HomeMy WebLinkAbout20211081.tiffSUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, April 20, 2021
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,
Elijah Hatch, at 12:30 pm.
Roll Call.
Present: Troy Mellon, Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Sam Gluck, Skip Holland, Tom Cope.
Absent/Excused: Butch White, Dwaine Barclay
Also Present: Diana Aungst, Michael Hall, and Angela Snyder, Department of Planning Services; Lauren
Light, Department of Health; Melissa King, and Zack Roberson, Department of Public Works; Bob Choate,
County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Motion: Approve the April 6, 2021 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by Skip Holland,
Seconded by Sam Gluck. Motion passed unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: COZ21-0001
APPLICANT: HARLEY AND PATRICIA TROYER
PLANNER: MICHAEL HALL
REQUEST: CHANGE OF ZONE FROM THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT TO THE
1-3 (HEAVY INDUSTRIAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PART N2SE4 SECTION 7, T2N, R66W OF THE 6T" P.M., WELD COUNTY,
COLORADO.
LOCATION: SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 22.5; EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR
25.5; WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO STATE HIGHWAY 85.
Commissioner Stille noted that he knows the applicants and has bought and sold items through the Troyer
Auction. He feels that he can be unbiased in this case.
Michael Hall, Planning Services, presented Case COZ21-0001, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Mr. Hall noted that this site is located within a quarter -mile of a municipality.
Development of these properties are typically encouraged to annex into a municipality; however, this
property is also located within the Weld County Opportunity Zone, in this instance defined as being within
one-half mile on either side of a US Highway.
Mr. Hall stated that no correspondence or phone calls were received from surrounding property owners.
He added that Platteville was not interested in annexation; however, Ft. Lupton was interested in annexation
but the applicant was not interested during the pre -application phase of the case. During the referral
process, Ft. Lupton submitted comments that does not support the change of zone to the 1-3 (Heavy
Industrial) Zone District as this area is designated as Commercial/Transition on the Ft. Lupton
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Mr. Hall added that Ft. Lupton has annexed and zoned a
nearby parcel to C-2 being their Heavy Commercial Zone District and is located approximately 0.15 miles
north of the subject site.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application along with conditions of
approval and plat notes. Mr. Hall stated that this property is located within a Weld County Opportunity Zone
and being adjacent to Highway 85, both being factors that readily support industrial zoning.
Commissioner Mellon referred to the application where it identifies that it was not in violation and asked if
in Staff's inspection should it have been placed in violation. Mr. Hall said when the application was initially
submitted, the applicants were currently operating under the current USR which is permitted for an existing
auction facility but for limited agricultural uses. Sometime during the processing of this application, the
applicant may have gotten a little premature in developing this site. He added that a lot of the concerns will
be mitigated as part of the pending Site Plan Review and staff has built in several conditions on the Staff
Report.
CQMMVA:(:O,+ QnS 2021 - 1O��
Oy/� 'f21
Commissioner Mellon asked if the 1-3 is the only county zoning that would accept these uses by right. Mr.
Hall replied that these uses would be permittable in the C-3 (Business Commercial), 1-2 (Medium Industrial)
and 1-3 (Heavy Industrial) Zone District. He added that all three options were presented to the applicant in
the pre -application meeting and 1-3 is what they ended up selecting.
Commissioner Cope referred to the new code changes and asked if the other USRs that are in the
neighborhood wanted to do any sort of amendments they would have to go through the same type of change
of zone. Mr. Hall said that unless the USR's specific request language that was permitted is still retained
as an allowed or permittable use in the agricultural zone district, they would still be able to operate and be
amended; however those uses which have been removed as part of 2019 Ordinance would not be allowed
in the agricultural zone and would have to go through the change of zone and repermitting process to meet
the code.
Melissa King, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic and access to the site. Ms. King said that
subsequent to the submittal of this application the applicant has obtained two (2) permitted existing access
points onto County Road 25.5. Therefore, she requested the removal of Condition of Approval 2.J and Plat
Notes 3.5 and 3.7.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, and on -
site dust control.
