Dinosaur Ridge Zoning and C470/Alameda
NOTE: GMCA is very interested in the Dinosaur Ridge and C470 zoning and building. We keep this page as an anchor for our neighbors to get news. HOWEVER, the group spearheading the citizen involvement is at ...
SaveDinoRidge.ORG.
USE THAT SITE AS THE AUTHORITY FOR CURRENT NEWS AND ACTIVITY.
SaveDinoRidge.ORG.
USE THAT SITE AS THE AUTHORITY FOR CURRENT NEWS AND ACTIVITY.
The following was developed by Dave Skilling in preparation for the Lakewood City Council meeting on January 23, 2017.
1-21-2017
All:
Here is a summary of the points that need to be addressed with respect to the Master Plan (MP). These specifics were compiled from our most recent meetings, along with some lessons learned from Dino Ridge.
First, I think its important to tie each of the speakers' points together with some common themes. This includes "keeping the horse in the barn" and, as we've discussed, "what's best for Lakewood citizens?" By extension, "does the MP have the best interests of the resident in mind?"
The "keeping the horse in the barn" theme comes from what we heard throughout the Dino Ridge hearing last Tuesday. The Jeffco BCC, and some speakers, pointed to past zoning and ODPs on those properties as reasons why the rezoning should be permitted. Thus, they claimed the horse had already left the barn. It gives a convenient "out" for current decision makers to point to the past and absolve themselves of any real responsibility for current rezoning (like Dino Ridge). For Lakewood, that fight is now. This is the opportunity to keep the horse in the barn and not allow future decisions - whether a month from now or five years from now - to claim that the development had already been determined.
Keeping the horse in the barn means that we should begin with the most restrictive densities, development goals, and zoning designations possible. There is no upside to approving higher densities at this point in the Valley's development. If we begin with the most reasonably restrictive numbers (for example, 2500 dwellings instead of the proposed 4200+) what do we as a community have to lose? In contrast, it would be nearly impossible to reduce the numbers after the MP has been adopted. Simply put, it's easier to go from low to high if needed in the future, but we won't be able to go from high to low. Again, this is one of the lessons learned from the Dino Ridge fight: we cannot allow developers to use this document as a basis for high density or ludicrous commercial proposals (e.g. four auto dealerships next to a landmark). If a developer wants to expand beyond the limits/goals/vision of this MP, the burden will be on the developer to show how a rezone is warranted. Having the most restrictive/conservative numbers will hopefully make that burden an onerous one.
Another powerful and important theme is "what's best for Lakewood citizens?" A sub-theme is "whats best for the uninformed Lakewood citizen?" It is no secret that the vast, vast majority of Lakewood residents have no idea what's being decided Monday night. Similarly, the vast majority of Jeffco residents had no idea about the zoning of Dino Ridge a decade ago or even the most recent rezoning attempt. Therefore, we need to have those vast numbers of uninformed residents in mind when approving any version of the MP. It makes the most sense to have the most restrictive plan to start; after all, more and more people will become informed once apartments spring up all around them. What's best for those residents is to look after their interests and protect them from what they don't know is coming. I see that as an essential function of government when deciding an issue like the MP.
Of course, the lowest hanging fruit on this theme is the argument that higher densities (and increased traffic, pollution, etc.) is not best for the citizens. You'd be hard pressed to find popular support for most high density residential or commercial projects. At this point in time there is insufficient data regarding housing, traffic, schools, and the like. Until those studies are completed, Lakewood should opt for the conservative and restrictive approach. Otherwise, the true impact of high densities on the citizens remains unknown. Yet some truths remain: traffic is bad, pollution is bad, and a lack of plans for infrastructure like schools is bad. The burden should be on the developer to show that the higher densities add some benefit to the citizens that outweighs these obvious perils.
Now to the specifics. Our goals for the hearing are as follows:
Goal #1: Reduce the maximum dwelling units to 2500 and eliminate or modify the "Medium Density (b)" designation.
The current version of the MP has a "reduced" dwellings number than the previous. The November version had 5000+ units listed as part of the absorption and build-out projections found on page 31. Presumably, these numbers were derived from a market analysis. Yet, in response to requests to lower the density figures, that analysis was modified. Such an approach makes no sense and demonstrates the worthless nature of the studies. After all, how did the projections and absorption numbers suddenly decrease in the Valley in a period of one month? Moreover, those "studies" are at odds with the final numbers found on page 21. Compare the 3,882 figure from page 31 with the 4,227 figure on page 21.
The importance of the inconsistencies is two-fold. First, it shows that the dwelling units analysis has no real basis in fact. Second, it demonstrates that the numbers can be reduced, even if arbitrarily. Of course, our argument is that there's nothing arbitrary about wanting to limit/restrict the total numbers. Further, it makes it difficult for any counter-argument to assert that the 2500 number is too low.
There are additional inconsistencies. For example, Ventana made a recent presentation for a 1400-unit development. How does that square with page 21 that lists a max in ALL of Morrison of 1,000 units? Even if Ventana reduces their numbers, is that the extent of all residential development in Morrison? The realities of Ventana's plan should be addressed in this MP. It makes no sense to ignore an actual project that is slated for development in the near future. Why is the MP silent on this issue?
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the MP is the zoning descriptions. While it is true that this most recent version has been stripped of the "high density" designation, the inclusion of the Medium Density (b) on page 12 makes that deletion almost meaningless. The final sentence of Medium Density (b) states that the residential densities (in those areas) will range from 8 to 12+ dwellings per acre. The inclusion of the "+" after the 12 is akin to having no maximum on densities. There is very little meaningful difference between a "high density" designation and a "medium density" designation if the latter allows for unlimited dwellings. The solution is to remove that designation altogether or to put an actual cap on the dwellings. If they want the Medium Density (b) included in the MP, it should be included only as a concept and not included on maps such as page 36. Any further movement from a mere concept/idea to real development should be carefully scrutinized within the actual development that occurs and only after rigorous studies/public input/etc. For now, and for the purposes of a responsible MP, the Medium Density (b) should not be an approved designation.
Another argument against the Medium Density (b) is that the designation goes against the express input given by the community. As some will speak to Monday night, the community members who provided input during this entire process were universally against high density. Again, there is no meaningful distinction between the Medium Density (b) designation and "high density."
NOTE: Though "high density" was supposedly dropped from previous versions, the phrase "high density" appears on page 31 of the newest draft. This is either a typo or an attempt to sneak it in. Either way, there needs to be a re-write to address this specific ambiguity.
Yet another problem with the densities listed in the MP is the existence of other ODPs. A perfect example is the Humphrey Property ODP. (See pages 21 and 36). On page 31, this ODP is designated as "low density residential." However, I believe the ODP on file for this property is actually 15 dwellings/acre. How is this actual zoning and ODP reconciled with the goals and designations found on page 36? Please note that I can't locate the actual ODP and instead derived the information from the Red Rocks Centre ODP. In that ODP, there is a map showing Humphrey Property and it lists 15 units/acre. To this point, existing ODPs should be linked or otherwise acknowledged in the MP. While adding each as part of an appendix is too cumbersome, I suggest that actual links on how to find the ODPs be expressly stated in the MP.
GOAL #2. Modify parts of the MP and come back for another approval hearing.
We are challenging many specifics in the MP that staff should have no choice but to modify. I will be submitting to council a handout that provides the precise changes and proposed amendments to the MP. Another version of the MP should then be drafted by staff and presented for public review and subsequent approval.
GOAL #3. Further publicize the existence of the RVMP to the general (uninformed) public in anticipation of that future approval hearing.
There should also be annual or bi-annual meetings regarding the final version of the RVMP. There should be no hesitation to modify or revisit ideas within the MP once development is underway. Dusting the MP off every few years is not going to be enough and will only serve to lull the general public into a state of complacency. As with Dino Ridge, it is in the developers' best interest to keep their plans below the public's radar. Lakewood's policy should be the exact opposite: it must be a top priority to keep all citizens informed and included in a process that will surely be evolving.
