HomeMy WebLinkAbout20020431.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, February 5, 2002
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2001, in the Weld County
Public Health/Planning Building, (Room 210), 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was
called to order by Chair, Michael Miller , at 1:30p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller —n
Bryant Gimlin
Cristie Nicklas
Fred Walker
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray —
Cathy Clamp ..
Luis Llerena
Bruce Fitzgerald
Also Present: Don Carroll,Char Davis,Sheri Lockman,Chris Gathman, Lee Morrison, Bruce Barker, Monica
Daniels Mika, Robert Anderson, Donita May.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on January 15, 2002,
was approved as read with some corrections.
CASE: Draft Comprehensive Plan
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
Robert Anderson read a letter at the request from the Comprehensive Plan Committee requesting a
continuance to a date no later than April 2, 2002.
John Folsom asked about the reasons for the request for the continuance. Mr. Anderson stated that during
a meeting with members of the Revision Committee and members of the Board of County Commissioners
(BOCC) the Planning Commission may not have the full document as the committee had intended. Mr.
Anderson stated that minor grammatical changes to the document were made, but nothing intentionally
substantive, prior to distribution to the Planning Commission. Ms.Nicklas asked about the type of committee
changes had been made. Mr. Anderson stated that planning staff was not notified of those changes, there
was very short notice with regard to the continuance. Mr. Folsom asked when the corrections by the
committee could be made and if the revisions would be done and reviewed by planning staff. Mr. Anderson
stated that the committee has committed to a week turn around and planning staff would review those
changes. Mr. Folsom asked about the reason for the two month delay once those corrections had been
made. Mr.Anderson stated that there were several factors involved that delays(prior PC hearing obligations,
PC quorum requirements, printing, review, distribution to the public, etc.) the case to that point.
Arlan Marrs, Representative for the Comprehensive Plan Committee,provided clarification with regard to the
reason for continuance for the Comprehensive Plan. The history behind the reason for the continuance were
two problems. The first being the format that was used. When the idea of the format was first presented and
approved it seemed like a good idea with the original document,the changes strikeout and then include staff
comments in the text boxes. The confusing part was when staff placed their comments directly into the
document. The second problem was the omissions and changes to the document did not represent the
document the Comprehensive Plan Committee submitted for the Planning Commission review. Though
mostly minor, some of the errors change the intent of the Committee. That is the primary reasons for
requesting the continuance for today.
Michael Miller asked about the document that was submitted prior to staff comments and if that was an
accurate document. Mr. Marrs assumption was that is was a complete and accurate document, but after
review last week it was determined that there were inaccuracies in it. Mr. Miller asked why those changes
could not be addressed individually while the Planning Commission goes over the document paragraph by
paragraph or page by page. Mr. Marrs would rather the Planning Commission have a corrected document.
Mr. Miller stated that the Planning Commission has a whole day and each member has numerous hours in
reviewing the submitted document and seeing the only change is the addition of staff comments and minor
changes. Mr. Marrs stated that he would like to see the document be in the best form and the referral
agencies have the same document. Mr. Miller stated that the document will have changes and it would be
C'L nand ()prat_ O.2/agya2c°L 2002-0431
best for the final review to be on the document that contains all the changes.
Fred Walker stated that the committee would like to see the best foot put forward with regard to the document
that will go on in the process. The intent was to have a signed document to the Planning Commission with
the need for the least amount of change. Mr. Miller stated that he would like to see the use of the time in
constructive manner with regard to the changes to the document. The document will not be completed today
therefor, there will be time to make additional corrections and have those reviewed by the Planning
Commission. Mr. Miller stated that he knows there will be no way that the Planning Commission can get
through the whole document, but would like to see constructive use of the time at hand. Mr. Walker stated
that it was recommended by Planning Staff, the Committee and members of the Board of County
Commissioners that this be continued to gain a more complete document without the confusion in the
formatting alone. Mr. Gimlin stated he agrees that the time frame is not efficient and the Committee is the
first line of defense in obtaining the best plan possible. Mr. Folsom asked for clarification with regard to the
motion for approval or amendment. Mr. Folsom asked if it was a line by line approval or approval of the
document as a whole. Mr.Barker,Weld County Attorney,provided clarification with regard to making changes
to the document by statue. The home rule process allows the BOCC to adopt the document by ordinance and
they can accept those changes. There are two ways to amend a document, one is to repeal the existing and
replace it with the proposed (repeal and enact)while the other way is to go over the document completely.
This process will not happen in one day and it will need a variety of different meetings. Mr. Miller asked for
clarification with regard to what the Planning Commission has the ability to do. Mr. Barker stated that it is best
to have the document as complete as possible and in the combined format-current plan , proposed changes
and staff comments. Ms. Nicklas suggested that the comments from staff could include more detail or be
in a separate document, referenced to the original document. Mr. Marrs advised that the committee would
like to have a meeting with the staff to discuss and agree upon the comments given. Mr. Miller stated he
would like to start the hearing process and not further delay the process. Mr Miller further stated that the
hearing process itself could correct any errors or omissions. Mr. Barker stated he would like to see the
committee have the time to "finalize" the draft document prior to beginning the changes from Planning
Commission. Mr. Barker stated if the PC would choose to proceed that a background of how the document
was created would need to be given first, the second thing would be for Mr. Marrs to address the principles
that were used in the process of development by the Comprehensive Plan Committee.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against the continuance.
No one wished to speak.
John Folsom asked if conferences between staff and the committee would not make the process easier,and
believes these conferences would eliminate some of the three way discussions. Mr. Miller suggested staff
present the case, the committee present the outline of what their intent was, and then hear public input and
then call a special meeting of the Planning Commission on February 26, 2002 at 10:00am. This would allow
the Committee time to go over the document for revisions. The February 26th meeting would be the time in
which the bulk of the document would be addressed.
Robert Anderson stated that planning's primary concern was for public notification and review of any
substantially changed proposal. Mr. Miller asked for clarification with regard to the notification. Mr. Barker
stated that we need to notify municipalities or counties before February 26h of the changes. Mr.Barker stated
that there would be not definite date to have the notifications done but suggests that if they can be done by
the 26th then he recommends it. Mr. Marrs stated that the Committee has spent the time going through the
document. The committee is willing to stand by the document as the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Barker stated
that Planning Commission makes the final decision and then it goes to BOCC and then they make a final
decision in ordinance form. Mr.Mokray asked if there will be a committee that will continue to do the revisions
on the document. Mr. Barker stated that it is a requirement to updated the document every five years. The
goal for right now is to hear what the recommended changes are and the Planning Commission decides rather
or not to adopt those changes and how to forward it to the BOCC. Mr. Barker stated that some of the
comments from planning staff will be incorporated into the final version of the document.The BOCC is looking
for a complete version by summer. Mr. Marrs stated that the current plan spells out what is required of
Planning Commission with regard for approval or denial. Mr. Barker stated that state statue says that
Planning Commission shall make a determination on the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Barker added that the
process that is gone through is: the committee's recommendation will be there and the Planning Commission
will have additional comments but the base of the document will remain the same. Mr. Marrs and Mr. Walker
both advised the Planning Commission that irregardless of the Planning Commissions findings and resolution,
the committee intended on presenting their document directly to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr.
Miller forcefully indicated that he did not appreciate the"us"versus "them" attitude of the committee, would
not tolerate it in the hearing and indicated that everyone concerned was or should be here to create a better
Weld County.
Mr. Miller inquired of staff as to further hearing the proposed changes at which time Monica Daniels Mika
provided some clarification with regard to the case load that the Planning Commission has.
Michael Miller stated that tentatively March 5`"will be used for addressing staff comments and a presentation
from the committee and a special meeting on March 12`".
Michael Miller adjourned the meeting. The meeting will reconvene at 1:30p.m.to determine what the final plan
for continuance will be and hear two previously scheduled cases.
The meeting was called to order at 1:30p.m. Roll was taken.
CASE NUMBER: S-621
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
APPLICANT: Scott&Crystal Johnson
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 46,Corrected First Filing, Beebe Draw Farms, being part of Section 8,
T3N, R65W of the 6`" P.M., Weld County, CO.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Essex Drive North. For a more precise location,
see legal.
REQUEST: PUD Final Plan to vacate a utility easement
Sheri Lockman, Planner, Department of Planning Services presented Case S-621, 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 about the Board of Adjustment variance to the setbacks and the issue at hand regarding
the vacation of the easement. Ms. Lockman stated that the Planning Commission is being asked to grant a
vacation of the utility easement. The Board of Adjustment has already granted the variance for the setback
from the lot line.
Crystal Johnson, applicant, provided clarification with regard to the easement and the fact that half of the
house is in that easement. There is open area along two sides of the property which contains equestrian
riding space.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
John Folsom asked if there is any potential that this easement will be needed by a utility and if the land to the
north is a part of Beebe Draw. Ms. Lockman stated that the property north was not a part of Beebe Draw. The
applicant was denied fora final plan. They have since been approved at a substantial change hearing. There
is a chance a new final plan will be submitted at a later date. Ms. Lockman stated that the Utility Board was
assured that the easement will stay on three sides of the lot. Mr. Morrison stated that the property is part of
Beebe Draw just not an approved plat. It is owned by the developer and is zoned correctly.
Cristie Nicklas moved that Case S-621, 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,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cathy Clamp,yes;Cristie Nicklas,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Luis Llerena, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1365
APPLICANT: Alvin Garcia/Annabelle Canzona
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 11, Espanola Subdivision, being in the NW4 of the NE4of Section 36,
T6N, R66 of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a
Restaurant, including a Drive-In Restaurant as a Use by Right in the
Commercial (C-1)Zone District in the A(Agricultural)Zone District .
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to 25°'Avenue and approximately 250 feet south of
WCR 64 CO' Street).
Chris Gathman,Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1365,reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the
application. If the application is approved the Department of Planning Service recommends the Conditions
of Approval and Development Standards attached be accepted also.
Luis Llerena asked if the applicant is planning an addition. Mr. Gathman stated that there will be no
additions to the building. Mr. Llerena asked if the possibility of having the restaurant component as a drive
up and leave facility and not the drive thru idea. Mr.Gathman stated that the existing parking is being used
for the store and will be used for the proposed restaurant facility as well.
Cathy Clamp asked if the kitchen is already installed or is it needing to be installed. Mr.Gathman stated that
there will be a need to install a commercial hood and address some building code issue. Mr. Mokray asked
about a building violation. Mr. Gathman stated that the original facility was at a different location and was
them moved to the existing home. The store was originally in the basement and it was eventually moved
to a vacant garage area. They never obtained final inspections in order to take care of the violation
concerning the move from the basement to the garage. Mr. Mokray asked about the possible need for
special accommodations for frying. Char Davis, Department of Public Health and Environment stated that
the Food Service Inspector does not have issues with the use as proposed,just the parking.
Beneranda Marquez, applicant, provided clarification with regard to the use proposed. There would not be
a need for a large amount of parking due to the fact that the customers will not spend any more than three
to five minutes in the facility. Ms. Marquez added that she will be doing no frying at the facility. The
applicant would explore the possibility of delivery to off site location if the on site pick up was not approved.
Cathy Clamp asked about the business and if the existing parking spaces were filled for any length of time.
Ms. Marquez stated that the area is not busy and most are local that have no need to drive. The majority
of the business walks. Ms. Clamp asked if there is a need and desire from the customers. Ms. Marquez
stated that the clientele is awaiting approval.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Beneranda Marquez has some issues with the size of the hood required for the commercial business. Ms.
Davis, Department of Public Health and Environment, stated that the hood that they have now is satisfactory
for the existing use. Mr. Gathman stated that the issue with the hood was a Building Inspection Department
issue.
Fred Walker asked the applicant about the landscape issues from the City of Greeley. Ms. Marquez stated
she has no problems with that. Ms. Marquez asked about the possibility of the parking being done on a six
month trial basis. Ms. Nicklas asked Mr. Carroll, Department of Public Works, about the traffic issues. Mr.
Carroll stated that the measurements will accommodate the parking but the issue is how many spots required
and how many can have. Ms. Nicklas asked about the designation of parking spaces with regard to how
many. Mr. Gathman stated the sharing of spaces for the store and the restaurant and five would be agreed
upon. This would be sharing them for both uses.
Michael Miller asked about the building code requirements with regard to the commercial hood needed.
Dennis Renley, Weld County Department of Planning Service Plans Examiner, stated that there were two
types of hoods. The type of hood needed will depend on the type of appliance that is installed.
Cathy Clamp asked about the sloping of the property. Mr. Carroll stated that the natural drainage swale is in
the parking area. Mr. Folsom asked about the proposition if the application were to be approved approval and
the signage requirement. Mr. Gathman stated that the signage should be addressed in the motion and it is
recommended that it is 16 square feet to conform to the Agricultural (A) regulations.
Michael Miller stated that he does not anticipate a parking problem. The majority of the clientele is walk in.
John Folsom moved to add language as a Development Standard that states that the signage for the
proposed use be sixteen square foot. Cristie Nicklas seconded. Motion carried.
Fred Walker asked about the possibility of not following through because of financial constraints. Mr.Morrison
stated that if the applicant withdraws the project prior to final decision then there is no time frame. If the
applicant obtains approval and not pursue it the use can be revoked within three years for abandonment.
Bryant Gimlin stated that Development Standard#5 should be addressed. There needs to be a minimum of
five and one handicapped space. Mr. Carroll stated that he was comfortable with five. Mr. Gathman added
that there could be only four total parking spaces with the addition of the handicapped space.
Bryant Gimlin moved to change Development Standard#5 to state that the applicant will provide a minimum
of four spaces with the addition of one handicap space. Mr. Gathman changed the language so the second
sentence of Development Standard reads "A minimum of four parking spaces including, an ADA parking
space shall be provided." Cristie Nicklas seconded. Motion carried
Cristie Nicklas moved that Case USR-1365, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amendments and the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
Fred Walker commented that the board shall hear about building codes and how they should be updated.
This is a good example of how those codes can limit the ability of someone to begin a business. The building
code minimums seem to be getting larger.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cathy Clamp,yes;Cristie Nicklas,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Luis Llerena, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE: Draft Comprehensive Plan
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
Michael Miller stated that the staff will do an introduction of the case and then the committee will do their
presentation. They planning commission will then do a meeting on February 26, 2002 beginning at 10:00
a.m. to get into the base of the document.
Robert Anderson, Department of Planning Services provided a staff presentation and stated
"The Staff Comments presented as an addition to the proposed Comprehensive Plan are intended as a tool
for the use of the Public and more importantly the Weld County Planning Commission in formulating their
resolution and recommendation to the Weld County Board of County Commissioners. The DPS prepared
these recommendations under the assumption that the historical and existing process of review would be
utilized in updating the Comprehensive Plan. The comments of staff were carefully and objectively prepared
using accepted planning practices, doctrine and guidelines. Careful attention was used to remove any
subjective bias of individual planners and the DPS is confident in these comments as they are applied to
the proposed changes. Planning Services comments were prepared after the January 15'h presentation of
the proposed revision to the Joint Work Session of the PC and BCC after it was reviewed by the committee
and under the assumption, in the absence of any objections from the committee, that it was the correct
version that the Committee wished to be presented. Planning Services has prefaced each version of this
proposed draft with an invitation to the committee members to correct any inaccuracies in the document but
received no comments from any committee members regarding any errors, omission or changes. Staff
comments were distributed on January 29, 2002 and an emergency work session was called yesterday
February 4,2002 by Committee members,to request the aforementioned continuance due to changes and
inaccuracies discovered by the Rewrite Committee.
The DPS focused on the major planning changes presented in this plan and significantly streamlined its
comments. Regardless of the level of changes though. . .this comprehensive plan is radically different than
the current comprehensive plan and significantly changes the nature of the document. From a Planning
sense, as it is proposed this plan establishes an entirely new vision for Weld County.
The basic planning doctrine used in evaluating the proposed changes centers primarily around the accepted
planning principles of"Smart Growth". The proposed changes are diametrically opposed to or minimize the
established principles of"Smart Growth."The proposed document encourages and for the most part defines
the accepted idea or definition of"SPRAWL"and in many ways is counter to the direction of proposed State
Legislation drafts regarding growth.
In this proposal the DPS believes the idea of Agricultural stewardship, promoted or championed in the
current comprehensive plan, and a balanced planning process have been replaced with a"market"driven
and private property rights orientated document.
From a professional planning perspective the DPS believes these changes will ultimately result in significant
impact to the public health, safety and welfare in Weld County. The DPS has concerns regarding the fact
that the"Market"plans primarily for profit and not the public good, has a poor planning performance record
and little or no self regulation.
The proposed changes, by eliminating or significantly replacing (rather than updating)the existing rules,
guidelines,requirements,safeguards,and system of checks and balances.. .dismantles,or at the very least
confuses and cripples,the planning process.The proposed changes by their contradictory nature may add
time and expense to the land use application process rather than its stated goal of reducing time and
expense. As proposed, many of the proposed changes conflict with related chapters in the Weld County
Code. Many of these conflicts have no viable solution.
Planning/Planners recognize that growth is inevitable but have been historically and traditionally been
assigned the task of providing solutions and suggestions to policy makers in regards to balancing growth
and its negative impacts. Planning/Planners are not policy makers but rather end users of policies adopted
by policy makers and designed to ensure the public health, welfare and safety.
The brief format of the DPS recommendations was planned and intended to evoke, questions, comments
and clarification from the Commission in the Hearing portion of the review process. In addition, The
Department did not want to add significantly to an already lengthy and complicated document."
Mr Anderson finished his presentation with "The DPS's presentation has prepared a brief explanation of
critical definitions and concepts such as"Highest and Best Use","Smart Growth"and"Sprawl"and inquired
of the chair if the Commission wished to hear this presentation. Mr. Miller advised "wait until the
the February 261h hearing."
Arlan Marrs, Chair of the Comprehensive Plan Committee, began his presentation with the history of the
project. The project was initiated last year by the BOCC. The BOCC asked for applications from the
community and selected 13 members. The meetings began in May of last year. They started with
informational meetings on issues that were important to the plan. After the meetings and some public input
meetings the committee began with determining rules. One of the rules being a 2/3 majority vote with 2/3
members present. There needed to be basic ideas that would have consistency throughout the document.
There were a set of guiding principles that were determined. The principles were: 1. Private Property
Rights. Those rights need to be balanced with Private Property Responsibilities. 2. Respect for our
Agricultural Heritage, 3. Fairness in the land use change process. (Time process, open process, open
communication through Development Review processes, consistent requirements, easy access, appeal
process, takes the emotion out of the decision on the land use process) 4. Recognition of Weld County
diversity. 5. The highest and best use for the property. It is not a whatever the land owner wants to do but
what is best for the areas. 6. Economic prosperity. The land use should compliment the diversity of the
county. With those principles in mind the comprehensive plan was begun. The preface was supporting AG,
but the goals and policies were designed to allow urban type development and growth/development outside
municipal boundaries at the intensities it can be supported. The mainstay of Welds' economy is still AG.
The committee wanted development to be done with quality in mind and emphasizes the need for the utility
of urban type development. The conversion of AG to development would have to have the infrastructure
available to them. There was a great deal of time put into the comp plan and it is designed to allow for
growth but with the quality that is desired in the county.
Luis Llerena asked about the volunteer committee and specifically what the diverse backgrounds of the
committee consisted of. Mr Marrs indicated - Engineer, banker, engineer-developer, developer, retired
developer,real estate professional,dairy farmer,water district manager,minister,farmer-cattle,farmer-crop,
retired farmer, retired developer. Mr. Marrs stated that the diversity was more from a land base and the
types of land uses possible.
Luis Llerena asked about the Planning Departments role as professionals and their input to the proposed
plan. Mr. Anderson stated that "The role of planning staff was to provide the other side of the coin or a
counterpoint based on experience,education and expertise. Planners primarily serve as technical advisors
to policy makers. The Directors charge to planners in evaluating this document emphasized identifying
problems in implementing proposed changes rather than retaining the current plan or protecting individual
philosophies."
Cathy Clamp asked Mr. Barker at what point would the prime AG land not be allowed for development and
what constituted a "taking". Mr. Barker stated that the circumstance will go by a case by case basis. The
circumstances shown would have to be considered not as single points but in total. A"taking" is not as
much a legal discussion as a philosophical one. There are several factors involved in "taking"
The Comprehensive Plan will be continued to February 26, 2002 at 10:00a.m.then to March 5'if the need
is present. The April 2 date is available if needed.
Meeting adjourned at 3:30p.m.
Respectfully submitted
�i�su.�Y 111 IC -5( 1-
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello