HomeMy WebLinkAbout991022.tiff HEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 99-23a
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
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 on May 5, 1999, 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. At said hearing the Board continued this matter to May 6, 1999, at
8:30 a.m. At said hearing on May 6, 1999, Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, responded
to Commissioner Vaad stating the County has an agreement with the Last Chance Ditch Company
regarding discharge water from the Hokestra Pit mining operation. Gary Tuttle, applicant's
representative, stated case law allows an upstream owner to discharge the water downstream so
long as the natural flow of the water is followed and no harm is caused to the downstream owner.
Mr. Tuttle presented an aerial map, marked Exhibit H, showing the drain of furrows and flow of
water. He explained that the water crossing Weld County Road 24.5 through the east culvert
naturally flows west; however, it cannot due to an obstruction. Mr. Tuttle then presented Exhibit
I, photos showing a progression of water, and explained since the mining operation was backfilled
on the south and the west, water flow has been disrupted. The water historically flowed west to
the highway, then north around the mining site. Mr. Tuttle suggested the ditch could be re-
established to allow the historical flow to continue, and stated the applicant is doing Best
Management Practices with grass swells and holding ponds, thereby giving the best, cleanest
water possible at a maximum rate of 20 cubic foot per second. Mr. Morrison clarified that, separate
from the law of drainage, the Board must be certain development does not negatively impact
surrounding uses or adjacent property.
991022
PL0100
T'�,llc, P' �GSA,
c.�: �
HEARING CERTIFICATION - DEL CAMINO JUNCTION DEVELOPMENT INC., % TUTTLE
APPLEGATE, INC. (S#481)
PAGE 2
John Coppom, applicant, clarified the remuneration received from CDOT did not include loss of
value of property. He said the letter sent from the State did not leave him room for choice and
Ordinance #201 did not exist during the negotiations. He stated the $1.8 million figure was
obtained from Anderson Whitney, auditors, eight or nine months ago when they were setting all
values for the corporation. He explained the value of$5 per square foot is based on the Holiday
Express property and another offer received for 92,000 square foot in the amount of$500,000.
Mr. Coppom stated the total loss of use comes to $1.8 million, using the $5 figure, which is 23
percent of the value of the entire project. He agreed some of the lots are hamstrung with utility
easements, etc., but stated those portions can be used for parking and storage. Mr. Coppom
stated Ordinance#201,coming into effect after the negotiations,was"devastating"to the property.
Responding to questions from Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Monica Mika, Director of Planning
Services, stated Section 2.6.4 requires a 50-foot setback plus 50 feet of landscaping, which is
measured from the right-of-way lines, although she is unsure whether it is measured from existing
or future rights-of-way. After further discussion, Mr. Tuttle stated the acceleration/deceleration
lanes are within the existing right-of-way, and he knows of no plans to widen the existing right-of-
way. He referred to a hand-written note from Jess Jones, CDOT, indicating there is nothing in the
details of design or construction that cannot be worked out, as well as a meeting scheduled for May
7, 1999, after which CDOT should be ready to issue the final access permits. Mr. Tuttle also
clarified for Commissioner Kirkmeyer there is a 50-foot landscape setback on all property.
(Switched to Tape#99-16.)
Kim Houtchens,Attorney for the applicant,discussed the decision of the Planning Commission and
reiterated Planning Commissioner Epple felt it was more appropriate for the Board of County
Commissioners to give relief on Ordinance#201. He stated after the three years during which the
property was tied up in Court battles and the pending vote, the applicant hired Tuttle Applegate to
design the project. Mr. Houtchens stated after the vote Tuttle Applegate submitted the Sketch Plan
and the County returned its comments without reference to Ordinance #201. The County then
adopted Ordinance#201 on September 7, 1998. Mr. Houtchens contends since the Sketch Plan
comments did not reference Ordinance#201, it is not applicable to this application, and noted it
constitutes taking property without proper constitutional authority. He also commented that
Ordinance #195 is an interim agreement and Section 8.4 of Ordinance #195 discusses its
termination when the "Plan" (Ordinance #201) is "developed, adopted , and implemented by all
parties." Mr. Houtchens also contends Ordinance#201 establishes uniform baseline standards for
a pre-defined area and stated there is no map included as to the specific area to be subject to the
standards, and that the Town of Eire has not adopted the uniform baseline standards; therefore,
there is no agreement. However, if the Board does decide Ordinance #201 is in effect, Mr.
Houtchens stated the Board may grant relief from the strict application of the standards, especially
in light of the Town of Erie not adopting it. Mr. Houtchens also explained why it is not possible to
form a Law Enforcement Authority and suggested the applicant has proposed other ways to satisfy
that Condition, including alarms to businesses, etc. He cited case law regarding drainage and
991022
PL0100
HEARING CERTIFICATION - DEL CAMINO JUNCTION DEVELOPMENT INC., % TUTTLE
APPLEGATE, INC. (S#481)
PAGE 3
stated the applicants are responsible owners who want to work within what is reasonable to
develop their land. Responding to questions from Commissioner Geile,Mr.Houtchens stated there
are no problems with Ordinance #191, the Mixed Use Development Plan; however, Mr. Tuttle
indicated there are two exceptions requested by the applicant. Mr. Tuttle explained the berm from
1-25 (Section 2.6), and the 20 percent commonly-owned open space (Section 2.3), are the
exceptions requested. After further discussion, Mr. Houtchens stated Ordinance#201 does not
apply; however, Commissioner Kirkmeyer indicated she still feels Ordinance#201 is applicable.
Mr. Morrison responded to questions from the Board regarding the applicability of Ordinance#201
and the ability of the Board to give relief from those standards, also noting the flexibility within the
PUD process itself. Commissioner Kirkmeyer indicated Ordinance#195 applies; however, since
the Change of Zone was prior to its adoption and the Change of Zone was not abandoned, this is
not considered to be new development and, therefore, Section 4.3 regarding annexation does not
apply. Clarifying for Commissioner Geile, Mr. Morrison reiterated Section 4.3 applies to previous
development, which is the case in this application, since approval was given in 1989.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer further clarified that if the Board interprets this to not be new
development, there is then flexibility to allow changes to the standards. She also stated the IGA
applies to new development only. Responding to Chair Hall, Ms. Mika clarified Section 3.5.6.1
regarding landscaping and the building line setbacks are 50-foot plus 50-foot if all is landscaped.
Responding to Commissioner Vaad, Mr. Tuttle indicated the building height in Ordinance #201
would work, since the project maximum is 50-foot.
(Chair Hall called a ten minute recess.)
Upon reconvening, no public testimony was offered. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated, if the Board
decides to grant a variance to Ordinance#201,the issues include the oil and gas production,which
has been resolved based on the attorney's comments and the letter dated April 20, 1999, as well
as the inclusion of the one-year temporary easement being shown on the plat; the Rural Ditch
Company concerns are addressed in Conditions of Approval; and the Law Enforcement Authority
can be satisfied through Condition of Approval #3.g. Mr. Tuttle indicated the applicant wishes to
delete the second sentence of Condition#3.g, since the alarms are to an off-site security company
who will respond and then call the Sheriff's Office if necessary. Mr. Morrison responded to
Commissioner Kirkmeyer that the Board may find, in its motion, that the reasonable
accommodation of the oil and gas function has been met. Commissioner Kirkmeyer suggested the
Board delete Conditions of Approval #1.d and #2.e, add the applicant's proposed Condition#3.t;
and delete the second sentence of Condition #1.g.
991022
PL0100
HEARING CERTIFICATION - DEL CAMINO JUNCTION DEVELOPMENT INC., % TUTTLE
APPLEGATE, INC. (S#481)
PAGE 4
Concerning drainage, Chair Hall stated Condition #1.e is too vague, and Ms. Mika read new
language to be considered; however, Commissioner Geile stated there is already enough
management. Commissioner Kirkmeyer questioned whether the applicant's proposed Condition
#3.0 would satisfy the concerns. Responding to Chair Hall, Mr. Tuttle stated 20 cubic foot is the
historic flow, based on the culvert capacity. Commissioner Kirkmeyer suggested the applicant's
proposed Condition #3.0 be added, with the deletion of Condition #1.e, to address the drainage
concerns. Commissioner Baxter suggested the only solution is a ditch on the west of the Hokestra
Pit, which Commissioner Vaad stated would be done by CDOT. Mr. Morrison suggested adding
"20 cubic foot per second"as the historical rate in Condition#3.u, then, if the development is found
to be altering the amount of flow, they would be required to contribute to the cost of the solution.
The Board concurred that 20 cubic foot per second should be added to the applicant's proposed
#3.u, as the historical rate, and Condition #1.e should be deleted.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer suggested the consultant and Department of Planning Services staff be
directed to work out the setback issue, indicating she would consider it okay to have a 100-foot
setback on the frontage road and none on the back side of the property, etc. Commissioner Geile
stated it would be unfair to give the issue to staff to work out without clear direction, and he has no
problem with the Site Plan as submitted by the applicant. Commissioner Vaad stated the
applicant's Site Plan seems to be "dressing up"the intersection when he looks at the other side of
it and he supports the 50-foot landscape as submitted by the applicant. After discussion,Chair Hall
stated the intent of Section 5.0 of Ordinance #201 is to "create a pleasing and sensitive edge
treatment" and he agrees the applicant has provided that. Commissioner Geile suggested the
Board might accept drawing#2 of 4 of the applicant's submission. Responding to Chair Hall, Mr.
Morrison stated that would be appropriate if the Board finds it adequately meets the requirements
and is outside the applicant's control. Commissioner Kirkmeyer suggested changing Condition
#1.b to include the appropriate wording, and Mr. Morrison suggested deleting the words
"adequately meet the requirements of Section 5.0 of Ordinance 201"and adding"comply with sheet
#2 of 4 of the applicant's drawings dated May 4, 1999."
Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer in regards to Condition #1.c, Ms. Mika stated the berm
would not be required. Mr. Tuttle indicated a maximum of 85 percent of lot coverage, with 15
percent landscaping,whereas Ordinance#201 requires 20 percent. Responding to Commissioner
Geile, Mr. Tuttle stated it does meet the MUD (Ordinance #191) standards. Responding to
Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Tuttle stated his justification for requesting a variance from the
landscaping requirement is that 15 percent coverage gives more flexibility with the odd shaped lots,
which are created by the various rights-of-way and the easements going through the property.
Discussion ensued as to whether Section 3.3.2 of Ordinance #201 refers to the entire project or
single parcels, after determining the landscape requirement for the entire project is 20 percent,with
85 percent coverage allowed on single lots, Commissioner Kirkmeyer suggested Condition #1.c
is okay as recommended by staff and is consistent with Board of County Commissioner
interpretation on other matters. Reading through the differences in the Conditions of Approval as
recommended by staff and proposed by the applicant, Commissioner Kirkmeyer suggested using
991022
PL0100
HEARING CERTIFICATION - DEL CAMINO JUNCTION DEVELOPMENT INC., % TUTTLE
APPLEGATE, INC. (S #481)
PAGE 5
staffs recommendation but deleting the first sentence of#2.c; deleting#2.d; changing#2.e to read
"Show the location of the temporary oil and gas easement"; leaving#2.f as recommended;deleting
"Lot 11"from#2.g, giving the applicant the option of moving the gas line;deleting the last sentence
of#3.g; and leaving #3.i as it is. Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Tuttle stated the
request for the addition of a sentence to#3.q is to allow specific clarification for the future, so there
will not be any mistake as to which standards to apply for future Site Plan Reviews. Mr. Morrison
suggested adding language that"In event of a conflict,the Final Plat will take precedence over the
Change of Zone Plat." Mr. Tuttle also explained the addition to Condition#3.r means everything
approved today as far as variances applies to all lots and each Site Plan Review. Commissioner
Kirkmeyer continued, adding Condition #3.t as proposed by applicant, as well as #3.u, with the
addition of the words"20 cubic feet per second". Ms. Mika suggested#4.a may be deleted except
for the first sentence, and Condition#4.e proposed by the applicant, is redundant.
Responding to Ms. Mika, Commissioner Kirkmeyer clarified for staff that Site Plan Reviews should
meet all standards and requirements of both Ordinance#191 and#201, except those specifically
addressed today. Responding to Chair Hall, Mr.Tuttle stated he agreed. Commissioner Kirkmeyer
moved to approve 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, with changes to staff's recommended Conditions of
Approval as follows: Change#1.b by deleting "adequately meet the requirements of Section 5.0
of Ordinance 201" and adding "comply with sheet #2 of 4 of applicant's drawings dated May 4,
1999" and Find that the various setbacks are in accordance with the intent of Ordinance #201;
deleting#1.d and#1.e and relettering the remaining paragraphs; deleting the first sentence of#2.c
regarding building envelopes; deleting #2.d; changing #2.e to read, "Show the location of the
temporary oil and gas easement"; changing#2.g by deleting "Lot 11", changing the word "lots" to
"lot", and relettering the appropriate paragraphs; deleting the last sentence of #3.g; adding
sentence to#3.q to read, "In event of a conflict,the Final Plat will take precedence over the Change
of Zone Plat"; adding language to#3.r which states, "and in accordance with the Final Plat Notes
and Conditions"; adding Condition #3.t as proposed by the applicant, and Find that adding #3.t
does make a reasonable accommodation for the oil and gas development on the site; adding new
Condition#3.0 regarding drainage as proposed by the applicant, with the addition of the words"20
cubic feet per second" and reletter paragraph 3 as appropriate; and deleting #4.a except for the
first sentence. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Geile. Commissioner Vaad stated he
believes this Board has not taken any gratuitous actions throughout this hearing and the basis of
his support for granting the variances is based on fair treatment. He stated the evolution of this
piece of property nearly defies understanding and to impose other requirements would not have
been fair. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated she agrees with Commissioner Vaad's comments and
offered her thanks to the applicant and our staff for working through all these issues. On a call for
the vote, the motion carried unanimously.
991022
PL0100
HEARING CERTIFICATION - DEL CAMINO JUNCTION DEVELOPMENT INC., % TUTTLE
APPLEGATE, INC. (S #481)
PAGE 6
This Certification was approved on the 10th day of May, 1999.
APPROVED:
se allit
ATTEST: r I:, per% BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Q i� ��/i- - 749 N;,- - a COUNTY, COL•RADO
Weld County Clerk to the • • - teat k -I-_a.eul —
/
C� �p ;�V;c�`! - K. Hall, hair
Deputy Clerk to the Boat®fir % a �� - 6�
r` ky vi:arbar J. Kirkmeyer,2fo-Teem
TAPE#99-15 c-16 Mini rL
eorg xter f
DOCKET#99-23a
i
M./o. Geilee
twit deLA
Glenn Vaad
991022
PL0100
EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
Case S #481 - Del Camino Junction Development, Inc., do Tuttle Applegate, Inc.
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)
D. Clerk to the Board Notice of Hearing
E. Del Camino Junction Develop, Inc. Request to Proceed with hearing
F. John Folsom Letter of objection
G. Michael Morgan Oil and gas lease
H. Gary Tuttle Aerial map
I. Gary Tuttle (2) photo boards re: drainage
J. Department of Planning Services Letters to/from Tuttle Applegate
re: proceed with BOCC hearing
K. Department of Planning Services Proposed Conditions of Approval
L. Department of Planning Services Chronology of Case
M. Gary Tuttle Proposed Amendments to Conditions of
Approval
N. Lohf, Shaiman, & Jacobs, PC Letter re: oil/gas issue.
•
O.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
U.
V.
W.
ATTENDANCE RECORD
HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS 5TH DAY OF MAY, 1999:
DOCKET#99-23- DEL CAMINO JUNCTION DEVELOPMENT, INC., % TUTTLEAPPLEGATE,
INC.
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
6/YLa.n L faso&n /i 990 eAara- c&± e�env-ems, 9 `9 - d ..
7/7tchac/&NI /9-6-6 4' ,e z /Fy
k,M f}ou+ekefc 7007 Q1M--e Gr^ee /Py 4f0i- 23
VI,n T CD}�pnM 17Sv- 6-&9v-e aee/P-" a
615 q5 5' 109 - -jcal £frn/
19 S
aJ S-enMl /99D £ice / SI. ��✓e. �2.3_earn 7 4M .. 1• 1( it
_lo�L primmi-t) q / /1 5J r4re/ 97z3
A/ 11il .a6S3 la-✓�J/ 21,e 1ooeV hQ 77 a3
l Crabs i36�,3633 7 ( 1Q J 10633 95.-'3
fiyvt-c---r-,__ 71tetz 5 20194A-- --c),74-t--1- teaSa7
AIR, Wiz 6./6 . . ;r ecia)-
�(ke /�Iok q 4 0, 950 5CL,ar y #900, Dative Y. a 3
_lad- vFU,.i "�9d CA{%/ /S 9 9-zj
Hello