HomeMy WebLinkAbout20002909.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, November 7, 2000
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday, November 7, 2000, in the
Weld County Public Health/Planning Building, (Room 210), 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. The
meeting was called to order by Chair, Cristie Nicklas, at 1:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Fred Walker Present
Cristie Nicklas Present
John Folsom Present
Jack Epple Absent
Michael Miller Present
Stephan Mokray Present
Arlan Marrs Present
Bryant Gimlin Present
Cathy Clamp Present
Also Present: Chris Gathman, Anne Best Johnson, Robert Anderson, Monica Daniels-Mika, Department of
Planning Services;Pam Smith,Sheble McConnellogue,Department of Public Health and Environment;Diane
Houghtaling, Don Carroll, Public Works; Lee Morrison, Bruce Barker, County Attorney's Office; Trisha
Swanson, Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on October 17,
2000,was approved with spelling changes and detail added to Cristie Nicklas'question concerning a scientific
study quoted by an audience member.
CASE NUMBER: Z-548
APPLICANT: California Home, Inc.
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 of Section 35, Township 3 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from Agricultural to PUD for a proposed 18-lot business park PUD
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 28, East of and adjacent to 1-25 frontage road.
Chris Gathman, Planner, noted that the Department of Planning Services is requesting an indefinite
continuance of the case until the issues of the placement of WCR 9.5 are solved.
Don Leffler, Representative of the applicant, noted that the applicant would like the case to be continued to
the following Planning Commission on November 21,2000,as they feel that all the issues concerning the road
placement will rest on the decision about the Siegrist/Riverdance property. Mr. Leffler noted that they have
an agreement with the surrounding property owners and had given Mr. Gathman the information concerning
this agreement. Cristie Nicklas asked Mr.Gathman if the new information Mr.Leffler had mentioned had only
been brought in that day. Mr.Gathman noted that he had only received this information a few minutes before
the hearing. Mr.Gathman also stated that they are waiting for a referral from Public Works in order to finalize
the Department of Planning Services comments. Diane Houghtaling noted that her department is still needing
more than a sketch of the proposed road placement,needing to see this plan to scale in order to change their
referral to approval, noting that the referral from Public Works will be for denial unless the information is
received in a form Public Works is able to work with.
Mr. Leffler would like to have the roadway decision left as a condition of approval, rather than hold up the
entire case, as several surrounding property owners in the area are waiting to finalize their own properties
based on this road placement. Ms. Houghtaling noted that there is too much in the air on this road and that
there is a possibility that the road will go directly through the property unless a decision is made soon. Arlan
Marrs asked how far the road could move in either direction. Ms. Houghtaling noted that it could be anywhere
from 1/2 mile to 3/4 mile in either direction and if it is not decided soon will require condemnation to place the
road. Mr. Leffler noted if the road were to go through the property it would ruin the value of the property.
((mated- ark, 11 J. o/a000
2000-2909
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 7, 2000
Page 2
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this continuance.
No one wished to speak.
John Folsom noted that even when a decision is made concerning the Riverdance property, the site will still
be held up for a while.
Fred Walker noted that they should try to respect the wishes of the applicant and hold the applicant
accountable for their decision. Mr.Walker noted that if the information given to Public Works is not sufficient,
the applicant will have to deal with the recommendation for denial. Stephen Mokray noted that he agrees with
Mr. Walker.
Cathy Clamp asked if there was anything that the applicant needs to turn in and if they know exactly what is
being required by Public Works. Diane Houghtaling noted that she has asked the applicant to turn in a more
definite plan for the proposed road, including a scale to see if the width of the road will be sufficient for the
arterial required in the area.
Arlan Marrs moved that Case Z-548 be continued to November21,2000. Cathy Clamp seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1291
APPLICANT: H S Gathering, LLC
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the N2 NW4 of Section 14, Township 2 North, Range 66 West of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Special Use Permit for a natural gas processing plant and CO2 removal facility.
LOCATION: South of WCR 22, 1 mile west of WCR 31.
Chris Gathman, Planner, presented Case USR-1291 and noted that the Department of Planning Services is
recommending approval of this case. Mr. Gathman also noted that there have been a few changes to the
Conditions of Approval, noting that the land is an illegal lot. Chris stated that the applicant is being given the
opportunity to either purchase 25 acres to make this lot legal or to apply for a recorded exemption in order to
make a legal lot to develop.
Jeffrey Fiske, Representative for the applicant,noted that the continuance was because the legal publication
noted an incorrect direction for the location of the site. Mr. Fiske also stated that the property owner who
made that complaint is being worked with to sell the required 25 acres to the applicant, that the sale will
probably be finalized on Friday, November 10, 2000, but even if the sale does not go through, the applicant
will create a legal lot before working on the site. Mr. Fiske noted that the site is to remove the liquid natural
gas from the gas in the lines,that CO, will no longer be a part of the process at this site. Mr. Fiske also noted
that there are two similar sites near this one and there will be minimal traffic as the personnel will be the same
as those working on a nearby site.
Michael Miller asked how the liquid was removed from the site. Mr. Fiske noted that most of the liquid natural
gas will be removed using the Amoco pipeline at a nearby site, but some of the excess will be trucked off the
site.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Cristie Nicklas asked if the applicant was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Mr. Fiske noted that the applicant is in agreement with these.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 7, 2000
Page 3
Stephen Mokray moved that Case USR-1291 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; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: SCH-17
APPLICANT: Siegrist Companies/ Riverdance PUD
PLANNER: Monica Daniels-Mika
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parts of Sections 35 and 36; T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Substantial Change Hearing on a parcel of land which previously had a land use
application denied.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to 1-25 Frontage Road; south of and adjacent to WCR 28.
Monica Daniels-Mika, Planner, presented Case SCH-17. Ms. Daniels-Mika noted that this hearing is only to
decide if there has been enough new information or situational changes to the area around the site to
substantiate that a substantial change has occurred. Ms.Daniels-Mika noted that the applicant had presented
six changes, to represent change the Planning Commission only has to find that one of these changes
represents a substantial change.
Ms. Daniels Mika stated the six reasons given by the applicant for consideration of a substantial change,then
noted the Department of Planning Services response to each separate reason. The reasons are listed in the
following six paragraphs with the Department of Planning Services comments to each reason.
Monica stated that number one concern is the location of WCR 9.5 possibly going through the site. The
applicant noted that required roadway was not a condition of the original site and therefore makes a
substantial change to the site. Monica noted that the Department of Planning Services usually leaves the final
decision on roadway design to be made at the final plat stage.
The second concern was that the proposed phasing of the development was to coincide with the road,sewer
and water service,with a new plan being presented by the applicant. Ms. Daniels-Mika noted that neither the
previous nor the new phasing plan shows times for completion, and the different number of filings is not a
substantial change from the original application.
The third concern listed is the change of use in the adjacent land from agricultural to use for administrative
offices of Weld County, changing the surrounding land use. Monica noted that the reclamation plan of the
gravel pit showed that the future use of the site as commercial and/or housing. Ms. Mika noted that the
development of the offices in this area is consistent with this plan and does not constitute new evidence.
Additionally surrounding land use sketch plan applications have been submitted in the area of the change of
zone and development. Monica noted that none of these applications have moved beyond the sketch plan
phase, and as such noted that the land uses have not changed.
The fifth stated difference noted by the applicant is the completion of the St.Vrain Sanitation line through the
proposed subdivision site. The Department of Planning Services notes that, at the time of the original
application, the line became public record, noting that the line has been proposed since the inception of the
St. Vrain Sanitation District.
The final element of change raised by the applicant points concerns the change to the application or site in
the type of change in use and the number of residences proposed at the site. Ms. Daniels-Mika noted that
the proposed changes only effect 54 acres of the site, noting that a decrease in the residential numbers and
an increase in the light industrial represent small change and does not change the overall functionality of the
site.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 7, 2000
Page 4
Fred Walker asked if the sewer line now exists on the site. Ms.Daniels-Mika noted that the line was proposed
at the time the original application was reviewed.
A few minutes were taken to look over the new information handed out to the Planning Commission members.
LaVerne Nelson,engineer for the applicants, noted that he would be presenting their case and would answer
any questions that the Planning Commission may have about the substantial changes noted. Mr. Nelson
noted that relocation of WCR 9.5 is listed in a letter from Public Works as a substantial change for the area.
Mr. Nelson noted that the previous roadway requirements were unknown and not shown on the MUD Area
Structural Plan on Map 2.1 in Ordinance 191-D. Mr. Nelson noted that their second concern that the change
in the proposed phasing would change how the subdivision would effect the impact on school districts and
the roads proposed in the original application. Laverne Nelson noted that the offices that will soon be in the
area also affect the region, changing it from the agricultural use that had been there in the past. Mr. Nelson
did note that the applicant would withdraw reason number four concerning the subdivisions in the area,noting
that they were unaware until Friday that there had been no zone changes in those subdivisions mentioned.
