HomeMy WebLinkAbout20082888.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
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, Doug Ochsner, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Doug Ochsner- Chair
Tom Holton -Vice Chair
Nick Berryman
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich L , )
Robert Grand J
Bill Hall =
Mark Lawley i
Roy Spitzer S
C"J
Also Present: Jacqueline Hatch, Chris Gathman,Tom Honn, Department of Planning Services;Don Carroll,
Department of Public Works; Lauren Light, Department of Health; Bruce Barker, County Attorney, and Kris
Ranslem, Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the October 7,2008 Weld County Planning Commission minutes,seconded
by Bill Hall. Motion carried.
The Chair read the first case on the Consent Agenda into record.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1614
APPLICANT: SemCrude LP
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: S2 SE4 of Section 24, T3N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and an Amended Special Review
Permit for a Mineral Resource Development Facility including an Oil and
Gas Storage Facility in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 49 and north of and adjacent to CR 30.
The Chair asked Ms. Hatch if she wishes for this case to remain on consent. Ms. Hatch replied that she does
wish 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 asked the Planning Commissioners if they would like to have this case pulled from consent. No one
wished to have it pulled.
The Chair read the next case on the Consent Agenda.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1669
APPLICANT: Kelly&Sally Harmon
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part S2 SW4 Section 19, Ti N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for
a Use Permitted as a Use by Right, Accessory Use, or Use by Special
//�� Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (truck parking)
( oYN+K+4o(& ttt)so /0-.29 aou g 2008-2888
in the A(Agricultural) Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 6, 1/4 mile east of CR 13, 1/2 mile west of
CR 15.
The Chair asked Ms. Hatch if she wishes for this case to remain on consent as well. Ms. Hatch replied
yes.
The Chair asked if the applicant wishes 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 asked the Planning Commission if they would like to have this case pulled from consent. No one
wished to have it pulled.
Robert Grand moved that the Consent Agenda including AmUSR-1614 and USR-1669, 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. Tom Holton seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE: Weld County Code Changes
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: Chapter 23: Sections 23-1-90, 23-3-30 N, 23-3-40 DD, 23-3-210 C5, 23-3-210
D10, 23-3-220 C5, 23-3-220 D8, 23-3-230 C5, 23-3-230 C4, 23-3-230 D9, 23-3-
240 C8, 23-3-240 D4, 23-3-310 C8, 23-3-310 D8, 23-3-320 C7, 23-3-320 D13,
23-3-330 C7, 23-3-330 D14, 23-3-420 H, 23-3-430 M, 23-4-970, 23-4-980, and
23-4-990.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, stated that these proposed code changes are to address
one specific issue which is in regard to wind generators or wind turbines.
Mr. Gathman commented that in the proposed definitions changes which were handed out, they made a
revision to the definition. He indicated that originally it was called a wind turbine and staff has changed that to
wind generator. Staff took out some of the language in regard to how it applies to a 1041 application in order
to simplify it.
In addition, staff is proposing to modify the Zoning Code to allow wind generators as an accessory use or as a
use allowed with zoning permit approval. The Zoning Permit would be through an administrative process if we
do not receive objections from 30%or more of the property owners adjacent to the property where the wind
generator is proposed. If we do get objections from 30%or more of the property owners,then there would be
a hearing that would be held by the Board of County Commissioners who would make the final decision. The
other wind generators that are either taller or if there is more than three(3)wind generators proposed on an
individual property then it would be reviewed under a standard Use by Special Review permit.
The criteria as to which process the application would fall under is based on 1)the size of lot, 2)the height of
the wind generator, 3) rotor diameter, and 4) number of wind generators per lot.
Staff is also proposing wind generator standards that would regulate setbacks, design (specifically color),
noise, and compatibility.
Commissioner Ochsner and asked how the surrounding property owners are notified. Mr.Gathman said that
it would be similar to a Use by Special Review permit in which the applicant would submit a surrounding
property owners list along with the application. The surrounding property owners would be notified by letter.
