By Rylee Dunn
After drawing the ire of neighbors due to environmental concerns, the controversial proposed RV storage facility that would have been built along Ralston Creek in Arvada, Colo., was struck down by Arvada’s City Council, which denied a motion to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Code to make way for the development.
At a recent meeting, the council denied a resolution to amend the Comprehensive Plan for the site, which would have needed to be zoned Industrial/Office rather than its current designation of Mixed Use; Residential Emphasis to facilitate the construction of an RV storage facility.
Many objections to the change were brought, chiefly concerning the environmental impacts of industrial activity on the site, which was formerly a landfill, and the lack of an appropriate buffer between the site and the surrounding neighborhoods.
Related Content
Entitlement Q&A With S3 Partners’ Barry Sherman and Monet Ragsdale
TSN Releases Free Report: RV and Boat Storage Entitlements
Before council can review a zoning change proposal — much less the actual site plan for the RV storage facility — the Comprehensive Plan would have needed to be amended to facilitate the construction of an industrial development.
In order to satisfy the conditions of a Comprehensive Plan amendment, the site would need to meet seven criteria for the zoning change including being compatible with the surrounding area, having no negative impacts on transportation and promoting the public 
welfare of the surrounding community.
On Sept. 17, the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment was reviewed by the city’s planning commission, which recommended that council deny the resolution. Community member Suzanne Grandchamp, who lives “500 to 1,000 feet from the proposed development,” spoke out against the resolution and said that there had been no substantial changes to the proposal between the time it came before the planning commission and now.
“I don’t think there was anything presented this evening that was new or not considered by the planning commission,” Grandchamp said. “Arguably, the planning commission was in the best position to consider all of the evidence and the process was lengthy and thorough… That’s why they’re the advisory arm to city council. Their 6-1 vote was pretty decisive; it wasn’t close.”
Many other community members came to the city council meeting to speak out against the proposal, including Deborah Gander, who said that the resolution doesn’t satisfy item two of the approval criteria, which states that a change to the Comprehensive Plan must be compatible with the surrounding area and be compatible with the goals and policies of the Plan.
“In their application, the RV storage developer claims compatibility with the surrounding area by extending the industrial zoning from the east,” Gander said. “However, this proposal is not compatible with the zoning and neighborhoods that comprise most of the site boundaries to the north, south and west. Additionally, the slender profile of Ralston Creek and Croke Canal wetlands does not provide a natural buffer for these neighborhoods.
“Simply put, an RV storage facility is not a suitable fit for the surrounding area,” Gander said.
Councilmember Randy Moorman echoed Gander’s concerns and was among the six councilmembers who supported Councilmember Bob Fifer’s motion to deny the resolution.
“I appreciate all the testimony tonight and the time the community has given as well as the applicant,” Moorman said. “What it came down to for me is the compatibility with the area. While yes to the east is industrial, but to the north, to the west, to the south is residential or at least not industrial of any type.
“For me that was a very important factor in why I think it does not meet criteria two,” Moorman said.
Councilmember John Marriott was the lone dissenting vote, arguing that many of the comments made at the meeting deviated from the stated purpose of review, the Comprehensive Plan, and focused too much on the site plan, which has not officially been presented to council yet.
“We’re looking at the comprehensive plan designation only, we’re not looking at the site plan or specific proposal here,” Marriott said. “And I think it’s absolutely apparent from the first slide we saw the aerial photo looking west that the city’s own heavy industrial property borders this, and the school district’s own isn’t far behind.
“And there doesn’t seem to be a lot of concern about that,” Marriott continued. “A lot of things I heard tonight weren’t germane to the comprehensive plan.”
Mayor Lauren Simpson said that she saw how the proposal was compatible with developments to the east of the site, but not on the other sides, and encouraged the developer to work with the city team to figure out a more compatible site plan before coming back to council.
Rylee Dunn is a contributor to Arvada Press.
