HomeMy WebLinkAbout20002541 HEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 200043
RE: CHANGE OF ZONE #541 FROM A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT TO PUD
(PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) ZONE DISTRICT FOR SEVEN (7) LOTS WITH
E (ESTATE) ZONE USES -JOHN AND CHARLOTTE CARLSON
A public hearing was conducted on November 15, 2000, at 10:00 a.m.,with the following present:
Commissioner Barbara J. Kirkmeyer, Chair
Commissioner M. J. Geile, Pro-Tem
Commissioner George E. Baxter
Commissioner Dale K. Hall
Commissioner Glenn Vaad
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Esther Gesick
Assistant County Attorney, Lee Morrison
Planning Department representative, Kim Ogle
Health Department representative, Pam Smith
Public Works representative, Don Carroll
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated October 23, 2000, and duly published October 26,
2000, in the South Weld Sun,a public hearing was conducted to consider the request of John and
Charlotte Carlson for a Change of Zone from the A(Agricultural)Zone District to the PUD(Planned
Unit Development) Zone District for seven (7) lots with E (Estate) Zone uses. Lee Morrison,
Assistant County Attorney, made this a matter of record. Kim Ogle, Department of Planning
Services, presented a brief summary of the proposal and entered the favorable recommendation
of the Planning Commission into the record as written. Mr. Ogle stated this Change of Zone would
create 7 lots,and the applicant will reside on Lot 1. Mr.Ogle gave a brief description of the location
of the site, the surrounding uses, and explained the site is currently in violation as a non-
commercial junkyard. Mr. Ogle stated 17.62 acres of the land have been deemed prime
farmground, the site is located within the City of Greeley's Urban Growth Boundary, and the lots
range from 1.6 to 4.09 acres, with 3.7 acres of open space. He referred to the transcribed
comments of opposition from Cliff Behring,marked Exhibit K,and stated the Departments of Public
Works, Planning Services, and Public Health and Environment all have concerns with the
application. Mr. Ogle stated eleven referral agencies reviewed this case, and four offered
comments of concern or opposition. He gave a brief description of the location of the Greeley-
Weld County Airport, which is classified as a general utility airport, and added residential uses
within the critical zone are a conflict and not compatible. Mr. Ogle referenced various sections of
the 1986 Greeley Comprehensive Plan indicating the proposed residential uses will not be
compatible. He stated the primary issues of concern include the location of the site within the
Airport Zone Overlay District, the Runway 9 Critical Zone, and the intersection of two primary
aircraft traffic pattern corridors. Further, the soils have been determined as unstable for
development, the proposed lot sizes are inconsistent with the City of Greeley's Long Range
Expected Growth Area,there are no pedestrian trains within the designated open space,sidewalks
2000-2541
/0e . IDz, h'Z �i'�), Ald PL1445
HEARING CERTIFICATION -JOHN AND CHARLOTTE CARLSON (COZ#541)
PAGE 2
are not provided along the internal road system, and the access to the Planned Unit Development
does not meet Weld County standards. Mr. Ogle stated the Planning Commission recommends
approval, with conditions, for the reasons detailed in its Resolution, dated May 2, 2000. In
response to Commissioner Geile, Mr.Ogle referred to Condition of Approval#2.1 which addresses
the need for an Avigation Easement. Commissioner Baxter commented if approved the Avigation
Easement would encompass the entire Planned Unit Development and Airport. In response to
Commissioner Hall, Mr. Ogle stated he is not aware of an active Avigation Easement at this time.
Mr. Morrison stated he has discussed the form of the Avigation Easement with Tom Honn, the
applicant's representative,and explained the Avigation Easement would be recorded with the Final
Plan approval. Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Morrison stated an Avigation Easement
precludes arguments from surrounding properties regarding nuisance conditions caused by the
airport, and allows use of airspace above the development. He further stated the easement is
executed by the developer for the entire Planned Unit Development, and will be shown on the plat
for the benefit of future property owners. In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Morrison stated the
words, "if applicable" will not be necessary if the Board approves the Condition requiring an
Avigation Easement.
Tom Honn represented the applicant and referred to a plat map of the site submitted as part of the
application. He stated the applicants have owned this property for several years, and have had
several inquiries regarding purchasing parcels in this area. Mr. Carlson was under the impression
that with the new primary runway, the critical zone for Runway 9 would be reduced. Mr. Honn
stated the City of Greeley did express concerns regarding the density of the development;however,
the applicant proceeded with the proposal because this property does not violate overlay map
boundaries and they had a lot of time and money invested in the project. He explained the main
access is designed to allow for continuation of irrigation on the lots, and is intended to be privately
maintained by the Homeowners'Association. He stated the proposed design satisfies the 60-foot
right-of-way, allows for flexibility for landscaping, and a revised map has been submitted which
appears to meet the design criteria. Mr. Honn stated the access is slightly further to the east, it
provides access to Lot 7, and easements allow each lot direct access to the open space. He
further stated the applicant does not feel the two portions of open space need to be contiguous,
they would like to designate a specific site for the oil and gas activities if a lease should ever occur,
water service will be provided by the North Weld County Water District, and the landscaping will
be compatible with the agricultural surroundings, and functions as a transition or buffer along the
right-of-way. Mr. Honn stated they are not opposed to entering into an Avigation Easement on the
property, and it will also be part of the Covenants, as well as a deed restriction for notification to
future residents. He referred to Conditions of Approval #2.A, 2.B, 2.E, which he feels should not
be addressed until the Final Plan. Regarding Condition #2.G, Mr. Honn stated the development
will be done in one phase, and because of the reconfiguration, Lot 7 can be addressed and
Condition#2.1 should be deleted. He further stated Condition#3.B is addressed by the new street
layout and is no longer necessary, and Condition#3.E should be addressed at the Final Plan. Mr.
Honn stated engineering reports will help determine what issues need to be addressed; however,
the engineered reports will not be complete until the Final Plan. He further stated the site is within
the City of Greeley Urban Growth Boundary area, and the City would require higher density sewer
service which may delay development of the site. He further stated due to the nature of the site,
internal trails or sidewalks are not necessary, the Homeowners'Association will determine the use
of the open space, and access and landscaping issues have been resolved by the redesign of the
street. Regarding the Runway 9 Critical Zone, Mr. Honn stated since the Planning Commission
2000-2541
PL1445
HEARING CERTIFICATION - JOHN AND CHARLOTTE CARLSON (COZ#541)
PAGE 3
hearing the applicant has considered a commercial use utilizing Section 33.4 and 33.6 of the
Zoning Ordinance which would be less of a conflict. He explained changing the proposed use
would not change the project design significantly. In response to Commissioner Baxter, Mr. Honn
stated the letter from the Colorado Geological Survey,dated April 17,2000,indicates development
on a portion of Lot 7 may be affected by topography; however, that is difficult to determine until
grading and reports are done for Final Plan.
John Carlson, applicant, stated the slope of the land is farmable and less of a grade than most of
the City of Greeley. In response to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Honn indicated the location of Lot 7
on the plat map, and Lot 1 has an existing residence. In response to Commissioner Hall, Mr.
Morrison stated the Board cannot approve a Commercial Zone District under this application; it
would require a new application. He said if the Board moves to deny this application, then the
applicant must go through a Substantial Change hearing. Chair Kirkmeyer clarified if the applicant
desires to propose a different Planned Unit Development use, the new use cannot be considered
today. Mr. Honn stated the applicant will change the use to help address some of the issues of
concern. Commissioner Hall stated the Board has no means of considering any other options other
than what is proposed in the application at this time. Mr. Morrison stated the applicant is aware of
the procedure for changing the proposal; however, they would be interested in hearing any
comments regarding the proposed change. He stated comments will not bind this or future Boards
to commitments on the property in the future. In response to Commissioner Vaad, Mr. Honn stated
there is no map indicating a reduction of the Runway 9 Critical Zone; however, this property is
beyond 5,000 feet from the end of the runway.
Mike Reisman, Greeley-Weld County Airport Manager, reiterated the proposal is within the Critical
Zone which has existed since 1978. He explained the Airport Master Plan was updated in 1993
and still showed the Critical Zone as it exists today. Further, in 1994, an environmental
assessment was conducted to indicate appropriate land uses, and it also showed the Critical Zone
as it currently exists. He stated there has never been any intention of reducing the size of the
Critical Zone because there are multiple approaches to the runway. Mr. Reisman stated the
Greeley-Weld County Airport is one of the busiest airports in the State of Colorado, and approval
of this application will potentially violate any future grant assurances from the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA). He further stated an Avigation Easement does not exist at this time;
however, there are Avigation Easements for other parcels of property around the airport. Mr.
Reisman stated the terms of an executed Avigation Easement should be shown on Final Plat, and
the Easement should be created at the cost of the applicant. He expressed concern that this
development will generate nuisance complaints which will have to be responded to by the Airport,
City of Greeley, and Weld County. In response to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Reisman stated an
Avigation Easement does not ensure that nuisance complaints will not be received. Responding
to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Reisman stated the Avigation Easement would not satisfy FAA
requirements because this proposal is for an incompatible use. In response to Commissioners
Baxter and Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Reisman stated the FAA determines what is,or is not compatible,
and although the specific compatible uses are not listed in the grant terms, they are included in a
list of FAA regulations and policies. He stated commercial and industrial uses are considered
compatible, and would be unlikely to have an impact on the airport grants. Mr. Morrison stated he
is not suggesting that a residential use in the critical zone is not a compatibility issue; however, he
has reviewed the grant and application materials and nothing indicates that residential use will
forfeit the grant funding. In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Reisman stated the Airport Authority
2000-2541
PL1445
HEARING CERTIFICATION - JOHN AND CHARLOTTE CARLSON (COZ#541)
PAGE 4
is recommending denial; however, if the application is approved, an Avigation Easement would
assist in decreasing complaints. He stated FAA grants are competitive and conflicting uses in the
area may decrease their chances of obtaining future funding. Mr. Morrison referred to Exhibit 34
which indicates the 1994 Critical Zone, Runway Zones for Board to review.
Jim Fels, Colorado Planner for Airports, stated House Bill 1041 recognizes that airports have
impacts away from the original site and influence surrounding uses. He explained the Airport 8
Program was started in 1946 to provide grant funds to ensure that public airports do not become
landlocked. Airports are only eligible if owned by a public entity with zoning powers and must
provide evidence that the surrounding development is going to preserve the operation of the
airport. Mr. Fels referred to Page 1 of the 1994 and 1998 Layout Plans, marked Exhibit 28,which
indicates the land should be developed but needs to be compatible with future uses of the airport.
In response to Commissioner Hall, Mr. Fels stated there have been other instances where
complaints are filed regardless of Avigation Easements and some have resulted in litigation. In
response to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Fels reiterated regardless of Avigation Easements, there
have been noise complaints filled against other airports. He stated disclosure of Avigation
Easement is very important prior to closing on any property.
Chair Kirkmeyer asked that any member of the audience who cannot come back after 1:30 come
forward and give their testimony.
Jeff Hoffman, City of Greeley Planner, stated this item was considered by the Greeley Planning
Commission on March 28, 2000, and it recommends denial because it found that the property is
located in the City of Greeley's Long Range Growth Area,the Critical Zone area, it is not consistent
with the City's Comprehensive Plan. In response to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Hoffman stated the
City of Greeley Planning Commission recommends no residential use be allowed; however, other
development may be appropriate including commercial and industrial uses with a Special Review
Permit.
Travis Vallin, Colorado Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics Director, stated this
proposal could potentially set a precedent for allowing incompatible land uses near an airport. He
stated approximately$13.8 million has been awarded to the Greeley/Weld County Airport to this
point and they are expecting an additional $8 million over the next five years. Mr.Vallin explained
the decision to fund this airport facility was based on the 1994 Master Plan which showed critical
zones at the end of each runway. He stated residential use has been clearly identified as
incompatible within the critical zones,and an Avigation Easement will not address the compatibility
issue. Mr. Vallin indicated concern that if this proposal is adopted, other developments may be
allowed, and the State and FAA would like to see the County ensure that the investments in the
airport will benefit the area for the long term. He stated the Colorado Division of Aeronautics is
opposed to this proposal to ensure future funding is not jeopardized. In response to Commissioner
Geile, Mr. Vallin stated commercial or industrial uses may be considered compatible based on
review. Responding to Commissioner Baxter, Mr. Vallin stated if this request is approved, future
funding may be jeopardized because it will appear that the City of Greeley and Weld County are
not making an effort to protect the future of the airport.
Chair Kirkmeyer called a recess until 1:30. Upon reconvening, no further comments were
submitted and Chair Kirkmeyer closed public testimony.
2000-2541
PL1445
HEARING CERTIFICATION -JOHN AND CHARLOTTE CARLSON (COZ#541)
PAGE 5
Mr. Honn stated the applicant would like to proceed with this proposal; however, they are aware
of the concerns and are willing to change the proposed use to commercial or industrial through a
new proposal. He stated they are willing to comply with the long-term goals of all involved due to
the importance of the airport to the community. In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Ogle stated
all previous and current maps indicate an Airport Overlay District. Mr. Morrison stated the overlay
District is referenced in the Zoning Ordinance, and the Airport Overlay Plan was adopted by the
Board of Commissioner by Resolution; however, it is not a formal policy. Responding to
Commissioner Vaad, Mr. Ogle stated staff has historically requested the items listed under
Condition of Approval #1 at the Change of Zone phase. He stated Condition #1.A was added at
the request of the Sheriff's Office to eliminate confusion when responding to an address,
Condition #1.B is listed per the Zoning Ordinance, and Condition #1.E was added because Lot 7
may not be adequate for construction due to the previous use and will require review by an
engineer. He further stated Condition#1.G was added because the application did not indicate if
this will be a single or multi-phase development, Condition#1.1 was added due to the previous use
of the land,and Condition#2.B is a standard requirement for Planned Unit Developments that open
space be contiguous to all lots. Regarding Condition #2.E, Ms. Smith stated the Soils Report
indicates septic system sizes are not a problem unless the lot is less than two acres in size. She
added Lot 7 is an odd shape and staff wants to ensure the septic envelopes are available and
usable. She stated this is a standard requirement at the Change of Zone phase and will allow
some flexibility at the Final Plan. Responding to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Morrison stated the duties
of the Board and the responsibilities of the applicant are detailed in the Planned Unit Development
Ordinance. Chair Kirkmeyer stated she feels all of these issues should be addressed by the
applicant prior to recording the Change of Zone plat,and will be addressed further at the Final Plan
phase.
Commissioner Vaad stated he is opposed to proceeding with a residential development; however,
he may be willing to consider an application proposing a commercial/industrial use because they
were indicated as compatible by the Airport Authority and Colorado Aeronautical Division. His
comments do not ensure he will give a favorable vote for a new proposal even if it is for
commercial/industrial uses. In response to Commissioner Geile, Chair Kirkmeyer stated the
Warranty Deed is dated November 15, 1984. Commissioner Geile stated he concurs with
Commissioner Vaad's comments, and added incompatible uses may jeopardize existing or future
funding, and the future of the airport is very important to Weld County. He further stated House
Bill 1040, dated 1974, was in place when the applicant considered use for this land; however,
testimony indicated there are options for compatible uses to comply with the safety regulations.
Commissioner Geile further stated the applicant's property rights are limited; however, there are
other development options. Commissioner Hall stated he is opposed to a residential use at the end
of a runway. He stated even if future residents are made aware of the potential impacts, it is going
to be a conflict. Commissioner Hall further stated the City of Greeley and Weld County have
invested a lot of time and money to propel the success of the airport and this proposal is
incompatible. He stated he is not as concerned with commercial/industrial uses because they
make more sense than residences. Commissioner Baxter concurred with the previous statements
and stated the testimony supports that this is an incompatible use. Chair Kirkmeyer stated it is
quite unusual for the applicant to request direction from the Board regarding possible proposals,
and she does not feel it is appropriate.
2000-2541
PL1445
HEARING CERTIFICATION -JOHN AND CHARLOTTE CARLSON (COZ#541)
PAGE 6
Mr. Carlson stated he did approach the airport which indicated the Overlay District would not be
an issue. He is in favor of development in Weld County and the future of the airport. Mr. Carlson
stated he spoke with the Director of Planning regarding his options if he decides to change his
proposal, and he does not want to harm the interest of the County or the airport. He stated he
intends to benefit the County, the site is located within the City of Greeley's Urban Growth
Boundary, and it appears that commercial/industrial uses may be the better option for this land
because 10 acres is not feasible to farm and testimony indicates residences are incompatible.
Mr. Honn clarified he was not questioning whether the conditions are necessary for the
development,just whether they are necessary prior to approval of the Change of Zone. He stated
the site is located 10,000 feet beyond the end of the runway. Mr. Honn stated the applicant is
willing to withdraw this application and submit a new proposal based on the direction from the
Board. He stated the application has already gone through the Sketch Plan review and concerns
of the airport were not expressed. The proposal will not conflict with the height restrictions, and
expressed concem that there is no clear direction on the use of overlay districts without previous
knowledge of the Airport's Master Plan. In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Morrison stated the
applicant would like to submit an amended application, skip the Sketch Plan phase and have
amended referrals sent for review by the Planning Commission and then proceed before the Board
again. In response to Commissioner Baxter,Mr. Morrison stated denial would require the applicant
to submit a new application and go through another Sketch Plan. Chair Kirkmeyer added a denial
would also require a Substantial Change hearing. Mr. Honn stated he is willing to withdraw the
application at this time, resubmit an application indicating commercial/industrial rather than
residential, and then allow for review by the referral agencies, Planning Commission, and
Commissioners. Mr. Morrison stated if the applicant is amending the application,the Board needs
to continue this matter to a date certain to allow enough time for review by referral agencies and
the Planning Commission hearing. The date continued to would be used to schedule an official
hearing before the Commissioners.
Commissioner Geile moved to continue the request of John and Charlotte Carlson for Change of
Zone #541 from the A (Agricultural) Zone District to the PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zone
District for seven (7)lots with E(Estate)Zone uses, to March 14, 2001,to set a hearing date. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Vaad, and it carried unanimously.
2000-2541
PL1445
HEARING CERTIFICATION -JOHN AND CHARLOTTE CARLSON (COZ#541)
PAGE 7
This Certification was approved on the 20th day of November 2000.
APPROVED:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST: Ad// /•��u� 2c la
Barbara J. K meyer, hair
Weld County Clerk to t
MEI
142?� M. J. ile, Pro-Temi7
BY: .i : , i '�•�;.�` .
Deputy Clerk to the��t° �
Te . Bae ,
r Atedi_��.►I
TAPE#2000-32
Dale Hall
DOCKET#2000-63
Glenn Vaad --
2000-2541
PL1445
ATTENDANCE RECORD
HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2000:
DOCKET#2000-62 - GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY
DOCKET#2000-63 - JOHN AND CHARLOTTE CARLSON
PLEASE legibly write or print your name and complete address and the DOCKET#
(as listed above) or the name of the applicant of the hearing you are attending.
NAME AND ADDRESS(Please include City and Zip Code)DOCKET#OF HEARING ATTENDING
/47-)11 160I alialillt1:07L) Rioi/;4
(AKLS))l 1G5i.Sc wore 72 .£4723,v 2ex-r1 G3
I) int re-L-3- ,)G865 Q, 6cen t--2 �} sry & C C.S-02f6 2coop C3
n5e_ F4utC fCAI kills:, I
/(0,3 U01/' ;a S SCI) r4c� RAK Fr_r( :a� 1 7<K;Ns `a:13 7
CFr2Y_s tam.C- , 5LOs O }--2 n;�,.ti- �sH..�C,uE F'�.w�� i U-)'.'in:rr„ft
Vlit+2_ R isoiGio c_. F� ti )Z ) osckiC � (0 cb32 -ocoG ,GOc: bj
7�p , 7 L'
�CL-'�: J 1 , C�, ,(Si•,1' )2c'* ic/>? ,'-7er(J -le*'z'l° -
11/4/. /,( ' 4 /'�'`!� 5-3 --t-;70(J N.C'ti) J \�✓,:e(RN . l CJ 'L.ki I
3R-±C;\ .��,v..�� , //cc: /Gfigs.l -', ��� a� (�ri �4�.,� �lc.v...1 ,crg�(;Y7, 4--)e"
Hello