CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMORANDUM

City and County of Broomfield, Colorado

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMORANDUM To: Prepared by:

Mayor and City Council Charles Ozaki, City and County Manager David Shinneman, Community Development Director Kevin Standbridge, Deputy City and County Manager John Hilgers, Planning Director Michael Sutherland, Senior Planner Meeting Date Agenda Category Agenda Item # March 24, 2015 Council Business 11(a) th 1. Public Hearing on Proposed 36 Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, an Amendment to the North Broomfield/I-25 Sub-Area Plan, the Anthem – West P.U.D. Plan – Second Amendment and the Anthem Filing No. 20 Final Plat Property Location: North of Preble Creek Parkway and East of Lowell Boulevard Agenda Title: Applicant: WS-ACB Development, LLC 2. Consideration of Proposed Ordinance No. 2007 on Second and Final Reading; and 3. Consideration of Proposed Resolution No. 2015-57 Regarding the Application Summary  The applicant requests approval for a one-lot, one-tract final plat on a 141.713acre property located at the northeast corner of Preble Creek Parkway and Lowell Boulevard in the Anthem Highlands.  The purpose of the proposed final plat is to relocate a 6.78-acre park site and a 6.09-acre school site (12.87 acres total) from the east side of the subdivision to a 12.871-acre lot nearer to the middle of the subdivision and provide the Adams County 12 School District with a more suitable site for a future school building and a joint-use park.  In order to relocate the school and park site, the applicant is also requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan amendment, a comprehensive plan land use map amendment, and a sub-area plan amendment to adjust references to the existing school and park sites in each document respectively.  An application is currently under review for the development of the proposed 128-acre Tract A for a single-family residential neighborhood (Anthem Filing No. 20 Replat A) which is anticipated for Council consideration later this year.  In 2003, the developer conveyed Outlots 5 and 6 to Broomfield in the Preble Creek Filing No. 2 final plat. Outlot 5 was intended to become a park and Outlot 6 was intended to become a school site. WS-ACB is requesting approval to move the park and school site to an equally-sized property near the intersection of Preble Creek Parkway and Pikes Peak Drive (Lot 1 of the proposed Anthem Filing No. 20 final plat). In order to move the school and park site, the property must be conveyed from Broomfield to the applicant by ordinance prior to accepting the relocated property by final plat.  Currently, the entire 141.713-acre property is undeveloped and Outlots 5 and 6 are not in use for a public purpose.  On February 23, 2015, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing and voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval of the plat, PUD plan amendment, comprehensive plan amendment, and sub-area plan amendment with no conditions.  Proposed Ordinance No. 2007 conveys Outlots 5 and 6, Preble Creek Filing No. 2 (12.87 acres total) to WS-ACB Development, LLC.  Proposed Resolution No. 2015-57 approves the comprehensive plan amendment, sub-area plan amendment, PUD plan amendment, and final plat, which dedicates Lot 1 (12.87 acres) to Broomfield for a park and school site. Prior Council Action  August 25, 1988, Council approved the annexation of the property by Ordinance No. 774.  December 7, 1999, Council approved the North Broomfield/I-25 Sub-Area Plan by Resolution No. 208-99  December 16, 2003, Council approved the Preble Creek Filings No. 1 and 2 final plats by Resolution Nos. 2003-175 and 2003-176, respectively.  October 25, 2005, Council adopted the Comprehensive Plan by Resolution No. 2005-164  March 28, 2006, Council approved the Anthem – West P.U.D. Plan by Resolution No. 2006-44.  March 10, 2009, Council approved the Anthem – West P.U.D. Plan First Amendment by Resolution No. 2009-27.  February 24, 2015, Council adopted and ordered published in full Ordinance No. 2007 on first reading. Financial Considerations  The proposal is consistent with the Long Range Financial Plan. Alternatives Based on the testimony and evidence presented on the record at the public hearing:  If the proposed application complies with the applicable Broomfield Municipal Code (BMC) review standards and is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan: o Approval.  If the proposed plan does not comply with the applicable BMC review standards or is inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan: o Remand the case to the Planning and Zoning Commission for additional review and recommendations; o Postpone action on the resolution and continue the hearing to a date certain; or o Direct the City and County Attorney to draft findings to support denial of the application. Proposed Actions/Recommendations  Hold the public hearing.  Following and subject to the results of the public hearing, if the Council wishes to approve the application, it is recommended… That Ordinance No. 2007 be adopted on second and final reading and ordered finally published by title; and That Resolution No. 2015-57 be adopted.

11(a) - Page 1

Anthem Filing No. 20 – Final Plat, PUD Plan Amendment, and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 2

ANTHEM – FILING NO. 20 FINAL PLAT, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, SUB-AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, AND ANTHEM – WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT Report Contents Subject I.

II.

III.

