HomeMy WebLinkAboutREGISTRY RIDGE PUD, PHASE I - PRELIMINARY ..... APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL - 32-95A - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL1*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17.
18
i9
20
21
22
23
24
25
176
STATE OF COLORADO )
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
COUNTY OF LARIMER )
I, Jason T. Meadors, a Certified Shorthand Reporter
and Notary Public, State of Colorado, hereby certify that
the- foregoing hearing, taken in the matter of Registry Ridge
ODP and Registry Ridge Preliminary PUD, was held on Monday,
December 11, 1995, at 300 West Laporte Avenue, Colorado;
that said proceedings were transcribed b5 me from videotape
to the foregoing 175 pages; that said transcript is, to the
best of my ability to transcribe same, an accurate and
complete record of the proceedings so taken.
I further certify that I am not related to, employed
by, nor of counsel to any of the parties or attorneys herein
nor otherwise interested in the outcome of the case.
Attested to by me this 2nd day of February, 1996.
JaPh T. Meadors
5, West Oak Street, Suite 500
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
(303) 482-1506
My commission expires January 6, 1997.
061
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.) .:
0
b
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
174
street, I guess for those who are fear -challenged, they
could use that facility, and it would .be a six-foot wide
combination of bikeway, pedestrian way.So I guess I'd
offer --
MS. MICKELSEN: Intended it to be a bike and
pedestrian surface.
CHAIRMAN CARNES: And that would be six feet?
MS. MICKELSEN: That's what --
MR. ECKMAN: City standards would require it to be
eight to twelve feet wide if shared by bicycles and
pedestrians.
4
CHAIRMAN CARNES: Okay. So --
MS. MICKELSEN: Joy, joy.
CHAIRMAN CARNES: Okay. So we've got that
clarified. Roll call, please.
THE CLERK: Bell.
MS. BELL: No.
THE CLERK: Mickelsen.
MS. MICKELSEN: Yes.
THE CLERK: Colton.
MR. COLTON: No.
THE CLERK: Davidson.
MR. DAVIDSON: Yes.
THE CLERK: Strom.
MR. STROM: Yes.
173
1 had detached sidewalks.
2 CHAIRMAN CARNES: That's what I said. If you
3 accepted --
4 MS. MICKELSEN: Just checking.
5 MR. COLTON: She said she agreed to that
6 amendment.
7 CHAIRMAN CARNES: I thought you did not agree to
8 that --
9 MS. MICKELSEN: I -said I didn't like it, but that
10 I would agree to it. Is that how everybody else sees it?
11 CHAIRMAN CARNES: It's getting late. So since
12 it did not carry --
13 MS. MICKELSEN: Why don't I make another motion?
14 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Okay.
15 MS. MICKELSEN: I make a motion for approval of
16 Registry Ridge PUD Phase 1 preliminary, with the -- with
17 the -- excuse me -- conditions by staff, and the condition
18 that there be a detached sidewalk connecting to the nearest
19 city sidewalk, which is the Shields Street towards the
20 north.
21 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Do we have a second?
22 MR. DAVIDSON: Second.
23 CHAIRMAN CARNES: That was not the amendment I
24 offered. It also included a bikeway. But considering what
25 I'm hearing about City standards, applying those beyond the
r:
172
1 motion stands unamended, and are there any further questions
2
or comments or
discussion? If not, roll call, please.
3
THE
CLERK: Strom.
4
MR.
STROM: Yes.
5
THE
CLERK: Bell.
6
- MS.
BELL: No.
7
THE
CLERK: Mickelsen.
8
MS.
MICKELSEN: Yes.
9
THE
CLERK: Colton.
10
MR.
COLTON: No.
11
THE
CLERK: Davidson.
12
MR.
DAVIDSON: Yes.
13
THE
CLERK: Carnes.
14
CHAIRMAN CARNES: No.
15
The
motion did not carry. The motion failed.
16
Do we have another motion?
17
MS.
MICKELSEN: Well, let me just get this
18
straight, Gary.
We just went through all this because of an
19
amendment you made to my motion.
20
CHAIRMAN
CARNES: I did not make an amendment to
21
your motion.
22
MS.
MICKELSEN: A friendly amendment? I'm just
23
kind of curious
where you stand.
24
CHAIRMAN
CARNES: I'm not changing my position.
25
MS.
MICKELSEN: You supported this project if it
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. MICRELSEN: 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
u
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.
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.
8 MR. STROM: I think, if I would try to mediate
9 this. It seems to me that the optimum is to have it
10 separated, as long as it's a high-speed highway. And I'm
11 comfortable with that motion, because I know that when we
12 get to the final, if there are problems with it, and they
13 can demonstrate with reasonable evidence that it can't be
14 done or shouldn't be done in certain places, we will have
15 the option at that point of saying, you're right. You don't
16 need to do it all the way. And so that's why I'm
17 comfortable with the amendment as proposed.
18 MS. BELL: Just to make sure I understand this.
19 Are we are talking about along Shields and Trilby or just
20 along Shields?.
21 CHAIRMAN CARNES: We're talking about to the
22 existing sidewalk, bicycle path, infrastructure, existing
23 today.
24
MS.
BELL: On
both
Trilby and Shields. I
guess
25
the reason I'm
bringing
this
up is because if we're
talking
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 rea5on, 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. MICKELSEY, Because I can think of some
10 areas on Shields that are very steep and that -- can imagine
it putting a detached six-foot sidewalk would be kind of hard
12 to do. I also think that people who ride their bicycles
13 down that road, to some extent, must know what they're
14 getting themselves into. If I ride my bike down that road,
15 I know the speed of the traffic, because I drive my car down
16 that road. So I'm not going to make any assumptions that
17 once we put in a nice, meandering bikeway, that the safety
18 issues are going to be any different than they are now.
19 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Well, it's not safety, but
20
it's -- you know,
we have -- trying to expand
the range
21
of -- where we're
seeing mobility options for
people of all
22
ages and conditions and what have you, and to
approve
23
something that may
be -- because of our rules,
an island,
24
except by getting
in and out by four -wheeled vehicle, I just
25
can't -- that was
the reason for my amendment.
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
it create some problems in certain areas where the slopes are
12 more extreme, but it's a six-foot bike lane. It's much
1.3 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. ,
162
1 MR. COLTON: I disagree with that
2 wholeheartedly. I try to ride my bike into Loveland several
3 days a week in summer, and the County just put in this great
4 road, and by the.way, they put a sign next to it, saying the
5 bike lane will come next year, and that comes to about this
6 location. Then you've got like about a three-inch shoulder
7 from there to the rest of the city. I'm not going to go
8 riding 'down there, even for that one mile, to get to the
9 nice bike lane, unless they put in -- unless.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 1 MR. STROM: That's what I thought you said at
16 the end, but I wasn't so sure in the beginning. Thank you.
17 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Any further discussion?
18 MS. MICKELSEN: So, Gary, this sidewalk is not
19 just a sidewalk but a sidewalk slash bike path?
20 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Yeah, it's got to be separated
21 from the road by a reasonable distance so it's safe, because
22 I don't want any pedestrian or bicycle casualties on my
23 neck.
24
MR. LUDWIG:
Would
the applicant have some
25
additional input that
may help
resolve this?
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 trouble 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. MICEELSEN: That's fine.
24 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Discussion? Further
25 discussion?''
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
5 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,
2.2 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
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 I '
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?
8 MS. WAMHOFF: Not at this time, no, not exactly.
9 They've submitted something in within the last couple weeks
10 of their proposed improvements, off -site improvements, and
11 we're. starting to look at those and evaluate those and see
12 what we need. As far as offset improvements, we are limited
13 in what we can require based on the City Code, and so that's
14 what determines what we can -- we can get. We cannot
15 require full arterial improvements off -site. But we will
16 require those improvements adjacent to their site, because
17 we can do so.
18 MR. COLTON: It's a little confusing, then, isn't
19it? 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 --
is.
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'11'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.
8 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?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
MR. DAVIDSON: So that we interpret whichever
way it suits our purposes.
CHAIRMAN CARNES:
comments?
I don't agree with that.
Are there more questions,
153
MS. BELL: Yeah, I'd just like to be reminded on
number P, on the five points there. I guess that's because
of the bicycle path that's going to go through, -- this
property, per se, does not hook up to anything. But I guess
this property is'fjoing to be -responsible for taking the path
from its boundary through all the rest of it on to the
existing?
MR. LUDWIG: They're going to be connecting, as
far as that bike path goes, all the way,to Clarendon Hills,
as part of their final PUD, as well as there are connections
from the cul-de-sacs, proposed cul-de-sacs, on the north
end -- north edge of the property.
MS.. BELL: These maps are not very good in terms
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.
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. 5hey 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 thi-s 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 clarificar'ion 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 purdhase 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, INd-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
148
1 currently improved.
2 .That's all I've got for now.
3
MR. COLTON: I'd like some
clarification on
4 Parcel N.
Because this is included in
this PUD. I
5 understood
that there's an option on
it, so if we approve
6 this, does
this mean it's going to be
developed? I don't
7 quite.understand how that works.
8 And also, I guess, I'd like to get clarification
9 on exactly what we're voting. on at this point in time. I
10 know Gary alluded to a phasing -type thing, and I assume we
11 either use the old development criteria, and you know, the
12 point chart. And that's what we go by. I'm not quite sure
13 what.you were alluding to.
14 CHAIRMAN CARNES: I'm saying in a general sense,
15 you know, what we're doing here is the first step towards,
16 you know, actual development, whereas the ODP provides a
17 potential but not the actual reality or the promise of it.
18 In other words --
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. MICKELSEN:. Right. The last thing I wanted
7 to add was on transportation, as far as your comments on
8 Shields. And I'm just going to. read .this out of the staff
9 report. I
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
146
1 Larimer County, around the city.
2 MS. MICKELSEN: So those.changes, any changes
3 that happen to. the UGA agreement, does not apply to property
4 that is currently annexed in the UGA.
5 MR. ECKMAN: I:would be very doubtful that the
6 UGA-agreement would be amended to regulate the incorporated
7 portions of the city, because the City would probably want
8 to keep that regulation with its own Board, for example, as
9 opposed to that Urban Growth Area board.
10 So -- and besides that, under the present law, we
11 are to look at the UGA as only the unincorporated area of
12 the county, under the present agreement. And that was one
13 of the questions that was raised, because there is some
14 different language in the UGA agreement than there is in our
15 Land Development Guidance System. But as you know, that
16 chart 1.12, which is the three -unit -per -acre chart, is a
17 mandatory requirement regarding density that has been given
18 to you by the City Council.
19 And-also.on the comment you made about the .
20 variance. You're absolutely correct about that. There
21 might be a way for the Board to grant a variance if one were
22 requested of you by the developer. But in the absence of an
23 applicant requesting a variance and giving you reasons why
24 the variance is justified, you cannot force a variance onto
25 an applicant. You can't -force an applicant to violate the
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 1 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
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
11 meets all the requirements, what is it we're discussing?
12 If people don't actually know what's out there,
13 if they haven't spent time, and I don't know that they
14 haven't, I think it needs to be -- the big picture needs to
15 be looked at, and not just the development here, and --
16 excuse me, a development there. I think you need to know
17 what McKee is going to do so you know how much traffic is
18 going to be there, so that you know where the developments
19 . are going to be.
20
If I can step
over there once more, there was an
21
interesting point that I
noticed just before.
In the
22
overall view -- and yes,
granted, there is
quite a bit of
23
open space here. Open space
to the east.
The open space to
24
the east here, certainly,
I.understand is
a priority for the
25
City. But when people are
driving -- and
I did spend some
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. McQuarieIs 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
z
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 five 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.
it SPEAKER: I'm Jeff Wellman. I live at 15n4 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
18can 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 Streets 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.
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 we 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
2.3 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
134
1
stop this dense development in an island.
2
It is always going to be way out there. It's
3
surrounded by county. So we are appealing again.for a
4
variance to this. It is on the, fringe. It is different.
5
It just seems like we shouldn't have to apply the same set
6
of -rules, necessarily, to -- there have to be exceptions,
7
and I,guess I thought that was your role to do this, the
8
balancing, and to -- to know when we make exception and how
9
we -- how we apply things.
10
Somebody just said, gosh, if it's always going
11
to be three units per acre, and that's a rule, then you can
12
do that by computer. And I.guess I felt that we were kind
13
of talking about this balancing thing, and I didn't -- I
14
didn't just hear that here.
15
When it came to the vote,'I heard all the -- I
16
heard all the input, and I heard a lot of you saying you
17
feel a lot better about if it wasn't way out there and if it
18 wasn't so densely developed, and yet you seem -.stuck on that
19 rule. So I guess you could do that by computer, then. Why
20 do we have these meetings? I guess I'm confused.
21 But I'm here to say that we are appealing for a
22 variance on this to have it at .,a much lower density. I know
23 it was annexed 12 years ago, and those were from old rules.
24 I still don't understand, and if somebody can answer this
25 forme 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
11 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-havea 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
F09P4
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 awktitardness of that, the past decision, but it's a fact
10 now. It's incorporated in the city.
11 And so, you know, I hear fellow Board members.,
12 loudly and clearly and every time I've been listening and
13 weighing and all the information I have, and it's the most
14 sensible proposal I think we could hope for for this type of
15 use, and -just a question of, is this type of use that's in
16 the best interests of this area and the city overall.
17 Again, considering that we already have approved
18 adjacent to this in an area that's been identified as, by a
19 lot of citizens working very hard, and the staff, as one
20 that we would like to see remain open, so that's -- that's
21 my summation of what I've heard here tonight.
22 Okay. .Roll call, please.
23 THE -CLERK: Davidson.
24 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Motion for approval.
25 (Inaudible.)
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, na'r have the option, if we approve this, of basically
10 transferring that density to this site as perhaps more
11 suitable than where it's currently -- we have _currently
12 approved the same number of units.
13 The fact it's in -the city limits carries a lot
14 of weight with me. It's already there. The fact that we
15 have existing areas that either are in the County, unlike -
16 and already developed, in the way of the county, or we don't
17 want developed, that would -- it's sort of -- not exactly a
18 physical barrier, but we have essentially areas that we want
19 to remain open that, sure, if we went ahead and developed
20 it, it would provide contiguity. So the contiguity thing is
21 a bit off.
22 We're already providing police and fire services
23 to .this area, more or. less. adequately, and we don't have
24 real good information about how good that service is now,
25 but we do have certain standards that have to be maintained,
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 1 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-thatIs 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
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. COLTON: 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
2.0 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
F411r1
1 it's not very easy to subdivide them effectively. But even
2 if they did, why would that be a problem to add density in
3 an area that's already developed?
4 MR. DAVIDSON: My concern is we're adding
5 'density before we build out to it with other city
6 development.
7 MS..MICKELSEN: Bob, I understand what you're
8 saying because a lot of what I've been concerned about.
9 It's a leapfrog, in a sense -- in my t'eart, 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
Ir
9
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
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
1 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
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 internally 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. MICKELSEN: 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
FP41
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
120
1 that the City wanted, so perhaps we could get the open space
2 dedication plus a softer edge, which I think would be
3 preferable to open space and a hard edge out there. And we
4 haven't even heard whether that's a possibility or not at
5 this point in time. And --
6 - MR. STROM: Well, perhaps we could, but how does
7 that answer your question about 'alternative transportation
8 modes or access to employment centers?
9 MR. COLTON: Well, if we have less density, it's
10 less of an issue as far as -meeting that. I think the higher
11 density you have, the more you need to be close to those
12 things, because all the automobile trips out there, and if
13 you have a lower density, then you have less need for the
14 mass transit and less people driving that distance.
15 MR. STROM: Except that alternately, with the
16 same number of people, the less density you have, the more
17 you spread them out, and the more they drive.
18 MR. COLTON: What I'm saying is if this is:near
19 the edge of the city and we have a choice of high or low
20 density away from. things, I would go with the low density
21 away from things, because there's not going to be other
22 things going in anywhere between here and Harmony, probably
23 Harmony Road, of any commercial or employment, and over to
24 probably close to College or this Registry, whatever -- I
25 forget the other name. So that's what's going through my
119
1 proposal is phenomenal. I don't think I've ever seen one
2. like it. The only -- I.:mean, someone has raised the Two
3 •Ponds issue. The Two Ponds issue is -.a totally different
4 situation. Two Ponds was a foothills development.
5 Major employment centers. I don't know. You
6 can -argue that one in outlying areas. A lot of cases in the
7 past several years, I've argued against fringe development.
8 But usually when I've done that, I've been arguing because
9 there are major gaps between -the existing development and
10 what's being proposed.. And I don't see that here.
11 Everything basically from here back to the city, not -- you
12 know, not totally completely developed, but there's a.
13 pattern all the way back to the core of the city that's
14 developed.
15 You know, to me, sure, there are trade-offs.
16 Does it answer every.concern I have? Probably not. Does it
17 answer major concerns?. It does. Does it give us something
18 important that we want? It does. And that!,s where Income
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 An 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
w 9
some of your comments or concerns regarding the 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
10 school will ever happen here, whether the commercial will
11 ever happen here, maybe even the day-care, because Phase 1
12 is 500 -- I know we aren't discussing Phase 1, but I'm
13 skeptical that those extra phases would ever come in, and so
14 I think we're going to end up with an island of density out
15 here where people have to travel a long ways to do anything,
16 and I think that goes against a lot of the things -- a lot
17 of the land use policies. And also, I'm not sure that
18 that's what we'll want coming out of this, when we get done
19 with our Comprehensive Plan.
20 And if I were solo flying tonight, I would say
,21 have a lot less density on this, and the heck with the
22 three -unit -per -acre requirement. And I'm not sure what's
23 going to come out of the City Plan, so I guess I would be
24 inclined to deny this until we do get the City Plan done and
25 we know more of what we wanton 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
11 supporting than it's meeting.
12 So from.that regard, I feel very uncomfortable
13 about giving approval to a project, as someone tonight very
14 aptly mentioned, you know, its kind of forever. Once we say
15 that this is what's going to happen on here.
16 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Well, point of order. We have
17 a motion on the floor, and we need a second to, .I think, to
18 discuss -- have further discussion. Is there a second to
19 the motion?
20 MS. MICKELSEN: I will second it in order to
21 further the discussion.
22 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Okay. We have a motion and
23 second. And further discussion?
24 MR. COLTON: Yeah. I guess Glen relayed a lot
25 of my feelings on this. You know, I think the open space
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
it half, any number of projects have come before us that 'have
i2 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.
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
11 trust into escrow, and et cetera. And as a final approval,
12 then assuming all of those conditions are met, that deed
13 will automatically go to the City for the dedications.
14 MR. DAVIDSON: Are we talking final approval of
15 this PUD, first PUD?
16 'MS. LILEY: yes. Final approval of the first
17 phase only.
18 MR. DAVIDSON: Right.
19 MS. LILEY: Right. The entire thing will be
20 dedicated.
21 MR. DAVIDSON: Okay. Thank you.
22 CHAIRMAN CARNES: I guess the Chair will
23 entertain a motion, if there is one at this point, if there
24 are no further questions.
25 MR. STROM:' I move approval of the Registry
111
1 seen on the Ponds. There are other issues there. But I
2 think as staff has indicated, it's a fairly significant
3 amount of open space, and that if we continue to.add more
4 open space, then we're going to continue to add the density,
5 and perhaps•different types of housing that may be less
6 appropriate for the compatibility with the existing .
7 residences. So it's a trade-off, I guess, or balance of
8 achieving adequate open space, which.we think we've done,
9 and still maintaining some single-family wit17 a mix of
10 multifamily.
it 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 1 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 thi-s 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-wouldbe
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 alternativesfor 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,
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
it planning information that we received from Cityscape as to
12 their preliminary concepts that they're looking at for the
13 balance of that property. And looking at Shenandoah, we
14 have already accommodated the potential for those
15 connections to occur.
16
MR. STROM:
I'm sorry,
Frank. The brown there
17
that you indicated is
approved as
multifamily?
18
MR. VAUGHT:
This is,
yes.,
19
MR. STROM:
On the ODP
piece to the east, what's
20 that one?
21
MR.
VAUGHT:
This one
is called medium -density
22
residential. I
don't
recall what
that density or that total
23
number of units
is -in
that area.
24
MR.
STROM:
That whole
piece from Shields east
25
is either being
dedicated
or is under option to the City?
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.
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'•11 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—
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
a
1 the --
100
2 MS. BELL: If we approve this now, we're, in
3 essence, saying -- are we, in essence, saying the
4 configuration of this is just fine the way it is? If we
5 don't like the configuration, is this the time to mess with
6 it?-
7 MR. LUDWIG: Yes.
8 MS. BELL: As opposed to later.
9 MR. LUDWIG: At a -later time, the applicant
10 might propose to change the layout of the ODP.
it 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
�37
I 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 they
13 property we say we want for open space. So it is, in fact,
14 as close as you can get to development, I guess, within the
15 city limits.
16 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Other questions? Comments?
17 MS. BELL: So when we're taking a look at the
18 general concept of this ODP and each of these parcels, we
19 are,.in essence, approving, in general, the notion that on
20 Parcel C would be commercial, office, et cetera. And when
21 and if we got down to the preliminary phase on one of those
22 parcels, and we felt like the commercial development, for
23 instance, should be in a different place on this ODP, is now
24 . the time to address that?
25 MR. LUDWIG: Now or. at the time -- I mean, •if
1 plan says that residential development will guide the
2 transit routes.
3 So I would say there would be. an opportunity in
4 the future for a transit route in this area, with that
5 number of units. With what's going in on Ridgewood Hills on
6 development, there would definitely -- I'd be surprised if
7 there wasn't an opportunity to do so.
8 Once again, we debate -- the policies are --
9 we're looking at encouraging -development at three dwelling
10 units an acre in the area, and to go less -- there's two
11 conflicting policies right there in the Land Use Policies
12 Plan. One says developing at three dwelling units an.acre,
13 and the other saying is, well, how far out are we.
14 There's a conflict there. And like we said, the
15 best we can do is to try and address it, I guess, through
16 what the other plans are saying, the further guidance, you
17 know. Like I said, the Land Use Policy Plan was adopted in
18 .179, and there have been further plans that have been done
19 since that time to help to clarify what the land use
20 policy's intent: is.
21 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Thanks. Other Board
22 questions; comments?
23
MR. STROM:
.I guess I just have
one thought.in
24
terms of contiguity issue. If you look at
a map of the city
25
limits, the Ridgewood
Hills property to the
east is really
97
1 existing levels of police and fire protection. Parks. And
2 utilities should not be allowed to develop until such
3 services can be adequately provided and maintained.
4 And it seems like we have been dancing around
5 that a little bit, especially with regard to parks. I don't
6 know about -- again, I guess we didn't get any response at
7 all from police services, as far as serving this magnitude
8 of development at this distance?
9 MR. LUDWIG: There weren't any concerns. There
10 was a response, but no concerns.
11. CHAIRMAN CARNES: No concerns. Okay. Policy
12 Number 49. The City's Land Use Policies Plan shall be
13 directed toward minimizing the use of private autos and
14 toward alleviating and mitigating the air quality impacts of
15 concentrated use of automobiles.
16 And that was a public concern we heard expressed
17. here tonight as well. What do you do with putting something
18 the size of-- if this is fully developed, something the
19 size of Wellington at this location in.terms of the
20 concentration of, you know, not near employment centers, et
21 cetera?
22 MR. LUDWIG: As far•as the.opportunity for
23 transit, I kind of alluded.to, that,.that Land Use Policies
24 Plan does say that it needs to be close to existing transit
25. ofa 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, 1 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
95
1 should be and how -- how mandatory those ultimate uses
2 should be. The fact is, there's always the opportunity to
3 amend an ODP to better reflect the market at the time the
4 development actually occurs.
5 But it's when the actual awarding of the points
6 occurs at preliminary where it becomes more critical that if
7 those points are based on planned services, like I know
8 :we're going to discuss when,we talk about the preliminary
9 PUD, that if points are awarded, then it becomes more of an
10 issue that probably the ODP probably would be recommended --
11 it would be recommended that the ODP not be changed.
12 MR. STROM: I guess part of what I'm thinking
13 about here is that because we're getting a preliminary PUD
•14 at the same time as the ODP, we have substantially more:-
15 detail than we might in some cases have with an ODP, and I
16 think we have to be careful about picking at the details
.17.. when what we're really -- I mean, we'll get into that'when
18 they get this PUD, but we need to focus, at the ODP stage,
19 on.the,concepts.
20. CHAIRMAN CARNES: The chair has some questions
21 under the Land Use Policies Plan And again, evaluating the
22 ODP., Number 22 indicates preferential consideration shall
23 be given to urban development proposals which are contiguous
24 to existing development within the city limits or consistent
25w 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
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 Is 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
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. • •
g MS.. MICKELSEN: Point of clarification, again --
9. again, for myself. We are measuring•the ODP against the
10 Land Use Policies Plan?
11 MR. ECKMAN: The LDGS says you're measuring it
12 against the entire Comprehensive Plan, of which the -well,
13 the Land Use Policies Plan is a part.
14 MS. MICKELSEN: You know, part of me struggles,
15 because, granted, we're not looking at the PUD at this
16 moment, but we measure it against the LDGS. And, you know,
17 I'm just pondering this -.for the moment..
is 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._ I I.
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
all
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'ai 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
17
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 K-Lynn left. As far as
4 answering your questions regarding the parks, in both the
5 ODP packet and -- or in the staff memo and the preliminary
6 PUD-staff memo, there was a memorandum from Mike Powers, who
7 is the director of the CLRS division, and in there, he
8 indicates that once again, that the proposal to dedicate a
9 six -acre par)C site adjacent to a proposed school site
10 interior to the development is -- is consistent with the
it 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
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
8 about is I'm looking at this ODP, and I understand all of
9 your rationale, you know, for what you've done here, but you
10 know, one of the things we're trying to achieve in this
11 community is pedestrian access to their own community
12 things. And I don't see that really happening the way this
13 current ODP is set up. I think it could happen with maybe
14 some adjustments, but that's just a concern that I have that
15 this. Board has been discussing a lot on other projects.
16 MR. VAUGHT: There is a network that perhaps
17 doesn't show up on your reduction of internal walkways that
18 are in the green space areas that connect into the,
19 recreation,area, and then on through to the park site.
20 There are gaps in lots that occur that allow for connections
21 over to Trilby and then directly into the commercial
22 center. Now, that will be enhanced as the commercial center
23 becomes a reality, if it does, in terms of connecting both
24 the city sidewalks that occur on the streets and the open
25 space walks.
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?
11 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
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?
MR. DAVIDSON: I'd like -to make some exception
l0 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
1 three dwelling units per acre. Unless a property is
2 previously dedicated, At 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,
11 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
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
81
1 (Video portion of tape restored.)
•2 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Mr. Eckman, I'd like some
3 clarification on this point. We go to page 24 of the Land
4 Use Policies Plan. And 3, it says the City shall promote
5 3A, 39, 3C, 3D, et cetera. Then the explanation or
6 discussion, it says, in City review of development and
7 redevelopment proposals, the list of concerns will be used
8• as criteria and proposal evaluation. Additional specific
9 policies may need to be established in order to achieve a
10 list of concerns.
11
So what I
hear
-- what
we're
doing
here
is we're
12
doing
this review of
-to
see to
what
extent
-- we
know the
13 ones from the staff report, that staff feels this proposal
14 meets, and then there's some that perhaps it would not .
15 meet. And so can you clarify a little more about, you know,
16 this plan versus the LDGS and what we're starting to look at
17 .here?
18 MR. ECKMAN: The LDGS, on page 91, says that the
19 overall Development Plan does not -- is not to be reviewed
20 on the basis of specific design standards and criteria
21 contained in this section but rather on the basis of
22 conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan.••
23 And then the Land Use Policies Plan is a part of
24 the City's Comprehensive Plan. When it says -- and I didn't
25 have a copy as you were reading, but I do now. You have a
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.
79
1 other alternative modes of transportation. And 78, again,
2 residential development should be directed into areas which
3 reinforce our phasing plan. So I really need to understand
4 this phasing plan.
5 SPEAKER: So would you please respond to that
6 general line of questions?
