HomeMy WebLinkAbout20050730.tiff HEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 2005-15
RE: SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND AMENDED USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT#1416 FOR A USE PERMITTED AS USE BY RIGHT, AN ACCESSORY USE,
OR A USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW IN THE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ZONE
DISTRICT (DISPLAY FIREWORKS STORAGE AND FIREWORKS EQUIPMENT
STAGING FACILITY, ALONG WITH AN OFFICE) IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE
DISTRICT -WILLIAM AND ANN STONEBRAKER
A public hearing was conducted on March 9, 2005, at 10:00 a.m., with the following present:
Commissioner William H. Jerke, Chair
Commissioner M. J. Geile, Pro-Tern
Commissioner David E. Long
Commissioner Robert D. Masden
Commissioner Glenn Vaad - EXCUSED
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Esther Gesick
Assistant County Attorney, Lee Morrison
Planning Department representative, Chris Gathman
Health Department representative, Char Davis
Public Works representative, Peter Schei
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated February 18,2005,and duly published February 23,
2005, in the Fort Lupton Press,a public hearing was conducted to consider the request of William
and Ann Stonebraker for a Site Specific Development Plan and Amended Use by Special Review
Permit #1416 for a Use Permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use by Special
Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone District (display fireworks storage and fireworks
equipment staging facility,along with an office)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. Lee Morrison,
Assistant County Attorney, made this a matter of record. Chair Jerke advised the applicant's
representative, Linn Leeburg of Leeburg and Associates,that he has the option of continuing this
matter to a date when the full Board will be present. However,if he decides to proceed today,it will
require three affirmative votes, or in the case of a tie vote, Commissioner Vaad will listen to the
record and make the determining vote. In response to Mr. Leeburg, Chair Jerke indicated the
applicant must choose at this point whether to proceed or continue; not see where the discussion
goes and then decide what is in their best interest. Mr.Morrison explained if the case is denied,the
applicant can appeal to the District Court,request reconsideration at the very next meeting,or apply
for a Substantial Change. Mr. Morrison added there is some concern on the part of the public as
to whether they received proper notification for the Planning Commission hearing,although staffs
mailing certification indicates the mailing was completed. Chair Jerke recessed the hearing to allow
Mr. Leeburg opportunity to discuss the situation with his clients. Upon reconvening, Mr. Leeburg
indicated he would like to proceed today.Responding to Commissioner Masden,Mr.Morrison stated
the Board needs a recommendation from the Planning Commission and if the Board finds the
recommendation is lacking due to lack of public testimony,the matter can be referred back to the
2005-0730
PL1653
()(1:,"G t i/L ®3ox7-CL-
HEARING CERTIFICATION -WILLIAM AND ANN STONEBRAKER (AMUSR#1416)
PAGE 2
Planning Commission. Mr. Morrison read the Planning Commission mailing certification for the
record.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services,presented a brief summary of the proposal and
entered the favorable recommendation of the Planning Commission into the record as written. He
gave a brief description of the location of the site and surrounding land uses. He stated 15 referral
agencies reviewed this proposal,ten responded with comments that have been addressed in the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards, and staff received no response from the
Southeast Weld Fire Protection District, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, Towns of
Keenesburg and Hudson, or the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Mr. Gathman stated the original
permit was approved in 2003, and the use is located in the center of the property. He stated the
amendment proposes to install three buildings for storage of the fireworks display equipment,with
five (5) employees at the warehouse facility and the potential to expand to a maximum of 15
employees. He further stated the applicant has received approval fora commercial well permit for
indoor use only, and the applicant anticipates a total of 20 trips per day, with the potential for an
additional 25 to 50 trips during their busy season in June and July. Mr.Gathman stated the site will
use an existing 30-foot easement which crosses Lot A of Recorded Exemption#3589,and staff is
requiring an access agreement with the owner of Lot A who is the applicant's daughter. In response
to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Gathman explained cases that have no perceived issues or concerns
are placed on the Planning Commission's Consent Agenda;however,if at least two members wish
to hear the case,then it is pulled up for full discussion. In this case it did not go through the hearing
because there was no public in attendance that day. Mr. Morrison stated the applicant can also
request to be taken off the Consent Agenda if they wish to discuss the proposed Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards. In response to Commissioner Masden, Mr. Gathman
reviewed which referral agencies responded to this proposal. Responding to Commissioner
Masden, Mr. Morrison stated the referral process is separate from the mailing process for
surrounding property owners. Mr. Gathman added staff includes a large portion of the application
in the referral packets.
Char Davis, Department of Public Health and Environment, stated the site's water source is a
commercial well,and the applicant will be required to install an engineered septic system. She also
stated Condition of Approval #1.D has been satisfied and can be deleted.
Peter Schei, Department of Public Works, stated staff has asked the applicant to participate in an
Off-site Improvements Agreement for dust suppression on Weld County Road 18. Responding to
Commissioner Masden,Mr.Schei stated the average daily traffic count taken on June 30,2004,on
Weld County Road 18 is approximately 145 vehicles, and 169 vehicles on Weld County Road 53.
He stated the amounts are on the border of the 200-vehicle requirement for dust mitigation. He
stated this is a unique situation because the facility has a busy season in which they expect 25 to
50 trips per day around the 4th of July when they are distributing fireworks. He stated staff feels
requiring a Dust Mitigation Agreement at this point will be proactive in mitigating issues. Responding
to Chair Jerke, Mr. Schei stated the Off-site Improvements Agreement is addressed under
Development Standard#8 and Condition#1.1. In response to Commissioner Masden, Mr. Schei
stated there is an existing dust suppression policy on Weld County Road 53. Responding to
Commissioner Geile, Mr. Gathman stated a road impact fee will be assessed when the applicant
applies for the building permit.
2005-0730
PL1653
HEARING CERTIFICATION - WILLIAM AND ANN STONEBRAKER (AMUSR#1416)
PAGE 3
Mr. Leeburg stated this amendment will allow the applicant to construct three equipment staging
buildings on 3.5 acres, within the overall 138-acre parcel. In response to Chair Jerke and
Commissioner Geile, Mr. Leeburg stated the original permit was approved in 2003,and there will
be no fireworks discharges, rather,the buildings will be for storage of fireworks-related equipment
that is dispatched to municipalities or special events. He reiterated the use will remain the same,
with the addition of buildings where the applicant can store related equipment.
Responding to Commissioner Geile, Judy Fulkerson, co-applicant, explained the original permit
allowed for storage of display fireworks, and the amendment would provide for three additional
buildings in which to store the related equipment. In response to Commissioner Long, Ms.
Fulkerson stated they currently have four fireworks storage units,although they are permitted for up
to 13. She stated the fireworks would only be in the new buildings for a short period of time while
they prepare the staging equipment and arrange the mortar tubes and electrical boards, and the
explosives are transported to the display site at a separate time. Responding to Commissioner
Masden, Ms. Fulkerson stated the amendment does not provide for wholesale or retail uses.
Ann Stonebraker, applicant, stated they did talk to the local fire chief when they first started the
storage facility and informed him they would eventually move more equipment to the site. She
explained they are currently using two sites, and realistically they only intend to construct one
building and use it until they need more. She stated they were directed to request more so they
don't have to go through this process again if they want to expand in the future. Ms. Stonebraker
clarified they have not met with the fire chief for this amendment; however, the Fire Department
personnel were in attendance at the Keenesburg meeting regarding this matter. Responding to
Commissioner Masden, Ms. Stonebraker stated the Department of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) requirements only relate to the fireworks storage, and the use
proposed under the amendment falls under a different class. Responding to Commissioner Long,
Ms. Fulkerson stated the explosives are in the new buildings for a short time while they install the
ignitor and then they are packed up and put back in storage to be hauled to the display site at a
different time. Responding to Commissioner Masden, Ms. Fulkerson stated the local fire district is
aware of the proposed operation and the ATF only inspects the fireworks storage facilities.
Jim Ries,surrounding property owner,requested this matter be continued because the surrounding
property owners did not receive notification of the Planning Commission hearing. He stated they
did receive notification of this hearing and request additional time to hire legal counsel and prepare
opposing comments. Mr. Ries stated he does not live within 500 feet, and as a result, he received
notice on Friday by word of mouth. He further stated those who do live within 500 feet received their
notices on approximately February 26, 2005.
Chair Jerke stated based on public testimony that they did not receive adequate notice, he feels a
continuance makes sense. Commissioner Geile stated a continuance may also provide opportunity
for the applicant to meet with their neighbors and explain the proposal to eliminate any
misunderstanding. Mr.Morrison stated if the neighbors are not requesting it go back to the Planning
Commission,then a continuance would be appropriate to allow them adequate time to obtain legal
counsel; however, he does not want them to come back at that point and then say they want it to
go back to the Planning Commission phase of the process. Responding to Chair Jerke, Mr. Ries
stated they are familiar with the process and they would request the application takes its full course
and the neighbors get proper notification for the Planning Commission phase of the process. He
2005-0730
PL1653
HEARING CERTIFICATION - WILLIAM AND ANN STONEBRAKER (AMUSR#1416)
PAGE 4
noted the 500-foot requirement is not adequate for uses changing from an agricultural use,and he
proposed the notification requirement be expanded to one-half mile and that the legal notification be
published in a local paper.
Commissioner Geile stated the issue of concern is notification; however, he feels this situation is
different because it is an existing use which is requesting an expansion. He stated the applicant has
followed the appropriate procedures;however,he is willing to do a continuance for the benefit of the
neighbors. Mr.Morrison stated the County Code specifically addresses inadvertent errors in delivery
and notes that it does not create a jurisdictional defect in the hearing process; however,the Board
needs to consider whether the lack of notice impacted the testimony received and the subsequent
recommendation made by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Masden stated he would like
to see the case go back to the Planning Commission to allow them to hear both sides of the issue
and make a more informed recommendation. Chair Jerke concurred with Commissioner Masden,
and stated it deals with the public's trust and getting a recommendation from the Planning
Commission which is based on input from the public. He stated he would prefer to proceed at this
level;however,there is testimony that leads him to find potential for legal action from the neighbors.
Commissioner Long stated referring the matter back to Planning Commission may be a hardship
on the applicant due to the timing of the fireworks season; however, a lot of the issues may be
addressed by the Planning Commission which will allow the applicant to bring forward a better
application,as well as provide some clarity for the neighborhood. Commissioner Geile stated this
failure is unacceptable and he wants a proposal from staff as to how it will be remedied in the future.
He further requested all subsequent fees be waived and that their hearing process be expedited.
In response to Chair Jerke, Mr. Morrison stated it would be appropriate for the Board to make a
motion to refer this case back to the Planning Commission and make it clear that this discussion
will have no impact on future deliberations.
Mr.Leeburg stated although the Towns of Hudson and Keenesburg did not respond to the County
referral,they did meet on this matter and indicated no impact to their interests. He stated there are
also many safeguards in place through the Building Code.
Commissioner Masden moved to find this testimony irrelevant, referred the case back to the
Planning Commission,and directed staff that all subsequent costs are to be waived. Commissioner
Long seconded the motion. Mr.Morrison suggested allowing staff the option of scheduling this case
at the north Planning Commission site if it is in the interest of expediting the matter. Mr. Gathman
also recommended considering a pre-advertisement for the earliest Commissioner hearing following
the Planning Commission hearing.
Commissioner Masden moved to refer the request of William and Ann Stonebraker for a Site
Specific Development Plan and Amended Use by Special Review Permit#1416 for a Use Permitted
as a Use by Right,an Accessory Use, or a Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial
Zone District(display fireworks storage and fireworks equipment staging facility,along with an office)
in the A(Agricultural)Zone District,back to the Planning Commission to allow for proper notification
and to obtain a recommendation from the Planning Commission based on testimony from the
neighbors. He further stated the testimony given today should not be considered at future hearings
regarding this matter, staff should expedite the process in bringing this back to the Board,and the
process is to take place at no cost to the applicant. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Long. In response to Mr. Morrison and Mr. Gathman, the Board indicated this case may be
2005-0730
PL1653
HEARING CERTIFICATION -WILLIAM AND ANN STONEBRAKER (AMUSR#1416)
PAGE 5
expedited by using the north Planning Commission site, if necessary, and allowing a
pre-advertisement for the earliest Commissioners' hearing following the Planning Commission
hearing. There being no further discussion, the motion carried unanimously and the hearing was
completed at 12:00 p.m.
This Certification was approved on the 14th day of March 2005.
APPROVED:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
r( e ii,'_�D WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
`(( -\1 William H. Jerke, Chair
ill ��+' y Clerk to the Board
EXCUSED DATE OF APPROVAL
/J BY: e4L.Latt7.cc../M.{.4."_._.,
J. G ile, Pro-Tem
1��GGI��
Deputy Clerk to the Board
n
TAPE #2005-15 V "p N/
Robert D. Masden
DOCKET#2005-15 EXCUSED
Glenn Vaad
2005-0730
PL1653
Hello