Lakewood Planning Commission
Public Hearing Verbatim Minutes

MAY 4, 2005

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Bill Marino, Chairman John Plotkin
Bunny Malm Michael Rohr
Rich Urbanowski George Brown III

STAFF PRESENT
Mike Rock, City Manager Jay Hutchison, City Engineer
Roger Noonan, City Attorney Allen Albers, Principal Traffic Engineer
Frank Gray, Dir. of Plann. & Develop. Dieter Magin, Civil Engineer III
Vince Harris, Planning Manager Anne Heine, Lead Dev. Review Engineer
Chad Minor, Sr. Econ. Develop.Specialist Toni Spurgeon, Eng. Dev. Assistance Coord.
Paul Rice, Senior Planner Shawn DeJong, Contruct. Doc. Technician
Olga Mikhailova, Senior Planner
Vicki Kaufman, Planning Commission Secretary
____________________________________________________________________________

The following are the minutes of the May 4, 2005 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.
____________________________________________________________________________________
The roll having been called, a quorum was declared. The CHAIRMAN MARINO explained proper procedures and information on public hearings before Planning Commission. The Secretary to the Planning Commission swore in those who wished to speak and announced the first case. The following is a verbatim transcript of this meeting.

CASE RZ-04-008:
BUZ KOEBEL: Good evening. I'm honored to be here for this public process this evening. My name is Buz Koebel; I'm President of Koebel & Company, 5291 East Yale Avenue, Denver, Colorado. We represent the owner of the subject property this evening. Koebel & Company has been in the residential and commercial development business on the front-range for about fifty-two years. And for most of that time Pinehurst Country Club has served as our flagship. It was conceived in the mid 1950's and started development in 1960. About ten years after that Jerry Von Frelich of Villa Italia fame, right across the street here, purchased two hundred and fifty acres of property that was still a little bit out in the country at the time directly west of Pinehurst Country Club and he got it zoned for a business center with a broad range of uses that include the more standard and basic office uses. But also included the ability to do manufacturing, processing, assembly, fabrication, warehousing, a variety of other uses and on the screen there you will see some of the uses it was approved for. About ten years after that, unfortunately, Mr. VonFrelich ran in to some tough times and the property went into foreclosure. And at that time we made a protective as well as a strategic purchase and got involved in the ownership of over 60 acres in about 1982. Since that time, over the past twenty-two years, we have watched the evolution of development including specifically that of office parks and what happened is that a lot of the office parks naturally gravitated to the access corridors on the circumferential freeways that included the new E-470 and C-470 as well as sort of the ever-present spine through Denver, Interstate 25. And so that reduced some of the glory that Academy Park might have had at one point in time. Additionally, as part of a different kind of evolution, just like ourselves at Pinehurst Country Club and the Pinehurst residential community, there were a number of bedroom communities that developed throughout the entire southwest Denver area. And as those developed there is always need for support retail. Most notably in 1983 the Southwest Plaza mall about a million square feet was constructed and following that there was significant additional retail. Now approximately two and a half million square feet of retail is along the Wadsworth corridor, which is truly one of the longest concentrations of retail anywhere in the Denver metro area. And I think it clearly illustrates the material change in character that we have observed and has occurred in this area over town through this number of years. As part of that we have analyzed a lot of different alternatives for the development of our property in response to this natural evolution and it's proximity to two state highways, Hampden and Wadsworth, as well as a section line arterial of Quincy. And we've analyzed a variety of opportunities. We looked at a Home Depot, at a neighborhood supermarket anchored shopping center. Those basically didn't even get to the formal application standpoint. Also as a developer of Pinehurst I have gotten a number of requests suggesting that why don't you just do residential on this property? And it's just important to note that over the last probably ten years we have made three different request submittals for consideration of residential. A couple of apartment complexes and also senior housing facilities and basically we did not get beyond Staff discussions on that and it's pretty understandably why: The Comp Plan for Lakewood has this as a commercial urban center and they intend to keep it that way to protect their commercial tax base. So residential was not something that was not appropriate. The other thing is we've been through these kind of hearings for many, many years and I know there's a lot of people in this room who would just rather not have this property developed but that is not reality. So it's important to understand that some development will occur and if it develops based on the current existing zoning and some of things that I've talked about up there, it can develop in the neighborhood of about 250,000-350,000 sq. ft. of office space. That is in contrast to what we are proposing this evening, which is 138,000 sq. ft. Sam's Club, which is far less than even half of what otherwise could potentially occur. As you can see on the screen up there the landscape requirement existing is about 30%, we're going to be 38. The height limit is 35-40 we're going to be at 33. I think a couple of the really key issues to note is the setbacks, what we've been able to accommodate from a setback. Existing zoning allows 100' setback from Quincy and a 60' setback from Pierce. Well if you look at that the Quincy Avenue goes from 100' up to 251' and because Pierce Way is a bit angled rather than 60' we go from 114 up to 277'. So I think you can see we've done some significant accommodations from a land-planning standpoint. But the other thing that is important to note is that the existing zoning there will be very few, if any, regional improvements that will accommodate the impacts that will occur with zoning on that property. And we really believe the proposal we're proposing tonight will have far fewer impacts on a global basis than what the existing would have if we continued on with that. Sam's Club we also believe is very compatible with the surrounding area. Its part of the 250 acre Academy Park Urban Center as spelled out in the Comp. Plan. It's also adjacent to this concentration of retail corridor along Wadsworth. So after thorough analysis we have really determined that Sam's Club is the most viable opportunity for this site and more importantly it's the best balance of benefits with the burdens that are going to happen from any development. And the key major difference that you will hear more about tonight relates to the revenue generating opportunities from sales tax as opposed to property tax. We've run some numbers and they're likely as much as ten-fold in difference and that is simply because from a straight property tax standpoint, Lakewood gets about 5 ½% of the property tax. The rest is shared with all the various entities, county schools, etc. From a sales tax standpoint the City of Lakewood gets an enormous share of the sales tax and that difference is staggering. Having been involved with Pinehurst all these years I've lived and watched the congestion out there, particularly on Quincy, develop and continue to increase over the years. And there's only one opportunity to really correct those problems and that's having a use that will generate revenues with which to correct that. And I think, as that property develops, there will continue to be traffic demands. Sam's Club offers traffic demands that are spread throughout the day, throughout the week, as opposed to the A.M. / P.M. peak hour demands that will occur from an office standpoint. And a more important point is retail is the only use that can generate revenues that will mitigate the burdens of any development that will occur and that's from the various taxes. It helps the health, safety and welfare. There's two levels of taxes; one is sales tax and one are additional fees. And those are two separate apart. But those two revenue sources will help the health, safety, and welfare specifically at the area with all the traffic improvements that we can do, as well as continue to fund revenues to the city to protect the police and fire and other services that we all and are so dear to the success of a city. So the revenue generation is separate and apart to create these regional improvements from the taxes so there's no sacrifice to the city to get these benefits that you'll here more about a little bit later tonight.

So my concluding remarks are that simply this is the best opportunity to balance the burden of any development with the benefits of that can accrue. There's meaning-fly less total square footage than the zoning allows, with significantly greater revenues overall. We have had numerous homeowners meetings and discussions about this property over the last five or six months and what you're going to hear about this evening are a number of the accommodations that I think we've been able to make in that regard. So I'll tell you what we're going to do this evening and turn this over to a few folks. You will hear this evening from Carolynne White who is Land Use Counsel for Sam's Club. Jim Shipton is with CLC Associates and they're involved in the - they've done all the site design. Charles Buck is our Traffic Engineer. Al Colussey is an architect that has been hired to collaborate with Sam's Club. Jeff Kawalski is a Sound Engineer and Thomas Farley will be here. So we've got sound and drainage for further remarks. So with that what I would like to do is turn this over to Carolynne White. Thank you very much.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: Thank you very much. Chairman Marino, commissioners, Lakewood City Staff, members of the public, my name is Carolynne White. I am Land Use Counsel for Sam's Club and I'm pleased to be here tonight to present to you a truly unique project. Forgot to give you my address, 410 17th Street. Zip code 80202 in Denver. On behalf of Sam's Club I am proud to present to you tonight a truly unique project. The project we are proposing to you tonight is unlike any other Sam's Club anywhere else in the country. This proposal incorporates innovative architecture, extensive landscaping and a public improvement package of tremendous benefit to the community. Mr. Koebel alluded to this somewhat. I'd like to be a little more specific and let you know that the current Site Plan proposes a package of approximately seven million dollars worth of public improvements. That includes about four million dollars worth of improvements that would be normally required to serve the development. Plus another three million dollars in public improvements over and above what would be required to serve the development that are designed to mitigate existing problems in the community or that are designed to respond to specific requests, inquiries, or concerns raised by members of the public. This site is ideal for a development like Sam's Club. This is one of the last large infill sites. It's about 20 acres along the Wadsworth corridor. And as Mr. Koebel alluded to earlier the Wadsworth corridor has developed significantly in the last twenty years or so. This site is designated in Lakewood's Comprehensive Plan as a commercial urban center and the site although surrounded by development on all sides that is, of course, the nature of an infill project, is separated from that development on all four sides by a right-of-way or something naturally occurring like the steep slope that separates this site from the property to the north. For that reason we feel that it's ideal for the proposed project and ideal for a new Sam's Club. Since August 2004 when we held our first meetings with the City we have had numerous meetings with various representatives of the public. The City process requires one pre-application meeting and one post-application meeting for a proposed rezoning. We've held about seven or eight formal neighborhood meetings through the City. Additionally we've held numerous and uncountable informal meetings with pretty much everyone who requested that we meet with them. Whatever constituent group they were representing and whether or not they were within the City of Lakewood. Through those meetings we have had the opportunity to listen very carefully to the concerns and issues raised by the neighbors. We have become aware that there are some serious pre-existing traffic issues at the intersection of Wadsworth and Quincy. We've also learned that the neighbors are concerned about noise, about traffic, about lights, and about design and aesthetics and how the project looks and because of this opportunity that we've had to meet extensively with the public we have constantly revised our proposal to get to the point where it is today. And it is now in a state where we can truly say that we have seriously listened to and responded to all the concerns we possibly could.

I'd like to give you a brief overview of some of the types of changes that we've incorporated into the proposal before I invite our team of talented professionals up here to explain to you in more detail specifically what the site looks like, what the proposal is and what some of the changes we've made are. But as an overview, some of the things we've done are: Move the building as far back into the site and as far back away from the neighborhoods as we possibly could given the topography of the site. We've moved those components of the Sam's Club wholesale operation that generate the most noise as far away from the neighborhood as we could, to the north side of the site. Things like the trash compactor and the compressors and the pallet and bale storage. We have constructed - we have proposed to construct - some screen walls that are strategically located and architecturally designed to fit in with the architecture so that they will screen those parts of the building that have the biggest potential to be viewed by residential neighbors around to the south, the east, and the west. We have provided quality architecture designed by a local architect recommended by the City of Lakewood with a real emphasis on designing a building that is responsive to the local architectural themes within the City of Lakewood. And that's part of the reason I say this building, this Sam's Club, is unlike any other Sam's Club anywhere in the U.S. because it was specifically designed for Lakewood, for this site by a local architect. We're proposing carefully chosen landscaping over more than 38% of the total twenty-acre site with nearly double the required planting that would be normally required under City code. And not only doubled planting but planting specifically chosen and strategically placed to provide the maximum buffer and the maximum positive visual impact to those neighbors to the south and to the east and to the west. But to those folks in the audience tonight perhaps the most important thing that we're proposing to do is to improve the traffic situation. You'll hear, as I said, about this in more detail from our traffic engineers but generally speaking the proposed traffic improvements will not only accommodate the site traffic that is proposed to be generated by the new Sam's Club but also remedy some pre-existing situations at Wadsworth and Quincy and also along Quincy to the east, towards Denver, and also on the other side of Wadsworth from our proposed project all the way to Ammons Street. Now we cannot fix Wadsworth and Quincy completely. Whether the Sam's Club project is approved or not, whether a different project would be approved or whether there is no development on that site, we will never be able to completely fix Wadsworth and Quincy and make it operate at a "Level of Service A" because it is a major arterial with extremely high levels of traffic and in fact it is already operating at a very low level. What we can do though is to construct improvements like I said which not only accommodate our traffic but fix some of the existing problems such that we can improve how it operates today and keep it at its current Level of Service or better for an additional twenty years beyond what is going to happen otherwise. So essentially we can buy about twenty years more time before the roadway reaches capacity where otherwise it is about at capacity right now.

We will also be implementing about eighty percent of the goals and specific action items outlined in the Lochmoor Special Area Study. As you probably are well aware, the neighborhood immediately to the south of us, the Lochmoor Neighborhood, in 2000 went through a planning process with the City's assistance and identified some specific goals and action items that that neighborhood was interested in implementing including things like under-grounding utilities along the south side of Quincy, adding a sidewalk on the south side of Quincy, adding a sidewalk on the north side of Quincy, and otherwise improving the landscaping in the general area. Now we couldn't implement everything in the goals, in the Lochmoor Special Area Study, for example one of the things proposed was to establish design criteria. Only you, the City, can establish design criteria. But to the extent possible and through meeting with the neighbors to really understand what their goals were, we were able to incorporate about, like I said, about 80% of the goals from the Lochmoor Special Area Study into our proposed project. We will be constructing these improvements on the same time line as all the other improvements and they'll be in place before the store opens if it's approved.

As Mr. Koebel said, few other development proposals would be able to accomplish this. As most of you know, more than 70% of municipal revenue in Colorado is generated by sales tax. It's just simply the way Colorado Law operates and the City of Lakewood's tax system operates. Because of that, on this particular site, only a retail project has the potential to generate enough revenue to construct not only improvement to accommodate it's own traffic but also improvements above and beyond that to address some of these community wide or regional issues and among retail developers, few projects besides a project the scope of Sam's Club backed by a corporation like Sam's Clubs parent corporation would be able to afford to and offer to upfront all these costs and wait to be paid back over time for these costs to be reimbursed. And to remind you, that is the four million dollars required that is not proposed to be reimbursed. That is out of Sam's Clubs pocket. It's the cost of doing the project but the additional three million dollars in extra improvements that we're proposing to do to address the regional traffic issues, the Lochmoor Special Area Study and the other issues raised by the neighbors, that three million dollars is proposed to be reimbursed through a public improvement fee (a PIF) and that would be over time as sales are generated by the new Sam's Club store.

In conclusion, before I introduce the rest of our team and ask them to give you the specifics about the site, I just would like to wrap up by highlighting and emphasizing the fact that this project is truly unique. It is designed to maximize usage of this prime infill site on a major arterial, a major commercial corridor like Wadsworth while still minimizing the impact to the surrounding neighbors. And that is why we have proposed to construct these additional improvements above and beyond what is required. The proposed project is not only consistent with the Lakewood Comprehensive Plan and meets all the requirements in the Lakewood code, it also provides a package of amenities far above and beyond what is required by your code and above and beyond what we believe most other developments could provide in a similar situation. With that I'd like to ask Mr. Shipton of CLC Associates to give you an overview of the site and some specific details about the site. Thank you.

JIM SHIPTON: Commissioners, Mr. Chairman, my name is Jim Shipton with CLC Associates. My address is 8480 East Orchard Road, Greenwood Village, Colorado, 80111. I'd like to orient you to our site, talk about the broad scope of our offsite improvements, and walk you through our project. Our project is located east of Wadsworth Blvd., north of Quincy Avenue, and west of Pierce Way. We are located in kind of a unique location within the City of Lakewood but immediately adjacent to the City and County of Denver on our east and kiddy corner to City and County of Denver at the intersection of Wadsworth and Quincy Avenue. Through the process of our project we worked with this many of the neighbors to our site: Marston Slope Subdivision, Loretto Center and School, Pinehurst Country Club, the Greens at Pinehurst Subdivision and the Lochmoor Subdivision.

Our project, as indicated, is approximately 20 acres. It's made up of two lots. Lot one is eighteen and a half acres. Lot two is approximately one and half acres.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: A little closer to the mike.

JIM SHIPTON: I'll try to get a little closer to the mike. Our building area, our primary building is 138,000 square feet, seventeen percent of our total project area. Our landscape area is approximately 38% of our total project area. The remaining area of our project is made up of parking islands and drives, hard surface to our project at approximately 45% of our total area, 653 parking spaces.

At the northeast corner of Wadsworth and Quincy is an existing medical center that will remain through the development of our project. We've worked with the medical center owners addressing issues of landscape. Their concern is over access and parking through their existing right in right out.

The next component of our project area is a proposed gas station and potential future car wash on our one and a half acre lot. The gas station is proposed to be automotive pumps that are credit card operated. There's a small kiosk for an attendant. There will be no cash transactions or convenience items sold at this point.

Our primary building, the Sam's Club is located to the north and east portions of our project. We're approximately 251' from Quincy Avenue 114' from Pierce Way and increasing to 277' and even a little further up at that north property line. Our initial proposal had our building approximately 60' off of Pierce Way and 180' off of Quincy Avenue. So through the process we moved our building further from these thorough fairs. A little bit to our building the club entry is on the west side of the building and faces Wadsworth Blvd. The tire maintenance automotive portion of our building faces Quincy Avenue. It's got four bay doors where we do minor automotive work including changing tires and batteries, things of that nature. One of the issues that's come up through the process is noise coming out of this facility and our ODP indicates that we will close these bay doors while maintenance or work is happening on the automobiles in the center. Up on the north end of the building we've got a condenser pad and trash compactor. Our initial proposal had these located on the east wall of our building facing Pierce Way. We've been able to move our truck docks creating a more secluded or more screened area for the condenser pads. We've also been able to add a landscape isle that - internal to our paved areas to help screen these items. The trash compactor again, was on the east wall of our building and now has moved approximately 100' to the west. This trash compactor is operated internally to the building. Trash is loaded from the inside of the building so we're not carrying trash out onto external portions of the building. So trash is contained at all times, at least trash that's generated by the club. The truck docks we've moved. Again they were along the east. The east wall of our building, we've moved this truck dock appendage as far west as we could approximately 100'. We've been able to tuck this corner of our building into the existing topography of the site and help screen and buffer these operations in our truck - truck operations. The adjacent elevation of the ground in this area is approximately 20' higher than the finished floor of our building. Our access to our site is limited to two locations. We've proposed a signalized entry into the main portion of our site that will allow free - or signalized traffic and help with the flow of traffic along Quincy Avenue. There's an existing right in right out that serves the medical center today and we will continue to operate that right in right out. We've also added a median in Quincy Avenue to help with safety of traffic moving in and out of this entry point. People won't be tempted or won't have the ability to make the left in or left out movement at this intersection.

Access to our site, our truck route and deliveries will go in through the signalized entry of our site, move around the building to the truck docks and then exit to the right in right out entry. Initially we had proposed to enter in and exit through the signalized intersection in an effort to reduce the number of trucks that drive along Piece Way. We've routed our truck traffic out the front of the site through the right in right out.

Improvements to our site, in connection to our neighboring communities, we've added a series of detached sidewalks along Wadsworth, Quincy Avenue and Pierce Way. We've also included a pedestrian connection that loops through our site up to our entry and down the middle of our parking lot and then along the existing medical center.

We've worked with City Staff to develop a Drainage Plan that meets the requirements of the master Draining Study for the City. We've worked on moving our building north and tucking our building into the site. And with that design created a series of retaining walls to help us screen the front portion of the building and the active portions on the north end of the project along the line A-A in this diagram. We've created a cross section to shield the topography and elevation difference between the surrounding property and the finish four of our building. And again that's approximately a 20' difference.

We've added screen walls to specifically address some issues with the neighbors along the back of our site and the south end of our building. This is a proposed 42' height screen wall, materials to match the architectural of the building and materials of the building. This wall would serve two purposes. One it would screen vehicular lights as they traveled along these areas of the property and it would also create an additional barrier to help catch him and keep trash that might be blowing around our site within our property. As a practice the Associates within the club police the site on a regular basis.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Excuse me a moment please. We're monitoring it the best we can. And secretary, do you have that as loud as it can be? Do your best and we'll try to monitor the feedback the best we can. Excuse me, Commissioner Malm.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Pull the mike toward you and tip it up. Pull it toward you. No, like this. Okay now try that.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you. I don't like speaking into mikes either. You have to sometimes.

JIM SHIPTON: Fells like it's almost in my mouth.

COMMISSIONER MALM: These are a little hard.

JIM SHIPTON: The next feature of our site is our Site Lighting for the project. Initially we had proposed our standard for Sam's Club on a 38' tall lighting feature. Through our process we've reduced that overall height down to 25'. These fixtures will be flat lenses, cut off fixtures that will help with the light pollution or the light that potentially would spill of our site.

The diagram shows our lighting photometrics. Each of the light at the yellow areas would be approximate location of our light standards and the distribution of our light on our project as you move away from each of those standards will be reduced with a goal of having zero light spill off of our property or beyond our property boundaries. With our lighting program we've worked with the stated (phonetic) included in the PUD that we would reduce our light after hours and leave only light fixtures on for safety reasons. Approximately the area indicated we would leave lights on. Those would be turned off one hour after closing and they'd be turned on again one hour prior to opening.

Our overall landscape we've touched on a little bit. We've, again we got 38% of our site landscaped with a substantial number of trees. 475 trees are proposed for our project. Over 2500 shrubs are proposed. We're going to include species that had different shapes, characters, color for interest. We're going to try and provide shading in the parking lot areas and screening along our parameters of our project we've included evergreen trees for year round screening and color, a number of ornamental trees to highlight and accent certain areas of our project and color in the spring. And a wide variety of shrubs, grasses and perennial Plan materials that again will give us some screening opportunities at lower levels and color and interest for different parts of the year. Our landscape setbacks are indicated in this diagram. We've got a 52' landscape setback from our property line along Quincy. 73' at our narrowest point on Pierce Way and that widens again as we move north 230' at the corner of the building and even wider to the north boundary. And in addition to the landscape that's on our site we've included buffers at the north corner of our project along the Loretto Center. We've done some varying spacing and clumping of landscape materials at the east side of our property that will help blend in with similar Planings that occur on the country club and some of the residential neighborhoods. And within the right-of-way beyond the boundaries of our actual property we proposed a consistent street planning along Quincy Avenue giving a parkway experience. North along Pierce Way we'll have a similar number of trees that are - put at more irregular space to help blend in with the golf course and the neighboring community. We've included some smooth wire fence to define the parameter of our project on Quincy and Pierce Way. We've added a unique retaining wall system that has varying size of materials and colors so that our wall won't look homogenous but we'll give them more of a feeling as a stonewall, stone landscape wall. Then the final detail up along the Loretto Center we've proposed adding a metal safety rail so that the students that use their facilities near our property will minimize the risk of them falling or getting near our retaining walls.

Next I'd like to introduce you to our overall improvements. They include improvements at Ammons Street quite a distance west of Wadsworth Blvd. near the intersection at the existing Costco. We will make improvements along Quincy Avenue to a point in between Reed Street and Pierce Street where we'd meet up with improvements that have already been done by the City of Denver at Pierce Street. So we'll widen that street to match what's been done at that point. We'll do some street improvements north on Pierce Way past the - to the extent of our property. And then we'll some transition improvements on Wadsworth Blvd.

At the intersection of Quincy and Ammons Street we'll add a traffic signal. This will help with flow of traffic along Quincy Avenue. We'll be making a number of improvements at the intersection of Wadsworth and Quincy Avenue. This intersection currently operates very poorly. We're going to come in and add to the existing pavement at this intersection. We're going to - at proposed pavement indicated in the magenta color to help with flow through this intersection off of Quincy onto Wadsworth. We're going to add an attached sidewalk on the south side of Quincy. We're going to add a detached sidewalk on the north side of Quincy at this intersection. We're going to add raised medians indicated at the northeast and northwest corner. A median down Quincy Avenue and then the final improvement that we're going to do along this corridor is underground the overhead electric along Quincy Avenue and the Lochmoor Subdivision. As we move east we're going to be looking at the signalized entry into the club. You can see by the existing pavement that's out there today a number of lanes really bottleneck down into a pretty tight spot on Quincy Avenue. We're going to add significant pavement here to add additional lanes to help with the flow of traffic. Again we'll add the sidewalks on both sides of Quincy Avenue. The medians in the center of the street and continue to underground the overhead electric. Skip through our animation but this is the intersection of Pierce Way and Quincy Avenue. Again you can see in the gray our existing pavement, the additional pavement that we're adding in magenta. One of the major issues with this intersection, Pierce Way was one lane that both left and right turns need to flow through to get onto Quincy Avenue. We're adding an additional lane to separate those two movements so that you won't have to wait behind someone turning left if you need to turn right. We're also adding the signal at this intersection to help with the flow of traffic in this area. The sidewalks, the underground electric and the medians will be added as well.

The limits of our improvement as I mentioned will be at the east between Reed and Pierce Street. We're adding some additional lanege on the south side to match up with what Denver's already done on the Pierce Street intersection. This will be the limits of our sidewalk. We'll tie into an existing sidewalk. And it will also be the limits of our underground electric. At this point I'd like to introduce Charles Buck our Traffic Engineer who's going to go into a little more detail about these improvements and discuss how these improvements are going to improve the traffic and flow along Quincy Avenue.

CHARLES BUCK: Good evening. My name is Charles Buck. I'm a Transportation Engineer with Felsburg Holt & Ullevig. Our address is 6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600 at Centennial, Colorado 80111. I conducted the Traffic Impact Analysis for Sam's Club. Now the purpose, the basic purpose of a traffic impact analysis is to one estimate how much additional traffic might to due to a proposed development. And then figure out what roadway improvements are needed to accommodate that traffic. Now clearly traffic generated by Sam's Club is going to be a pretty major issue tonight. But just to provide you with some perspective on this rezoning request. I'd like to show you a comparison of the traffic implications associates with the existing zoning in comparison to the traffic projections from Sam's Club.

[If we could - no skip back please.]

The yellow bars on this graph that you see here represent the amount of traffic that's currently entering the intersection of Wadsworth and Quincy. During the AM peak hour we have about 4,060 vehicles entering that intersection. During the PM peak hour is more it's about 6400 vehicles entering.

Going to the next slide we have our slide showing the potential traffic that could occur under the existing zoning. You can see that it would represent an increase of about 10% in the AM peak hour and about 7% in the PM peak hour. In comparison the Sam's Club would represent an increase of about 4% in the AM peak hour, which is considerably less than a 10% represented by existing zoning. And the PM peak hour of Sam's Club would increase traffic by about 9%, which is only about 2% higher than the existing zoning might produce.

The improvements that Sam's Club is proposing were mentioned in general terms by Mr. Shipton, I'd just like to recap those improvements that are required to accommodate the traffic generated by Sam's Club. And these improvements are widening Quincy to four lanes adjacent to the site. Provide dual left turn lanes on Wadsworth at Quincy. That's both north bound and south bound. Provide a new traffic signal at the sit access on Quincy and provide dual left turn lanes at that site access. Also it's required to widen Pierce Way to provide two south-bound lanes for separate left and right turn movements. And we need to increase the storage on Quincy for west bound left turns at Wadsworth. Those are the capacity improvements that are required if the proposed rezoning is approved. However Sam's Club is committed to providing additional improvements above and beyond these basic requirements. These voluntary improvements are: continue the widening of Quincy to four lanes from the edge of the site all the way to Pierce - at Pierce Way all the way to Reed Street. Provide a new traffic signal at Quincy and Ammons. And also provide a new traffic signal at Quincy and Pierce Way. There will be pedestrian improvements along Quincy that will be provided and some pavement re-stripping on Quincy to provide some improvements to existing acceleration and deceleration laneage.

As a part of our traffic analysis and to show the affect of these improvements we prepared a computer simulation of traffic operations in the vicinity of the site. The simulation uses weekday PM peak hour conditions for three scenarios. Existing conditions, how things are today, short-term future conditions with the addition of Sam's Club and proposed improvements on top of existing conditions and long-term future conditions. Right now we're looking at existing conditions at Ammons and Quincy. This is a stop signed controlled intersection. Left turns can be difficult from Ammons Street onto Quincy. Zephyr Street is also unsignalized. Left turns from Zephyr are also difficult. Now as we approach Wadsworth we can begin to see some of the existing traffic issues on westbound Quincy. You can see long cueing of vehicles extending from Wadsworth east. This is caused primarily by insufficient storage for the left turn movements but it also affects through movements and right turns. You can see the existing medical building and its access there at the right towards the top of the screen. The level of service at Wadsworth is currently Level Service D but it's right on the threshold of D to E. Now if we move a little bit further east we can see the traffic at Pierce Way. Pierce Way is unsignalized right now. That cueing really impacts traffic operations here. It's difficult for southbound vehicles to get onto Quincy. The simulation also shows some difficulty in the left turns onto Pierce Way. Moving further east we see traffic operations at Reed Street. This is a stop sign controlled intersection and further east again is Pierce Street. And this is also stop sign controlled. We're moving back along the corridor and looking at that long cue that begins at Wadsworth.

We're now going to transition into the short-term future. We have added the Sam's Club traffic and we've made the improvements that have been discussed. This is the Ammons Street intersection. It's signalized. For this type of traffic control it will get Level of Service A, which is very good. Moving east to Zephyr Street. Zephyr is pretty low volume street. This intersection will remain stop sign controlled but the signal at Ammons will help to provide gaps for left turns from Zephyr. Now at Wadsworth you can really start to see the benefits and some of the improvements that we're doing. There are much-reduced cues on the left turns there. The storage has been increased to accommodate these movements. We'll operate at level of D, which is pretty much the same as existing but again operations on westbound Quincy are much improved. We're able to clear out the left turns during each signal and vehicles do not back up. We're looking at the Sam's Club site access. This will be signalized. Pierce Way also will be signalized. Traffic operations at these two intersections will be very good LOS, A or B. Now we move along to Reed Street. Reed Street is a low volume street. This intersection will remain stop signed controlled. And the same is true for Pierce Way but the proximity of the new signal at Pierce Way will help to provide gaps for these intersections. And moving back over the intersection of Wadsworth you can see that the cues really do clear out.

Now we're going to transition to long-term future. In addition to Sam's Club traffic we have regional increases over the next 20 years added in. We're at Ammons Street right now. Signalized operations at this intersection will remain at Level of Service A. Zephyr Street will remain unsignalized with stop sign control. Still the signal at Ammons will help the operations at this intersection. And the long term future Wadsworth Blvd. and Quincy is going to operate at Level of Service E, which means very near capacity. This is primarily due to the very heavy through volumes that are projected along Wadsworth Blvd. But even so you can see that we're able to keep the cueing of westbound traffic on Quincy within the available storage. As we watch the signal go through it cycles. Cycle through its phases. We'll see that these left turns are generally able to clear out. Moving onto the site access and to Pierce Way. Both these intersections will continue to operate at very good levels of service in the long-range future. And then we'll move along east to Reed Street and this will remain unsignalized. Again know that Pierce Way signal should help to provide gaps at both Reed Street and at Pierce Street, which will also remain unsignalized. And that pretty much concludes the traffic simulation video. I think you can see that the proposed roadway improvements will provide sufficient capacity to not only mitigate some of the existing congestion but to accommodate the additional traffic due to Sam's Club as well as future regional growth. And with that I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Al Colussey, our architect.

