Planning Commission recommends approval of Reunion Center filing 1 amendments to create mixed‑use neighborhood

The Commerce City Planning Commission on Oct. 8 recommended that City Council approve two final plats — Reunion Center Filing 1 Amendment 1 and Amendment 2 — that reconfigure portions of the Reunion planned unit development and create residential lots, commercial lots, open space and private alleys. The commission's motions for both amendments passed 5-0.

Nick Berry, the city planner who presented the cases, told commissioners that "a final plat does not impact zoning or change the allowable uses within the zone district," and that the plats were being considered because the applicant asked for a public hearing rather than administrative approval. He said the plats are in the Reunion PUD (Parcel 1F, TC‑2 development standards) and listed applicable land development code sections reviewed in staff's analysis.

Jeff Mark, principal at Terracina Design and the project presenter for Oakwood Homes, said the two amendments together create a horizontally mixed‑use neighborhood with residential development north of the neighborhood park and commercial lots along the south edge adjacent to East 104th Avenue. Mark and staff presented differing totals in the hearing: Mark described "190 paired homes looking at the 2 amendments as a whole," the initial case materials read aloud by staff listed 84 residential lots in one amendment and 106 in the other, and a later staff slide referenced 198 residential lots; the commission record therefore contains inconsistent lot totals.

Staff described the larger proposal as approximately 35.55 acres for one portion and about 15.25 acres for the other, with a combined set of lots, 10 commercial lots in total, and multiple tracks for open space, utilities, drainage and private rights of way. Staff said the applicant proposes roughly 30% open space (exceeding the code baseline) and noted the PUD allows between 5 and 40 dwelling units per acre; the applicant said the proposed density is about 11.1 dwelling units per acre for the parcels presented.

The development agreement attached to the application allocates responsibility for improvements to Tower Road, East 104th Avenue, Walden Street and internal public right of way, and identifies private alley construction and maintenance obligations. Staff said the development agreement had been finalized but an executed copy had not yet been received at the time of the hearing.

Commissioners asked questions about which comprehensive plan the zoning and plats were originally reviewed against; staff confirmed the PUD zoning decision was made in 2019 and evaluated against the 2010 comprehensive plan, while noting the city adopted a new 2045 plan in 2024. Commissioner discussion focused on whether the final plat review should rely on the PUD and prior zoning decision or the current comprehensive plan; staff explained that final plats are evaluated against the existing zoning document and the approval criteria in the land development code.

Commissioner Schechter moved finding that Reunion Center Filing 1 Amendment 1 (case S-762-20-21-25) meets the land development code and recommending approval to City Council; Commissioner Van Heusen seconded. The motion passed on electronic vote, 5 yeses, 0 nos, 0 abstains. Commissioner Schechter made an identical motion for Amendment 2 (case S-762-20-21-25-25) and Van Heusen seconded; that motion also passed 5-0. The commission then closed the public hearing and moved to the next agenda item.

The record includes eleven comment letters submitted during administrative notice; staff said no additional comments were received after renoticing for the public hearing. Staff also pointed to a letter from the 27J School District (noting land dedication obligations satisfied and sufficient school capacity) and summarized traffic study findings indicating no intersections would fail due to the development as mitigated by the listed improvements.

The commission's recommendations forward the final plats for City Council action; no city council decision occurred at the meeting. The record includes unresolved numerical inconsistencies in the packet about the total number of residential lots (190 vs. 198) that staff and the applicant referenced during the hearing.