HomeMy WebLinkAbout20040067.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, December 16, 2003
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning C ommission was held in the Southwest Weld County
Conference Room,4209 CR 24%, Longmont,Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Michael
Miller, at 1:30p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray
James Rohn _ ,
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tim Tracy Absent
Doug Ochsner
Also Present: Don Carroll, Char Davis, Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman, Jacqueline Hatch
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on December 2,
2003, was approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1438
APPLICANT: Floyd Winslow for HCP Ventures, LLLP
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NW4 NW4 of Section 28, T2N, R64W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for a business
permitted as a use by right or accessory use in the Industrial Zone District
(truck driving and heavy equipment school) in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 18 and approximately 1/4 mile east of CR 53.
Jacqueline Hatch, Planner, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1438, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
denial of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
James Rohn asked Ms. Hatch about the hours of operation in the application being different from the
development standards and holidays are not mentioned. Ms. Hatch stated staff put specific hours in the
standards to help with the neighbor concerns.
Charles Tweedy, applicant, provided information with regards to the project. The school has been licensed
for 10 years. In that time there have been no accidents at the school. There are other schools in the area,
Sage,National, Unites States Truck Driving School. The training routes are established to exit from the area,
they travel west on CR 18 for 1/8 of a mile then south on CR 53 for a 1/4 of a mile then Hwy 6 to 176. There
are two road trucks that leave twice a day and arrive twice a day. There are no operation on Sunday or on
the six major holidays. There is a need for make up days for the students,this would be what the Saturdays
are for. Saturdays account for those students that cannot go full time to school and must work throughout the
week. The closest house is 1000 feet away. The intent is to utilize seven acres in the center of the parcel
for the facility. There has been some re-crushed asphalt placed on the facility and there will be more. The
dust will decrease once this process is completed. There are several heavy trucks in the area. CR 18 is a
short cut from the Kersey road. Weld County does not have the area to train the truckers so they go to Tower
Road for shifting,then to 170 and Smith Road into an industrial area to work on corners and turns. There are
then two days in Commerce City for more involved traffic and finally two days in the mountain traffic. The
county does not offer the areas to adequately qualify drivers. This school is not the only cause of the dust
issue on the road. There is a dust issue on site with the area in back. The applicant is willing to adhere to
all the conditions and will assist in the dust control of the roads.The Towns of Hudson and Keenesburg have
no objections.The applicant has talked with people in the area. The students spend money in the area. This
school is for those people that do not have a career or a higher educations and gives them the opportunity
to better themselves. The school trains 6 people in week,this enables control of the driving and all sit'intinnc
l eariaafi j/ I _ f_Qpoy 2004-0067
The training is guaranteed in writing. The issue with this being related to agriculture is evident. During harvest
season all the drivers are recruited from the school. The drivers are basically employed by the time schooling
is finished. These trucks are in the county and related to agriculture because they assist the farmer in carrying
the product to market. Instructors take the students to an area for training for first two days. The students
learn to shift on a vacant road not the county roadways. The students do drive back into the site on the third
day. The average training session will include shifting the truck 400 times. The instructors have 20 years
worth of experience individually. The students must qualify by having a good driving record,pass background
check and be able to verify what they have done for the past three years. There is more involved than most
people think. The students are pre-hired before they graduate. The jobs are over the road. In the center of
the property,where the training will occur, has dust in the summer that is bad but re-crushed asphalt will be
placed on site. This will mitigate some of the concerns from the neighbors. The equipment cannot be heard
by the neighbors. The applicant has intention on farming some of the ground. The applicant is not sure why
there is a need to rezone the property. The reason for rezone is because the use needs to be compatible
with agriculture. If this is the case how does the fireworks to the east work? It was staffs recommendation
to convert the well from domestic to commercial. They will be building a steel building with for classrooms
with a restroom and washbasin.The applicant has no desire to become any larger than the six students. The
desire is to put people to work. In order to become CDL compliant there is additional training required for the
instructors. Those instructors have to re-take classes every two years to re-qualify. The equipment must go
through safety issues. There is a backing pad on site that will run 8:00am -5:00pm. Safety is an issue from
the neighbors and he is willing to provide his safety record. The applicant does not feel as though he is
making a large impact on the area when he only runs two trucks from the site into the area.
James Rohn asked about training heavy equipment. Mr. Tweedy stated they train on three pieces of
equipment,front end loader, excavator and backhoe. There is no large equipment. The students could not
afford this and there is no guarantee of a job at the end of training. The intense training for this comes as on
the job training. This program runs $2995 for the program. The cost of the training at other schools is
approximately$5000. The is no maintenance for the trucks done on the property. The existing fuel tank can
be removed also. The equipment is serviced by Mobile One Truck Repair. The property will stay clean. Mr.
Rohn indicated his concern with heavy equipment and the dust associated with this moving of dirt. Mr.
Tweedy stated that when the heavy equipment is being utilized the students can never dig farther than three
feet down. The students are taught to maneuver with old tires then dig flat straight ditches. The heavy
equipment area will be a 200x400 foot area. The applicant is willing to purchase water truck to stay on site
so when it is dusty it can be addressed immediately. The individual instructors are exposed to the dust more
than anyone else. The recycled asphalt can be laid in a six week period and the dust problem will be
eliminated.
John Folsom asked about the heavy equipment and how many students are there in a day and how much
equipment. Mr. Tweedy stated there is one skid loader, one backhoe and one excavator. There is a class
once a month with a maximum of six students. There is much more involvement in training for heavy
equipment usage. This type of training involves more class room time also. The design of the school is for
trucks. These trucks are a rolling classroom.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
James Reese, neighbor, indicated the issue is a facility is not suitable. The compatibility is not there. There
have been industrial projects in the area. The trucks that are utilizing the roadway now are not suppose to
be there anyway. The biggest concern is safety. There have been instances in which traffic was backed up
while a truck was trying to make a corner. CR 18 is not wide enough for turn lanes. This facility was not done
right. They moved in and did what they wanted then asked permission. There are no permits for any of the
building that are on the property. The proper steps have not been taken. The facility does run seven days
a week, holidays and weekends. This applicant does not own the property he leases. The property will be
zoned industrial when these facility closes and it is surrounded by agricultural land.
Bill Stonebraker, neighbor to the east, stated that there is nothing wrong with the truck driving school but the
location is bad. Hwy 76 was covered in dust due to this project. This applicant will pay a road impact fee.
There could be an issue of liability on 176. The applicant will need to acquire extensive insurance. The
applicant needs to have building permits for everything out there. This should have been done first.
Christine Curl, neighbor, indicated there is noise associated with the site. Ms. Curl operates a business out
of their home and they can hear the noise from the trucks. The topography leads the noise to the north away
from the property. There is also noise heard from 176 and the railroad tracks. There is the dust issue
depending on the wind from south or north. The dust from the site is bad. Ms. Curl has had a very bad year
with ailments and she is attributing this to the site. The largest issue is with the diesel fumes from the trucks.
This is a rural residential area that is not compatible with a commercial type business. The adjoining
neighbors were not contacted.
Richard Robertson, neighbor a few miles away, indicated concern with the truck route and concerns with the
trucks. Mr. Robertson does not want to see this become an industrial site. If this is zoned industrial then can
the next person request the same thing? Industrial is not compatible with the area.
Bryant Gimlin clarified that this proposal will not change the zone on the property. This is a special use permit.
The property will still be zoned agricultural whether or not approved.
Randy Curl, neighbor, indicated his concern with area in back of property where the trucks are driven daily.
There is training done on the property so there is noise all day long. This does not belong in the area.
Voni Orman, Colorado Department of Higher Education for the Division of Private Schools, would like to
validate that this operation is run with high integrity. The department relies on Mr. Tweedy's expertise in the
field as a driving representative. This provides training for students that fills a need. Safety is a major concern
along with the liability issues that are connected to the industry. Safety focus is major concern for the school
and industry. The applicant does not have any intention on increasing the size of the facility. The size is
limited to provide quality training for the students.
Terry Douglas, operates heavy equipment portion of training for Mr. Tweedy. Some of the concern
surrounding obtaining the adequate permits was Mr. Douglas's fault. He was under the impression that the
previous operation was similar therefor he did no think he needed to obtain anything further. The thought was
that all that needed to be done was an application to the State. A letter was received from Carla Angeli,
Department of Planning Services, indicating a USR would need to be applied for. At that time things were
being collected for application. The heavy equipment has not been operated for two months until the issue
has been resolved.
