Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20011947.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Moved by Michael Miller that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for: Case Number: Revocation of Amended Z-374,Z-374, Z-464,and Vacate Use by Special Review USR-960 Applicant: Robert Easton, Easton Aviation Address: 23482 Weld County Road 48, LaSalle, Colorado 80645 Request: The revocation of Amended Change of Zone 374, Change of Zone 374 and Change of Zone 464 along with Vacation of Use by Special Review 960. Legal Description: Part of the NW4 of Section 12, Township 4 North, Range 65 West of the 6th P.M. Weld County, Colorado, lying south and east of the Gilmore Canal. Location: Approximately 4.5 miles southeast of LaSalle, on Weld County Road 49. be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons: 1. As established in the Non-Conforming Use NCU-345,a general and agricultural airfield/airport has existed on this parcel since 1966. During this time,the previous owner and applicant, Mr. Easton's father endeavored to change the zone on this property. Based on previous application materials the applicant intended to develop a residential and aeronautical airstrip designed to meet the needs of the residents of the PUD. However,while several Change of Zones were sought to carry out this mixed use of aviation and residential the final plans associated with these applications were never finalized. In accordance with Section 23-2-790 E. of the Weld County Code, the Planning Commission may revoke a PUD upon failure to submit a PUD Plan. If no PUD Plan application is submitted within three (3) years of the date of the approval of the PUD District, the Planning Commission shall require the landowner to appear before it and present evidence substantiating that the PUD project has not been abandoned and that the applicant possesses the willingness and ability to continue with the submittal of the PUD Plan. The Planning Commission may extend the date for the submittal of the PUD Plan application and shall annually require the applicant to demonstrate that the PUD has not been abandoned. If the Planning Commission determines that conditions or statements made supporting the original approval of the PUD District have changed or the landowner cannot implement the PUD Plan, the Planning Commission shall recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the PUD District approval be revoked. If the Board of County Commissioners agrees after a public hearing, the Board of County Commissioners may revoke the PUD District and order the recorded PUD District reverted to the original zone district. 2. The applicant has asked for assistance from the Department of Planning Services staff to recognize this property as it historic use for a general agricultural airfield/airport. The Department of Planning Services reviewed this request and established a Non-Conforming Use 345 for the use of the agricultural airfield/airport located on the site. The airport was established on or before 1966. On March 4, 1998,well over thirty(30)years after the inception of the airport the property was conveyed to Robert Easton by Partition of Real Property recognized by the Weld County District Court and not filed upon by Weld County. Research indicates and supports this lawful conveyance to Robert Easton. In an attempt to resolve all unsettled land use issues Mr. Easton has worked with Department of Planning Staff to resolve these issues and encourages the Planning Commission to revoke the PUD Zone District. . EXHIBIT 2001-1947 Ott#3-74 *yvN RESOLUTION, Z-374, AmZ-374, Z-464, USR-960 Bob Easton Page 2 3. It is Mr. Easton's intent to continue the historic use of the agricultural airfield/airport and has no desire to proceed with the previous land use applications. Mr. Easton has been made aware that should he desire to further subdivide this parcel or change of zone, he will be required to undertake this activity at the initial step in the land use process. 4. On January 15, 1992, Use by Special Review 960 was approved for an Aircraft Maintenance School. While this case was approved the plat was never recorded. Therefore, in order to finalize all land use issues associated with this case the applicant further requests Case USR-960 be vacated. Should the Planning Commission recommend to approve this request the Department of Planning Staff will recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that USR-960 should also be vacated. Motion seconded by Stephan Mokray. VOTE: For Passage Against Passage Cristie Nicklas Michael Miller Arlan Marrs Bryant Gimlin John Folsom Stephen Mokray 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,Wendi Inloes, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission,do hereby certify that the above and foregoing resolution,is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County, Colorado, adopted on June 19th, 2001. Dated the 19th of une, 2001. (Ai2 Wendi Inloes Secretary SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, June 19, 2001 A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday,June 19, 2001,in the Weld County Public Health/Planning Building,(Room 210), 1555 N. 17th Avenue,Greeley,Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Cristie Nicklas, at 10:10 a.m. ROLL CALL _ Cristie Nicklas Present Fred Walker Absent John Folsom Present - Jack Epple Absent l _. Michael Miller Present ... • Stephan Mokray Present -- Arlan Marrs Present Bryant Gimlin Present Cathy Clamp Absent for a.m., Present for p.m. Also Present: Monica Daniels-Mika, Director, Julie Chester, Planner III, Chris Gathman, Planner, Sheri Lockman, Planner II, Robert Anderson, Planner, Department of Planning Services; Trevor Jiricek, Director, Pam Smith, Department of Environmental Services; Don Carroll, Diane Houghtaling, Public Works Department; Bruce Barker, County Attorney; Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney; Wendi Inloes, Secretary. The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on June 5,2001,was approved with changes on page 23, on a statement from Michael Miller to say convenient and not inconvenient. CASE NUMBER: 1041 Regulations(Matter of State Interest) PLANNER: Monica Daniels-Mika/Bruce Barker REQUEST: The site selection and construction of those major facilities of a public utility consisting of transmission lines,power plants,and substations of electrical utilities. Monica Daniels-Mika, Department of Planning Services, requested that the 1041 Regulations case be continued to the July 17, 2001, hearing date, to have a few more weeks for review. Arlan Marrs asked if this continuance is for this case, or will others be affected in the future. Monica said that this continuance will only affect this case. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this continuance. No one wished to speak. John Folsom moved that the 1041 Regulations, be continued to the July 17, 2001, hearing date. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom,yes; Arlan Marrs,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously. -- CASE NUMBER: Revocation of Amended Z-374,Z-464 and Vacate USR-960 APPLICANT'S NAME: Bob Easton PLANNER: Monica Daniels-Mika REQUEST: Revocation of Amended Z-374,Z-464 and Vacate USR-960 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of of the 6 P.M.Weld County,Colorado, lying south and east f the Ge NW4 of Section 12, Township 4 North, Range 6il more WestCanal. = EXHIBIT L#3-ri-11*4410,4 SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION June 19, 2001 Page 2 Monica Daniels-Mika,Department of Planning Services,presented the revocation and explained the process of the case before them and the uniqueness of the case. Ms. Mika went over the information in the packets on the processes Mr. Easton has gone through. The Department of Planning Services is recommending that Z-374, AmZ-374 and Z-464, be revoked and that USR-960 be vacated. Previously, Mr. Easton received approval of a PUD Change of Zone,but due to the requirement to purse the PUD Final Plat within a three year time frame, Mr. Easton has chosen not to pursue the PUD zoning. A non-conforming use has been estabished on the property for an aeronautical agricultural airstrip,and this activity still exists and will continue to exist. Mr. Easton has asked to recognize the historic use on this property, and vacate all other uses returning the land back to agricultural zoning. John Folsom asked if all the changes were taken out by Mr. Easton's father,and for revocaton reasons,does Robert Easton has authority to make the current changes. Monica said that he did as he had been involved with the cases, and is the current property owner. Michael Miller asked what USR-960 was granted for. Monica Mika explained the proposed use was for air aeronautic school for the maintenance of airplanes. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. Mr.Easton stated he would like to change the use back to agricultural and continue the airport and agricultural uses. Michael Miller asked if other airplanes can land at this site, and if this was included under the non-conforming use. Monica Mika stated yes it was included. Michael Miller moved the revocation of AmZ-374, Z-374 and Z-464, and the vacation of USR-960, and recommended the case be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom,yes; Arlan Marrs,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes; Cristie Nickles, yes. Motion carried unanimously. CASE NUMBER: Amended Boundaries For St. Vrain Sanitation District APPLICANT'S NAME: St. Vrain Sanitation District/Mark Peterson PLANNER: Monica Daniels-Mika REQUEST: Amend.St.Vrain Sanitation District Service Plan LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Various LOCATION: Various Monica Daniels-Mika,Director,Department of Planning Services,presented the St.Vrain Sanitation District Service Plan, reading the comments recommendation for approval into the record. Bruce Barker,Weld County Attorney,added that along with amendment to the service plan,there are three issues needing to be addressed:the increase in the capacity of the plant from 1.5 mgd up to 4.5 mgd, being requested as an amendment; discussion regarding a drainage authority; and a modification to eliminate a requirement for the population of 5000 people to be included into a metro district. Lee Lawson, consultant for St.Vrain, addressed the question from Mr. Folsom regarding his question on the liability of the people served by the district under a metro district, and if the district failed to meet the obligations would the liability of the debt be put on the people in the district. Mr. Lawson explained that the district does have some general obligation debt, and when the district was created, there was an election of all landowners in the district. The members assume debt on their property in order to create the money to allow a metropolitan sewer/water system. The debt has been refinanced a few times and each Hello