7 SPEAKER: Sure.. First of all, I'd like to
8 begin, just,a little bit of explanation about the Land Use
9 Policies Plan. A key word that's in the very beginning of
10 that document is that they are policy guidelines.
11 Basically, these guidelines were codified by the LDGS, as
12 far as several of the items that you had questions were
13 proximity to employment, access to school and this sort.
14 Those were codified by the LDGS in the residential -uses.
15 point chart. There are, obviously, several of them.
16 That was one of the' issues, when we were
17 reviewing this., was, you. know, what -- basically, as far as
18 the transit and that, those are all base locational criteria
19 in the LDGS, and there currently isn't a requirement that
20 there be certain percentage of points that come straight
21 from base on location. It currently does not designate
22 that. I.know the Board did consider that and made a
23 recommendation to the.Council, but that has•not been.adopted
24 yet.
25 So basically what .we're looking at is we
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, 3B, 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
77
1 planned neighborhood and regional community shopping
2 centers. I'm not sure,,maybe you could clarify, whether a
3 neighborhood convenience center with maybe a 7-Eleven meets
4 a criteria of a neighborhood shopping center per this
5 guideline.
6 - And this also highlights that you should have
7 easy access to major employment centers and walking distance
8 to an existing or planned elementary school. I guess my
9 question is, if the school district has not commited to a
10 school here, would this not be a violation, perhaps, of that
11 aspect as well.
12 And then there's a lot of policies in here
13 regarding phasing, and I can't -- I'm not an expert on all
14 of these, but like 22 and 23 and 24, where it talks about
15 preferential treatment, consideration given to urban
16 development proposals which are contiguous to existing
'17 development within the city limits or consistent with the
18 phasing plan for the City's Urban Growth Area.
19 I guess I need a little more clarification on the
20 phasing plan for the City's Urban Growth Area, because it
21 talks about, in point number 23, the expansion plan to
22 services and facilities, including utilities, 26 is -- yeah,
23 available of existing services. There's just'a lot of them
24 in there that deal with the phasing, and I guess I have a
25 question as to how that applies to this development. It
76
1 locating the residential development within the corridor..
2 So there was a basic philosophical difference
3 given the fact that the corridor plan was in process at the
4 time, and the question about whether it was appropriate to
5 locate development just outside of our Urban Growth Area
6 when part of the site itself was actually located within
7 Loveland's.
8 SPEAKER: Thanks, Bob.
9 SPEAKER: Glen? -
10 SPEAKER: Yeah, Mike. My understanding is we
11 need to evaluate it in the Comprehensive Plan and the land
12 use policies plan. You outlined maybe eight or ten elements
13 that support this usage. And I guess I have a question on
14 these other elements and whether you think this supports
15 these other elements or not.
16 3B, which is to promote alternative
17 transportation mode. I guess the question there is, will
18 this be promoting.alternative --.does it have any access to
19 mass transit or other alternative modes? And then 3D says
20 the location of residential development, which is close to
21 employment, recreation, and shopping facilities, and I guess
22 I'd like to understand what employment opportunities are
23 nearby.
24
And
this is
also
highlighted
more in point 79,
25
Item Number 79,
which
talks
about easy
access to existing or
75
1 concerns, and then narrow it down to, what's the specific
2 proposals, of which there are two that are before us now.
3 So who would like to start?
4 SPEAKER: Mike, a couple of questions. First
5 would be, what is the closest existing sewer and water, City
6 sewer and water?
7 SPEAKER: It's to the north on the railroad
8 tracks, about, I think it's about a mile and a half. The
9 applicant would be required to extend that -- those services
10 to the site at the developer's expense, not the City's
11 expense.
12 SPEAKER: Okay. And this sort of goes back to
13 another question about McKee trust. I guess I've heard a
14 lot of bad things about McKee trust in the past. So I'm.
15 wondering, if the City was so opposed to McKee trust in the
16 past, in this area adjacent to this development, why are
17 they so strongly recommending Registry Ridge? Tell me
18 the -- I guess give me a comparison here. Give me a better
19. feel. I've heard some of it but not all --
20 SPEAKER: The issue on the McKee trust that City
21 Council debated, before they sent a letter to the County,
22 was the fact that it was on approximately 900 acres and they
23 were clustering all the property to the north. But yet the
24 lower third, the southern third of that site, was located
25 within Loveland's Urban Growth Area, but yet they were
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.
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
S" 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 seethe county residences that line Trilby Road.
13 And then back down to the south.
14 These.are taken from Shields Street at the
15 southern portion of the property. This is approximately at
16 the boundary of the off -site open space dedication on the
17 east side,' so I'm sort -of standing on the dedication there.
18 Once again, the view of the foothills:
19 These are the large estate lots that I was
20
referring to in earlier
slide.
And then to the south.
21
And then this
is a
slide of the proposed open
22
space, which is the'102
acres
that's proposed to be
23
dedicated. Once again,
as Tom
referred to, the ridge is
24
a -- is a major concern,,
coming
back then. So .
25
And that concludes
the site shots I took.
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
70
process now.
SPEAKER: So that would be a distance of --
SPEAKER: Three miles.
SPEAKER: Okay.
SPEAKER: Actually, four miles. .
SPEAKER: First of all, this slide was taken
from the southeast corner of Shields Street and Trilby Road.
Looking to the north, you can see the existing county
residences there on the corner of Shields Street and Trilby
Road.
Looking at the site, this is looking to the
west, down the boundary of Trilby Road, towards the
mountain -- foothills.
Once again, this is more of just a panoramic
view, looking from that same spot towards the middle of the
property and to the south.
This is along the west property line, this PUD,
looking down the fence line from Trilby Road.
And the next slide will show you this pretty
dramatic rise in the terrain from that corner of the
property up, which, a majority of this corner, is going to
be the storm water detention area, so protecting that
setback.
Here, I'm standing about halfway down the west
property line of the project, and it's basically a panoramic
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 Board.
14 SPEAKER: Okay. Could we have a view of the
15 scenic values, then?
16 SPEAKER: Pardon?
17 SPEAKER: Could you please go ahead and show us
18 the slides?
19%• SPEAKER: Sure.,
20 SPEAKER: While Mike's going to fix the
21 projector, we checked on the location of the nearest fire
22 station, and probably the one that would service this, at
23 least right now, is the one on Harmony, to the east of
24 College. I know that the Poudre Fire Authority is looking
25 at locating one to the south, but they're still in that
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
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 SIfields 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, whichwould 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.
M
1 correct? We'll get clarification from her regarding the
2 obligation of the developer.
3 SPEAKER: No. The only thing that has been done
4 is to put a deed, a signed, executed deed, into an
5 irrevocable trust escrow. The church has voted to accept
6 it.- So, again, it's contingent on approval, obviously, of
7 Registry Ridge, and automatically, if that is approved, it
8 will come out of escrow and become property of the church
9 for a day-care, and of course_, cannot be changed. The use
10 of it, unless the ODP were to be amended and approved by the
11 City at a future date, if it were requested, and that would
12 be discretionary.
13 SPEAKER: So -- okay.
14 SPEAKER: Let's see. Mr. Miller had a number of
15 concerns about fire and police response times. I know it's
16 within the city limits, and we are providing service to
17 that. Have -we had any response from fire, police, regarding
18 this proposal?
19. SPEAKER: There were no comments or concerns
20 expressed by either. Once again, the Poudre Fire Authority
21 does not just -- I mean, they take care of .both county --
22 they serve both county and city limits, so that's the same
23 service between the two. However, we .did not receive any
24 concerns or comments from the police department about
25 providing service to this area...
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'•11
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
m
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, soI would expect some decrease in activity in
1s 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
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.
18 Okay. I think I'll -- can the cameras get this
19 map okay so that you all can see it? Okay.
20 Starting with the bigger picture, this is the
21 preferred land use scenario for the plan for the region
22 between Fort Collins and Loveland. On a historical basis,
23 when we refer to the corridor plan, we were talking about
24 this one -mile strip between the Urban Growth Areas of
25 Loveland and Fort Collins. When the plan was redone and
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 w
10 either the Board or Council would approve a variance to
11 that.
12 I want to correct one point that Frank made
13 about the deeds. The deeds have actually all been put in
14 escrow. They're fully executed and have been put in an
15 irrevocable escrow. They've been reviewed and approved by
16 the City. And those are deeds for all the on -site open
17 space, deeds for the park site, and a deed for the day-care
18 center. Thank you.
19 'SPEAKER:' Thank you, Ms. Liley.
20 Now, we'll bring it back to the Board for -- I'm
21 going to try to summarize the questions for the staff on the
22' part of the public. And starting with Leanne Thieman's
23 questions, I think some of those have been addressed by the
24 applicant. 'I'd like to also hear the staff address the
25 corridor, the corridor plan, and the open space dedication,
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
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
6 an overhead projector here next time, or I don't believe
7 we'll be attempting this.
8 So would you please respond to the public's
9 concern about the IGA/UGA?
10 SPEAKER: Mr. Chair, members of the Board, my
11 name. is Lucia Liley. I represent the applicant.
12 There was a suggestion that perhaps there should
13 be -a tabling of this, if you will, or a waiting until the
14 IGA is amended. I wanted to talk just a minute about that.
15 I think that that would not address -- even if
16 the Board were to consider that, that would not address the
17 issues that the neighborhood is raising about Registry
18 Ridge, for the simple reason that no matter what the City
19 and County decide to do about IGA amendments, they would not
20 apply to property that is already annexed into the city.
21 That would apply only to properties within the Urban Growth
22 Area but not yet annexed.
23 I think there's been that discussion with other
24 projects and plans that have come up, but I think, again,
25 waiting wouldn't really accomplish anything, because the
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. I
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
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,'11 bring it back to the Board.
7 I guess that we'll give the applicant opportunity to respond
8 to the issues that have been identified on the piece of
9 paper here and the ones that -have been identified through
10 public input. Not looking for new information but really to
11 be quite specific, as far as addressing particular issues
12 here. And then after that, other Board members may have
13 questions of you later on. And then we'll have the staff s
14 response to the questions. Would you like for me to
15 reiterate any of the ones for the public input?
16 SPEAKER: I think we tried to take good notes.
17 I think this will be a combination.of myself and perhaps
18 Matt Delich addressing some of the traffic issues. There
19 was a storm .water question at the bottom of the page that if
20 the Board ,wishes, we can have our engineering firm, Northern
21 Engineering, address that. And then I think Lucia Liley
22 would like to speak to some IGA/UGA issues.
23 As far as density, I think that we have
24 presented to the Board the options. Sometimes a soft edqe
25 could be looked atlas 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,
11 and I live at 1704 West Trilby Road, which is roughly a
12 quarter mile to the west and the north of the proposed
13 development.
14 What I have to say is brief. In a certain
15 sense, it reiterates what Leanne Thieman has had to say, but
16 what I'd like to hit upon is just the fact that in this last
17 November 7th election, the citizens of both Larimer County
18 and the city of Fort Collins did voice overwhelmingly their
19 support for the open space concept.
20
This particular plan, or this plan in particular,
21
but I think
it speaks to the intent of
the open space plan
22
that people
have for it, namely, more than
just assigning
23
numbers and
points and, you know, value
criteria. Of
24
course, we
do need to quantify things.
I understand. But
25
the concept
of there being visually and
perceptually, you
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, G
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.;-
HE
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
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. I.f
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 tome to be creating a problem and creating a
37
1 boundary.
2 A compromise would certainly be a much, much less
3 densely populated area. That's why we are imploring you to
4. please not approve this tonight, certainly not the. second --
5 a development that is asking to begin tonight, and that we
6 wait until the Urban Growth Land. Agreement has been
7 rewritten so we can do this according to a very strategic
8 and carefully made plan.,
9 Thank you. .,
10 SPEAKER: Thank you..
11 Please --please refrain from demonstrations.
12 Thank you.
13 SPEAKER: My 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
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, 1989, 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
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 Tront 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,
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 inthe 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 -Is 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 µ
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"bf
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 Col'linsi.
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 From -me 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
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 to call it transition zone or a soft edge, and I think
19 Fort Collins used to have that. When I�came, it was -- it
20 was Horsetooth. And now it's Cunningham Corners, but you
21 can still see the houses and the one -acre lots behind them
22 on Shields and Horsetooth there. And now we finally do have
23 a real edge of town, and I think we need to make some
24
exceptions about how
we want that to look
forever.
25
I read in
the Coloradoan this
summer, so it must
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 bye:. {.r
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
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.
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, tc�
10
limit it in any way as to, you know, the kind of input you
il
would choose to make to the Board here, except we have,
12
again, a three -minute limit per individual and ten minutes
13
for each group. So if you could come to both mikes here,
14
both podiums, and identify yourselves, sign in, and write
15
down your address, and if -- while one is speaking, if
16
another could go to the other podium, again, that would help
17 move things along.
18 SPEAKER: Good evening. My name is Leanne
19 Thieman. I live just north of this proposed development on
20 6600 Thompson Drive, and I am speaking on behalf of a lot of
21 us here tonight.
22 We talked about all of us taking our four
23 minutes, but decided, for two reasons,• to have just a few
24 major spokepersons here this evening. One is in the
25 interests of time and to'be-concise, and the second is a
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?
it
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
25
1 we have Tom Shoemaker, who is the Director of Natural
2 Resources here this evening, as far as open space and what
3 those different plans are indicating should be done. We
4 have Sherry Wamhoff from the Engineering Department, Eric
5 Bracke from our Transportation Department, and Glen Schulter
6 from Storm Water Utility. At this time, I don't know if you
7 want me to go ahead and go down each of those -
8 SPEAKER: Let's see. It's your discretion, if
9 you prefer to to whenever we get more Board input and
10 questions --
11 SPEAKER: We should probably -- I would suggest
12 more input first, to see if these are all-inclusive or if
13 there are others.
.14 SPEAKER: Mr. Vaught or whomever is speaking for
15 the applicant, would you care to address any of these at
16 this time?
17 SPEAKER: I guess I would like to reserve the
1.8 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
24
1 County Sheriff's Department. However, since this project is
2 in the city limits, that would be the police department and
3 fire service. It would be Poudre Fire Authority for both.
4 Question about on -site wetlands 'on the
5 property. The applicant did outline those in their
6 presentation as far as being on approximately the southern
7 third of the property.
8 Questions regarding the point chart. Questions
9 regarding the on -site open space dedication, how those
10 points are calculated. The park land dedication to the
11 City. And should points be awarded for planned facilities,
12 such as a planned day-care, when they're not a part of the
13 PUD phase?
14 And finally, there were some questions regarding
15 storm water on the property, as far as there were some '
16 proposed detention/retention on the northwest corner of the
17 south, and with its outflows going to the north, and
18 questions about off -site easements that might be needed.
19 And so that's a brief summary of the issues that
20. at least I've heard throughout the process. I'm sure there
21 may be some additional ones that may be added this evening
22 in the public input.
23 As far as coming up with answers to those
24 questions, I'm more than willing to try and address how
25 staff looked at.those issues. In addition, from the staff,
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.
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
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
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 haverelocated and decreased the size
4 of the commercial site, •put it more in a central location.
5 This particular site, you can see with the relief that it
6 has., we felt was more appropriate for a residential -type
7 project. We've relocated the higher -density areas that were
8 here, around the commercial, and this brown area and in the
9 gold, area, and incorporated the day-care center adjacent to
10 those areas.
11
We've redesigned the north area, then; to have
12
larger lots.
In particular,
this space. We've eliminated
13
the curb cut
and 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 73.2 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
12
1 development. The fact is that there have been no
2, improvements in this area for probably 20 to 25 years, and
3 there will not be any improvements until development occurs.
4 The third concern is related to the commercial
5 uses.! Our nine -and -a -half -acre complement of commercial is,
6 again, a result of the City's desire to provide mixed -use
7 development. It is'not a strip mall nor a joke that has
8 been included for the purpose of achieving points. In fact,
9 we get no wnoints 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.
18 Traffic. Because.the density is perceived too
.19 high, traffic is a concern. However, many improvements.will
20 be made surrounding this site on,Trilby and along Shields,
21 as well.as the extension of a wider section of Shields north
22 to Clarendon Hills that includes bikeway connections to
23 those existing,.improvements that will improve traffic flow
24 and safety. In fact;,a signalized intersection at the -- at
25 Shields and Trilby will,result-with future phases of this
10
1 Area, as
shown by the
heavy
dark line,
and within the
city
2 limits,
as indicated
by the
dashed red
line. It was
annexed
.3 and zoned back in 1981, zoned RLP,-and is adjacent to a
4 piece of property that's been referred to as the Del Webb
5 property. That was an approved master plan. This is a
6 piece west -- or east of Shields that went all the way over
7 to College, County Road 32, and up to Trilby.- It was
8 master -planned and approved back in 1984.
9 K. Subsequently, that plan was revised, and it's
10 now referred to as Ridgewood Hills ODP. That was revised
11 and approved very recently, back in 1994. And in fact, the
12 density, or the Phase 1 development, has started up along
13 Trilby, in this area, and just for reference purposes, the
14 density of that phase is five dwelling units per acre.
15 Now,• there are, we think, two significant
16 documents that influence this plan and the issues -- I'm
17 going to have to have a little piece of velcro here, I
18 think, to keep this attached -- but to influence this plan
19 and the issues surrounding it.
20 The first is the All -Development Criteria of the
21 LDGS that requires a minimum of three dwelling units per
22 acre on a gross basis for residential projects within the
23 city limits. More recently, there is an advisory document
24 that is referred to as the plan for -'the region between Fort
25 Collins and Loveland. A larger, full-scale original of that
0
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 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?
7
1
K, L, M, N, O, P, and Q,
with a residentialdensity 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
C-J
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 rezoned RLP, low
5 density planned residential, with a PUD condition.
6 _ A maximum total of 702 dwelling units are
7 proposed, for an overall gross density of 3.07 dwelling
8 units per acre. That figure of 702 units includes possible
9 residential uses on the school site, should a school not be
10 built.
11 The Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan is
12 in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and it
13 exceeds the minimum gross density requirement of three
14 dwelling units per acre. The street layout and traffic
15 volumes projected for the ODP are in compliance with the
16 City's transportation policies, except for the proposed
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 multifamilyresidential; a three -acre day-care
23 site; a.3.l-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 Attorney's office.
22 The third item I distributed was a copy of a
23 memorandum summarizing the neighborhood meeting which was
24 held last Wednesday night on these proposals.
25 The fourth item was a copy of a letter from a
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
MEETING BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Held Monday, December 11, 1995
At Fort Collins City Council Chambers
300 West Laporte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
Concerning Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan
and
Registry Ridge Preliminary PUD
Members present:
Gary Carnes, Chairman
Gwen Bell
Glen Colton
Bob Davidson
Jennifer Mickelsen
Bernie Strom
For the City:
Paul Eckman, City Attorney's Office
Bob Blanchard, City Planning Office
Mike Ludwig, City Planning Office
Court reporting services provided by
Meadors & Whitlock, Inc.
315 W. Oak Street, Suite 500
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
(970) or (800) 482-1506
Fax: (970) 224-1199
to December 9, 1995 RECEIVED �[C ppC
r 1995
Mike Ludwig
City Planner
281 North College
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Mr. Ludwig and Planning and Zoning Board Members,
We are home owners in the Mountain Valley Subdivision that is
near the proposed Registry Ridge Development. We have attended
several neighborhood meetings and would like to share our
feelings regarding this and any similar proposals.
1. We believe Fort Collins unique character would best be
preserved by allowing the urban growth area to taper off
into a "soft edge,' rather than into an abrupt concentrated
area of development like the proposed Registry Ridge. This
more rural look would certainly be more in character with the
developments already established.
2. We would like to see a distinct corridor between Fort
Collins and Loveland, and the density of this proposed
development would further diminish that potential span. This
development, with a variance granted to allow less than three
houses per acre, could foster that separation by allowing
this area as to be a final transition zone for the edge of
Fort Collins.
3. We feel a development of lesser density is more compatible
with the nearby Cathy Fromme open space. Approving a
development of this density with its own commercial area
would only hinder the small town unity we love about Fort
Collins and encourage a hodge podge of micro -communities to
evolve on the fringes of the urban development areas.
4. Since this development is on the outside perimeter of the
Fort Collins urban growth area, we feel any new development
should be considered part of the comprehensive plan to be
accomplished in conjunction with the county. Until that
comprehensive plan has been formulated, we urge you to
carefully consider how a development of this density might
impact that mutual aim.
We understand and recognize that the development of this area is
inevitable, but we encourage you to listen to our views and
support those of us already in this community. Please give
careful consideration to the future significance of your decision
regarding this and similar proposals.
Sincerely, (� ��� pcu Vl,� Q4
Ky �
NEIGHBORHOOD IINF'OR -kTION MEETING
� • — . ... .--- -- -- -•' for • • ---- - -- --- --- • - - _...
Project: n i7lZ
City of Fort Collins
ivleetina Location: M( oz a t-Ia i
Date: -7 .( a <
Attendees: Please sign this sheet. The information will be used to
update the project mailin; list and confirm attendance at neighborhood
meetings. Contact the Planning Department (221-67-0) if you wish to Did You Receive Correct
receive minutes of this meeting. Written Notip-.2tioall4r,ddress�
of this tneetia;?
\25:10 ..dCZ.ss Z; ( Yes I No Tres l Nol
0
SM
✓,
m
i/
Comm, tv Planning and Environm.enta' arvices
Current Planning
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 7,1995
To: Planning and Zoning Board Members From: Michael Ludwig, City Planner 0044
Subject: Registry Ridge Neighborhood Meeting
The continuation of the Planning and Zoning Board's consideration of the Registry Ridge Overall
Development Plan, #32-95 and Registry Ridge P.U.D., Phase 1, Preliminary, #32-95A to
December 11, 1995 allowed the opportunity for City Staff to facilitate an additional neighborhood.
meeting at McGraw Elementary School on December 6, 1995.
City Staff members present:
Nfike Ludwig, Planning
Glen Schlueter, Stormwater Utility
Sheri Wamhoff, Engineering
Applicant's consultants present: Bud Curtis, Northern Matt Delich, Traffic Engineer Engineering
Cathy Mathis, Vaught -Frye Architects
Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects
The neighborhood meeting allowed all interested parties the opportunity for a "final" review of
the proposed plans prior to the Planning and Zoning Board hearing on December 11, 1995.
Copies of the staff memos and attachments were distributed. Frank Vaught gave a brief
presentation explaining the applicant's development proposal followed by a question and answer
session.
Questions, concerns and comments expressed, were generally related to existing traffic problems
at the intersection of Trilby and Shields and in the area; proposed street improvements to Shields
and Trilby Road (what and when); what developments were included in the traffic study, who will
provide fire and police service; on -site wetlands; and density.
A list of the affected property owners who attended this meeting is attached.
281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750
FAX (970) 21-6378 • TDD (970) 221.6002
Water and Gas lines will be extended down Trilby? Where is the larger gas line to be
installed. What impact will this have on our driveways?.
The development is against all the talk about separation of Fort Collins and Loveland, It
does not belong here because
1. Too far from City Services
2. Too Far from Fire Department
3 Too far from City Police
4. Does not fit in with surrounding neighborhood.
Widening of Trilby Road,
All widening should be done to the south side of the existing road. This would impact
fewer residents, 4 ea. driveways and 1 gravel road from Taft Hill Road to Shields Street,
I assume Trilby would be widened from Shields to College Avenue (287). This move
would impact only 4 more driveways to widen to the north side would impact 8
driveways and 1 gravel road from Taft Hill to Shields to College Avenue.
I see two outlets to Trilby Road, Nimits Drive and Ranger Drive, to be finished on the first
phase of the project with Trustion Drive to be completed later: Why not finish Trurton
Drive in the first phase to relieve the congestion at Trilby and Shields. Cars going south
would not have to go through a four way corner to access Shields. It seems to me that it
would be a bit safer.
Noise barrier questions
1. Who will maintain it?
2. How wide will it be.
3. Last but not least is the density of this project.
Shields Street is a heavily traveled thoroughfare. Has a traffic study been done for all this
additional traffic between Fort Collins and Loveland? Trilby Road is one main access to
the county landfill with heavy trash trucks. We have had several traffic fatalities at the
corner of Trilby and Shields. Is a stoplight or four-way stop sign planned for the
additional traffic.
Frank and June Rayder
1420 West Trilby Rd.
Fort Collins, Co. 80526
Developer's RMosal
Schools and Parks, Will the property be deeded over to the municipality prior to any
approval for development or just a promise for the future?
Storm Drainage Holding Pond. The developer's proposal for storm water detention pond
— it appears that the holding pond will be little more than a mosquito breeding cesspool.
Will this evaporation pond really meet the City of Fort Collins environmental
requirements?
Open Space as proposed by the developer. Who will maintain responsibility for mowing,
liter cleanup and general maintenance? As we understand it the city is having a hard time
maintaining the parks and property that they have now.
o If all the parks to have been built by every developer who has promised them were
built, we would have a park on every other block, but again who has the money to
maintain them? Is another bond election in the offering?
o The proposed land of 71 acres next to or split by the railroad tracks as a gift appears
to be worthless as open space. See if the builder will swap 71 acres on Trilby Road
and he can develop along the tracks.. 38 points for that land is preposterous.
Don't accept their trash!
The designated school acreage looks to me like it may sit on the only wetland in the area.
What happens to the wetland? Has there been a study on this wetland and the impact the
development will have on its inhabitants?
Schools. Again if every school were to be built as promised by the developers we would
have a school every mile. Loveland School district has not approved any additional
moneys for schools in years. Has this been coordinated with the school district. or will
the school property development be dropped and the developer allowed to build
additional houses on the proposed school property?
The system of getting enough points to build this development bothers us. So many
points for a day care center. They say they have a letter of intent for a day care center.
How binding is a letter of intent? When will the center be built? If they back out of
building what are the penalties if any to the contractor and developer? If the center is not
built, do we subtract the points after the development is approved?
City Utilities, Sewer, Water, Gas and Electric.
Sewers. Where is the sewer line to be installed. What impact will this have on our
driveways. Is there a requirement to connect to the sewer system?
Electrical. The power lines on both sides of Trilby Road appear to belong to the REA.
Will additional lines now be needed for Fort Collins Light and Power?
RECEIVED NO 1 6 1995
November 11, 1995
Mr. Mike Ludwig
City of Fort Collins
Planning Department
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, Co. 80524
Dear Mr. Ludwig:
This letter is written to express some of our concerns about the housing development, Registry ,
Ridge, being proposed south of Trilby Road and Shields. We are located between
Shields and Taft Hill Road at 1420 West Trilby Road, Larimer County Lot 13, Mountain Valley
Acres.
Density versus open space, the Proposal is inconsistent with surrounding acreages.
l . Where does the density of a minimum 3 houses per acres come from? Has this ever been
proven to be advantageous for city utilities by any current studies or proven facts? The
local paper has articles about contractors moving to Windsor and Weld county to be able
to build on one to three acre lots.
2. The current lot size for housing in the area is of a minimum of 1 1/2 acres to 10 acres.
The area is adjacent to a designated open area to the foothills to the west and open space
known as Cathey Fromme park to the northwest and the proposed corridor to the south .
How does the 700 homes and dense housing with a strip mall in the middle plan fit into
this area and the open corridor between Fort Collins and Loveland? We should be
developing a soft edge, or transition zone with low density housing one to three acre lots.
3. We understand that a study is underway by Fort Collins and Larimer County to re -write
the Urban Growth Area Agreement. This development appears to being trying to rush
before a comprehensive plan is formulated. The development should be postponed
pending that new plan.
Water and Gas lines will be extended down Trilby? Where is the larger gas line to be
installed. What impact will this have on our driveways?.
The development is against all the talk about separation of Fort Collins and Loveland, It
does not belong here because
1. Too far from City Services
2. Too Far from Fire Department
3. Too far from City Police
4. Does not fit in with surrounding neighborhood.
Widening of Trilby Road,
All widening should be done to the south side of the existing road. This would impact
fewer residents, 4 ea. driveways and 1 gravel road from Taft Hill Road to Shields Street,
I assume Trilby would be widened from Shields to College Avenue (287). This move
would impact only 4 more driveways to widen to the north side would impact 8
driveways and 1 gravel road from Taft Hill to Shields to College Avenue.
I see two outlets to Trilby Road, Nimits Drive and Ranger Drive, to be finished on the first.,.
phase of the project with Trustion Drive to be completed later. Why not finish Tiurton
Drive in the first phase to relieve the congestion at Trilby and Shields. Cars going south
would not have to go through a four way corner to access Shields. It seems to me that it
would be a bit safer.
Noise barrier questions
1. Who will maintain it?
2. How wide will it be.
3. Last but not least is the density of this project.
Shields Street is a heavily traveled thoroughfare. Has a traffic study been done for all this
additional traffic between Fort Collins and Loveland? Trilby Road is one main access to
the county landfill with heavy trash trucks. We have had several traffic fatalities at the
corner of Trilby and Shields. Is a stoplight or four-way stop sign planned for the
additional traffic.
Frank and June Ra_yaerrr
1420 West Trilby Rd.
Fort Collins, Co. 80526
Developer'syronosal
Schools and Parks, Will the property be deeded over to the municipality prior to any
approval for development or just a promise for the future?
Storm Drainage Holding Pond. The developer's proposal for storm water detention pond
— it appears that the holding pond will be little more than a mosquito breeding cesspool.
Will this evaporation pond really meet the City of Fort Collins environmental
requirements?
Open Space as proposed by the developer. Who will maintain responsibility for mowing,
liter cleanup and general maintenance? As we understand it the city is having a hard time
maintaining the parks and property that they have now.
o If all the parks to have been built by every developer who has promised them were
built, we would have a park on every other block, but again who has the money to
maintain them? Is another bond election in the offering?
o The proposed land of 71 acres next to or split by the railroad tracks as a gift appears
to be worthless as open space. See if the builder will swap 71 acres on Trilby Road
and he can develop along the tracks.. 38 points for that land is preposterous.
Don't accept their trash!
The designated school acreage looks to me like it may sit on the only wetland in the area.
What happens to the wetland? Has there been a study on this wetland and the impact the
development will have on its inhabitants?
Schools. Again if every school were to be built as promised by the developers we would
have a school every mile. ' Loveland School district has not approved any additional
moneys for schools in years. Has this been coordinated with the school district. or will
the school property development be dropped and the developer allowed to build
additional houses on the proposed school property?
The system of getting enough points to build this development bothers us. So many
points for a day care center. They say they have a letter of intent for a day care center.
How binding is a letter of intent? When will the center be built? If they back out of
building what are the penalties if any to the contractor and developer? If the center is not
built, do we subtract the points after the development is approved?
City Utilities, Sewer, Water, Gas and Electric.
Sewers. Where is the sewer line to be installed. What impact will this have on our
driveways. Is there a requirement to connect to the sewer system?
Electrical. The power lines on both sides of Trilby Road appear to belong to the REA.
Will additional lines now be needed for Fort Collins Light and Power?
RECEIVED KOV 1 6 t995
'' November 11, 1995
Mr. Mike Ludwig
City of Fort Collins
Planning Department
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, Co. 80524
Dear Mr. Ludwig:
This letter is written to express some of our concerns about the housing development, Registry
Ridge, being proposed south of Trilby Road and Shields. We are located between
Shields and Taft Hill Road at 1420 West Trilby Road, Larimer County Lot 13, Mountain Valley
Acres.
Density versus open space, the Proposal is inconsistent with surrounding acreages.
1. Where does the density of a minimum 3 houses per acres come from? Has this ever been
proven to be advantageous for city utilities by any current studies or proven facts? The
local paper has articles about contractors moving to Windsor and Weld county to be able
to build on one to three acre lots.
2. The current lot size for housing in the area is of a minimum of 1 1/2 acres to 10 acres.
The area is adjacent to a designated open area to the foothills to the west and open space
known as Cathey Fromme park to the northwest and the proposed corridor to the south .
How does the 700 homes and dense housing with a strip mall in the middle plan fit into
this area and the open corridor between Fort Collins and Loveland? We should be
developing a soft edge, or transition zone with low density housing one to three acre lots.
3. We understand that a study is underway by Fort Collins and Larimer County to re -write
the Urban Growth Area Agreement. This development appears to being trying to rush
before a comprehensive plan is formulated. The development should be postponed
pending that new plan.
RECEIVED Nov 1 5 1995
W\X•c- ICSr�`� _ . \ "_(__'�G7 ��.. �`Q1tLY�� /\���J��� \•/""waa'\\ ..
Qt
• •' f o n `
` �\louu` �a� �2.\fix.•.. \,�e. ex�.oaPc) z%�\.LnY.r-ems ctSooe7� 1,•s. c�rxs..�..1
n
Q-�'+71-5(�,�Cv.�C3.sCV` �CT['tL �}}:�1��`l�'7v.��.c•� t�'� v2� �..R. L.� �� �i=�
OL'C.DV"
CycnR^(ZtUUt
Z�
,.if.�-'.c'L`� ti�•�.J \ d\S L'C �f�l ? W.l ^� � .J'.i�c+Yb � J �'�� G"`' ��
�' l Fcc� ��� ¢�o :,,,tplL� �� �`�� 1 n,Y.•�..1c�� lZ:� �.u�T"�
0... L 4x'A
wt' �a
20
l �]
ter_ �,, '� • `-�► - � �,�. li� z. d4 LZ as Stand\�n t,1�
'Zt�, `,,r .,�;
a6lves&.
c - qj,_, ii7�c $�' °-- G�''4"'� � o�C�•cY,SS. Q� � Circe. ��"
ovc- cNzl�� Az,,tktv-6 Cv�
��C� l�1�^�'��C �:C�I:��i `�•a�. l^a' j (i.CF; •1"�^ �'l cte'.��� �,�V..t- �1
t � t
'% -�C��.\ � �rkS i•-c:Zn. cla,_� �ir�bl.^..r, �.r-!� 3. \i
1 •.v.r,1;'_. l; .-� �c=' '-,F�:,,:`�1� C.4.G1� to ;��LS •�t•Ca.l'..? f .�.� �l W.'� �J•`C�iLCf-
J
Owen
1209 Le Ede Lane
Fort Collins, CO 80526
1
CSfet �f
-Sy 5�e VVN t-k,� 't-k 7L' Ci �LVQ
C� Q le y blocks )icv hvvv,E
y s vi ow, 0" s b
vAt
.7L.
V.v-c VICA.T -\;V-Cj CIV-Clipict
V�ri,'k
A,
_ � �... �. �I, t F �L cJ c � 1 C! t t•1 C�
Ci
TV
. LA
I
�
CA V,_ c 4c-
\AC. 4e
&.2, �ka
co Ln, E Wcq 4 q ki i
t-Orf Czat"'s CC. SCj 5--)
L kz � � � t % � r �/ ✓ s f✓ 4 �� C 0 Sti (e ldC�
1v�}',-V-Se.Lout C•
l v',�l�y �oc�d c�,.�a 5�..��ds S-{LL�'z,�• � -��v�e. ���ck Qv�'r vlr�f
inn s %m �C ��r ��r.��(• •e,•.+1��n. T'z5 �'�'' �� ��l r� (✓�lC(TF�
S .M�&I rzs
S c c F f I e- 31 c.a v- c iz� r o pi - TA e cl �L� f� //�i f'i v r' C/
C�1 fht SCtk)e, fal�ec� b,''l �-tCk /�r� 1'r✓r��
Lmcl lcpt CVl'.V- �C#r*ig Cu7' E Ce.-,
Cam% vi c e eel S c.l h c t.... f //-4 G ; �Jy o/ f�i e- Co L. v ><� �l G ri' /
QdE�VQ�C
t l c t.4
/ACC: hey i'v e ✓e� -% �elr i; ; ;r, e �� :' ;,'w.,.
S J
.L %. �.
j.sG c{/ i. trGl /ire c;CG,-roar �i / tiG - is��C�f
L4 L� ,�I , is s a G� .
��z 5 r1 5 1 \J : `,� V - vK okl l in +TX l v\ l v\.j I iJ y t�i i Ci
Jr
L'�y Ovti ��e Sc.:F�. ScdZ' cc�v� i—c
r•
C.T ec:\-8 .
��av ��i� C:�v1 Gl v zc� c.'i ����'jC �. c! i,.��,c�. •��z � ��'y �J v�
y� J b y Cc: „��y 1 a,,. d see
}o V.V\ v-e,�1 l� a S;� v�%�� Loin
?GmWe:> »I114/qs
p;'LA rlLNe-V-
.1
Jr
C1
�'�JIt�
1 �n�" a�i: C_•:. Gl ��.�iLli`;=.r. �\.�'i L`v ��4�, j Uv�L=•�
1 + I_
y J r + th ! ,
u vL c� E i� Z i i C v\ �•
LLVr1L�t,�\zI.\l t'<=:" "'rL��. 1<l�� •�(... \/c.::\v•_� ,v\`.��L ../
1 ! J
V&*z- VkLJA- Y- Z LT V` l %�A `r�{ Lk k C VDU
'S - 1-,- _; � � ,: � � "•...,, c1 F �i !� y cites �y :1� , — c....� � �,. � �
�'•L) C,l V i I lz:$l' d (mot- V v \ '� �� �v
ww\V` I
�J k.0 '1-Q.� Y•��V fit. 5 LZV\� L\ `� 1 V LIJ �ti lt.l� i S y� E. Vim\
ti CA- "i ; l� i Zo C. 1,�-c: s e. s ca iti CAL
Sz�01r lov\
4- ' /{•�%y w /1 .( �i_ / 74 �inJ/ MH O
41
c/�w��^_"'�-P-,,, �i�l,J•-�s,7/' �6rLfi•�L C.�L.,..� t'ti--e /-/'
��^'••� � �!� ..cam-�J �.�� YG�/i�.,..�, �,' /��. T/ /! " `� �`w '�~ •
J
�7 - y
ict
R E C E I D IS '114
=f
RECEI`JED OCT 3 1 1995
October 27, 1995
Mike Ludwig
City Planner
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Dear Mike,
The facts are in. The residents of Fort Collins have made their wishes known by responding to .
the Comprehensive Plan survey. A direct quote from Anton Nelessen, a nationally recognized
professional in planning and urban design, " The image that people want is absolutely clear
here." The results of this commissioned survey by the City of Fort Collins puts it in black and
white. " 72.2 percent agree that Fort Collins boundaries should be distinguishable from other
communities " "79.5 percent want to continue spending tax dollars to preserve open space."
"89.4 percent want development restricted in environmentally sensitive areas."
I think that this timely survey speaks volumes about how residents of this fast growing city
feel about development and growth. There is a need to stop and consider the "bigger picture"
for the future of our town.
There is a planned unit development of some 700+ houses plus a strip mall affecting the
land that could be set aside for either open space or a corrder between Loveland and Fort Collins.
_Registry Ridge, if approved will totally violate the concept of a corridor between the
two cities. By it's mere design it will be inconsistent with the surrounding acreages. The land _
to the west has already been set aside as open space. One mile to the north, Cathy Fromme
open space already exists, thanks to some quick and thoughtful planning. Finally, a proposed,.
"open space tax" appears on the November ballot indicating people are serious about this
issue.
Please convey my concerns about this P.U.D to the Planning and Zoning Board. I feel there
is an urgency here as land is being developed in every direction. There may be other issues
that the taxpayers feel are equally important, but this open space can not wait until next
election. It will disappear before your very eyes, making Fort Collins the type of town people
move away from rather than flock to.
Sincerely,
Janice Collins
page 2
3. Traffic. We at this point have not been informed of any plans to deal with
the increased traffic that this development and other new developments along
f Shields will create. -Shields and Trilby are already dangerous freeways at
morning and evening rush times.
4. Commercial Development. For lack of a better term, the commercial
portion of this development is a joke. The only reason it has been proposed is to
provide the developers enough points to proceed with development'
consideration. The whole idea of giving points for being near a commercial
area was to promote new growth close to existing services not to promote
commercial development in outlying areas.. This commercial area is definitely
not needed since many are nearby.
Please take -these points into consideration as this development proceeds
through the planning process. We are not opposed to new development in our
area but we are very concerned that it be done correctly. Three houses to the
acre and a commercial site are not correct for this area. Our neighborhood is
committed to the proper development of Fort Collins and we will be present to
speak to you in person when the Registry Ridge PUD finally comes before your
board.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
`David and Jeanne Anne wen
1209 La Eda Lane
Fort Collins, CO 80526
cc: Mayor Ann Azari
RECEIVED OCT 2 4 1995
October 17, 1995
All Planning and Zoning Board Members
c/o Mike Ludwig, City Planner
Fort Collins, CO
Dear Members,
I am writing in regard to the proposed Registry Ridge PUD, located at the SE
and SW corners of Shields and Trilby roads. We live in Mountain Valley Acres
which is just north of this proposed development.
At the last neighborhood meeting in April, we discussed the Dalco PUD which
is now renamed Registry Ridge. We believe there are several problems with
this proposed development.
I Inconsistent With Surrounding Area. When you drive south on Shields
St. from Harmony Rd., after you have passed Clarendon Hills, the scenery
definitely takes on a rural atmosphere with all homes on small to large acreages.
This continues until you.pass Trilby where the.number of homes is fewer and
farther between. To allow a development of the density of Registry Ridge to be
built at this location would be terribly unpleasing aesthetically. It will stick out
like a "sore thumb", a massive block within the surrounding open lands.
2. Transition Zone. We are rapidly running out of time to correctly develop
the area between Fort Collins and Loveland. The decisions made now will last
forever and reflect back upon the decision makers of our time. Shall we
continue to fill in all of the available space between the two towns at three
houses per acre or should we gradually taper off on density as we develop this
transition zone. Let us not lose this opportunity to reduce the density of
development, preserve a true corridor and create a transition zone that we can be
proud of. A change or variance to the LDGS should be considered for this
location.
of the developer is how much Revenue can be generated from a project of this type.
There is a lot more things to consider here. If the developer goes ahead as planned,
with your blessing, the ramifications of a developed project of this caliber, (high -
density, & commercial applications) would make an extremely negative impact on
everything and everyone surrounding it Even common sense tells you that a "high -
density" development project out in this Farming area is preposterous to say the least!!
A "low -density" non-commercial project would definatly be a more positive approach,
and would be more consistant with the present properties.
Please reassure us that the city cannot be "bribed" by gifts of useless land near the
rail -road tracks by prospective developers trying to earn most of their merit points.
(This "gift" of land which was given as "open space" area is not at all a useful nor
visable piece of land to promote a feeling of open -area. This gift of land is in a very
"low-lying" area which, being right next to the rail -road tracks, and in a wet- land
area , .will be absolutely worthless for any kind of positive use.) Thank you for your
wisdom and consideration of some very important issues concerning this project
Sincerely,
Mr. and Mrs. Michael Smallwood
7101 S. Shields St
Ft. Collins, Co. 80526
229-1630
R E �C. £ i E D OCT z 4 1995
October 13, 1995
Mike Ludwig, City Planner
281 N. College Ave.
Ft. Collins, Co. 80524
Dear Sir,
Thu letter is in regards to the planning & zoning Board review of the "Registry Ridge"
proposed development at Trilby Road west, and South Shields St Our family and
neighbors are strongly against any "high density "projects being presented by this
developer. The proposed plan of a "Strip -Mall ", 700 houses, condos, etc. on this
property is absolutely inappropriate & inconsistant with surrounding acerages and
properties.
We live on five beautiful acres one half mile south of Trilby, and we are zoned
"Farming" as is the case with a lot of our surrounding neighbors. Our property backs
up to the open "Wet -lands. The wild -life, birds, and such are beautiful and for the
most part, untouched out here. We relalize that the development to the north of us on
the "wheat strips" may eventually happen, but let it be done in a "low density"fashion
such as acerages, etc. which would be more consistant with the land and to help
preserve the beauty that is out here and the way of life we have all come to enjoy. In
addition, the proposed corridor to the south and the Cathy Fromme "Open space" to
the north makes this dense housing development & commercial area even more
inappropriate.
Please consider these issues, they are very valid to all of us, and most of all they are
valid to the future of this area and the preservation of beauty, nature, peace, and some
"openess" to break the monotony of development after development after development
which seems to be having an extreme impact on the Loveland & Ft. Collins areas. We
all realize that development must occour in a Communityfor the welfare of many,
but ....... you must use wisdom and control on how much development takes place, what
type of development, how dense the development, and most important... the location of
the proposed project
We beseech you sir, to please consider all the issues and concerns regarding the type of
development that is being proposed hereby the developer. We all know that the main
interest
We respectfully request that the Planning and Zoning Board
grant a variance to the developer to build acreage home sites on
the Proposed Development. He assured us last year at the home
owners meeting that he would be happy to build acreages if the
city would grant a variance. Thank you for your time in this
matter:
sincerely,
Clark & Claudia Whitcomb
$EC;vlVJ OCT 0 1995
September 21, 1995
Mr. Mike Ludwig, City Planner
Planning and Zoning Board
281 North College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Dear Mr. Ludwig:
We are residents of 1300 W. Trilby Rd. in Fort Collins and are
writing this letter in response to the Proposed Development on
the Southwest corner of Trilby Rd. and Shields. There are
several concerns that we have regarding this development.
1) All of the land surrounding the proposed development is
either open space or acreage home sites. The Cathy Fromme Open
Space is to the west and north of this area. And the proposed
open space corridor between Loveland and Fort Collins is to the
south. It seems innappropriate to allow a development this dense
to sit right in the middle of this type of area. We have heard
that Fort Collins wants to create a soft edge to the city. This
development as proposed will mostcertainly ruin an chance of a
soft edge.
2) According to our home association's sources, the developer
also owns the land on the northeast corner of Trilby and Shields
and has promised to donate the land between the railroad tracks
and the ridge to the east of the tracks, to the city and that
this was a strong selling point to the city for this development.
we would like to point out that this land is virtually worthless
as a development site anyway and that there is not much use for.
this land anyway except as open space. It does not seem to us
that the developer is donating anything that is income producing
to him.
3) A ma'or concern of ours is the stagnation pond proposed at
the northwest corner of the development site. We have heard any
where from 3 to 8 acres for this pond. We don't pretend to be
well versed in storm drainage legal matters, but this is
ridiculous. The fact that the city would even consider this to
be acceptable 'is an outrage. We can't believe that this is an
acceptable alternative for storm drainage or is part
ttof the city
code. Legal advice has allready been sought by
the families being asked to give up the easement rights and this
issue is a health concern for all of the community, existing and
proposed.
14, L-1 S�. = b���C� �� ALL MOVE
FE
OvrC rl GeG WIEQ�_= 1-I c P E W E eE NC-.) Sty li t C CS
r
vi,, R L I c sTY L�. YPJTT I NJ
�'`r1ALl. (2 I T y N7- 7Cb 14C)M-ES I N ig!E� M I DDLZ
. �ON�i_iCIS, iNlLl. n'l\/
oc)RSE
$bT� i 41�-M , 40VJ fa$ouT -�E co��2 7! 4AT
CR�ws AT LA;c) AM?
i -. I Q Fc,efY�AL APPQCAC 4J, .
``•' M �,`, Q i i � I N CT �-! 1 S OU T S I D� IN {-4 , L E M �� ri l 2S c
G2A��S GN M`I LAwcv .
r
' PL AM
A l >✓ IV 17 -T I-i M ��i I !v Cs C 1Z T I S
CAN) NON pflj C:CiG 3> a3 2� ► ,_. -}oPl= u
s�,E Yo u, -Ti-, P-Z E: ,
oouc,0,3s.
13iZ Vi -FRILSY eD
I wci\j -, wRS�E- PACK RI DINS 1 o0A /. 1
LANtV1&D RAG IS T QCY DG ��31� I v i S��! • M`/
N E (C� 3o QS sv St`�Jl A Ll. P A R C &LS O is
LAND GUT 1.,v w4P► USA TO 10
ACV N l �- l
=i p, pp, PSG I NC= T i ' Ai -1 C ! PLAv��i
ND ? O N I �,
(- rDl jQNNC-L-
d2�i l_ .
EXIST ltiC=r 7�-V1=iLPeM�1�?" 1 S A�,O`I
�rnA�L ACRETG,&S, —jOw►J AND S-+
2. Cfi H \/ P2crnroe opE-N 3 SPAC - --i(D TN G
o OF LAS - A PL ar\J i H G (11 Ty Lx,)U2KED
SPAcc- W ITN -1m 1 bMES LES5 T i-t 1 M ICE
3, CourvTy S ?1.Ati A CGes? ►Dc�
6ETw*-rc,`1 LOUL-LArv(-) AND
THIS 1S 1 T. 1 F LvE guILD ON1 T NIS LA,Q)
TNC-QE WILL- GE NO Coeet bog .
September 16, 1995
Mr. Mike Ludwig
City Planner '
281 N. College Drive
Ft. Collins, CO 80524
Dear Mr. Ludwig:
We are sending this letter to protest the Registry Ridge Development. The density of 700 houses
which are to be located in those wheat fields is just one development too many. Another
development has already been started by the retirement home on Trilby, houses are being built on
LeMay, and many more in the surrounding area. Why do we need another development on top of
all ofthese?
My husband -to -be has lived in the same house at 6505 Thompson Drive for the last 13 years. He
bousht the house because it was on the outskirts of Ft. Collins and was surrounded by land where
your neighbors couldn't be right next door and look in your window. He loves the beauty of
Colorado and so do I. Bike -riding is one of our favorite sports, yet slowly bike lanes are being
taken away to make for wider roads and all the trappings that comes with new developments.=I v
moved here for the same reasons. Ft. Collins has become over populated when it used to be a
place where you didn't feel closed in.
We strongly encourage you to think of the citizens who live near this land - the congestion, the
increased traffic and noise and loss of peace and quiet. The continual building has got to stop
somewhere. Please take a stand in favor keeping our community private. Thank you for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
Mary E. Provencal
I
Sta id
. I,
se? -
iJeG�
mjgwl
�i
f/i
i
pl,
I
Mr. dike Ludwig
Current Planning
231 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 30524
August 3, 1995
To VIr. dike Ludwig,
We are the owners of the property at 1504 West Trilby Road wich s right across she street
from the proposed development on the Southwest corner of Shields and Trilby Road.
W-- Have :eon the proposed pians that include about 7, 00 houses and we have marry
cJncee^.ts re?araing This proposed development.
Fur=[ the area around this proposed •:.eve:o^mea[ i$ :rural. We live fin a two acre lot as do
all Jf Our ne:Zhbor5. �,� U.
tics and it is cyhv we bought out her. 7'AMS
proposal does not blend in with the surrounding areas. There will be no definition between
Fort Collins and Loveland and they will become one. This ruins the sense of community
for both cities. This btitu up other concerns about what will happen if there is continued
7owth and sprawal.
Second. what about the school, utilities and other services and increased traffic'? ',4hat will
happen to the existing houses if Trilby is widened? We are very concerned about the
increase in traffic as well as the speed of this traffic. Flow long will it take us to get out of
our own driveway'? Will there be a potential for increased accidents due to the lack of
visibility over the small hill. increased traffic and their speed and with stopping at the new
proposed intersection.
We oppose this proposed future development and have many concerns. We don't want to
blend in with Loveland. We are surrounded by many different rural sections and would
Eke to keep it rural. Increased traffic is another major concem Please keep all these in
mind in the future when considering this proposed development. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Laura and Jeff Wellman
1504 W. Trilbv Road
Fort Collins, CO 80526
223-4637
-July 20, 1995
6600 Thompson Dr.
Fort Collins, CO 80526
Dear Mr. Ludwig:
An out of town developer has filed a proposal for a
Planned Unit Development, Registr: Ridge (formerly Dalco
PUD), across the road from cur rural neighborhood. At the
neighborhood meeting we learned that, 750 residential units
and a commercial development are planned for this area. We
believe such a development, is totally inconsistent with
the existing 'Land use. Our neighborhood, to the north of
this site, has homes built on 1 1/2 to 20 acres. homes to
t..he west are in the county and have similar lot sizes.
W? mourn thr loss of the wheat strips, as we had
hoped this area could remain open. If that is not.
possible, we plead for it to be'=less densely developed.
Whiles the -developer's proposal meets the city code, it is
the plan of olir•neighborhocd to get a variance on this
pr,perty. Many cities of our size have a "transition zone'
�
t:, allow for an "edge of town". We feel this is
particularly importan7, with the current, efforts to keep
Fort Collins and Loveland's communities more separate.
It seems that our suggestions are consistent with the
goals of the city council. When you drive by this area you
will see that one mile to the north of this proposed
development is the Cathy Fromme Prairie Site. To the west
along the foothills is land purchased by the city to
remain as open space. (We are disappointed the city was
not, able to come to terms to buy the Deines farm property
on the south-east corner of Shields and Trilby to remain
as open space as once proposed.) The area directly south
of this proposed development is the proposed corridor
area. Condos, townhouses and a shopping center in the
middle of these open spaces seems inconsistent, if not
ludicrous.
Our neighborhood community is organized and unified.
We have studied the Land Use Guidance Systems and plan to
exercise our rights and options including, if necessary an
appeal to City Council.
Letlnn and Mark Thieman
The existing 36 culvert is not large enough now and needs to be increased in size.
Northern Engineering made a proposal to the City of Fort Collins Storm Water
Drainage calculating water runoff through an existing 48 inch culvert which is really a
36 inch culvert. The calculations for a 48 inch culvert is 76.7 cubic feet per second
(cfs) and is not large enough to handle the storm drainage for the proposed property
development. The culvert runs full height (36 inches) several times a year and would
probably need to be increased to 48 inches now to meet the existing conditions.
We have talked to Roger E. Prenzlow of Associated Brokers of Fort Collins, who
represents W. Tim McCory of Colorado Land Source Ltd., 8101 East Prentice
Avenue, Suite M180, Englewood, CO 80111. He wants us to grant to DALCO
Land, Limited Liability Company a storm drainage easement for the Registry Ridge,
P.U.D. subject to the following conditions (see attached letter). . Nothing is defined
in this letter as to what they propose to do. There are no guarantees that our rights
and property will be protected.
We will be willing to grant an easement across our property if we can get some
resolution on the following:
1. That the problem be reviewed by a professional engineering company, for a design
that will minimize future soil erosion and washout under the culvert be designed.
2. That the grading and implementation for the improvements be done without
additional cost to the property owner.
3. Widening of Trilby Road. In the last road improvement the county raised the
roadway about 18 inches. They did help and provide some material to raise our
driveway for egress onto Trilby Road, but we could not get out in snow or ice.
We had to have 1500 yards of fill added to exit parallel to Trilby Road to get in and
out in snow and ice. Any widening of the roadway again will only cause steeper
grades into or out of our property.
Would the city consider expanding the road widening only to the south side of the
road easement.?
Sincerely,
Larry and Barbara Wilson
2Z&-O(oSG or ZZ9— 4-1o//
In 1980's the county road was upgraded and the roadway was raised up by 18 inches
from our place and south past the original contour low spot. Yearly the water runoff
builds up higher than the 36" inch culvert on the south side of Trilby Road.
This is causing erosion across our property. In about 1983 we had the pasture graded
because we had some ruts and washouts as deep as two feet. This was done to
protect our horses from getting hurt. We had a contractor place 1300 yards of dirt
and grade the soil to allow drainage to the north.
With the expansion on the south side of Trilby road we now have more water, and this
has caused deep ruts across our property again. As the area has expanded the county
has funneled water back to Smith Creek and more drainage has occurred. Now water
is returning from a half mile west of Taft Hill Road. The Fort Collins/Loveland water
district also uses the storm drain as an overflow for the water storage tank.
The County has increased the culverts of property owners to the southwest of us
from 12 inches to 24 inches so they could drain without backing up. This additional
faster flow may cause more soil erosion on our property (see attached photos) and
will only get worse._ with.additional drainage from the development across the street
No easement has ever been granted for discharge across the property. We have not
been successful in getting any response from the county representatives. Now we are
backed into a corner and need to do something.
The developer, DALCO, is requesting an easement across our property for storm
water discharge. We would consider this if we did not have an existing problem with
Larimer County that we cannot get resolved. To grant them an easement may only
compound the existing problem. The developer is hinting that this is a existing
problem that they are getting stuck with.
