HomeMy WebLinkAbout981161.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, June 2, 1998
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held on June 2, 1998, in the County
Commissioners' Hearing Room (Room#101), Weld County Centennial Building, 915 10th Street, Greeley,
Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chairman, Glenn Vaad, at 1:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Glenn Vaad Present
Fred Walker Present
Bruce Fitzgerald Present
Cristie Nicklas Present L �'
Jack Epple Present _
Marie Koolstra Absent
Stephan Mokray Present
Arlan Marrs Present -
Also Present: Monica Daniels-Mika, Director, Scott Ballstadt, Current Planner II, Julie Chester, Current
Planner, Ben Patton, Current Planner, Eric Jerman, Current Planner, Sheri Lockman, Current Planner,
Department of Planning Services; Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney; Don Carroll, Weld County Public
Works; Sheble McConnellogue,Weld County Health Department;Wendi Inloes, Secretary; Sharon Marquez,
Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on May 19, 1998,
was approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1187
APPLICANT: Nextel Communications
PLANNER: Julie A. Chester
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Major Facility of a Public
Utility for a Telecommunication Facility.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Section 14, T3N, R61W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North of 1-76 and west of Weld County Road 95.
Julie Chester, Department of Planning Services, asked that case USR-1187, be continued to the June 16,
1998, meeting. Julie is requesting the case be continued because it has been determined by staff, that the
proposed use be considered a Major Facility for a Public Utility, and the application should be resubmitted,
which was done on May 1, 1998. Julie also stated that all referrals have not been returned, and staff would
need more time to review all pertinent information.
Christie Nicklas moved to continue case USR-1187, to the June 16, 1998, hearing date. Stephan Mokray
seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad,yes;Arlan Marrs, yes; Christie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Jack Epple,
yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE: Ordinance to approve an Intergovernmental Agreement between Town of Erie, City of Dacono, and
the County of Weld.
PLANNER: Monica Daniels-Mika
REQUEST: Intergovernmental Agreement between Town of Erie, City of Dacono and the County of Weld
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The NE4 of Section 3, Ti N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: All lands in an area bounded by State Highway 52 on the North, Weld County Road 8 on the
South and a distance of one mile from the centerline of 1-25 to the East and West of 1-25,
except for those parcels of land currently annexed to the Town of Frederick Area of
approximately six square miles.
r✓.)..01 � 981161
O6/22/91
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 2, 1998
Page 2
The ordinance was presented to the Planning Commission by Monica Daniels-Mika, Director of the Weld
County Planning Department. This is a three party agreement between the Town of Erie, the City of Dacono,
and the County of Weld. The purpose of the agreement is to establish procedures and standards pursuant
to which the parties will move toward greater coordination in the exercise of their land use and related
regulatory powers within unincorporated areas surrounding each municipality. Each of the municipalities
exercises governmental authority over the same matter within its boundaries; including annexations. Both
the Town of Erie and the City of Dacono have signed the agreement.
Monica Daniels-Mika informed the board that the basic permise for this Intergovernmental Agreement is
similar to the other two Intergovernmental Agreements this board has previously approved. This
Intergovernmental Agreement also includes Section 3.5 that pertains to oil and gas issues, this section
requires the best effort for the use of the Oil and Gas Commission design notification process. The proposed
agreement also includes Section 2.1, which provides exemptions to the Intergovernmental Agreement to
include, down zones, recorded exemptions, subdivision exemptions and amendments to existing plats.
Based on this review, and the staff memo dated May 7, 1998, it is the Department of Planning Services
recommendation that this Intergovernmental Agreement should be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners with a favorable recommendation.
Glenn Vaad asked if the acronym DEITCGA was defined as requested at the May 5, 1998 hearing. Monica
Daniels-Mika indicated that the definition had been included on the map marked Exhibit A.
Fred Walker questioned whether the land owners in the proposed area have been notified of the proposed
agreement by any means other than the newspaper. He was also concerned that their input and concerns
had not been taken into consideration during the meeting process. Monica Daniels-Mika stated that she was
not involved with the process Erie and Dacono used to inform their property owners. It was her opinion that
no letters were sent out. Concerned citizens were given the opportunity to speak at both the Dacono and Erie
hearings and no opposition had been forthcoming. Additional press releases were developed and published
concerning this Intergovernmental Agreement.
Arlan Marrs expressed concerns with exemptions sited in Section 2.1 of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Marrs
also noted concerns with the definition of urban development standards and urban design issues. Monica
Daniels-Mika explained that it is the purpose of the agreement to ensure that urban development occur only
within the limits of the applicable municipality or in areas which are eligible for annexation. This provides for
needed urban services.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against the application.
No one wished to speak.
Stephan Mokray moved that the Ordinance for the Intergovernmental Agreement between Town of Erie, City
of Dacono, and County of Weld, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of approval. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad,yes;Arlan Marrs, yes; Christie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Jack Epple,
yes; Fred Walker, no. Motion carried.
g8//co /
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 2, 1998
Page 3
CASE: Ordinance
PLANNER: Monica Daniels-Mika
REQUEST: Intergovernmental Agreement between Weld County, City of Dacono, Town of Erie, Town
of Firestone, Town of Frederick, and Design Standards
LOCATION: All lands in an area bounded by State Highway 52 on the North,Weld County Road 8 on the
South and a distance of one mile from the centerline of 1-25 to the East and West of 1-25,
except for those parcels of land currently annexed to the Town of Frederick in an area
approximately 6 square miles. Also a land area approximately 10 square miles west of 1-25,
and 40 square miles east of 1-25, bounded by Weld County Road 26 on the north, and
approximately Weld County Road 119 on the east.
The ordinance was presented to the Planning Commission by Monica Daniels-Mika, Director of the Weld
County Planning Department. As part of the Weld County, City of Dacono, Town of Firestone, Town of
Frederick Intergovernmental Agreement a comprehensive design plan was required. The information
presented today is intended to carry out this plan requirement.
The proposed ordinance is divided into two components. The first component sets Design Standards and the
second deals with Implementation Issues. The Design (Baseline) Standards are intended to address the
urban design activities within the Intergovernmental Agreement. These standards are not retro-active and
are applicable only to new or changed urban type development within the proposed area. These standards
will not apply to those uses listed as exemptions in the Intergovernmental Agreement. Recorded exemptions
and subdivision exemptions are excellent examples of uses where these standards would not apply.
These standards are directly correlated to the primary and secondary roadway corridors. The existing primary
roadway corridors in the Intergovernmental Agreement area are 1-25, State Highway 7, State Highway 52,
Weld County Road 8,Weld County Road 13,Weld County Road 24 and Del Camino Parkway. The existing
secondary roadway corridors include Weld County Road 11, Weld County Road 15, Weld County Road 16
and Weld County Road 20 and are only applicable in the Intergovernmental Agreement Area.
The design standards are divided into six components. Those components include landscaping; followed
by, setbacks; building height, orientation and design; signs; street standards; and lighting and utilities. A
citizen group, along with representatives from the Intergovernmental Agreement area participated in
formulating these standards. Monica Daniels-Mika indicated that a list of members was included in the
packets distributed to the Planning Commission.
The second component of the plan addresses the implementation of the Intergovernmental Agreement. The
first section establishes time frames for referrals. The second, third and forth sections describe requirements
for intergovernmental responses to comments. The fifth section of the implementation component establishes
effective dates for approval and the sixth section addresses enforcement of the Intergovernmental Agreement.
The sixth section includes an appeal process to the Board of Appeals. The appeals board will be comprised
of five members, one from each participating community and one from Weld County. The Board of Appeals
is limited to determining whether an appeal is or is not consistent with the Intergovernmental Agreement.
The appeals process enables a participating entity to comment on a standard employed by the referring body.
The entity may present this comment to the decision making body, who may or may not concur with their
concern. At this point the concerned entity can call for an appeal to the Board of Appeals. The Board of
Appeals will hear the concern and present a finding. A four-fifth majority vote is needed to carry a decision.
The Board of Appeals can remand a decision back to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration.
The Board of County Commissioners has ultimate authority to accept this standard or to amend it based on
the action of the Appeals Board. The Board of County Commissioners can make a decision that is contrary
to the standards of the agreement. If the decision is not objected to within 14 days, the standard will go into
effect. Monica Daniels-Mika indicated that citizen letters regarding this issue were included in the packets
distributed to the Planning Board.
6411(01
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 2, 1998
Page 4
Glenn Vaad, Chairman requested that the six components of the Design (Baseline) Standards be reviewed
on an individual basis. Monica Daniels-Mika explained each component and addressed questions from the
board pertaining to each.
Landscaping
Man Marrs inquired whether or not the minimum percent of landscaped area standard of 20% included the
area of a building on the site. Glenn Vaad asked if existing parking area along I-25 would have to adhere to
the standards established in the Intergovernmental Agreement. Monica Daniels-Mika replied that those
existing lots would not need to comply unless they had a change in use. Monica Daniels-Mika also addressed
questions concerning special landscaping and berming along this section of 1-25. She indicated that the
landscaping requirements were compatible with the Mixed Use Development Plan.
Setbacks
Monica Daniels-Mika explained to those present that the setback requirements were developed through a
combination of input from all parties involved in this process. Colorado Department of Transportation
standards and requirements were also taken into consideration during the decision making process. The
proposed setbacks do differ from the setbacks outlined in the current Zoning Ordinance.
Arlan Mars asked Monica Daniels-Mika if State Highway 7 should be included in this area. Monica replied
that it was included at the request of the Town of Erie. Glenn Vaad questioned sign placement within
landscaped setbacks. Monica Daniels-Mika indicated that this was intended as a baseline to discourage
straight line construction along the roadway corridors.
Building Height. Orientation and Design
Monica Daniels-Mika stated that this issue was heavily debated by the participating members. Standards in
the Uniform Building Code and the fire districts ability to provide services were taken into consideration while
developing height restrictions. Building heights around the 1-25 interchange were divided into three different
zones. The minimum design standards reflected general standards that were intended to give the area a
welcoming effect. Glenn Vaad expressed concerns about obscuring surrounding property owners view of
the mountains.
Signs
Monica Daniels-Mika explained that the intent and height requirements of signs in this area would be similar
to existing standards in the Mixed Use Development Ordinance. She also noted that sign height is important
due to the major impact signs have on the visual appearance of an area. A new standard that states the total
square footage of wall signs cannot exceed 8%of that wall, and the one sign per development aspects of the
standards was also discussed.
Street Standards
The street standards are based on the standards set forth in the Mixed Use Development Ordinance. Arlan
Marrs questioned the designation of Weld County Road 20 as a boundary. It was his opinion that the correct
designation was Weld County Road 19. Monica Daniels-Mika determined that the boundary was indeed Weld
County Road 20.
Lighting and Utilities
The intent of this component is to provide uniform underground utility easements for new construction. It does
not effect existing construction. Glenn Vaad recommend eliminating the recommended lighting levels table
to avoid correction when engineered guidelines change. Fred Walker indicated that the table was appropriate
and should stay in the proposed ordinance.
Monica Daniels-Mika outlined the time frames of the referral and enforcement procedures for the Planning
Commission.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 2, 1998
Page 5
Fred Walker proposed that the Board of Appeals be increased from a 5 to a 6 member board. He felt that a
representative of the property owners in the area should be present. Lee Morrison,County Attorney explained
that property owners would be represented by the board member from Weld County.
Arlan Marrs was concerned that an additional unnecessary level of government will be created with the Board
of Appeals. Lee Morrison responded that the goal of the board would be to minimize conflict and to resolve
issues without going into a court of law. Glenn Vaad concurred with Mr. Morrison.
Arlan Marrs and Jack Epple were concerned about term and substitute limitations for the Board of Appeals.
There was discussion about a standing committee verses formation of a committee as needed.
Arlan Marrs and Glenn Vaad proposed that Sections 6 and 7 be removed from the agreement due to the
potential for abuse by members.
Arlan Marrs moved that Sections 6 and 7 be removed from the Intergovernmental Agreement. Fred Walker
seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad, no;Arlan Marrs, yes; Christie Nicklas, no; Stephan Mokray, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, no; Jack Epple, no;
Fred Walker, yes. Motion failed.
Arlan Marrs asked if any member could cancel membership in the agreement with a one year notice. Monica
Daniels-Mika confirmed by referencing Section 8.4 of intent to participate within the IGA.
Arlan Marrs and Glenn Vaad proposed that the wording in Section 7.3 be amended to replace the word
"member" with "government entity" in the first sentence. The sentence would read as follows: If a member
of the IGA Joint Board of Appeals is not able to attend a meeting of the Board to review an appeal, the
government entity shall be authorized to designate in writing a substitute to attend and take all actions that
the member would be authorized to perform if the member were present.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against the application.
Ginny Shaw spoke on behalf of John Folsom who could not attend the meeting. She stated that the
Intergovernmental Agreement needed guidelines to preserve open space in the area. These guidelines were
included in the original draft, but were excluded from this draft. Ms. Shaw felt that the property owners in the
area had no vote concerning the open space issue, and was concerned about urban growth.
Glenn Vaad responded that representatives of three of the towns involved chose to eliminate open space on
the basis of their proposed needs.
Monica Daniels-Mika said that the towns were comfortable with open space as addressed in the present
format.
Christie Nicklas stated that no plans to finance open space were proposed.
Pat Kelley, Frederick, CO, was a member of the Issues Group. Mr. Kelley stated that he felt the views of the
group were not considered in regard to open space, and that the citizens not involved with the issues group
were not properly informed about meeting dates and issues. He sees a need for greater community
participation and feels that the county should make more of an effort to get the community involved.
Arlan Marrs asked Pat Kelley for his definition of open space. Mr. Kelley had no clear definition.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 2, 1998
Page 6
Christie Nicklas asked Mr. Kelley how the county could better inform the citizens of upcoming meeting dates
and issues. She stated it is the responsibility of the citizens to be aware of these issues and that legal
notices are printed in the county newspaper. Mr. Kelley responded that letters should be sent out to all action
groups and ads be placed in all area newspapers.
Glen Vaad asked Monica Daniels-Mika about communication between the policy group and the issues group.
She indicated that the issues group made recommendations to the policy group, but the policy group made
the final decisions. The towns are still deliberating, and have not yet approved the Intergovernmental
Agreement standards. The agreement was brought to Weld County first because the agreement needs to
be put into a ordinance format.
The Chairman closed the meeting to public discussion.
Jack Epple moved that the Ordinance for the Intergovernmental Agreement between the County of Weld,
Town of Erie, City of Dacono, Town of Firestone, Town of Frederick, and Design Standards, be forwarded
along with the changes, to the Board of County Commissioners along with the with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Christie Nicklas seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad, yes; Arlan Marrs, no; Christie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Jack Epple,
yes; Fred Walker, no. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: Ordinance 147-O & Ordinance 191-C
APPLICANT: Gerald and Kathryn Hamlin
PLANNER: Scott Ballstadt
REQUEST: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Mixed Use Development, Map 2.1, Structural
Land Use Map.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-1140 of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Weld County Road 28; approximately %s mile west of Weld County
Road 13.
Scott Ballstadt, Department of Planning Services, presented.Ordinance 147-O and Ordinance 191-C. Scott
explained the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Mixed Use Development Structural Land Use Map
2.1,for additional acreage. Scott than read the recommendation into the record. The Department of Planning
Services is recommending approval of the application,with a condition that USR-639,which is located on the
south half of the and property and appears to remain active, and Scott explained that he needs to review the
file for USR-639 to determine if the USR is active. The applicants will need to amend the USR and vacate
that portion, prior to recording the plat.
Bruce asked the amount of time frame to get the file. Scott explained within a few days, and if found that the
USR is inactive, this would resolve the Condition of Approval, but if active, they will need to amend the USR,
unless both owners of the property under the USR agree to vacate.
Gerald and Kathryn Hamlin, applicants, explained the reason for their application. Mrs. Hamlin explained that
they have been asked to participate in a sewer line for St. Vrain Sanitation District, which runs through the
Hamlin property. Now that sewer service is available to the site, the Hamlins wish to include their property
in the MUD area for possible future development.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked the Hamlins if St. Vrain has dedicated any sewer taps to their property. Mr. and Mrs.
Hamlin explained that ten property owners involved in the project have been guaranteed a tap if they
participate.
9g//60l
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 2, 1998
Page 7
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Ginny Shaw, asked where the Town of Mead fits in, understanding that the Hamlins are within Mead's
annexation jurisdiction. Mrs. Hamlin explained that she has spoken to the Mead Planning Commission, and
they have stated that they are not in their planning area. Ms. Shaw stated that she was referring to John
Folsoms letter.
Scott addressed that the Town of Firestone had not sent comments to the Planning Department, and that he
had followed up with the Town verbally stating they had no conflicts.
Ms. Shaw also referred to Mr. Folsoms letter on having more input on County applications before it was too
late. They are in the process of putting together a document for a citizens group as a referral voice such as
water, sanitation, and wildlife, on issues that reflect the long standing policy on agricultural character in the
County. Ms. Shaw than read agricultural section of the Comp Plan into the record. Ms. Shaw stated the
concern of taking prime farm ground out of production.
Glenn Vaad asked if Ms. Shaw if she was opposing this application, or asking questions on what the impacts
will be. Ms. Shaw stated that they are asking for their comments be taken into consideration.
Glenn than asked Ginny to point out the feedlot and the dairy being referred to on the map, in regards to this
being located close to developments.
Christie Nicklas stated that if a developer knows about the feedlots before development, they would have to
deal with that situation. Ms. Shaw stated that it wipes out the agricultural process, and this is not preserving
farm land as described in the Comprehensive Plan.
Fred Walker moved that Ordinance 147-0 and Ordinance 191-C, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of approval. Christie Nicklas seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad, yes; Arlan Marrs, excused; Christie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Jack
Epple, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 4:45
Respectfully submi4L&≥
Respectfully submitted
WadiAvg
Wendi Inloes Sharon Marquez
Secretary Secretary
Hello