HomeMy WebLinkAbout20081502.tiff RESOLUTION OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Moved by Bill Hall, that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: 2008-XX
APPLICANT: Pioneer Communities Inc&HP Farms LLC
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 17 and 18,T2N, R64W of the 6`"P.M.; and Section
32,T3N, R64W of the of the 6th P.M.; and Sections 2, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15,
T2N, R65W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Weld County Comprehensive Plan Amendment to create an Amendment
Procedure for the Southeast Weld Mixed Use Development Area Structural Plan,
Map 2.1 Structural Land Use Plan.
LOCATION: In the vicinity of CR 22 and CR 49.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. Criteria I: MUD Plan, Chapter 26, Weld County Code. That the application is consistent with Section
26-1-30 Weld County Mixed Use Plan which establishes procedures for amending Chapter 26 in
accordance to procedures established in Section 22-1-150 of the County Code.
The procedures for submittal have been met.
2. Criteria II: Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 22, Weld County Code states no inclusions or amendments
to the Southeast Weld MUD Area Structural Land Use Map may be made without previously
amending this Section, defining the criteria for such amendment. The following proposal establishes
a procedure and criteria for any amendment to the Southeast Weld MUD Area Structural Land Use
Map.
A. Section 22-1-150 delete the last sentence it its entirety.
B. Section 22-1-150.B add a new subparagraph 5 to read:
In the case of an amendment to the Southeast Weld Mixed Use Development Area, the
County shall first determine the type of amendment proposed,which may be one or more of
the following: 1)an expansion of the Southeast Weld MUD boundary;2)a modification to the
land use classification of property already within the Southeast Weld MUD boundaries; 3)a
language amendment to the Southeast Weld MUD. The following supporting documents
shall be submitted as a part of the application except for those items determined by the
Director of Planning Services, in writing, or the Board of County Commissioners, on the
record, to be unnecessary to a decision on the application.
1. Expansion of Southeast Weld MUD Boundaries
The proposed application must submit the following:
a. Demonstrate the proposed expansion of the Southeast Weld Mixed Use
Development Area 2.1 Land Use Map, as outlined on the Southeast Weld
Mixed Use Development Area 2.1 Land Use Map, has at a minimum 1/6th
contiguity to the existing Southeast MUD boundary.
b. Demonstrate through supporting documentation how the proposed amendment
will address the impact on existing or planned service capabilities, including but
not limited to, roads, storm water, and emergency services.
c. Demonstrate through supporting documentation how the proposed amendment
will address the impacts on the natural environment.
d. Delineate the number of people who will reside and work in the proposed area
and the number of jobs created by the proposed development. This statement
shall include the number of school-aged children and address the social service
provision needs, such as schools, of the proposed population.
2008-1502
Resolution 2008-XX
Pioneer Communities Inc&HP Farms LLC
Page 2
e. Include a certified list of the names, addresses and the corresponding parcel
identification numbers assigned by the County Assessor to the owners of
property of the surface estate within one thousand (1,000) feet of the property
subject to the application. The source of such list shall be from the records of the
County Assessor, or an ownership update from a title abstract company or
attorney derived from such records or from the records of the County Clerk and
Recorder. If the list was assembled from the records of the County Assessor,
the applicant shall certify that such list was assembled within thirty(30)days of
the application submission date. Inadvertent errors by the applicant in supplying
such list or the Department of Planning Services in sending such notice shall not
create a jurisdictional defect in the hearing process,even if such error results in
the failure of a surrounding property owner to receive such notification.
f. The written certification required by Section 24-65.5-103.3, C.R.S. Such
certification may be submitted on the date of the initial referred to in Section 24-
65.5-103(1), C.R.S.
g. Outline the proposed use of the property including the maximum number of
dwelling units, amount of commercial and industrial space and percentage of
open space projected for that area.
h. Submit a deed or legal instrument to the Department of Planning Services
identifying the applicant's interest in the property.
i. Demonstrate that the site can be serviced by public water and sanitary sewer
service that is adequate for the proposed use.
j. Include a prepared preliminary traffic impact analysis. All traffic analysis
information and reports shall be prepared and certified by a Colorado registered
professional engineer competent in traffic engineering and shall address impacts
to on-site and off-site roadways including strategic roadways within Weld
County, State Highways and Interstate Highways. The intent of this analysis is
to determine the project's cumulative development impacts,appropriate project
mitigation and improvements necessary to offset a specific project's impacts.
This analysis shall include the following information:
1) Introduction: Describe the proposed development and parameters
of the study area include off-site roadways.
2) Trip generation: Determine daily and a.m. and p.m. peak-hour trip
generation for the proposed development using established rates
identified in the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers or as agreed to by County Engineering
Staff.
3) Trip distribution: Based on assumptions contained in the Southeast
Weld MUD area traffic analysis or market estimate, describe the
anticipated trip distribution patterns for the proposed development.
4) Trip assignment: Based on the projected trip generation, assumed
trip distribution and the prevailing roadway network, assign the
projected traffic to the intersections and streets within the study
area.
5) Any reasonable additional information deemed necessary for
review.
Resolution 2008-XX
Pioneer Communities Inc&HP Farms LLC
Page 3
k. Include a preliminary Drainage Study. All drainage analysis information and
reports shall be prepared and certified by a Colorado registered professional
engineer competent in the hydraulic engineering and shall address impacts to
on-site and off-site drainage ways within Weld County, and the surrounding
area. The intent of this analysis is to determine the project's cumulative
development impacts, appropriate project mitigation and improvements
necessary to offset a specific projects impacts.
I. The applicant shall submit an affidavit agreeing to all pervious triggers and
commitments as determined by prior applications and actions required by the
Board of County Commissioners.
m. Demonstrate conformance with the maximum land use limitations of the
Southeast Weld MUD Structural Land Use Densities or provide justifications if
proposed for an amendment.
n. Provide an amended Southeast Weld MUD Land Use Map.
2. Modification to Land Use Classification of Property Already Within the Southeast Weld
MUD Boundaries
The proposed application must submit the following:
a. Demonstrate that the underlying planned services and/or infrastructure approved
for the Southeast Weld MUD are not materially affected;or if materially affected,
propose and support mitigation measures addressing the improvements
required.
b. Demonstrate that the proposed land use designations are compatible with the
existing land-use designation of adjacent Southeast Weld MUD planning areas.
c. The applicant shall demonstrate through supporting documentation how the
proposed amendment will address the impacts on the natural environment.
d. Delineate the number of people who will reside and work in the proposed area
and the number of jobs created by the proposed development. This statement
shall include the number of school-aged children and address the social service
provision needs, such as schools, of the proposed population.
e. Include a certified list of the names, addresses and the corresponding parcel
identification numbers assigned by the County Assessor to the owners of
property of the surface estate within one thousand (1,000) feet of the property
subject to the application.The source of such list shall be from the records of the
County Assessor, or an ownership update from a title abstract company or
attorney derived from such records or from the records of the County Clerk and
Recorder. If the list was assembled from the records of the County Assessor,
the applicant shall certify that such list was assembled within thirty(30)days of
the application submission date. Inadvertent errors by the applicant in supplying
such list or the Department of Planning Services in sending such notice shall not
create a jurisdictional defect in the hearing process,even if such error results in
the failure of a surrounding property owner to receive such notification.
f. The written certification required by Section 24-65.5-103.3, C.R.S. Such
certification may be submitted on the date of the initial referred to in Section 24-
65.5-103(1), C.R.S.
Resolution 2008-XX
Pioneer Communities Inc& HP Farms LLC
Page 4
g. Outline the proposed use of the property including the number of dwelling units,
number of commercial and industrial units and percentage of open space
projected for that area.
h. Submit a deed or legal instrument to the Department of Planning Services
identifying the applicant's interest in the property.
i. Demonstrate that the site can be serviced by public water and sanitary sewer
service that is adequate for the proposed use.
j. Include a preliminary traffic impact analysis. All traffic analysis information and
reports shall be prepared and certified by a Colorado registered professional
engineer competent in traffic engineering and shall address impacts to on-site
and off-site roadways including strategic roadways within Weld County, State
Highways and Interstate Highways. The intent of this analysis is to determine
the project's cumulative development impacts,appropriate project mitigation and
improvements necessary to offset a specific project's impacts. This analysis
shall include the following information:
1) Introduction: Describe the proposed development and parameters
of the study area include off-site roadways.
2) Trip generation: Determine daily and a.m. and p.m. peak-hour trip
generation for the proposed development using established rates
identified in the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers or as agreed to by County Engineering
Staff.
3) Trip distribution: Based on assumptions contained in the Southeast
Weld MUD area traffic analysis or market estimate, describe the
anticipated trip distribution patterns for the proposed development.
4) Trip assignment: Based on the projected trip generation,assumed
trip distribution and the prevailing roadway network, assign the
projected traffic to the intersections and streets within the study
area.
5) Any reasonable additional information deemed necessary for
review.
k. Include a preliminary Drainage Study. All drainage analysis information and
reports shall be prepared and certified by a Colorado resisted professional
engineer competent in the hydraulic engineering and shall address impacts to
on-site and off-site drainage ways within Weld County, and the surrounding
area. The intent of this analysis is to determine the project's cumulative
development impacts, appropriate project mitigation and improvements
necessary to offset a specific projects impacts.
I. Provide an amended Southeast Weld MUD Land Use Map
m. The applicant shall submit an affidavit agreeing to all pervious triggers and
commitments as determined by prior applications and actions required by the
Board of County Commissioners.
3. Language amendment to the Southeast Weld MUD
The proposed application must submit the following:
Resolution 2008-XX
Pioneer Communities Inc&HP Farms LLC
Page 5
a. The applicant shall demonstrate through supporting documentation how the
proposed amendment will address the impact on existing or planned service
capabilities including but is not limited to roads, storm water, and emergency
services.
b. A certified list of the names, addresses and the corresponding parcel
identification numbers assigned by the County Assessor to the owners of
property of the surface estate within one thousand (1,000) feet of the property
subject to the application.The source of such list shall be from the records of the
County Assessor, or an ownership update from a title abstract company or
attorney derived from such records or from the records of the County Clerk and
Recorder. If the list was assembled from the records of the County Assessor,
the applicant shall certify that such list was assembled within thirty(30)days of
the application submission date. Inadvertent errors by the applicant in supplying
such list or the Department of Planning Services in sending such notice shall not
create a jurisdictional defect in the hearing process,even if such error results in
the failure of a surrounding property owner to receive such notification.
c. The written certification required by Section 24-65.5-103.3, C.R.S. Such
certification may be submitted on the date of the initial referred to in Section 24-
65.5-103(1), C.R.S.
d. Submit a deed or legal instrument to the Department of Planning Services
identifying the applicant's interest in the property.
e. Demonstrate that the underlying planned services and/or infrastructure approved
for the Southeast Weld MUD are not materially affected;or if materially affected,
propose and support mitigation measures addressing the improvements
required.
f. Demonstrate that the proposed amendments are compatible with the existing
land-use designation of adjacent Southeast Weld MUD planning areas.
g. Demonstrate conformance with the maximum land use limitations of the
Southeast Weld MUD Structural Land Use Densities.
h. The applicant shall submit an affidavit agreeing to all pervious triggers and
commitments as determined by prior applications and actions required by the
Board of County Commissioners.
C. Section 22-1-150.B.8 add a new subparagraph 8 to read:
In the case of any amendment to the Southeast Weld Mixed Use Development
Area 2.1 Land Use Map:
a. The proposed amendment inclusion into the Southeast Weld
Mixed Use Development Area 2.1 Land Use Map or modification
to the existing land use classification as outlined on the
Southeast Weld Mixed Use Development Area 2.1 Land Use
Map has 116th contiguity with the existing Southeast Weld Mixed
Use Development Area 2.1 Land Use Map.
b. The proposed amendment will address the impact on existing or
planned service capabilities including, but not limited to, all
utilities, infrastructure, storm water infrastructure and
transportation systems.
Resolution 2008-XX
Pioneer Communities Inc& HP Farms LLC
Page 6
c. The proposed amendment will address impacts on the natural
environment.
d. The proposed land use is compatible with the existing and
surrounding land uses.
e. The proposed number of new residents will be adequately served
by the social amenities, such as schools and parks of the
community.
f. The proposed amendment has demonstrated that adequate
services are currently available or reasonably obtainable.
g. Referral agency responses have been received and considered.
D. Section 22-1-150.6.9 add a new subparagraph 9d. to read:
In the case of any amendment to the Southeast Weld Mixed Use Development
Area 2.1 Land Use Map:
a. The proposed amendment inclusion into the Southeast Weld
Mixed Use Development Area 2.1 Land Use Map or modification
to the existing land use classification as outlined on the
Southeast Weld Mixed Use Development Area 2.1 Land Use
Map has 116th contiguity with the existing Southeast Weld Mixed
Use Development Area 2.1 Land Use Map boundary.
b. The proposed amendment will address the impact on existing or
planned service capabilities including, but not limited to, all
utilities, infrastructure, storm water infrastructure and
transportation systems.
c. The proposed amendment will address impacts on the natural
environment.
d. The proposed land use is compatible with the existing and
surrounding land uses.
e. The proposed number of new residents will be adequately served
by the social amenities, such as schools and parks of the
community.
f. The proposed amendment has demonstrated that adequate
services are currently available or reasonably obtainable.
g. Referral agency responses have been received and considered.
E. Section 22-1-150.6.11 add a new subparagraph 11d to read:
In the case of any amendment to the Southeast Weld Mixed Use Development
Area 2.1 Land Use Map:
a. The proposed amendment inclusion into the Southeast Weld
Mixed Use Development Area 2.1 Land Use Map or modification
to the existing land use classification as outlined on the
Southeast Weld Mixed Use Development Area 2.1 Land Use
Map has 116th contiguity with the existing Southeast Weld Mixed
Use Development Area 2.1 Land Use Map.
Resolution 2008-XX
Pioneer Communities Inc&HP Farms LLC
Page 7
b. The proposed amendment will address the impact on existing or
planned service capabilities including, but not limited to, all
utilities, infrastructure, storm water infrastructure and
transportation systems.
c. The proposed amendment will address impacts on the natural
environment.
d. The proposed land use is compatible with the existing and
surrounding land uses.
e. The proposed number of new residents will be adequately served
by the social amenities, such as schools and parks of the
community.
f. The proposed amendment has demonstrated that adequate
services are currently available or reasonably obtainable.
g. Referral agency responses have been received and considered.
It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has adequately demonstrated compliance. This
recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the applicant,other
relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities.
Motion seconded by Robert Grand.
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Doug Ochsner—Chair
Tom Holton—Vice Chair
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Mark Lawley
Nick Berryman
Roy Spitzer
The Chair declares the resolution passed and orders that a certified copy be placed in the file of this case
to serve as a permanent record of these proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Kristine Ranslem, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
the above and foregoing resolution is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld
County, Colorado, adopted on April 15, 2008.
Dated the 15th of April, 2008.
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
/5--
yes, wit comment; Roy Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes, with comment; Doug Ochsner, yes, with comment.
Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Lawley cited Section 23-3-40 and Section 22-2-60.B.
Commissioner Holton commented that the IGA that we have with Keenesburg is nondescript and it needs to
be one or other. He added that the three mile area is too much.
Commissioner Ochsner commented that he believes that the code allows for this type of a Use by Special
Review and in using common sense it allows for this facility. He added that this area that was once used by
the oil and gas industry and we are not taking any farm land out of production.
The Chair called a recess at 2:47 p.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 3:00 p.m.
(Bruce Barker joined the meeting via telephone)
CASE NUMBER: 2008-XX
APPLICANT: Pioneer Communities Inc&HP Farms LLC
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 17 and 18,T2N, R64W of the 6th P.M.;
and Section 32,T3N, R64W of the of the 6th P.M.;and Sections 2, 11,
12, 13, 14 and 15,T2N, R65W of the 6th P.M. ,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Weld County Comprehensive Plan Amendment to create an
Amendment Procedure for the Southeast Weld Mixed Use
Development Area Structural Plan, Map 2.1 Structural Land Use Plan.
LOCATION: In the vicinity of CR 22 and CR 49.
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services,stated that currently Section 22-1-150 of the Weld County
Code states,"No inclusions or amendments to the Southeast Weld MUD Area Structural Land Use Map may
be made without previously amending this Section, defining the criteria for such amendment."
Ms. Martin commented that the applicants for the Pioneer Development have applied to basically create that
procedure. The application before you establishes a procedure for any amendments to the Southeast MUD.
There are three different procedures:
1) an expansion of the Southeast Weld MUD boundary
2) a modification to the land use classification of property already within the Southeast Weld MUD
boundaries
3) a language amendment to the Southeast Weld MUD
While the three processes have many similar requirements they do differ depending on the type of
application. You will also notice that there is a procedure in the current code that establishes changes to
the 1-25 MUD area and many of those procedures have also been included into this process.
Ms. Martin pointed out the map of the existing Southeast Weld MUD as it stands today. She added that
any changes to this boundary or colors on the map or area will have to go through one of these three
processes.
Ms. Martin noted some changes outlined in her memo that she handed out to the Planning
Commissioners. On Page 4 of Staffs comments under Section 22-1-150.B she suggested to include the
following sentence at the very end the paragraph which would read "The following supporting documents
shall be submitted as a part of the application except for those items determined by the Director of
Planning Services, in writing, or the Board of County Commissioners, on the record, to be unnecessary to
a decision on the application." Ms. Martin stated that if the Planning Director or the Board of County
Commissioners doesn't deem one of the criteria applicable in a certain case they have the right to then
waive that criteria for submittal.
Ms. Martin stated that the applicants have been made aware of this change.
8
Tom Holton moved to change Section 22-1-150.B as per staff recommendations, seconded by Mark
Lawley. Motion carried.
Ms. Martin continued to the next change in the memo. In the three sections, it talks about having to notify
the mineral owners. It can be found in Section B.1.f, B.2.g and B.3.c. After conversations with the County
Attorney Bruce Barker, she would like to amend the current language in staff comments to read "The
written certification required by Section 24-65.5-103.3, of the Colorado Revised State Statute (C.R.S).
Such certification may be submitted on the date of the initial referral to in Section 24-65.5-103(1), C.R.S."
Ms. Martin said that this is consistent with the current code changes that were recently passed by the
Board of County Commissioners. She added that the language is now the same throughout the Code.
Ms. Martin stated that what this says is that the applicant will need to notify the mineral owners and
lessees per State Statute and supply the Planning Department with a certified document which says that
they have notified them of the hearing.
Jack Reutzel, Reutzel &Associates, 9145 E Kenyon Av, Ste 200, Denver CO. Mr. Reutzel stated that he
is here on behalf of the applicant. He commented that the language that Mr. Barker suggested is fine and
added that where they may have an issue is what the State Statute actually says. Mr. Reutzel said that
the State Statute was revised last term to define under what type of application notice to mineral owners
are required to have. Mr. Reutzel indicated that he has looked at this language and has no issues with it
as drafted.
Mark Lawley moved to modify Section 22-1-150.B.1.f, B.2.g and B.3.c per staff recommendations,
seconded by Tom Holton. Motion carried.
Ms. Martin noted one more change which is on Page 6. She said that she would like to remove Item C as
it is repeated under Item N.
Tom Holton moved to remove Item C, Page 6 and to renumber accordingly, seconded by Robert Grand.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Ochsner asked if these changes are amendments to our code. Ms. Martin and Bruce
Barker stated that was correct. Ms. Martin stated that this would be inserted into Chapter 22 of the Weld
County Code which is the Comprehensive Plan section.
Commissioner Holton asked if by doing these changes today will it make it consistent with the 1-25 MUD.
Mr. Barker replied that this would be an amendment process that would be new and in his
recommendation this would work for both. He added that we would want to amend the other 1-25 MUD to
be commensurate with this procedure.
Commissioner Holton asked how we are going to be dealing with this as we are currently rewriting the
MUD section in the Comp Plan. He further asked if the committee is still going to have the option to
decide whether or not they want to include these. Mr. Barker said that he believes that they would and
added that we need to have a procedure for the purpose of doing amendments to the MUDs. Mr. Barker
commented that if the committee feels that a different procedure is necessary and appropriate, then he
thinks that it would be something that would be necessary to entertain.
Commissioner Holton asked if these amendments will be just for these two MUDs or for any new ones as
well. Mr. Barker stated that in the MUD process, we have two places in the code where we deal with
them. If we get a new one and follow the same procedure we will have to have the same type of portion of
the code that would tract these two. Therefore it would be very similar to this.
Ms. Martin commented that the Department of Planning Services is recommending approval along with
the changes that have been presented.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Laura Morland, 18076 CR 12, Ft. Lupton. Ms. Morland stated that she knows as an individual you have to
pay a $1987.00 Road Impact Fee for your new home to be built on your own land. She commented that it
states that commercially there is another fee. She said that they are building 10,000 homes and asked
9
what fee they would have to pay.
Ms. Martin stated that the Road Impact Fee is assessed at the building permit stage and not at the
planning stage. When the applicant would come in to pull a building permit is when they would be
assessed the impact fee.
Ms. Morland said that you have to pay an additional $1287.00 per home to the School District for School
Impact. She asked if that is also at the building permit stage. Commissioner Ochsner stated that was
correct and commented that Ms. Martin will be available after this hearing to answer all of those questions.
Mr. Reutzel said that when the MUD was first established this clause was there for the protection of all
created. Once it was created, it became apparent to both staff and the applicant that there had to be a
procedure established to allow a supplement or amendments. There had to be a procedure established to
allow modifications or changes. To a great extent they did follow the criteria established by the County for
the I-25 MUD and just expanded on it to include the three types of amendments that they saw going to
happen. He added that they support staffs recommendation and urge the Planning Commission to
recommend accordingly.
Bill Hall moved that Case 2008-XX, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amendments proposed by staff with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, seconded by
Robert Grand.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman,yes; Paul Branham,absent; Erich Ehrlich,absent;Robert Grand,yes; Bill Hall,yes with comment;
Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes;Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Hall stated that he is in agreement with Commissioner Holton's recommendation that we get a
format for all MUDs.
Commissioner Ochsner announced the birth of Erich Ehrlich's son and stated that is the reason why he was
unable to attend today's meeting.
Commissioner Ochsner also announced that Donita May, Planning Tech for Weld County is being reassigned
to the Department of Public Health. The Planning Commission wished Ms. May well and thanked her for all of
her service.
Brad Mueller, Department of Planning Services, stated that he wanted to follow up with some of the
conversations that they had about the agenda and code changes that they all had interest in. He commented
that in discussing the agenda with staff the question came up about whether you might all be interested in
adding to the agenda just a standard Public Comment period at the beginning. This is something that the
Board of County Commissioners does and it would just be an opportunity for folks who don't want to speak
about anything on the agenda to speak for 3 minutes or whatever you limit it to about any topic that they might
want to bring to your attention. He mentioned that people would not very often utilize that but it might be a way
to acknowledge if somebody came and wanted to talk to you as a Planning Commission outside of a case,
that they would have a forum to do that. If you are interested in doing that we would just add an item to the
agenda before the Consent Agenda that said "Public Comment".
Mr. Mueller said the other thing for consideration to add to the agenda would be a line item at the end that
would be called"New Business". That would be an opportunity to talk about things like we are right now for
you to bring up some questions about code changes,etc. That again would just be an opportunity to bring up
topics a little more formally.
Commissioner Holton commented that he would rather not acknowledge the public's comments. He feels that
it might just turn into a session where they would just vent and make accusations rather than questions on
codes changes, etc.
Commissioner Ochsner commented that we are a public forum and it gives people an opportunity to talk. If
they come in and have a legitimate question on something then this is a place that they can do that. If it is just
a gripe session then we have the ability to limit their time.
10
Cyndy Giauque, County Attorney, mentioned that in the Board of County Commissioner's hearing an individual
gets a total of three(3)minutes or a total of 15 for everybody. Therefore if you had a large group coming in to
speak for or against something then they would need to select 5 representatives and give them each 3
minutes. They do allow it, but they do limit the time.
Commissioner Lawley said that it is a pretty common practice to have Public Comment on the agenda.
Commissioner Grand suggested placing the Public Comment period at the end of the meeting rather than at
the beginning.
Commissioner Berryman asked if the purpose of the Public Comment session is to put those people on
record. Mr.Mueller said that at least as it is done at the Board of County Commissioners is to make sure that
the public feels that they always have an opportunity to make public comment that they might have issue with.
Mark Lawley moved to add a Public Comment line item at the beginning of each meeting not to exceed 15
minutes total and 3 minutes per individual. Roy Spitzer seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, no with comment; Paul Branham, absent; Erich Ehrlich, absent; Robert Grand, no with comment;
Bill Hall, no with comment; Mark Lawley,yes; Roy Spitzer,yes;Tom Holton, no with comment;Doug Ochsner,
yes. Motion failed.
Commissioner Berryman commented that he would rather see it at the end of the meeting as opposed to the
beginning.
Commissioner Grand commented that he would like to have it at the end of the meeting.
Commissioner Hall commented that he would also like it at the end of the meeting.
Commissioner Holton commented that he would not like to have a Public Comment item at all.
Robert Grand moved to allow Public Comment not to exceed 15 minutes and 3 minutes per individual at the
end of the meeting. Bill Hall seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman,yes; Paul Branham, absent; Erich Ehrlich,absent; Robert Grand,yes; Bill Hall,yes; Mark Lawley,
yes; Roy Spitzer, no; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried.
Commissioner Ochsner commented that if we add a New Business line item that he would also like to add a
line item that says"Code Changes"so that if anyone at any time wants to bring up something that they heard
that day or at any time then they have the opportunity to do so.
Robert Grand moved to add "New Business"as a line item and to add a sub-item of"Code Changes"to the
agenda, seconded by Tom Holton. Motion carried.
Mr. Mueller commented that there had been discussion of various code changes a couple of months ago and
they are continuing to research those and will come back to the Planning Commission to discuss that.
Mr. Mueller reported that the work session that was held with regard to the new Land Use Process about a
month ago was brought to the Board of County Commissioners and they have asked staff to go ahead and
implement the new process. Some of those are simply policy changes that we can implement immediately in
the Department,others require code changes so they will be ramping up those specific code changes related
to that and bring those to the Planning Commission in next month.
Commissioner Hall asked if there was a simple process for a lot line or a Recorded Exemption line change in
the code. Mr. Mueller commented that it is sometimes easy when you have a Recorded Exemption and you
are simply changing the lot line between a Lot A and Lot B, which is an Amended Recorded Exemption.
However, it does take a couple of months because you have to create a new plat. If you are talking about a
Recorded Exemption right next to another Recorded Exemption then that becomes very difficult because the
parent parcels weren't part of the same lot line. If you are talking about a subdivision where it is lots 18 and 19
11
in the subdivision then that does require going through the hearing process right now. He added that we could
add that to the list for potential changes.
Mr. Mueller reminded the Planning Commission members of the next retreat which is May 20, 2008. He
asked that if they have any items that they would like covered to let him know in the near future. Some of the
items that were carried over from the last retreat are 1) how to effectively run a meeting, and 2) how to
evaluate a site plan and plat.
Mr. Mueller commented that the next Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners joint
luncheon will be May 6, 2008 at Kenny's Steakhouse in Greeley at 11:30 a.m. He asked that they try to be
there at 11:30 a.m. to allow them enough time to get back prior to the Planning Commission hearing at 1:30
p.m.
Commissioner Ochsner suggested that at one of the joint meetings to have a topic of the "State of the
County". He commented that he would just like to be informed of what projects they are working on. Mr.
Mueller indicated that he would relay that request to the Board.
Commissioner Grand commented that the Town of Keenesburg has a new Mayor and he has expressed an
interest in meeting the members of the Planning Commission. He asked what the process is for having him
come to meet with us. Mr. Mueller added that Chad Auer, who was previously on the Planning Commission
and is now the new Mayor of Firestone has also expressed an interest in coming to a meeting to visit with the
Planning Commission. He mentioned that he could contact both Mayors and set up a time that would work at
an upcoming meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 3:48 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
471;tthil ��IYIV
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
12
Hello