The developer's proposal to build a settlement pond and allow the water to percolate
and evaporate on site could be a health problem by holding stagnant water and create
a mosquito breeding ground. Also the odor from green scum that forms on stagnant
water would be a real problem. The developer has not addressed this problem and
until he gives us some well-defined answers to these problems, we do not feel
comfortable granting an easement. They really need to consider adding an overflow
basin that would allow some natural release, but it would need to be designed so as
not to add to an existing problem and cause damage to our property.
June 28, 1995
William & Rose Horne
1528 W. Trilby Rd.
Ft Collins, Colo. 80526
Mike Ludwig
Current Planning
281 N. College Ave.
Ft Collins, Colo. 80524
'ifirm
�LF=uvII
i
We are writing to oppose the proposed development on the
South West Section of Trilby Road and shields.
tThtheis a
country -type community and we are extremely opposed
posed development.
We moved to Trilby Road a year ago and r
away from the "urban atmosphere" to the open
paid a higher price for,our home rather than a
Please re -consider allowing this area to grow
amount - it's just not right.
The corner of Trilby Road and Taft Hill
subdivided into 10 acre lots, thus keeping the
11 win some growth.
ad chosen to get
country area. We
subdivision home.
in such a drastic
Road was recently,
area in the right
context, yet still a o g
Please do not allow our community to be ruined by
development.are areas that
any
her
There- let t themmbuildttheree We don t wa td
the proposed
welcome such
it!
Siinncerle/lyy,,
;J1(,�`.Rui%
Rose Horne
�v14
William Horne
Community Homeowners
eke
DearDear Sir,
I hope you do not build 700
houses because most people are
happy the way it is. if you still want
to build houses, then have averages
like our home. Besides we came uD
here to have peace and quite and to
have a good view. of the mountains,
not to see backs of other housesM
Sincerely,
(very mad 8 year old!)
Ryan Smallwood
Dear Sir,
After I heard the announcement of Urban Development
(700 houses & Shopping Center) I was astonished! I am only
a teenager and I used to think my thoughts or opinion in this
project meant nothing. But I'm writing this letter so my
feelings can be heard! I used to live in Loveland. Houses
and people surrounded us. it was okay for a while then I
became fed -up with it! : There was no privacy what -so -ever!
You could never lay down for a nap in the afternoon, because
there was always kids screaming, or dogs barking, or even
blasting music! We moved to the country to get away from
it all. An exciting change of peace & beauty. I look out my
window now and see rolling hills, mountains sparkling snow
lays upon them. A priceless picture that could not be
replaced. At my old house I'd look out my window and see a
fence & a large brick wail & many houses. I came into this
house feeling like a Queen for God had blessed us with a very
large home. Bringing developement means less value to our
home. Before these people come out and build 700 houses, I
think they should think about how selfish they are being.
Thinking only about money. Not thinking about how they are
taking away privacy, taking freedom of being away from
everything and distroying a sight that is priceless! Before they
go tearing in here I hope they think about this decision for it is
affecting a lot more people than they think! I
Sincerely,
Christine Smallwood
7101 S. Shields
A. We (applicant) have researched the design of these homes and
they are very nice. They are "stick -built" homes that are
constructed in a factory rather than on -site. The land that
they will be placed on will not be owned by the home owner.
The developer will own the land, therefore, enabling these
specific home owners to buy these homes at a much better
price.
14. The area designated --for manufactured housing Will be one
phase of the overall development plan which the applicant is
proposing. Preliminary and Final P.U.D.Is must be submitted
for each phase of the project.
15. Do we have to hook-up to the City sewer system if this
project goes through?
A. Sewer service to the site will be provided by the South Fort
Collins Sanitation District. It is believed that hook-up is
not required if your home is further than 200 feet from the
sewer line and if you are not experiencing difficulties with
your present septic system. However, this should be
verified with the South Fort Collins Sanitation District.
6. Can you switch the location of the commercial site across
the street to the other corner?
A. Possibly, this is why we're having this neighborhood
meeting. It's to determine what your concerns are. It is
also possible to move the commercial site further south and
place the church site at the southwest corner of Shields and
Trilby Road.
7. I'm concerned that this project is too high density.
A. All Development Criteria A-1.12 of the Land Development
alidance System requires a minimum of 3 dwelling units per
acre on a gross acreage basis for residential projects
within the City limits. Approximately 312 gross acres (the
total gross acreage minus commercial/industrial property,
previously dedicated right-of-way, and/or previously
dedicated property for public use) at 3 dwelling units per
acre is equal to 936 dwelling units. The applicant is
proposing the minimum of 3 dwelling units per acre.
8. Why are the larger lots down by the open areas?
:Placing::.:larger;,;°lots .-at the,,south end,, adjacent,to the _open.
space -areas is a marketing issue._.The-applicant has
provided additional setback/buffering along Trilby in
response concerns which were expressed at a neighborhood
meeting held last year.
9. Who will provide the services for this project,i.e. police,
fire, etc.?
A. Police service will be provided by the City of Fort Collins.
Fire protection will be provided by the Poudre Fire
Authority. Water service will be provided by the Fort
Collins -Loveland Water District. Sewer.service will be
provided by the South Fort Collins Sanitation District. The
site is located in the Thompson Valley (Loveland) School
District.
10. The sewer and water utility installations will be paid for
by the developer.
11. Will County Road 32 be extended to reach this project?
A. No.
12. What is open space?
A. Wetlands, ponds, anything that is not buildings.
13. I do not like the idea of manufactured housing going in on
this site. I have a concern that this will drop our
property value.
n
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES
PROJECT: DALCO PUD
DATE: April 13, 1995
APPLICANT: James R. McCort', Colo. Land Source, Ltd.
CONSULTANT: James Sell, Jim Sell Design
PLANNER: Mike Ludwig
The proposal is for a mixed use development of 936 single-family
and multi -family residential units, a church/commercial site, a
school/park site, recreational center and naturalized open space
on 445 acres, located at the southwest and southeast corners of
South Shields Street and Trilby Road.
QUESTIONS, CONCERNS,- COMMENTS
1. What will the units look like?
A. It will be similar to Manor Ridge development. The
buffering around the project will be similar to that which
is along the multi -family housing on Horsetooth Road near.
Collindale Golf Course.
2. This property has been purchased, it is owned by the
applicant.
3. The portion of the project on the east side of Shields
Street and south of Trilby Road is part of the Del Webb
O.D.P. which was approved in 1984. No plans have been
approved for the portion of the project which is west of
Shields Street and south of Trilby Road.
4. There will probably be a signal light installed at the
intersection of Shields and Trilby Road. However, this and
other off -site street.improvements will be determined by the
results of the traffic study which must be submitted with
the development application.
5. What will the commercial site become?
A. We do not know at this time. The size of the proposed
commercial site is comparable with the Raintree Shopping
Center on Shields Street and Drake Road.
REGISTRY RIDGE
SWC TRILBY AND SHIELDS
Private Recreation Faciliites
Item Cost Subtotal
1.
Wading Pool
$ 25,000
250,000
$ 25,000
275,000
2.
Swimming Pool 75' x 42'
65
340,000 ,.
3 _-:
Cabana Pump. House
,000 ,. _
40,000
4.
Tennis Courts (2)
_.
20,000
400,000
5.
6.
Childrens' Play Area
Pool Apron an Sidewalks
25,000
425,000
7.
Parking Lot
30,000
30,000
455,000
485,000
8.
9.
Landscape
Irrigation System
17,000
502,000
10.
Grading
4,650
15,000
506,650
521,650
it.
12.
Engineering, Architecture
Development Fees
3,000
524,650
13.
3/4" Water Tap (irrigation)
5,575
530,225
550,775
14.
1 1/2"Water Tap (pool)
20,550
9,676
560,451
15.
16.
6" Sewer Tap
10% + Contingency
64,549
625,000
NOTE: Cost estimates are 1994-1995 actual contruction to occur during
1997.
Natural Resources Advisory Board Meeting
November 1, 1995
Page 8
would happen to the Registry Ridge development if the area is not purchased. Shoemaker
explained that it would still have to go to the Planning and Zoning Board for a decision; they
could go ahead with the development if the Natural Resources Advisory Board is not interested
in it as a natural area.
Steffes asked how many units of manufactured housing are involved. Shoemaker said that there
would be five to an acre.
Ohison said that if the area is worth buying, the City should get an option on the land, be in a
position to sell it for affordable housing and have the investment returned to the natural areas
fund. Janett asked if there is a policy limiting the density of housing next to a natural area.
Shoemaker answered that there is not a policy, but fewer houses mean fewer people. He added
that a better choice might be to leave a buffer between the development and the open space.
In conclusion, Shoemaker noted that this land is identified in two existing plans (the Natural Areas
Policy Plan and The Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland), the developer has
complied with the request for an additional viable piece of property and it has been offered at a
reasonable price. Miller noted that the area will probably be developed is ten years.
Bill Miller made the motion to pursue the acquisition of Areas 1, 2 and 3 as proposed by the
Registry Ridge P.U.D. and to take the option on Area 4. Ed Secor seconded the motion and it
passed unanimously (8-0).
Natural Resources Advisory Board Meeting
November 1, 1995
Page 7
Natural Area Dedication/Purchase Proposal for the Proposed Registry Ridge P.U.D., Tom
Shoemaker, Natural Resources Director
Shoemaker said that this is a 200 acre parcel located east of Shields and south of Trilby. He
explained that board members visited the site in May 1994 and rated it as moderate priority in the
Natural Areas Policy Plan. He added that at that time there was an opportunity to buy the entire
site at $4,000 an acre but the board did not approve the purchase. Miller noted that the 1/4 cent
sales tax had not been in effect long enough in 1994 and the Parks and Recreation Board and the
Natural Resources Advisory Board chose to fund higher priority areas with the funds available.
Shoemaker explained that the owners are proposing an overall development plan that will be heard
by the Planning and Zoning Board this month. He added that they have proposed dedication of
71 offsite acres, including the bluff, to obtain bonus points.
Shoemaker explained the breakdcwn of the four areas in the parcel:
Area 1: 71 acres dedicated by the owner for 30 bonus points under the LDGS
Area 2: 32 acres dedicated by the owner for no points
Area 3: 47.06 acres offered by the owner at $4,500 an acre, for a total of $211,700
Area 4: 50.06 acres approved for manufactured housing and offered to the City at S10,000 __...
an acre, with a one-year option
Secor asked for a description of the project. Shoemaker said it is mixed residential (650 units on
244 acres) with a school, neighborhood park and some commercial. He added that the area is
within the existing city limits.
Shoemaker noted that the McKee Charitable Trust land (960 acres) located to the south of Registry
Ridge is still fairly controversial. He explained that this site extends from the Fort Collins urban
growth area to the Loveland urban growth area; the proposal is to cluster the development at the
Fort Collins end and put conservation easements on the remaining land as permanent open space.
Shoemaker said that the City of Fort Collins opposed the plan, but the County Commissioners
approved it 2-1.
Friedman asked about the feasibility of buying Area 4 and working with the owners to find
another parcel more appropriate for affordable housing. He felt that this could be a major urban
area in the future and although Area 4 might be useless in terms of a natural area, it is open space
and might work for the prairie dogs and raptors.
Shoemaker said that staff is recommending taking the option on Area 4 rather than buying it now;
this would allow the opportunity to explore the affordable housing issue. Murphy asked what
"14n Jr Be
Subarea 8 - Area between Shields/Taft and Highway 287
Description: This areaextends from Shieldseetfraft Avenuethe north to 57th Str et n the soRoad 17) to State
uth. The northern
Highwayway 287 from Trilby Road on
section of this subarea is within the City of Fort Collins, and is master -planned for a
mixed -use development. The southern section of this subarea is within the City of
Loveland. An active railroad line is located along the west edge of this area, at the
foot of a steep bluff which runs parallel to County Road 17.
Objectives: • Preserve sense of openness along 287 and CR 17
• Maintain County Road 17 and Highway 287 as free -flowing arterials
• Maintain sense of separation between communities
Policies:
Preservation
Land use
Implementation
(
character
Preferred
Preserve bluff
Mixed use in
and
PUD controls w/
bluff preserved as
Scenario
between CR 17 and
the railroad tracks.
northern
southern sections;
open space,
in master -planned
Center section kept
campus setting
Fee-si
open to preserve
sele
urchor
Transferable
rural character
Agriculture or
Development
Maintain open
restored prairie in
Rights(TDR) for
views along 287
center section
center section
Setback controls
along 287 and
CR17.
Afterna-
Rural residential in
tives
center section
A PLAN FOR THE REGION BETWEEN FORT COLUNSAND LOMAND
21
SITE DESCRIPTION
RESOURCE
VALUE
RELATIVE THREAT
RNILIC USE '
'
Develop.
Pressure
Develop.
Potent.
Locks •
CurrentEdUC.1
pittance
6chools
Access
Negative City
factors PI
Site I: Nra (Overall Ranking). Description
Area
(ac)
Relative
Value
Dlstmoe
to Open
Nigh
Moderate
Moderate yes
Moderate
Mod.
Unknown Yes
fC•N: RedLall Grove (High). Pond eoeples
and upland cottonwoods slang Fossil Creek -
tributary. Site used by nesting red -tatted
hawks, waterfowl, and songbirds. Nay serve as
20
Nigh
High
deer corridor.
low
Moderate
Moderate No
low
Nigh
Unknown No
FC-9: TrlbuterY South of Golfer! East to RR
61
High
Low
Track.(Moderate). Over 27 acres of a wide
tone of marsh and wet meadow habitat along
creek drainage with prairie dog colonies in
grasslands along southern wetland edge.
Moderate
Moderate
"
Moderate
Nigh
Moderate
Moderate
High No
Moderate No
Moderate Ycs
Lou
low
HIgA
Low
High
Nigh
Unknown No
Unknown No
Unknown Yes
FC-10t Pleasant Nlll lane fork (Moderate).
Small grassland area between fork In creek
and RR track. Contains ratrie col
S
Moderato
Low
.FC-11: Writ tam Northern Ridge
moderate). grassland with many native plant
species and prslrle dogs along creek and
ridge to east of Burlington kit tracks. Site
used by raanerws replan. RR rlght•of-way
could be Issue for ac Isition.
TO
Nigh
low
FC-12: (yeah Creek Park AmeN (Nigh).
Creek and grosslands cantaintne prairie dogs
to northeast of park. Nigh use by wintering
replete, Including bald eagles. Parks Nester
27
Nigh
Nigh
Plan (partialsite).
FC-17: MofI Southern west Trlbutary 4f UGA
(Moderate). Over 15 acres of a wide Iona of
marsh and Net meadow habitat long creek
drainage with adjacent gratstards. Area -is
frequently flooded In spring and provides
valuable feeding sites for shorebirds and
36
nigh
Low
low
Moderate
Moderato No
low
X19h
Unknown No
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate Tes
to,
Nigh
Unakncwn Tea
waterfowl.
fC-1(s S�iie••n East tributary within UGA
(Nigh). largo 9nsat" with prof rla dogs
along creek, Nigh use by wintering raptors.
66
N19h
Nlgh
T143 —11
MULTIPLE
OBJECTIVES
eras
CPPOR111NITY
other
Avail-
Low Partners Issues
Pions -
ability
Cost
No
Nigh
Law No Unk.
No I Uarmat I Unk. I Me I unk.
No I Unknown I Unk. I Na I Unk.
No I Unknown I Unk. I No I Yes
No I Unknown I Unk. I No I unk.
No I Unknown I Unk. I No I Unk.
No I Unknown I Unk. I No I Unk.
4
WV
% it
Is !P-
ZA rP 0 P
L74
- A-M 4y c4a)'.
ORIS15i
iK,79W1i Ol
J6i � v0
N.G.,
_17PIRF
V4 ry — a V,
UWE.
V, • •:c
I, .-iI.LII4bi
r
d
Area 4 -- 50.06 acres. This area is identified as open space in the Fort Collins/Loveland
corridor plan, but was not identified as an acquisition parcel is the natural areas plan. The
site is approved at the Overall Development Plan level for manufactured housing and the
owner has a standing offer from an affordable housing developer at $10,000/acre (staff has
verified this). The owner has agreed to grant the City a one-year option on the property at
$10,000/acre. Given the price of this parcel and the concern in the community about
affordable housing, acquisition of this parcel needs to be carefully weighed. A decision on.
this parcel is not required at the November 1 meeting, but it would be useful to know the
Board's preliminary thoughts.
Although the field trip to this area did not work out, it would be useful if Board members could
visit the site prior to Wednesday's meeting. Please call me at 221-6263 if you have any
preliminary questions. .
Comma.-.1ty Planning and Environmentai services -gyp
Natural Resources Department
Citv of Fort Collins
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 30, 1995
TO: Natural Resources Advisory Board
FROM: Tom Shoemaker, Natural Resources Director ✓�
RE: Proposed Natural Area Acquisition
At the Board's November 1, 1995 meeting, I will be seeking your recommendation on a proposed
natural area acquisition. The 200-acre site (attached map) is east of Shields Street and south of
Trilby Road. It has been identified as a moderate priority acquisition site in the natural areas
acquisition evaluation and as a desirable open space area in the Plan for the Region Between Fort
Collins and Loveland (excerpts attached). The board looked at this site about 18 months ago and
elected not to pursue acquisition at a cost of S800,000 at the time.
Since that time, the land has changed hands and is now owned by development interests who also
own land west of the site (proposed as the Registry Ridge P.U.D.) and east of the site -along
Highway 287 (Shenandoah P.U.D.). The proposed acquisition involves a combination of
dedication by the owner and purchase by the City and includes several potential alternatives. On
the map, I have sketched four separate areas within the 200-acre parcel. I would like your
feedback on which combination of areas (if any) the City should acquire.
Area 1 -- 71 acres. The owner is proposing to dedicate this area in conjunction with the
Registry Ridge P.U.D. The owner attributes a value of $8,500 to S 10,000 per acre to this
land. If approved by the Planning and Zoning Board, in return for the dedication, the
owner will receive approximately 30 bonus points under the LDGS. This use of the
"offsite open space bonus criterion" of the LDGS will allow the applicant to obtain the
points necessary to obtain approval. Staff must make a recommendation to the Planning
and Zoning Board regarding the acceptability of the site as offsite open space.
Area 2 -- 32.3 acres. The owner is also proposing to dedicate this area in conjunction
with the Registry Ridge P.U.D. However, he is not proposing to obtain any LDGS points
for the dedication. This offer came about through negotiations by staff.
Area 3 -- 47.06 acres. We have said to the owner that dedication of Area 1, by itself; did
not provide the City with a viable natural area parcel. We said that in order to accept
Area 1, we must have the ability to acquire Area 3 at a reasonable cost. Based on this
request, the owner has proposed sale of this parcel at $4,500 acres, which he regards as an
"at cost" and "below market" sale. Staff regards the $4,500 figure as a fair and reasonable
cost for the property. Acquisition cost would be $211,770.
281 N. College Ave. - P.O. Box 580 - Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 - (970) 221-6600 - FAX (970) 221-6378
_ r
Natural Resources Department
MEMORANDUM
DATE: .:November 14, 1995
TO: Mike Ludwig, City Planner
FROM: Tom Shoemaker, Natural Resources Director jet-,.✓
RE- Registry Ridge Offfsite Open Space Dedication/Land Purchase
This memorandum confirms my recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board that the City
of Fort Collins accept proposed offsite open space dedications for the Registry Ridge P.U.D. and
grant bonus points under the L.D.G.S. residential bonus point chart. This recommendation is
based upon a review of the subject properties by Natural Resources and Parks Planning staff as
Resources Advisory Board. At their November 1, 1995 meeting,
well as a review by the Natural
the Board unanimously endorsed accepting proposed dedications and pursuing acquisition of
_>
additional parcels according to terms outlined by the landowner/applicant. Copies of my
memorandum to the Board, and- excerpts from their minutes are attached
The proposal by Registry Ridge involves four different parcels within the 200-acre tract of land
east of the RegistryRidge property (refer to attached memo dated October 30, 1995). All or
portions of this tract are identified as moderate priority for acquisition within the Natural Areas
program, and the entire 200-acre site is identified as desirable open space in the adopted Plan for
gr A
the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland:. The tentative agreement between the City an
Registry Ridge (subject to Planning and Zoning Board approval) involves the dedication of
approximately 103 acres of land (Areas 1 and 2 in October 30 memo) and granting of options to
purchase 47 acres east of the railroad tracks (Area 3) and 50 acres west of the railroad tracks
(Area 4). If approved by the Planning and Zoning Board, we would definitely pursue acquisition
of Area 3 along with the dedications of Areas 1 and 2. No firm recommendation has been
developed regarding exercising the option to purchase Area 4; we plan to continue our review of
this property and make a decision within the next few months.
You will note in the attached materials my understanding that the applicant would not claim
points for the 32 acre dedication of Area 2. I understand now that the applicant is claiming offsite
open space bonus points for this land. Given that the additional dedication does not make the
difference in whether the project gains enough points to warrant a recommendation of approval, I
don't believe the discrepancy is critical. The additional dedication, with or without the award of
points, represents the applicant's intent to go beyond the minimum needed for approval. With
respect to offsite open space and allowing flexibility for future purchase by the City at a
reasonable price, I believe the applicant has made proposals that go beyond the minimum needed
for approval.
,o, k.n.... A..e . nn RAY sn - Fort Collins, CO 80322-0580 • (970) 221-6600 • FAX (970) 2'-11-6378
Parks and Recreation Board Minutes
October 25, 1995
Page 4
Meetine Attendance
Board Members
Diane Thies
Marilyn Barnes
Sylvia Cranmer
Rich Feller
Jessica MacMillan
Mary Ness
Eric Reno
Roger Tarum
Rael, Administrative Aide 11
Staff
Mike Powers
Jean Helburg
Peggy Bowers
Steve Budner
Terry Keith
Mike McDonnell
Jackie Rael
Guests
CSU Students
Parks and Recreation Board Minutes
October 25, 1995
Page 2
lgcated in the designed housing development. Jessica MacMillan asked who the developer is? Mike
replied that it is US Homes. Diane Thies asked if this neighborhood park will be a large enough site
for the size of the population in this area? Mike said this will be a six -acre park site and that is an
adequate size for a neighborhood park. Diane asked what the date would be to develop this park?
Mike said not in the near future. A question was asked if this is in the Thompson School District or
Poudre R 1? Mike said Poudre R 1. Roger Tarim said that if the density is this high in the area that
we need to get an adequately sized park. The Board is in agreement of continuing negotiations on
the parkland donation.
Secretary Note: Staff checked ivith Attorney Lucia Liley, ivho advised us that Registry Ridge is in
the Thompson RV School District.
RECREATION PROGRAM FEES
Jean Helburg gave an overview of the Recreation Fees and Charges that have been adopted by City
Council last week. She introduced her Program Administrators in Recreation: Peggy Bowers, Youth
Activities; Terry Keith, Sports; Steve Budner, Adult Activities, and I ke MCDonnell, Ice and
Aquatics. Marilyn Barnes and Diane Thies asked to be on the Focus Group. Steve Budner added
Marilyn and Diane to the group.
Jean spoke of the Poudre R-1 fee policy that is being reviewed by the School District as they are
phasing in a five year fee. Fee changes in volleyball and basketball are because of the charges we will
incur from the School District. There were no further comments by the Board.
PICKLE PLANT PURCHASE
Mike said that the Pickle Plant site was one of the four key parcels of land identified for City
acquisition. An environmental assessment was conducted in this area. The 4-acre site, along with
the 15,000 square foot building, would cost $290,000. The cost would be split three ways as follows:
A private business would like to lease the building for five years for $70,000; Wastewater Utility
Capital Reserves for $110,000; and Conservation Trust Fund for $110,000. Staff is asking the Board
for a recommendation on the purchase of this property. On a motion by Eric Reno, seconded by
Roger Tarim, the Board voted unanimously (8-0) to approve the purchase of this land as presented
by staff tonight. Mike said that this piece of land is critical for the river corridor. Roger said that he
asks that the City keep in mind that this building be tom down and that the City not keep it and incur
operation and maintenance costs on it.
1996 PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD WORK PLANIMEETING SCHEDULE
Jackie Rael presented the draft copy of the Board's 1996 work plan and meeting schedule. Jean
Helburg added Youth Center as our contract will expire with the School District after two years and
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
CULTURAL, LIBRARY, AND RECREATIONAL SERVICES
PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD
CITY COUNCIL LIAISON TO THE BOARD:
Councilman Bob McCluskey, Jr.
STAFF SUPPORT TO THE BOARD: Jackie Rael, Administrative Aide
MINUTES: Regular ;Meeting --October 25, 1995
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
The regular meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Board President Diane Thies. Board
Member Rebecca Chavez called to say that she would not be able to attend tonight's meeting.
eeting
AGENDA REVIEW: Staff added the Parks and Recreation Board 1996 Work Plan/M
Schedule was added to the agenda. _
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 27, 1995 were unanimously (5-0) approved on a
motion by Jessica MacMillan, seconded by Roger Tarum.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION: No citizen participation.
ADVERTISING IN THE PARKS
Recreation Program Administrator Terry Keith said this has been pulled from the agenda as staff
checked the City Code for advertising in the parks, and found this would be a violation to the present
City ordinance. Roger Tarum asked if we have any advertising in the parks at this time? Terry said
that during tournaments, banners can be placed in the parks for 72 hours. The only permanent
advertising in parks is First National's signs in City Park at the ballfields. However, these signs will
be removed within the next few months when new scoreboards are installed. Diane asked if we do
allow advertising in the parks, would there be restrictions? Terry said that there would be
restrictions against alcohol and tobacco. Mary Ness mentioned the advertising that has been
promoted for Transfort, and questioned how that relates to the City Codes?.
REGISTRY RIDGE PARKLAND ACQUISITION
Mike Powers explained that this site is located at Shields and Trilby Road (west side of Shields).
The Board toured this area last summer during the Natural Areas tour with Natural Resources Board
and staff. The six acre parkland proposal, which will be donated by the developer, is centrally
Cultural; Library, and Recreational Services
October 4, 1995
Ms. Lucia Liley, Attorney
110 East Oak
Fort Collins CO 80521
Dear Ms. Liley:
This letter is an expression of interest regarding a dedication to
the City of a neighborhood park site located within the Registry
Ridge proposal.
Last Friday our Park Planning staff took a field trip to the
Registry Ridge area to look at the park and open space proposals
you discussed with me earlier.in the week. We think the o'-acre
park site located within the Registry Ridge proposal is a good site
for a neighborhood park (and is even better if the school locates
next to it). We are interested in accepting that site as a gift to
the City. Parkland fees would still be collected if the proposal
is approved. -
If the school locates adjacent to the park site in Registry Ridge,
the City will develop typical neighborhood park amenities on the
park site. However, if the school locates elsewhere, the City will
develop the typical neighborhood park adjacent to the school. The
park site in Registry Ridge will still be developed, although to a
lesser degree, using the parkland fees collected in Registry Ridge.
We appreciate the opportunity to partner with the private sector
and look forward to working with you on the process and other
details as this proposal moves through the development review
process.
Sincerely,
Michael W. Powers, Director
Cultural, Library, and Recreational Services
Cultura:, -ibrary, and Recreational Servit.
DATE: November 14, 1995
TO: Mike Ludwig, City Planner
FROM: Michael W. Powers, Director of Cultural, Library, and Recreational Services
RE: Registry Ridge Park Dedication
The Parks and Recreation Department is currently in negotiations with the attorney and owners of
the property known as Registry Ridge for the acquisition of a park site in that development. The
current proposal is for the developer to dedicate a six -acre park site adjacent to a proposed school
site interior to the development. If this area is approved for development, it will need to be
served by a neighborhood park, consistent with our existing Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Policy.
As you can see from the attached letter from K-Lynn Cameron, Park Planning and Development
Manager, to Lucia Lilev, Attorney, the type of park facility that would be designed on this
property will be dependent upon the location of the school. If Thompson R2J School District
selects this site to place their school, our intent would be to build a joint use park/school site
facility, which will have more active components. If the school is located at a different site, this
park site might be less active and include more passive areas.
The second attachment to this memo is the minutes from the Parks and Recreation Board meeting
where they considered this site. The Board enthusiastically supported our continued negotiations
to receive this dedication. Once the dedication is complete, staff will return to the Parks and
Recreation Board for a formal vote to accept the property.
If I can provide any further information, please let me know.
MWP:jmr
Attachments (2)
291 North College Avenue • Fort Collins, CO 80524 • (303) 2221-6640
DENSITY CHART (continued]
Cri=Icn
5
t
O
u
VI
if the site or aajacem Fmpary ccnr.= a historic building Or place. a booms may be rained for the fallowing:
3% For Pme=ng cr mitigating outside iaflnmces adverse to its prc=vation (e.g. eavaamneaai. ]sad
am aesthetic. ecanou is and social factacs);
3% Far assrsmg that new structures will be is kregjag with the eharuser of the basidiag of place, while
avoiding total traits:
3% for proposing adardve use of the bat7dja�$ orplice that will lead toits comiaaance. pr--,end= and
nit-rrovemctt in as appropriate mamtea
If a portion or an of the regal and paddng is the multiple famt7y prajea is provided underground. within the
but7ding. or in an elevated paridng srttamte as an accessory use to the primary srnenae. a boats may be earned ss
follows
9% Farproviding 75% or mote of the patjdngin a saeetrne;
3% �S 2 - 49% of the pazk4% of the pae iZ%g in a sin a ^^�
3% Forp:aviding
If a ectruaLaurmt is being made to provide approved automatic fre csringeisbing systems for the dweMng Hits.
enter a boas of 10%.
If the applicaas commits to providing aderinatesafe and convenient pedesrjan and bicycle coaaecnns between the
project and any of the desiaujnn points described below. eakrlam the boons as follows
5% Far amteedng tothe nearest e�saag City sidewalk and bjeyole patlt/la
5% For ==acting to any existing public school. part and roast smP with=am ^'aeda this to dsanca as d-_.
5% For ecdng to an existing City bicycle can which is adjacent to or =v=cs th..e pmjeer.
IA" Deveiv; :nett Guidance Systemfor Planned Unit Developments
The Cityof Fos Collias.Colorado. Revised September 1994
-79a-
5
.
C: erbn
.0
c I
"
H
d
m
e l
DENSITY CHAR ,
ZOO feet of an exunag nagnoornooa snopptng ectte: or — 20%
•------------------------------g----
--
2000 feet of an appspved but not corsttnc�i ndghborhood shopoin center. ---- l0%
650 feet of an existing transit stop linable only to projeea having a density of at least six (61 dwellingl 2o%
attarscre pa aan grpss ere 4c )
4000 feet of an existing of unproved �egi�nalshopping crta — I 104ia
3500 feet of an existing adghbor:hcod or community park reownkr E--a —-- l�ealLY-j — I
3500 feet of a publicly owned, bat not developed. neighborhood or community pact, or earstrn — -- --"
facility (ettept golf purses); or to
.------------------------------------ 1----
3500 feet of a publicly owned golf c:uze. whether developed or noe -- — 1 1046
2500 fou of an existing scbwL nee ng au tequiremepu of the stare of Colorado cm-w— pry edy;eacnn I 1096
---
t f 3000 feet of a major e®ldyment tenter
I 204E
1000 fat of a chiLd cam center 1 5%
h -Aortic" Fort Collins I 20%
( I The Central Hukam District I W%
j A Froject whale bapadsry it c nciguous m existing urban development. C c& tray be earned ss follows: 30%
0% For projeess whose property boundary has 0 -10% comiga!
10 -15% For proles whose ;=cr y boundary has 10 - iA96 eontiguaty;
15 - 20% For projects whose ry bou
ndary has 20. 30% caadgmkr.
20 -•25% For Projees whose prepcy boundary has 30 - 40% coudgc .
25.30% For projects whosa , mjerty boundary his 40 - V% concguity.
k If it cart be deanonstrated C•at the i^rojer. will reduce non-renewable energy usage eider through the apolimcion of I .
alrer:naave energy sysm= of through eomrnined energy conservation aessares beyond C'sose nomslly reau=ed by
City Code. a 5% bonus may be earned for every 5'7a reduedon in energy use.
( Calculate a 1% bonus fer every 50 acts inc:::ded in c ;e pmjee•_ I
Calculate the pe:.e.=ge of the nnl Z= in the project that ge.devoted to;ree-adocai use. _sez:U2 of t4-at - -
pere.tuage as a bourns. .
f1 I If the appiicaat pmnnics to gastrul
a; p=r.-== od-site open spacer th t meets the Gty's
aleulare the percruge of Chia open spoor a=ge w the total r'eveloonunt at^ige and enter cis pe- rssge as a _
bonIs. 2 I
0 I If part of Coe total development budget is to be spent on red&hbcrhood pubHe ransit faciUdes which are not
otherwise tequked by C* Coder enter a 2% bonus for every $100 per dwelling unit invested. r
P If pia of the mil develcpmis budget to be spent on neighborhood selires and services which are xt oCeraise '
H I rxuired by City Code. enter a 1% bonus fcr every $100 pa dwelling snit invested. -"
If a comitmenz is being made to develop a speo�ed yc....nage of the total number of dweilng .nits fcr low
Z Q mincorne families, ens that percentage as a boi on. at) to a maximum of 30%.
QIf a comntiaers is being made to develop a specified uecentage of the total number of dwelling suits for Type -A-
gc f and Type "S" �arrdcs�od housing as dear by the City of For: Quirts. cal=lam C`.e bonus as follows:
ijpe"A SxT�"a"T• — —
of Una
Type'$
a nc ate 3W the combined bonus be grave . than 301.re
Tool Units a
Continued
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Far. Collins. Colorado, Revised Septcaber 1994
. i9.
A i TAC-i^.ENT "3"
ACTIVI T-Y:
Residential Uses
DEFINITION;
H
All residential asses. Uses include single family attac:.ed dwellings. townhomes, duplexes. mobiile homes.
and multiple family d«ellings: group homes: boarding and rooming houses: "2rar^rrury and scrcrry
houses: nursing aornes: public and private schools; puoiic and non-profit quasi -public -:3.denai uses
as a principal use: uses providing meeting places and places for public assembly with incidental once
space: and child centers.
CRITERIA,
sae cil.owing a^ciit'b'.e ^^=on must be a.•wswe.-ed . es" and .
=,ciemeated •a:_ ire -`'_ ^_eveiopment plan.
' DOES Tr-?RCS=C: E.5L2Y Tr= NMNUVfn1 ?c-)Cz- 1AGE
?OL`iS AS CA -==LA M
ONOw_iY_C "7E:YSaiY
C:=1.RT" —OR - ?.°.OPOSr� DENS1iY OF _ �ESu�Lr�AL
?RCJE%, ::� : �^ wired earned credit for a rsidet:^i rojec: shall be
based on the foiicwtng.
60 t e._ertage points
= 6 or wer dwelling -.its ;,erase
60 - 70 Perot •: ge points
= 6 - i dwelling units per a=--
70 - 80 uer_entage points
= 7 - 8 dwelling traits per acc
80 - 90 pe --entage points
= 8 - 9 dwelling units per ace
90-100 ueroe age points
= 9-10 dwelling units per ace
100 or more rer_e :tags points
= 10 or mote dwelling .wits per ace
Yes C N/AZD
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins. Colorado. R_ Ased Aug= 1994
' 78
1(
Activity A: ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
LL CRITERIA I AFP! .!Cr,BL=CRI1=?:A CNLY
Is :`e ^—enen 'mill wecaerierj
ac.i:aefe7 I be satis:lee7
CR17==1CN I s .7I Yes INo I If no, ~lease ex=lein
A1. C ;MMUN;-!-~VICE CR; c
1.1 Sciar Crier. —= :;v% I I I I I
1:2 Cc—craersi r= =Ian I I I IloorI I.
1. 3 W:. :iie :=a it
�.._ =c^ ciC.:i!'r ;.3.^.S�iivc.�f_-- I reS2.-.e•% I I j
el
1.E
Air
"— =11 •--v C,='
- ==:.=.
❑—`—
2.1
1 •
— s — =e�' -=�VOT
sicrs (
I ILXI
2.15
Eii:_-:g.;-,tirc
I 1 10
2.1E
Ncis= andy:trE PC
2.17
Giara zr HeEt I
I I
2.1E
'ic=-r"cus Mat=rials
A 3.
ENG6NEERING CRI i ERIA
I
3.1
UtiiiN Cacao., I
I I ;/
3.2
Des;= vtardar.-_s
to
CS
3.4
Gecicc:c HaZEres I
I I
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
i ae City of Fort CoUns. Colorado. Revised ,, ch 1994 y
,�o.. g UPI
-61-
.'
mcv
I
Pf(OJECT NOTES PLANT Yn_TE_g
ze
s�;52+
w.nooro A�W' r
W ,aw�V r rr�r r cA w_
PLANT KEY
O' .— Q
Ab
® ED YJY T
8 Of
(
r
�
.plPl4l41 p10 v v v; �
—I
Iq en .aa ea
m
O O O 4 4 4 0 O O
Iw I I iin iii aM MT' P iO w0 4 P .W 4 4 O p �/-----'--
>
c)-b
r-- aiTO .•a .m. No.
R°w' Ap A a rAnolo, r
fail ra aaa aii aaa aN aq AG
'o a.
_ O ao am aoo as as �' / ri, �j
as _ o
Ir � raw sn a» an0 ._ 4 , ra na
sw0oo
wf Tqi aq an aa� m T.N »s, O p.
_ __
'pM m as
an m afa a1° O
• _ _
OHO 4
aN 41
OM M/ 7ia I !O !o, !ei »O !el ra a fM /M fN L1 7e0
»
In - iea aw ano a0 a o ap ap , p O 4 O O p O O 4 O P O P
eta � AePGT.--J I»aO aw -` -- -- --- � _ — — — —
w47f '!Y
lie -
�
In ` 4 O 4� J »14 aae ats,' I !u
I
TJ am ; 1 an; Ili 241
wi � laae aN N/ iia ate .,_ C r � �• �,
!ae
00 saf ma I �:
in
n ra ', 4 ra
r
'I I I aca� M 4 atl aaa r/r� �
In
to
TRACT w
I
IIir.Ya. r . sr
TRACT e
�p n IEegEMM� II I. iA110 110eEarTOW Mg1Ea
I
i III
' I i
II�
Jll,l
i
"emu' t I
Sheet 6 Of
c
m
Q a
m v
= o 0
Tav
►— m U
Uiz
cr CC LL
- - - - - - - w - - - - --..-..--.-..-_-------
------------ -
°°
V N N • N �;
O
TRACT 2
O
i r ris
r
$, N N N 41 N N M AS•
` A 0 t0 O O O ``•
M N At
O •Td J• i
a .
97
14 TRACT IN AAS!
IL
n• 4. ff ^ p d� w, �iN N� • 4 4 4� I
TO r bA rm AC.
DO rT A 440' 'Nf Nt •i• •1 O, O O� i
430
A Ni i r r •t• N, ••t "S
inAG AM Oi
404
w N•
M7 a� O 9 P 0i
n'
N• N"
N
-_ •!t Q
N _ '•f •v Ir •f e NI m •tt •!• •N •A• 9 4 / _ -1 _ _ _ •DT q
0 0 0 4 0 4 0 d 4 O_ O •r 4" •f A. 4 4 4 4 9 0 0 0
TRACT L
3w iM pT pt •00 •01 •N •M 4 O •r -
'
td--o__4J Iill
TRACT t
nInm
DAYCMf
•D AC.
TRACT C
CI'OYOCWUC/R[f
" AC.
Sheet 4 of 6
c
m
Q a
O
3 O m 0
m
v 0
I1
Qic O
�.�oV
icCc02LLL
06
itwo
N+
j
1
I flf
' �'
f
Iff i
I
1
net
1
Ina 0
fY
0 '� m =y
,
`
�
1Z i
I
ZOa
>0 as
O-TRACT
/� _._��•. �`�
__' ...
�/,' � �
`��•
0
-7pACiY
/ I1I
VOEVELOPED
fZIaED FA-U
I
�s�
I
-------------
�' 1 i i • i/ � nn �_j •� E
�, • / � / i/ lai ii [a i!/ w E ! I i Aa E C
03
I
06
03
M 2 E I I I i
a E IlOf l i M E
fO0
1
we M M
MCT o M� E a i al
I
M
IIE
11a
M E
J •`• I - , i I 1a E
100a IaaE
•.^ � •ter _ _ '
"'•� MOLE! OfAR?A m MAT
III ZQED FA-U
0
.r,�r r V I•I•wK Yr. e,N
WETLANDS
OWNER'S CERTMATION
r�r
rrwr rr•r.srew wrr r
w w
PROJECT STATISTICS
r..n r .rr•
Jr•.�W.•.r� r
rw
..reww.w
rv.
J•u•.MM.•rr,
r•ww r •
J,r•nrwrr
www r.• w, J4�r...r...
PROJECT NOTES
•r�•w.A•JIrMIJ�••••..r
SOLAR ORENTATION
Iw•r �
.sJ�rrw. r
0 ,w,.+�rY •.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
`.i c �Y •w.r _
T.a �v�---------- �w
`•SL.
.1'.v
r _
�t' m ; ,aw ar aw an fw TO
fa+ .0 fo. .of ° O Ar `` _i' �r \ - •—_�_ x _
iIf
w,,,tt J
je M.
I I ,aa ffa an afo
a>» RPOOL. irfAlMean ►�AAlipd m w m � ,,,ate,,, i I j l l
TO
j I; I lrae- J rs.....w.•V ,/�'� ap p 4 I YFYOEYTMMT;vrVm
"W >; „ ArEfDORYL ,1 ''
lj
l
O rAro ICA AC.
.c�ortowYa�f ; I;
„f I r _ __ _ _ as f$f p ,,, ,.. ,n ' '� n. p o I. '
I lafo fn fTf f++ 0 �_ O W
To
try : m !I� II II
I 1 I�R Imp �`
Shoot 2 of 6
as ;
an I fly :.f :a fw afr aet fw Mai011
�i I m
! ' '•r 'C1--J - 4 ' �waoeT- _ I fy N89ci
Y..�..�..-3607 •131 i.i011.�..� �..�..�.. I b
fN ___�.. t ;� c v
sz, afA a» aa; i a r`o
O I I aN o 0
O P
fas LLf I I
; .P O O P� TRACT [ aao mf 143
�r
j " r - 1 m I I I j,--- -•� -a E Ci
IW aw W W W no m l '� a.. d
0 0 0 0 4 ` '` j it irra`a
(ZQWD FA.0 ! I vA�urcHerr
aai iaOf ys
pa aO °
I !i/
,ml� m� l � t0 O 4 O �f�� taT I jr l- 1 W ', \ r I i'�� �- `•�\ � ! a nra�iu
Is
231
_ I
Nt , aw ' ar _l at O,.'i 1r_ % �'11 i' l I as •+•_
1pl W /
W ' iff an : --� `� i
or
k,406 O►m IrADTY `�\ i of I •� I
I
I
Pp Am vAllfr a b
IrIp Dla.-1) I
loilil
-'—..—_— `.—..—..—..—«—..—..—_.�..--_.—..—..—..—.. NORTH LINE. SECTIeO�N� 15 N89'28 IB'E
MCT
is
1 ! . �,� _ -1 I N `I I » 1', : \I � I r „ r ♦I I q [ 1 �� ' Iil
i ' I{Yt ,I Il II
shOBi i of e
n .[ N w N !
I.mjl ``n`i� �' „ . ' •� r'�U it -N N; N et N N N N •f 1-[P' d,d ♦p at 1 �, E f —E-J li II eri
'a3o •"� '» / �Y• NO ♦ - --� _—' �—..,"•nMOR—_ - T - , I s 5 .ae O
ni n •.nO ��i � �C/N O,j/' Nt '�iu N .[I P O O �pMl I I ? a p
g� , p '' ,fo i" �♦♦ , / Ne I ���0 � � d.__ _ __._� I� ' � I tea. ° U
z� � �.' M N ♦♦ \ ♦♦ N / •N � use _' NI Nj � wr CT � I � .1�./+� f'/1
1 -' ♦` ♦ �'� N� I �O O O O P O �J I DAYCN
fO AC.
"LM _ ___�steR�--- ' rr wn.v I I •� `�'S O
7 '� w gl iN wt N[ oo m .n a�
�I i 4 O O 4 4 O O O OI i i 1 i LL LL 4 LL
� ' n � ' I ` `RaY ♦' .0 cn•v Nt i L____ _ -r-, -1 '
I� Y��,ggq''C���rrrrrr
�� �/ • �N I m a m u 44 I
nO `. ♦` I �O 0 4 d O O 4 0 O�•I e� aF ! I
F�9 NCTT0 i 9.
•�'Ey paw--tC Q caNExw..orsicf ' I �TStrs
Go Ac.
/ r • l '
30 10[ '� AG. 'OH I' r M r II t__`_''�-' '�:i7�7E6 Na •e>I I ' ' se Jl3i_
c !I' � �r�'/ I' .a.m� NI au O .N •!a I �� O P O O O O O OJ ,I �: i I� ��L:r__
z if m r I ____ • O O __ GJ r L- - e.p�--_� r , •_s
�dI Lr ea o o .N atl an a» aN •» p.4 /" - O iN! e4 p O O O LI q
•r •O O •q'I • __ _ __ __ __ ___ __ __ __ _ �•' ' or
Ne 6 _ _ 1• v— t—_Lp�l-wswsel[
I�I m I eN Ns s!e N! !e[ .eo •m Na '°' d O •r
Bij I wr
N
i
\I
PLAleM1O A ZOlAM3 APPROVAL
'W
OWNER'S CER +ATION-
W ANOS
.�.rvr'wrr�_e .r« nr
VICIMTY MAP Q
IO.D... /�ryr♦.[LIM
t
M
aYeaa. �i `aa�M
.r.a.,,w"rieweweo.
wYe
O
L0•�. •fflY
Yrr11Ml
v
� erY e v
P
._
.IYY
.OrYlr..
rYrnw
� '
J
wre
L.
i .o.aern
«rr'w
i ���n� B
YiB11W wY. MYW
wn
aen nr
PROJECT NOTES
DESCRIPTION
LEGAL D
PROJECT
STATISTICS
�_q ^ _
_ __
ME"
JIM
oemrA
v,.o..n. Yr,r'w
,.
•r«
-.
'� - —sue.,.
NaA11
o .. :"S��=�.•,�.we�
.r..Yw.. ieY�.w
ii
iw�n
rw»
'� _�
� �
_
�.� tT.'"�"'•.-L77.SP�'V7._
... ..�
i � .� aewna _��
'i
�—
,�.
'
u.
�w.rr�'
nwwre
�,T.:._.��._
.'C x. _T - ..M ••
S>_1—
Registry Ridge P.U.D.
__
OF-�"--•—
Overall Development Plan
.r.
.r..,a..r
�.,—_,_
FL CoWne, Colorado
�--
I
C
VICINITY MAP Ub/LLIUz)
32-95A, REGISTRY RIDGE PUD
Preliminary
No Text
No Text
Registry Ridge P.U.D., Phase 1 Preliminary, #32-95A
November 20, 1995 P&Z Meeting
Page 9
2. The use of round -a -bouts must be approved for safety and good traffic function by the
Director of Engineering prior to consideration by the Planning and Zoning Board of
the first final P.U.D. for the Registry Ridge O.D.P.
3. All deeds of dedication, encumbrance releases (if necessary) and other customary
closing documents, in form acceptable to the City, for both the six acre neighborhood
park site on ParceUTract I and the 102.89 acre of offsite open space parcel shall be
unconditionally delivered into escrow with the North American Title Insurance
Company, in such a manner as to afford said company the ability to perform the
escrow and convey the properties to the City upon final approval of this PUD plan.
Said documents must be delivered into escrow prior to consideration of the final plan
for Registry Ridge PUD Phase 1.
4. If the escrow which is the subject of condition 3 above has not been established and all
required documents delivered thereto, or if either the six acre neighborhood park site
-or-the 102.89.;.acre.open space parcel -should be..determined:_by,_the. City,to. be
unacceptable because of problems pertaining to (a) environmental conditions of the.
parcels, (b) outstanding title issues and encumbrances or (c) survey problems, then the
points awarded at the time of preliminary approval shall be revoked at the time of final
consideration, in which event the plan must pass or fail based upon the remaining
points available to the project.
Registry Ridge P.U.D., Phase 1 Preliminary, #32-95A
November 20, 1995 P&Z Meeting
Page 8
submittal requirements for all on -site and off -site street improvements to Trilby Road and South
Shields Street. There are three "round -a -bouts" proposed on the collector streets in the development
_ that, are still being evaluated by the gngineering Department. A decision by the Director of
Engineering on these round-abouts will be rendered prior to consideration by the Planning and
Zoning Board of the first final P.U.D. for the Registry Ridge O.D.P.
7. Stormwater:
The Preliminary stormwater design is a combination of detention and retention which will allow
flows to leave the site only at historic, undeveloped rates. Therefore no off -site drainage easements
are needed. The release is currently designed to go to the north. However the Stormwater Utility
has requested that the applicant explore the potential of releasing flows to the west. This will be
resolved prior to consideration of the first final P.U.D. for the Registry Ridge O.D.P.
FINDINGS OF,FACT/CONCLUSION
1. The Registry Ridge P.U.D., Phase 1, Preliminary, # 32-95A is in compliance with the uses
designated on Parcels A, E, F, K, L, M, N, O, P, and Q of the Registry Ridge Overall
Development Plan, #32-95.
2. The Registry Ridge P.U.D., Phase 1, Preliminary, # 32-95A earns 97% of the maximum
applicable points on the Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S., exceeding the
minimum required 60% for a residential density of 2.60 dwelling units per acre.
3. The Registry Ridge P.U.D., Phase 1, Preliminary, # 32-95A meets the applicable All
Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System.
4. The Registry Ridge P.U.D., Phase 1, Preliminary, # 32-95A street layout and projected
traffic volumes are in compliance with the City's Transportation Policies except for the three
proposed "round-abou&'.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Registry Ridge P.U.D., Phase 1, Preliminary, # 32-95A with the
following conditions:
1. As part of any application for the first final P.U.D. for the Registry Ridge O.D.P., the
applicant must provide utility design plans meeting the City's final utility plan
submittal requirements for all on -site and off -site street improvements to Trilby Road
and South Shields Street.
Registry Ridge P.U.D., Phase 1 Preliminary, #32-95A
November 20, 1995 P&Z Meeting
Page 7
bike/pedestrian paths connect the residential uses to proposed public facilities within the
development as well as to a future bike path along Trilby Road that is to be constructed with Phase
1.
UR-�...
In addition to the off -site open space dedication for which bonus points were awarded, there is a
I otential for the City to acquire additional on -site and off -site open space either by future purchase
and/or dedication.
First, the southern one-third of the Registry Ridge O.D.P. is designated as "proposed open lands"
on the Preferred Land Use Scenario Map of the advisory document The Plan for the Region Between
Fort Collins and Loveland. The Natural Resources Department has obtained a one year option to
purchase the southern one-third of the Registry Ridge O.D.P. (Parcel/Tract N) for open space
regardless of whether the developer has received Preliminary or Final P.U.D. approval for this
portion. The,Cityls interest in this property is dependent upon whether the McKee Charitable Trust .
—_
Plat and Overall Development Plan south of the Registry Ridge proposal receives final approval flor "=
328" single-family lots from the County or whether public funds can be generated to purchase the
McKee Trust property for open space.
Second, there are approximately 99 acres of land on the east side of South Shields Street, north of
the proposed 102.89 acres of off -site open space dedication. This property is also designated as
"proposed open lands" on the Preferred Land Use Scenario Map of the advisory document The Plan
for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland. The Ridgewood Hills (Del Webb) Overall
Development Plan designates this land for manufactured housing, multi -family residential,
convenience center/office and medium density residential uses. The Natural Resources Department
has an option to purchase this property or it may be used for off -site open space dedication with
future P.U.D. submittals.
Vehicular access is gained from one entrance on Trilby Road at approximately the mid -point of the
site and from two entrances on South Shields Street on the northern one third of the property. Two
future connections are shown along the western edge of the property should the property to the west
ever develop in the future. The street layout and traffic volumes projected for this Preliminary
P.U.D. request are consistent with the Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan and are in
compliance with the City's Transportation Policies. On -site improvements to Trilby Road and
Shields Street will be required as well as off -site improvements to Shields Street from Trilby Road
to approximately Clarendon Hills at the developers expense. The designs for these improvements
have not yet been prepared. As part of any application for the first final P.U.D. for the Registry
Ridge O.D.P., the applicant must provide utility design plans meeting the City's final utility plan
Registry Ridge P.U.D., Phase 1 Preliminary, #32-95A
November 20, 1995 P&Z Meeting
Page 6
In addition, staff has attached numerous letters from affected property owners and other parties of
interest. These letters generally reflect a concern that the density is too high and incompatible with
the existing "rural' lifestyle of this area; and that this development proposal will eliminate any
chance of retaining a separation between Loveland and Fort Collins. The applicant has attempted
to address the neighbors concerns as follows and still meet City policies:
First, there are both rural residential and urban residential county developments adjacent to this
property. However, the property is located within the Urban Growth Area and within the City limits
and therefore is required to develop at a minimum of 3 dwelling units per acre. If the maximum of
702 units are built (includes residential uses rather than the proposed school on Parcel/Tract H) the
residential density will be 3.07 dwelling units/acre. If the minimum of 597 units are built (includes
school on Parcel/Tract H and open space on Parcel/Tract N) the residential density will be 3.15
dwelling units/acre. The applicant is proposing the fewest number of, units as is possible to still
maintain at least 3 dwelling units per acre. The applicant has attempted to minimize the impact of
future higher intensity uses from the surrounding properties by placing the low density single-family
residential parcels on the perimeter of the site.' The commercial/office, daycare, and higher intensity'
residential uses are to the interior of the development and along South Shields Street.
Second, the applicant must bear the cost of extending services to and throughout the development
and must provide off-street improvements to Shields Street as well as on -site street improvements
to Trilby Road and Shields Street.
Third, The Plan for the Regio Bryn Fort Collins and Lover, an advisory document,
designates the northern two-thirds of the proposed Registry Ridge O.D.P. as "residential cluster
development"on the Preferred Land Use Scenario Map. The southern one-third of the proposal is
designated as "proposed open lands". As discussed in the Open Space section of this Staff Memo,
the City has obtained a one year option to purchase the southern one-third of the Registry Ridge
O.D.P. (Parcel/Tract N) for open space.
4. Design:
The Registry Ridge P.U.D., Phase 1 Preliminary is for Parcels A, E, F, K, L, M, N, O, P, and Q of
the Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan, #32-95A. These low -density, single-family
residential uses are the northern, southern and western perimeters of the site and will screen future
higher intensity uses such as medium density residential, multi -family residential, commercial/office,
day care, and school from existing, rural and urban county residential developments adjacent to this
property. The lowest density single-family residential (1.96 du's/acre) has been placed along the
northern property line (the south side of Trilby Road and south of the Mountain Valley Acres County
Subdivision). This, combined with an open space buffer between Trilby Road and the rear property
lines that is a minimum of 39 wide, provides an adequate transition for increasing density. Internal
Registry Ridge P.U.D., Phase 1 Preliminary, #32-95A
November 20, 1995 P&Z Meeting
Page 4
[c] Partial credit may be given to active open space areas which are devoted to
improved flood control channels and areas encumbered by flowage,
floodway, or drainage easements-
(2) Active indoor space.
[a] Recreational facilities or structures and their accessory uses located in
approved areas including, but not limited to, game rooms, swimming pools,
gymnasiums, bowling alleys, exercise rooms, and tennis and racquetball
courts;
[b] Residents of the project for which the facility is planned must automatically
be members, without additional charge."
There are a total 37.86 acres of privately owned spaces within the Registry Ridge P.U.D.,
Phase 1, Preliminary. `All of the spaces are -greater than ten thousand -(I 0,000) square feet
and greater than (50) linear feet in the smallest dimensions. 37.86. acres divided by 196.05
total acres in the Registry Ridge P.U.D., Phase 1, Preliminary is equal to 19.31 percent. `/z
of 19.31 percent is 9.66 percent.
hat
n. If the applicant commits calcpermanent
of this open spaceff-site open space tacreageetto the total
the City's
minimum requirements, ulate the Percentage
development acreage and enter this percentage as a bonus - 52 points.
The applicant is dedicating 102.89 acres of off -site open space on the east side of South
Shields Street. This land is currently designated as medium density residential and
manufactured housing on the approved Ridgewood Hills (Del Webb) O.D.P. with a
secondary use being City of Fort Collins open space. The Plan for the Recion Between Fort
Collins and oveland, an advisory document, designates this land as "proposed open lands"
on the Preferred Land Use Scenario Map. 102.89 acres / 196.05 total acres in the Registry
Ridge P.U.D., Phase 1, Preliminary is equal to 52.48 percent. Please refer to the attached
memorandum from Tom Shoemaker, Director of Natural Resources regarding the Natural
Resources Advisory Board's recommendation and City's willingness to accept this
dedication.
p. 1q If part of the total development budget is to be spent on neighborhood facilities and services
which are not otherwise required by City Code, enter a 1 % bonus for every $100 per
dwelling unit invested -11 points.
The applicant proposes to spend $550,000 on a pool, tennis courts, children's play area and
parking for the recreational use on Parcel J of the Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan.
Registry Ridge P.U.D., Phase 1 Preliminary, #32-95A
November 20, 1995 P&Z Meeting
Page 3
BASE (LOCATIONAL)
d. being located within 3,500 feet of a publicly owned but not developed, neighborhood or
communityparr or communityfacility (except golf courses) -10 points.
The applicant proposes to dedicate an approximately 6.0 acre park site (Tract I) to the City
of Fort Collins at no cost for a neighborhood park. Please refer to the attached memorandum
from Mike Powers, Director of Cultural, Library, and Recreational Services (CLRS)
regarding the Parks and Recreation Boards recommendation and City's willingness to accept
this dedication. A condition of approval will require that the property be dedicated to the
City prior to consideration by the Planning and Zoning Board of the first final P.U.D. of the
Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan.
�. c being located within 1, 000 feet of a child care center - 5 points.
A day care facility is planned for Parcel B of the Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan,
#32-95. Although not part of this Preliminary P.U.D. request, the developer is obligated to
build the day care center by claiming points for this Preliminary P.U.D. submittal and by the
fact that no secondary uses are listed on Parcel B of the Registry Ridge O.D.P.
BONUS
I % bonus for every 50 acres in the project - 4 points.
The Registry Ridge P.U.D., Phase 1, Preliminary, consists of total of 196.05 acres. 196.05
divided by 50 is 3.92.
In. Calculate the percentage of the total acres in the project that are devoted to recreational
use. Enter % of that percentage as a bonus -10 points.
The LDGS defines recreational space as:
"privately owned space which is designed for active recreational use for more than three (3)
families and would qualify as one of the following categories:
(1) Active open space.
[a] A parcel of not less than ten thousand (10,000 square feet and not less than
fifty (50) linear feet in the smallest dimensions;
[b] Public dedications may not contribute to the active open space area;
ITEM NO. 13
MEETING DATE 11/20/95
STAFF Mike Ludwig
City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Registry Ridge P.U.D., Phase 1, Preliminary, #32-95A.
APPLICANT: Vaught -Frye Architects
1113 Stoney Hill Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
OWNER: Dalco Land, L.L.C.
8101 E. Prentice Avenue, Suite M180
Englewood, CO 80111
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for Preliminary P.U.D. for 510 single-family residential lots on 196.05 acres known
as Parcels A, E, F, K, L, M, N, O, P, and Q of the Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan, 432-
95, with a residential density of 2.60 dwelling units per acre. Individual phases of an Overall
Development Plan can be less than 3 dwelling units per acre provided the overall development is at
a minimum of 3 dwelling units per acre. The property is located at the southwest comer of Trilby
Road and South Shields Street and is zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential with a P.U.D.
condition.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This request for Preliminary, P.U.D. approval:
* is in compliance with the uses designated on Parcels A, E, F, K, L, M, N, O, P, and Q of the
Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan, #32-95;
* eams 97% of the maximum applicable points on the Residential Uses Point Chart of the
L.D.G.S., exceeding the minimum required 60% for a residential density of 2.60 dwelling
units per acre.
* meets the applicable All Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System.
* is in compliance with the City's Transportation Policies except for the three proposed
"round-abouts".
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Boa 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 2-11-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
YIXIM\A,O aOMO 1.
I.NC..x w ✓fIr R= MIW .ITn ✓[,N
fill
/
lOI1N
VAN
i
--
PLANNNO
a zONNO APPROVAL
•a
uY1 ^�.s"c:o.Wn.NY.
P
aewX.Nn
SS
I.^ M✓•
K
I.�YmY^
a
IRY.•.R
II.IX
«•Y . n Y•Y I
Q
yff
n•
••asw wY�•_N..ww.w v..wr wN 1 1 ..1 •\ t� V.2
Ny^•W 'V' I Y•Y, '��
.^..... N.• ^..^ --- I E
OWNER'S CERTIFICATIONWar
w�a�:-/-' i «.YI ae. sNrr a.n„ I Y•YI
w•.w..r•-_w�•.sN_ •.. I A.N •
"• 1 IYN • •1,•N •
.--.--•— • I IYYiW «•N • Y.W
WETLANDS
wa.rr•.n._____.Nu.,Nw_-__ :, ��_... Y".•Y.i.we nY• YAUCLR
w
PROJECT NOTES l}11rJ{'��•l�jll
VICINITY MAP Q PROJECT STATISTICS LEGAL DESCRIPTION
• f• qf. lajR.N.. ..MMW N n � r. .r r .r•
14
f u.y.�•� ft.NYIY .fATf __ _ �-�••�— rr `. _i�`� ii.. i OY01Y1
• •..• � �. O .,O.IMx..NIx11Y •M W.. __ ._. �w Mr E.Ya WAY1,
•! .d n.M.. ..�x��� •. 1 r _ _. ram!;��� � • NYI
. • � � • Y• µa..R_�.w xi .N NVX . _= _= r— r r.=�� Sri :.��� __—'�— u
yT`'�1—.i' ' ' •I w.•FMOI'.,�.a .rYww .- ri•'%��L� r.�..w.—.. .. ... —
^ " ;d ll�M...np.xY _ �rS�.�i...w..• r r. x. ^.wlr f.
-----=.as_srr ..\ _... _ _ Registry Ridge P.U.D.
��}, . '- «• NY•e. N =-s=? - Overell Development Plan
FL Collins. Colorado ^-'�'
06122/95
VICINITY MAP.
32-95 REGISTRY RIDGE PUD
Overall Development Plan
No Text
r
Registry Ridge O.D.P., #32-95
November 20, 1995 P&Z Meeting
Page 8
Company, in such a manner as to afford said company the ability to perform the
escrow and convey the properties to the City upon final approval of the PUD plan.
Said documents must be delivered into escrow prior to consideration of the final plan
for Registry Ridge PUD Phase 1. '
4. If the escrow which is the subject of condition 3 above has not been established and all
required documents delivered thereto, or if either the six acre neighborhood park site
or the 102.89 acre open space parcel should be determined by the City to be
unacceptable because of problems pertaining to (a) environmental conditions of the
parcels, (b) outstanding title issues and encumbrances or (c) survey problems, then the
points awarded at the time of preliminary approval shall be revoked at the time of final
consideration, in which event the plan must pass or fail based upon the remaining
points available to the project.
Registry Ridge O.D.P., #32-95
November 20, 1995 P&Z Meeting
Page 7
application for the first final P.U.D. for the Registry Ridge O.D.P., the applicant must provide utility
design plans meeting the City's final utility plan submittal requirements for all on -site and off -site
street improvements to Trilby Road and South Shields Street. There are three "round -a -bouts"
proposed on the collector streets in the development that are still being evaluated by the Engineering
Department. A decision by the Director of Engineering on these round-abouts will be rendered prior
to consideration by the Planning and Zoning Board of the first final P.U.D. for the Registry Ridge
O.D.P.
7. Stormwater:
The Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan meets City Stormwater Utility design requirements.
FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSION:
1. The Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan, # 32-95 is in conformance with the City's
Comprehensive Plan..,.:
2. The Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan, # 32-95 exceeds the minimum gross density
requirement of 3 dwelling units per acre.
3. The Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan, # 32-95 street layout and projected traffic
volumes are in compliance with the City's Transportation Policies except for the proposed
"round-abouts".
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan, #32-95 with the
following conditions:
1. As part of any application for the first final P.U.D. for the Registry Ridge O.D.P., the
applicant must provide utility design plans meeting the City's final utility plan
submittal requirements for all on -site and off -site street improvements to Trilby Road
and South Shields Street.
2. The use of round -a -bouts must be approved for safety and good traffic function by the
Director of Engineering prior to consideration by the Planning and Zoning Board of
the first final P.U.D. for the Registry Ridge O.D.P.
3. All deeds of dedication, encumbrance releases (if necessary) and other customary
closing documents, in form acceptable to the City, for both the six acre neighborhood
park site on Parcel/Tract I and the 102.89 acre of offsite open space parcel shall be
unconditionally delivered into escrow with the North American Title Insurance
7l
1 f
Registry Ridge O.D.P., #32-95
November 20, 1995 P&Z Meeting
Page 6
Fourth, The Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland, an advisory document,
designates the northern two-thirds of the proposed Registry Ridge O.D.P. as "residential cluster
development"on the Preferred Land Use Scenario Map. The southern one-third of the proposal is
designated as "proposed open lands" on the Preferred Land Use Scenario Map. The City has
obtained a one year option to purchase the southern one-third of the Registry Ridge, O.D.P. (parcel
N). The City's interest in this property is dependent upon whether the McKee Charitable Trust Plat
and Overall Development Plan south of the Registry Ridge proposal receives "final approval for 328
single-family lots from the County or whether public funds can be generated to purchase the McKee
Trust property for open space.
The 201 acres on the east side of South Shields Street that is not a part of this development request
has already been granted overall Development Plan approval for manufactured housing, multi -family
residential, convenience center/office and medium density residential uses. This area is also
designated as "proposed open lands" on the Preferred Land Use Scenario Map. As part of the
Registry Ridge P.U.D., Preliminary, #32-95A, the applicant proposes to dedicate approximately the
southern 103 of these acres to the City. The Natural Resources Department has obtained options to
P
urcliase the remaining 99`acres or it may be used for off -site open space dedications with future `"
P.U.D. submittals.
5. Design:
The Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan consists of seventeen parcels. The layout of the
parcels shows the low -density, single-family residential uses along the northern, southern and western
perimeters of the site. Higher intensity uses such as medium density residential, multi -family
residential, commercial/office, day care, and school uses are placed in the interior of the development
and along. South Shields Street. In addition to placing the lowest density single-family residential
(1.96 du's/acre) along the northern property be (the south side of Trilby Road and south of the
Mountain Valley Acres County Subdivision) the applicant is proposing a open space buffer between
Trilby Road and the rear property lines that is a minimum of 30' wide. Internal bike/pedestrian paths
connect the residential use to proposed public facilities within the development as well as to a future
bike path along Trilby Road.
6. Transportation:
Vehicular access is gained from one entrance on Trilby Road at approximately the mid -point of the
site and from two entrances on South Shields Street on the northern one third of the property. Two
future connections are shown to along the western edge of the property should the property to the
west ever develop in the future. The street layout and traffic volumes projected for the Overall
Development Plan are in compliance with the City's Transportation Policies. On -site improvements
to Trilby Road and Shields Street will be required as well as offsite improvements to Shields Street
from Trilby Road to approximately Clarendon Hills at the developers expense. As part of any
Registry Ridge O.D.P., #32-95
November 20, 1995 P&Z Meeting
Page 5
201 acres of land at the southeast comer of Trilby Road and South �� Develot that pment mathad
a already
n. The
received O.D.P. approval as part of the Ridgewood hills (Del ) P
additional 201 acres of land is not included with the Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan, #32-
95. , However, the 201 acres plays a significant role in the Registry Ridge P.U.D., Phase One
Preliminary #32-95A as 102.89 acres is proposed to be an off -site open space dedication.
Concerns expressed at the neighborhood meeting regarding land uses that are the same as those
proposed with this Registry Ridge O.D.P. were generally related to the amount of traffic this
development would generate on Shields and Trilby; what the "commercial' site would consist of and
if it could be moved away from the northeast corner of the Registry Ridge site; that the density was
too high; and who would provide and pay for the extension of services. Minutes of this neighborhood
meeting are attached.
In addition, staff has attached numerous letters from affected property owners and other parties of
interest. These letters generally reflect a concern that the density is too high and incompatible with
the existing "rural" lifestyle of this area; that this development proposal_willeliminate any chance of
retaining a separation between Loveland and Fort Collins; and that they do. not want a "strip mall"
The applicant has attempted to address the neighbors concerns as follows and still meet City policies:
First, the commercial office portion is no longer directly on the southwest comer of Trilby Road and
Shields Street. Parcel C is 9.5 acres in size which is between a neighborhood convenience shopping
center (approximately 7 acres in size) and a neighborhood service center (approximately 15 acres in
size) and is appropriate for the location and proposed amount of residential dwelling units on this site
as well as existing and future residential uses in this area.
Second, there are both rural residential and urban residential county developments adjacent to this
property, however, the property is located within the Urban Growth Area and within the City limits
and therefore is required to develop at a minimum of 3 dwelling units per acre. If the maximum of
702 units are built (includes residential uses rather than the proposed school site on Parcel H) the
residential density will be 3.07 dwelling units/acre. If the minimum of 597 units are built (includes
school on Parcel H and open space on Parcel N) the residential density will be 3.15 dwelling
units/acre. The applicant is proposing the fewest number of units as is possible to still maintain at
least 3 dwelling units per acre. The applicant has attempted to minimize the impact of higher intensity
uses from the surrounding properties by placing the low density single-family residential parcels on
the perimeter of the site. The commercial/office, daycare, and higher intensity uses are to the interior
of the development and along South Shields Street.
Third, the applicant must bear the cost of extending services to and throughout the development and
must provide off-street improvements to Shields Street as well as on -site street improvements to
Trilby Road and Shields Street.
..q
Registry Ridge O.D.P., #32-95
November 20, 1995 P&Z Meeting
Page 4
Policy 14- Urban development standards shall apply to all development within the urban
growth area.
Policy 43f- Encourage landscaping of open spaces with appropriate native or drought
resistant varieties of vegetation along with attractively developed green areas
to provide a balanced and pleasing city scope.
Policy 56- Within the floodway, as defined by Federal Insurance Administration studies;
adopted by the City, the City shall encourage light recreational and open space
uses.
Policy 67- Only neighborhood scale service centers will be allowed in residential
neighborhoods.
Policy 75 - Residential areas should provide for a mix of housing densities.
Policy 79 - Low -density residential uses should locate in areas:
a. Which have easy access to existing or planned neighborhood and
regional/community shopping centers (9.5 acre commercial site
proposed for Parcel C);
d. Within walldng distance to an existing or planned neighborhood park
and within easy access to a community park (proposed neighborhood
park on Parcel I will be dedicated to the City at no cost); and
e. In which a collector street affords the primary access.
In addition, Policy 79c encourages Low -density residential uses to locate in areas within walking
distance to an existing or planned elementary school. The applicant is proposing a school site on
Parcel H. However, the Thompson Valley School District has not committed to building a school
on this site at this time.
Staff feels that the Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan, #32-95 is in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Neighborhood Compatibility:
A neighborhood meeting was held on April 13,1995 for a development proposal referred to as the
DALCO P.U.D. that proposed 936 single-family and multi -family residential units, churcb/commercial
site, school site, park site, recreational center and private open space on 445 acres. The DALCO
P.U.D. included the property which is now being submitted as the Registry Ridge Overall
Development Plan, 432-95 and Registry Ridge P.U.D., Phase 1, Preliminary, as well as approximately
V
Registry Ridge O.D.P., #32-95
November 20,
1995 P&Z Meeting
Page 3
Parcel
LOLUM
C'rU Acreage
D.0
Density
✓M
Single-family residential
7.0 acres
32
4.57 du/acre
✓N
Single-family residential
32.1 acres
68
2.12 du/acre
ASingle-family
(secondary use: open space)
residential
8.2 acres
—
29
_________
3.54 du/acre
Single-family residential
22.4 acres
96
4.29 du/acre
�p,
Q
Single-family residential
18.8 acres
47
2.50 du/acre
Private Open Space
44.2 acres
--
Maximum Total Residential 228.9 acres 702 3.07 du/acre
(Parcels A,B,D,E,F,G,H,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q)
Minimum Total Residential 189.5 acres 597 3.15 du/acre
(Parcels A,B,D,E,F,G,J,K,L,M,O,P,Q)
Total Acreage 244jacres
The applicant proposes to dedicate an approximately 6.0 acre park site (Parcel I) to the City of Fort
Collins at no cost for a neighborhood park. Please refer to the attached memorandum from Mike
Powers, Director of Cultural, Library, and Recreational Services (CLRS) regarding the Parks and
Recreation Boards recommendation and City's willingness to accept this dedication. The property
be dedicated to the City prior to consideration by the Planning and Zoning Board of the first final
P.U.D. of the Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan.
The Thompson Valley School District has not committed to developing a school site on Parcel H
of the Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan. Therefore, single-family residential has been listed
as a secondary use.
The mix of densities and proposed land uses of this O.D.P. request are supported by the following
policies of the Land Use Policies Plan (LUPP):
Policy 3a- The City shall promote maximum utilization of land within the city.
Policy 12- Urban density residential development usually at three or more units to the
acre should be encouraged in the urban growth area.
Policy 13- Rural density residential development usually at one or less units to the acre
should not be allowed in the urban growth area.
Registry Ridge O.D.P., #32-95
November 20, 1995 P&Z Meeting
Page 2
COMMENTS
1. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
ITT: FA-1; Trilby Road, existing county residences (Mountain Valley Acres
Subdivision), Cathy Fromme Prairie Open Space.
S: FA-1; existing county rural residential, approved. residential (McKee Charitable
Trust Preliminary Plat\PUD Master Plan)
E: FA-1; existing county rural residential.
r-1-p; Shields Street, planned/undeveloped residential (Ridgewood Hills O.D.P.),
Burlington Northern Railroad.
W: FA-1; existing rural residential, vacant.
_. _.. _.
This,p;operty_;was annexed. into the City as part of the Trilby Heights Fourth Annexation on October..
20,1981 and the Trilby Heights Fifth Annexation on November 3,1981, and was zoned R-I,-P, Low
Density Planned Residential with a P.U.D. condition.
Section 29-526 F (3c) of the City Code states: "The overall development plan will not be reviewed
on the basis of the specific design standards and criteria contained in this section (the LDGS), but
rather on the basis of conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan."
2. Land
se:
The Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan proposes the following parcels
and landuses:
arce
Land Use
cross Acreaee
D.IYs
Densijy
✓ A
Single-family residential
15.8 acres
31
1.96 du/acre
B
Daycare facility
3.0 acres
--
----------- --
C
Commercial/office
9.5 acres
--
------ ____
D
Patio homes/townhomes
14.4 acres
100
6.94 du/acre
,lE
Single-family residential
8.0 acres
30
3.75 du/acre
✓F
Single-family residential
16.4 acres
81
4.94 du/acre
G
Multi -family residential
5.0 acres
55
11.0 du/acre
H
School site
7.3 acres
—
-------------
(secondary use: single-family residential)
37
5.07 du/acre
1
Neighborhood Park
6.0 acres
--
----------�-'
J
Recreation Center
3.1 acres
--
-------------'
✓ K
Single-family residential
9.5 acres
36
3.79 du/acre
✓L
Single-family residential
13.7 acres
60
4.38 du/acre
ITEM NO. 12
MEETING DATE 11/20/95
STAFF Mi kP Ludwig
City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan, #32-95.
APPLICANT: Vaught -Frye Architects
1113 Stoney Hill Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
OWNER: Dalco Land, L.L.C.
8101 E. Prentice Avenue, Suite M180
Englewood, CO 80111
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
> a request for Overall Develo mein Plan (O.D.P.)''approval-for`1`5l acres of -detached single
P
family residential, 14.4 acres of patio homes/townhomes, 5.0 acres of rnulti-family residential, 3.0
acre day care site, 3.1. acre recreation center site, 7.2 acre school site (secondary use detached single-
family residential), 6.0 acre neighborhood park, 9.5 acre commercial site, and 44.2 acres of open
space on a total of 244.4 acres. The property is located at the southwest corner of Trilby Road and
South Shields Street and is zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential with a P.U.D. condition.
A maximum total of 702 units dwelling units (includes residential uses rather than the proposed
school on Parcel H) are proposed for an overall gross density of 3.07 dwelling units per acre.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan, #32-95 is in conformance with the City's
Comprehensive Plan and exceeds the minimum gross density requirement of 3 dwelling units per
acre. The street layout and traffic volumes projected for the Overall Development Plan are in
compliance with the City's Transportation Policies except for the proposed "round-abouts".
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins. CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Registry Ridge O.D.P. (#32-95) and Phase 1, Prelim. P.U.D. (#32-95A) Appeal
Staff Response
February 6, 1996
Page 14
$550,000 divided by 510 units in the Registry Ridge P.U.D., Phase 1, Preliminary
divided by 100 is 10.88. Therefore, the Planning and Zoning Board determined that
11 points should be awarded for Criterion "p".
B. Does the proposal meet the neighborhood compatibility criteria in terms of the
neighborhood meeting held 4/13/95 for a proposal called DALCO PUD which
was a different project covering a considerably larger area than the proposed
Registry Ridge PUD?
Staff Response:
At the neighborhood meeting on 4/13/95, a plan including the land within the Registry
Ridge O.D.P. #32-95 boundary and an additional 201 acres on the east side of Shields
Street was presented to the surrounding neighborhood. However, there are no LDGS
criteria which state that the boundary,of the planshown„at the neighborhood meeting
may not be reduced. The purpose of the neighborhood meeting is to incorporate
neighborhood concerns in the design process, prior to the submittal of a formal
development application.
The Planning and Zoning Board can only apply land development regulations
(including the neighborhood compatibility criteria) to the land that is within the
.....:: .:.....::...:..:. .. ::.. O.D.P. and/or P.U.D. boundaries.
The Planning and Zoning Board determined that the Registry Ridge P.U.D., Phase 1,
Preliminary, #32-95A met the neighborhood compatibility criteria.
Registry Ridge O.D.P. (932-95) and Phase 1, Prelim. P.U.D. (#32-95A) Appeal
Staff Response
February 6, 1996
Page 13
4. Criterion "p": U part of the total development budget is to be spent on
neighborhood facilities and services which are not otherwise required by City
Code, enter a 1% bonus for every $100 dollars per dwelling unit invested?
Staff Response:
On the date the development application was submitted, Section 29-526 J(6) (a) of the
City Code stated:
"To qualify for a residential bonus, a project which includes neighborhood
public facilities beyond those otherwise required by the City shall be
accompanied by an agreement to be recorded with the Office of the County
Clerk, guaranteeing the construction of those facilities in a timely manner,
acceptable to the City. The documents shall not be accepted until approved
bythe City as to legal form and ,effect ":. 4_.
k _ r
Section 29-526 J(6)(c) of the City Code stated:
"Neighborhood public facilities qualifying for a residential density bonus shall
meet the following requirements:
[1] Must be for the use and enjoyment of the residents of the project ----- -
and/or surrounding neighborhood.
[2] Must be approved by the City."
Section 29-526 J(6)(d) of the City Code stated:
,,No final plan shall be approved for any portion of a planned unit
development, approved with a residential density bonus for providing
neighborhood public facilities until the necessary legal documents have been
approved."
Since this was only a Preliminary P.U.D. request, the applicant submitted an itemized
list of the costs totaling $625,000 for neighborhood facilities proposed on Parcel J of
the Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan. However, the applicant only claimed
$550,000 of this $625,000 total. The Recreation Center was designated as Tract J
on the Phase 1, Preliminary P.U.D. for platting purposes only. No land use approval
was granted for the Recreational Center site. At the time of Preliminary P.U.D.
consideration there were no LDGS criteria which would require the applicant to
include the Recreation Center with the Phase 1, P.U.D. Preliminary.
Registry Ridge O.D.P. (#32-95) and Phase 1, Prelim. P.U.D. (#32-95A) Appeal
Staff Response
February 6, 1996
Page 12
"Day care facility" was the only land use listed for Parcel/Tract B. Any use other than
a day care center on Parcel/Tract B will require an amended O.D.P. to be submitted
and approved by the Planning and Zoning Board.
The Planning and Zoning Board determined that 5 points should be awarded for
Criterion "f".
3. Criterion "n": If the applicant commits to preserving permanent off -site
open space that meets the City's minimum requirements, calculate the
percentage of this open space acreage to the total development acreage and
enter this percentage as a bonus?
Staff Response:
__.. The applicant. proposes to dedicate to the City of Fort Collins 102.89 acres of off -site
open space on the east side of South Shields Street.
A memorandum dated November 14, 1995 from Tom Shoemaker, Natural Resources
Director stated that he recommended to the Planning and Zoning Board that the City
of Fort Collins "accept proposed offsite open space dedications for the Registry Ridge
P.U.D. and grant bonus points" under the Residential Uses Point Chart of the LDGS.
"This recommendation is based upon the review of the subject properties by Natural
Resources and Parks Planning staff, as well as a review by the Natural Resources
Advisory Board. At their November 1, 1995 meeting, the Board unanimously
endorsed accepting proposed dedications and pursuing acquisition of additional
parcels according to terms outlined by the landowner/applicant."
The proposed off -site open space is considered which priority acquisition area and is
identified as "proposed open lands" in the advisory document entitled A Plan For The
Region Between Fort Collins And Loveland.
The documents for the off -site open space dedication were approved by the City as
to legal form and effect. On the afternoon of December 11, 1995, the North
American Title Company placed the deeds for the. off -site open space land into an
irrevocable escrow which delivers the deeds to the City of Fort Collins upon Final
approval of the Registry Ridge, Phase 1 PUD plan.
102.89 acres of off -site open space land divided by 196.05 total acres in the Registry
Ridge P.U.D., Phase 1, Preliminary is equal to 52.48%. Therefore, the Planning and
Zoning Board determined that 52 bonus points should be awarded for Criterion "n".
Registry Ridge O.D.P. 032-95) and Phase 1, Prelim. P.U.D. (#32-95A) Appeal
Staff Response
February 6, 1996
Page 11
attorney and owners of the property known as Registry Ridge for the acquisition of
a park site in that development." The proposal was for the "developer to dedicate a
six acre park site adjacent to a proposed school site interior to the development. If
this area is approved for development, it will need to be served by a neighborhood
park, consistent with our existing Parks and Recreation Master Plan Policy." The
type of park facility that would be designed on this property would be dependent upon
whether or not a school is built on Parcel/Tract H.
Attached to Mr. Powers' memorandum were minutes of the October 25, 1995 Parks
and Recreation Board meeting where they considered the acquisition of this park site.
Mr. Powers states, "the Board enthasiastioally supported our continued negotiations
to receive this dedication."
The documents for the park land dedication were approved by the City as to legal
form and effect.; :On the aftemoon,of December,_l 1, 1995, the North American Title
Company placed the deed for the park land into an irrevocable escrow which delivers ,
the deed to the City of Fort Collins upon Final approval of the Registry Ridge, Phase
1 PUD plan.
The Planning and Zoning Board determined that 10 points should be awarded for
Criterion "d".
2. Criterion "e": location within 19000 feet of a child care center?
Staff Response:
.5?7)7
Criterion ' e,' does not specify whether the child care center must be existing or
planned.
The applicant designated a 3.0 acre day care facility site as Parcel B of the Registry
Ridge Overall Development Plan. This day care site was designated as Tract B on the
Phase 1, Preliminary P.U.D. for platting purposes only. No land use approval was
granted for the day care site.
On the afternoon of December 11, 1995, the North American Title Company placed
the deed for the day care site land into an irrevocable escrow which delivers the deed
to the Peace With Christ Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod for a day care center
upon Final approval of the Registry Ridge, Phase 1 PUD plan.
Registry Ridge O.D.P. (#32-95) and Phase 1, Prelim. P.U.D. (#32-95A) Appeal
Staff Response
February 6, 1996
Page 10
established procedures.. by failing to grant a variance or exception from any
minimum density requirements applicable to the proposed development since
the Planning Commission has previously granted such variances and exceptions
when and where appropriate. The Planning Commission failed to follow its pre-
established policy to allow flexibility in the Land Development Guidance System
by adopting a `one density fits all" approach to the City's growth.
Staff Response:
Section K of the LDGS, entitled Variance Procedures, states that the Planning and
Zoning Board is empowered to grant variances to the requirements of the LDGS if
the Board determines that "the granting of the variance would neither be detrimental
to the public good nor impair the intent and purposes of the LDGS", and if the
aVplicant demonstrates one of four criteria has been met. However, the_gpnlicant did
not request a variance to the three (3) dwelling unit per acre requirement. Therefore,
the Board did not consider a variance to the three (3) dwelling unit .per acre
requirement. In addition, the City Council upheld the validity of requiring a minimum
of three (3) dwelling units per acre for land within the City Limits adjacent to low
density and Huai County land uses as recently as August 29, 1995 in it's decision
regarding the Woodland Park Estates PUD appeal.
M ADDITIONAL ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY MAYOR PRO TEM JANETT
A. Did the Planning and Zoning Board properly interpret the Code for awarding
the points on the Residential Uses Point Chart of the LDGS for:
1. Criterion "d": location within 3,500 feet of a publicly owned but not
developed neighborhood or community park, or community facility (except golf
courses)?
Staff Response:
The applicant designated a 6.0 acre neighborhood park on Parcel I of the Overall
Development Plan. This park site was designated as Tract I on the Phase 1,
Preliminary P.U.D. for platting purposes only. No land use approval was granted for
the park site.
A letter dated November 14, 1995 from Michael Powers, Director of Cultural,
11brary, and Recreational Services attached to the Phase 1, Preliminary P.U.D. Staff
Memo stated that the Parks and Recreation Department was "in negotiations with the
Registry Ridge O.D.P
Staff Response
February 6, 1996
Page 8
(#32-95) and Phase 1, Prelim. P.U.D. (#32-95A) Appeal
site as well as on -site and off -site street improvements as determined by the Traffic
Study and City Code. The property is served by the Poudre Fire Authority and the
City of Fort Collins Police Department. Neither of these agencies stated concerns
with providing services to this development. The Board determined that with the
conditions stated, the development proposal did meet All -Development Criteria A 3.1
"Utility Capacity" and A-3.2 "Design Standards".
As stated in Registry Ridge O.D.P. (#32-95) Staff Memo, Parcel H of the
development proposal is designated as a school site, however, "the Thompson Valley
School District has not committed to building a school site on Parcel H of the
Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan." The School District is not obligated to
build a school within the Registry Ridge proposal. Therefore the secondary use listed
for Parcel H was single-family residential.
There are no criteria in the Land Development Guidance System which address school
capacity as this is regulated by a governing body separate from the City of Fort
Collins. No points were awarded on the Residential Uses Point Chart for proximity
to an existing school as a school does not currently exist in this vicinity.
The Planning and Zoning Board determined that the proposed development had
adequate community facilities and services as defined by the land use regulations
governing Planned Unit Development proposals. _
3. The Appellant states: "The Planning Commission further abused its
discretion by failing to consider the need for phasing urban development within
Fort Collins and the Urban Growth Area It is inappropriate to have the City
grow in every direction at once. The proposed project is an example of leapfrog
development, occurring beyond the boundaries of existing vacant land and
existing rural and low density uses. The City is considering the adoption of new
land use planning criteria to better manage growth in the urban growth area,
both within and outside of the City, and approval of any new development at
this time is premature and will likely result in the inappropriate subdivision of
land. The City needs to complete its planning process and its cooperative efforts
with the County and,City of Loveland before determining whether more growth
is appropriate along the Shields and Trilby corridors."
Staff Response:
The City is in the midst of developing new and revised planning processes, guidelines
and regulations. The City Council has adopted more restrictive interim phasing
Registry Ridge O.D.P. (#32-95) and Phase 1, Prelim. P.U.D. (#32-95A) Appeal
Staff Response
February 6, 1996
Page 7
existing and future land uses surrounding the proposed development. The
testimony at the Planning Commission's public hearing was clear .and
convincing that the proposed development was not compatible with surrounding
existing and future land uses and the Planning Commission abused its discretion
by ignoring the weight of this testimony."
Staff Response:
On December 11, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Board heard testimony from the
City Staff, applicant and affected property owners (including the Appellant) regarding
the Registry Ridge O.D.P. request. After more than three hours of questioning and
discussion, the Board approved the Registry Ridge O.D.P.(#32-95) by a vote of 4-2
with conditions as stated in the Staff Memo.
_� F The Planning and -Zoning Board then heard testimony from City staff, the applicant _,.:
and affected property owners (including the Appellant) regarding the Registry Ridge
Phase 1 Preliminary P.U.D. request. After approximately an two hours of questioning
and discussion, the Planning and Zoning Board approved the Registry Ridge Phase
1, Preliminary P.U.D. (#32-95A) by a vote of 4-2 with conditions as stated in the
Staff Memo as well as a condition that 8' wide detached bike/pedestrian connections
be made off -site along Shields Street from Trilby -Road north- approximately 1 mile to
Clarendon Hills and along Trilby Road from Shields Street, east approximately'/2 mile
to the Ridgewood Hills development.
The Planning and Zoning Board determined that the proposed land use was
compatible with existing and future land uses surrounding the proposed development.
2. The Appellant states: "The Planning Commission also abused its
discretion by failing to give proper consideration to the inadequacy of
community facilities and services for the proposed development. The
inadequacy of schools to serve the area is especially critical considering the
financial condition of the Thompson R24 School District. The impact of the
proposed development on County Roads also is critical given the inability of the
County to finance road improvements. City development must take into
account the impact of development upon community welfare and the ability of
other governments to serve the proposed development adequately."
Staff Response:
The applicant is responsible for the cost of extending utilities to and throughout the
Registry Ridge O.D.P. (#32-95) and Phase 1, Prelim. P.U.D. (#32-95A) Appeal
Staff Response
February 6, 1996
Page 6
4. The Appellant states: "In establishing the density for the proposed PUD,
the Planning Commission either should not have required an average of 3
dwelling units per acre for this development, granted a variance from any 3
units per acre requirement that might exist or required the developer to better
buffer the impact of the development from existing development though the
preservation of open space and the reduction of density of development in close
proximity to existing low density and rural uses."
Staff Response:
All Development Criteria A-1.12, Residential Density, is a mandatory compliance
criteria for P.U.D. developments. It asks, "On a gross acreage basis, is the overall
average residential density at least three (3) dwelling units per acreT' The Registry
Ridge Overall Development Plan proposed a maximum of 702 units on 228.9
residential acres; a density of 3.07 dwelling units per acre. This maximum figure
assumed that if a school (Thompson R24) was not built on Parcel H that 37 single-
family houses would be built in its place. If a school is built on Parcel H and the City
purchases Parcel N (the southern one-third of the property) for public open space, a
total of 597 units on 189.5 residential acres would be built; a residential density of
3.15 dwelling units per acre. In both scenarios, the Registry Ridge development
proposal would comply with All -Development Criteria A-1.12, Residential Density.
Section K of the LDGS, entitled Variance Procedures, states that the Planning and
Zoning Board is empowered to grant variances to the requirements of the LDGS if
the Board determines that "the granting of the variance would neither be detrimental
to the public good nor impair the intent and purposes of the LDGS", and if the
Apolicant demonstrates one of four criteria has been met. However, thegpolicant did
not request a variance to the three (3) dwelling unit per acre requirement. Therefore,
the Board did not consider a variance to the three (3) dwelling unit per acre
requirement.
The Planning and Zoning Board determined that the Registry Ridge O.D.P. and the
Phase 1, Preliminary P.U.D. development proposal was compatible with the
surrounding low density and rural uses.
B. Issue: "The Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that
the Board exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code or
Charter" (Section 248(b)(2a)).
1. The Appellant states: "The Planning Commission failed to consider
properly the extent to which the proposed land use failed to be compatible with
Registry Ridge O.D.P. (#32-95) and Phase 1, Prelim. P.U.D. (#32-95A) Appeal
Staff Response
February 6, 1996
Page 5
Staff Response:
On June 20, 1995, the City Council adopted Resolution 95-82 approving an
intergovernmental Plan For The Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland. The
"Plan" was not adopted as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. As stated
in Resolution 95-82, "the Plan is intended to serve as a policy guide for each of the
participatory jurisdictions to provide a desirable vision for future land development
and land conservation patterns for the region between the two cities; and the land use
vision of the Plan is intended to be general in nature to provide flexibility for
implementation by the City of Fort Collins, the City of Loveland, Larimer County, and
private parties."
The Registry Ridge property is located in the northeast corner of Subarea 7 of the
Plan. Subarea 7 extends from Taft Hill Road to Shields Street and from Trilby Road
on the north to 57th Street (Loveland) on the south:,. One of the Objectives;for..tlus
- - subarea is to "preserve rural character." However, the preferred Scenario for land use
character for the entirety of Subarea 7 states: "Cluster development on areas south
of Trilby Road and north of County Road 32 that are within the Fort Collins UGA;
areas south of County Road 32 kept open." The Registry Ridge property is north of
County Road 32 and within the City limits of Fort Collins.
As stated in the staff memo to the Planning and Zoning Board, The Preferred Land
Use Scenario Map designates the northern two-thirds of the Registry Ridge property
as "residential cluster development". The southern one-third of the property is
designated as "proposed open lands". As indicated in the letter from Tom
,Shoemaker, Director of Natural Resources, to the Planning and Zoning Board, the
City did obtain an option to buy the southern one-third of the Registry Ridge property
for open space.
In addition, the City has the opportunity to obtain property on the east side of Shields
Street to the Ridge line east of the railroad tracks from Trilby Road on the north to
County Road 32 (extended) through a series of off -site open space dedications and
purchase options. This land on the east side of Shields Street is designated as
"proposed open lands" on the Preferred Land Use Scenario Map, but also is
designated for manufactured housing,, multi -family residential, convenience
center/office and medium density residential uses on the Ridgewood Hills (Del Webb)
Overall Development Plan.
The Planning and Zoning Board determined that the Registry Ridge proposal was in
compliance with the advisory document entitled A Plan For The Region Between Fort
Collins and Loveland.
Registry Ridge O.D.P. (#32-95) and Phase 1, Prelim. P.U.D. (#32-95A) Appeal
Staff Response
February 6, 1996
Page 4
for Planned Unit Developments are prescribed in the Land Development Guidance
System The Planning and Zoning Board determined that the proposed development
met all applicable requirements of the LDGS, including All -Development Criteria, A-
1.12 "Residential Density".
2. The Appellant states: "It appears that the Density Criteria in the Land
Development Guidance System have been modified since the Planning
Commission's approval and that the proposed development had no vested rights
against such change as occurred."
Staff Response:
On December 19, 1995, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 161 on second
reading. The effective date of that ordinance was December 29, 1995. This
ordinance,accomplished three items which pertained to the Residential Uses Point
Chart of the LDGS. First, it extended the interim phasing criteria until December 31,
1996. Second, it established a mandatory requirement that a minimum of 30 points
must be achieved form the base criteria for all residential applications. Third, it
clarified the qualifications and process for awarding off -site open space points.
Further amendments to the Residential Uses Point Chart will be considered on Second
Reading by the City Council on February 6, 1996.
However, the Registry Ridge O.D.P. and Phase 1, Preliminary P.U.D. development
applications were submitted on June 19, 1995 and are subject to the regulations that
were in effect at the time of their submittal. The O.D.P. and Phase 1, Preliminary
P.U.D. are not subject to the Residential Uses Point Chart as amended on December
19, 1995. Future Preliminary P.U.D. plans submitted for the remaining phases of the
Registry Ridge development will be subject to the regulations that are in effect at the
time of their submittal.
The Planning and Zoning Board determined that the Registry Ridge O.D.P. and the
Phase 1, Preliminary P.U.D. requests complied with the regulations that were in effect
as of June 19, 1995.
3. The Appellant states: "The proposed development also is inconsistent
with the Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins & Loveland, approved by the
County on April 20,1995. The Plan identified the subject property as Subarea
7, included land within the City limits of Fort Collins and established objectives
and implementation criteria for those objectives. The Planning Commission did
not properly apply this Plan when considering the proposed Registry Ridge
P.U.D."
- 1..P,.
Registry Ridge O.D.P. (#32-95) and Phase 1, Prelim. P.U.D. (#32-95A) Appeal
Staff Response
February 6, 1996
Page 3
development and the similar need to reduce densities of development proximate
to existing low density and rural uses."
Staff Response:
The Intergovernmental Agreement For The Fort Collins Urban Growth Area, dated
September 7, 1988, did not apply to the Registry Ridge development proposal. The
Agreement states that:
"under the authority granted by Title 29, Article 20, Colorado Revised
Statutes, a number of meetings were held between the Board of
Commissioners of Larimer County and the Council of the City of Fort Collins
with the intent of reaching agreement as to development goals and policies
within the greater metropolitan area, and pursuant to said meetings the City
and :.County agreed to ahe,following policies.=to be —applied_ to .aQ.
he.,, .
unincoroorated .portion of Larimer County defined herein as the Urban
Growth Area."
The Registry Ridge site was incorporated into, the City of Fort Collins in 1981. The
entire Intergovernmental Agreement For The Fort Collins Urban Growth Area,
including Section 1.3 "Density/Intensity/Locational" policies for Residential
Development, do not apply to the Registry Ridge Development. Therefore, the
Planning and Zoning Board did not apply the regulations of the Intergovernmental
Agreement For The Fort Collins Urban Growth Area during its consideration of the
Registry Ridge development proposal.
The Land Use Policies Plan was adopted by resolution on August 14, 1979. Section
2, of the adopting resolution states that "the City shall adopt specific standards,
criteria, processes, ordinances, projects and programs to implement the Land Use
Policies Plan..." Pages 10 and I 1 of the Plan states that "Chapter III presents a listing
of additional policy packages, programs, and projects, along with a schedule for
completion of the items required by the policies presented in this document. The
completion of these additional "parts" will represent a complete Land Use Policies
Plan for Fort Collins. However, the policies contained in this document provide
decision -makers with initial guidelines to evaluate land use issues in a manner which
will assure a continued high quality of life in Fort Collins."
There are no policies which specifically address project density, buffering, or reducing
densities of "City" development near existing low density and rural (county) uses in
the Land Use Policies Plan. The specific standards, criteria, and processes established
Registry Ridge O.D.P. (#32-95) and Phase 1, Prelim. P.U.D. (#32-95A) Appeal
Staff Response
February 6, 1996
Page 2
The Appellant bases the appeal on Sections 2-48(b)(1), 2-48(b)(2a), and 2-48(b)(2b) of the City
Code.
Section 2-48(b) (1):
"The Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of
the Code and Charter."
Section 2-48(b)(2a):
"The Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board exceeded
its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code or Charter."
Section 2-48(b)(2b):
"The Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board
substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure."
In addition, Section 2-56(a) of the City Code states:
"The City Council shall consider an appeal based upon the record on appeal, the relevant
provisions of the Code and Charter, the grounds for appeal cited in the notice of appeal and
any additional issues identified by a member of the City Council prior to the hearing. Any
such additional issues must be identified in writine and filed with the City Clerk no later than
ten calendar days prior to the date of the hearing."
In a memo to the City Clerk dated February 2, 1996, Mayor Pro Tem Janett identified additional
issues for review in the appeal of the December 11, 1995 Planning and Zoning Board decision to
approve the Registry Ridge P.U.D., Phase 1, Preliminary #32-95A The additional issues identified
by Mayor Pro Tem Janett and Staff responses are provided in Section II of this memorandum.
L ALLEGATIONS OF THE AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL
A. Issue: "The Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply
relevant provisions of the Code and Charter" (Section 2-49(b)(1)).
1. The Appellant states: "The Planning Commission misinterpreted the
legal effect of the City's Land Use Policy Plan and the Intergovernmental
Agreement between the City and Larimer County with regard to 'the density
of the proposed project, the need to buffer existing development from new
Date:
To:
Thru:
From:
Comm:::t.t Plann
Current Pl :nr.irz2
February 6, 1996
and Environmental - .�rvices
MEMORANDUM
Mayor and City Council Members
John Fischbach, City Manager ;
Greg Byrne, Director of C.P.E. ;.,;`
Bob Blanchard, Director of Current Planning�jG
Michael Ludwig, City Planner
Re: Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan (#32-95) and Phase 1, Preliminary Planned
Unit Development (#32-95A) Appeal to City Council..,
The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to the Amended Notice of Appeal of the December
11, 1995 decisions of the Planning and Zoning Board granting approval of the Registry Ridge O.D.P.
(#32-95) and Phase 1, Preliminary P.U.D. (#32-95A) as filed by the Appellant, LeAnn Thieman, on
January 26, 1996.
The Registry Ridge O.D.P. was approved by a 4-2 vote with conditions as stated in the Staff Memo. -
The Registry Ridge, Phase 1, Preliminary P.U.D. was approved by a 4-2 vote with conditions as
stated in the Staff Memo as well as a condition that 8' wide detached bike/pedestrian connections be
made along Shields Street from Trilby Road, north to Clarendon Hills and along Trilby Road from
Shields Street, east to the Ridgewood Hills P.U.D.
Section 2-48(a) of the City Code states:
"A party -in -interest may appeal to the City Council the final decision of any board or
commission to which this appeal procedure applies in the manner provided in this Division.
No action shall be taken in reliance upon any decision of a board or commission that is subject
to appeal under the provisions of this Division until all appeal rights related to such decision
have been exhausted."
Section 2-48(b) of the City Code states:
"Except of appeals by members of the City Council, the permissible grounds for appeal shall
be limited to allegations that the board or commission committed one (1) or more of the
following errors."
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, W 8US72-UJ6U • (V/U) - 1-0nU
FAX (970) 221-6378 TDD (970) 224-6002
City Council
DAM February 1. 1996
To, hand Krajicek. City Clerk
FROM, Gina C. Janett
REe Registry Ridge Appeal
,r'
r +--
, �
i am writing to identify additional issues for review in the Appeal
of the 12/11/99 decision on Registry Ridge Y.U.D. Phase I.
Preliminary.
I would like the Council's consideration on whether the Planning
nts
Zoning Board properly interpreted the code by awarding
the on the Residential Uses Point Chart fort
Base Points
d. location within 3.500' of a publicly owned but not developed
neighborhood or community park.
y� location within 1.000' of a child care center (identified as
9 criteria "g" in Attachment B of the agenda materials).
Bonus Points ..
n. preservation of off -site open space.
,6. total development budget spent on neighborhood facilities
(identified as criteria"p" in Attachment B of the agenda
materials).
Also. I request review of whether the proposal meets the
neighborhood compatibility criteria in terms of the neighborhood
meeting held on 4/13/95 for a proposal called DALCO PUD which was
a different project covering a considerably larger area than the
proposed Registry Ridge PUD.
Call me if you have questions.
300 LA'orle Avenue • P.O. Box 58U • Fort Collins. CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6505
applicable to the proposed development since the Planning
Commission has .previously granted such variances and exceptions
when and where appropriate. The Planning Commission failed to
follow its pre -established policy to allow flexibility in the Land
Development Guidance System by adopting a "one density fits all"
approach to the City's growth.
The Appellant respectfully requests that the City Council
either reverse the Planning Commission's approval of the Registry
Ridge PUD and deny approval of the proposed PUD, or refer the
matter back to Planning Commission for reconsideration' of the
density of the overall project and, specifically, the density of
development along Trilby Road.
Thank you for your consideration.
3
LeAnn Thieman
existing development through the preservation of open space and the
reduction of density of development in close proximity to existing
low density and rural uses.
2. In addition, the Planning Commission either exceeded its
authority or abused its discretion in granting the Registry Ridge
approvals. Section 2-48(2)a. City Code. The Planning Commission
failed to consider properly the extent to which the proposed land
use failed to be compatible with existing and future land uses
surrounding the proposed. development. The testimony at the
Planning Commission's public hearing was clear and convincing that
the proposed development was not compatible with surrounding
existing and future land uses and the Planning Commission abused
its discretion by ignoring the weight of this testimony.
The Planning Commission also abused its discretion by failing
to give proper consideration to the inadequacy of community
facilities and services for the proposed development. The
inadequacy of schools to serve the area is especially critical
considering the financial condition of the Thompson R2-J School
District. The impact of the proposed development on County roads
also is critical given the inability of the County to finance road
improvements. City development must take into account the impact
of development upon community welfare and the ability of other
governments to serve the -proposed development adequately.
The Planning Commission further abused its discretion by
failing to consider the need for phasing urban growth within Fort
Collins and the Urban Growth Area. It is inappropriate to have the
City grow in every direction at once. The proposed project is an
example of leapfrog development, occurring beyond the boundaries
of existing vacant land and existing rural and low density uses.
The City is considering the adoption of new land use planning
criteria to better manage growth in the urban growth area, both
within and outside of the City, and approval of any new development
at this time is premature and will likely result in the
inappropriate subdivision of land. The City needs to complete its
planning process and its cooperative efforts with the County and
City of Loveland before determining whether more growth is
appropriate along the Shields and Trilby Road corridors.
Perhaps the greatest failure by the City in its planning is
the failure to adopt a clear and specific Three Mile Annexation
Plan as required by state law. Colo. Rev. Stat. section 31-12-
105(e) . That plan would identify specific land uses, public parks,
utility extensions and open spaces in the three mile area
surrounding the City. The plan is required to be updated at least
once annually. Without a plan that complies with state law, the
Planning Commission\acted in a planning vacuum since the City's
plans for the urban growth area are not in substantial compliance
with the state requirements for an annexation plan.
3. The Planning Commission further violated pre -established
procedures, section 2-48(2)b. City Code, by failing to grant a
variance or exception from any minimum density requirements
2
AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL
To: Fort Collins City Council���C?
From: LeAnn Thieman, Appellant ); J��
Re: Registry Ridge PUD LJ
y'1
VLLIIK
Date: January 26, 1996
Tnt oduction and Nature of Appeal
This appeal is taken from a final decision of the Fort Collins
Planning Commission, which purportedly approved the Overall
Development Plan for the Registry Ridge PUD, and Registry Ridge,
Phase 1, Preliminary for proposed PUD. The decision was made on
December 13, 1995. The appeal is taken pursuant to Sections 2-48
and 2-49 of the Fort Collins City Code. The appellant is LeAnn
Thieman, 6600 Thompson Drive; Fort.Collins, Colorado, telephone
number 223-1574. The appellant is"an owner of 'property 'adjacen '_...,
to the proposed Registry Ridge PUD.
Bases for Appeal
1. The first basis for appeal is that the Planning Commission
did not properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the
City Code, including intergovernmental agreements between the City
and Larimer County. Section 2-48(1) City Code. The appellant
believes that the Planning Commission misinterpreted the legal
effect of the City's Land Use Policy Plan and the Intergovernmental
Agreement between the City and Larimer County with regard to the
density of the proposed project, the need to buffer existing
development from new development and the similar need to reduce
densities of development proximate to existing low density and
rural uses. In addition, it appears that the Density Criteria in
the Land Development Guidance System have been modified since the
Planning Commission's approval and that the proposed development
had no vested rights against such change as occurred.
The proposed development also is inconsistent with Plan for
the Region Between Fort Collins & Loveland, approved by the County
on April 20, 1995. The Plan identified the subject property as
Subarea 71 included land within the City limits of Fort Collins and
established objectives and implementation .criteria for those
objectives. The Planning Commission did not properly apply this
Plan when considering the proposed Registry Ridge PUD.
In establishing the density for the proposed PUD, the Planning
Commission either should not have required an average of 3 dwelling
units per acre for this development, granted a variance from any
3 units per acre requirement that might exist or required the
developer to better buffer the impact of the development from
City Cie.
9
City of Fort Collins
December 28, 1995
LeAnn Thieman
6600 Thompson Dr.
Fort Collins, CO 80526
Dear Ms. Thieman:
This letter is in reference to your Notice of Appeal dated December 21. 1995,.
appealing the Planning and Zoning Board decision on the Registry Ridge
Development. The City Attorney has reviewed the appeal documeni: and his
findings are set out in the attached memorandum dated December 28. 1995. You
will want to pay particular attention to the recommendations suggested in his
memorandum.
Section 2-51 of the City Code provides that an amended Notice of Appeal may
be filed by the appellant(s) at any time prior to the time for mailing by the
City Clerk of the notice of the appeal to parties -in -interest. The City
Council hearing on the appeal has been scheduled for Tuesday. February 13.
1996. at 6:30 p.m.. and the Notice of Hearing must therefore be mailed no
later than January 30, 1996. An amended Notice of Appeal must be submitted
NO LATER THAN NOON ON MONDAY, JANUARY 29, 1996, to allow sufficient time for
legal review and inclusion in the Notice of Hearing to be mailed on January
30, 1996.
Sincerely,
Wanda Krajicek
City Clerk
11!II Caf'urt< Avenue P.O. ISu� ;till • Furl Cullinc, CO 811522-Q�81) • (97/0) 221-W; I FAX I11'lll 221-6 / F;
Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk
December 28, 1995
Page 2
Again, I recommend that the appellant clarify how, if at all, the Board's alleged failure to consider
these provisions constitutes a failure to property interpret and apply any relevant provisions of the
City Code or Charter.
Finally, the appellant indicates that there is some question on whether this was a fair hearing.
Once again, the Notice of Appeal should specify how, under the grounds stated in Section 2-
48(b)(2) of the Code, the appellant was denied a fair hearing.
I trust that you will notify the appellant of the issues raised in this memo and of the date by which
an amended Notice of Appeal must be filed. Please let me know if you have any questions or
concerns with regard to this matter.
SJR:med
City Attorney
ulty of Tort %-uinns
DATE: December 28, 1995
TO: Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk
FROM: Steve Roy, City Attorney,
RE: Appeal of Planning and Zoning Decision on Registry Ridge Development 12/11/95
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 2-50 of the City Code, I have reviewed the above -referenced
appeal for any obvious defects in form or substance. In my opinion, the following matters should
be clarified with regard to this notice of appeal in order for it to more clearly conform to the
requirements of Section 2-49 of the Code:
• Action of the Board or Conunission Which is the Subject of the Appeal. It is
Illy understanding that the Planning and Zoning Board approved both the Overall Development
Plan for this development and the Phase I Preliminary P.U.D. for the development. Presumably,
the appellant wishes to appeal both decisions, but that should be clarified.
• Multiple Appellants. The appellant indicates that she is appealing "on behalf of
twenty-five neighbors and property owners." Section 2-49(3) of the City Code requires that the
Notice of Appeal be signed by all appellants and that the name, address, telephone number and
relationship of each appellant to the subject of the action of the board or commission be specified.
At present, this appeal is signed only by one appellant, whose name, address, telephone number
and status as a party -in -interest is, in fact, specified. If other appellants wish to join in the appeal,
they should also sign the appeal and provide the requisite information about themselves.
0 Grounds for Appeal. It appears from my review of the Notice of Appeal that
three kinds of errors are alleged. First, there is an allegation in paragraph 1 that the Planning and
Zoning Board "didn't ask the developer to submit a lower density plan." If the appellant believes
that this failure on the part of the Board falls within one of the grounds for appeal specified in
Section 2-48(b), she should so state.
Next, in paragraphs 2 through 8, there are references to certain provisions of the
intergovernmental agreement between the City and the County and certain provisions of the City's
Land Use Policies Plan which allegedly were not considered by the Planning and Zoning Board.
(970) 221-6520
,00 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 9 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 FAX (970) 221-6327
?) As the P&Z, pointed out, Policy 22 states
preferential. consideration SHALL be given to urban growth
development proposals which are contiguous to existing
development. This site clearly is not.
8) The Intergovernmental Agreement For The Urban
Growth Area, Section 1.3, A.2 states: New residential
development in the Urban Growth Area shall mitigate
potential negative impacts on adjacent existing
residential developments by maintaining the character and
density of the existing development along common
hr)uadar.ies.
The Planning and Zoning Board did not consider these
policies when ruling on this proposal.
There is some question on whether this was a fair
hearing. The motion was made and discussion followed. The
vast. majority of board comments were against, this
proposal. The Chair asked if there was further discussion
and thr•re..was-a..long sil.ence.. He. repeated the question. No _
response. Instead of bringing it to a. vote, he suggested
tj),.-.y think about, it awhile! Clearly, the ol.itcome of the
,t. i, (t4pendent on the timing of roll call by the Chair.
11h.i_s is a unique parcel_ of land as it is surrounded
1-)y c:i.ty-d.esigna.ted open space-- the proposed corridor to
thesouth, i at.hy Fromme Prairie to the north, and recently
ulslr;has�'ri_ ;,pin space against. the foottills to tl-le west.
Wor the above reasons; we respectfully - request an
on -this decision.
LeA[in Thieman
6600 Thompson Dr., Fort Collins, CO.
970-223-1574
Land owner near proposed development
Spokesperson at Planning and Zoning hearing 12/11/95
CRK
I'o: Eort i";ollins City Council
From: LeAnn Thieman
Re: Appeal of Planning and Zoning decision on Registry
Ridge Development 12/11/95
Or, behalf of twenty-five neighbors and property
owners. I am filing an appeal on the above decision for
tPtere .reasons:
�.t WJIen I addressed the board I stated the Developer
I't:id 5sed .-3 willingness to consider a. lower density
l :r til.i5 project.. During their presentation, the
r.!pre=:erttratives repeated their willirtgne�.s to
I%uild a., a. .lower density if a variance was issued. The
V.nard -0 ..wed a der�ire. to have a lower density in that
area but, ,they didn't ask the developer to submit a lower
;) pr) icy 10 of the Land Use Policies Plan states the
urban growt•tI area boundary shall be. reviewed and
rm:>d'ifi,-<I no l.ss t•1'tan every 5 years. City Planners admit
iv tt;l._, runt been reviewed since 1988.
31 Pol:.r_.y 1.1 state;•, lands of agricultural importance
bllgitl d be excluded from _the urban growth area.
4) As the F&Z board pointed out, Policy 16 states the
city will work with the county in establishing a phasing
n1.to for the urban growth area. Since the required phasing
pi an k-tas not been provided, review of the area is
compromised and should. be postponed until the plan is
Established. Policies 23 and 28 reiterates the phasing
plan, not, implemented.
5) The city council has repeatedly stated their
concern about "leap frog" development. Policy 29 states
the city should. refuse services to an area to discourage
development in an undesirable area to emphasize growth in
other directions. This is reiterated in Policy 25. In
fact, City of Fort Collins water and sanitary sewer
services are not available in this area. Water service is
through the Fort Collins/Loveland Water District. Sewer
service. would. be provided through the South Fort Collins
Sanitation District requiring more than one mile of off
site sewer line construction.
6) Policies 39, 40, 41 and 42 clearly state the city
stiol.tld direct efforts to develop areas in the northeast
direction as "publicly desired direction" for growth.
�`op;mac fc: C11-6r1-1 e�
/' lo. virt, Yt2
T
NOTICE
The City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, on Tuesday, February 13, 1996, at 6:30 p.m.
or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in -the Council Chambers in the City Hall
at 300 LaPorte Avenue, will hold a public hearing on the attached appeal from the decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board made on December 11, 1995 regarding Registry Ridge Development
filed by LeAnn Thieman, 6600 Thompson Drive. You may have received previous notice on this
item in connection with hearings held by the Planning and Zoning Board.
If you wish to comment on this matter, you are strongly urged to attend the hearing on this appeal.
If you have any questions or require further information please feel free to contact the City Clerk's
Office (221-6515) or the Planning Department (221-6750).
Section 2-56 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins provides that a member of City Council may
identify in writing any additional issues related to the appeal by February 2, 1996. Agenda materials
provided to the City Council, including additional issues identified by City Council members, will
'be available to the public on Thursday, February 8,-after 10:00 a.m. in the City Clerk's Office.
The City of fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs,
and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities.
Please call the City Clerk's Office (221-6515) for assistance.
Wanda M. Krajicek
City Clerk
Date Notice Mailed:
January 30, 1996
cc: City Attorney
Planning Department
Planning and Zoning Board Chair
Appellant/Applicant
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
ITLgvl NUMBER: 3
DATE: February 13, 1996
STAFF: Mike Ludwig
SUBJECT:
Consideration of the Appeal of the December 11, 1995 Decisions of the Planning and Zoning Board
Approving the Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan (#32-95) and Registry Ridge Planned Unit
Development, Phase 1, Preliminary (#32-95a).
RECOMMENDATION:
Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and the relevant provisions of the Code
and Charter, and after consideration, either: (1) remand the matter to the Planning and Zoning Board
or (2) uphold, overturn, or modify the Board's decision.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On December 11, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 4-2 to approve the Registry Ridge
O.D.P. (#32-95) with conditions as stated in the staff memo. The Planning and Zoning Board then
voted 4-2 to approve the Registry Ridge P.U.D., Phase 1, Preliminary (#32-95A) with conditions as
stated in the staff memo as well as a condition that 8' wide detached bike/pedestrian connections be
made along Shields Street from Trilby Road, north to Clarendon Hills and along Trilby Road from
Shields Street, east to the Ridgewood Hills P.U.D.
On December 21, 1995, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's Office regarding the
decisions of the Planning and Zoning Board. An Amended Notice of Appeal was received on
January 26, 1996, by the City Clerk regarding the same decisions.
The appellant cites Section 2-48(b)(1), 2-48(b)(2a), and 2-48(b)(2b) of the City Code as the basis
for the appeal. The appellant alleges that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant
provisions of the Code and Charter. The appellant further alleges that the Board failed to conduct
a fair hearing in that the Board exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code or
Charter; and that the Board substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure.
In a memo to the City Clerk dated February 2, 1996, Mayor Pro Tem Janett identified additional
issues for review in the appeal of the December 11, 1995 Planning and Zoning Board decision to
approve the Registry Ridge P.U.D., Phase 1 Preliminary (#32-95A).
The attached documents include the Notice of Appeal and the Amended Notice of Appeal; Mayor
Pro Tem Janett's memo of additional issues; the Planning Department response to the Amended
Notice of Appeal and Mayor Pro Tem Janett's memo of additional issues, and the information packet
that was received by the P & Z Board for its December 11, 1995 meeting. In addition, a verbatim
transcript and videotape recording of the P & Z Board meeting are included. The procedures for
considering and deciding the Appeal are described in Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City
Code,.
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. I.
1.1 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 wassaying that that would only apply to property that
23 has not yet been.annexed? Or has.not yet --
24 ..MR. ECKMAN: The Urban Growth Area agreement
25 presently describes the.UGA as the unincorporated portion of
Registry Ridge O.D.P
Staff Response
February 6, 1996
Page 9
(#32-95) and Phase 1, Prelim. P.U.D. (#32-95A) Appeal
criteria with more permanent strategies to be implemented with the City Plan effort.
However, the Planning and Zoning Board was required to evaluate the proposed
development, subject to the regulations that were in place at the time the development
application was submitted.
The Planning and Zoning Board determined that the proposed development did meet
the regulations which govern development in the City of Fort Collins. Specifically,
the Board found that the proposed development met All -Development Criteria A-3.1
"Utility Capacity" and A-3.2 "Design Standards", and the Residential Uses Point
Chart of the LDGS.
4. The Appellant states: "Perhaps the greatest failure by the City in its
planning is the failure to adopt a clear and specific Three Mile Annexation Plan
as required by'state law. Colo. Rev. Stat. Section '31-12-105(e). That plan
would identify specific land. uses, public parks, utility extensions -and open
spaces in the three mile area surrounding the City. The plan is required to be
updated at least once annually. Without a plan that complies with state law, the
Planning Commission acted in a planning vacuum since the City's plans for the
urban growth area are not in substantial compliance with the state
requirements for an annexation plan."
Staff Response:
The City of Fort Collins does have an Annexation Plan. It is embodied in the Fort
Collins-Larimer County Intergovernmental Agreement For The Fort Collins Urban
Growth Area (Exhibit A). However, the "Three Mile Annexation Plan" regulation
which the Appellant has cited applies only to annexation actions (or the challenging
of an annexation). The Planning and Zoning Board decisions on December 11, 1995
pertained to the Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan (#32-95) and the Registry
Ridge, Phase 1, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (#32-95A). The subject
property was annexed into the City of Fort Collins under the Trilby Heights Fourth
Annexation on October 20, 1981 and the Trilby Heights Fifth Annexation on
November 3, 1981. Colorado Revised Statute 31-12-105(e) was adopted May 28,
1987, nearly six years after this property was annexed. The Statute of Limitation for
challenging an annexation is 45 days. According to the City Attorney's office, the
annexation of the subject property is valid.
C. Issue: "The Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that
the Board substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure"
(Section 2-48(b)(2b)).
The appellant states: "The Planning Commission further violated pre-
Registry Ridge P.U.D., Phase 1 Preliminary, #32-95A
November 20, 1995 P&Z Meeting
Page 5
Please refer to the attached itemized list of amenities and associated costs. The Planning
Department verified these costs with the Parks and Recreation Department. $550,000 divided
by 510 units in the Registry Ridge P.U.D., Phase 1, Preliminary divided by 100 is equal to
10.88.
%1. )L For connecting to the nearest existing City sidewalk and bicycle path/lane - 5 points.
As part of required on -site improvements to South Shields Street and Trilby Road and
required off -site improvements to South Shields Street from Trilby Road to Clarendon Hills,
City sidewalk and bicycle path lanes will be extended to this site. Bike /pedestrian
connections from the development to the extended sidewalk and bicycle path lanes will be
created through the ends of the cul-de-sacs of the proposed single-family residential
development along Trilby Road.
This request includes a preliminary subdivision plat entitled Registry Ridge P.U.D. which plats the
entire 244.4 acres of the Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan. Tract B (future daycare), Tract
C (future commercial/office), Tract D(future multi -family), Tract H (future school site), Tract I
(future neighborhood park), and Tract J (future pool, tennis, etc.) are being platted only and are not
part of this Preliminary P.U.D. land use request. These future uses must go through the City's
preliminary and final P.U.D. review processes, with all final decisions given by the Planning and
Zoning Board, before any development can occur on them.
3. Neighborhood Compatibility:
A neighborhood meeting was held on April 13,1995 for a development proposal referred to as the
DALCO P.U.D. that proposed 936 single-family and multi -family residential units,
church/commercial site, school site, park site, recreational center and private open space on 445
acres. The DALCO P.U.D. included the property which is now being submitted as the Registry
Ridge Overall Development Plan, #32-95 and Registry Ridge P.U.D., Phase 1, Preliminary, as well
as approximately 201 acres of land at the southeast comer of Trilby Road and South Shields Street
that had already received O.D.P. approval as part of the Ridgewood Hills (Del Webb) Overall
Development Plan. The additional 201 acres of land is not included with the Registry Ridge Overall
Development Plan, #32-95. However, the 201 acres plays a significant role in the Registry Ridge
P.U.D., Phase One Preliminary #32-95A as 102.89 acres is proposed to be an off -site open space
dedication.
Concerns expressed at the neighborhood meeting regarding land uses that are the same as those
proposed with this Registry Ridge P.U.D., Phase 1, Preliminary were generally related to the amount
of traffic this development would generate on Shields and Trilby; that the density was too high; and
who would provide and pay for the extension of services. Minutes of this neighborhood meeting are
attached.
Parks and Recreation Board Minutes
October 25, 1995
Page 3
at the end of 1996, there needs to be a long-range plan for the youth center. She also added budget
to the list. Southwest Community Park/Youth and Sports Complex was added by Mary Ness. Diane
Thies added Partnering with Poudre Valley Hospital District for Grants for Wellness. After these
additions the Board unanimously (8-0) accepted the work plan and meeting schedule for 1996.
OTHER BUSINESS
Diane asked that we work with the Hospital District Board to join with a grant for fitness.
Jean said that she will meet with Diane on this.
Eric Reno wanted to commend Dave Mosnik and Suzy Danford for their hard work at the
Youth Center. He feels it will grow more and more every day and feels its a great asset to
the community. He said it is a win/win situation for FRCC students and Youth Center.
Peggy Bowers gave an update on the Youth Center. They are going to work with the
Community Officers about. the..YAC. The staff now _has,_phones. ,; CSU Social Services
students are securing donations to have a computer lab at the center. _
Peggy added that Treatsylvania at the Farm will cost $2.00 per trick -or -treater; hours 6-8
p.m. for four nights. There are 41 storefronts complete with candy.
Jessica said that a private individual approached her to build a skate rink (cement floor). ' He
is looking for sites close to EPIC or Timberline and close to the high school. She asked if it
is something that the City would want to partner with him.. Marilyn suggested the natural
area at Shields and Taft (east side of Shields). Jean said that she has been contacted by this
aentleman and referred him to the Park Planning staff.
Steve Budner gave an update on the Senior Center. Participation numbers are increasing on
a weekly basis especially in the fitness areas. The multi -purpose rooms are being booked
continuously and we have increased the part-time staff to 6 staff who are each working 30
hours a week. Sunday evenings are drop in volleyball; Girls Varsity played there this week;
two volleyball camps are scheduled. The center is being very well received by the
community; today there were 48 different activities; over 400 kids attended a splash program
one evening last week; and we -presently have 1800 senior members.
Eric asked if there are complaints from the seniors that it is being programmed for other
groups. Steve said that he addresses this continually.
Jessica asked about the theft issue at EPIC. Jean said that it continues to be a problem.
On a motion by Marilyn Barnes, seconded by Rich Feller, the Board adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
September 9, 1995
Mr. Mike Ludwig
City of Fort Collins
Planning Department
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Dear Mr. Ludwig:
Listed below are -some concerns we have about a housing development that is being
proposed by DALCO Land, LTD., south of our property on Trilby Road. We are located
between Shields and Taft Hill Road at 1520 West Trilby Road. Larimer County, Lot 15,
Mountain Valley Acres, Situated in the southeast 1/4 section 10, T.61N., R69 W. of the sixth P.M.
Larimer County.
We have had to spend our money on two different occasions to correct items on our property
because of increased water flow for storm drainage and road improvement. So we are really
concerned how this development will affect our property. We do not feel that we should loose
value to our property to benefit a developer.
1. We feel that lower density housing might be a step in the right direction. We ask
the City to reconsider the present density requirements and make a variance in this
situation. This is basically a rural area. For the environment's sake and the
neighborhood, why not put these houses on 1/2 to 1 acre lots.
2. Storm water discharge. An existing problem is causing some loss to our property.
Larimer County is using our place for discharge of storm water drainage from the
south.. The county changed the drainage contours with the building of Trilby Road,
or County Road #34, in the late 1960's. The natural contour for drainage was about
300 yards to the south. A 36 inch drainage culvert was placed under Trilby road at
1520 W. Trilby at about that time.
In 1977 during heavy rainfall or snow melting, the water would run through the
culvert that was added across our property and the overflow would run across the dirt
road to the west.
RECEIVED tiOV 0 2 i$95
Dear. 'Nlr. Ludwig,
There is a matter of concern brought to our attention that I am informed
that a letter to you might help. We sure hope it will. I'll try to explain as well as possible.
Iv family and I are residents of Ft. Collins now for four years. We came to Ft.
Collins seeking to raise our children in a small western town of dignity and ethical value.
Xly husband and I are business owners in Ft. Collins. We were very fortunate to start our
lives over in a wonderful town that is prosperous. .
We though have very special needs as home -owners. We need to live in the
country as we also have a kennel to raise a special breed of hunting dogs. I need to work
in town and the children go to school. So we needed to live close enough to not have it so
inconvenient to do so. We were very fortunate to have found our lot after a long. hard
search. This propern, is south of Trilby, off of S. Shields St. All of our neighbors have
similar plots of land. We all have similar needs.
Now we are being threatened by a developer to put strips of condos, three houses
per acre, and a shopping strip next to our rural homes! This obviously hasn't been thought
through very thoroughly.
ks having two people oriented businesses, ( Home Builder & Hairdresser) we are
very aware of what people are looking for in this town and what is appropriate in different
areas. This obviously has a lot of residents in this town highly upset. It is horrible planning
to let this kind of development go through. It's not good to subject sub -division dwellers
right next to country settings with noisy dog kennels and hors;; stables. We need more
responsible thinking processing the developments around us. �s I speak to more and more
people in this town, the more I hear the high demand for more properties like ours is in
great demand. We need more lots available with small acreage's to keep this area most
consistent with the existing urban dwelling it is. This town is being invaded by swarms of
small lots in sub -divisions already. We need more variety to offer. I hope you will
consider how the proposed plan will affect our neighborhood and the ones to come.
Thank you for taking the time to listen. We all will greatly appreciate any help you
can be.
dark and Nvanna Fischer
ISSUES PERTAINING TO REGISTRY RIDGE
Land Use
Should this area be open space and/or remain undeveloped?
Why have mixed use (commercial/retail/office site)?
Density
Is it too high?
Is it compatible with surrounding densities?
Proposed Street Improv-ments to Shields and Trilby
What? When? Traffic light? . .
Traffic
G
Existing volumes versus proposed volumes?
Fire and Police Service
Who provides?
On -site wetlands
Where are they?
Point Chart
Off -site open space dedication?
Park land dedication?
Should points be awarded for "planned" day care?
Stormwater
Detention/Retention
Off -site easements
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
11 34
1 was, I said, why would you ever approved such a densely
2 populated area in the middle of nowhere? And he said it was
3 because the new growth area was there and they thought that
4 Fort Collins was going to be building lots of houses there:
5 And yet the other night at the neighborhood meeting, I
6 learned that the only reason that Fort Collins was planning
7 to build something quite so dense was because McKee was
8 going to do that.
9
And I
wonder if that's not more of a
reaction
10
plan, and instead of reacting that way, don't we
need a
11
really carefully
thought-out strategic plan about
how the
12
periphery of our -city
should look forever? And
I keep
13
thinking about a
plan and new rules, and I learn
that
14 somebody else thinks so, too, because the Urban Growth Area,
15 Urban Growth Agreement, is currently being rewritten. Ken
16 Waido says that plan is expected to be finished by May. So
17 it makes sense to us to see how the new proposal and the
18 strategic plan says this area is supposed to look forever.
19 I think we have the potential here for a very
20- much a win -win situation. When we had our first new
21 neighborhood meeting with Mr. McQuarie -- or not our first,
22 but the biggest one, in April of 195, he said, and everybody
23 here heard him, and even Mr. Ludwig .did when he said,
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
Registry Ridge P.U.D., Phase 1 Preliminary, #32-95A
November 20, 1995 P&Z Meeting
Page 2
COMMENTS
..f 1. . Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: FA-1; Trilby Road, existing county residences (Mountain Valley Acres
Subdivision), Cathy Fromme Prairie Open Space.
S: FA-1; existing county rural residential, approved residential (McKee Charitable
Trust Preliminary P1at\PUD Master Plan)
E: FA-1; existing county rural residential.
r-1-p; Shields Street, planned/undeveloped residential (Ridgewood Hills O.D.P.),
Burlington Northern Railroad.
W: FA-1; existing rural residential, vacant.
This property was annexed into the City as part of the Trilby Heights Fourth Annexation on October .
20, 1981 and the Trilby Heights Fifth Annexation on November 3,1981, and was zoned R-L-P, Low
Density Planned Residential with a P.U.D. condition.
The Planning and Zoning Board is also considering the Registry Ridge O.D.P., #32-95 at the
November 20, 1995 Planning and Zoning Board meeting.
2. Land e:
This is a request for Preliminary P.U.D. for 516 single-family residential lots on 196.05 acres known
as Parcels A, E, F, K, L, M, N, O, P, and Q of the Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan, #32-
95, a residential density of 2.60 dwelling units per acre. Individual phases of an Overall
Development Plan can be less than 3 dwelling units per acre provided the overall development is at
a minimum of 3 dwelling units per acre. The property is located at the southwest comer of Trilby
Road and South Shields Street.
The request is in conformance with the proposed Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan, #32-95.
It meets the applicable All Development Criteria of the L.D.G.S. including A-1.1 "Solar Orientation"
by having 69% of its lots meeting solar orientation requirements.
The request was evaluated against the Residential Uses Point Chart of the Land Development
Guidance System and earns 97% of the maximum applicable points, exceeding the minimum
required 60% for a residential density of 2.60 dwelling units per acre. Points were awarded for the
following criterion:
170
1 MR. COLTON: Who pays for that?
2 SPEAKER: The developer. The difficulty will be
3 at the railroad crossing. I'm not sure what would be
4 designed there. Again, it's difficult to answer some of
5 these things when we don't have the designs completed. And
6 those will be better -- we'll have a better idea of what
7 those are at final hearing.
8 CHAIRMAN CARNES: Okay. Thank you. What's
9 being referred to -here is Neighborhood Compatibility
10 Criteria A2.6, pedestrian circulation. Purpose. Criterion
11 is designed to ensure that each new development in Fort
12 Collins will provide appropriate pedestrian and bicycle
13 links to the neighborhoods and the community, as well as
14 throughout the development being proposed. Sidewalk and/or
15 bikeway extensions off -site may be required based on impacts
16 created by the proposed development. So on and so forth.
17 That's been there for a long time, and that's really what, I
18 guess, I'm basing this on.
19 MR.-BLANCHARD: Just one additional piece of
20 information, and the Board certainly has the option of
21 changing that, but if you look at A 2.4, it states that
22 bicycle facilities are typically built on the road also, not
23 as off the road.
24
CHAIRMAN
CARNES:
I understand. Yeah.
So back
25
to the maker of the
motion.
Are you accepting the
friendly
39
1 situation which leads to lots of problems, lots of
2 misunderstandings, and a diluting of responsibility, even to
3 the extent of acknowledging current problems as well as
4 addressing problems that will be occurring as a result if
5 this development is approved.
'6 _ For example, I believe I saw this evening where
7 there would be connections with existing sidewalks. From
8 our home, I've tried real hard. I don't know. I'm sure
9 it's ovr.•r a mile. It, may be a distance of two miles or more
10 from our home to any existing city sidewalks.
11 we will be affected indirectly by any drainage
12 system that feeds into the natural drainage approximately
13 two blocks north of our home. During any wet season,
14 mosquitoes are a problem, and any increases in the amount of
15 storm water flowing through the natural drainage will "
16 exacerbate the problem.
17 The .proposed Registry Ridge development is
18 isolated. And the proposed development is very
19 inconsistent, as Leanne has shared with you', with the
20 surrounding 'areas which include acreages, open space, narrow
21 roads, -separation of Fort Collins and Loveland, a transition
22 zone between the two cities, and the proposed corridor.
23 I guess one my really basicconcerns, having
24 lived'here for 'approximately 30 -- 32 years, is that with
25 this type of sprawling development and with the large
57
1 it is a judgment call. And
our judgment to
the part of the
2 people who worked with task
force and various boards and
3 commissions was that it was
within the city
limits of Fort
4 Collins, had been for quite
some time, and we didn't see a
5 compelling reason to suggest
that change in
that particular
6 location.
7 With respect to the off -site dedication, what we
,8 have done is reviewed the proposal by the applicants and
9 basically negotiated the off -site dedication proposed. As
10 the Board is quite familiar, the current LDGS does allow
11 awarding of bonus points for off -site dedications. However,
12 at present, the criterion for that are a little fuzzy, so we
13 felt thought it very important to look very carefully.at
14 what was being proposed.
15 Fundamentally, though, we had two adopted plans
16 suggesting or saying that this area should be left open in
17 whole or in part. The applicant suggested the Area 1,
18 approximately 71 acres, be dedicated. My response back to
19. " them was., 71 acres of this ridge, by itself, doesn't do us
20 much good. And so we 'said that,'at minimum, we needed the
21 ability to have Area 3 as well at a fair and reasonable
22 price, and they agreed to that. We 'also suggested that they
23 include Area:2 in the dedication, and they agreed to that.
24 We have an option agreement on Area 4 and Area 5
25 as well. The reason we area little ambivalent about Area 4
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 officeand neighborhood service retail. The
20 day-care is not part of that.
21 1 1MS. 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,
9
125
1 necessarily that great a deal. I,mean, I think some of the
2' communities that are most charming, and they.really -- they
3 bring the cattle commons right up to the town fence. I
4 mean, what you're basically talking about in terms of soft
5 edge is you're talking about the kind of development that
6 sits in this area. And many places in the country, that
7 type of development has been derided for several decades as
8 being urban sprawl.
9 So, you know, I'm -not -- fnnkly, not .sold:on the
10 soft edge. I know some people like it. Lots of people live
11 in those areas. But I'm not convinced it!s what we want. for
12 the city. Excuse me. And I'm not convinced that it fits
13 with the concept of an Urban Growth Area boundary.
14 MR. DAVIDSON: One of the points that I think,,
15 about this is, if this development is approved, it also sets
16 up sort of a snowball effect of other properties to be.
17 developed, based upon contiguity. And being this is so far
18 outside what I consider city property, even though it's
19 within city limits, I'm.real concerned about that also. It
20 sets.the stage fora lot more development out there that
21 doesn't seem to meet a lot of our land use policies that do
22 exist. So I have real concerns from that point.
23 The open space is very tempting. I'm definitely
24 an open space proponent. I'd like to see as much as
25 possible. So. itIs.a difficult one to, weigh. But I do have
142
1 time out on
my property. It may be.one
in ten. I'm
2. choosing a
number arbitrarily; but maybe
one in ten is
3 looking to
the east. Most everybody is
looking to the
4 whitecaps.
They want to see the mountains.
They want to
5 see the foothills. They want to see the
open expanse of
6 space.
7 In the overview here, yeah, granted, there's
8 quite a bit of open space within the development. But as
9 someone is driving across Shields, they're looking on a
10 diagonal. That open space is going to be lost. All you're
11 going to see there is houses.
12 And although it looks good from looking down on
13 it, when you're actually driving that route, what you're
14 going to be seeing is -- I come from back East originally.
15 I moved out here 18 years ago because it was so nice. I
16 bought this property because it was so nice.
17 what I'm seeing now is what I would consider, and
18 this is no reflection on the developers whatsoever, because
19 I haven't taken a stance, at all. I personally stand to
20 gain, whichever way it goes. One way, I have.my view. The
21 other way, I will probably be one of the people standing
22 before you.to develop my 20 acres, if it goes that way.
23 So in either case, I'm not taking a position
24 strongly. I just -- visually, it's going to impact quite a
25 bit, and I just think this needs to be told to you by me, or
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,
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
10to'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.
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 thvt project, do_ improvements to that
10 intersection and further south along Shields there. So
11 those improvements will be done if that project is approved,
12 and at the time that when it's built.
13 If it does not go forward, then those
14 improvements would probably come at a time that that
15 intersection is developed or at -the time that the City would
16 get the funds to do that, which would probably'be per a
17 vote,,such as the Choices 2000 vote or something like that.
18 But currently, that project looks likes it should go
19 forward, as long as it gets approved.
20 Regarding improvements based on this project,
21 this project would be required to do some sort of
22 improvements along Shields Street to the Clarendon Hills
23projects, 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
52
1 of development rights program and to implement that so that
2 those areas designated in the corridor plan as, again, open
3 space can have their development rights taken off and put in
4 areas of the plan designated for urban -level development.
5
And if you think about it,
that's exactly
what's
6
being recommended here, with the open
space dedication to
7
the City of the other property, which
is designated on the
8
corridor plan as open space, desired open space. So
they
9
want to preserve as part of the corridor
open space,
10
putting it on Registry Ridge, which is
designated in
the
11
corridor plan as being appropriate for
urban -density,
higher
12
residential development.
13 The only other point I wanted to make is an
14 issue or a statement was made about Fossil Creek, which was
15 a project adjacent to the Cathy Fromme Prairie, and that the
16 fact that that had imposed on it by the City Council a lower
17 density than three dwelling units per acre. And it's true
18 that it did.But that was placed on that development by the
19 Council as a condition of annexation and zoning, based upon
20 evidence the Council had in the record that there would be
21 potentially an impact on wildlife habitat, particularly
22 eagles and ferruginous hawks. When Woodland Park came up,
23 to the contrary, when there wasn't that kind of an issue,
24 but simply a compatible issue, the Council didn't make that
25 kind of variance, request or want that kind of variance, on