In General:
The goals of Monday and the issues regarding the RVMP do not include a complete scrap. Rather, our fight is to get the most restrictive and responsible density proposals possible. Higher densities means a need for more schools, infrastructure, and open space/parks. The RVMP is inadequate in addressing these concerns in light of the proposed densities. Every decrease in maximum dwellings matters with respect to these issues. For example, 500 additional dwellings means potentially hundreds of new students, drivers, and consumers of the services Lakewood is obligated to provide. Pretty maps and inspiring pictures of happy families living in a utopian suburban sprawl, as seen on the cover of the MP, is good for politics but not so good for Lakewood residents. While development is inevitable, we must take a conservative and judicious approach. With this plan, as with most ambitious plans, the devil's in the details.
To those persons who have inquired about specific talking points, I will be sending out separate emails with specifics. Lastly, I'd like to personally acknowledge all the Save Dino folks who did an amazing job in their battle against the absurd rezoning plan. The fight for a more restrictive RVMP is meant to prevent such absurdities in the future.
Regards and Good Luck to Us All,
Dave Skilling
The following was developed by Dave Skilling in preparation for the Lakewood City Council meeting on January 23, 2017.
1-21-2017
All:
Here is a summary of the points that need to be addressed with respect to the Master Plan (MP). These specifics were compiled from our most recent meetings, along with some lessons learned from Dino Ridge.
First, I think its important to tie each of the speakers' points together with some common themes. This includes "keeping the horse in the barn" and, as we've discussed, "what's best for Lakewood citizens?" By extension, "does the MP have the best interests of the resident in mind?"
The "keeping the horse in the barn" theme comes from what we heard throughout the Dino Ridge hearing last Tuesday. The Jeffco BCC, and some speakers, pointed to past zoning and ODPs on those properties as reasons why the rezoning should be permitted. Thus, they claimed the horse had already left the barn. It gives a convenient "out" for current decision makers to point to the past and absolve themselves of any real responsibility for current rezoning (like Dino Ridge). For Lakewood, that fight is now. This is the opportunity to keep the horse in the barn and not allow future decisions - whether a month from now or five years from now - to claim that the development had already been determined.
Keeping the horse in the barn means that we should begin with the most restrictive densities, development goals, and zoning designations possible. There is no upside to approving higher densities at this point in the Valley's development. If we begin with the most reasonably restrictive numbers (for example, 2500 dwellings instead of the proposed 4200+) what do we as a community have to lose? In contrast, it would be nearly impossible to reduce the numbers after the MP has been adopted. Simply put, it's easier to go from low to high if needed in the future, but we won't be able to go from high to low. Again, this is one of the lessons learned from the Dino Ridge fight: we cannot allow developers to use this document as a basis for high density or ludicrous commercial proposals (e.g. four auto dealerships next to a landmark). If a developer wants to expand beyond the limits/goals/vision of this MP, the burden will be on the developer to show how a rezone is warranted. Having the most restrictive/conservative numbers will hopefully make that burden an onerous one.
Another powerful and important theme is "what's best for Lakewood citizens?" A sub-theme is "whats best for the uninformed Lakewood citizen?" It is no secret that the vast, vast majority of Lakewood residents have no idea what's being decided Monday night. Similarly, the vast majority of Jeffco residents had no idea about the zoning of Dino Ridge a decade ago or even the most recent rezoning attempt. Therefore, we need to have those vast numbers of uninformed residents in mind when approving any version of the MP. It makes the most sense to have the most restrictive plan to start; after all, more and more people will become informed once apartments spring up all around them. What's best for those residents is to look after their interests and protect them from what they don't know is coming. I see that as an essential function of government when deciding an issue like the MP.
Of course, the lowest hanging fruit on this theme is the argument that higher densities (and increased traffic, pollution, etc.) is not best for the citizens. You'd be hard pressed to find popular support for most high density residential or commercial projects. At this point in time there is insufficient data regarding housing, traffic, schools, and the like. Until those studies are completed, Lakewood should opt for the conservative and restrictive approach. Otherwise, the true impact of high densities on the citizens remains unknown. Yet some truths remain: traffic is bad, pollution is bad, and a lack of plans for infrastructure like schools is bad. The burden should be on the developer to show that the higher densities add some benefit to the citizens that outweighs these obvious perils.
Now to the specifics. Our goals for the hearing are as follows:
Goal #1: Reduce the maximum dwelling units to 2500 and eliminate or modify the "Medium Density (b)" designation.
