HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 12/11/1995• 0
Roll Call: Davidson, Strom, Bell, Mickelsen, Colton, Carnes. Member Walker was absent.
Staff Present: Blanchard, Eckman, Ludwig, Wamhoff, Bracke, Cameron, Deines.
Agenda Review: Current Planning Director Blanchard stated there was no consent agenda and
reviewed the discussion agenda which consisted of the following:
1. #32-95 Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan
2. #32-95A Registry Ridge PUD, Phase I - Preliminary
The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
MEETING BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Held Monday, December 11, 1995
At Fort Collins City Council Chambers
300 West Laporte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
Concerning Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan
and
Registry Ridge Preliminary PUD
Members present:
Gary Carnes, Chairman
Gwen Bell
Glen Colton
Bob Davidson
Jennifer Mickelsen
Bernie Strom
For the City:
Paul Eckman, City Attorney's office
Bob Blanchard, City Planning Office
Mike Ludwig, City Planning Office
• Court reporting services provided by.
Meadors & Whitlock, Inc.
315 W. Oak Street, Suite 500
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
(970) or (800) 482-1506
Fax: (970) 224-1199
071
1
(Video portion of tape not available.)
2
SPEAKER:
Calling to order the continuation of
3
the November 20th Planning
and Zoning Board meeting. On our
4
agenda tonight are primarily
two things: The Registry Ridge
5
Overall Development
Plan and the Registry Ridge PUD. And
6
jumping a little bit
ahead here with Mr. Blanchard, would
7
you please give us a
little more ample description of our
8
agenda tonight?
9
SPEAKER:
Actually, we should proceed with roll
10
call first. Then we
can get into that.
11
SPEAKER:
Davidson.
12
SPEAKER:
Here.
13
SPEAKER:
Strom.
14
SPEAKER:
Here.
15
SPEAKER:
Walker.
16
(Inaudible.)
17
SPEAKER:
Here.
18
SPEAKER:
Mickelsen.
19
SPEAKER:
Here.
20
SPEAKER:
Colton.
21
SPEAKER:
Here.
22
SPEAKER:
Carnes.
23
SPEAKER:
Here.
24
SPEAKER:
Good evening, Chairman Carnes. Board
25
members. If you'll
bear with me tonight, I'm recovering
3
1
from a cold. My voice isn't everything it should be.
2
We have one minor -- well, one thing to the
3
agenda tonight. Based on the continuation from the November
i
4
20th meeting, there were to be three items heard tonight:
5
Agenda Item Number 12, which is the Registry Ridge Overall
6
Development Plan; Item Number 13, which is the Phase 1 of
7
the Registry Ridge PUD, which is a preliminary application;
8
and there was -- we were to hear Item Number 14, which was
9
the Overall Development Plan for Harmony Ridge. Item
10
Number 14 has been continued and will not be heard tonight,
11
so we just have the two items.
12
Also, if I could, there were some handouts
•
13
placed at your chairs tonight. Several of those handouts
14
will be described by Mike Ludwig as they pertain to the
15
Registry Ridge proposal.
16
There was also a publication called City Comforts
17
which is provided to you courtesy of the Planning
18
Department. It was a book that was discussed and read at
19
the conference in Boulder a couple months ago. It fits in
20
very well with some of the activities that are going on for
21
City Plan with Peter Calthorp and Anton Nelson, and we
22
thought you'd enjoy taking a look at it.
23
SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Blanchard. We'll begin
24
with Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan. Staff
.
25
presentation, please.
4
1 SPEAKER: Chairman Carnes and members of the
2 Planning and Zoning Board: I wish to begin my presentation
3 by explaining these additional handouts, which you received,
4 which I distributed prior to the meeting. Copies of those
5 were also made available on the table outside the chambers.
6 So if anyone didn't get a chance to pick those up, I
7 encourage you to go and get those.
8 The first page is a reprint of pages 4 through 8
9 of the Overall Development Plan and staff memo. The only
10 changes made to that, there was a sentence deleted on the
11 old page 6 which referenced County Road 9, Sunstone Drive,
12 Kingsley Drive, and Kentford Drive. And also, there was a
13 modification to Condition Number 3 on the Overall
14 Development Plan, as well as an addition of Condition
15 Number 4. So those are the changes to the Overall
16 Development Plan and staff memorandum.
17 The second handout you received was a reprint of
18 page 9 of the Phase 1 preliminary PUD staff memo. The
19 changes, once again, there, were the modification to
20 Condition Number 3 and the addition of Condition Number 4 as
21 per the City Attorney's office.
22 The third item I distributed was a copy of a
23 memorandum summarizing the neighborhood meeting which was
24 held last Wednesday night on these proposals.
25 The fourth item was a copy of a letter from a
E
•
5
1 neighbor which was received at the Planning Department
2 today.
3 And finally, the fifth item was a list of issues
4 that have been raised by neighbors and affected property
5 owners through the neighborhood meetings and the review
6 process.
7 So I just wanted you to have those additions to
8 your staff memo, and I apologize that they were handed out
9 at the last minute, but it's the only way we can get them to
10 you.
11
This evening the Planning and Zoning Board is
12
considering two requests: The Registry Ridge overall
•
13
Development Plan and the Phase 1 preliminary PUD. The
14
request for Overall Development Plan approval includes 151
15
acres of detached single-family residential. Just to orient
16
everyone in the crowd, to the right-hand side of the slide
17
is Trilby Road, and on the bottom of the slide is Shields
18
Street. So it's turned on its side.
19
This approval -- request for Overall Development
20
Plan approval includes 151 acres of detached single-family
21
residential; 14.4 acres of patio homes, townhomes; five
22
acres of multifamily residential; a three -acre day-care
23
site; a 3.1-acre recreation center site; 7.2-acre school
24
site, with a secondary use listed as detached single-family
25
residential; a six -acre neighborhood park; a 9.5-acre
9
1 commercial site; and 44.2 acres of open space; on a total of
2 244.4 acres.
3 The property is located at the southwest corner
4 of Trilby and South Shields Street and is 3pezoned RLP, low
5 density planned residential, with a PUD condition.
6 A maximum total of 702 dwelling units are
7 proposed, for an overall gross density of 3.07 dwelling
8 units per acre. That figure of 702 units includes possible
9 residential uses on the school site, should a school not be
10 built.
11 The Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan is
12 in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and it
13 exceeds the minimum gross density requirement of three
14 dwelling units per acre. The street layout and traffic
15 volumes projected for the ODP are in compliance with the
16 City's transportation policies, except for the proposed
b 17 roundabouts, which you can see on the plan, and these need
18 to be approved by the Director of Engineering, and that has
19 not been done yet.
20 Staff recommends approval of the Registry Ridge
21 Overall Development Plan with conditions as stated in the
22 staff memo.
23 The applicant has also submitted a request for
24 preliminary PUD for 510 single-family residential lots on
25 196.05 acres of the ODP. They are known as Parcels A, E, F,
7
•
1
K, L, M, N, 0, P, and Q, with a residential density of 2.60
2
dwelling units per acre. Individual phases of an overall
3
Development Plan can be approved with less than three
4
dwelling units per acre provided the overall development is
5
at least three dwelling units per acre.
6
This request for preliminary PUD approval is in
-
7
compliance with the uses designated on the parcels
8
identified. It earns 97 percent of the maximum applicable
9
points on the residential uses point chart of the LDGS,
10
exceeding the minimum required 60 percent for a residential
11
density of 2.6 dwelling units per acre. It meets the all --
12
applicable All -Development Criteria of the Land Development
13
Guidance System, it is in
and compliance with the City's
14
transportation policies, once again, except for those
15
proposed roundabouts at this time.
16
Staff recommends approval of the Registry Ridge
17
PUD, Phase 1 preliminary, with conditions as stated in that
18
staff memo.
19
There have been two neighborhood meetings held
20
regarding this Overall Development Plan and preliminary PUD
21
request. In addition, staff received numerous letters from
22
affected parties of interest, and these are included in your
23
staff memo.
24
The final handout which I distributed identifies
•
25
planning issues which have been raised during the review
8
1 process. After the applicant has made their presentation,
2 I'll place a summary of issues on the overhead projector in
3 an effort to help focus the discussion this evening.
4 Additional planning issues may be identified
5 throughout the public input process.
6 This concludes the staff presentation at this
7 time, and I'm available for any questions you may have.
8 SPEAKER: Board questions at this time?
9 SPEAKER: One brief one. What happens to the
10 density standard if the school site is -- if the school is
11 built?
12 SPEAKER: If the school -- if the school is
13 built, the density still stays at three dwelling units per
14 acre. I believe in the request on the preliminary, if
15 you'll look in the staff memo, page -- on -- just one second
16 here. On page 3 of the ODP, staff memo, it indicates that,,
17 if the school site is built, that acreage can be taken out
18 of the density calculation, and the revised density total --
19 that's a six -acre school site, I believe, and I think they
20 proposed the minimum -- it's a 7.3-acre school site, and if
21 it's not built, 37 units would be built on that property.
22 So we're still over three dwelling units per acre if the
23 school's not built.
24 SPEAKER: Thank you.
25 SPEAKER: Other Board questions?
•
9
1 I guess, from my point of view, the issues
2 pertaining to Registry Ridge are those that were identified
3 by the staff, and I think the applicant and the public
4 should have opportunity to respond to those. And so I'm not
5 certain of the logistics. Would it be feasible to go ahead
6 and put those up and have the applicant and the public look
7 at those before you end your presentation?
8 SPEAKER: What we'll probably have is that the
9 slide -- or the screen for the overhead will cover the slide
10 screens.
11
SPEAKER: I see. Okay.
12
SPEAKER: So we thought that possibly the
•
13
applicant might go ahead and give their presentation, and
14
then we could put that up, if that's possible.
15
SPEAKER: Okay. Would the applicant like to
16
make a presentation at this time?
17
SPEAKER: Thank you, Mike. Mr. Chairman and
18
fellow Board members, I'm Frank Vaught of Vaught Frye and
19
Associates, representing the applicants, Valco Land, LLC.
20
I'd like to start this evening -- I'll have to
21
skip through quite a few of the site slides. Start by
22
giving you a bit of history of the property and the
23
surrounding area. We can certainly come back to these
24
slides at a later time.
•
25
The piece of property is within the Urban Growth
10
1 Area, as shown by the heavy dark line, and within the city
2 limits, as indicated by the dashed red line. It was annexed
3 and zoned back in 1981, zoned RLP, and is adjacent to a
4 piece of property that's been referred to as the Del Webb
5 property. That was an approved master plan. This is a
6 piece west -- or east of Shields that went all the way over
7 to College, County Road 32, and up to Trilby. It was
8 master -planned and approved back in 1984.
9 Subsequently, that plan was revised, and it's
10 now referred to as Ridgewood Hills ODP. That was revised
11 and approved very recently, back in 1994. And in fact, the
12 density, or the Phase 1 development, has started up along
13 Trilby, in this area, and just for reference purposes, the
14 density of that phase is five dwelling units per acre.
15 Now, there are, we think, two significant
16 documents that influence this plan and the issues -- I'm
17 going to have to have a little piece of velcro here, I
18 think, to keep this attached -- but to influence this plan
19 and the issues surrounding it.
20 The first is the All -Development Criteria of the
21 LDGS that requires a minimum of three dwelling units per
22 acre on a gross basis for residential projects within the
23 city limits. More recently, there is an advisory document
24 that is referred to as the plan for the region between Fort
25 Collins and Loveland. A larger, full-scale original of that
• 11
1 document is on the wall.
2 This piece of property is identified in the
3 brown area that are says, "Cluster development to areas
4 within Fort Collins UGA." It identifies this parcel as a
5 residential cluster development and, furthermore, goes into
6 detail as to the definition of residential; that is to say,
7 areas of urban residential development within the Urban
8 Growth Area, densities typically are three or more dwelling
9 units per acre.
10 The issues surrounding this proposal are all
11 related to those two documents and what their requirements
12 contain. These are not new issues to this Board.
13 Density. Density is perceived to be too high
14 and that multifamily in this area is inappropriate. This
15 plan provides the fewest number of units possible while
16 still maintaining the minimum of three dwelling units per
17 acre.
18 Traffic. Because the density is perceived too
19 high, traffic is a concern. However, many improvements will
20 be made surrounding this site on Trilby and along Shields,
21 as well as the extension of a wider section of Shields north
22 to Clarendon Hills that includes bikeway connections to
23 those existing improvements that will improve traffic flow
24 and safety. In fact, a signalized intersection at the -- at
• 25 Shields and Trilby will result with future phases of this
12
1 development. The fact is that there have been no
2 improvements in this area for probably 20 to 25 years, and
3 there will not be any improvements until development occurs.
4 The third concern is related to the commercial
5 uses. our nine -and -a -half -acre complement of commercial is,
6 again, a result of the City's desire to provide mixed -use
7 development. It is not a strip mall nor a joke that has
8 been included for the purpose of achieving points. In fact,
9 we get no points for its inclusion. It is included,
10 however, to provide neighborhood services, and it is
11 connected with sidewalks and bike paths to those residents
12 that will eventually live there.
13 Low -density development, on the other hand, is
14 accustomed to driving two or three miles to services. If
15 these services are incorporated within the plan, then some
16 of those vehicle miles traveled can be altogether eliminated
17 or at least reduced.
18 The original Overall Development Plan that was
19 presented at the first neighborhood meeting has gone through
20 an evolution of changes. This was that plan. It called for
21 commercial to be in this area, on Parcel C, with medium- to
22 high -density areas being from this intersection all the way
23 to Trilby, with low -density small -lot development in these
24 areas, two intersections on the Trilby side and two on
25 Shields, with a recreation area located here. I point those
•
13
1 out because there have been some changes that I'd like to go
2 over.
3 First, we have relocated and decreased the size
4 of the commercial site, put it more in a central location.
5 This particular site, you can see with the relief that it
6 has, we felt was more appropriate for a residential -type
7 project. We've relocated the higher -density areas that were
8 here, around the commercial, and this brown area and in the
9 gold area, and incorporated the day-care center adjacent to
10 those areas.
11
We've redesigned the north area, then, to have
12
larger lots. In particular, this space. We've eliminated
•
13
the curb cut and lane that
circulation came through here.
14
And then have adjusted how we interface with Trilby in terms
15
of our green space.
16
By reducing that density on the north side and
17
increasing the size of those lots, we have less than two
-
18
dwelling units per acre in this zone of the property. So
19
we're looking at trying to accomplish a transition of
20
densities as it relates to those existing county residents.
21
More significantly, we have added, through an
22
off -site donation, 102 acres of open space along Shields
23
that eliminates 732 units that were approved in the
24
Ridgewood Hills Overall Development Plan. Furthermore, the
•
25
applicant has agreed with the City to give an option on the
14
1 acreage to the south that, if purchased, would eliminate
2 another 68 lots.
3 So as I mentioned earlier, the density of this
4 plan is the minimum. Simple mathematics with 230 or 229
5 acres of residential line, requiring three per the acre, is
6 going to get you somewhere around that 700 units. There are
7 many ways that you can look at density. I don't want to
8 confuse the issues this evening, but I do want to be able to
9 point out that by adding additional open space, you
10 effectively reduce the density of this development. It
11 spreads the density over a larger area, and it also
12 displaces existing approved density on that property.
13 I£ one were to look at the off -site donations
14 highlighted in green -- those are the 102 acres -- and put
15 it into the formula of density, the density would
16 effectively drop to 2.1 per acre. Likewise, if this is a
17 scenario, if the multifamily development were eliminated in
18 this area and the strip that was adjacent to the commercial
19 and that was developed at a single-family density of three
20 per acre, another 103 units would be eliminated, dropping
21 the density down to 1.8 units to the acre.
22 So we're saying that density can be altered in a
23 few different ways. It can be altered by adding open space
24 to the region. That's an off -site donation, so we
25 technically can't say that the density on this particular
15
1
site is less than three to the acre, but if you look at the
2
concept of the whole region and the concepts that are trying
3
to be accomplished by the regional plan, you effectively are
4
reducing the density in that area to two units per the acre.
5
Likewise, if multifamily tracts were eliminated,
6
the density could change that way as well. That would
_..
7
require that this Board grant a variance to this project to
8
reduce that overall density below the three that is
9
required. We thought the City would prefer to be consistent
10
with the enforcement of three dwelling units per acre, and
11
in light of the newest document, the preferred land use
12
scenario of the regional plan, also suggest three dwelling
13
units acre, we're here tonight for that
per asking amount.
14
I'd like to refer to the Board and perhaps some
15
of the newer members of the Board that a similar project,
16
Woodland Park PUD, was considered by the Board and approved
17
back in July 24th of this year, with 35 acres, located on
18
the east side of County Road 9, north of Hewlett-Packard, a
19
half mile south of Horsetooth. It also was adjacent to
20
large -lot County subdivisions. Just over three units per
21
acre were proposed and approved over the objections of the
22
neighborhood. The density was kept but transitioned to
23
larger lots with smaller lots and multifamily being on the
24
more western portions of the site. It was appealed by the
•
25
neighborhood to City Council on August 29th of this year,
16
1 and Council upheld the Board's decision by a five -to -one
2 vote to maintain that minimum of three units per acre.
3 I want to reemphasize that the donation of this
4 102 acres, especially when you consider the 732 units that
5 are being -- potential units that are being displaced,
6 certainly, I feel, has an impact on the overall density of
7 this area.
8 There are also five design considerations that
9 were contained in the regional plan, and I thought that it
10 would be appropriate that we look at those, because I think
11 they do apply to this development.
12 The first was to provide opportunities for open
13 space interconnections throughout the planning area. The
14 open space in Registry Ridge, when combined with the donated
15 area and the adjacent master plans to the east, provide a
16 potential pedestrians/bike connection from College Avenue
17 all the way through to the west boundary of this property.
18 That's some mile and a half to two miles of pedestrian and
19 bikeways that would be interconnected.
20 Secondly is to establish generous setback
21 requirements along major roadways to preserve rural
22 character and views. We've studied the setbacks. We have
23 some large blowups of those areas to give you some ideas as
24 to those distances. We vary from 30 to 50 feet along the
25 narrower portions of Trilby, increasing to, I believe it's
.
17
1
140 feet in this area, 75 feet along Shields, and then it
2
opens up considerably up in the northwest corner.
3
We've illustrated the existing residents along
4
Trilby to begin to give you an idea of what those existing
5
setbacks are and looked at placement of residences the way
6
the cul-de-sacs were designed in these areas that provide a
7
variety of streetscape; and in particular, those
8
indentations begin to relate to where those existing
9
residents are and the larger setbacks, as you approach the
10
intersection, for other purposes of visual improvements.
11
Cross -sections illustrate, again, some height
12
and scale as it relates to setbacks. This is at the larger
•
13
area, closest to Shields, where we are looking at distances
14
that are between 150 to 175 feet and the tighter areas,
15
again relating to existing residences, that will include
16
berming and landscaping along those northern portions of the
17
Trilby frontage.
18
Number three is to redefine arterial roadway
19
standards to better fit the plan's goals. I think -- I
20
won't dwell on this one. I think it needs some work in
21 terms of defining what those standards are. I think there
22 is a need to have a transition of what a street looks like
23 as it approaches the more rural areas, and I don't think
24 it's appropriate to be curb -gutter -sidewalk with street
• 25 trees as we see along our major arterials in the city. So
18
1 we're certainly in a position where we'd like to participate
2 in defining those design standards.
3 The fourth is, where appropriate development
4 patterns in the planning area should reinforce the plan's
5 goals. This somewhat summarizes some of the others, but
6 it's to maintain generous setbacks to preserve distant view
7 to mountain backdrops at key locations, to cluster
8 development and preserve drainages and natural features, and
9 to limit access points on arterials to minimize
10 intersections. we feel our plan addresses those issues.
11 The fifth and last is to cluster development to
12 preserve natural features. The two most significant natural
13 features of the site are a flood plain and wetlands that are
14 in this region. The wetlands are highlighted in a darker
15 green area, so you can see that we've preserved a great deal
16 of buffer along those wetlands areas, and a steeply sloped
17 area in the northwest corner that will always be preserved.
18 There are a number of minor drainage ways. You can begin to
19 see some of those coming up through some of these areas that
20 have been incorporated into the open space of the plan.
21 The slope on this site, just for reference
22 purposes, is about one percent from the intersection of
23 Trilby and Shields up to the highest point, which is
24 approximately up in this area, is about a one percent
25 grade. It looks more significant than that when you
19
1
consider one -foot contours that are shown on this plan, but
i
2
when calculated, it's about 35 feet over 1800 feet.
3
I wanted to review a moment the density chart.
4
There were 15 base points. Those were calculated based on
5
the park site that is being deeded to the City, a six -acre
6
park site, and the inclusion of a child-care center, for a
7
total of 15 points there. The 66 points were achieved on
8
the bonus criteria. The one percentage point for every 50
9
acres, active recreation. The off -site dedication was the
10
bulk of that. There were 36 points awarded there. There
11
actually were ten more points available that were not
12
taken. They weren't felt they were needed. And the desires
.
13
of the Natural Resources Department were boundaries that led
14
to its final legal description that those points just
15
weren't taken.
16
The recreation facilities on -site and those
17
improvements that will be made, and then the connection to
18
the existing urban sidewalk in Clarendon was five points,
19
for a total of 81 points. To maintain that three dwelling
20
units per acre, you would be required to have 60 points.
21
So we feel the benefits of the total plan are,
22
number one, we're preserving a very important wetlands in
23
the area and open space. We're providing desirable open
24
space to the City and the County in terms of the off -site
•
25
dedication of the 102 acres. That is in concert with the
20
1 requirements or requests of the regional plan. We're
2 providing connections to the existing city sidewalks that
3 are approximately a half mile away to the north that will
4 give connection for pedestrians and bicyclists to existing
5 urban development. We're providing lower density and
6 buffering as the development transitions to the north.
7 We're complying with the intent of the design considerations
8 of the regional plan. We're exceeding the solar orientation
9 criteria. Sixty-nine percent of the lots meet that
10 criteria. We're designing a neighborhood with a school
11 site, a park, recreation, shopping, and mixed housing
12 opportunities.
13 So in conclusion, I'd like to say that we feel
14 this plan represents an attempt to satisfy the requirements
15 contained in the City's All -Development Criteria, as well as
16 addressing the design guidelines established in the regional
17 plan for land use and densities at this site. Your vote and
18 review of this DDP and preliminary plan, of course, is based
19 on these adopted City documents, and we feel that these
20 documents support approval of this proposal. Thank you.
21 I would like to suggest that an updated traffic
22 memorandum that was sent -- that was, I think, received by
23 the City staff, dated September 5th, 1995, by Matt Delich --
24 it was a response to comments, specific comments, from
25 Elaine Spencer from the County -- be a part of the record
21
1
this evening. I have a copy of that. I think staff does as
2
well, and just for the record, we'd like that included.
3
SPEAKER: Thank you. We'll take that into the
4
record. Also, before you conclude your presentation, I'd
5
like your response to the list of the issues that has been
6
prepared by staff. Could we have those put up on the screen
7
at this time?
8
SPEAKER: Chairman Carnes, it was a good try,
9
but the overhead's being used in another meeting in the CIC
10
room. Sorry.
11
SPEAKER: Do we have copies of this we could
12
distribute to people that are here for public input?
.
13
SPEAKER: We had
copies available outside the
14
door on that available. I can go -- I can make some more.
15
SPEAKER: I have to apologize for making it less
16
convenient for you, but if any of you did not see that and
17
did not get a copy of this list of issues, please help
18
yourself, and perhaps that would, you know, facilitate our
19
discussions. Would you like to address these at this time?
20
SPEAKER: I, for one, didn't get a copy, so I
21
don't have them in front of me. I apologize.
22
SPEAKER: What -- Mr. Chairman, would it be more
23
appropriate, perhaps, if staff presented the issues and each
24
party had an opportunity to respond?
25
SPEAKER: I think that would be more
22
1 appropriate, yes.
2 SPEAKER: I would agree. It would give us an
3 opportunity to review them during that presentation.
4 SPEAKER: Possibly because of technical
5 difficulties, we haven't been able to do quite the things
6 the way we would like to.
7 SPEAKER: Right.
8 SPEAKER: So --
9 SPEAKER: In the age of technology. Thank you.
10 SPEAKER: Thank you.
11 SPEAKER: Chairman Carnes, I'd just like to
12 clarify, in my staff memo, we listed a total of 97 points
13 for this project, 52 points for the off -site open space
14 dedication of 102.89 acres. That is a change tonight in the
15 applicant's presentation of the points that they're claiming
16 from what was originally counted.
17 SPEAKER: This has come up occasionally before.
18 So you're saying that your analysis indicates that's how
19 many points they could claim --
20 SPEAKER: Fifty-two, yes, and that was what staff
21 was willing to award.
22 SPEAKER: Okay. So it seems like that's almost
23 a moot point, considering how many are required.
24 SPEAKER: Sure.
25 SPEAKER: But I think it's important for you to
23
1
do that analysis and -- for the benefit of the Board.
2
SPEAKER: Real quickly, I'd like to go down
3
through the issues that have at least been presented to
4
staff at the neighborhood meetings and through letters which
5
I received during the review.
6
First of all, issue number one has been land
7
use. Shouldn't this area be open space and should it remain
8
undeveloped? Why have mixed use on this property, including
9
a commercial site?
10
The second issue that has been a focal point has
11
been the density requirement. Is three dwelling units per
12
acre too high? Is it compatible with surrounding
.
13
densities? The proposed street improvements to Shields
14
Street and Trilby Road, some of the questions have been
15
asked, what are the improvements, when will it be done, will
16
there be a traffic light at the intersection of Shields and
17
Trilby?
18
As far as traffic, there are concerns about the
19
existing volumes that are currently on Trilby and Shields
20
and what this proposed development would add to that. And
21
in relation, have adjacent developments that are going in
22
right now been included in those traffic figures?
23
Third was, who would be providing fire and
24
police service to this, since there are county residents to
•
25
the north, that a police service there would be through the
24
1 County Sheriff's Department. However, since this project is
2 in the city limits, that would be the police department and
3 fire service. It would be Poudre Fire Authority for both.
4 Question about on -site wetlands on the
5 property. The applicant did outline those in their
6 presentation as far as being on approximately the southern
7 third of the property.
8 Questions regarding the point chart. Questions
9 regarding the on -site open space dedication, how those
10 points are calculated. The park land dedication to the
11 City. And should points be awarded for planned facilities,
12 such as a planned day-care, when they're not a part of the
13 PUD phase?
14 And finally, there were some questions regarding
15 storm water on the property, as far as there were some
16 proposed detention/retention on the northwest corner of the
17 south, and with its outflows going to the north, and
18 questions about off -site easements that might be needed.
19 And so that's a brief summary of the issues that
20 at least I've heard throughout the process. I'm sure there
21 may be some additional ones that may be added this evening
22 in the public input.
23 As far as coming up with answers to those
24 questions, I'm more than willing to try and address how
25 staff looked at those issues. In addition, from the staff,
25
•
1
we have Tom Shoemaker, who is the Director of Natural
2
Resources here this evening, as far as open space and what
3
those different plans are indicating should be done. We
4
have Sherry Wamhoff from the Engineering Department, Eric
5
Bracke from our Transportation Department, and Glen Schulter
6
from Storm Water Utility. At this time, I don't know if you
7
want me to go ahead and go down each of those --
8
SPEAKER: Let's see. It's your discretion, if
9
you prefer to to whenever we get more Board input and
10
questions --
11
SPEAKER: We should probably -- I would suggest
12
more input first, to see if these are all-inclusive or if
•
13
there are others.
14
SPEAKER: Mr. Vaught or whomever is speaking for
15
the applicant, would you care to address any of these at
16
this time?
17
SPEAKER: I guess I would like to reserve the
18
ability to come back up once the neighborhood has presented
19
their concerns and be able to react to more specific detail
20
of these. I assume this is a compilation of some Board and
21
neighborhood concerns that have been put together on one
22
sheet?
23
SPEAKER: And the purpose is to facilitate the
24
input, public input, and also give you an opportunity to see
.
25
what the public -- those concerns are and have been in case
HE
1 maybe you missed some. And
I will, without
changing the
2 order of business as far as,
first we have
staff input, or
3 staff presentation, then we
have applicant
presentation,
4 then we get public input.
I will just come
back and ask
5 you, as a Board member, to
respond to these
after we get the
6 public input.
7 SPEAKER: Thank you.
8 SPEAKER: Thank you. We're now at the point
9 where we're asking for public input. And how many are here
10 tonight to speak to this?
11 And how many of you are representing a group
12 of -- a neighborhood group or some other organization, and
13 how many are here -- first of all, how many are here to
14 represent a group?
15 Okay. So you have that many different groups?
16 Or -- how many of you are speaking as individuals? Let me
17 put it that way.
18 Okay. So we'll allow ten minutes for each group
19 and three minutes for each individual, and please address
20 the issues that are on the list, or if they're not on the
21 list, clearly identify where they might fit on this list, if
22 you would.
23
Again, a lot of the
input gets
to be prolonged
24
and somewhat repetitious. I'm
not saying
tonight,
25
obviously, that's necessarily
going to be
the case. But in
•
27
1
the past, it has, and so this is something we're trying to
2
facilitate communications so that if the issue's been
3
identified and you want to make specific comments or provide
4
information related to one of the items on the list, or if
5
you have a new one or one that didn't get on here, that
6
would help the Board to sort through these things, because
7
there are a lot of issues, a lot of concerns, that have been
8
identified already.
9
So perhaps that will be helpful to you or not, to
10
limit it in any way as to, you know, the kind of input you
11
would choose to make to the Board here, except we have,
12
again, a three -minute limit per individual and ten minutes
13
for each group. So if you could come to both mikes here,
14
both podiums, and identify yourselves, sign in, and write
15
down your address, and if -- while one is speaking, if
16
another could go to the other podium, again, that would help
17
move things along.
18
SPEAKER: Good evening. My name is Leanne
19
Thieman. I live just north of this proposed development on
20
6600 Thompson Drive, and I am speaking on behalf of a lot of
21
us here tonight.
22
We talked about all of us taking our four
23
minutes, but decided, for two reasons, to have just a few
24
major spokepersons here this evening. One is in the
25
interests of time and to be concise, and the second is a
28
1 realization that it really is true that the biggest fear of
2 90 percent of the American population is public speaking.
3 So I'm sort of it.
4 Bill, could I ask for all those who I am
5 representing tonight to stand so you could see whose voices
6 I am speaking for?
7 SPEAKER: Thank you. That was my next question,
8 who you were representing, so . . .
9 SPEAKER: Right. Okay. We feel that this
10 density is very inappropriate for this area, and it doesn't
11 at all maintain the character of the surrounding area. It
12 was interesting when he said there were no improvements in
13 25 years, and I guess that's true if you -- it depends on
14 your definition of improvement. I can't think of how we can
15 improve on the beauty that we live with every day.
16 We understand completely that Mr. McQuarie has
17 presented a plan only according to the rules that -- and the
18 guidelines set by the Planning and Zoning in the City. We
19 know there's a three -unit -per -acre rule. We know that Mr.
20 Ludwig has no choice but to recommend approval of that. But
21 what we're saying is that we need a new and different set of
22 rules.
23 Many of us here live on the north side of this
24 proposed development. Right across the street on Trilby and
25 off Trilby. We live on one -and -a -half to 20-acre sites.
•
Cl
.
29
1
We're in the county. North of us, then, is Cathy Fromme
2
open space, which is 700 acres of open space. To the west
3
of this proposed development -- and some of those people are
4
here tonight, too, as in the county, but they're all five or
5
ten or more acre lots. West of that, then, of course, is
6
the foothills area, some of which has already been purchased
7
for open space. And south, of course, is the proposed
8
corridor.
9
So somehow putting 700 houses and a mini mall
10
and commercial development in the middle of what has already
11
been established by this community to be open space, it
12
seems really inappropriate to us.
13
I the
appreciate comparison to the Woodlands
14
subdivision, but ours is unique. It's not by
15
Hewlett-Packard and by shopping malls and surrounded by
16
houses. We are surrounded by open space and county.
17
Of course, we all know that this is our last
18
chance to preserve the area between Loveland and Fort
19
Collins. What's decided here tonight is forever. And how
20
we want this land to be and how we want it to look.
21
Both cities have made it very clear they want the
22
division. I think the population has made it clear they
23
want the division. Certainly, the passage of the open space
24
tax by such a wide margin, when a lot of the language of
25
that ballot was about the open space between Loveland and
30
1 Fort Collins, certainly speaks to how many people want this
2 to be less dense and open.
3 Last summer, as a matter of fact, Governor Romer
4 was in town, and he was quoted as saying that he hoped that
5 the area between I-25 to the foothills, between Loveland and
6 Fort Collins, remain as open space, that he hated to see the
7 agriculture disappear. He said he hated to have us lose our
I
8 cornfields. Unfortunately, he had the wrong crop but the
9 right idea. It's wheat fields.
10 If you look at everything south of Harmony Road,
11 it is all much more sparsely densely populated than this is
12 being proposed. Even the Ridge, and then you come to Cathy
13 Fromme park, and then you come to our area.
14 We believe there should be an edge of town and a
15 soft edge, and I know there's no accounting for this
16 currently in Fort Collins. Chris Kneeland, when I was
17 speaking with her, the City Councilwoman, told me that many
18 towns call it transition zone or a soft edge, and I think
19 Fort Collins used to have that. When I came, it was -- it
20 was Horsetooth. And now it's Cunningham Corners, but you
21 can still see the houses and the one -acre lots behind them
22 on Shields and Horsetooth there. And now we finally do have
23 a real edge of town, and I think we need to make some
24 exceptions about how we want that to look forever.
25 i read in the Coloradoan this summer, so it must
31
1
be true, that builders are going to Windsor and home buyers
2
and builders are going to Windsor to develop because there
3
they can get larger lots. One- to three -acre developments.
4
And there's no choice for that in Fort Collins. And in the
5
weekend paper, they talked about people doing that in
6
Wellington and Severance because of the very rigid
7
three -units -per -acre rule we have in Fort Collins.
8
Again, we think we need different rules for
9
this. When you think about it, for a choice city, we don't
10
offer many choices in lot sizes. There has been precedence
11
set for this, and making -- waiving the density. The
12
development just south of Cathy Fromme Park that was done
13
the last year or so was zoned much less dense because it was
14
near the open space.
15
When I was talking with Ken Waido of the City
16
Planning Department, he shared with me that in the 1980s,
17
there was a very similar subdivision at I-25 and Prospect,
18
and he called it the Gallantie. It, too, was surrounded by
19
large five- and ten -acre county home sites, but it was in
20
the city, and they waived in density vary -- to get a
21
variance so there could be much less density built then.
22
I think most of us here really supported the
23
Cathy Fromme Open Space and the consideration for all the
24
plant life and the wildlife. When I read that and how many
25
hundreds of species, I was really impressed, and of course,
32
1 we really want to keep that.
2 We -- I added it up, and there are 40 families
3 that live around this proposal. Our acreage total is equal
4 to the total number of acres in this proposal, and it seems
5 like our views should be considered also. Someone said that
6 we wanted our needs considered as much as gophers and
7 groundhogs were, and I guess that's part of the point.
8 We have some confusion sometimes. I understand
9 that these rules are in place, but they don't seem as
10 applicable for our area. It seems like you have conditions
11 and approval of things that are likely never to happen.
12 Dennis Miller of the Loveland school district shared with us
13 that Loveland has no intentions and can never foresee
14 building a school here.
15
I spoke to two different day-care owners in
Fort
16
Collins. They shared with me that even if this is a
17
subdivision, the likelihood of putting a day-care center
18
this far south on the edge, surrounded by County, it's
very
19
unlikely, that instead, people more likely will take their
20
children more near where they're employed in town.
21
And again, a shopping area. They keep kind
of
22
enticing us, gosh, you won't have to drive to town for
a
23
loaf of bread, and we're not really swept off our feet
by
24
that. We don't drive to town for every little thing.
When
25
you live where we do, you're much less frugal with our
33
1 pollution and our gasoline. So we wonder about the wisdom
2 of really having a shopping center or commercial development
3 in an area like this.
4
I know that Mr. McQuarie has also submitted a
5
proposal for a Shenandoah subdivision on College Avenue. I
6
went to that town -- neighborhood meeting and learned that
7
he's proposing a shopping center and so forth there. So it
8
seems to us like we could go there for our bread, and it
9
would work.
10
I think it's important to realize that this area
11
is always going to be in the country. It is different. It
12
is surrounded by County. It is surrounded by open space.
•
13
And
you can connect it with a bike path, which seems like
14
another silly rule to enforce, because you're going to be
15
taking the bike path right past the farms to comply with the
16
City rule and make it connect with the -- the -- the
17
southern city limits. And I also wonder if that's what we
18
want. I mean, do we really want to make this area fit with
19
the City and go by City rules? Or do we need new rules?
20
When I spoke with Russ Legg, I was curious about
21
the McKee trust, which I understand is called the McKee
22
terrible trust now, but he assured me that there's no plans
23
currently to go on with this subdivision, which is proposed
24
for the corridor area as well, adjacent to that.
25
But when he was talking with me, what struck me
34
1 was, I said, why would you ever approved such a densely
2 populated area in the middle of nowhere? And he said it was
3 because the new growth area was there and they thought that
4 Fort Collins was going to be building lots of houses there.
5 And yet the other night at the neighborhood meeting, I
6 learned that the only reason that Fort Collins was planning
7 to build something quite so dense was because McKee was
8 going to do that.
9 And I wonder if that's not more of a reaction
10 plan, and instead of reacting that way, don't we need a
11 really carefully thought-out strategic plan about how the
12 periphery of our city should look forever? And I keep
13 thinking about a plan and new rules, and I learn that
14 somebody else thinks so, too, because the Urban Growth Area,
15 Urban Growth Agreement, is currently being rewritten. Ken
16 Waido says that plan is expected to be finished by May. So
17 it makes sense to us to see how the new proposal and the
18 strategic plan says this area is supposed to look forever.
19 I think we have the potential here for a very
20 much a win -win situation. When we had our first new
21 neighborhood meeting with Mr. McQuarie -- or not our first,
22 but the biggest one, in April of 195, he said, and everybody
23 here heard him, and even Mr. Ludwig did when he said, "I'll
24 build this any way you want it. If you want acreages, I'll
25 build you acreages." We have a win -win situation in that we
35
1 are a community surrounding it, and yes, we want acreages,
2 and beyond that, I think we have a community that has
3 already made a statement about how they're concerned about
4 the urban sprawl and how they want it to be developed.
5 In September of '94, the Coloradoan did a survey
6 and they determined that the urban growth sprawl was the
7 number one concern of 32 percent of the northern Front Range
8 citizens, over crime and education, the urban sprawl. So we
9 have 32 percent of the population very concerned about
10 this.
11
And
I think it's important that we're not talking
12
just
selfishly
here, if we don't
want this in our back
Really,
13
yard.
on a wider basis,
we honestly believe that we
14
need
to look at
the edge of our
town, all the edges of our
15
town,
and what
rules we're going
to apply on how that's
16 going to look.
17 SPEAKER: Excuse me. I think your time's up.
18 Would any individuals like to give up any of their time, or
19 are you about to finish?
20
SPEAKER:
I have about
four minutes, and --
21
SPEAKER:
Someone like
to give up three minutes?
22
Okay. Okay.
23
SPEAKER:
I'm talking
really fast, too. Well,
24
what we were hoping
was instead of
-- I guess we were hoping
25
instead of 20 of us
talking times
four that maybe we could,
1
2
3
4
36
instead of using 8o minutes, I could have 15 instead of 10.
Also, when you consider -- and I learned that
the three units per acre -- really hasn't been technically
proven in Fort Collins, and I learned this from the City
5 Planning and Zoning staff. That these statistics of three
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
units per acre were taken from a 1970 national study and
never really been technically proven here.
And then when I realized if we're going to comply
with existing rules, then I think we have one in effect that
definitely applies to us, and it's from the
Intergovernmental Agreement from Fort Collins Urban Growth
Area published April 29th, 1989, and it says, quote,
concerning density, intensity, and location, and then there
was number one, and a capital A, a new residential
development in the Urban Growth Area shall mitigate
potential negative impact on adjacent existing residential
developments by maintaining the character and density of the
existing developments along the common boundary.
I'm told this rule is still in effect. In an
ideal world, we'd love it to stay open and be wheat fields,
thinking that maybe amber waves of grain truly is the best
way to separate these two communities. But the world's not
always ideal, so if we can't have our first choice in a
semi -ideal world, we wish it to be developed in acreages so
it can maintain the character and density of the common
0 •
0
37
1 boundary.
2 A compromise would certainly be a much, much less
3 densely populated area. That's why we are imploring you to
4 please not approve this tonight, certainly not the second --
5 a development that is asking to begin tonight, and that we
6 wait until the Urban Growth Land Agreement has been
7 rewritten so we can do this according to a very strategic
8 and carefully made plan.
9 Thank you.
10 SPEAKER: Thank you.
11 Please -- please refrain from demonstrations.
12
Thank you.
13
SPEAKER: My is Dean Miller.
name My wife,
14
Jean, and I have lived at 1300 La Eda Lane since August of
15
1964. Our home is located one block north of Trilby and one
16
block west of Shields.
17
In the past seven or eight years, traffic on
18
Shields and traffic on Trilby, this traffic, a lot of this
19
traffic, is going to the County landfill and recycling
20
center. But in the last seven or eight years, the traffic
21
has increased dramatically.
22
Living in that area and waiting, sometimes, for
23
as many as 25 or 30 or more cars to pass -- that would be
24
cars going in both directions -- is already a problem.
25
Having to enter Trilby and having to enter Shields at the
38
1
present time during the busy times of day is a problem and
2
potentially dangerous at the present time, because of the
3
volume and because of the speed of the traffic.
4
In late summer, my wife heard a collision at the
5
intersection of Trilby and Shields. Out of curiosity, we
6
checked our watches at that time. A fire truck arrived in
7
approximately eight minutes. It took approximately 25
8
minutes for a Sheriff's deputy to arrive at the scene of the
9
three -car collision. The deputy arrived, pulled into the
10
intersection, talked briefly with the firefighter, and left
11
without ever getting out of the car. It was over an hour
12
before a state patrolman arrived.
13
I have concerns about the City and the County
14
having the resources to provide adequate protection and
15
services to the area. However, I believe fire protection is
16
adequate with the location of two stations just a few miles
17
away.
18
Now, it isn't clear to me who will have
19
responsibility for maintaining Trilby Road and Shields. At
20
Trilby, we have the County on the north side and the City on
21
the south side. This proposed development is isolated. If
22
you haven't seen it, it is truly isolated.
23
Even though it's annexed into the city, it is
24
really isolated and surrounded largely by county land. This
25
seems to me to be creating a problem and creating a
39
1
situation which leads to lots of problems, lots of
2
misunderstandings, and a diluting of responsibility, even to
3
the extent of acknowledging current problems as well as
4
addressing problems that will be occurring as a result if
5
this development is approved.
6
For example, I believe I saw this evening where
7
there would be connections with existing sidewalks. From
8
our home, I've tried real hard. I don't know. I'm sure
9
it's over a mile. It may be a distance of two miles or more
10
from our home to any existing city sidewalks.
11
We will be affected indirectly by any drainage
12
system that feeds into the natural drainage approximately
13
two blocks north of our home. During any wet season,
14
mosquitoes are a problem, and any increases in the amount of
15
storm water flowing through the natural drainage will
16
exacerbate the problem.
17
The proposed Registry Ridge development is
18
isolated. And the proposed development is very
19
inconsistent, as Leanne has shared with you, with the
20
surrounding areas which include acreages, open space, narrow
21
roads, separation of Fort Collins and Loveland, a transition
22
zone between the two cities, and the proposed corridor.
23
I guess one my really basic concerns, having
24
lived here for approximately 30 -- 32 years, is that with
25
this type of sprawling development and with the large
40
1 amounts
of open area
between highways,
between roads,
2 between
streets, that
not only are we
devouring large
3 amounts
of landscape,
we are increasing the need for more
4 people to drive.
5 By this type of development, we're increasing
6 pollution in the area. By increasing the amount of traffic,
7 it becomes a less hospitable place and friendly place to
8 live.
9 I believe now is the time to begin filling in
10 these spaces. I believe now is the time to reduce the
11 spiraling costs of extending and maintaining
12 infrastructure. In my opinion, the proposed development
13 should be postponed for the welfare and benefit of those who
14 currently live in the area, as well as those who will be
15 moving into the area.
16 Until we can do, in my opinion, a better job of
17 keeping things more uniform, with better planning, and with
18 less costs for extending and maintaining infrastructure, I
19 believe that the best we could do, and perhaps at this time,
20 would be to postpone this proposed development, pending
21 completion of the Urban Growth Area plan. I thought that it
22 was to be completed in April of 1996, but I believe Leanne
23 projected May of 1996.
24 Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of
25 the issues and concerns which are certainly important to
41
11
1
me. Thank you.
2
SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Miller.
3
Please -- please, no applause. We're not voting
4
on audience response at all. We're here to get public input
5
and facts and opinions and things that will help us weigh
6
our decisions.
7
SPEAKER: My name is Bob Furst, and my property
8
is on the southern edge of the proposed development, on the
9
east side of that section in there, and mine is more of a
10
question that I'd like to have addressed, perhaps when Matt
11
gets up in addressing the traffic situation. I did attend
12
the neighborhood meeting last week, and Matt explained to us
13
that their
projections were for a 2,000 more cars per day,
14
as I understand it.
15
My question -- and I do understand that the road
16
will be widened or improved, clear up to Clarendon Hills,
17
north of the project. My question is, does the City have
18
any plan whatever to do anything with the intersection of
19
Horsetooth and Shields, since that is a bottleneck that
20
comes down to one lane, and no matter what we do north of
21
where we're talking about and south of where we're talking
22
about, if everything bottlenecks into one lane, it would
23
seem to me that 2,000 additional cars every day is going to
24
back all the way up, and I don't know if any provision has
25
been made. I'd like to have an answer if there is one.
42
1 Thank you.
2 SPEAKER: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Furst.
3 Please come forward and stand at both podiums so
4 we can get through this a little quicker.
5 SPEAKER: Good evening. Sign in here a second.
6 What I have to say is just brief. In a way, it
7 reiterates --
8 SPEAKER: Excuse me. Could you please identify
9 yourself?
10 SPEAKER: I'm sorry. Frank Dowling is my name,
11 and I live at 1704 West Trilby Road, which is roughly a
12 quarter mile to the west and the north of the proposed
13 development.
14 What I have to say is brief. In a certain
15 sense, it reiterates what Leanne Thieman has had to say, but
16 what I'd like to hit upon is just the fact that in this last
17 November 7th election, the citizens of both Larimer County
18 and the city of Fort Collins did voice overwhelmingly their
19 support for the open space concept.
20 This particular plan, or this plan in particular,
21 but I think it speaks to the intent of the open space plan
22 that people have for it, namely, more than just assigning
23 numbers and points and, you know, value criteria. of
24 course, we do need to quantify things. I understand. But
25 the concept of there being visually and perceptually, you
43
1
know, transition zones and space and distances between the
2
cities and towns as we grow, and again, just like to
3
emphasize that, and my opinion on that.
4
Also, I noticed when we were doing the slide
5
presentation, they flipped through a lot of slides of the
6
general area. And I was wondering, I don't know how
7
familiar -- I certainly know the Planning Board here is
8
familiar with the area, but I was wondering if perhaps we
9
might look at those at some point this evening just so
10
everybody can get an idea of what it is we're talking
11
about. Thank you.
12
SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Dowling.
13
SPEAKER: Good evening. My name is Susan
14
Asalyas, and I'm a property owner along with other members
15
of my family, a family farm, at the northeast corner of
16
Trilby and South Shields. And I'd like to thank the
17
planning staff. I've talked on several occasions with the
18
planning staff about this proposed development in order to
19
understand the integration of the housing and of the open
20
space. I'm speaking tonight in favor of this project. And
21
I thought about that as I was sitting in the audience. I
22
thought, why do I like this?
23
Perhaps I have a little different perspective.
24
I grew up on this farm. We moved there in 1954. And I
25
guess I'd have to say in 1954, and for many years
44
1 afterwards, this area of town, I would say that it really
2 was rural in nature.
3 From my point of view, of having grown up there,
4 it really doesn't look at all rural to me. I work currently
5 in a planning and affordable housing component for the City
6 and County of Denver, so I have some background in land use
7 planning and also some background in housing.
8 The majority of my comments are directed really
9 toward preserving some large chunks of open space, which I
10 believe this proposal does, in return for clustering of
11 homes, as I would say I personally don't find one or three
12 acres kind of tract housing particularly conducive to a
13 sense of rural character. And again, I have to speak,
14 that's my point of view. Rural to me is growing up on 200
15 acres, not three acres.
16 But I really find this proposal -- and as I
17 said, I studied it quite extensively -- certainly does seem
18 to preserve some buffers between the residential area. It
19 certainly provides a great amount of space, and open space,
20 which a number of individuals other than the individuals
21 just in the immediate neighborhood might enjoy.