Mr. Gathman indicated that there is a zoning permit process for mobile homes which is very similar. An
applicant would make an application and provide the surrounding property owner list to the Department of
Planning Services and then those property owners within 500 feet of the outer boundaries of the property are
notified of that application.
Mr. Gathman pointed out the definition for the wind generators. Specifically under this proposed code change,
wind generators would be allowed as an Accessory Use, as a Zoning Permit or as a Use by Special Review in
the Agricultural Zone District, Estate Zone District, all of the Commercial Zone Districts (C1-C4), and all
Industrial Zone Districts (I-1 — 1-3).
Mr. Gathman pointed out on the second page a table that illustrates the proposed heights and rotor diameter
that would be allowed as an Accessory Use based on the lot size. For instance on 1 -2.49 acres a wind
generator up to 40 feet with a rotor diameter of 12-feet or less would be allowed as a Use By Right. If you
exceed 40 feet but below 60 feet you would go through the Zoning Permit process. Then wind generators
above 60 feet would require a Use by Special Review permit.
Commissioner Holton clarified that 40 feet or below is a Use by Right. Mr. Gathman stated that was correct
and added that the applicant would need to submit the proper building permits to install it.
Mr. Gathman stated that the Department of Planning Services was receiving a lot of inquiries and requests
about wanting to put up wind turbines and therefore that is what prompted these code changes. He added
that originally the only thing in our codes was under the wind generator definition. It essentially said all wind
turbines would require a special use permit with the exception of wind turbines that generate 50 volts of energy
or less and is associated with a farm or ranch operation and is less than 70 feet in height. Based on
information that staff has seen and inquires received we are seeing more of the small scale wind turbines that
are possibly 40 feet in height.
Staff looked at 1 acre as the minimum lot size. On properties under 1 acre in size there are difficulties with:1)
being able to fit it on the property, and 2) some logistical details with the wind turbine. If there are existing
buildings they have to be set back a certain distance or you don't get enough wind.
In addition to the table as was pointed out, there are standards that would apply to all of these wind
generators, such as how many would be allowed per lot as a Use by Right. This proposal allows up to three
(3)wind generators per lot.
Mr. Gathman indicated that the standard for the setback would be at least one(1)times the hub height(motor)
of the generator. He added that there is a standard for the guy wire anchors and having minimum setback
from property lines as well.
Mr. Gathman stated that there are standards included for the color of the wind generators and added that
unless required by FAA there would be no lighting.
Mr. Gathman noted that Page 3 addresses noise standards. He pointed out that in the agricultural zone
district there is not a noise level that is defined per the County Code and State Statutes.
Included in the proposed changes is a provision if the applicant is going to be installing these wind generators
to net meter that the Department of Planning Services would require some evidence from the utility company
that they would accept that.
Commissioner Grand asked about Item M on Page 3 which states "Wind Generators shall not create a
detrimental effect on nearby properties through electromagnetic interference and/or physical appearance". Mr.
Grand referred to the"and/or physical appearance"and asked if that means if someone doesn't like the way
that it looks they can say no. Mr. Gathman commented that the reason that is included is because when
someone applies for a zoning permit for a wind turbine there has to be a review process for that and that
would address some possible concerns.
Tom Honn,Planning Department, commented that staff doesn't address what any of these turbines look like,
so it could be a fairly awkward device that gets installed. He added that all that sentence really does is
establish a neighbor's ability to say that they are concerned about it and that it needs to go through a hearing
process.
Mr. Honn commented that staff tried to set this up so that it is more accessible to property owners and
reasonably priced.
Commissioner Holton commented that he would be in favor of ending the sentence after"interference".
Commissioner Hall asked what kind of noise levels these wind generators create. Mr. Honn said that there is
not much noise that comes from these. He added that the design is what makes the biggest difference.
Commissioner Lawley referenced Item M on Page 3 and asked if there was another mechanism for citizens to
address their concerns other than the last portion of that sentence. Mr.Gathman replied yes and added that
under Section 23-4-980 there will be a Zoning Permit process in which the surrounding property owners within
500 feet of the property will be notified. The public can then raise objections and it does not have to be
anything specific to that criteria.
