HomeMy WebLinkAboutREGISTRY RIDGE - OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ..... DEC. 11, 1995 P & Z BOARD HEARING (CONTINUED FROM 11/20/1995) - 32-95 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES170
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
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
7
I K, L, M, N, O, 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, and it is in 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
1
1 176
I1 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 Ill 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
J
1
25
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
175
THE CLERK: Carnes.
CHAIRMAN CARNES: Yes.
We have preliminary approval of Registry Ridge
PUD Phase 1.
(Matter concluded.)
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?
g 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.
1g 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.
173
1 had detached sidewalks.
2 CHAIRMAN CARVES: 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 CARVES: 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?
it 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 CARVES: 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
J
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.
1p 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
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
168
1 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
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
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.
T
i
i
166
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.
g 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
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
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
11 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.
I
I
163
1 CHAIRMAN CARNES: And also, staff input,
2 Engineering, as far as how to make this clear to everyone
3 involved?
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
li 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
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.
i
1
r
162
1 M.R. 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
s riding down there, even for that one mile, to get to the
9 nice bike lane, unless they put in -- unless we 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?
ig 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?
160
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,
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
S
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
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,
5 comments?
6 MR. STROM: Just a little bit of followup. Part
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
18 facilities to be in place prior to more than 25 percent of
19 the building permits being allotted. So that requires that
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
25 some point to contribute to the street widening. Or do I
.
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?
g 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
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
154
1 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.
a MR. LUDWIG: Right.
9 CHAIRMAN CARNES: I'd like a clarification on
10 that, because the staff report indicates the sidewalk and
11 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?
153
1 MR. DAVIDSON: So that we interpret whichever
2 way it suits our purposes. I don't agree with that.
3 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Are there more questions,
4 comments?
5 MS. BELL: Yeah, I'd just like to be reminded on
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
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?
12 MR. LUDWIG: They're going to be connecting, as
13 far as that bike 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
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.
1
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 ..feet 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.
19 MS. MICKELSEN: I would disagree. I don't have
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.
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
7 by granting approval, they are locked into building those
8 facilities.
9 CHAIRMAN CARNES: I have a clarification on
10 that. This -- the phase that's been identified for those
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
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
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
it 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 along there, the 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
u
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
it 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 --
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
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. MICKEISEN: 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
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.
.w
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
I
I
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.
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.
11 The view and the open space, as far as the view
12 across that land and -- yes, I would say that due to the
13 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. ECIQ4AN: The Urban Growth Area agreement
25 presently describes the UGA as the unincorporated portion of
I
1
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
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
n
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
h
9 someone is driving across Shields, they're looking on a
10 diagonal. That open space is going to be lost. All you're
it 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
i
I
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.
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
it 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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
I
4
I
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?
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
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
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
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
i
i
1
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
it 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
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
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
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
is 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.)
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
is 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,
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
I
i
1
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
127
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. MICRELSEN: 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
F
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
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
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
1
20
21
22
23
24
25
So, you know, I'm not -- frankly, not sold on the
soft edge. I know some people like it. Lots of people live
in those areas. But I'm not convinced it's what we want for
the city. Excuse me. And I'm not convinced that it fits
with the concept of an Urban Growth Area boundary.
MR. DAVIDSON: One of the points that I think
about this is, if this development is approved, it also sets
up sort of a snowball effect of other properties to be
developed, based upon contiguity. And being this is so far
outside what I consider city property, even though it's
within city limits, I'm real concerned about that also. It
sets the stage for a lot more development out there that
doesn't seem to meet a lot of our land use policies that do
exist. So I have real concerns from that point.
The open space is very tempting. I'm definitely
an open space proponent. I'd like to see as much as
possible. So it's a difficult.one to weigh. But I do have
r
t
i
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.
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
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
l
123
1 have -- I mean, I have a feeling, you know, where you would
2 stand to some extent. What if it didn't have that off -site
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,linternally and
10 off -site, I think, are significant contributors to the
11 concept of preserving the corridor. And preserving some
12 sense of open space along the major arterials between two
13 communities. So certainly, that's part of what I'm weighing
14 in my view on this project.