IV. V. VI.

ZONING, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND OTHER APPLICABLE PLANS Zoning, PUD Plan and Preliminary Plat Relationship to Comprehensive Plan, Sub-Area Plan, and Financial Plan AREA CONTEXT Area Context and Property Location Surrounding Land Uses Status of the Anthem Neighborhoods CURRENT APPLICATION – DETAILED DESCRIPTION AND STAFF REVIEW Description Background/Base Data Anthem Filing No. 20 Final Plat Anthem – West P.U.D. Plan – Second Amendment Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Sub-Area Plan Amendment School District Neighborhood Meetings Proposed Ordinance No. 2007 STAFF REVIEW OF KEY ISSUES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS APPLICABLE MUNICIPAL CODE PROVISIONS

Page 3 3 4 5 5 7 7 11 11 11 11 12 13 13 14 14 14 14 14

11(a) - Page 2


I. ZONING, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND OTHER APPLICABLE PLANS Zoning, PUD Plan and Preliminary Plat The property is zoned PUD. On March 10, 2009, Council approved the Anthem – West PUD Plan First Amendment. The following map shows the current Anthem – West PUD Plan.

The amended PUD plan identifies all neighborhoods as “mixed-residential” areas and shows the location of a school site (shown in blue above) and a park site (shown in green above). The proposed subdivision plat would relocate the school and park site and thus requires a PUD plan amendment.

11(a) - Page 3


Relationship to Comprehensive Plan, Sub-Area Plan, and Financial Plan Comprehensive Plan The adopted Land Use Map identifies the Anthem Filing No. 20 property as neighborhood residential, open lands, and school. The following map is a portion of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map that covers the subject property and surrounding area.

The following land use descriptions are reprinted from the Comprehensive Plan: Neighborhood Residential areas should include a mix of housing types that achieve an overall average density target of four dwelling units per gross acre. Open Lands are those public and private lands acquired or preserved in the public interest. They serve a variety of functions, including conserving and protecting natural, cultural, historic or scenic resources; providing opportunities for recreation; shaping the pattern of growth and development; and preserving agricultural resources.

11(a) - Page 4

Anthem Filing No. 20 – Final Plat, PUD Plan Amendment, and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 5 “Open Lands” is an umbrella concept that encompasses three subsidiary designations: Park/Recreation Areas, Open Space and Other Open Lands. Park/Recreation areas are the most intensively developed and used types of open lands. They may contain open turf areas for passive recreations, playing fields, hard courts, picnic areas, restroom facilities and other improvements. Open Space areas are parcels intentionally protected from development and set aside for unstructured recreation and the appreciation of natural surroundings. They may contain trailheads and trails, fishing facilities, wildlife viewing areas and other facilities that support uses compatible with site resources and conditions. Other Open Lands include golf courses, detention areas and other facilities that are maintained by Broomfield but that are neither parks nor open space. Schools: School sites on the map represent either existing schools or approximate preferred locations for new elementary, middle and high schools. Final need and location of future schools will be determined at the time of the development proposal, based on project residential densities and consultation with the affected school district.

The proposed relocation of the school and park site are accompanied by an amendment to the comprehensive plan land use map to make the proposed school and park location consistent with the revised comprehensive plan. Goals and Policies The proposed Anthem Filing No. 20 development will facilitate implementation of the following policy identified in the Comprehensive Plan: Policy LU-C.2: Enhance residential neighborhoods by providing direct access to parks, community focal points and trails. Each neighborhood should have an interconnected network of tree-lined local streets that provides direct connections to local destinations. Sub-Area Plan Anthem Filing No. 20 is within the North Broomfield/I-25 Sub-Area Plan. On February 12, 2008, Council amended the North Broomfield/I-25 Sub-Area Plan so all of the Anthem – West PUD area was in conformance with the sub-area plan land use map. The current proposal requires an amendment to the sub-area plan to make the revised school and park locations consistent with the revised plan. Financial Plan Since the school and park site is relocated to a same-sized area nearby, the proposed plans have no effect on the land use assumptions of the Long Range Financial Plan and are consistent with the current financial plans.

II.

AREA CONTEXT

Area Context and Property Location The proposed Anthem Filing No. 20 is a portion of Anthem Highlands, a community located on the east side of Lowell Boulevard north of the Northwest Parkway. The parcel included in the application is a 141.713-acre property located north of Preble Creek Parkway and east of Lowell Boulevard. There are several proposed development projects surrounding Anthem West. The following illustrative map shows the plans in the context of surrounding area plans. These conceptual plans indicate how development might occur.

11(a) - Page 5


11(a) - Page 6


Surrounding Land Uses

North South East West

ADJACENT USE/ZONING Residential / PUD Residential / PUD Undeveloped / PUD Residential / PUD

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION Neighborhood Residential Neighborhood Residential Mixed-Use Commercial Neighborhood Residential

Status of the Anthem Neighborhoods The Anthem – West PUD plan allows a maximum of 1,700 dwelling units in the Ranch (agerestricted portion of the development) and a maximum of 1,800 dwelling units in the Highlands (non-age-restricted portion of the development) for a total of 3,500 dwelling units. To date, the City Council has approved a total of 2,365 single-family residential lots, including 1,071 lots in the Highlands (east side of Lowell Boulevard) and 1,294 lots in the Ranch (west side of Lowell Boulevard). As of February 28, 2015, 959 houses have been completed in the Ranch and 705 houses have been completed in the Highlands for a total of 1,664 houses certified for occupancy. With 3,500 dwelling units allowed in the Anthem West PUD Plan, the following chart shows the number of residential lots approved and the remaining maximum potential lots available under the approved PUD plan's ceiling.

