HomeMy WebLinkAbout20120295 SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Administration
Building, Hearing Room, 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Tom
Holton, at 1:30 p.m. •
w
ROLL CALL ABSENT CIOr
Tom Holton m 3.rn
Mark Lawley
C7 ro -o
Nick Berryman Ri us CO
Robert Grand
Bill Hall 111
m 1) tic=
Benjamin Hansford -.
Alexander Zauder N N
Jason Maxey t
Joyce Smock
Also Present: Chris Gathman, Tom Parko and Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services; Don Carroll and
Heidi Hansen, Department of Public Works; Lauren Light and Mary Evett, Department of Health; Brad Yatabe,
County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Robed Grand moved to approve the January 3, 2012 Weld County Planning Commission minutes,seconded
by Jason Maxey. Motion carried.
The Chair announced that they were going to introduce case USR11-0026 first. He read the case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR11-0026
APPLICANT: LUPE CARPIO, C/O NOBLE ENERGY, INC.
PLANNER: KIM OGLE
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR AN OIL AND GAS SUPPORT AND SERVICE FACILITY (WATER
SUPPLY& STORAGE) IN THE A(AGRICULTURAL)ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT B REC EXEMPT RE-5113 BEING PART W2NW4 AND PART OF THE
E2NW4 SECTION 26,T6N, R64W of the 6th P.M.,WELD COUNTY,
COLORADO.
LOCATION: SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO COUNTY ROAD 66 SECTION LINE, EAST OF
AND ADJACENT TO COUNTY ROAD 57.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, stated that the Department of Planning Services on behalf of the Department of
Public Works and Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)are requesting a continuance of this case.
Public Works and CDOT have determined there is insufficient documentation on the potential traffic generated
by this facility. Representatives for the applicant have submitted a draft traffic study and later resubmitted an
updated traffic study providing the additional information. The Department of Public Works has deemed both
submittals insufficient to adequately address the traffic needs for this application; therefore staff is requesting
a continuance until February 7, 2012.
Vince Harris, Baseline Corporation, introduced Curt Moore, Noble Energy. He requested that this case be
heard today to give them the opportunity to make the presentation and step through the issues with the
Planning Commission and to learn their perspective on some of these items. He added that they have brought
their transportation engineer who is available to answer questions.
They understand that through the holidays there have been some delays in submitting and reviewing the
transportation report but there are a number of items that they would really like to get out on the table and
discuss in today's hearing. Mr. Harris noted the February 7,2012 continuance for Planning Commission and
added that they are scheduled to appear before the Board of County Commissioners on February 15, 2012.
1
t meet.�u tsc c-y�
J-30_j � 2012-0295
He added that they would like to take the opportunity today to enter into a dialogue with staff and learn some
more perspectives on the transportation issues.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against the continuation of
this case. No one wished to speak.
Benjamin Hansford moved to continue Case USR11-0026 to the February 7, 2012 hearing, seconded by
Robert Grand.
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, no; Alexander Zauder, absent; Jason Maxey,
yes; Benjamin Hansford, yes; Mark Lawley, yes with comment; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried on vote 7-1.
Commissioner Lawley commented that given the fact that staff has not had a chance to review the traffic
issues related to the case he believes it is prudent for this Board to continue this case.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR11-0017
APPLICANT: LAWRENCE SCOTT
PLANNER: CHRIS GATHMAN
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR AN AMENDMENT TO USR-671 (FARM EQUIPMENT REPAIR
SHOP)FOR EXPANSION OF OUTDOOR STORAGE OF VEHICLES,MATERIALS
AND PARTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FARM EQUIPMENT REPAIR SHOP,
ALONG WITH A TOWING SERVICE, AND AN IMPOUND LOT IN THE A
(AGRICULTURAL)ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT A AMENDED REC EXEMPT AMRE-1379; PART SW4 SECTION 1, T1 N,
R67W of the 6th P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO STATE HIGHWAY 52;APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE
EAST OF CR 23.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, stated that this proposed Amended Use by Special Review Permit is to
expand an existing farm equipment repair shop originally approved under USR-671. USR-671 was approved
by the Board of County Commissioners on May 15, 1985. This use consists of mostly indoor repair of vehicles
with some outdoor repair of larger vehicles and some outdoor storage of vehicles and equipment awaiting
repair, or repaired vehicles awaiting payment of repairs. In addition to this use,the applicant intends to operate
a vehicle towing business (estimated at approximately one tow per week) and a screened impound lot for
storage of wrecked, derelict or abandoned vehicles for the Colorado Highway Patrol (estimated at
approximately two times per month).
This amended USR is to address a pending zoning violation(ZCV10-00121).This violation was initiated due to
the expansion of a Use by Special Review (USR-671) permitted area without the necessary Weld County
Zoning Permits and the presence of non-permitted mobile homes and Noncommercial Junkyard. This case
was presented to the Board of County Commissioners through the Violation Hearing process on February 8,
2011.At that hearing, the Board referred this case to the County Attorney's office, but delayed legal action for
30 days. The applicant submitted this USR application to address the expansion of the boundaries of USR-
671. This complaint was from a private citizen.
There is an existing single family residence and outbuildings located on the parcel immediately to the west of
the USR site and two other single-family residences located approximately 150-300 feet to the northwest of
the site along with a single family residence to the east of the site. Farmland is located to the south and vacant
land and an old gravel mining site are located to the north and east of the USR property.
Fourteen Referrals were sent out and nine referral agencies responded with either no comments or approval
with conditions.
This site is located within the three-mile referral areas of the City of Fort Lupton and the Town of Frederick.
2
No referral response was received from Frederick and Fort Lupton returned a referral response which
indicated no conflict with their interests.
A letter of objection from a surrounding property owner was received January 13, 2012. The letter expresses
concerns regarding misuse of an access by the applicant and removal of a fence to allow the applicant to
store vehicles and equipment on this owner's property. Concerns were also expressed regarding non-
compliance with state zoning laws (outside storage of a junkyard within 1,000 feet of a state highway —
Highway 52), and concerns were expressed regarding lack of containment for leaking vehicles and impacts on
the water table.
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) was sent a copy of this application for this case. No
response has been received; however, the applicant did provide a copy of an e-mail from Gloria Idler with
CDOT dated January 13, 2011. In this email they indicate that they considered the access to the site
grandfathered and legal and would only require a re-evaluation of the access if traffic to the site increased by
more than 20%.
There are a number of conditions of approval/development standards proposed for this application to address
impacts and compatibility.
The applicant is proposing to screen the outdoor storage area with a six(6)foot tall metal fence on posts. The
Department of Planning Services is requiring an updated screening plan to address the reflectivity of the
fencing since it will be metal. The fencing shall be either painted or the applicant shall demonstrate that the
fencing will not be reflective as a condition of approval for this case.
The Zoning Compliance Department is requiring that all noncommercial junkyard items on the property,
outlined under the zoning violation, either be removed from the property or be completely screened from all
adjacent properties and rights-of-way as a condition of approval for this case.
A lighting plan is required should the applicant propose any outside lighting.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, stated that the access is onto State Highway 52, which is under CDOT
jurisdiction and they have indicated that there are no concerns with this access. Staff requested that the
applicant delineates on the plat map where the parking is to ensure that they are not parking on top of the
septic leach field. Staff has no concerns with this case.
Mary Evett, Environmental Health, stated that the shop is served by an existing septic system and the
applicant is proposing to upgrade the system. The facility is served by an existing commercial well; however
according to the permit the well is restricted to drinking and sanitary purposes inside the shop. The well may
not be used for irrigation or any other purposes outside the shop. The applicant submitted a Waste Handling
Plan for trash and garbage to be removed by Gator Rubish. In addition, the vehicle fluids will be removed by
Tri-County Oil Reclaimers. The applicant also submitted a spill plan which includes a contract with a company
to remove waste and assist with clean up of any large quantity spills along with removal of contaminated soil.
Ms. Evett added that the applicant needs to submit a revised Dust Control Plan since the commercial well is
restricted to sanitary and drinking purposes inside the shop.
Ms. Evert stated that there are two conditions of approval in duplicate and recommended deleting Condition of
Approval 1.G and move Condition 3 to 1.G. Robert Grand moved to delete Condition of Approval 1.G and
move the language from Condition 3 to Condition 1.G, seconded by Bill Hall. Motion carried.
