HomeMy WebLinkAbout20051006.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County
Conference Room, 4209 CR 24 %3 , Longmont, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair,
Bryant Gimlin, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller Absent
Bryant Gimlin
John Folsom
James Rohn
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tonya Strobel
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Pam Smith
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on December 7,
2004, was approved as read.
The following cases will be continued:
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1077
APPLICANT: Harvey and Olga Markham
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3667; being part of the N2 NE4 of Section 19, T4N, R68W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to PUD for 6 Residential lots with
Estate uses.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Highway 56; approximatley 1/4 mile west of
CR 3.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1492
APPLICANT: Greeley Assembly of God Church
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot C RE-3860, Pt N2NW4 of Section 30,T6N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Application for Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit
for a church and private school in the A (Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 66; approx 1/4 mile east of CR 37.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1255
APPLICANT: L.G. Everist, Inc.
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, 2, 3, and 4- N2NW4; Lot 6 SW4 NE4 30-2-66; Lot 3 E2 NE4 25-2-67
platted as The Lupton Meadows Land Co. Division 3 of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: An Amendment to a Site Specific Development Plan and a special Review
Permit for a Mineral Resource Development Facility, including open pit
mining and materials processing; including Asphalt and Concrete Batch
Plants, in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
1
yruruvzKK,Etio�.o 3-/y- OOS 2005-1006
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 18 and 1/2 mile west of State Highway 85.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1493
APPLICANT: Stephen Brancucci/do Glen Droegemueller
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt NE4 SE4 and Lot B of RE-3932; Section 30,Ti N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Use by
Special Review in the Industrial Zone District (Commercial Junkyard or
Salvage Yard) in the 1-3 (Industrial)Zone District
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 27(Hwy 85 Business); approximately 1/4 mile
north of CR 4.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1494
APPLICANT: Anthony& Diane Goddard
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-2862; pt of the E2SW4 of Section 33, Ti N, R67W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review for a Use by Right,
Accessory Use or Use by Special Review (Machine and Welding Shop) in
the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: 1/2 mile west of CR 19; north of and adjacent to CR 2.
CASE NUMBER: AMPF-431
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
APPLICANT: OCON Group LLC
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, Blk 3 and Open Space Western Dairymen Cooperative Section 10,
T2N, R68W
REQUEST: Amendment to a PUD Final Plat in the Western Dairymen Cooperative PUD
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Hwy 119 and west of and adjacent to CR 7'/. For
a more precise location, see legal.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1490
APPLICANT: Nicole Trevethick
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Lot B of RE-1903; part of the SE4 of Section 17, T3N, R68W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Veterinary
Hospital in the A(Agricultural) zone district.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 32; approximately 500 feet west of CR 5.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR1293
APPLICANT: Roy& Margaret Patton, Dawn Kanzler do Denise Gibbons with Tetra Tech
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B or RE-147; Pt NE4 Section 30, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: An amended Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit
for a Major Facility of a Public Utility (Co-location on an existing 150 foot
Monopole Antenna Tower and the addition of an equipment shelter) in the
A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 15; approximately 1/4 mile south of CR 18.
The following case will be heard:
CASE NUMBER: 2004-XX
2
APPLICANT: East 1-25 Sanitation District
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Section 31 and 32, T4N, R67W; all of Section 35 and 36, T4N,
R68W; part of Section 5, all of Section 6,7,8, 17, 18, 19 and part of Section
20, T3N, R67W; all of Section 1, 2, 11, 12, 13 ,14, 23 and 24, T3N, R68W
of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Service Plan for Sanitation Metropolitan District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Highway 66;west of CR 17; South of CR 40;
east of 1-25.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services presented Case 2004-XX, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the application.
The Board of County Commissioners on November 22,2004 accepted a document entitled"Service Plan for
East 1-25 Sanitation District and referred the document to the Weld County Planning Commission for Study
and recommendation. The PLANNING COMMISSION recommendation, outlined in State Statue is to be
received by the Board of County Commissioners within thirty(30)days, or no later than December 22, 2004,
to be scheduled and heard at a public hearing.
The Site is located on several parcels north of State Highway 66, East of Interstate 25 and generally west of
and/or adjacent to County Road 17 The historic use of the property utilized as irrigated and non-agricultural
lands, lands in transition and urbanized lands. The site is within the three mile referral area of the towns of
Firestone and Mead,and the City of Longmont. Longmont and Mead responded stating they are in opposition
to the proposal and the town of Firestone did not respond.
The Service plan proposes to overlap both the 208 District Boundary's for the Town of Mead and for St.Vrain
Sanitation District as delineated in the projected graphic.
The Department of Planning Services suggests that the proposed service plan is premature given that
approximately 160 acres of the proposed 13000 acres are located within the Mixed Use Development area.
Lands within the Mixed Use Development area are able to apply for urban scale development; presently one
percent of all of the proposed district's lands are within this area.
Section 22-2-110.B UGB.Goal 2. states "Concentrate urban development in or adjacent to existing
municipalities, an approved intergovernmental agreement, the 1-25 Mixed Use Development area, urban
growth boundary areas, urban development nodes, or where urban infrastructure is currently available or
reasonably obtainable. As previously stated, the applicant's proposed Service Plan boundary overlap the
established and existing District 208 Boundary for the Town of Mead and St.Vrain Sanitation District. Further,
there is no evidence in the application presented stating that the town of Mead does not have the capacity to
serve future sanitation requirements with improvements and expansion of their existing facility.
The Town of Mead returned a referral dated December 14, 2004 that states, "The Town Board strongly
opposes County approval or endorsement of this proposal. It would impinge on the Towns' wastewater
facilities, plans and development potential."
Given that an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is required for expansion to the existing Mixed Use
Development area, thus allowing urban scale development to occur, it is the opinion of the Department of
Planning Services that the proposed service plan is premature given that urban scale development is not a
use allowed by right within the proposed district lands.
Lands associated with this proposed Sanitation District are outside of both an Urban Growth Boundary Area
and an Intergovernmental Agreement Area, thus should an application be submitted to the department for
processing, staff will support nine lots or less. Although urban scale services may be available, should an
applicant propose greater than nine develop-able lots, staff will recommend denial of all subdivision land use
applications.
For urban scale development to be supported by the Department of Planning Services,an amendment to the
3
Comprehensive Plan(Section 22-1-150.8.7)1-25/MUD boundary will be required and approved by the Board
of County Commissioners.
Finally,given that an amendment to Comprehensive Plan is required for expansion to the existing Mixed Use
Development area, thus allowing urban scale development to occur, it is the opinion of the Department of
Planning Services that the proposed service plan is premature given that urban scale development is not a
use allowed by right within the proposed district lands.
The Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment in their referral dated December 16, 2004
notes, "...all of the property within the initial proposed district lies within unincorporated Weld County. The
proposed district boundary overlaps two existing(Town of Mead and St.Vrain Sanitation District)service area
boundaries as defined by the Areawide Water Quality Management Plan (AWQMP). The AWQMP is
administered by the North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association and must approve of the service
boundaries...." The proposed district must also seek and receive approval from the CDPHE and your agency
(in accordance with the Colorado Regulations for the Site Application Process 5 CCR 1002-222))."
The City of Longmont, in their referral dated December 15, 2004 states "If this proposed district is brought
before the North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association (NFRWQPA) Board, [of which the City is
a member], the City plans to vote against its inclusion in the NFRWQPA Water Quality Management Plan."
In a referral response from St.Vrain Sanitation District,the District states"It has been made very clear to the
proposed new district that although St.Vrain Sanitation District strongly supports regionalization of sanitation
services in the area,we[St.Vrain Sanitation District]is not and will not go out and acquire territory from other
districts, nor will St. Vrain Sanitation District interfere with or impose on the designated 208 boundaries of
another district or municipality."
It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services that the proposed Service Plan and special district
will not be in the best interests of the area proposed to be served and is not in the interests of the County of
Weld.
The Department of Planning Services recommends to disapprove the application as it is the opinion of staff
that the applicant has not shown compliance with Section 32-1-203(2) and Section 32-1-203(2.5), C.R.S..
Jim Collins,attorney for that applicant, provided additional information on the project. Even though staff has
denied this based on two issues and those being the affected 208 boundaries and the zoning being in place
before the district is formed. The applicant believes that the issues can be resolved by establishing a
condition that would address staff concerns. The condition would address the issue if the 208 boundary is
not changed then the service plan would not be approved and would dissolve. The 208 boundary is the main
opposition. The 208 boundary established by the North Front Range Water Quality Association has the ability
to change but the district needs to be complete before that change can be applied for. There are also some
issues regarding zoning. According to staff there are 160 acres that are included in the 1-25 MUD when
actually there are 800 acres. One Quarter of the acreage in this proposal has already been established in the
1-25 MUD area. This is not a land use decision it is the formation of a service plan to meet a need. There are
four criteria that must be addressed for this to gain approval. The other conditions listed(page 3)are optional
considerations. The applicant believes they can meet the additional considerations. The four criteria are
critical. The area within the proposed district is in need of this type of service. There will be engineering
testimony that this is the most environmentally sound method of providing wastewater treatment to the area.
There is a regional plant at St. Vrain and they have indicated a willingness to receive the sewage if the 208
boundary is changed and there is capacity. This is the most economically and environmentally method of
treatment. The Town of Mead has also asked St.Vrain if they would receive their wastewater. The property
owners are willing to work with Mead in jointly providing for the line access to St. Vrain. The zoning is prime
for urban scale development. The plan for the district is flexible, it does not rely on the re-zoning for this
property. The proposal has three phases and will only be constructed as the need exists and as the backing
behind the revenue bonds becomes available. The district as proposed does not rely on any property taxes
so there will be no burden for those that have not developed. The current zone can justify the first phase.This
is not a control issue, the applicant understands Meads desire to have control over land uses in this area.
There is a need in the area for a facility of this type.
4
John Berguson,engineer for the applicant,provided additional information on the project. Mr. Berguson was
asked by the applicants attorney ast to the structure for the environmentally, economically and financially
feasible wastewater collection, transport and treatment system. Mr. Berguson stated, St Vrain was the
provider contacted as a regional wastewater provider and there will be an IGA between the St.Vrain and this
proposed district. North Front Range Water is a water quality entity not a land use entity. The land owners
were not asked to be part of the Mead service area but placed in the area arbitrarily. This service plan is a
three phased plan depending on need. The project is the best wastewater service system that can be
structured for this area. Mr. Collins asked Mr. Berguson the process in which the 208 boundary could be
changed. Mr. Berguson stated that it is changed by requesting the change. It can be done in a 30 day
process but not without objection from some. The committee is made up of 30-40 members and the decision
would be made in that office. Mr. Berguson indicated he has been in contact with the association,specifically
Dave Dubois. The associated has encouraged the approval of the district then ask for the a boundary change.
Mr. Collins asked about the need in the area and how this meets the need. Mr. Berguson stated there is a
need, this service plan depicts the need in the form of adsorption ratios in the area, historic as well as future
projected. Those statistics are supported by the financial analysis. Mr. Collins asked about showing the
existing sewer service in the area to assist in the projected future need. Mr. Berguson stated the present
services are inadequate for the future need of the area. Mr. Collins indicated the Statute requires the
applicant to provide the economic and sufficient service to the area. Mr. Collins asked Mr. Berguson is this
plan would provide this? Mr. Berguson indicated the service plan is simple and straight forward, the tap fees
are reasonable and the financial plan supports this.
Bryant Gimlin asked about the potential users in phase one, are there enough users in phase one to finance
the phase. Mr. Berguson indicate that this service plan is flexible in phase 2 and 3. Phase 1 is feasible and
the owners are confident that phase one will sustain itself. Mr. Gimlin asked if this was based on existing
property and not counting on potential uses. Mr. Berguson indicated the eight owners are existing.
James Rohn asked is there was a need for water to be added to the system. Mr. Berguson stated this is a
sanitation district only, the water will be provided by the Little Thompson Water District. Mr. Rohn clarified
there will be no water added to the system to work with the sanitation. Mr. Berguson added there will be no
water added beyond typical use in homes.
Russ Caldwell, representative for the applicant, clarified the financial information pertaining to the district.
Phase one is a 3 million dollar construction project. The repayment for the phase would be$1750 per tap per
user. This would pay the bonds for the entire first phase. This is the most reasonable and lowest cost for this
type of service plan. The actual service plan has projections for Phases 2 and 3. Phase one is a modest debt
load and would not encumber the property with large obligation debt.
Jim Collins added this district will not need a mill levy or property tax. This is unique to the area affected. This
is a viable district, simply a sanitation district not a metropolitan district that would do other things. The sole
goal is to construct three main collections and delivery systems to send to St.Vrain Sanitation.There is very
little risk because of the bonds. The applicant appreciates Mead wanting to keep the 208 as it stands. There
are always issues with districts of the nature when all of the zoning is not in place. This district stands alone
with or without the zoning. When the need for service is required the money will be there and if no zone there
will be no money therefor not expenses will occur.
Bryant Gimlin asked whether there was a present need. In the application materials there was a graph that
indicated the need for 5 million gallons of waste water per day in phase one, is this what exist today or
including future build out. Mr. Collins indicated that would be with future build out. Mr. Gimlin asked if there
was a figure of what that would be for today? Mr. Collins indicated it would be minimal today but that is not
the usual test of need for the proposed district. Mr. Collins added the need for zoning is critical. Mr.
Berguson indicated the table shows a peak flow over a 20 year period. The initial flow would be around 250
thousand gallons a day. This is modest as reflected in the variables.
Gary Woods, property owner, indicated the property he controls is in both 208 boundaries, Mead's and St.
Vrain. Mr. Woods has submitted a sketch plan for a proposed development and will be before the Planning
Commission with the change of zone. The land is presently irrigated farm ground, they need to be able to
5
show the County a sewer commitment for service in accordance with the requirements of the change of zone
(COZ). St.Vrain will not change the boundary for one owner but will for a district of this size. The future uses
of urban scale development will be predicted. Before Mead was approached, the 800 acres was placed in
the 1-25 MUD. There is urban scale potential development for the entire 3000 acres associated with this new
district. The issue is Mead does not have the sanitary sewer capabilities to serve the property in the
immediate future. The issues are a district is needed to get the sewer commitment that is needed to finish
the entitlements. There are no further efforts to annex into Mead. The condition of the 208 boundary change
is a vital key. If the boundary does not get changed the area will not need the district. The applicant is asking
to have district that has the authority to build an interceptor line. The cost is an economic alternative with the
cost of the tap being reasonable. St. Vrain can expand to handle future flows but they presently cannot due
the 208 boundary change. Staff denial is based upon the assumption that Mead has the ability to serve this
property when it does not. Mead is looking at St.Vrain as being its treatment source. The proposed condition
would be the breaking point.
John Folsom asked if St.Vrain would be willing to abandon their portion of the 208 boundary so this district
could acquire. Mr.Woods indicated the boundaries do not overlap with St.Vrain. Mr.Woods property would
be within both boundaries,St.Vrain and this district. Logically at some time St.Vrain could be asked to modify
their boundary so all the property is within the district.
John Berguson, provided clarification on the 208 boundary for St. Vrain, Mead and the proposed I-25 MUD.
The method for changing the line is an application and discussion with the committee on the proposed
change.
John Folsom stated with the present property owners buying taps into the district there would be enough
revenue for expenses of the district. Mr. Folsom quoted from the Assistant Weld County Attorney referral
stating the financial plan which is based on population projections, which may be difficult to sustain. The
present population in the district and without further growth are essential, without that growth the financial
capability may not be possible. Mr. Collins stated the financial plan a is three phase bonding and
infrastructure construction. Phase one is viable as it is while phases 2 and 3 depend on the actual
construction growth. Mr. Caldwell added the bonds are structured as the land owners buy but this has tap
purchase agreements.
Gary Woods added there will be no new homes with sewer service that would be here. There are existing
homes with septic systems. The new homes would be part of the district.
James Rohn asked if the exiting homes were on septic systems and they would be incorporated into this
district. Mr. Woods stated that any home that will be built will be part of the district. There is no present
subdivision but the potential is there.
Doug Ochsner asked about Mr.Wood's property and it being in the MUD while not having the ability for sewer
service. Mr. Ochsner asked if there was any other acreage within the MUD that is planned for urban scale
development that cannot be serviced as it is today. Mr. Collins stated that in this area the 800 acres that Mr.
Wood is responsible for. There are 100%of the property owners within the area that believe there is a need
for this. The financial plan states if the people are not ready to put the sewage into this line they will not be
built. The zoning is not there that would allow for construction that would justify the district. The 208
boundaries will change before the district can continue.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Ken Williamson,property owner,indicated his approval for the proposed district. Mr.Williamson is part owner
in the I-25 Radamacher Business Park. The business is approximately 1/2 built out and all are on septic
systems. St. Vrain had provided a letter to service after they were released from the 208 boundary. There
were agreements that were not done so the letter was null and void. The need for sewer has been a constant
in the area. Mr.Williamson has lost several sales of lots due to them being on septic systems. The area will
continue to grow but there will be better business opportunities if sewer were in the area.
Mike Friesen,Mead town administrator,PO Box 626,Mead,CO,80542. Mead is opposed to this application.
6
The town believes this is premature and not well thought through and there is no compelling need to create
a sanitary sewer district at this point in time. There are various things that should be pointed out to the panel
for their information. The map on the wall is misleading because it implies that there is a very abridged service
boundary for Mead that is not true. The area covers the North Creek Watershed. For this application to go
through would truncate a major part of the existing sewer service area of the town of Mead, which was
created for a specific reason. It was created based upon engineering and watershed issues,not just because
a group of property owners got together and decided they wanted to do something different. When Mead
intervened on sewer service agreements that was because Mead had the right and the ability to get sewer
service boundary changes done through the North Front Range Water Quality Association, and it can't be
done by private property owners negotiating their own deal with the sanitation district without the consent of
the municipality. The town is now working on, and negotiating for, sites for a sewer treatment plant on the
east side of the interstate. There are currently two potential sites and appraisals, with a potential purchase
that is expected within the next few months. We have a waste water facility study that is almost completed.
We have consulted with the sate and have the ability to fund a complete conventional sewer treatment plant.
It is not true that we don't currently have the money and are not working on a plan. That plan must be done
in order to file an application with the North Front Range Water Quality Association to even be able to get
permission for a construction permit.
James Rohn asked about Mead plans for water sewer service and when will this system be running? Mr.
Friesen stated it will be done with a new plant within five years.
Doug Ochsner asked if Mr. Friesen would compare Meads plan to phase one fo this proposed district, how
soon could Mead reach the area? Mr. Friesen stated they were next to the interstate on the west side. It
would take a trunk line down to the south. Mr. Ochsner asked about the timing in comparison to phase one.
Mr. Friesen stated the fastest it could happen would be four years. Mr. Friesen added that for this proposed
district to be created the applicants also have a number of steps to go through, there is no way they can get
started very fast either. Mr. Friesen stated there are no active subdivisions that need sewer service. Mr.
Friesen does not believe Weld County should be pressured into this.
James Rohn asked what Mead is doing with the existing area. Mead does not want to have this district
because they want a sewer plant to take care the water for the entire area. Meads proposal is to utilize St.
Vrain Sanitation. Mr. Friesen indicated the sewer service area is defined by an entity and serviced by them.
Development gets done through annexation and platting. Mead wants to control their own sewer service area
so they can control the rate and density of development that occurs. Mead is not opposed to growth and
development but it opposes too much too fast. There are still active annexations from some of the land
owners in Mead. The location of the sewer treatment plant would drive the maximum utility of the service
area. There are other variables that need to be reviewed. This application is for a collection system not a full
service sanitation district. Mead has had discussions with St. Vrain and they have indicated they still need
to do a new master plan and rate study and determine the operational policy. St.Vrain will not service anyone
who needs a lift station or force main. At this time they operate under gravity flow. There is no deal with this
applicant until St. Vrain changes their operating policy. Mr. Friesen indicates this proposal is "entirely
premature and not completely thought through and there is no compelling need to do this."
James Rohn asked if Mead has several subdivisions that are on septic systems. Mr. Friesen indicated there
were and "the town has the right to approve subdivisions like that."
Froda Greenburg,City of Longmont,added this application is premature because the I-25 MUD has not been
amended to include the entire area. This is hypothetical for the area when it comes to development and
projections. If this were for the amendment of the 1-25 MUD plan there would be more citizen input. The City
of Longmont believes this is premature since it amends the I-25 Plan.
Merlin Maas, neighbor, indicated this is not in Mead but is in Weld County. The proposal has been worked
on for 7-8 months, this has not been done prematurely. The collection facility is better then septic tanks. It
is better to go to a collection facility than to continue constructing new small treatment plants. Mead does not
provide any infrastructure services. This plan is well thought out and is there has been time spent with St.
Vrain. The applicants are following the process in all areas.
James Rohn asked Ms.Smith if the Health Department has concerns with sewer system adverse to collection
7
facility. Ms. Smith indicated it starts with planning and the zoning requirements as to what is allowed. Septic
systems can be put in though cost, density and ground water pollution is a concern. There is treated
sewerage going into the ground. The lot size and density requirements for septic systems.
John Kirshner, neighbor, added he is in support of the issues.
Mike Friensen added Mead has finished a new comprehensive plan in September.The document is extensive
in context. This brings Mead to a point in which it should be. The plan deals with services according to their
entity we are not talking about Mead approving subdivision with septic system. This is not a septic versus
sanitary sewer.
Chair closed the public portion.
Jim Collins, added this is not a zone issue this is a service plan approval issue. The applicant has proven the
need and the financially viability. The applicant has demonstrated they can fulfil the 208 boundary issues with
the added condition. The district as it is structured economically has handled by the structure any question
of prematurity regarding the zoning. Mead's master plan shows the area to be medium density residential.
This area will develop. The most effective , economical and efficient treatment is through St.Vrain that now
has the treatment plant and now has the ability to serve and has the financial viability to continue providing.
John Folsom asked Mr. Ogle about the MUD acreage. Mr. Ogle indicated it was approximately 752 acres.
This proposal will initially include 3300 acres with a full build out of 13,000 acres.
Doug Ochsner clarified this is not a land use issue or zone issue but if this is approved this will change the
area. Mr. Gimlin stated it would have a significant impact on what will come in the future. It would be a non
urban scale development today because of the sewer and septic issues. If there was a service available
urban scale may be allowed. Mr. Ochsner added the MUD would have to be changed to allow urban scale
development for this district. Mr. Ogle indicated that was correct. Mr. Folsom asked if the 752 acres can be
urban developed because it is in the MUD. Mr. Ogle stated that was also correct.
James Rohn commented that Mead is going ahead with a septic plan to do what is requesting but their
proposal would take five years, how long will it take for this plan to do the same thing and can it be done
sooner with the viability. The 208 and MUD boundary is the concern. Mr. Gimlin indicated it was almost a
competitive situation with this proposed district and the Town of Mead. Mead wants this to be able to control
the growth in the area. Mr. Folsom added even though this sanitation district did happen, Mead still has
control on the areas outside the MUD on whether they should be developed. Mr. Gimlin added that Mead
would benefit from the district because the service would be provided without a revenue strain on them. Mr.
Folsom added that phase one is in the MUD and some areas are developed commercially.
Kim Ogle added that the Rademacher Business Park is not within the MUD boundary it is to the west of it.
James Rohn added the Town of Mead does not have this service and they do rely on other entities to give
them services.
John Folsom added the discussion should be based around the four criteria that must be met. According to
Mr. Folsom each of the criteria has been addressed and met. Planning Commission must meet rather they
meet the criteria.
Bryant Gimlin indicated that there is no question the area will develop but the question is how. If this district
is formed it will have an impact on the how. This district might be the first thing that is needed this will direct
the development that will fit with the area.
James Rohn added the district has tried to annex into Mead and this failed. This would be the next orderly
step. Mr. Auer added that the applicant has approached the municipality first and they have worked in good
faith with them. The reason the applicants are here is because the municipality could not meet that need.
The owners can go to the County and pursue what the want.
8
Bryant Gimlin added the applicant has indicated they would be in agreement to add a condition that the 208
boundary be modified prior to approval. There was a letter from St.Vrain to indicate they would need to make
a policy change to accommodate the use of a lift station.
Jim Collins stated the language would be to the effect that the Planning Commission recommends approval
of the service plan with the condition that formation of the district be withheld until the 208 boundary is
changed by the association.
Bruce Barker question the proposed condition and that it be the district would not be approved or it would go
forward without the 208 approval. The State Statute indicates the County is to approve the service plan.
Would it make more sense to say the service plan is not approved until the 208 boundary is changed by the
committee to reflect the district boundaries. Mr. Collins indicated the association has requested the district
be formed to apply for the 208 boundary change. The Statute allows conditions to be attached to an approval.
The condition could have a time frame of 12 months if the 208 is not done the district will dissolve.
Bruce Barker indicated he agrees with this and it would be part of the service plan that makes this a condition.
It might help if Planning Commission knew how the district was formed after the service plan is approved.
Mr. Collins indicated that once a resolution is done, with or without conditions. The district will take the
resolution with conditions to the district court and file a pleading motion for formation of district which would
have a court order. There would be a public hearing then issues order for election to form the district. In the
order would contain the restriction for the disillusion of the district should the 208 not change. The district
would be formed and the hope it is to be done before July 1, 2005. A Tabor Election date must be waited for
to have any debt or mill levy authorization. The vote would be of those that are registered and either reside
in or own property in the proposed district.
Doug Ochsner asked if nothing was done would the district automatically dissolve? Mr. Collins stated there
would be little purpose for the district. The applicant is comfortable with removing the doubt. Mr. Barker
agrees that it is good to include the condition. If the 208 is not changed the district is never formed.
Kim Ogle indicated staff has no problem with this condition.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to place a condition of approval that this East I-25 Sanitation District will be dissolved
if the 208 boundary change cannot be made within a 12 month period from the approval date of the Board of
County Commissioners. Chad Auer seconded. Motion carried.
Bruce Barker asked if this motion was for the condition only or approval for the entire district. Mr. Fitzgerald
indicated it was for the condition only.
Bryant Gimlin asked about the policy change for St.Vrain to not accept lift station. Mr. Collins indicated that
would be an acceptable condition but it only pertains to phase three of the development. The other phases
do not need a lift station. The applicant would be happy to not construct any sewer mains in phase three until
St. Vrain changes their policy. Mr. Barker added the way it will happen is if that if there is no agreement with
St. Vrain there will be no bonds sold and nothing will happen. The whole thing is conditioned upon the
agreement with St. Vrain to begin with.
James Rohn moved that Case 2004-XX East 1-25 Sanitation District, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Tonya Strobel seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; James Welch, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tonya Strobel, yes; Chad Auer, yes;
Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Doug Ochsner commented the applicant has proved a need for this district and there are willing land owners
and the development will come to the area.
James Rohn commented that he hopes the district can come into a workable solution with Mead.
9
John Folsom commented he has problems with urban development within the MUD. It is really preferable that
urban development take place within a municipality. The hopes is that Mead and the land owners will annex
into Mead and develop under the municipality and not the MUD.
Bryant Gimlin commented that he believes this district will relieve some of the burden that is on Mead,
financially and from a planning stand point. It opens the door for the sides to work together.
Meeting adjourned at 3:30pm
Respectfully submitted
\ t.YL4-2-+`l �C� e l� L
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
10
Hello