HomeMy WebLinkAbout20101459.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
• Moved by Erich Ehrlich, that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: 2009-XX
APPLICANT: Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District
PLANNER: Brad Mueller& Michelle Martin
REQUEST: Weld County Comprehensive Plan Amendment to create a new Regional
Urbanization Area ("RUN')consisting of approximately 2,095 acres.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portions of Sections 21, 26, 27, 28, 34, and 35,Ti N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: Approximately equidistance from Brighton, Fort Lupton, and Dacono,with
adjacency to the Adams County line. Majority lies between CR 4&6 and CR 17
&21.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. Section 22-1-150.6.12.a "The existing Comprehensive Plan is in need of revision as proposed."
2. Section 22-1-150.B.12.b "Social, economic or land use conditions of the County have changes, if
applicable, that would support amending the Comprehensive Plan."
3. Section 22-1-150.B.12.c"The proposed amendment will be consistent with existing and future goals,
policies and needs of the County."
4. Section 22-1-150.B.12.e.1 "In the case of any proposed new Regional Urbanization Area, the
proposed amendment includes a diversity of land uses and will address the impact on existing or
planned service capabilities, including but not limited to all utilities, infrastructure, stormwater
infrastructure and transportation systems."
•
5. Section 22-1-150.B.12.e.2 "In the case of any proposed new Regional Urbanization Area, the
proposed amendment will address impacts on the natural environment."
6. Section 22-1-150.B.12.e.3 "In the case of any proposed new Regional Urbanization Area, the
proposed land use is compatible with the existing and surrounding land uses."
7. Section 22-1-15013.12.e.42/n the case of any proposed new Regional Urbanization Area, the
proposed number of new residents will be adequately served by the social amenities,such as schools
and parks of the community."
8. Section 22-1-150.6.12.e.5 "In the case of any proposed new Regional Urbanization Area, local,
accessible employment opportunities exist, and there is an integrated balance of housing and
employment."
9. Section 22-1-150.B.12.e.6 "In the case of any proposed new Regional Urbanization Area, the
proposed amendment has demonstrated that adequate services are currently available or reasonably
obtainable."
10. Section 22-1-150.B.12.e.7 "In the case of any proposed new Regional Urbanization Area, referral
agency responses have been received and considered."
It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has adequately demonstrated compliance. This
recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the applicant,other
relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities.
• The Planning Commission recommends that the following Conditions of Approval be attached:
1. Prior to scheduling a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the applicant shall
submit the following to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. iBR
2010-1459 EXH
oeb ZOlO-I
a. Modify the RUA Map Application Submittal, Section 5.0, Exhibit #12 to reflect the
following:
1. Add two additional K-8 Schools
• 2. Add a future transit parking site
3. Add a library site
4. Add a Community Park site
5. Add a Cultural facilities/ Recreation Center site
6. Add a fire/sheriff site
7. Clearly illustrate the Estate Neighborhood
8. Add buffers south and west of the Estate Neighborhood and along the northern
boundary of the RUA from the Estate Neighborhood to CR 21. Also continue to the
buffer along the southeastern portion of the site.
9. Rename "Trail Connections" to"Regional Trails"
10. Employment Centers
b. The applicant shall define the following elements in terms of goals and policies for
potential inclusion into chapter 26 of the Weld County Code:
1. Employment Centers
2. Prior to submitting a Sketch Plan for either a portion or all of the RUA, future applicants shall
address the following items:
a. Provide evidence of an attempt to enter into a pre-annexation agreement with Fort
Lupton
b. Submit and have approved a Title 32 Special District.
c. Provide a"master transportation plan"that shows the hierarchy of roads to be
constructed, traffic capacities, and timing of construction tied to the development
phasing plan, for review by Weld County Public Works, as indicated in their referral of
• September 24, 2009.
d. Provide a multi-basin wide master plan for stormwater for review by Weld County
Public Works, as indicated in their referral of September 24, 2009.
e. Provide evidence of an agreement with the school districts to provide a voluntary capital
construction school fee.
f. Verify water in terms of quality, quantity, dependability as being fiscally, physically, and
logistically available.
g. Develop a Recreation District
h. Form a Law Enforcement Authority
Motion seconded by Robert Grand.
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Tom Holton
Alexander Zauder
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
Mark Lawley
Nick Berryman
Jason Maxey
• The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
•
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
• I, Kristine Ranslem, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission,do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on January 19, 2010.
Dated the 19`"of January, 2010.
_� "
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
• Tuesday, January 19, 2010
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Department of
Planning Services, Hearing Room, 918 101h Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by
Vice Chair, Mark Lawley, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Tom Holton
Mark Lawley
Nick Berryman
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Roy Spitzer
Alexander Zauder
Jason Maxey
Also Present: Brad Mueller and Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services; Heidi Hansen, Department
of Public Works; Lauren Light, Department of Health; Don Warden, Director of Finance; Bruce Barker,County
Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the January 5, 2010 Weld County Planning Commission minutes,seconded
by Erich Ehrlich. Motion carried.
• Jason Maxey announced that he is an employee of United Power of who is mentioned in the application;
however he added that he feels that this will not affect his ability to make an impartial judgment.
Roy Spitzer added that the company he works for, Deere and Ault Consultants, has current contracts with
Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District; therefore he will recuse himself from voting on this case.
The Chair read the case into record.
CASE NUMBER: 2009-XX
APPLICANT: Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District
PLANNER: Brad Mueller&Michelle Martin
REQUEST: Weld County Comprehensive Plan Amendment to create a new Regional
Urbanization Area("RUA")consisting of approximately 2,095 acres.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portions of Sections 21,26,27,28, 34, and 35,Ti N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: Approximately equidistance from Brighton, Fort Lupton, and Dacono,with
adjacency to the Adams County line. Majority lies between CR 4&6 and CR 17
&21.
Brad Mueller, Planning Services, commented that the applicant is Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District
who is also acting on behalf of designated landowners in the area.
This is a request to change the comprehensive plan by the creation of a new Dry Creek Regional Urbanization
Area. These are geographic policy areas located throughout the county.
There are three interdependent elements to this request:
1. Dry Creek RUA designation on the Urban Development Map
2. Adoption of goals and policies for Chapter 26
• 3. Adoption of a new Dry Creek RUA Map
He stated that all of these are interrelated and one functionally cannot be done without the other.
d(ssR
ICS ZA10-
• Mr. Mueller stated that the Comprehensive Plan is the foundation for future land use,generally described as a
policy document that shows the general location and character of development. The Weld County
Comprehensive Plan speaks to both the character and nature of development for agriculture, mineral
resources, cultural resources, residential, commercial and urban scale development. He added that it does
have a specific section regarding Regional Urbanization Areas (RUAs) as well.
It is not zoning; therefore it does not vest any rights associated with zoning. It does not allow for the
subdivision of land and it does not designate uses. It does not create the ability to have commercial uses in
and of itself. It does not allow for the development of urban scale residential. Likewise it is not a subdivision
so it would not result in the creation of any lot lines and it would not allow for the release of any building
permits associated with those types of uses. It is fundamentally a comprehensive visionary document.
The Weld County Comprehensive Plan, which was last adopted in 2008, includes a number of different
policies and goals. Many of those goals are designed to reinforce the idea of growth paying for its own way
and also for urban scale development to be located in existing urban areas. A number of policies include
intergovernmental agreements with various cities. The County has defined Urban Growth Boundaries based
on a %mile from sewer located within the city limits.
The location of the proposed Regional Urbanization Area is envisioned as an extension of the Denver
Metropolitan Area located essentially in the middle of the 1-25 corridor and the Highway 85 corridor, north of
the county line.
Mr. Mueller stated that the applicants are proposing a policy area of 2,095 acres in size which equates to
approximately 1,500 acres of potential urban scale uses. He provided some size comparisons to other towns
in Weld County,for example, it is roughly the same size as the Town of Eaton, 1.5 times larger than the Town
of Platteville and 1/3 the size of Ft. Lupton.
• Mr. Mueller commented that there was some activity prior to the submittal of the application. He stated that
this was not a requirement of Weld County but was a goodwill effort on the part of the applicant to inform the
public and get input into the process prior to submitting. He added that there were three open house meetings
in the spring. It was also reported to staff that the applicants spoke to individual landowners in the area so
there was an outreach effort on their part. Some of the early feedback that had been given by the County was
the importance of speaking with the municipalities in the area. He understands that those meetings took place
on a fairly regular basis.
The application was submitted at one of the two times of year that comprehensive plan amendments can be
submitted, which was August 1, 2009 in this case. It was then sent to a variety of referral agencies. In this
particular instance,the applicant provided some responses to those referral comments and is included as one
of the attachments to the staff report. In addition,the required notification to surrounding property owners was
made at the beginning of the application.
Mr. Mueller commented that after the formal recommendation by the Planning Commission, the Board of
County Commissioners will hear this case on three readings in order to make the changes into the Weld
County Code.
The general criteria required to consider this case are found in the Comprehensive Plan Section 22-1-
150.6.12.a. There are also additional criteria required when proposing a new RUA.
Traffic and access is a big consideration of any application of this nature. The applicants did provide a traffic
study indicating that there would be approximately 50,700 vehicle trips per work day. There is a proposal for
various road expansions.
Central water is proposed to be provided by the existing Todd Creek Metropolitan District located in Adams
• County and they have indicated that they have the availability to provide water to this area through a
contractual basis. The taxing authority to do that has not yet been established. The amount of water available
was not given in great detail.
2
• Ft. Lupton and the Metropolitan District have entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement in 2006 to provide
sewer service from the north to the site.
Emergency services would be provided by the existing districts of Mountain View and the Greater Brighton
Fire Protection Districts. Part of the proposal is for a potential law enforcement authority that could be served
with a 7 mill levy increase.
The proposal is for a range of 2,200 to 6,600 dwelling units which equates to a population of 6,500 to 19,700
people. The density proposed is relatively low by urban standards.
The commercial proposal for the site is very limited. The application indicates that this is because of limited
opportunities from being off of the main corridors.
There will be limited employment at the site consisting mostly of the commercial just mentioned, schools,
potentially an employment center(which is not a part of the application but rather a recommendation from staff
if approved). Most of the application focuses on its viability due to regional employment citing such examples
as Vestas, etc.
School sites would be supported by two school districts(RE-8 and RE-27J). The application indicates three K-
8 school sites and an additional high school site. Staff's analysis is that six would be appropriate and that is a
condition of approval as well.
The build out proposed with this application is for a potential 6,600 dwelling units, population of nearly 20,000
and a build out of approximately 30 years.
The land use designations primarily consist of residential. Lower density estate residential is envisioned for
the northeast corner of the site.
•
It is important to understand that a Comprehensive Plan such as Weld County's lives in a large context of
planning and planning theory, demographics and related fields of study. One of the relevant concepts is the
idea of sprawl. There is documented research regarding some of the characteristics of the built environment
which can create a negative quality of life for residents and which can have negative fiscal implications. Some
of this more recent research talks about 4 characteristics: 1)low residential density,2)lack of mixed uses, 3)
the lack of an activity center (traditional downtown, commercial corner, high school or college) and 4) an
inaccessibility of street network.
One of the core premises of this application is that growth will take place in this area. State demographics do
suggest that the quantity of population growth and the location of population growth is headed into Weld
County and the northern Front Range.
The Comprehensive Plan was last updated in 2008 and there are long term indications that the northern Front
Range will continue to be a location for future development; however the analysis by staff suggests that the
Comprehensive Plan does not need to be revised at this point in part because of the timing for the need for
urban scale development. The thirty year timeframe and the current economic environment does not give
credence to the idea that this should be anticipated now. Through the analysis provided by the applicant it
shows that the retail and employment in the existing larger region is adequate for years to come within the
existing towns and by that same logic many of the core community services(recreation, fire)would for many
years be an extension of the existing services from the towns. Staff also understands from the applicant and
surrounding municipalities that the municipalities are unable or unwilling to annex which further bolsters the
idea that the timing for anticipating urban scale development in this area is not ripe.
The back of the napkin analysis suggests that there is existing zoning or platted lots within a 5 mile area of up
to 22,000 dwelling units.These are unbuilt lots that are nonetheless zoned and/or platted for residential uses.
• From previous analysis a number of years ago, we know that relatively recent approval in the tri-town area
equals 30,000 dwelling units. This suggests that the existing supply does in fact seem to be accommodated in
the intermediate period. Staff's analysis is not suggesting that long term planning of the area may never be
3
• appropriate but simply that at this point of time and as it is currently proposed it appears to be premature and
the criteria for revising the Comprehensive Plan is not met.
The application must address changes that have happened to the condition be they sociological, social,
physical, economical, etc. There have been significant changes to the County in the last 5 and 10 years;
however we have also seen that the municipalities have accommodated the vast majority of that development.
Many of those changes that are a predicate for this type of proposal are very variable and uncertain at this
point. He noted that funding for the interchange at C470 is uncertain as well as Fastracks. Recovery for jobs
and retail are very uncertain at this point as well. This underscores the idea that while there may be changing
conditions, responding to them in a way that is meaningful and certain is very potentially premature at this
point.
The application must be consistent with the county's goals. Staff agrees with the applicants approach in
looking at the Comprehensive Plan and specifically the RUA goals and policies as a way to measure whether
the application is consistent with County's goals. The first RUA goal in the Comprehensive Plan speaks to
managing growth and this proposal, while it suggests meeting this goal through a new RUA, does not
necessarily account for the time need of that.
RUA.Policies 1.2 and 1.3 state that urban development should take place within the designated areas as well
as within RUAs and that there is a priority given to infill of the existing RUAs. The existing RUAs are currently
not built out. This suggests that those other areas as well as the other targeted urban areas of existing
municipalities are viable and remain a priority. This proposed RUA could create with this particular application
a"super subdivision"effect rather than the planning process that comes out of a municipal planning process
or a joint planning process.
RUA Goal.4 states that RUAs pay their own way. One of the sets of information provided in the packet
material is that the property taxes were projected at$5.5 million and the need was projected at$10.8 million
• so clearly there is a difference that needs to be made up. The application suggests that this be made up
through metropolitan districts, homeowner association, developer fees and a law enforcement authority, etc.
