HomeMy WebLinkAbout20071257.tiff RESOLUTION OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Moved by Doug Ochsner 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-1579
APPLICANT: Annette Hunt
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-1546; being part of the NW4 NE4 of Section 29, Ti N, R66W
of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a
business permitted as a use by right or accessory use in the Commercial
or Industrial Zone District(welding shop) in the A (Agricultural)Zone
District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 6 and west of CR 29.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 23-2-260
of the Weld County Code.
2. 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.1 --The proposed use is consistent with Chapter 22 and any other
applicable code provisions or ordinance in effect. Section 22-2-60 (A.Goal 4) states,
"Conversion of agricultural land to nonurban residential, commercial and industrial uses
will be accommodated when the subject site is in an area that can support such
development. Such development shall attempt to be compatible with the region."
Application materials indicate that the site can support the proposed use. Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards ensure that a reasonable attempt will be made to
be compatible with the region.
B. Section 23-2-220.A.2 --The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the A
(Agricultural)Zone District. Section 23-3-40.R of the Weld County Code provides for a
business permitted as a use by right or accessory use in the Commercial or Industrial
Zone District (welding shop) in the A (Agricultural)Zone District. Currently the property is
in violation (VI-0600044)for the operation of a welding facility without an approved and
recorded Use by Special Review permit (USR). This violation was presented to the Board
of County Commissioners through a violation hearing on 7/11/06. At the hearing, the
Board of County Commissioners referred this case to the County Attorney for immediate
legal action. Furthermore, the Board of County Commissioners determined that the use
was not allowed to continue until, a USR application was approved. Upon approval of the
USR the violation will be closed. If denied, staff would request that thirty(30) days be
allowed for all business equipment and storage to be completely removed from the
property before proceeding with legal action in District Court.
C. Section 23-2-220.A.3 -- The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with the
existing surrounding land uses. The surrounding property to the north, south, east and
west is primarily agricultural. The Department of Planning Services has received two
complaint letters from surrounding property owners. In the letters dated 9/21/06 and
10/30/06 it states that they are concerned with the following: traffic on County Road 6,
fumes from the welding, fire hazard, unsightly outdoor storage, noise, congested vehicle
parking, damage to road, trash, waste runoff, and property value. The Development
S
fga 2007-1257
Resolution USR-1579
Annette Hunt
Page 2
Standards and Conditions of Approval will ensure compatibility with adjacent properties.
D. Section 23-2-220.A.4--The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with future
development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning and with the
future development as projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code and any other
applicable code provisions or ordinances in effect, or the adopted Master Plans of
affected municipalities. The subject property lies within the three mile referral area of the
City of Brighton, City of Fort Lupton, and the Town of Lochbuie. The City of Fort Lupton in
their referral dated 9/29/06 indicated they have reviewed the request and find no conflicts
with their interests. The Department of Planning Services has not received comments
from the City of Brighton and the Town of Lochbuie.
E. Section 23-2-220.A.5 --The application complies with Section 23-5 of the Weld County
Code. The site does not lie within any Overlay Districts.
Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to
adhere to the fee structure of the County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11)
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)
F. Section 23-2-220.A.6—The applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve
prime agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use. The subject site is
designated Prime Irrigated Farmlands of National Importance by the 1979 USDA Soil
Conservation Services map. The lot consists of 4.95 acres and is too small to be a viable
farming operation in accordance with Section 22-2-60.1 of the Weld County Code.
G. Section 23-2-220.A.7 --The Design Standards (Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code),
Operation Standards (Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code), Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards ensure that there are adequate provisions for the protection of
health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and County.
This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the
applicant, other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities.
