HomeMy WebLinkAbout20051809.tiff 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 1
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,TEN, 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
has a planned unit development planned for the east side of the site (Eastbrook). Agricultural uses are
located to the south of the site.
11 referral agencies reviewed this case, 1 referral agencies had no comments, 9 referral agencies included
Cj 1p/lo/2po 2005-1809
cryv�o�- ear /
0 a
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.
John Folsom asked for clarification between the Water Supply & Storage and Larimer County Canal. Mr.
Couch stated they are the same entity. Mr. Couch added they have letters but no agreements since the ditch
company is asking to review the final documentation first.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Pam Smith, Weld County Health and Environment, added that the notes regarding septic envelopes can be
removed. Mr. Couch would like to have this removed. It would allow them more flexibility on the lots.
James Rohn moved to delete 1.C. 4 & 5. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case MZ-1025,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. James Rohn 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, yes; James Rohn, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes,
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
James Rohn commented he still requests there be water available for irrigation purposes.
Meeting adjourned at 2:45
Respectfully submitted
\V
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello