The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20043097.tiff PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN POSTING CERTIFICATE THE LAST DAY TO POST THE SIGN IS: 5-¢cfevA\D,t- 1\ ZOO I . THE SIGN SHALL BE POSTED ADJACENT TO AND VISIBLE FROM A PUBLICLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. IN THE. EVENT THE PROPERTY BEING CONSIDERED FOR A SPECIAL REVIEW IS NOT ADJACENT TO A PUBLICLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY,THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES SHALL POST ONE SIGN IN THE MOST PROMINENT PLACE ON THE PROPERTY AND POST A SECOND SIGN AT THE POINT AT WHICH THE DRIVEWAY (ACCESS DRIVE) INTERSECTS A PUBLICLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE SIGN WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY AT LEAST 10 DAYS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING FOR USR- I I18I . THE SIGN WAS POSTED BY: (LS%S G oA_1—wict t,_ NAME OF PERSON POSTING SIGN a:, Alt SIGNATURE FOR PERSON POSTING SIGN STATE OF COLORADO) )ss. COUNTY OF WELD ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO ME THIS t.21 Vim Lt.4_ ,fill 02.OO�J c�A 1-• • , Commission F cO MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 10/14/2007 THIS FORM SHALL BE PLACED IN THE APPROPRIATE FILE FOR THE ABOVE CASE. EXHIBIT Pi 2004-3097 i x / I r' I C TI A PUBLIC NEARING.CONCERN.IHG TNIS PROPERTY Wlll DE HELD AT: �� 1-7:,1',:-.,-.2041t.',1:,1; 7:,1',„K 144 :,1 . Xs }' 4'.7.1:;,,-,:;,::::a %:.[,,,- ..-�"'tr t " p ryrypp , �4 rM'k °k"f.A ,. YL b i . k t, y P S ..� �� 4r4TA" , e �,TM,.}.. R X � f pYM f tr . :ipiEON}MORE INFORMATION.CALL WELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT" OF PLANNING SERVICESA , (910)353-6100 ext.13540 M _ ' } fir_ . Xt DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTION Weld County Administrative Offices 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, CO 80631 WEBSITE: www.co.weld.co.us Phone (970) 353-6100, Ext. 3540 Fax(970) 304-6498 COLORADO July 21, 2004 James Stepanek USR-1484 A Site Specific Development Plan and special Review permit for a use by right in the Industrial Zone Districts (sandblasting business) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. 1. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the constriction of any new building and change of use of the existing building. 2. A plan review is required for each building for which a building permit is required. Plans shall include a floor plan. Plans shall bear the wet stamp of a Colorado registered architect or engineer. Two complete sets of plans are required when applying for each permit. Provide a structural report prepared by a Colorado registered engineer on the existing building that is to be used for sandblasting. o. 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. 4. The change of use will probably be classified as a mixed use F (Sandblasting) and S-1 (storage)occupancy. Contact Berthoud Fire Protection District for their requirements for storage of diesel fuel. 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 Zoning Ordinance. 5. 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. Please contact me for any further information regarding this project. Sincerely, Roger Vigil .-Building Official EX111Bi1T ciE Service,Teamwork,Integrity,Quality a MEMORANDUM TO: WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION; CHRIS GATHMAN 'V FROM: CHARLOTTE DAVIS,ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CD O USE APPL C TION4 SUMMARYT HEE,�ANGES TO LAND • COLORADO DATE: 09/20/2004 CC: Please note the following request for changes to conditions and standards: Condition Condition 2D. Please remove "and manure" from the first sentence The sentence should read: "The applicant shall submit a waste handling plan,for approval Development Standards Please remove Development Standard #9. In it's place,please add the following: The applicant shall operate in accordance with the approved"waste handling plan". Thank you, Char 4. EX IBIT '22 4rz'10 $ s 4; +t nr₹ *� c a '24?S' 4.1 3' 1,n�B�nd� i ne , � G ,, tP%1r_6 ry - kZ'+P41;43','v .z a ,i z'-. . i r 1 1 -- 5 y=� y 4._,, 't� pv t j i4, f �� {1 �y Y -;,,,,a. to JhJr,z k T I k � rf tp Ot t 'I t tF ,' 2. . "� , 1— ' r �� {y f c. ' S� . tr _' 'As psi tf l.4'I 5 - r or nois emi pion control informs#ion 4 ,4 j'rE , lta �r4 ' �, conforms to U.S. E.P.A. regulations for noise le t©'portable air compressors. ,. g "# $_«#° t± thereofth reof b,any person are P + by the Noise Control PAct aer�a9 }� n ..."f.that for (B) The use oft r Clement or 1;441, or element Ot i' hie 'v removed '�M^," �.zmz, �, � t��z,• 4 „� _ • I -r-- t'_ ( rtl �y�M� ,. hV' I ''' iii- -- --- --- :±e.c: } t • res. .s., .`-s .r'; EXHIBIT j1, J « Nancy Frase Frase Consulting Group, Inc. P.O. Box 200055 Evans, CO 80620 (970) 506-4174 / (303) 956-0578 FraseConsulting@aol.com Consultant hired to represent neighbors in this hearing: Dean & Nadine Whipkey Judy Newton & Ellen Gale 15665 E. County Line Rd 18016 Weld County Road 1 Berthoud, CO 80513 Berthoud, CO 80513 Larry & Gwen Hirschfeld Jerry & Sherri Schneider 12450 N. County Line Road 1432 N. US Hwy 287 Berthoud, CO 80513 Berthoud, CO 80513 Elsie Winn 2309 S. County Line Rd 1 Berthoud, CO 80513 Request #1 : Recommend denial based upon incompatibility: - Mr. Whipkey to provide evidence of likely decline in property value ri EXHIBIT I toe Request #2: Include planning staff recommendations, at a minimum: - 2B: Air Pollution Emission Notice (A.P.E.N) and Emissions Permit application - 2C: Dust abatement plan to Weld County - Additionally to Larimer County and Boulder County - DS5: Handling of waste materials - Maintain noxious weeds - DS6: Fugitive dust and particulate emissions - Not allow any dust to leave property - DS7: Noise level control per C.R.S. 25-12-103 - DS8: Handwashing & toilet facilities - Beyond those in rental house - DS14: Open burning - DS15: Hazardous chemicals - DS16: Operation within an enclosed building at all times - Require use of newer barn - DS17: Storage within an enclosed building - Applies to sand and trash - Require use of newer barn - DS18: Hours of operation - Limited to Monday-Friday - DS19: Semi-truck access limited to five times per year - DS20: No additional employees - Renter cannot assist with sandblasting - DS28: Weld County personnel access - Periodic and frequent unannounced inspections tvi Sounds like you were on site. If so, did you see employees working there? Do you know if bathrooms where available in the shop? It is not a hobby - the application states hours of operation as 8 to 5. Do you have the complaints? I'd like to have a copy for my file. Sounds like he has unhappy neighbors he will have a hard time getting the USR approved not good to have angry neighbors they will vent all the 'trations at the hearings. Any thing else that I may need to know? Thanks for your input. Char From: Phillip Brewer Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 4:48 PM To: Charlotte Davis Subject: RE: Sandblasting inside building? I have received two complaints about sand blasting at this address in the past year. The complainants live next door north of his property. They are complaining about silica dust blowing off site onto their property. His building is a ramshackle structure without doors and tightly sealed windows. The building is only wood boards that appear to have been placed in the structure of the building decades ago and the building has not been significantly repaired for its whole life. The concrete floor is grossly fractured and shifted. The open east end of the building is the source of the silica sand/paint/metal that collects outside on the soil that is peppered with naturally established weeds. The sand/blasted material has collected in a plume-like (fan) shape. There is no effort to control the distribution of the sand after blasting. There are no baghouses, cyclones, filters or other efforts to collect airborne dust. I have an idea that his blasting is of"hobby' volume and not that of a full time blasting business. Nonetheless, whether it is a hobby or business, he is not to let the stuff pass off site and contaminate the area. '"ked with him about the issue two weeks ago and said to him that he is not allowed to let the dust blow off his p. ,perty onto the properties of others. I commented that he needed to control the air suspended particulates, and that he may need to consider enclosing the building with tight doors and windows. What is it that you are doing with Mr. Stepanek? From: Charlotte Davis Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 4:31 PM To: Phillip Brewer Subject: RE: Sandblasting inside building? The address is 18012 WCR 1, Berthoud the applicant is James Stepanek. Char From: Phillip Brewer Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 4:21 PM To: Charlotte Davis Subject: RE: Sandblasting inside building? Char: They need to apply and then have the CDPHE-APCD determine if it is APEN and Permit exempt. May I 3slcwho/where this is? Thanks PhilB 07/13/2004 20/04 15: 40 FAX 070 X04 6196 WELD PLANNING JAMES STEPANEK 18012 W.C.R.#1 Berthoud, Co 80513 Telephone 970-532-0570 WELD COUNTY DEPT OF PLANNING 1400 N. 17 TH AVE • GREELEY ,CO 80631 April 20th 1998 Dear Sharyn Frazer Is addressing the noncompliance complaint from March 12th 98. There is no individuals living in a trailer on the property and I dont have a sandblast business here. Please dont hesitate to call if I have not answered all questions . Sincerely James Stepanek VI•9800049 VI #0200517 - STEPANEK: Ms. Salzman presented the case report for the record and pursuant to the case file, this property is in violation of Sections 23-3-20, 23-3-30, 23-3-30.O. 23-3-40, 23-3-40.O, and 23-3-40.R of the Weld County Code. To bring the property into compliance, a Home Occupation, or a Use by Special Review application must be submitted. James Stepanek, property owner, stated that the zoning changed after he bought the property. There was a problem in the past with the Department of Public Health and Environment when work was brought to the site. Mr. Stepanek stated the few items he brings home to work on are now done inside a structure. There are no signs or advertising, and the hours of operations are between 8:00 and 5:00. Responding to Commissioner Geile, Ms. Salzman stated the Home Occupation permit is $50.00 and the Use by Special Review is much more. The reason the Home Occupation is questionable is the fact that some work is done at the site. Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Stepancek stated there is very little work brought home, maybe once a month. Ms. Salzman stated that with either the Home Occupation or the Use by Special Review, they will have an Inspector check the building and Phil Brewer of the Department of Public Health and environment will check for air quality control and if a state permit is needed. Responding to .ommissioner Vaad, Ms. Salzman stated that she has discussed the option of not bringing any work to the site; however, Mr. Stepanek stated financially he could not refuse work. Commissioner Vaad moved to refer VI#0200517 against James Stepanek to the County Attorney for legal action, with the instruction to delay action upon such referral until January 13, 2004, to allow adequate time for the Use by Special Review application to be submitted, or move the business. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Geile, and it carried unanimously. VI#0300090 -EARLY: Ms. Salzman presented the case report for the record and pursuant to the case file, this property is in violation of Sections 23-3-150, 23-3-150.B, and 23-3-150.C of the Weld County Code. To bring the property into compliance, the noncommercial junkyard must be restored, removed or screened from all adjacent properties and public rights-of-ways. Neither the property owner nor a representative was present, and there was no public testimony given. Ms. Salzman stated the certified mail receipt from the first mailing was returned stating Mr. Early may have moved to Wyoming, and the property is in the process of being sold. Commissioner Geile moved to refer VI # 0300090 against Ross Early to the County Attorney for legal action, with the instruction to delay action upon such referral until November 18, 2003, to —allow adequate time for the property to sell. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jerke nd it carried unanimously. VI #0300101 - SALAZAR: Ms. Salzman presented the case report for the record and pursuant to the case file, this property is in violation of Sections 23-3-110,23-3-110.B,23-3-110_C, 23-3-110.D, 23-3-160, and 23-3-160.H of the Weld County Code. To bring the property into compliance the number of animals must be reduced,or a Nonconforming Use application must be completed. Also Charlotte Davis From: Charlotte Davis Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 8:43 AM To: Phillip Brewer Subject: RE: Sandblasting inside building? Phil, Thanks for the info. He will have a condition requiring him to either get the proper permits from the APCD or provide evidence from APCD that it isn't required. He will also have restrictions on waste and noise among many others things. If he gets approval for this use he won't have a choice to not be"inclined" to follow the requirements. We will have the "teeth" to make him comply or his permit will be revoked. Would you like me to cc you my comments to Planning? Again, thanks for your help on this. Char From: Phillip Brewer Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 7:55 AM To: Charlotte Davis Subject: RE: Sandblasting inside building? Char: I doubt that any employees are at the site. There are no bathrooms in the shop, but there is a habitable house on the property that probably has a bathroom. The neighbors who have complained are the ones bordering his property on the north. The neighbor on the east has not complained, but when I talked with him his response was interesting. He responded that he ignores the "—and blasting and did not want to complain about it as he moved to the rural area so he could do things that he .,an't do in town. He does not want to do anything that will restrict the activities of someone else. I have actually visited the 18012 WCR 1 property three times in the past year. Two times no one was there. However, I made an appointment with James and met him there the second time and discussed the issue. I talked with James on the phone a couple of weeks ago after I visited the property and observed what I have included in these messages to you. I should have used the word "hobby" in quote marks. I mean "hobby" to mean "volume" and not avocation. Supposedly James only does small amounts of sand blasting at the site—according to him. However, the volume of sand that has spread over the east area of the building and outside suggests something other than "hobby" volumes and "sample" (James' term) blasting. My impression is that he has no interest nor inclination to do anything to control the silica dust emanating from his sandblasting operations that are conducted in support of his "professional" business. I would highly suggest that James be given a strict requirement for applying for an APEN with the CDPHE-APCD. He can contact the Small Business Assistance Program, 303-692-3175. J. Phillip From: Charlotte Davis Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 5:09 PM Phillip Brewer ,abject: RE: Sandblasting inside building? It is a Use by Special Review(USR) sent over from planning. More than likely it was investigated by the Zoning Compliance officer(Bethany Salzman) nvi zllnnn 4* il MEMORANDUM Wi`lie TO: Planning Commissioners COLORADO DATE: September 21, 2004 FROM: Chris Gathman - Planner II L,Z. SUBJECT: USR-1484 Revisions Planning Staff requests the following revisions to the staff recommendation: 1) Item 2.D (page 4): The word "and manure" shall be removed from the 151 sentence. 2) Item 2.F (page 4): Add the following as the 5th sentence: "The applicant shall provide a structural report prepared by a Colorado registered engineer on the existing building that is to be used for sandblasting." l--, (4 EXHIBIT / 6kPrudential Prudential Warnock Realty Co. 3780 E. 15th Street /', Loveland,CO 80538-8768 Bus 970 667-2510 Fax 970 667-2604 August 13, 2004 Mr. Robert D. Whipkey 15665 N.E. County Line Rd. Berthoud, CO 80513 Dear Mr. Whipkey, I have reviewed the information that you gave me concerning your neighbor Mr. Stepanek wanting to rezone his property from agricultural to industrial to allow for a commercial sandblasting operation. It is my opinion this will have a negative impact to your property, along with negative impacts to your neighbors properties. In my opinion it would be much easier on everyone, including Mr. Stepane 1.10y, if Mr. Stepanek wagaallilidattle-imPAILthisAvill-h -.h. rs and stmplxpurchase pr track hja.praperty for one that is currently zoned industrial. As everyone already knows, a commercial sandblasting operation will create more traffic, dust and noise. The larger operation would probably require storage for more equipment that is either waiting to be sandblasted or has been sandblasted and is waiting to be delivered and/or picked up. Al the r„itams will have a negative-impaet-on the peaceful ejaea4.of4sheaurrounding properties along with n._JjLing d „zrz�r-s to each of the surrounding properties. To quantify the amount of economic loss would take an expensive and exhaustive study using actual properties that in the past have been negatively impacted by other similar zoning changes. However, almost everyone will agree that if a buyer came along who wanted a nice property with an acreage for a home-site, and given a choice with everything else being equal including price, a U4ztla'1l atit th gropelty wi operation. To get a potential buyer to consider the negatively impacted property one would surely have to lower the price to entice a buyer to choose the impacted property over one that didn't have these negative impacts. If any of the surrounding properties were to be further subdivided at a later date the sandblasting/industrial zoning 'unt a seller/fin the A ' i ac ..It � wcTecT�arcels. This would r, �» eceve�te values. It would , l;uipaoE also more than likely force any sub-divider to provide buffer zones, reducing the amo = EXHIBIT I ittrAn independently owned and operated member of The Prudential Real Estate Affiliates.Inc. of useable land to offer to buyers, and more than likely require the sub-divider to do sound and visual mitigation through expensive fencing, screening, and landscaping. It will further impact future values sset byallowing industrial zoning in the area. It will be much easier for future planning departments and planning commissions to approve expansion of the industrial area. The mentality is that "if my neighbor has industrial zoning then if I want it I should be able to get it also". When new applications come in for zoning changes in this area it will be much easier for planners to cave in to the pressure because of the previous precedent. One other issue that should be brought up is that Weld County h AM"program that typically deals with County property that is located outside of, but within three (3) miles of a municipality's boundaries. In most of these agreements the County will refer all proposals for development and land use changes within the three- mile area to the municipality for its review and recommendation. lig(Saiiittitettel, and it would seem that Weld County should refer this land use decision to Berthoud, allowing Berthoud to give input on changing the zoning from agricultural to industrial. If I can be of further service please feel free to call me. Respectfully submitted, Don Mackey Certified Real Estate Specialist r ,, _ I ' ., 4 •,z il • EXHIBIT U I4 i t r 1 t rr. Nina g z EXHIBIT Chris Gathman cn From: Charlotte Davis Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 8:33 AM � To: Chris Gathman Subject: FW: Stepanek Sandblasting Spehanek mdblasting.doc(23 Chris, Here is the Larimer Co. correspondence Char Original Message From: Pam Smith Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 9:42 AM To: Charlotte Davis Subject: FW: Stepanek Sandblasting Original Message From: Doug Ryan (mailto:dryan®larimer.org] Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 9:34 AM To: Pam Smith; Trevor Jiricek Cc: Doug Bjorlo; Jerry Blehm Subject: Stepanek Sandblasting Pam and Trevor, Our Larimer Co. Commissioners office received a message from consultant Nancy Frase about the Stepanek sandblasting operation in Weld County. The attached word document contains her message. We need to get back to her, and thought it would be helpful to touch base with you first. It sounds like this is an ongoing land use/air quality issue that your office has been involved with. Since the complaint to our office includes some Larimer Co residents, I did ask around to see if anyone had information. We don't, but Jerry Blehm provided this advice to me based on his experience with sandblasting complaints: Doug, I 'm not aware of this specific operation but I do have some comments. We/Larimer County H & E has had to deal with 3-4 sand blasting operations over the years and they have each and everyone been a huge issue regarding neighborhood complaints. We have spent hundreds of hours answering complaints and trying to work with operators. I would suggest that anything short of a completely enclosed operation, including sand, pots, compressors, everything and then a air pollution control device on the building that would guarantee no off property transport, would be unacceptable to the neighbors. Once the silicosis issue is raised it will not go away with anything less than 0 visible emissions. They will say they can control the dust with water but they will not use it when they sand blast iron and most steel because it causes it to rust very fast. They will say they will use certain kinds of safe (artificial) sand, the neighbors will not believe it. The emissions will not only be sand particles but particles of the object being cleaned. ' This can be paint, lead, hydrocarbons, aluminum, asbestos, etc. Actually the particulate emissions are the easy part. The unique, high pitched noise that sand blasting can produce is difficult to mitigate. Just putting it inside a building may not reduce the levels to acceptable standards. 1 I would suggest an enclosed operation with appropriate dust and noise control. If the operation is to be approved I would also suggest a "probationary" period so compliance can "-- be demonstrated in the field and not just on paper. Jerry ANy advise or background info would be appreciated. This issue is probably well in hand, and we want to make sure any involvement on our part is helpful. Doug Ryan Larimer Co Department of Health and Environment (970) 498-6777 ryandl@co.larimer.co.us r 2 Hello