Zoning Map 2090 S. Wright Street S Wright St

Transcription

1 Zoning Map 2090 S. Wright Street 2090 S Wright St

2 Detailed Written Description of Project 1. This request is to rezone the 2090 South Wright Street parcel from zone district PUD to 2 R. Under the requirements of the PUD the site was designated for the construction of an elementary school. Rezoning to 2 R will allow for the construction of a PreK 12 school. Upon rezoning, Jeffco Schools intends to sell the property to the Rocky Mountain Deaf School (RMDS), a Jeffco Schools charter school currently located at West 20 th Avenue and Youngfield Street South Wright Street was graded as a pad site in the 1970 s or 1980 s that naturally slopes from west to east. Easements along the north property line and topography along the both the north and east property line prevents significant development in those areas. The proposed site plan will terrace the site improvements to minimize the visual impact of the development, maintaining view corridors, and taking advantage of the natural slope of the property. The site is developed with all utilities available. 3. The proposed RMDS facility is approximately 46,000 square feet consisting of classrooms, administrative space, gymnasium and kitchen cafeteria. Off street parking for 78 spaces are provided with access near the northwest corner of the property from Wright Street. Service vehicles will use this entry point also. Location of this entry point will minimize traffic extending into the neighborhood. A significant landscape buffer between Wright Street and the school building is provided. The west property line will have a detached walk with landscaping. The building is located 90' from the south property line and will be buffered with a grass play field. Stormwater and water quality detention ponds are located near the east property line with the water quality pond discharging into the Ward Canal located near the southeast corner of the property. 4. This property is viable for RMDS for a number of reasons. The location of the property is ideal in terms of serving RMDS student population. This location is central to the students that RMDS currently serves. It should be noted that these site and building design concepts have been studied throughout the BEST Grant Application and re zoning processes, and we have determined that this property can accommodate the building, athletic fields, parking, vehicle drop off, etc. within the constraints and limitations of the site. To that end, Jefferson County Public Schools has performed a preliminary drainage study that illustrates this. With regard to traffic, RMDS has performed a Traffic Study, which indicates that the traffic impact associated with the construction and use of RMDS on this site can be accommodated by Wright Street. The traffic impact to surrounding neighborhoods will be less than anticipated in the original development, as the expected occupancy and resultant vehicular traffic for Rocky Mountain Deaf School (100 students) is much less than that for the use currently zoned for this property, which is a typical Jefferson County Public Elementary School (570 students). The location of this property being at the end of South Wright Street is in fact a unique, safety attribute for Rocky Mountain Deaf School. The traffic adjacent to the school will be minimized and at a slower speed as there is no through traffic at this end of Wright Street. 5. Attached as an Addendum and for information only is the site search criteria and sites that were reviewed by the Rocky Mountain Deaf School.

3 ADDENDUM (RMDS Land Search Process)

4 RMDS Land Search Process Criteria Must be located in Jefferson County Within a 5 10 mile radius of the current school location at 19 th and Youngfield due to proximity of our current student base and transportation routes. Raw land, 6.6 to 12 acres, due to various building design and athletic field needs (The school is essentially 4 small schools in one and educates deaf and hard of hearing kids from elementary through HS. There are common spaces essential to all schools regardless of population cafeteria, gym, etc.) Must be priced at $1,785,000 or less including all related land costs per our approved budget (the purchase price must be supported by an outside appraisal) Must have Zoning for school use and cannot be subdivided. Should not be located in an industrial location (commercial/retail are not ideal) Must be new construction due to special design and safety elements required by RMDS students (remodel options were initially looked at and were determined to be financially and functionally unfeasible) Utilities currently stubbed adjacent to the site Typography that reasonably allows for the school building and athletic fields Must be approved by Rocky Mountain School Board of Directors Must be approved by CDE/BEST as it relates to title and financing requirements Must be in a safe environment conducive to the learning needs of our particular student population. Methods Used to Find Land Land search conducted using various commercial listing sites (CoStar, DMCAR, Loopnet) o Multiple searches have been done by various brokers since BEST approval Land Search using Denver Area Multiple Listing Service (MLS) o Manual searches done daily at start of process o Automatic search engine engaged with defined criteria placed in MLS to e mail notify of any new for potential sites Worked with professional land brokers o Andrew Dodgen of Western Fuller o Bob Busy of Unique Properties o Joe Quinn Of Land Shark Real Estate o Jim Capecelatro of Cassidy Turley o TJ Johnson of Cassidy Turley o Eric Roth of CB Richard Ellis Troy Talbert building committee member and Colorado Real Estate Broker made personal request at Denver Metro Commercial Association of Realtors (DMCAR) bi weekly marketing event: Presented criteria and asked group of approximately 20 land brokers if they currently had land available or would search for the school

5 Requested that parents and teaching staff of RMDS to look for land near their homes and on their commutes Process Conducted land search through the various methods listed above Placed sites that met above criteria in matrix outlining land attributes Members of RMDS building committee visited sites and expressed opinion on land attributes Consulted with architects on land configuration and proposed building/athletic filed layout to insure site and fields could be place on potential site Building members voted on land ranking (Results on Exhibit A) Top Sites were presented to RMDS Board of Directors for approval Negotiations for sites commence with brokers and land sellers for top selected sites (results are outlined below) Results W. 58th Ave o Submitted Letter of Intent (LOI) to broker/land seller o Negotiations failed as Seller wanted RMDS to purchase the site as is without proper due diligence necessary for BEST funding and to protect the school. The Seller did not agree to any of the standard purchasing conditions to include soils testing, environmental assessment, surveys, appraisals, and site approval through the county W. Belleview o While this was listed for sale through the various real estate listing sites, there was a pending contract to SABELLS SNOW AND LAWN SERVICE INC. This contract closed in September C 470 Alameda Ave o Submitted letter of intent to broker/land seller o Negotiations fell through for the following reasons: Utilities were not located next to the site at the time of the LOI. Developers were to install utilities to the site but the timing was unknown and uncertain. Property needed to be subdivided. Proposed retail planed for the adjacent parcels were not ideal surrounding uses (RMDS is currently in a retail location and this has proven not to be conducive to the educational requirements or safety of the students). Property not approved by CDE. Belleview Ave and C 470 o Upon further analysis, site was taken off of the list due to the following factors: Typography: site s topography is extensively sloped and would require significant earthwork to make it usable for building and athletic fields Primary Access: Adjacent parcel to the east, where primary access would be obtained, is owned by a different party and was not for sale. Negotiations would

6 need to be entered into with this land owner to either grant an easement or for the full purchase of the land. The availability of this option along with the price and timing of this was uncertain. Secondary Access: This would need to be obtained from the adjacent owner to the south. This owner expressed his willingness to allow access but the timing and price was uncertain. Price: The price of the property was above the budget amount and the ability to negotiate this down was uncertain. Jewell Avenue, just east of Wadsworth (Green Gables) o Upon further analysis, this site was taken off of the list due to the following factors: Subdivision required Price/Size out of range Timing of utilities uncertain Bowles Ave and Alkire St o Upon further analysis, site was taken off of the list due to the following factors: Price/Size out of range Location close to large liquor store 7890 Indiana Ct o Upon further analysis, site was taken off of the list due to the following factors: Access: Site was accessed over a seasonal stream. This would require a two lane bridge that could handle buses and emergency vehicles. RMDS s cost analysis indicated that this would be cost prohibitive. Location: Site was remote for our South Jeffco students. NWC Simms St/12400 W Coal Mine Ave o Upon further analysis, site was taken off of the list due to the following factors: While this was listed for sale through the various real estate listing sites, there is a pending contract to an unknown developer. Location: site is remote for our North Jeffco and Boulder Students. Other Sites: o RMDS Building Committee analyzed approximately 50 additional sites throughout the process based on the criteria outlined above. None were applicable as they failed to meet the criteria stated above. o Hutchinson Neighborhood Generated Sites: 44 th and Wadsworth: A review of this site by RMDS showed that it was too small for our use. It also has a retail focus. 38 th & Wadsworth: This site is sold. 44 th & Kipling: This site is not listed for sale. A RMDS representative contacted the seller who expressed interest in selling the land. However, preliminary discussions indicate the price would be higher than our budget allows as it is more ideally suited for retail or commercial use. In addition, this site has a gas station located

7 at its south east corner and has a configuration that is not ideal for school and athletic field use. 78 th and Indiana: This site was analyzed by RMDS as noted above in the Results section, and found to be financially unfeasible due to the need to construct a 2 lane bridge to access the site. Remodel Options deemed to be financially and functionally unfeasible included Maranatha Christian Center and Lincoln Academy Wright Street (Current Site) o Site selected because it meets a majority of the established criteria. o While zoning is in place for K 6 use, current rezoning efforts are being conducted to allow for K 12 which is considered a minor modification.

8 Rocky Mountain Deaf School List of Potential Sites Number Property Acreage Price $/SF Zoning Zoning Entity Notes Troy's Notes W. 58th Ave ,675,000 $ 1.67 PD Jeff Co Currently not an authorized use; Horse Stable Property. It may be possible to have open space path from this site to the future Jeff Co School. Parcel is flat. Property has existing buildings that can be razed. Future Jeff Co school is separated from property by planned residential development W. Belleview ,650,000 $ 1.05 A 2 Jeff Co This property is actually under contract. It is very desirable for our use based on size, location, topography, etc. We would need to make an offer to the new buyer who is unknown in a flip scenario. We believe that he is under contract for $1.2M and we would offer $1.6M as an incentive to sell. This provides a great level of uncertainty but if we feel the site is worth the effort we can make the offer. Zoning Changed needed (yes=adds complexity/ uncertainty) Part of a lager parcel (yes=added Price within budget complexity/ uncertainty) Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Exhibit A 3 C 470 Alameda Ave ,785,000 $ 4.10 CD RM Jeff Co Rooney Town Center. Carve out of larger parcel. Price needs negotiated. This has very good access and is the closest to the school. It is close to green mountain with access to numerous hiking trails and dinosaur ridge for education. This 10 acre parcel would need to be carved out of a larger master plan that includes apartments, office, and retail. The price reflected here was discussed with the developer but he has not fully agreed to it. For this price he would need to entitle it and have it "curb ready" which would be stated in the LOI. Yes Needs negotiated Yes needs negotiated 4 Belleview Ave and C ,940,000 $ 3.60 SU 117/4 Jeff Co Allows for Pre School and Private This has great visibility and access but the School through 8th Grade. site is sloped and would take some Currently no access to property. additional infrastructure cost. Also, access Will need right of way traffic and is an issue and the adjacent property utility easement from Alkire across third party property (the owner would sell his 2.87 acres for about $300k). Parcel has would need to be purchased putting the land above our budget amount. This could be negotiated but still adds an element of uncertainty. slope. 5 Jewell Avenue, just east of Wadsworth ,785,000 $ 4.10 Owner will rezone and water and sewer will be at the site; This should save about $1.31/sf in overall land cost Green Gables, private listing through Fuller Western. We spoke to managing partner and he would love to have your Met with the developer today. They are willing to work with us on price/location, however, we would need to submit an LOI at this price as it is above the $5/sf that he school on this site. Part of a larger has it listed for. There is a lot to work out site and price would need to be with the county on this master plan. This negotiated property is on the Green Gables golf course which will be developed in to primarily residential. There is a level of uncertainty with a number of issues but the site is very nice and will retain a lot of old trees. 6 Bowles Ave and Alkire St ,785,000 $ 4.10 CD/MU Jeff Co Next to C 470. Will send pricing Great access with additional, contiguous for ten acres tomorrow. Need to acreage. The total site is 13 acres and we know restrictions concerning would essentially buy a pad site of 10 distances to liquor stores (zoning acres. The other 3 acres is planned for is usually 500 ft). Parcel is flat. Part of a larger parcel and price needs to be negotiated. retail or office. Pricing has not been received and I have just put in an amount that is in our budget. Yes. Small change only making it less uncertain Out due to cost of 7890 Indiana Ct ,000 $ 1.46 A 1 Jeff Co Two bridges will cost between Like Site; needs bridge; access is not ideal n/a n/a infrastructure $700k and $1mm. Wetlands study will need to be done to build bridge. Out due to cost of NWC Simms St/12400 W Coal Mine Ave ,854,000 $ 3.75 PD 50/29 Jeff Co On Simms at Entrance to Peak Excellent site, but farther south. Great n/a n/a property, timing, and preference of seller to have residential use Wellness; This site is designated surrounding amenities for uses and access. Use Area #2 (corner of Simms and Broker said, they prefer residential. Ward) and a school is currently not an authorized use. Yes Yes Needs negotiated Needs negotiated Needs negotiated No. Actually needs to be combined with adjacent parcel Yes needs negotiated Yes already established as part of mixed use plan

9

10

11

12 R: SMALL LOT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (1) Purpose: The 2-R district is intended to provide for small-lot, suburban, one-family residential development. (2) Permitted Uses: No building or land within the 2-R District shall be used, and no building shall be hereafter constructed or altered, except for one or more of the following uses: a) Principal Uses 1. Churches.* 2. Community buildings.* 3. Dwelling unit, single family. 4. Emergency health care facilities, other than ambulance service facilities.* 5. Emergency, noncommercial, helipad.* 6. Irrigation ditches. 7. Outdoor civil defense public warning siren system. 8. Private nonprofit recreational facilities open to use by the public.* 9. Public fire and police stations.* 10. Public parks. 11. Public recreational facilities.* 12. Public transportation structures and facilities.* 13. Railroad rights-of-way, but not including railroad freight yards, passenger stations, or storage. 14. Schools, public, parochial, and private.* 15. Transit rights-of-way, including passenger stations.* 16. Utility facility. * These uses require approval of a site plan pursuant to Article 15 of this Ordinance prior to issuance of a building permit. b) Accessory Uses 1. Amateur radio towers and antennae. 2. Amusement centers in public or non-profit recreational facilities.* 3. Church parish house. 4. Clubhouses serving a Planned Development or Neighborhood Organization.* 5. Emergency shelters.* 6. Home occupation. 7. Keeping of household pets (see performance standards). 8. Off-street parking areas. 9. Private garage. 10. Private, noncommercial greenhouses. 11. Private noncommercial recreation facilities.* 12. Private, noncommercial swimming pools. 13. Residence for caretaker of public park or public recreation area if located in such park or area. Lakewood Zoning Ordinance 5-25 May 2011

13 14. Satellite dish antennas. See (2). 15. Storage sheds. 16. Workshops. * These uses require approval of a site plan pursuant to Article 15 of this Ordinance prior to issuance of a building permit. (3) Special Uses The following uses are permitted as Special Uses subject to approval of a Special Use Permit as provided for within Article 6 of this Ordinance: a) Bed and breakfast on lots only in excess of 10,000 square feet. b) Government office building or any subsequent use of a building originally constructed for or used as a government office building, subject to the restrictions and regulations of the Office (OF) Zone District. c) Group homes. d) Historical buildings, structures and sites. e) Utility facility, major. f) Wind-powered electric generators. (4) Unnamed Use: See Section (5) Development Standards. All development within the 2-R zone district shall, as a minimum, be in conformance with and meet the requirements of the standards listed in the following table. It shall be the responsibility of the Director of Community Planning and Development to make a determination on any omissions to these development standards. ITEM STANDARDS FOR 2-R MINIMUM LOT SIZE Newly platted lots must have a minimum size of 6,000 square feet MINIMUM LOT WIDTH (a) 60 for lots platted after January 22, (b) Historical width where evidence provided that lots were legally platted or created by deed and existed at current width prior to January 22, MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 35 : dwelling unit 20 : accessory buildings (see performance standards for this section) 15 : clubhouses (see performance standards for this section) 60 : wind powered generators MAXIMUM BUILDING 45% of square footage of the lot including the dwelling unit and accessory COVERAGE buildings. SETBACKS Front For a Habitable Structure: (All front setbacks are measured from the back of curb. If a curb does not exist, add 3 to the setback 25 from local streets; 35 from collector streets; 45 from arterial streets. value listed to the right and measure the setback from the edge of the asphalt. Front setbacks for flaglots shall be measured from the front point in the lot that meets the minimum lot width for the zone district. Attached Garages must be set back a minimum of : 18 from the back of a detached sidewalk, or 23 from the back of an attached sidewalk, or 29 from the edge of the asphalt or back of curb when no sidewalk is existing. All other accessory buildings must be behind the front edge of the principal Lakewood Zoning Ordinance 5-26 May 2011

14 A front setback also applies to other streets on the side or rear of a lot.) Side (Measured from property line.) Rear (Measured from property line.) FENCES Front, primary Front, non-primary, Side and Rear PARKING Dwelling unit, single family Other SIGNAGE Home Occupation Subdivision Identification (or Neighborhood Identification) Other structure. 5 : dwelling unit. 5 : detached accessory buildings or structures. 20 : dwelling unit. 5 : detached accessory buildings or structures. Type of Fence: Open Maximum Height: 42 Minimum Setback: property line or 2 back from the back edge of the traveled walkway or back of sidewalk, whichever is greater. Type of fence: Open or Solid Maximum Height: 72 Minimum Setback: property line for side and rear yards and 2 back from the back edge of the traveled walkway or back of sidewalk, whichever is greater. 2 off-street spaces per dwelling unit. Additional parking standards for all uses permitted in the 2-R Zone District may be found in Article 9 of this Ordinance. 1.5 square foot wall sign 50 square foot monument sign Sign standards for all other signs permitted in the 2-R Zone District may be found in Article 10 of this Ordinance. a) Lots: 1. No lot shall be reduced or diminished, nor shall any structure be so enlarged or moved, as to reduce below the minimum, the required yard, lot area, width of lot, open spaces, setbacks or other requirements of this zone district except where the Board of Adjustment grants a variance and the use of the remaining land within the zone district would not create a hazardous situation or be unreasonable. 2. Every main building or single household dwelling hereafter constructed in the 2-R zone district which is not part of a larger development that includes common facilities shall be located on a lot and in no case shall there be more than one (1) main building on one (1) lot. 3. A corner lot shall have a minimum of at least two (2) front yards, and a rear yard. 4. (4) Street Frontage - Cul-de-sac Lot. A cul-de-sac lot will have at least thirty (30) feet of street frontage. 5. The minimum lot area of any other main building constructed or altered, shall be not less than six thousand (6,000) square feet. Lakewood Zoning Ordinance 5-27 May 2011

15 b) Performance Standards: 1. Regulation of Illumination on Private Property. In the interest of compatibility of surrounding land uses, illumination of any kind on private property shall be directed, screened and controlled in such a manner so that there shall be no direct rays of light which extend beyond the boundaries of the property from where it originates, and the bulbs producing such light cannot be seen from adjacent properties or rights-of-way. The poles used to support outdoor lighting fixtures shall be set back a distance from the property line equal to, or exceeding the height of the pole. It is not the intent of this Section to regulate illumination of public non-commercial recreation facilities. 2. In addition to other applicable regulations, uses in every zone district shall comply with the applicable regulations set forth in this Zoning Ordinance for setbacks, fences, walls, and obstructions, off-street parking of motor vehicles, display of signs, secondary uses, accessory uses, and flood hazards. 3. Amateur Radio Towers and Antennas. The maximum height for amateur radio towers and antennae shall be seventy (70) feet. The height shall be measured at the highest point of the tower and antenna structure. The front yard setback must be equal to or greater than the setback for the primary structure but in no case shall the setback be less than the required front yard setback in the applicable zone district. No setback from a property line shall be less than the height of the tower. All portions of the tower, including support structures shall be entirely within the property lines. Retractable towers are also permitted but shall be retracted when not in operation. The maximum height of a retractable tower shall be based on its height when extended. Towers and antennas shall be of a neutral color and shall not be painted or otherwise treated to call attention to themselves. 4. Private garages, storage sheds, private noncommercial recreation facilities and workshops. No such structure or combination of structures shall exceed ten (10) percent of the lot area, up to a maximum of eighteen hundred (1800) square feet. A private garage constructed as an integral part of the main building shall not be subject to this size limitation provided it is smaller than the habitable portion of the main building and the garage door openings are in compliance with the standards for garages as set forth in Article 15 of this Ordinance. The square footage of any such use which is an integral part of the main building shall be deducted from the maximum square footage permitted in a detached accessory structure. All accessory structures may be two story with a maximum height of twenty (20) feet, shall not include any habitable area as defined by the Uniform Building Code and such buildings shall not qualify to have a Certificate of Occupancy issued. Clubhouses (play houses and play structures) shall be one story and shall not exceed a height of fifteen (15) feet. Lakewood Zoning Ordinance 5-28 May 2011

16 Detached facilities that are less than one hundred twenty (120) square feet and do not exceed ten (10) feet in height shall be exempt from side and rear setback requirements, but shall not be placed within a designated easement, flood plain, or floodway. 5. A mobile home or other structure may be used temporarily for office purposes during construction or remodeling activities connected with a use permitted on a lot, provided that: (a) The mobile home or other structure is removed from the site when the construction or remodeling is completed; (b) The mobile home or other structure is adequately secured against damage and overturning by winds; and (c) The mobile home or other structure meets the requirements of the Building Code regarding construction, foundation, blocking and utilities, and such compliance is evidenced by issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for a period of one (1) year, with one renewal permitted but not to exceed a total period of two (2) years. 6. The property owner for any proposed development in this Zone District which proposes to create two (2) or more residential lots shall submit with the subdivision, design controls and standards, which comply with Article 15 of the Zoning Ordinance. Said design controls and standards shall be adhered to as approved or may be amended in accordance with Article The keeping of household pets defined as regulated species shall not exceed a total of five (5) per household, except that no more than three (3) of any species shall be allowed. Servant animals shall be allowed in addition to household pets. Lakewood Zoning Ordinance 5-29 May 2011

17 Conceptual Site Plan 2090 S. Wright Street - Rocky Mountain Deaf School

18 NEIGHBORHOOD REFERRAL MEETING SUMMARY Case No.: Project Manager: Applicant: Owner: Location: Request: ZP Sheila Lynch, Associate Planner Tim Reed, Jefferson County R-1 Schools Jefferson County R-1 School District 2992 South Wright Street To rezone from the Green Mountain Village Official Development Plan to Small Lot Residential (2-R) zone district to allow for the Rocky Mountain Deaf School, a Pre-Kindergarten through Twelfth Grade Jefferson County Charter School. Date: January 12, 2012 Time: Location: 6:00 p.m. Dunstan Middle School, 1855 South Wright Street Neighborhoods Groups Notified: City Staff: Sheila Lynch, Associate Planner, Planning Department Evelyn Baker, Planning- Development Assistance Manager, Planning Department Residents in attendance: Approximately 103 This is a summary of the neighborhood referral meeting. It is not inclusive of all the details, but rather a summary of the main points discussed at the meeting. Staff s Presentation: Staff opened the meeting with introductions of the City staff present and the topic of the meeting. Staff explained the meeting format and the City s role. Staff explained the process for a property owner to rezone property in the City. Staff explained the quasi-judicial nature of rezoning applications and that contact with the Planning Commission or City Council should occur through staff with written comments or at the public hearings. Staff also provided a brief history of the zoning on the property and why the proposal of constructing a K-12 th grade facility requires the property be rezoned. Staff introduced Tim Reed, Jefferson County R-1 Schools and Nancy Bridenbaugh, Rocky Mountain Deaf School (RMDS).

19 ZP Meeting Date: January 12, 2012 Page 2 of 4 Applicant s Presentation: Tim Reed provided the history of the site including an explanation of the current zoning. Mr. Reed explained that the property was acquired by Jefferson County R-1 Schools from the developer of this area in The original vision for the Green Mountain Village Planned Development included five school sites and this is one of the sites planned for an elementary school. The site is approximately 9.5 acres in size and there is not a need for a Jeffco elementary school at the site at this time. Mr. Reed provided a brief explanation of the proposal including why Jeffco Schools is proposing a charter school at this site and an explanation of the proposed process for Jefferson County to sell the property to the Rocky Mountain Deaf School. RMDS is a charter school of Jeffco Schools. They have their own board of directors, educational approach and management separate from Jeffco Schools. Jeffco Schools will not participate in the funding for the construction of a new RMDS and the proceeds from the land sale will be reinvested in the capital needs of Jeffco Schools. Ms. Bridenbaugh continued the presentation explaining RMDS proposal for a pre-kindergarten through 12 th grade facility. The RMDS has received a grant from the State of Colorado to construct a facility that will better serve the educational needs of the deaf students that they serve. Ms. Bridenbaugh explained the types of building and design considerations that are important in constructing a facility that serves their students well. Ms. Bridenbraugh explained that the proposed facility is 46,000 square feet and will be designed to serve approximately 100 students. The current enrollment of the RMDS is 55 students but they plan to expand to approximately 100 students. The architect for the RMDS reviewed several schematic designs for the site. Topics of Discussion: Residents attending the meeting raised a number of questions around the following issues: 1. The benefits of building a new school versus using an existing facility 2. Environmental impact of the proposed development and disturbance of wildlife 3. Existing wildlife including rattlesnakes may be a danger 4. Increase traffic on South Wright Street and other neighborhood streets 5. Loss of views from residential homes across the property 6. Alternative sites for the proposed school 7. Signs on the school property that stated Open Space A summary of the issues discussed is provided below: 1. The benefits of a new school versus using an existing facility Meeting attendees expressed their concerns about building a new facility when there are many Jeffco facilities that are underutilized. Attendees asked if RMDS had looked into other locations and they responded that the other sites did not meet their needs. Attendees offered to send additional real estate leads to Nancy Bridenbaugh. 2. Environmental impact of the proposed development and disturbance of wildlife Meeting Attendees asked if an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required for the project. City staff explained that an EIS is not required as a part of the rezoning application. Nancy S:\Development Review\Cases\DAT12\RZ S Wright St\neighborhood meeting #1\Neighborhood meeting summary doc

20 ZP Meeting Date: January 12, 2012 Page 3 of 4 Bridenbaugh explained that an EIS is not required by the State but that a Phase 1 Environmental Assessment was conducted. Attendees expressed concern for the wildlife that use this area as a corridor to travel to larger open spaces. 3. Existing wildlife including rattlesnakes may be a danger Attendees mentioned that there are rattlesnakes in the gulch area in Hutchinson Park and that they are concerned about the danger that poses to future students. 4. Increase traffic on South Wright Street and other neighborhood streets Increased traffic was one of the most common comments expressed at the meeting. Attendees were concerned that the increase in traffic generated by the school would pose a danger to nearby residents, especially young neighborhood residents. They were concerned that traffic would not be limited to South Wright Street but will spill over to other neighborhood streets. Concerns were also raised that the original Official Development Plan showed South Wright Street extending further south and eventually providing access to Morrison Road. They expressed that the dead end condition on South Wright Street would force traffic into the neighborhood to the west as people looked for alternative routes. 5. Loss of views from residential homes across the property Attendees expressed that they are concerned that the views that they enjoy of the mountains and downtown will be lost with the development of this site. Many people said that they purchased in the area because of the great views. It was also expressed that the property is a great spot to watch fireworks and that will be lost if the property is developed. 6. Alternative sites for the proposed school People asked what other sites the RMDS is pursuing. Nancy Bridenbaugh explained that RMDS has looked into numerous properties and none have met their needs. She explained that in order to fulfill the BEST grant for the State, there are certain criteria that the site location must meet. She also said that she is open to looking at additional sites but that their search has not resulted in other options. 7. Signs on the school property that stated Open Space A few attendees brought up that the property used to have signs posted that said Lakewood Open Space. Staff explained that there were signs on the property to deter ATV and other motorized recreational vehicles. The signs were most likely placed there to address neighbors concerns about ATV use in the area. Once City staff realized that the signs were not on City property, the signs were removed. City staff closed the meeting by describing the processes for the proposed development, the public notices that would be sent and the steps the applicant must follow. They are: 1. Formal application submittal will initiate a rezoning case. The applicant will need to decide when the submittal is appropriate. S:\Development Review\Cases\DAT12\RZ S Wright St\neighborhood meeting #1\Neighborhood meeting summary doc

21 ZP Meeting Date: January 12, 2012 Page 4 of 4 2. Rezoning requires Planning Commission and City Council public hearings. Notices are mailed to property owners within 500 feet and neighborhood organizations within 1,000 feet. Public input is taken at each public hearing. The meeting adjourned at about 8:30 p.m. CC: Case file ZP Applicant S:\Development Review\Cases\DAT12\RZ S Wright St\neighborhood meeting #1\Neighborhood meeting summary doc

22 NEIGHBORHOOD REFERRAL MEETING SUMMARY Case No.: Project Manager: Applicant: Owner: Location: Request: RZ Evelyn Baker, Manager, Planning-Development Assistance Division Tim Reed, Jefferson County R-1 Schools Jefferson County R-1 School District 2090 South Wright Street To rezone from the Green Mountain Village Official Development Plan to Small Lot Residential (2-R) zone district to allow for the Rocky Mountain Deaf School, a Pre-Kindergarten through Twelfth Grade Jefferson County Charter School. Date: April 3, 2012 Time: Location: Neighborhoods Groups Notified: City Staff: 6:00 p.m. Green Mountain High School Auditorium Green Mountain Dr. Lakewood, CO Ward 4 Coalition Mark Doering, Principal Planner, Planning Department Paul Rice, Principal Planner, Planning Department No. of Attendees: Approximately 200 This is a summary of the second neighborhood meeting. It is not inclusive of all the details, but rather a summary of the main points discussed at the meeting. City Staff s Presentation Evelyn Baker, City staff, opened the meeting with an overview of the agenda for the meeting. Staff reviewed the ground rules for the meeting, provided a summary of the rezoning request, and explained the rezoning process. Staff explained the quasi-judicial nature of rezoning applications and described some of the opportunities for public comment. Staff summarized the comments that were heard at the first neighborhood meeting at in January 2012, and then provided responses to some frequently asked questions related to the ownership of the site, the reverter clause in the Official Development Plan, and the distinction between open space and vacant undeveloped sites.

23 ZP Meeting Date: April 3, 2012 Page 2 of 6 Staff explained the implications of the quasi-judicial nature of the proposed rezoning, described ways in which public comment may be provided to decision makers, went over the public notice process and shared the tentative public hearing schedule for the rezoning request. Staff then introduced Tim Reed, Jefferson County R-1 Schools and Nancy Bridenbaugh, Rocky Mountain Deaf School (RMDS). Applicant s Presentation Tim Reed, the applicant and district representative, provided the history of the development of the neighborhood, and explained how that the site was deeded directly from the developer to the school district in The original vision for the Green Mountain Village Planned Development included five school sites (four elementary schools and one middle school). Of the five sites, only one was developed for school purposes. Three were converted to open space within the neighborhood development. The 2090 S. Wright Street site is the only remaining site that was set aside for an elementary school. The site is approximately 10.3 acres in size. While the site has remained undeveloped, it has been rough graded, and Jefferson County Public Schools has granted a number of easements on site. Mr. Reed provided a preliminary drainage site plan and described the proposed layout of the site. In addition, Mr. Reed provided an east-west site section showing the maximum building height that would be allowed in the proposed 2-R rezoning, in relationship to the topography of the site, the height of an existing home along S. Wright Street, and the proposed height of the new RMDS building. Mr. Reed indicated that the proceeds of the sale of the land to RMDS would be used to address deficiencies within the Hutchinson - Green Mountain neighborhood schools. Finally, Mr. Reed described the relationship between Jeffco Schools and the RMDS. Specifically, he clarified that this is a real estate transaction between the two parties and that Jeffco Schools will not be providing any funding for the project, nor would they be involved in the management or operation of the school. Ms. Bridenbaugh continued the presentation by introducing the Rocky Mountain Deaf School, describing who they are, and providing an overview of their program. She stated that the current enrollment is 55, and that they plan to grow to a maximum of 100 students. Ms. Bridenbaugh also presented information about the grant that RMDS had received from the State s Building Excellent Schools Today (BEST) Grant program and responded to previous requests to consider other sites for the new school facilities. She described the school s neighborhood outreach efforts. Staff concluded the presentations with information about the tentative public hearing dates for this rezoning request. Topics of Discussion The top three topics of discussion were: 1. Ownership of the property 2. Open space 3. Traffic In addition, questions and comments were provided regarding the following: S:\Development Review\Cases\DAT12\RZ S Wright St\Neighborhood Meeting #2\Neighborhood meeting #2 - summary.docx

24 ZP Meeting Date: April 3, 2012 Page 3 of 6 4. Process 5. Disturbance of wildlife (e.g. prairie dogs and elk) 6. Existing zoning and proposed rezoning 7. Conceptual Site Plan 8. RMDS operations 9. Site selection A summary of these topics, and other general comments and questions, is provided below. 1. Ownership of the Property The ownership of the 2090 S. Wright Street property was a major point of discussion at this second neighborhood meeting. Meeting attendees requested more information about the reverter clause in the ODP which outlined a process for transferring land identified for school purposes from the developer to the school district, through the City. Questions were raised regarding how the City was planning to address the fact that the land transfer process outlined in the ODP was not followed. Staff restated that zoning documents are not typically the instrument by which ownership is regulated. While City staff is not sure why the land was transferred directly from the developer to the school district, the City s legal staff has reviewed the issue. Because the developer conveyed the land directly to the District, the City of Lakewood has never owned or held any interest in the property. While the language in the ODP states that the property shall revert to the City of Lakewood, no such reverter could ever occur because title can only revert to someone who previously owned the property, and the City has never owned this land. In addition, the City s legal staff has indicated that the right to assert a legal challenge to the conveyance by the developer to the School District was lost many years ago, before the statute of limitations expired for such a claim. As a result, the City has no ability to seek to reverse or undo the conveyance that occurred in A number of members of the public commented that, while the City s legal staff may have expressed an opinion on this matter, cases where the legal ownership of the land is in question can only be resolved in court. One member of the public described conversations he had had in the past with representatives from both the school district and the City in which he was told that since the district saw no need for a school at this site, the district had intended to transfer the land to the City of Lakewood. 2. Open space Open space was another major topic of discussion at the neighborhood meeting. A number of members of the public commented that the availability of open space was a major factor in their decision to buy a home in this neighborhood. There was repeated concern expressed regarding the signs that were mistakenly placed on the 2090 S. Wright St site that identified the property as City of Lakewood Open Space. Staff reiterated that while the City has no formalized system in place to track the installation of city signs, it is thought that the signs were placed on the site as a result of complaints received about off-road motor vehicles. In response to these complaints, a Community Resources crew member likely drove out to the site, and, seeing no discernable property boundaries in the field, placed the sign on the school district s 10-acre property, instead of on the City s adjacent 27-acre open space property. S:\Development Review\Cases\DAT12\RZ S Wright St\Neighborhood Meeting #2\Neighborhood meeting #2 - summary.docx

25 ZP Meeting Date: April 3, 2012 Page 4 of 6 A question was asked about the availability of open space in the surrounding neighborhood. While no exact data regarding the amount of open space in the area was available at this meeting, the general response was that this part of town has quite a lot of open space along corridors and within Green Mountain. 3. Traffic Increased traffic was the third major topic of the comments from neighborhood stakeholders at the meeting. Attendees expressed concern that the increase in traffic generated by the school would pose a danger to nearby residents, especially children. They were concerned that traffic would not be limited to South Wright Street but would spill over to other neighborhood streets. City staff reiterated that the original ODP anticipated a school at this site, and South Wright Street was designed to accommodate this use, and, therefore, the City s Traffic Engineering Manager had determined that no additional traffic study would be needed. Attendees pointed out again that the original ODP anticipated that South Wright Street would extend further south and eventually providing access to Morrison Road. Because the through-street was never completed, and was finally constructed as a dead-end street, a concern was expressed that the road was no longer adequate to accommodate a new school at this site, and traffic would spill into the neighborhood to the west as people looked for alternative routes. RMDS pointed out that while the City was not requiring a traffic study for the proposed rezoning, the RMDS had one prepared anyway. The conclusion of the traffic study was that while there would be an increase in traffic with the school, that increase could be accommodated by the existing road network. The traffic study was reviewed by the City s Traffic Engineering Manager, and was determined to be satisfactory. A member of the public requested information regarding the process for challenging the City s Traffic Engineering Manager s determination. City staff explained that the staff report would include an analysis of traffic issues. The staff report will be available to the public one week prior to the public hearing. Any member of the public has the ability then to comment on that analysis, either in writing, or as part of the public hearing process. For comparison purposes, meeting attendees asked for more information regarding the percentage of students that walk, or take the bus to Devinny school. No specific data was available at this meeting, however the district representative confirmed that only a small percentage of students walk to school. 4. Process Meeting attendees asked what must be considered in reviewing rezoning requests. Staff explained that the Zoning Ordinance outlines the findings that are required to approve a rezoning request, and confirmed that rezoning requests must be consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Meeting attendees also asked for clarification regarding how public comment would be factored into the final decision. Staff reiterated that the final decision on this rezoning request would be S:\Development Review\Cases\DAT12\RZ S Wright St\Neighborhood Meeting #2\Neighborhood meeting #2 - summary.docx

26 ZP Meeting Date: April 3, 2012 Page 5 of 6 made by the City Council, and that the City Council would consider public comment, the recommendation from the Planning Commission, and the staff report in making their decision. A number of meeting attendees expressed disappointment with how the City has handled the process so far in terms of following through with the ownership process outlined in the ODP (see Issue #1 above), and the inaccurate signage on site (see Issue #2 above). 5. Disturbance of wildlife Meeting attendees expressed concern for the wildlife that use this area as a corridor to travel to larger open spaces, and again questioned if any kind of study would be prepared to evaluate the impact to wildlife. Staff reiterated that no such study was required for the proposed rezoning. Comments were also made regarding the past removal of prairie dogs in this area, and the possible danger of rattlesnakes on site. 6. Existing Zoning and Proposed Rezoning Members of the public asked questions regarding the existing PD Zoning. Staff clarified that the existing zoning calls for an elementary school use at this site. Because RMDS is a pre-k to 12 school, and because the existing zoning document described a process for the transfer of land which was not followed, a determination was made that the site would need to be rezoned. The 2-R zone district was felt to be most compatible with the existing development pattern in the surrounding neighborhood, and would allow for a school use pre-k to 12 school. In response to a question, staff clarified that there would be no cap on the number of students enrolled. Meeting attendees asked what would happen if the site was rezoned to 2-R, the RMDS school was built, and then, at some time in the future, the school were to close. Staff explained that zone district regulations include a range of uses that are determined to be appropriate in a particular context. Other allowable uses within the 2-R zone district include single family residential uses, churches, and community facilities. Another meeting attendee asked what the district would do with the site if the rezoning did not go through. The district representative responded that the site would remain in the district s inventory, but that there were no other plans for the site at this time. 7. Conceptual Site Plan A member of the public asked for additional explanation of the conceptual site plan. The district representative clarified that the school would be 80 feet back from the southern property line, and explained that the proposed building would be set into the grade to help protect the views of the properties to the west. The applicant confirmed that athletic fields would not be lit and would be accessible to the public. 8. RMDS operations A number of meeting attendees asked questions or made comments regarding RMDS operations. RMDS reiterated that the maximum enrollment that they are anticipating is 100 students, confirmed that the school would not be year round, acknowledged that the school had S:\Development Review\Cases\DAT12\RZ S Wright St\Neighborhood Meeting #2\Neighborhood meeting #2 - summary.docx

27 ZP Meeting Date: April 3, 2012 Page 6 of 6 been discussing budget challenges, and provided information regarding the school s neighborhood outreach efforts. In addition, RMDS explained that as they move forward with the final design of the school, they would welcome a representative from the neighborhood to sit on the design committee. RMDS reiterated that they would like to be good neighbors. A member of the public asked about the deadline for RMDS to use the BEST grant. RMDS responded that the grant moneys would need be spent by November 2012, and, if the rezoning is approved, they would hope that the school would open in the Fall of Site Selection A number of neighborhood residents asked for more information regarding RMDS site selection process. RMDS indicated that they had completed a very broad search for appropriate sites, and had identified the 2090 S. Wright Street site as the preferred alternative because of its size, and location, because there was a relatively flat area for construction, and because the property is at the end of a dead-end street. Meeting attendees asked about other specific possible sites. Representatives from both RMDS and the school district described why these other sites were determined to be unsuitable. A few comments were made questioning RMDS efforts to find another site. 10. Other Comments/Questions There were some general comments made regarding community values, including open space and education, and the perceived benefits, or lack thereof, related to locating the RMDS at the 2090 S. Wright Street. At one point a member of the audience asked for a showing of those in attendance that were in opposition to the proposal a large number of attendees raised their hands. A request for a showing of those that were in support of the proposal was also made a slightly smaller number of attendees indicated their support. (Note: no official count was taken of the responses to either question.) A number of neighborhood residents spoke to clarify that they were not in opposition to the RMDS as a school/organization, but that they felt this site was not appropriate. A number of supporters of the RMDS stated that RMDS provides important educational services to students with special needs that cannot be met by the school district, and that they do not want to hurt the neighborhood, but that they hope to be a part of the neighborhood and that the neighborhood would be proud. City staff thanked the meeting attendees for participating in the neighborhood meeting and the meeting adjourned at about 8:30 p.m. S:\Development Review\Cases\DAT12\RZ S Wright St\Neighborhood Meeting #2\Neighborhood meeting #2 - summary.docx

28 October 26, 2011 Ms. Nancy Bridenbaugh Interim Director Rocky Mountain Deaf School 1921 Youngfield Street, # 204 Golden, CO Re: Traffic Evaluation 2090 S. Wright Street School Site FHU Reference No Dear Ms. Bridenbaugh: A new facility is being planned for the Rocky Mountain Deaf School. The proposed school site is located in Lakewood, Colorado, along the east side of South Wright Street near the intersection at West Warren Avenue. This property is currently vacant, with designated open space bordering on the north and east, and single family residential development on the south and west. Current site planning efforts indicate a new 46,107 square foot school building, which will accommodate K-12 operations for approximately 100 students. The purpose of this brief letter report is to document the existing traffic volumes along Wright Street, estimate the trip generation potential of the new school, and evaluate the resultant total traffic volumes relative to City of Lakewood Standards. Existing Conditions Access to the school would be via Wright Street, a two-lane local roadway. In the vicinity of the site, the cross section measures approximately 42 feet between the curbs. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. The intersection of Wright Street and Jewell Avenue (located to the north of the school site) is currently signalized. All other intersections in the vicinity of the site are unsignalized, with STOP sign control on the approaches to Wright Street. An automated 24-hour traffic volume count was recently conducted on Wright Street adjacent to the site (traffic data is attached). Currently, the daily traffic volume is approximately 480 vehicles per day (VPD) adjacent to the site. Per the City of Lakewood s TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING DESIGN STANDARDS, March 2007, local streets, such as Wright Street, have a typical maximum daily traffic volume threshold of 2,500 VPD. Therefore, current traffic volumes are well below this standard. Peak hour volumes range from about 35 vehicles per hour (VPH) during the AM peak hour and 50 VPH during the PM peak hour. The attached figure summarizes the existing traffic volumes.

29 October 26, 2011 Ms. Nancy Bridenbaugh Page 2 Trip Generation A trip generation analysis was conducted for the proposed school based on rates contained in TRIP GENERATION, 8 th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Rocky Mountain Deaf School is a unique generator; however, it is estimated that average per-student rates for K-12 private schools would approximate the trip generation characteristics of the proposed school. The following table summarizes the resultant site trip generation estimates. Table 1. Trip Generation Rocky Mountain Deaf School Daily AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Land Use Size Trips In Out Total In Out Total School (1) 100 Students ITE Code 536 Private School (K-12), trip generation rates as follows: Daily: 2.48 trips per student (50 percent in, 50 percent out) AM Peak Hour: 0.81 trips per student (61 percent in, 39 percent out) PM Peak Hour: 0.58 trips per student (42 percent in, 58 percent out) Site Traffic Assignment Unlike typical public schools, the Rocky Mountain Deaf School is expected to attract students from throughout the region, rather than the adjacent neighborhoods. Based on the location of the site within the metro area and relative to major roadway connections, the following trip distribution has been estimated: 30 percent to/from the north 30 percent to/from the east 20 percent to from the south 20 percent to/from the west The majority of site traffic would use Wright Street to access Jewell Avenue, a major collector roadway, to travel to and from the school. However, about 20 percent of site traffic could be expected to use the Iliff Avenue/Yale Avenue connection to access Bear Creek Boulevard. The attached figure depicts the resultant site generated traffic assignment. As shown, approximately 200 VPD would be added to Wright Street north of the school site, with 50 VPD oriented to/from the south. By comparing these estimates to the existing counts, it can be seen that the proposed school would represent traffic increases of 10 to 42 percent on a daily basis. The site generated peak hour components are 46 to 65 VPH north of the site and 12 to 16 VPH south of the site. Total Traffic Volumes and Projected Impacts By adding the site generated traffic volumes to the existing counts, the total projected traffic volumes for Wright Street are obtained. As indicated on the figure, this roadway would experience between about 530 and 680 VPD adjacent to the school site. Peak hour volumes would range between approximately 51 and 110 VPH.

30