Mr. Nelson noted that the actual existence of the sewer line of St. Vrain Sanitation did change the site, also
noting that the line would be getting larger in the future, preparing for future expansion such as this site
presented. Finally, Mr. Nelson noted that the applicant feels the change in use of several acres is a large
change as the access to the road had changed with WCR 9.5 being proposed as well as a change to the tax
base the site could present.
Fred Walker asked who had written and signed the letter from Public Works stating that this would be a
substantial change to the site. Diane Houghtaling of Public Works stated that she had drafted and signed the
letter, noting that the original plan of the area did not plan on having WCR 9.5 through the area, also noting
that substantial change created by the road would be for the entire region, not necessarily for the site itself.
Cristie Nicklas asked Diane how many trips per day were created by a single family home. Diane noted that
the number would be about 9.57, with commercial offering a higher number.
Michael Miller asked if the proposed location of the road on the site is final alignment. Ms. Houghtaling noted
that the alignment of the road could still be anywhere in the area.
Lee Morrison noted that a substantial change from the original circumstances of the application must be
discovered and identified if choosing to approve the substantial change application. Mr. Morrison stated that
the application should not be approved on how well they have addressed solutions to related problems with
the original application. Rather the decision should be based upon how different the application is at this point.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. Don
Leffler with Design Development Consultants noted that he supports the substantial change, that the re-
alignment of WCR 9.5 is a difference that effects not only this site but many other applications in the area.
Stephen McLaughlin noted that he is one of the surrounding property owners who has signed the alignment
of WCR proposed by both Siegrist/Riverdance as well as California Homes, Inc. and that he feels this is a
substantial change from the original application.
Robert Siegrist, Applicant, noted that the Frontage road was originally going to carry the traffic of the region
and that the addition of WCR 9.5 is a substantial change from the original application. Mr.Siegrist also noted
that when he had met with the county, Ms. Houghtaling noted that the county would be giving a
recommendation of denial if Mr. Siegrist did not work on the agreement with the land owners. Mr. Siegrist
noted that he has spent a lot of money and time on this change and now it seems like the county is going
against what they agreed to and that this is getting frustrating.
Arlan Marrs moved that Case SCH-17 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of approval, noting the re-alignment of WCR 9.5 is a substantial change as
noted in the letter from Public Works, stating that this changes the application from the original application to
an new order and development of the area. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 7, 2000
Page 5
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cathy Clamp,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, no. Motion carried.
John Folsom stated that he is not quite sure this is a truly significant change to the application, but is willing
to give it the benefit of the doubt.
Cristie Nicklas commented that she voted no as the final plat of a subdivision is the point when roadway
design would be implemented and therefore this is not a substantial change.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1293
APPLICANT: VoiceStream
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-147, Part of the NE4 of Section 30, Township 2 North, Range 67 West
of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Special Review Permit for a Major Facility of a Public Utility (150' Telecommunications
Monopole Tower) in the Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to WCR 15 and 1/3 mile south of WCR 18.
Robert Anderson, Planner, presented Case USR-1293 and noted that the Department of Planning Services
is recommending approval of this application. Mr.Anderson also noted that Development Standards 11-14
had been added following the referral of the Town of Firestone. Robert noted that the original site of the tower
had been discovered to be upon an area of severe geologic hazard,overlaying underground mining, but that
the applicants had moved the tower approximately 200'to the south and a little to the west, away from this
hazard. Mr.Anderson noted that the Department of Planning Services had agreed that this was not a major
change to the application.
John Folsom asked if the Department of Planning Services felt the annexation requested by the Town of
Firestone would be needed. Mr. Anderson noted that this area is an enclave that had never been annexed
to the Town of Firestone, but that the Department of Planning Services was unsure whether they would like
to require the annexation of this site as it was being developed.
Cathy Clamp asked if the Town of Firestone was aware of the moving of the tower. Mr.Anderson noted that
they were not aware of this but felt that the Town of Firestone would probably prefer the tower closer to the
trees in the new site as they were concerned with the screening.
Babette Sangster, Applicant, stated that they had spoken to the Town of Firestone and noted that the Town
would prefer the screening added by the trees at the new site. Ms.Sangster noted that the Town of Firestone
was unsure whether or not this was development and therefore unsure whether or not to require the
annexation. Ms. Sangster also noted that the 12'wide road had been noted as a concern by Public Works
for turning vehicles, but that there would be no fences to stop possible turning of vehicles once on the site.
