HomeMy WebLinkAbout20073390.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County
Conference Room, 4209 CR 24.5, Longmont, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Doug
Ochsner, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Doug Ochsner- Chair
Tom Holton -Vice Chair ci
Paul Branham F" o
Erich Ehrlich E :rr`-
Robert Grand -c.
Bill Hall -° " e
Mark Lawley
Roy Spitzer r a0
N .7O
AlsoPresent: Bruce Barker, County Attorney; Tom Honn, Brad Mueller, Kim Ogle, Jacqueline Hat&, CQis
Gathman, Michelle Martin, Planning Staff; David Bauer, Don Carroll, David Snyder, Don Dunke?, Public
Works; Pam Smith, Environmental Health; Donita May, Recording Secretary.
Commissioner Holton moved that the summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning
Commission held on October 2,2007, be approved as read.Commissioner Lawley seconded. Motion carried.
The Chair reminded the audience that the next two cases were on the Consent Agenda,which means they will
not be heard unless two Commissioners request they be heard. At that point,they will be removed and added
to the Hearing Agenda. No one requested they be heard.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1126
APPLICANT: HF Holdings, LLC
do Darwin Horan (Attn: Linda Sweetman-King)
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: S2 Section 27; N2 of the NW 4, E2 of the SW4 and E2 Section 34; NW 4 of
the NE4 Section 3, all in T3N, R68W and part of the NE4 of Section 3,T2N,
R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: PUD Change of Zone from (A) Agriculture to PUD (Planned Unit
Development)with R-1 (Low-density Residential), R-2(Duplex Residential),
R-3 (Medium-density Residential), R-4 (High-density Residential), C-1
(Neighborhood Commercial), C-2(General Commercial)215 acres of Open
Space and continuing Oil and Gas Production uses in the Mixed Use
Development Overlay District. [1804 units/ 10 acres Commercial].
LOCATION: 0.5 mile south of State Highway 66, east of and adjacent to CR 7, west of
and adjacent to 1-25, north of and adjacent to the St. Vrain River.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning,said Staff and the applicants were requesting Case PZ-1126 remain on the
Consent Agenda.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Bob Finch, Park Manager,St Vrain State Park,3525 State Hwy 119, Firestone,CO, requested Case PZ-1126
be pulled from the Consent Agenda. He said they have a number of issues with this particular development
due to its impacts on the State Park. They believe this development will create a situation where they will have
potential problems making trail connections north across the St Vrain River. He expressed concern about the
impact of the high number of building lots which are too close to the river. Mr. Finch said that in examining the
County's Comprehensive Plan,they also believe there are open space issues regarding the riparian corridor
which the development will impede upon. Additionally they have water quality concerns and general concerns
1
y""1/ • � ��""`� �"7 2007-3390
about impacts on the St Vrain River. This development will be very visible from the Park and once these
decisions are made and the lots built, the impacts will be irreversible to an area that is the only State Park in
Weld County and one of the largest pieces of public land in the County. He and the State Park system were
asking this case be heard today and the two letters they have written in opposition be reconsidered because
as far as he knows, no action has been taken regarding their concerns.
The Chair asked Mr. Finch if he had specific questions Staff might answer for him or did he want it to be fully
heard. Mr. Finch wanted the case to be heard today. The Chair asked Mr. Ogle if their packet contained the
letters Mr. Finch referenced. Mr.Ogle responded that the Commissioners had the letters from the Division of
Wildlife as well as the one from Kevin Lyles with Friends of St Vrain State Park and Staff could make the
second letter from Mr. Lyles available to them as well. They were also provided the letter, dated August 23,
2007 from St Vrain State Park.
Commissioner Hall said he felt the information provided by Planning Staff and the applicant was very
thorough. The letters were to be received by August 23, 2007 and were not received until October 10, 2007,
so in his opinion this should not be taken from the Consent Agenda.
The Chair addressed the room and said because they do not have the two votes required to remove it from
the Consent Agenda, it will remain there.
Mr. Finch said they had requested Staff remove this case from the Consent Agenda. He added that it appears
the Commissioners are unwilling to hear any comments from the State Park system on this particular
development at a public forum and it seems to him this is a most unusual way to do business in Weld County.
Mr. Finch felt this way the time to do business and once the application gets to the BOCC, he questioned
whether they would have an opportunity to express their concerns and negotiate any settlement on the kinds
of issues they would like to address regarding the application.
Mr. Ogle responded that Staff could remove it from the Consent Agenda if they so desired, but the BOCC
hearing is November 14,2007,and they are the decision makers who will decide the case and who will make
recommendations on how to proceed. Mr. Finch said he understood that, but the BOCC decision would be
final and there would be no opportunity for any kind of negotiation.
