HomeMy WebLinkAbout20042469 BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by James Rohn, that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: 2004-XX
APPLICANT: Resource Colorado Water& Sanitation Metropolitan District
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot C of RE-2066; being part of theNW4 of Section 34,Ti N, R63W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Service Plan for Resource Colorado Water&Sanitation Metropolitan District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 4; east of and adjacent to CR 67.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
The Planning Commission in conjunction with the Weld County Attorney's Office and Weld County Finance
department recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Service Plan for
Resource Colorado Water Sanitation Metropolitan District for the following reason:
It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has shown compliance with Section 32-1-203(2)
and Section 32-1-203(2.5), C.R.S.. as follows:
Section 32-1-203(2)states the Board of County Commissioners shall approve the service plan unless evidence
satisfactory to the Board of each of the following is presented:
(a) There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by the
proposed special district.
The proposal identifies water delivery to Adams County municipalities from the Lost Creek Aquifer
located in Weld County. The area slated for delivery of water from this proposed Water and Sanitation
District is within the Denver Basin.
(b) The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for present
and project needs.
The Denver Basin has an adequate supply of water for existing and proposed development. All
development proposals coordinate their requests for water through the State Engineers Office.
(c) The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area
within its proposed boundaries.
The referral dated April 21,2004,and June 21,2004 addressed the concerns of Don Warden, Director
of Finance, however, in the memorandum dated July 28, 2004, Mr. Warden states "... Bruce Barker
[County Attorney]and I met with representatives proposing the district on July 26, 2004. Based upon
that meeting and their attached July 26, 2004 responses to my earlier concerns this is to advise you
that with the amendment to the service plan being drafted by Bruce Barker in accordance with the
concepts in their July 26, 2004, response, I no longer have any objections to the Service Plan for
Resource Colorado Water and Sanitation Metropolitan District, as amended."
Mr. Warden references an amendment to the Service plan being drafted by Mr. Barker. The
amendment is in letter from Mr. Barker to Maryann McGeady, McGeady Sisneros, P.C. of Denver, the
applicant's legal counsel, dated July 29, 2004. This letter provides alternative language for Section
of the Service Plan. Through a response letter dated July 29, 2004, the applicant's legal counsel has p
approved this amendment language and offers to discuss prior to the Board of County Commissioners'
hearing language to be added for implementing the amendment.
2004-2469
Resolution 2004-XX
Resource Colorado Water
Page 2
(d) The area to be included in the proposed special district has, or will have, the financial ability to
discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis.
The referral dated April 21,2004,and June 21,2004 addressed the concerns of Don Warden,Director
of Finance, however, in the memorandum dated July 28, 2004, Mr. Warden states "... Bruce Barker
[County Attorney]and I met with representatives proposing the district on July 26, 2004. Based upon
that meeting and their attached July 26, 2004 responses to my earlier concerns this is to advise you
that with the amendment to the service plan being drafted by Bruce Barker in accordance with the
concepts in their July 26, 2004, response, I no longer have any objections tot he Service Plan for
Resource Colorado Water and Sanitation Metropolitan District, as amended."
Mr. Warden references an amendment to the Service plan being drafted by Mr. Barker. The
amendment is in letter from Mr. Barker to Maryann McGeady, McGeady Sisneros, P.C. of Denver, the
applicant's legal counsel, dated July 29, 2004. This letter provides alternative language for Section X
of the Service Plan. Through a response letter dated July 29, 2004, the applicant's legal counsel has
approved this amendment language and offers to discuss prior to the Board of County Commissioners'
hearing language to be added for implementing the amendment.
Section 32-1-203(2.5)states"the Board of County Commissioners may disapprove the service plan if evidence
satisfactory to the Board of any of the following, at the discretion of the Board, is not permitted:
(a) Adequate service is not, or will not be, available to the area through the county or other existing
municipal or quasi-municipal corporations„ including existing special districts, within a reasonable time
and on a comparable basis.
The Denver Basin has an adequate supply of water for existing and proposed development. All
development proposals coordinate their requests for water through the State Engineers Office.
(b) The facility and service standards of the proposed special district are compatible with the facility and
service standards of each county within which the proposed special district is to be located and each
municipality which is an interested party under Section 32-1-204(1).
(c) The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to Section 30-28-106
C.R.S.
Section 22-2-60.H.1 of the Comprehensive Plan A.Policy 8.1. states"Any exportation of water out of
a closed basin aquifer is discouraged." However,Section 22-4-20.H.2 A.Policy 1.2.states"The County
should support the development of creative policies to conserve agricultural land,including preservation
techniques and prioritizing incentives. Further,Section 22-4-30.C.1 WA.Policy 3.1.states"The County
will acknowledge water rights as private."
(d) The proposal is in substantial compliance with any duly adopted county, regional, or state long range
water quality management plan for the area.
Section 22-4-20.C and Section 22-4-20.D respectively state" The Water Quality Control
Commission, a citizen board appointed by the Governor, subject to confirmation by the State Senate,
defines water quality regulation and policies in Colorado. The Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment administers the Water Quality Program throughout the State." Further, "as part of
the Larimer-Weld Region,Area-wide Water Quality Management Plan,the County has been identified
as the responsible management agency for all areas in the County outside the urban service areas.
As a management agency, the County has a responsibility to exercise land use authority based on
water quality considerations. This responsibility is partly fulfilled by evaluating water quality
considerations associated with land use proposals in accordance with the standards set forth in this
Chapter and Chapters 23 and 24 of this Code." (Weld County Code Ordinance 2002-6).
Resolution 2004-XX
Resource Colorado Water
Page 3
(e) The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interests of the area proposed to be
served.
Section 22-2-20.B states "The provision of infrastructure, such as transportation systems, sewage
disposal or water systems, are important aspects to consider during the planning stages of
development. The capacity of planned and future infrastructure shall be evaluated on a site-specific
basis."
Further, Section 22-3-50.A, P.Goal 1. states "Promote efficient and cost-effective delivery of public
facilities and services. Section 22-3-50.A.1 states"P.Policy 1.1. Consolidation of public facilities or
services and coordination between providers should be encouraged to avoid duplication of costs and
promote efficiency;and Section 22-4-30.E WA.Goal 5.states"Development will occur in areas where
adequate water quantity and quality is currently available or reasonably obtainable,and Section 22-4-
30.E.1 WA.Policy 5.1. States "Policy applications for proposed development will assess currently
available or reasonably obtainable water quantity and quality." (Weld County Code Ordinance 2002-6)
The proposed Service Plan and special district will be in the best interests of the area proposed to be
served and is in the interests of the County of Weld.
Motion seconded by Bruce Fitzgerald
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 August 3, 2004.
Dated the 3rd of August, 2004.
( t ftCtC'
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,August 3, 2004
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2004, 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 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
is
Bryant Gimlin 0
John Folsom Absent MIen-
cz FT.
James Rohn
Bruce Fitzgerald _�! w °", o
Tonya Strobel
Chad Auer Absent
Doug Ochsner
N %+
^J^
Also Present: Don Carroll, Pam Smith, Monica Mika, Sheri Lockman, Peter Schei
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on July 20, 2004,was
approved as read.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
James Rohn nominated Michael Miller for Chair. There were no other nominations. Michael Miller nominated
Bryant Gimlin for Vice Chair. There were no other nominations. The officers will stand as were last year.
The following Case will be continued:
CASE NUMBER: MZ-544
APPLICANT: Maurice Boney& Boney Macgillivray LLC
PLANNER: Michelle Katytyniuk
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt of the N2 Section 29,T4N,R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Minor Subdivision Change of Zone from the A (Agriculture) to E (Estate)
Zone for 9 (nine)residential lots.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 42 and 1/4 mile west of CR 29.
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services, read a letter into the record requesting a indefinite
continuance. Referrals will be re-mailed due to changes in the application.
The following cases will be heard:
CASE NUMBER: 2004-XX
APPLICANT: Resource Colorado Water&Sanitation Metropolitan District
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot C of RE-2066; being part of theNW4 of Section 34,Ti N, R63W of the 6t
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Service Plan for Resource Colorado Water&Sanitation Metropolitan District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 4; east of and adjacent to CR 67. ,,
Monica Mika, Department of Planning Services presented Case 2004-XX, reading the recommendation and '-'
comments into the record.The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the application. q
Bruce Barker added that today the Planning Commission is considering this site to be a service plan. The
creation of a district requires a two part process. The first being a service plan brought forward and approved
(,rn,_ .„i Oan,da— 8- IS-any./
by the Board of County Commissioners and the second process is to go to court and petition the court to
approve an election for the purpose of the creation of the district. The County is in part of the process for the
review of the service plan. Objections by property owners can be made at any time or by the County through
the court process. It may be wise to ask the applicants if the court process has begun. The first step is
approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Section 32-1-203 discusses the points that must be proven
to the Board of County Commissioners. One of those statutes is review by the Planning Commission. Mr.
Barker recommends reviewing the points, hear the presentation, hear testimony and then make a
recommendation. This recommendation should be either approval without modification, recommend denial or
recommend conditional approval. The district the applicant is asking for is a Metropolitan District (Metro
District). That is one that is provided for under State Statute Section 32-1-1004. A Metro District has services
that must be provided by State Statute. There are several types of services that can be provided. The State
Statute requires they provide two of the services possible. The services that are being provided for by this
district are sanitation,water and mosquito control. When a district is reviewed it begins with the area itself and
this property could be one lot only and that is what is being reviewed here. The service area can extend beyond
the boundaries. Mr. Barker indicated the main concern from Mr. Warden was that once this is set up water
will be provided for other areas and the district board have a plan for succession should the current members
retire or move on. The Metro District has made amendments to the service plan to take care of those issues.
Exhibit 27, proposed by Mr.Barker,contains language that has been agreed to by the applicant for the purpose
of modifying the service plan to give notice, by Statute, of 45 days before anything happens. If this does not
occur the district will need to come back for further review. Mr. Barker then presented the conditions that would
cause a further review to modify the service plan. The County wants to make certain there is a line of
succession should any turn overs on the district board occur. The district is planning on having the end user
which will be municipalities step in and control should the current board leave. There will be additional language
that will allow for time to review the proposal if one of the conditions in Exhibit 27 occurs. This language will
allow the County time to review the modifications and hire anyone needed at cost of the applicant to determine
if the modification will be of benefit to the district. Staff is confident that Mr. Wardens concerns have been
addressed. There is an exhibit expressing this as well as other aspects of the proposal. Exhibits 27-33 will
become part of the record.
James Rohn asked about an advisory panel containing two Board of County Commissioners members and
staffs request to have that removed. Mr. Barker stated that the Board of County Commissioners has been
specific about not being on the Metro District Board. The idea is the Board of County Commissioners does not
have any oversight except for the service plan. With the recent change to Section 10 of the service plan there
will be notification so there is no need to be on the board itself.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Carroll about Mr. Warden's concem for the lack of oversight of the service plan as
originally written. It was indicated there was a provision that any changes to phases will not be considered a
material modification of the plan and shall not require an amendment. Mr. Barker indicated that it has been
amended through the new language. The applicant will provide additional information regarding the succession
and the flexibility to the plan.
Harvy Doich,applicant/owner,provided additional information regarding the service plan and court proceedings.
The owners have acquired 5000 acres of land as well as the associated water in Prospect Valley. Mr. Doich
indicated on the map the location of the farms that are owned. Ten percent of the wells and farms in the area
are owned by PV Holdings. For the past 12 years,the business has finally completed adjudication of the water
that would take the consumptive use of 4565.2 acre feet of water for the calculation. This was the settlement
that was entered into with the Groundwater Commission. This was then approved by the court system. The
Groundwater Commission has given approval to export the water out of the basin through pipelines to use for
municipal services. This was also approved by district court. There has been an agreement worked out with
Lost Creek Groundwater Management to agree with the use, consumptive figure and to be able to export the
water subject to certain conditions. Those conditions include dry land farming,weed free and meter the water
regulated by the State and local authorities. This was approved by the district court also. Two weeks ago the
court decrees were received by the applicant and the land was closed on. The original plan by the company
was to provide water to lots that were being developed by them in surrounding counties because of the
shortages. Half of the water owned is in Weld County while the other half is in Adams County. There would
be a pipeline for distribution. The applicant has been working with several communities to assist in the shortage
of water. The idea is to transport water, treating the water and return to area to be available in the farming
communities thus keeping the aquifer recharged. The municipalities would rather be notified should there be
any change to the Metro Board adverse to dealing with several land owners. In accordance with the
requirements there will be meetings, notices and legal postings for any activity within the Metro District. The
intent is not to be a retailer of water but a wholesaler to providers. The different municipalities will be in charge
of the billing and the water retail end. The Metro Board would like a diverse advisory committee to include
several members from the surrounding communities involved with the services provided. This is a new idea in
Weld County but has been done in Arapaho County and the Arapaho County eventually became the largest
provider for the water. There are other communities that are beginning the process to create a Metro District
in counties. This proposal is a great benefit for the area and the County itself as well as the southern
municipalities. The water will stay in Weld County as part of the program. There has been discussion with the
State for additional funding to re-charge the aquifer. Mary Anne McGeedy, provided additional information with
regard to special districts and is counsel for the district. This application creates an entity that works with other
cities and special districts to provide the consumer need and demand for domestic water supply. The
applicants intention is to work with other service providers in a way that allows for community input and other
government input. Since this would be a type of government all the information will be public. The advisory
board is optional and it is not mandatory that the County provide any members. The County will always have
the option of appointing someone to the board should the determine a need. Ms. McGeedy indicated that there
is a process after the Board of County Commissioners has granted approval and that process is through the
court system. Once the process is completed through the court and election process in November the
applicants intend to begin in the spring of the following year. Ms. McGeedey added the applicant has met all
the Statutory requirements and the requirements of staff. There has been a concern for the oversight in
management of the plan and the continued management of the district in conjunction with the County. Some
of the critical moments will be at the time of issuance of debt. At that time, there will be rate studies to
evaluate the cost of the increase in service level or extension of facilities. This will require a submittal of the
rate study to the County as well as any other municipality that has an IGA that is in the service system. This
will give them the opportunity to review and comment. To anticipate the detail of financing now would not be
exact it would be a guess. The negotiation with the specific communities will be to predict the revenue and
responsibly prepare a study for consideration.
Michael Miller asked if Mr.Warden's concerns regarding phases and conditions for amendment to the plan has
been addressed. Ms. McGeedy stated that the applications contains a description of the first phase of
construction and the concern was what happens after and if the applicant goes beyond that phase, will they
be submitting information to determine if a substantial change will occur? Ms. McGeedy indicated that if this
does occur the applicant will be submitting information pursuant to a finance and rate study. Copies will be
submitted to staff at that time and staff will determine if a substantial change has occurred and will require
amendment. Ms. McGeedy indicated that once the rate studies have been submitted it will reveal how the next
phases will be financed,therefor no amendment will be needed. Mr. Barker added that Mr.Warden and himself
met with the applicant and Mr. Warden's concerns of who would take over and make certain money taken in
would be provided for has been taken care in the additional language of Exhibit 27. They have met a bond
issuance company,and this alleviated the concern. The purchasers of the bonds must be assured those bonds
will be paid off. The rate study that will be done determines the fees that will be generated to pay for those
bonds. The section modified indicates the rate study will be provided to the Board of County Commissioners
to make sure the fees are adequate.
Michael Miller stated his understanding is any changes to phase one plan or additional phases are not
considered a modification to the service plan, it goes beyond the financial aspect. Mr. Barker stated that Mr.
Warden's primary concern was the financial aspect and it be taken care of. This plan accommodates the
needed flexibility to the applicant without an amendment to the service plan.
James Rohn asked about the augmentation plan on the wells and how they are getting water. Mr. Doich
indicated that there is no augmentation plan required, the water is consumptive water from the acquired farms
and 100%can be used. Mr. Doich added that the district is trying to find a way to return the water to the basin
because it is good business. The district is looking at ways to bring back some irrigation water into the area
that can be stored and used for the farms to protect against drought.
Michael Miller asked about the criteria that must be met and is there other services available in the area the
district is intending to provide water to? Mr. Doich indicated that there was a large need for water in the area
that this district is a drop in the bucket, there is not enough of water for farms or cities. The applicant is trying
to find a balance between serving needs and obtaining water. The communities that are being developed require
water to be brought to them and finding that water is becoming more difficult.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if this district will require approval in Adams County. Mr. Doich indicated it does not
because they are dealing with municipalities. They are not anticipating delivering services into the Counties
themselves but are advising the Board of County Commissioners of what is happening.
Michael Miller asked if the right of way that is needed has been acquired. Mr. Doich indicated that much of
right of way along public roads along the section lines. There may be occasion to purchase and condemnation
would be used as a last resort.
Monica Mika asked what will this eventually look like. The land is presently on a center pivot and looks to be
green and healthy. Will this be dry land or will there eventually be a land use application for this area? Mr.
Doich indicated that at the present time there is no plan for development. There has been a commitment to
the State and District as to how the land will be maintained. There will be no changes,the farms that have the
ability to dryland farm will continue. The others will contain grasses and the weeds will be maintained. The
look will be the same with regards to agricultural. There are seven different farming groups that will continue
to farm the valley. The applicant has committed to using local farmers. The applicant has also committed to
reducing the amount of pesticides to enhance the water quality in the aquifer.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Wood Eppelshemer, neighbor, indicated his concern as far as the best way to management the transport to
the benefit of the valley and the recipients of the water. The consumptive use will benefit the aquifer. Mr.
Eppelshemer stated that it is very important that this is a public utility that will help deal with economics of the
valley. If this remains public the land owners and owners of the water will be protected,a private company could
create more problems.
Mark Graif,mayor of Keensburg,indicated approval of the proposal. The Town of Keenesburg believes that an
agreement will be done and believe that this will give the municipalities a better control of the aquifer and not
damaging it.
Chair closed public portion.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Barker if there was any Development Standards or Conditions that needed to be
approved with this. Mr. Barker indicated the only change would be to Section 10 that is the language that has
been agreed to and it is part of Exhibit 27. Mr. Barker suggests that the language be included in the resolution
before it goes to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. It does need to be included in the motion
which would be the amended language in Section 10 Exhibit 27.
James Rohn moved to accept the above referenced language. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried.
Monica Mika suggest amending the language to"inadequate"in Section 32-1-305 2.5 A of the staff comments.
Doug Ochsner moved to amend the language. James Rohn seconded. Motion carried.
James Rohn moved that Case 2004-XX,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners 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. Michael
Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tonya Strobel, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: MJF-1062
APPLICANT: JER, A Partnership
PLANNER: Michelle Katyryniuk
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County
Conference Room,4209 CR 24%,Longmont,Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Commissioner,
John Folsom at 10:00am then continued to 1:30 pm due to lack of quorum. At 1:40 pm Chair,Michael Miller,
called the meeting to order.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray
James Rohn
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tim Tracy
Doug Ochsner
Also Present:Char Davis,Chris Gathman, Don Carroll,Peter Schei,Bruce Barker,Jacqueline Hatch,Monica
Mika
The summary of the last two regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on May 18th&
June 1, 2004,was approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: 2004-XX
APPLICANT: Resource Colorado Water&Sanitation Metropolitan District
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot C of RE-2066; being part of theNW4 of Section 34, Ti N, R63W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Service Plan for Resource Colorado Water&Sanitation Metropolitan District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 4; east of and adjacent to CR 67.
Chris Gathman read a letter requesting a continuance to the August 3, 2004 Planning Commission
meeting.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1475
APPLICANT: Samuel Clark
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Lot B of RE-1917; being part of the NE4 of Section 13, T4N,
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
Zone District(Landscaping Materials Yard) in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 46;west of and adjacent to CR 13.
Jacqueline Hatch read a letter requesting a continuance to July 20, 2004.
Consent Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: 2AmUSR-552
APPLICANT: Duke Energy
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-614; part of the W2SE4 Section 28, T6N, R65W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a
Mineral Resource Development Facility including a Natural Gas
Processing Facility in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: Y2 mile north of CR 64, 1/4 mile west of CR 43.
C.cr. -enrlo— G/ab'/a oc/
- 1- 2Cc
- CASE NUMBER: 2004-XX
APPLICANT: Resource Colorado Water&Sanitation Metropolitan District
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot C of RE-2066; being part of theNW4 of Section 34, Ti N, R63W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Service Plan for Resource Colorado Water & Sanitation Metropolitan
District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 4; east of and adjacent to CR 67.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting a continuance to June 15, 2004.
The following Cases will be heard:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1473
APPLICANT: Tom Keberlein
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A RE-200; pt of the NW4 Section 29,T5N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Use
Permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use be Special
Review in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 54(37'h Street);west of and adjacent to CR 27
1/ (77'"Ave).
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1473,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 Development Standards#25 and if the intent was there not to be parking or staging of
trucks on site? Ms. Lockman indicated that was correct.
James Rohn asked if there were any prior USR's or SUP's on the property. Ms. Lockman stated that there
were none.
Michael Miller asked about the existing buildings on site and on what authority can staff ask them to be
removed? Ms. Lockman indicated that non conforming structures that don't meets set backs can still be used
but cannot expand further into the right of way. The only exception would be if the road would be widened and
the property would be paid for prior to demolishing.
Doug Ochsner asked if the road was widened would they be required to remove them. Mr. Morrison stated
that the buildings would be allowed to continue in use if they continue to meet the non conforming standards.
If the County needed to acquire road right of way they will purchase the structures at the valued price. Staff
is not asking the applicant to give up the property right they have by usage. If the structures are modified over
50% then they loose the non conforming status and they could not be replace in current location.
James Rohn asked about the size of the building that will be built. Ms.Lockman indicated the building will be
80 x 50 foot. Mr. Rohn asked about the hours of operation being only Monday thru Friday. Ms. Lockman
indicated the applicant indicated these hours would be adequate.
John Folsom asked Mr. Morrison about the structures being allowed under a non conforming, if the previous
use was different would that eliminate the non conforming use. Mr.Morrison stated the setback issue is a non
conforming structure issue, which means the use does not change. The non conformity deals with the
structure not the use. Ms. Lockman added that the building department wants the applicant to speak with
them so the building are up to code for the use applied for.
Glen Droegmueller, applicant representative, provided clarification with regards to the site. The two non
conforming buildings will be used for storage of construction materials and there will be no construction on
site. The hours of operation can be handled on a Monday thru Friday basis because the use is for storage
alone. The future right of way would be minimal and the County is happy with the roads. Evans is in
agreement with the road, if additional right of way was needed negotiations could be done at that time.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1465
APPLICANT: Donald Wroblewski
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 17 of Vantage Acres#1; part of the SE4 of Section 17,Ti N, R65W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a use
permitted as a Use by Special Review, (Home Business, parking of trucks
and trailers) in the A (Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Vantage Road; approximately 1/4 mile west of CR
41; approximately 1/4 mile north of CR 8.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, read a letter of continuance to May 18, 2004. This will allow
for appropriate notification.
Bryant Gimlin asked if the May 18 meeting was overloaded and Planning Commission was intending to start
at 10:00am in order to finish. Mr. Gathman stated it was a busy hearing, the issue is this case was originally
scheduled for the April 20 hearing. The newspaper notification was not posted in sufficient time.
James Rohn moved to continue the case to June 15, 2004.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Gathman if this was a possibility. Mr. Gathman indicated that the applicant would
need to be agreeable to moving it out two months. Ms. Hatch would need to be made aware of this. Mr. Miller
asked Mr. Morrison if it was within Planning Commission ability to move a case this far in advance. Mr.
Gathman indicated that it could be continued again at the May 18 hearing. Mr. Folsom asked what basis it
could be continued at that time. Mr. Gathman indicated possible case overload, but typically continued cases
go;at the beginning of the hearing.'
Michael Miller indicated he is in favor of moving the case into June but wants to make sure it is within the legal
time frame for hearing a case. Mr. Morrison stated there is no requirement for time frames like other land uses.
James Rohn restated his motion to move the case to June 15, 2004. Bryant Gimlin seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, no; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Tonya Strobel, yes; James Rohn,
yes; Chad Auer, no; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
Dough Ochsner commented that he would like to hear the case since the applicant has been put off due to an
error. If it needs to be continued he would rather continue another case.
John Folsom indicated this case would be processed pretty promptly.
CASE NUMBER: 2004-XX
APPLICANT: Resource Colorado Water& Sanitation Metropolitan District
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot C of RE-2066; being part of theNW4 of Section 34,T1 N, R63W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Service Plan for Resource Colorado Water&Sanitation Metropolitan District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 4; east of and adjacent to CR 67.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting a continuance to June 1, 2004. This will
enable the applicant to address concerns placed on the by Don Warden, Chief Financial Official Officer.
The following is on the Consent agenda:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1471
Hello