AL COLUSSEY: My name is Al Colussey. I'm a principle and architect with the local design firm of Klipp a professional corporation. We're a Denver based firm with a national practice. We were brought into this project for kind of a unique challenge.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Your address please.

AL COLUSSEY: Thank you. It's 1512 Larimer Street, Denver 80202.

Like I mentioned, we were brought into this project to take on, what I think is a fairly unique design challenge. An example of some of our firm's work around town would be represented, for example, like the Denver West Village Project for Greg Stevenson, which we produced a fair amount of buildings, basically all of the buildings that you see there now, currently, in his development. We were also fundamental in terms of working with the Colorado Mills Project in terms of taking some of their large format retailers such as Target and really putting on a different face for those users. Different examples, as far as some of our work, also in terms of the Dakota Ridge High School over along C-470. As well as some of the new Sage Wood Product, which is down at Ken Caryl Ranch. What we wanted to do here is to take and a fairly, I think, challenging design exercise and dispel a lot of what I'd consider kind of stereo types as far as what large format retailing is all about. Many times retailers really kind of pride themselves in terms of being low cost, low budget and want their buildings to look that way. All of us in this room here tonight have seen many examples of buildings that are poorly designed, poorly proportioned. Built out of inexpensive materials and in a very short period of time look very problematic to the neighborhood. But we wanted to try to do here is to create a very different approach towards this architecture and look in terms of how the dollars were spent technically on the building to want to be able to support it but at the same time be very careful about how those dollars were spent. For the most part what we wanted to be able to do was to avoid many times when a design firm is brought in to work on a project like this is that their solution many times is to look at a, what I'd call embellishments that are pretty much arbitrary on the building. That may end up looking like something from what I'd call a Southern California Colluviums Revival Project. It's a little bit of this. It's little bit of that and nobody really knows what it is. And what we've really tried to do in essence is strip away a lot of those kinds of arbitrary embellishments and to really put forth what I'd call a meaningful composition on this building. That composition is important that it happens on all sides of the building even though with the unique placement on this site is that only about two thirds of the entire elevations are really seen from anywhere offsite because of the unique location within the property. As Jim had mentioned earlier the building is located in such a way is that on the majority of the elevations are basically hidden by Loretto to the north and some of the remaining areas of the Academy Park. The slide that you see in front of you represents the four primary facades on this building. The top being the west elevation as you see that there is a composition of different forms. The left side on the top being the loading docks which are basically covered or in-ground by about a twenty-foot depression. The center section, which basically is a composition of about four different types of masonry, all of which have kind of a blending or almost like a musical score in terms of a fairly fresh timeless pattern. On the right hand side you'll see more of a smaller scale series of glazing curtain wall as well as a pedestrian scale canopy. For the most part from Wadsworth the canopy portion on the right hand side of that elevation is the only thing that I see because of the depression of this building within the site. Moving quickly around to the other elevations. The south elevation is the second shot down and for the most part what we're looking at here is changing from the composition of primary masonry to more of what I'd call a seamless or interlock panel and I'll show you an example of that here in a minute. That continues across the - in essence the building - the smallest elevation to the south is minimized so in essence to not negatively affect the neighbors to the south. If I then move around on the east side, basically we have taken all along (phonetic) of the utility functions that Jim had mentioned earlier. We put those on the north and I think appropriately located those in a compact very appropriate way. The continuation of the musical score pattern as you see on the masonry is continued all the way across this elevation. And I think then with the placement of this building, for the most part if on the right hand side as you see it there, that portion of the building is a full football field distance way from the northeast corner of this party. We also in terms of being working with a landscape architect with the idea that the majority of the open space and the majority of the planning on all of this happens on the east side which I think is appropriate based upon the residential context of the site. Moving around further to the north elevation as you can see it's a fairly strong continuation of those building concepts. At the same time the majority of this elevation will never be seen by anybody off site primarily because the site is depressed on this corner at least 20 feet.

[Next slide.]

This is a close up view of a portion of the west elevation. And what we really wanted to look at is in terms of how we can really promote good quality design. Well one thing that we really want to make sure of is that the building is designed in such a way that doesn't have to be painted or repainted or fixed up because of just the wear and tear. So all of these materials we feel are fairly good quality in terms of strong composition. I think very much of kind of what I'd call modernist proportions. And I think, for the most part, really hold the test of time. It's not kind of trendy architectural; if you will, but I think something that would really look good for a long, long time.

[Next.]

These are physical examples of both local buildings as well as a representative of other architectural examples of the very materials that we propose to use on this building. From a series of the masonry that you see in the middle to the right hand side to a series of the interlocking metal panels which have more of a zinc and/or champagne color quality to them. We're very careful in terms of the color composition that we have here so that it's appropriate both from a pedestrian scale, from a neighborhood scale, as well as a continuation of what I'd call the Wadsworth Retail Corridor which this building really serves as kind of a gateway into that. The building also has to be able to be sensitive to the context of the Academy Business Park as a whole in terms of that it does serve as the southern entrance to that. This building, more importantly, should not serve as a residential looking building because it definitely it is not and should not mimic that sort of thing for very much of the example that I mentioned to you earlier. So for the most part the retail context is very important because this building.

[Could you go on to that side please? Thank you.]

This building - it's very important and that is that it becomes a good neighbor both in terms of that extension of Academy Park to the north as well as that it does abut the country club as well as the residential neighborhoods. This particular slide here does show a further example of that large landscaping area as well as kind of the massing and placement of the building. In essence we really wanted to make sure that all corners of the building and facades of the building were treated appropriately in terms of scale. The height of the building is, as you see, pretty much average all the way around is about 33 feet.

[Would you go to the next slide? Thank you.]

This is a shot looking from the intersection of Quincy and Pierce. I'm looking to the northwest and you see the building in terms - has been places in such a way and set back at approximately 250 feet. That the majority of my view from the residence as well as from the commuters is primarily the retaining walls which there's a series of those and those have been spaced such as that it allows an integration of landscaping and to basically cascade back appropriately into the side. So it also preserves very much in terms of the views of large fields of asphalt, which we think are negative. And I think just breaks up in terms of - creates a nice corner and/or kind of a nice gateway into this development.

This is something we're continually jazzed about and that is that this is the, as mentioned before, this is the club entry. This is basically the west, southwest corner of the building. As you can see by the scale of the people, the models that are in there is that there's a very strong appropriate connection between the wheat colored canopy that wraps both the west and south side of the building. The canopy also then has a functional aspect of it and that is that it serves as the overhead for the customer pick up in terms of loading into the automobiles. At the same time we've also organized into this a signage package that doesn't seem like an afterthought but really is integrated into the building. The signage is appropriate I think for the scale of it. It doesn't seem to be, in our opinion, that it's out of scale but we feel like it's appropriate that it identifies the building. It identifies the entrance as well as the materials here with the glazing I think allow people to become quickly oriented in terms of where the front door of the building is.

And finally this is a view that slightly rotates a little bit more to the south. This obviously is the primary architectural feature of it but I think that there's a delightful expression of modernist views all the way around on the building. So with that said we're available later on for question and answer but for the most part that describes the architecture. Thank you.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: Thank you very much. Once again Carolynne White, Land Use Counsel for Sam's Club. My address is 410 17th Street, Denver 80202. I'd like to wrap up by summarizing what you've heard so far about the proposed project and tying it specifically to how it meets the particular criteria that you will be considering tonight. The criteria that are required in order to demonstrate that we are eligible for a rezoning.

Under the Lakewood City Code there are five criteria of which we are required to meet three. As I think you'll see we think we need four of the five. So more than is required. And before I go into that in more detail I'd like to first emphasize that because this is a rezoning to a PD a Planned Development which is the same type, general type of zoning that's currently on the property. We're going from a PD to a PD with the exception of one small parcel that is currently zoned R-1A. All of the things we told you tonight in terms of the items that we proposed to do differently. Site design, architecture, lighting, hours of operation, all of those things are incorporated into the notes on the PD. They're part of the zoning. So if you approve - recommend approval - of this rezoning and City Counsel approves it, it becomes part of zoning that we have to turn the lights off one hour after the operation is closed. And it becomes part of our zoning that we have to Plan the number of trees that we proposed. So these are items that we are not only committed to by standing up here and committing to you verbally that we're planning to do them. These are items that are enforceable by your Code Enforcement Officers just like any other part of the Lakewood City Code is enforceable. I just want to emphasize that particularly for the benefit of those in the audience who might say well geeze how we going to know for sure that you're really going to turn the lights off when you say you're going to turn the lights off.

With that said I'd like to explain briefly the criteria in the Lakewood Rezoning - the Lakewood Code, what you have to meet for rezoning and why we think this project, not only meets it, but exceeds those requirements. There are three items in the Lakewood Zoning Code we have to meet: A) you have to meet one of three items in B and you have to meet two of the two items in C. So starting with the first item: 1A) we must demonstrate that the proposed rezoning promotes health safety or welfare of the inhabitants of the City of Lakewood and the purposes of this ordinance and this ordinance of course refers to the Lakewood Zoning Code. And I'm, by the way, referring to seventeen 17-7.

This is just a highlight of some of the reasons why we think this proposed rezoning will enhance the health safety and welfare of the citizens of Lakewood, In particular the proposed traffic mitigation improvements which will not only of course accommodate our existing traffic but improve the situation regionally and that also will reduce the number and severity of potential accidents at these intersections.

Along with those traffic improvements are a series of pedestrian enhancements, which will also increase safety in this area. Right now there is no sidewalk on the south side of Quincy. Actually there's no sidewalk on the north side of Quincy either but we propose a detached sidewalk on the north side and attached on the south side given the space requirements that's attached as what we can do and because of that we think that we'll minimize the opportunity for pedestrian and vehicle conflict and improve the safety.

We're also proposing to implement a Drainage Plan that will improve drainage in this general area. Not only for our project but also working in conjunction with some of the neighboring property owners including the City and County of Denver and properties that are located in the City and County of Denver.

Also as Mr. Koebel talked about in the beginning, this proposed project will improve convenience and provide some much needed wholesale/retail if that can be used as a phrase in the City of Lakewood. In other words what I'm trying to say is this technically is classified as a retail project because it is retail sales on which sales tax is collected. However it's a wholesale club. It's a club business. Sam's Club is. It serves primarily local businesses. The majority of our customers are local businesses who buy items for reuse or resale in their own business. Currently there isn't a business like this within the City of Lakewood and so this will be providing a much needed service to those businesses who currently may be shopping at the other Sam's location which is in the City and County of Denver. And for that reason the proposal to move the Sam's Club to this location will recapture sales tax leakage that the City of Lakewood is currently experiencing to the extent that folks who live in Lakewood or businesses who are located in Lakewood are now meeting their needs by shopping at another Sam's Club, Costco or similar wholesale club that's not located within the City of Lakewood.

Additionally we have to show that at least one of the following three items exist. This is an either or. You have to show one out of the following three. You have to show that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the goals of the Lakewood Comprehensive Plan, or that there's been a material change in character of the neighborhood or in the City generally such that the proposed rezoning would be in the public interest and consistent with the change, or three, that the property to be rezoned was previously zoned in error. We're not arguing that the property was previously zoned in error so we're not arguing about Criteria #3 but we do think one and two are both in evidence with this proposal. In terms of the Lakewood Comprehensive Plan it really is a comprehensive plan. I'm only going to highlight just a few of the specific goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan that we think are met or furthered by this project. There are actually numerous goals throughout the plan ranging from specific pedestrian issues to landscape issues, infill development and so on. I'm just going to focus on about five of them. The first one is guide development and provide incentive so that new development and redevelopment occurs in appropriate locations including major urban centers, employment, community and neighborhood centers and residential areas.

The next two encourage and promote high quality infill and redevelopment projects. And encourage business retention and expansion while continuing to actively recruit new businesses and major employers.

I lumped those first three together because I think some of the particular aspects of the project really argue for all three of those collectively. Number one this is an infill project. And this is a site that is very important to Lakewood in terms of your long-term commercial sales tax base. This is a great site for Lakewood to look at in terms of anticipating how you can fill this with a suitable commercial business.

This is, as I mentioned, the last sizable infill site in the Wadsworth commercial corridor. Additionally we're proposing a project that will be an asset to local Lakewood businesses. As I mentioned before the primary customer of Sam's Club are small businesses who shop at Sam's Club to supply their own small businesses.

You also have a goal of encouraging - actively recruiting new businesses and major employers. Well you couldn't have chosen any more major employer than Sam's Club, which is one of the largest employers in the United States. And that's a goal F-1 incidentally. Also goal F-17, which promotes clustering of complimentary businesses and this also goes to something I'm going to talk about a little later which is compatibility. In other words, this type of project, this type of wholesale or retail if you will business is very similar to the types of businesses found up and down the Wadsworth corridor. To the south there are several other businesses of similar size and scale, similar type of market, although there are really only two other businesses that have this particular type of whole club market.

Two of the other goals were applicable. Encourage attractive and effective industry and employment centers. This is gong to be a significant employment center. It's going to employ approximately 135 people. These are 135 new jobs to Lakewood given that the current Sam's Club is located to the south within the City and County of Denver. That store incidentally employs about 107 people. So of the total jobs 28 will be brand new jobs but 135 will be new jobs to Lakewood.

And another Comprehensive Plan goal fosters a strong revenue base to maintain quality City services. Continue to encourage the improvement of major retail uses and pursue new quality retail developments. We previously talked a little bit about the potential contribution to Lakewood's sales tax base but I just want to put a number on that for you. Based on the existing Sam's Club sales and based on Lakewood's current sales tax rate and its tax on taxable food and groceries. We estimate and this information was submitted in our package that it will generate approximately $1.7 million in sales tax revenue to Lakewood annually. That's not counting property tax, RTD, County or State taxes only sales tax revenue to Lakewood. But also while we're on this goal I'd like to mention the phrase quality. Quality City services and quality retail developments.

As I hope you've seen tonight we believe this is a truly unique project. This is a quality retail development. It is a Sam's Club unlike any other in the United States. Both in terms of aesthetics, landscaping, architecture but also in terms of the extensive lengths we've gone to listen to the concerns of the neighborhood and try to propose changes to our Site Plan, to our typical prototype, to our way of doing business in order to accommodate and respond to those concerns as best as we can.

The second of the two criteria that I believe we meet - While we're on talking about whether we meet the Comprehensive Plan goals. Let me just add that, although this isn't specifically a criteria, as I mentioned before the proposal includes items that are going to help accomplish the goals outlined in the Lochmoor Special Area Study. As I mentioned that was adopted on July 5, 2000. Almost five years ago. Now in fact it's scheduled for a five-year update coming up this summer. According to what it says in the study. And these are a list of just some of the specific items that the folks in that neighborhood outlined at their future action items or their future goals that we're proposing to do at our own expense as part of this project. Includes re-striping of Reed Street to improve access to Quincy. It includes the acceleration lane for northbound Reed Street to westbound Quincy. It includes the addition of a new traffic signal at South Pierce Way. In fact the Area Study, Special Area Study only talked about studying whether a traffic signal was needed because the residence had expressed a desire to have one there. We're going to provide one.

Also an acceleration/deceleration lane on the north side of Quincy that's immediately adjacent to the proposed Sam's Club site. And an eight foot detached sidewalk on the north side of Quincy. This will be right along the southern boundary of our property and it will be detached from the right-of-way so there will be landscaping in between the sidewalk and the right-of-way separating the pedestrians from the traffic.

Now the next item is an eight foot attached sidewalk on the south side of Quincy. This is what was articulated in the Lochmoor Special Area Study. Our plan proposed a five foot attached sidewalk on the south side of Quincy. And that's because there's really no additional room to expand there within the right-of-way without encroaching onto the homes of the folks that live a long there. And then finally to underground all existing and future utilities this was actually two separate items in the Special Area Study. They proposed under grounding existing utilities and then working with utility companies in the future to make sure that future utilities added would be under grounded. We're proposing to under ground electric, existing electric lines at this time and any utilities that would be associated with our site we're proposing to place under ground as well.

The second of the two criteria that are in either/or - now remember we only have to either of the Comprehensive Plan or material change in the neighborhood. We think we meet both. In terms of the material change and the character of the neighborhood, this site and this corridor really exemplifies the type of material change and character in the neighborhood that people talk about when they draft this provision in rezoning codes. And what I mean by that is when you look at it - when the original PUD was approved on this site in 1971 and a new PUD was overlaid on that in 1978 but in those years, '71 through '78 there was only one existing residential subdivision, Lochmoor, to the south. There was little development along Wadsworth to the south. All of the retail that I keep talking about was not there to the south of Quincy on Wadsworth. And the traffic on Wadsworth was primarily local traffic. It was not the major north/south arterial that it has since become. When you look at what this corridor looks like now, this is a high intensity retail corridor. As Mr. Koebel mentioned there is some two million plus square feet of retail existing immediately to the south of Quincy on Wadsworth and it has become as you saw in the traffic simulation high traffic north/south arterial for people traveling maybe through Lakewood not necessarily to Lakewood. Because of that changing character we think that this proposal is uniquely situated to really rezone the property to what it could be and yet still accommodate and minimize the impact on the adjacent neighborhoods.

And then finally, the last criteria in your zoning code requires that the following two criteria are both met. The first one, compatible with surrounding uses as evidenced by the conceptual Site Plan, which is what we've been discussing with you tonight. Sometimes we call it the ODP. We're referring to what, in your zoning code, is the conceptual Site Plan. And then secondly, that the proposal enhances significant and natural characteristics of the site by preservation or incorporating the features into the development's open space. Going first with the compatibility of surrounding uses. We look at compatibility in two ways, compatibility of use and compatibility aesthetically. In terms of compatibility of use as I've said a couple of times, a proposed Sam's Club is highly compatible with the types of retail and other uses existing along the Wadsworth corridor. It's compatible with the rest of the Academy Park Subdivision, the original 250 acre business park which is about 200 acres of it or to the north of us. And it mirrors the existing large format retail, which is diagonally or catty corner across the intersection from this proposed location. Even though that large format retail is actually within the City and County of Denver. It is the exact same type of size and scale and massing as the proposal in front of you tonight.

The project is also separated from residential to the west by Wadsworth Blvd. Its separated from the residential to the east not only by South Pierce Way but also by the buffer that you've seen in that buffer at its narrowest point is about 75 feet. And its widest point is about 300 feet and that's the landscape buffer. 75 feet is not the distance from the building to the right-of-way that's just how wide the landscaping is. As a matter of fact this building will have the effect of reducing the existing noise level from Wadsworth as measured to the east side of our property over near the Pinehurst Country Club. Additionally it's separated by - from the residential to the south by the proposed buffered landscaping and the Quincy right-of-way itself plus all the improvements we're proposing to Quincy. And along the landscape buffer on the south side of our property along Quincy we're proposing a three foot berm including landscaping. So that will have an additional benefit of mitigating both noise and visually what the view is from the neighbors to the south. The project is separated from the Sister's of Loretto property to the north by an existing steep grade. The topography of the site actually slopes down to the south and east away from the Sisters so the Sisters are at a high point looking down on the property. That's how we proposed to sort of tuck the building into that hillside and minimize the visual impact. But along with that we're separated from the Sister's property to the north by the retaining wall that you saw by the safety fence on top of the retaining wall that you saw and by proposed landscaping that we're going to Plan which actually is going to end up being Planed not on our property but on their property to their benefit to screen even the wall from the view of the folks to the north there.

Moving onto the next criteria. Enhances natural characteristics.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Excuse me. I would expect that we would all maintain the decorum I requested. Please continue.

Ladies and gentlemen we're all here for a public process. I'd ask you please to let them conclude and everyone will have their chance.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: Mr. Chairman thank you. The last criteria is enhancement and natural characteristics. This is a criterion that's separate and different from the other criteria. As a matter of fact there are no natural characteristics on the side that are identifiable for preservations such as wild life habitat, Riparian (phonetic) Corridors or other environmentally sensitive areas. So there's nothing really specifically to preserve. Nonetheless we've tried to maximize the natural characteristics of the site by proposing enhanced landscaping as you've already heard, significant buffer areas and really beefing up the existing natural vegetation on the site. And also selecting the vegetation specifically to try to enhance the sort agricultural feel that we heard some folks say that they felt the site represented. Fortunately that concludes my remarks on these specific rezoning criteria. I know that there will be lots of questions. I'm sure you'll have lots of questions and we'll look forward to answering those to the best of our ability after we give the public a chance to comment. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you very much. Appreciate your presentation. A recess has been requested by a member of the Commission and while we have a lot to do tonight I promised them that I would let them have their biological breaks as they needed them. So we're going to recess for a quick five minutes.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Ladies and gentlemen we're going to reconvene in one minute.

Ladies and gentlemen if you'd kindly take your seats. Thank you very much for allowing us that break. We'll call tonight's Lakewood Planning Commission hearing back to order. And ladies and gentlemen, just to go over what's going to happen in the remainder of this evening. I'm such a soft-spoken gentlemen, please forgive me I'll do my best. We're going to hear the Staff Report on this case. Once that concludes we'll open the floor to public comment. I understand that Dr. Carl Koonsman has organized some series of presentations and we will provide as much latitude as the evening will allow to hear from the neighborhood and the community. At the end of that we'll close public comment and then we'll move into Commissioner Questions. At that time, from the presentations that were given from the public comments, the Commission will ask the questions. So if you come to the podium this evening with a specific question, feel free to pose it, we will make note of that question and see that it's answered this evening. With that, please could we have the Staff Report?

MIKE ROCK: Thank you Mr. Chair and Commission members and we recognize this has already been a long evening and it's just getting started so we'll try to keep it moving for you. I'll wait till the cell phone goes off. I'm Mike Rock, Lakewood City Manager, as you know it's a rare for me to appear before the Planning Commission - I think this is only the second time in thirteen years - and I'm here for two reasons. First this is the first project that really has attempted to incorporate your long effort to create performance base zoning standards and you of course worked on that for many years in the Staff while the formal details are still in the works. Certainly the concept is well understood and well embraced by the City Staff, and this project incorporates that performance based zoning concept and in fact sets a very, I think, strong standard for the incorporation of performance based zoning. And the Staff supports this project - and we don't support all projects. In fact the one you were scheduled to hear two to three weeks ago as you know we recommended you denial on that basis. That project is being reconfigured. We're certainly aware that there is a great deal of emotion around this project but we would hope that it would be judged on its merits. We've had a great history with this company, the project they did at Colfax and Wadsworth is unique both architecturally and in terms of design, in terms of dealing with drainage. They just announced the reuse of 440 Wadsworth. Every commitment made by this company and by Roger Thompson, their Real State Vice President, has been met or exceeded in our working relationship has been a very good one. So we're confident that any commitments that are made are not only legally enforceable but will be followed through by the company without a lot of prodding. Wadsworth is commercial corridor. That's what our Comprehensive Plan says. All of the prior proposals on this side have been opposed and certainly this one we recognize has met with neighborhood opposition and "There will be an anywhere but here" argument but if not here where? This is a commercial corner on a commercial corridor. We cannot achieve defacto open space through zoning and there are really only three alternative uses on the site. One is residential. That would be in direct conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The second would be office, which is the current zoning. That would create unacceptably high peak level traffic loads without an expectable level of revenue to address those peak loads. I'll wait.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Ladies and gentlemen, I ask you once again to please maintain the decorum that we've requested. We'd like to wrap this up in as efficient a manner as possible and we'll extend the same courtesy to you.

MIKE ROCK: Third alternative is retail. Retail generates not only revenue that certainly the City sorely needs, but it also generates the revenue to deal with both onsite and offsite impacts and allows for the kind of architecturally quality that you've heard addressed tonight. Having said that, we still believe the project should stand on its own merit. In other words, if it didn't generate a penny of revenue, is it still a project that we believe meets our standards. And we believe that it does. We certainly all would prefer to deal with projects that don't have conflict and certainly many of the projects we deal with we deal with without conflict but this certainly won't be the first or last project with conflict. It may be the biggest meeting you'll be in for a while but good people can disagree over projects. I think historically what we've seen is even in cases when there's been disagreement over the merits of a project when the project has finally been built and implemented it's been an asset to the community. This has been model process, in terms of identifying and addressing impacts, coming up with realistic solutions, coming up with a national prototype for the building. And it will be a real test of our whole performance based concept. If a developer follows all the rules, if the developer meets all the staff requests, and the project is still not popular, then what do we, as a community, do? I would hope that if it meets all those requirements, if it's well designed, if we set aside the emotion and deal with the merits that project would be approved.

CHAD MINOR: Good evening Chairman Marino, Commissioners. My name is Chad Minor of the City of Lakewood Community Planning and Development Department and Project Manager for the case before you this evening. Rezoning Case Number RZ-04-008. I would like to enter into the record the Staff Report, the Staff Report attachments, letters from the neighborhoods, the Lakewood Comprehensive Plan, the Lochmoor Special Area Study, the Lakewood Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, slides and testimony this evening. In respect of time for the neighborhood presentations and also the testimony given this evening I am going to do my best attempt to summarize what I had already summarized as far as the staffs presentations, so please bear with me as I go through this presentation. I would like to start by making a quick clarification on the information within the Official Development Plan. On page two of the Official Development Plan accessory uses shall only be those listed specifically on the ODP and not those listed within Article Two of the Zoning Ordinance. We will change that language should it go to Mylar and make that clarification.

I will make this very brief. We have gone over the public improvements in some detail and those are also included within your Staff Reports so if you don't mind, I will gloss over these. Again, there are required and additional public improvements proposed on this project, and we can always come back to these slides later in the evening if we need to. Again the additional public improvements that I'd like to concentrate on are curb, gutter, and five foot wide attached sidewalk with curve ramps along South Quincy. I'm sorry West Quincy Avenue on the south side. We have standard drive entrances for properties fronting on Quincy, undergrounding of utility lines, and the relocation of streetlights. And again, install a new signal at the intersection of South Pierce Way and West Quincy Avenue. And install a new signal at the intersection of South Ammons Way and West Quincy Avenue. City required public improvements again are close to four million while additional public improvements are close to three. The additional public improvements will be financed through a PIF or Public Improvement Fee. This fee is imposed by the landowner.

Rezoning criteria. We've heard the criteria; I will not go through those. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is the first criteria I'd like to concentrate on. Approximately twenty goals and forty-three policies have been evaluated and the Staff Report is being consistent with the development proposal. I'd like to briefly summarize each of the sections, community image, identity, appearance, and design. Neighborhood meetings, updates, correspondences, etc. have been provided throughout the process. Clip architects as requested by the City of Lakewood has designed a building that is unique and custom to this location. Extensive buffering and landscaping has been provided and will also include tree line streets along the three frontages. Staff and the applicant are actively coordinating with the City and County of Denver. Colorado Department of Transportation, the various utilities to address any remaining concerns that may exist. Community Sustainability. Water mitigation techniques, water quality, those will all be addressed and implemented into the final landscaping design and this building has been designed for a hundred year lifespan as the architect had presented earlier.

Residential. The Site Plan has been designed to require extensive set backs from adjacent land uses. Building heights have been limited to thirty-three feet below residential and office standards. Neighborhoods. We've had neighborhood meetings, request for information, update letters, use of a mutual facilitator, coordination of a Planning Commission dry run, and we've added as not on the ODP that we'll require the final Site Plan be referred to all neighborhood associations in the thousand feet for comment, should that come in. Again these are all attempts by Staff and the Applicant to establish affective communication and educate those in the decision-making process.

I would like to take a minute to thank the representatives from the surrounding neighborhoods that have spent countless hours of reviewing documents, attending meetings, and organizing comments and concerns. Notably Staff would like to recognize Leanna Weston, Dr. Carol Koonsman, Nancy Tucker, and Ray Carney. And by no means is this a comprehensive list. Staff clearly understands that the neighborhood participation does not constitute approval or support from the neighborhoods but we would like to thank them for conducting themselves with a high level of professionalism, politeness and respect. Urban Centers, this was heavily covered by Ms. White's presentation and again I will go through those rather quickly.

Sam's Club's products and services are utilized by a variety of Lakewood, Jefferson County, and Denver businesses. One hundred thirty-five new jobs within the city of Lakewood will be created. The current Sam's Club is located in Denver and employs one hundred and seven.

Economic Development: There is no doubt that this project will have a significant economic development on the City of Lakewood. Again it's proposed to generate approximately one million dollars in annual sales tax revenue. This would place the business in the top five revenue producers in Lakewood. Now this is business, not projects, so Mills would not apply to this. And not only does tax revenue benefit the City but it also benefits the State, Jefferson County Open Space, the Fire District, RTD, and the R-1 School Districts so the benefits go beyond the City of Lakewood boundaries.

Transportation. Again has been covered quite heavily. Additional public improvements are being constructed to address some of the neighborhood concerns. Parks, Rec. and Open Space currently no City of Lakewood designated parks, open space or recreational facilities are located in the vicinity of the project. And the Academy Park, the current Academy Park development currently provides for some open space area within the development.

General Land Use. The land use that are proposed are noted on the Official Development Plan and will be limited to those uses. To touch on the Lochmoor Special Area Study, again some of the goals are to improve the pedestrian friendly environment, and approve the appearance by burying overheard utility lines and develop a unified treatment of properties of Front Quincy Avenue. This project does just that. The Applicant has proposed to underground utilities, install sidewalks, create a pedestrian friendly environment, and thus meeting many of the goals of Lochmoor Area Study. This development proposal is in compliance with the Lochmoor Special Area Study and furthers the goals of the Lakewood Comprehensive Plan.

The Pros, resorting from what's the health, safety, and welfare of the community, that is another rezoning criteria that you will be evaluating tonight. What I'd like to do is quickly show - Please allow me a minute here. I have numerous examples of how this project improves the health, safety and welfare. I will concentrate on just a couple for the sake of time. If you take a look at the screen, and CHAIRMAN MARINO I'll try not to blind you here. Current situation that exists at South Pierce Way and West Quincy Avenue you have a northbound lane, a southbound lane on South Pierce Way. Again south being at the top of you're screen. You have two travel lanes one east and one west on West Quincy, a turn lane going northbound again from westbound Quincy and also a turn lane going eastbound on Quincy. With the proposed improvements, what occurs is a new signal will be provided here, thus aiding in the safe vehicular movement across this intersection that today is, and I've experienced myself, is quite overwhelming when you're trying to bridge the gaps between the traffic. Along with that the Applicant has proposed a crosswalk to aid in pedestrian safety. And again, the proposed signal is identified as an additional public improvement agreed to be installed by the developer and with the added improvements automobiles and pedestrians will now have a predictable intersection to navigate.

I would like to move over to South Quincy Avenue, the south side of West Quincy Avenue the south side of that there that currently exists no sidewalks and we do have utility lines that dominate some of the front and back yards of those properties. With the proposal we are proposing to underground those utilities and create a consistent streetscape along the sidewalks to aid in pedestrian accessibility to the major intersections and also curb ramps -- handicap curb ramps will be provided at all intersections. Again, this project helps promote the health, safety and welfare of the community. And if you'll allow me a second I'll go back to my Power Point.

Additional Criteria for Rezoning: Again, we've touched on that earlier. The analysis is there is currently is no significant natural characteristics of the site itself. Through the staff field visits and through the Phase One and Phase Two Environmental Study, there is no evidence of cultural or historical resources that exist within a mile of the property. No wetlands or flood plains exist on the property. There are currently no threatening or endangered species that inhabit the site, nor does it contain habitat for those species, and no designated ecological sites were identified within a mile radius of the site. And I will save those. The slides from the Noise Impact Study - should those questions come up.

In summary, based upon the information provided in the Staff Report and the testimony given this evening, the staff's position is that this proposal is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and furthers the goals of the Comprehensive Plan by encouraging high quality development, economic development, promoting sustainability, and minimizing impacts in the adjacent neighborhoods

Based upon the information provided in the Staff Report and the testimony given this evening Staff's position is that this proposal is compliant with the Lochmoor Special Area Study. And it's also Staff's position that this proposal is compliance with the Lakewood Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Staff recommends that Planning Commission recommend approval to City Counsel of the rezoning request subject to the findings of the testimony and the Staff Report. I'm available for any questions that you may have. Thank you.

I would like to add a note that the neighborhood does have a number of Power Point presentations that may take a few minutes to load. I would just ask that we remain patient while those are loading. There are a number of technologies going on here so thank you for your time.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thanks Chad and I'm sure we may have some questions. I have a fine future as an auctioneer. I've been informed by Staff that Dr. Koonsman will start things off. I'm going to open public comment at this stage and ask Dr. Koonsman to come forward. Would you mind stepping to the podium just for a moment please? And if you wouldn't mind just tell us who you are and -

CARL KOONSMAN: I'm Carl Koonsman. I live at 6955 West Princeton Avenue in Denver 80235.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Wonderful. Now I've been given what looks like an outline.

CARL KOONSMAN: Yes sir.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Is this what you'd like me to follow?

CARL KOONSMAN: Yes please.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you for that. Ladies and Gentlemen I have 17 pages of signup sheets, some that want to speak and some that don't and some that I can't tell if they do or do not but we will make our way through that and we'll start with Doug Henderson. Mr. Henderson, while you come forward I remind you to state your name and address with your zip code and given the nature of tonight's case we will provide some latitude but we ask you to be as brief as possible.

S. DOUGLAS HENDERSON: Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is S. Douglas Henderson. I live at 4221 South Allison Street in Lakewood, Colorado 80235. I am speaking in opposition as an individual to this proposed rezoning. We have a presentation from a number of individuals tonight. From twelve homeowners associations, eight in Lakewood and four from Denver. As a group we represent five hundred homes and 1200 individuals. We expressed our opposition to this project on the informal meeting of August 5, 2004 and the formal meeting of August 26, 2004 and each of the sessions with the City Planner, the Developer and the Landowner. The citizens have expressed deep regret against this rezoning. We want to be clear in our opposition to this proposal before you. The families and individuals we see behind you and you see a lot here and there's probably many standing outside that couldn't get in to this project. We - regardless of what the Staff Report says - we're in disagreement with that Staff Report. We understand the order of business tonight and we respectfully request that should the Applicant rebut any of our presentation with information that they didn't present in their presentation that we'd be given an opportunity to respond. Tonight each of our earlier - as in each of our earlier meetings - we speak from a variety of perspective expressing significant concerns identifying the real problems associated with this redevelopment but traffic, safety, drainage and water, noise and trash, historical use of the area, promises made by representative of the landowners to the homeowners in the Greens and Pinehurst. How this proposal does not meet any of the six criteria for the rezoning. We know that the owner of this land has a right to develop it and have personal property rights. So do the individuals here have personal property rights and you should respect those as well. We merely expect and request that the property be developed responsibly fulfilling the promises of the Academy Park of Lakewood Comprehensive Plan and City Zoning Ordinances and the other promises made by the Commissioners and Staff. Tonight we'll present the details only myself. Thank you sir.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, I will remind you one more time, if we're going to applaud and do other inappropriate actions we'll be here all night. I ask you to respect the proceedings and maintain decorum.

The next person on the list here is Sandy J. Payne.

SANDY J. PAYNE: I'm Sandra Payne and I live at 7300 W. Radcliff Avenue, Littleton, Colorado 80123. That is in Lochmoor. I am speaking as an individual. Excuse me. I selected some points, some quotes from the Staff Report to discuss. The first one is promote infill development that interacts well with the character of adjoining neighborhoods. These are executive homes in secluded neighborhoods. Many of the residence has stated previously are Lakewood citizens. Lochmoor is the oldest the neighborhood out there. Fifty-six homes built in the late 1950s. The original residence chose to annex to Lakewood so that their children and now their grandchildren could attend Jeffco schools. There are four families still in that neighborhood for raising the third generation of Lakewood citizens in those family homes. My daughter, Megan, actually is one of those children. The Greens at Pinehurst, which is the other area that will be most directly affected by this development, was the site of the metro areas 1992 Parade of Homes. Although it is a Denver neighborhood we think that they deserve as much consideration as anyone else because they will be in some cases 100' from this development. We also, as mentioned before, there are twelve neighborhoods all together from Bear Creek Bennett Farms, Three Lakes and Marston Slopes in Lakewood to Melody Hills, which is a Jefferson County neighborhood to the west to Cameron at the Lake Marston Slopes, all the Fairways. As was mentioned previously this will affect more than 1000 people and anyone who actually who drives that area now will be negatively impacted by this development.

A couple more points about the area, Pinehurst Country Club, as it was mentioned was built in 1958 and continues to provide entertainment and social interaction to the area residence. And Colorado Academy, which was established in 1947 is still among the most prestigious of private schools in the state.

Facilitated diverse mix of land uses and densities for infill projects while considering impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods. We believe that Academy Park is the appropriate diverse mix. No big box is diverse no matter how decorative or unique it is built. Academy Park does mix with nature. A big box will destroy open space and what hasn't been mentioned so far is that, yes, the building is only 138,000 square feet and there is - yeah there is greenery but there's a parking lot. It's black asphalt.

Protect one our residential zoning and character of the area. Any rezone especially a big box but any rezone does threaten the residential character of this area. In a letter from the Developer's Attorney dated 4-25 they already, although this project has not been approved, already are saying that in some cases they are going to make the setback 55' instead of 100'. That's basically the width of a road. And we also are concerned that rezoning of this property will open the door for unwarranted rezoning in other areas.

The property is surrounded by a mix of residential and commercial land uses. The property is surrounded by homes, our homes. The only commercial encroachment is to the southwest along the - I mean the southeast, the southwest. I'm sorry. Along the west side of Wadsworth, if you go east down Wadsworth there really is no commercial until you get to Belleview. We believe that adhering to the Academy Park zoning does provide the proper mix for that piece, although the rest of Wadsworth is commercial. That piece is not.

Ensure effective access to and from houses fronting Quincy Avenue. We've seen tonight and we've heard discussion about the medians on Quincy. Well what that will mean is that those people who live on Quincy will have to turn right forever to get out of their houses. Even if u-turns are authorized we will show that the traffic in fact will be so bad they won't be able be able to make any u-turns. And coming back to their homes they're always going to be forced to take Wadsworth one way or the other.

Ensure effective access from the Subdivision Lochmoor to Quincy Avenue. We can't get out now. It's a nightmare and again as we will show later the traffic will be so bad from this that because the bottleneck really starts at our development we're going to be in worse shape than we even will with the general growth that will happen in the area.

This is not a Staff Report quote. I don't know who is the originally accredited with this and we've all made jokes about it and sometimes it's used in negative ways but in this case it fits. These are neighborhoods. This is not the place for a big box. Even if the horrific traffic didn't increase and there wasn't a problem a box doesn't belong here. And if this were proper zoning - if something were being considered for this that was proper zoning this room wouldn't be full. If they were looking now at putting this box into a commercial area that truly was commercial, we wouldn't be here either. So I'm asking you to please vote with your conscience and say no to this unwarranted rezone. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen please. I've been advised that if we can't maintain the decorum that I should take another recess and keep you here even longer. I want to beg the Commission's forgiveness. I know that our normal procedure is to give each public testimony three minutes. We're going to stretch that a bit just out of respect to the evening and try to get through it. What I will remind you of is as we get through the - I think the 39 names on this particular list before we get to the 17 pages, is to please reflect on whether the testimony you're going to give is redundant because if it is I will make that call and ask you to conclude. With that we'll move to - looks like a dual presentation from Steve Rondinelli and Wayne Bausch. Is that correct?

VINCE HARRIS: My CHAIRMAN MARINO. May I interrupt real quick?

CHAIRMAN MARINO: By all means.

VINCE HARRIS: Maybe it would be possible to have the next three to four people line up so that they're ready to move in and move out relatively quickly so to move on the proceeding a little bit quicker.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: That's a wonderful idea. Following this group, Dick Simmonds is next followed by Patti Brougham and I'll continue with the list thereafter.

STEVE RONDINELLI: Good evening. My name is Steve Rondinelli. I live at 7140 West Princeton, Denver 80235. As the previous speakers have indicated this evening I'm opposed to the proposed rezoning of the property at Quincy Avenue and Pierce Way. I'd like to give you a little bit more background information regarding the intended quality of Academy Park and its intended uses. To best describe the quality that was suggested in this I went to the City of Lakewood's Economic Development web page and found how the site is advertised and specifically how the development opportunities have been discussed in here and it discusses that the property is a high quality project zoned for office, medical, research, lab, fabrication and assembly adjacent to Pinehurst Country Club with fantastic views to the east. And I'd like you to keep that in mind that that's what the intent of that parcel of land has been as well as the remainder of Academy Park. The proposed parcel for rezoning was originally zoned by the City of Lakewood as part of the Academy Park Development as early as 1977 and was initiated by the City of Lakewood to continue the development of Academy Park as a high quality office park and employment area. This rezoning concept put into effect the City's master plan concept Lakewood which included items such as ensuring the 100' buffer zone around the properties - areas with traffic generated by commercial development need not go through a residential neighborhoods and I off that the Traffic Study has not offered any suggestions as where the traffic that can't get into this proposed redevelopment will go but I'd suggest its going to end up going into some of the side neighborhoods so that they - if they get tired of waiting to make a left turn into the Sam's Club they'll continue east and continue through some of those neighborhoods to make a u-turn so that they can get to that site.

Request from every proposed service that would be proposed. The development will have proper integration of the buildings into the neighborhood in which they are located and we don't feel that that has occurred.

Again, Academy Park is a high quality office and hotel development. The Academy Park Development was approved by the City of Lakewood Planning Commission and City Counsel and through the Official Development Planning process and we feel that still is valid. The currently approved ODP has been signed and approved by the owners of the lots of Academy Park and my research indicated that that approval process took place between 1978 and 1982 and still would appear to be valid. The owner's approving the ODP were the landowners of major parcels in Academy Park. The history of this development started much earlier than what was indicated on the ODP. The park consisting of approximately 220 acres has been a key parcel of land in the development of Jefferson County and the City of Lakewood as early as 1969. The significance of the Academy Park Development to the region was identified by both governing bodies as well as the original developers of Academy Park. Maintaining the high quality and original intent of the Academy Park Development was so significant to the stakeholders including the City of Lakewood that the ODP was required to provide language that specifically detailed what the intent of the Academy Park Development and what it should include. And I quote from the ODP developer's intent statement. "It is the intent of the plan to provide the means to complete development for a restricted group of uses. The application of the guidelines in the ODP was intended to result in a multi-use campus development that is harmonious and attractive. All development in Academy Park is intended to be supported by the nearby areas and neighborhoods. The development in Academy Park is required to provide transitional areas between higher use areas and nearby residential institutional and recreational uses. And lastly the Academy or the ODP as approved is intended to prevent overcrowding, offensive and improper uses, traffic congestion, depreciation of property values from poor planning and poor quality construction and I suggest the proposed rezone of the parcel of Academy Park is the wrong function and the wrong use for this of parcel land and I recommend the Planning Commission do not approve this request. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you very much. Mr. Bausch.

WAYNE BAUSCH: Good evening. I'm Wayne Bausch. I live at 7195 West Princeton Avenue, Denver 80235. And I've been a practicing dentist in Lakewood for 31 years. I also oppose this zoning of this parcel of land and like to continue the discussion of the history and the purpose of Academy Park and the Official Development Plan. The Official Development Plan regulates the uses permitted in Academy Park. The uses permitted for this land known as Parcel K is as follows. Offices, medical and dental offices, post offices or banks, schools, community buildings including recreation centers, churches, libraries, parks, golf courses, mortuaries and hospitals. It doesn't say gas station. It doesn't say liquor store and it doesn't say retail outlet. The Academy Park ODP goes on to state that no development on Parcel K may have a greater impact on adjacent properties than those previously stated. The rezone of this property will have a very negative impact on all the adjacent properties. The proposed rezone of Parcel K does not meet any of the permitted uses outlined in the Academy Park Official Development Plan. It's as simple as that. It clearly violates the original intent of our founding citizens - of our City Founders. Why even have an Official Development Plan? I believe as most everybody here does tonight that was formed to preserve a legacy for the future of our community. After all we are not here just as citizens of Lakewood or citizens of Denver but as Stewarts of our Community. I am asking the Committee here tonight as fellow Stewarts of the Community to think beyond three or four physical years and to consider the impact of three or four generations to come. What is the legacy you wish to leave? Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: I'm going to say this one more time. Any other outbursts we will recess and we'll just delay the proceedings. Good evening.

PATRICIA BROUGHAM: Good evening. My name is Patricia Brougham. I live at 3329 South Fillet Court, Lakewood, Colorado 80227. I have been a Lakewood resident for 26 years. I'm speaking as an individual in opposition to the proposed rezoning of the property on Pierce Way and Quincy, Case Number RZ-04-008. This presentation will consist of five people each of us will show you how the application does not meet the rezoning regulations and guidelines or specific criteria in the Lakewood Comprehensive Plan and should be denied by the Planning Commission.

According to Article Five. According to Article Five in the Lakewood Ordinance all proposed rezoning requests must comply with the following regulations and guidelines to receive approval. As you can see with this slide there are three regulations with specific factors stated under Regulations B and C. Regulation A states, the proposed rezoning promotes the health, safety or welfare of the inhabitants of the City of Lakewood and the purposes of the zoning ordinance. This proposal does not - this development does not promote the health, welfare or safety of our citizens. This 138,000 square foot big box retail store will result in increased traffic, congestion, increased traffic and pedestrian accidents, increased noise pollution, increased pollution for additional vehicles, delivery trucks, and tractor-trailer exhaust. According to the Staff Report the developer meets this regulation by merely adding a buffer zone with sidewalks and landscape? I don't think so. It also goes on to imply that the conceptual Site Plan includes restrictions that mitigate the development's impacts. However the reality is that it is still a big box facility with lots of surrounding asphalt. Tire center, gas station and car wash. The proposed improvements are not sufficient to mitigate the dangers to citizens created by this high traffic retail facility. Later on the speakers will get to these concerns.

Regulation B states at least one of the following three additional factors exist. Factor one the proposed rezoning must be consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and any associated neighborhood plans. Under the residential part of a Lakewood's Comprehensive Plan the goals state strengthen and support Lakewood's neighborhood. Policies include support the positive attributes of neighborhoods that sustain and enhance their unique character. Number two: encourage neighborhood participation and maintaining and improving the quality appearance and condition of properties. This proposal doesn't meet this goal in policies. I will ask you once again to note that this development is on Quincy. The entrance is off of Quincy not Wadsworth and it is in - that access - no access from Wadsworth and it is surrounded on three sides by residential homes. To the east we have residential homes. We have Marston Lakes to the east and south of this development. We have residential properties directly to the south and Marston Slopes, a residential community directly west of this proposed development. The Staff Report states and I quote "The proposed building will be approximately 138,000 square feet which creates a challenge for the building to interact well with the character of the adjoining neighborhoods." It goes on to describe site placements and buildings heights as examples of how the big box retailer will blend into the neighborhood. It doesn't fit here ladies and gentlemen. It does not fit here and no amount of window dressing will make it so. Bob Letchworth will continue with more reasons as to why this rezone does not comply with Lakewood's Comprehensive Plan and I thank you.

BOB LETCHWORTH: Hi my name is Bob Letchworth and Jerry Brown is after me and he's asked me to take up a couple of his time just to keep the amount of time spent on our presentation down. So I'll be speaking a little bit longer than three minutes but not much. Again my name is Bob Letchworth. I live at 4225 South Pierce Street, Denver, CO 80235. I am here this evening as an individual to speak in opposition to the proposed rezoning. I concur with the previous speakers.

Under the first slide, under the residential section, a couple of statements are "Interacts well with neighborhoods. Consider impacts on neighborhoods. Consider resident's input." Does this rezone application comply with this regulation? No. In fact approving it would violate one of the purposes listed for enacting the Lakewood Zoning Ordinance in Title 17-1-2 that states: To protect property from adverse influences of adjacent property where differing zone districts abut. The developer stated to us in their comments to the community issues dated March 8, 2005 and I quote. "This site is located in a densely developed high traffic commercial corridor where view environmental values worth preserving exist." I find that statement insulting and more importantly false. As you can see on the map this site is surrounded by residential neighborhoods, a golf course with Marston Lake nearby. As you drive down Quincy Avenue and Pierce Way it has a decided country feel to it. As far as the commercial development on Wadsworth at Quincy - and this is real important because Ms. White tried to state that this was a Wadsworth development but the proposed development is not a highly commercial Wadsworth Blvd. developments. There's no access. But a Quincy Avenue development and I think that point is critical to your decision-making. This would also create a safety hazard and major deterioration of the area transportation network. The goals and the policies are not met.

[Next slide please.]

Under general land use: Ensure the land use and development is in compliance with the Comp Plan. Compliance means that it does not conflict with any goal. It must interact appropriately with adjoining land uses. Again, this does not comply with this regulation.

[Next slide please.]

We have shown you pictures of adjoining land uses, basically our homes. This will have a dramatic affect on out ability to enjoy our property thereby adversely affecting our quality of life. The Staff Report states that the ODP and I quote "Has been written to specifically address the issues and concerns of the adjacent neighborhoods thus minimizing negative impacts." Let's review. The developer is proposing to vacate one Sam's Club store and build another one. Put more pavement in - massive parking lot, gas station, car wash, other automotive services all of which exist in less than a mile away. We believe the developer has written an ODP to specifically meet his own needs. Certainly not the neighborhoods.

[Next slide please.]

Under Regulation B Factor Number Two. To approve rezoning Factor Two states that there has been a material change in the character of the neighborhood. Does this rezone application comply with this regulation? No. There has been no change. Academy Park has held its zoning for over 30 years. The adjoining neighborhoods have held their zoning from 15 to 50 years. In fact this development will create a major material change thrusting a huge retail store on the 12 surrounding neighborhoods, Pinehurst Country Club, medical office building, as well two private schools represents a significant land use change with major impacts. The existing zoning was created in 1978 to provide a desirable transition from South Wadsworth traffic to office park to single family residences in established Lakewood and Denver neighborhoods. I ask you not to change this. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you. Nancy Tucker?

NANCY TUCKER: Hi my name is Nancy Tucker and I live at 4240 South Yarrow Court, Lakewood, CO 80235. And I'm here this evening as an individual to speak in opposition to the proposed rezone. I concur with the previous speakers. I will continue to discuss this application does not meet with the rezoning regulations. Let's begin with Regulation B Factor Three. The property is to be rezoned was previously zoned in error. Does this rezone application comply with this regulation? No. There is no evidence to support an error in the previous zoning. The zoning states - the rezoning sites are located in Academy Park Office Development. The original ODP for Academy Park was approved to create a Land Use Plan, which would secure Academy Park as a buffer from any type of development proposal that sits in front of you. I want you to take a look at a picture of the Academy Park. You can see the office building. You can see that it creates a buffer for the neighborhoods. I believe this property is zoned correctly.

Now let's discuss Regulation C. Criteria number one. The proposal is compatible with surrounding uses. Does this rezone application comply with this criterion? No. The community image section of the Comprehensive Plan states that quote: "New residential and commercial buildings respect and compliment their surroundings through use of appropriate material, scale and architectural details that can positively affect a city's appearance and image. Does this development respect and compliment our neighborhoods? As you can see by this drawing this development is not compatible with surrounding uses and is not an improvement to this area. It's not compatible. The box like window design and immense size, which is located 115 feet from Pierce Way is an abrupt change and is not compatible in height, scale and character. Unlike existing Academy Park buildings this proposed commercial property has not been designed to minimize its impact, and I say negative impact, on the adjacent properties. Indeed it will introduce new retail, automotive service, gas station uses to Academy Park that don't exist there right now. It would set a precedence to convert any other property in Academy Park to commercial retail. This is the proposed development right now. A commercial - there this is the one that they would be vacating. Pardon me. The commercial project of this magnitude does not interact well with the character of our adjoining neighborhoods or the office - or the other office buildings in Academy Park. The developer has not included the negative impacts to the area. When they precede with their plans to convert the existing Wal-Mart that is there right now across the street is going to be a Super Wal-Mart, which is going to cause more traffic. And they don't want to admit to that but it's been in the paper. This is happening. It's going to be a Super Wal-Mart, which will cause more problems for our neighborhood. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Patti Brown.

PATTI BROWN: Good evening Mr. Chairman and fellow - and Commissioners. My name is Patti Brown. I live at 6865 W. Princeton Avenue in Denver 80235. That's in the Greens at Pinehurst development. I'm here this evening to speak to you as an individual in opposition to this rezoning case. I concur with the previous speakers. I'll be continuing to discuss Regulation C pertaining to compatibility. I believe that the importance of compatibility with surrounding use of any rezone application cannot be overlooked nor minimized. Our neighborhoods are quiet tree-lined streets. We have homes of brick and stucco. It is inconceivable to us that this big box retail warehouse, which is window-less could be considered compatible. In fact its intrusion will negatively impact the environment we care most about. That's our personal environment and this puts our way of life on the line. It - I'm sorry but there's no way that we can remove our emotions from this because this is where we live. Okay? So forgive us if we are disruptive.

Compatibility with surrounding uses is mentioned in twelve places in four separate sections in your Comprehensive Plan. For example and I quote: "You use words such as respect and compliments surroundings, interact well with surrounding land uses while considering neighborhoods. Respect surrounding land uses, integral part of surrounding land uses. Benefiting adjacent neighborhoods. Identifying and evaluate impacts and work to mitigate those impacts." I believe with this level of emphasis you felt compatibility was an important concept and I hope that you will keep that in mind this evening and take serious care when you debate your resolution later. As we have shown this project does not meet the standards of interacting, considering, respecting, benefiting surrounding neighborhoods and we will continue to show that.

[Next slide.]

Again, I just wanted to include a couple of more pictures to give you a personal look at where we live. What you would be changing. We feel this is a neighborhood and a way of life worth preserving.

Next is that the conceptual Site Plan enhances natural characteristics of the site by preserving or incorporating features in the development. Again, this is a picture of Academy Park today. We feel this is a more - a good example of what that previous criteria is and how this has been met for the past 30 years. Allowing the introduction of an intensely commercial big box retailer not found anywhere else in Academy Park does not respect or compliment our community.

The last criterion which must be met is that it enhances natural characteristics of the site which I think we've gone into quite a bit this evening but let me just say if you'll look a their Site Plan which by the way we used old pictures because we've never seen these pictures. We've asked. We've never gotten these. But please note to me as I look at that site even with the landscaping they've tried to put in for us. You'll note its lot line, two lot line. It's parking lot on green ground. It's a lot of the things they talk about is north where it's just open land above that. Where the 75 feet is that's where our neighbors homes are. So where the two hundred and something feet is that's the golf course. So anyway, obviously our definition of enhancing and conserving and enhancing natural characteristics is different from theirs. So again, respectfully request that you retain the current zoning. Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you.

J. BENEDICT GARCIA: Commissioner Marino and Commissioner Members. My name is J. Benedict Garcia. I live at 4230 South Yukon Way in Lakewood, Colorado. I am here this evening as an individual to speak in opposition of the proposed rezoning. I concur with the previous speakers in their opposition to this application. I wish to acknowledge the applicant their representatives and also the employees of the City who worked hard on this project. We don't dismiss that we just happen to be in respectful disagreement.

As a reminder these are the neighborhoods and the way of life worth preserving. We have first a picture of the Greens neighborhood. We also have a photograph of Marston Slopes and I would respectfully submit that it's just not separated by a highway, there's clear sight views from our neighborhood. I have the dubious honor, I guess, of having a clear view of the proposed gas station and also a clear view, a full clear view of the project itself and that is the Sam's Club.

Also next is a picture of Lochmoor. These are just three of the neighborhoods that will be impacted by this application. A proposed view of the neighborhood is 375 feet of concrete block. This is not a home. Well it almost goes without saying the proposed warehouse does not respect nor compliment us. The property under review is already appropriately zones and encourages quality mix use development as required by the long standing policy in the residential section of the Comprehensive Plan while considering impact on surrounding neighborhoods. As citizens of Lakewood and adjoining neighborhoods we cherish our pristine surroundings and we have worked together and we will continue to work together as thoughtful and good neighbors to keep the balance of residential and commercial establishments so that all coexist for the benefit of each other. Everyone acknowledges the goals of an entrepreneur are to gain financially from investments. A future investment can be profitable and conform to the existing zoning. The residence surrounding the proposal area support the property's development under its current zoning requirements and restrictions allowing misguided or subjective placement of development is inconsistent with the specified land use and contrary to the overwhelmingly expressed desire of the surrounding residences and communities. We would like our surrounding neighborhoods to be free from hodge-podge zoning and respectfully request that you fulfill the time honored restrictions and promises of Academy Park. The criteria for rezoning has not been met and I respectfully submit you should not approve this proposal.

On a personal note and based on daily experiences. I drive my son to Colorado Academy at least once every day and then make a return trip using Quincy and Pierce. And the backlog of traffic without factoring quote "15 semi-truck deliveries and customer traffic to a very popular business" dictates that the applicant traffic projections are based on faulty calculations. Based on actual experience this already is an extremely busy and congested route. And adding businesses of this magnitude compounded by a gas station will adversely impact not only the quality of life but the safety of the adjacent neighbors. Adding three lights will not minimize the difficulty of exiting Marston Slopes because more people will also visit the applicant's related Wal-Mart business not less. If the parties are honest complimentary visits are not only desired but calculated expectations. Additional lights will not reduce the number of cars that go to and from Colorado Academy everyday. This proposal seriously compounds the problem currently faced by the daily school commute and no traffic simulation can change that. Please apply the golden rule and due unto your neighbors what you would want done if you lived in our home or in one of the homes in the impacted neighborhoods. Other locations in our city are already properly zoned for this type of business. Say a polite no to the applicant in this highly residential area. But nevertheless say no. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you Mr. Garcia. Jim Scherer? The next names I have on the list are Steve Markel, Lee Terry, Jim Ferentchek and Elliot Payson. Mr. Scherer?

DICK SIMMONDS: No. Mr. Simmonds. We got out of order.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Okay well set me straight.

DICK SIMMONDS: Okay. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Dick Simmonds. I live at 6500 West Mansfield. That's Denver 80235.

I am currently the President of the Fairways at Pinehurst Home Owners Association. I concur with the previous speakers. I would like the record to show that our community is posed - opposed to this rezoning request. Our home was built in 1995 and we have lived in it since that time. One of the factors that went into our selection of this community was the understanding of what the surrounding was at that time and what it would be in the future. We and our neighbors were aware of Pinehurst Country Club, the USA Campus which is now Qwest, Colorado Academy, the Sisters of Loretto and of course the Academy Park Office Development. We were also aware of the zoning classification that would control the development of the vacant land south of the existing Qwest Campus on the west side of Pierce Way. We were assured by our developer's representatives, the same developer who is now asking for the zoning change that the vacant land would be used for more campus like office park development. The recent addition of Money Gram Building on South Teller was an indication of the developer's intent to continue Academy Park and we had absolutely no objections to that. This proposed zoning change however, and the proposed large high volume retail building will be a betrayal of the promise of the City of Lakewood of its current zoning classification and a violation of the base and purpose for zoning classifications, that being to buffer residential neighborhoods from commercial and industrial developments. As residence of Denver we have faith in the cooperation between Denver and Lakewood and the commitment of the Lakewood Planning Commission and the Lakewood City Counsel to honor their promise to our community as well as the other communities bordering this property to enforce this zoning classification. The introduction of this large high volume retail space on this site is contrary to the purpose of this zoning classification and is completely out of character with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The Fairways at Pinehurst community is asking you to uphold the promises made by your predecessors and to deny this zone change request. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you Mr. Simmonds.

JIM SCHERER: Good evening I'm Jim Scherer. I reside at 6500 West Mansfield Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80235. That's the Fairways at Pinehurst and I'm on the Board of Directors at that Home Owners Association.

I wish to present the basis for our concerns about the development from our development in Pinehurst Country Club have over the proposed Drainage Plan for the Sam's Club development. The legal basis for damage drainage law in Colorado is based on two cases. I believe those cases are going to be given to you in a packet if you don't have them already. But the conclusions of those cases are quite interesting. The first of these was Hankins vs. Boreland and it's clear that a developer has the right to discharge downstream from its site but only and I quote "provided it is not sent in a manner or quantity to do more harm than it formerly did." Obviously paving of this site and the flat roof of 135,000 square foot building will send a quantity of water far in excess of the present release. The detention ponds will slow that flow but will not reduce this quantity. We are concerned both that flood conditions may not be contained in smaller size detention ponds because these have been smaller sized but also that one and two-year occurrences will now cause long term sheeting conditions.

The second precedent setting case in Colorado law is Scott vs. the City of Greeley. This judgment against the City of Greeley said that releasing from a larger pipe into a private system; smaller pipe caused over topping and flooding and resulted in liability by the City. This is the Drainage Plan of the proponent. Sending the runoff down the 24-inch public system down Quincy Avenue East connecting to the private twelve-inch system under the Pinehurst fairways. It is interesting to me to see how this process has resolved these last few days particularly and over this period of time and how our concerns have or have not been handled by both Lakewood and the developer. The City of Denver, our association, Pinehurst Country Club, have all been trying for about ten months now to get a proper Drainage Plan. Four days ago before this meeting there was supposedly a sudden shift to meet these demands. Previously there had been three ODP's that came to us for comments that we commented on saying they were inadequate. Denver's engineering department had said that new alternatives have ever been proposed. Four days ago all of this was supposedly going to go away. In November and in April Denver had said that the drainage proposal was inadequate and they would not allow it to proceed into the Denver system. Even this afternoon assurances were given the developer would take care of the problems. Don't worry about it. But it comes down to getting a signed letter to Pinehurst Country Club to take care of the problems that was deemed impossible. This certainly gives me little trust and confidence in the landowner or the developer. These oral promises that are never put into a legal document is typical of all our experiences. It's the same kind of idle promises that were given to us as homeowners about how Academy Park would be developed. It's not surprising to me that these promises were made by the same land owner that now wants to change our residential area as a buffer to a commercial big box.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you Mr. Scherer. Mr. Markel?

STEVE MARKEL: Good evening. My name is Steve Markel at 6255 Quincy Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80235. A President of the Board of Directors of Pinehurst Country Club and on behalf of the Board and our members we would like to express our concerns over the proposed rezoning of the Quincy/Pierce Way site. Over a hundred of our members are Lakewood residence and they are documented as opposing this. We are particularly concerned by the flooding threat that a large flat roof box surrounding by paved parking will pose on our golfing experience. Our fairways on both the nine-hole course and the 18-hole course have a twelve-inch by prairie to convey present runoff is part of the Pinehurst tributary. Painting over an area that is 300 feet higher than the exit point on our 11th hole will obviously be a threat when we have a heavy rain no matter what the modeling might show. We already have short-term ponding on these fairways. Our golf course is our most valued asset. Any disruption to our play especially outside event play would cause a significant negative impact to our financial condition. The Sam's Club development has done nothing to date to try to relieve the problems they are passing on to us. The residential homes along our 11th fairway have already had flooding and ponding problems that we solved by building a berm in front of these homes. This berm will be insufficient to control additional runoff. We'll be faced with demands by these residents to further solve their flooding problems.

It is clear from the previous presentation on the legal requirement that drainage not be sent in the manner or quantity to do more harm than it formerly did as Jim Scherer mentioned. That the developer must mitigate this berm or provide funding to increase the private drainage capacity. Since there has been no good efforts to relieve these problems we must strongly ask that you do not allow this rezoning.

Other areas of concern include but are not limited to traffic and safety and I stress safety issues from our front entrance on Quincy and along our nine-hole course adjacent to South Pierce Way. On behalf of the membership at Pinehurst I thank you for considering these serious concerns.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you Mr. Markel. Lee Terry.

LEE TERRY: My name is Lee Terry. I'm the Director of Grounds for Pinehurst Country Club, 6255 West Quincy Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80235.

I think Steve and - anyone have gotten to the issue here. As a younger Golf Course Superintendent, I worked for an international renowned architect, Arthur Hills and he used to always tell me, Lee pay attention to drainage, drainage, drainage and that's what the problem is here. We have not resolved these drainage problems and that's what I would ask you to do to intervene and help Pinehurst Country Club resolve these problems. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you sir. Mr. Ferentchek.

JIM FERENTCHEK: Hello. My name is Jim Ferentchek. I am an engineer with the firm W.W. Wheeler and Associates Water Resources Consultants. Address 3700 South Inca Street, Englewood, Colorado. I am here on behalf of the Pinehurst Country Club.

Pinehurst has a problem with this. Pinehurst will be adversely impacted with the drainage from the proposed Sam's Club. Pinehurst Country Club is located downstream from the Sam's - proposed Sam's Club. Downstream being in the drainage way and flood way below the proposed site. Sam's Club currently is a rural site, has low runoff volumes and rates. As the site is developed the soils are paved over and roofed over. You create a large impervious area and it will be high storm runoff rates and volumes. The end result is that volume and runoff is conveyed on to the golf course is going to be significantly increased. What happens then is small storms, everyday storms, once a week, once a month storms that had historically produced little or no runoff on the site will in the future produce runoff. I mean there will be water running when historically there wasn't. Larger storms will have larger runoff and longer duration runoff. All this ends up down at the golf course with more water for longer periods of time on the golf course. That's kind of the result. The storm drainage piping on the golf course is inadequate to convey the increases in flows, which will result in more new flooding on the golf course. There has been a Drainage Study produced by a C.O.C. Associates (phonetic). We've heard nothing about that tonight. The study indicates that peak flow from the development will be controlled to historic levels. That is I believe according to the requirements of the City and the Drainage Study demonstrates that. But what we do have is more storm volume. If we control the peak run off we get longer duration of flow. What we'll have is significantly increased duration of flow across the golf course. Some of these drainage studies indicate that this drainage may what historically could have been several hours or - of runoff will not perhaps exceed 40 hours of flow. This is a real adverse impact to the Pinehurst Country Club. Basically Sam's Club drainage will impact the club in new extended duration of flow across the golf course. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you very much. Mr. Elliot Payson. The other names coming forward is Melissa Giordano and Anne Reese followed by Hank Gilbert and Ed Clas.

ELLIOT PAYSON: My name is Elliot Payson and I live at 6325 West Mansfield Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80235. And I agree with the previous speakers and want to emphasize that the proposed usage of this land will create a serious and unacceptable flooding risk for the homeowners on the Pinehurst Tributary. I'll emphasize that I do in fact live on this 11th fairway they're talking about with a 12" pipe. I personally experienced and seen the flooding. And these are just reasonable occasional storms. So this problem is real. Sam's Club is doing as little as possible to contain the flooding which can be caused by converting this agricultural land into - I won't repeat. First they proposed to cut the drainage storage of the retention ponds as specified in the Urban Drainage Plan by approximately 45%. They later relented and proposed only a 30% reduction. This is all based on a hundred year design rain storm of exactly 3.05 inches. Urban drainage has determined that such a storm would result in a pond level on the 11th fairway that will almost exactly equal the top of the berm that was constructed a good many years ago to protect the condominiums. I think Sam's Club is being a bit presumptive to think that future rain storms particularly in a country that is well known for flash floods down arroyos (phonetic) and so on. I think that they're presumptive to think that future rainstorms will be confined exactly to the design rainstorm. Those words mean something. Urban Drainage did an excellent job in identifying the trouble spots in the Pinehurst Tributary including the requirement to raise the berm on the 11th fairway by 18 inches. They also specified retention ponds capacity that was necessary to protect the property owners. The developer must comply with the Drainage Plan. Lakewood was a party to the Drainage Plan. We have seen flooding in front of our homes on several occasions and the 11th fairway in fact acts as a defacto (phonetic) retention pond. Instead of it being a conduit. The developer has not offered to retain the specified retention pond design, capacity. Nor has it offered to raise the berm. This is unacceptable. It is requested that the rezoning be denied. Thank you sir.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you Mr. Paison. Melissa Giordano.

MELISSA GIORDANO: Good evening Commissioners. My name is Melissa Giordano and my family's address is 7120 West Princeton Avenue, Denver 80235. I live approximately 115 feet from the proposed development. I agree with the comments of the prior speakers and I appose this rezoning proposal. My family moved to the Pinehurst area in July of 1999 after living in the beautiful covenanted community of Genesee for 20 years. We purposely chose the Pinehurst area for three reasons. First, three of our four sons have attended Colorado Academy and due to sports and other social activities we wanted to be closer to the school. Second, our 10th grader is a scratch golfer ranked in the top ten of high school golfers in the state so we wanted to provide him with access to a golf course. Third, and most importantly we love the covenanted community of Pinehurst and the Greens at Pinehurst in particular. We researched and relied on the current zoning. We saw the open space near our property with cows. We asked our realtor what was that zoning on that property. We were told in no uncertain terms and assured that the undeveloped Lakewood property across the street from our Denver property would never be rezoned to retail because of the integrity of the owner of that land, the very same owner and developer of the Greens at Pinehurst. The Greens were featured in the 1992 Parade of Homes. That also provided us with a great deal of assurance because the owner was intimately involved in establishing the covenants of that entire community to ensure the highest home values both for himself and the homeowners. The homes in the Greens average in size of over 5,000 square feet and represent major investments of all of the homeowners. They're not starter homes. They're the last homes. The homes in which people want to raise their children and entertain their grandchildren. If the rezoning is approved there is no doubt that property values for Green's homeowners will plummet. We wonder why the very same owner of the land in question no longer cares about the economic affect on an intrusive, ugly and dangerous development on our home values. Greens homeowners always had and continue to have legal rights to rely on the current zoning despite the unfortunate fact that the property sits across our city border and we were here first. It's truly unethical and illegal to allow a mega retail development right next to an established residential community. If the rezoning ordinance is approved legal actions will follow based on the non-compliance with a municipal code, the zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan, and the justifiable reliance of Greens homeowners on these laws and the express promises made by the original owner of the land on which we built our homes.

I took the liberty to survey our neighborhood just to find out what homeowner's expectations and reliance was, and to determine if they too researched and relied on the current zoning. Those affidavits of over 35 homeowners in the Greens Development will be submitted to you tonight. There is a consistent theme of reliance of disbelief and anger at the very same owner of the subject land who developed the Greens community and particular all of the covenants of that community and made express promises to entice those owners to buy his land but who has now forgotten those promises. I urge each of you to review these affidavits before you make a decision and deny this rezoning. I now turn the mike over to my neighbor Anne Reese.

ANN REESE: Good evening, my name is Ann Reese. I live at 7080 West Princeton Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80235. We purchased our home in 1993 in the unique neighborhood of the Greens at Pinehurst, another Koebel development. When we purchased our home the Koebel agent we relied on, Lee Sullivan, told us that the undeveloped property on Pierce Way would be a low-rise office building, very similar to those further up north in Academy Park. He told us that Koebel had no intentions of ever seeking zoning changes. And assured us about how much integrity Buz Koebel had. I will use my time to read a sampling of the compelling direct quotes from different homeowners in the Greens who also relied on Koebel's promises and alleged integrity. You will hear a consistent theme throughout the written statements.

In 1992 the Burke family purchased a home in the Greens, they were assured by Lee Sullivan and Bob Koebel himself that the current zoning would not be changed to commercial. The Slayback family purchased a home in 1992. They state "We were given assurances that the current zoning ordinance would not be changed to commercial by Lee Sullivan." Buz Koebel's in-house real estate agent. The Agawal/Burch family purchased their home in 1992. The state and I quote "I cannot stress hard enough how many times we were reassured by both Buz Koebel at the initial homeowners meetings and his representatives that they would always remain sensitive to the needs of the homeowners in the Greens. He has since recanted on things he stated at those early meetings denying that he ever said them. It saddens me that he hasn't received treatment for his memory problems." The Karras family purchased their home in 1993. They say that we've met with Lee Sullivan and Jill Stewart numerous times. We specifically asked about the Yak property because it was so close to our lot. We were told that it would never be developed commercial because Koebel was committed to our development and to maintaining the quality of the atmosphere at Pinehurst. The St. John family states, "When we began looking at homes in the Greens at Pinehurst in 1994 Buz Koebel still had sales representatives working from a construction trailer in the neighborhood. The Koebel rep we worked with was a man named Lee Sullivan. Of course we asked the critical question regarding zoning and were told that any development would be similar to the existing buildings on Pierce Way." The Samfords state, "We purchased our home in 1994. We relied on many Koebel promises when we bought our lot from him. Mr. Koebel was very adamant about the importance of restrictive covenants and had a say in the designs of many of the original homes that were built to ensure top dollar for all of the unsold lots he still owned at that time. We bought our home knowing it would be our last home and relied on the promises that Buz and Lee made just as they expected us to adhere to the covenants that they put in place to ensure top dollar." The Hazuka family in 1999 state, "that we spent a year looking for our property at Pinehurst Country Club. The property west of Pierce Way was a concern to us but Lee Sullivan, the salesperson, assured us that the land was zoned for office park." The Ritsema family wrote, "We purchased our home six years ago and specifically inquired about the intention for development on the Koebel property. We were assured that the land was zoned for office park just like the rest of the property along Pierce Way. We would never have purchased a home in this neighborhood if we would have known that there was any possibility that Lakewood would consider rezoning it for a retail building that is far too large and intrusive for this piece of land." As citizens we are dependent on every one involved in the City Planning process to act with integrity. Sound planning cannot be trumped by the need for sales tax dollars. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you very much. Hank Gilbert.

HANK GILBERT: My name is Hank Gilbert and I live at 7020 West Stetson Place in Denver.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Mr. Gilbert, you're going to have to adjust the mike.

HANK GILBERT: Okay. That always happens. I live at 7020 West Stetson Place in Denver, 80123. A lot of what I was going to say has been covered so I'll try and condense this to some extent. And I'm also going to get into an area that hasn't really been covered but is what is really driving this whole procedure and that is of course the economic affects. And are the economic affects favorable? We realize that in this time of a stressed city budgets that the economic affects appear favorable. The rezoning is likely to be approved. So the critical question really is, are the economic affects favorable? Your Staff Reports states that the store will generate about $1 million in annual sales tax revenue for the City of Lakewood. And this translates into $50 million taxable sales. It's rather interesting that when I contacted Denver they gave me the same number but the number related to the store that Sam's Club would close in Denver. They were losing that amount of sales and that amount of tax revenue. So there is a good chance that sales will not impact and not meet the forecast that is being made if that's - if the $50 million is the correct forecast. I heard a higher number tonight, which is the first time I'd heard it. Because the new location is not a good site for any retail business, not even a Sam's Club. There are two reasons for this and one of course is very poor access, which is being addressed and I compliment the Sam's Club team in addressing it as best they can. And also the other objection or the other problem is that it's too close to accessible, very accessible competition across the street. So I won't go into the access problem. You've heard that. And I don't think the improvements that are being predicted will actually change the difference between the access of this property, the new property and the access to the property diagonally across Wadsworth. Unfortunately that property is in Denver and it tends to be neglected in this discussion.

Next, consider competition. A retail business on the site will be in direct competition with well- established retail stores a very short distance away. Costco for instance is a major competitor to Sam's Club and by comparison their store is now and will continue to be much more convenient. I've been in the retail business and I have made site evaluations and frankly it's hard for me to understand what is driving Sam's Club's desire to move. Their present location is much better and competition is farther away. Yes they'll have a bigger store and they'll have a gas station. But they don't forecast, at least I didn't see forecast of greater sales volume. There is a lower sales tax in Lakewood than in Denver, which could flow to their bottom line or it could allow slightly lower prices in their store. But this advantage can be wiped out quickly if Lakewood decides to raise sales tax rates instead of continuing to encourage marginal retail development.

The biggest concern that we have really is that if this site does not produce a viable business, which means its not living up to its Business Plan that it will be abandoned and this is certainly a result that no one wants, not the developer, not the City of Lakewood, and certainly not the neighborhood. We don't want an empty box on that property.

So I come to my bottom line, which is since the rezoning of this land does not lead to a better use and the economic benefit for the City appears very uncertain. This application should be denied and further to end this annual exercise to explain why the property is not suitable for retail business and to impress this fact on the owner we urge you to confirm your commitment to the Academy Park ODP under the current zoning. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you Mr. Gilbert. Ed Clas, please.

ED CLAS: Good evening, my name is Ed Clas. I reside at 6556 South Brentwood Way, Littleton, Colorado 80123. I as an individual appose this rezoning. In my presentation I would like to take you on a tour of some commercial properties. And the second part of my presentation is in the vision of Academy Park.

[Video presentation]

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you Mr. Clas.

JANELLE CERNICK: My name is Janelle Cernick and I live at 7820 West Quincy Drive, Lakewood, Colorado 80235 in Marston Slopes. Tonight I'm speaking as an individual against the proposed rezone. Throughout this presentation references had been made to our firm belief is that the City's Comprehensive Plan will be violated with this approval. This presentation goes to the heart of the negative impact this rezone approval will have on the City's imagine which the Comprehensive Plan is designed to protect. Recent news articles have focused on Lakewood's budget issues and how Lakewood has the referendum in November to raise the sales tax. We all hope Lakewood's successful in balancing its budget and not having to cut services. I personally will vote to support the increase in sales tax rate and feel that the City's financial woes will best be solved in this manner as a long-term fix. And big box stores that can move from city to city are only a short-term solution, which is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The budget problems have been caused by numerous issues including a miscalculation in the City Budget that included the sales tax for the now closed Wal-Mart store at 4th and Wadsworth and the 2005 Budget and is resulted in an additional Sheriff (phonetic) fall for 2005. Whether this was a misunderstanding or miscalculation on the City's part we hope that the City will try to rectify the budget shortfall by pursuing the tax increase and not by approving a tax generator that has questionable compliance with the Lakewood Comprehensive Plan. Approval of this rezone I believe will prove to be faulty and short-sited thinking. The emphasis and vision contained in the Lakewood Economic Development Plan for the business parks is compelling. That plan has prominent place for Academy Park, one of only seven in the City of Lakewood. It is the only one in the southern part of the City that has a 30-year history of successfully serving as a properly zoned step-down land usage between a busy state highway, commercial, retail operations in the north area and residential neighborhoods in the south. If you approve this rezone I think - I believe you will be making a political statement not just a recommendation to the City that may have dire consequences for the positive image that the City wants to project to the electorate (phonetic). On one, how the City's finances are managed and two, how neighborhoods are treated. I ask that you deny this rezone request. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you very much. Frank Keller.

FRANK KELLER: Good evening, my name is Frank Keller. I live at 7864 West Newberry Circle, Lakewood, Colorado 80235. I'm a member of the Board for the Executive Nine Club Estates on Fairway Number Five Homeowners Association and I'm making this presentation for Dick Herrig, another board member who is ill tonight. Like the previous speakers I'm speaking against the proposed rezoning. I would like to call your attention to a December 2, 2004 report that you will receive in your packet by the Brookings Institute, a very well known and respected organization. The title of the report is Toward a New Metropolis the Opportunity to Rebuild America. The theme of the report is that nearly half of what will be the built environment in the year 2030 does not exist today. The following is a quote from the Executive Summary of that report. "So the question for policy makers, planners and ordinary citizens is clear. Should we maintain the status quo or can we envision a different pattern of growth?" I recommend this report as a must reading for the Commissioners. On page 15 of the report Colorado is ranked 9th in terms of new commercial space needed by the year 2030. This includes, of course, office space. The projected need for Colorado is 1.76 billion square feet. That's the equivalent of 12,754 Sam's Clubs. On page 35 the projection for the Denver Metropolitan area is 1.08 billion square feet. That's equivalent to 7,826 Sam's Clubs. In reporting on this study the Denver Post stated that most of the new growth will be in northeast Denver. Why? According to the article developers are limited in the northwest and southwest because of physical and political boarders. Here in Lakewood we have Academy Park an outstanding example of good planning and zoning and first in line for this penned up demand for office growth. Academy Park blends in and is accepted by the surrounding neighborhoods. We must keep Academy Park zoned as planned and honor the covenant the City of Lakewood made with its citizens over 30 years ago. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you Mr. Keller. Donna Karras.

DONNA KARRAS: Hi my name is Donna Karras, 7100 West Princeton Avenue, Denver 80235. I would also like to request the next two speakers my husband and my son have relinquished their time to time to me so I can just do it all at one time.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: by all means.

DONNA KARRAS: I frequently drive C-470 on my daily trips and have never paid much attention to the large big box stores in that corridor probably because it is such a highly commercial area I expect to see chops in enormous levels of traffic. What I don't see are houses in close proximity to these commercial entities. However, because of the threat of this commercial development and batting our neighborhoods and in my case approximately 100' from my house I started to pay attention ad any responsible person would. I began keeping track of the number of tractor-trailers in the parking lot and loading dock areas. On February 18th at 10:15 there were ten tractor tractors in the loading area. Several parked with their cabs in a horizontal position, unattended, engines running. Like you see in this picture and these pictures these were running, just idling. The noise was deafening. There were additional smaller diesel trucks also lined up and parked in the area. I still continued to monitor this truck traffic because is what will be 100' from my house on the 24/7 basis. There's never been less than five tractor trailers parked in this area at any given time, morning, afternoon or evening. This does not take into account the gas tankers that would be arriving for the gas station and the clear danger that would impose on the safety of our neighborhoods. I was truly frightened as I thought of the negative impact that this would have on so many people. On the morning of March 9, 2005 there were three tractor-trailers accidents in the Denver area that caused substantial grid-lock throughout the City. And on Highway 36 a tractor-trailer burst into flames. On March 30th another tractor trailer burst into flames on Franklin and the refinery fire in Texas on March 24th that killed 15 and injured over 100 people was caused from the exhaust of a diesel truck that was left running similar to the ones in the pictures you're looking at. Imagine the results. If this were a gas tanker with such close proximity to our homes and the school an explosion of this magnitude would resemble the carnage of the Oklahoma City bombing. Tractor-trailers and their accompanying dangers do not belong in neighborhoods. Sitting in traffic with tractor- trailers around you is difficult at best. The noise, the smell and the safety concerns. You can't hear or breathe and you must be extra careful not to be in the no-zone, that area where you are invisible to the driver. However uncomfortable or dangerous this situation is thankfully it is only for a short period of time. I felt compelled to tell you this - tell this to the Planning Commission. I'm literally in a state of shock that anyone would find this a compatible situation. Your role is the safety of the citizens and to that end it is your responsibility to respond to the facts. Then I realized you wouldn't or give much merit to what I had to say so I went to the experts to provide you with facts concerning the impacts such a situation would have in such close proximities to home, families, children, the school and one's daily life. The research is clear and continues to grow. It cannot be discounted and responsible people cannot ignore it especially those charged with the safety of its citizens.

Information that I'm going to present to you next is from the World Health Organization Guideline for Community Noise. This study was done in response to the need for action of community noise at the local level. This study focused on low frequency noise and vibration from diesel engines, and this is imperative that you pay attention to this low frequency noise from vibration from diesel engines. Growth in noise pollution affects future generations by degrading residential, social and learning environments. That equals an economic loss. This should sound familiar to you because in Lakewood Comprehensive Plan it states and I quote "Communities sustainability is realized in the development and use of resources that meet the needs of the present without compromising the future." Studies substantiate accumulative of health affects of noise pollution. Environmental noise is an increasing prevalent risk factor for noise induced hearing impairment children being the most vulnerable. Again you're about 60' from the Havern School. Vibration from diesel - their playground - vibration from diesel increases this affect. The affects on sleep are absolutely paramount with homes within 100' of this project. The major affect is on sleep patterns. That can cause increased blood pressure, increased heart rate, changes in respirations, and increase in fatigue. Cardiovascular disease, environmental noise is an environmental stressor. The number one killer of Americans is cardiovascular disease. Mental health affects increased anxiety, increased emotional stress, nausea and headaches. Children and the elderly are the most vulnerable. Cognitive performances increase negative affects in children. Children also demonstrated an increase level of stress hormones, increased resting blood pressure for children as well. Again you're close to neighborhoods with cul-de-sacs and children and Havern School, which houses children with learning disabilities that typically accompany other medical problems. This affect is especially important for neighborhoods where children are housed on a more constant basis. It will affect our neighborhoods even more because we live there all the time right next to all the truck traffic and the noise that will be accompanying it.

The social behavior, as far as our neighborhoods, we will not be able to have our windows opened. We won't be able to sit out in our yards. There will be outside activities will be curtailed. This increases aggression and depression. Continuous environmental noise also contributed a feeling of helplessness in children. The adverse affects of low frequency noise created by diesel engines are estimated to be more severe than other noises. They are in essence putting a truck route in our yard, in our neighborhood. Children have been identified as particularly vulnerable to noise exposure. Designating truck routes helped to assure that trucks travel on roadways so that noise impact to residence are minimal. I'm 51" tall in heels and I don't see what a 42" wall is going to do to minimize anything. It should be the aim of government controls to protect the population from adverse affects of noise. This report also found another significant affect of noise pollution unrelated to health is a loss of property value and suggest that it should be the aim of government controls to protect the population from these adverse affects from noise. And if case you haven't noticed it's also our largest emotional investment.

Air pollution from diesel exhaust - several studies concluded that diesel exhaust has a major impact on allergies and asthma and hell diesel particles make allergies worse. Many also trigger an allergic response in individuals who have never experienced symptoms before. Exposure to diesel exhaust will magnify the affects of allergens several fold. Diesel exhaust will increase histamine production by five fold. Now remember their truck routes going right by my front yard and do this fulls (phonetic). Children living on busy streets during the first three years of life were more likely to develop asthma than those who lived near quieter streets. Asthma is a debilitating fatal disease and is on the rise in children nationwide. One out of ten children will develop asthma. And I know from personal affect my child has asthma. He will not be able to live in his room without having the windows closed because of the affect of this pollution and the trucks idling outside his bedroom. During high periods of pollution especially diesel particulates children should curtail outside activities or wear a mask if they must go out. Smog can impact even the best-conditioned athlete. Air pollution triggers sudden death. Heart attacks may be the more serious stress posed by air pollution. Particular pollution from diesel fuel poses a serious health problem. Particular matter in diesel pollution has caused sudden death. People are dieing relatively rapidly. Sometimes within 24 hours. It causes coagulation of the blood. For air pollution to have such a substantial impact on public health and have it show up so consistently is remarkable. However, should you choose to ignore all the scientific data let me remind you of a fact that you can't ignore, Oscar Obberkonz. Oscar was a decorative firefighter that attempted to have a tractor-trailer leave his neighborhood. The noise and pollution generated by the continuously running truck was so obtrusive he felt compelled to have it removed. It cost him his life. Oscar is dead now because commercial intruded into residential. They don't mix. Perhaps one of you would like to tell Lieutenant Obberkonz's family or his colleagues at Fire Station #9 that tractor-trailers in neighborhoods have no impact on the quality of life. As the Planning Commission it is your role and your duty to protect the existing communities and families from the negative impact of this request. The proposed change will not solve your financial deficit but it will increase the demands of an already strapped system.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: I assure you I had nothing to do with that.

DONNA KARRAS: Okay good thing, one more sentence. Our children and our family should not be viewed as collateral damage for this outside entity. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you Ms. Karras. I'm not sure what's going on with our power. Just a note here before we continue. I would ask that, given the hour, that those that - we're about half way through the list that I was given and we haven't even gotten to the 17 pages yet. So I would ask that you consider your testimony. Please state the relevant points and be certain that what you're stating has not been stated before. With that I'll call - is it Tony? Tony Giordano.

TONY GIORDANO: This is on? Good. Good evening. My name is Anthony Giordano and my family's address is 7120 West Princeton Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80235. I live in the Greens at Pinehurst. I oppose the rezoning of this parcel of land and I concur with the previous speakers. Well I'm not an expert in this field I did some research on the subject of air pollution and health affects from traffic density and idling vehicles. I was most concerned about the increase number of cars and trucks that will come into our neighborhood if this Sam's Club is built across the street from my home. I want again remind you that this is not a project - it's not a Wadsworth Project. This is on the corner of Pierce Way and Quincy. It's a half a wedge from my yard. Okay? I'm not trying to be funny here. And I'm not a long hitter. But this is literally right there. Just as the Staff Report does not address such issues as increased noise pollution, crime and blowing trash at assured result from the proposed development no mention is made of air pollution resulting from traffic density and idling vehicles. The Traffic Engineering expert hired by neighborhoods will show you how traffic will build up at the two new stop lights to be added at Pierce Way and at the Sam's Club as well as at the Wadsworth and Quincy intersection all within a quarter mile of my home. Report I'm attaching to my remarks studied the impact of vehicle exhaust on human health. The author studied busy traffic corridors in their neighbors with schools and found and I quote "significant elevation in combustion pollutants not only outdoor but indoor resulting in negative impact on the respiratory health of children. Further, the exhaust from gasoline and diesel powered vehicles contains over 40 hazardous gases and particulate contaminates. Just as my neighbor Donna Karras reported diesel exhaust is the most damaging to one's respiratory health and affects are especially pronounced in children and I quote "because they have actively growing and developed embodies and breathe in more air than adults on a weight basis." Diesel exhaust is classified by the World Health Organization, and the EPA as a known human carcinogen. We understand and accept that any development on the subject property will bring in additional vehicles. However, it goes without saying that any heavy commercial development on the subject property will bring in far more traffic for far longer periods of time on everyday of the week. Less than 150' from this development at least 15 children and grandchildren under the age of 18 years have homes. Less than one mile from the development our two schools with hundreds of additional children. Colorado Academy and the Sister of Loretto School and actually I probably shouldn't even have said one mile it now we're finding out it's just a retaining wall. The staff chose not to but I urge you to consider this material negative impact on the lives our neighborhood children when you make your decision. I would now like to ask your permission to allow our Traffic Engineer, Rebecca Davidson, to make a brief introduction and outline the various topics to be covered by my neighbors relating to traffic issues. She will then provide her report in full. Is that acceptable?

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Everyone can have their three-minutes.

REBECCA DAVIDSON: My name is Rebecca Davidson. I'm at 9209 Black Mountain Drive, Conifer 80433. I'm a Traffic Engineer. I have my professional engineering license as well as my professional Traffic Operations Engineer Certification. I have worked with a Municipal Engineer all over the State of Colorado and in the Metro Denver area. And I have personally reviewed over a hundred traffic studies, developments of this sort, again all over the Metro area. I want to talk to you a little bit about what we're going to mention. First of all, this group has done a lot of homework to make sure they understand the issues and address the issues well. This is done in an emotional group that's out of control. This is a very well planned, well- organized group. And I want to applaud them for their efforts in making sure they understand all the issues before they come before you today.

First of all we are concerned about Wadsworth and traffic on Wadsworth but we're more focused on what's happening with Quincy. Secondly we understand that Wadsworth is a retail corridor but Quincy is not. We are concerned about the growth rates used in the Traffic Study by the developer that they do not represent what's happening in Jefferson County and Lakewood. We are concerned about the additional traffic introduced to this residential area on weeknights and weekends, particularly weekends. We are concerned about the extended hours that the store will be opened compared to what would happen if there's office development there. Now we're going to have several speakers talk about this. I will come back and use about two minutes when I get back to talk about the model that we have to show you. With that, Ray.

RAY CARNEY: Good evening, my name is Ray Carney. I live at 7465 West Radcliff, Lakewood, Colorado 80123. I am speaking as an individual, the first of ten speaking from the neighborhood on traffic. I concur with the objections to the previous speakers. My subject is growth projections and my objective here is to show that the developer's traffic projections have been grossly underestimated. I'm going to refer to the developer's Traffic Impact Analysis Report which I shall here henceforth call the TIA and specifically to start out with I'd like to address the matters found on page 6, figure 3 of this document which shows the existing counts taken in 2004 at the proposed site entrance to be 17,900 vehicles per day. On page 15, figure 8 of this report it shows that the long-range estimation in 2025 increases that count to 21,940 vehicles per day. Now if we take these two numbers and look at it over the 21-year period and do the math associated with that we find that the annual compound growth rate is 0.973%. Now let me refer to Jefferson County's countywide Transportation Plan. This is a document that was issued in April of 1998 by Jefferson County in conjunction with several cities in the county including the City of Lakewood. On page nine of this report it shows a map of some of the streets in Jefferson County. In the projected viewpoint there you can see that - is that upside down? If it is it shouldn't be but if you looked at - if you could interpret it you'd see that this Quincy Street along the side area there is covered blue. That means that it has - in 1995 an LOS of E, F, or F+ anything that's blue has that type of an LOS rating associated with it. On page ten we find a map projecting the situation in 2015. And if you notice in the side area there everything around the side area is blue. Now on page eight of this document we find the following information. There will be an increase in the number of Jeffco households by 2015 of 66,000 representing a 36% increase, an increase in the number of jobs in Jeffco of 63,000 representing a 31%. They project from these two numbers that there will be an increase in the number of vehicle trips per day of 700,000 by the year 2015, an increase of 39%. Now if you take that 39% and figure it out - figure out what the compound increase over twenty years you come out with a compound increase of 1.66% while the developer's increase was 0.973%. That's a gross difference. Graphically it looks like this, 1.66 as compared to 0.973. Now I might also point out that within the site area within plus or minus one tenth of a mile on either side of the side entrance there were other accounts given in this TIA. If I'd had done the analysis and showed you that at these other two points they would come out with percentage increase of .8% area. Even less than the 0.973 so that 0.973 is the most favorable to the developer and not the - the least favorable. Now what does this mean? It doesn't sound like much 1.66 as compared to 0.973 but the next speaker will address the impact of those two numbers.

AARON GREEN: Good evening, my name is Aaron Green. I live at 7173 West Stanford in Lakewood 80123. I've lived in the Lochmoor addition since 1967 and I enjoyed the uniqueness of our neighborhood. Utilizing the 1.66 Jeffco growth rate and applying it to 2004 account of 17,900 we come up with a new figure and 2025 of 25,294. If we compare that with the developer's projected 2025 account we find that the developer's count is 21,940 or a difference of 15.3%. Graphically it looks like this and also it projects to 3,354 more vehicles per day, and an underestimation by the developer of over 1,220,000 vehicles in a year time. During the same period DRCOG projects a two and a half percent per year increase in the number of vehicle miles traveled. Jefferson County's 1.66 rate is in line with the DRCOG's guidelines. The 973 rate the developer uses is a gross underestimation. In conclusion the developer's traffic volume projections for the site had been grossly underestimated creating a much more rosy picture of the traffic situation than can be expected. Proposed development we'll have more traffic to an already bad situation. The addition of more traffic signals along Quincy will further impede the flow of through traffic whereas proper land use as for the present zoning would add little if any traffic. Further CDOT will not slow down Wadsworth, the State Highway, in order to alleviate Quincy traffic. Land use as presently zoned is essential to the proper flow of traffic. Thank you.

STEVE PAYNE: Hello. My name is Steve Payne. I live at 7300 West Radcliff Avenue, Littleton, Colorado, zip code 80123. This is a Lakewood address in the subdivision of Lochmoor immediately south of the proposed rezone. I am speaking for myself and I concur with the speakers that have proceeded in opposing this rezone. I first moved into this neighborhood in 1962 well before Lakewood was even born and before the first traffic light at Wadsworth and Quincy and times have changed. This proposal is just wrong and it's wrong on so many levels. As was mentioned previously the accepted rate for growth in the Jeffco Plan is 1.66%. Many professionals for many disciplines and many jurisdictions work together to produce the unbiased Jeffco Report. We are asked by the developer to accept a growth rate of less than 1%. This is quite a difference. A growth rate of less than 1% essentially reflects no growth. There are still many, many large vacant areas and even more infill sites available for new construction both residential and commercial for the areas west of Wadsworth along Quincy growth is definitely not over. The old Wal-Mart store just across Wadsworth on Quincy is scheduled to double in size and become a Super Wal-Mart in the near future. Wal-Mart has made that clear in their press releases. The City of Denver has been notified and the City of Denver has informed the City of Lakewood. This project alone will severely impact the area but no one here is even talking about it much less factoring the traffic increase in. So why has the developer chosen to use a growth rate of less than 1%? The developer, by basing their Traffic Impact Analysis on this figure of less than 1%, hopes that that traffic impact to the area will appear to be less. They just want your approval to proceed. We will have to live with the results of the deception and they will not. Why has the City Staff not pointed this irregularity out? Has this decision been predetermined? Is the City Staff deliberately overlooking this to get the rezone approved? The traffic in this area is horrible right now. Every improvement being done currently by Denver proposed by the developer, it is necessary but it is necessary to deal with the traffic as it now and does not account for the rezone. Our intersections now experience levels of service in the E and F range. This plan is a recipe for gridlock. The proposal is wrong for this residential area and way too big for any lot limited to one street for access. If you say tonight the developer will announce tomorrow the next target location and it may even be in Lakewood making some of the City happy. The landowner will loose this lease but will continue to look for clients, hopefully one that falls within the Academy Park guidelines. In closing, Buz Koebel the developer and the City Staff have woven a rich tapestry of images to convince you to approve this rezone a rich beautiful set of new clothes for the emperor. But I submit that when he appears the emperor will be buck-naked. I urge you to stop this abomination and say no to the rezone request. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Craig Whitehead.

CRAIG WHITEHEAD: My name is Craig Whitehead and Commissioners thank you for listening to us tonight, appreciate it. I reside at 6000 West Mansfield Avenue, Unit 15, Denver, Colorado. I am speaking as an individual and I concur with the previous presenters and opposed the proposed zoning change. Specifically I'll address traffic delays in the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and review the negative affects the proposed development would have on our residential neighborhoods. All data referred to is taken from the developers Traffic Impact Analysis document, the TIA, which figures have been shown to be significantly too low and the realistic negative results will be greater than we're going to show here tonight. All times are in seconds.

First we're going to take a look at Appendix C the existing traffic conditions as they were in late 2004 for the study. And then we'll take a look at Appendix D the long-range traffic conditions for 2025 without the proposed development. And then we'll take a look at Appendix E short change future total adds the current traffic to the additional traffic generated by the proposed development. By comparing C and E the short range impact will be evident. Then we'll take a look at Appendix - they're from Appendix F, the long range future total for 2025 that adds the two traffics with the development being in there. And again we'll see the results and then they'll be pretty evident.

Let's take a look first and consider the left turn from Pierce Street, The Greens. That is not Pierce Way this is from the Greens. Pierce Street on north side of Quincy onto eastbound Quincy. Please note that the different dependencies are listed across the top. The times of day they're impacted are down the side. And we're going to look at weekdays AM weekdays PM and Saturday which have been left out at some of the other comments. The existing conditions are from Appendix C again. Short range future with retail stores at Appendix E. They're side by side there. And then the long-range are in the next two columns over. The weekday AM peak means the peak site traffic in the morning after the retail store opens for business. The numbers are projected. Amount of delay in seconds in making the turn off of Pierce coming out of the Green, as you compare the existing condition column with the short-range future column you see the impact or increased time at the proposed development. Similarly, comparing the long-range background column with a long range future with retail store column illustrates a long term impact of the development. In all cases you see that the site impact is to increase delays. Averaging out the short-range delays shows a 15% increase while the long-range increase in 20%. A significant note is the doubling of weekday PM delays and more than - more than doubling of the Saturday delays. I'm going to turn my time over now to the next presenter who will continue with these same programs. Thank you.

JENNIE GROSVENOR: Good evening ladies and gentlemen of the Commission and Chairman Marino. My name is Jennie Grosvenor and I live at 7445 West Radcliff Avenue, Lakewood, Colorado 80123. We're going to continue on Reed Street right where Mr. Whitehead left off. And this Reed Street is this old entrance for Lochmoor residence. Notice that site impact on weekdays during the AM time period, site implementations means that it will take a resident attempting to turn left out of the Lochmoor over four minutes. Just to get onto Quincy in the immediate future and four and a half minutes in the long-range future. The average increase for the short range is 324%. I'm sorry that was for the short range. For the long range its 220%. This is not smooth traffic flow.

Moving west to our next intersection is Pierce Way, which comes on the north side of Quincy. Look at the impact the site would have on someone making a left turn onto eastbound Quincy on weekdays AM. Upon site implementation any motorist crazy enough to make this left hand turn will have a 42 and a half-minute wait. The long-range impact of the site is to add about a 21-minute wait. Weekdays PM finds an additional two and a half minute delay in the short term and almost another six minutes delay in the long term. This is site impact ladies and gentlemen. Saturdays when most office buildings are typically closed adds another 48 seconds and 28 seconds respectively. These numbers produce an average increase of 3154% in the short range and 1089% in the long range. According to the Staff Report in the PIA the developer has now decided to signalize this intersection. What does this mean? Well, our long term will - our long term delay will be reduced but the spacing of signals is less than a quarter mile. There is no reasonable progression of traffic through this area because of the additional signals. In fact we have two additional signals within two tenths of a mile. Starting with the signal at Pierce Way we would have another signal only another 400 feet away at site entrance and the existing signal at Wadsworth only another 770 feet away. This is ridiculous. A signal at this intersection means traffic will back up through Pierce - through Reed Street and Pierce Street. The numbers that have been shown at these intersections will become considerably worse than what has been shown and published in the TIA.

Finally let's move across to Wadsworth to the Zephyr Street intersection serving the Marston Slopes and consider the turn situation here. Note the existing conditions on weekdays and Saturdays. We see an additional three-minute delay on weekdays PM. ERR, that means that the computations are so ridiculous they can't even print them. One could only guess how bad this is going to be. Ladies and gentlemen, the delays we talked about tonight are directly caused by this proposed development. Us as residence will have difficulty traveling to and from our homes. Outside traffic will attempt to find other ways around and our quality of life as we have come to know in our neighborhoods will be greatly reduced. Ladies and gentlemen of the Commission I urge you tonight very firmly to reject this rezoning proposal. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you Ms. Grovenor. I've been passed a note that says that I need to take another five-minute recess. My apologies. We'll be back in five minutes.

Ladies and gentlemen we're going to reconvene.

We'll reopen this evenings Planning Commission, apologies for the delay. I was seeking some advice from the City Attorney on how to handle tonight's proceedings given all the information and some of the conflicting testimony and the additional information that the Commission has been provided. What we're going to do at this point is continue with public comment. At the conclusion of the public comment, of the list that I've been provided, we will assess how best to move forward given the testimony and the new information that's been provided to us. With that, I apologize; I believe we are with Eric Bindner. Is that correct?

RAY CARNEY: Mr. Chairman, Eric Binder was here up until about a half an hour ago and he's gotten extremely sick and I think he's had to leave. I wonder if I could take his place and address his topic.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: You could but let me just bring this up. The Commission would very much like to move this along. Potentially to get into Commissioner questions because I think all parties involved would like to see that. Now whether or not the Commission feels it can do so given some of the information will be something that we will address. But what I'd ask the neighborhood group to be as brief as possible.

RAY CARNEY: I'd like that laser beam. No the laser beam. Where's it at?

MALE: Pointer. Right there.

RAY CARNEY: Okay. Subject here is topics not addressed in the developer's traffic impact analysis.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Excuse me sir if you wouldn't mind just re-identifying yourself.

RAY CARNEY: Oh, I'm Ray Carney. Live at 7465 West Radcliff, Lakewood, Colorado 80123.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you sir.

RAY CARNEY: Okay I'm going to address a couple of topics and not have been addressed in the TIA. First item, three lines to win to one on westbound Quincy west of Wadsworth. If you notice in the TIA they treat this street on Quincy as if it was a two-lane going west to infinity. They don't address the fact that on the other side of Wadsworth going west that there's three lanes that converge into one within a 200-foot interval, there's two westbound lanes and one right turn lane coming from southbound Wadsworth. They all converge into one lane almost immediately and there's a left turn lane spun off to the point where the Wal-Mart facility starts. There's also a right turn lane going into Marston Slopes and the TI has completely ignored this situation. If you look at it on the map you see that here's a lane coming off of Wadsworth turning right. Here's the two through lanes coming west on Quincy and they all converge together into one and then the left turn lane spins off to Wal-Mart. If this isn't a situation where a mess - potential mess exist I'll eat my hat. You've got a situation in here where somebody turning right trying to go into Wal-Mart has to make an immediate crossing of two other lanes to get there. That's a recipe for disaster as far as I'm concerned.

Now on the other side of Wadsworth there's another situation that hasn't been addressed. If you look at the exist from the Sam's Club parking lot you've got about a 200 foot interval before you hit Wadsworth. In the TIA it shows that on a weekday there's an additional 6100 vehicles in that short of space. On Saturdays it increased to 7500 vehicles in that short of space. Less than 200 feet you got that many additional vehicles.

Another situation that they've ignored is an impact of having a Super Wal-Mart facility located on the southwest corner on Wadsworth and Quincy. I know that this has been addressed to some extent by other speakers but that situation exists and it's been ignored in the TIA. They haven't taken into account the fact that there's going to be a Super Wal-Mart on that corner and a Sam's Club on the opposite corner. Anybody living in that neighborhood realizes that this is a big mess.

Here's a picture of the scene at the current Wal-Mart in the parking lot full of cars. Here's what a Super Wal-Mart looks like out at Bowles and C-470. Here's a few more pictures of the same site, and a few more, and here's what the situation looks like up at the Wal-Mart store up at Wadsworth and Colfax. More traffic. Presence of a Super Wal-Mart on the Wadsworth Quincy intersection is going to have a dramatic affect on traffic, which has not been taken into account by the developers TIA. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Ellen Smith please.

ELLEN SMITH: I'm Ellen Smith. 7225 West Radcliff Avenue in Lakewood 80123. In 1994 we moved from Greenwood Village to Lakewood to enjoy a better quality of life. We built our house on the last available lot in Lochmoor. Our property backs to the Quincy Pierce Way intersection. We placed our eight-foot cedar fence along Quincy. Excuse me. According to the engineer's survey. Since 1997 there have been four traffic accidents, which have damaged our fence. Crash number one, in 1997 an apologetic man came to our door saying that he had slid on ice after the Pierce Way Quincy intersection and had damaged our fence. Crash number two on November 15, 2000 a woman traveling east on Quincy lost control of her car and ran into our fence. Crash number three, on May 12, 2002 a hit and run driver ran the stop sign at Pierce Way and Quincy. He took out one section of fence. Made a 180 degree turn in our backyard and returned to Quincy by taking out a second section of our fence. Police were able to identify him by the license plate he lost in one of the three trees that he knocked down. Crash number four. On July 29, 2002 at 5:19 PM there was a two-car accident at Quincy and Pierce Way which damaged one of the sections we had recently replaced due to the hit and run incident just two months before. Because of personal safety concerns we asked if anything could be done like the placing of a blockade or safety railing to prevent traffic from crashing into our property and seriously injuring us or our grandchildren will often play there. Lakewood's only response was a placing of a small yellow sign with a two-way arrow in front of our fence. This sign was installed after the first accident. Quincy between Pierce Way and Wadsworth is a very constricted space with many driveways and with mounting congestion. There is no buffer zone for our neighborhood of Lochmoor. The TIA indicates an additional volume of 2, 780,960 vehicles per year. This figure does not include truck traffic created by the retailer. Please, please do not rezone this property.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you Ms. Smith. Linda Linda. LeBorgne?

LINDA LeBORGNE: My name is Linda LeBorgne. I live at 7005 West Radcliff Avenue, Lakewood 80123. I'm speaking as an individual and I do support the other presentations opposing the rezoning. I would like to present a subject that has not been fully considered by the developer. The impacts of pedestrians and trash on the neighborhoods adjacent to a retail facility, which is the proposed rezoning in comparison to an office complex, which is the current zoning. There are three points to consider. The impacts of pedestrians on the proposed roadway system, the impacts of pedestrians on the visual quality of the neighborhoods and the visual impacts of blowing trash from retail facilities. Pedestrians crossing wide busy streets interfere with the sequencing of traffic lights and turn signals because of the extra time needed. This creates a dangerous situation especially at a busy intersection like that at Wadsworth and Quincy because of the constant stream of vehicles turning east onto Quincy and south onto Wadsworth. This also increases delays for the motorists and would decrease the service rating of the intersection.

Trash blowing from the retail developments creates a visual eye sore and can be hazardous to automobile traffic. Pedestrian traffic also adds to the trash problems as they shopping carts, plastic bags, packaging and other residue behind.

These next three slides show a typical day at the bus stop at Wadsworth and Quincy near a major retail development. Notice the trash and shopping cart. The proposed rezoning will greatly compound the debris, which is left for the neighborhoods to clean up.

In contract note this bus stop just a quarter of a mile to the north near the entrance to Academy Park. This bus stop is used by employees and visitors to an office park, which is the current zoning of the parcel of land in question.

Since we take pride in our neighborhood we have taken responsibility to clean up after the retail developments. These bags of trash represent a typical clean up day for the Lochmoor neighborhood along Wadsworth just south of Quincy. The retail developer who generates the trash and debris abdicated all responsibility for clean up to the surrounding neighborhoods. I'd like to add that the Wal-Mart trash compactor is on the west side of the Wal-Mart store and this is on the east side and we still get this much trash. Please note that the Welcome to Lakewood sign is just a few yards south of this lovely site at the Wadsworth and Quincy bus stop. I request that you consider this documentation of pedestrian trash and debris impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods when deliberating the rezoning proposal before you tonight. Please keep in mind the photos comparing the bus stop at Academy Park, which represents the current zoning. And the bus stop at Wadsworth and Quincy, which represents the proposed new zoning for retail development. I request that you follow the Lakewood Comprehensive Plan specifically dealing with impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and deny the rezoning request. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you. Mike LeBorgne.

MIKE LeBORGNE: Good evening Chairman Marino, Commissioners. My name is Mike LeBorgne. I live at 7005 West Radcliff Avenue in Lakewood 80123. And I'll be speaking on behalf of the Lochmoor Homeowners Association. Originally we were about - promised we'd have about ten minutes for our presentation. I will certainly do everything sir I can to condense that if you will allow me just a couple minutes past the three. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

I'm a licensed landscape architect with over 30 years of experience in site development, construction design and construction management. The slide you're now seeing on your screen represents the difference in full build out between a business complex and the proposed rezoning, its 1.8 million additional vehicle trips. The total annual vehicle trips on Quincy Avenue if the rezoning is approved is 2.6 million vehicles per year. I don't think either one of these numbers were provided to you by the staff. You've been told by staff that the proposed rezoning is compliant with all sections of the Lakewood Comprehensive Plan when in fact it is non-compliant with seven sections and 22 goals and policies.

This evening I want to explore the differences between the current zoning and the proposed rezoning. The Lakewood Comprehensive Plan is truly a document that any city and its residence would be proud of. It is the accumulative of years of effort between elected citizens, City Management, Staff and the citizens of Lakewood. When you see the next slides the top red text on each screen represents a major section of the Lakewood Comprehensive Plan. Specific goals are shown in green and policies are shown in white.

Transportation is a major topic of the Lakewood Comprehensive Plan. It includes numerous references to alternative modes of transportation, identification of impacts and mitigations of those impacts. The goal is to reduce vehicular traffic and congestion.

The current zoning meets the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Employees arrive to Academy Park by carpooling, vanpooling, buses, walking and bicycling. At noontime Academy Park is filled with employees, owners and visitors out for a noontime walk. Only minor traffic impacts occur to the adjacent neighborhoods. The rezoning proposal does not propose or promote alternative modes of transportation or mitigate the impacts to the surrounding communities. This slide and the previous slide show three goals and five policies of the Comprehensive Plan that were not referenced in the staff analysis. Because they know that this is a car century proposal that adds 2.6 million vehicles annually to Quincy and it's highly unlikely that any RTD customers would use the RTD. However, the Staff Reports suggests that RTD meets the multi-modal requirement. Can you envision of customer with two cases of Charmin toilet paper, ten pounds of peanut butter and 25 pounds of sugar using RTD? I don't think it's going to happen.

Transportation in summary: Let's just skip this one. Thank you, Grant.

Economic development. Academy Park currently hosts a variety of small businesses. There are multiple single owner small businesses and even one small business blind owned. The owner's employees who work at Academy Park help form the business engine that's the - sustains the City. Uniquely contributing to its character, diversity and overall vitality. The current zoning supports and complies with the small business policy, the Comprehensive Plan. The rezoning proposal represents one of the major corporations in America that dominates the retail landscaping. I submit that an office complex with six to 800 well paid employees. It adds more to the sustainability of Lakewood than a rezoning proposal with 135 low paid retail employees.

Community sustainability. When we first met with the developers and architects a facility based on industry sustainable standards was discussed. The current zoning at Academy has many fine examples at campus approach to the development that utilize sustainable features. For example, the Qwest Building is carefully designed to blend into the surrounding landscape. Maximize its solar orientation and light. Use a split parking to reduce asphalt heat build up and incorporates van pooling, bicycle and pedestrian trails. Staff has asked you to believe that the developer promises to evaluate drought tolerant landscaping and thus this goal was met.

There is much more to the goal of sustainability in this simplistic answer. I have it for you, a lead-rating sheet produced by the U.S. Marine Building Counsel. LEED rating requires 32 points out of a potential of 69 for a project to be considered sustainable. Looking and rating the proposal before you they rate 18 points. It is not a sustainable proposal. The rezoning proposal does not include solar, biomass, wind generation, site orientation, reuse of existing buildings, water harvesting, day light and heat reduction or alternate energy provisions. It is the antithesis of good sustainable design.

Urban centers. The adjoining neighborhoods and the Academy Park have enjoyed a 30-year relation that respects the existing rights and responsibilities of current landowners. The zoning densities of which are our campus approach at Academy Park meet the three comprehensive policies up on the screen. Building at Academy Park is set back from existing residential land owners. Provides screening buffers between residential and commercials. And directs all traffic to Wadsworth or the Hampden Frontage Road. The proponents rezoning violates all three policies. By imposing an additional 1.8 million vehicles into residential neighborhoods along Quincy above the current zoning. It degrades egress and exits out of three residential developments. Introduces trash, impacts home values, increases noise and pollution and introduces high unsafe risk elements into stable neighborhoods. The current zoning and development at Academy Park meets the goals and policies listed on the screen. Again we have a 30-year history of zoning development that supports positive neighborhood attributes. The current zoning and business practices at Academy Park have encouraged office complexes that are in harmony with the surrounding residential development and support a residential quality of living. The proposed rezoning violates all three policies. The proposed development is incompatible with the current residential neighborhoods. Encourage of a decline in property values. Introduces uncontrollable levels of trash, debris. It massively increases traffic and is an automobile and delivery trucks centered design. Please do not set a dangerous precedent.

The general land use section of the Lakewood Comprehensive Plan is the inclusive, philosophical and overarching City Planning concept that protects its citizens from harmful and unwarranted development. It is the core and the heart and the soul of the plan. The current zoning is total harmony with the Lakewood Comprehensive Plan.

As you have seen fully I the last few minutes the proposed rezoning conflicts with nearly every section. Most major goals and is non-compliant with every policy at a Lakewood Comprehensive Plan. I can only reach one logical conclusion. The proposed rezoning conflicts and prevents implementation of the multiple goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Just in case you were keeping count thee was one section I didn't cover. Residential. Lakewood Comprehensive Plan requires consideration to values and livability. We have clearly spoken from our hearts with a passion and a love for our neighborhoods. We have shown that the proposed rezoning is non-conforming to all sections of the Lakewood Plan. Early in the process we met our obligation. Went over 900 Lakewood and surrounding residents and twelve Home Owner Associations spoke and wrote opposing the rezoning.

Let me close with a quote from Mayor Burkholder. I'll let you read it on the screen. Oops. We have one left and I'm done. There will be an effort to strengthen the lasting sense of place and identify in our community engage the broader public and the partners and meeting some of our most vexing policy and budget letters. We support the mayor's approach to democratic government's efforts. You've heard from many of the residence opposing the rezoning. You've seen just a small sample of the negative impacts that we'll have on our existing neighborhoods and heard how it does not meet the goals of a Lakewood Comprehensive Plan.

I respectfully request that you do the right things for the citizens of Lakewood. The stability of Lakewood small business and provide for the long time vitality of Lakewood by denying the proposed rezoning. Thank you. I hope I did keep it to seven or eight minutes.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Becky?

MALE: She has a software package that won't run on your systems so I've got to project this over your head if that's okay?

CHAIRMAN MARINO: You're going to keep your promise of two minutes. Right? You're going to need to first identify yourself at the podium and speak into the microphone.

REBECCA DAVIDSON: Do you need my address?

CHAIRMAN MARINO: It's already on the record.

REBECCA DAVIDSON: Okay. I'm going to get started. I'm going to talk about -

MALE: I'm sorry.

FEMALE: I'm blind as a bat.

REBECCA DAVIDSON: We were worried about that sorry.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Thank hit me right in the eye.

REBECCA DAVIDSON: Its worse when you're tired too. Isn't it?

COMMISSIONER MALM: Oh I don't know but that got me pretty good.

REBECCA DAVIDSON: How bad is it? All right. I'm moving this way.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: We'll turn our back. Go ahead and make it so the audience can see.

REBECCA DAVIDSON: Okay. I'm going to talk about traffic again. I won't repeat what's been already. I really want to focus on some new things.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Please.

REBECCA DAVIDSON: I think there's two sides to every store. And the important thing on this slide is really to understand the difference in traffic generated from this site. This proposed retail versus the office. And we looked a 20-acre office site versus the retail. Weekday, you see about a doubling of traffic generated from the site. I want you to look really at Saturdays and Sundays. In an office park there's really not much traffic that happens on the weekend. And I think what's disturbing about this particular proposal is that we're going to see a great increase in traffic out and in this neighborhood and this area on Saturday and Sunday. The store is open. Office pretty much is closed. So you see the major difference in that. Saturday traffic is 16 times higher in this proposal than what was going to be generated in the office zoning. Sunday, which you can't read but it's 24 times higher than what's going to be generated with office. This is very concerning to us. It changes the quality of life and I'm going to focus on that. We see impact of hours that I think that really are much longer. Again, you know Saturday not everybody's working but definitely everybody's shopping. Sunday nobody is working but everybody is shopping. So I'm going to hit all these points.

The growth rate we talked about 1%. I think it's very significant when we talk about how much growth rate we should look at for a development like this. Its 1.66 is a more appropriate factor. Felsburg Holt took their numbers from DRCOG. DRCOG looks at the whole region. Jeffco looks at this area. So it needs to be looked at on a close basis. You can't take general numbers from a generic whole metro area and then break that down and only try to look at it on a five-block area. So the 1.66 is more realistic for what's going on in this area. There are many areas that are open and available for development.

So when we start talking about levels of service, which I'm going to get into here. We assumed a 1.66 growth rate which again we believe is much closer to what's going to happen out here for the next twenty years rather than less than 1%. The Super Wal-Mart is documented as going to be happening and part of this TIA needs to evaluate that the Super Wal-Mart is going to have impact on this neighborhood and this project. So it should be incorporated in there. We've also included the developer's proposed improvements and we're going to look at 2025. And I'm going to get to that in a minute. But let's go with the simulation here so that - this is going to take a second. For sake of time I am moving to this very quickly but we're looking at this entire area, which should be based on exactly what the developer has been talking about. And we're going to run the simulation. Again this runs what we think is a more realistic picture of what's going to happen in 2025 with certain growth rate with the Super Wal-Mart which sounds like its eminent based on the discussions that are being had and with what's happening with the developer and I apologize for the small size. I can actually get this a little bit closer for you. But what we see - this is the Wadsworth/Quincy intersection. And what we see is a real issue with traffic still backing up because we haven't - in the Developer Study - we haven't addressed the real amount of traffic that's going to travel on Quincy. Again Quincy becomes the problem. We haven't solved what we're going to do about Quincy. We talk about Wadsworth as a regional corridor, which is fine. We talk about it being a retail corridor. That's fine. But you've taken that and put it on Quincy, which can't handle that. It isn't addressed correctly and it's not looked at right and so we think we've modeled this thing more in light with how things are going to develop. I personally come down from Conifer and use this whole regional corridor myself and so when we talk about impacts we are talking about impacts from a much larger area than Lakewood and that's important to note and look at what we're talking about. Even with the signals that are planned. Even with the issues that are planned. We will see a tough time for these residents moving in and out of their residence not only during the weekday which maybe is expected by folks but during the weekend as well. Saturday has become another weekday with this type of development going on. So it's really difficult for everyone to accept this and look at this. You know the issue at Zephyr I understand the developer has talked about putting a light in at Ammons but what we're seeing is nothing has fixed the long-term problems at Zephyr if nothing is done. Doesn't fix the problem when we look at the correct growth rate it that could happen here. With that I'm going to try to move out this and just conclude my presentation. Give me a second here. It just takes a second to get to that and hopefully I haven't blinded you too badly.

In conclusion the proposed development is located adjacent to residential subdivisions. It is a direct impact to those residents. We're looking at traffic impacts that are very great on the weekends so quality of life really I think declines for people that are adjacent to this development because they now have traffic everyday of the week that's not there today. Setbacks are less than originally planned in accordance with the - we reviewed the documents that came in from the developer and I think it was page four of the attorney's response that said there's a setback along Quincy that's less than what was proposed on the original ODP. Retail belongs on Wadsworth not on Quincy and keep in mind retail has a greater impact on traffic than office. Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you. Kent Glassman. Following Mr. Glassman will be Leanna Weston, Mark Steinke and Jim Ritchie.

KENT GLASSMAN: Thank you. My name is Kent Glassman and I live at 6960 West Princeton Avenue. It's two blocks from the subject property and I'm the President of Pinehurst Greens Homeowners Association. I have 27 Power Points and 15 pages.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Mr. Glassman.

KENT GLASSMAN: That I edited while I sat back here.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Pardon me.

KENT GLASSMAN: And I only have three speaking points.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Excuse me sir.

KENT GLASSMAN: I'm sorry.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: If you wouldn't mind stating your city and your zip code.

KENT GLASSMAN: Denver, Colorado 80235.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you very much. Did you say you represent a Homeowners Association?

KENT GLASSMAN: I'm the President of Pinehurst Greens Homeowners, yes.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Very well.

KENT GLASSMAN: And in all due respect to you I have cut out all my slides and talking points and gone to about four or five bullets.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: You're very kind.

KENT GLASSMAN: Try to be brief. Our point here is that in 1975 zoning and a plan was set for the Academy Park and its surrounding uses and your predecessors and even many of you have stuck to that plan for 30 years and it's worked very well. We have gone out of our way to try to address the Comprehensive Plan and to do that in a very factual manner. Staff and the proponent have said that the goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to guide development to appropriate areas. It's a great goal. You should always guide development to appropriate areas. When that happens you have a very well planned, well operating community. When you don't guide appropriate development to appropriate areas you end of a number of different problems. I need not lecture you on that you see it all the time. But this is a zoning change that is guided to the wrong area. Staff suggested earlier that every other use for this site has been opposed. They cited two other uses, Albertson's and Home Depot and yes we oppose those because they're consistent with the proposal you have before you and none of those were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or the existing zoning. We looked at the Traffic Plan that was offered up and you just spent a great deal of time on the Traffic Plan. When we as lay people read the proponent's Traffic Plan we said that can't make sense. It couldn't make sense. So we went to the 12 Homeowners Associations and had to announce to our neighbors that we were assessing them money to hire our own professional because we felt like we needed to have a very credible Traffic Plan to present to you. So the people behind me and all their neighbors took money out of their own pockets to hire a Traffic Planner to stand up here before you. I think if this were a good use and this were the appropriate use and if traffic wasn't a problem we would have read that plan and said no problem. See you. We wouldn't have an argument. Instead we had to give you probably 45 minutes of testimony and said that wasn't right. We also heard a lot about the request for many, many neighborhood meetings and we attended those. We've been going to those for a very long time. But I'll tell you tonight is the first time I've ever seen any of these drawings. It's the first time I've heard about a screen that is going to be three foot six inches tall. It's the first time I've seen that there are going to be fruit and deciduous trees screening the building. I was hoping for 50' Blue Spruce. That would be a really cool screen if you had to have one. But I'm standing here now with a lot of new information and I'm the President of the Homeowners Association that's probably closest to this site. We also looked a great deal at water and how water was going to affect the surrounding uses. And it looked for a while like Pinehurst was going to be satisfied and that wouldn't be a problem but instead you heard they were almost wrathful here saying we've been waiting for a letter. We've been waiting for a commitment. We've told that would happen and even today has not happened. So I would off up to you that we have tried to be as factual as we can. We tried to use as much extra testimony as we can. If this were the right use for this site it would be very easy. The fact is they've got a steep hill to climb because it's the wrong use. We are residence of Lakewood and Denver. We realize that there's a financial issue. We realize that we're all going through tough financial times but we also realize that this was zoned 30 years ago and 30 years from now times are going to be very different. And your challenge is to have the wisdom to say how do we sustain ourselves over time and not be reactionary to perhaps some events that are challenging us today. And we would just like to ask you to be very thoughtful not about today and the next five years or ten years but thoughtful about the rest of history and how if this development goes into Academy Park it is going to be there forever and it's the one piece that doesn't fit. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you Mr. Glassman. Leanna Weston.

LEANNA WESTON: Good evening. My name is Leanna Weston and I live at 7435 West Radcliff Avenue, Lakewood, Colorado 80123, in the subdivision of Lochmoor. I am speaking as an individual in opposition of this rezone and I concur with the previous speakers. I would like to speak about process problems related to this rezone proposal and our experiences with the City of Lakewood Staff and Developer. In July of 2004 the City of Lakewood held an informal meeting about the proposal with the facilitator, Ms. Barbara Green. She stated that her continuing role throughout this process was to hear our community issues and concerns, hear the City's issues and concerns and hear the developer's issues and concerns. All of which would be kept in strictest confidence. We wonder about the inherent conflict of interest such a role implies. Ms. Green stated that the purpose of the meeting was to create a list of issues and concerns, which would be given to the developer to answer at the official neighborhood meeting in August. Idealistically we followed her instructions. The August official meeting was carefully orchestrated to constrain resident input and was ended promptly at 8:30. The meeting agenda was filled with the time for developer staff, traffic consultants and architects leaving little time for citizen input and no answers to the list created at the earlier meeting materialized. It took eight months and many reminders before the developer responded selectively to our issues and concerns. Also at the official neighborhood meeting we were given an edited version of the rezoning process. Anyone not familiar with this would think that this was the complete process. It is not. Here's the edited version versus the complete version. As citizens we deserve better than to be given a contraction of the truth process to follow. In September of 2004 Mr. Dru Siley, City Planner, told us that we would need to work on two parallel tracks, the first being to fight the rezone and the second being to work with the development on enhancements for our neighborhood. Drew told us that we had a deadline of October 21, 2004 to prepare our list of enhancement and this would be our only opportunity to give input into the design of the building and grounds. After three meetings with the developer over the past nine months we have achieved virtually nothing. We identified 21 enhancement issues of those five have been addressed by the developer. For those items a public improvement fund tax is collected from the shopper not from the developer's pocket to pay for every penny of the enhancements. We have learned that participating in this process is not in our best interest but the City's and the developer's. Especially in the light of the fact that our very participation was virtually coerced and is now used in the Staff Report as evidence of neighborhood support. In spite our many verbal and written requests for all documents related to this proposal we have received the same documents over and over. In February Mr. Siley informed us he would be leaving the City and Chad Minor would be taking over. In March we asked Mr. Minor to see all of the documents for the proposal but again we received duplicates of the same documents and saw nothing new. It's hard to believe that after four drafts of an ODP there is no updated documentation. In March three new Commissioners were appointed. This process has been hindered in controversy from the beginning from being given the wrong process to follow to following dual paths. One in which is opposition to rezoning and one in which we are asked to be involved in the design process for a development that we do not deserve and does not fit in our neighborhood. We feel it best that the process failed us and at worst the process has been violated. In closing we ask that you respect the residential zoning surrounding this property and fulfill the promised of Academy Park development. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you.

MARK STEINKE: Hello Commissioners. My name is Mark Steinke. I live at 4210 South Zephyr Street in Lakewood, Colorado. I am currently the President of the Marston Slopes Homeowners Association. Tonight I'm speaking as an individual against the proposed rezone and I do concur with all the previous presentations. What I'd like to discuss is what we would call bad faith and I'll explain that in a minute. Since July we've faced dilemmas in trying to deal with the opposing to rezone. We found some trouble there and recently it's become even seem to be more impossible. Basically part of the reason would be that the Staff Report that we received and that you have mentions that does not - it fails to mention, excuse me, that if each and every meeting that we have had with the development team have expressed our opposition to rezone. In fact the Staff Report believes or partially believes that the neighborhoods are supportive which is far from the truth. The items of concern on the screen originally discuss with the developer have been included in the final official Development Plan. They're had to see I apologize. I'll read them to you if I have to. These items were changed for our detriment from the first ODP to the final ODP without any discussion concerning the last ODP. This typically has to do with the hours of operation and the effects they'd have on the surrounding neighborhoods. If you can't read it the first topic is auto and tire which, on the first ODP, read would be from Monday through Saturday I assume is their hours of operation. From 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and as of most recent ODP were changed from Monday through Saturday 7:00 a.m. to 8:30 and Sunday 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Delivery hours the next topic was Monday through Saturday 5:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. was changed to Monday through Saturday 5:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. Lot sweeping went from two times a week to Monday through Saturday from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. And the only other change was actually a distant change was building to the South Pierce Way Street was 124' changed to 115'. So the chart shows reverses in the position of the developer from the first Official Development Plan to the last one and as I've said we've had no opportunities to discuss any of these last ones that came up.

The other item that we've had some concern about but heard no reply back from yet was that we requested a prohibition of permitting traveling recreation vehicles to park in a parking lot. The Wal-Mart sister store across Hampden allows this practice. RVs with generators running will be nearly in our backyards. Early we addressed the danger associated with low frequency noise and sounds from delivery trucks and the diesel engine throughout which we don't go back into. So because of these items we believe the developer has operated in bad faith during this rezoning process. And the term bad faith is basically used when one side increases their demand instead of working toward reaching a compromise. So as you can see in the areas - in every area we're actually increased by the developer from the first ODP to the fourth ODP. Action like this has not helped improve our view of the developer and has greatly increased the number of us who are now solidly skeptical of developers and the owner. We find it disturbing that following the last ODP there was no comment from the developer about why many of these changes were made. We entered discussions with the developer with concerns about the fruitlessness of our efforts and the time spent unfortunately with new order with virtually none of our suggestions being included and are left with nothing but a bad taste from the bad faith of experience. So we believe this development is a mistake and we strongly urge you to vote against it. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you very much. Mr. Jim Ritchie. I see. Is there anyone in Chambers tonight that would like to speak? I see four or five and it would be my intention to work through the public comment unless there is dissention from the Commission. Let's start over here. I saw a hand. Please come forward. State your name, you address and your zip code and you will have three minutes and I'm hoping that your testimony will be new information.

RAY WARD: Thank you sir. Thank you the Committee. My name is Ray Ward. I live at 6115 West Mansfield Avenue, Unit 241, Denver, 80235. I'm retired, 76 year old and living in my last home and I'm coming to you not to reiterate all these things that have been brought up but to appeal to you and to try to convey to you my thoughts and fear about this project if it is rezoned. And that is being in Denver my assumption is, is if you say yeah or neigh there's going - this is going to go on. It will go to the Counsel and there will be referendums or they'll be people will sign petitions and before long it maybe - it will go to an up and down vote with the public. I won't even have a chance to vote and I'm appealing to you. Now is the time for this committee to accept the responsibility and listen to all these people and to observe the demographics of the people that have spoken to you tonight and realize that they're sincere that they're good honest, hard working people and the only thing they're wanting is justice. Thank you sir.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you Mr. Ward. We can clear any process questions at the end. Please come forward.

ALANNA BROWN: Good evening. My name is Alanna Brown and I am the Business Manager and Chief Financial Office at Colorado Academy. The academy is located at 3800 South Pierce Street in the City of Lakewood and the zip code is 80235. And I'm here tonight to make a statement on behalf of Colorado Academy. Colorado Academy is a primary and secondary private education institution for pre-kindergarten through twelve grades. Our campus is located on both sides of Pierce and has been at this location for over 50 years. Colorado Academy is committed to the Lakewood community and as part of this commitment recently annexed our property into the City of Lakewood. The proposed Sam's Club development south of Colorado Academy along Pierce Street comes after a long line of business developments that have contribute to substantial growth in this area of Lakewood around the school. As Colorado Academy has consistently stated over the years it does not oppose managed growth within our community but it is concerned that development in this area possess real and substantial risks to our young children through increase traffic flow and speed on Pierce Street. There is no doubt that past development has multiplied the traffic volume and risks on Pierce. Nor is there any doubt that further development will add to this situation. Our fear is that the increased traffic on Pierce if left unmanaged and unmitigated will result in grave injury to one of our children. Colorado Academy believes that substantial traffic management measures must be taken in conjunction with any development to promote the safety to Pierce Street for its children and the community. It is imperative for Colorado Academy that Pierce Street be properly managed so that the campus will be the safe - will be safe and its children can cross the street in a safe and orderly manner. With that said at this time Colorado Academy is neutral on the proposed Sam's Club development it neither supports nor opposes the project at this stage. Colorado Academy believes that further work and study is needed to identify short and long term solutions for the increased traffic, volume and risks on Pierce. And we have talked to Sam's Club and the City about possible solutions. Although Sam's Club proposed development addresses some traffic management issues we believe that further solutions are needed and necessary north on Pierce adjacent to the school. We appreciate the efforts Sam's Club has made to date to reach out to Colorado Academy to understand the issues and to set aside some of the resources that will be required to begin to address the issues. Colorado Academy is willing and would like to continue this conversation with Sam's Club and the City of Lakewood to address these issues and hopes that appropriate solutions can be reached. Thank you for your time and continued concern on this matter.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you very much.

JAY LEWINGBURG: My name is Jay Lewingburg. I live at 7025 West Princeton. That's Denver 80235. And that's in the Greens at Pinehurst. I also opposed this rezoning but mine if a very personal matter in the reason I bought my house two and a half years ago, I teach at CA. Both my children that are eight and six go to CA and we were given assurances that as stated this was - property was not going to be rezoned and it was not going to have further developments but I can't let my kids walk to school. I can't ride my bike to school and that is infringing upon my rights in - under the pretenses that I bought my home and that's not right. The traffic needs to be fixed and this property should not be rezoned. And everything that has been said should be compounded along the fact that it's all been true and there hasn't been enough passion spoken. There has not been enough anger and I appreciate all the work that the committees have done but you need to know that there are reasons these people buy those houses. There are reasons and promises that have been made that I feel lied to and I don't feel safe in my neighborhood if this rezoning goes through. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you very much.

ALLAIDA ROMPIES: Evening. My name is Allaida Rompies.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Excuse me ma'am if you'd move the microphone down and start again. Even I didn't hear you.

ALLAIDA ROMPIES: My name is Allaida Rompies and I live on 3435 South Pierce and Vice President of Bennett Bear Creek Association and I'm here to present you with a petition that we had against the proposed rezone with the signatures of our neighborhood. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you.

MALE: Mr. Chairman I'd like to present you with three petitions from the owners or from the people who live in Fairways. They have about 100 names on here from Lochmoor with 68 names and from Executive Nine Club Estates with about 150 names. Thank you.

ALICE JACKSON-BUSH: Good evening. Chair Marino and the Commissioners thank you for being so patient and listening to all of us. My name is Alice Jackson-Bush and I am here basically representing three entities. One of them is -

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Your address ma'am.

ALICE JACKSON-BUSH: 5355 Ridge Trail. It's Littleton, Colorado 80123. And I reside in the town of BowMar, which is just down the street from where the proposed site is. And I'm here representing three entities. One is the town of BowMar, which is more than 300 households and then also as a board member on the BowMar Owners Inc. which is the Homeowners Associations for the town of BowMar and we represent 265 homeowners. And I also am a parent of children that attend Colorado Academy School which is right down the street from the site and basically I drive by that site probably four to six times a day and - so you can see I have a lot of concern there. Basically we respectfully want to register our objection to the rezoning case of #RZ-04-008 and we concur with the speakers opposing the rezoning and under the Town of BowMar one of the major concerns is cut through traffic. There hasn't been any traffic analysis as far as the impact going all the back to Sheridan. At Sheridan and Quincy we get a lot of traffic that cuts through from Santa Fe through BowMar down through Quincy and then also from Federal through that area as well. It's noisy. It's loud. There's a lot of increased traffic. We've had traveling meth. labs come through our town and our town is strapped for money right now anyway so we're already maxed out trying to control the traffic that's going through our town. So we feel that increase - having the Super Sam's in the corner would increase that cut through traffic along that zone. There's no straight through - Quincy doesn't go straight through all the way to Federal. There's really no way to go so people want to cut through.

Another issue that we have on the BowMar homeowner side is a water drainage issue from the car wash and the fueling station and the site itself the drainage that would go into different parts like Harriman Ditch and the ditch that leads down into Woody's Pond. The drainage goes down through Pinehurst and then it ends up in Woody's Pond. It eventually ends up down into Bear Creek and then which ends up in the Platte River. Also on the other side some of that seeps into Harriman Ditch which goes down through - we live on a whole lake community. There's a string of lakes that come down all the way down from - it starts at Harriman Reservoir and comes down through BowMar Lake.

And also - then as a parent also our kids go by and you know my son wants to put something up that says you know save the yak because all the cows that are down there on that corner. But when we go by there everyday we see wildlife there. We see - you know there's - over in BowMar there's an Audubon Society, there are Great Herrons, there's all kind of wildlife and there's marsh land that goes up back through Marston and up through the Grant Ranch area and when we come - when we drive down Quincy everyday and come down Pierce I see Bald Eagles over that site. I see -

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Ma'am I'm going to interrupt you.

ALICE JACKSON-BUSH: Okay.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: If you can conclude your comments your three minutes are retired.

ALICE JACKSON-BUSH: Well we see all kinds of wildlife that -- it does impact the natural surroundings with the noise and the air pollution and the water pollution as well as the other concerns that we have and safety concerns that we have with traffic going down Pierce as Mr. Lewingburg talked about. We're very concerned about the traffic down to CA and the safety of our children along that street. So I appreciate you listening to us and thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you.

STEVE HARELSON: Hello my name is Steve Harelson. I live at 3443 South Newland Court in Lakewood 80227. That address is in a Three Lake Subdivision. It's quite a bit north of where most of tonight's speakers have lived. My biggest concern is the traffic in the areas not immediately adjacent to this development. There's a great deal of traffic on Pierce Way and the Hampden Frontage Road. The Pierce Way is a ribbon of death right now. There's been a fatal accident in the nine years I've been around. It's narrow. It's curvy. It's steep grades. There's no shoulder. There's a lot of teenage drivers. The applicant's Traffic Study does not analyze any impacts of their development on that road. That network is very fragile. This spring the City of Denver closed Quincy to widen it for three or four weeks and during the time that Quincy was closed the Hampden Frontage Road at the - there's a four-way stop right at Pierce Way and the Hampden Frontage Road and that would back up practically to Sheridan which is a solid three quarters of a mile every afternoon. I think as people adapted to it, it got a little better but the applicant's Traffic Study completely ignores those impacts and I think those are very real impacts. And ignoring is clearly negligent.

The second thing I'm bothered with is the PIF financing of the voluntary improvements. Sam's Club's parent company, Wal-Mart recently used the same sort of scheme to move their 4th and Wadsworth store up to Colfax. Wal-Mart got a much larger store and then in return Lakewood got larger impacts, a vacant building at 4th and Wadsworth and static tax revenue. So it was a good deal for Wal-Mart. I would hope that this Sam's Club proposal is not a quit pro quo attachment to that shameful deal between Lakewood and Wal-Mart. The Counsel for Sam's stated in her opening remarks that sales tax is the reality of municipal funding in Colorado. I would argue that the true reality is that large retailers play municipalities against each other to trick them into financing their developments using these types of sales tax reimbursements. As soon as their ability to depreciate their property runs out they move onto the next site. What's wrong with the existing Sam's Club down south on Wadsworth that they're moving from? Why are they suddenly so benevolent towards Lakewood and want to leave Denver? Can we trust them or will they move to Unincorporated Jeffco in ten or fifteen years? Lakewood has been quite active in the sales tax enhancement business for the last ten years. They built Colorado Mills. They're working redeveloping Villa Italia, the Wal-Mart that I just talked about. The plunging sales tax revenues that I read about every issue of looking at Lakewood would indicate that Lakewood City Government isn't very good at this sort of wheeling and dealing. Perhaps we as a City and as a metro area should rethink this style of economic development. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you.

DEBRA JOHNSON: I'm Debra Johnson, 7055 West Princeton Avenue, Denver 80235. I'm on the Board of Greens at Pinehurst and I'd just like to give a petition opposing the rezone from the Greens and also Marston Slopes. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you very much.

CURTIS ECKHARDT: Hi my name is Curtis Eckhardt. I live at 6500 West Mansfield, Denver 80235. Smart growth. Governor's smart growth policy, this sure isn't it. They talked about the empty buildings. Cities are notoriously bad planners on this. A couple dozen years on some themed sport stadium down in the vicinity of Colfax and Federal. Gone. A couple dozen years on some place we knew as Cinderella City. Gone. As I recall there was a shopping center not too far away in Lakewood named Villa Italia. I believe it's been remodeled. Short sighted. Health, safety and welfare as the proponents of the project came up with. Better for the health, safety and welfare, so much so that if you put one on each corner they would have you believe we're all going to live to be 150 years old. There would be another traffic accident and the lights would be green all the time for all people in all directions. Health, safety and welfare come up when they talk about the environmental impacts. That encompasses the environmental, social and economic impacts of a project. The economic comes to us, the homeowners and residents of the area, we are impacted. They didn't indicate there are any impacts. The social impacts don't have to do with the social interactions of the ant colonies out there. That's us, the people of the community. The environmental impacts isn't just the acts which are great. The environmental impacts are the conditions we live in including that drone, the low hum and for those who haven't even heard of the trucks hum think about in the middle of the night about what woke you up and you hear a drone. Well it could be a diesel engine. It could be an airplane or it could be a hum and if you get a bunch of diesels you're going to have a lot of it and that goes a long ways, far distances. The city I believe and my reading about this is having financial trouble. Pixy dust, gold dust, whatever you want to call it. Someone is trying to stuff dollar bills in your pocket while ignoring the fact of the existing zoning. We recognize the existing zoning. We're satisfied with it. Fact, the Academy Park neighborhood been very good neighbors. If you do roll over on this one and go for it the traffic is atrocious. They've already admitted to a Level of Service E, which means it's really F. Colorado, for all the time I've been around here and I have worked in the business comes down to meeting the traffic projections in maybe half the time. You talk about a 20-year projection. The higher traveled roads generally meet those in maybe ten years. As you know Lakewood has experienced this and has ignored it in other intersections in Lakewood that this would really need an interchange. Again if you roll over, it has the grade. Quincy has a grade. Wadsworth has a grade. Do it right. Put in the interchange. Separate the traffic. That's only if you decide to go for it because none of us will.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Mr. Eckhardt, I'd ask you to conclude your comments please.

CURTIS ECKHARDT: One other option is for the neighbors, for all of us to jump in. Put our money where our mouth is. That parcel is worth some finite amount for the Association of the neighborhood groups that are opposing this to form a district to protect that through purchase and let it continue to develop as Academy Park to pay back that purchase price. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you very much.

JIM FREEMAN: My name is Jim Freeman. I live at 6875 West Fillet Lane in Lakewood 80227. I heard talk and I've looked at the ODP and I see detention ponds and I'm thinking that detention ponds are getting out of phase with the real world. If you look at the detention pond that presently exist at Pierce and Hampden it was put in, in the 90s and go there ten, twelve, two weeks after a rainstorm and it's still - it has stagnant water in it and what stagnant breeds is mosquitoes and presently West Nile is a big thing. And I see detention ponds here. I don't want to see pesticides in there. I don't want to see insecticides in there because it will pollute the downstream waters. So Lakewood's going to have to come up with, I believe, recommendations for covering detention ponds. And this is a problem that's going to get worse and not better.

The second thing I see is thermal pollution. It hasn't been talked about this evening. Thermal pollution, when you pave an area that was agricultural now you're adding heat and you've got a black body that's absorbing that heat. I see no mitigation here at all but in an office complex you can easily get parking beneath the building and then you have more green and less black body heat and that affects all of us, next door, a mile away, two miles away. We need to think about that. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you very much.

CARL KOONSMAN: Chairman Marino, members of the Commission. My name is Carl Koonsman. I live at 6955 West Princeton Avenue, Denver 80235. I'm here speaking on behalf of the group of over 500 homeowners and 12 homeowners associations united in opposition of this rezone. Tonight we've presented our views of the past nine months. Our belief with this application is wrong for this property. And to provision and the promise of Academy Park should be allowed to be fulfilled. I'd like very briefly to talk about three items.

First the rezone requirements and the Comprehensive Plan. We've talked about the 12 - that the Comp Plan includes 12 references to respect and supporting and benefiting the surrounding neighborhoods. The writers of the Comp Plan referenced neighborhoods more times in the plan than any other single item or concept. We believe that emphasis was deliberate and significant. Let me say that again. We believe that that was deliberate and significant that neighborhoods be mentioned that many times.

The purpose of zoning is to provide successive layers of buffer zones between what is regard as commercial and what is regarded as residential. Academy Park provided that to us for 30 years. Citizens don't want to live and work in the same environment. If we ignore that fact we will nullify the very idea of the need of proper zoning.

My second point has to do with the Staff Report. The Staff Report attempts to make the case to support this rezone. But I think what is not said maybe more significant. For example, the Staff Report references a 32-foot height on the building similar to residential homes is a stand alone statement in the Staff Report that sounds good. But what it does not say is that that 32 foot roof is attached to a windowless concrete masonry building which happens to be 375 feet long and will be the view out the backdoor of many of our neighbors.

Nothing we have seen has been sufficient to offset our fears that our safety and welfare will be compromised. It was mentioned by the development team that only a retail operation can generate enough revenue to make street improvements mentioned possible. We did meet a number of times with the developer but we never had the conversation, which would have allowed us to explore other uses. We should have. That would have possibly generated an alternative to this project and made our conversation this evening much different.

Staff reported that "performance based standards" were used to measure a judge this project. Tonight is the first time that phrase has been mentioned in any of our meetings. I'm not sure what that means but we would have very much liked to be a part of the discussion on performance standards.

A third topic is traffic but I'm not going to even mention that. We've had ten speakers tonight. I know that you understand how important that is to us.

We are here tonight representing the breadth and depth of our neighborhoods. We have attempted to speak the truth with compassion and from our hearts. We have drafted a substitute resolution for you to deny this proposal. We ask that it be considered in place of the resolution that the City Staff prepared and wrote for you. I'll give that to the Secretary. Thank you for your time.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you very much. I'll ask one last time if there's anyone else that wishes to speak. Seeing non we will close public comment. Traditionally this would be the time that we would open up to Commission questions and before we do that I wonder if- Commissioner Plotkin?

COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN: I would make a motion Mr. Chairman. Given the depth and breadth of the testimony tonight as well as the additional materials that have been submitted. I for one would like the additional time to study before asking questions and I think we're getting late enough in the night that it's going to be difficult to conclude this preceding. So would I move that we recess - or I'm sorry adjourn the proceeding to another date certain in the future.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Is there a second?

COMMISSIONER MALM: I'll second that Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Okay. Before we vote I wonder if I can ask staff how we handle that. Mr. Harris could you give us some advice?

VINCE HARRIS: Well presuming - Vince Harris, Planning Manager for the City. Presuming that the Planning Commission approves a motion to continue the case to a date certain we would need to select a date. The case would be continued to that date and you would conclude with the - essentially the rest of the hearing since obviously you haven't got into - personally you haven't gotten into A) a response from the applicant to the questions that were raised. And second then you have the time that you ask questions about the case. And then conclude with a recommendation. So I guess you need to poll yourselves to figure out what date this would be to continue if that's the -

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Would the motion need to include that date?

VINCE HARRIS: It would have to include a date.

COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI: Would it be appropriate to let the applicant make his response here so that we completed everything but our questioning to go forward?

VINCE HARRIS: They would respond to our questions.

COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI: They don't actually make a response to the public comment period they only respond to our questions.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Generally, to our questions.

VINCE HARRIS: It would probably be good to ask that question of the applicant also because obviously a date needs to work for -

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Yes, Ms. White.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission once again Carolynne White, Land Use Counsel for Sam's Club. On behalf of Sam's Club we would like to state that we have our whole team here. We're prepared to continue this hearing if that's the Commission's pleasure. Should the Commission however decide to continue to a date certain we would request, like you, that we have the opportunity to study their new information we've received and present our rebuttal on that night along with your questions and answers.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Okay.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: We would also request some opportunity to coordinate on the date once again since we have a lot of consultants who have flown in from out of town to be here tonight.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: I appreciate that. Well I would - there's a motion on the table that does not have a date certain to it and it sounds like we need to have that. There are some - certainly circumstances with the applicant out of fairness and certainly out of all the citizens that showed up tonight. We certainly could continue if you wish. If the Commission wishes, but I would like it to be a majority of the Commission. I know there's a motion but I don't think we can fulfill that without a date. I would feel uncomfortable in posing a date on either the applicant or the neighborhood. Mr. Plotkin, do you?

MR. PLOTKIN: My only thought is do we have a hearing the next Wednesday that we'd ordinarily have a hearing? Do we have a case?

VINCE HARRIS: On March 18th, that's your next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. I'm sorry it's late. May, May 18th. There are no items on the agenda that night.

MR. PLOTKIN: Then I would amend my motion to make the hearing adjourned until that date and with part of that ask the Petitioner and as well as the community whether that makes sense.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: Thank you once again Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Carolynne White. I wouldn't venture to say whether that date makes sense or not but certainly if that's the date that you choose and if you choose to continue the hearing we will make sure that we have our team available to be here on May 18th.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: OK. We would need to second the amended motion.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Mr. Chairman, I would second the amended motion.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Before we vote I'd like to poll the Commission to see who will be available that night to make sure we will have a quorum. You might just tell me will you be here on the 18th?

COMMISSIONER BROWN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Yes.

COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI: Yes.

COMMISSIONER ROHR: Yeah.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: And I'm a no as I've already reported that to the Secretary. So you would run the meeting Madam. There is a motion to continue to May 18th and a second. By all means.

CARL KOONSMAN: In light of the difficulty in rescheduling. Is it possible to determine how long the questioning might take tonight to continue? I mean are we talking an hour or thirty minutes or?

CHAIRMAN MARINO: I would assure you that the questioning would be more than an hour.

CARL KOONSMAN: The community's preference at this time would be to continue this evening. We're here, along with Carolynne, we'd just as soon wrap this if possible. If not certainly your direction is where we would go.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Well let's - I'm going to let the motion stand and call for a vote just to fulfill there's a motion to continue to continue to May 18th. There is a second. Please cast your vote on that motion.

That motion fails so we will continue. Yes, unless I read that incorrectly, looks like it failed

COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI: That's the way I read it.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: All right then we will open the floor to Commissioner Questions. One moment, Vince?

VINCE HARRIS: At this time in the Hearing Process the Applicant has the right to respond to the questions and issues that were brought up during the public hearing.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: I see. Okay. Very well. If the Applicant will like to rebut some of the comments, now is the time.

COMMISSIONER ROHR: Mr. Chairman, can I take a leak?

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Yes. A recess has been requested. Five minutes.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Sir there is a packet of information that has been given to each of us. There is some concern that if this is new information that we will not have the chance to digest it. Would you please let us know what's in here?

CARL KOONSMAN: You bet. That's a compilation of the materials that were referred this evening. There were several reports. It also contains either summaries or actual testimony that was given.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Okay so it's a summary of what has been presented?

CARL KOONSMAN: Correct. There should be nothing in there that you have not already heard.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you very much. With that we're going to move to a - what I will call an appropriately brief rebuttal and I will be the Judge of what's appropriate. So if you'd please keep your rebuttal condensed. Public comment has been closed and we're going to move directly into Commissioner Questions after your brief comments.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: Understood Mr. Chairman. Are you ready for me to proceed?

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Yes and I assume its okay for her to give her testimony from there. All right.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: The idea was to minimize people jumping up and down to the microphone because we have a couple other people that are going to have to do that.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Wonderful.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Once again Carolynne White, Land Use Counsel for Sam's Club. I'd like to begin by requesting on behalf of the Applicant a copy of the packet of material that you received that I assume will be part of the record so that we have the opportunity to review that. But I don't need it right this second. I'll proceed.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: You ask and you receive. How about that?

CAROLYNNE WHITE: Amazing customer service. I just would like to say that our team of professional has been called a lot of things this evening and what we'd like to do is come back to the facts and specifics relevant to the site and relevant to the proposal before you. And we are only going to cover new information that was presented during the public testimony and try to respond as best we can to some of the questions and the issues that were raised. And the first thing we're going to talk about is drainage because we did treat that issue a little bit lightly in our initial presentation. Although all of the information that we'll be discussing is provided in detail in the submittal packet including our drainage report, letters from various drainage engineers and all the comments back and forth from both Lakewood City Staff and the City and County of Denver Staff. And I'd like to introduce to you Tom Farley our Drainage (phonetic) Engineer who's going to explain to you a little bit about the substance of the drainage real quickly before he starts and tells you his qualifications and answers the drainage questions. I just want to mention one thing and that is - there was some issues raised and as versions cast about the timing of who heard what when about what the right drainage solution is going to be. On behalf of our team I know that in our initial comments what we received from the City and County of Denver about our proposed Drainage Plan. We did receive a comment that they suggested we either remodel our plan our site to reduce the rate so that drainage did not leave our site at any greater than historical rates. Or we look at other alternatives such as potentially upgrading the existing drainage system on the golf course. We elected to do the former. We revised our system several times to guarantee that drainage would not leave the property at greater than historical rates. And nonetheless we came back and finally on Friday, this last Friday were told that that was not an acceptable alternative and then instead we were going to be required to upgrade the system at the golf course. So I guess everyone has a different version of what they think they heard but that's how we understand the comments we received and we did in fact subsequent to that time agree to invest in upgrading the system at the golf course. And various letters were exchanged to that effect in the recent days since Friday, which in my experience with corporations the size of Sam's Club is pretty quick turnaround. So with that I'd like to let Tom Farley tell you about the drainage.

TOM FARLEY: Thank you. My name is Tom Farley. I'm with Kiowa Engineering. I'm at 7175 West Jefferson Avenue in Lakewood 80235. Our firm was the firm that prepared the Pinehurst Tributary Drainage Study for the Urban Drainage in Flood Controlled Districts, City of Lakewood, City and County of Denver and Jefferson County. And that study was completed in 1999 and several people have referenced the Drainage Master Plan and that is the study that they're referring to.

Several quick items, the detention volume on the site is actually higher than what's proposed in the Drainage Master Plan. Not 30% less. The 18 inch high berm to protect the condominium project within Pinehurst was simply to prevent additional flooding during very large flows such as that occurred in I believe 1995 which precipitated the study that we conducted. And those were the main two items. Thank you.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: Mr. Chairman, if I may then, I'd like to move on to address some of the traffic issues that were raised. And I'd like to introduce Charles Buck our Traffic Engineer to explain some of the discrepancies between the information that we presented and the information that was presented by members of the public.

CHARLES BUCK: For the record, Charles Buck, Traffic Engineer for Sam's Club. There were a lot of issues raised tonight. I guess I would like to start with what I think would be the most major one and that is the background traffic volumes that we used in the traffic report and whether they are in fact what aught to be used or are high enough. And I would like to say that our analysis, we reference two sources for long range future background volumes. We looked at CDOT 20 year projections and we looked at the DRCOG (phonetic) 20-25 regional model. CDOT projections are a little bit more than DRCOG's so we used DRCOG for this area. CDOT projects an annual growth rate of about half a percent on Wadsworth. That is in fact the historic growth rate on Wadsworth from 1994 to 2004 is about half of a percent. That was quite a bit higher from 1984 to 1994 when all the retail development was going on. So it was about 4% per year. So we feel that our traffic projections are a little more in line with regional growth projections than what was presented by the neighborhood's traffic consultant. The neighborhood's traffic consultant looked at the Jefferson County Transportation Plan. They took countywide averages and then extrapolated those into specific growth rates for this specific area. DRCOG is a gravity model that takes the land use trends and patterns that are projected for the metro area and assigns them to the specific links to assign - they distribute the land use and the trips to the specific links that are - so it is much more of a - more precise model than they have led you to believe.

I know that some of the folks were concerned about some of the traffic delays particularly for the un-signalized streets, Zephyr, Reed Street and Pierce Street where left turns are going to be impossible during peak times, next to impossible. That's the way it is for un-signalized intersections on arterial roadways. The only way to fix that for those left turns out is to provide traffic signals and I can tell you that even in the long range future Zephyr, Reed or Pierce Street are not going to meet traffic signal warrants. So people will have to figure out a different way. Often times medians are put in across roadways to restrict access as to right turns only. That's been proposed between the site access and Wadsworth. Nobody's going to sit there more than a couple of minutes to make a left turn. They'll make a right turn and find another way. So I think those are the - and these conditions are going to happen whether or not development occurs on this site. They will occur as a result of background volumes. So I guess I'm available for questions if you have any but that's all I really wanted to address on the traffic issues. Thank you.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Carolynne White. While we're on the subject of traffic I just want to emphasize and wrap up what Charles Buck said. You know, although we may disagree on the nature and extent of the traffic and maybe of the source of the traffic and maybe the appropriate remedy. I don't think I heard anyone here tonight on either side of the debate say the traffic isn't already a problem at this intersection, at this intersection and along Quincy. It is a problem now and it's going to be a problem into the foreseeable future. As you just heard Mr. Buck, our professional traffic engineer, CDOT traffic engineers that have reviewed our Traffic Study and our proposed plans and your City Staff professional engineers have all confirmed that the Traffic Study we provided is valid and appropriate. But let's just say for a minute that all of them are wrong and that some of the numbers that were quoted here tonight are instead correct. 2.5% incremental increase over 20 years instead of the 1.66 or the .973. Even if that's the case it really only emphasis the point we're trying to make which is that in the absence of a proposal like the one we're putting forward. And I'm not saying we're the only one that can do it. But you need these improvements now. You needed them yesterday and you need them whether there's going to be a Sam's Club or not. And we are hoping to provide the mechanism to help the City of Lakewood and the community address some of these existing traffic problems and address problems that will arise in the future in addition to simply providing the bare minimum necessary to accommodate our site.

I'm just going to run through. I have four or five quick things that I feel just really need to be responded to because we didn't cover them earlier and then we'll be happy to answer your questions to the best of our ability.

Someone mentioned that they thought there was a lack in the application because we didn't mention in the ODP that RV's would be prohibited from parking on the site. During all the neighborhood meetings I didn't record that note having been raised. Nonetheless - oh and it was compared to the existing Wal-Mart across the street which is located in the City and County of Denver. City and County of Denver regulations obviously are different and it may be RVs are permitted to part at that location. I don't happen to know offhand, although I certainly could inquire. Nonetheless, it would be possible for us to place on the ODP restriction that prohibits RVs from long term parking in the parking lot. That's common in these kinds of projects. And we have in the past agreed to post signs throughout the parking lot stating that RV parking is prohibited. So I just wanted to mention that. That was not one of the citizen comments raised at the various meetings that I attended or that we have notes from.

Someone questioned the proposed set backs and stated that while our submittals stated 100 feet or more off of Quincy that my letter dated April 25th stated 55 feet. I believe they are referring to page four and I can read to you what it says. It says "while the ODP for the proposed Sam's Club envisions only about a 55 foot landscaped buffer along Quincy." In that paragraph in the letter I'm referring to the width of the part that's landscaped. Not counting the pedestrian sidewalk. Not counting the right-of-way. Not counting the parking lot and not counting the distance to the building. And in our presentation we showed you two slides. One of which measured the landscape distance and one of which measured the distance from our property line to the building. None of those are 55 feet. The 55 feet I refer to in my letter is just the width of the landscaped area. So we didn't renege or change our minds or anything. What's in the ODP is correct.

Let's see, finally real quick on the hours on the proposed hours for the Sam's Club. A couple people seemed to think that this project was proposed to operate 24/7. That's definitely not the case. We are restricted to the hours of operation listed in the ODP and those hours currently are 7:00 to 8:30 Monday through Saturday. 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday for the main store operation. I won't go through and list all the hours of all the other things but there's different hours for when we can sweep the parking lot, different hours for when trucks can deliver, different hours for when we can unload trucks., different hours for when the fuel station can operate. While it is true that these hours were changed in between the pre-submittal that we first submitted and the submittal that you have before you now and they were changed to expand not contract. It is not true that we have not restricted the hours compared to the normal hours of a Sam's Club and that is a concession that we made. And we restricted the hours in three ways. We cut back on when trucks can deliver. We've cut back on when street sweeping can occur and we've cut back on when trash pickup can occur. Those were the three sort of noisiest things that were brought to us by the residents where we really could make some changes. When we ran the first ODP and these comments from the neighbors by Sam's Club, we were reminded that Sam's Club has national advertising with national hours. The same hours at every Sam's Club and that our customers, primarily small businesses who are members of Sam's Club rely on those hours before their stores open or their businesses open and after their businesses open to come to Sam's Club, purchase the items they need to use in their business and then go get on with their day and open their business at 9:00 or close it at 6:00. So for that reason we had to put the hours in that we did and we've limited them as much as we possibly can. And we've tried to be responsive. Although I acknowledge that the hours of operation of the store themselves are proposed to be the same as other Sam's Club.

That really rolls me into what will be my second to last point and that is some of the comments, which really troubled me were comments about alleging bad faith throughout the process. In response to that I have to say that first of all every document we submit to the City becomes a matter of public record the minute we give it to the City. And anyone who asks for it is entitled to receive a copy under Colorado law. I'm not aware of any efforts on our part to restrict that and any questions we've been asked separate and independent from our City submittals for additional information we've complied with just as quickly as we possibly can. The drawings that you saw of the proposed architecture in the slides presented by some members of the public which are different than the drawings that you've seen us present here tonight are definitely old drawings that we looked at initially and in response to some of the comments we received that they didn't like the architecture of that building. We looked at completely changing it and came up with architecture like what is proposed before you tonight. I was personally at, at least one meeting in November where this architecture was presented to members of the public. So we have not had the final architectural drawings until recently. In fact we just barely made the deadline for our submittal with the final drawing. But this concept and the preliminary sketches were all presented back in November and were all made available to anyone who asked for them in color and as many copies as people asked for them throughout the process.

It was also stated that we didn't consider the resident's input. And I want to say that while I acknowledge that the resident's who attended the meetings and stated their concerns gave us a wish list of suggested improvements, certainly I never imagined that the fact that they attended these meetings and gave us these wish lists of improvements meant that they would support the project. And I never meant to imply by my initial opening statement that we had garnered the support of the neighborhoods by attending these meetings and by considering the lists of suggestions and comments. Nonetheless it is not correct. It is false to say that these comments were not considered. And you can count them different ways. You have in your packets two documents that we prepared on behalf of Sam's Club which itemized every single comment that we have in our notes or that staff presented to us or that neighbors presented to us in writing at these various meetings. And we state what our response is. Did we do every single thing the neighbors asked for? No we didn't. For example it was requested that lifetime memberships to Sam's Club be provided to every resident. We did not agree to do that. However, wherever we could make changes to the Site Plan, to the building, to the landscaping, to the operations to accommodate the concerns of the neighbors we made those changes. Not all of them show on the ODP because the ODP doesn't list everything. And it's also a preliminary. It's conceptual. We're not at the final stage so you don't have the detailed landscaping drawings in front of you that you would have if we had already received approval and we're moving onto the next step. But I assure you when you see those drawings that you will see that we have incorporated suggestions and requests to the maximum extent we think possible.

Finally I just want to touch on a couple issues related to the existing Wal-Mart Super Store across the street located in the City and County of Denver which a couple people have referred to and the question of there being a vacant store on South Wadsworth if the Sam's Club successfully relocates to the proposed location. A couple people said that it's been documented that Wal-Mart is going to become a new Wal-Mart Super Center. I will tell you that we have sitting here Roger Thompson (phonetic) the Real Estate Manager for Wal-Mart who is in charge of all new Wal-Mart Super Centers not only in Colorado but in some other states as well. And if anybody knew that that was going to be a Super Center it would be Roger. And he has told me just a few minutes ago there is no current plan for that to become a Super Center. I don't know if managers have talked about that. Or I don't know where it's documented. I haven't seen it documented anywhere. If there are such documents I'd certainly like to see them. Nonetheless, to the extent the comment relates to it being taken into account in terms of traffic. The Traffic Study takes into account the appropriate level of traffic given existing and reasonably predictable future expansion on that site. Not just for Super Wal-Mart, for any development. For example if Costco were to expand or if both Wal-Mart and Costco were to close and some other development were to go there, all of that is accounted for within the Traffic Study and the projections we've given you.

One or two folks also mentioned specifically the Wal-Mart located on 4th and Wadsworth which recently closed when the new Super Center opened on Colfax. And many of you are aware, some of you may not be, that it was recently announced that plans have not been finalized to fill that empty space with a new Wal-Mart flex store, which has also been referred to as a Mini Super Center. And I don't know what the exact schedule is for that but that vacant space will be filled just as quickly as we can fill it. Similarly the Sam's Club current location on South Wadsworth, given the nature of this corridor and our real estate broker is sitting right back here in the audience behind me. There is not going to be any problem with filling that space. There's an extremely high demand for this kind of space in this corridor. That current location doesn't work ideally for Sam's Club and that's part of the reason why we want to move. I've explained that in a little bit more detail in writing so I won't go into now. But my point is simply that, while there might be some markets and some locations where the closing of a large format retailer results in a vacant store. Chances are very slim that that's going to happen in this location

I know you're anxious to get on with your questions so I'll just wrap up at that point and once again state our appreciation for your patience and for your courtesy in allowing us to present this project to you. Thank you.

CHAD MINOR: I have a few additional items to comment on before questioning begins if you don't mind.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: By all means.

CHAD MINOR: Regarding the comment on process. Staff has followed the rezoning process and met all the requirements of Article 17 the Zoning Ordinance. Staff has met and exceeded all notification requirements required for this rezoning. The staff has complied with all open records policies and request for information related to this proposal.

There was a comment regarding the screen (phonetic) wall and its effectiveness. The screen wall is actually incorporated at the request of a Pinehurst resident and also at the request of the City and County of Denver City Planner to install a 42-inch screen wall along the truck route. That is where that came from. Again it was deemed to control debris on the site and also potentially provide additional screening to the truck routes. So the 42 inch wall was not something that was just thrown in there and that was actually a request that the developer had put into their Site Plan.

A lot of comments on air pollution. I have to say we did not do an Air Pollution Study or any similar study in that fashion so I'm unable to respond to those concerns.

I would like to take a minute just to respond to the comments related to the existing Academy Park Plan Development. Heard a lot of testimony tonight about the existing office uses the existing zoning. Everyone is comfortable with the existing zoning on the property. I would like to share with you some of the uses that could be or potentially could be located on this property because I don't think that's been necessarily evident tonight and I'm reading exactly - I'm reading right from the Academy Park Plan Development. The following uses shall also be permitted on all parcels except those listed in Article 2.210, which are the parcels that require - or the open space parcels and accept parcels S and O. We're talking about J&K here. Subject to limitations listed hereafter, government buildings, fabrication, assembly, processing, manufacturing, packaging storage, warehousing, repair servicing, leasing and sale at wholesale of material, products and merchandise manufactured, assembled package fabricated or warehoused on these premises. Provided these uses are entirely enclosed in the structure. This section goes on to allow for the parking of large vehicles not more than 24 hours. It does allow for unloading and loading of materials. And again these are currently what could happen on this property within the Academy Park Development Plan. I'll be glad to share this with you but I don't want to leave tonight thinking that office is the only option on this property. There are a number of uses that can occur on this property and again those are some of the few I'd like to point out. And that concludes my comments. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Mr. Harris.

VINCE HARRIS: One brief comment. I'm going to suggest that the Commissioners ask questions by topic, probably to speed this along. And I'll sort of be a gatekeeper for staff for questions that are actually directed toward staff. And Ms. White will be the gatekeeper for questions that are asked of the Applicant. Make sure we get the right person to provide the answer to the question.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Very well. We are moving to commissioner questions and shall we start with drainage? And start with Commissioner Urbanowski.

RICH URBANOWSKI: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Basically question for staff on that and simply put there's an established set of criteria and standards for drainage when developments are put in place. We have not had access to the details of the drainage report, which is typical and common. My question to you is, are standard criteria equaled and/or exceeded by this project as it is designed?

DIETER MAGIN: Dieter Magin, Lakewood Engineering. Yes they have. The post develop runoff and impact from the five and hundred year flows to the Pinehurst Country Club meets the exact requirements of the Pinehurst Tributary Study adopted by Denver, Lakewood, Jeffco and Urban Drainage.

RICH URBANOWSKI: Thank you. That's my question on that topic.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Commissioner Rohr, any drainage questions?

MICHAEL ROHR: No.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Commissioner Malm?

BUNNY MALM: This is kind of - just a quick question. The capacity of the detention ponds, particularly the one that is directly across from the golf course, can you just briefly tell me how - what flow that is intended to detain?

TOM FARLEY: Say again. The capacity of the ponds….

VINCE HARRIS: Mr. Farley, can I have you step up here? I think it would be better.

COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI: Better for your back.

TOM FARLEY: Hi. Tom Farley again. The capacity of the drain -

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Little closer please.

TOM FARLEY: The capacity of the ponds one the proposed Sam's Club site is about 4.8 acre-feet, the capacity in the Master Plan for 4.6 acre-feet.

BUNNY MALM: Okay. So you're exceeding the original requirements?

TOM FARLEY: It's slightly larger.

BUNNY MALM: Okay. All right. Thank you. That's all I have Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Commissioner Plotkin?

COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN: No questions on drainage.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Commission Brown?

COMMISSIONER BROWN: I just have one. I don't have the exact number here. I can't find it in all my notes. I'm not sure why but there was some discussion about going from one size pipe to another size pipe. And I can't remember exactly what that - the dimensions were. Could you explain how that's been addressed if at all?

TOM FARLEY: Yes and that would be on the Pinehurst Country Club property.

COMMISSIONER BROWN: Ah huh.

TOM FARLEY: They currently have a twelve-inch diameter pipe going across two of their fairways. And the proposal is the upsize that to either an 18 or 24 inch depending on what their engineer agrees to. But we will provide a larger pipe - for example a 24-inch pipe carries well more than twice as much as a 12 inch. It's closer to three or four times as much.

GEORGE BROWN: So it sounds like there will be an upgrade in that piping?

TOM FARLEY: Yes.

GEORGE BROWN: Because I understood there wouldn't be or that was a concern. Had it been discussed before?

TOM FARLEY: We have discussed it with Pinehurst. We met with the City and County of Denver last Friday. They identified two ways that we needed to go to make the drainage acceptable to them. One was to reduce the outflow from the Sam's Club site to approximately one half of what the criteria throughout the metropolitan allow. The other was to address the specific undersized pipes on the Pinehurst Country Club site. That's the only place where the drainage system is undersized according to the Master Plan.

COMMISSIONER BROWN: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Bear with me. Okay. The Chair has no question on drainage. Let's move onto traffic. And Commissioner Malm, can I impose on you to begin?

COMMISSIONER MALM: Sure. I think this is a very loose application to traffic but I do have some questions regarding the folks and I will address those to you Carl if I may. Estimate for me or give me a factual figure, if you have one, as to how many truck trips per day in a 24 hour period would you anticipate?

CAROLYNNE WHITE: Excuse me Mr. Chairman Marino, Commissioner Malm. Do you mean delivery trucks to the Sam's Club?

COMMISSIONER MALM: Yeah. I'm sorry delivery trucks. Yes.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: We believe that there will be approximately 15 delivery trucks per week. And when I say delivery trucks I mean the semi-tractor trailer trucks.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Ah huh.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: So on average two per day.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Is this? So we're not going to have - if I'm hearing you correctly, you don't anticipate just a stream of trucks? Going along the truck road.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: Commissioner Malm, I don't anticipate a stream of trucks. I'm assuming that I'm not counting when you say trucks; you know the Post Office, UPS.

COMMISSIONER MALM: I'm talking about semi-diesel trucks.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: Yeah, semi-diesel trucks we estimate about 15 per week or two per day.

COMMISSIONER MALM: All right.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: And that's consistent with other Sam's Clubs.

COMMISSIONER MALM: And does the ODP have any? For this particular site, does it contain any idling restrictions?

CAROLYNNE WHITE: I need a minute to look that up but I'm pretty sure it doesn't contain specific idling restrictions.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Ah huh.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: The experts are telling me there's nothing in there so I won't waste your time while I look.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Okay. How would you feel about imposing some idling restrictions? Because when a diesel truck idles that's when you get your highest level of pollutants.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: I need a minute to talk about operations if I may to answer that question.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Absolutely.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: Maybe we could come back to it in the course of questioning.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Absolutely. Take your time.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: If I may, I'd like to proceed with the questioning and try to get a more precise answer for you. What I can say is we'd have to discuss and it depends on what kind of restrictions. I mean generally speaking we don't encourage our trucks to idle back there. We want them to be transporting something to or from a store. That's how the system works best. So it's definitely not something we encouraged or you now we don't permit truck drivers to sleep overnight in the parking lot or anything like that. Some reasonable restrictions might work and be appropriate and allow us to continue smooth operations. It is really going to depend on what you have in mind.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Basically what I have in mind is once your delivery - I'm assuming this is a diesel tractor with probably what? A 48 foot van or something like that.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: Yes.

COMMISSIONER MALM: And basically a dry van? I mean these are not little Bob Tail trucks we're talking about here. We're talking about a full size 18 wheeler. Right?

CAROLYNNE WHITE: That's correct.

COMMISSIONER MALM: And so once that trailer is spotted at your dock -

CAROLYNNE WHITE: Ah huh.

COMMISSIONER MALM: It could take what? Two, maybe two and a half hours to unload? Three? Give me a guesstimate. Well max. - I - but.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: If I may Commissioner, we have the Store Manager here from the existing Sam's Club.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Okay.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: He might be better able to answer of these operational questions.

COMMISSIONER MALM: All right.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: Can I ask him to come to the microphone?

COMMISSIONER MALM: Sure. Absolutely. Hi.

JIM SERINO: Jim Serino, Club Manager at Sam's Club. The normal procedure once a truck goes into bay.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Ah huh.

JIM SERINO: It's for safety reasons.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Ah huh.

JIM SERINO: We actually take the keys -

COMMISSIONER MALM: Ah huh.

JIM SERINO: -- out of the truck and actually shut the truck down.

COMMISSIONER MALM: That's what I'm asking. I mean they don't sit there and idle do they?

JIM SERINO: No.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Because that would not be a good thing for the truck either.

JIM SERINO: Well no. Well no just for safety reasons we do also.

COMMISSIONER MALM: True.

JIM SERINO: If somebody is in the truck the truck can't pull away. The keys are locked up inside the building.

COMMISSIONER MALM: So you're not talking about trucks - say we're talking maybe two 18-wheel trucks a day. I mean the big rig a day, average.

JIM SERINO: For the deisels?

COMMISSIONER MALM: Is that correct?

JIM SERINO: Correct. Yes.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Pulling into your docks spots the trailer. You're going to then shut that truck down and take its keys so it's not going to be sitting there blowing diesel particulates into the air, is it?

JIM SERINO: No that's our common procedure just because of you know risks. Risk controls for accidents. We shut them down. Take the keys inside. So when we unload them that the truck cannot pull away.

COMMISSIONER MALM: All right. That's what I thought you were going to tell me because that what any good truck line would have you do.

JIM SERINO: Sure.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Okay. Thank you very much. I have no further questions.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Commissioner Brown.

COMMISSIONER BROWN: I have a question if I could about the idling. Are some of these? May I?

CHAIRMAN MARINO: By all means.

COMMISSIONER BROWN: Are some of these trucks refrigerated? Is there a refrigeration component that sits there that would be running even though the diesel may not be?

JIM SERINO: That could be true if the truck gets in; you know if the truck gets in the bay it's going to have to run with its refrigerant ______ (inaudible).

COMMISSIONER BROWN: On the average, just a guesstimate, how long does something like that sit and run, the refrigeration part not the diesel part. And does that make noise and does that offer some kind of pollution?

JIM SERINO: Well it does make noise. And you know as far as noise pollution, I'm not an expert there but they do run them.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Can I ask you just to pull your mike chair up a bit?

JIM SERINO: Sure. I'm sorry. Yes, they do run them to keep temperature in the truck because we're conscientious about the cold change obviously.

COMMISSIONER BROWN: Roughly how long? When you do have a refrigeration truck, how long is that refrigeration motor running and how long does it take to offload, on the average, just a general guesstimate?

JIM SERINO: We can empty a truck inside of a half hour. The truck comes out to 45 minutes.

COMMISSIONER BROWN: Thank you.

JIM SERINO: You're welcome.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Any other questions?

FEMALE: No.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Ma'am the public comment is closed. I'm going to ask you to please be seated.

COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI: Yes I have an additional question on that topic then.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: By all means.

COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI: So you guys might propose back to us a reasonable time limit restriction on idling vehicles like 30 minutes or something like that based on what we just heard. That's a question.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, if the Commission so requests that and if you'd like to make that a condition we'll get back to you with something that we propose as a reasonable restriction that we could live with.

COMMISSIONER MALM: I'd like to have that returned.

MALE: Okay, as would I.

COMMISSIONER MALM: In connection with my question I would like to have some proposed information back on that. I would like to have some assurance of idling restrictions, restricted time. And that's not unreasonable I mean you can unload a truck like you said 30 minutes, 45 minutes. If you're unloading a truck for an hour it's pretty complicated. So that should not be a big problem. But I would think that it would offer a large degree of protection and reassurance perhaps to the surrounding neighborhoods. That's all I have.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Any other questions? I have a traffic question. I have one question for the Store Manager if I may so we don't have to keep you up there. You indicated that the 15 tractor-trailers a week is a reasonable average?

JIM SERINO: It uploads during a Christmas season but that's you know on the normal average from our deisels we get about that many trucks.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: What would you say a peak week is during the pre-Christmas season? Just to give us an idea.

JIM SERINO: Peak week would be probably the fourth - or the second week of Christmas.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: No but how many trucks altogether?

JIM SERINO: Oh how many trucks? I'm sorry. You could have five trucks come in that week an influx of sales volume.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Five additional trucks?

JIM SERINO: No, five total.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: We just heard that there was 15 a week.

JIM SERINO: No I mean the day. I'm sorry a day, five a day. In other words I was going -

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Excuse me a minute.

JIM SERINO: Yeah.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: We're in Commission Comments and I'd ask you to please hold your voices.

JIM SERINO: There was confusion there with - you could have five trucks come in on a day which would make it, you know a - but not through the whole weekend so let's say total of - three times 15 - a - it could probably estimate to 20, 25 trucks that - because there's five trucks that you come in.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Okay. So we're getting to my next question. So there could be 25 or 30 trucks in a high volume week?

JIM SERINO: I would say that would be accurate.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: And I'm not going to hold you to those numbers. What I'm wondering is during those more high volume weeks, did I hear you say that perhaps you might get five trucks a day?

JIM SERINO: A yeah that's correct.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Would there ever be an occasion where you would get more than five trucks a day?

JIM SERINO: A - I don't anticipate.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Has it ever happened at your store?

JIM SERINO: No.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Okay. Thank you for your patience.

JIM SERINO: You're welcome.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: There was somebody that had another traffic question. Mr. Plotkin.

COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN: I do for Staff actually. Can you tell me if this particular property would be accessible off of Wadsworth independent of the plan that you currently have for the property?

ALLEN ALBERS: There has been Allen Albers with Traffic Engineering for the City. There have been different options with that with the two or three different proposals that have come in for this site for access onto Wadsworth. CDOT hasn't looked favorably on those and we actually prefer to see the access come off of Quincy, which is also an arterial but not a State Highway. Did that answer your question?

COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN: Well there's - it seems as though there's an existing problem on Quincy as well as on Wadsworth. It seems like the problem isn't going to get solved with our without this project from where I set and from what I'm seeing even from the Petitioners information. So I wonder why the project was sighted or the entrance was sighted where it was. And I just wondered if it was feasible for this project or another one to access this property through Wadsworth where it wouldn't impact the neighborhoods in the same fashion.

ALLEN ALBERS): As I think I tried to say. There have been previously proposals that showed access onto Wadsworth. The Colorado Department of Transportation did not look favorably on those but they would allow it. It is feasible. I'm not a Site Planner so I'm not sure of all the restrictions that say Sam's Club has with moving traffic around their site.

COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Mr. Harris.

VINCE HARRIS: Let me add to that because I know there were some other issues that have come up. As I understand it and one of the engineering folks behind you might be able to correct me. The State Highway Access Code does not allow an access along the frontage for this parcel on Wadsworth because of the proximity to the intersection of Quincy and Wadsworth. There was at one point and time there was an opportunity to share an access with the Loretto Property, which is the property just to the north where the school is. To provide a shared access but that property owner did not agree to that and would not pursue that with this development. So it could have happened at one point in time had the property owner authorize that joint access to be constructed along Wadsworth but the property owner did not agree to that so. There could have been an opportunity at one point in time but basically the Sisters of Loretto did not agree to that. I think Allen has something else to add.

ALLEN ALBERS: One other good point that Jay just reminded me of. The Highway Access Code would not allow an access off of Wadsworth to be signalized because of the proximity of Quincy and the other signals along Wadsworth. So that would be either right in right out or it could possibly be a three quarter movement, which would allow lefts in but not out.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Commissioner Urbanowski.

COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI: There was something that I was wondering about and I'll ask this to the Applicant as well because it could tie into how you've got your fuel area set up. Is it possible to incorporate either a right in right out or simply just a right out onto Wadsworth to try to alleviate some of the stress on Quincy to go in from the fuel area north of the Dentist Office or whatever that is there? The grades may not work. It seems to me I saw some retaining walls but that's been running through my mind since I started looking at the plans.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner. On behalf of the team I can say that the Site Designers have told me it is physically possible and in fact we requested such an access but for the reasons explained by your City Staff we were told that that access would not be approved and that we were required to put access on Quincy.

COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI: Thank you. And I'm not supposed to be that creative when we do these anyway so. We're not the designers we're just the reviewers.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Commissioner Malm.

COMMISSIONER MALM: I have another question for the Applicant. I think I heard in fact I made a note there was comment made about the pollution from the car wash feeding into the drainage channels feeding into the South Platte and on down to Kansas or something. There are I believe and correct me if I'm mistaken on this but I believe there are restrictions that govern the operation of a car wash and concerning the products used in the car wash. They have to be - if I'm correct in my understanding they have to be contained on site and recycled but not put into the general drainage?

CAROLYNNE WHITE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner. I will tell you that if there is going to be a car wash on that site it will comply with all State, Local and Federal Standards and yes there are - I know at least State Standards related to that and my understanding is that that requires a minimum of 70% of the water used to be recycled -

COMMISSIONER MALM: Right.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: -- and we used on site. I'm deeply familiar with all the rest of the details but clearly approval of this project would not grant us any exemption from any existing State, Federal or Local laws with respect to water pollution and water quality.

COMMISSIONERN MALM: I just wanted to get that on the record. Thank you very much.

CHAD MINOR: If I could add to that Commissioner Malm?

COMMISSIONER MALM: Certainly.

CHAD MINOR: The - our Storm Water Quality Coordinator will be requesting with the Article 15 Site Plan that a sand/oil interceptor be incorporated in the site design to filter run off from the fueling facility. The function of this interceptor will be to separate the floatables and oils out of the water and then the interceptor would then drain into the detention pond creating yet another opportunity for water quality. So again there's another measure to control any one gasoline spills and any other type of floatable that may exist.

COMMISSIONER MALM: And isn't that a process that is subject to consistent monitoring also, to maintain the appropriate water quality?

CHAD MINOR: Absolutely those interceptors need to be maintained on a continual basis.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Any other traffic related questions?

COMMISSIONER ROHR: I have several.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Commissioner Rohr. We haven't been ignoring you.

COMMISSIONER ROHR: My first question and its directed at the Applicant. In the defense of the one presentation about the number of trucks that were idling at the particular location that she had photographed, there seemed to be more than the two per day that you guys are claiming that would be there and those were all 18-wheelers in that particular photograph. And I would suggest that, you know we really clamp down on the idling if you're going to have that many. And I'm sure that that was done recently and not at a peak holiday season. That's one question.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, if I may answer that question? I'd have to look at the photo again to be sure but it appears to me that that photo was taken at a Wal-Mart store. This is a proposed Sam's Club and the products and services, the operations and the merchandising are very different at those two stores which allows for great differential in the number and types of trucks that would service this store on a regular basis.

