The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20033187 it 18_ p3 SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, November 18, 2003 A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning C ommission was held in the Southwest Weld County Conference Room,4209 CR 241/2, Longmont,Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Michael Miller, at 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Michael Miller Bryant Gimlin John Folsom Stephan Mokray James Rohn Absent Bruce Fitzgerald Absent Tim Tracy Doug Ochsner Also Present: Don Carroll, Char Davis, Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman, Jacqueline Hatch The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on October 21,2003 and November 4, 2003, was approved as read. CASE: Department of Planning Service Fees and Hearing Dates and location PLANNER: Monica Mika Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services,presented the Department Fees and Hearing Dates. There are no changes to the fees. Bryant Gimlin indicated the legend needs to be clarified with regard to the dates of north and south. Mr. Ogle indicated that the legend will be modified to reflect north that the hearings will be a square and be held the first Tuesday of the month. The south hearings will be a circle and be held the third Tuesday of the month. John Folsom asked if they were voting on maintaining the schedule proposed. Mr. Folsom would like to suggest that the hearings at the south office not be firmly scheduled,but heard on an as needed basis.There are financial differences between holding hearings in the Greeley office versus the Longmont office. Mr.Ogle indicated that there are no line items in the budget containing the cost differences. Mr. Ogle indicated staff notes it is important to have the hearings closer to the affected citizens. Mr. Ogle stated that the Board of County Commissioners is in support of having meetings at the Southwest Weld Office. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. Bryant Gimlin moved that the Department of Planning Service Fees and Hearing Dates, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners 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, abstain; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried. CASE NUMBER: USR-1445 APPLICANT: High Ball Erectors LLC/Cliff Trostel c/o Flatirons Surveying Inc. PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part SW4 Section 24, T1 N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for the storage of construction/fabrication materials. LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 6 and east of and adjacent to CR 11. c?Do3 - / 87 is-a-o3 SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, December 2, 2003 A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2003, 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, 1:30at p.m. ROLL CALL Michael Miller Bryant Gimlin John Folsom Stephan Mokray James Rohn Bruce Fitzgerald Tim Tracy Doug Ochsner Absent Also Present: Peter Schei, Char Davis, Michelle Katyryniuk, Sheri Lockman, Don Carroll, Monica Mika The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on November 18, 2003, was approved as read. CASE NUMBER: USR-1440 APPLICANT: Brent& Patricia Johnson PLANNER: Michelle Katyryniuk LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part SE4 Lot A RE-901 Section 8, T7N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Veterinary Clinic and Livestock Confinement Operation in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Hwy 14 and west of and adjacent CR 29. Michelle Katyryniuk, Department of Planning Services, read a letter withdrawing the project. CASE NUMBER: PZ-604 APPLICANT: Darrel Adolf PLANNER: Sheri Lockman LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot C of RE-2940; being part of the NE4 of Section 29, T9N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD for five(5)residential lots and one (1)Agricultural out lot. LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 102;west of and adjacent to CR 17. Sheri Lockman,Department of Planning Services, requesting a continuance to February 3,2004. There are agreements in process. The following Cases will be heard: CASE: Building Inspection PLANNER: Jeff Reif Jeff Reif, Building Inspection, read a letter addressing fees. Weld County will issue grading permits in order to enforce Storm Water Drainage requirements in certain areas of unincorporated Weld County. In order to determine appropriate permit fees for these grading permits, a fee schedule needs to be adopted. Department of Building Inspection staff recommends that the grading permit fee be based upon the value (cost)of the work completed. The permit applicant will provide an estimate of the cost when applying for this permit. The permit fee will be assessed for the reported cost in accordance with a formula already determined by the Building Code. John Folsom asked if there would be a form that would need to be filled out after the work was completed, will this need to be supported with evidence of the cost. Mr. Reif stated the applicant will have an estimate of cost and they will be assessed that cost when the permit is applied for. The fees will be assessed accordingly. Mr. Reif indicated that if the estimate is out of line there could be a requirement of supporting documents. It is not normal to require supporting documents after the work is done. Mr. Folsom indicated his concern for possible low estimates. James Rohn asked if there will be inspections throughout, then a final inspection like a building permit? Mr. Reif stated there will be inspections and a final approval will be granted. The reason for the grading permit is to make sure the storm water drainage requirements according to EPA standards are applied. Mr. Rohn asked if this permit was associated with USR or PUD or associated with any type of work. Mr. Reif stated it is in specific areas not necessarily every application. Tim Tracy asked if this was a new fee? Mr. Reif stated current fees are based on the valuation of the work. The intent is to associate the storm water drainage fees with the current grading fees. Bruce Fitzgerald asked who the typical applicant is. Mr. Reif indicated it is typically a developer. The storm water drainage areas are in areas that would disturb more than one acre of land, generally a larger project. These fees would only be in areas designated as storm water drainage areas, typically close to larger municipalities. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if Oil&Gas Companies utilized this. Mr. Reif stated that if they are in the area and disturbing more than an acre of land they would be subject to the fee. John Folsom provided a scenario and asked if the estimate was over would the developer want a refund. Mr. Reif stated that the cost of the work is a competitive process and there are people bidding for the work. A letter could be written to the Building Official requesting a refund, this would need to be supported by documentation. Michael Miller asked if this is designated for a specific fee and not a new fee. There is typically information provided to Planning Commission with regards to the fee and how it is calculated. Mr. Reif stated that currently there are calculations and a fee formula. Mr. Miller stated that there is no fee schedule and this is an issue there is no formula. Bryant Gimlin asked whether the fee is up for approval just asking for the ability to require a storm water permit. Mr. Reif stated they are asking to use the existing grading fee for the storm water drainage fee also. Mr. Morrison added that this may not even be needed. The department is trying to assure that the do not get challenged that the existing grading and excavating provisions are meant for other things other than storm water issues. The intent is to use the existing grading permit fee and being able to apply it for the storm drainage permit fees. Tim Tracy asked if there will be two different fees associated with a project if both the grading and the storm water fees can be applied. Mr. Reif stated that the permit fee for storm water drainage is inclusive, there is no additional fees to the project. Mr. Tracy would like to see the wording redrafted and brought back to indicate that there is no additional fees. Mr.Morrison stated that clarifying the language could be done without redrafting. The grading fee is based on the work,some of the work is grading. This could be dealt with in the recommendation indicating that the two are not additional to different parts of the same project. Mr. Tracy would like to know how grading is defined in the building code, is storm water drainage identified as part of this. Mr. Morrison stated it is not defined it is determined by how much is being moved on site. Not every activity is significant enough to constitute grading. Mr.Reif stated grading is based on work conducted on site. Tim Tracy asked if the intent is to include storm water drainage permit fee along with the grading permit fee that is already in the code. Mr. Reif stated that any excavation that would be required would be done with a grading permit. The intent is for it grading not to be an exclusive use of the permit. Mr. Morrison suggested adding language to the third paragraph to state"The Department of Building Inspection requests the Planning Commission submit a favorable recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to establish a grading permit fee schedule based upon the cost of the work performed be established but those fees shall not duplicate those fees charged for other grading work." The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. Tim Tracy moved to accept the language suggested by Mr.Morrison. James Rohn seconded. Motion carried. Stephen Mokray moved that the Grading Permit Fee, along with the additions, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Tim Tracy 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;Tim Tracy,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously. CASE: MEAD IGA PLANNER : Monica Mika Monica Mika, Department of Planning Services, provided information and clarification of the Mead IGA. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval for the Douthit&School and Frederiksen parcel annexations,but denial for the Sekich parcel annexation.The two parcels that staff is recommending approval for are the Douthit&School and Frederiksen because those meet the intent of the IGA and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for Mead. Both parcels are within the area of influence and are contiguous with the town. The Comprehensive Plan for Mead indicates that flexability is needed when annexing parcels. There is language for annual renewal within one year included in this IGA. The infil! of the communities is also a review requirement. The two properties will be developed at an urban scale and will be serviced by the St. Vrain Sanitation District and Little Thompson. John Folsom asked whether the denial for Sekich parcel is based on lack of inclusion into the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Mika stated the concern is the original application was to be serviced by Town of Mead or St.Vrain Sanitation District. The recent information indicates they will be serviced by septic systems. Septic systems are not adequate with the intent of municipal services. The IGA agreement requires that municipal services be obtainable. This is just one of the criteria. The additional concern is that this area is outside of the Town of Mead area of influence. The town of Mead's Comprehensive Plan requires that something be in writing for assurance of development in the area. The Sekich parcel is outside the area. There has been requests for infill that have been denied by Mead due to not being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Mika added that infill of development needs to be reviewed. The Town of Mead has grown in various directions and does it make sense for the public services? The St.Vrain Sanitation District provides service to this area. The property owners are the ones who petitioned for inclusion into Mead. John Folsom asked if annexation has been voted on by the voters of the town. Ms. Mika stated that the first step is to modify the boundaries. Mr. Folsom asked about MUD additions and if the same criteria is utilized. Ms. Mika indicated that the MUD does not require agreements. The MUD does require that a parcel can be served. This application indicated that it would be serviced by either Mead or St.Vrain, but the indication now is there will be septic systems. Bryant Gimlin asked if there is any current land use applications. Ms. Mika indicated there was nothing presently in the Weld County process for any of the parcels. There may be some in the Frederiksen annexation but this will be handled within the town. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. Michael Friesen, Town Administrator of Mead, provided clarification with regard to the annexations. The understanding, by the town, was that the county would add areas to the urban growth boundary if the land owner was in favor of doing so. The Douthit & School annexations are going through public hearings and working in the process. The Frederiksen has gone through the public hearing and will be in the annexation election on January 6,2004. The Sekich addition has applied for annexation to be platted for large lot estate. It has not had any public hearings. There is no definite on the approval, by the board,for the Sekich parcel. The Sekich addition will be including an area on the north for a proposed sewer system for the Town of Mead. There is a study being done now for this process. The town will pick a site from this parcel for a treatment plant. The town would like to have the treatment plant located in the town. The IGA needs to be revised and so does the Comprehensive Plan for Mead. In all annexations into Mead the developer is required to amend the Comprehensive Plan with addendum. The area of influence,according to the Comprehensive Plan,needs to expand. The Sekich addition is considered contiguous.The town would like to have complete consistency in development but it is not happening in that manner. John Folsom asked if Mead has a sewage disposal plant. Mr. Friesen stated they own treatment plant but it will not handle all the growth that is expected. They are looking at establishing one east of the interstate. Mr. Folsom asked about the flagpole annexation and the whether the present Sekich addition is contiguous Hello