Memorandum

To:          Clear Creek County Planning Commission

CC:         Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners

From:     Frederick Rollenhagen, Planning Director, Project Manager, Floyd Hill Gateway Subregional Master Plan

Date:      11/13/2009

Please review and bring your Copies of the Master Plan document to the Public Hearing

Planning Commission Public Hearing: September 16, 2009

On September 16, 2009 at a regular scheduled meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider certification of the newly-prepared Floyd Hill Gateway Subregional Master Plan.  The document was prepared by Norris Design, the County’s planning consultant, under the guidance of the Floyd Hill Gateway Subregional Master Plan Steering Committee.

During this meeting, the Planning Commission heard a presentation from County Staff and Norris Design, providing an overview of the document.  The Planning Commission proceeded to take public comment of which the vast majority of commenters were residents of Floyd Hill explaining their dissatisfaction for certain conceptual alternatives identified in the document that describe potential additional residential and commercial growth for the Hill.  In addition, there were comments made that question the accuracy and validity of the Market Assessment, asserting that it is overly-optimistic in its growth projections, that it is making false assumptions, or that the information is flawed.

Steering Committee Recommendation

There was not a formal response, comment, or recommendation from the Steering Committee, however, it should be noted that a majority of Steering Committee members have expressed support for the current draft of the Master Plan before it was presented to the Planning Commission.  The dissent on the Steering Committee has largely come from the three homeowners’ association representatives, for similar reasons that Floyd Hill residents express their dissent.

While the Steering Committee was very close to coming to an agreement on specific language regarding Level II, it came down to disagreement on the topic of specifying particular infrastructure requirements in the master plan for Level II to be considered for development.  While the three homeowners’ association members asked for assurances to be described in the document that Level II could only be contemplated under certain infrastructure scenarios, eight of the other members believed that such assurances described in the document are not appropriate because, 1) A full detailed study of infrastructure needs has not been completed yet (in fact this is a recommended step to move forward after this master planning process is complete), 2) It goes without saying that any type of development must have infrastructure integral to the plan proposed and is already a requirement by the County’s Zoning regulations, and 3) Level II is not unique in requiring certain infrastructure and should not be singled out.  Every level of development proposed, whether identified in this document or otherwise, must be reviewed to determine appropriate infrastructure levels.

Since no particular language was agreed upon by all of the Steering Committee members, no collective recommendation was made for the Planning Commission.

It should be noted here that, as a matter of relevancy, the purpose of the alternatives study in the master plan is not to identify an alternative that is desired or not desired as if they are finite products, therefore it does not make sense to place provisions in the master plan for developing any of the alternatives nor does it make sense to remove information describing any of the alternatives.  Rather, the intent is to describe three potential alternatives, out of an infinite number that could occur, in order to achieve the insight of information generated by studying them.  Every benefit to be had by the alternatives study has already been obtained because we now have the information.  If the County had more funding, the master plan would have studied more alternatives.

Staff Review of the Planning Commission Motion and Decision

After deliberations, the Planning Commission made a motion, seconded, and approved the document.  Although the motion confused Planning Staff as to what the Planning Commission wanted done, it appeared to Staff that the Planning Commission wanted to remove references to the Level 2 alternative scenario from the document as if the references implied that Level 2 was a desired alternative.  It appeared to Staff that the Planning Commission wanted to communicate their opinion that a Level 2 scenario is not desired.  It also occurred to Staff that the Planning Commission could do this without substantially changing the document, such as communicating its opinion about Level 2 or any other alternative scenario, in its Resolution for approval.  By doing this, the Commission would effectively communicate its opinions about specific alternatives, and it would also preserve the integrity of the document and allow the County to retain the analysis and information that it contains in the evaluation of three land use alternatives rather than only two.

Planning Commission Meeting: October 21, 2009

On October 21, 2009 at the Planning Commission’s regular scheduled meeting, Planning Staff brought forward a draft Resolution that explained what Staff perceived to be the Planning Commission’s feelings in September.  The draft Resolution explained that a Level 2 scenario is not desired, but that the document, as written is certified.  During that meeting, rather than adopting the draft Resolution, the Planning Commission made a motion to amend its decision from September.  A second was provided, and the Planning Commission tabled the motion to its next meeting on November 18, 2009, in order to provide time for legal notice to occur.

Planning Commission Public Hearing: November 18, 2009

The purpose of this Memo and the purpose of Staff’s presentation during this hearing is not to repeat the master plan presentation provided to you on September 16th.  All Planning Commission members have a copy of the master plan and have the opportunity to review it.  Rather, it is Staff’s intention to provide background information as to the purpose, intention, and relevancy of this master planning effort in order to fill in gaps of which the Planning Commission may be unaware.  Staff is hopeful that by filling these gaps, the Planning Commission will have a thorough understanding of what this master planning effort has achieved and why it is successful.  Staff will ask Charles Choi present to the Commission this information.  Two years ago, Planning Staff solicited the help of Mr. Choi, aia.ncarb., a notable land use planner, architect, and current president of C.Y. Choi and Associates, P.C., to find an alternative method to prepare a master plan that could be relevant to Floyd Hill and the County in the long term than a standard master plan is.  Understanding that there exists externalities, growth trends, land use/transportation forces, and other decisions that occur beyond the County’s purview and understanding that the County is susceptible to these externalities, it became clear that a product-oriented master plan identifying a preferred land use alternative was not desired and therefore is not included in the current document.

In consideration of amendment to your decision from September, Staff presumes the Planning Commission wants to review its decision regarding the Level II development alternative.  However, should there be questions about any part of the document, Staff strongly encourages the Commission to do so, ask questions, and if Staff or Norris Design is unable to answer your questions, please allow us time to obtain answers prior to your making a final decision.

Attached to this Memo, you will find the following documents:

1.          Timeline

2.          Advisory Committee list of members

3.          Steering Committee list of members

4.          Steering Committee Mission Statement

5.          APA Magazine article: “Knot Exactly” by John McCarron

Floyd Hill Master Planning Advisory Committee 

Charles Choi will lead and facilitate the committee as the tenth member.

Once the committee is selected, they would convene, and make a recommendation to the Board regarding which consultant to choose.  If desired by the committee, oral interviews will be held with one or more of the consultants. 

 The Board of County Commissioners would then review the recommendation and make a decision. 

This committee may continue to be an advisory committee during the master planning process if desired by the BOCC.

Floyd Hill Gateway Master Plan Steering Committee 

 Steering Committee Mission Statement: It is the mission of the Floyd Hill Subregional Master Plan Steering Committee to assure the master planning process adequately incorporates all stakeholders, achieves a product that engages the changes for both external and internal influences/forces to the community as it evolves over time, meets county and municipality statutory requirements, and is implementable.