City Council OKs commercial use for Jeffco Health campus

LAKEWOOD – City Council early Tuesday approved a controversial rezoning request from Jefferson County that will put the county’s Department of Health campus up for sale as prime spot for commercial development.

Council’s 7-3 vote, which came just shy of 1 a.m., was delivered despite pleas from neighbors of the site who pointed to the nebulous site plan for the 17-acre parcel at West Alameda Parkway and Kipling Street. They also challenged a traffic study that conflicts with earlier traffic figures compiled by City Hall and charged that cut-through traffic has not been adequately addressed. Opponents also raised concern that the proposal, which calls for up to 150,000 square feet of retail and commercial use, is incompatible with the neighborhood and would pose a safety risk for kids walking or driving to nearby schools.

Council members Vicki Stack, Scott Koop and Dave Wiechman sided with the neighbors, voting against the rezoning.

County commissioners, seeking an infusion of cash to relieve a tight budget forecast, believe selling the property could bring as much as $8 a square foot, depending on its potential for development, according to Commissioner Kevin McCasky. In addition, the proposal could bolster the county’s property-tax base.

In addition, the continuing property tax yielded by a developed parcel would boost revenues for special districts and the Jeffco school district and the sales tax collected from transactions at the site would bolster city revenues.

The county asked Council to rezone the property at 260 S. Kipling, changing the existing 1-R large lot residential designation to Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Jeffco health agency has operated at the site under special-use permits approved by the city in 1974 and 1988, but has occupied the site since the mid-60s, before Lakewood was incorporated. The current zoning carried over from a similar large-lot residential zoning category originally bestowed by Jeffco.

The requested change would allow the county to sell the property for commercial and retail development including supermarkets and other single-tenant retail stores up to a maximum of 150,000 square feet. Other uses include gas stations, banks and financial institutions, fast food outlets, office buildings, convenience stores and low-power telecommunications facilities.

The lack of specifics – a rezoning without an accompanying site plan – prompted those living near the site to appeal for caution from Council.

“The proposed (plan) is too vague and is not well-formed,” said Terry Ferguson, who lives near the parcel, saying the lack of specifics heightens neighbors’ concerns about traffic, noise and potential “impacts on neighborhoods, parks and schools.”

The potential traffic implications of the plan drew much of the criticism and one speaker showed traffic figures that seem to shrink from one study to another.

Dr. Robert Dickinson backed up that charge by displaying seemingly contradictory traffic figures indicating estimates of traffic on Kipling and on Alameda.

An earlier city traffic analysis indicates expected traffic volumes of 45,000 cars a day on Kipling and 27,900 cars a day on Alameda. But the Traffic Impact Analysis presented for this case, Dickinson pointed out, claims 8,000 fewer cars travel Kipling each day and 2,600 fewer on Alameda.

“How can these significantly different traffic reports be explained,” Dickinson asked. “The only answer I can see is that the TIA is fundamentally flawed.”

And Josh Finkler said some aspects of the proposed access and exit routes could lead to “lane-hopping” and, especially at the intersection of the Alameda Frontage Road and Garrison Street, violations of Colorado’s traffic codes.

Finkler, who was instrumental in organizing the opposition to the rezoning request, said the neighborhoods will continue the fight, but did not elaborate.

A spokesman for the city’s Public Works Department said the figures reflect a decrease in overall traffic over the past few years.

Commissioner Kevin McCasky said the county intends to find developers with potential tenants that would maximize the sales- and property-tax income potential of the high profile site at one of the city’s busiest intersections.

Maximum sale price also is less important than the continued economic benefits – jobs and tax revenue – that could help bolster income for several taxing authorities.

“Our focus is economic development,” when disposing of county properties, McCasky said.

The county is looking at the increasing cost to maintain a number of properties with an eye toward consolidating some of the facilities. Money from the sale of the Kipling Street acreage will go into the county’s General Fund and could be used to meet much of that maintenance burden, McCasky said.