Special Review {AOGUSR)
D Comprehensive Plan D Rural Cluster D Street Name Change D
TUii: , ,:no n,:,:1r.,: 11,: nA11 v
Case No: I Planning Manager: I Engineering Manager: I
Planning Fee: lvlNls I Engineering Fee: Iv IN I$ I TCHD Fee? D Is This application shall be submitted with all applicable application fees. Submittal of this application does not establish a vested property right In accordance with c.R.S. 24-68-105(1 ). Processing and review of this application may require the submittal of additional infonnatlon, subsequent reviews, and/or meetings, as outlined
In the Arapahoe County Land Development Code.
Land Development Application Rev 1-04-2016
1
The Power of Connection 2373 Central Park Blvd, Suite 100 Denver, CO 80238 www.thestantonsolution.com
October 17, 2016
Molly Orkild-Larson, Senior Planner Arapahoe County 6924 S. Lima St. Centennial, CO 80112 RE: Denver Jewish Senior Living Final Development Plan, Final Plat and Technical Amendment Submittal Dear Ms. Orkild-Larson: It is a pleasure to submit to you and the Arapahoe County Planning Division the Phase I application for the Final Development Plan, Final Plat and Denver Jewish Day School Technical Amendment for the Denver Jewish Senior Living project. The purpose of this letter is to introduce the intent and goals of this project. In addition to this letter of intent, this submittal includes the following materials:
FDP/Final Plat
• Submittal Checklist • 3 Land Development Applications • Submittal Fees • Title Commitment • Notarized Letter of Authorization • Plans of Proposed Project • Plat of Proposed Project • Phase III Drainage Study • GESC Report/Plans • Traffic Waiver Approval from FDP • Parking Agreement • Preliminary Construction Plans • O & M Manual
• Preliminary Pavement Design • Photo Simulations • Certification of Taxes Due • Traverse Closure Computations • Joint Access Agreement
DJDS FDP TA (additional items)
• Construction Drawings • Amended Plans for DJDS FDP • Drainage Letter of Conformance • Low Impact GESC Plan • Administrative Process Request Form
We look forward to working with the County on the review and approvals necessary to help bring the Denver Jewish Senior Living community to Arapahoe County. Please feel free to contact me with any questions at 303-957-7078 Sincerely,
Susan Stanton, Principal
2
A. Project Overview
The site is at 2450, 2451 & 2453 S. Wabash St., located near Wabash and Iliff. (Parcel IDs – 1973-28-4-00- 066, 067 & 068 – parcels are highlighted below). The site includes 2.304 acres (100,362 sf) and is currently zoned PUD – Senior Housing.
The property currently includes three parcels all owned by Denver Jewish Day School (a letter of authorization is included) and under contract with Buccaneer Development, Inc.
The FDP, Final Plat and Technical Amendment applications are to finalize the approvals necessary to allow for an assisted living/memory care community under the approved Senior Housing – PUD Designation.
B. Project Description The proposed senior living facility is a 82,500 square foot, 100 unit/106 beds assisted living/memory care community (PDP approval is for up to 102 units/108 beds). DJSL will provide 28 memory care units and 72 assisted living units. The architectural design creates visual relief along S. Wabash by creating transparency to the central core. This significant architectural component also provides a significant view of the western landscape and mountains for residents within the community.
The proposed structure is a three-story building of no more than 42’ with top of parapet at 38’ as specified in the PDP approval. First floor community amenities include: a large gathering living room, with bistro bar, and large walk out terrace overlooking natural landscape. A secure memory care wing with extensive serene garden will also be located on the first floor. Second floor amenities include a theater, salon and activities room as well as wellness and fitness program space. An outdoor terrace completes the second floor amenities. The third floor will be home to a 4,000 square foot dining room with vaulted ceilings and mountain views. Careful treatment of rooftop mechanical places the RTUs away from the parapet as much as possible to minimize the sightlines from the ground. In addition, the units will be sunk into the roof trusses to comply with height restrictions. The building will be in compliance with all applicable codes and fully sprinkled.
The site will also accommodate secure courtyard gardens for the memory care residents and other gardens and amenities for the assisted living residents. There will also be connectivity to the community and a
Denver Jewish Day
3
vehicular plaza for Denver Jewish Day School family members to drop off their children and visit their senior family member.
