PUD-01-009
713.28, .29, .32, .33, 714.26, .27
PUD REZONING
FOREST LAKES

A request by Forest Lakes LLC for approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Development Plan to allow 467 dwelling units, open space, parks, utilities and a school site. The 990-acre parcel is currently zoned R (Residential) and RR-3 (Rural Residential) Zone Districts and is located in the Tri-Lakes area north of the Air Force Academy and west of Interstate 25. Tax Schedule #'s 71000-00-323,356; 71260-00-001. Approval includes authorization for the Chairman to sign the Development Plan.

FOREST LAKES INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS

These introductory statements represent a departure from the normal order of the Planning Division Comment Agenda. They are included due to the long history and complexity of these applications and others which preceded them, resulting in confusion at the Planning Commission hearing. Additionally, because of the potential for eventual court action, there is particular importance in making and having a clear record of decision in these matters.

1) Planning Division Recommendation

As further described later in these comments, the Planning Division recommends approval of these requests, as presented, but subject to conditions which include, among other things, approval of a development agreement which would occur prior to recording of any Final Plat (see #7 below). The basis for this approval would be general conformity with the Tri-Lakes Comprehensive Plan (1999) combined with generally favorable findings with respect to the other standards for PUD Development Plan and Preliminary Plan approval.

2) Decision Options for the Board

The El Paso County Planning Division and County Attorney's Office believe the Board of County Commissioners is in a legal position to take action on these requests at this time. In the opinion of the Planning Division, the Board has the flexibility to approve or deny these requests. Subject to limitations as might be advised by the County Attorney's Office, any facts and testimony can be considered so long as these have relevance to the standards for approval or denial of a PUD Development Plan.

In the event of Board disapproval, staff recommends that the basis be inconsistency with the Tri-Lakes Plan combined with unfavorable findings with respect to one or more of the County's PUD standards.

If the Board continues these items, staff recommends this be done for stated reasons, for a clearly described duration, and with clear direction as to what needs to be addressed prior to the next hearing.

Because the PUD Development Plan and Preliminary Plan are so highly interrelated, staff does not recommend approval of one request and denial of the other. One exception might be to approve the PUD Plan (which among other things sets the uses, density, and design) and then disapprove the Preliminary subject to a determination that there are one or more technical deficiencies. However, even in this case, staff would recommend continuance or denial rather than a split decision.

3) Planning Commission Action

As described in more detail later in the comments, the Planning Commission did make a split recommendation (voting 6-3 in favor of the PUD and 6-3 against the Preliminary Plan). Staff believes the primary reasoning behind this vote was their belief that PUD zoning in general was a good idea for the property and this plan was much better than the "worst case" under the existing R (Residential) zoning. The motivation for a denial recommendation for the Preliminary Plan was concern that the project densities were incompatible with the area. Although staff will endeavor to bring forward the all relevant testimony and decisions from the Planning Commission, the Planning Division does not support its recommendation for the reasons described in these comments.

4) The Nature of PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zoning

PUD zoning can only be approved for a property by the Board with the written consent of the property owner(s). Likewise, without the same written consent, the Board can not change a PUD Development Plan. Finally, any conditions of approval, having to do with the zoning itself, must be acceptable to the property owner(s). If for instance the Board believed a maximum of 400 rather than 467 dwelling units should be allowed, this limit could not be unilaterally imposed. The property owner(s) would have to agree. In the event the owner(s) were not to agree to a desired change, the options are limited to approval of the submitted plan with 467 units, disapproval of the plan in its entirety, or continuance. In any case, because of the complicated nature of a PUD Development, it is really not feasible to make significant project design or density changes at the hearing.

5) Issues Related to the Current R (Residential) Zoning of the Property

The current zoning of the majority of the subject property is R (Residential). Technically, this allows conventional lots as small as 20,000 square feet throughout all buildable areas of the property. This zoning was applied in 1984 because the PUD option was not available in the Land Development Code at that time. Ostensibly because there was a "mismatch" between the 1983 Forest Lakes Sketch Plan (which included substantial open space and clustering) and the R zone, a two-year time condition was placed on the original zoning. Based on this condition, an argument has been made that the R zoning either has reverted or should have changed to the prior A-4 (now RR-3) zoning. No automatic reversion took place because only the Board can change zoning and they did not do this. In reviewing the record, staff believes the applicants and property owners at the time technically complied with the terms of the 1984 condition such that reconsideration by the Board has not been mandated.

Staff continues to believe there is a "mismatch" between the existing R zoning and both the 1983 Sketch Plan and the 1999 Tri-Lakes Plan. In the event the Board approves the PUD Plan under consideration, this issue essentially goes away. However, if the PUD Plan is denied outright, the existing zoning of the property remains as a "loose cannon". Therefore, in the event of a denial (but not a continuance) staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners direct staff to initiate rezoning of the property back to the RR-3 (Rural Residential) Zone District category in accordance with Section 3, Chapter IV of the Land Development Code.

Based on the above, staff does not recommend that the existing zoning of the property be given substantial weight as either a justification for approval or denial of the current applications.

6) Status and Relevance of the Original Sketch Plan

The original 1983 Sketch Plan for this property will be presented as an exhibit and described. The proposed PUD Development Plan will be compared and contrasted with this 1983 Plan. Arguments have been made that the 1983 Plan is no longer legally valid. Arguments have also been made that the currently proposed PUD Plan is sufficiently different from the Sketch Plan that a revised Sketch Plan should have been required in any case.

As further described in these comments and the attached chronology, the original Sketch Plan certainly is old and fairly extraordinary steps were taken to keep in from lapsing in the 1980's. Based on the available record, the Planning Division is confident that the 1983 Sketch Plan is technically still in force and effect. That said, the Board is free to give the original plan and its circumstances whatever weight it believes is appropriate. The 1983 Sketch Plan may be the basis for expectations, but it is not a legal entitlement.

The decision not to require a new or modified Sketch Plan, and allow the applicant to proceed directly to the PUD phase was an administrative determination pursuant to the El Paso County Land Development Code. Under the Code, the Planning Director has the discretion to decide if a Sketch Plan (new or modified) is required. The Planning Director made the decision not to require a new Sketch Plan based on the key similarities between the 1983 and current plans, because the PUD process allows for many of the same planning issues to be addressed, as under the Sketch Plan process. This decision was made in consideration of Section 47.B.1 and Section 47.B.9.e of the Code. There has not been a formal appeal of this administrative determination.

7) Development Agreement

The intent of staff had been to work out the details of a development agreement concerning off-site transportation improvements such that it could be approved simultaneously with any approved PUD and Preliminary Plan. This was the course of action contemplated by the Planning Commission. A draft copy of the development agreement is attached. This could serve as an outline for a final version, however it is noted that the agreement is not in final form at this time. In particular there are outstanding issues pertaining to the cost estimates for the Baptist Road railroad crossing and for a potential extension of Mitchell Avenue. Additionally, there are outstanding issues related to the potential involvement of the Forest Lakes Metropolitan District in these commitments. Staff now proposes that an agreement be finalized after this hearing, but prior to consideration of the first Final Plat, if applicable. This said, in the event of an approval of the zoning and Preliminary Plan, staff would prefer clear direction at this time as to the approach taken and content of the development agreement.

The Board is free to consider the present contents and status of the draft development agreement as this might relate to the findings and standards of approval for the overall zoning and Preliminary Plan. However, staff does not recommend an outright denial of the overall zoning and Preliminary Plan based solely on concerns with the details of the current draft development agreement. This recommendation would assume any outstanding concerns would be deemed to be reasonably resolvable through modifications to the agreement.

