HomeMy WebLinkAbout20061882.tiff RESOLUTION OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Moved by Mike 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: PZ-1110
APPLICANT: Charles and Theresa Hellmer
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-3492; part E2NE4 Section 30, T3N, R68W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Change of Zone from the R-1 (Low Density Residential)Zone
District to PUD to allow for storage of landscaping equipment and
materials along with uses by right in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 3 and approximately 1/4 mile south
of Highway 66.
be recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners:
THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES' STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS
REQUEST BE DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 26-5-30 of
the Weld County Code.
2. The submitted materials are not in compliance with Section 27.6.120 of the Weld County Code as
follows:
A. Section 27-6-120.B.6.a The proposal is not consistent with any intergovernmental
agreement in effect influencing the PUD and Chapters 19 (Coordinated Planning
Agreements), Chapter 22 (Comprehensive Plan), Chapter 23 (Zoning), Chapter 24
(Subdivision) and Chapter 27 (Planned Unit Development) of the Weld County Code.
Section 22-2-190.6.3. R.Policy 2.3 states "New residential development proposals should
demonstrate compatibility with existing surrounding land use in terms of general use,
building height, scale, density, traffic, dust and noise." The applicants are requesting to
rezone this property to PUD to allow storage of landscaping equipment and materials.
This request is to address a pending zoning violation (VI-0500102)for the operation of a
landscaping business. The applicants are additionally requesting that uses by right be
allowed in the A(Agricultural)Zone District in addition to the landscaping business.
All surrounding properties are zoned R-1 (low density residential) and the size of the lot is
only 2.5 acres in size. Rezoning the property to allow for agricultural uses would allow for
additional uses that may not be compatible with the surrounding area (additional animal
units, accessory storage of semi-trailers...).
R-1 (low density) residential zoning does not list commercial businesses (storage of
landscaping vehicles and equipment)as an allowed use, accessory or use by special
review. Commercial businesses and operations are not considered to be
compatible with residential areas.
B. The uses which would be permitted shall be compatible with the existing or future
development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning, and with the
future development as projected by Chapter 22 of this Code or master plans of affected
municipalities.
2006-1882
Resolution PZ-1110
Charles &Theresa Hellmer
Page 2
Section 22-2-110.C UGB.Goal 3 states "The County and municipalities should coordinate
land use planning in urban growth boundary areas, including development policies and
standards, zoning, street and highway construction, open space, public infrastructure and
other matters affecting efficient development."The site is located within the
Intergovernmental Agreement Area for the City of Longmont. The City of Longmont, in
their Notice of Inquiry form dated August 19, 2005, indicated that the applicant could
proceed with the application review process through Weld County because the application
was meant to address an existing landscaping business and no expansion to the
business was proposed through the application.
The City of Longmont indicated in their referral response dated September 20, 2005
indicated concerns with possible affects on water quality given its proximity to Union
Reservoir. The City of Longmont would like to see a requirement that public sewer for
future developments be required. A(Agricultural)Zoning in the Weld County Code does
not require public sewer and therefore would not be consistent with the recommendation
of the City of Longmont.
Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of this Change of Zone from R-1
(Residential)Zone District to the PUD Zone District for storage of landscaping equipment and
materials along with uses by right, accessory uses and uses by special review in the (A)
Agricultural Zone District, planning staff recommends the following conditions of approval:
1. The Change of Zone plat map shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services for
recording within 60 days of approval by the Board of County Commissioners.
2. Prior to Scheduling Board of County Commissioners Hearing:
A. The applicant shall submit a screening plan to the Department of Planning Services. All
vehicles and equipment shall be screened from adjacent properties and county roads by a
six (6)foot opaque fence. Vehicles shall be parked behind (to the west)of the existing
outbuilding. (Department of Planning Services)
3. Prior to recording the Change of Zone plat:
A. The existing septic system shall be reviewed by a Colorado Registered Professional
Engineer. The review shall consist of observation of the system and a technical review
describing the systems'ability to handle the proposed hydraulic load. The review shall be
submitted to the Environmental Health Services Division of the Weld County Department
of Public Health and Environment. In the event the system is found to be inadequately
sized, or constructed the system shall be brought into compliance with current
Regulations. Evidence of Health Department approval shall be submitted to the
Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
B. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements/concerns of the Longmont Soil
Conservation District as stated in their referral received January 17, 2006. Written
evidence of such shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services. (Longmont
Soil Conservation District)
C. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements of the Mountain View Fire
2
Resolution PZ-1110
Charles &Theresa Hellmer
Page 3
Protection District as stated in the referral received 1/13/2006. Written evidence of such
shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services. (Mountain View Fire Protection
District)
D. The applicant shall complete all improvements in regards to screening to the satisfaction
of the Department of Planning Services or enter into an improvements agreement
regarding collateral for improvements and post adequate collateral for all proposed on-
site improvements. The agreement and form of collateral shall be reviewed by County
Staff and accepted by the Board of County Commissioners prior to recording the plat.
(Department of Planning Services)
E. A building permit application must be completed, and two complete sets of plans must be
submitted for review for the outbuilding. Plans must include; plot plan showing the
location of all the structures on the property with dimensions, floor plan for each building
with dimensions, description of specific uses of all existing areas, type of construction,
heating, electrical information, exits, windows, restrooms and details of parking, floors
walls and stairs. The change of occupancy shall conform to the requirements of the 2003
International Building, Plumbing, Mechanical, and Fuel and Gas Codes, the 2002 National
Electrical Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Building
Inspection)
4. Prior to recording the Change of Zone plat, the plat shall be amended as follows:
A. The applicant shall prepare a Site Plan Review map per Section 23-2-160.V and Section
23-2-160.W of the Weld County Code. Because the all the requirements of the Site Plan
Review have been met, the applicant shall record one plat for the Change of Zone,which
will serve as the Site Plan Review plat. The Change of Zone Map shall be drawn to meet
the requirements of Section 23-2-50- D. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The approved screening plan for outdoor storage of vehicles and equipment. All vehicles
and equipment shall be screened from adjacent properties and county roads by a six(6)
foot opaque fence. Vehicles shall be parked behind (to the west)of the existing
outbuilding. (Department of Planning Services)
C. All Easements shall be shown on the Change of Zone Plat in accordance with County
standards. (Department of Planning Services)
D. All sheets of the plat shall be titled PZ-1110. (Department of Planning Services)
5. 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)
6. Upon completion of 2. and 3. 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)
3
Resolution PZ-1110
Charles & Theresa Hellmer
Page 4
7. 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 maps5co.weld.co.us. (Department of Planning Services)
8. The following notes and information shall be delineated on the Change of Zone plat:
A. The PUD Change of Zone allows for storage of landscaping equipment and materials as
set forth in Section 23-3-40.R of the Weld County Code along with uses allowed by right
and accessory uses in the A(Agricultural)Zone District as set forth in Section 23-2-20 of
the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
B. In accordance with the Weld County Code, no land, building or structure shall be changed
in use or type of occupancy, developed, erected, constructed, reconstructed, moved or
structurally altered or operated in the PUD Zone District until a Site Plan Review has been
approved by the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
C. The site shall be limited to one (1) %ton pickup, one (1) 1 'A ton pickup, two (2) 1 ton
pickups and one (1) %ton van, 3 snow plows, 4 mowers, two (2) 6 x 16 foot open trailers,
two (2) 6 x 18 foot open trailers, one (1) 6 x 14 enclosed trailer, one (1) 100 CFM Towing
Compressor, one (1) Bobcat 763 skidsteer and one (1)John Deere 4400 Tractor as
stated in the application materials. (Department of Planning Services)
D. A maximum of two (2) employee vehicles shall be allowed to park at the site as stated in
the application materials. (Department of Planning Services)
E. There shall be no parking of employee vehicles and/or landscaping vehicles/equipment
within the right-of-way of County Road 3. (Department of Public Works)
F. The business shall be limited to six (6)full-time employees as stated in the application
materials. (Department of Planning Services)
G. No storage of landscaping equipment and materials shall be allowed outside of the
screened area. (Department of Planning Services)
H. No retail sales of landscaping materials shall be allowed from the site. (Department of
Planning Services)
Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 AM to 5:30 PM Monday through Friday as stated in
the application materials. (Department of Planning Services)
J. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the site will be required to adhere to
the fee structure of the Weld County Road Impact Program. (Department of Planning
Services)
K. 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
4
Resolution PZ-1110
Charles & Theresa Hellmer
Page 5
Stormwater/Drainage Impact Fee. (Ordinance 2005-8 Section 5-8-40)
L. The site shall maintain compliance at all times with the requirements of Weld County
Government. (Department of Planning Services)
M. Any future structures or uses on site must obtain the appropriate zoning and building
permits. (Department of Planning Services)
N. 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)
O. 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)
P. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive
dust, blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
r
Q. Fugitive dust shall be controlled on this site. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
R. 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)
S. The site shall maintain compliance with the Weld County Code, at all times. (Department
of Planning Services)
T. The site must maintain in compliance with the Supplemental Procedures cited in Section
23-2-790 of the County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
U. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Article VIII, Chapter
23 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
V. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the State and
Federal agencies and the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
9. 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)
10. 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 the Administrative Review was signed a
$50.00 recording continuance charge shall added for each additional 3 month period.
5
Resolution PZ-1110
Charles &Theresa Hellmer
Page 6
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 April 18, 2006.
Dated the
18th of April, 2006.
Da '
Donita May
Secretary
6
or slow to put in traffic lights or make improvements. There were still too many issues needing resolution.
Mr. Branham said there were many issues yet to be resolved, particularly regarding the Highland Ditch.
He was however, inclined to approve the applications with the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval, but with a word of caution to the staff that he would like them to present future projects that are
better prepared.
Mr. Ochsner agreed with Mr. Branham and added that their job was to address topics in progress. They
do not need to see an absolute final plan every time. It was their job to put in conditions if needed and
then it was staffs responsibility to work with the applicant to guarantee them. This property is in the MUD
and is the goal of the County to develop this property and to force them into a town is against the Code.
The development was in the county and he felt that was where the development should remain.
Mr. Miller said staff is capable but questioned Highland Ditch allowing an adjacent trail. He had never
heard of anything similar, was surprised that they would agree to that, and wanted to see something in
writing. Mr. Miller was not happy with the county development being based on the applicant's complaint
they can't compete if lot sizes are reduced. We needed to look to the future—not just the profit. We
needed to follow the Code, draw a line in the sand, and hold everyone to the standards, or the Code was
meaningless. If we don't take a stand, developers will push us to that point. Mr. Miller said it was a good
plan with the amendments they had made and trusted staff to follow through on the application.
Mr. Holton said he agreed with Mr. Miller on some things, but that some needed to be tempered. He felt
the market should drive the lot size. If the lots were too small and the houses too close, people would not
buy them. He also would like to see the Board of County Commissioners look more closely at the oil &
gas setbacks.
Mr. Spitzer said he supports staff recommendations and felt most of the issues could be resolved and
trusts the developer would meet those requirements. Mr. Spitzer agreed with Mr. Holton regarding the oil
and gas setbacks and they should ensure safety rather than be concerned with how much land could be
developed. He felt they would see more and more conflicts with the oil and gas issues due to the nature of
the area. Affordable housing would continue to be an issue. They must look to the Code for guidance
when considering variances but there were places for exception.
The Chair said there were fifteen (15) pages of development standards and conditions of approval, but
what staff had handed them was a good document and he would support it.
Mike Miller moved that Case PZ-1082, 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. Roy
Spitzer,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes;Tom Holton,yes;Chad Auer,no; Doug Ochsner,yes; Paul
Branham, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
5. CASE NUMBER: PZ-1110
APPLICANT: Charles and Theresa Hellmer
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-3492; part E2NE4 Section 30, T3N, R68W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Change of Zone from the R-1 (Low Density Residential)Zone
District to PUD to allow for storage of landscaping equipment and
materials along with uses by right in the A (Agricultural)Zone
District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 3 and approximately 1/4 mile south
of Highway 66. O
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services. Charles &Theresa Hellmer have applied for a change c' l
v
I
of zone application from R-1(Low Density Residential)to PUD to allow storage of landscaping equipment
and materials along with uses by right in the A(Agricultural)Zone district.
The site is located west of and adjacent to County Road 3 and approximately V.mile south of State
Highway 66. The site has an existing single-family residence and outbuilding on the property.
There is a single-family residence located to the north of the site and single family residences (4 single
family)are located to the south of the site (on the east side of County Road 3). Pasture land is
immediately surrounding the site to the south and west and agricultural land is located immediately to the
east across County Road 3.
This application is partly to address a zoning violation (VI-0500102)for having a landscaping business
staging/storage area on site without proper land use permits. Landscaping businesses are not listed as
being allowed under R-1 zoning (either as a use by right nor as a USR) and therefore requires the property
to be rezoned. The applicants have submitted both change of zone application materials along with site
plan review materials to facilitate the ability of the Planning Commission and BOCC to review the specifics
of the proposed landscaping business. Planning staff has conditioned this application to specify that a
change of zone approval would also constitute a site plan review approval.
The property and surrounding area (in section 30 to the west of County Road 3)was zoned R-1
Residential in 1981.
Thirteen referral agencies reviewed this case, twelve referral agencies have responded and conditions of
approval and development standards are attached that address comments/conditions outlined in the
referral responses.
A letter of opposition was received in October, 2005 from Lenna Thompson and Robert& Rae
Rives expressing concerns with allowing Agricultural uses on the property. They are concerned
that the applicants will be bringing in goats to the property and are concerned that it is not
compatible with the area (flies, manure...). Agricultural zoning would allow up to 100 goats (40
goats per acre on 2.5 acres)on the property while existing R-1 (low density residential)zoning
would allow 10 goats.
This property is located within the IGA boundary for the City of Longmont. The City of Longmont
in their Notice of Inquiry dated August 19, 2005, indicated that the applicants could proceed
through the USR application process (no plans to annex). The City of Longmont, in their referral
letter dated September 20, 2005, indicated that future development on the site should require
public sewer. Uses under the A(Agricultural)Zone District are not required to have public
sanitary sewer service.
The landscaping business leases space from the property owner, the business is not operated by
the property owner. Businesses of this nature are not allowed under R-1 zoning under the Weld
County Code. Additionally, businesses of this type are not allowed under E (Estate)zoning (the
next residential zoning classification).
Additionally, rezoning to allow agricultural uses on the property will allow for additional uses that
are not allowed under existing R-1 (Low Density Residential)Zoning. Uses such as cargo
containers, mobile homes, additional animal units,would be allowed under A (Agricultural)zoning
which could have potential adverse impacts on neighboring properties.
It is a distinct possibility that property owners in the area purchased their properties with the
knowledge that the existing zoning did not allow these proposed uses.
For these reasons the Weld County Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of
this application.
The Chair, Mr. Fitzgerald, asked Mr. Gathman if he had seen any USR's on that road and if there
were any goats on the applicant's property. Mr. Gathman said the only one he was aware of was
13
the USR for the Docheff Dairy and that he had not seen any goats. Mr. Holton asked about the
two Change of Zones in the area. Mr. Gathman said one was a change from R-1 Residential to
Agricultural and the other was from PUD to Estate and Commercial. In the instance when the
property was rezoned to Agricultural, it was to allow an existing agricultural use (greenhouse) on
the property and it was a larger parcel (approximately 17.5 acres).
Charles and Theresa Hellmer, 13775 CR 3, Longmont CO 80504, said at the time of purchase,
the landscape business had been operating for six months. Mr. Hellmer said they had owned the
property for two years before being notified of a violation. He said they were trying to improve the
aesthetics of the property and the neighborhood. There were thirteen (13) properties in the area
of which he believes five (5)were commercial. He works for a goat dairy and would like to keep
kids on his property—but has found that is not economically feasible to bring animals to the
property. Mr. Hellmer would like to maintain the agricultural use of the property for small crops and
flowers. He said his business was clean and had a low impact on the area and he was willing to
work with his neighbors to minimize effects. Mr. Hellmer said he has improved the property;
trailers will be on the back of the property, a restroom facility for the workers is in their garage, and
no chemicals or gasoline storage was on site. A normal day had two vehicle traffic, as the
workers carpool. Mrs. Hellmer said they had consulted with Lauren Light and AGPRO and were
not aware the property was in violation. Mrs. Hellmer said the Greenman property in the area
included five R-1 homes for agricultural and they, the Hellmers,would like to continue and
improve upon what they were presently doing.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application.
Jim Buck, 13538 CR 3, Longmont CO 80504, said the neighborhood has been residential for approximately
eighteen years and was steady, stable and aesthetically pleasing. The Hellmer property is the most visible
property on the road. Mr. Buck said he sees things loaded on site but couldn't speak to whether they were
chemicals,the restroom facility was new to him,trash pick-up was weekly and was problematic,and that the
Hellmers also do winter snow removal as well as landscaping,and he often saw trailers piled with branches.
Mr. Buck felt the value of many should outweigh the value of one. The residents take pride in their property
and he presented signatures on a petition against this application. Mr. Buck maintained the Hellmers cleaned
the property in February because the Planning Department had scheduled a site visit. He would like the
proper channels followed with land use. Please follow the Code—don't plead ignorance after the fact.
Mr. Holton asked Mr. Buck how long he had been a resident and how long this operation had been there. Mr.
Buck replied eighteen years and that he believed the previous owners had a workshop until 2001, and the
Hellmers purchased the property in 2003.
Renee Crane, 13888 CR 3, Longmont CO 80504, resided on the east side of CR 3 and the southwest corner
of Hwy 66,and expressed her understanding that the west is residential,the east is agricultural and asked that
the area not be patch-worked rezoned as that will affect land values. We chose a rural,agricultural area and
would like it to be consistently zoned.
George Coburn, 13853 CR 3, Longmont CO 80504, and the Hellmer's neighbor to the north, opposed the
change due to a lack of privacy and that his home was recently burglarized. He said; the employee numbers
vary season to season, chain saw use is erratic, their large equipment is noisy,that a commercial operation
had no place in a residential neighborhood, and that he had also witnessed employees relieve themselves
outdoors. Mr. Coburn cited a general loss of privacy and asked for rejection of the application.
Rae Rives, 802 Mountain View, Lyons CO, did the recorded exemption for previous owners. She said
Turfmasters had grown considerably since she sold the property and a contract was in place at time of sale.
The sales flyer listed the property as R-1 and she did not know that zoning was incorrect when she sold it.
She would like to build a house on the eleven(11)acres adjacent to the site and the present business negates
that desire. Ms. Rives would like to see the business cease.
Gail Felton, 1105 CR 28, Longmont CO 80504, owns two properties on CR 3 in close proximity to the
Hellmer's property, and said the agricultural/residential feel of the area is lost with the addition of a business
14
and she would like to maintain the country feel. Ms. Felton is afraid that if one business comes in, more will
follow.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Theresa Hellmer,one of the applicants,stepped forward to address the concerns. She asked the neighbors
why the business wasn't stopped prior to their lease of the property. The Chair said that was not appropriate
at this time and that she needed to direct her comments to the Planning Commission. Ms. Hellmer said they
have met with Pam Smith, Environmental Health Department,and Peter Schei,Department of Public Works,
regarding their concerns. Ms. Hellmer said she and her husband do not consider this a commercial business
as they are leasing the land; she expressed her surprise at the public urination and said that would stop;there
were four trucks that left daily and only two employee vehicles were on the property during the day; trash
would be in the dumpsters;their vehicles were moved back as a requirement of the development standards;
there was no reason to believe that the neighbor's break-in had anything to do with their business;there were
no employees on site on weekends; they do not allow landscape refuse to pile up; they have cleared the
property considerably since their purchase; and she denied cleaning the property only for the site visit. Ms.
Hellmer said Turfmasters has applied magnesium chloride to the street and they are willing to fence the
building. Ms. Hellmer pointed out the adjacent land areas and which were agricultural,open space,residential
or annexed, including at the end of Hwy 66 where there was a lot of vehicle storage,a cattle business,a horse
business and other businesses with junk in general. She said they felt their building was nicer than many of
the other businesses she had just pointed out and she apologized to her neighbors but asked why they didn't
say anything before. Ms. Hellmer closed by saying that she had been told by someone,just that week, that
the neighbors allowed the business to continue because they had empathy for Ms.Thompson,the previous
resident. Noble, she agreed, but the business was the selling point for them.
Pam Smith, Department of Public Health and Environment, said item 3.A., page four(4)could be deleted as
the septic was adequate.
The Chair asked the applicants if they had read and agree with the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval. They replied they were in agreement.
Mike Miller motioned to delete item 3.A., page four. Tom Holton Seconded the motion. Motion carried.
Mr.Auer asked Mr. Barker if this would be considered"spot zoning"if they were to change this,because the
surrounding areas were R-1. Mr. Barker said the term "spot zoning"was used in the sixties, seventies and
eighties. As time went by and the concept of a PUD developed,"spot zoning"had gone away with the onset of
the PUD because in essence it allowed for"spot zoning". That being said, the PUD is in essence a "spot
zoning"concept that is allowed. The net effect could be the same but with a PUD it is a mechanism whereby it
is allowed.
Mr.Gathman replied that at the time of the original violation the property was originally zoned R-1. There was
a specific process to go through to rectify the violation so you did not have the option of applying for a special
use permit. A PUD was the only option because it allowed more flexibility. Mr.Branham asked if the PUD had
to be in the agricultural zone and if the applicants could have applied for that. Mr. Gathman replied that it did
not as there are many uses allowed within the PUD and they could have requested that. Mr. Miller asked if
this was approved as a PUD and the landscaping business left,could another business move in and operate
under the same PUD. Mr. Gathman said that presently if they operate under the conditions of the PUD, it is
not specific to this one owner and this one use and that would be an option for the owner. Mr. Ochsner
did not understand the reasons for staff denial and asked for more clarification. Mr. Gathman said the major
issue is that the area is zoned R-1 residential and we have applications for two uses, one for a commercial
landscaping business that under existing R-1 zoning would not be allowed at all, either as a use by right or a
use by special review. The other was a proposal for agricultural uses and we were not exactly sure what
those future uses could be, they were basically uses by right and accessory uses in the agricultural zone
district which could raise issues of compatibility with existing R-1 uses.
Mr. Ochsner said he disagrees as this was a low density rural area and he did not feel they were asking for
anything unreasonable as that is a rural, agricultural area with farms and businesses with ten times more junk
than the applicant has on site. Mr. Ochsner said the applicants were not asking for anything out of the
15
ordinary and that he felt a landscape business suited the area. .
The Chair asked for comments.
Mr. Miller agreed with Mr. Ochsner regarding compatibility but did take issue with the restroom facilities and
also that it would be more of an eyesore to fence or screen the business because of its close proximity to the
road. Mr. Miller also thought that it was a reach to change the zoning to allow the commercial business. He
was not sure whether he could support it or not but was leaning against support.
Mr. Branham said he sympathized with the Hellmers because they bought the property thinking they had an
existing business they could make money on and that it was a legal enterprise, when in fact it was there in
violation. The fact is that it has been a successful, growing business and it creates noise, traffic and other
concerns. It should not be in the R-1 area and to change the zoning to agricultural does not diminish the
existing problems, so he would have to agree with staff recommendation for denial.
Mr.Auer asked Mr.Gathman if the zoning was changed to agricultural would the use carry with the property if
it were to change hands, so the new owner would have access to all the things under the purview of
agricultural zoning. Mr. Gathman replied that was correct.
Mr. Ochsner pointed out regarding the agricultural zoning,the property was only 2.5 acres and inconsequential
if you were talking animal units, so he did not see that as a hindrance, if animal units were the main worry.
Mr. Fitzgerald said the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval boxed this thing in pretty well,
except for the next landowner, and did not feel it was compatible with the neighborhood.
Mike Miller moved that Case PZ-1110, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along 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; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, no;
Paul Branham, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
Tom Holton commented that he would like to reference Chapter 22, Section 23-2-228, item 3. of the County
Code.
Doug Ocshner commented that he would like to reference Section 22-2-190,regarding compatibility and said
he felt it was extremely compatible with the area.
Roy Spitzer commented that on the surface it appeared to be compatible but it was not compatible with its
present zoning, that screening would be more of an eyesore than what presently exists, and wished the
building had been designed with restroom and handwashing facilities for the employees.
Erich Ehrlich commented and referenced the County Code, Section 22-2-110.
Mike Miller commented that it was not compatible with the existing or future development of the area.
Meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Donita
Secretary
16
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, March 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, Bruce
Fitzgerald, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller Absent
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tom Holton
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
Roy Spitzer Absent
Erich Ehrlich
Paul Branham
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman, Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services; Don Carroll,
Department of Public Works; Trevor Jiricek, Char Davis, Department of Environmental Health and Public
Welfare; Bruce Barker, County Attorney.
Erich Ehrlich pointed out there was a correction to the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning
Commission held on March 7,2006. In the last case heard,AmPF-354,the vote was recorded as unanimous,
but there was actually one"no" vote.
Hearing items to be continued:
1. CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1476
APPLICANT: Fusaro LLC
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 4 of Althen Boyer Subdivision, part SW4 Section 23, Ti N,
R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for
a business (commercial junkyard or salvage yard, the leasing
and sales of vehicles and equipment, and vehicle service/repair)
in the C-3 (Commercial)Zone District.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, speaking on behalf of Michelle Martin, requested Case
AmUSR-1476 be continued to April 18, 2006 in order to meet the ten day legal notification and allow the
applicant to meet the thirty day mineral notification.
2. CASE NUMBER: PZ-1110
APPLICANT: Charles and Theresa Hellmer
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-3492; part E2NE4 Section 30, T3N, R68W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Change of Zone from the R-1 (Low Density Residential)Zone
District to PUD to allow for storage of landscaping equipment and
materials along with uses by right in the A (Agricultural)Zone
District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 3 and approximately 1/4 mile south
of Highway 66.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, requested Case PZ-1110 be continued to April 18,
1
2006 in order to meet the fifteen day legal notification.
3. CASE NUMBER: PZ-1097
APPLICANT: Breakneck Weld Properties
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: N2NW4 of Section 6, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD for 9 lots with E
(Estate)Zone Uses.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 1; south of and adjacent to CR 38
Section Line.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, requested a continuance to April 4, 2006, in order to meet the
fifteen day legal notification required for a PUD (Planned Unit Development). The applicant, Tom
Radigan, is present and has agreed to the continuance.
Doug Ochsner asked the reason for the continuances- was it a staff or applicant mistake and would the
continuances cause any hardship for the applicants. Mr. Ogle replied that it was due to a staff mistake where
the two recording secretaries were training together and failed to submit the legal notifications when they
should have. Mr. Ogle said there would be no hardship involved for the applicants, and that a tertiary legal
notification system had been put in place to assure this did not occur in the future.
The Chair asked if there was any discussion for or against these continuances. No one wished to speak.
Paul Branham moved that Cases Am USR-1476 and PZ-1110 be continued to April 18, 2006, and Case PZ-
1097 be continued to April 4, 2006. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. James
Welch, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Paul Branham, yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Consent items:
4. CASE NUMBER: USR-1547
APPLICANT: Charles and Penny Myers
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2450, part NE4 Section 14, T3N, R68W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit
for a Home Business (animal/pet crematory) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 34; approximately 1 mile east of
Interstate 25.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, said the applicants wished to remain 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.
5. CASE NUMBER: USR-1538
APPLICANT: Matthew& Kristi Morrision
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Northmoor Acres Subdivision, 2n° Filing, Lot 8, Block 4, being
part of the SW4 of Section 24, T4N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
Home Business (Morrison Engineering) in the (A)Agricultural
Zone District.
2
Hello