HomeMy WebLinkAbout20101290.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Department of
Planning Services, Hearing Room, 918 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by
Chair, Tom Holton, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
n
- c7.
Tom Holton - Chair
Mark Lawley-Vice Chair
Nick Berryman
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand U
Bill Hall w ,—{
Roy Spitzer 7) %i ce
Alexander Zauder Lit
Jason Maxey
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman, Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services; Heidi Hansen,
Department of Public Works; Lauren Light and Mary Evett, Department of Health; Bruce Barker, County
Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the May 18, 2010 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, seconded by
Bill Hall. Motion carried.
The Chair asked to amend the agenda to move Case USR-1741 after AmUSR-64. Bill Hall moved to amend
the agenda, seconded by Robert Grand.
The Chair read the first case into record.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-64
APPLICANT: The General Assembly and Church of the First Born
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Amended Use by Special Review for a
Church in the A (Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part NW4 of Section 29,T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 18 and approximately 1,100 feet east of State Hwy
85.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, commented that staff is recommending that this case be continued to the
July 6, 2010 Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant time to address the 30 day mineral notice.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1741
APPLICANT: Roswell & Kerry Checketts
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review permit for an
Agricultural Service Establishment primarily engaged in performing agricultural,
animal husbandry, or horticultural services on a fee or contract basis, including
a Livestock Confinement Operation (expansion of an existing dairy to a total of
1,400 animals, including milking cows, dry cows, heifers, and calves) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots A& B of RE-3556; located in Part of the S2 NW4 of Section 15,T4N,
R65W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 43 and approximately 1/2 mile north of CR 44.
2010-1290
W rrimo-tUCa-110r1S
(DII'dj. ID
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, commented that staff recommends that this case be continued so that
referral notification can be sent to the Town of LaSalle as they would like to review this case at their June 15,
2010 hearing.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against these two
applications. No one wished to speak.
Robert Grand moved to continue AmUSR-64 and USR-1741 to the July 6, 2010 Planning Commission
meeting, seconded by Mark Lawley. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair read the following case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1725
APPLICANT: Brian 8 Susan Williams
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Use
Permitted as a Use by Right or Accessory Use in the Commercial Zone District
(landscaping business) in the A(Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A RE-1168 being part of the NW4 SW4 of Section 21, T4N, R67W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 17 and approximately 1/4 mile north of CR 42.
Michelle Martin, Planning Services, commented that the surrounding property to the north,east and west have
been annexed by the Town of Johnstown. The property is located within the three mile referral area for the
Towns of Johnstown, Berthoud, and Milliken. The Town of Johnstown in their referral dated December 22,
2009 stated, "The landscaping business has been in place for some time(presumably with county approval)
and we have not heard of complaints or conflicts. However, the use adjoins undeveloped property that is
designated in our Comprehensive Plan as Residential and is zoned PUD-R and platted (Willow Creek
preliminary)for single family detached residential. This type of use is considered commercial/light industrial
and is not compatible with residential. We strongly suggest that the Special Review Use be subject to periodic
review and that the USR expire within one year of approval by Johnstown of a residential subdivision final plat
on the adjoining property." The Town of Berthoud in there referral dated March 12, 2010 and December 15,
2009 had no comments. The Weld County Department of Planning Services has not received a referral from
the Town of Milliken.
Development standard #3 states that the Special Use Permit shall not be transferable to any successors in
interest to the prescribed property and shall terminate automatically upon conveyance or lease of the property
to others for operation of the facility.
The Department of Planning Services has contacted the Town of Johnstown to gather more information on
when this subdivision (Willow Creek) might be slated for development and they indicated that they did not
know at the time.
Currently the property is in violation (ZCV09-00041) for the operation of a landscaping business without an
approved and recorded Use by Special Review permit (USR). If the USR is approved, the violation will be
closed.
Fourteen referral agencies reviewed this case; nine responded favorably or included conditions that have been
addressed through development standards and conditions of approval. No comments were received from
Weld County Sheriff's office, Town of Milliken, Little Thompson Water District, and the Johnstown Fire
Protection District.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, stated that water is provided by Little Thompson Water District. There is
an existing septic system for the house. In February 2009 the applicant applied for a permit to tie into the
shop. They had an engineer do an evaluation for them; however the engineer's evaluation was not complete
so the permit is active but has not been issued because the engineer needs to do some additional work on
that.
2
A Waste Handling Plan is requested because there are fuel tanks on-site. In addition, a Dust Abatement Plan
is requested for on-site dust control.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, commented that the Town of Johnston has jurisdiction over that portion of
County Road 17. Weld County Public Works classifies County Road 17 as an arterial roadway requiring 140
feet of right-of-way. The applicant is using the existing access to the parcel.
Brian Williams commented that they are requesting the ability to operate a landscape business from his
location. He noted that the south and eastern portions of the site will be used for storing of trees. It is a 21
acre tree farm. He commented that there is a ditch which runs along the southeast corner of the property and
added that he has a head gate which allows him to irrigate these trees. These trees would not be used as a
retail facility but rather used for landscape design.
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 closed the public portion of the meeting.
The Chair asked the applicant if he read through the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval and
if he is in agreement with those. The applicant replied that he is in agreement.
Mark Lawley moved that Case USR-1725, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, seconded by Robert Grand.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman,yes; Erich Ehrlich, absent; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes;Alexander Zauder,yes; Jason Maxey,
yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1743
APPLICANT: Lawrence & Linda Lopez do Tina DeZonia
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a
Single Family Dwelling Unit per lot(second home on the property) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: East 100 feet of Block 13 and the west 80 feet of Block 12, Dream Acres
Subdivision, being part of Section 25, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 18; 0.25 miles east of CR 11.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, commented that the site is located within the three mile referral area for the
Cities of Dacono and Longmont and the Towns of Firestone and Frederick. The Weld County Department of
Planning Services did not receive a referral from any municipality.
Surrounding property to the south, east and west of the site are parcels in Dream Acres Subdivision and are
zoned agricultural with single family homes in close proximity. Parcels to the north are rural residential
structures on lots created through the Recorded Exemption process. The general area is an enclave to the
Town of Frederick.
Fifteen referral agencies reviewed this case; three offered comments and have been incorporated into the
conditions of approval and development standards. No telephone calls or letters have been received
concerning this case.
Mr. Ogle noted that there are three proposed amendments to the staff report. Condition of Approval 1.D and
1.E are recommended to be deleted as well as Development Standard#17 as they are no longer required.
3
Mary Evett, Environmental Health, commented that there are two permanent septic systems located on the
property. One septic system is for a three bedroom home and another for a one bedroom home. The septic
permit for the one bedroom home is a Statement of Existing which is based on information provided by the
property owner. The owner provided information on the size and location of the septic tank; however he did
not provide information on the size and type of the septic field. Since the applicant is proposing to add a
bedroom to the one-bedroom home, the existing septic system will require an evaluation by Environmental
Health Services to determine if it is adequately sized. If the system is found to be inadequate the system must
be brought into compliance with current regulations.
Water is provided by Central Weld County Water District and the District is aware that two dwellings are being
served by the same meter.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, commented that they will be using the existing access from County Road 18
which is under the jurisdiction of the Town of Frederick. No stormwater management measures are required.
Roy Spitzer moved to delete Conditions of Approval 1.O, 1.E and Development Standards #17 as
recommended by staff, seconded by Nick Berryman.
Tina DeZonia, 5096 CR 18, corrected the information of the one bedroom home with the septic system. She
stated that they are not adding a bedroom; rather they are relocating the one bedroom that is currently there.
Ms. Evett commented that they have submitted information on the septic tank; however there is no information
on the septic field. She added that they will work with the applicant to get that information.
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 she read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if she is in agreement with those. The applicant replied that she is in agreement.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1743, 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 Bill Hall.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes; Erich Ehrlich, absent; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes;Alexander Zauder, yes; Jason Maxey,
yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1737
APPLICANT: Troy&Judy Hefner
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a
Business Permitted as a Use by Right or Accessory Use in the Commercial
Zone District(storage of commercial equipment and vehicles,fabrication, auto
storage and repair) and Agricultural Service Establishments primarily engaged
in performing agricultural, animal husbandry or horticultural services on a fee or
contract basis, including: farm equipment sales, repair and installation facilities,
and one (1) single family dwelling unit per lot other than those permitted under
Section 23-3-20.A of the Weld County Code, in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the E2 W2 SE4 SW4 of Section 23,TIN, R68W of the 6th P.M.,Weld
County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 6 and approximately 1/4 mile east of 1-25.
Michelle Martin, Planning Services, commented that the property is currently in violation (ZCV09-00114)for
the operation of a commercial business and commercial storage without an approved and recorded Use by
4
Special Review permit (USR). If the USR is approved, the violation will be closed.
The property to the west is in Althen Boyer Subdivision and is zoned C-3(Business Commercial)and currently
houses several commercial operations. The property to the north,south and east is within the City and County
of Broomfield. The property is located within the three mile referral area for the Cities of Dacono and
Northglenn and the Towns of Frederick and Erie, Adams County and the City and County of Broomfield. The
Town of Erie in their referral dated February 8, 2010 indicated no conflicts with their interest. Staff believes
that the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards will ensure that the use will be compatible with
existing land uses.
