HomeMy WebLinkAbout20040630.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld,-County
Conference Room,4209 CR 24'//, Longmont,Colorado. The meeting was called to order by C}h2u,Michael
Miller, at p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray
James Rohn
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tim Tracy Absent
Doug Ochsner
Also Present: Peter Schei, Don Carroll. Char Davis, Pam Smith, Chris Gathman
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on January 6,2004,
was approved as read.
The following Case will be continued:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1456
APPLICANT: Barbara Schottelkotte
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 7, Block 20, Aristocrat Ranchettes, Section 27, T2N, R66W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a kennel in
the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Caroline; approximately 1/8 mile west of Richard
(15337 Caroline).
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting a continuance to February 17,
2004.
The following Cases will be heard:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1431
APPLICANT: Marlin Ness
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE-2692; part of the NE4 Section 21, T5N, R65W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for an RV Park,
Storage and Recreation Area in the Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Highway 34 (28 Street Frontage Road) and
approximately% mile east of 1 Avenue
Chris Gathman, Planner, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1431, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
denial of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards
Michael Miller asked about the condition indicating that all campers must be self contained. What about the
possibility of an office on site and would this require its own septic system? Mr. Gathman stated it seemed
to be a phased project and the applicant would need to address this. There has been mention of a golf course
which would require an amendment to the USR application. Mr. Gathman added there is an existing sewer
line within 400 feet of the parcel. If this is the case questions arise regarding the requirement of attachinn r,.
CE-71. t.e,It a -e-i 2004-0630
.7- as= 0 y
the existing line. Ms.Davis stated that the amendment that was received indicated that in the future there may
be office and commercial type of building along with showers and restrooms, but these structures will not be
provided until potable water is available. At this time no structures are proposed for the site. If there is a
structure the applicant will need to have potable water or hook up to the existing system. Mr. Miller added that
any RV entering the site will have to carry water and carry the sewage out. Ms. Davis indicated that this was
correct.
James Rohn asked Mr.Gathman what the prior USR's mentioned were. Mr.Gathman indicated that one was
for a gravel mine and the other was an oil and gas facility. There has been no mining on property. Mr. Rohn
asked Ms. Davis if the sewer dump was available at the existing site on the north side of Highway 34. Ms.
Davis stated that was an option but the applicant can address this. Mr. Rohn asked if this was a concern. Ms.
Davis indicated it would not be an issue.
Tony Evans, representative, provided background and clarification on the project. The applicant would like
to expand the existing facility for parking of RVs. The existing RV facility is located north of Highway 34 in
close proximity to this proposed site. The previous concerns were with water and sewer. These services are
available on the existing site. To attach to the lines available the applicant would have to annex to Greeley
and that is not possible due to lack of contiguity. In order to alleviate this the applicant has asked that the RVs
will be fully self contained units. The Department of Health indicated the existing facilities can be utilized.
There are no plans for a new office at this time. Public water and sewer will need to be there prior to
construction of an building. There will be electricity for the pad sites. There will be walking corridors,
pedestrian corridors and other amenities for customers. The letter from Greeley to annex is normal but
Greeley will not allow an RV type business in that area.
Stephen Mokray asked about managing the facility from across the highway and there being no building on
site. Mr. Evans indicated that Mr. Ness lives on the property and can easily view the south facility from the
existing north facility. Mr. Mokray indicated it was no feasible for someone to run across the highway to
complain about a problem. Mr. Evans stated that self contained units would experience very few problems.
Mr. Mokray asked about managing the noises. Mr. Evans indicated it was 150 feet away from the office. Mr.
Mokray pointed out that it was separated by a major highway.
John Folsom commented that if the applicant does annex to the City of Greeley they will not endorse a RV
park and the only way to get the sewer is to annex. Mr. Evans stated in order to annex they would need to
provide water and sewer. Water is 1/2 mile away and there is no guarantee that they can tie into the sewer
since it is a trunk main. A line may need to be brought in and this makes it un-economical. The applicant
does not have the 1/6 contiguity for the annexation.
Michael Miller clarified that an RV owner would need to back track in order to sign in and then return to the
proposed site. Mr. Evans stated that the main reason for this site is for limited stay with a full campground
containing electricity. It is more for the convention type of RV's. Mr. Miller clarified that the RV's will need to
load up to either obtain water or dispose of sewage. Mr. Evans indicated this was correct. Mr. Miller asked
how long it would be in this type of facility. Mr. Ness, applicant, stated that the plan is for the next two years
large groups will come in for weekend conventions or four days at most and stay. There are plans for events
on site in the future. It is not intended for a long term stays. Mr. Miller asked if there will be events there in
which some participants will not be associated with camping? Mr. Ness stated there will be events held in the
common area. Mr. Miller asked where the visitors of those events will use restroom facilities? Mr. Ness
stated that this will be in the future and it has not been determined. Mr. Miller indicated it would need to be
determined due to the fact that the people visiting the site will need sanitary sewer facilities. Mr. Ness stated
that portable restrooms could be used depending on the Health Departments recommendation. Ms. Davis
indicated that there would be a large concern if there were going to be assemblages on site. Ms.Davis stated
that portable toilets would be fine only if they would be temporary but not all summer long. Mr. Ness stated
that the intent was to have something once a month. This would be in the future not anything soon. Mr.
Evans added that they are not asking for the public assembly just the RV campground and storage area. The
applicant will have to deal with additional requests to obtain assemblage.
Lee Morrison asked if these will be more than 250 people. Mr. Ness stated there would be around 80 people
at the most. Mr. Morrison added that the regulations for temporary assemblage is 250 people.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Tony Evans stated the applicant has issues with Condition 4A Prior to Operation concerning providing
evidence of water and sewer, the applicant would like this deleted. The applicant is not proposing those
services. There is also an issue with Development Standard 22 concerning the transferability of the USR to
successors. Mr. Ness would like to be able to give this site to his children.
Michael Miller asked about the transfer of the USR and not letting them. Mr. Morrison stated that it was a
useful tool when there is not a great deal of capital investment. This is typically used in cases in which there
are not extensive structures. Mr. Evans indicated that the applicant would like the opportunity to sell the
business. Mr. Morrison added that the applicant does not want it to be limited. Mr. Miller asked if there was
a reason to include. Mr. Gathman indicated that the original reason was based on the referral from the City
of Greeley and it being within the Urban Growth Boundary. There is some development planned by Greeley
in close proximity and this use may not be compatible to future land uses in the area. Also Greeley's objection
to application.
James Rohn asked if there would be a possibility of rewording the Condition to indicate it could be transferred
to family members only. Mr.Miller stated that it would be unfair to someone developing a business. It should
be the owners right to sell if desire.
James Rohn moved to delete Condition 4A and Development Standard #22. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded.
Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner indicated his concerns on future plans to expand the site that will eventually need water and
sewer. This proposal is just an expansion and there are no issues with it now.
Bruce Fitzgerald commented that the timing is wrong on this project. The sewer is to close and the City of
Greeley is to close to make this a viable project.
Bryant Gimlin commented that it is the Planning Commission responsibility to ensure that there is water and
sewer. This has not been done nor have they exhausted the options for annexation into the City of Greeley.
The facility falls short for being adequate for other groups. It seems as though this promotes pedestrian traffic
across a major highway.
James Rohn understands that they are in a catch 22 and the owner wanting to expand but the water and
sewer will continue to be an issue. The safety and well being of the campers is an issue.
Michael Miller stated that there are certain number of campers with water and sewer limitations. They rely
heavily upon the parks to provide this service. There not being any facilities is unacceptable.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1431, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
denial. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;James Rohn,yes;Doug Ochsner,
no; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: CZ-1052
APPLICANT: Hunt Brothers Properties Inc
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the N2 SW4 Section 20, T1 N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agriculture)to 1-3 (Industrial).
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 27; approximately 1/4 mile north of CR 6.
Chris Gathman, Planner, Department of Planning Services presented Case CZ-1052, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
denial of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about Horton feed lot which is located to the north and how many acres that site was.
Mr. Gathman stated it was approximately 160 acres. It was rezoned from Agriculture to 1-3 in June 2003
under case CZ-1036. Mr. Fitzgerald added that the Board of County Commissioners did not see that as
violating the existing IGA or UGB agreement with Fort Lupton. Mr. Morrison indicated they did make those
findings. Mr. Gathman added that he has the case file and copies of the resolution can be made.
James Rohn asked about the letter received from school district. Mr. Fitzgerald indicated it was an
abandoned school house not presently in use.
Michael Miller asked about 1-3 zone district and the current language. Mr. Gathman indicated that a batch
plant would require a Site Plan Review and an administrative review with no hearing process. Mr. Gathman
stated that according to the code batch plants are not listed as requiring a USR under the 1-3 zone. 1-3 is the
highest intensity zone classification. Mr. Miller asked if this was the same property that had a previous
application for a concrete and asphalt plant. Mr. Gathman indicated it was.
Lauren Light,representative for the applicant,provided clarification on the project. This reason for this re-zone
is to sell the property as 1-3. The agricultural use of the property is not economical. Residential use is not
compatible because of the railroad and that is an asset to the industrial zone district. This parcel is located
in a transitional area and there is no land use map. The compatibility is based on what is in the area. This
property is not within the urban growth area for Fort Lupton. There is no specific land use established at this
time. There have been recent rezonings in the area from Agriculture to I-3. Those were approved with the
current IGA with Fort Lupton in place. According to the Board of County Commissioners, Industrial was
considered to be non urban development. The land use pattern is dictating what is occurring in the area.
According to the Fort Lupton IGA the property must be eligible and necessary to the municipality in order for
it to be annexed. A concern expressed is that this rezoning will allow a concrete and asphalt batch plant. This
will require a USR according to the Weld County Code Changes that are in process now. At the time of
hearing additional comments will be added from the referral agencies. The school district is applying for
historical grants to utilize the old school. It will not be used for an elementary, middle, or high school due to
the size of the building. It could be used as an alternative school,community center or outreach center. Area
is in transition from agriculture to industrial. A well is available as well as septic system. Transportation and
other concerns such as traffic will be addressed in the site plan review or the USR depending on land use.
Industrial businesses are located by major transportation corridors and highways. This parcel being zoned
industrial will not necessarily cause a negative impact on the surrounding area. There is an advantage to
having it already zoned industrial. When an proposal is brought forward the owners have to go through the
Site Plan Review process or the USR process. The advantage to Fort Lupton is they can annex and receive
tax benefits in the future. This parcel should be zoned to 1-3 because of compliance with both the Weld
County Code and Comprehensive Plan,transition of land uses in the area,the railroad,direct access to major
transportation corridor and existing 1-3 zone in area. Tom Haren,representative for applicant,added that the
project was reviewed from broad perspective. There is no land use map for the area. There is no agricultural
use that will support the cost of the land. The traffic and railroad is an asset for those looking for industrial
zoned land for businesses. Planning staff is recommending denial because of the agreements with Fort
Lupton specifically the IGA. The land use is compatible with the surrounding areas.
John Folsom asked Mr.Gathman about other properties that have been changed to 1-3 and if they were within
the Fort Lupton referral area. Mr. Gathman indicated they were. Mr. Folsom asked why this parcel did not
meet the criteria while the other two seemed to. Mr. Gathman indicated that Brancucci parcels already
contained some industrial zoned areas within their boundaries.
James Rohn asked what the traffic count was on CR 27. Mr. Schei stated that the count is 3233 vehicles in
a day. Mr. Rohn asked a change was made to 1-3 would there be an increase in traffic flow? Mr. Schei
indicated he was not sure. Mr. Rohn asked if there was a proposal to expand CR 27. Mr. Schei indicated it
was not in the five year plan. Mr. Rohn asked Mr.Gathman why did CDOT not respond. Mr. Gathman stated
that there is no specific use for the property and therefore there is nothing to respond to with regards to traffic.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Gathman for clarification with regards to the site location in relation to Fort Lupton
IGA and referral area. Mr.Gathman stated the site is outside the UGB but still inside the IGA area. Referrals
deal with development within a 3 miles radius but outside of the UGB boundary.
John Foslom asked Mr. Morrison about Section 19-12-50 B and what it means by legally possible to rezone.
Mr. Morrison stated that Board of County Commissioners under previous rezoning did not avoid the IGA and
it was determined that it was still in compliance of the terminology. The evidence in the previous rezone cases
were that there was no other feasible use for the property due to past use and relationship to the railroad. Mr.
Morrison stated that under general language in 1-3 zone a batch plant is considered fabrication facility and
could be allowed without a public hearing.Batch plants under the proposed County Code amendments could
not occur in the 1-3 zone district without a USR.
James Rohn asked Mr. Gathman what Fort Lupton's Comprehensive Plan for this area was. Mr. Gathman
stated that there is a representative from Fort Lupton who will speak at the time of public comments and they
could address this.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
David Norcross, Fort Lupton mayor, commented that Fort Lupton is beginning the process of amending the
IGA and Comprehensive Plan. The land use plan will be updated at this time also. The intent is for CR 8 to
be the major south entrance into Fort Lupton. The school district would like to be annexed first when the
opportunity presents itself. There is the feeling of mixed signals due to the discussion of what code is in force
today, not the changes proposed. There is a large amount of industrial zoned land already available that will
not harm the compatibility of the surrounding area. Mr. Norcross is recommending denial on the project.
Joe Hubert, neighbor, commented that nothing was ever stated about this property being incorrectly zoned.
When the previous case was denied if was not denied based on the zoning. The zoning has never been a
question. The understanding is if this is zoned 1-3 there is no public comment. Mr. Hubert suggests denying
the proposal and keep control of the property to know what will be placed there.
Michael Miller added that any use will go through a review before planning staff. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Hubert
what he would like to see proposed as a use on site? Mr. Hubert stated that homes with small acreages or
light industrial would be acceptable.
Steve Morrison, Fort Lupton School Superintendent, added that the school district is within 500 feet of this
proposal and they would like to keep their property value at a viable level. A change in zone district changes
the rights of the school district as a property owner. The school district is applying for Historical designation
of the building. There is value to the property. Any use will include children, teacher or school employees.
The safety of those is one of the major concerns. The 1-3 is incompatible with any school use. There are
several school buses on CR 27. The change to 1-3 will be additional traffic in the area that is not needed. The
safety of the kids is the primary concern. Three bus loads of kids get on at the stop light located at Hwy 85
&CR 6. This is the same light that will be utilized as an exit point if there is truck traffic associated with the
end use. Annexation is a viable option, utilities is the issue. There are issues with septic and a well in
requesting Historical designation. The issues is incompatibility, impact on property and the safety of kids in
the area using the bus system.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Morrison what he would like to see proposed as a use on the site? Or what would
not cause and adverse affect on the school property? Mr.Morrison stated that the current zoning designation
would be best.
Rosalie Everson,commented that CDOT did not respond because no is no definite plan for an end land use.
There is no guarantee that a batch plant will not be proposed in the area. The previously proposed project
would add more than 250 truck trips on an already busy road. Martin Marietta(Materials)has purchased the
Horton property to the north. They are the second largest producer of aggregate in the United States. The
citizens have the same concern with this proposal because the previous approvals never determined the end
land use and they now have an aggregate business.
Sue Hubert, neighbor, stated that not knowing is the largest issue along with traffic.
The Chair closed public portion.
Lee Morrison added that the pending ordinance does clarify that asphalt batch plant does require a USR in
the 1-3 Zone. This will be adopted before the Board of County Commissioners hears this case. At the
moment it allows gravel mining,which was not previously allowed in the 1-3, but it removes the arguement a
batch plant is allowed in the 1-3 without a USR.
Michael Miller asked that in the event this was approved and the final code change readings were not
approved then the applicant would be able to use this property for a batch plant? Mr. Morrison stated the
ordinance issue will be resolved before the final decision is made by the Board of County Commissioners.Mr.
Miller added that Planning Commission has to make their decision on the current code not a possible change.
Mr. Morrison stated that the Code Changes are in the hearing process. These changes have more validity
than a simple discussion about them. Mr. Morrison added that if the concern is what the ordinance is or could
be is should be pointed out in the discussion. The Board of County Commissioners needs to be made aware
of which form of the ordinance you are basing your decision on.
John Folsom commented that the third reading of the ordinances is just a formality. Mr. Morrison added that
the second reading typically has the most comment.
Lauren Light, representative, stated that there is not a proposed use known for this property. There is the
possibility that a business will only utilize the railroad and there would be no truck traffic. Only feasible use
is I-3. Mr. Haren added that zoning is not a speculation because there is no direction for land use in the area.
There are controls in the code for land use. Fort Lupton is talking about changing their code and so is Weld
County. There is nothing set in stone at this time. Land use is dictation what is happening. The agricultural
properties have a substantial value but limited capabilities when it comes to agricultural uses. Fort Lupton
has indicated that CR 27 north of CR 8 north is the southern corridor for them and the applicant agrees. If
Planning Commission denies this proposal it will condemn the applicant to farming which will not pay for the
land. The applicant agrees with the school district in the change of viability but not to the benefit of them. This
will increase the property value. The safety issue will be addressed in the review once the end land use is
determined and applied for.
Michael Miller asked if the applicant would be willing to give up the right to have a batch plant if the proposed
code changes did not pass. Mr. Haren clarified that because odds are the code in proposed form will pass,
the applicant would be willing to have a condition that states if the proposed code changes do not pass they
will not have a batch plant.
Lee Morrison added this is not a PUD so no restriction can be added on the general zoning designation.The
only restrictions are the ones in the code for that particular zone.
Bryant Gimlin asked about school district testimony, he doesn't see incompatibility.
John Folsom stated his issue is with the IGA with Fort Lupton and the terminology"extent legally possible"
because the Board of County Commissioners granted a change of zone on parcel to the north.
James Rohn commented that the area between CR 4 and CR 8 is turning into industrial. The issue is with
the vehicle trips per day and this is an arterial road but there are no improvements in the five year plan. This
area is going to end up as an industrial park. There should be a request made to the Board of County
Commissioners to improve CR 27.
Bruce Fitzgerald does not want to approve this today not knowing the batch plant issue. The decision should
be made once the pending code changes have been addressed.
Michael Millers tated t hat if the end use is for a batch plant on the property under the current zoning
regulations he would not be in favor for this. There is a number of reason to approve due to the railroad lines
and transportation corridor along with the needed industrial. It does appear to be the best use for the parcel.
Mr. Miller stated an option is to make it very clear to the Board of County Commissioners that a vote for
approval is based on that the assumption the amendments to the Code,that are now in process,will be made.
In the event those amendments are not approved the Planning Commission would not recommend approval.
John Folsom moved that"if the Planning Commission does approve this case it is based on the assumption
that a batch plant on the site will require a USR." Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Mr.Miller requested clarification
of the direction. Mr. Folsom indicated that Planning Commission is not voting on the case, instead they want
to get on the record the presumption for the approval or denial. Mr. Morrison stated that another way is get
the information into the record is to comment on them once the vote is being taken. The motion and the
second have been withdrawn.
Lauren Light indicated that the applicant was willing to continue the case until the Board of County
Commissioners has ruled on the proposed code changes. Mr. Morrison added that an option could be to
close the record except for the vote. Those that are eligible to vote would be the only ones. At the continued
date the action would be limited to voting and no further testimony or evidence except for the action of the
Board of County Commissioners on the code changes.
James Rohn moved to continue CZ-1052 to March 16,2004 after the Board of County Commissioners have
decided upon Ordinance 2003-10 for the purpose of making the Planning Commission decision based upon
the ordinance passed. John Folsom seconded. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 4:00pm
Respectfully submitted
�
Ie 1Th k _�
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello