HomeMy WebLinkAbout20022520.tiff HEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 2002-41a
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
A public hearing was conducted on August 12, 2002, at 9:00 a.m., with the following present:
Commissioner Glenn Vaad, Chair
Commissioner David D. Long, Pro-Tem
Commissioner M. J. Geile
Commissioner William H. Jerke
Commissioner Robert D. Masden
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Esther Gesick
Assistant County Attorney, Lee Morrison
Planning Department representative, Kim Ogle
Health Department representative, Pam Smith
Public Works representative, Don Carroll
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated May 31, 2002, and duly published June 5, 2002, in
the Tri-Town Farmer and Miner and the Greeley Tribune, a public hearing was conducted on
June 26, 2002, at which time the Board approved the request of Mike Siegrist for 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. At the request of the Town of Mead, on July 1, 2002, the Board deemed it advisable
to reconsider Change of Zone#602 for the purpose of considering the referral and testimony of the
Town of Mead and any testimony of the applicant or members of the public relating to new
evidence presented by the Town of Mead and set a hearing date. A hearing was scheduled for
August 12, 2002, at 9:00 a.m., at which time Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney, made this
a matter of record.
Christy Morgan, Mead Council member, stated the Town of Mead would like the Riverdance
Planned Unit Development to petition the Town of Mead for annexation. She stated this proposal
excludes the Town of Mead from the use of services proposed, and the regional trails may not be
able to connect at this location. She stated the applicant also needs to work with the School District
regarding the impacts the additional residences will create. Ms. Morgan stated if this development
is approved through the County, the Town will be negatively impacted, yet they will be unable to
charge any impact fees. She further stated the has not had adequate time to review the proposal
extensively,and explained this property is located within the current Intergovernmental Agreement
boundary, although it was not at the time the applicant submitted the first proposal.
2002-2520 eC P1 Aid sPL1601 1601
HEARING CERTIFICATION - MIKE SIEGRIST (COZ#602)
PAGE 2
Michael Friesen, Town of Mead Administrator, stated this will be a very dense urban development
in very close proximity to Mead. Mr. Friesen stated he submitted a letter, marked Exhibit J,
indicating this project has not had enough planning and it should be integrated with the Town of
Mead to improve the project. He expressed concern with the layout, road design, and parks, and
added the style of homes, maintenance, use of the lakes, recreational programs, and rules for the
open space are undefined at this time because the Homeowners'Association Covenants have not
been established. He stated the development should be managed by one entity, and the County
Commissioners need to acknowledge the concerns of constituents of the incorporated areas of the
County. He stated Mead offers a recreational league and seniors program to the residents in the
area, as well as a sense of community. Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Friesen stated
this development is not in the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) boundary; however, it is
surrounded on three sides by the IGA and the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). In response to
Commissioner Jerke, Ms. Mika stated this is the Change of Zone phase, and many of the details
described by Mr. Friesen will be addressed at the Final Plan. Mr. Morrison stated as previously
approved,the Resolution provides for an Administrative Review; however,the Board can designate
if it would prefer to consider the Final Plan.
Sandra Searls, St. Vrain Valley School District, expressed concern regarding the impact to the
School District. She explained the proposed 618 homes will generate approximately 330 students,
and the schools are already above capacity. Glenn Segrue, St. Vrain Valley School District,added
they estimate Riverdance will generate 172 elementary students, 80 middle school students, and
81 high school student,which will put those schools at 133 percent, 201 percent, and 134 percent
capacity, respectively. Responding to Commissioner Masden, Mr. Segrue stated the Middle School
is currently at 133 percent. Scott Toillion, Director of St.Vrain Valley Schools, stated the Mitigation
Policy has been evaluated and will soon be adopted. He explained that although the Supreme
Court outlawed mandatory impact fees,they can still work with developers to obtain voluntary fees.
Mr. Toillion stated the Mitigation Policy is based on the amount of additional classroom space
required by a development, and requires the payment up front so the School District can construct
classroom space to correspond with the development. He stated if the impacts are addressed,the
School District will prepare a referral of support for this development. Responding to
Commissioners Jerke and Geile, Mr. Toillion stated the developer has indicated they are willing to
comply with this policy, and reiterated that this is a voluntary contribution. Responding to
Commissioner Masden, Mr. Toillion stated the land offered was not suitable, and the applicant has
indicated they will pay $2,700 per lot, which is comparable to other areas.
(Clerk's Note: Chair Vaad recessed the hearing until Wednesday,August 14, 2002, at 10:00 a.m.)
Upon reconvening on August 14, 2002, Ms. Morgan, stated this development will double the size
of Mead, yet as approved, the Town cannot assess impact fees for the services these residents
will expect. She stated the Town's streets will need to be upgraded and maintained to
accommodate more residents, and the applicant has not indicated whether they will improve the
I-25 Frontage Road or impacted roads in the area. She further stated that although this is outside
the formal ICA boundaries, it is adjacent and it should have been referred to the Town of Mead for
annexation. She stated through this hearing process,the Board has received additional information
which needs to be addressed by the applicant before the approval is ratified. She stated this, in
conjunction with other surrounding developments,will be an adverse burden on the Town of Mead,
the School District, and various local services. In response to Commissioner Geile, Ms. Morgan
stated the UGB is amended once the Town is approached by a developer for inclusion.
2002-2520
PL1601
HEARING CERTIFICATION - MIKE SIEGRIST (COZ #602)
PAGE 3
Mr. Friesen stated last year the Town Board asked the Commissioners to consider expansion of
the UGB beyond what was established in 1999, at which time they were not aware of the
Riverdance Development.
Vern Nelson represented the applicant and stated on June 18, 2002, they made a complete
presentation to the Board after years of planning, preliminary designs, meetings with neighbors,
and coordination with County and State agencies. Mr. Nelson stated the Departments of Planning
Services and Public Works, as well as the Planning Commission, have all concurred and
recommended approval of this development, with the proposed Conditions of Approval. He
reiterated that Riverdance is in the Mixed Use Development (MUD) area, which was specifically
designed and created by the County for this type of development. Mr. Nelson stated the proposal
complies with the MUD standards, it is outside of all UGB areas of surrounding towns, and the
Town of Mead cannot provide the necessary water, public sewer, fire protection, schools, health
and medical services, or utilities. He stated there appears to be no advantage to annexing into the
Town of Mead, and many of the issues expressed by Mead are planning and design issues which
will be dealt with in the Final Plan. Mr. Nelson stated Weld County Road 9.5 is designed for
appropriate speed and sight distances, and Weld County Road 28 is proposed as a two-lane
collector street. He further stated the Homeowners'Association is a highly acceptable method for
maintaining this sort of development, and the Metropolitan District will provide a financing tool for
establishing water services and road improvements in this area. He stated the applicant is
proposing open space, parks, and trail amenities which will be discussed with the appropriate
agencies. He further stated lakes have been planned and created at the expense of the owner,
and all of the planning and design matters have been done by professionals and accepted by the
County staff. Mr. Nelson stated the applicant intends to submit the Change of Zone plat by
August 25, 2002. He reiterated this property is not within the Mead IGA or UGB areas, and
ultimately, it may not be eligible for annexation. He stated they prefer to remain in the County and
develop within the Development Standards of the MUD.
Mike Siegrist,applicant,responded to the written comments from Mead by stating the target market
for patio homes typically desire low maintenance homes in a quiet area, which is why they are
located as proposed, and there will be staggered lot lines to improve view corridors. Mr. Siegrist
stated planning for this development has been occurring for more than 15 years, and planning for
this specific layout has been occurring for the past four years. He stated they have considered lot
sizes, view corridors, parks, open space, phasing, on and off-site infrastructure, and absorption
rates. He further stated they have worked with professional planners throughout the design
process, used a marketing team to help determine if the design is appealing to the public, and
consulted professional builders to review the plans. Mr. Siegrist stated in June they presented a
draft Mitigation Plan which had not yet been adopted by the School District; however, they still
volunteered an impact fee amount. He stated the Homeowners' Association is a good way to
maintain a Planned Unit Development, and it will be responsible for the open space, parks, and
clubhouse facility. Mr. Siegrist stated the County will be collecting road impact fees for local roads,
and the project will have an all purpose field for all types of games, and many other amenities for
activities, which the Town of Mead cannot provide. He stated as a part of the process, they have
invited Mead to various meetings regarding the improvements to Weld County Road 9.5 and the
1-25 Frontage Road, therefore, he feels the Town has been aware of the proposal.
In response to Chair Vaad, Mr. Nelson stated they have agreed to the Mitigation Plan of the St.
Vrain Valley School District. Mr. Siegrist stated they have not discussed the recently adopted plan,
which provides funding for schools at 125 percent capacity; however,they are willing to pay$2,700
2002-2520
PL1601
HEARING CERTIFICATION - MIKE SIEGRIST (COZ#602)
PAGE 4
per lot at the beginning of each filing. Responding to Commissioner Jerke, Mr. Siegrist stated the
mitigation fees will only apply if the bond issue fails.
Ms. Morgan stated the only field large enough for recreational activities is in the oil field. Mr.
Siegrist indicated the location of the all-purpose field, which is not a specifically designated ball
field.
Mr. Friesen stated municipalities do not typically approach developers for annexation, and he feels
618 homes will generate more demand than one ball field can accommodate, and the sites on the
proposal map are oil field sites located in a draw, which is not adequate. He stated Mead has a
range of impact fees for police, roads, utilities, etc., and there will still be many services impacted
that will not be assessed to the Town. Mr. Friesen stated they did not intend to question the
professional review of the proposal to this point; however,the Town of Mead was not involved and
he expressed concern with the types of uses which may be allowed under the proposed zoning.
He requested the Board not approve a development that will negatively impact the Town and
requested the applicant come and discuss annexation with the Town. There being no further
comments, Chair Vaad closed public testimony.
Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Ogle stated Substantial Change #17 was approved
January 10, 2001. Mr. Morrison stated Frank Hempen,Jr., Director of Public Works, has submitted
additional comments, which were added as Exhibit N. Mr. Hempen stated staff initially had many
technical concerns with the transportation issues and the extension of Weld County Road 9.5 north
to State Highway 66. He stated the applicant must have those issues resolved prior to recording
the plat and enter into an Improvements Agreement. He stated to ensure the completion of
improvements, the applicant is proposing a Metropolitan District. He stated they will deal with the
technical details in preparing for the Final Plan. To address the concerns expressed by the Town
of Mead, Mr. Ogle stated the applicant has designated 49 percent of the site as open space with
various designations,any commercial development above western lake will have to go through the
Site Plan Review process in accordance with the MUD, and the applicant specified the land use
and building types for the employment center as a higher density use, which would include uses
such as hotels, restaurants, assemblage businesses, etc. Mr. Ogle further stated Condition of
Approval#4.M was amended to require the applicant to enter into an agreement for mitigation fees
if the Bond issue fails. He reiterated that this development is not in the IGA boundary, water and
sewer sources have been approved, and the Mountain View Fire Protection District has signed off
on the development. In response to Chair Vaad, Mr. Ogle clarified the Town of Mead was also
omitted from the Planning Commission hearing.
Commissioner Geile commented the first application was denied; however, the Board did approve
the Substantial Change. He stated this has always been out of Mead's UGB , and only recently
became adjacent to the Town of Mead. He stated in June the Board found that the proposal falls
within the MUD regulations,and it does not appear the County is required to influence the applicant
to approach the Town for annexation. For these reasons, Commissioner Geile moved to ratify the
Board's Resolution #2002-1649, dated June 26, 2002.
Chair Vaad commented he was not in attendance on June 26, 2002; however, he has listened to
the tapes and reviewed all the documentation presented. He stated the Town of Mead has implied
that this development will negatively impact the Post Office and School District; however,those are
not functions of the local government. He stated Weld County is not competing with the Town for
revenue sources,Weld County does not have a sales tax and does not compete with municipalities
2002-2520
PL1601
HEARING CERTIFICATION - MIKE SIEGRIST (COZ #602)
PAGE 5
in that way, and it has also lowered the mill levy. Chair Vaad further stated that although future
residents may travel through the Town of Mead, this development is in the Southwest Weld
Transportation Impact Fee area, which the Town of Mead opted out of to set up its own impact
fees. He further stated the capital costs may not be covered, but there is likely a participation fee
for recreational activities. Chair Vaad stated it is also likely that most of the traffic will go other
directions than through Mead, and because it was set up in compliance with the MUD standards,
he supports the motion.
Commissioner Masden stated he supports the motion and agrees with the previous comments of
Chair Vaad and Commissioner Geile. He stated the developer has worked with the School District
to do mitigation fees, if required, because the land was declined by the School District. He stated
the applicant has been working on this project for many years, and he feels the Town of Mead was
aware of the proposal. Commissioner Masden further stated he does not feel Mead will be
impacted because there are not many businesses or services to draw the future residents into
town, and they will likely be drawn to Longmont and other areas along I-25. He further stated the
applicant will also pay for improvements to the local roads through designated road impact fees.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Masden,and it carried unanimously. There being nor
further discussion, the motion carried unanimously, and the hearing was completed at 12:10 p.m.
This Certification was approved on the 19th day of August 2002.
APPROVED:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
i� COON COLORADO
za ATTEST: iludi���I✓.i/�_-
��� GI - Vaad, Cha�
Weld County Clerk to E 61 : �;x�F.'
/ t� 4,/ Davi. E. L. g, Pro-
BY: i !i •
B ..t �I n ,� i -
Deputy Clerk to the Bo
M. J. Geile
TAPE #2002-26 and #2002-27 IN r Vi--•-'
illiam H. Jerke
DOCKET#2002-41
Robert D. Masden
2002-2520
PL1601
EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
Case COZ#602 - MIKE SIEGRIST
Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description
A. Planning Staff Inventory of Item Submitted
B. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation
C. Planning Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes 06/18/2002)
D. Clerk to the Board Notice of Hearing
E. Davis, Graham, and Stubbs Letter representing Kerr-McGee oil and gas
interests (06/25/2002)
F. Applicant Proposed language re: Voluntary Capital
Mitigation
G. Applicant Draft Voluntary Capital Mitigation
Agreement (06/24/2002)
H. Davis, Graham, and Stubbs Letter and Notice of Oil and Gas Interests
and Surface Use Agreement (06/25/2002)
Clerk to the Board Notice of Reconsideration Hearing, and
Certificate of Mailing (07/23/2002) Filed
under Legals
J. Town of Mead Referral Response (07/31/2002)
K. St. Vrain Valley School District Oversized Map (08/12/2002)
L. St. Vrain Valley School District Letter re: Voluntary Capital Mitigation
(08/05/2002)
M. Planning Staff Comments responding to Mead
N. Public Works Staff Memo re: Response to Transportation
Issues Raised by Mead (8/14/2002)
O.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
N
1-
In
to
1 \
ry"o
pp N bt 'Q
Lc
o 1.1 > a8 QTR
M � o
4 a.u ) > 5,1 cz 0 1- C
.-s c
c re y e c b
V Pv ✓� '�
Lij re CV w �� n1 N V 2 3 rh\ ' �
w w � � � � -r Y
V f~A y U (� Q d , .„4
3
zN `Ci cc CO
Z LL m N C 1C-i , ' a a V Q d
W 0 a a 112 co aa) ( \ b 'D n 4
I- < o E 3 ' u. 0,_ N A 3 `� •' (pc, r
Wp c O N co \ \ M �Uj NI S v- l� 'J J
N N Q - 1-' Ck Ni Oo N.) M C'n
0 2 e9 e7F F2 = C
O C G C
N en T i) I
ill 6 S e‘fdi ,2 /2
p zz o co
Q - n0 3 \ L X 1. 14 \C I
W N NN- coo J+ x \ p ' �" 1' � 1
\ c. O )—,/ V
Z W W W CO2 w 0 \' .0- i,,,,: 3,1 cl, e i 0Y
til I 00 a Z
O
ryl cr.
o`" `> �^ C °' w \n \vn
NI
oar
r v -%m S Y a o
z vi..,3
o a. A % � n
w N 2i /-1 v �� � r . D v iil-
o
en .≥,7 ,:,,-, V:5, ,_b ) \&
re ci co
\ ffi . z
A ,
1- 0 W a L Jc
m
r- < z E w o r5 " v1 Q .- P zr o
O▪ w m a ( Oo d -- R-- 4 M• r6 f i — ate- T.
In N .�
m ≥ d
~ C
Z N
o ix Ni
co O T \ I- c
0 y c vl 1 .2
� � �� u,
al o wC�r - -i - . Q . O
• Z lL oa w 0 5
C4... \,::e.i ‘4-} \,..., q , ,,,., _....,,,t,
N d a'• N 0) T � � w U -•
are v w a o st
a �cd
na
/ ‘
%
10 0
�� ` a .
\ � a \ l
\ g % %
2 ( \ - \
o f , ��� < ° ° < 9
oii, N �2 7 rq } \ \ /�
Ce } / Al
\ . \ \ m \v \ q.
§ § 8 : . \ Q \
« q $ / 11 %) k � c &
w 0 a ` 2 7 / \ ` \ - /
Z m
.
I- \ , ® 3 / �9 ~ \
C z E m G
« 0 -43 CI ) / / % \ \ « \ y \ \
Icci k 2 ) • ® / y r m 7
§
ca
i-• / 2
z ( is r
o 2 § / \ w
§
) \ { } 7 4
2 . \ \� f . % . Q \ / \
ILI , a \ �
< 0 \ �U ® k y
§ ,_ u k / . i.,_
-« ) 1 % , - $
W 0 j Z \.7-• '
Hello