HomeMy WebLinkAbout20170677SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
D' 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, Bruce Sparrow, at 12:30 pm.
Roll Call.
Present: Bruce Sparrow, Cherilyn Barringer, Gene Stille, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Michael
Wailes, Terry Cross
Absent: Bruce Johnson and Tom Cope.
Also Present: Chris Gathman and Diana Aungst, Department of Planning Services; Hayley Balzano,
Department of Planning Services — Engineering Division; Ben Frissell, Department of Health; Elizabeth
Relford, Jim Flesher, and Evan Pinkham, Public Works; Bob Choate, County Attorney, and Kris
Ranslem, Secretary.
ID` Motion: Approve the February 7, 2017 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by
Joyce Smock, Seconded by Gene Stille. Motion passed unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: COZ16-0005
APPLICANT: 4 Ss Holdings, LLC, c/o Trent Timm
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: Application for a Change of Zone from the A (Agricultural) Zone District to the C-3 (Business
Commercial) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 1 TO LOT 5 BLOCK 13 1ST ADD ZITA AND PART OF BLOCK 13 1ST
ADD ZITA; ALL LOCATED IN PART OF SECTION 6, T6N, R64W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 74 and approximately 300 feet west of CR 51.
Joyce Smock noted that she knows the parties involved; however she has not received any financial
benefit. Gene Stille also noted that he was involved in the sale of the property but did not receive any
financial benefit as well.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, presented Case COZ16-0005, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this
application with the attached conditions of approval and development standards.
I Evan Pinkham, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic and access to the site.
2017-0677
Hayley Balzano, Engineering, reported on the drainage conditions for the site.
Ben Frissell, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements,
on -site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
`" Trent Timm, 59970 CR 67, Grover, Colorado, stated that they do not intend to change anything on
the property. He added that they are proposing to provide maintenance of trailers inside the building.
Commissioner Cross asked the applicant what kind of trailers they will be working on. Mr. Timm said
the majority will be RVs and some small trailers such as stock trailers or flatbeds.
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 he has read through the Conditions of Approval and if they are in
agreement with those. The applicant replied that he is in agreement.
N'' Motion: Forward Case COZ16-0005 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval, Moved by Terry
Cross, Seconded by Joyce Smock.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Bruce Sparrow, Cherilyn Barringer, Gene Stille, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Michael Wailes,
Terry Cross.
DPP CASE NUMBER: USR16-0045
APPLICANT: DARREN & TARYN SHARP
PLANNER: Diana Aungst
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Use Permitted as
a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use by Special Review in the
Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (outdoor storage of construction and oil
field equipment and vehicles and a 4,000 sf shop/warehouse) provided that the
property is not a lot in an approved or recorded subdivision plat or lots part of a
map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions in
the A (Agricultural) Zone District
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT B REC EXEMPT RE -4739; PART NE4SW4 SECTION 18, T5N, R64W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 49.5 and approximately 0.25 miles north of US HWY 34.
`" Diana Aungst, Planning Services, presented Case USR16-0045, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this
application with the attached conditions of approval and development standards.
Evan Pinkham, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic and access to the site.
Pli' Hayley Balzano, Engineering, reported on the drainage conditions for the site.
Ben Frissell, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements,
on -site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Darren Sharp, 23777 CR 52, Greeley, Colorado, stated that this project converts a dryland
covenant into a building for rent to help with their investment. There is a rental company and small
well testing company that is renting the building and they have maintained the site very well.
Commissioner Smock asked how long the building has been on site. Mr. Sharp stated that it has been
on site for approximately two years.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application.
Christian Morgan, Town Manager for the Town of Kersey, stated that there have been other
applications in the surrounding area for a Change of Zone for industrial use that they have objected to.
This particular area does fall within their Comprehensive Planning Zone and they dont see this as an
industrial area but more of a commercial use area. Mr. Morgan said that if this entire area were to now
be considered open for this type of storage they would object to that.
Mr. Morgan stated that the Town of Kersey does intend to approach this landowner at some point in
the future regarding annexation. He added that they have spoken to an adjoining landowner to Mr.
Sharps property who has indicated an intent to annex and they are working through that process
currently.
Mr. Morgan said that they do not object to the use the way is has been operating but when you look at
the overall size of this with this proposed use that would turn into an issue with their vision for the
Town.
ID' Mr. Sharp said that he did talk with the Town of Kersey; however he didnt speak with Mr. Morgan
as he must be new to the Town.
Commissioner Barringer referred to the school referral that they were concerned with the impact to
school bus stops and asked where they were located. Mr. Sharp said that he is not aware of any bus
stops in the area as there are no children on the adjacent properties.
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 USR16-0045 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation
of approval, Moved by Jordan Jemiola, Seconded by Gene Stifle.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Bruce Sparrow, Cherilyn Barringer, Gene Stille, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Michael Wailes,
Terry Cross.
