HomeMy WebLinkAbout20043078.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County
Conference Room,4209 CR 24%a, Longmont,Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Michael
Miller, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller —�-j
Bryant Gimlin
John Folsom
James Rohn Absent
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tonya Strobel
Chad Auer F-7
,y
Doug Ochsner
James Welch 'D
Also Present: Char Davis, Don Carroll, Chris Gathman
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on September 7,
2004, was approved as read.
The following cases will be continued:
CASE NUMBER: CZ-1067
APPLICANT: Villano Brothers Properties, Inc.
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt W2W2NW4 of Section 17, T1 N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A (Agriculture)to 1-2 (Industrial).
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 27, south of and adjacent to CR 10.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting continuance to January 18,2005.
CASE NUMBER: CZ-1068
APPLICANT: V &V Properties, Inc
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt W2SW4 of Section 17, TIN, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agriculture) to 1-2 (Industrial).
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 27; north of and adjacent to CR 8.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting continuance to January 18,2005.
The following Case will be heard:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1484
APPLICANT: James Stepanek
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-1285; Pt S2SW4 of Section 31, T4N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review for a Use by Right in
the Industrial Zone Districts (sandblasting business) in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 1; Approximately 1 mile south of CR 40.
t- oF. O _ /a/o • 2004-3078
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1484, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Staff is recommending the
following amendments:
Item 2D (Page 4): The word "and manure"shall be removed from the first sentence.
Item 2F (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."
Delete Development Standard #9 and replace with "The applicant shall operate in
accordance with the approved"waste handling plan."
Doug Ochsner asked about if the building that was proposed to contain the sandblasting had an open door
while the comments require the sandblasting to be enclosed. Mr. Gathman indicated it does not look like
there is a door but the operation must be enclosed. There are two separate issues, one is to keep the sand
within the building while the second issues is the noise being at a residential level.
Kristen Heines, attorney for applicant, provided clarification on the project. The majority of the sandblasting
will be done offsite.The sandblasting done on site will be samples for bidding work. This typically occurs two
to three times a month. This operation is not a full service operation on the property, the majority is done
offsite as mentioned. The needed materials will be inside the smaller of the two out buildings. The
sandblasting will occur inside the small the barn. The proposal is to shield the doors and windows from the
escaping sand. The compressor which runs on diesel will be outside the building. The air compressor is a
state of the are compressor with noise and emission standards. The sand will be collected and taken offsite.
The equipment will be stored in the larger building when not in use. There are some conditions that the
applicant does not agree with. It would be unlikely he could comply with the 30 day requirement to have the
mylar submitted when there are other required reports that must be done. 30 days does not allow enough
time to obtain the reports and do the mylar after the reports have been approved. The applicant would like
to have approval of all reports within the 30 day requirement. The applicant would like to have the County
respond within 15 days of the submitted reports or they becomes approved. This is specifically related to the
waste and dust control plans. The applicant would also like to amend Development Standard 7 to reflect a
light industrial noise level due to the area in general. There is some concern over Development Standard 16,
the applicant believes that as long as the dust and noise are contained at a legal level there is no reason for
the compressor to be inside. The applicant would like to keep the compressor outside as long as the noise
levels comply. The final concern is Development Standard 23 and the full code upgrade to the building. The
applicant would like to do minimal repairs,if needed. The applicant does not want to have to bring the building
into complete compliance with the current standards.
Michael Miller asked about the size of the compressor? Horsepower and brand? Ms. Heines provided a
picture. The horsepower is not available but the compressor is a 2000. Mr. Gimlin understood that the staff
comments reflected the business would be in the larger and newer of the buildings,while today it seems it will
be in the smaller building and is this a change? Ms. Heines indicated it was a mis-communication. There are
three buildings and this is the middle size building. Mr. Gimlin asked if there was a door? Ms. Heines stated
it depends on the County's decision for the dust management of the sand, if a door is not necessary there
would be a shield. Mr. Gimlin asked if there is an air filtration device that keeps emissions from the outside
air? Ms. Heines indicated the dust abatement plan should address those issues. Mr.Gimlin asked what the
applicant sandblasts. Ms. Heines stated there are a variety of things depending on the bid, but the majority
is stone, marble and wood but they are all small pieces. There is no blasting of vehicles or metal.
Michael Miller asked how long to prepare a sample. Ms. Heines indicated it takes an average of one hour.
James Stepanek, applicant, indicated this depends on volume of work per month which may be four times
a month at the most.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Nancy Frase,representative for four neighbors,presented the logistics behind their wanting denial for the case
based on compatibility. The area is agricultural but there are residences close to this site. The industrial use
will impact property values. The staff comments contain several requirements that the neighbors encourage.
The neighbors would like the dust abatement plan sent to Larimer and Boulder County also. The neighbors
would like to add verbiage around noxious weeds. The neighbors would also like to see language inserted
so no dust shall leave the property. The sand used makes silica dust which is cancerous and it is not allowed
to leave the property which has occurred. The compressor needs to be inside the barn with the noise levels
controlled. There is a rental home on site but the neighbors would like to see other facilities on site. If this
is a business operation it needs to be reflected in the health management. The neighbors want the applicant
to use the newer barn for sandblasting and storage. The reason for the newer barn is there will be materials
used and that material,sand, needs to be inside. The medium size building does not have a sound structure
for storage or dust abatement. The neighbors would like to imit the hours of operation for Monday-Friday.
The neighbors have some concern that the renter has helped with the business. They would like for this not
to happen,there should be no other employees. The neighbors would like to see frequent inspections. There
has been some history of misrepresentation.
Michael Miller stated that Weld County has the only jurisdiction on the property and can not force Larimer or
Boulder County to become involved. Ms. Frase stated she has spoke with both Larimer and Boulder County
and they indicated the only way they could get involved was to have the plans sent to them. Mr. Miller stated
there is a program in Weld County that deals with weed control and has there been any effort to contact the
weed control office? Mr. Miller suggests the neighbors contact Ron Broda.
John Folsom asked for clarification with regards to amendments. Ms. Frase indicated the neighbors were in
support of the amendments being asked for by staff.
Robert Whipkey, neighbor to south, asked for denial. There were several things in the application that were
not true. There are Industrial sites available for this type of operation. This business has no place in a
residential area. The silica sand has a dangerous after affect and there is no way to keep this on site unless
in a business. A letter from realtor that indicates a negative impact on property values.The neighbors do not
want to see this set as a president for the area. The neighbors do not want this imposed on them. Mr.
Whipkey added the applicant has sandblasted metal on site. There has been old steam radiators that may
have had lead based paint. Mr. Gimlin commented the letter indicates a change of zone and this is not a
change of zone just an allowable use. Mr. Whipkey indicated the letter was the impact on property value.
Ellen Gayle, neighbor to the north, provided pictures of the historical sandblasting, the machinery used and
the dust emitted. There has never been any work done in a building. Health has been a concern for the
neighbors. Ms. Gayle has an organic garden and she does not want dust in garden. It has been indicated
it takes approximately an hour for the samples but in reality there has been times it was several hours over
a time period. Mr. Ochsner asked about the complaint in February and since then how has the operation
been. Ms. Gayle stated the operation has stopped as of then. Mr. Morrison asked about the dates of the
photos submitted. Ms.Gayle stated she brought the photos for the purpose of showing how the business has
been historically ran. Ms. Gayle would guess the photos are from approximately 9 years ago.
Judy Newton, neighbor to the north, added there have been complaints filed several times. This operation
has been going on for years. Within the last year there has been a truck sandblasted and torn down. The
applicant has done old bathtubs and does do work on painted objects.
Sherry Schneider, agree with the neighbors. If the applicant is only going to need 4-5 hours a month there
might be a more suitable place for this.
Don Throm,renter of the home,provided information on the project. The equipment is well maintained,noise
limits are kept on the compressor. The applicant does work in every County off site,the business is portable
sandblasting done at site. The samples that are requested to do small. This was not a concern until an
outside agency was brought into the neighborhood. This is more of a neighborhood brawl. Mr. Throm has
helped the applicant as a friend.
Jadine Whipkey, neighbor to the west, indicated concerns. A home business does not interfere with quality
and safety of the neighbors. This is better suited for an industrial park. Mr. Stepanek is away from the area
and does not live there.
The Chair closed public portion.
Kristen heines, in agreement with the Development Standard other than what was done. Mr. Stepanek does
not operate the business on the property the intent is to do sample work. Mr. Stepanek has owned the
property since 1990 and the other homes were not in the area at the time. People come to the County
expecting a quiet solitude and this is a farming community with certain noise levels. The application process
and conditions address the concerns from the residents.
Michael Miller asked where the business is conducted and storage of the equipment. Ms. Heines indicated
that all operation has ceased. Mr. Stepanek is a contractor and the business is done on site where the jobs
are. The equipment is stored in the large building onsite.
Bryant Gimlin asked what materials are sandblasted? Mr.Stepanek indicated he blasts on site and those can
be new block buildings, shopping malls and wood interiors. Mr. Gimlin asked about the samples. Mr.
Stepanek indicated that if the bid is for a wood job they will give him a piece of wood and he will show them
what he can do. The idea is to do new wood etching to make it look old. Mr. Gimlin asked how big these
samples are. Mr. Stepanek indicated they have to be able to fit into a truck or trunk. The business has
evolved to larger scale in fields.
Doug Ochsner asked how much sand was stored on the property? Mr. Stepanek indicated a couple of tons
in 100 lb bags.
Tonya Strobel asked why sand was outside? Mr. Stepanek stated he had done some blasting outside but he
is now intending on coming into compliance to mitigate the concerns of the neighbors.
Michael Miller asked how the applicant how much renovation was he willing to do? The conditions and
standards require a tight building which would require extensive renovation. Mr.Stepanek stated the building
inspector did not see major problems just to close a few openings and there are ways those will be screened.
The intent is to restrict movement.
John Folsom asked if there was any problem with having the compressor inside the building and exhaust to
the outside. Mr. Stepanek stated there is no reason to have it inside. The compressor is modernized to have
adequate noise levels in compliance with Federal Standards. The compressor does not have an exhaust
system that is made for the inside of a building.
Char Davis,Health Department,added when she reviewed this she was under the impression it was the larger
of the buildings. The applicant will be required by the State for air quality emission, which will require the
building sealed to eliminate emissions. Ms. Davis's biggest concern is the bathroom, code allows for
applicant to use the home if the larger building is used. If the smaller building is used they will need a septic
system because the smaller building is farther than 200 feet from home. The larger building would be suitable
with no bathroom.
John Folsom indicated that no dust allowed to leave the property,will the dust abatement plan required by the
County address that situation. Ms. Davis stated the plan will address all of those concerns.
Michael Miller indicated the compressor will not meet the noise level for residential but may meet the industrial
level. Ms. Davis stated it was to her understanding all equipment would be inside. She would prefer to stay
at the residential level due to the close proximity of the neighbors.
Doug Ochsner stated that if this will be in operation for three to four hours a month, it could be left outside.
The question is rather it will truly be just that few hours a month.
Bryant Gimlin indicated it would be costly to seal the building for the exhaust. The mitigating factor would be
to limit the hours of operation. Mr.Miller stated the compressor could not be ran inside due to the compressor
itself utilizing the air. A compressor is not as loud and it would not exceed the noise from a farm tractor. Mr.
Miller questioned the number of hours a month this will be used.
Doug Ochsner moved to allow the compressor outside if it is within the adequate noise levels. Mr. Miller
indicated that before this can be addressed the applicant is asking that the residential noise level be increased
to light industrial. If the compressor is left outside it will need to meet the residential noise standard if left as
written. Mr.Gimlin stated if this is in an agricultural area why should the Planning Commission impose a noise
level that would be less than allowed by agricultural standards. Mr.Gimlin added there was more complaints
related to the dust. Ms. Davis added the next level up from residential is commercial which is 60 decibels
between the hours of 7:00am and 7:00pm.
John Folsom feels the noise level should be restricted by what the zoning is on the property along with
residential uses. Mr. Miller stated there is no noise level for agricultural. Ms. Davis added she has information
indicating a compressor as 81 decibels at the source. The noise level would be measured at twenty five feet
from the property line.
Michael Miller would not be in support of going to light industrial but maybe to commercial noise level of 60
decibels. A residential noise level would be applicable to homes side by side of each other.
Chad Auer added that if the commercial level was agreed upon then added the hours of operation be limited
to Monday- Friday from 8:00am - 5:00pm. This would help mitigate the concerns. Mr. Miller indicated that
all the Development Standard discussed for amendment work together.
Doug Ochsner moved to amend Development Standard 7 to adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels
allowed in the Commercial Zone District,Development Standard 18 amend the hours of operation to Monday-
Friday from 8-5, Development Standard 16 amend to include"with the exception of the compressor." Chad
Auer seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, no;James Welch,yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;Tonya Strobel,yes; Chad Auer,yes;
Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
Michael Miller indicated there was a request on Development Standard 23 to allow for leniency in the building
requirements. The Planning Commission agreed to leave this as written.
Bryant Gimlin moved to approve staff amendments. Tonya Strobel seconded. Motion carried
Char Davis suggested the following language be placed in 21 Prior to recording the plat: If the building being
utilized for business operations is located farther than 200 feet from the existing residence an individual
sewage disposal system is required. The system shall be installed according to Weld County Individual
Sewage Disposal Regulations and the Septic System is required to be signed by a Colorado Registered
Professional Engineer according to Weld County Regulations.
Mr.Gathman stated the application technically suggested the applicant was going to utilize the larger building.
Bryant Gimlin moved to accept the previous language provided by Ms. Davis. Doug Ochsner seconded.
Motion carried.
Michael Miller indicated the applicant has requested the 30 day limit from the final permit be amended due
to time constraints. Mr. Gathman indicated the 30 days would be difficult, staff would agree to amend to 60
days. Planning Commission agrees to leave the other time frames alone regarding the Waste Handling Plan
and Dust Abatement Plan.
Doug Ochsner moved to amend the time frame to file the plat to 60 days. John Folsom seconded. Motion
carried.
John Folsom addressed theneighbors request for the renter not to help. Mr. Folsom added that if the renter
is helping without getting paid he is not an employee.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case USR-1484,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Chad Auer seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;James Welch,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;Tonya Strobel,yes;Chad Auer,yes;
Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Doug Ochsner commented he strongly support the applicants right to have a USR. Mr.Ochsner compliments
the neighbors for bringing all the information forward. The Development Standard have addressed all of the
concerns. If those concerns arise a complaint can be filed and taken care of.
Meeting adjourned at 3:00pm
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello