HomeMy WebLinkAbout20080748.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County Conference Room,
4209 CR 24.5, Longmont, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Doug Ochsner, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Doug Ochsner-Chair
Tom Holton-Vice Chair
Nick Berryman
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall --
Mark Lawley
Roy Spitzer
Also Present:Tom Honn,Kim Ogle,Jacqueline Hatch, Michelle Martin,Hannah Hippely,and Roger Caruso;bepartrtlerft
of Planning Services; Don Carroll,Don Dunker,David Snyder, Department of Public Works; Lauren Light,,Department
of Environmental Health; Cyndy Giauque, County Attorney, and Donita May, Secretary. -
Robert Grand moved to approve the February 5, 2008 Weld County Planning Commission minutes. Second by Mark
Lawley. Motion carried.
CONTINUED ITEMS
CASE NUMBER: USR-1647
APPLICANT: Public Service Company of Colorado
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parts of Section 3 and Section 10 of T3N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit and 1041
Permit for a Major Facility of a Public Utility (Fort St. Vrain Generating
Facility and associated natural gas pipelines)in the 1-3 (Industrial)and A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 34,and adjacent to the east and west of CR
19.5.
Hannah Hippely, Department of Planning, requested this case be continued due to the legal notification not being
published within the prescribed time period. Continuation date will be March 4,2008 to be held in the Greeley Planning
Department hearing room.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished
to speak.
Paul Branham motioned to continue case USR-1647 to the March 4, 2008 hearing date. Second by Nick Berryman.
Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1642
APPLICANT: Lucerne Commons, LLC do Ag Professionals, LLC
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parts of the SW4 of Section 17,T6N,R65W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for an Oil
and Gas Support and Service facility (fracking company), Agricultural
Service Establishment(commodity storage and drying),Use allowed in the
Commercial or Industrial Zone District (recycling business) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Highway 392 and east of and adjacent to
CR 3.
1
�pnn�. 14aaN13_ 3-3-.9.UO7 2008-0748
Hannah Hippely, Department of Planning, requested this case be continued to allow the applicants more time to
complete additional information necessary for the application. Continuation date will be March 4,2008 in the Greeley
Planning Department hearing room.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished
to speak.
Bill Hall motioned to continue case USR-1642 to the March 4, 2008 hearing date. Second by Tom Holton. Motion
carried.
CASE NUMBER: AMUSR-1394
APPLICANT: Zadel Family LLLP
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 3-7, part of Lot 11 and all of Lot 12 in Lupton Meadows Subdivision,
together with the former right of way of the Denver Larimer and
Northwestern Railroad all in Section 24,T2N,R67W of the 6th P.M.,Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit fora Mineral
Resource Development Facility including a Concrete and Asphalt Batch
Plant, Materials Blending, Import of Materials and Gravel Mining in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District. (NCCI Pit#1)
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 18 and west of and adjacent to CR 25.
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning, said the applicants in their email dated February 7,2008,were requesting a
continuance until the March 18,2008, in order to notify the mineral owners/lessees thirty days prior to the hearing. The
hearing will be held in the Southwest Weld Planning hearing room.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
William Gee, 8995 CR 25, Fort Lupton, said the NCCI gravel mining is adjacent to his property on two sides, which
makes him a peninsula. He expressed interest in where the asphalt plant would be physically located on the property as
well as the hours of operation. He concluded by saying he might not be opposed to it if he knew what was going on.
Robert Kerr, 11104 CR 20,expressed concern for increased traffic and noise from the trucks as well as the hazard they
present to children living in the area. It was also agreed that when CR 20 was put in it would never be used by the
County.
The Chair asked Mr. Kerr to attend the March 18,2008 hearing to present his testimony and if he could not attend the
future hearing, he could submit his concerns in writing.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Ms. Martin repeated the new hearing date, March 18, 2008.
Tom Holton motioned to continue case AmUSR-1394 to the March 18, 2008 hearing date. Second by Mark Lawley.
Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1646
APPLICANT: Dannie& Gail Cito
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1 of SE-664,being part of the SW4 of Section 3,Ti N,R68W of the 6th
P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Use by
Right, an accessory use, or a Use by Special Review in the Industrial
Zone District (Steel Fabrication Company) in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 7 and approximately 1/2 mile south of State
Highway 52.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning,said this was originally set for consent but was moved from consent to the
continued agenda in order to allow the applicant additional time to complete mineral notification requirements. This case
will be heard March 18, 2008 in the Southwest Planning hearing room.
Roy Spitzer motioned to continue USR-1646 to the March 18,2008 hearing date. Second by Nick Berryman. Motion
2
carried.
CONSENT ITEMS
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-211
APPLICANT: Kerr McGee Gathering, LLC
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part NW4 Section 14,T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and an Amended Special Review
Permit for Mineral Resource Development Facility including Oil and Gas
Support and Service (Natural Gas Processing Facility and one or more
microwave or other communication transmission or relay towers over
seventy(70)feet in height[120 foot Communications Tower) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 22, East of and adjacent to CR 33.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning,said the applicant wished this case remain on the Consent Agenda.
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 closed the public portion of the hearing.
Bill Hall moved that the Consent Agenda 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. Second by
Robert Grand. Motion carried.
HEARING ITEMS
CASE NUMBER: USR-1627
APPLICANT: Cambodian Cultural Center Non-Profit Corporation
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the S2 S2 NE4 of Section 33, Ti N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for Public and
quasi-Public Buildings including a Church and a Private School
(Cambodian Cultural Center) in the Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: North of State Highway 7 and west of CR 7.
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning,said the applicants have applied for a Site Specific Development Plan and
a Special Review Permit for a Public and quasi-Public Buildings including a Church and a Private School
(Cambodian Cultural Center) in the Agricultural Zone District.
This case was originally scheduled to be heard December 18, 2007. The applicants requested a continuance at that
time in order to resolve access issues.Two signs announcing the Planning Commissioners hearing were posted
December 3, 2007. Additional signs were posted February 1, 2008 by Planning Staff.
The site is located approximately one half mile north of State Highway 7 and west of CR 7.
The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of this application for the following reason:
Section 23-2-240.A.8 of the Weld County Code states, "The access shall be located and designed to be safe; ingress
and egress shall not present a safety hazard to the traveling public or to the vehicles accessing the property. For uses
generating high traffic volumes and large numbers of large, slow-accelerating vehicles, acceleration and deceleration
lanes may be required to mitigate a potential traffic hazard."
The access to the site is through an easement per reception number 1864542 that discloses the conveyance of a thirty
foot wide road but does not indicate the road can be used for commercial purposes. The application materials do not
indicate that a new access agreement has been established with the property owners to the east.
One letter from a surrounding property owner and several phone conversations have been received in objection to the
proposed development. Some of their concerns stem from compatibly, diminished property values, and access
3
concerns.
The subject property lies within the three-mile referral area of the City of Erie, Boulder County,Adams County,and the
City and County of Broomfield. The City of Erie and the City and County of Broomfield indicated no conflict with the
proposal in their referrals. No response had been received by Boulder or Adams County.
Ms.Martin said this site was originally one lot that was split illegally. The property owners,in combination with the other
two owners, are going through the Recorded Exemption process,which was approved by the BOCC in the summer of
2007 to legally create these three lots. In order to gain access to CR 7, they will cross private properties. These
property owners have indicated they are not in favor of an access agreement at this time. The Cambodian Cultural
Center is currently in operation, and has been in operation for quite some time. A violation began in 2006 and the
Department has been working with the property owners towards resolution. They have also been before the BOCC for a
violation,thus the application today for the USR.
Mark Lawley asked to view the map of the USR's in the area. Paul Branham asked about the number of accesses to the
site. Ms. Martin said there was one access road to facilitate the homes in the area from CR 7 and the question is
whether this access can be utilized for this purpose. It has been determined that it was not structured to allow for the
amount of additional traffic this application would create. An updated access agreement is needed to cover the three
residences as well as the application in front of them today. Doug Ochsner asked if the recommendation for denial was
based solely on the access. Ms. Martin replied that was correct.
Todd Hodges,Todd Hodges Design,1269 N Cleveland Av,Loveland CO,80537,applicant's representative,said this is a
five acre parcel created prior to the purchase by the Cambodian Cultural Center. It was illegally split in 1981 and the
applicants purchased the property in 1987 so this is not something they participated in. There has been a prior history of
use at the site and it is a very unique case, but they are present here today to try and move it forward. This application
would approve the existing use that has been occurring historically and allow for the addition of a gate structure at the
main entrance as well as two shade structures to replace the portable tents they have previously used at their events.
Two major events occur in fall/winter and spring/summer at which time they expect two hundred attendees. They have
provided paved parking that is striped as well as overflow parking on the existing gravel areas. They have two existing
access points, both paved with a concrete pan extending into the road. The only future buildings would be the
outbuildings that would be pavilion style,which do not require any additional fire protection according to the fire protection
district. Retro fitting will be done with a tank and sprinklers and is part of the conditions of approval attached to the Staff
comments. The site is built out and the owners have made many improvements to the property since they purchased it
in 1987. The existing home on the site was built by the prior owner,from whom the applicants purchased the property.
He continued that the three property owners have received access easement agreements but they do not have an
agreement at this time. Though that does not mean there is not an existing access that could be legally verified. Mr.
Hodges asked for approval with the additional condition that this case not be scheduled before the BOCC until they have
the legal access resolved.
Tom Holton asked if it had been operated as a church since 1987 and the number of events held at the facility. Mr.
Hodges said it was,since at least 1989,and reviewed the two events that would take place on the property. He added
that the use of the property would be much less than a traditional application for a church and most events typically occur
on the weekends.
Nick Berryman asked for more background about the conflict with the access points. Mr. Hodges replied that his
understanding was that the traditional access is a twenty foot ingress/egress as far as he has been able to determine.
Doug Ochsner asked Mr. Hodges about recent access maintenance. Mr. Hodges said it seems to vary between the
property owners and the new access agreement contains language that will tie everyone together into perpetual
maintenance, and that may be another issue.
Tom Holton asked about the issue over the irrigation ditch reflected in the letter they received today. Mr.Hodges said he
was not sure there would be any impact to the irrigation ditch and did not know what the letter was referring to unless the
road went into Sheridan Boulevard at some point in time.
Ms. Martin interjected that the Cambodian Cultural Center purchased the property in 1991 and Planning has a letter in
the file dating from November 10, 1992, indicating to the applicant they needed to apply for a USR.
David Snyder, Department of Public Works,said CR 7 is designated a strategic roadway, is paved and therefore more
than capable of handling the additional traffic. He suggested gravel placement in overflow parking areas to mitigate
drainage issues and they have an acceptable design for storm water drainage on site.
Mark Lawley asked where the excel/decel lanes come from that are noted in the comments as a reason for denial. Ms.
Martin said they would not require any excel/decal lanes. Paul Branham asked Mr.Snyder about the traffic accidents in
the area. Mr.Snyder replied it was safe and had no current numbers on accidents or traffic counts but was safe as far as
4
he knew.
Doug Ochsner asked Mr.Snyder if Public Works got involved at all in the design of access. Mr.Snyder's response was
inaudible. Ms. Martin said if there was not an access agreement reached the remaining option would be to go to Court.
Mark Lawley asked about the classification of this application by the County as a commercial use. Ms.Martin said it was
considered to be more than residential because of the amount of traffic and the Department is asking for a change of use
for a congregated residence R-3 and a meeting room A-3.
Paul Branham asked if there was information from property owners opposed to use of the access by the Cambodian
Center. Ms.Martin said there were people in the audience that wished to address some issues and cited the letter from
Sandra Rice who said the uses were not compatible with the area. However the property owner to the north was not
opposed to the access.
Lauren Light, Department of Environmental Health,said Left Hand Water serves the site and the existing septic system
on site has the capacity to handle the ten residents plus forty-nine additional people for the thirteen events during the
year. It will not handle anything beyond that. If they recommend approval, Development Standards twenty-four and
twenty-five would need to be amended. A new septic system would be required or they could go with the current system
and bring in portable facilities for the larger events held twice a year. A new Development Standard would need to be
added that a"minimum of five portable toilets would be required at all gatherings in excess of fifty people".
Mark Lawley asked about the RE approval and its conditions. Ms.Martin replied that the RE was approved by the BOCC
in the summer of 2007,with conditions to address the residential access. The RE created three parcels and an access
agreement was required for access onto CR 7. The USR deals with a completely different set of uses. The Cambodian
Cultural Center is no longer just a residential access but something above and beyond,including multiple events with up
to two hundred people accessing this road. Her understanding is that they are trying to combine both uses into one
agreement that the property owners than need to sign;an agreement that would allow for three residential accesses plus
an additional use of the Cambodian Cultural Center out to CR 7, instead of two different agreements.
The Chair opened the hearing to the public.
Jay Smitcamp, 75 Manhattan Dr,Ste 106 Boulder, CO,80303,attorney for Mr. Robert Graber,a landowner in the area
who owns two parcels of land along the applicant's parcel. Mr.Graber owns approximately thirteen acres immediately
east of the proposed site and five acres on which his home sits. Firstly, this is a private driveway, and is in no way,
shape or form a public road. The only easement is for the benefit of the Rice property and is twenty feet wide from CR 7
west and stops at the east boundary of the Rice property. A document dated September 15, 1970, reception number
1554846,says no one else has a right to use the twenty foot easement. Everyone else up and down the private driveway
has acquired the right by prescription,use by eighteen years for agricultural purposes only. Mr.Smitcamp said the illegal
lot was created in 1971 and he offered history of the deeds occurring on the property since then. The easement is only
for the benefit of the Rice property and no other.
Doug Ochsner asked if Mr.Graber was opposed to the access as it exists today. Mr.Smitcamp replied that Mr.Graber
was fine with it as a private driveway with the uses for agricultural,but he is not in favor of any footage being taken from
his property and Mr. Graber can speak to this.
Robert Graber, 593 CR 7, expressed a number of objections: he will lose five feet of cropland; the existing dirt road
cannot handle more traffic than it does presently; very concerned that their private road will be joined with Sheridan
Parkway which belongs to Erie and could open up CR 7 to a major highway to people wanting to avoid going up State
Highway 7 and turning into the Erie access; he cited item twenty-two, page eight regarding lateness of events and
objected to the loud music late at night; cited item five on page seven regarding trash thrown in his irrigation ditches and
said he has had to pick up trash prior to irrigation of his property;he opposed the financial obligation to the residents to
maintain the road; referred to a verbal agreement where the dumps would blade the road and have done so on a couple
of occasions; the drain pond site is too close to his irrigation ditch;the planned gate structure on site is the one he has
legal access to for his irrigation process and wonders how he would have access to his head gates during irrigation
season if the gate is locked.
Doug Ochsner asked about the present state of road. Mr.Graber said Mr.Wayne Davis maintains it and presently it is
excellent.
Tom Holton asked Mr.Graber why he thought their road would connect to Sheridan Parkway and if he had received any
indication by Erie or Broomfield. Mr.Graber said that as a former geography teacher,he could read a map,and it looks
to him like it connects according to the access agreement given to him by the applicants.
Sandi Rice,605 CR 7,representing her father and herself said: they have been there since 1975,owning the first house
built on that road and the original easement was to access their property; any other easements across their property
5
were all the major head gates and irrigation ditch starts for those who have water rights on the ditch; Mr.Graber is one of
the few that have those water rights,as well as Sandra Davidson,who has issued her water rights over to Mr.Graber;felt
this presented a negative impact on the area; not compatible with current uses; current infrastructure not capable of
handling the intensity of the use;excess traffic makes road maintenance difficult and sometimes vehicles are parked on
the shoulder of the road; have had several close calls regarding traffic; the sewer system is not capable of handling
excess use;water line pressure decreases at the end of the road;the Davis family has assumed responsibility for road
maintenance; cited irrigation rights per the Comp Plan and that individuals moving into theses agricultural areas must
accept the life style of the area;the nearest fire hydrant is over one mile away; they will not sign the access and utility
agreement; cited the noise impact from current dump trucks on road; they need open space not commercial
development;spoke about the open space grant to develop trails and keep lands open;this presents a negative impact
to the area and she encouraged denial of the application.
Bill Hall asked Ms.Rice how long they had been residents of the area. Ms.Rice answered thirty-seven years,prior to the
illegal land split and that only Mr. Graber has been there longer.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Todd Hodges, applicant representative, responded that the bulk of the information today concerns two application
processes and unfortunately the Cambodian Cultural Center is tied to both. Today they are here for the USR. The
Conditions of Approval address a lot of the issues raised today, including fire protection, on site water storage, and
access to the site. This has happened historically and we are not changing this to a commercial use and there should
not be additional use based on approval of the application. We are asking to approve the existing uses on site. Though
you have heard much testimony about changing the area, this is to permit the existing use that has been historically
happening. The water is in place,the landscaping is existing,the fire sprinkler will run from a proposed water tank in the
basement and retro-fit sprinklers will be in place based on the occupancy designated by the fire district and the Building
Department. The one adjacent landowner not in opposition is not present today. Mr. Hodges disagreed with Mr.
Smitcamp that there was only one access easement and said there were others resulting from corrections made to two
prior RE's to correct illegal land splits on the northern property.
Tom Holton asked for clarification of area property owners and how many illegal lots were in the area,also how they were
going to handle road maintenance. Mr.Hodges replied that this was the last illegal lot and once access is resolved then
they could work on the remaining issues.
Roy Spitzer asked about noise mitigation and operation hours brought up by Mr. Graber. Mr. Hodges said he believed
they were both included in the Development Standards and they would be in violation if they were exceeded.
Lauren Light,Environmental Health Department,said Development Standard number eight addressed the noise level in
the residential zone and if they violate it, their USR would be at risk.
Erich Ehrlich asked Mr. Hodges about optional access on the south side of property. Mr. Hodges said the land to the
south has been annexed by Broomfield.
Doug Ochsner asked Staff about access needing to be a thirty foot agreement and Mr. Graber's concern about losing
some of his property and that it can't be taken without his approval. Cyndy Giauque,County Attorney, responded that
was correct and the RE was approved contingent upon landowner agreement on the access.
Ms. Martin read into the record that the BOCC on July 31,2007 did approve one of the conditions for RE-4660 which
states that the applicants shall submit a recorded copy of any agreements signed by the owners of the property crossed
by the access to the Weld County Department of Planning. The access shall be for ingress and egress and shall be
referenced on the plat by the Weld County Clerk and Recorder's reception number. The Cambodian Cultural Center,
Warren Woodward and the Davidson's are all parties to that recorded exemption. That is the last remaining condition
before the recorded exemption plat can be recorded.
Paul Branham asked about the thirty foot easement. Ms.Martin responded that the thirty foot wide joint access and utility
easement was in reference to have thirty feet on the property to access lots B and C. The first part I just read was to get
access from the Cambodian Cultural Center site out to CR 7. So the property they were crossing for this portion needs to
be covered by a separate agreement. The three parties referenced previously, agreed they would then dedicate thirty
feet on their property to get back to the last remaining lots,therefore not effecting anyone to the north.
Mark Lawley asked if this was open ended. Ms.Martin said the Planning Department does not approve of the applicant's
proposal that this be a condition prior to scheduling the BOCC hearing because this has been going on for quite some
time. We sent letters to the applicant in 1992 indicating that a USR was required and we have had an open violation on
this property since 2006. Staff has met with the applicant on several occasions and indicated that an access agreement
was required. We do not want to leave this with an open ended condition that could allow this to drag on any further.
6
Todd Hodges said a twenty foot access was referenced on two previous RE's so we are not limited to a thirty foot access,
which allows some leeway for mitigation. There seems to be information gaps but the applications are committed to a
resolution,however if this is not resolved through the County process,then Court is the next step. Mr.Hodges requested
additional time (120 days)for resolution versus denial and then it will go to the BOCC for the final decision.
Ms. Martin told the Planning Commission they could propose a condition the applicant submit a recorded copy of an
agreement to the Department of Planning Services that addresses access prior to scheduling the BOCC and then have a
time limit associated with it.
Lauren Light,Environmental Health Department,suggested deleting Development Standards twenty-four and twenty-five
and add a new Development Standard twenty-four to read,"Two times a year,a maximum of two hundred people at an
event and twelve times a year, a maximum number of forty-nine people may use the site for events." Add a new
Development Standard twenty-five which states,"At a minimum five portable toilets are required at all events in excess of
fifty people."
Roy Spitzer motioned to delete Development Standards twenty-four and twenty-five and insert with the new Development
Standards twenty-four and twenty-five per Staff. Second by Tom Holton. Motion carried.
David Snyder,Public Works Department,addressed additions to the Development Standards of numbers thirty-six and
thirty-seven that, "No off site parking will be allowed for any event." and "Adequate access for maintenance and
operation will be provided for all of the irrigation structures on site."
Robert Grand motioned to accept the new Development Standards thirty-six and thirty-seven per Public Works'
recommendation. Second by Tom Holton. Motion carried.
Ms.Martin added a condition that,"Prior to scheduling the BOCC hearing,the applicant shall submit a recorded copy of
an agreement signed by all of the owners of the property crossed by the access to the Weld County Department of
Planning Services. The access shall be for ingress and egress. If an agreement cannot be reached within 120 days the
case will be forwarded to the BOCC."
Bethany Salzman,Zoning Compliance,said that if this case were continued for 120 days,she would have no choice but
to request the BOCC proceed with the County attorney's office for a cease and desist order. This case has been open
since 2006 and it is long past time for resolution.
Roy Spitzer motioned to approve the condition read by Ms. Martin. Second by Robert Grand.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick Berryman,yes;
Paul Branham, no; Erich Ehrlich, no; Robert Grand,yes; Bill Hall, no; Mark Lawley, no; Roy Spitzer,yes;Tom Holton,
yes; Doug Ochsner,yes. Motion carried.
The Chair asked Mr.Hodges if he had read and agrees with the amended Development Standards. Mr.Hodges replied
that the had read them and did agree.
Paul Branham brought up one more discussion point based on Section 23-2-240.A.8 of the Weld County Code states,
"The access shall be located and designed to be safe; ingress and egress shall not present a safety hazard to the
traveling public or to the vehicles accessing the property. For uses generating high traffic volumes and large numbers of
large, slow-accelerating vehicles, acceleration and deceleration lanes may be required to mitigate a potential traffic
hazard." He did not agree with that reason as a basis for denial.
Paul Branham moved that Case USR-1627, 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. Robert Grand seconded the motion.
Bill Hall said it seems there is a way to resolve the issue if the applicant were to maintain the road, mitigate the trash
problem, and follow the noise recommendations.
Tom Holton added that since this is not even a legal parcel, he was not sure they should have even allowed the
application. If you do not have a legal piece of property, how can you apply for a USR.
Roy Spitzer agreed but felt the ball had been dropped somewhere in that land has been bought and sold with no legal
access to it.
Paul Branham said it was a little late now to come in and say they don't exist. They have owned it since 1981 and been
operating there since 1987.
7
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick Berryman,yes;
Paul Branham,yes; Erich Ehrlich,no;Robert Grand,yes;Bill Hall,yes;Mark Lawley,no;Roy Spitzer,yes;Tom Holton,
yes; Doug Ochsner,yes. Motion carried.
Nick Berryman commented that he didn't feel they could deny the application based on access issues alone and the
Planning Commission made the appropriate amendments to give the applicant adequate time to resolve those issues.
Paul Branham referenced Section 23-2-240.A.8 of the Weld County Code as a reason for Staff denial and said again that
he disagreed with that recommendation.
Erich Ehrlich agreed with Zoning Compliance that this has gone on long enough. The owners in the area need to work
together rather than expect the government to mitigate for them.
Robert Grand agreed with the other Commissioners and wondered how it had gotten this far without an approved parcel
of ground. This has been a long standing problem but compassion was necessary even though it does not meet basic
standards.
Mark Lawley commented that access issues from the RE are still not solved and approving the USR only convolutes the
process more.
Roy Spitzer agreed with Mr. Lawley and added that it is difficult at this point, but with the specific time line, he hopes
resolution is achieved. He expressed sympathy with the public comments but felt the facility was probably more
consistent with surrounding uses now than it was at its inception.
Doug Ochsner commented he believed the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards that were added have
mitigated Staff concerns in Section 23-2-240.A.8. He thanked the public for their attendance and urged them to attend
the hearing of this case before the BOCC.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-914
APPLICANT: City of Longmont
PLANNER: Roger Caruso
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NE4 of Section 8,T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for a Public
Facility (Storage and wash facility), including a MAJOR FACILITY OF A
PUBLIC AGENCY(City of Longmont),subject to the provisions of Section
23-4-420 in the (A)Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 5 and 1/8 mile South of State Highway 119.
Roger Caruso, Department of Planning, said the request was for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special
Review Permit for a Public Facility (storage and wash facility), including a MAJOR FACILITY OF A PUBLIC AGENCY
(City of Longmont)subject to the provisions of Section 23-4-420 in the(A)Agricultural Zone District.
The sign announcing the Planning Commission hearing was posted January 29, 2008 by Planning Staff.
The site is located '/<mile south of State Highway 119 and west of and adjacent to CR 5.
The surrounding property to the north and west is zoned C-3/1-1 (Vista Commercial Center). USR-914 is currently
on-site and was approved by the Weld County Planning Commission on July 25, 1990. The Department of Planning
Services has not received a single letter from a surrounding property owner requesting denial of the application.
The subject property lies within the three mile referral area of the Towns of Firestone and Frederick, the City of
Longmont and Boulder County.The City of Longmont City responded that the application did not cause any conflicts
with their interests.
Seventeen referral agencies reviewed this case. Eleven responded favorably or included conditions that have been
addressed through development standards and conditions of approval.
The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of this application along with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards.
Chris Huff,Engineer with Public Works and Water Utilities,City of Longmont,applicant's representative,said: the facility
was built in 1990 and was originally a compost site; in 2003 the site was de-commissioned due to operation cost and
compatibility with surrounding property owners; at this point in time, Longmont is looking to improve operations on the
8
eastern side of town as well as provide a site for street sweepers and vacuum trucks to drop spoils and de-cant the water
before it is sent to the landfill;the site has been vacant since 2003,though the site and landscaping had been maintained
by the City and we would appreciate the opportunity to use the site again in its current state;buildings on site consist of a
77000 square foot building as well as a 2000 square foot administrative building and associated garage and an 8000
square foot mixing building to the south of the largest building;they do not propose any further structure construction;are
working with Mountain View Fire Protection District and Left Hand Water to improve the fire safety on site;need to add
hydrants on site as well as install sprinklers for the buildings; and are hoping for resolution prior to finalizing the USR.
Don Carroll, Public Works Department, said he was familiar with the site and wanted to add a Development Standard
thirty-five that says,"The applicant shall supply Public Works with a final drainage report for review and approval." His
additional comments were inaudible.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health Department,said Left Hand Water provides water to the site and St Vrain Sanitation
provides the sewer. Their only concerns were odor and waste handling and the applicant has agreed to meet the
conditions of the abatement plan and the waste handling plan.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished
to speak.
Tom Holton motioned to accept a new number thirty-five per Public Works recommendations and to add a drainage
report as a Condition of Approval, prior to recording the plat. Second by Roy Spitzer. Motion carried.
The Chair asked Mr.Huff if he read and agreed with the amended Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
Mr. Huff replied that he had read them and did agree.
Roy Spitzer moved that Case AmUSR-914,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. Tom
Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick Berryman,yes;
Paul Branham,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes;Robert Grand,yes;Bill Hall,yes;Mark Lawley,yes;Roy Spitzer,yes;Tom Holton,
yes ; Doug Ochsner,yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1639
APPLICANT: Ronald Shayne O'Hotto
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 6 Lupton Meadows;being part of the S2 Section 12,T2N,R67W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Home
Business (Directional Drilling Company) in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 23 and approximately 1/4 mile south of CR 22.5.
Hannah Hippely,Department of Planning,said USR-1639 is an application by Ronald Shayne O'Hotto for a Site Specific
Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Home Business (Directional Drilling Company) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
The sign announcing this Planning Commission meeting was posted by staff February 8, 2008.
The property is located East of and adjacent to County Road 23 and approximately'A mile south of CR 22.5.
The adjacent properties are zoned agricultural.The only USR is SUP-209 fora dairy. The closest residence is located on
the property directly to the north.
Thirteen referral agencies reviewed this proposal.Ten responded and either stated that they did not have a conflict with
the use or expressed concerns that staff has attempted to address through the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards.
Planning Staff is recommending the denial of this application due to its inconsistency with the Weld County Code.
Specifically the business does not meet the definition of a home business as defined in Section 23-1-90 of the Weld
County Code.
9
Section 23-1-90 of the Weld County Code defines a home business as:
HOME BUSINESS: An incidental USE to the principal permitted USE for gainful employment of the
FAMILY residing on the property,where:
a. Such USE is conducted primarily within a DWELLING UNIT or ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
and principally carried on by the FAMILY resident therein.
b. Such USE is clearly incidental and secondary to the principal permitted USE and shall not
change the character thereof.
Ms. Hippely added an additional condition of approval to be inserted as number IF and renumbered accordingly(1F to
become 1G), and should read:
"The applicant shall either submit to the Weld County Department of Planning Services a copy of an agreement
with the properties mineral owners or show evidence that an adequate attempt has been made to mitigate the
concerns of the mineral owners as expressed in the letter from Anadarko Petroleum Corporation dated
February 18, 2008". (Department of Planning Services)
The applicant is present.
Doug Ochsner asked for clarification as to the Staff recommendation for denial. Ms. Hippely said there was a large
amount of outside storage and eight employees on site, both of which are in direct conflict with the previously cited
section of the Code.
Mark Lawley asked for the definition of a home business. Ms.Hippely re-read Section 23-1-90 of the Weld County Code
defining a home business.
Robert Grand inquired why the applicant had not just applied for a commercial use application as opposed to the home
family use. Ms. Hippely said a commercial business is not allowed in a subdivision, and this is in the Lupton Meadows
subdivision,so this was the only alternative.
Nick Berryman asked if the applicants resided on the property. Ms. Hippely said the owners reside on the property but
they employ a number of employees that don't.
Tom Holton asked about other USR's in the area. Ms. Hippely replied that there is only one, SUP-209 for a dairy.
Doug Ochsner inquired how our Code defines a subdivision, since this was a thirty-five acre lot, and how was Staff
looking at that. Ms.Hippely replied this was not a typical subdivision for multiple reasons. It is non-conforming to today's
subdivision standards for multiple reasons,one being the large lot sizes and there is no internal road structure,but it is a
recorded platted subdivision.
Mark Lawley inquired if Lupton Meadows was divided all at one time. Ms. Hippely replied that it was and there are
multiple filings.
Doug Ochsner asked how large the Lupton Meadows subdivision was in acres in comparison to the number of lots. Ms.
Hippely read the definition of land subdivision from the Code,"Any parcel of land in the County which is to be used for
condominiums, apartments, or any other multiple dwelling units, unless such land when previously subdivided, was
accompanied by a filing which complied with these provisions, and with substantially the same density, or which is
divided into two or more parcels, separate interest or interests in common, unless exempted under the following sub
sections." Doug said it did say,"divided into two or more parcels"so this qualifies per the County as a subdivision. Ms.
Hippely responded that was correct.
Cyndy Giauque,County Attorney,said that is the process. You take your property,divide it into parcels and record a plat
that is a subdivision. The rules for subdivisions have changed through the years so what we have now is not what we
had when this subdivision was platted. Recorded exemptions allow subdivision of a parcel you own pursuant to specific
guidelines. For example from two parcels up to four and if you do it according to those rules,you are exempt from all of
the other requirements that presently exist for a subdivision.
Ronald Shayne O'Hotto, 10188 CR 23,Fort Lupton,CO,applicant,stepped forward and said: he purchased the property
in 2001 and began the shop construction to store equipment for his business in 2002; the permits were completed; he
has eight employees who carpool, get in company vehicles and leave within fifteen minutes; the site is purely for
equipment storage; he has no control over the ditch and he has no involvement with it;the well tanks are about at dead
center of the property and are in the alfalfa field;he wants to make a living and conduct business in Weld County; there
is no real benefit to him to remain in a subdivision; he was unaware of any surrounding property owner complaints until
10
just recently; he is willing to do what he can to keep everyone happy; he has three pick-ups, three vans and some
trailers on the property;most equipment maintenance is performed at the ditch witch dealership;this is his home and he
wants to keep his property neat and concluded that he assumed this hearing was a result of a neighbor complaint.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Robert Nash, 11223 CR 22.5 , Fort Lupton, CO,said he was not opposed to Mr. O'Hotto's business but felt that if the
application were approved the State of Colorado should monitor or require a permit for the water dumping that occurs on
the wetland area and most recently on CR 22.5; he also expressed his displeasure about the additional dust on CR 22.5;
his well is down from the applicants dump site and wants the State or the County to monitor his well and pay for that
monitoring to ensure that his well is not contaminated as he has no idea what is contained in the material being dumped
on the road.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Mr.O'Hotto addressed Mr. Nash's concerns and said the water was pure hydrant water from the city with no dirt,no oils
or contaminates and it would be difficult,given the weight of his trucks,to dump water in the wetlands,given all the mud
in the wetland area. He believed a County inspector had even examined the site. They dump a mixture of approximately
80 percent water with a little dirt and he wouldn't be dumping contaminated water onto his own property. Farmers in the
area with sandy soil have even requested he dump the mixture onto their land to improve their soil.
Doug Ochsner asked Lauren Light,Environmental Health Department, if she had a Development Standard or if they had
procedures for monitoring. She replied they have a Development Standard number eight that addresses this issue.
Doug Ochsner asked if the area was classified as a wetland area. Ms. Hippely responded it was her understanding it
was not a jurisdictional wetland area but rather a floodplain which prevents them from dumping on it. She proposed a
delineated dump area for the USR and also the addition of a Development Standard regarding no dumping in the flood
plain.
Tom Holton asked Mr. O'Hotto where he would dump the spoils if not on his own property and if he would object to a
standard preventing the dumping of the spoils on the property. Mr. O'Hotto said he would not object as he could go to
area gravel pits or farms not in the subdivision. It was just easier to do so on his property plus the water acts as dust
control.
Don Dunker, Public Works Department, said CR 23 is a paved collector. Future build out is currently sixty feet. The
access is off CR 23 and they are asking for a stop sign placed at the driveway before they enter onto CR 23, just
because of the trailers and those types of longer vehicles. A small portion of this is in the floodplain, all east and
northeast of the irrigation ditch. They are also going to require they place signs for parking. There shall be no dumping
of spoils in the floodplain.
Ms. Light, Environmental Health Department, said the site is served by well and septic and the well is permitted for
domestic use. The septic system is tied in to the barn and the house and may be undersized based on their perk rate
but they have a condition the applicant can get an evaluation which shows it is sized correctly. Her responses about the
dust abatement and waste handling plans were inaudible.
Ms.Hippely made a suggestion to amend Development Standard number eight to state,"Only clean,uncontaminated soil
shall be disposed of on the site. The spoils shall not be placed in the floodplain."
Tom Holton inquired if Planning was asking for screening in addition to the buildings on the property. Ms.Hippely replied
that typically they ask that outdoor storage be screened from adjacent properties and is included in the Development
Standards.
Tom Holton motioned to amend Development Standard number eight per Staff recommendations. Second by Roy
Spitzer. Motion carried.
Nick Berryman asked if Staff's only objection was to the home business and whether it qualifies as such. Ms. Hippely
said yes and Staff has strictly interpreted that definition, though it could be interpreted differently. If it were not in a
subdivision Mr.O'Hotto would have most likely applied for a USR for a commercial use. But that does not apply since he
is in a subdivision. It is up to the Planning Commission to decide what their recommendation will be to the BOCC.
Cyndy Giauque,County Attorney,said this is a subdivision and they can't decide that it is not. So they must decide if this
business can be interpreted to be a home business even though it may not be what everyone thinks of s occurring within
a dwelling unit or accessory structure.
Mark Lawley asked for clarification as to commercial versus a home business. Ms.Hippely said is about scale of use of
the business. Home business is typically thought of as a family doing something in their outbuildings. Commercial use
11
has numerous employees that come and is usually a much larger operation.
Tom Holton said the problem is the subdivision definition.
Ms. Hippely said Staff attempts to apply the standards to the same degree across the board until they get further
direction from the BOCC.
The Chair asked Mr.O'Hotto if he had read and agreed with the amended Development Standards as stated. He said he
did.
Tom Holton said he was in favor of approval and sending it on to the BOCC. The property is screened and clean,the
applicant has eight employees, they are putting up a stop sign, this business is adding to the tax base and he finds it
acceptable.
Bill Hall agreed with Mr. Holton.
Paul Branham said this is legally a subdivision but it is compatible with the area and he thinks it should be allowed to
continue on the site, but is not sure this is really their call to make. They need to look at it as Staff does in that it is a
subdivision and the only way they can only approve it is as a home business,which it really isn't. He agrees with Staff for
denial but wants the BOCC to work with the County Attorney to re-examine definitions or change the Code.
Robert Grand asked Ms.Giauque about their flexibility in defining a home business. She said they can and it is subject
to interpretation.
Tom Holton said it is their job to interpret the Code on a case by case basis.
Roy Spitzer commented this application was consistent with the uses in the area and he interprets this as a home
business in accordance with Section 23-1-90 of the Weld County Code because the employees work off site and the site
is primarily for equipment storage.
Roy Spitzer moved that Case USR-1639,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.
Robert Grand seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick Berryman,yes;
Paul Branham, no;Erich Ehrlich,yes;Robert Grand,yes;Bill Hall,yes;Mark Lawley,yes;Roy Spitzer,yes;Tom Holton,
yes; Doug Ochsner, yes . Motion carried.
Nick Berryman cited Section 23-1-90 of the Weld County Code but encouraged the Comprehensive Plan be changed to
address these specific situations in the future.
Paul Branham said he agrees with Staff for denial but wants the BOCC to work with the County Attorney to re-examine
definitions or change the Code.
Erich Ehrlich cited the violation on the site and if this application is approved,then it will no longer be in violation. He also
suggested the Comp Plan needs to reflect changes that address situations like this one.
Robert Grand said his vote was based on liberally interpreting Section 23-1-90 of the Weld County Code regarding the
home business and also suggested the TAC include equitable treatment of these situations in their revision of the Comp
Plan.
Mark Lawley cited Section 23-1-90 of the Weld County Code, specifically gainful employment of the family.
Roy Spitzer said the applicant should be careful of his disposal of the spoils specifically due to public perception.
Tom Holton cited Section 23-1-90 of the Weld County Code and felt the application was consistent.
Doug Ochsner cited Section 23-1-90 of the Weld County Code and his interpretation of a home business.
Tom Holton reminded the Commissioners that once the Comprehensive Plan revision is complete, it will come before
them for their recommendations before it goes to the BOCC.
Tom Honn, Director of Planning,said Staff has already had conversations about this issue of home occupation/home
business and have been looking at different standards associated with those particular activities. He said their
conversation today just speeds up the need to look this as well as the other Code changes. Changes may or may not
12
come from the TAC but because it is a Code issue rather than a Comp Plan issue, policy will dictate where this goes.
Tom Holton wondered if it could be added into the agricultural section as a goal,that there is a difference between a
subdivision and an agricultural subdivision.
Mr.Honn replied that it may be broader than that in that home businesses shouldn't be limited by a subdivision or if they
are in a subdivision there may be a certain set of standards. This case is an anomaly in the sense that whatever caused
them to do a subdivision plat with lots this size,he didn't know. Normally a subdivision is unusual if it has five or ten acre
lots as they are usually much smaller. They have begun to talk about this but will accelerate the process.
Meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
kAttA0
Donita May
Secretary
13
Hello