HomeMy WebLinkAbout20053319.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by James Rohn, 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-1497
APPLICANT: Clement McNaney III do JCB Engineering
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-261; Pt of SE4 Section 15, T6N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
business permitted in a use by right or accessory use in the Commercial
Zone District (Landscape Materials Yard) in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Hwy 392 and approximately 1/4 mile west of CR
21.
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 Planning Commission 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 ordinance in effect. Section 22-2-60 (A.Goal 4) states,
"Conversion of agricultural land to nonurban residential, commercial and industrial uses
will be accommodated when the subject site is in an area that can support such
development. Such development shall attempt to be compatible with the region."
Application materials indicate that the site can support the proposed use. Conditions of
Approval and Development standards ensure that a reasonable attempt will be made to
be compatible with the region.
B. Section 23-2-220.A.2 -- The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the A
(Agricultural) Zone District. Section 23-3-40.R of the Weld County Code provides for a
business permitted as a use by right or accessory use in the Commercial Zone District as
a Use by Special Review in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
C. Section 23-2-220.A.3 -- The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with the
existing surrounding land uses. Single family homes surround the site on the north and
west of the site. The Town of Windsor has a Planned Unit Development planned for the
east side of the site (Eastbrook). Agricultural uses are located to the south of the site.
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards ensure that the storage and parking
areas will be adequately screened from the adjacent properties.
D. Section 23-2-220.A.4 -- The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with future
development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning and with the
future 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 municipalities. The site lies within the three mile referral area for the Town of
Windsor, the Town of Severance and the City of Greeley. The Town of Windsor indicated
in their referrals received January 14, 2005 and May 20, 2005 that since the property has
approximately fifty percent (50%) contiguity with the Town of Windsor municipal boundary
the site should be annexed into the town prior to development and the County should
recommend denial. The Town of Windsor also states that the applicant has provided the
Town with a letter of intent stating that he will work the developer of the Eastbrook
Subdivision to the east to provide a single access point of access for both prope i s.
EXHIBIT
2005-3319
Resolution USR-1497
Clement McNaney
Page 2
The Town of Windsor has also conducted a study of the Law Ditch floodway and has
determined that the site in almost entirely within the floodway and the Town of Windsor's
Engineering Department recommends that no new improvements be placed within the
floodway area. The property is not located within the floodplain or floodway as delineated
on Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Community Panel Map 080266 0605
D dated September 27, 1991 which the Board of County Commissioners has accepted.
The Town of Windsor has submitted a Conditional Letter of Map Revision to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency for acceptance. The referral also states that the
property is 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 of the design criteria
and development standards not being incorporated into the design of the site. The City
of Greeley in their referral dated December 30, 2004 has recommended conditions that
they wish to see implemented should the proposal be approved. The City of Greeley in
their referral dated April 26, 2005 state that they have reviewed the request and find no
conflicts with their interests. Some of the City of Greeley's recommendations from the
April 26, 2005 referral have been incorporated into the Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval. No comments were received from the Town of Severance.
E. Section 23-2-220.A.5 --The site does not lie within any Overlay Districts.
Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required
to adhere to the fee structure of the County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11)
F. Section 23-2-220.A.6 -- The applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve
prime agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use. The small size of
the lot limit its agricultural value.
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 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.
The Planning Commission's recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following:
1. Prior to scheduling a Board of County Commissioners hearing:
A. The applicant shall submit a detailed signage plan to the Weld County Department of
Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall obtain an access permit from the Colorado Department of
Transportation. Additional requirements may be necessary to obtain or upgrade the
permit. Evidence of approval shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services.
