HomeMy WebLinkAbout20060633.tiff RESOLUTION OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Moved by Michael Miller that the following resolution be introduced for denial by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1523
APPLICANT: David & Beverly Heussmann
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 2, 3 &25 of Dream Acres; part NW4 of Section 25, T2N,
R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
kennel (4000 game birds)and for a home business (concrete
forming business) in the A (Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 18; approximately '/ mile east of
CR 11.
be recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners:
1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 23-2-
260 of the Weld County Code.
2.
It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has not shown
compliance with Section 23-2-220 of the Weld County Code as follows:
A. Section 23-2-220.A.2 -- The proposed use is not consistent with the intent of the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.Section 23-3-40.H of the Weld County Code provides for a Kennel
as a Use by Special Review in the Agricultural Zone District but the concrete business is
not permitted as a Use by Special Review. A concrete business is permitted as a Use
by Special Review when it is not located within an approved or recorded subdivision
plat per Section 23-3-40.R of the Weld County Code. The site is located within the Dream
Acres subdivision. The site is currently in violation (VI-0500176)for the operation of a
kennel (raising game birds) and the storage of commercial equipment without the
necessary permits. This violation was not yet been presented to the Board of County
Commissioners though the violation hearing process.
B. Section 23-2-220.A.4 -- The uses which will be permitted will not be compatible with future
development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning and with the future
development as projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code and any other applicable
code provisions or ordinances in effect, or the adopted Master Plans of affected
municipalities. The site lies within the Intergovernmental Agreement area for the Town of
Frederick. The Town of Frederick in their referral dated August 19, 2005 states that they
have received complaints about this site and if had known that the properties under review
included Lots 2 and 3 of Dream Acres they would of requested a further review before signing
off on the Notice of Inquiry. The Town of Frederick in an e-mail dated October 4,2005 states
that after further review of the file the Board of Trustees would encourage the applicant to
submit an application for annexation. After speaking with the Town of Frederick
representatives it was determined that if and when a future application is submitted on this
site the property owner shall annex into the Town of Frederick. The site lies within the three
mile referral area for the City of Dacono, Towns of Erie and Firestone. The City of Dacono
and the Town of Erie returned a referral indicating no conflict with their interests. The Town
of Firestone did not respond to the referral request.
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.
EXHIBIT
,,7cc 6 - C& 3 TAwTiTi-pr
Resolution USR-1523
David & Beverly Heussmann
Page 2
Should the Board of County Commissioners approve this request,the Planning Commission recommends that
the following conditions of approval and development standards be attached:
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 either submit a copy of an agreement with the property's mineral
owner/operators stipulating that the oil and gas activities have been adequately incorporated
into the design of the site or show evidence that an adequate attempt has been made to
mitigate the concerns of the mineral owner/operators. Drill envelopes can be delineated on
the plat in accordance with the State requirements as an attempt to mitigate concerns. The
plat shall be amended to include any possible future drilling sites. (Department of Planning
Services)
C. The applicant shall provide a Landscape and Screening Plan for review. (Department of
Planning Services)
2. Prior to recording the plat:
A. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements (concerns) of New Consolidated
Lower Boulder Reservoir and Ditch Company, as stated in the referral response dated
August 9, 2005. Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County
Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall provide the Department of Planning Services written evidence from the
Town of Frederick for access onto County Road 18. (Department of Public Works)
C. 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)
D. 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)
E. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
Resolution USR-1523
David & Beverly Heussmann
Page 3
1. All sheets of the plat shall be labeled USR-1523. (Department of Planning Services)
2. The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services)
3. If exterior lighting is to 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)
4. The approved Landscape and Screening Plan. (Department of Planning Services)
F. 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 Arcinfo 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 mapsco.weld.co.us.co.weld.co.us. (Department of Planning Services)
5. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the
property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk
and Recorder. (Department of Planning Services)
6. In accordance with Weld County Code Ordinance 2005-7 approved June 1,2005,should the plat not
be recorded within the required thirty (30) days from the date the Board of County Commissioners
resolution a $50.00 recording continuance charge shall added for each additional 3 month period.
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
David and Beverly Heussmann
USR-1523
1. The Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a kennel(4000 game birds)and
for a home business (concrete forming business)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. The hours of operation are 6:00 am to 6:00 pm for concrete forming business as indicated in the
application material. (Department of Planning Services)
4. The concrete forming business shall have no employees on site as indicated in the application
materials. The kennel comprises of family members, no outside employees shall be on site as
indicated in the application material. (Department of Planning Services)
5. The site is limited to the following types of game birds; Ring-Necked Pheasant, Gambel's Quail,
Scaled Quail, Bobwhite Quail, Gray Partridge and Chukars.
6. 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)
7. Animal and feed wastes, bedding, debris and other organic wastes shall be removed at the end of
each brood. The brood shed wastes will be disposed of by spreading on the applicant's pasture
grass. Dead birds shall be removed daily and disposed of by a commercial hauler at least weekly.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
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. The facility shall be operated in a manner to control flies. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
13. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of the Underground and Above Ground Storage Tank
Regulations (7 CCR 1101-14). (Department of Public Health and Environment)
14. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled on this site. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
15. This facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Commercial Zone as
delineated in 25-12-103 C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
16. Adequate handwashing and toilet facilities shall be provided. The toilet facilities located in the
residence shall be used. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
17. 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)
18. The facility shall utilize the existing public water supply. (Central Weld County Water District)
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
19. 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)
20. A plan review is required for each building for which a building permit is required. Plans shall include
a floor plan.Two complete sets of plans are required when applying for each permit. (Department of
Building Inspection)
21. Buildings shall conform to the requirements of the various codes adopted at the time of permit
application. Currently the following has been adopted by Weld County: 2003 International Building
Code; 2003 International Mechanical Code; 2003 International Plumbing Code; 2003 International
Fuel Gas Code; and the 2002 National Electrical Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code.
(Department of Building Inspection)
22. Fire resistance of walls and openings, construction requirements, maximum building height and
allowable areas will be reviewed at the plan review. Setback and offset distances shall be
determined by the Weld County Code. (Department of Building Inspection
24.
23. 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 27 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)
24. 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)
25. Effective August 1, 2005, Building permits issued on the subject site will be required to adhere to the
fee structure of the Capital Expansion Impact Fee and the Stormwater/Drainage Impact Fee.
(Ordinance 2005-8 Section 5-8-40) (Department of Planning Services)
26. All construction or improvements occurring in a geological hazard area as delineated by the Colorado
Geological Survey shall comply with Overlay District requirements of Chapter 23,Article V,Division 2
of the Weld County Code.
27. The landscaping on site shall be maintained in accordance with the approved Landscape and
Screening Plan. (Department of Planning Services)
28. 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)
29. Any future development changes on site will require an annexation with the Town of Frederick.
(Department of Planning Services)
30. 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)
31. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of
Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code.
32. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of
Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. 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 Tom Holton.
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
Bruce Fitzgerald
Doug Ochsner
Chad Auer
James Welch
Tom Holton
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
Paul Branham
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 October 18, 2005.
Dated the 18th of October, 2005.
Donita May
Secretary
le - I P- <2cc[.
(Business)Commercial Zone District(Wholesale Trade
Establishment for the sale of nursery stock and hardline
products produced and imported to Site) in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District.
LOCATION: West and adjacent to CR 39; north and adjacent to CR 4.
Scott Larson, representing the applicant, 1888 Sherman St, Ste 415, Denver CO 80203, agreed to Case
USR-1528 remaining on the consent agenda.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Chad Auer moved that Case USR-1528, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation
of approval. Roy Spitzer seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
5. CASE NUMBER: USR-1525
APPLICANT: Deborah Lowry
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part S2 SE4 of Section 29, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
kennel (80 dogs including a dog day care) in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 5; approximately'/I mile south of CR
16.5.
Deborah Lowry, applicant, 7019 CR 5, Erie CO 80516, agreed to Case USR-1525 remaining on the
consent agenda.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Michael Miller moved that Case USR-1525, 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. Chad Auer seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Hearing Items:
6. CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 2, 3 &25 of Dream Acres; part NW4 of Section 25, T2N,
R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
kennel (4000 game birds) and for a home business (concrete
forming business) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 18; approximately 1/2 mile east of
CR 11.
3 EXHIBIT
C
E
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services. David and Beverly Heussmann have applied for
a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a kennel (4000 game birds)and for
a home business (concrete forming business) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. The sign announcing
the Planning Commission hearing was posted October 6, 2005 by staff. The site is located south of and
adjacent to CR 18 and north of CR 16%and approximately 1/2 mile east of CR 11 on Lots 2, 3 and 25 of
Dream Acres subdivision. The area consists of approximately seven and half acres and is currently being
utilized as a kennel (raising of game birds)and existing improvements for the concrete form business.
The surrounding property consists of residential uses. The site is currently in violation (VI-0500176)for
the operation of a kennel(raising game birds) and the storage of commercial equipment without the
necessary permits. This violation was not yet been presented to the Board of County Commissioners
though the violation hearing process. Twelve referral agencies reviewed this case, five referral
agencies had no comments, five referral agencies included conditions that have been attempted
to be addressed through the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval. No comments
were received from the Town of Firestone or the Commercial Wildlife Park.
Section 23-3-40.H of the Weld County Code provides for a kennel as a Use by Special Review in the
Agricultural Zone District but the concrete business is not permitted as a Use by Special Review.
A concrete business is permitted as a Use by Special Review when it is not located within an
approved or recorded subdivision plat per Section 23-3-40.R of the Weld County Code. The site is
located within the Dream Acres subdivision.
Six letters of support and one letter opposed to the uses on site have been received by the Department
of Planning Services prior to mailing out the Planning Commission packets. The one letter in opposition
states that the game birds are causing health problems. Since the mailing, one packet in opposition
of the application was submitted. The packet is from a surrounding property owner with concerns regarding
health issues (allergies and sinus problems),junkyard appearance, setbacks of structures, and compatibility.
Also included in the packet are photos of the site, a letter from a doctor, and letters from friends of the family
opposed to the application.
The Weld County Department of Planning Services is recommending that this application be denied
based on the concrete business not being allowed as a Use by Special Review in an approved subdivision.
The Chair asked how many birds would be allowed on seven and a half acres. Ms. Hatch replied four
birds per lot for a total of twelve birds. The Chair then asked about waste equivalency. Ms. Hatch said
the Health Department could better address that question. Roy Spitzer asked for the total size of the
property. Ms. Hatch replied that it is a little over seven acres. Michael Miller inquired about setbacks from
existing residences per the County Code. Ms. Hatch replied that setbacks would be addressed in the
building permit process and will look into it.
Judson Hite, representing the Heussmanns, 250 Arapahoe, Ste 301, Boulder CO 80302. Mr. Hite
corrected the information in the legal description that these are blocks not lots and explained the
configuration. Mr. Hite then reviewed the pictures in his handout. The applicants have farmed since 1967
and continue to do so today. In 1981 a home business was begun and in 1984 it was converted to the
current concrete forming specialty business. In 2004, the applicant's son obtained a Division of Wildlife
permit to open a commercial wildlife park that allowed the raise and release of these wild birds into the
environment. In 2004, the applicants conferred with the Building Department regarding the structures they
wanted to build and were told they would be agriculture exempt and did not require a building permit but
would require an electric permit. In April, 2005, the Planning Department Compliance officer informed the
applicants that the game birds were considered household pets and only twelve birds would be allowed on
those three lots/blocks. There was also a complaint regarding the equipment storage. Another zoning
violation was subsequently issued,which the applicants hoped to correct through this application. Mr.
Hite cited several sections in the code as to deficiencies with respect to compliance. He also agreed that
the game bird operation is a kennel and must be approved as a USR. The applicants agree with Ms.
Hatch and feel they have met Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Mr. Hite said again
that the concrete business is a home business, the applicants have been actively engaged in the
business, and it should be allowed in the agriculture zone district, as long as it is not in a platted
4
subdivision. The applicants disagree with Section 23-2-220.A regarding future development. Annexation
into Frederick is not desired by the applicants. The applicants do not agree that the game birds should be
described as and follow the requirements of a kennel. The game bird operation would be more accurately
described as a livestock confinement operation. These are exotic animals raised to be sold usually within
six months, unlike household pets, and need to be approved under a more proper classification. Mr.
Miller asked for the distance on photograph twelve of the bird containment area to the nearest neighbor's
house. Mr. Hite said it was sixty to seventy five feet Mr. Miller asked Ms. Hatch if she had found the
information requested earlier about setbacks on turkey farms. She replied that she had and it is three feet
or one foot for every three feet of building height. Mr. Miller then asked if a turkey farm was required to
meet those requirements, could they have four thousand turkeys fifty feet from a neighbor's property if the
containment building were short enough. Ms. Hatch responded that would be a zoning issue. Mr. Hite
then cited Section 23-4-350 of the code regarding livestock confinement operations and the use
standards applicable to such operations, and said that the applicants would comply fully with those as
appropriate.
The Chair opened the public portion of the hearing.
George Scott Jr, 5451 CR 16.75, Longmont CO 80504. Mr. Scott has lived there nine years and asked
the Planning Commission members, after looking at the pictures, if any of them would live sixty feet from
this operation. He said his wife has developed allergies and she coughs and sneezes. Mr. Scott invited
the Planning Commission to come out and take a look themselves. He moved there prior to the game
bird business and would not have chosen that site had it been there to begin with. He did know about the
concrete business and found no fault with that. The Chair asked Mr. Scott how long he had resided at
that location and he replied nine years. One of the Commissioners asked about a pile of asphalt. Mr.
Scott said it had been hauled off. Mr. Miller inquired how long the game bird operation had been in
existence,to which Mr. Scott replied three years.
Tim Rhoads, 5264 CR 16.75, Longmont CO 80504, lives next to Mr. Scott and has observed excessive
dust on windy days. He is concerned about health issues and why the value of their property is not being
considered. Mr. Rhoads showed the Commissioners on the map where the bird pens are located. Mr.
Holton asked Mr. Rhoads where he lives. Mr. Rhoads said he occupies Block 26 on the south side along
CR 16.75. Mr. Auer asked about how far he thought the applicant's residence is from the bird pens. Mr.
Scott replied about five hundred feet.
Dianne Peterman, 5451 CR 16.75, Longmont CO 80504, submitted a diagram of existing homes and their
proximity to the bird pens.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Mr. Hite, representing the applicants, said Mr. Scott was actually employed to build the first pens and
raise the birds, but that relationship has ended. Wade Heussmann, the applicant's son, 525 Fir Av,
Firestone CO 80520, said in terms of the actual bird pens and setbacks from the canal, the ditch rider
was fine with setbacks. From the feed storage building on the east side it is approximately twenty five to
thirty feet from the fence. David Heussman, property owner, said Char Davis, Health Department, has
been out to inspect the property. He has submitted a waste management plan and she has approved it,
having found no problems with dust or rodents. Mr. Miller asked the elder Mr. Heussman if he resided on
the property and he replied that he does not. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Morrison if the person running the
home business was required to live on the property. Mr. Morrison said it is still an accessory to the
residential use and was not sure if it was on the same parcel as the residence. Ms. Hatch interjected
there is no residence on the parcels containing the birds or the concrete business. Mr. Miller asked how it
can be a family business if they don't live on the property. Mr. Hite said they only have to be actively
engaged in the business and they are. Doug Oschner asked about an explanation of the actual business
activity on the property. Mr. Hite said there is equipment and job scheduling and concrete delivery,which
is primarily done by the son but the parents are actively engaged in the business.
Mr. Auer asked Ms. Hatch about the Division of Wildlife permits and if there is a requirement that the
applicant comply with local land use rules. Ms. Hatch said she is not familiar with the Division of Wildlife
5
regulations but they are licensed through them and said perhaps Ms. Davis could answer his question.
Ms. Davis said the applicants are licensed and subject to inspection at any time. The facility is considered
somewhat of an animal confinement operation and they need to follow best management practices of a
cattle operation. Mr. Miller asked if the cattle operation practices would include significant setbacks from
residential structures. Mr. Morrison said the cattle regulations do not specifically address poultry other
than turkeys, chickens and ducks, and under our code they do not fall under livestock as the definition
mentions livestock, exotic animals and pets. It may not be that relevant as we talk about the special use
permit but would fall under the use by right. The Chair asked about the use by right. Mr. Morrison said if
treated as household pets, they are allowed four pets per lot. Mr. Miller asked how many chickens per lot
in the agriculture zone. Ms. Hatch replied two hundred per acre. Mr. Miller said he sees several
problems—he does not buy the home business claim as the owner of the business does not live on site,
so the son is essentially leasing from his parents. Mr. Miller said he also has a problem with the feeding
operation being sixty feet from neighbor's homes and he believes the health issues are a direct result of
the operation. He does not support this application based on compatibility. The Chair asked about the
waste equivalency for four thousand birds. Ms. Davis said she does not know specifics, but at the time of
her visit she smelled no odor and saw very little manure accumulation. Mr. Morrison said the state
regulations equate fifty five thousand turkeys, thirty thousand laying hens or broilers, or five thousand
ducks with one thousand non-dairy cows when using a liquid manure handling system. If not using a
liquid manure handling system it would be thirty thousand ducks. Mr. Miller said that would be about thirty
ducks to one cow. Mr. Branham asked Mr. Morrison's opinion if the concrete establishment is a
commercial business and would qualify under this Use by Special Review. Mr. Morrison said the real
issue is whether it qualifies as a home business because it requires that the use be conducted primarily in
the dwelling unit or the accessory structure. Ms. Hatch then read the definition of a home business from
Section 23-1-90 of the County Code. Mr. Morrison asked Ms. Hatch if the forms were stored inside or
outside. Ms. Hatch replied that when she visited the site she saw trucks but not forms. Mr. Morrison then
said the applicants may qualify under one of the other categories that a USR could be granted. The Chair
asked if there were any previous USR's for this property and whether she was recommending denial for
both businesses or just one of them. Ms. Hatch said she had found no previous USR's for the property
and that staff was recommending denial for the concrete forming business on the site as it was not
compatible with home business zoning regulations and the owners/operators do not live on site.
Normally, when we have this type of business in the county, it is classified in the code under Section 23-3-
40.R as a commercial business in the agriculture zone district. The Chair asked about any violations. Ms.
Hatch said there was one, and that the concrete violation came as a result of the discovery of the game
birds on site. Mr. Holton asked if we have an Inter-Governmental Agreement with Frederick and why they
responded on their referral as they did if that is the case. Ms. Hatch said that the county does have an
IGA with Frederick and that in their referral they are opposed to the application. Frederick suggested the
applicant proceed through the County but Frederick would like them to seek annexation if they decide to
amend their USR or add any future development. Mr. Ochsner commented on the concrete forming
business and that the definitions they are given may not seem to be able to include that business, but this
is a rural subdivision and a few trucks and fuel tanks do not compromise the integrity of the subdivision
and he would be in favor of approval.
The Chair asked the applicants if they were in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Standards
of Development. Mr. Hite said they were, though they didn't fully understand signage requirements but
would be willing to work that out with planning staff. Mr. Hite said there is a waste management plan in
effect that they feel they have addressed and the issue of whether this property lies in a geological hazard
overlay. Materially they could work through those Conditions of Approval. Mr. Hite added that Section 23-
2-40 V. allows uses by special review that are similar to other listed uses and we believe that storing truck
equipment for a concrete forming business is very similar to truck storage for a public utility which is set
forth in Section 23-2-40 D., so there is another basis for approval if you didn't want to go with the home
business. Mr. Miller asked if they could approve one portion of the application and not the other. Ms.
Hatch said the applicant could withdraw a portion of the application if they wished. Mr. Morrison said
essentially their recommendation would be based on what the applicant is presenting. If the applicant
chose to withdraw a portion you could recommend on that but as it is now they are asking for your
recommendation on both and it would not be appropriate to act on each separately. Mr. Holton asked if
Frederick's complaints from surrounding residents were related to the birds or the concrete business. Ms.
Hatch replied the birds generated the most complaints.
6
Michael Miller moved that Case USR-1523, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
denial. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Michael Miller,yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried.
7. CASE NUMBER: AmPZ-1004
APPLICANT: Lifebridge Christian Church
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-1389; and part of Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th
P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of PUD Zone District for the Lifebridge PUD including
changes in designation of the E, R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, C-1 & C-2
zone districts and continued oil and gas production.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Hwy 119; south of and adjacent to
CR 26; and west and east of CR 3.5
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services. Lifebridge Christian Church, do Dale Bruns and
Reggie Golden, and represented by Barbara Brunk, have applied for a request of Change of PUD Zone
District for the Lifebridge PUD including changes in designation of the E, R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, C-1 & C-
2 Zone Districts and continued oil and gas production comprising of approximately three hundred thirteen
acres.
Lifebridge PUD is located north of and adjacent to SH 119; south of and adjacent to CR 26; west and east
of CR 3.5. Vista Commercial Business Park is located to the south of the site across SH 119. The Elms
at Meadow Vale PUD and Meadow Vale Farms PUD are located adjacent to the east and Longview PUD
is adjacent to the west, across CR 3.5.
The signs announcing the Planning Commission hearing were posted October 3, 2005 by Planning Staff.
Change of Zone 1004 for Lifebridge was originally approved by the Board of County Commissioners on
July 9, 2003. Staff comments are derived from the referral agencies responses and the application
material. The proposed changes as outlined in the application material are an attempt by the applicant to
address the concerns of the surrounding property owners as discussed at the July 9, 2003 Board of
County Commissioners hearing.
The proposed PUD is located within the Mixed Use Development(MUD) area, and is within the
boundaries of the Intergovernmental Agreement boundary with the City of Longmont and within the
Municipal Referral area with the Towns of Mead, Firestone, Frederick and Boulder County.
The City of Longmont returned their referral indicating that the city would like to reiterate the notion that a
development of this scope would best be served by an incorporated city where a full range of urban
infrastructure and services can be planned and provided. The City of Longmont also has concerns
regarding the drainage on site, parking configurations, bicycle lanes, and the incorporation of the"right to
farm"statement. The Town of Mead requests that this development not be approved as an
unincorporated project and the applicants should be required to petition the City of Longmont for
annexation. In addition, the Town of Mead states that the northbound traffic impacts to the town will likely
be significant without providing the town revenue or control over any of it. The Town of Frederick has
indicated that they have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with their interests. No referrals were
received from the Town of Firestone and Boulder County.
The project offers an opportunity to accommodate significant transportation improvements in the area.
• CR 3.5 will connect to CR 5 between Highway 119 and CR 26. CR 26 will be re-aligned north of the site,
as part of the proposed expansion of Union Reservoir. The existing railroad crossing at CR 3.5 will be
moved to Fairview Street to the west. A traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of Highway 119
7
Hello