HomeMy WebLinkAbout990702.tiff INVENTORY OF ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
Applicant Del Camino Case Number S-481
Submitted or Prepared
Prior to At Hearing
Hearing
1 Planning Commission Resolution
2 Staff Comments X
3 Department of Planning Services field check form X
4 Field check by Planning Commissioner None
5 Letter to Applicant X
6 Legal Notifications (2 pages) X
7 Application (46 pages) X
8 Preliminary Drainage Report(107 pg) X
9 Referral list X
10 Division of Wildlife X
11 City of Longmont X
12 DPS Compliance x
13 Weld County Health Dept X
14 Town of Firestone (2pg) X
15 DPS Building Inspection X
16. Mt View Fire (3 pg) x
17 Longmont Soils (2 pg) x
18. St. Vrain Schools x
19 W.C. Public Works(5 pg) x
20 Colorado Geological Survey (2 pg) x
21 Weld County Sheriffs's Office ( 3 pg) x
22 Deed (10 pages) X
23 Certificate of Conveyance X
24 Surrounding Property Owners ( 1 pages) X
25 Soil Survey (23 pages) X
26 State Highway Access Permit x
27 Change of Zone Resolution Z-488 x
990702
28 Weld County Zoning Ordinance 8.3 X
29 Weld County Zoning Ordinance 28.13 x
30 Letter from Gary Tuttle 2-17-99 x
31 Video by staff x
32 Tuttle letter of 3-1-99 x
33 Display "mileposts" by Tuttle x
34 Tuttle fax re conveyance received 3-2-99 x
35 Firestone map x
36 Dispaly MUD comparison maps x
37 Display land setback maps x
I hereby certify that the 37 items identified herein were submitted to the Department of Planning Services at
or prior to the scheduled Planning Commission hearing. I further certify that these items were forwarded to
the Clerk to the Board's office.
M ica Daniels-Mika , Director
STATE OF COLORADO )
COUNTY OF WELD ) '
o
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS Jday of IOCV'l'i(, 19 97
SEAL
'ManNOTARY PUBLIC
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES C ? - C3 - o2OOa..
(it •
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT.3540
iiFAX (970) 352-6312
WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
C. GREELEY1400
COLORADO 8063E
COLORADO
February 9, 1999
Gary Tuttle
TuttleApplegate, Inc.
11990 Grant Street, Suite 304
Denver, CO 80233
RE: Del Camino Junction Business Park
Dear Gary: •
I am concerned that you left the February 2, 1999, meeting confused. I will try to clarify the MUD requirements
as proposed on this particular parcel of ground.
While we have discussed that this business park does not have to adhere to the MUD standards as far as the
final plat is concerned, I do concur that each individual lot platted is required to meet the MUD standards, as
well as Ordinance 201 standards. Your contention that this land was platted prior to the MUD going into effect,
is not pertinent to this case because of the change in proposed use and design. There has been final platting
on this particular property that did occur prior to Del Camino Business Junction Park that is not consistent with
the intent of what you are proposing now; therefore, you are required to final plat the property on one of your
current designs. Site Plans are required in commercial and industrial zoned districts, irrespective of whether
or not they are located in the Mixed Use Development area or outside in the County. This standard has been
in effect for some time, and it is common practice at the time of the Site Plan Review to employ all the
applicable county standards that are appropriate at that time.
MUD Table 3.2 allows 85% lot coverage in commercial and industrial zones. Section 24.4 states that the
remaining 15%shall be suitably landscaped, and, although it does not necessarily call out open space, it does
say suitable landscaping. Additionally, there is a requirement for 10% of the parking areas to be landscaped.
I do not concur with your contention that open space is only addressed at the Change of Zone. Common open
space is addressed in the existing PUD Ordinance, the previous PUD Ordinance in section 28, and in the
Mixed Use Development area. Therefore, the MUD plan does go into effect when we are addressing lot to
lot design needs. When you and I were discussing the percentage of open space requirements, we discussed
that there is some flexibility for staff to look at these individual requirements. I believe that this statement is
consistent with what I have previously discussed with both you and Shani in the past, and also reflected in
comments expressed in the Site Plan Review.
The policy of Weld County regarding surface uses and oil and gas development, is found in the
Comprehensive Plan, OG Policy 1, 1.1, and 1.2, and seeks mutual accommodation of the uses. State law
regarding subdivisions requires the same notice be given the mineral owners beneath the proposed use as
adjacent owners receive, and the concept of consistency with the uses in the neighborhood includes surface
and mineral uses. [(30-28-133.(10)"It is recognized that surface and mineral estates are separate and distinct
interests in land and that one may be severed from the other and that the owners of subsurface mineral
interests and their lessees, if any, are entitled to the notice specified in Section 31-23-215, C.R.S., and shall
be recognized by the commission as having the same rights and privileges as surface owners."]
It is only prudent for land use to address any potential conflicts which may arrive between the oil and gas
lessees, and the surface owners as early in the planning process as possible. Once again, this concern was
previously submitted at Sketch Plan. Prior to your submittal for the Final Plan, we did request that you
investigate these possible conflicts. Final Plan packets merely contained a determination as to who owns the
mineral rights for the property. The Comprehensive Plan does encourage cooperation between land owners
and oil and gas companies, and as part of this intent, we do take this effort and our responsibility seriously.
We also do routinely require, as a Condition of Approval, that we have evidence demonstrating that
cooperation has occurred; and this is exactly what we will be looking at the Final Plan. Should you not be able
to obtain the cooperation of the mineral owners, you could submit geo-technical data and evaluation of the
Oil and Gas Commission spacing requirements to show that your design will reasonably accommodate oil and
gas drilling opportunities on the site. This option is often cumbersome, and time consuming.
Gary, I hope that this letter answers the concerns that you have raised. Based on our understanding, you are
still going to have information submitted to the Department of Planning Services by February 12, at which time
we will submit a referral to the Town of Firestone, Weld County Public Works, Planning Department, and
Health Department. The amount of changes you are proposing, will dictate how long the review process will
take, and if additional agencies need to re-review the plat.
If you have any questions, I will be more than happy to address these. I look forward to talking with you.
Sincerely,nc
•
•
tntaik,c4) /TILL)
Monica Daniels-Mika, AICP
Director
garytut.
DEPARTMENT OF PL
ANNING SERVICES
' PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT.3540
FAX (970)352-6312
C. WELD COUNTYADMINISTRATIVE
1400 N.
17TH VENUE
GREELEY, CO
COLORADO
January 28, 1999
Gary Tuttle
Tuttle and Applegate
11990 Grant Street Suite 410
Denver, CO 80232
Dear Gary,
I wanted to follow up our conversation in writing. At your request, case S-481 will be recommended
for continuance at the February 2, 1999, Planning Commission Hearing. According to your letter,
you are recommending continuance to the March 2, 1999, Planning Commission Hearing. As we
discussed, in order for staff to review any changes, we need to have ample time to review these.
Depending on the extent of your changes more or less time will be required to re-review the case.
I recommend that you have a copy of any changes, you are proposing to the Planning Department
no later than February 12, 1999. I cannot guarantee that the referral agencies will be able to
complete their review of your changes within this time, once again it depends on the complexity of
your changes. Should a referral agency not be able to review the proposed changes, then the
case will have to be continued to a future date.
Additionally, I will need to have (12) twelve copies of any changes you are proposing and a written
explanation of these changes. If I can be of further assistance, I may be reached at the above
address and telephone number.
Sincerely,
Moe10-61 �) - ;Lk*,
els-Mika, AICP
Director
PC: Lee Morrison
John Coppom
Tuttle
PSII iF.., rJ rr, •rY
)f`;ll
•RhttieApplegate,Inc. JAN 2 9 ; ;J
Consultants for Land,Mineral and Water Development
January 26, 1999
Monica Daniels-Mika
Weld County Planning Services
1400 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Final PUD Plan for Del Camino Junction Business Park
Dear Monica:
On behalf of the applicant, we request a continuance of this item from the February 2°d Planning
Commission agenda to the March 2nd agenda.
This continuance will allow us time to re-examine some issues brought up in discussions with
you.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Cordially,
TUTTLE APPLEGATE, INC.
J . -"v —
Gary J. T tle
GJT/sjr
cc: File #98-162
John Coppom, Del Camino Junction Development, Inc.
Lee Morrison, County Attorney
11990 Grant Street, Suite 304 • Denver, Colorado 80233 • (303) 452-6611 • Fax (303) 452-2759
('ta DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT.3540
FAX (970) 352-6312
' WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
1400 N. 17TH AVENUE
O GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
COLORADO
December 8, 1998
Tuttle Applegate, Inc.
Attn: Shani
11990 Grant Street, Suite 304
Denver, CO 80233
Subject: S-481 - Request for approval of a Planning Unit Development Final Plat on a parcel of land
described as Lot A of AmRE-730; and Lot 1 of the Ft. Junction PUD First Filing, located in the SW4
of Section 2, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Dear Applicant:
Your application and related materials for the request described above are complete and in order at the present
time. I have scheduled a meeting with the Weld County Planning Commission for Tuesday, February 2, 1999, at
1:30 p.m. This meeting will take place in Room 101, Commissioner's Hearing Room, of the Weld County
Centennial Center, 915 Tenth Street, Greeley, Colorado. In addition, I have scheduled a meeting with the Weld
County Utilities Advisory Committee for Thursday, January 14, 1999, at 10:00 a.m. This meeting will take place
in the Weld County Administrative Offices, 1400 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado.
It is the policy of Weld County to refer an application of this nature to any town or municipality lying within three
miles of the property in question or if the property under consideration is located within the comprehensive
planning area of a town or municipality. Therefore, our office has forwarded a copy of the submitted materials to
the Dacono, Firestone, Frederick, and Longmont Planning Commissions for their review and comments Please
call City of Dacono at 303-833-2317; Town of Firestone at 303-833-3291; Town of Frederick at 303-833-2388;
and City of Longmont at 303-651-8330, for information regarding the date, time and place of these meetings and
the review process.
It is recommended that you and/or a representative be in attendance at each of the meetings described above in
order to answer any questions that might arise with respect to your application.
A representative from the Department of Planning Services will be out to the property to post a sign adjacent to
and visible from a publicly maintained road right-of-way which identifies the hearing time, date, and location In
the event the property under consideration is not adjacent to a publicly maintained road right-of-way, one sign
will be posted in the most prominent place on the property and post a second sign at the point at which the
driveway (access drive) intersects a publicly maintained road right-of-way.
The Department of Planning Services' staff will make a recommendation concerning this application to the Weld
County Planning Commission. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Department of Planning
Services office a few days before the date of the hearing to obtain that recommendation.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
Mo ica Danie s-Mika, P
Dire for
pc: John Coppom, 1750 6th Avenue, Greeley, CO 80631
0
P DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
Weld County Administrative Offices
1400 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, CO 80631
' Phone (970)353-6100, Ext. 3540
Wl I D c Fax (970) 352-6312
COLORADO
November 05, 1998
Gary Tuttle
Tuttle Applegate, Inc.
11990 Grant Street, Suite 304
Denver, CO 80233
Re: Ordinance 201: Coordinated Planning Agreement for Referral and Enforcement Procedures
and Uniform Baseline Standards
Dear Gary
I have reviewed the points you brought up in your October 21, 1998 letter. I would like to offer you
the following information in order to provide you with clarification regarding your concerns.
1. Section 3.4.1 is the same language as presented in the MUD Plan. The development of this
standard is the result of an extensive citizen participation process and the accumulation of design
standard input from several planners and communities.
2. Your suggestion for landscaping as an alternative to buffering is suggested within the text for
properties with unique topographical concerns.
3. Section 3.5.6.1 is in reference to landscaping placement, while Section 5 is specific to building
location setbacks. Section 3.0 on intent provides clarification for this issue.
4. Your suggestion to allow an incentive benefit for back yard parking is not stipulated in the
Ordinance. In order to obtain this incentive an amendment to the Ordinance will need to be
proposed.
5. In looking into your concerns associated with Figure 5 in Section 3, it is my understanding that
the asterisks should not appear in the last two paragraphs because there is not a setback allowance
for these sections. The setback allowance is only available in 5.5 and the additional asterisks do
need to be removed from the text of the ordinance.
6. You have asked several times in your letter to re-evaluate Ordinance 201 standards, especially
the setback requirements. Because these standards have been established by the Board of County
Commissioners, I am not at liberty to change these. If applied, the Joint Board of Appeals could
address these setback requirements while considering the total application of Ordinance 201. Keep
Service,Teamwork, Integrity,Quality
Page 2
in mind, that the Joint Board of Appeals does not have the authority to make a decision contrary to
the Board of County Commissioners, rather it will make a recommendation on the compatibility of
the proposed alternative design to the adopted ordinance.
7. You also asked a question concerning the representative for each community. In Section 8.9.2,
each community has the right to appoint whomever they choose to represent their concerns. Some
of these representatives may be citizens at large, while others may be elected officials.
8. You stated that it was your understanding that Ordinance 201 was being amended. At this point,
I am not aware of any proposed amendments to Ordinance 201. The Towns of Frederick,
Firestone, Dacono and Weld County have all adopted Ordinance 201. The Town of Erie has not
yet completed this process. It is my understanding that it has been placed on their November
agenda. The Weld County Commissioners have signed this ordinance, therefore it is in effect, and
the Weld County Planning Department is working with this ordinance.
9. If you submit a proposal with design standards that differ from those stipulated in Ordinance 201,
they can remain as proposed, if the standards are accepted by the Board of County Commissioners
and there are no objections from any member of the Intergovernmental Agreement. However, if
your proposed standards are objected to by one or all of the participating communities, those
communities have the right to call for a hearing before the Joint Board of Appeals. In our previous
meeting I did cover this option, but I realize I may have been somewhat unclear on who has the right
to call for an appeal. I apologize for this, and I recommend that you reference sections 8.85 and
8.86 for specific details on this issue.
I hope that this letter answers your questions. I would be more than happy to visit with you on any
other issues you may have concerning Ordinance 201. I would also be willing to send a copy of
this letter to the Town of Erie for their consideration. Please notify me if you would like this to occur.
Sincerely,f cRpiu
Monica Daniels-Mika, AICP
Director
PC:
Bruce Barker, Weld County Attorney
John Coppom, Del Camino Junction Development Corporation, Inc.
Tuttle.skm
Service,Teamwork, Integrity,Quality
a
4 ;;'t 6 . DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT.3559
111111 FAX (970) 352-6312
STRATIVE OFFICES
C. /ELD COUN GREELIE1400 N.YI COLORADO 7THVENU
80631
COLORADO
September 4, 1998
The Villa at Greeley Inc.
C/O John Coppom
1750 6th Avenue
Greeley, Co 80631
Subject: Del Camino Junction Business Park, proposed development of twenty (20) industrial
and commercial lots, zoned for PUD for Commercial and Industrial, property described parcels
131302000061 and 131302000062. (See attached legals).
Dear Mr. Coppom,
The Department of Planning Services staff has reviewed your request for comments in regard to
the submitted Sketch Plan Application. Please consider these comments as an unified
response for comments. These comments are not intended to be totally inclusive, and
additional concerns or comments may arise in the final plat stage of this application Sketch
Plan comments are not intended to approve nor deny an application, rather they are intended to
address areas of possible conflict and concern regarding Weld County and referral agency
regulations. The application as proposed is for a total of 45 acres, with an average lot size of 1.5
acres, and a total of nine (9) acres of open space.
The following agencies commented on this case and copies of these comments are included in
this packet:
St Vrain Valley School District, 8-17-98
St Vrain Rural Impact District, 8-9-98
Town of Frederick, 8-11-98
City of Longmont, 8-4-98
Town of Firestone, 8-21-98
Colorado Dept of Transportation, 8-25-98
Mt View Fire District, 8-11-98
Weld County Sheriffs Office, 8-4-98
Weld County Building Inspection, 8-3-98
Weld County Public Works, 8-11-98
St Vrain Sanitation District , 8-11-98
Longmont Soils District, 8-25,98
Weld County Health, 8-25-98
The Department of Planning Services' staff has the following comments, which must be
addressed and included with the Final Plat application materials:
1. Landscaping.of no less than 15% of the lot should be identified. This could be
accomplished through the Site Plan Review application process that is required
for each lot prior to the issuance of building permits.
2. Parking and Trash collection areas should be visually screened from public rights
of ways and adjacent properties.
3. Parking requirements for each use shall be reviewed through the Site Plan
Review process.
4. The Final Plat shall show locations for Oil and Gas production facilities or
materials demonstrate through the application how the property owner has an
exclusive right to all Oil and Gas mineral rights. Documentation shall be
provided verifying this issue. (Shani Eastin did provide information concerning
this issue in an August 7, 1998, letter; however, documentation concerning
ownership, ie deed, was not presented).
5. Internal paved streets shall be constructed to Weld County standards, dedicated
for public use and privately maintained.
6. Weld County has adopted by resolution an Open Space Plan. The elements of
the plan should be implemented in the proposed subdivision.
7. To provide adequate reduction of noise pollution created by the Commercial and
Light Industrial uses for the benefit of less intense use landscaping materials,
shall be required, and depending on the use of the site berming of the site may
be required.
8. To eliminate safety issues and attractive nuisance problems with any open
irrigation ditch, fencing may be required between the proposed uses and the ditch
rights of ways.
9. For efficient and orderly development, no on-street parking shall be allowed within
the proposed subdivision, and the final plan shall be developed to adhere to this
standard.
10. Regional storm drainage shall be incorporated into the Final Plat.
11. Any future and proposed signage shall be delineated on the Final Plat and shall
meet all county sign standards.
12. The applicant shall be prepared to comply with the requirements of the Mt. View
Fire District.
13. The applicant shall be prepared to adhere to the rules and requirements of the
UBC, as enforced by the Weld County Building Inspection Department.
II: Final Plan Submittal:
1. The applicant shall submit an approved access permit from the Department of
Transportation. The applicant shall be,responsible for infrastructure
improvements as required by CDOT.... .
2. The applicant shall submit an on-site:Improvements Collateral Agreement
3. The applicant shall submit evidence from the Rural Ditch Company stipulating
that an agreement has been reached concerning ditch easements and rights of
ways issues.
4. The Right to Farm covenant shall be placed on the final plat.
5. Building Envelopes must be delineated on those lots with limited use of the site.
6. Details concerning the proposed trail on the site shall be incorporated into the
Final Plan.
The zoning is in place for this commercial and industrial use.. Through the Change of Zone
application (Z-448 ) it was determined that the commercial and industrial uses comply with the
Weld County Comprehensive Plan. The next step in this PUD process is the Final Plat. This
procedure is outlined in Section 28.9 through 28.15.7.13 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance,
as amended. Your submittal must address all issues identified above, all conditions of approval
as identified on the resolution for case Z-448, and the referral agency comments as attached.
Several Conditions of Approval as stated in Z-448, (A,F,J,M and Internal Road standards) shall
to be addressed and included in the Final Plan Application, in conjunction with further
clarification from the Colorado Geological Survey concerning issues which arose at the Change
• of Zone application.
Also, please keep in mind that a site plan is required for each parcel prior to the issuance of a
building permit. At the time of site plan review, the MUD standards will be fully enforced on each
parcel.
After you have had the opportunity to review the enclosed materials, I would be happy to
schedule an appointment with you. The purpose of this meeting will be to familiarize you with
the Final Plat application procedure and to discuss any problems or concerns identified in this
letter.
Sincerely,
Mo ica Daniels- ika, AICP
Dir ctor
pc: Shani Eastin
s467
t-6;
\(
IDC\ � DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
PHONE (970) 353-6100,EXT.3540
O FAX(970)352-6312
E-mail address: I:Jchester@CO.Weld.CO.US
• WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
COLORADO 1400 N. 17TH AVENUE
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
June 23, 1998
Gary Tuttle
Tuttle Applegate, Inc.
11990 Grant Street, Suite 304
Denver, CO 80233
Subject: Property located in part of the SW4 of Section 2, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado; located south of and adjacent to WCR 24 '/2 and north of State Highway 119, aka
Villa Property
Dear Mr. Tuttle:
This letter is in response to your letter received May 8, 1998 regarding the above described property.
This property is also known as the Fort Junction PUD. The files associated with this case are Z-448,
Change of Zone and S-344, Final plat. The current zoning for this property is C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4
and I-1. According to the Weld County Attorney's Office,the zoning is still effective, however any
new use on the property would require a new Sketch Plan and Final Plat. A Site Plan Review would
also be required for any new uses proposed on this site.
The Intergovernmental Agreement between the Towns of Firestone,Frederick and Dacono and Weld
County will be addressed through the review process at the time of application. If you feel you
need any further information, please contact Lee Morrison, at the County Attorney's office.
Sincerely,
Julie A. Chester
Current Planner
pc: Property research files
7 WELD COUNTY ATT'ORNEY'S OFFICE
• PHONE: (9 70) 356-4000. EXT. 4391
`"2 ; `/r , I'A.X: (97t)j 52-0'4,
' 915 TENCH STREET
P.U. BOX 1944
a 1r-7>
. February 10, 1998 GRI.:LL.I �'. COLORADO 406:
2
i-,
Cam"
i
t
COLOR DOS
John Coppom, Administrator
The Villa
1750 6th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
• RE: Your Letter of January 27, 1998
Dear John:
Your letter raises issues regarding the timing of a decision regarding the applicability of the annexation
agreement provisions of the"1'ri-Area Interim Coordinated Planning Agreement. You have requested that
the Board make this determination in a work session prior to a final plan application. Unfortunately, it is
this office's opinion that such a work session where the Board would discuss the particulars of your
proposal would not be appropriate. These are issues which should be considered during the quasi
judicial hearings by the.Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners and not in a work
session . This decision, if made outside of the public process, could be attacked as procedurally
deficient.
From reading your letter, I cannot learn whether you have specific questions about the policy. It does
appear that you understand the consequences of the policy but want to have a determination made as
early in the process as possible. ] would suggest that you should include the information alluded to in
your letter in your application and request the staff to make a recommendation on issues you have
mentioned.
•
I hope that this letter has been helpful in at least explaining what the problems that holding a work
session on these issues would create.
• Your-. ly,
.2.7(..(2,--e..--• P lfr-444-0,-----
Lee 1).Morrison •
Assistant \Veld County Attorney
LDM/db:L.et/Copppom
pc: Department of Planning Services
Bruce Barker
Board of County Commissioners
,..... --.1i WELD COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
}
PHONE: (970) 356-4000, EXT. 4391 .
,•: FAX: (970) 372-0242
iNit It . 915 T.ENTI-I STREET
• ` .._. � _�� P.O. 1 BOX 1948
if GREELEY, COLORADO 80632
' •t: i, ' ',.; . January 1s, 1998
:.JULRAD0
Town of Firestone r j
;r
li
Atm: Bruce Nickerson Li
150 Buchanan
P.O. Box 100
Firestone,CO 80520
RE: Del Camino East
Dear Mr.Nickerson:
This is in further response to your letter of December 8, 1997 to the Director of the Department of
Planning Services. Attached is a certified copy of the INTERIM COORDINATED PLANNING
AGREEMENT AMONG THE COUNTY OF WELD, CITY OF DACONO,TOWN OF FIRESTONE,
AND '[OWN OF FREDERICK (INTERIM AGREEMENT).
The Board has given staff the following directions regarding the relationship between the INTERIM
AGREEMENT and proposed developments which are in the land use process before the County. The
Board will have to reach a final decision regarding the individual cases within the urban growth areas as
they are presented in public hearings. The lioard will consider the additional operative provisions of the
INTERIM AGREEMENT, including the availability of municipal services from the municipality
seeking the annexation agreement, overlaps between urban growth areas designated by munici7alitie.s,
and the timing of the annexation sought by the municipality. The Board will consider the individual
facts in the final plan process but does not believe that the INTERIM AGREEMENT intended that an
annexation agreement for immediate annexation and a new application for land use approval by the
municipality was intended where the developer has already received an approval from the Board, such as
a zone change, prior to designation of the Urban Growth Area a:acl has diligently pursued the next step in
the process(such as a final plan).
Please contact me with any further questions you may have regarding this letter.
Yours truly,
Lee D. Morrison
Assistant Weld County Attorney
pc: Monica Daniels-Mika
Bruce Barker
Rusty Green
Sam Light
MCASE NO. .f.,) ; . 44. ACRES
NAME 1)44 G►,muoJunL4,ost 'pe,,i, Snc.-. -
- RE O U EST%rr - LI ia ,,,m rts« , comrantia At.
A PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING THIS
oiPROPERTY WILL BE HELD AT 915 - 10th
STREET, GREELEY. COLORADO 80631,
ON Hag 1994 AT AO est - ais
FOR MORE INFORMATION CALL THE
WELD COUNTY DEPT. OF PLANNING
SERVICES AT 356-4000.
:..
r +J
C i .
I
Fleitt
LaiW `P .
i oC APPLICATION FLOW SHEET
COLORADO
APPLICANT: Del Camino Junction Development Inc CASE #: s- H.E: 1
REQUEST: PUD Final Rat
LEGAL: Lot A of Amended Recorded Exemption 730 and Lot 1 of the Ft. Junction Pud First
Filing Weld County in a poriton of the SW4 of Section 2 , Township 2 North , Range
68W of the 6th P. M .
LOCATION : North of State Highway 119 and adjacent to 1 -25 and 1 -25 Frontage Road
PARCEL ID #: 131302000061 and 131302000062 ACRES : 45
DATE BY
Application Received 11 - 19-98 (4: 30) mdm & sb
Application Complete* (CONDITIONS OF SKETCH MISSING AT
THE TIME OF SUBMITAL) SEE. SHANI'S NOTES :R - 1 -'(4Z5 AD
7,
PC Hearing Date: - LI Action :
Utility Board Date: ) - /LI - 6j
PC Sign to be Posted By: I f t SaC
PC Sign Posted
Referrals Listed 'i 'J, t , G‘.(6 An `\\
File Assembled 1 - 06:1 '
Referrals Mailed /63 - 0-
Chaindexed 1 — "
Letter to Applicant Mailed J/2( g-qo _ tyl f
Date Public Notice Published in County Newspaper U ci3 (j7
.)
Surrounding Property & Mineral Owners Notified G - - - OI W_.__--
Planning Technician Maps Prepared
Field Check by DPS Staff J
Planning Commission Resolution Sent to Applicant `iq Grt.)
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Filed in Case Case Sent to Clerk to the Board V ç Hearing:2* \ Cor-h n4ActlonP -a `1 3 , 97
CC Sign to be Posted By: lir U -ulq .-7
CC Sign Posted { if/D .'7
Plat and/or Resolution Recorded
Recorded on Maps and filed
Overlay Districts
Geologic Yes No % j Zoning _pL�
Flood Hazard Yes No ,/ Airport Yes No
/I ..aC___ ar
•
I CO
� I likt\
q
C: "Z- I Q4
Lti
the
co rv „, ^ii
(n b /E 6 8JM I V ,
litip. in
I isi-
E.,4 11 ho \--
, 1
'L°N.(r ,
iv,- -' ,
N I
I J p O
iNn N
iz, LEY
U 71 C:1)
ii44111%0
E..%4 .
ci.) I
Ltr
I
03
29 Sm - 2 i "' "Th 1 O
1 isarnsealr— N....\-., _i i 0 24 Do
,..‘,.,...........:.-1/44.14!„.... - l �..��_ V/ �� to .1� m
(-4
.��. I of tV NUJ N' r�
1, CO r
rp
t• ly,J ._
N N N N r�J t Esj
tOV Q CON !'Z 0
i— �r •
J cNV
N N l re) ry .7 N N ^i in N M
I CJ:
cc 1 I 1i1
c0 Y y CO ; 7� U� '� r O I�7 i O _ N CV '� to
> t rj F— —
,,/. Z is.
Ie
I
N n I In CI - ► �o \, , • 0 n
1 •
• o
- - — --—- ;"eW \" .--".1114, i \ . I }— 'lite
.- N •. N ► , N -� 1 S
;J I
J tbif. . g Alt
• /...; ;"," 1 40 A
I( /' alz (-Ne VPI‘HAIII O4 Cisl i re) I
O ' Zier/*rll/// //Ili/Asir ' ►w //.Ji 7/r a1ri /. DMII, r....., I �' ---moo" 7 :<, r." , .: 7 4,, r aQ % /' l \ /� / / I ii O
_4. J/ I , ' m: tin1 . 0 N. 3
CC CO CO
_IT __ t x
IIP-N N i - dtaLN _ NI.. 1 I in alN cv N
.//41," i /
CY
-, CC L9, —
tb =
coI
ct N o N N N co ht o co Z �' Z
r� z N ``.
o eRI— i— 1—
Qa note
W a a
re
O -co
Q . W C
N a CE .n
I
Q N 7 m
a > > m La Er o 0 3 c=a Z 111
42 CD Z W Y I rX 0 p C9 =J Q m 0 O 0o J r cr
3a
Z La z
o CC > OW ��,, wra o
Q ()'' M Li. La. p O U 0 a_ V) LL U (n
LIJ
4 I i w
CD
-
11
I S
•
is 44. c Pp 1 cct n i \%,vex
c no sen !v ok)
5 goo reu t ecw 4*S case, i's I n/vitc-I i"e,
ko re,try\enk r k0..\• dike, 9o0 t s
64 'access '
.
I. She Phan
D . Chcknse of 7- cAz.
9\-0A-
LA • S,zc_ P.Qn .
es4e,bllskfr1 00- cacti
Se, p “NC)S-S Co nsi sle 6tha W I kis-r l l y
S\-eAts��d G\- ectu4 CoAdH10 s 6l2 c1pp -
_enmo ed, acA- Gag, sic() are- ccuv(ted oder
40- Sip . most- 3ycc‘ nccf 1 Li k
AliN\s cost. conch\1 yn� S
- lib"rn ANL Ghctnse aI
Zone abA SKeAck\ Pitan Ate dditscecii
-
tn ,s cnal NJ . C A- copy of
P la n C6m m. vets a not Chat Of a
12 �S�1 �3on ave in r,1/4 pc, ark_
Weoe,n ceen'at cl5encie c (tU\ewed Lrhis cgsc..
aid €Ac \X eApcsce-d comrvue A .
is OptnIon OP ki0Jd S-air
0 0
IQ ext ae.. be cxe- (60u 4a y i's - r a, /9
Io i (G` c?-c-3, cu + z ) Pvo 1°cote d norgh or
S-ckst, •\\,),
n c\ \\R LWC,r�. a4 ) -4- noliact s n 1- -0 a-d
c Z -as Tron-1 ,se_ .
— v1Ck0 -
Ti.Q, ?toe r-1-1 re ce t yeti i +s C ha floe, o f
7 o(ve in a 0-C ‘Cciv 1 -FcMoecl by oL. sop
c,ncA\ f>\o r (,S- 34q i r, Isc-13) +hg_ i n---kne&d
e w cx\)S -Coe' pre xot i 11 1. st. rt i5
TT �— QQ£N
Ce en fw.tc -caCn 4-res o n— er e .-U-S-es
\ (y-ti-s ,r } eC `AAn t s — dye— frC 1/4--kti e- +hi t
0C-- Ckv,n 5t cc-- Zoc,c. Ap pew ,
Oi WI act Aoc ceA\ \ ncLr See- hon a E cc
We o rec/cuk)ons . car\ oC)
\q°—\ , wc- Col-NnreN,SS; r adop e d
6. -,N9.5)3 ,i2st oc- c)o -w\sS U.r\c1
/ /n� �
r2�u�U�C,ons n ?e ®rci( rcQ,i� L
lQi `�'vo)
()-s eA-c 0€ ,s a p oY Whe,
130c c- MSo mad \ck.n oCtce_ coA
\--VVNt_
, F c.Qp\ , Carj ch1'rr4- �,rsvet cc
ethNt V cYpcess L\ituAr- rya I pla-
o.kif LkIkt, Oa puo Seckn DO .
I (_(;(-0) s,�� Cpo)
6
� A\ *- \JOC z-D ) 7. 3 , a 6 ?3 `4- 35 Sec ioY L5 .
oreli ,,a nu, no l lq aze, Q pp)i crattte- /O
LAM'S Case . 1# i S ad tea. Si TE_
P Q- r loV c-01 ‘ n 'Pulp
S\r\cA\\ c•0\\•cucam, - Mv'fl SA-anolc>xaL
an 3,-g,qq c.lti�s Cam- precentid
for c& by plUnfl », s rr Jo
�{ I.� U•�C, Plannin Commisc) oc) . The.
u.) C Plc nn i n l Corn nn ssi or) ura n ; rnoosly
(-Cc omr-.ndS atv\L \ A1N s
('(T--\-\o-n CACDCGil 1 LA \i s )se-< t r 1 ca )
(�
S-tie\ \r� `A NSt.:C feso\vtlon .
Qem.a se_
Pc awl D v CP Cisc f .410a es KQS b•P-0-41
re arepl yw 6 better 'enc1,kk
ace leuo e COrft,ggcneLc Qsfoc'&t2c/
wi\ Vie- .
npt, cc,n4 1-h AGMres s
c owe-n s 3oc C�
ittirv\c_
J7 (Y I` nLe at f flak pick -
q- sec 7v-- ZE'3
Y2-717€_ -PtionA - reui -e cid
— (7.{-4 C [c /ccu _ j sn t Suy3) cI )
4_ cc ppe I c
Poo wI De t1-gre_c 1 •
(oncQ 0r s SAct // /≤cc
�,,N,,(-1± r\,2 cc-4--b_ c14-
0cw
Roue)
'\Q- LiU V GU-C 1 1—
c,.-A-' Of el f f;?4,\ (\e) 0Gsfm,stic 0 (- kl,s. _Xoucc illa-Af) cit+c L to i
(AT,ZAVii V /
l uou ` .--(1O11: i�
)
From: LEE MORRISON
To: mmika
Date: 3/31/99 3 :28pm
Subject: Villa mylars and Oil and gas
Reply requested when convenient
I suggest that the action of the Board in approving the pre parole final plan
be vacated once the new final plan is approved- maybe that needs to be added
as a condition if a motion for approval is made, The current owner could
request by letter. Unfortunately that means you should keep the mylars until
the final plan is resolved
On a related note, I discussed w/ Bill Crews the issue of reasonable
accomodation on Oliver and the Villa. He has done some research on Oliver and
is just getting into the Villa. The surface owners will probably propose a
similar approach on both to pay the added cost of directional drilling . I
told Bill he needed to put into evidence why it is a reasonable accomodation
including any geological or market info .
Lee D. Morrison
Assistant County Attorney
CC: bbarker
From: BRUCE BARKER
To: NORTHDOMAIN.NORTHPOST.SMARQUEZ
Date: 11/5/98 2 :05pm
Subject: Tuttle Letter -Reply
I have three suggestions. First, cut out the word "stipulated" in paragraphs
4 and 9. "Stated" is a better word. Second, cut out the 3rd and 4th
sentences in paragraph 6 referring to the Joint Board. The reference there to
the Joint Board is confusing and unnecessary. Finally, instead of saying
"this option" in the 3rd sentence in paragraph 9, say "the appeal process. "
Bruce.
>>> SHARON MARQUEZ 11/05/98 12:49pm >>>
CC: NORTHDOMAIN.NORTHPOST.MMIKA
0
From: MONICA MIKA
To: CENTDOMAIN.CENTPOST(LMORRISON)
Subject: Follow Up to Ordin 201 -Reply -Reply
The reason I want to make sure is because the Villa final plat came in and it
does not meet 201 standards, which will influence the the lots at site plan
stage. I suggested the applicants would have to meet 201 standards at the site
plan. The town of Firestone will not be happy at all if the lots do not meet
201. A battle will be had over this subdivision again, and I wanted to try to
clear the waters before this started. Therefore, I will be happy to forward a
copy of your email to Shani, and she will be relieved to hear the county's
policy decision on this issue. The only concern I have is that the BOCC does
have the authority to ask to review any case they have delegated to staff and
if this happens with this case then the 201 standards will come into play.
>>> LEE MORRISON 11/19/98 01:25pm >>>
Re question regarding application of 201 to administrative process. As we
previously discussed and as documented in the incorporated e-mails, the
underlying agreement defines development in such a way as to include only
decisions of boards of elected officials and development is carried over into
the standards agreement. Therefore I do not think they have to be applied to
building permits or site plans and even if they do it does not appear from the
highlighted sections of the standards that there is any remedy for the
referral jurisdictions
8.2 Recital: For Purposes of this Outline, a Referring Government is the
government with which the applicant filed his or her application, and that
refers the application to others for comment; a Commenting Government is a
government that files comments with the Referring Government. A Review Body
means the body that will be reviewing and making a recommendation or decision
on an application for preliminary or final approval, and includes a Planning
Commission, Town Council, City Council, and Board of County Commissioners.
Other terms have the meanings given to them in the Interim Coordinated
Planning Agreement
8 .3 .1 Application in the County. For development proposed to the County
within the Urban Growth Area, the County will refer the application to the
Municipalities within 7 days after the application is complete
Steve hebert left a message Wednesday that off the top of his head he thought
they would apply but that no appeal was available if we failed to enforce but
he had not reviewed his file
Lee D. Morrison
Assistant County Attorney
>>> MONICA MIKA 09/10/98 11:30am >>>
Have you hear anything else about this?.
>>> LEE MORRISON 09/02/98 03 :37pm >>>
0
I talked with Don Elliott and he indicates his recollection is incomplete but
concurs to his limited recollection that the design standards probably do not
apply to administrative procedures and for sure, the appeal process does not
apply since it only kicks in when a review body (plan com or board of county
commis or municipal board- 5 8.2 Ord 201) makes a decision. This is consistent
with the def of agreement in the original which applies to governing body
decisions not administrative decisions such as building permits or site plans.
I have a call in to Steve Hebert at Don's suggestion but have not yet heard
back.
THE • •
• % ` 7r
\ , � 1/ O 6th Ave nue • C,Creel C,'-- `
7
i t ,
January?7, 1998 _] t� i f; l
,
rte s_
Ms. Connie Ilarbert, Chairperson - '' i. �,_t ( > .Aj'C
Weld County Board of Counts` Commissioners N
91 10th S:. `'' / '/ ,,z /`siL L _ '
Greeley, CO 80602LI
Dear Commissioner Harbert:
The purpose of this letter is to seek clarification of the Interim Coordinated Planning
Agreement Among the County of Weld, City of Dacono, Town of Firestone, and Town of
Frederick (interim Agreement). Specifically, I am seeking clarification of any requirement of
an annexation agreement on a development we are proposing on a parcel of land located at the
northeast corner of the intersection of Interstate 25 and WCR 24.
According to the Weld County Attorney's Office, their interpretation is that 'The Board
_' .ommissio_ers does not believe that the Interim Agreement applies to developments that have
pre previously received a land use approval, such as a zone change. prior to designation of the Urban
Growth Area. as long as the developer has diligently pursued the next step in the process (such as
a final plan.) However, one interpretation of the County Attorney's letter (see attached), is that
our P.U.D. approval process would remain with the Count' process until the Final Plan is
reviewed before the County Commissioners. It would be at that point that the application of the
Interim Agreement to our project would be determined. This, of course,would 'be costly, time
consuming and an inefficient process if it was then determined that we would be required to
annex to another town (in this case, Firestone).
The property to which I am referring received a Final Plan Zone change from
Agricultural to Commercial and Industrial in 1990 for a development called the Fort Junction
P.U.D. As you may recall, The Villa received Final Plan Zoning approval for a prerelease
facility on this property in December of 1993. This zoning was ultimately voided through a
ballot issue in 1996. There can be no doubt that we diligently pursued this project.
Since that time, we have continued to diligently pursue development of this property
throw* rll m 'r'.iis n, eringt ',rich the Lelomdo 2,Thriartntent o 5 ,), ..'.r . whici it jilt.: new
c mo:etlrl _ a new service road that winds through the :property. As soon as the legal description
of TLC road was determined, which showed the exact location of the road, State Rights-of-Way,
etc.. we hired, in March of 1997. the company of Tuttle Applegate, Inc. to assist us in designing
ad planing out a Commercial ial and Industrial development For this property. Having received
0
pmliminary ao Jl-oval for sUlte D O 1f cess Aorecmentsjust two week, ago we are completing
the proposer'.P.1_ .D, application, and intend to s bmit a sketch plan in the near future.
! 0
One clear preference is that this development remain in Weld County. I am requesting
at the Board schedule a work session so that this matter can be further discussed and hopefully
resolved before we get any further along in the Weld County Planning and Zoning processes •
•
Thank you very much.
Sincerely, .
64. 41-enett--
John Coppom
Administrator
•
•
S
•
•
0
• •
WELD COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
�Alr-4-10 PHONE: (970) 356-4000, EXT. 4391 •
V FAX: (970) 352-0242
A...., .. �`"'"' 915 TENTH STREET
'y P.O. BOX 1948
'‘,.i .3 iv . GREELEY, COLORADO 80632
.4 - ...1 .41 el 11. .4.-!,----,-
a`t' - = -
:,:-.62.IoLit aA January 22, 1998
Michael Brand
The Villa at Greeley, Inc.
1776 6th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631 •
• RE: Status of Property Within Scope of Tri-Area
• Agreement
',Dear Mr. Brand:
I have attached a copy of a letter I have written to another potential developer with similar
although not identical circumstances to the Villa. I believe that this information will provide you
some guidance as to the future considerations of your property by the County.
Please contact me if you have further questions. •
•
Yours truly, •
/ ,.---- A •
77/� �ti'� / c9 ' .'6/1,-- -
L e D. I,/orrison
Assistant Weld County Attorney
•
LDM/db:Let/Brand
Fnclnsure
pc: Bruce Barker •
Monica Daniels-Mika .
0 • .
FIELD CHECK inspection date: 1-16-99
CASE NUMBER: S-481
APPLICANT: Del Camino Junction PUD
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of AmRE-730; Lot 1 of the Ft. Junction PUD First
Filing, located in the SW4 of Section 2, T2N, R68W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North of State Hwy 119 and adjacent to I-25, and the I-25
frontage road.
Zoning Land Use
N A (Agricultural) N Mining Site
E A (Agricultural) E 1-25
S A(Agricultural) S Vacant land, Kahn Subdivision
W A (Agricultural) W Vacant land
COMMENTS:
The site is presently vacant with no intended ag use. Access from the site is off of
WCR 24-1/2 (a County non-paved road) and I-25 Frontage Road. The site is
unique in that it is slit by the I-25 Frontage Road.
There is a substantial ditch canal that transverses the site. Drainage on the site
flows to the north.
Monica Daniels-Mika, Director
Hello