HomeMy WebLinkAbout20001128.tiff HEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 2000-24
RE: SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT#1265
FOR A HOME BUSINESS(PARKING OF VEHICLES) IN THE A(AGRICULTURAL) ZONE
DISTRICT - RONALD AND CLAUDIA OLSON
A public hearing was conducted on May 17, 2000, at 10:00 a.m., with the following presert:
Commissioner Barbara J. Kirkmeyer, Chair- EXCUSED
Commissioner M. J. Geile, Pro-Tem
Commissioner George E. Baxter
Commissioner Dale K. Hall
Commissioner Glenn Vaad
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Esther Gesick
Assistant County Attorney, Lee Morrison
Planning Department representative, Sheri Lockman
Health Department representative, Sheble McConnellogue
Public Works representative, Don Carroll
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated May 1, 2000, and duly published May 4, 2000, in the
South Weld Sun, a public hearing was conducted to consider the request of Ronald and Claudia
Olson for a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit#1265 for a Home
Business(parking of vehicles)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. Lee Morrison,Assistant County
Attorney, made this a matter of record. Chair Pro-Tem Geile advised the applicant, Claudia Olson,
and her attorney, Robert Bruce, of their option to continue with only four Commissioners present,
and that if they wish to proceed, any tie vote would be determined by Commissioner Kirkrneyer,
after reviewing the record. Mr. Bruce indicated they would like to continue today.
Sheri Lockman, 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 and
stated the application is for a home business in the Agricultural Zone District and that the use has
changed from the initial application from an Industrial Use. She noted there is a violation pending
on this property; and the Use by Special Review Permit would allow the applicant to comply with
Weld County regulations. Ms. Lockman explained Mr. Olson currently has one employee, parks
three trucks which he owns and six trucks not owned by him; however, since the site is in the Mixed
Use Development area, Planned Unit Development provisions have to be applied, therefore, to
operate a business the applicant would need a Planned Unit Development, unless a permit for a
home business were obtained. Ms. Lockman read the definition of a home business and stated
the Olsons are aware of the limitations; the Assistant County Attorney added language requiring
removal of trucks not owned by the Olsons; asked for clarification regarding an employee not in
residence, which was discussed at the Planning Commission Hearing but not clarified in the
Planning Commission resolution; three referrals did not respond; and the Planning Commission
recommendation for approval was for the home business, not an Industrial Use. Responding to
Chair Pro-Tem Geile, and Commissioner Hall, Ms. Lockman stated Development Standard #6
2000-1128
PL1410
HEARING CERTIFICATION - RONALD AND CLAUDIA OLSON (USR #1265)
PAGE 2
would allow the applicant a maximum of two semi-trailers on the property and the home business
definition limits them to trucks owned by the applicant.
Robert Bruce, Attorney for the applicant, stated the process has changed from when the initial
application was submitted, and the intent was different at the beginning. He said the current plan
is in compliance with the Development Standards, and the intent is in accordance with the
Development Standards outlined and approved by the Planning Commission, and it does include
a limitation of keeping only two semi-trailers owned by family members. Mr. Bruce stated the only
issue remaining with the applicant is not with the Development Standards, but with the
interpretation of the definition of a Home Business in the Zoning Ordinance, which says ". . .
principally carried on by the family resident therein." Mr. Bruce argued there may be times Mr.
Olson would be on vacation or ill, and a substitute driver should be allowed, to alleviated having
disruption to his business through his inability to drive for one day or several days. Mr. Bruce
further argued that "principally" does not mean "exclusively". He also explained the other owner
has been notified to move his trucks and make other plans for parking by June 11, 2000, and there
will only be two trucks as of that date, since the third one has already been sold.
Responding to Commissioner Hall, Mr. Bruce stated there were initially two businesses parking
trucks overnight, one business had approximately seven trucks, and the Olsons owned one truck.