The map on the following page shows the location of existing and proposed filings in the Anthem West PUD Plan area.

11(a) - Page 7


11(a) - Page 8


*ROW = Right of Way SFD = Single Family Detached

AC AC AC AC AUC AC AC AC A AC AC AC A AUC AC AUC AC AC AUC AC AC AC P AUC AUC TOTALS

NA NA NA 1 15 NA 151 342 NA 1 327 64 NA 60 NA 16 203 311 22 NA NA 1 0 153 0 1,667

NA NA 0 0 38 NA 286 643 NA 0 621 120 NA 727 NA 60 609 960 516 NA NA 0 0 795 294 5,669

**A = Approved AC = Approved and Constructed AUC = Approved, Under Construction P = Proposed

NA NA 0 0 0 NA 3 7 NA 0 7 1 NA 8 NA 1 7 11 6 NA NA 0 0 10 3 66%

Number of Residential Lots Approved

NA NA NA 1 18 NA 152 342 NA 1 330 64 NA 133 NA 19 203 313 65 NA NA 1 0 204 0 1,846

% of Total Estimated Population (8,800)

Estimated Population at BuildOut

ROW Public Uses Pump Station Medical Office Building Model Homes Highway Buffer SFD Homes SFD Homes Open Area Open Area / Rec. Ctr. SFD Homes SFD Homes City Tract SFD Homes Highway Buffer Model Homes SFD Homes SFD Homes SFD Homes ROW ROW Open Area / Rec. Ctr. SFD Homes SFD Homes SFD Homes

Certificates of Occupancy Issued

1 2 1 2 3 4 7 9 10 11 12 14 17 22 5 6 8 13 15 16 18 19 20 21 23

Building Permits Issued

Anthem Highlands

Anthem Ranch Age-Restricted

Preble Creek

Description*

Status**

Filing Number

The table below provides additional detail regarding building permit activity in the Anthem West PUD area as of February 28, 2015.

NA NA NA NA 19 NA 152 342 NA NA 330 64 NA 387 NA 20 203 313 172 NA NA NA 0 265 98 2,365

NA = Not Applicable

11(a) - Page 9


The following table provides a brief summary of the key milestones achieved and ongoing for Anthem – West.

Prior Approvals

 November 16, 2004 Council held a concept review for the residential areas in Preble Creek.  March 14, 2005 Council approved the SDP and Final Plat for Anthem Filing No. 6, the 20-lot model home village for the Highlands portion of the Preble Creek development project.  March 22, 2005 Council approved the SDP and Final Plat for Anthem Filing No. 2, the 5,054 square foot Welcome Lodge building. Council also approved a PUD Plan text amendment to change 0.52 acres from employment to community center.  April 26, 2005 Council approved the SDP and Final Plat for Anthem Filing No. 3, the 19-lot model home village for the active adult site (Del Webb portion) of the Preble Creek development project.  July 25, 2005 Council approved the SDP and Final Plat for Anthem Filing No. 8 – the first neighborhood in the Highlands – a 203-lot single-family neighborhood located south of Indian Peaks Parkway and east of Lowell Boulevard.  August 23, 2005 Council approved the SDP and Final Plat for Filing No. 7 - the first neighborhood in the Ranch - a 152-lot subdivision surrounding the model home village (Anthem Filing No. 3).  October 25, 2005 Council approved the SDP and Final Plat for Filing No. 9, a 364-lot subdivision at the northwest corner of Anthem Ranch (later reduced to 342 lots).  March 28, 2006 Council approved the Anthem – West P.U.D. Plan and Preliminary Plat, an amendment to the Preble Creek PUD Plan.  May 23, 2006 Council approved the SDP and Final Plat for Anthem Filing No. 13, a 313-lot singlefamily neighborhood located north of Indian Peaks Parkway and east of Lowell Boulevard.  May 23, 2006 Council approved the SDP and Final Plat for Anthem Filing No. 11, the Ranch recreation center and park located near the middle of the Ranch development.  January 9, 2007 Council approved the SDP and Final Plat for Anthem Filing No. 12, a 335-lot subdivision south of Filing No. 9 (later reduced to 330 lots).  June 12, 2007 Council approved the SDP and Final Plat for Anthem Filing No. 19, the Highlands recreation center located south of Parkside Drive and east of Lowell Boulevard.  February 28, 2008 Council approved the SDP and Final Plat for Anthem Filing No. 14, a 64-lot subdivision south of Filing No. 9.  September 2, 2008 Council approved a SDP and Final Plat for Anthem Filing No. 21, a 255-lot single family subdivision located east of Lowell Boulevard and south of Preble Creek Parkway (later increased to 265 lots).  January 27, 2009 Council approved a SDP and Final Plat for Anthem Filing No. 22, a 388-lot single family neighborhood located west of Lowell Boulevard and south of the southern end of Anthem Ranch Road (later amended to 387 lots).  March 10, 2009 Council approved the Anthem – West PUD Plan First Amendment to separate the McWhinney property (North Park/MXD) from the Pulte property.  August 11, 2009 Council approved Anthem Filing No. 18 Final Plat, for the realignment of West 160th Avenue.  December 2010 Pulte sells the development to WS-ACB Development, LLC.  December 11, 2012 Council approved Anthem Filing No. 15, a 172-lot single family neighborhood in the Highlands.  June 24, 2014 Council approved Anthem Filing No. 23, a 98-lot single family neighborhood in the Highlands.  February 23, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of Anthem Filing No. 20, final plat, PUD plan amendment, comprehensive plan amendment, and sub-area plan amendment.

Current Proposal

Anthem – West PUD Plan Summary Time Line

 March 24, 2015 Council consideration of Anthem Filing No. 20, a final plat, PUD plan amendment, comprehensive plan amendment, and sub-area plan amendment to subdivide 141.713-acre site into one lot and one tract for the purpose of relocating a 12.87-acre school and park site within the Highlands neighborhood.

11(a) - Page 10


III. CURRENT APPLICATION – DETAILED DESCRIPTION AND STAFF REVIEW Description The applicant requests approval of a one-lot, one-tract subdivision of 141.713 acres at the northeast corner of Lowell Boulevard and Preble Creek Parkway. Lot 1 is 12.871 acres and is dedicated by the plat to Broomfield for a school and park site. Tract A is 128.842 acres and will be subdivided in the future for a single-family neighborhood to be known as Anthem Filing No. 20 Replat A. The purpose of the proposed plat is to relocate a 6.78-acre park site and a 6.09-acre school site (12.87 acres total) from the eastern side of the subdivision to a new equally-sized location more in the middle of the subdivision. In order to relocate the school and park site, the applicant also requests approval of a PUD plan amendment, comprehensive plan land use map amendment, and sub-area plan amendment to show the revised location in each plan, respectively. Background/Base Data 1. PROPERTY OWNER 2. APPLICANT 3. PROPERTY LOCATION 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

PROPERTY SIZE CURRENT ZONING CURRENT LAND USE PROPOSED LAND USE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION

WS-ACB Development, LLC WS-ACB Development, LLC North of Preble Creek Parkway, East of Lowell Boulevard 141.713 acres PUD Undeveloped Undeveloped Neighborhood Residential, School, and Open Lands

Anthem Filing No. 20 Final Plat On December 16, 2003, Council approved the Preble Creek Filing No. 1 and Preble Creek Filing No. 2 final plats. Filing No. 1 dedicated Lowell Boulevard to Broomfield and created several “outlots” on the east side of Lowell Boulevard. Outlot 4, an 8.571-acre property at the northeast corner of Lowell Boulevard and Preble Creek Parkway, is covered by a “blanket” easement to Broomfield for maintenance, public access, drainage, and drainage related maintenance. Outlot 4 will be incorporated into Tract A of the proposed plat and will have a similar purpose with the future resubdivision of Tract A. Preble Creek Filing No. 2 dedicated Outlot 5, a 6.78-acre property located at the corner formed by the south side of the “school channel” drainage and the north side of Preble Creek Parkway to Broomfield as a park. Outlot 6, a 6.09-acre property abutting the western side of Outlot 5, was dedicated to Broomfield as a future school site. Outlots 5 and 6 contain 30-foot sewer easements which will be vacated by the plat. The following illustration shows the boundary of the proposed Anthem Filing No. 20 final plat including Outlot 4 (in yellow), Outlot 5 (in green), and Outlot 6 (in blue) with the currently unsubdivided area shown in tan.

11(a) - Page 11


On Tuesday, February 24, 2015, Council conducted first reading of an ordinance to convey Outlots 5 and 6 (the school and park site) to WS-ACB Development, LLC, with the intent that the second reading of the ordinance and the proposed final plat will be considered at the same public hearing, allowing the transfer of the property and the acceptance of the relocated school site to occur in succession on the same evening. Anthem – West P.U.D. Plan – Second Amendment In 2006, Council approved the Anthem – West P.U.D. Plan, replacing the Preble Creek PUD plan with a plan for a 3,500-home residential area on the west side of Sheridan Parkway and a mixed-use commercial development on the east side of Sheridan Parkway. The residential area was changed from a golf course community to an open land and trails focused community with and age-restricted neighborhood on the west side of Lowell Boulevard (Anthem Ranch) and a family-oriented neighborhood on the east side of Lowell Boulevard (Anthem Highlands). In 2009, Council approved the Anthem – West P.U.D. Plan – First Amendment, which removed the mixed-use commercial area on the east side of Sheridan Parkway and replaced it with the North Park PUD plan. The proposed second amendment to the Anthem – West PUD plan relocates the school and park site (Tracts W-13 and W-14) within Neighborhood 3 (Tract W-20) consistent with the proposed Anthem Filing No. 20 Final Plat. In addition, the proposed amendment adjusts the location of trails, a neighborhood park, and a pocket park within Neighborhood 3 (Tract W-20). The proposed amendment reduces the overall developed lands sub-total by 0.02 acres and increases the overall public land sub-total by 0.02 acres. All changes to the PUD plan are shown within clouded areas on the actual plans for the proposed second amendment. 11(a) - Page 12


Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Sub-Area Plan Amendment The proposed 36th Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and amendment to the North Broomfield/I-25 Sub-Area Plan would relocate and expand the school site within Anthem Filing No. 20 and generally amend each plan to be consistent with the boundaries and general layout of the proposed Anthem Filing No. 20 final plat. The following illustration shows the proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan land use map and sub-area plan land use map.

School District Adams County 12 School District is the intended future recipient of the school site and the park site is intended to be a joint-use school park. Land which is dedicated to Broomfield for a school site will be conveyed to the school district only when the school district is ready and has committed to build a school on the property. Steep grades on the current location of the school site make development of the site difficult. The Adams 12 School District has reviewed the proposed school site relocation and endorses the relocation of the school site. A letter of endorsement is attached to this memorandum as Attachment 1. Neighborhood Meetings On November 19, 2014, December 18, 2014, and January 6, 2015, the applicant conducted neighborhood meetings regarding the proposed school and park relocation. The applicant’s notes are attached to this memorandum as Attachment 2. 11(a) - Page 13


Proposed Ordinance No. 2007 In 2003, Council approved the Preble Creek Filing No. 2 final plat, which conveyed Outlot 5 (6.78 acres) and Outlot 6 (6.09 acres) to Broomfield. Outlot 5 was intended to become a park and Outlot 6 was intended to become a school site for the Adams 12 School District. Outlots 5 and 6 have not been developed and both properties are currently vacant. WS-ACB Development, LLC, the property grantee, is moving the school and park site farther to the west, to an equally-sized property (Lot 1) near the intersection of Preble Creek Parkway and Pikes Peak Drive, in the Anthem Filing No. 20 final plat. The new school and park site is dedicated to Broomfield through the final plat.

IV. STAFF REVIEW OF KEY ISSUES Staff identified no key issues with the proposed final plat, planned unit development plan amendment, comprehensive plan amendment, and sub-area amendment.

V. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS On February 23, 2015, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to discuss the proposed final plat, comprehensive plan amendment, sub-area plan amendment, and planned unit development plan amendment. After closing the hearing, the commission voted 6 – 0 recommending approval of the development application, with no conditions.

VI. APPLICABLE MUNICIPAL CODE STANDARDS Council reviews the application based on the following provisions of the Broomfield Municipal Code. Subdivision Plat 16-16-110 Review standards. The recommendation of the planning and zoning commission and the decision of the city council shall be based on whether the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed preliminary plat meets the following standards: (A) The project should not create, or should mitigate to the extent possible, negative impacts on the surrounding property. (B) The project should provide desirable settings for buildings, make use of natural contours, protect the view, and afford privacy and protection from noise and traffic for residents and the public. (C) The project should preserve natural features of the site to the extent possible.

11(a) - Page 14


(D)

The proposed traffic flow and street locations should be consistent with the city's master plan, should be in accordance with good engineering practice, and should provide for safe and convenient movement. (E) The lots and tracts should be laid out to allow efficient use of the property to be platted. (F) The proposed public facilities and services should be adequate, consistent with the city's utility planning, and capable of being provided in a timely and efficient manner. (G) The proposal should comply with the design standards of chapter 16-28, the improvement requirements of chapter 16-32, and the standards and specifications of chapter 14-04. (H) The proposal should be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage. (I) The proposal should have public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems, located and designed to minimize flood damage. (J) The proposal should have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure to flood damage. (Ord. 724 §1, 1987; Ord. 769 §2, 1988; Ord. 1111 §7, 1995; Ord. 1935 §18, 2011) 16-20-070 Final plat; hearing and notice; city council. The city council shall hold a public hearing on the final plat. Notice shall be given in accordance with the provisions of chapter 17-52. (Ord. 724 §1, 1987) 16-20-080 Final plat; decision; city council. Within thirty days of the conclusion of its public hearing on the final plat, the city council shall adopt a resolution of approval, disapproval, or referral back to the planning and zoning commission for further study. (Ord. 724 §1, 1987; Ord. 1111 §11, 1995; Ord. 1935 §22, 2011) 16-20-090 Review standards. The recommendation of the planning and zoning commission and the decision of the city council shall be based on whether the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed final plat meets the standards set forth in section 16-16110 and is generally consistent with an approved preliminary plat, if there is one. No final plat will be recommended by the planning and zoning commission or approved by the city council until such maps, data, surveys, analyses, studies, reports, plans, designs, documents, and other supporting materials as may be required herein have been submitted and reviewed, and found to meet the planning, engineering, and surveying requirements of the city required; provided, however, that the city engineer may waive any final plat requirement for good cause shown. (Ord. 724 §1, 1987; Ord. 934 §4, 1992; Ord. 1147 §1, 1995; Ord. 1935 §23, 2011) Planned Unit Development Plan Modification 17-38-100 PUD plan; hearing and notice; city council. The city council shall hold a public hearing on the PUD plan. Notice shall be given in accordance with the provisions of chapter 17-52. (Ord. 725 §1, 1987) 17-38-110 PUD plan; decision; city council; recording. (A) Within thirty days of the conclusion of its public hearing on the PUD plan, the city council shall adopt a resolution of approval, disapproval, or referral back to the planning and zoning commission for further study. (B) The PUD plan shall include a legal description of the real property within the boundaries of the PUD plan and a vicinity map showing the location in the city of the PUD plan, which shall be recorded in the office of the director of recording, elections, and motor vehicles. (Ord. 725 §1, 1987; Ord. 1111 §30, 1995; Ord. 1399 §2, 1999; Ord. 1658 §1, 2001; Ord. 1935 §48, 2011) 17-38-120 PUD plan; review standards. The recommendation of the planning and zoning commission and the decision of the city council shall be based on whether the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed PUD plan meets the following standards: (A) The proposal should be consistent with the intent of this chapter as set forth in section 17-38-010. (B) The proposal should be consistent with the master plan. (C) The proposal should identify and mitigate potential negative impacts on nearby properties, other areas of the city, and the city as a whole. (D) The proposal should identify and maximize potential positive impacts on nearby properties, other areas of the city, and the city as a whole. (E) The proposal should include adequate facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. (F) The proposal should include adequate public improvements (both on and off site) to be provided in a timely fashion. (G) The proposal should optimize conservation of energy, water, and other resources on a broad scale. (H) The land uses within the plan should be compatible with one another and with nearby properties.