STAFF NOTES:
1) Many of the agency review comments for this request are included with the Comments for the Preliminary Plan (SP-01-019).
2) Various materials including letters and petitions of opposition are included as a supplementary comment package or will be presented as Exhibits at the hearing.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The request was approved (6-3 - Commissioners Pullara, Sery and Bell voting in opposition), at the February 26, 2002, meeting of the Planning Commission, subject to the following conditions and notations.

CONDITIONS
1. In conjunction with consideration of the PUD and Preliminary Plans by the Board of County Commissioners, the applicant/developer agrees to execute a development agreement with El Paso County to include, at a minimum, the following general provisions:

a) Transportation (adjacent improvements)

1) In conjunction with the initial final plat for this development, the subdivider shall accomplish and/or guarantee the following:

(a) between the north property line and Baptist Road as depicted in the Preliminary Plan.

(b) Dedicate all right-of-way necessary to allow a connection between the entrance of this project and Lindbergh Road, and construct all facilities necessary to make this connection, prior or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any residential units.

(c) Deposit with El Paso County or separate third party escrow approved by the County funds sufficient to pave Lindbergh Road from the northerly boundary of the Forest Lakes property north to Doolittle Road. In the event El Paso County does not pave this segment within five (5) years from the date of the first plat recording, this money shall be refunded to the applicant with interest.

2) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for residential units, construct at least a two-lane section of Mitchell Avenue between the northerly entrance to this development and its intersection with Baptist Road, to include all necessary initial upgrades to this intersection.

3) In the event a more easterly alignment for Mitchell Avenue is approved, such that the road would divert east from some point adjacent to the Forest Lakes property, the developer shall be responsible for any construction within the subject property, which would be necessary to accommodate the realignment. Forest Lakes would be entitled to any unneeded and subsequently vacated right-of-way which was within its original ownership. Any off-site requirements related to Mitchell are addressed below.

b) Off-site Transportation (potential Mitchell Avenue Extension)

1) In conjunction with each final plat, the applicant agrees to contribute or cause to be contributed to El Paso County, a pro-rata proportionate share for a two-lane arterial connection of Mitchell Avenue from the north boundary line of the subject property approximately 2,500 feet north to Existing Mitchell as further described in Exhibit A.

NOTE: Exhibit A will be a detailed cost estimate for the Mitchell Avenue Extension. (A draft was attached to the Comment Agenda. It will be revised.)

2) As further described in Exhibit A, financial participation requirements are/will be based on the estimated percentage of traffic from this development projected to use this facility and will be assessed on a single-family residential equivalency basis. Unpaid assessments will be revised annually to maintain consistency with the Denver-Boulder Consumer Price Index (CPI) or other comparable index. The Overall Cost Share will be further reduced by an agreed-upon factor to account for other potential sources of funds in addition to these local impact fees.

3) All revenues from these assessments shall be maintained in an interest bearing account controlled by the County and specific to this project. In the event, the Mitchell Avenue Extension project is not substantially initiated within twenty (20) years of the date of the development agreement, the applicable proceeds of that account shall be refunded to the applicant, or their heirs and assigns. In the event there are any excess revenues in this account, after completion of the applicable project as described, these shall be similarly refunded to the applicant, their heirs or assigns. Although the cost of an alignment study is not included in calculating the assessments, the County shall have the right to use proceeds of the account to accelerate funding of such a study.

4) The County shall agree to make a priority of completing an alignment study for Mitchell Avenue, and making at least an initial decision on this alignment within five (5) years of recording of this agreement.

c) Off-site Transportation- (potential grade-separated rail crossing)

1) In conjunction with each final plat, the applicant agrees to contribute or cause to be contributed to El Paso County, a pro-rata proportionate share for a two-lane grade-separated arterial rail crossing on Baptist Road as further described in Exhibit B.

NOTE: Exhibit B is a detailed Cost Estimate for the Railroad Crossing. (A draft was attached to the Comment Agenda. It will be revised.)

2) As further described in Exhibit B, financial participation requirements are/will be based on the estimated percentage of traffic from this development projected to use this facility and will be assessed on a single-family residential equivalency basis. Unpaid assessments will be revised annually to maintain consistency with the Denver-Boulder Consumer Price Index (CPI) or other comparable index. The project cost shall specifically be revised downward to reflect a 50% reduction in all line items eligible for reimbursement by the Railroad. Assessments will be further reduced by an agreed-upon factor to account for other potential sources of funds in addition to these local impact fees. The calculated and agreed-upon per dwelling or equivalent figure shall then be additionally reduced by one half of the any Baptist Road Rural Transportation Authority (BRRTA) building permit fee in effect at the time of applicable plat recording (i.e. the assessment would be reduced by $250 since the current fee is $500).

3) All revenues from these assessments shall be maintained in an interest-bearing account specific to this project. In the event, a grade-separated crossing project is not substantially initiated within twenty (20) years of the date of the development agreement, the proceeds of that account shall be refunded to the applicant, or their heirs and assigns. In the event there are any excess revenues in this account, after completion of the project as described, these shall be similarly refunded to the applicant, their heirs or assigns. The County shall have the right at any time to use proceeds of this account for any identified safety or capacity improvement related to the Railroad crossing. Subject to the agreement of the developer and any other applicable parties, the County shall have the right to expend any monies in this account for any safety or capacity improvement associated Baptist Road between the project site and Old Denver Highway.

d) Use of District as Financing Mechanism

1) Subject to further legal and technical review, the County agrees to the concept of allowing the developer to use the Forest Lakes Metropolitan District as a vehicle to guarantee the ultimate payment of subdivision-related assessments for identified off-site transportation obligations. This arrangement would be accomplished through an Intergovernmental Agreement between the County and the District.

e) Agreement to Assess Other Developments in the Benefit Area

1) The County agrees to reasonably apply the same requirements for "fair share" contributions to off-site transportation improvements to other new subdivisions if these are determined to contribute additional traffic to either a potential extension of Mitchell Avenue or to the Railroad crossing.

f) Parks and Trails

1) As described in the PUD Development Plan and Preliminary Plan, the depicted Waterfront Park site shall be dedicated to the Forest Lakes Metropolitan District in conjunction with the first final plat, and shall be maintained by that District. The planned facilities for this park shall be substantially constructed prior to recording a Final Plat beyond Phase I (first 275) lots of the project.

2) The depicted Homestead Park will be dedicated to the Forest Lakes Metropolitan District in conjunction with or prior to recording a Final Plat for any lots in Phase II (Lots 276-467) of the project.

3) That portion of the depicted non-motorized trail within each applicable plat shall be dedicated to public use, and the construction of the applicable segment will be included in the Estimate of Guaranteed Funds (EGF) for the applicable plat. In all cases, this trail will be constructed to meet any applicable County standards.

4) The developer agrees to make reasonable efforts to dedicate and construct this trail and allow public access through to the Forest Service boundary line as soon as possible after issuance of the first residential building permits for this project. The County and the developer understand and agree that there may be design and Prebles Meadow Jumping Mouse issues that could delay this connection.

2. Prior to scheduling this item for the Board of County Commissioners the applicant shall submit a revised PUD development plan and Preliminary Plan which includes a clear delineation between Phase I and Phase II of the development with Phase I to include 275 or fewer total dwelling units.

3. Prior to scheduling this item for the Board of County Commissioners the applicant shall provide an analysis addressing on-street or overflow parking related to the westerly "Type B" cluster area.

4. Prior to recording this PUD development plan, the applicant shall submit and the Planning Director shall administratively approve a plan for the management of exterior lighting.

5. Prior to submitting any final plats for this development, the applicant shall first provide a final copy of the PUD Development Plan and Preliminary Plan, consistent with any conditions of Board approval and shall record the PUD Development Plan. Said final and/or recorded copies shall reflect the boundary survey adjustments as described in Exhibit C.

NOTATIONS
1. The approved Development Plan and other related documents will be recorded. It will be necessary to provide the Planning Division with a Development Plan as approved by the Board of County Commissioners, drawn with permanent India ink or produced by a photographic process on a polyester (mylar) film, 24" x 26" in size, suitable for reproducing.

2. Rezoning requests not forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration within 180 days of Planning Commission action will be deemed to be withdrawn and will have to be resubmitted in their entirety.

Regarding water, the motion included the finding the existing and proposed public services and facilities are adequate for the proposed development, and that proposed public services and facilities will be timely provided.

Ms. Pullara did not feel the zone change is justified as it does not meet the general criteria of being necessary for the health, safety and welfare of the community.

Mr. Sery voted in opposition because the proposed land use will not be compatible with existing and permitted land uses in the surrounding area and will not be in harmony and responsive the character of the surrounding area. In addition, he did not feel the applicant has not proven the development will not have a negative effect upon the existing and future development in the surrounding area.

Mr. Bell concurred with Ms. Pullara and Mr. Sery and expressed the opinion that it would negatively impact the surrounding properties.

Ms. Bernstein approved the PUD rezoning request because the current R zone will allow a much larger density.

Mr. Salute agreed with Ms. Bernstein.

Mr. Jambura also concurred with Ms. Bernstein and Mr. Salute stating the proposed PUD zoning allows the developer to be more environmentally sensitive with the land than if he developed 20,000 sq.ft. lots using a "cookie cutter" approach.

STATUS OF CONDITIONS/ NOTATIONS
Condition #1 - A copy of the draft Development Agreement is attached. However, at this time staff suggests deferring actual finalization of and execution of the Agreement until prior to the first Final Plat. From the staff perspective there are still outstanding issues regarding finalization of project costs for the railroad crossing and Mitchell Avenue. Additionally, staff recommends that the Forest Lakes District not be used as a guarantor for funding potential off-site improvements. This is a change from Condition #1.d.1).

All of the language in paragraph #1.f. pertaining to parks and trails has now been shifted from the Development Agreement to conditions. This change was made on the basis that these issues were internal to the property and could best be handled outside of an agreement.

Condition #2 has been responded to by the applicant. They have submitted a revised plan which reduces the number of units in the first phase to 275 by incorporating temporary cul-de-sacs in the westerly cluster. Staff have recommended a condition which would require technical review of this recent change.

Condition #3 - Parking has been added to this cluster to accommodate visitors and extra cars.

Conditions #4 and #5 are carried forward.

Notation #1 is carried forward.

Notation #1 is no longer applicable.

A May 8, 2002, letter from the applicant is attached. It addresses certain Planning Commission conditions as well as other issues which were raised at the Planning Commission hearing.

SPEAKING FOR: Tim Seibert, applicant's representative; John McGinn, Forest Lakes Metropolitan District Water Engineer; Jeff Hodsdon, LSC, Traffic Engineer; Edward Aubrey, citizen.

SPEAKING AGAINST: Kyle Wigington; Jerry Hannigan, citizen and Tri-Lakes Land Use Committee Chairman; Steve Phillips, Pine Hills resident; Jim Drewry, resident to the south of Forest Lakes; Joyce Hannigan, citizen and Green Mountain Ranch resident; Chris Jeub, resident of 16315 Rickenbacker; Troy Olson, attorney representing Dellacroce Ranch; Ray Dellacroce, owner of Dellacroce Ranch; Steve Mabon, citizen whose parents own property to the north.

Opposition/ concern was expressed regarding: View the original Sketch Plan approval is no longer valid and this Plan represents a substantial change and, therefore, the Rezoning and Preliminary Plan should not be considered at this time; authority of the Planning Director to grant time extensions on approvals; lack of conformance with the Tri-Lakes Comprehensive Plan and possibility of setting a precedent; density and resulting impact on rural character of the area; minimum of five-acre lots to be consistent with the area; suggestion for improvements to the railroad crossing because of impact on response time for emergency vehicles; additional traffic; availability of water for the development; negative impact on operating ranches; etc.

PUBLIC NOTICE: The property was posted at two (2) locations on or prior to May 1, 2002.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: The Planning Division notified fifty-two (52) adjoining property owners of applicant's intent on February 7, 2002. Follow-up postcards were mailed on April 30, 2002, for this hearing.

ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER RESPONSES: Fifty-two (52) adjoining property owners were notified. There have been a large number of responses. These responses are included and addressed in a supplemental packet.

ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER COMMENTS: Please also see the supplemental packet. Those responding generally cited:

· Believe that densities should be kept to one house per five acres.
· Concerns with the process (new Sketch Plan should have been required, etc.)
· Concerns that the plan is not consistent with the Tri-Lakes Comprehensive Plan, both from an overall density standpoint and with respect to the allowance of some very small lots.
· Concerns that the proposed development is not in character with the surrounding lower density development - loss of rural lifestyle.
· Concerns with the potential traffic impact.
· Water resources concerns, particularly with impact to existing shallow wells.

LEGAL PUBLICATION: This rezoning request was published in the El Paso County Advertiser & News on April 10, 2002.

ADJOINING LAND USE AND ZONING

HISTORY/ BACKGROUND: A detailed chronology of this project is included as an attachment. The property was first zoned to what is now a five-acre zone in 1955. A Sketch Plan was approved in 1983 for the majority of the subject property. This Plan included a non-residential parcel that was subsequently annexed to Monument. The remaining residential is what is included in this request. The 1983 Sketch Plan included 910 of the 990 acres which are now included in this project. Those 910 acres were approved for a total of 466 single-family dwelling units and a school site clustered on lots of 20,000 square feet or greater. The developer has added an 80-acre property to the original parcel and is now proposing 467 dwelling units.

In 1984 the property (not including the added 80 acres and a small area under one of the lakes) was zoned to R (Residential) District to allow implementation of the original Sketch Plan. That zoning was conditioned to require a Preliminary Plan to be adopted within two years. Several activities occurred, as described in the chronology, but the upshot is that the R (Residential) District zoning on the majority of the property remains in place because only the Board of County Commissioners can change zoning and this has not occurred. A Preliminary Plan for the entire 910-acre residential parcel was first submitted in 1984. It was withdrawn in favor of a 1987 Plan for the first 118 lots. This Plan was approved by the Board of County Commissioners but subsequently lapsed. The Forest Lakes Metropolitan District was organized in 1985. By the late 1980s the project was essentially in bankruptcy, and the property first reverted to the RTC (Resolution Trust Corporation). The current owners acquired the property from the RTC.

The original Tri-Lakes Comprehensive Plan was approved in 1983. It generally acknowledged the 1983 Forest Lakes Plans as part of a generalized concept plan. The 2000 Tri-Lakes Update addresses this sub-area in more detail and also references the 1983 Forest Lakes Plan. This is discussed later in staff comments.

