HomeMy WebLinkAbout20071270.tiff HEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 2007-37
RE: SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT#1579
FOR A BUSINESS PERMITTED AS A USE BY RIGHT OR ACCESSORY USE IN THE
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICTS (WELDING SHOP) IN THE
A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT -ANNETTE HUNT
A public hearing was conducted on May 23, 2007, at 10:00 a.m., with the following present:
Commissioner David E. Long, Chair
Commissioner William H. Jerke, Pro-Tern
Commissioner William F. Garcia
Commissioner Robert D. Masden
Commissioner Douglas Rademacher
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Esther Gesick
County Attorney, Bruce Barker
Planning Department representative, Michelle Martin
Health Department representative, Pam Smith
Public Works representative, Donald Carroll
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated May 4, 2007, and duly published May 9, 2007, in the
Fort Lupton Press, a public hearing was conducted to consider the request of Annette Hunt for a
Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit#1579 for a Business permitted
as a Use by Right or Accessory Use in the Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts (welding shop)
in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. Bruce Barker, County Attorney, made this a matter of record.
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services, presented a brief summary of the proposal,
entered the favorable recommendation of the Planning Commission into the record as written, and
gave a brief description of the location of the site, which is not within the floodplain. Ms. Martin
stated the site is in violation of the Weld County Code for operating without the appropriate permits,
and a Violation case was presented and heard by the Board on July 11, 2006. She stated at that
time the Board referred the matter to the County Attorney for immediate legal action and
determined that the use was not allowed to continue until a Use by Special Review (USR) was
approved. She stated if this case is approved,the Violation case will be closed; however, if denied,
staff is requesting the Board allow the property owner 30 days to remove the business items before
proceeding with legal action in District Court. Ms. Martin reviewed the surrounding land uses, and
stated staff received three letters of complaint from surrounding property owners regarding traffic
on County Road 6, welding fumes, potential fire hazzards, unsightly outdoor storage, noise,
parking, damage to area roads, trash, waste runoff, and decreased property values. She stated
since the Planning Commission hearing, staff has received two additional letters, marked Exhibits F
and G, expressing concern with the continuing activities at the site. She further stated the property
is within the three-mile referral area for the Cities of Brighton and Fort Lupton, and the Town of
Lochbuie. She stated the City of Fort Lupton reviewed the proposal and indicated no conflict with
its interests. Ms. Martin stated 15 referral agencies reviewed the proposal, and ten responded with
comments that have been addressed in the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
2007-1270
PL1894
gfi ;PL /96t! �J6-aD. a7
HEARING CERTIFICATION -ANNETTE HUNT (USR #1579)
PAGE 2
Ms. Martin stated the site has one access from County Road 6, and existing improvements include
the applicant's residence and the outbuilding where they are currently operating the welding shop.
(Changed to Tape #2007-15.) She stated the applicant is proposing a new structure with a
separate access from County Road 6, and she displayed photographs of the existing screening,
parking, and site conditions. Ms. Martin stated Condition of Approval #1.B was stricken from the
Draft Resolution as a Condition Prior to Scheduling; however, staff would like the text of the
Condition, regarding oil and gas activities, moved to become a new Condition of Approval#1.K to
be completed prior to recording the plat.
In response to Commissioner Masden, Ms. Martin stated the Violation hearing was held on July 11,
2006, at which time the Board issued a Cease and Desist Order. Mr. Barker clarified the owner
did not cease or desist operations. Responding further to Commissioner Masden, Ms. Martin
clarified the applicant is requesting a new access further east on County Road 6, which would be
separate from the residencial access. Mr. Barker deferred to the applicant to explain why they did
not cease and desist as instructed. He stated the County Attorney's Office sent numerous
correspondence to the property owner, filed an action in July 2006, and had the matter set for trial
in November 2006, at which time he found the property owner had filed the USR in September.
He stated the pleadings indicated filing a USR was satisfactory to the Board; however, that was
incorrect. Mr. Barker stated he then amended the pleadings, which vacated the November 2006
hearing date, and allowed the property owner an opportunity to respond after 20 days. He stated
the matter has now been scheduled for a hearing on June 12, 2007. Commissioner Masden
commented the applicant has continued to conduct business for the past ten months. Mr. Barker
stated because the Cease and Desist Order was not abided by, he proceeded with pursuing a legal
injunction through the courts as previously described. Responding to Commissioner Rademacher,
Ms. Martin stated several letters from surrounding property owners were submitted prior to the
Planning Commission hearing, as well as two more prior to the Commissioners hearing. She
further stated the nearest residences are approximately one-eighth of a mile away.
Pam Smith, Department of Public Health and Environment,stated there is an existing septic system
for the home,which was permitted in 1994. She stated the applicants are proposing the employees
use the restroom in the home until the new building is built within the next two years, at which time
there will be a separate septic system. She stated the Conditions of Approval require a review of
the existing septic system to address the temporary situation. She stated the property is also
serviced by a well; however, the original well permit was for residential use only, and staff
requested the permit be reissued to allow commercial uses also. She stated the applicant has
submitted a new permit; however, it states the use is for commercial only, which will need to be
clarified with the State in order to continue allowing the residential use. Ms. Smith stated until the
issue is resolved, Condition of Approval#1.C needs to remain in the Resolution as a Condition of
Approval prior to recording. She stated she visited the site and found that the property to the north
is farmed, the property to the west is owned by the City of Brighton, and there were farm workers
parked along County Road 6 planting in the fields. She stated although it initially appeared that
those vehicles were related to the subject property, they are not employees. She stated the
applicant's employees are parking on the site, there is a lot of equipment parked near the entrance,
some work is being done in the shop, and there was some metal stored outside. Ms. Smith stated
it is her understanding that all of those activities will be moved into the new shop building once it
is constructed. In response to Commissioner Garcia, Ms. Smith stated she does not review water
quantity for fire suppression, rather, that is addressed by the local Fire Protection District.
2007-1270
PL1894
HEARING CERTIFICATION -ANNETTE HUNT (USR#1579)
PAGE 3
Donald Carroll, Department of Public Works, stated the existing access is a shared easement
along the west side of the property. He indicated the location of the proposed business access is
further east on County Road 6, which is a local gravel road with average daily traffic counts of 248
vehicles in 2005, and 246 vehicles in 2004.
Richard Lopez, Attorney, represented the applicant and stated he was unable to attend the
Violation hearing and address the issues of concern expressed by the surrounding property
owners. He stated the welding activities will be enclosed, the building will be surrounded by a
gravel surface to prevent any fires from spreading, trash will be contained pursuant to the
requirements of the Weld County Code, and the applicant is proposing a new business access from
County Road 6, rather than using the shared residential easement. Mr. Lopez stated there are
other commercial uses in the area which will have a greater impact on the local property values
than the proposed facility, and the applicant will work with the State to correct the well permit to
reflect the commercial and residential uses. He stated the applicant will strive to be a good
neighbor, and the proposed configuration within the fenced and screened facility should address
the concerns of the surrounding property owners. Commissioner Masden commented the applicant
ignored the Cease and Desist Order for the past ten months and has not demonstrated any attempt
at being a good neighbor. Mr. Lopez stated the Cease and Desist Order allows the County to
pursue a court injunction, which is the proper venue for this type of dispute. He stated the reason
this application was not submitted and reviewed earlier was because staff required a letter from the
Colorado Division of Water Resources verifying the use could be accommodated. He explained
the Division of Water Resources does not issue such a letter to individual property owners, rather,
it is done in response to a referral from the County. He stated there was no way to submit the USR
application until that Condition had been met which, as he previously stated, was not possible. Mr.
Lopez stated since that time the County staff has completed the necessary process and the
applicant subsequently filed the USR application. Mr. Lopez stated in the applicant's defense, they
did not cease operations because the County had imposed requirements that were impossible to
meet. In response to Chair Long, Mr. Lopez stated the applicant fabricates, welds, and repairs
large trucks at the site; however, a majority of the projects are done off-site. He explained the
employees arrive at the site in their personal vehicles and then take a business truck to the job site
where they conduct custom and commercial work.
Darren Hunt, operator of the welding shop, stated he does commercial work, although 50 percent
of the work load consists of repairs on large trucks. He stated once the new shop is built, most of
the on-site work will be done inside, with the remaining projects completed off-site. In response
to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Barker indicated the State issues well permits for either a
commercial or residential use, not both. Mr. Hunt stated there will be a restroom in the new shop.
In response to Commissioner Masden, Mr. Hunt stated they do some work outside when the
weather is nice, they do not do any sandblasting, they do minimal primer painting outside, and
lately they have been doing a lot of oil field repair work. Responding to Commissioner Garcia, Mr.
Hunt stated once the shop is built, they will move out of the residence, and the new access will
allow direct access to the shop, rather than using the joint residential access. In response to
Commissioner Jerke, Mr. Hunt stated the applicant has owned the property for 1.5 years, and at
some point they will move out of the house,which will be converted into a business office, allowing
him to focus the business on off-site projects.
In response to Commissioner Garcia, Mr. Lopez stated the new shop will be a metal structure,
there will be a minimal fire hazard, and the local Fire Protection District referral indicated no
2007-1270
PL1894
HEARING CERTIFICATION -ANNETTE HUNT (USR #1579)
PAGE 4
concern. He stated Mr. Hunt minimizes the potential for fire hazards by reducing the amount of
flammable materials in the shop. Ms. Martin stated the referral from the Greater Brighton Fire
Protection District asked to meet with the applicant to address the access, requested a separate
address for the new facility to make it easier to respond, asked for a list of materials that will be
stored at the site, required a review of any additional construction drawings, and expects to do an
annual inspection. Ms. Martin stated all of those requirements have been addressed in the
Conditions of Approval.
Sandy Schara, surrounding property owner to the northeast, stated the site currently contains
campers and old trucks, and the surrounding area is dry ground with no irrigation. She expressed
concern with the potential fire hazard, and stated her comments are also addressed in a letter she
previously submitted, marked Exhibit G. Ms. Schara stated the applicant previously agreed to
hours of operation, Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; however, she has
documented various occasions when the applicant has worked on Saturdays and outside the
allowed hours. She stated she has approached the applicant and some of the employees when
they began arriving at the site at 6:00 a.m.; however, Mr. Hunt accused her of harassing his
employees. She stated the site is not currently permitted, and the applicant is violating the terms
of what they had previously agreed to. Ms. Schara stated she and her husband have lived in the
area for 34 years, they now have to deal with unwanted noise and trash, and the dumpster has
been on fire at least two times that she is aware of. She stated they previously enjoyed an
agricultural lifestyle and this is not an acceptable change. She further stated staff has not
conducted a current traffic study for 2006 to reflect the current conditions created by the facility,
and the site does not have an adequate access for large trucks. She stated just this week the
applicant has repaired a large truck, a horse trailer, and a semi-tanker truck, resulting in a very
active site. Ms. Schara stated the neighbors have tried to approach the applicant to express their
concerns, and she does not feel this is an acceptable location for the proposed use.
Larry Warner, surrounding property owner, stated he lives in the third house on the shared lane.
He stated his house was built in 1871, he has been retired for five years, and he intends to remain
in his house. Mr. Warner stated his Realtor and current appraisals indicate his property value has
decreased by $50,000.00 as a result of the welding facility at the end of his lane. He stated the
joint access is a County right-of-way; however, it is privately maintained, and the changes made
by the applicant have resulted in more runoff to the lane causing more maintenance work. He
further stated the property to the west is owned by the City of Brighton and has been designated
as open space; however, recent conversations with a representative from the City of Brighton
indicate the City is opposed to the proposed use. Mr. Warner stated other similar businesses in
the area were denied by the County, setting a precedence for the denial of this request. He stated
he supports the applicant's plans for a welding business; however, it should be at a different
location. In response to Commissioner Masden, Mr. Warner stated depending on the wind, there
is over spray from the painting that is done at the site. He explained the items are typically
assembled on the site and then painted. He further stated the surrounding property is mostly
weeds, and a fire can spread very quickly to the surrounding properties.
Nick Febbraro, surrounding property owner, stated he lives at the end of the joint access lane. He
stated within days of the applicant's purchase of the property, they opened the welding business
without the appropriate permits. He stated the applicant's testimony indicates they plan to move,
resulting in a site that is entirely commercial, and should be zoned accordingly, which is not the
intent of the proposed USR. He stated due to technicalities, the applicant has continued to operate
2007-1270
PL1894
HEARING CERTIFICATION -ANNETTE HUNT (USR#1579)
PAGE 5
the business, and the neighbors have been forced to live with the negative conditions. He further
stated the applicant does a lot of projects at the site, in addition to the off-site projects. Mr.
Febbraro stated the applicant has not shown they can be a good neighbor, the proposal does not
show the capacity for a well to support the use, the residence will become commercial, and he
questioned whether the private access could be closed to the property. He stated the applicant did
not abide by the Cease and Desist Order, the uses are not consistent with the area, and there
appears to be limited enforcement. In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Febbraro
indicated the location of his residence. Chair Long stated a USR does allow for different types of
activity on agricultural land, and the related Conditions of Approval will provide the County with a
means of enforcement. He further stated the application does provide a plan for a
commercial/industrial use. Mr. Ferrero stated up to this point the County has been unable to
enforce the Cease and Desist Order, and Chair Long stated this process would address that
concern.
Richard Schara, surrounding property owner, stated the applicant has agreed to limit the facility to
three employees; however, the employees often car pool, and there are more than three
employees, despite the applicant indicating some of the vehicles are for his personal use. He
stated the applicant does do heavy repair work at the site, and if the house becomes an office, then
additional fire protection should be considered. There being no further comments, Chair Long
closed public testimony.
Mr. Lopez stated the applicant claims they have only worked from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., the
photographs displayed by staff indicate the site is clean and orderly, and it is very unlikely the
neighbors can smell paint, which is only done on a limited basis. He stated the USR permit will
allow the County more control over the site operations, staff and the Planning Commission have
reviewed the proposal and recommend approval, and the proposed facility will address the issues
of concern. He stated traffic will no longer use the joint easement, the proposal provides better
screening from the neighbors, and the activities will be contained indoors.
In response to Chair Long, Ms. Martin stated the application indicates the house will remain a
residence, and the referral agencies did not review the potential of the house being converted into
an office. She stated the change will need to be made part of the record and applicable reviews
will need to be made. She stated, at the request of the applicant, Condition of Approval #1.B
should be moved to become Condition of Approval#1.K to be done prior to recording the plat, and
the Board concurred. Responding to Chair Long, Ms. Smith stated when there is a
Residential/Commercial use, the Division of Water Resources will issue a permit that designates
both uses. She stated, if approved, the language from Condition of Approval #1.C should be
moved to become Condition of Approval#1.L to state, "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 commercial and domestic uses." She stated it will be an
open-ended Condition depending on what the State approves. Mr. Barker stated if the house is
going to be converted to an office, then the permit will only need to be commercial. Chair Long
commented that may not happen for a few years. Mr. Barker stated he supports the language as
proposed by staff. In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Ms. Smith stated the applicant is
proposing to have a separate septic system for the new shop, and if the house is changed to an
office, then staff will also require an engineered evaluation of the existing system to ensure it is
adequate for commercial use to address the use by more employees. Commissioner Jerke stated
he agrees with the proposed changes; however, there are various options the State may take in
2007-1270
PL1894
HEARING CERTIFICATION -ANNETTE HUNT (USR#1579)
PAGE 6
making a determination. Responding to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Barker stated the Cease
and Desist Order is the Board's directive to stop operating; however, the County Attorney's Office
needs a court injunction to enforce the Order. Ms. Smith stated the application did not address
painting activities,therefore, she proposed adding a new Condition of Approval#1.M"The applicant
shall apply for an Air Pollution Emission Notice(A.P.E.N.)and Emissions Permit from the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment,or provide evidence that an A.P.E.N. is not required.
Evidence of such shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services." In response to
Commissioner Jerke, Ms. Smith stated the A.P.E.N. controls whether the painting must be done
in a paint booth, and the matter can also be added as Development Standard #33 to address an
indoor paint booth. Commissioner Rademacher commented an indoor paint booth may result in
further review and comment by the Fire Protection District, and requirements for a paint booth in
a welding shop are more restrictive. Ms. Martin stated if the house is converted into an office, the
site will require sixteen (16) parking spaces, one (1) of which will need to meet the requirements
of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In response to Chair Long, Ms. Martin stated at the Planning
Commission hearing, the applicant indicated there are additional employees that come to the site,
park their vehicles, and then leave the facility; only three (3) remain on the site throughout the day.
The Board agreed with requiring sixteen (16) parking spaces in Condition of Approval #1.B.5.
Mr. Lopez stated his applicant does very little painting, therefore, he is willing to eliminate that
activity entirely. Ms. Martin suggested adding Development Standard #33 to state, "No painting
shall be allowed on the site," and eliminate the proposed Condition of Approval#1.M. In response
to Commissioner Rademacher, Ms. Martin stated the site is 4.95 acres. In response to Chair Long,
Mr. Lopez stated he and the applicant have reviewed, and concur with, the Conditions of Approval
and Development Standards, as proposed and modified. In response to Commissioner
Rademacher, Ms. Martin stated the applicant's landscaping plan proposes a chain link fence and
Russian Olive trees around the new facility. Commissioner Rademacher commented they may
want to reconsider the species of trees, since Russian Olive trees will likely be added to the noxious
weed list.
Commissioner Masden expressed concern with the various unresolved issues regarding converting
the residence to an office, incorrect well permits, painting activities, etcetera. He stated although
the applicant has agreed to eliminate the painting activities, he has seen no action from the
applicant to indicate he will abide by the imposed restrictions. Commissioner Masden stated the
proposal does not ensure the necessary provisions for the protection of the health, safety, and
welfare of the neighborhood, and the use has been very disruptive to the neighborhood.
Commissioner Jerke concurred, and stated the water situation remains vague until resolved by the
State. He stated the proposed use appears to be incompatible and has not been accepted by the
existing neighborhood. He also stated the applicant has not made provisions for the health, safety,
and welfare of the neighborhood, as indicated by the practice of backing semi trucks onto County
Road 6, which started the Violation in 2006. Based on those reasons, Commissioner Jerke stated
he does not support the proposal.
Commissioner Garcia stated a welding facility can be compatible in an agricultural area; however,
he does support the previous comments regarding the lack of provision for the health, safety and
welfare of the neighborhood. Commissioner Jerke commented welding businesses are generally
approved in the A (Agricultural) Zone District when the neighborhood realizes its own need for
welding in the area.
2007-1270
PL1894
HEARING CERTIFICATION -ANNETTE HUNT (USR #1579)
PAGE 7
Commissioner Rademacher stated Planning staff and the Planning Commission each
recommended approval of the use; however, today's testimony indicates the applicant is still
making changes to the application.
Chair Long concurred with the previous comments. He stated there are welding activities in
agricultural areas of Weld County; however, the scope and type of activity taking place at the
subject site are not compatible with the agricultural nature of the area.
Commissioner Jerke moved to deny the request of Annette Hunt for a Site Specific Development
Plan and Use by Special Review Permit #1579 for a Business permitted as a Use by Right or
Accessory Use in the Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts (welding shop) in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District, based on the findings previously described by the Board. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Masden. In response to Chair Long, Mr. Barker stated, if denied,
the enforcement action is pending and set for a hearing on June 12, 2007. He stated the Board
can give direction to cease doing business on, or before, June 12, 2007, or allow 30 days.
Commissioner Jerke commented the Board's decision needs to be available to the County Attorney
for the court proceedings. Commissioner Rademacher stated he would prefer to allow the
applicant 30 days; however, he understands the timing conflict of the scheduled court case. The
Board concurred with requiring the applicant to cease operations on, or before, the June 12, 2007,
court date. There being no further discussion, the hearing was completed at 11:50 a.m.
This Certification was approved on the 30th day of May 2007.
APPROVED:
E +�` BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
• WEL C• NTY,COLORAD•
ATTEST: J _ e
il
,!, avid E. Long, Chair
Weld County Clerk to the :.4' '
C4tstce4
1O-irtLAGWilliaH. e, P✓•-Tem
BY:
De y Cl;to the Boar
William F. Garcia
TAPE #2007-14 and #2007-15 EXCUSED DATE OF APPROVAL
ert D. Masden
DOCKET#2007-37
Douglas ademacher
2007-1270
PL1894
EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
Case USR#1579 -ANNETTE HUNT
Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description
A. Planning Staff Inventory of Items Submitted
B. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation
C. Planning Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes 11/21/2006
and 01/16/2007)
D. Clerk to the Board Notice of Hearing
E. Planning Staff Memo re: Items Prior to Scheduling and
supporting documents, dated 04/04/2007
-- F. Planning Staff E-mail correspondence from Nick and
Karen Febbraro, Larry and Roxanne
Warner, Richard and Sandra Schara, and
Donna Petrocco, dated 04/23/2007
G. Richard and Sandra Schara E-mail of Opposition, dated 05/16/2007
H. Planning Staff Certification and Photo of sign posting
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
a co i
\9 t : oLs..
,, ca
a.
1
j., ,, C.
v
o � •
Deb
nVtiJ t TWO
.` I
o �U �i , V
o
C.) N \ (� r0 `
W Jai :�` \\\ N `N"�
cz T6 c
W o yj w 'SC I \ Q j
z o � � ti0
Q Q y N V
G 2 � 3s �'
z a 0 in Q 3v
0 a d >
wa a) > �
I- Q N E u) 3 ^ ` ' ,` r� `
Q ei a
re 3 u uj Z 1 to �, �y 7/-
M J A < N M
w = d E
a z F. A
coo Q (A = i. 4
.. ��
_ W W v ` x
0 reWW a u) `
Q n M M 3 ;
Q N N N 0) 1C-
U) at at at m �� �
Z S
WWII'W W W O - Z l t s ��
2 Y Y Y Q c R ticy
it 800 � sY — �--
1- 1
Hello