PUBLIC HEARING

July 2, 2003 MINUTES

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT

Wilmae "Bunny" Malm, Chairman
Tom Quinn
Ed Peterson
Bill Marino
Ken Lloyd
Charles Choi

STAFF PRESENT

Vince Harris, Manager of Development Review and Enforcement
Chad Minor, Senior Planner
Anne Heine, Lead Development Review Engineer
Roger Noonan, City Attorney
John Padon, Traffic Engineer Technician
Jay Hutchison, City Engineer
Elaine Rosedahl, Secretary to the Lakewood Planning Commission
___________________________________________________________________________________

The following are the minutes of the July 2, 2003 Lakewood Planning Commission Public hearing. A permanent set of these minutes is retained in the office of the City Clerk and a tape recording is located in the department of Community Planning and Development, City of Lakewood.
____________________________________________________________________________________

INDEX PAGE

RZ-99-005 Oyu Spa and Salon 2
12825 W. Colfax Avenue

The roll having been called, Chairman Malm declared a quorum and the following business was
conducted.

1. CASE NO. RZ-99-005 REZONING
OYU SPA AND SALON

Construct a wellness facility

CHAIRMAN MALM wanted to know on what authority does the Planning Commission act on a parcel of ground, when that parcel of ground is in Jefferson County.

ROGER NOONAN, City Attorney, reviewed the history of this annexation request, by referring to the State Statutes which say that once a petition is received, the City Council acts on the resolution establishing a public hearing and if in compliance, the City can proceed to annex and zone the property. That having occurred, it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to consider the zoning of the property, however, it will not take place before City Council considers annexation of the property. If the Planning Commission recommends zoning it will then go to City Council, however, the annexation will be considered by City Council first, followed by the zoning.

COMMISSIONER LLOYD asked what is the Planning Commission's role in reviewing the annexation?

ROGER NOONAN said the State Statue does not give a role to Planning Commission on an annexation.

COMMISSIONER CHOI announced, "in reviewing the rezoning case RZ-99-005, I realize that my personal knowledge of the project and applicant is such that my judgement on this case may be biased, however, I want to be clear, I have no financial or professional interest in this project. In order to avoid influencing the outcome of these proceedings either positively or negatively, I am compelled to recuse myself from the final vote."

ROGER NOONAN advised, as the City Attorney, that Commissioner Choi remove himself from dais. If there is a conflict, it is not appropriate to be on the dais with the rest of the board. He strongly urged Commissioner Choi to remove himself from the position.

COMMISSIONER CHOI asked if Mr. Noonan was asking him to go into the audience?

ROGER NOONAN said, at the very least the audience and perhaps not even here at all, however, that is his choice.

COMMISSIONER CHOI replied, based on precident of activity within this Commission, that was not requested in the past, and preferred the audience see his face as he witnesses the proceedings, as opposed to sitting in the back of the audience with the audience having no knowledge of what he may be saying or indicating to his fellow commissioners.

ROGER NOONAN responded that he could not force the issue, but wanted to urge Commissioner Choi strongly by saying, if he does not feel he should vote he should not sit on the dais. City Council members leave the room until that particular item is over.

CHAIRMAN MALM announced that she has a request to poll the Commission on this subject.

COMMISSIONER MARINO wanted to respect Commissioner Choi's decision, however, wanted to also respect the City Attorney's advice. He thought Commissioner Choi could stay in his seat and not influence the vote.

COMMISSIONER QUINN thought Commissioner Choi an honorable man and did not think he would interfere with the vote. However, being an attorney himself, would not interfere with the independent legal advice provided by the City Attorney. He would not state an opinion because he did not believe it appropriate.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON echoed Commissioner Quinn thoughts. He added Commissioner Choi an honorable man and he would not allow him to influence his decision on this case. He respected the legal advice and left it up to Commissioner Choi to make the decision.

COMMISSIONER LLOYD agreed with Mr. Noonan, however, thought this a personal decision.