SITE DESCRIPTION: The site is situated west of Interstate 25 and north of the United States Air Force Academy. A dominant feature is Beaver Creek which bisects the property, flowing from the west. To the north and south are upland areas which rise well above the Creek. The two constructed lakes, Bristlecone Lake and Pinon Lake, dominate the eastern part of the property. The property rises precipitously to the west as it adjoins the National Forest. Most of the property is fairly open in character, but it is punctuated with a variety of foot hills vegetation and a number of beautiful natural features. With the exception of the lakes, a few roads, the homestead site and some limited impacts of ranching, the property is naturally pristine.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposal is to rezone the 990-acre property from 910 acres of R (Residential) District and 80+ acres of RR-3 (Rural Residential) District to PUD (Planned Unit Development) District to accommodate a total of 467 dwelling units, one 10-acre school site, utility tracts, roads, open space, two parks and trails within the property. The approximate breakdown of the lots is as follows:

Areas set aside for road right-of-way are not set aside in this analysis.

The majority of the larger lots are encumbered by a combination of no-build preservation lines, building envelopes and/or building centrums. A centrum is essentially a circle on which at least 50 percent of the dwelling unit must be located.

A variety of other minimum lot areas and setbacks are defined in the PUD Development Plan.

PHASING: The project is proposed to occur in two (2) major phases, the first of which will include the 275 units located to the east and north. This phase would encompass all of the higher-density lots.

FACILITIES AND SERVICES: Facilities and services are described in more detail in the Letter of Intent.

- Water will ultimately come primarily from adjudicated surface supplies stored in the lakes. Initial development will use groundwater from one or more deep wells to be located in the eastern part of the property. The water provider will be the Forest Lakes Metropolitan District. This system would have to be constructed.

- Sewer will also be provided by Forest Lakes Metropolitan District, using the already constructed Forest Lakes tertiary treatment plant. Sewer lines would need to be constructed.

- Parks will be provided by the Forest Lakes Metropolitan District.

- Roads within the development will be paved and constructed by the developer. Sidewalks will be constructed on both sides of streets in higher density areas and on one side in lower density areas.

REVIEW OF 1983 SKETCH PLAN CONDITIONS

The original 1983 Sketch Plan conditions are included below, with parenthetical staff comments as to their "status" as may be applicable:

1) Prior to any platting within the project an adequate water supply plan, including an augmentation plan, must be approved by the Colorado Division of Water Resources.

(The State Engineer has commented that the proposed water supply is adequate. While the County Attorney's Office has identified a number of areas which must be addressed prior to a legal finding of sufficiency, a finding of general adequacy is appropriate at this time.)

2) Prior to or in conjunction with the submission of a Preliminary Plan for the area, further analysis of the active fault zone and other geologic constraints should be conducted and reviewed by the Colorado Geological Survey.

(Additional review has been provided by the State Geological Survey. While there are certain technical site-specific issues remaining, the Geological Survey has not indicated any overarching concerns with the plan as now proposed. Staff is suggesting a condition requiring remaining issues to be resolved prior to final approval of a Preliminary Plan.)

3) A determination of a mutually acceptable location for a ten (10) acre school site should be reached with the Lewis-Palmer School District prior to recording of any final Plats in Phase One of the project.

(The District has commented that the proposed site on the property is adequate subject to follow-up meetings.)

4) Prior to any platting within the project the transportation related issues listed below should be fully addressed including the responsibility for specific improvements and the funding of such improvements.

A. Improvements to Baptist Assembly Road including widening, surfacing, bridge crossing, rail crossing, I-25 overpass and interchange improvements, if necessary.

(The topic of off-site transportation has been paramount in the staff review process. The proposed Development Agreement established a framework for the proportional contribution of this project toward a potential future railroad crossing. As is noted elsewhere in the Comments, this will not necessarily result in that improvement being completed. Other specific improvements to Baptist Road will be guaranteed adjacent to this site. Additionally, the property is included in the Baptist Road Rural Transportation Authority (BRRTA) and will contribute to some degree through that mechanism. Finally, plans are underway to upgrade the Interstate 25/ Baptist Road Interchange. Colorado Department of Transportation has recommended the applicants participate in the financing of signalization of this interchange.

B. Provision for the extension of a minor arterial from the north of the residential portion to intersect with Baptist Assembly Road.

(Staff assumes this condition refers to the need to accommodate potential extension of Mitchell Avenue adjacent to the property. If so, this is depicted in the proposed Preliminary Plan.)

5) Prior to any development in the commercial area east of I-25, fire protection services should be established.

(Not applicable to this property.)

6) Inasmuch as the proposed lakes are an integral component of the Sketch Plan, the approval to construct and fill the lakes should be obtained prior to platting within the residential portion of the project.

(Two of the four lakes have been constructed. The other two cannot now be constructed due to Preble's Mouse constraints.)

7) The proposed metropolitan services district must be formally established prior to any platting within the Sketch Plan or another mechanism established to guarantee the provision of the requisite level of services.

(This District has been formed (Forest Lakes Metropolitan District). Although is has been largely inactive for most of the past decade and has some issues with outstanding debt, it is in place to provide the necessary services.)

8) The agreement reached between the developer and the El Paso County Parks Board be formalized and approved by the Board of County Commissioners prior to recording the initial plat in Phase One.

(This agreement apparently had to do with a land swap for a parcel to the west of the subject property. That parcel has subsequently been conveyed from the County to the Forest Service. Other property was conveyed from the County to the property owner at that time.)

AGENCY COMMENTS

NOTE: Many agency comments for this application are included within the Comments for the Preliminary Plan (SP-01-019), which follows this item.

COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION comments are included within the Planning Division Comments.

TRI-LAKES LAND USE COMMITTEE submitted the following:

The Tri-Lakes Land Use Committee (except Jacques Adnet who recused himself) met beginning on November 8th and reviewed and discussed the above PUD Rezoning and Preliminary Plan requests. As you know, the site lies within the Twin Valley Sub Area. Also relevant are several of the Topical Sections; most notably those on Transportation and Water. The requested zoning will permit residential uses at an average lot size of one acre and an overall density of 1 dwelling unit per 2.12 acres. The site Adjoins Pine Hills to the north and Pike National Forest and Green Mountain Ranch Estates to the west and south. Unplatted parcels adjoining to the south, east and northeast include large residential sites and larger ranch lands. The number of dwelling units proposed in Forest Lakes is fully 6 times the number now within the entire sub arm

The residential density requested is not compatible with either the existing residential uses or the existing ranching or national forest uses surrounding the site. In part, the Twin Valley Land Use Scenario in the 2000 Update has this to say ...... ."This sub area should remain primarily rural residential with lot sizes averaging five acres exclusive of roads and tracts not devoted to open space areas. Large lot clustering options, utilizing minimum 2-1/2 acre lots should be considered only if there is strict adherence to this overall density approach and if adequate mechanisms for implementation are available ............. "The previous land use approvals in the Forest Lakes project are acknowledged but it is noted that the development within this property should be sensitive to the surrounding existing and planned loser density uses ............. "Regardless of its location all development within Twin Valley should be designed in a manner that is especially sensitive to preserving the natural visual character of the area "

This committee recalls that the phrase "The previous land use approvals in the Forest Lakes project are acknowledged,........" was not one that the original committee stated. We recall during those discussions that the original committee believed that a 5 acre density was the appropriate density throughout the sub area including this property.

Perhaps a previous review does grant some specific density, perhaps not. The answer to that question lies with others, not with this committee. The original update committee dealt with the question of what is right and appropriate for the Sub Area. The continuing committee believes the Preliminary Plan does a good job at being "sensitive to the surrounding existing and planned lower density uses" and indeed believes the plan is very well done - if you accept the premise that you must have 467 dwelling units on this property. Clearly the Comprehensive Plan indicates the density throughout the Sub Area should be 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. That is still a reasonable conclusion given that the adjoining subdivisions are 5 acre lots and adjoining parcels even larger. We see nothing about this property that indicates the density should be any different. Nor do we see anything in the sub area that has changed to suggest higher densities are now appropriate. The proposed density is not compatible and cannot reasonably be made compatible. If the applicant has some legal right to a higher density, perhaps it is appropriate to discuss a density transfer allowing those additional dwelling units to be constructed in another location where they are suitable. As proposed, Forest Lakes is completely at odds with the nature of the Twin Valley Sub Area.

Section 5.0-Transportation; highlights the inadequacy of many of the sub area roads. Baptist Road and its interchange at I-25 are understood by everyone to be inadequate. Any relief there is years away at best and in the meantime previously approved development to the east continues to exacerbate the problem The impact to this interchange from this proposal is quite significant. The applicant proposes nothing to help.

Much discussion and debate occurred during the update to the comprehensive plan regarding transportation in the Sub Area and the southerly extension of Mitchell Road into the Twin Valley Sub Area was seen as a necessity for saws sake, as the railroad crossing on Baptist Road can be (and has been) blocked for long periods of time, preventing even emergency access into the sub area. The Forest Lakes Preliminary Plan indicates an access to Rickenbacker Avenue to the north as well as an emergency (only?) access at Lindbergh Road in Pine Hills. Rickenbacker is not an arterial road but it would become one. It is true that this connection would help to alleviate the emergency service problem But it does so at the expense of that neighborhood. Without a second arterial connection into the Sub Area however, traffic would be blocked at the railroad crossing and motorists would either try to use an emergency access or they would simply be stranded within or without the sub area. In fact, the traffic impact study indicates queues up to 870 feet in length waiting for a train. That's about 44 cars sitting in line. The impact of this proposal is such that a second full use access, arterial in nature, is required to support it.

Even with a second full use arterial access, there still exists the question of the adequacy of the one primary and only current access. The railroad right of way parallels and adjoins the flood plain of Monument Creek. A one lane (each way) bridge built about 1995 crosses the creek. It was designed and built to accommodate the truck traffic from the gravel pit which recently received county approval for further expansion. Railroad track usage in the future can be expected to be higher than it is now if or no other reason than an increased coal demand throughout southern Colorado. Indeed, should the railroad desire, the existing right of way could permit a second track to be constructed to handle increased train traffic. Adding thousands of vehicle trips a day to this crossing is highly excessive and cannot be ignored. Without relief long queues must be expected in both directions. Also there is always a safety concern for any at grade railroad crossing. Increasing the traffic at the crossing only exacerbates the problem and the likelihood of an incident. The elementary school site means school buses in this mix as well. The applicant offers no solution.

It appears the solution to the problem would be a bridge crossing both Monument Creek and the railroad track. Obviously, this will be expensive. Who should be responsible for paying for this? One school of thought is the responsible party is the one that added the straw that broke the camel's back. Another is that the taxpayers in general are responsible as the improvements benefit all who may use hem The 2000 Update believes development should pay its own way - that is, this proposal should be responsible for the infrastructure it requires, and that infrastructure should be in place by the time it is needed. It would be quite a burden on these 467 homeowners to pay all those millions in cost.

And what of the increased traffic that will travel through the town of Monument to access the 105/I-25 interchange? They still have to cross the railroad at Third Street and drive through the middle of town to the interchange. We understand funding has once again been approved for this interchange but we wonder if it was designed to accommodate Forest Lakes? Was Third Street?

Section 6.0 - Water and Wastewater. We were not provided documentation but we know this proposal is within the Forest Lakes Metropolitan District. Generally the approval of residential dwelling units at 1 dwelling unit per acre density is problematical in the Tri Lakes area (and most of Colorado) from an onsite water availability standpoint. Perhaps water is available to the District from elsewhere? Can it be brought here? Will it last? We should remember too that even Metropolitan Districts sometimes go broke when revenue expectations from lot sales don't materialize. Depending on the water both legally and physically available, a minimum five acre density may be prudent or even necessary to provide a sufficient dependable supply and to prevent injury to existing neighboring water users. This awareness was one of the factors that the original committee considered during its density deliberations.

There are other concerns as well The USAF Academy lies 1/2 mile south of the project. This portion of the Academy is known as Jack's Valley and it has long been designated and used for live and simulated weapons firing. These are considerable noise makers. Too, helicopters and other Academy aircraft traverse the Twin Valley sub area on a frequent basis. A high density neighborhood could severely curtail this nationally important function or even shut it down - as the neighbors to the south are now trying to curtail Academy flying operations.

A basic premise of most zoning ordinances is the idea that all land uses are acceptable, but that there are locations where some are more suitable than others. This property is well suited to residential use but it is not suited to the proposed density.

All development imposes impacts and requires infrastructure. It is fair and reasonable to expect that a proposed development mitigate the impacts it creates and provide the required infrastructure. The applicant proposes nothing.

In summary, the Tri Lakes 2000 Update does not support either the rezoning request or the Preliminary Plat request. Water availability and stability are a real concern of the neighbors. The inevitable encroachment on the activities of the USAFA is simply not in our national interests. The transportation impacts are enormous, from the need to upgrade the existing access with a bridge to the need to create a second full time arterial access, the right-of-way for which is not now available; to the impact to the Baptist Road Interchange as well as the volume of traffic that will go through the town of Monument and then impact the Highway 105 Interchange. The proposed density is the causal factor underlying these impacts and is in and of itself, the largest problem. It is simply not appropriate within this sub area and indeed would drastically alter the character of the entire area. Further, the applicant has provided no information to indicate such a drastic change is warranted. The Tri lakes area has changed fundamentally in the 17 years since the County's previous reviews on this property. That realization was a primary reason the Tri Lakes Comprehensive Plan was updated. Any evaluation from that earlier time needs to be rethought. New solutions are possible. None are presented.

NORTHERN EL PASO COUNTY COALITION OF COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS, INC. commented as follows:

The NEPCO Land Use Committee has been pleased to review this proposal. In particular, we are pleased by the "470 acres…to be open space or parks" and by the US Fish and Wildlife "no impact" letter. We also strongly support the Forest Lakes LLC's intent to use curbs and gutters "to appropriately collect run-off." This demonstrated concern for the environment is heartening.

We submit the following comments on roads, water, and wildfire risk.

Transportation and water are two major concerns addressed in the Twin Valley- sub-area # 6 of the 2000 Tri-Lakes Comprehensive Plan. On the subject of roads within the development, this application requests a waiver "for the use of private streets…owned and maintained by a Homeowners Association or the Forest Lakes Metropolitan District." Based on our experience, we can approve this waiver only if the streets are owned and maintained by the Metro District. On the subject of Baptist Road specifically, we suggest that traffic lights at I-25 (similar to the 105 interchange) be considered as an interim solution and that these lights become operational before any dwelling is occupied. In any case, a plan on Baptist Road improvements should be approved prior to acceptance of this plan. And finally, the at-grade Railroad crossing concerns us because it puts the safety of possibly thousands at risk unnecessarily. These three road issues must be addressed before approval of the final plat.

The 2000 Tri-Lakes Comprehensive Plan states that "The availability, quality and reliability of water…are a concern and a constraint." Our contact in Pine Hills has stated that "There are a few houses on the upslopes, which now no longer have aquifer water under them due to a recession in the unlying (sic) strata. The homeowners there have to truck in water and store it in cisterns." Given this information, the NEPCO Land Use Committee is not comfortable that there is sufficient water for this development.

And finally, with the National Forest interface, the threat of wildfire is an immediate concern. This issue has not been addressed and we would like to see predevelopment fire mitigation assessment performed by a wildland fire mitigation specialist or a professional forester before approval.

To summarize, we recommend approval of the Sketch Plan provided the following conditions are met:

1) Change the waiver statement to read "for the use of private streets…owned and maintained by the Forest Lakes Metropolitan District."
2) Provide a Phasing Plan on Baptist Road improvements, to include signal lights at I-25.
3) Provide a Phasing Plan for a grade-separated rail crossing on Baptist Road.
4) Show that the Forest Lakes Metro District satisfies the El Paso County 300 year water rule.
5) Provide a predevelopment fire mitigation assessment performed by a wildland fire mitigation specialist or a professional forester.

PUD STANDARDS

STAFF NOTE: A PUD (Planned Unit Development) District request requires the submission of a Development Plan. In many instances, a Preliminary Plan is submitted as both the Development Plan and Preliminary Plan which is the case here. Therefore, certain Preliminary Plan aspects will be discussed as part of this request, particularly those that relate to comprehensive plan elements.

In considering a rezoning to PUD (Planned Unit Development) District, the following criteria must be addressed; which are contained within Section 16 N. of the Land Development Code

1) That proper posting, publication, and public notice was provided as required by law for the hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners of El Paso County.

(Such notices, publication and public notice have been accomplished to the degree they are required.)

2) That the hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners were extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and reviewed, and that all interested parties were heard at those hearings.

(Finding would be based on the prior Planning Commission as well as this Board of County Commissioners hearing.)

3) That the proposed land use will be compatible with existing and permitted land uses in the surrounding area, and will be in harmony and responsive with the character of the surrounding area.

(The Planning Division believes the PUD Development Plan is very responsive to the surrounding properties within the limits of allowing 467 dwelling unit. This is a substantially greater net density than exists on the surrounding properties.)

4) That the proposed land use does not permit the use of any area containing a commercial mineral deposit in a manner which would interfere with the present or future extraction of such deposit by an extractor.

(There are a number of potential commercial deposits on the property. The Board will ultimately need to make a finding that these areas are essentially unavailable for mining due to a preponderance of natural systems and aesthetic factors. Staff would support this finding.)

5) That a need for the development is demonstrated.

(The applicant should make this case, but it appears evident there would be a significant market for sites in a high-end housing development, located in a beautiful natural setting and conveniently located in proximity to the Interstate and the metropolitan area.)

6) That existing and proposed public services and facilities are adequate for the proposed development, and that proposed public services and facilities will be timely provided.

(Staff believes this case can be made subject to proposed conditions and the need for a Development Agreement. It is noted that sewer capacity is available and the applicant has provided documentation of sufficient available water rights. A Metropolitan District (Forest Lakes Metropolitan District) is in place for the property. However, it is largely inactive at this time and is encumbered with outstanding debt and other limiting obligations.)

7) That the existing and proposed internal/external transportation network is suitable and adequate to carry the anticipated traffic generated by the proposed development, and that the proposed transportation network improvements will be timely provided.

(This topic is discussed at length in other staff comments. Staff believes this finding may be made subject to the Development Agreement. It is further noted that residents of this development may not have a fully urban standard of road access and capacity, most notably due to limited access options, substantial travel times and possible delays due to the at-grade railroad crossing.)

8) That the proposed development will not have a negative effect upon the existing and future development of the surrounding area.

(This development will be designed to meet high standards. However, compared with the current undeveloped state of the property or a five-acre minimum lot size alternative, the Plan will have some density-related impacts on the surrounding properties. As discussed later in more detail, one substantial impact on some properties to the north will be increased traffic from those areas which would now move south through the Forest Lakes development.)

9) That the proposed PUD District zoning will achieve and advance the stated purposes set forth in this Section, and is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity, and welfare of the citizens of El Paso County.

(Staff believes this finding can be made.)

As set forth in Section 24-67-104 (1) (f), C.R.S., a finding by the County that such PUD District rezoning request is in general conformity with the Master Plan or any amendment thereto is required.

(The Master Plan is discussed at length in other staff comments.)

Planning Division COMMENTS

1) Although there are a variety of issues pertinent to the decision to approve or not approve this PUD zoning plan and accompanying Preliminary Plan, staff suggests the following are paramount:

A) VALIDITY OF THE EXISTING SKETCH PLAN

As has been discussed previously in these Comments, the position of the Planning Division staff is that the original 1983 Sketch Plan has never technically lapsed. Certain steps were taken to implement it, including the initial zoning to R (Residential) District, the construction of the lakes, the building of a sewage treatment plant and the approval of a now lapsed Preliminary Plan. The applicants have an intent to rely on this document. This intent has been generally supported by staff during the past several years.

Conversely, the Sketch Plan approval is about 18 years old and little formal progress had been made on development since the mid-1980s. As noted in the chronology of County actions, the only approved rezoning of the property, to R (Residential) District, never was a good match for the proposed land uses. Additionally, the currently proposed Preliminary Plan is only generally consistent with the original Sketch Plan. Areas of consistency include uses (residential and school) density (466 units - now changed to 467 due to additional acreage) and the general concept of clustering. Differences include the deletion of two of the four proposed lakes, substantially altered placement of the dwelling units on the property, a different internal road pattern and a change in the minimum area of the smallest allowable lot from 20,000 to about 3,200 square feet.

The bottom line position of staff on this issue is that, given its age and changing circumstances, the existing Sketch Plan primarily has value as a general guiding benchmark for land use plans and expectations. Although the Planning Division is basing part of its recommendation for approval on this document, it by no means represents a legal entitlement to the applicant. Essentially, the PUD Development Plan, if approved, would largely supplant the original Sketch Plan.

B) CONSISTENCY OR INCONSISTENCY WITH THE UPDATED TRI-LAKES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

The adopted 2000 Tri-Lakes Comprehensive Plan (1999) includes a specific textual land use scenario which addresses Twin Valleys sub-area. The entire sub-area description and scenario are excerpted as an attachment to these Comments. The development of this language was a very controversial process with many area residents advocating for lower densities and less acknowledgement of the prior Forest Lakes Plans. At the same time the owners of this property and representatives of the District advocated for recognition of the prior plans and their presumed density. The end result was the following language which essentially set a "dual standard" for this planning area. It recognized the preferability of a minimum five-acre standard throughout the majority of the area while acknowledging the existence of the Forest Lakes project as somewhat of a preexisting condition which was not entirely within the character with the balance of the area. The language goes on to advocate for any modifications of prior plans to only be approved if they serve to increase the degree of compatibility with adjoining lower density uses. The exact language in this scenario is excerpted below, with some of the key paragraphs highlighted:

TWIN-VALLEY - LAND USE SCENARIO
This sub-area should remain primarily rural residential with lot sizes averaging five acres exclusive of roads and tracts not devoted to open space areas. Large lot clustering options, utilizing minimum 2 ½ acre lots should be considered only if there is strict adherence to this overall density approach and if adequate mechanisms for implementation are available.

(While this proposed PUD Development Plan is clearly not consistent with the first general paragraph in the Twin-Valley scenario, staff believes it is consistent with the third qualifying paragraph.)

Limited higher density mixed-use development may be appropriate east of the Union Pacific rail right-of-way, providing adequate facilities and services are available. If developed, these uses should provide employment opportunities for residents of the Tri-Lakes area.

(This paragraph is not applicable to the subject property and strongly implies that non-residential or mixed uses are not appropriate west of the railroad tracks.)

