LAKEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES

Transcription

1 LAKEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Johann Cohn Stuart Crawford Jay Goldie Henry Hollender Julia Kirkpatrick Carrie Mesch Dale Miller STAFF PRESENT: Travis Parker, Director, Planning Department Paul Rice, Manager, Planning-Development Assistance Kara Mueller, Associate Planner, Planning-Development Assistance Ben Mehmen, Public Works, Engineer III John Padon, Public Works, Traffic Engineering Manager Walter Jauch, Secretary to the Planning Commission Following are the minutes of Lakewood Planning Commission Public Meeting. A permanent set of these minutes is retained in the office of the City Clerk. Minutes are not a verbatim transcription, but rather an attempt to capture the intent of the speaker by the Secretary. ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER ITEM 2: ROLL CALL The roll having been called, a quorum was declared and the following business was conducted: ITEM 3: RZ , Rezoning of the SE Corner of W. Alameda Avenue and S. Kipling St 9990 W. Alameda Avenue Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 18

2 MS. CAROLYN WHITE, Land Use Councilor for the applicant, th Street, Suite 2200, Denver, CO, She stated that the applicant is requesting to rezone the property from Mixed-Use Employment Urban (M-E-U), Two-Family and Small Lot Residential (R-2), and Large Lot Residential (R-1-12) to the Mixed-Use-Neighborhood Urban (M-N-U) zone district for the whole property. She discussed a history and timeline of the property and displayed a zoning map of the current zoning and explained how this zoning came about with the zoning ordinance change of 2013 and explained how the zoning districts were a placeholder zoning to maintain the status quo and it did not reflect the previous request for a rezoning by the applicant. This left the option for the property owner to come in at a later time and request a rezoning of the property. She stated that the owner applied for a rezoning of the property that went to a public hearing in 2006 to change the Large Lot Residential (1-R), Duplex and Small Lot Density Residential (3- R) and Office (OF) zonings, but was denied by City Council. Since that time, the conditions in the vicinity have changed. She stated that recent redevelopment and economic growth has taken place on the West Alameda Corridor that has transformed the area from the sleepy route to the mountains to a major commercial route through the metro area and a central commercial corridor in the City of Lakewood. The applicant believes that rezoning the property will bring their zoning in line with the existing zone districts in the surrounding area along the Alameda corridor and will allow the property to be developed to its overall highest and best use, while remaining consistent with the goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the applicant concurs with the Staff Report in its findings and recommendations and does not have any objections or clarifications to it. She stated that the applicant believes this request meets the review requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and then discussed the areas of those documents and how the proposed rezoning meets each of the criteria. She made note that the applicant is at the point in their request in determining the appropriate range of uses for the property, but not a specific use or project. This is the reason they are not showing a specific site plan, architecture, or uses for the site at this meeting as it has not yet been determined. MS. WHITE stated that she and MR. PAUL CAMPBELL will discuss the Review Criteria of the Lakewood Zoning Ordinance Section through 3. MS. WHITE explained how the traffic study was completed and how city staff required the study to include numbers for the highest levels of traffic from the range of traffic patterns of the uses allowed in the M-N-U zone district. They believe the traffic will operate acceptably under the proposed M-N-U zone district regardless of which potential use(s) are ultimately chosen for the project. She stated that city staff Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 18

3 reviewed the study and deemed it acceptable and that it meets the city standards. She asked the Traffic Engineer to explain more about the traffic study. COMMISSIONER CARRIE MESCH asked the applicant if they used maximum numbers for the uses in their traffic study. MR. CHRIS MCGRANAHAN, LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 1889 York St., Denver, CO, explained that they contemplated three different scenarios; all retail, all office, and part retail with part apartments. They maximized the traffic numbers for each scenario and used the highest traffic numbers. MR. CAMPBELL, Kephart, 2555 Walnut Street, Denver, CO, He discussed the project in relation to Review Criteria and then outlined specific elements of the Zoning Ordinance, A thru J and how they believe their proposed rezoning meets the ordinance. He spoke with regards to the Crime Prevention Through Environment Design (CPTED), the traffic study, housing types, neighboring uses and zoning, the Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood Plans, and quality design. MS. WHITE discussed section A.2 and stated that the dictionary definition of compatibility is things that are able to exist together, without conflict, without trouble but that it does not mean, exactly the same as. She stated that different uses can be compatible and that Lakewood s Zoning Ordinance looks at the form of the buildings and uses and how they can be designed to co-exist with other uses. She stated that this proposal would act as a transition or buffer between the busy corridor that W. Alameda Avenue has become and the residential areas next to the subject property. The applicant believes the M-N-U district to be the optimal district for the area because of the height and design transition requirements. She displayed a graphic regarding the height and design transition zones on a Conceptual Land Use Plan and discussed this topic. MS. WHITE then discussed how they believe this project meets the vision of the Comprehensive Plan and its goals as required under the Zoning Ordinance A. She discussed section A.3.B and that there has been a material change in the character of the neighborhood and generally in the City. She displayed aerials of the area from 1967 through 2014 to illustrate the significant changes, such as the Belmar development, St. Anthony hospital, and the expansion of the Denver Federal Center, the new Light Rail, and the Colorado Christian University expansion and redevelopment. They respectfully requested that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the rezoning to the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 18

4 MS. KARA MUELLER began by stating that there was a letter from Ms. Vicki Rosenbach and Mr. Perry Harper submitted to the Planning Commission, but they are ill and not able to attend the meeting MS. MUELLER stated that this request is to rezone the property at 9990 W. Alameda Avenue from M-E-U, R-2, and R-1-12 to the M-N-U district. The purpose is to provide for a neighborhood scale zone district. She displayed aerial and zoning maps to identify the surrounding areas, streets, zone districts and uses. She also identified the mixed-use zoned areas adjacent to W. Alameda Avenue around the site. She stated that the M-N-U zone district is appropriate for this property due to its neighborhood scale and requirements such as: Bringing buildings to the street edge. Requiring height and design transitions. Providing a buffer between arterial roads and low-density residential uses. She displayed photos of the area and its features and then discussed the site history of zoning, the previous proposal for a rezoning, and how the property currently obtained its current zoning. She stated that the goals of the Lakewood Comprehensive Plan are now different. The goals are now to line streets with front-facing buildings that engage and activate street frontages. It is now inappropriate to continue to develop single-family homes immediately adjacent to arterial roadways. She displayed photos of areas that are examples of the old way of lining arterials with singlefamily residences and pointed out that there is a commonality of having a large fence that acts as a buffer to the arterial road. She displayed a Conceptual Land Use plan which illustrated the agricultural ditch, build-to zone, height transition boundary, and the design transition boundary for bulk and plane. She explained each of these concepts and details related to them in addition to the lighting and landscape development standards. She stated that all required public notifications were performed, which included: Mailed and posted notices for each public neighborhood meeting. Mailed and posted notice for this Planning Commission public hearing. Publications for this Planning Commission public hearing. She identified the concerns and comments from the neighborhood as: Lack of a site specific plan or conceptual site plan. The existing and proposed uses. Traffic generation. Rezoning and approval process. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 18

5 Property values. She stated that in addition to the neighborhood concerns that the Alameda Homes Homeowner s Association (HOA) did have a few other questions or concerns which include: If another neighborhood meeting is to be scheduled? Has the intent of the neighborhood meeting in the zoning ordinance been met in relation to the term project? Why this proposal is not a Planned Development (PD) application. She stated that city staff met with the Alameda Homes HOA to discuss the final few items mentioned above and that since no new comments or issues were brought up in the second neighborhood meeting a third meeting would not be held. The HOA agreed that there would not be a reason to meet unless a conceptual site plan was submitted by the applicant. MS. MUELLER stated that a project is an idea and the purpose of a rezoning application is to discuss land use, not site planning. MS. MUELLER stated that Planned Development districts were the common rezoning tool used in the previous zoning code and included a conceptual site plan, which displayed one way that a site could develop. The conceptual site plan could change so long as the zoning code is met. Therefore, the current code focuses on land use and provides a conceptual land use plan to evaluate sites, land uses, and development standards. She discussed the Rezoning Criteria and how they are being met with this proposal and noted that this proposal is being reviewed under the current Comprehensive Plan including the Addenbrooke/Belmar Park Neighborhood Plan and the Alameda Cornerstone Plan and identified those goals and how this proposal meets those goals. She stated that staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of this rezoning to the City Council. Public Comment OPENED at 8:33 p.m. MR. KYLE GRIVETTE, 9543 W. Virginia Dr., Lakewood, CO, He asked that the request for a rezoning be denied. He does not believe that the rezoning requirements have been met. He stated that there was no description given outlining any project or vision to the neighborhood. The applicant did not solicit input from the neighborhood. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan and amendments do not require or envision that properties adjacent to arterial roadways have to have the same type of zoning. He stated that each of the plans identify the area around the intersection of W. Alameda Avenue and S. Garrison Street as a neighborhood hub and do not envision it extending from S. Garrison Street to S. Kipling Street along W. Alameda Avenue. The neighborhood does not want zoning that allows future expansion of commercial or mixed-use from S. Garrison Street to S. Kipling Street. MS. JOAN WYER, 431 S. Holland Court, Lakewood, CO, She stated that Kephart s reason for a rezone does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and that it Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 18