Commissioner Holton expressed concern over the cases with the cell phone towers and added that the
objections are from those who don't want to see it. Therefore, he can see objections for the wind generators
being the same. He reiterated being in favor of ending the sentence after"interference" in Item M.
Mr. Honn commented that it doesn't prevent surrounding property owners from saying that they are concerned
about it and then it goes into the hearing process. He commented that until neighborhoods get familiar with
them and we see more of them around we may see some objections to them.
Commissioner Ochsner asked if there is any cost difference if it goes through an administrative process or the
hearing process. Mr.Gathman commented that currently the zoning permit fee for mobile homes is$300 and
it is not geared whether or not there is a hearing; it is only a flat processing fee.
Commissioner Ocshner commented that he is trying to see what the cost detriment would be for someone
who would be applying for this is. Mr. Gathman commented that staff will have to work the fees out but it
would be considerably less than the Use by Special Review fee which is$1200 on the low end. He clarified
that as far as the zoning permit process it would be a meeting that would be before the Board of County
Commissioners; there would be no Planning Commission hearings involved with the zoning permit. There
would be Planning Commission hearings only if it would have to go through the Use by Special Review permit.
Commissioner Holton asked if the zoning permit would change the zoning for the entire lot. Mr. Gathman
replied that it would not.
Commissioner Holton stated that in the update to the Comp Plan the committee added for the County to
consider incentives. He added that he would be in favor of the County Commissioners to consider incentives
and waive the fees to put these wind generators in.
Mr. Holton referred to the table on Page 2 and added that he would like to see another line added for the 1 —
2.49 acres with the wind generators 40 feet and below that it would only require a building permit. He believes
that it would be more definitive for someone who is looking at the code book.
Mr. Holton raised a question on how a wind generator would be used for Ag use for a house and three
sprinklers. He commented that it would then be four (4) units and asked if they would be required to go
through a Use by Special Review since the application would go over three. Mr. Honn commented that the
applicant might come in with a couple of large units rather than smaller units. Mr. Holton gave the scenario
that if there was a ditch or something that was not logistically possibly to run those lines in.
Mr. Honn said that maybe what we would want is to have the capability for the agricultural district to have a
small scale review to determine if more than three still meets the intent.
Mr. Honn asked Commissioner Holton to state his intent so that staff can work with Mr. Barker on some
language to bring to the Board of County Commissioners which addresses his concern.
Bruce Barker, County Attorney,clarified if what Commissioner Holton is suggesting is the need for going more
than three on larger properties. Mr. Holton said yes and added that Guttersons have 20,000 to 30,000 acres
and if that would be one legal lot in the county then they are only limited to three and it doesn't produce
enough when they are trying to pump water for their cattle. Mr. Barker asked what size they might be. He
added that the County wouldn't want to be in a position where they are going to put in a large wind farm.
Mr. Barker commented that because of the size this might be something that we can create a category for the
in between areas. He added that you can get greater numbers because they are going to be smaller units on
a larger piece of property. Mr. Honn added the assumption was that typically we would be dealing with parcels
less than 80 acres in size and in many cases it will be the 2-5 acre lot. However, there are the large more
agricultural scale things that we do need to define on how we might treat that situation should it ever occur.
Mr.Barker commented that the categories were established for the individual who wants to have one of these
for their house and then the next category up was going to be the wind farm. He indicated that he wasn't sure
if they thought of using these for a variety of them.
Commissioner Grand suggested that another line could be added to the table to address the larger scale wind
generators but word it so that it would be under the administrative review.
Mr. Honn stated that when the Planning Commission makes a motion for these changes to include your intent
of what you are trying to achieve. Commissioner Holton said he is comfortable with staff to create language
from this discussion.
Commissioner Holton referred to Section 23-4-990 Delegation of Authority and asked about the reference to
the commercial vehicle. Mr. Gathman replied that it was a typo and will make sure that it gets removed.
Commissioner Grand referred to Section 23-4-980, Item L. specifically the photo-realistic renderings
(photosyms). Mr. Gathman commented that when we have had telecommunication towers we have had those
photo renderings before and it just gives a good illustration of height comparison of surrounding buildings,etc.
Mr. Grand felt that it would be a burden on the applicant. Mr. Honn commented that if there was a strong
enough neighborhood opposition it would be a good tool to use for the impact.
Commissioner Holton wished to clarify with Mr. Grand if wanted to delete Item L and renumber accordingly.
Mr. Grand stated yes.
Commissioner Holton expressed that he would like the County Commissioners to consider the application fees
and building permits. He added that if we are going to provide incentives and encourage people to do this he
would be in favor of the applicant pulling a building permit but not get charged for it on a Use by Right. Mr.
Gathman indicated that there are some incentives as well through the State through the Governor's Energy
Office.
Commissioner Grand agreed with Mr. Holton for the applicant to apply for the building permit but there is not
charge included. Mr. Holton asked how much the building permit fee would be for one of these less than 40
feet in height. Mr. Honn commented that he hasn't valued one and couldn't give an exact fee but estimated
that it would be around$300 with minimal electrical fees above that. Mr.Holton expressed that he would be in
favor of waiving the fees but still require the inspections for proper installation. Mr. Honn said that there
should be a minimal building fee identified for all of the inspections(foundation and electrical inspections)as
well as ensure for the public health and safety concerns.
Commissioner Lawley stated that there is a direct cost associated to the County for this. Mr.Honn added that
there is a minimal cost recovery that the County would want to make sure to identify and still stay within the
incentives.
Commissioner Holton commented that he understands that it will cost the County to inspect these sites but for
someone who is putting one in as a Use by Right they should then be given an incentive.
Tom Holton moved to expand the chart under Section 23-4-970 so that it defines wind generators that are 40
feet or less require only a building permit, seconded by Erich Ehrlich. Motion carried unanimously.
Tom Holton moved to end the sentence after"interference"on Item M, Page 3, seconded by Bill Hall.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, absent; Paul Branham, absent; Erich Ehrlich,yes; Robert Grand,yes; Bill Hall,yes; Mark Lawley,
yes; Roy Spitzer, absent; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, no. Motion carried.
Robert Grand moved to delete Item L and renumber accordingly under Section 23-4-980, seconded by Tom
Holton.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, absent; Paul Branham, absent; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand,yes; Bill Hall,yes; Mark Lawley,
yes; Roy Spitzer, absent; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
There was a lengthy discussion on waiving fees for the building permit which fall under the Use by Right as an
incentive. Mr. Honn commented that he would be certain to identify the fees associated with this prior to the
Board of County Commissioners hearing. He added that he understands the incentive and believes that the
biggest incentive is that there is a process created where there are some that are strictly a Use by Right. The
applicant just needs to pull a permit and can potentially have it up within a few weeks. If it is a little bigger it
will only go through an administrative review and not a full Use by Special Review process. The incentive is
already there through a Use by Right or a very minimal administrative process and any fee associated with
that will be considerably less than what a Use by Special Review permit would have been.
Tom Holton moved for the County Commissioners to consider the elimination of fees on the Use by Right and
keep the fees for the remaining processes as low as possible to encourage the use and development of wind
energy as a natural resource, seconded by Robert Grand.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, absent; Paul Branham, absent; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand,yes; Bill Hall,yes; Mark Lawley,
no with comment; Roy Spitzer, absent; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, no with comment. Motion carried.
Commissioner Lawley commented that he doesn't believe that the County should absorb those fees,
especially considering that there is no direct impact to the public.
Commissioner Ochsner commented that he believes that with the changes that have been made and with the
ease of the application now it is enough of an incentive for the applicant.
Tom Holton moved that the 2008 Code Changes as presented by staff and amended by the Planning
Commission be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, Robert Grand seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, absent; Paul Branham, absent; Erich Ehrlich,yes; Robert Grand,yes; Bill Hall, yes; Mark Lawley,
yes; Roy Spitzer, yes;Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss. No one had
any further business to discuss.
Meeting adjourned at 2:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
Hello