HomeMy WebLinkAbout980274.tiff HEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 98-07
RE: SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FINAL
PLAN - ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS, INC., c/o RUSTY GREEN
A public hearing was conducted on February 11, 1998, at 10:00 a.m., with the following present:
Commissioner Constance L. Harbert, Chair
Commissioner W. H. Webster, Pro-Tem
Commissioner George E. Baxter
Commissioner Dale K. Hall
Commissioner Barbara J. Kirkmeyer
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Esther Gesick
Acting Clerk to the Board, Carol Harding
Assistant County Attorney, Lee Morrison
Planning Department representative, Shani Eastin
County Engineer, Drew Scheltinga
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated December 24, 1997, and duly published January 7,
1998, in the Platteville Herald, a public hearing was conducted to consider the request of Rocky
Mountain Consultants, Inc., do Rusty Green, for a Planned Unit Development Final Plan. Lee
Morrison, Assistant County Attorney, made this a matter of record. Shani Eastin, Department of
Planning Services representative, presented a brief summary of the proposal and entered the
favorable recommendation of the Planning Commission into the record as written. Ms. Eastin
reviewed Z#499, approved June 24, 1996, for the south half of the property, and Z#504, approved
February 5, 1997, for the north half of the property; and stated the plan consists of the platting of
the Del Camino Parkway, delineation of oil and gas drill sites, and location and the layout of blocks
within the development. Ms. Eastin stated several concerns have been noted subsequent to the
Planning Commission hearing, which deal with the extension of Del Camino Parkway south into
the Town of Frederick, and access onto Weld County Road 22, which has been annexed by the
Town of Firestone. Ms. Eastin presented additional Conditions 1.1, 1.j, 2.n, 2.o, and 1.d, requested
by staff and read corrected language into the record.
Responding to Commissioner Hall, Ms. Eastin explained that staff deemed it appropriate to
combine the entire development into one final plat due to the continuation of Del Camino Parkway
through both sections of the development; and Drew Scheltinga, County Engineer, verified all of
Weld County Road 22, with a 60-foot right-of-way, has been annexed by Firestone all the way to
the 1-25 Frontage Road. Ms. Eastin submitted a letter from Firestone, dated December 8, 1998,
(Exhibit J), stating an access permit approved by Firestone would be required before access would
be granted onto Road 22. She also explained Del Camino Parkway was not incorporated into the
Mixed Use Development (MUD) Ordinance at the time of the Change of Zone approvals; however,
several accesses onto Weld County Road 22 were delineated, although not in the exact same
980274
PL1034
CG It)/=[re5/-eve t a'errc/L; Oaten° ; Gyt t-
HEARING CERTIFICATION - ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS, INC. (S #439)
PAGE 2
places. Mr. Scheltinga stated the accesses shown on the plat map are essentially the same as
those shown throughout the application process. Responding to Chair Harbert's question as to
whether Firestone accepted the accesses already delineated when it annexed the road, Mr.
Morrison explained the particular design is made on accesses when the Site Plan or Resubdivision
of those lots occur, and an access permit must be obtained at that time. Mr. Scheltinga further
explained that, since the exact use is not known at the time the PUD Final Plan is approved, future
accesses are indicated on the plat, only in general and without specific dimensions. Responding
to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Scheltinga reviewed the traffic study which was done in
conjunction with the MUD Plan and the Structural Transportation Network incorporated into the
MUD Ordinance. Mr. Scheltinga explained, with the projected traffic in the area, it is essential to
have a north/south four-lane arterial in this area; however, the 1-25 outer road is only a two-lane
collector which, because of development along the road, cannot be expanded to a four-lane. Mr.
Scheltinga indicated the traffic plan submitted by the applicant estimates 3,790 trips per day will
be generated, and those trips, plus the background traffic, will fill the existing system; therefore,
necessitating staffs request for the applicant to include Del Camino Parkway, donate a 110-foot
right-of-way width, and build the center two lanes of said road. Mr. Scheltinga indicated, however,
Frederick has subsequently annexed properties to the south of this PUD and would not be required
to allow the extension of Del Camino Parkway further south. He stated the placement of the
Parkway was based on current development on either side of the PUD with access to both sides,
the floodplain, and the drainage pattern of the Godding Hollow. Mr. Scheltinga also stated the
applicant is willing to pave Weld County Road 22.
Barbara Brunk, Landscape Architect with Rocky Mountain Consultants, Inc., represented the
applicant and stated the most significant change since the initial application is the design of Del
Camino Parkway, and indicated a preliminary design was completed to ensure the function of the
road in its location as indicated on the plot plan. Ms. Brunk reiterated the purpose of the Final Plan
is to plat the road, set forth places for oil and gas development so those rights can be exercised
without interfering with the land development, and to plat blocks to be developed, one block at a
time, consistent with the MUD. She indicated the applicant understands any further subdivision
of property will require Board approval, and stated there are no problems with the Conditions of
Approval as discussed by staff. She also stated the applicant's concerns regarding access onto
Road 22, and the return of dedicated right-of-way for Del Camino Parkway if Frederick does not
allow continuation to the south. Responding to Commissioner Hall, Ms. Brunk reviewed the
annexation history of the property, and explained the north half is in Firestone's planning area, the
south half is in an overlapping planning area between Frederick and Firestone, and the entire
property is within the MUD area. She stated that, although the applicant initially petitioned for
annexation to Frederick, the application was withdrawn because of the disagreement between the
Towns over which will annex the properties. She indicated Rusty Green, applicant, has had
conversations with Firestone about annexation, although there is still no agreement over which
town will annex it. She stated that because of the annexation of Weld County Road 22, there is
contiguity to Firestone; however, there is also contiguity to Frederick since the property bordering
the entire southern boundary of the PUD is now annexed into Frederick. She also stated the
980274
PL1034
HEARING CERTIFICATION - ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS, INC. (S #439)
PAGE 3
applicant does not want to be in the middle of a disagreement between the two municipalities.
Commissioner Hall stated his concern about trying to plan development on both sides of Road 22
when it is under the jurisdiction of Firestone, and he would like to see an agreement regarding this.
Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. Brunk stated a north/south connection is indicated
on the Frederick Comprehensive Plan, and she did request the Mayor discuss the road with Mr.
Scheltinga.
Lawrence Kueter, Attorney for the applicant, discussed the access situation and commented that
the applicant realizes access to Road 22 will need to be permitted by Firestone; however, he
explained that reasonable access requests must be granted, and the mechanism is in place. Mr.
Kueter referenced a letter from his office (Exhibit E)discussing the annexation issue and stated the
applicant desires the inclusion of a condition to define what will happen if the Del Camino Parkway
is not extended to the south. He reiterated the applicant is willing to dedicate the 110-foot right-of-
way and construct the two center lanes; and reviewed a note to be included on the plat (Exhibit F),
which defers the dedication of the right-of-way south of Road 22, but allows the rest of the
development to go forward and includes the possibility of replatting the road into a loop or cul-de-
sac. He stated the applicant would agree to a 60 or 90 day timeframe being included, at Mr.
Morrison's request. Responding to Chair Harbert, Mr. Kueter stated there is no concern about
going north since the property to the north has not been developed and the County will have to
approve any future plans. Ms. Brunk added that the property to the north is included in Firestone's
planning area and the Town is not opposed to the road.
Mr. Green reiterated the history of this property over the past four years and explained his
involvement with Firestone in the annexation of Road 22. He indicated the properties around him
are all being developed; however, the MUD Ordinance, modification of the Comprehensive Plan,
and the Tri-Area IGA Agreement have all been imposed. Mr. Green stated it was at the request
of County staff that the 13 acres for Del Camino Parkway is being dedicated, as well as agreement
to construct two lanes of the road He also stated he has shown good faith throughout the entire
process, bearing the extra expense in order to get the PUD accomplished. He indicated he is
willing to apply to Firestone for the appropriate access permits and will comply with all reasonable
requests. He further stated he is willing to annex into one of the municipalities if the utilities are not
curtailed, the zoning is not changed, and if the municipalities can agree which one should annex
the property. Mr. Green also indicated he is aware further platting is required for much of the PUD
and that it is almost impossible to be annexed into two separate municipalities.
Rick Patterson, Mayor of Firestone, presented a letter from Firestone (Exhibit G) and clarified that
Mr. Green reimbursed Firestone for the survey for the annexation of Road 22, he did not pay for
the annexation. He also stated the initial application to Frederick was withdrawn, not because of
interference from Frederick, but because the Colorado Department of Transportation withdrew its
application for the annexation to get from Weld County Road 18 to Road 22. Mayor Patterson
stated Del Camino Parkway is on Firestone's Comprehensive Plan and the Town feels it is
necessary for the region and is in support of it. Responding to Commissioner Hall, Mayor
980274
PL1034
HEARING CERTIFICATION - ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS, INC. (S #439)
PAGE 4
Patterson stated he has committed to Mr. Green that the Towns of Firestone and Frederick will
reach an agreement on the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), and indicated this has already been
accomplished through the Tri-Area IGA. He indicated that although the UGB's are overlapping,
they do exist. Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mayor Patterson explained that initially
Weld County Road 20 was intended to be the gateway to Firestone, with an intersection onto 1-25;
however, that has not happened and Frederick has annexed properties north of Road 20. He
stated the Town has adopted the State Access Code, therefore, the mechanism is in place for
handling access permits.
Bruce Nickerson, Planner for Firestone, presented a series of slides displaying the area and
reiterated Firestone is eligible to annex because of contiguity to Road 22; however, he indicated
there are some problems with spacing of intervals between accesses and number of accesses
within a one-half mile distance. After discussion regarding whether the access permit process
could be followed before the PUD Final Plan approval, and responding to Chair Harbert, Mr.
Morrison explained the PUD procedure and stated the applicant has included platted blocks;
however, if not used by a single user, the applicant will have to replat those blocks into multiple lots.
Mr. Morrison further explained the area to the east will also need to be replatted and the applicant
is using a two-step platting process to accomplish the development plan. He further explained a
Site Plan would have to be approved for even a single user of the lots; however, replatting is not
assured in every case.
Sam Light, Attorney for Firestone, reiterated the Town has adopted the State Highway Access
Code and indicated the Town will make determinations on any access onto Road 22 according to
said code. He stated a primary concern is that Note#8, included on the approved Change of Zone
(Z #499) indicates no access onto Road 22. Mr. Light indicated Firestone is agreeable to the
development of Del Camino Parkway; however, it is concerned that access onto Road 22 show on
the approved plat and changes may need to be a part of the action taken by the Board at this time.
He also commented on the issues included in the Tri-Area IGA, and the Frederick/Firestone
difficulties that have arisen due to the overlapping Urban Growth Boundaries. Mr. Light referred
to the portion of the IGA which requires an executed annexation agreement prior to approval of this
matter and clarified that Firestone has not received a petition for annexation of this site.
Responding to Commissioner Hall, Mr. Light stated his position to his Town Board would be that
any portion north of Road 22 would be in violation of the IGA Agreement. Responding to questions
from Mr. Morrison and Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Light stated his concern regarding Mr.
Kueter's request that four conditions be included in an annexation agreement requiring comparable
zoning to be permitted and approved by the municipality without further approval by the Town
Board. He also indicated Firestone is currently drafting a procedure for special districts within the
Town, a guarantee for services would require further discussion, and a vesting provision would also
need further discussion since it is not included in the annexation procedure. Mr. Light presented
a letter dated February 10, 1998, (Exhibit H) for inclusion in the record.
(A recess was taken until 1:15 p.m.)
980274
PL1034
HEARING CERTIFICATION - ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS, INC. (S #439)
PAGE 5
Upon reconvening, Ms. Brunk, clarified the reason the annexation with Frederick fell through was
that CDOT would not sign the petition because of the dispute between the towns. She indicated
the applicant is willing to commit to Board approval for every development on the project; even if
it is only one user on one block, a Final Plat would be done. She also said the applicant has no
problem complying with whatever the access requirements would be through the access permit
process; however, the land use decisions should be considered by the County since the project is
still under County's jurisdiction. Ms. Brunk also clarified the access onto Road 22 became
necessary through discussions with County staff which established Del Camino Parkway as a
major road, with Road 22 becoming secondary. Ms. Brunk stated the applicant, in order to go
forward today and get the platting done, is willing to petition Firestone for annexation of the entire
property prior to any development or any final plats being processed. The applicant would then
approach Frederick to determine whether there is disagreement with the annexation petition;
however, if Frederick is not in agreement, the applicant could then return to the Board of County
Commissioners. Ms. Brunk also explained the Central Weld County Water District has an
agreement with the municipalities within the district to place a ten percent cap on growth; therefore,
the size of the town would impact the number of taps permitted. She indicated a capacity issue
would create an undue hardship on this property which would not apply within the County's
jurisdiction.
Paul Halkin, surrounding property owner, indicated the concerns of the Mountain View Fire
Protection District have not been met and referred to the letter dated October 29, 1997, which
detailed those concerns. Mr. Halkin urged the Board to consider those concerns regarding the
Parkway going north of Road 22.
Larry Abbott, surrounding property owner, requested a moratorium on growth in this area by the
County which would require the Towns to agree on these issues. Chair Harbert explained the
County has no voice in annexation petitions from various municipalities. Following further
discussion, Mr. Morrison stated a municipality cannot use the Access Code to control use of
property.
Sharon Hopper, surrounding property owner, stated her concern over allowing RV parks in the
County and questioned whether it is an allowed use according to the MUD standards. Ms. Eastin
stated that through the Zoning Ordinance and MUD, the Employment Center designation does not
list specific uses but allows for goods and services to the traveling public. Ms. Hopper also
questioned whether the County owned Road 22 in the first place and, therefore, whether it could
give the road away. She indicated there is still the possibility of litigation over that issue. She
stated Mr. Kenomoto will not proceed with the Parkway through his development which is being
annexed into Frederick.
Ms. Brunk indicated the fire district has agreed to a note on the Final Plat which states, "All uses
within the Final PUD Plan shall attempt to comply with the requirements of the Mountain View Fire
Protection District," and indicated those requirements will be addressed during the Final Plat
980274
PL1034
HEARING CERTIFICATION - ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS, INC. (S #439)
PAGE 6
process. She also indicated the applicant intends to make its best effort to come to an agreement
with Firestone. She stated the applicant does want the verbiage added regarding the road, as
discussed earlier. Responding to Commissioner Baxter, Ms. Brunk indicated the applicant
understands the need to comply with reasonable requests through the Access Permit process. Ms.
Brunk clarified for Commissioner Kirkmeyer that either by notes on the plat or Conditions of
Approval, the applicant agrees to go through the final plat process for all future lots; complete a
traffic study for each proposed development, instead of each lot; and petition for annexation into
Firestone prior to development, and put forth its best effort to complete the annexation. Ms. Brunk
further clarified that in order not to get embroiled in a disagreement between the two municipalities,
the petition would be withdrawn and the applicant would return to the Board of County
Commissioners for determination if Frederick does not agree to the annexation by Firestone and
agreement cannot be reached. Ms. Brunk indicated the Road Improvements and Maintenance
Agreement will be considered for approval at a future date. Mr. Scheltinga stated this development
would not warrant a traffic signal; however, in the future one might be required and indicated the
110-foot right-of-way meets the cross-section standard of the MUD. He added if Del Camino
Parkway is not expanded to four lanes, the right-of-way would be reduced to 60 feet.
After further discussion, Mr. Morrison clarified for the Board that any Improvements Agreement
would be brought before the Board at a regular meeting; however, the improvements to Road 22
no longer fall under County jurisdiction. Mr. Morrison requested the wording on Exhibit F be
amended to show that where the applicant struck the words "prior to May 15, 1998," the Condition
should state "No sooner than May 15, 1998." He explained that nothing would happen prior to
May 15, 1998, and it could be later when the first development request is received. After
discussion, Mr. Morrison indicated the County will not accept the right-of-way until the road is built;
it is a two-step process with the dedication being the offer and the acceptance occurring after the
road is built. Commissioner Kirkmeyer indicated by leaving the note on the plat, Frederick will
know the Board indicates its desire for a four-lane road; however, after further discussion it was
decided there is no need to include the verbiage on Exhibit F. Responding to Commissioner
Baxter, Mr. Morrison indicated a Condition regarding filing for annexation to Firestone would meet
the requirement of the IGA, and suggested replacing Condition of Approval 2.m with the following,
"The applicant shall submit an annexation petition to Firestone and make a good faith effort to
pursue such an annexation."
Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Scheltinga clarified the use of Note#8 on the original
Change of Zone which states there shall be no access onto Road 22. Mr. Morrison indicated the
Final Plan is consistent with that note and Mr. Scheltinga's explanation shows it is consistent. He
added that it is in the original Change of Zone and the Board cannot go back and redo a previous
action; however, one of the Board's inherent findings, if this is approved, is that the note is
consistent with the intent at the time of the note.
Responding to Commissioner Hall, Ms. Eastin stated Condition of Approval 2.p. should read, "All
development within the PUD is subject to final plat review and approval by the Board of County
980274
PL1034
HEARING CERTIFICATION - ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS, INC. (S #439)
PAGE 7
Commissioners." Mr. Scheltinga stated Condition of Approval 2.k intended the two roads be
separated; Road 22 would be addressed by a Road Improvements Agreement, and the Parkway
would be addressed by the individual, internal plats. After discussion, Commissioner Kirkmeyer
suggested adding a condition to require a Road Improvements Agreement for Road 22; however,
Mr. Morrison indicated it should be more general, recognizing the jurisdiction of Firestone. After
further discussion, Mr. Morrison suggested amending Condition 2.k to read, "A Road Improvements
and Maintenance Agreement for improvements to Road 22 shall be reached, recognizing Firestone
has jurisdiction." Mr. Morrison indicated a second sentence be added to Condition 2.k stating each
subsequent plat shall include a Road Improvements and Maintenance Agreement regarding the
Del Camino Parkway; however, the Board requested it be added as Condition of Approval 2.q.
Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Morrison indicated a Condition could be added
requiring the applicant to submit an Access Permit prior to platting the next series of plats. Mr.
Scheltinga clarified that the applicant could do an overall agreement with the Town of Firestone
instead of one for each individual lot.
Responding to Commissioner Hall, Ms. Eastin suggested verbiage for an additional Condition to
read, "The applicant shall submit evidence to the Department of Planning Services that an Access
Permit has been approved by the Town of Firestone for access onto Road 22." Mr. Morrison
indicated that particular language would not be appropriate for anything other than Del Camino
Parkway; and Commissioner Kirkmeyer suggested addition of Condition of Approval 1.k. be added,
for access of Del Camino Parkway onto Road 22. Mr. Morrison clarified any other access would
be covered under Condition 2.r, which Ms. Eastin suggested as follows: "At the time of any future
application for a Final Plat, the applicant shall submit evidence that an access permit has been
obtained for that use for Road 22."
Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to approve the request of Rocky Mountain Consultants, Inc., c/o
Rusty Green, for a Planned Unit Development Final Plan, based on the recommendations of the
Planning staff and the Planning Commission, with the Conditions of Approval amended as follows:
1) add Condition 1.1, with page 1 of 2 and addition of second sentence; 2) add 1.j as recommended
by staff; 3) add 2.n as recommended by staff; 4) add 2.o as recommended by staff; 5) add 2.r
which references the individual final plat shall submit evidence that an access permit has been
obtained for that use for Road 22; 6) delete the last sentence of 1.d; 7) replace 2.m with Mr.
Morrison's wording regarding filing a petition to the Town of Firestone for annexation and proceed
in good faith; 8) add 2.p, regarding future development being subject to final plat review and
approval by the Board of County Commissioners; 9) amend 2.k to state the Road Improvements
and Maintenance Agreement shall be reached for Road 22, recognizing that Firestone has
jurisdiction; and 10) add 2.q, requiring each subsequent individual plat to have a road improvement
and maintenance agreement regarding Del Camino Parkway; 11) add 1.k requiring the applicant
to submit evidence to the Department of Planning Services that access permits for Del Camino
Parkway have been obtained. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hall.
980274
PL1034
HEARING CERTIFICATION - ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS, INC. (S #439)
PAGE 8
Commissioner Kirkmeyer commented that this is not a Change of Zone process, and the
compatibility issue was dealt with at that time. She indicated the Board has tried to follow the spirit
of the IGA with all the changes to the conditions and feels it is possible to negotiate with the Towns
of Firestone and Frederick. Mr. Morrison clarified Condition 2.m should be replaced with the
following, "The applicant shall submit a petition for annexation to Firestone and make a good faith
effort to pursue such an annexation." Commissioner Hall added that he is glad to see the
applicant's willingness to work through this process and indicated he will help as much as he can
to assure continued cooperation. Chair Harbert added that the entire Board is willing to offer
support and help where necessary. On a call for the vote, the motion carried unanimously.
This Certification was approved on the 18th day of February, 1998.
APPROVED:
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
r, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Weld Cow t�C '�� =
EXCUSED DATE OF APPROVAL
Constance L. Harb rt, Chair
BY: '. � �Jq
Deputy-
W. H. Webster, Pro-Tern
TAPE #98-05 and #98-06 ,.
Geo . Baxter
DOCKET#98-07
/`
DaII K. Hall
/ Barbara J. Kirkmeyer
980274
PL1034
ATTENDANCE RECORD
HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1998:
DOCKET#98-07 - ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS, INC., % RUSTY GREEN
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) HEARING ATTENDING
c CG1G le#o7 Gd ,&S
�2 � fSs- W • C , . L C'6 . ir-o 5 n
k Ro&e2-s
3S'54 Fina w.9Ys P+z PC/777F
6 Fa-ke/PQ a //03/ ri,= - // C 7,,to3 ti1�I..vS#..�i
C -5-4?Pet cULJ dez-+ 4tce /At (3
1€213°
LnM a�� &S to cawrc Auto CL�f s9I
(4
-,� 02.30tit . /O Cf ?/6A , n No/ II # O' -c•
c_ f A ` , n P a 3 L (� 3 1pCa v k�cult
i1 . �L7 ,cc 0 r7 96-o'/
1�1 1Y KCcirig (ICC DAN✓te. Sc aC7
-xu10 0u-6-- VA-camfk/,n 5 grActurac Is oI I ffro4 rm wl»
CrM 1-1 9107- 1 F, ele.ns-Aiii_. c{o. F .�/Oo - t-af.sf/p Cb .4'‘3"e,,1
bxtce i i c ke rso- ! I �.
EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
Case S' q39 /-Rnek Po(. 4,i
Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description
A.
B. — iTk.) c�� (-Qt7 PA-M4V1J yYa�p,1imv
C. ().. — °n3 LS,/ in (i/YbitA.Lti41
D.
E.
F. � S ; � �� j�:, r ,� Nr(f �
G. V 1 {( l �4411 flr �' I . ' ( j /,l ti
H. JY t/(K C
I. ) Y - �� 1`Y
J. L /444Y-/""1--- -/f/r
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
U.
Hello