The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20050170 BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Moved by Bruce Fitzgerald, that the following resolution be introduced for denial by the Weld County Planning Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for: CASE NUMBER: CZ-1065 APPLICANT: Arnheim, LLC PLANNER: Chris Gathman LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2050; Pt S2S2 of NE4 of Section 30, Ti N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agriculture)to 1-3 (Industrial). LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 27; Y mile north of CR 4. be recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons: 1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 23-2-50 of the Weld County Code. 2. The submitted materials are NOT in compliance with Section 23-2-30 of the Weld County Code, as follows: A. Section 23-2-30.A.1. - The proposed Change of Zone from the A (Agricultural) Zone District to 1-3 (Industrial) Zone District is not consistent with Article XII, Coordinated Planning Agreements for the City of Fort Lupton. Section 19-12-10 states "This Coordinated Planning Agreement is made and entered into effective as of the 14th day of November, 2000, A.D. between the County of Weld, State of Colorado, whose address is 915 10th Street, P.O. Box 758, Greeley, CO 80632, hereinafter called the "COUNTY," and the CITY OF FORT LUPTON, a Colorado Municipal corporation, whose address is 130 S. McKinley, P O. Box 148, Fort Lupton, CO 80621, hereinafter called the "MUNICIPALITY." Section 19-12-50, titled Planning Coordination states "This Agreement is intended to be a Comprehensive Development Plan adopted and implemented pursuant to Section 29-20- 105(2), C.R.S. Following the execution of this Agreement by both parties, COUNTY Development approvals in the MUNICIPALITY's Referral Area will be processed and determined in accordance with the following: Section 19-12-50.B Development outside Urban Growth Area, states "To the extent legally possible, the COUNTY will disapprove proposals for Urban Development in areas of the MUNICIPAL Referral Area outside the Urban Growth Area." This application was reviewed utilizing the definitions outlined in the Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) for the City of Fort Lupton. By definition, this application is considered development, as stated in the IGA, "Any land use requiring regulatory approval by the elected governing body of the applicable party in the Urban Growth Area...." Given this condition, the Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the application. 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 Department of Planning Services recommends the following Conditions of Approval: 1. The change of zone plat map shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services fo ‘1‘.recording within 60 days of approval by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. Prior to recording the Change of Zone plat: i A. All sheets of the plat shall be labeled CZ-1065. (Department of Planning Services) 2005-0170 Resolution CZ-1065 Arnheim LLC Page 2 B. The Plat shall be amended to adhere to Section 23-2-50 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services) C. The City of Fort Lupton Transportation Plan indicates County Road 27 as an arterial road with a total of 120 feet of right-of-way. A total of 60-feet from the centerline of CR 27 shall be indicated on the plat as future right-of-way reservation for the expansion of CR 27. The applicant shall verify the existing right-of-way and the documents creating the right-of-way shall be noted on the change of zone plat. (City of Fort Lupton) D. The applicant shall delineate and label all existing structures on the Change of Zone plat. (Department of Planning Services) E. The applicant shall do one of the following: 1) The applicant shall provide verification that the existing residence has been converted into an office and that existing permanent kitchen facilities have been disconnected.(Department of Planning Services) OR 2) The applicant shall submit a nonconforming use application for review and approval by the Department of Planning Services for the existing residence if it is still being used as a single family residence. (Department of Planning Services) F. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements(concerns) of the City of Fort Lupton as stated in their referral dated September 30, 2004. Written evidence of such shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services. (City of Fort Lupton) G. The applicant shall submit a letter to the Department of Planning Services requesting the vacation of USR-1402. (Department of Planning Services) H. The applicant shall submit a Site Plan Review application to the Department of Planning Services that covers the uses and improvements associated with USR-1402. (Department of Planning Services) The following notes shall be delineated on the Change of Zone plat: 1) The Change of Zone allows for Industrial uses which shall comply with the 1-3 Zone District requirements as set forth in Section 23-3-330 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services) 2) Any signage located on the property shall require building permits and adhere to Section 23-4-100 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services) 3) The site shall maintain compliance at all times with the requirements of Weld County Government. (Department of Planning Services) 4) Any future structures or uses or additions to existing structures or uses on site must obtain the appropriate zoning and building permits. (Department of Planning Services) 5) If applicable, installation of utilities shall comply with Article VII, Chapter 24, of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services) Resolution CZ-1065 Arnheim LLC Page 3 6) The applicant shall adhere to all Site Plan Review requirements, as defined in Chapter 23, Division 3 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services) 7) At the time of the Site Plan Review, a drainage report signed by a professional engineer, licensed in the state of Colorado, shall be submitted to the Weld County Department of Public Works. Upon approval of the drainage report by the Department of Public Works, final drainage construction plans, conforming to the drainage report, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works. (Department of Public Works) 8) At the time of the Site Plan Review, final road plans along with construction details shall be submitted and approved by the Weld County Department of Public Works. These plans shall include road and intersection improvements as well as the necessary right-of-way dedication. (Department of Public Works) 9) At the time of Site Plan Review, grading plans along with construction details shall be submitted and approved by the Weld County Department of Public Works. (Department of Public Works) 10) If eventual use of this site would be a major impact, significant roadway and intersection improvements will be required. (Department of Public Works) 11) This proposed zone change to an industrial use might possibly contribute significant traffic to the surrounding area, including US Highway 85. The applicant may be required to participate and contribute to improvements for the US 85 Highway Access Control Plan at the Site Plan Review application. (Department of Public Works) 12) At the time of Site Plan Review, the applicant may be required to participate and contribute to improvements to the surrounding transportation infrastructure. The applicant may be required to submit off-site roadway improvements agreements. (Department of Public Works) 13) 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) 14) 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) 15) 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) 16) Fugitive dust shall be controlled on this site. (Department of Public Health and Environment) 17) The facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Industrial Zone District as delineated in 25-12-103, C.R.S. (Department of Public Health and Environment) Resolution CZ-1065 Arnheim LLC Page 4 18) A plan review is required for each building for which a building permit is required. Plans shall include a floor plan. Plans may be required to bear the wet stamp of a Colorado registered architect or engineer. Provide a Code Analysis Date sheet provided by the Weld County Building Department. (Department of Building Inspection) 19) 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 Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Building Inspection) 20) New buildings shall conform to the requirements of the codes adopted at the time of permit application. Currently, the following codes have been adopted: 2003 International Building Code; 2003 International Mechanical Code; 2003 International Plumbing Code; 2003 International Fuel Gas Code; 2002 National Electrical Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Building Inspection) 21) 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 type of construction and to determine compliance with the Bulk Requirements from Chapter 23 of the 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. Property lines shall be clearly identified and all property pins shall be staked prior to the first site inspection. Approved building and foundation plans shall be on the site and available to inspectors for each inspection. (Department of Building Inspection) 22) Approved onsite storage of adequate water supplies for firefighting operations shall be provided for all newly constructed buildings on this parcel. (Greater Brighton Fire Protection District) 23) Future development and construction of any new/additional buildings or structures may require additional means of access to this site — based upon use, construction type and building size. The Fire District reserves the right to determine whether additional fire protection issues will need to be addressed. (Greater Brighton Fire Protection District) 24) Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere to the fee structure of the Weld County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11) (Department of Planning Services) 3. The Department of Planning Services respectively requests the surveyor provide a digital copy of this Change of Zone. 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 mapsaco.weld.co.us. (Department of Planning Services) Resolution CZ-1065 Arnheim LLC Page 5 4. Any further development of the site will require a Site Plan Review. Any commercial/industrial development must comply with all applicable Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, EPA and/or Oil and Gas regulations. The applicant/developer must contact the appropriate agency for more information regarding the site-specific requirements of each development. (Department of Public Health and Environment) Motion seconded by Chad Auer VOTE: For Passage Against Passage Absent Michael Miller John Folsom Bryant Gimlin Bruce Fitzgerald James Rohn Tonya Strobel 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 November 16, 2004. Dated the 16th of November, 2004. Voneen Macklin Secretary CASE NUMBER: CZ-1065 APPLICANT: Arnheim, LLC PLANNER: Chris Gathman LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2050; Pt S2S2 of NE4 of Section 30, Ti N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: Change of Zone from A (Agriculture)to 1-3 (Industrial). LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 27; '/z mile north of CR 4. Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case CZ-1065, reading the recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the application. John Folsom asked Mr. Gathman if the recommendation for denial is based on the terms of the IGA with Fort Lupton, and whether this is considered an urban growth area and should be annexed to Fort Lupton. Mr. Gathman stated the code section referred to refers to the IGA with Fort Lupton. Bryant Gimlin asked if Fort Lupton is objecting because of the type of development or rather it is outside of the current boundaries. Mr. Gathman stated there is an urban growth boundary which is a line defined through the IGA. The IGA also covers areas within the three mile referral area. Ft. Lupton concern is the current zoning is agricultural and the current use required a USR. If the property is zoned 1-3 there are a lot of uses that are allowed that would only need site plan review. Fort Lupton would get a referral but it does not fall under the requirements of the IGA because it does not require Board of County Commissioners approval. Mr. Gimlin asked what the current use is under the approved USR? Mr. Gathman stated it was office and storage and a maintenance area for the existing business. The business is installation of infrastructure for water and sewer lines. Paul Gesso, representative for applicant, provided clarification on the project. John Turner, applicant/owner, provided information on the project and the proposed intensity of the use. Mr. Turner added the use will be for a construction yard and office. They prepare the equipment used in the business but most of work is out of town. There are four people in office. Mr. Gathman added they are adjacent to the three mile referral area boundary, not to the UGB boundary. Mr. Gesso added that this case makes sense due to the surrounding zoning. The surrounding zoning is industrial. Ft. Lupton is in the process of annexing several acres for mining operations on adjacent properties to the north of this site. These properties will be zoned industrial and will be located in the same area. Mr. Gesso provided photos of the site. The approved 2003 USR included a traffic study and the applicant has utilized 1/3 of the traffic that was approved with the USR. The applicant would like to take advantage of the uses that are allowed in 1-3 uses. James Rohn asked Mr. Gathman when the mining annexation would be completed into Fort Lupton? Mr. Gathman indicated he was not aware of the annexations to Fort Lupton. Mr. Rohn added that Fort Lupton has indicated for the last few years they do not want mining in the area but now they are annexing lands for the purpose of mining. Paul Gesso added that any annexation is because Fort Lupton would gain something. The point is to identify the change in the surrounding land use. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Morrison about the agreement with Fort Lupton and the language, specifically"to the extent legally possible." Mr. Morrison stated that the change of zones that have been approved in similar circumstances were it qualified as development, of an urban nature. Some of the discussions pertained to rather they were urban or not, then some were discussed as to location and if there would be any reasonable zoning for the property other than 1-3. This led the Board of County Commissioners to approve the change of zone based on the fact there was no other appropriate °PP 9 zone. The history of the other _ • N cases has been that they have been approved when determined as non urban or when there was no other reasonable use for the property. Bryant Gimlin indicated there have been cases in which the proposed property was the only surrounding property that was not industrial basically making it an enclave. John Folsom asked Mr. Gathman about the referral letter from Fort Lupton and to the language"to the extent legally possible" no being in the IGA language. Mr. Gathman indicated it was under Section 19-2- 50b. Mr. Morrison added it is in a different paragraph dealing with urban uses. Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Gesso what the intended use might be to warrant a change of zone. Mr. Gesso stated the applicant would eventually like to mine gravel for to use in their business. The end intent is to have an office warehouse facility and redevelop the other side since a road bisects the property. James Rohn asked Mr. Gathman if the use that was presently being done was considered I-1 or 1-2? Mr. Gathman indicated they are doing 1-3 type business. One difference under 1-3 zoning there is not a substantial screening requirement. Mr. Rohn asked if there were any applications proposed on the property to the north. Mr. Gathman stated he was unaware of any applications. John Folsom asked if the applicant would have applied for a USR under Section 23-3-40R would they have been able to obtain approval for the same use they are applying for in the change of zone? Mr. Gathman stated they could apply for the same use but approval would still be required. Mr. Morrison stated that the application can be made if the use has been identified. The same issues with the IGA would arise because a USR is considered development. Chad Auer commented the reasons for the IGA is so municipalities can be at the table for a variety of impacts. It may be Fort Lupton wants to have a say in what is going on. Mr. Auer asked if Planning Commission can verify the annexations or take word of applicant. Mr. Gathman has seen one annexation within the last six months proposed and it si not in this location. Mr. Auer indicated the pending annexation gives the application a different perspective. Mr. Gathman added the Villano Brothers proposal has requested a continuance until January because of discussions with Fort Lupton and Brighton and this is one of the affected sites. Mr. Gesso added not sure of status and called Fort Lupton for dates. Bryant Gimlin present three options that Planning Commission has. The potential annexations into Fort Lupton gives this case a very different overview. Bruce Fitzgerald added he would agree with Fort Lupton's request because it is within the three mile referral area. The County has an agreement and it should be followed. Tonya Strobel agrees with Mr. Fitzgerald. Fort Lupton would make decisions that are in their best interest and if it part of an agreement it should be followed. James Rohn suggests approving the change of zone based on the information presented is true. Fort Lupton is wanting to go with the area Industrial and this would coincide with those findings. Mr. Auer indicated that would be more for a continuance. Paul Gesso indicated he has evidence that the annexations being reviewed by the City of Fort Lupton. Mr. Gesso would ask that this ether be denied or approved but not continued. Bryant Gimlin added that based on the testimony this is not a substantial change contemplated for the property. Rather it gets approved or denied there will not be a great change that will be notices. It is more appropriate for the municipalities to have a say on the final development that is intended. Industrial use makes a large difference compared to the urban, residential uses. Peter Schei, Public Works, added the lot to the west is zoned 1-3 and access is though the proposed parcel. Access is through a non exclusive access and utility agreement. James Rohn moved to approve the case. There was no second, motion failed. Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case CZ-1065, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Commissions recommendation of denial. Chad Auer seconded the motion. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, no; Tonya Strobel, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried. John Folsom comment"I say yes very reluctantly but I don't see any alternative because the alternative violates what specifically is stated in the Code, but as a matter of the 1-3 zoning being sensible for the area, I think it is very much so." Bryant Gimlin commented he echoes the comments from Mr. Folsom but believes Planning Commission should stay to the Code and once Fort Lupton annexes it will probably been easier to approve. CASE NUMBER: CZ-1076 APPLICANT: Dave &Todd Finley PLANNER: Chris Gathman LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part W4SW4 of the SE4 Section 18, T1N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: Change of zone from I-1 (Industrial)to 1-3 (Industrial). LOCATION: East of and adjacent to US Hwy 85; north of and adjacent to CR 8. Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case CZ-1076, reading the recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the application. Lauren Light, representative for applicant, provided clarification on the proposal. Ms. Light indicated there are several properties that have been rezoned from agriculture to industrial, a majority of those did not identify the uses when they were rezoned. The IGA was in place when the rezonings were approved and the Board of County Commissioners found those did not violate the IGA. A finding from the Board of County Commissioners was that blanket rezoning was not considered urban development because a use is not established at that time. Ms. Light has spoken with Fort Lupton this month and the only concern was the use on the property. Fort Lupton is beginning the process for a new Comprehensive Plan. Once a land use is determined on site then a site plan review process must be completed. If the site plan review is approved then the development of the property occurs. Fort Lupton will notified at this time with the option to comment with Conditions. This proposal does meet criteria of the Code. There is a need in the County to have land already zoned to accommodate possible needs of businesses. There are businesses that do not want to wait for the rezone due to the time and money associated with this. If Fort Lupton does approve the annexations this site will be surrounded by mining operations. John Folsom asked Ms. Light if a change of zone is not a proposal for urban development, later on when a use applied for that will be the application for urban development? Ms. Light stated that was a comment taken from the Board of County Commissioners hearing as one of their findings on a previous change of zone application. Board of County Commissioners did not consider the rezone process to be urban development because no use was identified. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. Lauren Light indicated the applicant does not agree with Condition 2.A. The mineral owners have been notified. Mr. Gathman indicated he has not heard from anyone about not being notified. James Rohn commented that by doing the IGA the recommendation would be to define the statement and leave it less general. As in the previous case, most of the operation was occurring and the change of zone would not have been so drastic. SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, October 19, 2004 A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County Conference Room,4209 CR 24 1/2, Longmont,Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Michael Miller, at 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Michael Miller Bryant Gimlin John Folsom Absent James Rohn Bruce Fitzgerald Tonya Strobel Chad Auer Absent Doug Ochsner Absent James Welch Also Present: Kim Ogle, Jacqueline Hatch, Chris Gathman, Sheri Lockman, Char Davis, Don Carroll, Peter Schei The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on September 21, 2004 & October 5, 2004, was approved as read. The following cases will be continued: — CASE NUMBER: CZ-1065 APPLICANT: Amheim, LLC PLANNER: Chris Gathman LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2050; Pt S2S2 of NE4 of Section 30, T1 N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agriculture)to 1-3 (Industrial). LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 27; A mile north of CR 4. Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting a continuance to November 16, 2004 for mineral notification. - CASE NUMBER: USR-1488 APPLICANT: John File, Farfrumwurkin LLP PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E2SW2 & N2 SE4 & part of the W2W2 of Lot B of RE-3474; being part of the W2W2 of Section 32, T2N, R68W; and part of the SE4 of Lot B of RE- 1775 of Section 31, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a mineral resource development facility including dry open pit mining and materials processing in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Hwy 52;west and east of and adjacent to CR 3-1/4. Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting a continuance to November 1, 2004 for mineral notification. CASE NUMBER: None APPLICANT: Weld County PLANNER: Monica Mika REQUEST: The Weld County Planning Commission Schedule and Land Use Case Fees for 2005 Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services presented the proposed changes, reading the recommendation Hello