HomeMy WebLinkAbout20060325.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: 2005-XX
APPLICANT: Benson Farms LLC
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part E2 of Section 23 and the SW4 of Section 24, all in T3N,
R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Petition to amend the Mixed Use Development Area of
Unincorporated Weld County. Changes to Chapter 22
(Comprehensive Plan) and Chapter 26 (Mixed Use Development
Plan Structural Land Use Map 2.1) land use designation
modification.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Highway 66; east of and adjacent
to CR 9.5
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. Criteria I: MUD Plan,Chapter 26,Weld County Code. That the application is consistent with Section
26-1-30 Weld County Mixed Use Plan which establishes procedures for amending Chapter 26 in
accordance to procedures established in Section 22-1-150 of the County Code.
The procedures for submittal have been met.
2. Criteria II: Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 22, Weld County Code. The following procedures are
outlined in Section 22-1-150 of the Weld County Code:
A. 22-1-150.6.1."Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals shall be considered bi-annually
with a public hearing process beginning in March or September of each year."
The application was received by the Department of Planning Services on August 1, 2005.
B. 22-1-150.6.2.'The petitioner shall pay for the cost of legal publication of the proposed
amendment and all land use application fees."
The applicant has paid all associated land use fees.
C. 22-1-150.B.3. A typewritten original and thirty (30) copies of the proposed amendment
must be submitted to the Department of Planning Services no later than February 1 or August
1 of each year to be considered for review and public hearings."
The applicant supplied ample copies to the Department of Planning Services on August 1,
2005.
D. 22-1-150.B.3.a A statement describing why the comprehensive plan is in need of revision."
The entire site is located within the Mixed Use Development area and has been since May of
2002, but the proposed land use designations for the planned Meadow Ridge Planned Unit
Development (PUD) are not consistent with the Structural Land Use Map 2.1 amended
August 30,2004. Presently,the 1-25 Mixed Use Development Area Structural Land Use Map
2.1 has identified employment center (high intensity) and regional commercial (medium
intensity)along State Highway 66 and County Road 9.5. The proposed subdivision, Meadow
Ridge, has planned for residential and neighborhood centers along State Highway 66 and
County Road 9.5 which is inconsistent with the current land use designations, therefore the
need for the
2006-0325
Resolution 2005-XX
Benson Farms LLC
Page 2
amendment.
E. 22-1-150.6.3.b."A statement describing how the proposed amendment will be consistent with
existing and future goals, policies, and needs of the County."
The applicants have examined the amenities of the MUD plan and have committed to provide
the following: open space, future school site locations, and sanitation facilities. The
application states a willingness to set aside land for two future schools. The applicants have
discussed the need for appropriate pedestrian circulation within the site and have committed
to meet these needs.The application states that the goal in creating this subdivision rests in
the ability to create a mixture of residential land uses and nearby commercial opportunities.
The proposed site does not lie within any Intergovernmental Agreement areas,nor is the site
included in a Municipal Growth Area. To be consistent with Section 22-2-100 of the Weld
County Code, urban scale residential development must occur within either one of these
areas or within the MUD. The parcels associated with this application were included in the
MUD boundary in May of 2002.
F. 26-2-30.D.1. "Residential districts within the MUD area are encouraged to be cohesive,
identifiable and diverse, while retaining the current agrarian lifestyle of residents in the area."
As proposed,the site will be developed with approximately 166 acres of open space divided
into numerous parks with open space connections throughout the subdivision. In accordance
with Appendix 26.E, 20% (160 acres) of the site will need to be dedicated to open space.
The applicant's proposal includes neighborhood commercial along State Highway 66 and
County Road 9.5. This corresponds to the current Mixed Use Development Structural 2.1
Map which also identifies a higher intensity along the arterials.
The applicant proposal, Meadow Ridge PUD, includes a diversity of housing types. This
variety of housing includes low density residential (R-1), Duplex residential (R-2), Medium-
density residential (R-3), and High Density Residential (R-4).
G. 22-2-60.C. A.Goal 3 of the Comprehensive Plan states that"Conversion of agricultural land
to urban-scale residential, commercial and industrial development will be discouraged in
areas where adequate services and infrastructure are not currently available or reasonably
obtainable."
