HomeMy WebLinkAbout20020752.tiff CAROL Harding - 26-1-20 Planning Area Boundaries.,......,.,....,,., ...... .......................... .e.,..,.,..,..,.,..,..,.,,.,.................... .... ..... .....Pa.�e,�
From: Robert R. Anderson
To: Harding, CAROL
Date: 3/5/02 1:17PM
Subject: 26-1-20 Planning Area Boundaries
Sec. 26-1-20. Planning area boundaries.
The MUD area covers approximately fourteen thousand seven hundred and fifty (14,750) acres with
approximate
boundaries at Weld County Road (WCR) 1 on the west, WCR 15 on the east, WCR 32 on the north
and WCR 20 on the south. The MUD planning area boundaries are shown on Map 2.1, Structural Land
Use Map,
the most recent copy of which is on file at the Clerk to the Board's office and the Department of Planning
Services. (Weld County Code Ordinance 2001-4)
Carol, Hope this is what you needed, if not give me a ring. . .Thanks Robert X3546
2002-0752
BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS '
Moved by Fred Walker that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Wei'd'County
Planning Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
Case Number: County Code 2001-XX
Planner: Robert Anderson
Applicants: Reynolds & Reynolds Woods
Address: c/o AgPro 4311 Highway 66, Ste. 4
Longmont, Colorado 80504
Request: Amendment to Map#2.1: Structural Land Use Plan of the
Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 22) and the Mixed Use
Development Plan (Chapter 26) to include 800 +/- total acres
designated for potential Residential, Regional Commercial,
Employment Center, Regional Park, School Site, and
Neighborhood Center Development.
Legal Description: East Half of Section 23 and the Southwest Quarter of Section
24, Township 3 North, Range 68 West and the Northeast
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter and the east one-half of the
Northeast Quarter of Section 30, Township 3 North, Range 67
West all of the 6th Prime Meridian, Weld County, Colorado.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES' STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE
APPROVED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. Criteria I: MUD Plan, Chapter 26, Weld County Code. That the application is consistent with
Section 26-1-30 Weld County Mixed Use Plan which establishes procedures for amending
Chapter 26 in accordance to procedures established in Section 22-1-50 of the County Code. The
procedures for submittal have been met.
2. Criteria II: Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 22, Weld County Code. The following procedures are
outlined in Section 22-1-50 of the Weld County Code:
22-1-50.B.1. "Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals shall be considered bi-annually
with a public hearing process beginning in November or May of each year."
22-1-50.B.2. "The petitioner shall pay for the cost of legal publication of the proposed
amendment and all land use application fees."
There is currently no charge to amend the Structural Land Use Map, #2.1. The applicant was
informed that there is a fee for legal publication and will pay for the publication.
22-1-50.B.3. "A typewritten original and eleven (11)copies of the proposed Comprehensive
Plan amendment must be submitted to the Department of Planning Services no
later than October 1 or April 1 of each year to be considered for review and
public hearings."
The applicant has met this requirement. The application was submitted on September 21, 2001
22-1-50.B.3.a "A statement describing why the comprehensive plan is in need of revision."
Resolution County Code 2001-XX
Reynolds/Woods Reynolds
Page 2
The applicants have stated the desire to develop the properties at an urban scale density by
complying with standards established in Chapter 26, Mixed Use Development area plan.
Application materials also state the properties are within the St. Vrain Sanitation District
boundary. Capability of serving these properties by St. Vrain Sanitation District does exist.
26-2-30.D.1 "Residential districts within the MUD area are encouraged to be cohesive,
identifiable and diverse, while retaining the current agrarian lifestyle of residents
in the area."
The creation of an expansion to the MUD area is of concern for surrounding land uses.
Agricultural uses currently occur on land referred to in this application. Adjacent Land uses are
predominantly agricultural in nature with associated rural residences.
When developing the MUD Plan, a ratio of employment centers, residential areas, parks and
transit centers appear carefully planned in correlation to the total planned area. The applicants
have examined this mixture of uses and have proposed a similar mixture, keeping true to the
intent of the MUD Area.
22-1-50.B.3.b. "A statement describing how the proposed amendment will be consistent with
existing and future goals, policies, and needs of the County."
The applicants have apparently examined this mixture of uses and have proposed a similar
proposed mixture, keeping true to the intent of the MUD Area.
22-2-60. A. Goal.3 of the Comprehensive Plan states that, "Urban-scale residential,
commercial, and industrial development which is not located adjacent to existing
incorporated municipalities" shall be discouraged. A.Policy3 of the
Comprehensive Plan further states that"Conversion of agricultural land to
urban-scale residential, commercial and industrial development will be
discouraged when the subject site is located outside of an approved
Intergovernmental Agreement area, urban growth boundary area, or 1-25 MUD
area and urban development nodes." This proposal is located adjacent to the
Urban Growth Boundary for the Town of Mead, and within the vicinity of current
commercial and industrial activities taking place in the area.
22-2-170.R. Goal 2 of the Comprehensive Plan states that any proposed residential
development shall, "Ensure that adequate public services and facilities are
available to serve the residential development or district." R. Policy 2 further
elaborates, "The land-use applicant will demonstrate, to the Board of County
Commissioners, that adequate sanitary sewer and public water systems are
available to all residential development, and that the street or highway facilities
providing access to the property are adequate in width, classification, and
structural capacity to meet the requirements of the proposed district or
development."
22-1-50.5 The following procedures to amending the 1-25 Mixed Use Development Area
Map are outlined in Section 22-1-50.5 of the Weld County Code, as amended:
22-1-50.5.a. "The proposed amendment must demonstrate the proposed amendment is
adjacent to and contiguous with the existing 1-25 MUD Area Map."
Resolution County Code 2001-XX
Reynolds/Woods Reynolds
Page 3
The combination of these parcels create a .40 contiguity boundary with the
existing MUD area.
22-1-50.5.b. "The proposed amendment must describe how the proposed amendment will
not place a burden upon existing or planned service capabilities. This statement
shall include how emergency services will be provided to the proposed area."
The applicant has coordinated with personnel representing the Towns of Firestone and Mead,
Little Thompson Water District, St Vrain Valley Water and School District and the Mountain View
Fire Protection District.
22-1-50.5.c. "The proposed amendment must delineate the number of people who will reside
in the proposed area. This statement shall include the number of school-aged
children and address the cultural and social service provision needs of the
proposed population."
The Application materials indicate approximately 1008 students will reside, 1558 Residential
units will be constructed and 234 jobs will be created within the proposed amendment
boundaries. The applicants has broadly addressed the cultural and social services needs of
said population.
The Weld County Department of Public Works, in their referral response dated February 12,
2002, stated:
"In two letters dated January 7, 2002, and January 10, 2002, Eugene G. Cappola, P.E.,
made preliminary estimates of the traffic that will be generated from the two different sites. The
western site will generate approximately 14,600 trips per day and the eastern site will generate
1,400. Mr. Cappola's preliminary traffic studies do not provide information on the impact to the
roadway systems that serve the area.
Traffic that will be generated by development of these properties will have a significant
impact on the 1-25 Interchange, State Highway 66, and County Roads 32, 9 '/, and 13. Some of
the necessary roadway improvements will be additional lanes, turning lanes, intersection
improvements and traffic signals.
In the application materials, under the section entitled Roads, the last sentence reads,
"As development occurs, impact fees will be assessed by the County to provide adequate
funding to design and construct the necessary roadway improvements." We wish to make it
clear, impact fees were created strictly for capacity improvements to the overall roadway system.
Any improvements necessary to facilitate access to a development are the responsibility of that
development. At the time a site is developed, detailed traffic studies will be required identifying
traffic impacts of that development and the roadway improvements needed to facilitate access to
the development.(Weld County Department of Public Works)
The St. Vrain School District in their referral response dated November 5, 2001 did not support
the applicants proposal and stated:
"The District opposes the approval of plats within this development proposal until there
is capacity available in these schools (Mead Elementary and Middle Schools, Skyline High
School) or there are new schools available to serve this area. Should this proposal be
considered for approval by the County, the District's land dedication and cash-in-lieu
requirements would still need to be satisfied." (St.Vrain Valley School District)
Resolution County Code 2001-XX
Reynolds/Woods Reynolds
Page 4
The Planning Commission's recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following:
1. Any improvements necessary to facilitate access to a development are the responsibility
of that development. At the time a site is developed, the applicants shall be required to
provide detailed traffic studies identifying traffic impacts of that development and the
roadway improvements needed to facilitate access to the development. Evidence or
acknowledgment of such shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services.
(Weld County Department of Public Works)
2. The applicants shall attempt to address the St. Vrain Valley School District's land
dedication, cash-in-lieu and the requirements identified in the referral response dated
November 5, 2001. Evidence or acknowledgment of such shall be provided to the
Department of Planning Services. (St. Vrain Valley School District)
3. The applicant shall attempt to address the Mountain View Fire Protection District's
referral request of October 30, 2001. "When development occurs, plans for such
development must be submitted to the Fire District for review and approval; and all
applicable code as they pertain to water supply, fire hydrant locations, fire department
access, street designs and building construction must be met." Evidence or
acknowledgment of such shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services.
(Mountain View Fire Department)
This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the
applicant, other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities.
If this amendment application is approved, Table 22.4 reflecting the land mass associated with
proposed land distribution categories will require the appropriate amendment as outlined on Page 6
(attached).
Table 22.4
Land Use Plan Distribution
Land Use/Intensity Acres % Total Remarks
Area
Employment Center — 2,400 18.8% 24 31.0 million total square feet of floor space
High Intensity 2,870 21%
Regional Commercial — 380 2.07% 3-&4.4 million total square feet of floor space
Medium Intensity 437 3%
Neighborhood Center — 80 0.C3% 8—8.8 million total square feet of floor space
Low Intensity 210 1%
Residential — 5,1,5O 40.2% Maximum population: 39,813 59,076 people and
Mixed Intensity 5,785 40% approximately 18,097 23,651 dwelling units
Limiting Site Factors — 4,040 31.G% All areas delineated are within the 100-year
Lowest Intensity 4,215 29% floodplain or have elements that obstruct or are
hazardous to certain types of development
Regional Park — 750 5.8% Areas delineated as open space
858 6%
TOTAL 42000 100%
14,375
Source: Weld County Department of Planning Services.
Assumptions:
• Residential densities were calculated using an average of four dwelling units per acre for all development
throughout the MUD area. It was assumed that 25% of the gross land area in residential areas would
account for roadways,neighborhood parks and various residential amenities. The estimated population
was calculated by multiplying the total number projected households by 2.5.
• Employment center calculations are based on an average of 15,000 square feet of floor area per acre.
• Regional commercial calculations are based on an average of 10,000 square feet of floor area per acre.
The Planning Commission's recommendation is based upon review of applicable chapters of the Weld
County Code, responses from referral entities, and other relevant information.
Motion seconded by Stephan Mokray.
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Fred Walker Cristie Nicklas Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin John Folsom Cathy Clamp
Stephan Mokray Bruce Fitzgerald
Luis Llerena
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I,Voneen Macklin, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
the above and foregoing resolution, is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld
County, Colorado, adopted on February 19, 2002.
Dated the 19'h of February, 2002.
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Cristie Nicklas asked Drew Scheltinga, Department of Public Works, about the not paving of the internal
road way. Mr. Scheltinga stated Public Works has issues with Weld County getting the road back as an
improvement district. Mr.Scheltinga added that there was the additional expense to the tax payer when this
happens. There is also a checklist of items that Public Works goes through before the final determination
for paving is made. Some of those items include complaints about dust, traffic counts, and the nature of
surrounding developments. Mr.Scheltinga would have to look in to those issues. Luis Llerena asked about
the traffic counts moving onto a well traveled road. Mr. Scheltinga stated that the traffic count on WCR 3
was 180 vehicles per day and this development would move it to over 200 vehicles per day. Once the count
gets over 200 maintenance issues and fugitive dust start to become a problem.
Stephen Mokray asked about the letter from the State Engineer with regard to the lack of water. Mr.
Anderson stated they did receive a letter for water main extensions and it has been covered with an
agreement. The Berthoud Fire Protection concerns are addressed in a Condition of Approval.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Theodore Sprague, prior property owner, is in favor of the zoning change. The land was sold for the
purpose of paying off the farming loses. Mr. Sprague does live on an adjacent property (west).
Roger Kinney, neighbor(immediately to the North) is in support of the project. This project will not create
additional impact. His concern is with the dust and the traffic on WCR 3 because of the apparent illegal
watering operation.
Don Leffler stated that the comments from the Department of Public Works will be addressed and they will
continue to work in further discussions. The traffic from the subdivision will not necessarily create the need
fora paved road surface. Mr. Leffler stated they have met with the Berthoud Fire Protection. The applicant
has met with them and it was agreed upon that there will be two fire hydrants added.
Luis Llerena asked about the location of the bus stop for the children of the development. Mr. Leffler stated
that they have worked with the school district and the post office for mail delivery and there will be a central
location for each. The traffic will be taken off the county road and placed in the development.
John Folsom asked if there should be need to change the Condition of Approval number 9 to reflect the
change. Mr. Gimlin and Ms. Nicklas stated that the issue will be taken care of today and no change to the
Conditions of Approval were required.
Cristie Nicklas moved that Case Z-564, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cristie Nicklas,yes; Fred Walker,yes; Luis Llerena,
yes. Motion carried
CASE NUMBER: County Code 2001-XX
APPLICANT: Reynolds&Woods Properties
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E2 of Section 23,T3N, R68W and the N2 and the SW4 of Section
24,T3N, R68W and the NE4 of the SE4 and the E2 of the NE4 of
Section 30, T3N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Petition for Inclusion into the Mixed Use Development Area of
Unincorporated Weld County, changes to Chapter 22
(Comprehensive Plan)and Chapter 26 (Mixed Use Development
Plan).
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Hwy 66, and Y mile east of 1-25.
Robert Anderson, Department of Planning Services presented Case County Code 2001-XX, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
approval of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
John Folsom asked if the IGA with the Town of Mead came into affect. The site is within the Urban Growth
Area for Mead, is the application a proposal for development. This would cause it to be sent to Mead for
the possible annexation. Mr.Anderson stated a referral was sent to the Town of Mead and the response
indicating at this point there were no issues, they would address those issues as development was
proposed. Mr. Folsom stated that is was a responsibility of the applicant to send an petition to the Town of
Mead and have the town act on that petition. Mr. Morrison stated that this application includes no
development it is merely an inclusion into the MUD. The Town of Mead will give the comments at a more
direct time once development begins.
Tom Haren, representative for the applicant, provided clarification with the reasons for inclusion into the
MUD. There are two applications the Reynolds/Woods and the Reynolds application. The applicants are
planning that the ultimate development will be with the Town of Mead. There were petitions submitted to
the Town of Mead. There was more details after the amendment 24 was completed. This application can
be in conjunction with the Town of Mead. There has been some preliminary planning with regard to the
possible development. The preliminary applications for development are written with the school location
or cash in leu offered. This is based on the property located south that is a possible school location. There
is sufficient water on the property. The applicant is aware of the limitations on the sewer infrastructure. This
is an integral part of a larger plan with the Town of Mead. There is conceptual plans for a sewer plant
northeast of the applicants property.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
James Doucheff Jr., neighbor, operates a dairy in the area and has no objections to this project. He
acknowledges that the area will eventually be residential in nature and plans to relocate eventually.
The Co-Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Luis Llerena asked Mr. Anderson about the concerned citizens letter. Mr. Anderson stated that the letter
was a public response to the increase in growth and development in the area. Their concerns apparently
revolve around quality of life issues in the area. The application is non-specific and general in nature
therefore the public generally has concerns regarding the lack of detail. Mr.Llerena asked if there is specific
issues with area. The MUD area was designed for this type of development. It was created as a special
district and the county generally encourages development in specific areas if the appropriate infrastructure
is either in place or planned.
John Folsom stated that his perception of the letter is that there is sufficient lands in the MUD that can be
developed and there is no need to expand the MUD area.
Cristie Nicklas asked for clarification with regard to the inclusion in the MUD and not the annexation to the
Town of Mead. Mr. Haren stated it was a co-permitting process with the Town of Mead and the MUD. This
is a planning proposal not a development proposal. These properties fit more with the infill theory than some
of the other properties that have been included in the MUD area. This is utilizing two perspectives, the
County and the Town of Mead, to accomplish both desires.
Fred Walker stated that the idea of infill is an just an arbitrary line on a map. This does not lend itself to
where the infrastructure is available. This is conceptual in nature and not a specific development. There
are ordinances which allow for properties to be included in the area. The concerns with it being "Smart
Growth"or not will be determined when specific plans for development are submitted.
John Folsom stated that development is appropriate on the site but he cannot concur with trying to
accommodate both parties. Mr. Folsom feels as though if the annexation is intended then that is what
should be done. There is not need to have the property in the MUD area if the annexation is what the
applicant is trying to do.
Bryant Gimlin asked for clarification with regard to any future development. Mr.Anderson stated that if there
was to be any development they would have to come through the process and have it determined that
appropriate infrastructure is in place. Ms. Nickles added that they would have to abide by the IGA that is
in place with the Town of Mead.
Tom Haren stated that there are two options available. The applicant can petition for the MUD and develop
through the county while the other is to annex to the Town of Mead. The applicants have chosen to cover
both the basis.
John Folsom stated that if the Town of Mead declines the annexation request then the applicant can develop
it through the county processes. Mr. Folsom read from the IGA that the County will not consider the
proposal for development unless the applicant has submitted a petition for annexation with the municipality
involved. If the annexation is denied there is a waiting period of 12 months before an application can be
submitted to the county. Mr. Haren stated that the applicant has the option of the county to look at as well
as going back to the town for another vote. Mr. Morrison stated that the applicant has no option under the
IGA but to go to the Town of Mead first.
Lee Morrison noted that this was two separate applications. Mr. Anderson stated that according to Anne
Best Johnson (former Long Range Planner) who set up the case and the County Attorneys office the
applications would be linked together. Mr. Morrison stated that the actions should be separated but the
cases can be heard together just in case there would be separate results.
Fred Walker moved that Case County Code 2001-XX, Reynolds property, be forwarded to the Board of
County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of approval. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, no; Stephan Mokray, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Cristie Nicklas, no; Fred Walker, yes; Luis Llerena,
yes. Motion carried
Mr. Folsom commented that it is true the code gives the applicants a way to ask for inclusion in the MUD
but it does not guarantee it will be accepted. He does not believe it is in the best interest of the county to
increase the size of the MUD, and there is no purpose since the petition for annexation needs to be made.
Fred Walker moved that Case County Code 2001-XX,Reynolds/Woods property,be forwarded to the Board
of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the
Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, no; Stephan Mokray, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Cristie Nicklas, no; Fred Walker, yes; Luis Llerena,
yes. Motion carried
Meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
1' \S
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello