HomeMy WebLinkAbout20041567.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, May 18, 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 Chair,Michael
Miller, at 1:30p.m.
ROLL CALL c7
ri r
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray rp -.
James Rohn U N
Bruce Fitzgerald
c2.4Tonya Strobel
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
Also Present: Don Carroll, Char Davis, Jacqueline Hatch, Kim Ogle, Sheri Lockman, Monica Mika, Chris
Gathman
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on May4,2004,was
approved as read.
The following Case has been withdrawn:
CASE NUMBER: 2004-XX
APPLICANT: Centex Homes
PLANNER: Monica Mika
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NE Quarter of Section 28, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Petition for Inclusion into the Mixed Use Development Area of
Unincorporated Weld County.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Hwy 66;west of and adjacent to CR
7
Monica Mika, Department of Planning Services presented a letter withdrawing the application. This letter was
received on May 6, 2004.
The following cases are continued:
— 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.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services,read a letter requesting a continuance to June 15,2004.
James Rohn asked for clarification with regards to this continuance and was it not addressed at a previous
Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Hatch indicated it had been continued at a previous meeting but the legal
publication stated it would be addressed at this meeting. For legal clarification the case will need to be
continued to June 15, 2004 to allow for adequate legal notification.
The following cases will be heard:
N.,or 4. a rust_ (p- 7- a`rli 2004-1567
CASE NUMBER: USR-1472
APPLICANT: Steve & JoJo Pomeroy/Wes Moser Inc
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-2574; pt S2NE4 Section 33,T3N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a kennel
(60 dogs maximum of a non specific breed) in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 43, approximately 1/2 mile south of CR 28.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1472, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services (DPS) is
recommending approval of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. DPS is recommending changes to the conditions that include:
1. Delete 2. E on Page 4-The applicant shall have the existing septic system permit reevaluated by
a Professional Engineer and the septic permit be amended for commercial uses. Evidence of
approval shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
2. Add a new condition under prior to recording the plat -The applicant shall provide written
evidence to the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment that the applicant has
contacted the Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA), Division of Animal Industry. This
contact shall determine if a license under the Pet Animal Care Facilities Act(PACFA), as defined
under C.R.S. 35-80-101 through 117. C.R.S. is required, or provide evidence that the applicant is
not subject to the PACFA requirements. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
3. Correct 2.0 on page 5 referrers to section 23-2-250.8.7 and should actually read 23-3-250.B.7
Bryant Gimlin asked about the conditions requiring a 5lb fire extinguisher, is this appropriate? Ms. Hatch
stated it was in the referral from the fire district. It could be taken out and the statement added that the
applicant must respond to the fire district referral. Mr. Gimlin (inaudible). Ms. Hatch asked if the
suggestion was to add a comment under Prior to Recording the Plat the applicant should submit written
evidence that the concerns of the fire district have been met. Mr. Gimlin also asked about hours of
operation. Ms. Hatch indicated the applicants did not propose any hours. Mr. Gimlin indicated the
applicants stated their hours of operation were 7:00am -7:oopm Monday-Friday and 8:00-7:00 Saturday
and Sunday. Ms. Hatch stated that could be added as a Development Standards.
John Folsom asked if the surrounding property owner who wrote the letter was close to the operation of
the kennel. Ms. Hatch stated that there is a home across the street. Ms. Hatch stated she was unaware
of the location of the surrounding property owner. Mr. Folsom asked about the noise level being
commercial with residences in the area, they will be affected. The maximum level should be of a
residential level.
Sharon Frazer, applicant representative, provided clarification on the project. The applicants do not have
an issue with the request for the fire extinguisher from the referral. Ms. Frazer indicated that Mr. Cannon
owns property on three sides but there is no residence. The area is farmground. The closest residence is
to the southeast and they have no concerns but would like to see a privacy fence which the applicants are
proposing. This application is for a dog care kennel and facility, the applicants existing kennel in Superior
is clean and well kept. A letter from the Department of Agriculture indicating that routine inspections have
been done and there are no violations pending. There is an existing residence on site and improvements
to the site include renovating the garage and in the future the applicant is proposing to erect 30x60 pole
style building, 6-7 kennel runs with a build out of 12 maximum. There will be no outside storage on the
property. The owners will be the only ones on site with the possibility of five employees in the future as the
business grows. All dogs will be brought inside by sunset and in general drop off and pick up is staggered
so there will be no rush of vehicles. A permit has been submitted to change the well to commercial uses
and have received a response from the State that it is being processed. The septic system has been re-
engineered to meet the requirements of the Health Department. The system will be installed upon Board
of Health Approval.
James Rohn asked where the customers for this type of application will come from? Lauren Light
indicated that the existing clients will follow them.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Delmer Walter, neighbor, indicated his concerns with the noise of the barking dogs at nights and the
possibility that this will devalue the land. The Walters do not believe this use is agriculture in nature and
are opposed to this application.
The Chair Closed the public portion.
Bryant Gimlin asked about the noise level. Ms. Frazer indicated that the dogs are brought in at sunset and
are not let out again until morning.
James Rohn asked what the decibel reading for Commercial was? Ms. Davis indicated that level would
be comparable to an air condition unit at 20 feet. The residential level is comparable to light auto traffic at
100 feet or a private business office. Mr. Rohn asked if the building was insulated? Ms. Frazer stated this
is an existing garage that will need to be updated to meet the concerns of the Health Department and
Building Inspection.
Bryant Gimlin moved to accept staffs recommended changes regarding the fire extinguisher requirement.
Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried.
Bryant Gimlin moved to delete 68 and Development Standard #17. Stephen Mokray seconded. Motion
carried.
Bryant Gimlin moved to add a Development Standards and renumber accordingly to include the hours of
operation to be Monday- Friday 7:00am - 7:00pm; Saturday- Sunday 8:00am - 7:00pm and Holidays will
follow the same as the weekend hours included in the application. Stephen Mokray seconded. Motion
carried.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case USR-1472, along with the amendments, be forwarded to the Board of
County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the
Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tonya
Strobel, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
— CASE NUMBER: USR-1469
APPLICANT: Robert Carpenter/Daniel Lottman
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-1621; Pt SW4 Section 24, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Special Review Permit for use by right in the Industrial Zone District
(storage of vehicles and equipment associated with a laser leveling
machine to strike off and level concrete) in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 18; approximately 1/4 mile east of CR 11.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1469, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
denial of the application. Staff is recommending on additional Condition 2K which states in part that the
applicant will either submit an improvements agreement to cover any fencing, road improvements or
provide evidence to the Department of Planning Services that those improvements have been completed
prior to recording the plat.
John Folsom asked Mr. Gathman if he had any contact with a Troy Crieger regarding this case. Mr.
Gathman stated his conversations have been limited to the applicants representative, Tom Hellerich. Mr.
Folsom stated that currently there were two violations on site. One has been closed but the more recent
complaint is for equipment being on site. Mr. Gathman stated that was correct per the referral from
zoning compliance. According to the referral there was a five day letter sent. Mr. Folsom asked Mr.
Carroll about CR 18 being annexed, are there any concerns with access to site with equipment? Mr.
Folsom added that CR 18 is a two lane with limited shoulders, will a truck and trailer be able to turn onto
this lane? Mr. Carroll stated that there is a very short access lane to get onto CR 18. The applicant will
need to use the other lane for turn. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if the only access was to the west? Access from
the east would be limited by the ditch. Mr. Carroll stated the access is to the west of property. (Inaudible)
Chad Auer asked for the location of the elementary school. Mr. Gathman stated it was on the west side of
CR 11.
Char Davis, Health Department, would like to add a condition that the septic system be evaluated for this
use and the existing home since it will also be used for employees.
Tom Hellerich, attorney for applicant, addressed some concerns and provided additional information.
Photographs were provided of the vehicles that will be used on site and visual to the surrounding area.
The use will be for storage only and this activity will be on the south 1/3 of the site. The remainder will be
kept as it exists now, pasture. There will be a new structure built that will store the equipment. The first
violation was due to equipment being on site, this was a case of misinformation. The equipment was
removed. The second violation was a vehicle parked on site, the applicant has tried to abide by the rules.
After the second instance Mr. Crieger contacted the office and obtained appropriate applications. Troy
Crieger, applicant, provided additional pictures that explained the site and the surrounding properties. The
photos are of the surrounding neighbors that utilize their ground for parking of possible different
businesses. When the land was purchased they were told it was an ideal location for small business. Mr.
Hellerich added that this will be storage of equipment only. There will only be 3-4 trips per week in and out
of the site. The intent is to have a building to house the equipment. There is a total of 3 employees, one
lives on site. The business is done basically by phone, there will be no one on site at a facility. This use is
consistent with the area. This application was sent to Frederick and they indicated no concern, it was
brought forth later that Frederick was recommending denial. This is the basis for staff denial which is
understandable. Mr. Hellerich addressed letters from surrounding owners that had concerns with the site.
There is no industrial equipment on site, there are three pieces. They will be loaded onto trailers and
removed. The location is a substantial distance away from the proposed school. There will be no
commercial/industrial vehicles. This is not an active type of business with a great number of people
coming and going. The intent is to store the vehicles in side while equipment is not being used.
James Rohn asked Mr. Gathman about the surrounding property and if any are under USR's. Mr.
Gathman indicated that there is an approved USR-1378 for a lawn care business to the east of the site but
the remaining properties are not under any USR's. Mr. Rohn asked if those need to be reviewed or are
they considered a use by right. Mr. Gathman indicated that the nature of the businesses are unclear nor
how long they have operating. If they are deemed a non conforming use that has been in operation prior
to zoning they are an allowed use. The area is zoned agricultural so agricultural equipment is allowed.
Mr. Gathman indicated that the zoning compliance officer works on a complaint basis because there are
300+ existing violations. Mr. Rohn asked about the number of employees. Mr. Hellerich indicated that
there is a total of three only. Mr. Rohn asked about the equipment and there not being a semi on site
while a picture indicated one. Mr. Hellerich indicated there were no large semi none with double axles.
They are all single axel trucks that are used.
Michael Miller stated that there is a picture with a semi present. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Morrison about the
adjoining properties being in violation and does the presence of other non conforming uses indicate this
use must be approved? Mr. Morrison stated that Planning Commission is not required to consider the
compatibility of a use with respect to a use that may be in violation. The criteria should be the uses that
are allowed. Mr. Miller stated some of the equipment in the pictures is allowed in the agricultural zone
district. There does not seem to be anything glaring in the pictures that was in violation.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Tino Mora, neighbor, indicated that he is aware of what is going on because he is the neighbor. The
applicant continues to bring in flatbed trucks. They were seen rinsing out a drum onto the site, no idea of
the possible pollutants. There is a new elementary school two blocks away. Mr. Mora is a teacher at the
school. There is a great concern for more commercial activity in the area in regards to the safety of the
children walking to school. There are semi trucks being used to transport the equipment. Those trucks
make big swings onto CR 18. CR 18 contains several bus stops so safety is a large concern. This
business runs all hours of the day and night. He was awakened by the trucks at 4:30am one morning.
Noise and pollution is a concern. A commercial business in a residential area will cause problems and
this site is being run as a business. There are commercial and industrial locations in the area that would
be more appropriate for this use. If this is approved Mr. Mora would like to see: 1) the hours of operation
be from 8:00am to 5:00pm; 2) a non see through safety fence be constructed along the north, east and
west; 3) no semis utilized in the business and if there need to be some there should be no time in which
the trucks could idle time; 4) no maintenance of trucks on site; 5) new road signs should be added
including speed limit signs; 6)the noise level should be restricted for equipment and vehicles. In general
Mr. Mora does not want this in area.
James Rohn asked about the continuing violations and if there is any documentation addressing this? Mr.
Mora stated that Karen McCool does have pictures. She was with Bethany Salzman for a site visit. Mr.
Rohn asked about the location of the school and being able to walk to school in 2 min.
Bryant Gimlin asked if the 4:30 am activity was from this applicant. Mr. Mora stated he was awakened at
4:30 am because his window faces the proposed site.
Chad Auer asked about the school issues with the traffic and bus stops in area and how this site will be
adverse to the school? Mr. Mora leaves his home at 7:00am and there are one or two buses that are
picking children up for the middle and high school, at approximately 7:10 am -8:00am the buses come for
the elementary school children. The road is very narrow and the site will endanger the kids on CR 18 that
walk to school. Mr. Auer asked if CR 18 has a walking corridor. Mr. Mora indicated it does not.
James Rohn asked about the date the incidence happened at 4:30 am. Mr. Mora indicated it was after
the first violation has taken place. Mr. Gathman indicated the initial complaint was done on August 12,
2003.
Larry Birden, neighbor, expressed concerns with the potential for the business to access into the Summit
View Subdivision to the north. He was concerned about the potential for pollution to run off into the Lower
Boulder Ditch to the east of the site.
Amanda Gazza, neighbor, indicated concern with the small bridge and hill to the east of the property. She
asked what would prevent the business from moving further north and accessing into the Summit View
Estates Subdivision.
Daryn Bourne, neighbor, indicated concerns with traffic from the business entering the Summit View
Estates Subdivision from the northern boundary of the property that the proposed use is to be located on.
John Folsom asked when the new elementary was completed will the children need to walk since it is so
close. Mr. Bourne stated they are now buses to Prairie Ridge but will need to walk.
James Rohn asked Mr. Gathman about CR 18 and what belongs to the county. Mr. Gathman stated all of
CR 18 has been annexed to the Town of Frederick. Mr. Rohn asked about properties that were located in
the County. Mr. Gathman provided a map that showed which properties belonged where.
Chad Auer asked Mr. Bourne about the park. Mr. Bourne stated it is a greenbelt.
The Chair closed public portion
Bryant Gimlin asked about the bridge and about the weight bearing of that bridge. Mr. Carroll stated if the
road was on the county system (Inaudible) Mr. Gimlin asked line of site. Mr. Carroll stated that it was
45.5 feet in width and there is a narrow access frontage to the road. The access is on the west side, ditch
on east side. There is one slot to pull in and out. The speed limit is 45mph. (Inaudible)
Tom Hellerich, responded to concerns addressed by surrounding neighbors. With regards to Mr. Mora
concerns, Mr. Hellerich has no idea where this pollution is coming from. The equipment is presently
stored in Brighton. (Inaudible)
Bryant Gimlin moved to add staff comments to Condition 2K that consisted of"The applicant shall enter
into a Private Improvements Agreement according to policy regarding collateral for improvements and
post adequate collateral for all landscaping, transportation (access drive, parking areas, etcetera)and
non-transportation (plant materials, fencing, screening, water, sign age etcetera). The agreement and
form of collateral shall be reviewed by County Staff and accepted by the Board of County Commissioners
prior to recording the USR plat. Or the applicant may submit evidence that all the work has been
completed and reviewed by the Department of Planning Services and the Department of Public Work."
(Department of Planning Services)
James Rohn seconded. Motion carried.
Bryant Gimlin moved to accept Char Davis, Health Department, language consisting of"The septic system
serving the "existing single family residence"shall be evaluated by a Colorado Registered Professional
Engineer. The review shall consist of observation of the system and a technical review describing the
systems ability to handle the proposed hydraulic load. The review shall be submitted to the Environmental
Health Services Division of Weld County Department of Public Heath and Environment. In the event the
system is found to be inadequately sized or constructed the system shall be brought into compliance with
current regulations. Chad Auer seconded. Motion carried.
Michael Miller asked about access to back on alley. Mr. Gathman suggested defining the boundaries of
the USR. The building will be on the south end of the property. They could modify the boundary to
encompass the buildings at south end. Mr. Folsom suggested restricting access to the property being
only at the south end of the site off CR 18.
John Folsom moved to have the access be restricted to the current access off CR 18. James Rohn
seconded. Motion carried.
John Folsom commented that this case must be decided on its own merit. Zoning compliance on any
other surrounding uses is not viable should be investigated. (Inaudible)
Bryant Gimlin commented (inaudible)
Chad Auer stated the concerns around the impact of school is crucial. The type of vehicle is a large
impact when considering children.
Doug Ochsner commented there is conflicting testimony. The applicant indicated that this is not an
industrial use it is no different that someone building a shed and parking an RV inside. The applicant is
planning on coming in 3-4 times a week which would not be a significant change. If Mr. Mora were to
develop his property there will be additional homes with the additional traffic, much greater then 3-4 trips
per week.
Michael Miller stated that it comes to honoring the IGA. The decision for denial is based on the criteria
from the IGA. (inaudible) Mr. Folsom added (inaudible).
Chris Gathman added that representative from the Town of Frederick were contacted and encouraged to
come to the meeting.
Don Carroll stated that the Town of Frederick would need to post the signs for speed.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case USR-1469, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Planning Commissions recommendation of denial. The reasons being it is not compatible with
the area and it is a violation of the IGA criteria. James Rohn seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Chad Auer,
yes; Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Tonya Strobel, yes. Motion carried.
James Rohn commented (inaudible)
Doug Ochsner commented that he is concerned with the access, he believes the IGA does not create a
conflict.
Bruce Fitzgerald commented (inaudible)
John Folsom commented (inaudible)
Bryant Gimlin commented (inaudible)
Michael Miller commented (inaudible)
CASE NUMBER: USR-1470
APPLICANT: Jose Martinez
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt SW4 Section 19, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Use by
Right or Accessory Use in the Industrial Zone District (storage of vehicles
and equipment along with employee parking associated with a
landscaping business) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: Approximately 600'east of CR 1 and approximately'A mile north of Hwy
66.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1470, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
denial of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. The main
reason for denial is the access concerns.
Michael Miller asked if the recommendation for denial is because there is no approval for the use of the
access road. Mr. Gathman stated they are looking for approval from those neighbors that are directly
impacted by the business, either the ones who's property is driven by neighbors who maintain or use the
access. A letter from the Marshes indicated opposition.
James Rohn asked about Development Standards asking for 4 employees cars while the application
indicates one employee but there is a total of 16 vehicles. The numbers do not add up. Mr. Gathman
stated that the original application indicated two people utilizing the site and one employee. Not all 16
employees will be at the site. The main office is located offsite, this is a staging area for the equipment.
The new numbers for vehicles are one six ton truck, one one ton truck, three trailers to be pulled and two
small loaders, with those numbers for equipment there would need to be four vehicles parked on site. The
limited amount of equipment on site determines the number of vehicles needed. This is the reason for the
limit on four employee vehicles. James Rohn asked where the office was located and will there be
customers coming to this site. Mr. Gathman indicated there will be no customers as this a staging area
with some storage of materials.
Bryant Gimlin asked about Development Standards#28 (inaudible). Mr. Gathman indicated it was from
the Mountain View Fire Protection District. This was in their referral letter. Since this would deal with any
potential future uses in the area this was inserted as a Development Standard. This is not a standard
drafted by Planning staff but it can be clarified.
John Folsom asked Mr. Morrison about the state statute regarding a use by right with a land locked lot
(inaudible). Mr. Morrison stated this is a complicated issue and part of the problem is that there was a
lower level use before now. Part of the reason staff is recommending denial is on lack of adequate
access and what in fact would change the use on the access. Land necessity precludes the creation of a
lot easement. This lot is not land locked and the issue is what use is appropriate.
Lee Morrison asked Mr. Gathman about the recommendation being on lack of access is that both legal
and practical or are there issues as the whether the access is adequate to serve the use. Mr. Gathman
stated that the access does have a tight turn, there are boulders on both sided of the access site from CR
1. Staff is being consistent with other recommendations under similar situations. It is Planning Staff policy
that, when there is a private access, a consent or sign off from the other users of the access is needed. If
a business is brought in that is a substantial change to the access, the uses should have some consent to
this. Mr. Morrison stated the county is not in the role that the court may need to be in. Mr. Miller stated
the issue was the use of the access being normal when the court order was done. Now the questions
arises since the use will be changed to a more substantial use.
Macon Cowles, representative for the applicant, provided clarification with regard to the project. The
number of employees will be at a maximum of 16 but those employees will not be at this site, they will be
on job sites. Jose Martinez, applicant, provided information with regard to the property. There will be two
trucks in and out every day. The other trucks rarely come to the yard. There will be loaders at the yard
more often in the off season times. The equipment will be on site during the winter. Mr. Miller asked how
the large rocks and material got to the site. Mr. Martinez stated the six ton truck brought those on site.
Mr. Cowles added that there is rock that is stored only temporary and will be used on other jobs. The
access is the key issue. The court order indicates the Marshes are in charge of maintenance. The use of
the easement (road) is the concern and the court order indicates that the Marshes cannot block access.
The applicants sent a letter to the surrounding owners to let them know what the applicant wants to do.
The applicant attempted to speak in person with all the neighbors that would be most affected by the
business. The Martinez are willing to assist the Marshes with the maintenance of the road as the
remaining neighbors should be. The amount for maintenance of the road has not been received. There
are neighbors that are running businesses out of the homes. The neighbor to the east has vehicles on
site and would not acknowledge the applicant and the neighbor to the south runs a flooring business while
the neighbor to the west is fine with the proposal. The maintenance and the sharing of the road is binding
on all the neighbors in the area. The Martinez are the only ones that have stepped forward to share in the
cost. There is a condition that permits the applicants to develop a plan to maintain the road and access to
this site. The applicant is willing to pay his proportionate share for the maintenance on the access road.
James Rohn asked about the zoning compliance referral that indicates a violation and asked how the
operation could continue. Mr. Gathman stated that it is standard to let an operation continue as long as
they have submitted an application to bring the operation into compliance.
Macon Cowles added that the applicants bought the property and started this use with the understanding it
was a use by right. The realtor for this sale will tell the Planning Commission that the intent was this type
of business was allowed under the zoning that existed. Mr. Miller indicated that the issue is that this is a
buyer beware situation, the zoning must be verified before purchase. The owner is responsible to
determine the zoning and the allowable use. Mr. Cowles indicated that the access concerns that have
been brought forth now were never called out by the title company. The court order was not called out in
the title commitment.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Byron Marsh, neighbor, indicated he was the owner of the private road that accesses the property. They
do have the right to access the property. This is a residential area and the added traffic has increased.
The cost of the road has been absorbed by Mr. Marsh. The maintenance cost were not extreme so this
issue was never brought forward. There are 8 children that ride on this road with bicycles and their safety
is a concern. Mr. Marsh has sent all the neighbors letters and a letter was addresses to Mr. Cowles. The
Marshes would not like to see this approved due to safety and traffic. The road is not wide enough to
accommodate the turn in for larger trucks. The entry way is 13'6" and the road is approximately 20'due to
extra use. This is a residential area and even though there are other businesses they do not have this
many employees. There are limited trips on the road per day for the other businesses.
Michael Miller asked about if the extra width is due to extra traffic caused by Mr. Martinez. Mr. Marsh
indicated it was not all his responsibility. The traffic has doubled and that causes the concern, at one time
it was a one lane road. Mr. Miller stated that the neighbors should pay for additional use or maintenance
and they should be billed if they do use it excessively. Mr. Miller asked if anyone has been billed for the
maintenance of the road. Mr. Marsh indicated they had not because he felt it would be improper when the
others that live on it have not paid any upkeep in thirteen years. Mr. Marsh has billed everyone but none
one has adhered to the bill. A bill was given to an associate of Mr. Martinez.
Doug Ochsner asked if Mr. Marsh would be opposed to this application if the applicant would pay for
maintenance of the road. Mr. Marsh is concerned for the safety of the kids and the amount of traffic onto
CR 1.
James Rohn asked about the existing business to the south of the Martinez and if they are operating this
business out of the existing home or is this just his home. Mr. Marsh indicated he was not sure.
Tina Winwood, realtor who sold property, indicated she was under the impression the property was
suitable for the landscaping business. The property was zoned agricultural and they thought it was a great
fit for the Martinez's needs. There was numerous trucks across the street. Mr. Miller added that
agricultural property allows for keeping agricultural equipment on the property, it does not allow for running
a commercial business. Ms. Winwood indicated that the business is not run from the house this is just for
storage of equipment. There are numerous violations in the surrounding area due to equipment being in
the area.
The Chair closed the public portion.
Macon Cowles, added that there are no children on this road, they may visit the neighborhood. The notice
that was left with an associate did not get to the Martinez. In the order it binds that the successors shall
not interfere with the use. It seems as though the maintenance agreement is being used to stop a
reasonable use of this property. The equipment on site has dropped dramatically.
Michael Miller asked about the historic number of people employed on this property. Mr. Martinez
indicated that there are four people everyday.
James Rohn asked when was the property purchased in the Town of Mead? Mr. Martinez indicated he
has owned if for five years. Mr. Rohn asked why an industrial area was not selected? Mr. Martinez stated
this place was purchased because there was more land and where they store the equipment there is not
a HOA with restrictions. Mr. Rohn asked if he lived on this site. Mr. Martinez stated he lives in Mead. Mr.
Martinez stated he purchased this property because he does not have the money to purchase commercial
property. Commercial is more expensive.
Chris Gathman added that there is information that was handed out addressing some letters referred to in
public comment.
Don Carroll added that Public Works does not want to interfere with a court judgement and ask for
additional conditions. Mr. Morrison stated that it needs to work within the confines of the order.
(Inaudible)What improvements provide for additional cost for someone causing damage from normal
wear and tear of the access? What kind of improvement needed to make this easement useable?
Michael Miller stated the limitations would be for appropriate access from CR 1. Mr. Morrison added if
there are impediments that cause the limitation of the use of the road those would need to be considered.
Mr. Carroll stated there are two boulders on two sides of the drive confining the turning radius, the
boulders would need to be taken out of County right of way and relocated. The road has hard surface with
the width being 14-20 feet, it would accommodate two cars to pass. The turning radius to Martinez could
use some work and the road needs moisture. Mr. Miller asked about CR 1. Mr. Carroll stated the latest
count was around 2300 vehicles. Mr. Miller asked if there would be room on CR 1 if a car were to stop to
turn? Mr. Carroll stated he believed CR 1 is double striped. (Inaudible)
John Folsom asked Mr. Gathman (inaudible) Mr. Gathman stated that staff is dealing with a consistent
policy in regards to private easements. When there are special use permits it is looked at as if something
is changed above and beyond single family residential. Mr. Morrison stated that the County cannot
interpret the court order. (Inaudible) If a conflict arises that ends up in court they would like to see an
agreement.
Michael Miller added that in a previous case there was the question as to whether a change to the
driveway was considered a substantial change to the use. Mr. Morrison added that there was evidence of
prior use with agricultural consistent with the intensity of use.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Morrison if there should be language that the applicant should attempt to get an
agreement. Mr. Morrison stated that is an opportunity, Mr. Gathman has addressed it partially in Condition
1A which states the applicant shall submit signed road maintenance agreement for the two private roads
that provide access to the site or provide a plan as to how the applicant will maintain the road if an
agreement cannot be reached.
Michael Miller added that the court order does not limit to uses. There is provisions that if a residence
uses the road too much they should pay for their share. Mr. Miller indicated his largest concern was the
access from CR 1.
John Folsom (inaudible) something about the access.
Bryant Gimlin asked about the condition that the applicant submit a private road improvements
agreement. Is it specific to the road or to the maintenance yard? Mr. Gathman stated that when this
condition was placed in there it was specifically for improvements to the storage yard not to the road.
Bryant Gimlin moved to add the language from staff regarding the improvements agreements. John
Folsom seconded. Motion carried.
Bryant Gimlin asked if Development Standards#28 should be amended. Mr. Gathman suggested
keeping the first sentence and deleting the remainder of the paragraph.
Bryant Gimlin moved to amend Development Standards #28 with staffs suggestion. Bruce Fitzgerald
seconded. Motion carried.
James Rohn moved to deny USR 1470. Stephen Mokray second.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, no; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, no; Bryant Gimlin, no; James Rohn, yes; Chad Auer, no;
Tonya Strobel, yes; Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, no. Motion failed.
Bryant Gimlin commented (inaudible)
Michael Miller stated that he has no issue with access, the court order will address that concern. Mr.
Miller indicated his biggest concern is a one acre site in the middle of homes, one acre with a home does
not leave much room for storage of equipment. On this basis the question of compatibility without
considering the access is the concern.
Bryant Gimlin commented (inaudible)
James Rohn commented that his recommendation of denial was based not only on the access but also for
the health, safety and welfare of the residents. This business would be better suited in a commercial area.
The access is interfering with the residences that are there and disrupting their livelihood.
Stephen Mokray indicated that the number of vehicles may be limited now but with a growing business the
need for room will expand. This is a residential area with a commercial use in the middle.
Bryant Gimlin commented (inaudible)
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case USR-1470, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards 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; Stephan Mokray, no; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, no; Tonya
Strobel, no; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried.
John Folsom commented that the boulders that are in the right of way need to be removed and there are
severe restrictions on this application.
— CASE NUMBER: 2004-XX
APPLICANT: Melody Homes/DR Horton
PLANNER: Monica Mika
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A tract of land located in the NE & SE Quarter of the Section 33, T3N,
R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Amendment to Map#2.1: Structural Land Use Plan of the
Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 22) and the Mixed Use Development Plan
(Chapter 26)to include 188 +/- total acres designated for potential
Residential, Regional Park, School Site, and Neighborhood Center
Development with a proposed population density of 3000 residents.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 7 between CR 26 and CR 28; east of and
adjacent to CR 7; north of and adjacent to CR 26
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.
John Folsom quoted Section 26-1-30.C and Section 22-1-150.B.3 regarding submittal deadlines and
asked about the application submittal date of February 26, 2004, he suggested that the case should not
be heard until September and asked if Ms. Mika agreed?. Ms. Mika indicated she does not because the
spirit and intent of this section have been met because the applicants met with her in January and at the
same time she gave them a copy of the procedural guide that contained two dates. In her opinion these
two dates represented confusion. Therefore Ms. Mika directed them to adhere to the March 1 date. Ms.
Mika also gave the same date to another applicant applying for the same case. Mr. Morrison added the
purpose of the date was to keep the cases clustered instead of having them throughout the year. The
deadline date was not a reason to deny the application.
John Folsom continued with quotations from Section 22-1-150.B.4 regarding emergency services. Mr.
Folsom then quoted from the Sheriff's referral letter about them not being able to provide services unless
the resources recommended in the multi-year plan were obtained. Ms. Mika stated her interpretation is
the language from the referral is consistent with what is placed on most referrals indicating the Sheriff's
Office does not oppose development, but there ability to serve is always referenced in relationship
with further funding. Ms. Mika also noted that a HOA is included to ensure the future of a Law
Enforcement agency.
John Folsom quoted Section 22-1-150.B.5 and asked if the emergency service requirement has been
met? Ms. Mika indicated that a referral was sent to Dave Bresler, Ambulance Service, and he stated they
were not first responders, rather Tri Area Ambulance is the primary service provider.
John Folsom quoted Section 26-1-60.C.1.c MUD goals and policies and asked if the applicant has
petitioned the Town of Mead for annexation. Ms. Mika indicated the applicant has had discussions with
Mead but the County has not mandated they petition for inclusion since there is no longer an IGA and
furthermore the property is not nor has never been part of the Mead IGA. Ms. Mika stated that the
applicant has also spoken to Longmont.
John Folsom quoted Section 26-1-60.C.2.b and stated that Section 26-1-60.C.1.c would need to be
referenced. Mr. Folsom then went on to reference:
Section 26-1-60.C.3.c, Section 26-1-60.C.4.a, Section 26-1-6.C.4.b and Section 22-2-230 and asked if
those section have been addressed. Ms. Mika indicated that the applicant has agreed to participate in the
School Impact Fee but has declined to comment on the School Capacity Fee.
Ken Poncerelli, representative for Melody Homes, provided additional clarification on the inclusion into the
MUD. A PowerPoint presentation was given on the points for discussion for the approval of the
application. There are seven points to the discussion: 1. Site context and surrounding development as
well as the MUD plan, 2. Project intent, 3. Proactive approach in the process that has been taken,4.
Public Outreach with the adjacent land owners, 5. Community character and intent for the master plan
community, 6. Comprehensive Plan Compliance and 7. Benefits of the development. Mr. Poncerelli
added that the school district is looking at a 2007 construction date for the high school and those impact
fees will be paid for by the applicant. In the MUD area residential is planned for the adjoining area as well
as a neighborhood commercial. The intent is to develop a master plan for several different types of
homes in the area including single family attached and detached. Mr. Poncerelli added that several
County departments, as well as other agencies have been contacted with regards to possible implications
and improvements for the site. The applicant will be paying for improvements as they pertain to the
development. There has been no geological surveys done at this time, but the information will be
reviewed prior to preliminary plat. The surrounding municipalities were contacted and the reason for not
proceeding through the Town of Mead was due to contractual obligations. The process in Mead is
uncertain, the entire process can be completed and then a vote by the public could deny the application
without opportunity to mitigate any concerns. This application is not within an Urban Growth Boundary,
IGA or contiguous for annexation into the Town of Mead. One third of the existing property is within the
MUD and Mead is unable to provide services to this area. There has been several meetings with
surrounding land owners to provided information and several topics were discussed. The applicants
believe this application is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Growth should pay for itself. The
applicants will pay the school district, roadways, utility lines to the area, parks and open space. The open
space, trails and parks will be HOA maintained.
John Folsom asked about the negotiations for the sale of the Mountain View Fire District property? Mr.
Poncerelli indicated he is not aware of this. Mr. Folsom asked about a traffic impact report on CR 1 and
CR 201/4 with regard to revenue versus expenses? Mr. Poncerelli stated that a report has not been asked
for and nothing has been prepared but infrastructure costs have been evaluated.
James Rohn asked about the size of the lots. Mr. Poncerelli stated they will be less than %acre sites, at
this time a subdivision design has not been done. Mr. Rohn asked if a church could be in place of the
school. Mr. Poncerelli stated that it would be a consideration. Mr. Rohn asked if a HOA would be
maintaining the property. Mr. Poncerelli indicated there would be a HOA and they would be responsible
for maintenance.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
John Heard, Mead Trustee, indicated concerns with the proposal. Mike Friesen, Mead Town
Administrator was also present. Mr. Heard added that Centex Homes, the other proposed MUD inclusion,
was annexed into the Town of Mead, as well as the High School site. Of political concerns is the IGA, at
present time, there is not an IGA with Weld County, however that agreement is very close. There are
several different ways to interpret when the application should have been applied and which process is
should have gone through either Mead versus Weld County. As stated by Mr. Heard his opinion is that
this application should have to come to Mead for annexation. A comment was made that the applicant
had spoken with Mead in an informal 30 minutes conversation and he does not seriously considered this
as coming to Mead. Mr. Heard feels that this plan should be submitted to Mead and the applicant is
utilizing a loop hole because of a lapse in IGA and it is unfair. There is a possible annexation problem but
education of the voters needs to be done. Centex was successful and they are located to the north of this
site. The health safety and welfare for the residents of the County and Mead can be properly addressed
through Mead. The library district and Mead is doing a joint venture at the proposed new high school.
Mike Friesen, Mead Administrator, indicated that"the Town of Mead can only reply to that which we have
received in terms of material." Mead believes the petitioner is painting a picture that is not reality. The
text indicates the property is unuseable unless they get into the MUD, Mead totally disagrees. The Sketch
Plan that Mead received did not show employment or regional centers as is suggested now. The
information also indicates a Public Works expansion project and Mead has not received anything
concerning this. The 1-25 parallel issues is a County issue not CDOT. The library is doing studies and
have not determined where they are putting any branches. Mr. Friesen indicated that"the Town of Mead
is still waiting for now almost nine months for and IGA from the County in order to be able to implement it."
The I-25 Parallel Study is the only thing that has been done, an IGA is needed in order to implement. The
applicants have ignored the existence of the Town of Mead in their replies and presentation. Mead has
annexed the High School site, Frederickson Farm and CR 7 in front of the property, thus giving them
contiguity. Mead is not willing to provide services to the site because it is not within the town. Mead
stated that HOA's do not maintain parks and trails well and the County will not be doing the maintenance.
Mr. Friesen stated "in my 25 years of experience I have never seen an HOA successfully manage a site
this large, maintenance of parks, doing snow plowing and requiring HOA assessments or homeowners to
do this. This project clearly belongs in a municipality." Mr. Friesen continued with the argument that the
petition was not submitted in a timely manner for this hearing therefor this hearing was improper and
should not be heard. According to Mr. Friesen this application should come to the Town of Mead and
would be halfway through the process before they are finished at the County.
Chad Auer asked how this proposed development would fit into the Comprehensive Plan for the Town of
Mead? Mr. Friesen stated this is compatible with Mead because once the high school site is developed
the area will become residential. There is no ability to have commercial in the area and there is the
question of density and housing mixes in the right spot. Mr. Heard added that part of the Centex
development contains another site for elementary school. The Comprehensive Plan contains school
mitigation fees to assist in the development of schools in the area. The welfare of the residents and the
impact on the schools in Mead is a huge issue.
John Folsom asked if the IGA between Mead and the County was in effect at the time of the submittal.
Mr. Friesen stated it has expired in June 2002 but it was not considered expired until after the Board of
County Commissioners voted not to continue the amendment on March 1. Mr. Folsom stated that the IGA
was not in effect at the time of the application but it was treated as such therefor the applicant should have
petitioned Mead for annexation.
Lee Morrison and Mr. Folsom discussed the relevancy and interpretation of when the IGA in fact expired
as to the submission date of the application. Ms. Mika indicated a letter was received on February 26,
2004 and reiterated that the site was not in the Mead IGA boundary. Mr. Morrison commented (inaudible)
Mr. Folsom added (inaudible)
John Folsom asked if Centex is partially paying for the paving of CR 7 south of Hwy 66 and also the
school district mitigation. Mr. Heard stated they are paying school fees as well as putting land aside for
the school site. CR 7 was paved my Centex south to the school site. Mr. Heard stated that as part of the
agreement was that Mead took CR 7 all the way down to the high school. Mr. Folsom asked if the Centex
site and the High School will be serviced by the Mead sewer system? Mr. Heard indicated it would not,
the Town of Mead contracts with St. Vrain Sanitation District. If Mead was to provide services a pump
station would be needed.
Bryant Gimlin asked if Mead could provide services such as water, sewer, police and fire protection to this
location? Mr. Heard stated that the water, depending on the location, will be provided by Long Peak. The
St. Vrain Sanitation District provides sewer, Law Enforcement is contracted with Weld County but Mead
pays for more services and the Fire District is with Mountain View Fire District. Mike Friesen added that
"all around here there are different combinations of units of government that are providing different kinds
of services, you are not going to find one entity that is going to provide everything, but the issue is can
there be services, yes there can. What does the Town of Mead do that is unique into itself? It provides
parks and recreation services, senior programs, other kinds of social services and obviously public works.
A subdivision here is not going to get plowed for snow by the County Public Works Department, they don't
do that. A municipality does provide that level of service and as the tax base grows I'm anticipating that
our social services will grow too. That is what a municipality does." The health and criminal system will
still be done by the County. The Town of Mead believes that it is better for the residents, of a
subdivisions, quality of life to be in a municipality.
James Rohn asked about the Sheriffs Department and if there are deputies stationed in Mead. Mr. Heard
indicated there were not, the contract is for additional hours and the town pays for this.
Stephen Mokray asked how emergencies are covered? Mr. Heard stated it was considered mutual aid.
John Folsom referred to the City of Dacono referral and quoted a section of that letter regarding the MUD
area, and it being a tool to counter the planning effort of the municipalities. Mr. Heard agrees with this
concern. Any comprehensive or corridor plan needs revisions by the time of final approval. The MUD
along with the Town of Mead are not helping each other. This is a MUD not an IGA issue, if there was an
IGA this application would be coming through the Town of Mead. Mr. Heard added that the moral side to
this application is it should come to Mead. The financial aspect is the reason for the applicant to proceed
in the Country process. Mr. Heard would like the Planning Commission to not expand the MUD and send
this application to the Town of Mead for their annexation process.
Stephen Mokray(inaudible) Mr. Heard stated that the best way would be for the Planning Commission to
recommend denial or accept the submittal dates were untimely. Centex utilized the County as a Plan B
incase the Town of Mead did not annex.
James Rohn asked if the Town of Mead would be willing to annex this development once it gets built? Mr.
Friesen stated it would be almost impossible, all 1200 homeowners would have to agree to the
annexation. Mr. Heard added that Mead charges more impact fees then the County, have a regional park
and provide open fishing for free. There are services in the Town. The impact fees would be hard to
obtain once they are already in the County and developed.
John Folsom asked if Mead was the only municipality in the St. Vrain School District that has mitigation
fee. Mr. Heard added that was correct.
James Rohn asked Mr. Friesen about a letter he drafted stating the density was to high. Mr. Friesen
stated that the Frederickson Farms annexation has a density of 3 dwelling units (DU)to the acre, this
application is for 4 DU per acres. Mr. Rohn asked about a MUD and the ability to provide urban type
services. Mr. Friesen indicated that it has not been taken care of. The definition in Mead of what
constitutes urban services is not the same as the County definition. The County is looking at this as the
bare basic infrastructure of water, sewer and roads. Mead is looking at a full service municipality that has
to look at the social equation. Mr. Heard added that all the homeowners will be utilizing Meads services.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Morrison how they contract with the County to get more service. Mr. Morrison
stated that Mead pays for coverage above what the ordinary unincorporated area of coverage is. A Law
Enforcement Agency works the same way instead of coming out of general fund it creates additional
revenue. Mr. Miller stated that there is no net savings to the County if this were to be annexed? Mr.
Morrison stated that there would not be from Law Enforcement standpoint. The County provides the jail
which is huge cost to the County. The contracts are not for the purpose of providing base service they are
additional service.
James Rohn asked what the population of Mead was? Mr. Heard stated 2200-2300 with a projected 2500
homes to be built. There is a police department plan on line but the town obtains better police service
when contracted with the County. Mr. Rohn pointed that the Town of Ault has a force. Mr. Heard stated
that in order to purchase a force it would take the close to one third of the entire budget.
Monica Mika asked when the high school annexation was recorded. Mr. Friesen stated that both the High
School and the Frederickson annexation have been recorded within the last three weeks which would
have been approximately the last week in April to the middle of May.
Frank Gemaldi, citizen, indicated concerns with the proposal. The Comprehensive Plans states that the
MUD will accommodate the development of land outside municipalities as long as the infrastructure is
capable of handling the intensity of development. There is a problem with ingress and egress for the
residents of the project. CR 7 has been annexed and is designated as a two lane collector street. The
question is how are the projected number of residents to enter and exit on a two lane collector? The
applicant needs to provide better access through the existing roadways. Mr. Gemaldi referred to CRS 31-
23-212 referring to territorial jurisdiction over the subdivision of land including all land located within the
legal boundaries of the municipality and also includes all land lying within three miles of the municipality
not located in any other municipality. Mr. Gemaldi pointed out that this referred to"jurisdiction" not
"referral". Mead is adjacent to this site because of the High School. According to Mr. Gemaldi there is a
County policy that Mead has jurisdiction of a site if it is within a %mile of sewer line. Once the Centex and
High School are connected to St. Vrain Sanitation this places this project within the 1/2 mile status. The
applicant does not want to go through Mead because of money. There is merit in making a profit but not
at the expense of the school system. Mead has impact fees for storm drainage, transportation,
undeveloped open space, parks, police, recreation center, municipal facilities and capitol equipment. The
school system will be over burdened, and this does not meet the criteria to expand the MUD. The
applicant should go through the Town of Mead.
Monica Mika added that the interpretation of CRS 31-23-212 is different. This application is not a
subdivision of land rather this is an inclusion into the Comprehensive Plan. The County does recognize
that any subdivision within three miles of a municipality is given the opportunity to comment and the Town
of Mead was sent a referral. Mr. Gemaldi added that another concern brought forward was whether this
was in Mead Sanitary Sewer. In answer to what is an urban area, Ms. Mika stated the Comprehensive
Plan indicates that"until an IGA is in place the UGB will be defined as 1/2 mile from existing public sanitary
sewer facilities." It does not allow an UGB to be determined based upon the possibility that where the
sewer may be in the future. The Weld County Attorneys office supplied a map to Mead defining the
sanitary sewer lines and asked for comment or corrections. The County has received nothing to date,
therefor this is the map the County is utilizing. According to the above mentioned map the proposed site
is 1 1/2 miles outside the boundary. Ms. Mika stated that Urban Growth is defined either through an IGA or
by development that exists within the MUD. This is defined as urban density development.
Frank Gemaldi asked Ms. Mika about the statement that Planning Commission is not approving a
subdivision and therefor the three miles has nothing to do with this, does this mean that Melody Homes
will be required to go through Mead when a subdivision is submitted. Ms. Mika stated the interpretation
was this application deals with referral within the three mile status. There is a three step process and
today this is for the inclusion into the MUD area. There are two remaining processes for land division,
today's application is to modify the structural land use map.
Frank Gemaldi would like to ask the applicant how they intend to address the statement that the
infrastructure is capable of handling the intensity of the development?
John Heard stated that the MUD map actually has large parts of the Town of Mead that are on septic
systems and are still included as part of the Town. The %mile sanitary sewer boundary is Weld County's
interpretation of what is included and what is not. Mr. Miller stated that the intent is that you have to show
you are within 1/2 mile of public sewer, septic systems are not public sewer. Mr. Heard stated that the
bigger picture is this development abuts Mead. Mr. Miller(inaudible)
James Rohn asked Mr. Schei about CR 7 and the fact it dead ends with no direct connection to Hwy 119
from this site. Mr. Schei stated that there are future plans for CR 7 to be an arterial roadway. The intent is
to take CR 7 to CR 26 then down to Hwy 119. Mr. Schei added that there are no plans to connect CR 7 to
Hwy 119. The applicant is willing to pave the area of CR 7 that affects this development. The applicant is
willing to work with the County for a bridge for alignment. Mr. Rohn asked if all residents would have to go
to Hwy 66? Mr. Schei stated a traffic study would need to be done to gain a positive perspective. Public
Works does not believe that not having south connectivity would be impeding to this development. Mr.
Schei stated that if a development comes in in phases it will be reviewed as to traffic count.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Ken Poncerelli, addressed the comments and concerns brought forth by the public. With regards to
con; guity the high school was not annexed when Melody homes began this process. The Centex
application was originally denied, the process in Mead does not allow an outcome that is fair. The
applicant can agree to things and at the end of the process have nothing. The applicant made a business
decision based on the client choice to go through the County. 1/3 of the site was already included in the
MUD. The density is based on the comments and the MUD language, the question is rather that will be
achieved or not at the end phase. There are several variable factors that will play into the final density
numoers. This application will have no regional commercial employment centers, this will only be a mixed
residential development. The sanitary sewer is not a contract with Mead it will be owned and operated by
St. Vrain Sanitation District and Longs Peak Water District. Melody Homes will pay the fees that are
needed to make sure there is Law Enforcement in the area. The initial traffic study indicated that currently
65% in area heads south on CR 5 % to get to Hwy 119, 35% goes north on CR 7. The applicant will pay
their share of improvements to roadway improvements. David Andrews, representative Melody Homes,
provicod additional information on infrastructure. The discussions are preliminary and the development
would responsible for half of the roadway that they affect. The applicant has no concern with paving two
lanes of the road to help alleviate any of the traffic that this development causes. The applicant is willing
to help in the mitigation of any road that they impact. The school impact fees are not a problem, $2700
dollars a household is fine with the applicant. The HOA will be able to maintain the internal parks, the
track record has been established through past developments.
Doug Ochsner asked about the $7000 dollars impact if in Town of Mead per home? Mr. Poncerelli
indicated that the services are being paid for such as the sewer and Law Enforcement. An impact fee is
not being paid to the Town of Mead.
John Folsom asked if the residents would be using the Longmont recreation facility or the library. Mr.
Poncerelli stated that the recreation center requires a fee to be a member. The intention is to have pool
and parks in the development. Homes need to have amenities in order to attract clients. Mr. Folsom
commented (inaudible) Mr. Folsom asked about contiguity and if the applicant ever considered flagpole.
Mr. Poncerelli stated that it was not considered, it was a business decision based on the stability and
certainty of the County process. There is no certainty of fairness because the application goes to public
vote.
James Rohn asked Ms. Mika about the density being 4 du per acre and is that not one of the most dense
projects that has been heard in the county. Ms. Mika stated that this is not, the MUD has been
established to propose 4 du per acre.
Michael Miller asked about the amendment to the land area of the map. Ms. Mika stated it was an
appendix from the Comprehensive Plan. The changes consist of updating the MUD map and scaled out
the existing developments. The numbers were changed to accommodate and have been included in the
staff comments.
Stephen Mokray moved to accept the proposed changes from staff. Bryant Gimlin seconded. Motion
carried.
Bruce Fitzgerald commented that the MUD was created years ago because there was no municipalities
that would take the developments on. It was identified as a growth area, Mead should have a chance at
annexation.
James Rohn commented that Mead should have a chance for annexation also with the condition that
Mead acquire a police force outside the Weld County Sheriff.
John Folsom commented the reason for the creation of the MUD is questionable. Neighboring
municipalities are capable of overseeing urban growth in the MUD are with recommendations of the state
statute. The County is permitting expansion of the MUD irresponsibly relies on municipalities and special
districts to provide the many services which the County is not prepared to provide. Mr. Folsom would
recommend denial based on the following sections:
22-1-150.9 A 8, B
26-1-60.C.1.c
22-1-150.B.3
22-1-150 B.4.b
Doug Ochsner commented that he sees the contiguity in the application. It is adjacent to the current
subdivision and they have met every criteria in the code. To be required to go to Mead would not be fair
when it fits in the area.
Chad Auer commented the impact is on the Town of Mead, should be heard by Town of Mead.
Stephen Mokray commented they will have an impact on the Town of Mead. The applicant is responsible
for abiding by the guidelines of the County because the application is being processed in the County.
Bryant Gimlin commented this application is not a direct debate on rather it be County or Mead. Mead is
really not offering Melody any benefit to be in the town, the water, sewer and fire protection stay the same
either way. When Melody began this process there was no contiguity. The issue is, the application should
allow the inclusion, and it is a good application.
Doug Ochsner added that it will affect the Town of Mead and that affect will be positive. The sales tax
from these residences will go to Mead.
Michael Miller commented that the entire area is under consideration not just this application. The MUD
area i; turning into a city of itself. The applicant has met the standards for the inclusion. There will be
impacts on everyone in the area.
Monica Mika indicated the calculations update the existing map, the applicant is requesting that the
regional/commercial employment center be removed from the description.
Stephen Mokray moved to approve staff changes. Bryant Gimlin seconded. Motion carried
Stephen Mokray moved that Case 2004-XX, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Tonya Strobel seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, no; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, no; Tonya
Strobel, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, no; Chad Auer, no. Motion carried.
John Folsom commented that his vote is based on the Comprehensive Plan needing revisions, the
application submittal date with regards to the IGA and emergency services not being provided. It has not
been demonstrated that public cost will not exceed revenues.
Michael Miller indicated that there was an issue to address for Other Business. The Hcaring Room at the
South Weld County Offices are in adequate to conduct hearings. The air conditioning and acoustics are
terrible. He would suggest not having another meeting here until the concerns can be rectified.
Meeting adjourned at 8:00pm
Res ectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secre'.ary
Hello