Bruce Barker, County Attorney, interjected and said that if Mr. Finch felt the BOCC had been out of line and
exceeded its jurisdiction, he could bring the case to District Court and appeal. Mr. Barker emphasized that the
Planning Commissioners felt the application was complete and did not need to be removed from the Consent
Agenda and suggested they move ahead.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1622
APPLICANT: Robert& Karen Lovewell
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the S2 SE4 of Section 22,Ti N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Use
Permitted as a Use by Right,an Accessory Use,or a Use by Special Review
in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts, (Fence Company) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 6 and west of I-25.
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning,said Staff and the applicants request that Case USR-1622 remain on
the Consent Agenda.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak. No Commissioners voiced any opposition to it remaining on the consent agenda.
Commissioner Grand moved that Cases PZ-1126 and USR-1622, 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, Mark Lawley seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
2
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1125
APPLICANT: Pioneer Communities Inc. & HP Farms LLC
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 17, and 18, T2N, R64W of the 6th P.M.; and
Section 32,T3N, R64W of the 6th P.M.;and Sections 11, 12, 13, 14,and 15,
T2N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone application from A (Agricultural) Zone District to a PUD
(Planned Unit Development) for 9,455 residential dwelling units, 1
commercial planning area, 7 school planning areas (for 10 planned
schools), 12 park planning areas, 2 public facilities planning areas, and
various agricultural and open space planning areas
LOCATION: in the vicinity of CR 22 and CR 49.
Commissioner Grand,who resides near Keenesburg, spoke to the County Attorney and the Commissioners
and said he owns two pieces of commercial property in the area and was also previously Treasurer for the
school bond issue two years ago. The Chair asked him if he felt he could make a fair and honest decision.
Commissioner Grand assured him he could.
Brad Mueller, Department of Planning,acknowledged the efforts from his colleagues,Jacqueline Hatch,Chris
Gathman and Michelle Martin and thanked them for their assistance on this application.
Most PUD's consist of multiple custom zoned districts,continued Mr. Mueller.This particular request proposes
seven districts. Staff is recommending approval along with numerous conditions as well as noting Public
Works' concerns, based on pending additional information, and they will speak to that point in some detail
later. Mr. Mueller spoke about the physical characteristics of the PUD, transportation corridors, and major
drainage ways(Box Elder Creek and a no name tributary). The topography on the site is relatively flat with a
ridgeline falling down towards the flood area. The site is approximately 5000 acres but if the agricultural
component is removed, it is then similar in size to Fort Lupton or Stapleton. There are oil and gas properties
and a few existing homes on the property. Wildlife concerns are fairly limited with migratory birds and
mammals typical to the eastern plains. The property is located within the Southeast Weld MUD area which
was created in mid 2006. Metropolitan districts were proposed and approved over a year ago to provide
services and levy taxes. One service district and six finance districts are in place. Water and sewer will be
contracted from Resource Colorado Metropolitan District. Total build out may be complete in 2030 and could
add 23,000 people to the area.
Changes since the sketch plan include the following:access points have been reduced almost in half;CR 22
alignment is significantly different; community parks and high schools have been relocated; and park space
has almost doubled. Future development will adhere to the different zone districts and be organized into
various planning areas. The land use chart defines the zoning and each planning area is defined specifically
by the acreage. Maximum number of units could not increase without amending or revising the zoning.
Another key part is to propose various development standards,since the applicant has exercised the option to
define those zone districts, listing all of the uses by right, uses by special review, the bulk standards and the
requirements relative to parking, streetscape, landscaping etc. The seven districts as proposed include an
Agricultural Zone District, though the proposed uses would be more limited than what is found in the County
Code. Three zones are residential. Low Density Residential would be only single family residences as well as
ancillary uses. The Medium and High Density Residential Zone Districts would allow triplexes and duplexes,
as well as apartments. Lot sizes are smaller than the Code allows and setbacks are different as well, but the
Department had reviewed them and found no concerns. The Commercial Zone District is limited to 200,000
square feet at the intersection of CR 22 and CR 49. Access to the site due to proximity was examined in detail
by Staff. A rural look is envisioned and the zoning enables zero setbacks found in a traditional downtown and
lesser parking standards.
The Public Facilities Zone District includes formal planned parks, schools, open space that would be
naturalized, and drainage areas. The Infrastructure Zone District is specific to the creation of water tanks,
3
wastewater treatment plants and water reuse storage. All uses throughout the PUD except for single family
detached houses would need to go through a USR or administrative SPR land use process. The final process
outlines other standards, including parking standards,signage and landscaping,and minimum streetscapes
creating a tree pattern. The request before them includes a processing element that would be administrative.
An administrative process for certain types of changes is appropriate, because there might be as many as
fifty or more minor changes before project completion. Some changes might be significant and would require
a hearing process.Only certain things can be considered for administrative amendment. The applicants could
not add land, increase lots or add uses administratively. They could propose minor changes in density from
one planning area to the next but there could be no net gain of proposed homes. Large changes in use
standards would be non-administrative. The MUD could not be expanded through this process. The current
County Code does not presently have an automatic process for expansion of the Southeast MUD.
Commissioner Holton inquired if the use changes were a Staff request. Mr. Mueller replied yes,and that the
original proposal by the applicant did not include the caveat of the County's sole discretion in determining an
administrative amendment and referred him to Page 37 of the Staff report,which represents the applicant's
original proposal plus modifications as recommended by Staff.
Mr. Mueller then highlighted key provisions in the approval criteria for the Change of Zone request currently for
their review. He said a key issue is always adequate provision of services and that development pay its own
way in that roads,sewer,and water are their responsibility. Dedication and development of schools and parks
are provided for in the zoning document as Development Commitments. Commercial space is limited to
200,000 square feet in deference to Hudson and Keenesburg. Twenty percent open space is required and
met by the proposed plan, if staff conditions are adopted. The application demonstrates general compatibility
with existing and future development.
David Bauer, Public Works Department, identified infrastructure related to the Pioneer PUD: four lane initial
upsizing of CR 49 south to 1-76 for a distance of six miles; upgrade and signalize existing CR 49 and 1-76
interchange(interim project); build road connection to Keenesburg (length—2 miles new road); build new CR
49 and 1-76 interchange; CR 49 railroad crossing south of 1-76 for traffic to DIA area—tie to new interchange;
build new CR 53& I-76 Interchange;address impacts to US 85 as CR 22(signal?turn lanes?);impacts to US
34 at CR 49(signal needed now,turn lanes?); build CR 28 from CR 49 to CR 53;CR 22 widening. They have
consulted with CDOT,which has some of the same concerns regarding funding and CDOT's part of the total
contribution. Mr. Bauer indicated that Public Works will continue to work with the applicants to identify the
kinds of things that will need to be built and fully identify triggers for some of the development of park land and
schools inside the subdivision, but that a development agreement is still needed identifying these things.
Commissioner Holton asked if developer's contributions for off-site improvements would be done by a
percentage. Mr. Bauer replied they would not know the percentage the applicant would contribute twelve
years from now. There is a likelihood of other developments in the area that will also contribute to traffic on
the roads. The roads are functioning effectively now and they expect they will continue to into the future. If
this community moves forward, there are many factors that could contribute to allocation of funds.
Commissioner Holton felt that with a project of this size and the many road issues,there are still a lot of things
up in the air and up for negotiation and asked if those agreements were typically signed off on prior to a
hearing. Mr. Bauer did not disagree with Commissioner Holton and said they need to try and identify triggers
and push for language on the plat that indicates future development can go no further until the applicants go
through the list and complete the items identified that are important to the infrastructure.Mr.Bauer added that
they are converging towards that, but they are not there yet.
Commissioner Grand asked Mr. Mueller about the process for providing a vehicular pattern for existing traffic
and how do we address this, given Public Works' hesitancy.
Mr. Mueller responded that he would offer solutions as his presentation concluded. He then talked about
parks and their location, their use,their size and look and who is responsible for and ultimately receiving the
park land. Construction of improvements must meet minimal standards. What will trigger those commitments
and how do we time them to the build-out of the project is critical. Mr. Mueller reviewed the statement of
Development Commitments on Page 19 of the Staff Report and said there was still more to be decided on the
roads and it was up to the Commissioners to determine their comfort level, whether they have enough
information to make a conditional decision,or whether they would like to review the more detailed information
4
that would otherwise be part of a Condition of Approval. The Staff recommendation is approval with numerous
conditions as follows: referral concerns must be addressed,as on Page 12 of the Staff Report;zoning plat to
be amended to add additional zoning district and other items,as found on Page 14 of the Staff Report;long list
of plat notes added to zoning document on page 16 of the Staff Report; Development Commitments on Page
19; Development Standards, including zone districts, uses, use by right, use by special review on Page 21;
and tracking issues for future final plats, listed on Page 39 of the Staff Report.
They anticipate a development of this size to be platted over the course of many years in multiple filings,so we
would see twelve,fifteen, twenty, or thirty final plats over time. There is a strong sense of needing additional
commitments defined, i.e. Public Works concerns, and the Commissioners must decide if they are
comfortable with the recommendation to move forward and continue to negotiate those items prior to
scheduling the BOCC hearing. If they are not comfortable, they can request Staff do additional work.
Chris Paulson, Pioneer Communities, addressed the room and said he and the groups he represent thank
County Planning Staff for their due diligence on this project. He stated that the opportunity presented by
Pioneer is for smart growth and without this kind of planned community you will have small incremental
developments that drain resources and do not allow for the beneficial use of the resources the metropolitan
districts represent. Pioneer is positioned in the 1-76 development corridor and is unique because it takes a
mixed use community and gives it a distinct agrarian character that celebrates the rural,small town character
that still exists but needs to be protected. It can only be protected with a large development like Pioneer.
Their vision is for a small town/village concept as the commercial core, with multiple pods of housing
developments around that core. Mr. Paulson said it is an attempt to maintain Weld County resources in Weld
County while ground is still available and before it gets chopped up. The SE Weld MUD has enabled this
vision through the joint participation with Hudson and Keenesburg.
Jack Reutzel, 9145 E Kenyon Av, Ste 301, Denver CO, 80237, land use attorney working on Pioneer since
2003,echoed Mr. Paulson's appreciation of County Staff efforts. He felt that it was important to know where
we are in context to where we started. This process began in 2004 with the formation of Resource Colorado
Metropolitan District whose intent was to provide services to the region and keep County resources(water)in
the County. Formation of the Pioneer Districts came in 2006, followed by the Comprehensive Plan and the
MUD approval in 2006. Mr. Reutzel said there is a potential for 550 million dollars in bonded capacity for
improvements, to include water, sewer, streets etc. He then spoke about the development guide and
standards for density(bulk standards). Over fourteen hundred acres would remain agricultural. The 200,000
square feet of commercial space seems small for a community of this size and they agree with earlier staff
comments that the community could support more,but they have purposefully chosen to limit it and let Hudson
and Keenesburg provide those opportunities for commercial development. Resource Colorado will build the
lines and deliver the water as well as build the sewer treatment plant. Park maintenance and development is
spelled out in the Development Commitments and Change of Zone requirements and they concur with those.
There are voluntary capital facilities fees to help the school district offset costs until money comes in.
Southeast Weld FPD and Hudson FPD will provide emergency services when the situation warrants. A law
enforcement authority has been created and is in place.
Mr. Reutzel acknowledged Public Works' concerns as to how roads would be paid for and said their traffic
impact analysis report had a table that listed the important off-site improvements. He felt the major issue
remained of who will pay for the roads and when. He understands they have a major role in the financing,but
other entities and developments that will also benefit from roadways should be involved,as well as the State
and the County.The triggers have been identified,just the wordsmithing remains and he feels they are closer
to resolution than he feels was represented today. He closed by noting some items they had issue with(three
general areas—how they address referral comments, changes they want to see to the plat and the standards,
and the plat notes) but they agree with the vast majority of Staff requirements. Specific concerns are: the
Public Works' note, Page 12 of the Staff Report, Item 1.A. and felt they could come to an understanding
regarding that item prior to the BOCC hearing in November; Page 13 of the Staff Report, Item 1.N & 1.O,
regarding oil&gas interests and creation of an SUA(surface use agreement); changes to the plats, Page 15,
Item 2.N., regarding trail linkage and a grade separated crossing; plat notes; and Page 19, Item DD.,
concerning vesting and required timeframes for platting,which is still in discussion. Mr. Reutzel cited criteria
in Section 27-6-120 and felt they were in compliance with both the Comprehensive Plan and the MUD.
The Chair asked if the Commissioners would allow the public to speak and if agreeable, he wanted to start
5
with the towns and work from there.
Joe Racine, Hudson Town Administrator, shared the concerns and comments from their Planning
Commission in response to the referral --the Town does not have an official position on Pioneer, nor have
they signed off on or otherwise approved anything related to it. There is potential for a very nice community.
Impact on 1-76 and CR 49 interchange was of concern and the vague nature of the manner in which it will be
financed was of grave concern to Hudson; they asked for a more specific commitment to funding. Fire and
emergency services would be needed right away and a two-year lag between building start up and money
coming to the town could dilute services to Hudson. How can schools be built before houses and how will they
be funded? The Town has not seen any proposal for payment in lieu of taxes or any other kind of cash flow
management that would provide the School District with money during the interim period before the normal
property tax revenues catch up.
Town Planning Commissioners also questioned the manner in which services are financed. Regarding the
railroad, Mr. Racine said he was led to believe the crossing was once in the County plans, but had gone away
and would not take place; adding more traffic to the HWY 52 interchange was a concern. The limit of;
200,000 square feet of commercial space, to allow more to be generated in Hudson and Keenesburg was
appreciated, but urban development of this type will inevitably lead to incorporation and at that point the
200,000 square foot limitation in the County zoning would no longer apply, and the community's incentive to
generate sales tax would become a reality.
Mark Grey, 140 Main St, Keenesburg, CO, 80643, Mayor of Keenesburg,thanked the Planning Commission
for the opportunity to be part of the process and echoed some of the same basic concerns regarding
transportation and schools. He cited the significant development along the 1-76 corridor and said Pioneer is
the pin head of development and feels the cooperative effort of the entities is working. Mr. Grey added that
Pioneer had implemented the things Keenesburg had requested including phasing,development of water and
sewer to benefit residents, and regional planning.
Marvin Wade, 95 W Broadway, School District RE-3J, Keenesburg,CO,80643,Superintendent, pointed out
that earlier this month the Board of Education voted to remove opposition to this change of zone application.
They had been working with Pioneer for the past two years. Mr.Wade expressed certainty that the first school
being built before the first home would not occur(question brought up in earlier discussion),since the District
was comfortable that Pioneer had agreed that District policies, procedures and specifications would be
honored,and that development would be consistent with District policies and not turned over to another entity.
Another commitment by Pioneer has been for foundation funding that will help capital construction costs for
schools. The School Board voted 3-1 to approve removing the opposition to the application and feel that
Pioneer is committed to working with them now and in the future. The District is also comfortable with
recommendations from the Department of Planning.
Molly Summerville Buchanan, 1525 17th St, Denver, CO 80202, attorney with Vanderwork and Buchanan,
representing Anadarko Land Corp,Anadarko EMP CO LP, and Kerr-McGee Oil &Gas Onshore LP said that
with respect to the application,Anadarko entities own all minerals that underlie about 2020 acres of the total
5073 acres included in the application. Kerr McGee has oil&gas lease holds in some 2800 acres of the 5073
acres. Objection letters were submitted to the County by Anadarko and Kerr-McGee on October 23, 2006,
July 24, 2007, and July 19, 2007, and she asked they be made a part of the record. Ms. Buchanan said they
believed there were approximately 59 undrilled locations on the Anadarko lease holds and 65 to 70 on the
Kerr-McGee lease holds. Anadarko owns the hard rock minerals, including the coal underlying the property
and the nature and extent of those minerals is identified in the objection letters. Agreement has been reached
for the compatible development of the hard rock mineral,and it is now just a matter of circulating documents
for final signature. They are also very close to an agreement for the oil and gas as well, but there are still
issues remaining regarding size and configuration of certain well site locations,directional drilling dollars,and
text in the surface use agreement. Under other circumstances they would have waited to come before the
Planning Commission asking for denial, but they were present today indicating conditional support so as not to
hold up the application.
Barry Meyer, Noble Energy Inc, 1625 Broadway Ste 2000, Denver, CO,80020, land man with Noble,said Ms.
Buchanan had outlined many of their concerns and they were almost ready for the body of the agreement,
though exhibits were of greater concern than the vicinity of the oil and gas locations. Mr. Meyer said
6
directional drilling, monetary considerations, and financing guarantees should be agreed upon shortly and
thanked the Commission for their time.
Terry Enright, Kerr-McGee Onshore Oil &Gas LP, 1999 Broadway, Ste 3700, Denver, CO, 80202,engineer
land man,said as Pioneer indicated,there have been many meetings and much correspondence and they are
making excellent progress. They are around 75 to 80 percent where they want to be, though not the 95
percent suggested by the applicant. Progress is accelerating and they will arrive at an agreement that is
positive to all involved. He concurred with Ms. Buchanan's and Mr. Meyer's previous statements. Mr. Enright
closed by expressing his thanks to the Commission and saying that Kerr-McGee agreed with the conditions
set forth by Staff.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Kathryn Evans, 11670 CR 49, moved there six years ago to get away from people. Ms. Evans added that she
had never received any notification of meetings and only knew about this hearing from the sign posting. Ms.
Evans asked about a website to get information. One of the applicants responded that she could go to
www.pioneercommunities.com for current information. Ms. Evans also shared her concerns regarding its
effect on area animals, water for farmers, and wants more information made available to the public.
Ellen Swieter, 25027 CR 18, Keenesburg, CO,gave an analogy and said Pioneer Communities was like her
saying to her husband, let's have a baby. He says, but I don't have a job, and I say not to worry about it, we
will work out the details later on. That is how she views this plan. Ms. Swieter said she had been to several
informational meetings and asked that language is clear before moving forward.She commented that she has
heard a lot of"we have to see, wait and see, and we're not sure today." In her opinion, there are a lot of
missing pieces that need to be taken care of before this application moves forward. The roads are clearly a
huge issue to be decided.She lives one mile north of 1-76 and one mile off CR 49 and the traffic has increased
incredibly in the 14 years she has lived there and can't imagine what traffic will become. The proposed
community is seven times the size of Keenesburg, the demands on the Fire Department will be increased.
This will not be agrarian with 10,000 houses outside her windows. She said water is a non-replenishable
resource and wants limited agricultural use and she want specifics. The 200,000 square foot limitation on
commercial development needs to be examined and said it took less than a month for the"mom and pop"
grocery store in Fort Lupton to close after Safeway opened. She addressed the seven mill increase to
"benefiting property owners"and asked who will carry the burden. Ms. Swieter said Pioneer is"guaranteeing"
this and"guaranteeing"that but it does not preclude them from backing out later on or coming back at some
point and asking for reimbursement. She questioned if the packet mentioned today was part of the public
record and asked how the public could voice their opposition. She closed by saying she does not believe this
is a good ethical decision until clearer language is present.
Joel Farkas, principal of Pioneer, responded to Mr.Racine regarding the metro districts and public finance and
said his company has been involved with twenty-five public finance districts with an authorized bonding
capacity exceeding 1.3 billion dollars. They are extremely experienced with private development and work
with jurisdictions and use public finance vehicles. Never in the company history have they had an issue,a late
payment or a default in any of their districts. He assured the panel the burden will not be put on the
customers or the residents of that district because there is a cap put on the mill levy. This cap places the
burden on the institutions that purchased the bonds,not the customer or the consumer. This is a basic tenant
they impose on every one of their districts and their relationships with the institutions who buy.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing and asked the applicant to step forward and address public
concerns.
Joel Farkas stepped up to address public concerns. He alluded to public/private financing of metro districts
and said in the more than twenty-five communities they have developed, they are one of the first founders of
the Capital Facility Fee Foundation. It is a non-profit organization geared for all developers to pay impact fees
to the school district so they can collect funds early on and assists them in dealing with how to build schools
sooner than has been historically done due to lack of funds. Mr. Farkas gave Brighton as an example of a
school constructed prior to houses being built and/or occupied. There is an extraordinary amount of
infrastructure to be put in place including roads,schools,wastewater treatment and how to pay for them. The
issue is always when do you start building, how much you build at that time and how does the entire project
7
get built over the life of the project. This community will be built over a twenty- to forty-year period of time.
They have a mechanism in place as to how to build these improvements, when to build, and how to pay for
them. This has been a three-to four-year process,and they have adhered to the plan every step of the way.
Mr. Farkas thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak and assured the public there would be many
more opportunities for them to speak in the future.
Jack Reutzel, applicant representative, addressed concerns of notification for the public and said there was
ample community outreach; he was sorry Ms. Evans was not aware of the hearings. He gave the website
address, www.pioneercommunities.com, as a reference for the public and added there had been extensive
public notification throughout the process. He referred to the baby analogy and said, unlike that analogy,they
know what the improvements are and they have been identified as far back as three years ago. To suggest
that they don't know what the improvements are is incorrect. They know when the next level of improvement
will occur. Though the process to a certain extent is outside of their hands, the market will trigger the next
level of improvements. Benefiting property owners that he previously referred to are the residents within the
Pioneer development. No other landowners will pay the increase they have suggested in the mill levy. The
guarantee for public improvements is that the Change of Zone conditions and development guidelines have
definite triggers which they will work with, and the County can deny the plat if those improvements are not
completed when the triggers are reached. Mr. Reutzel was adamant that they are committed, and that they
stand by the Development Commitments.
Brad Mueller, Department of Planning, addressed public comments and referral to a handout he provided to
the Planning Commissioners, which was distributed so the record could reflect correspondence recently
received. It included the letter of commitment to the school district; a landowner letter that asked for
application denial based on changes to the area and whether there was really a need for such a development;
a letter regarding oil and gas concerns; and a letter from the SE Weld Conservation District concerned with
soil erosion.
Mr. Mueller continued by addressing public comments. He said that the County appreciates the Town
comments and recognized the need for ongoing discussion and concern. Financing is a bit of a chicken/egg
problem, but responsibility falls to the development and bond holder should those bonds fail. Early provision
of fire services may need further discussion by the Planning Commission as there is no solution per se in the
proposal or the conditions. Even though the mill levies are in place funds are not available up front for those
services at the onset of construction. The railroad and Highway 52 will be a subject for continued discussion if
approved. An environmental impact statement is only done for federal projects, but drainage, wildlife, soils,
water and geo-technical studies have been done as part of the submittal. The DOW said development could
mitigate effects to some extent but there would be some loss of habitat. Essentially there is dry earth on the
surface, but there is water underground.
Mr. Mueller added that it is not Staffs role to defend the project, but rather to provide a recommendation
based on the criteria in the Code. Mr. Mueller acknowledged the uncertainties and concern of the audience.
He added that the character of the area would definitely change and he hoped that that had been represented
in the presentation. Legal notification and sign postings have followed the criteria set forth in the Code and
public access to the application is readily available to anyone requesting it.
Commissioner Grand asked how to get the ambiguity out of the"what ifs"from Public Works. Mr.Mueller said
one opportunity is for the Commission to accept the recommendation for approval with conditions that required
the applicant provide more specific details prior to the BOCC hearing. We would expect that detail to take the
form of the Development Commitments on Page 21 of the Staff Report. The other option would be for the
Planning Commission to continue the item. Commissioner Grand said he saw a consensus in the packet
except for Public Works'concerns. How do we reconcile that in a way that makes the Commission members
comfortable enough to proceed forward?
David Bauer, Public Works, said they can identify triggers and tie them to specific construction projects;
interchanges,widening of roads etc. Their concern is that at that time if the applicants have not identified all of
the money needed they would accept a trigger that has a deadline or allows no more platting past that point.
What if we can't agree on the percentage breakdown of the costs and allocation to the benefiting parties,be it
the County, Hudson, Keenesburg, CDOT,or Pioneer and maybe ancillary development around it? How do we
go forward at that point? That is what is unclear at the present time, though Mr. Bauer said he believed they
8
would get to that point once who is paying for what portion of development is established.
Commissioner Grand asked if the triggers are there and no other agreement is there, building stops until that
issue is resolved and there is no further approval. Mr. Reutzel said that was the failsafe, However,they would
be putting millions of dollars into site at the onset for the first house, so there is an incentive for them to find
resolution. If this is not resolved, Public Works can halt the project, and the developer will have to get very
creative. Commissioner Grand responded that there are two infrastructure issues. One is the property
infrastructure and the other is external,which is concerning Public Works. Mr. Reutzel replied that the Metro
Districts they have in place are financially sound enough to discharge all of the debt for all of the
improvements internal to the property plus a significant amount identified for regional improvements. Stopping
the plat was an acceptable approach to take and at that point the burden is all theirs to figure out.
Mr. Mueller cited Page 20 of the Staff report, Item G, and gave an example to explain the current question.
Commissioner Grand asked if Staff was comfortable with the conditions and moving forward even though
Public Works is not yet satisfied. Mr. Mueller said they were, with the proper conditions, though he did not
want to commit for Public Works.
Chris Paulson, Pioneer, said the safeguard Commissioner Grand wants is one they can agree to,which is if
they pass it to the BOCC, that the recommendation say the approval is not granted until there is satisfactory
language that covers the guarantee they are looking for with the triggers. He said they could accomplish that
in the next week as they did not want to lose the hearing date already set before the BOCC.
Commissioner Hall asked Bruce Barker, County Attorney, if it was possible as a condition of approval today
that there is a road agreement in place prior to them scheduling a hearing for plat approval with the BOCC.
Mr. Barker replied that frankly he is not comfortable with the current structure and would in fact like resolution
prior to the BOCC hearing and wants an agreement with as much detail as possible.
Commissioner Holton asked about specifics of the CDOT agreement mentioned. Mr. Bauer deferred to Ben
Waldman, the applicant's traffic engineer.
Ben Waldman, LSE Transportation Consultants, 1889 York St, Denver, CO, replied that the agreement
referred to is an access control plan for Highway 85 which defines the access points and the control of those
points and guarantees certain control on the County Road 22 and Highway 85 intersection. The County has a
plan as well that shows County Road 22 as a strategic roadway going past Highway 85 all of the way to
Longmont. Currently that access control plan shows that as a limited movement access,which wouldn't allow
through movement. They could live with that agreement but if the County wants full movement, the County
has to be the agency that goes before the Access Control Board to request changing control of that
intersection.
Commissioner Holton asked if the County would go to the Access Control Board. Mr. Bauer said Public
Works had no plans to do that at this time.
Mr. Waldman said their traffic study does not show any need for changing the access control point as there
are other ways to get on Highway 85 from their development. Commissioner Holton asked Mr. Waldman if
traffic would then go through Fort Lupton to access the development. Mr. Waldman responded that there
were other ways to get on Highway 85 and west to Longmont, as well as other full movement intersections
both north and south. It requires some re-routing but they do not have the ability to go before that board.
However, they would support Weld County in that endeavor, as it has to be initiated by Weld County.
Commissioner Holton then asked about vehicle capacity between the stop sign and the railroad crossing.
Scott Lewis, Weld County traffic engineer, said each vehicle required twenty feet and there was 200 feet
available at that crossing, therefore capacity would be ten vehicles. They would like a full movement
intersection and would go to the Access Control Board to request that. Traffic impact is not immediate but will
occur and the County is responsible for getting access changed. Trip distribution is fairly accurate according
to Mr. Lewis. Most demand from the development is on 1-76 to the south with some impact on County Road
22.
Commissioner Holton pointed out that there were many of the same questions in the minutes from the initial
9
hearing two years ago, and he is uncomfortable making a decision either way, based on the information
provided. He felt strongly that this application should be continued indefinitely until those questions are
answered. Commissioner Lawley concurred and said that aside from the transportation issues,there are fire
issues that need to be resolved with the local fire department,and he was not comfortable with the two mills.
At final build-out the impact will be far greater to the fire department than two mills, and he would like those
issues solidified.
Mr. Paulson said he was unsure as to what they had not answered and what more information the
Commissioners were requesting and offered his expertise and consultants during this hearing. Commissioner
Grand agreed the fire department was relatively easy to fix. Commissioner Ochsner said the fire department
needs to be involved and asked Staff if their recommendations could include agreements with all agencies
prior to BOCC hearing. Mr. Mueller said the proposed conditions as currently set up were prior to recording
the Change of Zone. He added this discussion seems to be on road and fire documentation, which would
need to be resolved prior to scheduling the BOCC hearing. If they were to make a recommendation to that
effect they would want to accept conditions of the Staff and require additional road commitments be defined in
detail prior to BOCC hearing.
Mr. Mueller replied that with the Staff recommendation, Planning Staff wanted to respect that everything is not
finalized, but they also wanted to represent work that has taken place to date. Commissioner Ochsner said
regarding specific issues with Public Works,do we want to see the specific document or do we defer to Public
Works to come to an agreement before the case continues? Commissioner Holton said they are passing the
buck if they aren't thoroughly identifying problems before they pass it to the BOCC. In his opinion, it is not
anywhere near close to being complete. They have studies but no agreements are in place. There isn't even
anything about dust abatement. There are fire issues yet to be resolved. He wants to see a signed
agreement with Keenesburg and Hudson concerns met, as well as public concerns met.
The Chair asked Mr. Reutzel to address Commission concerns. Mr. Reutzel said the issues they seek
clarification on have been resolved with fire district chiefs. The road triggers have been identified and perhaps
the Commissioners are hesitant because they have not seen a PUD of this scale before and issues have to be
addressed in the proper sequence. Not all issues lend themselves to immediate resolution. He said he
understood their desire to see specific language. Mr. Reutzel then stated they would not agree to a
continuance without a specific date, as they have answered all questions at the appropriate times, and he
suggested they might consider passing the application on to the BOCC with recommendation for denial.
Commissioner Holton said that is what they did the first time,three years ago,and if the County attorney is not
comfortable with the language in the Public Works document, then neither is he. Mr. Reutzel asked for a
specific date. Commissioner Grand asked Mr. Barker if it were possible that the application not progress
unless an agreement regarding fire and roads issues was in place that Public Works and Staff reviewed and
would make available prior to the BOCC hearing. Mr. Barker said the applicants and we can work this out.
He expressed confidence that an agreement could be reached before the BOCC hearing, but he still was not
comfortable with Public Works'issues,though he was comfortable with the overall Change of Zone Otherwise.
Based on representation and the magnitude of the PUD,there are issues that will need to be worked out over
time. In the Public Works agreement, Mr. Barker said he would like to see methodology for how we would do
that,which would go into greater detail than what has been proposed, and how that would be implemented.
Commissioner Holton said if he has questions now, how will he feel in 2020? Mr. Barker suggested
continuance to a date specific to work out agreement with Public Works, or that the Planning Commission
make a recommendation to go to the BOCC with the Condition that details are worked out prior to the hearing.
Mr. Mueller added that volunteer fire districts do not always respond to referrals, but Staff would continue to
attempt to get their input either by attending a hearing or getting something in writing. Commissioner Hall
asked Mr. Bauer, Public Works, if thirty days would give them enough time. Mr. Bauer said it would.
Commissioner Hall motioned for a continuance until the November 20,2007 hearing in order for the applicant
to meet with Public Works and also obtain letters from the fire departments.
Mr. Mueller discussed the docket for upcoming hearings and noted that the November 6, 2007 hearing has
space. Mr. Reutzel said they would commit whatever time and resources were necessary to mitigate those
two outstanding issues by November 6, 2007.
10
Mr. Mueller asked Mr. Barker if the same five Commissioners must attend. Mr. Barker said they should. The
Commissioners generally indicated that they would be available and able to attend on November 6, 2007.
Commissioner Hall amended his motion for a continuance of Case PZ-1125 until the November 6, 2007
hearing to be held at the Greeley Planning Department Hearing Room in order for the applicant to meet with
Public Works to clarify road way funding and also obtain letters from the fire departments. Second by
Commissioner Holton.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Robert
Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
The Chair asked if it was still appropriate to hear from the Environmental Health Department considering they
had motioned to continue the case. Mr. Barker said that since a continuance has been approved it is not
appropriate to continue at this time.
Meeting adjourned at 5:30 pm
espectfully submitted,
Donita May aua
Secretary
11
Hello