ITEM 1 - CALL TO ORDER

Mayor Burkholder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Lakewood Civic Center South, 480 South Allison Parkway, Lakewood, Colorado.

ITEM 2 - ROLL CALL

Those present were: Mayor Steve Burkholder, Presiding

Vicki Stack
Cheryl Wise
Debbie Koop
Bob Murphy
Sue King
Ed Peterson
Doug Anderson
Diana Allen
Mike Stevens
Ray Elliott

Absent: None

Others in attendance: Mike Rock, City Manager
Roger Noonan, City Attorney

Full and timely notice of this City Council meeting had been given and a quorum was present.

ITEM 3 - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

The following Consent Agenda items were read into the record by the City Clerk:

Mayor Burkholder stated he will be consolidating Item 4 with Item 10 for the public hearing to better facilitate the discussion.

ITEM 4 - MOVED BEFORE ITEM 10

ITEM 5 - RESOLUTION 2006-44 - ASSIGNING AND TRANSFERRING TO THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO, A PORTION OF THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD'S 2006 ALLOCATION FROM THE STATE CEILING FOR PRIVATE ACTIVITY BONDS TO FINANCE RESIDENTIAL HOUSING FACILITIES FOR LOW- AND MIDDLE-INCOME PERSONS AND FAMILIES WITHIN THE CITY AND CERTAIN OTHER CITIES AND COUNTIES IN THE STATE OF COLORADO; AUTHORIZING THE DELEGATION TO THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUANCE OF SINGLE FAMILY HOME MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS (THE "BONDS") TO FINANCE RESIDENTIAL HOUSING FACILITIES FOR LOW AND MIDDLE INCOME PERSONS AND FAMILIES WITHIN THE CITY AND CERTAIN OTHER CITIES AND COUNTIES IN THE STATE OF COLORADO; APPROVING SUCH BONDS AND THE SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGE LOAN PROGRAM; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A DELEGATION AND PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT, AN ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH

ITEM 6 - RESOLUTION 2006-45 - AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY AND SWANHORST & COMPANY LLC, CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS, TO PERFORM THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT AUDIT FOR THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD, COLORADO

ITEM 7 - ORDINANCE O-2006-16 - TRANSFERRING RESERVE FUNDS FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND FOR PURPOSES OF FUNDING A CHANGE ORDER TO THE 2006 OVERLAY AND PATCHING PROGRAM, APPROVING A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATION IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CHANGE ORDER; FURTHER DECLARING AN EMERGENCY

ITEM 8 - APPROVING MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING

Regular City Council Meeting July 10, 2006

ITEM 9 - ACCEPTING MINUTES OF THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

Lakewood Commission on June 7, 2006
Cultural Diversity and Human
Relations Meeting
Lakewood Senior Citizens Advisory June 14, 2006
Commission Meeting

Public Comment: None.

Councilman Peterson made a motion to approve the council minutes, accept the minutes of the boards and commissions, order all ordinances introduced on first reading to be published in the Rocky Mountain News and public hearings set for the date included in the ordinance, and adoption of resolutions, all of which are included in the Consent Agenda items introduced into the record by the City Clerk. It was seconded by Councilwoman Wise.

Councilman Anderson requested Item 5 be pulled so he can get a description of the items. Asked that Finance Director Larry Dorr give him an explanation of Item 5.

Finance Director Larry Dorr stated the Metro Mayors Caucus has been in existence for eight years. The collective cities have endeavored to issue mortgage revenue bonds that allow for first time home buyers to obtain their first home. Stated the program is marketed through the City of Lakewood Housing and Family Services Division. With no cost to the City, families are able to buy their first home.

Councilman Anderson stated he is a little leary that there is no cost to the program and asked where the money comes from.

Larry Dorr stated the Metro Mayors Caucus receives pro-bono work from law firms that help create the structure that allow these bonds to be issued. Investors loan money for the creation of these bonds, borrowers then use that money to buy homes and the borrowers repay principal and interest for their home loan which goes back to the investor.

Councilman Anderson asked if the servicing is done by local area banks.

Larry Dorr stated the individual home buyers are able to go around to half a dozen lenders and all the servicing is done in a group that creates these bonds. There are servicing costs but those are generated by the borrowings. There is no cost that comes through to the City, County or State.

Councilman Anderson asked if the bond houses are contributing their piece to taking the bonds out to public.

Larry Dorr stated they don't waive their costs because they have some direct costs associated with marketing, they do exact some of their costs to make these things feasible. The mortgage lenders come to the table with discounted fees and costs to get the job done.

Mayor Burkholder stated this was a program that was instigated by the Metro Mayors Caucus. This is a unique organization and the City of Lakewood has become a role model.

Item 5 was not pulled from the Consent Agenda
Vote on the Consent Agenda: All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.

ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS

ITEM 4 - RESOLUTION 2006-43 - UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVING THE ODP MODIFICATION AND THE ODP MODIFICATION ALTERNATIVE TO THE SPRINGFIELD GREEN OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN

ITEM 10 - ORDINANCE O-2006-15 - REZONING 21.764 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED WITHIN IRON SPRING PARK, CITY OF LAKEWOOD; FURTHER APPROVING THE EXCHANGE OF SUCH 21.764 ACRES OF CITY OWNED PARKLAND, BEING A PORTION OF IRON SPRING PARK, FOR 21.771 ACRES OF PRIVATELY OWNED LAND, LOCATED SOUTH OF ALAMEDA PARKWAY AND WEST OF HUTCHINSONS GREEN MOUNTAIN VILLAGE FILINGS 54, 55, 56 AND 62; FURTHER, PROVIDING THAT THE LAND RECEIVED BY THE CITY SHALL BE USED FOR OPEN SPACE ANDPARK PURPOSES BY THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD

City Clerk Margy Greer entered into the record a legal protest petition for the official development plan modification for Springfield Green that was received on July 21st 2006. Stated the petition was found to be insufficient, stated a simple majority vote would pass the resolution.

Mayor Burkholder stated that a separate vote for each of those items will be taken after the public hearing and City Council discussion.

Public Hearing:

Public comments are not verbatim transcription but rather an attempt to capture the intent of the speaker by the City Clerk.

City Manager Mike Rock stated he would speak first, then Carma, the appraiser, and Kara from the planning staff. Stated he is City staff but also he is the applicant in this situation for the land exchange. Stated the first item is whether or not to uphold or overturn the Planning Commission decision on the modification of the ODP. Stated that the Planning Commission normally makes recommendations to City Council, in this case the Planning Commission made a decision and it is up to City Council to either uphold or overturn this decision. Stated the second item is the issue of implementing the buffer. The buffer is part of the Rooney Valley Master Plan. City Council needs to determine if the buffer is in public interest and whether it makes it better or worse in order to implement that buffer requires a land exchange. Stated buffers are normally in place to buffer or provide a barrier between incompatible uses. Here there are two residential uses that are butting up against each other. Stated the City staff believes the buffer is a valuable component. This is a "how to" decision, not a "what" decision. Stated the zoning on this piece of property was determined in 1982, the modification of the ODP is a "how to" document and that is why it is not coming as a zoning decision, but rather a determination. The modification of the ODP was approved unanimously by the Planning Commission. The exchange is being proposed by the City. Carma did not come to the City. Stated there is a master plan in place in the Rooney Valley and that was a cooperative effort between Jefferson County, the town of Morrison and the City of Lakewood. It was implemented a number of years ago. Stated the Master Plan deals with a cooperative approach to development in revenue sharing, a cooperative approach to provision of basic services in the valley and it also envisioned a number of corridors and buffers and the Master Plan specifically references the property that the City owns as potential exchange property in order to implement the buffers. Stated that when Rooney Valley was zoned in the early eighties it was zoned by Morrison and Lakewood and Jeffco with the intention to create a Denver Tech Center West, stated that zoning still exists today. Stated that if City Council decides it does not want the buffer, then the project would go ahead without the buffer. Stated the City believes the buffer is a better way to go. Stated that there has been some discussion about exchanging parkland property vs. selling parkland property and whether or not a vote is required. The distinction is that when the City sells park property it requires an election. Stated an exchange is something different, there is 7,154 acres of park and open space today, and if the exchange is approved, there will be the same amount plus an additional tenth of an acre. Stated that because of that distinction, the City has approached exchanges differently from sales. Normally the City exchanges acre for acre. The appraiser is here to discuss the exchange. When she first looked at the property her determination was that the land owned by Carma was worth between $2.00 and $2.50 per square foot, and land owned by the City is worth .80 per square foot. Stated that the City is not prepared to delay the project any further.

Tom Raganetti - 950 17th St Lakewood - Carma Representative
Stated that he is one of 3 speakers who will speak for Carma and he was at the Planning Commission hearing. Stated a brief bit of background is in order to understand the two items. Stated this property was zoned and platted in the early eighties. The plat had a note on it that said this was a very generic subdivision plat, and before any implementation be done on the property, it was requested that the developer come back with a master plan. Stated that under today's ordinances there is not a procedure that accommodates that but stated it is really an amendment to the existing ODP. The amendment to the ODP which was taken to the Planning Commission was meant to respond to that note on the plat. Stated that is the matter that is on appeal to City Council tonight. Stated subsequent to the zoning of this property, the City engaged in a process to come up with a newer plan for Rooney Valley which was done in the late nineties, that plan said that what the City really wanted to see was a buffer.

Tom Raganetti - continued
Stated that should the trade occur and the City get the buffer strip, then the developer would get a piece of City property that would have to be rezoned so that it could fit in with the rest of the development. Stated there are three good answers to why a developer would appeal a unanimous approval of one of their approvals. Stated that the first answer is that these two matters are intertwined. The second answer is that this is a plan that they believe is exemplary, and third there was always the possibility that someone else would have appealed the ODP and, had that occurred, it would have appeared at a time other than the land exchange and the rezoning of the exchanged property which would mean that the two things that are related would have been heard apart and that doesn't make much sense.

Doug Reed - Fine Line Consulting - 584 S. Race St, Denver, 80209
Stated he was present for the Planning Commission hearing and gave a presentation of the background of Springfield Green and its development pattern and gave a description of the layout the audience and City Council looked at on the projector. Stated it is important to understand the context of this project and how it got to where it is today. Stated this began in the early eighties. Much of the Rooney Valley was zoned and platted partially in the City of Lakewood and partially in the Town of Morrison. Much of the Rooney Valley was zoned for residential use at about seven dwelling units per acre. Stated that the Springfield Green ODP was approved by the City of Lakewood in 1982 and the Springfield Green plat was recorded in 1986. Stated that by 1992 the portions of the Green Mountain Subdivision that are adjacent to this property were platted. The Summit Glenn Subdivision was platted in 1994. The City of Lakewood, the Town of Morrison and Jefferson County entered into the Rooney Valley Master Plan process and the zoning that had been adopted in the early nineteen eighties has not been implemented. There was a feeling that the City should reexamine what has happened in the Rooney Valley and come up with a master plan that would be a better guide.

During the master plan process there was an attempt to have portions of the Rooney Valley acquired by Great Outdoors Colorado. That attempt was unsuccessful. Also an application from Jefferson County Open Space to purchase large portions of Rooney Valley in order to preserve it as open space was denied. In 1997 and 1998 there was a citizens-initiative brought forward to down zone specifically the Springfield Green property to R1-A. That initiative was brought to a vote and it failed in 1998.

Later in 1998, the City of Lakewood adopted the Rooney Valley Master Plan. In 2000 an intergovernmental agreement was reached between the Town of Morrison and the City of Lakewood involving their respected portions of development in the Rooney Valley. In 2002 the Town of Morrison and the City of Lakewood jointly approved a Master Plan for the Rooney Valley. This particular project as spearheaded by Carma began publicly in August 2005, which was the first neighborhood meeting regarding the Springfield Green redevelopment and the adoption of the Master Plan and the idea of the exchange parcels going forward. The application was submitted to the City of Lakewood in October of 2005 and the review began at that time. There was another public meeting at that time that occurred on February 7, 2006, and that was a widely published neighborhood meeting again explaining a refinement of the proposed development at that time and the realignment of the exchange parcels as it further evolved. There was another noticed neighborhood meeting on April 4, 2006, and that meeting presented to the people, who were in attendance, exactly the same plans that you are considering tonight. From October 14, 2005, through today this current proposal has been in the City of Lakewood application review process.

Doug Reed produced a slide show showing what has happened in development sequentially in the Rooney Valley.

Mr. Reed - Continued
The key component of the Rooney Valley Master Plan is the framework plan. This framework plan is the vision that was laid out for what the City envisioned for this particular portion of the Rooney Valley. There are several key components that were described in this framework plan, which we have tried to emulate very closely. With the help of DSW, who constructed this plan, and the citizens, we have tried to emulate this development plat with the Master Plan. Those key characteristics are, first of all, a portion of the property along the eastern edge of our site. This was described as a buffer area. The idea of this buffer is two fold; one, it allows a continuous open space area from Coyote Gulch up into Green Mountain; second for this open space buffer is to provide a separation between the residential lots that had been developed and the future residential which will be developed in the Springfield Green area. Another main component of this frame work plan is the open space corridor central to the property. There is a corridor running down a drainage way. A central corridor, which it is called in the plan, was estimated to be 200 feet wide in the framework plan. The idea of that is to provide a central amenity through the property and also to allow wildlife movement. There is a corresponding corridor that is just on the eastern portion of this property. That area contains some fairly steep slopes, also a drainage way, and again the idea was to preserve that as an open space feature as well.

You can see the major street system that is designed on this plan. The primary arterial that was envisioned by this framework plan would be McIntyre connecting from Alameda down to Morrison Road at this point. The other features that were described on this framework plan were a public park area, the other characteristic which is important to take note of, is this is where the idea rose for the exchange. The idea offered by the framework plan was that this portion of what is now City-owned property would be exchanged to the private land-owner so that development could occur in that area instead of along the eastern edge. This was carefully designed so there is still an open space strip; a park area along Alameda; views will still be preserved from Alameda and Green Mountain; and people in that area will be able to look over this development. Their views will not be obstructed to the South. Those are some of the main characteristics of the framework plan as it pertains to this particular property.

The graphic you see on the screen is the proposed Master Plan that you are considering this evening. This was devised by the team working with Carma, under the leadership of DSW. Mr. Reed stated that he hoped it is clear that what they have tried to do is implement all of those components that were established on the framework plan to bring on this particular project. Everyone has mentioned the proposed land exchange is one decision. There are approximately 21.77 acres of land that is right now privately owned by Carma. It is zoned for residential development at a net density of seven units per acre. It is platted for development. That property would be given to the City in exchange for an almost equal area. Essentially the 21.77 acres that lies to the North of the Springfield Green area that is presently City-owned land.

In the event that the City Council elects to not approve the land exchange, this is what the alternative to the Master Plan would look like. All of the main infrastructure components are still the same, the central corridor is still the same, the drainage ways are still protected, the street system is the same but essentially the only difference is that you can see that residential development would occur right up to the eastern edge of the property and abut the joining subdivision, in lieu of having that as an open space corridor and exchanging for the land up here.

Tom Morton - Senior Vice President for Carma - 9110 E. Nichols Dr, Suite 180, Centennial, CO
Stated he was present at the Planning Commission hearing and gave a similar presentation. Stated his job is to give an overview of who Carma is and why they believe they are suited to be the developer of this property.

His testimony was:
Carma is a land development company based in Calgary. There are offices in Kansas City, Denver and Austin. We have been in a business since 1958. I have some representative projects I would like to show, we are very proud of the kind of communities we build, we are community builders not just land developers. We feel very strongly about the communities that we build, that we become an active part of those communities. We don't buy land, flip land to builders and then leave town. We stay in all of our projects until the very end. Design guidelines play a part in all of our communities, we believe it is not just about the land, it is about the homes and what the homes look like. We take a very active role in choosing our builders and what kind of homes they will build to ensure those homes meet our design guidelines. We spend a great deal of time and money and effort on designing these design guidelines. We use the same approach to any of our communities, the first thing we do is establish the design guidelines and what this community will look like and set a level of quality we expect and then we are very careful with who we choose to build there. In Denver we have built in five different areas; Aurora, Brighton Crossing, Weld County, Bear Creek and Soltera. We feel very strongly in building our amenities on the front end. We do a lot of planning on our projects, we think it is the most important thing that we do, is make sure that the imagery and the ideas we put forth are things we can build and achieve.

Mr. Morton described the different developments they have built and details for each one.

Bonnie Roerig - MAI Appraiser - 1873 S. BelAir St, Suite1222, Denver, CO
Stated she was not at the Planning Commission hearing. Stated she has been an appraiser in the Denver Metro area and throughout Colorado since about 1970. Earned MAI designation in 1981.

Her testimony was:
My practice's focus has always been on the valuation of all types of real property including a focus on income producing real property and unique property type; commercial, industrial, office, apartment, vacant development land. The skills that are involved in the appraisal of this type of real property is quite different from the skills used by our residential appraisal colleagues typically for mortgage financing purposes. There is a great deal more variety, there are more options for techniques and methodology. Appraisals have been prepared for all types of purposes including litigation both private and public, easement valuations, boundary disputes, financing purposes, estate planning, etc.

I was first qualified as an expert witness in appraisal in 1974, been very active in the appraisal institute since 1974, have upheld a number of offices locally, regionally and nationally including serving two years on the board of directors and executive committee. In 2003 I became an appraisal qualification board certified instructor for our standards which are the uniformed standards of professional appraisal practice. I teach uniform standards for the appraisal institute and have done so for many many years.

Earlier this year the City of Lakewood asked me to evaluate the fairness of the proposed exchange that we heard about thus far tonight. It is important you all understand that scope of work is different from simply saying to me "we want you to appraise the relative value of these two properties as they exist today." The scope of work required additional steps beyond that, I did a preliminary analysis, as Mr. Rock mentioned, included that the contribution of use rights or economic development rights held by the Carma interest and their property that they currently own was worth two and a half to three times the value of land that the City owned, which had use limitations to either open space or park purposes, this makes good common logical sense.

I would then ask to take this a step further and evaluate what happens if two physical parcels of land are exchanged but the interest, the rights of the individual parties remain with the parties-so it is not a focus on the value of the physical objects, so much as it is a focus on "are those objects essentially equivalent in their values if looked at the same way", one could look at that as either parkland or all land with the same development rights, the process would be the same, one of those was a hypothetical condition.

A hypothetical condition, according to uniform standards, is defined as simply saying "we know a condition is this way but for purposes of valuation we have said it is not that way, it is a different way". Clearly in this case, if you appraise property with economic development rights and sell it as parkland that affects the value opinion, that it was necessary to ascertain whether this was a fair exchange or not.

You've heard mentioned and described the two properties are held by the two ownerships - showed photos of the property zoned by Carma.

The property generally is characterized as Foothills Mountainous land with a general slope downward from the higher elevation at the north to a lower elevation at the south; however outstanding views we had from much of the property, there are different physical characteristics. There are different impacts if one were to look at all the land on a development perspective; for instance, the cost for extending water and sewer utilities to the City's property would be a major consideration. This would certainly offset any perceived negative aspects from drainage ways in the two Carma parcels that they currently own.

Following extensive research into market information both for the value of economically developable land and the value of the land limited to open space or park purposes, I reached the following conclusions; the land areas are about the same, the desirability of the two ownership parcels is roughly offsetting generally the same, there are negatives and positives to both. It would be impossible from the market information that I obtained to measure and support any difference in the square foot values on the same basis between the two ownerships. The values therefore are the same, if the properties are evaluated on the same basis. Obviously, if they are not evaluated the same the answers would be different. In order to ascertain whether to meet the assignment I was given, the properties have to be evaluated on the same basis, therefore the exchange is fair to both parties and I believe it is in the public interest. The report I prepared was prepared in conformity with the uniform standards of professional appraisal status given my report.

Kara Mueller - Lakewood City Planning Department
Stated she would like to enter into the record all testimony that has been heard and will be heard as well as the staff report, staff presentation and all other presentations that have been given, any maps or case documents as well as the packets City Council have before them, which include any kind of neighborhood correspondence that has occurred throughout the case.

The zoning code, the subdivision ordinance, comprehensive plan and all of its amendments which include the Rooney Valley Master Plan and development standards were presented.

At this time I will go ahead with the staff presentation.

Planning Department showed their presentation.

Kara Mueller
The applicant is Carma Lakewood, LLC. The existing zoning as previously stated is PD plan development and R1-A one acre residential. The request before you tonight is a proposal for modification to the existing Springfield Green official development plan and in order to apply a Master Plan that specifically talks about land use types, densities and allocation. The rezoning request is to rezone approximately the 22 acres as previously stated from R1-A to PD to have the same standards as the existing Springfield Green ODP. Notification was posted on the site. Both the ODP modification which, incorporates the land exchange and rezoning before you tonight, and the ODP modification alternative which is the one that shows developing to the eastern buffer of Springfield Green. The rezoning and land exchange do meet the intent of the Lakewood Comprehensive Plan, Rooney Valley Master Plan, Rooney Valley development standards and, note 18, of the Springfield Green Subdivision. Springfield Green ODP, as previously stated, was implemented in 1982. It allows a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre but it must contain an average density of seven dwelling units per acre. For example, the minimum lot area for a single family dwelling is allowed at 4,500 square feet. Note at 18, as previously shown in the applicants presentation was shown on a Springfield Green Subdivision plat and basically put in place since the Springfield Green ODP did not go very far into the actual standards of implementing the development of the site.

As previously stated, rezoning and the modification piece do meet the intent of the Lakewood Comprehensive Plan, section 17:17:7 specifically. The Rooney Valley Master Plan was implemented in 1998, the ODP modification and modification alternative do meet the intent of the framework plan, number nine. Some of the major features of this are the wildlife and open space corridors including the central corridor, which is shown to be 200 feet, as well as the land exchange proposed would offer a continuous connection from Hayden Green Mountain Park down to Bear Creek Lake Park. The applicant has committed to improvements in Iron Spring Park. Another major portion of this would be already platted in the 1986 Springfield Green Subdivision is the Iliff connection, that is one of the only locations for a neighborhood connection between the existing homes and any proposed residential.

Another document was the Rooney Valley development standards in 1999. Some of the ways that the applicant has proposed to implement these are; they have proposed to meet the intent of the Hillside development standards which include land for grading, natural earth tone colors and natural building materials, specific roof pitches that have been called out in that document as well as garage door implementation and several other items.

There were two formal neighborhood meetings held, one on August 18, 2005 and another on April 4, 2006. Some of the major concerns that have risen are more open space and larger eastern buffer, traffic generation and Iliff connection, density, Hillside development standards, mining subsidence, water and utility availability. And all of this neighborhood correspondence has been provided for your review.

In summary the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed parkland rezoning and land exchange are key to providing development options that meets the intent of the Rooney Valley Development Plan and Master Plan. That rezoning and land exchange ODP modification and the ODP modification alternative meet the intent of the Lakewood Comprehensive Plan, Rooney Valley Master Plan, Rooney Valley development standards, Springfield Green ODP in note number 18 of the Springfield Green Subdivision.

In conclusion, we ask that the recommendation be that the City Council approve rezoning case number RC05008 and uphold the decision of Planning Commission and approve ODP modification and ODP modification alternative in case number MO05007.

Burton Lee - 4801 Riverbend Rd., Boulder, CO
Stated he was not in attendance at the Planning Commission hearing. His testimony was:

I am here this evening to represent the Hutchinson Green Mountain Village Civic Association. By way of background, I am a member of the appraisal institute otherwise known as MAI Appraiser. I have 19 years of experience in appraising in the Denver area. I am a partner in a real estate appraisals school and real estate school. I am also an AQB qualified instructor for the appraisal foundation. I have developed appraisal coursework. I am the managing partner of a commercial real estate appraisal firm and I am on the board of the Colorado Board of the Appraisal Institute.

I am here as a valuation expert and I want to specifically discuss issues relative to valuation methodology. I have been engaged by the association to address the question that came out of this hypothetical condition that was associated with Ms. Roerig's appraisal. I will read that hypothetical condition and that is "parcels A and B have been appraised on a further hypothetical condition which is the same zoning and land use approvals as pertains to parcels C through G". The question I was asked is "does this have an impact on the value for parcels A and B" and the concern is whether or not creating this hypothetical condition results in a fair trade. As has been presented earlier this evening, clearly without that hypothetical condition we have one piece of land that is worth considerably more on a per square foot basis than another piece of land. I need to let you know that I have not inspected that subject property, I've not completed an entire review of the report that was prepared on that. I have focused my attention strictly on the methodology issues and it is my opinion that the methodology does impact the value.

What more typically happens in situations of this type that I have seen is that you take a look at the value of a piece of ground, put to it's highest and best use today and you take a look at the value of a second piece of ground put to it's highest and best use and, in this instance since the zoning might be changing as well, then you take a look at the after condition. It is very similar to the way the methodology that we apply in just compensation arrangements, where we take a look at the values before the event and after the event, and you compare the impact on the relative relationships to determine what the equity might be. Each of those scenarios, the four different numbers, I was just describing to you, would be based on the highest and best use of the property based on market value definitions as of that point in time. One of the important considerations is that market value definition and I'd like to bring to your attention one of the components of that market value definition as sighted in the appraisal, and that is that both parties are acting in what they consider to be their best interest. So, from a valuation standpoint when we have this artificial construct that says we are going to treat one property as if it has no development rights, that artificial construct does not necessarily represent what would generally be considered acting in your own best interest if that is the parcel that you are representing. We can't really know what the implications are relative to the trade that is being suggested without looking at it from a different perspective. Furthermore, in this example what happened was both properties were analyzed assuming there was open space or parkland basically no development rights. It is my opinion that we might have ended up with a different result if each property was analyzed based upon the assumption that you could develop it to it's highest and best use; we don't know, but going to parkland that is a pretty common denominator from a valuation perspective no development rights. If we had development rights and we compared those rights in the relative relationships we might have ended up with a different conclusion. I don't know what that conclusion is. So the point is that the methodology here has driven the conclusion and that is an important thing for you to understand what the conclusions might be with different methodology that might be more common. In my experience we don't know because that analysis has not been done. That concludes my remarks and I would be happy to respond to any questions you might have.

Carlo Spano - 2277 S. Homan Cir., Lakewood, 80228
I was present at the Planning Commission hearing and I am president of Hutchinsons Green Mountain Village Civic Association. By representing over 100 residents adjacent to the Springfield Green Subdivision, I thank the Council for giving me extra time to speak tonight, otherwise you would have 100 other people standing behind me waiting to speak. The comments tonight are in reference to the proposed ODP modifications, the land swap and the rezoning. City Council is being asked to approve modifications to an ODP. There are two very different versions of those modifications being submitted. The first modification is consistent with both the Rooney Valley Master Plan and the Lakewood Comprehensive Plan, but it calls for a land swap between privately owned land and City parkland. Under the City Charter any disposal of real property held for open space or park purposes is subject to a public vote. This legal requirement is being explained away by City Attorney Roger Noonan as not applicable. We disagree. The language in the City Charter does not specifically address land exchange. Since there is no specific language to apply we have to look at the intent of the Charter. We feel the intent is clearly to give the public the right to vote on issues concerning the use or disposition of City parklands. It is imperative that the rights of Lakewood voters be upheld in all circumstances. Because of the ambiguity of the Charter, the City should choose the most prudent path, which is clearly to put this exchange to a public vote. With respect to our view on the Charter we would like to remind City Council that you are our elected representatives. It is your role to make policy for this City. The role of the City Manager, City Attorney and City staff is to execute procedure, not make policy. This is a policy decision not a procedural one. This decision should be considered by you and not deferred to City staff. With this in mind, we ask that City Council not approve the ODP modifications or land swap until this legal requirement is satisfied or in some way resolved.

There are several other problems with the proposed land swap as well. The City is required by law to complete a fair market value exchange not an acre for acre exchange. This requirement is also not being met. The City had commissioned only one appraisal for the affected parcels and that appraisal contained a false hypothetical assumption. To research this, we had the City's appraisal reviewed by our independent MAI appraiser and that review supports our position that the hypothetical condition imposed by the City affected the comparative values of the parcels in the exchange.

Our appraiser, who you just heard from, has addressed you this evening and a copy of that review was distributed to all of you earlier this week. In the City's appraisal report, the City's appraiser clearly states the hypothetical condition imposed on her by the City six times. Anyone reading this document can clearly see that she is concerned by the imposed condition and that she is referring to it frequently to protect herself. City Council should review the appraisal before deciding on the modifications of the ODP. Our review was sent to the City and we asked the City to complete another appraisal without the hypothetical condition and the City denied our request.

Another aspect of the land swap is that the land Carma is receiving in the exchange is more desirable from a development standpoint than the land that Carma is giving to the City, but physical inspection of the parcels clearly shows that Carma is getting prime hilltop land with easy access to Alameda Parkway, views of the front range and the hogback. These parcels also border parkland and have higher elevations. These will clearly be Carma's premium lots. In exchange, the City gets parcels dominated by drainage gullies, no access to any major road ways and lower elevations, land that is not very desirable to a developer, some of which is not even usable for park purposes. This does not constitute a fair market value exchange.

Yet another aspect of the land swap is that if the land swap in subsequent rezoning pass, Carma will make an instant profit simply by virtue of the rezoning. This should have been considered in the configuration of the land swap and has been totally ignored by this City. We are asking that City Council not approve the modifications to the ODP or the land swap until the City has completed an additional appraisal that takes into account all the realities of the swap. One of Lakewood's greatest resources is its open space, the City should not make deals with developers that do not constitute a fair deal for the City and its citizens, and just so there are no misunderstandings, we would like to make it very clear that we are not opposed to a land swap. In fact we are demanding it to uphold the Rooney Valley Master Plan and the Lakewood Comprehensive Plan. All that we are asking is that the land swap be legal and fair.

The second version of the modifications which are being called the alternative plan do not include a land swap. This version is totally inconsistent with the Rooney Valley Master Plan and the Lakewood Comprehensive Plan, it totally ignores all the work the City and it's citizens have put into developing the Rooney Valley Master Plan, it totally ignores the fact that City Council approved the Rooney Valley Master Plan and incorporated it into the Lakewood Comprehensive Plan. It totally ignores the fact that Lakewood, Morrison and Jefferson County approved a joint version of the Rooney Valley Master Plan. These plans are the City's guiding documents for smart growth. Any vote for the ODP modifications being submitted tonight is a vote that disregards these documents to benefit a private developer. Lakewood voters should remember those that vote against our guiding plans next election, in short the ODP modifications as submitted with the alternative plan, should be rejected outright. What is even more disturbing about the alternative plan is that it would force City Council to vote in favor of the land swap regardless of how it is configured. By approving this version City Council's hands are tied. Either they approve the land swap as it is proposed or Carma can begin development according to the alternative plan without further approval by City Council. This is very dangerous and cannot be allowed. We find it reprehensible that City staff could even make such a submittal to City Council. For both of these reasons the alternative plan must not be approved. The City of Lakewood should represent the interest of its citizens and not the interest of private developers. Anything less is a dereliction of duty.

Carma has submitted both of these plans as one modification to the ODP. If these plans cannot be separated for purposes of city approval then we ask that City Council reject the entire ODP modification as it has been submitted. Since the alternative plan does not comply with the Rooney Valley Master Plan or the Lakewood Comprehensive Plan and since the alternative plan cannot be separated from the ODP modifications as submitted the entire modification must be rejected.

For the ODP modifications there are several more points. What is being voted on are modifications to an ODP as it relates to densities and dwelling types. This translates into the number of new residents in the area. At this point it is premature to approve any modifications of this nature for three very specific reasons; first, a new metropolitan district called Fossil Ridge was formed to finance the infrastructure for this development. To date the financing plan of the new metro district has not been submitted to the City. This information is critical in order to make an educated decision on densities. Second, neither Carma nor its water supplier, Consolidated Mutual Water, had submitted a detailed water supply plan. In Colorado any plan for growth that does not include a comprehensive water supply plan is foolish. Carma was asked about their water supply plan at the June 20 Planning Commission hearing but did not provide any details of a plan. Once again City Council does not have the information it needs to make an educated decision on this matter. And finally, Jeffco schools have stated in a letter dated June 19th that the cost providing education of the expected increase of students is over 24 million dollars. The schools that these students would attend are already using ten temporary classrooms. Carma was questioned as to the dedication to Jeffco schools at the June 28th Planning Commission hearing. Carma's reply was deliberately vague and no disclosure was made as to the amount of funds Carma is dedicating to support schools. City Council should have a clear understanding of what that means to the tax payers and the over burdened school system.

In summation we feel the City should slow down and take a closer look at all these mitigating factors. We ask that City Council not approve any modifications to the Springfield Green ODP nor a land swap until all these issues are resolved. As a group of concerned residents, we welcome the opportunity to work with the City and Carma to address each of these issues. As to the rezoning, given all the reasons why the ODP modifications and current land swap should not be approved, the request to complete the land swap in the subsequent rezoning of 22 acres of parkland is definitely premature. We ask that City Council deny the land swap as it is currently proposed and the subsequent rezoning that is tied to it until all the issues surrounding this matter are satisfactorily resolved.

Additionally we would also like to ask that once the land swap is completed, rezoning occur on any land the City receives in the exchange. Currently the City proposes to leave the zoning on the land it is getting unchanged as plan development with use restricted to park use only. We believe this restriction is not adequate protection against future development and therefore request the City to officially change the zoning of the land it receives to R1-A with use restricted to park use only. This will keep zoning consistent with other parklands and require that any proposed change in the use of this land in the future be subject to a City Council vote and public hearing. As to some of Mike Rock's earlier comments today, he said that without a favorable vote tonight Carma would be able to build up to the existing fence lines and I believe that is wrong, I believe that is a bit of a scare tactic. Without an ODP modification, Carma can't do anything. If you reject the ODP modification as submitted tonight, they go back to the drawing board, they come up with an ODP modification that makes sense. That is what we want, an OPD modification that makes sense, a land exchange that makes sense. I would like you to bear that in mind, that what Mike Rock is saying, and you can ask him directly that without an ODP modification, can Carma build and I believe the answer would be no.

Mark L. Davis - 13800 W. Alaska Dr., Lakewood, CO
I have provided for you prior to tonight's comments some photocopies. My name is Mark Davis, I don't have any fancy imagery and I'm not a fancy attorney but I do have some comments which I think make sense to you. First of all, our appraiser, Mr. Lee, has made comments that the false assumption or the hypothetical condition in the appraisal perhaps affected the value. His comments are supported by objective facts and perhaps, if you will turn to what I have given you, it is an excel spreadsheet. I have physically gone through every single address of homes that surround the proposed Springfield Green property by address, street and have gotten this information on July 18th from the County Assessor's office. Those values as reflected on that spreadsheet indicate that for all the homes that surround the property, the average value per acre is 508,000. The total value, valued at 22 acres in excess of 11 million dollars. If one were to credit the developer for an infrastructure expense or cost of roughly 25 percent, the net value of that property that is going to be transferred to Carma is in excess of eight million dollars. According to the City's appraisal the value of the property that it will receive is somewhere around 750,000 dollars. The excess or the difference between what the value of what the City will be giving up and the value that it will be receiving is approximately 7.6 million dollars. In that connection, it is my allegation, and I'm going to prove it to you right now, that the transaction to exchange the land and rezone it is clearly illegal and you have to ask yourself why Carma is supporting a transaction that is illegal. If you look to the second document which I've given to you, that is a copy of the Colorado Constitution. I will read it in part for the record. It says, "no aid to corporations, no City shall make any donation or grant to or in aid of any corporation", it is my claim supported by the evidence thus far introduced into the record that the difference in value between what the City will be receiving and what it is giving up amount to an illegal gift of seven million dollars to Carma, which the City cannot do. By the way, that constitutional provision which is Article 9, Section 2 was adopted in 1877. The next document I would refer you to is a case called Tamblin vs. The City and County of Denver, I would note for the record that this case was decided en banc, which is legal terms for meaning the entire court. The case was decided in 1948 and I've done what is known as shephardize the case which is were we look for every single reference to this case to see if it has been overturned and it has never been. This is the law of the State of Colorado. If you would kindly turn to the pages that I've highlighted on page 194 and 195 you will find that where the courts are generally reluctant to overturn or interfere with discretionary decisions made by a municipality. They will in fact inquire into the providence of making those decisions where there has been an abusive authority. If we look to the bottom of page 195, I think there is some very important language that needs to be read into the record. In this particular case, the City of Denver had entered into an agreement to sell some property and there was an allegation that the sale price of the property was grossly undervalued. As you read through this section I would ask you to, in your mind, to substitute the word exchange for sale because it can't amount to the same thing in this connection and I will quote on the bottom of 195 and reading to 196. "If the property greatly exceeds in value the contract price or is worth in excess of two million dollars, it follows that the officers of the City have not only abused their discretion but also if the sale is consummated will have made a gift to the corporation of over one million dollars contrary to and in violation of the Colorado Constitution", of which I have given you a copy and quoted. "A municipality cannot ordinarily lawfully sell it's property for a grossly inadequate price since such transaction is in fact a gift of public property."

Turning to the final document I have given to you, which is the Colorado Constitution language regarding home rule cities, I have taken the liberty of indicating on there and highlighting some information for you. The City of Lakewood, you have the authority as a home rule city to amend a charter, if possible, or enact an ordinance that allows you to make a gift to Carma of eight million dollars, but there is no such ordinance. This is very clear under Article 20, Section 6 of the Colorado Consitution that in the absence of such an ordinance you cannot make a gift of public dollars. The ordinance of a home rule city in clear opposition to the general law is invalid. There is no ordinance that allows you to do this. I would suggest that the advice that your getting, that this is a legal transaction, you look at very very carefully because it is not a legal transaction.

Susan Aldretti - 950 Wadsworth, Lakewood, CO, 80214
I am here on behalf of the Jefferson County Association of Realtors. Our association has 2500 members, nearly 500 of whom are residents of the City of Lakewood. As realtors we are committed to protecting the quality of life in our community. One of the ways in which we protect that quality of life is through zoning and through the adoption of well thought out master plans. These plans then guide new development in our community. The cities of Lakewood, Morrison and Jefferson County worked with their citizens to develop a master plan to guide development in the Rooney Valley. After three years and many public meetings and open houses a plan was adopted in 1998, the ordinances before you tonight will implement the Rooney Valley Master Plan and we encourage you to adopt them.
Stated she attended the Planning Commission hearing but did not speak.

Jim Halselden - 25151 E Kettle Ave., Aurora, CO
I am not associated in any way with Carma, just that I have been a neighbor of the Tollins Reach that they have spoken about for the last ten years. I live on 20 acres that is adjacent to them on two sides. I've worked with them on various developments around my property and found them very easy to work with and that they have always done what they said they would do. I'd like to, at this time, invite all of you to Aurora and take a look at Tollins Reach and I am sure you would be pleasantly pleased and I'm sure they will do as good on your project as they have done on the ones that are adjacent to me.

Nina Rockley - 8555 W. Colfax, Lakewood, CO
I am here on behalf of the Lakewood Business Leadership Committee and I was here and did speak at the Planning Commission hearing. The leadership committee represents 1500 Lakewood businesses which include the West Colfax Community Association, West Chamber serving Jefferson County, the Alameda Gateway Community Association and the Jewell and Wadsworth Business Association. We have a tremendous opportunity tonight to make a statement that Lakewood is committed to bringing an outstanding development to the community. The Saltera project will be a crowning achievement that represents the very best in balancing the needs of the community with the world class housing component. We consider the developers, Carma, to be an outstanding community partner with a proven track record of high quality development. We anticipate the economic benefits to Lakewood businesses to be substantial due to the income levels of our future Saltera homeowners. We think of the new residence as economic resources to the community, people who will need and provide professional services for us as business people and also non-profits. We feel that a lot of the things that are happening are delay tactics and that this has been on record now for 24 years so we think it is probably time to make a decision and move on and at the end of today it is really only one thing; is this really good for Colfax and is this really good for Lakewood as a full entity. I do own property in Green Mountain Hutchinson and I feel that this a wonderful addition to my property. It has been empty for a very long time and am looking forward to an outstanding development. We are asking for City Council approval of Ordinance 2006-15 and a document of support from our organization is on file in your folders.

Mary Bindner - 2669 S Wadsworth Cir., Lakewood, CO 80227
I did go to the Planning Commission hearing and did testify. I am here tonight to speak in favor of this land exchange because I think, as a former realtor, and having worked with people in that area, that having this buffer zone between those two developments would be an excellent use of your land exchange ability. The reason being, I know that some of the people that moved into those homes that were originally developed there were sort of promised that there wouldn't be anything west of them and according to some of the testimony that was given said that there backyards would be right smack against these new people moving in and I think it would be a great advantage to have this nice open space between.

Lisa Scott - 14222 W Evans Cir., Lakewood, CO
I did speak at the Planning Commission hearing and I've attended all the citizen meetings on this to date. My concern tonight is specifically with the request that you approve Carma's modification alternative and that is the proposal that involves doing away with the Master Plan, that is just what it does, and building right up to existing housing. The Master Plan was developed not only with the input of those various cities, as I explained before, but also with a lot of citizen input. There was much time and effort put into that and while I understand it is advisory and it's a guideline, there has to be a recognition for how much time and effort went into the creation of this plan and the use of this buffer. I also think the point needs to be made that it's not just a buffer it's also a wildlife corridor. I believe it was specifically mentioned by the Division of Wildlife when they commented on this project. It's also a recreational corridor that shows up in your bike plan and that is a plan I believe has been approved by City Council. It shows this open space buffer area with an official bike path on it. I have a big concern that Council is being asked to approve something that would be completely inconsistent with something previously that they have approved which is the bike plan.

Another point about the modification alternative that has not been made is that it was only first raised at the very last citizen meeting. I don't know that wildlife or the bike people or anybody else has had the opportunity to comment on it because it was a last minute addition to this project at the very last community meeting and I think if we are going to throw out a Master Plan, especially one that has recently received as much attention and care as this one, there has to be more process. I don't think enough people have had a chance to comment on that modification alternative and what it would mean for the bike people, the bike plan, the recreational, the wildlife corridor, etc. I do think there has been real issues raised about valuation and I'm hoping that Council is the body that can consider that because again I was at the Planning Commission meeting where we were told Planning Commission couldn't consider. They can just approve or disapprove. Somebody needs to look at those issues, would be my comment.

Stephen Sumner - 2297 S Holman Cir., Lakewood, CO
I was at the Planning Commission meeting and I will not be speaking on any of the issues that were spoken on already this evening. I don't mean to trivialize these proceedings but in light of some new information made available today, I would like to speak on behalf of a mouse, the Preble's mouse to be exact. I spoke at both of the community meetings and those of you who were at the community meetings know that I always spoke about the wildlife corridor, the preservation of wildlife, the resources in the City of Lakewood and specifically endangered species of which the Preble's mouse had been believed was an endangered species. However this had not been proven and they had not been listed on the endangered species list. Of course, Carma was able to do their biological study, which they did do, and there was no mention of the Preble's mouse. When I did bring up the Preble's mouse at one of the open meetings I was told by one of the Carma representatives that when they did their walk with the biologist one day they didn't see the mouse. Of course they would not have seen the mouse since it is nocturnal. The point being, their report only spoke to an owl believed to be endangered in that area. But today, and call it serendipitous, good timing, kismet, the Denver Post did report in today's paper that the Preble's mouse has now been listed as an endangered species. I think it in fact effects not only tonight's proceedings but all proceedings as you will hear. I'll read the first headline and the first paragraph.
" Preble's mouse gets boost for protection. A US Fish and Wildlife Service study finds the creature is a unique species likely ensuring its threatened spot and shielding it from front range developers. A tiny mouse vying for survival in the Rocky Mountains may have gained an upper hand over Western developers". Before any of this project can go forward now at this point in time, I believe all of these discussions must be tabled until a true scientific study is made to see if the Preble's mouse truly does inherit that whole portion of land. I know Colorado Wildlife, once informed of this, will insist upon that. We are now dealing with an endangered species. My belief is that in proceedings of this type it is not up to the citizens to have to prove that the species exists on that land. It is up to the developer to prove that the species does not exist on that land. I would ask that that study be done before any further proceedings take place on these issues.

Ralph Beck - 2459 S Holman Cir., Lakewood, CO
I did attend the Planning Commission hearing recently and spoke briefly. My family and I have lived at our current address for a little over 13 years now. We love where we live and we hope to be able to call it home. We are among the fortunate few with backyards touching the undeveloped land at Rooney Valley. For 13 years we have enjoyed the uninterrupted view of Mt. Morrison, Red Rocks Theatre and more. We knew at the time that we purchased our home that the land behind us was not designated open space though we would of course love for it to be. Frankly it has remained undeveloped for a much longer span of time than we anticipated, especially given the fact that it was platted for development prior to the land on which our home is located now. It has been our continued hope that when development comes it will be aesthetically pleasing as well as reasonable. I attended the first community type meeting co-hosted by Carma and the City of Lakewood and I was very pleased at that time of the development proposal. My thoughts regarding Springfield Green have only grown more positive as I've attended subsequent meetings and investigated Carma's other completed developments. I'm especially appreciative of Carma's willingness to work with the Lakewood City team regarding the land swap that would create a buffer between the existing homes and the proposed project. In addition to this being a boom for personally and I believe for my neighbors as well, it will maintain the now unofficial but much used hiking and biking path that connects Coyote Gulch Park to Green Mountain. I'm very much in favor of Carma's development in Springfield Green and recommend to the City Council that the Master Plan as approved by the Planning Commission be upheld.

Meghan McLenon - 1886 S Arbutus St., Lakewood, CO 80228
I am here to encourage the City Council to do the right thing for Lakewood's ecosystem. There is 17% of the short grass prairie remaining in the U.S.A and the City of Lakewood has the privilege of having this one last remaining piece which I know has been sited for development. If I had known this when I was six years old I would have started attending meetings. I would have been to all these City meetings from then until now but I'll start now. With this development going on I do support a corridor where platted but I do want to see that certain things are considered and that the process is delayed until things are thoroughly considered because this is our land and once it's gone, it's gone. So I want to see things considered for wildlife. There needs to be size considerations for the various wildlife that would use that corridor. There needs to be considerations of where this corridor coming from and going to. Green Mountain and Bear Creek are two major wildlife areas that this corridor could connect, so I think that needs to be looked at in depth. We also need to do, I think, surveys of endangered and threatened species such as the Preble's mouse and the burrowing owls, the black footed ferrett, the swiss foxes, all those prairie animals that could exist or could live and thrive in that area. Furthermore, have all the sources of preservations been exhausted. It was said earlier that Jefferson County Open Space was approached and I think the Colorado Mountain Club. Has the State Land Board been approached? Has the nature concerns been approached? Has Jefferson Conservation District been approached? There are some more avenues that could be looked at here and I hope the City will delay this contrary to what other people want to see this move on. I commend you for holding out on this so that we put out the best management plan possible for this beautiful area.

Devan Ellis - 2299 S. Holman Cir., Lakewood, CO
Stated she attended the Planning Commission Meeting. In 1998 my family was very active working with the City Council and trying to coordinate the Master Plan at Rooney Valley. We worked really hard to have the land swap for the park to go down from the existing homes. I think it would be a huge benefit for not only our homes that exist there but also the new development that Carma is proposing. I've done some research with Carma and the work they have done is spectacular.

There are some other issues that my fellow residents would like you to address. I'm not trying to take that away but also the importance of that greenbelt corridor from Green Mountain down into Coyote Gulch which would also go into Bear Creek Lake Park. Many people use that as a recreational avenue to all the parks down there and there is a corridor that goes in through where the City is adamant to have Iliff continue through to connect with the existing development to the new development. I did speak with Carma briefly on this. They could reorganize the street. They wouldn't have to have a connection through Iliff. That would also prevent the street going all the way through the open space green belt. I reside over there and I use Iliff daily and there are certain times of the year and those times are when you cannot see people are using that green belt area because of the way the sun sets. If you have bicycles and people hiking and going through there and children playing through that green belt corridor, it is a hazard through that area. Also, I worked with Dick Plastino who is wonderful, although he disagrees with me, he would like Iliff to go through, and has tried to slow traffic down but he does not live there. I do trust his professional judgement that the City would need that for utility connection between the two neighborhoods. I don't oppose that at all but I do using the fire, police and ambulance to go through that connection there but please don't have it go through as a connection between the vehicular. Rather have it as a recreational link between the two neighborhoods that can be used for cyclists and hikers and other people that don't have to worry about traffic. I have tried to work with the City and the traffic engineers in the past to try to slow traffic down through Iliff and nothing has come to affect that can slow traffic down through Iliff. It's proposed now for 640 cars per hour at high traffic volume time. That is a huge amount of traffic going through that green belt corridor, but Carma said that, and I trust that they can make a haven for both neighborhoods, that Iliff wouldn't have to connect through. I implore you to look at that and change that connection that it remains a dead end for continuing vehicular traffic that opens it up to a walking pathway, a running pathway and a cycling pathway.

Mishak Rhoades - 14232 W Evans Cir., Lakewood
My property backs to the northern part of the open space. I was in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting and I did speak. As an affected resident I would request the land swap be rejected the following reasons: after engaging in extensive research regarding the open space property and seeking the advice of a real estate attorney, I only purchased my property for the articulated reason that the open space was deeded to the City of Lakewood expressly for and, I quote, "park and other municipal purposes only". As a potential purchaser I engaged in due diligence and confirm that the premium I was about to pay would essentially remain protected under plain language of the deed. Moreover, Colorado case law that I researched at that time, and that fellow real estate attorney researched at the time confirmed that, and I quote again, "where a City acquires dedicated land for an express use such as parkland purposes, the City may use that land for the purpose only of its dedication", and that is a Colorado appellate history and this is, of course, relevant here because the express purpose in the deed, as I was understanding, to remain parkland purposes and with the plan language of the deed. I was also aware that at the time the City ordinance was passed simultaneously with the exceptance of the park plan that states that park properties are "an estimal value to the City and its people for open space, recreation and park purposes". As someone said earlier that somebody needs to look into the modification and the plan disposal of open space, that's actually not just a matter or right, it is a matter of legality and the Supreme Court has addressed this numerous times.

I purchased my property, as did some of my fellow co-owners, under the good faith and reasonably well researched belief that number one, the value of my property would not disintegrate with the development of adjacent land that was previously deeded. The privacy with which I now enjoy would not be forsaken, the views that I enjoy would not be impeded and sacrificed for the sake of economic grade and that included in the price paid for the land that I purchased for living on open space would be justified. Second, because the land that is subject of the swap was effectively undervalued during the appraisal of parkland which I might add was dictated by the City. The City has essentially condemned such recreational areas and open space contrary to the stated intention of the conveyers of the deed, thereby materially departing from the ordinance and the deed which acts as the City's power of imminent domain controlled by Colorado's Statute 29-7-101-A, which says that municipalities can acquire dedicated land and can operate that land but cannot condemn that land as recreational area. This concept again is also backed by numerous case law and Colorado Supreme Court precedent, in essence giving the municipality and City authorities the power to vacate property and vacate parks does not empower such authorities to alienate a plat of ground that is specifically dedicated for the use of the people of the City as a public park way or to appropriate it or any part of it for a use inconsistent with the purpose of the dedication. Someone has already mentioned that the appraisal is insufficient and I won't go into detail on that but there is numerous Colorado case precedent stating as much that an appraisal that assumes the properties of both parkland that renders results that shows the parcels to be of relatively equal value is the unreasonable exercise power and detrimental to the public interest and, as someone has already mentioned, this is of course contrary to the stated intentions of the Colorado Constitution which expressly forbid for a municipality to make a donation or essentially a grant in aid of a company or corporation. I'm concerned that Mayor Burkholder's stated intentions given the state of the City address are not being taken into consideration. In his state of the City address Lakewood residents and taxpayers were assured that the City Council core community values are open, honest communication and education and information. As residents we are reassured that Lakewood City Council will act with honesty, integrity and the commitment to communicate openly with cander.

Josh Tragie - 14232 W Evans Cir., Lakewood, CO 80228
I would like to apologize in advance for the talk I am about to give. It is extremely unorganized and quite frankly I am very scared right now; however, I think that I just wanted to make some notes that I've jotted down through this presentation tonight and I would like these to be noted. I believe that the appraisals assignment was too vague. Granted I am not an appraiser. However, I am an engineer and if I made hypothetical assumptions based on what the contractor told me I would be fired tomorrow. As a young professional I wouldn't really want to do that just starting out. I believe that a second opinion needs to be taken into consideration in this situation. Also I think that when we bought the house we were led to believe that the open space would be deeded for 200 years, which I don't plan on being around for that long, so I was happy about that. I don't think that the land swap is fair because I believe that the people that the land swap is going to be advantageous for and knowing that that land was going to be developed, that's why I don't think that is very fair. I'm not to happy about having to give my address out after having said that because we are extremely in the minority there.

The last note that I would like to make is that, no offense to Carma, those properties look very nice but I think building in Aurora and building in Brighton is different than building right off of Green Mountain. The reason why I say this is we bought in of Green Mountain because we didn't need any amenities, the only amenity we needed was the mountain.

Brian Federson - 9563 W Kentucky Pl., Lakewood, CO
What caused me to come to visit tonight is just the exchange part of what you're considering tonight. I have been a land broker in Jefferson County for 23 years for a company called Land Advisors who specialize in land brokerage. I would tell you that I am not opposed at all to the development of Rooney Valley. All I'm looking for is good quality there and responsible development, I have no doubt that Carma is capable of accomplishing that. I've known there company for years and they have a fantastic reputation. The difficulty I am having with this is the just compensation for the exchange parcel. Mr. Rock mentioned that the appraisal came in at eighty cents per square foot and I would tell you that equates to about $35,000 per acre. You can't buy swamp land in Colorado for $35,000 an acre. In the Lakewood area or Jefferson County market, that property, I can tell you as a land broker with 23 years experience, is worth between $200,000 and $300,000 dollars per acre. That is the fair market value depending on the associated development cost that go with improving that site. It's not worth less than $200,000 an acre which equates to more than four million dollars. I just have a problem with exchanging that for a parcel that will serve as a buffer that is going to benefit a very few number of households in the City. Exchanging a parcel with great views, high land, it's along the Green Mountain, Heyden Mountain Park property, for a parcel of land that is going to benefit a few residents in the City at the expense of many residents in the City. I think when you take this into consideration, you really have to look at what's good for the City in total. I'm working on some parkland acquisition projects up by Majestic View Park in Arvada. The name fits very well. The land has spectacular views, it's a great place for residents in Arvada to go with their families. I think we are exchanging away parkland here that has great views for a property that is going to be along a gulch that is going to serve a very few number of residents. I think that same buffer could be accomplished through open space parkland dedications as part of the platting process when homes come into be platted in that development. You don't have to exchange any parcel for it, just simply require that be left as a buffer as a condition of the plat approvals. It's that simple. You don't have to do any exchange. If you're really looking for an economic development, you could sell this parcel for four to six million dollars and then require the dedication through platting and take that money and use it for parkland improvements throughout the City. I think this exchange is unjustly benefiting. I have no problem Carma benefiting but their going to put a lot of money in the infrastructure in this development and I think that it is at the expense of the residents of the City in general and that appraisal was flat out plod fraud, I can tell you, there is no land worth 35,000 dollars acre in the city. This property is worth seven or eight times that and, no disrespect to the appraiser, Mrs. Roerig, but her professional designation of MAI appraiser, in this case I think MAI stands for made as instructed.

Pete Rosell - 14516 W Amhurst, Lakewood, CO
My concern, as I think it is with a lot of people, is traffic. This is an elephant in the neighborhood. Our neighborhoods have roughly one hundred to two hundred homes. This is fourteen hundred homes coming up here and they haven't planned for traffic, I don't think. If they can do something to make McIntyre work down to Morrison Road, it would alleviate massive truck back ups in the neighborhood. Construction traffic can be phenomenal. I live in Tamarisk and they'll be backed up all the way into Springfield Green trying to get onto Morrison Road every morning. I know that McIntyre is a part of the City of Morrison.

Libby Vernon - 2289 Holman Cir., Lakewood, CO
I was at the Planning Commission hearing but I did not speak there. I've attended several of these meetings now without speaking, wanting just to listen to the different points of view. I've been in Lakewood 22 years, 13 years in my present home and I teach in one of the neighboring elementary schools to this proposed development. I am hearing a lot of very valid points that I think Council should consider, I just don't want the corridor, the wildlife, recreational open space corridor to get somehow lost in the sauce. That does not just benefit a few homes and a few residents, it benefits everybody, the citizens of Lakewood who use Green Mountain Park, Green Mountain open space extensively. Bear Creek Lake Park extensive use by the entire Lakewood community, there is Coyote Gulch Park. There are many neighborhoods that benefit from the use of that park and this corridor would connect them all. Not just for wildlife, which is important but for all the people and I think that there should be some sort of corridor created whether it is by trade, then lets just make sure it is a fair trade.

I think there are some very valid concerns about whether the corridor that is being created is a fair trade, the amount of that land is a fair trade for that land up by Alameda which does seem to have considerably higher valuation. I think that some things that have not been mentioned that Carma, who does seem to be a good developer, I don't have any problem with them. At the Planning Commission meeting they stated clearly a willingness to widen the corridor. In an attempt to make the trade fair, that should be on record but nobody has said that and I think that is something you should have in your notes or records of that meeting. It is not just for a few people. It benefits the whole City and it just should be fair. The amount of the corridor should reflect a fair trade for the amount of the land currently up by Alameda.

Michael O'Brian - PO Box 260313, Lakewood, CO
I've been following the progress of the Springfield Green for sometime and after speaking with a great array of people who are going to be impacted. I would like to ask tonight, that the Council perhaps stay at this decision and hold over, take no position this evening.

Public Hearing is closed.

Councilman Peterson made a motion to adopt Resolution 2006-43. Councilwoman Wise seconded the motion.

Councilman Peterson made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2006-15 on second and final reading based on the findings of fact of the Planning Commission date 6/28/06. Councilwoman Wise seconded the motion.

Mayor Burkholder - For Council's benefit I would just remind everybody that we are dealing with three over riding topics in the resolution and the ordinance, and again for the public's convenience and for City Council's convenience, we have discussed both as part of the public hearing. Really we have three topics, if you would, this evening. The first is upholding or overturning the Planning Commission modification of the original development plan. Number two is why the land exchange is or is not a community benefit and three, if the exchange makes sense, to rezone the property. That succinctly puts it into three topics for two issues and I'm going to start off first of all, Mr. Rock.

Mike Rock - If your going to start with me, I believe you have some Council members up there who would like to take a brief break before we move into this phase. I think they'll pay a lot more attention if you give them five or ten minutes here.

Mayor Burkholder declared a ten minute recess at 9:22 p.m. and reconvened at 9:36 p.m.

Mayor Burkholder restated they are looking at the resolution, the ODP and also the rezoning issue.

Before I go to Mr. Rock I want to thank the audience for what you've done this evening. I think both sides of the issue were presented. I think in particular, the three presentations that were given at the beginning of public comment were certainly meaningful and again I want to thank you for the effort you put forth in presenting a point of view that I think has to be heard, or both points of view that need to be heard, and with that, Mr. Rock I am going to ask you to address some of the issues that were brought up and then I'll return to Council but in particular I think one of the major issues is this appraisal factor, so if you would address some of these issues please.

Mike Rock - Let me start and then I believe we should also give Carma an opportunity to discuss the exchange issues and then I also wanted Kara Mueller to discuss the improvements towards Forsberg Park which are part of the exchange. But, first of all regarding some of the comments, Mr. Lee very specifically said only that it could be different if different assumptions were made. He indicated he had not visited the property. The property has no utilities available to it but I didn't hear any information that under any set up assumptions that the end result would have been different.

Remember that Ms. Roerig said that her responsibility was to determine whether this was a fair exchange, whether what the City got was comparable to what it was giving up. If we want to assign development value to the property and use the lowest range then each of the properties are worth roughly 2.1 million dollars. If we assume that they both could be assigned zoning that would allow them to be developed.

If we follow Mr. Davis' logic, both the properties are worth about 8.6 million dollars. It really, at the end of the day, doesn't make a lot of difference what we are getting is roughly, slightly more acreage than we're giving up. We're getting property that is important to the neighborhood to preserve a corridor, we're giving up property. I was interested to hear the argument that the property along Alameda Parkway was valuable. Normally when you talk to anybody about having property near a roadway or certainly one we proposed any development near a road way the first thing we hear is the closer you are to the road, the less valuable the property is. The bottom line on the value and appraisal issue is whether we assign them both as having development potential or both as park property, they are comparable in value and there are no obstacles to either developing either one or using either one for parkland purposed.

If you refer to the Rooney Valley Master Plan, on page 24, there is a map and also on page 27. Both of them show that back in 1998 the City was saying that this land along Alameda Parkway was potential trade land in order to implement this buffer corridor. We said it in 1998 and nobody had a problem with it. We are saying the same thing today that that is the way you implement the corridor. The other way to implement the corridor is to purchase the land. If we used Mr. Davis' numbers we would pay about eight plus million dollars for it. If we used Ms. Roerig's lower range of the numbers, it would be about 2.1 million dollars. I don't think the City has an interest or the financial capability to purchase the buffer. We had always envisioned that it would be implemented through a trade if implemented at all.

There were a number of references to the Master Plan. On page one of the Master Plan it's described as a guide, as a vision. One of the speakers mentioned that we could simply accomplish a 21 acre buffer simply by requiring open space dedications. That is simply not possible. There is nothing in either our regulations or Colorado law that would allow us to tell the land owner that they have to give an extra 21 acres for a buffer in addition to all the other road way dedications and things that they are required to make. There was a reference to schools. There was an early pre-existing agreement between the property owner and Jefferson County Schools that require a payment. Usually the schools would prefer a payment; a cash payment rather than land because what they end up with when they take land dedications are either parcels in a place they don't really want to build a school or parcels that aren't large enough to build a school. The school district would normally prefer to take cash over land, then handling any existing agreement agreed to many years ago for a cash transaction. Carma voluntarily increased that amount and it complies with all of the City's existing regulations which were not in place at the time the property was zoned for cash in lieu of payment.

You've heard a number of times, delay delay delay. First of all this process has been going on for a long time. Secondly there is a very specific reason to request a delay and that is the budget components have taken initiated a petition to downzone the property. They have made it clear that they would like to gather those signatures and have the property down-zoned before it can be developed. The City simply cannot be a party to that kind of effort to take away private property rights and we haven't seen any information tonight that would suggest that any delay would either provide us with new information or different information than we have today. I'd like Kara to briefly address the Forsberg Park. What remains when you have the swap, you now have a corridor which goes into public possession of 21.7 acres. You still have 20 acres, roughly, about the size of Morse Park left along Alameda Parkway and in addition there are improvements that would be done to Forsberg Park, the dog park and I wanted Kara to briefly address those. I would also suggest, Mr. Mayor, that at some point in the process you give Carma an opportunity to address the exchange issue.

Kara Mueller - City Planning - If I could direct you to page 10 of the staff report, item 6 for parkland dedication requirements, which it states that with the reconfiguring duration of Iron Spring Park, the developer will also develop a formal dog park area including parking and passive recreation amenities in the Iron Spring Park north of the development. This will include water taps for drinking fountains and small areas of irrigation. This area would be located to the east of where the proposed connection with Alameda and Indiana is.

Doug Reed - Carma Representative
The slide which I hope you can see on your monitors shows the northern end of the property with the proposed land reconfiguration. This is the proposed detail of the northern end. Here is Alameda, across the northern end and here is Indiana as it would wind into the property. This piece you see sticking up here is a piece of the proposed land exchange. This is the portion that would come from the City to Carma. You see just the edge of the buffer along the eastern side. Of course this is where the wildlife corridor and the trail connection and all that would occur. This would be the edge of the developable piece. You can still see this large portion of parkland which would be left along Alameda. It connects into the 200 foot wide central corridor then it goes down through the remainder of the property you saw on the Master Plan and on the framework plan for Rooney Valley. You can see what Kara is referencing which is the developed park area over in this area, so not only will this parkland remain but, in fact, as part of the PIA (public improvements, roadways, etc) will be improved with these trail connections and the amenities that you see here that will be City facilities, constructed by Carma. The City facilities will be used for all the residents. I hope that helps describe what is planned for that area.

Mayor Burkholder - I'd like to go ahead and talk about any appraisal questions to begin with.

Councilman Stevens - I would address this to Mr. Rock. Mike, how many land exchanges has the City conducted over maybe the last 30 years. Is this something we do on a common basis?

Mike Rock - No, it is something that would be more of the exception to the rule. We've had three in the last 10 or 15 years. One of them was fairly recent. We did one very recently related to Bear Creek Schools and then the other one was much earlier in the process. It was actually in the Rooney Valley area and it was related to the Colorado Department of Transportation, Jefferson County and ourselves related to the roadway.

Councilman Stevens - What about the appraisal methodology. Has that been consistent over the years?

Mike Rock - Very consistent, we don't get multiple appraisals in average. I mean that sounds logical except when you do that. If you do two or three appraisals and average them it means all the appraisals were wrong and you are just picking a number arbitrarily. The methodology is consistent and supportable and again I didn't hear anything in the testimony that suggested otherwise. In fact the other testimony was from someone who had not visited the property and said only that the outcome could be different and we would not dispute that. It's just that it would be mutually different. The properties are comparable so whatever value you assign per square foot, it's going to carry from one to the other.

Councilman Stevens - I guess I am a little confused on Mr. Davis' valuation here. It looks to me like there is a comparison between developed land verses undeveloped land. Am I misreading that Mr. Davis? You have a net value of $8,383,796 and that is based on these addresses where you have figured the value per square acre and then you compare that with the appraised value of exchanged land which I assume you're taking from where?

Mark L. Davis
Your appraiser's appraisal.

Councilman Stevens - In other words, it is developed land verses undeveloped land that you are doing this comparison on?

Mark L. Davis
The comparison was between the value of the land per acre immediately adjacent to the proposed Springfield Green Subdivision.

Councilman Stevens - Which is developed?

Mark L. Davis
Which is not developed, but zoned for development and what the value of the directly adjacent land is today according to the Jefferson County appraiser. By the way, that appraiser said that the land that would be developed in the Springfield Green Subdivision would be worth considerably more per acre than the land directly adjacent to it because the infrastructure would then be new and the homes would be newer. The numbers I provided to Council were conservative. The reason that I chose to use those numbers, I discounted them by 25% so as to give Council a more clear idea of what the infrastructure cost may have been to develop that land, so I did the best that I could. I am not an appraiser but these are common sense numbers derived directly from public records that you need to take into account when making your decision whether this land swap is fair.

Councilman Stevens - Which development are these addresses from. Are these from different developments and are they directly adjacent?

Mark L. Davis - No, sir, those are streets that directly adjoin the proposed development. I drove them myself. I looked at every single address. I then went to the County and using their computer system on the 18th of July, pulled those numbers out.

Councilman Stevens - So, these have full zoning but there not developed?

Mark L. Davis - Those are developed, sir. Those are the existing homes that are there today.

Councilman Stevens - So, it goes back to what I asked you earlier. You're doing a comparison of developed verses the undeveloped land, the appraised value of the exchanged land. Isn't that an apples to oranges comparison?

Mark L. Davis - No, sir. I used the values of the land as developed today with homes on them, which came out to approximately $508,000 per acre, is what developed land directly adjacent to what the proposed development which is zoned the same, just not yet developed.

Mike Rock - It absolutely answers the question, and what that tells me is the existing property owned by Carma that the City proposes to acquire is worth around 7.6 million dollars, that is the only property that's entitled. For those of you who remember the history of Rooney Valley, the reason the entire valley has remained undeveloped for son long is the lack of available utilities, the front end costs of bringing utilities to the property is in the tens of millions of dollars. You could put the City's property on the market or anybody's property on the market and is worth very little today until somebody makes the initial investment of the tens of millions of dollars. If I accept this, and I have no reason to dispute what these numbers are, it tells us that the property immediately adjacent to these properties that is zoned and entitled is worth somewhere between 7.6 and 11 million dollars. I don't know how that argues against the exchange but that is certainly what this would seem to suggest, that the property that is zoned and entitled and has potential utilities available to it of which Carma's property meets all those tests is worth that amount of money. I'm not sure how that argues against the exchange other than perhaps we are getting a better deal than we thought we were.

Councilwoman Stack - I have a question on parcels 3 and 4, which have been identified for private parkland at 2.5 acres per 1000 population. My question would be, if in the ODP where the properties abut, why would they put the private parkland in the center rather than requiring it again as a buffer, basically?

Mike Rock - Dedication of parkland is not designed to be a buffer. Dedication of parkland is normally required to serve the residents of a development, so any new development that is developed, whether it's Highlands Ranch or any development you look at in Lakewood. The public space dedication requirements are designed to serve the neighborhood, you don't normally, it would be contrary to our history in planning and land use to push those amenities to the edge of the property to benefit the adjoining property which should have already met its own open space dedication requirements. So that's why it would normally be more centrally located because it's designed to serve the new development not the existing development which should have had its own amenities and land dedication.

Councilman Peterson - I guess it's my old planning mentality coming out but I actually went and visited the site because once I got the appraisal and once we started looking at this, I just wanted to get an overview of exactly what's going on. With respect to the appraisal, if we use the numbers that were prepared by Mr. Davis, the expressed value of somewhere between eight and seven million for entitled land and if you look at the availability of utilities for that land as a developer I'm taking a look at this and saying my utility lines are going to be easy to obtain, there going to be right there so my development costs for this particular section of land is going to be fairly insignificant compared to parcels C and parcels E of the swap.

The other thing that I noticed is the elevation change, in the Rooney Valley area and all along this section there is fairly substantial geo technical challenges to be met and a lot of those geo technical challenges occur on the higher elevations on the steeper slopes of the development which, quite honestly, the 10.59 acres and the 8.532 acres fall into that category. I'm no geologist but I can tell you based on my development experience that if I was looking at this to be placing single family homes on, the actual infrastructure cost for those two sites are going to be substantially greater than would be on parcel B and parcel A and as represented before, parcel B and parcel A is entitled land. It currently has entitlements to it.

In looking at the appraisals and especially the way the appraisal was formatted, I kind of have a tendency to agree that this appraisal was formatted in such a way to actually benefit the City. If I was a developer and granted I don't do projects of this scale like Carma does, but I think I would have been a little bit more aggressive in evaluating the land swap based on what I've seen physically in the field and what I know as a fact to be infrastructure cost. Likewise, if your talking about cost of improved lots, if you just do the math at 508,000 average per acre value, that is $11.66 a square foot for residential property. I know of no place outside of Cherry Creek or possibly some areas in Cherry Hills that come even close to $11.66 a square foot and at that point all of the improvement streets, curb gutters, main line water and sewer, are all in place, so it's kind of comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. But, if you wanted to use that type of analysis then once again when I project those out to the land swap deal I still come up with parcel A and parcel B worth substantially more than the unentitled parcel E, C., F, G and likewise. I'm really concerned about the connectivity between the two main parks and I think that this particular land swap achieves that and thereby benefits far more than just the people that are currently living adjacent to it and I would hope that through the development process, and I have every faith in our Planning Department, that the access road that was previously mentioned would be looked at to be sure that migrating wildlife will be able to transition that and the people using the strip would also be able to transition that, considering the increased traffic levels. I would also hope that with the development in Forsberg Park as Carma has agreed to, if there is any possibility that we might be able to take a look at some way to transition the Alameda corridor as well for wildlife because I think this makes perfect sense to me from a development standpoint. And with respect to the eighty cents per square foot, if we use a $200,000 an acre figure, we are about $4.50 and once again for smaller in-fill sites of maybe 10 acres or less with utilities fairly close, I think that is a good number. I would support that for raw ground of this size and with this many challenges with respect to infrastructure, I think that the appraisal is spot on and that is just based on my review and I'm bringing to the table my experience in working with development and development procedures. However it should be noted that my professional business deals in commercial real estate rather than residential but I have done mixed-use in the past and I just think this a very favorable exchange on behalf of the City.

Tom Raganetti -Carma Representative
At this point I'm probably going to be doing not the delivery of the original material but summarizing a lot of different things that you brought out and Mr. Rock has pointed out but I'd like to do it in a unified way. As I listen to the testimony, the picture that was painted is that the City is giving up a very valuable hilltop property with great views and instant developability for affectively undevelopable ditch property with no views. Now what I want to do is go through the actuality of that. When you look at the developability and desirability of property for development there are at least three or four things that go into it; is it entitled, can you develop it, does it have utilities, does it have access to utilities, are the utilities actually there and what is its topography. So, lets just rate them. If you look at the City parcel right now you have no development rights, you have R1-A property which is subject to a park designation and cannot be developed. You have no access to utilities or actual utilities at the present time and as Mr. Rock said, we all know to well that the tortured history of the Rooney Valley has been trying to somehow engineer the access to water and sewer. There have been district bankruptcies, there have been reorganization plans, but right now the City property does not have water or sewer and no access to it. The City property has no utility improvements, road improvements or anything else and finally it is hilltop property but that cuts both ways. You can see a long distance from the hilltop but you've got to build on a hilltop as Mr. Peterson said. It requires a lot of engineering, it requires that a lot of property is forfeited as undevelopable because of the steep slopes and the City's property falls into that category. Let's go to Carma's property; Carma's property from an entitlement standpoint is zoned and it's platted for reasonable residential development, they have spent a lot of time and a lot of money arranging a unique utilities solution to bring water and sewer to the property. That was very expensive and will cost them a lot of money. It's not improved yet, it doesn't have those utilities on site so they are comparable in that sense but when you get to the topography. The Carma property is relatively flat, it is not coursed by drainage ditches that make it undevelopable. It has drainage at one or two points that you would deal with in a normal overlock grading pattern, and the property is much more easily developed from an engineering standpoint that the City's built on property and incidentally, as Mr. Reed will show you, it also has some very nice views of its own. Now, as to Mr. Davis' comparison, your dealing with property which is zoned, platted and actually developed. It has utilities not only available, they are on site in pipes and operating and its fully improved. He's counting the value of the houses. He is counting the value of houses on property with utilities that is fully developed that is zoned and platted and served with running utilities against property which has at least entitlements and access to utilities and we know it's development ready because there is development there. Now with that summary in mind, I would like to ask Doug Reed to at least dispel the notion and the image that the so called buffer strip is unusable and undesirable property. And I would be happy to answer any questions.

Doug Reed - Carma Representative
The slide that you see before you is an evaluation that came off the slope analysis that was done to the property. Obviously Carma has looked at developing this both ways, how developable is the land if it's in its current configuration or if it occurs to the subject of the land trade. What you see demonstrated in this graphic is that the portion of the land that Carma would be giving away to the City is primarily in the zero to ten percent slope, exactly what Mr. Peterson had surmised. You can see the darker area is prodominent in the northern piece which is in fact the City owned property that Carma will get. The steeper slopes actually occur on the land that Carma is getting. Carma is trading away the least steep land. The next slide actually has a couple of sections that demonstrate that a little bit better. There are four dominent sections here. If you look at the yellow cross section, well lets begin with the one on the lower right which is the darker green. There is a cross section of that area of the land that is presently Carmas that would be traded to the City. That section corresponds to the cross section you see down below which has an overall slope of four percent, so that portion of the land from Iliff to the southern edge of the Carma property is only a four percent slope overall. The next section above that, in the lighter green, which goes from Iliff up to the northern edge of the presently Carma owned property, that section has an overall slope of six percent.

Now the next two sections that you see above that are the two cross sections that are taken into pieces that Carma will obtain in the exchange from the City. That one, that Paul is pointing to right now, is actually at a twelve percent slope and then the one furthest to the left is at a seven percent slope. Overall you can see that the properties that Carma is getting in the exchange are in fact steeper than the ones that Carma is giving to the exchange, so I hope that clarifies that point.

Councilman Peterson - Have any geo technical investigations been done on the City owned property?

Doug Reed - Carma Representative - On City owned property, I don't believe that the borings actually extended up there but let me check with the Geo Tech.

Fred Limbaugh - Senior Engineer - J.A. Caesar and Associates - 6042 Umber St, Arvada, CO
I did not attend any of the Planning Commission meetings. We did drill borings on what we call the Springfield Green Partners property which is part of the City parcel, I guess and there are similar borings to what we encountered on the rest of the property.

Councilman Peterson - Can you tell me, can the land that is proposed to be traded, and I have reviewed the geo technical, but just for purposes of discussion in Parcel C for instance and I am referring to the appraisal report which is the steepest slope parcel within the proposed exchange. Did you find any descending or dipping bedrock in that area and if so at what elevation?

Fred Limbaugh
Well, Parcels E, F and G are mostly in the dipping bedrock zone whereas tracks A and D shown on there are outside the dipping bedrock zone.

Councilman Peterson - That is what I would assume just from walking the site and just briefly, for the purposes of your opinion as a geo technical expert, what is the potential difficulties of developing parcels within dipping bedrock as opposed to those that aren't. What is typically the procedure? Is it an over excavation?

Fred Limbaugh
Well, it is an over excavation, generally a little more expensive to develop dipping bedrock zones because you have to mitigate the differential heave capability of the dipping bedrock so the method used is over excavation and we've recommended twelve feet of over excavation in this area below the lowest foundation level.

Councilman Peterson - So basically, if I was to build a structure on either one of those parcels, I would be over excavating my basement twelve feet deeper if I put a basement in, then the lowest level of my varying walls were my foundation and then putting that dirt back in and recompacting it to probably 95 or 97 percent of modified grout.

Fred Limbaugh
That is correct sir.

Mayor Burkholder - I realize that was more technical but I'd like to keep this centered on the appraisal but I know that adds to it.

Councilman Peterson - This is another reason why for me, in reviewing the appraisal and visiting the site, I honestly and truthfully believe the City is getting a very beneficial deal.

Councilman Anderson - Just so I understand what you are saying, the pyramid shaped two properties up there, you did borings on?

Fred Limbaugh
Yes we did.

Councilman Elliott - I'd like to have Bonnie come forward, if she would. Just a question I've got in relation to the appraisal that was raised, and I don't think Burton Lee, he's gone if I'm correct. Bonnie, I just wanted to ask you, one of the things that was mentioned by Burton Lee, another MAI appraiser I believe, was in relation to the highest and best use of these two pieces of land. Once again I think we have to compare apples to apples but I know you weren't asked to make an opinion on that but in your judgment, is there a significant difference. We've seen some rational behind issues in relation to it but I wanted to check with an appraiser. If we look at the highest and best use in the land, do you see a difference or do you see it coming out similar when we compared it as parkland?

Bonnie Roerig
Thank you for your question, the answer has to be in two parts. If you look at the two parcels as they are today prior to the exchange, it's clear that there is a very different highest and best use, in that highest and best use analysis begins with what is legally permissible in addition to physically possible, financially feasible and then from those uses the one that is most maximally productive. There is a clear distinction in the legal permissibility between the City owned property and privately owned property as it exists today. At the moment of the exchange, however, the legal permissibility flows with the ownership physical properties change so the rights that the Carma interest hold in parcels A and B move to their interest in what was formally the City owned property and then the park uses move to the Carma parcels. That means the highest and best uses for each of the parties involved remain the same. The entities that have economic development rights today will continue to have those economic development rights just in different physical properties, and those interest the City do not have economic development rights today will continue to have park uses as the highest and best use just in a different parcel, so we talk about highest and best use, as the properties exist today, yes, there is a different highest and best use, the moment of the exchange those uses are exchanged, their equally different their just in different places. Did that answer your question?

Mike Rock- Let me answer it in different, layman's answer. Whether the highest and best use was residential, office, whatever you determine, if there are any differences in the property, they tend to tilt not in the City's favor because of the issues Councilmember Peterson raised, the City owned property, and I'm setting aside, I'm assuming that you got utilities to both of them for the same cost, all of those issues is the piece of land itself. The piece of land itself you can argue and we could have 20 appraisals and 50 experts and we'd still be here and we would get the same point which is there are not significant or measurable differences. You can argue that while it would be nicer to have a lot, and I bet I can charge a premium for that lot, offset the value of that premium by having to over excavate twelve feet down for the basement and on a flatter piece of property. Maybe you can get four units on a given size parcel and on a steeper one maybe you can only get two so, at the end of the day, whether you consider the highest and best use parkland, residential, commercial, office they are essentially equal or comparable so whatever assumption you assign there's been a suggestion that somehow this mysterious assumption has tilted away from the City's favor. I can tell you that we worked very hard to tilt it in the City's favor and if Carma were negotiating from a hardball standpoint on the other side, this would be an exchange that would require money on the part of the City, which we would not be willing to do or interested in doing.

We could put another hypothetical situation together but once again its going to be a hypothetical situation based on something that is not reality today and say here's what the use is. We want it valued on both pieces of land, now give us a valuation and that's in essence what we've been tempted to do from a parkland standpoint and I guess that was my question. If we looked at it and said they both hypothetically have the same use assigned to a single family dwelling unit, is there a significant difference because one property is located higher than another property is.

Councilman Murphy - I just want to try to give a little synopsis here and start to bring this to a close if we could, this whole discussion of the appraisals. There are several different components to this but as essentially we've heard from two parties or two points of view that didn't agree with the appraisal and the slot, one was an appraiser, Mr. Lee, who said that he had not inspected the subject property. I think what we've learned in the last few minutes that one of the results of not inspecting the subject property is that we didn't look at the differences in elevations and resulting bedrock excavations and that sort of thing and I think that taints his analysis a little bit. Indeed Mr. Lee admitted, his own quote was, "The common denominator from a valuation standpoint was the parkland use of both properties", which is exactly the premise that we started with here. The other individual we heard from gave us a different opinion of valuations, one based on raw land, the other one based on developed land with utilities and homes. I gotta tell you, that's not apples to oranges, that is watermelons to lime. It just doesn't' have any base in reality to me, so I'm comfortable with the appraisals and the relative values of the two properties. The other two components I would like to address briefly are the adherence to the Rooney Valley Master Plan.

Mayor Burkholder - I'm going to interrupt for a minute if I might. On the appraisal issue, does it have to do with that? I'd like to bring that to a closure.

Councilwoman Allen - Mr. Lee talked about comparing things for the highest, best use and so far, my short time on Council, as long as I've lived in Lakewood, the hottest things I've seen contested here are zoning and changes in zoning. Not only do people have to deal with the Comprehensive Plan and Planning Commission, Council checks and balances like forcing a super majority or petitioning to down zone land. My question is, I've never seen a project of any similar size like this that hasn't had some huge challenge to zoning, so it's a nice idea that we can sell our parkland and make a ton of money and somebody can just get it rezoned and build a bunch of houses. But from what I've seen in Lakewood, as long as I've lived here, there's not an ice cubes chance of hell of that really happening, so am I totally off. Have we had situations where large developments or selling parkland has suddenly been zoned to build a bunch of houses because I've never seen that happen.

City Attorney Roger Noonan - I'm aware that the City Council received a copy of Ms. Roerig's appraisal preparation for this hearing tonight and there has been a considerable amount of reference to it. I would like to make sure for the record that her appraisal is received as part of the record and just ask the Mayor if you would accept that.

Mayor Burkholder - I so accept on behalf of the City Council.

Councilman Stevens - I guess one of the things that concern me about Mr. Lee's testimony tonight is that we seem to have this dueling experts thing going on here and the fact that he had not done a full detailed review. Mr. Spano is correct in, I think, the first appraiser did mention hypothetical probably six times in her appraisal, however Mr. Lee, at least two or three times, said we don't know what the impact would be. To me it seemed like he was addressing the methodology and not the project specifically. He was more or less addressing how it was determined as opposed to saying no, this is totally wrong based on the inspection of the property. That's the concern I have with Mr. Lee's rebuttal.

Mike Rock - We absolutely acknowledge Mr. Lee's position and have said that we can change all the hypotheticals and make both properties entitled or any set of circumstances but the end result would be the same. We would be in a much weaker position if the swap were the other way around, if we were getting the property we're giving up and vice versa. I think it would be strong argument against property along a busy road way with geo technical issues, steep slopes, etc.

Councilman Elliott - I just wanted to comment. Obviously, as I read through this case, one of the concerns was the land swap and making sure that the City was getting just compensation in value, even though it is acre for acre. There are obviously other considerations on the property and I've heard Mr. Lee make his case. That's why it was nice to have Bonnie be able to come back up and talk about that because you've raised another hypothetical of the highest and best use, but assuming these pieces of land are looked at with identical zoning on them, having her expert testimony, based on the information she has provided the City Council, I am very comfortable that we are getting an equitable trade with this land swap that is being looked at. I appreciate the information, I feel very comfortable with what I have heard tonight and what I have read. There were concerns as I read through the packet today that there may be some issues with that and that we may not be getting the equitable value. But everything I've seen and heard actually supports that. The 21 acres that we'll be getting and trading for is of equal value to what we will be giving up.

Councilman Murphy - I guess this is the part where I conclude my earlier remarks. There are two other components to this whole land swap issue. One is the Charter or Constitutional component and the other one is the Master Plan component. Regarding the Charter component, I appreciate Mr. Spano's comments about "we" being the policy makers and "we" not wanting to rely solely on the advice of our staff and while I respect Mr. Noonan's opinion thoroughly, I am perfectly capable of reading plain English and the Charter says there shall be no lease or sale of property held for open space without going to a vote of the people. This is neither a lease nor a sale, it's an exchange. Despite Mr. Davis' efforts to insert the word exchange into the Colorado Constitution and various court cases where the word doesn't exist, this is an exchange. It is not a sale or a lease. Therefore, is acceptable under the Charter, without going to a vote.

The second component is the Master Plan component. As several speakers and staff members have eluded to, this is exactly what the Rooney Valley Master Plan is asking for. There is very specific language in the Master Plan. It says on page 23, excess land adjacent to the parkway be used for potential trades to create open areas within the interior of Rooney Valley. That is exactly what is being proposed tonight. It is compatible with the City Charter and it's compatible with the applicable Master Plan.

Councilwoman Stack - I have a couple of questions. The first one has to do with the swap according to the ODP. Well, I'm not sure if it is the ODP or not, but the swap, the land that we will be swapping, we will not be down zoned back into the parkland status, the R1-A and I'm very concerned about that. Mainly because then that is not basically an exchange. You're keeping it at a PD which could potentially be used for development in the future and that is a concern to me and I'm just wondering what we can do to protect that?

Mike Rock - Well actually, if the City accepts the property in exchange for the park property than it can only be used for park purposes and the zoning doesn't dictate that. In fact we don't have a park zoning per se. We have R1-A which is the closest to it but
in theory R1-A would simply say that you can build large lot residential development. When we accept land in an exchange, when we exchange one piece of parkland for another, then all the rules that govern that first piece of parkland transfer to the second piece of parkland. Certainly if the Council would feel more comfortable and would like us to come forward at some future date with a rezone, we can do it. It's redundant because R1-A does not say it's a park. It says it's large lot residential and it's really the umbrella fact that we're acquiring it in exchange for parkland that carries forward all the same restrictions. But, certainly if you wanted us to come back in the future, certainly would not want tonight's decision to be delayed but we can come back in the future and rezone it if that were the desire of the Council.

Councilwoman Stack - I guess something else that relates to that would be, in reading the minutes, when Commissioner Urbanowski questioned Mr. Connor on the deed to the parkland, he had referred to the Charter and stated that the Charter provisions restrict the uses and that once it is a parkland, that it really is guaranteed to stay parkland. So, an exchange can happen within this parkland then?

Mike Rock - Any parkland that City owns.

Councilwoman Stack - It's not secured for the future. I guess that is what I am asking. The swap is not secure as parkland for the future.

Mike Rock - It's absolutely secure as long as the City owns it, Section 5 of the ordinance of page 2 says "The land received by the City of Lakewood shall be used for open space and park purposes". But the City for any piece of parkland that it owns such as the small parks that we exchanged with Bear Creek High School, you could always in the future decide to another swap, you could not otherwise dispose of it without an election but you could do a future swap. Zoning would not change that, it wouldn't matter what you zoned it.

Councilwoman Stack - I'm just asking whether or not it was guaranteed to stay as parkland, so that parcel would not be guaranteed to stay as parkland if the City decides to swap with someone else.

Mike Rock - That is true for any piece of property that the City owns. There are some additional restrictions in some cases if we jointly acquire this property with Jeffco Open Space we then require concurrence for the swap but certainly any piece of property that the City owns that is parkland today, whether it be Addenbrooke Park or Green Mountain Park, could be subject to a future swap. I don't think anyone envisions that, but there is not a zoning designation that would preclude you as Council from considering a swap in the future.

Councilwoman Stack - No, and I didn't mean to allude to that.

Mayor Burkholder - I'd just say that on this particular case here, if it's swapped out it essentially falls under the Charter, plain and simple.

Councilman Anderson - I have a number of questions, the bulk of them have to do with traffic and we haven't really seemed to discuss that here. Do we have someone from staff that could talk regarding traffic?

Mike Rock - Yes, start with your questions.

Councilman Anderson - If I read it correctly, there was quite a bit of discussion about Alameda needing to be widened back when Mt. Carbon had the property or was anticipating building on the property and I believe in the staff report, there is a statement, Mt. Carbon was going to be the entity that would construct offsite improvements such as six lane McIntyre Street and the widening of Alameda Parkway. Who will be widening Alameda Parkway, how much will that cost and when will it happen?

John Padon - City of Lakewood Principal Traffic Engineer - With development we construct a PIA (public improvements, roadways, sidewalks, parks) that would be phased. As Carma develops they will be required to build certain portions of, lets say, Indiana and Iliff in their first phase and then continue on as they move down the development. With the public improvement agreement, the PIA, they will be phased as generated through their development. The more trips that are required onto the roadway, they will be required to widen; so essentially when Alameda gets to a point or they get to a point in their construction, they will have to construct Alameda to a four lane section from Bear Creek to, lets say, Indiana and then as commercial components come on within Springfield Green, Alameda will be widened further up the road towards C-470. McIntyre we built to support the residential units and as commercial and retail comes in, they will be required to build all of it or they may be required up front to build all of McIntyre along the frontage, things like that so it is in a public improvement agreement.

Councilman Anderson - I appreciate you kind of giving a broad overview there. I was looking specifically on Alameda. You're saying that Carma will be responsible for the cost of widening Alameda as it goes along and as additional traffic is added? Completely, Lakewood is not going to be covering the cost of widening Alameda?

John Padon - That is correct.

Councilman Anderson - Regarding Iliff, there was a comment and I'm forgetting who it was, but one of our citizens spoke to the issue of the sun setting being a problem, blinding drivers if you go down Alameda. Could you talk about what issues? I believe Chris Bremner at the Planning Commission meeting spoke as to the traffic control devices that Carma is willing to install or at least he said they were willing to install a variety of them but he did not list them, I'm wondering if it would be possible, I think Commissioner Shefield specifically asked the question about that. If Carma could address what traffic devices will be put in there by them and additionally what is going to be done regarding the sun setting issue?.

Chris Bremner
I'm actually going to call my traffic engineer up to answer those different devices.

Lyle Debrice - Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig - 6300 S Syracuse Way Centennial CO 80111
The crossing of Iliff has come up in the planning process and one of the things that has been discussed is a speed table there, a narrowing of the Iliff section.

Councilman Anderson - Could I ask you, if you would, as been discussed and proposed a very vague phrases, can you give us something that is more specific as to what will or will not happen or if it's still undecided how likely it is to happen specifically as to what Carma's role will be with it.

Lyle Debrice
I can't speak to that. It'll have to be someone else on the team who can speak to the specifics of how that gets built, but I've seen it on the plans.

Councilman Anderson - I've also seen it on the plans, but I've also seen that the West Metro has said that their fire trucks are not capable of dealing with a speed bump on major streets such as Iliff, so that if Iliff continues to be a major street they would not want a speed bump there so I'm trying to nail down what will and will not.

Doug Reed
I might try the first part of that and Lyle is the expert for all the other stuff. We've had multiple discussions with the City staff about what the eventual design of Iliff ought to be. Frankly I think those are still ongoing. We've had numerous, different iterations of those things. The point that we're at now this is a Master Plan. The Master Plan says that the street should be connected. The desire of the City is it be connected in such a way that primarily allows the people from the east to have an access out, the people in the existing homes have a way to get out to Indiana and alleviate traffic within that existing subdivision, that is the primary function of that interconnection. When the next stage occurs, should this be approved, which is a subdivision plat for that area, then the final design for Iliff is determined and that's of course based on all those other factors, the lotting around it, grades that happen with it, that's what some of these preliminary discussions have been about. Should lots front on it or not as a traffic calming device, things of that nature and those will certainly be ongoing discussions. The City staff may, please correct me if I'm wrong, I believe that at this stage it's not possible to say this is exactly the finished section of Iliff. that'll be determined with the subsequent plat, I believe is the most accurate answer. Now Lyle can tell you much better detail about all those sorts of alternatives.

Councilman Anderson - The alternatives without cement underneath him frankly are simply possibilities. I appreciate that you may be at the point in dealing with this that it's not something you can say, this is what will happen on Iliff, but I would just assume not go into possibilities because it's going to lead to phone calls to my house at midnight when the possibilities don't happen and there will be some unkind names called of all of us.

Doug Reed
The simple answer is Iliff is a City street right now. The City owns the Iliff right of way right now. Whatever Carma does in the final plat will have to occur in concert with the City and Carma will do what the City says.

Councilman Anderson - Moving on and off of Iliff and onto Gladiola and Bear Creek. Gladiola, I understand, is a minor collector and perhaps somebody from traffic can correct me if that is not the correct designation. There are back ups on Gladiola and I think that was noted in a traffic report that I saw in our packet there. How will the back ups, as I understand it, the streets are only going to be built in conjunction with the building of buildings. How will the back ups on Gladiola be dealt with until complete roads are put through that will limit this?

John Padon
The existing condition, your speaking of Bear Creek Blvd and Gladiola intersection, the back up today exists from the existing development, primarily the left turn exiting Gladiola onto Bear Creek in the a.m. peak hour, when people are leaving there homes. The connection to Iliff actually gives relief to that and if I'm in the new Carma subdivision and I have a direct connection to Indiana, to Alameda and I can go up Indiana, make a right turn and be on Alameda and Bear Creek. That is much simpler than going through the Iliff connection going up to Gladiola and waiting for those left turners. Conversely, those left turners, if they're going west on Alameda, they will be able to use the Iliff connection to get to Indiana and pull some of that left turn traffic off of Gladiola. So I don't see the Iliff connection being a detrament to it but actually helping, especially in the future when commercial is in there. Potentially C-470 Alameda interchange, I see Iliff leading off a lot of traffic in that Gladiola intersection.

Councilwoman Wise - Mr. Mayor, I do have a point of order here and I certainly appreciate some of these concerns of Counselor Anderson, but tonight's purpose is not to review the individual components of the Master Plan, it is simply to uphold or overturn the Planning Commission earlier decision. S0 based on that I would like to get us back onto talking about what we are hear to talk about, and I am actually going to ask to call the question.

Mayor Burkholder - The question has been called, all those in favor of the question, I might remind you that that does require eight votes in order to bring this to a question, so at this point we are calling the question. We are not voting on the resolution and we are not voting on the ordinance. We are only asking Council at this point whether they want to bring it forward to an immediate vote without further discussion, so all this in favor of the question please signify by saying yes, opposed say no.

Vote on calling the question: 6 Aye. 5 Nays (Burkholder, Koop, Anderson, Stack and Elliott). A super majority voter was required. The motion failed.

Mayor Burkholder - I do agree what you are saying as a traffic issue here Ms. Wise, I do feel that these are some issues that will be addressed as we get into it in the future but I do agree that we are here. I've allowed the discussion to continue because I think it sets up some things here for staff to be looking at as we move forward on some of the traffic issues if these two issues are approved.

Councilman Anderson - Mr. Mayor, if I could continue then, I appreciate the Council's concern to not be addressing traffic issues tonight and I will leave behind the issues on Indiana and McIntyre for another day. I do have some other questions if I could address those. In looking at things, I saw a piece of land, it's about 14 acres in size that's between planning area nine and planning area four and I'm wondering who owns that property. If you look at it, they've got a bike path open space open on catty corner sections of their property that looks to me like it would take something like 30-40 percent of their property away if it were to continue on. I'm wondering if the owner has been contacted as to how this plan will affect them and who would be paying for a bike path if it goes through their open space?

Kara Mueller
That property is actually owned by Marvin Simon. He was approached by Carma to see if he wanted to participate in the Master Planning process. He did not want to participate in that. It's a unique situation, with the actual Springfield Green Subdivision he was not a part of that but he is part of the Springfield Green official development plan. In the future he will need to come forward and take a look at his parcel now as part of the review and under the document of the Rooney Valley Master Plan, that wildlife corridor is shown to go through his property with a bike path, but as he comes in we're going to have to individually look at his property but at this time he has not come forward to propose anything on his property. Therefore it will be a unique and different situation with this property as well when it does come forward.

Councilman Anderson - Did he offer any formal comment to the City?

Kara Mueller
No.

Councilman Anderson - Regarding the land that's in Forsberg Park, the privately owned land was under Mt. Carbon district but the Forsberg Park and Iron Springs, if the land is swapped, how will the property be treated toward the 16 million dollar debt and the something less than 20 million tax? Will the lands that we are trading for have, or trading against I should say, have the tax added onto them or will it not?

Kristin Bear - White, Bear & Ankley
In answer to your question, as those properties are swapped assuming that that is approved this evening, what will happen is the City owned property, the property that becomes City owned property will be exempt from taxation. The property that becomes Carma owned property will be subject to taxation. We have recently gone through a process with the Mt. Carbon district to exclude all of the property from the boundaries of their district, not withstanding that exclusion, those properties that are subject to taxation, ie: the Carma and privately owned properties will be subject to any mill levy imposed by Mt. Carbon for debt retirement purposes on the debt that was approved on the bankruptcy plan.

Councilman Anderson - So let me just say it again so I'm hearing it, the property that Carma will take on in the trade will have an additional tax placed on them to pay off the Mt. Carbon debt.

Kristin Bear
That is correct. It will be subject to the Mt. Carbon mill levy.

Councilman Anderson - Will that swapped land be required to deal with the Hilltop development guidelines because there has been quite a bit of discussion here this evening.

Kristin Bear - Yes, it will. I didn't see it at all in the dotted area on the map, so it will be subject to the Hilltop development guidelines

Councilman Anderson - Thank you Mayor, I have one final question just regarding the wildlife. In our packet we received a recommendation from the Division of Wildlife in their 2005 report that there be a survey conducted for specifically the threat of species burrowing owls and I didn't see any matching surveys conducted. Was one conducted and are copies available and additionally with that could somebody speak regarding the Preble's mouse.

Mike Rock - I think it is the developer who would have had the responsibility to conduct these surveys, is that correct?

Tom Raganetti
Let me address the Preble's Jumping Meadow Mouse. We had a biological environmental study done which found no evidence that the Preble's mouse. That was reviewed by the Colorado Department of Wildlife, who in a four page letter, said they agreed that there is no Preble's Jumping Meadow Mouse habitat evident on the site, so that takes care of the mouse. As far as the burrowing owls, there has been no additional study done at this time.

Councilman Anderson - Are you anticipating doing one prior to?

Tom Raganetti
Yes.

Councilman Peterson - One of the things that I want to make sure somehow gets brought forth and in the record this evening is the fact that if this land swap goes through I value highly the wildlife corridor that this will provide so can you enlighten me a little as to what forms of study or what type of work will be done to ensure that this land swap has the potential, if not the mandate, to be used for wildlife corridor that connects the two main parts here in Lakewood.

Tom Raganetti
I assume Mr. Peterson, you are speaking of the piece that Carma would be giving up and going to the City. If you approve the land swap tonight that becomes City property and the use of that property as a wildlife corridor is in control and in the hands of the City and if you value that highly, you can devote it to wildlife corridor, open space, park purposes, as I believe is planned.

Councilman Peterson - Once again, getting back to the Iliff crossing of this particular intersection, I guess I'm addressing this to staff as well as to Carma. I would like to see very strong recommendations if not requirements that that intersection, that crossing be constructed in such a manner that it does not inhibit wildlife and likewise with the development with Forsberg Park and I would like to take a look at the transition at Alameda as well.

Tom Raganetti
The good news on that, from the City standpoint is that all of those street improvements will be the subject of subsequent platting and the approval of those is in the hands of the City, so you affectively write the rule.

Councilwoman Koop - I'm glad to hear the Preble's Jumping Mouse is safe here in Lakewood, that there aren't any right there that we have to worry about. I did have a few questions that were already asked and they were either answered here tonight or in our meetings that we have had in the past few weeks. I just want to assure everybody that is watching on T.V. and is in our audience that this is a very important decision that we will be making and we have done our homework, at least I know I have. We've visited the site. I've walked around it, I've listened to letters that we received from citizens in Lakewood and we've had one big packet to read for the last couple of weeks too. Can I just take one quick moment here to let them know some of the things that were in our packet that we have read. In our book that we've read were the official development plans for Springfield Green, the appraisals for the vacant land, the Rooney Valley Master Plan, August 18, 2005 community notes and questions and answers from the citizens, we had correspondence between Kara Mueller and citizens for the past year, all that was logged in there for us, we had a petition that was signed from numerous citizens, there were letters from Consolidated Water, West Metro Fire District, Excel Energy and Jeffco Schools approving this development, there were minutes from our City Council study session of Rooney Valley of March 6, 2006, there were comment cards from the April 4, 2006 community meeting with also questions and answers that were brought up that night, there was correspondence received before and after the Planning Commission hearing of June 28th and then the Public Hearing minutes of the Planning Commission. We have had a lot of reading to do. We've had lots of time to talk to our staff and ask questions if we've had any and then we've had our presentations this evening. I really want to thank everybody who gave a presentation. You answered a few more of my questions. I want to thank all of the citizens that came and got up. I know it can be scary at times to talk to us and let us know what your concerns are, but I just want to assure everybody that whatever decision we do happen to make tonight, it wasn't a quick decision. A lot of time and energy has gone into this from our City staff, which has done a wonderful job and all the citizens who have taken time to let us know how they feel about this. One quick question I didn't hear asked this evening was about the Jeffco Schools, who wants to answer that for me?

Tom Raganetti
I believe Mr. Rock tried to answer this so I am going to give the same answer. When this property was originally zoned and platted there was an agreement with the Jefferson County Schools that theoretically would have satisfied all of this properties obligations to the Jeffco Schools. Nevertheless because of the duration and time between when that agreement was reached to the present date, Carma has agreed voluntarily to meet the new City requirements for school dedications and Jeffco schools are delighted.

Councilwoman Koop - My question wasn't having to do with that, but that was a great answer too. In our notes here from Jeffco schools, it says total from the proposal of students there will be 358 elementary students added, 216 middle school students, 216 high school students and I guess in the secondary section there would be another 100 elementary, 41 middle school and 35 high school, for a total of 966 total new students coming to the Jeffco schools and I guess that is an estimate but my question had to do with what they told us about their capacity at the schools. Is there anybody here who could answer that question because their showing that the numbers will be even lower a year or two from now than they are now in our schools.

Kara Mueller - I can't directly answer specifically if the numbers will actually be less, this does come from the school district, they actually have jurisdiction on where there boundaries are for each of the schools in the area, where students will go if they allocate those differently in the future. This is just basically them taking a look at the proposal of the number of new dwellings that will be there and giving there best assumption at that time and then letting us know if it's adequate or inadequate and then do they need school land or do they need "fee's in lieu of", and in this case they did state that they did need the "fee's in lieu of". I apologize that I can't specifically answer why it would be less within a couple of years but if it is a question that we have we can get in contact with them and see maybe what there justification of that was.

Councilwoman Koop - That was just one thing that didn't quite make sense to me but if there was an estimated 900 students coming in, why it showed there numbers are going down and they won't need additional classroom space.

Kara Mueller - I can check with Mr. Young on that and get back with you if you would like.

Councilwoman Koop - I would appreciate that.

Mike Rock - Of course it would be many, many years before a build out and we're seeing the school population stabilize and some areas dip a little bit.

Councilwoman Koop - Have we heard, is there a designated spot for a new school in that area if one is needed?

Mike Rock - As part of the earlier development there was, in the Tamarisk area at one time there was a school site, if I recall, is that right Kara?

Kara Mueller - Yes, an elementary school site, there was actually land dedicated with that development.

Councilwoman Stack - I believe this question goes to Mr. Padon. On the land that we are swapping out, there may be an opportunity for flag lots, which in the past you have told me are discouraged. What would we do in this case because the entire development talks about flag lots.?

John Padon - With a new development like this, I don't think it is Carma's intent to create a situation where we will be building flag lots with the new development. We would try to have minimum frontages to all the homes adjacent to right of way rather than flag lots. Typically flag lots come up within filled situations when people try to subdivide lots and create two lots from one in an existing development, I don't think Carma has an intent of creating any lots that are large enough to subdivide at a later date into flag lots. I don't think we'll see to many flag lots in this development.

Councilwoman Stack - In the ODP that abutts the Green Mountain Subdivision, Carma or Springfield Green shows a sidewalk that is planned and I'm assuming that they were liable for the cost of, and in that same plan the City was liable for track A and track B which is the round-a-bout and then the lower, or southeast portion of that detention pond, it changes in the second ODP. Can you tell me the reason for that please.

Kara Mueller - Looking at the ODP modification alternative, I am under the assumption that you are looking toward the eastern boundary. The sidewalk that is shown is there is shown to be straight, for those of you who do not have plans in front of you, verses meandering through the site on the other portion. Currently on the Springfield Green Subdivision plat, there is actually an easement for pedestrian way there. So in this plan they have shown it there but if this modification were to be approved, modification alternative, staff would then work with them to put, the walk would have to go through whether it meanders in the future or if it goes on a straight line. We currently at this time have that easement so we've shown it straight on this plan, however if the lotting layout designated it to be different than we would work with Carma to have that installed but at this time we can state that they could put one in because we do have the easement.

Councilwoman Stack - And then for the tracks for the detention pond, the liability changes and for what purpose?

Kara Mueller - The actual detention area is still going to be Carma land, it is not going to be part of the land exchange and therefore the detention in that area would be the maintenance responsibility of the development.

Councilwoman Stack - Correct, but at one point it was the responsibility of the City, according to note four, it says with the exception tracks.

Kara Mueller On the ODP modification which includes the land exchange and rezoning you have tracks A and B which are the exchange parcels, on there they label the detention pond track C, if you go to the alternative which does not have the tracks A and B, it just changed the label of the detention area to track A. The responsibilities are still the same, the City however through obtaining the actual tracks A and B on the modification with the land exchange and rezoning they would eventually maintain that, however the improvements for the sidewalk, etc. are written within the development agreement to be installed by the developer.

Councilman Elliott - A couple of questions here, I did want to talk a little bit, I know Doug gave up a little bit on the traffic issue but it has been raised, as I read through the material, and the Indiana Street, and this is probably for John Padon with the City. There seemed to be a concern about the ability for Indiana to handle the traffic that this development would put onto it and if you drive down there, it is a two lane road with a median I believe in the middle, kind of an entrance point right now to Tamarisk that also goes up to Yale. Are there going to be improvements required on Indiana Avenue at some point in the future as this development occurs?

John Padon - Carma's portion would extend across their property. It would go from Alameda to Yale so they would do the improvements in there. Once Indiana does connect Yale to the existing street and Carma's traffic starts using Indiana to Morrison Road, they will be required to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Morrison and Indiana to alleviate some of the congestion there allowing the people on Indiana to get out easier.

Councilman Elliott - Sounds like Tamarisk already has put some money towards that traffic light. What about the actual roadway itself? Will there be further improvements required on the roadway to get down to Morrison Road or will it be able to handle the traffic from the traffic study?

John Padon - It can handle the traffic. It is not anticipated that Indiana would exceed over 10,000 cars a day, Garrison Street is a 10,000 car a day road and it is only a two lane road in most of the sections so a two lane road can easily handle 10,000 cars a day. It's not anticipated that it would reach half of that so the one modification is potentially a signal light at Morrison and Indiana. Also Yale and Indiana has potential for signalization. That is more when the commercial portion in Morrison come in, they will be required to finish the west half of Indiana when they come in.

Councilman Elliott - I think I am done with the traffic issues and appreciate those answers. Just one quick and this is probably for a developer, probably you, Tom, as you look at this one of the issues that have been raised by people is that we've got this one that encompasses a landscape buffer and Council can potentially approve that and assuming Council did approve that, why the alternative with a date specified that if you can't develop even though we may, assuming we approved it, even though we've approved the land swap potentially you still have the ability to go back and build without a land swap assuming the dates didn't coincide correctly, why is that there?

Tom Raganetti - That is there because after tonight, whatever decision you make is no longer in your hands and for instance, somebody who opposes this project can take it to court, they could oppose it. They could be victorious and the alternative, if they challenge the land swap and the zoning and they went on that then we have an ability to return to the alternative if we're not able to defend that land swap within a reasonable period of time. Make no mistake about it, I think it has been very clear from all the comments, we would like to accommodate the City and do the land swap, we think it makes the best plan, we would like your approval of that tonight and we dearly hope that nobody challenges that because it is good for the City, it's good for the neighbors who immediately adjoin it, it's good for people who aren't immediately adjoining because of the way it connects the parks and it's good for Carma, but if someone decides to challenge it, it is out of our hands.

Mike Rock - The City not only concurred with that but actually was part of coming up with that solution, we thought it would be disingenuous to go to Carma and say would you swap land with us. You're already entitled to build here but would you do a swap and then put them in a position where the swap didn't go through, that they no longer had the ability to develop, they lost an entitlement that they already had so we wanted to be sure that the swap was done in good faith on all sides and we wanted to be sure that if Council believed that this swap was not in the public interest that we were not holding up the project.

Councilman Elliott - One last question, I think it is called the modification alternative, is that the correct terminology, Vicki had asked this question about that walkway. How much, it sounds like all that couldn't potentially be built on it, there would have to be an easement for a bike path or a trail, what is the distance we're talking about where development could potentially begin from where the existing development exists today.

Kara Mueller - Where we have shown it actually on the modification alternative was the simplest way to show it because on the existing Springfield Green Subdivision plat that was done in 1986, on that document it actually does show a pedestrian easement that runs pretty much parallel to the back of the properties of the Hutchinson Green Mountain Village there, so what we chose to do was , we want to show in this ODP modification that we're not losing a bike path, that we're going to put a bike path in, we know that we have that easement so we've shown and depicted it that way. It may or may not end up being laid out that way if this were approved and they came into plat and we felt that it may be better to have a meandering bike path through the area. We could work with them and the closest someone could build to those back property lines is a twenty foot rear set back. If indeed the pedestrian easement is changed.

Councilman Elliott - So, there would be a twenty foot gap between that back fence and where they could begin building the house in essence?

Kara Mueller - If indeed we vacated the pedestrian easement and rededicated elsewhere while working through the planning process, but at this time we don't know what that platting looks like, with the easement in place we would have a fence from their rear property lines, the easement area the twenty foot width, and then you would begin another fence to another rear property line and you pretty much get a corridor effect of twenty feet so more than likely the best alternative situation would be to not have it in a straight line along that fence. It probably wouldn't be that useful but we would need to work that out in time so just knowing that we have it there, we want it depicted, we don't want to lose that. We want them to know that we expect there to be a bike path there if this goes through, but that could look different through the planning process.

Councilman Elliott - One other question. As we look at this, we are obviously approving, reaching a consensus or a vote on Planning Commissions vote, after this process goes through and assuming that we were to approve this and potentially the land swap, a lot of the issues as we've read through this material about issues in relation to Rooney Valley development standards, steeply dipping bedrock and all those wonderful issues when the development actually occurs. This is stuff that once, assuming this is approved, staff will be reviewing all that information and ensuring that the Rooney development standards are held to. Carma can go above that, but once again those standards would be held to what they can build upon, so on and so forth, how it is going to be dealt with and I just think that the staff will wind up dealing with once this Master Plan is approved, if I'm correct. It will not come back before City Council in the future.

Kara Mueller - It will not and it is stated within these documents that they will adhere to those development standards.

Councilman Elliott - That means all the platting and everything that goes along with that, we will not see that, this is really what we're voting on and from that point forward it is in the staff's hands.

Kara Mueller - This is what you are voting on but any subdivision ten lots or more is a major subdivision, that will have to go back before Planning Commission and then subsequently, if it were appealed, it would come before City Council but typically Planning Commission for ten lots or more for a major subdivision.

Mayor Burkholder - A separate vote is going to be taken on each item and we are going to take that now and at this point the motion is made and the motion before us is the adoption of Resolution 2006-43, please cast your vote.

Vote: All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.

Mayor Burkholder - The next motion is for the adoption of Ordinance O-2006-15 based on the findings of fact June 28, 2006, please cast your votes.

Vote: All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.

ITEM 11 - GENERAL BUSINESS

None.

ITEM 12 - PUBLIC COMMENT

Public comments are not verbatim transcription but rather an attempt to capture the intent of the speaker by the City Clerk.

James Mace - Not present

Peter Rossell - Not present.

Natalie Menten - Ward 5
There is a U.S. Mayors aluminum can contest and this happened last year and I don't think that the City of Lakewood participated in this. For a year I've been trying to figure out how we could participate in this contest and it takes a lot of work. The whole mission of the contest is to get people aware of recycling. So the City of Golden is going to participate in the contest, so if anybody would like to start collecting their aluminum cans and help the City of Golden win this prize. I think they get $5,000 dollars or something like that to help encourage recycling, so what we could do is get out of the hard work, just take the cans there, we'll get some brownie points from the City of Golden, also hopefully this dispels the myth that republicans don't want to hug trees.

Public Comment is closed.

ITEM 13 - REPORTS

Mayor and City Council reported their attendance at previous meetings and events and announced upcoming neighborhood meetings and events.

ITEM 14 - ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Council; Mayor Burkholder adjourned the meeting at 11:16 p.m.

Submitted by,
Margy Greer, City Clerk

	Home | Search | Contact Us | Privacy Policy Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Notice © City of Lakewood, 480 S. Allison Pkwy., Lakewood, CO 80226, 303-987-7000