He stated the other business would be nice,however,what is allowed under Home Business Permit
is his own business with two trucks,which would leave the property at approximately 7 a.m., make
runs all day, then at end of day return to be parked on the property overnight. He stated some
maintenance activity would also take place in the barn on the property, and Mr. Olson is the only
regular employee; however, he would require a substitute driver when he is not available. Mr.
Bruce stated there is no intent to hire a trucker on a day-to-day basis, but to fill in when Mr. Olson
is unavailable. Mr. Bruce clarified for Commissioner Baxter that Mr. Olson is an ownerioperator
who then contracts for loads to haul.
Responding to Chair Pro-Tem Geile, Mr. Bruce explained a Port-a-Potty would be used only until
St.Vrain Sanitation District extends the sewer line to the property. Claudia Olson, applicant stated
the sewer line will be hooked into when it is brought to the property; however, it now has a septic
system. Responding to Commissioner Vaad, Ms. Olson stated with seven of the trucks leaving,
the fumes from warming up diesel trucks will not be a problem. Mr. Bruce clarified for
Commissioner Hall, that with only two trucks a Port-a-Potty will not be necessary. Sheble
McConnellogue,Department of Public Health and Environment,stated Development Standard#12
addresses the current septic system, which will be all that is necessary.
Marvin Hopper, surrounding property owner, stated his property is approximately 1/2 mile east of
the site, and he has lived there 30 years without any problems with industry in the neighborhood
up to this point. He stated when everyone was working to set up the Mixed Use Development area,
they specifically stated industrial facilities should be located along the interstate, not in agricultural
areas, and he is concerned approval of this request would set a precedent, since this would be the
first to be approved in an agricultural area. Mr. Hopper stated there are a number of other
residents within a one-mile radius, making this proposed use incompatible to the area. Responding
to Commissioner Hall, Mr. Hopper stated he does not have a problem with the use being scaled
2000-1128
PL1410
HEARING CERTIFICATION - RONALD AND CLAUDIA OLSON (USR #1265)
PAGE 3
down from an industrial use to a home business with only two trucks; however, he would still like
to know who will monitor the situation. Commissioner Hall responded the same people monitoring
it now would continue to do so, and it would be brought forth on a violation if it does not remain in
compliance. Commissioner Hall further clarified it will not be considered to be industrial.
Mr. Morrison stated the notice identifies it as an industrial use, and the Commissioners may change
the stated use to indicate a home business; however the notice is sufficient because the more
intense use was advertised. Ms. Lockman verified the use is as a home business in an Agricultural
Zone District, and Mr. Hopper clarified that the applicant will not be allowed to repair trucks that do
not belong to him.
Heather Hollingsworth,surrounding property owner,stated that since the Board is clarifying the use
as home business instead of industrial, most of her concerns have been addressed. Responding
to Chair Pro-Tern Geile, Ms. Lockman read Development Standard #6, which allows a maximum
of two semi-trailers, and stated the Board needs to determine whether to allow the replacement
driver as requested. Commissioner Baxter stated the violation was left to exist until June 11, 2000
to allow time to get the proper permit for parking the trucks. Ms. Hollingsworth urged the Board
to include verbiage that no leased trucks are allowed, and stated the applicant has not started
construction on a sewer line. She noted the applicant was given this application in February and
the issue is still unresolved, even though they are in violation at this point. Ms. Hollingsworth also
questioned who is responsible for compliance and whether there is a revocation which goes into
effect if they are found to be out of compliance. Mr. Morrison responded that the Department of
Planning Services has someone assigned to look at facilities appearing to be in violation and the
procedure allows staffs investigation, warning letters, and that the matter be set for a Probable
Cause Hearing before the Board of Commissioners if the violation persists, followed by a Show
Cause Hearing which would result in the permit revocation, or the alternative of going to the Court
for an injunction at that point. Mr. Morrison also stated it is a Condition of this permit to remove the
other truck, so the applicant will be in immediate violation of the permit if they are not removed by
June 11, 2000. Ms. Hollingsworth further stated the use just does not feel right for the
neighborhood; there is a machine shop on site which does repair and maintenance on trucks, and
she is concerned with disposal of wastes, such as oil.
Margaret Tolson,who owns the property directly west of the site, stated she has not been bothered
by Olsons trucks, because there are so many in the area. Ms. Tolson said there are five gravel pits
operating in the area and a commercial enterprise to the south, which makes more noise than the
trucks all put together. With no further comments, Chair Pro-Tem Geile closed public testimony.
Mr. Bruce reiterated that Mr. Olson does intend to get rid of the other trucks by the June 10, 2000
deadline and indicated disposal of any waste products will be in accordance with Development
Standards #7 and #8, which require off-site disposal. Responding to Commissioner Hall, Mr.
Bruce said the applicant has no problem with Development Standard #6 specifically stating the
trucks are to be owned by the family. Commissioner Hall stated he agrees a home business should
not have people coming and going all the time; however, a part-time employee coming to the site
on an occasional basis, would not be a problem, as long as it did not get to be every other day or
every third day. Mr. Bruce reiterated the intention is for occasional use only. Mr. Morrison stated
the more specific language was deleted; however, the issue is the intention when the motion is
2000-1128
PL1410
HEARING CERTIFICATION - RONALD AND CLAUDIA OLSON (USR #1265)
PAGE 4
made, and that the Board should state its intent when approving the Permit. Responding to Chair
Pro-Tem Geile, Mr. Bruce said the applicants have reviewed the Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards and agree with them.
Commissioner Vaad moved to approve the request of Ronald and Claudia Olson for a Site Specific
Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit #1265 for a Home Business (parking of
vehicles) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District, based on the recommendations of the Planning staff
and the Planning Commission, with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards as
entered into the record, changing the wording throughout to strike the words "as a use by right in
the I (Industrial)Zone District which are found in the title, and the addition of the words "owned by
the applicant" at the end of Development Standard #6. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Baxter. Commissioner Vaad stated he does not feel it necessary to include
additional language concerning an off-site employee, since the wording in Development Standard
#4 clearly states"principally carried on by the family resident therein". He further stated he would
allow vacation days and sick leave, and that he in no way intends for someone part-time to be there
permanently. The motion carried unanimously.
This Certification was approved on the 22nd day of May 2000.
APPROVED:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST: 4111 et EXCUSED
Barbara Kirkmeyer, Chair
lerk to the Board
' -z j . G ile, Pro-Tem7-
183
the Board 7-4r; e`
Georg . Baxter
-- _ Dale K. Ha1/4
�1 �
DOCKET #2000-24
Glenn Vaad
2000-1128
PL1410
EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
Case USR #1265 - RONALD AND CLAUDIA OLSON
Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description
A. Planning Staff Inventory of Item Submitted
B. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation
C. Planning Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes 05/02/2000)
D. Clerk to the Board Notice of Hearing
E. Planning Staff Photo of sign posted on site
F. Heather Hollingsworth Letter of Concern from James and Kathryn
Befus (05/16/2000)
G. —
H.
J. _
K. —
L. _
M.
N. _
0. —
P. —
Q. —R. _
S. - -
T. -
U. -
V. -
ATTENDANCE RECORD
HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS 17TH DAY OF MAY, 2000:
DOCKET#2000-23 - MIKE AND HEATHER HATHAWAY
DOCKET#2000-24 - RONANLD AND CLAUDIA OLSON
PLEASE legibly write or print your name and complete address and the DOCKET#
(as listed above) or the name of the applicant of the hearing you are attending.
NAME AND ADDRESS(Please include City and Zip Code)DOCKET#OF HEARING ATTENDING
1 &.� may.,
�/ ii• �i/ t! "''�C. % 6, 4 LL 'C' /C' / L/ ,% ! 9, ( 7' (L, f - f
`y//4 / cH, 7/Y'(7, .‘" i�` . / r r ; � yL: -�22
, //P" '-/C R r9 /1-17/) rw /, f /'r/ _ .,z
-9-,
�, L(L ,t ti 36 Ll)CeR s'iC)/ St
Hello