HomeMy WebLinkAbout20062227.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,August 1, 2006
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2006, in the Weld County
Department of Planning Services, Hearing Room,91810"'Street,Greeley,Colorado. The meeting was called
to order by Chair, Bruce Fitzgerald, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer Absent
James Welch Absent
Bruce Fitzgerald
Chad Auer-Chair
Doug Ochsner—Vice Chair
Tom Holton
Paul Branham
Also Present: Brad Mueller, Jacqueline Hatch, Chris Gathman, Department of Planning; Don Carroll, Jess
Hein, Peter Schei, Department of Public Works; Cyndy Giauque, County Attorney; Pam Smith, Char Davis,
Environmental Health Department; Donita May, Recording Secretary.
The Chair said the first order of business would be the election of new officers. Bruce Fitzgerald nominated
Chad Auer for Chair. Chad Auer accepted the nomination by acclamation. The Chair opened up the floor for
nominations for Vice Chair. Erich Ehrlich nominated Doug Ochsner. Doug Ochsner nominated Tom Holton.
Tom Holton declined. Doug Ochsner accepted. Bruce Fitzgerald yielded the chair to Chad Auer.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on July 18,2006,was
approved as read.
The Chair said Case AmMJF-119 was to be withdrawn,so the first hearing item would be USR-1558 and the
applicant was going to ask for a continuance.
CASE NUMBER: AmMJF-119
APPLICANT: Charles & Phyllis Nelson
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 9-11, Block 1, Hill-N-Park Filing 1; also a part SW4 of Section 26,
T5N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Amended Major Subdivision Final Plat amending lotlines for Lots 9-11,
Block 1, of Hill-N-Park Filing 1, located within the R-5 Zone District.
LOCATION: West of Yellowstone Drive, within the Hill-N-Park subdivision, south of
Greeley.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1558
APPLICANT: Lester& Rachel Oliver
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-3012; Pt SE4 of Section 4, T4N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a use
by right in the I (Industrial)Zone District(cast-in-place concrete
construction business) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 31 and 1/4 mile north of CR 72.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, said it had just come to the attention of the Planning
Department that the applicants were in the process of closing on another site for their business and if that
was successful, they would be withdrawing their application. Staff asked the case be continued to the
September 5, 2006 hearing in case the applicants wished to proceed with this case.
1
n-
ColseiltAleocte 2006-2227
Obl/gluts
Tiffane Johnson, applicant's representative, Landmark Planners&Engineers,said the Oliver's were unable to
attend as they were closing on property that would eliminate the need for the home occupation application and
requested the continuance to the September 5, 2006 hearing.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case USR-1558,be continued to the September 5,2006 Planning Commission
hearing. Tom Holton seconded the motion. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1103
APPLICANT: Liberty Properties LLC c/o Kenneth & Connie Williamson
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NW4 of Section 21, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Liberty PUD, Change of Zone from the A(Agricultural)Zone District to
PUD for one hundred and thirty one(131) lots with (R-1) Low Density
Residential uses, one (1)twenty three(23)acre lot with (C-1)
Neighborhood Commercial and (C-2)General Commercial uses, and
approximately thirty(30)acres common open space.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 32; east of and adjacent to CR 5.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-1103, Liberty PUD.
The sign announcing the Planning Commission hearing was posted June 28, 2006 by Planning Staff for the
July 18,2006 Planning Commission hearing. At the July 18,2006 Planning Commission hearing staff asked
this case be continued to today to allow for appropriate notification.
The application was an urban scale development of one hundred and thirty one (131) lots with (R-1) Low
Density Residential uses, one(1)twenty three(23)acre lot with (C-1)Neighborhood Commercial and (C-2)
General Commercial uses, and approximately thirty(30)acres of common open space in the Agricultural Zone
District.
Section 22-2-100.6-Efficient and orderly land development and the conservation of agricultural land suggest
that urban-type development take place in or adjacent to existing municipalities or where adequate
infrastructure is currently available or reasonably obtainable. Urban development adjacent to municipalities is
appropriate if urban services can be extended to serve the area. The site was also not located with an Urban
Growth Boundary (UGB) area, an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) area and/or the Mixed Use
Development(MUD)area but was located in close proximity to the existing municipal boundaries for the Town
of Mead. The site was proposed to be serviced by Little Thompson Water District and St. Vrain Sanitation
District.
The applicant had chosen to adhere to the bulk requirements of the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zone
District for the residential area except for the following;
1. the minimum setback is proposed to be 30' instead of the 20' per Weld County
2. the minimum side yard off set is proposed for a minimum 10' and the rear setback is proposed to be a
minimum of 30'instead of the 5 feet or 1 foot for each 3 feet of building height whichever is greater per Weld
County Code,
3. the maximum building height is proposed to be 35' instead of the 30' per Weld County Code.
The applicant had chosen to adhere to the bulk requirements of the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial)and C-2
(General Commercial)Zone District for the commercial area.
The minimum residential lot size was 14,394 square feet (.33 acre), the average residential lot size was
25,339 square feet(.58 acre). The residential component would have a low density of 1.08 dwelling units per
acre.
