HomeMy WebLinkAbout20120852.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
• Moved by Robert Grand, that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: USR11-0029
APPLICANT: DORIS CUNNINGHAM, C/O JEFF BEDINGFIELD
PLANNER: CHRIS GATHMAN
REQUEST: A REVIEW OF A PREVIOUSLY DENIED APPLICATION FOR LAND USE(USE BY
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT #1785 FOR OIL FIELD PRODUCTS
MANUFACTURING AND PAINTING) AND REQUEST FOR A SUBSTANTIAL
CHANGE DETERMINATION.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT B AMD REC EXEMPT AMD RE-991; PART NW4SW4 SECTION 2, T7N,
R66W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 33 AND APPROXIMATELY Y�MILE SOUTH
OF CR 86.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has demonstrated that a substantial
change has occurred in the land use application which addresses the issues raised by the Board of
County Commissioners in the original decision of denial and therefore, recommends approval of the
applicant's request.
2. In 2011, the applicant originally applied for a Site Specific Development Plan and Use By Special
Review Permit for any use permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use by Special
Review in the Commercial or industrial zone districts, provided that the property is not a Lot in an
approved or recorded subdivision plat or lots parts of a map or plan filed prior to adoption of any
regulations controlling subdivisions (Oil Field Products Manufacturing and painting) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District. The Weld County Board of County Commissioner's Resolution recorded
• December 13, 2011 denied the Applicant's Use by Special Review Request (USR-1785), for the
following reasons:
A. The Proposal is not consistent with Chapter 22 or any other Code provisions or ordinances in
effect. Section 22-2-20.G.2(A. Policy 7.2)states"Conversion of agricultural land to nonurban
residential,commercial, and industrial uses should be accommodated when the subject site
is in an area that can support such development, and should attempt to be compatible with
the region."Section 22-2-20.1 (A.Goal 9)states, "Reduce potential conflicts between varying
land uses in the conversion of traditional agricultural land to other land uses."Section 22-2-20
1.5 (A. Policy 9.5) states, "Applications for a change of land use in the agricultural areas
should be reviewed in accordance with all potential impacts to surrounding properties and
referral agencies. Encourage applicants to communicate with those affected by the proposed
land use change through the referral process."The Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards will not ensure consistency with Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code and will not
adequately mitigate impacts to surrounding properties.
B. The proposed use is not consistent with the intent of the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
C. The proposed uses are not compatible with the existing surrounding land uses. The site is
located immediately to the south and north of two existing single-family residences.Adjacent
lands to the west and east are agricultural in nature (cropland). A surrounding property
owner, in a telephone call received August 10,2011,expressed concerns about the proposed
business and location of the existing structures from the property line. Additionally, in an e-
mail from a surrounding property owner, received August 7, 2011, concerns were expressed
regarding the hours of operation, number of employees, outside painting, and storage of
equipment on-site, versus what is called out in the application. Given the proximity to the
residences and the concerns expressed,the Board finds that,despite numerous Conditions
• of Approval and Development Standards, compatibility with adjacent land uses cannot be
ensured.
2012-0852
RESOLUTION USR11-0031
DORIS CUNNINGHAM, C/O JEFF BEDINGFIELD
PAGE 2
• D. The proposed Design Standards (Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code), Performance
Standards (Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code), proposed Conditions of Approval and
development Standards do not ensure that there are adequate provisions for the protection of
health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and County.
3. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Article II, Section 2-3-10 of the Weld County Code, the Board of County
Commissioners shall consider the applicant's request for a Hearing of Substantial Change and
whether within the concept of a new application, the facts and circumstances of which are
substantially changed from the initial application:
Criteria 1. -- Has the land-use application substantially changed? (e.g., substantial changes in lot
size or density, in internal or external roads, or, in the case of a rezoning, in the uses proposed)
In reviewing the hearing record for USR-1785, the denial of Use by Special Review# 1785 (USR-
1785)was in part based on incompatibilities specific to on-site painting, traffic, dust, noise, hours of
operation and inadequate room on-site for storage and staging of equipment associated with the
business. The applicant has proposed a number of changes to the operation to include:
• No on-site painting (painting occurring in a facility located in the Town of Ault)
• No long term storage of completed work in progress materials (will be delivered to the new
Ault facility within 2-3 days after completion)
• No storage of finished (painted product)
• No storage of semi-trucks and no on-site semi truck repair.
• No off-site employees will park at the site(on-site office employees and shop workers only).
• Changed hours of operation from 7AM -8 PM Monday-Saturday to one of the following
options: 7AM-5PM Monday-Saturday; 7AM-6PM Monday-Friday and 8 AM-4 PM Saturday;or
6AM-10PM Monday-Friday.
•
The applicant has proposed a 15-foot lean-to along the north property line to screen the north
property. However, the applicant already proposed a 13-foot lean along the north property line at the
October 19, 2011 Board of County Commissioners Hearing.
Staff feels that the number and type of changes proposed(especially in regards to no on-site painting)
constitute a substantial change to this application.
Criteria 2.—Have the surrounding land-uses substantially changed? (e.g., has the adjacent land use
changed during the period of time since the last application such that what would be compatible with
the adjacent use has changed)
The surrounding land-uses have not substantially changed.
Criteria 3. — Have applicable provisions of the law substantially changed? (e.g., the applicant is
proposing using a different procedure so a different set of criteria apply or the applicable ordinance
has been amended by the Board so the criteria have substantially changed)
The applicable provisions of the law have not substantially changed.
Criteria 4. — Within the concept of rehearing the previously denied application, is there newly
discovered evidence that the applicant could not have discovered with diligent effort at the time of the
original application?
There is no newly discovered evidence.
• 4. Weld County Planning Commission has determined that the submitted information does meet the
intent of a substantial change as outlined in Chapter 2, Article II, Section 2-3-10 of the Weld County
Code and therefore recommends that the applicant should be allowed to submit the application
discussed in the Substantial Change Hearing.
RESOLUTION USR11-0031
DORIS CUNNINGHAM, CIO JEFF BEDINGFIELD
PAGE 3
• Motion seconded by Benjamin Hansford.
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent Abstain
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Tom Holton
Alexander Zauder
Benjamin Hansford
Mark Lawley
Nick Berryman
Jason Maxey
Joyce Smock
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
• I, Kristine Ranslem, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission,do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on March 6, 2012.
Dated the 6th of March, 2012.
-01/CMHIrtib
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
•
3- 6 -,,22)/(9.
This site is not located within a three-mile referral area of any municipality nor is it located within any existing
Intergovernmental Agreement Area (IGA) of a municipality.
• No letters, phone calls or correspondence has been received from surrounding property owners in regard to
this case.
The Department of Planning Services does recommend approval of this application along with the attached
conditions of approval and development standards.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, stated that County Road 40 is classified as a local gravel roadway. In July 2011,
129 vehicles were on that roadway. Due to the proposed traffic, a Road Maintenance Agreement, which
includes dust control from the site and tracking control, will be required.
Mary Evett, Environmental Health, stated that the facility is served by an existing well recently re-permitted for
commercial use. The existing shop building is served by a septic system and is permitted for 8 persons. This
will need to be evaluated by an engineer to determine if it is adequate.
Ms. Evett suggested amending the first sentence in Condition of Approval 1.D to read"Any additional hydraulic
load to any existing septic system will require to be reviewed by a Colorado Registered Professional
Engineer." Jason Maxey moved to amend Condition of Approval 1.D as recommended by staff, seconded by
Bill Hall. Motion carried.
Ms. Evett stated that the applicant submitted a written statement today indicating that they will not be doing
any vehicle washing onsite; therefore Condition of Approval 1.G and Development Standard 11 no longer
apply. Bill Hall moved to delete Condition of Approval 1.G and Development Standard 11,seconded by Jason
Maxey. Motion carried.
Tim Naylor, AGPROFESSIONALS, 4350 State Hwy 66, Longmont, CO, stated that they are requesting to
utilize the existing buildings for a roust-about facility. Dave Burroughs would like to relocate his business to
• this location because it has outgrown his current location. A proposed shop for the painting operation will be
located between two turkey barns located in the middle of the property. Mr. Burroughs plans to construct a
residence in the future and live on site.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions
of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Jason Maxey moved that Case USR11-0031, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, seconded by Benjamin Hansford.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Joyce
Smock,yes; Nick Berryman,yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes;Alexander Zauder,yes; Jason Maxey,yes;
Benjamin Hansford, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR11-0029
APPLICANT: DORIS CUNNINGHAM, C/O JEFF BEDINGFIELD
PLANNER: CHRIS GATHMAN
REQUEST: A REVIEW OF A PREVIOUSLY DENIED APPLICATION FOR LAND USE(USE BY
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT #1785 FOR OIL FIELD PRODUCTS
MANUFACTURING AND PAINTING) AND REQUEST FOR A SUBSTANTIAL
CHANGE DETERMINATION.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT B AMD REC EXEMPT AMD RE-991; PART NW4SW4 SECTION 2, T7N,
R66W OF THE 6T" P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 33 AND APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE SOUTH
OF CR 86.
•
Bill Hall excused himself from hearing this case since he was previously involved with the case.
7
• Chris Gathman, Planning Services, stated that USR-1785 was denied by the Board of County Commissioners
on October 19,2011. The applicant is requesting a substantial change to this determination. Per the Board of
County Commissioners Resolution, it was denied for the following reasons:
1) The proposal is not consistent with Chapter 22 or any other code provisions or ordinances in effect.
2) The proposed use is not consistent with the intent of the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
3) The proposed uses are not compatible with the existing surrounding land uses.
4) The proposed Design Standards (Section 23-2-240), Performance Standards (Section 23-2-250),
proposed Conditions of Approval and Development Standards do not ensure that there are adequate
provisions for the protection of health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and
County.
Mr. Gathman said that according to the criteria in determining a substantial change, Criteria 1 states"Has the
land-use application substantially changed?" Mr. Gathman said that in reviewing the hearing record of this
case a lot of the concerns expressed dealt with incompatibilities specific to the onsite painting component,
traffic, dust, noise, hours of operation and inadequate room on site for storage and staging of equipment
associated with the business. The applicant has proposed a number of changes to the operation to include:
• No on-site painting. The painting will occur in a facility located in the Town of Ault.
• No long term storage of completed work-in-progress materials. These materials will be delivered to
the new Ault Facility within 2-3 days after completion.
• No storage of finished painted products.
• No storage of semi-trucks and no on-site semi-truck repair.
• No off-site employees will park at the site. On-site office employees and shop workers will only park
at the site.
• Changed hours of operation to provide options accommodating to adjacent neighbors.
Additionally, the applicant has proposed a 15 foot lean-to along the north property line to screen the north
• property. However, the applicant already proposed a 13 foot lean-to along the north property line at the
October 19, 2011 Board of County Commissioners hearing.
Mr. Gathman stated that staff believes that the number and type of changes proposed constitute a substantial
change to this application under Criteria 1. The remaining criteria do not apply to this particular case.
Commissioner Lawley clarified if only manufacturing would be done on site. Mr. Gathman replied that
manufacturing would be performed on site as well as an office.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, stated that their requirements will not change greatly from the original
application. The traffic impacts came after the original application was submitted and increased through the
hearing process. At the Board of County Commissioner hearing there was enough traffic concerns that
warranted an Improvements and Road Maintenance Agreement.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, stated that the Waste Management Plan would change because there is
no painting on site. An Air Emissions Permit would not be required.
Jeff Bedingfield,4025 St. Cloud Dr., Suite 230, Loveland, CO, stated that he is representing C&H Excavating.
He said that this is a comparison of what the USR application was at the time it was presented to the
Commissioners and the changes being proposed and whether or not those changes are substantial.
Mr. Bedingfield said that after reviewing this case this application was a moving target from the start. C&H
Excavating was a business that originally excavated oil and gas sites for drilling. It also manufactured stairs
and cattle guards. After the application was submitted they began manufacturing large water tanks for the
fracking operation. When they began manufacturing the water tanks they then had field crews which came to
the property and then delivered and assembled them at job sites. When the employees came in to the
property their headlights were sweeping the adjacent residence to the north and parking along the north side
• of the property. In addition there were concerns with paint over spraying and odor.
Mr. Bedingfield said that they are proposing to still manufacture the stairs, cattle guards and the water tanks.
8
These products will be stored on site for 2 to 3 days and then delivered to their Ault facility for painting and
storage. There will be some raw materials coming in; however there will be no finished product stored on site.
• Additionally, there will be no storage of semi-trucks and truck repair performed on site. The employee
numbers started small and grew by the end of the process with up to 30 employees. Now there will be 18
employees maximum on site. With regard to the hours of operation they provided options to the neighbors for
their consideration.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Dustin Winter,41555 CR 33, stated that according to the substantial change questionnaire it states that within
the concept of the new application the facts and circumstances of which are substantially changed from the
initial application. He understands that the initial application submitted in May of 2011 was proposing 13
employees and the hours of operation were Monday through Friday 7 am to 6 pm. Painting was not part of
the initial application. Mr. Winter agreed that the application was a moving target. However, he doesn't
understand that the substantial change can apply to the initial application as it wasn't heard as the initial
application. They are still manufacturing the same amount of stuff and the same exact stuff. It is still a heavy
industrial commercial business in an agricultural zoned rural residential area. He quoted Mr. Holton's
comments at the last hearing that in the future he would recommend this business move to another area
where it would be more compatible with its surroundings. In addition, he also quoted a County Commissioner
that this business is a square peg in a round hole and does not fit in this area. Mr. Winter said that this is a
great business but it needs to be somewhere else.
Steve Deines stated that he lives directly to the north of the site. He wanted to clarify if one or all three of the
optional hours of operation would be put in the recommendation. Mr. Holton said that the hours of operation
will not be decided today but at the time of the USR application hearing.
Mr. Deines was asked what he thought about the proposed changes. He indicated it was not ideal living next
to this facility but that the proposed changes would definitely improve the situation.
• Commission Maxey asked why the entire operation has not been relocated to the Ault facility. Mr. Bedingfield
said that although the applicant is leasing the property he has made a significant investment in the property.
Commissioner Grand commented that he voted in favor of the application at the last hearing although he
recognized the painting component as an issue. He feels that with no painting it is a significant change to the
operation.
Commissioner Hansford echoed Mr. Grand's statement and agrees that this is a significant change from what
was presented at the Planning Commission hearing.
Commissioner Zauder said that he feels that we should give the applicant an opportunity to submit a USR
application; however he feels that manufacturing does not belong in the agricultural zone district.
Commissioner Maxey said he understands Mr. Winter's comments regarding the initial application and said
that the questionnaire may need to be amended because there is a big difference between the original
application and what was presented at the hearing. He agreed that this is a substantial change from what was
presented at the hearing.
Commissioner Smock agreed with Mr. Zauder's comments and added that agriculture is really important to
Weld County and would not like to see this type of business where there is agriculture.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR11-0029 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the
Planning Commission's approval of determination of a substantial change in the land use application which
addresses the issues raised by the Board of County Commissioners in the original decision of denial,
seconded by Benjamin Hansford.
• The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Joyce
Smock, yes; Nick Berryman, yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, abstain;Alexander Zauder,yes; Jason Maxey,
yes; Benjamin Hansford, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried.
9
The Chair called a recess at 4:40 pm and reconvened at 4:49 pm.
• Robert Grand and Jason Maxey left the meeting at 4:40 pm.
CASE NUMBER: ORDINANCE 2012-3
REQUEST: IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND REENACTING,WITH AMENDMENTS,
A PORTION OF CHAPTER 5 REVENUE AND FINANCE, CHAPTER 23
ZONING AND CHAPTER 24 SUBDIVISIONS, OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE.
PRESENTED BY: TOM PARKO
Tom Parko, Planning Services, presented the proposed code changes. He said that staff has been trying to
clean up some past cases and said that there hasn't been a process that allows the Board of County
Commissioners to take action on a Site Plan Review application that has not been recorded or has failed to
meet the findings found in the Weld County Code. This proposed change will allow this process to happen.
Mr. Parko briefly explained the proposed change to the code where the right-of-way does not break up the
contiguous land holdings for purposes of determining animal units.
Mr. Parko said that the current code does not define what "temporary" means with respect to offices as
temporary accessory uses. The County defines temporary as six (6) months or less and this proposed
change will apply this standard to offices as well. In addition, this code change will not require a permit for
structures associated with a Site Plan Review(SPR) or Use by Special Review (USR).
With regard to the Official Zoning Map for Weld County, staff is proposing that this map be placed on the
County website in a digital version and will be updated frequently through the GIS Department.
The current fee schedule does not provide a fee in cases where staff spends time assisting applicants on
novel uses or development that doesn't necessarily fit into the established fee categories. Staff is proposing
that the applicant will deposit the estimated amount of costs prior to assistance and then the County will draw
• down upon it based on staff time spent. This is intended to recover staff time on a project that does not go
through a land use permit where fees are collected up front. The Planning Commission expressed concern
that there is no criteria that determines the difference of a large case from a small case.
Mark Lawley moved that Ordinance 2012-3 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, seconded by Bill Hall.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Joyce
Smock, yes; Nick Berryman,yes; Robert Grand, absent; Bill Hall,yes;Alexander Zauder, yes; Jason Maxey,
absent; Benjamin Hansford, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss. Nick
Berryman asked if the exact location of a proposed pipeline can be better delineated. Mr. Holton suggested
maybe changing the time that the plat needs to be recorded since we have many requests to amend that.
Meeting adjourned at 5:14 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
•
10
Hello