HomeMy WebLinkAbout991017.tiff HEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 99-23
RE: APPROVE SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
FINAL PLAN,S#481,FORA 19-LOT INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BUSINESS PARK
- DEL CAMINO JUNCTION DEVELOPMENT INC.,% TUTTLE APPLEGATE, INC.
A public hearing was conducted on May 5, 1999, at 10:00 a.m., with the following present:
Commissioner Dale K. Hall, Chair
Commissioner Barbara J. Kirkmeyer, Pro-Tem
Commissioner George E. Baxter
Commissioner M. J. Geile
Commissioner Glenn Vaad
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Carol Harding
Assistant County Attorney, Lee Morrison
Planning Department representative, Monica Mika
Health Department representative, Sheble McConnellogue
Public Works representative, Don Carroll
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated April 21, 1999, and duly published April 24, 1999,
in the Fort Lupton Press, a public hearing was conducted to consider the request of Del Camino
Junction Development, Inc., % Tuttle Applegate, Inc., for a Site Specific Development Plan and
Planned Unit Development Final Plan, S #481, for a 19-lot Industrial and Commercial Business
Park . Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney, made this a matter of record. Monica Mika,
Director of Planning Services, presented a summary of the proposal and entered the Planning
Commission Resolution into the record. Ms. Mika explained the Planning Commission voted to
forward the case to the Board of County Commissioners without recommendation, since it was
deemed more appropriate for the Board to give relief on Ordinance#201 and it was, therefore, not
possible to develop Development Standards for the site, if approved. Ms. Mika presented a
Chronology of Case, marked Exhibit L, and stated the Change of Zone was approved in February
of 1990; therefore, PUD approval should follow Section 28 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance
at that time. She reviewed the overall PUD process and stated staff recommends the Board find
Sections 8.2, 23, 28, and 35 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance apply to this request, as well
as Ordinances#195 and #201. She added that the MUD Process should apply at the Site Plan
step. Responding to Commissioners Baxter, Mr. Morrison explained the PUD Ordinance is
procedural, without criteria for design, and Ordinance #201 is not excluded. Ms. Mika further
responded that the density and design standards, such as building height, are different; however,
the major difference is the setback requirements. Commissioner Geile questioned whether
Ordinance#195 would apply if the Change of Zone was approved in 1990, submitted in 1993 per
regulations,then set aside by the voters in 1996 with the applicant showing due diligence to pursue
the completion of the process. Mr. Morrison stated Section 4.3 concerning annexation would not
apply; however, the Board may Find that the original decision occurred long before the
requirement, and the applicant showed continuous effort since the 1990 Change of Zone,
therefore, it was not abandoned. He also stated if the application of Ordinance #201 makes the
land unusable, the Board may provide some relief. Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr.
Morrison agreed the PUD is still valid,since the three-year clock did not run for the two-to-four-year
991017
PL0100
HEARING CERTIFICATION - DEL CAMINO JUNCTION DEVELOPMENT INC., % TUTTLE
APPLEGATE, INC. (S#481)
PAGE 2
period while the Court case and election were pending. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated the
County's position for over a year has been if the old PUD was not abandoned, Section 4.3 of
Ordinance #195 would not apply; therefore, annexation is not an issue. Responding to
Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. Mika stated Ordinance #201 MUD standards should be applied
overall; however, Mr. Morrison pointed out the Board may then adjust problems, such as setback.
Mr. Morrison stated three of the four municipalities have signed the Ordinance, but the County has
been using it since its approval by the County.
Gary Tuttle,Tuttle Applegate, Inc., represented the applicant and stated the Planning Commission
did not recommend approval of the request only because it considered the request to be beyond
the scope of its jurisdiction and the determination of how to give Ordinance #201 relief is a legal
issue, and was not based on the proposal. Mr. Tuttle played a short video of the property and,
using a series of drawings, showed the effect of each step in the unique history of this property,
including the effect of setback requirements of each Ordinance, if applied. He stated if all
Ordinances are used, prime property would no longer be usable, costing the property owner a$1.8
million loss. Mr. Tuttle reviewed the Site Plan proposed by the applicant, which includes
commercial uses on the south portion of the property with office and light assembly being kept to
the north, frontage road accesses, a tree-lined interior loop road, 50-foot setbacks from the
frontage road which is also tree-lined, and three detention ponds with discharge into two existing
culverts at the north of the property at a rate not to exceed 20 cubic feet per second. He stated
the Site Plan, as presented by the applicant, complies with the Mixed Use Development Standards
(Ordinance#191), with several exceptions. The first exception is to Section 2.3, which Mr. Tuttle
feels should not be required since the Change of Zone approval was prior to adoption, and the
second exception is to Section 2.6, which requires a berm to screen the property from 1-25; since
the land is lower than the frontage road, the applicant feels a berm is not necessary. Mr. Tuttle
explained the Law Enforcement Authority, required as a Condition on the Change of Zone, is not
a legal possibility because an election must be held for the registered electors who live or own
property in the PUD. The owner of the property is a corporation and; therefore, not eligible to vote.
Mr. Tuttle presented proposed Conditions of Approval, marked Exhibit M, setting aside Ordinance
#201, and putting a note on the PUD Plan to save confusion in the future. He also stated the
applicant is not pursuing annexation into Firestone since the uses in the PUD do not comply with
the Firestone Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted after the Change of Zone was approved.
Mr. Tuttle also stated the variances requested by the applicant will not visually or developmentally
affect the site. Responding to Commissioner Vaad, Mr. Tuttle discussed the flow of water from
detention pond #1 through#2, then #3, at which point it will be released through culverts already
in place. He also responded that when the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
acquired the right-of-way for the frontage road it was by negotiation; however, consideration was
not paid for the loss of use of the land.
John Coppom, property owner, responded to Commissioner Vaad that the owners felt there was
no choice, CDOT sent a letter which said settle the matter or CDOT will condemn the property.
Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Coppom said remuneration was not included for loss
of use.
991017
PL0100
HEARING CERTIFICATION - DEL CAMINO JUNCTION DEVELOPMENT INC., % TUTTLE
APPLEGATE, INC. (S #481)
PAGE 3
Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Tuttle reviewed the drainage and setback requirements.
Ms. Mika stated the open space requirement of Section 35 of the Zoning Ordinance still needs to
be addressed. Mr. Tuttle clarified for Commissioner Kirkmeyer that the project does comply with
the MUD Standards, instead of Ordinance#201 standards, in reference to open space, signage,
and landscaping;however,the applicant is requesting a variance regarding setbacks. Responding
to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Morrison explained, if the facts support the applicant's contention
that the natural drainage is to the north, a "natural easement" exists whereby drainage is allowed
to be released, so long as it is not in a manner or quantity to cause harm. Mr. Morrison stated,
however,that roads and development may alter the natural drainage. Frank Hempen, Jr., Director
of Public Works,stated he is greatly concerned about the drainage into the Hokestra Pit,explaining
the County has an approved plan with the Last Chance Ditch Company concerning the quantity and
quality of water to be allowed to enter the ditch. Mr. Hempen added the historical flow has been
north along 1-25 and the frontage road, and east along Weld County Road 24.5. With the applicant
now proposing to dump the water into the mining operation, Mr. Hempen is concerned the
agreement with the ditch company may be voided because the volume will be significantly greater.
He stated the ultimate goal of the Hokestra Pit is to become an expansion of the Barbour Ponds,
which is controlled by the Division of Wildlife. Responding to Chair Hall, Mr. Tuttle stated a
drainage study is in process; however, the historic flow is proven by the installation of the two
culverts by the County at some point in the past. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated there will be a
difference in the water flow, and questioned whether the#1 detention pond is on State right-of-way
and whether the applicant has obtained permission for it. Mr. Tuttle stated the applicant does have
an access permit; however,final approval of the agreement concerning landscaping, maintenance,
etc., has not been approved.
Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Tuttle stated the open space exceeds 20 percent if
all three detention ponds are included, since there is a total of 12 or 13 acres, and KN Energy does
have an easement on the east side; however, Lot 12 would not be buildable, Lot 11 has potential,
and Block 3, Lots 2 and 3 have a 10-foot setback instead of the 20 foot allowed in the rest of the
PUD. Commissioner Kirkmeyer responded that Ordinance#201 is not necessarily causing the lot
to be unusable. Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Tuttle reiterated only 20 cubic feet per
second would be released, which is not part of a calculation but is based, instead on the size of the
culverts installed in the past. Mr. Tuttle discussed the Oil and Gas Commission requirements
concerning setbacks for safety, etc., and stated the proposed Site Plan shows a temporary
easement located in the northeast corner of the PUD on which the company would have one year
to drill a well. Responding to questions from Commissioner Kirkmeyer,Mr. Morrison stated the Law
Enforcement Authority has to be shown to have met the requirements of the Change of Zone,
perhaps by offering alternative security measures.
Chair Hall stated the Board has to recess the hearing due to other appointments and following
discussion, the consensus of the Board was to hear testimony from anyone who would not be able
to return. Michael Morgan, Lohf, Shaiman and Jacobs, P.C., stated he was retained by the
applicant to deal only with the oil and gas issue, and the short answer is the issues are believed
to be settled. He stated he has set forth a proposal in writing to HS Resources, Inc., and also
called on May 3,1999, asking a response if there were any concerns regarding the proposal. Since
no reply was received, he believes it is settled. Mr. Morgan did review the history of the 320 acres
991017
PL0100
HEARING CERTIFICATION - DEL CAMINO JUNCTION DEVELOPMENT INC., % TUTTLE
APPLEGATE, INC. (S #481)
PAGE 4
which are pooled by the lessee and the Codell/Librara formation which the wells are pooled into.
He also stated since HS Resources is already accessing the oil, the applicant is not required to
further accommodate the company. Mr. Morrison marked the lease as Exhibit G for the record.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to continue the request of Del Camino Junction Development,
Inc.,%Tuttle Applegate, Inc.,for a Site Specific Development Plan and Planned Unit Development
Final Plan, S#481, for a 19-lot Industrial and Commercial Business Park, to May 6, 1999, at 8:30
a.m. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Baxter, and it carried unanimously.
This Certification was approved on the 10th day of May, 1999.
APPROVED:
ATTEST: LA/ ,fr / A BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
a COUNTY, CO �RADO
Weld County Clerk to th=1:.-
al . Hall, Chair
BY: ��.. •
Deputy Clerk to the BCri7 �i%� -
,�� arbar J. Kirkmeyer, Pr.-Tem
TAPE #99-15
Georg Baxter
DOCKET#99-23
M. . Geile /Acui Glenn Vaad
991017
PL0100
Hello