2
The commercial lot was 23 acres. At the time of development of the 23 acre parcel a Site Plan Review would
be required. If the applicant desired to divide the 23 acre parcel into smaller lots an amendment to the PUD
Final Plat would be required including public notification.
The proposed site was located within the three mile referral areas for the Towns of Mead and Firestone,the
City of Longmont, and Boulder and Larimer Counties.
The City of Longmont in their referral dated June 14,2006 stated this project was proposing an urban level of
development that would require a variety of urban services. The property was not located with the current
MUD boundary; it was located with the study area for the Southwest Weld 1-25 Corridor Study. The City had
been actively participating in this study,which was looking at the current MUD and the expanded study area.
Until this study was completed and adopted,the City reiterates its suggestion that it was premature to approve
any change of zone for an urban level development for property not currently with the MUD area. The City
also had questions depicting alignment for the future parallel 1-25 arterial as part of the application. The City
was concerned that the approval of development plans in this area might limit alignment options in this
corridor. The City looked forward to further exploration and analysis of alternatives for this critical
transportation improvement. The City of Longmont also had commented on the pedestrian linkage across the
proposed 1-25 arterial road.
The Towns of Mead and Firestone along with Boulder and Larimer Counties did not respond to the referral
request.
Two letters from surrounding property owners had been received. The first letters concerns were in regard to
the density of the project, their view and the traffic in the area. The surrounding property owner also stated
that"the people of Mead have made it known that they would like the chance to plan the growth of their city
according to the comprehensive plan that has been laid out".
The second letter was from the homeowners in Eden's Reserve subdivision just to the east of the site. Their
concerns were with outlot F being slated for commercial zoning. They stated that commercial zoning was not
compatible with the residential and agricultural setting in the immediate area and that soon there would be
large areas of commercial land on the Hwy 66 corridor. They were asking the lot not be zoned commercial but
R-2 instead.
The applicant was proposing to dedicate 8.40 acres for the future 1-25 Parallel Arterial roadway. The 140 foot
wide roadway dedication was located approximately 500 feet west of the east property boundary. The arterial
roadway would parallel the east property line at grade to County Road 32. The 8.40 acres would be a single
segment of dedicated right of way that had no connection to any other portion of arterial right of way.
The Department of Public Works was also requesting the applicant enter into a Metro District for the
maintenance of the internal roadways. The applicant was not proposing a Metro District and was requesting
the County take over the maintenance of the internal roadways. As a condition of approval 2.5 on page 7
requested the applicant submit a draft agreement/service plan for the Metro District to the Department of
Planning Services. The Metro District was also a requirement under 5.0 on page 10 for a finalized Metro
District to be submitted with the final plat submission.
The surrounding property consisted of single family homes to the east (Eden's Reserve 9 lot subdivision).
Agricultural uses were in practice to the north, south and west of the site.
Twenty one referral agencies reviewed this case, four referral agencies had no comments and thirteen
responded favorably or included conditions that had been addressed through Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval. No comments had been received from the Towns of Mead and Firestone or Boulder
and Larimer Counties.
The Department of Planning Services was recommending approval of the application along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
The Chair asked Ms. Hatch to review the changes requested by the Department of Planning Services: .
3
Page 3 number change
6. Section 22-3-50.6.1, (P.Goal 2) "Require adequate facilities and services to assure the
health, safety and general welfare of the present and future residents of the County." The
proposed PUD will be serviced by Little Thompson Water District and St. Vrain Sanitation
District. The applicant has submitted an agreement with the Little Thompson Water District
for 130 taps. The applicant will need to amend the agreement to 433 134 taps prior to
scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing.
Page 4 additional language
B. Section 27-6-120.6.b-The uses which would be allowed in the proposed PUD will conform
with the Performance Standards of the PUD Zone District contained in Article II, Chapter 27
of the Weld County Code.
Section 27-2-20, Access standards—The applicant is proposing to dedicate 8.40 acres for
the future I-25 Parallel Arterial roadway. The 140 foot wide roadway dedication is located
approximately 500 feet west of the east property boundary. The arterial roadway will parallel
the east property line at grade to County Road 32. The 8.40 acres will be a single segment of
dedicated right of way that has no connection to any other portion of arterial right of way. In a
letter dated June 9,2006 the Weld County Department of Public Works has recommended
approval of the zone change based upon the applicant addressing the Department of Public
Works concerns outlined in their referrals dated June 9, 2006.
Section 27-2-40, Bulk requirements — The applicant has chosen to adhere to the bulk
requirements of the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zone District for the residential area
except for the following;
1. the minimum setback is proposed to be 30' instead of the 20' per Weld County
2. the minimum side yard off set is proposed for a minimum 10' and the rear setback is
proposed to be a minimum of 30' instead of the 5 feet or 1 foot for each 3 feet of building
height whichever is greater per Weld County Code,
3. the maximum building height is proposed to be 35' instead of the 30' per Weld County
Code.
The applicant has chosen to adhere to the bulk requirements of the C-1 (Neighborhood
Commercial)and C-2 (General Commercial)Zone District for the commercial area.
