*This letter was in response to the Arvada Comprehensive Plan, which can be viewed in its entirety here: Comprehensive Plan 2014.
Dear Planning Committee:
I want to thank you for the
opportunity to express my ideas and opinions regarding the recent changes to
the City of Arvada’s Comprehensive Plan. I hope the insights citizens provide
can further solidify the plans and implementations that will continue to create
the community in which we all work, live, and play.
In regards to “Multi-Modal
Transportation”, I’m impressed with what has been decided. I think the
following elements will improve traffic congestion and promote more sustainable
transportation practices, including:
1.
the addition of a “West-Line” RTD bussing
schedule (along Indiana/ 72nd Avenue),
2.
re-routing Olde Town’s RTD to incorporate
“cultural centers”,
3.
increasing the number of bicycle lanes in the
City,
4.
and altering Ralston Road to reflect a “4-Lane
Compact Concept”.
All of these are fantastic ideas
that I stand behind.
The biggest disagreement I have
with the City’s plan for transportation involves the Jeffersonian Parkway.
Building a toll-way, similar to the Northwest Parkway, isn’t financially
feasible, especially since the Northwest Parkway is struggling to make profits;
their tolls are the highest per mile in the nation. Even scarier is the fact that
it cuts through Rocky Flats. Experts can tout all they want about how deep
underground the plutonium barrels are located, and how safe it is, but I’m
incredibly weary of the potential plutonium particles that can arise from the
construction of the project.
Instead, I’d like to see additional
lanes added to Indiana. I’m very excited to see plans for bicycle lanes along
that route, but think adding a second lane on either side will significantly
reduce traffic congestion in the area.
As for the remainder of the
Comprehensive Plan, including “Vibrant Community & Neighborhoods” and
“Growth & Economic Development”, I feel the Plan fails to live up to the
values of Arvadans, especially in regards to land use.
For example, Arvada touts how
sustainable they are, and even has a festival surrounding the topic. However,
building practices here don’t align with that impression. To be sustainable,
residents need housing that’s close to their jobs, shops, and recreational
facilities; all I’ve seen in the past few years is more and more and more single-family housing, getting
further and further away from central commercial areas in Arvada.
I did have hopes that Candelas
would be more mixed use, which would greatly improve sustainability by reducing
automobile use and natural materials used in building and such. Yet, delving
deeper into the maps, I see a majority of the land is set for single-family
homes, neighborhood commercial (strip malls), and only a small plat actually
designated mixed use.
In such areas where there is a
large potential for economic development, I’d like the Comprehensive Plan to
incorporate higher density housing and more mixed use areas. Doing so would
greatly expand the desirability of the area.
Lastly, in the Plan, there’s a
sentence that says something along the lines of, “…rural areas are a big part of the quality of life [in
Arvada], and fundamental to economic
health.” Peppered throughout the Plan are quotes like this that say how Arvada
wants to preserve and maintain such rural areas for the future. If Arvada is
making the case that in order to protect the heritage, history, and economic
viability of Arvada we need to maintain our rural areas, why are farms being
plowed over for single-family homes? Doesn’t that go against this value? Sure, you can have a land use designation,
such as “low-density residential” that highlights open spaces, but it isn’t a working
farm or ranch. If Arvada truly cared about the agricultural and rural areas of
the city, they wouldn’t allow residential development on the land.
In sum, I’d like to see the Plan
reflect that protection and support of rural farms and ranches, as opposed to
turning them into single-family developments.
I thank you again for reading my
comments. I hope I’ve been able to provide some insights into the Comprehensive
Plan’s flaws, and I hope others have done the same. Public involvement in the planning
process is imperative to the well-being of the City’s residents, and I thank
you for the opportunity to play a part in it.
Sincerely,
Brandon Figliolino