Twenty-one referral agencies reviewed this case, eight responded favorably or included conditions that have
been addressed through development standards and conditions of approval. No comments were received
from: City of Dacono, Town of Frederick, Central Weld County Water District, Weld County Department of
Planning Services Landscape, Adams County, Broomfield County, Weld County Ambulance Services,
Colorado Department of Transportation, West Adams Soil Conservation District, City of Northglenn, Weld
County School District RE-1J, and the Bull Canal.
Ms. Martin noted that Development Standards 24 and 31 are duplicate;therefore one of those may be deleted.
Roy Spitzer moved to delete Development Standard 24 and renumber accordingly, seconded by Mark Lawley.
Motion carried.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, stated that water is provided by Central Weld County Water District.
Each of the two homes on the property have permitted septic systems. If either of those homes were to be
used in conjunction with the business an engineer would need to evaluate the system. A septic system will be
needed for the commercial building designed by an engineer.
The applicant has submitted a Dust Abatement and Waste Handling Plan. Staff would like to see that the
applicant would use water to control the dust on their Dust Abatement Plan. In addition,the applicant needs to
provide information on how they would contain a spill if it were to happen and how it would be cleaned up.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, stated that the City of Broomfield has jurisdiction over the access onto County
Road 6. The applicants have identified an existing low point on the site and have outlined that as their water
quality feature.
Troy and Judy Heffner, 370 CR 16.5, commented that this property has been used mainly as a horse property
for many years and they wish to continue to do that. The applicants are proposing to utilize the barn for
commercial use. She added that this proposed use is compatible with the surrounding properties to the east
and west. The outside storage area will be screened.
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 applicants if they read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicants replied that they are in agreement.
Mark Lawley moved that Case USR-1737, 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 Roy Spitzer.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman,yes; Erich Ehrlich, absent; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes; Alexander Zauder, yes; Jason Maxey,
yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1722
APPLICANT: Daniel Ochsner
5
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Use
Permitted as a Use by Right,Accessory Use, or Use by Special Review in the
Commercial or Industrial Zone district(long term storage units) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part W2SW4 of Section 2,T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to the East 1-25 Frontage Rd and north of and adjacent to
CR 36.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, commented that this application is for a Site Specific Development Plan
and Use by Special Review Permit for a Use Permitted as a Use by Right, Accessory Use, or Use by Special
Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (long term storage units along with one-single family
dwelling unit when used as living quarters for the proprietor/employees caretakers or security personnel
responsible for operating, maintaining or guarding the property where such dwelling unit is enclosed within the
principle building). The applicant is proposing a stick built office that would also include a manager's
apartment
The site is located approximately 200 feet to the south of an existing single family residence and
approximately 300 feet north of a single family residence along with an outdoor storage to the south. The
Department of Planning Services has received one letter from a surrounding property owner located
immediately to the north of the site. Concerns expressed were in regard to whether this use is compatible with
the adjacent properties, how the units will be secured or controlled,what type of uses would be allowed in the
storage units, is there an adequate demand for this type of use. The Department of Planning Services has
attached several development standards and conditions of approval to address compatibility with adjacent
properties. A landscape and screening plan is required along with a lighting plan to address the visual impacts
of this use and to ensure compatibility with existing and surrounding land uses.
Ten referral agencies reviewed this application; nine referrals were received and either indicated no conflicts
with their interest and/or have been addressed through conditions of approval and development standards.
The Town of Mead did provide a referral dated October 21, 2009 indicating that the property is located within
the Town of Mead's Planning Area and has a future land use designation of Planned Industrial Mixed Use.
Mead also indicated that the property is located within the Mead Highway Design Overlay District.
Development standards outlined in this district include a minimum building setback of 50 feet from the 1-25
Frontage Road. Additional standards that would apply are in regard to architectural and building articulation
standards. The Town of Mead requested additional information on the site plan to evaluate the plan for
conformance or non-conformance with the Town of Mead's Development Standards. The Town of Mead
recommends that USR-1722 be denied and to refer the application to the Town of Mead for annexation.
Mr. Gathman stated that he has had discussions with applicant and the applicant indicated that he has had
some conversations regarding annexation with the Town of Mead but wishes to not pursue annexation into the
Town.
Another item reviewed in this case was in regard to Urban Growth Boundaries(UBG)as defined in Section 22-
2-40.E of the Weld County Code. A portion of this site is located within the Urban Growth Boundary of the
Town of Mead; however less than 50%of the site is located within the Town of Mead Urban Growth Boundary.
Staff has reviewed this and on that basis has determined that it is not subject to the provisions of Section 22-
2-40.E of the Weld County Code which addresses criteria that the County should consider such as:
• The municipality does not consent to annex the land or property in a timely manner or annexation is
not legally possible
• The proposed development, including public facility and service provision, is consistent with other
urban-type uses and conforms to County regulations
• The proposed urban development attempts to be compatible with the adjacent municipality's
comprehensive plan (though it may not necessarily conform to it).
Another referral was received from Mountain View Fire Protection District in which they are requiring a
6
minimum fire flow of 1500 gpm at 20 psi and that fire hydrants be placed so that all portions of buildings on the
site are located a minimum of 450 feet from any buildings to be located on site. Mr.Gathman had discussions
with the Little Thompson Water District and they indicated that there is an existing 24 inch water main on the I-
25 Frontage Road and an existing water line with fire hydrants along County Road 36. The applicant
submitted a letter indicating that he will address any requirements of the Fire Protection District for this use.
An access permit from CDOT under Permit#408010 was issued for this site in 2008.
The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of this application with the attached
development standards and conditions of approval.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, commented that water is provided by Little Thompson Water District and
they have provided a letter stating that the existing tap is acceptable for a business/residence/office. There is
an existing septic system on the property for the house which is sized for a one bedroom home. If this will be
used with the business an engineer will need to evaluate the system or the applicant will need to install a new
system.
Waste Handling and Dust Abatement Plans are required. No wash sites or RV dump stations will be located
on site.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, commented that the existing access is from the 1-25 Frontage Road permitted
through CDOT. Staff requested 100 feet of paving into the site as the rest of the site will be gravel and this will
help with tracking control. The applicant has provided an acceptable preliminary drainage report. She added
that they have some minor changes to make to it prior to finalization.
Daniel Ochsner, 18905 CR 394, commented that he would like to put storage units on this site. He added that
located to the south of this site is a salvage yard. He feels that storage units would be a good use of this
property.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Chris LeBaron, 5200 CR 36 commented that he lives in the country because he doesn't want to live around
commercial. He added that County Road 36 is in extremely bad shape with washboards. This proposed use
will increase the traffic on County Road 36 and asked what this will do to the quality of the road as it is already
in need of repair. The dust is already bad; therefore the additional traffic will make it worse.
Steve Stamey, Town of Mead, wished to clarify the County's Urban Growth Boundary. According to the map
on the visual slide the Town limits are on County Road 36 as well as the 1-25 Frontage Road and that parcel
would be within one-quarter mile of Town limits and entirely within what the County defines as its Urban
Growth Boundary.
The property is located within the Town of Mead's Planning Area and is immediately adjacent to the Town of
Mead's city limits on both the west side of the property and the south side of the property and it is eligible for
annexation. In 2008-2009 the Town went through an extensive public process of adopting a new
comprehensive plan and new development standards for that community. Through that process it designates
this property with a future land use of Planned Industrial Mixed Use. The Town also adopted through that
process extensive development standards,which they felt were appropriate for that community along the 1-25
Frontage Road. Those development standards included 50 foot building setbacks from the Frontage Road,
consideration for 360 degree architecture, variety of building design elements and highway frontage
landscaping. The Town has not seen enough detail on that application to review whether or not it would
conform or address any of those standards in terms of the Town's development standards and requirements.
The Town of Mead respectfully requested that the County refer this application to the Town of Mead for
annexation. Mr. Stamey stated that the Town is open to discussing annexation with the applicant.
Commissioner Lawley asked if there have been any discussions regarding annexations within the last 6
months with the applicant. Mr. Stamey replied no.
7
Sandy Winset, co-owner of the property located at 17300 E 1-25 is north of this proposal. Ms.Winset is not as
concerned with the storage units; however she expressed concern that this is proposed on agricultural land.
She added that there is also a concern that this will become an outdoor storage area and she doesn't want to
see this. Ms. Winset inquired what the hours of operation will be and if it will be secured.
Commissioner Spitzer asked to clarify the hours of operation. Mr. Gathman said that hours of operation are
from 6 am to 7 pm, seven days a week.
Commissioner Lawley said that we've incorporated other cities development standards when they've
commented on certain criteria and asked if staff's report takes into consideration the Town of Mead's. Mr.
Gathman said that there is a condition of approval which states that the applicant attempt to address the
requirements of the Town of Mead.
Commissioner Lawley referred to the Town of Mead's concern regarding the UGB at the one-quarter mile. Mr.
Gathman said that a previous planner, Brad Mueller, updated the Urban Growth Boundary in July 2009. The
standard is now one-quarter mile from existing sewer. Based on those boundaries staff determined that less
than 50 percent of the site is located within the Urban Growth Boundary and not the entire site.
Commissioner Holton asked if this use includes outdoor storage. Mr. Gathman said it is in-door storage only.
Commissioner Holton asked the applicant if he has had any discussions with the Town of Mead regarding
annexation. Mr. Ochsner said he had discussions with them 1 1/2 year ago and added that he is not interested
in annexing into Mead.
Commissioner Lawley commented that since we've taken recommendations from other Towns before he feels
that we should also take those into consideration in this case. He added that if the Town of Mead is
requesting setbacks than we should address that. He stated that he would like to see that as a condition of
approval. Mr. Gathman suggested that the condition of approval be amended to state that it"shall address"
rather than "shall attempt to address" given the fact that there are several items that the Town of Mead
desires.
The Planning Commission discussed how the Town of Mead's required setbacks would affect the long storage
building located along the western property. Mr. Ochsner said that if the setbacks were required it would
eliminate that building and therefore impact his business. He added that he designed the building according to
Weld County standards including the setbacks, drainage, etc. and if this is changed it would cost him
additional money.
Commissioner Spitzer said that he doesn't agree with changing the standards as the applicant has prepared
his design according to our standards and then we would ask him to design his proposal to another set of
standards. Commissioner Holton commented that he is not in favor of changing the standards.
The Chair asked the applicant if he read through the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval and
if he is in agreement with those. The applicant replied that he is in agreement.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1722, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards 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. Nick
Berryman,yes with comment; Erich Ehrlich, absent; Robert Grand,yes; Bill Hall, yes; Alexander Zauder,yes;
Jason Maxey, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes with comment; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
Commissioner Berryman suggested that an IGA be developed with the Town of Mead as well as other
municipalities to alleviate some of these issues.
Commissioner Lawley echoed the suggestion of developing an IGA with the Town of Mead and added that we
8
also need to have some consistency when applying some of these standards.
The Chair called a recess at 2:55 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 3:07 p.m.
The Chair read the following case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1745
APPLICANT: RRRS, LLP do Christine Hiatt
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a
Medical Marijuana Dispensary in the C-3 (Business Commercial)Zone District,
along with Uses Permitted as a Use by Right and Accessory Use (car/truck
wash), Vehicle Service Repair(oil change and vehicle lubrication), Stores and
Shops Furnishing Services and Merchandise at Retail to the General Public,
Offices, and a 70-Foot Wireless Tower in the C-3(Business Commercial)Zone
District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NE4 of Section 10, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: Approximately 1,000 feet south of SH 119; west of and adjacent to Turner Blvd
and approximately 450 feet west of 1-25.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, commented that there are a number of uses listed on this application. The
main component that the applicant is proposing is a medical marijuana dispensary and wellness center to be
located in an existing commercial building. Medical marijuana dispensaries currently require a Use by Special
Review Permit(USR) in the C-3(Business Commercial)Zone District. There are existing uses by right on-site
that were approved through the Site Plan Review process under SPR-103, SPR-107, and SPR-309. The Site
Plan Review process is an administrative review process used to ensure that uses by right in the commercial
and industrial zone districts as well as in multi-family residential areas meet the zoning and design standards
of the underlying zone districts. A Use by Special Review permit cannot encompass only a portion of a
property without utilizing a subdivision exemption, recorded exemption, or subdivision to create a separate
parcel defining the boundaries of the Use by Special Review. Additionally, a USR cannot overlap an existing
Site Plan Review. Therefore in this case, because the applicant is leasing a portion of the building for the
dispensary it is not feasible to create a separate parcel for this use. Therefore the other uses already
authorized through the Site Plan Review process have been included under this request.
This use is surrounded by commercial/industrial uses to the south, north and east. Two hotels are located to
the north and east. There is a commercial/industrial building site located to the south. There is a mobile
home park located to the west of this site. There is an opaque privacy fence along the western boundary of
this site separating this site from the mobile home park.
An email in opposition to the proposed use was received by representative of the owner of the mobile home
park citing concerns for impact to quality of life, potential for increased crime in the area, and detrimental
impacts on property values. There have been a number of conditions of approval attached to this USR in
regard to a lighting plan, security plan, signage plan, and also having the applicant address recommendations
from the Weld County Sheriff's office to address safety concerns of this proposed use.
Fourteen referrals agencies reviewed this case; eleven were received and either indicated that they have no
conflicts with their interests and/or have been included in conditions of approval and development standards.
The site is located within the three mile referral areas for the Towns of Firestone, Frederick, Longmont, and
Mead. The Town of Longmont indicated no conflicts with their interests. The Town of Mead indicated that the
property is not located within the Town of Mead Planning Area. No referral response was received from the
Firestone. The Town of Frederick did respond and indicated that they are not in support of this use because:
• The property would not likely be zoned industrial. In addition, the Town of Frederick indicated that
they were contemplating medical marijuana dispensaries as a conditional use in the industrial zone
district area.
• Affective regulation and enforcement of this location would be difficult for the Weld County Sheriff's
office resulting in an additional burden for law enforcement agencies and neighboring municipalities.
9
At the time of referral the Town of Frederick indicated they were considering additional operation
standards for these types of facilities to include background checks on employees and owners,
security systems, not allowing on-site consumption of product on the premise, prohibiting alcoholic
beverages from being sold or consumed on the premise, requiring an on-site manager on premise,
interior and exterior lighting requirements, public areas within the operation to be able to be viewed
without obstruction, and no displays from the operation should be visible to the public viewing outside
of the facility.
The proposed use is located outside of the Coordinated Planning Area or Intergovernmental Agreement area
between the Town of Frederick and Weld County. Under Section 19-2-60.6 Weld County Code states"To the
extent legally possible pursuant to the Plan and the County's land use regulations as described in Section 19-
2-50.B above,the County will disapprove all proposals for Urban Development in areas of the Southern Weld
Planning Area outside the Urban Growth Area." This proposed use is located on an already developed site in
an existing urban location. They are supplied by public water and sewer and it is within the 1-25 RUA.
The application indicates that an alarm system will be installed for the facility and exterior surveillance will be
provided for the parking lot and building where the facility will be located. A secured room will be used for the
sale of medical marijuana and marijuana will be stored inside a safe.
The Weld County Sheriff's office expressed concern and opposition in authorizing this type of use citing
concerns with the potential for increased marijuana use and increased crime. A number of recommendations
regarding the operation were attached including requiring a full-time security person on-site during operating
hours. A condition of approval has been attached that requires the applicant to address the
recommendation/conditions outlined in the Sheriff's office referral letter.
There was a letter of response to the Sheriff's office referral that was received this morning. Mr. Gathman
handed out the letter to the Planning Commission.
The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of this application with the attached
conditions of approval and development standards.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, commented that water is provided by Left Hand Water District. St.Vrain
Sanitation provides sewer. The applicant is required to provide a Waste Handling Plan. A Dust Abatement
Plan is not required for this application; therefore Condition 1.C could be deleted.
Roy Spitzer moved to delete Condition of Approval 1.C, seconded by Nick Berryman. Motion carried.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, commented that there is an existing access and the building and parking lot are
existing as well. Therefore there is no change in the drainage patterns.
Ronald Hiatt, 1405 Willow Dr, commented that he leases the properties to tenants. Last July he was
approached to lease a portion of the building for a medical marijuana dispensary. In December 2009 they
found out that a land use application needed to be submitted for the use and then ceased operation.
Harrison Tanksley III, 810 Dove Ave, Brighton CO,commented that he would be the manager of the operation.
He has worked in the medical field for the past 20 years designing different medical devices and pain
management.
Commissioner Grand referred to the Weld County Sheriff's letter and asked if there were any concerns in
complying with those recommendations. Mr. Tanksley inquired if a manager on site would suffice the
requirement of a security guard.
Commissioner Holton asked the Planning Commission if they felt that deciding on this application is premature
given the governor may potentially sign the bill and also with proposed code changes that we will hear later
today. Mr. Tanksley commented that he believes those standards have been integrated into the USR;
therefore they would be complying with all the new regulations.
10
Bruce Barker, County Attorney, stated that the proposed code change would be a prohibition against this type
of operation; therefore this application would be grandfathered. He added that after approval of the proposed
code change this use would not be allowed in any zoning district; however this particular application came in
before today and would be grandfathered in. Nothing in the proposed code changes would necessarily affect
or be included in the approval of this application.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Jennifer Knuth 323 Drake Lane, Johnstown, CO, commented that she understands and supports the
application. She has survived cancer twice and has a brain tumor, that although it is not malignant, it is
inoperable. She reiterated that she understands the need for this; however she does not personally do it. Her
understanding from current and future legislation is that the growth of it must be in an agricultural area and the
sale of it must be in an industrial area. She stated that she understands you can grow in one place and sell in
another but you can't transport it and inquired how these two things would be combined to make sure that they
are in compliance.
Mr. Barker said that it depends upon how you deal with the code change. Under current code, in the
agriculture zone district you can cultivate plants. The prohibition that will be considered through the proposed
code changes would prohibit growing operations in any zone district in Weld County. Mr. Barker indicated that
he does not know the answer as he has not researched the transportation part of House Bill. He suggested
asking the applicant to address this question.
Melanie Knuth indicated that her daughter has a heart defect and her husband is almost disabled. She added
that her husband received his medical marijuana license and he would like to open a grow facility; however
they get turned down every time. She expressed frustration that they are not able to open a grow facility and
need help.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Mr. Tanksley stated that he has vendors that they are currently working with who are allowed to grow. He
stated that in the new law you have to grow up to 70% of your own product; therefore they would have to
contract with someone to do that work for them and then transport the product in small portions allowed in
Colorado to a facility.
Commissioner Holton expressed that this is a difficult decision because there is no clear direction from the
State Governor's office or the Federal Government. He felt that this case should be continued as it is too
premature to make a decision. Commissioner Zauder agreed with Mr. Holton's comments.
Commissioner Berryman asked Mr. Barker if there is a charge to make a decision today based on the current
guidelines or is it prudent to continue this case. Mr. Barker said that the application was submitted prior to
presentation of House Bill 1284. He added that he doesn't believe that anything in House Bill 1284 would
change the County's ability to say that you can have one of these in the C-3 zone.
Commissioner Grand said that there is an application before us and the applicant has come in good faith and
gone through the process. He added that we are charged with evaluating the application on the basis of our
existing regulatory process. He said that the other issues are separate from our decision process at this time.
The Chair asked the applicants if they read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicants replied that they are in agreement.
Commissioner Hall agreed with Mr. Grand's comments and added that he doesn't feel it's fair to the applicants
who applied in a timely manner. Commissioner Maxey said that it is a difficult decision to make for him
because he doesn't know what the future will bring; however the applicant has gone through the process.
Commissioner Berryman echoed Mr. Grand's comments and added that they are here to judge this case
based upon the current code.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1745, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
11
the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, seconded by Roy Spitzer.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes; Erich Ehrlich, absent; Robert Grand,yes with comment; Bill Hall, yes; Alexander Zauder,yes;
Jason Maxey, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes with comment; Mark Lawley, no; Tom Holton, no. Motion carried.
Commissioner Grand commented that his support for this case is support for the process and as a Planning
Commission we need to follow the process.
Commissioner Lawley cited Section 23-2-220.A.7 and added that adequate provisions for protection of health,
safety and welfare of the neighborhood or inhabitants have not been met.
Commissioner Holton cited Section 23-2-220.A.7 as well.
The Chair called a recess at 3:57 pm and reconvened the meeting at 4:07 pm.
The Chair read the last case into record.
CASE NUMBER: Ordinance 2010-6
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: Code Ordinance#2010-6, In the Matter of Repealing and Reenacting,with
Amendments, Chapter 21, Chapter 23, Chapter 24, Chapter 26, Chapter 27
Zoning and Chapter 29 Building Regulations of the Weld County Code
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, stated that staff has prepared several proposed code changes.
Bethany Salzman, Zoning Compliance, started with proposed code changes to Chapter 23 regarding Home
Occupations. She stated that the proposed code changes break the Home Occupations into two classes.
Class I is basically what is currently under the County Code. Class II allows up to two employees, one
commercial vehicle, and up to 16 trips per day.
The consensus of the Planning Commission was not to limit the amount of space of the accessory buildings
used in conjunction with the home occupation. Commissioner Lawley said that it should be concentrated on
the intensity of the use rather than the size of the buildings.
Mark Lawley moved to amend Section 23-1-90.a to read "Whether a Class I or Class II, a Home Occupation
may utilize up to 50% of a dwelling unit and/or in accessory buildings with appropriate building permits",
seconded by Robert Grand. Motion carried.
Roy Spitzer moved to amend the number of commercial vehicles associated with the Class II Home
Occupation to two (2) commercial vehicles, seconded by Bill Hall. Motion carried.
Bruce Barker, County Attorney addressed Chapter 23 Article I Section 23-1-90 regarding medical marijuana.
He stated that currently under the code someone can apply for a USR in the C-3 Zone District for a dispensary
and you may cultivate plants in the Ag Zone District. Under this proposed code change, no dispensary or
cultivation of plants is allowed in any zone district. House Bill 1284 allows a county to prohibit the cultivation,
manufacture, distribution, or sale of medical marijuana or medical marijuana-infused products. It also allows a
County to prohibit the operation of licensed facilities.
Mr. Ogle moved to Chapter 23 Article I, General Provisions which addresses the zoning map. Historically,the
Department of Planning Services has used mylars which zone changes have been drafted on. Staff would like
to replace that with a digitized version of the map that is prepared in joint cooperation with the Assessor's
office and Weld County GIS. This document will be recorded once per year.
Mr. Ogle commented that there is a proposed addition under Section 23-3-20.M which includes a County
Grader Shed, except in or adjacent to a platted subdivision or townsite. Mr. Ogle wished to make a change
under Section 23-3-40.E.4 to read "County Grader shed in or adjacent to a platted subdivision or townsite."
12
Roy Spitzer moved to amend Section 23-3-40.E.4 as suggested by Staff, seconded by Jason Maxey. Motion
carried.
Mr. Gathman, Planning Services, addressed the telecommunication antenna tower and telecommunication
facilities. He stated that this section is a complete re-write because currently there are several definitions of
towers in the code and these proposed code changes consolidate those definitions.
Under Section 23-4-830, a proposed table breaks down the height of the towers and what is allowed as a use
by right, through a zoning permit or through a USR permit.
Presently,Weld County Code lists commercial towers as a Non-1041 Major Facility of a Public Utility and staff
is proposing that anything above 70 feet falls under the process of a Use by Special Review. We are
exempting these towers from the Major Facility of a Public Utility but we are also inserting a decommissioning
plan requirement for Major Facilities, Mr. Gathman suggested inserting this same requirement for a tower.
Robert Grand moved to include the decommissioning plan as recommended by staff under Section 23-4-
830.O.13, seconded by Roy Spitzer. Motion carried.
Mr. Gathman said that after further thought he would like to suggest deletion of Section 23-4-830.D.3.b as it
seems to be requiring too much. Robert Grand moved to delete Section 23-4-830.D.3.b as recommended,
seconded by Mark Lawley. Motion carried.
Commissioner Holton inquired about the reference to the 500 year floodplain on page 30 under Section 23-4-
95 Requirements for Amateur Radio Antenna/Towers. Mr. Ogle stated that the 500 year floodplain is in
anticipation that there may be a code change enacted by the State where we will have to recognize the 500
year floodplain. He added that HAM radio operators are considered critical facilities because they are part of
the civil defense; therefore we want to ensure that they are located outside of the floodplains. Mr. Holton
expressed that he would not like to reference the 500 year floodplain in the code until the State enacts it.
Roy Spitzer moved to delete the reference to the 500 year floodplain in Section 23-4-95.F.4.d, seconded by
Robert Grand. Motion carried.
The Chair called a brief recess at 5:23 pm and called the meeting back to order at 5:25 pm.
Michelle Martin, Planning Services, spoke to Section 24-2-10 regarding the time parameters associated with
recordation of the plats. She added that they wanted to be consistent with the requirements for recording the
plats. Currently, portions of the County Code address when a plat needs to be recorded within a time frame
and other areas don't specifically address it. Ms. Martin commented that most of the changes are that the plat
needs to be recorded within 60 days of date of the administrative review. This can be extended by the
Director of the Department of Planning Services if the applicant can show good cause upon a written request.
The PUD, Minor and Major Subdivisions have been given six-months to have the plat recorded per a work
session with the Board of County Commissioners. She added that it can be extended by the Board of County
Commissioners if good cause is shown.
Commissioner Lawley recalled this matter coming up at the last round of code changes. He believed that they
changed the code to allow them up to 3 years to record the plat for PUDs because of economic impacts.
There was also a concern that the County Commissioners were receiving a lot of requests for extensions.
Recording Secretary, Kris Ranslem, read from the Planning Commission minutes of June 2,2009 and stated
that a motion was made by Mark Lawley to change the timeline required of PUD final plans from one year to
three years in all sections listed by staff and corresponding references in Chapter 27 and the motion passed.
Ms. Martin stated that they would review the minutes from the Board of County Commissioners to see if that
change was approved.
Bill Hall moved to re-confirm the motion made at the June 2, 2009 Planning Commission meeting regarding
the timeline for PUD final plans, seconded by Nick Berryman. Motion carried.
13
Mr. Ogle continued to Section 23-4-600 regarding permit requirements for a second single-family dwelling in
the agricultural zone district. He stated that this is all new language and speaks to the ability of having a
second single-family dwelling on the property for family and caregivers to dwell. It would require a zoning
permit for a second house.
Commissioner Holton said that part of the Rural Task Force recommendation for auxiliary dwelling units was
in regard to the existing non-conforming residences. He clarified if this proposed code change allows these
homes to be grandfathered. Mr. Ogle said that it would fall under a Use by Special Review permit(USR).
The Planning Commission expressed concern on parcels where there are two homes located on the same
parcel prior to 1972. The consensus was that if there are two homes prior to 1972 to allow the second home
to be rented out. Mr. Barker commented that this code change was written to deal with allowing a new second
single-family dwelling and the concern that the Planning Commission has with the existing two homes can be
addressed at the next meeting and brought forward to the Board of County Commissioner's second reading.
Robert Grand moved to amend Section 23-4-600 to read"No second single-family dwelling on a legal lot in the
(A)Agricultural Zone District shall be allowed without first receiving an approved zoning permit as required by
this Division. The intent is to allow a second single-family dwelling on a legal lot in the(A)Agricultural Zone
District. An application for any zoning permit for a second single-family dwelling on a legal lot in the (A)
Agricultural Zone District shall include the following:" seconded by Alexander Zauder. Motion carried.
Robert Grand moved that Ordinance 2010-6 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
attached amendments, seconded by Roy Spitzer. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 6:34 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
14
Hello