The parcel was included in the MUD in May of 2002. At this time the property owner met the
criteria for adequate services. Currently, the some of the property is located within the St.
Vrain 208 Sanitation Boundaries while the remaining property is located within Mead's 208
boundaries. The entire site is located within the East 1-25 Sanitation District.
The site can be provided with urban scale water from Little Thompson Water District as
stated in their letter dated October 15, 2004.
H. 22-2-210 PUD.Goal 4.of the Comprehensive Plan states "Encourage creative approaches to
land development which will result in environments of distinct identity and character".
The existing Mixed Use Development Area Structural Land Use Map 2.1 is planned for
medium to high intensity uses (Regional Commercial and Employment Centers). The
applicant is proposing a less intense use such as neighborhood commercial center and
residential. As a result of a lower intensity the applicant intends to create a planned
community capable of providing mixed use development with residential, commercial and
Resolution 2005-XX
Benson Farms LLC
Page 3
recreational amenities.
22-2-210 PUD.Policy 4.3. of the Comprehensive Plan states "Conservation of natural site
features such as topography, vegetation and water courses should be considered in the
project design".
The Northern Colorado Conservation Ditch will be incorporated into the open space which will
be used as a greenway with trail connections for the residents of the community.
J. 22-2-170 C.Goal 3. of the Comprehensive Plan states "Address the compatibility of
commercial land uses with adjacent land uses". 22-2-170 C.Policy 3.2. of the
Comprehensive Plan states that New commercial development should demonstrate
compatibility with existing surrounding land use in terms of general use, building height,
scale, density, traffic, dust and noise.
With the amended plan, the applicant is creating commercial areas within the community
located adjacent to an arterial and state roadways. The design standards including bulk
requirements and setbacks which will ensure compatibility with the surrounding land use will
be determined at the Planned Unit Development Change of Zone stage.
K. 22-2-190.R. Goal 1 of the Comprehensive Plan states that adequate public services and
facilities are currently available or reasonably obtainable to serve the residential development
or district. 22-2-190 R. Policy 1.1 further elaborates, "The land-use application has
demonstrated that adequate sanitary sewer and public water systems are available to all
residential development, and that the street or highway facilities providing access to the
property are adequate in width, classification, and structural capacity to meet the
requirements of the proposed district or development".
As cited in the Traffic Study performed by Eugene G. Coppola P.E., in July 2005, there are
three scenarios for the proposed development. Scenario I includes 1,952 residential dwelling
units for a total of 18,680 external vehicle trips on an average weekday. Scenario II takes
into account 1,772 dwelling units and 220,120 square feet of commercial for a total of 26,714
external vehicle trips on an average weekday. Scenario III includes 909 dwelling units,
1,056,500 square feet of commercial which would generate 55,523 external vehicle trips on
an average weekday. Weld County Public Works is working with the applicant and is
comfortable that the appropriate infrastructure can be in place to accommodate this amount
of traffic.
3. The following procedures to amend the 1-25 Mixed Use Development Area Map are outlined in
Section 22-1-150 of the Weld County Code as amended:
A. 22-1-150.4.a.'Demonstrate the proposed inclusion into the Mixed Use Development are map
or modification to the existing land use classification, is adjacent to and contiguous with the
existing 1-25 MUD Area Map."
The site is currently within the MUD boundary and has been since May 2002.
B. 22-1-150.4.b.'Describe how the proposed amendment will address the impact on existing or
planned service capabilities. This statement shall include how emergency services will be
provided to the proposed area."
Weld County Paramedic Services and the Weld County Sheriffs Office will provide for the
emergency related service in this area assisted by Mountain View Fire Protection District.
Resolution 2005-XX
Benson Farms LLC
Page 4
The municipalities of Firestone, Mead,and Longmont are located within three(3)miles of the
site and have reviewed this application. Longmont commented with no concerns, and, no
comments have been received from the Towns of Mead and Firestone.
C. 22-1-150.4.c.'Delineate the number of people who will reside in the proposed area. This
statement shall include the number of school-aged children and address the cultural and
social service provision needs, such as schools, of the proposed population."
The application materials indicate that, if fully developed as residential,a maximum of 2,400
residential units would be located on the site adding approximately 6,672 people(based on
2.78 persons/household) and 1,361 school-aged children (20.4% of the overall population
between the age of 5 and 18). The St. Vrain Valley School District stated in their referral
dated September 28,2005 that adequate available school capacity does not exist for this •
area, but the school district has discussed the possibility of the applicant mitigating this
proposal's impact on this feeder system but has not yet reached any formal agreement.The
applicant has agreed to pay a voluntary mitigation fee to the school District.
In addition to residential units, the application proposes at a maximum 115 acres of
commercial development,one elementary school,one middle school,and 166 acres of parks
and open space.
The applicant is proposing the residents of Meadow Ridge will utilize the cultural and social
amenities in the surrounding area.
It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services based on referral agency comments that the applicant
has adequately demonstrated compliance. This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the
application materials submitted by the applicant, other relevant information regarding the request, and
responses from referral entities.
The Department of Planning Services' staff recommends the following Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards:
1. The applicants shall work with Weld County to establish a Metropolitan District to assure future
municipal level services and infrastructure. (Department of Planning Services)
2. The applicants shall also work with Weld County to present a unanimous petition of all landowners
and residents 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)
Motion seconded by Tom Holton.
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Roy Spitzer Michael Miller
Tom Holton Erich Erlich
Chad Auer James Welch
Resolution 2005-XX
Benson Farms LLC
Page 5
Doug Oschner
Paul Branham
Bruce Fitzgerald
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.
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 December 20, 2005.
Dated the 20th of December, 2005.
1��O
Donita
Secretary CJ(J\
6. CASE NUMBER: USR-1536
APPLICANT: Donald&Cheryl Hackett
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-1871; part W2 SW4 of Section 22,T2N, R66W of
the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
kennel (100 dogs-dachshunds)in the(A)Agricultural Zone
District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 18;approximately 1/2 mile east of
CR 31.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, requested that Case USR-1536 remain on the consent agenda.
Donald Hackett, 15267 CR 18, applicant, requested his case remain on the consent agenda.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished
to speak. The public portion was closed.
Doug Oschner moved that Case USR-1535 and Case USR-1536 remain on the consent agenda and be forwarded to the
Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning
Commission's recommendation of approval. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;Tom
Holton, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Paul Branham, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
HEARING ITEMS
7. APPLICANT: Weld County
PLANNER: Monica Mika/Bruce Barker
REQUEST: Amendment to Chapter 22 Comprehensive Plan
Monica Mika, Director of Planning Services, reminded the Planning Commissioners that they had made several
changes to Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code a month ago and that there was one more additional change she
wanted to present today. That change was a regulation that allows the Comprehensive Plan be amended two times
in any given year. The Department of Planning Services'recommendation was that for the calendar year of 2006,
they withhold accepting applications to change the Mixed Use Development area in February and hold them until
August. The intent was that since they were preparing to go through the Mixed Use Development process,they felt it
was more appropriate to work through this study before adding any new parcels into the MUD area. That information
was found in Section 22-1-150 of the County Code. The Chair asked Ms. Mika what action should be taken today.
Ms. Mika replied that the recommendation for approval be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for
consideration in their Code changes and be attached to the previous Code changes and presented as one
consideration to the Board in January.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished
to speak. Public portion closed.
Chad Auer moved that Weld County Amendment to Chapter 22 Comprehensive Plan be forwarded to the Board of
County Commissioners along with the recommendation of approval. Doug Oschner seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision Roy Spitzer,yes;Tom
Holton, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Paul Branham, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
8. CASE NUMBER: 2005-XX
APPLICANT: Benson Farms LLC
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part E2 of Section 23 and the SW4 of Section 24,all in T3N,
R68W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
4
REQUEST: Petition to amend the Mixed Use Development Area of
Unincorporated Weld County. Changes to Chapter 22
(Comprehensive Plan)and Chapter 26 (Mixed Use Development
Plan Structural Land Use Map 2.1)land use designation
modification.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Highway 66; east of and adjacent
to CR 9.5
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services,this application is for modification to parcels of land, located within
the Mixed Use Development area (MUD). Changes to Chapter 22 (Comprehensive Plan)and Chapter 26 Mixed Use
Development Plan Structural Land Use Map 2.1.
