HomeMy WebLinkAbout20063431.tiff 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
approval. Tom Holton seconded the motion. Motion carried.
The Chair called for Case USR-1581 to be heard. v
c+?
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning, said they had received three letters in opposition and left the decision of
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.
� L4- Alveoli. IZ -
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, 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 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, 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).
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
one wished to speak.
Jay Tucker, 36497 CR 8, Briggsdale, CO, 80611, said new neighbors have plans to put in a"green"
cemetery on their property and the surrounding neighbors took issue because they had all contributed to
an easement on the private road and the newest neighbors want to put in a cemetery and use that road
for access. He expressed concern for increased traffic in an area that was predominantly rattlesnakes
and prairie dogs. Chad Auer asked about shared access. Mr. Tucker said the road dead ends at a
shooting range and cemetery traffic would have to cross two surrounding properties and he was sure his
easement agreement prevented that. He also expressed concern with placement of cemeteries
anywhere. Doug Ochsner said an applicant could come in and apply for a USR, which would make the
process more difficult but would not preclude someone from doing so. Mr. Tucker said he was surprised
that cemeteries could be put most anywhere. Chad Auer said the public hearings would give him the
opportunity to express his concerns and have them addressed.
Jan Barthell, 36485 CR 80, Briggsdale, CO, lives south of the proposed cemetery and wanted to know
what the process involved, would she be notified as the process went on, and how long would the hearing
process take. The Chair replied there would be public hearings. Mr. Mueller said Code changes must be
heard at three hearings and given the Board of County Commission hearing schedule, this would not be
resolved until at least February. Mr. Mueller added that they were addressing the cemeteries today
primarily because of public concerns relayed to them in the past weeks, and thought this would be an
opportune time to address this. He also said that if a property owner were to come in tomorrow and apply
for a USR for a cemetery, as the Code now stands, it would be allowed and would be grandfathered in.
Were they to come in after Code changes, they must apply for a use by special review. Ms. Barthell
asked about restricting use of their private road for the cemetery business. The Chair referred her
question to Mr. Barker who said he could not give legal advice to the public and suggested they obtain the
services of a lawyer.
Kurt Wise, 36495 CR 80, Briggsdale, CO, said he did not want a cemetery in the area due to increased
traffic and access issues. Doug Ochsner said Mr. Wise had taken the right step by attending the hearing
today and making his opinion known.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Chad Auer asked about the definition of a green cemetery. Mr. Mueller said green meant organic burial
versus standard methods, and staff had decided there was no basis for making a distinction between the
two methods. Mr. Mueller said the Planning Commission needed to make its recommendation for
Chapter 23. Mr. Barker suggested they recommend approval on that specific item now.
Doug Ochsner moved to approve the recommended changes to Chapter 23 of the County Code regarding
cemeteries, as outlined in the memorandum of November 21, 2006. Paul Branham seconded. Motion
carried.
Mr. Mueller then addressed the following:
Minor administrative changes were proposed for Sections 2, 5, 22, 26, and 27. The Commission should
plan to make recommendation on these items, which were continued from the last hearing.
Staff had followed up on the following items requested by the Commission at the November 7 hearing and
no action is needed by the Planning Commission.
The changes for signs, requested by the Planning Commission, would be presented to the Board.
Chapter 29 Agricultural Buildings. The Planning Commission expressed concern that changes proposed
by staff to Section 29-3-20 would result in the need for landowners to acquire Building Permits for such
structures as lean-to's, open sheds, and shade shelters. This was, in fact, a part of staff's intention with
the proposed changes. The Planning Commission, however, expressed concern that no Building Permits
should be required for these.
The other reason for the proposed changes was to ensure that larger structures associated with confined
animal operations and dairies, such as milking parlors, calving sheds, etc., that are required to receive a
Use by Special Review permit also be required to acquire Building Permits. After further review of the
Code, staff has determined that these types of structures already are required to get a Building Permit,
because they do not meet the definition of"Agricultural building"and therefore already are not exempt
under Section 29-3-20 of the Code.
Tom Holton asked if the Code was left alone, under a USR, all structures built would require a building
permit. Mr. Mueller said Staff would still carry the Commission's recommendation on this to the Board of
County Commissioners.
Regarding septic connection to new sewer systems, Staff had met with the Health Department about this
concern expressed by the Commission. Because this requirement already existed in the Health
Department's regulations, and was already tied to the time a septic system fails, the language staff
previously presented was not necessary.
Paul Branham motioned they accept revisions per Mr. Mueller. Tom Holton seconded.
The Chair realized that he had neglected to open the public portion of the hearing. No one commented.
Paul Branham moved that the amendments to the County Code, referenced in the memorandum from Mr.
Mueller and dated November 21, 2006, 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; Tom Holton,yes; Mark Lawley,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; James Welch,yes;
Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Donita May
Secretary
Hello