HomeMy WebLinkAbout20000245 HEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 99-62B
RE: CHANGE OF ZONE #528, FROM A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT TO PUD
(PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT FOR 600 TO 800 LOTS WITH
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES - SIEGRIST COMPANIES c/o TUTTLE
APPLEGATE, INC.
A public hearing was conducted on January 26, 2000, at 10:00 a.m., with the following present:
Commissioner Dale K. Hall, Chair
Commissioner Barbara J. Kirkmeyer, Pro-Tem
Commissioner George E. Baxter- EXCUSED
Commissioner M. J. Geile
Commissioner Glenn Vaad
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Carol A. Harding
Assistant County Attorney, Lee Morrison
Planning Department representative, Monica Mika
Health Department representative, Sheble Mc
Public Works representative, Don Carroll
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated September 8, 1999, and duly published
September 11, 1999, in the Fort Lupton Press, a public hearing was conducted on September 22,
1999, to consider the request of Siegrist Companies for Change of Zone #528 from the A
(Agricultural) Zone District to PUD (Planned Unit Development) District, for 600 to 800 lots with
residential and commercial uses. Said matter was continued to November 17, 1999, then to
January 26, 2000, at which time Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney, made this a matter of
record.
Chair Kirkmeyer explained the ramifications of having only four Commissioners present and that,
in the case of a tie vote, Commissioner Baxter will listen to the tape, then give his vote on the
record to break the tie. The applicant expressed his desire to proceed.
Monica Mika, Director of Planning Services, presented for the record, a letter dated January 21,
2000, received prior to the hearing from Tuttle Applegate,the Traffic Impact Study,and Conditional
Letter of Map Revision, marked Exhibits CC, DD, and EE, respectively. Ms. Mika displayed the
vicinity map and stated surrounding uses consist of agricultural uses, mining and accessory mining
uses, as well as the St Vrain Creek. She stated one-half of the 486 acres are in the flood plain,
located those areas on the map and noted there will be FEMA regulations to be met. She further
stated the proposal includes a range of uses, total densities will be established, although, as
proposed density will not exceed eight lots per acre,with 227 acres designated as open space, and
a population projection of approximately 1,637. Ms. Mika stated water taps are committed for 637
residential lots, with no commitment for commercial.
Ms Mika referenced Exhibit Q, which is a memo of proposed changes and additions to the
Conditions of Approval and stated staff believes all conditions have been met which were imposed
y, ^� 2000-0245
(y PL, 14Z-� (A) PL1023
HEARING CERTIFICATION - SIEGRIST COMPANIES (COZ#528)
PAGE 2
by the Planning Commission to be completed prior to the Board hearing; the applicant has
submitted three water commitment letters; the applicant has removed the equestrian center in
compliance to the recommendation of the Planning Commission, therefore, different maps will be
used today which have the center eliminated. Ms. Mika stated the actual lot commitment for water
is still uncertain, however, staff recommends approval with the changes listed in Exhibit Q because
the applicant has demonstrated consistency with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, has
satisfactorily met the requirements of the Planned Unit Development standards, has demonstrated
adequate water and service provision,the street and highway facilities are adequate and functional
to maintain the uses as proposed, and there is compatibility with the Zoning Ordinance and overlay
district as it applies to the site. Ms. Mika further stated there have been several letters of concern
from surrounding property owners, and the City of Longmont did express concerns about the
overall density being employed in this subdivision.
Responding to Commissioner Geile, Ms. Mika stated she has no concerns regarding the physical
configuration of the site fitting into Map 2.1 in the Mixed Use Development Structural Map and that,
at the time of final platting, buffering between uses will be included. Responding to Commissioner
Hall and Chair Kirkmeyer, Ms. Mika stated a referral was sent to the Weld County Sheriff's Office;
the Department of Public Works did review the Traffic Impact Study and sent a memo dated
December 30, 1999,with its response; and the equestrian center was eliminated as the applicant's
choice rather than having to provide a Manure and Waste Water Management Plan for the site.
Mr. Morrison stated the record shows a referral was sent to the Sheriff, and no response was
found.