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
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
24 we -- I mean, to me, I recognize that this is way out there,
25 and I would rather see it a little bit closer.
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. MICXEISEN: 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
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
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
0
ti
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
it 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
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.
it 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
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
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 tM 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.
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 whether+the
to 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.
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
it 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. MICRELSEN: 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
u
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,
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.
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
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
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
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.
a
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.
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
it 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
I
ill
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
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
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
11 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
4 on that ODP are proposed open space. So the primary use was
5 the medium -density residential, and then proposed open space
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
21 density calculation, so we have to assume there would be
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,
,K'
s
0
A
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?
1g 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?
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
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 --
I
I
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
19 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
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
i.
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
99
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?
b
17 MS. BELL: So when we're taking a look at the
is 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
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
it 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
Y
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
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
b•
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
96
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
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
95
should be and haw -- how mandatory those ultimate uses
should be. The fact is, there's always the opportunity to
amend an ODP to better reflect the market at the time the
development actually occurs.
But it's when the actual awarding of the points
occurs at preliminary where it becomes more critical that if
those points are based on planned services, like I know
we're going to discuss when we talk about the preliminary
PUD, that if points are awarded, then it becomes more of an
issue that probably the ODP probably would be recommended --
it would be recommended that the ODP not be changed.
MR. STROM: I guess part of what I'm thinking
about here is that because we're getting a preliminary PUD
at the same time as the ODP, we have substantially more
detail than we might in some cases have with an ODP, and I
think we have to be careful about picking at the details
when what we're really -- I mean, we'll get into that when
they get this PUD, but we need to focus, at the ODP stage,
on the concepts.
CHAIRMAN CARNES: The chair has some questions
under the Land Use Policies Plan. And again, evaluating the
ODP. Number 22 indicates preferential consideration shall
be given to urban development proposals which are contiguous
to existing development within the city limits or consistent
with the phasing plan for the city's Urban Growth Area.
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
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 west of Shields on the south end of the 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
d•
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
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
m
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
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?
it 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
W
90
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.
89
1 MS. BELL: Okay. Thank you. I have -- did the
2 person on the parks --
3 MR. LUDWIG: I believe R-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 school does get built there
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
b
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
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
S 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.
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
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
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.
84
I three dwelling units per acre. Unless a property is
2 previously dedicated, it cannot be taken out of the density
3 calculation.
4 And so since the school site had not been
5 dedicated to the school district, we had to include that in
6 the density calculation, and for that purpose, that's what
7 the secondary use was, and that's how we calculated that, to
8 make sure they were still three dwelling units an acre.
9 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Other Board questions?
10 MR. COLTON: Yes, clarification. It's obviously
11 not near employment and probably never will be near major
12 employment, given its location, I would assume. And then
13 the question on this shopping center. Is there a certain
14 criteria for the type of definition of a shopping center
15 here, having a good-sized grocery store, which I think Mr.
16 Vaught said would not be the intention here, so I'm
17 wondering if a neighborhood convenience center, which I
18 understand is a gas station and 7-Eleven, would meet the
19 criteria of the neighborhood shopping center as discussed in
20 the criteria in the land use policies.
21 MR. LUDWIG: We, once again, as far as the
22 Code -- codified of those land use policies is the
23 residential uses point chart, and they are claiming -- just
24 a second here. They are not claiming any points for being
25 located near a neighborhood shopping center as it might be
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,
it yes, they were going to build a school on that site.
12 And the letter that came back from the school
13 district said that while they were generally looking 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
i•
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
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.
11 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
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
81
(Video portion of tape restored.)
CHAIRMAN CARNES: Mr. Eckman, I'd like some
clarification on this point. We go to page 24 of the Land
Use Policies Plan. And 3, it says the City shall promote
3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, et cetera. Then the explanation or
discussion, it says, in City review of development and
redevelopment proposals, the list of concerns will be used
as criteria and proposal evaluation. Additional specific
policies may need to be established in order to achieve a
list of concerns.
So what I hear -- what we're doing here is we're
doing this review of -- to see to what extent -- we know the
ones from the staff report, that staff feels this proposal
meets, and then there's some that perhaps it would not
meet. And so can you clarify a little more about, you know,
this plan versus the LDGS and what we're starting to look at
here?
MR. ECKMAN: The LDGS, on page 91, says that the
Overall Development Plan does not -- is not to be reviewed
on the basis of specific design standards and criteria
contained in this section but rather on the basis of
conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
And then the Land Use Policies Plan is a part of
the City's Comprehensive Plan. When it says -- and I didn't
have a copy as you were reading, but I do now. You have a
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.
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
79
other alternative modes of transportation. And 78, again,
residential development should be directed into areas which
reinforce our phasing plan. So I really need to understand
this phasing plan.
SPEAKER: So would you please respond to that
general line of questions?
SPEAKER: Sure. First of all, I'd like to
begin, just a little bit of explanation about the Land Use
Policies Plan. A key word that's in the very beginning of
that document is that they are policy guidelines.
Basically, these guidelines were codified by the LDGS, as
far as several of the items that you had questions were
proximity to employment, access to school and this sort.
Those were codified by the LDGS in the residential uses
point chart. There are, obviously, several of them.
That was one of the issues, when we were
reviewing this, was, you know, what -- basically, as far as
the transit and that, those are all base locational criteria
in the LDGS, and there currently isn't a requirement that
there be certain percentage of points that come straight
from base on location. It currently does not designate
that. I know the Board did consider that and made a
recommendation to the Council, but that has not been adopted
yet.
So basically what we're looking at is we
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
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 30 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
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
a 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
is 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
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
11 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,
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 getting the best we could get for -- for
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.
d.
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
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
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
v.
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.
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
69
1 values. I've heard some references to mitigating or
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,
13 and I thought that might be helpful for the Hoard.
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
68
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
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
P
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
a 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
it 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
is 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.
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
11 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
60
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 is 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
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 --
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
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
a 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
N•
56
1 ambitious. It also is meant to be conceptual at this point,
2 meaning hard boundaries. We didn't -- weren't able to take
3 the study area to look at, you know, is this boundary
4 exactly right? But generally, to give a vision of the
5 future land use scenarios.
6 With respect to the area involved in the
7 off -site dedication, this area was clearly identified as
8 desirable open lands in this plan and had previously been
9 identified in the City's natural areas plan, at least the
10 area between the top of the bluffs and the railroad tracks.
11 The main reason for that was the significant natural feature
12 of the bluffs and the remnant native prairie bluff -type
13 vegetation there. We felt that if you're traveling north or
14 south on Shields and want to have a view of those bluffs,
15 that keeping the area between the railroad tracks and
16 Shields open was also important to accomplish.
17 With respect to this area in here, I'll be
18 really honest. At the point in time when we were putting
19 together the plan, we were looking at -- it was a very
20 difficult process. Mr. Colton was involved in this as
21 well. And there was sentiment that none of this should
22 happen or none of this was feasible, and we'd have colored
23 areas all through this, to the sentiment that all of it
24 should be green.
25 And with respect to this area, you know, I think
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
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.
is 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
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
i8 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,
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
52
of development rights program and to implement that so that
those areas designated in the corridor plan as, again, open
space can have their development rights taken off and put in
areas of the plan designated for urban -level development.
And if you think about it, that's exactly what's
being recommended here, with the open space dedication to
the City of the other property, which is designated on the
corridor plan as open space, desired open space. So they
want to preserve as part of the corridor open space,
putting it on Registry Ridge, which is designated in the
corridor plan as being appropriate for urban -density, higher
residential development.
The only other point I wanted to make is an
issue or a statement was made about Fossil Creek, which was
a project adjacent to the Cathy Fromme Prairie, and that the
fact that that had imposed on it by the City Council a lower
density than three dwelling units per acre. And it's true
that it did. But that was placed on that development by the
Council as a condition of annexation and zoning, based upon
evidence the Council had in the record that there would be
potentially an impact on wildlife habitat, particularly
eagles and ferruginous hawks. When Woodland Park came up,
to the contrary, when there wasn't that kind of an issue,
but simply a compatible issue, the Council didn't make that
kind of variance, request or want that kind of variance, on
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 residential, that they 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
y
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
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
i:.
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
is 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
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 process, because a lot of times these things 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
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
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
a.
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
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.
Yi
17 1 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
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,
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
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
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,
it 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
41
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.
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
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
39
situation which leads to lots of problems, lots of
misunderstandings, and a diluting of responsibility, even to
the extent of acknowledging current problems as well as
addressing problems that will be occurring as a result if
this development is approved.
For example, I believe I saw this evening where
there would be connections with existing sidewalks. From
our home, I've tried real hard. I don't know. I'm sure
it's over a mile. It may be a distance of two miles or more
from our home to any existing city sidewalks.
We will be affected indirectly by any drainage
system that feeds into the natural drainage approximately
two blocks north of our home. During any wet season,
mosquitoes are a problem, and any increases in the amount of
storm water flowing through the natural drainage will
exacerbate the problem.
The proposed Registry Ridge development is
isolated. And the proposed development is very
inconsistent, as Leanne has shared with you, with the
surrounding areas which include acreages, open space, narrow
roads, separation of Fort Collins and Loveland, a transition
zone between the two cities, and the proposed corridor.
I guess one my really basic concerns, having
lived here for approximately 30 -- 32 years, is that with
this type of sprawling development and with the large
36
1 instead of using 80 minutes, I could have 15 instead of 10.
2 Also, when you consider -- and I learned that
3 the three units per acre -- really hasn't been technically
4 proven in Fort Collins, and I learned this from the City
5 Planning and Zoning staff. That these statistics of three
6 units per acre were taken from a 1970 national study and
7 never really been technically proven here.
8 And then when I realized if we're going to comply
9 with existing rules, then I think we have one in effect that
10 definitely applies to us, and it's from the
11 Intergovernmental Agreement from Fort Collins Urban Growth
12 Area published April 29th, 1969, and it says, quote,
13 concerning density, intensity, and location, and then there
14 was number one, and a capital A, a new residential
15 development in the Urban Growth Area shall mitigate
16 potential negative impact on adjacent existing residential
17 developments by maintaining the character and density of the
18 existing developments along the common boundary.
19 I'm told this rule is still in effect. In an
20 ideal world, we'd love it to stay open and be wheat fields,
21 thinking that maybe amber waves of grain truly is the best
22 way to separate these two communities. But the world's not
23 always ideal, so if we can't have our first choice in a
24 semi -ideal world, we wish it to be developed in acreages so
25 it can maintain the character and density of the common
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
4
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
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
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
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,
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
1 read in the Coloradoan this summer, so it must
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 appreciate the 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
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
J 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.
26
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
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
IS 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,
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
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.
i.
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
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
i
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
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 oDP 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
d
19
1 consider one -foot contours that are shown on this plan, but
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
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
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
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 per acre, we're here tonight asking for that 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,
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
If 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
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.
it We've redesigned the north area, then, to have
12 larger lots. In particular, this space. We've eliminated
13 the curb cut and circulation lane that 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
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
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.
is 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
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
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
i.
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?
6
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 Yezoned 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
b•
City's transportation policies, except for the proposed
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,
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
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 Attorneys 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
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
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.
2
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
i
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 S Whitlock, Inc.
315 W. Oak Street, Suite 500
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
(970) or (800) 482-1506
Fax: (970) 224-1199
0
Roll Cali: Davidson, Strom, Bell, Mickelsen, Colton, Carnes. Member Walker was absent.
Staff Present: Blanchard, Eckman, Ludwig, Wamhog, 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.
11
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.
it Please -- please refrain from demonstrations.
12 Thank you.
13 SPEAKER: My name is Dean Miller. 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
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
f
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
it 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 Port
25 Collins and Loveland. A larger, full-scale original of that
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
M
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
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 194, 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
13 yard. Really, 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,
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
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
s•
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
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.
I
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?
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 --
a SPEAKER: Let's see. It's your discretion, if
9 you prefer to to whenever we get more Board input and
10 questions --
li 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