ArvadaforAllthePeople

Residential Development in Arvada: Hometown South - Part 4

Hometown South -- Arvada

By Susan Shirley

Part 4 of a series: City Council Deliberates, Votes

From the New Journal of Physics, March 4, 2008:

"A new study from a Japanese research group explains why we're occasionally caught in traffic jams for no visible reason. The real origin often has nothing to do with obvious obstructions such as accidents or construction work but is simply the result of too many cars on the road."

Not sure about you, but I am SO GLAD someone --with a physics degree, maybe even from a real university -- explained that to us. 

In Part 3 we looked at the June 16 Arvada City Council meeting, including presentations by Century Communities, their commercial Realtor, and their traffic engineer. This was followed by presentations and comments by two representatives of area HOAs, and public comment. Councilmembers then began probing specifics of Century's proposal. 

Following an opening volley by Councilmembers John Marriott and Bob Dyer, Bob Fifer brought up concerns about parking for the commercial units. His questions about parking elicited the following: the townhomes each have half of an extra parking space, and the condos each have one-fifth of an extra space, which are all guest spaces, and which the live/work units can use during the daytime. 

Fifer said, "I'm worried this is a minimalist approach to mixed use -- I don't see where the sense of place is, here...I'm leaning toward this is a workaround on the developer's part, to get around the mixed use requirements...I think it's too loose for the mixed use rules we're trying to apply...The market is very narrow, but you feel these units will sell quickly? I think it's skating on the line...I'm not sure demographics support such a concept here." 

Fifer continued with questioning about the extremely limited access points, and the developers' reasoning for removing the original point of access which would connect Hometown South and Hometown North, allowing access onto Kendrick. "It seems easy for you to say not to do that option because Hometown North doesn't want it; the real issue might be to avoid putting a bridge over the [Highline] canal."

Century Communities' Lisa Evans said that originally the North and South sides were to be developed at the same time, with a major commercial component to Hometown South. The two developments would have been joined via a bridge for the convenience of the residents of Hometown North. Now, Hometown North is its own community, and it is not best traffic practice to send traffic from one community through another. 

Fifer asked what the cost of the bridge would be, and was told by Evans it is about $500,000. 

Fifer asked staff what oversight would ensure proper businesses within the live/work units. Director of Community Development Mike Elms said that the PUD allows commercial/office, that the uses would be negotiated into the development plan.

Fifer then said that this type of housing stock is "desperately needed; condos are usually rentals...density is important in the area because a lot of restaurants, for example, won't build there because of the low density." He said that the density does need to be managed well and be appropriate. He continued, "I'm not sure about the height exception, but the other options [flat roof, shallower pitch] sound less cosmetically desirable; also, I would like the whole building to be work/live, not work - live - live more." 

Councilmember Don Allard asked how many total buildings and how many would need the height exception. The answer, from Evans, was that there are, on a 22-acre site, 189 townhouses in 44 buildings and 5 condo buildings of which three would need the height exception. 

There was more discussion about the possibility of connecting via bridge over the canal to allow more access options. 

Councilmember John Marriott continued by saying he likes that the units in the proposal are for sale and not rental, and that a different proposal might be worse; however, he said, the concerns about traffic and density are certainly warranted. "I'm a proponent of the live/work idea, but honestly, I wish there were more live/work in here. It seems it's only here to fulfill the requirement of mixed use." He offered his opinion that three stories was not appropriate for the area. 

Mayor Pro Tem Mark McGoff said, "It's very clear to me that this project is fully consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, that live/work is an acceptable mixed use, and we need to develop this land. This is a very good project. It fully addresses the issues from last year, by eliminating the rental units. This is not the final development plan, the details will be worked out if this is approved. I think it is appropriate and I favor approval."

A member of the city manager's staff suggested that Council clarify how they would be treating the height exception on the three live/work buildings. Councilmember Don Allard said that he had mixed emotions about the proposal; the property was vacant for a long time, the proposal meets all codes and ordinances, and "I don't think any of us can reasonably expect that vacant land to go forever without being developed."

Councilmember Bob Dyer said that he would like to add the condition of egress onto Kendrick Street, as part of approval. Councilmember Marriott said he would vote against that, that it had value but that the most practical solution would be a connection with Hometown North. Councilmember Fifer asked if money could be escrowed if a bridge connection proved necessary later, and a member of the city attorney's office said that might be possible but problematic. Fifer said, "I don't want the taxpayers bearing that expense. Escrow seems appropriate if, in fifteen or twenty years it's needed, and if not we can return the money to the developer." 

The city attorney replied that that looks like a gray area, that the law does allow exaction but no one will know what amount of money might be sufficient in twenty years; that the traffic engineer says that solution is not necessary, and that the law requires tying an anticipated impact to the exaction required for escrow, and that staff concurs with the findings of the traffic study. 

A motion to have access across Kendrick be a condition for approval lost on a 4 to 2 vote. 

Councilmembers then voted 5 to 1 to approve the Preliminary Development Plan and the Plat, with Councilmember Dyer dissenting and Mayor Marc Williams absent by recusal. 

The next vote was for the height exception. Councilmember Marriott said he saw no compelling reason to approve the increase to 39 feet. Councilmember Dyer agreed and said he would rather all five condo buildings look the same. The motion to approve the height increase was defeated on a 3 to 3 vote, with Councilmembers Dyer, Fifer, and Marriott voting no and McGoff, Marks, and Allard voting to approve. Because it was a tie, it did not pass and was automatically rejected. 

The developer had made clear throughout the hearing, that not having the height exception would not prevent their making three-story buildings; it might mean they would build flat-roofed buildings or roofs with a shallower pitch. So it remains to be seen what their design will turn out to be, but all buildings must comply with the 35' 6" height limit. 

NEXT: Traffic for Physicists (and Dummies) - Part 5

Residential Development in Arvada: Hometown South - Part 3

Hometown South -- Arvada

By Susan Shirley

Part 3: City Council, June 16, 2014

From architect Thomas Dolan, author of Live-Work Planning and Design: Zero-Commute Housing:

"There is a demonstrated tendency for live-work space to revert to purely residential, regardless of how it was permitted or represented. This tendency is most pronounced in new construction condominiums or 'lifestyle lofts.' In some locations this is tolerable, in others it can cause harm...

"Live-work plays an important part in The Incubator Cycle. Ideas for small business often progress through different work spaces, from a spare room at home, to the garage (of Apple Computer and Hewlett Packard fable and fame) and often next to a live-work space. In fact, for some, the progression from home to live/work to work/live space is part of the cycle. "

* * *

As discussed in Part 2, the Arvada Planning Commission approved Century Communities' current proposal for a mix of townhomes, condominiums, and eighteen live-work units in the neighborhood of 64th Avenue and McIntyre Streets. Included was a height exception for three buildings.

On June 16, City Council held a public meeting to discuss and ultimately vote on the development. Representing Century was Lisa Evans, followed by commercial Realtor David Fried and a traffic engineer, Jeff Hodsdon.

Appearing on behalf of two homeowners' associations were Sally Detweiler, president of the HOA at The Meadows at Westwoods, and John Fielder, Vice President of one of two Hometown North.  Both have advocated for responsible development of west Arvada.

Public comment was made by eight residents of the immediate neighborhood.

City Councilmembers, not including Mayor Williams (who had been recused, as he will soon be a resident of nearby Forest Springs,) and city staff rounded out the lengthy discussion. As this was a "quasi-judicial" proceeding, people who gave testimony were sworn in.

Century Communities Managing Director Lisa Evans alluded to the 2006 plan which was approved at the time by both the Planning Commission and City Council. That development involved a large amount of restaurant, retail, and other commercial space, which proved impossible during the recession to attract enough tenants to make it profitable. The new plan does away with retail commercial space but has eighteen live/work units to bring it within the "mixed use" zoning. Evans pointed to the much lower traffic impact, shorter buildings and the relocation of the three-story buildings toward the 64th Avenue side, fewer total residential units, no rental units, a change in the name the development will be marketed under (probably something like Highline), further distancing it from Hometown North. Evans said that the developer will be improving 64th Avenue, that it will be a seven-lane road, and that the three-story buildings will "provide scale" to the larger road. The height exception was requested so as to include the more attractive pitched roofs; however, Evans said if need be the buildings could have flat roofs or a shallower pitch and still be three stories but no taller than 35 feet.

Cassidy Turley Commercial Realtor David Fried stated that the low density of the area makes it unattractive for some commercial uses, yet rents tend to be high in the existing commercial buildings, making them unaffordable for smaller enterprises. Cassidy Turley has done a study which found live/work units at Hometown South could be useful for a number of service providers, such as attorneys, accountants, small yoga studios; smaller businesses with minimal impact in terms of traffic or other stress on the area.

LSC Transportation Consultants Traffic Engineer Jeff Hodsdon gave general and specific information about improvements planned for W. 64th Avenue from Kendrick to McIntyre. The most significant improvement will be a second westbound through lane on 64th at McIntyre, to try to eliminate the bottleneck there, especially during evening peak hours. There will be a bike lane on the north side and a continuous acceleration/deceleration lane; the north side, said Hodsdon, will mirror the south side as it exists today. Traffic signal modifications will be made, and the east side of McIntyre will be widened north of 64th, to add a southbound left-turn lane 200 feet long. Fried said that the traffic added by Hometown South will be "far below the carrying capacity of the improved section of McIntyre Street."

Evans continued, saying that the proposal meets all comprehensive plan requirements and zoning regulations, that the new proposal represents a 54% reduction in traffic from the 2006 plan, that it will exceed open space requirements, that the live/work feature will provide an asset; that the condos will be affordable to young families, and that the public trail and roadway improvements will have a positive impact on the larger Arvada community.

Sally Detweiler of the Meadows HOA said that they are in favor of responsible development which is done in consideration of the rest of the neighborhood. She said the four primary issues worrying current residents are: traffic, the live/work units, density, and the height of the three-story buildings. She characterized the present situation in the area as "arguably the worst traffic in all of Arvada," saying problems there are already negatively impacting the quality of life; that drivers, anxious to avoid 64th Avenue at all costs, have created congestion along 65th Avenue.

She added that there are serious concerns about an additional 600 or more residents in the area, the height of the three-story buildings, wondered why the egress from Hometown North has been eliminated, leaving two egress points; that The Meadows at Westwoods, with only 257 homes (Hometown South will have 281) has six egresses by comparison. Detweiler said that many people in the area are concerned that their property values will drop as a result of these problems.

She requested a change to two stories rather than three, which would automatically reduce the density to no more than that of Hometown North. She said that neighborhood residents have obtained six hundred signatures on a petition asking for consideration of their requests, and asked for City Council to "side with us and not a big developer.

John Fielder, speaking on behalf of both HOAs at Hometown North, disagreed about some of the traffic points the Westwoods people would like, but was very forceful in his assertions that three-story buildings are not compatible with the area; that the Comprehensive Plan is all about compatibility, and that exceptions should have a powerful reason behind them. He said, as a former teacher, his understanding of exceptions is that the "need" for an exception should be required to be stronger than the rule itself, and that this case doesn't meet that burden.

Councilmember Bob Dyer reminded Lisa Evans that in the 2013 City Council meeting he said their proposal was too dense, and he said that in this case if Council were to refuse the three-story buildings it would reduce the density and traffic and make the project more compatible with the area. Evans replied that Century believes it is being responsive to the guidelines but that in order to move forward they could build without the height exception.

Mayor Pro Tem Mark McGoff said that Council had received many letters, most in opposition. He then opened the meeting to public testimony. At this time there were at least 86 members of the public in chambers, and an unknown number assembled in the adjacent foyer.

Public testimony came from four members of Forest Springs, one from The Meadows, two from Nile Circle, and one from Orion Court. Concerns ranged from high density in the lower-density end of town, to the three-story buildings in an area where there are none currently, to lack of access points. By far the most potentially troublesome element is the traffic; residents clearly feel that traffic is already a "life and death situation," as one put it, and adding more cars will overwhelm the system beyond any reasonably conceivable capacity added by improvements to 64th.

Lisa Evans, in rebuttal, said, "No project will make every existing neighbor happy; we run into this all over the metro area in infill sites--it's natural...We're trying to meet the intent of the comprehensive plan without exacerbating traffic more than necessary."

Questioning followed from Councilmembers. Councilmember John Marriott asked specifics about the live/work units. Evans explained them in this way: purchasers would effectively be buying two units, with a business on the first floor and an internal connection to the living quarters on the second floor. Customers would enter the business from the street. All live/work units would be two-story, and there would be an additional for-sale unit above that. The live/work units cannot be sold as two separate units. There will be some covenants regarding uses of the units, and no retail or light manufacturing would be allowed.

Councilmember Bob Dyer pointed out the lengthy wait currently at the light at 64th and Simms at 2 p.m. on a weekday, saying it's nice in theory that the traffic engineer thinks the McIntyre signal will work better with more traffic. He also objected to the height exception, saying he was not convinced it's necessary, and in addition was worried about "cut-through" traffic going through Forest Springs. Evans argued that there isn't a tremendous amount of cut-through right now, and Dyer said that is because there isn't any development over that way, yet. Evans said that she believes traffic is "always a concern when changing the status quo, but I have faith in traffic engineers' ability to make traffic flow."

NEXT: More Questions From Council, and the Vote - Part 4

Residential Development in Arvada: Hometown South - Part 2

Hometown South -- Arvada

By Susan Shirley

Part 2 of a Series: Planning Commission, 2014

A California perspective, and to me, California has always been the closest thing we have to a real live crystal ball:

"But in reality-world, who in their right mind would want to live where they work? A loft is one thing if you’re Toulouse-Lautrec, and even a garret is fine if you’re the evil Svengali and his piano. But these overpriced/overhyped 'condos' are nothing more than a cheesy excuse to slip huge apartment projects in under the civic radar. Just call them 'community' or 'sustainable' and you’re good to go...

"Note: we always put the word 'condos' in quotes. Know why? It's because these places always turn into rentals, i.e., apartments. And usually with lots of roommates. The staffs of these two cities like to call them 'homes' whenever they can, and then cite their sale as an example of our wonderful reputations for 'home ownership.' But they're not homes in any real sense. Almost all of them become bigtime investments-- for people whose real 'homes' are far, far away. "

-- Burbank, California: That Angry Blog, October 11, 2013

* * * 

As noted in the first installment of this series, Century Communities is nothing if not persistent. Between 2006 and 2014, they presented at least four Hometown South proposals to Arvada's Planning Commission. The 2006 proposal for a true mixed-use development was approved by Planning Commission and City Council, but derailed by the recession. The 2013 proposal and reworked proposal called for a large number of apartments, which didn't mesh with the 2005 Comprehensive Plan then in effect.

A remnant from the 2006 approval by City Council is that the area was rezoned, at Century's request, to mixed-use. This would be, as you might guess, a mixture of uses; one local example is Five Parks, and of course there's the long-standing example of Olde Town and its environs, where you have retail, restaurants and bars, professional offices, churches, schools, residential, a town square, theater, banks and civic buildings. The Hometown South Staff Report to the Planning Commission says:

"Mixed-Use: Residential Emphasis
This category is intended to promote self-supporting neighborhoods with a range of housing types and has a minimum density of 7 units per acre and there is no maximum density. Between 10-40 percent of the site should be allocated to non-residential uses such as convenience retail, offices, or live/work units."

The same report goes on to say, "The applicant's request is in conformance with the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of Mixed-Use: Residential Emphasis with 11% of the site devoted to live/work units."

Some cities which have had lengthy experience with live/work units, such as San Jose and Sunnyvale, California, have had to develop restrictions, such as prohibitions against renting out parts of the units, limits on the number of non-resident employees, and the number of deliveries, vendors, and customers allowed in a day.

The Comprehensive Plan is currently under revision, and citizens have the opportunity to weigh in on some changes. One area under scrutiny is the definition of mixed use, which could undergo changes leading to significantly less "mix" in the mix. More information is available here: http://static.arvada.org/docs/arvada_plan_3-1-201308031200.pdf

With three members absent from the Planning Commission on May 20, 2014, the remaining four Commissioners held a public hearing on the subject of Hometown South. Public testimony came from twenty individuals, including one whose written testimony was read following his departure. Notes and observations from Arvada resident Nancy Young:

"Lengthy presentations were made by the developer and the hired consultants regarding the live-work units and the access points/traffic patterns. These presentations noted the following: 1) all units would be owner-occupied; 2) density is less than the 2012 proposal - now 11.24 units/acre vs. the prior 15.27 units/acre; 3) the taller buildings were moved away from existing neighborhoods to the SE corner of the property; 4) estimated traffic - in trips per day - is lower at 1179 compared to 2114; the developer will make improvements to both W. 64th and to McIntyre to ease traffic flows; 5) the height exception is necessary to enable a gabled roof, which is easier to maintain; 6) additional access points through the Hometown North neighborhood or onto Kendrick were thoroughly investigated; due to a variety of issues, they have been rejected; 7) the schools have capacity to serve the expected student population; and 8) open space will be 41.7% of the property, compared to the minimum requirement of 25%.

"Public comment was opened. No one stepped forward in support of the development. Comments in opposition to the development were made by 17 citizens. Sally Detweiler, representing the Meadows at Westwood Ranch (an adjoining neighborhood), provided an excellent summary of concerns of the neighboring citizens. Those concerns are: 1) the density and height components are incompatible with the surrounding area; 2) if the live-work units are included separately in the density numbers, then the number of units becomes 299 for a density of 13.45 units per acre; 3) the influx of an additional 600 residents in this area would be a 10% increase in the local population; 4) with only McIntyre as the egress point, congestion there will add to the most congested intersection in the neighborhood - 64th & McIntyre; 5) Ms. Detweiler noted that by eliminating the access point through the Hometown North neighborhood (originally envisioned in the 2005 proposal), the city is favoring Hometown North over the greater good of the entire Westwoods area; 6) with nearly 7000 new units under construction in the surrounding area (compared to 4000 units last summer), traffic in this neighborhood will “become a nightmare”; now, it is almost impossible to travel on W. 64th without stopping at every one of the 9 traffic signals in a 1.5 mile stretch; and 7) no input from the neighborhood was sought regarding several of the concerns noted above.

"Individuals testified in opposition from nearly all of the adjoining neighborhoods, including: Forest Springs, the Meadows at Westwoods, Hometown North, Boyd Pond, and residents to the south at W. 58th. Among the additional points made were the following: 1) insufficient parking is provided for residents and customers of the live-work units; 2) hazards of trucks entering and leaving McIntyre during construction; 3) traffic pattern analysis ignored the impact on Arvada’s roads outside of the limited area at the intersection of W. 64th & McIntyre; 4) residents of the proposed Hometown South will use nearby neighborhood streets and their access points to avoid long waits at McIntyre; 5) the booming housing market in Arvada will be shut down by the difficulty of traveling ever-more congested roads; 6) the 3-stories proposed for W. 64th is a negative aesthetic for the neighborhood; 7) safety concerns for children embarking and debarking schoolbuses in all adjoining neighborhoods, given the limited access points to the development and anticipated increase in traffic volumes; 8) existing infrastructure - primarily the road system throughout the area - is insufficient to meet the increases resulting from this development; 9) last summer, the Council requested Century Communities to consult with citizens on any new proposal, which Century has not done; and 10) a resident of neaby Boyd Pond, a Century development, noted that a recent re-appraisal of his home resulted in reduced property value due to poor quality construction.

"The developer rebutted these comments, primarily citing information from the initial presentation. Commissioners then asked questions, summarized as follows: 1) Do future City plans include improving McIntyre? Response - the build-out of this road south of W. 64th is essentially completed; to the north there are no specific plans at this time; 2) Could the top floor of the 3-story proposed buildings be eliminated? Response - 16 units would be lost and a flat roof could be used to reduce the height and give a more commercial appearance, especially for the live-work units; 3) Are there any other alternatives to increasing access points to this development? Response - no reasonable alternatives have been uncovered; and 4) Why include the live-work units? Response - to meet the business/professional requirement of the current Comprehensive Plan and the resulting zoning."

Minutes of the meeting state that Commissioner Ed Rothschild moved to recommend the Development Plan and the Preliminary Plat to City Council for approval. The vote was 3 to 1 on both, with Steve Hannan, Patricia Connell, and Ed Rothschild voting yes, David Goff voting no, and C. J. Dantinne, John Crouse, and John Sullivan absent.

Rothschild moved to recommend the height exception from 35' to 39'-6" for only the three live/work buildings. The vote was 4 to 0 with all Commissioners present voting yes.

With a green light from the Planning Commission, the next step for Century would be to present their new proposal to the City Council for approval.

NEXT: City Council, June 2014 - Part 3

Residential Development in Arvada: Hometown South - Part 1

Hometown South -- Arvada

By Susan Shirley

Part I of a Series: Overview

With this series of articles we intend to show how, in Arvada, an idea for a development finds its way through the system to its final destination of groundbreaking and beyond.

Here's a rough outline of how the process works:

1. It all starts with the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) which determines “land use” - residential, commercial, business, agriculture. Comp plans change over time, and, in fact, the 2005 Arvada Comp Plan is currently in a state of revision.

2. Once the Comp Plan is established, then developers need to meet its requirements. For example - last year Hometown South was denied because it was all residential, but the Comp Plan called for something that included “business, professional, and residential”. Now Hometown South is back - they’ve included the live-work units to meet the business/professional requirement.

3. Specific zoning is based on the Comp Plan. Zoning determines the mix of business-professional-residential and the density. So within a broad category like residential, zoning could allow low density (up to 8 units per acre), medium (8-25), or high (over 25). These might not be the exact numbers, but they are in the ballpark. For commercial, it would usually be the square footage.

* * *

What follows is the story of one developer's idea. The process begins in 1986 in the west end of Arvada, in an area which was at the time unincorporated Jefferson County. The land near 64th Avenue and McIntyre Street was annexed by Arvada, and zoned for industrial uses. Hamilton Fluid Handling (now Sundyne) had been in its nearby headquarters since 1977 at 64th and Indiana Streets.

Twenty years later, in 2006, the idea for a mixed-use development on the north side of 64th led Greenwood Village-based Century Communities to seek rezoning of a 22.2 acre site from industrial to a mix of business, professional, and residential use. The proposed development, Hometown South, was to have included over 30,000 square feet of commercial space on four acres. The rest of the site would have contained 83 townhomes, 170 condominiums and 40.5% open space, for a total density of 11.24 dwelling units per acre. That 40.5% open space number becomes significant later. This 2006 proposal was approved by the planning commission and city council; but lurking in the shadows was a monster of a recession, and far from gliding effortlessly into limitless opportunity, Arvada and the rest of the nation skidded into economic free fall. Century found it impossible to fill the commercial space, and after five years the approvals expired.

In 2013 Century had a new proposal-- a 15.27 unit per acre development, this time not mixed use but a combination of 108 townhomes and ten apartment buildings. That plan was rejected by the Planning Commission, modified and resubmitted as a request for a 15.00 unit per acre development consisting of 108 townhomes and 225 apartments in eight buildings, still requiring rezoning to high density. On June 3, 2013, Arvada City Council rejected the proposal, partly on the grounds that the existing 2005 Comprehensive Plan was expected to be rewritten over the next year or so; Council was hesitant to change the mixed use zoning to high density before then. There was also a great deal of neighborhood opposition to high density, echoed in the comments of some Councilmembers at that meeting.

In 2014, Century approached Planning Commission with a very different plan. The 2014 plan does away with all rental units and, in order to fit within the strict definition of mixed use, includes eighteen "live-work" units. 189 townhomes and 92 condominiums with the live-work units situated in the condominium buildings, worked out to a 12.66 unit per acre density. There was a request for a height exception from the 35' allowable to 39.6 feet; this was said to reduce the number of buildings and allow more open space. The original open space percentage, as mentioned above, was 40.5%; with this height exception, that would increase all the way to 41.7%. This, along with "providing a buffer" from the street noise, was the rationale given for building three-story condominiums in an area where there are no three story buildings for miles around.

The proposal went before a diminutive Planning Commission on May 20, 2014. The absence of C. J. Dantinne, John Crouse, and John Sullivan left four of seven members to make the decisions. Following the applicant's presentation, public comment, and discussion by commissioners, the Preliminary Development Plan and the Plat were voted on and passed by a 3 to 1 vote, with Steve Hannan, Patricia Connell, and Ed Rothschild voting yes and David Goff voting no. The height exemption, requested for five condominium buildings, was approved for only the three buildings with live-work units.

In June of 2014, Arvada City Council held a public hearing to determine approval or disapproval of the project. Mayor Marc Williams, soon to be living at nearby Forest Springs, was recused from the proceedings, and absent once the hearing began. Again, there was a lengthy presentation by Century, followed by public comment and questioning by councilmembers. The outcome was approval of the Preliminary Development Plan and the Plat, but rejection of the height exemption.

NEXT: A Closer Look at the May 20 Meeting of the Arvada Planning Commission - Part 2

Notes: Arvada Council Meeting for June 16, 2014

Notes are now available from the Arvada City Council meeting for Monday, June 16, 2014, on the 'For the Record' page of this web site.

All Citizens are 'Stakeholders'

UPDATE!
The letter-to-the-editor below was published in the print edition of the Arvada Press for Thursday, June 26, 2014.

* * * 

In a representative democracy or a small 'r' republican form of government, sovereignty rests with 'the people' -- highlighted by the words "We the People" -- the opening declaration of the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Unfortunately, too often we the people of this great nation witness in our various levels of government the emergence of an attitude akin to "we were elected (or appointed); now leave us alone to govern", meaning elected and appointed officeholders, administrators and hired consultants who apparently think they have all the answers to all the questions and problems.

We have especially noticed the abuse of the term and concept of "stakeholder" amongst the higher councils of government. While truly every American, every taxpayer, every property owner, every concerned citizen is a "stakeholder" in our government, nowadays the word is being used to exclude average citizens in favor of insiders, the elites, special interests, politicians, lobbyists, consultants and contractors. A local example of this abuse of the "stakeholder' can be found by taking a look at the "2012 Community Input Interviews" conducted by the Jefferson County Public Library administration; check out page 25 and see not one "key stakeholder" that is a truck driver, a retail clerk, a stay-home mom or dad, a nurse, food service worker, etc. ... in other words, the folks that pay the taxes, might actually use the government resource are not considered to be in the category of "key stakeholder'. 

These "stakeholder" groups set-up by government administrators are oftentimes now simply groups of people specially chosen to give the top managers just the kinds of answer they already want to hear.

So this is the reality, yet, we average folks are usually told something very different. For instance, Arvada for All the People member Cindi Kreutzer submitted the following question on this topic to the City of Arvada:

Here is my Ask Arvada question and response:

Dear Cindi,

This is in reference to the Concern/Question you submitted on 06/05/2014 2:13 PM

Description: Could someone there please define the term "Stakeholder" for me? 

Reason Closed: Stakeholders are interested parties in a particular issue. For example, regarding the Comprehensive Plan, that can include anyone impacted by the outcome.

If you have any other questions or concerns, please contact us via "Ask Arvada", or by phone 720-898-7435.

Thank you.

Joan Brown
Community Development Dept.

Note that ... "anyone."

Ever vigilant for the interests of the average resident and taxpayer, Cindi Kreutzer made the following pointed observation that directly exposes and challenges the government "key stakeholder" concept and the "we always know what is best for you" inclination of way too many elected officials, executive directors, managers and bureaucrats these days.

This is a letter to the editor sent to Arvada Press and Arvada YourHub:

At the June 9, 2014 Arvada City Council Workshop, Councilmember Don Allard made a statement that should be a cause of great concern to all Arvada citizens.

City Manager Mark Deven was presenting the capital improvements projects to be considered by the city for the next several years. Near the end of his presentation he suggested the possibility of a Citizen Committee to give their input regarding the priorities of various projects. A few of the councilmembers expressed concern about the staff time such a committee would need and the need to set parameters for the projects under consideration but generally they were supportive of the idea. Mayor Williams went so far as to recommend that these citizens should not be the "favorite sons and daughters" of councilmembers.

The exception to this opinion was that of Mr. Allard. His opinion is that we citizens are uninformed and it would be a waste of city staff time to educate us. He seemed to feel that his decades of city council experience were more than sufficient and citizen input would be unnecessary and even inconvenient to him and the rest of council.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time he has expressed this opinion. He said something very similar last July following the council vote on Walmart. He did not need to be concerned just because nearly 400 people showed up to voice their opposition to city council.

I'll give him credit for his honesty but obviously he is completely "uninformed" that his extensive experience is exactly the reason that citizen input would be valuable. The amount of time that many councilmembers have been in office in Arvada has caused a lack of fresh ideas and a lack of creative, open minded thinking. It is time for some diversity on Arvada City Council.

Cindi Kreutzer
Arvada, CO

It is time for we the people -- we average citizens and taxpayer -- to reassert ourselves and insist that elected representatives represent us -- not just the special interests, other politicians, developers, contractors, consultants, etc.

Using the word "stakeholder" and trying to fool us into believing that that means all of us are being listened to and respected is not going to work any longer. We will be heard.

New Law in Response to Arvada 'Secret Ballots' Scandal

From the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition - Friday, June 6, 2014

Hickenlooper signs bill to let anyone challenge violations of Colorado’s Sunshine Law

By Jeffrey A. Roberts
CFOIC Executive Director

A little more than two months after a Jefferson County judge dismissed a citizen’s lawsuit against Arvada for using secret ballots to replace a city council member, Gov. John Hickenlooper signed legislation Friday to ensure that anyone can legally challenge violations of Colorado’s Open Meetings Law.

HB 14-1390 was introduced late in the 2014 legislative session in response to a Mar. 30 ruling from District Judge Margie Enquist that Arvada resident Russell Weisfield did not have legal standing to sue the city.

Weisfeld’s suit alleged that Arvada violated a two-year-old provision of the Open Meetings Law, also known as the Sunshine Law, that generally prohibits the state or any local public body from voting in secret to adopt “any proposed policy, position, resolution, rule, or regulation” or to take “formal action.”

The judge said council members “may have violated the secret ballot provision” when they marked unsigned sheets of paper four times Jan. 10 to eliminate candidates for a vacant council seat. But she ruled against Weisfield because he couldn’t prove he had been personally harmed by the hidden votes.

Steve Zansberg, president of the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition, said the ruling threatened to make “a dead letter” of the Sunshine Law. But the bill, which explicitly grants legal standing to anyone, passed the General Assembly with no opposition. One of it its sponsors was Sen. Rachel Zenzinger, a Democrat whose appointment to the legislature last fall created the Arvada council vacancy.

Zansberg, as attorney for the Colorado Press Association and CFOIC president, worked with the Office of Legislative Legal Services to craft HB 14-1390. The press association, a CFOIC member organization, led the lobbying effort.

On Thursday, Hickenlooper promised to sign the bill while speaking at a CFOIC luncheon honoring Denver Post Chairman William Dean Singleton.

“Someone asked me whether I was going to sign this thing and I didn’t say this but I thought, ‘I’m not going to sign this and suffer the wrath of Dean Singleton for how many years?’” Hickenlooper said. “So I can tell you that by the time the sun falls (Friday), this bill will be safely signed.”

Is AURA Playing Fast and Loose with the Open Meetings Law?

A vote in executive session?

That's what it looks like so far.

In the previous post we called attention to last week's executive session of the Board of Commissioners of the Arvada Urban Renewal Authority called for reviewing qualifications of companies who might want to redevelop the Arvada Square, site of the old Safeway grocery store.

How this reveiw is a 'negotiation' that required such secrecy is an open question.

More curious is how the intial list of five interested companies: Buckingham; Drake; Edgemark; Loftus-Mapleton; and Raindrop-NAVA got whittled-down to just two.

This is the information, the apparent outcome of a vote/decision from an executive session, found at the City of Arvada web site, 'Ralston Creek Developer Solicitation' page: http://arvada.org/ralston-creek-developer-solicitation 

Was the decision made in secret? Was there discussion in public? Was there a vote in open session? That eventuality was certainly not indicated on the agenda.

No minutes, no press release, no statements -- nothing, zip, nada can be found at the 'official' web site of the Arvada Urban Renewal Authority.

AURA is not demonstrating openness and tranparency, indeed, there appears to be a deliberate effort to keep the reasons for its decisions away from the eyes of Arvada taxpayers.

While you are on the City's 'Ralston Creek Developer Solicitation' page, note the grey box of links to the right. Especially notice the reports and surveys listed under 'RFQ Q&A'. Here is government interference and manipulation of the market place in action; here is corporate welfare in black-and-white ... because you paid for those real estate reports.

If the Safeway property had been allowed to be placed on the open market, you, the taxpayer and citizen of Arvada wouldn't be on the hook for the loan the City Council made to AURA to buy that land and building; you wouldn't be paying for reports and studies that a private enterprise buyer would have to pay for themselves. 

The Arvada Plaza Walmart, the Olde Town Park Place project, the Arvada Square redevelopment now amount to millions and millions and millions of public dollars diverted to benefit private, for-profit companies. Let's be very clear in plain language -- AURA, with the approval of the City Council, is the agency of corporate socialism/corporate welfare in Arvada.

It becomes even more important, therefore, that there be openness and transparency on all of these process and developmental decisions made by government boards that spend our money and use our government resources.

So, when it is our money, collected by the Arvada government -- why are there executive sessions accompanying virtually every AURA and Arvada City Council meeting? What kind of 'negotiations' and 'deals' are being made behind closed doors?

Isn't it time for this kind of secrecy to end in Arvada?