HomeMy WebLinkAbout20110120.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
• RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Robert Grand,that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1763
APPLICANT: Juan Soto
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for an
Agricultural Service Establishment primarily engaged in performing agricultural,
animal husbandry, or horticultural services on a fee or contract basis, including
Commercial Rodeo Arenas and Commercial Roping Arenas, to include an
outdoor area in the A (Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A RE-4347; located in Part of the E2NW4 of Section 27, Ti N, R66W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 6 and approximately 1,800 feet east of CR 31.
had no recommendation for approval or denial to the Board of County Commissioners for the following
reasons:
1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 23-2-260 of
the Weld County Code.
2. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has shown compliance with Section
23-2-220 of the Weld County Code as follows:
A. Section 23-2-220.A.1 -- The proposed use is consistent with Chapter 22 and any other
applicable code provisions or ordinance in effect.
• 22-2-20.1 A.Goal 9. Reduce potential conflicts between varying land uses in the conversion of
traditional agricultural lands to other land uses.
Conditions of approval and development standards including but not limited to the
requirement for a landscape/screening plan, limiting hours of operation to daylight hours,
noise standards, and submittal of a dust abatement plan will address/mitigate impacts
associated with the proposed use and ensure compatibility with the surrounding area.
B. Section 23-2-220.A.2--The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the A(Agricultural)
Zone District. Sections 23-3-40.B 17 and 18 of the Weld County Code provides for a Use by
Special Review in the A(Agricultural) Zone District.
C. Section 23-2-220.A.3--The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with the existing
surrounding land uses.
The site is located in a rural residential area. The nearest residences are located
approximately 200 feet to the northwest, 500 feet to the southeast and 600 feet to the north of
the site. Three letters and one phone call have been received from property owners
expressing concerns regarding trash, dust, shooting of animals and wildlife, inadequate
fencing and enclosures for animals, animals onsite in poor condition,and odor from manure
on the property.
Conditions of approval and development standards including but not limited to the
requirement for a landscape/screening plan, limiting hours of operation to daylight hours,
noise standards and submittal of a noise abatement plan, the submittal of a dust
abatement plan, addressing composting of manure in the development standards will
• address/mitigate impacts associated with the proposed use and ensure compatibility with
the surrounding area.
I
2011-0120
Resolution USR-1763
Juan Soto
• Page 2
D. Section 23-2-220.A.4 -- The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with future
development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning and with the future
development as projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code and any other applicable
code provisions or ordinances in effect, or the adopted Master Plans of affected
municipalities.
The site is located within the 3-mile referral area of the City of Brighton, City of Fort Lupton,
Town of Lochbuie and Adams County. A referral response dated 10/19/2010 was received
from the City of Fort Lupton indicating no conflicts with their interests. No referral responses
were received from Adams County, Brighton, and Lochbuie.
The Department of Planning Services is requiring, should this be approved,that conditions of
approval be addressed and the plat be submitted for recording no later than 60 days after the
Board of County Commissioners hearing. Should the conditions of approval and plat not be
completed within 60 days, then this case will proceed through the violation process.
E. Section 23-2-220.A.5--The application complies with Section 23-5 of the Weld County Code.
The proposed facility does not lie within the boundaries of any overlay district.
Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to
adhere to the fee structure of the County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11)
Effective August 1, 2005, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to
adhere to the fee structure of the Capital Expansion Impact Fee and the
• Stormwater/Drainage Impact Fee. (Ordinance 2005-8 Section 5-8-40)
F. Section 23-2-220.A.6--The applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve prime
agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use.The proposed Use by Special
Review will be located on that part of the property considered "Other" according to the
U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Map, dated 1979. The use of the land will remain in an
agricultural related use.
G. Section 23-2-220.A.7 -- The Design Standards (Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code),
Operation Standards (Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code), Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards ensure that there are adequate provisions for the protection of
health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and County.
This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the applicant,
other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities.
The Department of Planning Services met with the applicant's representative on November 5,2010 to discuss
the referrals received. Staff recommended that the applicant hold a community meeting or have one on one
discussion with adjacent property owners. The applicant's representative indicated that the applicant has
attempted approach some of the neighboring property owners but has not been able to hold discussions with
them. The Conditions of Approval outlined below are the remaining items that still need to be addressed.
There is a zoning violation (ZCV09-00217) issued due to the number of animal units exceeding the number
allowed as a Use by Right in the A (Agricultural) Zone District without a Special Use permit. This case was
heard in front of the Board of County Commissioners through a violation hearing on November 10, 2009 and
legal action was delayed until January 11, 2010 to allow the applicant additional time to submit a Use by
Special Review Permit application.A complete application was submitted on September 15,2010. Since the
• extension granted by the Board of County Commissioners has expired,the investigation fee was required and
has been submitted by the applicant. This application, if approved, will correct the zoning violation. If for any
reason, this application is denied, the violation case will proceed accordingly through district court.
Resolution USR-1763
Juan Soto
Page 3
• Should the Board of County Commissioners approve this request,the Planning Commission recommends that
the following conditions of approval and development standards be attached:
1. Prior to recording the plat:
A. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
1) All sheets of the plat shall be labeled USR-1763. (Department of Planning Services)
2) The plat shall be prepared in accordance with Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
3) Add the following note to the plat: "Weld County is not responsible for the
maintenance of drainage related features." (Department of Public Works)
4) The existing access, circulation and gravel driveway shall be graded and drained to
provide an all-weather access to the facility. (Department of Public Works)
5) The approved Screening Plan. (Department of Planning Services)
6) The location of trash containers and trash dumpsters. (Department of Planning
Services)
B. The applicant shall address the requirements of the Weld County Department of Public
Works in regards to access permit requirements as outlined in their referral received
• 10/28/2010. Written evidence that these concerns have been addressed shall be submitted
to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
C. The applicant shall submit a dust abatement plan, detailing on site dust control measures,
for review and approval, to the Environmental Health Services, Weld County Department
of Public Health & Environment. Written evidence of Health Department approval shall be
provided to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public Health &
Environment)
D. The applicant shall submit a waste handling plan, for approval, to the Environmental
Health Services Division of the Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment.
The plan shall include at a minimum, the following:
1) A list of wastes which are expected to be generated on site (this should include
expected volumes and types of waste generated).
2) A list of the type and volume of chemicals expected to be stored on site.
3) The waste handler and facility where the waste will be disposed (including the
facility name, address, and phone number).
Written evidence of Health Department approval shall be provided to the Department of
Planning Services.
E. The applicant shall submit a Landscape Plan/Screening Plan to the Department of Planning
Services for review and approval. The applicant shall place "plant material" or other
acceptable screening material to mitigate the impacts of the facility from adjacent properties.
Further, the applicant shall adhere to all landscape requirements of Section 23-3-350.G.1 and
Section 23-3-350.G.2 of the Weld County Code. Upon approval, the Landscape and
Screening Plan shall be placed on the plat. (Department of Planning Services)
•
• Resolution USR-1763
Juan Soto
Page 4
F. The applicant shall submit a Private Improvements Agreement according to policy regarding
collateral for improvements and post adequate collateral for landscaping and parking
improvements. The applicant shall submit to the Department of Planning Services an
itemized landscaping bid for review. The agreement and form of collateral shall be reviewed
by County Staff and accepted by the Board of County Commissioners prior to recording the
Use by Special Review plat. Or the applicant may submit evidence that all the work has been
completed and approved by the Department of Planning Services and the Department of
Public Works. (Department of Planning Services)
G. The applicant shall submit a noise abatement plan to the Department of Planning Services
and Department of Public Health and Environment for review and approval. (Department of
Planning Services)
2. Upon completion of 1. above the applicant shall submit a Mylar plat along with all other documentation
required as Conditions of Approval. The Mylar plat shall be recorded in the office of the Weld County
Clerk and Recorder by Department of Planning Services Staff. The plat shall be prepared in
accordance with the requirements of Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County Code. The Mylar plat
and additional requirements shall be submitted within sixty (60) days from the date of the Board of
County Commissioners resolution. The applicant shall be responsible for paying the recording fee.
(Department of Planning Services)
3. In accordance with Weld County Code Ordinance 2005-7 approved June 1,2005, should the plat not
be recorded within the required sixty(60)days from the date the Administrative Review was signed a
$50.00 recording continuance charge may be added for each additional 3 month period. (Department
• of Planning Services)
Motion seconded by Nick Berryman.
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Tom Holton
Alexander Zauder
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
Mark Lawley
Nick Berryman
Jason Maxey
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Kristine Ranslem, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission,do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on December 7, 2010.
• Dated the 7th of Cecember, 2010.
Id lans e/
Secretary
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
• Juan Soto
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
USR-1763
1. A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for an Agricultural Service
establishment primarily engaged in performing agricultural, animal husbandry or horticultural services
on a fee or contract basis, including Commercial Rodeo Arenas and Commercial Roping Arenas, to
include an outdoor arena in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. (Department of Planning Services)
2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 23-8-10 of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
3. The facility will operate during the months of April 1 through August 31 during daylight hours.
(Department of Planning Services)
4. The total number of on-site employees shall be limited to Nine(9). (Department of Planning Services)
5. A maximum of 150 visitors will be allowed on site during events. (Department of Planning Services)
6. No alcoholic beverages shall be allowed on-site nor shall alcohol be served during rodeo events.
(Department of Planning Services)
7. The amount of animals allowed on the property shall not exceed four(4) units per acre. No more than
a combination of 40 steers and horses are allowed on the property at any one time. (Department of
Planning Services)
8. There shall be no live music during events. (Department of Planning Services)
• 9. Any offsite trash (on county road rights of way) generated by events shall be picked up within 24-
hours. (Department of Planning Services)
10. The facility shall operate in accordance with the conditions of the approved commercial well permit
(Permit No. 70020-F). (Division of Water Resources)
11. There shall be no parking or staging of vehicles on County Road 6. (Department of Planning
Services/Department of Public Works)
12. No overnight camping shall be allowed. (Department of Planning Services)
13. Animal and feed wastes, bedding, debris and other organic wastes shall be disposed of so that
vermin infestation, flies, odors, disease hazards, and nuisances are minimized. (Department of
Public Health & Environment)
14. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act,
30-20-100.5, C.R.S., as amended) shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that
protects against surface and groundwater contamination. (Department of Public Health &
Environment)
15. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust,
blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions. (Department of Public Health &
Environment)
16. The applicant shall operate in accordance with the approved "waste handling plan", at all times.
(Department of Public Health & Environment)
.
Resolution USR-1763
Juan Soto
Page 6
• 17. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled on this site. The facility shall be
operated in accordance with the approved "dust abatement plan", at all times. (Department of
Public Health & Environment)
18. This facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Non-Specified
Zone as delineated in Section 14-9-30 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Public Health &
Environment)
19. Adequate drinking, hand washing and toilet facilities shall be provided for employees and patrons
of the facility at all times. (Department of Public Health & Environment)
20. Any septic system located on the property must comply with all provisions of the Weld County
Code, pertaining to Individual Sewage Disposal Systems. (Department of Public Health &
Environment)
21. This application is utilizing a well as its source of water. The applicant should be made aware that
groundwater may not meet all drinking water standards as defined by the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment. We strongly encourage the applicant to test their drinking water
prior to consumption and periodically test it over time. (Department of Public Health &
Environment)
22. The Stanford Event and Labor Services portable toilet chart shall be adhered to as a minimum
guideline. Records of maintenance and proper disposal shall be retained on a seasonal basis.
(Department of Public Health & Environment)
• 23. Adequate toilet facilities (portable toilets) and hand washing units shall be provided for employees
and patrons of the facility. A minimum of six portable toilets are required for any event that occurs
over a 6 hour time frame. Eight portable toilets will be required for any event that exceeds a 6
hour time period. At least one unit should be handicap accessible. A minimum of two portable
hand washing stations shall be provided. (Department of Public Health & Environment)
24. If applicable, the applicant shall obtain a stormwater discharge permit from the Colorado
Department of Public Health & Environment, Water Quality Control Division. (Department of
Public Health & Environment)
25. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of State and Federal agencies
and the Weld County Code. (Department of Public Health & Environment)
26. There shall be no permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant
to include those wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid
Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S., as amended. (Department of
Public Health & Environment)
27. Proper building permits shall be obtained prior to construction of any new structure and/or change of
use of any existing building or structure. (Department of Building Inspection)
28. Buildings shall conform to the requirements of the various codes adopted at the time of permit
application. Currently the following has been adopted by Weld County: 2006 International Building
Code; 2006 International Mechanical Code; 2006 International Plumbing Code; 2006 International
Fuel Gas Code; 2006 International Energy Code; 2003 ICC ANSI 117.1 Accessibility Code; 2008
National Electrical Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Building
Inspection)
• 29. All building plans shall be submitted to the Greater Brighton Fire Department for review and approval
prior to issue of building permits. (Department of Building Inspection)
Resolution USR-1763
Juan Soto
Page 7
• 30. The historical flow patterns and run-off amounts will be maintained on site in such a manner that it
will reasonably preserve the natural character of the area and prevent property damage of the
type generally attributed to run-off rate and velocity increases, diversions, concentration and/or
unplanned ponding of storm run-off. (Department of Public Works)
31. Pursuant to Chapter 15, Articles I and II of the Weld County Code, if noxious weeds exist on the
property or become established as a result of the proposed development, the applicant/landowner
shall be responsible for controlling the noxious weeds. All vegetation, other than grasses, needs
to be maintained at a maximum height of 12 inches until the area is completely developed.
(Department of Public Works)
32. The access drive shall be surfaced with gravel, asphalt, concrete or the equivalent and shall be
graded to prevent drainage problems. (Department of Public Works)
33. The applicant shall adhere to the approved Landscape and Screening Plan. (Department of
Planning Services)
34. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere to
the fee structure of the County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11) (Department of Planning
Services)
35. Effective August 1, 2005, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere to
the fee structure of the Capital Expansion Impact Fee and the Stormwater/Drainage Impact Fee.
(Ordinance 2005-8 Section 5-8-40) (Department of Planning Services)
36. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of
• Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
37. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of
Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
38. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Livestock confinement
operations Operation Standards of Section 23-4-350 of the Weld County Code. (Department of
Planning Services)
39. Weld County personnel shall be granted access onto the property at any reasonable time in order to
ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the Development Standards stated herein
and all applicable Weld County regulations. (Department of Planning Services)
40. The Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing
standards and all applicable Weld County regulations. Substantial changes from the plans or
Development Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of Ma Permit
by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or
Development Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the
Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
41. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing
Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be
reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners. (Department of Planning
Services)
•
A-2- 7- /O
Michelle Martin, Planning Services, stated that currently the property is in violation (ZCV09-00371) for the
• operation of a business without the necessary land use permits. If the USR is approved, the violation will be
closed. If denied, the case will continue through the court process.
The surrounding properties to the south and east have been annexed by the Town of Berthoud. Interstate 25
(1-25) borders the property on the west and the property to the north is zoned agricultural with a single-family
home approximately 340 feet from the property in question. No comments have been received from the
surrounding property owners.
The property is not located within an Intergovernmental Agreement Area but does lies within the three mile
referral area for the Towns of Berthoud, Johnstown and Mead. The Town of Berthoud and the Town of
Johnstown in their respective referrals dated August 25, 2010 and August 18, 2010 indicated they have no
conflicts with the proposed development. The Town of Mead did not respond to the referral request. The
surrounding area is agricultural in nature with single-family residences in the area. Staff believes that the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards will ensure that the use will be compatible with existing
surrounding land uses.
Planning Staff is recommending approval of the application along with the attached conditions of approval and
development standards.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, commented that water is provided by Little Thompson Water District and
they have provided a letter indicating that they can provide service for the business. There is an existing
septic system for the house that requires an engineered evaluation if they will use it for employees. Ms. Light
stated that the Plat drawing indicates that there is a septic system by the office building; however there is no
permit on file for that system.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works,commented that County Road 46 is a local,gravel road requiring 60 feet of right-
of-way and it is current. The applicant has indicated that the main access to the property is off of the 1-25
• Frontage Road. CDOT has indicated that since traffic is not expected to increase no evaluation of the access
was warranted. The private residential driveway from County Road 46 is gated and would not be used for any
commercial purposes. There is one other access onto County Road 46 along the eastern property line that is
only for emergency vehicle access. The onsite activity is very low impact and there is no outdoor storage
related to the business and no large commercial vehicles; therefore no water quality depression was required.
Becki Schwader, 940 W 7th St, Loveland CO, stated that they are a heating and air conditioning company.
They purchased the property in 1998 and have been operating their business for 12 years without any
negative complaints. She requested that this case be approved.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Bill Hall moved that Case USR-1759, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, seconded by Erich Ehrlich.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall,yes;AlexanderZauder,yes; Jason Maxey,yes;
Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1763
APPLICANT: Juan Soto
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for an
•
Agricultural Service Establishment primarily engaged in performing agricultural,
animal husbandry, or horticultural services on a fee or contract basis, including III
Commercial Rodeo Arenas and Commercial Roping Arenas,to include an
outdoor area in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A RE-4347; located in Part of the E2NW4 of Section 27,T1 N, R66W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 6 and approximately 1,800 feet east of CR 31.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, stated that there is a zoning violation(ZCV09-00217)due to the number of
animal units exceeding the number allowed as a use by right in the agricultural zone district without the
necessary Weld County land use permits.
This case was heard by the Board of County Commissioners through a violation hearing on November 10,
2009 and legal action was delayed until January 11, 2010 to allow the applicant additional time to submit a
Use by Special Review Permit application. A complete application was submitted on September 15, 2010.
Since the extension granted by the Board of County Commissioners has expired the investigation fee was
required and has been submitted by the applicant. This application, if approved, will correct the zoning
violation. If for any reason this application is denied, the violation will proceed accordingly through District
Court.
The site is located in a rural agricultural area. The nearest residences are located approximately 250 feet to
the northwest, 500 feet to the southeast and 600 feet to the north of this site. The surrounding areas are
predominately ranch and grazing land.
Eighteen referrals were sent out in regard to this case;ten referral responses have been received and either
indicated no comments, no concerns or included conditions that have been included in the staff
recommendation as conditions of approval or development standards.
The site is located within the three mile referral areas for the Cities of Brighton and Ft. Lupton, Town of
Lochbuie and Adams County. The City of Ft. Lupton, in their referral received October 19,2010 indicated no
conflict with their interests as the site is located outside of their Planning Influence Area. Six letters and emails
• have been received from surrounding property owners in regard to this case. In addition,five phone calls have
been received and all of the phone calls and letters have expressed concerns or opposition to this application.
Items of concerns include:
• Trash being disposed of onto neighboring properties
• Livestock getting through fences and trespassing onto neighboring properties
• Residence on property shooting hawks, vultures, and also a bald eagle
• Unsightliness of animal shelters onsite
• Outbuildings constructed on the property without proper permits
• Allegations that one or more of the outbuildings is being used as a dwelling
• Excessive noise from rodeo events
• Abuse and mistreatment of livestock
• Smell and flies from manure on the property
• Excessive dust
• Traffic concerns in regard to excess traffic onto County Road 6
• Concerns about drunk drivers
• Damage to County Road 6 as a result of heavy traffic
• Traffic safety with no stop or yield sign on County Roads 31 and 6
• Conflict between rodeo traffic existing carriage and horse riders that use County Road 6
• Liability and insurance concerns
• Concerns with no sufficient room onsite to allow for parking for rodeo events
A separate access permit has been issued for the property in question. The applicant will be utilizing a
separate access onto the site rather than the existing shared access that is to the east of the property.
Referral responses received by the Weld County Sheriff's Department and Colorado Division of Wildlife
•
indicated no conflicts with their interests. According to the Department of Building Inspection,all outbuildings
5
on the property have been permitted.
• The Department of Planning Services recommended that the applicant hold a community meeting or have
discussions with adjacent property owners; however the applicant's representative indicated that they have
attempted to approach some of the neighboring property owners but have not been able to hold discussions
with them. The applicant has also denied that any of the outbuildings on the property are being used as
dwellings.
A number of conditions of approval and development standards are proposed to address the concerns that
have been raised in letters and phone calls from property owners. These include requiring a landscape and
screening plan to screen the facility from adjacent properties, limiting hours of operation to daylight hours only,
noise standards and a requirement of submittal of a noise abatement plan,the requirement for submittal of a
dust abatement plan, and address composting of manure. Additionally, the original application stated that
there would be over 400 attendees to the site. However due to the size of the property,the number of visitors
has been reduced to a maximum of 150 attendees.
The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval with the attached conditions of approval and
development standards.
Commissioner Maxey asked what the Weld County process is if the applicants violate the development
standards. Mr. Gathman stated that a Probable Cause hearing would be scheduled before the Board of
County Commissioners. If the County Commissioners feel that there is a violation then a Show Cause
Hearing would be scheduled and they would consider revocation of the permit.
Mary Evett, Environmental Health, commented that that there is an existing three bedroom home on the
property that is served by a domestic well and septic system. There is a second well on the property that is
permitted for commercial use. The applicant intends to hold events from April to August. Since the rodeo will
operate for 6 months or less bottled water, portable toilets and handwashing stations are allowed. The
• applicant submitted a Waste Handling Plan; however the plan should also address how manure and other
animal waste such as bedding will be managed, removed and properly disposed to minimize vermon,flies and
odor. The applicant indicated that the manure would be composted onsite; however if they intend to spread
the compost onsite it does not appear that there is adequate area for spreading manure. Therefore the
applicant has the option to have the manure waste hauled to a commercial composting site or landfill or make
arrangements to have the manure waste removed and land applied off-site. Noise is restricted to a non-
specified area level.
Ms. Evett stated that Development Standard 27 is a duplicate of Development Standard 25 and may be
deleted.
Roy Spitzer moved to delete Development Standard 27, seconded by Robert Grand. Motion carried.
Commissioner Maxey wished to clarify the hours of operation as in Development Standard#3 it states March
1 through August 1. Staff indicated that it was a typo and should be corrected to read April 1 through August
1.
Roy Spitzer moved to amend Development Standard 3 to read"The facility will operate during the months of
April 1 through August 31 during daylight hours", seconded by Robert Grand. Motion carried.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, commented that County Road 6 is a local,gravel road with 60 feet right-of-way,
which is current. In September 2010, traffic counts show that there are 139 vehicles per day. The applicant
was unable to obtain an agreement from the neighbors to utilize the shared access; therefore a new access
was granted to the parcel. The parking area is adequate since they have reduced their maximum attendance
number to 150 people.
Commissioner Lawley asked if the speed limit is posted. Ms. Hansen replied that the speed limit is 55 mph;
• however it is not posted. Mr. Lawley asked what the process is to get the speed limit posted. Ms. Hansen
stated that the Traffic Engineer will review it and make a recommendation to the County Commissioners if it
6
needs to be changed or posted. She added that she would bring this to the attention of the Traffic Engineer at
• Public Works.
(Bertha Lopez, translator for Juan Soto) Juan Soto, 15488 CR 6,stated that he is aware that there are many
concerns from the neighbors. He said that there have been concerns with trash being thrown to the neighbors
property. He added that one of neighbors had placed manure adjacent to his property and it caused another
neighbor to complain. The neighbor throws trash on his property. Three months ago he took a picture where
a neighbor had thrown the trash.
There have also been concerns with shooting animals or birds. He stated that the neighbor to the east has
been the one shooting. Mr. Soto added that they have constructed some type of fence where they can shoot.
Mr. Soto said that there are concerns of his animals trespassing on other property; however one of the
neighbors gave him permission for his sheep to graze on her property. He stated that they try to keep their
property clean. He added that it is logical that there is more traffic with a new business.
Commissioner Maxey asked the applicant what he has done to try and work out the concerns with the
neighbors. Mr. Soto said that before the events he tries to communicate with the neighbors and let them
know.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Steven Eber, 15492 CR 6, stated that he owns the property directly to the south of the site. He commented
that he has a trash can at the end of his driveway and believes that is what the applicant is referring to about
throwing trash. Mr. Eber stated that he did give permission for goats to graze the property, but it's the cattle
and horses running across the property chased by up to five men on horseback that he does not like. Right
now the property is very clean because it was cleaned up over this last weekend. He submitted pictures from
last Friday where it shows trash on his property approximately 15 feet from the fence line. With regard to
• shooting, Mr. Eber stated that they shoot prairie dogs on his property; however no one has permission to shoot
birds. He added that when he walks along the fence he has found shells and bottles on this property thrown
over from the applicant. Mr. Eber said that he can hear the loud noise over his diesel tractor a mile away.
Susan Folletz, 15492 CR 6, stated that they built a very nice patio. She stated that if this application is
approved, every weekend in the summer from dawn to dusk there will be a rodeo. She added that they will
have no peace. When the sound system is on it vibrates their home. Ms. Folletz stated that the applicants
have said that they will keep the noise down and they will keep the trash picked up but they never do. She
added that they cut the fences or lay them down for animals to go through. Ms. Folletz stated that she doesn't
trust them to follow the rules. .
A neighbor to the east of the site stated that for the last two summers she has received one day off a week.
She said that she has to stay refuge in her house because it is so loud. She added that even when her house
is shut up you can still hear the noise and the house rattles. She stated that even when there is no rodeo
there are usually 50 guys over there with music. She added that there are two blind spots on County Road 6
where there was a fatal accident. She stated that with the added traffic it makes it dangerous.
Doug Massey, 3982 CR 31, asked who is going to monitor how many people are going to the site. He has had
Sheriffs tell him that there is no noise ordinance in rural Weld County. He stated that he has attended rodeos
but has never seen a rodeo arena like the one on Mr. Soto's property. He asked what kind of rodeos are
going on at that property.
Commissioner Maxey asked if there has been any interface with the applicant regarding the trespassing
issues. Mr. Massey said that there is a communication barrier. He added that he finally had a sign in Spanish
put up that stated "No Trespassing".
James Massey, 15013 CR 6, lives on the corner of County Roads 6 and 31. He stated that he is mainly
• concerned with traffic. He asked who is going to monitor the music because it sounds like it is in his yard.
7
Hank Stoll, 15509 CR 4, stated that his biggest concern is with the noise. He lives approximately a half mile
• away. They enjoy having dinner outside in the summer and it is impossible to enjoy it when the noise is going
on. He commented that he can take his hearing aid out and it is still annoying. Mr. Stoll said that he has
called the Sheriffs Department and was told that there is no noise ordinance in Weld County.
Commissioner Maxey asked how many days or nights in the week this noise is going on. Mr. Stoll said that it
is one or two nights per week, usually on the weekend.
Commissioner Hall clarified if there is a noise ordinance. Bruce Barker, County Attorney,stated that there is a
noise ordinance in Weld County.
Ellen Oman 14510 CR 6, stated that she lives, loves and cherishes the agricultural and rural lifestyle. She
actively supports 4- H, FFA and other equine events. She added that they own horses, cattle and various
other livestock. She is really concerned that this commercial rodeo and roping arena will be detrimental to the
area. Ms. Oman stated that her concerns are, but not limited to noise. PA systems and offensively loud
music can be heard at long distances. She indicated that they live over a mile away in a well insulated home
and it is unbelievable how loud the music is.
Ms. Oman inquired if public safety issues such as traffic, liquor,gambling, and inhuman treatment of animals
will be going on. In addition,will the applicants contribute to the road maintenance or will the County carry the
responsibility. Will the Sheriffs Department be able to handle the impacts of this use? She wanted to know
what specific events they plan to have in this rodeo,what days and holidays the events will be held and what
the hours will be. In addition, what the lighting and landscaping will be. Will there be contaminated runoff?
Ms. Oman stated that in her opinion the pictures are very deceiving. This area is much more populated then
this map shows. She is opposed to this request; however if this is approved she expects them to be held to
common sense standards, to be well planned, safe and not disruptive.
David Stoll, 15203 Barley Ave, stated that he is referring to being at his dad's property which is in proximity to
• the site. Approximately two years ago in the summer they were in their yard and the music was unbearable
and they had been putting up with it all summer long. Mr. Stoll stated that he called the Weld County Sheriff
and was told that it goes on all over the county and there is no noise ordinance. He was told that if they
performed a head count and if there was over 100 people then they should contact the Sheriffs Department
again and then they get them for not having toilet facilities. Mr. Stoll said that one afternoon he went over and
counted about 85 people. He said that the pictures do not show what the facility really looks like. There is a
stage and PA system with music blaring and an announcer talking. He added that there are no resources for
them to reach out for help.
The Chair called a recess at 3:01 and reconvened at 3:06 pm. (Roy Spitzer left the meeting).
Mr. Gathman showed additional pictures of the arena area itself.
Mac Fortenberry, 15600 CR 6, stated that he lives about 300 yards to the east of the facility. He lives on top of
the hill and can look down on the property. He stated that he has never seen a bucking horse,a bucking bull,
no team roping, and no calf roping. He said that they release a steer from a make-shift enclosure, run up
beside him and grab his tail, spin him around and knock him down. He added that it is called"tailing" and is
illegal in the State of Colorado. He is concerned about the noise and trash. He said that the goats have
destroyed his garden and added that it stinks like a feedlot from the odor of the horse manure. He knows that
there are people living in the horse stalls because he can see them every morning go to the faucet to clean up
and take care of their business outside. There are 30-40-50 trucks on a daily basis coming to the site and
music every weekend. He stated that he has tried to work with the applicants but he is opposed to this
application.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
The Chair asked the applicant to address these questions. Mr. Soto stated that he doesn't understand the
• trash and noise complaints because he tries to limit it and keep it clean. He added that he tried to talk to the
neighbors and one of the neighbors slammed the door on him.
8
• Commissioner Holton asked the applicant if he is boarding horses. Mr. Soto replied no and added that it is
simply for sports. Mr. Holton asked what they are doing in that type of arena. Mr. Soto said that they rope and
run the animals.
Commissioner Maxey asked how long the applicant has lived on the property. Mr. Soto replied four years.
Commissioner Lawley asked if there are people living in the outbuildings. Mr. Soto responded no.
Commissioner Zauder asked when they started the rodeo. Mr. Soto replied two years ago. He added that this
year there were no events; they only practiced. Mr. Soto doesn't understand why there are complaints when
they are only practicing.
Mr. Holton asked about the shooting. Mr. Soto said that there is no shooting on their behalf; it is from his
neighbor. He added that he does not have any firearms.
Mr. Zauder clarified if in the past year the applicant has had any loud music. Mr. Soto said that on April 10,
2010 he had a party for his daughter and did communicate this with his neighbors and they were in
agreement.
Commissioner Berryman asked about the animals trespassing on property other than the goats. Mr.Soto said
that since he has had that complaint he has had no animals trespassing other property.
Commissioner Ehrlich asked what the court process is as this case has been going on for almost one year.
Mr. Barker stated that the Board of County Commissioners determine if the violation case is referred to the
County Attorney for immediate legal action or delay of action for a specified amount of time. If it is
recommended for a delay of legal action we are required to wait until that period of time is up and then the
Planning Department is requested to inspect the property if any progress has been made to remedy the
• violation. If it has not and the property is in still in violation then an action will be brought to the property owner.
The process is one in which the complaint is filed then we get service of process and a hearing is done.
Approximately up to 75%of the time we never hear back from those served. Then we have an order from the
court then served again on the property owner and giving them a period of time again to return to compliance.
If they do not comply then a complaint is filed against them for violating the court order and asking the Court
to hold them in contempt. That takes another service of process and then we have a hearing before the
Court. If the people do not respond then we ask the Court to issue a bench order to have them apprehended
and brought in.
Mr. Barker stated that the reason he went through the process is because it shows that it does take a
substantial amount of time to follow the process.
Mr. Barker read into record the case history:
Verified complaint filed with Court—March 4, 2010
Sent to Sheriff's Office— March 8, 2010
Sylvia called the office—March 11, 2010
Email sent to Bethany in returning phone call
Served —March 11, 2010
Answer due—March 29, 2010
Affidavit and Support of Default Judgment prepared and sent to Planning—April 1, 2010
Motion and Order for Default Judgment filed with the Court—April 12, 2010
Sent to Sheriffs Office— May 14, 2010
Served— May 20, 2010 & May 25, 2010
Answer due—June 4, 2010
Motion in order to dismiss Sylvia Martinez—June 2, 2010
Order signed—June 7, 2010
Contempt Pleadings prepared and sent to Planning & filed with Court—June 14, 2010
• Sent for service of process—June 22, 2010
Contempt hearing set for September 2, 2010
9
Letter sent to respondent in completing and filing for court appointed interpreter—July 2010
• Making progress and almost finished with filing the USR application—August 5, 2010
Commissioner Grand asked for clarification if the applicants have been practicing or holding events during the
past year. Mr. Soto replied that the only event he has had was on April 10, 2010. Mr. Holton clarified if that
was the only time he had 45 to 50 people on the property. Mr. Soto said that was the only time.
Commissioner Grand asked if there is a rural noise process for someone to turn that violation in. Ms. Evett
stated that there is a Weld County Ordinance in Chapter 14 Article 9. She added that the Environmental
Health Department has a decibel meter where they can test the noise on any complaints received. In addition,
there is a section regarding violations and penalties.
Mr. Grand expressed concern given that the neighbors stated that they called into the Sheriff's Department
and were told that there is no noise ordinance. Mr. Barker stated that Health Department has the ability to
enforce the noise ordinance. This was written in Chapter 14 so that the Sheriff's office would have the ability
to write the noise complaints as a heavy offense. Mr. Barker said that he has had discussions with the
Sheriffs office and he knows that the Commanders know about the ordinance. So he does not understand
why the same explanation was given to at least three different individuals regarding no noise ordinance. Mr.
Barker commented that he sent an email to Commander Winset at the Sheriffs Department to see why this
has been happening.
The Chair asked the applicant if he read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that he is in agreement.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1763, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, seconded by Nick Berryman.
• The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes with comment; Erich Ehrlich, no with comment; Robert Grand, yes with comment; Bill Hall, no
with comment;Alexander Zauder,yes;Jason Maxey, no with comment; Roy Spitzer, absent; Mark Lawley,yes
with comment; Tom Holton, no with comment. VOTE: 4-4.
Commissioner Maxey commented that he is all for private property rights and allowing the property owner to
do what they wish with their property within the necessary permits; however he cited Section 23-2-200
"Therefore, Uses by Special Review require additional consideration to ensure that they are established and
operated in a manner that is compatible with existing and planned land uses in the neighborhood". He added
that he believes there is a major breakdown in that regard and he is worried that this will not be operated in a
manner that is compatible.
Commissioner Hall echoed the same Section 23-2-200 as Mr. Maxey cited. He agreed with Mr. Maxey on the
ability to use your property however you choose; however when it is not compatible with the neighborhood he
doesn't believe it is a proper use.
Commissioner Berryman commented that he is not entirely sure that there is a defined good faith effort on the
part of the property owner. He also has some questions if they will be compliant with everything.
Commissioner Grand said that it boils down to the private property owner's application for a USR and not for
them to judge how he will comply with the regulatory process in place. He is concerned that it is going to be a
nightmare in terms of the noise issue; however he believes that there is a process for that.
Commissioner Ehrlich noted Development Standards 5, 6, 7 and 13 as being topics that he feels will be
difficult to hold into compliance in the future.
Commissioner Lawley believes that the Development Standards do address the concerns of the citizens and
• that there is a mechanism where the neighbors can get their concerns met through the Sheriff's Department
and other County agencies.
10
• Commissioner Holton commented that these are the toughest cases to sit on. There are plenty of areas
where roping arenas work but he is not comfortable with the applicant that he is going to follow these
standards given the past history.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss. No one had
any further business to discuss.
Meeting adjourned at 4:00 pm.
Respectfully submitted,'' ,,11,, ,,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
•
•
11
Hello