HomeMy WebLinkAbout20090607.tiffBEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Paul Branham, 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:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
2008-XX Amendment 2
Prospect Farms II Holdings LLC
Michelle Martin
Part of W2 of Section 5, T2N, R64W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Weld County Comprehensive Plan Amendment for inclusion of additional acres
into the Southeast Weld Mixed Use Development Area Structural Plan, Map 2.1
Structural Land Use Map
In the vicinity of CR 22 and CR 49.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. Criteria I: MUD Plan, Chapter 26, Weld County Code. That the application is consistent with Section
26-1-30 Weld County Mixed Use Plan which establishes procedures for amending Chapter 26 in
accordance to procedures established in Section 22-1-150 of the County Code.
The procedures for submittal have been met.
2. Criteria II: Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 22, Weld County Code. The following procedures are
outlined in Section 22-1-150 of the Weld County Code:
A. 22-1-150.6.1. `Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals shall be considered bi-annually
with a public hearing process."
The application was received by the Department of Planning Services on July 30, 2008.
B. 22-1-150.8.2."The petitioner shall pay for the cost of legal publication of the proposed
amendment and all land use application fees."
The applicant has paid all associated land use fees.
C. 22-1-150.B.3. "A typewritten original and thirty (30) copies of the proposed amendment
must be submitted to the Department of Planning Services no later than February 1 or
August 1 of any given year to be considered for review."
The applicant supplied 30 copies to the Department of Planning Services on July 30, 2008.
D. 22-1-150.B.9.a "The proposed amendment inclusion into the Southeast Weld Mixed Use
Development Area 2.1 Land Use Map or modification to the existing land use classification as
outlined on the Southeast Weld Mixed Use Development Area 2.1 Land Use Map has 1/6th
contiguity with the existing Southeast Weld Mixed Use Development Area 2.1 Land Use
Map."
The area in question is adjacent to the Southeast Weld Mixed Use Development Area on
three sides or 10,516 feet which is 67% of the total 15,761 feet of the perimeter; therefore the
property meets the requirement of 1/6th contiguity with the existing Southeast Weld Mixed
Use Development Area 2.1 Land Use Map.
E. 22-1-150.B.9.b "The proposed amendment will address the impact on existing or planned
service capabilities including, but not limited to, all utilities, infrastructure, storm water
infrastructure and transportation systems."
According to the EIS (phase 1) conducted by A.G. Wassenaar dated 9/18/07, there is no
evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property, with the
exception of two gas wells and batteries. An Ecological Assessment was also conducted on
the property by Wildlife Specialties LLC dated 1/15/08, which states the property does not
2009-0607
Resolution 2008-XX Amendment 2
Prospect Farms II Holdings LLC
Page 2
•
•
•
have habitat capable of supporting species listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for
listing under the ESA. A Class 1 Archaeological Literature Review conducted by SWCA
Environmental Consultants, dated 1/2008, did not reveal any cultural resources or inventories
in the project area. The applicant has also signed an Affidavit of Agreement stating that they
agree to all the previous triggers and commitments as determined by the zoning and any
prior applications and actions of the Board of County Commissioners.
The Weld County Department of Public Works stated in their referral dated 10/9/08 that the
drainage and traffic report submitted with the application are conceptual at this phase of the
development. Additional information will be required at the Planned Unit Development
process.
F. 22-1-150.6.9.c "The proposed amendment will address impacts on the natural environment."
According to the EIS (phase 1), An Ecological Assessment, and A Class 1 Archaeological
Literature Review there were no environmental conditions that would be negatively impacted.
G. 22-1-150.B.9.d "The proposed land use is compatible with the existing and surrounding land
uses."
If the amendment is approved, a residential component, along with an area designated
limiting site factor would be included in the Southeast Weld Mixed Use Development Area 2.1
Land Use Map. This would allow for a variety of connections to the existing residential areas,
trails, parks, school, and transportation networks.
