MINUTES OF THE ARAPAHOE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2017 At a public meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Arapahoe County, State of Colorado, held at 5334 South Prince Street, Littleton, Colorado 80120 there were: Nancy Sharpe, Chair Commissioner District 2 Present Jeff Baker, Chair Pro-Tem Commissioner District 3 Present Kathleen Conti Commissioner District 1 Present Nancy Jackson Commissioner District 4 Present Bill Holen Commissioner District 5 Present Ron Carl County Attorney Present Matt Crane Clerk to the Board Absent and Excused Joleen Sanchez Asst. Clerk to the Board Present when the following proceedings, among others, were had and done, to-wit: CALL TO ORDER Commissioner Sharpe called the meeting to order. INTRODUCTIONS ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MODIFICATION(S) TO THE AGENDA There were no modifications to the agenda. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA The motion was made by Commissioner Jackson and duly seconded by Commissioner Holen to adopt the Agenda as presented. The motion passed 5-0. BOCC Public Meeting April 4, 2017 Page 1 of 5
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The motion was made by Commissioner Baker duly seconded by Commissioner Conti to approve the minutes from the March 14, 2017 Public Meeting. The motion passed unanimously. CEREMONIES There were no ceremonies on this date. CITIZEN COMMENT PERIOD There were no citizen comments on this date. CONSENT AGENDA The motion was made by Commissioner Holen and duly seconded by Commissioner Baker to approve the items on the Consent Agenda as presented. The motion passed 5-0. GENERAL BUSINESS ITEMS Item 1 Resolution No. 170251 - Case No. Z16-001 Platte Canyon Villas Preliminary Development Plan Senior Assistant County Attorney Robert Hill, established jurisdiction for the Board to hear this case. Molly Orkild-Larson, Senior Planner, introduced the proposed preliminary development plan (PDP). There were questions regarding traffic in the area. Chuck Haskins, Engineer for Arapahoe County, stated that the applicant would address traffic and access during the presentation. Rick Holp, representing the applicant, presented a PowerPoint presentation, and explained the details of the site. He talked about how the drainage problem in the area would be solved. Mike Rocha, traffic consultant, discussed access to the site and the traffic study. There was extensive discussion regarding the impact to existing traffic, parking, school bus access, elevations, drainage, and setbacks. The public hearing was opened. Ross Kaminky, opposed. Don Gena, opposed. BOCC Public Meeting April 4, 2017 Page 2 of 5
Arthur Garfein, opposed. Andrew Graham, opposed. Jeff Jackson, opposed. Kurt Goffshall, opposed. Matt McFall, representing Bowmar South, opposed. John Steelman, opposed. Bill Hopping, opposed. Nancy Doty Brady, opposed. Wayne Brady, opposed. Costa Vasilas, in favor. Heidi Schatfril, opposed. Kevin Starkey, opposed. Gary Self, opposed. Anita Garfein, opposed. Tracie Simonton, opposed. Esther Feld, opposed. Susan Beckman, opposed. Britt Hall, opposed. Bill Dodson, opposed. Richard Champion, opposed. Phil Seaber, opposed. Jared Engwalson, opposed. Charlie Blosten, opposed. Jim Pulfrey, opposed. BOCC Public Meeting April 4, 2017 Page 3 of 5
Tom Mellem, opposed. Ed Peters, opposed. Pam Chadhorne, opposed. Ken Peters, opposed. R. Crysdale, opposed. Zac Smith, in favor. Marie Adams, opposed. The public hearing was closed. There was discussion regarding who currently owns the property and the attempt to have Littleton annex the property. There was discussion regarding the attempt to annex this property into Littleton. The motion was made by Commissioner Conti and duly seconded by Commissioner Sharpe in the case of Z16-001, Platte Canyon Villas Preliminary Development Plan, that the Board has read the staff report and listened to the applicant s presentation and the public comments at the public hearing, and based on the information presented, the Board does not agree with the Planning Commission s and staff s recommendations and hereby move to deny the application on the grounds that the proposed application does not meet the following criteria for approval of a Planned Unit Development under Section 13-101.03 of the Land Development Code: 1. LDC 13-101.03 (A) requires that the PUD Recognize limitations of existing and planned infrastructure, by thoroughly examining the availability and capability of water, sewer, drainage, and transportation systems to serve present and future land uses. a. --I have concerns about adding more traffic to an already heavily used roadway. I also have grave concerns about one entrance and exit and limited, if not impossible, turnaround room; it appears that the capability of the system to handle the additional traffic from the development would be unreasonably burdened. 2. LDC 13-101.03 (B) requires that the PUD Assure compatibility between the proposed development, surrounding land uses and the natural environment. a. --This development involves 40 dwelling units on approximately 5 acres of property. I am concerned that a development of this residential density is too much for the area and that such a dense attached-home development is not compatible with the existing single family detached residences in the area, many of which are on much larger lots. b. --Also as proposed to be configured, the buffering between the neighboring singlefamily detached properties and this development still does not appear to be adequate. BOCC Public Meeting April 4, 2017 Page 4 of 5
c. --Moreover, due to the proximity and this inadequate buffering between the proposed and existing houses, I am concerned that the privacy interests of the existing property powers would be negatively impacted by this development as proposed. 3. LDC 13-101.03 (C) requires that the PUD Allow for the efficient and adequate provision of public services, which include police, fire, school, park and libraries. a. --I have concerns that the efficient and adequate provision of public school services will be negatively impacted by the students added to the school system as a result of this proposed development. Commissioners Sharpe, Jackson, and Holen explained why they would not support this proposal and would vote in favor of the motion to deny. The motion passed 4-1, Commissioner Baker opposed. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no commissioner comments on this date. There being no other business before the Board, Commissioner Sharpe adjourned the meeting at 10:36 p.m. ARAPAHOE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MATT CRANE, CLERK TO THE BOARD BY JOLEEN SANCHEZ, ASSISTANT CLERK TO THE BOARD BOCC Public Meeting April 4, 2017 Page 5 of 5