HomeMy WebLinkAbout20080880.tiff CHAPTER 26
Mixed Use Development
ARTICLE II
I-25 MUD
Sec. 26-2-80. Utility, infrastructure and public facility regulations.
D. Storm Drainage Design and Technical Criteria. The County does not publish
technical data or storm drainage design manuals. The consulting engineer for the
developer is to use published material by a generally aecepted authority approved by the
Director of Public Works. The material used must be referenced and copied as part of the
submittal information. All development within the I 25 MUD areas shall adhere to the
Storm Drainage Design and Technical Criteria regulations in Section 21 7 130 of this
Code. Development within the I-25 MUD area shall adhere to the Weld County Storm
Drainage Criteria, as currently adopted by Weld County. These criteria have been
adopted in order to provide minimum standards to preserve and protect the public health,
safety, and general welfare in the unincorporated lands of Weld County, pursuant to
authority granted by Part 4 of Article 15 of Title 30, and Article 35 of Title 30, C.R.S.
These criteria are designed to provide storm drainage best management practices to
accommodate the unique characteristics of Weld County. All submittals for development
within the I-25 MUD area shall include the information listed in the Weld County Storm
Drainage Criteria.
ARTICLE III
Southeast Weld MUD
Sec. 26-3-90. Utility, infrastructure and public facility regulations.
D. Storm Drainage Design and Technical Criteria. The County does not publish
technical data or storm- drainage design manuals. The consulting engineer for the
developer is to use published material by a generally accepted authority approved by the
Director of Public Works. The material used must be referenced and copied as part of the
submittal information. All development within the MUD areas shall adhere to the Storm
Drainage Design and Technical Criteria regulations in Section 24 7 130 of this Code.
Development within the Southeast Weld MUD area shall adhere to the Weld County
Storm Drainage Criteria, as currently adopted by Weld County. These criteria have been
adopted in order to provide minimum standards to preserve and protect the public health,
safety, and general welfare in the unincorporated lands of Weld County, pursuant to
authority granted by Part 4 of Article 15 of Title 30, and Article 35 of Title 30, C.R.S.
These criteria are designed to provide storm drainage best management practices to
accommodate the unique characteristics of Weld County. All submittals for development
within the Southeast Weld MUD area shall include the information listed in the Weld
County Storm Drainage Criteria.
CEO Jett 7— /
2008-0880
Memorandum
TO: Planning Commissioners
C DATE: September 24, 2007
FROM: Brad Mueller
COLORADO Department of Planning Services
RE: Fall Code Changes
CC: Bruce Barker
Following is a brief summary of the main items contained in the attached proposed Weld County
Code changes, which the Planning Commission will consider at its hearing on October 2, 2007.
• Group Home Facilities. Various additions are proposed to account for foster care homes,
group home facilities, and residential therapeutic centers. Recent state law changes have
protected the rights of handicapped persons, persons with developmental disabilities,
persons with mental illness, and the aged, to reside in residential areas without the
requirement of special permits. The proposed Code changes not only provide for these
protected groups, but they allow for similar residential center uses as a special use review for
other groups of users.
• Railroad Freight Depots (Railyards). The proposed Code changes call out Railyards as a
defined term and allow their use in the Ag District,the C-2 and C-3 Districts,and all Industrial
Districts. In addition, a complete set of design standards that would apply only to Railyards is
proposed as Appendix 23-F.
• Notice to Mineral Rights Owners. Recent changes to State law require that a land use
applicant only provide certification to the County that they have provided notice of a land use
hearing to the mineral rights owners. The County no longer needs to independently provide
notification or verify that noticing was properly made.
• Mining. The current definition of mining includes several categories of mining, including on-
site mining, which can be interpreted to include in-situ leaching mining ("solution mining").
While it seems clear that the current definition is meant to include all types of mining activity,
adding in-situ mining to the list of potential types will eliminate any ambiguity. In addition,
changes are proposed to the supplementary regulations for mining (Chapter 23, Article IV),
which clarify that supplementary submittal information is required for all types of mining, not
just open pit gravel mining.
• Improvements Agreements. Changes are proposed that require Improvements Agreements
for Site Plan Review and Use by Special Review applications. These amendments are
requested in order to be consistent with current practices.
st-
}
• Fireworks/Christmas trees. Amendment would expand the number of zoning districts that
allow temporary facilities for the sale of fireworks and Christmas trees. Currently they are
only allowed in the C-3 and 1-3 Districts; staff could not find any rational for disallowing them
in other districts (other than residential districts and the Estate District).
• Massage Parlors. The Code currently does not call these out as a specific use, so message
parlors are permitted under the more general category of"stores and shops which furnish
personal services and merchandise." Because State law requires the County to administer
the licensing of massage parlors, staff recommends specifically calling out this use. No
change is proposed in either the way in which this use would be processed or the zone
districts in which they would be allowed.
• Urban Drainage Criteria. Various changes are needed to ensure all parts of the Code are
consistent with the recent adoption of drainage criteria.
• Temporary Batch Plants. These are currently allowed in the Ag District to facilitate road
construction projects. The proposed changes would allow for extension of the 6-month limit
on temporary uses, and it extends this use to all C and I Districts as well.
2
BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Paul Branham, that the following resolution be introduced for passage bythe Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
WELD COUNTY CODE CHANGES
STAFF: Bruce Barker and Brad Mueller
ITEMS: Chapter 23: Sections 23-1-90, 23-2-20, 23-2-40, 23-2-50, 23-2-150.M, 23-2-
160.CC, 23-2-200.G.1, 23-2-200.H, 23-2-210.B.3, 23-2-230.A.4, 23-2-240.A.12,
23-2-260.6.10, 23-2-260.B.11, 23-2-260.E.6, 23-2-260.E.7, 23-2-330.8.4, 23-2-
370.D.14.h, 23-2-690.A.17, 23-2-730.T, 23-2-780.D, 23-3-20.0, 23-3-20.U, 23-3-
20.X, 23-3-20.Y, 23-3-20.Z, 23-3-40.CC, 23-3-40.DD, 23-3-110.B.6, 23-3-
110.8.7, 23-3-110.D.10, 23-3-130.6.6, 23-3-130.8.7, 23-3-140.8.6, 23-3-140.6.7,
23-3-150.B.6, 23-3-150.B.7, 23-3-210.8.9, 23-3-210.8.10, 23-3-210.8.11, 23-3-
210.D.9, 23-3-220.D.7, 23-3-220.D.8, 23-3-230.D.7, 23-3-230.D.8, 23-3-240.6.7,
23-3-240.6.8, 23-3-240.D.3, 23-3-310.6.8, 23-3-310.6.9, 23-3-310.D.8, 23-3-
320.6.8, 23-3-320.8.9, 23-3-320.D.12, 23-3-330.8.10, 23-3-330.D.14, 23-3-
410.H, 23-3-410, 23-4-250, 23-4-260.D, 23-4-260.F, 23-4-260.G.9, 23-4-
260.G.10, 23-4-260.G.14 and 23-4-280.6; Chapter 24: Sections 24-3-50.T, 24-3-
60.D, 24-3-60.M, 24-4-30.6.8, 24-4-30.C.1.d, 24-4-30.C.3.d, 24-4-40.D.5, 24-4-
40.E.3, 24-7-130, 24-8-20.A and 24-4-280.E; Chapter 26: Sections 26-2-80.D,
and 26-3-90.D; Chapter 27: Sections 27-5-30.C, 27-6-120.B.4, 27-6-120.D.4, 27-
7-30.M, and 27-7-40.B.3.d.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
See Attached Documents.
Motion seconded by Tom Holton.
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Tom Holton
Doug Ochsner
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
Paul Branham
Mark Lawley
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this -
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Kristine Ranslem, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission,do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on October 2, 2007.
Dated the 2n° of October, 2007.
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
/0 . -,;26,0-7
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
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
rn 0� am
Doug Ochsner-Chair 0 3
Tom Holton -Vice Chair
Paul Branham Mt JD c�i�o
Erich Ehrlich E D zz
Bill Hall
Robert Grand 0 N--<
Mark Lawley
Roy Spitzercr
Also Present: Brad Mueller, Kim Ogle, and Tom Honn, Department of Planning Services; Dave Bauer,
Department of Public Works; Bruce Barker, County Attorney and Kris Ranslem, Secretary
Paul Branham moved to approve the September 18, 2007 Weld County Planning Commission minutes,
seconded by Tom Holton. Motion carried.
Weld County Code Changes
STAFF: Bruce Barker and Brad Mueller
ITEMS: Chapter 23: Sections 23-1-90, 23-2-20, 23-2-40, 23-2-50, 23-2-150.M, 23-2-160.CC, 23-2-
200.G.1, 23-2-200.H, 23-2-210.6.3, 23-2-230.A.4, 23-2-240.A.12, 23-2-260.6.10, 23-2-
260.6.11, 23-2-260.E.6, 23-2-260.E.7, 23-2-330.6.4, 23-2-370.D.14.h, 23-2-690.A.17, 23-2-
730.T, 23-2-780.D, 23-3-20.0, 23-3-20.U, 23-3-20.X, 23-3-20.Y, 23-3-20.Z, 23-3-40.CC, 23-3-
40.DD, 23-3-110.6.6, 23-3-110.6.7, 23-3-110.D.10, 23-3-130.6.6, 23-3-130.6.7, 23-3-140.6.6,
23-3-140.6.7, 23-3-150.6.6, 23-3-150.6.7, 23-3-210.6.9, 23-3-210.6.10, 23-3-210.6.11, 23-3-
210.D.9, 23-3-220.D.7, 23-3-220.D.8, 23-3-230.D.7, 23-3-230.D.8, 23-3-240.6.7, 23-3-240.6.8,
23-3-240.D.3, 23-3-310.6.8, 23-3-310.6.9, 23-3-310.D.8, 23-3-320.8.8, 23-3-320.6.9, 23-3-
320.D.12, 23-3-330.6.10, 23-3-330.D.14, 23-3-410.H, 23-3-410, 23-4-250, 23-4-260.D, 23-4-
260.F, 23-4-260.G.9, 23-4-260.G.10, 23-4-260.G.14 and 23-4-280.B; Chapter 24: Sections 24-
3-50.T, 24-3-60.D, 24-3-60.M, 24-4-30.B.8, 24-4-30.C.1.d, 24-4-30.C.3.d, 24-4-40.D.5, 24-4-
40.E.3, 24-7-130, 24-8-20.A and 24-4-280.E; Chapter 26: Sections 26-2-80.D, and 26-3-90.D;
Chapter 27: Sections 27-5-30.C, 27-6-120.B.4, 27-6-120.D.4, 27-7-30.M, and 27-7-40.6.3.d.
Brad Mueller, Department of Planning Services, stated that the code changes that are presented to the
Board are a joint effort between Planning Services and the Attorney's office. He added that he would start
by going over the memo that was given to the Board and highlight some of the main items throughout the
codes rather than attempt to go through the codes in order.
We try to review the code on a bi-annual basis roughly in the spring and the fall. The process that we
undertook this fall in looking at code changes are to 1)look at ministerial changes that have come up over
the previous months, 2)to respond to complaints, criticisms, and suggestions that we get from the public
about a particular code and 3)ongoing research of codes. As part of this process, we did a fairly limited
referral with discussions between Planning, the Attorney's office and Public Works primarily. There was
notification in the newspaper as required for Chapter 23.
Mr. Mueller began with the first proposed code change of which is Group Home Facilities and added that it
may be of the most significant. The current code deals with Group Homes in a fairly cursory way. By
Group Homes, we mean those types of assisted living homes and homes that are residences made up of
multiple individuals that are not necessarily a family in the other defined sense of the term. They are not,
however, correctional institutions where a person would be locked in or restricted in their movements.
Primarily, the changes are intended to address state law which has created what could be called a special
classification of certain groups within the state. Specifically those groups are handicapped persons,
L tlYnal /&It y /G-LS 211C 7
persons with developmental disabilities, persons with mental illness and the aged (meaning folks over 60
years or more). The four categories of individuals identified by the state law have been determined that
they should be able to live in group residences without having to go through any extraordinary types of
processing. Those types of residences, with individuals of those classifications, should be allowed to
integrate into a neighborhood without undue processing requirements. The three definitions of a Group
Home Facility that are proposed are first, to address those special classes of individuals, as previously
stated, and allow for their use as a Use by Right.
The second category is a Residential Therapeutic Center which would essentially be all other types of
group homes for other types of purposes; for example, specialized group child care homes, residential
treatment facilities, shelters for the homeless and sex offenders. That whole category of uses would
require a Use by Special Review and that's why that is called out as a separate definition.
Then a third type of group home that wasn't currently addressed clearly in the code was Foster Care
Homes. Those are being called out as a separate use being the residence of a person or family for the
purpose of providing 24 hour care for children who are under the age of 21.
Mr. Mueller continued to move on to the Railroad Freight Depots(Railyards)of the proposed code
changes. He commented that the current code does not call this out specifically as a use; therefore two
proposals are being made 1)to create a definition for railyards and 2)to set up design standards that
would apply to railyards. Those design standards are proposed as Appendix 23-F and the railyards
themselves are defined for use in the Agricultural District and the C-2 and C-3 Districts as well as all the
Industrial Districts.
Commissioner Branham asked what the process was on Appendix 23-F and inquired if this Appendix had
been given to the Railroad Companies to take a look at and get their input. Tom Honn, Director of
Planning Services, replied that what they have done is coordinate with the City of Fort Lupton, City of
Brighton and the County and try to come up with a common set of standards that all three jurisdictions
were comfortable with so that regardless of whose jurisdiction this might be either developed under or
follow-up activities might be developed under, there was going to be a consistent set of standards. The
County felt that they need to create this so it applies to other locations throughout the County. We have
communicated with the Union Pacific Railroad and their representatives for several months looking at
preliminary design and coordinating with them in terms of these set of standards and other aspects of this
code process.
Commissioner Branham asked if we know they railroad companies have actually received a copy of the
proposed Appendix 23-F. Mr. Honn said that he isn't certain; however Kim Ogle can confirm that answer
as soon as he is back here. Mr. Branham indicated that he is concerned with it because if the Board
approves this it could lead to a lot of problems in the future if they are not aware of it. He is concerned
that they make take exception to a lot of things that are proposed, such as Page 7, in talking about the
design of the interior roadways, that they have to line up with adjacent Commercial and Industrial
properties. He added "on Page 8.C.1 and C.2 it talks about a building less than 10,000 square feet and
the pedestrian sidewalk adjacent to it has to be no less than 8 feet wide and if the building is more than
10,000 square feet then the adjacent sidewalks cannot be less than 15 feet wide. We are talking about a
Freight Depot, and I wonder if these kinds of things are going to create a lot of concern with the Railroad
Companies and then we are going to have to go back and look at all these again. I wonder if it might be
better to get their input on these things before we look at them".
Mr. Branham stated his other concern that he has with this Appendix 23-F is on the bottom of Page 5. "It
talks about no less than 30% shall be open space within each parcel for a Commercial and Industrial
development. So they are requiring 30% and then as you continue down to the bottom of that paragraph
and on the next page it says, 'however if the project cannot satisfy the above requirement for open space
the owner may substitute it for cash in-lieu'. Does that mean that if they don't want to have 30% open
space they can buy it?"
Robert Grand stated that he agreed with Mr. Branham and added that this is our first time in the railroad
business and railroads have been here for a long time. He said it doesn't mean they do it right, but thinks
that if they get a shared approach and ask them for some consultation then we would save ourselves
some concern down the road. He added that it shows good faith on our part to develop a workable
scenario.
Mr. Honn stated that he will confirm with Kim, however he does believe that they have had the document
in their hands, as at the last meeting that they had with the representatives of the railroad they were talking
about how some of these standards would apply to development. He added that some of those standards
are for Commercial, not necessarily for Industrial, and without having that specifically in front of him, he
doesn't know if some of the ones Mr. Branham was referring to were Commercial, rather than Industrial
standards. Mr. Honn commented that he knows that they are aware of them and that they have had some
conversations with them about some of the site design issues and how that would apply to certain pieces
of their use.
Mr. Branham commented that the Board can go ahead and approve the code but hold this Appendix 23-F
pending input from the railroad companies.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, stated that they have not provided the railroad specifically
with design standards. We have multiple railroads in the County and since this is an overlay for the entire
County we would have to consult the public for a project with the railroads. He added that typically the
applicant comes in and has a leasehold agreement with the railroad for use of their right-of-way for
transfer facility. Mr. Ogle added that they have a pretty good working relationship with two of the railroads
here in the County so we could provide that to them if that is a recommendation that Commissioners have.
Bruce Barker, County Attorney, commented that he has had conversations with Union Pacific and stated
that he was waiting to see if the Planning Commission agrees to these concepts and then he was going to
send it to the railroad companies for them to review. Mr. Barker added that he can ask them to review it
and then get comments back to the Board by the next meeting.
Commissioner Branham stated that we should get their comments and input and then look at it. He added
that this Appendix is full of so many things that are very important to these railroad companies and would
think that they would want to have input.
Commissioner Hall asked how the design standards were originally put together. Mr. Ogle said that it was
a group effort between some of the planners from the City of Fort Lupton and Brighton. The bulk of those
standards are from what we call Ordinance 201 which is the Tritown IGA which includes Frederick,
Firestone, and Dacono, and those are the most stringent standards in the County that we have for a
Commercial and Industrial development. We took those standards and modified them for warehouse and
commercial facilities that would be associated with ancillary uses that would deal with rail.
Commissioner Hall stated that he is under the same thought process as Commissioners Branham and
Grand that these are tough.
Commissioner Branham stated that one of our main jobs is to screen all of these cases for the County
Commissioners and to get rid of all the problems that exist with them and doesn't think that they can do
that with this Appendix. He added that if they approve it today and then it gets to the County
Commissioner's hearing, they are going to spend a lot of time if the railroad companies find a lot of
problems there.
Paul Branham moved to continue Appendix 23-F to November 6, 2007, seconded by Robert Grand.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes;
Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously
Mr. Branham suggested inviting the railroad companies to the meeting. Mr. Barker stated that he would
invite them.
Mr. Mueller continued with the next proposed code change of which is the Notice to Mineral Rights
Owners. He added that due to some changes in state law the staff is recommending changes to the code.
The existing procedure right now requires that staff, for any land use application, acquire a list of Mineral
Rights Owners from the applicant. Staff then takes that list and mails notice of a hearing to the list of
Mineral Rights Owners and that becomes the official notification. With recent changes in state laws the
county is no longer required to do the noticing itself; rather they must request of an applicant that they
provide a certificate attesting to the fact that they have performed the noticing for the Mineral Rights
Owners.
Commissioner Holton asked where that certificate will come from. Mr. Mueller replied that there will be a
policy document that we will put together and will provide that as part of the application submittal materials
which will be a standard form.
Commissioner Branham noticed in different places where it has been lined out with reference to the
notification of Mineral Owners. He said in specific on Page 6, item 11 at the top, all of the reference to a
sign being posted on the applicant property has also been lined out and asked if that an error. Mr. Mueller
said that it is not and that this is duplicating information that is already in the Process Section of this code
and it is currently incorrectly placed in the Submittal Materials Section. Mr. Branham clarified that this is a
duplicate and we are not eliminating the requirement of a sign being posted. Mr. Mueller stated he was
correct.
Mr. Mueller continued with the next item of Improvement Agreements. He added that the County requires
as part of any platting, an Improvements Agreement that is a Surety document that the applicant and the
County enter into that define the improvements that are required and then the applicant is required to put
up a bond or letter of credit to ensure that those improvements are done completely. As a matter of
practice we also require that of any Use by Special Reviews or Site Plan Reviews. With the Site Plan
Reviews and USR's we typically have been getting collateral and this simply puts that into the code to
make that clear.
Mr. Mueller stated that two changes are proposed to Mining. The first is in the definition. The current
definition is broad and we believe it includes all types of mining, but to avoid any ambiguity in the future we
are recommending a tweaking of that definition.
The second item for mining that is being proposed is in the section dealing with additional supplementary
regulations for mining that is found on Page 14 of the overall code changes. Currently the code makes
reference to open or pit mining for this list of additional requirements that have to be submitted with any
Use by Special Review. In reality those requirements have always been envisioned for any type of mining,
this change would simply remove the reference to open or pit mining and make it true across the board for
all types of mining.
The Board was handed a third proposed code change related to mining under Section 23-4-280
documents that have to be submitted with the Use by Special Review. The applicant shall submit written
evidence of approval for all Federal and State Regulatory Agency permits. Mr. Mueller asked for
clarification from Mr. Ogle if that is specific just to mining or to all Use by Special Review cases. Mr. Ogle
indicated that it is specific to mining.
Mr. Honn noted that back in the 70's we did have an in-situ permit process that we had done for a site in
Weld County and so the interpretation always has been that mining is intended and does cover everything.
However, due to the potential for an upcoming activity that is specifically in-situ we felt it was best to make
sure it was extremely clear in our code.
Commission Holton asked if the applicant is asked, with the proposed change to Section 23-4-280, to do
anything extra or anything above what the state engineer or the water courts require. Mr. Honn stated that
is not the intent. Mr. Holton commented that he believes that we should be involved with dust control and
water for employees but the rest of that the county has no control over.
Commissioner Ochsner asked if oil and gas is considered mining and if there is any trouble there that
those companies could come and say that these rules now apply to them. Mr. Ogle said that these fall
under open mining Section 23-4-250 that deals with Purpose. It is a supplement regulation to mining in
the county. Mr. Barker commented that if you go to Page 2 of where the definition of mining is stated it
says"the act of recovering mineral, sand, gravel, quarry, coal or other resources from the ground". Mr.
Barker believes that it would fit under"other resources from the ground". Mr. Barker said that in answer to
the question, he doesn't believe that this, by virtue of all of the things that we have in the code, applies to
oil and gas exploration and/or recovery because we deal with those separately.
Commissioner Holton asked how we can view that different as opposed to gravel mining or uranium
mining as a Use by Right. Mr. Barker said that the oil and gas is completely governed by the Colorado Oil
and Gas Conservation Commission except for land use in very specific areas and that's why we have
limited it to Residential. As you may recall there was a case where the City of Greeley combined with
another case back in 1994/1995 that said we do have limited capability to do land use regulations with
respect to oil and gas recovery but only in specific areas and those areas are going to be residential.
Uranium mining is regulated by a variety of different regulatory agencies.
Commissioner Holton stated that with gravel you've got the DMG that controls the mining part and the
reclamation, much as the same for the oil and gas commission does. Mr. Barker indicated that the Health
Department is going to be the regulatory agency for the State with respect to the Uranium mining. For
Uranium mining there is going to be a variety of different regulatory agencies that they are going to have to
deal with. For our purposes, we've realized or thought it would be best to have a USR no matter what
zone they are in.
Commissioner Ochsner commented with regard to the memo that was just handed out on item E that the
applicant shall submit written evidence of approval for all Federal and State Regulatory Agency permits
and stated that he wouldn't mind seeing that on a lot of the other USR's too. He said he thinks that there
are times where we are in cases and we can approve it but only if it's approved conditionally. Mr. Mueller
recommended that staff research that.
Mr. Mueller continued to the next proposed code change of Fireworks/Christmas Trees. He said the
current code allows the temporary sale of fireworks and Christmas trees in only the C-3 and 1-3 Districts.
He added that about twice a year we get questions on why they can't be allowed in the agricultural district
or other commercial districts. We have come to recognize that there probably is no good reason to limit it
to just those two districts and so the recommendation is to open it to a wider variety of zone districts
except for residential districts.
Commissioner Branham commented that he does not agree with that. Right now they are allowed in the
C-3 and 1-3 districts for the Fireworks but when you consider the health and safety issues involving
fireworks 1)the building itself is always a danger of explosions and fire 2)the possibility of injuries of kids
using fireworks and 3)the possibility of fire started in a county area by fireworks. Mr. Branham added that
he is not sure of expanding the areas from C-3 and 1-3 to include the C-1, C-4 and I-1 and doesn't see the
motivation or any reason to do that. He expressed that he is not supportive of expanding the areas of
fireworks into the other 3 zone areas. Mr. Mueller commented that a big part of this is in response to the
fireworks industry. One of the most common targeted areas for vendors is the agricultural zone district
and believes that what the vendors are finding is that the towns understandably have very strict
regulations that make it either very difficult or impossible to set up temporary facilities within the towns and
for very good reasons as Mr. Branham mentioned. Then what the vendors come to us and say is we are
not allowed to do it in the town very easily. We can do it in the county but only in these very isolated
districts which often time isn't near main modes of transportation. Mr. Mueller commented that in all
cases, one of the requirements of our temporary permitting is that they receive an approval and review by
the local Fire District.
Commissioner Lawley stated that he agreed with Mr. Branham. He added that he understands the Fire
Department review and said that is provided that those Fire Districts have the staff available to deal with
the safety issues of putting them in other districts and a lot of them don't. Mr. Lawley commented that if
you look at Weld County, for example, the majority of the Fire Departments are volunteer.
Commissioner Ochsner asked if this would open it up to have fireworks/Christmas tree sale in the
agricultural zone. Mr. Mueller replied that it would and clarified that it would be all districts other than the
residential and estate districts as proposed.
Commissioner Holton commented that anytime a farmer can rent out a little piece of his property and
make a little bit of extra money, he believes it is a good thing. He added that with the fireworks we have
now he doesn't see them as a danger.
Paul Branham made a motion to eliminate the reference of fireworks in the proposed code changes and
stated that they are to remain only allowed in the C-3 and 1-3 Zone Districts, seconded by Mark Lawley.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, no; Robert Grand, no; Bill Hall, no; Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, no; Tom
Holton, no with comment; Doug Ochsner, yes with comment.
Commissioner Holton commented that he would like to have it added to the code as amended by staff.
Commissioner Ochsner commented that he does think there is a huge difference between the fireworks
and Christmas trees and it would be foolish for us to think that people from town aren't going to come in to
the county to purchase these fireworks and if these towns have outlawed them, he thinks that we are not
supporting the towns.
Motion failed.
Discussion continued to the next proposed code change regarding massage parlors. Mr. Mueller stated
that the proposed changes concerning massage parlors would not alter either the processing of them or
the zone districts within which they are allowed. He added that it is simply being called out as a specific
use because of recent requirements by the State that massage parlors as a specific use get licensed.
The licensing is required by the State, but is required to be administered by the County and the license
process would be very similar to a liquor licensing.
Commissioner Holton asked that since it is like a liquor license, do they have to go through a hearing to
get it? Mr. Mueller indicated that there is a form that would need to be filled out and a separate hearing
process. Mr. Barker added that the Board of County Commissioners sits as the Liquor Board and it would
roughly be the same process as for massage parlor hearings. The only difference is that they don't need
to show a desire in the neighborhood to have that operation there.
Mr. Mueller addressed the next proposed code change of Urban Drainage Criteria. He stated that the
Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners adopted a very comprehensive list of
requirements that are submitted for various land use cases for urban drainage. As we've started to
implement that and apply it to various land use cases, it has been brought to our attention that there are a
few sections of the code which still make reference to the old, but more minimal requirements, that existed
for drainage. The proposed changes eliminate those changes and make it consistent with the new section
that was adopted nine months ago.
Mr. Mueller brought up the final subject for consideration concerning temporary batch plants. Right now
batch plants can be set up in the agricultural zone district on a temporary basis under the logic that if you
are doing road improvements in an area it often is necessary to set up a batch plant. Under our current
code, temporary is defined as six (6) months and the logic being that if you have a road way being built out
then you need to have that facility in close proximity to the project.
One proposed change is to add that as a temporary use in the Commercial and Industrial Districts. The
other proposed change is to allow for"temporary"to roll over at the discretion of the Director of Planning
Services. Not all road projects are created equal and sometimes they take longer than six months, so
rather than force an application into a Use by Special Review, we are proposing language that would
make it at the discretion of the Director of Planning Services to extend that temporary use an additional six
(6) months in six month increments.
Commissioner Grand referenced Page 13 and stated that if he read it correctly, you could theoretically
have an infinite 6 month extension. Mr. Mueller stated that was correct. Mr. Grand commented that he
didn't like an unlimited open process. Mr. Mueller said that what they have found is in the past it becomes
difficult to try and find that magic number and what we are asking the Board to authorize is kind of a "trust
us clause"that says the director will use good discretion in making sure it doesn't continue. Mr. Grand
stated that he doesn't want citizens to come back and say that this is the 241h year, the 48th renewal and
thought that this was only a temporary thing. Mr. Mueller mentioned that there are some remedies that a
citizen could take to challenge the director's decision. The intent here is to simply recognize that we as
staff are charged with looking out for the public interest as well and wouldn't abuse that right.
Commissioner Spitzer recalled that there was a USR applied for previously and the citizens who were in
the area were really upset about the idea that there was a temporary batch plant that had been there a
long time. Mr. Spizter inquired when the public knows that it's their opportunity or their right to challenge
that. Mr. Ogle stated that SUP-249 was an existing site for gravel mining only. Coincidently there was
also a State contract issued for repaving on State Highway 52 which a temporary asphalt batch plant was
placed on site for a period of about a year. The temporary batch plants deal with state municipal contracts
and we approve them based on the duration of time.
Mr. Mueller emphasized that this is limited to road projects, as Mr. Ogle stated. He added that staff clearly
could not extend this at a whim if a project was being finished. There would be no ability for the director to
extend that indefinitely for other purposes as it is very narrowly required for road projects.
Paul Branham moved that the proposed code changes including the memo that references Section 23-4-
280, for the exception of Appendix 23-F, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; 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 they have any code changes they would like to
have addressed.
Commissioner Holton said that with regard to Special Use Permits it states that before you can turn in an
application you have to have a Surface Use Agreement with the Oil Companies. He added that if it's for
one application, whether it's mining or whatever else, it needs to be consistent. Mr. Mueller referred to
Section 23-2-260.B.14, "the applicants shall submit to the Department of Planning Services a copy of an
agreement with the Mineral Rights Owners associated with the subject property. Such agreement shall
stipulate that the oil and gas activities on the subject property have been adequately incorporated into the
design of the site or shall provide written evidence that an adequate attempt has been made to mitigate
the concerns of the mineral owners of the subject property". Mr. Mueller commented that his
interpretation of that is that our current code does require that a USR application include submittal of the
Surface Rights Agreement. However, there is the condition that if there isn't success in acquiring one of
those agreements, they can as an alternative submit information showing that an adequate attempt has
been made.
Commissioner Holton commented that his question is on interpretation and stated because if you require
that and we've seen that before with other applicants on USR's and PUD's, where it could take two years
to get a Surface Use Agreement with some of these companies. Some oil companies are easy to deal
with, but you have other ones that are looking for money and if you can't make that deal, you've held the
applicant up for a long period of time before they can get that Surface Use Agreement. If you interpret it
that they have to have this done before Planning Services will take the application, you've taken out their
ability to be able to negotiate a contract with the oil and gas company on their piece of property. Mr.
Holton added that we have always done it before that they had to at least show written evidence that they
made an adequate attempt. However, if planning services is using the policy now that they have to have
this in place before they can even turn in their application he believes that is a different interpretation of
what has been done in the past. Mr. Ogle stated that we would ask them for evidence that would show or
demonstrate that they have actually been working on it through emails, evidence of telephone calls, points
of contact, etc. Mr. Holton said that it's basically been notification and then we start the application
process, and then the applicant gets to go through the process of trying to negotiate a deal with these oil
companies, that's what we've done in the past. He expressed that he doesn't understand why we've
changed that interpretation now. Mr. Mueller said that it's hard to comment on that because you are
suggesting a pattern of our approach to how we've been taking in applications. He added that if the
concern is that there has been some inconsistency with that or that we've been interpreting it one way in
one case and one way in another we can certainly have some discussion at staff level about whether that
is the case.
Mr. Holton said that there are certain things in an application that you are not going to be able to get right
away, such as a water certificate from the state engineer on wells, changing over to commercial, surface
use agreements, etc. There are certain items that are going to take a lot of time so why hold up the
applicant when they can get that other stuff done and be working on this stuff at the same time. Mr.
Holton expressed that he doesn't believe we should hold up the process while we are waiting for
negotiations with oil and gas companies. Mr. Mueller indicated that the code as its written right now allows
for that potential, but it can be deferred as a condition. Mr. Ogle commented that there is a statement that
says "or show that an adequate attempt has been made". Therefore, you as the applicant demonstrate to
staff that you've been working with these companies and have been making progress or not and you give
that as evidence with your application. We just want to put it on the record that you are aware that you
have to get a Surface Use Agreement with oil and gas companies. It is up to the board to decide whether
or not to approve the application based on the information provided.
Mr. Holton stated that his understanding is that we can do that and you are going to go ahead and process
the application without having a surface use agreement in place. Mr. Ogle clarified that it's either a
Surface Use Agreement or you are to give us evidence that you've been working towards that. Mr.
Mueller added that they understand what Mr. Holton is saying and his interpretation of the code is that it
allows for that, but staff is not clear on what changes we could or might make to the code to address the
concern.
Commissioner Grand asked if we can get an answer at the next meeting.
The Chair stated that this will be addressed at the November 6, 2007 meeting.
Commissioner Grand commented that a lot of time was spent on the design standards on the railroad
portion and is concerned from an area that is in the beginning stages of development that we don't restrict
the opportunity for businesses to grow by putting in requirements that become prohibitive for new areas of
development.
Commissioner Ochsner mentioned that he would like to look at the code with regard to open space. In the
past we have approved or have had some regulations on urban PUD's that require open space and it can
be anywhere from a four house application to 1000 residential unit is required to have open space. A lot
of times on smaller applications we've seen times where they have plans for a nice gazebo and park and
public area and yet have absolutely no irrigation plan to maintain these areas. We need to define the
common open space in Section 27-2-60. Currently the common open space is defined as "any usable
parcel of land or water unimproved and set aside dedicated, designated or reserved for public or private
use for the use and enjoyment of owners." Mr. Ochsner added that the requirement is in Section 27-6-80
Number 7 and it calls out the 15%open space. He would like to look at perhaps doing the 15% open
space on any application over 25 (picking a number by random) residential units. He doesn't believe that
anything under that should be required to meet the 15% open space requirement. He would also like to
see in Section 27-2-60 either a better definition or a requirement saying that if it is intended for public use
that an irrigation plan must be submitted. Mr. Ochsner added that it has been a contention with him that a
lot of times we approve open space and it looks so pretty on the map and yet it's defined as native
grasses with no irrigation and we know in Colorado it won't be a pretty place with no irrigation.
Mr. Mueller suggested that perhaps to give staff some time to research something that is fairly core to our
subdivision resolution. The intent of the code is to make sure that there is some space that offers it which
maintains some of the character of the area which doesn't become super intensive. He added that
common open space often leads applicants to create a tract which can be designated as open space.
Commission Spitzer mentioned that he believes Mr. Ochsner is aiming mainly at the more rural 9 lot
subdivisions where there really isn't an HOA or entity that is going to take care of them or have the
resources to take care of them. He is concerned with the way these developments are coming together
with 6000 and 7000 square feet lots and he has no idea what their kids do. He expressed that he is a big
advocate of an open field that is native grass where kids can play baseball, football, etc. He is
sympathetic to the fact that we don't have the resources to maintain it, however, as a society we need to
keep an eye on making sure we leave enough open space for individuals to do whatever they want to do,
especially kids.
Mr. Ochsner stated that he is more focused on the small subdivisions that don't have the resources and
yet there are times as we just saw one come through that was a 9 lot subdivision and we required open
space and they had this beautiful plan but there was no irrigation for it.
Mr. Mueller commented that what he is gathering from this conversation is the"common open space"
versus just"open space." The design aspect of open space is something that we can examine through
the process. Staff has been researching the possibility of coming to the development community with an
amended land use process, and that process, in part, is designed to allow us to have a little more
discussion about the design aspects of a smaller subdivision. He recommended that we research this for
the next meeting in November.
Commissioner Hall commented that the key term to all of this is "density"and added that is what they are
currently looking at in the Comp Plan now.
Meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Robert Grand, that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
Weld County Code Changes
Staff: Kim Ogle and Bruce Barker
Items: Appendix 23-F
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
See Attached Documents.
Motion seconded by Tom Holton.
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Tom Holton
Doug Ochsner
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
Paul Branham
Mark Lawley
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Kristine Ranslem, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission,do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on November 6, 2007.
Dated the 6th of November, 2007.
istine
Secretary
Notes :
November 6, 2007
Incorporates Freight Railroad Yard
comments received from UPRR Attorney's
on Friday November 2, 2007
Text amendments delineated in BOLL)
Attached are original comments
Received electronically from UPRR
Titled: FREIGHT RAILROAD YARD
DESIGN STANDARDS
Pages 1-16
/I-06-X07
underneath the overhang and are protected by an eave.
Mr. Caruso commented that with the lighting plan, staff can require shields on the lights to where it will direct
the lighting downward.
Dave Snyder, Department of Public Works, recommended that dust suppression be applied in front of the
residences on the road to State Highway 392.
Roy Spitzer moved to add Development Standard#15 and renumber accordingly to read"the applicant shall
supply dust suppression within 300 feet of the adjacent residences between State Highway 392 and County
Road 66". Robert Grand seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, absent; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes;
Tom Holton, no; Doug Ochsner, no. Motion carried.
The Chair asked the applicants if they read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are agreement with those. The applicants replied that they are in agreement.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1623, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, Bill Hall seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, absent; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes;
Tom Holton, yes with comment; Doug Ochsner, yes with comment. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Holton commented that he would like to see the applicant and Mr. Farmer get together
before the Board of County Commissioners hearing to see if they can straighten out their personal
conflicts.
Commissioner Ochsner reiterated Mr. Holton's comments.
The Chair took a recess at 4:32 p.m.
The Chair called the meeting back to order at 4:44 p.m.
Weld County Code Changes
Staff: Brad Mueller, Kim Ogle and Bruce Barker
Items: Appendix 23-F
Brad Mueller, Department of Planning Services, commented that at the meeting on October 2, 2007 staff
had presented a packet of code changes to the Board. He added that what resulted from that hearing
was that the Commission recommended approval with some changes and also excluded Appendix 23-F.
Mr. Mueller also mentioned that there were a number of items that the Board had asked staff to do
additional research on, and he handed out a memo going over these.
Mr. Mueller started with the approval of Federal and State permits, as Commissioner Ochsner had asked
about the applicability of a code change that is being proposed relative to mining, specifically mining that
applies to in-situ mining and requiring that all State and Federal approvals be in place prior to submittal of
a Use by Special Review. He indicated that the question was if the rule should apply to all Use by Special
Reviews. In reviewing the current code, staff does not recommend that we make that change at this time
as it would broaden the Code fairly significantly. Furthermore, in practice, those types of other permitting
requirements can and are suggested by the referral agencies. Mr. Mueller stated that staff is comfortable
that that system is working and would try to avoid expanding the code when possible.
Mr. Mueller said that the next question that came up deals with the requirements for Surface Use
Agreements and the timing of those and whether there was an adequate level of fairness in requiring that
those Surface Use Agreements be provided at the time of submittal of an application. Mr. Mueller
commented that staff understood and heard from the Commission clearly that on an ongoing basis they
need to continue to use discretion in which of the two clauses are applied. He added that the clauses are
that either there is a complete Surface Use Agreement, or that there is written evidence given to staff that
there has been an attempt to address any concerns that the Mineral Rights owners' might have. Those
two options seem to balance what the State Code is telling staff what they need to do in terms of providing
for the rights of Mineral Owners,while at the same time being practical and sensitive to the needs of the
Surface Owner. He added that they were really unable to come up with any way to modify the language
that would do anything different than what those two provisions in the current code allow for. Mr. Mueller
mentioned that they are open to discussion on that or researching that some more to understand what
problem needs to be solved with that.
Mr. Mueller continued with the last item which is the open space requirements that the Commissioners
had asked staff to look into. He stated that this is a fairly large topic and commented that this concept of
open space, non-urban densities, and how rural subdivisions are defined and talked about is the subject of
discussion in the context of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Mueller said that the current code says in the
requirement for PUD's there needs to be a 15% common open space (set-aside). The philosophy of
having open space is consistent with codes throughout the state and country and it allows buffering in the
non-urban types of development. He added that much of the concern that was expressed at the hearing
where we talked about this item had to do with the quality of the open space and whether it was functional,
maintainable, useful, etc. He commented that those are very legitimate concerns and the code has
language right now that says that it is suppose to meet those criteria. To the degree that there are
concerns that that is not happening, that is something that we all can commit to a higher level of scrutiny
as we see these applications come forward.
Commissioner Holton asked if we view detention ponds and retention ponds as open space. Mr. Ogle
replied that presently they don't view it as open space, rather we consider it as a usable space for
developments as a matter of doing business for providing for detention of flows. However, if there is a big
pond with a berm around it that has a usable space within the pond then they will recognize that as open
space.
Mr. Mueller concluded by saying that was all that he had to present as a follow-up to the last meeting and
hoped that it addressed all the concerns that the Board had.
Mr. Ogle followed up from the October 2, 2007 meeting as Commissioner Branham had directed staff to
consult Union Pacific Railroad for their input or comments on the proposed Appendix 23-F. He said that
Mr. Barker had contacted a representative with Union Pacific Railroad and they in turn provided comments
back to staff.
Mr. Ogle directed their attention to the Appendix 23-F document and commented that this is a document
that was prepared by the legal staff of Union Pacific in response to staffs' comments of the code changes.
He said that what staff did is take the documents from here and stick it into our original document to
make sure that all the issues that they addressed here which deal only with freight yard criteria that was
already addressed in our code. There are four areas where there is a separate call out. Starting on Page
4 of staff comments, it talks about general layout and design for freight yards. He added that they
specifically called that out into their original document. Mr. Ogle referred to Page 18, under the topic of
illumination and lighting in which they had specific criteria which they thought was applicable to railyards.
He continued on to Page 21 which deals with lighting that accents building features and creates visual
interest. Not only are we talking overhead service and security lights but also adding an accent to a
building or structure. He continued on to Page 41 where there are comments regarding the setbacks and
they feel that the 100 feet of right-of-way is a little bit more extensive than what a commercial and
industrial zoned district is going to call for, however that is criteria that they want to set in. Mr. Ogle
commented that an issue that Commissioner Hall had mentioned was that it was a little unclear where the
Commercial standards stood and the Industrial standards as well. Therefore, staff went through and split
out Commercial standards from Industrial standards in each of the topics.
Mr. Ogle commented that he hopes this addresses the Commissioners concerns and apologized for the
late arrival of this document. He added that Attorney Barker had to call the applicant and asked them to
send their comments forward which came in late afternoon on Friday of last week. Mr. Ogle commented
that staff worked on it over the weekend and on Monday to put these items together.
Commissioner Hall thanked staff and Attorney Barker for their extra effort that they put into this and
commented that our indications of cooperation with them are going to behoove our opportunity to have
that facility here.
Mr. Ogle introduced Tom Parko, the Planning Director of the City of Fort Lupton. Mr. Parko commented
that Fort Lupton really supports the Commercial and Industrial Design Standards. He added that Mr. Ogle
and himself have been working on this for several months and the overall intended goal of the standards
is to provide a continuity with standards for the area. Mr. Parko expressed to the Commissioners that
Fort Lupton is happy and feels that it is a good step forward with relations in the area and making sure that
development is done in the right way.
Commissioner Ochsner asked that since they have just seen these documents if it is something that the
Board feels they can approve. Commissioner Holton stated that he is prepared to vote on it today as they
have looked through it and have received answers to their questions that they asked for.
Robert Grand moved that the amended Appendix 23-F as per staff recommendation, be forwarded to the
Board of County Commissioners along with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, Tom
Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. 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.
Commissioner Holton wanted to thank Mr. Parko for coming to the meeting and giving his input as it is
unusual that they get that from cities.
The Chair introduced the last item on the agenda.
Planning Commission Hearing Dates
Presented by Brad Mueller
Mr. Mueller commented that January 1, 2008, would normally have been the first Tuesday of the month;
however it is a holiday, and due to that we are suggesting January 8, 2008, instead.
Tom Holton made a motion to approve the 2008 Planning Hearing Dates, seconded by Mark Lawley. Motion
carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 5:14 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
Memorandum
TO: Planning Commissioners
VI P DATE: November 6, 2007
C FROM: Brad Mueller
COLORADO Department of Planning Services
RE: Fall Code Changes
CC: Tom Honn, Kim Ogle, Bruce Barker
On October 2, 2007, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the set of Code
changes presented to it, with the exception of proposed Appendix 23-F. At the meeting, Planning
Commission members also asked that staff research several Code-related items for its meeting on
November 6.
This memo is intended to update the Planning Commission on these items, which can also be
discussed during the November 6 meeting.
Rail Yard Design Standards — Kim Ogle has been working with the applicable entities and will
provide separate documentation.
Approval of Federal & State Permit — Commissioner Ochsner asked whether the requirement
proposed for mining permits—that applicants submit evidence of approval for all state and federal
permits — should perhaps apply to all Use by Special Reviews (USR) applications. The County
currently has the ability to require that permits for all other levels of government be obtained in
conjunction with a USR approval. Frequently a referral agency will make a request for a specific
requirement as a condition of approval, and in that case,such requirement is then noted on the USR
plat. However, since all laws of all governments must be met, staff does not recommend that
additional language be added to apply to USR's in general. The purpose of proposing language in
the narrow case of mining was to emphasize that approvals that are fundamental to the operation of
the mine should be in place before submitting a county-level request.
Surface Use Agreements—Staff was asked to review the requirement for oil and gas Surface Use
Agreements in conjunction with land use applications. A concern was expressed that this is a
submittal requirement, but that securing such an agreement prior to submitting a land use
application can be unrealistic, since the oil and gas companies may be slow to commit. There are
currently two options for submittal: a)a completed Surface Use Agreement; or, b)written evidence
that an attempt has been made to mitigate mineral owners concerns. (Section 23-2-260.B.14) Staff
has reviewed the Code, and these two options seem to balance the rights of the surface owner and
the mineral rights owner, as intended by State law. Staff was unable to come up with any text
changes that would improve the administration of these State requirements.
1
Open Space Requirements—Staff was asked to research the subdivision open space requirements,
and to address the concern that the Planning Commission sometimes sees subdivision designs that
include open space tracts that are of limited value or difficult to maintain.
The current Code requires that all urban-scale PUD's include a 15% "common open space
allocation." (Section 27-6-80.6.7) "Common open space"is defined as land for public or private use
that does not consist of buildings or parking lots. Within the PUD District, open space land is to be
owned and maintained by an organization. (Section 27-2-60) The 15% common open space
allocation requirement does not apply,per se,to non-PUDs,although physical constraints,setbacks,
and/or landscaping requirements may result in land that is set aside and functions in a similar
manner.
The philosophy of having open space as part of any residential subdivision is that a neighborhood
should have some type of amenity for its residents. This can be particularly important for
subdivisions that are isolated. Whether private or public land, 15% is a typical industry standard in
subdivision design, which allows for landscaping, drainage, recreation, and its use for scenic
purposes.
If there are concerns with the types of open space that developers are proposing,whether because
they may not be irrigated or maintained, or because they don't seem practical or meaningful, such
design issues can be discussed as part of the subdivision review process. The Planning
Commission(and staff)reviews subdivisions to make sure they meet the Design Standards found in
Section 24-7, as well as the more general requirements from the Comprehensive Plan(Chapter 22).
If the Planning Commissioners feel that these standards are not being met, then they can deny
subdivision applications or request changes that would comply with the Code's intent. Staff can also
look for these types of design concerns in its review of subdivision applications.
Staff acknowledges that there may be some confusion and/or inconsistencies in the way the current
Code is written; the term "common" open space, for example, may be considered to be a bit
misleading. Staff will endeavor to look at this issue in more detail over the next half-year. Also, as
part of the Comprehensive Plan update, "non-urban"designations and rural subdivisions will be part
of the dialogue, and in that context, there may be some new options proposed that would affect
open space.
2
Sec. 23-2-40. Duties of Board of County Commissioners.
A. The Board of County Commissioners shall:
1. Give notice of the proposed Change of Zone and the public date to those persons listed in the application as owners of property locate( (fti aG—
F c �. 'F Neer)
� i r
be mailed, first class, not less than ten (10) days before tbefore-the-seheElalei
hearing. Such notice is not required by state statute and is provided as a • 1/ 40
to surrounding property owners (the surface estate). Inadvertent error S*t'
applicant in supplying such list or the Board S— -ro Fsa
such notice shall not create a jurisdictional defect in the hearing process
such error results in the failure of a surrounding property owner to reel
notification.
Renumber the remaining subparagraphs of Sec. 23-2-40 A.
Sec. 23-2-50. Application requirements for Change of Zone.
B. The following information shall be submitted on or with an application form
which may be obtained from the Department of Planning Services:
10. An affidavit listing the names and addresses of mineral owners and
lessees of mineral owners on or under the parcel of land being considered. The list
shall be prepared from the real property records by a person qualified to perform
the task, and shall be current as of a date no more than thirty (30) days prior to the
date the application is submitted to the Department of Planning Services. The
written certification required by Section 24-65.5-103.3, C.R.S., if applicable.
Such certification may be submitted on the date of the initial public hearing
referred to in Section 24-65.5-103(1), C.R.S.
Division 3
Site Plan Review
Sec. 23-2-150.Intent and applicability.
M. The applicant or owner shall submit an improvements agreement agreeing to
construct the required improvements as shown in the application, plans, and other
supporting documents. The agreement shall be made in conformance with the County
policy on collateral for improvements. The agreement shall be approved by the Board
prior to recording the final exhibit or plat, if applicable:
Sec. 23-2-160.Application requirements for site plan review.
Any person wanting to apply for a Site Plan Review shall arrange for a preapplication
conference with the Department of Planning Services. The purpose of the application is
3
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
PLANNING &ZONING
NORTH OFFICE
918 10th Street
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT.3540
O
�• FAX (970) 304-6498
SOUTHWEST OFFICE
4209 CR 24.5
COLORADO LONGMONT CO 80504
PHONE (720)652-4210 ext. 8730
FAX (720)652-4211
Summary of Proposed Fall 2007 Code Changes
I. General Topics
The following list is of major topics proposed for consideration. Each of these topics is detailed in
Section II of this report, where their exact location in the Code is identified. Since many topics
require changes in multiple areas of the Code, they are listed here topically for ease of
discussion.
• Improvements Agreements. Change is to require Improvements Agreements for Site Plan
Review and Use by Special Review applications. These amendments are requested in order
to be consistent with current practices.
• Fireworks/Christmas trees. Expand the number of zoning districts that allow temporary
facilities for the sale of fireworks and Christmas trees. Currently they are only allowed in the
C-3 and 1-3 Districts; staff could not find any rational for disallowing them in other districts
(other than residential districts).
• Mining. The current definition of mining includes several categories of mining, including on
site mining, which can be interpreted to include in-situ leaching mining ("solution mining").
While it seems clear that the current definition is meant to include all types of mining activity,
adding in-situ mining to the list of potential types will eliminate any ambiguity.
• Massage Parlors. The Code currently does not call these out as a specific use, so message
parlors are permitted under the more general category of"stores and shops which furnish
personal services and merchandise." Because State law requires the County to administer
the licensing of massage parlors, staff recommends specifically calling out this use. No
change is proposed in either the way in which this use would be processed or the zone
districts in which they would be allowed.
• Urban Drainage Criteria. Various changes are needed to reflect the recent adoption of
drainage criteria.
1
II. Section-by-Section Revisions
This part of the report identifies each proposed change in the order that they are found in the
Code. The topics include those major ones discussed above, as well as other more minor
changes. New proposed text is underlined; text to be eliminated is struck-through. Where
needed, a brief explanation for the proposed change is provided.
Section 23—Zoning
• Section 23-1-90— Revised definition as follows: "MINING: The act of recovering mineral, sand, gravel,
quarry, coal or other resources from the ground. MINING shall include, but not be limited to, recovery of
the resources by processing on site(including"in-situ,"solution, and other extractive methods), open pit
excavation, wet or dry pit excavation, Of and subterranean excavation.
Reason: The current definition of mining is ambiguous in regards to more modern extraction techniques,
even though the intent of the term is intended to cover all forms of mining. The additional terms provide
clarification of this intent.
• Section 23-2-150. M (added)—Add the following: "The applicant or owner shall submit an improvements
agreement agreeing to construct the required improvements as shown in the application, plans,and other
supporting documents. The agreement shall be made in conformance with the County policy on collateral
for improvements. The agreement shall be approved by the Board prior to recording the final exhibit or
plat, if applicable."
Reason: Add submittal of Improvements Agreements to all USR and SPR processes.
• Section 23-2-160.CC(added)—Add the following: "If applicable,an improvements agreement executed
by the applicant. This agreement shall be in accordance with the County policy and documents for
collateral for improvements."
• Section 23-2-200.G.1 —Change"Division of the Army Corps of Engineers"to the"Colorado State Division
of Mining Reclamation and Safety."
Reason: The State Division determines completion of reclamation activity.
• Section 23-2-200.H (added)—Add the following: "The applicant or owner shall submit an improvements
agreement agreeing to construct the required improvements as shown in the application, plans,and other
supporting documents. The agreement shall be made in conformance with the County policy on collateral
for improvements. The agreement shall be approved by the Board prior to recording the final exhibit or
plat, if applicable."
Reason: Add submittal of Improvements Agreements to all USR and SPR processes.
• Section 23-2-260.B.11 (remove) — Remove the entire section concerning signs, and re-number the
remaining items in Section 23-2-260.B.
Reason: This is an administrative correction, removing sign posting information from the section about
submittal requirements, where it does not belong. Sign posting is already adequately addressed in the
USR processing section, Section 23-2-210.
• Section 23-2-260.E.6(added)--Add the following: "If applicable, an improvements agreement executed
by the applicant. This agreement shall be in accordance with the County policy and documents for
collateral for improvements."
• Section 23-3-20.0—Revise first sentence:"Commercial towers subject to the provisions of Section 23 1
80O Article IV, Division 9."
Reason: Administrative correction to refer to entire section on supplementary tower regulations.
• Section 23-3-20.X(added)—Add"TEMPORARY facilities for the sale of fireworks and Christmas trees:
Reason: Add seasonal uses to the Ag District and most C and I Districts.
2
• Section 23-3-210.B.9 (added) — Add "TEMPORARY facilities for the sale of fireworks and Christmas
trees."
• Section 23-3-210.6.10(added)—Add"Massage parlor, subject to the additional licensing requirements of
C.R.S. 12-48.5-101, et seq."
• Section 23-3-240.8.7 (added) — Add "TEMPORARY facilities for the sale of fireworks and Christmas
trees."
• Section 23-3-310.6.8 (added) — Add "TEMPORARY facilities for the sale of fireworks and Christmas
trees."
• Section 23-3-320.B.8 (added) — Add "TEMPORARY facilities for the sale of fireworks and Christmas
trees."
Section 24--Subdivision
• Section 24-7-130—Eliminate entire section.
Reason: The County last year adopted a complete set of Storm Drainage Criteria as Ordinance 2006-7.
Because of this, this section of the Code is no longer relevant. When submitting an application for
subdivision, the drainage report should conform to the County's adopted Storm Drainage Criteria, which
are more specific, rather than the general criteria listed in this section.
• Section 24-8-20.A— Replace"subdivision process"with "land division process."
Reason: Recorded Exemptions are not technically a subdivision process.
Section 25—MUD
• Section 26-2-80.D— Replace entire section with the following text:
Storm Drainage Design and Technical Criteria. Development within the 1-25 MUD area shall adhere to the
Weld County Storm Drainage Criteria, as currently adopted by Weld County. These criteria have been
adopted in order to provide minimum standards to preserve and protect the public health, safety, and
general welfare in the unincorporated lands of Weld County, pursuant to authority granted by Part 4 of
Article 15 of Title 30, and Article 35 of Title 30, C.R.S. These criteria are designed to provide storm
drainage best management practices to accommodate the unique characteristics of Weld County. All
submittals for development within the 1-25 MUD area shall include the information listed in the Weld
County Storm Drainage Criteria.
• Section 26-3-90.D—Replace entire section with the following text:
Storm Drainage Design and Technical Criteria. Development within the Southeast Weld MUD area shall
adhere to the Weld County Storm Drainage Criteria, as currently adopted by Weld County. These criteria
have been adopted in order to provide minimum standards to preserve and protect the public health,
safety, and general welfare in the unincorporated lands of Weld County, pursuant to authority granted by
Part 4 of Article 15 of Title 30, and Article 35 of Title 30, C.R.S. These criteria are designed to provide
storm drainage best management practices to accommodate the unique characteristics of Weld
County. All submittals for development within the Southeast Weld MUD area shall include the information
listed in the Weld County Storm Drainage Criteria.
III. Proposed Textual Changes
Attached are revised versions of the Code, with the proposed additions and deletions
indicated.
3
6,4„,ve n wE S
Proposed Code Changes—Group Homes & Related Topics (Rev. 8/22)
The following changes are proposed to the Weld County Code, with the reason for the
proposed amendment listed after each proposal.
• Section 23-1-90—Add the following to the list of definitions:
"FOSTER CARE HOME: A facility certified by the county or a child placement
agency for child care in the residence of a person or family for the purpose of
providing twenty-four hour care for one or more children under the age of twenty-one
(21), who may or may not be related to the head of the household. Medical foster
care homes, as defined by C.R.S. 26-2-102, are included in this definition.
Reason: The Weld County Code does not specifically call out Foster Homes as
a type of use, so it currently is regulated under the broader definition of"Child
Care Center." However, as a "Child Care Center,"the use is limited to under-16-
year-olds, which is inconsistent with the industry's placement of up to 21-year-
olds. Also, the zone districts where Foster Homes are proposed as a use differ
from those of Group Homes, so a separate definition from Group Homes is
needed.
• Section 23-1-90--Add the following to list of definitions:
"GROUP HOME FACILITY:A DWELLING UNIT which is licensed by the state and/or
authorize1 or regulated by either the state or federal government or both, and which
provided,mon-institutionalized housing for a group of persons living as a single
housekeeping unit, as determined by reference to C.R.S. 30-28-115, 31-23-301, and
31-23-303, as these provisions may be amended from time to time. A GROUP
HOME FACILIY shall be for one of the following groups:
o A group of no more than 8 handicapped persons living in a state-
licensed group home or independent living center, as defined by
C.R.S. 26-8.1-102;or
o A group of no more than 8 persons with developmental disabilities
(see C.R.S. 27-10.5-102 and C.R.S. 30-28-115) living in a state-
licensed group home or community residential home;or
o A group of not more than 8 persons with a mental illness living in a
state-licensed group home; or
o A group of not more than 8 persons 60 years of age or older who do
not need nursing facilities.
Group homes that do not meet the conditions listed above, or which are proposed to
be located within 750 feet of an existing GROUP HOME FACILITY or RESIDENTIAL
THERAPEUTIC CENTER, shall be considered RESIDENTIAL THERAPEUTIC
CENTER for purposes of this Code.
y;
Reason: Recent state law has protected the rights of the groups listed above,
requiring that such groups be allowed to reside in residential areas without the
requirement of special permits. The law has determined that these groups
should be able to integrate into existing neighborhoods without special
considerations. Two types of group homes must be defined in order to ensure
1
that non protected classes of groups are subject to review prior to their
development and operation. As proposed, this definition would also prohibit
group homes from developing in close proximity of one another, without county
review.
• Section 23-1-90--Add the following to list of definitions:
"RESIDENTIAL THERAPEUTIC CENTER: A DWELLING UNIT which is not specifically
designated as a GROUP HOME FACILITY and which provides a community living
environment for individuals requiring custodial care, medical treatment, or specialized
social services. This definition includes any number of people who live together who
lack the ability to live independently,or who have been ordered into the facility by a court
of competent jurisdiction, and who require the support, supervision and care of adults
who may not be related. The definition includes, but is not limited to, the following:
specialized group child care home, facility or center; residential child care facility;
residential treatment facility; shelters for the homeless; shelters from domestic violence;
residential facilities for those living together as a result of criminal offenses; and homes
for individuals that are HIV positive or afflicted with the AIDS virus. This definition does
not include correctional facilities"
Reason: The Residential Therapeutic Center category is proposed in order to
require such facilities to be processed as a Use by Special Review, as indicated
below.
• Section 23-2-260.E.6(USR Application Requirements)—Add the following:
"For a RESIDENTIAL THERAPEUTIC CENTER, submittal of a report demonstrating the
fneed for the facility; data about the background,experience,and financial capacity of the
proposed operator; applicable licenses: and. analysis of the impact of the facility to the
area, and any other information relevant to evaluating the compatibility of the proposed
facility. The County may waive or modify these requirements, particularly if there is a
risk of harm to the future occupants(e.g.,case of a domestic violence shelter). Deleted: when located on a
property that is a Lot in an approved
Reason: Although the County already retains the ability to ask for additional I or recorded subdivision plat,or part of
reports as needed for a USRapplication, adding this clause willprovide better . I a map or plan filed prior to adoption of
any regulations controlling
notice for the particular case of group homes. I subdivisions.
,(Deleted: and
• Zone {
Section 23-3-20.X(Ag District,use by right)—Add "GROUP HOME FACILITY; `-Deleted:--.....-__-.-._ -' ---.T_._
. -,--
Reason: Allows Group Homes by right in agricultural subdivisions,historic town it,Formatted:Bullets and Numbering
sites, and general agricultural areas of the County, ' - Deleted: Section 23-3-40.CC
.'I (Ag Zone District,USR)— Add
"GROUP HOME FACILITY,provided
• Section 23-3-20.X.(Aq Zone District use by right)--Add"FOSTER CARE HOME' - that the property is not a Lot in an
/ approved or recorded subdivision
plat,or parts of a map or plan filed
Reason: Allows(osier-homes by right in agricultural subdivisions. historic town pnor to adoption of any regulations
sites, and general agricultural areas of the County controlling subdivisions"n
Reason: Requires Group Hanes to
be located in general agricultural
areas of the County—i.e.,not in town
sites--to be processed as a USR,to
review for adequate access to
support services,etc.
2
• Section 23-3-40.DD(Ag Zone District,USR):Add"RESIDENTIAL THERAPEUTIC
CENTER"
Reason: Allows Residential Therapeutic Centers in Ag District,but requires a
USR because of the potential impacts associated with Residential Therapeutic
Center uses.
• Section 23-3-110.8.6(R-1 Zone District, use by right):Add"GROUP HOME
FACILITY'
Reason (all Residential Districts): Allows Group Homes in residential areas, as
required by State law. By reference, this also applies in the R-2 District.
• Section 23-3-110.B.7(R-1 Zone District. use by right). Add "FOSTER CARE HOME" •-- ••• Formatted:Bullets and Numbering
Reason (all Residential Districts): Allows foster homes in residential areas. as
required by State law. By reference. this also applies in the R-2 District.
• Section 23-3-110.D.10(R-1 Zone District, USR): Add "RESIDENTIAL
THERAPEUTIC CENTER"
Reason(all Residential Districts): Allows Residential Therapeutic Centers in
residential areas, but the USR requirement allows mitigation or denial if the
specific use is found to be incompatible. By reference, this use also applies to
the R-2, R-3, R-4,and R-5 zone districts.
Other Residential Districts:
• ,Section 23-3-130.8.6(R-3 Zone District,by right):Add "GROUP HOME FACILITY' t Deleted:1I
• Section 23-3-130.B.7 (R-3 Zone District, by right):Add "FOSTER CARE HOME" Formatted*Bullets and Numbering
• Section 23-3-140.B.6(R-4 Zone District, by right):Add "GROUP HOME FACILITY"
• Section 23-3-140.B.7jR-4 Zone District. by right):Add "FOSTER CARE HOME" •- --rk Formatted:Bullets and Numbering
• Section 23-3-150.B.6(R-5 Zone District, by right):Add "GROUP HOME FACILITY"
• Section 23-3-150.8.7 (R-5 Zone District, by right):Add "FOSTER CARE HOME" - •• --•(Formatted:Bullets and Numbering
• Section 23-3-410.H (Estate Zone District,by right): Add "GROUP HOME FACILITY"
i j • Section 23-3-410.1 (Estate Zone District, by right): Add "FOSTER CARE HOME: •{Deleted:11
• Section 23-3-210.D.9(C-1 Zone District,USR):Add "RESIDENTIAL THERAPEUTIC
CENTER"
Reason(all Commercial Districts): Allows Residential Therapeutic Centers in
commercial parts of the County, but only with review through a USR.
Other Commercial Districts:
• ,Section 23-3-220.D.7(C-2 Zone District, USR):Add"RESIDENTIAL THERAPEUTIC -1 Deleted:II
CENTER"
• Section 23-3-230.D.7(C-3 Zone District,USR):Add"RESIDENTIAL THERAPEUTIC
CENTER"
• Section 23-3-240.D.3(C-4 Zone District, USR):Add"RESIDENTIAL THERAPEUTIC { :¶
I CENTER;
3
Group Homes Discussion Points
The language Stephanie drafted earlier raised some items for discussion about
implementation and consistency with how other uses are handled in the code.
Questions:
• Can we avoid re-defining FAMILY or LIVING UNIT?
• Can the processing requirements listed in the definitions be relocated?
• Do we have to limit Group Home Ito single-family residential?
• Can the proposed definitions be shorter, and just defer to state statute more?
If we're interested in shortening some of the language, here are some definitions I had
previously researched but which we haven't had a chance to discuss yet. It's just for
discussion.
Group Home 1 Facility:
A (single-family?) residence that provides non-institutional housing for persons living as
a single housekeeping unit as follows, as per C.R.S. 30-28-115 as may be amended:
• A group of no more than 8 handicapped persons living in a state-licensed
group home or independent living center, as defined by C.R.S. 26-8.1-
102; or
• A group of no more than 8 persons with developmental disabilities living
in a state-licensed group home or community residential home; or
• A group of not more than 8 persons with a mental illness living in a state-
licensed group home; or
• A group of not more than 8 persons 60 years of age or older who do not
need nursing facilities.
Group Homes that do not meet the conditions listed shall be considered Group Home 2
Facility for purposes of this Code.
Group Home 2 Facility:
A residence that provides a community living environment for individuals requiring
custodial care, medical treatment, or specialized social services. This term includes, but
is not limited to: specialized group child care home, facility or center; residential child
care facility; residential treatment facility; shelters for the homeless; shelters from
domestic violence; residential facilities for those living together as a result of criminal
offenses; and homes for individuals that are HIV positive or afflicted with the AIDS virus.
In Ag District: GH1 & GH2 — Use by Special Review
In all Residential Districts — GH1 as use by right; GH2 as USR
Commercial zone districts — would we want to consider adding either?
• If we want to regulate and prevent congregation of either type of group home,
we can define the use in that zone district as "GH that is not within 750' of an
existing GH =use by right", and "GH proposed within 350' of an existing GH
= USR")
• Since we don't have architectural standards for other uses, we may want to
eliminate that reference.
• The various submittal requirements (need for facility, background of operator,
etc.) could be located in USR submittal section of the code.
M-44(
� /c4.4; w..
From Bruce Barker:
"Although this would be for COZ, we would do the same changes
everywhere in the Code that we have these provisions currently. This
would mean we do not need to do the mineral notification anymore.
Rather, it would be the responsibility of the applicant. The
certification would protect Weld County. We would not have to double-
check what is certified to."
Sec. 23-2-20. Duties of Department of Planning Services.
B. Upon determination that the application submittal is complete, the Department
of Planning Services shall:
4. Give notice of the proposed Change of Zone and the public h . .ng datc
to those persons listed in the application as owners and lessees of the mineral
estate on or under the parcel under consideration. Such notification shall be
mailed, first class, not less than ten (10) days before the scheduled public h aring.
Such notice is not required by state statute and is provided as a courtesy to the
owners and lessees of the mineral estate on or under the parcel. Inadvertent errors
by the applicant in supplying such list or the Department of Planning Services in
sending such notice shall not cr ate a jurisdictional defect in the hearing process,
even if such error results in the failure of a surrounding property owner to receive
such notification.
Sec. 23-2-50. Application requirements for Change of Zone.
B. The following information shall be submitted on or with an application form
which maybe obtained from the Department of Planning Services:
10. An affidavit listing the names and addresses of mineral owners and
lessees of mineral owners on or under the parcel of land being considered. The list
shall be prepared from the r 1 property records by a person qualified to perform
the task, and shall be current as of a date no more than thirty (30) days prior to the
date the application is submitted to the Department of Planning Services. The
written certification required by Section 24-65.5-103.3, C.R.S., which may be
submitted on the date of the initial public hearing referred to in Section 24-65.5-
103(1), C.R.S.
WELD COUNTY COLORADO
MASSAGE PARLOR LICENSE APPLICATION/RENEWAL APPLICATION
THIS APPLICATION and related documents must be filed with the Weld
County Clerk and Recorder, 1402 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado 80631.
Every question and item must be answered completely. A license fee
payable by check or money order made payable to the Weld County
Treasurer must be submitted with this application. An initial license
fee is $350, and the annual renewal license fee is $150.00.
**For new and renewal applications, complete each answer thoroughly and
attach additional sheets as needed.**
***ALL EMPLOYEES AND OWNERS WILL BE PHOTOGRAPHED AND FINGERPRINTED***
Name of Applicant Date filed with Clerk & Recorder
Applicant is a:
Corporation Individual Partnership
Limited Liability Company
Trade Name of Establishment (DBA)
F.E.I.N.
Social Security Number
State Sales Tax Number
Address of Premises
Mailing Address City/ State/ Zip
**Attach diagram of premises**
***If this is a transfer of ownership or renewal, complete the next two
(2) questions.***
Present Trade Name/Establishment Present License No. Expiration
1. If applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, answer the following:
Attach copy of the partnership agreement.
On what date did the partnership begin?
Name or each general Home Address, Social Date
partner and each City and State Security of
limited partner with Number Birth
more than 10% interest
2. If applicant is a LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, answer the following
Attach a copy of:
The Articles of Organization
The Operating Agreement
Certificate of Good Standing from Colorado Secretary of State
On what date was the limited liability company formed?
Name of responsible party:
Name of each member Home Address, Social Date
and manager with City and State Security of
more than 10% interest Number Birth
3 . If applicant is a CORPORATION answer the following:
Corporation is organized under the laws of the state of
If corporation organized outside of Colorado, give date authorized to
do business in Colorado:Attach copy of Certificate of Authority from Colorado Secretary of
State.
Date of incorporation:
Date of last annual report to Secretary of State:
Name of each officer Home Address, Social Date
(identify president, City and State Security of
vice-president, Number Birth
treasurer & secretary
Name of each Home Address, Social Date
stockholder with City and State Security of
more than 10% interest Number Birth
Name of each Home Address, Social Date
Director and/or City and State Security of
Trustee of Number Birth
Corporation
4 . Other than those listed above, identify all other persons,
partners, stockholders, officers, directors, managers, members or firms
who have or will have a financial interest in the applicant, either
because they have an ownership interest in the business or property or
because they have loaned money to the applicant. State their names and
addresses and identify their relationship to applicant (ie. , bank,
relative, friend previous owners) . State also the nature of their
financial involvement expressed in dollars or other items of value,
(ie. , inventory, furniture or equipment, etc. ) .
NAME ADDRESS INTEREST
Attach copies of all promissory notes, security interests or other
written agreements by which any person will share in the profits of
gross proceeds of the establishment and any agreement relating to the
business which is contingent in any way by volume, profit, sales,
giving of advice, or consultation. If the agreement is not written,
provide details of the agreement and identify the other party.
5. Is applicant, or any of the partners (of a partnership) , or
officers, stockholders or directors (of a corporation) , or managers or
members (of a limited liability company) under the age of eighteen (18)
years?
Yes No
6. If any of the above are under the age of eighteen (18) , identify
by name and date of birth.
7. Has the applicant or any of the partners, stockholders, officers,
directors, managers, or members ever been convicted of a crime?
Yes No
If yes, explain in detail. Omit minor traffic violations.
8 . Have persons lending assistance or financial support to the
applicant, or the manager or employees ever been convicted of a crime?
Yes No
If yes, explain in detail. Omit minor traffic violations.
9. State whether the applicant owns or rents the premises.
Owns Rents
Attach a copy of the deed or lease.
10. Have you ever been denied a massage parlor license?
Yes No
11. Have you ever had a massage parlor license revoked?
Yes No
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF WELD
being first duly sworn, deposes
and says that she/he is the Applicant, or a duly authorized
representative of the Applicant, above named and that the information
set forth herein is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge.
The Applicant, or the Applicant's representative, further states that
the additional information requested within this application which is
given for the purpose of supporting the application for a massage
parlor license is being filed simultaneously with the Weld County Clerk
and Recorder, which is the local licensing authority having
jurisdiction over the applicant.
Applicant
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 200_
by (Applicant) .
Notary Public
My Commission expires:
WELD COUNTY COLORADO
CONSENT TO RELEASE FINANCIAL INFORMATION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
WHEREAS, an application for a Massage Parlor License has been submitted
and I, am associated with the applicant in the
capacity of , and I fully understand that an
investigation of my credit standing and business reputation is
necessary for the approval of the license,
NOW, THEREFORE, I hereby consent to and authorize the release of any
and all personal and business books, records, checkbooks, income
accounts, forms and applicable data and information relative to my
credit standing and business reputation by any person or entity having
possession or control of this Consent To Release Financial Information,
or a true copy of a signed copy thereof, upon the express condition,
however, that the release of information is limited to an investigation
conducted pursuant to the aforesaid licensing and operation thereunder;
but this consent shall continue to operate so long as the above named
licensee shall hold said license, if granted, and for the terms and
conditions of any renewals or extensions thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and seal in the County of
, and State of , this day of
, 200
STATE OF
ss.
COUNTY OF
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of
200 , by
Notary Public
My commission expires:
WELD COUNTY
PERSONAL INFORMATION AND REFERENCES
Note: This information must be completed by each individual applicant
who will operate as a sole proprietor; for a partnership, by all
general partners and limited partners owning more than 101 of the
applicant; for a limited liability company, by all managers and all
members owning more than 101 of the applicant; for a corporation, by
all stockholders owning more than 101 of the corporation, and by all
employees who will be administering massage as defined by C.R.S.12-
48.5-101 et seq.
The information provided in this PERSONAL INFORMATION AND REFERENCE
document is necessary for the licensing authority to perform its
investigation. All questions must be answered completely. Each answer
will be checked to its truthfulness, and a deliberate falsehood will
jeopardize the success of the application.
1. Name of Business:
2. Your Name: Last First
3. Residence Address:
4. Date of Birth:
5. Place of Birth:
6. Physical Description:
Height Weight
Hair Color: Eye Color:
Sex: Male Female Race
7. Current Driver's License: Yes No
If Yes, give Number Expiration Date , and
State
8. Are you a U.S. Citizen? Yes No
Are you a Naturalized Citizen? Yes No
If Yes, in what State
Name of District Court:
Date of Certificate:
9. Are you an alien? Yes No
If Yes, Alien' s Registration Card Number:
Permanent Residence Card Number:
10. Social Security Number:
11. Name of current Employer:
Type of Business:
Address of Business/Place of Employment:
Street and Number:
City, State and Zip Code:
Employer's Telephone Number:
Current Position:
Supervisor' s Name:
12. Marital Status:
If married, name of Spouse:
If married, Spouse's date of birth:
Spouse' s residence if different from your address:
Street and Number:
City, State and Zip Code:
Spouse's Employer:
Address of Spouse' s Employer:
13 . Names of all relatives working in massage parlor industry:
Name Relationship Position Employer Name
To You Held and Location
14. Names of three (3) responsible character witnesses who can attest
to your qualifications as a licensed operator. Indicate how many years
you have known the individual.
Name and Years Known Street Address City Zip Code Telephone
FINGERPRINTING FOR MASSAGE PARLOR APPLICATION
Complete and return to Sheriff's Department
Date:
Name:
Last First Middle
Address City St Zip
Telephone Number Social Security Number - -
Date of Birth Place of Birth
Sex: M F Height: ft in Weight:
Hair Color: Eye Color: Race:
Name of Massage Parlor:
Received By: Signature:
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT USE ONLY
Mug No. FPC: FBI Number:
FINGERPRINTING FOR MASSAGE PARLOR APPLICATION
Complete and return to Sheriff's Department
Dare:
Name:
Last First Middle
Address City St Zip
Telephone Number Social Security Number - -
Date of Birth Place of Birth
Sex: M F Height: ft in Weight:
Hair Color: Eye Color: Race:
Name of Massage Parlor:
Received By: Signature:
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT USE ONLY
Mug No. FPC: FBI Number:
PUBLIC NOTICE
Pursuant to the Laws of the State of Colorado (Name of Applicant)
requested this licensing
authority to grant a Massage Parlor License as provided by law for
premises located at
A public hearing will be held on t his application on the day
of , 200 at 9:00 a.m. before the Board of County
Commissioners of Weld County in Room of the Centennial Building,
located at 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. Petitions, remonstrances,
and other written statements may be filed with the office of the Clerk
to the Board at 915 10th Street, P.O. Box 758, Greeley, Colorado 80632 .
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISIONERS
OF THE COUNTY OF WELD, COLORADO
WELD COUNTY LICENSING AUTHORITY
Date of Publication:
Please Bill: Clerk to the Board
Attn:
915 10th Street
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 80632
970-336-7215
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Weld County Planning Commission
will hold a public hearing on Tuesday,
October 2.2007,at 1 30 p.m.for the
purpose of considering Code Changes
for the Weld County Code.
STAFF:Brad Mueller&David Bauer
ITEMS:Chapter 23: Sections 23-1-90.
23-2-150 M,23-2-160 CC,23-2-200 G
1.23-2-200 H,23-2-260 B 11,23-2-260
E 6.23-3-20 U,23-3-20 X,23-3-210 B
9.23-3-210 B 10,23-3-240 B 7,23-3-
310 B 8,23-3-320 B 8,23-4-600 and
Appendix 23-F;Chapter 24: Sections
24-7-130,and 24-8-20 A;Chapter 26:
Sections 26-2-80 0,and 26-3-90 D.
The public hearing will be held at the
Weld County Planning Department,918
10'Street,Greeley,Colorado.
Comments or objections related to the
above request should be submitted in
writing to the Weld County Department
of Planning Services,918 10"Street,
Greeley,Colorado 80631,before the
above dale or presented at the public
hearing on October 2,2007.
Copies of the application are available
for public inspection in the Department
of Planning Services,91810"Street,
Greeley,Colorado 80631. Please call
Kristine Ranslem at(970)353-6100.
Ext.3540,or Fax 0(970)304-6498,
prior to the day of the hearing so that
reasonable accommodations can be
made if,in accordance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act,you
require special accommodations in
order to participate in this hearing as a
result of a disability.
All cases scheduled before the Planning
Commission for hearing are subject to
continuance,due to lack of quorum or
otherwise. Contact the Department of
Planning Services at(970)353-6100,
ext.3540.for hearing continuance
information.
Doug Ochsner,Weld County Planning
Commission
To be published in the Fort Lupton
Press
To be published one(1)time by
September 12,2007.
PROOF OF PUBLICATION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Weld County Planning
FORT LUPTON Commission will hold a public
nearing on Tuesday,, October 2,
STATE OF COLORADO 2007,f at 1:rin pCo for the gesose
el County Changes for
the Weld Code.
COUNTY OF WELD SS. STAFF: BradMueller 8 David
Bauer
ITEMS:Chapter 23:Sections 23-1-
90,23-2-150 M,23-2-160 CC,23-2-
200 G 1, 23-2-200 H,23-2-260 B
11,23-2-260 E 6,23.3-20 U,23-3-
20 X, 23-3-210 B 9, 23-3-210 B
I, Karen Lambert, do solemnly swear that I 10,23-3-24087,23-3-310B8,23-
3-320 B 8,23-4-600 and Appendix
am the Publisher of the Fort Lupton Press; 23-F: Chapter 24: Sections 24-7-
130, and 24-8-20 A; Chapter 26;
that the same is a weekly newspaper printed Sections 26-2-80 D, and 26-3-90
D.
and published in the County of Weld, State The public hearing will be held at
the Weld County Planning
of Colorado, and has a general circulation Department, 918 10th Street,
Greeley. Colorado. Comments or
therein; that said newspaper has been objections related to the above
request should be submitted in
published continuously and uninterruptedly writing to the Weld County
Department of Planning Services,
in said county of Weld for a period of more 918 10th Street, Greeley.
Colorado 80631,before the above
than fifty-two consecutive weeks prior to the date or presented at the public
hearing on October 2,2007.
first publication of the annexed legal notice Copies of the application are
available for public inspection in
or advertisement; that said newspaper has the Department of Planning
Services, 918 10th Street,
been admitted to the United States mails as Greeley, Colorado 80631. Please
call Kristine Ranslem at(970)353-
second-class matter under the provisions of 6100, Ext. 3540, or Fax 4 (970)
304-6498, prior to the day of the
the act of March 3, 1879, or any hearing so that reasonable
accommodations can be made if,
amendments thereof, and that said in accordance with the Amencans
with Disabilities Act, you require
newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly special accommodations in order
to participate in this hearing as a
qualified for publishing legal notices and result of a disability.
All cases scheduled before the
advertisements within the meaning of the Planning Commission for hearing
are subject to continuance,due to
laws of the State of Colorado. That the lack of quorum or otherwise.
Contact the Department of
annexed legal notice or advertisement was Planning Services at (970) 353-
6100, ext. 3540, for hearing
published in the regular and entire issue of continuance information.
Doug Ochsner, Weld County
every number of said weekly newspaper for Planning Commission
the period of 1 consecutive insertion(s); and Prresspub°shad'n the Fort Lupton
To be published one (1) time by
that the first publication of said notice was in September 12,2007.
the issue of newspaper, dated 12th day of
September, 2007, and the last on the 12th
day of September, 2007.
Publisher. Subscribed and sworn b p8 Loaee
7th day of September, 2007. NAArRYY
fP ^�pT o 0
;l 4T PUBUC 2�a
.C Oki FOP COv e^`
skit
SON Fie\
Notary Public.
CASE NO.401951 key 45968
a DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
A.&tit; NORTH OFFICE
918 10TH STREET
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
Inge PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT.3540
304-64 FAX: (970) 304-6498
COLORADO SOUTHWEST OFFICE
4209 CR 24.5
LONGMONT, COLORADO 80504
PHONE (720) 652-4210, Ext. 8730
Fax: (720 652-4211
Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The Weld County Planning Commission will hear proposed changes to the Weld County
Code on Tuesday, October 2, 2007.
Changes are proposed for portions of Chapters 23, 24, 26, and 27 of the Weld County
Code. Substantive changes include additional regulations concerning group homes,
clarification of rail yard and mining uses, expansion of zoning districts that would allow
firework and Christmas tree sales, and clarification that massage parlors must meet
State licensing requirements.
Various other administrative and ministerial changes are proposed. The proposed
changes are part of a semi-annual review of the County Code to respond to constituent
input about the Code's provisions, to update it in relationship to other regulatory
documents, and to maintain its overall functionality.
The public hearing will take place on Tuesday, October 2 at 1:30 p.m. at the Weld
County Planning and Building Inspection Office located at 918 10th Street in Greeley.
Following the Planning Commission hearing, the Board of County Commissioners will
consider the changes at a date to be determined. A full summary of the proposal is
available from the Planning Services Department, 970-353-6100.
SERVICE,TEAMWORK,INTEGRITY,QUALITY
Hello