Reprieved Sugar Creek gets final OK in Loveland

LOVELAND — Despite lingering concerns about the safety of an adjacent road and how the subdivision will be financed, the Loveland City Council on Tuesday gave final approval to a developer’s plan to add up to 1,100 single- and multi-family housing units to vacant land north of the city. 

Only Councilmember Troy Krenning dissented in the council’s series of six 8-1 votes that annexed the 171-acre site and approved the Sugar Creek development, which had been unanimously approved by the city’s planning commission last year but couldn’t make it through the council on a 4-4 vote in December.

Developer Black Timber Builders LLC petitioned the council to let it make some changes to address neighbors’ concerns about traffic, the safety of schoolchildren and the rural character of the area, and the council gave the developer a second chance — but with conditions. The project won first-reading approval two weeks ago.

Sugar Creek, which will include a variety of housing types, including some that could be considered attainable, will be built on a cluster of properties east of U.S. Highway 287 and south of Larimer County Road 30, also known as 71st Street. Part of the property at one time was envisioned for a new Loveland High School, but the Thompson School District backed off that plan and put the property back on the market. Black Timber agreed to purchase it as well as a privately owned parcel to the south.

“We are under contract to purchase these properties,” said Black Timber principal Russell Baker, who denied he was merely a speculator. “If we can’t build and develop, it doesn’t make sense for us to own properties.”

Krenning’s “no” votes were triggered by his suspicion that Black Timber would finance the development with a metropolitan taxing district, an entity commonly established by developers to build water and sewer lines, streets and other infrastructure needed to turn vacant land into a new subdivision. Homeowners then pay a mill levy to the metro district as part of their property taxes.

Krenning asked Baker, “What assurance do we have that you’re not going to be back asking for a metro district after this is all approved?” but didn’t get a definitive answer.

“The metro district moratorium is there currently, so that’s the main assurance. And then depending on council’s outcome of that discussion, which we hope to be a part of, then we will follow the lead of city leadership.”

But Krenning pressed on, asking, “If the council says it’s permanent, do you have the contingency to build your development without a metro district?”

“We will have to review all options for financing the development, and will have to review every component that is there,” Baker said. “Obviously, any changes that we would have to make would be back in front of you here. We’ll have to understand what those other options will look like, whether there are any other options or whether we have the ability to develop it. We’re still in such an early phase, I don’t have the full construction and development costs yet, so I can’t sit here and say with 100% certainty what the costs will be, and if they’re in an element that is reasonable and achievable, then we’ll be in good shape.”

Baker added that “I’m not here to commit one way or another on a metro district. I hope we don’t. It’s tough to build in. It’s expensive for builders too. But it plays a role. I’m going to follow the lead of the city.”

But Krenning remained far from assuaged.

“This question of metro districts is resolved. I’m convinced the developer does not have a Plan B, that all of the planning that went into this development is contingent on, at some point, approval of a metro district, either in its current form or some hybrid form to be determined,” Krenning said. “They’ll build 1,100 homes, then all of a sudden it becomes our problem to help them finance it. You’re asking for too much without enough assurances. I continue not to support the development, and I would ask other councilors to just reflect on, do we really know what we’re buying, and what’s the refund policy if we decide at some point that it wasn’t what we thought we were getting.”

Although they ended up voting for the annexation and the development, council members Dana Foley, Erin Black and Steve Olson had skepticism of their own regarding improvements to Larimer County Road 30, which Foley described as “a mess.”

City traffic engineer Randy Maizland said the city’s review of accident data on that stretch of roadway found that “there were no reported accidents there in the last five years,” but Foley responded that “my concern is that when you do have more traffic flow on the county road, and it will have more traffic flow, it’s going to need more attention than it has been getting.”

Longtime resident Rob Bruns, one of six members of the public who spoke in opposition to the Sugar Creek plan, noted that “the current proposal will memorialize somewhere between 750 and 1,000 feet of County Road 30 with no shoulders, no bike lanes and only partial pedestrian flow solution on the last half of that area. There’s not even enough room if you had a flat tire to stop your car without being in the lane of traffic.”

Olson was distressed to learn from city planner Troy Bliss that “the obligation of the developer is only to do their adjacent frontage, on the half of the road they’re adjacent to.”

“It would not be normal to do the south half of the road and not do the north half. I’ve never seen that in a development, where they only did half a road,” Olson said. “This is a hot spot for the community. It’s kind of analogous to driving up to the top of Mount Evans. It’s a thrill ride, especially if you happen to be on the side where the cliff is.”

Olson noted that he had seen other developments that he had voted to approve but that had not turned out the way they were presented, adding “but that’s on me.”

“I know there has been a lot of concern that we were being sold a bill of goods, and something like that,” said Councilmember Andrea Samson. “I don’t personally share in that concern. What I do see is that you recognize the need for a diversified offering of housing. You see in the community that we are not all privileged doctors and attorneys and people who have lots of money, but rather that we need homes that we can buy, that we can afford for our families. I see you working to meet that need.”

Councilmembers Jon Mallo, Patrick McFall and Laura Light-Kovacs also spoke in support oif the developer and the project.

“I’m looking for that smoking gun. I haven’t heard it. I haven’t seen it,” Mallo said. “Nothing sticks out to me to change my mind.”

McFall, who said he wasn’t writing off metro districts as an option for financing, said “I have faith in our city staff that they’re going to hold this developer to do the things that they’ve said they’re going to do, and if they don’t meet the standards and the codes we have in place, I trust our city staff to hold them at bay.”

Addressing the dozens of neighbors who have expressed impassioned and detailed opposition to the development, Light-Kovacs said “I know it feels like it’s falling on deaf ears for you, but it is not. We are listening to you.

“For me it’s not putting my trust in the developer, although I do like the project. I do like that there’s an environmental aspect. I do like the idea of affordable housing,” she said. “But I trust our planning commission. I trust our planning services department and I trust our staff. When they say there’s a robust review process, they’re not lying.”

For existing neighborhoods, Marsh noted, “change is not welcome and it’s a tough pill to swallow.” But “the number one need in Loveland right now is housing. It’s a hard decision for the council to make. We make some people happy, we make some people unhappy.”

on Facebook on LinkedIn