HomeMy WebLinkAbout20063066.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, October 17, 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 Vice Chair,Doug
Ochsner, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Chad Auer- Chair ,
Doug Ochsner-Vice Chair
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich
Bruce Fitzgerald ;-)
Tom Holton
Roy Spitzer
James Welch
Mark Lawley
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Jacqueline Hatch, Chris Gathman, Michelle Martin, Department of Planning; Don
Carroll, Jesse Hein, Department of Public Works; Char Davis, Environmental Health Department; Cyndy
Giauque, County Attorney; Voneen Macklin, Recording Secretary
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on October 3,2006,
was approved as read.
The following cases are on the Consent Agenda:
1. CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1508
APPLICANT: Longmont Broadcasting LLC
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3507; Pt N2 of Section 33, T2N, R67W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Amended Special Review
Permit for two communication transmission towers (two guyed
broadcast towers approximately 1,459 feet, an increase from the
previously approved height of 1,180 feet, with support buildings)
in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 17; south of and adjacent to CR 16.
2. CASE NUMBER: USR-1572
APPLICANT: Suncor Energy
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of AmRE-2918; being part of the NW4 of Section 20, T2N,
R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
Mineral Resource Development Facility including an Oil and Gas
Storage Facility in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 20; 1/4 mile east of SH 85.
3. CASE NUMBER: USR-1574
APPLICANT: New Hope Family Christian Church
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-4300 being part of the N2 NW4 of Section 28, T2N,
R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for
a church, childcare center, and private school in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 18 and east of and adjacent to CR
17.
` orrwle^ n/Late1v) /1- )- 000, 2006-3066
4. CASE NUMBER: USR-1575
APPLICANT: Marilyn Taylor
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-4053 being part of the NW4 of Section 32, T2N,
R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for
a use similar to the uses listed as Use by Special Review as long
as the use complies with the general intent of the A(Agricultural)
Zone District(Assisted Living Residence) in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 16 and approximately one mile west
of CR 41.
5. CASE NUMBER: USR-1576
APPLICANT: Scott Deemer
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part SW4 SE4 of Section 32, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for
any use permitted as a use by right, an accessory use, or use by
special review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone District
(Office and Storage of Landscape Materials) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Highway 52; approximately 0.5
mile west of CR 5.
Roy Spitzer moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Tom Holton seconded. Motion carried.
The following case will be heard:
6. CASE NUMBER: 2006-XX
APPLICANT: Newby Farms LLC
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the S2 of Section 33, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Petition for inclusion into the Mixed Use Development Area of
Unincorporated Weld County, Changes to Chapter 22
(Comprehensive Plan)and Chapter 26 (Mixed Use Development
Plan Structural Land Use Map 2.1).
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 26; east of and adjacent to CR 5.
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services, presented Case 2006-XX, Newby Farms LLC, reading
the comments and recommendations into the record. The Department of Planning Services
recommended approval of the application. Ms. Martin stated the applicants have applied for a petition for
inclusion into the Mixed Use Development Area of Unincorporated Weld County. Changes to Chapter 22
(Comprehensive Plan)and Chapter 26 (Mixed Use Development Plan Structural Land Use Map 2.1). The
property is located North of and adjacent to County Road 26 and east of and adjacent to County Road 5.
There are two criteria for review of this amendment to Chapters 22 and 26 Map#2.1: Structural Land Use
Map. The property in question is not located within the Mixed Use Development (MUD)area. Inclusion
into MUD would allow the applicants the opportunity to propose an urban scale development in an area
that can obtain adequate services. The proposed subdivision would include 600 single family residences
utilizing St. Vrain Sanitation and Longs Peak Water. The applicants have examined the goals and policies
of the MUD and have committed to provide 65 acres of open space. The applicants have discussed the
need for appropriate pedestrian circulation within the site and have committed to meet these needs. The
application states that the goal in creating this subdivision rests in the ability to create a mixture of
residential land uses with both passive and active recreational uses. The proposed site lies within
Longmont's Intergovernmental Agreement area. The City of Longmont at their September 12, 2006 City
Council meeting decided not to annex the property in question. To be consistent with Section 22-2-100 of
the Weld County Code, urban scale residential development must occur within either an IGA boundary or
within the MUD. As proposed, the site will be developed with approximately 65 acres of open space
divided into numerous parks with open space connections throughout the subdivision. In accordance with
Appendix 26.E, 20% (49 acres) of the site will need to be dedicated to open space. The applicants
proposed development would include a diversity of housing types. This variety of housing includes 47
units of very low density single family residential (1 to 2 du/ac), 74 units of low density single family
residential (3 to 4 du/ac), and 479 units of medium-density attached and/or detached patio homes (4 to 5
du/ac), for a total of 600 dwelling units. The site can be provided with sanitation and water from St. Vrain
Sanitation District and Longs Peak Water District as stated in their referrals dated August 16, 2006 and
September 25, 2006. The application materials indicate approximately 600 residential units would be
located on the site, adding approximately 1,670 people (based on 2.78 persons/household)and 369
school-aged children. The St. Vrain Valley School District stated in their referral dated September 8, 2006
that adequate available school capacity does not exist for this area. The school district has discussed the
possibility of the applicant mitigating this proposals impact on this feeder system, but has not yet reached
any formal agreement.
Margaret Barden,Village Homes,stated Ron Skarka,VP of Planning from Village Homes and Craig Ham with
Consilium Design is available to present the case and answer any questions. Ron Skarka, VP of Village
Homes continued with a presentation for the proposal. Village Homes is privately owned and has been in
business for 22 years. They have built approximately 9,000 homes in Colorado along the Front Range. The
applicant believes it is just as important to build communities as it is to build homes. The Newby property is
57%contiguous to the existing MUD boundary.The development will be served by the Weld County Library in
Firestone; Southwest Weld County Building and Mountain View Fire District. There is existing and future
schools sites in the area and the applicant will work with St Vrain School District for acceptable school issues.
There are recreational facilities such as St. Vrain State Park and a Longmont Recreational facility at
Sandstone Ranch.
Becky Houstes, Tetra Tech, addressed the water issues by stating there is a connection to the St Vrain
Sanitation District at CR 5 and this development is within Longs Peak Water. There will be a water model
study done in the future processes in accordance with St.Vrain and Longs Peak. There have been meetings
with those agencies and the applicant feels those issues will be resolved.
Craig Ham, Consilium Design, provided additional information on the design of the project. The Newby project
is a good stand alone proposal but it may be accompanied with the Adams property to the south and east.
The intent of the design was to keep the key corridor for open space to enhance the views. The surrounding
property affords the applicant the ability to provide a unique open space and recreational oriented community.
There are several natural amenities in the area. The applicant wanted to maintain a sense of view and scale.
The open space areas will be towards the west in the development. The goal is to have a unique community
identity in the MUD; encouraging an innovative design and landscape palette with a residential development
including a variety of housing types. This is a logical extension of the MUD and the criterion is met for
inclusion. The site has natural landscape and the design will work with that. There will be clustering around
the open space in the design as seen in other developments. The criterion was again covered by the
applicant.
Mr. Sharka continued, adding that with the applicant being privately held there will be more time to work
through possible issues. The application had an oversight which was 65 acres of open space listed in the
application. It fails to state that the sixty five percent of open space includes the right-of-way. This may bring
down the acreage but it will still exceed the required 20%.
Mark Lawley asked for clarification on the denial by Longmont. Mr.Skarka stated approaching Longmont for
annexation was part of the PUD process and they decided not to recommend annexation.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Doug Ochsner clarified this was to vote on the inclusion only,the Planning Commission will see more detailed
plans at a later date. Ms. Martin indicated that was correct,the applicant will be back with a PUD application
for a subdivision.
Tom Holton added that was the reason for the lack of referral response. Ms. Martin stated that was correct.
She added there was a minor traffic study submitted but the information will be far more intense in the PUD
application process. Mr. Holton asked for clarification on the public notification. Ms.Martin added the process
for inclusion requires a press release adverse to only a standard notification. Mr. Hein added the submitted
traffic study was acceptable to the Department of Public Works but the future study will require more detail.
Roy Spitzer asked for clarification on something submitted in the packet. Mr. Hein, Department of Public
Works, indicated it was part of the preliminary traffic study. The information was addressing traffic counts in
order to determine volume. There will be a more in depth study provided in the future PUD process. Mr.
Spitzer asked Mr. Hein if there were any conclusions at this point. Mr. Hein stated the study was extremely
preliminary at this point and the basic conclusion is that 40%of the traffic will run from to CR 7 while 20%will
go to CR 5; CR 5.5 and CR 26. Department of Public Works accepts this study at this point.
Doug Ochsner indicated this type of process has no Development Standards or Conditions of Approval.
Paul Branham indicated that the applicant has met all the requirements. The only concern is the school
district and they have agreed to work with them
Roy Spitzer asked what the adverse affects could be to including this in the MUD; would there be any
additional stress on the county services or responsibilities. Ms. Martin indicated that there is an IGA with the
city of Longmont and at this time they did not choose to annex the site. Ms. Martin continued to state that
because the property is located within and IGA area the applicant can propose urban scale development but
the MUD was created to allow Urban Scale Development. Mr. Spitzer indicated this property is adjacent on
two sided to the existing MUD boundary.
Doug Ochsner asked if there were specific times an application can be made to be included in the MUD. Ms.
Martin indicated those times were August 1 and February 1 of each year.
Paul Branham moved that Case 2006-XX, 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. Motion carried
unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 2:25 pm
Respectfully submitted,
�
nl 1O Y
Von Macklin
Secretary
Hello