HomeMy WebLinkAbout20022664.tiff •
ead Town of Mead
P.O. Box 626
441 Third Street
mead-"A LWk Town Mead,Colorado 80542-0626
With a Big Future" (970)535-4477
August 22, 2002
Ms. Esther Gesick
Weld County Commissioners Office
P. O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
Dear Esther:
Confirming our conversation today, enclosed please find a check in the amount of$360.00 as a
deposit towards the cost of furnishing a transcript of the public hearing that occurred on the
RiverDance project in two sessions, on Monday, August 12, and Wednesday, August 14.
We understand that the Town will be billed for the remainder of the costs of producing the
transcript, which are $60/hour of transcription time and $2.50 per page of typed text.
Please let me know when the transcript is ready. If you would like to send minutes of the
hearing when they are ready, that would be fine.
Let me know if you need anything further.
Sincerely, _
/�C%aLC
Michael D. Friesen
Town Administrator
'j /620/
Coz 6>eq
de, 4244,
2002-2664
1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO
TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING
RE: RECONSIDER CHANGE OF ZONE #602 FROM THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE
DISTRICT TO THE PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) FOR 618 LOTS WITH
R-1,R-2,R-3,AND R-4(RESIDENTIAL)ZONE USES, 31 LOTS WITH C-1, C-2,AND
I-1 (COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL)ZONE USES,AND 239 ACRES OF COMMON
OPEN SPACE, INCLUDING A COMMUNITY CLUBHOUSE - MIKE SIEGRIST
PURSUANT TO NOTICE to all parties in interest, the above-entitled matter came
for public hearing before the Weld County Board of County Commissioners on August 12 and 14,
2002, at 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado.
'pi_/4.0/
2
APPEARANCES:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Glenn Vaad, Chair
David D. Long, Pro-Tem
M. J. Geile, Commissioner
William H. Jerke, Commissioner
Robert D. Masden, Commissioner
WELD COUNTY ATTORNEY OF RECORD:
Lee D. Morrison, Esquire
APPLICANTS:
Vem Nelson, representative for applicant
Mike Siegrist, applicant
TOWN OF MEAD:
Christy Morgan, Council member
Michael Friesen, Administrator
WELD COUNTY STAFF ALSO PRESENT:
Esther Gesick, Acting Clerk to the Board
Monica Mika, Director of Planning Services
Kim Ogle, Planning Department representative
Pam Smith, Health Department representative
Don Carroll, Public Works representative
OTHERS PRESENT:
Sandra Searls, St. Vrain Valley School District
Scott Toillion, Director, St. Vrain Valley School District
3
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 (Tapes#2002-26, #2002-27)
3
4 CHAIR VAAD: We will consider Docket#2002-41,and I'll ask counsel
5 to please make a record.
6 LEE MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, this is Docket #2002-41, Riverdance
7 Development Corporation, c/o Mike Siegrist. The request is to reconsider Change of Zone
8 #602 from the A(Agricultural)Zone District to the PUD District for 618 Lots with R-1,R-2,
9 R-3, and$-4(Residential)uses,31 Lots with C-1,C-2,and I-1 (Commercial and Industrial)
10 Zone Uses,and 239 acres of Common Open Space,including a Community Clubhouse. This
11 hearing is limited to the purpose of considering the referral and testimony of the Town of
12 Mead and any testimony the applicant or members of the public to new evidence presented
13 by the Town of Mead. It is located in part of Section 35, in the southwest of the northwest
14 and the northwest of the southwest of Section 36,Township 3 North,Range 68 West of the
15 6th P.M.,Weld County,Colorado. And these were,we're not showing,you didn't republish,
16 we just mailed to Mead, Firestone, and Frederick. Correct?
17 CLERK: Yes.
18 MR. MORRISON: All right.
19 CHAIR VAAD: Thank you. All right. Since,as counsel has explained,
20 we are here only for the purpose of hearing the comments from Mead that was Mead was
21 inadvertently left off of the referrals for the first hearing. So with that, I'll invite the Town
22 of Mead or their representative to speak to the Board of County Commissioners.
4
1 CRYSTAL MORGAN: Crystal Morgan, Trustee, Town of
2 Mead, I live at 2667 Meadow Lane in Mead, Colorado. We're here because we would like
3 Riverdance to be, ah, come to the Town of Mead for proposed annexation. Ah, we've got
4 a lot of different reasons,I'll leave planning to my Town Administrator. We've also invited
5 St.Vrain Valley School District to be here to talk why it should probably go to the Mead area
6 versus staying in Weld County. Ah, as a mother,and a Trustee,I have several concerns. I'll
7 take parks as the top, first issue. You asked that in the thing it says expressly for the
8 residents of the development,that excludes the rest of the community,which is Mead. It also
9 excludes Barbour Ponds, which you have just said earlier in your meeting, you spent
10 $380,000 on the St.Vrain Trail System. Well,in this development it says it's private,so you
11 can't even connect your$380,000 up to this part of the river. You know, that bothers me,
12 that's not a community-type thing,that's a,you know,that's not for the town, and that's not
13 what a town would want.
14 Schools are overcrowded. We're going to have to do something to mitigate
15 that. The Town of Mead is really involved in doing that,we just did that with the Sandborn
16 Annexation, we're requiring them to meet any, you know, anything that the school board
17 wants of them in order to develop. We're willing to,you know, stand by the school district
18 and do what it takes. Okay? Ah, this is right next to a piece of property that is up for
19 annexation. It's not like it's a flagpole. It is,roughly, on the borders of Mead. It's on I-25,
20 there, like I said, some of the structural things I'll have my Town Administrator address,
21 don't conform with what the Town of Mead is doing. You haven't asked them to even look
22 at some of the developments that are up the road from them that are further along. Their
5
1 roads don't line up. They are actually putting in a sound barrier, you know, to other
2 communities. Well that,you know, from one community to another community,you know,
3 they should work together, not against each other. And this, you know, the way it's put
4 together it is. It's not part of the community. You know,to me a 618 homes is a significant
5 difference to the Town of Mead. You're going to ask us to maintain the roads up to there
6 and then you're going to take over? I mean, there's no benefit for you to do that. We
7 actually charge an impact fee,and we will maintain those roads. There's no benefit for Weld
8 County not to put it in the Town of Mead. You know, you'd relieve your staff of planning
9 that we will take over. I mean, there's no benefit for it not to be in Mead. Excuse me, I'm
10 a little nervous,our Mayor couldn't attend,he had to be in Court this afternoon,he was going
11 to do this, so at the last minute I am doing this, so. Ah, this is some of the general things.
12 I would like to turn to my Administrator because he, you know,he has some
13 of the planning issues. I also feel that we were not given enough time because we weren't
14 sent the referral letter when it should have been sent. We only had,since we were here at the
15 last meeting requesting that you delay it. To look at this. And all we've had time to do is
16 look at just the referral letter. We haven't had time, you know, to look up things like there
17 are summaries in here what,ah,the Division of Colorado Wildlife had to say. I don't know
18 if that's what they really intended to say or not, we didn't have time to look it up. If
19 anything,we'd like more time. I mean,you know,we don't have a large staff and we didn't
20 have time to look at this like your staff has. You know, and yes,we weren't in the IGA part
21 of the first time this development came through. But we definitely were in the process of,
22 just like Longmont is today. And it wasn't an overnight decision for our IGA, it was a long
6
1 process, so everybody knew it was coming. And this new package, the earliest letter I can
2 see in here is in April. And we should have had a referral then,you know,we had to actually
3 come and ask for this referral, so, you know, we didn't get a lot of time to do this. So, it's
4 not as indepth and I would like to have it. And, I like to turn it over to my Administrator
5 and, like I say, we will have St. Vrain Valley School District speaking also.
6 CHAIR VAAD: Okay. Would you like to respond to any questions if
7 there are any?
8 MS. MORGAN: Yes, I would like to respond to any questions. I do
9 better that way.
10 CHAIR VAAD: Are there any questions of Crystal? I guess there are
11 none right now,but thank you very much. And again,we apologize for the inadvertently not
12 referring the case to Mead in a timely way,but we hope we're doing that now. Thank you.
13 MICHAEL FRIESEN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My
14 name is Michael Friesen,Town Administrator for the Town of Mead,Post Office Box 626,
15 Mead, Colorado. I, this is a quasi-judicial hearing, I don't know whether it's necessary or
16 appropriate that I have to give credentials,but I can.
17 CHAIR VAAD: That's fine,you've given your address,but thank you,
18 Michael.
19 MR.FRIESEN: What we are looking at here,essentially,is a very dense
20 urban development in an area that either has to come as unincorporated or incorporated. The
21 forces that are driving development along the I-25 corridor are larger than any of us,but we
22 have to deal with what we have now. The particular project here is basicallybarriered by the
7
1 St. Vrain River, so the only viable municipal entity to look at this is Mead, because of the
2 other annexations and developments that we've already approved and that are already in our
3 community. I wrote on behalf of the Town, a letter that was sent here and I'm sure all of you
4 have read that,and I would not insult your intelligence by repeating most of what is in there,
5 but I could recap a few of the points. And, in addition, I 've been asked by Mayor Kramer
6 to make a few points that he was going to make to you, instead, and I hope that you'll
7 understand then, that it makes me a little uncomfortable, perhaps, to put on a Mayor's hat,
8 when I'm professional staff hat. So. We don't believe that this project has had enough
9 planning thought put into it, and that there are ways that it could be improved that would
10 integrate, not only better with the Town of Mead, but would be a better project in and of
11 itself. These lie, in certain instances, with the transportation and street connection
12 assumptions that have been made,into the way that they have laid out their choice of housing
13 styles and lot sizes in relationship to each other, and that, of course, immediately affects
14 where the parks and open space end up. I also can tell you, in my professional experience,
15 that leaving as many things as is proposed in this proposal to the purview of a Homeowners'
16 association,is a recipe for social disaster. I've dealt with homeowner association problems
17 for twenty years, Gentlemen, and it's like a little municipality inside a municipality.
18 Typically for townhouses you have to do things like that because you have relatively dense
19 population next to each other that are in a common building, someone has to deal with
20 what's going to be done with the roof or the exterior siding,or the grass,or whatever. In this
21 instance here,we're talking about a masterous Homeowners' association that's going to be
22 dealing with four or five different kinds of housing styles, with very large lakes, with
8
1 recreational programs, with rules as to how they can use their open space or what else like
2 that, and this proposal is really very largely undefined as to how that will work. Every
3 municipality that I've had to work for has ultimately come to the conclusion that when they
4 did not sufficiently address the issue of what they were going to allow the developer to file
5 as a declaration of Covenants, conditions, and association or else like that, that they ended
6 up intervening for their residents. Because the residents will come to the elected body when
7 they can't get satisfaction among their neighbors. And, ultimately, it's the elected body as
8 representatives of the community as a whole that has to arbitrate what is right for everybody.
9 Mead is very interested in intergovernmental cooperation. There's many
10 aspects,just like last week when you were there to talk about a strategic road plan, that is
11 important for us to work together with, and important for other municipalities to work
12 together, since we will all have four or five municipalities growing together within the next
13 ten or twenty years in this entire southwest Weld area. The development in the I-25 corridor,
14 Mead believes, should be managed as much as possible, by one entity. And the Town is
15 asking for the cooperation of the County to look at the bigger issue here that the County is
16 becoming a municipality in this area and really should let the municipalities have municipal
17 development. The Mayor also wanted to convey to you his sense of concern that has been
18 implied in some instances, that the County Commissioners are concerned with their
19 constituents, and the implication is that they are only concerned with their unincorporated
20 constituents. As a larger unit of government, your constituents are also in the incorporated
21 areas, also, so you have to consider both. Mead will never have the financial resources or
22 personnel resources or whatever, to compete with an entity as large as the County. But, in
9
1 fact, in looking at this kind of approval,you are competing with Mead for development and
2 we'll always lose. And we don't think that is fair. Okay? Mead, in other instances, has
3 made conscious decisions that they are going to provide services to the residents, and they
4 will do so with their general tax revenue to the best of its ability. For example,we've started
5 a recreation program this summer, first time that we've done that. We've also been having
6 a senior's program and if Riverdance people that move into this project would be a part of
7 Mead,they'd be eligible and welcome for those kinds of programs. There are certain things
8 that we think municipalities provide a closer connection to people for a sense of community,
9 for the services and programs that belong in a municipality. I think I'll stop at that point.
10 I could probably say more later or answer questions.
11 CHAIR VAAD: Okay, are there questions of Mr.
12 Friesen?
13 COMMISSIONER MIKE GEILE: I did have one.
14 CHAIR VAAD: Commissioner Geile.
15 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Mr.Friesen,this is not included in your
16 Urban Growth Boundary,the agreement that we have between the city,ah the Town of Mead
17 and Weld County?
18 MR. FRIESEN: You're correct.
19 COMMISSIONER GEILE: How far is the boundary of the Urban
20 Growth Boundary, did I say that right? From this development?
21 MR. FRIESEN: You're right on the edge. If I could
22 indulge to use Monica's overhead here? Oh,that's the Riverdance one. (Inaudible) We're
10
1 here, and here. That's already the Urban Growth Boundary. In effect, three sides of
2 Riverdance.
3 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Now,this is an Urban Growth Boundary
4 that we have both agreed to? Because, Michael, I think it's different than that, but I guess
5 I need to ask staff, is that the Urban Growth Boundary?
6 KIM OGLE: That's the Intergovernmental Agreement
7 area for Mead, it's not the Urban Growth Boundary area.
8 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Okay,but the Urban Growth Boundary
9 that we have negotiated in our IGA, could somebody show me where that is?
10 (INAUDIBLE)
11 MR.FRIESEN: We may have a terminology thing here,
12 more so than a line,because I understand the UGB,in other words,Urban Growth Boundary,
13 to be the same as the boundary line of the IGA. If that's not correct,I'm certainly willing to
14 be enlightened. This is our IGA line right here, and here's Riverdance.
15 COMMISSIONER GEILE: But my question is, is this the Urban
16 Growth Boundary that we have with our IGA? Somebody?
17 CHAIR VAAD: That's Mr.Friesen's opinion,and Kim,
18 you seem to have a different opinion.
19 MR.OGLE: It's my understanding that the pink area
20 there is the Intergovernmental Agreement area,in some cases they are one and the same. In
21 this instance, I'm not certain of that, I'd have to defer to my Director.
22 CHAIR VAAD: So we don't have a definitive answer
11
1 right now.
2 MONICA MIKA: Monica Mika. The pink area is the
3 Intergovernmental Agreement boundary area, but where this became kind of hazy, is what
4 is the referral area boundary. The referral area boundary where we would send them
5 referrals,is still going to be three miles outside their municipal boundaries. And that's what
6 they did not get the opportunity to look at, this, in relationship to the referral area.
7 CHAIR VAAD: Okay. Mr. Masden?
8 COMMISSIONER ROB MASDEN: Just a quick question,then, so, Monica.
9 So they are not within the three mile limit?
10 MS. MIKA: They are within the three mile limit of
11 the town boundaries,but it is not inside their Intergovernmental IGA area.
12 MR. MORRISON: You don't get to count, next to the
13 Intergovernmental area is not the same as within.
14 UNKNOWN: But it's within the referral area.
15 MR. MORRISON: Well, that's correct, that's why we're
16 having this hearing.
17 CHAIR VAAD: Did you have a question?
18 Commissioner Jerke.
19 COMMISSIONER BILL JERICE: Yes,I had a question. Monica, still up
20 there on another issue. This is just a Change of Zone. Mr. Friesen brought up all kinds of
21 things regarding detail concerning the tremendous problems you get into with Homeowners'
22 associations when things aren't spelled out. Just help me understand whether or not we have
12
1 another bite at this apple later on,in which we can,indeed,make sure that the Homeowners'
2 association and the governmental agreement ofRiverdance will be something that,hopefully,
3 will be workable.
4 MS. MIKA: Monica Mika. Yes, you do, and those
5 are normally in Weld County, taken care of at the Final Plan process.
6 COMMISSIONER JERKE: Thank you.
7 CHAIR VAAD: Okay, if there are no further questions
8 of Michael, let me, ah, Michael, I know there are representatives from the St. Vrain Valley
9 School Board. We would like comments from them to be associated with the concerns of
10 Mead because we did open this up for the purpose of Mead's concerns. So I'll let you direct
11 that however you'd like.
12 MR. FRIESEN: Yes. May I make one other
13 amplification to the (inaudible) that we've had here? I understand about the planning
14 jurisdiction. You know, when, earlier today you had to deal with the line discussion that
15 involves the Longmont situation. The State of Colorado has,by default,created lines for us.
16 Because state law says there is a three mile thing there. What we're saying is that Riverdance
17 was already within three miles of the Town of Mead a long time ago, not just recently.
18 Okay? Because,we've had the Sekich Business Park which is only a mile and a half away,
19 it's been annexed for over ten years. Okay.
20 CHAIR VAAD: Yes, counsel?
21 MR. MORRISON: I want to clarify the question about
22 whether, Mr. Jerke said, "We" get another shot at this, in terms of design detail. Depends
13
1 on, currently as you passed it, the Resolution provides for staff review of the Final Plan.
2 That can change if complexities arise that can't be resolved by staff. But it is possible that
3 it won't come to this Board for Final Plan, it does have to come back to staff at a minimum.
4 So, I don't know if that assists Mr. Jerke.
5 CHAIR VAAD: Mr. Jerke?
6 COMMISSIONER JERKE: I just meant that at least this
7 government,whether it be staff or the Commissioners,does get another look at this,because
8 it's only in the first phase.
9 CHAIR VAAD: Okay,let me announce that the Courts
10 need this room at 1:30. We'll,if we don't conclude,we'll reconvene at 10:00 on Wednesday
11 to finish this. Go ahead, Michael. Invite whoever you'd like to address the issues.
12 MR. FRIESEN: I'll allow them to make their own
13 introduction.
14 CHAIR VAAD: Thank you. Welcome to the Board of
15 County Commissioners. If you'd please give us your name for our records.
16 SANDRA SEARLS: Good afternoon, Commissioners,
17 Chairman. My name is Sandy Searls,and I'm one of the Board members for the Saint Vrain
18 Valley School District. I live at 8227 Catchall Drive, Longmont, and there are three of us
19 here from the Saint Vrain Valley School District. Myself, Tammy Folkington, Mike
20 Rademacher, and we have a definite concern. In working with the City of Mead, as well as
21 the other municipalities in this area,regarding the impact that this development would have
22 on our school district in the area of our district. Ah, we're looking at 618 homes, that
14
1 translates into approximately 330 students. The schools in that area are already impacted,
2 are above capacity,and to speak regarding to this this afternoon,I'd like to introduce two of
3 our city planners that will be speaking, and that is Scott Toillion and Glenn Segrue.
4 CHAIR VAAD: Welcome to the Board,Glenn,if you'd
5 give us your name and address, please.
6 GLENN SEGRUE: Glenn Segrue,we're at 395 South Pratt
7 Parkway. I've got a map right here that just,pass it around.
8 CHAIR VAAD: We will be keeping it, if that's okay?
9 MR.SEGRUE: That's fine,absolutely fine. It's just that
10 I'm going to do a quick run-over of our current numbers, the developments and student
11 impacts, then I'm going to hand it over to Scott. Currently, as illustrated on the map, the
12 final plats are illustrated in red, and the sketch plans are illustrated in blue, and we have 927
13 final plats on file within the Mead area. That's since 1997. The impact of that is 324 new
14 elementary students, 130 middle school students, and 158 high school students. In addition
15 to that, there are somewhere around 500 additional units that are in the sketch plan and
16 preliminary plan stage. Riverdance, of that 330 total mentioned early, 172 will impact the
17 elementary in Mead, 80 will impact the middle school at Mead, and 81 will impact the high
18 school at Mead. That being said, currently puts our capacity at 133 at elementary, 201
19 percent,I should say, at middle school and 134 percent. And that is,each of those are above
20 the 125 percent capacity that we have identified where we start recommending denials on
21 proposals. With that being said, I'll hand it over to Scott and he can go over the mitigation
22 policies and some of the other things the school district is considering in this instance.
15
1 CHAIR VAAD: Are there questions? There's a question.
2 Commissioner Masden?
3 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: Going over your numbers,I know you
4 said what they,you know,what the proposed is,are any of those schools at this point in time,
5 over the 125 percent?
6 MR.SEGRUE: Just the middle school currently is. It's
7 at 133 right now.
8 CHAIR VAAD: Thank you. Scott? Welcome to the
9 Board. Please give us your name and address.
10 SCOTT TOILLION: I'm Scott Toillion,Director of Planning
11 for the Saint Vrain Valley Schools. We're at 395 South Pratt Parkway in Longmont. I just
12 want to touch briefly on our mitigation policy. That's probably something new from
13 previous hearings. We had a policy working its way through our Board,being evaluated for
14 a year or so. At their last meeting in July they did adopt a policy,and you probably are,have
15 a copy of that that has been mailed to you. I just want to outline, really, the parameters of
16 that. As you may be aware,we were involved in the Supreme Court case,Bainbridge Case,
17 that outlawed mandatory impact fees. There has also been legislation that has outlawed those
18 mandatory fees. However, over the last few years, several districts have been looking at
19 voluntary situations with developers. And, also, as part of that case it became clear that
20 communities could deny development based on school impact. So,kind of the combination
21 of working through denials and working through voluntary contributions, several districts
22 in the state have set up parameters to open up with developers these voluntary contributions.
16
1 Douglas County and Brighton are some examples. We've developed a similar methodology,
2 our methodology really looks at the cost of classroom addition space that would be required
3 of each development. So, for instance, we can look at the student yield for different types
4 of housing units, single family,multi-family, look at the student impacts,and then correlate
5 that to square footage of classroom space. Our calculation does not cover core facilities,
6 such as gyms, cafeterias, you know, the things that serve the entire school, but just the
7 classroom space that would be required. We set up a system that would require payment up
8 front up if the developer would so chose to join with us on this effort, and then we would
9 have the funds available to construct classroom space that corresponds to their timing of their
10 development. If there are variations from that system, our district would have to look at
11 those on a case-by-case basis, or if there are variations on our fee amount,our Board would
12 have to review whether they would consider alternative proposals. As far as if a developer
13 would agree to participate with us on that,we would be prepared,then,to prepare a referral
14 not opposing the development, if they address the impacts of their development. Currently,
15 as Glenn was mentioning, all three levels of our schools would exceed the benchmark with
16 this development,that would correlate to a fee of$2,756 for the single family and$1,285 for
17 town home units. And that would be a per unit calculation.
18 CHAIR VAAD: Would you say those again?
19 MR.TOILLION: As,$2,756 per single family and$1,285
20 per town home. And the fees are different because of lower student yields for town homes
21 than single family.
22 CHAIR VAAD: Now,Glenn said that the middle school
17
1 was at 133 percent and,so that's clear that that's a benchmark. The elementary wasn't. Why
2 would there be an assessment for the elementary if it hadn't reached the benchmark?
3 MR. TOILLION: Well, we look at, in our benchmark
4 ordinance,and our benchmark policy is,all projects that have been approved that have final
5 plats ready to go,what's the impact of those projects that are final platted,plus this project,
6 plus what's there now. And we look at that over a five-year period, and that's typically,
7 school districts will have a five-year capital planning period. So,within the five year, given
8 what's approved,ready to go, platted,plus the new proposals,we look at what that does to
9 our benchmark. So, that triggers the other two levels.
10 CHAIR VAAD: Other questions? Scott, yes,
11 Commissioner Jerke?
12 COMMISSIONER JERKE: Thank you,Mr.Chair,and I'd like staff
13 or someone else to correct me if I'm wrong on this,I believe that the developer agreed to do
14 the full impact fee? Is that correct?
15 MR. TOILLION: Ah, we had a proposal for a smaller
16 amounts, but I'm understanding that they're willing to comply with our policy here. That
17 might be something they can clarify.
18 CHAIR VAAD: We'll wait until we hear from the
19 applicant,then,to determine that,then. Do you have further questions,Commissioner Jerke?
20 COMMISSIONER JERKE: Well,no,I'll just go on with that later.
21
22 CHAIR VAAD: Okay. Commissioner Geile.
18
1 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Ah,I had heard that there is at least one
2 jurisdiction,major jurisdiction,town,in Weld County,who has said they will not participate
3 in the mitigation program, so they have in essence voted not to do it, so how do you all of
4 a sudden, if you don't have everybody involved with this, how can you
5 MR. TOILLION: Well, we haven't heard anything like,
6 which town are you referring to?
7 COMMISSIONER GEILE: I was referring to Firestone.
8 MR.TOILLION: We haven't heard anything official like
9 that. Our Board and staff have gone around talking with these towns about the policy,
10 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Let's say that it is true, and one of the
11 jurisdictions chose not to participate in this,and consequently their land use hearings would
12 not consider it, how can you impose, if that's the case, then how can you impose that on
13 anybody else?
14 MR. TOILLION: Well,we can't. We can't impose it on
15 anybody
16 COMMISSIONER GEILE: It becomes very voluntary.
17 MR. TOILLION: It's a voluntary situation, so it's really
18 up to the developer. If they are interested in receiving a positive referral,
19 COMMISSIONER GEILE: That's what I was getting at,
20 MR. TOILLION: Right, and it's really up to the
21 jurisdiction to decide that.
22 CHAIR VAAD: Commissioner Masden?
19
1 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: Thank you,Mr.Chairman. Ah,did the
2 developer offer to give you a parcel of land in the development?
3 MR. TOILLION: We had some discussions about
4 potential sites,we have,we evaluated the sites,we felt there were some other ones that made
5 more sense to focus on. Ah,we have a comp plan that identifies elementary,middle and high
6 schools that, at full build out of all the comprehensive plans, identifies the best sites for us,
7 and this one didn't fit into that criteria at that time, so,but we do have some sites that we'll
8 address growth from this area.
