HomeMy WebLinkAbout970730.tiff HEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 97-21
RE: SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT #1141 FOR A
TREE FARM AND I-1 USE (MOLD MAKING) IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE
DISTRICT - STEVEN M. AND PAMELA J. ROWEN
A public hearing was conducted on April 16, 1997, at 10:00 a.m., with the following present:
Commissioner George E. Baxter, Chair
Commissioner Constance L. Harbert, Pro-Tem - EXCUSED
Commissioner Dale K. Hall
Commissioner Barbara J. Kirkmeyer
Commissioner W. H. Webster
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Shelly Miller
Assistant County Attorney, Lee Morrison
Planning Department representative, Shani Eastin
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated March 26, 1997, and duly published April 3, 1997,
in the South Weld Sun, a public hearing was conducted to consider the request of Steven M. and
Pamela J. Rowen for a Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a tree farm
and home business (mold making) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. Lee Morrison, Assistant
County Attorney, made this a matter of record. Shani Eastin, Department of Planning Services
representative, presented a brief summary of the proposal and entered the favorable
recommendation of the Planning Commission into the record as written, with the addition of
Conditions of Approval #2.D. and #2.E. requiring a screening plan and relocation of the R.V.
(recreational vehicle) outside the utility easement, respectively. Steven Rowen, applicant, was
present and stated this home business is incidental to and will support another business he
operates, which is located in an Industrial area. He noted this business is clean, causes no pollution
or noise, and is non-obtrusive. Responding to questions from the Board, Mr. Rowen stated there
is an existing 1600-square-foot building on the property, which has been used by the previous
owner for more than 20 years for storage of various equipment. He stated a 600-foot addition to
the back of that structure is proposed in the future. He further responded there are no issues with
compliance and stated he is interested in being a good neighbor and improving the appearance
of the property by landscaping. Responding to further questions from the Board, Trevor Jiricek,
Health Department, stated staff attempted, at the time the property was sold to Mr. Rowen, to
locate the septic system which was installed prior to requiring permits in 1970. He stated a portion
of the system may be under the storage building, noting the rules require a 20-foot setback;
however, he reiterated this system was installed prior to requiring permits and has already existed
over 21 years. Mr. Jiricek explained that if repair is required, he would suggest relocating the
system. Mr. Rowen agreed and confirmed replacing the leach field would not be an issue. He
stated the footings of the building are over two feet deep and he doubts the system still exists
under the building; however, he is willing to purchase a meter to detect gaseous odors if necessary.
Mr. Rowen confirmed the two additional Conditions of Approval are acceptable, although he would
tat 970730
PL1075
RE: HEARING CERTIFICATION - ROWEN (USR #1141)
PAGE 2
prefer not to move the R.V. Larry Bearly, surrounding property owner to the south, stated the
mobile home is not included in the request and voiced concerns about the five employees, the 600-
foot addition, and the removal of the two small out-buildings. He read from the Weld County
Zoning Ordinance the definition for"home business", which he feels this request does not meet.
He also referenced Section 43 of the Zoning Ordinance and stated the mobile home does not meet
that criteria. (Changed to Tape #97-10 during Mr. Bearly's testimony.) Mr. Bearly requested the
Board deny this request and responded to questions from the Board concerning the three additional
Conditions of Approval he requested. He stated the business contributes some traffic flow to the
area, but it is minimal compared to the dump traffic. Darrell Stapleton, surrounding property owner,
stated he raises tropical birds, which is governed by the State as an agricultural use. He stated Mr.
Bearly is not a good neighbor; however, Mr. Rowen is a super good neighbor. He confirmed Mr.
Rowen's business generates no noise and noted Mr. Rowen is making improvements and installing
a water hydrant in the area, which will lower insurance rates. Jan Jones, surrounding property
owner to the north, stated she rides horses in the area, and there is an enormous traffic problem.
She, too, confirmed there is no noise from Mr. Rowen's business and stated the only problem with
the R.V. is that someone could be living in it; however, there are over 40 trailers parked in the area,
and Mr. Bearly has a small pull trailer on his own property. Ms. Jones reiterated the business is
not a problem, but the high-speed traffic on Weld County Road 5 is a major problem. She
responded there is not much traffic on old Highway 52. Floyd Price, surrounding property owner,
stated the County should enforce the Zoning Ordinance, not go around it. He stated the business
is infringing on the neighborhood and is not an agricultural use. Chair Baxter clarified the purpose
of this hearing is to decide whether this special use fits in the area. Pamela Rowen, applicant,
stated they are trying to comply with the law and noted they have changed nothing externally on
the property. She reiterated they plan on improving the value of the property by landscaping, etc.,
which the business will enable them to do. Responding to questions from the Board, Ms. Eastin
stated there is a stick-built home and an R.V. permitted as an accessory on the property. Mr.
Morrison clarified the R.V. is legally a mobile home, which is for the caretaker and is included in
this Special Use Permit. Ms. Eastin further explained staff reviewed this request for the home
business as gainful employment of the family residing on the property, with the mobile home being
allowed for the caretaker. She noted this request also fits as a Commercial/Industrial use.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer questioned whether the use is non-agricultural and incidental. Mr.
Morrison explained the residence is the principal use, which the business is incidental to, and the
existing buildings and accessory structures are present, thus incidental. He reiterated this request
could also fit as a Commercial/Industrial use. Commissioner Hall referenced the comments from
the Tri-Area Planning Commission and the Town of Erie and agreed this request may not fit under
the definition of a"home business"; therefore, he suggested it be considered under Section 31.4.18
of the Zoning Ordinance as a light Industrial business and not a home business. He clarified five
employees manufacturing a product is beyond the scope of a home business. Mr. Morrison
clarified, as a practical matter, the title does not change the requirements, and the people who were
noticed inquired beyond the title, with most comments being toward the five employees. He further
stated that staff would not have presented a different recommendation with the request being in
another category and, since the property is not in a subdivision, the title change is not a major
factor. Ms. Eastin confirmed for the Board that if staff would have considered this request under
Section 31.4.18, it would not have been evaluated any differently; therefore, all the same
recommendations stand. Commissioner Kirkmeyer suggested an additional Condition of Approval
970730
PL1075
RE: HEARING CERTIFICATION - ROWEN (USR#1141)
PAGE 3
addressing the Town of Erie's concern about further expansion, and Ms. Eastin explained any
further expansion of the building or an excess of five employees would require an amendment to
the Permit. Mr. Rowen referenced the plot plan and stated the Forest Service is currently drawing
up a planting plan for the tree area and noted all possible future plans are included on the plot plan.
He clarified the trees are not incidental to the machine shop. Responding to further comments from
the Board, Mr. Rowen agreed to the addition of a Development Standard allowing no more than
five employees. Ms. Eastin confirmed no amendments to the plot plan are required, and Mr.
Rowen stated he can access old Highway 52 through an easement and there will possibly be an
access for the Forest Services. He reiterated all Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards are acceptable. Commissioner Kirkmeyer requested staff correct the title to remove
"home business", and Mr. Morrison suggested it be changed to"I-1 use". Commissioner Kirkmeyer
then moved to approve the request of Steven M. and Pamela J. Rowen for a Site Specific
Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a tree farm and I-1 use (mold making) 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 including the change in title from home business to I-1 use, the addition of Conditions of
Approval #2.D. and #2.E., and the addition of Development Standard #14. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Webster, and Ms. Eastin clarified the wording for Development
Standard #14 limiting the maximum number of employees to five at any given time. The Board
consented to said language, and the motion carried unanimously.
This Certification was approved on the 21st day of April, 1997.
, APPROVED:
4 E I " Z 0 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
tt41111.0tir
` 1WELD UNTY, COL DO �i�� f�z
ctffe ty Clerk to the Board ,r
r' / eorge . Baxter, Chair
' t/_!!. , Y[.t Lav
®� �
r
�_��%eputy CI - to the Board EXCUSED
tance L. Harb , P -Tem
TAPE #97-09
Dale K. Hall
DOCKET#97-21 /. /
/Barbara J. Kirkmeyer
W. H. Webster
970730
PL1075
ATTENDANCE RECORD
HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 1997:
DOCKET#97-21 - USR#1141 - ROWEN, STEVEN AND PAMELA
PLEASE legibly 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) HEARING ATTENDING
-J 7/.9 lvG 5 C 8. d occr/
4C ) C�6
.2-7/ 9 77'f X 7 -
C - C STE)
EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
Case as,C 5J/4I — G“en Jt€,2 1!_ (m• MindO��
Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description
A. �, is j)a-fiet1
B. )s' )WV fl.Lntru l fl p on Owv uLai /�.P*t i o-vci 0 p c t_vw C� par)
,r „
3pla
C. "wow ji Ctute tirry
D. Pe�a�, w c� 4 &runt 64 E,
E.
F.
G.
H.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
U.
PL1075
970730
FILE CONTAINS PHOTOS - SEE ORIGINAL
FILE
Hello