HomeMy WebLinkAbout20102685.tiff RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
NOVEMBER 8, 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 8, 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-Tem
Commissioner Sean P. Conway
Commissioner William F. Garcia
Commissioner David E. Long
Also present:
County Attorney, Bruce T. Barker
Acting Clerk to the Board, Elizabeth Strong
Director of Finance and Administration, Monica Mika
MINUTES: Commissioner Conway moved to approve the minutes of the Board of County
Commissioners meeting of November 3, 2010, as printed. Commissioner Garcia seconded the motion,
and it carried unanimously.
AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA: Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to move New Item of Business #8 to
the Consent Agenda, under Miscellaneous. Seconded by Commissioner Long, the motion carried
unanimously.
PUBLIC INPUT: No public input was given.
CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to approve the Consent Agenda as printed.
Commissioner Conway seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
COMMISSIONER COORDINATOR REPORTS: There were no Commissioner Coordinator Reports.
NEW BUSINESS:
CONSIDER TWO (2) AMENDMENTS TO CHILD PROTECTION AGREEMENTS FOR SERVICES
WITH VARIOUS PROVIDERS AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN: Judy Griego, Director, Department
of Human Services, stated these amendments were presented at the Board's work session on
October 25, 2010, and are necessary to remain within Core allocations. She stated the first
amendment is to the agreement with Griffith Centers for Children — Chins Up Center, and it increases
the maximum amount of the agreement to $40,000.00. She stated the second amendment is to the
agreement with Sionnach Counseling Services, LLC, and it decreases the maximum amount of the
ID
Minutes, November 8, 2010 2010-2685
Page 1 BC0016
agreement to $10,000.00. Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to approve said amendments and
authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Conway, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES - CATFISH, LLC, C/O DAVID
RAU (R3883586): Christopher Woodruff, Assessor, stated this property is a truck wash located within
the City of Evans. He stated the Assessor's Office made an adjustment for the property for the year
2010, and he recommends the same adjustment be made for Tax Year 2009, since there is a
significant amount of contamination remaining, and based on income information received this year.
He recommended the actual value be reduced from $248,448.00, to $194,864.00, resulting in a tax
abatement in the amount of $1,205.05. Commissioner Conway moved to approve said tax abatement,
in the amount of $1,205.05, for Tax Year 2009, based on staff's recommendation. Seconded by
Commissioner Kirkmeyer, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES - CATFISH, LLC, C/O DAVID
RAU (R3883286): Mr. Woodruff stated this is an adjacent parcel to the property the Board just
considered, and the circumstances are the same; there are issues regarding contamination on the
property, and there was an examination of the income data for the period. He stated an adjustment has
been made for the year 2010, and he recommended the same adjustment for Tax Year 2009, which will
reduce the actual value from $361,932.00, to $309,660.00, which will yield a tax abatement of
$1,175.28. Commissioner Long moved to approve said tax abatement, in the amount of $1,175.28,
based on staff's recommendation. Seconded by Commissioner Kirkmeyer, the motion carried
unanimously.
CONSIDER PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES — MARY JO REUTH:
Mr. Woodruff stated this parcel of land was classified as residential; however, the property owner has
provided documentation it is being utilized as agricultural land; therefore, the Assessor's Office has
updated the classification for the year 2010, and it should be changed for the year 2009. He stated the
change in the classification will result in the actual property value for the year 2009 being reduced from
$354,258.00, to $147,185.00, which yields a tax abatement of$1,299.98. Commissioner Garcia moved
to approve said tax abatement, in the amount of $1,299.98, based on staff's recommendation.
Seconded by Commissioner Conway, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES - UNI DESIGN, INC., C/O MARK
HOUT: Mr. Woodruff stated this business was in the process of selling its assets in the year 2008;
however, it was not noted when it submitted its 2009 information. He indicated the business has
subsequently corrected its Tax Year 2009 filing; therefore, he recommends approval of the petition. He
recommended the actual property value for Tax Year 2009, be reduced from $176,723.00, to
$11,957.00, resulting in a tax abatement of $3,820.25. In response to Commissioner Garcia,
Mr. Woodruff confirmed the property owner initially believed the property had a value in the amount of
$800.00; however, staff discussed the matter with the property owner and the property owner agreed
that the value is $11,957.00. Commissioner Conway moved to approve said refund, in the amount of
$3,820.25, for Tax Year 2009, based on staff's recommendation. Seconded by Commissioner
Kirkmeyer, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF EAST 24TH STREET BETWEEN CHERRY AVENUE AND
U.S. HIGHWAY 34: Janet Carter, Department of Public Works, stated said closure will commence
November 15, 2010, through November 26, 2010, in order to replace an existing bridge with a cement
box structure. She stated the detour route is entirely paved, and road signs and barricades will be used
throughout the closure. Commissioner Garcia moved to approve said temporary closure. Seconded by
Commissioner Conway, the motion carried unanimously.
Minutes, November 8, 2010 2010-2685
Page 2 BC0016
CONSIDER TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF CR 6 BETWEEN CRS 19 AND 21: Ms. Carter stated said
closure commenced November 4, 2010, and is anticipated to last until tomorrow, November 9, 2010, in
order to replace a collapsing bridge deck. Chair Rademacher encouraged staff to take an additional
week, if it is necessary, in order to do the job right. Commissioner Conway stated the Resolution
indicates the closure will last until November 19, 2010. Ms. Carter confirmed the information she
initially submitted indicated the closure would last until November 19, 2010; however, based on interest
in the closure, the crews made adjustments in order to have the project completed tomorrow by
12:00 p.m. In response to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Carter recommended leaving the end date for
the closure as November 19, 2010, in the Resolution; however, the project will hopefully be completed
tomorrow. Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to approve said temporary closure. Seconded by
Commissioner Conway, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER ASSIGNMENT OF TAX LIEN SALE CERTIFICATES TO A A & S, INC.: Bruce Barker,
County Attorney, indicated these Tax Lien Sale Certificates are for five (5) properties, resulting in a total
amount of $596.33. Commissioner Long moved to approve the assignment of said Tax Lien Sale
Certificates to A A & S, Inc. Seconded by Commissioner Garcia, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER ASSIGNMENT OF TAX LIEN SALE CERTIFICATE TO SANDRA HICKS AND
AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN: Mr. Barker recommended this Tax Lien Sale Certificate be assigned to
Sandra Hicks, who has paid $6,588.85. Commissioner Conway moved to approve the assignment of
said Tax Lien Sale Certificate to Sandra K. Hicks. Seconded by Commissioner Garcia, the motion
carried unanimously.
CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS AND REAPPOINTMENTS TO JUVENILE COMMUNITY REVIEW
BOARD: Commissioner Garcia moved to appoint Tyler Fittz to the Juvenile Community Review Board,
with a term to expire November 1, 2011; Kirsta Britton, Margie Gomez, and Sadie Medrano, with terms
to expire November 1, 2012; to appoint Kimberly Kinne, with a term to expire November 1, 2013; and to
reappoint Joe Gerber, Dalee McIntosh, Mark Romero, and William McAdams, with terms to expire
November 1, 2013. Seconded by Commissioner Kirkmeyer, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER APPOINTMENT TO BOARD OF RETIREMENT: Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to
appoint Duane Naibauer to the Board of Retirement, with a term to expire July 31, 2011. Seconded by
Commissioner Conway, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS AND REAPPOINTMENTS TO FAIR BOARD: Commissioner Kirkmeyer
moved to appoint Matt Halverson, Lynette Hanzlicek, Marge Mercurio, Patricia Kindvall, and Terry
Sandmeier to the Fair Board, and to reappoint Karen Folchert and Allen DeBelly, all with terms to
expire September 30, 2013. Seconded by Commissioner Conway, the motion carried unanimously,
and he thanked the Board for acting quickly to fill these positions before the upcoming retreat.
CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO EXTENSION ADVISORY COUNCIL: Commissioner Conway moved
to appoint Brenda Santeramo to the Extension Advisory Council, with a term to expire February 1,
2011, and to appoint Guy McEndaffer and David Moore, with terms to expire February 1, 2012.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer seconded the motion. Commissioner Conway thanked the Board for acting
quickly to fill these positions, in order to allow the new members of the Extension Advisory Council to
be able to meet with Dr. Tony Frank later this week, to determine the future direction of the Extension
Office. There being no further discussion, the motion carried unanimously.
PLANNING:
CONSIDER PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING CONCERNING USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT #1438 - HCP VENTURES, LLLP, AND CAREERS WORLD WIDE, CIO CHARLES TWEEDY:
Richard Hastings, Department of Public Works, stated this Probable Cause Hearing is related to
Minutes, November 8, 2010 2010-2685
Page 3 BC0016
inconsistent dust applications associated with Use by Special Review (USR) Permit #1438. He
indicated there have been discussions about other issues with USR Permit #1438; however, the sole
topic which will be discussed today is the inconsistent dust applications. He stated the site of USR
#1438 is on the south side of County Road 18, and the trucks exit the site and proceed west on County
Road 18, turn south on County Road 53, access the Frontage Road, and then the trucks turn west onto
1-76 at County Road 49, where the trucks can then disperse in either direction. Mr. Hastings stated
other citizens have been expressed concerns about drivers leaving Waste Management's Buffalo Ridge
facility who get confused and inadvertently exit on County Road 18, which causes extra dust to be
generated along County Road 18. He stated Waste Management has been very cooperative about
addressing the concern and reminding the drivers they are supposed to remain on paved roads. He
stated concerns have expressed by citizens that perhaps the County should pave County Road 18, due
to the extra traffic; however, on County Road 18, east of the site, the average daily traffic count is
171 vehicles, west of County Road 53, the average daily traffic count is 178 vehicles, north of County
Road 53, the average daily traffic count is 47 vehicles, and the average daily traffic count is
147 vehicles where the vehicles access 1-76 from County Road 18; therefore, the average daily traffic
counts do not warrant paving County Road 18. In response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Hastings stated
sometimes the trucks exiting the Waste Management site use County Road 20 instead of County
Road 18, and both roads are gravel. Further responding to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Hastings confirmed
the independent truckers exiting the Waste Management site are not related to the probable cause
hearing; however, he wanted to explain the truck driving school is not the source of the truck traffic on
County Road 18. He indicated there is a nearby fireworks facility which is responsible for dust
management for a nearby residence, and the Department has had to remind the facility to apply the
dust applications. He indicated the residence located at 26177 County Road 18 was constructed in the
year 1924, the residence located at 26030 County Road 18 was constructed in the year 1979, and the
residence located at 7700 County Road 53 was constructed in the year 1930; therefore, the three (3)
residences existed prior to USR Permit#1438 and dust abatement is required for the three (3) locations
as a condition of the USR Permit. Mr. Hastings stated the requirement specifies the dust suppressant
will be applied for 300 feet (150 feet in each direction from the residence) in front of each of the
residences twice per year, or as needed. He stated this year dust control was actually applied for
300 feet in each direction for the residence located at 26030 County Road 18. He indicated 26177
County Road 18 is a rental property and it has not always been occupied; however, there should have
been a total of 42 applications completed for the three (3) residences, if each residence was treated
twice a year, since the year 2004, and records indicate just 10 applications have been completed.
Mr. Hastings stated that Mr. Tweedy indicated some of the residents have requested there be no dust
control applied at certain times, and staff has requested written documentation from the residents to
verify the requests. He stated there should have been 14 applications applied for each residence since
the year 2004. He stated there have been many requests from citizens indicating they would like the
dust measures applied and the citizens have had to breathe a lot of dust, and safety concerns have
been created by the extra dust which was generated. Mr. Hastings indicated the Department of Public
Works wants the dust measures to be applied, according to the USR Permit, and staff feels these
citizens would not be concerned if the dust measures had been applied. In response to Chair
Rademacher, Mr. Hastings confirmed the USR Permit was approved in the year 2004.
Charles Tweedy, Director, Careers World Wide, Inc., stated the USR Permit was approved in the year
2004 and he indicated the Department of Public Works provided him with two (2) addresses requiring
dust control; 26030 County Road 18 and 7700 County Road 53. He stated he was not aware dust
control was required for 26177 County Road 18; however, the woman living there last year had a baby
and he was trying to be nice by providing dust control at the location. He indicated the woman living at
26177 County Road 18, Kath Yauger, became angry that he applied the dust suppressant there last
year; however, this year she decided she would like to have the entire road treated and she complained
to the County about it. Mr. Tweedy indicated he is responsible for applying dust control for less than
one-fifth of a mile out of the four and a half miles of County Road 18. He stated approximately 30 to 40
Minutes, November 8, 2010 2010-2685
Page 4 BC0016
trucks travel County Road 18 per day, including trash trucks, oil field trucks, and County trucks, and he
is blamed for all of the truck traffic on the road even though he is only responsible for a portion of it. He
stated the truck driving school religiously uses the designated route; however, occasionally a driver has
to veer from the designated route due to road closures. Mr. Tweedy stated the last several years have
been rainy; therefore, he has usually applied the dust treatment in July; however, the second
application has not been necessary in the fall. He stated he has entered into an agreement with
Envirotech to have dust control applications completed in July and September each year, whether it is
needed or not. He indicated there is dust control from County Road 49 to 51, in addition to the areas of
County Road 18 he completes dust control on, and some people feel their property has been excluded
from receiving dust control. Mr. Tweedy indicated he will submit a copy of the contract he has with
Envirotech into the record, and he reiterated the dust applications have not been warranted twice a
year for the last few years. He stated he originally completed dust control for 300 feet in front of 26030
County Road 18; however, Jim Ries complained about it; therefore, the next year he completed dust
control on 150 feet on County Road 18 and 150 feet on County Road 53. He stated Mr. Ries
complained about that as well; therefore, this year he went back to completing dust control on 300 feet
of County Road 18. In response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Tweedy clarified the property at 26030
County Road 18 has two (2) accesses; one (1) on County Road 18 and one (1) on County Road 53.
Christine Curl, surrounding property owner on County Road 18, indicated she testified before the Board
in opposition to both the truck driving school and the fireworks facility, since she was concerned about
safety, and dust control was a secondary concern. She indicated dust control is now becoming a
primary concern since there was an accident between a car and an 18-wheeler on the corner of County
Roads 55 and 18, which has begun receiving dust treatment since the accident occurred. She stated
the fireworks facility completed less than 100 feet of dust treatment in front of her residence in the
month of July, and the truck driving school placed a light layer of dust suppressant on a portion of
County Road 18 in July. She stated the Board of County Commissioners decided her neighborhood is
an industrial area and the Board is allowing the extra traffic to be generated. Ms. Curl stated the
amount of dust created by the truck driving school and the fireworks facility is minimal compared to the
truck traffic utilizing County Road 18 as a shortcut to the Town of Keenesburg. She stated she has
lived on County Road 18 since the year 2001, and Ms. Yauger was living there when she moved into
the neighborhood. She stated she has been dealing with this matter for years and worked with Don
Carroll, Department of Public Works, and Mr. Hastings; however, Mel Everhart, Department of Public
Works, Motor Grader Division, was the employee who succeeded in making sure the truck driving
school and fireworks facility applied dust control. Ms. Curl stated she was home the day the accident
occurred on the corner of County Roads 55 and 18 and the dust was so thick that afternoon, it was like
being blinded in a blizzard. She stated she grabbed a fire extinguisher; however, by the time she
arrived with it, the 18-wheeler was engulfed in flames. She reiterated she suspects the accident is the
reason dust applications are being completed on that portion of County Road 18 now, and she stated
last year another stretch of dust control applications on County Road 18 was added; however, the
entire road needs dust treatment applications. Mr. Tweedy stated he lives on the truck driving school
premises and the Sheriffs Office indicated to him the legal speed limit on County Road 18 is 55 miles
per hour (M.P.H.), which generates quite a bit of dust in the summer months. He stated the trucks from
his school have a 20 M.P.H. speed limit from the time the trucks leave the yard until the trucks reach
the Frontage Road, and the accident Ms. Curl referred to was not related to his trucks. In response to
Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Tweedy stated he applied dust suppressant July 7, 2010, and again
October 12, 2010. Further responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Tweedy indicated the original
letter he received from the Department of Public Works, in the year 2004, specified he needed to
complete dust control at 26030 County Road 18 and 7700 County Road 53; however it did not specify
dust control was required at 26177 County Road 18. Commissioner Kirkmeyer indicated later letters
included the third address, and she inquired as to when dust control was applied in the year 2009.
Mr. Tweedy stated he completed a dust control application in July, 2009, and he can provide the
invoice. Mr. Hastings stated Ms. Curl indicated dust control was applied to an accident; however,
Minutes, November 8, 2010 2010-2685
Page 5 BC0016
Anadarko applied the dust suppressant, as a result of an agreement with the Department of Public
Works, since it is drilling in the area; however, the County did not complete the dust control as a result
of the accident. He stated Mr. Tweedy completed dust mitigation for the property at 26177 County
Road 18 in October, 2010, and for the property at 26030 County Road 18 in June, 2010, and October,
2010. He stated 7700 County Road 53 did not receive a dust mitigation application at all this year, and
has not received an application since June, 2009. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer,
Mr. Hastings stated the properties at 26030 County Road 18 and 7700 County Road 53 received a dust
suppressant application June, 2009; however, the property at 26177 County Road 18 did not receive an
application in the year 2009. Commissioner Conway indicated there was a lot of rain in the year 2009,
and it does not make sense to apply dust suppressant when it will just be washed away. He inquired
as to whether the weather was a factor. Mr. Hastings confirmed it was a wet summer in the year 2009;
however, that was not brought to staffs attention as a reason for a dust application not being necessary
at the time. He stated 95 percent of people with USR Permits which include road maintenance
agreements with the County, apply the dust mitigation treatments twice a year, without any
correspondence from the County, and very few people require second reminder notices. He indicated
the invoices are received by a particular staff member, and some of the companies that apply dust
suppressant contact the County to request an area be prepared for dust mitigation. In response to
Chair Rademacher, Mr. Hastings confirmed the required dust treatment is topical; not full depth, and
the County does not grade the roads where dust suppressant has been applied. Further responding to
Chair Rademacher, Mr. Hastings indicated there must be an average daily traffic count of 200 vehicle
trips on a road for the County to complete dust control applications on the road. In response to
Mr. Tweedy, Chair Rademacher stated the traffic counts are conducted once every two (2) years, upon
request. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated there is a statutory requirement which requires traffic control
devices to be installed if there is an average daily traffic count of 200 or higher; however, dust
abatement is not necessarily required. She stated she visited the site in August, 2009, after the
neighbors complained, and she is curious as to why there was not any suppressant applied after that
visit. She stated there are often wet springs and dry summers in this area. Mr. Tweedy stated he has
agreed to apply dust treatment in June and September each year, regardless of the weather, as long as
Envirotech will apply the treatments. He stated Envirotech dictated when the dust treatments could not
be applied due to wet conditions, and the treatments have never been completed before July for the
last several years, due to the rainy weather. He stated he used to utilize another company called
Prestige until the last few years, which went out of business, and he did not keep records from then;
however, he keeps all the records now. In response to Chair Rademacher, Commissioner Kirkmeyer
stated the road maintenance agreement indicates Mr. Tweedy shall apply magnesium chloride or
calcium chloride twice a year or as needed. In response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Tweedy indicated
he has made arrangements to have the dust applications applied religiously, twice a year, and he
hopefully will have resolved the issue. Chair Rademacher reiterated people usually do not require a
written reminder to complete the dust applications. Mr. Tweedy stated he was told by Envirotech it was
too rainy and the treatment would have just been washed away and the company would have had to
apply the treatment again. He indicated he has told Envirotech the treatments are necessary, in order
for him to maintain compliance with his USR Permit, regardless of whether the treatments are washed
away. Ms. Carter indicated the particulate matter is the basis for the dust abatement requirement for
roads with more than 200 vehicles trips per day, according to the Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment standard. Chair Rademacher stated it is common for oil companies which are drilling
wells in an area to apply dust treatment in front of nearby residences upon request. Mr. Hastings
stated the original road maintenance agreement cited the existing homes on the haul route, and
26177 County Road 18 existed at the time the USR Permit was issued, as well as the other two (2)
residences requiring dust treatment. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated she is not willing to just let this
matter go, since the dust treatment has only been applied 14 times out the 42 times it was supposed to
have been applied. She indicated she read the minutes pertaining to this matter, and it was clear dust
abatement is required twice a year. She indicated it is not the responsibility of the Department of Public
Works to remind Mr. Tweedy to apply the dust treatments, and she does not accept it was too rainy to
Minutes, November 8, 2010 2010-2685
Page 6 BC0016
apply the dust treatment last year, since it is dry in the summer. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated she
has received several complaints about the dust on the road and she is amazed the dust treatment was
not applied in the year 2009 after discussions regarding it had taken place. She stated she is willing to
either continue the Probable Cause Hearing or set a Show Cause Hearing. Commissioner Garcia
indicated he shares Commissioner Kirkmeyer's concerns and he has also received complaints from the
community; however, Mr. Tweedy has given his word he will come into compliance. He stated it is hard
to accept Mr. Tweedy's word based on the track record; however, he wants to give him an opportunity
to follow through, and he would support a continuance. Commissioner Kirkmeyer inquired as to
whether the better procedure is to set a Show Cause Hearing or to continue the Probable Cause
Hearing. Mr. Barker indicated if the Board finds cause to set a Show Cause Hearing, it should do that
today; however, it can set the Show Cause Hearing out for a significant period of time. Commissioner
Kirkmeyer stated setting the Show Cause Hearing date will provide the most incentive for Mr. Tweedy
to complete the dust treatments. Commissioner Kirkmeyer determined there is sufficient probable
cause to schedule a Show Cause Hearing to consider whether or not USR Permit #1438 should be
revoked for failure to comply with certain terms and conditions contained in the Road Maintenance
Improvements Agreement approved in the year 2004, thus violating Development Standards #31
and #34, and she moved to set a Show Cause Hearing on November 7, 2011. Commissioner Garcia
seconded the motion. Mr. Tweedy inquired as to whether he can apply the dust treatments himself if
Envirotech will not complete the treatments when needed. Mr. Hastings indicated the dust treatments
need to be applied by a certified company. Ms. Carter indicated she has a list of approximately
three (3) or four (4) companies that can complete the dust treatments, which she will provide to
Mr. Tweedy. Commissioner Long indicated as long as the request for the dust treatment has been
submitted before the deadline, he will be satisfied, even if the company is not able to complete the
treatment on time. Chair Rademacher concurred. There being no further discussion, the motion
carried unanimously. (Clerk's Note: The motion was made to schedule a Show Cause Hearing for
November 7, 2011; however, it will be scheduled for November 9, 2011, since Show Cause Hearings
are typically considered by the Board on Wednesdays.)
CONSIDER PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING CONCERNING USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT#1250 - DONALD AND MARGARET IARUSSI: Tom Parko, Department of Planning
Services, indicated this Probable Cause Hearing is regarding Development Standards #3, #15, #21,
and #22 of Use by Special Review (USR) Permit #1250. He stated when this USR Permit was
approved in the year 2000, there was a shop, a house, and a second dwelling, and the reason for the
Probable Cause Hearing is all the building and zoning permits have not been obtained. He clarified
one (1) of the building permits was obtained; however, it has expired and needs to be reissued, and an
application has not been submitted for the other necessary building permit. He stated Ken Swanson,
Building Official, is present to answer any questions concerning the building permits, and there are not
any zoning permits needed.
Don larussi, property owner, indicated he is present.
Kent Naughton, legal representative for Mr. larussi, stated Mr. larussi plans to apply for the two (2)
necessary building permits within the next two (2) weeks, and there were special circumstances which
led to the delay. He stated one (1) of the permits is a renewal, since Mr. larussi was not able to
complete the project in time. He clarified Mr. larussi is in the construction business and he has been
struggling; therefore, working on his own home has been low on his list of priorities and the permit
expired before he was able to complete the project. Mr. larussi indicated he tried to extend the permit
which expired; however, Weld County has modified its extension process. Chair Rademacher stated
permits were being extended for years and the Board directed staff to restrict the extensions; however,
the process may have become too restrictive. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. larussi
stated the permits he applied for in the year 2000 were for previous projects, which were completed.
He stated an extension was granted for the building permit for his house and he must reapply for this
Minutes, November 8, 2010 2010-2685
Page 7 BC0016
permit, and he has another area on the property for which he must apply for a new building permit. He
stated he will apply for both permits at the same time, as requested by the Department of Planning
Services staff. Mr. larussi stated he has been struggling and he would have liked to have had his
house completed before now. He stated he has been working with Peggy Gregory, Department of
Planning Services, and he has kept her informed about his situation. He stated he extended the
building permit for the house to July, 2010; however, he was not able to complete the construction.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer suggested Mr. larussi complete the construction as soon as possible, since it
is within the 100-year floodplain. Chair Rademacher concurred. In response to Mr. larussi,
Commissioner Kirkmeyer clarified there may be changes to the floodplain regulations in the near future,
which could affect the construction rules, and Mr. larussi could find himself in a more difficult situation
without a permit in place. Further responding to Mr. larussi, Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated potential
changes may include a 500-year floodplain and changes to the floodway.
In response to Commissioner Garcia, Mr. Swanson reiterated Mr. larussi needs to apply for two (2)
building permits, and he clarified one (1) is the permit which expired, to complete the construction for
the house, and the other permit is for a change of use for a 7,200 square-foot warehouse, which has
been converted into a house. Further responding to Commissioner Garcia, Mr. Swanson stated the
new permit for the existing house can easily be processed within two (2) weeks; however, the change
of use permit will take longer to process, since Mr. larussi needs to retain a design professional to
transition the building from a warehouse to a house, and the professional may take longer than two (2)
weeks to complete their portion of the process. Responding to Commissioner Garcia, Mr. Swanson
recommended 30 days be granted to process the change of use permit. In response to Mr. larussi,
Chair Rademacher encouraged him to review the potential flood plain changes with staff. Mr. Barker
stated a 45-day notice period will be required after the Water Conservation Commission hearing
regarding the potential floodplain changes next week. Chair Rademacher gave the opportunity for
public testimony; however, none was provided. In response to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Barker
stated the 500-year floodplain rule will not apply unless the Board adopts it. Responding to
Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Barker stated the potential lowering of the freeboard from one (1) foot to
six (6) inches only applies to critical facilities; however, the potential changes to the floodway may apply
to this situation. In response to Mr. larussi, Commissioner Kirkmeyer indicated the floodway will
potentially be spread out, which in some areas will require livable areas to be two (2) feet above the
floodway, as opposed to one (1) foot above, and she moved to continue the Probable Cause Hearing to
December 8, 2010. Seconded by Commissioner Conway, 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 8, 2010 2010-2685
Page 8 BC0016
There being no further business, this meeting was adjourned at 10:14 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST: r, �
j �`
1 ou•l Rademacher, air
Weld County Clerk to the Board 't
861 {,' 1/44 MI Aibtt mAhLtzi"
ara Kirkmeyer Pro-Tem
Deputy CI-, o he Boar °11O.
.�� Sean RC?, ay
Ot t4
Wil��n F. Garcia
David E. Long
Minutes, November 8, 2010 2010-2685
Page 9 BC0016
Hello