H. 22-1-150.B.9.e "The proposed number of new residents will be adequately served by the
social amenities, such as schools and parks of the community."
According to the applicant the proposed 317 acres for residential use could yield 445 units
this assumes a residential population of 1,135 people. According to the following calculation
provided by the applicant for student generation .36 for elementary, .110 for middle school
and .175 for high school the student population equals 287 students (160 elementary, 49
middle school, 78 high school). The applicant has indicated that the planned elementary,
middle school and high school facilities would be capable of handling the additional students.
No comments were received from the school district.
The applicant has designated open space down the middle of the site which encompasses a
trail that connects to the other developments.
22-1-150.B.9.f "The proposed amendment has demonstrated that adequate services are
currently available or reasonably obtainable."
The site can be provided with sanitation and water from Resource Colorado Water &
Sanitation Metropolitan District as stated in their letter dated 1/22/08.
J. 22-1-150.B.9.g "Referral agency responses have been received and considered."
The Town of Hudson in their referral dated 10/13/08 indicated that they have some concerns
regarding the off -site impacts caused by the modifications such as schools and public
utilities. The applicant spoke to the Town administrator regarding the referral and plans to
meet with them in January.
Public Service Company of Colorado/Xcel Energy in their referral dated 10/6/08 reminded the
applicant of the necessary setbacks for single family development, multi family development
and commercial development. The applicant wrote a letter to the Xcel Energy dated 10/21/08
stating that they will work with the utility companies through the Planned United Development
Process on the necessary easements.
Resolution 2008-XX Amendment 2
Prospect Farms II Holdings LLC
Page 3
•
•
•
It is the opinion of the Planning Commission 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.
Motion seconded by Nick Berryman.
VOTE:
For Passage
Robert Grand
Tom Holton
Doug Ochsner
Roy Spitzer
Paul Branham
Mark Lawley
Nick Berryman
Against Passage
Absent
Bill Hall
Erich Ehrlich
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 20, 2009.
Dated the 20th of January, 2009.
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
•
•
•
Fire Districts and are negotiating an Intergovernmental Agreement with both of them with regard to future
facilities in the way that the applicant might financially participate in that. He added that they have ongoing
discussions with both of the Fire Districts.
Commissioner Spitzer asked what the difference of residential units was from the original application. Mr.
Reutzel stated the residential units are the same.
The Chair asked for comments from Public Works
Don Dunker, Public Works, said that a Preliminary Traffic Study and Drainage letter were submitted and
they address background and conceptual parameters of the trading of the areas from agriculture to
residential and vice versa. For the increased traffic the applicants are proposing to construct County Road
20 as a two lane collector road from County Road 51 to County Road 49. In addition they will construct a
full movement signalized intersection with the turn lanes at the intersection of County Roads 49 and 20.
They also propose to construct the section of County Road 49 from the 1-76 Interchange to County Road
20.5 as a six -lane arterial; it was previously shown as a four -lane arterial. As a lot of this is conceptual in
background staff anticipates more detailed information as it proceeds through the different county
processes.
Mr. Dunker commented that the applicant is proposing the 100 -year detention 5 year historic release. As
staff receives more information during the different process there will be more detailed information given.
The Chair asked for comments from Environmental Health.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, said that since this is just transferring the land use they don't have
any objections. It is still in the Metro Water & Sanitation District so staff will get more in depth when the
applicant comes back in to submit platting.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Mark Lawley moved that Case 2008-XX Amendment 1, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, seconded by Roy Spitzer.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes; Paul Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, absent; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, absent; Mark Lawley,
yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
2008-XX Amendment 2
Prospect Farms II Holdings LLC
Michelle Martin
Part of W2 of Section 5, T2N, R64W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Weld County Comprehensive Plan Amendment for inclusion of additional acres
into the Southeast Weld Mixed Use Development Area Structural Plan, Map 2.1
Structural Land Use Map
In the vicinity of CR 22 and CR 49.
Michelle Martin, Planning Services, stated that the applicants have applied to amend the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan in order for inclusion of additional acres into the Southeast Weld Mixed Use
Development Boundary.
This amendment includes part of west half of Section 5 Township 2 North, Range 64 West of the 6th P.M.,
which is east of and adjacent to County Road 51 (section line) and north of and adjacent to County Road 24
(section line).
The area in question is adjacent to the Southeast Weld Mixed Use Development Area on three sides or
approximately 10,516 feet which is 67% of the total 15,761 feet of the perimeter; therefore the property meets
the requirement of 1/6th contiguity with the existing Southeast Weld Mixed Use Development Area.
5
•
•
•
The applicants are proposing to include the 320 acres for a combination of residential and a limiting site factor
which corresponds to the 100 -year floodplain in the future.
According to the EIS Phase 1 conducted by A.G. Wassenaar dated September 18, 2007, there is no evidence
of recognized environmental conditions in connection with these 320 acres, with the exception of two gas wells
and batteries. An Ecological Assessment was also conducted on the property by Wildlife Specialties LLC
dated January 15, 2008, which states the property does not have habitat capable of supporting species listed,
proposed for listing, or candidates for listing under the ESA. A Class 1 Archaeological Literature Review
conducted by SWCA Environmental Consultants, dated January 2, 2008, did not reveal any cultural resources
or inventories in the project area. The applicant has also signed an Affidavit of Agreement stating that they
agree to all the previous triggers and commitments as determined by the zoning and any prior applications and
actions of the Board of County Commissioners.
The Weld County Department of Public Works stated in their referral dated October 9, 2008 that the drainage
and traffic report submitted with the application are conceptual at this phase of the development. Additional
information will be required at the Planned Unit Development process.
If the amendment is approved, a residential component, along with an area designated limiting site factor
would be included in the Southeast Weld Mixed Use Development Area. This would allow for a variety of
connections to the existing residential areas, trails, parks, school, and transportation networks.
According to the applicant the proposed 317 acres for residential use could yield 445 units this assumes a
residential population of 1,135 people.
The applicant has designated open space down the middle of the site which encompasses a trail that
connects to the other developments to the east.
The site can be provided with sanitation and water from Resource Colorado Water & Sanitation Metropolitan
District as stated in their letter dated January 22, 2008.
The Town of Hudson in their referral dated October 13, 2008 indicated that they have some concerns
regarding the off -site impacts caused by the modifications such as schools and public utilities. The applicant
spoke to the Town administrator regarding the referral and will be talking about that.
Public Service Company of Colorado/Xcel Energy in their referral dated October 16, 2008 reminded the
applicant of the necessary setbacks for single family development, multi family development and commercial
development. The applicant wrote a letter to the Xcel Energy dated October 21, 2008 stating that they will
work with the utility companies through the Planned United Development Process on the necessary
easements.
Planning Staff recommends both of the above comments are better addressed at Planned United
Development Change of Zone process.
Staff received a late referral from the Weld County School District 3J has stated that they would like the
applicant to acknowledge in writing that they will continue to work with the school district on future schools for
the area. The applicant did supply a letter dated today that they will continue to work with the school district.
Ms. Martin commented that at this time there is no designation for schools or parks.
Ms. Martin added that this area is outside of the Intergovernmental Agreements that the County has with the
Town of Hudson and the Town of Keenesburg.
Jack Reutzel, 9145 E Kenyon Ave, Ste 200, Denver CO. Mr. Reutzel stated that they had anticipated the
idea that from time to time this Southeast Weld MUD may need to be expanded. Therefore the
amendment process that they underwent last year had to do with under what criterion might this Southeast
Weld MUD be expanded.
6
•
•
•
The Southeast Weld MUD was capable of being amended but you needed to demonstrate at least the 1/6
contiguity. There is contiguity on all three sides of the existing MUD. This amendment was actually driven
by this wastewater treatment plant which is where the Resource Colorado Wastewater Treatment Plan will
be located. The idea that they would collect and put a sewer line through the creek bottom is basic utility
planning. When the opportunity came along to acquire the 317 acres it became evident to them that it
would be an ideal place to run the sanitary sewer line. With that in mind, they took a look at the
surrounding area and felt it was a logical expansion of those uses.
Mr. Reutzel commented that they did talk to the school district and have committed to working with them
to make sure that during the county processes there will be a proper number of schools in the appropriate
locations.
Mr. Reutzel said that 445 additional units are what they anticipate and that is well under the maximum of
12,435 dwelling units set forth by the approved MUD.
Commissioner Grand said that the Fire District is a volunteer organization and asked if they have been in
contact with them in developing a plan to service the additional 445 homes. Mr. Reutzel said that they
have been having discussions with them and there will be more details on the IGA. What the IGA will do
is to locate not only an interim fire station but a permanent fire station and to talk about cost sharing of the
necessary equipment to get a response out there. He added that they plan to have an IGA with both Fire
Districts.
Commissioner Ochsner asked if there was a goal for groundbreaking. Mr. Reutzel said that they had
initially thought that they would be in a position to get a final plat approved sometime in 2010 but with the
economy the way it is it will probably be extended somewhat. They are currently burning the mylars for
the change of zone and the next step is the final plan which is the first phase of a plat. They are working
on it internally and are hoping to be in a position to submit that sometime in early 2011 depending on the
market.
The Chair asked for comments from Public Works.
Don Dunker, Public Works, stated that they submitted a Traffic Addendum letter which is an addendum to
the original Traffic Study which was an addendum to the Amendment 1 that they just went over. Again,
they address background in conceptual parameters for the additional 320 acres. They are proposing to
construct County Road 20 as a two-lane collector roadway from County Road 51 to County Road 49. The
will also construct a full movement signalized intersection with turn lanes at the intersection of County
Roads 49 and 20. In addition they will construct the section of County Road 49 to 1-76 from County Road
20.5 as a six -lane plus the applicant also suggested to do some intersection improvements along County
Road 53 where it was adjacent to the new land that was going to be added. There is a FEMA regulated
100 -year floodplain and during the different county process more detail will be required to be submitted.
The Chair asked for comments from Environmental Health.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, said that the additional acreage will provide for open space and
regional trails which they support. She added that staff will look at this again in more detail when the
applicant comes back with the change of zone and final platting. Staff has no issues with this proposal.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Commissioner Holton asked if they are using the old comp plan or the new comp plan. Ms. Martin stated that
we are using the old comp plan. Staff is using the new comp plan for applications that were submitted to the
Department of Planning Services on or after December 9, 2008. This application was submitted back in July
2008.
Paul Branham moved that Case 2008-XX Amendment 2, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, seconded by Nick Berryman.
7
•
•
•
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes; Paul Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, absent; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, absent; Mark Lawley,
yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried.
The Chair announced that the next two cases will be heard together as one presentation but the Planning
Commission will give separate motions. He reminded the applicant and staff to clarify to which application they
are referring to.
The Chair read both cases into the record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1673
APPLICANT: Cynthia Hutt
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Use by Special Review for a Kennel (for
50 dogs of a non-specific breed including performance training) and twice a year
three day special agility, obedience and rally events for up to 200 dogs of a non-
specific breed in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 3 Block 1 Country Estates #4 part of SE4 of Section 23, T1 N, R66W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Tate Street approximately 1/4 mile north of CR 6 and
approximately 3/4 miles east of CR 33.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1674
APPLICANT: Cynthia Hutt
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a
Kennel (for 50 dogs of a non-specific breed including performance training) in
the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 4 Block 1 Country Estates #4 part of SE4 of Section 23, T1 N, R66W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Tate Street approximately 1/4 mile north of CR 6 and
approximately 3/4 miles east of CR 33.
