HomeMy WebLinkAbout20153523.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
D** 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, Jordan Jemiola, at 9:03 am.
Roll Call.
Present: Benjamin Hansford, Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Gene Stille, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock,
Michael Wailes, Terry Cross.
Absent: Nick Berryman.
Also Present: Diana Aungst, Department of Planning Services; Wayne Howard, Department of Planning
Services— Engineering Division; Lauren Light, Department of Health; Bruce Barker, County Attorney, and
Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
DI` Motion: Approve the October 6, 2015 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by Terry
Cross, Seconded by Joyce Smock. Motion passed unanimously.
lip` CASE NUMBER: COZ15-0001
APPLICANT: WELD 34 LLC, C/O ENVIROTECH SERVICES
PLANNER: DIANA AUNGST
REQUEST: CHANGE OF ZONE FROM THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT TO
THE 1-2(INDUSTRIAL)ZONE DISTRICT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT B REC EXEMPT RE-4866 BEING PART OF THE NW4 AND THE N2NW4
OF SECTION 18, 5N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M.,WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO US HWY 34 AND EAST OF AND ADJACENT
TO CR 13.
Diana Aungst, Planning Services, presented Case COZ15-0001, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Ms. Aungst noted that 69 letters were received. The letters of opposition
outlined concerns of incompatibility between the potential 1-2 Industrial Zone uses and the adjacent
residential, low-density uses. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this
application with the attached conditions of approval.
DD. Wayne Howard, Engineering, reported on the existing and proposed access points and future right-
of-way. He stated that since it is a Change of Zone there is no drainage or traffic information at this time
for review but upon proposed development these items will be addressed at that time.
ID` Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements on
site. Once a business is established, then staff will review the Site Plan Review and look at more specific
requirements.
I" Melanie Foslien, KBN Engineers, 820 8th Street, Greeley, stated that she represents the applicant.
She said that the proposed Change of Zone from agricultural to industrial has been made in order to
attract potential users. She stated that there is no user currently or site plan for this property; however
several options for the site have been explored. The potential uses for this property include warehousing,
material distribution center, a transload facility or a compilation of any or all of these uses.
Ms. Foslien stated that this property is ideally located because the Great Western Railway bisects the
northwest corner of the property and is in close proximity to the Union Pacific Railroad. She added that it
is adjacent to Highway 34 and is in close proximity to the 1-25 corridor.
Ms. Foslien stated that it is estimated that each train will eliminate up to 400 trucks. Road traffic will enter
the site from the south and will not disrupt the Highway 34 traffic. Once a site plan has been determined,
the owner will comply with all federal, state, county and local regulatory authorities.
1
viryt v ,iit cc i on.S
2015-3523
�n 2_g"tSv
Commissioner Smock asked if there was any idea of what use will be there. Ms. Foslien said that the
landowner can address that.
ID" Tim Pike, 7526 West 19th Street, Greeley, said that the rail is needed as they have businesses that
take advantage of rail services. He added that they were approached several times from companies that
are looking for excess capacity. He said that through their experience and connections there is a high
demand of rail service.
Mr. Pike quoted Weld County Commissioner Conway's statement as a Guest Columnist in the Greeley
Tribune September 5, 2015 regarding what a strong rail network means for more economic development,
more jobs, less congestion and pollution and a stronger American economy.
Mr. Pike referred to Commissioner Smock's question in regard to knowing what use would be on the
property and stated that they have had discussions with several entities about bringing their business to
this site; however they have decided not to move forward until there is some assurance that the Change
of Zone is complete. He said that the lack of shovel ready property is really difficult to find.
Mr. Pike briefly described the significance of the two (2) railroad accesses on site. He said that there are
options of constructing rail on the site by either putting in a loop rail or a ladder track system.
Mr. Pike stated that they met with the neighborhood at two (2) separate meetings. He stated that the
majority of comments were that there was not an identified use and the residents were uneasy and
unsure of that. He added that neighbors suggested that a transition between industrial and residential be
provided. Additionally they requested a 1000 ft setback be made into a conservation easement; however
Mr. Pike said that would take a large portion of the property and it is not practical for development of rail
or warehousing. Additionally, the neighborhood requested a building height restriction of 25 feet tall.
Mr. Pike referred to the Economic Goals and Policies Goal No. 5 of the Weld County Code and added
that shovel ready rail service sites are at a premium and it speaks to the economic goals and policies of
the Weld County Code.
Commissioner Johnson asked why he chose the 1-2 zoning rather than I-1 and 1-3 zoning. Mr. Pike said
that 1-3 is a heavier industrial use and they are looking for more of the transloading, manufacturing and
warehousing type businesses.
Commissioner Cross said that everything brought in by rail eventually has to be trucked out by some
means and asked the applicant if they had any sense of how much additional truck traffic may be
generated. Mr. Pike said that they don't but said that if you bring in raw materials one (1) rail car equals
about four(4) truck loads.
Commissioner Wailes clarified if the traffic will go west of the site. Mr. Pike said not necessarily and
added that the traffic would go to State Highway 34.
Commissioner Smock asked about the possibility of County Road 13 becoming a four-lane roadway. Mr.
Howard said that County Road 13 is classified as an arterial roadway and could become a four-lane
roadway as the need arises for it. He added that this will be based on traffic generation and the need for
a four-lane roadway. He added that currently it is not scheduled to be a four-lane roadway by Weld
County.
ID" The Chair opened the hearing for any municipalities to speak.
John Franklin, Town of Johnstown, stated that he is here to call attention to the Town of Johnstown
Resolution 2015-08 approved by the Town and Council of Johnstown opposing the request of this
Change of Zone from Agricultural to Industrial. He stated that State Highway 34 is a very busy roadway
and will increase with traffic impacts.
2
Mr. Franklin stated that during their Comprehensive Plan Development they recognized the single family
development known as Indianhead Estates. He added that they recognize that development will happen
9 P PP
and recommended a commercial use in their Comprehensive Plan. He said that recognizing the
significance of buffering and screening is important between residential and commercial and ind
ustrial
P
uses.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
ID" Michael Chrisman, 6713 Apache Road, stated that he is opposed to this change of zone. He stated
that arbitrary spot rezoning is in direct opposition to existing deliberate and thoughtful planning of
surrounding jurisdictions. He added that the industrial uses allowed by right are far too intense for this
particular location. He urged the denial of this rezoning application.
Jim Piraino, 27660 Hopi Trail, stated that he attended the October 8`h neighborhood meeting and
said that with all the suggestions they brought up, for example noise limits, restricting building heights,
limiting hours of operation, they received no as the answer. Mr. Piraino said that they requested a 500
foot conservation easement; however the applicants didn't agree to the conservation easement but would
consider a buffer zone. He also expressed concern that the applicants indicated that they were told that
this was approved by Planning Staff and that this meeting was a courtesy of the applicant to meet with
the neighbors.
Commissioner Wailes asked Mr. Piraino if he would be willing to accept development on this property if
the applicant would agree to the 500 foot conservation easement. Mr. Piraino said that they understand
this property would be developed at some time. He stated that Indianhead Estates has been there for 40
years and he is concerned that in the future as these projects become more prevalent they are risking
their life with the increased traffic.
Commissioner Sparrow wanted to clarify that this case is not approved.
Ir Royal Kupec, 27761 Hopi Trail, stated that he is opposed to this rezoning and agrees with the
Towns of Windsor and Johnstown and the City of Greeley and believes it will be rezoned at some time.
He added that residential and commercial is acceptable; however heavy industrial is not acceptable.
Sharon Collins, 27811 Hopi Trail, stated that the staff's recommendation of approval for this
rezoning is confusing when the incompatibilities were the same than the last case that was recommended
for denial. She asked how compliance with the code can be ensured. She is concerned that the
continuous industrial and train noise would cause sleep deprivation and added that the Weld County
Code states it should protect health, safety and welfare of the residents.
Ms. Collins stated that the 500 foot buffer minimum would make it more acceptable if it was designated as
a conservation area. Commissioner Wailes asked if the 500 foot buffer would allow more acceptance to
this application. Ms. Collins replied that it is better than nothing.
Dana Burns, 9565 Tamarack Road, Eagle, Wisconsin, stated that her family owns the farmland to
the southwest of the proposed site and added that she is disturbed that somehow agricultural has
become meaningless. She expressed concern that heavy industry will destroy the lands for her children's
lifetime. Ms. Burns stated that access to railroad does not necessitate heavy industry.
Gary Oplinger, 27687 Hopi Trail, stated that the property to the south was recently approved under a
USR to be used for industrial purposes and is currently under appeal and added that until it is approved
we cannot consider it as being used legitimately for industrial purposes. He feels that this is a case of
spot zoning and believes that this is illegal. He requested denial of this application.
11"" Scott Tarbell, 27575 Hopi Trail, stated that he stands with all of his fellow neighbors. He said that it
is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to look out for the betterment and the well-being of all of
3
Weld County residents. He added that Highway 34 cannot hold the increase of traffic. He said that there
are other places for the applicant to go.
ID` Dennis Motz, 1209 North County Line Road, Loveland, Colorado stated that he lives in Larimer
County. He expressed concern regarding the train and truck traffic and asked how everything is going to
converge at County Road 13 and Highway 34. He asked how something can be approved when we don't
know what it is.
The Chair called a recess at 10:30 am and reconvened the hearing at 10:42 am.
ID" Roxanne Chrisman, 6713 Apache Road, asked the Planning Commission to oppose this request.
She asked the Planning Commission if they are here to carry the party line or if they have great judgment
and can execute what needs to be done in a thoughtful, provoking way. She said that this community is
under attack and added that they will find themselves here three or four times as there are more projects
to come. She asked if this is the only location for this proposal.
Commissioner Sparrow asked what she meant by carrying party line. Ms. Chrisman replied that if
someone said you will vote a particular way and you have a choice to either do it because as an
appointee that is what you are asked to do or you take the other course which means that you are going
to do what is right. Mr. Sparrow said that no one on this Planning Commission has been asked to judge
any particular way and added that they are here to judge what they think is best for Weld County. He
further added that no one is influencing them in any way. Ms. Chrisman said that since this
recommendation is for approval, she assumed that something went on to make that approval.
The Chair clarified that planning staff reviews all of the information and makes a recommendation. The
Planning Commission then reviews all of the information, including the staff recommendation and public
testimony, and they make sure that it is in compliance with Weld County Code. He added that sometimes
we don't agree with staff and sometimes the County Commissioners don't agree with the Planning
a n
Commission. g g
Ms. Chrisman said that her comments were not to be offensive; however she knows how government
works as she has worked in government in Washington D.C. and she was hand stringed many times
because those above her precluded it or took it away from her. Commissioner Wailes pointed out that
Planning Staff has made a recommendation; however the Planning Commission has not made a
recommendation at this point and added that staff is a separate entity.
Don Casey, 27727 Hopi Trail, stated that this is a tough job to do. There are too many unknowns in
this case. He is concerned with the railroad and the noise and requested denial of this application.
i David Kisker, 6681 Apache Road, represents the Neighborhood's Association, CLR 34. He said
that there have been some great comments and he would be remiss to overlook the concerns of the
Town of Johnstown. He said that the concern regarding that the decision has been made came about
from the October 8`h meeting when Mr. Pike said that they have been led to believe that the probability of
approval would be high.
Mr. Kisker said that the application is not compliant with the Weld County Code requirements for
rezoning. A spot rezoning of this parcel would favor a single landowner overall all of the surrounding
landowners. He added that the rezoning application would violate the intent of the industrial zone district.
Mr. Kisker referred to light industrial and added that not all 1-2 activities can be considered light industrial.
Mr. Kisker provided examples of the Sections within the Weld County Code that he believes contradict
each other. He stated that the staff report acknowledges the 68 letters of opposition which stated
incompatibility issues, but the report still states that it is compatible to the surrounding land uses. He
added that the staff report did not address the compatibility issue.
Mr. Kisker provided a list of minimum necessary mitigations including haul routes, 500 foot buffer
converted to a conservation easement, visual screening, limited operating hours of operation, no train
4
noise between 10 pm and 6 am, odor limit, and building height restrictions. He asked that these be
incorporated into the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Kisker requested
denial of this application.
Commissioner Sparrow referred to the 500 foot setback and asked what he envisions there. Mr. Kisker
said that they would like to see a 500 foot setback converted to a conservation easement as it will be
permanent. He added that this will also help with noise reduction as it lessens the further it has to travel.
Commissioner Sparrow asked how many acres that the applicant would
d be sacrificing. Mr. Kisker replied
PPP
that is 28 acres and doesn't feel it is too much to ask.
Commissioner Johnson said that he is on the Oil and Gas Commission and struggles with the setbacks
and what is an acceptable distance. He added that with conservation easements there are problems with
how the property can be used. He suggested a park instead. Mr. Kisker agreed that a park is a good
idea.
Commissioner Jemiola asked if the decibel level is managed and visual impacts are limited would there
be a need for limited hours of operation. Mr. Kisker said that the problem is with the trains and the
potential of multiple spurs. He said it might be possible for the commercial noise levels to extend into the
weekends, for example part days on Saturday.
The Chair called a recess for lunch at 11:51 am and reconvened the hearing at 1:00 pm.
D' Tim Pike 7526 West 9th Street, clarified that there is not a final use for this site. It is ideally situated
for rail and every business does not have to have access to rail. A lot of business that have been
considered, such as manufacturing and warehouse have limited rail. He added that they would receive
material by train and run it out by truck.
Mr. Pike said that he feels the 500 foot buffer is excessive and the 28 acres is substantial. To
accommodate some of the movements for rail you need radiuses and this would limit that ability to
accommodate the rail.
Mr. Pike stated that he understands their concerns with the noise, odor, height of buildings and visual
impacts; however the Weld County Code has a list of requirements and asked why they should be held to
other restrictions. Additionally, he feels that this would be setting a precedent for other companies
coming in. As the users develop the site, then they will address the visual impacts, noise, odor, and
traffic issues.
Mr. Pike noted that by adding the buffer it limits frontage from Highway 34. After researching the
conservation easement no tax credits are issued and many farmers have issues with them. He doesn't
believe a conservation easement is the way to go.
Mr. Pike referred to the comments that he said it will get approved at the neighborhood meeting and
clarified that he told them that he thinks it will get approved because they have demonstrated that they
meet the requirements of the Weld County Code. He added that he also told them that they were
recommended approval by staff. He clarified that he never said that the Planning Commission was on the
take or in the pockets.
Commissioner Johnson said that he is not in favor of a conservation easement and suggested park
facilities and asked if the applicant would be in favor of that. Mr. Pike said that they are not in favor of the
500 foot buffer. He said that the park area sounds good but it would be a waste in that you have to
maintain it. He said that the 500 foot buffer seems excessive for the six (6) houses along the property
boundary.
Commissioner Hansford asked if he intends to retain ownership of this property. Mr. Pike said that they
intend to own this property and lease it to individual companies.
5
Commissioner Sparrow noted that according to the map when the housing project was done they
developed right to the very edge of the property without considering the possibility of buffering needed for
future development on either side and feels that by asking an adjacent landowner to buffer is a problem.
Commissioner Smock said that if you don't know what is coming in then you tend to anticipate the worst
and believes that this is where a lot of the people are coming from. She added that from their standpoint
they have a lot to lose and probably not a whole lot to gain. Mr. Pike said that he sympathizes with them
and expressed to them that he knows what they are going up against; however there is no good answer
to them. He added that this project could bring a lot of benefit to Weld County and this area with the
population coming.
Commissioner Jemiola said that he does not believe in the right to a view. However, he believes in
private property rights and doesn't believe that one private property owner should encumber another
private property owner. He added that his concern is in making certain that the Weld County Code will be
followed. Mr. Pike agreed and said that they would not do things that they would not be proud of. He
said that they want to be a good neighbor and wants to include the neighbors but they just don't have any
specific user at this point. He said that there is such pressure for shovel ready property and this site
provides that need. He added that the future users will be required to adhere to the requirements of the
Weld County Code.
Commissioner Smock said that they don't hear a lot of change of zones. She referred to the application
and said that a traffic study will be conducted when a use is determined and the owner may establish
development standards and asked if that is typical of a change of zone or do they normally know what is
going on at this point. Ms. Aungst said that a Change of Zone always has the possibility of not knowing
what is going to be done on the property. She added that we have done a few where we don't know the
users; however we have done a few where the use already existed on the site and they were just
changing it to comply with the County Code. Ms. Aungst said that this particular Change of Zone does
not have a user and in order to anticipate any potential incompatibility with the adjacent land uses, staff
added a Condition of Approval 3.D which states that the Director of Planning Services or the Board of
County Commissioners will review any site plans as needed to determine if the buffering and the
screening is appropriate between the proposed industrial use and the existing low-density, single-family
dwelling units. Additionally, she pointed out Condition of Approval 3.E which requires a detailed traffic
study with each Site Plan Review application. Ms. Aungst also pointed out that in this case, they have
placed a Condition of Approval 3.F which requires that any land use application that is submitted to Weld
County notify the surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the property.
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.
ID' Commissioner Wailes said it was stated that one (1) train takes approximately 400 trucks off the
road and when we look at the possible uses of the property he doesn't know whose roads those trucks
are coming off of and he is concerned with that. He lives on County Road 15 and knows how hard it is to
get onto Highway 34. He thinks it is naive for the applicant to state that the activity on this parcel would
not have any effect on access to County Road 15.
Commissioner Wailes said if we look at the uses by right in the 1-2 Zone District, it could be stockpiles and
granted there is a Site Plan Review process that takes place but the people who are going to be affected
the most by it, this will take them out of the equation.
Commissioner Johnson said that since he has lived here all his life, he has seen the rural areas change.
He said that the agricultural community doesn't care for the residences moving in because they want it
their way and the farming people want it the way it's always been. It has always been an issue and
commended Weld County for putting the Right to Farm covenant in that people have to adhere to that.
Mr. Johnson said that he lives on the edge of Hawkstone Subdivision which is in Eaton and Hawkstone
and the Eaton Country Club were opposed to a dairy coming in one and one-half mile away; however he
spoke in favor of the dairy because where else is it suppose to go other than in an agricultural zone. He
said that what people don't want isn't necessarily their right to not want. He added that we in subdivisions
6
take advantage of everything that is peripheral to our houses and believe that is a right and is controlled
to protect subdivisions and then they are impacted by these users.
► Motion: Forward Case COZ15-0001 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, Moved by Bruce
Johnson, Seconded by Bruce Sparrow.
Vote: Motion failed (summary: Yes = 4, No =4, Abstain = 0).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Terry Cross.
No: Gene Stille, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Michael Wailes.
Commissioner Cross stated that he relies heavily on staff's recommendation when he comes to his
opinions about these things. He added that the public had also stated that they know that development is
coming but they just don't know how or when.
Commissioner Hansford said that he is reluctant to vote in favor of this; however he echoed Mr.
Johnson's comments that he has faith in staff that they will make sure that this is handled correctly.
Commissioner Smock referred to Section 23-2-220.1 through 4 and is still not convinced that it is a
compatible use for this area. She agrees that things are going to change there and we don't always have
control over that and there is no doubt that if the people knew what was going to happen out there they
would be much more cognizant and apt to consider this to be a good project.
Commissioner Wailes said that too often we take agricultural land for granted in that it will always be
there. He said that opposition group does understand that development in the region will happen. He
added that this group has also come forward with a list of mitigation suggestions and encouraged the
applicant to sit down with this group and work with them on those. Mr. Wailes cited Section 23-2-30-A.2
which states that the uses would be allowed on the subject property by granting the Change of Zone will
be compatible with the surrounding land uses and said that by looking at the current uses, this application
is not compatible with the current uses as it is agricultural and residential-agricultural. Additionally, he
cited Section 22-1-120.A which states that private property rights are not unlimited rights but rather rights
balanced with the responsibility of protecting community health, safety and welfare. He added that in his
opinion the definition of welfare is pretty broad and said that it includes peace of mind.
Commissioner Stille said that having been a real estate broker he understands the need for growth and
development. He added that by having been an appraiser he also understands the values and highest
and best use. He believes that there are some conflicts in regard to the principles as outlined in our Code
and is concerned with spot zoning that it is not compatible when looking at the map. He hates to see
some good agricultural land come out of production and said that he would have probably voted in favor
of this had it been Commercial or I-1 zoning. Mr. Stille cited Sections 22-6-20.C.1, Section 22-2-70.D and
Section 22-2-80.
Commissioner Johnson said that it is an interpretation of the Code but with the surrounding uses he
believes it is compatible. He said that the conditions of approval are mitigation measures and has
confidence that staff will use these mitigations to see that the environment is maintained in ,that
neighborhood.
Commissioner Sparrow said that he hates to see prime farmland taken out of production but he believes
the value of this use is probably three or four times what the farmland value is so how can we deny the
landowner to benefit from this property. He hopes that some buffer(at least 100 foot) can be worked out.
Commissioner Jemiola cited Section 23-2-220.A.3 and does not believe 1-2 zoning next to the residential
area is compatible. He added that the number of things that could be developed here and the fact that 1-2
zoning is intense for this area is not compatible. He understands that there are people who want to
develop near rail and access to arterial roadways because typically there is commercial or industrial
development next to these arterials and urban development nodes but in this particular case there was a
residential development built 40 years ago.
7
The Chair stated that the motion for approval has failed since there is a tie vote. The Chair asked if
anyone on the Planning Commission would change their vote. The members of the Planning
Commission indicated no.
ID" The Chair asked the public if there were other items of business that they would like to discuss.
Roxanne Chrisman, 6713 Apache Road, said that some of the Board members had decided their
decision based on the person who did the presentation; however Mr. Pike doesn't own the company.
rs` Jim Piranio, 27660 Hopi Trail, asked what a 4-4 tie vote does for their plea. The Chair said there
was a motion for approval; however when there is a tie, the motion fails. Therefore they are forwarding a
non-recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Bruce Barker, County Attorney, stated that
the Board of County Commissioners read the statements made by the Planning Commission and take
those comments into their decision; therefore there is a recommendation in a sense that they are hearing
those comments.
ID' Barbara Moe stated that she lives on County Road 13 and thanked the Planning Commission for
listening to the people.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss.
Commissioner Wailes said that he had a hard time seeing the presentations because the podium is
directly in front of the screen and he can only see half of the other screen because it is blocked by the
column. He asked if there could be some screen or monitor that could sit underneath the staff table that
is easy for all of them to see. Commissioner Hansford noted that there has been some discussion from
the Board of County Commissioners to hang some screens. Commissioner Smock agreed that the
podium is in a bad spot.
Meeting adjourned at 2:08 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
q�a�lbEsrit1 t� Y� 1 Digitally Signed Kristine Ranslem
Date:2015.10.22 16:27:19-06'00'
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
8
Hello