HomeMy WebLinkAbout962244.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, November 5, 1996
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held November 5, 1996, 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,Arlan Marrs.
Tape 513
Glenn Vaad Present . _
Rusty Tucker Present ' "-
Fred Walker Present
Shirley Camenisch Present
Cristie Nickles Present
Jack Epple Absent
Marie Koolstra Present
Ann Garrison Present
Arlan Marrs Present
Also, Present: Monica Daniels-Mika, Director, Shani L. Eastin, Current Planner, Kerri D. Keithley, Current
Planner, Chris Goranson, Current Planner, Sara McGuire, Current Planner, Department of Planning
Services; Drew Scheltinga,Weld County Engineer; Lee Morrison,Assistant Weld County Attorney;Jill
Boshinski, Recording Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on October 25,
1996,was approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: Ordinance#191
PLANNER: Department of Planning Services'staff
REQUEST: Adoption of the Mixed Use Development Structural Plan
Monica Daniels-Mika explained that approximately two years ago the Weld County Comprehensive Plan
was revised, it was apparent that the Mixed Use Development(MUD) area deserved additional attention.
Several public hearings were held to determine the community form, design and structure for the MUD
area.
On November 7, 1995,the consulting firms of Balloffett and EDAW presented to the Weld County Board of
County Commissioners a Mixed Use Development(MUD) Plan. After review by the Weld County Board of
County Commissioners the MUD Plan was not excepted. The MUD Plan was returned to the Weld County
Planning Department for further review to develop a set of standards and regulations to ensure quality
development and to increase the sense of community.
Ms.Mika presented a brief summary of the MUD Plan which provides for an urban density area and the
land use standards needed to preserve and enhance this area. This Plan is divided into four sections
dealing with design related criteria and the intent for this criteria. Ms.Mika introduced Shani Eastin, Chris
Goranson, Kerni Keithley, Current Planner's with the Department of Planning Services, and Drew
Scheltinga, Weld County Engineer,who will present information related in these four sections of the MUD
Plan.
Ms. Mika explained that the majority of this Plan has been re-written by county staff with the exception of
certain sections, especially the inventory section which was provided to the Department of Planning
3 •
h
` / ^ 962244
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 5, 1996
Page 2
Services' from the consulting team of Balloffett and EDAW. Ms. Mika stated numerous citizens and
technical advisory groups have studied the concerns of the Mixed Development Standards.
Shani Eastin explained that the MUD area was recognized in 1987, in the Weld County Comprehensive
Plan as a future urban development corridor within Weld County. The MUD area covers approximately
12,110 acres.
Ms. Eastin explained that with the presence of an interstate and state highway system and the external
growth pressures from the Longmont metropolitan area has added to the interest of this area for
development and population growth. Development in this area may occur due to the result of the planned
infrastructure and services existing. Ms. Eastin referenced that the existing service providers varied from
domestic water,gas and electric providers, a sanitation,school and fire district, ambulance service, law
enforcement and highway and road departments.
Ms. Eastin referenced Section 1.2 of the MUD Plan that reviews the Community Form and Structure and
Section 1.3 that reviews the Public Facilities and Services.
Ann Garrison asked if there were any State Growth Policies that would effect this area that the county
would have to coordinate with. Ms. Mika explained that there were not any policies established at this time.
The State Growth Policies would reference that this is in a RTD district and that there is CDOT activities
being performed in this area that could have some potential influence on landuse. Community efforts with
the Inter Governmental agreement's of Frederick, Firestone and Dacono could also effect with the
development in this area.
Ms. Garrison asked if there was anything in this plan for the provision of cost effective delivery or is the
county assuming that the growth in this area will pay for itself. Ms. Eastin explained that the county is
assuming that the growth in this area will pay for itself.
Fred Walker had concerns if there were any salvage yards in this area. Ms. Eastin explained that there
were a few existing salvage yards in this area.
Glenn Vaad had concerns with the verbiage used in referencing the numbering of the MUD maps in this
plan. Ms. Eastin explained that corrections for the numbering of this maps on page one and page twelve
would be addressed.
Chris Goranson gave an overview of the Structural Land Use Components. Mr. Goranson explained that
this portion reflects the specific designations of the MUD map.These designations include Employment
Centers, Regional Commercial, Neighborhood Centers, and Residential Neighborhoods. Mr. Goranson
explained that each of these designations are delineated on the map 2.1 by a color and gave the type of
intensity uses for each area.
Mr. Goranson gave an overview of the Limited Sight Factors and the physical elements that could effect
this area. Mr. Goranson stated that the 100-year floodplain located in the MUD area consists of
approximately 4,500 acres, or 38 percent of the total designated area.
Mr. Goranson referenced the Planned Unit Development District in the Mixed Use Development area. Any
current development in this area have to go through the Planned Unit Development process with the
exceptions of Sand and Gravel Mining Operations, Home Businesses and Agricultural Services
Establishments referenced in the plan. Mr. Goranson stated that there are applications that property
owners can apply for that are exempt from utilizing the Planned Unit Development process in the
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 5, 1996
Page 3
agricultural zone district within the MUD area. Some of these applications were Recorded Exemptions,
Subdivision Exemptions.and Zoning Permits for Mobile Homes.
Mr.Vaad voiced concerns with the land designations for schools and parks only occurring twice on the
map. Ms. Mika explained that this information was sent to Saint Vrain Valley School District and they were
asked for their input on potential locations for school sites in this area. The areas designated on the maps
were areas the school district were comfortable with.
Kerri Keithley presented a brief summary of the Common Open Space and Maximum Lot Coverage that
will aid in controlling the density of development in the Mixed Use Development(MUD) area.
Ms. Keithley referenced that the Common Open Space area consists of any useable parcel of land or water
set aside for public or private enjoyment. Common Open Space in developments in the MUD area with the
exception of those containing Limiting Site Factors will equal to 25% of the site. Commercial and Industrial
sites may use Common Open Space within landscape setbacks from road right-of-ways, as long as this
area is not utilized as parking or storage.
Ms. Keithley explained that the Maximum Lot Coverage was a similar concept which refers to the
percentage of a lot in a development which can be covered by a structure. Any areas that are landscaped
with grass, shrubs, plants, decorative gravel or wood chips are not considered covered by a structure. Ms.
Keithley explained that generally these are the same requirements currently listed in the Weld County
Zoning Ordinance, as amended.
Ms. Keithley explained that one of the major changes proposed in the MUD plan is the landscaping
requirements. Evaluations were conducted by planning staff in the MUD area to form the criteria for the
landscaping requirements. Ms. Keithley referenced Section 2.6, Section 2.6.3.5, Section 2.6.4 and Section
2.6.4.2.e of the Structural Plan concerning landscaping requirements.
Ms. Garrison asked if the planning staff felt there would be conflicts between the tables for the Common
Open Space and the Maximum Lot Coverage. Ms. Keithley explained that there should not be conflicts
between the two. The Common Open Space area looks at the total site in which a land owner would
designate a portion of the site to be used for common open space area. The Maximum Lot Coverage
focuses on the lots and that only a certain percentage could be covered as open space area.
Marie Koolstra asked if they had an advisor used when developing the landscaping regulations. Ms.
Keithley explained that they spoke with other communities and looked at some of the criteria they used.
Due to the urban type nature the MUD area,they have received information from the City of Berthoud and
other cities around this area. Some of the criteria for the landscaping regulations were incorporated from
other cities, however a major portion of the landscaping regulations criteria came from the Department of
Planning Services.
Ms. Koolstra asked if there was consultation between law enforcement and the planning staff with the
landscaping regulations in parking lots. Ms. Keithley explained that the proposal for landscaping in parking
lots is to be well maintained. Ms.Mika explained that the original Mixed Use Development Plan went
through the Technical Advisory Committee and Sheriff Jordan or a representative did attend these
meetings. This proposal today was not specifically reviewed, but the Sheriffs Department did review the
proposal which had more urban standards. Ms. Mika explained that the Sheriffs Department is are aware
of the increase in landscaping standards.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 5, 1996
Page 4
Ms. Garrison had concerns with urban landscaping and asked if water concerns have been addressed.
Ms. Keithley explained they will promote the maximum use of the water by giving landowners resource
material and also have zeroscaping books available for their use.
Ms. Koolstra asked that with the twenty five percent of open area designated as common open space area,
will the land owners be responsible for maintaining this area. Ms. Keithley explained that the homeowners
associations or other associations would be responsible for the maintenance. The Department of Planning
Services has consulted with developers on these criterias and the developers did not have concerns with
the twenty five percent.
Mr.Vaad asked what is to be achieved with open space areas. Ms. Keithley explained that they are
proposing to utilize common open space for enjoyment,such as trails or parks that people can use.
Drew Scheltinga gave an overview of the Transportation elements in the MUD area with the exception to
the I-25 road system. The transportation plans were developed through different landuses in this area.
Based on these landuses; residential, business and commercial the Public Works Department estimated
what amounts of traffic would be generated and which direction the traffic would go from the MUD area.
Mr. Scheltinga referenced the four lane arterials delineated in red and blue on the map. Mr. Scheltinga
explained that through studies they can accurately predict a six lane major arterial in this area which will be
State Highway 119. In the MUD area other considerations for transportation are being reviewed. Some of
these considerations were for pedestrians, bicycles and transit. Mr. Scheltinga explained that Ordinance
180 would address issues that developers will have to comply with. Mr. Scheltinga explained that
accessing in this area will be addressed through the State Highway Access Code,
Shirley Camenisch had concerns on the time frames that were predicted for the four lane roads. Mr.
Scheltinga explained that he could not give a definite time frame and this would depend on development in
this area.
Arlan Marrs had concerns on the berms for the road system and if this will create problems with snow. Mr.
Scheltinga explained that most of the berms would not be that high, but there still could be some problems.
Ms. Mika explained that these issues could be addressed through the placement of structures and road
rights-of-way.
Ms.Mika presented a brief summary of the sign regulations and utility provisions in the MUD area found in
Sections 2.8 through 2.9.5 of this proposed plan. Ms.Mika compared the new verbiage of the proposed
signage regulations with current regulations from the Weld County Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Mika further outlined Section 3, Inventory of Existing Uses, of the MUD Plan. Ms. Mika specifically
addressed school services in Section 3.2.2.1. Ms. Mika explained the calculations for residential dwellings
received from the Weld County Building Department consisted of four residential dwelling units in 1995,
and 120 residential dwelling units in 1996. Ms. Mika stated that the total build-out of the MUD area is
considered to be 120 dwelling units per year.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application.
Tamela McMahan, representative for Kaire International, explained that their corporation is currently
located in Longmont. Ms.McMahan introduced Jerry Miller, architect with Kaire International, on their
proposed project. Ms. McMahan explained they are requesting for a landuse change within this area.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 5, 1996
Page 5
This area is currently zoned residential and they are requesting this area be changed to light industrial.
Ms. McMahan presented a packet to the Planning Commission on this corporation and a site plan concept.
Mr. Marrs questioned why this proposal was not being addressed through normal hearing procedures. Ms.
Mika explained that this was a recent proposal. Ms.Mika stated that her recommendation for the Planning
Commission was to accept this request and forward the document to the Board of County Commissioners
while remanding back this request to the Department of Planning Services. Ms. Mika explained that this
will ensure that amendment standards A through C have been met in the current Weld County
Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Mika requested that the Planning Commission return the application for four to
six weeks for the Planning staff to review.
Mr. Marrs asked the applicant if they were in agreement with the request given by the Department of
Planning Services. Ms. McMahan stated they were in agreement.
Mr. Marrs asked if the areas delineated on the maps could be changed to different classifications. Ms.
Mika explained that the land owners would have to petition to change the classifications. These changes
could be done twice a year through the Comprehensive Plan amendment procedure. A map change could
also take place when there is an Ordinance consideration.
Ms. Koolstra asked what the benefits would be in accepting this application if the map was approved as
delineated in the plan. Ms. Mika explained that this would benefit the citizens in the area by notifying them
of this impending change.
Ms. Camenisch asked if the application presented was between two subdivisions that had been previously
approved. Ms. Mika explained that this was correct and there is quite a bit of residential development in
the area. Ms. Mika explained that as this applicant goes through the landuse stage they will have establish
compatibility as stated in the Comprehensive Plan when utilizing the PUD Ordinance.
Mr. William Billingsly,surrounding property owner, explained that he has small salvage operation,store
mobile homes and collectible vehicles and had concerns on how this plan will effect him. Mr. Billingsly
stated he purchased this property with the proper zoning for the salvage yard.
Ms. Camenisch asked if the property was screened. Mr. Billingsly stated that the salvage yard is fenced on
the back side and there is a private access off of Turner Boulevard.
Mr.Walker asked if this business was in existence prior to the MUD Plan being started. Mr. Billingsly
explained that he purchased this property in the early 1990's, but that this property has always been used
in this manner.
Mr. Morrison explained that if Mr. Billingsly had pre-existing site plans and is not doing an expansion he will
probably not have to change screening that he has.
Mr.Marrs asked if landowners in this MUD area with a legal current use would have to adhere to the
regulations in this proposed MUD plan. Mr. Morrison explained that if this property is not a nuisance,is a
legal use and continues at the same level,then these proposed regulations would not impact an existing
use.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 5, 1996
Page 6
Rusty Tucker had concerns on expansion of existing roads and if current owners would have to pay for the
expansion of this roads. Mr. Morrison stated that new developers would have to contribute their share and
that these issues will have to be evaluated through the county to generate revenues of the unfunded
shares.
Jack Dillion,surrounding property owner, had concerns with the placement of the four lane highway in
respect to his property on the map. Mr. Scheltinga explained that this map was a schematic drawing and
that he was not sure exactly where the highway would be placed.
Sharon Hopper, surrounding property owner, had concerns with the placement of the four lane highway
and that this meeting is being held on an election day. Ms. Hopper asked that the Planning Commission to
consider continuing this plan to a later date.
Wes Johnson, surrounding property owner, explained that he lives on Weld County Road 7 and had
concerns with the expansion of this road. Mr.Johnson felt that the MUD Plan has not been available to
him or surrounding property owners in this area.
Ms. Mika explained that notification of this hearing were sent to 350 property owners in the St.Vrain
Sanitation District. Ms. Mika explained that letters were also sent to people who had expressed concerns
through the Comprehensive Plan files and to the South West Weld Economic Development Agency. Ms.
Mika referenced the reading dates of the proposed ordinance to the Board of County Commissioners.
Mr. Marrs asked if at the Board County Commissioners hearings changes and public comment will be
accepted for this proposed ordinance. Ms.Mika stated that they will be accepted and encouraged to
comment.
Ms. Koolstra asked where meetings were conducted for citizen input on this plan. Ms. Mika explained that
some of the meetings were held in this area and the Technical Advisory Committee met frequently in Mead
due to the central location and in Greeley.
Margaret Tolsen,surrounding property owner, explained that they purchased a property in this area
approximately one month ago and had concerns with the development of the road system and how this
would effect their property.
Artie Elmquist, surrounding property owner, had concerns on proposed landuses in the plan staying this
way twenty to thirty years from now. Ms.Mika stated the proposed map is in ordinance form and unless
the property owner comes to petition for a change in the map it will stay. A revision in the Comprehensive
Plan however, could potentially change the Structural landuse map 2.1.
Ms. Koolstra explained that this proposal essentially could be changed twice a year through application
review from the Weld County Planning Commission. Ms.Mika explained that this was correct.
Kris Pickett,with Pickett Engineering, explained that this is a positive process to identify the intents and
concepts of the development in this area. Mr. Pickett asked for clarification on criteria used to determine
the quality of life with current residences in this area. Ms. Mika explained that the Planning staff reviewed
notes from the public meetings that were held and from citizen input and used this information to arrive at
the criteria to address what people wanted in their community.
Mr. Pickett asked what the purpose was in restricting the development to a campus type atmosphere that
was addressed in the MUD Goals section. Ms.Mika explained that the Planning Commission approved
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 5, 1996
Page 7
the concept in the existing Comprehensive Plan. The intent for this was to integrate open space with a
usable and liveable community. This will also create an environment that is attractive and functional.
Mr. Pickett had concerns with the amount open space required in this area. Ms. Mika gave an overview of
of how the open space area was designated to give a sense of community in this area.
Ms. Keithley gave an example of the McStain Development located in the MUD area that consists of
approximately twenty-two percent of common open space area. It is in the opinion with staff that the
twenty-five percent common open space was not that high of a percentage for this area. Ms. Keithley
explained that mapping for this plan was done by the FEMA maps. The FEMA maps were used to
delineate this area with regards to the 100 year floodplain and also included in this process were
considerations of irrigation ditches,sites with topographical constraints and wetlands.
Discussion followed between Planning Commission members and Planning staff on the advantages and
disadvantages on the proposed amounts for the common open space in this area.
Doug Rank,surrounding property owner, had concerns with notification and asked which newspaper this
notification was printed in. Ms. Mika stated notification was printed in the official county newspaper which
was the North Weld Herald. The official county newspaper recently changed to the South Weld Sun
newspaper. Mr. Rank felt that notifications should be sent to several papers.
Mr. Rank had concerns with who the citizens were that were asked for there opinion in the MUD area. Ms.
Mika explained through the Comprehensive Plan revision that over thirty meetings were held and then that
precipitated a Technical Advisory Committee. For all of these meetings press releases were done and
letters were sent to citizens who expressed concerns.
Mr. Rank asked that this application be continued due to the fact that more people in this area need to
know what is happening area.
Ms. Keithley explained that this proposal will not change zoning classification for a property owner. If a
property owner would like a change in their landuse classification they would have to petition to amend this
plan.
Virginia Haggerty,surrounding property owner, felt this meeting should be continued and notification
should be placed in the Longmont Times. Mrs. Haggerty also expressed concerns with the expansion of
the highway located by her property.
Ms. Koolstra asked if the road system was not developed until a developer purchased a property would
they wait until there was enough developers in this area to finance the road system or would the need for
the road system take precedents. Mr. Scheltinga explained that the road construction would serve the
developments as they occur. A developer would have to show an impact or mitigation on how they will
access to their development.
Mr.Vaad asked if the expansion of these two four lane highways will be due to the increased volume that
is generated. Mr. Schetinga explained that this correct. If this proposed site were to build out as projected
the MUD area would be roughly the same population of Loveland. Mr. Scheltinga explained that there
were numerous four lane highways in the City of Loveland.
Ms. Mika explained that this document is intended to provide the frame work to address infrastructure
needs and the social and community needs of the area. Ms. Mika stated that some of these projections
presented are fifty year projections.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 5, 1996
Page 8
Cheryl Koenig,surrounding property owner, had concerns with an industrial gravel pit located twenty-five
acres behind their property which is considered residential. Ms. Mika explained that this area petitioned for
inclusion into the Comprehensive Plan in November 1995. After the mining activities have occurred which
happened through a USR process that they would reclaim this site for residential. This case was effective
May 8, 1995, and petitioned again in 147d.,e., and f and was approved for residential at the property
owners request. Prior to that time this area was not included in the MUD area.
Ms. Koenig asked if Boulder County was aware of the road conditions on Weld County Road One. Ms.
Mika stated that Boulder County and the City of Longmont were addressing the potential future impacts on
their roads.
Robert Nash,surrounding property owner, asked there had been a county development of this type before.
Mr. Morrison explained that probably not in Weld County, but has occurred in other front range counties.
Mr. Nash addressed concerns on zoning of a property and the marketability of sites smaller than twenty
acres in size. Discussion followed between Planning Commission members and Mr.Morrison on these
issues.
Mr. Pickett addressed continual concerns to the open space area and the percentage proposed for this
area.
Mr. Pickett explained that this proposal be delayed due to the fad that this document gives specific criteria
and felt that the only issue that has been addressed is open space.
Ms. Keithley referenced the dates for public hearings on the MUD Plan are: December 2, 1996 at 9:00
a.m.;January 6, 1997 at 9:00 a.m. and January 29, 1997 at 9:00 a.m. at this hearing room(101).
Ms. Mika requested that this document be approved as written with modifications proposed by Planning
staff in conjunction remand the Kaire application back to Planning staff for consideration for the next six
weeks.
Mr. Walker asked about verbiage on page 4, Section 2.9 the words "shall have" as to"shall be
encouraged" referenced in other portions of this proposal. Mr. Morrison stated to make this consistent with
the rest of the documentation that he was in agreement with the first line should reflect the verbiage
change. Ms. Mika stated this verbiage would be changed to be written as"shall be encouraged".
After discussion between Planning Commission members and Planning staff on the percentage for open
space area. Fred Walker motioned that the percent for common open space required be changed to
twenty percent on the classifications where it located within the MUD proposal as twenty five percent. Ann
Garrison seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision.
Glenn Vaad-yes; Cristie Nicklas-yes; Fred Walker-yes; Marie Koolstra-yes;Ann Garrison-yes; Shirley
Camenisch-Abstained;Arlan Marrs-yes. Motion carried.
Mr. Morrison explained to Ms. Camenisch that this is a legislative function and not a quasi-judicial function
where your dealing with individual properties. Mr. Morrison stated he could not compel Ms. Camenisch to
participate, but is something to consider since this is effecting a broad area.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 5, 1996
Page 9
Mr.Vaad asked if an estimation could be given on how many people attended the thirty plus meetings. Ms.
Mika explained this had been a two year process and that the initial meetings had hundreds of people
attending. Ms. Mika stated that these meetings were highly attended and publicized.
Cristie Nicklas motioned the Planning Commission return Kaire International application back to Planning
Staff to address this is application process as necessary. Glenn Vaad seconded.
Mr.Tucker had concerns on how long the would prolong the application for Kaire International. Ms. Mika
explained that this application will be setup and will present this application back to the Planning
Commission in approximately four to six weeks depending a referral responses.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision.
Glenn Vaad-yes; Cristie Nicklas-yes; Fred Walker-yes;Marie Koolstra-yes;Ann Garrison-yes; Shirley
Camenisch-yes; Arlan Marrs-yes. Motion unanimously.
Ann Garrison motioned that Ordinance 191 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the
recommendation for approval with staff changes and the amendment made. Glenn Vaad seconded the
motion
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision.
Glenn Vaad-yes; Cristie Nicklas-yes; Fred Walker-yes; Marie Koolstra-yes;Ann Garrison-yes; Shirley
Camenisch-Abstained;Arlan Marrs-yes. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
iJBoshinski
Secretary
Hello