HomeMy WebLinkAbout20050443.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Upon consideration and review of the proposed Town of Gilcrest Coordinated Planning Agreement,
and after hearing testimony and reviewing all the evidence presented, motion was made by Commissioner
Chad Auer to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the Agreement.
CASE NUMBER: 2004-XX
APPLICANT: Weld County/Town of Gilcrest
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Various Sections, Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: The Intergovernmental Agreement Boundary for the Town of Gilcrest
Motion seconded by John Folsom
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
John Folsom
Bryant Gimlin
Bruce Fitzgerald
James Rohn
Tonya Stobel
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I,Voneen Macklin, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission,do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution, is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on December 7, 2004.
Dated the 7th of December, 2004.
•
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
2005-0443
- 7-.2Gc;t
Bruce Fitzgerald asked Mr.Morrison if a requirement could be made for record keeping? Mr.Morrison stated
it could be considered reasonable. Mr. Miller asked how that would be enforced? Mr. Fitzgerald indicated
the Health Department would be out there from time to time. There could be a requirement there is a record
keeping component and have the Health Department review once they are there.Mr.Miller if this is done there
needs to be some means of enforcement. Mr.Fitzgerald indicated it could be a Development Standards and
if the Development Standard is not adhered to it would be a violation. Ms. Davis indicated it would work it if
were available to staff when the site is visited. Ms. Lockman indicated Tire Mountain has a similar situation.
Michael Miller asked who was going to inspect and what would be done if the logs are not available. Mr.
Fitzgerald stated they would not be in compliance and would become a violation. Ms. Lockman added it has
occurred before. The applicant is allowed time to come into compliance and if the do not they would go
through a Probable Cause hearing.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to amend Development Standards 33 to require the applicant to maintain a maximum
of 20 trucks per day and have a log to prove this and available to County staff. The language shall consist
of"The trailer washout facility shall not exceed 20 trailers per day. The property owner shall be required to
keep a log to ensure this, which shall be available on request by County Staff." Chad Auer seconded.
Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case AmUSR-1441, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation
of approval. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; James Welch,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Doug Ochsner commented he does support because it is compatible with the surrounding area. There are
feedlots and packing plant near and this supports the agricultural community.
Bruce Barker, Weld County Attorney will be available for the remaining cases.
CASE NUMBER: 2004-XX
APPLICANT: Weld County/Town of Gilcrest
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Various Sections,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: The Intergovernmental Agreement Boundary for the Town of Gilcrest
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented the proposed IGA for Gilcrest, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
approval of the application.
Michael Miller asked about the letter from the Town of Gilcrest indicating they currently cannot provide
infrastructure for the area they have or to the Urban Growth Boundary Area. Can the plan for those services
still include that?. Ms.Lockman indicated a plan has been submitted on how the projected growth will occur.
Mr. Barker stated that timing and projected growth in the are were the issues addressed. The County likes
to have plant capacity for an area to provide services, the lines may not be there. The agreement requires
developers to install those lines. The plant is there to allow development to occur or if it is not what is the
timing of the plant. Mr. Miller indicated the understanding was the ability to expand to 1/2 mile of where
services are available. Mr. Barker stated they could expand beyond the 1/2 mile depending on the individual
ordinances. The legal standards have been met.
Menda Warren, Mayor of Gilcrest, provided clarification to the proposal and the areas in which Gilcrest has
started to make progress. They have gotten grants to redo the Comprehensive Plan and Code review. During
this process the infrastructure needs have been identified and the building plans to address them. There is
current space at the existing facility. It has the ability to expand. The town is presently in process of bringing
the lagoons for treatment to state standards. There is a capitol improvements project in process. They are
10
working on a drainage plan that would benefit the community. The Town of Gilcrest must grow to be able to
afford the uses that will be needed for the community.
Doug Ochsner asked Ms.Warren where the current sewer lines are and if they are within the IGA boundary.
Ms.Warren indicated the lines are along the current city limits and there are some developments that will be
bringing in additional lines. Mr.Ochsner asked if someone came to the Town of Gilcrest and they were within
the boundary would they be required to hook to public services. Ms. Warren indicated the town does want
to work with surrounding property owners. There are developments that would like to be in the new
boundaries. The developers typically like to start closer to the town and work their way out. Drainage is the
big challenge and they are addressing those concerns. Mr. Ochsner asked if the Town of Gilcrest would be
opposed to individual sewer systems in a larger scale development. Ms. Warren stated they would like to
work to the benefit of all involved, if the cost exceeds the benefit then no one wins. Ms.Warren, personally,
does respect personal property rights.
John Folsom asked if there was any response to the public hearing. Ms. Warren indicated there was good
response and also some valid concerns. The town would like to speak with those and ask what is the goal
for their property and try to work with them. This is the first step in a long process of hearings.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Jack McLelland,neighbor,indicated concerns with projected growth,timing and property rights. The concern
is the sewer system, reality is the water comes down CR 42 and intersects at CR 29. The main concern is
two fold. The first being the ability of the land owners to use the land through the Recorded Exemption (RE)
and Subdivision Exemption (SE)process. Within the current agreement there is a definition of development
that excludes RE and SE. The agreement says that development is a process where by the planning
department kicks it over to Gilcrest and they decide whether to annex or not. This cannot be done for RE and
SE. Another term is Non urban development and within this agreement(Gilcrest IGA)it is defined in part as
less than nine lots. What really happens is minor subdivisions get put in on isolated sections,that part, under
the control of non urban development,the planning department, by the way it is written denies the case. The
agreement says"to the extent legally possible as determined by the County, the County will deny proposals
for non urban/urban development." Non urban development are RE and SE. Mr. Barker clarified that this in
fact 180 degrees of what Mr.McLelland stated. Development excludes RE's and SE's. That means they are
not covered by the agreement,the agreement does not apply to RE or SE. As a result those are not covered
by any regulations that are contained therein and they can occur without having being regulated by the
agreement. Mr. McLelland stated "3.3 F flies in the face of that statement. It says the County will deny
proposal of non urban development." Mr.Barker indicated the way it is written,this agreement does not apply
to those so as a result they can continue without ever being effected by the town. The County can grant those
without going through the process, that is in Section three. Mr. McLelland argued that if a planner picks this
agreement up and a minor subdivision has been submitted what would he do. Mr. Barker indicated that a
minor subdivision is a different process than a RE and SE. It will be covered by the agreement because it is
nine lots or fewer. The RE and SE is not covered by the agreement a minor subdivision is. Mr. McLelland
stated "yeah it is covered, it is denied." Mr. Barker added to the extent on a minor subdivision in the urban
area it is a non urban use so that is correct for a minor subdivision,not so for RE or SE. Mr. McLelland stated
that Chapter 24 addresses SE and it includes minor and major. Mr. Barker stated it was separate. Mr.
McLelland offered alternative language. The agreements with Platteville, Evans, Milliken and LaSalle
specifically address the issue. The concern is after time a planner will pick up an RE and see it is two lots and
nothing less than nine can be done because it does not differentiate between a minor subdivision and RE is
simply states less that nine lots. Mr. McLelland referred to the Milliken agreement and it states the definition
for non urban development ignores the subdivision issue. The development is the same definition. Mr.
McLelland stated"when it comes to the section they wont do it says very much the same. They will deny the
non urban development in the urban growth area." This is what is in the agreements that completely surround
Gilcrest. This agreement as written does not benefit the surrounding area nor the town itself. Mr. Miller does
not see a significant difference in what is being said. Mr. McLelland argued that what is excluded is not the
definition of non urban says development of nine or less lots. An RE has two lots. Mr. Barker stated that a
minor subdivision could have three lots, they can go up to nine lots. Mr. McLelland indicated his other issue
is the control of a significant amount of land by an entity over which the land owners have no control or
influence. The entity is not accountable to the land owners. All rules are being changed, the land owners
11
have been notified but they do not feel as though it makes a difference.
Sam Frank, mother owns property, questioned the Gilcrest Comprehensive Plan map. There was some
indication that there would be commercial in the area and he would like to know what those uses are. Mr.
Miller stated those areas are intended to be commercial, it does not mean it is set in stone it is just what
Gilcrest would like to see in that area. There is a ditch on one side and a separator station on the other. Mr.
Frank would like to see the town succeed.
James Tanner, neighbor, asked if annexation would be done and what is the time frame. What type of
services will there be and what will the cost be? Mr. Tanners farm is on the east side of the railroad tracks.
Mr. Miller explained this is just a planning tool and there is no imminent annexation. The property within the
boundary is proposed for development a referral is sent to Gilcrest and they will respond as to whether it
should go through the County or Gilcrest. Mr. Tanner asked if there was any guarantee they will not be
annexed? Mr Miller stated there is no guarantee. Mr.Miller indicated it was nothing more than a tool between
the Gilcrest and the County. There will be no changes in taxes or anything else. Mr.Tanner asked what the
goal is for Gilcrest and agrees that they need assistance. Mr. Miller indicated this was a step in the right
direction.
Deede Patton, neighbor, asked why Gilcrest would no longer be a town after a couple of years? Ms. Patton
has concerns with development coming into town and not paying taxes like a previous developer.
Chair Closed the Public portion.
Menda Warren, Mayor of Gilcrest, addressed some of the issues brought forward in the public portion. Ms.
Warren indicated she wants to work with the community and is available at any time to discuss issues.
Doug Ochsner commented he would like to compliment Gilcrest for wanting to do this. Mr.Ochsner feels the
IGA is far to big and services cannot be provided. In time this will be done but the best way is to have services
available so the developers will come to town. This places a burden on land owner that is within the IGA to
say they would need to wait for services. This seems to be a land grab at this point. Mr.Auer stated it is not
a land grab it is a tool. Communities do not have to build services first to make and IGA appropriate. The
towns need something to begin the process. Mr. Miller added there have been numerous IGA that were far
more reaching than this. This is a reasonable approach for Gilcrest,the services can be reasonably obtained.
Chad Auer moved that Case 2004-XX,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of approval. John Folsom seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; James Welch, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Doug Ochsner commented this is to big of an area and services are unavailable.
PLANNER: Monica Mika
ITEM: Changes to Weld County Code Chapter 22, Chapter 23 and Chapter 24.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, presented the proposed changes to the code by Chapter. The
proposed changes for Chapter 22 are as follows:
Sec. 22-1-150. Comprehensive Plan amendment procedure.
B1. Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals shall be considered biannually with during a public
hearing process in Mai OA i. Scptcoika of cad'y Lai.
B3. A typewritten original and eleven (11) thirty (30) copies of the proposed amendment must be
submitted to the Department of Planning Services no later than February 1 or August 1 of each any
given year to be considered for review provided, however that no amendments to the MUD
Structural Plan pursuant to Section 26.1.30 will be accepted during the calendar year 2005.
12
Hello