HomeMy WebLinkAbout20242664.tiffSummary of the Weld County Planning Commission Meeting
Tuesday, September 3, 2024
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Administration
Building, Hearing Room, 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado. This meeting was called to order by Chair
Butch White, at 1:40 p.m.
Roll Call.
Present: Butch White, Michael Wailes, Pamela Edens, Michael Palizzi, Virginia Guderjahn, Barney
Hammond, Cindy Beemer.
Absent: Michael Biwer.
Also Present: Chris Gathman, Diana Aungst, and Molly Wright, Department of Planning Services, Karin
McDougal, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Motion: Approve the August 6, 2024 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by Michael
Wailes, Seconded by Virginia Guderjahn. Motion passed unanimously.
The Chair noted that there are some requests to amend the agenda. USR24-0015 will be presented first
and then 1 MJUSR24-20-0011.
Case Number:
Applicant:
Planner:
Request:
Legal Description:
Location:
USR24-0015
Ana Holguin Macias & Mario Contreras Guillen, c/o MVJ Transports, Inc.
Diana Aungst
A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for Oil and
Gas Support and Service (truck parking and equipment storage), outside of
subdivisions and historic townsites in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
Lot A Recorded Exemption RE -3692; being part of the SE1/4 of Section 26,
Township 5 North, Range 65 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
North of and adjacent to County Road 52; approximately 0.13 miles west of County
Road 47.
Diana Aungst, Planning Services, stated that the Applicant submitted a variance for the access point on
August 26, 2024. This access variance will need to be reviewed by staff prior to the hearings; therefore,
Staff is requesting a continuance to the October 1, 2024 Planning Commission Hearing.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against the continuation
of this application. No one wished to speak.
Motion: Continue USR24-0015 to the October 1, 2024 Planning Commission Hearing, Moved by Virginia
Guderjahn, Seconded by Michael Palizzi.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Barney Hammond, Butch White, Cindy Beemer, Michael Palizzi, Michael Wailes, Pamela Edens,
Virginia Guderjahn.
Case Number:
Applicant:
Planner:
Request:
Legal Description:
Location:
COW') O n ; o n s
10(09(x9
1 M J U S R24-20-0011
Scott Peterson, c/o SunShare Solar, LLC, dba Starlily Solar, LLC
Molly Wright
A Site Specific Development Plan and Major Amendment to Use by Special
Review Permit No. USR20-0011 for a Solar Energy Facility (SEF) outside of
subdivisions and historic townsites in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
W1/2 NW1/4 of Section 10, Township 3 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
South of and adjacent to County Road 36; east of and adjacent to County Road
31.
1
2024-2664
Barney Hammond stated that he wished to recuse himself from this case as he had previously been
employed by SunShare, LLC.
Molly Wright, Planning Services, presented Case 1MJUSR24-20-0011, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Ms. Wright stated that the proposed solar facility will have no correlation with
the existing solar facility on site. Wright provided Environmental Health's review of the public water and
sanitary sewer requirements. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this
application along with conditions of approval and development standards.
Kristi Weyerman, 1877 Seadrift Drive, Windsor, Colorado, stated that this solar facility project will be up to
5 megawatts on 26 acres. She added that they adjusted the site location so that they are greater than 500
feet to the nearest residence. Additionally, they will be connecting to the existing distribution lines that are
currently on the property.
Ms. Weyerman said that a community meeting was held with one (1) person who showed up and expressed
concerns regarding dust. She advised that individual that if dust is an issue during the construction that
they will use a water hauler to help maintain and keep the dust down during the construction period.
Commissioner Wailes clarified that this request is not related to the original solar facility currently located
on site. Ms. Weyerman said that the existing solar facility is currently operated under Nautlis and added
that there is a signed agreement with them that this will be a completely separate project.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Motion: Forward Case 1MJUSR24-20-0011 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, Moved by Michael Palizzi, Seconded by Cindy Beemer.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 6).
Yes: Butch White, Cindy Beemer, Michael Palizzi, Michael Wailes, Pamela Edens, Virginia Guderjahn.
Absent: Barney Hammond.
Case Number: COZ24-0005
Applicant: Cataract Capital, LLC and Talons Capital 2, LLC
Planner: Chris Gathman
Request: Change of Zone from the A (Agricultural) Zone District to the 1-2 (Medium
Industrial) Zone District.
Legal Description. Two parcels: Lot B of Corrected Recorded Exemption RE -3360, being part of the
NW1/4 of Section 29; and a parcel lying to the west of the Union Pacific Railroad
and being part of the NW1/4 of Section 29, both in Township 1 North, Range 66
West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location: East of and adjacent to County Road 27/North Main Street; approximately 750 feet
south of County Road 6/East Crown Prince Boulevard.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, presented Case COZ24-0005, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Mr. Gathman stated that the Department of Planning Services is recommending
denial based on Section 23-2-30.A.1, that the proposal is not consistent with Chapter 22 of the Weld County
Code. Section 22-2-30.B.1 states that urban development should be located in urban areas and to
encourage annexation of urban scale development, zone changes and subdivisions within one -quarter mile
of municipal limits is strongly discouraged. Mr. Gathman said this property is located adjacent to and
surrounded by the City of Brighton municipal limits. Urban scale development is only permitted within three
(3) miles of a municipal boundary or within a Coordinated Planning Agreement area. A referral from the
City of Brighton, dated June 24, 2024, indicated that urban services are available and adjacent to this site.
Water and sewer service is available on Main Street in front of each property. The City of Brighton met
2
with the applicant but indicated that they would only be supportive of I-1 (Light Industrial) zoning in this
location. The City of Brighton indicated that I-1 zoning would limit outdoor storage to 100 percent of the
building area. The City of Brighton does not support rezoning within Weld County as this site has the
contiguity to annex and can be served by both public sewer and public water from the City of Brighton.
Mr. Gathman stated that under Section 23-2-30.A.1, adequate water and sewer service cannot be made
available to serve the site to serve the uses permitted within the proposed zone district. The site is currently
served via a permitted Division of Water Resources well permit for drinking and sanitary uses for a
commercial business. The wells cannot be used for outside irrigation and each is limited to 0.33 -acre feet.
Mr. Gathman said that the Division of Water Resources referral stated that these wells cannot be used for
Industrial use until a revised permit or permits are first obtained. He added that because this is a change
of zone to Industrial, Industrial well permits would need to be obtained prior to recording this change of
zone plat instead of at the site plan review, use by special review or zoning permit stage. Industrial use
wells are not considered exempt wells and require augmentation. Mr. Gathman stated that therefore, the
County does not have evidence that adequate water can be obtained to serve the uses in the proposed
zone district.
The Department of Planning Services recommends denial of this application; however, if approved they
request to include conditions of approval.
Commissioner Edens asked what the zoning would be in order to operate oil and gas services without a
USR Permit. Mr. Gathman said it would be I-1 or 1-3 zoning. He added that the applicant is requesting 1-2
zoning.
Commissioner White said if approved then each individual business would be required to submit a site plan.
Mr. Gathman replied that is correct.
Commissioner Beemer asked what the industrial zoning was approved without Brighton. Mr. Gathman said
that these were older cases and not sure if services were in the road.
Tom Parko, Spruance Consulting, LLC, 1067 South Hover St, Longmont, Colorado, stated that he
represents the applicant Mr. Eklund. Mr. Parko said that the City of Brighton mostly surrounds the property
on the east side and added that there are sites sounding the property that are zoned for industrial uses.
He added that this area supports commercial and industrial type businesses.
Mr. Parko said that currently the site is permitted under a Use by Special Review Permit for oil and gas
support and service and the applicant would like to continue those uses and is requesting 1-2 zoning. He
added that the applicant would like to have the opportunity for future uses such as outdoor storage.
Mr. Parko referred to the City of Brighton's current zoning in the vicinity. He said that there are two (2)
properties zoned I-1 and 1-2 and directly to the east of this site is Vestas. Mr. Parko referred to the COZ22-
0013 case that was recently rezoned through the County.
Mr. Parko stated that there are two (2) commercial wells on the property. He added that the Division of
Water Resources is not saying that just because you're zoning the property to 1-2 that you have to change
the use on the permits. He said that what the referral is saying is that if Mr. Eklund ever decided to put an
industrial type user out there that would go above and beyond the requirements that are in those well
permits then you would have to go through a change of use. Mr. Parko added that the permits are currently
approved for the commercial uses that are established out there now and in their opinion do not require a
change of use just because they are requesting to change the zoning on this property.
Blair Eklund, 1334 Silver Rock Lane, Evergreen, Colorado stated that he started this process two (2) years
ago. They believe it is compatible with the surrounding zoning and uses and also compatible with Weld
County's long-term plan of diversification of industries and employment. Mr. Eklund said that the site is
currently zoned agricultural but the area is not really agricultural. He added that they have two (2) tenants
ready to move in but are waiting for this change of zone. Mr. Eklund said that they invested in the property
3
to bring it into compliance with installing stormwater berms and retention. They also put in pavement and
have been approved according to the USR standards.
Mr. Eklund said that they strongly considered annexing into Brighton; however, they would not allow 1-2
zoning designations. He added that annexation would take up to two (2) years and the impact fees would
cost over $1,000,000.
Mr. Eklund believes the wells are sufficient and they don't believe they would need additional water. He
added that they believe the rezoning is compatible with the area.
Mr. Parko requested a favorable recommendation and believes that all five (5) criteria in the Weld County
Code have been met.
Commissioner Palizzi asked if Brighton's biggest issue is with the outdoor storage. Mr. Eklund replied that
he believes it is. Mr. Palizzi asked if there is an opaque fence on site. Mr. Eklund said it is not an opaque
fence but said it is screened already.
Mr. Gathman said if this property is rezoned to Industrial that opens it up to a variety of uses in the industrial
zone district. According to the State, if an industrial use goes in there they need a full use well. He added
that means that they would possibly have to augment which is an entire process to do that. Mr. Gathman
said it is much more involved versus than being in ag and changing the uses under a USR Permit. He
added that if the property is being rezoned to industrial, Staff will still request that evidence of water be
provided prior to the recording of the Change of Zone Plat.
Commissioner White asked if this could be done at the site plan review process. Mr. Gathman said that it
should be done now because the concern is that with changing to industrial then somebody has the
expectation that they will be able to do all these industrial uses and then if they have to do a full use well
with augmentation that can take a lot of time and a lot of money so we don't want to set future buyers up
for expectations that are potentially not realistic.
Commissioner Palizzi referred to the Division of Water Resources referral and believes that they are trying
to say that they can still use the wells for commercial use even if it is zoned industrial. Mr. Gathman said
that they can for the existing use, but the change of zone is for what may be going in there in the future.
Commissioner White asked what the trigger would be to change the well permit. Mr. Gathman replied that
the State said that if it is an industrial use they will have to do a full use well with augmentation.
Commissioner Edens said that she understands a commercial well does not allow for outside watering and
asked the applicant if they have looked into augmentation. Mr. Parko said that there are two (2) commercial
wells for the existing uses on site. According to correspondence between staff and the Division of Water
Resources it says that just because the applicant is zoning to 1-2 doesn't mean he loses his commercial
wells on the property but rather that if there are uses that come in the future that require industrial type uses
then it would be repermitted for industrial use. Mr. Parko said that they believe they have adequate water
right now and any use that goes above and beyond that can be addressed through the site plan review
process.
Commissioner Guderjahn referred to the email correspondence with the Division of Water Resources and
added that she doesn't see anything that the applicant can continue to use it with no other augmentation.
She said that the way she understands this it does not say that you can continue to use these wells until
you prove that you are using it as an industrial use, but rather she reads it that if you get your water from
Brighton for the industrial use then you can continue to use those commercial wells.
Commissioner Hammond agrees that there is a lot of industrial in the area. However, he believes there is
an issue with water and believes that the applicant is rolling the dice a little bit. He asked if they looked into
getting water from Brighton. Mr. Eklund said that they did but they would prefer to add augmentation via
the well for the easiest path forward.
4
Commissioner Beemer referred to the Division of Water Resources referral and noted that it states that the
wells are limited to drinking and sanitary facilities so no matter what it would be rezoned to, they are still
limited to those wells and subject to what it can be used for. She added that she feels the zoning doesn't
necessarily dictate what the wells can be used for. Mr. Gathman said that there are uses listed in the
agricultural zone district that are uses by right, uses under zoning permit, and uses under use by special
review permits. He added that the State would be given a referral but they made it very clear that with this
change of zone industrial uses would require a new well permit and the existing exempt wells would not
suffice.
Commissioner Wailes said that he is hung up as the Code reads that adequate water and sewer services
cannot be made available to the site to serve the uses permitted within the proposed zone district. He said
that they have not ruled that it is impossible to do this and the applicant has stated that if necessary they
can do an augmentation plan on those wells. Mr. Wailes said that according to Item C that adequate water
and sewer service cannot be made to serve the uses permitted within the proposed zone district is false
because it can be made available, but it is whether or not the applicant wishes to do it at this time or at the
time of site plan review. He added that those resources and that availability is there and does exist.
Karin McDougal, County Attorney, stated that these are the requirements for the change of zone and added
that if public utilities are not to be used the applicant shall submit information that documents the availability
of water and suitability of the site for the sewage disposal system chosen by the applicant. The evidence
shall document the adequacy of the proposed utility service for the uses permitted in the proposed zone
district. Ms. McDougal said that we have evidence that there is not adequacy right now for the proposed
uses and added that she believes there is an issue with that we are approving a change of zone, we don't
know what the use is going to be and it doesn't matter what the current use is. It matters what the proposed
uses are and all the proposed uses under 1-2, we don't have the adequacy from the State that says these
wells will do it. She believes that there is a problem with compliance with the Weld County Code when it
comes to the change of zone.
Commissioner Wailes asked what the evidence is. Mr. Gathman said that the application referred to the
two (2) exempt wells that they are going to use for this property. Then we received the referral from the
State saying that won't work. Mr. Gathman added that the applicant did not talk about the option of getting
water from the City of Brighton or maybe a new augmented well.
Commissioner White asked if industrial bathrooms are different than commercial bathrooms. He said that
they are not proposing any new businesses but that is why we have the site plan review. Commissioner
Guderjahn said it isn't bathrooms but uses in general and the things that are allowed. She added that once
we change the zoning to industrial there are a lot more things that are allowed to be on that piece of property
automatically and you have to have proof that the water is there prior to building or developing.
Mr. Eklund said that the entire site is fully built out for oil and gas. In order to add water taps or spigots they
would have to pull a permit and they believe the industrial uses in the office space is the use. If someone
came in that needed additional industrial uses then they would have to go through a process with the County
and at that time they would have to review the water source.
Commissioner Guderjahn asked that if the applicant is asking for approval for a change of zone for the
exact same thing that is already being used for why not stay with the zoning that is already there. Mr.
Eklund said that they have a vacancy and two prospective tenants that would lease the vacancy but it
wouldn't require any additional water relative to what they already have.
Max Nader, Planning Services, stated that the request is to change the zoning from Agricultural to Industrial
Zoning. He said the definitions of industrial and commercial for the state regarding the water is different
than our definition of commercial and industrial in the Weld County Code. However, when you change the
zone to Industrial you are opening the door to industrial style uses. You are not going to a change of zone
to industrial to do commercial uses. If that were the case you would be proposing commercial zone district
and maybe the state's reaction would be a little different when it comes to the well and the usage of it. Staff
5
is looking at this through a big picture and asked if we are setting up this property for future issues if it is
approved for industrial zoning without adequate water. If they could connect with Brighton, that problem
would be resolved. Mr. Nader added that the surrounding area is Brighton and we want to create infill and
work with our municipalities. He said that there are many different opinions regarding the adequacy of
water and at what process it should take place but at this time, Staff has presented the case to the Planning
Commission and we feel that there is not adequate water at this time for the proposed change to the
industrial zone district.
Mr. Parko said that they do believe there is adequate water and it is demonstrated through these well
permits as long as it is used for indoor use only. He added that you could actually have an industrial user
come on the property and as long as all the industrial use is being used as indoor use only, those wells are
still sufficient.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Conditions of Approval and if they are in
agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Motion: Forward Case COZ24-0005 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval.
Michael Wailes made a motion of recommending approval citing Section 23-2-30.A.1 and said that the
properties are fully developed and the surrounding properties are industrial in nature and he believes the
existing USR supports the current and proposed use.
With regard to Section 23-2-30.A.2 he believes that this is an industrial neighborhood and is located in an
opportunity zone and the compatibility is already established as Brighton's future land use map supports it.
With Section 23-2-30.A.3, Mr. Wailes said that the current well permits are acceptable and adequate for
the planned and existing uses. Future use can be addressed through a site plan review permit, otherwise,
he feels that it puts an undue burden on the applicant to change a well that currently isn't needed.
In regard to Section 23-2-30.A.4 and Section 23-2-30.A.5 Mr. Wailes believes there are no impacts to these
sections and it doesn't apply to this application.
Michael Palizzi seconded the motion, citing Section 23-2-30.A.1 and said he believes it does fit well. Mr.
Palizzi referred to Section 23-2-30.A.3 and said that he thinks there are multiple options that can be made
available to serve these uses as is.
The Chair called for the vote.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 5, No = 2, Abstain = 0).
Yes: Barney Hammond, Cindy Beemer, Michael Palizzi, Michael Wailes, Pamela Edens.
No: Butch White, Virginia Guderjahn.
Commissioner Guderjahn cited Section 23-2-30.A.1 and referred to Staff's point that we are trying not to
create pockets and this area is well within Brighton's area and believes it would be better addressed through
Brighton's process. With regard to Section 23-2-30.A.3, Ms. Guderjahn is not in agreement with the
applicant that there is adequate water and feels that the Division of Water Resources states as permitted
these wells would not be allowed for industrial uses unless a permit allowing such is first obtained.
Commissioner White said that he believes we are creating a pocket as well and that's why we have these
Intergovernmental Agreements with the municipalities. He finds the whole water question is something that
we need to work on because he doesn't understand the different types of wells and feels that there is
availability of water but it needs to go before the site pan review process.
6
The Chair called a recess at 3:33 and reconvened the hearing at 3:45 p.m.
Case Number:
Applicant:
Planner:
Request:
Legal Description:
Location:
USR21-0024
R21-0024
St. Scholastica Catholic Parish in Erie
Chris Gathman
A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Church
(church, associated classroom, rectory and office spaces), outside of subdivisions
and historic townsites in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
Subdivision Exemption SUBX13-0012, being part of the SE1/4 of Section 31,
Township 2 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
North of and adjacent to State Highway 52; approximately 3,100 feet east of
County Road 1.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, presented Case USR21-0024, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The existing residence will be remodeled to serve as a rectory and contain
parish offices. The existing warehouse that formerly served as a print shop will be remodeled into a
classroom and religious education center. An existing garage and pole building will remain. The pole barn
will potentially be utilized for storage. The applicant is proposing to add a 4,500 square foot building to
serve as a new church facility. Mr. Gathman noted that no correspondence or phone calls have been
received from surrounding property owners regarding this project.
Mr. Gathman provided Environmental Health's review of the public water and sanitary sewer requirements.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application along with conditions of
approval and development standards.
Fr. Robert Wedow, 575 Wall Street, Erie, Colorado, stated that St. Scholastica has been part of Erie for
125 years. Fr. Wedow said that they have the need to expand as the Town of Erie is growing.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR21-0024 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval,
Moved by Cindy Beemer, Seconded by Barney Hammond.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Barney Hammond, Butch White, Cindy Beemer, Michael Palizzi, Michael Wailes, Pamela Edens,
Virginia Guderjahn.
Case Number: COZ24-0002
Applicant: WW, LLC
Planner: Diana Aungst
Request: Change of Zone from the A (Agricultural) Zone District to the C-3 (Business
Commercial) Zone District.
Legal Description: Lot B Recorded Exemption RECX16-0076; being part of the W1/2 SE1/4 of Section
33, Township 1 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location: North of and adjacent to County Road 2; approximately 0.5 miles east of County
Road 17.
Diana Aungst, Planning Services, presented Case COZ24-0002, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Ms. Aungst noted that five (5) surrounding property owners submitted letters of
objection outlining concerns regarding an increase in traffic, taking of agricultural land, potential visual
impacts, noise and odor, and the incompatibility with surrounding properties. Ms. Aungst provided
Environmental Health's review of the public water and sanitary sewer requirements. The Department of
Planning Services recommends approval of this application along with conditions of approval.
7
Chadwin Cox, Western Engineering Consultants, 127 South Denver Avenue, Ft. Lupton, Colorado, stated
that he is representing the applicants. He stated that the applicants are requesting a change of zone to C-
3 (Business Commercial). Mr. Cox said that the adjacent road, County Road 2, is intended to be a four -
lane roadway in the future and is classified as an arterial road in Adams County.
Mr. Cox said that the applicant is proposing to utilize the current 5 -acre storage yard that is already screened
and fenced and to use the existing facilities for a construction contractor storage yard. Mr. Cox said that
they are requesting this rezoning application to be reviewed on the merits of the Weld County Code, Weld
County Comprehensive Plan the intent that the opportunity zones created when the County updated their
codes and guiding documents.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Michael Wailes is recusing himself from this case as Ms. Shea represents an organization that he is a
shareholder in.
Stacy Shea, Otis and Bettingfield, 2125 Honeybee Drive Windsor, Colorado, stated that she is the attorney
representing property owners within the vicinity of the site. Ms. Shea said that they disagree that this
change of zone is compatible. She said that the majority of the surrounding area is agriculture and there
are two (2) parcels that are zoned commercial so it seems like it is slowly making it compatible with
commercial zoning. Ms. Shea said that in 2019, Weld County denied USR17-0016 due to its incompatibility
with existing uses of the surrounding parcels and the negative impacts such development would have on
traffic. Now, County Staff is recommending approval for this change of zone stating that these are no longer
factors that would lend to denial. Despite the prior approval of two zoning applications in recent years there
is still predominantly ag land. She said that they are not seeing the change of the tide to make it a more
commercial area but rather the opposite with this being a residential area in Weld and Adams Counties.
Ms. Shea said that the elements that lead to the ultimate denial in the USR still exist today and requested
that the proposed change of zone also be denied.
Commissioner Palizzi asked Ms. Shea to speak to the comment made about the applicant's responses not
being helpful. Ms. Shea said that for the most part there was no real attempt or suggestion of ways that
the properties could work together to come to a mutually beneficial conclusion.
Mr. Cox said that the changes to the Weld County Comp Plan and opportunity zones were created because
the commercial and industrial uses you could previously be permitted for are no longer applicable. Mr. Cox
said that they are open to conversations on mitigating any concerns with the neighbors.
Karl Wiscombe, 9695 Cherryvale Drive, said that he appreciates the concern of the neighbors and
information shared by planning staff. He provided the history of acquiring their property and the denials on
proposals that they have submitted. He said that all they want to do is run their business in compliance
with the Weld County Code and be good neighbors.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Conditions of Approval and if they are in
agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Motion: Forward Case COZ24-0002 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval with the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial.
Moved by Cindy Beemer, stating that it does not comply with Section 23-2-30.A.2 of being compatible with
the surrounding land uses. Ms. Beemer said that she feels despite the opportunity zone being created
there, she doesn't feel the rezoning of this parcel is compatible.
Seconded by Pamela Edens stating that she agrees that it is not compatible with the surrounding land
uses.
8
The Chair called for the vote.
Vote: Motion failed (summary: Yes = 2, No = 4, Abstain = 0).
Yes: Cindy Beemer, Pamela Edens.
No: Barney Hammond, Butch White, Michael Palizzi, Virginia Guderjahn.
Absent: Michael Wailes.
Commissioner Palizzi said that although he may not agree with the placement of the opportunity zone, it is
there.
Commissioner Guderjahn stated that she agrees that the opportunity zone is there so therefore it does fit
with Section 23-2-30.A.2 that it is compatible.
Motion: Forward Case COZ24-0002 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, Moved by Michael Palizzi,
Seconded by Barney Hammond.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 4, No = 2, Abstain = 0).
Yes: Barney Hammond, Butch White, Michael Palizzi, Virginia Guderjahn.
No: Cindy Beemer, Pamela Edens.
Absent: Michael Wailes.
Commissioner Palizzi stated that the opportunity zone in this location is a tough situation, but it is there so
he is voting for approval.
Commissioner White stated that it is an opportunity zone and there is commercial nearby and also located
on an arterial roadway.
The Chair asked the public if there were other items of business that they would like to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
Meeting adjourned at 5:07 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Y/4A6tgiYl..
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
9
Hello