HomeMy WebLinkAbout20221085.tiffSUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, April 5, 2022
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Administration
Building, Hearing Room, 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado. This meeting was called to order by Chair,
Elijah Hatch, at 12:36 pm.
Roll Call.
Present: Sam Gluck, Butch White, Michael Palizzi, Pam Edens, Skip Holland, Michael Wailes, Tom Cope,
Elijah Hatch.
Absent: Lonnie Ford.
Also Present: Michael Hall, Maxwell Nader, Dawn Anderson, Mike McRoberts, and Jim Flesher,
Department of Planning Services; Lauren Light, Department of Environmental Health; Karin McDougal,
County Attorney, and Michelle Wall, Secretary.
Motion: Approve the March 1, 2022, Weld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by Skip Holland,
Seconded by Sam Gluck. Motion passed unanimously.
CASE NUMBER:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
ORDINANCE 2022-04
JIM FLESHER/DAWN ANDERSON
IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND REENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS,
CHAPTER 23 ZONING, OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE (CHANGE OF ZONE).
Jim Flesher, Planning Services, provided an overview of the proposed code changes to the Change of
Zone section. Staff recommends adoption of this ordinance.
Commissioner Wailes asked Ms. McDougal, County Attorney, if the Planning Commission has to
recommend adoption of the ordinance en masse or if it can be broken down by each section of code. Ms.
McDougal replied that she doesn't see any procedural issue if the board was to make a recommendation
to approve the code changes except for the section Mr. Wailes is concerned about.
Commissioner Cope stated that staff and the Planning Commission discussed the proposed code changes
during lunch. He feels there were still a lot of questions the Planning Commission has about this ordinance
and suggested continuing the case in order to address the questions.
Commissioner Holland asked staff what the urgency was on recommending adoption of the ordinance
today. He also wondered if action is needed simply to change code for upcoming cases. Dawn Anderson,
Planning Services, responded that staff has been reviewing sections of code that need addressed. She
explained that there is a three -reading process with the Board of County Commissioners prior to approval.
Mr. Flesher said that requesting a continuance will leave the code as is while staff feels these sections of
code need clarification. Mr. Holland said the Planning Commission doesn't feel ready to take action until
further discussion.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Kelsey Bruxvoort, Agprofessionals, 3050 67th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. Ms. Bruxvoort said she has
comments regarding Section 23-2-30.A.4. which speaks to the adequacy of roads at the Change of Zone
process. She said you have to submit a traffic impact study with a Site Plan or with a USR, and at that
point the roads need to be sufficient for the use. Ms. Bruxvoort said Agprofessionals would like to see all
of Section 23-2-30.A.4 stricken. She stated that it is not a bad standard, they just don't feel that the Change
of Zone is the appropriate time to address adequacy of the roads.
Commissioner Wailes mentioned that during lunch they briefly discussed reimbursement and a
reimbursement provision in the code. He asked staff if they could explain how that would apply to Section
23-2-30.A.4 and Section 23-2-50.E.8. Ms. Anderson explained that the code does have front-end
contribution agreement with the criteria that has to be met and that the agreement has to be in place prior
to the recording of the final plat. She said that allows a possible reimbursement to the developer for off -site
improvements.
COMR el; Co.t:O(LS
2022-1085
LI /20/22
Commissioner Cope stated that the Planning Commission is here to make recommendations to the Board
of County Commissioners (BOCC). He said that in a previous Change of Zone case some of the current
standards created problems. Mr. Cope said that the staff recommendations are to correct these problems.
He said his opinion would be for the Planning Commission to forward the case to the Commissioners who
will review the code changes in three different hearings. Mr. Cope said it would be a good idea for the
Planning Commission and the BOCC to have a work session to discuss the issues and share their opinions.
Commissioner Wailes said he doesn't feel comfortable recommending approval of the proposed code
changes because as he understands it, it commits the developer to bring a County road up to a minimum
standard.
Commissioner Edens said it is her opinion that all the County roads should meet the minimum standard.
Commissioner Gluck stated it is his opinion that if a road is deficient of meeting the minimum standard, he
feels that is the County's responsibility. Then anything beyond the minimum standard that the
developer/owner needs should be their responsibility.
Commissioner Holland asked staff if a developer/owner could be asked to improve an entire section of road
that was not up to standards. Ms. Anderson said that they talk to the applicant in the pre application process
and find out what they are requesting. She said they have to complete a traffic narrative which explains
which roads will be used to and from. Ms. Anderson said they have to consider what is needed to keep the
roads safe. Mr. Flesher mentioned that if a property is out in an area where the roads do not meet standards
for a long way, it is most likely not an area that should be approved for a Change of Zone. He said these
are approval criteria for a Change of Zone.
Commissioner Wailes asked why the minimum of 26 -foot -wide travel surface and 4 -inch depth of road base
is only required in a Change of Zone. He asked what if it is a USR. Ms. Anderson explained that with a
USR they get more site -specific information, and they know the exact development that is going in. She
said the developer does need to bring the roads up to a certain standard based on traffic and safety.
Chair Hatch asked about options for the Planning Commission. Mr. Flesher informed the Planning
Commission that the first reading is scheduled with the Board of County Commissioners for April 20, 2022.
Staff will present the Planning Commission's recommendation at that hearing, whether it is for approval,
approval with amendments, or denial, or if the Planning Commission doesn't make a recommendation
because it votes to continue to its next meeting. Ms. McDougal confirmed that the first reading wouldn't
automatically be postponed if the Planning Commission voted for continuation, but the BOCC could
continue first reading. Ms. Anderson said that it is not uncommon for the BOCC to go through the first
reading and then schedule a work session. Ms. McDougal agreed.
Motion: Forward Ordinance 2022-04 to the Board of County Commissioners, Moved by Skip Holland,
Seconded by Tom Cope.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 7, No = 1).
Yes: Butch White, Elijah Hatch, Michael Palizzi, Pam Edens, Sam Gluck, Skip Holland, Tom Cope.
No: Michael Wailes.
Commissioner Holland's motion included that staff, Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioner should have a work session to discuss their concerns and opinions.
Commissioner Wailes said he voted "no" because he disagrees with Section 23-2-30.A.4., Section 23-2-
40.B.4. and Section 23-2-50.E.8.
The Chair said that he has the same concerns as Commissioner Wailes and hopes to work those out during
a work session with the BOCC.
CASE NUMBER: 1MJUSR21-86-742
APPLICANT: WENDY CHAMBERS
PLANNER: MAXWELL NADER
REQUEST: A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE
BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT USR-742 FOR A HORSE TRAINING AND
BREEDING CENTER TO PERMIT A COMMERCIAL RODEO AND
COMMERCIAL ROPING ARENA OUTSIDE OF SUBDIVISIONS AND HISTORIC
TOWNSITES IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT B REC EXEMPT RECX16-0197, BEING PART W2NE4 SECTION 1, T1 N,
R66W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 14; APPROXMIATELY 0.25 MILES WEST
OF CR 37.
Maxwell Nader, Planning Services, presented Case 1MJUSR21-86-742, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application
along with conditions of approval and development standards.
Commissioner Wailes asked staff for the maximum people allowed on site. Staff replied that the application
states 150 people at a large event. Mr. Nader said typically there will be about 40 to 50 people attending
an event.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Wendy Chambers, 17617 Highway 52, Fort Lupton, Colorado. Ms. Chambers stated that she is proposing
to hold barrel races.
Commissioner Wailes asked Ms. Chambers if participants keep their animals at her facility. Ms. Chambers
replied they do not. Mr. Wailes asked if the horses are typically brought in by a trailer pulled by a pickup
truck. Ms. Chambers replied yes.
Commissioner Edens asked Ms. Chambers if any overnight stays are allowed. Ms. Chambers responded
they are not allowed.
Commissioner Cope said the application proposes a roping arena and commercial rodeo. He asked Ms.
Chambers if the barrel racing is considered a rodeo or if she intends to hold a full rodeo. Ms. Chambers
said it is mainly barrel racing, but she does not want to limit herself.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Motion: Forward Case 1MJUSR21-86-742 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, Moved by Tom Cope, Seconded by Michael Palizzi.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8).
Yes: Butch White, Elijah Hatch, Michael Palizzi, Michael Wailes, Pam Edens, Sam Gluck, Skip Holland,
Tom Cope.
CASE NUMBER: PUDZ22-0001
APPLICANT: REI, LLC/dba INVESTORS, LLC AND BEEBE DRAW FARMS AUTHORITY
PLANNER: MICHAEL HALL
REQUEST: SECOND AMENDED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CHANGE OF ZONE OF
BEEBE DRAW FARMS AND EQUESTRIAN CENTER PUD (AMZ-412) FOR E
(ESTATE), C-1 (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL), C-2 (GENERAL
COMMERCIAL), C-3 (BUSINESS COMMERCIAL), 1-2 (MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL)
AND A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT USES, INCLUDING GENERALLY
DEFINED OPEN SPACE, RECREATIONAL USES, COMMUNITY SERVICES,
AND OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION FACILITIES.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ALL OF SECTION 17 AND PARTS OF SECTIONS 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 AND 15; ALL
LOCATED IN T3N, R65W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 39; NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 32.
Michael Hall, Planning Services, stated that the applicant's request to continue this Planning Commission
hearing scheduled for today and the Board of County Commissioner's hearing scheduled for April 20, 2022.
This continuance request is detailed in a letter submitted by Coan, Payton & Payne LLC dated April 5, 2022.
The letter is attached as a file in Accela for reference.
In the letter, Mr. William Garcia, representative of legal counsel for the developer, requests a six-month
continuance in order for the applicant to provide certain supplementary items to staff for review and
comment in an effort to address instances of lacking information as detailed in the staff report.
Mr. Hall said that resubmittal of all items will be thoroughly reviewed, and the analysis will be contained in
the appropriate section of the revised staff report. The Department of Planning Services staff has reviewed
this request and recommends that this request be accepted.
The request for a six-month continuance will be scheduled for October 4, 2022, for a possible Planning
Commission continuance hearing.
The Chair asked the Planning Commissioners if they had any questions for staff only pertaining to the
continuance request. There were no questions.
Bill Garcia, Coan, Payton & Payne LLC, 1711 61st Avenue, Suite 100, Greeley, Colorado. He explained
their request is to have a six-month extension in order to address the items that were presented in the Staff
Memo that they received on March 19, 2022.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
He said the audience may only speak towards the continuance of this item.
Mary Jo Farrell, 16499 Fairbanks Drive South, Platteville, Colorado. Ms. Farrell stated that she lives in
Beebe Draw Farms. She is opposed to granting the applicants a continuance because County staff has
provided a staff report that contains the many reasons for denial of the application. Ms. Farrell said the
density of development that is proposed is suitable to urban scale and under the 2020 Comprehensive Plan
those developments are best suited in municipalities or within three miles. She said the applicant is
proposing several commercial uses in a residential development. Under the Comprehensive Plan,
commercial development is best suited for enterprise zone in close proximity to railroad, interstate, or major
highways. Ms. Farrell does not believe a continuance can solve any of these issues.
Brenda Lewis, 16476 Burghley Court, Platteville, Colorado. Ms. Lewis said in addition to Ms. Farrell's
comments, she would like the Planning Commission to take note of the many concerned residents that took
time out of their schedules to be at today's hearing only to find out the applicant asked for a continuance
this morning. Now they will have to take more time off to attend the next hearing.
Hampton Cornelius, 22453 County Road 53, Kersey, Colorado. Mr. Cornelius said they have a family -
owned ranch and farm adjacent to the Beebe Draw subdivision. He said he would like to echo the
sentiments of the two people that spoke previously. Mr. Cornelius doesn't think there is any way for the
applicant to resolve issues in the next six months.
Jeremy Thompson, 16472 Stoneleigh Road South, Platteville, Colorado. Mr. Thompson agrees with the
individuals who spoke before him.
Sharon Dillon, 16489 Stoneleigh Road South, Platteville, Colorado. Ms. Dillon stated she is in agreement
with her neighbors. She doesn't feel a continuance should be allowed. She said the history of the
development has been going on for about ten years and she doesn't see how another six months will
resolve anything.
Jill Bailey, 13723 County Road 39, Platteville, Colorado. Ms. Bailey said she lives one mile south of the
proposed intersection. She said a continuance will not make a difference with the location and the roads.
Teresa Hagan, 16469 Stoneleigh Road South, Platteville, Colorado. Ms. Hagan stated that her and her
husband are new to Pelican Lake Ranch and have lived at their property for four months. She said she is
opposed to an extension and agrees with her neighbors.
Judy Tunis, 16477 Stoneleigh Road South, Platteville, Colorado. Ms. Tunis agrees with everyone else that
six months is not going to make a difference.
Elaine Brunson, 13471 County Road 39, Platteville, Colorado. Ms. Brunson stated that she is one of the
youngest people attending the hearing and if the applicant continues to continue, she will still be there in
opposition.
Pam Dechant-Pachello, 16480 Essex Road South, Platteville, Colorado. Ms. Dechant-Pachello is opposed
to the continuance.
John Hagan, 16469 Stoneleigh Road South, Platteville, Colorado. Mr. Hagan is against the continuance.
He feels the developer is unable to take care of simple issues with those who already live in the subdivision,
so he doesn't think six months will fix anything.
The Chair reminded the audience that they need to keep their focus on the continuation and only speak to
the continuation, not the case.
Kevin Brunson, 13471 County Road 39, Platteville, Colorado. Mr. Brunson said he is a neighbor to the
Beebe Draw subdivision. He said he is one hundred percent against the continuation.
Mr. Garcia said he is joined today with Todd Johnson, Terra Forma Solutions, and Robert Molloy, who is a
planner representing the applicant. He said they have been working diligently on this matter. They will
work on addressing all the issues that were stated in the March 19th staff memo. Mr. Garcia said it is a
matter of procedural due process rights for the applicant to have a fair hearing and provide the most
complete information possible.
Commissioner Wailes asked staff when the Planning Commission hearing date would be in six months.
Mr. Hall responded October 4, 2022. Staff explained that if the applicant requests additional time at the
October 4th hearing, the Planning Commission can consider additional continuances.
Commissioner Gluck asked staff if this case has been continued in the past. Staff replied that today is the
first hearing.
Commissioner Holland asked staff when they were notified of this continuance. Mr. Hall replied it was first
presented to staff at a meeting on Friday, April 1, 2022. They received the written request earlier the day
of the hearing, being April 5, 2022. Mr. Holland asked how long staff has been working with this application.
Mr. Hall said the pre -application is from 2019 and have been working on this case for three years. The first
two and a half years were ongoing meetings addressing the application process. Mr. Hall said the draft
PUDZ application material was submitted in the Fall of 2021 and was reviewed. The PUDZ case began
being processed In January of 2022.
Commissioner Cope asked if this case will be reviewed with the old standards or the new revised standards
that were update a few months ago. Mr. Hall said that each application is reviewed with the current code
in place at the time the application is submitted.
Commissioner Cope asked Mr. Hall if the Planning Commission denied the continuance, would staff be
prepared to proceed today. Mr. Hall said staff is prepared to move forward but they are also in agreement
with accepting the applicant's request to continue.
Commissioner Palizzi asked staff if there is a limit to how many times a case can be continued. Mr. Hall
said as far as being in the middle of case processing, there is not.
Commissioner Cope thanked the public for coming to the hearing today. He said it is better to continue the
case so everyone involved is ready. He explained the Planning Commission makes recommendations to
the BOCC, but the BOCC has the final say.
Motion: Continue Case PUDZ22-0001 to October 4, 2022, Moved by Michael Wailes, Seconded by
Butch White.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8).
Yes: Butch White, Elijach Hatch, Michael Palizzi, Michael Wailes, Pam Edens, Sam Gluck, Skip Holland,
Tom Cope.
Commissioner Gluck told the applicant that if they come before the Planning Commission, who are a group
of volunteers, don't waste their time.
Commissioner Holland commented that he appreciates staff and the professionalism they show not only in
front of the Planning Commission, but also to the citizens of Weld County.
The Chair spoke to the audience and said that he understands their frustration with going through this
process. The continuance will allow all involved to be better prepared with their presentations. Then the
Planning Commission can make an accurate decision about the case and make their recommendation to
the Board of County Commissioners.
The Chair asked the public if there were other items of business that they would like to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
Meeting adjourned at 2:06 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Michelle Wall
Secretary
Hello