23 February 1998

Hal Mansfield's TESTIMONY Re: DENSITY OF THE PROPOSED JENKINS RANCH DEVELOPMENT

My purpose in being here is to address the issue of density. Let me say at the outset that I do not object to the development of the Jenkins property. The owners of land should have the right to do with that land what they want to, within the limits of planning, zoning, safety, health and other regulations and considerations.

Properly planned and executed, even dense developments can be attractive, healthy, safe place in which to live and such developments can be, if I may use the term, good neighbors to those who live adjacent to them.

Density becomes a concern when it violates some or all of the factors I mentioned a few moments ago. One of the prime roles of planning and zoning, it seems to me-if we are going to have planning and zoning at all, which I don't necessarily agree with, especially as they too often have evolved-is to ensure that a new development's density is in line with the property concerned and also with adjacent properties.

There seems to be an important error in the information regarding the density of Hillcrest Estates. According to the information I have been given, Hillcrest Estates was plotted for 135 units for on 73 acres. That would be approximately 1.85 units per acre. Certain documents list Hillcrest's density as being 4.0 per acre.

I would certainly like to know where that figure came from, who is responsible for it, and how it was arrived at. This afternoon, I drove through Hillcrest and counted 24 units in the Eaglenest Condos, 8 garden-type homes, one duplex and 83 houses for a total of 117 units. I estimated that there are still 8, or so, vacant lots where single residences could be built and one duplex lot. That comes to 127.

Divide 127 by 73 and you get an average of 1.6 units per acre. Even the 1.85, based on the 135 figure is a far cry from the 4.0 listed in the comparative material I have seen. At best it is a very misleading density figure for Hillcrest, if my information and calculations are correct.

The strange thing about the figure is that the 4.0 figure makes the proposed development look like it might fit in with the neighborhood, since the densities suggested as I understand them for the new development range from 4.96, to 4.8, to 2.3, to 1.0 units per acre. The densities for the proposed new development compare with 14 per acre for Ferringway, 5.2 for Columbine Ridge and 11.5 for Club Durango. I have been told that the Ryler Park density is 4.8, which hardly stands as a model in my view.

Planning decisions should be made on the basis of accurate information. I am not saying that the 4.0 is categorically wrong, I am saying that it does not fit the information I have been given. Nor does it fit the common sense of my perceptions as I drove around Hillcrest this afternoon. There are many large lots in Hillcrest. There are several houses that have been built on two lots. Two owners have bought vacant lots and developed them into playgrounds for their children. Hillcrest is not a dense development. Developments close to it, should conform to its density pattern. The planning process requires no less.

I hope and trust you will keep tonight's input in mind during this very large, very important process.