HomeMy WebLinkAbout20090597.tiffBEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Mark Lawley, that the
Commission. Be it resolved by
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning
the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
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.
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.B.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.B.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 areas in question are already a part of the Southeast Weld Mixed Use Development
Area which was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in 2006.
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."
If this amendment is approved the overall number of residential units transferred to Section
17 and 18 would be 1000 units which is approximately what was proposed for Section 2 and
therefore would not adversely affect the services. The applicant has also signed an Affidavit
of Agreement stating that they agree to all the previous triggers and commitments as
determined by prior applications and actions of the Board of County Commissioners.
2009-0597
Resolution 2008-XX Amendment 1
Pioneer Communities Inc. & HP Farms LLC
Page 2
•
•
•
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 and therefore additional information will be required at the Planned United
Development process.
F. 22-1-150.B.9.c "The proposed amendment will address impacts on the natural environment."
The applicant has stated in the application that they will adhere to the original environmental
assessments and reports that were conducted when the entire development was initially
designated by the Comprehensive Plan.
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, the residential component from Section 2 would be relocated
to Sections 17 and 18, which are adjacent to existing residential areas. This places the new
residential area closer to 1-76 and allows for connectively with existing and planned
infrastructure within the core areas of the MUD as well as the regional supporting area of the
Towns of Hudson and Keenesburg. The amendment would also designate the residential
component in Section 2 to "Agricultural," which is also consistent with the existing
surrounding land uses.
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."
If approved the amendment will designate 613 acres from residential to Agricultural and 295
acres from Agricultural to residential; this is an increase of 320 acres of Agricultural
production from the original plan adopted in 2006.
According to the applicant the proposed 295 acres for residential will yield 1,000 units this
assumes a residential population of 2,550 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 645 students (360 elementary, 110
middle school, 175 high school).
The applicant has committed to relocate an elementary school in Section 17 and a park in
Section 18. The applicant has indicated that the planned middle school and high school
facilities would be capable of handling the additional students.
22-1-150.B.9.f "The proposed amendment has demonstrated that adequate services are
currently available or reasonably obtainable."
The areas in question were part of the original service area and therefore will be serviced by
Resource Colorado Water & Sanitation Metropolitan District as stated in the letter dated
7/27/05
J. 22-1-150.B.9.g "Referral agency responses have been received and considered."
The Henrylyn Irrigation District in their referral dated 10/3/08 have asked the applicant to
exclude the property that is proposed for residential use. The applicant wrote a letter to the
ditch copy on 10/21/08 stating that at this time the use of the property will remain Agricultural
and would like to defer the transfer of these rights until Planned Unit Development Process.
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
Resolution 2008-XX Amendment 1
Pioneer Communities Inc. & HP Farms LLC
Page 3
•
•
•
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.
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 Roy Spitzer.
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 201h of January, 2009.
+)wsrr\-9,-
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
IN1
•
•
•
The Chair asked if the applicant was here and if they wish for this case to remain on consent. The applicant
indicated yes.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
The Chair asked if there were any Commissioners who wish to pull this case from the consent agenda to
be heard. No one wished to speak.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOCATION:
PZ-1151
Kristi Walker
Jacqueline Hatch
Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) Zone District to PUD with C-3, C-4, I-1, 1-2
and 1-3 uses.
Lot A and B of RE -3949 being part of NW4 of Section 20, T2N, R66W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
East of and adjacent to State Hwy 85 and approximately 1/8 mile south of CR
20.
The Chair asked Ms. Hatch if she wishes for this case to remain on consent. Ms. Hatch replied yes with a
small change to the request. She stated that she would like to leave this item on consent; however there
has been an alteration to the request by the applicant.
Ms. Hatch stated that originally this was a PUD Change of Zone from Agricultural to PUD with C-3, C-4, I-
1, 1-2, and 1-3 Zone Districts. The applicant is requesting that it be altered to a straight Change of Zone
application from Agricultural to only the I-3 Zone District.
Ms. Hatch commented that staff and the county attorney are in support of this request. She indicated that
she has handed out revised staff comments to the Commissioners outlining the changes. The only
change in the staff comments are the section numbers for the reasons of approval. She also stated that
at the end of the staff report there is a standard which states that at the time of final plat these items need
to be submitted; those items have been deleted from staff comments since no PUD Final Plat is required.
Ms. Hatch stated that staff is still in support of leaving this case on the consent agenda.
Commissioner Ochsner asked for clarification on the zoning request. He asked if I-1 is a more intensive
use than 1-3. Ms. Hatch said that 1-3 would be the most intense use. She added that legal notice was
given including the 1-3 Zone District designation. The applicant originally requested C-3, C-4, I-1, 1-2, and
1-3 and now they are requesting only the 1-3 Zone District. Ms. Hatch added that it is an intense use but it
is one that has already been notified as such.
Commissioner Grand asked if the County Attorney approves of this change. Mr. Barker replied yes.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
The Chair asked if there were any Commissioners who wish to pull this case from the consent agenda to
be heard. No one wished to speak.
Robert Grand moved that the Consent Agenda including CZ -1149, USR-1681, and PZ-1151, be forwarded to
the Board of County Commissioners along with the amended Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, seconded by Mark Lawley. Motion
carried unanimously.
The Chair read the first case on the hearing agenda into the record.
CASE NUMBER: 2008-XX Amendment 1
APPLICANT: Pioneer Communities Inc. & HP Farms LLC
2
•
•
•
PLANNER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
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.
Robert Grand stated that he is a member of the RE -3J School District which is in included in this area;
however he feels that he can make a fair judgment on the items coming before the board today.
Michelle Martin, Planning Services, stated that the applicants have applied to amend the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan in order to modify the Southeast Weld Mixed Use Development Area Structural Map 2.1.
This amendment includes Part of Sections 17 and 18, Township 2 North, Range 64 West and Sections 2,
Township 2 North, Range 65 West of the 6th P.M.
The areas in question as a part of this amendment were already approved by the Board of County
Commissioners in the original boundary in 2006.
The two areas we are focusing on today are Sections 17 and 18 as well as Section 2.
If this amendment is approved the overall number of residential units transferred to Section 17 and 18 would
be 1000 units. Currently Section 2 is classified as residential and parts of Section 17 and 18 are classified as
agricultural. In this amendment the applicant is proposing to change Section 2 to agricultural and move the
residential units to Sections 17 and 18.
The applicant has also signed an Affidavit of Agreement stating that they agree to all the previous triggers and
commitments as determined by prior applications and actions of the Board of County Commissioners.
Over the last year the Board of County Commissioners reviewed the change of zone for Pioneer. In the
change of zone Section 2 was not included.
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 and therefore
additional information will be required at the Planned United Development process.
If the amendment is approved, the residential component from Section 2 would be relocated to Sections 17
and 18, which are adjacent to existing residential areas. This places the new residential area closer to 1-76
and allows for connectively with existing and planned infrastructure within the core areas of the MUD as well
as the regional supporting area of the Towns of Hudson and Keenesburg. The amendment would also
designate the residential component in Section 2 to "Agricultural," which is also consistent with the existing
surrounding land uses.
If approved the amendment will designate 613 acres from residential to Agricultural and 295 acres from
Agricultural to residential; this is an increase of 320 acres of Agricultural production from the original plan
adopted in 2006.
According to the applicant the proposed 295 acres for residential will yield 1,000 units this assumes a
residential population of 2,550 people.
The applicant has committed to relocate an elementary school in Section 17 and a park in Section 18. The
applicant has indicated that the planned middle school and high school facilities would be capable of handling
the additional students.
The areas in question were part of the original service area and therefore will be serviced by Resource
Colorado Water & Sanitation Metropolitan District as stated in the letter dated July 27, 2005.
The Henrylyn Irrigation District in their referral dated October 3, 2008 has asked the applicant to exclude the
property that is proposed for residential use. The applicant wrote a letter to the ditch copy on October 21,
3
2008 stating that at this time the use of the property will remain Agricultural and would like to defer the transfer
of these rights until the Planned Unit Development Process.
Public Service Company of Colorado/Xcel Energy in their referral dated October 6, 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 the Planned Unit
Development Change of Zone process.
The boundary is within the RE -3J School District as well as the Southeast Weld Fire Protection District and the
Hudson Fire Protection District.
It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services 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 Chair asked if the applicant wished to make any comments.
Jack Reutzel, Reutzel & Associates, 9145 E Kenyon Ave, Ste 200, Denver CO. Mr. Reutzel said that the
First Amendment reflects some of the education that they received during the last change of zone process
where they decided with the help of staff that Section 2, although designated residential in the approved
Structural Land Use Map, because of its satellite nature and the cost of providing utilities became difficult
if not impossible to perform.
Without changing the boundaries of the MUD, they are proposing to remove the residential designation
and replace it with agricultural and vice versa. He added that the residential change makes better sense
as it is getting closer to the 1-76 corridor, closer to the growth centers of both Hudson and Kennesburg. It
is a better fit for adjacent land uses.
Mr. Reutzel said that they were mindful that when the Structural Land Use Plan and MUD was approved in
2005 the Board of County Commissioners set up a range of residential population between 7,389 dwelling
units to 12,425 dwelling units. With the switch they are proposing, they are well within that range so that
they are not in violation of any of the structural land use plan elements.
Mr. Reutzel referred to Ms. Martin's comments regarding two of the referral comments which were
received. He stated that they did respond to the referrals. The RE -3J School District did submit a letter
dated December 20, 2008 asking for the applicant's further commitment to work with them to locate
school sites and to have this capital facility foundation in place prior to development. In a letter this
morning he has committed to both of those matters in writing. As part of the change of zone they did
create a capital facilities district that is a means in which development would help prime the pump for
school facilities prior to the time that property tax kicks in. It is in place and does apply to this amendment
as well.
Mr. Reutzel commented that with the switch there is the same number of schools with probably less
number of students but it does reflect the agreement that they have with the school district.
Mr. Reutzel noted that last Wednesday evening he addressed the Hudson Planning Commission at their
request to talk about these amendments. Their concerns were in making sure that they applicant was
holding fast to their commitment to not have more than 200,000 square feet of commercial development
which this amendment does not change. Hudson wanted to make sure that the applicant is working in
close coordination to the School District which by that letter they have complied with.
Commissioner Grand clarified that in relation to the switching of the properties it basically takes a piece
out of Hudson Fire District and puts it into the Southeast Weld Fire District area and asked if the applicant
has been in contact with the Fire Districts. Mr. Reutzel replied that they are in constant contact with the
4
•
•
•
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: 2008-XX Amendment 2
APPLICANT: Prospect Farms II Holdings LLC
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of W2 of Section 5, T2N, R64W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: 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
LOCATION: 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
/0?-lC 08
•
•
•
- 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 outt the mineral notification. He addMri 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,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
Hello