6 cannot be determined if there is no description or vision of what will develop on this property. She stated that the staff report notes that a site plan is not required but : Zoning Lot does require a site plan and believes this proposal fits the definition of a zoning lot. She stated the Comprehensive Plan is meant as a guiding document and does not dictate what is required. She does not believe this project meets the visions, goals, policies, or requirements to be rezoned. She stated that the mixed-use zone district does not respect the unique and diverse character of their neighborhood and that the mixed-use district will not appear, function, or interact with the existing neighborhood. She said that the applicant has repeatedly ignored and minimized the neighborhood concerns. She stated that the S. Garrison Street and W. Alameda Avenue intersection already exists as a neighborhood center or hub. MS. PEGGY PHILLIPS, 1061 S. Independence Court, Lakewood, CO, She wished to outline the seven guiding principles listed in the staff report: Think Green Vehicular access will be increased. Balance and Choice A connector street from Alameda Place to the Kipling service road will offer little benefit to the existing neighborhood. Make it Walkable No improvement or change is noted. Think Big and Small the neighborhood already has a neighborhood node and commercial use will have no added benefit. Create Character The creation of a plaza area near the major intersection will create safety issues for drivers and pedestrians. Face Front This vision can be accomplished with well-designed single-family neighborhoods. Housing exists along arterial streets in the city without the mixed-use buffering. Catalyze This proposal does not promote the visions or goals of the Alameda Cornerstone Plan. MS SHERRY EVANS, 9565 W. Dakota Avenue, Lakewood, CO, She stated that the Comprehensive Plan does not require rezoning of single-family properties along major roadways to mixed-use districts. Their neighborhood is extremely concerned with increased traffic, noise, safety, crime, light pollution, and parking in the neighborhood and believes the project will negatively impact the neighborhood. She stated it is extremely difficult to enter or exit from the neighborhood via S. Garrison Street to W. Alameda Avenue. MS. JUDY SMEREY, 9563 W. Virginia Drive, Lakewood, CO, She stated that the request seems to be for the sole purpose of making this property the same zoning as the adjacent property. She quoted from the design manual that it is evident from the appearance of development and building design are directly related to economic stability, managed growth and improved quality of life. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 18

7 She stated that without the applicant s conceptual plan of a development the neighborhood is unable to lend support to this zoning request. They do support aspects of the Alameda Cornerstone Plan. She stated that the plan asks for consistent development for new building construction so that an identifiable image is created along W. Alameda Avenue and that is what the neighborhood supports. She pointed out the numerous areas with single-family homes that do exist adjacent to W. Alameda Avenue on the north and south sides and the landscaped frontage roads seem to work well for those that have them. They believe a landscaped area and view next to W. Alameda Avenue is a much more desirable and welcome picture of Lakewood in comparison to Denver s picture along W. Alameda Avenue. They believe they have the opportunity and obligation to safeguard this thoroughfare as it traverses their neighborhood. MS. JENNY MERRIMAN, 9613 W. Virginia Drive, Lakewood, CO, She stated that before this proposal took place, Milestone Partners sent the neighborhood a letter with a picture booklet with Choices, Which View do You Want?. They threatened to build an office building, a parking structure, and 42 two-story low end rental duplexes instead of a high-quality multi-family community set-back from the existing areas with screening. She stated that no attention to the Lakewood Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Ordinance was given. She stated that Mr. Kiken told them he could break ground that summer on either alternative. He told them not to sign the legal protest petition unless they wanted to see the rental duplex and office building projects. She stated that Mr. Kiken told the City Council that he loved Lakewood and holds his developments. He went on to develop in the city of Arvada, and then sold that project shortly after its completion. She questioned why the Planning Commission would even consider a blanket rezoning without a site plan. MR. TIMOTHY HECKLER, without residence at this time. He believes this proposal to be absolutely asinine as it provokes fear, is destructive and shows the ignorance and malice for which humans are capable. He does not see how developing this property would help economically, financially, or environmentally. He stated that he lives on the property and has seen many species of animals on this property including bats, birds, foxes, coyotes, and rabbits and they should be left alone. He stated that everything the applicant has said is lies and there is no evidence of anything positive for this project. There are many accidents and rollovers at the W. Alameda Avenue and S. Kipling Street intersection. MR. CHARLEY ABLE, 7707 W. 4 th Avenue, Lakewood, CO, He stated that he was a former reporter for the Rocky Mountain News and has been to thousands of meetings, with hundreds of mentions of a Comprehensive Plan and he does not recall an applicant referring Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 18

8 to a future Comprehensive Plan for justification for a current rezoning request. The future Comprehensive Plan is currently a draft document and has no force. He stated that case law requires rezoning ordinances comply with the current Comprehensive Plan. The current neighborhood node is already identified in the Comprehensive Plan and it is not at W. Alameda Avenue and S. Kipling Street. MS. CINDY GOUGH, W. Glennon Drive, Lakewood, CO, She stated that she attended both of the neighborhood meetings and the applicant had no details. They only stated they wanted to make the zoning M-N-U because it is the color purple and would match the other areas nearby that are also purple. She stated that there is more to zoning than matching colors. The existing zoning already provides sufficient transition between the single-family homes and the commercial areas. More density and larger buildings are not better. The homes that go up for sale in this area sell very quickly and there is still a place for single-family homes in Lakewood, especially largelot. The area is already pedestrian and bicyclist friendly. People do not really wish to walk along W. Alameda Avenue or S. Kipling Street anyway as it is unsafe to do so. It would be nice that the concerns of existing residents are given as much consideration as the developers and the change can take place in a more responsive manner. MR. CHRISTOPHER WELLS, 461 S. Holland Court, Lakewood, CO, He stated that he is a licensed marriage and family therapist. He specializes in working with family systems including their lives and environments and is trained to be sensitive about these issues with a focus on balance, congruence, coherence, and putting values to practice. He believes the Alameda Homes neighborhood has provided good balance and continuity of shared values to the community. The neighbors know each other and their children. The lack of major change to the neighborhood has been good for family life and development. He stated that the current zoning plan is congruent with the neighborhood ideals. The rezoning request threatens the stability of this family-focused area. He stated that the human importance is being minimized. Rezoning the area effectively separates the area from their neighborhood and would be a qualitative attack on the neighborhood and the people that live there. He illustrated his points by describing a car that has three tires properly inflated with one tire grossly over-inflated. There is no balance or coherent alignment to the community values and is incongruent with the community. He stated that rezoning the area would represent a complete disregard of the community hopes and an intrusion to those that live there. They are happy with the neighborhood the way it is. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 18

9 MR. VERN WINTERS 420 S. KIPLING Parkway, Lakewood, CO, He lives just to the south of the property of interest tonight. He asked if any of the Planning Commission have been on the property? He believes the property cannot be built on as it is a swampland. He has people telling him that water has been on the property for years. He believes the water comes from the runoff of the Green Mountain area and under S. Kipling Street. There is enough water coming through the ditches to flood the whole city, millions and maybe billions of gallons of water. They can build roads and foundations and it will all be flooded. It is only good for farmland or a city park. There is a church in the area and the traffic is routed on to the service road to W. Exposition Avenue. This land does not need to be developed as there are many other developments in the area. He believes that moving the water from this land will result in flooding to his basement and others in the area. MS. SARA MILLER, 453 S. Independence Ct, Lakewood, CO, She asked the Planning Commission to please consider what they appreciate and enjoy about their neighborhoods and to think of what they would want placed next to their homes. MS. JAN HARRIS, 473 S. Hoyt Street, Lakewood, CO, She read the letter that she and her husband submitted for the Planning Commission packet. Public Comment CLOSED at 9:13 p.m. COMMISSIONER JOHANN COHN asked Mr. Winters if he owns the property just to the east of the church and has horses on the property. MR. WINTERS answered that he owns that property and some horses. COMMISSIONER COHN asked if Mr. Winters has an easement through the church property for access to his property. MR. WINTERS responded that he does. COMMISSIONER COHN asked if Mr. Winters has any ownership interest in the easement or the property under consideration for the rezoning. MR. WINTER s response was that the ditch company has an easement through his property but he owns the land underneath it. COMMISSIONER COHN asked for the date that the Alameda Cornerstone Plan was approved. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 18

