The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20073239.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Upon consideration and review of the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement Boundary for the Town of Hudson and after hearing testimony and reviewing all the evidence presented, motion was made by Commissioner Bruce Fitzgerald to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the Agreement. CASE NUMBER: 2007-XX APPLICANT: Weld County/Town of Hudson PLANNER: Brad Mueller LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Various Sections, Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: The Intergovernmental Agreement Boundary for the Town of Hudson Motion seconded by Tom Holton. VOTE: For Passage Against Passage Absent Chad Auer- Chair Doug Ochsner-Vice Chair Paul Branham Erich Ehrlich Bruce Fitzgerald Tom Holton Mark Lawley Roy Spitzer James Welch The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings. CERTIFICATION OF COPY I, Donita May, 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 February 20, 2007. Dated the 20th of February, 2007. Donita Secretary 2007-3239 2. CASE NUMBER: USR-1591 APPLICANT: Gib Smith PLANNER: Michelle Martin LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part E2 of the NE4 of Section 7, T2N, R66W' of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Use Permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial zone districts (out door storage for trucks, trailers, recreational vehicles, boats and equipment) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 22.5 and east of and adjacent to CR 25.5. Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services, said they were requesting this item remain on the Consent Agenda. As there was no one in the audience wishing to speak regarding Case USR-1591, the Chair asked if there was a motion on the floor. Doug Ochsner moved that Case USR-1588 and Case USR-1591 on the Consent Agenda,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul Branham,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;Tom Holton,yes;Mark Lawley,yes; Roy Spitzer,yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously. HEARING ITEMS - 3. CASE NUMBER: 2007-XX APPLICANT: Weld County/Town of Hudson PLANNER: Brad Mueller/Bruce Fitzgerald Barker LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Various Sections (Town of Hudson), Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: Amendment to Hudson/Weld Coordinated Planning Agreement (Intergovernmental Agreement). LOCATION: Various Sections, Weld County, Colorado. Brad Mueller, Department of Planning Services, briefly described the request by the Town of Hudson and said Hudson had recently received a couple of annexation requests, one for a prison located to the northwest and another for a business to be located to the southwest along 1-76. The change requested by Hudson to the IGA(Inter Governmental Agreement)between Hudson and Weld County modifies the boundaries shown in the current Code. Presently Weld County and Hudson enjoy an IGA that defines a couple of areas; one of which presently defined a UGB (Urban Growth Boundary) and said lands inside those areas were generally encouraged for urban development and the County would discourage non- urban levels of development and refer those to Hudson for annexation consideration. Beyond that line was another area that encouraged non urban development. The change could be characterized as a technical amendment. Those areas included a half section almost due north of Hudson in Section 26 and a small section southwest within the Town limits in Section 21 just to the west of 1-76. Department of Planning Service's staff was recommending approval. Bruce Barker, County Attorney, added that whenever they have had requests for an amendment, they usually amend the agreement already in place, then both entities would sign off, and finally the Code would be modified. Both processes were occurring with this application at once; the approval by the Board of County Commissioners, and the changes being made to the Code. The changes to the Code would be only to the map and the appendix would show a new map that would include the new areas recently annexed. 