The landscape design will help meet project goals of creating outdoor amenity space and enhancement of entries, parking, and circulation areas. Landscape planting will provide shade, screening, and buffering as appropriate throughout the site. Foundation planting beds and tree planting will be provided to help transition the building to parking, open space, and streets. Plant material will be selected based on suitability to local growing conditions. Plants will generally require low water use and will be adapted or native to the Front Range of Colorado. Outdoor seating, pathways, hardscape, project signage, and amenities will be provided as appropriate to the site design and project programming. These elements will all be designed to relate closely to the building architecture in material and color selection.
Parking will be provided on site as well as through additional parking at the DJDS. The PDP requires 56 parking spaces: 45 will be provided on-site and an additional 11 spaces will be provided through a joint parking agreement between the senior living site and the school.
C. Current Zoning & Entitlements
The current zoning on the parcels is PUD – SH. The three parcels will be platted into a single parcel as part of the final plat. In addition, the administrative technical amendment will make alterations to the southern access for the Denver Jewish Day School to accommodate the proposed project. Buccaneer Development will be processing this application concurrent with the FDP and Final Plat on behalf of the Denver Jewish Day School. In addition, a joint access agreement related to the northern entry point is included in the submittal as well as a joint parking agreement between the DJSL project and the DJDS.
D. Special Districts
The property is or will be located in the following service districts:
1. Cherry Creek School District 2. Southeast Metro Storm water Authority
(SEMSWA) 3. Cherry Creek Basin 7 4. Arapahoe County Law Enforcement
Authority
5. Arapahoe County Recreation 6. Arapahoe Library District 7. Cunningham Fire District 8. RTD 9. Urban Drainage and Flood 10. Urban Drainage and Flood (S. Platte)
E. Transportation The PDP approval included a waiver related to the traffic study requirement.
4
F. Project Team
Developer Jon Griffis & Terry Varkony Buccaneer Development, Inc. 5690 DTC Blvd., Suite 285W Greenwood Village, CO 80111 [email protected] 303-531-7900 Owner Avi Hazel, CEO Denver Jewish Day School 2450 Wabash St. Denver, CO 80231 Owner Representative – Point of Contact Susan Stanton, Principal The Stanton Solution, LLC 2373 Central Park Blvd, Suite 100 Denver, CO 80238 [email protected] 303-957-7078
Architect Nathan Rosemann, LEED ® AP Rosemann & Associates, P.C. 2809 Larimer St. Denver, CO 80205 303.261.8229 Engineer Dan Rodriguez, PE Manhard Engineering 7442 S Tucson Way Centennial, CO [email protected] 303-531-3211 Transportation Engineer Todd Frisbie Felzburg Holt & Ullevig 508 Tejon Street Colorado Springs, CO 80903 [email protected] 719-314-1800
Engineering Services Division REFERRAL Review – 3rd review Date: February 9, 2017 To: Molly Orkild-Larson, Planning Division From: Sarah White, Engineering Services Division Re: Denver Jewish Senior Living P16-025 Final Plat (FP) P16-026 Final Development Plan (FDP) Scope/Location: Susan Stanton & Buccaneer Development, on behalf of the property owner Denver Jewish Day School, is requesting approval of the Final Plat and the Final Development Plan located at 2451 S Wabash St. The project proposes the construction of an Assisted Living Facility. The site is located south of the intersection of S. Wabash St. and E. Iliff Ave. The site lies within the Cherry Creek drainage basin. Items included with this referral: Final Plat Final Development Plan Phase III Drainage Study Construction Drawings Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control (GESC) Documents Operations & Maintenance Manual Cc: Chuck Haskins, Engineering Services Division, Division Manager Case File No. P16-025 & P16-026
Findings: The Arapahoe County Division of Engineering Services has reviewed this referral and has the following findings:
1. This parcel is in the Cherry Creek Basin 7 drainage basin. A fee of $4,827/impervious acre has been established for the storm sewer recovery fees in this watershed. This fee will be collected prior to Probationary Acceptance of the project.
2. This development lies within the boundaries of the Southeast Metro Stormwater Authority (SEMSWA).
3. This development lies within the boundaries of the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD).
4. Assisted Living Facilities typically generate minimal traffic, as noted in the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Waiver.
5. TRC has approved the variance for street front improvement and a sidewalk will not be required along the north side of the Harvard Right of Way.
6. TRC has approved the variance for one Chase drain to be placed within the Wabash St right of Way – any modifications to design or placement will need to be re-evaluated. Operations and Maintenance of the chase drains added to the O&M Manual.
7. This development will require a Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA) to guarantee on site and off site public improvements.
8. Engineering Review and Approval Fees for these cases have been paid.
Recommendations: The Division of Engineering Services recommends this case favorably subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant agrees to address the Division of Engineering Services’ comments and
concerns as identified within this report.
2. The applicant agrees to address comments issued by the Southeast Metro Stormwater Authority (SEMSWA).
3. The applicant executes a Subdivision Improvement Agreement.
4. The applicant pays or provides a letter of credit via the SIA for the established drainage basin fees.
P16-025 & P16-026 – Denver Jewish Senior Living Page 3 of 5
STAFF COMMENTS
General
1. Pursuant to the Arapahoe County Public Works and Development Fee Schedule and policy, the applicant is provided one resubmittal review at no charge. Should items not be addressed upon the next submittal, the review fee identified in the Fee Schedule may apply for every subsequent submittal.
2. This parcel is in the Cherry Creek drainage basin. Drainage basin fees have been established by the Southeast Metro Stormwater Authority (SEMSWA) for development in this watershed. Note that this fee will be assessed and collected by SEMSWA as a condition of Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control (GESC) approval.
3. A drainage basin fee in the amount of $4,827.00 per impervious acre is required. Once the amount is finalized, this fee may be paid via check to Arapahoe County or be guaranteed via letter of credit through the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. If a letter of credit is used, the fee amount will be required prior to probationary acceptance of the project. Please provide Staff with the preferred method of payment. If a letter of credit is proposed, please also provide the name of the issuing bank.
4. The application was referred to SEMSWA for review. SEMSWA’s redlines and comment letter are included with the hard copies of this Staff Report. A response to comment letter is required for all comments issued by the County and by the Southeast Metro Storm Water Authority (SEMSWA). Please see that the required number of copies of the response to comments letter is included with your Engineering resubmittal. The number of copies is listed on the last page of this report. Note that SEMSWA’s approval must be obtained prior to final County approvals.
5. Construction activities that disturb one or more acres are required by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to obtain a Construction Stormwater Permit.
Final Plat 6. Include table for tracts
7. No further comments pending BoCC review and approval.
Final Development Plan 8. Update chase drain location to show the location approved by the TRC variance.
9. See redlines for minor comments.
Phase III Drainage Study 10. Please also include the TA case number on the drainage report since it will cover both
properties – this makes it easier for recording dept. and future references to the project.
11. Show chase drain located as approved per TRC variance.
12. Include a copy of the TRC variance approval for chase drains in the appendix
13. A clearer copy of the basin plan is provided – please switch in this legible copy.
14. See redlines for additional comments
Construction Drawings
15. Show chase drain located as approved per TRC variance.
Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control (GESC) Documents
16. Refer to SEMSWA comments and redlines
Operations & Maintenance Manual
17. What is the SOP for Chase drain clean out? There is not a County standard available, so you'll need to propose something that keeps the drain clear and operating correctly as well as icing concerns.
18. See redlines for additional comments.
RESUBMITTAL PROCEDURE - Attached to this report is an instruction checklist to the applicant regarding resubmittal of documents. The number of documents also includes documents requested by SEMSWA and/or CCBWQA. Staff will forward the applicable documents; please do not submit directly to SEMSWA and/or CCBWQA. The applicant and their consultants must follow these instructions explicitly to avoid delays in processing of this case.
Engineering Documents Required for Resubmittal to the County Engineering Services Division
Item Name Required Submitted X A copy of this Resubmittal Checklist 1 or digital X Completed Review and Approval Form (Arapahoe County Form 581)
available on-line at http://www.arapahoegov.com/index.aspx?NID=569 1 or digital
X Proposed Land Development Plan - (FDP/FP) 1 or digital Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control (GESC) Plans & Report
X Construction Plans 1 or digital Traffic Impact Study Pavement Design Report Geotechnical Study / Preliminary Soils report
X Phase III Drainage Study 1 or digital Drainage Letter of Conformance
X Operations & Maintenance Manual 1 or digital Engineering Cost Estimate Legal Description Legal name, legal address, and title (if any) of the Owner, assign, or
person with signatory authority on behalf of the Owner
Letter of Intent Collateral Letter of Intent Agreement review and/or execution: Redline(s) for:
X Letter of point-by-point response to Engineering Staff comments 1 or digital X SEMSWA requested items ****Do not submit directly to SEMSWA*** X X Review and Approval Fees Due: $ n/a - paid
Case No. P16-025 & P16-026 Case Engineer: Sarah White Submit digital submissions to [email protected], your case manager Molly
at [email protected] and copy me at [email protected]
Incomplete resubmittal packages will not be forwarded for review until all of the information requested on this form has been provided.
DJSL Point by Point Response Letter – Phase II Comment Responses 1
2373 Central Park Blvd, Suite 100 Denver, CO 80238 303 803-1640 www.thestantonsolution.com
January 17, 2017 Molly Orkild-Larson Arapahoe County 6924 S. Lima St. Centennial, CO 80112 RE: P16-025, 026 – FDP and Final Plat Phase II Responses Dear Ms. Orkild-Larson, We are pleased to provide the following responses to the Phase 1 comments we received on December 22, 2016. Planning - FDP General Comments 1. No Shade and Shadow study was provided with your last submittal. Please provide this
information. Shade and shadow study was provided on January 5, 2017 and is included with this submittal. 2. Remove the address of the site identified in the title block on all sheets.
Response: The address has been removed from the title block Cover Sheet, Sheet C1.0 1. Fill in information on the Development Criteria Chart.
Response: The development criteria chart has been revised accordingly.
2. Remove all notes from Design Guidelines through Signage.
Response: The notes have been removed. 3. Remove the 811 logo and call information. This information is not necessary for a FOP.
Response: Logo and call info removed. 4. Under Sheet Index revise Construction Notes to read General Notes. Response: The sheet index has been revised. Construction Notes, Sheet C2.0 1. Remove Fire Department Notes.
2373 Central Park Blvd, Suite 100 Denver, CO 80238 303 803-1640 www.thestantonsolution.com Response: The notes have been removed
2. Revise Standards Notes that have comments. Response: The standard notes have been revised accordingly.
3. Revise any other redline comments on this sheet. Response: Responses to redlines have been provided under separate cover.
Site Plan, Sheet C3.0 1. Add another handicap parking space on-site. One space has to be van accessible.
Response: A third handicap parking space has been added adjacent to the two that were previously shown. One of the spaces will be a dedicated van space and will be striped accordingly.
2. As per a condition of approval for the PDP, you need to show signage that directs the public to the parking on the Denver Jewish Day School property.
Response: The FDP site plan (sheet C3.0) has been revised to clearly show the offsite parking spaces. Additional signage has been identified at the location of the offsite parking and at the north and south entrances at South Wabash to route drivers to this parking.
3. Indicate the number of parking spaces reserved for Denver Senior Living on the Denver Jewish Day School property. These parking spaces need to be identified as for the use of Denver Jewish Senior Living. Response: The FDP site plan (sheet C3.0) has been revised to provide additional info for the offsite parking spaces including the number of spaces.
4. See other redline comments.
Response: Responses to redlines have been provided under separate cover.
Sheet A3.0 c
1. Comments indicated that there was question as to the reason for the height of the trash/generator wall. Height of the wall at trash/generator/transformer is requested to be at 8’4” to shield trash/generator/transformer from view of the public as their height will exceed the typical 6’ height prescribed by the county code.
We would like to shield these for aesthetic reasons and security reasons. Overall Grading Plan, Sheet C4.0 1. Remove construction notes.
Response: The grading notes have been removed per the redlines on this sheet.
Overall Utility Plan, Sheet C5.0
2373 Central Park Blvd, Suite 100 Denver, CO 80238 303 803-1640 www.thestantonsolution.com 1. See redline comment.
Response: Responses to redlines have been provided under separate cover.
Photometric Site Plan, Sheet E1.0
1. Light fixture schedule needs to show the lumens for each light fixture type. RESPONSE: Lumens have been listed for each Light Fixture, please see added lumen information located under “LAMP” heading.
2. In some locations along the eastern property line the foot candle exceeds 0.3. RESPONSE: Lights have been relocated to comply with the 0.3 fc max at property line.
3. Requested to move the light 72’ out of the drainage culvert.
Light fixtures have been moved out of the drainage swales as required by additional redlines on the drainage sheets.
4. Address on the title block
Address has been removed from the title block. Plant Schedule, Sheet L1.0 1. To verify the square footage of the open space on-site. Please provide a redline plan outlining the areas that were counted toward the open space. Response: A plan exhibit demonstrating open space calculations has been provided to County staff for review prior to resubmittal. Feedback was received that the project meets the open space requirement. The minimum open space area required is 35,127sf. So we are in excess of that by more than 5,000sf. Open space figures have been addressed on the plan set accordingly. 2. Verify the number of 6' and 8' PIN. Also, revise the heights of PIN and PVP. Response: Evergreen tree quantities have been verified and revised for both 6’ and 8’ heights per the plans. 3. Revise the number of required trees and shrubs. Response: Parking counts were reduced by one overall with the addition of the handicap parking stall. Tree and shrub requirements have been revised accordingly. 4. See redlined comment regarding proposed shrubs.
Response: Comment noted and plans revised. 5. Required square footage for parking landscaping may change due to another handicap
parking space being required to be placed on-site. Response: Noted. The required square footage has been revised according to the total parking space provided. 6. Remove required parking for each of the islands. Response: Required parking numbers have been removed for the individual islands. 7. See other redlined comments under the Parking Landscape Chart. Response: Redline comments have been noted and revised in the plans. 8. Add a note addressing how large pots are going to be irrigate, etc. Response: Clarification has been added on how planter pots will be irrigated, drained, etc. Landscape Plan, Sheet L2.0 1. Recheck the square footage of Parking Island 2. Response: Parking island area has been checked and revised on the plans. 2. Refer where to find the detail for the signage. Response: Landscape plans now refer to the specific architectural detail and sheet number. 3. What is the black circle? Add symbol to the legend. Response: The black circles represent proposed light fixtures. A symbol has been added to the legend to clarify. 4. Isn't the raised planters shown on the detail sheet? Why reference the civil drawings? Response: The raised planter detail on the landscape details sheets accurately shows the proposed design. Civil drawings are referenced when wall height is called out on the civil grading plans. References to the civil drawings have been removed where appropriate.
2373 Central Park Blvd, Suite 100 Denver, CO 80238 303 803-1640 www.thestantonsolution.com Landscape Plan, Sheet L3.0
1. Will planting a Serviceberry in an annual planter pot work? Response: A Serviceberry will grow if planted in a planter pot. The landscape plans now reflect a different shrub selection. We revised the spec. for a plant more suitable to the memory care garden use it is in. 2. Add a detail of the water feature to the detail sheet. Response: A detail for the water feature has been added to the plan set. 3. Please explain the placement of the sod and native seed mix. Please explain the mow line going through a swale. Response: Sod is placed along the Wabash frontage to maintain a consistent, manicured edge and seed is located in the swale bottom where it is less visible and more appropriate for use in the wetter, lower portions of the swale. Also, ease of irrigation and maintenance is a factor. The division between seed and sod is kept simple to avoid small areas of seed/sod that would be difficult to irrigate and maintain long term. The mow line is a maintenance edge only. It is a graphic indication of the division between ground treatments. It is not a physical edger that would be a barrier to drainage flow. Also the sod is intentionally located in the upper portion of the swale where it will be shallower. Landscape Details, Sheet L4.0 1. Dimension the annual planter pot. Response: Planters have been dimensioned as requested. Architectural Plan, Sheet A1.0 1. No comments. Exterior Elevations, Sheet A2.0 1. No comments. Site Details, A3.0
1. Dimension wall monument sign. RESPONSE: Dimensions shown on the wall
2. Label this sign on the site plan. RESPONSE: This has been labeled on the landscape plan and Civil plan.
Perspectives, Sheet A4.0 1. No comments.
Perspectives, Sheet A4.1 1. No comments. Planning – Final Plat 1. Please address remnant parcel that is created –
The remnant parcel has been identified on the final plat as Tract A and B. This information was coordinated with the County last week.
2. See redlines in plan set DW Easement 1, 2 & 3 Redlines Final Plat - Redlines Redlines have been addressed. Engineering Services Division The Arapahoe County Division of Engineering Services has reviewed this referral and has the following findings: 1. This parcel is in the Cherry Creek Basin 7 drainage basin. A fee of $4,827/impervious acre has been established for the storm sewer recovery fees in this watershed. This fee will be collected prior to Probationary Acceptance of the project. 2. This development lies within the boundaries of the Southeast Metro Stormwater Authority (SEMSWA}. 3. This development lies within the boundaries of the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD}. 4. Assisted Living Facilities typically generate minimal traffic, as noted in the Traffic Impact Study (TIS} Waiver. 5. This development will require a Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA} to guarantee on site and off site public improvements. 6. Engineering Review and Approval Fees for these cases have been paid. Recommendations: The Division of Engineering Services cannot offer a recommendation for this case at this time, until the following items are addressed: 1. The capacity of existing public infrastructure needs to be analyzed in order to determine if proposed on-site system is sufficient.
2373 Central Park Blvd, Suite 100 Denver, CO 80238 303 803-1640 www.thestantonsolution.com Response: The existing and proposed storm sewer/culvert system has been analyzed in
StormCAD. The StormCAD model shows that the proposed 100-year storm HGLs are a minimum of 2’ below the existing/proposed ground. A variance request has been submitted under separate cover. While the 100-year flows cannot be conveyed via gravity, the HGLs prove that the runoff will not cause any unforeseen surface flows.
2. Chase drains are strongly discouraged and will only be permitted as a Final Alternative. The design engineer will need to determine alternatives to convey flows. If the chase drain is only viable option due to grade restraints, applicant will need to submit a variance request.
Response: The proposed chase drains have not been removed from the design. A variance request has been submitted under separate cover. As the variance letter states, the vertical roadway design of the recently-relocated South Wabash Street, that was designed by Arapahoe County, had a negative impact on the site as it created a dam that the existing site cannot drain over. The proposed site grading requires an import of several thousand cubic yards of soil to raise the existing ground to an elevation that is capable of draining via gravity to South Wabash Street. The proposed sidewalk chase drains will allow the proposed site to be developed without needing to import an additional several thousand yards of soil. In addition, please note that the two proposed sidewalk chase drains were shown on the 10/18/2016 first submittal of the Final Development Plan and Construction Plans (labeled on sheet C5.0). There were no comments on any plans or letters from the County’s first review stating that the sidewalk chase drains were not permitted.
Staff Comments-General 1. Pursuant to the Arapahoe County Public Works and Development Fee Schedule and policy, the applicant is provided one resubmittal review at no charge. Should items not be addressed upon the next submittal, the review fee identified in the Fee Schedule may apply for every subsequent submittal.
Response: Comment noted.
2. This parcel is in the Cherry Creek drainage basin. Drainage basin fees have been established by the Southeast Metro Stormwater Authority (SEMSWA) for development in this watershed. Note that this fee will be assessed and collected by SEMSWA as a condition of Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control (GESC) approval.
3. A drainage basin fee in the amount of $4,827.00 per impervious acre is required. Once the amount is finalized, this fee may be paid via check to Arapahoe County or be guaranteed via letter of credit through the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. If a letter of credit is used, the fee amount will be required prior to probationary acceptance of the project. Please provide Staff with the preferred method of payment. If a letter of credit is proposed, please also provide the name of the issuing bank.
2373 Central Park Blvd, Suite 100 Denver, CO 80238 303 803-1640 www.thestantonsolution.com 4. The application was referred to SEMSWA for review. SEMSWA's redlines and comment
letter are included with the hard copies of this Staff Report. A response to comment letter is required for all comments issued by the County and by the Southeast Metro Storm Water Authority (SEMSWA). Please see that the required number of copies of the response to comments letter is included with your Engineering resubmittal. The number of copies is listed on the last page of this report. Note that SEMSWA's approval must be obtained prior to final County approvals. Response: The SEMSWA comments have been received and addressed. Responses to all comments have been included with this submittal.
5. Construction activities that disturb one or more acres are required by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to obtain a Construction Stormwater Permit.
Response: Comment noted. Final Plat 6. Correct easement table:
• The access easement is for DJDS lot 1, block 1 not the County • Drainage easement is for drainage facilities and conveyance • Granted need a party to grant to - cannot be "unknown" • Staff recommends updating the surface maintenance to "owner" instead of DJDS, in case they don't want to be responsible for surface maintenance in the future. Response: The final plat has b