CHAIRMAN MALM thought Commissioner Choi quite capable of sitting and listen to testimony and would not, under any circumstances, make an effort to influence any member of the Commission, and knowing this Commission even if he tried it would not work. The determination resides with Commissioner Choi. Chairman Malm wanted the record to show that there is a quorum with five Commissioners, and also said the Planning Commission has been provided a written form of the staff report prior to this hearing.

COMMISSIONER CHOI said he would remain seated.

JIM JUNGE, 4141 Arapaho, Boulder, 80303, planner and representing the applicant, explained the proposal and made himself and development team available for questions from the Commission.

CHAD MINOR reviewed his staff report and presented slides. He then asked the Planning Commission to approve this zoning.

COMMISSIONER LLOYD asked about the steps taken to bring this case to this point.

CHAD MINOR said the original case came to the City in 1997, prompting the first neighborhood meeting in 1997. The applicant then submitted a formal application in 1999. The case stalled for some time, and has not formally gone to Jefferson County for any type of rezoning. The City of Lakewood sent a referral to the County, however, they have not sent a review nor have they turned it down.

BARBARA GREEN, Sullivan/Green, Attorney for the applicant, 2969 Baseline Rd., Boulder 80303, added in order for a property to be annexed into a city, one-sixth of the perimeter of the area to be annexed has to be contiguous with a city boundary.

ROGER NOONAN added, the original proposal included less property than is now being proposed, and the applicant has reconfigured the application to meet the State Statute requirement.

CHAIRMAN MALM reminded the audience this hearing is addressing only the zoning, the annexation is not being considered.

BILL DOIG, 12090 W. 23rd Pl., 80215, President of the Applewood Valley Assoc., referred to page 17, of the 1987 Comprehensive Plan, Goal 6, Section c, Rules Against Spot Zoning, by saying sufficient land does not exist for this use.

BARBARA BARRY, P.O. Box 568, Golden, 80402, referred to the staff report where it states that future land uses will be regulated by the OF zone district. Ms. Barry was concerned that with the PD office zone district 116 kinds of businesses and/or buildings could be placed on this site in the future. She wondered what happed to the term "spot zoning" since it has disappeared from the new Comprehensive Plan.

MATT RATTERMAN, 2072 Coors Dr., Golden, 80401, was concerned with traffic safety since there is one entrance in and out of this site. He explained how speeds in the surrounding area could cause further problems with this proposal. Exiting only to the west will make drivers enter the neighborhood to turn back to the east.

DARLENE GOLLAWAY, 2110 Applewood Dr., 80215, wondered why this applicant would want to place a business in a existing neighborhood. She presented a picture with neighbors in the mist of their daily activities, and then showed how this business would look in this residential area. She wondered why the applicant would want to put her business in an area where that business is not wanted.

JACQUI MICHAEL, 13555 Wide Acres Rd., Golden, 80401, presented a drawing of what the site would look like if single family housing were placed on the site.

JOHN BUSHER, 1255 Orchard Rd., 80401, speaking for Laura Richter O'Neal, VP Applewood Valley Assoc., 15599 W. 23rd Pl., Golden 80401, referred to page 4, Analysis, did not think this should be called part of the West Colfax Corridor when it is not within that plan. A community commercial node is not applicable to this case, because it does not meet the size, therefore, this is an island in a single family area. He thought the staff report incomplete, and based on a subjective review.

DIANE ERDAHL, 916 Cole St., 80401, speaking for the Daniels-Welchester Assoc., thought this would be a foot in the door for more commercial zoning along this residential portion of Colfax.

LARRY WATTS, 1345 Kingsbury Ct., Golden, 80401, thought the reason Lakewood wants this rezoning is for the tax base, since this will intrude on the surrounding neighborhood. The City is ignoring public safety and well-fare by recommending approval of this proposal.

JOE RUNGE, 12700 W. 23RD Ave., 80215, was concerned with the relocation of the ditch by enclosing it into a smaller pipe. The maintenance will be a problem, the ditch was built in 1874 and is eligible for inclusion into the National Register of Historic Places. Also, there is a safety issue for children and small animals. The trees will die because they will not get water.

SHEILA RUNGE, 12700 W. 23rd Ave., 80215, said this meeting is a rush on a holiday weekend making the neighborhood prepare their case with very little time. Nor did they receive a meeting notice.

JAN MC QUADE STURM, 13200 W. 15th Dr., Golden, 80401, said they have struggled with the City to get answers to questions. The staff report says on pages 2, 6, 10, and 11 the City has communicated well with the neighborhood, but they have not, and spot zoning has disappeared from the new Comprehensive Plan. Robert Wagner, of Gorsuch/Kirgus wrote an article saying spot zoning is not supported and the decision is arbitrary and unlawful.

AL LETEY, 13230 W. 15th Dr., thought this plan ignores and violates responsible planning, nor is it compatible with the area. The Jefferson County Planning Dept. has stated this is not a good use.

LANITA BUSHER, 1255 Orchard Rd., Golden, 80401, wondered if the City of Lakewood would annex this if the PD zone district were not to follow. She asked this land remain residential.

MARY ANN TOWNSEND, 13300 W. 15th Dr., Golden, 80401, pointed to a map showing the three homes that have been flooded from the agricultural ditch. She thought the pipe would make the water problem worse.

RICHARD ABLE, 1300 Meadowsweet Rd., Golden, 80401, thought the problems of this business owner will be the problems of the neighborhood. There have been many accidents on Youngfield St. and Colfax Ave.

RUSSELL DUNKIN, 1455 Kingsbury Ct., Golden, 80401, said going west on Colfax is commercial all the way, except for these five blocks that are residential. The homes along this portion of West Colfax are very expensive, and it is a quality area.

SARA TAYLOR, 1300 Normandy Rd., Golden, 80401, added, this site is surrounded by residential homes, all of whom have quality homes and quality lives, and this proposal injects a massive commercial building in the middle of a residential area. She asked the Commission to imagine their home next to this commercial use.

RICK BOWEN, 15966 W. Ellsworth Pl., Golden, 80401, thought this plan a very good idea, since it will enhance the surrounding properties, it will add jobs, and diversity. The quality of construction is outstanding and this will be a quality development.

VIKKI GRAY, 1395 Orchard Rd., Golden, 80401, did not think that West Colfax is destined to be all commercial. This portion of Colfax is residential and hoped the Planning Commission would stand up for the neighborhood.

GERALD CLARK, 13030 W. 15th Dr., thought this commercial proposal inconsistent with the neighborhood, the traffic on Orchard will increase, since customers can only make a right turn into the proposed development.

VIRGINIA DENNIS, 1530 Whippoorwill Dr., referred to page 9, item 10, Neighborhood Impact, in the staff report. The description minimizes traffic impacts, long term parking problems especially if the spa fails, then parking lot could be enlarged for a future use, adding lighting, noise, trash and odor problems from future restaurants. The commercial impact on this neighborhood will be tremendous, and urged denial for this spot zoning.

NINA ROCKLEY, 26032 Chief Hosa Rd., thought this would be an enhancement to West Colfax, it will improve the area by getting rid of the east Colfax feel. She recommended Ms. Loeffer as a wonderful business women. She added residential homes do not belong on a Commercial strip since Colfax is the largest commercial strip in the nation.

MELISSA KEITHLY, 143 Zang Ct., 80228, thought this would be a beautiful facility for this site and a most reasonable use for the property.

MARILYN SHERER, 1260 Meadowsweet Rd., 80401, submitted a statement from Kelly Daniel, 13740 W. 7th Ave., 80401, which asked the Commission to consider the intangible and intrinsic variable as well as the concrete measures.

GEORGE HICKINBOTTOM, 1250 Orchard Rd., 80401, presented a traffic report for the intersection of Youngfield and Colfax, which showed increased accidents. He said there are million dollar homes in this area and added low-income housing can go on this site without rezoning. He thought this proposal a wonderful use for this site.

CHRIS STURM, 13200 w. 15TH Dr., 80401, said by putting the ditch underground and fencing off the wild life, they would no longer be able to go through the area and would end up on Colfax.

GEORGE JAYVIS, 13260 w. 16TH Dr., 80401, said this area floods and culverts will not work nor will the work on Colfax. This spot zoning will not work and Lakewood wants to annex Unincorporated Jefferson County, however, the neighborhood will see that this fails.

BARBARA HADLEY, 33907 Upper Bear Creek Rd., wanted to recommend the applicant as a responsible developer and the architect is a quality designer. In her neighborhood are million dollar homes, and in the mist of her neighborhood is a spa with no ingress or egress, that is just a lovely commercial development.

LINDA DUSENBURY, 1700 Zinnia St., 80401, was concerned with public health, safety and welfare. Pedestrians will have great difficulty crossing Colfax, and this proposal will adversely impact the neighborhood. It is important to respect the character of the neighborhood.

JOANNA VILLA, 345 Lowerforce Rd., Idaho Springs, 80452, also vouched for Ms. Loeffler's character, this high end spa would be an asset to Lakewood, and would create jobs for Lakewood.

J. R. TAYLOR, 2085 So Grapevine Rd., Idledale, 80453, thought this will be a well run business, and a first class operation.

RICHARD DELORIA, 12735 W. 15th Pl., 80215, said this is not about the character of the applicant, nor the intended original use of the property if it is rezoned commercial. The issue is taking a piece of property surrounded by residential and zoning it commercial. He did not think staff gave an objective report to this Commission regarding the impact of this proposal on the neighborhood.

COMMISSIONER MARINO asked the applicant and staff to address spot zoning.

BARBARA GREEN, Sullivan, Green, Seavy, LLC., 2969 Baseline Rd., Boulder, 80303, said the last time spot zoning was addressed was by an Appellate Court in 1964, which is not a lot to go by other than the article by Bob Wagner as read by Ms. Sturm. The definition of spot zoning is; "when a piece of property is rezoned to a zoning category that allows a use-by-right that is incompatible with the adjacent surrounding zoning." Now there is PD and site plan review processes that require compatibility as part of the review process. The request should be determined if it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or Master Plan, and when consistent it is not spot zoning.

CHAD MINOR added, the two main questions are: 1) what are the potential impacts with the surrounding land use; and 2) how can the intensity be dealt with so that it is compatible. Staff looks at aesthetics and design, noise, light and shadow, access and circulation, traffic, privacy, light, height and bulk, odor, landscaping and vegetation. He then read an explanation of each of the above issues.

COMMISSIONER MARINO asked if size could make the proposal compatible?

CHAD MINOR thought the architecture, design, height and bulk make the building more residential in character.

JIM JUNGE, informed, this proposal is four sided architecture, and the setbacks are four times what they would be in a residential neighborhood. The footprint is under ten percent of the lot size, therefore, the collective mass of six homes could be built on this site and produce six similarly sized lots, being a far greater mass than this proposal. Mr. Junge said they have addressed the neighborhood concerns, the sloping roofs, low profile, reduction in height, lighting, minimization of windows on the north side and this is residential in character. This meets all the criteria and is consistent with the Lakewood Comprehensive Plan, and the Design Guidelines. This is a stand alone site and fronts to Colfax not the residential neighborhood, and there is no attachment easement into the neighborhood. With 30,000 cars passing by every day on Colfax, this site is not suitable for residential use.

COMMISSIONER MARINO asked how many residential homes could be placed on this parcel.

CHAD MINOR thought no more than six.

COMMISSIONER MARINO wanted to know what would protect the neighborhood from being a quiet low impact spa this year, and in the future being an office complex with 10 times the trips.

CHAD MINOR said the building has been designed to accommodate future uses should the spa fail, however, increasing the building size would violate parking, setbacks, heights and the ODP.

COMMISSIONER LLOYD wanted to know about the residential component?

JIM JUNGE said, on the second level, north side is an apartment for management and/or the owner of the property, but not for customer overnight stays.

COMMISSIONER LLOYD wanted more information on the term "consistent with residential properties?'

JIM JUNGE said this is 1.8 acre site, and was designed to contain all of the elements such as sloped roofs, chimneys and those things that go together in a residential project. Under Jefferson County zoning a 35-ft. high building would be allowed.

COMMISSIONER LLOYD asked why this site was chosen?

JIM JUNGE it has all of the elements for privacy, to the 30,000 cars a day going by for exposure of the business. This site is not appropriate for office or residential use, and one does not put multi-family on a site with 30,000 cars going by on West Colfax.

COMMISSIONER LLOYD asked why they did not try and rezone this within Jefferson County?

JIM JUNGE said there has been no attempt to do that, since it is best to be located within the City you want to do business.

COMMISSIONER LLOYD asked what formal meetings were held?

JIM JUNGE said they have had a neighborhood meeting and the questions were the same at that hearing as they have been at the hearing this evening.

COMMISSIONER LLOYD asked how they have addressed neighbor concerns?

JIM JUNGE said they have established residential lighting, the large setback, the fifty percent landscaping, and they have committed to shielding the windows from the neighborhood.

COMMISSIONER LLOYD wanted to know how many employees will be involved with this operation?

JIM JUNGE said a total of 12 at different times throughout the day.

CHAIRMAN MALM wanted to know the difference between residential character and commercial character?

JIM JUNGE answered, they charge fees and it is commercial in operation.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON referred to the ODP pointing to the general operation portion and wanted to know how sloping roofs and residential design interact?

JIM JUNGE said the Japanese elements are the tile work, beams, how the support members are connected, court yards, pools and the materials are residential, also how the materials are used, the colors, and using the same scale that make homes unique.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON wondered why the residential theme is not mentioned in the ODP standards, and then asked if the landscaping, and elevations are conceptual in nature?

JIM JUNGE said they are recorded, and everything testified at this hearing that works for the spa also works for the office buildings. He said he could tighten the language to address the residential theme.

COMMISSIONER QUINN referred to the Golden, Ralston Community Plan and wanted to know if it is currently in effect for this area?

CHAD MINOR said yes, however, the County is revising the 1976 plan. The Jefferson County General Land Use Plan recommends this site stay residential.

KATE NEWMAN, 100 Jefferson County Pkwy., 80419, Planner with Jefferson County, said the 1976 plan recommends suburban residential and is in effect, and the General Land Use Plan recommends residential for this area.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON asked if the revisions are made to the plan the County is reviewing, would they still recommend residential along this stretch of Colfax?

KATE NEWMAN said yes, and the Board of County Commissioners also recommended it not go commercial.

COMMISSIONER QUINN wanted to know if the County traffic issues were addressed by the City?

KATE NEWMAN did not believe they were, and the County feels it would still be a traffic concern.

CHAD MINOR referred to a letter dated September 25, 2002 from Jefferson County, where they strongly recommend a accel/decel lane along W. Colfax Avenue, and that is included in the plan.

COMMISSIONER QUINN then asked about the piping the ditch?

ANNE HEINE, Civil Engineer, Public Works Dept., said they have a conceptual plan to pipe the ditch from the western property edge to the eastern edge. Since it is a preliminary report, staff will have to review final design plans. Whenever a ditch is closed with a conduit there is a possibility that flow at the entrance may cause an overflow, however, the final design would require a safe overflow path.

NEAL MARTINEZ, Mountain State Engineering Assoc., 12860 W. Cedar Dr., 80226, said the intent is do provide a pipe size that has greater capacity than the existing irrigation ditch including hydrolic considerations at the inlet. He said the capacity of the ditch is currently about 60-CFS, and Mountain States has stated the pipe will have to be designed for at least 72-CFS, and in the process capacity loss will have to be considered. This is not going to improve the flood hazard but it will not make it worse since the ditch can only carry so much water because of its cross section capability.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON thought there is a restricting element at Orchard that dictates the volume and once that 60-CFS has been achieved, what is the standard for blockage?

NEAL MARTINEZ assumed it could take a 50-percent blockage, also there is a maintenance requirement on the property owner.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON asked if the 72-CFS is adequate to mitigate potential hazards that may result from placing an open ditch to a piped system at this area.

NEAL MARTINEZ said it is because of the construction at Orchard Rd.

COMMISSIONER MARINO wanted to know if the conditions at this site will be better or worse?

CHAIRMAN MALM said the drainage would not particularly improve, but would not make it worse.

COMMISSIONER QUINN wanted to know the current flood situation?

ANNE HEINE answered the flow is regulated by the Agricultural Ditch Co., and there are places where run off gets into the ditch. The preliminary drainage plan does not address design flows for the pipe system, and they need to look into the ditch upstream of the culvert and design the culvert to handle those flows including a safe overflow in case the culvert is blocked.

COMMISSIONER QUINN wanted to know if there is a geo-technical, or geological hazards study available?

NEAL MARTINEZ was not aware of any at this time, however, it is required in the final planning.

COMMISSIONER LLOYD wanted to know if the accel/decel lane will take care of traffic flows.

JOHN PADON, City of Lakewood Traffic Engineering, said there are 240-trips entering and exiting the spa during the day. Staff does a yearly report looking at what intersections have three or more accidents in a consecutive three years. The 2002 shows Colfax/Youngfield rated 48th in the City for accidents. The spa's trips per day should not effect the operation of the signal.

COMMISSIONER LLOYD said the County has stated they still have traffic issues and wanted more information.

JOHN PADON said he talked to Tim Murry at the County to find out accident data and they had none. Tim did not mention any operational problems they were looking to fix at that intersection.

KATE NEWMAN did not know any changes from between September and this date at the County.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON asked what is the proposed future redevelopment of Colfax in terms of number of lanes, and how will the accel/decel lane will be effected?

JOHN PADON said with the spa there would be an extension of asphalt to Orchard creating a decel lane into Orchard that does not exist today, and widening the shoulder allows customers to enter safely. Youngfield intersection has not been addressed yet, but staff is working on it. With single family homes on this site there would be four times as many trips per day as with the spa use. It would be less trips with an office use.

COMMISSIONER MARINO wanted to know how to deal with the Jeffco Plans regarding this case?

VINCE HARRIS said the Three Mile Plan states the Planning Commission/City Council are to use the Lakewood Comprehensive Plan as their guiding document. The County Plans and Neighborhood Plans are used as a secondary resource.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON wanted to know what the operational hours will be?

KIMMIE LOEFFLER, 10905 W. 20th Ave., 80215, estimated from 9 am to 7 or 8 pm.

CHAD MINOR added, the ODP does not address hours of operation.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON wanted to know the total gross building area within the Planned Development, and wanted to know how the 18,000 sq. ft. relates to the 13,000 sq. ft.?

JIM JUNGE said the basement storage area and non-functional use of the building is what gets it to the 18,000 sq. ft. The basement will be storage and employee lockers.

COMMISSIONER QUINN based upon the information contained in the staff report, ODP, the public testimony received this evening, the testimony given by staff, by the applicant, the written comments received from the general public, and Jefferson County, that the Planning Commission recommend that City Council deny Zoning Case No. RZ-99-005, based upon the following specific findings, facts and conclusions: specifically to the City's Zoning Ordinance Section 17-17-7 with regard to the standards for consideration of zonings and rezonings. This section of the Zoning Ordinance specifically provides to promote stability in zoning and appropriate development of property within the City. No application for rezoning shall be approved unless it has demonstrated: (a) That the proposed rezoning promotes the health, safety or well-fare for the inhabitants of the City of Lakewood and the purposes of the Ordinance, and: (b) at least one of the following factors exist: the major factors that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.

Also, the General Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan provides on page 20, that a proposed land use proposal shall be deemed in compliance with the Lakewood Comprehensive Plan if the proposal does not conflict with or prevent implementation of any goal of the Comprehensive Plan. For the following reasons found that the proposal conflicts with or prevents implementation of the following goals of the 2003 Lakewood Comprehensive Plan.

Specifically referring to the section on Community Image, Identity, Appearance and Design on page 13, found that the proposal does not foster and advance regional cooperation regarding planning issues. Specifically, Jefferson County Planning Department and the Board of County Commissioners opposes this rezoning as incompatible with the existing residential land uses in the area. Additionally, rezoning this land to commercial use is inconsistent with both the Jefferson County General Land Use Plan and the Golden Rolston Community Plan, which recommends residential use for this area. As well as the Central area surrounding this proposed project is entirely residential in character, although there is obviously commercial development along Colfax, this part of Colfax remains residential at this time.

Referring to the General Land Use section of the plan at page 20, also found that this proposal conflicts with the goal of insuring the land use and redevelopment is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plans and Community Plan, which are currently being revised, which continues that recommendation of residential use for this area. Additionally, under this section of Community Image, Identity, Appearance and Design, goal on page 12 of the plan, found this proposal does not preserve the Historical, Cultural and Architectural resources inherent of the Community, specifically referring to the agricultural ditch. There was testimony in the record that the agricultural ditch was a structure dating to 1874 and it would be piped underground as a result of this proposal.

Additionally, referring to the Urban Centers section of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan, found that this proposal does not encourage high quality infill and redevelopment, it conflicts with the goal of promoting, or encouraging high quality infill and redevelopment projects. Finally, referring to the Residential Land Use Section, found this proposal is inconsistent with the goal specifically referring to the policy of encouraging infill and redevelopment projects that respect existing surrounding land uses. The Plan, specifically on page 21, the policy of insuring that development interacts appropriately with adjoining land uses when evaluating proposed land use projects. Found that this commercial proposal does not interact appropriately with surrounding land uses in the area. Furthermore on page 21, found that this proposal is inconsistent with goal of advancing intergovernmental cooperation that will result in appropriate land use and redevelopment within and adjacent to Lakewood. Already addressed is this issue regarding the goal in the community image section of the plan of fostering regional cooperation, and would incorporate those comments into the findings. This proposal is also inconsistent with this goal because of opposition of the Jefferson County Planning Department, and the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, as well as the fact, that this rezoning would be inconsistent with the two existing Jefferson County Plans applicable to this area, as well as the Central Plains Community Plan set out on page 23, promotion of infill projects that interact well with the character of adjoining neighbors, a commercial project of this nature in this area does not interact well with the character of adjoining residential neighborhoods.

Additionally, there are two more concerns, specifically, one is with regard to the piping of the agricultural ditch. Based on the testimony presented, the potential for increased flood hazard in this area was not entirely clear, based on the responses received, it appears the piping of the ditch would not make the hazard any worse, however, it is still a concern. Second, with the lack of any kind of geotechnical information on this site, since at this point they should have some information regarding geologic hazards in the area.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON, seconded the motion and added one additional provision, that the plan is also not consistent with 2003 Comprehensive Plan, and the General Land Use section on page 21, with respect with preservation on natural and historic features. The agricultural ditch qualifies both as a natural and historic feature. Testimony was given that it is used by wild life as means of access to an established wild life refuge, and as previously stated, the historic feature of the ditch dates back to the 1800's.

CHAIRMAN MALM asked if that acceptable Commissioner Quinn?

COMMISSIONER QUINN said that is acceptable.

COMMISSIONER QUINN wanted to preface the motion by stating that this is no reflection whatsoever on the applicant and believed in an appropriate place a Japanese Health Spa would be a wonderful land use, and that is something I hope the applicant will be able to find.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON echoed his fellow commissioner's comments with respect to the applicant, and the applicant's design team for this particular project. He thought it the absolute right project and the absolute wrong place. Commissioner Peterson commend the architectural group and the team for developing and addressing a lot of the architectural concerns that would be taken into account when considering a buffering project adjacent to a residential community. So, likewise he hope that an appropriate location could be found within the City for this asset, as he believed it would definitely be an asset to the community.

Motion passed for denial by a 4-1 vote (Marino nay)

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes for May 14, 2003 public hearing were approved by a consensus of the Commission.

Minutes for May 21, 2003 public hearing were approved by a consensus of the Commission.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no other business to come before the Lakewood Planning Commission, the public hearing of July 2, 2003 was adjourned at 11:45 p.m.

Elaine Rosedahl, Secretary to the Planning Commission

	Home | Search | Contact Us | Privacy Policy Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Notice © City of Lakewood, 480 S. Allison Pkwy., Lakewood, CO 80226, 303-987-7000