10 MS. MUELLER responded that it was approved in 2003 and that she misquoted the date in the presentation, and that it is correct in the Staff Report. COMMISSIONER COHN asked for information about the current traffic flows at the W. Alameda Avenue and S. Kipling Street intersection. MR. CHRIS MCGRANAHAN stated that there are updated traffic counts and analysis and they consider some of the movements to be operating poorly. They acknowledge that their project will add some traffic. They did assume that the roads would be six lanes instead of the current four lanes for their study. COMMISSIONER COHN asked for the updated traffic numbers. He related that the Alameda Cornerstone plan notes a year 2000 traffic count east of the Kipling intersection of 14,700 eastbound and 13,400 westbound. MR. MCGRANAHAN replied that they counted 28,000 through the intersection last year. He added that on S. Kipling Street just south of the intersection there was 44,000. COMMISSIONER COHN noted that the two counts were close and MR. MCGRANAHAN agreed. MR. MCGRANAHAN also replied that the access point from their project would be a threequarter turn as a traffic signal would not be placed at that area since the signal would be so close to the already existing signal at S. Kipling St. and W. Alameda Ave. Traffic would be able to turn right into their project, or leave the project with a right turn. Those wishing to head west on W. Alameda Avenue would have to exit via the service road to the signalized intersection at W. Exposition Avenue and S. Kipling St. He stated that the purpose of the three-quarter access is to help divert the traffic away from the neighborhood. COMMISSIONER JAY GOLDIE asked if the traffic study identifies the highest levels of traffic for the current zoning as well as the proposed zoning. MR. MCGRANAHAN stated that the study had four levels of traffic generation but the existing zoning trip generation was not included in the study but they used the worst-case scenario. He explained that mixed-use traffic would be more even throughout the day, an all office use would have almost all the traffic arriving or leaving at the same time. The mix of shopping center and apartments resulted in something in between. COMMISSIONER CARRIE MESCH asked for more discussion about the current traffic grades and how the traffic issues would be solved. MR. JOHN PADON stated that there is a range of traffic with the proposed type of zoning so the requirements were for the study to cover that range. At the time that the applicant has determined the uses for the property the city will require a site specific traffic study. The Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 of 18

11 applicant will have to provide road improvements so that there is no negative impact to the intersection. COMMISSIONER MESCH wanted to confirm that improvements would have to be made so that a deterioration of the traffic grade does not take place. MR. PADON stated that the developer would be required to make public improvements to maintain the existing levels of service for the intersection. COMMISSIONER STUART CRAWFORD asked for the current Right-of-Way (ROW) widths of W. Alameda Avenue and S. Kipling Street and asked for the dimensions between the buildings as this has a bearing on the mixed-use urban environments and setting parameters between facades of the buildings to create the kind of density and vitality that the Comprehensive Plan identifies. MR. PADON replied that W. Alameda Avenue is one of the widest ROW in the city. It is 200 feet starting at S. Sheridan Boulevard all the way past S. Kipling Street. Portions of this ROW have been vacated because of the excess. MS. MUELLER stated that buildings will need to be located within the build-to-zone along a minimum of 50% of the Kipling and Alameda frontages. The zoning ordinance states that the setback measurements are taken from the back of current or future public improvements and will result in the structures needing to be built close to the existing property lines. COMMISSIONER CRAWFORD asked for the measurement between building facades across the street. MR. PAUL RICE replied that due to the ROW the buildings could be at the 200 foot separation, although the ROW is not necessarily an even 100 feet on each side, as there is some variation. He identified the Wells Fargo building in Belmar as having approximately 40 feet to the centerline of the ROW for an example of scale. COMMISSIONER CRAWFORD asked if the separation for this project would then be about 4 times the distance between buildings. MR. RICE responded that this is correct. COMMISSIONER CRAWFORD asked for the potential for this project to be similar to the Belmar area in spacing and density. MR. TRAVIS PARKER responded that the Belmar area has the most dense mixed-use zone district and use. This proposed project is the least dense mixed-use zoning, so it is not fair to compare the two projects and uses. COMMISSIONER HENRY HOLLENDER asked for clarification on the mixed-use districts for the suburban and residential in comparison to this proposal. Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 of 18

12 MR. PARKER stated there are five mixed-use contexts: core, general, employment, residential, and neighborhood and the neighborhood context, as for this site, is less dense than the residential as the M-N-U allows more commercial. He explained that the suburban context pushes the buildings back from the street and the urban brings the buildings closer to the street. COMMISSIONER COHN asked for the current street plan for the north side of W. Alameda Avenue from S. Garrison Street to S. Kipling Street. MR. PADON stated that there is not a bicycle path today and there are no plans for the bike path. He explained that at one time there was a proposal to tie the northeast corner development to the frontage road but it has been some time and the proposal did not move forward. COMMISSIONER COHN asked for clarification of the housing types for the R-2 zone district. MS. WHITE explained that the three options are: single-family, duplex, or group homes. COMMISSIONER COHN asked why the applicant could not develop under the current zoning of the property. MS. WHITE stated that while it is possible to develop with the current districts, it is not optimal. COMMISSIONER COHN pointed out to the applicant that it would be difficult to develop portions of the land due to the drainage issues brought up in public comment. MS. WHITE stated that regardless of the zone district on the property, Lakewood s codes would require drainage plans and the city would have to review them to ensure they meet all of the requirements. Since the property is currently undeveloped, no drainage plans exist. COMMISSIONER DALE MILLER asked for clarification on zoning lots and whether this property meets that definition. MR. RICE explained that this property is not a zoning lot. This concept was introduced in the most recent zoning ordinance amendment and this will be effective March 16, This concept is specific to a site plan with multiple lots to be reviewed as a whole, but is not applicable to a rezoning. COMMISSIONER MILLER asked for clarification on what mix of residential and commercial could be developed for this proposal. MS. MUELLER replied that the project could be entirely commercial or residential or some mix in between. Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 of 18

13 COMMISSIONER HOLLENDER asked if the property has been determined to be a wetland. MR. JOE JEHN, Engineer for the Applicant, 5690 Webster Street, Arvada, CO, He stated that there are no jurisdictional wetlands on this property and there are no active stream flows on the site. He stated that there is no floodplain or floodway on the property. However, there are leakages of the current ditch causing water to be on the site. They anticipate that if the project moves forward, the ditch would be conveyed into a structure and that storm sewer systems would need to be built. COMMISSIONER HOLLENDER asked if hydric soils exist on the site. MR. JEHN replied that there might be hydric soils on the site, but they are not fed by jurisdictional waters. COMMISSIONER MESCH asked if development on this site could result in flooding in other areas nearby. MR. JEHN stated that as a licensed engineer, part of his charge is to do no harm. He is not permitted to sign a drainage study if any harm contributes to off-site properties. Water must be conveyed through a property and meet city standards without causing any harm to other sites. COMMISSIONER HOLLENDER asked if the rezoning takes place, would the developer be allowed to develop only residential units and how the maximum densities would be controlled. MS. MUELLER replied that a development of only multi-family residential could occur for the whole property and that the maximum densities would be determined by the other requirements of the zoning ordinance regarding height, bulk and plane standards, setbacks, etc. COMMISSIONER HOLLENDER asked what the maximum density could be. MS. MUELLER replied that no maximum densities have yet been determined or exist for the M-N-U zone district. MS. WHITE replied that the applicant has not determined the maximum, either. COMMISSIONER HOLLENDER asked the audience which of them would like to live on property immediately adjacent to W. Alameda Avenue? COMMISSIONER GOLDIE asked for identification of new single-family subdivisions directly on W. Alameda Avenue that have recently been built. MS. MUELLER replied that of those homes discussed tonight the majority are from the 1950 s through 1980 s. Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 of 18

14 COMMISSIONER GOLDIE asked what year W. Alameda Avenue had last been widened. MR. PADON replied that it was in early 2000 when Lakewood took over W. Alameda Avenue from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). COMMISSIONER MESCH commented that Planning Commission makes decisions based on the proposed land use for a project, not on specific site plans. She asked for clarification for the public to help understand the charge of the Planning Commission. MR. PARKER responded that one of the largest changes to the 2013 zoning ordinance was to get away from a system that was almost entirely PD zoning. These PD zones were inadequate for development and every development had to have a zone district be built from scratch and individually negotiated. The change to the zoning ordinance was made to encourage the type of development the city wanted to see as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Development proposals that are submitted to the city that match the vision of the Comprehensive Plan would move forward, but those that do not match would require a rezoning through the public process. He stated that a system that is highly dependent on the PD zone district is a symptom of a zoning code that is not working, and the PD becomes a crutch and it becomes selfperpetuating. PDs then become so specific that it prohibits future development of a site for anything other than the stated use in the PD and this stifles good developments and economic growth. COMMISSIONER MESCH asked for clarification on the process an applicant must complete to obtain approval for a site plan. MR. PARKER explained that the city staff is concerned about the issues for development of a site as are the neighbors. For any development and site plan, city staff will look at drainage, traffic, lighting, design, public safety, and other items to ensure that the proposal meets the strict rules and requirements. Staff will spend a lot of time in review on any proposal. Engineers are on staff for that very purpose. COMMISSIONER MESCH asked for confirmation that a site plan submitted with the current zoning would follow the same process. MR. PARKER replied that the review process is the same and would apply to any submitted site plan. COMMISSIONER MILLER commented that all of the public comments were against the proposal and most seemed centered around the lack of knowing exactly what is being developed. He asked if there is something about the process that can be improved. Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 of 18

15 MR. PARKER replied that the improvement was in the new zoning ordinance. Items such as the height transition, design transitions, and landscaping buffers for specific situations were created to serve as a buffer. It serves as a transition from a single-family area to an arterial corridor. COMMISSIONER MESCH commented that it was an education going through the zoning ordinance improvement project as the Planning Commission was so used to seeing a site plan accompany a rezoning application as these were usually PDs, which required a site plan. She stated that it is possible for an applicant to rezone a property along with a site plan, but they can then sell the property and the buyer could come apply for a completely different site plan. She stated that the Planning Commission approves the land uses, but not site plans. COMMISSIONER KIRKPATRICK asked MS. JOAN WYER to come to the podium to ask her additional question. MS. JOAN WYER stated that the FAQs explain zoning and that this proposal seems antithetical to the very definition of land use and zoning. MR. PARKER replied that zoning was historically used to separate all uses and never shall they meet. The change occurring in the nation over the past couple of decades is that we are realizing that the most desirable and trendy areas are where there is a mix of these incompatible uses. The idea of incompatibility is evolving. People don t need to get in their car to make trips to schools, shopping malls, etc. They can walk to their schools, stores, and office. This philosophy has been adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council. It is not always incompatible to have non-residential uses within walking distance from your house. COMMISSIONER KIRKPATRICK asked if the Jefferson County School District will be asked for comments for any final site plan that is proposed. MS. MUELLER stated that the school district is a referral agency and they will let staff know what is needed. COMMISSIONER HOLLENDER asked if the school district can halt a development due to an increase in students. MS. MUELLER replied that the school district would require fees or school-land dedication. COMMISSIONER GOLDIE made a MOTION for APPROVAL of the Case RZ Motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER MESCH. Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 of 18

