City government of Arvada is inviting the public to offer input on the Draft Comprehensive Plan.
Find links and more information about the Draft Plan here.
Here are comments and ideas from Arvada citizen, Nancy Young.
* * *
TO: Kevin Nichols, Senior Planner, City of Arvada
SUBJ: Comments on the the Draft 2014 Comprehensive Plan DATE: July 1, 2014
First, thank you for all the work that you and the City staff have put into this document. The following comments relate to items that I feel need to be changed to meet the overall vision for Arvada.
As an introduction, perhaps the biggest disappointment in this draft Plan is the lack of substance in support of the stated vision (p. 1-7) and related goals. As one example, throughout the vision and goals sections, much attention is given to preserving historical resources. However, the Plan itself does not contain any substantive requirements to achieve that vision and goal. Similarly, despite the attention given to maintaining the small town ambiance and neighborhood character, there is not a single supportive requirement contained in the Plan.
While I understand that specific zoning and other factors supposedly address these issues, the Comprehensive Plan should be definitive in supporting its stated goals and vision.
Also, I am surprised by the “1980s” feeling of this plan. The details seem to lack creativity and respect for existing neighborhoods, despite the “lip service” given to these supposed goals. The plan calls for commercial centers (formerly known as shopping malls) at major intersections. Such commercial centers are rapidly becoming dinosaurs with the burgeoning popularity of internet shopping. From my observation, people want small local shops that offer specialized merchandise and old-fashioned service. Commercial centers tend to be glorified “convenience stores” these days, and they are generally not attractive nor particularly useful.
The Plan defines housing by density (units per acre) in three overly broad categories, without regard for the surrounding neighborhoods. Given the importance stated in the vision and goals to enhancing neighborhoods, one would expect some kind of substantive item in the Plan. Also, housing alternatives continue to evolve, and this plan appears to make no concessions to some of the newer ideas, like totally underground housing with parks above. Proponents of “micro-housing” might want to take note of this idea.
The Plan defines transportation as being only public transit or personal transit (automobile, bicycle, and walking). These are ancient concepts of transportation - either a) large-scale public works (bus and train) where people are required to travel - somehow and often over a large distance - to the “central entry point” in time for the scheduled departure; or b) personal approaches where individuals can travel where they want when they want.
There is no mention of intermediate solutions, such as neighborhood van pools. The City could subsidize such an effort, much like the A-Line to DIA. Since many people in Arvada work in Golden or Boulder (not well-served by public transit), using City funds to coordinate such an effort makes sense and could be cost-effective, not to mention reducing traffic congestion.
Transportation is evolving, with the potential of personal “aircraft” and other futuristic alternatives being explored and developed. We all continue to hope for the Star Trek alternative, “beam me up, Scotty”!
Also, I would like to state again my concern about the very limited opportunities for the public to be an integral part of this plan. Having attended nearly all of the public meetings, as well as Planning Commission and City Council meetings, there has never been a public meeting where the plan was presented and explained in detail to the citizens and their questions addressed. Furthermore, without this kind of background information on a
complex topic, it is very difficult for citizens to understand the plan and formulate questions, let alone make constructive comments and suggestions.
In this same regard, citizens have had only three weeks to read the proposed plan, comprehend it, ask questions (usually privately addressed by a consultant and sometimes by a city staff member). The process seems to have left citizens out of the equation until the very end. At this point, it seems as though citizen input is limited and unlikely to result in any meaningful changes to the Plan.
The following are my specific comments.
A. Growth and Economic Development
This section contains a lot of “pretty words” about maintaining and enhancing the unique character of our community, as expressed through our vibrant neighborhoods. The section also discusses “higher density” as part of those goals. The City’s record of acting in accordance with these words is woefully inadequate, with many neighborhoods protesting infill developments that are simply “high density”, not just somewhat higher density, and appear to harm the neighborhood’s character.
1. In particular, Goal CC-1 - regarding the different character of neighborhoods - the policy is to promote context-sensitive design with input from citizens and the community. Yet meaningful portions within and near the Olde Town Arvada National Historic District are zoned for no public hearings via an administrative-process only.
The Comprehensive Plan, and any subsequent specific zoning, must require not only public hearings, but should also require multiple meetings with community members at the earliest stages of any project. Such a requirement would help assure that neighborhood character remains intact, as stated in the goal.
2. Goal CC-4 - Preserve historic assets and expand preservation education and awareness in Arvada and Olde Town.
Since settlement in Arvada dates back to the 1850s, there are historic assets in nearly every part of the City, although the bulk of these assets are located in and around Olde Town Arvada. This is an admirable goal, but beyond these “pretty words”, the Comprehensive Plan makes no mention of specific land use designations for these historical assets, nor does it address requirements for assuring that these assets are preserved. There is also no mention in this Plan of involving neighbors and other interested Arvadans in determining which structures should be preserved.
If the City of Arvada truly means what it says about preserving the character of our neighborhoods and our historic legacy, then I strongly recommend that the Comprehensive Plan specifically address historic preservation, to include the following, at a minimum:
- Any existing structure that qualifies for the National Register of Historic Places (i.e, is over 50 years old and is in essentially its original condition), will be subject to at least 3 community meetings - one at the time a developer first begins discussing a development near the historic structure, a second at the time of the developer submits a formal application, and a third meeting just prior to the Planning Commission hearing.
Community input received at these meetings must be incorporated into the application for the development’s approval, especially comments relating to the overall design, height, and impact on the historic structure and the neighborhood character.
- No historic structure can be demolished without a formal public hearing, to include 2 weeks notice and physical posting of the meeting at the site of the structure. if the majority of citizens attending this public hearing oppose demolition, then demolition will be prohibited. The City could always entertain a revised proposal that incorporates the historically significant property.
B. Land Use Categories
Overall, the land use categories seem appropriate except that they do not make provision for preserving historical assets.
- There is a fatal flaw in all of these categories: none of them require that the appropriate infrastructure be in place before development occurs. Infrastructure would include, at a minimum, a) roadways sufficient to carry additional traffic (not just at a given intersection) as well as current traffic levels; b) for medium and high density residential, essential services like a grocery store, pharmacy, and dry cleaner within walking distance (to promote “healthy living” and transit), should be required; and c) water, sewer, and other underground facilities must be confirmed to have sufficient capacity to accommodate the new structures.
- I object to merging Large Format Commercial with Neighborhood/Community Commercial. It is clear that traditional grocery stores are getting bigger, while traditional “big box” stores are getting smaller. Nonetheless, ANY large commercial development - perhaps defined as over 50,000-75,000 square feet, should be subject to greater scrutiny, by staff, citizens, and the decision-makers (Planning Commission and City Council, for example).
One concern that I have is that large format commerce is rapidly becoming a dinosaur, especially since internet shopping continues its rapid growth. As a result, there is less need for large format (i.e., generic) commercial. By keeping this category separate, it can easily be eliminated, which will probably be the case in the not-too-distant future.
C. 66th & Indiana Question - Commercial/Industrial or Housing?
I concur with the staff that this large tract of land on the west side should be reserved for employment opportunities, preferably industrial. I would oppose any “large format” commercial in this area, largely because such stores tend to pay low wages and rarely offer full-time, steady work. The west side already has more than sufficient land targeted for housing.
D. Ralston Road “Sub-Plan”
In many respects, this notion has positives and negatives. A separate plan for this key entry into our historic district makes some sense, but only if it respects the existing historic assets on both sides of Ralston between Field Street and the Wadsworth By-Pass.
Respect would include NO demolition of historic assets, and involve such features as 20-30 foot setbacks from the road for any new construction, height limits at 2 stories with a third story “set-back” and emphasis on smaller neighborhood commercial/office projects. All with no “waivers”. Public input/hearings should
be required at the earliest stages of any proposal.
Automobile access to Ralston can be difficult, especially if a left-hand turn is desired. Even turning right onto Ralston can be a problem. This fact needs to be an important consideration and should be included in any Comprehensive Plan for this area.
If such features as mentioned above were required, then perhaps a separate plan would make sense.
Recent Comments