Chad Cox, Western Engineering Consultants, 127 South Denver Avenue, Ft. Lupton, stated that he is
representing the applicants. Mr. Cox stated that Troyer Auctioneers has had a long-standing business and
through covid and the Weld County code changes their business is also changing. He added that are
moving from on -site auctions to virtual auctions. They are anticipating 14 auctions per year. He said that
there is no plan or need at this time for water and sewer but all the steps have been taken to prove that
those sources can be provided.
Mr. Cox added that they have had discussions with Ft. Lupton on the types of business that could occur
and have verbally entered into a preliminary pre -annexation agreement that would require the owner (both
current and future owners) of the property and stipulates that any uses of special use under 1-3 will have to
be approved through the City of Ft. Lupton. He added that they believe this is a fair agreement with the
City of Ft. Lupton.
Commissioner Holland asked why they chose 1-3 for zoning instead of the other options. Mr. Cox said that
1-3 gives the property the most options and since it was one of the allowed zones it was chosen.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Zoe Stieber, Mayor of Ft. Lupton, stated that they objected to the 1-3 zoning because this is the entrance to
their city and they wanted an attractive gateway into their town. She added that they felt the commercial
zoning would have been a better choice and more in alignment with Ft. Lupton's future needs. Ms. Stieber
said that they have had a nice discussion with the applicants and things are moving towards a good
resolution. She added that the screening has helped a lot and they are in favor of a pre -annexation
agreement.
Todd Hodges, City of Ft. Lupton, 130 South McKinley Avenue, stated that they have worked hard to clean
up property on County Road 22.5 and zoned it to C-2 as it is a transitional area in their comprehensive plan.
They have made good headway and appreciate talking with the applicants and feel that they are moving
toward the right direction. Mr. Hodges requested that a condition of approval be added prior to recording
the change of zone that would allow them to work out a pre -annexation agreement. He added that they
are not adverse with the site plan that they are proposing as it fits in their C-2 zoning.
Commissioner Mellon asked the Mayor if it is her position, based on the current discussions, that they are
withdrawing their objection. Ms. Stieber said that if the pre -annexation agreement is in place, then yes.
Commissioner Gluck asked if it is a deal breaker if they continue with 1-3 zoning. Ms. Stieber said that
according to their Comprehensive Plan it would not meet the existing designations. Mr. Gluck asked if they
would allow some negotiations or amend something in the municipal plan to allow them as the landowners
to do that. Ms. Stieber said that they are always willing to talk.
Commissioner Holland asked that if the Board of County Commissioners doesn't agree to the change of
zoning, would that cause the applicants to go towards annexation. Mr. Hall said that should the change of
zone be denied, the applicant has the right to operate under the existing approved USR Permit from 2008;
however, should they wish to expand the facility then an alternative option would be for them to explore
annexation, zoning and development of the property within the Ft. Lupton city limits.
Mr. Cox said that they have had a lot of projects in Weld County and added that with annexing into a city
there is cost and time. He added that they have a great working relationship with the City of Ft. Lupton.
However, for the applicant's business they have some clients that are looking to do business elsewhere
without the applicant's opportunity to continue forward. So, in the effort of time, it was decided to stay within
Weld County. In regard to the choice of 1-3, it was available and he said that he should have done a little
more homework as the concerns that Ft. Lupton has for the special uses. However, they believe that the
choice of 1-3 gives them financially the best value and opportunity for that property.
Harley Troyer, 10910 CR 28, Ft. Lupton, stated that after visiting with the neighbors around this property
about the options of zoning or annexation they pushed back on annexation and encouraged him to not
annex. He said that he didn't want to upset his neighbors so that is why they chose to stay within Weld
County and pursue the 1-3 zoning.
Commissioner Gluck said that he appreciated that it is your land and would like to keep all options open
down the road. Mr. Troyer said that they do not intend to have a salvage yard or mess up the neighborhood.
Mr. Hall noted that a commercial salvage yard would be a USR in the 1-2 and 1-3 zone district so it would
require additional approval. He added that many of the allowable site plan review uses are fairly consistent
across 1-2, 1-3, and C-3.
The Chair asked Staff if there are any changes to the resolution. Mr. Hall referred to the request from the
City of Ft. Lupton regarding a pre -annexation agreement and has language if the Planning Commission
wants to add it. Commissioner Cope felt that could be presented to the Board of County Commissioners
for determination. Commissioner Mellon agreed and said that the agreement might finalized by the time
the Board of County Commissioners hear this case.
Ms. King requested deletion of Condition of Approval 2.J and Plat Notes 3.5 and 3.7.
Motion: Delete Condition of Approval 2.J and Plat Notes 3.5 and 3.7, as recommended by Staff, Moved
by Gene Stille, Seconded by Sam Gluck. Motion passed unanimously.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Plat Notes and Conditions of Approval
and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Commissioner Mellon said that in the municipal world they zone to intent and not to the highest zone. He
tends not to concur with the 1-3 zoning.
Commissioner Gluck stated that he believes a landowner should be able to do what he wants to with his
property.
Motion: Forward Case COZ21-0001 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval and plat notes with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, Moved by Gene
Stille, Seconded by Sam Gluck.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 6, No = 1, Abstain = 0).
Yes: Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Sam Gluck, Skip Holland, Tom Cope.
No: Troy Mellon.
CASE NUMBER: PUDZ21-0001
APPLICANT: LANDOWNERS OF LAKOTA LAKES RANCH PUD, C/O JAMIE MCGILL
PLANNER: DIANA AUNGST
REQUEST: AMENDED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CHANGE OF ZONE OF
CORRECTED LAKOTA LAKES (PZ-594) TO ALLOW ONE (1) SECOND SINGLE-
FAMILY DWELLING UNIT PER LOT IN THE PLANNED UNIT DEVLEOPMENT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ALL LOTS IN LAKOTA LAKES RANCH PUD CORR; BEING PART OF SECTION
29, T5N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 54; EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 15.
Diana Aungst, Planning Services, presented Case PUDZ21-0001, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Ms. Aungst noted that that no correspondence was received from surrounding
property owners in regard to this application. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval
of this application along with conditions of approval and plat notes.
Commissioner Holland asked if this request is being raised from the whole subdivision or an individual lot
in the subdivision. Ms. Aungst said that Ms. McGill approached the HOA and then the entire subdivision
wished to make the same request.
Commissioner Cope asked to clarify that the variance for water for the second home would be only if the
second home is no larger than 1000 square feet. Ms. Aungst said that Little Thompson Water District will
allow a second home if the size is less than 1000 square feet. However, the variance that would need to
be acquired would be if the second home was greater than 1000 square feet.
Zack Roberson, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access to the site and drainage conditions
for the site. Mr. Roberson stated that County Road 54, which is Freedom Parkway, is identified as having
an Access Control Plan. Included in this area is a capital improvements project to the west of this PUD that
will widen the roadway and bridge expansion on County Road 54. He added that during the review of this
application it was noted that back in 2014 the applicant was issued an access permit to access County
Road 54 directly. The Access Control Plan, which was completed in 2018, identified this access point to
be closed and relocated to the internal paved road for the PUD. He recommended to adhere to the Access
Control Plan for the speed and expansion of that roadway.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements.
Commissioner Cope referred to Lot 7 and according to the Assessor's map it includes two addresses. He
asked for clarification if there are already two homes there. Ms. Aungst said that he was correct and added
that the original address on Lakota Lakes Lane was the one that was established when the original
subdivision was created and then in 2014 Lot 1 built their home. She added that when they built their home
they requested access directly onto County Road 54 and when they did that the address changed to be
consistent with that access point. Ms. Aungst stated that the second address does not have any reference
to the fact that there is going to be two homes out there.
Jamie McGill, 7008 CR 54, Johnstown, Colorado, said that she is the owner of Lot 1 and when covid hit
there was some concern about distancing of loved ones and caring for people. She added that they
received 100% approval from the HOA in July and started the process then for limited use for family
members. She added that each lot is two to four acres in size.
Ms. McGill said that they were just notified of the access change on April 7th and added that she attended
the meeting in 2018 for Freedom Parkway. She said that the access is also the access for the Farmers
Ditch and believe that they would object to it. She added that they do have a meeting with Public Works
on April 23rd for follow up discussions. Ms. McGill said that the access was moved in 2014 based on the
easements and the concern of the safety of the utility boxes in place. She added that at the 2018 meeting,
they were assured that the County would not be taking that access and that they would provide a lane for
it because of the different uses. Ms. McGill said that it is a private gate with security cameras and have
upgraded the system in March. She said that they are definitely willing to work with the County and relocate
the access, if necessary, but request that it be moved at the time when construction begins. She provided
receipts of updating the current access and also has gotten financial estimates of relocating the access.
Commissioner Stille asked if the easement along County Road 54 is 140 -feet. Mr. Roberson said that
County Road 54 is an arterial roadway with 170 feet right-of-way. He added that it is currently being
designed for a four -lane roadway. Commissioner Stille asked the applicant to address the safety issue with
4
this access and the kind of traffic going onto County Road 54. Ms. McGill said that at the 2018 meeting
they understood that they would have to move the gate back and a turning lane would be installed.
Corrwnissioner Cope understands the point of access and is shocked that the county ever approved it to
begin with. He added that it looks like it is less than 40 feet from the center of Ms. McGill's access to County
Road 15 and generally they want 330 feet spacing. Mr. Cope believes that when Freedom Parkway goes
through he agrees that the access should be closed for health and safety issues. Ms. McGill said that she
is not opposed to working things out, but was just startled that the request come on April 711 and they had
no indication. She added that they upgraded their system last month and Public Works is asking them to
assume all liability financially and all that it entails so they are requesting a meeting with Public Works.
Commissioner Holland said that he doesn't understand why they are talking about solving this access issue
when the request is for a second dwelling unit.
Bob Choate, County Attorney, said this is a recommendation of approval that has been made by the
Department of Public Works to close and reclaim an access and then add an access onto an internal
subdivision road. He added that all properties within a PUD are required to have access to an internal
subdivision road. Mr. Choate said that Ms. McGill is pointing out that in her circumstance this will have a
substantial financial effect on her. He suggested that the Planning Commission talk about this after public
comment in determining whether you want to amend or delete the condition of approval that Public Works
is requesting.
Mr. Roberson said that when a plat is proposed to be modified, staff is reviewing that and comparing it to
current code. The access was granted in 2014 and the Access Control Plan was granted in 2018 so the
case coming through now does not meet current code. He added that the current access does not meet
current code which is why the recommendation of applying and adhering to the Access Control Plan and
also being consistent with Chapter 27 which states that all lots for a PUD shall be served by an internal
road. He further added that they are requesting to be consistent with the rest of their neighbors using the
internal roadway.
Commissioner Ford asked if the County would incur further costs if we delay the relocation of the access.
Mr. Roberson said if this project were to not to advance and the county was the one driving that relocation
then the county would be on the hook for incurring that cost. Since the county is not the driving force for
their project then he is not sure how that would be handled.
The Chair asked the County Attorney what the options are for this request. Mr. Choate said that there is a
condition of approval which requires the applicants to address the concerns that have been outlined in Mr.
Roberson's referral. If you agree with his recommendation, you do not need to make any extra motion
related to it. If you disagree with his request, then you can move to amend that condition of approval.
Commissioner Holland asked if it is appropriate to delay this and have the applicant work with Public Works.
Mr. Choate said that you have the option of continuing to a date certain. He added that the Board of County
Commissioners would continue their date as well.
Mr. Roberson reminded the Planning Commission that the Access Control Plan is agreed on by eight (8)
municipalities and if the County Commissioners would like to amend that it would need to go through the
full amendment process and it would be difficult for Public Works to support that amendment.
Commissioner Cope asked if there would be any objections to delaying the relocation of the access at the
time of construction of Freedom Parkway instead of forcing that to be part of this now. Mr. Roberson said
that his ability is to only follow the code, but they have a meeting schedule on April 23rd
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
John Agnew, 2638 Geranium, Ft. Collins said that he is looking forward to moving to Weld County and is
under contract to purchase Lot 1 from Ms. McGill. The request is for approval to allow second homes. It
seems that Public Works threw something in at the last minute. He added that they are not opposed to
moving the access when the time is right when County Road 54 is widened. There is a concern about how
much property is taken by the road but time is of the essence with the purchase of this property.
5
Benjamin Zander, 7132 Lakota Lakes, said that he lives on Lot 7 and added that all the homeowners got
together and agreed on the second dwelling units. He said that this changed last minute with the location
of the access and should be a separate issue to deal with at the time they deal with the widening of the
road. Mr. Zander said that it shouldn't negatively affect the remaining six lots.
Tara Richardson, 7182 Lakota Lakes, lives on Lot 2 and said that the entrance does affect them all;
however, Ms. McGill said that they will move it and just doesn't think this has anything to do with the second
homes.
Commissioner Hatch said that Mr. Agnew's comments regarding the sale of the property clouded the
application asked to clarify if this lot is for sale. Ms. McGill said that they are under contract and added that
it is in the Agnew's best interest to have a second dwelling unit. She said that they are not opposed to this
but believe that this change in access doesn't apply at this time of the second home request. When the
access needs to be moved at the time of widening Freedom Parkway that it be done then.
Commissioner Cope said that the problem is that for any land use request the County has to look at
everything based on the current County Code and Public Works has done it right. So, the problem is that
it needs to be addressed and resolved in the Resolution today but we don't necessarily have to have the
construction done today. He is in support of the idea that this get changed but not until the construction of
Freedom Parkway.
The Chair referred to the where the utilities are located and asked if there are any requirements by the
County on what the access size or scope of what that access should be. Mr. Roberson said that it could
be a two -track access. He said that it is the applicant's particular driveway so however they are happy with
it. He noted that they are only looking at the access point going off the County Road. Mr. Hatch clarified
that it would have potential to come into compliance by doing minimal improvements and expense.
Commissioner Cope asked Staff where it would be most appropriate to put a time frame of when the access
should be relocated. Mr. Roberson referred to Prior to Recording the Plat 1.C as that is where it is defined
in the referral.
Motion: Amend Condition of Approval 1.C to read "The applicant shall address the concerns of the Public
Works Referral relating to access and that all work to the access shall occur at the time of Freedom Parkway
construction", Moved by Tom Cope, Seconded by Gene Stille.
Mr. Roberson said that with this amendment we also need to add additional language to state the Board of
County Commissioners would have to formally recommend that we modify the Access Control Plan.
Commissioner Cope said that they are not asking for the Access Control Plan to be modified as they are
willing to change the access, they just don't want to do it now.
The Chair called for the vote.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Sam Gluck, Skip Holland, Tom Cope, Troy Mellon.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Conditions of Approval and Plat
Notes and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Motion: Forward Case PUDZ21-0001 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the amended
Conditions of Approval and Plat Notes with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval,
Moved by Troy Mellon, Seconded by Tom Cope.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Sam Gluck, Skip Holland, Tom Cope, Troy Mellon.
Commissioner Stille said that based on Staffs excellent work in Section 27-6-120 and meeting all those
code requirements with professional interaction and is appreciative.
Commissioner Hatch said that he is torn and understands the comprehensive element of what needs to
happen and how things lined up from 2014 to 2018. He appreciates that this needs to happen procedurally.
He referred to Lot 1 being under contract to be sold and added that it clouds the situation for him to where
6
it is not necessarily the property owner's responsibility when they have one year to proceed on finishing
this project. He appreciates the issues at hand of the expenses and the fact that this is scheduled to be
widened anyway. However, in light of the motion and amendment he sees that this can proceed very well
for all individuals.
The Chair called a recess at 2:58 p.m. and reconvened the hearing at 3:10 p.m.
CASE NUMBER: USR21-0004
APPLICANT: WETCO FARMS, INC., C/O SUNSHARE, LLC
PLANNER: DIANA AUNGST
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR A MEDIUM SCALE SOLAR FACILITY OUTSIDE OF
SUBDIVISIONS AND HISTORIC TOWNSITES IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL)
ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: BEING PART OF THE SW4 OF SECTION 20, T4N, R66W OF THE 6TH P.M.,
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO STATE HIGHWAY 60; NORTH OF AND
ADJACENT TO CR 42.
Diana Aungst, Planning Services, presented Case USR21-0004, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Ms. Aungst noted that no correspondence were received from surrounding
property owners; however, two emails were received this morning from Laborers International Union of
North America and has been entered into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends
approval of this application with the attached conditions of approval and development standards.
Zack Roberson, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access to the site and drainage conditions
for the site. A Road Maintenance Agreement will be required during construction only.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Amanda Mack, 1724 Gilpin Street, Denver, Colorado, stated that this facility will add energy to the electricity
grid and Xcel Energy will purchase the energy. She said that this project will be located on 14 acres out of
163.21 acres of dryland. She added that the 2.189 -megawatt facility is enough to power 416 homes. All
surrounding property owners have been contacted and so far there has been no objections. She added
that they will construct a six-foot decorative fence for the full length of the southern project line as well as
8 -foot tall game fencing along the perimeter. The solar facility has a life expectancy of 30 to 35 years during
which the land will lie fallow.
Commissioner Stille asked about the bi-facial panels and asked if this is new technology. Ms. Mack said
that it is new technology and explained that bottom of the panel absorbs from the reflective ground, such
as from snow.
In response to Commissioner Cope's inquiry, Ms. Mack stated that they do not have plans to expand this
facility.
Commissioner Hatch referred to the two type of fences and asked if they will in conjunction with another.
Ms. Mack said it would be in conjunction with each other.
Mr. Hatch referred to the life of the facility of 30 to 35 years and asked how often those modules be replaced
to keep the production or return of investment at the highest level. Ms. Mack said that she would hope the
full 30 years but they would replace the panels as needed for efficiency.
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 USR21-0004 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 Tom Cope, Seconded by Gene Stille.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Sam Gluck, Skip Holland, Tom Cope, Troy Mellon.
CASE NUMBER:
COZ21-0002
APPLICANT:
GERRARD INVESTMENTS, LLC
PLANNER:
ANGELA SNYDER
REQUEST:
CHANGE OF ZONE FROM THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT TO THE
1-3 (HEAVY INDUSTRIAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT B REC EXEMPT RE -4033, PART SW4 SECTION 18, T5N, R67W OF THE
6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION:
EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 13; NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 56.
Troy Mellon said that while he doesn't have a fiduciary interest in this request, he has participated in
response from the Town of Johnstown in the County's referral for comment. Therefore, he said it would be
improper for him to act in a quasi-judicial matter in this case and asked to be excused.
Angela Snyder, Planning Services, presented Case COZ21-0002, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Ms. Snyder said that this site is located within a Weld County Opportunity Zone
between two rail lines and adjacent to an arterial road, within one mile of a federal highway. She noted that
there is controversy over the compatibility with the surrounding land uses. Surrounding properties are a
mix of rural residential, agriculture and industrial uses. Surrounding residential and agricultural property
owners submitted letters expressing concerns relating to the ambiguity of future development, traffic dust
and noise pollution it could bring. Additionally, the Town of Johnstown returned a recommendation of denial
for incompatibility with future plans for the area.
Ms. Snyder provided an overview of how the applicant has met the required criteria according to the Weld
County Code. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application along with
conditions of approval and plat notes.
Melissa King, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic and access to the site.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control during development.
Patrick Groom, 822 7th Street, Greeley, Colorado, attorney for Gerrard Investments. Mr. Groom said that
this project encumbers approximately 39 acres and added that this property is ideally situated for industrial
development. The property is bordered on the north by the Union Pacific Railroad and to the south by the
Great Western Railroad as well. It is also located within one-half mile of State Highway 34 and adjacent to
Colorado Boulevard (CR 13), which is classified by the County as an arterial roadway. Therefore, all of
these features classify this property as a Weld County Opportunity Zone, under the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan. The County has recently adopted a zoning map and pursuant to this map, this
property is designated as an area that should changes to commercial and/or industrial development.
Mr. Groom stated that the change of zone is appropriate for this property because there is an industrial use,
permitted pursuant to the USR and it suits industrial zoning for this property. In order for Mr. Gerrard to
continue to operate and make changes it would have to seek a change of zone to afford them the
opportunity to do so.
Mr. Groom provided aerial views from the site. He doesn't believe that the operations of this subject site
will be seen from Indianhead Estates because of the improvements and mitigation measures which were
adopted on the Rock and Rail property. Since the USR was approved in 2015, they are not aware of a
single complaint regarding this site and regarding the use that Mr. Gerrard has developed on this site that
has been submitted to the County. He added it is because this site can, should, and will continue to operate
as a good neighbor. Mr. Groom provided a list of examples of industrial uses as well as uses that are
allowed by permit or use by right in the 1-3 Zone District. He added that the most intense 1-3 uses are only
authorized by a Use by Special Review (USR).
8
Commissioner Stille referred to concerns of dust, noise, light and asked what they are thinking for heavy
industrial activity. Mr. Groom said that Mr. Gerrard has no plans to change the current use. He added that
the reason they are seeking this change of zone is to allow Mr. Gerrard to continue to operate in
conformance with the code. He stated that under the code changes in 2019, USRs are not allowed on this
property for this current use. Mr. Gerrard is preparing to submit a Site Plan Review and will only reflect the
current use. He added that there are no additional uses included in that Site Plan or contemplated. It is
always possible that there would be an additional use in the future, and if there were to be one an application
will need to be submitted as a Site Plan or as a USR. He added that part of that review is to make sure
that those issues identified are addressed.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
John Cummings, 26700 CR 13, Johnstown, Colorado, stated that his farm property is due south of this
proposed zoning change. He complimented the current facility as it is nice and organized and there is no
noise or other issues from that facility that has impacted the surrounding neighborhood. However, he is
concerned about changing from a USR in the agricultural zone to an 1-3 Zone District that could include a
number of different uses. They consider this zoning to an 1-3 (Heavy Industrial) incompatible with the area,
the community and surrounding residents. They believe this will potentially increase the traffic and other
concerns such as pollutants and contaminants, etc. He added that he is also concerned with air and soil
contamination and how it will affect his farm property.
Janet Ross, 6248 CR 58, Loveland, Colorado, stated that she lives directly south of this site. She added
that Mr. Gerrard has been great neighbors, however, she is concerned about the unforeseeable future. Ms.
Ross stated that they haven't said if there is any access onto County Road 56. If they do access there,
how will that affect the road, traffic, etc. She expressed concern on the number of trucks on that road that
run 24/7 and are very noisy and the hours of operation. She added that they are being vague on what they
will do and haven't addressed any kind of mitigation for lighting, etc. Ms. Ross stated that she does have
a certified organic farm and is concerned with any kind of contamination from development.
Dakota Cotner, 27238 CR 13, Johnstown, Colorado, said that she lives adjacent to the subject property.
She added that the 300 -foot storage building adjacent to her fence line is a concern. Her property is two
acres and added that she is trying to train horses. The entrance to their property is 125 feet from the
entrance into her property so all the traffic impacts them. She added that they have been great neighbors
and appreciates that but is concerned with the future plans of this property and doesn't believe it is
compatible with her residence.
Dave Kisker, 6681 Apache Road, Johnstown, Colorado, represents CLR-34 Neighborhood Association,
referred to the statement that this site is currently an industrial operation and Mr. Kisker noted that it is
basically a parking lot. There is no reason to believe what Mr. Gerrard is doing has to stop. He said that a
parking lot, although it is allowed in the industrial zone is not an industrial use.
Mr. Kisker said that it does not meet the requirements of the Weld County Code because it is not compatible.
He said that because the use is not disclosed and furthermore they heard some prospective claims about
the site plan review process and how it would protect the health, safety and welfare of nearby residents but
the fact is that is not true. He added that the County cannot impose development standards that would do
that. Mr. Kisker stated that the applicant makes no attempt to address the compatibility with the existing
residential land uses with that type of industrial zoning.
Mr. Kisker requested denial of this application because this application does not meet the Code requirement
for compatibility with all of the surrounding uses and all of the potential uses. He added that the area is
primarily residential and agricultural.
Mr. Groom said that he doesn't understand why they refer to vagueness. He stated that Mr. Gerrard does
not intend to change its use and contrary to the allegations, this is not a parking lot. He added that this is
a use that is authorized under the 1-3 zoning. Mr. Kisker is correct that if they don't change anything they
could continue operating under the USR, however, their concern is that changes will be required and when
they are required there is no option under the USR to address those. The only option is to have a change
in zone which allows those modifications to be made in the future.
Mr. Groom said that no one disputes that there are residential uses in the area, but is the use on this
property going to have any impact on Indianhead Estates. He noted Mr. Worthley's property is definitely
more impacted by this property, but when you are looking at compatibility you don't take surrounding uses
out of consideration. Mr. Worthley's property, today, is surrounded by 90 acres of 1-3 zoning operated by
Rock and Rail. In all of the uses in totality, the change to 1-3 is not going to create an incompatible situation
between that property and the surrounding property uses.
Mr. Groom referred to Ms. Ross's concern of truck traffic 24 hours a day and is unsure if she was suggesting
that was caused by Mr. Gerrard, but it is not and added that it is caused by other industrial and commercial
uses in this area. He emphasized that Mr. Gerrard is not proposing any changes to its operations. He
added that those are ultimately site plan considerations and not zoning considerations and the only issue
today is whether there should be a change of zone on this property.
Commissioner Gluck asked what is done on this property right now. Mr. Groom said that the Gerrard Family
has a number of businesses including their excavation company and this site was permitted under the USR
to operate their excavation company. All of the Gerrard businesses are operated out of the office building
on site. Additionally, they store all of the equipment and materials used in the excavation business on this
site and so the equipment leaves in the morning and comes back to the site at the end of the day.
Commissioner Holland referred to recent changes made to the Weld County Comprehensive Plan and
recalled that it was quite a change for Weld County. Ms. Snyder said that Weld County did not have a
Comprehensive Plan Map so that was a big change but what really didn't change was the principles behind
the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Holland said that he doesn't think that there is anything in the five (5) criteria that in order to
consider zone change we should understand something about the actual use being proposed. He added
that it doesn't say that in the code. Ms. Snyder said that is the idea of zoning in general is that you have
determined a body of uses in zone districts that you feel are appropriate and have similar degrees of
intensity and uses and impacts on the neighbors. Mr. Holland said he is used to reviewing projects that are
proposed and planned and the uncomfortable nature is talking about a zone change but doesn't know what
the use is going to be.
Commissioner Cope said that Weld County is going to more of the model that almost all planning
departments have implemented. He added that the majority of cities and counties generally have zoning
already created throughout their areas and now you have to fit into that zoning. Mr. Cope said that it is a
change and uncomfortable for the people, but these change of zones are not required to say what they are
doing but they are proposing to do a certain project there and they have to follow these regulations. If they
are proposing something with more intensity or impact then they will have to go through the Use by Special
Review (USR). Mr. Cope stated that he believes it is good and we are progressing to where the rest of the
world has been. He added that it will take some time to get used to it.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Plat Notes and Conditions of Approval and if
they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Motion: Forward Case COZ21-0002 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval and Plat Notes with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, Moved by Tom
Cope, Seconded by Sam Gluck.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 6).
Yes: Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Sam Gluck, Skip Holland, Tom Cope.
Absent: Troy Mellon.
Commissioner Holland expressed to the applicants the importance of taking care of the neighbors and
trying to recognize their needs as best that can be met.
Commissioner Stille believes that Staff has been consistent with the code and this project is in compliance
with Chapter 23 as well as Chapter 22 and meets all the goals.
The Chair asked the public if there were other items of business that they would like to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
10
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
Meeting adjourned at 5:19 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
11
Hello