COMMISSIONER ROHR: I understand that but I don't think that you understand that that was a Sam's Club.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I'd - maybe it was. It appeared to me that it wasn't. At any rate your point is taken about the idling and as requested we will propose something in that regard once I have an opportunity to take a closer look at the operations.

COMMISSIONER ROHR: My next question has to do with the Pierce Way down to - from Quincy down to the South Hampden Frontage Road in front of Colorado Academy. In your particular documentation you say additional pedestrian improvements on Pierce Way near Colorado Academy are not shown. I would like to make sure that we have all of that and the traffic studies and the specific improvements noted and put down on the ODP before anything goes forward because my concern is the safety of the kids. The kids are built - their school is building a field right across the street from the existing school and that means the children are going to be crossing Pierce. With the increase in traffic and your Traffic Study person has short- range future total traffic conditions on the weekday an average of 3670 cars that travel from Quincy north to - in front of Colorado Academy. The existing conditions the Traffic Engineer states that you have 3090. That's quite a bit of - that's about 600 cars additional on a daily basis that travels back and forth from Quincy north to the South Hampden Frontage Road. And in addition to that particular there - Are your Traffic Engineers aware of Denver's - the City of Denver's proposal to extend Pierce Street from the Bear Valley and Dartmouth Street over Bear Creek up to the Hampden, South Hampden Frontage Road which would cause an additional - several - I don't know how many cars per day. Is that Traffic Study and is that been included in the information that we have before us?

CAROLYNNE WHITE: Mr. Chairman if I may? Commissioner I think I heard three of four questions in there so I'll try to address the ones that I know the answer to and then I'll ask Mr. Buck to those that pertain particularly to some of the traffic statistics. As it relates to the proposed pedestrian improvements in front of Colorado Academy we have had several discussions with Colorado Academy and at this time they haven't yet settled on what specifically they believe to be the most desired improvement. So for that reason what we have proposed is to set aside an amount of money generated by the store before we get reimbursed for any of the other improvements to set that aside in a fund that when Colorado Academy decides what they want and gets it approved by the City they can access that fund as a contribution towards the cost of constructing those improvements. We are still discussing with them what they might want specifically there and how it would integrate with the other traffic improvements we proposed but for the reason the ODP doesn't specifically state its going to be a cross walk or its going to be an over pass or its going to be a flashing light because those are all among the multitude of alternatives that Colorado Academy is still considering. So we have offered to assist them in offsetting some of the costs and we've offered to provide them some technical assistance in evaluating the alternatives and proposing alternatives to the City but they have not agreed on what their final plan is. And whatever they decide as their final plan obviously needs to be approved by the City since that is on a City street. Nonetheless I would like to just point out that and I'll have Mr. Buck address this in a little more detail. Because of the configuration of where Colorado Academy sits and their recent purchase of the ball fields across the street across Pierce Way from their current location. The issue of providing a pedestrian crossing from their existing campus to their ball fields would exist whether or not Sam's Club goes in and is approved. It would exist whether the Academy Park develops under its current zoning. It would exist whether there's no development here at all. Nonetheless we still are proposing that we do something to help mitigate those impacts that they believe that they're going to fill. I'd like to ask Mr. Buck now to answer the second half of your question about whether or not he's aware of Denver's proposals and whether or not traffic on Hampden Frontage Road is taken into account in our study.

CHARLES BUCK: For the record, Charles Buck. Commissioner, I am not aware of that improvement that you described the extension of Pierce Way north to connect up to Dartmouth. What I can tell you is though on a typical weekday the Sam's Club is expected to put about 360 trips per day on Pierce Way and that it is proposed to work something out to mitigate those impacts with the school.

COMMISSIONER ROHR: Commissioner if I may add something to that. In the past Allen Albers with City Traffic - within the past five years there was a proposal floated for a bridge to cross Bear Creek and I believe connect to Pierce by the City and County of Denver and they withdrew that because of political concerns of their own and that went away sometimes within the past five years.

CHARLES BUCK: If I may? At the January Homeowners Meeting of the Pine Crest Homeowners Association the - and I spoke to Chad about this earlier. Jeannie (phonetic) Fox the City Counsel woman that represents that particular district had a re-proposal for that particular thing with drawings and those nature of things. And at that time you know I didn't stay long enough to see the - what the traffic impact would be. However I know that the City of Denver does have that information. If that - if that - they decide truly (phonetic) to go through but it's been re-proposed again.

COMMISSIONER ROHR: They haven't provided us with that information in any sort of referral or anything so.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: I'd also like to add onto that. I seriously doubt that our Traffic Engineering department nor our City Counsel would support that type of a proposal. Certainly - that's a local street that serves the Bennett Bear Creek neighborhood and I doubt that that neighborhood would like to see that street go through either.

COMMISSIONER ROHR: Maybe this is directed at Staff. Do we have any statistics on the number of traffic accidents at Wadsworth and Kipling and Pierce Way and Quincy?

CHAIRMAN MARINO: I assume you mean Wadsworth and Quincy and Quincy and Pierce Way.

COMMISSIONER ROHR: Correct.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: There were some statistics that I can't quote right now in the Traffic Study. I'll let Charles address that but we do an annual Safety Report and I can tell you because I do them myself that neither of those intersections have appeared as critical in the last three years. Now critical is defined as greater than the average for that type of intersection for an arterial, arterial intersection or arterial local street at Pierce Way. Mr. Buck.

CHARLES BUCK: Yes we did compile accident data as available from the City of Lakewood CDOT and also the City and County of Denver. There were approximately - we got about three years worth of accident data and in that study it was - their most recent - I believe ended in 2003 that particular three year period but during that period they had approximately 83 accidents at the Wadsworth/Quincy intersection. Of those accidents over half were rear end type accidents which are very typical of signalized intersection type accidents where someone stops and the person behind them does not. At Pierce Way there were approximately two accidents in that three-year period. Reed Street also had two accidents. And Pierce Street, Pierce Way was two accidents. Pierce Street had seven accidents in the three-year period.

COMMISSIONER ROHR: Charles if I may correct one thing? I think you transposed the number of accidents. The study says 68 in that time period.

CHARLES BUCK: Okay. I'm sorry.

MICHAEL ROHR: Thank you. No more questions.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Any other questions for Mr. Buck? I have one sir. I have to apologize I'm not sure if I - how much I remember, at this point, but there were some figures put for this evening by the neighborhood groups of weekend generated traffic. Some of it was 10x or 20x of an office type of development.

CHARLES BUCK: Yes.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Could you respond to that? I mean do you agree with those numbers?

CHARLES BUCK: Well in general yes I would agree that an office will generate far less trips than a retail development on the weekend.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Okay.

CHARLES BUCK: Where I don't necessarily agree completely is in the amount of traffic that they estimated for the existing zoning.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Understood. And I'm going to follow up with a - thank you very much.

CHARLES BUCK: Sure.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: I want to follow that question up with one for Staff. Respecting the vigor that the neighborhood put forward in their presentation Chad or Vince given what you read on the current ODP and all the different uses that could go on the current zoning. I mean, you didn't say anything there that would eliminate the possibility of some manufacturing facility having 24 hours of operations. Now you didn't read off any hours on that and maybe I - Because you didn't go to that level of detail but I would like to reinforce your statement earlier Chad that there's been a lot of discussion about office use in that area but the current ODP actually allows for many, many other types of uses.

CHARLES BUCK: Absolutely and those uses are further regulated throughout the ODP not to say that they're just - you can throw them out there and everything is ready to go. But there are numerous restrictions on the manufacturing such as the loading as I mentioned only three trucks are allowed to remain on the property for 24 hours a day. Similar items that we placed into our PD as far as restrictions are also with the existing PD and relationship to building heights, density set backs, etc.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to once again reiterate that while an office campus would be wonderful. That's only one allowed use on the current ODP. Any other questions for Mr. Buck or any other questions for traffic? Mr. Urbanowski.

COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI: Thank you Commissioner. I'd like to kind of piggy-back on that with a question that I think can go to either or both of you. If, under the existing zoning, an office complex went in or a manufacturing or any other kind of development went in there without requiring a rezoning, what would the traffic improvements be for Quincy, etc., etc? The current rezoning proposal - there's a whole raft of improvements that are associated with it. I think a lane each direction on Quincy as well as turn lanes and signalization and so on and so forth. Then there's some Delta aspect of that that's required above - or being provided above and beyond exactly what is the minimal requirement or the standard requirement. If another development were to go in that were strictly consistent with existing zoning. Would those improvements still have to be made?

CHARLES BUCK: If a development went in under the existing zoning they would only be required to mitigate their traffic impacts. So if their access intersection was at Level Service F they'd be required to mitigate it to D or whatever that might be. They would not be required to do the extra improvements that we talked about here tonight. In terms of being specific we really can't until we looked at Traffic Study for that proposed views.

COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI: Okay well I'm asking you to just ball park it. If they were putting in an office complex with two or three whatever height buildings are allowed out there, would they have to add lanes to Quincy each way like this proposal is doing?

CHARLES BUCK: They may have to add lanes to Quincy because it's already congested as we've heard tonight. The Level of Service existing is already poor. So they would only make that worse with any traffic there at all. So they would be required to probably do two lanes. But again I'd like to see a Traffic Study to figure out exactly what their requirements were.

COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI: So it's not cut and dried anyway?

CHARLES BUCK: No it's not.

COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI: Probably they would make similar kinds of improvements but wouldn't be obligated to do the above and beyond thing -

CHARLES BUCK: Right.

COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI: -- that's being paid for with PIF Funds. Okay. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Any other traffic related questions? Thank you Mr. Buck. With that I will open it up to either another suggested category or to general questions at this point. I have on category then that I'd like to put out and it has to do with compatibility. And if anyone has any questions on compatibility I'll open it up to the Commission. Why don't you start us off? It doesn't appear to be any. I do have one. And I'll direct this first to the Applicant. There's been a lot of discussion about references to neighborhoods. The number of times it appears in the Comprehensive Plan about compatibility about respect. And I would wonder how you would respond to the question that says in a parcel that's surrounded on three sides by residential - I can even make this more specific. In a building that has the mass of a Sam's Club with a 370 odd foot-wall at least on that one side. How would you argue that that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods?

CAROLYNNE WHITE: Mr. Chairman I do have some thoughts on that but I'd like to ask Al Colussey our Architect to address that since you added in that part specifically about the wall.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Well we'll get as many responses as you wish.

AL COLUSSEY: Al Colussey again, we spent a lot of time in terms of the Site Plan for this project in terms of trying to locate commercial building within the commercial office business park of Academy in terms of recognizing that it was connected to Wadsworth. It borders the south end of Academy Park by Quincy and there is clearly a definition between what happens on the north side of Quincy to the south side. So, in terms of compatibility is it appropriate to think that there should be a migration of housing on the - to the north side and up into the commercial portion? We think not. But the idea in terms if there's good compatibility I think in terms of appropriate placement of the building. In terms of transition of the grading, appropriate landscaping and all those components that make up what we feel is a good kind of neighborly development, if you will. So the thought processes in terms of if we use good planning principles, and good design principles for a piece of property that is zoned for commercial use, and that is the way we feel that we make the best approach towards compatibility.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: I appreciate that. How would you argue the sense of scale with respect to compatibility?

AL COLUSSEY: If I look at a lot of the other buildings that have been referenced tonight in Academy Park concerning the Qwest Buildings or the Tishman (phonetic) Office Complex or some of the even older office buildings in there and many cases those facades and I can speak first hand on those are of similar size and scale to what we are looking at here tonight. So for example just because I might have 138,000 square feet on one floor I might have 240,000 square feet on the Qwest Building or close to 500,000 square feet on the Tishman Office Buildings.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you, any other questions for the Architect?

AL COLUSSEY: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you. Any other questions on any topic? Is everyone still awake?

COMMISSIONER MALM: No.

COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI: Just barely.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: If there are no more questions we will call for a motion.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Mr. Chairman?

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Commissioner Malm.

COMMISSIONER MALM: I'm prepared to make a motion but before I do may I make a comment or two?

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Certainly.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Before I do that. I heard a couple of three things tonight that did not sit very well with me. And I'm going to address the one - there were a couple of statements made that alluded to some type of quid pro quo and a cover up with Staff and this sort of thing. I found that to be a little difficult to sit and listen to. Because I know that that is not and to my knowledge never has been the case. I also heard someone say in the event we decide to roll over. Now I don't know how many of you out there are the least bit of acquainted with this Commission but I can tell you that is not something this Commission ever does. Anybody that has ever worked with this Commission knows that is not something we do. We try to base decisions on what we have heard on appropriate facts and appropriate development theories. And rolling over is not something we do at all gracefully or otherwise. And that having been said, Mr. Chairman, I have a motion. And having personally viewed this site and I also took the liberty of traveling around through the surrounding neighborhoods in the surrounding area including the northern side down Pierce Way toward the Colorado Academy and the other buildings down there and considering the testimony of the Applicant and the participants and the participating public comments that have been made and I would like to compliment the presentation that the public made that the neighborhood made because I think you were totally involved in your presentation and you made some very good points and it was obvious that you were very passionate and convicted in the things that you had to say and we, as a Commission, and I personally appreciate that. But finding that the proposed development meets the requirements of the Lakewood Comprehensive Plan as outlined in the Staff Report an analysis and finding that the proposed development furthers the goals of the Lochmoor Special Area Study which did not take a lot of - we didn't have a lot of discussion on that but they - it certainly is found to do that. And finding further that the improvements required of and committed by the Applicant enhances the traffic and safety aspects of the surrounding area. I would move Mr. CHAIRMAN MARINO that Rezoning Case RZ-04-008 be forwarded to City Counsel with a recommendation for approval.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: We have a motion. Do we have a second?

COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI: I second.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Motion has been made. We received the second. I would add before we move into any discussion on that motion I was wondering if you want to amend that to include any aspect of -

COMMISSIONER MALM: Amendments to the ODP?

CHAIRMAN MARINO - Amendment to ODP for idling restrictions?

COMMISSIONER MALM: No I wouldn't thank you Mr. Chairman for reminding me of that. I most certainly would because that is something that I do want included in any development that might occur. I know a little bit about trucks and that's important to me.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: As a former truck company owner.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Owner.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Mr. Harris did you have something you wanted to remind us of?

VINCE HARRIS: Yes I just wanted to clarify in the Staff Report as you would normally do -

COMMISSIONER MALM: For the Mylar.

VINCE HARRIS: -- include the findings and we have findings one through ten.

COMMISSIONER MALM: I'm going to plead insanity at this time of night.

VINCE HARRIS: They're in the Staff Report.

COMMISSIONER MALM: But yes I would amend my own motion to include Findings One through Ten, and also the submittal of a corrected Mylar as recommended by Staff.

VINCE HARRIS: And your statements that you included in your motion as well as probably and a Finding number 11 your direct comments that you provided tonight in your motion.

COMMISSIONER MALM: That's fine. I will amend to that.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: about idling restriction, is that what you were talking about?

VINCE HARRIS: Well the idling restrictions we're going to have to come up with some wording then if we're going to do that as what -

COMMISSIONER MALM: I included that.

VINCE HARRIS: -- would be a 12th condition.

BUNNY MALM: I included that.

VINCE HARRIS: Or a _____ (inaudible) or a finding I guess with probably a timeframe.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: A timeframe. I'm also wondering do we leave that as Staff's discretion that the idling restrictions are appropriate or does it come back to us?

VINCE HARRIS: Well I think we ought to just - you need to include in your motion a timeframe that the Applicant will need to put into the PD to include a restriction on the trucks idling.

COMMISSIONER MALM: I would like that in there prior to its submittal to City Counsel.

VINCE HARRIS: Well we need to know what that timeframe would be so we can come up with wording to agree on that. I would suggest that we do that tonight and include it in your motion.

COMMISSIONER MALM: You want me to give it a timeframe?

VINCE HARRIS: Yes.

COMMISSIONER MALM: When it will go to City Counsel?

VINCE HARRIS: No timeframe for the idling. How long the trucks can idle.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Oh I'm sorry. I thought you meant when they - I was.

VINCE HARRIS: I know it's late or early.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Definitely early.

COMMISSIONER MALM: It must be. Its early tomorrow isn't it?

VINCE HARRIS: There's duration of time that the trucks can idle the maximum amount of time I thought that's what you were suggesting.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Yeah I'm thinking here. I personally don't think they need to idle at all given the timeframe that we discussed. And I know how long it takes to unload a dry van and it doesn't - you know with a group crew an hour max is a lot of time.

VINCE HARRIS: Well I will indicate.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Because I think most of the stuff comes in palletized and that's just a matter of chill (phonetic) motor and pallets.

VINCE HARRIS: I think you need to ask the Applicant. It is a PD that they'll need to include that and I would suggest that you have a short discussion about a timeframe.

COMMISSIONER MALM: I'd welcome comments. You - perhaps your -

CAROLYNNE WHITE: I'm sorry we were engrossed in discussion about what potential restriction we could live with. Am I to understand that the proposed condition is that trucks could idle no longer than one hour? Is that what you said?

COMMISSIONER MALM: No. No ma'am.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: I'm sorry.

COMMISSIONER MALM: What I said was -

CAROLYNNE WHITE: Could you restate it please?

COMMISSIONER MALM: Yeah. My comment was that to unload a truck an hour is a lot - is pretty good timeframe to unload a truck. Which means that if and I was told by your store manager that your practice is to shut that truck down the minute that trailer is spotted at your dock.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: That's correct.

COMMISSIONER MALM: And then you take the keys inside so no one messes around with the truck. And so it's not going to be idling. What I would like you - I mean it seemed to obviate the question of the truck idling while it is sitting there being unloaded.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: Ah huh.

COMMISSIONER MALM: And so I would simply like that provision included in the ODP that the trucks are not going to sit at your dock idling because you already told me they don't do that.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: I think I understand now.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Did I confuse you sufficiently?

CAROLYNNE WHITE: No, no. If I could just clarify one thing, you were talk about Sam's delivery trucks, 18-wheelers?

COMMISSIONER MALM: I'm talking about 18-wheelers, diesel -

CAROLYNNE WHITE: We can't control the Postal Service or you know.

COMMISSIONER MALM: I'm talking about 18-wheeler diesel rigs. I'm not concerned your gasoline engine, powered engine.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: We understand that and I think we are in agreement that we will have no problem complying with that condition.

COMMISSIONER MALM: If you feel that you need a leeway of time there I would suggest no more than 15 minutes and I think that's giving it a big edge. So you can work that over in your proposal or in your inclusion. Okay.

CHAIRMAN URBANOWSKI: Chad while they work on that. Did you, did you not make a technical correction to one of the findings or something like that earlier as well? Didn't you have something that you had to clarify?

CHAD MINOR: I did. There will be a small language clarification under accessory uses. Just to clarify that's only those uses that are listed on the ODP and not all the uses that are listed in Article 2. So it will be a small language change to the PD.

COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI: Okay. So that's part of what's included in the findings here and when we say we're accepting those findings. That's included in there?

CHAD MINOR: It would need to be, yes.

VINCE HARRIS: I think you would need to include into your motion a requirement that that get corrected. All right.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: We're going to run through the motion again.

COMMISSIONER MALM: We're going to do my motion all over again here in a minute.

VINCE HARRIS: Mr. Chair. I don't think you need to do the motion over. I think you've included as long as you put into the findings one through ten, your comments as finding 11.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Right.

VINCE HARRIS: Finding 12 would be a -

COMMISSIONER MALM: Would be the idling provision.

VINCE HARRIS: Requirement for - or maximum amount of time for idling. And then another condition that the correction be made on the accessory use as section.

COMMISSIONER MALM: I don't remember any of that. I'm going to try it again. Did we arrive at some consensus over there?

CAROLYNNE WHITE: I think so if I can respond on behalf of the Applicant.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Ah huh.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: I think that we can safely say that so long as we understand we're talking about Sam's trucks, 18-wheelers that we can control that operate the way the store manager described to you at our own docks. Then we can comply with the restriction that you propose, given though that it will be difficult to police to some degree. I would request that you go ahead and give us the 15-minute limit instead of no idling whatsoever. Given that - like I said on any given day it might be difficult to police and there might be one truck who does it. So -

COMMISSIONER MALM: I'll give you the 15 minutes.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: We can operate within that restriction.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Okay. Now you're saying Sam's own vehicles or Sam's deliver - I'm talking about trucks that delivery to this facility. And if you have a policy on idling than any truck that comes there would have to abide by it.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Semi-truck

COMMISSIONER MALM: Well yeah.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: The diesel trucks that we're talking about -

COMMISSIONER MALM: Diesel trucks we're talking about.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: -- are Sam's Club's trucks.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Okay. Just so we're clear.

COMMISSIONER ROHR: What about the Northwest Freight or any of those others that come in and deliver merchandise to you too? Do you -

COMMISSIONER MALM: Well that was my question anything that comes to your dock. You control what comes to your dock.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: It's my understanding and maybe I'll get some clarification here but the 15 18-wheelers per week that we talked about. Those are all Sam's Club trucks.

COMMISSIONER ROHR: What about the other delivery companies that deliver to your particular locations?

CAROLYNNE WHITE: There are many companies that would deliver not to the docks like UPS and the Postal Service and we can't control those.

COMMISSIONER MALM: We're talking 18-wheel.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: We can control all 18-wheeler diesel trucks that unload merchandise. And we will agree to that restriction as to all 18-wheeler diesel trucks at our docks. Is that?

COMMISSIONER MALM: I'm not limiting - I mean I'm not including combustion engine the UPS trucks and that sort of thing. That isn't the problem here.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: Okay.

COMMISSIONER MALM: So if I understand this correctly and I want to be sure on this. All the trucks - the diesel powered 18-wheeler delivery trucks that dock delivering your merchandise will be subject to the idling policy.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: at our docks, yes.

BUNNY MALM: Okay.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: Anything else?

CHAIRMAN MARINO: All right. First I want to make sure we get all of the additional items added to the motion.

COMMISSIONER MALM: I thought we settled that.

COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI: Actually I was looking for something in my notes because I knew we had made a note about something to add to that.

COMMISSIONER MALM: I'll be happy to discuss that.

COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI: And I hadn't found it.

COMMISSIONER MALM: That I thought we had decided that. But let's talk about it. As long as I'm remodeling this motion let's talk about it. Did we arrive at a determination that you would not allow long term parking of RV vehicles?

CAROLYNNE WHITE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner. If it is the Commissions request we would be happy to post our site.

COMMISSIONER MALM: It's my request.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: No overnight parking of RVs required. And if you'd like to make that a condition of approval that's a condition we can live with.

COMMISSIONER MALM: That will be included because they do have generators.

CHAD MINOR: Just to clarify also - sorry. Can we add that into the official Development Plan rather than just stating that it will be posted?

COMMISSIONER MALM: I would like that to be part of the ODP. Thank you Chad.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Can we add that into the official Development Plan? Okay.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Thank you ______ (inaudible). Conditions.

COMMISSIONER ROHR: You're not going to have a discharge - a dump - RV dump discharge center at the gas facility then are you?

COMMISSIONER MALM: No.

CAROLYNNE WHITE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner. No such facility is proposed or to my knowledge allowed under the ODP.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you for that. Mr. Harris would you mind helping us one more time with the conditions that we need to add.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Are we up to 12? Didn't we add one or two?

VINCE HARRIS: Okay what I think - what I think you're - you included in your motion - you already did it. You would include findings one through ten in the Staff Report under the recommendation section. Finding 11 would be your comments that you introduced the motion with that you verbally said. And then your condition, you would have three conditions then that the Mylar be corrected prior to going to City Counsel if the Applicant moves on.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Right.

VINCE HARRIS: That maximum idling time for vehicle - for trucks, 18-wheel trucks.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: At the docks?

VINCE HARRIS: On property at the dock would be 15 minutes. That the Accessory Use section be corrected as Chad had indicated what those corrections were. And third condition that no overnight parking of RVs be allowed on the property.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Okay. Let's see if I can get this straight.

VINCE HARRIS: That would then three conditions.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Right. Incorporate -- are we ready?

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Yes by all means.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Incorporating the body of my motion that I previously entered. I'm going to add this additional information and correct Vince if I get this wrong. One of the conditions refers to the idling restriction not to exceed 15 minutes for any diesel powered delivery vehicle delivering to your dock or to your facility. That there will be a restriction regarding RV or similar type - what are they called, recreational vehicle because there's lots of different kinds. Overnight parking restricting - overnight parking, there will be no overnight parking, wait a minute conditions one through eleven, subjected conditions one through eleven.

VINCE HARRIS: Findings.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Findings. I'm sorry. Incorporating findings one through eleven and the Accessory Use Section should be corrected. There's a language change as I understand it.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Did you get the Mylar in there?

COMMISSIONER MALM: It's subject to the submittal of the corrected Mylar prior to City Counsel review.

VINCE HARRIS: Yeah the three conditions for the correction for Mylar, three conditions would be related to idling; no overnight parking of RVs; and the correction to the Accessory Use.

COMMISSIONER MALM: To the Accessory Use.

VINCE HARRIS: And your other ten findings included in the Staff Report plus the eleven findings in your statement.

COMMISSIONER MALM: It would be one through eleven, one through eleven. Okay. We have it.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Okay.

VINCE HARRIS: Second that again.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: You accept that as a second? All right we have a motion perhaps the longest on record and a second. Is there any discussion to the motion?

COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN: Yes I'd like to speak.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Commissioner Plotkin.

COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN: I consider this Sam's Club to be an elephant in the backyard. And I think that we find this elephant coming to the backyard in part because of the fiscal crisis the City is facing and because therefore it is not in a position to make the changes to this intersection and this roadway which need to be made. And based upon the evidence that I've heard I don't think that this project is compatible with the neighborhoods. In my view, I don't think that this project with traffic onto Quincy is something that is going to benefit on the overall, the health, safety and welfare of the community. And I think it's - it comes to the neighborhood at a time at which the City which has done a lot of work to try and has gotten a lot of benefits for the community. I don't doubt that this is a good of a project as it could be for this neighborhood. And I don't doubt that the developer has also tried to make as many concessions as possible. But you still have an elephant. And I won't have an elephant in my backyard and I don't blame the people here for not wanting an elephant there either. You know you can train them. You can put a leash on them but he's still an elephant. That's my view.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Any other discussion.

[Applause]

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Please. Not this late.

COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI: One - I'd really like to make some - just a general comment about part of how we perceive this because it really is at the core of what the neighborhoods perceive and how we go through this. And a lot of times what we look at is matters of degree. When our Comprehensive Plans states we'll respect the neighbors and we'll work with the neighborhood and it talks about transitions to existing and adjacent uses. One of the issues that we have to consider here is the scale of that. Is it tens of feet? Is it hundreds of feet? Is it thousands of feet? You know what do you consider a transition? What is an effective transition? If, you know, the developer has indicated that they've moved this building to try to get it - I've forgotten the exact numbers - 200 plus feet from Quincy and 114 feet from South Pierce Way at its closest point. And so I look at some of these things for a transition and I say well there's a road - somebody's backyard and a roadway and this setback distance. You know so we're talking potentially 150 or 200 feet from a house to this building, which personally I think looks relatively nice. It's a matter of degree. Is a thousand feet an acceptable transition? Is it a mile? Is it a couple a hundred feet? Those are some of the issues that we personally balance here and I get the distinct feeling that we've got some different points of view here. But even where those of us who are inclined to vote yes in this - we're not dissing the neighborhood at all. We're trying to evaluate the overall project from the perspective of Lakewood's total population of 140,000 versus 1,000 or a few hundred that are in the neighborhood and trying to decide whether or not the transitions are reasonable because we see many projects where they're not nearly as - I won't say luxurious but as - where they have as much room to play as has been taken here. So I just want you to know that we take those things into consideration. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Thank you Mr. Urbanowski. Thank you for reminding me, any other discussion?

COMMISSINER MALM: Bill, Can we do it by voice vote because mine is still not working?

CHAIRMAN MARINO: We'll cross that bridge in a second.

COMMISSIONER MALM: Okay.

VINCE HARRIS: Mr. Chairman?

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Yes.

VINCE HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, just a point of clarifications so that you know and the audience knows, you need four affirmative votes for a motion to pass since you got six members here you still need four affirmative votes for a motion.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Okay. Since you brought that up. What? I don't want to ask that now. I withdraw.

To conclude the discussion I'll just say the following. This complicated matter is simplified in my simple mind by the essence of the Comprehensive Plan. It challenges us to look beyond the today to ten, fifteen, twenty years into the future. And try to give our best judgment to what's in the best interest of the community and its quality of life. Within that context I certainly respect the comments on the other Commissioners and the notion of the elephant and the notion of degrees. But for me it comes down to the concept of respect and with that is how I will cast my vote, any other discussion? Please cast your votes.

COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN: It's off. The Board is off.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: We have a technical glitch with the Board here. Bunny's is not functioning. Can we vote the old fashion way, if everyone would erase their votes for a moment except for Bunny. Bunny, cast a vote. Bunny must be from Chicago she votes both ways.

Mr. Harris, how do we solve this? Do we do it the old fashioned way?

VINCE HARRIS: I would suggest that you do that by a raising of hands then I guess. Call for the motion and then against the motion I guess.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Okay we'll do a voice vote. All in favor say eye.

COMMISSIONERS BROWN, MALM, MARINO & URBANOWSKI: Aye

CHAIRMAN MARINO: All opposed say no.

COMMISSIONERS PLOTKIN & ROHR: No

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Motion passes four to two.

COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN: Can we hold off any other business until -?

COMMISSIONER MALM: Just real quick. Really, really quick has nothing to do with the folks out there. I just want to - actually I already did it I think. And I'm going to ask Vicki to get your elevator codes.

COMMISSIONER ROHR: Are we done?

CHAIRMAN URBANOWSKI: We will be quickly.

COMMISSIONER ROHR: Oh okay.

CHAIRMAN URBANOWSKI: I've had it once - she's got something that I think she wants to -

COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI: Let 'em clear out of here.
COMMISSIONER MARINO: We have one item of business left.

VINCE HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, we have no other items on the agenda.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: We can deal with the minutes another time?

VINCE HARRIS: Unless you want to - unless there's any questions you could - if you want to quickly -

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Are there comments of a public hearing meeting of April 20th? Or did anybody even look at them?

COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI: I didn't get to them.

COMMISSIONER ROHR: I looked at them and they were fine.

COMMISSIONSER MALM: I didn't get them.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Can we just bring them back to the next meeting please? Thank you. General business? Does anybody have general business? Please say no.

VINCE HARRIS: No.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: No general business?

COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI: No.

CHAIRMAN MARINO: Then we are adjourned.
******************************************************************************
There being no more general business to discuss the meeting was adjourned at 2:12 A. M.

ADJOURNMENT

Date approved
Vicki Kaufman, Secretary to 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