David Pier stated that he represents the applicant,which is his brother-in-law, Larry Scott. He said that they
repair farm equipment anywhere from small tractors to harvesters. They also repair farm and commercial
diesel trucks. He added that they don't repair pickup trucks or cars. The towing operation consists of heavy
Class A trucks that have broken down on the highway; they do not tow cars or trucks.
Mr. Pier understands that there was a concern with leakage; however they have a contract with a local agency,
Barron's Oil Field Service, to take care of any spills that might occur. Fortunately there has not been a spill
and have not had to use that contract.
3
The property that is located to the south and west of the subject site is owned by his mother. That area was
cut out of the 160 acre farm and added that she has substantial water rights on her farm and she would be
willing to rent water for the irrigation system should it be necessary in order to abate the dust.
In regard to the neighbor's objection letter of unauthorized use of her property, Mr. Pier stated that is not the
case. He submitted a 2007 Letter of Agreement with Mrs. Dreiling concerning that usage. He added that in
the letter the use that they have been making of the property was in fact recognized and approved by Mrs.
Dreiling through her attorneys some years ago. Mr. Pier said that they are not repairing any equipment on her
property. The use that is made is on occasion where larger items of farm equipment or long tractor trailer rigs
will pull out of the southeastern corner of the property onto the property to the east and turn around and come
back to the property.
Commissioner Hansford asked if he expects expansion in his towing business to more than 1 time per week.
Mr. Scott said that he doesn't see it expanding. Mr. Pier submitted photos of the land belonging to Mrs.
Dreling who filed the objection. He added that it will give you an idea of the area that she refers to in her letter.
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 read through the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval and
if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that he is in agreement.
Commissioner Lawley asked staff if they intend to have screening on the entire site. Mr.Gathman said that in
looking at the site the biggest issues with screening will be from Highway 52 and the eastern and western
portion of the property. No screening would be required on the south side given that the nearest residence is
1 mile or more away.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR11-0017, 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 with comment; Bill Hall,yes;Alexander Zauder, absent;
Jason Maxey,yes; Benjamin Hansford, yes; Mark Lawley,yes;Tom Holton,yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Grand commented that the applicant has been operating for awhile and is making a good faith
effort to clean up his property. He expressed disappointment that the person who opposed this application
didn't show up at today's hearing. He believes that what the applicant is doing is an improvement to the area.
The Chair read the following case into record.
CASE NUMBER: COZ11-0001
APPLICANT: BIG THOMPSON INVSNT HOLDINGS LLC
PLANNER: TOM PARK()
REQUEST: CHANGE OF ZONE FROM THE A(AGRICULTURAL)ZONE DISTRICT TO THE I-3
(INDUSTRIAL)ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT A AND B RE-4914; PT W2 SECTION 23,T4N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: EAST OF HWY 85 AND SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 44.
Nick Berryman abstained from participating in this case due to a personal conflict.
Tom Parko, Planning Services, stated that this request is for a Change of Zone from the Agricultural Zone
District to the 1-3 (Industrial) Zone District.
The site is located south of County Road 44; east of and adjacent to County Road 33. U.S. Highway 85 is
located to the west. The property boundary is approximately 113 acres and is comprised of two (2) lots
4
associated with RE-4914. The Change of Zone is not part of a platted County Subdivision.
The owner of record is Big Thompson Investment Holdings, do Mark Goldstein. The owner approached staff
in late summer/early fall of 2011 to talk about specifics and ideas about the property. During these initial
meetings we discussed various options that included a Planned Unit Development(PUD), a straight Change
of Zone and a Use by Special Review(USR). After consideration and dialogue, the applicant and staff came
to the conclusion that the County could support a straight Change of Zone because of its location to major
highways, infrastructure and an urban development node.
For reference, staff is basing comments and a recommendation on the following Code Sections: Chapter 23
Division 1 Sections 23-2-20 through Sections 23-2-50 and Chapter 22 Article II Sections 22-2-70 through
Sections 22-2-80. For the purpose of this hearing the Commissioners will be focused on the findings found
under Section 23-2-40.
• SECTION 23-2-40.A has been met. This deals with public notification requirements.
• SECTION 23-2-40.B is to ensure that the proposal is consistent with the goals and policies of Chapter
22. The Change of Zone should ensure that the uses will be compatible with the surrounding land
uses; that there is adequate water and sewer service; that there is access and highway facilities in
place to accommodate current and future uses ; to verify that the Change of Zone is associated with
any overlay districts, that the Change of Zone will not prohibit the use of any commercial or other
viable resource development; and to ensure that the soil conditions are suitable for future buildings,
etc.
With respect to Chapter 22 and the policies therein, staff generally agrees that the Change of Zone meets the
policies for industrial development. For instance, Central Weld County Water District has a water line in
County Road 44 and wrote a letter that they can serve the property. Although no public sewer exists the
proposed Change of Zone is two lots and could accommodate septic system(s) if designed accordingly. The
property is located in an urban development node, which simply states that any properties in this designated
area can be suited for urban scale development. Urban development nodes were established during the
Comprehensive Plan updates.
With respect to future uses, it is Staff's understanding that the Change of Zone is to market the property. If
the Change of Zone is approved the owner's zoning will include all the uses found in Chapter 23, Article III
Division 4 Sections 23-3-300 through Sections 23-3-330. A proposed code change is making its way through
a series of hearings that essentially changes Division 4 into cumulative zoning. This means that if this Change
of Zone was approved all the uses allowed in the I-1 and 1-2 Zones would be permitted in the 1-3 Zone District.
In addition, the Change of Zone establishes a framework for the owner to submit future cases to the Planning
Department on a site Plan Review(SPR) basis. However,there are some uses in the Industrial zones that still
require a Use by Special Review (USR).
This property is adjacent to County Road 33 which is not currently paved. Access to the property was
originally granted during the recorded exemption and is shown on the Recorded Exemption plat. The County
will continue to allow access to the site from County Road 33 and it is ideal that future uses use County Road
33 and head south to County Road 42. The US 85 Access Control Plan shows the intersection at County
Road 33 and US Highway 85 to be eventually closed and the road realigned to meet up with County Road 44
to the north. Improvements to the intersection on County Road 42 include a full functional signal. Future
improvements to County Road 44 include some realignment. CDOT was sent a referral but made few
comments that included a recommendation to add a development standard that the owner will acknowledge
the 85 Access Control Plan.
The number of employees proposed to be employed at this site is unknown. If the Change of Zone is
approved the applicant or owner will be required to submit a Site Plan Review(SPR)or Use by Special Review
(USR) for future uses and during this time the owner and staff will evaluate site conditions and planning.
Hours of operation is also not known at this time and will also be evaluated when the owner or applicant
submits a Site Plan Review or Use by Special Review.
5
The proposed site is located within the three-mile referral area of the Towns of LaSalle and Gilcrest. Both
towns were sent a referral but neither commented on the case. The County does have an Intergovernmental
Agreement(IGA)in place with the Town of Gilcrest but the property is just outside the boundary and therefore
outside the scope and purview of the IGA.
Sixteen referral agencies have reviewed this case and five offered comments, some with specific conditions.
Staff did receive two inquires about the Change of Zone. One inquiry was a walk-in and the other was by
phone. However, staff has not received any formal correspondence in either favor or against this case by
phone or email.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions of
approval.
Commissioner Lawley clarified if the applicant didn't get access through an easement or other means they
would have access through the Highway 85 Frontage Road. Mr. Parko stated that in the US 85 Access
Control Plan the intersection from County Road 33 to Highway 85 is slated to be closed in the future.
Therefore when that happens, the option is to either access onto County Road 33 and go south to County
Road 42 or as he understands now the applicant has worked with an adjacent landowner to the north to obtain
an easement for access onto County Road 44.
Mr. Lawley asked if an Industrial Park could potentially be created on the large lot. Mr. Parko said it is
possible and added that Lot B, which is the larger lot, would be eligible for future Recorded Exemptions. He
added that an Industrial Park layout would depend on the owner's intentions such as how many lots and the
demand. He added that if the owner has a lot of interest it would be recommended to go through the PUD
process. Mr. Lawley asked how many lots could potentially be created through the recorded exemption
process. Mr. Parko said that it is just over 100 acres and the owner could create a new lot every 5 years down
to 1 acre since there is public water available.
Commissioner Grand asked if this is premature given the road access issues. Mr. Parko said that staff is in
support of this as they believe this area is in transition and has access to a major highway. He added that
those transportation issues will be addressed as the uses are determined and they will go through the
process. Mr. Grand is concerned that this could be a major development and is concerned with traffic impacts
and understands that some of these uses may be processed through the Site Plan Review and not heard by
Planning Commission. Mr. Parko said that those issues would be addressed and evaluated through staff and
added that much like the USR we ask for the same items such as drainage plans and traffic plans.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, stated that water is provided from Central Weld County Water District.
She added that their detailed review would be given at the time that a Site Plan Review or Use by Special
Review application is submitted because they don't know what the user will be until then.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, stated that since this is a straight Change of Zone they don't know who the end
users are and what the impacts will be. When the Site Plan Review or Use by Special Review application is
submitted they will review the master drainage report,traffic studies and the layout of the lot. Upon submittal
they will look at where the best access is at and if off-site improvements would be warranted.
Tim Naylor, AGPROfessionals, 4350 Hwy 66, Longmont, CO, stated that they are planning to access from
County Road 44. They have an access agreement with the owner to the north of the subject property and an
access agreement with the ditch company. They will have a traffic study prepared upon completion of the
change of zone. They will enter into an Improvements Agreement upon the Site Plan Review or Use by
Special Review approval.
The site is to be used for industrial uses with an anticipated development schedule depending on market
conditions. Rezoning the property will encourage the expansion and diversification of industrial economic
base by providing property available for industrial use. There are already industrial type activities
occurring in 3 of the 4 corners of the intersection and there is an adjacent rail which adds an additional
industrial element to this property as well.
6
The proposed Change of Zone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as the proposal will allow for
the conversion of agricultural land to industrial uses in the area designated as an urban development
node. There are adequate services, including water and roadways available to this site. An engineered
commercial septic system will be utilized until such time that a public sewer system is available. Electricity
is available through Xcel Energy. Atmos Energy will provide natural gas. It is compatible with both
existing uses and future development. The property is bordered by commercially zoned property on the
north and west adjacent to Highway 85 and County Road 44. There is a rail line adjacent to the property
on the western edge which provides additional transportation for industrial use.
CDOT has reviewed the application and indicated no concerns at this point. Mr. Naylor reiterated that they
have procured an access and ditch easement for access to County Road 44. This will be the primary
access and there is an agreement in place.
Mr. Naylor respectfully requested that this application be approved with a positive recommendation to the
Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Grand said that the size of the property and the unknown of what impact you will have on
County Road 44 and Highway 85 intersection is his concern. Mr. Naylor said that CDOT has included in
their U.S. 85 Access Control Plan a realignment of that area.
Commissioner Maxey asked exactly where the access is proposed from. Mr. Naylor said the access is
approximately 1100 feet east of the railroad tracks or approximately 1400 feet east of Highway 85. The
access is proposed to be 60 feet in width but the owner has also agreed to 80 feet is needed. Mr. Maxey
asked if this would be the only access. Mr. Naylor said that a secondary or emergency access would be
from County Road 33.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Lynette Kilpatrick, 20487 CR 33, lives west of the subject property. She agreed with Mr. Grand that it seems
premature since there are so many contingencies that County Road 33 will be closing its access to Highway
85. County Road 44 and Highway 85 is already a dangerous intersection and doesn't need an increase in
volume.
Ms. Kilpatrick is concerned about the demise of the agricultural community. This particular property has in the
past been an asset and productive. She is upset that our society seems to be wanting to build on good quality
farm soil and it's pushing the farmer to the poorer soil that needs more remediation and more water to
produce the same amount of yield. As a property owner she is also concerned with her property value. The
value of the property is based in part of the view of the surrounding area.
Ms. Kilpatrick believes that Weld County has enough industrial properties that are dispersed in all different
types of locations and doesn't see where the zoning of this particular property would be an advantage to our
County. She noted that in the presentation a septic system would be used until public sewer would be
available. She added that her property almost failed the perc test because it is at the low spot of the area and
believes that it would affect this property as well.
Commissioner Maxey asked how long she has lived there. Ms. Kilpatrick said that she has been on her
property since 2003, but grew up on property to the south since 1969.
Cheryl Klausen, 16794 CR 44, lives IA mile east of the Peckham Elevator. She stated that they are in
opposition to the proposed zoning change from agricultural to industrial. As a neighbor to this land they would
like to see it remain agricultural. They moved here in 1968 and have seen many changes to their land but
nothing more discouraging than this. This is an agricultural area that has already lost too much land to
pavement and housing.
Ms. Klausen is concerned with the water run-off that this will create. Their land borders to the east and
currently the water drains from the subject property towards their land and runs off into the Gilcrest-LaSalle
7
Drainage Ditch. She understands they want to build a pond that would catch the drainage but they feel this
isn't good enough. She presented pictures showing the difficulty they had this year in growing and harvesting
the field due to wet conditions. The proposed pond will only add to the current conditions. She added that
they understand that the current owners have stopped paying their dues to the drainage ditch.
Ms. Klausen said that they are also concerned with the traffic that this will create. County Road 44 is already a
busy road and it only adds congestion and noise.
Ms. Klausen expressed concern that this is an agricultural area with no existing infrastructure to support this
type of development. They understand that the industrial zoning thinks that being located adjacent to the
railroad is positive; however the train always stops in LaSalle.
Stan Gingerich, 120 W Nelson, Keensburg, CO, stated that he farms in this area. He expressed concern
regarding the intersection of County Road 44 and Highway 85. He added that citing the railroad is not a good
reason as it cannot be affordable for one or two cars to come in. He is very concerned with the drainage on
site.
Steve Brehon, 19118 CR 44, stated that he is the Secretary/Treasurer for the LaSalle-Gilcrest Drainage Ditch.
The ditch is a voluntary drainage ditch and they can't force anyone to pay. He tried to get in contact with Big
Thompson Holdings in 2008 and sent a notice but didn't receive a reply. He asked if they are going to contain
all the water off the entire 113 acre parcel as it is a good amount that goes into the drainage ditch. Farmers
irrigate out of that ditch and cattle use it for drinking.
Jose Cervantes, 16474 CR 44, expressed concern since he has children in elementary school and not sure
what the traffic will be like. The level of traffic will increase significantly and he just wants facts on how they
are going to control the traffic.
Jen Graham, 20595 CR 33, showed on a visual map where she resides in relation to the subject property.
Terry Wiedeman, 13434 CR 42, stated that he is a real estate broker and sold this property to the applicant.
He said that their intentions are to do the right thing and they do a good job of abiding by the rules. They plan
to develop this into industrial type sites mainly for oil and gas exploration companies. Even though there are
industrial sites around there isn't enough with the added exploration in the oil and gas industry. Mr.Wiedeman
said that he talked to Mark Goldstein,with Big Thompson Holdings, and he wasn't aware of the drainage ditch
system but he will take care of the payments.
Mr. Wiedeman said that County Road 44 is a busy road. He added that these trucks are oil and gas trucks
that are already on the road. Additional traffic might be some but they are already on the road. He doesn't
believe it will hurt the neighboring property values.
Tom Haren, 14339 CR 44, lives just over 1 mile to the west of the property. He is the owner of
AGRPROfessionals who is representing the applicant. He stated that they do more ag development than
anyone around and have been looking at areas around the County for agricultural support businesses and
have found that there is not much industrial land around. He understands the neighbors' concerns about
being next to an industrial zoned site. He said that this area has been designated as an urban development
node in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan and added that this area with a major highway, County arterial
roadway and railroad is going to commercialize and industrialize. He said that they aren't talking about several
lots developing in this parcel because it couldn't be supported by sewer. He stated that the Site Plan Review
process administered by staff is not an easy process because there are many details that are required. He
expressed that staff is very qualified and good at what they do.
Mark Jenkins, 20030 CR 33, stated that he farms directly south of the property. He is concerned with weed
control and trash and doesn't want to have to clean up after someone.
The Chair called a recess at 3:25 pm and reconvened at 3:35 pm.
Tim Naylor said that they understand the concerns of the neighbors and community. They believe that the
8
Comprehensive Plan recognizes that area as an urban development node and it is going to become
commercialized in the future. The businesses that can be utilized on this property could go to another site but
it would have the same issues regarding agricultural and traffic concerns. They feel that this is the appropriate
place for it to go and where the County is directing this type of business to go. With regard to the Ditch
Companies concern, during the break there was an agreement made and the owner will pay the dues. There
were concerns regarding perc tests on the property and added that all commercial businesses are required to
have an engineered designed system for commercial use. In regard to the drainage when there is an
industrial site developed a master drainage system is required for the entire site. This will eliminate the
concerns for flooding.
Commissioner Grand cited Section 23-2-50.E.8 which states that"If street or highway facilities which provide
access to the property are not adequate to meet the requirements of the proposed zone district, the applicant
shall supply information which demonstrates willingness and financial capability to upgrade the STREET or
highway facilities in conformance with the Thoroughfare Plan and thereby meet the requirements of Section
23-2-40 B.4 of this Chapter. This shall be shown by an improvements agreement or contract guaranteeing
installation of improvements by the applicant made in conformance with the County policy on collateral for
improvements." Mr. Grand said that everyone on this Board supports property rights and use of one's
property to the best and highest ability. We also certainly recognize farming conflicts that develop over time.
He added that he believes it would be wholly irresponsible for this Board to support this project with the
unknown and the traffic implications on Highway 85 and County Road 44. Accepting what we have as a
standard in the past of what is in place is not necessarily what we need to have in the future.
The Chair asked the applicant if he read through the Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with
those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Commissioner Hall said that twice a month he will get notice from Upstate Development of desires for
properties that have this type of zoning and have rail spur, etc. He added that businesses do not want to go
through the zoning process. He was part of the Comprehensive Plan Technical Advisory Committee who
recognized and put in the urban development nodes on the map.
The Chair reminded the audience that this case will be heard before the Board of County Commissioners on
February 1, 2012 and encouraged everyone to attend.
Robert Grand moved that Case COZ11-0001, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval with the Planning Commission's recommendation 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, abstain; Robert Grand,yes with comment; Bill Hall, no with comment;Alexander
Zauder, absent; Jason Maxey, yes with comment; Benjamin Hansford,yes; Mark Lawley, yes with comment;
Tom Holton, no with comment. Motion carried on vote 5-2.
Commissioner Maxey cited Section 23-2-50.E.8 and added that he is concerned about the traffic and doesn't
believe those issues have been adequately addressed. He expressed trust in staff and appreciates the
proactiveness of this case. He thinks the homeowners are now on notice that this area has been identified as
a development node; however he doesn't believe he can support it just because of the information given so
far.
Commissioner Hall commented that anybody at the time of Site Plan Review would be absolutely required to
address all of the issues including traffic.
Commissioner Grand commented that this Board certainly supports growth and development and has a strong
history of doing that but he thinks it also has a moral responsibility to consider the impact on our community
and residents and the people who are on the roads. He added that there was no information on the potential
impact on traffic on those roadways.
Commissioner Lawley stated that he is torn. He believes that this is where development needs to occur and
9
believes it is the right place for it. However there are issues that haven't been addressed and need to be. He
believes that staff can address those issues but there is not a public process tied to the potential impacts of
something like this and he has concerns about that. He definitely supports private property rights. Given that
at this point he still has some questions concerning public safety.
Commissioner Holton commented that we have all talked about the need for shovel ready ground and that is
what this zoning gives this property. Being next to the rail it will get developed. He trusts staff to make some
of the decisions and he has seen the decisions from staff to make things right including traffic studies and
impacts of the use.
The Chair read the following case into record.
CASE NUMBER: COZ11-0002
APPLICANT: CAPITAL WEST NATIONAL BANK
PLANNER: TOM PARKO
REQUEST: CHANGE OF ZONE FROM THE PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT)ZONE
DISTRICT,WITH ESTATE USES,TO THE A(AGRICULTURAL)ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT B AMD REC EXEMPT RE-1452; PART SW4 SECTION 4,T6N, R67W of
the 6th P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO HWY 257; NORTH OF COUNTY ROAD 72.
Tom Parko, Planning Services, stated that the property boundary is approximately 71 acres and is comprised
of one (1) lot associate with 2nd Amended RE-1452.
The Change of Zone is not part of a platted county subdivision. However, the property is associated with
Change of Zone#545 formally known as Falcon Ridge. Change of Zone#545 was approved for 38 residential
estate lots. The developer, Mr. Bret Larimer was not able to carry through with the entitlement process and
proceed to the Final Plan. The property was eventually turned over to Capital West who is now in possession
of the property.
Following discussions with the Bank they indicated that they have no intensions to develop the property, let
alone carry it through the Final Process. The Bank is currently working with prospective buyers who would like
to purchase the property.
Staff is basing comments and a recommendation of the following code section which are similar to the last
case with the exception that Chapter 22 will reference Sections 22-2-10 through Sections22-2-20 and Chapter
23 will deal with Sections 23-3-10 through Sections 23-3-40.
• Section 23-2-40.A has been met. This deals with public notification requirements.
• Section 23-2-40.B is to ensure that the proposal is consistent with the goals and policies of Chapter
22. The Change of Zone should ensure that the uses will be compatible with the surrounding land
uses; that there is adequate water and sewer service; that there is access and highway facilities in
place to accommodate current and future uses; to verify that the Change of Zone is associated with
any overlay districts, that the Change of Zone will not prohibit the use of any commercial or other
viable resource development; and to ensure that the soil conditions are suitable for future buildings,
etc.
With respect to Chapter 22 and the policies therein, staff generally agrees that the Change of Zone meets the
policies for the agricultural zone. There are several subdivisions in the area and one of the subdivisions is
located in the Town of Windsor to the south. Most of the subdivisions are located in PUD's with Estate Uses.
There is a church located to the south on County Road 72 and there are also several rural residential and
agricultural zoned properties on recorded exemption lots.
It is Staffs understanding that the Change of Zone back to agriculture is to market the property for potential
agricultural buyers. If the Change of Zone is approved the owner's zoning will include all the uses found in
Chapter 23 Article Ill Division 1 Sections 23-3-10 through Sections 23-3-40.
10
If the Change of Zone is approved future land uses would either fall under a use by right or a Use by Special
Review.
This property is adjacent to State Highway 257 which is paved. Current access is permitted via access
permits issued through CDOT. CDOT will continue to allow access to the site.
Number of employees proposed to be employed at this site is unknown. If the Change of Zone is approved
the applicant or owner will be required to submit a USR depending on the use.
Hours of operation is also not known at this time but can be evaluated when the owner or applicant submits a
future application.
The proposed site is located within the three-mile referral areas of the Town of Windsor and Severance. The
Town of Windsor submitted comments on the case but stated that they have no objections and the Town of
Severance did not respond.
Sixteen referral agencies have reviewed this case and eight offered comments,some with specific conditions.
Staff received one inquiry about the Change of Zone. The inquiry was a call from a resident living in one of
the adjacent subdivisions. However, staff has not received any formal correspondence in either favor or
against this case by phone or email.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions of
approval.
Don Carroll, Public Works, stated that there are no concerns with this request. There are three(3)accesses
from State Highway 257. They have included a statement to keep the noxious weeds down on the property.
Mary Evett, Environmental Health, stated that staff has no concerns with this request. The applicant submitted
an"Able to Serve" letter from the North Weld County Water District. When the site is developed they will deal
with the septic permits at that time.
Paul Hoffman, represents Capital West National Bank, 2108 Milestone Drive, Ft. Collins, CO, and stated
that the Bank took the property back from the former owner and found that the highest and best use and
the most likely buyer would want to buy this property as agricultural. He understands that this property
was previously farmed.
Commissioner Berryman asked if there are water rights on the property. Mr. Hoffman said that there are
some water shares that are independent of the property that they do control and believes that they could
be used to irrigate the farm. The prospective buyer would get the water rights with it.
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 read through the Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with
those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Bill Hall moved that Case COZ11-0002, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, seconded by Jason
Maxey.
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 with comment; Bill Hall,yes;Alexander Zauder,absent;
Jason Maxey, yes; 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. Brad Yatabe,
County Attorney, stated that he researched the question from Mr. Grand regarding terms on the Planning
Commission. He added that the Board of County Commissioners would like to have further discussion on this
11
issue. He said that on the February 7, 2012 meeting he will have more information.
Meeting adjourned at 4:17 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
12
Hello