9 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: Okay, but you did have the option,
10 anyway, okay, and then, cause I'm on school board. The mitigation fee that you're looking
11 at, per single household is $2,700? Do you think developers are going to pay that?
12 MR. TOILLION: Ah, well, we've had some very
13 interested in participating in that,at that level. And the Douglas County mitigation is in that
14 $2,000 range, Brighton is a little less, ah, some other communities or districts that are
15 looking at it are very close to this range. It will, it's really the lowest that we could come up
16 with that really met a mitigation response. You know, if you look at the full cost of doing
17 a school per unit,you're closer to $10,000 and that's out of the question,but this brought it
18 down to the classroom piece, and maybe a little more palatable.
19 CHAIR VAAD: All right. No further questions, thank
20 you, Scott. Michael, we, I'll address Michael, since you're kind of leading the delegation
21 today, or Crystal, either one, ah, the Court is waiting to move in here now, so that they can
22 be ready to begin their business,so I'm going to have to put us in recess and we'll start again
20
1 at 10:00 o'clock on Wednesday. And I guess we really don't have an option for anyone who
2 won't be able to come back,if you could provide something in writing or delegate someone
3 and authorize them to come and speak on their behalf, we'll be happy to accept that
4 testimony. So we will adjourn and we will reconvene for this matter at 10:00 o'clock on this
5 coming Wednesday. Thank you, we are adjourned.
6
7 WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14, 2002 (Tape#2002-27)
8 CHAIR VAAD: Let the record reflect that we did adjourn
9 as the Board of County Commissioners from the regular meeting that started at 9:00 o'clock.
10 We'll now convene the Board of County Commissioners for the purpose of land use
11 hearings, and ask the clerk to please call roll one more time.
12 CLERK: Rob Masden.
13 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: Here.
14 CLERK: Bill Jerke.
15 COMMISSIONER JERKE: Here.
16 CLERK: Mike Geile.
17 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Here.
18 CLERK: Glenn Vaad.
19 CHAIR VAAD: Here. Let the record show that all four,
20 that all five Commissioners are present. We are continuing the matter of Docket Number
21 2002-41, which we made a record of on Monday last, and so this isn't an official
22 continuation, we're just picking up from where we left off. So, Kim, if you maybe could
21
1 start it off and tell us where we left off. Sony to surprise you, but
2 MR. OGLE: Kim Ogle, Department of Planning
3 Services. Ah,we were discussing the change of zone application for Riverdance. There is
4 a site plan map on the overhead, it shows that it is south of and adjacent to Weld County
5 Road 28, and east of and adjacent to the I-25 Frontage Road. Ah, Mike Siegrist was, is the
6 applicant, and I believe that the Town of Mead was providing testimony in regards to their
7 letter dated July 31, 2002.
8 CHAIR VAAD: Let me invite,because I think we were
9 here, Mead was still testifying when we had to stop. So, either representative from Mead,
10 I'll invite you back and thank you for your patience and,please give us your name one more
11 time for our record.
12 MS.MORGAN: Crystal Morgan,2667 Meadow Lane in
13 Mead. Ah,once again our Mayor could not attend,he had to be in Court. I do believe Saint
14 Vrain Valley is finished, but if you have any questions they'd be welcome to speak again,
15 and I do have our Town Administrator,who's going to speak later. Ah, some of the things
16 I didn't point out, because I wasn't prepared to speak last time cause I thought our Mayor
17 would,is that this development will double the amount of residents in the Mead area. Mead
18 Town only has 2,000 residents. This will project 1,900, so you're going to double our
19 community. You're going to ask us to provide roads to this facility, accommodate the kids
20 at this school, accommodate the kids when they play baseball and soccer, at the Mead's
21 Youth Association,because these kids will be attending the Mead area,they will want to play
22 sports with the kids in their area. Without sending it to the Town of Mead,we can't collect
22
1 the impact fees necessary to build the ball fields to put these kids on. These,ah,the residents
2 of this community, some of them will be seniors. They will want to join our senior
3 community. We have no facilities to accommodate double the amount of seniors. The
4 downtown, ah, downtown redevelopment, we won't be able to pay for that, but yet we're
5 going to have all these cars drive through the Town of Mead. As, Commissioner Vaad, as
6 you are aware of, living just outside of Mead, to drive through Mead Town, someone is
7 going to have to pay for those. It's going to have to be the Town of Mead who's going to
8 have to improve these roads to get the residents of this neighborhood to this community.
9 There is no other direct access route,with exception of the frontage road. They're all going
10 to have to come down the frontage road through Mead from Weld County, ah, you know,
11 from 66, or 9-1/2. Those will all be town roads. You're going to ask us to improve these
12 roads to accommodate double, double the residents necessary. You know, into one
13 community. And you're going to, if you don't refer them to annex into the Town of Mead,
14 and we do not annex them,we will not be able to charge the impact fees to accommodate the
15 roads. The County will then have to improve those roads. By annexing,having them annex
16 into the Town of Mead,you will take that burden off the County,you know, to have to pay
17 for those roads. Ah, Other than, you know, unless they've given you concessions we were
18 not aware of. About building ballparks and roads,you know,to,you know,and that was not
19 in the packet,in the referral letter,it did not say that they were going to improve the frontage
20 road, or 9-1/2. And those are the only two roads to this neighborhood. Ah, I'd also like to
21 know why it wouldn't be sent to the Town of Mead for, you know, possible annexation. I
22 don't know why you wouldn't do that, if you look at the IGA border, it is right there. You
23
1 know, other towns received referral letters on this property, and Mead did not. And I
2 understand that it was probably an oversight,but then again,I don't know why you wouldn't,
3 there are farther areas that we have,that you have sent to us for possible comment, and this
4 one is right there,there is no reason that they shouldn't have to come for possible annexation
5 so we can work with design elements and things like improving the roads up to them. Ah,
6 I think some of the facts that you weren't aware of, necessarily, of how close they were to
7 our IGA,before this meeting when you made your last decision weren't quite clear, I think
8 having the facts now that you can make a better decision,ah,you know,I'd like to reiterate,
9 yes, it is right next to Mead, yes, you're going to double the population in our community,
10 even if you don't have them come to our town they will,you will be doubling the population
11 in our community with this one development. Ah, they're going, the kids will be in our
12 schools, the district has shown their desire to have it in the Mead area. Ah, the roads in
13 Mead will have to,you know,Mead is going to take care of the roads. But yet,you're going
14 to cut us from being able to require money from these people to build this road. And it is a
15 significant burden to the community, a significant burden. Ah, the other, our other town
16 officials,most of them have other jobs,I am a stay at home mom,that is why I'm here,I have
17 the opportunity to do this. The other ones are on planes and things doing other jobs. I wish
18 you,you know,just having me here doesn't signify the amount of stress this has put on our
19 Board and the burden it will put on our community as a whole. It's a very large development
20 and for having them not come to the Town of Mead would be a significant change for the
21 area. And the school,one of the things the school board said,this development,if there were
22 no other developments planned,would only put one of our schools at significant overburden.
24
1 But we have other developments that are further along, farther ahead that will make our
2 schools overcrowded, so this development will not be the just one little thing that makes it
3 over. The schools will be overcrowded within the next five years by other developments that
4 are ahead of this project. So that there is,you know,there is very significant damage to our
5 schools. If you don't require the mitigation,that the school district had asked for. Ah,I will
6 turn it over to my Town Administrator, he has a few comments, and then I'd like if the
7 school board, if they have any other comments. And then, I will be here for any questions.
8 CHAIR VAAD: Thank you.
9 MS.MORGAN: Do you have any questions ofme now?
10 CHAIR VAAD: Any questions of Ms. Morgan.
11 COMMISSIONER GEILE: I did have one,Mr.Chairman,if I could.
12 CHAIR VAAD: Commissioner Geile.
13 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Christy,I'd like to get back to your point
14 about the Urban Growth Boundary, and the reason I was having trouble with the map the
15 other day is because I had the old map. And the fact of it is that the new map,which comes
16 down to where it is right now, was just updated, as a matter of fact, became effective
17 August 1, 2002. And Riverdance has been something that's been
18 MS. MORGAN: Right,there's a farm right above there
19 that's been less than a mile for fifteen years.
20 COMMISSIONER GEILE: My, but let me ask you this question.
21 If it was so important to you, and this process you know, it takes about 90 days to update,
22 why all of the sudden is it important, why wasn't it included in your request to update?
25
1 MS.MORGAN: Because we weren't notified that there
2 was a development there until we read it in the paper, and I called in June.
3 COMMISSIONER GEILE: That's not the question. But,
4 MS.MORGAN: Well,but how can we,how can we, the
5 way our Urban Growth Development is,we do not expand our Urban Growth Development
6 Area until a property is put towards us for possible annexation.
7 COMMISSIONER GEILE: So,what you're saying is that anytime
8 anything is annexed,that you think you just might have an interest in,then you'll include it?
