HomeMy WebLinkAbout20183397.tiffRECEIVED
OCT 2 2 2018
WELD COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
October 15, 2018
VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Weld County Commissioners
1150 O Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Re: Valley View Ranch Association
Docket #2018-104; Case #USR18-0042
Applicant: Cheryl Sweet Trust
Dear Commissioners:
WENDY E. WEIGLER
wweigler@iirIpplawcorn
www.cohoalaw.corn
Winzenburg, Leff, Purvis & Payne, LLP represents the Valley View Ranch Association ("Valley
View"). Valley View has requested that I provide you with our position in advance of the public hearing
scheduled for October 17, 2018, which I plan to attend.
Valley View is the owners association for Valley View Ranch, which consists of twelve (12) lots. The
lots in Valley View Ranch are used exclusively for agricultural and residential purposes. Valley View and its
owners formally object to the application of Cheryl Sweet Trust for a Site Specific Development Plan and Use
by Special Review Permit (the "Application"). As the owners of the neighboring property, the proposed
development has the greatest impact on Valley View, along with the owners of the other neighboring
agricultural and residential properties, Jim Seeton, John Shonka and Ken Hall.
A. SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES
There has been a substantial change in the facts and circumstances since September 4, 2018, when the
Planning Commission recommended that the Application be approved. Specifically, the proposed
development of the Rocky Mountain Sports Park ("RMSP") has been relocated and will no longer be located
across from the Site, or even in the vicinity. The Application relied heavily on the fact that the RMSP was
being developed on neighboring property, and the decision of the Planning Commission was also made under
the presumption that the RMSP was being developed across from the Site. Because the facts and
circumstances have changed, there is no longer a competent factual basis for the Planning Commission's
decision. As such, if the Board of County Commissioners approves the recommendation of the Planning
Focused on Communities
Yu RI
PA
CrYn m on i coy +; o n S
cc c-r$C&cgsa) PLC 001/4,)
Cq,CFH)
I'-
8020 Shaffer Parkway, Suite 300
Littleton„ Colorado 80127
303.863.1870
Fax 303.863.1872
2018-3397
PLaSolo
Win:enburg Leff Purvis & Payne, LLP
October 15, 2018
Page 2 of 4
Commission, and approves the Application, it is likely that a reviewing court would find that the Board
exceeded its jurisdiction. See Bear Valley Drive -In Theater Corp. v. Board of County Comm'rs, 476 P.2d 48
(Colo. 1970) and Bentley v Valco, Inc., 741 P.2d 1266 (Colo.App. 1987).
In light of the change in circumstances, the Applicant should be required to resubmit the Application
to address those issues that have changed in light of the relocation of the RMSP.
B. PROPOSED USES ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING SURROUNDING USES
The Applicant bears the burden of proof to show that the proposed uses will be compatible with the
existing surrounding land uses. Weld County Code Sec. 23-2-230 B. 3. The Applicant cannot satisfy this
burden of proof since the proposed uses are incompatible with all of the existing surrounding land uses. If the
Application is approved, it will constitute unlawful and impermissible spot zoning because it will create "a
small island of property with restrictions on its use different from those imposed on the surrounding
property." See Whitelaw v. Denver City Council, 405 P.3d 433 (Colo.App. 2017).
All of the twelve owners within Valley View, along with neighboring property owners Ken Hall, John
Shonka and Jim Seeton, have expressed concerns about the incompatible use. According to the Weld County
Right to Farm Statement, "Agricultural users of the land should not be expected to change their long-
established agricultural practices to accommodate the intrusions of urban users into a rural area." The
proposed use of the Site directly conflicts with this statement. While an individual property owner has the
right to request a land use change, such change should not come at the expense of fifteen other property
owners.
The Applicant has the burden of proof to demonstrate that the Application is consistent with Chapter
22 of the Weld County Code. Weld County Code Sec. 23-2-230 B. 1. Chapter 22 contains ten (10)
agricultural goals and thirty-five (35) policies. The Planning Commission's recommendation addressed only
one (1) goal and six (6) policies. However, even the goal and policies cited by the Commission do not
support the approval of the Application. In Section 22-2-20 G., A. Goal 7, 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 such development, and should attempt to be compatible with the
region" (emphasis added). A strategy identified refers to "small home -based businesses."
The proposed development seeks approval for six separate uses: a restaurant, coffee shop, event
space, garden space, brewery or brewpub, and a second residence, possibly to be used as a rental. Only the
garden space and possibly the second residence are compatible with the surrounding existing uses, which
include horses and livestock. Moreover, there is ample evidence in the record that the area cannot support the
development, particularly the lack of access from County Road 74.
" ' 4Vin_enburg Leff Purvis & Payne, LLP
October 15, 2018
Page 3 of 4
1. County Road 74
County Road 74 is a two-lane, 50 miles per hour highway that is already known for becoming
congested and has been the site of many traffic accidents, including fatal accidents. The risks
increase with winter weather. CR 74 is annexed into the Town of Windsor; therefore, all
access and associated road improvements must be approved by the Town. The Town has
stated, in a July 5, 2018 letter to the Weld County Planning Department, that it does not
authorize a new access to CR 74. The Town has indicated that access to the Site should be
from an existing shared access easement. However, the easement in question is specifically
limited to residential access. There is no authority to require access for commercial
purposes, as anticipated by the Application. The Application should be denied due to the lack
of adequate and safe access.
Further, a traffic impact study is required and has not been included in the Application and
related materials. Concerns have been raised about the anticipated 49 employees who will be
working at the proposed development. In response to the concerns about additional traffic
and congestion caused by these employees, the Applicant stated that they will not all be there
at the same time. However, this does not address the traffic because the employees will still
be coming and going, even if not all at the same time. The employee traffic is in addition to
the unknown number of customers and guests who will also be coming and going.
2. Inadequate Infrastructure
The Planning Commission concluded that there is adequate infrastructure for the proposed
development. However, there is no natural gas and no sewer for the area. The Planning
Commission appears to acknowledge that a septic system would be inadequate to support the
brewery or brewpub, but does not address that concern since the "timing on the construction
is uncertain." Whether constructed now or in the future, a septic system would be inadequate
for the brewery or brewpub.
C. INCONSISTENT WITH AGRICULTURAL GOALS AND POLICIES
The Application and the proposed development are inconsistent with the agricultural goals and
policies contained within Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code. No consideration has been given to the
following goals:
A. Goal 1. Respect and encourage the continuation of agricultural land uses and agricultural
operations for purposes which enhance the economic health and sustainability of agriculture.
sms
'' Win=enburg Leff Purvis & Payne, LLP
October 15, 2018
Page 4 of 4
A. Goal 2. 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. Goal 6. Provide mechanisms for the division of land in agricultural areas to
support the continuation of agricultural production.
A. Goal 9. Reduce potential conflicts between varying land uses in the conversion of
traditional agricultural lands to other land uses.
A. Goal 10. The County recognizes the right to farm.
In short, the Application and proposed development are not consistent with Weld County's
agricultural goals and policies, and the approval of the same would fail to further the public health, safety and
general welfare. Rather, the approval would prioritize the interests of one property owner, who purchased the
property with full awareness of the existing zoning, over the interests of at least fifteen other property owners,
who have long relied on the existing zoning and whose property values and quality of life would suffer as a
result of the proposed development. As such, Valley View respectfully requests that the Board decline to
approve the Application.
Very truly yours,
WINZENBURG, LEFF, PURVIS & PAYNE, LLP
WENDY E. WEIGLER
cc: Diana Aungst, Planner
Valley View Ranch Association
Hello