HomeMy WebLinkAbout20060043.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, December 20,2005
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County Conference Room,
4209 CR 24.5, Longmont, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Bruce Fitzgerald, at 1:40 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller Absent
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tom Holton
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
James Welch Absent
Roy Spitzer
Erich Ehrlich Absent
Paul Branham
Also Present: Monica Mika, Brad Mueller, Kim Ogle, Jacqueline Hatch, Michelle Martin, Frank Hempen, Drew
Scheltinga, Peter Schei, Don Carroll, Char Davis, Bruce Barker and Lee Morrison.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on December 6, 2005,was
approved as read.
OLD BUSINESS
1. Follow up discussion on the noise proposal from December 6,2005.
Bruce Barker, County Attorney, recapped the November 15,2005 meeting,where it was suggested that
Commissioner Miller's noise proposal be added to Chapter 22 of the County Code. Mr. Barker reviewed
Commissioner Miller's proposed change to sound limitations in the Agricultural Zone District that read, "All stationary
or semi-stationary equipment used in the Agricultural Zone District shall comply with the noise levels applicable to
the Commercial Zone District." Mr. Barker recapped Mr. Branham's concerns from the November 15, 2005 hearing
regarding the applicability of Section 18-9-106,which is a criminal statute dealing with disorderly conduct. Mr.
Barker reviewed information regarding this noise ordinance and the civil statutes,specifically noise regulations and
nuisance. Mr. Barker said he had checked with the Sheriffs office to see if they would follow up on noise
complaints, and as this is an agricultural operation,they said they would look at complaints on a case by case basis.
Mr. Barker said there are two things to consider; unreasonable noise and the words intentionally, knowingly,and
recklessly. Mr. Barker said we can modify the noise statutes to a certain extent. Mr. Barker reminded the Planning
Commission that the last time they met he said he would be talking to the Board of County Commissioners about the
idea of having a noise ordinance which would be county wide, specifically dealing with subdivisions, minor
subdivisions, and anywhere there would be a residence. The key issue is whether this would also apply to Recorded
Exemptions. Mr. Barker said he had examined Larimer County's noise ordinance and found that they have one due
to their large number of rural subdivisions but that their ordinance is not as strong as what was presently being
proposed in Weld County. Mr. Barker said he would talk to the Sheriff's office to see if they were amenable to
imposing the ordinance,which would be a class two petty offense with a graduated fine schedule. Mr. Barker
recommended that perhaps the Planning Commission might want to set this aside due to Mr. Miller's absence. The
Chair asked Mr. Barker if the Sheriffs department would answer noise complaints. Mr. Barker replied that they
would and that they had imposed fines of this nature in the past at Aristocrat Ranchettes. Mr. Oschner asked if the
County Commissioners were interested in this noise proposal. Mr. Barker replied that they were but wanted input
from the Sheriff's department prior to any final decision. Mr. Branham complimented Mr. Barker on his hard work
and said it seemed that Planning staff would handle the majority of the noise problems but that the Sheriff would step
in as necessary.
The Chair said to let the record show that Commissioner Holton had arrived at 2:00 p.m.
HEARING ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED
2. CASE NUMBER: PZ-1078
APPLICANT: Mr. Holton Morton/CARMA Colorado
1
L6W22 C z"( y g();_)& 2006-0043
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parts of Sections 25, 35 and 36,T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: PUD Change of Zone from(A)Agriculture to PUD with (E)
Estate; (R-1)Low Density Residential; (R-2) Duplex Residential;
(R-3) Medium Density Residential; (R-4)High Density
Residential; (C-1)Neighborhood Commercial and(C-2)General
Commercial and continuing Oil&Gas Production Uses in the
Mixed Use Development Overlay District(St.Vrain Lakes
PUD).
LOCATION: Multiple parcels generally located east of and adjacent to the 1-25
Frontage Road; south of and adjacent to State Highway 66;west
of and adjacent to CR 13; and north of and adjacent to St.Vrain
River.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, said the applicant is requesting a continuance to the January 17, 2006
hearing. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this continuance. No
one wished to speak. The public portion was closed.
Doug Oschner moved that Case PZ-1078,be continued to the January 17,2006 hearing date. Roy Spitzer seconded the
motion. Motion carried unanimously.
3. CASE NUMBER: USR-1532
APPLICANT: Reginal Golden& RLSJ Properties LLC
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-2540; part of Section 4,T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for
a business permitted as a use by right or accessory use in the
Commercial or Industrial Zone District(storage of concrete
forms, equipment and vehicles)in the(A)Agricultural Zone
District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 26 and west of CR 5.5.
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services,said the applicant has requested a continuance to the March 21,
2006 hearing date in order to address concerns of the surrounding property owners.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against continuance of this application.
John Watkins, 11757 Ashton Rd, lives directly behind the property and has watched the applicant's employees
urinate on the property in view of the public and bang on the concrete forms at 5 a.m. in the summer and 6 a.m. in
the winter. Mr.Watkins does not want this continued any longer and would like current residential zoning enforced
and the business operations to end.
Barb Brunk,applicant's representative,and a landscape architect with Resource Conservation Partners, said they
received letters from the neighbors just two weeks ago and would like the time to sit down with the neighbors and go
over their concerns and requested that the Planning Commission grant the continuance.
Rita Rawson, 11753 Ashton Rd, resides about fifty feet from the operation and said she would like this to go forward
as the homeowners are not going to change their minds and she would request a decision be reached today.
Wanda Wellington, 11768 Pleasant View Ridge, resides about five hundred feet from the business and agreed with
the other speakers that a continuance makes no sense and she would also like a resolution today.
Les Wright, 11756 Ashton Rd, said he wants a resolution today.
The Chair asked Mr. Morrison, County Attorney,to discuss procedure regarding the business operation and current
violations. Mr. Morrison said that typically the Board has directed staff to put the violation on hold if the applicant is
taking steps to correct the violation. In ninety-nine per cent of the cases,the operation is allowed to conduct
business while the application process continues. Ms. Martin said that according to Bethany Salzman,Weld County
Zoning Compliance Officer,the violation has not been presented to the Board of County Commissioners. The Chair
asked about the public urination and a remedy to that situation. Mr. Morrison said he could not answer in detail what
criminal statutes would address but there are statutes that deal with public indecency and it would be best to consult
with the Sheriff's department and then ultimately the District Attorney. The Chair asked Ms. Martin if they had
2
received all of the information on this application. She replied that they had only received the letter requesting the
continuance. The Chair asked Mr. Morrison about their two choices,to grant a continuance or hear the case today.
Mr. Morrison said that because the Commissioners do not have all of the relevant material it would take some time to
bring the Planning Commission up to speed and there may also be people wanting to address this case that are not
here today. Mr. Branham asked if the opponents would be agreeable to a January 17,2006 continuance. Mr.
Oschner suggested the February 21,2006 date would be fairer to the applicant. Ms. Martin said the February date
was already quite full. Mr. Holton said he would like to agree with the January 17, 2006 hearing date.
Doug Oschner moved that Case USR-1532,be continued to the January 17,2006 hearing date. Tom Holton seconded
the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
4. CASE NUMBER: USR-1533
APPLICANT: Asphalt Paving Company
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part NW4 of Section 25,Ti N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
Mineral Resource Development facility including a Concrete and
Asphalt Batch Plant, Recycling Plant, Materials Blending, Import
of Materials and Gravel Mining in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 6 and east of and adjacent to CR
23.
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services,said the applicant is requesting a continuance to the January 17,
2006, in order to address surrounding property owner and oil and gas entity concerns.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against continuance of this
application. No one wished to speak. The public portion was closed.
Mr. Oschner asked if moving these three cases would overburden the January 17, 2006 meeting, and perhaps that
meeting could begin earlier. Mr. Morrison said if you wish to begin the hearing earlier, then the legal must be
republished. If continued it would not need to be republished.
Roy Spitzer moved that Case USR-1533,be continued to the January 17,2006 hearing date. Tom Holton seconded the
motion. Motion carried unanimously.
CONSENT ITEMS
5. CASE NUMBER: USR-1535
APPLICANT: Wayne&Patricia Medlin
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-1636; part SE4 SE4 of Section 19,T1 N, R66W of
the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
business permitted as a use by right and/or use by special review
in the Commercial Zone District(office with a gross floor area
larger than three thousand square feet,outdoor storage,and
maintenance of equipment)in the(A)Agricultural Zone District
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 27; approximately 1/4 mile north of
CR 6.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, requested that Case USR-1535 remain on the consent agenda.
Wayne Medlin, 15655 Riverdale Rd, Brighton, CO, the applicant, requested that his application stay on the consent
agenda and be sent on to the Board of County Commissioners.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished
to speak.
Mr. Holton asked Ms. Hatch if she had heard anything else from Fort Lupton since their November 16, 2005 referral
response. She replied that she had not received any further correspondence from them.
3
•
6. CASE NUMBER: USR-1536
APPLICANT: Donald &Cheryl Hackett
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-1871; part W2 SW4 of Section 22,T2N, R66W of
the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
kennel (100 dogs-dachshunds)in the (A)Agricultural Zone
District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 18; approximately 1/2 mile east of
CR 31.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, requested that Case USR-1536 remain on the consent agenda.
Donald Hackett, 15267 CR 18, applicant, requested his case remain on the consent agenda.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished
to speak. The public portion was closed.
Doug Oschner moved that Case USR-1535 and Case USR-1536 remain on the consent agenda and be forwarded to the
Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning
Commission's recommendation of approval. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;Tom
Holton, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Paul Branham, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
HEARING ITEMS
7. APPLICANT: Weld County
PLANNER: Monica Mika/Bruce Barker
REQUEST: Amendment to Chapter 22 Comprehensive Plan
Monica Mika, Director of Planning Services, reminded the Planning Commissioners that they had made several
changes to Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code a month ago and that there was one more additional change she
wanted to present today. That change was a regulation that allows the Comprehensive Plan be amended two times
in any given year. The Department of Planning Services'recommendation was that for the calendar year of 2006,
they withhold accepting applications to change the Mixed Use Development area in February and hold them until
August. The intent was that since they were preparing to go through the Mixed Use Development process,they felt it
was more appropriate to work through this study before adding any new parcels into the MUD area. That information
was found in Section 22-1-150 of the County Code. The Chair asked Ms. Mika what action should be taken today.
Ms. Mika replied that the recommendation for approval be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for
consideration in their Code changes and be attached to the previous Code changes and presented as one
consideration to the Board in January.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished
to speak. Public portion closed.
Chad Auer moved that Weld County Amendment to Chapter 22 Comprehensive Plan be forwarded to the Board of
County Commissioners along with the recommendation of approval. Doug Oschner seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision Roy Spitzer,yes;Tom
Holton, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Paul Branham, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
8. CASE NUMBER: 2005-XX
APPLICANT: Benson Farms LLC
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part E2 of Section 23 and the SW4 of Section 24,all in T3N,
R68W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,Colorado.
4
•
REQUEST: Petition to amend the Mixed Use Development Area of
Unincorporated Weld County. Changes to Chapter 22
(Comprehensive Plan)and Chapter 26 (Mixed Use Development
Plan Structural Land Use Map 2.1) land use designation
modification.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Highway 66; east of and adjacent
to CR 9.5
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services,this application is for modification to parcels of land, located within
the Mixed Use Development area (MUD). Changes to Chapter 22 (Comprehensive Plan)and Chapter 26 Mixed Use
Development Plan Structural Land Use Map 2.1.
The parcels associated with this proposal are located north of and adjacent to State Highway 66 and east of and
adjacent to County Road 9.5
There are two criteria for review of this amendment to Chapters 22 and 26 Map#2.1: Structural Land Use Map. The
first criteria is found in Section 26-1-30 (MUD Plan). The second criteria is found in Section 22-1-150
(Comprehensive Plan).
Criteria I: MUD Plan, Chapter 26,Weld County Code. That the application is consistent with Section 26-1-30 Weld
County Mixed Use Plan which establishes procedures for amending Chapter 26 in accordance to procedures
established in Section 22-1-150 of the County Code.
The procedures for submittal have been met.
The applicant submitted the application on August 1, 2005, paid all applicable fees and submitted an ample number
of copies of the proposed amendment.
The applicant intends to create a planned community capable of providing residential with commercial and
recreation amenities.
The entire site is located within the Mixed Use Development area and has been since May of 2002, but the proposed
land use designations for the planned Meadow Ridge Planned Unit Development(PUD)are not consistent with the
Structural Land Use Map 2.1 amended August 30, 2004. Presently,the 1-25 Mixed Use Development Area
Structural Land Use Map 2.1 has identified employment center(high intensity)and regional commercial (medium
intensity)along State Highway 66 and County Road 9.5. The proposed subdivision, Meadow Ridge, has planned for
residential and neighborhood centers along State Highway 66 and County Road 9.5 which is inconsistent with the
current land use designations,therefore the need for the amendment.
As proposed,the site will be developed with approximately 166 acres of open space divided into numerous parks
with open space connections throughout the subdivision. In accordance with Appendix 26.E,20% (160 acres)of the
site will need to be dedicated to open space. The applicant's proposal includes neighborhood commercial along
State Highway 66 and County Road 9.5. This corresponds to the current Mixed Use Development Structural 2.1
Map which also identifies a higher intensity along the arterials.
The parcel was included in the MUD in May of 2002. At this time the property owner met the criteria for adequate
services. Currently,the some of the property is located within the St.Vrain 208 Sanitation Boundaries while the
remaining property is located within Mead's 208 boundaries. The entire site is located within the East 1-25 Sanitation
District.
The site can be provided with urban scale water from Little Thompson Water District as stated in their letter dated
October 15,2004.
Weld County Paramedic Services and the Weld County Sheriff's Office will provide for the emergency related
service in this area assisted by Mountain View Fire Protection District.
The municipalities of Firestone, Mead,and Longmont are located within three(3)miles of the site and have reviewed
this application. Longmont commented with no concerns, and, no comments have been received from the Towns of
Mead and Firestone.
The application materials indicate that, if fully developed as residential, a maximum of 2,400 residential units would
be located on the site adding approximately 6,672 people (based on 2.78 persons/household)and 1,361 school-
aged children.
It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services based on referral agency comments that the applicant has
adequately demonstrated compliance. This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application
5
materials.
The Chair asked Peter Schei, Department of Public Works, about access to Hwy 66 and if this will need to be
negotiated with the state. Mr.Schei replied that the applicant will be asked to work with the Colorado Department of
Transportation and then supply Public Works with written recommendations. Normally we ask for limited movement
on and off arterial roadways, and we will carefully consider what they are presenting to us. There could be right-of-
way requirements and traffic improvements related to intersections that would come as a result of the traffic impact
study.
Gary Woods and Stephanie Stewart, representing Benson Farms,said they were here because they did the MUD
amendment in 2002 on the eight hundred acres. Since then,they have filed a sketch plan application with the
county and this request for an amendment is a result of this sketch plan review. They would like the ability for this to
be all residential with neighborhood commercial development also permitted in the area along Hwy 66 and CR 9.5.
They believe their request is consistent with the requirements of the MUD area.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished
to speak. The public portion was closed.
Mr. Holton asked if this was just an amendment to the MUD and if they approve it today will it come back for a PUD and
zoning changes in front of this board. Mr. Morrison answered yes. Mr.Spitzer asked what the biggest impacts of this
change might be and was the applicant asking for more flexibility in his development plan. Ms.Martin replied that there
would be a lower intensity of commercial uses but a higher intensity residential. This will give the applicant the flexibility
with the development to do one or two things; low intensity commercial or residential along HWY 66 and CR 9.5. Mr.
Spitzer asked if there would be high intensity commercial. Ms. Martin replied there would not be. Mr. Oschner asked
what low density residential was. Ms.Martin said it was low intensity commercial and the residential being proposed is a
variety of different densities from R-1 to R-4. Mr.Spitzer asked if this would impact the county infrastructure in any way.
Ms. Martin said there would be an impact to the schools in the area as they don't have the capacity to serve this many
residents,but the applicants are proposing two different sites within their development that could be used as school sites.
Mr.Schei,Public Works,said regarding roads,the residential densities would impact infrastructure and they would ask
the applicants to pay their own way to mitigate County involvement. Mr.Spitzer asked if we will see impacts in the next
stages. Mr.Schei replied that this should be mitigated as well when the applicants submit their traffic impacts study to
Public Works. Ms. Martin also gave the Planning Commission the definition of neighborhood centers as defined in the
Code for their general information.
Paul Branham moved that Case 2005-XX Benson Farms LLC, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;Tom
Holton, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Paul Branham, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
9. CASE NUMBER: 2005-XX
APPLICANT: Pioneer Communities Inc&HP Farms LLC
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Several parcels of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
LOCATION: Approximately 3-4 miles north of the Town of Hudson.
Brad Mueller, Department of Planning Services, presented the seven applications together. The first was known as
the Pioneer Regional Metropolitan District and the others were known as the Pioneer Districts 1-6. The applications
were formally accepted by the Board of County Commissioners on October 19, 2005. Mr. Mueller described the
service areas and district boundaries in general terms. The site was located north of 1-76 and north of Hudson at the
intersections of CR 49 and CR 22,approximately four miles north of 1-76. The service area was roughly fifty six
hundred (5600)acres in size and would potentially serve up to ten thousand dwelling units and was a separate land
use application that would be handled in the future. Mr. Mueller gave an overview of what a Title 32 Special District
consisted of and that it includes metropolitan districts. Mr. Mueller explained that a quasi-governmental entity was
being created when a special district was proposed,that is,an entity developed to provide services and financing
through taxes. There were two components;the district boundary which defined the land and the service boundary.
The single service district consisted of one acre within the fifty six hundred(5600)acres.There were eight services
prescribed which included sanitation,water,street improvements,traffic signals,transportation facilities, mosquito
control, park and recreation facilities and television relay. There were six financing districts and their purpose was to
allow for phased development and eventually there would be citizen control of the financing districts. These
financing districts would have the ability to levy taxes and use that ability as the financing mechanism for the
proposed services. Mr. Mueller then talked about the three sets of approval criteria. The first was required by State
6
•
Statute 32-1-203,which allowed the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Commission to approve,
disapprove or approve them with conditions. The second set,also from State Statute 32-1-203,was discretionary
and the third set was draft policies that the Weld County Commissioners were currently considering. The
Department of Planning Services was recommending denial as the applications did not meet state statute and did
not comply with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. Staffs recommendation to deny approval of all seven
proposed Pioneer Special Districts was also based, in part,on outstanding questions and concerns raised by staff,
primarily in regards to the proposed Service Plans. More specifically: no existing or projected need that the existing
rural services are adequate; uncertainties about the source and mechanism of certain types of services;
uncertainties about the mechanism and reliability of financing;water quality information;the plan was not in the best
interests of the area;concerns with the IGA inclusion/exclusion clauses; extra-territorial service; imminent domain
ballot and dissolution provisions;the mill levy cap language;and issues concerning citizen representation.
The Chair asked Mr. Mueller if this kind of request was unusual—are there other metropolitan districts of this size.
Mr. Mueller said we do have several in surrounding municipalities,though not too many in the county but he would
not characterize this request as unusual. The Chair asked if this application was premature. Mr. Mueller said the
question of ripeness was a relevant one and that state statutes are the guiding criteria and at this point many of the
issues are associated with urban scale development which was not supported for that area at this time. The Chair
also asked if this would give the metropolitan district some authority that the county now has in that area. Mr. Mueller
replied that part of the purpose of creating a metropolitan district was to provide services and a funding mechanism
that the county was unable or unwilling to do. If urban levels of development were supported in this area then the
service mechanism and the funding mechanism would be appropriate. The county was not in the business of
providing water and sanitation at this point, nor was it in the business of providing local parks,as a general rule.
This was a legitimate mechanism for providing services and in fact was part of the reason the Commissioners were
considering adopting policies. There was support for metropolitan districts as one more tool for accommodating
development.
Maryann McGeady,applicant's representative, 1675 Broadway, Ste 2100, Denver, CO, 80202,thanked Mr. Mueller
for his thorough presentation on metropolitan districts. Ms. McGeady said application times have gotten lengthier
through the years and that is why they were asking for consideration of this application before the land use process.
She touched upon the"chicken or egg first"conundrum. Where will the services come from to support this new
growth,and who will operate and maintain the water,transportation, and street services. Ms. McGeady concurred
that they deviated from the guidelines only because they did not know what those would be when they made their
application. However,they were asking for a recommendation of approval based on compliance with guidelines and
approval of the land uses that were assumed in their financing plan,and also the condition that the district not issue
debt and be required to dissolve within two years of the District's approval by the Board of County Commissioners if
those land uses are not approved within that two-year time frame. That would give the districts the ability to get into
the election cycle,to get organized so that when the land uses are approved,the project would be ready to move
forward, be financed and be developed. If they get out of sequence, it would be very difficult to get those
comprehensive plans approved and the other land use approvals completed. If they condition it the other way,the
development would get approved but probably shelved for a year as the Special Districts tried to catch up.
Mr. Holton asked when the County Commissioners were voting for the establishment of the metropolitan districts.
Mr. Morrison replied that the third reading adopting those guidelines occurs at the end of the month. Mr. Holton
then asked why the hearing today if final changes won't occur until the twenty eighth. Mr. Morrison cited the chicken
and egg analogy and said he does not think the process will yield any major changes. Mr. Mueller said the reason
the applicants asked to come before the board today was to allow for a May election and if this hearing had been
farther out,they would not have met the May election. Mr. Holton expressed concern about eminent domain. Mr.
Mueller said eminent domain would be limited to just those services this district would provide. He would like a
sentence saying something like"eminent domain powers shall be limited to those services within the service
boundaries",or something similar, and also another sentence to the effect that"if the district has a change in its
policies concerning eminent domain,the county gets notified and the applicant must explain the reasons for the
change", and the county can decide whether to consider that a material modification to the plan which would require
a board hearing or not. Mr. Holton asked the applicant if eminent domain issues would be addressed. Ms. McGeady
replied they would—whatever improvements necessary would be provided. Mr. Holton then asked Mr. Morrison
about payment to the landowner in the event eminent domain occurs. Mr. Morrison said all they are talking about is
the ability to exercise authority, it does not change the process of an eminent domain proceeding. The Chair asked
the applicant about the sewer system and if it is off-site would it require eminent domain and/or would you negotiate
with that landowner first. Ms. McGeady responded that any government that exercises the power of eminent domain
must have entered into good faith negotiations with the property owner before they step down that road. Mr.
Oschner inquired about water quality and amount and mill levy caps and would they eventually be addressed. Ms.
McGeady replied that these issues are addressed in the guidelines and they would be revising the plans to show
how they comply with the guidelines as they bring the application to the Board of County Commissioners.
Mr. Mueller said that the water would come from Resource Colorado,an existing metropolitan district that was
created and approved about a year ago with the purpose of providing wholesale water. The Chair asked Ms.
7
McGeady what they had to offer that other developers in the proposed area did not. She said they had a master
plan concept that identifies the long term phasing of infrastructure and amenities that are at an upgraded scale over
what you would see in competing projects. It would provide a different kind of community to meet the market
demand in the area. Mr. Mueller asked Mr. Morrison if the need and justification for the development were separate
land use questions and wondered if it was appropriate to discuss them at this time and represented ex parte
communication. Mr. Morrison replied that it did not present an ex parte problem, and from a relevant standpoint it
only points out how the processes are related.
Chris Paulson, CEO of Pioneer Communities, 9145 East Canyon, Denver, CO, said because these seven
applications were proceeding at the same time,there were actually more checks and balances than usually seen,
and he would like conditional approval of the seven districts today. There would also be several opportunities to see
if they were following compliance at future hearings.
Mr. Spitzer asked about Resource Colorado and what it was. Mr. Paulson replied that it was an existing special
district of one acre within Weld County,whose pipeline would move past Keenesburg to Pioneer,and was presently
negotiating to provide some water to Keenesburg as well. Mr. Spitzer asked it if was all well water. Mr. Paulson said
it was coming from the Lost Creek designated ground water basin and was already adjudicated for four thousand six
hundred fifty two(4652)acre feet to be exported out of the basin. Mr. Paulson said when the Commissioners
approved Resource Colorado,they asked them to look at opportunities to use the water in Weld County and that
was why they looked for land in Weld County in an urban growth corridor and that was why they were before you
today. Mr. Branham asked the applicant if there was anything they would not be in compliance with,that they might
have a problem with. Mr. Paulson said this had been a four month process working with county guidelines and
philosophy behind it,and at this point he said they have looked at the discretionary criteria and can meet them. Mr.
Branham asked Mr. Mueller if he thought the applicant would have any problems complying with the state laws if the
land use case ultimately gets approved. Mr. Mueller replied that he did not see that as a problem,that he
understood their need to meet the May election, but the application did not contain a demonstrated need for urban
services. Ms. McGeady said that just because the votes came out of sequence did not mean you would not meet
the legal requirements. Mr. Morrison said there was a greater risk if action relied upon someone outside of the
county. Mr.Auer spoke to timing and the May election and what was so important. Mr. Morrison replied that with the
effect of the Tabor Amendment,you only have a certain amount of opportunities for these issues- November of an
election year and May of an even numbered year. Along with the land use process is the availability of services to
support the land uses. They have chosen to keep these moving along to show that nothing was being left out. Ms.
McGeady said they would like to be before the Board of County Commissioners prior to ballot content certification in
March for the May ballot. Mr.Auer said he didn't see why they were in such a rush and what difference would a
week or two make. Ms. McGeady said it all had to do with timing and getting information to the Planning
Commission and the Board of County Commissioners in order to make the May election because they have a 180
million dollar debt authorization and want the Commissioners to hear that number before it was certified in a ballot.
Mr.Auer asked Mr. Mueller if staff was comfortable with the conditions of approval and could make a
recommendation. Mr. Mueller said staff was still recommending denial for the reasons previously indicated. Mr.
Holton asked if the land use application came first what would Mr. Mueller's opinion be then. Mr. Mueller said the
first criteria of demonstrated need might go away but the items in the service plan would still stay and they would
want to see those corrections and additions made to the service plans. The Chair asked Mr. Mueller if the current
recommendation was based on the current County Code not a code that may come along in the future. Mr. Mueller
replied that was correct. Their recommendation was based on the facts as they knew them today but could change
in the future. Mr. Morrison asked Mr. Mueller if they had referenced the pending guidelines and Mr. Mueller said they
had. Mr.Auer stated that a fifty six hundred (5600)acre land use application was significant and he was sure other
towns would have comments. He then asked that if the metropolitan district recommendations were approved
conditionally but the land use application failed,what would that mean for the metropolitan districts. Mr. Mueller said
the conditions that they proposed would require that it not fail so that condition would not have been met. Mr.
Oschner asked if the land use was not approved then was the special district dissolved automatically. Mr. Oschner
also asked if they approved the process,did it go to the County Commissioners and if they granted approval,did it
then it go to an election and was the election just for the bonds or did the public vote for this. Ms. McGeady said the
people who vote were qualified within the boundaries of each district and so it was a very limited group and they
would all be related to the current developer. She continued that the questions they would be voting on were:should
each district be organized;should the mill levy for operation and maintenance be imposed; and should the district
have the ability to issue debt for all of the different powers and purposes up to a maximum dollar amount which was
limited to what was in the plan. Mr. Morrison clarified further that the court was the next step after the
Commissioners. The petition was filed with the district court along with the resolution of approval from the
Commissioners if the service plan was approved. The court authorizes and supervises the election if the petition
was found to be sufficient and there had been no successful challenge to the service plan. They would then receive
the results of the election and declare the district created. Mr. Paulson said he thought they would be heard again
after they had the ability to provide urban services for zoning, plating, etc., so you would see them until you were sick
of them. The Chair asked Planning staff for a copy of the conditions of approval prior for their reference prior to
making a decision. Mr. Spitzer inquired about the election and if the people voting in the election would also live in
8
those districts. Ms. McGeady said the election would be held in May and the people qualified to vote were individual
property owners within that district and they were all related to the applicant. Mr. Morrison said that is typical for
developer type districts because at their inception there was a limited group of persons eligible to vote in the
election. They could be residents or property owners who could register to vote in the state, and do not have to be
residents of Weld County. Mr.Spitzer asked if this election was still sanctioned by the state election laws. Mr.
Morrison replied that it was, in the Special District Act. Mr. Holton asked about the one acre service district that
encompasses the other districts and said he was uncomfortable with granting taxing powers in that district when the
control of that district would not be with the residents. Ms. McGeady said the regional district,which was the district
that provides service to an area that goes beyond its tax base, and its tax base is the one acre, does not tax any of
the other district's property. The districts that would eventually become resident controlled were the districts that
imposed the taxes. Mr. Holton asked for further explanation and Ms. McGeady referred to her map in explaining
each specific district and its purpose. Mr. Paulson said that this district would contract with Resource Colorado to
provide water and run a main sewer interceptor to the proposed sewer treatment plant. Then, improved lots would
be sold and debt would be paid down through tap fees. This was a twenty-five year plan and the boards would be
citizen controlled at some point. Mr. Holton said he just wanted to be sure that at full build out,the whole district
area would not be controlled by the one acre district. Ms. McGeady said it would not be.
Mr. Branham said he recognized the need for metropolitan districts which reduce the County burden, and he was
satisfied with all the response to the concerns raised, but it still bothered him that a demonstrated need was not
present. If that was the County position,then would it be appropriate for the applicant to demonstrate a need for
this metropolitan district in the future and would a demonstrated need be an appropriate condition of approval. Mr.
Mueller said the districts were proposed to provide what he would characterize as urban level service in a specific
geographic area. The criteria did not presume a general need, County wide,country wide, or regionally. It
presumed a need in that specific area,and a very literal reading of the current zoning and of the Comprehensive
Plan was that urban services were not needed in that area. There were two ways to overcome that: have it rezoned
or have the Comprehensive Plan amended to project a need for urban services; or conditionally approve the
application. Mr. Mueller said that obviously creates tracking issues and they would need to have some discussion
about how that would get met. Any change in land use was going to happen later next year. Mr. Mueller said the
fundamental question for this board to consider was whether it was appropriate to anticipate that possible outcome
or whether it was their pleasure to wait and see what that outcome was and then take direction on that. Mr. Mueller
then clarified the time line. The Board of County Commissioners whether they do or do not adopt the policies,was
scheduled to set this service plan hearing on January 4, 2006 and anticipated that they would schedule it for
February 9, 2006. The Planning Commission was anticipating hearing the land use application at the end of
February,which meant that the Board of County Commissioners would be hearing that in March at the earliest, more
likely April. There would also be subsequent processes with rezoning before actual building would take place on any
site. This was just a Comprehensive Plan amendment being processed by our office. Mr. Branham asked if the land
use hearing could take place if the Planning Commission does not approve the request before them today. Mr.
Mueller said it could absolutely take place, but would it be supportable in terms of adequate services,which presents
the potential for a condition that adequate services be in place through the formation of a district. Mr. Branham
asked Mr. Mueller if they approved today with conditions, if Mr. Mueller would have to develop those conditions. Mr.
Mueller replied that he would. Ms. Mika said out of fairness to the applicant and what they were going to see in the
future,the applicants were suggesting the county may not need to change the Comprehensive Plan in the future.
The applicant was pointing to the fact that what they were proposing was consistent with the existing Comprehensive
Plan and it was merely that the county may need to take a fresh look or revisit the language in the Comprehensive
Plan. The question that will come back to the Planning Commission, based on the rationale and the applicant's
support documentation,was whether the Comprehensive Plan will need to be revised in the future. This was not a
new land use application, it was a revisit and a support of the information that the applicant was suggesting was
already contained in the Comprehensive Plan, based on the definition of how the county defined urban and non-
urban.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished
to speak. The public portion was closed.
The Chair asked Mr. Mueller to review the potential Conditions of Approval. Mr. Mueller responded that if the
Planning Commission recommends approval that it be conditional upon the following: that there be supporting land
use policies and that the comments from the two letters be addressed. Mr. Mueller said there was some confusion
in items 1,2, and 3 regarding providing information at the January 4,2006 meeting, and suggested removing the
parenthetical language in items one,two, and three.
Ms. McGeady said their goal was to come back during the Comprehensive Plan presentations and have this district
process application be moving along at the same time. She respectfully requested that the Planning Commission
either approve with condition that they comply with the guidelines period, or recommend denia, as this createed the
cleanest record. The Chair asked Ms. McGeady if it was do-able in fourteen days. She said they would comply with
guidelines to the best of their ability pursuant to all of the discussions they have had with the outside consultant for
the County,the County Commissioners and public debate,and the limited discussion they have had with staff.
They had not had direct discussion with staff on most of the development of the guidelines, that was the outside
9
•
consultant,so there might be some differences in compliance and the Board of County Commissioners would need
to sort that out. The Chair said this board doesn't typically send incomplete applications to the Board of County
Commissioners. Mr. Mueller said the conditions were proposed prior to the board hearing in February 8,2006. Mr.
Branham asked Ms. McGeady if she would be more comfortable with the conditions if she had until February 8,
2006. She said no. The Chair asked if the applicant was in agreement with the conditions. Ms. McGeady asked for
conditional approval to comply with guidelines. Mr. Morrison said the applicant was not obligated to continue this if
they were not comfortable that it was developed well enough. Mr. Paulson said what Ms. McGeady and the
applicant are concerned about was the suggested language and interpretation of the proposed guidelines. They
wanted to comply with those guidelines and would like a conditional approval based on compliance of those
guidelines,and then give them thirty days to hash out what that was. They don't think that was embodied in this
document and do not want to take the Planning Commission's time hashing that out.
Mr. Holton asked if the Commissioners pass the guidelines,would they have to adhere to all of these. Mr. Mueller
said yes, but that the question was more in the interpretation than in the mechanical exercise of getting through it.
Mr. Branham and Mr. Spitzer posed questions that were inaudible. Mr. Holton asked a question that was also
inaudible. Mr. Mueller responded that staff would carry forth their recommendations and provide the rationale for the
reasons for denial. Mr. Holton asked if staff would want input if they did approve this application. Mr. Mueller said
that if it were denied the applicant would try to resolve as many of those issues as possible. Mr. Morrison said that if
the Planning Commission just says to comply with the guidelines there would also be an opportunity to resolve that
but ultimately the Board of County Commissioners passes the guidelines and it was they who determine how the
guidelines were to be interpreted so it needed to get in front of the Board of County Commissioners for resolution as
to what the guidelines mean. Staff would have input, but the County Commissioners ultimately make the final
decision. Ms. Mika said if the Planning Commission were to recommend denial then they would accept staff
recommendations. If the Planning Commission chose not to accept staff recommendations,or a fraction of staff
recommendations,they must come up with their own findings of facts in order to have a resolution that was sent to
the Board of County Commissioners. Either way this became their recommendation based on the criteria, policies
and state statute. Mr. Morrison concurred with Ms. Mika. Ms. McGeady asked if the revised finding of fact could be
that the application did not comply with the guidelines and therefore the condition of recommendation of approval be
to come back and comply with guidelines. Ms. Mika said that was correct. Ms. Mika also said that what she needed
from this board was a recommendation that says if they recommend approval,they need to have criteria in which to
make that recommendation of approval. There need to be references to state statute so that when this was
presented to the Board of County Commissioners they had something to tie their recommendation to, rather than a
simple yes or no.
Mr. Holton felt like there was not enough information and they must make decisions on information not yet in place.
Mr. Branham said Planning staff has bent over backwards to come up with conditions of approval that will not only
satisfy the guidelines, as they understand them,that will be developed by the County Commissioners, but will also
meet the state standards. He would favor approval if it contained the conditions of approval as presented, but
based on the applicant's statements that they are not in agreement, he saw no choice but to recommend denial. Mr.
Oschner said this was a project with enough checks and balances and that maybe this was the place to start. Staffs
recommendation of denial is mostly based on need and he thought that by the time the land use applications come
through,a need should be apparent for this district. If they put in conditions of compliance with the guidelines,that
puts it in front of the Commissioners for their interpretation. Was there a need today—no but if you look at all of the
MUD's,there was a need and this application kept the water in Weld County. The Chair said he favored approval as
this was a good project,the potential of a new town in its infancy was exciting, and he hoped this could be
incorporated as soon as possible. The Chair asked Mr. Morrison for direction on the motions. Mr. Morrison said
each district must be called and voted on separately.
Roy Spitzer moved that Case 2005-XX Pioneer Regional Metropolitan District, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners in accordance with Planning staff's recommendations for denial. Paul Branham seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;Tom
Holton,yes; Chad Auer,yes; Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, no; Paul Branham,yes. Motion carried 4-2.
Doug Oschner commented that this needed to start somewhere and based on Section 32-1-203,to say that there
was not a need for this was incorrect. There was a need and should this not meet the guidelines,they have many
opportunities in the future to recommend denial,therefore he would like to see it continue and keep the ball rolling.
Roy Spitzer moved that Case 2005-XX Pioneer Metropolitan District #1, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners in accordance with Planning staff's recommendations for denial. Paul Branham seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;Tom
Holton,yes; Chad Auer,yes; Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, no; Paul Branham,yes. Motion carried 4-2.
Roy Spitzer moved that Case 2005-XX Pioneer Metropolitan District #2, be forwarded to the Board of County
10
Commissioners in accordance with Planning staffs recommendations for denial. Paul Branham seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;Tom
Holton,yes;Chad Auer,yes; Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, no; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried 4-2.
Roy Spitzer moved that Case 2005-XX Pioneer Metropolitan District #3, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners in accordance with Planning staffs recommendations for denial. Paul Branham seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;Tom
Holton, yes;Chad Auer,yes; Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, no; Paul Branham,yes. Motion carried 4-2.
Roy Spitzer moved that Case 2005-XX Pioneer Metropolitan District #4, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners in accordance with Planning staff's recommendations for denial. Paul Branham seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;Tom
Holton,yes;Chad Auer,yes; Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, no; Paul Branham,yes. Motion carried 4-2.
Roy Spitzer moved that Case 2005-XX Pioneer Metropolitan District #5, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners in accordance with Planning staffs recommendations for denial. Paul Branham seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;Tom
Holton, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, no; Paul Branham,yes. Motion carried 4-2.
Roy Spitzer moved that Case 2005-XX Pioneer Metropolitan District #6, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners in accordance with Planning staffs recommendations for denial. Paul Branham seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;Tom
Holton, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, no; Paul Branham,yes. Motion carried 4-2.
Meeting adjourned at 5:20 P.M.
Respectfully submitted
U
Donita
Secretary
11
Hello