Molly Orkild-Larson of Tuttle Applegate, Inc.,applicant's representative,stated the applicant is also
the property owner, RiverDance Land Company. Ms. Larson stated additional information and
changes submitted for the record since the Planning Commission Hearing include the traffic study,
water and sewer agreements, removal of equestrian center and flood plain limitations, and
adjustment of building envelope setbacks. She stated the site is 486.7 acres and the project will
consist of a maximum of 661 residential units with a commercial component situated on the 1-25
Frontage Road, north of State Highway 119. She explained this is a unique site, which has three
lakes existing on it, as well as the St. Vrain River running through it; the site has very nice views,
with changes in topography from lakeside to rolling hills; and is intended to be a riverside
development with native stone and wood materials in the common building,such as the club house,
but also wood fence and stone and wood fencing, with additional proposed water facilities. She
further explained the site is designed to preserve and enhance the existing features, orientating
the homes to the mountains and the commercial units to the highway. Ms. Larson described the
recreation component which will include water sports and fishing, a clubhouse, swimming pool,
pocket parks, wildlife viewing areas, and several miles of hiking and biking trails, and she stated
this is a phased development which will be accomplished in nine filings, with single family
residential lots (12,000 square feet) along the lakeside, graduating into 10,000 square-foot lots,
then to patio homes and townhouses. Ms. Larson stated the site easily meets open space
requirements including the two lakes, pocket parks, and the trail system around the property and
streets. She stated the commercial area will be at the west entrance, and Phase I will consist of
the residential portion of the west side of the property including single residences along the lake,
and suburban and patio homes. Ms. Larson stated the Site Plan has changed to remove the
equestrian center and associated trails, provide a buffer for the oil and gas easement, and to
provide screening and buffering between residential lots and the commercial component of the
subdivision. She also explained adjustments made to the building envelopes to add five-foot lot
2000-0245
PL1023
HEARING CERTIFICATION - SIEGRIST COMPANIES (COZ#528)
PAGE 3
lines on the sides of patio homes, as well as 15 feet between envelopes to give more flexibility to
types of homes. Ms. Larson stated the application is in compliance with the Planned Unit
Development and Mixed Use Development Ordinances, as well as the Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan; the property owners have owned this site since 1979, and they have been
working diligently to get sewer and water to property; and they are sincere about this development
and want to make it work since they plan on purchasing several lots on the east side of this
property.
Commissioner Hall stated he would like more information regarding the roadway system later in
the hearing. Responding to questions from Commissioners Vaad and Geile, Ms. Larson stated
there are 220 acres, or 47 percent of the property, in open space; the school district will be paid
cash in lieu of land; and the covenants will allow only dogs and cats, not horses.
Mike Siegrist, owner and applicant, stated the Little Thompson Water District has made several
commitments, starting with the letter on June 14, 1999, committing 125 taps for the first phase.
After further discussion, the District sent another letter dated July 1, 1999, committing another 512
taps with an agreement for certain off-site improvements to be made by the applicant for Phase
Two. When the Planning Commission recommended deletion of the equestrian center and more
lots were added, the District sent the most recent letter, increasing its commitment for the second
phase to 531 taps and commercial. Mr. Siegrist said the RiverDance Homeowners Association will
address maintenance of the pool, trail system and parks, and operation and maintenance of the
club house. He stated currently the Mead Elementary and Middle Schools, and Skyline High are
the ones affected by the subdivision, and cash in lieu of land has been requested from the school
district in the amount of$427 per site. Mr. Siegrist also noted there are ten private schools in the
area; public transportation is available with a Park and Ride situated at State Highway 119 and
1-25; and the outlet mall is located 15 minutes from the site. Responding to Commissioners Vaad
and Geile, Mr. Siegrist stated the school district calculated a 313 student yield total, and there are
currently plans for a new elementary school in the area; in addition to the water taps, the water
district has committed one-acre foot, or one share per household of irrigation water for grass, etc.,
and each house will have two hookups for water. Ms. Mika clarified the student yields on Exhibit
10 project 345 plus 313. Mr. Siegrist further responded to Commissioner Vaad that the water
district has committed 661 shares at $10,000 per share which he will pay initially, although he will
be reimbursed from the Little Thompson District after the home owner goes to the district and pays
for the tap. Responding to Commissioner Hall, Mr. Siegrist agreed that six million dollars is a lot
of money to put into water taps; however, he explained it will be part of the financing for the entire
development and the outlay for that will be spread over the next ten years. Mr. Siegrist also noted
there are some non-potable water alternatives being considered and repeated that with the 125
taps committed to in the June 14th letter for Phase One, he is only five lots short, and all
commercial uses will be provided for according to his agreement to fund approximately two and
one-half million dollars of off-site improvements for the water district.
Responding to Commissioner Hall, Mr. Siegrist stated the Homeowners Association will maintain
the trails and parks and the roads will be turned over to the County after being completed. Ms.
Larson explained the Sheriff did not respond to the referral; however, when she called his office,
the response was that they would be served. Responding to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Siegrist stated
the letter dated January 25, 2000, committing 531 lots from the water district is for the second
phase of the project and should be supplemented by adding the 125 lots from the June 14th letter
for Phase One; he has no documentation about the elementary school, only verbal conversation
2000-0245
PL1023
HEARING CERTIFICATION - SIEGRIST COMPANIES (COZ#528)
PAGE 4
with the school district and they will pay $427 per lot and per Townhouse; and, although the
covenants are not yet drafted,there will probably be a sunset provision regarding the Homeowners
Association. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated the Park and Ride at State Highway 119 and I-25
is for personal use, and that it is not in the RTD district; therefore, RTD buses cannot use the Park
and Ride at that location. Mr. Siegrist responded to Commissioner Kirkmeyer that the water
agreement dated January 11, 2000, which is part of Exhibit O, provides the cost broken down to
two phases with the first phase being $519,000 for water mains and off-site construction, and the
second phase being for$2.5 million for construction to increase its capacity.
Ms. Larson stated the applicants have reviewed the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards and agree with them except for several proposed revisions to the changes listed on the
memo from Monica Daniels-Mika dated January 26, 2000. Concerning the addition of Conditions
#5.C, #5.D, and#5.E, Ms. Larson proposed deleting all reference to the Final Plat in Condition of
Approval#5, as well as Conditions#3 and#4 on the draft resolution, since they are being reviewed
under a conceptual guide, and they would rather have the Board add Conditions of Approval to the
final plan instead of the Change of Zone. Ms. Larson also requested stating the number of units
as 661 instead of 637 on the request line and Condition#J.1, and to list the acreage for commercial
as 19 instead of 20. She also requested further revision of Ms. Mika's proposed revision to
Condition #I, by omitting the word "floodway" on #1(6); and that Condition #K.19 be rewritten to
adhere to 1988 codes and regulations and be further addressed in the final plans. Ms. Larson also
requested the reference to Section 32.7.12.2.6 be deleted in Condition#1.7, since the application
was submitted July 1, 1999 and the ordinance was not enacted until August 30, 1999. She stated
the Department of Planning Services staff has apparently been happy with the site plan in
reference to layout design, because no mention of this Section was discussed before the Planning
Commission in August.
After ascertaining there was no one wanting to speak who could not return this afternoon, Chair
Kirkmeyer recessed the hearing until 1:30 p.m.
Upon reconvening, Bill Crews, Certified Professional Land Man,discussed the setback issue which
was added between the time the applicant originally filed the Change of Zone and this point in time
when it was added unexpectedly a few days ago. Mr. Crews stated less than 350 feet is adequate,
referring to a subdivision located at Weld County Roads 24 and 13, with a 150-foot setback
approved by the Town of Frederick; and explained a 350-foot setback from dwellings would be
economically disastrous for this subdivision and there really is no precedent. Mr. Crews stated the
confusion comes from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Rules in a high-density
area for the drilling of a new well, and the lack of the Commission's jurisdiction in setbacks as they
apply in this case to the developer coming upon an existing well in building the residences or
commercial buildings. Mr. Crews further stated the 350-foot setback requirement in the
Commission Rules is there for the purpose of noise abatement, as well as reasons of safety in
situations where all night, day and night drilling, noise, pollution, etc., in a high density area exist;
however, this is a totally different situation where the well is already in, the drilling is done, and the
350-foot setback will prohibit the development of eight acres for each piece of production
equipment on the property. Mr. Crews also stated the 150-foot setback exceeds the Uniform Fire
Code standard of 100 feet; and there have been no accidents involving oil and gas activities in
Weld County or the State of Colorado, except to people in the trade, therefore, 150 feet is quite
reasonable. Mr. Crews asked the County not to impose the new setback which was approved in
the middle of the process for this Change of Zone application. Responding to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr.
2000-0245
PL1023
HEARING CERTIFICATION - SIEGRIST COMPANIES (COZ#528)
PAGE 5
Crews stated he is aware of all the recent changes in the Oil and Gas Commission Rules, and he
pointed out that these came up after the original filing of the application and the applicant has had
numerous contacts with the Department of Planning Services staff, during which none of this was
brought up, nor were changes requested to the drawings. Responding to further questions from
Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Crews stated the Conservation Commission itself does not impose setbacks
from existing wells; the decision is left entirely to municipalities and political subdivisions; and its
drilling setback rules for new wells are 150 feet, or 1.5 times the height of derrick, whichever is
greater, from a right-of-way, utility line, railroad, or occupied dwelling, except in the case of high
density drilling in which case it is greater than a 50-foot setback with attendant setbacks from the
rights-of-way, as well as grouping the wells. Mr. Crews reiterated the Commission has not taken
authority concerning dealing with setbacks in building circumstances to existing wells. Mr. Morrison
stated there are two aspects to this issue, the first is that it is correct that the County 350-foot rule
came into effect after the filling of the Sketch Plan and complete application for the Planned Unit
Development Change of Zone, and that does have impact on its applicability under State law;
however, the provision that requires the notice to oil and gas operators and owners, and the need
to accomodate those uses has been there, unchanged, and was in effect when the application was
made. Therefore, Mr. Morrison continued, as far as a strict application of the 350-foot rule, the
Board does not have to apply it strictly to a Planned Unit Development; the Board only needs to
make sure there is an accommodation of both the surface and mineral uses in that area. Mr.
Morrison reiterated the Board does not have to set it at 350 feet; however, there needs to be a
recognition that they have adequately provided for continuation of the development of that mineral
resource in their plans in order to approve the request. Mr. Crews stated that can certainly be
done. Responding to Commission Vaad , Mr. Morrison reiterated the Board may choose any level
from general accommodation to requiring 350 feet setback; however, if it is done as a Planned Unit
Development, the Board still has the ability to give some relief from that 350 feet, which has not
changed, although the standard is more strict for fillings of Planned Unit Development applications
that came after the County adopted that 350-foot rule in residential areas, and the applicant must
still prove they have accommodated the mineral use.
Kay Stehle, surrounding property owner, stated her opposition to taking the site out of the
Agricultural Zone District, since it is distanced from urban services, and the new school is at the
intersection of Weld County Roads 13 and 22 which is too far to bus students. Ms. Stehle
questioned why the Mixed Use Development area does not have to follow the County Zoning
Ordinance in the sense of it being a priority to leave agriculture land zoned agricultural.
Responding to Chair Kirkmeyer, Ms. Mika gave a brief history of the Mixed Use Development area,
defining it as an urban corridor which, over the course of time, would be eventually designated to
embrace urban development; therefore, its standards are more consistent with urban uses. Ms.
Mika stated the Department of Planning Services sees this site as being right for urban
development, and one of the issues is its conceptual overlay.
Sharon Hopper, surrounding property owner, expounded on Ms. Stehle's comments, stating the
Mixed Use Development area was created with the expectation of it taking a long period of time
to fully develop; and she also stated she never saw a posting of this hearing. Responding to Chair
Kirkmeyer, Ms. Mika said a sign was posted for this hearing as a courtesy to area residents. Ms.
Hopper quoted the intent of the Mixed Use Development Ordinance which states new development
should be discouraged with high public costs unless it is adequately maintained, and stated she
opposes taking this site out of the Agricultural Zone District. Mr. Morrison informed the Board the
original posting is the only required posting, and a picture of the sign dated September 10, 1999,
2000-0245
PL1023
HEARING CERTIFICATION - SIEGRIST COMPANIES (COZ#528)
PAGE 6
is listed as Exhibit H. Ms. Mika stated the date of this hearing was posted 15 days ago as a
courtesy.
Artie Elmquist, surrounding property owner, stated this is the wrong plan, at the wrong time, at the
wrong place. He discussed his concerns with flood plain issues, since the site needs FEMA
approval before development; water issues, commenting it is difficult to understand why the Board
would approve a development without servicing the taps; school overcrowding issues, since the
district is beginning to take a position of rejecting large developments, as reported in an article from
the Longmont Times Call regarding a new subdivision inside the Longmont city limits, and this
would be a great increase to the population of schools in the area; provision of law enforcement,
since most high density developments are happening inside municipalities,whether the Sheriff has
a plan in place to deal with a development of this density; and several other high density proposals
being rejected by the voters in the Towns of Erie and Mead.
Kathy Hamlin, who owns the adjacent property to the east, stated she appreciates the planning put
into this project. She stated the more dense a site can be, the more open space there is on the
outlying portions of it and she believes the Mixed Use Development Ordinance intends to
accomplish that, leaving outlying areas open. Ms. Hamlin stated although there are some water
issues, as one of the ten property owners involved in the sewer line project she feels other
solutions, as with non-potable water, are good, viable options. Ms. Hamlin stated she is deeply
involved with the school district and it is true the new elementary school at Weld County Roads 24
and 13 will open at capacity, the boundaries of the district will change, and Mead will actually lose
students after all the buildings are finished and the boundaries are changed; school board
members have been working diligently to fund new schools with other funds other than bond
issues, so they can deal with this type of development; the soil at this site is very steep and highly
erodible clay, not Prime agricultural land, and it is not profitable or productive since it cannot be
farmed without chemicals; it is only 1-1/2 miles to the major intersection of State Highway 119 and
1-25, and it makes sense to develop along established roadways; this is a good master plan that
will bring people to the area to fill the jobs already available, since at present services are being
built but no residences; Greeley, Ft. Collins, Denver, and Denver International Airport, are all only
30 minutes away;great recreational alternatives are provided;and this is a Master Plan community,
which offers more efficient services than any hodge-podge subdivision. Ms. Hamlin stated when
the east side of 1-25 is compared to the west side of 1-25, it shows that development standards
work.
Mr. Elmquist added comments regarding the non-potable water, stating irrigation ditches do not
run year round, therefore, it is not always available, and approval from the Water Quality Control
Division is necessary to expand the facilities necessary to service this development. Responding
to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Elmquist stated St.Vrain Sanitation District probably can go ahead and
put in the line to service this subdivision; however, the problem is maxing out with taps into the line
and the ability to serve is in question without expansion of the facilities.
On rebuttal, Mr. Siegrist stated the recreational facilities were added to provide activity for residents
to pursue during the evenings and weekends, including water skiing, sail boating, hiking,swimming
pool, and tennis courts; and stated it is up to the school board members to decide how to run the
district, and he has complied with the request for an impact fee of$247 per lot in lieu of a site. Mr.
Siegrist stated that concerning public costs, funds will be generated for the infrastructure through
County impact fees, in addition, improvements will be completed on the 1-25 frontage road, and
2000-0245
PL1023
HEARING CERTIFICATION - SIEGRIST COMPANIES (COZ#528)
PAGE 7
improvements have been agreed to regarding the Weld County Road system; substantial water
and sewer improvements have been agreed upon;and school impact fees have been agreed upon,
which meets the need for reducing necessary public costs. He indicated only 95 acres are
currently being farmed, which is only a small portion that is not profitable and not good farmland;
and flood plain issues are being addressed since the only lots in the floodplain are along the lakes,
they are requesting through FEMA that those lots be taken out,to avoid the lots having to deal with
flood plain issues, such as insurance; 125 taps plus 531 taps equal 656 committed water taps,
which is only five taps short, but he believes they have a commitment for the entire project, as well
as water being available to purchase. Mr. Siegrist reiterated the property is owned by the applicant,
except for a small loan on the farm, and they have financed all developments to this point, they do
not have an option on the property or anything, it is currently owned. He stated the non-potable
water system will need some type of storage, and he has talked to some of the ditch companies
regarding storage of the ditch water, also one pond is for storage. Responding to Commissioner
Geile, Mr. Siegrist stated they are creating a new pond; indicated the location of the three oil and
gas wells, stating they meet 150-foot setback on the northern two; however, the southern one is
in excess of 150 foot, and they have talked to the oil and gas people and reviewed their plans with
them. Mr. Siegrist stated the St. Vrain Water District is currently able to handle .75 million gallons
per day, which equates to approximately 2,000 taps and they are proceeding with a 1.5 mgv plant,
with paperwork already turned into the State for processing. Responding to Commissioner Geile,
Mr. Siegrist stated the water district currently can handle 2,000 taps, so with 661 over the eight to
ten-year period, approximately 700 will be left. Responding to Commissioner Vaad, Mr. Siegrist
stated he has met with the oil and gas people at the site, showed them what is planned, and no
concerns were voiced. Mr. Siegrist further stated the next step is to tie it into an agreement, since
there are numerous options, including buying them out.
Responding to Commissioner Hall and Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Siegrist stated there is a north exit
onto Weld County Road 28 and he will improve half of the road adjoining the site, in cooperation
with the adjoining property owner who has another application pending; and the improvements to
the frontage road will be whatever the State requires, possibly including acceleration and
deceleration lanes, with a signal light possible in the future. Mr. Siegrist reiterated the setback
requirements should be the distance that is safe, and 150 feet is safe for existing wells. (Changed
to Tape#2000-04.)
Responding to Commissioner Hall, Mr. Morrison said the impact fees do not apply to internal
streets or State Highways, turn lanes, or "site specific" developments, and there is an appeals
process for those items when it is unclear whether they are "site specific".
Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Siegrist explained the water will be done in two phases,
Phase One is on the west side and Phase Two on the east side; and Mr. Siegrist indicated the nine
phases of the entire development on the overhead stating he is uncertain when the improvements
to Weld County Road 28 will be necessary, although for purposes of safety, emergency vehicles
will have to have two accesses, which will need to be addressed in the beginning phase of
development.
Ms. Larson stated the development might appear to be the wrong place at the wrong time;
however, it is phased in following a unique plan, which will eventually blend in with the
neighborhood; the development is in the area to be served by the Weld County Sheriff's Office and
a referral letter was sent, however, no concerns were expressed; adequate accommodation for Oil
2000-0245
PL1023
HEARING CERTIFICATION - SIEGRIST COMPANIES (COZ#528)
PAGE 8
and Gas has been made, although she proposed an additional condition of approval stating, "The
applicant shall submit copies of an agreement or evidence with the property mineral owners and/or
lessees stipulating that the oil and gas activities shall adequately be incorporated into the design
of the site or that the applicant has made reasonable attempts to arrive at such an agreement."
Ms. Mika clarified that a referral was sent to the Sheriff and no response was received; and clarified
for Commissioner Vaad that it is not unusual for the Sheriff not to respond, his duty is to serve,
therefore, he does not normally respond to referrals.
Responding to Chair Kirkmeyer, Ms. Larson stated the 656 tap commitment is for residential only,
however, the Little Thompson Water District has stated commercial taps are available; they are
asking for 661 and are short 5 taps, which could be taken care of by means of another letter from
the water district. Chair Kirkmeyer indicated the letter received on this date states, "Up to 531
residential and commercial lots" and in the letters dated June 14, 1999, and July 1, 1999, no
reference is made to commercial. Ms. Larson stated Mike Cook can rewrite his letter, it was
supposed to say the district can serve the commercial area. Mr. Siegrist stated the problem with
commercial lots is the district cannot tell how many taps will be necessary; however, he talked to
the water district and indicated the letter should state the need for"X" number of residential taps,
as well as its ability to serve the commercial area; and the intent of the conversation was 661
residential taps plus commercial. Ms. Mika stated a letter to Mr. Cook from Mr. Siegrist, included
in Exhibit O, indicates this has been an on-going issue, and responded to Chair Kirkmeyer that the
commercial lots were not added after the Planning Commission hearing, they have been there all
along. Responding to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Siegrist stated the school district has not indicated
more schools will be built. Mr. Morrison stated the County's ability to collect on behalf of the shool
district is limited to land or cash, relying on the school district to create the formula; it does not
provide for the cost of building new schools, and the Board is constrained in its ability to seek more,
as well as the school district. Further responding to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Morrison stated the
recent court case made it clear that the law does not preclude denial if adequate services cannot
be provided.
Responding to Chair Kirkmeyer, regarding the number of lots in the flood plain, Dan Juruva,
Professional Engineer for Tuttle Applegate, stated he has submitted a CLOMR application to
FEMA, to have the delineation of Zone A in the flood plain corrected, since an approximate
delineation has been used in the past. Mr. Juruva stated approximately twenty acres adjacent to
the lake, involving 45 lots, is affected by the Zone A Flood Plain delineation, and that a detailed
study demonstrated the approximate Zone A was conservative, and it actually runs along the north
shore limits, which is a paperwork matter to clear up with FEMA. Since it would be easier for the
property owners not to have to deal with flood plain issues, such as flood insurance, the applicant
decided to submit the CLOMR application, in order for the FEMA official flood plain map to align
with the north shoreline of the lake.
