HomeMy WebLinkAbout20001159.tiff 91 6
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT.:3540
I FAX (970)304-6498
1555 N. 17TH AVENUE
C. GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
COLORADO
April 3, 2000
Glen Droegemueller
822 7th Street, Suite 350
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Glen.
I have reviewed your request to increase the number of units in case Z-513, from 224 units to 261 residential
units, for a total over all increase of 17% build out of residential activities. I have visited with both the
Department of Public Works and County Attorney's offices, and we believe that the intent of the approval for
Z-513 can be carried out should the applicant propose to increase to 261 units.
At the time of final platting, the applicant will need to provide evidence that he has secured an additional 37
units of water, and this evidence will need to be in the form of an additional tap commitment letter.
Additionally, as proposed, the applicant agreed to maintain 29.9% open space, and has agreed to specific
setbacks and offsets as defined in the resolution. My concurrence with approval to include additional lots is
predicated on the applicant's ability to maintain this and all other conditions of approval as stated in the
resolution approved by the Board of County Commissioners on October 14, 1998. At the time of final plan
submittal, the applicant will need to note a change of intensity in his application on a final plat, and show the
increase in lots does not change the overall transportation functionality of the site. I do need to mention that
there are several items listed in the resolution addressing the final plat requirement that the applicant must
address prior to applying for the final plat.
You are correct that inherent in the PUD is the concept of flexibility, and your proposal does fall within the
scope of flexibility. However, the applicant needs to be aware that approval of this request cannot undue any
other conditions or requirements previously made or entered into, nor does it provide guarantee for
subsequent landuse approval.
Thank you for the opportunity to look at this proposal. If you have any additional questions, please do not
hesitate to contact me at the above address or telephone number.
Sincerely,
_ •• Ley
Monica Daniels-Mika, AICP
Director
pc: Z-513
Cam ot I . Cl/•
Oil- IC-9,0O_7 2000-1159
' j1: .
GLEN DROEGEMUELLER, P.C.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
822 SEVENTH STREET•SUITE 350•GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 •(970)353-9599•FAX(970)353-9597
March 16, 2000
Hand Delivered
Monica Daniels Mika
Director of Planning Services
Weld County Dept.of Planning Services
1555 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Monica:
As you know, I represent the Elms Land Company, LLC., who is in the process of developing
the Elms at Meadow Vale in the Northwest Quarter of Section 4, Township 2 North, Range 68 West
of the 6th P.M. In October of 1998, a change of the zone from agricultural to PUD for the property
was approved by the Weld County Commissioners. The total number of residential units approved
in 1998 was 224 units. The original approval included both patio home sites in which the minimum
lot size was 4,000 square feet and larger lots for more traditional single family detached housing. As
the project has developed, the patio home lots have not been included and the lot configuration is
based upon a 1/4 acre lot size. The original road configuration has been modified and accepted by
the Department of Public Works for Weld County. During the approval of the first phase of the
development the Department of Public Works requested a revised traffic study, and that study was
delivered to the Department of Public Works in February of this year.
On behalf of the developer of the project, 1 am writing to you to request the density in the
PUD be increased by 37 units from 224 units to 261 units. The increase in density from the original
approval would be approximately 17%. What is unclear to me is whether an increase in density
would require a complete new change of zone application for the PUD. Both the applicant and 1. are
hopeful such an investment of time and resources would not be necessary, and there is some flexibility
under the PUD ordinance to allow this change with administrative approval from your office, or as
a consent agenda item before the Board of County Commissioners.
The reason for the requested increase deals with offsite improvements that must be
constructed to serve the residential PUD. In order to obtain adequate water service for the remainder
of the subdivision from Longs Peak Water District, the developer will have to extend an offsite water
transmission line for approximately 3 1/2 miles from existing district facilities in order to provide
domestic water service. In addition offsite improvements immediately adjacent to the subdivision on
Weld County Road 5 'h regarding curb, gutter, sidewalk and paving are costs which were not initially
anticipated by the developer. In order to recover those costs, the developer is proposing an increase
in density of an additional 37 units.
In support of the developer's position, the use of the property within the PUD will not
change. The PUD was approved as a single family residential PUD and will continue to remain such.
The internal road configuration will not change if the increase in density requested is granted. The
traffic study provided to the Department of Public Works indicates no negative impacts and is
premised upon an increase in density from 224 to 261 units. The open space reduction caused by the
additional units will not cause the open space to decrease below the minimum 20% figure required
for the PUD. It is the applicant's belief the impact of increasing the density both internally within the
subdivision or externally is minimal and does not justify the time or expense involved in a full revision
of the change of the zone. At the public hearings both in front of the County Commissioners and the
Planning Commission opposition to this project from neighbors in the area was minimal, Mr. Adams
who lives to the East of the property was concerned about appropriate buffering by fencing, and those
concerns were addressed, and a fence will be constructed along the entire Eastern boundary of the
development. The increase in density would not impact Mr. Adams. Internally within the subdivision
there is sufficient room to accommodate the additional lots, and the increase in density still leaves the
subdivision with a number of units per acre which is below most residential densities in incorporated
Cities or Towns in Weld County.
The hallmark of any PUD ordinance is the concept of flexibility and in this case the developer
is asking the County to be flexible in approving this request. While there is an increase in density,
it does not negatively impact any of the features of the development which were approved at the time
of the change of the zone or at the time of the approval of the sketch plan or approval of the first
phase of the development. Please advise as to whether or not this request can be granted without the
need for a full change of zone process.
Sincerely yours,
1,61ett� QQh-
Glen Droegemualer
GD:dh
cc: Floyd Oliver
Hello