16 COMMISSIONER CRAWFORD commented that he does agree with the vitality and benefits that come with the co-mingling of zone districts. The question is what the right zoning for this property is. He is having a tough time with this decision. He is having a tough time seeing the synergy of the mixed-use development as an extension along the corridor, especially given the size, speed, and scale of the road. He stated that this is not a specific node area and it comes down to what the best and highest use is for the property. He believes that by turning the buildings to the street and placing the parking areas to the rear of the property we have just inverted the old strip mall concept and this will just make the residential area and this project more independent of each other. He hopes that we move toward concentrating density in the places that it makes the most sense, such as near the transit-oriented areas. This will allow the residential neighborhoods, which is frequently mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan, to maintain their integrity and their nature. He does not support this proposal. COMMISSIONER MESCH commented that this is a very large parcel bordered by two main arterial streets and it is a very nice neighborhood. She was part of the committee for the zoning ordinance change and it took years to sift through and discuss the changes and to identify areas for potential development. Transition areas were discussed at length. Since we are an in-fill city, anytime a development takes place it will be bordered by something. She believes that this site is appropriate for a rezoning as long as the city requirements are being met for design, buffers, lighting, noise, and safety. She will be supporting this rezoning. COMMISSIONER GOLDIE commented that he believes in the new zoning ordinance and the changes. Prior to the changes, the Planning Commission would discuss drainage, traffic, the facing of buildings. But, the Planning Commission should be deciding whether a zoning is compatible and appropriate. He believes the new process will work and will be supporting this rezoning proposal. COMMISSIONER HOLLENDER commented that this proposal is important for the future of the city and is a good example of the problems the city faces and needs to address in order to survive as a city. He stated that a case could be made that a major intersection like Alameda and Kipling is appropriate for more intense development. He lives on S. Garrison Street and always hears from the neighbors about traffic, speeds, and lights. But, S. Garrison Street does not have near the traffic that W. Alameda Avenue has and he does not believe that people would want to have their single-family home right next to W. Alameda Avenue. He understands that it has occurred in other places of the city from past developments, but it is not appropriate now. But, he is not sure office use is appropriate on this corner, either. He is concerned that if this rezoning does not happen, that is the type of development that might take place. He does Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 of 18

17 support the idea of mixed-use and believes that a good transition between W. Alameda Avenue and the neighborhood is possible. But, he does have a problem allowing a rezoning that would permit an all apartment development to take place as this would not be a good transition to the existing neighborhood. He is concerned that the development that may occur on this site would be dictated by the economics of today. He is not in favor of the rezoning. COMMISSIONER MILLER commented that he was also on the advisory committee for the zoning ordinance change and he also believes in the work that was done. He understands the anxiety with the new concepts as we do not know exactly what will happen, but believes we have to trust that the process works. COMMISSIONER COHN commented that it is with considerable reflection that he differs with staff. He believes that the current single-family and two-family uses are appropriate next to W. Alameda Avenue. He views the Alameda Cornerstone Plan with a somewhat different view than others in that he does not see it as an unbroken line of tall structures along the whole length of W. Alameda Avenue. There are already a number other single-family or low-density areas along arterials and they are appropriate. He believes the current zoning, including the M-E-U district are reasonable. He does want to make things convenient for developers, but zoning is not about what is most convenient. It is about what can be reasonably done with a property and what is good for the community. He does think the small strip of R-1-12 could be rezoned. He believes the most optimal use is the current zoning with the exception of the R-1-12 strip. He is not in favor of this proposal. COMMISSIONER KIRKPATRICK commented that everything that comes in to the city will now be an infill development. It will have some effect on someone s neighborhood, but the city must continue to grow to be viable and maintain a community. The changes were made to the zoning ordinance to allow staff a tighter reign over site plans. She adamantly recommended that the applicant work with the neighborhood in order to bring a cohesive project that works with the land uses and neighborhood. She believes that the rezoning would allow the applicant to have a project that can work with the neighborhood, but a success depends on working with the citizens. VOTE TAKEN - Four Ayes - Commissioners Goldie, Kirkpatrick, Mesch, Miller. MOTION PASSED. Three Nays Commissioners Cohn, Crawford, Hollender. Planning Commission Minutes Page 17 of 18

18 ITEM 4: Resolution R Designating the Public Place for Posting Notices of Public Meetings During 2015 Pursuant to C.R.S (2)(c) COMMISSIONER GOLDIE made a MOTION for APPROVAL of the Resolution R Motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER MESCH. VOTE TAKEN - Seven Ayes - Commissioners Cohn, Crawford, Goldie, Hollender, Kirkpatrick, Mesch, Miller. MOTION PASSED. ITEM 5: GENERAL BUSINESS MR. RICE advised the Commission that there are two possible cases to come before them, but no items in the immediate future. He also mentioned that the Comprehensive Plan and Sustainability Plan will be coming to them on March 18, ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:36 p.m. _March 5, 2015 Date Approved Walter M. Jauch, Secretary to the Planning Commission Planning Commission Minutes Page 18 of 18