22 And as I said, personally, I find that -- that to
23 be much more desirable, the creation of public open spaces
24 where individuals from outside the immediate community may
25 enjoy those wetlands or those open spaces, as opposed to the
45
1 enjoyment of the particular one- or two- or three- or even
2 five -acre parcel, which is only accessible to that
3 individual landowner.
4
So let me conclude my remarks. Thank you.
5
SPEAKER: Thank you, Ms. Asalyas.
6
SPEAKER: (Inaudible.) Vara Misa. I live on
7
Wine Flower Road, which is on the corner of Taft and
8
Trilby. But I just wanted to say that not everybody can get
9
a choice of living either in the city or on a 200-acre
10
farm. There are a few of us, like my husband and I, came
11
into this town a couple years ago, and we were looking for a
12
space that was not -- so we didn't have a neighbor right
13
next to somebody who could
see out of our window.
14
And I think that a lot of people who would like
15
to live in an acre or two or three acres, and I think that's
16
a choice that people need to be given. And this being
17
people who like to live in the city can live right in the
18
middle of the city or close to work or whatever they find
19
convenient, and that's a style of life.
20
But for those who think that they could have a
21
little bit of space, being on the edge of town and bordering
22
the county, it would be very nice, and I'd like to -- I
23
don't want to reiterate what Leanne said, but soft acreage
24
is a choice, and for those of us who want it, I think the
.
25
City should look into that. And this is being on the edge,
46
1 and again, close to Loveland. I'd like to appeal for
2 acreages, if not having open spaces. That's all I want to
3 say.
4 SPEAKER: Thank you. Is there other public
5 input at this time? Okay.
6 Hearing none, I'll bring it back to the Board.
7 I guess that we'll give the applicant opportunity to respond
8 to the issues that have been identified on the piece of
9 paper here and the ones that have been identified through
10 public input. Not looking for new information but really to
11 be quite specific, as far as addressing particular issues
12 here. And then after that, other Board members may have
13 questions of you later on. And then we'll have the staff's
14 response to the questions. Would you like for me to
15 reiterate any of the ones for the public input?
16 SPEAKER: I think we tried to take good notes.
17 I think this will be a combination of myself and perhaps
18 Matt Delich addressing some of the traffic issues. There
19 was a storm water question at the bottom of the page that if
20 the Board wishes, we can have our engineering firm, Northern
21 Engineering, address that. And then I think Lucia Liley
22 would like to speak to some IGA/UGA issues.
23 As far as density, I think that we have
24 presented to the Board the options. Sometimes a soft edge
25 could be looked at as urban sprawl, from a standpoint of
47
1 planning terms. The City has a desire to maintain certain
2 minimum densities and have explored with the County the
3 whole concept of transfer of development rights that
4 suggests clustering and preserving open space.
5 And it's been our intention from the beginning to
6 not be like the existing neighbors, because we're in the
7 city and they're in the county, but to address those buffers
8 and the design considerations that we've presented this
9 evening and still maintain the City's desire to provide the
10 types of densities that they have felt appropriate to
11 enforce.
12 So I will -- I won't dwell on the specifics of
13 the density per se, because I think we've done that in our
14 presentation. The -- I'll skip down to fire and police
15 service. It's in the city limits. The improvements that
16 will be done will be at the developer's expense and those
17 areas will be maintained and served by City fire and police.
18 The on -site wetlands, an independent firm was
19 hired to study the existence of and identify the perimeter
20 of those wetland areas, and they have been illustrated on
21 the map.
22 The point chart, as far as the off -site open
23 space dedication, that has had careful review by staff, and
24 has been presented to the Natural Resources Board to
25 determine its appropriateness for acceptance as well as
48
1 points being awarded. And I believe that information is in
2 your packet, and it is very clear that they have given it
3 careful consideration and feel it is appropriate.
4 The park land dedication has -- there is a deed
5 and process that has been submitted to the City. It's being
6 attempted to be put in escrow so that that land is set aside
7 permanently, at no cost to the City, those six acres.
8 Should points be awarded for planned day-care,
9 the density chart is not specific when it comes to
10 day-care. It is in every other area. It either says it is
11 existing or planned. In this case, it just says day-care.
12 So we have to assume that because you're planning a large
13 piece of property that it has to happen at that planning
14 stage. We take it, however, one step farther, and a deed is
15 in escrow with Peace With Christ Lutheran Church, who are
16 very interested in at least a day-care facility if not a
17 school.
18 The commercial, I believe, was discussed and
19 questioned why there would be commercial at this location
20 and why there would be commercial at a future location on
21 College Avenue. There two different types of commercial
22 centers being planned. One is a neighborhood community
23 center that would have larger uses in it as far as potential
24 food stores and retail centers. The nine and a half acres
25 on this site is not large enough to accommodate a Toddy's
49
1
type neighborhood center. It's just a local -- probably
2
have a neighborhood convenience center within it and a
3
implement of small offices, again, all of which would be
4
reviewed by this Board. So there would be two different
5
types of commercial. And I, again, won't dwell on the
6
appropriateness of mixed use, because it was addressed
7
earlier.
8
I think that hits the highlights of what I can
9
address. Lucia, would you like to address the IGA?
10
SPEAKER: For the benefit of, I guess, everyone
11
here, staff, Board, and public, we're trying an innovation
12
here in terms of facilitating public input and the whole
13
because a lot of times these things
process, have gone on
14
for hours and hours and get very repetitious, and then we
15
remember, how can we forget, some of the points or address
16
some of the points.
17
So if the projector had been here, we would have
18
had the staff presentation, which is the first order, first
19
thing we do, and then they would have made a presentation of
20
a summary of issues identified to that point in time. Then
21
the applicant would have made their presentation and would
22
have had an opportunity to respond to these in their
23
presentation. And we would have public input. And then at
24
that point, the public would have had the benefit of hearing
25
the staff and the applicant's responses to these issues, the
50
1 neighbors, and other members of the public have raised. And
2 then finally, it comes back to the Board, and for additional
3 questions of anyone here, actually.
4 So we're a bit out of the ordinary order. we're
5 trying something new. Please bear with us, and we'll have
6 an overhead projector here next time, or I don't believe
7 we'll be attempting this.
8 So would you please respond to the public's
9 concern about the IGA/UGA?
10 SPEAKER: Mr. Chair, members of the Board, my
11 name is Lucia Liley. I represent the applicant.
12 There was a suggestion that perhaps there should
13 be a tabling of this, if you will, or a waiting until the
14 IGA is amended. I wanted to talk just a minute about that.
15 I think that that would not address -- even if
16 the Board were to consider that, that would not address the
17 issues that the neighborhood is raising about Registry
18 Ridge, for the simple reason that no matter what the City
19 and County decide to do about IGA amendments, they would not
20 apply to property that is already annexed into the city.
21 That would apply only to properties within the Urban Growth
22 Area but not yet annexed.
23 I think there's been that discussion with other
24 projects and plans that have come up, but I think, again,
25 waiting wouldn't really accomplish anything, because the
51
•
1
rules we have to look to are what the City's adopted plans
2
and policies are; and right now, like it or not, those
3
require a minimum of three dwelling units per acre.
4
It's interesting to note, too, that what's
5
driving the IGA amendments that are coming back to the
6
Council in the spring, the driving force is really the
7
corridor plan. one of the implementation strategies, the
8
first one, recommended in the corridor plan, is for both the
9
cities of Loveland and Fort Collins to take a look at their
10
IGA agreements, and to the extent that the IGA provisions
11
are inconsistent with those areas in the corridor plan which
12
are recommended for open space or for a lower density of
13
that they
residential, may amend them so that they don't
14
have inconsistent documents.
15
One point I want to stress is that if you look
16
at the corridor plan, this area proposed for Registry Ridge
17
is not shown for lower -density residential or for open
18
space. It's shown basically for urban residential
19
development at three dwelling units per acre with the
20
exception of the one parcel Frank pointed out. And we have
21
agreed with the City to make an offer, basically, and to do
22
an option contract with the City, if they choose, again,
23
consistent with the intent of the corridor plan.
24
The second implementation strategy of the
•
25
corridor plan is to really look -- is to look at a transfer
52
1 of development rights program and to implement that so that
2 those areas designated in the corridor plan as, again, open
3 space can have their development rights taken off and put in
4 areas of the plan designated for urban -level development.
5 And if you think about it, that's exactly what's
6 being recommended here, with the open space dedication to
7 the City of the other property, which is designated on the
8 corridor plan as open space, desired open space. So they
9 want to preserve as part of the corridor open space,
10 putting it on Registry Ridge, which is designated in the
11 corridor plan as being appropriate for urban -density, higher
12 residential development.
13 The only other point I wanted to make is an
14 issue or a statement was made about Fossil Creek, which was
15 a project adjacent to the Cathy Fromme Prairie, and that the
16 fact that that had imposed on it by the City Council a lower
17 density than three dwelling units per acre. And it's true
18 that it did. But that was placed on that development by the
19 Council as a condition of annexation and zoning, based upon
20 evidence the Council had in the record that there would be
21 potentially an impact on wildlife habitat, particularly
22 eagles and ferruginous hawks. When Woodland Park came up,
23 to the contrary, when there wasn't that kind of an issue,
24 but simply a compatible issue, the Council didn't make that
25 kind of variance, request or want that kind of variance, on
. 53
1 the density.
2 So I think the point that Frank was making is,
3 it's real difficult, when you have that minimum requirement
4 and when you see what has been done very recently, to know
5 how to deal with this issue and meeting the City's
6 requirements while understanding that the neighborhood might
7 want a lower density. We feel at this point that all we
8 can do is comply with that three dwelling units per acre in
9 the absence of anything we see that would dictate that
10 either the Board or Council would approve a variance to
11 that.
12
I want to correct one point that Frank made
.
13
about the deeds. The deeds have actually all been put in
14
escrow. They're fully executed and have been put in an
15
irrevocable escrow. They've been reviewed and approved by
16
the City. And those are deeds for all the on -site open
17
space, deeds for the park site, and a deed for the day-care
18
center. Thank you.
19
SPEAKER: Thank you, Ms. Liley.
20
Now, we'll bring it back to the Board for -- I'm
21
going to try to summarize the questions for the staff on the
22
part of the public. And starting with Leanne Thieman's
23
questions, I think some of those have been addressed by the
24
applicant. I'd like to also hear the staff address the
•
25
corridor, the corridor plan, and the open space dedication,
54
1 the -- I think those would be the two to start with. It
2 seems like that's the big picture we're working from at this
3 point.
4 SPEAKER: I'd like to defer to Tom Shoemaker,
5 the Director of Natural Resources, as far as the open space
6 plan and the ---I'm sorry, the corridor plan.
7 SPEAKER: Again, Chairman Carnes and members of
8 the Board. I guess what I would like to do is give you just
9 my perspective on both the open space dedication and what
10 we've done in reviewing that, and also give you my
11 perspective as one of the staff members who was involved in
12 preparing the corridor plan. And if you have specific
13 questions, I know you'll let me know of them.
14 Mike, if you could help me find the slide that
15 shows the different parcels on the off -site dedication.
16 On -site up there in the last part of Lucia's speech was
17 off -site, when she was talking about the deeds.
18 Okay. I think I'll -- can the cameras get this
19 map okay so that you all can see it? Okay.
20 Starting with the bigger picture, this is the
21 preferred land use scenario for the plan for the region
22 between Fort Collins and Loveland. On a historical basis,
23 when we refer to the corridor plan, we were talking about
24 this one -mile strip between the Urban Growth Areas of
25 Loveland and Fort Collins. When the plan was redone and
E
.
55
1
adopted earlier this year, I think our thinking -- I don't
2
think, I know our thinking about open space and natural
3
areas in this region had evolved quite a bit.
4
And so rather than a one -mile buffer or one -mile
5
separation between the two cities, we expanded the study
6
area dramatically and included, at least for the
7
consideration of context, from Harmony Road all the way down
8
to 57th Street in Loveland. And I think what we did, and
9
was also to look at various open space considerations,
10
agricultural protection, areas around the airport,
11
significant natural areas, and that sort of thing, in
12
forming the recommendations about a sort of a vision of a
13
preferred land use scenario for this area.
14
I think the most important thing to notice is
15
that there's an awful lot of green on this area, or on this
16
map. It is, in my judgment, ambitious at this point in
17
time, even given the overwhelming support for open space
18
approved by the voters recently. I don't have the exact
19
acreage here, but I think just in comparing, if you envision
20
the known hypothesis being either brown or yellow throughout
21
the entire study area, you can see that the plan that was
22
approved as a preferred land use scenario did envision quite
23
a bit of open land. And a major step forward from where we
24
were before.
•
25
Two points, I guess. One is that this remains
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
56
ambitious. It also is meant to be conceptual at this point,
meaning hard boundaries. We didn't -- weren't able to take
the study area to look at, you know, is this boundary
exactly right? But generally, to give a vision of the
future land use scenarios.
With respect to the area involved in the
off -site dedication, this area was clearly identified as
desirable open lands in this plan and had previously been
identified in the City's natural areas plan, at least the
area between the top of the bluffs and the railroad tracks.
The main reason for that was the significant natural feature
of the bluffs and the remnant native prairie bluff -type
vegetation there. We felt that if you're traveling north or
south on Shields and want to have a view of those bluffs,
that keeping the area between the railroad tracks and
Shields open was also important to accomplish.
With respect to this area in here, I'll be
really honest. At the point in time when we were putting
together the plan, we were looking at -- it was a very
difficult process. Mr. Colton was involved in this as
well. And there was sentiment that none of this should
happen or none of this was feasible, and we'd have colored
areas all through this, to the sentiment that all of it
should be green.
And with respect to this area, you know, I think
57
•
1
it is a judgment call. And our judgment to the part of the
2
people who worked with task force and various boards and
3
commissions was that it was within the city limits of Fort
4
Collins, had been for quite some time, and we didn't see a
5
compelling reason to suggest that change in that particular
6
location.
7
With respect to the off -site dedication, what we
8
have done is reviewed the proposal by the applicants and
9
basically negotiated the off -site dedication proposed. As
10
the Board is quite familiar, the current LDGS does allow
11
awarding of bonus points for off -site dedications. However,
12
at present, the criterion for that are a little fuzzy, so we
•
13
felt thought it very important to look very carefully at
14
what was being proposed.
15
Fundamentally, though, we had two adopted plans
16
suggesting or saying that this area should be left open in
17
whole or in part. The applicant suggested the Area 1,
18
approximately 71 acres, be dedicated. My response back to
19
them was, 71 acres of this ridge, by itself, doesn't do us
20
much good. And so we said that, at minimum, we needed the
21
ability to have Area 3 as well at a fair and reasonable
22
price, and they agreed to that. We also suggested that they
23
include Area 2 in the dedication, and they agreed to that.
24
We have an option agreement on Area 4 and Area 5
•
25
as well. The reason we are a little ambivalent about Area 4
58
1 is not that we don't feel it would be desirable open space,
2 but it does have at least an ODP approval for an affordable
3 housing project there; and given the need for affordable
4 housing in this community, we feel that further discussion
5 needs to occur before we would move ahead and acquire that
6 site.
7 We have, I think, maintained the ability to meet
8 the spirit and intent of the corridor plan with respect to
9 Area 5, but frankly, we're waiting to see what we might be
10 able to work out with the McKee Charitable Trust and what
11 that might evolve as well. Purchasing this area for open
12 space, if McKee develops, may not make a lot of sense. If
13 it doesn't develop, it probably makes a whole lot of sense.
14 I hope I've addressed your questions. If you
15 have specific ones, I'll try harder.
16 SPEAKER: Quickly, while Mr. Shoemaker is at the
17 podium, would other Board members have questions of him at
18 this time?
19 SPEAKER: What type of raptor population do we
20 have in that area?
21 SPEAKER: One of the resource value in this area
22 is its use as a wintering habitat for eagles and hawks. The
23 major area where -- and I don't have specific numbers at my
24 fingertips. we do consider that one of the areas that has
25 higher -than -usual wintering raptor activity, the Cathy
•
59
1
Fromme Prairie over in this area, certainly a locus of
2
activity.
3
Part of what's going on here is the prairie dog
4
colony and the size of the area. And we have observed that,
5
we feel that an area of at least a hundred acres is
6
important to maintain use by wintering raptors, and that's
7
part of the motivation for what we were trying to achieve in
8
our discussions with the applicant here.
9
SPEAKER: what type of -- I realize you need a
10
larger acreage, but one thing I think of, if this were to
11
become open space, is Area 4, which is an option. If that's
12
factory homes and things of that sort, you'd have a much
•
13
higher density here. I wonder how great an impact that
14
would be on that raptor area, even though it's a sizable
15
area.
16 SPEAKER: It would certainly move activity away
17 from there, so I would expect some decrease in activity in
18 this area. I think part of the question as well, though,
19 relates to this whole picture of green over in here, where
20 we are working very, very hard to protect very substantial
21 areas of both cropland and grassland further to the west,
22 abutting the foothills.
23 SPEAKER: Thanks.
24 SPEAKER: Tom, I don't know if you're the right
25 person or not, but what is the status of McKee area and --
W
1 do you know the status? Oh, well.
2 SPEAKER: I think the question was, what was the
3 status of McKee Charitable Trust property.
4 SPEAKER: Right. We're developing a bunch of
5 open space, and housing right to the south of us, anyway.
6 What's the kind of impact on this? Like you said, is Area 5
7 worth acquiring if you have development to the south?
8 SPEAKER: Well, I think that is a decision we
9 would need to make later as -- you know, once we know better
10 the status of the McKee project. My best understanding on
11 it, as based on a conversation with Mr. Legg from Larimer
12 County, as recently as a week ago, is that they do have
13 preliminary approval on that, and as you know, that involved
14 conservation easement on 640 acres to the south. So they're
15 clustering their units to the north there. But they
16 haven't -- haven't any indication of that project moving
17 ahead in the near future.
18 SPEAKER: And one other thing. In the plan for
19 the corridor, McKee area was not in there, right, either in
20 the preferred or the alternative area. That wasn't showing
21 any development with McKee --
22 SPEAKER: Well, no, it wasn't. And as the Board
23 is aware, the plan isl an advisory document at this point in
24 time, and the City of Fort Collins did oppose that
25 approval. The County did approve it. And I believe the
61
1 rationale for approving it was that they really had
2 dedicated, or will dedicate, 640 acres as part of it.
3 SPEAKER: This might be a better question for
4 Mr. Vosburg, I don't know, regarding the McKee and how their
5 conceptualization of clustering versus the clustering that
6 we're doing in the Registry Ridge, how would those two
7 compare in terms of viewing it on how many acres and the
8 degree of clustering?
9 SPEAKER: Maybe we should do this later.
10 SPEAKER: I think so. Let's finish with the
it public's questions, get the staff response, and then we'll
12 come back to that. So if you'll hold that, please.
13 Leanne Thieman had one other question that I
14 note here, that, again, I think we've had a response from
15 the applicant that's very specific regarding the day-care.
16 Leanne thought that would be unlikely, and I guess, Mr.
17 Eckman, could you translate what we were told about the
18 placing that in escrow, the day-care?
19 SPEAKER: As I understand it, there was an
20 agreement that had been reached with the church and has been
21 executed whereby the church will operate the day-care
22 center. So -- and I would have to seek verification from
23 Ms. Liley, but I gather that the developer, if the
24 development proceeds, the developer is obliged to the church
. 25 to establish that day-care center. Or would that not be
62
1 correct? We'll get clarification from her regarding the
2 obligation of the developer.
3 SPEAKER: No. The only thing that has been done
4 is to put a deed, a signed, executed deed, into an
5 irrevocable trust escrow. The church has voted to accept
6 it. So, again, it's contingent on approval, obviously, of
7 Registry Ridge, and automatically, if that is approved, it
8 will come out of escrow and become property of the church
9 for a day-care, and of course, cannot be changed. The use
10 of it, unless the ODP were to be amended and approved by the
11 City at a future date, if it were requested, and that would
12 be discretionary.
13 SPEAKER: So -- okay.
14
SPEAKER: Let's see.
Mr. Miller had a
number of
15
concerns about fire and police
response times. I
know it's
16
within the city limits, and we
are providing service to
17
that. Have we had any response
from fire, police,
regarding
18 this proposal?
19 SPEAKER: There were no comments or concerns
20 expressed by either. Once again, the Poudre Fire Authority
21 does not just -- I mean, they take care of both county --
22 they serve both county and city limits, so that's the same
23 service between the two. However, we did not receive any
24 concerns or comments from the police department about
25 providing service to this area.
63
1
SPEAKER: Now, what would be the nearest fire
2
station? Just curious.
3
SPEAKER: I'm trying to think.
4
SPEAKER: Perhaps later.
5
SPEAKER: Yeah.
6
SPEAKER: That's okay. We have a question about
7
storm water impacts. Detention, retention, off -site
8
easements, existing problems. None were noted in the staff
9
report. What are the issues, if any, as far as the City's
10
staff is concerned?
11
SPEAKER: Glenn Schluter from the Storm Water
12
Utility is here. I believe in the staff memo, there was an
13
extensive letter, I believe, regarding the storm water
14
detention and some existing problems that are occurring out
15
there on the north side of Trilby Road. So I believe,
16
Glenn, can you address that?
17
SPEAKER: Thanks.
18
SPEAKER: The primary issue that I'm aware of
19
was the outflow to the north that goes across Mr. Wilson's
20
property, and we had met with him briefly out in the field
21
with him, and the design engineers are working on a
22
solution. They need to get their surveyors out there and
23
try to resolve his concerns.
24
Basically, the outfall is a legal existing
.
25
outfall, so they have every right to drain that direction.
64
1 They would have to address the volume concerns, out to the
2 natural drainage way, which is immediately north of his
3 property. One of their solutions was to propose a
4 detention/retention facility, which would actually percolate
5 into the ground, but their latest design does not include
6 any kind of retention. It's just detention, which means
7 it's just temporary stored, and then it will drain out.
8 SPEAKER: So we may come back later. Have you
9 recommended any conditions?
10 SPEAKER: No. It looks like we're on track.
11 SPEAKER: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Schluter.
12 Mr. Miller also mentioned traffic. And I think
13 we had a recently -- did you say the applicant just
14 submitted an update on the traffic study tonight?
15 SPEAKER: Yes, it was in September, and Eric
16 Bracke of our Transportation Department -- I'm sorry I'm
17 deferring everything, but I'm going to the experts.
18 SPEAKER: So has staff had the opportunity to
19 review all the evidence, studies, and evaluate this?
20 SPEAKER: Yes, we have.
21 SPEAKER: Thank you. Yes.
22 SPEAKER: I have had an opportunity -- excuse
23 me. I have had an opportunity to review it and don't have
24 any real issues with the reports that have been filed so
25 far.
•
65
1
A couple of questions came up in terms of the
2
existing volumes. There's currently approximately a
3
thousand vehicles a day on Trilby. There's probably eight
4
to ten thousand a day on Shields Street. Shields Street
5
traffic has grown significantly over the past few years.
6
It's becoming a major corridor between Fort Collins and
7
Loveland. We do have some problems at the intersection of
8
Trilby and Shields currently. It has to do with the
9
geometric problem. That problem exists whether or not this
10
development is approved, or it's not approved. It has to do
11
with the need for some auxiliary turn lanes and the
12
narrowing of Shields Street south of Clarendon Hills.
13
If you've ever been out there and observed it,
14
as vehicles are making north and left -bound, on left turns,
15
people actually drive on the shoulders to get around them.
16
There is a need currently for north and southbound left -turn
17
lanes. This development does provide that, and
18
improvements, I believe, are going to be required to -- on
19
Shields Street, including the center left turn lanes along
20
it.
21 The intersection is close to meeting warrants
22 right now, actually peak hour warrants, which means that it
23 would be eligible for a traffic signal. However, we
24 generally don't install signals based on peak hour
• 25 warrants. There's a number of warrants that could be met.
66
1 If you took a list of all the intersections that meet a peak
2 hour warrant -- and that basically means it's very difficult
3 to make a left turn out of it during the peak hours -- that
4 the list is quite substantial. I believe that geometric
5 improvements would help that intersection significantly
6 without the signal. It will be signalized some day, but not
7 in the very near future.
8 I think I hit them all. There was an issue
9 concerning when Shields Street south of Horsetooth would be
10 improved, and I --
11 SPEAKER: Yes, Bob Furst, public input. I had a
12 question about the impact on that far north from increased
13 traffic from this development.
14 SPEAKER: I'll defer that to Sherry from the
15 Engineering Department. She's more familiar with that, when
16 those improvements would take place. It came up.
17 I missed the question about maintenance. That
18 once it became a City roadway -- currently, it's two county
19 roads, County Road 17 and County Road 34. We would maintain
20 it. Whenever we took over responsibilities of the roadways,
21 I would imagine that's when we took over responsibility for
22 maintenance.
23 SPEAKER: I guess we included Trilby?
24 SPEAKER: When we took over the responsibility
25 for them. Right.
