HomeMy WebLinkAbout20060692.tiff RESOLUTION OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Moved by Paul Branham that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1078
APPLICANT: Tom Morton
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parts of Sections 25, 35, and 36,T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,Weld
County, Colorado
REQUEST: PUD Change of Zone from (A)Agriculture to 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 and (C-2) General Commercial and continuing Oil and Gas
Production Uses in the Mixed Use Development Overlay District(St.
Vrain Lakes PUD)
LOCATION: Multiple parcels generally located East of and adjacent to thel-25
Frontage Road, South of and adjacent to State Highway 66;west of and
adjacent to CR 13 and north of and adjacent to St. Vrain River.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 27-5-30 of the Weld
County Code.
2. The submitted materials are in compliance with Section 27-6-120 of the Weld County Code as follows:
A. Section 27-6-120.8.6.a- The proposal is consistent with any intergovernmental agreement in effect
influencing the PUD and Chapters 19 (Coordinated Planning Agreements), Chapter 22
(Comprehensive Plan), Chapter 23 (Zoning), Chapter 24 (Subdivision) and Chapter 26(Mixed Use
Development) of the Weld County Code. The proposed site is not presently influenced by an Inter-
Governmental Agreement.
B. Section 22-2-110.8(UGB. Goal 2)—states, "Concentrate urban development in or adjacent to existing
municipalities or the 1-25 Mixed Use Development area and maintain urban growth boundary areas
that provide an official designation between future urban and non-urban uses."The proposed PUD is
located within the Mixed Use Development(MUD) area, and within the three mile Municipal referral
area with the Towns of Mead, Firestone, and Frederick. The Town of Mead requests that this
development not be approved as an unincorporated project and the applicants should be required to
petition either the Town of Mead or to the Town of Firestone for annexation. In addition,the Town of
Mead states that there are too many as-yet unresolved issues, including road networks, how the
residents of this project will receive services,et cetera.The Town of Frederick has indicated that they
have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with their interests. The Town of Firestone in their
referral dated January 11,2006 stated the residential densities appear to be significantly higher than a
typical residential development tin Firestone. Having such a high single family detached residential
density could negatively impact development quality and public safety. It is the opinion of the
Department of Planning Services that with the attached Conditions of approval and Development
Standards these issues are adequately addressed.
C. Section 22-2-230.A (MUD Goal 1)—states, "To plan and to manage growth and to provide for ease of
inclusion in the 1-25 Mixed Use Development area and urban development nodes so as to balance
relevant fiscal, environmental, aesthetic and economic components of the area." The proposal
assures that new development occurs in such a manner as to maintain an attractive working a living
environment. Further, all applicable standards and regulations,unless otherwise modified herein,of
Chapters 22, 23, 26, and 27 of the Weld County Code shall be integrated in the design of the Final
Plan and will be addressed through the Site Plan Review process. The site design integrates
residential, neighborhood commercial, environmental, aesthetic, and economic components into a
cohesive unit that is attractive and compatible with surrounding land uses.The Department of Planning
Services has not received any letters from surrounding property owners. The Development Standards
and Conditions of Approval ensure that there are adequate provisions for the protection of health,
safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and County.
11 EXHIBIT
4hO78
2006-0692
Resolution PZ-1078
Tom Morton/Carma Colorado
Page 2
1. Section 26-1-50.8.1.a. (MUD.C.1 Goal 1) states, "Establish a sense of community identity
within the Mixed Use Development area by planning and managing residential,commercial,
industrial, environmental, aesthetic, and economic components of the area." The land uses
shown on the Change of Zone plat reflect the uses shown on the Amended MUD Structural
Land Use Map 2.1, dated June 2005.
2. Section 26-1-50(MUD.C Goal 4)states, "The coordination of municipal,county regional and
state growth policies and programs which includes the Mixed Use Development area may be
evaluated in order to minimize discrepancies, promote a better understanding of growth
dynamics in the area, avoid duplication of services and provide economies of scale." The
project is compatible with existing surrounding uses in terms of general uses,building height,
scale, density, traffic, dust and noise. The PUD process allows for flexibility and variety
needed to offer a range of products,services, and uses.
3. Section 26-1-60 (MUD.P Goal 1) states, "Provide efficient and cost-effective delivery of
adequate public facilities and services which assure the health safety an general welfare of
the present and future residents of the area." The site is located in an area where
infrastructure needs will be provided when construction begins on the project St.Vrain Lakes
PUD. The application has signed agreements in place with St.Vrain Sanitation District and
the Little Thompson Water District. The Weld County Attorney's Office has indicated that the
agreements submitted by the applicant are adequate.
4. Section 26-1-70 MUD.T. Goal 2 states, "Promote a pedestrian trail system to service
transportation and recreation purposes within the Mixed Use Development area." Several
pedestrian and open space connections are proposed to connect the components of the
development and the surrounding properties and developments.
5. Goal MUD.C. Goal l in Chapter 26,Article l Section 26-1-50.B.1.a of the Weld County Code
states, "Establish a sense of community identity within the Mixed Use Development area by
planning and managing residential, commercial, industrial, environmental, aesthetic and
economic components of the area." The land uses shown on the Change of Zone plat reflect
the uses shown on the MUD Structural Land Use Map as amended by the applicant. (Map
Number 2.1, dated June 2005)
MUD.C. Goal 3 in Chapter 26, Article 1 Section 26-1-50.B.3.a of the Weld County Code
states, "Community form and identity shall be encouraged through the enhancement and
preservation of natural resources and features." Where feasible, drainage ways shall be
maintained in their natural state to ensure optimal re-charge(MUD.C.Policy 3.2,Section 26-
1-50.8.3.c). Impacts to air quality will be minimized (MUD.C. Policy 3.3, Section 26-1-
50.8.3.d). Disturbed areas will be re-vegetated immediately following construction. In order
to minimize wind and soil erosion,temporary stabilization measures will be established until
permanent cover is in place. (MUD.C. Policy 3.5, Section 26-1-50.8.3.f). Native species
have been selected for some of the re-vegetation. (MUD.C. Policy 3.6, Section 26-1-
50.8.3.g).
6. Section 22-3-140.8 T Goal 2 states "A Countywide trail system should be considered to
service transportation and recreation purposes." Several pedestrian and open space
connections are provided to connect the four phases of the development and the surrounding
area,including potential future connections to the St.Vrain Trail adjacent municipalities and
subdivisions.
Resolution PZ-1078
Tom Morton/Carma Colorado
Page 3
7. Section 22-3-140.A. T.Goal 1. states"Provide a unified and coordinated countywide street
and highway system which moves people and goods in a safe, economical, and efficient
manner. The proposed development will comply with Sections 22-3-60 through 22-3-140 of
the Weld County Code. Access to the development will preserve the existing and future
function of roads and highways affected by this proposed development. Traffic generated by
the proposed development will conform to the recommendations and requirements of the
Department of Public Works, the Town of Mead and the Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT).
8. Section 26-1-70.8.71Goal 2 states, "New development within the Mixed Use Development
area shall provide a mechanism for balancing relevant fiscal and economic components of
transportation systems." An overall traffic impact analysis and supplemental traffic analysis
has been prepare for this development,which will address cumulative development impacts,
created by this project and suggest appropriate project mitigation. Further,the applicant is
proposing a Metropolitan District for the maintenance obligations of improvements in the St.
Vrain Lakes PUD, Metropolitan District numbers 1-4;and the applicant is participating in the
Southwestern Weld County Law Enforcement Authority.
9. Section 22-3-50.8.1.F'.Goal2 "Require adequate facilities and services to assure the health,
safety and general welfare of the present and future residents of the County."The proposed
PUD will be serviced by Little Thompson Water District for potable water and fire protection
requirements and St. Vrain Sanitation District will handle the effluent flow. Mountain View
Fire Protection District has reviewed the proposal and does not object to the proposed
changes.
B. Section 27-6-120.6.6- The uses which would be allowed in the proposed PUD will conform with the
Performance Standards of the PUD Zone District contained in Article II, Chapter 27 of the Weld
County Code.
Section 27-2-20, Access standards—The site layout will provide a network of local, collector and
arterial classified streets. A greenway/trail system is designed to connect the various components of
the development for pedestrian and bicycle traffic as well as provide recreational opportunities. The
project offers an opportunity to accommodate significant transportation improvements in the area.
County Road 13 and County Road 9.5 are classified as Major Arterial Roads with significant
improvements. County Road 28 is classified as a Minor Arterial Road which will also be significantly
improved. These roads will be maintained by Weld County. County Road 11 has been annexed by
the Town of Mead,therefore,coordination of roadway improvements meeting MUD criterion,number
of access points and signalization requirements shall be coordinated with the Town.State Highway 66
has been annexed by the Town of Mead,however,the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT)
maintains this segment of roadway adjacent to this development. CDOT in their electronic referral
dated October 26,2005 state that they will allow full movement access to SH 66 at the existing County
Road 11 and County Road 13 intersections. Additional full movement access will be considered if
placed at'/mile between County Road 11 and County Road 13. Other access will also be considered
provided the criteria stated in the State Highway Access Code can be met. Review of these
considerations will be undertaken in Filings and Phases at time of Final Plat review.
Section 27-2-40, Bulk requirements — The applicant has proposed a deviation from the bulk
requirements as set out in the Weld County Code for the residential component. A brief summary is
provided on Table 1,page 7 of this staff report. The Department of Planning Services is not in support
of this variance as proposed. It is important to note that all R-2, R-3, R-4, C-1 and C-2 zoned
development in a PUD requires a Site Plan Review application as defined in Chapter 23 of the Weld
County Code. The building height will be determined by Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code.
Resolution PZ-1078
Tom Morton/Carma Colorado
Page 4
Section 27-2-50, Circulation requirements—The applicant has proposed a deviation from the internal
local residential roadway requirements as set out in the Weld County Code,specifically the MUD road
criteria. A letter requesting a variance was submitted with the Change of Zone application materials.
The variance presented for consideration is for a 60 foot right-of-way for the local roadway section and
a thirty-two(32)foot flow line to flow line width and a 50 foot radius cul-de-sac for the St.Vrain Lakes
PUD. The Department of Public Works is not in support of this request.
Section 27-2-70, Compatibility—The proposed site is located south of and adjacent to State Highway
66, east of and adjacent to the existing I-25 Frontage Road/County Road 9.5, County Road 11 and
south of and adjacent to County Road 28 and State Highway 66. The site is also west of County Road
13. Sekich Commercial Business Park,the proposed Meadow Ridge Residential/Commercial PUD,
and the Grand View Estates PUD are located to the north of the proposed St Vrain Lakes PUD north of
the site across State Highway 66. The Corporate City Limits of the Town of Mead are adjacent to the
west,agricultural lands are to the east,including the Aurora Organic Dairy,approximately 1 mile to the
east of County Road 13 and the Southwest Service Center,multiple residential properties and a multi
lot PUD,is to the south,south of the St.Vrain River. The site is designated as residential,commercial
and areas of limiting site factors on the Amended I-25 Mixed Use Development Area Structural Plan,
Map 2.1 Structural Land Use Map dated June 2005. The applicant has met the remaining
performance standards as delineated in Section 27-2-10. The Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards ensure compliance with Sections 27-2-20 through 27-2-220 of the Weld
County Code.
C. Section 27-6-120.6.c-That the uses which would be permitted shall be compatible with the existing or
future development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing Zoning, and with the future
development as projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code or master plans of affected
-- municipalities. The proposed PUD is located within the Mixed Use Development (MUD)area, and
within the three mile Municipal referral area with the Towns of Mead, Firestone, and Frederick.The
Town of Frederick has indicated that they have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with their
interests. The Town of Firestone in their referral dated January 11, 2006 stated the residential
densities appear to be significantly higher than a typical residential development in Firestone. Having
such a high single family detached residential density could negatively impact development quality and
public safety. In addition,the Town of Mead in their referral dated January 5,2006 states"The Town
Board objects to the County's consideration of this project on several counts:
1. There are too many as-yet unresolved issues,including road networks,how the residents of
this project will receive services such as police protection, which cannot be adequately
provided by the Weld County Sheriffs office and should not be funded by a [Law
Enforcement Authority] LEA; recreational and other social services, and the like. Thereisno
coordination of services when an unincorporated subdivision has some responsibilities
provided by an HOA,others by a metropolitan district,and still others an LEA,which if they
were in a municipality would have better coordination. The County's approach will work
against the long term social health of the neighborhood.
2. The number of homes is too high, and the density is too high.
3. The impact on the school district will be tremendous, even if school sites are designated.
The County should require this project to conform with and pay into the district's school
mitigation program at a minimum.
4. In spite of representations to the contrary, this is not a good example of regional planning
and cooperation. Lip service is only being paid to the impacts this scale of project would
have on adjacent communities,without any financial benefit to mitigate the impacts.
5. This project should be in a municipality, and the County should therefore not approve the
project and instead require the applicant to petition to annex to Mead (or to Firestone, if
Firestone would be interested.)"
Resolution PZ-1078
Tom Morton/Carma Colorado
Page 5
D. Section 27-6-120.6.d-That the PUD Zone District shall be serviced by an adequate water supply and
sewage disposal system in compliance with the Performance Standards in Article II the Weld County
Code.The Department of Public Health and Environment states the proposed PUD will be serviced by
Little Thompson Water District for potable water and fire protection requirements and St. Vrain
Sanitation District will handle the effluent flow. The Weld County Attorney's Office has indicated that
the agreements submitted by the applicant are adequate for the Change of Zone.The application has
satisfied Chapter 27 of the Weld County Code in regard to water service. An agreement between Little
Thompson Water District and the applicant was included in the application material. However,there
was no letter of intent, availability or discussion of service areas from St. Vrain Sanitation District
included in the application materials. The Weld County Attorney's Office has indicated that the
agreements submitted by the applicant are adequate for the Change of Zone.
Active and passive recreational opportunities are located within this proposed development. While
the Change of Zone application does not elaborate,the Sketch Plan application states that these
opportunities will include such things as sports fields,fitness/recreation center, swimming pool,
trails,beaches,small boat docks,fishing pier,picnic grounds,bike paths,playgrounds,etc. These
varied recreational opportunities must address the sanitation requirements of any area where
people work,live,or congregate. The applicant states that permanent restroom and hand washing
facilities will be placed in close proximity to those public gathering areas where water and sewer
services are available. The applicant also states that restroom facilities will be placed around the
lake as recommended in the Sketch Plan comments. Any swim beach requires compliance with
the water quality standards of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Swimming Pool and Mineral Bath Regulations.
The initial impact plan submitted in the Change of Zone application materials appears to address all
the environmental impacts of Section 27-6-40.
E. Section 27-6-120.6.e-That street or highway facilities providing access to the property are adequate
in functional classification,width,and structural capacity to meet the traffic requirements of the uses of
the proposed PUD Zone District. The Weld County Public Works Department and their consultant,
Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig have reviewed the proposal and are in support of this application with the
conditions outlined in their referral dated November 15,2005 and January 6,2006. The Department of
Public Works had a third memorandum dated January 6, 2006 that states "This memorandum is
supplemental to Peter Schei's memorandum of November 15, 2005. There are items in Mr. Schei's
memorandum required prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing that are not a part of this
review. The following comments pertain to the Planning Commission Change of Zone hearing
scheduled for January 17,2006:
1. The Public Works Department does not concur with the applicant's request for a variance to
reduce 12 foot travel lanes and 8 foot parking lanes to 10 foot and 8 foot lanes respectively
for Local Residential streets. Also, the requirements for sidewalk widths should be
maintained. The MUD standards should be adhered to.
2. On page 54 of the revised traffic study by LSC Transportation Consultants, there is a
suggestion that County Roads 11 and 28 could have chip seal or temporary asphalt paving.
This will not be acceptable. At such time as the traffic generated by the development creates
the need for paving an adequate construction meeting Weld County's design standards will
be required.
The Colorado Department of Transportation provided comment by electronic mail on January 6,2006
with specific concerns that will be address during the Final Plat application process. Stop signs and
street name signs will be required at all intersections and shown on a signing plan on final roadway
plans for each development phase. The current edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD)shall govern the signing plan.
Resolution PZ-1078
Tom Morton/Carma Colorado
Page 6
F. Section 27-6-120.6.f - An off-site road improvements agreement and an on-site improvements
agreement proposal is in compliance with Chapter 24 of the Weld County Code as amended and a
road improvements agreement is complete and has been submitted,if applicable. The Weld County
Public Works Department and Department of Planning Services shall require an Improvements
Agreement in accordance with Section 27-6-120.6.f of the Weld County Code for improvements to St.
Vrain Lakes PUD and all on-site and off-site improvements at the time of Final Plat. Additionally
documentation for the Metropolitan District will be required to be approved for internal road
construction and maintenance.
G. Section 27-6-120.6.g-That there has been compliance with the applicable requirements contained in
Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code regarding overlay districts,commercial mineral deposits,and soil
conditions on the subject site. The Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report—Proposed Mixed-
Use Development, Carma Weld County Site. Weld County Road 30(Highway 66)and Interstate 25-
Weld County, Colorado, dated May 26, 2004, by Terracon (Terracon Project No. 25045122) is
satisfactory.
The Master Drainage Report and Stormwater Management Guide for St. Vrain Lakes PUD
Development,dated December 5,2005,by Kevin Jennings,E.I.T.and Fred Tafoya,P.E.with Carroll&
Lange, Inc. (JN: 3075)is generally acceptable.
The Department of Public Works requires that,for Final Plat approval of each Phase of the St.Vrain
Lakes PUD,the applicant shall submit the appropriate documentation including Final Drainage Report
and Final Construction Drawings and Plans.
H. Section 27-6-120.6.h-Consistency exists between the proposed zone district(s), uses,the specific or
conceptual development guide. The submitted Specific Development Guide does accurately reflect
the performance standards and allowed uses described in the proposed zone district, as described
previously. The Department of Planning Services' is requesting approval of the Board of County
Commissioners for each Filing and Phase given the intensity and size of the proposed development.
This approval recommendation is based upon compliance with Chapter 27 requirements.
The Change of Zone from (A) Agriculture to 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 and(C-
2)General Commercial and continuing Oil and Gas Production Uses in the Mixed Use Development Overlay District(St.
Vrain Lakes PUD) is conditional upon the following:
1. Prior to the Board of County Commissioner's hearing:
A. Weld County's traffic engineering consultant has reviewed LSC's revised traffic study. There are
several items listed in a memorandum from Chris Fasching,from FHU, dated January 6, 2006, that
are not major but need to be resolved. (Department of Public Works)
B. David Bauer of the Weld County Public Works Department has reviewed the geotechnical and
drainage reports and provided comments in a separate memorandum. These comments should
be addressed at the appropriate stages of review as noted in Mr. Bauer's memorandum of January
6, 2006. (Department of Public Works)
C. LSC's traffic study identifies improvements in the surrounding road way system that will be
required as a result of the traffic generated by proposed development. We are in general
agreement with the recommendations and the information supplied in its present form is
acceptable for the Planning Commission hearing. However, because of the extent and complexity
of the improvements, a much more detailed plan, including estimated timing and phasing for the
improvements and a drawing illustrating how the phasing will come together,will be required prior
the County Commissioners hearing. Public Works staff is prepared to advise the applicant on how
this information is to be presented. (Department of Public Works)
Resolution PZ-1078
Tom Morton/Carma Colorado
Page 7
D. On January 6,2006,Weld County staff met with Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
staff regarding the east side frontage road of 1-25. The Department of Public Works was informed
that it is very likely funding will become available for the widening of 1-25 between State Highway
52 and State Highway 66, including the State Highway 66 interchange,within the next few months.
CDOT has completed the design and approval process for the construction,therefore, CDOT is
prepared to begin the construction in 2006. As a part of the widening, CDOT will abandon the east
side frontage road and provide a portion of the funds to construct a Weld County Strategic Road.
CR 9.5 from a point north of the St.Vrain River to State Highway 66. CDOT has indicated that CR
9.5 will have to be completed by the third quarter of 2007 to meet their schedule. This proposed
alignment is reflected in the Change of Zone application materials. Neither the County nor the
applicant anticipated the widening of 1-25 to take place nearly this soon. There will be a great deal
of detail to work out in terms of design,financing and agreements between the County and the
applicant in order to accomplish the completion of CR 9.5 in time. Prior to the Board of County
Commissioners Change of Zone hearing, the applicant should be required to work out an
agreement, in principal,with the Department of Public Works for a financing and construction of
CR 9.5 as well as the other improvements identified in the traffic impact study. (Department of
Public Works)
E. The applicant shall either submit to the Department of Planning Services a copy of an agreement with
the No.3 Outlet Ditch stipulating that the ditch activities have adequately been incorporated into the
design of the site or indicate how the concerns of the ditch company have been addressed.
(Department of Planning Services)
F. The applicant shall either submit to the Department of Planning Services a copy of an agreement with
the Highland Ditch stipulating that the ditch activities have adequately been incorporated into the
design of the site or indicate how the concerns of the ditch company have been addressed.
(Department of Planning Services)
G. The applicant shall either submit to the Department of Planning Services a copy of an agreement with
the Hayseed Ditch stipulating that the ditch activities have adequately been incorporated into the
design of the site or indicate how the concerns of the ditch company have been addressed.
(Department of Planning Services)
H. The applicant shall either submit to the Department of Planning Services a copy of an agreement with
the properties mineral owners and lessees stipulating that the oil and gas activities have adequately
been incorporated into the design of the site or indicate the 400' x 400' and the 800'x 800' drilling
envelope locations per state statute. (Department of Planning Services)
1. The applicant shall submit to the Department of Planning Services a copy of an agreement
with the properties utility owners and lessees stipulating that the existing gas and electric
utility easements and/or activities have adequately been incorporated into the design of the
site. (Department of Planning Services)
2. The applicant shall submit to the Department of Planning Services a copy of an agreement
with St.Vrain Sanitation District stipulating the 720 acres currently not included in the district
have been annexed and all lands associated with this proposed development incorporated
into the design of the site. (Department of Planning Services)
3. The applicant shall submit to the Department of Planning Services written evidence that the
12 wetlands on the site, 7 which are likely to be jurisdictional (so any modifications would
require a COE 404 permit, are in compliance with all permits required by the Corps of
Engineers and the Best Management Practices (BMPs) adopted by Weld County for the
County Storm water program. (Department of Planning Services)
The Department of Public Works has identified several issues that require addressing. They are
identified in no particular order of importance and are as follows:
Resolution PZ-1078
Tom Morton/Carma Colorado
Page 8
1. Public Works has reviewed drawings titled:Detailed Change of Zone Plan for St.Vrain Lakes
PUD dated August 2005, by DTJ Design, Inc and offers the following comments:
A. The internal local road right-of-way shall be sixty(60)feet in width including cul-de-
sacs with a sixty-five (65) foot radius, and dedicated to the public. The typical
roadway section of interior roadway shall be shown as two 12-foot paved lanes with
8-foot paved parking lanes on the Change of Zone plat. The cul-de-sac edge of
pavement radius shall be fifty(50)feet. The MUD criteria require curb,gutter and
sidewalk. (Department of Public Works)
B. Any internal collector road right-of-way shall be dedicated to the public. The typical
roadway section of interior roadway shall be shown as two 12-foot paved lanes(with
turn lanes as needed)with 6-foot bike lanes on the Change of Zone plat. The MUD
criteria require curb,gutter and sidewalk. (Department of Public Works)
C. For approval of the Final Plat, the applicant must obtain FEMA approval of the
CLOMR related to this development site. The area affected by the proposed
CLOMR includes the proposed County Road 9.5 alignment and the St. Vrain
Sanitation District sewer (pipe) project proposed to extend across the southern
parcel(s). (Department of Public Works)
D. Preliminary designs should show on-site flows resulting from the 100-year storm
falling on the fully-developed site are detained in onsite ponds designed to release
at the rate of the 5-year storm falling on the un-developed site (5-year historic
event), and offsite flows are conveyed through the St.Vrain Lakes PUD site.
1. Provide description of the interaction of underdrain system discharges with
storm drainage and proposed water quality treatment features (swales,
ponds,the St.Vrain River).
2. Demonstrate that ALL of the site runoff receives water quality treatment.
(Department of Public Works)
E. The Traffic Impact Analysis — St. Vrain Lakes - Weld County, Colorado, dated
August 01,2005, by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.,sealed by Benjamin T.
Waldman, P.E. has been reviewed for the proposed development and the
Department of Public Works offers the following comments:
1. The applicant's engineer, Ben Waldman, P.E., with LSC Transportation
Consultants has submitted a letter from Colorado Department of
Transportation dated October 26,2005 by Gloria Hice-Idler stating that full
movement access would be allowed onto State Highway 66 at the CR 11
intersection and the CR 13 intersection. An additional full movement
access would be considered onto State Highway 66 if placed a half-mile
between CR 11 and CR 13. The letter states the third full movement
access would be considered, but it is not clear if it has been granted by
CDOT. The applicant shall clarify this access point with CDOT in writing
and provide Public Works with a copy of CDOT's approval of the proposed
access. (Department of Public Works)
Resolution PZ-1078
Tom Morton/Carma Colorado
Page 9
•
2. Public Works typically requires that access points to an arterial road be
limited to half-mile intervals. The County will consider quarter-mile access
points if safety issues,roadway capacity and the level of service(LOS)for
CR 9.5 (arterial)are not compromised. Public Works will finalize access
points for the proposed development with the applicant at the time of final
plat as the final traffic impact study will be needed for evaluation of
locations. (Department of Public Works)
2. Prior to recording the Change of Zone plat:
A. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements(concerns)of Weld County Sheriffs Office,as
stated in the referral response dated October 28,2005. Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing
to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall address the requirements(concerns)of the No.3 Outlet Ditch and the Highland
Ditch Company,as stated in the application correspondence dated June 10,2005 and May 24,2005
respectively. Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of
Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
C. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements(concerns)of the Town of Mead,as stated in
the referral response dated January 5, 2006. Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing to the
Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
D. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements(concerns)of the Town of Firestone,as stated
in the referral response dated January 11.2006. Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing to the
Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
E. The applicant shall address the requirements (concerns)of the St. Vrain Valley School District, as
stated in the referral response dated November 15, 2005. Evidence of such shall be submitted in
writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
F. The applicant shall address the requirements(concerns)of the St.Vrain Sanitation District,as stated
in the Agreement for the Provision of Sanitary Sewer Service dated July 6, 2005. Evidence of such
shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of
Planning Services)
G. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements(concerns)of the Longmont Soil Conservation
District, as stated in the referral response dated November 4, 2005. Evidence of such shall be
submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning
Services)
H. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements(concerns)of the Office of the State Engineer,
as stated in the referral response dated October 31, 2005. Evidence of such shall be submitted in
writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements(concerns)of the State of Colorado Division
of Wildlife, as stated in the referral response dated November 8, 2005. Evidence of such shall be
submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning
Services)
J. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements (concerns) of the Mountain View Fire
Protection District,as stated in the referral response dated November 3,2005. Evidence of such shall
be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning
Services)
Resolution PZ-1078
Tom Morton/Carma Colorado
Page 10
K. The applicant shall address the requirements(concerns)of Department of Public Works,as stated in
the referral response dated November 15, 2005 and January 6, 2006. Evidence of such shall be
submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning
Services)
L. The applicant shall address the requirements (concerns) of Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig, private
consultant to the Department of Public Works,as stated in the referral response dated November 15,
2005 and electronic mail comments of January 6,2006. Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing
to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
M. The applicant shall address the requirements (concerns) of Department of Public Health and
Environment,as stated in the referral response dated November 23,2006. Evidence of such shall be
submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning
Services)
N. The applicant shall address the requirements (concerns) of Department of Building Inspection, as
stated in the referral response dated November 1, 2005. Evidence of such shall be submitted in
writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
O. The applicant shall be required to provide written and graphic evidence from the St Vrain School
District and Post Office of jurisdiction,that the proposed mailbox location and bus shelter plan meets
their design standards and delivery requirements for the mailbox facility and the proposed school drop
off/pick up location shall be approved by the School District. Written evidence of compliance with
their standards and requirements shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. Further,
evidence shall be provided that each facility meets the intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) for access. The Department of Building Inspection shall review the proposed structure for
compliance with all applicable codes as warranted. Evidence of approval shall be submitted to the
Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
P. The applicant shall provide the Department of Planning Services with a sign plan that conforms with
Chapters 23, 26 and 27 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
Q. The applicant shall address the requirements (concerns)of Colorado Department of
Transportation, as stated in the referral response dated October 26,2005, October 27,2005, and
January 6, 2006. Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of
Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services, Department of Public Works and the
Colorado Department of Transportation)
R. The applicant shall provide evidence from the Division of Minerals and Geology stipulating that the
amended reclamation activities have adequately been addressed and are in conformance with the
submitted application and supporting documents. (Department of Planning Services)
S. The applicant shall submit and be conditionally approved for all signs associated with this
development,including dimension,location,illumination and material type. (Department of Planning
Services)
T. The plat shall be amended to include the following:
1. All pages of the plat shall be labeled PZ-1078. (Department of Planning Services)
2. The applicant shall adhere to the plat requirements in preparation of the Change of Zone plat
per Section 23-2-690 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
3. The Weld County's Right to Farm shall be placed on the plat, Appendix 22-E of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
4. The applicant shall contact the Colorado Department of Transportation regarding the future
right-of-way for State Highway 66 and delineated it as existing and future right-of-way for
Resolution PZ-1078
Tom Morton/Carma Colorado
Page 11
future expansion of State Highway 66 on the plat. (Department of Planning Services)
5. CR 13 is classified by the County(Weld County Roadway Classification Plan,June 2002)as
a major corridor-arterial road(adjacent to the east of this development)and requires a 140-
foot right-of-way. The applicant shall verify the existing right-of-way and the documents
creating the right-of-way shall be noted on the change of zone plat. If the right-of-way cannot
be verified, it will be dedicated. This road is maintained by Weld County. (Department of
Public Works)
6. CR 9.5 is classified by the County (Weld County 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study, September
2003)as a major arterial road(adjacent to the west of this development)and requires a 140-
foot right-of-way. The applicant shall verify the existing right-of-way and the documents
creating the right-of-way shall be noted on the change of zone plat. If the right-of-way cannot
be verified, it will be dedicated. This road is maintained by Weld County. (Department of
Public Works)
7. CR 28 is classified by the County (1-25 Mixed Use Development Area Structural Plan —
Map 2.2 Structural Transportation Network, July 2004) as a minor arterial road within this
development and requires a 110-foot right-of-way. The applicant shall verify the existing
right-of-way and the documents creating the right-of-way shall be noted on the change of
zone plat. if the right-of-way cannot be verified,it will be dedicated.This road is maintained
by Weld County. (Department of Public Works)
8. CR 11 has been annexed by the Town of Mead. The applicant shall verify the existing right-
of-way and the documents creating the right-of-way shall be noted on the change of zone
plat. If the right-of-way cannot be verified,it will be dedicated. This road is maintained by the
Town of Mead. (Department of Public Works)
9. The internal local roadway right-of-way shall be 60-feet in width including cul-de-sacs with a
65-foot radius and dedicated to the public. The internal collector roadway right-of-way shall
be 80-feet in width and dedicated to the public. (Department of Public Works)
10. The No.3 Ditch,the Highland Ditch and the Hayeed Ditch must be appropriately labeled and
dimensioned including setbacks. (Department of Public Works)
11. The plat shall delineate the 400' x 400' and the 800' x 800' Oil and Gas drilling envelope
locations per state statute, if applicable. (Department of Planning Services)
2. The Change of Zone is conditional upon the following and that each shall be placed on the Change of Zone plat
as notes prior to recording:
A. The site specific development plan is for a Change of Zone from (A) Agriculture to 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 (St. Vrain
Lakes PUD)as indicated in the application materials on file in the Department of Planning Services
and subject and governed by the Conditions of Approval stated hereon and all applicable Weld
County Regulations. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The Bulk Standards Requirement as delineated in Section 23-3-160,Table 23.4,for R-1,R-2,R-3,R-4
Zone Districts. (Department of Planning Services)
C. The Open Space Lots are non-buildable for residential structures or structures providing habitable
space. (Department of Planning Services)
D. Water service shall be obtained from the Little Thompson Water District.(Department of Public Health
and Environment)
•
Resolution PZ-1078
Tom Morton/Carma Colorado
Page 13
E. Sewer service shall be obtained from the St.Vrain Sanitation District. (Department of Public Health
and Environment)
F. Permanent restroom and hand washing facilities shall be provided within easy access of all public
gathering areas. At a minimum permanent, vaulted restroom facilities restroom facilities shall be
placed around the lake. A vault facility similar to a rest area or park service facility is recommended.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
G. The recreational uses on the lakes will be subject to the water quality standards of the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment Swimming Pool and Mineral Bath Regulations.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
H. A CDPHE construction storm water discharge permit will be required for a development/redevelopment
/construction site where a contiguous or non-contiguous land disturbance is greater than or equal to
one acre in area. Contact the Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public
Health and the Environment at www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/PermitsUnit for more information.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
During development of the site,all land disturbances shall be conducted so that nuisance conditions
are not created. If dust emissions create nuisance conditions, at the request of the Weld County
Health Department, a fugitive dust control plan must be submitted. (Department of Public Health
and Environment)
J. In accordance with the Regulations of the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission any development
that disturbs more than 5 acres of land must incorporate all available and practical methods that are
technologically feasible and economically reasonable in order to minimize dust emissions.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
K. If land development creates more than a 25-acre contiguous disturbance, or exceeds 6 months in
duration, the responsible party shall prepare a fugitive dust control plan, submit an air pollution
emissions notice, and apply for a permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
L. "Weld County's Right to Farm"statement as provided in Appendix 22-E of the Weld County Code shall
be recognized at all times. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
M. There are Confined Animal Feeding Operations in close proximity to this development. Residents
should be made aware that there may be traffic,noise,flies and odors associated with these activities.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
N. A Metropolitan District shall be established prior to the sale of any lot. The District is responsible for
liability insurance,taxes and maintenance of open space,streets,private utilities and other facilities.
Open space restrictions are permanent. (Department of Planning Services)
O. A Homeowner's Association shall be established prior to the sale of any lot. Membership in the
Association is mandatory for each parcel owner. (Department of Planning Services)
P. The Southwestern Weld County Law Enforcement District shall be established prior to the sale of any
lot. (Department of Planning Services)
Q. Intersection sight distance triangles at the development entrance will be required. All landscaping
within the triangles must be less then 3 1/2 feet in height a maturity. (Department of Public Works)
R. All signs including entrance signs shall require building permits. Signs shall adhere to the approved
sign plan. (Department of Planning Services)
S. Installation of utilities shall comply with Section 24-9-10 of the Weld County Code and requirements of
the service providers. (Department of Planning Services)
T. No grading permits will be issued for this project with out submission and Weld County approval of
erosion control and sediment control plans prepared,stamped and signed by a professional engineer
Resolution PZ-1078
Tom Morton/Carma Colorado
Page 14
licensed to practice in Colorado. The applicant is notified that land disturbance on one portion of this
site may require construction of temporary or permanent erosion control and sediment control best
management practices on other portions of the site. (Department of Public Works)
U. Building permits shall be obtained prior to grading or the construction of any building or structure.
Building permits are also required for signs and structures such as bus shelters if
provided. (Department of Building Inspection)
V. A plan review is required for each building for which a building permit is required. Plans shall include a
floor plan. Commercial building plans shall bear the wet stamp of a Colorado registered Architect or
Engineer. Two complete sets of plans are required when applying for each permit. Commercial
building plans require a Code Analysis Data Sheet, provided by the Department of Building
Department. Residential building plans may be required to bear the wet stamp of a Colorado
registered architect or engineer. (Department of Building Inspection)
W. Buildings shall conform to the requirements of the Codes adopted by Weld County at the time of
permit application. Current adopted codes include the 2003 International Residential Code; 2003
International Building code;2003 International Mechanical Code;2003 International Plumbing code;
2003 International Fuel Gas Code;2002 National Electrical Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County
Code. (Department of Building Inspection)
X. Each residential building will require an engineered foundation based on a site-specific geo-technical
report or an "open hole" inspection conducted by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer.
Engineered foundations shall be designed by a Colorado Professional Engineer registered in the State
of Colorado. (Department of Building Inspection)
Y. Fire resistance of walls and openings, construction requirements, maximum building height and
allowable areas will be reviewed at the plan review. Setback and offset distances shall be determined
by the Weld County Code. (Department of Building Inspection)
Z. Building height shall be measured in accordance with the 2003 International Building Code for the
purpose of determining the maximum building size and height for various uses and types of
construction and to determine compliance with the Bulk requirements from Chapter 23 of the Weld
County Code. Building height shall be measured in accordance with Chapter 23 of the Weld County
Code to determine compliance with offset and setback requirements. Offset and setbacks are
measured from the farthest projection from the building,a minimum of ten feet front yard setback as
requested by the applicant for side loaded and alley loaded single family residences. Property lines
shall be clearly identified and all property pins shall be staked prior to the first site inspection.
(Department of Building Inspection and Department of Planning Services)
AA. The property owner shall be responsible for compiling with the Performance Standards of Chapter 27,
Article II and Article VIII, of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
AB. Personnel from Weld County Government shall be granted access onto the property at any
reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the
Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County regulations. (Department of
Planning Services)
AC. The site shall maintain compliance at all times with the requirements of the Weld County Departments
of Public Works, Public Health and the Environment, and Planning Services, and adopted Weld
County Code and Policies. (Department of Planning Services)
AD. The applicant shall comply with Section 27-8-50 Weld County Code, as follows: Failure to submit a
Planned Unit Development Final Plan- If a PUD Final Plan application is not submitted within
Resolution PZ-1078
Tom Morton/Carma Colorado
Page 15
three (3) years of the date of the approval of the PUD Zone District, the Board of County
Commissioners shall require the landowner to appear before it and present evidence substantiating
that the PUD project has not been abandoned and that the applicant possesses the willingness and
ability to continue with the submission of the PUD Final Plan. The Board may extend the date for the
submission of the PUD Final Plan application and shall annually require the applicant to demonstrate
that the PUD has not been abandoned. If the Board determines that conditions or statements made
supporting the original approval of the PUD Zone District have changed or that the landowner cannot
implement the PUD Final Plan,the Board of County Commissioners may,at a public hearing revoke
the PUD Zone District and order the recorded PUD Zone District reverted to the original Zone District.
(Department of Planning Services)
AE. The PUD Final Plan shall comply with all regulations and requirements of Chapter 27 of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
AF. The Change of Zone plat map shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services'for recording
within thirty(30)days of approval by the Board of County Commissioners.With the Change of Zone
plat map, the applicant shall submit a digital file of all drawings associated with the Change of Zone
application. Acceptable CAD formats are.dwg, .dxf,and.dgn(Microstation); acceptable GIS formats
are.shp(Shape Files),Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files format type is.e00. The preferred
format for Images is .tif(Group 4) ...(Group 6 is not acceptable). (Department of Planning Services)
AG. In accordance with Weld County Code Ordinance 2005-7 approved June 1, 2005, should the plat
not be recorded within the required thirty(30)days from the date the Board of County
Commissioners resolution a$50.00 recording continuance charge may be added for each
additional 3 month period. (Department of Planning Services)
3. At the time of Final Plan submission:
A. Easements shall be shown in accordance with County standards and/or Utility Board
recommendations, and dimensioned on the final plat. Easements shall follow rear and side lot lines
and shall have minimum total width of twenty (20)feet apportioned equally on abutting properties.
Where front line easements are required, a minimum of fifteen(15)feet shall be allocated as a utility
easement. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall submit to the Department of Planning Services a copy of the Restrictive
Covenants,the Metropolitan District,the Law Enforcement Authority and Home Owners Association
Incorporation paperwork for St.Vrain Lakes PUD for review by the Weld County Attorney's Office. Any
changes requested by the Weld County Attorney's Office shall be incorporated. (Department of
Planning Services)
C. The applicant shall provide an Improvements Agreement for both Public and Private Improvements
according to Policy Regarding Collateral for Improvements. This agreement must be reviewed by the
Department of Public Works,the Department of Planning Services and shall be approved by the Board
of County Commissioners. (Departments of Planning Services and Public Works)
D. The applicant shall submit to Public Works a stamped, signed and dated final plat drawings and
roadway/construction and grading plan drawings for review. Construction details must be included.
(Department of Public Works)
E. Stop signs and street name signs will be required at all intersections and shown on the final
roadway construction plans. (Department of Public Works)
F. The applicant shall submit a final drainage report stamped, signed and dated by a professional
engineer licensed in the State Colorado. The 5-year storm and 100-year storm drainage studies shall
take into consideration off-site flows both entering and leaving the development.Increased runoff due
to development will require detention of the 100-year storm developed condition while releasing the 5-
year storm existing condition. (Department of Public Works)
Resolution PZ-1078
Tom Morton/Carma Colorado
Page 16
G. Final grading, drainage construction, erosion and sediment control plans, and water quality
control plans (conforming to the drainage report) stamped, signed and dated by a professional
engineer licensed in the State of Colorado shall be submitted for review and approval.
(Department of Public Works)
H. Final drainage construction and erosion control plans (conforming to the drainage report)stamped,
signed and dated by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado. (Department of Public
Works)
The applicant shall submit a deed for recording with the Final Plat to the Department of
Planning Services that the open space and mineral rights are deeded to the Metropolitan
District. (Department of Planning Services)
J. The applicant shall provide an Open Space / Landscape Plan per Section 24-3-50.G of the Weld
County Code for review and approval. (Department of Planning Services)
K. The applicant shall provide additional information pertaining to the plant materials,including common,
botanical and species names,size at installation and any additional information deemed necessary,if
any. (Department of Planning Services)
L. The applicant shall address the on-site landscape treatment,including the proposed uses associated
with the agricultural outlot. (Department of Planning Services)
M. The applicant shall submit a re-vegetation plan of all disturbed areas disturbed areas during
construction. The plan shall include information regarding plant type, installation methods and
maintenance. (Department of Planning Services)
N. The applicant shall demonstrate how the proposed plant material will be watered. Further, the
applicant shall provide evidence that the tap from Little Thompson Water District is permitted to
provide irrigation water to the landscaped areas. (Department of Planning Services)
O. The applicant shall submit a time frame for construction in accordance to Section 27-2-200 of the
Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
P. The Weld County Building Technician will provide addresses at the time of Final Plat. The subdivision
street name and lot addresses shall be submitted to the Mountain View Fire Protection District, the
Weld County Sheriffs Office,Ambulance provider,and the Post Office for review.Written evidence of
approval shall be submitted to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of
Planning Services)
Q. Prior to recording the Final Plat the applicant shall present a unanimous petition of all
landowners and residents of the St.Vrain Lakes PUD registered to vote in the State of Colorado thus
qualifying the Development for inclusion into the Southwest Weld County Law Enforcement Authority
(SWCLEA)(if it has been created)or for creation of a separate Law Enforcement Authority(LEA)(if
it was not created).A LEA is a taxing unit with a maximum mill levy of 7 mills created for the purpose
of providing additional law enforcement by the county sheriff to the residents of the developed or
developing unincorporated Weld County.The revenues would be available initially to provide directed
patrols and eventually to provide additional deputies to carry out those activities within the LEA. This
is intended to offset the demand for law enforcement generated by increased population densities.
(Department of Planning Services)
R. The Final Construction plans must legibly show sufficient detail at an appropriate scale to see
proposed finished floor elevations in relation to the 100-year maximum water surface elevations in
Resolution PZ-1078
Tom Morton/Carma Colorado
Page 17
the adjacent channels and swales. (Department of Public Works)
S. As-Built survey data and plans of all drainage facilities including all storm drain pipes, headwalls,
inlets, swales, detention pond outlet structures giving locations and elevations of key features shall
be submitted in digital format to Weld County upon completion and final acceptance by the
County. (Department of Public Works)
T. The applicant shall submit a digital file of all drawings associated with the Final Plan application.
Acceptable CAD formats are .dwg, .dxf, and .dgn (Microstation); acceptable GIS formats are .shp
(Shape Files),Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files format type is .e00. The preferred
format for Images is .tif(Group 4) ... (Group 6 is not acceptable). (Department of Planning
Services)
4. Prior to construction:
A. Stop signs and street name signs will be required at all intersections. (Department of Public Works)
B. Prior to the commencement of construction activities,stormwater erosion control and sediment control
best management practices shall be in place in accordance with approved permits, plans, Weld
County Code,and Urban Drainage Standards. Silt fences shall be maintained on the down gradient
portion of the site during all phases of the site construction. (Department of Public Works)
C. The applicant shall provide a letter on letterhead from the Mountain View Fire Protection District
stating that all requirements have been met for each Filing and/or Phase of this development.
(Department of Public Works, Department of Planning Services)
Motion seconded by Tom Holton.
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
Bruce Fitzgerald
Doug Ochsner
Chad Auer
James Welch
Tom Holton
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
Paul Branham
The Chair declares the resolution passed and orders that a certified copy be placed in the file of this case to serve
as a permanent record of these proceedings.
Resolution PZ-1078
Tom Morton/Carma Colorado
Page 19
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Donita May, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the above and
foregoing resolution is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County, Colorado, adopted
on February 16, 2006.
Dated the 16th of February, 2006.1>51,02X,30,
Donita May
Secretary
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Thursday, February 16,2006
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Thursday,February 16,2006,in the Weld County
Department of Planning Services, Hearing Room,918 10`"Street,Greeley,Colorado. The meeting was called to order
by Chair, Bruce Fitzgerald, at 10 a.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller Present
Erich Ehrlich Present
Roy Spitzer Present
James Welch Present
Bruce Fitzgerald Present
Chad Auer Absent
Doug Ochsner Absent
Tom Holton Present
Paul Branham Present
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services; Drew Scheltinga, Peter Schei, David
Bauer,and Donald Carroll,Department of Public Works;Pam Smith,Department of Public Health and Environment;Lee
Morrison, County Attorney.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1078
APPLICANT: Tom Morton
PLANNER: Klm Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parts of Sections 25, 35, and 36,T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado
REQUEST: PUD Change of Zone from (A)Agriculture to 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 and (C-2) General Commercial and continuing Oil and Gas
__. Production Uses in the Mixed Use Development Overlay District(St.
Vrain Lakes PUD)
LOCATION: Multiple parcels generally located East of and adjacent to thel-25
Frontage Road, South of and adjacent to State Highway 66;west of and
adjacent to CR 13 and north of and adjacent to St. Vrain River.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, said this case was continued from the January 17, 2006 Planning
Commission Hearing at the request of the Planning Commission.
Carma Colorado c/o Tom Morton and Tyler Packard applied for a request of Change of Zone from(A)Agriculture to 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 to be identified as the St. Vrain Lakes PUD, comprising of
approximately 1313 acres. The application materials state there would be approximately 4800 to 5131 residential lots
with an average lot size of 7500 SF to 8000 SF. There are also three commercial development areas(40 acres)and a
Municipal development area (22 acres), three school sites and 334 acres of open space.
The proposed St. Vrain Lakes PUD is located on multiple parcels generally located east of and adjacent to the 1-25
Frontage Road, south of and adjacent to State Highway 66;west of and adjacent to County Road 13 and north of and
adjacent to the St.Vrain River. Surrounding properties are generally agricultural. Sekich Commercial Business Park,the
proposed Meadow Ridge Residential/Commercial PUD,and the Grand View Estates PUD are located to the north of the
proposed St Vrain Lakes PUD north of the site across State Highway 66. The Corporate City Limits of the Town of Mead
are adjacent to the west,agricultural lands are to the east,including the Aurora Organic Dairy,approximately one mile to
the east of County Road 13,the Southwest Service Center is to the south,and the Pelican Shores PUD is located to the
southeast, south of the St.Vrain River.
The site is designated as residential with commercial and areas of limiting site factors designation on the Amended 1-25
Mixed Use Development Area Structural Plan, Map 2.1 Structural Land Use Map, amended in June, 2005. The
neighborhood center designation is also present within the boundary of this proposed development.
The property slopes slightly to the south of State Highway 66 towards County Road 28. A greater slope is evident south H
of County Road 28 approximately 2000 feet to the top of the bluff before dropping into the river valley. All lands m
associated with this proposal area are under agricultural production with the river valley area being partof a former grave
mine. (USR-489, '82; USR-636, '84; USR-907, '89) K CD 14
The signs announcing the previous Planning Commission hearing were posted December 31,2005 by Planning Staff and
were evidenced by photograph and affidavit. As this hearing was date specific,no additional signs were required to be
posted.
Staff comments were derived from the referral agencies responses and the application materials.
The proposed PUD is located within the Mixed Use Development(MUD)area,and within the three mile Municipal referral
area with the Towns of Mead, Firestone, and Frederick. The Town of Mead requests that this development not be
approved as an unincorporated project and the applicants should be required to petition either the Town of Mead or the
Town of Firestone for annexation. In addition,the Town of Mead states that there are too many as yet unresolved issues,
including road networks, how the residents of this project would receive services, et cetera. Their entire referral is
outlined on page 8,Section C of the staff comments. The Town of Frederick has indicated that they reviewed the request
and found no conflicts with their interests. The Town of Firestone in their referral dated January 11, 2006 stated
residential densities appeared to be significantly higher than a typical residential development in Firestone. Having such
a high single family detached residential density could negatively impact development quality and public safety.Their
entire referral is also outlined on page 8,Section C of the staff comments. It is important to note that there are five land
tracts internal to this project not yet a part of this development that would access onto roads constructed for the
development. Four of the parcels have single family residences and outbuildings and the fifth parcel is a substation for
United Power.
The project offered an opportunity to accommodate significant transportation improvements in the area.
County Road 13, State Highway 66 and the 1-25 Frontage Road are the paved roads in the vicinity of this proposed
development. The development's proposed site layout would provide a network of local,collector and arterial classified
streets. County Road 13 and County Road 9.5 are classified as Major Arterial Roads with significant improvements.
County Road 28 is classified as a Minor Arterial Road which would also be significantly improved. These roads would be
maintained by Weld County.
County Road 11 and County Road 28 west of County Road 11 have been annexed by the Town of Mead, therefore,
coordination of roadway improvements meeting MUD criterion,number of access points and signalization requirements
will be coordinated with the Town of Mead.
State Highway 66 has been annexed by the Town of Mead,however,the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT)
maintains this segment of roadway adjacent to this development. CDOT in their electronic referral dated October 26,
2005 stated that they would allow full movement access to State Highway 66 at the existing County Road 11 and County
Road 13 intersections.
It is important to note that infrastructural improvements are slated for 1-25(Northbound). It is anticipated funding would
become available early was year. When funding becomes available, CDOT is prepared to begin the construction in
2006. As a part of the widening, CDOT will abandon the east side frontage road and provide a portion of the funds to
construct the Weld County Strategic Road 9.5 from a point north of the St. Vrain River to State Highway 66.
The Colorado Department of Transportation in their electronic referral dated January 6,2006 state they are not in support
of a direct access(right-in/right-out)off of State Highway 66. Further,it was CDOT's position that they are not opposed
to allowing additional access, however,other access would also be considered provided the criteria stated in the State
Highway Access Code could be met. Review of these considerations will be undertaken in Filings and Phases at time of
Final Plat review.
The applicant has proposed a variance to the local residential street width and cul-de-sac dimension. The right-of-way
remains at 60 feet,however the flow line to flow line dimension is proposed at 32 feet,with the MUD standard road cross
section set at 40 feet. The Department of Public Works is available to further discuss this issue at the conclusion of my
comments.
A greenway/trail system is designed to connect the various components of the development for pedestrian and bicycle
traffic as well as provide recreational opportunities.
The applicant has proposed to set their own unique standards with respect to certain bulk requirements rather than follow
the default requirements as set out in the Weld County Code for the residential component, and Section 23-3-250
Performance Standard of the Commercial Zone District. The Department of Planning Services is not in support of this
requested variance.
The applicant has proposed an average proto-typical Single Family Residential lot size of 7500-8000 SF.
For purposes of discussion, development recently reviewed by this Board, and other developments in the MUD, the
average lot size for Adler PUD is 5500 SF,for the Elms at Meadow Vale PUD 10200 SF,for The Farms PUD,45000 SF,
for Pelican Shores PUD 54450 SF;for Lifebridge PUD 8000 SF; and for Idaho Creek, 2800 SF.
Property with the zone district designation of R-2, R-3, R-4, C-1 and C-2 development in a PUD requires a Site Plan
Review application as defined in Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code. The building height will be determined by
Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code.
The proposed PUD will be serviced by Little Thompson Water District for potable water and fire protection requirements
and St. Vrain Sanitation District will handle the effluent flow. Agreements have been secured and approved by the
County Attorney's Office.
•
Nineteen referral agencies reviewed this case, four referral agencies had no comments and fourteen responded
favorably or included conditions that have been addressed through development standards and conditions of approval
and one referral agency (Mead) requested that the applicant's annex into either their municipality or into an adjacent
municipality, in this case,the Town of Firestone.
Two Letters were received during the course of continuance. The first is a letter from Brian McCormick of Frederick and
the second is an electronic mail from Virginia Shaw. No letters were received prior to mailing of Planning Commission
packets and no surrounding property owners have contacted us,nor have we received any telephone calls regarding this
case.
The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of PZ-1078 for Carma Colorado for the St.Vrain Lakes
PUD with the attached conditions of approval and development standards.
The Chair asked Mr. Ogle how close this development is to the city limits of Firestone. Mr. Ogle responded that it was
about a mile south.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Ogle to clarify CDOT comments in reference to right in and right out access to HWY 66. Mr. Ogle
replied CDOT is allowing full movement on CR 13 and CR 11 left and right. If they have an intermediate access point,
which is half way between the two, it is his recollection that it is a right in right out. Mr. Miller also asked about the
reference made to a county subdivision having 2800 SF lots and if they are single family homes. Mr.Ogle said they are.
Mr. Branham asked about detailed site sketches they have received for other applications,which included the alignment
of streets,location of commercial and residential areas et cetra,and wondered why they were not given such information
in this case. Mr.Ogle said it was not different from other applications and pointed out the master plan maps placed in the
hearing room for their reference. Mr. Ogle added that this is the only time the Planning Commission members will see
this application as all future requests for development filings in the MUD will go directly to the Board of County
Commissioners for final approval.
Mr. Holton asked about why they were hearing Pioneer's submittals numerous times and were only getting this
application once. Mr. Ogle said he believed Pioneer initially presented their service plan to the Planning Commission,
would present their metro district proposal next,and would finish with the overall master plan. Mr.Holton asked if there
was a metro district plan in this application as well as an LEA. Mr. Ogle said he would defer to Mr. Morrison,who said
Pioneer is requiring a complete Comprehensive Plan amendment before it can proceed and that is probably the main
reason Pioneer will appear before the Planning Commission more frequently,
The Chair asked if CDOT has plans to widen the southbound lanes when they widen the northbound lanes. Mr.Schei,
Department of Public Works, said it is his understanding both north and southbound lanes will be expanded when the
interstate is expanded.
Pam Smith,Department of Public Health and Environment,said she has talked with Scott Hesson regarding recreational
activities on the lakes, ball parks, and a fitness and recreation center with a pool for which St. Vrain Lakes is offering
memberships for community members to purchase. The two larger neighborhood parks will have restroom facilities,
though the smaller pocket parks,of which there are four,will not initially provide restroom facilities. The development will
include a trail system,fishing docks,a swim beach,etc. The neighborhoods will have internal access to the commercial
components. Ms.Smith said that concerning smart growth aspects in this development,her department likes what they
see in this application.
Tom Morton,senior vice president of CARMA,9110 E. Nichols Avenue,Suite 180,Centennial,CO 80112,shared slides
and provided background history of his company. Mr.Morton said they began forty eight years ago as a co-op of builders
in Calgary, Alberta, Canada and eventually became a land development company, with operations across the United
States and Canada. They have built over seventy eight master plan communities, almost all of which are over one
thousand acres in size.Mr.Morton spoke about the specific communities they have built in Colorado and the similarities
between this development(St.Vrain Lakes,which will be marketed as Bayshore)and Tallyn's Reach in the Denver area
and presented information on their developments in Englewood,Aurora and Brighton. Mr.Morton said CARMA believes
in building their amenities and municipal services on the front end of the project and they stay in those communities as
long as it takes.
Tyler Packard,representing CARMA,9110 E. Nichols Avenue,Suite 180,Centennial,CO 80112,said they first started
this project three years ago in April, 2003 when they contacted land owners in the area and that CARMA looks for
locations that are able to provide the services,roads,amenities etc for this kind of a development. Mr.Packard said the
estimated build out for this project is fifteen to twenty years. He emphasized the lakes are a very big part of this
development and this community will include a true dual water system. Potable water is one tap and irrigation water will
be another tap and they are working with the Little Thompson Water District to reclaim as much water as possible. Mr.
Packard said water is the number one amenity across the United States consistently on a year-to-year basis and CARMA
plans to grade over one million yards of dirt around the lakes including the creation of islands for wildlife habitat. They
have two pools planned for the recreation areas including a complete potable water swimming beach. They have
included 334 acres,over twenty five percent of the total area,in open space which will include;two recreation centers;a
trail system that neighbors the St.Vrain Trail system;commercial development for the residents;three school sites within
the community to include two elementary and a middle school;a municipal center for fire and police substations,a library
and a YMCA;four major entries into the development as well as some minor entries;and street and edge treatments.
There will be four phases to the project and each area will have something unique to their neighborhood that makes them
a special part of the entire community. They offer many different lot sizes and home styles to meet the needs of the
community members and plan sixty one per cent of the residences to be single family detached with a lower percentage
to be town homes and multi-family residences. Mr. Packard said roadway impacts have been addressed although
CARMA has requested two variances: alternate roadway sections for local residential roadways and ten foot travel lanes
rather than twelve foot lanes the Weld County Local Residential section calls for. CARMA has also requested two
variances to the bulk standard requirements: changes in minimum lot sizes and setbacks from the sidewalk. Mr.
Packard closed by emphasizing CARMA's primary goal is to provide a quality development.
Mr. Miller asked what percentage of 3300 SF lots they were proposing. Mr. Packard said that would be determined by
market conditions so he could not give a specific number at the present time. Mr. Miller then asked what percentage of
lots in the Brighton development are of this size. Mr.Packard replied it was probably forty percent. Mr.Miller asked how
close to the lot lines they planned to build. Mr. Packard said eleven feet from the back property line and side and back
setbacks would follow the county guidelines. Mr. Miller asked about the Division of Wildlife request for no motorized
boats on the lake. Mr.Packard said there would be no motorized boats on the lakes. Mr. Miller then questioned the ten
foot width of the travel lane in each direction on the local residential streets. Mr.Packard replied that visual cues would
slow traffic down and that narrower streets also tend to slow traffic down.
Mr.Schei said Public Works would suggest the Board of County Commissioners follow the county standard of two twelve
foot paved lanes and two eight foot parking lanes.
Mr. Miller said he felt more comfortable with one or the other rather than taking two feet off the traffic lanes and two feet
off the parking lanes.
Mr.Branham asked for clarification regarding traffic lane reduction from twelve to ten and parking reduction from eight to
six and if CARMA's request was for both. Mr. Schei responded that it was for both.
Mr. Scheltinga said from Public Work's standpoint, this is a major reduction when taking two feet off of driving and
parking areas as this is a very high density development and there are other ways to deal with slowing traffic including
speed bumps and round-abouts. Mr.Scheltinga said narrowing down this much is too much and there are other ways to
slow down traffic rather than narrowing the traffic lanes. Mr. Branham asked Mr. Scheltinga if Public Works would be
comfortable with the ten foot lane and the eight foot parking and what were Greeley's standards. Mr. Scheltinga said
Public Works would be comfortable with that and he did not know what Greeley's residential standard is but it is quite a
bit wider than a ten foot lane.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. As no one
wished to speak,the public portion was closed.
The Chair asked the applicant if there was anything else they wanted to add to the street width request. Mr. Packard
replied that they were agreeable to discussing the variance request with Public Works.
Mr.Miller said regarding the narrow traffic lanes, he did not feel taking two feet off of either traffic lanes or parking was a
solution to slowing traffic nor should they vary from the county standard.
The Chair expressed concern about getting emergency vehicles where needed on narrower streets. Mr.Miller asked that
if without a motion,county standards would stay. Mr.Schei said yes,but clarified that the applicant has asked for a thirty
two foot section flow line to flow line and they need to consider adding two feet to each side of the parking for a forty four
foot section as Public Works does not consider the curb section on the street standard. The Chair asked Mr.Schei if the
parking lane would be eight feet for vehicles with two feet of curb. Mr.Schei said they do not count the curb and gutter
for lane width.
Mr. Spitzer said simply put that Public Works wants forty four feet flow line to flow line and the applicant is requesting
thirty two feet,for a difference of twelve feet. Mr. Schei said that was correct.
The Chair asked about forty four feet being the standard. Mr.Schei said it is and Public Works feels it is an appropriate
and safe condition and would like to see the standards adhered to. Mr. Spitzer said he did not feel they had enough
expertise to narrow the roads and deferred to Public Works and the county standards.
Mr. Holton asked what the differences were between county standards and those of Mountain View Fire District. Mr.
Schei said he was not absolutely sure but said he thought they required twenty feet of clear space for their vehicles to
pass through.
Mr.Miller said he was sensitive to the economics and although the applicant said they have used these numbers in other
developments,this county is known for its open space and he wants this development to reflect the image of the county.
Mr. Packard said CARMA has met the Mountain View Fire District standards.
The Chair asked for a motion. There was none.
The Chair then asked the Planning Commission to address the lot size variance the applicant is requesting.
Mr. Miller asked about the maximum number of 3300 SF lots CARMA has established. Mr. Packard said there were no
available numbers and lot size would still be related to market conditions. Mr. Miller said he had a tough time putting a
house on a 3300 SF lot and would only support that change if a maximum number of lots that size were established.
Mr. Ehrlich agreed with Mr.Miller and asked Mr.Ogle about the procedure to follow for changes in the bulk standards in
future phases. Mr. Ogle replied the applicant would need to come before the Planning Commission if they wanted to
make changes in future phases.
Mr.Branham said he agreed with the Town of Mead regarding their concern for density and lot size and was not in favor
of the changes due to noise issues and changes in quality of life.
Mr. Holton asked if zoning itself would keep the densities in check. Mr. Ogle responded that it would.
Mr.Spitzer asked Mr. Ogle for his thoughts on this development and how it fits in. Mr.Ogle replied that we are seeing
more entry level housing in the county.
Mr.Branham said a blend of lot sizes would be preferable. Mr.Ogle said the applicant was proposing this but deferred to
the applicant to describe their intent.
Mr.Morton replied these are alley loaded lots,unlike KB Home.And although lot size is a price point issue,they plan to
do this development right. There would be no more than 100 lots sold to a single builder to eliminate duplication of
homes. Mr. Morton said he sees pockets of homes on these lots, not 3500 all in one area but a mix of product
throughout the development. He emphasized that if creates value to CARMA to do the development correctly. Mr.
Packard said of the single family detached homes on 650 acres,all but 28.2 acres have a zoning request of five to seven
units per acre.
Mr. Ehrlich asked Mr.Packard about drive/garage entrances. Mr.Packard said an alley loaded project is more pleasing
as not all garages are on the front of each home as in many other developments. Mr. Ehrlich then added he thought
CARMA has a great plan but he still has difficulty approving a plan based on fluctuating market conditions ten to twenty
years down the road. Mr.Packard said he understood Mr. Ehrlich's concern but plats would be reviewed by the Planning
Department at each phase and they will not bring anything to them that this not satisfactory to the county. Mr. Holton
agreed with Mr. Ehrlich and said it amazed him that they would only see a project of this size one time and it is hard to
conceptualize what it will look like in twenty years, based on their decision today.
Mr. Holton said CARMA has a great plan and did not have a problem with lot size et cetra and feels there is a definite
need for affordable homes.
Mr. Branham said 3300 SF lots still feel too small to him and wanted to request a maximum number of lots at that size or
he could not support the development.
The Chair said he was looking at affordability and there is a definite need for entry level homes but he is not comfortable
either without knowing the maximum number of lots this size though he is in favor of the project.
Mr. Morrison asked the applicant if they had designated a specific maximum number for the 3300 SF lots and could they
provide this information. Mr.Packard responded they would need some additional time to provide those numbers for the
Planning Commission and if they came up with a number today, it would be on the high side to protect future
development.
The meeting was recessed at 11:50 a.m.to allow the applicant to provide maximum lot size numbers for the Planning
Commission.
Meeting reconvened at 12:30 p.m.
The Chair asked the applicants if they had arrived at a maximum density number for the 3300 SF lots. Mr. Packard
responded they had arrived at a maximum of 496 lots between 3300 SF and 4000 SF.
Mr. Miller asked if all the other lots will be over 6000 SF Mr. Packard replied that all of the other lots will be above the
4000 SF mark but still within the zone density they are proposing today.
Mr. Miller responded that the county requirement is 6000 SF so they are looking for a variance, and how many lots will
they include in this variance. Mr. Packard replied that there will be many graduated lot sizes but only 496 lots between
3300 SF and 4000 SF.
The Chair said if you build out 496 lots under 4000 SF, the next choice would be over 6000 SF. Mr. Miller asked if
CARMA has other lots under the 6000 SF county requirement but larger than the 3300 SF to 4000 SF minimum lot size.
Mr. Packard said they do.
Mr. Morrison interjected that he had asked CARMA for the maximum number on the minimum size of lots and the
applicant has answered that question.
Mr. Miller asked specifically what they were asking for under the variance regarding lot size and said they need to know
what this subdivision will look like.
Mr. Morton said he could not specifically answer that question but that lot sizes have gotten smaller through the years
and he could not tell what the mix would be twenty years from now.
The Chair said they have a problem then in looking at this as a one time shot. Mr.Morton said this is a very typical range
of zoning and sizes and they need flexibility to respond to the market in the next twenty years because it won't do him or
the county any good if they have lots they can't sell in twenty years.
Mr. Branham asked if the request was to approve the variance and if they don't,then where do they stand. Mr.Morrison
responded this is a proposed zone district and if the Planning Commission can't accept the density proposed then they
have to recommend denial and spell out those reasons for denial. Mr.Spitzer said he thought they were talking about a
deviation from the bulk standards. Mr.Morrison said the bulk standards do not apply in a PUD but are a useful reference.
Mr.Ogle responded to Mr.Spitzer regarding other subdivisions and cited several developments in and around the MUD:
lot sizes for single family detached residences are 55 by 100 feet,65 by 105 feet and 75 by 110 feet and the average lot
size for Adler PUD is 5500 SF;for the Elms at Meadow Vale PUD 10200 SF;for The Farms PUD,45000 SF;for Pelican
Shores PUD 54450 SF;for Lifebridge PUD 8000 SF;and for Idaho Creek,2800 SF minimum or an average of 3100 SF.
Mr. Ogle said the CARMA average is 7500 to 8000 SF per lot.
Mr. Miller asked Mr.Ogle how he arrived at the figures for CARMA. Mr.Ogle replied they were in the application and did
not include open space, roads, et cetera just the residential components. Mr. Packard said in phase one (1) their
smallest lot is 4830 square feet, up to over 19000 SF for the largest lot and the majority will be a mix of lots between 60
by 110 feet and 70 by 110 feet. The zoning density will restrict the size of the lots. The entire 650 acres, with the
exception of 28.2 acres designated at five to seven dwelling units per acre,will be zoned at three to five dwelling units per
acre.
Mr. Morton said CARMA was responding to the lot sizes their customers are asking for and they need some flexibility in
order to stay in business.
Mr. Branham asked Public Works to explain their position again on the lot size. Mr. Schei said they have no position.
Mr. Holton asked Mr. Ogle about staff feelings regarding the lot sizes. Mr. Ogle said all of the developments they have
done have allowed for this flexibility of lot sizes.
Mr. Ehrlich asked Mr. Schei his opinion on the 3300 SF lot Size. Mr.Schei said it has nothing to do with streets per se,
they don't deal with lot sizes and densities, and their only concern is with the roadways. Mr. Miller said again he was
concerned because they would only see this once and this leaves the door open for a significant number of lots under
6000 SF and the potential for changes in density and lot size in the next twenty to twenty five years.
Mr. Miller proposed they allow fifteen percent (or 496 lots) between 3300 SF and 4000 SF, another fifteen percent
between 4000 and 6000 SF and the balance would be over 6000 SF. Mr. Morrison said he did not think the Planning
Commission could impose a change in the proposed zoning on the applicant. Mr.Miller then said they have nothing solid
to work with. It is all conceptual and he is not comfortable without any standard to go by for a twenty five year project
they look at only once. Mr. Miller also suggested changes need to be made in the process for the future,though this is
what they have to work with now.
Mr. Packard responded that they would be restricted by the zoning and cannot transfer densities within those zones.
Mr. Miller asked for a range of homes within specific areas.
Mr. Packard responded with the following information:
Area Dwelling Units Per Acre
PA-6 476 - 793 158.6 acres
PA-12 547 - 912 182.4 acres
PA-18 305 - 508 101.0 acres
PA-24 72 - 100 14.3 acres
PA-27 70 - 97 13.9 acres
PA-28 19 - 31 6.2 acres
PA-31 106 - 177 35.3 acres
PA-34 47 - 78 15.6 acres
PA-40 75 - 126 25.1 acres
PA-42 196 - 327 65.3 acres
PA-49 95 - 159 31.7 acres
Mr. Packard said some may be higher, some lower but they must meet overall density and average lot size and if not
they will have to come before the Board for a zone change.
The Chair asked Mr.Ogle about re-submittal procedures if these numbers change. Mr.Ogle replied that each time a plat
comes in it must act in accordance with the Resolution.
•
Mr.Holton asked about the dwelling unit definition. Mr.Packard said the DU was for a single family detached home only.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Packard why they asked for 496 maximum units when they only planned 197 units in some areas.
Mr. Packard said they asked for this because in some areas zoned three to five,there could be some of those size lots
that may be offset by 20000 SF lots and this will average out to be within the zoning areas. Mr. Ogle added that on
average, across the board, single family detached houses are on 7500 to 8000 SF lots.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Morrison about the variance on roads. Mr. Morrison said the road design is a separate issue and
they have to act on the essence of the application, not what they would like to see. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Morrison if by
not taking the motion they are bound by the county regulations on the road design. Mr. Morrison said at this point the
road design still must follow county standards. Mr. Miller then asked if they don't have a motion on the lot size,they will
be accepting their application as submitted. Mr. Morrison said a motion on the lot size was not appropriate as the
applicant has elected to set their zones by dwelling densities per acres within each of those pods,which is different from
how we set zoning under a traditional county zoning process.
Mr. Holton asked if they should add in the 496 units they set as a minimum. Mr. Morrison said it was part of the record
and also what staff would consider in future review of plans. He added that you are not creating a new limit,you are
recognizing what the applicant has calculated what they proposed would allow. Mr. Morrison said it was a matter of
intent and probably did not need to be added as a standard. Mr. Packard said they would be happy to submit a letter
addressing what they have discussed today regarding the fifteen percent. Mr.Morrison responded they could submit a
note and that is fine, but the only reason a note would be appropriate is because the applicant has said that is what the
zoning they have proposed provides for and not because they are changing the zoning they have applied for. The Chair
asked Mr.Morrison if there is really only one issue today—to vote whether to forward the application or not based on the
information they have. Mr. Morrison replied that was correct,but as far as the development,this is not a USR and they
cannot get into the specifics of how they execute it. The specifics are more appropriate in the final plan,and under the
current code it does not require you to be a part of that process.
Mr.Ehrlich said they still need to discuss the applicant's request for the variance for the sidewalk setback. Mr. Morrison
said that is a design item and can be discussed separately as it is not the essence of the proposal.
The Chair asked if there was any discussion on the request for the ten foot setback. Mr. Miller said in the overall design
they have shown,assuming you are comfortable with the reduction in lot size,it makes sense to accept the reduction in
setbacks just so you have the ability to vary the view from the road. Mr. Ehrlich agreed as did the Chair.
Mr. Miller said the vast majority of the project is excellent and applauded the applicants, specifically the dual water
system. The overall project looks great and if it is built out as presented it is great,but he still disagrees with 3300 SF lot
size in this county. Mr.Miller also said he has a problem with creating a city of twelve to fifteen thousand residents in the
county and feels it would be more appropriate it be annexed by Mead or Firestone from a services and organizational
standpoint. He did not feel the proposed densities were appropriate for the area and were not compatible with the
surrounding area.
Mr.Branham agreed this was a well thought out and planned project and expressed his initial concern with road widths
and the 3300 SF lot size, but felt comfortable recommending the project now.
Mr. Welch asked if they needed to vote on the variance for the setback or was it part of the application. Mr. Morrison
asked Mr.Ogle for clarification and he said it would need to be removed if they did not agree with it. Mr.Welch said it is
a nice subdivision but he is still concerned with the 3300 SF lot size though he understands market appropriateness.
Mr. Holton recommended approval, said this is a great design and provides affordable housing, but is still concerned
because this is the last time they will see this application.
Mr. Ehrlich spoke to the density, his concern they would not see the project again, and then encouraged Firestone to
consider annexation of this development.
The Chair said he supports the project as it allows future generations to experience homeownership in this county.
Mr. Spitzer echoed the Chair's opinion but expressed reservations about services and the fact that the development will
not be built out for up to twenty years. He said we need to provide affordable housing and he would rather see it mixed in
than separate. Mr. Spitzer commended CARMA on the dual water system and expressed his support of the project.
Mr. Ogle said he had one amendment to staff comments, pagel8,item Z.,sentence three to read"Offset and setbacks
are measured from the farthest projection from the building,a minimum of ten feet front yard setback as requested by the
applicant for side loaded and alley loaded single family residences" and to add the Department of Planning to the
Department of Building Inspection as the referral agency making the request.
Mike Miller moved to change the wording on pagel8,item Z.,sentence three to read"Offset and setbacks are measured
from the farthest projection from the building,a minimum of ten feet front yard setback as requested by the applicant for
side loaded and alley loaded single family residences" and to add the Department of Planning to the Department of
Building Inspection. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer, yes;
Erich Ehrlich,yes;James Welch,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Tom Holton,yes;Bruce Fitzgerald,yes; Paul Branham,yes.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Schei, Department of Public Works said he had one change to make on page 13, item D. 2., to strike"Change of
Zone"and insert"Time of Final Plat".
Mike Miller moved to strike "Change of Zone" and insert "Time of Final Plat" on page 13, item D. 2. Tom Holton
seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer, yes;
Erich Ehrlich,yes;James Welch,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;Paul Branham,yes.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Ehrlich asked Mr. Schei if he was requesting changes on page 9, item E. 2. Mr. Schei said they were merely
comments that precluded the requirements but would be covered with the improvements agreement they will compose
with the applicant during phasing and filing.
Mr. Ogle said CR 11 is maintained by Mead and they would need to contract with Mead as to how they are going to
improve that road for egress,ingress et cetera. The applicant will be required to obtain an agreement for access to that
road.
Mr. Schei said that is covered under the improvements agreement, item 3. C., at the time of final plat.
Paul Branham moved that Case PZ-1078,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the changes
to the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval.
Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer, yes;
Erich Ehrlich,yes;James Welch,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes; Paul Branham,yes.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mike Miller said though he had reservations about the density of the project and the small lot sizes, he is impressed by
the overall project and the exceptional design. The history of the company impressed him as did their co-mingling of the
smaller lots within the development. He hopes CARMA lives up to their promises for if they don't this will give the county
a black eye.
Erich Ehrlich said he is concerned with the twenty to twenty five year growth period and the average square foot densities
and where is the bottom line as far as regulations in the future. He would like more clarification and more rigid standards
in the County Code.
Meeting adjourned at 1:46 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
ba
Donita May
Secretary
I - /7- 2oc(
The Chair asked Mr.Morrison about recommending changes to the request. Mr.Morrison said if they have
specific language,they could recommend an amendment to the language,or just provide comments without
proposing specific language. Mr.Morrison added that if you propose a motion,there would be a resolution
that would reflect more formally what your position was.
The Chair asked about site inspections, set backs etc. and if the cost to the county would be less the
second time as these would not need to be done again. Mr.Vigil said that was correct.
Mr.Branham said it seems that concern was with private residences and would it be appropriate to approve
this as presented, excluding the private residence.
Mr. Holton asked if they were going to make adjustments to item b.to specify owner built.
Mike Miller moved to accept code changes to Section 29-2-70 relative to the 2005 National Electric Code
and the amendments. Erich Ehrlich seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Michael
Miller,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes;Tom Holton,yes;Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;Paul Branham,yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
Mike Miller moved to deny the application for amendments in Section 29-8-40 as written. Tom Holton
seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Miller added that he would like Mr. Vigil to compose language that would address this problem in a
different manner by establishing a maximum number of inspections that would be included in the building
permit fee itself. If a person exceeded that number of inspections they would be charged an inspection fee
every time the county was asked to go out and re-inspect. Mr. Miller said he felt that was a more fair and
equitable means of accomplishing the same thing and if the building permit did expire, charging the fifty
percent fee was far more equitable than starting all over and charging the full fee again.
The Chair asked Mr.Vigil if he understood what Mr.Miller was suggesting. Mr.Vigil said he did but that this
recommendation was not much different than the previous code.
5. CASE NUMBER: PZ-1078
APPLICANT: Tom Morton
PLANNER: Klm Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parts of Sections 25, 35,and 36,T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado
REQUEST: PUD Change of Zone from(A)Agriculture to 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 and(C-2)General Commercial and continuing Oil and Gas
Production Uses in the Mixed Use Development Overlay District(St.
Vrain Lakes PUD)
LOCATION: Multiple parcels generally located East of and adjacent to thel-25
Frontage Road,South of and adjacent to State Highway 66;west of and
adjacent to CR 13 and north of and adjacent to St.Vrain River.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, said this case was continued from the December 20, 2005
Planning Commission Hearing at the request of the applicant and with the support of Planning Staff so that
referral comments could be addressed by the applicant.
Carma Colorado do Tom Morton and Tyler Packard applied for a request of Change of Zone from (A)
Agriculture to 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 to
be identified as the St. Vrain Lakes PUD, comprising of approximately 1313 acres. The application
materials stated that there would be 4800 to 5131 residential lots with an average lot size of 3700 SF and a
minimum lot size of 3300 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 proposed St.Vrain Lakes PUD was located on multiple parcels generally located east of and adjacent
to the 1-25 Frontage Road,south of and adjacent to State Highway 66;west of and adjacent to County Road
6
13 and north of and adjacent to the St. Vrain River. Surrounding properties were generally agricultural.
Sekich Commercial Business Park,the proposed Meadow Ridge Residential/Commercial PUD, and the
Grand View Estates PUD were located to the north of the proposed St Vrain Lakes PUD north of the site
across State Highway 66. The Corporate City Limits of the Town of Mead were adjacent to the west,
agricultural lands were to the east, including the Aurora Organic Dairy,approximately 1 mile to the east of
County Road 13 and the Southwest Service Center was to the south, and the Pelican Shores PUD was
located to the southeast,south of the St.Vrain River.
The site was designated as residential with commercial and areas of limiting site factors designation on the
Amended I-25 Mixed Use Development Area Structural Plan,Map 2.1 Structural Land Use Map dated June
2005. The neighborhood center designation was also present within the boundary of this proposed
development.
The property sloped slightly to the south of State Highway 66 towards County Road 28. A greater slope
was evident south of County Road 28 approximately 2000 feet to the top of the bluff before dropping into the
river valley. All lands associated with this proposal area were under agricultural production with the river
valley area being part of a former gravel mine. (USR-489, '82; USR-636, '84; USR-907, '89)
The signs announcing the Planning Commission hearing were posted December 31,2005 by Planning Staff
and were evidenced by photograph and affidavit.
Staff comments were derived from the referral agencies responses and the application materials.
The proposed PUD was located within the Mixed Use Development(MUD)area,and within the three mile
Municipal referral area with the Towns of Mead, Firestone,and Frederick. The Town of Mead requested
that this development not be approved as an unincorporated project and the applicants would be required
to petition either the Town of Mead or the Town of Firestone for annexation. In addition,the Town of Mead
states that there were too many as yet unresolved issues,including road networks,how the residents of this
project would receive services,et cetera. Their entire referral was outlined on page 8,Section C of the staff
comments. The Town of Frederick had indicated that they have reviewed the request and found no conflicts
with their interests. The Town of Firestone in their referral dated January 11, 2006 stated residential
densities appeared to be significantly higher than a typical residential development in Firestone. Having
such a high single family detached residential density could negatively impact development quality and
public safety. Their entire referral was also outlined on page 8, Section C of the staff comments. It was
important to note that there were five land tracts internal to this project not yet a part of this development
that would access onto roads constructed for the development. Four of the parcels had single family
residences and outbuildings and the fifth parcel was a substation for United Power.
The project offered an opportunity to accommodate significant transportation improvements in the area.
County Road 13,State Highway 66 and the 1-25 Frontage Road were the paved roads in the vicinity of this
proposed development. The development's proposed site layout would provide a network of local,collector
and arterial classified streets. County Road 13 and County Road 9.5 were classified as Major Arterial
Roads with significant improvements. County Road 28 was classified as a Minor Arterial Road which would
also be significantly improved. These roads would be maintained by Weld County.
County Road 11 and County Road 28 west of County Road 11 has been annexed by the Town of Mead,
therefore, coordination of roadway improvements meeting MUD criterion, number of access points and
signalization requirements would be coordinated with the Town.
State Highway 66 has been annexed by the Town of Mead, however, the Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT) maintains this segment of roadway adjacent to this development. CDOT in their
electronic referral dated October 26, 2005 stated that they would allow full movement access to State
Highway 66 at the existing County Road 11 and County Road 13 intersections.
It was important to note that infrastructural improvements were slated for 1-25 (Northbound). It was
anticipated funding would become available early was year. When funding becomes available,CDOT was
prepared to begin the construction in 2006. As a part of the widening,CDOT would abandon the east side
frontage road and provide a portion of the funds to construct the Weld County Strategic Road 9.5 from a
point north of the St.Vrain River to State Highway 66.
The Colorado Department of Transportation in their electronic referral dated January 6,2006 state that they
were not in support of a direct access (right-in/right-out)off of State Highway 66. Further, it was CDOT's
position that they were not opposed to allowing additional access, however, other access would also be
7
considered provided the criteria stated in the State Highway Access Code could be met. Review of these
considerations would be undertaken in Filings and Phases at time of Final Plat review.
The applicant had proposed a variance to the local residential street width and cul-de-sac dimension. The
right-of-way remained at 60 feet,however the flow line to flow line dimension was proposed at 32 feet,with
the MUD standard road cross section set at 40 feet. The Department of Public Works was able to further
discuss was issue at the conclusion of my comments.
A greenway/trail system was designed to connect the various components of the development for
pedestrian and bicycle traffic as well as provide recreational opportunities.
The applicant had proposed to set their own unique standards with respect to certain bulk requirements
rather than follow the default requirements as set out in the Weld County Code for the residential
component,and Section 23-3-250 Performance Standard of the Commercial Zone District. The Department
of Planning Services was not in support of this requested variance.
The applicant had proposed an average proto-typical Single Family Residential lot size of 3700 SF.
For purposes of discussion,development recently reviewed by this Board,and other developments in the
MUD,the average lot size for Adler PUD was 5500 SF,for the Elms at Meadow Vale PUD 10200 SF,for
The Farms PUD,45000 SF,for Pelican Shores PUD 54450 SF;for Lifebridge PUD 8000 SF;and for Idaho
Creek,2800 SF.
Property with the zone district designation of R-2,R-3,R-4,C-1 and C-2 development in a PUD required a
Site Plan Review application as defined in Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code. The building height would
be determined by Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code.