Commissioner Wailes said that the way that this USR is being structured is protection against it being
a large storage facility.
Commissioner Jemiola believes that this is a fairly low intensity use and added that private property
owners should have the right to develop their vision of their property in the highest and best use in the
County.
The Chair noted that for the next hearing case, notices were sent out to landowners with the 1:30
pm hearing time. Therefore, the hearing for that Ordinance will begin at 1:30 pm; however Ms. Relford
provided a general update to the Planning Commission on current and future road and bridge projects
in Weld County.
Ms. Relford provided a brief update on the construction progress of County Road 49 and added that it
should be completed at the end of 2017. She also provided updates on the road and bridge projects
from the flood in 2013. Additionally, they received a grant to redesign the intersection of County Road
74 and County Road 69 for safety and added that they are currently working with CDOT on this
project.
The Chair called a recess at 1:29 pm and reconvened the hearing at 1:35 pm.
DP` case number: ordinance 2017-01
PRESENTED BY: Elizabeth Relford
REQUEST: In the Matter of Repealing and Re -Enacting, with Amendments, Chapter 8 public works, of
the Weld County Code — Weld county functional classification map.
Jim Flesher, Public Works, presented Ordinance 2017-01. Mr. Flesher said that they review the
impact on the roads and classify the roads into local, collector or arterial roadways. This helps identify
the future road right-of-way and it is recommended to update this map every two years. The last
update was done in 2015. Staff recommended the following changes:
• County Road 29 is proposed as an arterial roadway. Currently Weld County does not classify any
north/south road as an arterial west of Highway 85 and north of Highway 14. Therefore since
County Road 29 is approximately 17 miles of continuous road paralleling Highway 85 and the
communities of Nunn, Pierce, Ault, Eaton and Severance it best meets the definition of future
arterial corridor. It is currently classified as a local road. They county may initially pave the
roadway and then look at widening the road in the future.
• The next request is to reclassify County Road 54 east of the city limits of Evans from a collector
road to an arterial road east to County Road 49. The Town of Kersey has requested a future
alignment to this area.
• Additionally, they have been working with Cities/Towns along the County Road 54 corridor from
Loveland to Kersey including CDOT and Larimer County and discussing the development of an
access control plan. The working group has called this corridor the Freedom Parkway and
notification of future meetings will be given to any landowners.
• Extend the collector road status of County Road 66 east of County Road 43 to County Road 47. It
is currently identified as a local road but seems to function as a collector road with an average
daily traffic volumes ranging from 500 to 737 vehicles per day.
• Extend the existing collector road status of County Road 52 from Highway 85 to County Road 43,
northeast of LaSalle.
• Extend the collector status of County Road 32 west of County Road 29 to the town limits of
Platteville.
In accordance with House Bill #161155, the designation of County Highway, which the bill defines
as a four -lane controlled access county highway, better known as County Road 49 corridor
from 1-76 north including the Weld County Parkway connecting to County Road 47 and up to
State Highway 392. The purpose of this designation is to protect the Countys investment in
infrastructure in the corridor similar to how CDOT retains ownership and maintenance and the
County will be fee simple owner and maintain the corridor regardless of annexation by
Municipalities.
Notification was sent to property owners adjacent to the proposed arterial and collector road changes.
Elizabeth Relford, Public Works, stated that the Functional Classification Map is a qualitative guide and
added that the map does not dictate how the road is built. Through the building permit process, the
setbacks are determined so that structures are not built within the right-of-way. The long range
transportation planning effort for Public Works helps to develop the capital improvement program. She
emphasized that they try not to update this map often as it affects peoples lives. She added that it is
merely a planning tool for the future.
Ms. Relford stated that after talking with municipalities they wanted arterials surrounding their
communities; however they came to an agreement of classifying them as collector roadways.
Commissioner Jemiola referred to County Road 29 as a local roadway and asked what classification
County Road 49 was prior to being built out. Ms. Relford said that officially there wasnt a classification
map until the Transportation Plan was created in 2011; however it has always functioned as an arterial
road. Mr. Jemiola asked if there are any projects to County Road 29 in the near future. Ms. Relford
said that the Board wanted to get feedback on reclassifying it as well as incorporating an Access
Control Plan if it is classified as an arterial roadway.
Commissioner Wailes asked why make County Road 29 an arterial when it seems that County Road
31 has more traffic. Ms. Relford said that County Road 31 doesnt go north past Highway 14.
Commissioner Jemiola asked if any homes will be affected with regard to the proposed right-of-way for
County Road 29. Mr. Flesher replied that there are four homes that will be affected.
Commissioner Sparrow noted that this Functional Classification Map is not for directing growth but
rather preparing for growth.
Michael Wailes left the meeting at 2:15 pm. The Chair called a recess at 2:16 pm and reconvened the
hearing at 2:25 pm.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who to speak for or against this proposed
Ordinance.
Jacquelyn Troudt, 32408 Sunshine Lane, Greeley, Colorado, stated that it doesnt seem that the traffic
counts do not necessitate County Road 29 being classified as an arterial roadway. She said that
County Road 31 does extend to County Road 90 and County Road 33 does extend further than
County Road 90. Ms. Troudt stated that County Road 29 to the south does not connect to Greeley and
that bottle neck at O Street would be tremendous.
Commissioner Smock asked Ms. Troudt where she would propose an arterial road north. Ms. Troudt
said that County Roads 31 and 35 are already heavily used and arterial roads coming out of Greeley
so it seems that those are the natural traffic patterns.
Commissioner Stille asked if a collector roadway classification for County Road 29 would be better.
Ms. Troudt replied that they would be satisfied with a collector roadway classification.
Kristin Debo, 32412 Sunshine Lane, said that she understands the need for improvement for
getting goods and services north of Greeley. However, the amount of traffic from O Street to Highway
392 doesnt warrant the need for arterial status for County Road 29. She measured off the 70 feet from
the center of the road that they would need to include for the proposed right-of-way and it is 30 feet
from their back yard. She added that there is a school bus stop on the corner for the kids in the
neighborhood and is concerned for their safety. The jump from the 60 foot right-of-way to 140 foot
right-of-way is huge and doesnt know when this is going to happen. She emphasized that their big
concern is the area from O Street to Highway 392 on County Road 29 and classifying that as an
arterial roadway.
Commissioner Stille asked the audience if upgrading the local road from Highway 392 to O Street to a
collector status, rather than an arterial, would be better. Eric Troudt, 32408 Sunshine Lane, replied
that County Road 29 ends at O Street and has no connectivity into Greeley, which is one of the
defining factors of an arterial roadway.
I"` Ben Truitt, 32406 Sunshine Lane, said that he doesnt have land at stake and lives east of County
Road 29. He is concerned with the issue of O Street and added that you cross the railroad track twice
from County Road 29 to County Road 31 and then going south on County Road 31 you cross it a third
time. He said that the question isnt if we need an arterial road north of Greeley but if it should be on a
road already heavily traveled, such as County Road 31.
ID' Stacy Haggard, 38399 CR 29, stated that she lives north of Highway 392. She is concerned with
the timeline of any proposed changes. She understands that County Road 49 went in very quickly
from the access control was established to construction now and it sounds like the access control plan
is in process for County Road 29. She doesnt feel it is necessary to have another highway between
Highway 257 and Highway 85.
Ms. Relford said there are no dates identified to have the plans completed by so the access control
plan is in its very early stages.
illp' Ted Maino, 38662 CR 29, said that he appreciates the planning for 25 years into the future. An
arterial designation requires people and a lot of traffic and added that this corridor is primarily
agricultural. He said that you need to weigh if agriculture should be protected or if housing
development should occur. He added that developers will attack this corridor with building as Weld
County will designate it as an arterial roadway.
r` Heath Smith, 32410 Sunshine Lane, said that there are already three means of getting to Pierce
and asked what benefit there would be in creating an arterial roadway for another access to these
municipalities. He asked if the money would be well spent from taxpayer dollars if there is already
three ways to get to Pierce. Mr. Smith asked how this would impact Highway 392. He added that
County Road 31 is already backed up at Highway 392 in the mornings when he brings his child to
school. He expressed great concern for safety of the subdivisions community with their children
playing so close to the road.
Ms. Naill, 32414 Sunshine Lane, stated that Weld County is growing faster than any other county
in Colorado. Her biggest concern is how fast this will happen and added that it is scary to think about
how fast things are going to change.
Commissioner Sparrow said that County Road 29 has been compared to County Road 49 but asked
them to understand that there are no roads east of County Road 49 that run north/south.
IDDI' Motion: Amend the classification of County Road 29 to a collector status roadway on the
Functional Classification Map, Moved by Jordan Jemiola, Seconded by Joyce Smock.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 5, No = 1, Abstain = 0).
Yes: Cherilyn Barringer, Gene Stille, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Terry Cross.
No: Bruce Sparrow.
Absent: Michael Wailes.
Motion: Forward Ordinance 2017-01 as amended to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval, Moved by Jordan Jemiola, Seconded by
Gene Stille.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 6).
Yes: Bruce Sparrow, Cherilyn Barringer, Gene Stille, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Terry
Cross.
Absent: Michael Wailes.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 6).
Yes: Bruce Sparrow, Cherilyn Barringer, Gene Stille, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Terry Cross.
Commissioner Jemiola recommended reviewing County Road 31 and 33 for potential increase in
status. He suggested that County Road 31 be classified as a collector roadway and County Road 33
to an arterial roadway.
Commissioner Smock encouraged the groups to look at Highway 85 for improvements to
accommodate the traffic.
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 3:54 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
�jGtr 4L I
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
Hello