HomeMy WebLinkAbout20081251.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County
Conference Room, 4209 CR 24.5, Longmont, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Doug
Ochsner, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Doug Ochsner-Chair
Tom Holton -Vice Chair
Nick Berryman
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Mark Lawley
Roy Spitzer
Also Present: Jacqueline Hatch, Michelle Martin, Brad Mueller, Department of Planning Services; Dave
Snyder, Don Dunker, Department of Public Works; Lauren Light, Department of Health; Cyndy Giauque,
Bruce Barker(via phone), County Attorney, and Kristine Ranslem, Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the April 1, 2008 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, second by
Tom Holton. Motion carried.
The Chair read the case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1652
APPLICANT: JAR Holdings LLC do Daniel Rodarmel
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NE4 of Section 1,T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Use
by Right, an accessory use, or a Use by Special Review in the
Commercial or Industrial Zone District(Parking and Storage for a
Concrete Company)in the a(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 13 and approximately 1/2 mile south of CR
26.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, stated that Planning Staff is requesting that this case be
continued to May 20, 2008 to allow for appropriate time for mineral notification.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against the continuation of
this case. No one wished to speak.
Roy Spitzer moved that Case USR-1652, be continued to the May 20, 2008 Planning Commission meeting,
seconded by Tom Holton. Motion carried.
The Chair read the case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1648
APPLICANT: Richard&Cynthia Stalcup
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Two parcels being located in part of the SE4 of Section 9,T2N, R67W
of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Use
by Right, an accessory use, or a Use by Special Review in the
Commercial on Industrial Zone District(Tree Trimming Business and
Truck Parking)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 19 and approximately 1/2 mile north of CR
22.
( CM- uui; e$ 2008-1251
The Chair asked Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, if she wishes for this case to remain on
the Consent Agenda. Ms. Hatch replied that they do.
The Chair asked the applicant if they wish for this case to remain on Consent as well. The applicant replied
yes.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Tom Holton moved that Case USR-1648, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, seconded by Mark Lawley. Motion carried unanimously
CASE NUMBER: USR-1650
APPLICANT: Stahla Homes do Robb Casseday with Casseday Creative Designs
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of AmRE-2363 being Part of SE4 of Section 14,T2N, R64W of
the 6th P.M.,Weld County,Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a
Use by Right, an accessory use, or a Use by Special Review in the
Commercial or Industrial Zone District(Propane Storage and Office)in
the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 59 and north of and adjacent to CR 20.
SIZE: 10 acres, more or less.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services,introduced this case. She stated that the area consists of
approximately 10 acres and the sign announcing the Planning Commission hearing was posted on April 4,
2008 by staff.
Ms. Hatch added that in Section 22-2-60.B A.Goal 2. it states"Conversion of agricultural land to urban scale
residential, commercial and industrial uses will be considered when the subject site is located inside an
approved intergovernmental agreement area, urban growth boundary area, Mixed Use Development areas or
urban development nodes,or where adequate services are currently available or reasonably obtainable. This
goal is intended to address conversion of agricultural land to minimize the incompatibilities that occur between
uses in the agricultural zone district and other zoned districts that allow urban uses."
Ms. Hatch said that the property is not located within an approved intergovernmental agreement area, urban
growth boundary area, Mixed Use Development areas or urban development nodes.The property is located
within the three(3) mile referral area for the Town of Keenesburg. The Town of Keenesburg in their referral
dated February 22,2008 states that they have reviewed the request and find that it does not comply with their
comprehensive plan. The property is located within three miles of the Keenesburg town limits and within their
future growth boundary and has been planned for agricultural use rather than commercial.
Ms. Hatch commented that Section 19-5-50.B of the Coordinated Planning Agreement with the Town of
Keenesburg states "Development outside the urban growth area (IGA) to the extent legally possible the
County will disapprove proposals for urban development in areas of the municipal referral area outside the
urban growth area.
The Department of Planning Services has determined that the proposed commercial/industrial use projected
for this site while located outside the Town's IGA boundary is located within the referral area and as outlined in
the referral from the Town of Keenesburg is not compatible with the comprehensive plan for the Town.
The surrounding area consists of single family homes to the south and east. There is an existing farm to the
west and agricultural uses to the north. Five properties are within 500 feet of the site.
The property currently has a small barn/shop on site and has a chain link fence surrounding the site. The
property is not being utilized currently.
The site will utilize an on-site septic system and the water is provided by a well. The applicant,if approved,will
be required to provide evidence of a commercial well.
2
The applicant is proposing to have two employees on site and there will be up to five customers a day.
The hours of operations will be from 5am -7pm Monday through Saturday.
Ms. Hatch stated that three letters from surrounding property owners have been received by the Department
of Planning Services. She added that she also provided the Planning Commission with a response from the
applicant regarding those letters. The letters describe concerns with the proposal specifically the location of
hazardous materials within close proximity to existing homes, fire hazards, odor, increased traffic, noise,
health concerns, and property value.
Twelve referral agencies reviewed this case,one referral agencies had no comments,eight referral agencies
included conditions that have been addressed through the development standards and conditions of approval.
No comments have been received from the Weld County Emergency Management office, the State of
Colorado Division of Wildlife, and the Brighton/Southeast Weld Soil Conservation District
The Department of Planning Services has determined that the proposed commercial/industrial use projected
for this site while located outside the Town's IGA boundary, is located within the referral area and as outlined
in the referral from the Town of Keenesburg is not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan for the Town;
therefore the Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the application.
Commissioner Ochsner asked what the site was used as previously as it looks like it had been utilized. Ms.
Hatch replied that upon site inspection of the property it looked like it had been used. She added that there is
some old lighting out there. She did not find anything in our records that this site had been used for anything
Commercial/Industrial.
Commissioner Grand asked if this property is totally fenced. Ms.Hatch replied that it is completely fenced with
a chain link fence.
Commissioner Grand asked if the farm to the west of the property also has a commercial seeding company
located on it. Ms. Hatch indicated that she had heard that, however they do not have a Use by Special Review
for that business on that property.
Commissioner Lawley wished to clarify and asked if Weld County does have an IGA with the Town of
Keenesburg. Ms. Hatch said that we do have an IGA agreement with the Town of Keenesburg. However this
property is located outside of the IGA area,and in the Keenesburg Intergovernmental Agreement it states that
if a proposal comes in that is not located within their IGA, but located within their referral area, then Weld
County should recommend denial.
Commissioner Holton asked why they don't have an Urban Growth area map and why this is so different from
the rest of the towns. Ms. Hatch stated that there should be a map of the Keenesburg IGA area in the back of
the code book. However when it comes to the referral area, it is just the three mile referral from the property.
Commissioner Holton asked if there are other IGAs that we have three mile referral areas with. Ms. Hatch
indicated that she would have to check, but that a lot of them do have a stipulation that says if it is not in the
IGA but within the referral area, then we should be recommending denial. Ms. Hatch commented that Brad
Mueller in our office has currently been doing a little more research in bringing these to light
Linda Hulse, Casseday Design, 55 S Elm Av, Eaton CO. Ms. Hulse commented that the site was used as a
natural gas pumping station in the late 70's to the late 90's. There was a previous USR on the site which it
has been vacated since then.
Ms. Hulse commented that they feel they have met all the conditions of the Weld County Code for the USR
and their proposal is consistent with the Weld County Zoning Code that provides for oil and gas storage
facilities by USR in the Agricultural Zone District.
Ms. Hulse added that they have met the intent of Chapter 22 Goal 1 preserving prime farm land. She added
that the site is not referred to as prime farm land.
Ms. Hulse further added that they also meet the goals of Section 22-2-60 which states that Agricultural zoning
3
should allow for commercial and industrial uses which are directly related to or dependant on agriculture. She
stated that United Farmers Coop will be primarily serving the agricultural community.
Ms. Hulse also pointed out that in Section 22-2-40 it states"The following should have a role in the County's
farm and food system. Those who offer farm-related products and services. Examples of these local
industries are ...energy and petroleum product companies."
Ms. Hulse stated that we did receive the referral from the Town of Keenesburg on March 12,2008 and she did
also call them that day to discuss it with them, however she did not receive a call back. She indicted that she
called back on March19, 2008 again with no response. She added that they did send out a certified letter to
them on April 7, 2008 at which time she did get a call from Tim Smith who wrote the referral. Ms. Hulse said
that his response was that they just generically look at their land use plan and mark it however it states on
there. She added that they didn't give it much consideration as to what was going in or what was being
proposed.
Ms. Hulse showed the Planning Commission members the Keenesburg Land Use Area Plan. She showed the
members where the site is in location to the proposed commercial corridor. She stated that they are
approximately 660 feet from the commercial boundary that they are proposing in the Town's future land use.