Jacqueline Hatch, Planning Services, stated that for USR-1673 Cynthia Hutt has applied for A Site Specific
Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Kennel (for 50 dogs of a non specific breed including
performance training) and twice a year three day special agility, obedience and rally events for up to 200 dogs
of a non specific breed in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
The sign announcing the Planning Commission hearing was posted on January 9, 2009 by staff.
The site is approximately 9.3 acres and is located within County Estates #4 filing Subdivision located west of
and adjacent to Tate Avenue approximately A mile north of County Road 6 and approximately' miles east of
County Road 33. The address on this property is 2331 Tate Ave.
The Department of Planning Services recommends that this request be denied for the following reasons:
Section 22-2-170.C C.goal 3 states: "Address the compatibility of commercial land uses with adjacent uses."
The applicant is proposing to operate a Kennel for 50 dogs including performance training and twice a year
three day long special agility, obedience and rally events for up to 200 dogs in the Agricultural Zone District.
The property is located within Country Estates 4'h filing subdivision. Country Estates subdivision has a total of
63 lots comprising of approximately 9 acres each with Agricultural Zoning. Each filing consists of 16 lots. The
primary use of the surrounding property is residential uses. There is currently one USR approved within
Country Estates 3`s filing, USR-697 is for an accessory structure over 1,500 feet in a platted subdivision
approved by the Board of County Commissioners on October 23, 1985. It has also been brought to the
attend of the Department of Planning Services that there are active covenants in place within the Country
Estates subdivision that do not allow commercial businesses but Weld County does not have the ability to
enforce covenants.
The surrounding properties are zoned agricultural but consist of residential uses. There are fourteen (14)
property owners located within five hundred feet (500') of the site. At this time, the Department of Planning
8
/2- /6-a?
•
•
•
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
2008-XX Amendment 1
Pioneer Communities Inc. & HP Farms LLC
Michelle Martin
Part of Sections 17 and 18, T2N, R64W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Weld County comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Southeast Weld
Mixed Use Development Area Structural Plan, Map 2.1 Structural Land Use
Map.
In the vicinity of CR 22 and CR 49.
2008-XX Amendment 2
Prospect Farms II Holdings LLC
Michelle Martin
Part of W2 of Section 5, T2N, R64W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Weld County Comprehensive Plan Amendment for inclusion of additional acres
into the Southeast Weld Mixed Use Development Area Structural Plan, Map 2.1
Structural Land Use Map
In the vicinity of CR 22 and CR 49.
Michelle Martin, Planning Services, stated that the applicant would like to address the Planning Commission
for a continuance of this case due.
Jack Reutzel, 9145 E Kenyon AV, Suite 200, Denver, CO 80237. Mr. Reutzel apologized to the Planning
Commission and commented that they had a misunderstanding for the requirement of mineral notification. He
added that they thought they had this resolved since the mineral owners have indeed submitted comments
which made them aware of the hearing. However, also under the statute the notification applies to lessees as
well. He commented that they have been dealing with the lessees on the Surface Use Agreement for the
majority of Pioneer. However the lessees were not notified according to the statute and therefore they have
not complied with that notice provision.
Mr. Reutzel requested that these cases be continued to the January 20, 2009 Planning Commission meeting
to accommodate the 30 day notification period.
Bruce Barker, County Attorney, commented that staff used to send out the mineral notification. He Prirlp t that
there has been a change in the statute that then put the burden on the applicant to send out the mineral
notification. It then required the applicant to submit a certificate to staff indicating that they have completed
the notification. Mr. Barker said that one of the requirements is that the applicant must also notify the lessees
and that has not happened in this case.
Robert Grand moved to continue Cases 2008-XX Amendment 1 and 2008-XX Amendment 2 to the January
20, 2009 Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Tom Holton. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the public if there were other items of business that they would like to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss. No one had
any further business to discuss.
Meeting adjourned at 1:41 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
1+
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
Hello