HomeMy WebLinkAbout20080866.tiff RESOLUTION OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Moved by Roy Spitzer that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
• CASE NUMBER: USR-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.
be approved for the following reasons:
1. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has shown compliance with Section
23-2-220 of the Weld County Code as follows:
A. Section 23-2-220.A.2 --The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the A
(Agricultural)Zone District. Section 23-3-40 of the Weld County Code provides for a
Home Business as a Use by Special Review in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
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.
The Planning Commission's recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following:
1.Prior to recording the plat:
A. The applicant shall address the requirements of the Weld County Department of Public
Health and Environment as detailed in the referral dated December 13, 2007. Written
evidence from the Department of Public Health and Environment stating that all conditions
have been satisfactorily addressed shall be submitted to the Department of Planning
Services. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
B. The applicant shall submit evidence to the Department of Planning Services, from the
Colorado Division of Water Resources,demonstrating that the well is appropriately permitted
for the commercial use as outlined in the referral dated November 26,2007. (Department of
Public Health & Environment/Colorado Division of Water Resources)
C. The applicant shall address the requirements of the Weld County Department of Public
Works as detailed in the referral dated December 17, 2007. Written evidence from the
Department of Public Works stating that all conditions have been satisfactorily addressed
shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of planning
Services)
D. A building permit for a change of use for the building housing the commercial use shall be
• applied for. (Department of Building Inspection)
EXHIBIT
2008-0866
Resolution USR-1639
Ronald Shayne O'Hotto
Page 2
• E. The applicant shall address the referral from the Meadow Island#1 Irrigation Company dated
January 7,2008. Written evidence of such shall be submitted to the Department of Planning
Services. (Department of Planning Services)
F. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
1. All sheets of the plat shall be labeled USR-1639. (Department of Planning Services)
2. The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services)
3. All outdoor storage areas shall be delineated on the plat. All outdoor storage areas
must be screened from adjacent properties and public rights of way. (Department of
Planning Services)
4. County Road 23 is designated on the Weld County Classification Plan as a collector
road,which requires an 80-foot right-of-way at full build out. There is presently a 60-
foot right-of-way. A total of 30 feet from the centerline of County Road 23 shall be
delineated as right-of-way on the plat, and additional 10 feet shall be delineated as
future County Road 23 right of way. This road is maintained by Weld County.
(Department of Public Works)
5. Spaces reserved for the parking of vehicles and all loading zones shall be delineated
on the plat. This facility shall adhere to the number of on-site parking spaces
indicated in Appendix 23-S of the Weld County Code. The total number of on-site
parking for this facility shall be six (6) spaces. Each parking space shall be
• equipped with wheel guards or curb stops when necessary to prevent vehicles from
extending beyond the boundaries of the space and from coming into contact with
other vehicles, walls, fences, or plantings. The location of all curb stops in the
parking areas per Section 23-4-30.D of the Weld County Code shall be delineated on
the plat.
6. All concerns and requirements of the Landscape referral dated November 26,2007
shall be addressed. (Department of Planning Services)
7. The off street parking spaces shall be surfaced with gravel and shall be graded to
prevent drainage problems. (Department of Public Works)
8. All stormwater drainage facilities as approved by the Department of Public Works
shall be shown on the plat. (Department of Public Works)
9. The FEMA regulated 100 year floodplain shall be delineated on the plat.
(Department of Public Works)
10. Ares used for dirt and mud disposal shall be delineated on the plat. (Department of
Planning Services)
11. All outdoor storage and parking areas shall be screened from adjacent properties.
A screening plan shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services for
review and approval. The approved screening plan shall be delineated on the
plat. (Department of Planning Services)
G. The applicant shall complete all proposed improvements to the satisfaction of the
• Departments of Planning Services and Public Works or enter into an improvements
agreement regarding collateral for improvements and post adequate collateral for all required
on-site improvements. The agreement and form of collateral shall be reviewed by County
Resolution USR-1639
Ronald Shayne O'Hotto
Page 3
• Staff and accepted by the Board of County Commissioners prior to recording the USR plat.
(Department of Planning Services)
H. The applicant shall submit two (2) paper copies of the plat for preliminary approval to the
Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
2. Upon completion of 1.above the applicant shall submit a Mylar plat along with all other documentation
required as Conditions of Approval.The Mylar plat shall be recorded in the office of the Weld County
Clerk and Recorder by Department of Planning Services' Staff. The plat shall be prepared in
accordance with the requirements of Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County Code. The Mylar plat
and additional requirements shall be submitted within thirty (30) days from the date of the Board of
County Commissioners resolution. The applicant shall be responsible for paying the recording fee.
(Department of Planning Services)
3. In accordance with Weld County Code Ordinance 2005-7 approved June 1,2005, should the plat not
be recorded within the required thirty (30) days from the date the Board of County Commissioners
resolution a $50.00 recording continuance charge shall added for each additional 3 month period.
4. The Department of Planning Services respectively requests the surveyor provide a digital copy of this
Use by Special Review. Acceptable CAD formats are.dwg, .dxf, and .dgn(Microstation); acceptable
GIS formats are ArcView shapefiles,Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files format type is .e00.
The preferred format for Images is .tif(Group 4).(Group 6 is not acceptable). This digital file may be
sent to maps(a)co.weld.co.us. (Department of Planning Services)
5. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the
• property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk
and Recorder. (Department of Planning Services)
•
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
•
Ronald Shayne O'Hotto
USR-1639
1. The Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Home Business(directional
drilling company)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District,subject to the Development Standards stated
hereon. (Department of Planning Services)
2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 23-8-10 of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
3. The site shall be limited to nine employees(not including the residents of the property)as stated in
the application materials. (Department of Planning Services)
4. All business equipment and materials shall be stored inside or within the area designated on the
plat as outdoor storage. (Department of Planning Services)
5. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act,
30-20-100.5, C.R.S.,as amended)shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that
protects against surface and groundwater contamination. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
6. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to include those
wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites
and Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
• 7. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust,
fugitive particulate emissions,blowing debris,and other potential nuisance conditions. (Department
of Public Health and Environment)
8. Only clean, uncontaminated soils shall be disposed of on the site. The spoils shall not be placed in
the floodplain. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
9. The applicant shall operate in accordance with the approved"waste handling plan". (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
10. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled on this site. (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
11. This facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Commercial Zone
as delineated in 25-12-103 C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
12. Adequate toilet and handwashing facilities shall be provided for employees and patrons of the
facility. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
13. Sewage Disposal shall be by a septic system. Any septic system located on the property must
comply with all provisions of the Weld County Code, pertaining to Individual Sewage Disposal
Systems (Department of Public Health and Environment)
14. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction or change of use of any buildings or
structures. (Department of Building Inspection)
• 15. A plan review is required for each building for which a building permit is required. Plans shall
include a floor plan. Plans may be required to bear the wet stamp of a Colorado registered architect
Resolution USR-1639
Ronald Shayne O'Hotto
Page 5
•
or engineer. Two complete sets of plans are required when applying for each permit. All building
plans shall be submitted to the Fort Lupton Fire District for review and approval prior to the
issuance of building permits. (Department of Building Inspection)
16. Buildings shall conform to the requirements of the various codes adopted at the time of permit
application. Currently the following has been adopted by Weld County:2006 International Building
Code;2006 International Mechanical Code;2006 International Plumbing Code;2006 International
Fuel Gas Code; and the 2005 National Electrical Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code.
(Department of Building Inspection)
17. Building height shall be measured in accordance with the 2006 International Building Code for the
purpose of determining the maximum building size and height for various uses and types of
construction and to determine compliance with the Bulk Requirements from Chapter 23 of the Weld
County Code. Building height shall be measured in accordance with Chapter 23 of the Weld
County Code in order to determine compliance with offset and setback requirements. (Department
of Building Inspection)
18. Pursuant to Chapter 15, Articles I and II of the Weld County Code, if noxious weeds exist on the
property or become established as a result of the proposed development,the applicant/landowner
shall be responsible for controlling the noxious weeds. (Department of Public Works)
19. Off-street parking spaces including the access drive shall be surfaced with gravel and shall be
graded to prevent drainage problems. (Department of Public Works)
20. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the lot will be required to adhere to the fee
•
structure of the Weld County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11)(Department of Planning
Services)
21. Effective August 1, 2005, Building permits issued on the subject site will be required to adhere to
the fee structure of the Capital Expansion Impact Fee and the Stormwater/Drainage Impact Fee.
(Ordinance 2005-8 Section 5-8-40) (Department of Planning Services)
22. The screening on site shall be maintained in accordance with the approved Screening Plan.
(Department of Planning Services)
23. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of
Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
24. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of
Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
25. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the State and Federal
agencies and the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
26. Personnel from Weld County Government shall be granted access onto the property at any
reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the
Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County regulations. (Department of
Planning Services)
27. The Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing
standards and all applicable Weld County regulations. Substantial changes from the plans or
• Development Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the
Permit by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or
Development Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the
Resolution USR-1639
Ronald Shayne O'Hotto
• Page 6
Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
28. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing
Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be
reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners.
Motion seconded by Robert Grand.
VOTE:
For Approval Against Approval Absent
Doug Ochsner—Chair
Tom Holton—Vice Chair
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Mark Lawley
Nick Berryman
• Roy Spitzer
The Chair declares the resolution passed and orders that a certified copy be placed in the file of this case
to serve as a permanent record of these proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Donita May, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld
County, Colorado, adopted on February 19, 2008.
Dated the 19th of February, 2008.
Donita May
Secretary
•
/9
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 1/4 mile south of CR 22.5.
The adjacent properties are zoned agricultural.The only USR is SUP-209 for a 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.
EXHIBIT
•
C
• 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 1F and renumbered accordingly(1 F 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 CR22.5;
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,
KAZIAja
Donita May
Secretary
•
•
13
Hello