Sheble McConnellogue noted a possible change in numbers on Development Standard #6, as the State
Statute numbering may have changes. Lee Morrison was unsure if the numbering had changed and Sheble
went to verify any changes that may have occurred.
Discussion concerning the requirement of annexation followed. Joe Ventola,Applicant, noted a possibility of
annexation in the event that the parent parcel were to annex.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application No
one wished to speak.
Cristie Nicklas asked if the applicant was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Ms. Sangster noted agreement except stated concerns with the annexation requirement.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 7, 2000
Page 6
Arlan Marrs moved that Development Standard# 11 read as follows: "In the event the parent parcel seeks
annexation, the applicant shall not object to said annexation." Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Sheble McConnellogue noted that the number stated in Development Standard should read 30-20-100.5.
Michael Miller moved that the number in Development Standard#6 be changed to 30-20-100.5. Cathy Clamp
seconded the motion
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Arlan Marrs asked if the applicant was okay with the engineering plans being submitted to the Town of
Firestone. Ms.Sangster noted that they had agreed to this in order to make the Town of Firestone feel more
comfortable with the structure going up near them.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case USR-1293 be approved along with the Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards. Bryant Gimlin seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case USR-1293 is noted as being in compliance with the proposed Amendment
24. Bryant Gimlin seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cathy Clamp,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: Ordinance 197-A and Ordinance 197-B
APPLICANT: Weld County
PLANNER: Anne Best Johnson
REQUEST: Amendments to the Planned Unit Development Ordinance. Substantial Changes shall
include additions to the Definition Section, Cluster PUD procedure, and Public Water and
Sewage Disposal additions. Other amendments include document-wide renumbering,
spelling corrections, type face, and alignment for consistency. Also, amendments to the
Planned Unit Development Ordinance. Substantial Changes shall include amendments to
Section 2.5 and 6.4.5 to cover substantial changes to the Open Space requirement
including a land dedication or cash-in-lieu option.
Anne Best Johnson, Long Range Planner,noted that this will combine both#5 and#10 of the agenda as they
deal with the same ordinance. Anne presented changes to the Weld County Planned Unit Development
Ordinance. Anne noted that there were 6 minor changes and 6 major changes.
Ms. Best Johnson started with minor change component#1, noting that this change deals with repagination,
grammatical changes, county-wide consistency, and correct names. Anne noted that component#2 deals
with an addition to Section 6.3.6.6 to clarify what signs are not allowed in the PUD area and to be consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Folsom asked if this had anything to do with a previous decision of the
Board of Adjustment. Anne noted that this change was a direct outcome of that decision. Anne stated that
minor change component#3 covered changes that made general policy part of application procedures. Ms.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 7, 2000
Page 7
Johnson noted that component#4 involved updating the mineral owner list requirements that have already
been updated in Ordinance 89. Anne noted that component#5 consisted of modifying the notification date
to 14 days from 15 days as it only needs to be 14 days by state statute. The final of the minor components
involves an addition of parking lot surfaces to the ordinance.
Anne began to speak concerning the first of the major change components. Anne noted that these are
additions to the definition section,with renumbering for consistency. Discussion concerning the conservation
easement definition, urban versus non-urban, and the definitions in general.
John Folsom asked if the conservation easements were perpetual or term. Lee noted that the definition is
just to identify the term conservation easement, that the land owner would be able to choose whether or not
they were a term easement to suit their tax purposes. Bruce Barker noted that the state tax cut required the
conservation easement must be in perpetuity.
Cathy Clamp stated that she would like to see more leniency for returning the land to its natural state,allowing
the property owner room in the way of wetlands. Discussion covering the meaning of"natural state"to remove
the water from the land,or for allowing farming,or even changing the land from its current use. Arlan offered
the wording of"free of development"to allow more freedom. Michael Miller asked if undeveloped would be
a better idea for the wording.
Fred Walker noted that he feels the 5-lot specified in the non-urban development was backward progress from
what the Board of County Commissioners has allowed,noting that some slightly larger subdivisions have been
allowed and this would negate what he feels is forward progress. Fred Walker noted that there was a larger
subdivision on public water and septics approved this summer and that the state allows this,that the addition
of a single number would be too constricting.
Cristie Nicklas noted that she agrees with Fred Walker that the Board of County Commissioners has made
their own rules against the what the ordinance states, but that she feels this definition is still sound.
Bruce Barker noted that the definition is already implied by the definitions that exist, this is just making the
non-urban definition reflect the opposite of the urban definition.
Fred Walker noted that he would like more time to really decide on some of the wording of the ordinances that
are placed before the Planning Commission, allowing that this is the time to make a statement, before the
decision becomes law. John Folsom noted that this might be allowing an exception become the rule.
Anne Best Johnson explained that the reason for the definitions becoming part of the ordinance was to allow
room for the Cluster PUD being proposed to preserve 2/3 of a larger piece of land,while also allowing larger
than the ususal number of lots for a subdivision.
Discussion following the requirements needed in a cluster PUD. Fred Walker noted that he still is
uncomfortable with the minor subdivision being limited to 5 lots. Arlan Marrs asked if the outlot not being
allowed next to another outlot might restrict some neighboring property owners from developing if they were
not the first ones to develop. Anne Best Johnson noted that the restriction may be lifted for two cluster PUD's
for non-urban development.
Michael Miller and Bryant had previous appointments and left the meeting at this time.
Arlan Marrs moved that the first sentence of the Conservation Easement definition read as follows:"The grant
of a property right stipulating that the described land will preclude future or additional development." Fred
Walker seconded the motion. Fred Walker seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes;Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes;Cathy Clamp,no; Fred Walker, no; Cristie Nicklas, no.
Motion failed.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 7, 2000
Page 8
Fred noted that he agrees with the conservation easement definition but does not agree with the rest of the
minor changes. Following discussion, Fred Walker noted that he had misunderstood the motion to cover all
of minor change number one, not just the conservation easement and asked that the vote be made again.
Arlan Marrs moved that the previous motion be re-voted. Fred Walker seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Cathy Clamp,yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Arlan Marrs moved that the first sentence of the Conservation Easement definition read as follows:"The grant
of a property right stipulating that the described land will preclude future or additional development." Fred
Walker seconded the motion. Fred Walker seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Cathy Clamp, no; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas,
no. Motion carried.
Fred Walker noted that he feels the Cluster PUD is a good thing, but to be making a valid decision at the end
of the day without a sufficient educational curve seems inappropriate.
Cristie Nicklas commented that a work session might be in order to truly work on the ordinances before the
Planning Commission made any comments to the Board of County Commissioners. Lee Morrison noted that
the Board of County Commissioners was trying to get these done before the end of the year and also in case
Amendment 24 passed, to allow for some development.
Arlan Marrs noted that he understands the frustration of not having a lot of control over changes to the
ordinances and he further noted that today is not the day to change the direction. Arlan noted that in the
future, if the Planning Commission could be informed of the proposed ideas,to better look at these changes
and give ideas before they are brought to the Planning Commission rather than barely getting to look at the
changes or to improve them during the hearing.
Fred Walker noted that the two definitions are very important to him and that this is the time to make a stand,
rather than let one more change move through without having the proper input from the Planning Commission.
Fred noted that the Road Impact Fees were brought to the Planning Commission after they had already been
read two times, and were pushed through and finished at the Board of County Commissioners the following
day. Mr.Walker commented that he was unhappy with the way the Road Impact Fee ordinance was handled
was a slap in the face of the Planning Commission and does not want this to happen yet again.
John Folsom noted that he has questions on most of the changes and is willing to stay until midnight if need
be, but would prefer the time given in a work session.
Lee Morrison commented that the Planning Commission members could continue the cases to a regularly
scheduled day,and also have a work session before that date. Fred noted that he feels these changes to the
ordinances are probably a very good idea being brought before them and very proactive as well, it just feels
like the Planning Commission is not allowed to have any freedom to make changes. Arlan Marrs stated that
he does not want to see something good being delayed and pushed aside because there are questions with
past issues or definitions that have existed for years, that the Planning Commission members were mailed
these packets and should have read and studied the information before them.
Bruce Barker noted that the Board of County Commissioners would like to have the honest opinion of the
Planning Commission, even if that meant continuing these cases to the following date.
Stephen Mokray moved that agenda items 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 be continued to November 21, 2000. John
Folsom seconded the motion.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 7, 2000
Page 9
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, no; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried.
Arlan Marrs commented that he feels that the Planning Commission members had adequate notice and
should have been prepared, that this continuance is inappropriate.
Stephen Mokray moved that Planning Commission start at 10:00 a.m.on November 21,2000,with the already
scheduled cases not being heard until 1:30 as scheduled. John Folsom seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Cathy Clamp, yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
� A
Trisha Swanson
Secretary
Hello