HomeMy WebLinkAbout20071802.tiff •
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Department of
Planning Services, Hearing Room, 918 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by
Chair, Chad Auer, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT o CD
Chad Auer- Chair z 3r
Doug Ochsner-Vice Chair n _ -0
Paul Branham M ,n cno
Erich Ehrlich i ' ��
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tom Holton a - 23-C
Mark Lawley u't u�
Roy Spitzer too
James Welch
Also Present: Chris Gathman, Hannah Hippely, Kim Ogle,Tom Honn,Department of Planning Services,Don
Carroll, Jesse Hein, Brian Varrella, Department of Public Works, Pam Smith, Char Davis, Department of
Health, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to approve the minutes of the Weld County Planning Commission meetings held on
May 1, 2007 and May 15, 2007, seconded by Tom Holton. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner asked for legal advice from Bruce Barker, County Attorney, on the process for the April 17,
2007 minutes with regard to Scott Ballstadt's request for correction of the minutes. Mr. Ochsner commented
that as to his recollection he doesn't necessarily agree with him or didn't hear the same thing as Mr. Ballstadt
had heard. Mr. Ochsner continued that he may agree with some of the items; however some of them are
things that Mr. Ballstadt may have wished he would have said and is unsure how to proceed with what the
board should do at this point.
Paul Branham commented that the minutes from April 17,2007 have already been approved and believes that
they are essentially accurate as to what transpired. Mr. Branham added that this letter was received from Mr.
Ballstadt after the fact and doesn't see anything in his letter that has any affect on the minutes. Mr. Branham
suggested that as a courtesy to Mr. Ballstadt,as is done with any letter received from a citizen on a case,that
a copy of his request be placed in the case file.
Bruce Barker,County Attorney, stated that they are the board's minutes and if you don't see the need to make
any changes, you don't have to. Mr. Barker sees the request as being similar to when the attorneys take a
deposition and you have the deponent looking at it and saying I wish I would have said this or said it that way,
but frankly they didn't take it down wrong, they took it down right, it's just that it wasn't said the way they
wanted it said.
Doug Ochsner stated he doesn't necessarily go back after each meeting and look at the minutes word for
word and making sure that it is all stated 100%true and accurate, so from Mr. Ballstadt stating as an example
"on page 6, paragraph 4 that the project is actually west of and adjacent to CR 23, rather than east", that
probably was said and so there a couple of things that may be correct. Mr. Ochsner continued to say that he
doesn't want to just say that these are our minutes and yes this is what was exactly said, because it is possible
that there may be a couple of things that Mr. Ballstadt may be correct on. Mr. Ochsner stated that he doesn't
want to be held liable for something that we approved as being the exact 100% true word for word.
Tom Holton stated that he doesn't feel that the board should let anybody change the minutes. If everyone on
the board is comfortable with the minutes then we shouldn't let a planner or anybody from the public change
those minutes.
Chad Auer commented that ultimately the tape is the back up. Tom Holton added that anyone can listen to
the tape and listen to it verbatim; however this is just a summary of what happened at the meeting.
ac -7 2007-1802
Doug Ochsner asked if the board is legally bound to include the request in the file because this could be
misunderstood by anyone from the public. Mr. Ochsner continued to ask if there is there a need to include this
in the file or can we just notify him that he can make a presentation to the County Commissioners and not
include this in the case file.
Bruce Barker recommended placing this into a general correspondence file.
Paul Branham commented that he doesn't see this as a major problem. The one issue that Doug mentioned
regarding the direction, okay that was a minor error, however there was several indications of the correct
location and doesn't feel that the rest of the request is something the board should be concerned about and
should not change the minutes. Mr. Branham feels that since it is important to Mr. Ballstadt that it should be
included in the case file in the event it is ever brought up in the future.
Paul Branham moved that a copy of the correspondence from Mr. Ballstadt,Town of Windsor,be included in
the case file, seconded by Bruce Fitzgerald.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Chad Auer,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CONTINUED ITEMS
The Chair read the case into record.
CASE NUMBER: MF-1025
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
APPLICANT: Robert Parsons
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3358; being Part of the NW4 of Section 10,T7N, R67W of
the 6th P.M.,Weld County Colorado.
REQUEST: Minor Subdivision Plat for 8 residential lots, Peace Haven Estates,with
Estate Zoning.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 19 and south of and adjacent to CR 84. For
a more precise location, see legal.
Hannah Hippely, Department of Planning Services, presented case MF-1025.
Ms. Hippely stated that the applicant, Robert Parsons, has requested a continuance of MF-1025 to the
July 3rd, 2007 Planning Commission hearing. The applicant needs the extra time to address outstanding
issues in regards to the drainage report for the subdivision.
While staff is supportive of the request for a continuance we would prefer that the case be continued
indefinitely. Past assurances that the drainage issues were being resolved have repeatedly not resulted
in any progress and to date no progress has been made since the last request for a continuance.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if it is continued indefinitely, could the case still be heard at the July 3, 2007 date.
Ms. Hippely replied that we would re-notify again and schedule a new hearing and the date would depend
upon when they submit their drainage report.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case MF-1025 be continued indefinitely, Doug Ochsner seconded the motion.
Motion carried.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1130
APPLICANT: Gary Mackey& Michael Cohrs
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-4589 and Lot A of Re-2792 both being Pt NE4 of Section 6,
T7N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from (A)Agricultural to PUD (Mackey Circle)for six(6)
lots with (E) Estate Uses.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 86 and West of and adjacent to CR 37.
Hannah Hippely, Department of Planning Services stated that the applicant, Mr. Mackey, has requested a
continuance of PZ-1130 to the July 3rd, 2007 Planning Commission hearing. The applicant has been
diligent in his efforts to address drainage issues through the resubmittal of plans and the new drainage
report. The resubmittal of these materials requires additional review time and the necessity for this
continuance.
Staff is supportive of this request.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case PZ-1130 be continued to July 3, 2007, Mark Lawley seconded the motion.
Motion carried.
CONSENT ITEMS
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-646
APPLICANT: Paul& Michael Hungenberg c/o Petroleum Development Corporation
(PDC)
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portions of Section 32 and 33,T6N, R65W of the 6th P.M.,Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an Oil
and Gas Production Facility(continuing permitted oil and gas
production facilities and an additional 2 oil and gas wells& 1 additional
tank battery facility) in the R-1 (Low-Density Residential)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to 1s`Avenue (CR 41)and .75 miles South of O
Street(CR 64).
The Chair asked if any of the Commissioners wish to pull AmUSR-646 from consent to be heard. No one
wished to speak.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Commissioner Ochsner moved that Case AmUSR-646, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Chad Auer,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
HEARING ITEMS
The Chair read the case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1610
APPLICANT: Michael &Melanie Scott
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 13, Block 17, Cornfield Townsite, Part NE4 of Section 18, T7N,
R64W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for
home business (manufacturing of surveying supplies &wholesale
delivery to retailers)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to 3rd Avenue and approximately 600 feet
west of CR 51.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, stated that the applicants, Michael & Melanie Scott,
have applied for a Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a home business
(manufacturing of surveying supplies &wholesale delivery to retailers) in the A (Agricultural)Zone district.
The site is located west of adjacent to 3r° Avenue and approximately 600 feet west of County Road 51.
This site is located within the unincorporated townsite of Camfield.
Eleven referral agencies reviewed this case; eight referral agencies responded favorably or included
conditions that have been addressed through development standards and conditions of approval.
The site is surrounded by single-family residences to the east, west and south. Vacant ground is located
to the north of the site.
The site is currently in violation (VI-0500282). If this Use by Special Review application is approved and
the plat is recorded, the property will be in compliance. If denied, all commercial equipment shall be
removed from the property, otherwise, the violation case will proceed accordingly.
One letter of opposition has been received from surrounding property owners. The party who
wrote the letter expressed concern with noise associated with the operation and would want the
applicant to seek a new location if they intend to expand the business much beyond the scale of
the business as it stands now.
The Division of Water Resources, responded in their letter dated December 5, 2006 in regard to the
applicants' existing well, that the applicant would be required to: 1) limit water use for all in home uses
(including the proposed business) to no more than 0.3 acre feet per year with no more than 110%
consumptive use; 2) obtain a well permit that will allow the well to be used for these purposes; and 3)
amend the pending Water Court application and substitute water supply plan to allow these uses. This
proposed Use by Special Review permit is to address an existing violation for a commercial business
already operating on a property(VI-0500289). At this time there is no evidence of an approved/adequate
water source for this operation.
The proposed use is located within the unincorporated townsite of Camfield. All parcels within Camfield
are zoned agricultural. The Weld County Code requires that commercial/industrial uses proposed within
unincorporated townsites meet the criteria of a Home Business per Section 23-1-90 of the Weld County
Code. These criteria are that 1) the use is conducted primarily within a dwelling unit or accessory
structure and principally carried on by the family resident therein and 2) Such use is clearly incidental and
secondary to the principal permitted use and shall not change the character thereof.
The scale of the proposed use as indicated in the application may have a potential of four outside
employees also along with the fact that they are proposing a 35'x40'wood storage area and 40-foot trailer
(for storage of waste lumber and dust). It is staff's determination that it is not consistent with the Home
Business criteria of the Weld County Code and is not compatible with the surrounding Camfield townsite.
Due to the above reasons, the Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of this
application.
The applicant's property is located at the north end of Camfield, surrounded on three sides and then to the
north is vacant land that is not part of the townsite of Camfield.
Commissioner Fitzgerald asked Mr. Gathman if all the sites in Camfield are about the same size
in acres. Mr. Gathman replied that the applicant's property is just over 2 acres, the northern lots
are a little bit bigger, and there are smaller lots further to the south. Mr. Fitzgerald asked how
many of those sites are developed. Mr. Gathman stated that over half are developed with single
family residential. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if there are any USRs in the area. Mr. Gathman replied
that he is not aware of any in the Camfield townsite; however he did recently process an
application for a kennel facility that was not approved. There is a USR to the south for a shooting
range but is located outside of the Camfield subdivision.
Commissioner Fitzgerald asked if the County's definition of a home business includes employees.
Mr. Gathman replied that it could potentially include outside employees but it would have to be a
very small number as the definition states it has to be principally operated by the owner.
Commissioner Ochsner asked for clarification if the workshop is detached. Mr. Gathman
confirmed that it is detached.
Melanie and Michael Scott, 24657 3 Av, Eaton, CO. Mrs. Scott commented that as far as the
water issue and commercial well permit, and a water source for the property, it so happens that
she is the President of the Camfield Water Users Association and do have a substitute water
supply in place right now. They do need to amend the original application that was filed with the
State of Colorado to allow for a commercial use so that she could re-permit her well to a
commercial well permit. However there are a few other things that they have to include in the
amendment and that is what they have been held up on. She further added that it is a matter of
taking steps as they have a trade agreement with New Cache (?)that they are going through and
once they get that in place and have all the other things together that they need to amend on their
original augmentation application, then they will make the amendment and wait on the State for
approval or denial. However the State has approved their substitute plan and no one foresees too
much trouble as they are such a small plan with a permanent augmentation plan going through
and being decreed. It's just a simple matter that until that happens, she cannot get a commercial
well permit, so what they have done in the mean time for water and facilities for their one full-time
and one part-time employee is supply them bottled water. They both live 100 yards from their
business so they either come in the home and use their facilities or they can certainly go home.
They would be happy to do whatever they need to do to address the water issue and will certainly
do anything they need to do to address any other issues there may be.
Commissioner Ochsner asked the applicants to explain what their business is and the process of
it. Mrs. Scott stated that they started out of their basement in 2002 manufacturing wooden
surveying stakes. They did call the County when they started business to see what they needed
to do and were told that everything was fine as it was an in-home business. However, you get
really busy trying to develop and make more products and grow so they built the shop and moved
the business out into the garage. Mrs. Scott continued to add that they do stakes and lathe, and
uses all different kinds of lumber be it pine, oak, or poplar. They vary in thickness, cut it to width
on a table saw, cut it to length on a chop saw. They have a pointing machine and it's just using
saws to shape the wood to whatever dimensions required for the product. Other than that they do
cut some rebar in which they will bring in the 20' lengths of steel rebar and run them through a
roller table into a pneumatic chop saw that cuts them to length. They make all their products on
site and added that they have no customers coming to their business. They deliver off site to
retailers and sell wholesale to resalers so there is no customers coming to their place. They do
have the wood storage behind the house which is screened in on the east and the west sides.
There was a little bit out as you saw on the picture, however they typically try to keep it in the
storage area, its just when they are in the process of sorting the lumber that there may be some
outside. Mrs. Scott continued that as for the trailer that they also saw in the picture it is used for
collecting their dust and wood scraps. It gets picked up by Renewable Fiber and is recycled.
There is not really any additional traffic as they get a lumber truck there about maybe once a
month or so, same as the waste truck picking up. They haul out the product with their own
personal vehicles and trailers.
Commissioner Branham asked how large the outside wood storage area is. Mr. Scott stated that
it is 35'x40'. Mr. Branham commented that as he understands it their garage is presently 30'x40'
and they wish to expand it to 40'x60'which would increase the square footage from 1200 square
foot to 2400 square foot. The applicants stated that was correct and indicated that it is possibly
planned for in the future.
Commissioner Fitzgerald asked the applicants if they wish to add a second building. The
applicants stated yes. They want to add a second building and attach the existing to the house
and use that as a garage and have the bigger shop out behind the house on the north end of the
property.
Commissioner Branham asked the applicants how many employees they currently have. Mrs.
Scott replied that they have one full-time and two part-time. Mr. Branham continued to ask if that
includes any family members. Mrs. Scott stated that there are no family members for the
exception of her and her husband.
Commissioner Ochsner asked if they continue to grow and they do build a new building will the
storage increase or will it be able to handle it as it is now. Mrs. Scott stated that it is storage of
mostly their raw materials as once their product is made it gets shipped out right away. Mrs. Scott
continued that one thing the larger building would afford them would be storage of already
processed materials. She believes that the existing storage of the raw material as it is right now
would still be more than adequate but the bigger building would allow them more equipment and
storage of finished materials.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, stated that the access is existing and is in the Camfield townsite.
Mr. Carroll added that they do maintain both the east/west road and the north/south road that is accessed to
the facility. He further added that traffic to the facility as the applicants have indicated are pickup trucks and
trailers.
Commissioner Ochsner commented to the applicants that regarding the letter of concern from one of the
neighbors they received it was very well written and talked about how the applicants have been wonderful
neighbors and have grown their business substantially and are in favor of you, however one problem that they
have is that recently they have been hearing a noise which is a grinding and cuffing noise. Mr.Ochsner added
that to him it sounds like it may be from the rebar of which the applicants had talked about. He asked if the
applicants could explain if that is what they were hearing and what they could do to minimize that noise. Mrs.
Scott replied that she read in the letter as they described it as a metal grinding noise and believes that it could
have been on a nice day when they had the garage bay doors open as they cut rebar. She continued to say
the saw is not really all that loud but thinks that the way it carried down as their house is directly in front of that
open bay door and would offer the simple solution to not open the bay doors on a nice day which would
contain the noise. Mr. Ochsner asked if that is something the applicants are willing to do. The applicants
responded that they certainly would. Mr. Ochsner asked if there was anything in the development standards
that addresses the noise. Mr. Gathman stated that number 13 of the development standards addresses that
and added that 50 to 55 decibels is the residential standard.
Commissioner Fitzgerald asked Mr.Gathman that if in the event that this would be approved and neither water
source would come about,what would be the disposition of this. Mr.Gathman replied that right now they have
included a condition of approval that prior to recording the plat,staff would need evidence of an approved well
permit for that use so in the event it was approved by the board there is still a condition prior to recording the
plat.
Commissioner Holton asked Mr. Gathman if the hours of operation are included in the development
standards. Mr.Gathman stated that they can incorporate a standard that refers back to the hours of operation
that are indicated in the application. Mr. Gathman recommended adding it as development standard number
4 and then renumber accordingly and adding the language as "Hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m. to 3:30
p.m. Monday through Friday with occasional overtime hours until 5 p.m.as stated in the application materials".
Commissioner Auer asked who defines occasional. Mr. Gathman deferred to the applicants on how often
occasional overtime hours are. Mr. Gathman added that as a staff standpoint they may not have a concern
with extending the hours of operation to 5 p.m. as it is still relatively early. Mr. Gathman is not opposed to
changing the hours from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Mr. Gathman asked the applicants if there will be any deliveries to the site during the weekend. The
applicants replied that the deliveries will be Monday through Friday during business hours.
Commissioner Holton moved to add the hours of operation of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday
as number 4 of the development standards and renumber accordingly,seconded by Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Fitzgerald commented that the applicants stated in the future they would outgrow this site and
would move to another site and asked the applicants when they would see that happen. Mrs. Scott
commented that she would see it within the next two years. Mr. Fitzgerald asked where they would plan to go.
Mrs. Scott stated that it would be somewhere as close to home as possible. She added that there are many
options as they could buy a tract of land that is already zoned for the type of activity that they currently do,
however they would like to find railroad access and there is some places in and around Eaton that may suite
them. Mrs. Scott stated that they haven't looked too far in to it, but have some ideas and want to stay close to
home as they have small children.
The Chair asked the applicants if they have read and are in agreement with the amended conditions of
approval and the development standards. The applicants replied that they are in agreement.
Commissioner Holton asked Mr. Gathman if he would like to specify the number of vehicle trips and deliveries
on week days. Mr. Gathman commented that since the hours of operation are in place and with the
applicants'testimony he felt it was covered.
Commissioner Holton stated that he doesn't believe that this is any different than some of the welding shops
that the board has approved. Mr. Holton added that he is in favor of approving this application.
Commissioner Branham stated that he admires the applicants for starting this business in their basement and
making it successful. Mr. Branham continued to comment that at the present time they are clearly not a home
business by definition of which it states is an incidental use to the principal permitted use for gainful
employment of the family residing on the property or such use as conducted primarily within the dwelling unit
or accessory structure and principally carried on by the family. Mr. Branham added that they have grown to
the point that they are not a home business by definition and believes that it is the appropriate thing to expand
their business elsewhere rather than in this residential area. Mr. Branham stated that he is inclined to agree
with the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Branham moved that Case USR-1610, 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 denial, Commissioner Fizgerald seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Tom Holton, no.
Mark Lawley voted yes with comment. Mr. Lawley stated that he agrees with Mr. Branham as far as it
exceeds what is considered a home business. Mr. Lawley added that he is in support of private property
rights, however he believes this goes beyond that and has an impact on surrounding residences.
Doug Ochsner voted no with comment. Mr. Ochsner stated that this is very hard and added that the
applicants'business has been very successful and they need to be complimented for that; however where is
the line that puts you over the home business versus being more of a commercial or industrial business. Mr.
Ochsner commented that he is having real trouble defining that line himself and cites Section 22-2-60 which
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. Mr. Ochsner stated that by being as large as you are going to
be, the question is compatibility and the only way he can measure that is by hearing from one neighbor who
complimented everything the applicant has done,for the exception of the one issue and Mr.Ochsner believes
that the one issue has been resolved through the development standards. Therefore if no one is complaining
then maybe the applicant is compatible.
Bruce Fitzgerald voted yes with comment. Mr. Fitzgerald stated that the compatibility is his issue with regard
to this application.
Chad Auer voted yes with comment. Mr.Auer cited Section 23-2-220.A.3 which states the compatibility issue
as well as Section 23-1-90 of which is the definition of a home business.
Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 2:24 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
Hello