Nancy Bickler,student,graduate from school,stated that on the backing hill on the property the trucks are not
allowed to accelerate. The noise from this is very limited because it is idling. The traffic concern comes from
176 and the train. The trucks are on the CR 18 and CR 53 for less than a mile. A majority of the training of
was near Sapp Brothers. The dust in the area has always been an issue in the area. The speed is so slow
that it does not create enough dust. There are several trucks on the road. The school is not a hazard and
this gives some a great opportunity to do something.
Jim Thompson, neighbor, indicated the noise can be heard on the property. The impact of the trucks will be
immense. Dust in the area is another concern.
Richard Ziesemer, indicated that the main issue is the safety, to the public, environment, instructors and the
area. The trucks are on CR 18 and CR 53 for 6/10 of mile. The rest of the route is a paved roadway. Traffic
is not what is represented to be. There are locals that utilize the same roads. Safety is reviewed first.
Students are not allowed to get up to certain speeds on the backing pad. There are simple rules that are to
be followed. In the backing pad area there is to be no throttle, no shifting and no horn. An idling truck cannot
be heard from 100-110 feet on calm day. The wind will cause the noise to travel but that is the same for
everything. The zoning on the property will not change.The general public is safe from the noise and the dust.
Dust is a natural environment especially if there is wind. 90%of the dust can be eliminated with the addition
of the recycled asphalt on the site. Instructors have specific requirements that they must do. Instructors have
several years of experience.
The Chair closed public portion.
Charles Tweedy, added that the dust issue will be settled when the recycled asphalt is placed on the site.
There is a lot of truck traffic on CR 18. This facility will only have two trucks utilizing the roadway.
Doug Ochsner asked Mr.Tweedy about his trucks utilizing a different route. Mr.Tweedy stated they want to
get to a paved road as soon as possible rather than travel on a gravel road. The trucks are turned off when
not in use because of the cost of fuel would be to great.
John Folsom asked how many instructors the facility has. Mr. Tweedy stated there are five instructors. Mr.
Folsom asked if the instructors were hands on. Mr. Tweedy stated they are all hands on. Mr. Folsom asked
he would be agreeable to detaching the heavy equipment from the school. Mr.Tweedy stated it could be done
if need be.
James Rohn asked about a nearby industrial park and why they did not locate there. Mr. Tweedy stated he
looked for one year for property. He could not afford Adams County and liked Weld County. When he was
looking he was not aware of the industrial park or he would have looked there. Mr. Tweedy was under the
understanding that this property contained a similar business and there would be no issues with this type of
facility. Mr.Tweedy stated that there is zoning that would handle this facility but the issue is the financial loss.
James Rohn asked Ms. Hatch why this case was not brought before the Planning Commission sooner. Ms.
Hatch stated the operation was found through a violation first. The applicant then applied for the process.
John Folsom asked Ms. Hatch about code references and which is to be applied. Ms. Hatch indicated that
in an agricultural zone there may be a commercial or industrial use if a Use by Special Review is applied for.
James Rohn asked about the hours of operation. Mr.Tweedy has asked for Monday-Saturday from 8:00am
to 5:00pm. There will be no running on Sundays or the six major holidays. This would allow for them to give
up the night training.
John Folsom asked about the reference to building a training school. Mr. Tweedy would like to have some
class rooms with an adjoining bay for teaching purposes.
Stephen Mokray moved to accept the changes distributed by the Department of Planning Staff. James Rohn
seconded. Motion carried.
James Rohn indicated that the hours of operation should be amended to read "the hours of operation shall
be from 8:00am to 5:00pm Monday - Saturday. Holidays and Sundays to be closed." Stephen Mokray
seconded. Motion carried.
John Folsom indicated his concern on the limitations on students and trucks. Mr. Folsom proposed language
consisting of"Training trucks shall be limited to four trucks trips leaving and re entering the site each day."
Make this a new Development Standard 36 or add to Development Standard 7. Mr. Tweedy indicated that
there are four backing trucks, one stationary truck and two training trucks. Mr. Tweedy indicated that the
water truck would not be for training.
John Folsom indicated that the motion is specifically for leaving and entering the site for training purposes
every day. Mr. Miller added that the two trucks leave and return in the morning as well as evening. Mr.
Tweedy indicated the morning group, consisting of two students and an instructor, are taken out at 8:00am
and return at 11:30am, take a lunch then the afternoon group is taken out. This can be switched so the
students stay out the entire day.
John Folsom changed the motion to cover the four trucks entering and leaving during the day. James Rohn
seconded the motion. Motion carried
Charles Tweedy indicated that he does some additional CDL testing for other people. This is not a constant
thing. Some times trucks are brought to the site for testing. Mr. Miller added that the motion was for training
purposes only.
Charles Tweedy indicated his disagreement with being responsible for the dust control on the roads in the
area because he is not the lone user of the roads.
Doug Ochsner stated that he agrees with Mr. Tweedy. Mr. Carroll stated that the applicant is impacting the
area. There is additional truck traffic as well as the students and employees. Public Works feels as though
it is fair to supply dust control to the adjacent properties on the designated haul route.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Carroll if a road impact fee will be assessed. Mr. Carroll indicated if a structure is
being built the fees apply county wide. The applicant is proposing to build a new structure. Mr. Gimlin stated
it does not seem fair to have the applicant pay the road impact fee and provide the dust control.
Michael Miller asked what was presently on site. Ms. Hatch stated that there were temporary building.
Lee Morrison asked about the traffic counts. Mr. Carroll stated the counts were 60-90 vehicles without his
traffic. Mr. Morrison added that the dust control needs to be proportionate to the traffic. This is in the form
of an improvements agreement. These are done relative to imposing a reasonable action related to the
impact. If there is a requirement for an agreement then staff can work the final amount out in the end based
on the impact.
Bryant Gimlin moved to delete 3G,replace Development Standard 8 with the following language"the applicant
shall enter into a road improvement agreement with Public Works to address dust control and the
proportionate expenses on CR 18 and CR 53." Stephen Mokray seconded. Mr. Carroll added that he was
not asking the applicant for this much. Public Works wanted dust control in front of the residence on CR 18
and CR 53 not the entire stretch. Mr. Gimlin clarified that this motion is for the applicant to enter into an
agreement which would define the distance and share. Mr. Morrison stated that the dust control could be
limited to the residences in the agreement. Mr. Carroll indicated he has already started a draft agreement.
Bryant Gimlin restated the motion as deleting 3G, Development Standard#8 and replace with the following:
"the applicant shall enter into an road improvements agreement with the Department of Public Works to
address dust control and the proportionate expense on CR 18&CR 53." Mr.Carroll stated there are houses
affected on CR 53 and CR 18. Stephen Mokray seconded.
James Rohn asked if there was any plan on paving CR 18 or CR 53 in the future. Mr. Carroll indicated he is
not aware of any at this time.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1438, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of denial. There was no second
Bryant Gimlin stated there is a tremendous amount of dust control measures within these documents and this
will help in the mitigation of the issues.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case USR-1438, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;James Rohn, no; Doug Ochsner,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
Dough Ochsner commented that this should have been brought to the Planning Commission earlier. It would
have made things easier for everyone involved.
Bryant Gimlin commented that this is tied to agricultural purposes because there is a need for licensed drivers.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1449
APPLICANT: Raeben Sellers/Tamijo LLC
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SE4 NE4 Section 17,Ti N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Permit for a Use by Special Review for
a Single Family Dwelling Unit on a Legal Lot and a Home Business in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 17
Jacqueline Hatch, Planner, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1449, 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.
John Folsom asked for definition of non buildable. Ms. Hatch stated that it was 40 acres and in November of
1999 the lot was created without county procedures. Mr. Folsom asked what the need was to make a
buildable lot, is there a hardship. Ms. Hatch stated it was a single family home.
James Rohn asked how they can approve the application if they have a legal non buildable lot. Ms. Hatch
stated they are asking for Use by Special Review to allow them to build.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked where the site will be addressed from. Ms. Hatch stated the applicant went off CR
10 but staff suggests addressing off CR 17.
John Folsom indicated two issues, one is the single family dwelling and the other is the home business. Mr.
Morrison stated if the applicant is not willing to drop one the application must be done as a whole.
James Rohn asked for clarification with regards to the home being a permanent foundation. Mr. Morrison
stated t hat t here a red ifferent kinds of regulations. The c aunty has ones et o f regulations t hat are for
subdivisions but this relates to the creation of lots of less than 35 acres. This is based on state law. The
county limited lots to between 35 and 80 acres but the zone powers were used instead of the subdivision
regulations. There is the allowance of residences of lots between 35 and 80 acres and the mechanism is the
use of the Use by Special Review under the zoning authority. The issue could be if this is revoked.
