HomeMy WebLinkAbout20020435.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Cristie Nicklas that the following resolution along with the amendments to Development
Standard #5 along with the addition of Development Standard #12, 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-1365
Applicant: Jose and Beneranda Marquez
Address: 1517 N. 25th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Request: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for an
expansion of an existing non-conforming use (a drive-in restaurant
within an existing convenience store - La Tiendita) in the (A)Agricultural
Zone District
Legal Description: Lot 11, Espanola Subdivision, part of the NW4 NE4 Section 36,
Township 6 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado
Location: West of and adjacent to 25th Avenue (Weld County Road 35 3/4),
Approx. 250 feet south of O Street (Weld County Road 64)
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 23-2-260
of the Weld County Code.
2. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services' staff that the applicant has shown
compliance with Section 23-2-220 of the Weld County Code as follows:
A. Section 23-2-220.A.1 -- The proposed use is consistent with Chapter 22 and any other
applicable code provisions or ordinances in effect. Section 22-2-150 C.Goal 2 of the Weld
County Code states"Ensure the compatibility of commercial land uses with adjacent land
uses." The applicants are proposing a 24-square foot sign to be located on the roof of the
premises in addition to the existing sign for"La Tiendita". The proposed sign exceeds the
16-square foot requirement for signs in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. To better ensure
compatibility with the surrounding residential area, the Department of Planning Services
recommends that the proposed sign be no larger than 16-square feet.
The applicants have proposed 11 diagonal parking spaces to serve this use. A maximum
of five diagonal parking spaces could be designated to serve this site without blocking
existing driveways and residential parking spaces that serve this site. A further reduction
in parking would result when a handicapped parking space is designated. Appendix 23-B
of the Weld County Code requires a minimum of 20 spaces for drive-in restaurant
establishments. The applicants are requesting a variance from this parking requirement
through the Use by Special Review process.
B. Section 23-2-220.A.2—The proposal is consistent with the intent of the district in which the
use is located.
C. Section 23-2-220.A.3--The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with the existing
surrounding land uses. The proposed use is located in an existing agriculturally zoned -
subdivision (Espanola). The surrounding uses are existing single-family residences to the
north, south and west and vacant land to the west. The proposed use will be located F V)
indoors in the same facility of an existing store (La Tiendita).
r^
D. Section 23-2-220.A.4 -- The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with future x
development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning and with the future wy
development as projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code and any other applicable
code provisions or ordinances in effect, or the adopted Master Plans of affected rameeirested
Itsminsir
&Oi -0 435
Resolution USR-1365
Jose & Beneranda Marquez
Page 2
municipalities. The proposed use is located within the 3-mile referral area for the City of
Greeley. The referral dated December 26,2001 from the City of Greeley indicated that the
proposal was not consistent with the Greeley 2020 Comprehensive Plan and recommends
that the request be denied due to landscaping,parking and use concerns. If this application
is approved, the City of Greeley recommends intensive landscaping to screen adjacent
residential properties and minimization of exterior lighting and outdoor storage of materials.
Attached Conditions of Approval require the applicant to attempt to address the City of
Greeley's concerns.
E. Section 23-2-220.A.5—The site does not lie within any Overlay Districts.
F. Section 23-2-220.A.6—The applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort has been made to
conserve prime farmland in the locational decision for the proposed use.
G. Section 23-2-220.A.7 -- The Design Standards (Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code),
Operation Standards(Section 23-2-250,Weld County Code), Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards are sufficient to ensure that there are adequate provisions for the
protection of health,safety,and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and County.
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.
Should the Planning Commission motion to approve this application, Planning Staff recommends the
following conditions:
1. The attached Development Standards for the Special Review Permit shall be adopted and placed
on the Special Review Plat prior to recording. The completed plat shall be delivered to the Weld
County Department of Planning Services and be ready for recording in the Weld County Clerk and
Recorder's Office within 30 days of approval by the Board of County Commissioners. (Department
of Planning Services)
2. Prior to recording the plat:
A. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
1. The special review plat shall satisfy submittal requirements outlined in Section 23-
2-260.D of the Weld County Code, including the following:
a. The special use permit number(USR-1365)shall be indicated on the plat.
b. The legal description, including Section, Township and Range of the
property of the proposed Use by Special Review shall be indicated.
c. 25' Avenue is designated on the Transportation Plan Map as a paved
road, which requires 60 feet of right-of-way at full build out. There is
presently 60 feet of right-of-way. A total of 30 feet from the centerline of
25"Avenue shall be delineated on the plat as right-of-way. (Department
of Public Works)
d. The vicinity map shall be drawn at a minimum scale of 1 inch = 600 feet
and shall be revised to include the following information per Section 20-2-
260.D.4 of the Weld County Code:
1) The general classification and distribution of soils over the parcel
under consideration. Soil classification names and agricultural
classifications must be noted in the legend.
Resolution USR-1365
Jose & Beneranda Marquez
Page 3
2) Location of all residences within a one-half-mile radius, any
abutting subdivision outlines and names, and the boundaries of
any adjacent municipality.
e. The plot plan shall be revised to include the following information per
Section 20-2-260.D.5 of the Weld County Code:
1) All utility easements or rights-of-way for telephone, gas, electric,
water and sewer lines.
2) Names of adjacent property owners.
3) The proposed parking layout shall be redesigned to eliminate
parking spaces in front of existing driveways and residential
parking areas.
4) ADA(handicapped) parking (van availability) nearest to the door
and the ADA route to the building. (Department of Planning
Services)
5) The boundary of the Use by Special Review permit shall be bolded
to distinguish from adjacent properties.
6) Topography at two-foot contour intervals as determined necessary
by the Department of Planning Services.
B. Proper building permits and required fees shall be submitted for the existing store
facility(La Tiendita). Building Permit#42500(to move store facility from basement
to the garage of 1517 25th Avenue)expired November 26, 1997 per resolution of
the Board of County Commissioners. Evidence of final inspection approval and/or
a copy of a Certificate of Occupancy from the Department of Building Inspection
shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. (Weld County Building
Code Officer)
C. The applicants shall attempt to address the requirements(concerns)of the City of
Greeley outlined in their referral received December 28, 2001. (City of Greeley)
D. The applicants shall address the requirements (concerns) of the Weld County
Sheriff's Office outlined in their referral received January 29,2002. (Weld County
Sheriff's Office)
E. A paper copy of the Use by Special Review plat shall be submitted to the
Department of Planning Services for approval. (Department of Planning Services)
3. Prior to operation:
A. The applicants shall attempt to address the requirements of the Union Colony Fire
Protection District outlined in their referral received December 12,2001. (Union Colony Fire
Protection District)
B. The applicants shall address the requirements of the Weld County Department of Building
Inspection outlined in their referrals received December 12, 2001 and January 17, 2002.
(Weld County Department of Building Inspection)
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)
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Jose & Beneranda Marquez
USR-1365
1. The Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit is for an expansion of an existing
nonconforming use (a drive-in restaurant within an existing convenience store - La Tiendita) in the
A (Agricultural) Zone District, as indicated in the application materials on file 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. Hours of operation shall be from 6:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Tuesday-Saturday as stated in the
application. (Department of Planning Services)
4. Number of employees shall be limited to the applicants and immediate family members as stated in
the application. (Department of Planning Services)
5. Parking spaces shall meet design requirements outlined in Appendix 23-A and Section 23-4-30 of
the Weld County Code. A minimum of four(4)parking spaces, including 1 ADA parking space shall
be provided. (Department of Planning Services)
6. Each parking space shall contain a concrete curb stop with approved parking striping. (Department
of Public Works)
7. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act,
30-20-100.5,C.R.S.)shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects against
surface and groundwater contamination. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
8. 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. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
9. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust,
blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
10. Fugitive dust shall be controlled on this site. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
11. The facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Residential Zone
District as delineated in 25-12-103, C.R.S. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
12. Adequate toilet and handwashing facilities shall be provided for employees and the public.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
13. The facility shall utilize the existing public water supply (City of Greeley). (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
14. The facility shall use the existing municipal sewage treatment system.(City of Greeley)(Department
of Public Health and Environment)
15. The applicant shall comply with Colorado Retail Food Establishment Rules and Regulations
governing the regulation of food service establishments. (Department of Public Health and
r Environment)
16. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of
Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code.
17. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of
Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code.
Resolution USR-1365
Jose & Beneranda Marquez
Page 2
r
18. Personnel from the Weld County Departments of Public Health and Environment, Public Works and
Planning Services 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
Motion seconded by Stephan Mokray.
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
Cristie Nicklas
Cathy Clamp
Fred Walker
Stephan Mokray
John Folsom
Luis Llerena
Bruce Fitzgerald
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, Voneen Macklin, 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 5, 2002.
Dated the 5th of February, 2002.
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
r
5
Mr. Miller inquired of staff as to further hearing the proposed changes at which time Monica Daniels Mika
provided some clarification with regard to the case load that the Planning Commission has.
Michael Miller stated that tentatively March 5`"will be used for addressing staff comments and a presentation
from the committee and a special meeting on March 12'.
Michael Miller adjourned the meeting. The meeting will reconvene at 1:30p.m.to determine what the final plan
for continuance will be and hear two previously scheduled cases.
The meeting was called to order at 1:30p.m. Roll was taken.
CASE NUMBER: S-621
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
APPLICANT: Scott& Crystal Johnson
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 46,Corrected First Filing, Beebe Draw Farms, being part of Section 8,
T3N, R65W of the 6'" P.M., Weld County, CO.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Essex Drive North. For a more precise location,
see legal.
REQUEST: PUD Final Plan to vacate a utility easement
Sheri Lockman, Planner, Department of Planning Services presented Case S-621, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
approval of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
John Folsom asked about the Board of Adjustment variance to the setbacks and the issue at hand regarding
the vacation of the easement. Ms. Lockman stated that the Planning Commission is being asked to grant a
vacation of the utility easement. The Board of Adjustment has already granted the variance for the setback
from the lot line.
Crystal Johnson, applicant, provided clarification with regard to the easement and the fact that half of the
house is in that easement. There is open area along two sides of the property which contains equestrian
riding space.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
John Folsom asked if there is any potential that this easement will be needed by a utility and if the land to the
north is a part of Beebe Draw. Ms. Lockman stated that the property north was not a part of Beebe Draw. The
applicant was denied fora final plan. They have since been approved at a substantial change hearing. There
is a chance a new final plan will be submitted at a later date. Ms. Lockman stated that the Utility Board was
assured that the easement will stay on three sides of the lot. Mr. Morrison stated that the property is part of
Beebe Draw just not an approved plat. It is owned by the developer and is zoned correctly.
Cristie Nicklas moved that Case S-621, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes;Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cathy Clamp,yes;Cristie Nicklas,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Luis Llerena, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1365
APPLICANT: Alvin Garcia/Annabelle Canzona
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 11, Espanola Subdivision, being in the NW4 of the NE4of Section 36,
T6N, R66 of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a
Restaurant, including a Drive-In Restaurant as a Use by Right in the
Commercial (C-1)Zone District in the A(Agricultural)Zone District .
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to 25'"Avenue and approximately 250 feet south of
WCR 64 ("O" Street). EXHIBIT
C
LtSe it1346
Chris Gathman,Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1365,reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the
application. If the application is approved the Department of Planning Service recommends the Conditions
of Approval and Development Standards attached be accepted also.
Luis Llerena asked if the applicant is planning an addition. Mr. Gathman stated that there will be no
additions to the building. Mr. Llerena asked if the possibility of having the restaurant component as a drive
up and leave facility and not the drive thru idea. Mr.Gathman stated that the existing parking is being used
for the store and will be used for the proposed restaurant facility as well.
Cathy Clamp asked if the kitchen is already installed or is it needing to be installed. Mr.Gathman stated that
there will be a need to install a commercial hood and address some building code issue. Mr.Mokray asked
about a building violation. Mr. Gathman stated that the original facility was at a different location and was
them moved to the existing home. The store was originally in the basement and it was eventually moved
to a vacant garage area. They never obtained final inspections in order to take care of the violation
concerning the move from the basement to the garage. Mr. Mokray asked about the possible need for
special accommodations for frying. Char Davis, Department of Public Health and Environment stated that
the Food Service Inspector does not have issues with the use as proposed,just the parking.
Beneranda Marquez,applicant, provided clarification with regard to the use proposed. There would not be
a need for a large amount of parking due to the fact that the customers will not spend any more than three
to five minutes in the facility. Ms. Marquez added that she will be doing no frying at the facility. The
applicant would explore the possibility of delivery to off site location if the on site pick up was not approved.
Cathy Clamp asked about the business and if the existing parking spaces were filled for any length of time.
Ms. Marquez stated that the area is not busy and most are local that have no need to drive. The majority
of the business walks. Ms. Clamp asked if there is a need and desire from the customers. Ms. Marquez
stated that the clientele is awaiting approval.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Beneranda Marquez has some issues with the size of the hood required for the commercial business. Ms.
Davis, Department of Public Health and Environment, stated that the hood that they have now is satisfactory
for the existing use. Mr. Gathman stated that the issue with the hood was a Building Inspection Department
issue.
Fred Walker asked the applicant about the landscape issues from the City of Greeley. Ms. Marquez stated
she has no problems with that. Ms. Marquez asked about the possibility of the parking being done on a six
month trial basis. Ms. Nicklas asked Mr. Carroll, Department of Public Works, about the traffic issues. Mr.
Carroll stated that the measurements will accommodate the parking but the issue is how many spots required
and how many can have. Ms. Nicklas asked about the designation of parking spaces with regard to how
many. Mr. Gathman stated the sharing of spaces for the store and the restaurant and five would be agreed
upon. This would be sharing them for both uses.
Michael Miller asked about the building code requirements with regard to the commercial hood needed.
Dennis Renley, Weld County Department of Planning Service Plans Examiner, stated that there were two
types of hoods. The type of hood needed will depend on the type of appliance that is installed.
Cathy Clamp asked about the sloping of the property. Mr. Carroll stated that the natural drainage swale is in
the parking area. Mr.Folsom asked about the proposition if the application were to be approved approval and
the signage requirement. Mr. Gathman stated that the signage should be addressed in the motion and it is
recommended that it is 16 square feet to conform to the Agricultural (A) regulations.
Michael Miller stated that he does not anticipate a parking problem. The majority of the clientele is walk in.
John Folsom moved to add language as a Development Standard that states that the signage for the
proposed use be sixteen square foot. Cristie Nicklas seconded. Motion carried.
Fred Walker asked about the possibility of not following through because of financial constraints. Mr.Morrison
stated that if the applicant withdraws the project prior to final decision then there is no time frame. If the
applicant obtains approval and not pursue it the use can be revoked within three years for abandonment.
Bryant Gimlin stated that Development Standard#5 should be addressed. There needs to be a minimum of
five and one handicapped space. Mr. Carroll stated that he was comfortable with five. Mr. Gathman added
that there could be only four total parking spaces with the addition of the handicapped space.
Bryant Gimlin moved to change Development Standard#5 to state that the applicant will provide a minimum
of four spaces with the addition of one handicap space. Mr. Gathman changed the language so the second
sentence of Development Standard reads "A minimum of four parking spaces including, an ADA parking
space shall be provided." Cristie Nicklas seconded. Motion carried
Cristie Nicklas moved that Case USR-1365, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amendments and the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
Fred Walker commented that the board shall hear about building codes and how they should be updated.
This is a good example of how those codes can limit the ability of someone to begin a business. The building
code minimums seem to be getting larger.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes;Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cathy Clamp,yes;Cristie Nicklas,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Luis Llerena, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE: Draft Comprehensive Plan
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
Michael Miller stated that the staff will do an introduction of the case and then the committee will do their
presentation. They planning commission will then do a meeting on February 26, 2002 beginning at 10:00
a.m. to get into the base of the document.
Robert Anderson, Department of Planning Services provided a staff presentation and stated
"The Staff Comments presented as an addition to the proposed Comprehensive Plan are intended as a tool
for the use of the Public and more importantly the Weld County Planning Commission in formulating their
resolution and recommendation to the Weld County Board of County Commissioners. The DPS prepared
these recommendations under the assumption that the historical and existing process of review would be
utilized in updating the Comprehensive Plan. The comments of staff were carefully and objectively prepared
using accepted planning practices, doctrine and guidelines. Careful attention was used to remove any
subjective bias of individual planners and the DPS is confident in these comments as they are applied to
the proposed changes. Planning Services comments were prepared after the January 15th presentation of
the proposed revision to the Joint Work Session of the PC and BCC after it was reviewed by the committee
and under the assumption, in the absence of any objections from the committee, that it was the correct
version that the Committee wished to be presented. Planning Services has prefaced each version of this
proposed draft with an invitation to the committee members to correct any inaccuracies in the document but
received no comments from any committee members regarding any errors, omission or changes. Staff
comments were distributed on January 29, 2002 and an emergency work session was called yesterday
February 4, 2002 by Committee members,to request the aforementioned continuance due to changes and
inaccuracies discovered by the Rewrite Committee.
The DPS focused on the major planning changes presented in this plan and significantly streamlined its
comments. Regardless of the level of changes though. ..this comprehensive plan is radically different than
the current comprehensive plan and significantly changes the nature of the document. From a Planning
sense, as it is proposed this plan establishes an entirely new vision for Weld County.
The basic planning doctrine used in evaluating the proposed changes centers primarily around the accepted
planning principles of"Smart Growth". The proposed changes are diametrically opposed to or minimize the
established principles of"Smart Growth."The proposed document encourages and for the most part defines
the accepted idea or definition of"SPRAWL"and in many ways is counter to the direction of proposed State
Legislation drafts regarding growth.
In this proposal the DPS believes the idea of Agricultural stewardship, promoted or championed in the
current comprehensive plan, and a balanced planning process have been replaced with a"market"driven
and private property rights orientated document.
Hello