The Planning Commission's recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following:
1. Prior to scheduling a Board of County Commissioner's hearing:
A. The applicant has not delineated any on-site sign(s). If on-site sign(s) are desired the
Department of Planning Services shall be notified in writing. If the applicant does not
notify the Department of Planning Services, the sign shall adhere to Section 23-4-90.A
and .B of the Weld County Code. Furthermore, the location of the sign, if applicable, shall
be delineated on the USR plat. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall either submit a copy of an agreement with the property's mineral
owner/operators stipulating that the oil and gas activities have been adequately
incorporated into the design of the site or show evidence that an adequate attempt has
2
Resolution USR-1579
Annette Hunt
Page 3
been made to mitigate the concerns of the mineral owner/operators. Drill envelopes can
be delineated on the plat in accordance with the State requirements as an attempt to
mitigate concerns. The plat shall be amended to include any possible future drilling sites.
(Department of Planning Services)
C. 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. Evidence of such shall be submitted to the Weld
County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public Health and
Environment, Department of Planning Services & Division of Water Resources)
D. The applicant shall submit a Landscaping/Screening Plan to the Weld County Department
of Planning Services for review the plan shall include a list of landscaping materials and
their size. (Department of Planning Services)
2. Prior to recording the plat:
A. All sheets of the plat shall be labeled USR-1579 (Department of Planning Services)
B. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
1) The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services)
2) The approved Landscape/Screening Plan. The applicant shall delineate a plant
list to coincide with the Landscape Plan. The list shall include how the plants will
be maintained and irrigated. All landscaping shall be removed from County Road
6 right-of-way. (Department of Planning Services)
3) County Road 6 is classified by the County as a local gravel road, which requires
60 feet of right-of-way at full build out. The applicant shall verify the existing right-
of-way and the documents creating the right-of-way. If the right-of-way cannot be
verified, it shall be dedicated. The plat shall delineate the existing right-of-way and
the documents which created it along with any additional right-of-way reservation
required. (Department of Public Works)
4) The off-street parking spaces including the access drive shall be surfaced with
asphalt, concrete, or the equivalent and shall be graded to prevent drainage
problems. Each paved parking space shall be equipped with wheel guards or
curb stops where needed to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the
boundaries of the space and from coming into contact with other vehicles, walls,
fences, or plantings. (Department of Public Works)
5) This facility shall adhere to the number of on-site parking spaces indicated in
Appendix 23-B of the Weld County Code. The total number of on-site parking for
this facility shall be eleven (11) spaces, of which one (1) shall be a van accessible
handicapped parking stall meeting all of the requirements as set forth in the
Americans with Disabilities Act. Further, the applicant shall delineate curb stops
for the parking spaces shown on the USR plat. (Department of Planning Services
and Public Works)
6) The applicant shall address and adhere to the American with Disabilities Act and
3
Resolution USR-1579
Annette Hunt
Page 4
ADA standards for this facility at all times. Non-ambulatory/ambulatory parking
spaces shall be identified and shown on the plat. This site will be required to
meet all requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. At least one space
must be van accessible. The parking spaces must be the closest possible to the
entrance. Signing will be required. Curb cuts, ramps and other methods of
providing accessibility shall be required to reasonably attempt to meet the
requirements of this Act. Should the applicant elect to not adhere to the
previously discussed Federal Standards, this office requests that the applicant
outline how their proposed site design mitigates the requirements of the
American's with Disabilities Act. (Department of Planning Services)
7) Any approved signs, if applicable. (Department of Planning Services)
8) The plat shall be prepared in accordance with Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
9) Section 23-3-350.H of the Weld County Code addresses the issue of trash
collection areas. Areas used for storage or trash collection shall be screened
from adjacent public rights-of-way and adjacent properties. These areas shall be
designed and used in a manner that will prevent wind or animal scattered trash.
(Department of Planning Services)
10) Section 23-3-360.F of the Weld County Code addresses the issue of on-site
lighting, including security lighting if applicable. States "any lighting ... shall be
designed, located and operated in such a manner as to meet the following
standards: sources of light shall be shielded so that beams or rays of light will not
shine directly onto adjacent properties...." (Department of Planning Services)
C. The applicant shall address the requirements (concerns) of the Weld County Planning,
Landscape as stated in the referral response dated 9/11/06. Evidence of such shall be
submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of
Planning Services)
D. The applicant shall enter into an Improvements Agreement according to policy regarding
collateral for improvements and post adequate collateral for all required improvements.
The agreement and form of collateral shall be reviewed by County Staff and accepted by
the Board of County Commissioners prior to recording the USR plat. The improvements
agreement will not be needed if the necessary improvements are done to the satisfaction
of the Department of Public Works and the Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Planning Services)
E. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements (concerns) of the Greater
Brighton Fire Protection District, as stated in the referral response dated 9/15/06.
Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning
Services. (Greater Brighton Fire Protection District)
F. The applicant shall address the requirements (concerns) of the Weld County Building
Inspection in regards to the change of use permit, as stated in the referral response
dated 10/4/06 & 12/13/06. Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld
County Department of Planning Services. (Weld County Building Inspection)
4
Resolution USR-1579
Annette Hunt
Page 5
G. The applicant shall submit a dust abatement plan for review and approval, to the
Environmental Health Services, Weld County Department of Public Health &
Environment. Evidence of such shall be submitted to the Weld County Department of
Planning Services. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
H. The septic system serving the home shall be reviewed by a Colorado Registered
Professional Engineer. The review shall consist of observation of the system and a
technical review describing the systems ability to handle the proposed hydraulic load. The
review shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Services Division of the Weld
County Department of Public Health and Environment. In the event the system is found
to be inadequately sized or constructed the system shall be brought into compliance with
current Regulations. Evidence of such shall be submitted to the Weld County Department
of Planning Services. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
The applicant shall submit a waste handling plan, for approval, to the Environmental
Health Services Division of the Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment.
Evidence of Department of Public Health and Environment approval shall be submitted to
the Department of Planning Services. The plan shall include at a minimum, the following:
1) A list of wastes which are expected to be generated on site (this should include
expected volumes and types of waste generated).
2) A list of the type and volume of chemicals expected to be stored on site.
3) The waste handler and facility where the waste will be disposed (including the
facility name, address, and phone number). (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
J. 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)
3. Prior to Construction:
A. A stormwater discharge permit may be required for a
development/redevelopment/construction site where a contiguous or non-contiguous land
disturbance is greater than or equal to one acre in area. Contact the Water Quality
Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment at
www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/PermitsUnit for more information. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
4. Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy:
A. Any building plans shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. (Greater Brighton
Fire Protection District)
B. An individual sewage disposal system is required for the proposed building with office and
shall be installed according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
C. The septic system is required to be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional
5
Resolution USR-1579
Annette Hunt
Page 6
Engineer according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
5. Upon completion of 1. and 2. 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)
6. The Department of Planning Services respectively requests the surveyor provide a digital copy of
the 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{c�co.weld.co.us. (Department of Planning Services)
7. 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)
8. In accordance with Weld County Code Ordinance 2005-7 approved June 1, 2005, should the plat
not be recorded within the required sixty (60) days from the date the Board of County
Commissioners resolution was signed a $50.00 recording continuance charge may be added for
each additional 3 month period. (Department of Planning Services)
6
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Annette Hunt
USR-1579
1. A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a business permitted as a use by
right or accessory use in the Commercial or Industrial Zone District (welding shop) in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District. (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. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. The applicant shall operate in accordance with the approved"waste handling plan". (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
7. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled on this site. The facility shall be
operated in accordance with the approved dust abatement plan at all times. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
8. 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)
9. Adequate handwashing and toilet facilities shall be provided for employees and patrons of the facility.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
10. Sewage disposal for the facility shall be by 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)
11. Water source for the operation is by well. A permanent, adequate water supply shall be provided for
drinking and sanitary purposes. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
12. If applicable, the applicant shall obtain a stormwater discharge permit from the Colorado Department
of Public Health & Environment, Water Quality Control Division. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
13. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the State and Federal agencies
and Weld County Code. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
14. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere to
the fee structure of the County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11) (Department of Planning
Services)
15. Effective August 1, 2005, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots 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)
16. The landscaping on site shall be maintained in accordance with the approved Landscape/Screening
Plan. (Department of Planning Services)
17. As indicated by the application material the hours of operation will be limited to 8:00 am - 5:00 pm
Monday-Friday. Hours of operation may be extended with specific permission from the Weld County
Board of County Commissioners. This restriction shall not apply to operation of administrative and
executive offices or to the repair and maintenance facilities located on the property. (Department of
Planning Services)
18. The number of employees working on site for the business shall be limited to three (3) persons
working on site. (Department of Planning Services)
19. The site shall be graded to drain to the proposed pond areas. (Department of Public Works)
20. The historical flow patterns and run-off amounts will be maintained on site in such a manner that will
reasonably preserve the natural character of the area and not prevent property damage of the type
generally attributed to run-off rate and velocity increases,diversions,concentration and/or unplanned
ponding of storm run-off. (Department of Public Works)
21. Should 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, pursuant
to Chapter 15, Articles I and II of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
22. A building permit application must be completed and two complete sets of plans including engineered
foundation plans bearing the wet stamp of a Colorado registered architect or engineer must be
submitted for review.A geotechnical engineering report preformed by a registered State of Colorado
engineer shall be required. (Weld County Department of Building Inspection)
23. A plan review must be approved and a permit must be issued prior to the start of construction on the
site. (Weld County Department of Building Inspection)
24. The new building shall conform to the requirements of the 2003 International Building Codes and the
2005 National Electrical Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code. (Weld County Department
of Building Inspection)
25. Setback and offset distances shall be determined by the 2003 International Building Codes and
Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code(Offset and setback distances are measured from the farthest
projection from the structure). (Weld County Department of Building Inspection)
26. Any building plans shall be submitted to the Greater Brighton Fire District fire protection district for
approval. (Weld County Department of Building Inspection)
27. On-site lighting, including security lighting if applicable shall maintain compliance with Section 23-3-
250.B.6 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
28. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of
8
Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code.
29. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of
Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code.
30. Personnel from the 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.
31. 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
Department of Planning Services.
32. 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 Paul Branham.
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Chad Auer—Chair
Doug Ochsner—Vice Chair
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tom Holton
Mark Lawley
Roy Spitzer
James Welch
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 January 16, 2007.
Dated the 16th of January, 2007.
Donita May
Secretary
9
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning, said in a letter dated January 15, 2007, the applicant's were
requesting USR-1588 be continued to the February 6, 2007 Planning Commission hearing.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Patrick Groom, attorney and the applicant's representative, said they had requested a continuance because
the planner assigned to the case, Kim Ogle,was out of town due to a family emergency. Mr.Groom said their
concern was with possible objections and that since Mr. Ogle was most familiar with the project and that was
the reason for the request for continuance to February 6, 2007.
Bruce Fitzgerald said he was inclined to pull this case from the consent agenda. Ms. Martin said there were
presently three cases scheduled for the February 20, 2007 Planning Commission hearing,and seven for the
February 6, 2007 Planning Commission hearing.
Mr. Holton expressed his concern for public participation if USR-1588 were moved to the Greeley hearing
location. Ms. Martin said that if the case were moved to Greeley, it would remain on the consent agenda. The
Chair asked if it were to remain on the consent agenda,could it not remain on there today. Ms.Martin replied
it was due to the applicant's request that the case be heard when Kim Ogle was available.
Mr. Groom said they were prepared to proceed today but would request it wait until Mr. Ogle was available,
since he was most familiar with and knowledgeable about the case.
Bruce Fitzgerald said he had questions and his inclination would be to pull it from the consent agenda.
Erich Ehrlich moved that Case USR-1588, be continued to the February 20, 2007 Planning Commission
hearing. Tom Holton seconded the motion. Motion carried.
3. CASE NUMBER: USR-1579
APPLICANT: Annette Hunt
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-1546; being part of the NW4 NE4 of Section 29,
T1 N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for
a business permitted as a use by right or accessory use in the
Commercial or Industrial Zone District (welding shop) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 6 and west of CR 29.
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services, said the applicants were requesting a Site Specific
Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a business permitted as a use by right or accessory
use in the Commercial or Industrial Zone District(welding shop) in the A (Agricultural)Zone District.
The sign announcing the Planning Commissioners hearing was posted Nov. 1, 2006 by Planning Staff
The site is located South of and adjacent to County Road 6 and West of County Road 29
The property is in violation and was presented to the Board of County Commissioners through a violation
hearing on 7/11/06. At the hearing, the Board of County Commissioners referred this case to the County
Attorney for immediate legal action. Furthermore, the Board of County Commissioners determined that
the use was not allowed to continue until a USR application was approved. Upon approval of the USR the
violation will be closed. If denied, staff would request that thirty(30)days be allowed for all business
equipment and storage to be completely removed from the property before proceeding with legal action i
District Court.
The surrounding property to the north, south, east and west is primarily agricultural. The Department of
Planning Services had received three complaint letters from surrounding property owners. In the letters
dated 9/21/06, 10/30/06 and 11/21/06, it stated that they were concerned with the following: traffic on
County Road 6;fumes from the welding; fire hazard; unsightly outdoor storage; noise; congested vehicle
parking; damage to road; trash; waste runoff; and property value. The Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval would ensure compatibility with adjacent properties.
The subject property lies within the three mile referral area of the City of Brighton, City of Fort Lupton, and
the Town of Lochbuie. The City of Fort Lupton in their referral dated 9/29/06 indicated they have reviewed
the request and found no conflicts with their interests. The Department of Planning Services had not
received comments from the City of Brighton and the Town of Lochbuie.
Fifteen referral agencies reviewed this case. Ten responded favorably or included conditions that have
been addressed through Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
The Department of Planning Services was recommending approval of this application along with the
Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
Doug Ochsner, Bruce Fitzgerald, and Roy Spitzer each asked Ms. Martin to point out the locations of the
homes in the aerial shots of the property. Mr. Ochsner also asked for a more specific explanation of the
current violation on the property and why this had gone to violation so quickly. Ms. Martin said it was a
violation of the welding business without a permitted Use by Special Review. Bruce Barker, County
Attorney, responded it was not uncommon for the Board of County Commissioners to refer these types of
cases to his office, but it was uncommon for them to say they would like to have the business shut down
prior to the application for the Use by Special Review. Paul Branham asked how long the welding shop
had been in violation. Ms. Martin replied probably since early 2006.
Richard Lopez, 4450 Arapahoe, Boulder, CO, attorney and the applicant's representative stated: his
clients purchased the property and began operating their business in the metal building; when they
realized they needed a Use by Special Review, they sought his services; the proposed use will include a
new 4800 square foot building, east of the existing building, and would be enclosed by a fence and include
landscaping to screen the property from the neighbors; access to the business will be designed along CR
6 to eliminate having to share the access easement with the neighbors; the majority of the business
operations would take place inside the building; the quality of the building should add to the area property
values, rather than diminish them; there was no intention by the applicants to put up any signage; and the
applicants were in agreement with the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, asked Mr. Lopez about items five B. and F. in the USR
questionnaire regarding employee numbers and vehicles accessing the property and could they clarify that
information. Mr. Lopez replied the impacts would be less than they might appear as the greater amount of
the work was performed off site. Mr. Ochsner asked if all access was from the county road and not the
shared easement. Mr. Lopez said that work trucks would primarily use CR 6 to minimize potential impact
to the neighborhood and make a safer operation for the Hunts.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Nick Febrerro, 13512 CR 6, said: the process had been going on for a year; neighbors wished to keep the
area agricultural and for horses;a previous power equipment business in the area had to move as it did not fit
the intent of the area;he did not understand how the County had allowed the business to continue as long as it
had in direct violation of the County Code; he did not want a commercial/industrial business in the area;there
was early morning noise on Saturdays;the applicants had paved their three to five acres of land with gravel so
that it no longer was agricultural; the USR was not agreeable to anyone else in the area; he asked if the
residents had any input regarding not cutting in a new access road to CR 6; and questioned why the Hunt's
were sold this property without disclosure as to its allowed use. Tom Holton asked Mr. Febrerro where he
lived in proximity to the applicant's business. Mr. Febrerro indicated where he resided and pointed out there
were no other commercial/industrial businesses in the general area and asked what they could do to change
zoning to prevent this type of business in the area.
Richard Scharra, 13713 CR 6, Fort Lupton, CO, knows Mr. Hunt, the applicant and said: he had mowed
weeds for the Hunts to mitigate any fire hazard in the area;the property to the east of the applicants was hay;
he had resided in the area thirty three years and chose the area because of its rural atmosphere; he had hay,
3
cattle and horses and planned to remain in the area; had no conflict with the Hunts but felt this was not the
place for this type of business; and had seen the County come in twice to rework the road from the railroad .
tracks to the Hunt's property due to being torn up by the semi-truck traffic.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Mr. Lopez said USR's are permitted after staff review and were intended to mitigate potential problems and
suggested that perhaps the land use rules needed to be changed for all applications rather than this specific
application. Mr. Lopez reiterated this was a good use for the neighborhood, the design would mitigate the
neighbor's concerns and he asked for Planning Commission approval.
Doug Ochsner asked Mr. Lopez about the percentage of work to be done outside versus inside the building.
Mr. Hunt said the material would be off loaded and stored outside the building and actual work(about eighty
percent)would occur inside the building. Mr. Hunt said they did not start their work day any earlier than the
neighboring farmers,who usually began their day at 6 a.m. Mr. Ochsner asked Mr. Hunt if he was aware of
the hours of operation set forth in the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval. Mr. Hunt said they
actually work 7:30 a.m.to 4:00 p.m. including the occasional Saturday and that they do not work on Sundays.
Doug Ochsner suggested the applicant get the specific hours of operation he wanted in the record. Mr. Hunt
then replied he would like the hours of operation to be Monday through Friday,7:00a.m.to 5:00 p.m. including
the occasional Saturday and that they did not work on Sundays. Mr.Ochsner suggested hours of operation be
Monday through Saturday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Mr. Branham said he supported the staff recommendation of 8 a.m.to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, based
on the proximity of the residences. Erich Ehrlich asked Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, about the
extra road maintenance performed by the County that Mr. Scharra, a neighbor, had alluded to. Mr. Carroll
said he was not aware of any work,but if there had been work done it would have occurred at the entrance to
CR 6. Bruce Fitzgerald asked if the access road was private property and the County did not maintain it. Mr.
Carroll said that was correct.
Doug Ochsner moved to change item 17 in the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval to read
"the hours of operation will be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday". Roy Spitzer
seconded
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, no; Erich Ehrlich, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, no; Tom Holton, no; Mark Lawley, no; Roy Spitzer, yes;
Doug Ochsner, yes; Chad Auer, no. Motion failed.
Ms. Martin clarified that the number of employees was limited to three,and if the applicant potentially wanted
more employees, including part time employees, Condition eighteen would need to be amended to include
that.
Mr. Lopez and Mr. Hunt stepped forward to address the number of employees. Mr. Hunt said not everyone
was a direct employee, but rather subcontractors, etc. Mr. Hunt said he had more than three employees but
they leave the site. Mr. Fitzgerald said what they were most concerned with were the actual traffic numbers on
the site. Mr. Hunt said there would be a total of six vehicles,with two trips per day, and the occasional truck
making deliveries.
Don Carroll said he needed clarification and accurate numbers of daily traffic and two axle truck traffic. Mr.
Hunt said it varied week to week. Mr. Ochsner said Mr. Hunt should ask for what he might need in order to
cover present and future needs of his business. Mr. Hunt said six employees were the most he wanted to
manage and that would satisfy his need in the application. Mr. Holton asked about the specific number of
truck deliveries made to the site. Mr. Hunt replied that varied from week to week but that three trucks a week
maximum would be sufficient for his needs. Paul Branham referred to page eleven, number eighteen and
suggested employee numbers be amended to say"three employees working on site".
Paul Branham motioned that Condition of Approval number eighteen be amended to read, "The number of
employees for the business shall be limited to three (3) persons working on site." Tom Holton seconded.
4
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes;Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;Tom Holton,yes;Mark Lawley,yes; Roy Spitzer,yes;
Doug Ochsner, no; Chad Auer, no. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner commented he voted no only because you could have twenty four people employed that drive
to the site which would impact the site.
The Chair asked the applicant if he agreed with the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval. Mr.
Lopez and Mr. Hunt replied they did.
Erich Ehrlich asked about the IGAwith Fort Lupton and did we know what their Comprehensive Plan included.
Tom Holton replied the city limits were within a mile of CR 6 and that was where they had annexed to,though
city limits did not go that far, and that Fort Lupton had an agreement with Brighton but not with the County.
Doug Ochsner said Fort Lupton, in their referral, said they had no conflict with the application. Tom Holton
asked Ms. Martin if she knew of any other developments of a similar nature coming up in the future. She
replied she was only aware of site plan reviews in the area and could not recall any upcoming USR's in the
area.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case USR-1579,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. Paul Branham seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, no;Tom Holton, no; Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer,yes;
Doug Ochsner, yes; Chad Auer, no. Motion carried.
Mark Lawley commented that the County Code allows for this use by special review and he believed the
concerns of the citizens were identified in the draft.
Roy Spitzer commented that the system was not perfect; nor was the Code;that they could not address what
had happened previously on adjacent properties; felt this was a good plan that had mitigated neighbor's
concerns; and supported its approval.
•
Doug Ochsner commented that he also felt the Code allowed for this type of use;the applicant had followed
the requirements and mitigated the neighbor's concerns as well as those of the County;and he supported the
application
Chad Auer sited Section 23-2-220 A.1. of the County Code and said while the Code allows for such
development and review, development shall be compatible with the area. He felt compatibility might not be
complete and asked the applicant to consider addressing further mitigation to meet that compatibility prior to
appearing before the Board of County Commissioners.
Meeting adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Mpti
Donit
Secretary
5
•
Mike Schweitzer, Ranch Eggs Subdivision, 3298 CR 4, Erie, CO, asked it be removed.
Mel Dierkson, 3498 CR 4, Erie, CO, a neighbor, requested it be removed from the consent agenda.
Doug Ochsner moved to approve the consent agenda as amended. Tom Holton seconded. Motion carried.
The Chair, upon Ms.Martin's suggestion, said Case USR-1579 would be heard next and that Case Usr-1581
would follow it.
2. CASE NUMBER: USR-1579
APPLICANT: Annette Hunt
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-1546; being part of the NW4 NE4 of Section
29, TIN, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review
Permit for a business permitted as a use by right or
accessory use in the Commercial or Industrial Zone
District (welding shop) in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 6 and west of CR 29
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services, said Planning was requesting a continuance of Case
USR-1579 in order to allow the applicant additional time to determine who owns and leases the minerals
on the property in question and to notify the properties mineral owners and lessees in accordance with
Colorado Revised Statute, C.R.S. 24-65.5-103. Staff also requested the case be moved to January 16,
2007.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Sandra Sherra,a neighbor across the road and to the north of the applicant's property,asked about the cease
and desist action that had been vacated due to improper filing and asked if Mr. Barker had submitted the
pleading. Bruce Barker, County Attorney, said it was scheduled for a court trial November 22,2006, but the
pleadings were defective as they did not address the issue of the continuing use of the property for the
commercial business during the period of time the USR was pending,so the result was that they had to vacate
the hearing but have filed a motion to amend the pleading to include all of the necessary elements that need to
be proven and to stop the business from continuing during the period of time the USR was pending. The
Chair asked if the business would need to be shut down until the January 16, 2007 hearing date. Mr. Barker
replied that it might and they hoped to get a quick trial date based on the vacation of the previous date. Ms.
Sherra asked about a specific date for the hearing and complained about the noise from the trucks, access
issues with heavy equipment and unpleasant sight issues. Mr. Barker replied he did not have a date yet,but
any area homeowners would need to contact him in a few weeks for the date of the next hearing,and that he
would ask for an expedited hearing.
Ms. Martin asked Mr. Barker if the order was pending the final approval of the application to cease and desist
or was it pending the January 16, 2007 hearing date. Mr. Barker said it was approval by the Board of County
Commissioners if that occurs.
Roy Spitzer asked if this was heard on the sixteenth,then how long before the County Commissioners would
hear it. Ms. Martin said the applicant had yet to address several conditions (items A through E), provide
documentation that he had an approved well through the Colorado Division of Water Resources,and submit a
screening and landscaping plan, and several other items before she could even schedule the Board of County
Commissioner's hearing, but it could be a month or more.
rte"`
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Tom Holton moved that Case USR-1579, be continued to the January 16, 2007 hearing. Doug Ochsner
seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Roy Spitzer,yes; Chad Auer, yes.
Motion carried unanimously.
Paul Branham asked Ms. Martin for further clarification regarding violation process and policy and what was
appropriate as far as follow up.She responded there was an initial complaint that had been addressed by the
Compliance Officer which resulted in a violation hearing before the Board of County Commissioners who then
recommended the cease and desist action be taken. In the meantime,the applicants have applied for the use
by special review,and according to County policy,as long as the applicant has applied for the USR,they could
continue to operate their business until the application was either approved or denied. Mr. Barker said
regarding the cease and desist order,the Board of County Commissioners cannot mandate that, the County
would need to file another action to obtain an injunction to stop them from operating, and that process takes
time. Mr. Branham asked if the applicant had paid a fine and would they be required to pay another fine.
Mr. Barker replied to Mr. Branham that if the applicant continues in violation of the court order,the County can
ask for a monetary penalty, but not until they are found to be in contempt of court.
Ms. Martin said an additional investigation fee had been levied against the applicants for twelve hundred and
fifty dollars, which had been paid.
Doug Ochsner asked if it was normal a process for a business applying for a use by special review permit to
continue to operate.
Ms. Martin did indicate that most applicants who are found in violation do continue to operate while applying
for a USR.
The Chair then called for Case USR-1581 to be heard.
6
3. CASE NUMBER: USR-1581
APPLICANT: Thao Alex Nguyen
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 6, Block 1, Ranch Egg Inc., Subdivision being part of
NW4 Section 34, TIN, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review
Permit for a Home Business (landscaping business and
storage of landscaping equipment) in the A (Agricultural)
Zone District.
LOCATION: Approximately 1/4 mile south of CR 4 and approximately
1/4 mile east of CR 7 (North of and adjacent to Johnson
Lane).
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning presented Case USR-1581,reading the recommendation and comments
into the record. He added the primary areas of concern were open burning without a permit and improper
disposal of plant waste and that the application before them today was for a landscaping business,not a waste
disposal facility.
James Welch asked Mr. Ogle what the barns on the adjacent properties were being used for. Mr. Ogle
responded the subdivision was formerly used for poultry production and the buildings were part of that.
Alex Nguyen, applicant, 3161 Johnson Lane, clarified that the burning was to dispose of dead trees that had
been cut down prior to his purchase of the property, the plant waste was not to be composted and he was
trying to screen his property with the grass and dirt berms he had constructed. Mr. Nguyen said if the
neighbors were opposed to the amount of traffic, he would be willing to decrease the traffic, though it was a
/' family business and that was the majority of the traffic. He added that he has tried to upgrade the property by
adding a wall in front of the property, adding a brick paved driveway, and planting trees for screening.
Doug Ochsner asked what the mounds/berms around the property consisted of. Mr.Nguyen said it was three
or four alternating layers of grass clippings covered with dirt, reaching about five feet high.
The Chair opened the hearing up to the public.
Hello