HomeMy WebLinkAbout20102825.tiff RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
NOVEMBER 22, 2010
The Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, met in regular session in full
conformity with the laws of the State of Colorado at the regular place of meeting in the Weld County
Centennial Center, Greeley, Colorado, November 22, 2010, at the hour of 9:00 a.m.
ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by the Chair and on roll call the following members
were present, constituting a quorum of the members thereof:
Commissioner Douglas Rademacher, Chair
Commissioner Barbara Kirkmeyer, Pro-Tern
Commissioner Sean P. Conway — EXCUSED
Commissioner William F. Garcia
Commissioner David E. Long
Also present:
County Attorney, Bruce T. Barker
Acting Clerk to the Board, Elizabeth Strong
Controller, Barb Connolly
MINUTES: Commissioner Long moved to approve the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners
meeting of November 17, 2010, as printed. Commissioner Kirkmeyer seconded the motion, and it
carried unanimously.
CERTIFICATION OF HEARINGS: Commissioner Long moved to approve the Certification of Hearings
conducted on November 17, 2010, as follows: 1) USR #1758 — Javier Barron — Sixtos, 2) USR#1757 —
Latimer and Nancy Bohling, and 3) AmUSR #1253 — Rocky Mountain Wildlife Conservation Center, dba
The Wild Animal Sanctuary. Commissioner Kirkmeyer seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously.
AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA: There were no amendments to the agenda.
PUBLIC INPUT: No public input was given.
CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Garcia moved to approve the Consent Agenda as printed.
Commissioner Long seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
COMMISSIONER COORDINATOR REPORTS: There were no Commissioner Coordinator Reports.
OLD BUSINESS:
CONSIDER CANCELLATION OF TAX LIEN SALE CERTIFICATES (TS CERT 0470/1995 AND
0471/1995) FOR PARCEL #105728118023 (CON'T FROM 11/17/10): Bruce Barker, County Attorney,
indicated this and the following two (2) items were continued in order to revise the Resolutions, to more
appropriately reflect the process that will be taking place. He indicated the Resolutions have been
Minutes, November 22, 2010 2010-2825
q- Page 1 BC0016
changed to acknowledge the cancellation of the Tax Lien Sale Certificates and to state that refunds will
not be issued to the individuals holding the Tax Lien Sale Certificates, and he recommends approval of
all three (3) Resolutions. Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to acknowledge the cancellation of said Tax
Lien Sale Certificates for Parcel #105728118023. Seconded by Commissioner Garcia, the motion
carried unanimously.
CONSIDER CANCELLATION OF TAX LIEN SALE CERTIFICATE (TS CERT 0106/1995) FOR
PARCEL #147106126005 (CON'T FROM 11/17/10): Based on previous discussion, Commissioner
Garcia moved to acknowledge the cancellation of Tax Lien Sale Certificate for Parcel #147106126005.
Seconded by Commissioner Kirkmeyer, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER CANCELLATION OF TAX LIEN SALE CERTIFICATE (TS CERT 0100/1995) FOR
PARCEL #1 4731 01 0401 3 (CON'T FROM 11/17/10): Based on previous discussion, Commissioner
Long moved to acknowledge the cancellation of Tax Lien Sale Certificate for Parcel #147310104013.
Seconded by Commissioner Kirkmeyer, the motion carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
CONSIDER TWO (2) AMENDMENTS TO CHILD PROTECTION AGREEMENTS FOR SERVICES
AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN — JUBILEE RETREAT CENTER: Judy Griego, Director,
Department of Human Services, stated these amendments were presented to the Board at a work
session conducted on October 25, 2010. She indicated the amendments will increase the amount
designated for the Jubilee Retreat Center to $55,000.00 for the Bonding Program, and $25,000.000 for
neurofeedback services. Commissioner Long moved to approve the amendments. Seconded by
Commissioner Kirkmeyer, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES — ARM PETROLEUM
COMPANY: Christopher Woodruff, Assessor, stated this property is located within the Town of
Firestone, and the property owner protested the property value in the year 2010, which resulted in an
adjustment; therefore, the property owner is requesting the property value for the year 2009 be
adjusted to match the 2010 value. He stated the actual property value was originally $1,551,986.00,
and it was adjusted to $1,294,800.00 after the property owner provided additional income information;
therefore, he recommends an abatement of taxes in the amount of $7,005.07. Commissioner Garcia
moved to approve said tax abatement, in the amount of $7,005.07, based on staff's recommendation.
Seconded by Commissioner Long, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES - JSPERGM, INC.: Mr. Woodruff
stated this property is located within the City of Evans, and the property owner provided income
information from the years 2007 and 2008, resulting in an adjustment for the year 2010; therefore, the
property owner is requesting the 2009 value be adjusted as well. He stated the original actual value of
the property was $2,400,000.00, and the corrected actual value is $2,100,000.00; therefore, he
recommends a tax abatement in the amount of $6,782.31. Commissioner Long moved to approve said
tax abatement, in the amount of $6,782.31, based on staff's recommendation. Seconded by
Commissioner Kirkmeyer, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES - JAZZEY, LLC, C/O JATINDER
ARKEN: Mr. Woodruff stated the property is located within the City of Greeley, and the property owner
provided additional information as part of a protest for the year 2010, resulting in the property value
being adjusted for the year 2010; therefore, the property owner requests the same adjustment be made
for the year 2009. He stated the original actual property value was $535,500.00, and the corrected
actual value is $440,000.00; therefore, he recommends a tax abatement in the amount of $2,223.70.
Commissioner Garcia moved to approve said tax abatement, in the amount of $2,223.70, based on
staff's recommendation. Seconded by Commissioner Kirkmeyer, the motion carried unanimously.
Minutes, November 22, 2010 2010-2825
Page 2 BC0016
CONSIDER PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES — CBMRE, LLC: Mr. Woodruff
stated he is recommending denial of this petition, and he submitted a packet containing appraisal
information, marked Exhibit A, into the record. He stated this property is located within the Town of
Frederick, and the petition for Tax Year 2010 has been withdrawn; therefore, only the petition for the
year 2009 is being considered.
In response to Mr. Woodruff, Wolfram Kasemir, Petitioner, and Manager of AA Affordable Storage,
confirmed the petition for Tax Year 2010 has been withdrawn. Mr. Woodruff stated this is a storage
facility and he will allow staff to explain the appraisal, and then Mr. Kasemir can speak on the matter.
Wade Melies, Commercial Appraiser for the Weld County Assessor's Office, stated the property
consists of two (2) lots, with a total land size of 107,549 square feet, and there is 18,080 square feet of
mini self storage, which consists of 109 units within five (5) buildings. He stated the land is valued at
$215,089.00, and land sales in the area support the range of value. He stated the land sales which
were considered are from the base period of the year 2007, through June, 2008, and there are three (3)
sales in the area which support a range from $2.07 to $6.76 per square foot. Mr. Melies stated that
after adjusting the sales for the size, age, and location of the properties, the comparables support a
value of $2.00 per square foot, for a total land value of $215,089.00. He stated the comparable land
sales which were considered are in close proximity to the subject property, and the cost approach
basically considers the original cost to build the units minus the depreciation. He stated the summary
of the improvements is $438,229.00, and with the land, it results in a total indication by cost of
$653,327.00. He stated the buildings were constructed in different years; therefore, various
calculations were utilized to determine the depreciation.
Mr. Melies stated sales from December, 2006, through May, 2008, were utilized to support a market
indicated value of $687,000.00. He stated the range of sales were from $35.00 to $53.00 per square
foot, after adjustments were made for age and outside storage, and the average value was $38.66 per
square foot. He stated the property was valued at $38.00 per square foot, resulting in a value of
$687,000.00 utilizing the market approach.
Mr. Melies stated income information from January 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008, was gathered, and
the total revenue reported by the owner for the years 2007 and 2008 was not available; however,
potential revenue based on quotes for rental rates and the expenses reported by the owner for the year
2006 were utilized, plus a percentage for management reserves. He stated the typical vacancy rate for
storage units in northern Colorado is 20 to 30 percent, and due to a lack of information provided by the
property owner, the vacancy rate for the subject property was overestimated to be 50 percent. He
stated this information, in combination with the statewide and industry-wide data, is utilized to
determine the typical income and expenses for various properties. Mr. Melies stated the MLS (Multiple
Listing Service) listing sheets and the income analysis from the listing realtor, dated September 25,
2008, have been provided as additional documentation to support the estimates, He stated the income
approach values the property at $568,500.00. He indicated the value was determined by figuring each
unit's potential rent, minus the 50 percent assumed vacancies, and considering the total expenses,
which computes to a net operating income of $44,987.00. He stated an effective cap rate was utilized,
which is the taxes plus a cap rate of 7.5 percent, for a 10 percent cap rate, which results in a value of
$449,870.70, plus an estimated value for the fenced lot, results in a value of $568,500.00. Mr. Melies
requested the property value be sustained at $569,426.00. Mr. Woodruff stated this is a 2009
valuation; therefore, the Assessor's Office is limited to utilizing data from the year 2007 and the first half
of the year 2008, under State law, and any subsequent data will be considered in the 2011 reappraisal.
He inquired as to whether staff correlated to a lower value for the petition because Mr. Melies reported
a recommended value of $569,426.00, yet the petition indicates a recommended value of $562,568.00.
Minutes, November 22, 2010 2010-2825
Page 3 BC0016
Mr. Melies indicated there may be a mathematical error and he will check his calculations while
Mr. Kasemir makes his presentation.
Mr. Kasemir stated he would have liked to have received a copy of Exhibit A prior to when he was
provided a copy just a few minutes ago, in order to have utilized the information to prepare a better
presentation. He indicated his notes address the income approach, and on Page 14 of Exhibit A, it
indicates the potential gross income for the property is $112,752.00; however, the appraisal done by
James Derr for First Bank indicated the potential gross income was $81,874.00, in the appraisal he
conducted on March 9, 2009. He indicated if he had known this information was going to be presented
he would have brought the appraisal with him today, since there is an approximately 40 percent
difference between the potential gross income amounts. Mr. Kasemir stated the reason there was little,
or no, income generated by the previous owner is because the previous owner overpaid for the
property and decided to quit making payments and allow the property to go into foreclosure. He stated
the previous property owner was not managing the property well and the condition of the property
deteriorated, and Mr. Derr's appraisal indicated the "as is" property value on March 9, 2009, was
$470,000.00. He stated the price he purchased the property for was $415,000.00 on July 17, 2009.
Mr. Kasemir stated the previous owner was not willing to provide him with any of their previous records,
other than the security deposits, which they turned over at the closing. He stated the previous property
owner had not paid the property taxes for 1-1/2 years prior to the sale of the property, which became
his burden. He stated his QuickBooks report for the year 2009, indicates the gross income was
$11,776.00, which averaged to be approximately $1,685.00 per month, and $20,222.00 when applying
the average to the entire year, which is 25 percent of the potential gross income determined by
Mr. Derr. Mr. Kasemir stated he has been able to clean up the property this year and construct a new
fence, and he was able to increase the gross income up to 40 percent of the potential gross income
indicated by Mr. Derr of $81,874.00. He stated in comparison to the potential gross income determined
by the Assessor's Office of$112,752.00, he increased the gross income up to 25 percent of that figure.
He stated the vacancy rate at this time is approximately 70 percent, and he believes the property is
overvalued. Mr. Kasemir stated he is spending more than half of the income from the property on
taxes, which only leaves enough money to pay the mortgage and none to pay the utilities or other
expenses. He requested the Board reconsider the valuation and consider setting the property value at
$390,738.00. In response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Kasemir stated $470,000.00 was the "as is"
appraised value determined by Mr. Derr on March 9, 2009.
Chair Rademacher indicated the Assessor's Office must consider information from the year 2007 and
the first half of the 2008 when setting the property value for the year 2009, and it has already given the
benefit of the doubt to Mr. Derr by assuming a 50 percent vacancy rate for the property, since the
standard vacancy rate is 20 to 30 percent. Mr. Kasemir stated there was an 80 percent vacancy rate
for the property when he initially purchased it, and it takes time to improve the occupancy rate;
therefore, if he were able to obtain the previous records, he is certain the records would indicate a high
vacancy rate for the previous two (2) years. Mr. Woodruff stated the actual property value determined
by the Assessor's Office is $562,568.00 for this property for Tax Years 2009 and 2010, and a tax in the
amount of $15,177.52. He stated this is post appraisal date data, which will be helpful in valuating the
property for the year 2011, since it is all germane information to the current valuation process;
therefore, he hopes Mr. Kasemir will provide the information to the Assessor's Office so it can make an
appropriate valuation for the year 2011. In response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Kasemir stated he
needs to be able to make reasonable tax payments to stay in business; not 50 percent of his gross
income. Commissioner Garcia thanked Mr. Kasemir for his valuation report; however, he noted the
Assessor's cost approach utilized the amount of $2.00 per square foot, which is below any of the
comparables, and the Assessor's income approach utilized a vacancy rate of 50 percent, when the
typical vacancy rate is 20 to 30 percent; therefore, he will be supporting the Assessor's
recommendation, and he moved to deny said tax abatement. Commissioner Long seconded the
motion. Chair Rademacher concurred with Commissioner Garcia. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated
Minutes, November 22, 2010 2010-2825
Page 4 BC0016
Exhibit A indicates the market value was reduced due to the property owner paying the back taxes;
therefore, it was taken into consideration when the property was sold; however, it is not something the
Board may consider, due to the time period. Mr. Kasemir thanked the Board for hearing him.
Mr. Woodruff stated he will discuss the right of appeal with Mr. Kasemir. There being no further
discussion, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF CR 5 BETWEEN CR 46 AND SH 60: Janet Carter,
Department of Public Works, stated the closure is scheduled to commence November 29, 2010,
through December 12, 2010, in order to replace a culvert and widen the road. She stated the average
daily traffic count for County Road 5 is 73 vehicles, according to a count conducted in the year 2009,
and water will be used for dust control on the detour route. Commissioner Garcia moved to approve
said temporary closure. Seconded by Commissioner Long, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER ASSIGNMENT OF TAX LIEN SALE CERTIFICATES TO JOEL PERRI AND AUTHORIZE
CHAIR TO SIGN: Mr. Barker stated $265.68 has been paid for the Tax Lien Sale Certificates for
two (2) properties, and he recommended approval. Commissioner Long moved to assign said Tax Lien
Sale Certificates and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Kirkmeyer, the motion
carried unanimously.
CONSIDER ASSIGNMENT OF TAX LIEN SALE CERTIFICATE TO ARC DEALERSHIP, LLC, AND
AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN: Mr. Barker stated $128.96 has been paid for the Tax Lien Sale
Certificate for one (1) property, and he recommended approval. Commissioner Garcia moved to assign
said Tax Lien Sale Certificate and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Kirkmeyer,
the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER ASSIGNMENT OF TAX LIEN SALE CERTIFICATE TO LORENA CHAVEZ AND
AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN: Mr. Barker stated $285.81 has been paid for the Tax Lien Sale
Certificate for one (1) property, and he recommended approval. Commissioner Garcia moved to assign
said Tax Lien Sale Certificate and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Long, the
motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER SMALL TRACT OIL AND GAS LEASE AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN - NOBLE
ENERGY, INC. - PT. SW1/4, S9, T6N, R63W: Mr. Barker stated this lease is for two (2) parcels in
close proximity to one (1) another, which are 1.36 and 2.69 mineral acres in size. He indicated $400.00
per acre was paid for the lease, for a total cost of$1,620.00. Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to waive
the bid procedure concerning oil and gas leases, accept the offer to lease mineral acre, and authorize
the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Garcia, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER VETERANS SERVICE OFFICERS MONTHLY REPORT AND CERTIFICATION OF PAY
AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN: Barb Connolly, Controller, indicated this is the Veterans Service
Officer's Monthly Report and Certification of Pay for the month of October. Commissioner Kirkmeyer
moved to approve said Veterans Service Officers Monthly Report and Certification of Pay, and
authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Garcia, the motion carried unanimously.
PLANNING:
CONSIDER PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING CONCERNING USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT #1428 - JOHN AND DENISE WALKUSCH: Chris Gathman, Department of Planning
Services, stated the original Use by Special Review (USR) Permit was for a shop to perform repairs on
heavy trucks and farm equipment. He stated there was a complaint received by staff over the summer
and a letter was sent to John Walkusch, property owner, from the Department of Planning Services.
He stated a pre-application meeting occurred on July 23, 2010, and Mr. Walkusch indicated he was
considering amending the USR Permit application. Mr. Gathman stated staff provided 60 days for
Minutes, November 22, 2010 2010-2825
Page 5 BC0016
Mr. Walkusch to submit the amended application; however, Mr. Walkusch submitted a letter to staff on
September 21, 2010, indicating he was considering selling the four (4) trucks he uses for hauling, yet
he was unsure as to when he could have the trucks sold. He stated staff sent a response letter
requesting a timeframe for when the trucks could be sold, and Mr. Walkusch indicated it depends upon
market conditions, and since there was not a definite timeframe, a probable cause hearing was
scheduled, in order to discuss the details.
Mr. Gathman stated there are two (2) principal issues, and the first one (1) is that when the USR Permit
was approved, it only covered a portion of the property; the USR boundaries include the garage, a
fenced area in back of the garage where Mr. Walkusch works on equipment, and the driveway area in
front of the garage; however, Mr. Walkusch has additional equipment stored outside of the USR
boundaries to the north, including four (4) trucks associated with the gravel hauling business. He
stated in addition to the equipment being stored outside of the USR boundaries, the other issue is that
the USR Permit does not include the gravel hauling and trucking business. He stated he went out to
the site on November 19, 2010, and he took some photographs which show the equipment which is
located outside of the USR boundaries. Mr. Gathman stated Mr. Walkusch has indicated most of the
equipment which is outside of the USR boundaries will be sold at auction at some point; however, due
to the market conditions, he is unsure as to when that will occur. He stated the last notable item is this
site has a shared access onto State Highway 392 which the trucks must cross. In response to Chair
Rademacher, Mr. Gathman clarified the complaint received over the summer was relayed through a
phone call; not a letter. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Gathman stated staff
recommends a three (3) month timeframe be provided for Mr. Walkusch to sell or remove the four (4)
gravel hauling trucks which are being stored outside of the USR boundaries, and to relocate any other
equipment which is outside of the USR boundaries within 60 days. He stated Mr. Walkusch has sold
one (1) trailer which was outside of the USR boundaries.
Mr. Walkusch indicated he spent a fortune obtaining the original USR Permit and installing a fence, and
he moved to Weld County to be able to own his trucks and equipment, and he has owned trucks since
the year 1991, which he earns his income from. He stated he does not have a problem amending the
USR Permit; however, he does not understand why he is being asked to jump through hoops to amend
the USR boundaries. He stated there has been an issue with him providing a portable toilet on the site;
however, it is no different from being on a construction job site, and he is okay with allowing his
employees to use the toilet in his house as well. Mr. Walkusch stated he has faced struggles with
trying to simply amend the USR boundaries. He stated when he applied for the original USR Permit it
was for the repair business, and it was never discussed that the trucks needed to be within the
boundaries of the USR Permit. He stated the reason he did not allot more land for the USR Permit
area was to keep from paying unnecessary taxes, since the area within the USR Permit boundary was
becoming commercial property; however, if he had known the trucks need to be within the USR Permit
boundaries, he would have allotted more land for the USR Permit. Mr. Walkusch stated he is tired of
fighting; therefore, he told Mr. Gathman that he will sell his company; however, perhaps the north
boundary can be amended. He indicated he cannot afford to pay $2,500.00 to amend the USR Permit,
and it may take another $10,000.00, or more, to bring the property into compliance. He indicated there
is another business located approximately 1.5 miles away from his business, which is the same type of
business as his; however, he does not believe the property owners have been subject to the same
rules he has been subject to, and he does not understand why he is in violation of his USR Permit if the
surrounding property owners are operating the same type of business without being required to follow
the same process he has followed. He indicated he is frustrated by the situation. Chair Rademacher
stated it is not the intention of the Board to force any small businesses out of business, particularly in
the current economic tribulation.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated she has read the Development Standards from the USR Permit, and
she inquired as to why Mr. Walkusch needs to sell four (4) trucks. Mr. Gathman stated the original
Minutes, November 22, 2010 2010-2825
Page 6 BC0016
USR Permit was for a repair business and it did not address the trucking business, and Mr. Walkusch
has four (4) employees coming to the site to pick up the trucks and then taking the trucks offsite for the
work day; therefore, there were no trucks at the site when he completed the field check in the year
2004. He stated the trucking business was not a part of the original USR Permit application, and the
application did not include any employees other than Mr. Walkusch. He stated the trucking business
was not addressed in the original USR application and it constitutes a substantial change to the USR
Permit. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Walkusch stated his property is 2.69 acres in
size. He stated he just parks the trucks on the property at night, and he has a problem with spending a
lot of money just to change the USR Permit boundary, when he could just have the surveying company
redo the plat to change the north boundary of the USR Permit to include the area where he is parking
the trucks at night. He stated he has installed a fence; therefore, none of the equipment is visible from
the road, and he is not harming anyone. Mr. Walkusch indicated he maintains all the trucks well and
keeps his property clean; therefore, he does not understand why it is so hard for him to amend a
boundary line. Commissioner Kirkmeyer indicated the Resolution addresses the repair business; not
the trucking business; therefore, it is not as simple as amending the boundary. Mr. Walkusch stated
the name of his business is Walkusch Trucking and Repair, and it was the same in the year 2004.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer inquired as to whether it is possible to arrange the trucks within the boundary
of the USR Permit. Mr. Walkusch indicated if the trucks were parked against the building, it would be
hard to exit the site, and he would have to figure out where to relocate his antique trucks and other
equipment which is currently within the USR Permit boundary. He stated he is trying to make an
honest living and he pays his taxes, and if he is not able to continue his business, it will affect at least
24 local businesses and the City of Greeley. He indicated he does not have a problem with bringing
the property into compliance; however, he does not have a lot of money to dedicate to it. In response
to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Gathman concurred that the trucking business should have been included in
the original USR Permit application. Chair Rademacher provided the opportunity for public testimony;
however, none was given. He indicated he would like to work with Mr. Walkusch regarding the fees,
and he stated the original USR Permit should have covered all of Mr. Walkusch's property.
Mr. Gathman concurred with Chair Rademacher that the USR permit should have covered the entire
property, and he indicated if it was an older case, it would have been required to include the entire
property. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Gathman stated Mr. Walkusch can park one (1)
truck on his property as a use by right. Mr. Walkusch stated he had two (2) trucks when the USR
Permit was approved in the year 2004. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Chair Rademacher
stated the number of trucks allowed as a use by right was the same in the year 2004. In response to
Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Gathman stated in the year 2004, one (1) commercial vehicle was
allowed for a Home Occupation; however, the Weld County Code has changed to include a Class II
Home Occupation, which allows two (2) vehicles and two (2) outside employees. In response to
Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Gathman concurred that Mr. Walkusch is allowed to have two (2)
commercial vehicles now as a use by right, due to changes in the Weld County Code. Commissioner
Kirkmeyer stated since the Weld County Code allows two (2) commercial vehicles, Mr. Walkusch does
not need to sell all four (4) trucks; he is allowed to retain two (2) trucks. In response to Mr. Walkusch,
Commissioner Kirkmeyer clarified the Code is more lenient now than it was in the year 2004; it now
allows two (2) commercial vehicles, as opposed to one (1).
Mr. Walkusch stated that Mr. Barker indicated the whole property should be made commercial, which
he does not have a problem with; however, half of his property is for his house and his horses, and if he
proceeds with making the entire property commercial, he wants to make sure he will not later be told he
cannot live on a commercial property. He stated he does not want to be driven out of business and he
is just trying to make a living. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated Mr. Walkusch will not be taxed based on
the zoning; he will be taxed based on the use of the property; therefore, his house will be taxed as
Residential and he is already being taxed on the Commercial use of the property. She indicated the
Board is trying to determine how to bring Mr. Walkusch's property into compliance in a manner which is
most beneficial to him, since the Board has a responsibility to ensure consistency regarding the Weld
Minutes, November 22, 2010 2010-2825
Page 7 BC0016
County Code and applying the Weld County Code consistently for all of Weld County's residents.
Mr. Gathman clarified that in order to retain two (2) commercial vehicles under the Class II Home
Occupation, a zoning permit process would be necessary. Commissioner Kirkmeyer inquired as to
whether an amendment to the USR Permit is necessary to change the USR Permit boundaries, or if the
Board can make a determination regarding changing the boundaries. Mr. Barker stated the Board may
be able to authorize a correction.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer suggested continuing the Probable Cause Hearing, in order to allow staff to
review the original application and the minutes from the original hearing, to determine whether there is
an indication as to why the trucking business was not included in the original USR Permit. She stated
she would like to determine how to bring Mr. Walkusch into compliance, in the least costly manner.
Mr. Walkusch stated he does not think the trucking business was mentioned when the original USR
Permit was approved, since it was for a repair business, and the trucks were not considered an issue at
that time. Mr. Gathman stated the USR Permit was originally applied for in order to address a violation.
In response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Gathman confirmed the violation was brought to staff's attention
as the result of a complaint. Mr. Walkusch confirmed one (1) of the neighbors complained.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer reiterated she would like to continue the Probable Cause Hearing and she
indicated she wants staff to research whether there is another way to amend the boundaries and review
what happened in the previous hearing. In response to Chair Rademacher, Commissioner Kirkmeyer
stated if the Board refers the matter back to the Department of Planning Services, it will be dismissing
the Probable Cause Hearing. Mr. Barker recommended continuing the matter. In response to
Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Chair Rademacher indicated he will support continuing the matter for 60
days. Mr. Walkusch stated he will be out of the State the week of January 24, 2011. In response to
Chair Rademacher, Mr. Walkusch stated he will be available to attend a hearing the first week of
February, 2011. Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to continue the Probable Cause Hearing to
February 2, 2011, at 9:00 a.m. Commissioner Long seconded the motion. Commissioner Garcia
requested that Mr. Gathman provide the background information from the original application before the
Board considers this matter on February 2, 2011, since he has found it difficult to determine the original
understanding of the involved parties. There being no further discussion, the motion carried
unanimously.
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES: The resolutions were presented and signed as listed on the
Consent Agenda. No Ordinances were approved.
Let the minutes reflect that the above and foregoing actions were attested to and respectfully submitted
by the Acting Clerk to the Board.
Minutes, November 22, 2010 2010-2825
Page 8 BC0016
There being no further business, this meeting was adjourned at 10:10 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY COLORADO
ATTEST:' •
,
Do gl s Rademac Chair ,
:nSb
F �{
� t i arbara Kirkmey , Pc ,
Deputy Clerk to the Boar t(, c\,=4fr EXCUSED
Sean P. o ✓a
i a . Ga
David E. Long
Minutes, November 22, 2010 2010-2825
Page 9 BC0016
Hello