The current version of the MP has a "reduced" dwellings number than the previous. The November version had 5000+ units listed as part of the absorption and build-out projections found on page 31. Presumably, these numbers were derived from a market analysis. Yet, in response to requests to lower the density figures, that analysis was modified. Such an approach makes no sense and demonstrates the worthless nature of the studies. After all, how did the projections and absorption numbers suddenly decrease in the Valley in a period of one month? Moreover, those "studies" are at odds with the final numbers found on page 21. Compare the 3,882 figure from page 31 with the 4,227 figure on page 21.
The importance of the inconsistencies is two-fold. First, it shows that the dwelling units analysis has no real basis in fact. Second, it demonstrates that the numbers can be reduced, even if arbitrarily. Of course, our argument is that there's nothing arbitrary about wanting to limit/restrict the total numbers. Further, it makes it difficult for any counter-argument to assert that the 2500 number is too low.
There are additional inconsistencies. For example, Ventana made a recent presentation for a 1400-unit development. How does that square with page 21 that lists a max in ALL of Morrison of 1,000 units? Even if Ventana reduces their numbers, is that the extent of all residential development in Morrison? The realities of Ventana's plan should be addressed in this MP. It makes no sense to ignore an actual project that is slated for development in the near future. Why is the MP silent on this issue?
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the MP is the zoning descriptions. While it is true that this most recent version has been stripped of the "high density" designation, the inclusion of the Medium Density (b) on page 12 makes that deletion almost meaningless. The final sentence of Medium Density (b) states that the residential densities (in those areas) will range from 8 to 12+ dwellings per acre. The inclusion of the "+" after the 12 is akin to having no maximum on densities. There is very little meaningful difference between a "high density" designation and a "medium density" designation if the latter allows for unlimited dwellings. The solution is to remove that designation altogether or to put an actual cap on the dwellings. If they want the Medium Density (b) included in the MP, it should be included only as a concept and not included on maps such as page 36. Any further movement from a mere concept/idea to real development should be carefully scrutinized within the actual development that occurs and only after rigorous studies/public input/etc. For now, and for the purposes of a responsible MP, the Medium Density (b) should not be an approved designation.
Another argument against the Medium Density (b) is that the designation goes against the express input given by the community. As some will speak to Monday night, the community members who provided input during this entire process were universally against high density. Again, there is no meaningful distinction between the Medium Density (b) designation and "high density."
NOTE: Though "high density" was supposedly dropped from previous versions, the phrase "high density" appears on page 31 of the newest draft. This is either a typo or an attempt to sneak it in. Either way, there needs to be a re-write to address this specific ambiguity.
Yet another problem with the densities listed in the MP is the existence of other ODPs. A perfect example is the Humphrey Property ODP. (See pages 21 and 36). On page 31, this ODP is designated as "low density residential." However, I believe the ODP on file for this property is actually 15 dwellings/acre. How is this actual zoning and ODP reconciled with the goals and designations found on page 36? Please note that I can't locate the actual ODP and instead derived the information from the Red Rocks Centre ODP. In that ODP, there is a map showing Humphrey Property and it lists 15 units/acre. To this point, existing ODPs should be linked or otherwise acknowledged in the MP. While adding each as part of an appendix is too cumbersome, I suggest that actual links on how to find the ODPs be expressly stated in the MP.
GOAL #2. Modify parts of the MP and come back for another approval hearing.
We are challenging many specifics in the MP that staff should have no choice but to modify. I will be submitting to council a handout that provides the precise changes and proposed amendments to the MP. Another version of the MP should then be drafted by staff and presented for public review and subsequent approval.
GOAL #3. Further publicize the existence of the RVMP to the general (uninformed) public in anticipation of that future approval hearing.
There should also be annual or bi-annual meetings regarding the final version of the RVMP. There should be no hesitation to modify or revisit ideas within the MP once development is underway. Dusting the MP off every few years is not going to be enough and will only serve to lull the general public into a state of complacency. As with Dino Ridge, it is in the developers' best interest to keep their plans below the public's radar. Lakewood's policy should be the exact opposite: it must be a top priority to keep all citizens informed and included in a process that will surely be evolving.
In General:
The goals of Monday and the issues regarding the RVMP do not include a complete scrap. Rather, our fight is to get the most restrictive and responsible density proposals possible. Higher densities means a need for more schools, infrastructure, and open space/parks. The RVMP is inadequate in addressing these concerns in light of the proposed densities. Every decrease in maximum dwellings matters with respect to these issues. For example, 500 additional dwellings means potentially hundreds of new students, drivers, and consumers of the services Lakewood is obligated to provide. Pretty maps and inspiring pictures of happy families living in a utopian suburban sprawl, as seen on the cover of the MP, is good for politics but not so good for Lakewood residents. While development is inevitable, we must take a conservative and judicious approach. With this plan, as with most ambitious plans, the devil's in the details.
To those persons who have inquired about specific talking points, I will be sending out separate emails with specifics. Lastly, I'd like to personally acknowledge all the Save Dino folks who did an amazing job in their battle against the absurd rezoning plan. The fight for a more restrictive RVMP is meant to prevent such absurdities in the future.
Regards and Good Luck to Us All,
Dave Skilling
Rooney Valley Master Plan (Information from Barb Franks 1/17/2017)
Public discussion on the plan and a council vote is slated for the next regular city council meeting on 1/23. Please review all the materials on the website and provide written feedback as to questions, concerns and suggested changes. I recommend sending your feedback to the mayor and all city councilors, or you could alternately send to city staff listed on the webpage that follows for inclusion in the meeting packet. Www.Lakewood.org/RooneyValley
RECEIVED 1-14-2017
C470/Alameda and Dinosaur Ridge
The following recap and ongoing action list was provided to us at the meeting. Note there is a hearing on January 17.
....
NO REZONING, NO CAR DEALERSHIPS - An Update from
Dinosaur Ridge Neighbors (SaveDinoRidge.org) …
Interest in the issue of rezoning at C470/Alameda is exploding!
NOW we need YOUR help as we head into the last 3 days before the County Commissioner Hearing on January 17…
C470/Alameda and Dinosaur Ridge
The following recap and ongoing action list was provided to us at the meeting. Note there is a hearing on January 17.
....
NO REZONING, NO CAR DEALERSHIPS - An Update from
Dinosaur Ridge Neighbors (SaveDinoRidge.org) …
Interest in the issue of rezoning at C470/Alameda is exploding!
- Westword article by John Prendergast on 1-11-17 http://www.westword.com/news/jeffco-battles-over-proposed-car-dealerships-next-to-dino-ridge-8672438.
- Denver Post article by John Aguilar on 1-12-17 http://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/11/dinosaur-ridge-car-lots-protest/
- Prime time news stories on major Denver channels
- Read an analysis by 3 PhD economists of the negative impacts of car dealerships at Dinosaur Ridge – SaveDinoRidge.org
- Around 100 passionate supporters attended our Rally on 1-11-17
- Hundreds of messages of opposition have been delivered to the Jefferson County Commissioners in the past couple of weeks
- A new petition, specifically objecting to car dealerships at C470/Alameda, has been circulating widely
- New information is being posted on SaveDinoRidge.org daily
- Letters of support coming to [email protected] have been passionate and overwhelming
NOW we need YOUR help as we head into the last 3 days before the County Commissioner Hearing on January 17…
- Come to the Hearing on January 17 at the County Court House (Taj). The Hearing begins at 8:00AM (the rezoning issue will likely not begin until around 9:00AM) and may continue for several hours. You will be able to sign up to speak after you arrive.
- Consider helping the DRN team deliver our message. We have compiled a ‘book’ of arguments against rezoning and need volunteers to read 3-minute excerpts. Send us an email and we will put your name on the list. You will receive an email on Monday with your assigned 3-minute speech and the approximate time you will speak. [email protected]
- Make a donation to help us cover legal fees -https://www.gofundme.com/savedinoridge
- Sign our new petition - http://change.org/p/commish1-jeffco-us-petition-against-rezoning-to-allow-for-car-dealerships?utmSource=share_petition&utmCampaign=mobile_petition_view
- Read important facts relating to the rezoning issue on our website - SaveDinoRidge.org
- Share the NO REZONING message with all your contacts and on social media