HomeMy WebLinkAbout20090161.tiffBEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Roy Spitzer, that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1667
APPLICANT: Mark Brinkman
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
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 Districts (landscaping company) in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part NE4 Section 22, T6N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Highway 392 and West of CR 21.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has shown compliance with Section
22-2-80 of the Weld County Code as follows:
A. I.Goal 1. Promote the location of industrial uses within municipalities, County Urban Growth
Boundary areas, Intergovernmental Agreement urban growth areas, growth management
areas as defined in municipalities' comprehensive plans, the Regional Urbanization Areas,
Urban Development Nodes, along railroad infrastructure, or where adequate services are
currently available or reasonably obtainable.
B. 22-2-110.C.1 UGB.Policy 3.1. The County may consider approving a land use development
within an urban growth boundary area if all of the four specified criteria are met. The
applicant has met the four criteria.
This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the applicant,
other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities.
The Planning Commission recommends that the following Conditions of Approval and Development Standards
be attached:
1. Prior to recording the plat:
A. The applicant shall submit a waste handling plan, for approval, to the Environmental Health
Services Division of the Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment. Evidence
of approval shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services. The plan shall include
at a minimum, the following:
1) A list of wastes which are expected to be generated on site (this should include
expected volumes and types of waste generated).
2) A list of the type and volume of chemicals expected to be stored on site.
3) The waste handler and facility where the waste will be disposed (including the facility
name, address, and phone number). (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
B. As the applicant intends to utilize the existing septic system at the home, for employee use,
the septic system shall be reviewed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer. The
review shall consist of observation of the system and a technical review describing the
systems ability to handle the proposed hydraulic load. The review shall be submitted to the
Environmental Health Services Division of the Weld County Department of Public Health and
Environment. In the event the system is found to be inadequately sized or constructed the
system shall be brought into compliance with current Regulations. Evidence of approval shall
be provided to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
EXHIBIT
2009-0161
(A5/2. *gold
Resolution USR-1667
Mark Brinkman
Page 2
•
•
•
C. The applicant shall enter into a Private Improvements Agreement according to policy
regarding collateral for improvements and post adequate collateral for all landscaping,
transportation (access drive, parking areas, etcetera) and non -transportation (plant materials,
fencing, screening, water, signage etcetera). The agreement and form of collateral shall be
reviewed by County Staff and accepted by the Board of County Commissioners prior to
recording the USR plat. Or the applicant may submit evidence that all the work has been
completed and reviewed by the Department of Planning Services and the Department of
Public Work. (Department of Planning Services)
D. The applicant shall address the requirements (concerns) of Weld County Building
Department, as stated in the referral response dated 7/30/08. Evidence of such shall be
submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Weld County
Building Department)
E. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements (concerns) of the Town of Windsor,
as stated in the referral response dated 8/15/08. Evidence of such shall be submitted in
writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Town of Windsor)
F. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements (concerns) of the Weld County
Landscape referral, as stated in the referral response dated 7/21/08. Evidence of such shall
be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of
Planning Services)
G. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements (concerns) of the Windsor —
Severance Fire Protection District, as stated in the referral response dated 8/4/08. Evidence
of such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services.
(Windsor —Severance Fire Protection District)
H. The applicant shall address the requirements (concerns) of Weld County Department of
Public Works, as stated in the referral response dated 8/14/08. Evidence of such shall be
submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of
Public Works)
The applicant shall contact the Colorado Department of Transportation regarding the existing
and future right-of-way of State Highway 392 and provide written evidence of such to the
Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
J. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
1. The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services)
2. All plats shall be labeled USR-1667. (Department of Planning Services)
3. The approved Landscape/Screening Plan. (Department of Planning Services)
4. The approved Signage Plan. (Department of Planning Services)
5. The plat shall be in compliance with Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County Code.
(Department of Planning Services)
6. All outdoor storage of material, equipment and parking areas shall be screened from
public rights of way and adjacent property owners. (Department of Planning
Services)
7. All recorded easements shall be shown on the plat. (Department of Planning
Services)
Resolution USR-1667
Mark Brinkman
Page 3
•
8. The access onto State Highway 392 shall be at a right angle. (Department of Public
Works)
9. State Highway 392 right-of-way shall be delineated on the plat as approved by the
Colorado Department of Transportation. The applicant shall verify the existing right-
of-way and the documents creating the right-of-way. (Department of Planning
Services)
10. The off street parking spaces including the access drive shall be surfaced with
gravel, asphalt, or the equivalent and shall be graded to prevent drainage problems.
(Department of Public Works)
11. The Department of Planning Services has determined from the application materials
that thirty seven (37) parking spaces and one (1) ADA parking space will be required
on site. Each parking space should be equipped with wheel guards where needed to
prevent vehicles from extending beyond the boundaries of the space and from
coming into contact with other vehicles, walls, fences, sidewalks, or plantings.
(Department of Planning Services)
12. Areas used for storage or trash collection shall be screened from adjacent public
rights -of -way and all adjacent properties. These areas shall be designed and used
in a manner that will prevent wind or animal scattered trash. (Department of
Planning Services)
13. The applicant shall address the issue of on -site lighting, including security lighting if
applicable. (Department of Planning Services)
14. If applicable, the water quality features per the Weld County Department of Public
Works approval. (Department of Public Works)
K. The applicant shall submit two (2) paper copies of the plat for preliminary approval to the
Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
2. Upon completion of 1. above the applicant shall submit a Mylar plat along with all other documentation
required as Conditions of Approval. The Mylar plat shall be recorded in the office of the Weld County
Clerk and Recorder by Department of Planning Services' Staff. The plat shall be prepared in
accordance with the requirements of Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County Code. The Mylar plat
and additional requirements shall be submitted within thirty (30) days from the date of the Board of
County Commissioners resolution. The applicant shall be responsible for paying the recording fee.
(Department of Planning Services)
3. The Department of Planning Services respectively requests the surveyor provide a digital copy of this
Use by Special Review. Acceptable CAD formats are .dwg, .dxf, and .dgn (Microstation); acceptable
GIS formats are ArcView shapefiles, Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files format type is .e00.
The preferred format for Images is .tif (Group 4). (Group 6 is not acceptable). This digital file may be
sent to mapsco.weld.co.us. (Department of Planning Services)
4. The special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the
property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk
and Recorder. (Department of Planning Services)
5. In accordance with Weld County Code Ordinance 2005-7 approved June 1, 2005, should the plat not
be recorded within the required thirty (30) days from the date the Board of County Commissioners
resolution a $50.00 recording continuance charge shall added for each additional 3 month period.
6. Prior to Building permits:
Resolution USR-1667
Mark Brinkman
Page 4
•
•
•
A. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the change of use, or construction of any new
structures
B. A plan review is required for each building for which a building permit is required. Two complete
sets of plans are required when applying for each permit. Include a Code Analysis Data sheet
provided by the Weld County Building Department with each Building permits Submittal plans
shall include a floor plan showing the specific uses of each area for the building. The Occupancy
Classification will be determined by Chapter 3 of the 2006 International Building Code. The plans
shall also include the design for fire separation and occupancy separation walls, when required by
Chapter 5 and 7 of the 2006 International Building Code. Fire Protection shall conform to Chapter
9 and exiting requirements by Chapter 10.
C. Buildings shall conform to the requirements of the various codes adopted at the time of permit
application. Currently the following has been adopted by Weld County: 2006 International
Building Code; 2006 International Mechanical Code; 2006 International Plumbing Code; 2006
International Fuel Gas Code; and the 2008 National Electrical Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld
County Code.
D. All building plans shall be submitted to Windsor/Severance Fire District Fire District for review and
approval prior to issue of Building Permits.
Motion seconded by Robert Grand.
VOTE:
For Passage
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Tom Holton
Doug Ochsner
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
Mark Lawley
Nick Berryman
Against Passage Absent
Paul Branham
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Kristine Ranslem, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on February 3, 2009.
Dated the 3rd of February, 2009.
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
•
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Mark Brinkman
USR-1667
1. A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Use by Right, an accessory use,
or a Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone District (Landscaping Company) in
the A (Agricultural) Zone District and subject to the Development Standards stated hereon.
(Department of Planning Services)
2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 23-8-10 of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
3. 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. (Department of Planning Services)
4. Normal hours of operation shall be from 7am to 7pm Monday through Saturday, with the exception of
snow removal operations. (Department of Planning Services)
5. The site shall be limited to no more than thirty five (35) employees on site. (Department of Planning
Services)
6. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act,
30-20-100.5, C.R.S., as amended) shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that
protects against surface and groundwater contamination. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
7. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to include those
wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites
and Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
8. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust,
fugitive particulate emissions, blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions. (Department
of Public Health and Environment)
9. The applicant shall operate in accordance with the approved "waste handling plan". (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
10. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled on this site. The facility shall be
operated in accordance with the approved dust abatement plan at all times. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
11. This facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Residential Zone as
delineated in 25-12-103 C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
12. Adequate handwashing and toilet facilities shall be provided for employees and patrons of the facility,
at all times. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
13. Any septic system located on the property must comply with all provisions of the Weld County Code,
pertaining to Individual Sewage Disposal Systems. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
14. The facility shall utilize the existing public water supply, (North Weld County Water District).
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
15. All pesticides, fertilizer, and other potentially hazardous chemicals must be stored and handled in a
safe manner in accordance with product labeling and in a manner that minimizes the release of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP's) and volatile organic compounds (VOC's). (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
Resolution USR-1667
Mark Brinkman
Page 6
•
•
•
16. Any vehicle washing area(s) shall capture all effluent and prevent discharges in accordance with
the Rules and Regulations of the Water Quality Control Commission, and the Environmental
Protection Agency. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
17. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the State and Federal agencies
and the Weld County Code. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
18. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere to
the fee structure of the Weld County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11) (Department of
Planning Services)
19. Effective August 1, 2005, Building permits issued on the subject site will be required to adhere to the
fee structure of the Capital Expansion Impact Fee and the Stormwater/Drainage Impact Fee.
(Ordinance 2005-8 Section 5-8-40)
20. The landscaping on site shall be maintained in accordance with the approved Landscape and
Screening Plan. (Department of Planning Services)
21. Should noxious weeds exist on the property or become established as a result of the proposed
development the applicant/landowner shall be responsible for controlling the noxious weeds, pursuant
to Chapter 15, Articles I and II of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
22. Sources of light shall be shielded so that light rays will not shine directly onto adjacent properties
where such would cause a nuisance or interfere with the use on the adjacent properties in
accordance with the plan. Neither the direct nor reflected light from any light source may create a
traffic hazard to operators of motor vehicles on public or private streets. No colored lights may be
used which may be confused with or constructed as traffic control devices. (Department of Planning
Services)
23. The property owner shall allow any mineral owner the right of ingress or egress for the purposes of
exploration development, completion, recompletion, re-entry, production and maintenance operations
associated with existing or future operations located on these lands. (Department of Planning
Services)
24. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of
Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code.
25. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of
Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code.
26. Personnel from Weld County Government shall be granted access onto the property at any
reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the
Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County regulations.
27. The Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing
standards and all applicable Weld County regulations. Substantial changes from the plans or
Development Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit
by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or
Development Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the
Department of Planning Services.
28. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing
Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be
reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners.
✓4:L'`1
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
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, Doug Ochsner, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Doug Ochsner
Tom Holton
Nick Berryman
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Mark Lawley
Roy Spitzer
Also Present: Chris Gathman, Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services; Janet Carter,
Department of Public Works; Troy Swain, Department of Health; Cyndy Giauque, County
Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the January 20, 2009 Weld County Planning Commission
minutes, seconded by Nick Berryman. Motion carried.
The Chair read the first case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1680
APPLICANT: North Weld County Water District
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for
Major Facility of Public Utility or Public Agency (two 5 million gallon
water storage tanks) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of AmRE-2992; located in SW4 of Section 6, T7N, R67W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: Approximately 1/8 mile east of CR 13 and 1/2 mile south of CR 86.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, commented that staff is requesting that this case be
continued to March 3, 2009 in order to address surrounding property owner notification. He has
received correspondence from Chrysten Hinze with Lind, Lawrence and Ottenhoff, who is
representing the applicant, and they are requesting that date as well.
The Chair asked the applicant if she wished to add any further comment. The applicant indicated
no.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against
continuing this case. No one wished to speak.
Bill Hall moved to continue Case USR-1680 to the March 3, 2009 Planning Commission meeting,
seconded by Roby Spitzer. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
USR-1667
Mark Brinkman
EXHIBIT
i
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
•
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOCATION:
Michelle Martin
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 (landscaping
company) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
Part NE4 Section 22, T6N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
South of and adjacent to State Highway 392 and West of CR 21.
Michelle Martin, Planning Service, recommended that this case remain on the consent agenda.
This case was presented today to correct a typo in the legal description.
Roy Spitzer moved that Case USR-1667, 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. Motion carried
unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 3:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
•
•
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
--ocl
•
•
•
them when the new Board of County Commissioners hearing will be scheduled for this case.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1675, be continued to the February 3, 2009 Planning Commission
meeting, seconded by Roy Spitzer. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1667
APPLICANT: Mark Brinkman
PLANNER: Michelle Marlin
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 Districts (landscaping company) in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part NW4 Section 22, T6N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Highway 392 and West of CR 21.
Commissioner Ehrlich recused himself from this case for matters of a business relationship.
Michelle Martin, Planning Services, stated that a sign announcing the PC hearing was posted December
11, 2008 by planning staff.
The site is located south of and adjacent to State Highway 392 and approximately'% mile west of County
Road 21. The site is located within the urban growth boundary for the Town of Windsor.
Planning staff is recommending denial of the application because the applicant has not shown compliance
with Section 23-2-220 of the Weld County Code as follows:
Section 23-2-220.A.1 --The proposed use is not consistent with Chapter 22 and any other applicable
code provisions or ordinance in effect.
22-2-110.C.1 UGB.Policy 3.1. The County may consider approving a land use development
within an urban growth boundary area if all of the four specified criteria are met. The
applicant has not met two out of the four criteria.
a. UGB.Policy 3.1.1. The adjacent municipality does not consent to annex the land or
property in a timely manner or annexation is not legally possible.
The Town of Windsor in their referral dated August 15, 2008 indicted that the
property should be annexed and developed within the Town of Windsor. The Town
of Windsor has annexed several of the properties near the property in question.
b. UGB.Policy 3.1.3. The proposed use attempts to be compatible with the adjacent
municipality's comprehensive plan.
The Town of Windsor in their referral dated August 15, 2008 states that the property
is depicted as Neighborhood and General Commercial per their Growth
Management Plan. The property is also located within the Windsor -Severance
Cooperative Planning Area and within the "gateway" to the Towns of Windsor and
Severance. According to the Town of Windsor's zoning code the proposed use is
classified as heavy industrial and therefore is not compatible.
The Town of Severance in their referral dated August 18, 2008 states that the
property in question is located within the Cooperative Planning Area (CPA) of
Severance and Windsor as outlined in the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)
between the two towns. The Town is recommending denial of this case because the
proposed use does not meet the requirements of the IGA.
Section 23-2-220.A.4 -- The Uses which would be permitted will be compatible with future
7
•
•
•
development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning and with the future
development as projected by Chapter 22 of this Code or Master Plans of affected municipalities.
The Towns of Windsor and Severance have both indicated in their referrals that the
proposed use is not compatible with the Towns Cooperative Planning Area (CPA) as
depicted in the Town's Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). The Town of Windsor
also stated in their referral dated that the property is question is located within the
Town's Growth Management Area (GMA) and the proposed use is not compatible
with the future uses of the area.
Future Plans for the area indicated the property would be utilized for
Neighborhood and General Commercial allowing for a variety of commercial
activities. The proposed use is classified as heavy industrial according to the
Town of Windsor and therefore would not be compatible.
Because of these reasons, Planning Staff is recommending denial of the application.
Ms. Martin commented that the applicant does not intend to erect any new buildings but will utilize the
ones that are currently on site for their operation.
Directly to the north of the site across Highway 392 is a landscaping business.
Commission Grand referred to UGB Policy 3.1.3 and the Town of Windsor's classification of heavy industrial.
He commented that he understands that this is a landscaping business. Ms. Martin said that it is a
landscaping company and she understands that the applicant will mainly do maintenance or installation on
commercial type of properties. She added that they don't necessarily sell sod or materials for the residential
public but that they actually do the maintenance. Mr. Grand commented that in his opinion heavy industrial
would include a petroleum refinery operation. He asked if the Town of Windsor considers this as heavy
industrial. Ms. Martin replied that the Town of Windsor indicated that given the nature of the business and
outdoor storage that according to their zoning code it would be classified as heavy industrial.
Commissioner Ochsner asked to clarify the Town of Severance's referral. He commented that there is a
referral dated July 29, 2008 which states that they find no conflict; however on August 18, 2008 there is
another referral from them indicating that they now oppose this application. Ms. Martin said that these
referrals were received at two separate times. The August 28, 2008 referral is the one that the Town of
Severance wishes to supersede the previous one.
Commissioner Spitzer asked what the County would classify this as. Ms. Martin doesn't believe it would be
classified as heavy industrial but more of a commercial/industrial type of use. The applicant's do have some
outdoor storage. They are not necessarily retail because they don't sell anything from the site; however they
do offer a service.
Nate Caldwell, 6908 Barbuda Dr, Ft. Collins, CO. He indicated that he is one of the owners of the landscaping
company who is applying for the use.
Shane McCoy, 3222 Seagull Ct., Loveland, CO. He stated that he is a co- owner of the landscaping company.
Mark Brinkman, 9734 CR 70, Windsor CO. He stated that he is current owner of the property.
Artie Gesick, 1212 8th Ave, Scott Realty Company. Mr. Gesick commented that he has the property for sale
and these gentlemen are trying to purchase it. He indicated that they have met with the Town of Windsor a
couple of times. He added that the biggest thing that his clients have are % ton pickups that pull trailers with
lawnmowers on them.
Mr. Caldwell commented they are a landscape maintenance company which provides a service for
homeowners associations, apartment complexes, etc. They do sprinkler maintenance, mowing, trimming, and
maintain properties throughout northern Colorado.
•
•
•
Their business has grown over the last 10 years and they are now looking to acquire an office and some shop
space. This property came to them and they were excited about the opportunity as it provides a central
location and potential for growth in the area.
On an annual basis they employ over 40 employees. They would spend over $1 million in the area if they
would be allowed to move their business to this location.
They are looking to buy a property as an asset to their business. He added that this property will not generate
revenue but will be more of a home based operation to house some equipment and have an office.
Mr. Caldwell commented that they take pride in their business. It reflects in the appearance of their vehicles
and staff and with the relationships with the communities. He added that community service is something that
they have been passionate about. They donated a lot of time and effort into some of the subdivisions that they
maintain in Windsor after the tornado damage.
Mr. Caldwell commented that they are looking to come into an area and have a shop/office and be an asset to
the community.
As part of the conditions they have to install a screened area to keep their vehicles and trailers at night. He
commented that the screened area would be approximately 400 feet from the road so it wouldn't be an
eyesore.
Mr. Caldwell reiterated that they will be keeping the property as is. They plan to make a couple offices in the
house and use the existing shed. They do not plan to erect any new structures. He added that they do not
have clients coming to the property to buy material, unlike the landscaping business across the highway from
them.
Mr. Caldwell indicated that they have no problems with the referral agencies comments. The main point of
contention is with the Windsor, Severance and Greeley Intergovernmental Agreement and Cooperative
Planning Area. He commented that in Windsor's referral it indicates that they would like to see their buildings
look similar to the west side of Windsor — very uniform nice commercial buildings.
The applicants attempted to come to an understanding with the Town of Windsor and they concluded that
Windsor wanted an all or nothing compliance with their plans for the area. The applicants believe it limits their
proposed use of the area. They would have liked to negotiate something if it comes to a point that they are
surrounded by growth then they can talk about annexation.
Mr. Caldwell mentioned the Big Horn Landscaping Company which is across the highway from the proposed
site. He stated that they have a USR-1497 in which they had the same recommendations and issues from the
Town of Windsor and Severance regarding their proposed use. TUSR-1497 was approved on June 16, 2006
by the Planning Commission stating that they have done their best to meet the concerns of the area. The
applicants feel they would go hand in hand with the landscaping business across from their site.
Commissioner Holton asked what the plans are for the property such as planting grass and landscaping with
trees. Mr. Caldwell replied that there is an irrigation system around the house and it is currently well
maintained and surrounded by native grass.
The Chair asked for comments from the Department of Public Health.
Lauren Light, Public Health, commented that water to the property is provided by North Weld County Water
District. Staff received a letter from the water district indicating that the existing tap is sufficient for the
business.
There is an existing septic system on the home and it will require an engineering evaluation because there are
35 employees which come to the site.
The applicant indicated in a letter dated October 2008 that they will not be washing vehicles on the site;
therefore Condition of Approval 1.E could be deleted.
4
•
•
•
The applicants submitted a Dust Abatement Plan as well as a copy of their Commercial Applicator's License;
therefore Conditions of Approval 1.A and 1.D can be deleted.
Ms. Light added that the applicants did submit a Waste Handling Plan; however staff needs some more
information on it.
Noise is restricted to the residential level. In the Weld County Code residential and commercial noise levels
are the same.
Development Standard 13 requires that any septic system should comply with the Weld County Code but
there is also a septic permit that is called out in that Development Standard. Ms. Light said that if they would
install a new septic system it would be under a different number. However if there is a sewer line within 400
feet of this property they would be required to hook up to that sewer line or get a letter from the municipality
saying that they do not have to hook up. She suggested that the first sentence indicating the septic permit
number be deleted since staff does not have an engineered evaluation and does not know if the existing septic
system for that house would handle the additional hydraulic load.
The Chair asked for comments from Public Works.
Don Dunker, Public Works, said that this property is accessed from State Highway 392. CDOT has
jurisdiction over all accesses onto Highway 392. The latest CDOT traffic counts near this site indicate 8,200
ADT taken in 2007. This application will add approximately 70 vehicles per day plus service truck trips with
the maximum amount of employees on site.
The access off of State Highway 392 shall be a 90 degree angle and will be required to be 20 foot wide in
width.
A water quality feature will be required for the parking areas, buildings and drive.
The northeast corner of the property is within the 100 year floodplain. The area within the floodplain is about
.02 acres. The remainder of the property is out of the 100 year floodplain.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Diana Aungst, Town of Windsor, stated that in August of 2008 the Windsor Planning Commission reviewed
this application and a written recommendation was sent to the Weld County Planning Department. She
commented that she is here to reiterate the recommendation and to answer any questions.
The denial was due to the property not being site planned in the spirit of the Windsor/Severance IGA
Cooperative Planning Area and Development Plan which would result in the respective gateways into both
Windsor and Severance being severely compromised because the design criteria and development standards
which are outlined in and required by the Windsor/Severance IGA have not been used in the proposed design
of the subject property.
Commissioner Grand said that he understands they are not planning to change what is already there. He
asked that in order to comply with the Town of Windsor they would have to tear down what is existing and
construct according to the specifications as defined by the Windsor plan.
Ms. Aungst replied that was correct in addition to annexing to the Town of Windsor.
Commissioner Ochsner referred to the gateway and asked Ms. Aungst to describe what Windsor envisions as
the gateway as far as design standards. Ms. Aungst said that it is referred to as the gateway to Windsor
because it is their far eastern point and it is also the far southern point for Severance so it is also referred to
the gateway for Severance. She added that Windsor also has an IGA with Greeley which refers to it as the
gateway into Greeley because it is the far western point. Windsor does not have a specific gateway design
standard but they have an East Main Street Corridor Design Standards and the gateway design would have to
comply with the East Main Street Corridor design.
•
•
•
Commissioner Berryman asked what Windsor's plans are for annexing property in that area. Ms. Aungst
commented that Windsor will annex when the property owner requests to be annexed. Right now there are no
annexations out there. She added that some of the area surrounding the property in question is essentially
undeveloped at this time but has recently been annexed into the Town of Windsor.
Commissioner Berryman asked if the undeveloped areas are planned to have something sometime soon. Ms.
Aungst said that Eastbrook is residential so they will be coming in with some residential; however the other
properties do not have a proposal at this time.
Zach Ratkai, Town of Severance, commented that the first review by Severance was conducted without the
Cooperative Plan taken into account. This property lies outside of Severance's Growth Management Area;
therefore there was no comment on the original review. Upon correspondence with the Town of Windsor they
realized that it is part of the plan that they have supported with the Town of Windsor and part of the
Intergovernmental Agreement so they then submitted a letter for the support of the plan.
Commissioner Ochsner asked if the Town of Severance would be interested in annexing this property. Mr.
Ratkai replied that they would not consider annexation because it is so far outside of their main town core as
well as outside of their growth management area.
Tom Holton moved to delete Conditions of Approval 1.A, 1.D, 1.E and the first sentence in Development
Standard 13, seconded by Roy Spitzer. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Brinkman commented that the applicants wish to use the property as is. He can sell it residential but it will
look the same. He said that they visited with the Town of Windsor however it ended without resolution.
Commissioner Holton asked that since there are concerns from the municipality is there something that we
can put on it that this USR is not transferrable. Bruce Barker, County Attorney, replied that it was done in the
past and would be acceptable to do so.
Ms. Martin pointed out Development Standard 3 which states that the Special Use Permit shall not be
transferrable 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 Chair asked the applicants if they read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are agreement with those.
Mr. Caldwell said that in Development Standard 4 regarding the hours of operation it was listed 7:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. on the original application; however after talking with Ms. Martin they later revised that and it wasn't
included. They would like to revise their hours to reflect 7 am to 7 pm. He added that they also do snow
removal in the winter time and indicated that it be revised to 24 hours in the wintertime.
Commissioner Spitzer asked what the applicants would like the hours of operation to be. Mr. Caldwell replied
7 a.m. to 7 p.m. with the exception in the winter time for snow removal operations to be 24 hours. He
commented that Ms. Martin and himself have tried to come up with some language as he doesn't want it to
sound like they are open 24 hours a day.
Commissioner Hall clarified that it would be for occasional use when there is snow.
Commissioner Ochsner asked if the days would change from Monday through Friday as currently stated. Mr.
Caldwell said that on occasions they do also work on Saturdays so that would need to be changed as well.
Ms. Martin suggested changing Development Standard #4 to read "Normal hours of operation shall be from 7
am to 7 pm Monday through Saturday with the exception of snow removal operations"
Tom Holton moved to amend Development Standard 4 as recommended by staff, seconded by Robert Grand.
Motion carried unanimously.
6
•
•
•
The Chair asked the applicant if they read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are agreement with those. The applicant replied they are in agreement.
Commissioner Ochsner said that he drives by this location quite often and as far as compatibility it fits ideally
where it is. He considers this area light industrial and not heavy. He added that it is unfortunate that the Town
of Windsor does not want to annex it. The stipulations put an undue burden on the private property rights in
the Urban Growth Plan for Windsor and Severance.
Commissioner Holton agreed with Mr. Ochsner and said it won't change the gateway because they will not
change how the property looks. He referred to the Industrial Goals in the Comp Plan Section 22-2-80 and said
in his opinion it meets all of the requirements.
Commissioner Hall agreed with the previous comments and added that there will be little to no change. It will
be a farmhouse with mowers stored behind it.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1667, 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 based upon Section 22-2-80, 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; Paul Branham, absent; Erich Ehrlich, abstain; Robert Grand, yes with comment;
Bill Hall, yes; Mark Lawley, absent; Roy Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes with comment.
Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Berryman commented his vote is due to the recent precedent with USR-1497 granted by
the County across Highway 392.
Commissioner Grand commented that we want to be supportive of our relationships with the towns;
however in this case it places an undue restriction on individual property rights which he doesn't think is
appropriate.
Commissioner Ochsner cited Section 22-2-110.C.1 which states that the County may consider approving
a land use development within an Urban Growth Boundary if all four specific criteria are met.
Unfortunately, staff came up with UGB Policy 3.1.1 that the adjacent municipality does not consent the
annex land or property in a timely manner or annexation is not legally possible. Mr. Ochsner believes that
the applicant has proved that a timely manner and undue restrictions would make annexation impossible.
Mr. Ochsner also cited UGB Policy 3.1.3 "The proposed use attempts to be compatible with the adjacent
municipality's comprehensive plan." He added that as far as compatibility it fits the area extremely well
and he believes the applicant will be a benefit to both the County and to the city it neighbors.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOCATION:
USR-1679
JLW Investment, LLC
Chris Gathman
A Site Specific Development Plan and a Use by Special Review Permit for an Oil
and Gas Support Facility (Class II - Oilfield Waste Disposal Facility) in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District.
Lot B of RE -748; Part NE4 of Section 18, T6N, R63W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
North of and adjacent to State Hwy 392 and approximately 1/4 mile east of CR
61.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, stated that the proposed facility is located approximately 500-600 feet from
three existing residences within the platted townsite of Barnsville and approximately 250-300 feet north of
an existing residential lot. Unimproved parcels are located to the north and east of the site. An agricultural
parcel is located to the south, across State Highway 392. Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval will ensure compatibility with existing surrounding land uses.
7
Hello