James Rohn indicated that the this could be a problem if the business could be transferred to another
business. Mr. Morrison stated the USR ties to the land until it is abandoned or revoked. If a new business
came it would have to qualify as a home business and be similar. Mr. Morrison stated that the USR is tied
to the land and it can be sold that way.
Bing Sellers,applicant,provided clarification on the project. The lot was sold under the impression that it was
legal. The county was indicated that this was not an issue when first presented with it by the applicant. Once
the lot was purchased a building permit was applied for and that is when the issue came up. It was then
determined what the process would be. The construction company is comprises of himself and his wife. The
company does small patios, additions and remodels.
John Folsom asked if the applicant went back to the person and realtor whom they purchased the property
from about disclosure information. Mr.Sellers indicated they have contacted an attorney and the county. The
issue is that it is legal to sell 40 acres. It is not legal to build the house there. There is no mechanism to
protect people from purchasing the parcel. Mr. Morrison stated it is not relevant to the decision if there is a
private cause of action.
Doug Ochsner asked if there were any physical limitations. Mr.Sellers stated that tests have been done and
there is nothing to limit the building of house.
James Rohn asked Ms. Hatch about there being no employees but a part time book keeper is listed in the
application. Ms. Hatch stated that the book keeper would cause the applicant to obtain a commercial well.
It was later determined that the bookkeeper will work from home therefor it will stay a domestic well permit.
Mr. Sellers stated that the book keeper will work at home. There is software that will be utilized from her
home.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Marsha Morrison, neighbor, indicated her concerns with the development by Mr. Underhill and of the illegal
lots in the surrounding area. Ms. Morrison has concerns with the different owners not being treated equally
by the county. Another concern is the business and putting limitations on the construction equipment on site.
Mr. Morrison stated that a building permit would not be allowed without further process. Ms. Morrison wanted
to build a home on her lot and was told that it was impossible. The person buying the ground is the one that
is treated unfairly. M r. Morrison stated t hat her five a cre parcel is a violation oft he states ubdivision
regulations.
Jerry Ford, neighbor, problem with Mr. Underhill and his ability to create illegal parcels. There are several
homes in the area. The issue is with applicants following the rules and regulations that the county is suppose
to protect. There are more illegal splits in the area. Mr. Miller added that the Planning Commission is trying
to address the application brought before them. There is nothing the Planning Commission can do about the
creation of illegal lots. Mr. Ford asked"if I split my farm up,don't have the County come after me because we
are all gonna do it now?"
Deserae Stohl,Mike Murray,neighbors, in 2000 made their lot legal. The house was built on their lot because
the County assumed that the surrounding 30 acres belonged to them. This will keep happening. The courts
ruled that the northwest quarter of the section could not be built until 2006,to help recrify Mr. Underhill's splits.
It is not fair to let someone else build on a non buildable lot until the time limit is up. There are problems with
people that have bought these parcels and are not building a dwelling but shelters and sheds. Mr. Miller
stated this application is to make the parcel legal. Mr.Morrison stated that northwest quarter of the sections's
10 acres parcels are tied to a time line for recorded exemptions. Mr. Morrison indicated that every land
conveyance is not checked within the county. Mr. Morrison indicated that this 40 acres was different that the
10 acre splits. These are not tied to the subdivision or recorded exemption process. Mr. Morrison stated the
county tries to assist in correcting the situations at hand. Ms. Stohl asked about the number of employees
that the business has. There have been some working on site. The main concern is that everyone should
be treated the same, if some have to wait then all should wait.
_. ._...._.
Nancy Ficter, indicated her concerns with the equipment on site. There is also a concern with expansion and
splitting the 40 acres in the recorded exemption process. Mr. Morrison stated that nothing is available under
this permit. The USR permit would have to be vacated and then they could apply for a recorded exemption.
Mr.Morrison indicated the vacating or amending of the permit would be a condition of the recorded exemption.
Ms. Ficter asked about the type of business and being related to agriculture. Mr. Miller stated it was allowed
under a USR. Ms.Ficter asked about the equipment on site. Ms.Hatch indicated that there are development
standards that indicate any equipment associated with the business will need to be screened or indoors.
Bill Wycoff,neighbor, indicated concerns with area being agricultural. This is not a good location for industrial
construction type businesses. The equipment would be an issue due to the conditions of CR 17. There are
concern with traffic. The conditions would take care of concerns.
Chair closed public portion.
Bing Sellers provided further clarification on the site. There are a total of three employees in the company
that work offsite. The majority of the equipment on site is for the building of a home. The company was larger
at one time but it was not the type of environment the applicants wanted to be in. There is equipment on site
that will be sold due to downsizing the operation. The equipment on site would be a couple trailers, personal
truck, single axel dump truck and possibly one other truck. The trucks are used for personal uses also.
Michael Miller asked for clarification of a home business. Ms. Hatch stated a home business has a minimum
amount of outdoor storage. There is no problem with limiting the number. Mr. Miller indicated that a fine line
is being walked for the home business and commercial business.
Bing Sellers clarified that the vehicles will be screened and most will be gone by summertime.
Stephen Mokray asked when this would happen. Mr. Sellers stated that nothing can occur until permits are
issued. There is equipment and materials present that will be used in the building of the home once the
permits are issues. Mr. Mokray would like to know when the equipment will be gone. Mr. Sellers indicated
it will be this summer.
James Rohn moved to accept the changes from the Department of Planning Services. Stephen Mokray
seconded. Motion carried
Bing Sellers indicated that the intent is to be a good neighbor and do what ever is needed.
James Rohn moved that Case USR1449,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
denial. The denial is based on this looks to be more of a commercial venture and less of a home base
business. The parking facility gives this a different look. John Folsom seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, no; Michael Miller, no; Bryant Gimlin, no; James Rohn, yes; Doug Ochsner,
no; Bruce Fitzgerald, no. Motion failed.
Bryant Gimlin stated that some of the issues can be addressed in the development standards.
Bruce Fitzgerald would like to have more information with the number of possible employees coming on site.
Mr. Miller stated that the designation of a home business limits the site. If the use of the site goes beyond a
home business this would cause the USR to be revoked.To place limitation on home business acknowledges
it is not a home business. Mr. Gimlin stated that it is spelling it out more.
Michael Miller clarified to Mr. Sellers that a home business does not allow for any employees and if do
anything beyond this will jeopardize the USR and permit. Mr. Sellers indicated that the work is done at the
customers home. The employees go directly to the home and leave from there. Mr. Rohn asked if the
applicant was storing construction material in the barn. Mr. Sellers stated there will be very limited
construction material on site.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case USR-1449,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, no; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes; James Rohn, no; Doug Ochsner,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
James Rohn commented that he is sorry for the issues in the neighborhood.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1450
APPLICANT: Loyd & Sheila Schlichenmayer
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-761; part of the SW4 of Section 6,Ti N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for a single
family dwelling unit(other than those permitted under Section 23-3-20.A)in
the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: 9/10 mile south of State Hwy 52; east of and adjacent to CR 1.
Kim Ogle, Planner, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1450, 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.
John Folsom asked Mr. Ogle about the layout in the structure. The intent is for a single family dwelling unit
but there are presently two dwelling units. Mr. Ogle stated that the applicant came in with building as is, a
duplex unit. Staff has requested plans that were indicative of the building as constructed. The applicant is
willing to convert the existing two units into a single family dwelling unit. Mr. Ogle indicated that there would
need to be some internal work done due to fire code requirements. A kitchen would also need to be removed.
Mr. Folsom asked if the structure was occupied. Mr. Ogle indicated that is presently being lived in.
Michael Miller asked if the Development Standards and Conditions address the request of the fire department.
Mr. Ogle stated yes. Mr. Ogle stated that the drawings that are in the packet are the most extensive that was
received. The final building approval will be given in the plans check procedure performed by Building
Inspection. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Reif if is reasonable to make the accommodations for this to be a single
family residence. Mr. Reif stated it can meet the requirements of single family dwelling unit. It can be
modified to accommodate the fire code.
Bryant Gimlin asked Ms. Davis about the water and sewer. Ms. Davis stated that there is a well and the flow
is limited. The recommendation from Health Department staff is they obtain a pressure tank. The septic
system is not permitted for this dwelling, although it is installed. Another concern would be for a second
envelope to be designated for the septic. Mr. Gimlin added that the recommendations were made but no
.requirement. Ms. Davis stated the water is not a concern because there is water on site, the septic system
is prior to recording the plat for the envelope and the system.
