HomeMy WebLinkAbout20062470.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
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,p¢ad
Auer, at 1:30 p.m. m c; r-,
O-z
ROLL CALL ABSENT n w
Chad Auer-Chair O c
Doug Ochsner-Vice Chair I I =
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich U
Bruce Fitzgerald w
Tom Holton
Mark Lawley
Roy Spitzer
James Welch
Also Present: Kim Ogle,Jacqueline Hatch,Hannah Hippely, Department of Planning Services;Bruce Barker,
Cyndy Giauque,County Attorneys; Peter Schei, Don Carroll, Brian Varrella,Jess Hein, Department of Public
Works; Char Davis, Pam Smith, Environmental Health Department; Donita May, Secretary.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1458
APPLICANT: Kenneth Shannon
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 of Section 29, Ti N, R66W 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 Special Review,
(Oil & Gas Support&Services) and a Use by Right,
Accessory Use or Use by Special Review in the
Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (storage of
explosives) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to Hwy 85 business (CR 27);
approximately 1/4 mile south of CR 6.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, said the applicant and staff were in agreement this
case remain on the consent agenda.
Stephen Bain, Welborn Sullivan Meck&Tooley PC, 821 17th St, Ste 500, Denver CO 80202, representing
the applicant, asked for a change to the Department of Public Works approval and their concerns the
explosive magazine be fenced for added security. Mr. Bain said there was presently a six foot fence with
barbed wire at the top around the explosives magazine and the entire site was also fenced.
Jacqueline Hatch deferred to Department of Public Works for their opinion whether the existing fence
would be adequate.
Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, recommended it be fenced and that what the applicant had
indicated would be satisfactory.
Tom Holton inquired if that was a development standard or just on the plat. Ms. Hatch said it was a
condition of approval and would need to be addressed by the applicant.
The Chair said Case AmUSR-1458 would remain on the consent agenda.
9-G-acre
2006-2470
CASE NUMBER: USR-1568
APPLICANT: Pedro Saucedo
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-4224; being part of E2NW4 Section 22, T2N,
R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review
Permit for a Use by Right, an accessory use, or a Use by
• Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone
District(an office and storage building for materials used
by oil and gas operations) in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 20; approximately 1/2 mile
east of CR 31.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, said staff requested this case be removed from the
consent agenda due to letters they had received from surrounding property owners. Bruce Barker, County
Attorney, asked if it were pulled off the consent agenda, would Planning reschedule the case. Ms. Hatch
replied the case would be added to today's hearing items and would not be continued.
The Chair said Case USR-1568 would be heard after item number six on the agenda.
Tom Holton moved the Consent Agenda be approved as amended and forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of approval. Roy Spitzer seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham,yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes;Tom Holton,yes; Mark Lawley,yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Roy Spitzer,yes;
James Welch, yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1564
APPLICANT: Harley& Patricia Troyer
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part N2 SE4 of Section 7, T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special
Review for a business permitted as a use by right or
accessory use in the Commercial or Industrial Zone
District (Auction yard) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Hwy 85 and south of and
adjacent to CR 22.5.
Hannah Hippely, Department of Planning Services, for Michelle Martin, asked the case be continued to
September 19, 2006, to allow for appropriate mineral notification.
Patricia Troyer, applicant, stepped forward and said she had the waivers from the three mineral owners and
preferred not to continue to a later date. The Chair asked Mr.Barker for procedural advice. Mr.Barker replied
his concern was we needed a waiver from everyone on the mineral owners/lessees list.
After review of the file, Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, said the applicant did have
paperwork from each owner/lessee but as this was Ms. Martin's case and she was out ill today,staff had not
prepared to present the case today.
Chad Auer asked the applicant if she had anything else to add. Mrs. Troyer said they hold an auction a few
times a year on bare ground and were not planning on building anything on the site and there were several
building code specifications in the correspondence from Ms. Martin.
Doug Ochsner asked if the case were continued to September 19,2006,would this pose any major hardships
upon completion of the auction yard. Mrs.Troyer said it would not, but she did not know what else to plan for
2
in the future as all the documents were there today. Chad Auer said it would allow staff to be better prepared
for the hearing.
Ms. Hatch said staff would be comfortable presenting the case today. Doug Ochsner asked about the case
load for the September 19 hearing. Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services,said the September 19,2006
hearing contained only one case. Mr. Ochsner recommended continuing Case USR-1564 to September 19,
2006 due to the full agenda today and apologized to the applicant for the inconvenience.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case USR-1564,be continued to the September 19,2006 hearing. Paul Branham
seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Tom Holton, no; Mark Lawley, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; James Welch,
yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: 2006-04- St Vrain Lakes PUD.
APPLICANT: Kristen D. Bear, White, Bear&Ankele PC.
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parts of Sections 25, 35, and 36, T3N, R68W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Service Plan for Metropolitan Districts 1, 2, 3, and 4 (St
Vrain Lakes PUD).