In closing, Ms. Larson stated the phasing to implement the project includes nine phases, and the
commercial area is included in the very last phase; RiverDance is a Master Plan Community with
a variety of densities, mixed use, and 227 acres of open space, which is 47 percent of the site; a
gross density of approximately 4.3 units per acre; it includes a full range of amenities, including
parks, trails, clubhouse, eventually convenient shopping, water sports, views of lakes and
mountains; and no other development like this is being proposed in southwest Weld County; it can
be an asset to the area and the County.
2000-0245
PL1023
HEARING CERTIFICATION - SIEGRIST COMPANIES (COZ#528)
PAGE 9
Responding to Commissioner Geile, Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, stated staff has
reviewed the transportation study in-house and also sent it to the County's consultant, Felsburg,
Holt, and Ullevig, whose comments have been incorporated into the memo from the Department
of Public Works. Ms. Mika indicated those comments were included in the proposed additions of
Conditions of Approval#K.18 and#K.19, she presented to the Board. Ms. Mika clarified for Chair
Kirkmeyer that the St. Acacias Subdivision referred to in #K.18 is in the application process, and
if both are approved, would share in the cost of widening the bridge.
Responding to Commissioner Geile as to whether she agrees with the applicant's proposed
changes, Ms. Mika stated the Department of Planning Services has been consistent in correlating
the maximum number of units with the number of taps committed to the development; therefore,
she would recommend changing 637 to 656, and additionally modifying the commercial site to
include 19 acres; she also feels it appropriate to eliminate the word "floodway"; but stated in
Condition of Approval #1.7 regarding the oil and gas separation rule, Section 32.7.12.2.6 is cited
because of being consistent in all R-1 Districts, and the 350-foot separation is recommended,
although the Board can choose to modify that and staff recommends the Board look at that in this
PUD process; and Condition of Approval #5.C is no longer necessary since the applicant is not
requesting a zero-lot line for the Town homes, however, both Conditions#5.D and#5.E should be
retained.
Chair Kirkmeyer stated she is still concerned about water since there is no reference to serving the
commercial lots in any of the three letters, therefore, the applicant does not have water for
commercial. Ms. Mika stated the letter leaves it open for subjective reasoning at to whether the
letter was intended to address the commercial aspect. Responding to Commissioner Geile, Ms.
Mika stated water availability is part of the physical elements associated with the platting, and as
a condition of submittal to the Change the Zone, the applicant has to demonstrate to the Board of
County Commissioners that they have adequately addressed the water service provision. She
further stated the Board is approving the use at the Change of Zone. Responding to Chair
Kirkmeyer, Mr. Carroll stated the County does not maintain or add internal minor subdivision or
gravel roads, however, if a road is built to County standards, the County has been adding them to
its road system. Mr Morrison clarified the improvements agreement is for the construction of roads
and, after a one-year warranty period, the applicant has no further direct obligation,except through
property taxes; and there are no"maintenance" components in the improvements agreement, it is
for capital construction only. Mr. Morrison further clarified some minor subdivisions provide for
maintenance in the covenants; Public Works does add internal roads for major subdivisions to the
road system if construction is up to standards; and he is not sure there is an option as to whether
to add major subdivision roads if they are properly constructed. Responding to Chair Kirkmeyer,
Mr. Morrison clarified it is current policy to add internal streets as long as they are properly
constructed, since it has been a better option than dealing with poorly maintained streets.
Commissioner Hall commented the proposed subdivision is for a population of 1,600, which is
approximately the size of Frederick and Firestone individually; therefore, it seems and feels and
looks like another town, but it is in an unincorporated area, which concerns him. He stated the
comparison given to Indian Peaks does not apply, since it is within the corporate limits of Frederick;
and this is outside any Urban Growth Boundary area, although it is inside the MUD area in itself,
and the intent of the PUD Ordinance is to encourage flexibility and variety in development, but it
is not intending to circumvent or distort the goals, policies, and requirements of the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning, and Subdivision Ordinances. Commissioner Hall further stated the
2000-0245
PL1023
HEARING CERTIFICATION - SIEGRIST COMPANIES (COZ#528)
PAGE 10
application does not meet the requirements of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, particularly
PUD.Goal 3 concerning availability of public services; MUD.Policy 5,concerning compatibility with
existing surrounding land use, especially when size is taken into consideration; R.Goal 2,
concerning adequate public services and facilities shall be available; R.Policy 3, which directs
development to Urban Growth Boundary areas; and R.Policy 5 concerning compatibility with
existing surrounding land uses. Commissioner Hall further stated he has a number of concerns
and, although it appears to be a great development, it is not in a good location; there are not
adequate public facilities and services; the water commitment is not firm, the applicant has known
since June that clarification was needed and it is still uncertain today; no effort was made by the
applicant to see if the Sheriff has concerns; and the streets, both the number and amount of
roadway within the subdivision, which require more urban-type street maintenance, would require
an increase in Department of Public Works staff. Therefore, Commissioner Hall moved to deny
the request of Siegrist Companies, c/o Tuttle Applegate, for Change of Zone #528 from A
(Agricultural) Zone District to PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zone District for 600 to 800 Lots
with Residential and Commercial Uses. The motion was seconded by Chair Kirkmeyer.
Commissioner Vaad commented that he cannot support the motion. After reviewing the draft
resolution,specifically reasons for approval#2.A through#2.F, he feels the applicant has met those
goals and policies detailed in the Resolution; although this site is not next to a municipality,
UGB.Goal 2 says to concentrate urban development in or adjacent to existing municipalities, or the
1-25 Mixed Use Development area; it is also next to the St. Vrain Sanitation District, in accordance
with Section 2 of the Planned Unit Development Ordinance, therefore, it gets away from the
proliferation of individual septic systems; at least three responses were received to requests for
water commitment, although there seems to be a mix up in the final letter, he is convinced the
district is ready to supply the water; transportation facilities are going to be provided for, although
they are not there at present, it does come under the transportation impact fee assessment which
the applicants applaud; per Section 6.4.3.1.7 the applicant has made provision for oil and gas and,
further, has offered to provide as a Condition of Approval, a letter from the oil company.
Commissioner Vaad further stated he understands the questions, and has a sense of the
magnitude of this development; however, the applicant has been to the St. Vrain Valley School
District who will provide public education in that area and, at this point they have decided $427 per
residential unit is what they will take in lieu of land; therefore, he feels the applicant has met the
requirements and will support the recommendation of the Planning Commission and staff.
Commissioner Geile stated he agrees with the comments made by Commission Vaad, and he also
feels the reasons for approval 2.A through 2.F, listed in the draft resolution, have been
demonstrated;water is available,even though the cost is tremendous,the applicant has committed
to it; the Equestrian center has been removed at the request of the Planning Commission; the St.
Vrain Sanitation District will handle the sewage disposal; commercial water will be at the end of the
project, which is a number of years down the line; the Colorado Geological response to do with the
floodplain has been resolved; oil and gas concerns have been resolved to his satisfaction; also soil,
bank stabilization, drainage,wetlands, etc. have been dealt with to his satisfaction. Commissioner
Geile also stated the Right To Farm Covenant in the resolution should deal with the feedlot issues,
which have been brought up in letter form; and although the project will eventually be larger than
Firestone or Frederick,the spirit of the Mixed Use Development area and the intent to meet County
requirements has been demonstrated; therefore, the plan should move ahead.
2000-0245
PL1023
HEARING CERTIFICATION - SIEGRIST COMPANIES (COZ#528)
PAGE 11
Chair Kirkmeyer stated she is deeply concerned that the water commitment is not secured as of
this date, since this hearing process has been continued at least once because of water, there is
still not enough to serve residential, let alone commercial; there are serious budgetary concerns,
regarding the Sheriff,since response time has already increased to these areas of the County from
10 minutes to 14 minutes, 661 additional units,with a population of 1,600, present future budgetary
restrictions and the level of service would not be adequate; she understands the letter from the
School District, however, the Board has the opportunity to deny the request if service is not
adequate, and she does not see adequate provision for the schools; and the only transportation
impacts she heard being addressed were to Weld County Road 28 and the Frontage Road, not at
State Highway 66;and being Chairman of the Upper Front Range Transportation Planning Region,
there are serious concerns about State Highway 66 and the improvements that need to be made.
Chair Kirkmeyer also stated concerns regarding the sanitation district, since its ability to service this
site is contingent upon completion of facilities to increase treatment capacity, and she is uncertain
whether the sanitation district reviewed the commercial portion of this application; Department of
Public Works impacts, going basically from a rural county to urban-type maintenance requires a
higher level of maintenance and service which we are not prepared to handle; and Policy 4.1 of the
Mixed Use Development Plan, which says we should discourage, unless development provides
adequate guarantees through planning and coordination, that public facilities and services are
effectively installed, operated, and maintained.
By roll call vote,the motion tied with Commissioner Hall and Chair Kirkmeyer in favor of the motion
and Commissioners Geile and Vaad opposed. Chair Kirkmeyer stated Commissioner Baxter will
return on February 9, 2000, and will listen to the tape before placing his vote on the record at a
regular Board meeting after he has time to review the record. Mr. Morrison suggested it be set for
a date certain, in order that if the motion fails, another motion could be made, although it would not
be appropriate to open it for further testimony. Commissioner Hall moved to set the date of
February 16, 2000, at 9:00 a.m., in the regular Board meeting for Commissioner Baxter's vote to
be taken,with the public hearing portion of the testimony closed;therefore, no further evidence will
be accepted. Commissioner Geile seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Responding to Commissioner Vaad, Mr. Morrison indicated the evidence is closed, it is not
appropriate to take any more evidence formally, or especially informally, that is not in the record;
and if the Board desires to do something different, the parameters should be set under which any
additional information might come in, although that creates some major complications. Mr.
Morrison further stated the cleanest way is to say the evidence is done, and what is in the record
is the basis for the Board's decision, whether a further motion occurs or not. Chair Kirkmeyer
stated since the hearing is being continued, it is still in the quasi-judicial portion and Mr. Morrison
reiterated there should not be any other contact outside the hearing regarding these issues.
2000-0245
PL1023
HEARING CERTIFICATION - SIEGRIST COMPANIES (COZ#528)
PAGE 12
This Certification was approved on the 31st day of January, 2000.
APPROVED:
ATTEST: gull Ii [P/j /�� BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
a W•.LD COUNTY, COLO' ' DO •
Weld County Clerk tot ►• a^,,�%C�'
i 7, 1 � J ., Barbara, Kirkmeye , Chair
BY:
Deputy Clerk to the Ultil ,
.�J. eile, Pro-Tern
TAPE #20-04 and #20-05
EXCUSED
GE,e cae E. Baxter
DOCKET#99-62 ' a `�^--7114
�
Dale K. Hall
Glenn Vaa
Clerk's Note: In the regular Board of County Commissioners Meeting held on February 16,
2000, Commissioner Baxter voted in favor of the motion which, therefore, carried.
2000-0245
PL1023
ATTENDANCE RECORD
HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS 26TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2000:
DOCKET#99-62 - SIEGRIST COMPANIES
DOCKET#2000-04 - PAT AND AMANDA WEAKLAND
PLEASE legibly write or print your name and complete address and the DOCKET#
(as listed above) or the name of the applicant of the hearing you are attending.
NAME AND ADDRESS(Please include City and Zip Code)DOCKET#OF HEARING ATTENDING
-\c7AA,, U ems°�� Wan,, L, n J/i V i-JC /i'�clC -44 `lc-C-ri
c5A.trois. (ti/np Gs-c• W cgd a7a z / 7-L'2
Kat �� 5Y7s W C R Oz z o a - G, zeso V 77-6 2
�'r l✓� UrnUmcitAisi yin LLJ In.,n'IA VA, L I-en mpr-_ (Q Ec5)cl Y7'/7L-
cilC xt 9 cll i;r-ri o Of 9\;');N'2-- 1cct i w N
EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
Case COZ#528 - SIEGRIST COMPANIES
Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description
A. Planning Staff Inventory of Item Submitted
B. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation
C. Planning Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes 08/17/99)
D. Clerk to the Board Notice of Hearing
E. Planning Staff Request for continuance (09/22/99)
F. Planning Staff Request for continuance (09/10/99)
G. Artie Elmquist Letter of Concern (11/15/99)
H. Planning Staff Photo of posted sign (09/10/99)
Virginia Shaw Letter of Concern (01/06/2000)
J. Artie Elmquist Letter of Concern (11/15/99)
K. Felsburg, Holt, and Ullevig Letter re: Traffic Engineering Review
(01/05/2000)
L. City of Longmont Letter re: Referral Response (08/22/99)
M. Public Works Staff Referral (12/30/99)
N. Public Works Staff Referral (09/16/99)
O. Tuttle Applegate, Inc. FAXED COPIES
- Letter (09/17/99)
- Two Letters from St. Vrain Sanitation
District (09/14/99 and 06/11/99)
- Agreememt for Water Main Extensions
- Letter from Little Thompson Water District
(06/14/99)
- Letter from Siegrist Companies (06/18/99)
- Letter from Little Thompson Water District
(07/01/99)
- Fax Transmittal from CDOT (08/17/99)
- Mountain View Fire Protection District
(07/22/99)
- Maps
P. Planning Staff Sketch Plan Comments (02/01/99)
O. Planning Staff Recommended Changes (01/24/2000)
R. Tuttle Applegate, Inc. - Letter(01/24/2000)
- Letter from St. Vrain Sanitation District
(06/11/99)
- Two Letters from Little Thompson Water
District (07/01/99 and 06/14/99)
- Agreement for Water Main Extensions
- Building Envelope Diagram
- Maps - 100 Year Flood Limits and
Change of Zone
S. Public Works Invoice for Traffic Review Study
T. Planning Department Notes regarding conversation with CDOT
U. Tuttle Applegate Weed Management Plan
V. Tuttle Applegate Traffic Impact Analysis
W. Tuttle Applegate Preliminary Drainage Report
X. Planning Department Memorandum from Public Works (10/8/99)
Y. State Engineer Letter dated 8/3/99
Z. Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig Traffic Impact Analysis Review (8/11/99)
FAX
AA. Martha Schrepel FAX dated 1/95/1111
BB. J ittle Thnmpsnn Water f)istrirt I etter dated 1/25/nn
CC. Tuttle Applegate I etter dated 1/91/nn
DD. Tuttle Applegate via staff Traffic Impact Study (Round volume)
EE. Tuttle Applegate via staff Conditional I etter of Map Revision
(CLOMR)
FF. Planning staff MI ID Strurtural I and Use Map (9 1) from
Ordinance 191
GG. Planning staff St Vrain Map
HH. AMlirant Pnwer Point Presentation
II.
JJ.
Hello