HomeMy WebLinkAbout20151774.tiff HEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 2015-39.B
RE: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT,
USR14-0084, FOR A USE PERMITTED AS A USE BY RIGHT, ACCESSORY USE, OR
USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW IN THE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ZONE
DISTRICTS (OUTDOOR TRUCK STORAGE AND STAGING) 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 - DONALDSON AND COMPANY, LLC
A public hearing was conducted on July 1, 2015, at 1:30 p.m., with the following present:
Commissioner Barbara Kirkmeyer, Chair
Commissioner Mike Freeman, Pro-Tern
Commissioner Sean P. Conway
Commissioner Julie A. Cozad
Commissioner Steve Moreno
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Tisa Juanicorena
Assistant County Attorney, Brad Yatabe
Planning Services Department representative, Chris Gathman
Planning Services Engineer representative, Jennifer Petrik
Health Department representative, Lauren Light
The following business was transacted:
Chair Kirkmeyer stated for the record that four (4) out of the five (5) Commissioners are
present with Commissioner Conway being excused.
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated April 17, 2015, and duly published April 22,
2015, in the Greeley Tribune, a public hearing was conducted on May 20, 2015, to consider the
request of Donaldson and Company, LLC, for a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by
Special Review Permit, USR14-0084, for a Use permitted as a Use by Right, Accessory Use, or
Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (outdoor truck storage and
staging) 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, at which time the Board deemed it advisable to continue the
matter to July 1, 2015, to allow Donaldson and Company, LLC, adequate time to meet the
30-day mineral notice requirement. On July 1, 2015, Brad Yatabe, Assistant County Attorney,
made this a matter of record.
Chair Kirkmeyer stated for the record that Commissioner Conway is now present.
(1:54 p.m.)
CI c& ?L; NL 7/ 7
2015-1774
PL2341
HEARING CERTIFICATION - DONALDSON AND COMPANY, LLC (USR14-0084)
PAGE 2
ID Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, presented a brief summary of the
proposal. He stated the applicant's intent is for a trucking motor pool and he gave a basic
description of the daily operations plan to include access points and location. Mr. Gathman
described surrounding land uses as residential and agricultural in nature and stated staff
g
received a letter of objection with concerns to include noise and light pollution, traffic safety,
incompatibility with surrounding uses, hours of operation, and the number of vehicle trips are too
vaguely outlined. Also, there were 16 copies of a letter of objection signed by different residents
submitted at Planning Commission. He stated that screening is required to be by conifer trees
on the east side of the property due to the close proximity to residences. Staff sent out 14
referrals and received eight (8) responses indicating either no conflicts or approval with
conditions. He stated the site is located within the three (3) mile referral area of the City of
Greeley and the City of Greeley did not respond. Mr. Gathman presented a PowerPoint
presentation of the site and surrounding properties, views, and uses, and entered the favorable
recommendation of the Planning Commission into the record as written. In response to
Commissioner Cozad, Mr. Gathman conveyed the applicant is proposing to keep the operations
out of the floodplain and the applicant can address the pond easement.
• Jennifer Petrik, Planning Services Engineer representative, provided a brief overview of
the transportation plans and requirements to include future rights-of-way and average daily
traffic counts. She reviewed the traffic information to include number of vehicles and access
permit, and further explained the requirements for tracking control and grading. She stated an
Improvements Agreement is not required and conveyed the Development Standards as related
to Public Works.
La Lauren Light, Department of Public Health and Environment, reviewed the water and
sewer provisions stating the use of a portable toilet is acceptable, and, as submitted in the
application materials, there would be no washing or maintenance of vehicles or fuel storage on
the site. She stated Development Standards #8-14 are basic requirements related to
environmental health.
• David Skarka, Attorney, represented the applicant and defined the operation as trucking
and temporary truck storage space comparing it to a "park and ride" or parking lot, with no
on-site personnel, and storage space for five (5) containers. He stated the importance of the
location being close in proximity to both State Highway 392 and U.S. Highway 85. He explained
the location for the use is within the City of Greeley Long Range Plan area and suggested the
future would bring more commercial and industrial use to this area as represented by the
Natural Gas Plant and the applicant's proposed use. Mr. Skarka insisted this would be a low
impact Use to the area and that it is compatible and consistent with Weld County requirements,
further stating the applicant is seeking to do this the right way and is not in violation.
• Troy Jones, Architect and Planner, displayed a PowerPoint presentation, pointed out other
uses in the area promoting truck traffic, reiterated the conformity to the City of Greeley's Long
Term Expected Growth area, and stated this part of the County is the appropriate area to
transition to incur more industrial use. He displayed several slides regarding surrounding land
uses, explained the pond easement and water usage on the property, and closed by stating
agricultural and industrial uses have a lot of things in common making this application consistent
and compatible for the area. He concurred with Mr. Skarka stating this use would be considered
2015-1774
PL2341
HEARING CERTIFICATION - DONALDSON AND COMPANY, LLC (USR14-0084)
PAGE 3
low impact and they would like to cooperate and mitigate with neighbors if possible. In response
to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Skarka indicated they met with the neighbors on Monday to listen
to their concerns. In response to Commissioner Cozad, Mr. Jones responded that the
intent in the future is to come back with an application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to
create additional Industrial lots along CR 43. The current business owner interested in leasing a
lot for the trucking business, chose the location for the proposed use. Mr. Jones further
responded that the change of access is due to proximity to the intersection and because it
works better with future plans. In regard to crossing the ditch, multiple owners would need to
participate in an agreement to cross the ditch. In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Jones
clarified the 2009 version of the map related to the City of Greeley Long Range Plan with 20+
years of expected future growth and planning. In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Jones stated
they met with the Eaton Fire District and they have requested more than one access point for
each lot, with five (5) lots planned if this is approved and the applicant can pursue the PUD. In
response to Commissioner Moreno, he stated the current application is for the USR. Mr. Skarka
added verbiage to compare the current USR proposal to the one heard prior today, and again
insisted this Use is compatible and fits with the future of this area of the County. Chair
Kirkmeyer disagreed with the comments regarding future industrial growth and development
simply because the location is close to State Highway 392 and U.S. Highway 34.
El Troy Gray, neighbor, stated his objections to include: the use is not consistent with the
surrounding land uses, increased traffic, poor location of entrance on CR 66, noise and light
pollution, floodplain proximity and the possibility of diesel and petroleum products ruining the
Sand Creek waterway, the intent versus reality, and the effects on his property and his family's
quality of life. He stated he is not willing to negotiate because this is not a neighbor, it is a
commercial developer wanting to capitalize on land that has been vacant for two years.
Mr. Gray further mentioned his concerns regarding the type of customers who will be using this
site and the close proximity to his property. Lastly, he stated he circulated a letter asking the
neighbors within one (1) mile of the site to review this proposed use, per Planning
Commissioner Sparrow's recommendation, and has brought in twelve more letters to be
submitted to the Board, and all twelve are in objection of this application. In response to
Commissioner Cozad, there are seven new ones being added today. He pointed out his
residence on the map and stated he has lived there for three (3) years. In response to
Commissioner Conway, Mr. Gray replied that in his opinion, the meeting on Monday was a
"checkmark" requirement based on input from the Planning Commission. He further stated there
is nothing that can be done to mitigate this situation for him. In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, he
stated there was no offer to relocate the USR to a different part of the 80-acre parcel.
CR Amy Gray, wife of Mr. Gray, stated that being a mother and wife has a different perspective
and requested the Board's support in protecting them as residents of Weld County. She
described their family vision of moving to that area and the enjoyment of living in a farming
community and presented additional concerns regarding the Right to Farm Statement
concluding this is a poor use of farm land and there should not be confusion between
agricultural use and industrial use. Ms. Gray stated this use is not compatible to the area and is
too close in proximity to their residence, adding to her fears regarding the safety and security of
their children. She stated they are used to the seasons of agricultural traffic and appreciate the
process of getting crops to market; however, this use is not agricultural and would result in
property values going down and she listed several concerns with a parking lot next door, light
2015-1774
PL2341
HEARING CERTIFICATION - DONALDSON AND COMPANY, LLC (USR14-0084)
PAGE 4
and noise pollution, environmental impact, and suggested the applicant use one of his several
other properties that are not up against someone else's property. In response to Commissioner
Conway, she expressed her agreement with her husband's assessment of the meeting being a
requirement based on reprimand from Planning Commission.
Hendrik Craig, adjacent neighbor, stated he agrees with all that had been mentioned by the
Grays. He continued with his concerns regarding the effects this would have on his personal life
as he needs to sleep during the day because of shift work. He expressed his frustration with the
lack of contact before the application was dumped on them. He displayed aerial photos of the
agricultural uses in the area and the incompatibility with this proposal. Mr. Craig stated there
were too many gray areas in this application causing extreme concerns with proposed mitigation
and enforcement. He refuses to support this proposal and hopes this does not get approved.
Sean Jaehn, neighbor 1/4 mile to the west, shared this property is highly visible to his
property. He stated the business being considered for this property is currently operating in
Weld County and is a mobile home moving company which is not an agricultural business. He
expressed concern not only for this business, but for the possible PUD to create several more
lots for industrial use. Mr. Jaehn stated if it is only the USR then move it to the middle of the plot
and he clarified he is not in support of this proposal at all. He expressed he felt like the neighbor
meeting was scheduled at the 11th hour. In response to Commissioner Cozad, Mr. Jaehn stated
he agrees if it is moved it will impact others, and reiterated he is not in support of this proposal
and is asking the Board to not approve this application for the good of all residents in the area.
la Mr. Skarka responded to the comments proposed by the surrounding property owners and
began by apologizing for not doing public outreach sooner and for the meeting that did take
place feeling like a checkmark to the neighbors. He mentioned efforts being made to mitigate
the concerns of each individual to include suggestions for security on the site, locking the site,
installing a tall, vinyl fence, planting the tall conifer trees, and recycled asphalt. However, it is
clear the neighbors do not want this approved. He continued to make mention of compromise
and insisted with the proposed limit to the number of vehicles and hours of operation, this use is
reasonable for this area. Mr. Skarka reminded the Board that it would be unfair and prejudicial
to decide the outcome of this proposed USR based on the possible future PUD. He expressed
his disagreement regarding this use not being compatible when there is an oil and gas plant in
the area and continued to state this use would be low impact to the area.
Mr. Jones responded to the concern regarding the environmental impact by reiterating
their efforts to keep out of the floodplain. Further, regarding the neighbors' concern that this is in
their backyard, he responded that the concerns listed are from a residential standpoint and he
requested the Board consider these comments in light of the site being in the A (Agricultural)
Zone and the uses allowed therein.
el Mr. Skarka stated he has not had a chance to review the letters that were submitted today
and has not heard any explanation or evidence of how this permit would impact farming, or
detract or take away from farming, in light of the Right to Farm Statement, which is not being
threatened here.
2015-1774
PL2341
HEARING CERTIFICATION - DONALDSON AND COMPANY, LLC (USR14-0084)
PAGE 5
• Brad Yatabe, Assistant County Attorney, advised the Board of Commissioners to provide
Mr. Skarka with the opportunity to review the letters. The Board directed that the letters be
provided to Mr. Skarka for review prior to proceeding with the hearing.
• Mr. Skarka responded that it appears to be a statement signed by several neighbors with
additional comments at the bottom. Chair Kirkmeyer clarified that the burden of proof is on the
applicant to show compatibility and consistency. In response to Commissioner Moreno,
Mr. Jones responded that they do have a user in mind; however, they did not want the approval
or disapproval to be based on the user. Mr. Skarka clarified the intent was to put a USR in place
that could be used by any tenant. In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Jones responded this is
the smallest of five anticipated lots and the proposed user chose that lot. He further responded
that if this application is approved, they were planning to return in the next month or two to
submit an application for the PUD. He clarified five industrial lots were being planned with one
remaining tract left for limited agricultural use. Mr. Jones explained the number and size of the
proposed storage containers and stated they would cover a very small percentage of the lot.
In response to Commissioner Cozad's question whether the Board could relocate the
location of the proposed facility on the property, Mr. Yatabe stated that such a change could
affect the staff comments and recommendations and would necessitate the application
undergoing additional staff review and re-review by the Planning Commission. He further
clarified the USR is for the entire property but the specific location of the facility has been
defined by the applicant and it would be problematic to attempt to change that. The application
should be be reviewed by the Board based on the current and specific location only. Chair
Kirkmeyer outlined the applicant's options at this juncture in the event this does not get
approved: the case could be continued, which would allow time to re-notice with a new location
within the property; the applicant could withdraw the application to allow time to revisit the plans
without risking denial; the case could be denied and later they might reapply showing a
Substantial Change that would have to be agreed upon by the Board, then sent back to
Planning Commission to begin the hearings process all over again. = In response to Chair
Kirkmeyer, Mr. Skarka agreed with the removal of the word, "flatbed," from Development
Standard (DS) #4; and disagreed with the comments in one of the letters from a neighbor,
stating the location of the proposed USR would jeopardize their farm and cause noise and
confusion.
• Mr. Yatabe interjected a reminder that the case before the Board is only the application for
the USR permit, with no mention of the future PUD. If a PUD comes in at a later date for this
location, it would be examined independently.
Commissioner Cozad addressed the mention of comparison to the case prior to this one
and clarified each case stands alone. She stated the problem she has with this case is the
applicant did not work well with the neighbors and did not consider a different location. She cited
the Weld County Code, Section 22-2-20.l.5.A (Policy 9.5), states: "Applications for a change of
land use in the agricultural areas should be reviewed in accordance with all potential impacts to
surrounding properties and referral agencies." She further referenced Section 23-2-230.B.3,
which also references compatibility with the existing surrounding land uses. She stated for these
reasons she will not be supporting this application.
2015-1774
PL2341
HEARING CERTIFICATION - DONALDSON AND COMPANY, LLC (USR14-0084)
PAGE 6
• Commissioner Conway supported the statements made by Commissioner Cozad and
further explained the responsibility of the Board to attempt to mitigate the impacts. He
communicated his understanding of the applicant's challenge regarding the neighbors saying
they really don't want this here; however, he expressed his frustration with the applicant's lack of
cooperation with neighbors. He stated there is no way to mitigate this and he will not be
supporting the application at this time.
• Commissioner Freeman stated he agreed with many of the things already expressed and
further conveyed the USR leaves too many open-ended questions regarding who would actually
be operating at the site. He also agreed with many of the residents' concerns. For those
reasons, he stated he will not support the application.
la Commissioner Moreno concurred with many of the comments made by fellow
Commissioners, and further communicated he is not sure another site would be the answer. He
stated he will not be in favor.
• Chair Kirkmeyer stated the expectations and requirements to approve a land use case as
long as it has met certain requirements, is consistent with the comprehensive plan, is consistent
with the intent of the Agricultural Zone District, is compatible with surrounding land uses, and is
compatible with the future development as permitted by the existing zone. Furthermore, she
stated the burden of proof is on the applicant, and that the Board has the ability to mitigate to
get to compatibility. She agreed with Commissioner Cozad that each case stands on its own
and is not judged in comparison to other land uses or other applications. This is zoned
Agricultural and the Board is required to meet the intent of the Agricultural Zone, which means it
needs to relate back to those things that are a Use by Right. This includes Oil and Gas and
Residential in the Agricultural Zone. Industrial Zone type activities in the Agricultural Zone are
not a Use by Right. The Board must look at the plans for the area from the perspective of both
the County and the City and although this location on this parcel made the most sense to the
user, it does not make the most sense to the Board. She clarified the reason she is not
supporting this application is because it is not consistent with Chapter 22, of the Weld County
Code, regarding applications for a change of land use in the agricultural areas should be
reviewed in accordance with all potential impacts to surrounding properties and referral
agencies. It is not possible to mitigate this case to the point where the Board can deal with all
the potential impacts to the surrounding properties. She also referenced Section, 23-2-230.B.2,
stating the proposed use is not consistent with the intent of the A (Agricultural) Zone;
Section 23-2-230.B.3 stating she does not believe the uses being permitted would be
compatible with the surrounding land uses. It is still agricultural with rural residential and to
approve this would look like spot zoning, which she stated she does not support. Chair
Kirkmeyer also referenced Section 23-3-230.B.4 stating this use would not be compatible with
future development of the surrounding area, as permitted by the existing zoning. With regard to
conserving prime agricultural land, it is impossible to mitigate. For these reasons, she stated
she will not be supporting this application.
• Commissioner Moreno moved to deny the request of Donaldson and Company, LLC, for a
Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit, USR14-0084, for a Use
permitted as a Use by Right, Accessory Use, or Use by Special Review in the Commercial or
Industrial Zone Districts (outdoor truck storage and staging) provided that the property is not a
2015-1774
PL2341
HEARING CERTIFICATION - DONALDSON AND COMPANY, LLC (USR14-0084)
PAGE 7
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, and incorporating
the comments of the Board into the findings with regard to the denial. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Conway, and it carried unanimously. Chair Kirkmeyer thanked the public for
their presence and accommodating the Board's schedule. There being no further discussion,
the hearing was completed at 3:48 p.m.
This Certification was approved on the 6th day of July, 2015.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COL R DO
ATTEST:GG� .� � � � �, 2 � ;eti
C/.r82�/W! v• � /Barbara Kirkmeyer, hair
Weld County Clerk to the Board
Mike Freeman, Pro-Tern
B : o. , _ _, , -.
De•u y Clerk to the Boa d 47' T-
/4:-.7 -,,r1 P. Co way Ejr-
tes4 1110WiOdth,
.�
==',.
aQ,�` �-�- � . Cozad
"%ND 1 teve Moreno
2015-1774
PL2341
S
Ln
L
-.
YTIk
r
s i
J if a .' rf
14' -), J ,p �� a
w IF
C 1- 3 3`
‘: -,....., \li
a
W c-,
,
3--
>-
n
J �.%kt"L, 7 .4 `') ---\,,)
K., 1.:, ,,j,„ ,,, 7., \; ,, --..„t ..
',,. �- 1 rte'' ,r
LLJ
a �-
l'—'—'..,{.—.. -'_ .- (...",1 C7 '''. A,-,`,... '' '--1...)
.'". ‘ \SJ \\*.:3--T", C. .--r'."' T.4 ,. ' '''s p'''' ' -&1"-- '4
Lz
Hello