As identified by Weld County Finance and Administration Department, all tools are important to municipalities
and urban areas; however sales tax would not be a tool available to provide funding since incorporated areas
are only allowed to charge a sales tax.
RUA Goal.5 states that that there be efficient cost effect and adequate services and facilities. Mr. Mueller
pointed out in the staff report that some of the potential shortfalls, in terms of providing for emergency
facilities, could be remedied with the conditions of approval.
There is an approval standard that there be diverse uses within the proposed RUA and that there be adequate
service capability in the area. The uses are largely limited to residential and therefore does not represent a
diverse set of uses. The funding services are somewhat conceptual at some level and it is unclear what
compounding affect the various tax rates could have. There are some concerns of physically delivering the
services (i.e. building out the entire length of a system with the first building on the site).
Staff's analysis is that criteria concerning impacts to the environment, addressing stormwater drainage, and
protecting areas with physical restraints could be met if the conditions of approval outlined in the staff report
were followed.
A standard under the code is that there be employment opportunities. Urban form should be based according
to County goals on jobs and commercial components. While it may true that employment and retail to the
area is difficult or impossible that nonetheless is not met and does not meet this criteria.
The application conflicts directly with two Intergovernmental Agreements that the County has in place with
Dacono and Ft. Lupton. The intergovernmental agreements show that this area should not be supported for
urban scale development. Specifically, the IGA's state:
• • "Urban Development. Development which is characterized by development density typical to
urbanized areas and requires services such as central water and sewer systems, road networks,park
4
and recreation facilities and programs, storm drainage and other similar services which are typically
•
furnished by municipalities."
• "Development outside urban growth area.To the extent legally possible pursuant to the Plan and the
COUNTY's land use regulations as described in Section 19-2-50 B above, the COUNTY will
disapprove all proposals for Urban Development in areas of the [Southern Weld Planning
Area/MUNICIPAL Referral Area] outside the Urban Growth Area. This Subsection shall not require
disapproval of a recorded exemption solely because the smaller parcel is less than two and one-half
(2%) acres in size."
In conclusion, staffs recommendation is for denial of the proposal. The analysis suggests that 15 of the
approval standards are not met in the Weld County Code. There is the potential that 5 of those standards
could be addressed by conditions of approval. He added that the criteria for a new RUA have not been met as
well. Mr. Mueller asked that staff has the opportunity to speak to conditions of approval if the Board is inclined
to recommend approval.
Commissioner Berryman commented that in the compatibility section it is noted that this would happen by a
transitioning from a more rural characteristic to something that would have a buffer zone on the edges. He
asked for Mr. Mueller to explain how that worked. Mr. Mueller said that they have interpreted that criteria to
mean compatibility of the proposed area with everything outside of the area. It shares the same
characteristics which has corresponding policies in the proposed language for Chapter 26 that speaks to lower
densities along those areas. He added that compatibility could be addressed at the change of zone
application.
The Chair asked for comments from Environmental Health.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, commented that sewer is provided through Ft. Lupton as they have
• expanded the 208 districts as well as an IGA for sewer service between the applicant and Ft. Lupton. Water is
provided through the Todd Creek Metropolitan District. She added that there was not a lot of information on
the availability of water and pointed out a referral from the Division of Water Resources which states that they
have some questions regarding the water supply if approved.
Staff also looks at an active community lifestyle. An active community lifestyle means that staff evaluates the
application for parks, walking trails, biking trails, detached sidewalks, recreational district, etc. This also
ensures that the schools have a safe access for the children to get to school. Staff reviews where commercial
areas are located so that people don't have to drive their car to the commercial area. In addition, staff has
requested that a park and ride area be provided. If this application is approved, there are conditions of
approval included for a future transit parking area, developing a recreation district, and verifying the water
supply.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works,commented that they provided a memo dated Sept.24, 2009 which covered the
conceptual traffic impact analysis and drainage study. Staff looked at the overall concepts because at this
point there is not enough detail to analyze actual road levels of service,etc. The preliminary study presented
in the application recommends that County Road 17 could be a future six lane arterial, County Road 6 as a
four-lane principle arterial, County Roads 19, 21, and 2 as two-lane minor arterial roadways and 12
intersections will need to be controlled with traffic lights or roundabouts and County Roads 17,23.5 and 19 will
need to be realigned to fix the offset intersections at County Road 2. Staff stated that the applicant should
plan to fully fund all of those road improvements, including the offsite portions.
The improvements would be set at trigger points for different levels of development; however the applicant
should expect some upfront costs such as shoulder extensions, accel/decel lanes, and possibly some
signalization.
The population expected is to be about the same as Windsor but there are not very many jobs or commercial
• opportunities; therefore there will be a lot of traffic in and out to go to work, shopping,entertainment,etc. Staff
commented that depending on the future studies that show these traffic patterns, major intersection
improvements may be required that could not be identified at this time. Ms. Hansen commented that the
5
applicant acknowledged that they are aware that extensive offsite improvements will be required and that they
• will have to fund these improvements.
The conceptual drainage report was acceptable at this stage. Staff commented that the applicant would need
to provide a full Master Plan as well as submit to FEMA for the floodplain along Dry Creek.
Staff requested a composite map of the limiting factors be provided as the application talked about the oil and
gas pipelines and wells crisscrossing the site,the significant power line corridors,other major utility easements
and the Dry Creek floodplain. Ms. Hansen commented that the applicant has agreed to that request.
Commissioner Grand asked if there was an estimate of the costs associated with the offsite road
improvements. Ms. Hansen said that there are no estimates.
Don Warden, Director of Finance, stated that the main concern with this proposal is the revenue mix.
Historically, government has looked to property tax, income tax, consumption (a form of sales tax), tobacco
tax, etc. In recent years, gaming has been added such as lotteries, casinos, etc. Typically at the local level
the only two options we have are property tax and sales tax. Municipalities have a reliance upon sales tax in
order to have the proper mix of revenue sources to support the kinds of municipal services that are required.
Mr. Warden commented that the concern he has in this project is that when it is built out a municipality is
basically created with between 6,600 to 20,000 populations. Those people are going to be looking for
municipal services. If you don't have the right mix of revenue sources you create a real burden on the
individual tax payer. Those individuals won't reap any of the benefits of the sales tax because the
unincorporated area is not permitted to levy that. Therefore there is a lack of benefit for the taxation.
Mr. Warden commented that the applicant cited examples such as Highlands Ranch where this has been a
development that has relied upon Metro Districts and hasn't had a sales tax, etc. He stated that in his opinion
it is a matter of time. He pointed out that Lakewood started out as a very large unincorporated municipal type
•
area and they eventually incorporated because in part they needed the revenue source to provide the services
that Jefferson County wasn't willing to provide and they now have a 3% sales tax in order to provide the
services that their citizens want. Recently in the last decade,Centennial and Arapahoe Counties dealt with the
same thing. He added that Highlands Ranch has had two or three failed attempts of task forces or groups
looking at ultimately incorporating. He added that once their infrastructure starts to be aged and they need to
be upgraded they will probably face the same reality that Lakewood and Centennial faced as far as becoming
incorporated and trying to get other revenue sources.
As stated in the December 21, 2009 memo which he submitted there is a lack of understanding of basically
how local finance works. He added that the applicant has a misunderstanding of how the Highway User Tax
Fund works, thinking that was federal dollars that was shared back. These funds are only shared back with
the municipalities. Also, in Colorado Law if you are a municipality the property tax the county collects for their
road and bridge fund is shared back 50% to the municipality. That would not be required for an
unincorporated area like this;therefore the applicants will miss this opportunity. They will miss not only sales
tax, but the HUTF from the State gas tax and share back of the property tax from the county as well. He
reiterated that they will miss a lot of revenue sources that their citizens would get if they were in fact in a
municipal corporation.
This development is going be heavily residential. There is not a lot of commercial,industrial,etc.that can help
shoulder the property tax burden in that particular area. It could become very burdensome if the individuals
demand the services they want and expect.
Commissioner Grand asked Mr. Warden if in his opinion to pay for the services the applicant will ultimately
have to either become incorporated or annexed in the long term. Mr. Warden believes that they will and
stated that there is example after example to support this.
• Commissioner Zauder asked if a sales tax would bring in any monies if there is no retail of any considerable
size. Mr.Warden said it wouldn't and according to an economic analysis provided by the applicant it wouldn't
support that.
6
• Commissioner Lawley asked if metro districts are capped on the amount of mills they can get. Mr. Warden
said that in Weld County they are because we have adopted a policy as far as the cap on the amount of mills
they can have as far as debt and operational. He added that then there is the issue that basically you have a
cap on the revenue source and the demand for service keeps going up and the citizens have become
discontent and you will need to look at annexation or incorporation.
The Chair called a recess at 2:41 pm.
(Roy Spitzer left the meeting)
The Chair reconvened the meeting at 2:47 p.m. and asked the applicant to make their presentation.
George Hanlon, President of Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District. Mr. Hanlon commented that they
began looking at this area as a district when they were looking at growth in Thornton and Brighton and what
was essentially going to be happening around them. They felt their only opportunity as a district was to look to
the north into Weld County. They felt that the trends they were seeing in the metro area and along the Front
Range indicated that the natural progression of growth probably in the next 2 to 3 or 4 decades is going to be
to the north and up the 1-25 and 1-76 corridors in specific. When they started talking to Weld County about the
possibility of moving into Weld County it was suggested that they follow the MUD (at that time) process for
developing urban scale development.
Currently, Todd Creek Metro District primarily serves an area in Adams County. They are a Title 32 District
but they are not a General Obligation District. They do not charge a mill levy. They are a revenue district and
receive most of the funds either through tap fees or through water delivery fees. They are in an ideal location
because in the formation of the district in the late 1990s they realized that their groundwater supplies would
not be reliable;therefore they developed a two pipe system where they provide non-potable irrigation water as
well as potable water that is treated through Reverse Osmosis (RO). He stated that 96% of their water
•
delivery is from surface water. Only 4% to 4.5% of the total water supply comes from ground water and it is
primarily to blend it back in with the treated water to give it some balance.
There are three major delivery systems for the water that is used. The first is the Platte River. He added that
they have alluvial wells which are drawn from and are brought back into the RO plant for treatment and
ultimate delivery for potable water. The second system is the Signal Ditch in which they receive the water and
it is then stored in five reservoirs. The third delivery system is the Brantner Ditch which runs through the entire
service area. He added that currently they have approximately$58 million in infrastructure that they maintain
and support.
Ms. Hanlon stated that they met with the Board of County Commissioners in 2004 and discussed this area.
From those conversations they were directed to begin discussions with Dacono and Ft. Lupton. Therefore
they met with Dacono and Ft. Lupton and talked about their desire to have an urban level of development in
this area of Weld County. Mr. Hanlon commented that when they first began discussions of this area none of
the boundaries for Dacono and Ft. Lupton even touched the service area. He added that Vestas has changed
that and now has begun to influence this particular area.
When they met with Dacono and Ft. Lupton they discussed their vision and what the municipalities' needs
were. In 2005,they negotiated and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding(MOU)which states that Ft.
Lupton would be responsible for providing sewer and Dacono would more than likely provide their own water
and that the District would provide water and be responsible for developing the district main infrastructure.
They then began to work on an Intergovernmental Agreement(IGA). As the process for the IGA was started
Dacono informed the District that they intended to go into St.Vrain and that they no longer wanted to be a part
of the IGA. The District accepted that and approached Ft. Lupton and asked if they were still willing to
proceed forward. Ft. Lupton agreed to continue and the next year was then spent on working and completing
IGA. The IGA identified this proposed area and defined the Weld County Service Area Boundary. It was an
• understanding that Ft. Lupton would provide sewer treatment services for up to 14,000 SFEs and 1 million
square feet of commercial. After the IGA was agreed to and signed the District then began work on expanding
Ft. Lupton's 208 area. After that was completed they then made the application to expand the District's
7
service area to overlay the same 208 area. Upon completion in 2007, the District began meeting with some
•
of the property owners in this area and then ultimately had discussions with staff. In August 2008, Weld
County Planning Staff and Planning Director had advised them that they were in the process of adopting RUA
regulations which was to replace the existing MUD regulations and asked them to delay the application until
the new regulations were adopted. At the end of 2008 the RUA regulations were then adopted and in 2009
the District began the application process under the new RUA standards.
Mr. Hanlon said that one of the comments made was that the comprehensive plan encourages urban scale
development in and around existing urban areas. He said that if you look at the history of the RUA or MUD
and why these regulations were adopted it was because the County felt that they represented constituents that
were in the unincorporated areas of the county and that they should have the right to achieve the highest and
best use of their property if development was appropriate. He added that appropriate is going to be whether
they meet water, sewer, transportation, schools, and those types of things that are important to a proper
development of a master planned community.
Through the IGA with Ft. Lupton, it is clearly defined that there would be urban scale development in this area.
It was understood that because this site is located next to the Platte River and on the Brantner Ditch and the
tail waters of the Signal Ditch there is water resource available to support development in this area.
Another comment that was made was that the application is reliant on paying for public infrastructure and
services via Metropolitan Districts, Homeowner Association fees, and developer contributions. Mr. Hanlon
said that he understands that growth has to pay for itself and added that Metro Districts are the best way for
growth to pay for itself. Title 32 Districts are a way in which to finance and pay for the growth that is required
for that community. He said that it is a proven method.
Mr. Hanlon agreed that sales tax as a form of revenue is provided for the incorporated areas of the county.
He stated that they did not look at sales tax primarily because they were working at a comp plan level and not
in the process of trying to develop a detailed financial model based on some definitive plan or an actual known
•
master plan. They were putting together some general concepts. He made the argument that they do have
the ability to capture the equivalent of sales tax once metro districts for this area are formed through the
implementation of Public Infrastructure Fees (PIFs).
It was pointed out that the need for additional urban scale development does not exist and will not for the
standard 20 year planning horizon. They do not think that need necessarily is the same as what market
demand may be because they cannot predict what market demand is going to be. In a free market society
people may ultimately choose to live there if they provide that opportunity in the Dry Creek RUA. He added
that they cannot predict if it will be 10,20 or 30 years. He said that they are trying to present a long range plan
for how that development should take place in this area.