The parcels associated with this proposal are located north of and adjacent to State Highway 66 and east of and
adjacent to County Road 9.5
There are two criteria for review of this amendment to Chapters 22 and 26 Map#2.1: Structural Land Use Map. The
first criteria is found in Section 26-1-30 (MUD Plan). The second criteria is found in Section 22-1-150
(Comprehensive Plan).
Criteria I: MUD Plan, Chapter 26,Weld County Code. That the application is consistent with Section 26-1-30 Weld
County Mixed Use Plan which establishes procedures for amending Chapter 26 in accordance to procedures
established in Section 22-1-150 of the County Code.
The procedures for submittal have been met.
The applicant submitted the application on August 1,2005, paid all applicable fees and submitted an ample number
of copies of the proposed amendment.
The applicant intends to create a planned community capable of providing residential with commercial and
recreation amenities.
The entire site is located within the Mixed Use Development area and has been since May of 2002, but the proposed
land use designations for the planned Meadow Ridge Planned Unit Development(PUD)are not consistent with the
Structural Land Use Map 2.1 amended August 30,2004. Presently,the 1-25 Mixed Use Development Area
Structural Land Use Map 2.1 has identified employment center(high intensity)and regional commercial (medium
intensity)along State Highway 66 and County Road 9.5. The proposed subdivision, Meadow Ridge, has planned for
residential and neighborhood centers along State Highway 66 and County Road 9.5 which is inconsistent with the
current land use designations,therefore the need for the amendment.
As proposed,the site will be developed with approximately 166 acres of open space divided into numerous parks
with open space connections throughout the subdivision. In accordance with Appendix 26.E, 20% (160 acres)of the
site will need to be dedicated to open space. The applicant's proposal includes neighborhood commercial along
State Highway 66 and County Road 9.5. This corresponds to the current Mixed Use Development Structural 2.1
Map which also identifies a higher intensity along the arterials.
The parcel was included in the MUD in May of 2002. At this time the property owner met the criteria for adequate
services. Currently,the some of the property is located within the St.Vrain 208 Sanitation Boundaries while the
remaining property is located within Mead's 208 boundaries. The entire site is located within the East 1-25 Sanitation
District.
The site can be provided with urban scale water from Little Thompson Water District as stated in their letter dated
October 15,2004.
Weld County Paramedic Services and the Weld County Sheriffs Office will provide for the emergency related
service in this area assisted by Mountain View Fire Protection District.
The municipalities of Firestone, Mead, and Longmont are located within three (3)miles of the site and have reviewed
this application. Longmont commented with no concerns, and, no comments have been received from the Towns of
Mead and Firestone.
The application materials indicate that, if fully developed as residential,a maximum of 2,400 residential units would
be located on the site adding approximately 6,672 people (based on 2.78 persons/household)and 1,361 school-
aged children.
It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services based on referral agency comments that the applicant has
adequately demonstrated compliance. This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application
5
materials.
The Chair asked Peter Schei, Department of Public Works,about access to Hwy 66 and if this will need to be
negotiated with the state. Mr. Schei replied that the applicant will be asked to work with the Colorado Department of
Transportation and then supply Public Works with written recommendations. Normally we ask for limited movement
on and off arterial roadways,and we will carefully consider what they are presenting to us. There could be right-of-
way requirements and traffic improvements related to intersections that would come as a result of the traffic impact
study.
Gary Woods and Stephanie Stewart, representing Benson Farms, said they were here because they did the MUD
amendment in 2002 on the eight hundred acres. Since then,they have filed a sketch plan application with the
county and this request for an amendment is a result of this sketch plan review. They would like the ability for this to
be all residential with neighborhood commercial development also permitted in the area along Hwy 66 and CR 9.5.
They believe their request is consistent with the requirements of the MUD area.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished
to speak. The public portion was closed.
Mr.Holton asked if this was just an amendment to the MUD and if they approve it today will it come back for a PUD and
zoning changes in front of this board. Mr. Morrison answered yes. Mr.Spitzer asked what the biggest impacts of this
change might be and was the applicant asking for more flexibility in his development plan. Ms. Martin replied that there
would be a lower intensity of commercial uses but a higher intensity residential. This will give the applicant the flexibility
with the development to do one or two things; low intensity commercial or residential along HWY 66 and CR 9.5. Mr.
Spitzer asked if there would be high intensity commercial. Ms. Martin replied there would not be. Mr. Oschner asked
what low density residential was. Ms.Martin said it was low intensity commercial and the residential being proposed is a
variety of different densities from R-1 to R-4. Mr.Spitzer asked if this would impact the county infrastructure in any way.
Ms. Martin said there would be an impact to the schools in the area as they don't have the capacity to serve this many
residents,but the applicants are proposing two different sites within their development that could be used as school sites.
Mr.Schei, Public Works,said regarding roads,the residential densities would impact infrastructure and they would ask
the applicants to pay their own way to mitigate County involvement. Mr.Spitzer asked if we will see impacts in the next
stages. Mr.Schei replied that this should be mitigated as well when the applicants submit their traffic impacts study to
Public Works. Ms. Martin also gave the Planning Commission the definition of neighborhood centers as defined in the
Code for their general information.
Paul Branham moved that Case 2005-XX Benson Farms LLC, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;Tom
Holton, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Paul Branham, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
9. CASE NUMBER: 2005-XX
APPLICANT: Pioneer Communities Inc&HP Farms LLC
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Several parcels of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
LOCATION: Approximately 3-4 miles north of the Town of Hudson.
Brad Mueller, Department of Planning Services, presented the seven applications together. The first was known as
the Pioneer Regional Metropolitan District and the others were known as the Pioneer Districts 1-6. The applications
were formally accepted by the Board of County Commissioners on October 19, 2005. Mr. Mueller described the
service areas and district boundaries in general terms. The site was located north of 1-76 and north of Hudson at the
intersections of CR 49 and CR 22, approximately four miles north of 1-76. The service area was roughly fifty six
hundred (5600)acres in size and would potentially serve up to ten thousand dwelling units and was a separate land
use application that would be handled in the future. Mr. Mueller gave an overview of what a Title 32 Special District
consisted of and that it includes metropolitan districts. Mr. Mueller explained that a quasi-governmental entity was
being created when a special district was proposed, that is, an entity developed to provide services and financing
through taxes. There were two components;the district boundary which defined the land and the service boundary.
The single service district consisted of one acre within the fifty six hundred (5600)acres.There were eight services
prescribed which included sanitation,water, street improvements,traffic signals,transportation facilities, mosquito
control, park and recreation facilities and television relay. There were six financing districts and their purpose was to
allow for phased development and eventually there would be citizen control of the financing districts. These
financing districts would have the ability to levy taxes and use that ability as the financing mechanism for the
proposed services. Mr. Mueller then talked about the three sets of approval criteria. The first was required by State
6
!l - 15 - S
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, November 15, 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 interim Chair,
Michael Miller, at 1:40 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Michael Miller
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tom Holton
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
Roy Spitzer ..
Erich Ehrlich N.)
Paul Branham
Also Present: Bruce Barker, County Attorney; Monica Mika, Director of Planning; Kim Ogle, Sheri
Lockman, Chris Gathman, Planners; Bethany Salzman, Compliance Officer; Peter Schei, Public Works;
Trevor Jiricek, Environmental Health.
In the absence of the Chair and the Vice Chair,Tom Holton motioned to elect Mike Miller to chair the meeting.
Roy Spitzer seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on October 18,2005,
was approved as read.
HEARING ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED
- 1. CASE NUMBER: 2005-XX
APPLICANT: Benson Farms LLC
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part E2 of Section 23 and the SW4 of Section 24 all in T3N,
R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Petition to amend the Mixed Use Development Area of
Unincorporated Weld County. Changes to Chapter 22
(Comprehensive Plan)and Chapter 26 (Mixed Use Development
Plan Structural Land Use Map 2.1) land use designation
modification.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Hwy 66; east of and adjacent to
CR 9.5.
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning, said Benson Farms Limited Liability Company have applied for a
Petition to amend the Mixed Use Development Area of Unincorporated Weld County. Changes to Chapter
22 (Comprehensive Plan) and Chapter 26 (Mixed Use Development Plan Structural Land Use Map 2.1)
land use designation modification. The applicant is requesting a continuance of 2005-XX to December 20,
2005 in order to modify their application.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against the continuance. As
there was no one, the public portion of the hearing was closed.
Doug Oschner moved that Case 2000-XX, be continued to the December 20, 2005 hearing date. Erich
Ehrlich seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
1
Hello