11(a) - Page 15


(I) (J) (K)

The proposal should provide for open space at a rate of not less than forty percent of the developable site in residential areas and twenty-five percent in other areas as provided in section 17-38-240, below. The proposal should adequately provide for an organization for ownership and maintenance of any common areas. The proposal should justify any proposed deviations from the Broomfield Municipal Code in terms of the overall quality of the plan. (Ord. 725 §1, 1987; Ord. 1111 §31, 1995; Ord. 1935 §49, 2011)

17-38-130 PUD plan; modification. Any modification to an approved PUD plan requires the same review by the planning and zoning commission and the city council as the original PUD plan. (Ord. 725 §1, 1987; Ord. 1111 §32, 1995; Ord. 1935 §50, 2011)

Master Plan (Includes Sub-Area Plan) Amendment 17-58-030 Procedure for adoption. The city council may adopt the master plan as a whole by a single resolution or may by successive resolutions adopt successive parts of the plan, said parts corresponding with major geographical sections or divisions of the city or with functional subdivisions of the subject matter of the plan, and may adopt any amendment or extension thereof or addition thereto. Before the adoption of the plan or any such part, amendment, extension, or addition, the city council shall hold at least one public hearing thereon, notice of the time and place of which shall be given in accordance with sections 17-52-010, 17-52-020, 17-52-030, 17-52-060, and 17-52-080, B.M.C. The adoption of the plan, any part, amendment, extension, or addition shall be by resolution of the city council. The resolution may refer expressly to the maps and descriptive and other matter intended by the city council to form the whole or part of the plan, and the action taken shall be recorded on the map and plan and descriptive matter by the identifying signature of the mayor or mayor pro tem and attested by the city clerk. A copy of the plan or part thereof shall be certified to each governmental body of the territory affected and shall be filed with the county clerk and recorder of each county wherein the territory is located. (Ord. 1072 §1, 1994; Ord. 1111 §48, 1995; Ord. 1415 §7, 1999)

11(a) - Page 16

ATTACHMENT 1

amsl2 Five Star Schools

Business Sendees

1500 E 128"' Ave •Thornton, CO 80241 • Office: (720) 972-4206 • Fax: (720) 972-6273

Robert K. Webber Chief Operating Officer

January 22, 2015 Michael Sutherland One DesCombes Drive Broomfield, CO 80020 This letter is written in support of the amendment to the PUD for the Anthem development, specifically the changes relocating the school park site. We understand that the City of Broomfield and the Developer have held extensive discussions to mitigate as much as possible any negative impacts to the surrounding community. It is the District's position that the amended PUD provides for a better overall site for the construction of a K-8 school for the following reasons: (a) easier to deal with stacking/traffic on and around the school site, and provide a greater buffer between the proposed school site traffic and Prospect Ridge Academy stacking and traffic; (b) less cost for site development at the new site (grading/retaining walls, etc.); (c) topography in general is better at new site, resulting in more usable acreage/space; (d) new site is more central to the neighborhoods (more students within the walk distance) reducing the need for busing (e) provides for better site layout for a K-8; (f) more arterial access to new site with more points of ingress/ egress - Lowell St. and Preble Creek Pkwy access to the new school site (vs. only Preble Creek Pkwy in the existing school site). The amended PUD provides the opportunity for the Adams 12 Five Star Schools District to build a K8 facility to accommodate more students within the Anthem development rather than a K-5 school on the previous site. It is the district's intent to build a K-8 school on the land provided through the Amended PUD provided the district can pass a bond election or find an alternative method of funding the construction of the school.

Robert K. Webber

Broomfield

Federal Heights

Northglenn

Thornton

Westminster

11(a) - Page 17

ATTACHMENT 2 1101 Bannock Street Denver, Colorado 80204 303.892.1166

NORJRJS DESIGN

MEETING NOTES Project:

Anthem West PUD Amendment No. 2

Date:

November 19, 2014

Subject:

Neighborhood Meeting #1

Time:

6:00pm

Minutes by:

Bonnie Niziolek / Jeff Handlin / Jason Morrison

Location:

Parkside Rec. Center

Attendees Bonnie Niziolek Jeff Handlin Jason Morrison See attached sign-in sheet Notes: NOVEMBER 19, 2014 - ALL ANTHEM HIGHLANDS RESIDENTS INVITED I.

Provided introduction and history as shown in the attached presentation.

II.

Questions/Comments 1.

When looking at the homes (boundary line) on the south side of the existing school channel, is the boundary their back yards? • The existing trail will be shifted in one spot (where it crosses out of the School Channel and into the neighborhood) but there will still be open space. That has always been the case. The sidewalk in that spot has been located incorrectly and the distance it will be moved is very minor. The outline of the residential tract has not changed nor will it change. It has always been represented this way in the PUD.

2.

Will that trail be extended to Preble Creek Parkway? • Yes, there are plans to locate a secondary trailhead in that area (as per the PUD).

3.

So you're saying that the school can be built where it is and that it can back right up to the channel? • The Development Agreement states that if more acreage is required for the school site, the additional acreage shall be taken from the adjacent school park and the adjacent park shall be reduced in size. We do not know what the school is going to do but there is a strong possibility that the expansion will encroach toward the school channel. The school district is an independent agency; they do not need to go through the City review process.

4.

How many stories will the school be at its current location? • There have been talks that based on the grades the school could be up to three stories. It all depends on how the school can distribute their square footage. We don't know the details.

-1 www.norris-design.com Austin, TX | Chicago, IL | Denver, CO | Frisco, CO | Phoenix, AZ | Tucson, AZ

11(a) - Page 18

1101 Bannock Street Denver, Colorado 80204 303.892.1166

NOKRJS DESIGN

5. The acreages for the existing school site and the proposed school site do not add up. Can you still fit a K-8 school on the new site? • The topography at the new location allows for a flatter site. We have been deeply involved in the grading studies, but are still trying to work through ali of this with the City and the School District. 6. How are there more access points at the new location? • The new location provides for more vehicle stacking and there are more drives leading in/out of the school site and neighborhood, The proposed location allows users of the school to enter and leave the neighborhood with lesser impacts to those living in the neighborhood. Impacts to traffic and surrounding streets/residential streets have been a top priority. 7. When we purchased our home we didn't make assumptions. It seems like the lack of foresight from Pulte Homes has now become our problem. • The language of the PUD is pretty clear about the acreages subject to change and as stated in the Development Agreement you could use the school park for the school. 8. If the school location was to move and the area is filled with homes will the architecture be similar to what's found in the surrounding neighborhood? • Look at Prospect Village for an example of the architecture. Bottom line is that any and all architecture will be the high quality that is represented throughout Anthem. Anything that backs up to the open space channel is required to have an enhanced elevation. 9. What about the roofs of the homes - will they all be shingle? • The shingle change was part of Prospect Village. We expect these to have tile roofs. 10. Do you have to move the neighborhood park toward Preble Creek Parkway? • During our concept review comments the City requested to have the neighborhood park by the school in the proposed location. A larger park site next to the future school area would provide greater opportunity for active recreation and be easier to maintain. 11. Why is Wheelock OK with all of this? What is in it for Wheelock? • No advantage either way. Absolutely neutral whether or not the school is located in existing location or proposed location. During a meeting in January of 2014 we heard from Anthem residents that the primary issue at Anthem is the lack of a school so we are pushing to get it done. Relatively the same number of homes would exist in both plans. 12. There is no guarantee that there will be a bond to even build the school, correct? • That is correct. This last bond failed. There has already been talk about a new bond in 2016 or other measures to fund the school but we don't know what they are nor could we explain 13. People bought these homes to be close to the school. I understand that there is no "guarantee" but this seems really deceiving, • The proximity of the school is a fair comment, As previously stated the location of the school park as a buffer is not guaranteed based on the development agreement, We have proposed a pocket -2www.norris-design.com Austin, TX | Chicago,II | Denver, CO | Frisco, CO | Phoenix, AZ | Tucson, AZ

11(a) - Page 19


NORJRJS DESIGN

park between the existing and future neighborhood to keep an open space buffer between the two uses. 14. We are worried that the school won't get built; that there will be a misconception that "Anthem has their own school (Prospect Ridge Academy)". • The land for Prospect Ridge Academy was received from McWhinney and is not a part of Anthem. We are here tonight to try to find solutions to help Anthem get a school. This is part of a huge school district; voters come areas all the way south to parts of Thornton, 15. From a planning perspective I don't understand why you would move the neighborhood park from the existing location (near rec center) to the proposed location (next to school). We would like a park for the community near the rec center. • It is in preliminary discussions, but we are looking at ways to reignite the area outside Parkside Recreation Center for Anthem residents. These improvements will be owned by the HOA and give you more control and access whereas the park would be owned by the City. Again, the City had requested the neighborhood park be located closer to the school. 16. What I am hearing is that the proposal to move the school is based on costs and space. How did someone come up with this cost analysis? • At this point, it is based on grading (retaining walls, drainage, etc.) 17. Can the school relocate completely if the developer refuses to assist in moving the location? • Yes. The school district can decide to pull-out completely if they don't have room to build in the existing location but we told the City that the neighborhood wants the school and that is why we are here tonight. 18. I really don't see a difference in the acreage so if a K-8 can't fit on the existing site, how is it going to fit on the proposed site? If it is moved, do the proposed homes get to come closer to the existing channel (and Filing No. 8)? • Regarding the layout of the school site, it all depends on the yield and square footage of the school and how it is distributed. The homes have moved closer to the existing homes in Filing No. 8 but there is no real increase in the amount of homes nor does the boundary encroach (it has always remained the same). You will either have a school or homes along the south side of the School Channel. From our perspective, a school is more massive. This discussion doesn't alleviate the proximity of the school, Homes mean more space in between, not as tall as school, etc. 19. How much of my taxes go to the school district? • Of the 220 million bond that was on the ballot, only about 20 million was to go for school (Answered by a member of the Anthem School Committee). The school district needs the rest of the money to pay for teachers, facilities, capital, etc. Your taxes do not just stay in Anthem or at a specific school site but they are district-wide and a matter of assessed value. 20. If my view changes, do I get lower taxes (home backs up to channel)? • We don't believe your view will change significantly if the school is relocated, -3www.norris-design.com Austin, TX | Chicago, IL | Denver, CO | Frisco, CO | Phoenix, AZ | Tucson, AZ

11(a) - Page 20


NORJRJS DESIGN

21. Right now our home (backs up to channel) is landscaped and has open space behind it with native seed, etc., but will that all go away if the school goes into the existing location? • The existing plan south of these homes is currently on land owned by the City for the school. The school can remove all of the plantings if it wants to accommodate the grading. The area could be replaced by turf for fields or other school uses. 22. Question about the budget: we need a school, so you are saying that the proposed location may be more enticing for Adams 12 School District and that the lower cost is more attractive. How much are we talking? Was this land set aside for the school because it was too expensive to build on? • As we've been told, projected cost is approximately 2-4 million less on the new site. This comes from grading retaining walls, drainage, etc. The other costs are not known at this time, but the costs for the grading, retaining walls, drainage, etc. impact the development significantly at the current site. We do not know if Pulte set aside this land in the first place because they knew it was too expensive to build anything on account of the grades. The school had the opportunity to review the location of the site during the initial PUD. 23. Will the lower priced homes be closer to the channel or will the higher priced homes be closer to the channel? • We don't know about price because all of it is economically driven. We have focused on the backyards of these homes because that is where people live; we want to make them bigger. We will not be putting homes along this channel that are not consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods. 24. What is the base selling price for new homes? • Right now it is averaging $520 - $540k. That is the average closing price which is significantly higher than the $399k a few years ago. 25. Will the second proposed site have a 2nd or 3rd story like the existing site might have? • At least 2, maybe a 3rd with the walkout. The school district is trying to figure out the square footage. 26. What is the middle ground? What do you want to get out of this meeting? (School committee member asked this). The following discussion occurred.... • Wall of houses is not desirable, but a wall of school is just as bad. • If we don't get a school, it's detrimental to everyone. • There is no guarantee that moving the school site will get us the school. i. Correct, but there is also a possibility that Anthem does not get the school if the school site is not moved because of everything we have discussed this evening. The new location is more favorable. The next bond is in 2016 and they are looking at alternatives. • Bigger pocket park or more native in that area is a better possibility i. Moving park would be middle ground and changing size of park would be middle ground. Reshaping this pocket park is a possibility and we can get back to the community on alternatives in a few weeks. • We are already looking at more open space if the school is moved. -4www.norris-design.com Austin. TX | Chicago, IL | Denver, CO | Frisco, CO | Phoenix, AZ | Tucson, AZ

11(a) - Page 21


• • • •

• • •

NOR.RJS DESIGN

The PUD has not changed and it has always been open for people to view. We are still trying to figure out park amenities. Everything is in "cartoon stage" at this point. Still way too early. We want a greenbelt in the area. Will there be approximately the same number of lots in both plans? If so, can you work on moving the lots? i. Yes this is something we can do. We can rework the lots to alleviate the "wall of homes" you are discussing along the greenbelt. Let us look at a couple new concepts to the neighborhood in the next few weeks. We really appreciate you working with the neighborhood. We send our children to Prospect Ridge Charter School but we still want the school in the neighborhood, but we bought in this area for the views, school channel and school. When you redo the plans, can you create other sections, with other views? Is there a contact list you can send us that includes all of the major players (City and School) we can contact? i. We can help facilitate a group meeting.

5www.norris-design.com Austin,TX | Chicago, IL | Denver, CO | Frisco, CO | Phoenix, AZ | Tucson, AZ

11(a) - Page 22

t

Anthem Highlands Community Association, Inc Developer Notification Meeting / School Site Relocation November 19, 2014 Address

Name

Y>DA V} R .El \7AJF* \^JL.

Phone number/Email Address

IE P.MI/11/1C0H % ?? RvS-m/Q/L W\ ttMOMSK 0.61-6 Q- r J

\lbC?

(' L7V -

9/ • Zi" hf° ° Z ju \A{^ c^JJc Cs /o^O^

-^•7>0, ^

i Q^D

"7

i4*i "7

.'Cfr^Sa^) Soho4 / i^'/zt-^ / /-?(7M /V

1

OCc i ry oc K-g,"r ^ ) df^eL It,,#* _i

LJl

Wajzs.JI4R.D «•

I () 2 ftv&A

£