9 MS.MORGAN: No,we only include it if it is a possible,
10 well,because we have a different annexation process,ours is by the vote of the people. Our
11 process isn't,we can't go as an entity and ask them, we have to actually have the petition.
12 COMMISSIONER GEILE: But your Urban Growth Boundary was
13 not determined by a vote of the people, it was determined by the foresight of your Board,
14 looking at where they wanted that boundary in the future
15 MS.MORGAN: It's determined on who,who is,yes, and
16 it changes every time we, ah,it's synonymous with when a project is coming up for growth,
17 or for possible annexation. That's when our border changes. For our Urban Growth
18 Boundary. Cause we don't want to include anything that isn't a possible growth. Do you
19 understand what I'm saying? It's they're the two and the same sort of,but because we have
20 a different annexation process than other municipalities, and we were the first,
21 COMMISSIONER GEILE: I understand your annexation process,
22 I was involved in the development in your IGA so I'm very familiar with it,
26
1 MS. MORGAN: Okay, and that's why
2 COMMISSIONER GEILE: But thank you, that answers my
3 question.
4 MS. MORGAN: Yes,but it was also within a mile and
5 a half, for over fifteen years.
6 CHAIR VAAD: We will hear from your Town
7 Administrator, if that's your choice for the next person?
8 MS. MORGAN: All right, thank you.
9 CHAIR VAAD: Thanks for coming. Would you give us
10 your name one more time?
11 MR. FRIESEN: Yes, Michael Friesen. The prefatory
12 comments I made on Monday were designed, at least as that sequence I anticipated that day
13 to be, that I would be able to further respond with more technical or planning issues as I
14 presume that you would have your staff and/or the petitioners make comments to you. I am
15 assuming it gets to be a go back and forth response, response thing until at what point you
16 tell the audience that you won't take any more comments. So, I was anticipating to have
17 more to say later, I really didn't want to stand here at the beginning and give a dissertation.
18 I didn't think that was a productive way to start. So.
19 CHAIR VAAD: So your choice is to respond after there
20 is more information presented?
21 MR. FRIESEN: I would appreciate that privilege, yes.
22 The only other thing I would want to say, probably, at the moment, is that I'm aware that
27
1 there's been issues over what does the map look like,where is the map,where are the lines,
2 whatever else like that, and I am doing the best I can to understand maps and lines. It's my
3 understanding that the Town Board, last year, asked the County Board here to expand it's
4 Urban Growth Boundaries to a greater extent than what was ultimately approved, because
5 they did recognize that there was urban growth beyond the lines that were drawn in 1999
6 when that document was first promulgated. But it is impossible for the Town to keep up
7 with what is happening and at what stage it's happening at the County level in other areas.
8 So,yes,the Town was aware that there was Riverdance out there somewhere,but we had no
9 official communication of it, nor do I believe, it was, ah, it should not have been a burden
10 on the Town of Mead to have to keep up with everything that's happening at the County.
11 Okay? And, with all due respect, Mr. Geile,by saying that.
12 CHAIR VAAD: All right. And I believe, Councilman
13 Morgan said the school district would like to address their issue one more time, or add to,
14 we did give you the opportunity once, but if there is was something that you missed and
15 would like to say to the Board of County Commissioners,I invite you to do that again. From
16 the school district? Okay.
17 So, all right. I guess next in order,I would invite the applicant,if they chose
18 to respond to some of the concerns,the specific ones,not the ones directed at the County, as
19 far as any mitigations towards the concerns of the City, the school district, or whatever.
20 Thank you for coming. If you'd give us your name and address for our records?
21 VERN NELSON: Good morning. I'm Vern Nelson, and
22 I live in Greeley at 225 Dundee Avenue,#12. I have a few comments and,Mr.Chairman and
28
1 members of the Commission, if you'll bear with me for just a couple of minutes. I want to
2 tell you that on June the 18th of 2002, we made a complete presentation to this Board
3 regarding this project,after having completed literally years ofplanning,preliminary designs,
4 numerous meetings with neighboring property owners, meetings and negotiations with
5 County and State agencies and, most importantly, we obtained concurrence with our
6 development plans from your County planning staff,your Public Works Department,and the
7 Weld County Planning Commission. We made formal and proper request for rezoning of
8 the subject site for a Change of Zone from Agriculture to PUD. A favorable
9 recommendation for rezoning from your Planning Commission was submitted to this Board,
10 and after you had an appropriate hearing, you approved the rezoning request by Resolution
11 on that June 18 date. It's not our intent, again, to present a complete presentation of our
12 request for rezoning, as I said, although we are available to answer any questions that you
13 might have about this. However,I do want to take a minute to reiterate a few pertinent facts
14 about our process. Riverdance is in the Mixed Use Development area of Weld County. An
15 area specifically designed and created by the County for such developments as ours.
16 Riverdance complies with the adopted Development Standards for that MUD. Riverdance
17 is outside of all UGA's for adjacent towns,Urban Growth Areas. The establishment of any
18 change in an UGA requires a specific hearing and approval of this Board, as I understand it.
19 The initial rezoning process started before we were legally contiguous to any municipality.
20 Whether or not we now meet the legal requirements of contiguity at this time is not known.
21 There has never been a proposal from Mead regarding annexation prior to our request for
22 rezoning in the County. Mead has few, if any, services to offer. It has no water, it has no
29
1 public sewer, it has no fire protection system within the Town, no advantage regarding
2 schools, no health or ambulance service, no gas, no electricity. All of these services are
3 equally available to our development, whether or not we remain in the County or annex to
4 Mead. Mead's comments which have brought about this meeting are basically planning and
5 design issues. Most of which must be finalized before filing of the Final Plat. Many of those
6 comments are preferential and may or may not have relevance under detailed scrutiny. Weld
7 County Road 9-1/2 is designed for appropriate speed and sight distances,as determined from
8 studies and designs that have been reviewed by your Public Works Department and the
9 appropriate State Highway officials. The neighboring Saint Accacius Development is in the,
10 ah, in a planning stage only and nothing, to our knowledge, is in an approved stage. Weld
11 County Road 28 is proposed as a collector street,which requires it to be a two-lane road with
12 a painted median. The Homeowners' Association is a highly acceptable method of
13 administering a development of this sort. The Metropolitan District provides a financing
14 tool,as well as a method of equality of establishing payments for the planned water and road
15 improvements, not only in our subdivision, but in the area as a whole. Open space parks,
16 trail, and recreation amenities have all been carefully planned and discussed with pertinent
17 agencies. Certain privacy issues may be, and, are the choice of the owner and developer.
18 The lakes have been planned and created at the expense of the owner of the development.
19 All planning and design matters have been accomplished by professionals and are acceptable
20 to the relevant County staff. All applicable standards have been satisfied through the
21 rezoning process. A popular vote, of which they speak in Mead, does not necessarily mean
22 better plans, as it can be influenced by public opinion or public, political influences. Both
30
1 of which may be,or not,relevant. Professional input is a must. This,we have provided. We
2 are in the sixty-day period given for submission of the Change of Zone Plat Map. That
3 period started June 26, it's our intent to have that plat completed by the current deadline of
4 August 25,2002. As you know,we have only recently become contiguous to Mead,but we
5 are not in the Mead UGA and may, or may not be, eligible for annexation. It is without
6 question that we prefer to remain in the County with the approved rezoning and develop with
7 in the Development Standards as provided by the MUD. And I thank you for the opportunity
8 to make these comments,now,and I'm available to answer questions,but I want to ask Mike
9 Siegrist to address some land use, land uses and dwelling types, and that sort of thing. And
10 Clayton Harrison is here as our Engineer to address any detailed engineering questions that
11 you might have. So, if you have questions, I'll try to answer them.
12 CHAIR VAAD: Thank you,Mr.Nelson. Commissioner
13 Geile.
14 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Yes,if I could,Mr.Nelson,and maybe
15 you or counsel can recall, but I couldn't find it. When did we go through that significant
16 change hearing? Because, as you know, at one time this was denied, you then brought
17 through some significant changes, it came back before this Board. When was that? Can
18 somebody give me the date that we made that determination that there was enough
19 MR. NELSON: That there was a significant change?
20 COMMISSIONER GEILE: That there was enough evidence that
21 there was significant change, and consequently, enabled you to proceed?
22 MR. NELSON: I don't remember that date. Do you
31
1 know?
2 CHAIR VAAD: I believe that we can get that from our
3 records here in a minute.
4 MR. NELSON: I don't have here, but
5 CHAIR VAAD: Kim, were you able to find out?
6 MR. OGLE: No, I was not, I didn't bring that file
7 down.
8 CHAIR VAAD: But we will get you that answer. Are
9 there any other questions of Mr.Nelson? Very well, if you'd like to have Mr. Siegrist come
10 forward, we'll do that now.
11 MR. NELSON: Thank you.
12 CHAIR VAAD: Welcome to the Board, if you would
13 please give us your name for our records.
14 MICHAEL SIEGRIST: Mike Siegrist,875 West 64th Avenue,
15 Denver,Colorado, 80221. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. I wanted to
16 briefly address some of Mead's planning concerns that were addressed in their letter,as well
17 as make some comments about information that they provided at the meeting on Monday.
18 In Mead's written comments they question the location of patio homes and, in fact, call the
19 locations illogical. A target market for patio homes are empty nesters and retired couples.
20 The fact is,that this use is high density,not because of lower housing costs,it's high density
21 because people don't want yards to maintain. And they don't want to necessarily be by a
22 patio home,or by a town home or high density area,or by an arterial. And that's why we've
32
1 located them where we have. We've located them in areas that will be quiet,peaceful, and
2 low maintenance,which is the way it should be. Mead also questioned the northern lots and
3 view corridors. The northern lots is all the lots to the project are laid out with staggered lot
4 lines to improve view corridors. We're moving about a million yards of dirt on this project,
5 again, to create slopes and to create view corridors. It's been a primary,primary item when
6 we've designed the project.
7 Planning for this development has been occurring for over fifteen years.
8 Planning for this specific layout has been occurring for the last four years, and takes into
9 consideration items such as lot size,view corridors,parks, open space,phasing,on and off-
10 site infrastructure costs,absorption rates,just to name a few. We have retained high-quality
11 professional and experienced planners who have worked with the owner to develop the
12 current plan. In addition, we have had our marketing team on board from day one, they've
13 reviewed the plans, as they've progressed, from a marketing standpoint, to make sure that
14 what we're designing is,in fact, attractive to the public. Several builders have reviewed the
15 project, and they're all enthusiastic about it. The only ones to date that have claimed this
16 project is not properly planned is the Town of Mead. On Monday, the Town of Mead had
17 several people here from the Saint Vrain School District concerning the mitigation plan,and,
18 as this Board recalls, when we were before it for the original hearings we presented the
19 proposed mitigation plan for Saint Vrain School District at that time. At that time,that plan
20 had not been adopted by Saint Vrain,but we have provided a draft copy,which was included
21 in the record and, as a Condition of Approval, we agreed to follow that mitigation plan
22 should they adopt it. So that plan is already in effect and we've, we've already committed
33
1 to that.
2 Mead also questions the use of a Homeowners' Association. Homeowners'
3 Associations for maintaining high density projects, such as town homes, is very common.
4 It's used, you know, throughout the State. Homeowners' Associations are also used for
5 PUD's and they're a good way to maintain a PUD. This project has a substantial amount of
6 open space, a substantial amount of parks, it's going to, we're talking about a club house
7 facility, all of these items have to be managed somehow, and we propose they be managed
8 through a Homeowners' Association. There's a philosophical question here as to who
9 controls the amenities at Riverdance, the Town of Mead believes they should. We believe
10 the homeowners should. Mead also pointed out that they collect roadway impact fees, I
11 believe the County collects road impact fees through Ordinance 211. And,again,that's part
12 of the process and part of the fees that we'll pay. Mead suggested they would serve River,
13 would better serve Riverdance Development, they point to such issues as good planning,
14 service delivery, community identity, the facts are that Riverdance is a well-planned PUD.
15 Riverdance has it's own unique community,sense of community. And,as Vern pointed out,
16 they really don't have any additional services to offer. In closing, we've worked with this
17 Board and the County for over twenty years in the Del Camino area. The first piece of
18 Riverdance was purchased, in conjunction with Weld County, whereby Weld County took
19 the property south of the river and we took the property north of the river. There is no reason
20 for this relationship to end. We would ask the Board to confirm their original vote and
21 approve Riverdance.
22 A couple of other comments that were just made about ball fields,recreational
34
1 areas, ah,we've got a ton of recreational amenities on this project, and one of them is a, ah,
2 an all purpose field. Be able to be used for soccer,baseball, football games. Impact fees we
3 talked about. You know, one other thing about Riverdance being new or just all of the
4 sudden popping on the scene. That's not the case. As I pointed out, we've been here for
5 years and,in fact, as part of a process of trying to develop a roadway system out here,we've
6 invited Mead to meetings at which we were present. We talked about 9-1/2 and 28 and the
7 frontage road and how all that ties together, so, we believe Mead has been aware that we're
8 there and we're moving through the process. With that I would entertain any questions.
9 CHAIR VAAD: Thank you, Mr. Siegrist, are there
10 questions? Mike? I guess not, thank you very much.
11 MR. SIEGRIST: Thank you very much.
12 CHAIR VAAD: And,Vern,you wanted your Engineer,
13 or was he just on standby to answer questions? Or was he prepared to make a statement?
14 MR.NELSON: Mr.Chairman,he is simply on standby
15 to answer questions at this point. And we're prepared to do that.
16 CHAIR VAAD: All right. Could I ask you to step back
17 to the microphone,please. Let the record show that Mr. Nelson is back at the microphone.
18 Mike Siegrist did address the mitigation plan with the Saint Vrain School District.
19 MR. NELSON: Yes.
20 CHAIR VAAD: And said that's in place. Could you tell
21 us what the status of the agreement is as far as the development's contribution vis a vis the
22 mitigation plan,towards the Saint Vrain Valley School District? Is it a per unit contribution,
35
1 or what is that mitigation?
2 MR. NELSON: We have more or less, and I'm going
3 to ask Mike because he's been in that detailed negotiation with the school district,but we've
4 more or less agreed, already, to their mitigation plan. Which would be a per unit cost, yes.
5 CHAIR VAAD: Okay. Mike, would you
6 MR. NELSON: And, isn't that what, that's your
7 question?
8 CHAIR VAAD: Yes,I and I would like to see if we have
9 understanding here.
10 MR. SIEGRIST: The mitigation plan, as we understand
11 it, and we haven't had lengthy discussions with the school district concerning the plan that
12 they just adopted,but it's our understanding that the mitigation plan provides for funding for
13 schools which are at the 125 percent level or above. And, if all the schools happen to be
14 overcrowded, I think the total impact fee is about $2,700. That's paid as we do filings, so
15 as we come into the County and we do a filling for fifty houses, we would take fifty times
16 $2,700 and that money would go to the district.
17 CHAIR VAAD: Okay. Commissioner Jerke?
18 COMMISSIONER JERKE: Thank you,Mr.Chairman. As I recall,
19 originally when we worked on this a few months ago,I think it was presented that that only
20 kicks in should the election for the bond issue for Saint Vrain Valley Schools fail this fall.
21 MR. SIEGRIST: That's correct. That's correct.
22 CHAIR VAAD: Further questions? All right, I don't
36
1 know, is there anyone else who,on the matter of Mead's concern,would like to address the
2 Board?.
3 MS. MORGAN: They said they had a ball field, or
4 (inaudible) they said they had a ball field in their plan, the only field that's big enough is
5 where the oil well is. So,I would have a question to find out where the ball field is,because
6 it wasn't in the referral packet, that there was a ball field in the community.
7 CHAIR VAAD: Okay, we'll ask the applicant. If you
8 could designate the location of the ball field.
9 MR. SIEGRIST: When we talk about ball fields, we're
10 not putting in a full-scale baseball field,but the area right through there, is designated as an
11 all purpose field.
12 MS. MORGAN: So, no ball field.
13 CHAIR VAAD: All right. I'll close public testimony,
14 then.
15 MS.MORGAN: But,Mr.Chair,our Town Administrator
16 CHAIR VAAD: All right. Go ahead, you said you had
17 some summary things.
18 MR. FRIESEN: Yes, Sir. First of all the comment was
19 made earlier that they have never received an annexation proposal from the Town of Mead.
20 The standard protocol is that municipalities don't approach developers for annexations,
21 developers approach units of government for annexation. I should clarify that. The one issue
22 of ball fields, not to belabor the point, is that 618 homes generates more demand than one
37
1 ball field. We have four in the community of Mead,already,just for 2,000 people,and that's
2 not enough. There is not enough adequate park space provided in this project, and, if you'd
3 indulge me to use your graphic here? This is the only place possible to have a ball field here
4 where this, (inaudible).
5 MS. MORGAN: (Inaudible)
6 CHAIR VAAD: We'll limit the testimony, please.
7 MR. FRIESEN: It's not just an issue, also, of road
8 impact fees. Because the Town of Mead has a range of impact fees, from everything for
9 recreation to municipal facilities,to roads,to police protection,saving up money for a variety
10 of things that municipalities need. So, the issue still at hand is that there would be a
11 significant amount of impact fees that would be necessary to provide appropriate services for
12 a development of this density and scale. Which are not really being addressed. Perhaps I
13 should talk slightly more generalistically. There's no such thing as a perfect site. If it was,
14 it would already have been developed by now. There's many different ways that different
15 people can come up with different solutions that may be equally reasonable. None of our
16 comments was intended to impune the integrity or the talent of the planning staff of the
17 County, or of the planning consultants that the developer used. I'd like to make that clear.
18 Part of our concerns relate more to the whole issue of County versus municipal viewpoints,
19 as to how to zone and plat property. And I will also ask you to indulge me if, perhaps, we
20 have not addressed specifically,questions that we should be addressing,because I realize this
21 is Change of Zone. And I do not know all the County's process and regulation what that
22 means, whether that means some comments that we've made are technically irrelevant.
38
1 Okay,because,I can talk specifically about zoning,if that's what would be appropriate. For
2 but one small example,I've read all of your regulations of the uses you permit in your zoning
3 districts. The petitioner here is proposing a combination of R-1, 2, 3, and 4, C-1, C-2, and
4 I-1, of which the C-1, C-2, and I-1 can all be in the employment center section. For one
5 example,you allow as a permitted use in your I-1 zoning district,processing of sludge. Now,
6 it has to be held to a higher standard than other ones that have a purely Use By Right
7 permitted use,but counties have typically over the years developed their zoning regulations
8 from things that happen in counties and happen in unincorporated areas. When you have to
9 start, then, recasting your zoning regulations to start looking more like municipalities,
10 sometimes counties have a little bit of accumulation of tradition that someone else coming
11 in or looking in from the outside says, "Gee, this just doesn't work." From my viewpoint,
12 processing of sludge should not even be on the radar screen for the zoning in this district,for
13 example. It's fundamentally incompatible with anything that I could think of,with the other
14 things they'd like to do there. So that's why I stated that I felt there was a juxtaposition of
15 uses there that are ultimately going to be detrimental to the project.
16 I will have to finish by saying, by echoing what the Mayor wanted to say.
17 Again today, he's asking the County not to work at cross purposes with the Town of Mead
18 for a project that really should be a municipality. And I would also like to extend an olive
19 branch to the developers on behalf of the Town of Mead,to come see us,to come work with
20 us,with our ideas and our process. I think they would be pleasantly surprised. And this can
21 be a win, win situation, or a win, win, win, situation for the developer, the Town, and the
22 County. And so, we are still, respectively, requesting that you deny the rezoning and refer
39
1 them to the Town of Mead for annexation. Thank you.
2 CHAIR VAAD: Thank you, Michael. Are there
3 questions of Michael? I guess not. Thank you very much. All right,then,I will now close
4 public testimony. Are there questions of staff or counsel? Commissioner Geile?
5 COMMISSIONER GEILE: I just wanted to see if we had ever come
6 up with a date on the Substantial Change? Kim?
7 MR. OGLE: It was Substantial Change#17 and the
8 Resolution was January 10, 2001.
9 COMMISSIONER GEILE: January 10, 2001?
10 MR OGLE: Correct.
11 CHAIR VAAD: Anything further? Discussion? Before,
12 counsel?
13 MR. MORRISON: Before you go, are your comments in
14 the record, Mr. Ogle? You prepared written comments, is that correct?
15 MR. OGLE: I did.
16 MR. MORRISON: And Mr. Hempen prepared some as
17 well, are those both in the record, ah, Mr. Hempen's are not in the record, are yours in the
18 record?
19 MR. OGLE: Mine are in the record, is my
20 understanding.
21 MR. MORRISON: Do you wish to have Mr. Hempen's
22 entered in the record.
40
1 CHAIR VAAD: We do. Mr.Hempen,I'd invite you to
2 summarize these, since we've just now been handed these comments, please.
3 FRANK HEMPEN: Frank Hempen with the Department of
4 Public Works.
5 CHAIR VAAD: Did, I'm sorry, do the representatives
6 of Mead have one? Could we get
7 MR. FRIESEN: I did get Mr. Hempen's.
8 MS. MORGAN: But we didn't get Mr. Ogle's.
9 CHAIR VAAD: Okay,Kim if you'll give them a copy.
10 Go ahead and proceed, Mr. Hempen.
11 MR. HEMPEN: Thank you. I,there were,in the Town
12 of Mead's letter dated July 31, 2002, there were a series of transportation and street issues
13 that they brought up. Ah, with all due respect to the issues, the majority of them were in
14 regard, in my opinion, to technical details, such things as adjustments for stopping sight
15 distance,weave distances between intersections. There were a couple that I will speak to for
16 just a moment, one is the extension of Weld County Road 9-1/2 north of this development
17 to State Highway 66. And our preliminary comments during zoning, we indicated that we
18 understood that the applicant was working on that, and we hope to, ah, we expect to have
19 some solution to that prior to the recording of the plat, and usually that's all dealt with in the
20 public improvements agreement. The other major issue was a concern about how the
21 applicant intended to insure the improvements on some of these, insure the completion of
22 improvements,and we know that they are working on a Metropolitan Planning District. The
41
1 Town of Mead indicates a dissatisfaction with that approach. The only point I will make,
2 that is a policy issue,and the only point I will make is that Weld County has,in the past,used
3 Metropolitan Planning Districts to insure improvements from development applications
4 successfully. The rest of these, in my opinion, are important things to look at, but by and
5 large they are details. I would call them technical engineering details that we deal with prior
6 to final approval, and recordation of the plat. I can go in, point by point, if you'd like, but
7 that's my summary.
8 CHAIR VAAD: Are there questions of Mr. Hempen?
9 Thank you,Frank. Kim,would you summarize,or rehearse the things that you have put that
10 are in the record, for the benefit of those who don't have a copy of those?
11 MR. OGLE: Okay. Kim Ogle, Department of
12 Planning Services. I went through and split out staff comments by heading. When they
13 talked about open space,trails,and recreational amenities,the applicant has provided us with
14 forty-nine percent of the site in that classification,some are specifically designated as pocket
15 parks with tot lots in them,some of them are designated as open space for playground,fields,
16 not necessarily of standardized size,but to a size that would enable practice. The area around
17 the commercial development which,in this case is above the lake that's furthest to the west,
18 all those lots would have to go through a Site Plan Review process, and at that time we
19 would address fields and space there,in view of the MUD standards. I believe the applicant
20 has addressed land use types and delineated types. Again, in the MUD plan, the area that is
21 the commercial lots is designated as an employment center. An employment center has a
22 higher density use than other areas in the County. Uses that would be permitted would be
42
1 hotel, motel, restaurants, (inaudible) service, police and fire, and any research, preparing,
2 manufacturing, and fabricating assemblage as long as it is conducted entirely within a
3 building. Again,they would have to go through the Site Plan Review process if an applicant
4 were to come in for any of those lots in there.
5 The fifth heading is on school issues. During the course of our hearing in
6 June,we amended a Condition of Approval#4-M,it talked about a voluntary mitigation,the
7 applicant would go into should the bond fail for the November,2002,election. I think we've
8 touched on that. The PUD itself is outside of the IGA for the Town of Mead. The referral
9 agencies have indicated they have an ability to serve the project. The issues with the water
10 and sewer were approved by attorney Morrison during the course of this application. They
11 have made mitigation plans for the school district,Mountain View Fire has signed off on the
12 development. I think that's about the highlights of my comments.
13 CHAIR VAAD: Thank you. Are there questions of Kim?
14 A side question, Kim. We freely admitted and we apologized for the fact that we did not
15 send Mead a referral during the hearings before the Board of County Commissioners. Was
16 that also true before the Planning Commission stage?
17 MR. OGLE: Yes, it was.
18 CHAIR VAAD: They were not informed then, either?
19 MR. OGLE: Correct. I took the referral list from
20 Sketch Plan and I just copied it verbatim, I didn't check it.
21 CHAIR VAAD: Okay. Thank you. All right, further
22 questions or discussion?