67
1 SPEAKER: That would be triggered by this
2 development and the improvements associated with this?
3 SPEAKER: I'll pass that one on to Sherry, too.
4
SPEAKER: Okay. Thanks.
5
SPEAKER: I believe there was a question
6
regarding improvements to Shields around Horsetooth?
7
Currently, there's a project that will come before you next
8
month or next week, actually. Poudre Valley Plaza, which
9
would, with that project, do improvements to that
10
intersection and further south along Shields there. So
11
those improvements will be done if that project is approved,
12
and at the time that when it's built.
13
If it does not go forward, then those
14
improvements would probably come at a time that that
15
intersection is developed or at the time that the City would
16
get the funds to do that, which would probably be per a
17
vote, such as the Choices 2000 vote or something like that.
18
But currently, that project looks likes it should go
19
forward, as long as it gets approved.
20
Regarding improvements based on this project,
21
this project would be required to do some sort of
22
improvements along Shields Street to the Clarendon Hills
23
projects, and we have not really completely determined what,
24
exactly, these improvements would be, because we're still at
.
25
a preliminary stage. They probably would be widening of the
rn
1 street somewhat. And also, improvements would be placed
2 on -- for this project along Trilby and up to the existing
3 improvements that are being done for Ridgewood Hills. So
4 there are improvements along both sets of streets, but along
5 their frontage and off -site also. But the extent of what
6 those include has not yet been completely determined.
7 SPEAKER: There's some question about, I think
8 it's clear that included in those improvements would be a
9 bicycle path or bicycle lane as well as sidewalks? Is that
10 correct?
11 SPEAKER: There probably would be ability for
12 bicycle lanes or at least a shoulder, maybe, that would
13 accommodate bicycles. There would not be a walk required,
14 necessarily, along Shields. Maybe along Trilby, up to
15 Ridgewood Hills. That might be something there. But we
16 really haven't looked completely into it. We've gotten a
17 submittal on what they've proposed for the area, which we're
18 in the process of reviewing, and will determine based on
19 what we see and what we can require, based on the Code.
20 SPEAKER: Okay. Any other Board questions
21 regarding the streets, improvements?
22 Okay. Thank you.
23 Frank Dowling had some questions under public
24 input regarding, you know, the open space, natural areas
25 plan, the corridor. We've talked about that. Scenic
•
1 values. I've heard some references to mitigating or
M
2
protecting certain viewsheds here, certain areas. And that
3
was addressed in the corridor plan, which is an advisory
4
document. Are there any staff assessments of the impacts of
5
the development on the vistas in this area?
6
SPEAKER: I think from our review, we were
7
looking at the setbacks that are proposed along Trilby Road
8
and from Shields Street on the north edge of that property.
9
Once again, the property, as far as its contiguous boundary
10
to Shields Street, it only goes down about halfway down the
11
site, and once again, the larger setbacks. I do believe
12
that Mr. Dowling requested to look at some of the slides,
that the
13
and I thought might be helpful for Board.
14
SPEAKER: Okay. Could we have a view of the
15
scenic values, then?
16
SPEAKER: Pardon?
17
SPEAKER: Could you please go ahead and show us
18 the slides?
19 SPEAKER: Sure.
20 SPEAKER: While Mike's going to fix the
21 projector, we checked on the location of the nearest fire
22 station, and probably the one that would service this, at
23 least right now, is the one on Harmony, to the east of
24 College. I know that the Poudre Fire Authority is looking
• 25 at locating one to the south, but they're still in that
70
1
process now.
2
SPEAKER:
So that would be a distance of --
3
SPEAKER:
Three miles.
4
SPEAKER:
Okay.
5
SPEAKER:
Actually, four miles.
6
SPEAKER:
First of all, this slide was taken
7
from the southeast
corner of Shields Street and Trilby Road.
8
Looking to
the north, you can see the existing county
9
residences
there on
the corner of Shields Street and Trilby
10
Road.
11 Looking at the site, this is looking to the
12 west, down the boundary of Trilby Road, towards the
13 mountain -- foothills.
14 Once again, this is more of just a panoramic
15 view, looking from that same spot towards the middle of the
16 property and to the south. >
17 This is along the west property line, this PUD,
18 looking down the fence line from Trilby Road.
19 And the next slide will show you this pretty
20 dramatic rise in the terrain from that corner of the
21 property up, which, a majority of this corner, is going to
22 be the storm water detention area, so protecting that
23 setback.
24
Here,
I'm
standing
about halfway down
the west
25
property line of
the
project,
and it's basically
a panoramic
71
.
1
shot of looking to the south.
2
In the background there, you can see large
3
estate lots that are just to the south along Trilby Road of
4
this proposal. And once again, you're starting to see the
5
beginning of the ridge, which is to the east on Shields
6
Street.
7
And once again, that ridge, and to the left of
8
the picture, you're just starting to see the development
9
that occurs along -- that exists along Trilby Road.
10
Once again, further north.
11
Then looking back down in the background there,
12
you can see the county residences that line Trilby Road.
•
13
And then back down to the
south.
14
These are taken from Shields Street at the
15
southern portion of the property. This is approximately at
16
the boundary of the off -site open space dedication on the
17
east side, so I'm sort of standing on the dedication there.
18
Once again, the view of the foothills.
19
These are the large estate lots that I was
20
referring to in earlier slide. And then to the south.
21
And then this is a slide of the proposed open
22
space, which is the 102 acres that's proposed to be
23
dedicated. Once again, as Tom referred to, the ridge is
24
a -- is a major concern, coming back then. So . . .
25
And that concludes the site shots I took.
72
1 SPEAKER: Thank you. I guess one question
2 that's come up, both under public input and a couple Board
3 questions, and that's in the corridor plan that's the
4 advisory document, there's reference to clustering. And I'd
5 like to hear from someone who is a part of that exactly how
6 that might -- might have been -- we have a definition of
7 residential is three or more units as shown there. Was
8 there any illustration of that or definition of clustering?
9 SPEAKER: I think Tom --
10 SPEAKER: There really wasn't any more definition
11 of clustering than the slide that Mr. Vaught presented
12 earlier. I think one version of it is represented by the
13 McKee Charitable Trust property, where that property is
14 zoned in the county, and would -- could have developed or
15 could develop at one unit per 2.3 acres. And what they
16 proposed and the County approved was to move all the density
17 to one end. That's one version. Another might be smaller
18 areas of development at various places on it.
19 I think there is a distinction which many people
20 in the audience have made clear tonight between the zoning
21 in the County and the zoning or PUD in the City. And so the
22 clustering within the City, I think, is more problematical,
23 and I think the best approximation to it is that we've seen,
24 probably does represent the off -site open space dedication
25 where there is, you know, definitely units that might
73
1
otherwise be developed, will not be developed as a result of
2
that dedication. But I think the short answer is that we
3
don't have a good definition of clustering within the city
4
limits.
5
SPEAKER: Thank you very much. And one final
6
question that was raised, I think more than once, is this
7
notion of a soft edge versus a hard edge, and I know we
8
don't have any policy on that, no clear definition. Would
9
there be any discussion, any helpful hints, on that?
10
SPEAKER: In reference to the density, it's kind
11
of a balancing here. We're trying to -- I mean, as far as
12
the open space. As far as the corridor planning goes, staff
13
felt that we were the best we could for -- for
getting get
14
an advisory document. We're meeting that document, and you
15
know, technically, an advisory document, on a legal basis,
16
would be carrying less -- less weight.
17
As far as the density goes, we do have a minimum
18
requirement of three dwelling units in the city, and it has
19
been reinforced by recent City Council action. So is it too
20
high? We require three dwelling units per acre. This is at
21
3.07. This is the minimum number of units to still meet
22
three dwelling units an acre.
23
Is it compatible with surrounding uses? Staff
24
felt yes. By a combination of things. Of how it's
•
25
buffered. First of all, there's generous setbacks to the
74
1 county residences to the north proposed. The combination of
2 those setbacks with the landscaping and a transitioning of
3 the density. The lowest density in this entire development
4 is on the northern portion of this proposal. And gradually,
5 then, transitioning back into the multifamily portion and
6 that sort.
7 So from that perspective of being compatible, we
8 felt yes. Is it identical to the county? No. And it can't
9 be. Because, once again, we're dealing with, under current
10 policies, it's in the city limits. It's in the Urban Growth
it Area. It's required to develop at three dwelling units per
12 acre.
13 SPEAKER: Thank you. I think the Chair has
14 asked enough questions, and hopefully, we've pretty well
15 covered all the concerns that have been raised both before
16 our hearing tonight and at the hearing from the public
17 side. We have the applicant's responses and inputs.
18 So I'm going to bring it back to the Board for
19 Board questions and comments, and then I'd like to draw it
20 down to -- we're really looking at two things here. We're
21 looking at an Overall Development Plan, and then we're also
22 looking at a proposal for a preliminary Planned Unit
23 Development, given that Overall Development Plan being
24 approved. And so I'd like to kind of keep it open as far as
25 the kind of questions we've been asking, general issues,
• 75
1 concerns, and then narrow it down to, what's the specific
2 proposals, of which there are two that are before us now.
3 So who would like to start?
4 SPEAKER: Mike, a couple of questions. First
5 would be, what is the closest existing sewer and water, City
6 sewer and water?
7 SPEAKER: It's to the north on the railroad
8 tracks, about, I think it's about a mile and a half. The
9 applicant would be required to extend that -- those services
10 to the site at the developer's expense, not the City's
11 expense.
12
SPEAKER: Okay. And this sort of goes back to
•
13
another question about McKee trust. I guess I've heard a
14
lot of bad things about McKee trust in the past. So I'm
15
wondering, if the City was so opposed to McKee trust in the
16
past, in this area adjacent to this development, why are
17
they so strongly recommending Registry Ridge? Tell me
18
the -- I guess give me a comparison here. Give me a better
19
feel. I've heard some of it but not all --
20
SPEAKER: The issue on the McKee trust that City
21
Council debated, before they sent a letter to the County,
22
was the fact that it was on approximately 900 acres and they
23
were clustering all the property to the north. But yet the
24
lower third, the southern third of that site, was located
•
25
within Loveland's Urban Growth Area, but yet they were
76
1 locating the residential development within the corridor.
2 So there was a basic philosophical difference
3 given the fact that the corridor plan was in process at the
4 time, and the question about whether it was appropriate to
5 locate development just outside of our Urban Growth Area
6 when part of the site itself was actually located within
7 Loveland's.
8 SPEAKER: Thanks, Bob.
9 SPEAKER: Glen?
10 SPEAKER: Yeah, Mike. My understanding is we
11 need to evaluate it in the Comprehensive Plan and the land
12 use policies plan. You outlined maybe eight or ten elements
13 that support this usage. And I guess I have a question on
14 these other elements and whether you think this supports
15 these other elements or not.
16 3B, which is to promote alternative
17 transportation mode. I guess the question there is, will
18 this be promoting alternative -- does it have any access to
19 mass transit or other alternative modes? And then 3D says
20 the location of residential development, which is close to
21 employment, recreation, and shopping facilities, and I guess
22 I'd like to understand what employment opportunities are
23 nearby.
24 And this is also highlighted more in point 79,
25 Item Number 79, which talks about easy access to existing or
•
77
•
1
planned neighborhood and regional community shopping
2
centers. I'm not sure, maybe you could clarify, whether a
3
neighborhood convenience center with maybe a 7-Eleven meets
4
a criteria of a neighborhood shopping center per this
5
guideline.
6
And this also highlights that you should have
7
easy access to major employment centers and walking distance
8
to an existing or planned elementary school. I guess my
9
question is, if the school district has not commited to a
10
school here, would this not be a violation, perhaps, of that
11
aspect as well.
12
And then there's a lot of policies in here
•
13
regarding phasing, and I can't -- I'm not an expert on all
14
of these, but like 22 and 23 and 24, where it talks about
15
preferential treatment, consideration given to urban
16
development proposals which are contiguous to existing
17
development within the city limits or consistent with the
18
phasing plan for the City's Urban Growth Area.
19
I guess I need a little more clarification on the
20
phasing plan for the City's Urban Growth Area, because it
21
talks about, in point number 23, the expansion plan to
22
services and facilities, including utilities, 26 is -- yeah,
23
available of existing services. There's just a lot of them
24
in there that deal with the phasing, and I guess I have a
.
25
question as to how that applies to this development. It
78
1
seems to be out a long ways from other developments. And I
2
guess that probably pretty well covers it.
3
SPEAKER: If I might interject here. You've
4
mentioned a number of elements of the -- what's called the
5
Land Use Policies Plan, and according to that, we are to
6
review every proposal with respect to this plan. It's got,
7
oh, like 97 different parts to it. And the staff, in their
8
report, did identify the policies with the specific policies
9
which this proposal, they felt, met. And so I hear your
10
question as being, which policies -- there may be some
11
policies that perhaps it does not meet, and you have
12
identified some of those?
13
SPEAKER: Correct.
14
SPEAKER: Okay.
15
SPEAKER: In fact, some of these are at odds
16
with each other. The requirement of three -- gets to the
17
heart of the requirement of the three units per acre yet
18
close to existing development and so forth.
19
SPEAKER: And specifically those are, again?
20
You mentioned 3B.
21
SPEAKER: Yeah, 38, 3D, I guess 79, B, C, and D.
22
22, 23, 24. Again, a lot of those have to do with different
23
types of utilities and so forth and whether they're in
24
place. I guess -- I didn't mention number 50, which is mass
25
transit leads, although that was kind of covered by the
79
•
1
other alternative modes of transportation. And 78, again,
2
residential development should be directed into areas which
3
reinforce our phasing plan. So I really need to understand
4
this phasing plan.
5
SPEAKER: So would you please respond to that
6
general line of questions?
7
SPEAKER: Sure. First of all, I'd like to
8
begin, just a little bit of explanation about the Land Use
9
Policies Plan. A key word that's in the very beginning of
10
that document is that they are policy guidelines.
11
Basically, these guidelines were codified by the LDGS, as
12
far as several of the items that you had questions were
•
13
proximity to employment, access to school and this sort.
14
Those were codified by the LDGS in the residential uses
15
point chart. There are, obviously, several of them.
16 That was one of the issues, when we were
17 reviewing this, was, you know, what -- basically, as far as
18 the transit and that, those are all base locational criteria
19 in the LDGS, and there currently isn't a requirement that
20 there be certain percentage of points that come straight
21 from base on location. It currently does not designate
22 that. I know the Board did consider that and made a
23 recommendation to the Council, but that has not been adopted
24 yet.
• 25 So basically what we're looking at is we
80
1 currently have guidelines. They were codified into the
2 residential uses point chart. And that point chart simply
3 states they need to achieve 60 points to develop at three
4 dwelling units per acre. And through whether it's base or
5 locational criteria, and that is what they've done.
6 As far as a phasing plan, that is at least a
7 component of the Comprehensive Plan update. That is one
8 item in the Land Use Policies Plan that has never been
9 adopted by the City. We've never done that phasing plan
10 yet. So that is coming up with the Comprehensive Plan
11 update.
12
As far as the transit. I
know
the Land Use
13
Policy Plan references that transit
should
be -- that
14
development should follow transit.
Well,
there's a
15
difference with that in the transit
plan.
A couple weeks
16
ago, I believe it was indicated that
the transit
follows the
17
development, is how the mass transit
plan
is adopted in the
18
City.
19 So there are some conflicts, and that is one of
20 the purposes right now in the updated Comprehensive Plan, is
21 to resolve some of these conflicts between projects not
22 meeting all of the policies, the Land Use Policies Plan, and
23 meeting some of them. I guess I have to just refer once
24 again that they are guidelines and not regulatory or
25 codified elements.
81
1 (Video portion of tape restored.)
2 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Mr. Eckman, I'd like some
3 clarification on this point. We go to page 24 of the Land
4 Use Policies Plan. And 3, it says the City shall promote
5 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, et cetera. Then the explanation or
6 discussion, it says, in City review of development and
7 redevelopment proposals, the list of concerns will be used
8 as criteria and proposal evaluation. Additional specific
9 policies may need to be established in order to achieve a
10 list of concerns.
11 So what I hear -- what we're doing here is we're
• 12 doing this review of -- to see to what extent -- we know the
13 ones from the staff report, that staff feels this proposal
14 meets, and then there's some that perhaps it would not
15 meet. And so can you clarify a little more about, you know,
16 this plan versus the LDGS and what we're starting to look at
17 here?
18 MR. ECKMAN: The LDGS, on page 91, says that the
19 Overall Development Plan does not -- is not to be reviewed
20 on the basis of specific design standards and criteria
21 contained in this section but rather on the basis of
22 conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
23 And then the Land Use Policies Plan is a part of
24 the City's Comprehensive Plan. When it says -- and I didn't
• 25 have a copy as you were reading, but I do now. You have a
82
1 list of
policies on
the left-hand side and some explanation
2 on the
other side.
3 So I think that, when it says that in reviewing
4 these development proposals, the listed concerns will be
5 used as criteria, I think that concerns are probably
6 intended to be the policies. And then I -- it says
7 additional specific policies may need to be established in
8 order to achieve the list of concerns. If they haven't been
9 established, there wouldn't be anything to consider except
10 the ones that are listed.
it
CHAIRMAN CARNES: And so what I understand you
12
said was that is that it is proper for us to evaluate the
13
Overall Development Plan as distinguished from the PUD
14
that's before us also. It is proper to go through this, as
15
far as our consideration of the proposal for the ODP; is
16
that correct?
17
MR. ECKMAN: That's correct. As far as the ODP
18
is concerned.
19
CHAIRMAN CARNES: So Mr. Colton, did you have
20
any additional questions on this?
21
MR. COLTON: I guess the question on the school
22
is, since there's not a commitment, that it is not next to a
23
planned or existing school? Is that probably the way I
24
should interpret it? Because I kind of wonder how many
25
people it takes to even have enough for a school, what that
0
83
1
whole process is.
2
MR. LUDWIG: First of all, as it was alluded to
3
earlier, the property is located in the Thompson Valley
4
school district, not the Poudre R-1 school district.
5
So basically, in the review of this project, the
6
applicant did contact the school district about the building
7
of a school there. And the documentation that I got from
8
the school district, when they originally submitted their
9
proposal, we were not willing to award points for a school
10
unless we had a commitment from the school district that,
11
yes, they were going to build a school on that site.
12
And the letter that came back from the school
13
district that they looking
said while were generally at
14
locating a school in this area, meaning in the northern
15
portion, they were in the process of updating their school
16
master plan for facilities and were not comfortable in
17
committing to any specific site at that time. And so
18
therefore, we did not award any points for being in
19
proximity to a school.
20
However, once again, our policies encourage
21
mixed use, and by showing that on there, we felt -- showing
22
it as a primary use, was achieving a mixed -use goal.
23
Now, the secondary use that is listed is for
24
residential, and that goes back to actually a 1.12, which is
25
our All -Development Criteria requiring a minimum density of
84
1 three dwelling units per acre. Unless a property is
2 previously dedicated, it cannot be taken out of the density
3 calculation.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And so since the school site had not been
dedicated to the school district, we had to include that in
the density calculation, and for that purpose, that's what
the secondary use was, and that's how we calculated that, to
make sure they were still three dwelling units an acre.
CHAIRMAN CARNES: Other Board questions?
MR. COLTON: Yes, clarification. It's obviously
not near employment and probably never will be near major
employment, given its location, I would assume. And then
the question on this shopping center. Is there a certain
criteria for the type of definition of a shopping center
here, having a good-sized grocery store, which I think Mr.
Vaught said would not be the intention here, so I'm
wondering if a neighborhood convenience center, which I
understand is a gas station and 7-Eleven, would meet the
criteria of the neighborhood shopping center as discussed in
the criteria in the land use policies.
MR. LUDWIG: We, once again, as far as the
Code -- codified of those land use policies is the
residential uses point chart, and they are claiming -- just
a second here. They are not claiming any points for being
located near a neighborhood shopping center as it might be
• •
85
•
1
defined in the LDGS. However, there isn't a requirement
2
that they have to. They are providing, though, neighborhood
3
service convenience uses to this project.
4
CHAIRMAN CARNES: I think for purposes of
5
facilitating this discussion at this point, maybe we just
6
need to focus on the ODP. Otherwise, it can get pretty
7
confusing in a hurry. We're talking about Land Use Policies
8
Plan. So other Board questions?
9
MR. DAVIDSON: I'd like to make some exception
10
to some credit you gave for the child care center. I
11
realize this probably won't make or break anything.
12
CHAIRMAN CARNES: That's part of the PUD.
•
13
MR. DAVIDSON: I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
14
CHAIRMAN CARNES: Could we limit our attention
15
at this time to the ODP?
16 MS. BELL: I just have a couple of questions.
17 Do we have any criteria regarding the size of this park,
18 based on the number of units that this park area will be
19 serving and could I just have a quick update on kind of
20 what's happening with parks in this general area.
21 MR. LUDWIG: I believe Kevin Cameron was here
22 earlier from our Parks Department.
23
MS. BELL: Let me
-- I'll just run through a
24
couple of my other questions
while we're waiting for her.
25
MR. LUDWIG: Okay.
86
1 MS. BELL: I would also like to have a little
2 more clarification. I feel a little confused about what the
3 commercial aspect of the -- the commercial aspect is the
4 day-care center and some office buildings? I mean --
5 MR. LUDWIG: Also the retail.
6 MS. BELL: The commercial aspect of this ODP.
7 Would you just sum it up for me?
8 MR. LUDWIG: Sure. On the Overall Development
9 Plan, it's showing commercial office, and they're including
10 some retail in with that. I'd like to refer at least to the
11 applicant and let them explain --
12 MS. BELL: That's fine. I just wanted some
13 clarification on that.
14 MR. VAUGHT: At this point, it's just a
15 designation of commercial nonresidential type uses. It's a
16 small enough parcel that it does not fit the design size for
17 a neighborhood center, so it's something less than a
18 neighborhood center that will have commercial uses which
19 could include office and neighborhood service retail. The
20 day-care is not part of that.
21 MS. BELL: Oh, okay. So was that nine acres? I
22 forget.
23
MR.
VAUGHT: Nine and a
half acres.
24
MS.
BELL: So with that
nine and a half acres,
25
potentially we
could be looking at
the service station idea
87
•
1 some office space. Anything else being -- or does that sum
2 that up?
3
MR. VAUGHT: I think that --
well, some
4
neighborhood service
retail. You would
probably have a
5
complement of retail
that include a dry
cleaners, those type
6
of neighborhood uses.
7
MS. BELL:
Could you give me
a reference point
8
for not -- something
else in our community that that might
9 be like?
10
MR. VAUGHT: Perhaps Park Central would be the
11
first that comes to mind, at Prospect and Lemay. There's a
12
7-Eleven, a video store, dry cleaners, small restaurant.
13
Those -- at least there used to be bike rental store.
14
MS. BELL: About that same size?
15
MR. VAUGHT: Uh-huh.
16
MS. BELL: Okay. I guess that was all on that.
17
Oh, no. I did have one more for you, Frank. In your first
18
presentation, when you were first up, you were talking about
19
curb and gutter. Is there going to be curb and gutter with
20
this project or no curb and gutter?
21
MR. VAUGHT: It will be developed on -site to
22
City standards. At this point, the Engineering Department,
23
though, is saying it's inappropriate to consider curb,
24
gutter, and sidewalks on Trilby and Shields, but they're
.
25
saying that it does need to be improved, minimum two-lane
88
1 widths with six-foot bike lanes on each side, is what we're
2 proposing along the Shields and Trilby areas, with a center
3 turn lane as you approach the intersection that would allow
4 that left turn movement.
5 MS. BELL: So just trying to keep it more
6 rural -looking, and the pedestrian accesses would be internal
7 to -- I guess something that I'm feeling a little concerned
8 about is I'm looking at this ODP, and I understand all of
9 your rationale, you know, for what you've done here, but you
10 know, one of the things we're trying to achieve in this
11 community is pedestrian access to their own community
12 things. And I don't see that really happening the way this
13 current ODP is set up. I think it could happen with maybe
14 some adjustments, but that's just a concern that I have that
15 this Board has been discussing a lot on other projects.
16 MR. VAUGHT: There is a network that perhaps
17 doesn't show up on your reduction of internal walkways that
18 are in the green space areas that connect into the
19 recreation area, and then on through to the park site.
20 There are gaps in lots that occur that allow for connections
21 over to Trilby and then directly into the commercial
22 center. Now, that will be enhanced as the commercial center
23 becomes a reality, if it does, in terms of connecting both
24 the city sidewalks that occur on the streets and the open
25 space walks.
89
•
1
MS. BELL: Okay. Thank you. I have -- did the
2
person on the parks --
3
MR. LUDWIG: I believe K-Lynn left. As far as
4
answering your questions regarding the parks, in both the
5
ODP packet and -- or in the staff memo and the preliminary
6
PUD staff memo, there was a memorandum from Mike Powers, who
7
is the director of the CLRS division, and in there, he
8
indicates that once again, that the proposal to dedicate a
9
six -acre park site adjacent to a proposed school site
10
interior to the development is -- is consistent with the
11
existing Parks and Recreation master plan.
12
Now, the level of the development of that park
•
13
does hinge on whether or not a does built there
school get
14
or not, because currently, on the Ridgewood Hills ODP, there
15
is a school site designated there also. And our indication
16
from the school district is, they're not planning on
17
building two schools in the north. So the level of the
18
development of this park will hinge on whether or not the
19
school site is on this project. Regardless, there will be a
20
development of a park. The extent and how many amenities
21
are to be determined later.
22
MS. BELL: I'm just kind of curious. I'm
23
thinking like oak Ridge, for instance, up near the
24
railroad. They have -- I guess that's considered like a
.
25
neighborhood pocket park type thing. It's also the drainage
X
1 that was completely flooded this summer and made -- do you
2 know what I'm talking about? In the -- does somebody over
3 there know what I'm talking about? Okay.
4 The reason I'm bringing that up is I have a
5 question regarding that. Did that developer develop that
6 park or was that something that the City developed? My line
7 of reasoning on this is, this is a lot of homes, and I think
8 that these people need a park much sooner than what -- you
9 know, the City does not have a very good track record, you
10 know, via the last bond issue, of approving moneys for
11 developing parks. So kind of see where I'm going with that.
12 MR. LUDWIG: And in this instance, I guess, I'd
13 have to refer to the fact that the property's being
14 dedicated. In all other instances, the City would have to
15 be purchasing this land for a park site. So they're already
16 getting the land at no cost. And so the development of it,
17 I mean, generally, this could cost quite a bit more to
18 develop a park in this area, certainly.
19 MS. BELL: There's no precedent, then, for
20 developers to be building -- to be actually develop the park
21 as part of the --
22 MR. LUDWIG: That's what the park land fee that
23 we collect is for, is for the development of the parks.
24 It's currently an $813 per dwelling unit fee that they pay
25 to the City for the development of parks in that area.
91
1
MS. BELL: So this development with 700 houses
2
or whatever, by the time all of those fees are paid, would
3
be able to fully develop this six acres.
4
MR. LUDWIG: I would assume, yes.
5
CHAIRMAN CARNES: Other Board questions?
6
Again, this is -- we're confining our discussion
7
to the ODP proposal here.
8
MS. MICKELSEN: Point of clarification, again --
9
again, for myself. We are measuring the ODP against the
10
Land Use Policies Plan?
11
MR. ECKMAN: The LDGS says you're measuring it
12
against the entire Comprehensive Plan, of which the -- well,
.
13
the Land Use Policies Plan is
a part.
14
MS. MICKELSEN: You know, part of me struggles,
15
because, granted, we're not looking at the PUD at this
16
moment, but we measure it against the LDGS. And, you know,
17
I'm just pondering this for the moment.
18
CHAIRMAN CARNES: While the other Board members
19
are thinking about any questions they may have, the Chair
20
did a review of the Land Use Policies Plan and came up with
21
some questions also about certain -- certain ones. Go
22 ahead.
23
MS. BELL: While
you're looking through
that, I
24
did have one more question.
Back on this McKee trust thing,
•
25
the McKee trust says that their cluster will be on
the north
92
1 end as
opposed to
the south end,
and it seems
like
we
all
2 think
that logic
dictates that it
should have
been
on
the
3 south end.
4 Is there any chance at all that, you know, could
5 change, that logic could prevail and to put it on the
6 south? Because it just seems like we're making a decision
7 here a lot based on what's going on on that piece of
8 property, and it impacts that entire open space area.
9 SPEAKER: I think you gauged it correctly, that
10 part of the concern was that the McKee property was right in
11 this heart of what was the corridor. I think the way some
12 people have looked at it as that, regardless, they would
13 still be maintaining a very large chunk of open space, about
14 640 acres.
15
With respect to the location
of the development
16
portion of that, I haven't given up yet.
It's sort of the
17
way I'm looking at it. We have a staff
planning team from
18
the County, Loveland, and Fort Collins.
We meet weekly on
19
various implementation issues on this.
20
Certainly, this is a serious
proposal. We do
21
know that the McKee people were willing
to sell that land
22
earlier, and we haven't had any recent
contact with them,
23
but intend to reinitiate that. I can't
make any promises
24
one way or another. I think your best
indicator would be
25
that it does have preliminary approval
at this point in
93
1
time. You know, if had you to write something down to bank
2
on. But we are still looking at that in terms of corridor
3
implementation, and there may be some ways of moving that
4
density off of that property, but they would be speculative
5
at best today.
6
MR. BLANCHARD: I think it's also an error to
7
characterize our review of the Registry Ridge proposal as
8
being dependent on what happens with McKee. In fact, in
9
Tom's presentation, I believe it was the fifth phase of
10
the -- or the fifth area for the open space acquisition, was
11
the only part that was referenced to perhaps being dependent
12
on whether or not McKee develops. And that's that area to
•
13
the Shields the the
west of on south end of property.
14
CHAIRMAN CARNES: Go ahead.
15
MR. STROM: Bob or Mike, could you give us a
16
little bit of context for ODPs, particularly in terms of
17
phasing? And what I'm looking for, I guess, is my sense of
18
the whole concept of ODP process is that the City would like
19
to see landowners, particularly of large parcels, come in
20
and give us conceptual design, preliminary planning kind of
21
thing, and that it isn't necessarily germane to the concept
22
of phasing, which becomes more of an issue when you get to
23
actual PUD plans?
24
MR. BLANCHARD: I think that characterization is
.
25
accurate. I think if you look at the way the city's been
94
1 developing over the last decade is that we've had a series
2 of large property owners who have come in with a master plan
3 so that the City gets an idea of where different services
4 and different types of land uses will be occurring in the
5 future. And so for that purpose, we can begin to plan as
6 infrastructure is built and begin to get an idea of what the
7 city is going to build out as.
8 And in terms of the phasing, however, phasing is
9 more related to specific development proposals that's --
10 that's characterized by the Planned Unit Developments,
11 because it's at that stage where you actually get into the
12 real business of extending services and where it's critical
13 that we begin to locate closed plan services and planned
14 commercial areas and employment centers. If I'm getting at
15 the right direction, you can nod your head.
16 But the idea is that the ODP is more
17 conceptual. It gives us an understanding of how a larger
18 piece of property is going to be developed, what all of the
19 different amenities are going to be in a neighborhood.
20 That's why the debate had occurred about a year and a half
21 ago about whether or not ODP should ever be changed. It
22 never came to fruition, was never actually debated.
23 But I know it's been a concern to this Board,
24 it's been a concern of Council, and it's been a concern of
25 the staff, about what role ODPs play and how specific they
95
1 should be and how -- how mandatory those ultimate uses
2 should be. The fact is, there's always the opportunity to
3 amend an ODP to better reflect the market at the time the
4
development actually occurs.
5
But it's when the actual awarding of the points
6
occurs at preliminary where it becomes more critical that if
7
those points are based on planned services, like I know
8
we're going to discuss when we talk about the preliminary
9
PUD, that if points are awarded, then it becomes more of an
10
issue that probably the ODP probably would be recommended --
11
it would be recommended that the ODP not be changed.
12
MR. STROM: I guess part of what I'm thinking
13
about here is that because we're getting a preliminary PUD
14
at the same time as the ODP, we have substantially more
15
detail than we might in some cases have with an ODP, and I
16
think we have to be careful about picking at the details
17
when what we're really -- I mean, we'll get into that when
18
they get this PUD, but we need to focus, at the ODP stage,
19
on the concepts.
20
CHAIRMAN CARNES: The chair has some questions
21
under the Land Use Policies Plan. And again, evaluating the
22
ODP. Number 22 indicates preferential consideration shall
23
be given to urban development proposals which are contiguous
24
to existing development within the city limits or consistent
25
with the phasing plan for the city's Urban Growth Area.
Wr
1 We've already heard we don't have a phasing plan for the
2 city's Urban Growth Area. So in terms of contiguous to
3 existing city development within the city limits, what are
4 we are looking at here, nearest such development?
5 MR. LUDWIG: The nearest such development to
6 this would be the Ridgewood Hills area, which is, right now,
7 the phases that are being built are on top of that ridge.
8 So to strictly meet that land use policy, the area that we
9 want as open space would have to be developed. I mean, to
10 strictly be contiguous to existing development. However,
11 the closest is Ridgewood.
12 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Yeah. Okay. And how far away
13 is that?
14 MR. LUDWIG: The top of that ridge is about a
15 half mile.
16 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Okay. And then going north
17 from there, what would be the nearest development within the
18 city limits?
19 MR. LUDWIG: Within the city limits, I believe,
20 is Clarendon Hills.
21 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Clarendon Hills?
22 MR. LUDWIG: Which is approximately
23 three-quarters of a mile to a mile.
24 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Okay. Then another one was
25 Policy Number 27. Developments with requirements beyond
97
•
1
existing levels of police and fire protection. Parks. And
2
utilities should not be allowed to develop until such
3
services can be adequately provided and maintained.
4
And it seems like we have been dancing around
5
that a little bit, especially with regard to parks. I don't
6
know about -- again, I guess we didn't get any response at
7
all from police services, as far as serving this magnitude
8
of development at this distance?
9
MR. LUDWIG: There weren't any concerns. There
10
was a response, but no concerns.
11
CHAIRMAN CARNES: No concerns. Okay. Policy
12
Number 49. The City's Land Use Policies Plan shall be
13
directed toward minimizing the use of private autos and
14
toward alleviating and mitigating the air quality impacts of
15
concentrated use of automobiles.
16
And that was a public concern we heard expressed
17
here tonight as well. What do you do with putting something
18
the size of -- if this is fully developed, something the
19
size of Wellington at this location in terms of the
20
concentration of, you know, not near employment centers, et
21
cetera?
22
MR. LUDWIG: As far as the opportunity for
23
transit, I kind of alluded to that, that Land Use Policies
24
Plan does say that it needs to be close to existing transit
25
of a sort. However, the conflict is that the master transit
98
1 plan says that residential development will guide the
2 transit routes.
3 So I would say there would be an opportunity in
4 the future for a transit route in this area, with that
5 number of units. With what's going in on Ridgewood Hills on
6 development, there would definitely -- I'd be surprised if
7 there wasn't an opportunity to do so.
8 Once again, we debate -- the policies are --
9 we're looking at encouraging development at three dwelling
10 units an acre in the area, and to go less -- there's two
11 conflicting policies right there in the Land Use Policies
12 Plan. One says developing at three dwelling units an acre,
13 and the other saying is, well, how far out are we.
14 There's a conflict there. And like we said, the
15 best we can do is to try and address it, I guess, through
16 what the other plans are saying, the further guidance, you
17 ~know. Like I said, the Land Use Policy Plan was adopted in
18 179, and there have been further plans that have been done
19 since that time to help to clarify what the land use
20 policy's intent is.
21 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Thanks. Other Board
22 questions, comments?
23 MR. STROM: I guess I just have one thought in
24 terms of contiguity issue. If you look at a map of the city
25 limits, the Ridgewood Hills property to the east is really
• •
99
i
1 the only area within the city limits that's adjacent to this
2
parcel.
3
And so, I mean, we've had this discussion off and
4
on for a number of years as to whether it makes sense to
5
just look at development within the city limits or whether
6
we ought to be looking at urban development in general. In
7
fact, I think if we wait for -- well, let me restate that.
8
I think I'll just leave it at that.
9
If you look at the city limits line, where this
10
particular property adjoins the city limits, it's the
11
property to the east of Shields Street which is the most
12
contiguous portion of that, is below the ridge, and it's the
13
property we say we want for open space. So it is, in fact,
14
as close as you can get to development, I guess, within the
15
city limits.
16
CHAIRMAN CARNES: Other questions? Comments?
17
MS. BELL: So when we're taking a look at the
18
general concept of this ODP and each of these parcels, we
19
are, in essence, approving, in general, the notion that on
20
Parcel C would be commercial, office, et cetera. And when
21
and if we got down to the preliminary phase on one of those
22
parcels, and we felt like the commercial development, for
23
instance, should be in a different place on this ODP, is now
24
the time to address that?
25
MR. LUDWIG: Now or at the time -- I mean, if
100
1 the --
2 MS. BELL: If we approve this now, we're, in
3 essence, saying -- are we, in essence, saying the
4 configuration of this is just fine the way it is? If we
5 don't like the configuration, is this the time to mess with
6 it?
7
MR.
LUDWIG:
Yes.
8
MS.
BELL: As
opposed to later.
9
MR.
LUDWIG:
At a
later time, the applicant
10
might propose
to change
the
layout of the ODP.
11
CHAIRMAN
CARNES:
They would initiate it, not
12 us.
13 I have a question of the applicant.
14 Specifically, we've seen urban -- a lot of urban design
15 here. We even have a booklet, Urban Village, that was
16 placed on our desk here tonight, and we had -- graced with
17 the presence of Peter Calthorp, and he was presenting lots
18 of examples of traditional -type developments.
19 And if there's ever a prime opportunity for a
20 village, I guess it would be this one, considering the
21 likely, you know, isolation of this, in -- from other
22 urban -level developments. How would you relate this to an
23 urban village and any possibility for improvement on it that
24 occurred to you?
25 MR. VAUGHT: I attended the Calthorp
101
1
presentation at the Senior Center, and I think in general,
2
the urban plans that he presented were of much larger scale
3
and magnitude than we're considering at 240 acres and 700
4
units. I think it would be closer to four sections of land
5
or four or five thousand units that he considered, given the
6
kinds of land uses and mixed uses that he included.
7
I think, though, that if one considers that
8
there has been a master plan ODP approved on this square
9
mile and that you're considering another portion of that
10
next Monday night, and that this piece ties into it with the
11
open space along Shields, that every opportunity should be
12
explored to look at this as the village and not just look at
13
one piece of it. And that wherever we can make those
14
connections physically, we should do so.
15
Now, their pieces of property also are different
16
than -- than Calthorp's, perhaps, in some instances, in that
17
we have topography here that he didn't deal with in San
18
Diego, along the ocean front, and we have drainage ways that
f19
are natural features that we have to preserve, and we have
20
bluffs that have desirable elements to them. So we have to
21
be sensitive in how we address it and how we integrate it.
22
But I think the opportunity exists to look at
23
Ridgewood Hills, which only has an ODP on -- it has an ODP
24
on it and preliminary and final on one phase of it, so it,
25
perhaps, will be coming back in front of you in recent -- or
102
1 in future months.
2 And then the Shenandoah PUD that you'll be
3 reviewing next Monday night. And having worked on
4 Shenandoah, I know that we're sensitive to that, and that we
5 are looking at every opportunity to make those connections,
6 so it is physically possible to live here and get on a
7 system of trails and get all the way to a community or
8 neighborhood center on College Avenue. Or an office park.
9 Or other types of uses that you could get to, in a
10 pedestrian -friendly way. I think we are looking at it in
11 those.
12 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Okay. Thank you. That was
13 sort of an extracurricular question there, but . . . other
14 questions, comments?
15 MS. BELL: Well, just a comment that I think
16 we're talking about something that's really important to the
17 way our community looks, and that is the whole picture as
18 opposed to these -- these smaller ones. I don't suppose we
19 have a picture available to us tonight of what this greater
20 picture might look like, since I'm the one with the concerns
21 about how this, you know, looks currently? If I'm to be
22 supporting it, I guess I want to know how it does fit into
23 the whole picture a little bit better.
24 MR. LUDWIG: I believe there was a slide in
25 there that was showing the --
103
1
MS.
BELL: I think there was. That's why I'd
2
like to see it.
It just seems like we do this all the
3
time. We look
at these little things instead of the big
4
picture.
5
MR.
LUDWIG: Did you have another slide in
6
there?
7
MS.
BELL: What's the big white space?
8
MR.
VAUGHT: This is the railroad right-of-way
9
that cuts through the property. 4
10
MS.
BELL: Is the other just flood plain?
11
MR.
VAUGHT: No, there's a portion of flood plain
12
that comes in this area where there are more wetlands.
13
Here's the creek crossing.
14
MS.
BELL: But everything is colored but yet
15
there's like a
rectangle in there that's not. What is that?
16
MR.
LUDWIG: That's county residential -- it's
17
in the county.
It's not in the city limits.
18
MS.
BELL: And it's residential, currently?
19
MR.
LUDWIG: There's existing residences.
20
MR.
VAUGHT: There's a residence here. Another
21
here. I think
these are large -- large lots that go in this
22
direction.
23
MS.
BELL: And the green area is the open space.
24
MR.
VAUGHT: Right.
25
MS.
BELL: And the brown area is -- just review
P
104
1 that for me again.
2 MR. VAUGHT: That area is a part of the
3 Ridgewood Hills ODP that is labeled medium density
4 residential, and this one is multifamily, and this one is
5 convenience center, office. And those are the parcels that
6 Tom alluded to, were turned 90 degrees from what Tom's map
7 was illustrating, that the City does have under option.
8 And then the Ridgewood Hills development. This
9 is the entrance off of Trilby to their first phase. So
10 their first phase is right here, and this is some of the
11 planning information that we received from Cityscape as to
12 their preliminary concepts that they're looking at for the
13 balance of that property. And looking at Shenandoah, we
14 have already accommodated the potential for those
15 connections to occur.
16
MR. STROM:
I'm sorry,
Frank. The brown there
17
that you indicated is
approved as
multifamily?
18
MR. VAUGHT:
This is,
yes.
19
MR. STROM:
On the ODP
piece to the east, what's
20 that one?
21 MR. VAUGHT: This one is called medium -density
22 residential. I don't recall what that density or that total
23 number of units is in that area.
24 MR. STROM: That whole piece from Shields east
25 is either being dedicated or is under option to the City?
t
105
1
MR. VAUGHT: Under option to the City. With the
2
exception that these two pieces are being dedicated.
"
3
MR. LUDWIG: The secondary uses that are listed
i
4
on that ODP are proposed open space. So the primary use was
5
the medium -density residential, and then proposed open space
j
6
was listed. So . . .
7
CHAIRMAN CARNES: Is there further Board
8
discussion? Questions? Comments?
9
MS. BELL: Just to clarify, if the school
10
doesn't go in there, that becomes more houses, or could it
11
remain as additional -- as more of a section to that
-�
12
neighborhood park and rec center there? What's happened
13
with that?
14
MR. LUDWIG: That, once again, gets more to the
15
preliminary PUD. But part of the issue on that is we have
16
to maintain a three -dwelling -unit -per acre basis on the
17
Overall Development Plan. And in the LDGS, when it talks
18
about that three -dwelling -unit -per -acre calculation, it says
19
what can be taken out of the density calculation. If that
20
is not previously dedicated, we cannot take it out of the
ti
(
21
density calculation, so we have to assume there would be
i
22
three dwelling units an acre on that, on that parcel.
23
What we did is establish to make sure that under
24
any scenario, they maintain three dwelling units per acre,
25
whether the school went in or not. If it does go in,
106
1 there's still three dwelling units an acre. If the school
2 does go in and the City buys that southern portion of the
3 property, it's still at three dwelling units per acre.
4 That's what we did in our review, just to make sure that
5 regardless of what scenario was being built, we maintained
6 the three dwelling units.
7 MS. BELL: So it won't necessarily get more
8 dense if the school doesn't go in?
9 MR. LUDWIG: No. What I listed as a number was
10
including the school
not being put there. That
702 units
11
was a maximum. And
that assumed that everything
developed,
12
the school area was
residential, as well as the
southern
13 portion.
14 The minimum number that was listed in the ODP
15 staff memo indicated if no housing was built on that
16 southern one-third south of the wetlands and nothing -- a
17 school was built on the school site. So that would be the
18 minimum, and that would be five hundred -- I believe this
19 memo says 597?
20 Yes. 189.5 acres would be with a school on the
21 property, no residences there. And the open space to the
22 south, with no residential on it. And that would take their
23 acreage down to 189.5 acres.
24 MS. BELL: I guess what I'm trying to get at is,
25 what are the alternatives for that site if the school
0 107
1 doesn't go there?
2 MR. LUDWIG: It's school or residential.
3 MS. BELL: Or residential. Okay. Because a
4 school means there'd be extra -- I guess one of my concerns
5 when I look at this ODP is -- I mean, we're talking about a
6 lot -- about a lot of off -site open space, but this Board
7 has also had discussions with other projects.
8 I'm thinking of the Ponds area. That project had
9 a lot of interior open space that could be enjoyed by the
10 residents. And I'm trying to visualize, you know, how
11 that's going to work. If that ends up being gobbled up with
12 more houses there. Just a concern I have. I guess I'd like
13 to see there be more -- more internal open space in this
14 ODP.
15 MR. LUDWIG: Once again, the increase in the
16 open space in other areas would mean that there would be
17 higher density in certain areas, too. It would be more
18 clustering of development. I think on this proposal,
19 between the wetlands that are at the southern portion of the
20 property, the park site, the school site goes in there.
21 That would be additional open space. As well as the buffer
22 on the north edge of the property. I guess staff felt it
23 was substantial.
24 MR. COLTON: Just one question or comment, I
. 25 guess, on the clustering again. Mr. Vaught, just a question
108
1 regarding clustering. One person's mitigation and buffering
2 and sprawl is, like you say, someone else's open space or
3 whatever.
4 But having been to England recently and driving
5 along and you're in a country, all of a sudden, you're in
6 this little village, which is very compact, if we still
7 wanted to maintain the three units per dwelling, is there
8 another way we could design the entire residential area so
9 we get more like ten units per acre in the interior and then
10 bigger open spaces all around the outside or something like
11 that, which would give the appearance of a lot more open
12 space than what this may have with some larger lots and so
13 forth and then some residentials? Just wondering if you had
14 thought about that or a comment on that?
15 MR. VAUGHT: Well, we have considered that. I
16 think the whole concept of clustering can get interpreted
17 as -- two ways. One is that we're clustering the
18 development potential on this piece of property and
19 maintaining the open space off -site as well as the open
20 space that is within the property.
21 Two is then looking at individual components of
22 the plan and saying, does that represent a cluster? Staff
23 has said there's really no definition of a cluster, other
24 than, perhaps, it has its own identity in terms of its
25 product, and it might have general access, then, to the
109
1 other amenities that are being offered within the site.
2 The second part of your question is, we looked
3 at higher density and higher intensity, multifamily uses
4 along the arterials, because, typically, we do have a
5 greater ability in those types of densities to increase your
6 setbacks.
7
So with multifamily along here and commercial
8
here, we can look at more significant buffers. As far as
`
9
getting a feeling that you're driving -along the countryside,
10
though, and the closest house is back in this area, no, we
11
haven't pursued that, because of the amount of open space
12
that's being dedicated across the street.
13
I will point out that the hundred -year flood
14
plain line does come right across this area, so there will
15
be no development in this zone, and there's quite a wide
16
area. The dotted line comes all the way back to here, so
17
there's a very large green zone that will be maintained
18
within both this plan and the existing residences that occur
19
there. So I don't think it's going to have the intensity of
20
a city, urban street, with the type of uses that we're
j
21
proposing.
22
CHAIRMAN CARNES: I have sort of a related
23
question. I've seen, like I say, the Ponds a couple of
24
times and some others. And I don't get the sense of there
25
being quarters here. Maybe in some areas, the terrain, the
110
1 existing features help with that, but in terms of whether it
2 be a B corridor or natural or open space, whatever it might
3 be, it seems a little choppy to me, looking at the Overall
4 Development Plan in terms of what you filed on the ODP here,
5 you show as open space. I don't see that sense of
6 conductivity. Maybe it's there. I just don't see it.
7 MR. VAUGHT: I'm searching for a slide that was
8 in staff's presentation that shows the open space.
9 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Okay. That's . . .
10 MR. VAUGHT: I don't recall, Mike, the
it calculation, but this was the areas that fell into the
12 description of active recreation, which staff defined as
13 10,000 square feet with a minimum width, I recall, so we had
14 to provide them a document that shows where all those areas
15 were. And that doesn't include the park site.
16 But there is a network of open space that ties --
17 there are small slivers that tie in between each of these
18 cul-de-sacs that tie back into a trail system that takes you
19 to the rerecreation area. There's a trail that cuts across
20 this area that, again, is too small to count, that takes you
21 into the park. There's a trail system that cuts in through
22 each one of these cul-de-sacs. It gets you back into a
23 network of sidewalks. And then there's an open space around
24 each one of these clusters.
25 So perhaps it's not equivalent to what you've
111
1
seen on the Ponds. There are other issues there. But I
<
2
think as staff has indicated, it's a fairly significant
3
amount of open space, and that if we continue to add more
4
open space, then we're going to continue to add the density,
5
and perhaps different types of housing that may be less
6
appropriate for the compatibility with the existing
_
7
residences. So it's a trade-off, I guess, or balance of
8
achieving adequate open space, which we think we've done,
9
and still maintaining some single-family with a mix of
10
multifamily.
11
CHAIRMAN CARNES: So you feel that, you know,
12
you've provided lots of opportunities for internal
13
circulation by all those different modes up to today, that
14
sort of thing?
15
MR. VAUGHT: Absolutely. The simplest way is
16
the city sidewalk that will be on all the streets. But
17
there's a secondary network that goes all the way through
18
the development.
19
CHAIRMAN CARNES: Okay. Thanks. Any further
20
questions? Okay.
21
MR. DAVIDSON: Frank -- or maybe Mike would know
22
this, too. What's the sequencing of the dedication of the
I
'
23
park and also the open space that does not have an option on
24
it?
.
25
MR. LUDWIG: I'll defer to Lucia Liley, the
112
1
attorney.
2
MS. LILEY: Except for the option properties,
3
again, all of the dedications have already been executed by
4
the applicant and they're put into an irrevocable escrow.
5
And the time frame is that they will automatically be
6
released by the escrow agent upon final approval. So it'll
7
be a simultaneous transaction.
3
8
Everything that we can do has already been done,
9
including providing the City with environmental audits, all
10
of the title work, putting partial releases of deeds of
11
trust into escrow, and et cetera. And as a final approval,
12
then assuming all of those conditions are met, that deed
13
will automatically go to the City for the dedications.
14
MR. DAVIDSON: Are we talking final approval of
15
this PUD, first PUD?
16
MS. LILEY: yes. Final approval of the first
17
phase only.
18
MR. DAVIDSON: Right.
19
MS. LILEY: Right. The entire thing will be
20
dedicated.
21
MR. DAVIDSON: Okay. Thank you.
22
CHAIRMAN CARNES: I guess the Chair will
23
entertain a motion, if there is one at this point, if there
24
are no further questions.
25
MR. STROM: I move approval of the Registry
0
113
1
Ridge ODP with the conditions as cited by staff in their
2
amended memo.
3
CHAIRMAN CARNES: Do I hear a second?
4
MS. MICKELSEN: I have some internal battles I'm
5
fighting with this project, and I'm not sure how -- how I'm
6
supposed to deal with these. Part of the battle is its
7
location. You know. Part of me says that this is fine for
i
"
8
this location, but the timing is rotten. That there needs
9
to be some development -- the phasing philosophy that needs
10
to happen before this. And yet I recognize what it does
11
offer. And at this point, I'm -- I'm still rather perplexed
12
behind what I would like to see and what I see before me.
13
MR. STROM: Well, since I had the motion on the
14
table, I guess it's appropriate to make some comments in
15
response.
16
When you're talking about phasing, you have to
17
look at what's possible. You look at the property to the
'
18
north. It's developed in, whatever you want to call them,
19
estate lots. So there isn't anything likely to happen
20
there, anytime in the foreseeable future.
21
You look to the west, and you're looking even
22
farther out. You look to the east, and it's under urban
23
development at the present time. You look to the south, and
24
not only are you farther out, but you're looking basically
25
at areas that we want preserved for the corridor.
114
1 So my argument has to be, I don't see how you
2 could -- I don't see what the property owner -- or what's
3 going to happen differently that's going to change the
4 context.
5
MS. BELL: Just in terms of comments, I guess,
j 6
to follow up on what Jennifer's saying, timing, and I don't
7
even know if this is something that's legitimate for us to
' 8
be ruling on, but at least it's a comment I feel inclined to
` 9
make. .1
10
Since I've been on the Board for a year and a
11
half, any number of projects have come before us that have
12
been in these outlying areas, and they've all been very,
13
very difficult to deal with. Because we're looking at a lot
14
of issues, one of which is how to interface urban
15
development with the rural character of outlying areas.
16
And so in terms of timing, I'm a little bit
17
concerned about how the magnitude of how many units could be
'1
18
potentially on this and the fact that we are really right in
19
the midst of a Comprehensive Plan review, and take -- it
20
makes me really uncomfortable to be potentially approving a
21
project that may be in direct conflict with many of the
22
objectives that we're trying to look at, one being this soft
23
edge concept that some of the folks in the audience have
24
talked about tonight.
25
I think it's a really difficult dilemma, you
gag
115
1 know, how do we interface, and I've not been convinced over
2 the past month that we're doing a very good job of
3 interfacing urban -like development with these fringe
4 properties.
5 I think there's certainly plenty of policies
6 that have been brought up tonight between Glen and Gary and
7 other Board members that do not support this project. I
8 didn't list them all down when I was taking notes, because
9 it is already part of the public record, but there certainly
10 seems to be as many policies that this project is not
11 supporting than it's meeting.
12 So from that regard, I feel very uncomfortable
13 about giving approval to a project, as someone tonight very
14 aptly mentioned, you know, its kind of forever. Once we say
15 that this is what's going to happen on here.
16 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Well, point of order. We have
17 a motion on the floor, and we need a second to, I think, to
18 discuss -- have further discussion. Is there a second to
19 the motion?
20 MS. MICKELSEN: I will second it in order to
21 further the discussion.
22 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Okay. We have a motion and
23 second. And further discussion?
24 MR. COLTON: Yeah. I guess Glen relayed a lot
25 of my feelings on this. You know, I think the open space
i
116
1 aspect of this is great, and I'd really like to be able to
2 keep that. But then you look at this island of development
3 out in an island -- you know, of three units per acre
4 development out among the sea of either open space or one to
5 five or one to ten, and I start getting back to why do we
6 set up the density criteria in the first place, and that's
7 effective utilization of services, close to schools, close
8 to employment, close to shopping.
9 And frankly, I'm skeptical as to whethei4the
10 school will ever happen here, whether the commercial will
11 ever happen here, maybe even the day-care, because Phase 1
12 is 500 -- I know we aren't discussing Phase 1, but I'm
13 skeptical that those extra phases would ever come in, and so
14 I think we're going to end up with an island of density out
15 here where people have to travel a long ways to do anything,
16 and I think that goes against a lot of the things -- a lot
17 of the land use policies. And also, I'm not sure that
18 that's what we'll want coming out of this, when we get done
19 with our Comprehensive Plan.
20 And if I were solo flying tonight, I would say
21 have a lot less density on this, and the heck with the
22 three -unit -per -acre requirement. And I'm not sure what's
23 going to come out of the City Plan, so I guess I would be
24 inclined to deny this until we do get the City Plan done and
25 we know more of what we want on the edges of the city.
117
1
This certainly isn't a Woodland Park PUD, because
2
up there we had a lot of urban development and services
3
right next to it. You know, I haven't have been involved
4
with some of the others, Sunstone. I don't know how those
5
ever got passed, but I don't see this meeting some existing
6
land use policies, and until we get new ones coming out of
7
the plan, I guess I wouldn't be supporting it.
8
MR. ECKMAN: Might I suggest that, as far as
9
some of your comments or concerns regarding th't� policies
10
that you think this does not comply with, if you could
11
indicate some of those specifically; and I might also add
12
that I do not believe that it would be appropriate to base a
13
denial solely upon the idea of some wisdom in waiting until
14
the City Plan has been developed. Rather --
15
MR. COLTON: Based it on the policies, you know,
16
of the 3B, alternative transportation; 3D, location of
17
residential developments close to employment, recreation and
18
shopping facilities; 79B, close to employment centers; 79C,
19
within walking distance to existing or planned elementary
20
school. Let's see. What was 27.
21
CHAIRMAN CARNES: I think we've got a point of
22
order here again that we have a motion on the floor for
23
approval, and we're having discussion about that, but we
24
don't have a motion for denial, and you seem to be citing a
25
basis for a -- your vote on what's on a different motion.
118
1 Am I off -base here?
2 MR. STROM: I
think so.
He certainly
needs --
3 what he's basically doing
is arguing
his position
in terms
4 of the vote.
5 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Okay. So -- okay.
6 MR. STROM: If I could respond to a couple of
7 things. A lot of what we do, this Board, is basically
8 balancing. And it's looking at policies, sometimes, that
9 conflict and saying what are we are losing, what are we
10 gaining, who wins, who loses, and how much.
11 Looking for examples, a question of alternative
12 transportation modes and conflicting that, if you would,
13 with the whole concept of the soft edge. If you're going to
14 have alternative transportation modes in this kind of a
15 location, if you're going to give people an opportunity to
16 ride buses or transit, you're basically looking at higher
17 densities than we've got here now. Three units to the acre
18 is a minimum we basically permit in the city of Fort
19 Collins. And it's in the city of Fort Collins.
20 So I look at the overall concept of the
21 development. I look at the open space. The internal open
22 space is on the order of 21 to 23 percent, depending on
23 whether or not you count the school site. You look at the
24 off -site open space that they're dedicating and offering to
25 the City, and the amount of open space involved in this
119
1
proposal is phenomenal. I don't think I've ever seen one
2
like it. The only -- I mean, someone has raised the Two
3
Ponds issue. The Two Ponds issue is a totally different
4
situation. Two Ponds was a foothills development.
5
Major employment centers. I don't know. You
6
can argue that one in outlying areas. A lot of cases in the
7
past several years, I've argued against fringe development.
8
But usually when I've done that, I've been arguing because
9
there are major gaps between the existing development and
10
what's being proposed. And I don't see that here.
11
Everything basically from here back to the city, not -- you
12
know, not totally completely developed, but there's a
13
pattern all the way back to the core of the city that's
14
developed.
15
You know, to me, sure, there are trade-offs.
16
Does it answer every concern I have? Probably not. Does it
17
answer major concerns? It does. Does it give us something
18
important that we want? It does. And that's where I come
19
down on it.
20
CHAIRMAN CARNES: Okay. Further discussion?
21
MR. COLTON: May I say something?
22
CHAIRMAN CARNES: Sure.
23
MR. COLTON: Well, I don't know exactly if the
24
developer would pursue having lower density. I've heard,
25
it's stated, that the builder would come in and do anything
120
1 that the City wanted, so
perhaps we
could get the open space
2 dedication plus a softer
edge, which
I think would be
3 preferable to open space
and a hard
edge out there. And we
4 haven't even heard whether that's a
possibility or not at
5 this point in time. And
--
6 MR. STROM: Well, perhaps we could, but how does
7 that answer your question about alternative transportation
8 modes or access to employment centers?
9 MR. COLTON: Well, if we have less density, it's
10 less of an issue as far as meeting that. I think the higher
11 density you have, the more you need to be close to those
12 things, because all the automobile trips out there, and if
13 you have a lower density, then you have less need for the
14 mass transit and less people driving that distance.
15 MR. STROM: Except that alternately, with the
16 same number of people, the less density you have, the more
17 you spread them out, and the more they drive.
18 MR. COLTON: What I'm saying is if this is near
19 the edge of the city and we have a choice of high or low
20 density away from things, I would go with the low density
21 away from things, because there's not going to be other
22 things going in anywhere between here and Harmony, probably
23 Harmony Road, of any commercial or employment, and over to
24 probably close to College or this Registry, whatever -- I
25 forget the other name. So that's what's going through my
0
121
1 mind.
2 MS. BELL: So he's saying he'd rather have fewer
3 people traveling more miles than a ton of people traveling a
4 lot of miles.
5 MR. STROM: But what I'm saying is it's a
6 fallacious argument. You don't necessarily put as many
7 people in this location, but you have to put them
8 somewhere. And if you don't develop within the city limits
9 to some minimum density standards, they're going to spread
10 out further. They're maybe not going to go in this
11 corridor. They're not going to drive down Shields. But
12 they're going to go further east or they're going to go
13 further north.
14 You just can't have it both ways. I mean, you
15 either pack them in and give them options to hopefully
16 develop some alternative transportation modes that will make
17 it attractive to them, or you spread them out and let them
18 drive.
19
MS.
BELL: I think one of
the issues that we're
20
talking about
-- Bernie, I think your
point is well taken,
21
that this has
to go somewhere. Maybe
part of what this
22
discussion is
exploring is, is this a
good place for this to
23
take place, given
all of the open space
concerns that have
24
been identified based upon months of
study, you know, with
25
this corridor
issue. Maybe it would
be better to be in the
122
1 east to have the -- if they're going to have to travel from
2 a different part than from this existing location. That's
3 my thought process.
4 MR. STROM: Perhaps it would, although, you
5 know, we look at the result of months of study in this
6 corridor in a fair amount of detail, you know. Tom said
7 that they didn't look at precise lines because they
8 couldn't. If you look at the result of that study, their
9 preferred land use scenario talks about developing this
10 property at cluster densities.
11 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Other Board member comments,
12 questions.
13 MS. MICKEISEN: I understand a lot of what
14 Bernie says, and I support a lot of what Bernie says,
15 because I do believe that within the city limits, we do need
16 to stick to our guns as far as density, because we will
17 never get our densities that are required for transit unless
18 we do.
] 19 I guess there's no point emphasizing about what
j 20 you wish you could change, and there's no point in trying to
21 hold this hostage to a plan or future changes, part of the
22 City Plan. This is before us tonight under the plans that
23 we have before us tonight.
24 And you know, one of the things that I ponder
25 is, you know, Bernie, where would you stand if it. didn't
c
123
T•
1
have -- I mean, I have a feeling, you know, where you would
T
2
stand to some extent. What if it didn't have that off -site
a
'
3
open space across the road? I mean, that's a pretty
4
substantial chunk of land to be dedicating and optioning.
5
MR. STROM: Frankly, it's a hypothetical that
6
I'm not faced with.
7
MS. MICKELSEN: This is true.
8
MR. STROM: It's -- you know, I can't answer
9
that. Certainly, the open space, both,jnternally and
10
off -site, I think, are significant contributors to the
11
concept of preserving the corridor. And preserving some
r
12
sense of open space along the major arterials between two
t�13
communities. So certainly, that's part of what I'm weighing
14
in my view on this project.
i
s
15
MS. MICKELSEN: Okay.
16
MR. STROM: But would I necessarily change my
17
mind if it wasn't there? I can't say.
18
MS. MICKELSEN: Okay. So let me kind of boil
19
down some of the pros. We've got open space dedication and
20
option on land that natural resources has identified as
F
j
21
desirable. This is good. We have land that is already in
22
the city limits that is being brought before us with three
23
units per acre, which is good by our plans, even though
3
24
we -- I mean, to me, I recognize that this is way out there,
i
(.
I
25
and I would rather see it a little bit closer.
124
1
I see a network, the transportation network,
2
within it. I see pedestrian network within it. I do have
3
concerns about the -- what will and will not happen as far
4
as schools, parks.
5
Anybody else want to add -- anybody else want to
6
add first to the pros of this before we go any further?
7
MR. STROM: Well, you know, I think it meets a
8
significant number of the policies of the Comprehensive
9
Plan.
a
10
MS. MICKELSEN: I do, too. I mean, I think,
11
like you said, it's a weighing thing, that we're weighing
12
what it does to what it doesn't do. And, you know, it's
13
each one of us has to weigh the ones that it does and how
14
much -- how important those are to us compared to the ones
i
15
it doesn't.
16 MR. STROM: I'd like to make one additional
{ 17 point in terms of the soft edge concept.
18 MS. MICKELSEN: Okay.
19 MR. STROM: I mean, if we think about some of
20 the -- and Glen, you said you'd been in England recently and
21 were looking at some villages over there. I've been places
22 in Europe as well. And I've certainly looked at books and
23 articles on communities and looked at some of this new
24 urbanism.
25 And I don't happen to think that soft edges is
125
• 1 necessarily that great a deal. I mean, I think some of the
2 communities that are most charming, and they really -- they
3 bring the cattle commons right up to the town fence. I
4 mean, what you're basically talking about in terms of soft
5 edge is you're talking about the kind of development that
6 sits in this area. And many places in the country, that
7 type of development has been derided for several decades as
8 being urban sprawl.
9
So, you know, I'm not -- frankly, not sold on the
10
soft edge. I know some people like it. Lots of people live
11
in those areas. But I'm not convinced it's what we want for
12
the city. Excuse me. And I'm not convinced that it fits
13
with the concept of an Urban Growth Area boundary.
14
MR. DAVIDSON: One of the points that I think
15
about this is, if this development is approved, it also sets
16
up sort of a snowball effect of other properties to be
17
developed, based upon contiguity. And being this is so far
18
outside what I consider city property, even though it's
'•
f
19
within city limits, I'm real concerned about that also. It
20
sets the stage for a lot more development out there that
21
doesn't seem to meet a lot of our land use policies that do
22
exist. So I have real concerns from that point.
23
The open space is very tempting. I'm definitely
24
an open space proponent. I'd like to see as much as
25
possible. So it's a difficult one to weigh. But I do have
126
1 concerns about this, as far as I'm concerned, if I look at
2 density and development around this area, to me, it's a
3 leapfrog, and it's going to create more problems in the
4 future because other developments will be able to be --
5 other land will be able to be developed based upon this
6 approval. Where I stand, yet, I'm not real sure, but I'm
7 not real impressed with some of the justification for it.
8 MR. STROM: Could you tell me what land is going
9 to become developable because -- should we approve this one?
10 MR. DAVIDSON: Well, being we don't get a good
11 enough overview of what's all around this property as I
12 would like to see it, it's sort of hard to judge. But based
13 upon what I've seen visually out there, even if it's estate
14 lots, I could foresee those subdividing somewhere down in
15 the future when they feel impeded upon by this development.
16 That would be a possibility. I'm sure there's some other
17 land, large land ownings there, which will also precipitate
' 18 this also.
19 MR. STROM: Well, I guess I would have to
20 respond that we're at the city limits line, and if I'm not
21 mistaken, we're at the Urban Growth Area boundary for part
22 of this.
23 MR. DAVIDSON: I realize that.
24 MR. STROM: And in terms of subdividing some of
25 those larger lots, one of the problems with large lots is
0
;1PAr;
1 it's not very easy to subdivide them effectively. But even
2 if they did, why would that be a problem to add density in
3 an area that's already developed?
4 MR. DAVIDSON: My concern is we're adding
5 density before we build out to it with other city
6 development.
7 MS. MICKELSEN: Bob, I understand what you're
8 saying because a lot of what I've been concerned about.
9 It's a leapfrog, in a sense -- in my heart, it's a
10 leapfrog. But legally, it is not. You know. We cannot sit
11 here and say, "Gee, whiz, I don't like the location," which
12 is what I'm saying, I don't like the location, so I'm going
13 to deny this or vote against it, because no, I don't like
14 the location. But it is in the city limits, it is in the
15 Urban Growth Area, and it -- it now comes down to where you
16 stand on the policies, on which ones are more important to
17 you. And I thought I would throw in my two cents' worth on
18 fringe development.
19 I think if you look at the area between this
20 Trilby Road north to Harmony, you've got a heck of a lot of
21 variety. And not just lot sizes, because it's rural. You
22 have a lot of variety. You've got gullies in there, and
23 you've got a lot of things going on. And if you want
24 variety in a community, you often see the abrupt change.
25 And that gives you a large lot next to small lots. And
i
128
1 small lots next to open space. Instead of spreading a
2 little bit of open space along for everyone, which is kind
3 of the urban sprawl thing.
4 And I like the variety, which is kind of leaning
5 towards what Bernie is saying, that if you're willing to
6 draw the lines here, there, and everywhere, then you -- you
7 accomplish some common goals versus what I call spreading it
8 out over, you know, neighborhoods.
9 MR. XOLTON: I guess I just feel -- need to
10 respond to one thing, I guess. Bernie, you said that, you
11 know, you got to put people somewhere, so we need to have
12 the density. But at the same time, we're asking for a
13 dedication of 700 units, potential units, of development
14 right next to it.
15 And if we're really concerned with getting as
16 much development at three acres per unit as possible within
17 the Urban Growth Area, we shouldn't even be asking for the
18 dedication of that open space, I guess. What I'm saying,
19 otherwise, what is wrong with trying to get that open space
20 and instead of having 700 units, have 400 units that the
21 developer is agreeable to it, because we just -- you know,
22 we've traded, it sounds like, a thousand, two thousand units
23 of potential development over by the railroad tracks, saying
24 it's desirable to have open space.
25 Yet at the same time, saying we need more -- we
0
I[_J
129
1 need the density over here, and I guess it just doesn't jibe
2 in my mind why we need to have it at this location, and yet
3 at another location, it's okay to say, the City doesn't need
4 it, and it's okay to have open space.
5 MR. STROM: Well, I think it's two different
6 issues. I mean, the areas that we develop, we have an
7 established city policy that says three units to the acre,
8 minimum. But that doesn't preclude us from having open
9 space areas, you know, within the urban development. And
10 certainly, the open space areas in the parks and the
11 recreation corridors, bike trails, and so forth are part of
12 what makes it a wonderful city to live in.
13 So I really think it's two different concepts
14 entirely. I mean, the areas that we are developing, we've
15 said, the City has said through the City Council policy,
16 should be at three units to the acre. Minimum. That
17 doesn't mean you develop everything. And I -- frankly, I'm
18 not totally satisfied with what we get from three units to
19 the acre. But that's the policy that we have. And you
20 know, that's one of the things I'm sure we'll be looking at
21 through the Comprehensive Plan.
22 CHAIRMAN CARNES: If there are no further Board
23 comments, questions, whatever, the Chair would like to make
24 a few comments.
25 And I see this as a really unique corner on an
130
1 incorporated area in the city. I've been amazed -- I guess
2 I'm satisfied there's been a lot of very careful
3 consideration and weighing of all the considerations we've
4 weighed here tonight by the staff, by the applicant, and by
5 the neighbors, pretty realistic appraisal and balancing of
6 those.
7 As far as the density, we do have a comparable
8 number -of units already approved. And so -- and we, as a
9 city, now have the option, if we approve this, of basically
10 transferring that density to this site as perhaps more
11 suitable than where it's currently -- we have currently
12 approved the same number of units.
13 The fact it's in the city limits carries a lot
14 of weight with me. It's already there. The fact that we
15 have existing areas that either are in the County, unlike --
16 and already developed, in the way of the county, or we don't
17 want developed, that would -- it's sort of -- not exactly a
18 physical barrier, but we have essentially areas that we want
19 to remain open that, sure, if we went ahead and developed
20 it, it would provide contiguity. So the contiguity thing is
21 a bit off.
22 We're already providing police and fire services
23 to this area, more or less adequately, and we don't have
24 real good information about how good that service is now,
25 but we do have certain standards that have to be maintained,
131
1
and that decision was made fairly a long time ago to extend
2
the City services to this location.
3
And so I think a lot of those issues that have
4
already been decided by our predecessors or the Council or
5
whomever regarding the incorporation in this area. I think
6
it's a rather odd -- odd piece of -- odd parcel, to say the
7
least, as far as how did this come to be incorporated in the
8
city, and it's -- as we're -- I think we're voicing the
9
awkwardness of that, the past decision, but it's a fact
10
now. It's incorporated in the city.
11
And so, you know, I hear fellow Board members
12
loudly and clearly and every time I've been listening and
13
weighing and all the information I have, and it's the most
14
sensible proposal I think we could hope for for this type of
15
use, and just a question of, is this type of use that's in
16
the best interests of this area and the city overall.
17
Again, considering that we already have approved
18
adjacent to this in an area that's been identified as, by a
19
lot of citizens working very hard, and the staff, as one
20
that we would like to see remain open, so that's -- that's
21
my summation of what I've heard here tonight.
22
Okay. Roll call, please.
23
THE CLERK: Davidson.
24
CHAIRMAN CARNES: Motion for approval.
•
25
(Inaudible.)
132
1 MR. DAVIDSON: Approval.
2 THE CLERK: That was yes? Strom?
3 MR. STROM: Yes.
4 THE CLERK: Bell?
5 MS. BELL: No.
6 THE CLERK: Mickelsen?
7 MS. MICKELSEN: Yes.
8 THE CLERK: Colton?
9 MR. COLTON: No.
10 THE CLERK: Carnes?
11 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Yes.
12 We have approval for the Registry Ridge ODP, and
13 the Board will go on recess now for ten minutes.
14 (Recess.)
15 CHAIRMAN CARNES: The Board's now considering
16 Registry Ridge PUD Phase 1 preliminary, and we've combined
17 our consideration of the ODP as well as the PUD in terms of
18 staff presentation, outcome presentation, and public input,
19 and I think we're back to -- I don't think we have any
20 further staff presentation, do we?
21 MR. LUDWIG: I hasn't planned on it, unless
22 there was specific items you wanted to be stated.
23 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Any Board questions of staff
24 regarding the PUD at this point?
25 Okay. Would the applicant like to address the
133
1 Board and make a presentation of the PUD? We've made a
2 number of references to it, up to this point, in a piecemeal
3 fashion.
4 MR. VAUGHT: Well, we intended for our earlier
5 presentation to be a combination of the ODP and
6 preliminary. So we don't have additional information to
7 present to you, but are available for any specific
8 questions.
9 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Okay. Thank you.
10 Is there any public input at this point on the
it specifics? Please come forward.
12 SPEAKER: I'm still Leanne Thieman. Obviously,
13 we're extremely disappointed. Phase 1 says that you want to
14 put 510 houses across the street from us. It still seems
15 totally inappropriate. I think it is an island. It is
16 different.
17 I know you have the capacity to change the rules
18 that you seem so tied to. And if you don't, then we
19 certainly have a process that we can get a variance on this
20 land and on this development.
21 Know that we will be appealing to the City
22 Council immediately. we are small in number now, but we are
23 very organized. We are extremely determined, and very are
24 very committed, and we feel like we are stewards of the
25 land, and we're going to take this as far as we need to to
134
1 stop this dense development in an island.
2 It is always going to be way out there. It's
3 surrounded by county. So we are appealing again for a
4 variance to this. It is on the fringe. It is different.
5 It just seems like we shouldn't have to apply the same set
6 of rules, necessarily, to -- there have to be exceptions,
7 and I guess I thought that was your role to do this, the
8 balancing, and to -- to know when we make exception and how
9 we -- how we apply things.
10 Somebody just said, gosh, if it's always going
11 to be three units per acre, and that's a rule, then you can
12 do that by computer. And I guess I felt that we were kind
13 of talking about this balancing thing, and I didn't -- I
14 didn't just hear that here.
15 When it came to the vote, I heard all the -- I
16 heard all the input, and I heard a lot of you saying you
17 feel a lot better about if it wasn't way out there and if it
18 wasn't so densely developed, and yet you seem stuck on that
19 rule. So I guess you could do that by computer, then. Why
20 do we have these meetings? I guess I'm confused.
21 But I'm here to say that we are appealing for a
22 variance on this to have it at a much lower density. I know
23 it was annexed 12 years ago, and those were from old rules.
24 I still don't understand, and if somebody can answer this
25 for me later, I would appreciate it. When I read from the
t
135
1
Urban Growth Agreement that said that you have to maintain
2
the character and density of the existing development along
3
common boundaries, why aren't we applying that rule?
i
4
Somebody needs to explain that to us yet.
5
I guess I thought you had more power to make
6
exception to or offer variances and -- on the application of
7
the rules. And I -- I wasn't prepared for two speeches
8
tonight, so I'll quit mine. There may be other of my
a
9
comments here, that wg may have comments.
10
SPEAKER: My name is Dean Miller. My comments
11
will be fairly brief. I sense that you have played by the
12
rules. My sense is the City staff and the developer, that
lie
13
you have played by the rules. You have come into my
14
neighborhood, and you have told me that you will be my
15
neighbor. I have driven up and down Shields Street for 30
16
years. And you come into my community as my neighbor.
17
I heard a reference, I believe, that the
i
18
developer has to provide a sewer line -- is that correct?
19
That ties into the City utility? I'm stuck, as your
20
neighbor, being a county resident, because I live in county
21
along Shields, where developers develop half of the road,
22
and then may not be developed until they finish that phase
23
which comes adjacent to the road.
24
So what I want to share with you as a neighbor
25
is I feel that you have played by the rules, certainly. I
136
1 appreciate your weighing all of the issues. I admire and
2 respect people that do that and can do that.
3 But I want you to know that there is an aspects
4 of your weighing and going by the rules that doesn't include
5 the effect that your decision has on me as your neighbor. I
6 know of no way, based on your rules, that you are in a
7 position to do anything about Shields Street, that is,
8 develop half of the road for a short distance, one side of
9 the road. k
10 I've heard no reference or concern by the
11 developers or by the City of addressing those kinds of
12 issues. At the same time, I have every reason to believe
13 that what I'm speaking to is a need to look at this in a
14 little bit different perspective, that if a developer must
15 tie into city utilities.
16 I don't believe the developer is tying into
17 water, City water utilities. I believe they're tying into
18 the Loveland/Fort Collins water district utilities. But if
19 we require the developer and the City to make sure that we
20 extend the boundaries of the cities, that that extension is
21 contingent upon, one, being a good neighbor. And not
22 looking at developments that go on and on for years that
23 leave open space adjacent to Shields Street. So the road is
24 never developed. For me, that's not being a good neighbor
25 or being fair.
0
137
1 There's a need, from that perspective, for the
2 City and the County to be willing to work much more closely
3 together. Again, I appreciate the opportunity, the time
4 that you give in making real important decisions. I wish
5 somehow, for the developer, that the developer would address
6 some of the concerns that grow out of your coming into our
7 neighborhood, creating more problems, playing by the rules,
8 but not meeting a responsibility to address things that
9 really greatly and significantly impact our lives. That
10 would be true for the City. Thank you.
11 SPEAKER: I'm Jeff Wellman. I live at 1504 West
12 Trilby, right across from the development. My concern is
13 about the wildlife, okay. There's going to be 512 homes
14 homes in this thing. How much more pollution is that going
15 to increase? I can walk out my door in the morning, and my
16 back field, there's two or three deer. You look across the
17 road right now in the wheat fields, this time of year, you
18 can see foxes.
19 Granted, they're giving 102 acres on the other
20 side of Shields, but what's going to happen to the wildlife
21 in this area? That's one thing my kids enjoy. They're
22 young, they're nine and seven and 17 months. That's one
23 thing they look forward to in the morning is seeing these
24 animals. What's going to happen when we have all these
25 homes in there? Thank you.
138
1 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Thank you. Other comments,
2 questions?
3 SPEAKER: My name is Varla Mylar, and I live on
4 the county side. I just wanted to say that we're
5 disappointed with the approval. And I'd like to invite any
6 of you who haven't been in that area to come out and see
7 what exactly it is.
8 Many times in the previous discussion, you were
9 looking for, and you were trying to find what contiguous
10 development there is. That's the point. Your contiguous
11 people are people who live in five- and ten -acre lots and
12 people who live across the street. They have a different
13 kind of setup there.
14 And we'd like to see on one of those pictures
15 maybe some idea of how 500 homes would look in the middle of
16 this land with all this open space around. I don't think it
17 would look nice, and as neighbors, I don't think we'd
18 appreciate it. And it's not just us. It's many people, my
19 friends, who live in the middle of the city who enjoy coming
20 out and seeing the open space. It's something we enjoy and
21 it's not just for us. It's for everybody.
22 And we just -- if any of you can visualize what
23 Clarendon Hills looks on that piece of land, and now we have
24 open space, and if you could see another picture, I don't
25 think we'd want to see that. So again, I'd invite you to
. 139
1 come out and see exactly what it is so you know what you're
2 looking at, and you'll know there's no real contiguous
3 development, and we don't want that. Thank you.
4 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Thank you.
5 SPEAKER: Hi. I'm still Bob Furst. And the
6 answer, I believe it was Gwen that had asked the question
7 about -- it gave me some concerns to find out that there
8 were some people on the Board that may or may not have been
9 in the area or don't remember what the land looks like. I
10 believe it was Gwen had asked what that big rectangle of
11 white space was in here.
12 So can I just go over there and point to a couple
13 of things so that you can be informed? I think it's
14 important to know what's out there before you -- I guess
15 you've made that one vote already. But to answer your own
16 question of what was there, I'd like to show you, if I
17 could.
18 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Feel free as part of your
19 input.
20 SPEAKER: This right here is my 20 acres. This
21 little rectangle that's in the larger rectangle -- oh. This
22 piece is mine. This is my neighbor's. Also 20 acres.
23 There are two more pieces which originally were basically
24 were four 20-acre parcels here. I don't know exactly how
25 these have been divided up so I don't know how many owners
140
1 are in these two parcels here.
2 But these two, no, those are not flood plains.
3 Those are good land, and one of the wildlife issues that
4 hasn't been addressed, on any given day, you can drive south
5 on Shields or, for that matter, north on Shields, and see
6 raptors almost every trip. I'm on neither side of this
7 issue, but having some stake in this matter, I just want to
8 make a few of my points known. Thanks.
w 9 I don't know how many of you on the Board have
10 actually spent some time out there, the different times of
11 day. I do appreciate the issues on both sides. I do
12 understand that it's a rough decision for you to make. I
13 think this will be important to possibly spend some time out
14 there. I'd be willing to invite the Board to have coffee or
15 watch the raptors fly or whatever.
16 I also appreciate Mr. McQuarie's position. One
17 issue here that I find very disconcerting is that it almost
18 doesn't seem as though the City knows what the County's
19 doing or the County -- in order to make a decision of this
20 magnitude, I don't know that you can just look at the small
21 detail of this one development, although he's not here, but
22 I believe it was a Deputy City Attorney, I don't know his
23 name. He said that this approval should have no bearing on
24 what McKee is going to do.
25 I think that, probably, you know, there needs to
t
• •
i
141
1
be -- it's been suggested that there needs to be an overall
2
plan, and I know there is one, but some of the rules seem to
3
apply and some are not necessary. This one could be bent,
4
I think, before something of this magnitude can be
5
determined wisely. I also appreciate Bernie's position.
j
6
But that whole point with the computer. If there
7
is no human input here, and if we're not looking at this as
8
a -- unlike a machine, I mean, if it meets all the points
9
criterions, and it's part -- I mean, all that could be piped
10
into a computer, and what are we all doing here? If it
11
meets all the requirements, what is it we're discussing?
12
If people don't actually know what's out there,
13
if they haven't spent time, and I don't know that they
14
haven't, I think it needs to be -- the big picture needs to
15
be looked at, and not just the development here, and --
16
excuse me, a development there. I think you need to know
17
what McKee is going to do so you know how much traffic is
18
going to be there, so that you know where the developments
19
are going to be.
20
If I can step over there once more, there was an
21
interesting point that I noticed just before. In the
22
overall view -- and yes, granted, there is quite a bit of
23
open space here. Open space to the east. The open space to
24
the east here, certainly, I understand is a priority for the
25
City. But when people are driving -- and I did spend some
142
1 time out on
my property. It may be one
in ten. I'm
2 choosing a
number arbitrarily, but maybe
one in ten is
3 looking to
the east. Most everybody is
looking to the
4 whitecaps.
They want to see the mountains.
They want to
5 see the foothills. They want to see the
open expanse of
6 space.
7
In the overview here, yeah, granted, there's
8
quite a bit of open space within the development. But as
9
someone is driving across Shields, they're looking on a
10
diagonal. That open space is going to be lost. All you're
11
going to see there is houses.
12
And although it looks good from looking down on
13
it, when you're actually driving that route, what you're
14
going to be seeing is -- I come from back East originally.
15
I moved out here 18 years ago because it was so nice. I
16
bought this property because it was so nice.
17
What I'm seeing now is what I would consider, and
18
this is no reflection on the developers whatsoever, because
19
I haven't taken a stance, at all. I personally stand to
20
gain, whichever way it goes. One way, I have my view. The
21
other way, I will probably be one of the people standing
22
before you to develop my 20 acres, if it goes that way.
23
So in either case, I'm not taking a position
24
strongly. I just -- visually, it's going to impact quite a
25
bit, and I just think this needs to be told to you by me, or
143
1 I wouldn't have slept very well tonight.
2 The other side of the coin is, I do want to
3 develop -- I do want to congratulate Jim on having the Board
4 go in his direction. I also felt that incumbent upon me to
5 let you know my feelings on the other side of the coin as
6 well. Thank you.
7 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Thank you. Any other public
8 input?
9 SPEAKER: My name is Mark Thieman, and I live at
10 6600 Thompson Drive. As you know, what -- what you're
11 looking at here is a major change in the space that now
12 exist in between Fort Collins and Loveland. And what I
13 would like to ask you to do is to postpone this PUD, the
14 approval of it, until the Urban Growth Land Agreement is
15 rewritten this spring. We're not talking about several
16 years here. We're talking about several months,
17 postponement, on a project that is going to affect the land
18 in between Fort Collins and Loveland forever. Thank you.
19 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Is there any other public
20 input?
21 Okay. Bring it back to the Board. As one
22 member of the Board, I hear very loudly and clearly the
23 concerns, and appreciate the honest expressions, both pro
24 and con, of our decision, and you certainly do have the
25 right to appeal. I think there's information out there in
144
1 the lobby, and about the rules.
2 This Board does not make the rules. We have very
3 big policy and -- shall we say, policies and rules of the
4 type we're talking about are not made at this level. Our
5 job is to interpret and apply. We do have some authority
6 to, you know, make exceptions to those for variances. And
7 so that's one thing that was appealed to us. And I'm not
8 going to invite an appeal, but you brought it up, and the
9 procedure's available from the City staff.
10 I think we did consider this fairly and try to
11 follow the rules and weigh the application of those, and now
12 the decision before the Board is, as Mr. Thieman just
13 pointed out, and as a Board member brought to our attention,
14 this is another aspect of phasing. The timing of
15 development. Because by putting in the Overall Development
16 Plan, we did not indicate when such might be approved, and
17 that -- or the timing as such. And that's what's before the
18 Board right now.
19 And so going to bring it back to the Board and
20 open it up for additional questions, comments.
21 MS. MICKELSEN: I just wrote down a few things
22 from the various different comments from the neighbors. As
23 far as your requesting a variance, the request for a
24 variance comes usually from the developer. If the request
25 that you're making is a heartfelt request, but it is not
145
1
something that we can grant. Okay? I wanted you to
2
understand that the variance -- you're saying, I would like
3
one unit, two units, per acre, or five acres per unit, is
4
not something that we could do -- it needs to go through a
5
different route.
r
F
6
As far as knowledge of the area, I was -- I
7
moved out to Skyview, south, and lived on Constellation,
8
moved there in 176, and lived there for a number
of years.
9
Very familiar with the area and love it very much. My
10
mother still lives out there.
F
11
The view and the open space, as far as the view
-
12
13
across that land and -- yes, I would say that due to the
grade
where the road is, that a lot of you will be changed.
14
It will be changed. But I think that when the people who
15
studied the land between Fort Collins and Loveland, that
16
they made some calls, and they made some judgment calls, and
17
I think that they've -- well, I guess I shouldn't -- I'm
18
going to leave that one to you.
19
And as far as this making a major change in the
20
land -- land use between Fort Collins and Loveland, as far
21
as waiting until the UGA has been rewritten, I believe Lucia
22
Liley was saying that that would only apply to property that
23
has not yet been annexed? Or has not yet --
24
MR. EC101AN; The Urban Growth Area agreement
25
presently describes the UGA as the unincorporated portion of
I
146
1 Larimer County, around the city.
2 MS. MICKELSEN: So those changes, any changes
3 that happen to the UGA agreement, does not apply to property
4 that is currently annexed in the UGA.
5 MR. ECKMAN: I would be very doubtful that the
6 UGA agreement would be amended to regulate the incorporated
7 portions of the city, because the City would probably want
8 to keep that regulation with its own Board, for example, as
9 opposed to that Urban Growth Area board.
10 So -- and besides that, under the present law, we
11 are to look at the UGA as only the unincorporated area of
12 the county, under the present agreement. And that was one
13 of the questions that was raised, because there is some
14 different language in the UGA agreement than there is in our
15 Land Development Guidance System. But as you know, that
16 chart 1.12, which is the three -unit -per -acre chart, is a
17 mandatory requirement regarding density that has been given
18 to you by the City Council.
19 And also on the comment you made about the
20 variance. You're absolutely correct about that. There
21 might be a way for the Board to grant a variance if one were
22 requested of you by the developer. But in the absence of an
23 applicant requesting a variance and giving you reasons why
24 the variance is justified, you cannot force a variance onto
25 an applicant. You can't force an applicant to violate the
147
1 law. only if the applicant desires to, they, then, must
2 show you why they can fail to comply with the law and still
3 be entitled to the variance, either because of hardship or
4 because of some condition that is equal or better than what
5 would have been proposed in compliance with the law.
6 MS. MICKELSEN: Right. The last thing I wanted
7 to add was on transportation, as far as your comments on
8 Shields. And I'm just going to read this out of the staff
9 report.
10
It says, on -site improvements to Trilby Road and
11
Shields Street will be required, as well as off -site
12
improvements to Shields Street as to Trilby Road to
13
approximately Clarendon Hills at the developer's request.
14
The designs for these improvements have not yet been
15
prepared. As part of any application for the first filed
16
PUD for the Registry Ridge ODP, the applicant must provide
17
utility design plans, blah, blah, blah.
18
But I have a feeling that the designs are not
19
yet set, but if you want to continue to be involved in how
20
that is designed or making your concerns aware of, you know,
21
you need to be in touch with the Engineering Department and
22
Transportation as they go further with the designs, assuming
23
this gets approval tonight. But it does look as if Shields
24
Street will get improvement from Trilby to Clarendon Hills.
.
25
And that's off -site. That's the whole segment that is not
148
1
currently improved.
2
That's all I've got for now.
3
MR. COLTON: I'd like some clarification on
' 4
Parcel N. Because this is included in this PUD. I
5
understood that there's an option on it, so if we approve
6
this, does this mean it's going to be developed? I don't
7
quite understand how that works.
8
And also, I guess, I'd like to get clarification
9
on exactly what we're voting on at this point in time. I
10
know Gary alluded to a phasing -type thing, and I assume we
11
either use the old development criteria, and you know, the
12
point chart. And that's what we go by. I'm not quite sure
13
what you were alluding to.
14
CHAIRMAN CARNES: I'm saying in a general sense,
15
you know, what we're doing here is the first step towards,
16
you know, actual development, whereas the ODP provides a
17
potential but not the actual reality or the promise of it.
° 18
In other words --
a 19
MR. COLTON: Right. So we evaluate it against
20
the point chart and --
21
CHAIRMAN CARNES: Right. That's all.
22
MR. COLTON: And the compatibility criteria.
' 23
Okay. And just the other comment about the
24
viewsheds. I was on the task force for the area between
25
Loveland and Fort Collins. And I think Tom put it very
C�
•
149
1
well, that this is kind of a conceptual plan, and like you
2
said, some people thought more development would be going in
3
there, some thought there would be less, and I don't know, I
4
guess the fact that it was an Urban Growth Area probably led
5
the people drawing the document to assume that something was
6
going to happen there, so they put it on there that way.
7
That doesn't mean it would have to happen that way.
8
And as far as the viewsheds, you know,
9
particularly interested, I'd think; -in area N there, because
10
I drive this road every day, so I know what it's like. And
11
once you get down south of the development there, basically,
12
a big ridge comes up; and as far as I could tell by driving
13
there, the
along McKee property would actually be a lot more
14
hidden from the viewshed -- viewshed than this one will. In
15 fact, that one, driving south, you wouldn't even be able to
16 see it. Coming north, you probably one. But this one
17 probably has a lot more impact on the viewshed than the
18 McKee trust. And if we could leave N open, that might
19 mitigate that to some extent.
20 MR. LUDWIG: As far as Parcel N goes, it's my
21 understanding, and Tom can verify this, but the option to
22 purchase is -- has no bearing on whether or not this
23 receives preliminary approval for housing on Parcel N; that
24 the option that the Natural Resources Department has
25 obtained is for a fixed price on that property, whether it
150
1 is -- never receives approval or whether it does receive
2 preliminary approval on it for housing.
3 Now, you alluded to, if it is approved tonight
4 for, you know, listing as a single-family residential on
5 Parcel N, would it develop. This would need to come through
6 a final PUD again, and it's our intent by the time a final
7 comes through, we should know prior to a final being
8 approved on that piece of land whether or not the City will
9 exercise that option or not to purchase it for open space.
10 MR. COLTON: Okay. So even though normally on
11 preliminary, that locks in the use of the land, in this
12 case, it isn't locking in the use for that land, because the
13 City has the option.
14 MR. LUDWIG: The secondary use is listed as open
15
space
on the ODP. So . . .
16
MR. COLTON: Okay.
17
MS. BELL: So we are looking at how the
bonus
18
points
were awarded?
19
CHAIRMAN CARNES: Sure.
20
MS. BELL: On M, I would like some
21
clarification. We've had discussion tonight about
how, you
22
know,
how the day-care center has been deeded and
all of
23
these
things. We talked about the pool and all of
this
24
stuff
and whether it's going to actually occur and
at what
25
point
that's going to occur, since we're giving ten
points
151
1
to this project.
2
MR. LUDWIG: As is the case with several
3
projects that have come through, we've required that they
4
submit an itemized list of the facilities they're going to
5
provide, and of course, that's an estimate of the cost at
6
this time. Those points are based on that cost figure. So
i
7
by granting approval, they are locked into building those
8
facilities.
t
9
CHAIRMAN CARNES: I have a clarification on
9
10
that. This -- the phase that's been identified for those
a
11
facets is not part of this PUD.
12
MR. LUDWIG: It's not part of this preliminary.
13
That's correct.
14 CHAIRMAN CARNES: And there's no way we can
15 enforce this =- you know, the performance of this, then. I
16 mean, the actual construction of that, nothing the City has
17 the power to require.
18 MR. LUDWIG: Once again, the only thing would be
19 that on the ODP, it's listed as a recreational facility.
20 There is not a secondary use listed. So any different use
21 on it would have to come through. Now, granted, that isn't
22 a guarantee that that will get built.
23 CHAIRMAN CARNES: I mean, it could never happen,
24 and we're powerless to do anything about that never
25 happening. Personally, I have a real problem with giving
152
1 points.
2
Other questions, comments?
• 3
MR. DAVIDSON: I'd also like to take issue with
4
the child care center, because the wording does not say
5
undeveloped, the plans, or proposed. It says 1,000 feet of
6
child care center. I don't think it deserves five points or
7
five percent, because if you look at the wording for your
8
other density chart criteria, as an example, for A, 2,000
9
..teet of an approved, but not constructed. They spell it
10
out. Okay.
11
You go down to C. Existing or approved regional
12
shopping center. D. Publicly owned but not developed. And
13
then the next line down, whether developed or not.
14
I think, clearly, if it doesn't add the comment
15
"whether developed or not," then it doesn't get that
16
credit. And I think you definitely totally misinterpreted
17
that statement, and I think it should be stricken from the
• 18
earned credit.
1 19
MS. MICKELSEN: I would disagree. I don't have
S
20
mine sitting in front of me, but if it doesn't specify that
21
it's for an approved, it doesn't not specify. And I don't
22
think you can hold it to a hard line when it doesn't provide
23
all the information. I mean, it's leaving it open. I'm not
24
the one to make the call and say there's a reason they left
25
it open.
z
153
1
MR. DAVIDSON: So that we interpret whichever
s
2
way it suits our purposes. I don't agree with that.
3
CHAIRMAN CARNES: Are there more questions,
1
4
comments?
5
MS. BELL: Yeah, I'd just like to be reminded on
i
Y
6
number P, on the five points there. I guess that's because
7
of the bicycle path that's going to go through -- this
8
property, per se, does not hook up to anything. But I guess
R
9
this property is going to be responsible for taking the path
10
from its boundary through all the rest of it on to the
11
existing?
t
12
13
MR. LUDWIG: They're going to be connecting, as
far that bike
as path goes, all the way to Clarendon Hills,
14
as part of their final PUD, as well as there are connections
15
from the cul-de-sacs, proposed cul-de-sacs, on the north
16
end -- north edge of the property.
17
MS. BELL: These maps are not very good in terms
18
of helping us see how all this works.
19
MR. LUDWIG: There are connections from the ends
20
of these cul-de-sacs out to Trilby, which will have a bike
s
i
21
path lane, as well as going up Shields Street to Clarendon
22
Hills, where the existing is.
23
MS. BELL: So that's the connection --
24
MR. LUDWIG: Yeah, as well as having that
25
continue on through the development.
154
I MS. BELL: And how about the sidewalks? We're
2 only -- what was the maximum amount -- amount of points that
3 that could receive?
4 MR. LUDWIG: I believe it's 15 points in that
5 category.
6 MS. BELL: So you just gave it five because the
7 bicycle part is connecting, not the sidewalk.
g MR. LUDWIG: Right.
9 CHAIRMAN CARNES: I'd like a clarification on
10 that, because the staff report indicates the sidewalk and
li bicycle pathway.
12 MR. LUDWIG: I'll have to ask for clarification
13 from the Engineering Department. That is a difference in
14 what I've been under the impression, as far as full
15 improvements going to there. I don't know if Sherry Wamhoff
16 is here. I believe she is. Once again, in our review, it
17 was my assumption that, yes, the sidewalk -- it was stated
18 that public improvements would be connected through. Now,
19 if that varies according to the --
20 CHAIRMAN CARNES: It says existing, to the
21 nearest existing city sidewalk.
22 MR. LUDWIG: Right.
23 MS. WAMHOFF: I think I can kind of address it.
24 I heard most of the question, as far as off -site, is that
25 what we're talking about, on Shields?
155
1
CHAIRMAN CARNES: What we're questioning is the
2
statement here that we've given five points for connecting
3
to the nearest existing city sidewalk and bicycle path/lane.
4
MS. WAMHOFF: What it would be, it would not
5
actually be a sidewalk. It would be a shoulder area
6
alongside of the roadway that could be dedicated to bicycles
7
and pedestrians, but it would not be a concrete sidewalk.
8
But it could be a com -- pedestrians could walk along it,
9
but it would be more of a bicycle way.
10
CHAIRMAN CARNES: Doesn't sound like a sidewalk
11
to me. Thanks.
12
MR. COLTON: Just a question on that. At what
13
time does the road actually get improved, toward the
14
beginning of the development, towards the end of it?
15
MS. WAMHOFF: What do you mean by approved?
16
MR. COLTON: Well, I understood to be widened --
17
MS. WAMHOFF: Well, right now we know that --
18
MR. COLTON: Bike lanes.
19
MS. WAMHOFF: Okay. At this time, we're looking
20
at preliminary, and we know that improvements have to be
21
made, but we haven't looked at exactly what those
22
cross -sections will be. We'll look at those in more
23
detail. At the time it was approved for preliminary. We
24
try to work those out prior to final and sometimes even
25
finish working that out after final and exactly what those
156
1 cross -sections and cross -falls and slopes and everything
2 look like, because we may have a general idea of what the
3 layout is, but we may not have exactly enough -- we do not
4 have any sort of street plans or anything at the time that
5 preliminary comes in.
6 MR. COLTON: So you don't know whether to add
7 one lane and a lane or a bike path?
8 MS. WAMHOFF: Not at this time, no, not exactly.
9 They've submitted something in within the last couple weeks
10 of their proposed improvements, off -site improvements, and
11 we're starting to look at those and evaluate those and see
12 what we need. As far as offset improvements, we are limited
13 in what we can require based on the City Code, and so that's
14 what determines what we can -- we can get. We cannot
15 require full arterial improvements off -site. But we will
16 require those improvements adjacent to their site, because
17 we can do so.
18 MR. COLTON: It's a little confusing, then, isn't
19 it? Okay. And just one other question. I appreciate the
20 fact that the developers are donating the park land, but one
21 thing of concern to me in general is, how many years is it
22 before those parks ever get built? In my experience, I've
23 lived in my house for six years, and the neighborhood park
24 has not been built, and I'm kind of wondering about the
25 adequacy of public facilities in general in the city, and of
157
1
course in this one as well, and if
I had my druthers,
I'd
2
say, develop the park, because it's going to take the
City
3
forever for do it, but that's just
my opinion. Thank
you.
4
CHAIRMAN CARNES: Other
Board questions,
E
5
comments?
6
MR. STROM: Just a little bit of followup. Part
S
7
of the question that Glen asked was not just what will be
8
developed but when in terms of street improvements. And the
9
question has to do with whether -- whether that waits till
10
after the people are there or whether that has to be done at
11
the front end so that the improvements are in place when the
12
people come.
13
MS. WAMHOFF: Basically, the improvements will
14
have to be done at the front end. As part of the
15
development agreement, we usually require all street
16
improvements, public improvements of any sort, which
17
includes drainage, streets, water, sewer, and those types of
t
18
facilities to be in place prior to more than 25 percent of
19
the building permits being allotted. So that requires that
t
20
those improvements be completed before a majority of those
21
units receive building permits.
22
MS. BELL: Regarding the improvements on Shields
23
Street, and Trilby, I guess, will the property owners, such
24
as the gentleman who spoke earlier, will he be required at
i�25
t
some point to contribute to the street widening. Or do I
n
158
1 understand that this development is -- because he was
2 talking about what happens on one side of the street
3 versus the other side, and it typically has been the
4 responsibility -- I know I'm a county resident. we end up
5 having to pay our share of having to widen the roads when
6 these sorts of things occur. So I'm just curious on his
7 behalf as to what's happening there.
8 MS. WAMHOFF: Okay. At the time, if he developed
9 his property, he would be responsible to do the improvements
10 along his frontage. If somebody does come in and widens it
11 to the arterial standards with a curb, better sidewalk, and
12 such, they may request a reimbursement agreement, which will
13 require that at the time he redeveloped his land that he
14 would be responsible to pay for those improvements that were
15 done, with a payback agreement. So until the time that he
16 redevelops, there would be no money or exchange of funds.
17 MS. BELL: So the road can go in there based
18 upon what he may choose never to redevelop his land --
19 MS. WAMHOFF: He may choose -- he may choose to
20 do that, but like if the City came in and expanded the road,
21 then the City could put in a reimbursement agreement so at
22 the time that it ever became redeveloped he would have to
23 pay for those improvements.
24 MS. BELL: So like the Prospect and Shields area
25 where those property owners have been reimbursed to some
159
1
degree for the loss of their property --
2
MS. WAMHOFF: Yes. If there's a right-of-way
3
that needs to be purchased, it would be purchased for that
4
right-of-way. But then also, too, if the City builds the
5
improvements, the City can request a reimbursement
6
agreement, which means at the time he develops, he needs to
7
reimburse the City for paving and improving his frontage to
8
the arterial section, whereas if he developed, he would be
9
paying for that already. Is that clear?
10
CHAIRMAN CARNES: Other Board comments,
11
questions?
12
MS. MICKELSEN: I just have been pondering this
13
business
about existing and approved. I think a lot of what
14
goes behind the word "existing" and "approved" are things
15
like -- well, let me look at it the other way. You can't
16
put the day-care center out in the middle of nowhere and
17
expect people to come, although I suppose they would if they
18
were driving by. There are certain things you can't expect
19
to be there first, whereas there are also things like
20
shopping that, shopping centers, things like that, that are
21
on this list that are pretty major -- major activities,
22
major expenses, major things that if you get some sort of
23
sense that this thing is going to happen, that -- that
24
that's a part of why they are allowed to use that as an
25
existing or approved regional shopping. And I'm just trying
1 to look at this and see,
if they're getting ten
points for
2 publicly owned but not developed
neighborhood or community
3 park and five points for
the child care center,
then, you
4 know, according to what
Bob was saying earlier,
chances are
5 that that's what they're
getting their points for, they're
6 going to happen.
7 MR. STROM: Just one brief comment. If I'm not
8 mistaken, if I understood the various descriptions about
9 points, even if we just corrected -the points that people
10 disagree with, we're still over the 60-point --
11 MR. LUDWIG: That is correct.
12 MR. STROM: -- limit.
13 MS. MICKELSEN: Well, I'm ready to make a
14 recommendation for approval of the Registry Ridge PUD, Phase
15 1 preliminary, with the recommendations in the staff report
16 as it was brought to us tonight.
17 MR. STROM: Second.
18 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Further discussion?
19 While the Board members are considering whether
20 they have any further questions or comments, or in the event
21 they have none, the chairman has a problem with following
22 the rules and ending up with people stranded and having to
23 ride along the margin of road of cars traveling at high
24 speed. I've seen statistics. If you're hit -- a
25 pedestrian. If you're hit by a car going 20 miles an hour,
161
1
your chances of surviving are about 95 in a hundred. If
2
you're hit at 40 miles an hour, your odds of surviving are
3
about 15 in a hundred. And I think people know that, so
4
they avoid the margins of roads like this. And as part of
5
this following the rules, the City and/or the developer has
6
a responsibility for providing those connections, especially
7
when we have intervening open space and other things that
8
the City as a whole values. And I just -- I have a lot of
9
troubl'e` supporting a proposal which may leave who knows how
10
many thousands of people stranded with no means of getting
11
in and out of here, other than probably a four-wheel
12
vehicle. And so I would make a -- I want to make a friendly
13
amendment here to require the connection of this development
14
through the nearest existing city sidewalk and be some type
15
of path that's separated from the road, and I don't really
16
care which side it is or what's involved, but I would not
17
support this motion without such a condition.
18
MR. STROM: I don't have a problem with that.
19
MS. BELL: I guess I'm a little confused to go
20
along with this as to why there isn't -- every place else in
21
the city, we require sidewalks.
22
CHAIRMAN CARNES: The -- would the seconder --
'
23
MS. MICKELSEN: That's fine.
24
CHAIRMAN CARNES: Discussion? Further
.
25
discussion?
162
1 MR. COLTON: I disagree with that
2 wholeheartedly. I try to ride my bike into Loveland several
3 days a week in summer, and the County just put in this great
4 road, and by the way, they put a sign next to it, saying the
5 bike lane will come next year, and that comes to about this
6 location. Then you've got like about a three-inch shoulder
7 from there to the rest of the city. I'm not going to go
8 riding down there, even for that one mile, to get to the
9 nice bike lane, unless they put in -- unless wt get this
10 bike lane put in. So I think it really makes sense.
11 MR. STROM: I'm confused. Are you supporting
12 that?
13 MR. COLTON: Yes. Supporting what Gary said,
14 amendment.
15 MR. STROM: That's what I thought you said at
16 the end, but I wasn't so sure in the beginning. Thank you.
17 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Any further discussion?
18 MS. MICKELSEN: So, Gary, this sidewalk is not
19 just a sidewalk but a sidewalk slash bike path?
20 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Yeah, it's got to be separated
21 from the road by a reasonable distance so it's safe, because
22 I don't want any pedestrian or bicycle casualties on my
23 neck.
24 MR. LUDWIG: Would the applicant have some
25 additional input that may help resolve this?
163
1 CHAIRMAN CARNES: And also, staff input,
2 Engineering, as far as how to make this clear to everyone
3 involved?
'
i
4
MR. VAUGHT: I think the street cross-section
5
that has been submitted to engineering, and granted, we're
6
at preliminary stage, they're reviewing it. It's your first
7
opportunity to voice your concerns. It's preliminary. But
8
the section that was submitted was two continuous north and
±
9
southbound lanes and a six-foot paved bike' -lane on each side
•
10
of the road. If there's a desire to detach it, that does
11
create some problems in certain areas where the slopes are
12
more extreme, but it's a six-foot bike lane. It's much
'
13
better than what exists today that Mr. Colton referred to.
'
14
CHAIRMAN CARNES: I understand, but also, I
15
frequently travel that area, and I'm familiar with the
i
16
speeds and the situation there. So if there's a feasibility
17
problem, then I guess we need to know it now, if it might
18
save everyone a lot of time and trouble. Otherwise, if it
19
seems to be feasible from your -- the applicant's point of
20
view and the city staff's point of view, then that's --
}
21
MR. VAUGHT: We have no problem with your
22
friendly amendment, exploring what options that we have.
23
CHAIRMAN CARNES: Well, it was more than
24
exploring options. It certainly includes exploring options,
25
but it is a requirement.
164
1 MR. VAUGHT: Right.
2 CHAIRMAN CARNES: For final approval.
3 MR. VAUGHT: Right. Exactly.
4 MR. STROM: I guess I would just say, they
5 always have the option of coming back at final and saying,
6 there's some places here we just can't do this. Can we talk
7 about it.
8 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Right.
9 MS. MICKELSEN: Because I can think of some
10 areas on Shields that are very steep and that -- can imagine
it putting a detached six-foot sidewalk would be kind of hard
12 to do. I also think that people who ride their bicycles
13 down that road, to some extent, must know what they're
14 getting themselves into. If I ride my bike down that road,
15 I know the speed of the traffic, because I drive my car down
16 that road. So I'm not going to make any assumptions that
17 once we put in a nice, meandering bikeway, that the safety
18 issues are going to be any different than they are now.
19 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Well, it's not safety, but
20 it's -- you know, we have -- trying to expand the range
21 of -- where we're seeing mobility options for people of all
22 ages and conditions and what have you, and to approve
23 something that may be -- because of our rules, an island,
24 except by getting in and out by four -wheeled vehicle, I just
25 can't -- that was the reason for my amendment.
.
165
1
MS. MICKELSEN: I do think that if we rely on
2
the engineering staff and the City and the engineering staff
3
from the applicant to provide the safe and adequate design
4
for that walkway, bicycle way, then that should be enough.
5
CHAIRMAN CARNES: That's all we're asking.
6
Further discussion? Comments?
7
MR. DAVIDSON; I would only support a divided
8
walkway also or bikeway also, for a couple of reasons. one
9
reason, cars travel down there at 60, 70 miles an hour, and
10
I would want to have a lot more than six feet of space on
11
the shoulder. Those shoulders aren't maintained very well
12
for the bicycle lane to begin with. That's pretty evident
13
from
anywhere you ride around in town. I think the shoulder
14
concept for bicycle travel is -- needs a lot of improvement.
15
MS. MICKELSEN: I'm not -- the motion I'm
16
supporting does not include a separated only bike path. I
17
think that's where it's possible and feasible, but where it
18
is not, I mean, I'm not willing to deny a project because
19
there's steep parts on the shoulder area and they cannot
20
get, you know, a detached six-foot bike/walkway.
21
MR. DAVIDSON: Show me strong evidence they can't
22
do it in spots.
23
MS. MICKELSEN: That's why I'm relying on
24
engineering on both sides of the table to do it.
25
CHAIRMAN CARNES: Maybe there was not a clear
U
Am
1 understanding of what the amendment I proposed. It was for
2 detached all the way. I don't know what the maker of the
3 motion understood.
4 MS. MICKELSEN: I am the maker of the motion.
5 CHAIRMAN CARNES: You're the maker of the
6 motion? Okay. You seconded the motion? Okay. I guess if
7 that's unacceptable to you, then it's unacceptable.
8 MR. STROM: I think, if I would try to mediate
9 this. It seems to me that the optimum is to have it
10 separated, as long as it's a high-speed highway. And I'm
11 comfortable with that motion, because I know that when we
12 get to the final, if there are problems with it, and they
13 can demonstrate with reasonable evidence that it can't be
14 done or shouldn't be done in certain places, we will have
15 the option at that point of saying, you're right. You don't
16 need to do it all the way. And so that's why I'm
17 comfortable with the amendment as proposed.
18 MS. BELL: Just to make sure I understand this.
19 Are we are talking about along Shields and Trilby or just
20 along Shields?
21 CHAIRMAN CARNES: We're talking about to the
22 existing sidewalk, bicycle path, infrastructure, existing
23 today.
24 MS. BELL: On both Trilby and Shields. I guess
25 the reason I'm bringing this up is because if we're talking
e
167
1
about along Trilby Road, if we're needing to get extra land
2
there, are we going to have to be abutting into some of
3
those lots that are along there? And does that change --
4
change something?
5
MR. STROM: I guess I would argue it's
6
connected. It doesn't necessarily have to be connected both
7
places. It should be connected -- my preference that it
8
would go north on Shields, because I don't know who's going
9
to want to get over to College Avenue to ride a bike,
10
anyway. I don't know. I certainly haven't investigated it,
11
and I assume the Engineering people would be looking at that
12
as part of the off -site improvements program.
13
SPEAKER:
The proposal, as it stands, is to go
14
north on Shields only, not Trilby.
15
MS. BELL: I guess one of my concerns, clear
16
back, several hours ago, was that the way these projects are
17
connecting up, it is feasible that someone might want to get
18
from that project down to the other, into that red zone
1
19
there, where some other commercial types of things are going
20
on. And I think some sidewalk -- I mean, sidewalks are
21
around in every -- in my neighborhood, we have a sidewalk on
22
College Avenue, detached sidewalk, so people, you know, can
23
walk along there. I guess I don't understand why this
24
project is being exempted from that. Because it is in the
25
city.
3f3
I CHAIRMAN CARNES: Okay. So the question is,
2 with the improvements on Trilby as now proposed would be
3 accepted by the City include sidewalks on Trilby?
4 SPEAKER: Would you repeat that, Gary.
5 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Okay. Before this discussion
6 of requiring detached sidewalk, bicycle path, north along
7 Shields, connecting this project to existing sidewalk,
8 bikeway, infrastructure, before we even got into this, is
9 the City, as a matter of their standards, going to require
10 that sidewalks be built along Trilby Road -- for that
11 matter, along Shields, contiguous with this development?
12 And contemporaneous with this development? We need some
13 help here.
14 SPEAKER: To answer your question for contiguous
15 to the development, yes, sidewalks would be required along
16 both Shields and Trilby. The issue over whether we require
17 off -site sidewalks or bike lanes or whatever we want to call
18 that, that is the thing at issue.
19 The City Code talks about off -site improvements
20 being required to handle automobile traffic. It doesn't
21 mention at this time sidewalks and bike ways. But it also
22 does require that the minimum off -site improvement be a
23 36-foot roadway, which, with a two-lane roadway, you can get
24 six-foot shoulders on that.
25 So I think in the PUD process, I'm assuming, if
169
1
I'm correct, if the Board wants an off -site sidewalk or
2
something like that, that is something that you can ask
3
for. But there will be certain difficulties in doing that.
4
Right-of-way restrictions. There's only a certain complaint
5
of right-of-way. And with the banks on both sides, it may
6
be difficult, if not impossible, to build those walks
7
off -site without acquiring right-of-way.
8
CHAIRMAN CARNES: Okay.
9
SPEAKER: And the developer isn't in a position
10
to condemn for that.
11
CHAIRMAN CARNES: Okay. Thank you. Does that
12
answer your question?
13
MR. COLTON: Yeah. Well -- I don't know about
14
the question. I just wanted a clarification of what happens
15
on Trilby. As far as the road itself, is that going to be
16
improved, then up -- now that we have this existing
17
residential area -- or proposed -- the one that's currently
18
being built on top of the ridge or this one, what would
19
happen to the road between those two, since this is now all
20
open space? Would that be improved? Because it doesn't
21
look like there'd be anyone -- any development going in
22
there to pay that improvement.
23
SPEAKER: As I understand, that's being treated
24
as an off -site also. There would be a 36-foot wide paved
25
area connecting that.
170
1 MR. COLTON: Who pays for that?
2 SPEAKER: The developer. The difficulty will be
3 at the railroad crossing. I'm not sure what would be
4 designed there. Again, it's difficult to answer some of
5 these things when we don't have the designs completed. And
6 those will be better -- we'll have a better idea of what
7 those are at final hearing.
8 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Okay. Thank you. What's
9 being referred to here is Neighborhood Compatibility
10 Criteria A2.6, pedestrian circulation. Purpose. Criterion
11 is designed to ensure that each new development in Fort
12 Collins will provide appropriate pedestrian and bicycle
13 links to the neighborhoods and the community, as well as
14 throughout the development being proposed. Sidewalk and/or
15 bikeway extensions off -site may be required based on impacts
16 created by the proposed development. So on and so forth.
17 That's been there for a long time, and that's really what, I
18 guess, I'm basing this on.
19 MR. BLANCHARD: Just one additional piece of
20 information, and the Board certainly has the option of
21 changing that, but if you look at A 2.4, it states that
22 bicycle facilities are typically built on the road also, not
23 as off the road.
24 CHAIRMAN CARNES: I understand. Yeah. So back
25 to the maker of the motion. Are you accepting the friendly
0
171
1 amendment as restated or not?
2 MS.
MICKELSEN:
I don't know. I don't know. I
3 mean . . . if
their Engineering and our Engineering comes
4 back and says
there are areas where it's infeasible -- if
5 that's correct
verbiage --
to have it detached, then I guess
6 I kind of question
where
that puts you. I mean, if they
7 literally say,
we can do
it detached to this point, and then
8 it's got to go
attached,
because of topography or land
9 ownership.
10 CHAIRMAN CARNES: With your permission, Mr.
11 Eckman? If we have a condition that a detached sidewalk,
12 bikeway, be constructed between this development north on
13 Shields, and connect with the other sidewalk, the existing
14 infrastructure, and that turns out not to be feasible, then
15 this Board, what options would it have at that point?
16 MR. ECKMAN: You could amend the condition, change
17 the condition. If the condition required the detached
18 sidewalk, bike path, though, and it became impossible to do
19 that, you could either deny the project because it failed to
20 comply with the condition or you could change the
21 condition. You couldn't approve it without changing it,
22 though.
23 MS. MICKELSEN: I don't like it, but I'll do
24 it. Sorry.
25 CHAIRMAN CARNES: If there are no further -- the
172
1 motion stands unamended, and are there any further questions
2 or comments or discussion? If not, roll call, please.
3 THE CLERK: Strom.
4 MR. STROM: Yes.
5 THE CLERK: Bell.
6 MS. BELL: No.
7 THE CLERK: Mickelsen.
8 MS. MICKELSEN: Yes.
9 THE CLERK: Colton.
10 MR. COLTON: No.
11 THE CLERK: Davidson.
12 MR. DAVIDSON: Yes.
13 THE CLERK: Carnes.
14 CHAIRMAN CARNES: No.
15 The motion did not carry. The motion failed.
16 Do we have another motion?
17 MS. MICKELSEN: Well, let me just get this
18 straight, Gary. We just went through all this because of an
19 amendment you made to my motion.
20 CHAIRMAN CARNES: I did not make an amendment to
21 your motion.
22 MS. MICKELSEN: A friendly amendment? I'm just
23 kind of curious where you stand.
24 CHAIRMAN CARNES: I'm not changing my position.
25 MS. MICKELSEN: You supported this project if it
i
f �
173
5
1
had detached sidewalks.
2
CHAIRMAN CARNES: That's what I said. If you
3
accepted --
4
MS. MICKELSEN: Just checking.
5
MR. COLTON: She said she agreed to that
6
amendment.
7
CHAIRMAN CARNES: I thought you did not agree to
8
that --
'
9
MS. MICKELSEN: I said I didn't like it, but that
10
I would agree to it. Is that how everybody else sees it?
11
CHAIRMAN CARNES: It's getting late. So since
12
it did not carry --
13
MS. MICKELSEN: Why don't I make another motion?
14
CHAIRMAN CARNES: Okay.
15
MS. MICKELSEN: I make a motion for approval of
16
Registry Ridge PUD Phase 1 preliminary, with the -- with
17
the -- excuse me -- conditions by staff, and the condition
18
that there be a detached sidewalk connecting to the nearest
19
city sidewalk, which is the Shields Street towards the
20
north.
21
CHAIRMAN CARNES: Do we have a second?
22
MR. DAVIDSON: Second.
23
CHAIRMAN CARNES: That was not the amendment I
24
offered. It also included a bikeway. But considering what
25
I'm hearing about City standards, applying those beyond the
174
1 street, I guess for those who are fear -challenged, they
2 could use that facility, and it would be a six-foot wide
3 combination of bikeway, pedestrian way. So I guess I'd
4 offer --
5 MS. MICKELSEN: Intended it to be a bike and
6 pedestrian surface.
7 CHAIRMAN CARNES: And that would be six feet?
8 MS. MICKELSEN: That's what --
9 MR. ECKMAN: City standards would require it to be
10 eight to twelve feet wide if shared by bicycles and
11 pedestrians.
12 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Okay. So --
13 MS. MICKELSEN: Joy, joy.
14 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Okay. So we've got that
15 clarified. Roll call, please.
16 THE CLERK: Bell.
17 MS. BELL: No.
18 THE CLERK: Mickelsen.
19 MS. MICKELSEN: Yes.
20 THE CLERK: Colton.
21 MR. COLTON: No.
22 THE CLERK: Davidson.
23 MR. DAVIDSON: Yes.
24 THE CLERK: Strom.
25 MR. STROM: Yes.
1
2
3
4
z
5
t
6
7
8
$ 9
10
11
12
13
{ 14
J 15
r
16
17
i
18
j 19
20
21
1 22
23
24
i
0 25
175
THE CLERK: Carnes.
CHAIRMAN CARNES: Yes.
We have preliminary approval of Registry Ridge
PUD Phase 1.
(Matter concluded.)
176
1 STATE OF COLORADO )
2 ) REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
3 COUNTY OF LARIMER )
4 I, Jason T. Meadors, a Certified Shorthand Reporter
5 and Notary Public, State of Colorado, hereby certify that
6 the foregoing hearing, taken in the matter of Registry Ridge
7 ODP and Registry Ridge Preliminary PUD, was held on Monday,
8 December 11, 1995, at 300 West Laporte Avenue, Colorado;
9 that said proceedings were transcribed by me from videotape
10 to the foregoing 175 pages; that said transcript is, to the
11 best of my ability to transcribe same, an accurate and
12 complete record of the proceedings so taken.
13 I further certify that I am not related to, employed
14 by, nor of counsel to any of the parties or attorneys herein
15 nor otherwise interested in the outcome of the case.
16 Attested to by me this 2nd day of February, 1996.
17
18
19
Jason T. Meadors
20 315 West Oak Street, Suite 500
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
21 (303) 482-1506
22 My commission expires January 6, 1997.
23
24
25