HomeMy WebLinkAbout20093023.tiffSUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Department of
Planning Services, Hearing Room, 918 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by
Chair, Tom Holton, at 1:30 p.m.
i y
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Tom Holton - Chair
Mark Lawley - Vice Chair
Nick Berryman
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Roy Spitzer
Alexander Zauder
Jason Maxey
a:
rn
r-)
m
�o
Also Present: Kim Ogle and Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services; Roger Vigil and Peggy
Gregory, Building Department; Don Carroll, Department of Public Works; Lauren Light, Department of Health;
Cyndy Giauque, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the October 6, 2009 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, seconded
by Erich Ehrlich. Motion carried.
The Chair read the first case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1657
APPLICANT: Lafarge West, Inc
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for Mineral
Resource Development Facility, including Open Pit Gravel Mining and Materials
Processing, in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E2 SE4 Section 25; NE4 Section 36, T6N, R67W; and W2 SW4 Section 30;
NW4 Section 31, T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 64.5 and East and West of, and adjacent to CR 25.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, stated that the applicant is requesting a continuance of this case until February
2, 2010 to address concerns from Public Works as well as to get formal approval of their DRMS permit
through the State.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Roy Spitzer moved to continue Case USR-1657 to the February 2, 2010 Planning Commission meeting,
seconded by Bill Hall. Motion carried.
Robert Grand announced that he has a business relationship with the applicants of Case USR-1714; however
he feels that this will not adversely affect his ability to make a fair judgment.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1714
APPLICANT: Anthony & Sherry Reis (Faithfull Grooming, LLC)
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a
Kennel (up to 30 dogs of a non-specific breed including dog grooming, boarding,
doggie daycare, and training) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A RE -3481; located in Part of the NW4 of Section 25, T2N, R64W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 398 and approximately 1/4 mile east of rQ Q
Ct>auiu.)/ezit yZ //-/4-2t cet
2009-3023
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, stated that staff would like for this case to remain on the consent agenda.
The Chair asked the applicant if they wish for this case to remain on consent. The applicant indicated yes.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-485
APPLICANT: Colorado Interstate Gas Company
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Amended Special Review Permit for a
Natural Gas Compressor Station (amended to include a new office building and
future compressor building) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the N2 of Section 5, T11 N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to U.S. Highway 85 and approximately 3.5 miles north of
CR 126.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, stated that staff requests that this item remain on the consent agenda.
The Chair asked the applicant if they wish for this case to remain on consent. The applicant replied that they
wish for this case to remain on the consent agenda.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
The Chair read the following case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1715
APPLICANT: Carlos Cisneros
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Home
Business (parking of two semi -trucks and 3 trailers) in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A RE -2042 being Part of the NE4NE4NE4NE4 of Section 12, T1 N, R66W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 12; west of and adjacent to CR 37.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, commented that staff wishes for this item to remain on the consent
agenda.
The Chair asked the applicant if they wish for this case to remain on consent. The applicant indicated that
they would like for this item to remain on the consent agenda.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1705
APPLICANT: Land Airport LLC (Lloyd Land)
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for an
extension or expansion of a non -conforming use (private airstrip/airport) in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of Amended Recorded Exemption 628, Lot B of Amended Recorded
Exemption 628, Subdivision Exemption 521, and a parcel of land of
approximately 4.989 acres identified under parcel # 1305 31 100032; all located
in the E2 of Section 31, T2N, R64W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, stated that staff wishes for this case to remain on the consent agenda. He
commented that there is a surrounding property owner who would like to speak on this. He added that based
on the fact that this Use by Special Review is essentially at the request of the Board of County Commissioners
establishing an existing use, staff recommends that this case remain as a consent item.
The Chair asked the applicant if they wish for this case to remain on the consent agenda. The applicant
replied yes.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Pamela Simpson, 6212 CR 51. Ms. Simpson stated that her home is one of the closest residences to Mr.
Land's property. She has read all the information provided on-line about this case.
A question that has bothered her since the September 10, 2008 hearing is how does a private airport support
Weld County Code Section 22-2-20.A.Goal 1 which states "Respect and encourage the continuation of
agricultural land uses and agricultural operations for purposes which enhance the economic health and
sustainability of agriculture." She added Section 22-2-20.B Goal 2 which states "Continue the commitment to
viable agriculture in Weld County through mitigated protection of established (and potentially expanding)
agricultural uses from other proposed new uses that would hinder the operations of the agricultural
enterprises."
Ms. Simpson stated that she has not seen an airplane plow a field or plant a seed. She has seen them dust
crops, yet she is told there are no plans for a crop dusting business. She does not understand how these
codes substantiate a Use by Special Review permit for a private airport in an agricultural zone district.
In reviewing the other cases on today's docket their applications clearly answer the Site Specific Development
Plan and Use by Special Review Questionnaire. It is her understanding that the purpose of this questionnaire
is to have the applicants provide the County with a clear and detailed plan of what they want to do with the
property. She did not see that in Mr. Land's application. If the application is being submitted just because the
Board suggested it at the September 10, 2008 hearing she still expects the application to provide a clear and
detailed plan. This application is too vague in her opinion.
Applications must meet the criteria for a Site Specific Development Plan and Review. In her opinion Mr.
Land's application does not do that, nor does she see how that supports agricultural development as the
summary wants her to believe. She is not opposed to development. Calpine is her next door neighbor and
believes that they are one of her best neighbors.
Ms. Simpson expressed desire for this to be done properly and by the rules. She believes that no one is
exempt from rules. Just because the Board suggested this does not mean that it is ready for consideration
especially based on what has been provided. Without a clear or detailed plan this case should not be passed
forward to the Board.
Ms. Simpson stated that there is a copy of an inappropriately notarized document in Mr. Land's application.
She has sent a copy of this to the Secretary of State's Office and to Lauren Light of the Weld County
Department of Health for review.
She added that she would like to see a copy of the FAA Form 7480-1 that Mr. Land finally submitted to the
FAA after the fact that he put in the new runway in August of 2008.
The Chair asked staff about some points noted by Ms. Simpson in regard to notarization and FAA. Mr.
Gathman said that the FM was sent a referral; however the county did not receive a response from them for
this application. Ms. Light said that they received information on the Statement of Existing. She added that
she thought it would be up to the notary to make sure that what is being notarized is correct and the dates
match. Ms. Light commented that it doesn't affect the septic system because the Health Department went out
and inspected what was out there anyway.
Hope Babeon, 6687 CR 49. Ms. Babeon commented that Mr. Land is a really good neighbor and takes really
good care of his land and airport. She has never seen him do anything reckless with his plane. She added
that Mr. Land has been more than willing to put his best foot forward for their community.
Vern Burke, Architect, 12948 West 15' Drive, Lakewood CO. Mr. Burke commented that he had prepared the
documents for the USR. He added that this is a non -conforming permit. The airport has been in place before
the Weld County Code was enacted. At the County Commissioner meeting a year ago it was determined that
the activities which were undertaken at this site were indeed ascribable to maintenance and just general
upkeep of the property. Therefore the County Commissioners voided the violation charge and Mr. Land was
free to continue the uses he was doing at the time. At the County Commissioners suggestion, Mr. Land
submitted his application. His paperwork is up to date with the FAA.
The Chair closed the public portion.
The Chair asked if any of the Planning Commissioners wished to pull this case from the consent agenda. No
one wished to speak.
Robert Grand moved to approve the Consent Agenda which includes Cases USR-1714, AmUSR-485, USR-
1715 and USR-1705 and that they be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, seconded by Bill Hall.
The Chair reminded the audience that the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners for Case USR-
1705 is on November 18, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. at 915 10th Street.
The Chair read the following case into record.
CASE NUMBER:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
Code Ordinance #2009-12
Roger Vigil
In the Matter of Repealing and Reenacting, with Amendments, Chapter
29 Building Regulations
Roger Vigil, Building Inspection, stated that he has three items for consideration. The first item is the adoption
of the 2006 Uniform Swimming Code with amendments. The second item is an amendment to Section 29-2-
30 which is the electrical section of the International Residential Code and the third item is the amendment to
Section 29-8-40 regarding the expiration of building permits.
There has been a work session with the Board of County Commissioners. He added that there was also a
meeting with the Building Trades Advisory Group.
Mr. Vigil commented that the Uniform Swimming Code was not included in Chapter 29 previously. Section
309.4 is amended to include the ANSI Standard, which is a federal standard that has come because of deaths
caused by suction entrapment.
Mr. Vigil said that the proposed change to Section 29-2-30 is W. Part VIII — Electrical is part of the
International Residential Code. He said that the reason for this change is that the International Residential
Code and National Electric Code are written so that they overlap cycles. Right now we are on the 2006
International Residential Code which by reference goes by the 2005 National Electric Code; however we have
adopted the 2008 National Electric Code. This will always put the International Residential Code on the same
cycle with the National Electric Code.
The next item for consideration is Section 29-8-40 in regard to expiration of permits. The reason for the
proposal is to close the loop hole for permit holders who are not finishing work by obtaining multiple permits.
There are a number of problem permits that people just buy a permit and not finish the work.
Commissioner Lawley asked why we would charge them the full permit fees rather than an administrative fee
for issuing the permit. Mr. Vigil said that right now we are collecting a minimal amount and that doesn't seem
to motivate people to finish their work. He added that they feel that if the permit holder is required to pay the
full permit fee it is an incentive for them to complete their work.
Peggy Gregory, Building Compliance Officer, commented that prior to June of 2006 the expiration date was
180 days as long as an inspection was done every 180 days; therefore they were finding a lot of old permits.
Since then the code was changed to read that they could get a new permit with one extension and then it
would expire and now we are running into problems with that. Staff felt that if we made it so that they realize
what they are facing up ahead it gives them an incentive to finish their work. She added that most of the time
it is electrical permits or finishing a few inspections on an addition to a house.
Commissioner Grand asked if there is any effort made if there are extenuating circumstances where they just
can't finish the project. Ms. Gregory said that they do work with the permit holders and ask them to submit a
letter stating what the situation is and that they are not going to continue any work until a new permit is issued.
Commissioner Lawley said that he is not concerned about cleaning up the process, rather he is concerned
with charging them a full permit fee. A permit fee is designed for plan reviews and building inspections. He
believes that there is a mechanism in what is being proposed to deal with those people who are not compliant
by allowing a second permit and then if they are not done they are forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners. He said that he is concerned that they are being charged a new permit fee and the only
rationale behind it is that it is suppose to get them in compliance. Ms. Gregory commented that a plan review
fee would not be charged, only the building and electrical fees would be charged again.
Commissioner Lawley understood the proposal but doesn't agree with charging another fee. However if there
are fees tied up in inspections he feels that the County should recuperate those costs. He said that charging
them another fee will not get them in compliance most likely. Commissioner Grand agreed with Mr. Lawley.
The Chair asked if the Planning Commission needs to make suggestions or if they need to amend the
proposal. Cyndy Giauque, County Attorney, commented that at this point suggestions need to be made. She
added that you make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners and it is sufficient to state your
concerns.
Commissioner Lawley suggested amending Section 29-8-40.C by replacing "full permit fees" with "fees that
cover direct Weld County costs".
Robert Grand moved that Ordinance 2009-12 along with the amendment to Section 29-8-40.C be forwarded to
the Board of County Commissioners along with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval,
seconded by Mark Lawley. Motion carried.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss.
Commissioner Grand commented that he attended the Rural Task Force meeting and indicated that they
looked at the issue of mitigating the amount of fee structure for small businesses. He added that he did not
come away comfortable that there was something on the near horizon. Commissioner Holton said that it is
going to take time to put these into the code. He added that the findings of the Rural Task Force were
presented before the Board of County Commissioners yesterday at a work session and the number one
concern was to make sure that same process for large industry is not followed for small businesses. He
added that this is in the beginning stages of the process and it will take some time to rewrite the code and
make it consistent throughout the code.
Kim Ogle presented the proposed 2010 Planning Commission hearing dates. These hearing dates are held
on the first Tuesday of each month. In unique situations, the third Tuesday of the month would be reserved for
special meetings.
Bill Hall moved to approve the 2010 Planning Commission hearing dates, seconded by Erich Ehrlich. Motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
Hello