43
1 COMMISSIONER GEILE: I had a couple comments,if could, Mr.
2 Chairman. First of all, Riverdance came before this Board, well, Commissioner Vaad and
3 I, in a Board before this, and it was denied, and then it came back and there was significant
4 discussion and hearing about substantial change. And that was, in essence, approved on
5 January 10th, 0-1, which gave the developer the opportunity to move ahead with the basis
6 of that substantial change and come back with a full case. And the developer understood
7 when they did that, they still had to come forth and justify a development which would fit
8 within the schemes, not only of the County's rules and regulations, but with all the overall
9 scheme of the MUD. And,also,we had at that time, and still do,have an obligation that any
10 development that is inside the Urban Growth Boundary, we have an Intergovernmental
11 Agreement which,in essence does require to submit an annexation for potential,or refer the
12 development to the particular jurisdiction to consider annexation, and there is a whole
13 paragraph, series of paragraphs, section, that deals with that. But the fact of it is, this has
14 always been outside the Urban Growth Boundary of the Town of Mead,and as I look at when
15 we started to hear this, was significantly outside of it. And it is only in August 1st of this
16 year that's it's contiguous to it. So,when we approved that on August 1,2002,but when we
17 started hearing this back in June it was outside,and like I say,significantly outside the Urban
18 Growth Boundary of the Town of Mead. And even though we had an obligation for referral,
19 we had no obligation to, we had no obligation or responsibility, either on the developer
20 or the County side, to refer this to the Town for consideration of annexation. So we
21 proceeded and heard it on the basis of the MUD regulations. And the MUD regulations are
22 a land use overlay, and all of this did fit within the confines of the land use regulations
44
1 associated with the MUD. As to where that overlay said that residential should occur,
2 commercial should occur,zones that relate to economic development should occur,all of that
3 was presented and it was within the confines, as well as the open space plan,the trail plans,
4 everything else fit within the concepts that were originally stated with the MUD, and
5 continue to be stated with the MUD today. So,really,the only question I have is, should we
6 have required the applicant to apply to the Town of Mead for annexation? And for reasons
7 I just stated I can't find a reason to do that, simply because this is outside the Urban Growth
8 Boundaries of the Town of Mead. And as far as our working relationship with the Town of
9 Mead,I would also hope that the Town of Mead can understand that as we're looking down
10 the road and we're setting Urban Growth Boundaries, even though it's very difficult cause
11 you don't know where development is going to occur, unless we have a very sound, long-
12 range approach, and I don't think there is any doubt with the addition of their new City
13 Manager, Mr. Friesen, that a lot of that long-term planning and thought process will be
14 coming ahead,but the fact of it is, maybe we didn't have it and maybe we have it now, but
15 the point of it is, is that what we had when we heard this is in essence,the basis that we had,
16 in my opinion,had to hear it and make our decision when we did the significant change and
17 we went through the land use application that we heard some time ago, only to extend it
18 because of the fact that Mead had not been referred. So, consequently, Mr. Chairman, I
19 would support a motion to respectfully approve the Resolution that we have before us, but
20 like I say,respectfully,recognizing Mead's comments, but the fact of it is,we don't have a
21 basis to proceed with those and require the applicant to go back to the Town of Mead for
22 annexation.
45
1 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Comment? I will make some
2 comments. I wasn't here for the original meeting in June, as you all know. Have read the
3 record and heard all of this current testimony and read the written documentation to us. For
4 whatever reason, there were comments that were reported as late as this morning, and I
5 realize that, or I'm not sure about the intention, but I respect your right that the comments
6 attributed to members of the Board at Mead to malign this Board of County Commissioners
7 and what they're doing in this,I think are based on less than fact. And so, I'm compelled to
8 respond to some of those reasons. Before I get into those, I want to clearly state it's my
9 intention to continue to represent, particularly my neighbors, but all of the members of, or
10 constituents in Weld County District II, but all of Weld County. First of all, there was a
11 statement made that this development will cause additional work for the Post Office. I
12 believe it's the U.S. Postal Service that provides those facilities and not the local
13 governments. It was talked about our schools will be crowded by this,and this development
14 will not pay their way. It's clearly the fact that school district taxes are collected by the
15 County and remitted back to the school district and are not a function of local government.
16 There was a comment about,and this was some time ago,that the,and I believe the term was
17 used, the 800-pound gorilla is competing for the revenue sources with the communities. I
18 don't believe anybody, or maybe I'm wrong,but no one should be under the disillusion, or
19 misunderstanding that Weld County has a sales tax. We do not have a sales tax. We do not
20 compete with municipalities for revenues that way. We even lowered the County mill levy,
21 based on revenues that we had and turned those additional revenues that we were able to
22 keep outside of that reduction in mill levy to roadway improvements that impact and improve
46
1 things for all of our constituents. The issue was brought up about paying for the roads.
2 While you do make a point that those people who live in this development as it goes forward
3 will traverse part of Mead's property as they go north to Highway 66,and so they will impact
4 some of those. To mitigate that, this development is under the Southwest Weld area
5 transportation impact fee program and will contribute to that. Mead opted out of that impact
6 fee. Now,I understand that you have your own impact fees,I don't know what those are,but
7 you opted out of the one that we set up for this area. But this development will pay for a
8 share of the cost of the roadways well away from their project, because we understand and
9 can prove by modeling and statistically,that they will have those impacts. But they will pay.
10 I'm not sure about the cost of the participation of residents of this development as far as it
11 was brought up the senior citizens programs or the youth leagues that they have in Mead.
12 I would think there would be a participation fee for that. Granted that doesn't cover the
13 capital costs. And then, finally, some of the arguments that I've heard for the impacts on
14 Mead are tempered in my mind, that it seems likely to me, looking at the roadway system,
15 that a good deal,if not the predominate amount of traffic,will probably not travel north into
16 Mead, but probably into the Longmont area or points south. So, that mitigates, or has an
17 impact on that issue for me. So, again, it was pointed out by representatives from the
18 applicant, as Commissioner Geile did, that this was set up in the Mixed Use Development
19 District, which was set up for the very purposes, and like purposes that Riverdance is
20 proposing, because of the way that whole area, I believe it's over a hundred square miles
21 now,was developing. We had to develop that Mixed Use Development to meed the needs
22 of the constituents and property owners who live in that area. And this is a fit. It was
47
1 designated in the MUD for these kinds of uses. So,I would support a motion to confirm our
2 earlier decision. Commissioner Masden?
3 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I am
4 going to be in support of this development. I have to agree with Commissioner Geile and
5 yourself,the developer has worked and is working with the school district,ah,offered them
6 land in their development,which they did turn down,or cash-in-lieu of,and are working with
7 them on mitigation fees. Ah, and they will be paying for road mitigation fees. Ah, this
8 subdivision here has been in the works for a long time and I know the Siegrist's have been
9 working on this for quite a while. So I know, you know, Mead has been aware of this and
10 there's been a lot of thought and work done to this. I do not believe that it will impact Mead
11 that much, for the simple reason that Mead does not have, ah, much as, current facilities, as
12 businesses and that nature for people to,to ah,migrate into the Mead area. And I think they
13 will be going towards the Longmont and other areas up and down I-25. And I feel that this
14 is a good project and there's been a lot of work done by the County planners and staff and
15 the Public Works Department on Road 9-1/2, they will pay to have that road built through
16 there, and I believe, extended to road 66. So, I will be in support of this.
17 CHAIR VAAD: Counsel,if I can ask,what would be the
18 appropriate motion, I think you've heard our discussions and I don't know the position of
19 Commissioner Jerke or Long at this time, but would a proper motion be, then, to move to
20 decline to reconsider and thereby confirm the Change of Zone approval?
21 MR.MORRISON: Ah,I think more appropriately that you
22 would ratify your prior decision.
48
1 CHAIR VAAD: Okay.
2 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Mr.Chairman,I would make a motion
3 that we ratify Docket Number 2002-41, which is, or that we ratify our decision concerning
4 Docket Number 2002-41, which is "Consider Change of Zone #602 from the Agricultural
5 Zone District to the PUD."
6 CHAIR VAAD: Is there a second?
7 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: Second.
8 CHAIR VAAD: It's been moved by Commissioner Geile
9 and seconded by Commissioner Masden to ratify the decision to approve the Change of Zone
10 #602,along with all of the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards as they were.
11 Is there a request for a roll call vote? All in favor signify by saying, "Aye".
12 COMMISSIONERS GEILE, JERKE, LONG AND MASDEN: Aye.
13 CHAIR VAAD: Opposed same sign? It passed
14 unanimously. Thank you very much.
15
49
1 CERTIFICATE
2 I, CAROL A. HARDING, Deputy Clerk to the Board of County
3 Commissioners and a Notary Public of the State of Colorado, appointed and commissioned
4 by the Secretary of State,do hereby certify that the foregoing was transcribed from the taped
5 recording of the land use matter heard by the Board of County Commissioners on August 12
6 and 14, 2002, which was recorded at the Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10`h Street,
7 Greeley,Colorado,by Esther Gesick,Acting Clerk to the Board; and that the foregoing is an
8 accurate transcript of the proceedings at that time.
9 I further certify that I am not related to any party herein or their counsel,and
10 that I am employed as Office Manager Coordinator in the office of the Weld County Clerk
11 to the Board.
12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my
13 Notarial Seal this 26th day of September, 2002.
14 1
15 ;SPRY Pp ' • At
16 O., .�i CAROL A. HAR
17 , ; Deputy Clerk to the Board and Notary Public
18 t CAROL A. ': a
19 My Comma': ioti IH . J3DIKee.% ,406
20 �;:•• ::POa�
9J�OF COA- 00"
My Commission Expires June 8,2006
Hello