HomeMy WebLinkAbout20043120.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County
Conference Room, 4209 CR 24 /2 , Longmont, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chair,
Bryant Gimlin, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller Absent
Bryant Gimlin
John Folsom
James Rohn
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tonya Strobel
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner Absent
James Welch Absent
Also Present: Peter Schei, Don Carroll, Char Davis, Pam Smith
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on November 2,
2004, was approved as read.
The following item will be continued:
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: South of and adjacent to Hwy 52; west and east of and adjacent to CR 3-
1/4.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting an indefinite continuance. The
applicant needs to provide written evidence of a well permit from the State of Colorado Division of Water
Resources.
James Rohn asked if this was the third time this case was continued. Mr. Gathman indicated it was the
second and this is the reason for the indefinite continuance.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1490
APPLICANT: Nicole Trevethick
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-1930; part of the SE4 of Section 17, T3N, R68W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
Veterinary Hospital in the A(Agricultural)zone district.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 32; approximately 500 feet west of CR 5.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting a continuance to December 21,
2004
/f1 /) /�
( -v� &JZd& /c:.)- l-axe y•
O cz?-7oU y-3i-7o
James Rohn asked Mr. Morrison if the transposition of the RE number is reason enough to continue the
case? Mr. Morrison indicated it was hard to know if someone has been misled. In the past the RE number
would have been insignificant, but it is conceivable that someone could have been misled with the
information. The continuance is safer to cover the transposition.
The following cases will be heard:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1489
APPLICANT: Verizon Wireless
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 4 of S-293; part of the NE4 of Section 1, T2N, R63W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a 150 foot
cellular tower in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Interstate 76 Frontage Road; east of CR 73.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1489, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
approval of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
John Folsom asked if there were are any towers located close to this site for possible co location. Mr.
Gathman indicated the application indicates other sites but those towers were inadequate. The other
possible tower was too far to the west and there were issues with the height of the tower. The applicant is
looking for coverage adjacent to the Town of Roggen.
Bryant Gimlin asked about the airstrip and would it be in violation? Mr. Gathman indicated the airstrip
would need to have a USR through the County if it is for public use. If it is a designated airstrip it would be
a violation. There is not much access to the site and there is a dirt road to the north, if there are landings
it is not a designated facility. Mr. Morrison added that casual use in field is not necessarily a violation. It is
only when the location is designated.
Brad Johnson, representative for the applicant, provided clarification on the project. The site is needed to
provide better coverage to the east in the Wiggins area. There are environmental and site analysis
studies done before the proposal is made. The applicant has a report that indicates there is no hazard to
any possible surrounding airports. The nearest airstrip is about 5 miles away according to FAA.
James Rohn asked if there will be lights on top of the tower. Mr. Johnson indicated that if the FAA
requires lights it will be done. Mr. Johnson contacted Marcia Holford, FAA representative, and it was
confirmed there were not private or public landing strips in the area. Mr. Johnson added that from what he
understands from the FAA it will not be required. Mr. Rohn asked about guide wires. Mr. Johnson
indicated the tower is self supporting.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
John Folsom added that there seems to be two objections and one is the possibility of future development
and that should not be taken into consideration due to the unknown. That objection should not be a
reason not to approve. The landing strip has been discussed throughly and the existence of it is mute.
Mr. Folsom has no objections to the case.
James Rohn added there is a tower near the old Toddy's building in Greeley and it was concealed well.
Mr. Rohn does not see a problem with the project.
Bryant Gimlin agrees especially if the airstrip is private.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1489, be approved along with the Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards. John Folsom 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, yes; Tonya Strobel, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: CZ-1065
APPLICANT: Arnheim, 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 I-3 (Industrial).
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 27; 1/2 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 zone. The history of the
other 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, Ti N, 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.
Bruce Fitzgerald added there is still a letter from Fort Lupton with the same issues with the last case. Also
once this is changed to 1-3 the Planning Commission does not get another"chance"at it. It will be
reviewed by staff meaning no ability for public comment. Those are the reasons Mr. Fitzgerald would be
against.
Bryant Gimlin stated this case is more unknown because of the use. Mr. Auer added that because there
are unknowns the process allows for public comment.
James Rohn added that the nine acres will look closer to seven acres due to the setbacks. This will not
allow for a major use.
John Folsom asked Mr. Gathman if this is not to be seen at the development stage would staff take into
consideration the quotation of extent legally possible and not go forward. Mr. Gathman stated the IGA
defines urban development as anything requiring approval by Board of County Commissioners. A site
plan review is an administrative review so the section of the code could not be taken into account. The
change of zone would go to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Fitzgerald added that staff works
with the applicant on the requirements. Mr. Gathman stated there are design standards and setbacks in
the industrial zone district that would need to be met. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if staff would be in a position to
stated the proposal could not go forward? Mr. Gathman stated no unless adequate sewer and water
could not be provided for the proposed use.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case CZ-1076, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the
Planning Commissions recommendation of denial. Tonya Strobel 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, yes; Tonya Strobel, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 3:10 pm
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello