HomeMy WebLinkAbout20080530.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Department of
Planning Services, Hearing Room, 918 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by
Chair, Doug Ochsner, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Doug Ochsner-Chair
Tom Holton -Vice Chair
Nick Berryman _
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Mark Lawley ._. '
Roy Spitzer Also Present: Chris Gathman, Hannah Hippely, Roger Caruso, Department of Planning Services; Dave
Snyder, Don Dunker, Don Carroll, Department of Public Works; Lauren Light, Pam Smith, Department of
Health; Roger Vigil, Bryon Horgen, Department of Building Inspection;Cyndy Giaugue, County Attorney, and
Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the January 15,2008 Weld County Planning Commission minutes,seconded
by Tom Holton. Motion carried.
The Chair read the case into record.
CASE NUMBER: AMPZ-512
APPLICANT: George Bollinger
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Outlot A of Avery Acres PUD; located in W2 of Section 10, T6N, R65 of the 6th
P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: An amendment to the PUD change of zone(create one(1)additional residential
lot with estate zoned uses)for Avery Acres PUD.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 43 and north of and adjacent to CR 70.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, stated that the applicant is requesting that this case be
continued to March 4, 2008. Mr. Gathman added that the applicant was unable to obtain the thirty(30)
day mineral notice waiver from the surrounding property owners. They have pre-emptively notified the
mineral interest owners for the March 4, 2008 hearing date. Mr. Gathman commented that staff is in
support of this request.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Bill Hall moved that Case AmPZ-512 be continued to March 4, 2008, seconded by Mark Lawley. Motion
carried.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1641
APPLICANT: Univest Development Company LLC do Bror Cederstrom
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A parcel located in the N2 of the SW4 of Section 35,T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a use
permitted as a Use by Right, and Accessory Use,or a Use by Special Review in
the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts(business offices and research
laboratory)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
�� LOCATION: North of and adjacent to F Street and approximately 1 mile west of 35 Ave.
C
Hannah Hippely, Department of Planning Services, stated that the applicant is requesting a continuance to
the April 1, 2008 Planning Commission Hearing. She added that staff is supportive of this request.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Tom Holton moved that Case USR-1641 be continued to the April 1,2008 hearing,seconded by Erich Ehrlich.
Motion carried.
The Chair read the case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1645
APPLICANT: Brad&Jolene Luster
PLANNER: Roger Caruso
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-3880; part of the NE4 of Section 33,T5N, R65W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for a Home Business
(parking of trucks and equipment)in the(A)Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: 1/2 mile south of CR 52 and west of and adjacent to CR 43.
Roger Caruso, Department of Planning Services, stated that they wish for this case to remain on consent.
The Chair asked the applicant if they wish for this case to remain on consent. The applicant replied that
they do wish for it to remain on consent.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application
Jim Alice stated that he is one of the Mineral Rights Owners of the property that Brad and Jolene Luster have.
He asked how much equipment was being proposed.
Jolene Luster, 24505 CR 43 commented that the trucks that they have are in the building. She added that
there are four (4) trucks total and currently only two (2) are running. She further added that the other two
trucks are spares and are waiting for another child to get of age, however they are inside.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if any of them wish to have this case pulled from the
Consent Agenda. No one wished to have it pulled.
Roy Spitzer moved to approve the Consent Agenda and forward Case USR-1645 to the Board of County
Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning
Commission's recommendation of approval,Robert Grand seconded the motion.Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1643
APPLICANT: Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission LLC
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part N2N2SW4 of Section 5,T5N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Major
Facility of Public Utility or Public Agency(12-inch natural gas pipeline and meter
station)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 27(83rd Avenue)and south of and adjacent to 4th
Street.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, stated that the applicant is being represented by Wade
R. Hill. He added that the applicant is proposing to install a 12-inch lateral pipeline that would extend from
an existing gas transmission line extending into the City of Greeley to a distribution point at the Southwest
corner of 4th Street and 59th Avenue.
Mr. Gathman added that they are also proposing to install a 35x8 meter skid and meter skid building, 8x8
electronics building, a 37x8 regulator skid and regulator building, odorization skid with a 15x10 foot tank.
2
The meter site would be located where the lateral actually connects into the other pipeline. The meter site
would be located adjacent to 83rd Avenue and south of 4t Street. It will be oriented north/south and would
be walled and fenced within an area of 165-feet by 65-feet. It would be screened by a decorative wall on 3
sides and a chain link fence on the west side.
The nearest single family residence to the meter site is approximately 1/8 mile to the south. There are
residences located across 4th Avenue from where the pipeline would be located. There is an existing
electrical transmission facility on the property that would be in close proximity to the meter station and
pipeline.
Mr. Gathman indicated on a map where the pipeline would be located. He mentioned that approximately
'A mile of the pipeline is located within Weld County.
Mr. Gathman commented that he talked to Mr. Hill and He had indicated that from 83rd Avenue, which is
on the west side, the facility would be screened by a concrete wall. Mr. Gathman added that the only side
of the facility that would be visible to the outside would be facing to the east or the existing transmission
station that is further to the east of the site.
Mr. Gathman commented that there is a condition of approval that the applicant needs to attempt to
address the requirements of the City of Greeley. It is his understanding that that they have already talked
to the City of Greeley about where the pipeline would be located, which would be outside of the future
right-of-way for 4th Avenue and also 83rd Avenue. He further added that they have also agreed to the
setbacks from the meter station as requested by the City of Greeley.
Commissioner Holton clarified that the Planning Commission is the final approving board for this case.
Mr. Gathman replied that was correct.
Dick Sears, Kinder Morgan, 370 Van Gordon, Lakewood, CO. stated that this project is being constructed
under the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. He added that it begins up in Northern
Weld County at the Cheyenne Hub and extends for approximately 41 miles south to the southwestern
edge of Greeley. He mentioned that the 41 miles is a 12 inch pipeline and it is referred to as their main
line. They have four small laterals that come off of that, two of which are on the edge of Greeley and
extend into the City of Greeley. Those will be constructed and will become part of the supply for the
Greeley area. This project is being done in order to give an alternate supply of natural gas for the area.
The laterals comprise of approximately 11 miles of pipeline of varying sizes. There are four(4) meter
stations involved, one of which is the subject of this hearing and the three others are at other locations.
Commissioner Holton asked if this gas is coming or going. Mr. Sears stated that is coming from the
Cheyenne Hub to supply the Greeley area. He added that the Cheyenne Hub is a major pipeline
interconnect area with many pipelines coming from other parts of Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah.
Commissioner Ochsner referred to the photo that showed the fence around it and asked how big of an
area it is. Mr. Ochsner expressed that he is concerned with it being an agricultural area and asked if it is a
solid fence and if it is standard as he is not sure whether that would draw more attention to the site. Mr.
Sears replied that it is not a standard for them as they generally don't put that type of fence around their
facilities. He added that they did that as a result from a consultation and agreement with the City of
Greeley. He added that typically they have chain link fencing around their facilities. Mr. Sears commented
that this will definitely screen the facility with having a 6 foot height and have a nice finish on the outside.
Commissioner Ochsner asked how big of an area it is going to be. Mr. Gathman replied that it is 165 x 65
feet.
Janet Easley, 1100 10th Street, Suite 202, Planning Manager for City of Greeley. Ms. Easley commented
that this wall was in conjunction with working with the City of Greeley concerning some screening because
this and their other facility to the south is in their future growth boundary and so they were hoping that the
screening would provide some sort of a standard for the area as well as hiding what could be an eyesore.
She added that some of these utility and substations have a lot of equipment out there and usually they
are just surrounded by a chain link fence, therefore what they are hoping is to get a decorative concrete
wall treatment. She added that Kinder Morgan has worked very hard with them to get something
3
acceptable to both parties in that area. She added that they are quite pleased with that. She understands
that it sounds like a large area but the concrete wall would be decorative.
Commissioner Ochsner expressed his appreciation to Ms. Easley for coming and representing the City of
Greeley.
Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, asked what the City of Greeley is proposing for the future right-
of-way for the expansion of 83rd Avenue. Ms. Easley replied that the future right-of-way expansion was
taken into consideration in meeting the setbacks that they asked for in the area. She indicated that she
does not have the figures but referred him to talk to Joel in their Engineering Department for that question.
Wade Hill, 8952 Gander Valley Lane, Windsor CO. Mr. Hill stated that they worked closely with Joel of the
City of Greeley and the answer to the future expansion of 83rd Avenue is 150 feet wide. Therefore they
have located their pipeline outside the expansion area to the east along 83rd Avenue and also south of 4th
Street in the event that it expands.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
The Chair asked the Department of Public Health for any comments. Lauren Light commented that it is
their understanding that there won't be any employees on site so they are asking for bottled water and
portable toilets during construction of the site. She added that there won't be any emissions other than
when they are constructing the site with just regular engine exhaust so there is no reason for air
permitting. She added that they have included Development Standards to address any dust and noise
issues.
Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, stated that they are proposing one(1) new access to the site
which is off of 83rd Avenue. He added that they do need to have the applicant pull a right-of-way permit
from their department for the access and the installation of the culvert.
Commissioner Ochsner asked Mr. Gathman if are any graffiti standards or how that is addressed since
this is a concrete wall. Mr. Gathman said that was a good question; however there is not anything specific
in the code that deals with graffiti.
Commissioner Ochsner asked the applicant how they will address it if there is graffiti on the wall. Mr.
Sears replied that since they don't have these walls as a standard for their facilities they don't have a lot of
experience with graffiti. However, by agreement with the City of Greeley, upon construction they will coat
the walls with some type of anti-graffiti that will allow for an easy removal process. He added that they will
have more discussions about how that is going to be handled. He commented that they don't want to have
graffiti on their walls, but if there is some that occurs they would try to take it off.
The Chair asked the applicant if they read through the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval
and if they are agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are.
Robert Grand moved to approve Case USR-1643, seconded by Nick Berryman.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman,yes; 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.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1642
APPLICANT: Lucerne Commons, LLC c/o Ag Professionals, LLC
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parts of the SW4 of Section 17,T6N, R65W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for an Oil and
Gas Support and Service facility(fracking company),Agricultural Service
Establishment(commodity storage and drying), Use allowed in the Commercial
or Industrial Zone District(recycling business)in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
4
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Highway 392 and east of and adjacent to CR 39.
Hannah Hippely, Department of Planning Services, read the case into record.
The property is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of State Highway 392 and County Road
39.
The sign announcing this Planning Commission meeting was posted by staff January 24, 2008.
The adjacent properties are zoned agricultural except to the southwest the zoning is Commercial. The
nearest residences are located in the subdivision of Lucerne which is directly to the west of the property
and there is also a home on the property directly north of the site.
Twelve referral agencies reviewed this proposal. Nine responded and either stated that they did not have
a conflict with the use or expressed concerns that should this application be approved staff has attempted
to address through the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Planning Staff is recommending the denial of this application due to its inconsistency with Sections of the
Weld County Code. Specifically:
Sec. 22-2-60.AGoal1.Policy 1.3. Allow commercial and industrial uses, which are directly related to, or
dependent upon agriculture, to locate within the A (Agricultural)Zone District when the impact to
surrounding properties is minimal, and where adequate services and infrastructure are currently available
or reasonably obtainable.
In this case, the applicant has been unable to demonstrate that there is adequate infrastructure for
stormwater management facilities and in regards to the provision of adequate sewer services.
Missing these two components also means that this application does not comply with the following
Sections of the Code:
Section 23-2-220.A.7 That there is adequate provision for the protection of the health, safety and welfare
of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the County.
Section 23-2-220.A.7--The Design Standards (Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code), Operation
Standards (Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code),
For these reasons, staff is recommending denial of this application.
Ms. Hippely commented that the proposal doesn't really add much to the site. They are proposing two
office trailers; otherwise the applicant is proposing to re-use the existing structures on site.
Commissioner Holton asked what is being recycled. Ms. Hippely said that she believes it is different types
of paper and paperboard and cardboard but the applicant can address that more in his presentation.
Commissioner Grand asked why this is a USR. Ms. Hippely replied that it is an Agriculturally zoned piece
of property, so Commercial operations are a Use by Special Review. She added that all three of these
buildings were historically used for Ag-related storage, drying, or personal use by the owner. Now we are
changing the use for two of the buildings.
Commissioner Berryman asked about the pit or the detention pond. Ms. Hippely said that there is a pit
there but was not constructed for stormwater drainage facilities and she doesn't believe that it is
operational for those purposes at this point. However, she pointed out that Don Dunker with the
Department of Public Works could answer that.
Commissioner Spitzer asked about the surfacing around the buildings. Ms. Hippely replied that it is
gravel.
Commissioner Hall asked if they are changing the surfacing. Ms. Hippely replied they are not. She added
that historically, because this was an Ag property it wasn't required to have stormwater management
5
facilities. The change of use necessitates that those facilities be installed.
Commissioner Berryman asked where the access point is from Highway 392. Ms. Hippely stated that the
applicant has two approved accesses from CDOT. She indicated on the map where these accesses are
located.
Commissioner Grand asked where the current restroom facilities are located. Ms. Hippely replied that
currently there is a septic system associated with the office building. She indicated that there may be
some facilities in the office trailer.
Dusty McCormick, 4350 Hwy 66, Longmont CO. Mr. McCormick stated that a lot of what Ms. Hippely
presented was correct but he would like to make a few clarifications. Mr. McCormick gave a brief
presentation to the Planning Commission.
Mr. McCormick commented that the request is to continue to use the site,just more efficiently. He added
that they don't want to change the site but to re-use the buildings. He commented that in the building to
the west they are going to have a small office, shop and storage. The building in the middle will continue
to be used as storage for potatoes. The biggest change of this facility is to convert the building to the east
to a recycling building. He mentioned that the question earlier of what is going to be recycled there is
going to be primarily office pack, cardboard and some wood. Mr. McCormick added that the client has
found a tenant for the building of whom is National Recycling and two of their largest clients are Wal-Mart
and Budweiser. There is no shredding on site and there will be no stacking of products outdoors. It all
happens inside the building.
Mr. McCormick clarified that the recycling facility does have drainage capabilities. It was graded and
designed for everything to run down to the pond. This pond was also used for process water that they
would take in and out of the potatoes but other than that this pond was built to handle all the water from
this facility. Mr. McCormick commented that he does not know if it was designed at the standard that it
needed to be back then.
Mr. McCormick stated that there is going to be approximately 31 employees of which in the first few years
there would be approximately 21 people there on a daily basis. He added that 10 of the employees are
truck drivers where they would come in and get their truck, leave for the week in some instances and
come back, park their truck in the building and then be gone.
Mr. McCormick stated that the drainage plan as submitted is very conceptual. He added that everything
does channel and flow generally toward the pond. There is very minimal grading that would have to occur.
Mr. McCormick stated that what they are proposing at this point is a retention facility. What type of
structure they are going to use to release that water at the rate that it needs to has not been designed yet.
He added that what they are asking for today is the faith from this Board and the resolution that Ms.
Hippely has put together to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners and those
conditions and development standards adequately address having the applicant comply with that. Having
a drainage study done now is not the wishes of the applicant before he gets an approval or denial.
Commissioner Holton asked where it discharges to now. Mr. McCormick replied that right now everybody
discharges to the applicant's site. He added that the options of releasing the water is to 1) perk the water
back into the ground, 2)work an agreement to regrade the neighboring property, or 3) take it under the
road into the public right-of-way ditch on the south side of Hwy 392.
Commissioner Grand asked why they do not have a drainage report as requested by the County. Mr.
McCormick stated that his client would rather not incur the cost of stamping an engineered drainage report
if he is not going to be approved for this plan.
Commissioner Grand asked if he would agree as a condition of approval that before it is approved by the
Board of County Commissioners there would be a certified drainage study to the satisfaction of the
County. Mr. McCormick replied his client fully intends to comply with that if he is approved.
Mr. McCormick stated that if they can get a recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission
today, sometime in the next 60 days they will get their hearing with the Board of County Commissioners.
6
From that point if the Count Commissioners approve it then they have 180 days, per this resolution, to get
that drainage study completed and get that plat recorded.
Ms. Hippely stated that was incorrect and clarified that it would be to get all those facilities installed and
functioning, not the drainage report.
Commissioner Spitzer stated that the drainage report would have to be implemented within 180 days and
before they record the plat. Ms. Hippely stated that was correct, unless they decide to post the
improvements agreement and go that direction. However, in this case she would prefer to see the
facilities installed. Ms. Hippely added that the reason is because they are already in operation as this use
right now and will continue to function as this use up until these conditions are met.
Commissioner Spitzer asked how they are handling the sewage issue right now.
Mr. McCormick stated that on site today there were approximately eight(8) people there. He added that
as stated there is an office trailer and it does have a self-contained septic system. It is pumped
approximately once a week. Also in one of the pictures, there is a port-a-potty on the north end of the
property and there is an existing septic system. The unfortunate part of that septic system is that it is not
a legal ISDS system at this time. It was applied for, and engineered but never inspected. Mr. McCormick
commented that in working with Pam Smith of the Department of Health, they feel very comfortable in
moving forward in that there is adequate room for ISDS systems on this site and if approved his client is
willing to build any septic system to house the employees.
Commissioner Spitzer said that currently there were eight(8)employees on site but presumably there is
going to be 31 employees coming and going. He added that is a pretty intense use for one trailer system,
one port-a-potty and one septic system that we don't know anything about.
Mr. McCormick stated that we do know that the septic system was designed for approximately six(6)
people at the time.
Commissioner Spitzer said that you are using that much more now with the potential of 31 people coming
and going.
Mr. McCormick said that would be correct if we had 31 people coming and going right now. He
commented that the numbers in the application give the current tenants room to expand their operations.
Right now, because of the zoning violation the tenants are running what would be considered "ghost
operations". The recycling company is basically using this temporarily as they are leasing and operating
their major facility in Loveland. He added that what they would like to do is get this permit approved, make
some improvements and get people moved over there. Right now there are 2 people there to make sure
the commodities and the storage of their goods are there.
The Chair asked the Department of Health for their comments. Pam Smith said that in 2001 there was a
septic system applied for and issued for a design capacity of 6 people. From what we know, apparently
that septic system was installed but was never inspected by their department before it was covered up.
She added that in conversations with Mr. McCormick it appears that there is a well in the office building
that was never disclosed to the Health Department at the time that the septic permit was issued.
Therefore there is the added complication of having the setbacks met between the well and the existing
septic system.
Commissioner Spitzer asked if the well is the drinking water supply for the site. Ms. Smith stated that it
might have been at the time, but she added that the applicant has applied for a tap from North Weld
County Water District and they are going to convert the property to North Weld Water. She further added
that they will keep the well because of the historic water rights and they don't want to give them up. Ms.
Smith stated that she doesn't have a problem with that but they need to know where the septic system is
and if it meets capacity.
Ms. Smith commented that this case is not uncommon to what you have seen in other applications. They
have see a lot of applications where there is an undocumented septic system or have a septic system that
has gone from a house to some kind of Commercial use and needs to be re-evaluated.
7
Ms. Smith said that as far as the commodity storage building, because it is seasonal use, they don't have
a problem with them using portable toilets up to six (6) months per year. The issue that the Health
Department has a concern with is the two self-contained office trailers which are very similar to
construction trailers. She added that it would be a full-time use and the objection that they have with it is
the maintenance of those.
Mr. McCormick commented that in the condition of approval 1.1.2 it states "that portable office units
proposed to serve the east end of the proposed oil and gas support facility maintenance shop and the
recycling business are intended as permanent structures." He stated that they are in agreement with
using those and hooking them up to installed ISDS systems.
The Chair asked the Department of Public Works for their comments.
Don Dunker, Department of Public Works, commented that County Road 39 is an arterial road and they
will be taking an additional 40 foot of right of way. He added that CDOT has requested an additional 45
feet of right-of-way for Highway 395. He continued to add that the Greeley#2 canal is located north of the
site and when it is running for several months he is not sure about where the ground water is and how
those septic systems would work or the pond as well.
Mr. Dunker stated that there are currently berms along some of the sides of the pond to not allow any of
the water to get into the pond so he is not sure if it is processed water or storm water that is in there.
Commissioner Spitzer asked which way the site slopes. Mr. Dunker said that it slopes from the Greeley
#2 canal to the pond.
Mr. Dunker commented that back in September 2007 there was a meeting between AgProfessionals, the
Health Department, Public Works Department and the Eaton Fire Department. It was brought up that the
site was serviced by a ''%. inch water tap and the main water line in the road way to the site was also%
inch. He added that he only brought this up because the site is very tight and he doesn't know how all the
stormwater retention/detention, septic tanks, leach fields and possible external underground tanks for fire
flows will fit.
Mr. Dunker stated that the Department of Public Works is requiring the applicant to provide water quality
for this site which includes detaining the developed 10-year storm, releasing it at the 5-year historic rate
and no additional buildings or impervious service could be added to this site. He added that the pond
would also be required to have a water quality feature to settle out the sediments and oils.
Commissioner Grand asked in terms of the pond, will the CDOT right-of-way requirement eliminate the
pond or take a big chunk of it away? Mr. Dunker said that it will. Mr. Grand then asked what they would
use for a retention pond. Mr. Dunker said that he doesn't know, they may have to redesign it in a different
spot.
Commissioner Hall asked if CDOT has requested the right-of-way already. Mr. Dunker replied that they
have and added that he doesn't know when it is scheduled to be widened but they have requested for it in
the future.
Pam Smith commented that the septic permit that was issued at the end of July 2001 so the perk test
would have been done either early in July or probably sometime in June. At that time, the perk rate was
just under 40 minutes per inch and ground water was greater than 8 feet.
Commissioner Ochsner commented that by observation he has never seen any problem with drainage.
He added that the parking lot is mostly dry and there have been major storms when he has driven by the
area and the pond is full but the area around the buildings has been dry.
Commissioner Ehrlich referred to the applicant currently being in violation and asked Ms. Hippely about
the timeline on the USR and the violations. Ms. Hippely said that they are in violation for the operation of
these businesses. Nothing will happen with the violation until they go to a Board of County
Commissioners hearing. She added that it would happen 45-50 days after the hearing today. Once that
hearing occurs the result of that hearing will determine what happens with the violation. Should the board
decide to approve this USR, the violation goes away.
8
Commissioner Ehrlich commented that we are getting into more of what we need to and the biggest issue
is that the applicant doesn't have any type of drainage report done at this time. He stated that is in favor
of still denying the application the way it is presented and forwarding it to the Board of County
Commissioners. He suggested that the applicant see how fast they can get some type of drainage report
prior to the Board of County Commissioner's hearing and put that into our developmental standards.
Mr. McCormick commented that all these uses fit into this area and is aware that they need to work out
some engineering to make it all work. He added that he would hesitate to have this board forward a
recommendation of denial to the Board of County Commissioners and would much rather, if approved
here, have a condition of approval prior to scheduling a Board of County Commissioners hearing to have a
preliminary drainage report done. He further added that with the simple sake of timing of this application,
it is imperative with the zoning violation that we keep this think moving forward. Mr. McCormick reiterated
that his client is willing to do whatever it takes to complete this process and to do the engineering that is
needed as long as there are some assurances that this can move forward.
Commissioner Spitzer expressed concern with the numbers and asked what if you find that the drainage
won't work with the approved approaches for capturing and releasing the 10-year storm at the 5-year rate.
He added that it seems to him the engineering should come first just to make sure that your client is
protected and this project is really feasible.
Commissioner Holton said that the problem that he has with this application is that it is not complete and
would have really liked to have seen the drainage report. He added that usually the applicant is working
with the Department of Public Works and Department of Health and those things are put into the packets
for the members of the Planning Commission to see.
Commissioner Hall commented that in his opinion we could move forward on this with a condition of
approval that this engineering has to be done before they even get a chance to go to the County
Commissioners.
Commissioner Lawley stated that he agreed with what Commissioner Ehrlich had commented earlier. He
asked if a continuance would be appropriate in order for the applicant to provide the information. Ms.
Hippely said that if the applicant would like to request a continuance instead of having the Board make a
decision at this point they can.
Commissioner Holton commented that he believes this is a good use for this property however he doesn't
feel the application is complete.
Mr. McCormick stated that they are not opposed to a continuance as they want to do what is in the best
interest of this project. He asked that if they can get a preliminary stamped engineered drainage report,
could they have this meeting in two(2)weeks in the south office.
Ms. Hippely said no and apologized as Public Works needs adequate time to review this and believes that
it is only fair to the staff that this be continued to the next hearing in this office.
Commissioner Holton asked Public Works what they thought. Mr. Dunker said that he would definitely
need a couple of weeks to review it and it would be best to wait until the March hearing.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Commissioner Ochsner commented that although the application is not complete there are conditions of
approval in place. He added that although he may review the drainage report it is not going to convince
him one way or the other. If Public Works or Public Health approves it, then that is all he needs. Mr.
Ochsner expressed concern that if by delaying this application it would be a hardship to the existing two
businesses out there and he doesn't want to lose those businesses. He stated that as far as a land use
issue, it meets all the criteria. He agreed that as a last option it would be best to go ahead and continue
this application if it will not cause a hardship to the tenants.
Commissioner Holton commented that they are operating now and doesn't believe that will change. He
9
added that he feels they have a duty to the Board of County Commissioners that we send them completed
cases and this one is not complete. If we gave them another two weeks, and the applicant seems to be
on board with that, and if staff feels that they don't have enough time within those two weeks to make the
February 19, 2008 meeting then we can move it to the March 4, 2008 meeting.
Commissioner Spitzer stated that he is in favor of the continuance just so they could have a little more
information and know that they are going to be giving the County Commissioners something that is really
going to fit with the code.
The Chair asked Mr. McCormick if continuing it out one month will cause any hardship on the applicant. Mr.
McCormick replied that it is better than being denied.
Tom Holton moved to continue Case USR-1642 to the February 19, 2008 Planning Commission meeting,
seconded by Roy Spitzer.
Commissioner Lawley stated that he wants the applicant to understand what needs to be submitted. Mr.
McCormick stated that he understands he needs to have 1) preliminary perks of the location of where the
septic systems will be located and 2) preliminary drainage report complete and stamped.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes; Paul Branham, Absent; Erich Ehrlich, yes with comment; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes;
Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Ehrlich commented that he needs clarity on the drainage report and also how that
coincides with the Cache la Poudre Irrigation Company. He added that is not too sure about building
codes and the Eaton Fire District and that goes to the denial that the Planning Staff put in which is Section
23-2-220.A.7.
The Chair called a recess at 3:25 p.m.
The Chair called the meeting back to order at 3:34 p.m.
Weld County Code Changes
Staff: Roger Vigil
Items: Building Codes
Tom Honn, Director of Planning Services, stated that there are two basic code changes that we are
processing to be adopted by mid-summer as dictated by State Legislature. He pointed out that one of
changes is revisions to the Electrical Code and the other has to do with the Energy Code conditions.
Mr. Honn mentioned that the Building Department has reviewed this through the Building Code Advisory
Group and added that they also sent letters out to contractors that operate within the County and invited them
to a public meeting.
Roger Vigil, Department of Building Inspection, stated that there are three changes to Chapter 29 that are
being proposed: 1)Adoption of the 2008 National Electric Code with amendments, 2)Adoption of the 2006
International Energy Conservation Code, and 3) Changes to Section 29-3-70 Moved Buildings.
Mr. Vigil commented that they invited a number of people to a public meeting because there are three
changes in the National Electric Code that are going to directly impact contractors and homeowners. He
added that the Energy Code mandated by the State is going to really present a new way to insulate dwellings
and to meet the code.
Mr. Vigil stated that the only change to the National Electric Code is the date from 2005 to 2008. The
amendments are all staying the same.
Mr. Vigil commented that with regard to the Energy Code, they are asking to adopt the 2006 International
Conservation Energy Code. It is going to be adopted with two amendments. The first amendment will be to
substitute the adopted Electrical Code for the ICC Electrical Code and the other amendment is going to allow
the permanent certificate to be in a conspicuous place. The 2006 Energy Code requires that it be affixed to
10
the electrical box and they feel that this gives a little more leeway with the contractors as then they don't get
into labeling in the box.
Mr. Vigil stated that the last change is to Moved Buildings. He added that this is to reflect the changes in the
National Electric Code and the Energy Code. He said that they are going to require that the egress windows
have to be installed through the Adopted Energy Code. Previously it was R-19 and now the ceilings need to
be insulated to R-38. He added that in addition to that any wall that is opened shall have its cavity completely
filled with insulation,whereas before it needed to be R-11. The other change is that the foundation needs to
meet the requirement of this section which is in the prescriptive table shown in his presentation. Mr.Vigil also
added that as far as the mechanical code the heating, cooling and ventilation will also need to meet the
Energy Code.
Mr.Vigil moved on to the electrical requirements of a moved-in building. Arc-fault interrupters are required as
specified and the electrical devices, fixtures and penetrations shall be sealed to limit infiltration according to
the Energy Code.
Mr.Vigil pointed out the particulars of the National Electric Code. He commented that one of the big changes
is the tamper-proof resistant receptacles are going to be required throughout a dwelling so that a child can't
take a bobby pin and poke it in one side. He added that these receptacles also need to be a combination type
AFCI which is a change from the previous code. That will impact the builders as they go to purchase them.
Mr. Vigil mentioned that right now these are limited and is not sure how many supply houses carry that
product. However he is hopeful that by the time the code is adopted they will be available.
Commissioner Holton asked if these changes will be adopted regardless of what the Planning Commission
votes on. Mr.Vigil replied yes and added that with code requirements you can make it more restrictive but you
can't lessen the requirement of the National Electric Code or the Building Code.
Commissioner Holton commented that the proposed changes to the insulation code make no sense to him.
He added that for instance where it states that the cavity has to be completely filled. If you have a 2x6 wall
that you fill with foam insulation that you will give you an R-50 value. Mr.Vigil stated that the reason it has to
be filled to the capacity is because the insulating value won't be reached if it is not completely encapsulated in
that.
Commissioner Holton said that it still didn't answer the question as far as requiring an R-19 wall. Mr. Vigil
replied that the exception is there so that any filled wall only needs to be filled and it doesn't have to meet the
R-19, it gives a choice.
Commissioner Holton clarified that then you can have an R-19 value or fill the cavity. Mr.Vigil stated that was
correct.
Mr. Vigil continued to the changes with regard to the receptacle. He stated that the other requirement is that
outside or wet locations not only be protected but the receptacle itself is going to have to be weather resistant.
The current code just requires that it be covered.
Mr. Vigil moved on to the Energy Code. He said that the air infiltration needs to be taken care of. Therefore
windows, doors, soleplates, floors, plumbing, electrical, and service access needs to be maintained. He
added that Electrical Contractors are going to have to provide fixtures that meet the requirement for that.
Commissioner Holton brought the question up of the polyurethane foam in the wall again. He added that if you
interpret this new code then the foam will have to completely fill that cavity and it will make it so expensive that
you will not be able to have your house insulated with polyurethane foam which is the most effective and
efficient insulation that you can buy. Mr. Vigil said that that particular section is for moved-in housing.
Commissioner Holton indicated that he is talking about new construction or even a re-model. Mr. Vigil said
that the particular code is only for moved-in buildings. He added that if you look in that section it states that if
you open a wall then it needs to be filled to its capacity.
Commissioner Holton stated that according to the handout it states in Section 29-2-90 Table 402.1.1.b it
states"or insulation sufficient to fill the framing cavity; R-19 minimum." Mr. Holton stated that it doesn't say
"or R-19 minimum." He added that his concern with foam insulation is that it is expensive so a lot of people
11
don't want to deal with it, but when you start requiring cavities to be filled with foam insulation then you've
driven the contractors to a point where they can't compete. Mr.Vigil stated that out of 30 years of inspecting
moved-in buildings he has seen only 1 or 2 where they have opened the walls and removed everything and re-
insulated.
Commissioner Holton commented that according to the Energy Conservation Code it doesn't state"or R-19
minimum" it is just a semi-colon. Mr. Holton added that at some point he would like to see us stop adopting
codes and regulations that were basically built for the Northeast Coast. Mr. Vigil said that the 2003 Energy
Code contained 11 different zones throughout the United States. He added that the 2006 has only 4 zones
and the Northeast is different and the South is different and the strip right through where Colorado is zone 5.
Mr. Holton said that he understands that there are different requirements for us but he is just saying that all
those zones were designed from somebody back east, for instance vapor barriers.
Bryon Horgen, Building Department, wanted to clear up Mr. Holton's question. He commented that if you
move in a building from somewhere else and it's a 2x4 wall and you are going to remodel it,they are saying
that you can fill that with fiberglass insulation and then that would give you a value of R-13 and that would be
okay. Mr. Holton stated that they don't specify whether it is fiberglass or foam. Mr. Horgen said that if you do
2 1/2 inches of foam you are going to get a value of R-19, then you don't have to fill the cavity up. Mr. Holton
commented that is not what is says in the code. Mr. Horgen replied that it states a minimum of R-19 or fill the
cavity; therefore if you can reach R-19 without filling it then it would be okay. Mr. Holton said that it doesn't
give you the option; it just says that it has to be filled.
Mr. Horgen commented that Mr. Holton is correct and added that the intent was that it needs to be filled or
meet a minimum of R-19. He added that we need to add"or meet a minimum R value of R-19." Mr. Holton
said that would be more specific.
Tom Holton made a motion to amend Section 29-3-70.B.2 to insert the word"or", seconded by Mark Lawley.
Motion carried.
Bill Hall moved to approve the amended Code Changes to Chapter 29 and to forward to the Board of County
Commissioners along with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, Roy Spitzer seconded
the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 4:09 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
�t
/
J 2 Ll `7 1G t
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
12
Hello