HomeMy WebLinkAbout20140065.tiff INVENTORY OF ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
Applicant Rain for Rent Case Number USR13-0050
Submitted or Prepared
Prior to At
Hearing Hearing
PC Exhibits
1 Letter from Robert& Matt Wickum dated 10/18/2013 X
2 E-mail from Scott& Lynn Laramore received 10/23/2013 X
3 Applicant Response Letter and neighborhood meeting summary dated 12/10/2013 X
4 Field Check Form from Planning Commissioner Joyce Smock X
I hereby certify that the 4 items identified herein were submitted to the Department of Planning Services at or prior to the scheduled
Planning Commissioners hearing.
` -_
Chris Gathman — Planner
10/18/13
To Whom it May Concern:
We purchased our 24 acres off AA St.and CR 37 in March of 2011 to build our home. We were assured
by the selling realtor that the land surrounding ours was for farming and was zoned for future home
development. In addition to that,we also purchased the 7+adjoining acres to the south of the 24 acres
in February of 2012 to add to our land.
We have been notified that there is a USR proposal for the property to the south of us for approximately
220 acres of an industrial,commercial/oil field storage facility.We have read the proposed USR
application and are concerned with the request; It surrounds a Colorado Charter School as well as a
church.The road access is directly across from our property access. The road is two lanes and is already
a major roadway for the trucking company(Northern Plains Trucking)on Highway 392. We have asked
for a traffic study on the current use and were told it wasn't an issue. We disagree with that. There is
currently a fire hydrant tap at this entrance where trucks fill water tanks all day already adding to the
volume. The USR states that there would be additional traffic 5am to 8am and 5pm to 8pm,7 days a
week. The noise from the traffic echo off the grain towers amplifying the sound. The application does
not appear to have any time frame outlined for the USR. Is this a long term or short term USR? Is this a
trial period to for a possible permanent facility? Why do they need 220 acres?
In October of 2012 we visited with Weld County Planners to discuss what Greeley's vision was for the
property in question.We were told that an area called'The Grainery'consisting of schools,
neighborhoods, shopping areas and open space,was planned.This future plan gave us all the more
reason to continue to invest in our property. The change from current use of agriculture to"The
Grainery" plan of neighborhoods is in line with what we were told and would not adversely impact our
property values.We are concerned that the trucks,tanks,equipment and general industrial park-like
zoning on 220 acres would negatively affect our Ag and residential property value.
We have made thousands of dollars of improvements to our properties which would be severely
impacted if the land is rezoned as industrial/commercial. We have a home in this area. There is a
church and a school in this area. The peace and quiet of the property will be gone. The possibility to
gain back our investment for resale is very slim if it is rezoned or the USR is granted on the entire 220
acres.
Please consider the impact to the neighbors in this area.
Matt& Robin Wikum
EXHIBIT
Chris Gathman
From: Inlaramore@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 11:16 AM
To: Chris Gathman
Subject: USR13-0050
Dear Weld County Planners,
My name is Lynn Laramore and I'm a resident of Weld County. My husband Scott and I have lived on the North side of
Greeley since 1998. We have raised three children in the RE-school district and I currently work for Coldwell Banker
Plains selling rural and residential properties.
Four years ago Scott and I purchased a home with acreage on AA street, across from the old Monfort headquarters and
the grain silos in Greeley. We are horse owners and developed the property to fit our lifestyle's needs: Barns,
stalls,corrals, pastures etc.
We purchased these two pieces of property from two different owners in 2008, both represented the property to be a great
investment in the future and a great place to live. Orr Land and company made it clear to us that the surrounding farms
would stay farms for a long time and that the zoning around us was for farming and residential. So we trusted what we
were told and purchased our property and invested a lot of our money in developing the place that we wanted to live in for
years to come.
Just over a week ago we received two USR cards from the Weld County Planners about a USR application. We have
read the application and have many concerns about their requests. The road access is across from our personal road
access, and the Charter School's play ground area, which also is a church. Now, 66 Road is a two-lane, paved road and
is already turning into a major access to Northern Plains Trucking, located on Highway 392. We are becoming more and
more concerned with the increase in truck traffic and the trucks that are filling up with water at a hydrant located at the
entrance across from ours. I called and ask for a traffic evaluation and they reported there wasn't an issue. We disagree
with this decision. The USR would add even more traffic volume and noise, creating a risky environment. Does this
application have a time frame for project completion?Also, in the application it looks to contain the full proposed 220
acres.
On October of 2012,we met with the Weld County Planners to discuss what Greeley's proposed use was for the land
between "O Street"and 37 Road and between Highway 85 and AA Street. We were told that the"Grainery"was zoned
for residential housing, schools, neighborhoods, shopping and open space. If this USR is allowed it will greatly impact our
property values and our lives. Please consider the impact on us and the neighbors already living and owning businesses
in the area.
Scott Laramore
Lynn Laramore
(970)381-1457-Cell
EXHIBIT
1
in GROUP
paced I planning I illustration
December 10, 2013
Weld County Department of Planning Services
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, Co. 80631
RE: Grainery USR Response Letter: Neighbor Comment Letters
A meeting was held on Friday December 6, 2013 with Matt and Robin Wikum, the homeowners to
the North of the grain elevators. They and one other neighbor had filed letters of concern with
Weld County Planning regarding the USR application. The other neighbors (Scott and Lynn
Laramore) were out of town, but encouraged us to meet with the Wikums in their absence. The
Pastor of the Church to the West of New Lot B was invited to meet with us, but did not attend.
The neighbors' concerns/topics of conversation at the meeting included the following:
1. The size of the Rain For Rent project.
The notice that was initially sent to them led them to believe that Rain For Rent would be
purchasing 220+/- acres for their operations. They were told by Weld Count Planning (and again
by us)that was in error, and the Rain For Rent would only be purchasing 25+/- acres. We
reviewed a map of the property to explain the extent of Rain For Rent's use of the property.
2. The truck traffic on AA Street.
The major concern raised by the Wikums at the meeting was the truck traffic on AA Street. North
Weld County Water District ("NWCWD") sells water to oil and gas drilling companies that fill water
tank truck trucks from the hydrant just west of the grain elevators. The hydrant is located on
SE1O26, a small tract owned by NWCWD. In addition, a trucking company located on Hwy 392,
a mile to the north of AA Street, captures its trucks at the end of the day by having them travel
west on AA Street from US85 to WCR 37,then North to Hwy 392. While none of that traffic is
generated from the Grainery, the concern is that Rain For Rent will add to what traffic already
exists, potentially creating an issue. We provided information on the small number of daily
anticipated trips from the Rain For Rent site.
3. Concern that Rain For Rent traffic would funnel through the same intersection (the proposed
extension of 17th Avenue) as existing traffic(which includes NWCWD and the existing church).
The neighbor's requested that an access drive be provided along the eastern side of the site.
Rain For Rent has agreed to pursue this access and will apply for an access permit if the USR is
approved.
The Wikum's left the meeting indicating that they were supportive of the growth on our property
and were happy we had met with them to clarify what Rain For Rent was going to do with the
USR site. The Laramore's were notified about the meeting and encouraged to follow-up with
Wickum's and/or TB Group for a summary of the meeting.
EXHIBIT 444 Mountain Ave. TEL 970,532.5891
Benhoud,CO80513 w®TBGroup.us
Weld County Planning Department received letters from two neighbors with concerns about the
USR application USR10-0050. The following is a list of the concerns stated in their letters and
our responses:
From Matt and Robin Wikum:
1. 'We were assured by the selling realtor that the land surrounding our was for farming and
was zoned for future home development.'
RESPONSE: The current zoning is Agricultural with an existing USR for the site. The
zoning will remain the same for this site. The current USR for the site allows for a
commercial feed lot, maintenance of a commercial truck fleet, truck storage, a truck wash
and a truckers lounge as well as the volume of traffic associate with these uses.
The proposed USR will result in a significant reduction in use and vehicles than what is
currently permitted on-site. The proposed USR does not anticipate construction of new
buildings.
2. 'We have asked for a traffic study on the current use and were told it wasn't an issue.'
RESPONSE: A traffic narrative was prepared for the site. Per this report, there will be a
significant reduction in the amount of traffic from this site, occurring during limited hours of
the day. In addition, the type of traffic will change from large, agricultural use trailers(for
animals)to primarily personal vehicles, pick-up trucks and limited semi-trucks.
3. `There is currently a fire hydrant tap at this entrance where trucks fill water tanks all day
already adding to the volume.'
RESPONSE: The fire hydrant is located on parcel SE 1026 which is owned and operated
by North Weld County Water District. The site and user listed in the USR have no
affiliation with or control over the fire hydrant on SE 1026.
4. 'The USR states that there would be additional traffic 5am-8am and 5pm-8pm, 7 days a
week.'
RESPONSE: The user of this site will generate up to 55 round trips per day, 10 of which
will be semi-trucks. Since actual shift times will normally occur within a window of time,
site peak hour traffic is estimated at 10 round trips with most of these trips expected to
occur before or after traditional street peak hours. The existing USR for the site allows for
considerably more traffic that the proposed USR. There will be a significant reduction in
the amount of traffic from the site historically, with the projected trips occurring during a
small window of each day. Standard work days will be Monday— Friday with limited,
occasional operation on the weekends.
5. The noise from the traffic echo off the grain towers amplifying the sound.'
RESPONSE: Noise and traffic echo are due to current traffic patterns.
6. The application does not appear to have any timeframe outlined for the USR.'
RESPONSE: The USR approval would remain in place until amended.
7. 'Why do they need 220 acres?'
Grainery 12.10.13 Page 2
RESPONSE: The USR does not propose use of 220 acres. The USR applies to 25.673
acres. The 220 acres includes lots A, B and D of RE No. 0803-30-2 RE 3860 which is
included to accommodate a minor lot boundary revision between lots B and D.
8. 'We are concerned that the trucks,tanks, equipment and general industrial park-like
zoning on 220 acres would negatively affect our Ag and residential property value.'
RESPONSE: The USR applies to only 25.673 acres.
From Scott and Lynn Laramore:
1. 'Orr Land and Company made it clear to us that the surrounding farms would stay farms
for a long time and that the zoning around us was for farming and residential.'
RESPONSE: The current zoning is Agricultural with an existing USR for the site. The
zoning will remain the same for this site. The current USR for the site allows for a
commercial feed lot, maintenance of a commercial truck fleet, truck storage, a truck wash
and a truckers lounge as well as the volume of traffic associate with these uses.
The proposed USR will result in a significant reduction in use and vehicles than what is
currently permitted on-site. The proposed USR does not anticipate construction of new
buildings.
2. 'Now, 66 Road is a two-lane, paved road and is already turning into a major access to
Northern Plains Trucking, located on Highway 392. We are becoming more and more
concerned with the increase in truck traffic and the trucks that are filling up with water at a
hydrant located at the entrance across from ours.'
RESPONSE: The user of this site will generate up to 55 round trips per day, 10 of which
will be semi-trucks, Since actual shift times will normally occur within a window of time,
site peak hour traffic is estimated at 10 round trips with most of these trips expected to
occur before or after traditional street peak hours. The existing USR for the site allows for
considerably more traffic that the proposed USR. There will be a significant reduction in
the amount of traffic from the site historically, with the projected trips occurring during a
small window of each day. Standard work days will be Monday—Friday with limited,
occasional operation on the weekends. The fire hydrant is located on parcel SE 1026
which is owned and operated by North Weld County Water District. The site and user
listed in the USR have no affiliation with or control over the fire hydrant on SE 1026.
3. 'I called and asked for a traffic evaluation and they reported there wasn't an issue.'
RESPONSE: A traffic narrative was prepared for the site. Per this report, there will be a
significant reduction in the amount of traffic from this site, occurring during limited hours of
the day. In addition, the type of traffic will change from large, agricultural use trailers(for
animals)to primarily personal vehicles, pick-up trucks and limited semi-trucks.
4. 'The USR would add even more traffic volume and noise...'
RESPONSE: Noise and traffic echo are due to current traffic patterns
5. 'Does this application have a timeframe for project completion?'
RESPONSE: The user will utilize the existing site and buildings 'as-is'. The user plans to
occupy and use the site upon approval. The USR approval would remain in place until
amended.
6. 'In the application it looks to contain the full proposed 220 acres.'
Grainery 12.10.13 Page 3
RESPONSE: The USR does not propose use of 220 acres. The USR applies to 25.673
acres.
7. 'We were told that the `Grainery'was zoned for residential housing, schools,
neighborhoods, shopping and open space.'
RESPONSE: The current zoning is Agricultural with an existing USR for the site. The
zoning will remain the same for this site. The current USR for the site allows for a
commercial feed lot, maintenance of a commercial truck fleet, truck storage, a truck wash
and a truckers lounge as well as the volume of traffic associate with these uses.
The proposed USR will result in a significant reduction in use and vehicles than what is
currently permitted on-site. The proposed USR does not anticipate construction of new
buildings.
Grainery 12.10.13 Page 4
FIELD CHECK
CASE NUMBER: -1 5_/C'- CC 5-0 DATE OF INSPECTION: /47/73
APPLICANT'S NAME;, ' -�- ��L� r � L ‘p/1(/‘7. 41-6e-67 675'441'"e'; .-41"-
PLANNER:
w ��
'�L�J v-lI FJQFJ!_.J1.�9'�
REQUEST. ,Us ./ire.[ rJ . rc � ' /1z- -
&ail V-e- 717-46-ei
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: >xr ��'�` —��� .`l/u%4{ 30, % fc' `l'i'
• icL e.„y2
LOCATION:
LAND USE: ,/
E rte.4-4-1,4-!r�tt‘A (/ ff
it �d. 11f11
+
ZONING: N A(Agricultural)
E A(Agricultural)
S A(Agricultural)
W A(Agricultural)
COMMENTS: eze./ti,
c., ti. [
.1 1,2 '44✓.�-- , J'✓
1 -
/-it-cfc;:f *A;
P.CAlerrtSerJ
EXHIBIT
4
f j5 r - 00 5c)
Hello