HomeMy WebLinkAbout20071203.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-1581
APPLICANT: Thao Alex Nguyen
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 6, Block 1, Ranch Egg Inc., Subdivision being part of NW4 Section 34,
T1N, 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).
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 Department of Planning Services'staff 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.O of the Weld County Code provides for a home business as a
Use by Special Review in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. Currently the property is in
violation (VI-0600219) for the operating a landscaping business without an approved and
recorded Use by Special Review(USR). This violation has not been presented to the Board
of County Commissioners through the violation hearing process. The application,if approved
by the Board of County Commissioners,will correct the violation. If this application is denied,
the case will be referred to the County Attorney's Office,with delayed legal action of thirty(30)
days in order to provide the applicant adequate time to ensure that all landscaping material
storage and operations are removed from the property.
C. Section 23-2-220.A.3--The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with the existing
surrounding land uses. Single family homes surround the site in all directions of this proposed
facility. The parcel is located within the Ranch Eggs agricultural subdivision that was
recorded in June 1967. Conditions of Approval and Development Standards ensure that the
material storage and parking areas are adequately screened from the adjacent properties.
The Department of Planning Services received one letter from a surrounding property owner
citing an incompatibility between the agricultural zoning and the operating of a commercial
business in the agricultural zone district. Further the letter states Mr.Nguyen burns leaves on
the property and concerns are raised from the author that three persons living in the area are
on oxygen and with the burning of the leaves other issues may be raised.
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
EXHIBIT
(ASP-- #x(5$1 I 2007-1203
Resolution USR-1581
Thao Alex Nguyen
Page 2
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 site lies within the three mile referral area for the City of
Dacono, City of Northglenn, Adams County, Broomfield County and Town of Erie. The
Town of Erie in their referral dated October 5, 2006 stated no conflicts with their interests.
The City of Dacono, City of Northglenn,Adams County and Broomfield County did not
return a referral indicating a conflict with their interests.
E. Section 23-2-220.A.5--The site does not lie within any Overlay Districts.
F. Section 23-2-220.A.6 --The applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve prime
agricultural land in the location decision for the proposed use.The small size of the lot limits
its agricultural value as does its location within a platted subdivision.
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 Commissioners hearing:
A. The applicant shall submit a detailed signage plan to the Weld County Department of
Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall provide a Landscape and Screening Plan for review and approval to the
Department of Planning Services to address the outdoor materials storage and vehicular
parking associated with this facility. This document shall be submitted to the Department of
Planning Services for review and approval. (Department of Planning Services)
C. All debris,except soil from berms, shall be removed from the property within sixty days of the
Planning Commission hearing date.
2. Prior to recording the plat:
A. The applicant shall provide the Department of Planning Services with a Statement of Taxes
from the Weld County Treasurer showing no delinquent taxes exist for the original parcel.
(Department of Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall provide the Department of Planning Services with a copy of a recorded
deed for the property. (Department of Planning Services)
C. Boulder Valley/Longmont Soil Conservation District has provided information regarding the
soils on the site.The applicant shall review the information and use it to positively manage on
site soils. (Department of Planning Services)
The applicant shall provide to the Boulder Valley/Longmont Soil Conservation District
evidence of a noxious weed management plan for review and approval. Evidence of
Resolution USR-1581
Thao Alex Nguyen
Page 3
D. approval shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. (Boulder Valley/
Longmont Soil Conservation District)
E. The applicant shall provide written evidence of compliance with the Mountain View Fire
Protection District requirements specific to water flow, emergency responder access and
visual identification from public rights-of-way. Evidence of approval from Mountain View Fire
Protection District shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. (Mountain
View Fire Protection District)
H. The applicant shall submit a dust abatement plan for review and approval to the
Environmental Health Services, Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment.
The applicant shall submit written evidence to the Department of Planning Services that they
have met the Department of Public Health and Environment requirements. (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. The
applicant shall submit written evidence to the Department of Planning Services that they have
met the Department of Public Health and Environment requirements.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 complete all proposed improvement including those regarding
landscaping,screening,access improvements and parking lot requirements or enter into an
Improvements Agreement according to policy regarding collateral for improvements and post
adequate collateral for all required materials. 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. (Department of Planning Services)
K. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
1. All sheets of the plat shall be labeled USR-1581. (Department of Planning Services)
2. The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services)
3. The off-street parking /loading areas including the access drive shall be surfaced
with gravel, asphalt, concrete or the equivalent and it shall be graded to prevent
drainage problems. Each parking space should be equipped with wheel guards
where needed to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the boundaries of this
space and from coming into contact with other vehicles,walls,fences, sidewalks,or
plantings. (Department of Public Works)
Resolution USR-1581
Thao Alex Nguyen
Page 4
4. The location of all on-site signs as approved by the Department of Planning
Services. (Department of Planning Services)
5. All future rights-of-way and common easements shall be identified and be placed on
the plat. (Department of Public Works)
6. If exterior lighting be a part of this facility, all light standards shall be delineated in
accordance with Section 23-3-250.B.6 of the Weld County Code. (Department of
Planning Services)
7. The approved Landscape and Screening Plan. (Department of Planning Services)
8. Johnson Lane is designated on the Weld County Road Classification Plan as a local
paved 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. All
setbacks shall be measured from the edge of future right-of-way. If the right-of-way
cannot be verified, it shall be dedicated. This road is maintained by Weld County.
(Department of Public Works)
9. The home business access is identified as pea gravel surface and gated. Utilize this
access point from Johnson Lane. There is an existing landscape circle drive
associated with the home. This will be used for residential purposes only.
(Department of Public Works)
10. The applicant shall delineate on the plat equipment parking and the landscape
material storage area. The circulation and parking plan should accommodate
outdoor parking, staging of equipment and material, and emergency responder
access. (Department of Public Works, Mountain View Fire Protection District)
L. 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. 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)
4. The Department of Planning Services respectively requests the surveyor provide a digital copy of this
Use by Special Review. Acceptable CAD formats are .dwg, .dxf, and .dgn(Microstation); acceptable
GIS formats are ArcView shapefiles,Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files format type is .e00.
The preferred format for Images is .tif(Group 4). (Group 6 is not acceptable). This digital file may be
sent to mapsaco.weld.co.us. (Department of Planning Services)
5. 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 of the Board of County Commissioners
Resolution was signed a $50.00 recording continuance charge may be added for each additional 3
month period.
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Thao Alex Nguyen
USR-1581
1. The Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a home business(Landscape
Business and Storage of Landscape Equipment)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District,as indicated in
the application materials on file and subject to the Development Standards stated hereon.
(Department of Planning Services)
2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 23-8-10 of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
3. All materials and vehicles shall be stored inside the accessory structure. (Department of Planning
Services)
4. There shall be no more than five (5) employees on site as indicated in the application materials.
(Department of Planning Services)
5. Section 23-1-90 of the Weld County Code defines HOME BUSINESS as: An incidental use to the
principal permitted use for gainful employment of the Family residing on the property, where:
A. Such use is conducted primarily within a dwelling unit or accessory structure and principally
carried on by the family resident therein;
B. Such use is clearly incidental and secondary to the principal permitted use and shall not change
the character thereof;
Ordinarily, a home business shall not be interpreted to include the following: clinic, hospital, nursing
home,animal hospital, hotel/motel, restaurant, mortuary and organized classes where more than six
(6)persons meet together for instruction on a regular basis (does not include classes sponsored by a
public school).
6. The hours of operation are 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Saturday, April to October of any
given year as stated in the application materials. (Department of Planning Services)
7. The historical flow patterns and run-off amounts will be maintained on site in such a manner that it will
reasonably preserve the natural character of the area and prevent property damage of the type
generally attributed to run-off rate and velocity increase,diversions, concentration and/or unplanned
ponding of storm run-off. (Department of Public Works)
8. 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)
9. 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)
10. 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)
11. The applicant shall operate in accordance with the approved "waste handling plan". (Department
of Public Health and Environment)
12. 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)
13. This facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Residential Zone
as delineated in 25-12-103 C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
14. Adequate hand washing and toilet facilities shall be provided. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
15. 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)
16. The facility shall utilize the existing public water supply. (Left Hand Water District) (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
17. All pesticides, fertilizer, and other potentially hazardous chemicals must be stored and handled in
a safe manner in accordance with product labeling and in a manner that minimizes the release of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP's) and volatile organic compounds (VOC's). (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
18. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the State and Federal
agencies and the Weld County Code. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
19. There shall be no open burning conducted on the site, with exception to burning defined as
"agricultural open burning" as defined by Regulation 9 of the Colorado Air Quality Control
Commission Regulations. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
20. No active composting shall be allowed on site. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
24.
21. Building height shall be measured in accordance with the 2003 International Building Code for the
purpose of determining the maximum building size and height for various uses and types of
construction and to determine compliance with the Bulk Requirements from Chapter 23 of the
Weld County Code. Building height shall be measured in accordance with Chapter 23 of the Weld
County Code in order to determine compliance with offset and setback requirements. Offset and
setback requirements are measured to the farthest projection from the building. (Department of
Building Inspection)
22. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the lot will be required to adhere to the fee
structure of the Weld County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11)(Department of Planning
Services)
21. Effective August 1, 2005, Building permits issued on the subject site will be required to adhere to the
fee structure of the Capital Expansion Impact Fee and the Storm Water/Drainage Impact Fee.
(Ordinance 2005-8 Section 5-8-40)
22. The landscaping on site shall be maintained in accordance with the approved Landscape and
Screening Plan. (Department of Planning Services)
23. 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)
24. The Special Use Permit shall not be transferable to any successors in interest to the prescribed
property and shall terminate automatically upon conveyance or lease of the property to others for
operation of the facility. (Department of Planning Services)
25. The property owner shall allow any mineral owner the right of ingress or egress for the purposes of
exploration development, completion,recompletion,re-entry,production and maintenance operations
associated with existing or future operations located on these lands. (Department of Planning
Services)
26. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of
Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code.
27. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of
Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code.
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. 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 Roy Spitzer Spitzer.
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 November 21,2006.
Dated the 21st of November, 2006.
Donita
Secretary
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
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
Roy Spitzer
James Welch
Mark Lawley
Also Present: Bruce Barker, Kim Ogle, Brad Mueller, Michelle Martin, Don Carroll, Char Davis, Donita May.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on November 7,
2006, was approved as read.
1. CASE NUMBER: USR-1578
APPLICANT: Shawn Sarchet
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-1920; being part of N2 of the NW4 of Section
21, T3N, 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
(conference center, weddings, wedding receptions,
wedding seminars, meetings, life celebrations, reunions,
bridal showers,baby showers,bar mitzvahs,music recitals,
wakes and community gatherings) in the A (Agricultural)
Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 32; east of and adjacent to
CR 29.
Michelle Martin, Dept of Planning Services, said Planning was recommending approval of Case USR-1578
and asked that it remain on the consent agenda.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Joseph Engels, Design Associates, 2521 W 4th St, Greeley, CO 80631, applicant's representative, agrees
with this case remaining on the consent agenda.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case USR-1578,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of AS
approval. Tom Holton seconded the motion. Motion carried.
The Chair called for Case USR-1581 to be heard. ! Yl
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning, said they had received three letters in opposition and left the decision of 2
whether to leave or remove Case USR-1581 from the consent agenda to the Planning Commission.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
vY a@ t{ .46\efiCaa I 2 - y - v i)Ct
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, 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 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.
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.
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.
•
Mike Schweitzer, Ranch Eggs Subdivision,3298 CR 4, Erie,CO,objected to the incredible burning of amazing
amounts of debris and said he suspected the refuse was from the applicant's customers. Mr.Schweitzer said
Mr.Nguyen set fires approximately three times a year,usually when the cloud cover was low,he felt to escape
detection by the fire department,where smoke had filled the neighborhood for days. Mr. Schweitzer said he
knew going to the landfill was expensive and that may have contributed to the temptation to abuse the burning
on the property. Mr.Schweitzer asked if the materials being burned were really from a property needing clean
up, as Mr. Nguyen suggested, or the waste from his landscape business.
Melvin Dierkson, 3498 CR 4, Erie, CO, said the description of what was going on there could be better
understood by viewing the photos he brought. He noted there was more than just grass and dirt in the area.
He also provided photos he had taken earlier that morning. Mr. Dierkson said that as of today, the berms
were about six feet tall and presented the opportunity for flies and mice and that there was also a constant
smell during warm weather. He felt this was a veritable extension of a landfill. Doug Ochsner asked Mr.
Dierkson if he had witnessed any recent burning. He said he had not witnessed any recently but there
seemed to be many instances, after the applicant first moved in, that were at will, with little regard for the
neighbors. There was also excessive early morning noise as they left the property for the day's business and
noise on the weekends as they moved the refuse material around the site.
Bernadine Dierkson, 3198 CR 4, Erie, CO, said the chicken/poultry business was closed and there was no
more odor associated with that.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Mr. Nguyen addressed the concerns of the neighbors, specifically the pictures provided by Mr. Dierkson and
said the property presently did not look like the pictures provided. He admitted to burning some of the tree
branches when he first moved in and said there had been no burning for the last year and a half. Mr. Nguyen
said he had burned three times a year for several days at a time in order to maintain the property.
Chad Auer said it appeared to be more than just grass and dirt in the pictures and inquired if there was any
more trash on the property. Mr. Nguyen said there was some trash on the property but he was trying to clean
it up. His added his business was mowing and yard clean up, not trash pick up.
Tom Holton asked Mr. Nguyen how he disposed of the trash and what his future intentions were. Mr.Nguyen
said for the past three months he has had a trash container for trash and that he takes grass clippings to a
landfill.
Doug Ochsner asked Char Davis, Department of Public Health and Environment what their position was. Ms.
Davis said she had visited the site that morning and there was trash on the property. Ms. Davis also
submitted a memorandum,dated November 21,2006,which was an addendum to the development standards
for case USR-1581.
Chad Auer asked if the application were approved,what the monitoring process would consist of. Ms. Davis
responded that she would see that complaints were investigated and followed through. Tom Holton asked
about any complaints lodged against the applicants. Ms. Davis said she was unaware of any at this time.
Paul Branham asked Mr. Nguyen if he was still burning on the property and what were his future intentions.
Mr. Nguyen said he had not burned on the property in eighteen months and did not plan to do so in the future.
Roy Spitzer asked Ms. Davis what the waste appeared to be. She replied it appeared to be yard waste, not
dumped trash.
Tom Holton asked Ms. Davis if the berms had to be cleaned up and removed. Ms. Davis said the applicant
would be given a time limit for removal of the trash but deferred to Mr.Barker,who suggested they put a time
limit in the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval. Mr. Holton asked Ms. Davis if she was
comfortable with today's situation or would she prefer they continue to another date. She said she would
handle this as a complaint,have someone look at the site, and require removal of the materials or there would
be further action. Ms. Davis suggested the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval be met prior
to the Board of County Commissioner's hearing.
Mr. Barker said they could make the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards contingent upon the
removal of the berms prior to the BOCC hearing (approximately 30 to 60 days)and that would be an added
incentive for the applicant to get the trash removed.
The Chair asked Mr. Nguyen if it would be possible for him to comply with this suggestion. Mr. Nguyen said
he would be more comfortable with a ninety day time period removal.
Ms. Davis said the berms could remain but the other trash and refuse needed to be removed from the
property.
Mr. Ogle interjected that this was a violation case and the County typically allowed applicants to continue
operation through the application process, and there was no incentive for Mr. Nguyen to remove the material
as long as he could continue to operate his business.
Mr. Holton said something about a cease and desist order as in the previous case. Mr.Barker responded they
had pursued the violation route and it did not make sense to schedule further hearings at this time.
Chad Auer asked that staff monitor this case closely so that resolution did not need to occur at the County
Commission level.
Doug Ochsner said he saw the applicant's point that it would take a good amount of time to remove the
material from the property,and as long as removal was made a Condition of Approval,he had no problem but
thirty days was perhaps not fair.
Tom Holton said from his experience, it was a health concern, and if you were motivated to get the refuse
removed, it could be done more quickly than ninety days and supported it being done prior to the Board of
County Commission hearing. Mr. Branham supported Mr. Holton that an incentive was appropriate and
withholding the Board of County Commission hearing until conditions were met was fair.
Mr. Ogle asked Mr. Barker if Planning Staff could give Mr. Nguyen six months to remove the debris prior to
Board of County Commission hearing and if that deadline was not met, then he would be placed in violation
•
hearing directly before the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Barker replied they could put an outside time
limit on it if they desired, and recommended it be done prior to scheduling the Board of County Commission
hearing and there would be a violation started if Mr. Nguyen did not meet the conditions agreed upon today.
The Chair asked if that sufficed on the advisement. Mr. Barker replied that it did.
Mr. Branham said something inaudible. Mr. Barker suggested composting might be defined so there were no
questions as to what was to be removed from the property. Ms. Davis added that Mr. Nguyen was not
composting, but that requirement could remain in the Conditions of Approval.
Tom Holton moved to add the health standards and conditions per the Environmental Health Department
memorandum dated November 21, 2006, and renumber accordingly. Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion
carried.
The Chair asked Mr. Ogle if he had any changes to the language. Mr. Ogle responded that item 1.C., page
three should say, "All debris, except soil from berms, shall be removed from the property within sixty days of
the Planning Commission hearing date." The reason being, that typically a Board of County Commission
hearing cannot be scheduled until the applicant has met the"priors to the board hearing." Normally if there
were no priors, it would take forty five to sixty days to schedule a hearing.
Doug Ochsner asked for further explanation as to how long the applicant would actually have to complete the
requirements. Mr.Ogle explained Mr. Nguyen would have 45 to 60 days, if he had no priors,to be scheduled
before the Board of County Commissioners. Mr.Nguyen has priors, some that he could meet,and some that
he could not and he would have sixty days to meet those without incurring a violation hearing with the Board of
County Commissioners,who could then decide whether to refer this back to Planning or take action through
the County Attorney's office.
Chad Auer asked if that precluded the rights of the attorney's office to move forward with the case regardless
of what they decided today and was not sure they could tell the Board of County Commissioner's they could
not proceed with the violation. Mr. Barker's response was mostly inaudible, but he said stated in that way, it
would.
Doug Ochsner asked Mr. Barker if he would only proceed at the directive of the Board of County
Commissioners. Mr. Barker said that was correct.
Comments by Tom Holton and response from Mr. Barker were inaudible.
James Welch asked about the definition of debris and was it all debris on the property or debris in the berms
berms. Mr. Ogle said it would be all the debris within the berm.
Char Davis asked Mr. Barker if Environmental Health should proceed with the violation or wait sixty days. Mr.
Barker's response was inaudible.
Tom Holton moved to add item 1.C., under prior to scheduling the Board of County Commission hearing.
Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion carried.
The Chair asked the applicant if he were in agreement with the amendments to the Development Standards
and Conditions of Approval. Mr. Nguyen said he was.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case USR-1581 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amendments to the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval. Roy Spitzer 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;James Welch,yes;
Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Doug Ochsner said the Planning Commission had addressed the public's concern, thought perhaps the
requirements for the applicant were a bit stiff, but did support approval of the application.
4. WELD COUNTY CODE CHANGES
STAFF: Brad Mueller
ITEMS: Chapter 27
Brad Mueller, Planning Department, said today's Code changes encompassed three different items, as
outlined in his memorandum of November 21, 2006. He requested their feedback on information the
Commission had received from him and also wanted their input on public concerns with cemeteries. Mr.
Mueller said that presently, cemeteries were considered a use by right in the agricultural zone district and
only in the agricultural district. Because of the uses associated with cemeteries, the traffic, the
landscaping, the surrounding property owners, etc., it might be better handled as a use by special review.
Further discussion with staff determined they did not need to be precluded from being located in other
districts. The question also arose over whether pet cemeteries were a use by right or a use by special
review. They had added a definition for cemeteries, changing the definition of a funeral home not to
include a columbarium or mausoleum.
Mr. Branham said he liked the idea of changing it to a use by special review and asked about Section 23-
3-40 where he added the word cemetery with mineral resource development facilities, and was that what
he intended. Mr. Mueller said it sounded like an error in categorization.
James Welch asked for clarification on cemeteries, and if private cemeteries on private land would still be
allowed. Mr. Mueller said they would and added that Codes in surrounding areas contain information very
similar to what they were proposing, if they dealt with them at all. Roy Spitzer asked for a definition of
columbarium. Mr. Mueller explained that was above ground interment for ashes. Mr. Holton said the way
the Code presently reads, he could take five acres of his property and divide it into little plots and sell it
instead of USRs. Mr. Mueller said that was correct but he would be required to put a sixty foot easement
between each plot.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
Hello