(Departments of Planning Services and Public Works)
C. The applicant shall submit to the Department of Planning Services a
Screening/Landscaping Plan for review and approval. The plan shall include the
method of screening the outdoor storage of equipment or materials from adjacent
properties and future rights-of-way as outlined in the Department of Planning Services
landscaping referral dated December 21, 2004. (Department of Planning Services)
Resolution USR-1497
Clement McNaney
Page 3
D. The applicant shall provide written evidence of a sign off on the Screening/Landscaping
Plan from the Colorado Department of Transportation. (Department of Planning Services)
2. Prior to recording the plat:
A. The applicant shall provide the Department of Planning Services with Statement of Taxes
from the Weld County Treasurer showing no delinquent taxes exist for the original parcel.
(Department of Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall provide the Department of Planning Services with a copy of a
recorded deed for the property. (Department of Planning Services)
C. West Greeley Soil Conservation District has provided information regarding the soils on
the site. The applicant shall review the information and use it to positively manage on site
soils. (Department of Planning Services)
D. The applicant shall provide the Department of Planning Services with evidence of a
commercial water tap on the property. (Department of Planning Services)
E. The applicant shall submit a dust abatement plan for review and approval, to the
Environmental Health Services, Weld County Department of Public Health &
Environment. The applicant shall submit written evidence to the Department of Planning
Services that they have met the Department of Public Health and Environment
requirements. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
F. The septic system serving the existing residence 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. The applicant shall submit written evidence to the
Department of Planning Services that they have met the Department of Public Health and
Environment requirements. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
G. 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.
The applicant shall submit written evidence to the Department of Planning Services that
they have met the Department of Public Health and Environment requirements. 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)
H. The applicant shall address the conditions (concerns) of the Weld County Department of
Building Inspection as indicated in a referral response dated December 17, 2004. Written
evidence of such shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Building Inspection)
Resolution USR-1497
Clement McNaney
Page 4
^ I. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements (concerns) of City of Greeley, as
stated in the referral response dated December 30, 2004. Evidence of such shall be
submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department
of Planning Services)
J. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements (concerns) of the Windsor-
Severance Fire Protection District, as stated in the referral response dated January 5,
2005 and April 26, 2005. Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld
County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
K. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements (concerns) of the Town of
Windsor, as stated in the referral response dated January 20, 2005 and May 20, 2005.
Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of
Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
L. The applicant shall complete all proposed improvement including those regarding
landscaping, screening, access improvements and parking lot requirements or enter into
an Improvements Agreement according to policy regarding collateral for improvements
and post adequate collateral for all required materials. 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. (Department of Planning Services)
M. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
1. All sheets of the plat shall be labeled USR-1497. (Department of Planning
Services)
2. The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services)
3. The parking area shall be delineated on the plat with at a minimum eighteen (18)
parking spaces, one of which should meet the intent of the American's with
Disabilities Act. (Department of Planning Services)
4. State Highway 392 requires 200 feet right-of-way at full build out. A total of 100
feet from the centerline of State Highway 392 shall be delineated right-of-way
reservation for future expansion of State Highway 392. (Colorado Department of
Transportation)
5. A future connection to the Eastbrook site shall be delineated on the plat. The
direct access to State Highway 392 may someday be removed or restricted.
(Colorado Department of Transportation)
6. The access road should be at least 24 feet in width to accommodate two-way
traffic with adequate turning radiuses onto State Highway 392. (Department of
Public Works)
7. The off-street parking / loading areas including the access drive shall be surfaced
with gravel, asphalt, concrete or the equivalent and it shall be graded to prevent
drainage problems. Each parking space should be equipped with wheel guards
where needed to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the boundaries of this
space and from coming into contact with other vehicles, walls, fences, sidewalks,
or plantings. (Department of Public Works)
8. All future rights-of-way and common easements shall be identified and be placed
on the plat. (Department of Public Works)
Resolution USR-1497
Clement McNaney
Page 5
9. The modular building on site shall be labeled correctly (office use with public
restroom). (Department of Planning Services)
10. If exterior lighting is to be a part of this facility, all light standards shall be
delineated in accordance with Section 23-3-250.B.6 of the Weld County Code.
(Department of Planning Services)
11. The approved Landscape and Screening Plan. (Department of Planning
Services)
N. 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)
3. Upon completion of 1. and 2. 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)
4. 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 maDsco.weld.co.us. (Department of Planning Services)
r
5. Prior to the issuance of building permits:
A. A stormwater discharge permit may be required for a development / redevelopment /
construction site where a contiguous or non-contiguous land disturbance is grater than or
equal to one acre in area. Contact the Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment at www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/PermitsUnit
for more information. The applicant shall submit written evidence to the Department of
Planning Services that they have met the Department of Public Health and Environment
requirements. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
6. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy
A. An individual sewage disposal system is required for the proposed modular office and
shall be installed according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations.
The septic system is required to be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional
Engineer according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. The
applicant shall submit written evidence to the Department of Building Inspection that they
have met the Department of Public Health and Environment requirements. (Department
of Public Health and Environment)
7. 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
Clement McNaney III
USR-1497
1. The Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit is for a business permitted as a use by right
or accessory use in the Commercial Zone District (Landscaping Materials Yard) 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. Material piles shall not exceed the height of the opaque screening. (Department of Planning Services)
4. The hours of operation are 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Labor Day to Memorial Day and 7:00 am to 7:00 pm from
Memorial Day to Labor Day. (Department of Planning Services)
5. There shall be no more than six (6) employees on site as indicated in the application materials.
(Department of Planning Services)
6. The direct access to State Highway 392 may someday be removed or restricted. (Colorado Department
of Transportation)
7. In the event any governmental authority exercises its right to expand State Highway 392 into the rights-of-
way noted on this plat and such expansion requires the demolition, destruction, alteration, or taking of any
improvements existing on the subject property as of the date this plat is recorded, the owner of the
subject property shall be entitled to just compensation as determined in an eminent domain proceeding
for such property and its improvements. This requirement shall be binding upon the parties regardless of
the legal effect of whether the subject rights-of-way are "reserved" or "dedicated".
8. The applicant shall pave the entrance 50' north from the edge of Hwy 392
9. The historical flow patterns and run-off amounts will be maintained on site in such a manner that it will
reasonably preserve the natural character of the area and prevent property damage of the type generally
attributed to run-off rate and velocity increase, diversions, concentration and/or unplanned ponding of
storm run-off. (Department of Public Works)
10. 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)
11. 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)
12. 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)
13. The applicant shall operate in accordance with the approved "waste handling plan". (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
14. 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)
Resolution USR-1497
Clement McNaney
Page 2
15. This facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Commercial Zone as
delineated in 25-12-103 C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
16. Adequate handwashing and toilet facilities shall be provided for employees and patrons of the site.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
17. 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)
18. The facility shall utilize the existing public water supply. (North Weld County Water District) (Department
of Public Health and Environment)
19. A permanent, adequate water supply shall be provided for drinking and sanitary purposes. (Department
of Public Health and Environment)
20. 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)
21. If applicable, the applicant shall obtain a stormwater discharge permit from the Colorado Department of
Public Health & Environment, Water Quality Control Division. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
22. 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)
23. A plan review is required for each building for which a building permit is required. Plans shall include a
floor plan. Two complete sets of plans are required when applying for each permit. (Department of
Building Inspection)
24. 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: 2003 International Building Code; 2003
International Mechanical Code; 2003 International Plumbing Code; 2003 International Fuel Gas Code;
and the 2002 National Electrical Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Building
Inspection)
25. Fire resistance of walls and openings, construction requirements, maximum building height and allowable
areas will be reviewed at the plan review. Setback and offset distances shall be determined by the Weld
County Code. (Department of Building Inspection)
24.
26. Building height shall be measured in accordance with the 2003 International Building Code for the
purpose of determining the maximum building size and height for various uses and types of construction
and to determine compliance with the Bulk Requirements from Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code.
Building height shall be measured in accordance with Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code in order to
determine compliance with offset and setback requirements. Offset and setback requirements are
measured to the farthest projection from the building. (Department of Building Inspection)
27. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the lot will be required to adhere to the fee structure
of the Weld County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11) (Department of Planning Services)
28. The landscaping on site shall be maintained in accordance with the approved Screening/Landscape Plan.
(Department of Planning Services)
29. On site lighting, including security lighting if applicable, shall maintain compliance with Section 23-3-
250.6.6 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
Resolution USR-1497
Clement McNaney
Page 3
30. 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)
31. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of Section
23-2-240, Weld County Code.
32. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of
Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code.
33. Personnel from the 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.
34. 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.
35. 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 John Folsom
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
John Folsom
Bryant Gimlin
Bruce Fitzgerald
James Rohn
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
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 June 7, 2005.
Dated the 7th of June, 2005.
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2005, in the Weld County
Department of Planning Services, Hearing Room,918 10th Street,Greeley,Colorado. The meeting was called
to order by Chair, Michael Miller, 1:30at p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin Absent
John Folsom
James Welch
James Rohn
Bruce Fitzgerald
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner Absent
Tom Holton
Also Present: Don Carroll, Sheri Lockman, Jacqueline Hatch
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on May 17, 2005,
was approved as corrected.
The following items are on the Consent Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1512
APPLICANT: Dennis& Sherri Gill
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part NE4 of Section 30,T7N, R64W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Agricultural Service
Establishment for farm equipment repair in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 51; approximately 3/4 mile north of CR 76.
Moved by James Rohn to approve the Consent Agenda. Seconded by James Welch. Motion carried.
The following items will be heard:
— CASE NUMBER: USR-1497
APPLICANT: Clement McNaney III c/o JCB Engineering
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-261; Pt of SE4 Section 15,T6N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a business permitted in
a use by right or accessory use in the Commercial Zone District(Landscape Materials
Yard)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Hwy 392 and approximately 1/4 mile west of CR 21.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services,presented case USR-1497 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.
Clement McNaney c/o JCB Engineering has applied for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special
Review Permit for a business permitted as a use by right or accessory use in the Commercial Zone District
(Landscape Materials Yard,Agricultural and Supply Business) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
The surrounding property consists of residential uses to the north and west of the site. The Town of Windsor t NA
has a planned unit development planned for the east side of the site (Eastbrook). Agricultural uses arec `
located to the south of the site. �VI
11 referral agencies reviewed this case, 1 referral agencies had no comments, 9 referral agencies included
Cc,1� �.,n�a
lu��7.2.04
conditions that have been attempted to be addressed through the development standards and conditions of
approval. No comment was received from the Town of Severance.
The Town of Windsor in their referrals stated that since the property has approximately fifty percent contiguity
with the Town of Windsor municipal boundary the site should be annexed into the town prior to development
and the County should recommend denial. The Town of Windsor also stated that the applicant has provided
the town with a letter of intent stating that he will work with the developer of the Eastbrook Subdivision to the
east to provide a single access point of access for both properties. Condition M.5 is requiring that that
applicant provide a future connection to the Eastbrook site because the direct access onto State Highway 392
may be removed or restricted in the future per the Colorado Department of Transportation referral.
The Town of Windsor has also conducted a study of the Law Ditch floodway and has determined that the site
is almost entirely in the floodway and the Town of Windsor's engineering department recommended that no
new improvements be placed within the floodway area. The property currently is not located within the
floodplain or floodway as delineated on the Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM community panel
map 080266 0605 D dated September 27, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners has accepted. The
Town of Windsor has submitted a conditional letter of map revision to the Federal Emergency Management
Agency for acceptance at this time. Until the Federal Emergency Management Agency accepts the map
revision provided by the Town of Windsor Weld County honors the existing FIRM community maps.
The referrals also state that the site is not being 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 of the design criteria and development
standards not being incorporated into the design of the site.
Michael Miller indicated there was no IGA with Windsor. Ms.Hatch stated that was correct and the application
does meet County standards. Mr.Miller stated this would have been recommended for denial had there been
an IGA. Ms. Hatch stated that was correct.
James Rohn asked if there was an annexation application with Windsor prior to the County application. Ms.
Hatch stated the applicant could better address this.
John Vasquez, applicant representative, provided clarification on the proposal. Windsor has presented a
study that they want the applicant to conform to which has not been adopted by FEMA. The Town of Windsor
has not been willing to work with the applicant to allow them to operate while attempting to conform to the
required standards. The applicant would be willing to annex if they could operate during the process. The
Town of Windsor wants everything up front with no allowance for operation for revenue in the interim,
therefore, the reason for coming to the County. The applicant has addressed all the County concerns. The
applicant is also addressing the access concern with CDOT. The resolution is to relocate a private access for
CDOT with the understanding that once the subdivision is developed the access directly onto Highway 392 will
be vacated and one access will be used for both the business and the subdivision. The applicant has been
willing to work with the Town of Windsor but the Town of Windsor has not been willing to work with them.
Michael Miller asked what the differences are between the Town of Windsor and Weld County design
standards are. Mr. Vasquez stated that the main difference is the structure. Windsor would like the entire
structure redone to accommodate them. The building does not have the value to sustain those types of
improvements. The home on site will be used for office space. The landscaping and screening required will
be done. There would be no allowance for temporary structures to store equipment until the entire renovation
was done. The concern is not being able to operate which does not allow for the applicant to earn revenue
while trying to upgrade to adequate design standards. The applicant will continue to work with Windsor even
when operating and they will continue to work with Windsor for the eventual annexation.
Michael Miller indicated his concern is half of the property is contiguous with Windsor and while there is no
IGA there is a need to respect their desire for the gateway to the town to be built to standards. Mr. Miller
added he also understands the need to operate the business to accommodate the owners needs,there needs
to be a compromise. That compromise would need to be that the business is built to the Town of Windsor's
standards while in the County but yet have the time to gain revenue to do so. Mr.Vasquez stated it would be
with in an allowable time frame. Windsor was not able to provide adequate direction with one meeting
therefore a time frame would be difficult to adhere to. The applicant is willing to work with Windsor but they
have no control with Windsor not willing to work with them.
Michael Miller asked if the Town of Windsor set specific requirements that the applicant is not meeting. Ms.
Hatch indicated the design standards (Exhibit D)are provided in the packet.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Morrison if it was within Planning Commission's authority to provide an approval
based on County standard but within 12-24 months the applicant must adhere to the design standards for the
Town of Windsor. Mr. Morrison stated this has not been done before but if applicant is willing to suggest
something it could be accomplished but imposing it would be difficult since Windsor does not have jurisdiction.
It would be the County's jurisdiction. Mr. Miller asked how it would be structured. Mr. Morrison stated he is
not familiar with the differences with what Windsor and planning staff is requesting. Mr. Morrison added that
each of the differences must be reviewed and the outcome needs to be determined. The most significant
would maybe be the structure. The applicant has intentions on replacing the structure. Mr.Vasquez added in
the long term that is the intent but the short term the structure will not be replaced. There may be a need for a
pole barn for storage. The structure will be within the 200 feet of the original structure so there would not need
to be an additional restroom. Mr. Morrison stated the applicant may not accept the intention even under a time
approach and the design standards of Windsor may not be legal at the time at the time the applicant must
comply.
Michael Miller indicated he wants to respect Windsor while allowing the applicant to operate. Mr. Vasquez
stated he agrees but with no IGA it is difficult. The applicant has stated a willingness to annex in the future
and work with the Town of Windsor. The applicant is willing to begin the annexation process but they have no
control if Windsor rejects that application. Mr. Miller stated that if this application was approved and then it
was annexed, Windsor would have to take the property as is. Mr. Vasquez added that it is actually the
applicants'way of trying to achieve the end result of annexation with the design standards of Windsor while
still being able to operate. The majority of the work on the design standards must be done on good faith. Mr.
Miller asked for clarification on the reason the applicant does not want to annex. Mr.Vasquez states Windsor
will not allow them to operate while they are trying to conform to the required design standards. Mr. Miller
suggested a standard that this be approved with the implication that they (the applicant) will adhere to the
required standards of Windsor within 24 months. Mr.Vasquez stated that would be fine and if after 24 months
they could not come to an agreement with Windsor the application would be in violation of the Development
Standard.
John Folsom asked Mr. Morrison of the there was an IGA in negotiations with Windsor. Mr. Morrison stated
Mr. Barker is doing the negotiations on all the IGA's. There is no IGA with Windsor or Severance at this time.
Mr. Folsom added that Windsor has had an opportunity to obtain an IGA and has not done so. It is a
responsibility of the applicant to adhere to the County standards since there is no IGA.
Chad Auer added that municipalities feel the consequences of growth and that is part of the reason they want
to enter into agreements with the County. There are times when applicants try to circumvent the process but
this applicant has tried to compromise with Windsor. Mr.Vasquez stated that they would like the opportunity
to work with the town but the applicant wants to be able to gain revenue while working to adhere to the design
standards.
Michael Miller stated there is a transition zone from the County to the municipalities and the Planning
Commission needs to make sure the zone is treated appropriately rather there is an agreement or not.
John Folsom added that if there is a condition placed on this with a time frame it would subject the applicant to
a moving target. Windsor will be a party to this agreement and who is to say that those requirements in
Windsor will not have changed in the time frame conditioned to the applicant. Mr. Folsom added he does not
believe the applicant should be required to do this. Mr. Holton added there should be an out for the
landowners. If there is a municipality that is trying to limit growth the added condition would penalize the land
owner.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Michael Miller stated that it is not his intent to impose unreasonable standards on the applicant. What he is
trying to do is to make sure that County planning meshes with adjacent municipalities. The applicant is willing
to meet the standards over a period of time but the concern is how to review the application again in two years
to determine that the design criteria has been met. It may be possible that the applicant would do this of his
own accord without the Planning Commission imposing any regulations. Mr. Miller feels it would be better if
the Planning Commission would take the first step to recognize the requests from Windsor. Mr.Holton stated
Planning Commission has done this but the Towns cannot hold up the development and let it fall back onto the
County to protect their positions. Mr. Miller added that is the reason for the proposal for two years to gain the
money to adhere to the standards. Mr.Vasquez would like to have the condition of 24 months be the amount
of time to initiate the standards. It could take a significant amount of time to get the final recommendations
from Windsor. The applicant would like to be able to show that in good faith they are making the effort.
James Rohn commented that he agrees Planning Commission should help the applicant work on the
adequate design standards for the Town of Windsor but there should be no time frame. Windsor will at some
point annex this property. Mr. Fitzgerald added that if the application is approved it will be grandfathered into
the Town of Windsor once the annexation application occurs.
Chad Auer asked for clarification with regards to if the application is approved,Windsor will eventually annex
the property as it is approved by the County or does Windsor require them to upgrade at that point. Mr.Miller
stated he does not believe Windsor could require improvements upon annexation. Mr. Morrison stated this
applies to physical uses not the benefit of permits or USR's. The annexation needs to be re-zoned within 2-3
months of the approval of the annexation. The grandfather use is not a permitted use because it is a
permitted use not a physical use that is allowed in the district. Mr. Miller asked if Windsor could require them
to come up to standards. Mr. Morrison stated he does not believe this is possible on the things that are
physically present and in use.
Michael Miller asked Mr.Carroll, Public Works about Development Standard 8 regarding the dust suppressant
and is it not required to be paved. Mr. Carroll indicated that this is not the applicants property they could not
require paving. It will be a shared access with the new development once the new subdivision is developed.
Mr.Carroll stated the existing access is to the existing structure,the new entrance and final entrance will be a
shared access with the subdivision. Mr. Miller feels that the current access needs to be paved since it will be
an entrance onto Hwy 392.
John Vasquez stated the subdivision to the east and to the north will take approximately two years to go
through the process with Windsor. Once those have been approved the access will be a combined access.
Mr.Carroll indicated Public Works will support an asphalt approach on the existing access. Mr.Vaskus asked
for clarification on the approach. Mr. Carroll stated it would need to be 24 feet in width and approximately 50
feet from the edge of the highway towards the property line.
Michael Miller stated there were two issues: one to determine rather a compromise to bring the property to
Windsor standards over time or allow as it and the second is to amend Development Standard #8.
James Welch commented he agrees it would be nice for the applicant to achieve the design standards of
Windsor but does not feel a requirement is needed. There could be language that would include the applicant
attempt to comply.
Bruce Fitzgerald commented with this being close to the Windsor Planning Commission should not allow
something to be grandfathered in with an advantage and the design standards should be adhered to.
Chad Auer commented that it is a moving target but the condition could be limited to what is in place now.
The main issue is there is no IGA which would make this issue very clear. The applicant does need to
generate revenue in order to adhere to the standards.
Tom Holton commented that even if this application went forward it could only be allowed to do the landscape
portion nothing more.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to add a Development Standard that requires the applicant to adhere to the design
standards of Windsor over a 24 month period of time. Mr.Auer asked if Mr. Fitzgerald was willing to amend
the motion to initiate progress toward meeting those standards. Mr.Miller suggested that the motion be made
to indicate that an effort has been initiated to bring the application up to the design standards within twelve
months with the intention of the standards being met within 36 months. Chad Auer seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, no;James Welch, no; Michael Miller,yes;James Rohn, no;Chad Auer,yes;Tom Holton,no, Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes. Motion failed.
James Rohn moved to amend Development Standard#8 to state that"the applicant shall pave the entrance
from the edge of Hwy 392 50' north towards the entrance of the property." James Welch seconded. Motion
carried.
John Folsom asked for clarification with regards to a letter indicating the property being in the Law Ditch flood
way but this is not indicated on the flood map. Ms. Hatch stated Windsor has done a study and had
determined the site is almost entirely in the flood way. The Town of Windsor engineering has hired a
consultant who has applied for a conditional map amendment through FEMA but this has not been approved
yet.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1497,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. John Folsom seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; James Welch, yes; Michael Miller, no; James Rohn, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
Bruce Fitzgerald commented he still believes Planning Commission is handing Windsor a problem due to the
lack of an IGA with them.
James Rohn commented he believes this would be better in the Town of Windsor and would like the applicant
to work towards that agreement.
Michael Miller commented that he believes Planning Commission has failed to meet their duties in planning
appropriately for the transition zone into the Town of Windsor. It was within the Planning Commission ability to
come up with a compromise plan that would have met the standards of Windsor and been reasonable to the
application. When a business begins they must recognize there are associated costs.
— CASE NUMBER: MZ-1025
APPLICANT: Robert Parson
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3358; Pt NW4 of Section 10, T7N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Minor Subdivision Change of Zone from A(Agriculture)to E (Estate). Peace
Haven Estates.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 19 and south of and adjacent to CR 84.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented case MZ-1025 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.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the addressing being from CR 84. Ms.Lockman stated it will be reviewed by the
postal district and corrected prior to the final application.
Jeff Couch, representative for the applicant, indicated he has nothing to add to staff presentation but is
available for questions. This site has 8 lots which are surrounded by irrigation ditches. The entryway is
appreciated by all entities because of the design.
Michael Miller asked about the grading on lots 8-9. Mr.Couch stated that the irrigation ditch is located at the
end but the slopes are about 10%, not steep.
James Rohn asked rather there was water on site. Mr. Couch stated this was a historically dry parcel above
the ditch so they will have to restrict livestock and be careful with native grasses. Mr. Rohn asked if there was
any way water could be rented from North Weld Water district and used for the area. Mr. Couch stated it is
above the ditch so it is difficult to get the water to this area. It would require going through water court.
Hello