Planning Commission recommends denial of Urban Moment 'yard homes' PUD amendment after neighbors raise traffic and commercial‑loss concerns

The Commerce City Planning Commission on Tuesday recommended denial to City Council of a PUD amendment (PUDA25‑00003) proposed by Urban Moment Development that would convert 16.81 acres at 10230 Chambers Road from mixed commercial and single‑family uses to a horizontal multifamily rental product commonly described as "yard homes." The motion to recommend denial passed 3–2 after commissioners raised concerns about removing potential commercial land, project affordability and neighborhood traffic impacts.

Applicant Brad Holland said the site lacks direct frontage on 104th Avenue, which has made it unattractive to commercial developers, and proposed a 227‑unit concept of mostly one‑ and two‑bedroom rental homes with private yards and common amenities. He told commissioners the development would include detached garages for roughly 40% of units and that initial one‑bedroom rents were expected to be in the $1,700–$1,800 range. Holland also said the team’s traffic analysis — built on standard ITE trip‑generation rates — showed lower AM/PM peak trips for the proposed residential product than for the commercial buildout currently allowed in the PUD. “This proposal to change the PUD, the traffic demand would be reduced by 75% compared to the impact of those existing land uses in the current PUD,” he said.

Staff and commissioners pressed the applicant for details. City staff noted that the applicant used industry‑standard ITE rates and that the city’s traffic engineers will identify required improvements; staff recommended approval, finding the amendment compatible with the Comprehensive Plan’s guidance that lists multifamily as a secondary use in the northern neighborhoods and that the proposal meets code approval criteria for a PUD amendment when design standards are included in the PUD document.

Nearby resident Hugo Montano told the commission he and his neighbors oppose opening Jasper Street and fear increased neighborhood traffic; the applicant responded that any Jasper Street connection would be restricted for fire and life‑safety access only and not open for resident through traffic. Montano asked the commission to preserve the existing expectations residents had about surrounding land uses.

Commissioner debate centered on three tensions: staff’s assertion that additional rooftops can help attract retailers, developers’ market argument that the parcel is poor commercial frontage, and homeowners’ reliance interests dating to the original PUD approvals. Several commissioners said the neighborhood already has multiple rental products and that converting this parcel further reduces commercial land in a corridor where retail is desired. After deliberation, the commission voted to recommend denial; the case was scheduled to proceed to City Council (first reading May 18; public hearing/second reading June 15).

The applicant may bring the proposal forward to City Council despite the commission’s recommendation. If the PUD amendment moves ahead in future, staff said design‑level issues — buffers to adjacent homes, right‑of‑way widths, and traffic mitigation — will be finalized during the development‑plan and preliminary‑plat review processes, which require additional public hearings.