The previous land use approvals in the Forest Lakes project are acknowledged, but it is noted that the development within this property should be sensitive to the surrounding existing and planned lower-density uses. For this reason, adherence to the originally approved clustering plan is strongly recommended. Standard platting in accordance with the existing R (Residential) zoning is strongly discouraged. Any non-residential uses that may be proposed for this parcel should be shown to clearly have cumulative development impacts equal to or less than those of the approved plan.

(Staff believes the proposed plan is consistent with these statements. What is essentially being proposed is the previous land use approval with considerable internal adjustments, but adhering to the original density cap. Considerable sensitivity has been shown to most adjoining properties. It is noted that lots to the north that overlook either of the westerly two clusters will be significantly impacted visually. Additionally, owners along Lindbergh Road will experience a considerable increase in traffic.

Standard platting will not be used, and the existing R (Residential) District zoning will be eliminated. Staff believes cumulative impacts are less than the original plan.)

Regardless of its location, all development within Twin Valley should be designed in a manner which is especially sensitive preserving to the natural visual character of the area.

(Within the constraints of a higher overall density than the surrounding areas, the project shows a great deal of this sensitivity.)

Various opportunities for acquisition and/or preservation of open space should be pursued and implemented within this sub-area if possible. The continued operation of one or more of the existing ranches in Twin Valley should be encouraged through the use of conservation easements or other means. Limited public access to the National Forest land to the west should be considered, most likely through the Forest Lakes property. The setting aside of areas within Twin Valley as part of Prebles Mouse mitigation plan should be encouraged.

(A great deal of open space will be preserved if this plan is approved. This would be considerably more than with a standard five-acre development even after accounting for land which might not be available for inclusion in lots due to Mouse constraints. Limited non-motorized access to the National Forest will be accommodated.)

Transportation access to this sub-area should be improved in a manner which does not subject the area to undo development impacts and pressures. West Baptist Road should be improved, and a second point of access should be carefully considered and implemented if feasible. A grade-separated rail crossing should be installed at the earliest opportunity, and the County should continue to cooperate with property owners in the upgrading of existing roads for acceptance into its maintenance system.

(A second point of access would be implemented if this project were approved. There is an issue as to the "impacts and pressures" this will cause. Through the proposed Development Agreement, construction of a grade-separated rail crossing might be accelerated but would not be guaranteed.)

All plans for new and expanded development should be carefully evaluated and conditioned to provide assurances water supplies will be adequate and water resources will be conserved. Options for using the existing impoundments in the Forest Lakes development for renewable water supplies should be fully considered. Options for reuse of non-potable water from the Forest Lakes sewage treatment plant should also be supported as an additional means of conserving water. The potential impacts of future land and water development on existing shallow wells should be carefully evaluated and approved plans should be designed and conditioned to minimize these impacts.

(Staff and the State Engineer's Office believe the proposed water supply is adequate. This ultimate determination would be dependent on meeting a number of County Attorney's Office conditions. A non-potable system is not being considered at this time. As there will only be a few deep wells, impacts to adjoining shallow wells should be limited.)

Development in this planning unit should be coordinated with the USAFA and then Town or Monument and should be consistent with the goals and guidelines set forth in the I-25 Corridor Visual Overlay.

(Visual impacts associated with this property are primarily to and from the adjoining properties to the north, south and west, and not from or to Interstate 25. The Air Force Academy and Monument have provided limited comments.)

C) QUALITY OF THE CLUSTERING PLAN

The Planning Division believes that the proposed project is an excellent example of a true cluster development. Presuming that proposed number of dwellings (467) was determined to be acceptable, staff believes the approach used to cluster them is highly advantageous compared with spreading them more evenly across the landscape. Close to 50% of the project will be preserved as open space. Included in this area are much of the naturally sensitive areas, as well as many of the steep slopes. Although none of the residential units in this development will be particularly affordable, there will be a variety of density and housing type options available.

D) OFF-SITE TRANSPORTATION

Aside from general land use issues, the topic of off-site traffic has been the most significant one from the County staff perspective. The principal areas of concern have been the requirement for a second access point to the development and the responsibility of this developer for upgrades to the existing Baptist Road Railroad crossing and a potential extension of Mitchell Avenue from Baptist north into the Town of Monument.

1. Lindbergh Connection

The primary point of access for this development will be from a short constructed segment of Baptist Road to Baptist Road, and from there to and from Interstate 25. Presently, there is no secondary access from the subject property. Moreover, no north-south access currently exists at any point west of the Denver and Rio Grande railroad tracks.

Staff had originally requested the applicant depict a total of two (2) secondary access points from the subject property. One would connect north at Lindbergh Drive and the other west at Diamondback into the existing Green Mountain Ranch subdivision. After considerable discussion (and objection from the property owners to the west) staff agreed to the deletion of the Diamondback connection , in favor of an emergency-only access at that point. The justification for this position is that this access would have provided limited benefit because it would have directed traffic back around onto Hay Creek Road and eventually funneled it to the same railroad crossing used as the main entrance to the project.

Conversely, the Lindbergh connection to the north would provide a secondary access away from the Baptist Road Railroad crossing. Although there could be some issue taken with the applicant's traffic report, its essential implications are clear and difficult to argue with. If the Lindbergh connection is made, the impact on what is now essentially a dead-end rural residential street will be significant. At buildout the total traffic on this segment will increase from less than 100 trips per day along some stretches, to over 1,000 trips per day. The vast majority of these trips will not be from the Forest Lakes development. Rather, they will be from the Pine Hills neighborhood and surrounding subdivisions. Through the Lindbergh connection, Forest Lakes will afford a pathway south to Interstate 25 which does not exist at this time. While this pathway may be considered an overall advantage to the residents of the area, the local impact to residents along the route will be substantial. From a practical standpoint, this increase in traffic will likely trigger the need to pave the portion of Lindbergh that is now gravel surfaced. The proposed Development Agreement would require Forest Lakes to escrow sufficient dollars with the County to complete this paving, at the initiation of the County.

Despite its impact to and from the Pine Hills neighborhood, staff strongly recommends that the Lindbergh connection be required. This has important safety implications throughout the entire sub-region. This recommendation would hold regardless of the exact density allowed for the project.

2. Mitchell Connection

A north-south connection of Mitchell Avenue has been depicted as a "major corridor" on the County's plans for at least 15 years. On this basis, staff had originally proposed conditions which would hold up the second phase of the Forest Lakes project until there was a final determination as to whether a Mitchell extension would be needed and constructed.

The original (1983) Forest Lakes plan had shown Mitchell connecting north to Rickenbacker Avenue, which is a local street. When that option was pursued in the mid-1990s there was a natural resistance from the neighbors. The County then proposed a formal alignment study which would have been primarily funded with Federal transportation dollars. As this study was about to be initiated it was decided that it should be delayed due to Prebles Mouse considerations and higher external priorities (i.e. Woodmen Road).

During the intervening period it has become more evident that Mitchell will be a difficult connection due to a combination of topographic impediments, lack of high traffic demand and a currently unwilling property owner (the Watt family).

It is further becoming more clear to staff of both the County and Monument that the higher near-term priority for a north-south arterial road will be Old Denver Highway which parallels Interstate 25 to the east of the Railroad tracks.

After discussions between the applicants and staff, it is now recommended that "fair share" financial participation in Mitchell be substituted for an actual trigger for construction. The proposed Development Agreement would obligate this project to a per-lot contribution toward the cost of a potential future connection. However, it should be noted clearly that this contribution would be limited to the fairly negligible assignment of trips from this project to Mitchell going north. As such, the contribution of this project will not go very far in actually getting any Mitchell connection built.

It should be further noted that staff is now assuming, at least for the time being, that a four-lane arterial section for Mitchell will never be necessary, considering the low density development which characterizes most areas west of the Railroad tracks.

3. Railroad Crossing

Participation in the Railroad crossing has been the most significant off-site transportation issue with this project. Again, a triggering mechanism was originally proposed on the basis that getting from the current at-grade crossing to a grade-separated overpass was a paramount safety consideration. In response, the applicants have submitted information and arguments to support the case that the existing at-grade crossing is safe (from an accident standpoint) both for existing traffic and increased future traffic. If this logic is accepted, the key issue then shifts to one of congestion and secondary safety impacts. According to the traffic study submitted by the applicants, the development of this project will result in significant queues (back-ups) during periods when trains pass by. However, these back-ups do not substantially add to the delay of a give driver beyond the four (4) minutes or so they have to wait for the train in any case.

As noted in agency comments for the Preliminary Plan, the chief of the Tri-Lakes Fire District, the Deputy County Fire Marshal, and the Coordinator the El Paso County Emergency Services Authority (ESA) have all been contacted concerning the issue of response times. In no case have these entities made a strong recommendation for the construction of a grade-separated overpass at this time. In particular it was pointed out that the Fire Chief has the ability to stop the trains in the event of an emergency. Additionally, Forest Lakes will have an on-site water supply for fire protection. This is currently not available on the west side of the tracks.

The extent of the delay has been the subject of considerable analysis and discussion. The applicant's traffic studies estimate a total of 30 trains per day (24 hours) with an average delay of about two minutes. Actual one-day counts provided by residents of Green Mountain Ranch put the number of trips in 24 hours at 23, but the time of average delay was over four minutes. It has also been noted by the neighbors that periodically (possibly every few weeks) a train ends up blocking the tracks for an extended period (in some cases on the order of one hour). The impact of the occasional major delays would be to potentially create a situation where drivers might decide to take an alternate route through the Town of Monument.

Based on the foregoing circumstances and information, County staff have shifted to a position of requiring a "fair share" contribution to the ultimate construction of a Railroad crossing, rather than having any discrete triggering obligation.

The bottom line under the proposed arrangement is that the project could be completely built out without any guarantee that the crossing would be constructed. The only guarantee would be that this development would have contributed a fair share of the cost.

4. Development Agreement Approach

Irrespective of the exact nature of the participation concept which is ultimately agreed to, staff believes the best approach to off-site transportation obligations is through a Development Agreement. Proposed Condition #1 sets forth the basic parameters for this Agreement. The following are some key issues:

- Cost Estimates
The applicants have provided cost estimates for the key projects (Lindbergh paving, Mitchell extension and Railroad crossing). These are attached, and once technically approved by the El Paso County Department of Transportation, would be included as attachments to the Development Agreement. For Mitchell and the Railroad crossing, staff have agreed that a high standard two-lane arterial is an adequate basis for a cost estimate. Details are still being discussed. In the case of the Railroad crossing the obligation of the Railroad (50% of certain costs) is factored out.

- Developer's Share of the Traffic
The next calculation involves determining this development's share of the total trips which will use Mitchell or the crossing. These numbers are based in the traffic studies and are still under discussion.

- Discount for Baptist Road Rural Transportation Authority (BRRTA) Participation and other Revenue Sources
Implicit in the calculation of any final per dwelling unit obligation is some accommodation for the fact that this development will be paying in to the BRRTA, presently at the rate of $500 per unit. At least some of these revenues would logically be presumed to go to the Railroad crossing. However, staff points out that BRRTA is not in a position to fund all of the improvements identified in their ongoing inventory of needs. In particular, the BRRTA planning estimate for the Railroad crossing was only $1.5 million as compared with the current $4.4 million figure (which itself is subject to change).

The further discounting for "other sources of revenue" is based on the presumption that either these facilities will be used by other regional traffic or the residents of the development should be entitled to the benefit of some general tax revenues they create.

- Method of Payment
Built in to the framework for the draft agreement is an option for the developer to either pay the agreed-upon per-lot assessment to the County up front at the time of platting or "cause the payment to be made" at a later time.

The applicants are now proposing to use the Forest Lakes Metropolitan District as the vehicle to provide this assurance.

The applicants have provided a calculation which they believe states they would have sufficient bonding capacity to allow use of the District to support this obligation.

The recommendation of staff at this time is that the option of using the District to guarantee a future assessment is not advisable. Subject to legal and technical review, staff do not object to use of the District as a mechanism to collect an agreed-upon fee at building permit. This would allow the developer to defer the obligation from the platting stage.

E. COMPARATIVE DENSITIES

Because the issue of comparative and net densities is of major importance in this decision, staff provides the following possible calculation scenarios. It should be emphasized that these calculations are hypothetical and/or estimated except for the current proposed plan. They are provided solely to allow a sense for relative numbers.

Scenario Allowable Dwelling Units
1) Current Plan 467
2) Gross Five-Acre Density 198
3) Net Five-Acre Density 150
4) Current R (Residential) District Zoning 1,000 (approx.)
5) Five-Acre with Additional Density Bonus 150 - 198+

The current plan scenario is self-explanatory. (Scenario 2, the Gross Five-Acre Density Scenario would merely take the total property (990 acres) and divided by five to derive a density ceiling. This is essentially what was done in the Mountain Dance subdivisions in the western Black Forest. Because property needs to be netted out for roads, non-residential uses and non-buildable areas as part of actual subdivision design, this calculation amounts to a density bonus when compared with the five-acre minimum lot area requirement. It is also noted that the Tri-Lakes Twin-Valley scenario does not support this bonus for the balance of this sub-area.

Scenario 3) (Net Five-Acre Density) provides a very general estimate of the net lot production which would be achievable if all lots were kept at five acres or larger. The school site, roads and the lakes are netted out. It is also assumed that some of the Prebles Mouse habitat could be included in lots as non-buildable area. For example, a lot could be designed to be 800 feet long and 200+ feet wide with the back 600 feet being located in steep terrain or in Mouse habitat and unbuildable.

Scenario 4) is a very generalized estimate of potential lot production if all buildable areas of the site were covered to the maximum with 20,000 square foot lots as theoretically allowable under the current R (Residential) District zoning. This scenario assumes all of the Prebles Mouse habitat as being off limits, and further nets out considerable areas for non-residential uses, roads, the lakes and steep slope areas.

Scenario 5) is open-ended but would allow the developer an additional density bonus over Scenario 1) or 2) in exchange for major clustering. As an example the Black Forest Club in the eastern Black Forest was essentially granted an additional bonus of about 7.5% more lots over and above a gross calculation. This was in return for the dedication of substantial open space including a wildlife corridor.

The general picture that emerges is that the current proposed plan numerically equates to a lot production of about three times what would be allowed under RR-3 (Rural Residential) District zoning. If a gross five-acre approach were used the lot production would still be over two and one-half times lower than the current plan. Conversely, using the existing R (Residential) District zoning, the developer could probably net over twice as many lots as are now being proposed.

2) The Planning Division's recommendation for approval is based on the following premises:

A. Although it is far short of a legal entitlement, the applicants should have some ability to rely on the existing, albeit dated Sketch Plan. This Plan has never formally lapsed. Although there have been long periods of dormancy in this project, there have been significant efforts to move it forward. These include the original zoning and subdivision approvals, creation of a Special District, construction of the lakes and sewage treat