James Rohn asked Ms. Davis if there was potable water in the area that the applicant could attach to. Mr.
Miller stated that the Department of Heath has determined the water to be adequate. Mr. Ogle stated that
there is not adequate fire flow in CR 1 and there is no known service provider in the immediate area.
John Folsom asked if violations would be eliminated if the project is approved. Mr. Ogle stated that the
applicant would need to obtain building permits for the structure on site. The violation for two dwellings on
one parcel will be closed if the project is approved. Mr. Folsom asked if there are provisions in the code to
establish this as a single family residence. Mr. Reif indicated the building code does provide for modifications
for a change of use for a building.
Fred Otis, applicant's representative, provided clarification on the project. The applicant is agreeable to all
the development standards and conditions of approval. The septic system has been dug but does not have
final approval. There is adequate water from the pump.
John Folsom asked about who designed the conversion and was there a general contractor. Mr. Otis stated
the family went over the plans with the original purpose for the dwelling being a medical hardship due to the
condition of Mr. Schlichenmayer. The intent is to finish the planning process then proceed with the building
permit process. Mr. Folsom asked if the applicant was unaware of the need for permits when converting the
pole barn to a residence. Mr. Otis stated that the family is more than willing to correct the situation.
Michael Miller asked what the final use of the building will be in fifteen years. Mr. Otis stated that the plan is
for this to be a single family dwelling and the reconfiguration will cause it to stay that way. That is part of the
requirement. Mr. Miller asked if there are conditions that ensure that this will be a single family dwelling. Mr.
Ogle indicated that it stated the dwelling is for the Schlichenmayer's only. Should the Schlichenmayer's
move from the premises the structure shall not be utilized as a dwelling.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
John Folsom asked Mr. Reif about the Building Departments perspective on continuing occupancy without
a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Reif stated that the red flag was issued when first found out it was being
occupied. Mr. Reif visited the site and verified the life safety issues are adequate for the structure. Mr. Reif
indicated that no type of certificate of occupancy has been issued. Mr. Folsom asked Ms. Davis if the Health
Department has an concern with the structure being occupied under these circumstances. M s. Davis
indicated that there was not a concern.
Bruce Fitzgerald added this is the reason why permits are pulled so this would not be gotten into.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case USR-1450,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes;Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;James Rohn,yes;Doug Ochsner,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Stephen Mokray had to leave the meeting due to prior commitments.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1451
APPLICANT: Ralph & Barbara May
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 6, 2n° replat of Lots 5 & 6, Apollo Subdivision; part of the N2 NE4 of
Section 19, T1 N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a dog kennel
in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 39; approximately 600 feet south of CR 8.
Chris Gathman, Planner, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1451, 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.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked how many adult dogs were on site. Mr. Gathman had counted ten on his field visit.
Mr. Fitzgerald did referral and asked if the fencing is sufficient to keep dogs in. Mr. Gathman stated that
there will be additional standards for fencing and screening.
James Rohn asked why limit weight of dogs. Mr. Gathman stated that they are smaller dogs and the dog
run is too small for larger breeds. There are state standards that determine the size of area for the size of
dog.
John Folsom asked how many dogs under 6 months were on the property. Mr. Gathman stated there
were none when he did a field visit. Mr. Folsom asked if there was a violation of animal units. Mr.
Gathman stated they are within the agricultural animal unit limits.
Doug Ochsner asked if these were the applicants dogs or do they do breeding. Mr. Gathman indicated
there was limited breeding and the sale of those dogs. Mr. Miller asked if this permit would be limited to
the applicants dogs. Mr. Gathman stated they have there own dogs on site and it is not a boarding facility.
There is a standard that indicates the sale of the dog is by appointment.
Michael Miller asked about the mobile home on site placed for a medical hardship and if it was still in
effect. Mr. Gathman indicated it was.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Gathman if a non commercial junk yard was part of violation. Mr. Gathman
stated the violation was animal complaints, there was no mention of noncommercial junkyard. Mr. Gimlin
asked if screening was adequate when the automobiles could just be removed. Mr. Gathman stated that
there is a difference between commercial and noncommercial junkyard. The applicant can have non
commercial junkyard in the agricultural zone district but it has to be screened.
Rebecca Haines, applicant, provided clarification with regards to the project. The dogs area way of
making money because she cannot work around the schedule of doctors appointments for her mom. Ms.
Haines responded to the comments in the letter received December 15, 2003 from Marge and William
Post. The dogs are fenced in and the comment are because of the barking. Everyone in the
neighborhood has dogs and some of that noise comes from them. If dogs from the neighborhood come
onto the property the only thing these dogs can do is bark due to being fenced in. The odors do not just
come from the dogs. There is a cabbage field across the street that is rotting. The kennel is cleaned
weekly and it is removed weekly. The letter from the Posts indicated that the peacocks get on the
vehicles but they are kept in hen house and cannot get out. The corral is kept clean because it is done
with a blade. There is no way the dogs can attack the neighbors because they are kept in kennels. The
dogs do not run loose, there is one larger dog that is taken out and watched. They try to clean the kennels
2-3 times a week, more often if they have the time. Some of the stuff at the site is farm equipment and is
not required to be screened.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Wally Post, indicated concerns with the living conditions of the whole site. The Post's have lived at this
residence for 23 years. They have done a lot of work to clean their property up. Their neighbors have not
made the effort to clean up their property. The fence that was required for the medical hardship is the one
that is falling down. The dogs bark right outside of his window. They have called and asked that
something be done. The dogs would attack when they went out the back door. The condition will never
get corrected, it has been going on for 23 years. The dogs still get out. There have been several
instances in which the dogs got in the barn.
Christen Stanton, indicated concerns for the animals and herself. The dogs and the rest of the animals
have gotten out. The fence is very unsecure. The goats put their heads through fence and cant get the
horns back out. The applicant is unable to care for the animals on site and should not be able to have this
kennel. The corrals are never cleaned. The animals need to be fed better.
Marie Johnson, indicated concerns for the animals. The smell is not only from the dog area but from all
the areas. There are several issues in the way the animals are treated. There have been other dogs on
the premise. The applicant is not in control of the animals.
Marge Post, indicated concerns that the animals are not being taken care of. There is breeding of dogs,
constantly. The dogs are barking constantly. The breeding is fine if they are taken care of.
The Chair closed the public portion.
Ralph May, applicant, provided clarification with regard to the dogs. The dogs do not attack anyone. The
neighbors train the horses along the CR. The neighbors use milk jugs with rocks to train the horses and
this disturbs the dogs. The animals that are out are on the property. The fence is chain link for 200 feet
then the metal wire type back. The neighbors have given the dogs bones so they will go there for more.
Ms. Haines added the kennel is cleaned more than what has been expressed by the neighbors and their
employees. There are dogs in the neighborhood that are not hers and they cannot be responsible for
them. The puppies do go to good homes. Ms. Haines has turned people down if she is not comfortable
with the possible owners.
Doug Ochsner asked about the legal amount of dogs that they can have if this is not approved. Mr.
Gathman indicated that with 10 acres or less they can have four dogs.
Michael Miller indicated he is not sure at this point about his feelings on this application. The Use by
Special Review will regulate the site better than presently.
John Folsom stated that the focus needs to be on what is before us rather than on the other conditions on
the property. There are several Conditions and Development Standards. This will better control the
situation. Mr. Gimlin added that with this comes regulations. Mr. Ochsner added that the concern is
regulated but the size is not regulated. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Gathman about the size of the indoor
enclosure and whether state regulates this. Ms. Davis added there is a Pet Animal Care Facility Act. This
regulates the number of animals. The noise is covered by the residential noise level standard.
James Rohn commented that the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards will alleviate most
of the neighbors problems.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1451, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Bryant Gimlin seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner commented he has concerns on whether or not the conditions can be improved to
eliminate all the concerns from the neighbors and the county.
Bruce Fitzgerald commented he has issues with pet owners in his business. Mr. Fitzgerald added "the
owner of a pet is responsible for the bark. I don't care if its, you know there may be other dogs in the
neighborhood, your dogs if they are barking, it is your responsibility to fix that."
James Rohn commented that the applicant is going to be under more guidelines than previously. There
will be regulations. There will also be ways to complain if those guidelines are not met.
Michael Miller commented that there is no way to correct all the problems. The applicants have a
tremendous amount of work to do. The restrictions will be strictly adhered to or the permit will be revoked.
Meeting adjourned at 6:05 pm
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello