HomeMy WebLinkAbout20102998.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Department of
Planning Services, Hearing Room, 918 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by
Chair, Tom Holton, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT c
Tom Holton -Chair n,
Mark Lawley-Vice Chair `� 1
Nick Berryman Cl
Erich Ehrlich r
Robert Grand
Bill Hall I
Roy Spitzer o u)
Alexander Zauder
Jason Maxey
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman, Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services; Heidi Hansen,
Department of Public Works; Lauren Light and Mary Evett, Department of Health; Bruce Barker, County
Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the November 2, 2010 Weld County Planning Commission minutes,
seconded by Erich Ehrlich. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1758
APPLICANT: Javier Barron-Sixtos
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for an Oil
and Gas Support and Service Facility(roust-a-bout and excavating service) in
the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A RE-2266; Section 16,T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 22; 0.5 miles west of CR 31.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, stated that this case was continued at the November 2, 2010 Planning
Commission hearing as the applicant or their appointed representative was not present.
The property is currently in violation (ZCV09-00038)for the operation of a roust-about company without first
obtaining the appropriate zoning permits. If the application is approved by the Board of County
Commissioners and all conditions of approval are met and the plat recorded, the violation will be dismissed.
The facility is located within the three mile referral area of the City of Ft. Lupton. The City of Ft. Lupton did not
respond.
The site is bordered by agricultural uses which are predominately pasture with sparsely populated residential
development. There are four (4) property owners within 500 feet of the facility. In addition there are five
residences on eight(8) parcels within 1,000 feet of the facility.
The applicant is proposing an onsite septic system and water will be provided by an individual commercial
well. The Division of Water Resources, in their referral dated August 19, 2010, stated that the well cannot be
used to serve the site and a commercial well must be obtained. The applicant has filed paperwork for the
commercial well; however that application was returned as it was incomplete.
Eleven referral agencies reviewed the case and seven offered comments which have been incorporated into
the conditions of approval and development standards. No letters, electronic mail or telephone calls have
L-C/>t/ttAutiCaLWti) /a- -. jfO 2010-2998
been received regarding this case.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this case along with the attached conditions of
approval and development standards.
Mr. Ogle requested an amendment to the Conditions of Approval, specifically 1.1 to read"The applicant shall
submit payment for the administrative fee associated with requested continuance of the Planning Commission
hearing for land use case number USR-1758 for Javier Barron-Sixtos, applicant".
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, stated that water is provided by a well. Currently, the well is limited to
domestic use and the applicant will need to re-permit the well to commercial use. There is an existing septic
system for the house onsite which is sized for eight (8) people. There are 23 people who come to the site;
therefore the applicant will need to have the system evaluated or they can install a new system for the
employees. More information is required for the Dust Abatement and Waste Handling Plans.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, stated that County Road 22 is an arterial roadway requiring 140 feet of right-of-
way; currently there is 60 feet of right-of-way. A traffic count taken in April 2009 indicated 1,209 vehicles per
day. The applicant is utilizing the existing access off of County Road 22. The applicant is providing a water
quality depression to control run-off.
Rosalina Barron, 120 S Columbine St,Johnstown CO, stated that they have a roust-about service. The site is
used mainly for storage because the employees come in and take their work orders and leave the site. The
employees are there for a maximum of two hours. Ms. Barron indicated that she is talking to the Division of
Water Resources to obtain the commercial well.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Jason Maxey moved to add a new Condition of Approval 1.1 as stated by staff and re-letter accordingly,
seconded by Roy Spitzer. Motion carried.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions
of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1758, 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; 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-1756
APPLICANT: James& Lori Meining
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a
Kennel (up to 25 dogs and 1 cat) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A RE-2048; located in part of the NW4 of Section 9, T3N, R66W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 29; approximately 1,100 feet south of CR 36.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, commented that this application is to correct a zoning violation (ZCV10-
00037)for operating a kennel without first obtaining the necessary Weld County zoning permits. Should this
application be approved the violation will be dismissed.
The site is located in an agricultural area. The nearest single-family residences are located approximately 600
feet to the south and approximately 850 feet to the east from the proposed kennel facility.
2
The Department of Planning Services is requiring that dogs be kept indoors overnight. These and additional
development standards and conditions of approval will ensure compatibility with the adjacent land uses.
Thirteen referral agencies reviewed this case; seven referral comments were received and either indicated no
conflict with their interests or have been addressed through conditions of approval or development standards.
The site is located within the three mile referral area of the Towns of Platteville and Gilcrest. No referral
responses have been received from either municipality. No letters or phone calls have been received from
surrounding property owners in regard to this case.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application along with the attached
development standards and conditions of approval.
Mary Evett, Environmental Health, commented that there is an existing septic system permitted for a two
bedroom residence, which is equivalent to four people. Water is supplied by Central Weld County Water
District. Clients will be coming to the site and will need access to the restroom and potable water facilities. If
the existing septic system will be used for the kennel operation then it needs to be evaluated by an engineer to
determine if it is adequate. Alternately, a separate septic system designed by an engineer may be installed for
the kennel operation. Staff is requesting that Central Weld County Water District submit documentation that
they have no objection to this request.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, commented that County Road 29 is a local, gravel road which requires 60 feet of
right-of-way; currently there is 60 feet of right-of-way. The applicant is going to use the existing residential
access to the parcel. The applicant has provided a water quality depression to control stormwater run-off.
James Meining, 16662 CR 29, Platteville CO, commented that they started this operation to help out their
children with 4-H and FFA projects. Currently there are 12 dogs onsite. They have received the license from
the State of Colorado Pet Animal Care Facilities Association (PACFA).
Bill Hall asked if they frequently have customers come to the site. Mr. Meining said that they have litters once
every three to four months, so when clients come it is sporadic. He added that they occasionally may come
back to look at the dogs again to decide.
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 he has read through the 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-1756, 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 Alexander Zauder.
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;Alexander Zauder,yes;Jason Maxey,yes;
Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1759
APPLICANT: Kurt& Becki Schwader
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Use
Permitted as a Use by Right,Accessory Use, or Use by Special Review in the
Commercial or Industrial Zone District(heating and air conditioning) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A RE-2139 being part of the W2 NW4 of Section 14,T4N, R66W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 46; East of and adjacent to 1-25 Frontage Rd.
3
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;Alexander Zauder,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
4
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.
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 Sheriffs 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 Sheriffs 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 Sheriff's 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 Sheriffs 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,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
11
Hello