SITE Aerial Map
SITE Zoning Map
NEIGHBORHOOD REFERRAL MEETING SUMMARY Case No.: Project Manager: Applicant: Owner: Location: Request: ZP-09-019 Paul Rice, Principal Planner Tim Carl, Development & Transportation Director, Jefferson County Jefferson County 260 South Kipling Street The applicant is proposing to rezone from Large Lot Residential (1-R) to Planned Development (PD) to permit a mix of commercial, office, and residential uses. Date: September 8, 2009 Time: Location: 6:30 p.m. Community Room, Lakewood Cultural Center Neighborhoods Groups Notified: Alameda Homes HOA, Mid-Lakewood Civic Association, West Star HOA, and the Denver Federal Center City Staff: Anne Heine and Paul Rice, Planning and Public Works, Adrian Stanciu, Finance Residents in attendance: A total of 20 people signed the meeting sign-in sheet and 22 neighborhood residents were in attendance at the meeting. Staff opened the meeting with introductions; followed by an explanation of meeting protocol, the neighborhood-meeting format and the rezoning process. Applicant s presentation: Tim Carl, Development & Transportation Director, Jefferson County began the applicant presentation and introduced John Wolforth, Planning Director, Jefferson County. Mr. Carl explained that two special use permits were required for the two existing county offices presently on-site and stated that there was
ZP-09-019 September 9, 2009 Page 2 of 7 no timetable for relocating the existing county services to another location. Mr. Carl stated that they would like to rezone the property to allow for retail and commercial services at this location and that the County proposal was not at the level of detail seen when a developer has been located for the site. The County is looking at defining use areas and written restrictions specific for this site. Mr. Carl stated that any rezoning proposal would be consistent with the Lakewood Comprehensive Plan and the Alameda Cornerstone Plan. The proposal is to rezone from Large Lot Residential (1-R) to Planned Development (PD) to create an Official Development Plan (ODP), which is customized and specific to the site and would outline what future development could occur at the site. Topics of discussion: Residents attending the neighborhood meeting raised a number of concerns and questions. The following is a summary of those questions and resulting discussions between residents, the applicant, and staff: Question: How large is the property? Applicant: The property is 17.4 acres in size. The applicant also stated that the County was working with an engineering consultant to address traffic issues and city engineering requirements. Question: Would the Alameda frontage road be extended? Applicant: Yes, Alameda would connect to the west. Question: Do you have a specific buyer for the property? Applicant: There is no specific buyer for the property. Question: Why is the County selling the property? Applicant: The County has performed an assessment of all County owned properties and would like to sell this property and use the proceeds for the general fund. Question: Who really wants to rezone this property the City or the County? Applicant: The County approached the City about rezoning this property. Question: Did you say that you had no buyer? Has any developer approached you with an interest in the property? Applicant: There is no specific buyer for the site. Question: Will the property be placed for sale as residential use? S:\Development Review\Cases\DAT09\RZ09003-260 S Kipling\Planning Commission\NBH Meeting Minutes 09-08-09.doc
ZP-09-019 September 9, 2009 Page 3 of 7 Applicant: No, the County would like to rezone the property for a commercial and office uses. Question: Could the property be sold as residential? Applicant: Yes, but the Board of County Commissioners has chosen to move forward with the entitlement process for commercial and office uses. Question: What will happen to the existing services? Applicant: Those services will be maintained and the County will coordinate relocation of those services. Question: Might this require a new building? Applicant: Yes, it might. Question: At what point in the process will we know the number of stories proposed for buildings? Applicant: We should have the height determined by the time of a formal submittal. Question: Does this request go to the Planning Commission? Staff: Yes, there will be a hearing before both the Planning Commission and City Council after staff reviews the ODP for conformance with city regulations. Applicant: There is no specific timetable to get before the Planning Commission. I am willing to use the Performance Review process to work with the neighborhood residents. Question: If you rezone the property would you sell it with or without the existing buildings? Applicant: We would sell the property as is; the developer would decide if they wanted to reuse the building or demolish them and start anew. Question: In your ideal world when would you present this to the City? Applicant: We would like to have a submittal by mid to late October. Question: It is important to address traffic on Cedar for the kids that use the fields to the north. Increasing traffic would not be good for the kids. Applicant: It is imperative that we look at traffic on Cedar. Question: Why are you looking at PD and not a specific zoning district like OF or 4-R? S:\Development Review\Cases\DAT09\RZ09003-260 S Kipling\Planning Commission\NBH Meeting Minutes 09-08-09.doc
ZP-09-019 September 9, 2009 Page 4 of 7 Applicant: With the PD district, we can be more specific to the site and met or exceed the City standards for design. Question: Does the PD lock us into a development, how do you address higher traffic volumes? Applicant: We are willing to work with the neighborhood to define uses. Question: What specific zone district would allow CCU to locate on this site? Staff: I would need to check the zoning districts but the office and commercial districts may allow CCU, as well as the multi-family residential districts with a special use permit. Question: Jeffco Health is just now identified with this location, why can t you improve those services, and get CCU to locate on the vacant portion of the site? Applicant: The County would like to set the entitlements for the property, which would then hold future development to those standards. Question: Are you aware how the vacant portion of the lot is used? Applicant: No. Neighbor Statement: The property is used for parking. People used to park on Cedar, but the police enforced no parking on Cedar and now nobody parks on the asphalt, now they park in the field. Parking could be lost with this development. The Bonview neighborhood meeting is in March, you should come talk to our group in March. Our neighborhood is unique; everyone loves their ½ acre lots. I think this is a bad idea. I came to the meeting with an open mind but this is not the best use for the site. I think you should first try to sell the property as residential. Applicant: Thank you for your thoughts. Question: Traffic patterns will not change with the park to the north? Applicant: Correct, we are planning no changes. Question: In your experience, how long from your submittal to when the construction starts? Applicant: I do not have an answer to that question; the city process is a 6-month process. Question: What would the County like to see the property used for? S:\Development Review\Cases\DAT09\RZ09003-260 S Kipling\Planning Commission\NBH Meeting Minutes 09-08-09.doc
ZP-09-019 September 9, 2009 Page 5 of 7 Applicant: Commercial, office and residential uses. More specifically banks, offices, gas station, grocery, etc Question: It sounds like you are talking about the more modern type of development that is self-contained? Applicant: Yes, something similar but not all of those uses would be located on the site. Question: A property with those types of uses would be more valuable? Applicant: Yes, if the property is rezoned. Question: The property is not for sale right now? Applicant: No, the property is not for sale. Question: It is not as valuable if it is not rezoned? Applicant: That is correct. Question: I sat on the DFC roundtable, and with the development of light rail and future development at the DFC, this development will have traffic impacts to the area. Applicant: Absolutely, yes. Question: On the NW corner of the DFC, they want to put a park and some shopping, and we have development on the SW corner. This proposal needs to be looked at with the possibility of locating CCU to this site. Applicant: I appreciate your input. Neighbor Statement: CCU wants to develop in this area after its plans to move fell through. Would this be enough property for them to expand? I am not sure but it would help and it could be used specifically for housing. Neighbor Statement: CCU is now a university and needs more land; it is unclear how much but individual houses have been purchased in surrounding neighborhoods for classes or housing because they cannot fill all their campus housing needs. They are looking for a large parcel of land, the neighborhood purchase are just a stopgap measure. Applicant: Thank you for the discussion. Question: I have a procedural question; do you need the City s permission to rezone the property? S:\Development Review\Cases\DAT09\RZ09003-260 S Kipling\Planning Commission\NBH Meeting Minutes 09-08-09.doc
ZP-09-019 September 9, 2009 Page 6 of 7 Applicant: Yes. Neighbor Statement: It would be a shame to move the mental health center. Question: There is a report that home values are increasing in the neighborhoods next to Belmar, is this true? Staff: I do not have statistics for the neighborhoods adjacent to Belmar, but homes in Belmar have some of the highest prices in Jefferson County. Neighbor Statement: Traffic will be terrible with any new development. With development at the DFC and hospital site, what happens if you put a grocery store in there; it will be a nightmare to deal with the traffic. Neighbor Statement: The Alameda and Wadsworth intersection is awful. Applicant: Thank you for your discussion. Question: Is Jefferson County in a position to sell the property ASAP? Is this tied to the hospital development? Applicant: The direction came from the Board of County Commissioners, there is no sense of urgency to sell the property and the request is not tied to the hospital development. Question: What happened to the Safeway plan? Neighbor: It went away, although they might be interested in this site. Question: Looking at West Colfax, and Sheridan, all those stores that are not there, why are now thinking about rezoning with all those vacant commercial stores? I do not want to see blight moving from one area to another. Applicant: The rezoning request does not mean that you will have development over night that turns into vacant property and then blight. Question: How many other properties is the County going to rezone? Applicant: The County owns 92 properties and right now only this property would be for sale. Question: I have worked at 6 schools and the school district, would the school district want the land? Applicant: We have not had any interest from the school district. S:\Development Review\Cases\DAT09\RZ09003-260 S Kipling\Planning Commission\NBH Meeting Minutes 09-08-09.doc
ZP-09-019 September 9, 2009 Page 7 of 7 Question: Will the engineering consultant address traffic at Kipling and Alameda? Applicant: Yes, the traffic study will address Kipling and Alameda, as well as Cedar and surrounding local and arterial streets. Question: Does the traffic study take into account development on the south side of Alameda? Applicant: Yes, the traffic study looks at a worst-case scenario with future development and intensity of uses. Question: Does this proposal include an opportunity to open the frontage road? Applicant: Yes. Question: Will there be minutes? Staff: Yes, I will email the minutes to the HOA groups that were notified of the meeting. Question: Will there be another neighborhood meeting? Applicant: Yes. Staff closed the meeting by saying that staff will work with the applicant to schedule a second neighborhood meeting and that everyone is welcome to contact staff or the applicant to further discuss the project. Notice will also be sent when hearing dates are determined for the Planning Commission and City Council. The meeting concluded at approximately 7:50 p.m. CC: ZP-09-019 Tim Gelston, Development Review Manager Anne Heine, City Engineer Ben Mehmen, Civil Engineer III John Padon, Principal Traffic Engineer Shawn DeJong, Engineering Development Assistance Coordinator Adrian Stanciu, Property and Purchasing Services Manager CMO Friday Report S:\Development Review\Cases\DAT09\RZ09003-260 S Kipling\Planning Commission\NBH Meeting Minutes 09-08-09.doc
NEIGHBORHOOD REFERRAL MEETING SUMMARY Case No.: Project Manager: Applicant: Owner: Location: Request: RZ-09-003 Paul Rice, Principal Planner Tim Carl, Development & Transportation Director, Jefferson County Jefferson County 260 South Kipling Street The applicant is proposing to rezone from Large Lot Residential (1-R) to Planned Development (PD) to permit a mix of commercial, office, and residential uses. Date: January 12, 2010 Time: Location: 6:30 p.m. Community Room, Lakewood Cultural Center Neighborhoods Groups Notified: Alameda Homes HOA, Mid-Lakewood Civic Association, West Star HOA, and the Denver Federal Center City Staff: Anne Heine and Paul Rice, Planning and Public Works, Adrian Stanciu, Finance Residents in attendance: A total of 41 people signed the meeting sign-in sheet and approximately 45 to 50 neighborhood residents were in attendance at the meeting. Staff opened the meeting with introductions; followed by an explanation of meeting protocol, the neighborhood-meeting format and the rezoning process. Applicant s presentation: Tim Carl, Development & Transportation Director, Jefferson County began the applicant presentation and introduced John Wolforth, Planning Director, Jefferson County; Griff Johnston Engineering Consultant; and Charles Buck,
RZ-09-003 January 12, 2010 Page 2 of 8 Traffic Consultant. Mr. Carl stated that in keeping with Lakewood s Performance Based Review process, he and his staff were back and asking for additional input from the neighborhood residents. Mr. Carl explained that this was a follow-up meeting to the neighborhood meeting held in September and that he and his staff had prepared and submitted an Official Development Plan (ODP) to the City of Lakewood. The ODP was currently being reviewed by Lakewood staff and he was looking for comments and feedback from the area residents pertaining to the rezoning request. The County is looking at defining use areas and written restrictions specific for this site. Mr. Carl stated that the Board of County Commissioners had asked him and his staff to procure entitlements for the property. He also stated that there was no developer or development proposed for the site. The proposed Official Development Plan (ODP) is customized and specific to the site and would outline what future development could occur at the site by identifying land uses and written restrictions regarding development. NOTE: Mr. Carl did not complete his presentation before the residents began asking questions. Topics of discussion: Residents attending the neighborhood meeting raised a number of concerns and questions. The following is a summary of those questions and resulting discussions between residents, the applicant, and staff: Question: Why are you doing this? Applicant: By rezoning the property, it would allow the County to provide land for future development within the City of Lakewood and any proceeds generated by selling the property would go back into the County s general fund. Question: Is it typical for the County to rezone property? Applicant: In the last 15 years, this is the third time that the County has taken the lead in rezoning property. The most recent example is the property occupied by the Table Mountain Animal Shelter. The County does not rezone property very often. Question: Is the City of Lakewood interested in rezoning the land? Applicant: The City did not initiate this rezoning process. The rezoning process was initiated by the Board of County Commissioners. Question: What is the reason for the rezoning request? Applicant: The County would like to entitle the property for other uses similar to the 1-C zone district with some square footage limitations. Since the previous meeting there has been some additional discussion and input from West Metro Fire regarding Cedar Avenue. The fire district has asked that Cedar be made a one-way street from the eastern property line out to Kipling Street. S:\Development Review\Cases\DAT09\RZ09003-260 S Kipling\Planning Commission\NBH Meeting Minutes 01-12-10.doc
RZ-09-003 January 12, 2010 Page 3 of 8 Question: What s wrong with the map? Applicant: There was a problem with the CAD drawing program that we need to correct. Question: It is not a CAD problem; it is a problem with the technician. You are providing misinformation and I want proper drawings. Applicant: The second set of drawings is accurate. Question: How does access to the site work? Applicant: Interruption by other residents and the applicant could not respond. Question: Will you share the results of the traffic study? Applicant: A second interruption by several residents with several additional questions asked of the applicant with no chance to respond before other questions were asked. Staff: City staff had to ask the group to be polite and respectful of each other and the applicant. Please ask one question at a time, and let the applicant respond before asking other questions. Also let other residents ask questions of the applicant. If we all cannot be polite and respectful to each other, staff would end the meeting early, as this line of questioning and the interruptions is not productive. Question: Will you share the results of the traffic study? Applicant: Charles Buck, the applicant s traffic consultant, explained the results of the traffic study and how the study adequately looked at and addressed associated levels of traffic potentially generated by the rezoning. The traffic study used a worse case scenario in evaluating the site. Question: I don t think you used a worse case scenario? Applicant: Mr. Buck explained how the traffic access points and movements function into and out of the site, and the uses utilized in analyzing traffic generation. Question: There is no access to Kipling from Cedar, how do you get out of the site? Applicant: Mr. Carl explained that the access points were consistent with City standards for access. Question: A right-in/right out is proposed for Alameda? Applicant: Yes. Neighbor Statement: You are not answering our question S:\Development Review\Cases\DAT09\RZ09003-260 S Kipling\Planning Commission\NBH Meeting Minutes 01-12-10.doc
RZ-09-003 January 12, 2010 Page 4 of 8 Question: If a ¾ movement is proposed on Alameda, how far is it located from Hoyt? Applicant: Hoyt Street was not part of the traffic study. Neighbor Statement: We can t get in and out on Hoyt now. Neighbor Statement: You did not include Hoyt; Hoyt will impact the whole neighborhood. Neighbor Statement: We currently have access issues to Hoyt. Applicant: On which side of Hoyt do you have access concerns the north or south? Neighbor Statement: We have a concern with access to the whole neighborhood. Question: Did you check out access from Cedar onto Garrison? Applicant: Yes, you can access Garrison from the Alameda frontage road. Question: Cedar would become one-way? Applicant: Yes, from east to west. Staff: Explained that the West Metro Fire Protection District had concerns with fire safety response times to the Denver Federal Center if Cedar Avenue was closed at the eastern edge of the site and asked for Cedar to become a one-way street from the eastern property line to Kipling. Neighbor Statement: The park will not have enough parking. Currently people use the vacant space south of the park and the space at the mental health center. This proposal will limit parking for those residents using the park during ball games. Neighbor Statement: People already park along Hoyt and Cedar. Question: Why do you want to rezone this land? Applicant: This is land owned by the County and we would like to consolidate services. Neighbor Statement: There is so much commercial property currently built and it sits vacant, even at Belmar. Neighbor Statement: The Milestone proposal was defeated, CCU may move, and we could have more vacant land, and with development of the hospital site I can see traffic increasing on Alameda, Kipling and Garrison, I can see a nightmare coming. S:\Development Review\Cases\DAT09\RZ09003-260 S Kipling\Planning Commission\NBH Meeting Minutes 01-12-10.doc
RZ-09-003 January 12, 2010 Page 5 of 8 Question: Is there an opportunity for a land swap with the City? Applicant: At this time there is no opportunity for a land swap. Question: Did the traffic study evaluate the traffic generation from the hospital? Applicant: Yes, the traffic study did include the hospital development. Question: Which generates more traffic, CCU or a commercial development. Applicant: I would have to see a proposal to evaluate the impacts. Question: You are wanting to rezone to a PD, what if CCU wants to buy the land couldn t they use it? Applicant: The uses currently listed are what s entitled right now and CCU could only use it for single-family residential. Question: Why don t you wait for a developer to approach you before rezoning? Applicant: That approach would not work well for a developer looking for property already entitled. Question: Then why don t you wait? Applicant: The Board looks at this site as an opportunity. Question: You could sell the property as is now? Applicant: Yes. Question: Would the service road extend into the PD, I did not see this in the minutes? Applicant: Yes, the service road would connect into the site. Question: Has any one contacted CCU regarding purchase of this property? Applicant: Not at this time. Neighbor Statement: Garrison and Alameda is a neighborhood-serving hub, the neighbors don t want this project and it should be dropped. We can continue with the current situation. Question: The current zoning is 1-R what does it allow? Applicant: Single family homes. S:\Development Review\Cases\DAT09\RZ09003-260 S Kipling\Planning Commission\NBH Meeting Minutes 01-12-10.doc
RZ-09-003 January 12, 2010 Page 6 of 8 Question: Has the County deemed the health building to be inadequate? Applicant: I am not aware of any evaluation on the status of the health building. Question: What are the approximate costs of relocating the current services at the site? Applicant: I do not have those costs at this time. Question: Will you pass this question onto the Board of County Commissioners? Applicant: Yes, most certainly. Question: Has an EIS been prepared for the property? Applicant: An EIS is not a requirement for a rezoning. Question: The current buildings have a SUP? Applicant: Yes, that s correct. Question: If you rezone the property what is the benefit to us, why should we support a rezone, this is an unfair question if you have not performed an economic analysis study. Applicant: We do not have economic studies specific for this one property. Question: Do you live in the area? Applicant: I have family in the Green Mountain area, yes. Neighbor Statement: I live in the area and am employed by the Federal Center, traffic is an issue. Question: May I talk with members of the Planning Commission? Staff: The request is quasi-judicial and neither the Planning Commission nor City Council can discuss the merits of the request at this time. Neighbor Statement: There is a lot of animosity due to the 2 nd stadium up north that was ram-rodded down our throats. This request hits us hard. Question: There is a rumor that this is a done deal and the mental health center is moving to the Remington building. Applicant: This is news to both John and I that is why we are here to request a rezoning of the property. S:\Development Review\Cases\DAT09\RZ09003-260 S Kipling\Planning Commission\NBH Meeting Minutes 01-12-10.doc
RZ-09-003 January 12, 2010 Page 7 of 8 Question: We wanted input on the issues, we don t want commercial development, and we are not being heard. Applicant: We have tried to reflect your input and feedback in the proposed ODP. Question: The rezoning request to a PD to limit uses is very vague and open to anything. Applicant: The ODP language specifies uses that would be permitted and does limit uses similar to the 1-C designation. Question: Is there a process for amending the ODP. Staff: There is a minor amendment process for standards such as height, setbacks, etc; any change to the use list would be processed as a new rezoning request. Question: Does it allow for medical marijuana? Staff: No, and that is separate process which is now being address by the City Council. Question: What is the value of the land? Applicant: The appraisal values the land at $4.00 (low) to $8.00 (high) a square foot. Question: I would suggest you look at a proposal to expand the mental health services and leave the site as is. Applicant: We will present this request to the Commissioners. Question: How does the zoning re-write process affect this? Applicant: The zoning re-write process does not directly affect this site or process. As I understand it, city staff is looking at the text of the zoning ordinance and not this site, which will be covered by a new PD. Neighborhood Statement: How about using the site for a dog park. Question: What are the next steps and process? Staff: The ODP will be reviewed and when approvable, staff will schedule hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. Neighborhood Statement: I would like to see the site used for a college. S:\Development Review\Cases\DAT09\RZ09003-260 S Kipling\Planning Commission\NBH Meeting Minutes 01-12-10.doc
RZ-09-003 January 12, 2010 Page 8 of 8 Neighborhood Statement: I could support the development of the property but I want it to be well done and improve the neighborhood. This does not look well done. Applicant: Could you elaborate upon this point? Neighborhood Statement: I support the way Belmar looks and feels and support neighborhood activities, not the big box approach. It should have more of a pedestrian type feel. Question: Could you have a height limitation? Applicant: Yes. Neighborhood Statement: I would suggest that the Board perform an environmental assessment of the site. Neighborhood Statement: I would suggest using the site for an outdoor water park, recreation center, or senior center. Neighborhood Statement: How about more green space or a park. Staff closed the meeting by saying that everyone is welcome to contact staff or the applicant to further discuss the project. Notice will also be sent when hearing dates are determined for the Planning Commission and City Council. The meeting concluded at approximately 8:45 p.m. CC: RZ-09-003 Anne Heine, City Engineer Ben Mehmen, Civil Engineer III John Padon, Principal Traffic Engineer Shawn DeJong, Engineering Development Assistance Coordinator Adrian Stanciu, Property and Purchasing Services Manager S:\Development Review\Cases\DAT09\RZ09003-260 S Kipling\Planning Commission\NBH Meeting Minutes 01-12-10.doc