HomeMy WebLinkAbout20194032.tiffEXHIBIT
2
9
BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO. PLANNING COMMISSION
![5g (q -OO4O
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Elijah Hatch, that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT
PLANNER.
REQUEST.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOCATION:
USR19-0040
WW. LLC
KIM OGLE
A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE REVIEW OF A PREVIOUSLY DENIED APPLICATION
FOR LAND USE, USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT. USR17-0016 (DENIED
JUNE 21. 2017), FOR ANY USE PERMITTED AS A USE BY RIGHT, ACCESSORY
USE. OR USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW IN THE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL
ZONE DISTRICTS (RV AND BOAT STORAGE. A DUMP STATION. ENCLOSED
SELF -STORAGE AND THE PARKING AND STAGING OF TRASH CONTAINERS,
ROLL -OFFS. AND VEHICLES AND/OR EQUIPMENT TO PICK UP AND DELIVER
SAME AND FOUR (4) INDIVIDUAL FLEX OFFICE BUILDINGS) PROVIDED THAT
THE PROPERTY IS NOT A LOT IN AN APPROVED OR RECORDED
SUBDIVISION PLAT OR PART OF A MAP OR PLAN FILED PRIOR TO
ADOPTION OF ANY REGULATIONS CONTROLLING SUBDIVISIONS IN THE A
(AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LOT B REC EXEMPT RECX16-0076. PART W2 SE4 SECTION 33, Ti N R67W OF
THE 6TH P.M , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 2; APPROXIMATELY 0.5 MILES EAST OF
CR 17.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has demonstrated that a substantial
change has occurred and recommends approval with conditions of the applicant's request_
2. The Weld County Board of County Commissioner's Resolution recorded February 14, 2018 denied the
Applicant's Use by Special Review Request (USR17-0016), for the following reasons:
The Applicant failed to demonstrate that the proposal is consistent with in Chapter 22 and any other
applicable code provisions or ordinances in effect. The application lacked adequate evidence
demonstrating how the application meets the Comprehensive Plan. Section 23-2-230. B.1- The Board
finds that the proposed uses are not consistent with Chapter 22, specifically in the following Code
References: Section 22-2-20 Agriculture Goals and Policies (A.Goal 1. A.Goal 2, A.Policy 2.2,
A.Policy 2.3. A.Goal 4, A.Policy 7.1, A.Policy 7.2. A.Goal 8, A.Policy 8.3. A.Goal 9, A. Policy 9.2)
A.Goal 1 states: "Respect and encourage the continuation of agricultural land uses and agricultural
operations for purposes which enhance the economic health and sustainability of agriculture." A.Goal
2 states: "Continue the commitment to viable agriculture in Weld County through mitigated protection
of established (and potentially expanding) agricultural uses from other proposed new uses that would
hinder the operations of the agricultural enterprises." A.Policy 2.2 states: "Allow commercial and
industrial uses, which are directly related to or dependent upon agriculture, to locate within agricultural
areas when the impact to surrounding properties is minimal or mitigated and where adequate services
and infrastructure are currently available or reasonably obtainable. These commercial and industrial
uses should be encouraged to locate in areas that minimize the removal of agricultural land from
production." A. Policy 2.3 states: "Encourage development of agriculture and agriculturally related
businesses and industries in underdeveloped areas where existing resources can support a higher
level of economic activity. Agricultural businesses and industries include those related to ranching,
confined animal production, farming, greenhouse industries, landscape production and agri-tainment
or agri-tourism uses." A.Goal 4 states: "Promote a quality environment which is free of derelict
vehicles. refuse. litter and other unsightly materials." A. Policy 7.1 states: "County land use regulations
should support commercial and industrial uses that are directly related to. or dependent upon,
agriculture. to locate within the agricultural areas. when the impact to surrounding properties is
minimal, or can be mitigated. and where adequate services are currently available or reasonably
obtainable." A. Policy 7.2 states: "Conversion of agricultural land to nonurban residential, commercial
and industrial uses should be accommodated when the subject site is in an area that can support
RESOLUTION USR19-0040
WW, LLC
PAGE 2
such development and should attempt to be compatible with the region." A.Goal 8 states: "Ensure that
adequate services and facilities are currently available or reasonably obtainable to accommodate the
requested new land use change for more intensive development." A.Policy 8.3 states: The land use
applicants should demonstrate that the roadway facilities associated with the proposed development
are adequate in width, classification and structural capacity to serve the proposed land use change."
A.Goal 9 states: "Reduce potential conflicts between varying land uses in the conversion of traditional
agricultural lands to other land uses." A.Policy 9.2 states: "Consider the individuality of the
characteristics and the compatibility of the region of the County that each proposed land use change
affects, while avoiding requirements that do not fit the land use for that specific region."
The Board finds that the proposal is not consistent with these Agricultural Goals and Policies and in
support, finds as follows. The proposed operation would have Recreational Vehicle (RV) and boat
storage of 35 to 40 vehicles per acre, a dump station, more than 500 self -storage units commercial
size trash containers (roll offs), and vehicles and equipment associated with the operation. At present,
the area does not include operations of this scale. Most surrounding operations include some
agricultural component. The site is large and would have no agricultural or residential component in an
agricultural area. Of the 27 surrounding parcels, 50% are residential. Noise levels would be raised to
commercial or industrial levels in an area which presently has residential noise levels. The Planning
Commission determined that the proposed operation was not compatible with the comprehensive plan
and recommended denial. County Road 2 cannot support the proposed operation, there is no plan to
expand County Road 2 in the near future, and the Applicant was not willing to expand the road as
would be necessary to support the operation. The application was not amended between the Planning
Commission hearing and the Board of County Commissioner hearing. There are impacts to the
surrounding properties which cannot be adequately mitigated.
Section 22-2-40 Urban Development Goals and Policies (UD.Goal 1)
UD.Goal 1 states: "Concentrate urban development within existing municipalities, an approved
Intergovernmental Agreement urban growth area, the Regional Urbanization Areas, County Urban
Growth Boundary Areas, Urban Development Nodes or where urban infrastructureis currently available
or reasonably obtainable."
The Board finds that the proposal is not consistent with this Urban Development Goals and in support,
finds as follows. The site is located equidistant between the cities of Brighton and Northglenn and is
not located adjacent to or within the intergovernmental agreement boundary of any municipality. It is
not located in a Regional Urbanization Area. The proposed operation is urban in nature.
Section 22-2-80 Industrial Development Goals and Policies (I.Goal 1, I.Goal 6). (.Goal 1 states:
"Promote the location of industrial uses within municipalities, County Urban Growth Boundary areas,
Intergovernmental Agreement urban growth areas, growth management areas as defined in
municipalities' comprehensive plans, the Regional Urbanization Areas, Urban Development Nodes,
along railroad infrastructure or where adequate services are currently available or reasonably
obtainable." I.Goal 6 states: "Minimize the incompatibilities that occur between industrial uses and
surrounding properties."
The Board finds that the proposal is not consistent with these Industrial Goals and in support, finds as
follows: the proposed operation is commercial and industrial in nature. The site is rural residential and
agriculture in nature. The site is not located within any Regional Urbanization Area, Urban
Development Node, Intergovernmental Agreement or Coordinated Planning Agreement area, and is
not located close to any Weld County municipality. The RV and boat storage primarily would serve
customers in municipalities that are not permitted to park their vehicles at their homes. The proposed
operation will not serve the neighbors.
Section 22-2-100 Commercial Development Goals and Policies (C.Goal 1, C.Goal 2, C.Goal 5).
C.Goal 1 states: "Promote the location of commercial uses within municipalities, County Urban Growth
Boundary areas, Intergovernmental Agreement urban growth areas, growth management areas as
defined in municipal comprehensive plans, the Regional Urbanization Areas, Urban Development
Nodes or where adequate services are currently available or reasonably obtainable." C.Goal 2 states:
RESOLUTION USR19-0040
WW, LLC
PAGE 3
"Encourage appropriate commercial development to annex into a municipality if the new or expanding
commercial development is adjacent to the municipality's corporate limits." C.Goal 5 states: "Minimize
the incompatibilities that occur between commercial uses and surrounding properties."
The Board finds that the proposal is not consistent with these Commercial Goals and in support, finds
as follows. The proposed operation is commercial and industrial in nature. The site is rural residential
and agriculture in nature. The site is not located within any Regional Urbanization Area, Urban
Development Node, Intergovernmental Agreement or Coordinated Planning Agreement area, and is
not located close to any Weld County municipality. The RV and boat storage primarily would serve
customers in municipalities that are not permitted to park their vehicles at their homes. The proposed
operation will not serve the neighbors.
The Applicant failed to demonstrate "That the USES which would be permitted will be compatible with
the existing surrounding land USES." Section 23-2-230. B.3 - The Board finds that the uses which will
be permitted will not be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses and in support, finds as
follows. The neighborhood near the site is primarily rural residential and agricultural. Of the 27 directly
surrounding properties, 50% have residential use. There are 24 homes on one section, six on another
surrounding area. Of these rural residential homes, many are close to the proposed site, and each
appears to have some agricultural component. Neighbors describe the proposed storage area as
having no road to buffer the view of the storage area like that which is found in nearby storage facilities.
The landscaping plan was not included in the applicants request although it was described at the
presentation. Due to the topography of the site, the landscaping plan is not adequate to block most
neighbors' views of the development as proposed on the 76 acres. At present, the use of the property
as proposed would be visible to the surrounding areas on the southern sides, thus, visually changing
the character of the area. Although the applicant provided evidence of other potentially commercial
uses in the area, most or all of them are agricultural in nature, and none of them substantially change
the character of the neighborhood. The boundary on the east side of the property holds an approved
RV boat and storage facility, Brighton Boat and Storage, which is a small family owned operation
according to the neighbors. According to testimony at the hearing, even with this small size it still
causes disruption due to the hours that customers use the facility. Neighbors described this small
business as a 24/7 hours operation. A property to the southwest includes a machine and welding shop
approved by USR which is a small family home business to service other agricultural operations and
seldom operated now due to his age. The landscaping business now is really not in business.
Shipping containers exist on property to the south. The neighbor/owner related that those are used for
his agricultural needs. Applicant cited the Bidwell property which holds trucking containers. The
neighbor/owner uses these for storage while developing a residence on the property. The neighbor
Torgeson has property with 2 large barns and shipping containers which was described as being
developed for a rural residential property. To the north of applicant's property line within 0.5 mile exist
natural gas facilities on County Roads 4 and 19, which is approximately 2 miles from the access
location of applicant's property on County Road 2. The utilities are on the north side away from the
access point of the proposed development. Those areas to the north side that have utility operations
are away from the access point of the proposed development and are not sufficient to change the
character of the agricultural residential character of this neighborhood. These existing operations do
not change the character of the present zoning. The proposed use is substantially more intense,
commercial and industrial in nature, including trash roll offs and heavy industrial equipment used to
deliver the roll offs. The Applicant could not adequately describe the use of the four (4) flex buildings.
These particular uses are particularly more intense than surrounding uses, or even as compared to
the RV and boat storage. The application did not adequately address mitigation techniques that might
have helped with the incompatibility of the proposed uses.
The Applicant failed to demonstrate "That the USES which would be permitted will be compatible with
the future DEVELOPMENT of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zone and with future
DEVELOPMENT as projected by Chapter 22 of this Cade and any other applicable code provisions or
ordinances in effect, orthe adopted MASTER PLANS of affected municipalities." Section 23-2-230.8.4 -
The Board finds that the uses which will be permitted will not be compatible with future development of
the surrounding area, as permitted by the existing zoning, and with the future development as
RESOLUTION USR19-0040
WW, LLC
PAGE 4
projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code, and any other applicable code provisions or
ordinances in effect, or the adopted Master Plans of affected municipalities. In support, the Board
finds as follows. This area is expected to continue with rural residential and agricultural uses. The
neighbors described that their plans for the future included continuing living a rural lifestyle.
Compelling statements were made by neighbors that the proposed use would change their ability to
complete their plans to exist in a rural residential setting. Two described that they are in the process of
building "dream" homes but that would not be possible if this area was developed as proposed by the
applicant. Neighbors claimed that the development of this property would be significant enough to
change their desires to gain Rural Exemptions for use of their property for other rural residential
builds. A large commercial development of this size is a significant change such that the future use of
the area would likely result in changes that reflect the scope of the operation. The landscaping would
not be sufficient to eliminate the visual presence of the operation. Use of the operation at present
envisions over 500 storage units and 700-800 boat and RV storage parking spots. The application
proposes approximately 1,200 customers. The roll off business would include trucks coming and going
daily as well. These operations will have a high volume of use in the future, thus, directly impacting
the "quiet and rural" character of the area. The applicant was not clear as to what other uses would
occur in the future on this development if the changed to commercial/industrial. This is not the same
future that the neighbors envisioned as owners in this area. For the future to be consistent with the
past, the proposed use by this applicant is not harmonious either as agricultural or rural residential
because of the size and types of operation proposed by the applicant.
The Applicant must demonstrate "That there is adequate provision for the protection of the health,
safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the NEIGHBORHOOD and the COUNTY." Section 23-2-
230.6.7 - The Board finds that the Design Standards (Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code),
Operation Standards (Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code), Conditions of Approval, and Development
Standards do not ensure that there are adequate provisions for the protection of the health, safety,
and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and County. The application does not provide
adequate provision for mitigation of increased crime and traffic hazards, or decreased property values.
In support, the Board finds as follows. Traffic would be impacted significantly by the increase in use if
the change was approved. At the present time, the only access is on to County Road 2 at the top of a
hill. No turn lanes exist onto the property from County Road 2. The last traffic study completed in 2014
showed 3,121 average daily use with 14% trucks. Neighbors are already concerned with the increased
traffic since the last traffic study due to the construction of subdivisions in Adams County. Traffic will
increase substantially due to the number of self -storage units, the RV and boat storage, and the roll off
business. Although the applicant relied on the future possibility that County Road 2 would be widened
into a four -lane road, improvements would need to be made immediately to County Road 2. Although
County Road 2 is designated as an arterial road, there is no immediate plan to make the necessary
improvements to County Road 2. Many arterial roads within Weld County remain as two-lane roads.
There is a need to allow safe egress and ingress to the property and not hinder the flow of traffic on
County Road 2 by the addition of the proposed use. This lack of accommodation for traffic
detrimentally impacts the safety and welfare of the inhabitants and the county. The applicant did not
demonstrate a sufficient landscaping or screening plan, including bufferzones, or any way to mitigate
concerns associated with the neighboring properties. The applicant did not show that these concerns
could be mitigated. Staff from the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment had
concerns about the permits required for painting and trash equipment related to the roll off business.
The Applicant did not demonstrate the ability to address these concerns. The Applicant further
indicated that it did not believe it could meet the residential noise standard, and actually requested the
commercial noise standard, which would not be compatible with the surrounding area. The Applicant
did not adequately communicate with the surrounding property owners, even though they had the
opportunity to seek input from them for mitigation of incompatibilities related to noise, screening,
traffic, and other concerns.
3. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Article II, Section 2-3-10 of the Weld County Code, the Board of County
Commissioners shall consider the applicant's request for a Hearing of Substantial Change and
whether within the concept of a new application, the facts and circumstances of which are
RESOLUTION USR19-0040
WW, LLC
PAGE 5
substantially changed from the initial application:
Criteria 1. Has the land -use application substantially changed? (e.g., substantial changes in lot size or
density, in internal or external roads, or, in the case of a rezoning, in the uses proposed)
The denial of Use by Special Review No. USR.17-0016 was based on incompatibilities and conflicts
between varying land uses in the conversion of traditional agricultural lands to other land uses. The
proposed RV and boat storage operation is commercial and industrial in nature, whereas the site and
adjacent properties are rural residential with agricultural uses. To address the intensity of the
previous application, the applicant WW, LLC is proposing a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for
residential and commercial uses on the subject property which is a substantially different request and
process than the previously denied USR.
Criteria 2. Have the surrounding land -uses substantially changed? (e.g., has the adjacent land use
changed during the period of time since the last application such thatwhatwould be compatible with the
adjacent use has changed)
The adjacent land uses continue to be of a rural residential with agricultural uses. For the future to be
consistent with the past, the proposed use by the applicant for a residential development is both
harmonious with the existing agricultural and rural residential land uses.
USR17-0067 for a Self -Storage and limited outdoor RV and Boat Storage Facility located east of and
adjacent to Cunty Road 19 and approximately 900 -feet north of County Road 2 was approved by the
Board of County Commissioners on April 14, 2018. This site is adjacent to an existing outdoor RV
and Boat Storage Facility approved in 2012.
Criteria 3. - Have applicable provisions of the law substantially changed? (e.g., the applicant is
proposing using a different procedure, so a different set of criteria apply or the applicable ordinance
has been amended by the Board, so the criteria have substantially changed)
The applicant previously submitted a Use by Special Review application for any Use permitted as a Use
by Right, Accessory Use, or Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts and
was subject to complying with all applicable rules and regulations of State and Federal agencies and the
Design and Operation Standards of Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code.
The applicant WW, LLC is proposing a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for residential and commercial
uses on the property and will be subject to compliance with Section 27-6-120.D, including Section 27-6-
120.D.5.a - The proposal is consistent with any intergovernmental agreement in effect influencing the PUD
and Chapters 19 (Coordinated Planning Agreements), Chapter 22 (Comprehensive Plan), Chapter 23
(Zoning), Chapter 24 (Subdivision) and Chapter 26 (Regional Urbanization Area) of the Weld County
Code.
The proposed development will be subject to compliance with Section 27-6-120.D.5.b - The uses which
would be allowed in the proposed PUD will conform with the Performance Standards of the PUD Zone
District contained in Chapter 27, Article II, of the Weld County Code.
The proposed development will be subject to compliance with Section 27-6-120.D.5.c - The uses which
will be permitted shall be compatible with the existing or future development of the surrounding area, as
permitted by the existing zoning, and with the future development as projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld
County Code or master plans of affected municipalities.
The proposed development will be subject to compliance with Section 27-6-120.D.5.d - The PUD Zone
District shall be serviced by an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system in compliance with the
Performance Standards in Chapter 27, Article II, of the Weld County Code.
The proposed development will be subject to compliance with Section 27-6-120.D.5.e - The street or
RESOLUTION USR19-0040
WW, LLC
PAGE 6
highway facilities providing access to the property are adequate in functional classification, width, and
structural capacity to meet the traffic requirements of the uses of the proposed PUD Zone District.
The proposed development will be subject to compliance with Section 27-6-120.D.5.f- An off -site road
improvements agreement and an on -site improvements agreement proposal is in compliance with
Chapter 24 of the Weld County Code, as amended, and a road improvements agreement is complete and
accepted by the Board of County Commissioners.
The proposed development will be subject to compliance with Section 27-6-120.D.5.g - There has been
compliance with the applicable requirements contained in Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code regarding
overlay districts, commercial mineral deposits, and soil conditions on the subject site.
Criteria 4. Within the concept of rehearing the previously denied application, is there newly discovered
evidence that the applicant could not have discovered with diligent effort at the time of the original
application.
Per the Substantial Change application, the applicant stated "Not applicable. WW, LLC is not
requesting a rehearing of the previously denied USR17-0016 application."
Should the Substantial Change request be approved, and the Board of County Commissioners allow
continuation of the current tenant to operate from the property, Planning Commission recommends that at a
minimum, the property owner submit evidence of potable water, submit evidence of an approved septic system
and submit a commercial building permit for the metal skinned structure currently utilized for the business,
which according to the Department of Building Inspection does not have a building permit. This building will
need to be permitted for commercial use.
Should the Substantial Change request be denied, the Planning Commission will request the Board of County
Commissioners forward this case to the County Attorney's Office for legal action through the District Court
process, but to delay that legal action for fourteen (14) days to allow the applicant time to remove all
Commercial Vehicles and all storage of equipment and materials from the property.
Motion seconded by Lonnie Ford.
VOTE:
For Passage
Bruce Johnson
Bruce Sparrow
Michael Wailes
Tom Cope
Lonnie Ford
Richard Beck
Elijah Hatch
Skip Holland
Against Passage Absent
Gene Stille
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
RESOLUTION USR19-0040
WW, LLC
PAGE 7
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Michelle Wall, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on July 2, 2019.
Dated the 2nd of July, 2019
Michelle Wall
Secretary
(L V\\\AtAkt5
7/2/20o
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday. July 2. 2019
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,
Michael Wailes. at 12:30 pm.
Roll Call.
Present: Michael Wailes, Bruce Sparrow, Bruce Johnson. Tom Cope. Lonnie Ford, Richard Beck, Elijah
Hatch. Skip Holland.
Absent: Gene Stifle.
Also Present_ Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman. Angela Snyder, and Maxwell Nader. Department of Planning
Services: Ben Frissell, Department of Health; Evan Pinkham, Public Works: Bob Choate. County Attorney.
and Michelle Wall, Secretary.
CASE NUMBER
APPLICANT
PLANNER
REQUEST
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOCATION
USR19-0040
WW. LLC
KIM OGLE
A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE REVIEW OF A PREVIOUSLY DENIED
APPLICATION FOR LAND USE, USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT. USR17-
0016 (DENIED JUNE 21, 2017). FOR ANY USE PERMITTED AS A USE BY
RIGHT. ACCESSORY USE. OR USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW IN THE
COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICTS (RV AND BOAT STORAGE,
A DUMP STATION. ENCLOSED SELF -STORAGE AND THE PARKING AND
STAGING OF TRASH CONTAINERS, ROLL -OFFS AND VEHICLES AND/OR
EQUIPMENT TO PICK UP AND DELIVER SAME AND FOUR (4) INDIVIDUAL
FLEX OFFICE BUILDINGS) PROVIDED THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOT A LOT
IN AN APPROVED OR RECORDED SUBDIVISION PLAT OR PART OF A MAP
OR PLAN FILED PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF ANY REGULATIONS
CONTROLLING SUBDIVISIONS IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LOT B REC EXEMPT RECX16-0076, PART W2 SE4 SECTION 33, T1 N. R67W
OF THE 6TH P.M.: WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 2; APPROXIMATELY 0.5 MILES EAST OF
CR 17.
Kim Ogle. Planning Services, presented Case USR19-0040, reading the recommendation and comments
into the record. Mr. Ogle explained the Weld County Board of County Commissioner's Resolution
recorded February 14. 2018 denied the applicant's request for USR17-0016 because the Applicant failed
to demonstrate that the proposal is consistent with in Chapter 22 and any other applicable code
provisions or ordinances in effect. The application lacked adequate evidence demonstrating how the
application meets the Comprehensive Plan, Section 23-2-230. Mr. Ogle stated pursuant to Chapter 2,
Article II, Section 2-3-10 of the Weld County Code, the Board of County Commissioners shall consider
the applicant's request for a Hearing of Substantial Change and whether within the concept of a new
application, the facts and circumstances of which are substantially changed from the initial application.
Mr. Ogle read the recommendation and comments into the record. Mr. Ogle explained the applicant is
proposing a PUD for residential and commercial uses on the property. Staff has received 9 letters of
opposition. Some of the letters are in opposition for the previous USR case and some letters are in
opposition for the substantial change review. The Department of Planning Services recommends
approval of this application request.
The Chair asked staff if Public Works or Environmental Health would have any comments for this case Mr.
Ogle explained that they would not because a Substantial Change application is handled by the Planning
Department. The applicant is asking for consideration from the Planning Commission they believe the Use
by Special Review which is addressed under Chapter 23 is substantially different from a Planned Unit
Development which is addressed under Chapter 27 of the Weld County Code.
Commissioner Cope said that he feels the PUD sounds completely different from the USR and sounds
more compatible with the area except for the commercial building on the property.
Commissioner Johnson asked why there is a USR number for this case (USR19-0040) when it is a
proposed PUD. Mr. Ogle explained that Case USR19-0040 is for a Substantial Change.
The Planning Commission took a few minutes to review the Substantial Change case and read through the
exhibits (correspondence) that staff provided to the County Attorney prior to the hearing. County Attorney
Choate explained to the Planning Commission that they are not deciding on the PUD, they need to decide
if the new application is a Substantial Change as defined in the Weld County Code.
Kelsey Bruxvoort, AGPROfessionals, 3050 67th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. Ms. Bruxvoort stated that she
was representing WW, LLC. She explained that the applicant is requesting a Substantial Change in order
to allow a new land use application to be processed. Ms. Bruxvoort said the applicant would like to propose
a PUD with residential estate lots and commercial uses. A Substantial Change is required before the PUD
request can be processed due to the previously denied Case USR17-0016. Ms. Bruxvoort explained that
the applicant is not allowed to submit a new land use application within 5 years of the denial of a previous
land use application unless it can be determined there has been substantial change in the facts and
circumstances regarding the initial application. She said the new application has significantly changed from
the original application. The original denied USR application requested an RV and boat storage, storage
buildings and parking and staging of roll -offs, vehicles and equipment. Ms. Bruxvoort explained the
applicant has adjusted his plans based on the feedback he received through the USR process. The
applicant feels the PUD would be compatible with the area and address the neighborhood concerns.
Commissioner Johnson asked where the commercial lot would be on the future PUD. Ms. Bruxvoort said
it would be located where the existing shop is on the property.
Commissioner Ford asked if the commercial building will be on a residential property. Ms. Bruxvoort
explained that a PUD allows for a mixed use of zoning. She said it would mostly be residential but there is
an existing shop that they would like to incorporate in their plans. Ms. Bruxvoort said they have not prepared
a PUD application because they have to get through the Substantial Change before they can proceed with
plans.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the access to the commercial lot would be through the residential
development. He felt it would be more compatible if they could access that lot another way. Ms. Bruxvoort
explained that could all be determined when they can begin planning the PUD.
The Chair said it was his understanding that the Planning Commission was not approving the PUD but
instead deciding if they believe the applicant has proven they have a significant change from the denied
USR application to allow the applicant to move forward with applying for the PUD application. Mr. Wailes
asked for further direction from Mr. Choate, County Attorney.
Mr. Choate explained that the Substantial Change is a prerequisite to be able to move forward with a new
land use permit on the same property where the Board of County Commissioners previously denied a land
use permit request. He said the Planning Commission needs to decide if the applicant has proven there is
a substantial change in facts and circumstances from the initial denied land use application and allow the
applicant to apply for a new land case application.
Commissioner Holland asked if the new land use application was applied for after the 5 -year limitation,
would this be an issue. Mr. Choate explained that it would not be an issue because a determination of a
substantial change would not be required.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Bill Wycoff, 333 County Road 17, Brighton, Colorado. Mr. Wycoff expressed concerns with the details of
the PUD, however, acknowledged that the PUD is not relevant for the Substantial Change case. He said
he is concerned about commercial use on this property. Mr. Wycoff said the current site is in violation and
that they work with hazardous chemicals. He feels WW, LLC demonstrates little interest in operating under
the County requirements. Mr. Wycoff is concerned about the idea of future commercial coming into the
neighborhood because of the uncertainty of what type of business will come in. He said he feels this
Substantial Change still has the commercial aspect of the denied case.
Sharall Kinnison, 8625 County Road 2 and Elizabeth Barngrouer, 8629 County Road 2, Brighton, Colorado.
Ms. Kinnison said she is also representing her daughter who was not able to attend this meeting. Ms.
Kinnison said she lives right next to the property and notices a lot of semis driving on the road that are
creating a lot of dust. She said they are not taking care of the roads. Ms. Kinnison said she has been in
contact with Bethany about the site being in violation. She said there are less birds, the property is no
longer green, and the property owner has put up several berms that hide their views. Ms. Kinnison
expressed concern that the property owner has been breaking County law since he purchased the property.
She hears truck traffic beginning at 6:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m.
Commissioner Cope asked Ms. Kinnison if she lives directly north of the shop. She answered that was
correct. Commissioner Cope asked where her access was to her property. She said she accesses her
property from County Road 2 and uses the easement.
Robert Morelli, 305 County Road 19, Brighton, Colorado. Mr. Morelli said he lives directly east of the
property. He said he has a problem with the lack of transparency with what is happening on the property.
Mr. Morelli said he agrees with the other 2 neighbors that the current property owner is using the property
illegally. He said it is frustrating to see semis from his back yard all day long and that he knows it is not
supposed to be happening. Mr. Morelli said the property owner has never reached out to him or his
neighbors to discuss his plans.
The Chair asked the applicant to come back up to the podium.
Commissioner Beck asked Ms. Bruxvoort if the applicant's business has been in violation for 2 years. Ms.
Bruxvoort explained that he has a tenant who he thought would be operating an agricultural business out
of the shop. She said the business is treatment technology for the agricultural community but that the
County views the business as a commercial operation. Ms. Bruxvoort explained that is why the applicant
needs to go through another land use application in order to address the zoning violation. Commissioner
Beck asked if the property owner has thought about asking the tenant to move their business. Ms. Bruxvoort
said the tenant is currently constructing a building in Firestone. The building was supposed to be completed
in May, but the tenant is having problems getting the building permitted with the Town of Firestone.
Commissioner Ford asked Ms. Bruxvoort who was responsible for maintaining the road for the shared
easement. Ms. Bruxvoort answered that she was not aware of an agreement.
The Chair called a recess at 1:48 p.m. and reconvened the hearing at 2:00 p.m.
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 USR19-0040 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 Elijah Hatch, Seconded by Lonnie Ford.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8).
Yes: Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Elijah Hatch, Lonnie Ford, Michael Wailes, Richard Beck, Skip
Holland, Tom Cope.
Commissioner Cope stated that he appreciated the time from the public who came to voice their concerns.
He explained their decision was if the applicant met the Substantial Change request. Commissioner Cope
stated that the public can voice their concerns with the PUD application at the time of those hearings.
The Chair said they had to base their decision on a Substantial Change for the new proposed use.
Commissioner Beck suggested the property owner work with the neighbors and try to get along better.
Commissioner Holland expressed concern about the current situation happening on the property.
The Chair said he agreed with Staffs recommendation and the applicant has met the criteria for a
Substantial Change per County Code, Chapter 2, Article 2, Section 2-3-10. He said he agrees with the
other Planning Commissioners that the property owner should work with the community as they prepare
their new plans for the property.
ATTENDANCE RECORD
NAME - PLEASE PRINT
LEGIBLY
ADDRESS
EMAIL
John Doe
123 Nowhere Street, City, State, Zip
1:,-"4-(-
L
i�rl nl ben?
SZoo, (-0.
(1?, Cbkv 3
ScW et, i ?Dab t --
Q 8,1)/ A it,.
a 2c,cbe iii 713 cvntry -e f
g6 2, ef
cN (:
f . 7 Bei 9Atar (Q l°D' 3
Gill lAbco .t 4.
.2.3 3
C R / 7 A 4ebu co 8o
s
2PAticb m
;1-� ca r' n\-*�-�
)
15-4 9; 4
1.- goes?'
41 IA- heel/ riS /ood (P/�� j
/ 2, /�- ,'` , f-
tkr,•s Carp4A-ei,
( , <
/f, / e /1? c 0o/10i/i- 4
6/1 c f / 9 LYr jA&n GJ 9060
1/4i -P.7 c r A
tat)" C �•, Z an s t' `b . //e-e`c
I aidsd aFxpr1,-f,,„1 --zdatil A J
/ ri c VC
n5 •e1
/on 3 CS S-ty ?a 3 1144e/1e 150“ -I
Z5 i'ra . ! ✓h
t jk)er& 9
SG CorV d1
/e60P (al r l9 t' 1t LuHcn
7,5c_ axi (t,/iAt t i
Fir(' l 0) ` _11
,
I SW0 acs Pk -\)e- P- LA.A FI-o n
"-sot Hots Cot 1 (3cti
-- c(
/--;`/-
7 e
) c Si14 gi 11111P 11 --►"U /1
PfriercI / /' t4eri t'" f'1 e,,U,
l i f bi' c.,,/
KOSe\_., rux.) cm .k-
?it) j1 (c-RAA
ktp
Lr\v-t, ketre,Ete,4 St) ,ti
c?i4
K1rrtvSvUci ‘-�idAvi C :S\ (1 ivY1
R t f'l (a1'
9)161 S 1I.v6U /PE 1 °t // ft, e o raic
,
1wa1cg,42,1o,77,,,4;
4/tiITA 0cc s
7102 /4Rer< S7 fo,erL,.7roJ BOG a /
Sdmnn,Ps'os I
n®lr1S'l. (n
,
Hello