2 Tom Holton asked if the basic agreement remained the same. Mr. Barker replied that it would. Mr. Mueller said they anticipated other IGA amendments over time, and those more substantive in nature would be presented in more detail, but he and Mr. Barker both agreed that this request was more administrative in terms of its scope and scale. Mr. Barker agreed and added the Planning Commission's role was to deny or recommend approval. Doug Ochsner asked if this extended the current agreement. Mr. Mueller replied that the agreement automatically renewed every year unless either party took action against it. Mr. Barker added that a yearly automatic renewal to keep it perpetual was decided to be the best solution, unless either side wanted to get out of the agreement. Mr. Mueller said the County has IGA's with about half of the larger municipalities and those IGA's were all very similar and it was likely that future IGA's would probably be more town specific, more site specific, rather than such broad documents. Mr. Holton asked about the bulk standard requirements/differences and how much attention they had to pay to them, and why private property owners did not seem to be involved or have any input in the decisions. Mr. Mueller said they did not need to consider the bulk standards in this instance. He added that the County takes two different approaches with municipalities: with about half of the municipalities they would negotiate IGA's on a case by case basis; with the other half of the municipalities they have no agreement and in those particular cases they had County designated UGB's that were defined per the Code and all the UGB line did was say if landowner wanted to zone to a higher use, our Comprehensive Plan would support that ability. Mr. Mueller said if an application was processed in a city, it must follow their guidelines and if processed in the County, it must then follow County guidelines. Mr. Holton said it was his understanding that the city gets first shot and if things did not work out then it came to the County. Mr. Mueller responded that was true with IGA's but for UGB's they encouraged going to the towns for annexation and cited Section 22-2-110 of the Code. Mr. Mueller added this was a balancing act between IGA's, UGB's and private property rights and the off site impacts that happen with land use. The goal of the Comprehensive Plan was to foster some level of regional coordination and putting that into practice could be difficult. Municipalities and jurisdictions must sit down and try to find a balance between the cities ability and the County's ability and recognize the differences and similarities. Mr. Holton said towns like Hudson were willing to negotiate but many do not and the loser was the private property owners and he did not want that to go unnoticed by the Board of County Commissioners or the municipalities. Mr. Mueller responded the Board of County Commissioners was aware of that and they hoped to develop a framework for additional IGA's to be created. Mr. Holton asked about modifying agreements, how that process worked, and said the time involved (seven months) seemed excessive. Mr. Barker responded that seven months was due to the annexation election requirement and the petition process took that long, and regarding the Town of Hudson -they had notified every property/landowner of meetings and the process at least two, maybe three times. Mr. Holton said that if the Town of Hudson were to change the process, the property owners might not get notified. Mr. Mueller cited Section 22-2-110 A.3. of the Code regarding notification to landowners. Bruce Fitzgerald spoke about annexation time frames, but the bulk of his comments were inaudible The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing. Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case 2007-XX,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. Tom Holton seconded the motion. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Tom Holton, yes ; Mark Lawley, yes ; Roy Spitzer, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously. 4. CASE NUMBER: 3`d AmUSR-1002 APPLICANT: Cannon Land Company/Encana Oil & Gas Inc PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of AmRE-1474, part of the S2 SW4 of Section 11, T2N, 3 INVENTORY OF ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Request: Town of Hudson IGA Amendment Case Number: 2007-XX Submitted or Prepared: Prior to At Hearing Hearing 1 Staff Memo X 2 Draft"Amendment to Coordinated Planning Agreement,Town of Hudson --Weld X County, Coloardo" 3 Proposed Amended Map X 4 Planning Commission Resolution & Recommendation X 5 Planning Commission Minutes of February 20, 2007 X 6 Correspondence X 7 Town of Hudson Request, dated September 7, 2006 X I hereby certify that the seven items identified herein were submitted to the Department of Planning Services at or prior to the scheduled Planning Commissioners hearing. n �/ Brad Mueller,Planning Services 7-2 sots cocoa . TOWN OF HUDSON 557 ASH STREET, P.O. BOX 351, HUDSON, CO 80642-0351 Phone: (303) 536-9311 FAX: (303) 536-4753 www.hudsoncolorado.org PEST,9SSS Weld County Planning Department February 5, 2007s GREELEY OFFICE Q , � �, Mr. Bruce Barker, County Attorney r EB 2 1 2007 , _ a Weld Count PG Box 758y RECEIVED FEB 0 s MR Greeley, CO 80632 i rLD coufj -.- Re: Weld County—Hudson Coordinated Planning Agreement Dear Bruce, Thank you for your letter of January 31s`and the amendment to our coordinated planning agreement. I have enclosed two original agreements, signed by Mayor Pontius on the authority of the Hudson Board of Trustees' Resolution 06-10. The amendment adds two properties and portions of County roads to and adjoining the properties. The first is shown on your map as "AREA PROPOSED AS ADDITION TO HUDSON IGA BOUNDARY." It is a half section of land and related County roads for which we are considering a petition for annexation. This proposal, known as the"Sand Hills Annexation," is scheduled for public hearing on March 7"'. The impact statement for this will be forthcoming. The second parcel is the Hamilton Annexation, a 27 acre parcel located at the SE corner of Weld County roads 8 and 41. Please note that this parcel needs to be added to the draft map that you attached to the agreement. This annexation was approved by the Board of Trustees on November 1, 2006. It is as shown on the map that I sent to Monica Daniels-Mika on September 7"'. A copy of that map is attached for your reference. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I will look forward to receipt of a signed original upon approval by the County. Si cere , Jo ep A. Racine Town Administrator enclosure ec: Corey Hoffmann, Town Attorney Judy Larson, Town Clerk - a(it WELD COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 915 TENTH STREET Weld County Planning Department P.O. BOX 758 GREELEY OFFICE GREELEY, CO 80632 111 FEB 0 i 2007 WEBSITE: www.co.weld.co.us (970) 336-7235 pC RECEIV PHONE: AX: (970) -0242 COLORADO January 31, 2007 Joseph A. Racine, Town Administrator Town of Hudson 557 Ash P.O. Box 351 Hudson, CO 80642 Re: Amendment to Coordinated Planning Agreement Dear Mr. Racine: Enclosed are two originals of the Amendment to Coordinated Planning Agreement between the Town of Hudson and Weld County. I understand from your letter of September 7, 2006, that the Town of Hudson Board of Trustees approved the Amendment through Resolution No. 06-10. At this point,we just need to get back the two originals with the appropriate signatures. I will then set the Amendment for review by the Weld County Planning Commission, hopefully at its February 20, 2007, meeting. The Amendment will then be brought before the Board of County Commissioners for a three reading process to amend the Weld County Code. I understand that the annexations that spawned the Amendment either have been or are in the process of being completed. Please let me know their status so that I may then inform the Board of County Commissioners. Also, please note that the attached map is listed as being"draft." Please review the map and let me know if it needs to be altered. Also enclosed is the current map for comparison. I will look forward to receiving back the two signed originals. Please call me at (970) 356-4000, ext. 4390, if you have any questions..orif you wish to discuss further. Sincdrely Bruce T Barker /7 Weld County Attorney Enc. pc: Monica Mika so"! COLogio, r 'lk $Mr 6'Inning Department TOWN OF HUDSON "" GREELEY OFFICE 557 ASH STREET SEP 1 7. 2OCE P.0 BOX 351 ai Ct HUDSON,CO 80642-0351 RECEIVED PHONE: 303. 536.9311 FAX: 303. 536.4753 September 7, 2006 Monica Daniels-Mika, Director Weld County Planning and Zoning Department 918 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Amendment to Coordinated Planning Agreement Dear Monica, This is to advise you that at last evening's meeting the Hudson Board of Trustees passed Resolution No. 06-10, approving the attached amendment to the Urban Growth Area in our Coordinated Planning Agreement. The resolution further directed me to work with the County toward approval of the amendment by the County. The change adds two properties to the UGA, along with segments of two County roads needed for access to one of the sites. Owners of both properties are in agreement with the amendment, with one actively in the annexation process (the Hamiltons) and the other working on a petition for annexation (the proposed prison property). Please advise me of how to best proceed to help expedite consideration of this amendment by the County. Thanks again for your assistance. Sincerely, —) /GC.v�/. Joseph A. Racine Interim Town Administrator attachment Z z \8 8 z X06 it:is s `�� ,a: \ aS] ,la. L_ G U w a z z Q O ➢ - Z 0 T, .1. T IE I 0 1 UI Cot uu �1s Q . O Z J V, 0-4 ZL C z a l I— -LU1 I nvcv...vnan i W n rC _ I V n o C i Z O ,,�, x 8 �l gC k' 2 s H I� el r u 0 RI b3 o 3 " 43. lb J, Hello