LOCATION: Multiple parcels generally located east of and adjacent to
the 1-25 Frontage Road; south of and adjacent to SH 66;
west of and adjacent to CR 13; and north of and adjacent
to St. Vrain River.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, said Kristen D. Bear with White, Bear&Ankele PC
representing St.Vrain Lakes had applied for a request for Service Plan for the proposed St. Vrain Lakes
PUD Metropolitan District 1, District 2, District 3, and District 4.
The submitted Service District#1 and supporting Financing Districts#2-4 were proposed to provide urban
services within an area of Weld County that was zoned PUD with (E) Estate; (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 and continuing Oil and Gas Production Uses in the
Mixed Use Development Overlay District. The subdivision was identified as the St. Vrain Lakes PUD and
comprised approximately 1313 acres with 4800 to 5131 residential lots with an average lot size of 7500-8000
SF.There were also three commercial development areas(40 acres)and a municipal development area(22
acres), three school sites and 334 acres of open space.
The applicant had indicated in their application that the financing plan and the content of the service plan
describe the overall development plans for the project. The project would require substantial public
improvements, in excess of ninety nine million dollars, in order to facilitate build-out. Implementation of an
organized and coordinated financing and phased construction program through the proposed districts was
crucial for a development of this size and scope. Accordingly,the demand for the services and facilities to be
provided by the districts was demonstrable.
It was the opinion of the Department of Planning Services'staff that the applicant had shown compliance with
Section 32-1-203(2)and Section 32-1-203(2.5), C.R.S. and Section 2-14-20 through Section 2-14-70 of the
Weld County Code
The referral dated July 23, 2006 addressed the concerns of Don Warden, Director of Finance. Mr. Warden
stated, "St.Vrain Lakes Metropolitan Districts 1,2, 3,and 4 prepared by Stan Bernstein and Associates, Inc.,
and reviewed by D.A. Davidson &Company appeared to be financially feasible and prepared in accordance
with the Weld County Code Section 2-14-300). The maximum mill levy of 65 mills with 50 mills maximum for
debt service and up to 15 mills for operations and maintenance was consistent and in compliance with Weld
County Code Section 2-14-20 (H). The maximum debt mill levy imposition term was consistent and in
compliance with Weld County Code Section 2-14-30."
3
Seventeen referral agencies reviewed this case, four referral agencies had no comments and seven
responded favorably or included conditions that had been addressed through development standards and
conditions of approval. No written comments had been received from the Weld County Attorney's Office,the
Oil and Gas Conservation Commission,the Town of Berthoud,the Town of Firestone,the Town of Frederick,
the Town of Mead, or the Little Thompson Water District.
The Department of Planning Services recommended approval of the Service District #1 and supporting
Financing Districts #2-4
Paul Branham asked about eminent domain and was it limited to the boundaries of the district. Ms. Hatch
replied that any agreements to enlarge the area would require the applicants come before the County again for
consent and approval.
Tom Holton asked if Pioneer followed the same Metropolitan District criteria. Mr.Barker referred to page eight
of the service plan and the language regarding eminent domain, which was number 5.8.5. in the staff
comments. Mr. Barker said in essence you had to give notice to the County before implementing eminent
domain and the County had the right to object to its use. Paul Branham asked if the applicant could proceed
without County approval. Mr. Barker said they could not.
Tyler Packard, CARMA Colorado, 9110 East Nichols Avenue, Englewood, CO, 80112, applicant
representative,said approval of this application and establishment of the metro district needed to occur prior
to sales of any lots and this was the fourth metro district they had undertaken in Colorado.
Kristin Bear, applicant representative, said: they had submitted a re-draft of the service plan that was in
compliance with all aspects of the policy as well as complying with Title 32;outlined the improvements of the
service area; submitted a finance plan that could support and finance the public infrastructure requirements;
had reviewed all comments to date;were working with governmental entities to make any changes necessary;
were working with St.Vrain Sanitation and Little Thompson Water District on an IGAor change to service plan
to address their concerns; were attempting to organize the districts in order to achieve a November, 2006
election and if did not get approval then it would be postponed until November, 2007, which would be very
problematic to the development timeline; requested Planning approval prior to the public hearing before the
Board of County Commissioners, August 30, 2006; multiple district arrangement which proposed one for
administering construction, operation and maintenance of public improvements and three financial districts
including commercial, and two for residential districts; property within boundaries was about 1300 acres of
residential and commercial; administrative district would be undeveloped property; districts would follow
service plan for improvements up to maximized debt limitation(approximately ninety nine million dollars or one
hundred nine million allowing for inflation); maximum issue of one hundred sixty five million dollars; service
plan would not change County role in the development process;two overlapping districts,water and sanitation;
water improvements would be built,dedicated,and then turned over to Little Thompson Water District and St
Vrain Sanitation District; build-out would occur in approximately 2017; mill levy was restricted (50 mills debt
service/65 mills aggregate); debt term limit would be thirty years.
Andy Cain,DA Davidson, Denver, CO,said his role was to see that district was financially feasible;developer
had good handle on costs and financial markets; 1300 acres;4433 units which included one hundred thirty
four million dollars in total assessed residential value; four hundred thirty four thousand square feet in
commercial with fifteen million dollars assessed valuation; residential units averaged two hundred fifty two
thousand dollars in market value; commercial was eighty dollars per square foot; should look at plan to see
that it was reasonable and feasible under Title 32;
Paul Branham asked Mr.Cain about the number of residential units and commercial space-were they talking
about ten thousand people and where was the reference to traffic control and law enforcement. Tyler Packard
said they would join an LEA (Law Enforcement Authority), it would be in place prior to development, and
twenty acres had been set aside for a municipal area that could house a fire substation and Law Enforcement
Authority.
Doug Ochsner asked about overlapping districts and agreements with other districts. Mr. Packard said there
were two agreements in place(Little Thompson Water District and St Vrain Sanitation District)and they did not
4
desire any management in water or sewer.
James Welch asked about mills for law enforcement. Mr.Packard replied the Law Enforcement Authority had
the ability to assess around seven mills.
Roy Spitzer asked about water and sewer and who would build and maintain the facilities. Mr. Packard said
Little Thompson Water District and St Vrain Sanitation District would take over as soon as constructed and
dedicated prior to debt retirement and the facilities would have a one year warranty period.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Paul Branham moved that Case 2006-04 St Vrain Metropolitan District, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of approval. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; James Welch,
yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair said Case USR-1568 would be heard next and not last due to surrounding property owners in
the audience.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1568
APPLICANT: Pedro Saucedo& Gabriella Ramirez
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-4224; being part of E2NW4 Section 22,T2N,
R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review
Permit for a Use by Right, an accessory use, or a Use by
Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone
District(an office and storage building for materials used
by oil and gas operations) in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 20; approximately 1/2 mile
east of CR 31.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, said the sign announcing the Planning Commission
hearing was posted August 4, 2006 by staff.
The application was submitted to correct the active zoning violation presently attached to the property, VI-
0500351, in Aristocrat Ranchettes. Due to the applicant's current property location in a subdivision,staff had
recommended they look for another piece of property and submit a USR on that lot. This application, if
approved, and once all commercial equipment was relocated to the new site, would correct the Aristocrat
Ranchettes zoning violation.
The applicant was proposing an office and storage building for the materials used for oil and gas operations.
The applicant had proposed an 80x120 storage building with a 6'vinyl fence for screening. The site would be
limited to no more than ten (10)employees and the hours of operations would be 7:00 am to 8:00 pm Monday
through Saturday.
The surrounding property was primarily agricultural with a few residences and five USR's for kennels to the
south of the property. The development standards and conditions of approval would ensure compatibility with
adjacent properties.
Nine referral agencies reviewed this case,one referral agency had no comment,six referral agencies included
conditions that had been addressed through the development standards and conditions of approval. No
comments were received from the State of Colorado Division of Wildlife or the Platte Valley Soil Conservation
5
District.
Three letters had been received from surrounding property owners. The first letter had concerns regarding the
proposed use not being compatible with the surrounding property, increased traffic, noise, dust and safety.
They also had concerns regarding oil contamination and the value of their property. The second letter had
concerns regarding contamination,change in the character of the neighborhood,effect on his property value,
visual impacts,and the impact of this use on his property. The third letter was concerned that the use was not
appropriate for a residential neighborhood.
The Weld County Department of Planning Services had reviewed the letters and felt the conditions of approval
and development standards were compatible with the neighborhood and recommended this application be
approved.
Cameron Keith,Western Engineering Consultants,460 Voyle St,Unit A Brighton,CO,80601,representing the
applicants gave an overview of the size of the area and the proposed use; clarified the intent of the use was
for storage of pipe works; pointed out that on the east side of property there were two Kerr-McGee oil wells;
traffic peaks would be morning and evening with very little during the day; and there would be no chemical
storage on the property.
Tom Holton asked about the specific nature of the business and what would be stored on the property. Ms.
Ramirez said it was storage for equipment related to their oil business;a one ton truck would be stored inside;
and there would be no tanks on the property.
Paul Branham asked how many vehicles would be involved. Ms. Ramirez said a total of four vehicles.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Jay Pointer, 15104 CR 20, Fort Lupton, CO 80621, concerns were listed in his letter to Planning; also
concerned about separator tanks, stem pipe and trailer and visibility and would they be stored inside;value
and ability to sell his property; their property touches the applicant's property on the north west corner.
Paul Schomber,8700 CR 31, Fort Lupton, CO 80621, his Trust was not notified of this meeting; US National
Bank had not received a letter; did not want this application to move forward; industrial property next to
residences would lower property value;wanted to subdivide his property and felt this use would lower value of
his future plans.
Ms. Hatch said the surrounding property list was taken off the Assessor's web page and the applicants might
want to notify the Assessor's office of the correct address for the US National Bank in Chicago.
Susan Pointer, 15104 CR 20, Fort Lupton, CO 80621, asked for a copy of the development standards and
conditions of approval; said she walks her daughter and asked how intense the truck traffic would be;
welcomed the applicants to the neighborhood but not the business; asked about magnesium chloride
application for dust control on the road in front of her property; asked the Planning Commission to give her
time to review the staff comments before they ruled on the application; and asked for an explanation of the
application process.
Don Carroll, Department of Public Works,said the applicants were required to apply the magnesium chloride
for a distance of three hundred feet on the road.
The Chair explained that specific conditions had to be met by the applicant and then the application would be
forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with recommendations. A sign posting, an upcoming
hearing date to be published, and another property owner notification would occur.
Ms. Hatch said she would provide Mrs. Pointer with a copy of the development standards and conditions of
approval.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
6
Tom Holton asked about fencing and would it go around the dumpster or property perimeter. Ms.Hatch said it
would go along the west side of parking area,the south side,and a little on the north side adjacent to the 80 x
120 building and it should be a six foot fence to block the visibility of the vehicles and would also screen the
dumpster.
Roy Spitzer asked Ms. Hatch for clarification on site photographs and what materials were stored on property.
Ms. Hatch replied the photo was of the neighboring property and it was miscellaneous equipment and a couple
of cars.
Mr. Keith,applicants representative,stepped forward to address concerns and answer questions and said he
appreciated the neighbor's observations; this would not be an industrial complex, it was simply a storage
building at present with plans for a residence in the future;access easement agreement would address dust
issue and driveway maintenance;the scale of the project was minute;and the storage building was to contain
business equipment.
The Chair asked the applicant if he had read and agreed with the development standards and conditions of
approval. Mr. Keith responded that he needed to read through them before he could agree.
Tom Holton asked about pipe storage, the semi trailer and the separator tanks and would Mr. Saucedo be
willing to extend the magnesium chloride application beyond the 300 foot requirement. Mr. Keith instructed
Mr. Saucedo not to respond as he had not read through all of the development standards and conditions of
approval yet and they had an access easement and still needed clarification as to who would maintain the
easement. Mr. Keith also asked if the County had any obligation to maintain the driveway.
Ms. Hatch said this was Lot B of a Recorded Exemption and Lot A& Lot B share an access and it was their
responsibility to maintain it and was a condition prior to scheduling with the Board of County Commissioners
the applicant obtain a new agreement with the property owner of Lot A. She added it was not the County's
responsibility to maintain the driveway.
Don Carroll reviewed Department of Public Works conditions and said access drive should be gravel,drained,
and provide adequate dust suppressant chemical(magnesium chloride or calcium chloride)for approximately
300 feet from adjacent residents on County Road 20. Dust suppressant shall be placed a minimum of twice a
year or as needed and determined by the Weld County Public Works Department.
Roy Spitzer inquired about traffic numbers and would eight to ten trips a day be reasonable. Mr. Keith
responded that vehicles accessing the site might be six to eight,occurring primarily at the beginning and end
of each day as employees were in the field the majority of the day.
Doug Ochsner asked staff if they had any more changes to the development standards and conditions of
approval. Ms. Hatch replied they did not. Mr.Ochsner added he was okay with the application,thought it was
compatible with the surrounding area, and would support the application.
Paul Branham said he appreciated the Pointer family's concerns but conditions of approval would address
dust abatement and screening, and it appeared the applicant would provide less visual pollution than was
presently in the area and he supported the application.
Tom Holton voiced his support of the application.
Roy Spitzer said he was comfortable with application and its compatibility with the area and if this business
were to change, the applicants would need to re-apply.
James Welch also agreed with the comments of the Planning Commission.
The Chair asked the applicants if they had read and agreed with the conditions of approval and development
standards. Mr. Keith replied that he had not read them yet.
The Chair suggested that out of respect for the public and their time, that he read them prior to the Board of
County Commissioners hearing and have his comments prepared for them.
7
Roy Spitzer moved that Case USR-1568,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Doug Ochsner seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Mark Lawley,yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; James Welch,
yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair reminded the applicants and audience there would be another opportunity to present their
information at the upcoming Board of County Commissioner's hearing.
CASE NUMBER: 2006-03 - Kiteley Farms LLLP.
APPLICANT: Collins Cockrel & Cole
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-843; part NW4 of Section 27, T3N, R68W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Service Plan for a Metropolitan District(Kiteley Ranch at
Foster Lake).
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Hwy 66 and east of and
adjacent to CR 7.
Kim Ogle for Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services, said the submitted Service Plan and
supporting Financing Plan were proposed to provide urban services within an area of Weld County that was
zoned PUD with (E) Estate and continuing Oil and Gas Production Uses in the Mixed Use Development
Overlay District. The subdivision was identified as Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake PUD
on approximately 140 acres with 427 residential Lots.
The applicant had indicated in their application that the financing plan and the content of the service plan
described the overall development plans for the project. The estimated cost of the public improvements,
including engineering and contingency,to be financed,acquired,constructed, installed and completed by the
District was expected to exceed 8,200,000.00, in 2006 dollars,with all improvements completed by December
2009. (18 million total, 8.2 million by District only)
It was the opinion of the Department of Planning Services'staff that the applicant had shown compliance with
Section 32-1-203(2)and Section 32-1-203(2.5), C.R.S. and Section 2-14-20 through Section 2-14-70 of the
Weld County Code
The referral dated July 23, 2006 addressed the concerns of Don Warden, Director of Finance. Mr.Warden
stated, the Financial Plan prepared by George K. Baum &Company appeared to be financially feasible and
prepared in accordance with the Weld County Code Section 2-14-30(1). The maximum mill levy of 65 mills
with 50 mills maximum for debt service and up to 15 mills for operations and maintenance was consistent and
in compliance with Weld County Code Section 2-14-20(H). The maximum debt mill levy imposition term was
consistent and in compliance with Weld County Code Section 2-14-30."
Fifteen referral agencies reviewed this case, four referral agencies had no comments and six responded
favorably or included conditions that had been addressed through development standards and conditions of
approval. No written comments had been received from: the Weld County Attorney's Office;the Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission;the Town of Berthoud;the Town of Firestone;the Town of Frederick;or the Town
of Mead.
Prior to staff comments, staff provided amended language prepared by Collins, Cockrell and Cole for the
Service Plan addressing concerns of staff at the direction of Bruce Barker, County Attorney;Additionally the
supplemental packet provided correspondence to the St. Vrain Sanitation District and the Little Thompson
Water District. The Department of Planning Services was recommending approval of the Service Plan and
supporting Financing Plan as submitted.
Paul Cockrel, Collins Cockrel & Cole PC, 390 Union Blvd., Ste. 400, Denver, CO 80228, applicant's
8
representative presented a copy of their service plan to Mr. Barker, County Attorney, and said this was a
neighborhood not a town and the scope of this service plan would be much smaller in nature than the one
considered earlier in the hearing;the service plan was drafted to comply with provisions of the special district
code;comments from Longs Peak Water and St Vrain Sanitation had been addressed;the districts would not
be dissolved upon retirement of bonds;they would build facilities and turn them over to Longs Peak Water and
St Vrain Sanitation even though the property was not within those district's boundaries but would be at some
point in time and would enter into an IGA with them then;Public Works'operations and maintenance concerns
had been addressed;they were comfortable with the County conditions;and asked to exclude approximately
three acres of the Kiteley homestead from the plan.
Tom Holton asked if they were planning major improvements every five years. Mr. Cockrel said yes, to the
sealcoat. Mr. Holton then asked if the supplemental service plan had been examined by the County Attorney
and Don Warden, Director of Finance. Mr. Barker responded that he had looked at the supplemental plan and
it was the same except for inclusion of the ownership and maintenance plan which the County had asked for,
and that Mr. Warden had not reviewed it. Mr. Barker said the plan dealt with items more specific to
Department of Public Works requirements regarding ownership and maintenance of the streets and roads.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Tom Holton said if this was similar to the last application he would approve it.
Paul Branham said the applicants had done their job and he would support the application.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case 2006-03, Kiteley Farms LLC, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of approval. Paul Branham seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; James
Welch,yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1084
APPLICANT: The Hauck Preserve at Idaho Creek LLC c/o Bob Perletz
w/Winston &Associates Inc
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of AmRE-3107, part Section 29, T2N, R68W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from the A(Agricultural)Zone District to
PUD for twenty-one(21)residential lots on 82.99 acres
with Estate Zone District uses except for the inclusion of
the use of auxiliary type second homes on lots 1 - 18 and
21. Lots 19 and 20 include a second home as outlined in
the covenants.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 5; north of and adjacent to
CR 16.5.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, said the sign announcing the Planning Commission
hearing was posted July 28, 2006 by Planning Staff
The proposed site was currently influenced by an Inter-Governmental Agreement with the City of Frederick.
The Town of Frederick requested on the Notice of Inquiry that the application be processed through the
County. The site was also located within the three mile referral areas for the Towns of Erie, Dacono and
Firestone and Boulder County.
The City of Frederick in their referral dated July 6,2006 requested the following: that County Road 5 have 100
feet of right-of-way and County Road 16.5 have 70 feet of right-of-way;a neighborhood trail be incorporated
along County Roads 5 and 16.5 and the St.Vrain Legacy Trail be accommodated along the creek corridor all
9
meeting ADA requirements; pedestrian and bicycle interconnectivity with adjacent parcels; a mixture of
housing styles, types and architectural facades with a unified setbacks; utilize a color palette developed in
accordance with a block diversity plan per the Town of Frederick's Land Use Code;a list of common tress and
other plant species that are on the State's noxious and invasive plants or prohibited by the Town; street
lighting that was directed downwards and equipped with full cut-off devices with a maximum height of 16 feet;
and widening the intermittent travel land for the roadways to a minimum of twelve feet.
The Towns of Erie, Dacono and the City of Longmont indicated on their referrals that the proposal did not
conflict with their interests. Boulder County and the Town of Firestone did not respond to the referral request.
The applicant was proposing an urban scale residential development on 82.99 acres. The minimum lot size
was one acre. The proposal included 12.62 acres of open space including 8.4 acres of ponds meeting the
15% open space requirement for urban scale development.
The proposed PUD would be serviced by Left Hand Water District for potable water and fire protection
requirements. Individual sewer disposal systems would handle the effluent flow.
St. Vrain Sanitation District in their referral dated July 14, 2006 stated: the parcel was within the St. Vrain
Sanitation District 208 boundary and would be served contingent on inclusion of the property into the District;a
subdivision service agreement would be required,as well as approval of onsite sewer construction drawings,
completion of necessary connection requests/agreements and the receipt of applicable fees be submitted.
Currently the site was located 2.5 miles from the Idaho Creek Line which was sized to serve the basin. The
District stated there was a lot of interest in the area from multiple developers and felt that all developers should
consider consolidating efforts and resources to extend the Idaho Creek Line for sewer service.
Development standard 3.F states, "Prior to the release of building permits,the Lot owner shall verify with the
nearest Town/City or Sanitation District to determine the location of the nearest sanitary sewer line. In
accordance with the Weld County Code, if a sewer line exists within four hundred (400)feet of the property
line and the sewer provider is willing to serve the proposed structure,a septic permit cannot be granted by the
Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment. Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing to
the Weld County Department of Planning Services."
Regarding the internal roadway,the applicant was proposing ten (10)foot paved travel lanes with two(2)foot
grassed shoulders. The Department of Public Works standard for a PUD was sixty(60)feet in width including
cul-de-sacs with a sixty-five(65)foot radius. The typical section of interior roadway shall be shown as two(2)
twelve(12)foot paved lanes with four(4)foot gravel shoulders. The cul-de-sac edge of pavement radius shall
be fifty(50)feet. The applicant was asking for a waiver of the standard roadway section.
A shared access exists between this parcel and the adjoining parcel Lot A of RE-3107. The applicant had
been approved for an Amendment to RE-3107 to reconfigure the size of Lot A which was a condition of
approval to be completed prior to recording the change of zone plat. In addition staff was requesting the
shared access be incorporated entirely onto Lot A or labeled on the change of zone plat that the access was
only for the use of Lot A of AMRE-3107. Section 27-2-20 of the Weld County Code states that all PUD
development will be served by an internally paved road system according to County standards.
The applicant had chosen to adhere to the bulk requirements of the E(Estate)Zone District except for the use
of auxiliary type second homes on Lots 1-18 and 21. Lots 19 and 20 included a second home as outlined in
the covenants.
The accessory auxiliary type quarters allowed on Lots 1 through 18 and Lot 21 must be integral to the main
residence(basement,over the garage,etc)and not be located within a stand alone structure and shall share
all utilities.
Lots 19 and 20 may have one additional single family dwelling as an accessory home with separate septic.
Twenty one referral agencies reviewed this case, six referral agencies had no comments and thirteen
responded favorably or included conditions that had been addressed through development standards and
conditions of approval. No comments were received from the Town of Firestone or Boulder County
10
No comments had been received from surrounding property owners.
The Department of Planning Services recommended approval of the Change of Zone.
Doug Ochsner asked about the size of Lots 19 and 20. Ms. Hatch replied each lot was approximately
eighteen acres and Planning was asking they access off the internal roadway, not use the existing access.
Mr. Ochsner then asked if concerns from Frederick had been addressed. Ms. Hatch replied that some had
been addressed; Planning was asking that road widths be shown on the plat;facades and house styles were
not regulated by the County;the County does require that lighting be positioned downward does not regulate
the height; staff had asked the trails be shown on the plat;and that the applicant follow the County landscape
standards.
Chad Auer asked if he was correct that per Frederick and the County agreement, Frederick did not want the
development but had a long list of suggestions/wants for County. Ms. Hatch replied that was correct.
Paul Branham asked why the two large lots were excluded from the HOA(Home Owners Association)and
could we require all lots be involved. Ms. Hatch said they needed to be included in the HOA and must be
included as part of the PUD.
Tom Holton asked for an explanation of auxiliary homes,was it one big house and a carriage house in back.
Ms. Hatch replied they would not be stand alone structures, but would be attached to the primary residence.
Pam Smith, Environmental Health Department,said: per letter N.,page thirteen,each lot would have a septic
system;there might be some areas across the property where an FHDP(Flood Hazard Development Permit)
might be required due to the flood plain; engineered septic systems might be required because of their
location in the flood plain according to FEMA; there was a well between the two estate lots, nearly on the
property line that would be shared by the two estate lots,and she questioned who would use it;she had found
another well on the property and wondered if it was a monitoring well;four septic envelopes would be required
on the two estate lots; an updated water letter was needed to include all twenty one lots and twenty three
homes; provisions for manure handling and fly control needed to be established.
Roy Spitzer asked Ms.Smith about groundwater and septic envelopes and was that a typical requirement for
lots of this size. Ms.Smith replied she had asked for nineteen systems for the one acre lots and four more for
the two estate lots with the two houses each and the septic systems would be site specific and designed for
the conditions they found on each lot.
Bob Perletz, applicant's representative, responded to concerns and questions and said the nineteen lots all
back onto ponds; there was a four and a half acre buffer along CR 5 and CR 16.5;they had an internal road
system with one access onto CR 16.5; the two estate lots allow agricultural activities on property for alpaca
and horses;there was a landscape plan for the buffer area and common areas;the entry would contain a bus
shelter, mailboxes and sign as well as a turn around; they were asking for two variances from County
standards regarding roads and sidewalks as the area identified in Frederick's Comprehensive Plan was low
density; this was not a typical subdivision and they were trying to maintain a rural character to the area;
narrower roads kept low traffic volume on roads; good site distances; no on street parking; privately
maintained access road; asked for Lot 19 access variance to prevent conflict with others for the agricultural
uses on the property; requested that item 1.D., page seven be deferred to prior to recording final plat to allow
them more time to work with the entity involved; requested more time to fulfill requirement 1.E.on page eight
regarding the ditch agreement and additional easement;and informed the Planning Commission that item 2.1.,
page nine had been updated with Frederick and Frederick would be satisfied with a thirty five foot rather than a
fifty foot right of way on CR 5 and the applicant would provide that in writing.
The Chair asked Mr. Perletz for further clarification on the last three requests he had made.
Doug Ochsner said he was still confused about the carriage houses and why they requested them. Mr.
Perletz said there would be two different types of accessory dwelling units, one within the primary residence
and the other separate from the primary residence. These would provide an option for caregivers or elderly
parents to live on the property. The estate lots,with the two separate homes on Lots 19 and 20,would allow
11
for full time management staff to reside on the property to oversee the agricultural operations.
Tom Holton asked about DMG mining pond permits and were they planning to sell the materials that came out
of there. Mr.Perletz replied the materials would be used for on site grading and should stay on site and berms
on the property would use those materials as well.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Howard Rasmussen, address not given, said the development would be a showcase and would add to the
community; his farm and the farms south and east of him had heavy waste water and said drains on the
property should be addressed because if water drains on his fields he needed the right to access the
applicant's property to rectify problems; he had a small feedlot on his property and odor happens in wet
weather and wanted the prospective owners to know that this was still agricultural and there would be smells;
and closed by saying he had to take a public speaking class sixty years ago and wondered at the time when
he would ever use that but it had finally paid off today.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Peter Schei, Department of Public Works, highlighted their concerns and said the interior roadway was
proposed to be a variance from County standards; proposed gated interior roadway maintained by the home
owners; they were trying to get a feel for the uses of businesses on the estate lots to get a grasp of traffic
generated by those businesses;would there be additional traffic on CR 16.5 due to accessory dwellings on the
nineteen lots; CR 5 was under the jurisdiction of Frederick but applicant would be contributing to
improvements; Frederick right of way on CR 5 should be larger not smaller and needed to be addressed;there
may be groundwater conditions preventing basements on some of the lots;drainage reports should be noted
for public record on the plats because of its close proximity to FEMA flood area.
Tom Holton asked about access to Lot 19. Mr. Schei said Lot 20 access was from interior road way and
shared ingress/egress easement and lot nineteen had the possibility of accessing the internal roadway to the
internal portion of the lot. County Code requires all subdivision lots to access the internal roadway. The
Planning Commission could and would limit access to CR 16.5 if the applicant requested a separate access
for Lot 19 and we would support that but the best permanent solution for Lot 19 would be shared access. Mr.
Holton then asked about drainage from some ditches mentioned by Mr. Rasmussen. Mr.Schei said maybe
Mr. Rasmussen was indicating some concerns along Idaho Creek, which would run along the northwest
portion of the property, and there was an existing FEMA flood hazard in the area. Mr.Schei said there were
still a few items yet to address but no issues to keep the development from progressing through the zoning
process, except perhaps with respect to water rights and adjudication.
Doug Ochsner asked if they would see this application again or was this the final appearance before the
Planning Commission. Ms. Hatch said the final would be reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners.
Roy Spitzer asked if County standards provided for a narrower ten foot road for less than sixty trips per day
and also how emergency access would be affected. Mr.Schei replied the applicant had asked for a variance
and the Planning Commission needed to look at the development and County standards for reasonable and
adequate design criteria for subdivisions and follow those in their recommendations to the applicant. Mr.
Schei said Department of Public Works recommended twelve foot paved lanes with four foot shoulders simply
because it is an urban level development and added that narrower lanes cause slower traffic in most instances
and that fire and emergency services would be asked to sign off on the roadway width.
Chad Auer asked if the request for this variance complicated sidewalk safety. Mr.Schei said that was open to
discussion but they needed to look at whether this was an urban or rural development and whether to grant
variances for curbs and gutters etc.,which the Department of Public Works would not generally recommend in
this situation.
Chad Auer asked Ms. Hatch about, item 1.D, page 7 regarding the applicant's request to move it to prior to
recording the final plat. Ms. Hatch recommended it be moved to prior to scheduling the Board of County
Commissioners for the final application, making it a new number 6 on page 17,to read, "Prior to scheduling
the Board of County Commissioners hearing for final"and then transfer item 1.D. there.
12
Doug Ochsner moved to make item 1.D,page 7 a new number 6 on page 17,to read,"Prior to scheduling the
Board of County Commissioners hearing for final"and then transfer item 1.D.there. Tom Holton seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; James
Welch,yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Perletz said they would have difficulty getting signed and recorded agreements with the energy holders
prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing and asked to delay item 1.8 as they had the other item
regarding water resources.
Tom Holton asked why this was not consistent with Section 27-5-30 H.and Ms. Hatch responded she wanted
to call out each item individually and would reference the Code.
Tom Holton motioned to amend 1.A., page seven,to reference Section 27-5-30 H.of the County Code. Paul
Branham seconded. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner asked Ms. Hatch what she needed on item 1.B. Ms. Hatch replied she would like to keep it
where it was.
James Welch asked staff about the signed ditch agreement and could they include an attempt to come to an
agreement or show evidence in the conditions. Ms. Hatch replied that could be added if they wished. Doug
Ochsner said he wanted it left as it was and didn't feel the applicant had shown an attempt.
Paul Branham said regarding the road issue,he thought there was a compelling argument to leave the County
standard in place and would not support the waiver from the standard.
Doug Ochsner agreed with Mr. Branham adding this was still an urban scale development with foot traffic on
the roadway and safety wise was not in favor of narrowing the roads.
Tom Holton asked staff about other developments in the area. Ms. Hatch said Frederick had annexed
property directly to the east of the applicant's location and another development in the area would be making
similar improvements to CR 5 and CR 16.5 as requested by the Department of Public Works.
James Welch said he also agreed with staff recommendations and following County standards due to the
nature of the area.
The Chair asked the applicant if he had read and agreed with the conditions of approval and development
standards. Mr. Perletz said there was some misinformation that needed addressed: the development would
not be gated; there would be some gates to restrict emergency access points and oil and gas sites from the
public; they had met with Frederick regarding CR 5 right of way and their staff had agreed the additional five
feet was adequate and one hundred feet was not necessary;storm drainage was from the south and they had
accommodated that through drainage requirements;ditch was adjacent to Mr. Rasmussen's property and not
on their property;the ditch company does not use the property to access the ditch;as to the road variance,he
asked they consider the development to the north which was approved for twenty foot roads, as were other
developments in the area; that their larger lots create lower volume road use than subdivisions with smaller
lots and felt the wider road stimulated faster speeds.
Tom Holton asked staff if the ditch was not on the property,then how do they control whether or not they get
an easement. Brian Varrella, Department of Public Works, Stormwater Division, said regardless of whether
the ditch was on the property or not, if the development proposed to drain to the ditch,they were required to
receive approval from that ditch as the ditch company had final say in whether they would or would not receive
those flows. Tom Holton asked about a permit to drain into the ditch. Mr. Schei replied that when the
character/nature of the stormwater drainage was changed on the parcel, an easement with the downstream
landowner was required.
Doug Ochsner said that generally when there was a ditch on one property, there might be easements for
13
maintenance on both properties therefore an agreement from the ditch company was necessary.
Mr. Schei added that with respect to the road way, this would be a major subdivision and they should not be
confused by the numbers spoken of today as there could be as many as two hundred vehicles per day in the
area.
Tom Holton asked if the right to farm clause would be delineated on the plat so that Mr. Rasmussen could
continue his agricultural operations. Ms. Hatch replied that it was included on the plat.
Paul Branham moved that Case PZ-1084,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Roy Spitzer,
yes; James Welch, yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Doug Ochsner commented he would like to compliment the developer and the Town of Frederick for their
mutual cooperation, even though much work remained to be completed.
Roy Spitzer commented that he thought the developer had proposed a unique development not with
standing the difficult site.
Paul Branham asked if perhaps a"Metro District 101" session could be conducted for the Planning
Commission as there seemed to be more and more of these applications being submitted for their
recommendation.
Meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Donita
Secretary
14
Hello