Ms. Hulse showed some excerpts from the Keenesburg Comprehensive Plan to the Planning Commission
that they feel they fall into as far as meeting the intended use of the Comprehensive Plan. She added that
based on these excerpts from the Town of Keenesburg Comprehensive Plan,they feel that they would fit into
their future use down the road that this would be a comparable business to be in that area.
Ms. Hulse stated that they are aware of the concerns from the neighbors and believes that a lot of it is based
on misconception of what the site is going to be used for and also propane in general. She commented that
propane is non-toxic so it is not harmful to soil and water. Since it does not endanger the environment the
storage of propane tanks either above or below ground is not regulated by EPA. Propane is an approved
alternative clean fuel. If propane leaks it vaporizes and dissipates into the air. Propane has a very narrow
range of flammability and won't ignite when combined with air unless the source of ignition reaches 940`
Fahrenheit.
Ms. Hulse reported that there are 103,000 households in Colorado that are heated by propane. Propane is a
staple on 660,000 farms where it is used for crop drying, flame cultivation, fruit riping, space heating,water
heating, refrigeration, and running farm machinery.
Ms. Hulse added that United Farmers Coop employees are all certified in working with propane. The U.S.
Department of Energy released a report containing analytical examination of fatal accidents involving propane
gas transportation and storage and the result of the report revealed that the individual risk is about 1 in 37
million people.
Ms. Hulse noted that there are two Weld County School Districts that have similar propane storage on site.
Ms. Hulse stated that as far as traffic concerns,they have estimated 2-3 transport loads of propane per week
and 2-3 trips from the bobtail loading for county deliveries. She added that they are not going to be generating
a lot of traffic at the site.
Commissioner Berryman asked for clarification on the business operation as it sounds like it will be a storage
facility. Ms. Hulse said that they are going to have two(2)tanks which store up to 30,000 gallons of propane.
They will be servicing local areas where they will take propane out of the storage tanks and deliver to local
areas.
Commissioner Berryman asked if customers will be coming to the site. Ms. Hulse replied that they are
estimating at the most there would be five customers per day.
Commissioner Holton asked Ms. Hatch about the map. He said that it shows an IGA with a boundary around
it and he asked how come this doesn't reflect the three mile area. Ms. Hatch said that the site is not in the
IGA. She added that they send referrals to all municipalities within three miles. Commissioner Holton stated
that if the towns are going to have the same control over that three miles that they would have if it was inside
the IGA,then why isn't it delineated on the map. Ms. Hatch replied that what occurs within the IGA is different
4
than what occurs outside of an IGA. She clarified by saying that basically the Town is encouraging growth
inside of the IGA, rather than outside the IGA.
Commissioner Grand asked the Department of Public Works what the traffic count looks like with regard to
the road that accesses the Coors mine as well as the waste management facility as well as several other
businesses. Dave Snyder, Department of Public Works replied that the closest traffic county that they have
for this site was done in 2007 near the intersection and it was a 125 ADT so it is probably going to be a 10%
increase for the traffic on that dirt road.
Commissioner Ochsner stated that in the application this propane is going to be used for Ag uses and asked
for Ms. Hulse to clarify on that. Ms. Hulse said that they will service Agricultural homes that use propane for
heating and also for farm machinery and irrigation pumps.
Commissioner Ochsner asked with regard to storage if the propane will be trucked in or if it will be delivered
via pipeline. Ms. Hulse replied that it will be trucked in and then trucked out. She added that they do expect
approximately five customers a day to fill their small bottles of propane.
Rod Spencer, United Farmers Coop, 38508 CR 65, Galeton. Mr. Spencer clarified that they anticipate 2-3
semi loads per week to fill the storage and then 2-3 trips a day with a bobtail going out to deliver to farms and
homes. He added that with regard to customers coming in, they just estimated a few customer trips in
because there probably will be on occasion customers stopping when paying a bill, etc. It will strictly be bulk
delivery.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, stated that there is an existing well on site and will be re-permitted for
commercial use. If and when they construct the office they will put in a brand new septic system. Conditions
of Approval 1.L and 1.N through 1.T address requirements from Environmental Health, such as a dust
abatement plan, tank permitting, and a waste handling plan.
Ms. Light indicated that Development Standards 5-23 are Health Department notes which will be on the USR
plat. Specifically Development Standard 11 addresses odor and she did speak with their air specialist in
Environmental Health about what odor issues would be from a propane facility. She indicated that Weld
County follows State Regulation,which is through the State Health Department,so if the odor for some reason
would become a nuisance to the neighbors,then the neighbors would file a complaint and then two people that
are certified from her office would go out and take readings. If they are in violation of Development Standard
11, then they would take action on that. She added that it is covered through the State as well as Weld
County. The State also addresses the permitting of the tanks and there are specific gas regulations that are
required. They also did a search on violations for this site and they do not have any violations as far as any
contamination. She stated that all concerns have been addressed through the Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards.
Commissioner Ochsner commented that there was something stated previously that the tanks are not
regulated by EPA. Ms. Light replied that it is regulated by the Oil and Gas Commission. There is tank
permitting requirements through the Colorado State Labor and Employment and not through EPA.
Dave Snyder, Department of Public Works,commented that County Road 20 is local gravel and they have 60
feet of right-of-way on that. County Road 39 is a major arterial and they are requesting a full build out of 140
feet for that. He added that they are utilizing the existing access and the water capture for the drainage will
have very minimal impact on the property.
Commissioner Grand stated that the property is fenced and asked how long it has been out of Agricultural
use. Ms. Hatch stated that she was not able to find a previous USR on-site; therefore we don't have any
record of knowing when the fence was put in and when the uses had changed on-site. Ms. Hatch stated that
the access to the property is off of County Road 20 and is gated at this time.
Commissioner Ochsner said that in looking at the pictures it looks as though the property is somewhat unkept.
He asked that if this application is approved, will the interior of this USR just be dirt. Ms. Hatch commented
that they are proposing some trees along the southern and eastern boundary. She added that at this time the
site is pretty unkept and there will also be a maintenance plan put into effect.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
5
one wished to speak.
Alfred Wilder, CR 20. Mr. Wilder stated that there were a couple of things previously said that to his
understanding were incorrect. He commented that when Coors sold the property they took all the water rights
off. The first owner that bought the property was suppose to clean up the property(piping, etc),which hasn't
been done. He stated that to his knowledge all the underground piping has not been cleaned up. He is against
this site being a propane facility as propane is heavier than air and will leak out. He added that it will follow the
ground since it is heavier and it will be able to come into an ignition source. He commented that people out
there burn their weeds and if the leak happens while someone is burning their ditches then it will have an
ignition source and will be able to follow it back to the plant. He lives' of a mile from the plant and if the wind
is in the right direction and they have a leak it will make it to his house. He added that his wife has asthma
and the fumes will not do any good for her health problems. He expressed that he is against this case as it will
be a health hazard and they cannot guarantee that there will not be any leaks.
Bob Green stated that he lives north of the proposed site. He is concerned with the extra truck traffic and the
pollution that is already out there. He added that there is a constant mess of trucks running up and down the
road. Mr.Green mentioned that there is a lot of underground pipes from the Coors pumping plant and in order
for them to build on that property, they should have to clean all that up.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Ms. Hulse mentioned that the site is in a mess right now and the applicant is planning to clean up the site prior
to building their facility there.
Ms. Hulse stated that there has not been a well on the site. However,there was a permit for a well issued and
then they got a commercial permit from the State for a commercial well.
Commissioner Ochsner asked if the permit for the water is for the use in the operation. Ms. Hulse replied that
it will be used mainly for the operation and also for the office building. Commissioner Ochsner clarified that
they will not be able to use the water for irrigation on the property. Ms. Hulse stated that was correct.
Ms. Hulse stated that there is a mitigation plan that Noble Energy is working with the State on for some of the
contamination that was previously on this site.
Mr.Spencer stated that when Patina pulled all the stuff out and sold it to Stahla homes they vacated the USR
at that point. He said that there is a little bit of contamination there and that was mitigated initially in the late
90's and was finished up supposedly in 2000. In their diligence they did a Phase 2 and did find one hole in
that process that had a little bit of contamination that was a little bit over the State threshold. Therefore Noble
Energy who bought out Patina will be compelled by the State to do some more mitigation to take care of that.
Commissioner Spitzer asked Mr. Spencer if by contamination he is referring to hydrocarbons. Mr. Spencer
stated that was correct.
Commissioner Ochsner asked Mr.Spencer to address the piping underground. Mr.Spencer said that based
on the report from the State there was some underground piping and the State required the previous owner to
dig down to a depth of 3 feet and cut and cap those pipes.
Commissioner Ochsner asked him to also address the concern of overflow of filling of trucks. Mr. Spencer
commented that that we all know that things can happen but the propane industry would not have the record a
good record it has if it didn't pay attention to safety. He added that there are a lot of safety devices that are put
on the trucks and storage facilities that prevents gas from escaping. He further added that their plans are to
have some monitoring equipment on site so that if someone comes on the property after hours it will trip some
detectors and turn on a camera so they can monitor what happens. He would not be afraid to have a house
right across the street from this facility. He commented that they have seven bulk plants in Nebraska and they
have never had a release of product on any of those sites and have never been written up by the State Fire
Marshall.
Commissioner Holton said that he still needs clarification on the IGA.
Brad Mueller, Department of Planning Services, was asked to clarify about the clauses in the IGA. He
6
commented that staff has been looking recently at the IGAs that we have in place. When thinking about how
many land use cases have come in that have been subject to the policy now under discussion,the number of
cases that have actually fallen into this area that your are dealing with in this particular case is fairly few.The
term "Coordinated Planning Agreement" is just another term for IGA. In the Keenesburg IGA, along with all
the different IGAs that we currently have, the lines that are shown on that map are the lines that show where
the urbanized areas are strongly supported. What has not been typically shown on the IGA map is the area
that goes beyond that,which is three mile referral area. What the IGAs say is that the area between the urban
growth area and the three miles is an area that has this policy of non-urban uses.
Mr. Mueller stated that whether this application is an "urban development: as defined in the IGA is open for
discussion and ultimately it is the board's determination of whether this type of application really qualifies as
that"urban development". Staff has made the recommendation for two reasons—staff believes it is urban
development as defined by the intergovernmental agreement, and the Town of Keenesburg has
recommended against its approval. The IGA does not require the County to defer to the town's referral
comments, but an overall goal is to try to do so. So that reason, along with what the County agreed to in the
IGA, are the two supporting reasons for the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Holton commented that he is concerned that if it is in the three mile referral and the county is
suppose to do what Keenesburg wishes us to do,then why are we even hearing the case. Mr.Mueller replied
that there is nothing in the IGA that says we have to defer to what Keenesburg's referral comments are.
However, there are other policies completely independent of the IGA that say we are going to try and
accommodate municipalities' referrals.
Commission Holton stated that he doesn't remember seeing this before. Mr. Mueller said that is because the
number of cases that have fallen into that category have relatively been minimal over the years.
Commissioner Spitzer asked Mr. Mueller if he could explain again the rationale for denying this case. Mr.
Mueller replied that the first rationale is being inconsistent with the terms of the IGA. The second rationale is
that there are other portions of the code that suggest that we will try to support referral agency comments.
Commissioner Spitzer said that at this point and it seems that we might be working against ourselves,where
this site might be more suitable for something like this, as opposed to other uses.
Commissioner Spitzer asked if anyone from the Town of Keenesburg was here. Ms. Hatch replied that there
was no one here from the Town of Keenesburg. She added that she did speak to someone from the town and
they indicated that they would not be able to attend. She spoke to Mark Grey and he stated that he still
supports the referral that was sent. However, Ms. Hulse indicated that she will be going before the
Keenesburg Board and will get another determination from them if they still support their referral or if they will
change that. She added that it will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for their hearing.
The Chair asked the applicant if they read through the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval
and if they are agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Commissioner Lawley stated that he is a big supporter of IGAs between the communities and the county.
However, this is something that is new as he has not seen it in this format. He thinks in order to make a
rationale decision you need to look at the definition of urban and how it applies to this. He is not quite sure
that this urban definition is applicable in this case.
Commissioner Hall agreed and stated that he wouldn't want this type of facility in an urban setting and feels
that it is much better suited to a facility that has been used previously as a gas processing facility or pumping
station.
Roy Spitzer moved that Case USR-1650, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval based on Section 23-3-40 regarding oil and gas storage facilities and that it also this does not seem
to be contrary to Section 22-2-60.B Conversion of Agricultural land to Commercial. He added that this has
been out of Agricultural land for a significant period of time. 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,
7
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 6`h 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 6t" 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 I-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 1-25 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.
I /
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
12
Hello