HomeMy WebLinkAbout20031496.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by John Folsom,that the following resolution be introduced for denial by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: CC2002-XX
APPLICANT: WCR#1 Coalition
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the W2 of Section 31, T3N, R68W and part of the NW4 of Section
6, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado 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 Structural Land Use
Map 2.1 to include 387 +/-acres into the MUD area).
LOCATION: South and adjacent to WCR 28; north and adjacent to WCR 26; west and
adjacent to WCR 1.
be recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES' STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE
DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. Criteria I:MUD Plan,Chapter26,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."
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 the requirements of 22-1-50.B. A minimum of eleven (11) copies of the
application were submitted on April 1,2002 and the applicant has paid the cost of legal publication
and application fees.
22-1-50.6.3.a "A statement describing why the comprehensive plan is in need of revision."
The applicants have stated the desire to develop the properties at an urban scale density by
complying with standards established in Chapter26,Mixed Use Development area plan.Application
materials also state the properties are within the St.Vrain Sanitation District boundary. Capability
of serving all of the applicants proposed area by St.Vrain Sanitation District is in question and the
issue of adequate infrastructure is in negotiations at the time of this review.
2003-1496
Resolution CC2002-XX
WCR1 Coalition
Page 2
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."
When developing the MUD Plan,a ratio of employment centers,residential areas,parks and transit
centers does not appear to be planned in correlation to the total planned area.The applicants have
examined this mixture of uses and have attempted to proposed a similar mixture, but have not
maintained the intent of the MUD Area.The proposed inclusion into the MUD appears to be in direct
conflict with existing and future goals,policies and needs of the County as well as with many aspects
of the proposed Longmont Intergovernmental Agreement(IGA). The application is in close proximity
to the City of Longmont and existing and future goals, policies and needs of the County encourage
annexation of such intense residential/urban scale use.
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 to the north and west of
the proposal are predominantly agricultural in nature with associated rural residences.The municipal
boundary of the City of Longmont and property owned by the city constitute the bulk of the southern
boundary of the application area, Union Reservoir and parcels owned by the City of Longmont make
up the Eastern boundary.
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 submission is located within the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement/Urban Growth
Boundary for the City of Longmont.
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 publicwater
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." It is the opinion of the Department of
Planning Services based on referral agency comments that the applicant has not adequately
demonstrated or resolved issues surrounding the provision of sanitary sewer. The applicant in their
application materials state they are"in the process of submitting a 208 application to the St Vrain
Sewer District"which may be in conflict with the City of Longmont's 208 application. Subsequent
information indicates a resolution has been reached with documentation forthcoming.
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 CC2002-XX
WCR1 Coalition
Page 3
It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services, as well as the City of Longmont, that the
applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed amendment is adjacent or contiguous to the
existing 1-25 MUD Area. A parcel of land owned fee simple by the Union Reservoir Company,which
is not a party to this application, on the northern perimeter of the parcel owned by Clover Industrial
LLC (1313 06 000 054) separates the remaining parcels included in the application. WCR 1 is on
the eastern boundary of the application area. Per Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code, as
interpreted by the Department of Planning Services,adjacent and contiguous is used to differentiate
inclusion into the MUD from annexation statutes, therefore WCR1 cannot be used to establish
contiguity and The Union Reservoir Parcel to the South and Union Reservoir to the east preclude
"adjacent-ness". Union reservoir is not a party to the application and the MUD does not exist to
north of the applicants proposal.
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 provided documentation of coordination with personnel representing the Little
Thompson Water District, St Vrain Valley Water and School District and the Mountain View Fire
Protection District but has provided no evidence of discussions with the City of Longmont. The St.
Vrain School District and City of Longmont oppose the inclusion of this area into the Mixed Use
Development Area.
The City of Longmont, in their initial referral, expressed the following concerns regarding the
proposed inclusion into the MUD: 1)incompatibility with the Longmont Area Comprehensive Plan,
Annexation potential, 2) inconsistency with the Intergovernmental Agreement with Weld County,
3)Union Reservoir and its future expansion,4)water and waste water service,5)parks,open space
and trail linkages, 6)transportation and 7)contiguity to the existing MUD. (City of Longmont).
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 356 students will reside,539 Residential units will
be constructed and 852 potential jobs will be created within the proposed amendment boundaries.
The applicants has not adequately addressed the cultural and social services needs of said
population.
The Weld County Department of Public Works, in their referral response dated May 29, 2002,
stated:
"In a letter dated April 29,2002, Eugene G.Cappola, P.E.,made preliminary estimates of the traffic
that will be generated from the proposed development of the properties to be included into the MUD.
Based on the proposed land uses, the total daily trips are estimated to be 12,587. Mr. Cappola's
preliminary traffic studies do not provide information on the impact to the roadway systems that
serve the area.
The increased traffic will have significant impact. Weld County Road (WCR) 1 is identified as an
arterial roadway and will require significant improvements. In an effort to plan for future needs,
Weld County and The City of Longmont has hired a consulting engineer to perform preliminary
designs for a five lane arterial on WCR 1. State Highways 119 and 66 will be impacted. The levels
of service at intersections with the State Highways and WCR 1 will be reduced unless there are
Resolution CC2002-XX
WCR1 Coalition
Page 4
major modifications. Also, the local roadways, such as WCR 24, 9th Ave. and 17`" Ave. will be
impacted. Improvements to these roadways may include additional lanes,turning lanes,shoulders,
bike lanes, sidewalks, curb and gutters, medians and traffic signals. Construction of these
improvements will require the relocation of utilities and the acquisition of easements and rights-of-
way.
In the application materials, under the section titled Roads, the second to last sentence reads,
"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 that 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.
The Public Works Department has no objections to including these properties into the Mixed Use
Development Area. (Department of Public Works)
The St. Vrain Valley School District in their referral response dated May 23, 2002 did not support
the applicants proposal and stated:
"The District is opposed to the approval of this application due to this developments impact
on already crowded school facilities. Should the County decide to recommend approval of this
development proposal,the School District's cash-in-lieu and/or land dedication requirements would
still need to be satisfied." (St. Vrain Valley School District)
Should the Planning Commission approve this request for inclusion to the MUD the Department of Planning
Services' staff recommends the following Conditions of Approval and Development Standards:
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 evidence of compliance with the Department of Public Works referral dated May
29, 2002 including 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.
(Department of Planning Services)
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 May
23, 2002. Evidence or acknowledgment of such shall be provided to the Department of
Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
3. The applicant shall attempt to address the Mountain View Fire Protection District's referral
request of May 9,2002."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. (Department of Planning Services)
4. The applicant shall attempt to address the concerns outlined in the City of Longmont's
referral dated June 6, 2002. Evidence or acknowledgment of such shall be provided to the
Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
Resolution CC2002-XX
WCR1 Coalition
Page 5
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 below.
Table 22.4
Land Use Plan Distribution
Land Use/Intensity Acres % To t al Remarks
Area
Employment Center 2,748 10 % 31 million total square feet of floor space
— High Intensity 2,748 18 %
0
Regional Commercial 437 3 % 4.4 million total square feet of floor space
— Medium Intensity 437
0
Neighborhood Center +95 1 % 8.8 million total square feet of floor space
— Low Intensity 195
0
Residential C,2C3 + 43 % Maximum population: 59,876 people and
320 44% approximately 23,951 dwelling units
Mixed Intensity 6,583
Limiting Site Factors 4,215 28 % All areas delineated are within the 100-year
— Lowest Intensity floodplain or have elements that obstruct or
are hazardous to certain types of
0 development
Regional Park 852 + 6 % Areas delineated as open space
67
919
TOTAL 14,710 100%
15,097
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.
Resolution CC2002-XX
WCR1 Coalition
Page 6
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Fred Walker
Michael Miller
John Folsom
Cathy Clamp
Bryant Gimlin
Bruce Fitzgerald
James Rohn
Bernard Ruesgen
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 November 19, 2002.
Dated the 19'"of November, 2002.
/C'vudi-,_j l c VI L
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
/1— /9— c"26(12-1-
Bryant Gimlin indicated that there are other ways to look at this. The municipalities pay county taxes and
they will be supporting it through that. It works both ways. Mr. Folsom indicated that with regard to paying
taxes, by those in the county, those are used for other purposes within the county finance structure. Mr.
Warden indicated that 40%of the road and bridge fund is supported by the highway users fund which is the-.
gas tax. The structure of the funding for the road system in the state takes into account the location.
Historically counties have taken this responsibility for the connectors between the municipalities. Mr. Rohn
asked about the County Road 35 was going to be one of the major roads. Mr.Warden indicated that is was
not. Mr. Miller stated it was not within our scope to rebuild the road system.
Stephan Mokray moved that Transportation Impact Fees be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. John Folsom 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;Cathy Clamp,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: CC2002-XX
APPLICANT: WCR#1 Coalition
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the W2 of Section 31, T3N, R68W and part of the NW4 of Section
6, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado 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 Structural Land Use
Map 2.1 to include 387 +/-acres into the MUD area).
LOCATION: South and adjacent to WCR 28; north and adjacent to WCR 26; west and
adjacent to WCR 1.
Stephen Mokray removed himself due to possible perceived conflict of interest.
Robert Anderson, Department of Planning Services presented Case CC2002-XX, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
denial of the application.
James Rohn asked for clarification with regard to the land owned by the City of Longmont. Mr. Anderson
indicated that Longmont does own land which is adjacent to and surrounded by the proposed MUD inclusion.
The land is presently vacant and is not a part of the application. Mr. Folsom asked about state statute and
contiguity which has been permitted using flagpoles and bodies of water. The restriction or basis for the
recommendation of denial is based on what is in the code and DPS interpretation of the more restrictive
adjacent and contiguous. Ms. Clamp asked Mr. Morrison if this is approved will this set a precedent. Mr .
Morrison indicated that when a specific phrase is included and the Planning Commission concurs with that
phrase,the language could be interpreted in a way to set a precedent. When there a phrase that has to be
interpreted, such as in this case, it should be interpreted consistently. John Folsom asked if no contiguity
was established could the properties to the south of the Union Reservoir parcel continue with the application.
Mr.Morrison indicated that the applicant would have to agree to do it that way. Planning Commission cannot
amend the application.
James Rohn asked for clarification on the location of the MUD boundary and property owned by the City of
Longmont. Mr. Anderson indicated where the Longmont City Boundary was and the specific properties
owned by the City of Longmont but within the county. Mr. Morrison emphasized that the property is owned
by City of Longmont but are not within the city boundaries. Mr. Folsom asked about the sanitation district
for the sewage. There is an IGA between the St. Vrain and City of Longmont. Can the applicant obtain
sewage disposal since it is controlled by the City of Longmont. Mr.Anderson indicated that the one reason
for the continuance of this case was to allow the applicant to participate in a 208 Boundary change by St.
Vrain Sanitation District. Staff acknowledged that they were unable to determine the status of that
Page -2-
application.
Michael Miller asked about the City of Longmont letter for denial because they want it annexed in to the city.
Mr.Anderson cited the City of Longmonts referral and their recommendation of Denial and indicated DPS
did not have any record of any negotiations between the applicant and the City of longmont. Mr Anderson
advised that the applicant could better address this matter.
Don Leffler,representative for the applicants,provided clarification with regard to the project.The applicants
have a tentative agreement with the-City of Longmont. Information was handed out with regard to
agreements with City of Longmont, St. Vrain Sanitation District, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
District. The property owners are continually working with the municipalities,county and the other agencies.
They are also working to obtain sewer and water services. The City of Longmont agreement contains
provisions for the expansion of Union Reservoir while the project will not be annexed for a period of ten
years. It is not a condition from the City of Longmont to be annexed for the project to move forward with the
development. With regard to contiguity and the parcel separating them, both properties are owned by the
same individual. The right of way is what separates them. The applicant is trying to be compatible with the
adjacent developments without regard as to who owns or what municipality or what area they are located
in. The applicants have been working with the City of Longmont with regard to the sewer and sanitation.The
applicants that withdrew the application for the water and sewer from St. Vrain in favor of the IGA with the
City of Longmont.
James Rohn indicated that some of the property will be under water. Mr. Leffler indicated the lines will
move back.
John Folsom asked about the negotiations between the City of Longmont and is there anything in writing.
Mr. Leffler indicated that a draft of an agreement was presented during the IGA negotiations. The formal
agreement has not been achieved. The agreement contains conditions for municipal service in exchange
for the land needed to enlarge Union Reservoir. Mr. Folsom asked if the property owners are going to deed
the needed property to the City of Longmont. Mr. Leffler indicated that the property owners will adjust the
proposal to accommodate the expansion of union reservoir by adjusting the development.
Cathy Clamp indicated that in the beginning the proposal was to prevent the expansion of Union Reservoir
and not allow the development of the properties. In order to be included into one of the sanitation districts
there is a need to have some of the properties go under water, is this the reason for going into the MUD.
Mr. Leffler stated that the applicants are in it for two different things. The application for inclusion is so the
development is designed according to MUD standards and the land will not be annexed into Longmont so
the City of Longmont will work with them. Ms. Clamp asked if the design standards vary between the MUD
area and the City of Longmont. Mr. Leffler indicated that it does. While inside the IGA both the City of
Longmont and the MUD standards must be adhered to. Ms. Clamp asked Mr. Morrison if this application
was approved will it preclude the City of Longmont from the expansion of the reservoir or violation with the
IGA. Mr. Morrison indicated that the MUD rules do not address water storage projects as far as raw water
or irrigation water. There is no connection between the application and the expansion of the reservoir.
Michael Miller asked Mr.Morrison about the City of Longmont denial and PC approval would violate the IGA.
Mr. Morrison indicated that the IGA kicks in at a specific development proposal stage not this stage. Mr.
Miller asked Mr. Leffler as to why the owners do not want to annex into the City of Longmont. Mr. Leffler
stated that they enjoy the aspect of the county and the agreements will state they will stay in Weld County
and give up some of the land for the expansion of Union Reservoir. The applicants want to preserve the
value of the ground and stay in the county. The economic benefits and lifestyle are what the owners want
to maintain. Mr. Miller asked what are the benefits by being in Weld County adverse to being in the city.
Mr. Leffler indicated that it was the quality of what the applicants have requested, is to maintain themselves
inside of Weld County. There are design criteria if they went to the City of Longmont. This proposal is for
two d/u(dwelling units)per acre and the City of Longmont would like seven d/u per acre. Some owners want
to maintain the openness associated with the county and that can be accomplished by being inside the MUD
area.
James Rohn asked Mr. Morrison for clarification with regard to the contiguity requirements and standards
Page -3-
and flagpole. Mr. Morrison indicated that the MUD amendments need to be applied to this case. The
annexation requirements are different and allow a flagpole. The language is not the same. Generally
adjacent property owners own some small bundle of rights with respect to County section line roads.The only
rights they have is if the road is vacated they can get the rights to the road back. They have no current
possessory rights but have the possibility of gaining full ownership if it is abandoned. The reservoir is
involved because according to annexation requirements the surface of the reservoir can be used as
contiguity.
John Folsom asked if there is a draft agreement between the City of Longmont and the applicants.Mr.Leffler
stated there is. Mr. Folsom asked about the property owners desire to either maintain their quality of life or
to develop the property. Mr. Leffler indicated that it is several factors including maintaining the quality of
life as well as the economic value of the property. The criteria for the MUD has been met. Mr. Leffler
indicated that the letter can be submitted. There is no intent in this application to set a precedence for future
applications. The intent is to put good planning practices to areas inside the MUD in accordance with the
goals and policies.
Cathy Clamp asked about the maps and if the design standards differ from being in Longmont as to the
county. Mr. Leffler indicated that the proposal difference is the d/u per acre. There is a possibility of
reducing that even further depending on the sewer system capability. Ms. Clamp asked how is the MUD
going to benefit adverse to the City of Longmont. Mr.Leffler indicated it is the number of dwelling units that
are required according to the design standards. Ms.Clamp asked if Longmont has indicted that they would
not give a variance to the density being requested. Mr. Leffler stated that Longmont is agreeable to it. The
applicants still want to maintain the Weld County quality of life.
Michael Miller asked for clarification with regard to a possible variance to the number of d/u by the City of
Longmont. Mr.Leffler indicated that the City of Longmont was in favor of the lower density and being in the
MUD. They would not be in favor of such a low density if annexed into the City.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Phil Willis,applicant to WCR#1 Coalition, indicated his desire to develop into estate lots. A sketch plan for
estate lots was submitted to the county and at that time the City of Longmont did not want this because of
the expansion of the reservoir. The application was denied with the County wanting sewer and water and
the inclusion into the MUD. In order to develop the property must be in the MUD, this is the reason for
applying for inclusion into the MUD, because DPS said to apply. The traffic on County Road 1 is bad and
farm equipment cannot move safely down the road. The City of Longmont is developing the adjacent
property with 7 d/u per acre and the property owners did not want this high of density. There are a number
of standards that the City of Longmont has that the county does not have. Some of them include the school
issue. This means that if the school is overcrowded they will let you annex but not develop until the school
issue clears up. The development wants to be estate lots and not a higher density. City of Longmont has
design standards for affordable housing and they are not looking to develop those types of homes. The
water and sewer will be furnished by the City of Longmont in accordance with the draft agreement in place.
The agreement will also contain a provision that they will not annex into the City for the next 10 years.
Michael Miller asked about the City of Longmont withdrawal if the applicant will give some land for the
expansion of the reservoir and why want to be in the MUD. Mr. Wallis indicated they cannot build and
develop urban scale, according to the County, if they are not within the MUD. Mr. Anderson indicated that
Urban Scale is promoted in the MUD.Policy indicates that if they are located near an urban area annexation
would be recommended. Ms.Mika indicated she could expand on Mr.Anderson comments. The application
has two options with passage of the Longmont IGA.This area is now in an IGA urban growth area they have
the right to follow through with the application. It does not necessarily have to be in the MUD since it is
already located in an IGA area. The city will have to agree to not object and state it is agreeable to continue
with the application. Ms.Mika indicated that the IGA does reference MUD standards. Mr.Morrison indicated
that just because there are other opportunities it does not determine rather this application should be
approved. The IGA with Longmont final agreement was tempered in part by the negotiations with this
applicant. The County and the City's agreement is understood by these landowners. Mr. Miller indicated
that this is a case of contiguity and there is not contiguity by definition. Mr. Miller questions rather the
Page -4-
inclusion would change the abilities of the applicant if it were not to be in the MUD area. The design
standards would be similar with either. Mr. Morrison stated that this may not be the issue. If the applicant
were to chose another avenue they would not be here and that would be their choice.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
John Folsom asked if the draft letter is available and if staff is aware of this. Mr. Anderson indicated that
he had informed representatives of the City of Longmont Planning Office of the hearing and there was no
additional information from Longmont. Ms.Mika indicated that as the Longmont IGA was being negotiated,
there is documentation in the records that shows there has been discussions between some of the applicants
and the city. The language talks about how Longmont will not aggressively pursue any negative comments
for any future developments if the terms for a long term agreement can be agreed upon. There has not been
anything t hat specifically a ddresses t his case. T he responses w ere i n regards to developments not
specifically this issue. Mr. Folsom stated that there is nothing from Longmont withdrawing their denial
recommendation. Ms. Clamp asked Ms. Mika if anything was discussed with regard to inclusion into the
MUD,maybe a condition of Longmont that it be in the MUD. Ms. Mika indicated that she does not recall that
being criteria. The negotiation had to do with service provision and density of the development. Mr.Willis
indicated that the MUD was not specifically addressed and that he spoke with Mr.Rademacher from the City
of Longmont stated that there was not need for it. Mr Willits indicated he knew of a letter from Mr.
Rademacher indicating that they will provide water and sewer for 10 years. If the need to be in the MUD to
develop has changed than there is no need for this application.
Monica Mika indicated that the timing of this case are vital in this determination. When the developments
came to the county they were urban scale in a non urban area. At that time the requirement for being in the
MUD was correct. With the changes that have occurred it would now help to be in the MUD area but is no
longer a requirement. The IGA indicates that the county does not process urban developments in urban
areas, the county will recommend annexation. Since the City of Longmont has no objection to this
development and will not annex, the county will continue to process.
John Folsom commented that the application does not meet the requirements for adjacency or contiguity.
The application should be sent to the Board and they should make the determination. Planning Commission
should address matters in the code only. There is testimony that there is documentation but nothing has
been presented. It would be better for the Planning Commission to deny the application and send it to the
Board to let them decide. This will give time for the agreement between the applicant and the City of
Longmont to be finalized. The applicant could then submit it.
Cathy Clamp commented that the legality or phrasing should not be interpreted by the Planning Commission.
The standards that need to occur would be best met by the MUD. It would be better to forward the
application with no recommendation. Mr. Morrison indicated that there is not an opportunity to do nothing.
A recommendation must be made and the Board can either agree or disagree. Mr. Gimlin indicated that a
recommendation needs to be done especially for the benefit of the applicant. If the recommendation was
denial then the applicant has the ability and time to address those concerns. Mr. Miller indicated that the
applicants do not have contiguity. By approving this would allow a flagpole type situation.
John Folsom moved that Case CC2002XX,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation
of denial. James Rohn seconded the motion.
The application does not meet the requirements for adjacency or contiguity.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes; James Rohn,yes; Cathy Clamp, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
Cathy commented that the parcels may best be served by being in the MUD, the contiguity is in question.
It would be best to get a letter stating that there is no objection to this application being included into the
Page -5-
MUD area.
John Folsom commented that the City of Longmont needs to provide a letter indicting there approval.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-552 •
APPLICANT: William & Dolores Roberts
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots A and B of RE-2342; being part of the SE4 of Section 30, T6N, R66W
of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from the A (Agricultural) to Planned Unit Development
(PUD) with E (Estate) Zone uses for Ten (10) Residential Lots and 51+/-
Acres Common Open Space on 80+/-Acres.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 64 '%and West of WCR 27.
Robert Anderson, Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-552,reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Cathy Clamp asked if the mining is going on and what the remainder is. Mr. Anderson indicated that the
application cites 12-18 months before completion of Mining. A condition has been included for complete
reclamation prior to submission of Final Plat Application.Staff believes that there is not enough time for the
reclamation to be completed and the proposal to begin.
Todd Hodges, representative, provided clarification with regard to the project. The basis for planning staff
denial is 10 lots versus 9 lots. It does meet the intent of the non urban as well as the urban development
criteria. The area has been developing and it does meet the intent of this area and is compatible. The
applicant has met with the town of Windsor and they have no conflicts with the project. There are
developments within the area that are of a urban design. This in an area that has been deemed to grow.
Within the project, the road realignment has been a n issue t hat has been a ddressed a long with the
reclamation of the mining operations. There are additional turn around areas to meet the fire districts
conditions. The lake will be accessed exclusively by the homeowners. It will be used for fishing and a
wildlife habitat. The property will have a non potable irrigation system for the lake. The landscaping is
extensive and will buffer the adjacent property to the right of way. There is a substantial right of way
dedication that will occur. The applicants are willing to dedicate not just reserve. The open space
landscaping around the lake is part of the reclamation plan for the USR for Hall Irwin. The subdivision will
have architectural controls. This is an approved RE that has incorporated both lots into the final
configuration. The mining is currently 65% completed. There are agreements with the North Weld Water
District and all the referral agencies have been addressed. The Town of Windsor supports the project. The
City of Greeley has an outdated ordinance for one home per 20 acres. The staff comments for denial were
addressed. Code sections were utilized to encourage support of the project. After reclamation of the
property the applicant believes this is the highest and best use for that property. This meets the intent of the
ordinance and the site. The PUD process is intended for flexibility.
Cathy Clamp asked if the intent for the properties are going to be large scale homes or smaller.
Billy Roberts, applicant, indicated it would be higher scale homes. Ms. Clamp asked if the area will be
promoted for horses or family oriented. Mr. Roberts indicated that the exact drawing of the covenants have
not been established. Ms.Clamp asked about the shares from the Whitney Ditch and their use to replenish
the lake on the property. The remaining shares goes to the open space. The agreement with North Central
Weld is to provide for 114 thousand gallons per tap and then it will be shut off. Pam Smith, Weld County
Health and Environment, stated that 900 gallons serve a four bedroom house. Mr. Roberts indicated that
North Central Weld water was excited about this development because of the exterior non potable source.
Ms. Clamp asked about fire protection requests. Mr. Roberts indicated that it has been addressed by the
applicant adding fire hydrants. The pressure was the issue. North Weld water is working with the applicant
for the pressure using backflow prevention. This will boost the system.
Page-6-
Hello