The proposed PUD would be serviced by Little Thompson Water District for potable water and fire protection
requirements and St. Vrain Sanitation District would handle the effluent flow. Agreements have been
secured and approved by the County Attorney's Office.
Nineteen referral agencies reviewed this case, four referral agencies had no comments and fourteen
responded favorably or included conditions that have been addressed through development standards and
conditions of approval and one referral agency(Mead)requested that the applicant's annex into either their
municipality or into another municipality.
No letters were received prior to mailing out the planning commission packets from surrounding properties,
and no letters or telephone calls have been received concerning this case.
The Department of Planning Services recommended approval of PZ-1078 for Carma Colorado for the St.
Vrain Lakes PUD with the attached conditions of approval and development standards.
Mr.Ogle said he had provided a copy of the town of Firestone referral dated January 11,2006. References
to this referral in the Staff comment should be reflected to indicate a receipt of January 11,2006 not January
13,2006. Mountain View Fire Protection District and St.Vrain Valley School District also provided additional
comment on this proposal. Referral comments from the Department of Public Works concerning the
applicant's CLOMR application dated January 12, 2006 were also included for reference. Recently
Mountain View Fire Protection District provided a letter addressing street width and fire district requirements.
The applicants were approved by the Board of County Commissioners on January 4, 2006 for a pre-
advertisement of the Board of County Commissioners hearing which had been scheduled for February 8,
2006 at 10:00am.
Mr. Miller said that it was totally unreasonable for them to have a hearing of this type with the limited time
schedule they had to consider a development that would become essentially the third or fourth largest city in
this county. Mr.Miller said he was not in favor of continuing with the hearing and would much prefer to set
a special hearing date in which they could devote an appropriate amount of time to a development of that
scope. Mr.Miller said they had previously held a special hearing for a development that was ten percent of
this size and this application could potentially have fifteen to twenty thousand people living in it and we have
been asked to hear it in a couple of hours,and he did not believe that was appropriate. Mr. Miller said he
would like to know what their options were as he understood that it had been approved for pre-
advertisement for the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Miller said he got the feeling that it was being
shoved down their throats because there wasn't time to schedule another hearing,and he said again that he
did not think that was appropriate.
8
The Chair asked Mr. Morrison for his input. Mr. Morrison replied that the Planning Commission was not
bound to keep to that schedule. Mr. Morrison said whether continuing it would make them any better
prepared to evaluate the case was really the issue. As a group if they felt a continuance was needed,there
would not be any fewer items or complexities on the agenda in the future. Mr. Morrison said it was
ultimately their decision whether to hear it today or not.
Mr. Miller said starting this type of a hearing at 3:30 in the afternoon with an application of this complexity,
he could easily see them being there at midnight if they continued the hearing. He felt that was not
appropriate, fair to the board,or to the residents of this county to try and tackle a project of that size in a
couple of hour time limitation.
Mr.Holton asked Mr.Ogle how much bigger than Lifebridge and Pioneer the Carma project would be.The
Chair replied that Pioneer was approximately fifty six hundred acres and Carma was at one thousand three
hundred thirteen acres. According to Mr.Ogle, Carma was approximately one thousand acres more than
Lifebridge. Mr.Miller asked a question of Mr.Ogle that was inaudible. Mr.Ogle replied that Lifebridge was
one hundred ten for the single family residences and they also had an assisted living component and multi-
family housing. Mr. Holton asked about the mixed use component. According to Mr. Ogle, the Carma
commercial areas were similar in scope to the Lifebridge project. Mr. Branham inquired about other
problems that might be associated with continuing the hearing to another date as Mr.Miller had suggested.
Mr.Ogle said they would need to re-advertise the case fifteen days prior to hearing,legal notification would
need to go to the county paper,report the sign and notify surrounding property owners of the new hearing
date. Mr. Morrison said they might be able to dispense with the surrounding property owner mailing
because that was a different level of requirement under the code and under state law. The publication was
most critical with a date certain for those in attendance. Mr.Morrison asked Mr.Ogle about the length of the
mailing list. Mr.Ogle responded that it contained twenty five names. Mr.Morrison said the Board of County
Commissioners would also need to re-notify because they have sent out notices,so essentially there would
have to be two more rounds of notification. The Chair asked about a date for continuance and how much
time would be needed. Mr. Morrison replied they would need a month to set up publication properly. Mr.
Ogle asked the Chair to poll the audience in order to determine who was for and who was against the
application. There were nine or ten hands raised in the audience indicating their interest in the application.
Mr.Miller asked about the relevance of audience approval/denial and said the issue was whether they could
evaluate the application fairly in an amount of time, not whether the people in the audience were for or
against it. Mr. Miller said the matter was they had to determine a lot of issues Mr. Ogle brought up where
they were requesting variances from county ordinances and there were a lot of issues to be dealt with
whether the audience was for or against it. Mr. Miller said the application deserved a fair hearing and the
Planning Commission doesn't just represent the audience, they represent everyone in the county. The
Chair expressed his support for Mr. Miller.
Mr.Branham asked Mr. Miller,based on his experience,how much time he felt was adequate to allow for a
hearing like that. Mr. Miller suggested that a special hearing starting at 10:00 a.m. in the morning just for
this case as it had the potential to be a six or eight hour hearing. The Chair again expressed his support of
Mr. Miller's comments. The Chair asked for a motion and suggested the planning staff work on a date for
the hearing.
Mike Miller motioned to continue Case PZ-1078 to a special hearing date,determined by staff,to begin at
10:00 a.m. in the interim week between the scheduled hearings to address the case. Paul Branham
seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Michael
Miller,yes;Erich Ehrlich,yes;Tom Holton,yes;Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;Paul Branham,yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
Mr.Morrison asked the Planning Commission to get a date certain so they get the benefit of notice to those
present before this hearing closes and also so the decision was in the record.
The Chair asked Mr.Ogle to determine a date as soon as possible. Monica Mika,Department of Planning
Services asked for a five minute recess in order to allow Mr. Ogle to arrive at a date. Her request was
granted.
Mr. Ogle said that Thursday, February 16,2006, 10:00 a.m.at the Greeley Planning Department Hearing
room, 918 10th Street,Greeley,CO would be the continuance date for Case PZ-1078. Mr.Ogle said they
would re-notify via mail and forward any changes or modifications to the Planning Commission.
9
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, December 20,2005
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, Bruce Fitzgerald, at 1:40 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller Absent
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tom Holton
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
James Welch Absent
Roy Spitzer
Erich Ehrlich Absent
Paul Branham
Also Present: Monica Mika, Brad Mueller, Kim Ogle, Jacqueline Hatch, Michelle Martin, Frank Hempen, Drew
Scheltinga, Peter Schei, Don Carroll, Char Davis, Bruce Barker and Lee Morrison.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on December 6, 2005, was
approved as read.
OLD BUSINESS
1. Follow up discussion on the noise proposal from December 6,2005.
Bruce Barker, County Attorney, recapped the November 15,2005 meeting,where it was suggested that
Commissioner Miller's noise proposal be added to Chapter 22 of the County Code. Mr. Barker reviewed
Commissioner Miller's proposed change to sound limitations in the Agricultural Zone District that read, "All stationary
or semi-stationary equipment used in the Agricultural Zone District shall comply with the noise levels applicable to
the Commercial Zone District." Mr. Barker recapped Mr. Branham's concerns from the November 15, 2005 hearing
regarding the applicability of Section 18-9-106,which is a criminal statute dealing with disorderly conduct. Mr.
Barker reviewed information regarding this noise ordinance and the civil statutes, specifically noise regulations and
nuisance. Mr. Barker said he had checked with the Sheriff's office to see if they would follow up on noise
complaints,and as this is an agricultural operation,they said they would look at complaints on a case by case basis.
Mr. Barker said there are two things to consider; unreasonable noise and the words intentionally, knowingly, and
recklessly. Mr. Barker said we can modify the noise statutes to a certain extent. Mr. Barker reminded the Planning
Commission that the last time they met he said he would be talking to the Board of County Commissioners about the
idea of having a noise ordinance which would be county wide, specifically dealing with subdivisions, minor
subdivisions,and anywhere there would be a residence. The key issue is whether this would also apply to Recorded
Exemptions. Mr. Barker said he had examined Larimer County's noise ordinance and found that they have one due
to their large number of rural subdivisions but that their ordinance is not as strong as what was presently being
proposed in Weld County. Mr. Barker said he would talk to the Sheriff's office to see if they were amenable to
imposing the ordinance,which would be a class two petty offense with a graduated fine schedule. Mr. Barker
recommended that perhaps the Planning Commission might want to set this aside due to Mr. Miller's absence. The
Chair asked Mr. Barker if the Sheriffs department would answer noise complaints. Mr. Barker replied that they
would and that they had imposed fines of this nature in the past at Aristocrat Ranchettes. Mr. Oschner asked if the
County Commissioners were interested in this noise proposal. Mr. Barker replied that they were but wanted input
from the Sheriff's department prior to any final decision. Mr. Branham complimented Mr. Barker on his hard work
and said it seemed that Planning staff would handle the majority of the noise problems but that the Sheriff would step
in as necessary.
The Chair said to let the record show that Commissioner Holton had arrived at 2:00 p.m.
HEARING ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED
2. CASE NUMBER: PZ-1078
APPLICANT: Mr. Holton Morton/CARMA Colorado
1
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parts of Sections 25, 35 and 36,T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: PUD Change of Zone from (A)Agriculture to 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 and (C-2)General
Commercial and continuing Oil&Gas Production Uses in the
Mixed Use Development Overlay District(St.Vrain Lakes
PUD).
LOCATION: Multiple parcels generally located east of and adjacent to the 1-25
Frontage Road;south of and adjacent to State Highway 66; west
of and adjacent to CR 13; and north of and adjacent to St.Vrain
River.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, said the applicant is requesting a continuance to the January 17, 2006
hearing. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this continuance. No
one wished to speak. The public portion was closed.
Doug Oschner moved that Case PZ-1078,be continued to the January 17,2006 hearing date. Roy Spitzer seconded the
motion. Motion carried unanimously.
3. CASE NUMBER: USR-1532
APPLICANT: Reginal Golden & RLSJ Properties LLC
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-2540; part of Section 4,T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for
a business permitted as a use by right or accessory use in the
Commercial or Industrial Zone District(storage of concrete
forms, equipment and vehicles)in the(A)Agricultural Zone
District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 26 and west of CR 5.5.
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services,said the applicant has requested a continuance to the March 21,
2006 hearing date in order to address concerns of the surrounding property owners.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against continuance of this application.
John Watkins, 11757 Ashton Rd, lives directly behind the property and has watched the applicant's employees
urinate on the property in view of the public and bang on the concrete forms at 5 a.m. in the summer and 6 a.m. in
the winter. Mr.Watkins does not want this continued any longer and would like current residential zoning enforced
and the business operations to end.
Barb Brunk,applicant's representative, and a landscape architect with Resource Conservation Partners, said they
received letters from the neighbors just two weeks ago and would like the time to sit down with the neighbors and go
over their concerns and requested that the Planning Commission grant the continuance.
Rita Rawson, 11753 Ashton Rd, resides about fifty feet from the operation and said she would like this to go forward
as the homeowners are not going to change their minds and she would request a decision be reached today.
Wanda Wellington, 11768 Pleasant View Ridge, resides about five hundred feet from the business and agreed with
the other speakers that a continuance makes no sense and she would also like a resolution today.
Les Wright, 11756 Ashton Rd, said he wants a resolution today.
The Chair asked Mr. Morrison, County Attorney,to discuss procedure regarding the business operation and current
violations. Mr. Morrison said that typically the Board has directed staff to put the violation on hold if the applicant is
taking steps to correct the violation. In ninety-nine per cent of the cases,the operation is allowed to conduct
business while the application process continues. Ms. Martin said that according to Bethany Salzman, Weld County
Zoning Compliance Officer,the violation has not been presented to the Board of County Commissioners. The Chair
asked about the public urination and a remedy to that situation. Mr. Morrison said he could not answer in detail what
criminal statutes would address but there are statutes that deal with public indecency and it would be best to consult
with the Sheriffs department and then ultimately the District Attorney. The Chair asked Ms. Martin if they had
2
Hello