Commissioner Maxey asked if the RUA boundary includes only eight property owners and if they are all in
agreement with this. Mr. Hanlon replied yes.
Commissioner Ehrlich referred to the Title 32 District and asked once this area is built out then how will you
continue to generate money for services. Mr. Hanlon said that the tap fees that are collected go to pay for
infrastructure and debt service related to that infrastructure development. The fees from the delivery of water
cover the operating expenses.
Bill Vitek, Senior Vice President, EDAW. Mr. Vitek commented that this proposal is for a comp plan
amendment. It is not a detailed design. Planning is a process and there will be many more times for the
Planning Commission, Board of County Commissioners and citizens to make comments on this application as
it continues to refine itself through the process.
Mr. Vitek stated that they believe this application meets the Weld County standards of approval. He added
that they have provided information that starts getting into the sketch plan and change of zone. They are
• aware that there are some holes that need to be addressed but feel that they have done a thorough job in
terms of the process to date.
8
Mr. Vitek stated that this application triggers the need to revise the comp plan due to the scale, size and
•
magnitude of the application. He added that social, economic or land use conditions of the county have
changed. He commented that we all know growth is coming although it is hard to see it in today's economic
conditions. The key to long range planning is how we work together to help shape growth that is productive to
the overall community.
The majority of the RUA planning area lies outside of any municipal jurisdiction and any growth boundary.
They don't see any annexation as a realistic alternative in the near term. The Todd Creek Village Metropolitan
District has the capabilities and infrastructure in place; therefore that part of the equation is solved.
Mr. Vitek said that the RUA lets Weld County control its own destiny. It also allows the landowners to be a
part of the value proposition of their land and to be integrated into this planning process and to have a choice
and not be mandated into doing something. They believe that the property rights and valuation issue as well
as the County's opportunity to shape its own future are key reasons as to why the RUA process is the right tool
to move forward.
The benefits of the RUA is that they have opportunities to integrate riparian drainage ditches and corridors
such as Big Dry Creek not in just this property itself but in much bigger regional systems that can tie to
environmental quality as well as recreation.
Another benefit of the RUA is that it allows urban development to occur in a manner that respects and
mitigates conflicts with rural and agricultural uses. They believe that there are ways for buffering techniques,
land use transitions and good goals and policies.
Mr. Vitek said that they believe that this is not urban sprawl because the IGAs and utility systems are already
in place as well as the capabilities to expand those systems. The regional network is already there,such as I-
25, 1-76, Highway 85, and C470. He understands that the interchange may be pushed back but that the
• highway is there and it is an economic engine to open up growth and opportunities in this northern range area.
They believe that this proposal is in context with what the surrounding land use development pattern is already
occurring and in the logical geographic location for economic growth. They believe that through the different
steps in the planning process they can easily address the concerns and issues raised.
Commissioner Grand asked if they anticipate the incremental development towards Ft. Lupton, Brighton or
Dacono. Mr. Vitek said that he believes growth will continue to follow where infrastructure is in place. Mr.
Hanlon added that the ultimate location of the sewer main may drive where future growth might take place.
He said that in the initial discussions with Ft. Lupton there was nothing to prevent other users from connecting
to that district main. As part of the IGA with Ft. Lupton it was agreed that this area within their service area
boundary would be an extraterritorial area. It was also agreed that this area would pay a surcharge over what
the bulk customers of Ft. Lupton pay; therefore they agreed that this area would pay 200%of what is being
charged to customers within the Ft. Lupton area.
Mr. Hanlon provided detail of their water services and availability. Commissioner Ehrlich referred to the
Division of Water Resources comments and noted that there are still concerns and questions on how this
project in the future can sustain water in that region. He asked for clarification. Mr. Hanlon said that with the
shares of water that they own and the ability to buy additional shares, he is not concerned; however if he had
to rely on well water he would be concerned. He added that in that referral they commented that this
application doesn't qualify as a subdivision and they know it doesn't as they are doing a comp plan. Therefore
it doesn't address the adequacy of the water supply in a comp plan amendment.
Roger Hollard, Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District. Mr. Hollard said that it is very clear that one of the
major industries of Weld County is oil and gas production. The RUA that is presented is starting to work its
way into the heart of the Wattenburg field. It is important as development occurs that it recognizes the rights
of the oil and gas operations and ensures that those rights are protected. This can be achieved through
• various methods such as the development of a Surface Use Agreement(SUA). Some of the properties have
already been contacted and have started working with a couple of the oil and gas producers in order to make
sure that future needs are accommodated and understood.
9
• Another method is through Senate Bill 07237 which was adopted in 2007. If the producers and the surface
owners do not understand each other and cannot come to a SUA there are provisions in place to make sure
that they can work within the realms of this senate bill to reasonably accommodate each other's use.
The third method is through the standard Colorado Oil and Gas Conservancy Commission standards for
spacing through the 318AE. Mr. Hollard commented that the RUA understands this issue and has policies in
place so that as development starts to occur in the area that oil and gas is indeed respected.
Commissioner Hall asked how current the IGA between Ft. Lupton and Brighton is. Mr. Hollard said that it is a
2009 IGA due to the new Vestas plant. He added that it says Ft. Lupton will not go south of County Road 6 or
east of County Road 21 and Brighton cannot go north of that boundary.
Nancy Kerr, Sky to Ground. Ms. Kerr said that Weld County for the last 25 years has enjoyed a high level of
growth of between 3% and 4.6% annually. In terms of looking forward, the analysis said that in order to be
conservative they discounted that back to about two thirds of that rate. Therefore they looked at it at an
estimated conservative growth rate of 2.8%annually for the next 30 years; based on that they can anticipate
73,000 new folks living within the 5 mile radius at 30 years.
The demographics would indicate that the folks who live there are a bit younger and higher household size.
They earn about 95%of the area median income. The most interesting fact is that they have a much higher
homeownership rate which is 8% higher than the rest of the Front Range.
The goal based on the RUA is to have access to jobs and commercial opportunities within the RUA.
Therefore renewable and energy efficient jobs are the trend for the State of Colorado and in particular the
Highway 85 corridor. This is where the long term growth will happen.
• Currently, in the State of Colorado there are 91,000 green jobs and they produce about$10.2 billion worth of
revenue annually. The base case scenario indicated that in 30 years green jobs would produce about$20
billion worth of revenue and 192,000 jobs statewide. In a best case scenario, the state could enjoy a$61.5
billion in revenue and 613,000 jobs.
Ms. Kerr said that the nacelle manufacturing plant is estimated to open this summer and when at full operation
will employ 700 people in addition to the turbine and blade factory which will have 650 new jobs three miles
away from Dry Creek RUA. She added that Vestas has a policy in which they are requesting that all of their
suppliers have two for each part locate in the region also. Therefore it is anticipated that there will be two new
jobs for every one Vestas job that is brought to the Highway 85 Corridor.
Dry Creek RUA is favorable because of its relatively favorably priced land. There will be a continued strong
market for residential development for this area because of its proximity to 1-25, Highway 85, C470 and
Highway 7.
The Comprehensive Plan is very clear that growth needs to pay for its own way. A Metro District is a political
subdivision of the State and it can provide multiple services, including building and maintaining infrastructure,
parks and recreation. It has various financing powers including taxing and assessing fees and issuing bonds.
Metro Districts are a really common used tool. They provide an efficient and cost effective way of delivering
public services.
Ms. Kerr outlined the financial analysis report provided. Dry Creek RUA was modeled without a sales tax in
order to be consistent with current Weld County policies and to demonstrate that it can work without
overreaching and grabbing every source of revenue. That being said a Public Improvement Fund (PIF) is
perfectly possible and available. These are a private fee by covenant and it can be captured and dedicated
revenue.
• In closing, Mr. Hanlon said this RUA meets and exceeds the standards of approval for an RUA. They believe
that this is the appropriate location for an RUA and that the goals and policies that they have will create a
quality community. There is already economic activity that is occurring and will continue to occur within this
10
area.
• The Chair called a recess at 5:34 pm and reconvened at 5:46 pm.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Holly Prather, City of Brighton, 22 S 4'" Ave, Brighton, CO. Ms. Prather stated that the City of Brighton
opposes the amendment to the Weld County Comprehensive Plan for the creation of the Dry Creek RUA.
She referred to the referral letter that the City of Bright submitted. She commented that they support the
Planning Services analysis of the proposed RUA as set forth in their staff report and more importantly they
support the recommendation of denial for the Comp Plan amendment. She reiterated Point A that the Weld
County Comprehensive Plan more strongly encourages urban scale development in and around existing
urban areas. The submittal does not overcome the characteristics of sprawl as measured and identified by
recent land use planning research. Providing and sustain service levels is one important element and the
consideration of urbanizing the south Weld region. Adequate future employment and commercial
opportunities are not included in the proposal. This could be done through a coordinated regional planning
effort with other municipalities. Ms. Prather said that the bottom line is that you have a very educated
professional staff and believes that they have carefully reviewed the Comprehensive Plan amendment and
that their recommendation for denial is based on sound evidence and good planning principles. She asked
the Planning Commission to support staffs recommendation for denial.
Commissioner Hall asked how she would have proposed what these applicants should have done. Ms.
Prather said in her professional opinion just because someone wants to develop doesn't necessarily mean it's
the right time to develop or that they should have a right to develop. She believes that this type of growth that
is proposed should be done in a municipal setting and as staff pointed out there are plenty of zoned and
platted lots in the surrounding municipalities to serve potential residents.
• Tom Parko, Planning Director, 130 S McKinley Ave, Ft. Lupton, CO. Mr. Parko reiterated in their referral that
there is a provision in the IGA that states that no urban level development will be approved within the IGA
boundary. That in itself presents an interesting question because that IGA was done in November of 2000.
Six years later the City entered into an IGA with Equinox to handle their sewer. The irony is that on one hand
they agreed in 2000 on the IGA that all urban scale development comes within the City of Ft. Lupton, but then
in 2006 by approving this IGA with Equinox they said that they will hand their sewer, so in essence they are
saying that they allow urban scale development in the County. The irony is that it sets up the stage in the
future to kind of come back to that provision in 2000 where if we do handle the sewer as they stated in the
2006 IGA it might set up the potential for this particular project to come into the city in the future. He added
that there are a lot of issues that need to happen in detail with Ft. Lupton if something like this were to happen.
Commissioner Grand asked if Ft. Lupton supports this application or supporting it with caveats of developing
some further discussions. Mr. Parko said that in general the City of Ft. Lupton supports the RUA application
through Weld County with the caveat that knowing that they would rather see this development happen within
a municipality rather than the County. He said that he agrees with Weld County's staff comments regarding
this and added that an urban scale development of this nature needs to be going to a municipality at some
point.
John Butera,Anadarko Petroleum Corporation. Mr. Butera commented that Anadarko has mineral ownership
and lease hold ownership within this RUA. He added that they have been working with the applicant on a
mutually accepted Surface Use Agreement (SUA). At this time, there is not an SUA, but they have been
working towards one and until they have something executed they would not approve of any final platting. He
understands that it is not at that stage yet, but should the RUA get approved they would oppose any final
platting until there was an executed SUA.
Hazel Frank, 1596 CR 15, stated that that she is located in the donut hole but outside of the RUA. She
recognizes that growth will at some time come to their area, but believes that a city or town is more than just
• sewer and water. There are a lot of other things that need to come than just water and sewer. Mr. Frank said
that she is concerned as County Roads 2 and 6 are not adequate to have large increases in traffic volume.
She anticipates that traffic on County Road 6 will increase due to Vestas as well as heavy truck traffic from the
11
concrete batch and gravel plants by the Platte River. With an added large residential development the roads
•
would not work very well. She stated that she is concerned with the response times from the Weld County
Sheriff and the traffic speed law enforcement in that area is next to none. She commented that they chose to
live there and at this time doesn't require a high level of law enforcement; however if there was a town of
between 6,000 and 20,000 people within less than a mile they would need more services from Weld County.
Ms. Frank commented that she attended several of the Weld County Comprehensive Planning meetings as
well as Dacono's planning meetings. She added that she likes planning a lot and believes that it is important
to develop sensibly. She stated that she likes the Weld County Comprehensive Plan and the fact that Dacono
should grow into our area. She believes that an existing municipality already has the services that you need
when you have high density development. She would rather see the municipalities that are in existence grow
in size rather than what seems a water and sewer district develop the town.
Sharlene Krantz, 1755 CR 23, stated that she has 4.2 acres and has lived there for 32 acres. She
commented that they were never approached by this developer. They had heard about the informational
meetings that Todd Creek held last spring and summer and did attend all of those meetings and wrote her
name and contact information at every meeting; however was never contacted.
Ms. Krantz stated that she is concerned with this development as she is surrounded by the RUA and they
have their own septic system and water well. She inquired if this development is approved and infrastructure
is installed, if they need to drill a new well or their septic system fails would they be required to hook up to
those services. She is concerned about control over future costs to them by being surrounded by this RUA.
She added that they have oil and gas mineral rights and how those rights will be affected if this RUA is put into
place.
She mentioned that she is an employee of the Brighton School District and discussed this plan with the
Planning Manager of the School District. She pointed out in the comments submitted to Planning Services
that she had indicated that about 20% of this RUA is located within the Brighton School District. She added
•
that this would generate approximately 490 additional students. The developer is proposing a K-8 school
within this Dry Creek RUA; however the Brighton School District has no plans to construct a K-8 school. They
are planning on going to K-5, Middle and High Schools. She commented that out of the three schools that
would service this area in the Brighton School District two of those three schools are currently over capacity.
She added that the Brighton School District is the largest growing school district in the State of Colorado. Ms.
Krantz commented that the Brighton School District requires cash in lieu of school land dedication made prior
to recording of final plat; however the developer has requested to pay the cash in lieu amount at the time of
building permit. This school district does not accept this method of receiving cash in lieu of payments.
Gary Howard, 8739 CR 4, stated that his family signed up for the RUA and they were very glad to see it come
in. He said each home has their own septic system and well and they are all concerned about water and
added that at some point in the future they will be in trouble. He believes that with Equinox bringing in a
source of water it was a blessing to him. If their well goes bad there may be a source of water that they could
hook into and get some water. Mr. Howard commented that the land he has is a source of retirement for him
and will be good building sites.
John Howard, 8679 CR 4, said that he has been a lifetime resident here and said that he was happy to see the
RUA proposal as well as an opportunity to make more money than just the dry land farming he does. He
added that he has had long term relationships with Todd Creek as he has rented farm ground from them for
15 years and they have always been easy to work with.
Mr. Howard stated that he is President of Mountain View Water Users Association and added that Todd Creek
Water District crosses their lines in several places. He said that they have been very easy to work with and
anticipates a good working relationship if this RUA is approved.
Fred Walker, 37206 Mountain Meadows Dr,Windsor,CO. Mr.Walker stated that he has a vested interest in
• this Comprehensive Plan as he was on the review committee for the Comprehensive Plan both for the current
plan and the previous plan. In the first plan he was a part of a small group that advanced the notion of what
you see in your regulations today which is the phrase"currently available or reasonably obtainable". That was
12
put in to further enhance the idea of self determination within the County itself so that if infrastructure was
•
available or currently there that was the first check mark that needed to happen in order to determine whether
or not development was feasible.
At the second Comprehensive Plan which is now enforced, there was more discussion about an RUA which
was an evolution of the Mixed Use Development (MUD). There was not any discussion at either of those
comprehensive plan meetings in which there was not going to be any encouragement of an RUA based upon
the number of plotted lots that are currently in Weld County. Their job for the Comprehensive Plan was to set
a framework of what the County would look like over a period of time. It wasn't to look at what the need was; it
was to allow opportunity within constraints allowing for growth to happen in the area. Both of those
committees that he served on recognized very early on that Weld County is a very diverse county and that
there are multiple uses within that County. It was obvious to them that growth was happening and was going
to occur in the future; therefore they tried to develop a framework that would facilitate the opportunity to come
before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners and ask for some sort of self
determination if things weren't able to be worked out with the municipalities in the area. Mr. Walker
commented that this group of property owners have come together in a coordinated manner and have looked
at master planning in this area.
Commissioner Hall concurred with Mr.Walker's comments as he also sat on the committee which updated the
Comprehensive Plan and added that there was a lot of time spent on specifics and language as far as
services that are readily available.
Joe Rider, 1620 CR 21, stated that developers own three (3) sides of his property so the likelihood of
development someday is inevitable. He added that if they don't have the opportunity to take advantage of this
situation, their kids will. He understands that this RUA will still be governed by Weld County and he likes that
because he feels comfortable with Weld County. He said that more lots provide better competition.
• The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Mr. Hanlon said that they have met with Ft. Lupton subsequent to the application being submitted. He feels
that they have a good working relationship and added that it is too early to predict annexation.
With regard to Ms. Frank's comments, he envisions creating an annexed facility for the Sheriff Department
and that response times will improve. At this hearing they are asking to establish a Comp Plan that begins to
set up the goals and policies so that these kinds of things will be addressed.
Mr. Hanlon commented that he talked to Ms. Krantz at several of the open house meetings. He added that he
tried to set up a meeting at her home; however unfortunately they were never able to find a convenient time for
either party to be available.
Commissioner Maxey referred to Ms. Krantz's comments and asked if there is anything that said she couldn't
drill another well. Mr. Mueller said that if the property is within 400 feet of a sewer line you would be required
to hook up to that line at the point your septic system fails. Mr. Mueller commented that with a well he is
unsure as that is more of a State matter.
Commissioner Ehrlich asked how you can stay competitive as an RUA in terms of water taps and pricing
yourself in the market. In addition, manufacturing jobs will be limited in what they can pay an employee and
asked how you can be competitive. Mr. Hanlon said that that their water tap fee is $14,000 compared to
$21,000 in Thornton. He said that their source of supply and ability to treat and deliver that water allows them
to be competitive.
The Chair asked Mr. Mueller to go over the list of conditions of approval. Mr. Muller started with the first
condition with regard to modifying the RUA Map. The modifications are written in the staff report. Mr. Mueller
requested that an additional item be included to reflect the modification to the RUA Map listed under 1.a.10
• Employment Center.
Condition of Approval 2 would be to revise Chapter 26. Staff has provided a clean revised version of Chapter
13
26. He characterized most of the revisions as being administrative or clarification items. He understands from
•
talking to the applicant that they have some items that they don't necessarily concur with.
Mr. Mueller continued to Condition of Approval 3. He noted that at this point there are commitments that need
to be made and additional information understood in order to make any forward progress. The zoning and
subdivision process is a three step process. Step 1 is Sketch Plan which is an administrative approval
designed to identify key issues. Step 2 is Change of Zone in which any vested rights are changed on a
property from its current agricultural rights. Step 3 is a Final Plat which creates lot lines. Condition of
Approval 3 recommends that prior to submitting a Sketch Plan that there be a list of items which should be
addressed.
Mr. Mueller would like the Planning Commission to consider adding an additional Item I which is to facilitate
amendment of Weld-Dacono&Ft. Lupton IGAs to support urban development within the RUA boundary. He
added that if this RUA would be approved it would imply a condition which is in direct conflict with those IGAs.
It seems appropriate that those IGAs then be amended before moving into any additional stage of
development.
Mr. Mueller said that the Comprehensive Plan is a nuanced document and planning is not an exact science.
One of the key policies of Weld County is to direct urban development to existing urban areas. While it is true
that there are opportunities and reasons where it makes sense to have other types of development the
analysis provided by all staff departments and referral agencies speaks to the idea of timing of that direction of
urban development. Therefore, Mr. Mueller urged the Planning Commission to consider the staff
recommendation of denial based on the concept of diluting the larger effort of directing urban development to
existing urban areas.
Some of the referral agencies as well as staff have noted that there is an opportunity to coordinate in this area.
The question is again of timing and whether this is premature and whether this is the right plan. He
• mentioned that Mr. Warden noted that the Public Infrastructure Fee (PIF) is typically used in commercial
situations. Many of the assumptions that underlie the planning process for this area are so uncertain now in a
way that they weren't 2 or 5 years ago. The recommendation is based on the idea that those assumptions
simply cannot be counted on to a degree that is strong enough to be able to adequately plan this in the limited
scope and timeframe that it is being proposed. It doesn't mean a long range planning effort is not appropriate
for this area; in fact it should be demanded and utilized at an appropriate point and scale. This particular plan
after analysis doesn't seem to provide that.
Mr. Hanlon referred to the first Condition of Approval regarding the modification of an RUA Map and said that
they don't necessarily oppose these items. He stressed that this is a Comp Plan and they are trying to deal
with long range planning and know that at some point these items will need to be addressed. He added that
some of these items are better addressed through a goal and objective and then identify an area versus the
map allocating a site.
Mr. Hanlon said that they have revisions to Chapter 26 and added that it is something that can be worked
through.
With regard to Condition of Approval 3 and the requirements prior to submitting a Sketch Plan, he stated that
he doesn't see a problem with most of those items. He commented that staffs timing is wrong and added that
until we have an idea of what an acceptable Sketch Plan looks like it is hard to say how many districts will be
needed and it's hard to establish what the ultimate master transportation plan is going to look like, etc. He
added that it's putting the cart before the horse. Until we have a Sketch Plan that really lays out conceptually
what is going to happen on a piece of property within this Comp Plan it is hard to require the applicant or the
developer in advance and create Title 32 districts or create cost estimates for the roads.
He stated that he is concerned with the addition of amending the Weld-Dacono and Ft. Lupton IGAs as a
condition before a Sketch Plan could be presented. In his opinion it really flies in the face of what they've been
• doing in the last 6 years. He would not like to see a condition before a Sketch Plan is presented that Weld
County go back and negotiate a revision to the IGAs that were done in 2000.
14
Mr. Hanlon referred to Mr. Mueller's comments regarding timing and that this proposal may be premature and
• said that in 2004 when they met with the County Commissioners no one said that they were premature. In fact
what they said was that this has basis, however you need to do A, B and C. In long range planning we try to
be anticipatory and that is what they have been doing in the last six years.
Commissioner Berryman asked if whether this is approved or denied what is the motivation for the
municipalities to come together and make an agreement. Mr. Mueller said that the Intergovernmental
Agreements that the County currently has in place with about half of the municipalities in Weld County are
generally the same. The rationale for having those IGAs is that it is a way to formalize the concept of directing
urban development to existing urban areas. With regard to the cities being interested in modifying the IGAs
he commented that,at some level,they would. As we heard in testimony from Ft.Lupton,they entered into an
IGA to provide sewer with the Metro District with some level of knowledge that necessitates urban
development. He also believes that there would be some interest from Dacono in amending the IGA with
Weld County.
Commissioner Grand stated that we have a work in progress but it's nothing that is definitive. He added that
he is not sure that the value of getting the level of detail that we are looking at in the short term does anything
to enhance the development process. He wants to facilitate the development of this and recognize the
property rights of the people who own the property who have expressed a desire to do something. He
understands that this is in the preliminary part of the game and believes that this could be a potentially good
project.
Commissioner Hall said that he feels in our Comprehensive Plan we allowed for these RUAs and it is actually
contradictory with those IGAs. He is in favor of the project and believes that we should leave ourselves an
opportunity to work some of those details out.
Mr. Mueller said that if the Commission is inclined to recommend approval of this application that we could go
through the main conditions of approval with the applicant but then leave Chapter 26 as staff is proposing it.
• He added that staff did not get a chance to compare what the applicant is bringing forward and unfortunately
the applicants don't have a red line version to go through. He said that if it went as a recommendation to the
Board of County Commissioners as proposed by staff, then the Board of County Commissioners could deal
with those.
Commissioner Grand suggested that we address the approval of this application and leave Chapter 26 out to
be later reviewed by staff and the Board of County Commissioners.
Erich Ehrlich moved to approve Case 2009-XX along with the Conditions of Approval including 1.a.10,
removing Condition of Approval 2, and adding Condition of Approval 1.1, with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, seconded by Robert Grand.
Mr. Mueller asked to clarify if the motion to remove Condition 2 would then be the burden of the applicant to
bring forth the changes to Chapter 26 at the Board of County Commissioner's hearing. Mr. Ehrlich said that
was correct.
The Chair asked the applicant if they read through the amended Conditions of Approval and if they are in
agreement with those. Mr. Hanlon replied that for the most part they are in agreement as this will give them
the opportunity between now and the County Commissioner hearing to try and work through the changes to
Chapter 26. He added that he does not agree to the condition with regard to the amendment of the IGA. This
has not been a high priority item for Weld County and added that those IGAs were entered into in 2000. When
they came to the County Commissioners in 2004 those IGAs had not been signed by Dacono or Ft. Lupton.
He is concerned that suddenly as a condition of approval that now we are waiting on Dacono and Ft. Lupton to
come back in after everything that they have been doing in the last six years to enter into a revised IGA with
Weld County. He is not sure why at the last minute this addition has suddenly come up and doesn't
understand why it is needed when the IGAs haven't been touched for 10 years.
• Mr. Mueller recognized the frustration with the perception that staff didn't identify that. However, from his
perspective, staff did in fact point out early on that those agreements in Chapter 19 of the Weld County Code
15
have been in place and that it was a critical issue. Mr. Mueller also corrected the fact that the Ft. Lupton IGA
was approved on November 14, 2000, and the Dacono IGA approved on March 24, 2997.
Mr. Barker said that the IGAs are between governmental entities and do not involve any property owners. This
is an agreement that those property owners are not a part to and so as a result how can those property
owners change it. He is a little reluctant to put that on property owner. Mr. Grand asked if counsel is
recommending deletion of Condition 1.1. Mr. Barker suggested deleting Condition 1.1.
Erich Ehrlich amended his motion to reflect the deletion of Condition 1.1, seconded by Robert Grand.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman,yes with comment; Erich Ehrlich,yes with comment;Robert Grand,yes with comment; Bill Hall,yes
with comment; Alexander Zauder, yes with comment; Jason Maxey, yes; Roy Spitzer, absent; Mark Lawley,
yes with comment; Tom Holton, absent. Motion carried.
Commissioner Berryman commented that he sees it as a matter of in the short term there is really not a great
mechanism in which to advance their wishes. He feels in that case this makes sense.
Commissioner Hall commented that there lies a discrepancy between our RUA and the IGAs to a degree and
added that he highly believes in the vehicle of the RUA which the intent is that you didn't have to depend on
the municipalities but that it was offered to them first.
Commissioner Zauder commented that he believes the Weld County Commissioners should review the IGAs
with Dacono and Ft. Lupton regarding development borders.
Commissioner Grand commented that it is important to note the rights of property owners to proceed in a
course that will satisfy some of the long term goals. He added that we need to be sensitive to respond to the
competitive environment to help our Weld County and regional area and meet the needs of our citizens.
• Commissioner Ehrlich reiterated the need of reviewing the IGA agreements with our neighbors. He stressed
that we need to keep the citizens of Weld County in mind as we make amendments to Chapter 26 of the Weld
County Code.
Commissioner Lawley echoed Mr. Ehrlich's comments and citied Section 22-1-150.6.12 and 22-1-150.E.3 of
the Weld County Code regarding compatibility.
Meeting adjourned at 8:11 pm.
Respectfully submitted, 1"nn
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
•
16
v N 4- :v/
i^ O M Q
D Na'
ri 1 Q o C E cd J
Th ti: co < L °
Q & 7 {'n
OU N C It .P Q `
2
U w U I ro v ;:n ti j a,
Z CD C \./ (:)::
0 al
E IX z � s �' �� ,I o .�� N
d
E
!a
ts
6.
d 3 LllT S1dlL c -' '�
m 2 ,� v, DL n —�
w Q p oG �Q V `� q T 7 cp t..
ti S
r\ (
C
\>Qi G
y
c A 4,-\\\'
x \
d
)
N-
cr G ^j
YJ
r�
kb1/4
ck A '
Hello