HomeMy WebLinkAbout20042384 BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Upon consideration and review of the proposed Town of Hudson Coordinated Planning Agreement,
and after hearing testimony and reviewing all the evidence presented, motion was made by Commissioner
John Folsom to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the Agreement.
CASE NUMBER: 2004-XX
APPLICANT: Weld County/Town of Hudson
PLANNER: Monica Mika
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Various Sections, Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: The Intergovernmental Agreement Boundary for the Town of Hudson
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
Motion seconded by James Rohn
VOTE:
r
For Passage Against Passage Absent
n �
N) r-.
Michael Miller
John Folsom ^' i
Bryant Gimlin
Stephen Mokray vi
Bruce Fitzgerald I
James Rohn
Tonya Stobel
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
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 June 15, 2004.
Dated the 15th of June, 2004
p
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
2004-2384
James Rohns moved to accept the following language"the applicant shall apply dust
suppressant/chemical magnesium chloride or calcium chloride on Vantage Drive from the entrance south
to CR 8, no less than twice a year or as needed or as directed by the Weld County Public Works
Department." There was no second.
Stephen Mokray added that there is a concern for other traffic. There is no reason to put the burden on
one truck owner. It is not fair.
Michael Miller indicated that the noise levels can be addressed in the hours of operation. Mr. Ochsner
stated that if this is one truck he will be going in and out at different times, this a very rural subdivision. If
this was a farm truck the neighbors would hear that also. It would not be fair to the applicant to put hours
on his business. Mr. Rohn stated that the noise level could only be what is accepted in a residential zone.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1465, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Amended 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; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes;Tonya
Strobel, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
John Folsom commented"on a personal basis I am in general opposed to commercial/industrial uses that
are not associated with agriculture in the agricultural zone. The proposed use is doubly offensive in that it
being located in a subdivision however since this case meets the requirement of the code I am voting for
it."
Bryant Gimlin commented that the applicant now has regulations that he has to abide by whereas before
there were none. This should assist the neighbors in knowing what is allowable and what is not.
Michael Miller commented that rural subdivisions with small acreage are attractive to small business
owners. It is convenient to have a property in which you can bring your truck home and not have to put
out the money to lease a commercial site. This process is the best way to deal with these so there are
regulations placed on the owners. It is an important part of the process that keeps these things in control.
CASE NUMBER: 2004-XX
APPLICANT: Weld County/Town of Hudson
PLANNER: Monica Mika
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Various Sections,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: The Intergovernmental Agreement Boundary for the Town of Hudson
Monica Mika, Department of Planning Services presented 2004-XX Hudson IGA, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
approval of the application. Ms. Mika indicated that there are three ways to identify urban growth in Weld
County. The first way is through the three mile referral process, the second is from the half mile sanitary
sewer lines and the final way is through an agreement between Weld County and a municipality. The third
option will be considered today.
In August of 2003,this case was presented for public consideration, due to lack of quorum this case was
continued indefinitely, and was re-advertised for today's hearing.
The presentation will include:
1. Large map area of the original IGA Boundary Area
2. Modified map area of the revised IGA Boundary Area
3. Comparison of map area
4. Regional map
5. Municipal services map
There are three principle criteria : 22-2-100 B., and C, and E.
Criteria B. Efficient and orderly development and the conservation or agricultural land suggest that
urban type development take place in or adjacent to existing municipals or where
adequate infrastructure is currently available or reasonably obtainable. The Town of
Hudson has provided a map showing the location of existing municipal services are
available and readily obtainable in the future.
Criteria C Urban development adjacent to municipalities is appropriate if urban services can be
extended to serve the area.The Town of Hudson will provide water and sewer for urban
development in the IGA boundary area. United Power provides electrical needs; the
Hudson voluntary fire district provides fire services, library services are provided by Weld
RE#J and law enforcement is provided by contract with the Weld County Sheriff Office.
The Sheriff Office reviewed this request and has no comments.
Criterial E Individual landowners of property within the urban growth boundaries shall be notified of
any negations and considerations of intergovernmental urban growth boundary
agreements. On May 26, a public meeting was held to discuss this issue, and all property
owners within the proposed IGA boundary were send notification of the meeting and
hearing process.
It is the opinion of the Planning Commission at the direction of the County Attorneys office that this case is
forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a favorable recommendation.
Doug Ochsner asked about the% mile water and sewer area and if there are areas that are outside that 1/2
mile area? Ms. Mika indicated the map in the presentation shows the current line with a %mile radius
from that line and there are areas outside that are still within the IGA boundary. Mr. Ochsner asked if the
lines were 1/2 mile from existing facilities? Ms. Mika clarified that the Urban Growth boundary is created
based on the 1/2 mile from existing sanitary sewer lines while the IGA is based on services that are
available or reasonably obtainable.
John Folsom asked about the letter from the Kragh family and Town of Hudson regarding them not being
within the IGA boundary. Ms. Mika indicated that there was some confusion with regard to the revision of
the boundary, residents were unsure of whether they were in the boundary or outside. After notification
the second time there were significantly fewer correspondence.
Jim Landeck, Hudson representative, provided additional information. The response from the public in the
last several public meetings has been positive. Once the property owners understood that the purpose
for the boundary was for coordinated planning and not immediate annexation their anxieties were
alleviated. The Town Board of Trustees has endorsed agreement.
John Foslom asked about a letter from the Kragh family and their objection regarding exclusion and the
possible consequential damages. Mr. Landeck indicated he drew the line and the reason for the location
of the line were the utilities and reasonable distance for existing facilities. After the basis for utility and
reasonable distance the County Roads and section lines were the final criteria. If some properties were
excluded it was completely arbitrary.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Julie Grimes, property owner, asked whether CR 51 is included in the IGA agreement? Ms. Mika stated a
map can be entered into the record that states CR 51 is not included. Ms. Grimes indicated her largest
concern is that Calpine is in the IGA. Calpine was suppose to obtain a conservancy easement around the
entire plant to prevent any industrial growth around the plant. This has not happened and Ms. Grimes
indicated her fear is if the land is included in the agreement Hudson will want to annex therefor opening it
up to possible industrial uses. Ms. Grimes would like to know what can happen around the plant once it is
annexed. Ms. Grimes added that if CR 51 would not be included that would leave the property on the east
open so annexation could not be forced. Mr. Miller stated they are no more prone to be annexed rather
they are in the IGA or out of it. If Hudson chose to annex it would not matter where the IGA boundary
existed. Ms. Mika indicated the contiguity would become a criteria. Calpine, under the USR, is not
contiguous but some of the holdings of the company may be. Ms. Mika clarified that the Calpine USR only
contained the lands directly associated with the electrical facility. The buffer area did not fall under the
terms of the USR. During the hearing, it was determined that it was Calpine's intent to obtain a
conservation easement therefor not a condition of approval. Mr. Miller added that Planning Commission
did not have the authority to make the applicants get a conservation easement because the area was not
in the defined USR area. Ms. Grimes added stated that the reason Calpine requested the condition not be
made was to maintain a tax benefit. Ms. Grimes added to her knowledge the easement has not been
done. Ms. Grimes asked why the boundary could not be moved to CR 49. Ms. Mika added that the
boundaries were determined by the ability to have service provisions. Calpine has not responded
indicating they do not want to be included.
Loren Kragh, surrounding property owner, indicated his concern with being outside the IGA and the
possible consequential damages. The family has held onto the land because they believed they were in
the path of progress, agriculturally the land has limited value. There is a difference financially to the
inheritors of not being in the IGA to being the IGA of approximately 1 million in valuation of the land. The
family had hoped to sell the ground for development purposes. The largest concern is the referral three
mile referral area and the possibility that the County will oppose any development. Hudson did not provide
any information with regards to the new boundary, the only notification received was from the County and
a letter was sent only to them. The line as it exist limits some type of development.
Michael Miller asked Ms. Mika about the possibility of requesting an urban type subdivision in the area.
Ms. Mika stated this land outside the IGA boundary and it would not be appropriate to propose an urban
style development. There are variables involved and some of them being within the defined area and
have public services. The agreement states to the extent legally possible but urban development is within
the boundaries and non urban has been outside. Ms. Mika stated that urban development has occurred
outside the areas but at those times support services were available. If the applicant offered to extend
services then they could be considered as part of the municipality. Mr. Barker added that urban growth
area expands with municipal boundaries. This does not preclude annexation, annexation is a requirement
of the extension of those services. According to the definition Urban Growth will be denied to the extent
legally possible by the County in the areas of the municipal referral area outside of the Urban Growth Area
but the town is saying with the existing infrastructure they cannot extend outside the area. The
development needs to have the water and sewer and if it cannot be obtained it cannot be approved. Mr.
Barker continued with there area variety of different issues but the main issues is the agreement does not
preclude the municipality from annexing the area, likewise it does not require annexation of areas within
the Urban Growth Boundary. Mr. Gimlin added that not being in the area also creates opportunities like
estate planning with large lots that included septic which would be non urban. Mr. Barker added that it
allows the land to be marketed to non urban development which would include large agricultural uses that
could not occur within the urban area. The market is not precluded but is expanded on that avenue. Mr.
Auer asked about the original boundary being larger and the rationale at that time? Mr. Landeck stated
that when Hudson first started this process they did not understand that the language and he was directed
to use the three mile radius from the exiting town as the limits. As the discussion became clearer the area
shrank accordingly.
John Folsom asked if Mr. Kragh the property did not meet the standard for services and that is the reason
for it not being included? Mr. Landeck stated the town's view of the property is that it is a far reach for
utilities, it does not preclude the possibility for annexation. One of the requirements for the annexation
would be the extension of services to that property.
Gary Shriver, surrounding property owner, asked about how the Town will supply enough water for the
area? Mr. Miller stated that any development must bring water with them. Mr. Shriver asked if involuntary
annexation is done when all sides are surrounded? Mr. Barker stated this is considered an enclave
annexation and even then the town has to make the determination. The town must agree to bring the
property into the boundaries. Mr. Shriver asked if the owners will be required to obtain services from the
town or can the systems be maintained once annexation occurs? Ms. Mika stated the agreement talks
about new developments not existing facilities. Mr. Landeck stated that if the property is existing and
there are no plans for development it will stay as is.
The Chair closed the public portion
Doug Ochsner asked about the land around Calpine,why could this not be excluded? Ms. Mika stated
that the area is included because it speaks to concept of consistency with other properties in the area.
Also, Calpine has not provided a request or correspondence indicating they do not want to be included.
Mr. Landeck added that there has been discussion with Calpine to extend their services from their site to
the industrial park to the west. Consequently that is the reasoning Hudson felt they should be included
due to being close the existing industrial park.
John Folsom moved that Case 2004-XX-Hudson IGA, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners 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; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tonya
Strobel, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Doug Ochsner commented that he is hugely concerned with IGA and their ability to take away property
rights from the land owners he does compliment the Town of Hudson for keeping the boundary within the
%mile service area.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1000
APPLICANT: Stenerson, Olson & Lowry Development
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: W2 W2 NE4 of Section 30, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from (R-1) Residential to PUD (Nesting Crane Ranch)
for nine (9)lots with Estate (E) uses (33 acres)and three (3) non-
residential outlots (6.26 acres)for open space
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Hwy 66 and approximately 1/2 mile east of
CR 1.
•
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-1000, 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. Staff is
requesting the following changes to the comments: addition of 2Q to prior to recording the plat that states
the applicant shall address the requirements of Weld County Sheriffs office as stated in the referral
response dated May 7, 2004. Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County
Department of Planning Services.
James Rohn asked when the application was submitted and when did the Longmont IGA become
affective? Ms. Hatch indicated the Longmont IGA was established in October 2002 and the Sketch Plan,
which is the first stage,was submitted in February 2002. Mr. Rohn asked if the Division of Wildlife had
responded. Ms. Hatch indicated they had not.
Stephen Mokray asked Ms. Hatch where Mead was located in reference to this proposal. Ms. Hatch
indicated it was 2 1/2 miles from the site east on Hwy 66, Longmont is 2 miles south.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Barker about the IGA with Longmont and how this interacts with the application.
Mr. Barker stated that in 1997 the first Frederick, Firestone and Dacono IGA was established. There were
a number of cases that were PUD Sketch Plans that were submitted prior to that date. The Board of
County Commissioners made the determination that the Sketch Plan, in accordance with the State Law
was what began the process for the PUD. This was the time in which is was considered submitted
therefor not subject to the agreement that came into affect after the Sketch Plan submittal date. This has
been consistent throughout the IGA's. The same rule applies to every IGA adopted.
John Folsom spoke of a possible conflict in the code with the adjacency of the Seemore subdivision. The
Longmont letter indicates the subdivision would not be considered non urban if it were adjacent to an
existing subdivision. Mr. Folsom questioned if this reference would not allow the subdivision to be
constructed? Ms. Hatch stated that having an existing subdivision adjacent to this proposal makes it meet
urban scale. The applicant is proposing to meet urban scale and pave the access. Mr. Folsom asked
why there was not a referral to CDOT? Ms. Hatch indicated the applicant has submitted a access permit
with the application which means they have contacted CDOT and there were no concerns. Mr. Folsom
asked if this property encroaches on the area for the expanded Union Reservoir? Ms. Hatch stated it
does not.
James Rohn asked if there were repetitive conditions that could be combined. Mr. Gimlin added that
Conditions 3 H &Y could all be combined and Condition 31 could be combined with the new Condition 3Y..
Ms. Hatch indicated they could all be combined into one statement.
Michael Miller asked about contiguity with the adjacent subdivision they must meet urban standards, but is
it acceptable to be on septic system? His understanding is that urban standards require City sewer. Mr.
Barker stated there was a change to the definition of urban which took out the requirement of public
sewer. The definitions allows for PUD to have septic system and still be considered an urban use. It is no
longer a requirement to have public services. Ms. Hatch read the urban scale development definition for a
PUD from the code.
Hello