HomeMy WebLinkAbout20172767.tiffSUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, July 18, 2017
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, Joyce Smock, at 12:30 pm.
Roll Call.
Present: Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Cherilyn Barringer, Gene Stille, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock,
Michael Wailes, Terry Cross, Tom Cope.
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services; Hayley Balzano, Department of Planning
Services — Engineering Division; Lauren Light, Department of Health; Evan Pinkham, Public Works; Bob
Choate, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Motion: Approve the June 20, 2017 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by Jordan
Jemiola, Seconded by Tom Cope. Motion passed unanimously.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOCATION:
USR17-0018
HAROLD & LINDA AMERIN, JR.
KIM OGLE
A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
FOR ANY USE PERMITTED AS A USE BY RIGHT, AN ACCESSORY USE, OR
A USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW IN THE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ZONE
DISTRICTS (OUTSIDE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE, BOAT AND WATER CRAFT
PARKING, STORAGE AND STAGING), PROVIDED THAT THE PROPERTY IS
NOT A LOT IN AN APPROVED OR RECORDED SUBDIVISION PLAT OR LOTS
PARTS OF A MAP OR PLAN FILED PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF ANY
REGULATIONS CONTROLLING SUBDIVISIONS IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL)
ZONE DISTRICT.
W1/3S2 SECTION 3, T1 N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY,
COLORADO.
NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 12 SECTION LINE AND EAST OF AND
ADJACENT TO CR 19.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, presented Case USR17-0018, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The site is located within the Intergovernmental Agreement area for the Town
of Frederick and the City of Dacono. The City of Dacono returned a signed Notice of Inquiry received March
1, 2016 stating their objection to the proposed development as the use outside recreational vehicle parking
is not an allowed use in the City. Mr. Ogle added that according to Section 19-2-60.C.A states that if the
City of Dacono's objection to a recommendation of a disapproval of development proposal is based upon
a conflict or incompatibility between proposed uses in development and the City's anticipated zoning
classification of property, the County will not approve the same. The Department of Planning Services
recommends denial of this application based on the Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Dacono
and their recommendation that requested use property noncompliant with their municipal code. Should the
Planning Commission approve this request, staff recommended including the conditions of approval and
development standards.
Mr. Ogle recommended additional changes to the staff report. Under Section 23-2-22.A, he recommended
adding the following language be added to the 2nd paragraph "The City of Dacono sent a second referral
dated May 1, 2017 stating "The City of Dacono is opposed to any application seeking outdoor storage for
the primary use of creational vehicles, boats and water craft parking, storage and staging".
Additionally, Mr. Ogle requested to add a new Development Standard 1.6.4 to read "The applicant shall
adhere to the Uniform Baseline Standards established and adopted by Ordinance 201 and Ordinance 201-
A dated August 24, 1998 and amended September 6, 2000 for all site development plans".
1
2017-2767
Evan Pinkham, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic and access to the site. Mr. Pinkham
noted that County Road 19 was recently annexed by the City of Dacono; therefore, this portion of the road
is under Dacono's jurisdiction. He added that County Road 12 is Section Line and not maintained by Weld
County.
Hayley Balzano, Engineering, reported on the drainage conditions for the site.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -
site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Sheri Lockman, 36509 CR 41, Eaton, Colorado, stated that the applicants are proposing a storage
facility for recreational vehicles and boats. She added that the large population growth in Weld County,
along with many town's strict enforcement of the parking of RVs and boats within their limits, has caused
an expanded need for such storage facilities.
Ms. Lockman said that according to the City of Dacono's Comprehensive Plan, this site is designated as
open space and that leaves the applicant with no development options. She added that they have spoken
with the City of Dacono several times and were surprised by their second referral response in opposition.
She added that they believe this site is compatible and further they do not believe that the City's reason for
opposition to this facility is supported by an intergovernmental agreement.
Ms. Lockman said that Todd Hodges, Planner for Ft. Lupton expressed interest of annexing this property;
however, the applicants are not interested in annexing into Ft. Lupton.
Ms. Lockman referred to Development Standard 5 and asked if they could receive input from surrounding
landowners to the west on how they can screen the site and address their visual concerns.
Commissioner Cope asked to clarify where the entrance to the facility is. The applicant stated that the
entrance is from County Road 12, which is an unmaintained roadway. Mr. Cope said that he understood
according to the application that the entrance is from County Road 19. Ms. Lockman said that they consider
the entrance from County Road 19 since County Road 12 is not maintained by Weld County. She added
that County Road 12 is 30 feet of unmaintained Weld County road.
Commissioner Jemiola said that assuming it is approved the applicant would still need access from the City
of Dacono. Mr. Ogle replied yes. Mr. Jemiola further stated that the applicant could build this facility and
not have access to it. Mr. Ogle said that there would need to be an access agreement to enter into a
publicly maintained road.
Commissioner Johnson asked counsel to what extent does the County interpret these Intergovernmental
Agreements as to who has the flexibility to massage this thing in the manner it needs to be. Bob Choate,
County Attorney, said that as it relates to the agreement with Dacono there are some findings that you need
to make if you are going to recommend favorably that the development be approved over Dacono's
objection. For example, in Dacono's referral they have objected to the use saying that the development is
incompatible or in conflict with the proposed uses in Dacono's zoning classification as they call it open
space. The Board of County Commissioners can approve it over their objection if they find that the conflict
or incompatibility is unlikely to occur, suitable mitigation measures to be imposed as conditions of approval
will eliminate or adequately mitigate those consequences.
Mr. Choate added that he doesn't know if Dacono issues access permits and if not it then it may not be an
impediment to the applicant.
Commissioner Stille referred to Dacono requesting this as open space and asked if it can be construed as
a taking. Mr. Choate said that just putting the anticipated zoning in their plan outside of their boundaries is
not. If it were going to be a taking it would have to be directly applicable to that property and Dacono would
need to have authority to do that.
2
• The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application.
Ron Haake, 5387 CR 19, stated that he is opposed to the storage facility and expressed concern of the
sight of storage facility and property values. He is also concerned with traffic and the poor visibility with
hills on either side of the entrance.
• Margie Haake, 5387 CR 19, said that there are so many trucks on that road and added that there will
be so many accidents.
• 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. Ms. Lockman stated that they submitted a landscape
plan that they felt was aesthetically pleasing so they would request that Development Standard 5 be
removed. However, if there is more landscaping or screening required they would like to know what
additional type of screening would be requested. Mr. Ogle said that the applicant did submit a screening
plan and they have trees that are defined 40 feet on center. He added that it also appeared the applicant
is proposing a chain link fence. Mr. Ogle said that according to the Weld County Code an opaque fence is
required for outside storage and added that there are a variety of different ways they can do that. Ms.
Lockman said that they can look into some kind of an opaque fence so they will have that for the Board of
County Commissioner hearing. She added that at this time they agree to that development standard.
Mr. Ogle referred to his suggested changes of adding an additional sentence to Section 23-2-220.A.4
as well as adding a new Development Standard 1.6.4.
Motion: Amend Staff Report as suggested by Staff, Moved by Terry Cross, Seconded by Jordan Jemiola.
Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in
agreement.
• Commissioner Sparrow said that he feels that Dacono wants to control a piece of property, yet they
don't want to annex it and added that they want to limit the owner's ability to profit from it. He said that the
proposed use can easily be converted into open space in the future, if the City wants to purchase it from
the landowner.
Commissioner Jemiola agreed with Mr. Sparrow's comments.
Commissioner Wailes agreed with those comments as well. He said that the outcome that the City of
Dacano is looking for derails the entire public process. He added that it doesn't give the applicant the
opportunity to speak about his project and doesn't give the public the opportunity to speak about the project.
Mr. Wailes said that he has a couple of these facilities near where he lives and although it is not necessarily
something you would choose to live by it has not had the impact on his neighborhood that he thought it
would have. From his personal experience, it is the least intensive use allowed as a USR.
Commissioner Johnson said that the applicant probably didn't know about the Intergovernmental
Agreement when he purchased the property. He is concerned with accessing from a 30 foot right-of-way
to the facility.
Commissioner Cope said that the whole idea of the IGA is that towns have a little bit of say potentially with
what may happen around them and hoping the County, who has jurisdiction, will agree. He disagrees with
the idea that just because Dacono doesn't have this type of zoning in their town that they recommend denial
on this property; however, the county still has to take the IGA into account. He agrees that is probably the
right project in the right area but he will probably vote unfavorably due to the IGA.
Commissioner Stille stated that he is concerned that Dacono is taking the applicant's property since they
can't get an access and do what they want to do with their property.
3
After discussion with County Attorney Choate, Commissioner Cope explained that he did not believe that
the City of Dacono's objection was based upon an incompatibility between the proposed development
and the City's proposed zoning for the property, but instead was based on Dacono's objection to having
this development in any zone in the City. Therefore, he didn't believe the IGA was applicable to this case,
pursuant to Section 19-2-60.C.8
Motion: Forward Case USR17-0018 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 Gene Stille, Seconded by Terry Cross.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 7, No = 2).
Yes: Bruce Sparrow, Cherilyn Barringer, Gene Stille, Jordan Jemiola, Michael Wailes, Terry Cross, Tom
Cope.
No: Bruce Johnson, Joyce Smock.
Commissioner Jemiola cited Section 23-2-220.A.1 as he believes the proposed use is consistent with
Chapter 22. He also believes it is compatible with Section 22-2-20.G.7 and 23-2-220.A.4.
Commissioner Cope stated that he believes it is compatible within the County and understands that Dacono
has an IGA; however, in this particular case he doesn't believe it is necessarily applicable.
Commissioner Wailes cited Section 23-2-220.A.1, specifically as it relates to 22-2-20.G.A.7 to Policy A.7.2
which is the compatibility issue. Additionally, he cited Section 23-3-40.D relating to public utilities as being
a listed item in the agricultural zone as a USR possibility.
Commissioner Stille suggested that the County Commissioners might want to address the IGA's to shore
these things up so that there aren't conflicts like this.
Commissioner Sparrow said that this would be the easiest thing to approve for Dacono to convert later to
open space.
Commissioner Smock likes the long range planning that Dacono seems to have done; however, she agrees
that the landowner has rights to develop his property how he wants to.
The Chair asked the public if there were other items of business that they would like to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss.
Commissioner Johnson said that he attended a meeting this morning and there was a concern of non-ag
uses coming out into the County and causing issues to the agricultural uses. Commissioner Sparrow
agreed with Mr. Johnson and said that staff cannot pull up a map anymore without three or four USR's
around the proposed developments.
Commissioner Jemiola commended Ms. Smock on her many years of service to the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission agreed and appreciated her preparation for the hearings.
Meeting adjourned at 2:00 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
45'.i6Evu. ��inaLein.
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
4
Hello