The applicant has met the remaining performance standards as delineated in Section 27- 2-
10. The Conditions of Approval and Development Standards ensure compliance with
Sections 27-2-20 through 27-2-220 of the Weld County Code.
Page 4 number change
D. Section 27-6-120.6.d-That the PUD Zone District shall be serviced by an adequate water
supply and sewage disposal system in compliance with the Performance Standards in Article
II the Weld County Code.The proposed PUD will be serviced by Little Thompson Water and
Saint Vrain Sanitation Districts. The Weld County Attorney's Office has indicated that the
agreement for 130 taps submitted by the applicant are adequate for the Change of Zone.
The Department of Planning Services is requesting prior to scheduling the Board of County
Commissioners hearing that written evidence be submitted demonstrating that 433 134 taps
are available. The Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment has indicated
in a referral response dated June 15,2006 that the application has satisfied Chapter 27 of the
Weld County Code in regard to water and sewer service.
Page 5 number change
A. The applicant shall provide written evidence to the Department of Planning Services that a
total of 433 134 taps are available from the Little Thompson Water District(131 residential
taps, 1 commercial tap, 1 tap for the recreation area and 1 additional tap for irrigation)and
evidence of any non-potable water source and delivery for irrigation for proposed open space.
4
(Department of Planning Services)
Page 6 move to prior to final on page 11 a new letter E and F and re-letter accordingly
The applicant shall be required to submit a re-vegetation plan of all disturbed areas disturbed
areas during construction. The plan shall include information regarding plant type,installation
methods and maintenance. (Department of Planning Services)
M. The applicant shall provide additional information pertaining to the entry sign and plant
materials, including common, botanical and species names, size at installation and any
additional information deemed necessary by the Landscape Architect,if any. (Department of
Planning Services)
Page 8 Spelling change
6. The placement of the School bus pullouts/shelters and postal kiosks shall be shown on the
change-of-zone plans as to assess access safety and traffic concerns. Final configuration
and details of these items shall be determined by the school district and postmaster.
(Department of Public Works)
Page 8 add a new b and re-letter accordingly
B. The applicant has chosen to adhere to the bulk requirements of the R-1 (Low Density
Residential)Zone District for the residential area except for the following;
1. the minimum setback is proposed to be 30' instead of the 20' per Weld County Code,
2. the minimum side yard off set is proposed for a minimum 10' and the rear setback is
proposed to be a minimum of 30'instead of the 5 feet or 1 foot for each 3 feet of building
height whichever is greater per Weld County Code,
3. the maximum building height is proposed to be 35' instead of the 30' per Weld County
Code.
The applicant has chosen to adhere to the bulk requirements of the C-1 (Neighborhood
Commercial) and C-2 (General Commercial) Zone District for the commercial area.
(Department of Planning Services)
Page 9 Delete and re-letter accordingly
P. Activities such as permanent landscaping, structures, dirt mounds or other items are
expressly prohibited in the septic absorption field site. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
Paul Branham asked about Conditions of Approval, item I., page nine and item S, page seven, and what
the reason was for requiring a Metro District. Peter Schei, Department of Public Works, said they typically
asked for a Metro District as the County was not able to maintain the infrastructure related to curb, gutter,
sidewalk, storm sewer; they simply did not have the equipment; and it was standard protocol to request a
Metro District be formed for maintenance of any subdivision over nine lots.
Doug Ochsner asked Mr. Schei what the basic differences were between a Metro District and a Home
Owner's Association (HOA). Mr. Schei replied that a Metro District was a bonding agency that valued the
subdivision, and based on that value, put together a financial outlook of the proposed infrastructure and
set a mill levy for future homeowner taxation for improvements, maintenance, and operations. The HOA
did not have a taxing ability/authority.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked how maintenance was typically performed by an HOA as he did not see
homeowners driving tractors down the roads. Mr. Schei said that was why Public Works suggested the
formation of a Metro District to raise funds to employ a contractor to perform those necessary services.
Paul Branham asked if he was correct in assuming that the City of Longmont was concerned about the
location of an arterial the applicant wanted and their willingness to donate 8.4 acres to Longmont for that
arterial, and was that a viable location. Mr. Schei said the County, not Longmont, had determined it was a
5
viable location.
Tom Holton asked if the arterial was CR 7 or would it be a brand new right of way. Mr. Schei said it was
the CR 7 alignment placed by the County, through the East/West 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study. There were
some questions about the alignment, as the 1-25 Parallel bisected the property, but the alignment chosen
was a strategic roadway, and the applicant's had worked closely with Public Works.
Erich Ehrlich inquired whether Mead would be paving Adams Avenue. Ms. Hatch responded CR 32
becomes Adams Avenue and she assumed Mead was planning to pave some of that area.
Ken Merritt, Landmark Planners, Engineers and Architects, applicant's representative, discussed the
criteria surrounding rezoning as it applied to the Weld County Comprehensive Plan and said the project
was within close proximity to existing PUD's and subdivisions and was not eligible for annexation into the
Town of Mead due to incontiguity. Mr. Merritt said the site was within the Town of Mead's area of
influence and was designated by the Town on their land use master plan as a parcel of ground that should
be developed as low density residential. It was within the Weld County MUD expansion area, but not
within the current MUD area, and there was no recognized IGA which influenced the development of the
site. One of the key criteria for urban scale development was that it be located in or adjacent to existing
municipalities where there was sufficient infrastructure, and they had met that criteria. He continued they
would be doing a 140 foot right of way dedication and there was no uncertainty as to where the roadway
would be located and that even though it awkwardly bisected the property for the twenty seven acres east
of the roadway, they were agreeable to moving its location if the Planning Commission desired, and would
be dedicating an additional ten feet of land for right of way on CR 32. Mr. Merritt said when specifically
looking at the COZ plan: parcel A consisted of one hundred thirty acres and was proposed as R-1
residential; parcel B consisted of almost twenty eight acres and was proposed as C-2 commercial, and
until the 1-25 Parallel Arterial was open development would not occur. Currently the applicants did not
envision the twenty seven acres on parcel B being developed. In the future, the four or five acres on the
corner of CR 32 and the 1-25 Parallel would be developed as commercial with the remainder of the parcel
being medium density residential. Additional points made by the applicant included: the rural character
on either side of the roadway would undergo key changes; net development from one hundred fifty acres
would be one hundred twenty one acres; total open space outlots consisted of twenty seven acres;
recreation areas comprised four acres; there would be one hundred thirty one single family residential lots,
with an average lot size of 25,500 square feet, which was well within the one dwelling unit per acre, and
well within Mead's Comprehensive Master Plan; access would occur off CR 32; CR 5 (a collector road)
would be accessible for emergency vehicle fire access on the 1-25 parallel and they would dedicate ten
extra feet of right of way; residential access to the site would not be allowed from CR 5; the property would
be buffered from forty to one hundred feet on three sides; bulk requirements would be met and exceed R-
1 setbacks; they had maximized the number of lots on cul-de-sacs (eighty percent of the homes would be
on cul-de-sacs or front them); proposed to place pedestrian walkways in a pedestrian easement and not
increase right of way width which would require consideration of a sixty foot right of way; curved roads and
tree lined streets; common open space areas owned and maintained by HOA; would submit a service plan
and then create and form a Metro District in order to cover maintenance and operations consistent with
existing residential development; C-2 zoning might look incompatible but the 1-25 Parallel would eventually
commercialize the area; lots would be oriented in east/west direction to maximize views across
greenbelts; fencing would be only perimeter fencing; no internal designation of property from adjoining
neighbors such as fences or tree lines; of one hundred thirty one lots, one hundred twenty back up to open
space; street lighting would be downcast; site would be significantly landscaped and they would use
irrigation ditch water for landscape maintenance; proposed a pond on the site; requested one irrigation tap
to maintain key entry features and recreation sites; entire parcel would be platted but phasing would be in
two parts,with recreation center in phase three and complete upon receipt of the ninety third building
permit; five acre full service recreation center to house athletic facility; pools for both adults and children,
including a pool house; tot lot; tennis courts; and a sales facility. Water would be provided by Little
Thompson and St. Vrain would provide sewer services. Mr. Merritt suggested rewriting condition seven,
page eight, which stated, "County Road 32 from the intersection of County Road 5 east to the existing
pavement shall be paved by the applicant,"to read instead, "CR 32 from the intersection of CR 5 to the
eastern property line shall be paved."
Doug Ochsner questioned the phasing in of the recreation center, open space landscaping, and the HOA
6
maintenance. Mr. Merritt said they planned to have the recreation center completed sometime during
phase two and the ninety third building permit was just a number they selected randomly; the developer
would be responsible for landscaping of the open space, the buffer yards, the recreation center, and the
tree line. The HOA would own and maintain the landscaping of those areas. Individual homeowners
would be responsible for landscape and maintenance of their lots.
Erich Ehrlich asked for clarification regarding St Vrain and Little Thompson and what had the developer
promised to both of those districts. Mr. Merritt said the developer would participate with those in the
Ridgeway development to share construction costs. With regard to sanitary sewer he deferred to Reed
Bond, Landmark Engineering, Loveland, CO, responded Little Thompson Water District had done a
hydraulic analysis and determined they would need a twelve inch line extending from the Single Tree
subdivision to the applicant's subdivision and it would be the developer's responsibility to design and install
that line with the plans approved by Little Thompson. The current six inch line on CR 32 would be
abandoned and replaced by a twelve inch line. St. Vrain maintained control of the sewer mains and would
do the engineering, installation, and construction of the trunk line, all of which they required be paid for by
the developer.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Mark Everill, 2672 Grace Way, Eden's Reserve, Mead, CO, said this was a nice project but was concerned
about the proposed commercial area and what could eventually face his property; asked that parcel B be left
unplatted; and could the County to allow residents the opportunity to participate in the future development of
the commercial property. The Chair asked for direction from Ms. Hatch about public participation.
Ms. Hatch said there was not public input in the Site Plan Review process in the C-2 zoning, but if they
decided to change/amend the PUD application,then there would be a public hearing. Tom Holton asked why
outlot F could not be pulled out and would that limit their ability to develop the land in the future. Ms. Hatch
said that was an option and she had spoken to the applicants about doing a recorded exemption on that parcel
and making it a separate parcel entirely, but they would not be adjacent to city boundaries at that time so
urban scale was a factor. Ms. Hatch said the recorded exemption would keep that lot as an agricultural lot and
then a future USR or PUD could be done in the future. Bruce Fitzgerald asked if outlot F could become a PUD
in the future because of its size. Ms. Hatch said it was a possibility but the road layout caused additional
difficulty in trying to place something on that parcel,which was long and skinny and approximately twenty five
hundred square feet.
Michael Friesen, Manager for the Town of Mead, PO Box 626, Mead, CO, 80542, said Mead had not
responded as the Town objected to the application, but his Board had directed him to attend today and give
comments. Mr. Friesen addressed the assumptions behind the regional arterial and several other
assumptions in the area: the Regional Reliever Arterial Study had changed since its adoption by the County in
2003;the assumption behind this study was that 1-25 would never be able to be widened enough to handle the
capacity for growth that would be occurring in northern Colorado and there would be a need for reliever
arterials on both the east and west sides;the consultants for the study assumed that if there were no arterial
within one mile of the interstate, its utility would begin to decline severely the farther west or east of the one
mile mark; because of the increased development along the 1-25 corridor from Thornton to Fort Collins that
mile marker did not always work without serious effects to other communities so it wiggled back and forth on
both sides up and down the corridor; it was assumed municipalities would enter into IGA's with the County to
effectuate the preferred corridors(it's only a corridor not an alignment study)and that development would pay
for the construction of the arterial and segments as approved and provide the right of way; the assumption
was not that the County would use its bonding or taxing powers and build the arterial for everyone else,which
had resulted in very little of the arterial had been implemented by any community in the study area; a portion
had been implemented by the Town of Mead, based on the assumptions implemented in 2003; Mead was
presently completing a transportation plan which would be transmitted to the County Commissioners in mid-
August with a recommendation of endorsement as the Three Mile Plan under County and State statutes and
that would then open up new discussion about the western arterial;the western arterial assumptions of 2003
frankly did not work any more;this parcel was deeply affected by it and the decisions made today would effect
other issues in the area; State Parks had approached Firestone to annex the state park and cancel a farm
easement running through the middle of the park,where the County had planned to place the western arterial
on the CR 7 alignment, using that farm easement as a basis for a right of way,"and Firestone intended to kill
7
that off';County Commissioners would have a problem now because the Western Arterial Study assumptions
did not work with that anymore;the arterial would have to come over to CR 5 as the Great Western RR track
crossing must be dealt with.
Mr. Friesen offered a copy of the Town of Mead's transportation plan,for the record,which would outline how
Mead's consultants felt the realignment should occur. He said the Town of Mead did not have a position
regarding Firestone and the State Parks, they were just dealing with where they would pick it up at their
borders but suggested it start somewhere south of State Hwy 66, cross the railroad track, use CR 5 as an
alignment,rejoin at CR 7,then thread through CR 5 and CR 7 north of CR 34 and east of Highland Lake. Mr.
Friesen said he assumed the applicants chose the narrow four hundred foot deep spaghetti strip of land
because of its proximity to the railroad track on the east and the proposed regional arterial. He continued that:
land use in the area was large estate lots and upscale subdivisions; the proposed commercial strip was too
shallow and would never sell; four hundred forty five feet was not deep enough for C-2 uses; had no good
access points;contained a swamp in the south part of the parcel;and simply does not work. Mr. Friesen said
that as he understood the County zoning process, this entire parcel must be zoned now but would require
future rezoning. He said this would not be the case if the project were brought to the Town of Mead because
they had the authority to create PUD zoning,which could be handled all at once and would not have to deal
with agricultural, minimum acreage, etc. to make the land parcel work. Furthermore: the C-2 zoning was
obsolete and a district which allowed for anything from lumberyards to communication towers,to nightclubs
and taverns, and adult book stores and arcades was not what the area should have;the Town objected very
strongly to the proposed C-2 zoning as it was totally incompatible with the area; the MUD rationale and
testimony that this property was in the Southwest Weld County 1-25 Corridor Study area was not valid as the
study was cancelled two weeks ago by the Board of County Commissioners and there was no longer a study
area;the MUD was not there,this was a hop-scotching exercise and had no rationale to the MUD;proximity to
existing subdivisions was not the issue as this was an unincorporated subdivision being placed next to an area
that should be in a municipality and could be easily integrated into the Town of Mead;the railroad was a future
detriment to the property for many reasons; Adams Avenue in Mead was CR 32 and there were developer
agreements to pave the portion in Mead. Mr. Friesen directed his next comment to the applicant's
representative that it was indeed legally possible for this property to be annexed into Mead as the parcel was
contiguous and they could annex flagpoles into Mead and suggested if their lawyer had told them it was not
legally contiguous, they needed a new lawyer, he was sorry to tell them. The Chair reminded Mr. Friesen he
was to address the Planning Commission, not the applicants and their representative. Mr. Friesen then
apologized to everyone and said he was sorry. He concluded this was a difficult area as it needed to transition
down to the State Hwy 66 corridor which was likely to have commercial development. There was enough
development potential in the area that it needed a major collector street to service the development regardless
of regional growth.
Tom Holton asked Mr. Friesen why Mead did not have an IGA with the County and Mr. Friesen replied the
County Commissioners refused to renew it in 2004 even though Mead had approached the County many
times and had still been refused. Mr. Holton asked Mr. Friesen if he had shared any of the information with
the Planning Staff or the applicants about the proposed corridor changes. He replied he had worked with
Public Works, specifically Frank Hempen, and Mead would be asking the County to re-examine the arterial
study.
Bruce Fitzgerald said Weld County had adopted the arterial and they would be ruling today based on where
they thought the arterial might go and could not wait for Mead to propose an accurate arterial location. Mr.
Fitzgerald asked Mr. Friesen how many annexation elections they had had recently, and specifically the one
on CR 66, and how Mead had voted. Mr. Friesen responded they had six annexation elections in January,
2006 and none had passed.
Doug Ochsner asked if Mead's main concern was the arterial and the parallel highway location on the map
and the twenty three acre outlot becoming abandoned land. Mr.Friesen said there were two major concerns:
the regional arterial corridor alignment; and the C-2 zoning and the Town of Mead's Board not wanting the
County approving unincorporated projects next to Mead.
Erich Ehrlich asked if Mead residents were given the opportunity to vote on proposed developments and the
Town Board/officials had no say. Mr. Friesen responded that since 1995 there had been a citizen's initiative,
but Town officials still had the authority to process development applications but could not pass an annexation
8
ordinance unless the annexation election passed the electorate. He said they had had twenty four annexation
elections since 1995 and twenty had passed.
Mr.Ochsner said since Mead did not want Weld County approving anything out of the unincorporated area,a
wall had been created for County officials,and the Town of Mead needed to make changes,as this made the
Planning Commission's task much more difficult. Mr. Friesen replied that he was only staff,was charged with
following the Town system, and could not challenge their sovereignty, and he must abide by the citizen's
wishes. Mr. Friesen said he understood the County and Planning Staff positions that what they had on the
books in the County was what they had on the books, but the world had changed and it was a problem and
would affect their decision.
Tom Holton asked if the new arterial along CR 5 would be along the west edge of the property. Mr. Friesen
said"it should be, not going to be, but should be",along the west edge of the property. Mr. Holton asked Mr.
Friesen if"it should be",(meaning the arterial)and they had to make a decision today about the arterial,did he
expect the developer to be in limbo for the next six months to two years. Mr. Friesen said he did not ask the
Planning Commission to put the developer in limbo. The applicants had asked for conversation on the same
topic. He had merely given the Commissioners information that was three years old and the world changed as
had some of the assumptions in the study. He realized they were not responsible for the study but the
Planning Commission was an arm of the County and he was there given testimony as best and expertly as he
could as to what the ramifications would be. It did not work anymore and Mr. Friesen suggested the
Commission ask the applicants to reconfigure the project to make it better.
Mr.Merritt,applicant's representative,responded: regarding C-2 zoning, it was a conundrum to them as well
but was the best zoning,given the system they had to work with;C-2 was viable for that ground and submitted
it was completely developable;if the arterial was moved it would greatly influence and change the character of
the region and was a reality of the placement of the road; had everything to do with future land development
adjacent to roadway; found it curious that a plan developed in 2003 was no longer workable by the Town of
Mead;would modify road location;were willing to place an easement in the 140 foot area,rather than a right of
way, or a reservation for a future right of way,which would not cause them to lose ownership of the property
which they could not legally gain back;were willing to consider alternatives to C-2 district;the applicant did not
intend to develop fully commercial, though it could be, they intended to subdivide a portion in the future;
unlikely it would ever be designed entirely commercial with no further subdividing of the property and as a
result of that subdividing would trigger a public review; submitted that if the property in question were to
develop in the Town of Mead, it would be exactly as it was shown today because that was what the Town of
Mead's Comprehensive Plan designated the land be zoned; the land in question was identified low density
residential in Mead's land use plan and that was what they were doing;proposed one unit per acre;regarding
legal annexation,they did not have one sixth contiguity,in that one sixth of the property was not contiguous to
the corporate limits of the city; technically they could annex, but legally they could not; lot size within older
parts of Mead were larger, two acre lots;the proposal was consistent with Town of Mead development;they
were not hop-scotching but would develop adjacent to other recently approved urban properties;and seemed
consistent to him.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if the arterial were moved in three to five years,what use did they anticipate the C-2
property would be, as the only access would be CR 32. Mr. Merritt replied they could expand the site and
develop it as residential.
Tom Holton asked about the arterial and who was in charge of putting it together, as there were lots of little
unusable pieces of property,and was it set in stone. Peter Schei,Public Works,replied that had all occurred
prior to his employment with Weld County, but there was nothing set as to County involvement.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked Mr. Schei if the study was conducted with the input from property owners and
municipalities and said the County did not just go out there and draw lines,they held open houses. Mr.Schei
responded they were given the opportunity to review and provide input.
Ms. Hatch clarified the twenty three acres could be zoned agricultural. If zoned agricultural they would be able
to build a single family home as there was a water tap for it,but anything more involved would require another
County application.
9
Mr. Merritt said they were being asked to escrow a large sum of money to build the road and inquired about
the possibility of escrowing only the amount adjacent to the half they would be developing.
Tom Holton said he felt the best use of the twenty three acres would be agriculture and why did the applicant
have to dedicate and put money in escrow when this was just part of a study. Ms. Hatch said the applicant
had met with Public Works as to where they wanted the one hundred forty foot area and that was the
agreement they had reached.
Erich Ehrlich said the future possibility of leaving the twenty three acres agricultural would create an easement
instead of a right of way, and then the applicant can make changes in the future depending upon how the
arterial actually develops. Mr.Schei interjected the County had no plans to build or construct the arterial, but
development adjacent to or bisecting it would be asked to contribute to the construction and building of the
arterial,but anyone developing adjacent to the arterial or bisecting the property would be asked to dedicate the
right of way and to build and contribute to construction of the arterial, which was consistent with urban
development in the County. The County would not be taking it on as a project. The applicant would be asked
to dedicate right of way and collateralize improvements.
Mr. Merritt said if they could be assured that agricultural zoning was a viable alternative to C-2, they would
approve of that,but did not want to leave the right of way issue up in the air,as it either needed to go 445 feet
east of the property line or tell him they don't need it. He did not want to end up with a piece of property with a
right of way running through it that he was obligated to dedicate, but would have no ability to develop either
side of.
Tom Holton said he was more comfortable with agricultural zoning and could see a problem with the arterial
for four or five other properties down the line as well.
Mr. Merritt said if it did go agricultural then they would be back for re-zoning involving commercial and
residential zoning on the parcel.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved number six, page three, be amended to read "134 water taps". Doug Ochsner
seconded. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner moved item B., page four, Section 27-2-40 be amended to include Staff changes. Bruce
Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved item D., page four be amended to read"134 water taps". Doug Ochsner seconded.
Motion carried.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved item A., page five be amended to read "134 water taps" and add "1 tap for the
recreation area". Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner moved page 7, item I. and M. be moved to page eleven and become Item E. and F. Bruce
Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to correct the misspelling in item 6., page 8 of assess to "access". Erich Ehrlich
seconded. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner moved to add a new item B., page 8, per Staff recommendation, and re-letter accordingly.
Tom Holton seconded. Motion carried.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to delete item P., page nine and re-letter accordingly. Doug Ochsner seconded.
Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner moved to make the change in language the applicant suggested to item seven,page eight,the
last sentence,to read,"CR 32 from the intersection of CR 5 east to the property line". Tom Holton seconded.
Motion carried.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to delete the second page ten and re-number accordingly. Doug Ochsner seconded.
10
Motion carried.
Peter Schei mentioned the duplication in page numbering,and said the applicant requested a change to item
L., page 12, in the last sentence to replace"eastern portion"with"western portion". Bruce Fitzgerald asked
Mr. Schei how escrow would be obtained for the east side if they did not have to go through a USR or a plat
review. Mr. Schei replied there would be no way to obtain escrow. That was why Public Works had asked for
the full amount to be collaterized. Mr. Fitzgerald said they would not be looking out for the best interests of the
County if they allowed that request.
Tom Holton asked:was this an agreement;did they put something in an escrow account;was it collateralized;
and why a Road Impact Agreement with Planning rather than money escrowed for something that was still
under study. Mr. Schei said they would be asked to reserve and dedicate that right of way and build that
roadway and could set money aside instead doing up front construction activities. Mr. Holton asked about
previous impact fees and the applicant's fee responsibility. Ms. Hatch replied that all improvements
agreements have collateral held until project completion.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked Mr. Schei what would trigger the road construction. Mr. Schei had no answer as this
was a unique situation Public Works had not dealt with before.
Doug Ochsner asked Mr. Merritt about his reasoning for his request. Mr.Merritt replied they don't need the
road until the C-2 zone develops, so why escrow all of the money up front and his request would be better
positioned if zoning was changed from C-2 to agricultural.
Doug Ochsner said if it was zoned agricultural and became residential, it would be cost prohibitive to put in the
road with only twenty three acres of housing and maybe it should remain zoned commercial as that might be
the only way to pay for the road.
Tom Holton agreed with the applicant that if the strip were zoned agricultural then the western portion should
provide enough collateral.
Bruce Fitzgerald said it was a County designated arterial and they should look out for County obligations and
escrow it all.
Tom Holton said it should go agricultural rather than C-2, the arterial seemed to be up in the air, and this
would satisfy the objectors.
Paul Branham thought the applicant's presented a well thought out, compatible project;the C-2 designation
was the best choice available at the present time;the arterial would most likely stay where it was;the C-2 and
residential zoning would be worked out in the future as there would most likely be more hearings and public
input; and they should follow Board of County Commissioners recommendation in 2003 where the arterial
should be located and he supported the project.
Erich Ehrlich asked Cyndy Giauque, County Attorney, if the twenty three acres was left agricultural and they
escrowed the western portion, could the language in today's application carry over to a future application.
Then at the time of development of the twenty three acres,zoned agricultural,it could be rezoned to whatever
the use would be then. Ms. Giauque replied that was speculative. Mr. Ehrlich then asked if the escrowed
money would need to be returned based on the first arterial placement in 2003 if the arterial did not follow the
original plan. Ms. Giauque replied the County could refund the escrow.
Ms. Hatch said there could be a partial release of collateral if the road were not going to be there;if the twenty
three acres were zoned commercial, they would have to replat the final. If zoned agricultural, it would still be
part of the subdivision and if they decided to build five or four hundred homes,they would have to go through
the PUD process, the Change of Zone and the Final. If they built one single family residence and let it sit for
ten years for instance, they could do that also.
Erich Ehrlich then asked if it was rezoned today as C-2 and the arterials were moved to a different location,
how hard would it be for the developer to develop commercial not conducive to the surrounding residential.
Ms. Hatch replied they could come back for a Change of Zone and Final.
11
Paul Branham said they needed to make their decision based upon where the arterial was to be, not where it
might end up, that C-2 was appropriate, and should not be speculating on changes.
Doug Ochsner motioned to amend the language in item L., page twelve,to include the western portion of the
1-25 arterial roadway. Tom Holton seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Erich
Ehrlich, no; Chad Auer, no; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, no; Paul Branham, no.
Motion failed.
Erich Ehrich commented that if we were leaving it C-2, then why would we take money out of the County's
hands. Make the developer pay the whole way of the development.
Doug Ochsner commented it was not right to make the developer pay the entire portion of the 1-25 arterial
roadway.
Paul Branham commented that he voted no for the same reasons given by the other Commission members.
Tom Holton motioned to change outlot F to agricultural from C-2 throughout the application. There was no
second. Motion failed.
The Chair asked the applicants if they had read and agreed with the Development Standards and Conditions
of Approval. They said were in agreement.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case PZ-1103, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the
amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Erich
Ehrlich,yes;Chad Auer,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes;Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;Paul Branham,yes.
Motion carried unanimously.
Erich Ehrlich commented he would like the Board of County Commissioners to read the minutes carefully to
see that C-2 could be changed in the future if the arterial were moved at some point in time by another third
party study. He was concerned they were limiting a developer by leaving it commercial;it could be surrounded
by residential uses; and what they decided today could be changed four years from now.
Doug Ochsner complimented the Town of Mead for their presence today, for voicing their opinions and
their input, and their overall contribution. He also complimented the developer and said he thought this
was a well thought out plan that fit the area and would compliment Weld County.
The Chair asked the record show that Erich Ehrlich had to leave the hearing at 4:45 p.m.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1560
APPLICANT: James B. Milne
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt of the E2 of Section 7, T6N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for
a Major Facility of a Public Utility or Public Agencies (Verizon Wireless-
100 foot monopole cellular tower) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 39; '/ mile south of CR 72.
Brad Mueller, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1560, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
12
Bruce Fitzgerald asked Mr. Mueller what co-location meant and how would it affect this application. Mr.
Mueller said that meant it allowed for competitors to use the same towers and was common in the industry
and there were lease agreements that allowed for that.
Valerie Cardenas, representing Verizon Wireless, said the existing site at Hwy 34 and 35 Avenue was at its
maximum capacity the majority of the time. In an effort to relieve this congestion, they needed the second
site,which would also serve their growth in Eaton and the surrounding area. Ms.Cardenas said they typically
requested their facilities locate on existing structures,and they try to accommodate the community wishes,but
because they want to cover the Eaton area this site was necessary.
Tom Holton asked how far east the coverage would go. Ms. Cardenas replied there were two sites,one for
Eaton and one for Greeley.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Ben Jansen, 34774 CR 39, his father owns property east of the site and objected: as it was west of their
property and the tower obscured their mountain views; requested the site be moved down the road to the
Milne property; and said it was only fair those collecting the money have the tower on their property.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
The Chair asked the applicant if she had read and agreed with the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval. Ms. Cardenas replied that she had and was in agreement.
Doug Ochsner asked Ms.Cardenas if they had considered the Milne site as a possible location as Mr.Jansen
requested and if moving the equipment was feasible.
Mr. Jansen pointed out his property and the location for the tower he preferred. Mr. Mueller said the tower
was proposed for the area Mr. Jansen requested.
Tom Holton said coverage on his farm was horrible and the proposed tower would help coverage in the area.
Bruce Fitzgerald said cell phones were a fact of life and coverage in Eaton and south Eaton had a lot of value.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case USR-1560,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Tom Holton seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Chad Auer,
yes; Tom Holton, yes, Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Paul Branham, yes.
Motion carried unanimously.
Tom Holton asked Ms.Giauque, County Attorney about changing the bylaws regarding term limitations.She
replied she would need more time to research the request.
Meeting adjourned at 5:15
Respectfully submitted,
JV�C
Donita May
Secretary
13
Hello