HomeMy WebLinkAbout20070273.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County
Conference Room, 4209 CR 24.5, Longmont, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Chad
Auer, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Chad Auer- Chair
Doug Ochsner-Vice Chair
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tom Holton
Mark Lawley
Roy Spitzer
James Welch
Also Present: Bruce Barker, Michelle Martin, Don Carroll, Char Davis, Donita May.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on January 2,2007,
was approved as read. Bruce Fitzgerald motioned to approve the minutes. Tom Holton seconded.
The Chair said USR-1589 was scheduled for the consent agenda and asked if there was anyone in the
audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak.
1. CASE NUMBER: USR-1589
APPLICANT: Roland & Theresa Wagner
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-501; being part of the NW4 of Section 21, Ti N,
65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for
a Home Business (building portable livestock shelters) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 41 and south of CR 8.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to approve the consent agenda, including Case USR-1589, and be forwarded to the
Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the
Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Doug Ochsner seconded the motion. Motion carried.
2. CASE NUMBER: USR-1588; to include SUP-314, SUP-317, SUP-360, USR-707 &
Am USR-707.
APPLICANT: Duke Energy Field Services
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part SW4 of Section 34 and part SE4 Section 33, T2N, R67W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for
a Mineral Resource Development Facility including a Natural Gas
Processing Facility in the A(Agricultural)Zone District and any
use permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use by
Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone District
(Truck Terminal and Truck Transport Facility).
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 14 and east and west of and
--}} adjacent to CR 19.
//
2007-0273
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,
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.
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 in
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
2
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 IGA with 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,
M
Donita
Secretary
5
Hello