The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About790404.tiff EXCERPT FROM HEARINGS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO FEBRUARY 21, 1979 TIME: 2 : 00 P.M. DOCKET #79-3 TAPE #79-17 CHAIRMAN CARLSON: We will call this hearing to order, this is in regards to a change of zone of the Charles Ryberg. Is Mr. Ryberg in the audience? He is. Will the Clerk to the Board please call the roll. ACTING CLERK TO THE BOARD: Lydia Dunbar COMMISSIONER DUNBAR: Here ACTING CLERK TO THE BOARD: Bill Kirby COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Here ACTING CLERK TO THE BOARD: Leonard Roe COMMISSIONER ROE: Here ACTING CLERK TO THE BOARD: June Steinmark COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: Here ACTING CLERK TO THE BOARD: Norman Carlson CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Here Let the record show all members are present. Would you make the record Mr. Anson. MR. RUSSELL ANSON: This is Docket No. 79-3 which is a request from Charles Ryberg for a Change of Zone from A-Agricultural District to C-Commercial District on a tract of land located in the: Southeast quarter Section 24, Township one (1) North Range Sixty-six (66) West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado Notice has been published on January 18, 1979 and February 8, 1979 in the Johnstown Breeze. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Thank you Mr. Anson. Will the Planning Staff go ahead with their recommendations to the County Commissioners. TOM HONN: Comments were made December 19, 1978 in reference to Case No. Z. 314 : 78 : 18 . This application of Charles Ryberg, it is moved by Fred Otis the following resolution has been introduced by passage by the Weld County Planning Commission. Be it resolved -1- PL0348 790404 by the Weld County Planning Commission application for rezoning from A-Agricultural District to C-Commercial District covering the following described property in Weld County, Colorado. Previously read into the record by County Attorney and comprising three (3) acres more or less. He recommended unfavorable to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons: #1. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission the applicant is not demonstrating in compliance with Section 8. 3 of the Weld County Zoning Resolution which states: "Request for the rezoning of tracts within Weld County should be supported by detailed and substantial evidence as such rezoning is necessary. Recent findings and oral statements by the petitioner should show very clearly that either the original zoning is faulty or the change, the changing conditions in the area now justify new classification. Without presentation of such supporting documentation the County Planning Commission should not recommend a change of zoning. " It is the opinion of the Planning Commission, the applicant has not demonstrated in the submitted application materials or in oral statements made in the scheduled Planning Commission meeting that either the original zoning was faulty or change in conditions in the area now justify new zoning classification. Section 8 . 3 of the Weld County Zoning Resolution also states: "The following arguments which are frequently presented are not sufficient grounds for rezoning 1. The area is of no other practical use 2. Post rezoning would allow the highest and best use of the land 3. A nonconforming use is located on the property 4. The area joins land already zoned in this manner 5. No one in the neighborhood objects 6. If the zoning is granted, we will agree to use it only for certain purposes 7. You havn' t given us any reasons for not making the change -2- Although each of the preceding arguments have some validity, no one argument alone is sufficient grounds for rezoning. " In reviewing the applicants submitted application in regard to his reasons and arguments for the rezoning of the property, it is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has not set forth sufficient reasons for the zoning request to be approved. In addition, Section 8 . 3 states: "There must be definite proof that the area requested for change has unique characteristics which distinguish it from surrounding lands and thus make rezoning essential. " Again, it is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has not demonstrated the property in question as unique characteristics which distinguishes it from surrounding lands. Further, Section 8 . 3 states : "Furthermore, once the change is made, the Planning Commission must recognize the precedent which is established both in the immediate area and other parts of the County for like rezoning of other lands similarly situated. " It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the approval of this request will constitute spot zoning. The approval of this rezoning request would establish an undesirable precedent in the immediate area and other parts of the County similarly situated. 2 . It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the rezoning request does not comply with policy contained in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan relating to commercial development in the unincorporated areas of the County. Policy found in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan which is utilized to guide commercial development of this nature states: "Commercial development will not be encouraged in the unincorporated areas of the County unless it can be shown by the developer that the purposed commercial use cannot reasonably be located in an urban area. The motion was seconded by Jim Gilbert, voted for passage Jerry Keefer, Ben Nicks , Jim Gilbert, Fred Otis, Betty Kountz and against passage Chuck Carlson. -3- And comments to date; our offices received six letters of opposition to the zoning request from adjacent property owners or persons living within 500 feet of the applicant's property and letters should be in your attached packets forwarded from the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Okay, we do have an attendance record for those who are concerned with this item and I believe it would probably be appropriate if it stayed at the table there and those who wanted to sign it could. I 'm sure that there ' s most of them here in the audience are here in regards to Northglenn that. . .is the applicant present. . .for Mr. . .well this Mr. Ryberg? JOE HELLEWELL: Yes. Briefly if I can summarize. . . CHAIRMAN CARLSON: State your name Joe. JOE HELLEWELL. Joe Hellewell is my name, I 'm an attorney here in Greeley and I represent Charles Ryberg, the applicant. . .to go through this briefly, Mr. Ryberg is. . .operates a house moving business from this location; he has been is this location for approximately 5-1/2 years at this point. He was contacted a little over a year ago or year and a half ago by the Planning Department, who informed him that he needed to change the zone to continue to operate. Basically, Mr. Ryberg' s operation, he has a 15-acre parcel which he lives on and he is proposing to Change the Zone on three acres of this to. . . for the storage of his equipment. Primarily his operation is two or three trucks a day are moved out or in to the yard as such. To conduct his business which is primarily in the area of Brighton, Commerce City and Denver, where he conducts most of his business, in the Adams County area and parts south. He does operate also in the Fort Lupton and areas north of. . .but most of his business is to the south. He purchased this property with this specific purpose in mind at the time that he bought it and picked it out for its unique location in that it is at the end of a County road in the sense of where the County road is maintained. Apparently there is an -4- area not to far to the east of his house where the road is not maintained by the County. This eliminates the traffic of people coming by; on lookers and his primary purpose is to provide a security for his equipment. He does not conduct a great deal of work there on the premises nor does he store a great deal of anything but his equipment. Occasionally he will store a house or something for a short period of time but primarily it's for the storage and safe keeping of his equipment. He feels that this is the kind of location where this kind of activity should be encouraged. It's not something that any person other than himself or similarly situated person is going to find desirable to have that zoning and he didn' t even realize he needed it until he was contacted sometime after he had been there; approximately three years after he had been there. He has looked for other suitably zoned ground and is here to tell you that there isn' t such ground that he can also provide protection by residing there. It' s a small operation and is not. . .you know, come in to play and bother his neighbors and is the kind of activity I think that should be encouraged in the southern end of this County. Is. . .while it may be a spot zoning in the sense that it is a very small parcel in large sea of agriculturally zoned ground, its use is. . . is quite. . .or the ground itself is quite adapted to this usage. It' s not. . .it does not have enough water to run cattle or horses. It dosn' t have any of the accruement to be able to farm, being a small tract and he just runs his small business from it. At this time, I will call on Mr. Ryberg to explain what his operation is and answer any questions that you have. Ernie you want ah. . . state your name and tell them what you do. MR. RYBERG: Okay, my name is Charles Ryberg and I am engaged in. . .you know, the business of moving buildings and houses and primarily that's a. . .you know, what I want to use the property for, -5- is to be able to live there and. . .that' s basically what I 've got in mind for it and when I was originally contacted by the Planning Staff, I was told at that time that they had a type of zoning called a. . . it wasn' t, it wasn' t commercial zoning it was some sort of limited use zoning and then right here, we got right down close to the hearings they told me that no longer did that sort of thing, it had to be a commercial type zone and I. . .I would really, you know. . . if they. . .you know, if the County had some other kind of method of type zoning, to. . .where a person could use that type zoning where it would revert back to what it is now, if I sold the property and moved away or if I. . .you know, eventually sold my business and no longer did that sort of thing, where you revert back to agricultural zoning. It would much more satisfactory to me but I. . . I been advised by the Planning Commission that you don' t have such a thing, so we're. . . the only thing we can do is ask for what we're asking for. JOE HELLEWELL. I believe that's all we have. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Does the board have any questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: Joe, your saying that a. . .at least if I 'm reading your letter correctly that a. . .the conditions have changed sufficently to allow this zoning and to use as your area of concern, the southern end of the County but then in your next paragraph you state that; "No commercial grounds are suitable for the location of this business. " JOE HELLEWELL: There are none currently. COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: Are you also referring to the southern end of Weld County? JOE HELLEWELL. Yea, we. . .we've been actively engaged looking for ground already zoned that would fit his operation where he could live there in a reasonable circumstances and not be surrounded by industrial and commercial adventures of all types and still keep watch over his property. The whole purpose of this zoning is, is primarily so that he can run the business from that location that -6- does not involve a great deal of movement of trucks or vehicles around the area, it' s. . .they come in and go quite infrequently. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Does anyone else have questions to ask of the applicant or the Planning Staff? COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Well, I guess I would like the Planning Staff to respond to what that type of business is suppose to do, really, under the present zoning set up. It' s so similar as far as physical makeup a. . . to ag business and yet it definitely does serve a different customer and apparently there is no middle ground. Is this correct? I 'm not trying. . . TOM HONN: Okay, the interpretation that we have of the activity taken place is that it would require a Commercial Zone District to operate out of and we discovered that the activities taken place on April of 77 , looked into it, and then we contacted Mr. Ryberg and I had some, some meetings with him to discuss, you know, what our view of the thing was, and layed out the two basic alternatives; one was to apply for the Change of Zone, well, three I guess, apply for the Change of Zone, the other would be to cease and desist and the third would be if he didn' t apply and didn' t cease and desist then we would bring as a zoning violation forward and he chose to go ahead and do the Change of Zone and as Mr. Ryberg indicated, up till a short time ago, we had utilized the unit development to be able to limit uses. That was the understanding that we had had of that particular process. The County Attorney's office advises us that, that was not to be the case and um. . .which I guess it was at a point somewhere while Mr. Ryberg was putting his application together that probably that decision was made but in terms of the use itself the nature of the activity, the way its conduct on the property is one which we feel is described or needs to be a Commercial Zone to be conducted. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Is there any other questions of the applicant or Planning Staff? COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Any of the writers of the letters of complaint (Not Audible) -7- CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to give any testimony in favor of this zoning change? Is there anyone in the audience who would want to give testimony in opposition to this Change of Zone? Would you come forward. Go over there and state your name. . .address. RICHMOND DENNISON: Yes, I 'm Richmond Dennison. I live just north from Mr. Ryberg and the main reason is, we don' t want that rezoned because. . .commercial then if he sells and leaves no matter who comes in there, what kind of operation they want to put in, it' s commercial. We disapprove of that very much. We are in a subdivision and the whole neighborhood disapproves. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Do you have any problems with his business as it is operating today? RICHMOND DENNISON: No. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Are you opposed to us rezoning it commercial and then that zoning stays with the land and if he should move off and then anything else that meets the criteria on the Commercial Zoning could move in there, that' s what your saying? RICHMOND DENNISON. Yes sir. That' s what we disapprove of. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: There's nothing in our. . .Commercial. . . RICHMOND DENNISON: About the operation of his trucks, no, as far as I 'm concerned they don' t bother me, it' s the rezoning of that land we don' t want that. Right there by a residential area. . . subdivision. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Tom, there' s nothing in our Commercial Zoning. . . no anyway that we can tie this to this use and then when he moves or sells it. . . it reverts back. There ' s no way we can do that is. . . can we? TOM HONN: There' s nothing within the district itself, the unit development can be used to control how the use is conducted on the property, not what uses take place. There' s nothing to my knowledge in the Zoning Resolution, in the amendment section or anywhere else that defines the ability to allow zoning but revert -8- it under certain conditions. You know, I 'm not sure that' s probably something the Attorney' s office can perhaps give you an opinion on, but I 'm not aware of anything in the Zoning Resolution that allows that kind of a circumstance. COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: I guess I would like you to explain to me a little bit closer, why you consider this a zoning violation, I mean it sounds to me like what his doing is storing heavy equipment for. . .you know, I. . . I don' t know what makes it a zoning violation in the agricultural area. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: It' s commercial, commercial enterprises. TOM HONN: Well, it is, the use that's being conducted is in no way similar to any of the uses listed as uses by right in the Zoning Resolution, okay. And I can read through that whole list but it' s. . .your basically looking at farm, ranch and gardening, your looking at. . .um, you know, your looking at those kind of activities. There is nothing that is in agricultural use listed by right that is similar to the activity taking place on the property. It' s very similar to several things listed in our Commercial Zoning, such as, the storage warehousing kinds of activities or a builders supply order or something to that, there ' s not a specific category listed in the Commercial Zoning for a house moving operation, okay, but we're saying that it is similar to one of those kinds of uses. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: He would not have the traffic that most Commercial Zoned areas would have, though, I mean there' s very seldom that somebody comes on to his property for. . .to do business with him. He takes his equipment and goes to other property to move a house. TOM HONN: For this specific use it would appear so, that' s the way his explained it, yes. COMMISSIONER ROE: Tom, you said that there was nothing under the use by right of the Agricultural Zone that would fit this description. What about. . .would, would there be a possibility -9- of a Special Use Permit rather than a rezoning? I just don' t believe the justification is there for rezoning the land. TOM HONN: Well, the only thing I guess I could go the one step further and say, besides it' s not similar to anything in the uses listed by right. I don't think it' s similar to anything that' s listed or really fits the concept of a Special or a Condition Use Permit which would allow it to stay in the Agricultural District but having certain provisional or certain additional controls over it but it' s not anything that' s really similar to any of those activities. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: I tend to agree with what you are thinking there , Leonard, but again he answered the questions. MR. RUSSELL ANSON: Tom, what type of equipment does he have on the property? TOM HONN: Okay, um. . .we have some photographs that we can present, I think perhaps Mr. Ryberg can probably explain the kind of equipment he has better than we can in terms of, you know, the numbers of trucks or the equipment that he uses to move structures with. I 'm not sure I can give you the right kind of detail. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: These are trucks, I-beams and dollies to move houses with. TOM HONN. Primarily there ' s other. . .other items on the property as well, that may not be directly related to house moving, but I think that' s the major items of equipment that are housed there. I think on occasion there has been a structure stores temporarily on his property. COMMISSIONER DUNBAR: Is this area a surburban residential area or is it all. . . does it come under. . .what I 'm trying to say is, is agricultural or is this also the. . . TOM HONN: Well, it' s all Agriculturally Zoned. It' s about a mile and half north, northwest of Lochbuie, okay, and to the north of this particular site there are a couple of the rural subdivisions still zoned Agricultural that were plated back in the late 60 ' s. -10- I think to the west of it there' s also a subdivision and um. . . other than the subdivisions, it' s still predominately agricultural, but scattered in the area there are some of a rural, agricultural rural residential kind of environment. COMMISSIONER KIRBY: But many of those could possibly be either recorded exemptions or houses that were built under the old subdivision rules. TOM HONN: Most of them that are out there were either. . .are in a subdivision that was plated or were prior to the Senate Bill 35, but I think there may have been a few in that area that have been under the recorded exemption over the last couple of years, but there has not been a tremendous amount to my knowledge in that area, one or two perhaps. MR. RUSSELL ANSON: Tom, was I the one who informed you that PUD would not be appropriate or was that someone else in our office? TOM HONN: No, that was Kay. MR. RUSSELL ANSON: Kay. TOM HONN: The P. . .okay, the PUD is not necessarily inappropriate; PUD can be used to identify how the uses are conducted on the property. Okay, the concept that was used for several years by the County with the PUD, was to be able to identify or restrict or limit certain uses within that zone district, okay, and we were advised that the PUD was not setup in the zoning resolution clearly enough to really give that authority to the County to control the uses within that zoning district; so that really meant that any use that could be allowed in a Commercial District may be able to take place. But the unit development still can be used, the standards can be set out in terms of controlling either aesthetic or other conditions that set how those uses are conducted on the property. Okay, if it' s outside storage maybe you can require to be screened or there may be something along that line that, you know, define from aesthetic stand point how use takes place that maybe makes it a better neighborhood but you can't say; only such and such of a use can take place on the property. -11- COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: Okay, let me try again. No. . . in an Agricultural Zone. . .we have no restriction against storing equipment that you own. Could the PUD be used to state that, you know, only certain heavy equipment could be stored; no buildings, no trash, no such and such is. . . ? TOM HONN: Okay, I think maybe, you know, maybe we 're getting into a fine line on something like that um. . . I think if it was equipment that you were using on your property, such as, farm implements , tractors and etc, okay, that' s fine and, you know, they are being used in an agricultural use that' s taking place on your property, okay, or being employed in conducting something that is the use by right in the Agricultural District, okay, um. . .but where you are operating a business , I guess the thing that makes it very difficult maybe we do get into a gray area and it becomes a tremendous amount if interpretation as to where you start changing it from the, you know, the parking of your equipment overnight to actually running a business out of it and I think if that' s going to be the case then there ' s going to have to be a tremendous amount or a good deal of amount of research put into each individual case and make that determination from one to another as to whether it is or isn' t a commercial operation or whether it is just that parking of equipment, okay and again, it' s the fine line of trying to find out whether that' s what it is or whether it ' s that commercial operation that' s being conducted. COMMISSIONER ROE: Okay Tom, supposing instead of a house moving operation it was a custom combining operation? Would he be required to go to Commercial Zoning on that? TOM HONN: Ah. . .we in the department just spent a considerable amount of time discussing that particular item. Our conclusion was; no, not in that particular case because the equipment itself is very specialized in terms of only being utilized in, clearly, an agricultural farming, ranch and gardening use, okay. -12- COMMISSIONER ROE: So the test really isn' t whether or not it' s a commercial operation, it' s whether or not it' s directly related to agricultural. TOM BONN: Yea, the equipment in case of the combines or someone who does custom work in a case like that, that was, you know, the particular question that came up. The equipment itself is equipment that is pretty restricted in its use because of its specialized nature and its principal or primary use is conducting a use that' s allowed by right in the Agricultural Zone, okay, those farm implements because they're going to specialized and that' s where maybe you know, we get back into that fine line. There is, I think, a visable difference between stuff that is used in something other than an agricultural, the farming, ranching or gardening kind of a pursuit, such as, this equipment and I think that' s where our decision was made, that is not one that falls into that category. COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Alright, one step further with that line of reasoning, suppose it was a trucking line hauling cattle and grain. TOM HONN: Okay, a. . .again, I think the thing that, that aw. . . is going to be difficult, is that you've got to look in its. . .this type of thing that your talking about, its specific use and its specific piece of property type of thing and you really got to look at that comparing it each time, okay a. . . I think we 're perhaps. . .it' s a livestock truck hauling kind of an enterprise if it' s there and the equipment is associated with a feedlot use which is. . .have been permitted there then I think that you' re, you know, getting in a stage of acceptability because that equipment is primarily there to facilitate that Agricultural Use which is that Special Use that' s been permitted. If your just setting up a trucking terminal, you don' t necessarily know and have control that it' s always going to be, you know, the grain or the livestock moving, it becomes a truck terminal function and it' s not directly related to a use that has been permitted within the Agricultural -13- Zone District on the property. It' s difficult to answer something like that in a generality, however. . . JOE HELLEWELL: If I might make one more comment. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Joe JOE HELLEWELL: I. . . I. . .maybe I didn' t point it out and maybe I did, but one of the primary purposes of rezoning like this, is that this is a piece of a much larger parcel and we're not trying to divide it off so that it doesn't become a desirable piece of commercial property as such, it' s just more adjunct to where he is living. We don' t intend to divide it off and since physically segregating the agricultural property from the commercial property in ownership. COMMISSIONER KIRBY: This a. . .that brings up a question Tom, this would not create a separate parcel if he owns three out of these a total of fifteen, is it? TOM HONN: No, it just sets up two separate use for zoning district within the property that Mr. Ryberg would own. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: You say this is on a dead end road, is it not on the oil road nor a highly traveled road? TOM HONN: Okay, the access to the property is; as you come north from Lochbuie, you turn west on an eastwest County road which I believe is Six. CHARLES RYBERG: Six. TOM HONN: Um. . .and the access is off of Road Six. I 'm not as exactly sure whether the road is truly a dead end or not, I believe it goes on west to a subdivision, I 'm not sure. COMMISSIONER ROE: Let Mr. Ryberg. . . CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Mr. Ryberg, CHARLES RYBERG: What Road Six is there, it goes over the sandy hill and the County came out and put up road closed again on it which on the east end somebody' s knocked them down and, you know, there' s a few cars going through but the road is supposedly closed on the -14- west end up there next to the subdivision, up about two miles, well, roughly a mile and half from where I live. There is a barricade still across there on that end there, said road closed. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: I guess what I was getting to, is that this is not a highly traveled road so if and when you would sell this piece of property, if the case may be, a. . .the likelihood of it becoming a valuable piece of commercial property on a heavily traveled road would be very mute because it' s not, it' s not that highly traveled. What would you say the traffic volumn is on this road? CHARLES RYBERG: Oh, there' s probably four or five people a day that go through there, you know, I think, I think some of them. . . I don' t. . .where they, where they come from. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Do they have to go east from your place, in other words, a barricade there prevents them from going west. CHARLES RYBERG: They go around the barricade. . . CHAIRMAN CARLSON: They go around the barricade. . . CHARLES RYBERG: And come on down, but the hill is to the west of me but it' s suppose to be closed off there. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: It' s suppose to be closed? CHARLES RYBERG: And then the County, the County hasn't maintained our road there in over two years with a grader at all, even the part up to. . . I have one house that where the property to the west of us there, there ' s one house there and it' s been two years since the County has even had a grader on our road there. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: What County road are you east of or west of? CHARLES RYBERG: 37 COMMISSIONER ROE: 37 CHAIRMAN CARLSON: 37, that is not paved, 39 is paved isn' t it? CHARLES RYBERG: no, it 's. . . COMMISSIONER ROE: 37 is paved, 37 is the road to Lochbuie. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Lochbuie. How far are you, are you from a. . . 37? -15- CHARLES RYBERG: We 're a good quarter of a mile. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: A quarter of a mile CHARLES RYBERG: Approximately. COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: Well, it seems to me we 're getting a little off the subject and since there is only two criterias for rezoning; one is of the original zoning was faulty or that there is a change in condition in the area and basically I don't think the testimony shows either one of those cases and you also have to consider that once it' s commercial, it' s commercial forever and any use allowed in a commercial area is allowed there, whether Mr. Ryberg owns it or someone else. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Is there anyone else in the audience who would want to give testimony in opposition to this. . . VOICE FROM THE AUDIENCE: Yeh, Mr. Ryberg he said that a. . . CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Would you give us your name and address JOHN CONWAY: Oh, I 'm sorry, John Conway is my name and I live on Road 37 at the intersection of Six. An he said he was looking for some commercial property that a. . .I mean agri . . .or commercial property that didn' t have a. . .where he could also live because he wanted to be exposed to commercial property where he lived at and I share his opinion. This is one of the reasons I object to this and I think we 're getting a little (not audible) about the fact of the trucking. This is only one aspect of the thing. He stores houses on his property that he brings in on Road 37 until whatever is done and then he carries them back out again and this is a tremendous wear and tear on the highway and for these reasons I want to voice my objection. It' s not just the fact that his just parking his vehicles there. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Does any of the Board have any questions of Mr. Conway? JOHN CONWAY: An another point, may I please? CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Yes. -16- JOHN CONWAY: . . . is that a . . . if this property is zoned commercial and he does sell it, who knows what the next enterprise is going to be. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Thank you, Mr . Conway. Is there anyone else who would want to testify or give opposition to. . . MARK BROWN: I 'm Mark Brown. I 'm Mr. Ryberg ' s neighbor to the east and a. . .before I get into a bunch of other things, I wanna say a few things about the testimony that ' s been given here this morning. Um. . .Road Six is a through road it is main. . . it is supposedly maintained by the County it ' s on the maps as a County maintained road and during the summer months, I agree that half the time it isn 't passable but during the summer months when it is passable it is used heavily by the traffic coming out of the subdivision to the west and a. . . so a. . .this dead end stuff , the County come out and put up a sign and put a dead end on there because one of the inspectors couldn 't get through the road and people called the County and they had to come out. . .eat the sign because it was supposed to be maintained by the County and that ' s the story on that, it was up exactly two days and pulled out of there . You can ' t put a. . .close down a County road for no reason at all. I wanted to make sure that was understood and also, in the area around there, alright, there ' s a bunch of stuff that' s been said about that, that area around there if I 'm not mistaken, the largest parcel and there ' s only one of them in there, is twenty acres. The rest of it has been divided in two , and some ten-acre plots. This is adjoining Green Acres which goes all the way up to a. . . Road Eight which is one mile from Road Six and it ' s about three-quarters of a mile deep, all that property has been subdivided and as far as the property not having any other use besides commercial use, there ' s a lot of people living there that have found some use for the property because they are paying good money to move in there and live. And I wanted you to know the area around there has been not described accurately, not by these people -17- or anybody else. There ' s houses there, there are people and their all pretty much like me, we're not rich enough to buy enough ground to be a poor farmer and we're probably not smart enough to be a dumb farmer, so we get five acres and we play our game. That' s our thing in life, that' s what we're going to do and that' s what the area is and that' s the kind of people live there. There is no more subdividing in Weld County and we get pushed out of where we 're at now, we can't go any further, there ' s no place to go and for myself and I think a few of the neighbors your going to have a hard time pushing us out. We don' t know exactly what we can do but we ' ll do it all. An ah. . . I have no objections to Mr. Ryberg ' s parking his trucks there if it stops with parking his trucks there. That property has, however, had houses on it; it' s directly to the west of me and I would just like you people to sit down and think for awhile, how would you like to open your drapes and some morning see a house on blocks between you and Longs Peak. I don' t think it would please you much more than it pleases me. But I do agree that if there is someway to work out for him to park his trucks there and use that for storage for his trucks and move the whole thing over on this three acres that his got subdivided there instead of leaving it all over the place. Move it over on the three acres, I agree that it would help the whole neighborhood. It would help me as well as everybody else. But Commercial Zoning, a flat out Commercial Zoning is just going to open a Pandora ' s Box and just going to bring the whole neighborhood to some kind of panic state. And like I said, I don' t know exactly what we can do but we will find out and we ' ll do everything we can. And a. . . political or any other way. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Does anyone have any questions of Mr. Brown? Thank you, Mr. Brown. Is there anyone else in the audience who would want to testify, come forward. MARY ANN DE PETRO Mary Ann DePetro, 2464 Apaloosa. May I ask Mr. Ryberg a few questions which have not been answered at this hearing? -18- CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Well, I would say that would be appropriate, Mr. Ryberg would you come forward? MARY ANN DE PETRO: How long have you been in the house moving business? CHARLES RYBERG: Ah. . . since a. . .July of 1970 for myself . MARY ANN DE PETRO: Okay, July of 1970 . CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Would you talk a little bit louder so we can hear. COMMISSIONER DUNBAR: What did you say? CHAIRMAN CARLSON: July of 1970? CHARLES RYBERG: July of 1970 . MARY ANN DE PETRO: You were in the house moving business then prior to your move out to this piece of property on Road Six? CHARLES RYBERG: That is correct. MARY ANN DE PETRO: Okay, where did you park your equipment before this? CHARLES RYBERG: I at that time had a piece of property leased prior to that which sold, I lost my lease. MARY ANN DE PETRO: Where was that? In a. . . CHARLES RYBERG: Jefferson County MARY ANN DE PETRO: In Jefferson County. Okay, now when you purchased this property did you not know that this was Agriculturally Zoned? CHARLES RYBERG: I knew it was Agriculturally Zoned but I didn 't think that it was any violation to park trucks out there at the time. MARY ANN DE PETRO: Alright fine, very good . Now have you exhausted all the territory in northern Adams County um. . . in Brighton area, Henderson or Commerce City area and try to relocate a place where you can park your equipment legally. CHARLES RYBERG: Well I . . . I have found some pieces of property down there that, you know, that you can park on, but the problem in Adams County is zoned industrial. You have to be zoned industrial in Adams County in order to park your equipment. Industrial zone in Adams -19- County you cannot put a home on there. An what I want is a piece of ground. . .unless I am being corrected I ' ll have to ask Mr. Honn, but he told me that Commercial Zoning was what I needed and Commercial Zoning property in Weld County, you are permitted to put a home on it. . .to live in. MARY ANN DE PETRO: Alright fine, thank you very much. CHARLES RYBERG: Yes maam MARY ANN DE PETRO: We appreciate it. Okay, now these are some of the facts that have not been cleared up at this hearing. Okay, now I am one of his neighbors and I do object to the Commercial Zoning, definately. I do not want Commercial Zoning out there; when he leaves what are we going to get there as long as it is Commercially Zoned. who knows. All of us are against it in that neighborhood to whom my husband and I have spoken to. Also, his heavy equipment coming up County. . .Weld County Road 37; when that was topped, it is not actually paved it' s just a test topping that was put on a few years back. The heavy equipment that does use that road, the surfaces is constantly coming off, it is constantly full of chuck holes, especially south of Road Six, okay. Perhaps you have received some notices about these people have written letters about it. Right now it is full of pot holes again and it' s only been about a month since they filled them up. Unless that road can be surfaced in an other way to take all the heavy equipment which is using the road and his heavy equipment does add to the load that that highway is taking now or that County road. Also, the turf farm out there, trucks come along there using that which adds to the load on that road. And at times, one has to be a stunt driver to get through and I don't appreciate it, Anyway, I 'm opposed to the Commercial Zoning. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Anyone have any questions? COMMISSIONER ROE: I have first a comment and then a question. The lady is right about Road 37 , it is not a paved road it' s a stabilized road and it was not built for heavy traffic it takes now and it is falling apart. -20- Tom, what is the situation on Housing and Commercial Zone, Residential and a Commercial Zone, is it a use by right or is it a Special Use Permit? TOM HONN: Under the current Zoning Resolution, a one single family resident is permitted per parcel um. . . in Agricultural, Estate, Residential, Highdensity, Transitional, Business, Commercial Zone Districts. The only one that it' s not permitted in is the Industrial Zoning District. But again, it' s one single family residence. RUSSELL ANSON: Mr. Chairman, alot of information was brought out that doesn' t particularly have to do with the two conditions under the Zoning Resolution. Whether or not Mr. Ryberg has a hardship really isn' t relevant. The two relevant items are under the Zoning Resolution and whether or not there ' s sufficient changing conditions in the area to justify a rezoning where whether or not the original zoning, Agricultural Zone as it is now is faulty. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Alright, thank you Mr. Anson. Any of the Board have any other comments, discussion on this matter? Is there anyone else in the audience who would want to testify in opposition to this? I hope all of you who have testified will sign the attendence sheet. CAROL HOPP: I 'm Carol Hopp and our land joins Ernie Ryberg. We feel the same way the rest of the neighbors do around there. We do not want it zoned commercial. We moved out there because it was agricultural and farm land. That' s all. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Thank you. Does anybody else in the audience who want to testify in opposition to this Change of Zone? Would you come forward. MARY ANN BOWER: I 'm Mary Ann Bower and I live up in Green Acres. I have nothing against people wanting to do business but we do live in a residential area. And ah. . .we had lived in the city but we perfer country living, hopefully, a little cleaner air for our kids and I truthfully don't like commercial. . .we haveo . .there was a -21- different time some years back, that a couple wanted to sell some property, provided it was zoned commercial and the person was going to run a trucking business and the neighbors stood by and it was denied and those people sold then to an other couple that perferred to live in the country without the Commercial Zone and I truthfully wonder if. . . I am told, now this may be strictly here say, that Mr. Ryberg said, "They don' t live long in an area. " Now if this would be just a temporary thing to get it zoned commercial, to sell it to a business and then move out. They've lived out there almost as long as we have and I don' t. . .which. . .we moved out in 70 or 71 which I think is a fairly long time, it' s not a two year stint. But I truthfully don' t think Commercial Zoning is necessary if. . . I don't know the legal matters I wish Special Use would be the only thing necessary and. . .but I just, I just am against Commercial Zoning cause if he does move and it stays Commercial we' ll just go through this same bit again saying please get. . .get back to Agricultural or Residential because you never know what type of business does crop up and people will say, well, they have there rights too. And I thank you. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Okay, is there anyone else who would want to testify in opposition to this? Would you come forward please. SUSAN BROWN: My name is Susan Brown and we live right next door. I don' t see that there has been any change in our neighborhood at all that would justify a Commercial Zoning. The area has been Agricultural for years and years if anything the family type homes with people with children who want to have animals and want to have a country environment, they' re building continously in the neighborhood. If we go with the Commercial Zoning, it' s my understanding from people on the Planning Board that I have spoken with that; one the Commercial Zoning is granted to one individual anyone in the area can apply for Commercial Zoning and since the precedence has already been set it' s more than likely this will be granted. We do have a rather large farm directly to the south of -22- us and the thought of perhaps them going commercial after Mr. Ryberg has gotten his zoning really frightens us in the. . . in the residential area there because the money that we have invested in our homes and the life we have chosen certainly wouldn' t be adjacent to a business and although Mr. Ryberg is. . .is conducting a business there, we don' t really feel like he should be forced to go out of business because of this zoning change request. We ah. . .most of the neighbors have no objection to what his doing right now as long it doesn't involve the moving in of buildings. But I really think that a Commercial Zoning at this time would be disastrous to the area that we live in. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Thank you, Mrs. Brown. Is there anyone else who would want to testify in opposition to this. COMMISSIONER DUNBAR: Tom, can he continue just as he is without changing zones? COMMISSIONER KIRBY: No, it' s the violation of the rules. COMMISSIONER DUNBAR: It' s absolutely against violation isn' t it? TOM BONN: The manner in which the operation is being conducted as determined by us and our interpretation is that; that activity is a violation, it does require Commercial Zoning. That doesn' t necessarily mean that a portion of the operation may not be something that is allowable, that' s something that, you know, we' re not looking at, we're looking at that total activity taking place. COMMISSIONER DUNBAR: I understand. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: It seems to me that most of the oppositions has been in the matter of changing the zone from Agricultural to Commercial and not in opposition to his operation. Yet there' s nothing in our Comprehensive plan that permits this without Change of Zone. A Conditional Use Permit and a Special Use Permit will not fit? TOM BONN. Not under the Zoning Resolution, not as, not as Department Planning Services has evaluated it at this time. COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: But if the board turned down the Change -23- of Zoning, you brought it to us for. . .to consider a zoning Violation that is when we would consider whether or not it' s use, that his using it as and for at the present time is a zone violation. TOM HONN: You could at that time, yes. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: We could refuse to take action on it, what your saying? COMMISSIONER ROE: No, No that' s not what he is saying. . . TOM HONN: I think, you know, I think, I think as it is presented to you um. . . the information that, that you would then have may. . . you may be making a decision on the activity that in fact it' s not a violation. RUSSELL ANSON. You really can' t second guess what the applicant is going to do this is for a zoning hearing and if the zoning is denied, that' s really up to the applicant what he does next. COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Ah. . .Mr. Chairman getting back to the technical aspects, I think, we could say that the original zoning was not correct by the very fact that we have it surrounded by a Estate Zone, however, I don' t like the answer we come up with in that regard either. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Well, that' s all agricultural. . . COMMISSIONER KIRBY: It' s in a fact occupied by residential as to. . . COMMISSIONER ROE: But is it an Agricultural or Residential. . . Agricultural Subdivision, that' s the word I 'm looking for. COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Well, Yea, but we don' t have Agricultural Subdivision in the present setup as well as created them anymore. So, all I 'm saying is probably technically we could look at that aspect then come to an assumption that there is a justified rezoning, however, for a lot of other reasons, I don' t like that answer any better than the rest of you do and I guess we ' re all sitting here wondering how we can tell this gentleman to screen his three acres, take care of it, keep it clean, keep the houses out of there and still continue to do business. So I would. . . in light -24- of that fact move that we table this for a month and see if Planning Staff can come up with some in between solution whether it be zoning or whatever to get down so that our zoning regulations fit the answers that we tried to seek in some of these in between situations where in fact they are probably incomplete at the present time. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Is there a motion. . .or is there a second to his motion. COMMISSIONER DUNBAR: I ' ll second that. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: The motion has been made by Bill Kirby, Seconded by Lydia Dunbar to postpone action on this and allow the Planning Staff to come up with an alternative. I guess that will be appropriate. COMMISSIONER STEINMARK. I guess I would like to speak in opposition to that because the tabling of it um. . .for a different resolution of the problem has nothing to do with the Change of Zone, you have to decide only two things. Whether or not um. . .the original zoning was faulty or whether there' s been enough change in condition to commercial in the area to grant the Change Zone. Um. . . in other. . . COMMISSIONER KIRBY: I guess we 're saying the original zoning might be faulty and it might not be faulty and that' s when you take time and decide and try to decide correctly. RUSSELL ANSON: I think a word of explanation on this faulty zoning and changing conditions. First of all, changing conditions to justify whether or not in this instance the zone change should be Commercial. If evidence indicates that it should be other. . . an other zone, then it would be inappropriate that you could consider changing conditions for Commercial Zone. Ah. . .as far as faulty zoning, it' s whether or not the original zoning was faulty and now the zoning should be Commercial or that it should have been Commercial to begin with. COMMISSIONER ROE: Well, as I see it, the idea that the zoning, the original zoning was faulty, really doesn' t seem to even apply here. There could be an argument made for the fact that the changing -25- Conditions in the neighborhood were sufficient to indicate a change of zone, but if that zone were to be changed according to the changes that have taken place in the neighborhood, the zoning certainly would not be Commercial at this point, it would be an Estates type zoning rather than a Commercial Zoning. I also believe that the Zoning Regulations say that the applicant will present evidence that either the original zoning was faulty and the a. . .or there is change in conditions in the neighborhood . The testimony of applicant did not really touch on either matter and they certainly were not there certainly was not conclusive evidence that the a. . . that the change. . .the zone change should be made. I think that ' s the issue we 're faced with and I think it ' s a clear cut issue. What we do after the zoning really is im- material at this hearing. I have problems with denying the man a place to operate his business on. . . I have no qualms about denying that Change of Zone. I would suggest that the Board deny the Change of Zone and then try to work out a solution where we can let the business be acceptable, but the. . . COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Okay, but what it comes down to about what the alternative. . . CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Now what, what your talking about is, that we go ahead and deny the zone and then direct the Planning Staff to come with an alternative and we 've had cases like this before, where we change a zone of a parcel of ground and that zoning stays with the parcel of ground and not with the owner. A Special Use Permit or a Conditional Use Permit the use of that business could then be tied to the owner and not the the parcel of ground. RUSSELL ANSON: I don ' t think there is any provision in the Zoning Resolution for that. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: That ' s what I 'm talking about. COMMISSIONER KIRBY: That is the prolem in a lot of these areas. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: That ' s what Mr. Kirby is . . . in his motion is directing the Planning Staff to come with an alternative that we could live with because this is probably not the only instance -26- we ' ll have in Change of Zone or a certain person where the Commercial Zoning does not fit. COMMISSIONER STEINMARK. But there ' s no Resolution of what Bill want ' s to resolve in the, in the Change of Zone action so you might just as well take action on this one today. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: I agree. COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: Even if you want to progress . . .you know, progress further on the issue. COMMISSIONER KIRBY: With the exception of a. . . CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Then it wouldn ' t have. . .his motion would not have to take place at this hearing . COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: No. COMMISSIONER KIRBY: What is the purpose of hearing . . . facing the enforcement by staff of the evident violation of present zoning? I guess all I was really trying to do was buy a little more time, and I think we 're all looking at it. . .the similar solution and possibly I 'm not being as technical as might be desired but I think also, there are flaws within our zoning regs that we are trying to correct. . .admittedly so in other areas, right now. COMMISSIONER ROE: I think what we 're all saying though, is the Change of Zone is not the acceptable alternative to us . COMMISSIONER KIRBY: We are saying. . . I guess I am saying it may be unless somebody can come with another answer which is livable and it may not be. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: I don 't know whether we need more testimony, shall we have a motion on the floor from the audience? COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Actually, I . . .I guess we over commented on this motion but the motion is simply to table for one month. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Okay, we do have a motion. Is there any discussion on the motion. If not, I ' ll call for a vote . All in favor say aye. COMMISSIOENR DUNBAR: Aye. COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Aye. -27- CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Opposed. COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: No. COMMISSIONER ROE: No. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: The motion dies then for a three to two vote. COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: Then I would move that we deny the Change of Zone from A Agriculatural District to C Commercial District in agreement with the Planning Commission ' s findings that neither the original zoning is found to be faulty nor that there is a changing of condition which would justify rezoning the the C Classification. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Is there a second to that Motion? COMMISSIONER ROE: Second. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: The motion has been made and seconded that we deny the Change of Zone Agricultural to Commerical for the reasons so stated. Is there any discussion on the motion. COMMISSIONER KIRBY: I would like to ask Tom one more question. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Alright. COMMISSIONER KRIBY: What is the time frame on enforcement if a. . . for a noncompliance with zoning which this will reinforce. . . is actually happening whether it ' s declared so or not? TOM HONN: Well, okay, we will work with the property owner to try to resolve the matter and if there is no resolve in a reasonable time then we will bring the matter to you as a zoning violation. You may at that time , request either some detailed or further information from us, you know, which may be then that month that you 're looking at in terms at some kind of additional information or clarification in terms what' s happening on the property or to more clearly define the use for you or something like that. But, you know, we will work with the property owner as reasonably as possible to allow him the proper time to either deal with the problem as it ' s been interrupted by us , in terms of clearing it up or if his choice is to let is proceed as an action before you as a violation then it probably be much less time getting to you in that manner. COMMISSIONER ROE: But, Bill, I guess, if it ' s going to come before -28- us as a violation, and you want to delay the implementation of enforcement of that violation, that would be the time to hold it over to study whether or not we enforce the violation. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: That would be at the direction of this body anyway. COMMISSIONER KIRBY: That ' s right. COMMISSIONER ROE: We have to direct the action be taken on the violation. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Is there any other discussion on the motion? All in favor say aye. ALL COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Opposed nay, so carried . -29- Hello