HomeMy WebLinkAbout20020479.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, February 19, 2002
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2002, in the Weld County
Public Health/Planning Building, (Room 210), 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was
called to order by Vice Chair, Bryant Gimlin, at 1:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller Absent
Bryant Gimlin
Cristie Nicklas
Fred Walker
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray
Cathy Clamp Absent
Luis Llerena
Bruce Fitzgerald Absent
Also Present: Drew Scheltinga, Monica Daniels Mika, Don Carroll, Robert Anderson, Kim Ogle
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on February 5,
2002, was approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1344
APPLICANT: Miller Motor Sports, LLC
PLANNER: Monica Daniels-Mika
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Section 11, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for an
expansion to an existing Recreational Facility (Race Track), in the
Agricultural Zone District .
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to 1-25 Frontage Road;north of and adjacent to WCR
34.
Monica Daniels Mika read into the record a letter from the applicants representative, Thomas Maybey,
requesting an indefinite continuance of this case. The applicant is making modifications to the application
and that application will be sent again to the referral agencies affected.
John Folsom asked about the re-petition for annexation with the Town of Mead. Ms. Mika stated no, she
had not had that conversation with them.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Cristie Nicklas moved that case USR-1344 be continued indefinitely. Stephan Mokray seconded. Motion
Carried
CASE NUMBER: USR-1366
APPLICANT: Stacey & Shawn Greathouse
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lob B of RE-2720; Pt S2 SW4 Section 32, T5N, R67W of the 6'
P.M., Weld County, of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for
Any use permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use
by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone District
(Majestic Fence Company), provided that the property is not a Lot
in an approved or recorded subdivision plat or lots parts of a map
or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling
subdivisions, in the A (Agricultural)Zone District.
�eyvi2Anif �c.Y ,_. 6a/a7/QLUUz. 2002-0479
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Weld County Road 50 and west of and
adjacent to Weld County Road 15.5.
Mr. Folsom has excused himself from the case.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1366, 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.
Stacey Greathouse,applicant,provided clarification with regard to the project. The corner building envelope
is where the location of the business is planned. There will be a steel building to house the business and
the applicants will be storing lumber for fencing. The building will be located directly on the corner.
Presently there are two employees with the summer potential being ten (10) employees. There will be
minimal traffic with the crews arriving in the morning, heading to the job sites and leaving in the evening.
There will be little going on site during daytime hours. A house will be built on the two acre envelope to the
north at a future time.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Luis Llerena asked if the entrance to the business was on WCR 15'% and if the concern from the telephone
calls were regarding the acceleration/deceleration travel lane. Mr.Ogle stated that the entrance is on WCR
15% , a two lane gravel road. The issue for the neighbor to the east is two fold: First, the placement of the
structure on the site across from his residence and second,the increased traffic on WCR 15%. The access
to the proposed structure is directly across from the neighbors access drive into the residence and farm yard,
at a location where a recent installed culvert has been placed per the Recorded Exemption plat. (RE 2720)
Stephan Mokray asked about the Town of Johnstown letter that stated this was not an area for commercial
zoning and requested an annexation. Mr. Mokray asked if there was and Intergovernmental Agreement
(IGA)with the Town of Johnstown. Mr. Ogle stated there is presently no IGA in place.
Fred Walker moved that Case USR-1366, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation
of approval. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Stephan
Mokray, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Cristie Nicklas,yes; Fred Walker, yes; Luis Llerena, yes. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: Z-564
APPLICANT: Fran Garcia
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-2509, being a part of the NE4 of Section 6, T4N,
R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to E (Estate) for a Five (5)
Lot PUD.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to WCR 3 and south of and adjacent to State
Hwy 60.
Robert Anderson, Department of Planning Services presented Case Z-564, reading DPS 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.
Cristie Nicklas asked about the surrounding properties and what does it consist of. Mr.Anderson stated it
was predominantly Agriculture with one house north of St Hwy 60 and a small out lot adjacent to the
proposed application in the northeast corner of St Hwy 60 and WCR 3.
Don Leffler, representative for the applicant, provided clarification of the rural nature of the development
application and Change of Zone and cited the difficulty in maintaining farming uses. He raised concerns with
the condition of approval requiring paving the internal road as WCR 3 is not paved. The concerns are with
the paved roads leading onto gravel and the continuous breakout of the pavement. Mr Leffler stated that
there would be a minimal amount of traffic volume from this development.
Cristie Nicklas asked Drew Scheltinga, Department of Public Works, about the not paving of the internal
road way. Mr. Scheltinga stated Public Works has issues with Weld County getting the road back as an
improvement district. Mr.Scheltinga added that there was the additional expense to the tax payer when this
happens. There is also a checklist of items that Public Works goes through before the final determination
for paving is made. Some of those items include complaints about dust, traffic counts, and the nature of
surrounding developments. Mr.Scheltinga would have to look in to those issues. Luis Llerena asked about
the traffic counts moving onto a well traveled road. Mr. Scheltinga stated that the traffic count on WCR 3
was 180 vehicles per day and this development would move it to over 200 vehicles per day. Once the count
gets over 200 maintenance issues and fugitive dust start to become a problem.
Stephen Mokray asked about the letter from the State Engineer with regard to the lack of water. Mr.
Anderson stated they did receive a letter for water main extensions and it has been covered with an
agreement. The Berthoud Fire Protection concerns are addressed in a Condition of Approval.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Theodore Sprague, prior property owner, is in favor of the zoning change. The land was sold for the
purpose of paying off the farming loses. Mr. Sprague does live on an adjacent property (west).
Roger Kinney, neighbor(immediately to the North) is in support of the project. This project will not create
additional impact. His concern is with the dust and the traffic on WCR 3 because of the apparent illegal
watering operation.
Don Leffler stated that the comments from the Department of Public Works will be addressed and they will
continue to work in further discussions. The traffic from the subdivision will not necessarily create the need
for a paved road surface. Mr. Leffler stated they have met with the Berthoud Fire Protection. The applicant
has met with them and it was agreed upon that there will be two fire hydrants added.
Luis Llerena asked about the location of the bus stop for the children of the development. Mr. Leffler stated
that they have worked with the school district and the post office for mail delivery and there will be a central
location for each. The traffic will be taken off the county road and placed in the development.
John Folsom asked if there should be need to change the Condition of Approval number 9 to reflect the
change. Mr. Gimlin and Ms. Nicklas stated that the issue will be taken care of today and no change to the
Conditions of Approval were required.
Cristie Nicklas moved that Case Z-564, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cristie Nicklas,yes; Fred Walker,yes;Luis Llerena,
yes. Motion carried
CASE NUMBER: County Code 2001-XX
APPLICANT: Reynolds &Woods Properties
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E2 of Section 23,T3N, R68W and the N2 and the SW4 of Section
24,T3N, R68W and the NE4 of the SE4 and the E2 of the NE4 of
Section 30, T3N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Petition for Inclusion into the Mixed Use Development Area of
Unincorporated Weld County, changes to Chapter 22
(Comprehensive Plan)and Chapter 26 (Mixed Use Development
Plan).
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Hwy 66, and 1/2 mile east of 1-25.
Robert Anderson, Department of Planning Services presented Case County Code 2001-XX, 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.
John Folsom asked if the IGA with the Town of Mead came into affect. The site is within the Urban Growth
Area for Mead, is the application a proposal for development. This would cause it to be sent to Mead for
the possible annexation. Mr.Anderson stated a referral was sent to the Town of Mead and the response
indicating at this point there were no issues, they would address those issues as development was
proposed. Mr. Folsom stated that is was a responsibility of the applicant to send an petition to the Town of
Mead and have the town act on that petition. Mr. Morrison stated that this application includes no
development it is merely an inclusion into the MUD. The Town of Mead will give the comments at a more
direct time once development begins.
Tom Haren, representative for the applicant, provided clarification with the reasons for inclusion into the
MUD. There are two applications the Reynolds/Woods and the Reynolds application. The applicants are
planning that the ultimate development will be with the Town of Mead. There were petitions submitted to
the Town of Mead. There was more details after the amendment 24 was completed. This application can
be in conjunction with the Town of Mead. There has been some preliminary planning with regard to the
possible development. The preliminary applications for development are written with the school location
or cash in leu offered. This is based on the property located south that is a possible school location. There
is sufficient water on the property. The applicant is aware of the limitations on the sewer infrastructure. This
is an integral part of a larger plan with the Town of Mead. There is conceptual plans for a sewer plant
northeast of the applicants property.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
James Doucheff Jr., neighbor, operates a dairy in the area and has no objections to this project. He
acknowledges that the area will eventually be residential in nature and plans to relocate eventually.
The Co-Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Luis Llerena asked Mr. Anderson about the concerned citizens letter. Mr. Anderson stated that the letter
was a public response to the increase in growth and development in the area. Their concerns apparently
revolve around quality of life issues in the area. The application is non-specific and general in nature
therefore the public generally has concerns regarding the lack of detail. Mr.Llerena asked if there is specific
issues with area. The MUD area was designed for this type of development. It was created as a special
district and the county generally encourages development in specific areas if the appropriate infrastructure
is either in place or planned.
John Folsom stated that his perception of the letter is that there is sufficient lands in the MUD that can be
developed and there is no need to expand the MUD area.
Cristie Nicklas asked for clarification with regard to the inclusion in the MUD and not the annexation to the
Town of Mead. Mr. Haren stated it was a co-permitting process with the Town of Mead and the MUD. This
is a planning proposal not a development proposal. These properties fit more with the infill theory than some
of the other properties that have been included in the MUD area. This is utilizing two perspectives, the
County and the Town of Mead, to accomplish both desires.
Fred Walker stated that the idea of infill is an just an arbitrary line on a map. This does not lend itself to
where the infrastructure is available. This is conceptual in nature and not a specific development. There
are ordinances which allow for properties to be included in the area. The concerns with it being "Smart
Growth"or not will be determined when specific plans for development are submitted.
John Folsom stated that development is appropriate on the site but he cannot concur with trying to
accommodate both parties. Mr. Folsom feels as though if the annexation is intended then that is what
should be done. There is not need to have the property in the MUD area if the annexation is what the
applicant is trying to do.
Bryant Gimlin asked for clarification with regard to any future development. Mr.Anderson stated that if there
was to be any development they would have to come through the process and have it determined that
appropriate infrastructure is in place. Ms. Nicklas added that they would have to abide by the IGA that is
in place with the Town of Mead.
Tom Haren stated that there are two options available. The applicant can petition for the MUD and develop
through the county while the other is to annex to the Town of Mead. The applicants have chosen to cover
both the basis.
John Folsom stated that if the Town of Mead declines the annexation request then the applicant can develop
it through the county processes. Mr. Folsom read from the IGA that the County will not consider the
proposal for development unless the applicant has submitted a petition for annexation with the municipality
involved. If the annexation is denied there is a waiting period of 12 months before an application can be
submitted to the county. Mr. Haren stated that the applicant has the option of the county to look at as well
as going back to the town for another vote. Mr. Morrison stated that the applicant has no option under the
IGA but to go to the Town of Mead first.
Lee Morrison noted that this was two separate applications. Mr. Anderson stated that according to Anne
Best Johnson (former Long Range Planner) who set up the case and the County Attorneys office the
applications would be linked together. Mr. Morrison stated that the actions should be separated but the
cases can be heard together just in case there would be separate results.
Fred Walker moved that Case County Code 2001-XX, Reynolds property, be forwarded to the Board of
County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of approval. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, no; Stephan Mokray, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Cristie Nicklas, no; Fred Walker, yes; Luis Llerena,
yes. Motion carried
Mr. Folsom commented that it is true the code gives the applicants a way to ask for inclusion in the MUD
but it does not guarantee it will be accepted. He does not believe it is in the best interest of the county to
increase the size of the MUD, and there is no purpose since the petition for annexation needs to be made.
Fred Walker moved that Case County Code 2001-XX,Reynolds/Woods property,be forwarded to the Board
of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the
Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, no; Stephan Mokray, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Cristie Nicklas, no; Fred Walker, yes; Luis Llerena,
yes. Motion carried
Meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello