HomeMy WebLinkAbout20071438 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 by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
WELD COUNTY CODE CHANGES
STAFF: Brad Mueller
ITEMS: Several Chapters
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
Bruce Fitzgerald
Chad Auer
Tom Holton
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
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,Voneen Macklin, 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 7, 2006.
Dated the 7th of November, 2006.
�I�rajg-c'�,2
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
2007-1438
11 12Ct,e
approval. Doug Ochsner seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Mark
Lawley,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes;Chad Auer,yes;Tom Holton,yes;Doug Ochsner,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;
Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Doug Ochsner commented he thinks the USR puts limitations on the pplicaiton that need to be adhered to.
The Cecil family will be the main monitor of the use and the Board of County Commissioners meeting is
another opportunity to voice public opinions and concerns.
Chad Auer commented that he is concerned Planning Commission has done more definition to application
and he is still concerned with the health safety and welfare issues around the tire storage. The public can also
contact staff to find out the dates of any future hearings.
Planning Commission Hearing Dates and schedule.
Presented by Brad Mueller
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to accept the proposed schedule for 2007.
Doug Ochsner asked if the calendar pertained to dates only. He indicated in conversations with himself
he would like to see starting times possibly amended. Mr. Mueller stated that could be opened up for
discussion. The issue is the whether the noon is appropriate start time or 12:30pm. The staff goal is to
provide speaker prior to the meetings and this needs to be done efficiently as possible. There could be
exceptions to off site meetings.
Doug Ochsner indicated he likes the speakers and he would like to see the 1:30 time adjusted. Mr. Holton
asked for clarification on the hearings that are prior to the Planning Commission. Mr. Mueller stated the
Board of Adjustment meets infrequently and is not a long meeting.
Brad Mueller appealed to the Planning Commission members and getting better with the RSVP for
Voneen in preparing for speakers.
Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion carried.
WELD COUNTY CODE CHANGES
STAFF: Brad Mueller& Bryon Horgen & Roger Vigil
ITEMS: Section 2-3-50; Section 2-9-100; Section 5-7-40; Section 5-8-40; Section 22-1-
150.B.1; Chapter 23; Chapter 24, Chapter 29.
Brad Mueller stated the review criteria specific to Chapter 23 are on the cover memo. The other memos
outline changes to other areas of the code. Mr.Vigil provided a memo for building changes. It was suggested
the building changes be addressed first.
Roger Vigil provided clarification on his proposed changes. These changes will include the adoption of 2006
Building, Residential,Mechanical, Plumbing, Fuel Gas,and 2006 existing International Building Code. This is
the first time for the International Existing Building Code to be adopted which is primarily used for abatement.
The second change will clean up the manufactured structures language. The third change will be adoption of
the Pre-1976 Mobile Home language which will clean up the language in that section. The final change will be
the building permit fee increases.
Paul Branham asked for clarification on the letter from the Building Trade Advisory Committee and their
determination to accept four of the proposals. The recommendation for Item 4 and Item 6 were not agreed
upon. Item 4 addresses leak detection systems for propane and Item 5 addresses the elimination of water
service pipe depth to be 42 inches. Mr.Vigil indicated with regards to Item 4,the Fuel and Gas Code has not
been addressed since 2003 and propane is not mentioned. There are presently safer appliances now as
opposed to earlier years. The board questioned how propane suppliers viewed protection systems. Mr.Vigil
added there was a survey of jurisdictions addressing these requirements and very few require the leak
detection, some only require the alarm while Weld County requires both. Mr. Branham asked what"below
grade"refers to. Mr.Vigil stated it was anything in a crawl space or where propane could be trapped.
6
Bruce Fitzgerald asked for clarification on the"sniffers"in the crawl spaces and the requirements. Mr.Vigil
stated it is no longer required since the appliances are better. Mr. Vigil stated a leak may occur but the
appliances are better designed with safety mechanism. Mr.Auer asked about the industry standard. Mr.Vigil
stated the new appliances have new requirements that are updated and stricter per the industry. Mr.Branham
asked if the leak protection was required by propane suppliers. Mr.Vigil spoke with Agland and Cox Propane
and those companies require leak protection since Weld County does. Bryon Horgen,Weld County Building
Department, indicated he has spoken with AmeriGas and they only require this in Weld County because the
county does. Mr. Branham asked if Building Trade Advisory were trade professionals. Mr. Horgen indicated
they were all professionals.
Paul Branham asked about the cost on having the leak detection system and not having the system. Mr.Vigil
stated the appliance can cost from $500-$1000 depending on what is added.
Perry Folot, Cox Oil Company, indicated that Weld County is only one county that requires the leak detection
system. A solenoid and sniffer can cost$700 and up. Mr.Ochsner asked if people in other jurisdiction were
electing to utilize these or not. Mr. Folot stated new home builders were installing them. If a power outage
occurs the solenoid will shut off and this is the largest mechanical malfunction. Mr. Auer asked what the
recommendation for the safety issue is. Mr. Folot stated their insurance company requires pressure testing
every five years. Mr. Auer asked how often system detect leaks. Mr. Folot stated he has had two calls
regarding leaks. One was a small leak that took 45 min to detect. The second was a power outage and the
client was not aware of how to reset.
Tom Holton asked if the municipalities require them. Mr.Vigil stated that Avon Colorado requires a detector at
floor level but no shut off. This does alert but does not shut off.
Mark Lawley asked whether the national codes address this. Mr. Vigil stated propone is not mentioned.
Larimer and Boulders only limit is on the location of the propane tank.
Mr. Barker clarified the process on the building proposals.
Roger Vigil continued with clarification on Item 6 on the trade advisory memo. The code only requires the pipe
to be 6 inches below frost which would only be 36 inches. The Advisory Board felt 48 inches should be
required to protect the homeowners. The code is a minimum requirements; the builder can build to better
specifications.
Doug Ochsner asked for clarification on the mobile home for pre 1976 and why the 1976 date. Mr.Vigil stated
that after 1976 HUD standards covered all structures. Prior to this they could be lacking in safety measures.
This would keep the county in line with what the City of Greeley does. Greeley requires pre-inspection for pre-
1976 homes. Those inspections would look for smoke detectors, electrical, mechanical issues and size of
windows for safety. This would not disallow those mobile homes but it would cause an inspection and make
them safer.
Doug Ochsner asked for clarification with regards to Article 3 Section 29-3-20 which has the exemptions for
building permit requirements. One of the changes is to remove the shelter of grain, hay or livestock. Does
this mean a shelter to store grain will be removed? Mr.Vigil stated it would still be allowed. Staff is looking at
this as a use and size of structure and it must still remain an accessory use to a dwelling unit. The intent is to
exempt facilities under a USR. Mr. Holton asked for clarification on building a livestock shed there would be
no need for a permit in the agricultural zone. Mr.Vigil stated the change would be exempting shade shelters
under a USR and that is not currently consistent with the zoning requirements. This is to be eliminated. All
USR's with the change would be equal at this point. All USR require building permits for structures. Mr.
Mueller added the building code has a specific section for livestock confinement operations which includes
dairys and causes those uses to be treated differently. The intent is to make the building permit process
consistent with all USR's. There are possible confusions for the requirement for impact fees. Any uses by
right and agricultural exempt building will be treated as normal. The dairy is just an example of a possible
commercial operation and treated as such. Mr.Ochsner asked if building a corral or confinement area would
require a building
g permit. Mr. Mueller stated under the current rule they are not required but because of this
new language this would cause the need for a building permit for shelters etc. Mr. Ochsner asked about a
shade shed and it just being sticks and a roof and part of a simple corral it should be considered such. Mr.
Vigil stated that a Use by Special Review and a Use by Right are different. Mr. Holton asked whether some
7
USR's have corrals with a lean to for shade, would require permits. Mr. Vigil stated they would not. There
would need to be a building permit for the shade shelters. Mr. Mueller added that the cost of the permit is tied
to the valuation of structure and would typically be very low.
Roger Vigil continued on with the fee changes. A regional modifier of 0.81 is presently being used. This fee
has been used since 2000. In 2002 the modifier was changed in the International Code to 0.92. The proposal
is that the square foot would remain the same but the modifier would change to 0.92. This would be a 12%
increase across the board. Weld County has not made any changes since 2000. Another change would be to
change the fee for a pre-move in on a mobile home to $200. This would create an inspection for a mobile
home before it moves into Weld County. This would help with the plan review fee, if it was done with blue
prints it would be around $800.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if that included an asbestos and mold inspection. Mr. Vigil stated they are not
presently doing those and there has not been any recommendation to do so.
Paul Branham asked if there was any request for pre-move in inspections from areas far away. Mr. Vigil
stated there has been one moved in from west of Loveland to east of Kersey. The fee of$200 is the same
regardless of the location.
Mark Lawley asked if the surrounding counties have the same modifier. Mr.Vigil stated it varies as to location.
The commissioners indicated they are hesitant to raise building permit fees. Mr. Ochsner asked the
reasoning for the increase. Mr. Vigil stated it has been since 2000 that there have been increases and the
regional modifier has gone up so there is the need to keep with standard. This would offset the expenses of
the building department.
Mark Lawley asked what the increase in staff has been since 2000. Mr. Vigil guessed it at three additional
staff.
Bruce Barker stated the fees will need to be done as a separate resolution to the Board of County
Commissioners.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to accept the fee schedule as proposed. Tom Holton seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Mark
Lawley,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes; Chad Auer,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;
Paul Branham,yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Doug Ochsner commented staff does need the money to continue but 12% increase is pretty significant.
Weld County is above the surrounding counties as far as an impact. This is a tax increase basically.
Tom Holton commented he has a problem with the language in Section 29-2-50 concerning the addition of
building permits on such things as loafing sheds. The milking parlors and main parlors would need a permit
but not a lean-to. Mr. Mueller stated the difficulty becomes evident when a loafing shed becomes more
complex and how to inspect the difference. Staff is trying to address the possibility of industrial scale
operations and those not needing building permits. If there was a way to distinguish between the two it would
be helpful. Mr.Vigil added some of the shade shelters are extremely large and covered. Mr. Holton added
some people like to feed indoors. Mr. Fitzgerald added building permits allows for inspections on the
permitted buildings. A commercial endeavor will have employees but a use by right dairy is run by families.
Doug Ochsner moved to leave Section 29-3-20.13 and not make the suggested change. Something needs to
be written more specific to the situation. Shade shelters can be large. Mr.Auer added that Item 5B on memo
the suggestion is to eliminate. Mr.Ochsner would like to leave the code as currently written. Mr.Holton asked
for clarification with regards to the permits. Mr. Mueller stated in a confined animal operation there would be
no building permits issued. Mr.Ochsner withdrew the motion because he believes there is a need for building
permits for milking barns and the safety of the individuals that work there but for a non working shade shelter it
should be allowed. Mr. Barker recommends staff work on language to get the intent of the Planning
Commission members before this goes to the Board of County Commissioners.
Doug Ochsner moved to remove Item 5B leave code Section 29-3-20.13 and rework the language to get the
intent. Tom Holton seconded. Motion carried with Bruce Fitzgerald voting against.
8
Tom Holton added it needs to be more specific. Shade/loafing sheds used for feeding and housing do not
need building permits. Dairy parlors and industrial uses that would go along with this would need permits.
Brad Mueller asked if Planning Commission would like to eliminate the language in the entire code that
references this for building permits. Mr.Barker added the USR section would have more allowed animal units
which would be the trigger for the special use. The definition needs for be more specific as to the larger
operations. Mr. Holton added that if it is an open type shed it should not require a building permit. The
building definition may need to be reworked if the permit process changes.
Erich Ehrlich added that in Section 29-1-10 the definition for agricultural building could limit this. This definition
may be better as opposed to building definition. This could be used in the USR process for confined
operations.
Paul Branham agreed with the Building Trade Advisory Committee on not eliminating the leak detection
system as well as the depth of the water service pipe.
Paul Branham moved that Planning Commission does not support Items 4 and 6 of the Building Trade
Advisory Committee memo. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Mark
Lawley, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, no; Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes;
Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried.
Tom Holton commented that the leak detection system should be eliminated to be maintaining consistency
with other counties.
Doug Ochsner commented that that 36 inches should be the minimum and if adhered to should be fine.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Doug Ochsner moved to accept Chapter 29 as amended. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Mark
Lawley,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes; Chad Auer,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;
Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Brad Mueller continued with the planning aspect of the code changes. There are changes to Chapter 23 and
Chapter 24. Chapter 27 will be heard at the November 21, 2006 hearing due to legal noticing.
Brad Mueller highlighted portions of the memo that was provided to the Planning Commission. There were
additions to the definitions sections; oil and gas language; collateral sections and the sign code section.
Bruce Barker suggested moving directly to the sign code so the participants in the audience can comment and
move on.
Brad Mueller moved to Section 23-4-60 in the memo.
There have been changes to the definitions; addition of Real Estate Promotional Sign definition; amending
Building Signs; amending Free Standing Sign; amending Projecting Sign; amending Suspended Sign and
amending Wall Sign. The Appendices 23-C was amended to add the needed signs as well as eliminate
duplications. Bulk standards for free standing signs were amended away from the use of the"other"category.
This change gets rid of the"other"category. Mr. Barker has brought to staff attention the need to amend the
definition for political signs. This change will be addressed with a Conditions of Approval. This combines the
need of political signs as well as temporary signs. Both definitions will tie to each other. Mr. Mueller added
that the addition of the Real Estate Promotion Sign is based on the need for builders to advertise the
developments. The current code does not allow this it only allows for the entrance sign and smaller signs that
advertise the lots. Two different types that would be allowed would include both on-premise and off-premise
signs but there will be parameters. The on-premise signs would be allowed on each access and it would be a
9
larger sign. The off-premise sign is designed to allow,by the landowner,for two signs on private property with
approval and there would be spacing requirements.
The Chair opened for Public comment.
Dan Nickelson, Motivational Systems, added his concern. Mr. Nickelson asked for clarification on the
proposed change process and what it was. Mr. Mueller stated that if the Planning Commission recommends
approval it will go to the Board of County Commissioners for final approval. Mr.Nickelson asked if there was
builder or developer input for the changes to the sign code. Another question is the terminology for removal
within 30 days of the lots being sold. This time frame defeats the purpose for the sign since they are needed
to sell all the lots. Mr. Nickelson would like to see this change until build out. Mr. Nickelson added the
maximum height of 8 feet would be two feet from grade,this decreases visibility and site distance. They would
prefer a 12 foot maximum height which would be six foot from grade. There is nothing in the code addressing
setbacks; this would also pertain to visibility and readability of sign.
Doug Ochsner asked if all the items referred to on site and off site signs. Mr. Nickelson stated it would be
both. Some of the onsite signs will be internal and not be an issue. The height issue will pertain more to the
offsite. Mr. Holton asked about setbacks. Mr. Nickelson added he would like to see 25-75 feet setback.
Chad Auer asked Mr. Nickelson what his interest are in Weld County. Mr. Nickelson stated he represents a
sign company for home builders.
Doug Ochsner asked Mr. Mueller about setbacks and them not being mentioned if this leaves the area wide
open. Mr. Mueller stated the setbacks are addressed in Section 23-4-120. This is a new sign category and
may not specifically be addressed but the default is it would go to the building setbacks. There are
parameters in that section addressing minimum setbacks.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked what is done presently. Mr. Nickelson stated he would not be able to pull a permit.
The city ordinances typically address this issue.
The Chair closed public portion
Doug Ochsner asked if there was builder input. Mr. Mueller indicated what raised this issue was the
allowances for real estate promotional signs, but most recently there is a violation with this issue. The Blue
Sky at Vista Ridge violation was opened and it was noted the code does not address this. Mr. Fitzgerald
indicated that signage would be needed to final buildout not a limited time frame. Mr.Mueller stated that staff
reviewed codes from various counties, Boulder County, Jefferson County and Douglas County and the
proposed language is a combination of those. These are intended as temporary signs. Buildout can take
years and the intent is for them not to be a permanent structure. Once a home is in a neighborhood it is pretty
evident there is a neighborhood. Mr.Mueller added that the eight foot height is a concern but Appendix 23-D
addresses all the possibilities. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if the desire was to keep the signs uniform.
Doug Ochsner stated this was an on premise and off premise issue. Off premise signs needs more
restrictions and do not need to be there consistently,therefore the time limitation. There are other forms of
advertising for a subdivision. Mr.Auer added that if the off site premise signs were unlimited as to time there
would be far too many signs for off premise site signs. Mr. Holton believes that as long as there is product
available they should be able to advertise. Mr. Fitzgerald agrees.
Chad Auer addresses the sign code in its entirety and the need. There are several definitions and the amount
of time spent addressing and changing the sign code is tremendous. Mr. Auer asked about the possible
volume for off site signs,do municipalities regulate. Mr. Mueller stated they do regulate it. Sign codes can be
the most complicated code to write. The basic idea is to promote basic communication opportunities in a safe
way and to prevent clutter. There is the need for limits. Mr. Holton asked about if traffic would be affected.
Mr. Mueller stated they would need to be outside of sight triangles.
Brad Mueller continued on with the summary, highlighted certain points. There are changes in the
improvements agreements,oil and gas language and geotechnical report language was added. There are no
current setback in the commercial and industrial zone districts for oil and gas. There also needs to be
setbacks from plugs and abandoned well sites. The proposed language is a 25 foot setback. The Oil and
Gas Conservation Commission is in support of this language. Mr. Mueller indicated there is a complete
10
section for the submittal for Geotechnical Reports and the time frames for them.
,-- Paul Branham asked about sewage system requirements for attaching to a sewer line and the possible need
for a time frame. Mr. Mueller stated there was no time frame but there is a need to have Department of Public
Works and Department of Public Health and Environment input. Mr. Holton added there should be no need to
hook up until the existing system fails. Mr. Barker stated that was the current situation. The time issue would
come into affect them once the system fails and there is a need to attach to the public system. If a permit was
not issued to modify the system they would need to attach soon. Section 24-7-220.C.5 would be the affected
section.
Section 24 and Section 27 address the oil and gas language. Mr. Barker stated it would be wise to address
Chapter 23 then move onto the other Chapters. Chapter 23 has the major amount of changes that need to be
addressed. Mr. Barker stated that all may not need to be addressed today. Some may be continued to the
November 21, 2006 meeting in which Chapter 24 and Chapter 27 will be addressed.
Chapter 23
Doug Ochsner moved to distinguish between off-premise and on-premise signs in the Real Estate Promotion
Sign. The on-premise signs will be more liberal and exist until 100% buildout with 12 foot height but the off
premise signs will stay with staff recommendations. The reasoning is the citizens have issues with growth and
the off premise sign add to sight pollution that is singled out to developers. Erich Ehrlich seconded. This
would be an amendment to the proposed changes.
Paul Branham commented this would seem to confuse the issue.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Mark
Lawley,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes; Chad Auer, no; Tom Holton,yes, Doug Ochsner,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;
Paul Branham, no. Motion carried.
r- Brad Mueller indicated the need for a motion on Chapter 23 and a motion to continue the remainder to
November 21, 2006.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Chapter 23, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the
Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Mark
Lawley,yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Chad Auer,yes;Tom Holton,yes, Doug Ochsner,yes;Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;
Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to continue the remaining cases to November 21, 2006. Doug Ochsner seconded.
Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 5:10 pm
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
11
not proceed with the violation. Mr. Barker's response was mostly inaudible, but he said stated in that way, it
would.
Doug Ochsner asked Mr. Barker if he would only proceed at the directive of the Board of County
Commissioners. Mr. Barker said that was correct.
Comments by Tom Holton and response from Mr. Barker were inaudible.
James Welch asked about the definition of debris and was it all debris on the property or debris in the berms
berms. Mr. Ogle said it would be all the debris within the berm.
Char Davis asked Mr.Barker if Environmental Health should proceed with the violation or wait sixty days. Mr.
Barker's response was inaudible.
Tom Holton moved to add item 1.C., under prior to scheduling the Board of County Commission hearing.
Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion carried.
The Chair asked the applicant if he were in agreement with the amendments to the Development Standards
and Conditions of Approval. Mr. Nguyen said he was.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case USR-1581 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amendments to the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval. Roy Spitzer seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Mark Lawley,yes;Doug Ochsner,yes; Roy Spitzer,yes;James Welch,yes;
,— Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Doug Ochsner said the Planning Commission had addressed the public's concern, thought perhaps the
requirements for the applicant were a bit stiff, but did support approval of the application.
4. WELD COUNTY CODE CHANGES
STAFF: Brad Mueller
ITEMS: Chapter 27
Brad Mueller, Planning Department, said today's Code changes encompassed three different items, as
outlined in his memorandum of November 21, 2006. He requested their feedback on information the
Commission had received from him and also wanted their input on public concerns with cemeteries. Mr.
Mueller said that presently, cemeteries were considered a use by right in the agricultural zone district and
only in the agricultural district. Because of the uses associated with cemeteries, the traffic, the
landscaping, the surrounding property owners, etc., it might be better handled as a use by special review.
Further discussion with staff determined they did not need to be precluded from being located in other
districts. The question also arose over whether pet cemeteries were a use by right or a use by special
review. They had added a definition for cemeteries, changing the definition of a funeral home not to
include a columbarium or mausoleum.
Mr. Branham said he liked the idea of changing it to a use by special review and asked about Section 23-
3-40 where he added the word cemetery with mineral resource development facilities, and was that what
he intended. Mr. Mueller said it sounded like an error in categorization.
James Welch asked for clarification on cemeteries, and if private cemeteries on private land would still be
allowed. Mr. Mueller said they would and added that Codes in surrounding areas contain information very
similar to what they were proposing, if they dealt with them at all. Roy Spitzer asked for a definition of
columbarium. Mr. Mueller explained that was above ground interment for ashes. Mr. Holton said the way
the Code presently reads, he could take five acres of his property and divide it into little plots and sell it
instead of USRs. Mr. Mueller said that was correct but he would be required to put a sixty foot easement
between each plot.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Jay Tucker, 36497 CR 8, Briggsdale, CO, 80611, said new neighbors have plans to put in a "green"
cemetery on their property and the surrounding neighbors took issue because they had all contributed to
an easement on the private road and the newest neighbors want to put in a cemetery and use that road
for access. He expressed concern for increased traffic in an area that was predominantly rattlesnakes
and prairie dogs. Chad Auer asked about shared access. Mr. Tucker said the road dead ends at a
shooting range and cemetery traffic would have to cross two surrounding properties and he was sure his
easement agreement prevented that. He also expressed concern with placement of cemeteries
anywhere. Doug Ochsner said an applicant could come in and apply for a USR,which would make the
process more difficult but would not preclude someone from doing so. Mr. Tucker said he was surprised
that cemeteries could be put most anywhere. Chad Auer said the public hearings would give him the
opportunity to express his concerns and have them addressed.
Jan Barthell, 36485 CR 80, Briggsdale, CO, lives south of the proposed cemetery and wanted to know
what the process involved, would she be notified as the process went on, and how long would the hearing
process take. The Chair replied there would be public hearings. Mr. Mueller said Code changes must be
heard at three hearings and given the Board of County Commission hearing schedule, this would not be
resolved until at least February. Mr. Mueller added that they were addressing the cemeteries today
primarily because of public concerns relayed to them in the past weeks, and thought this would be an
opportune time to address this. He also said that if a property owner were to come in tomorrow and apply
for a USR for a cemetery, as the Code now stands, it would be allowed and would be grandfathered in.
Were they to come in after Code changes, they must apply for a use by special review. Ms. Barthell
asked about restricting use of their private road for the cemetery business. The Chair referred her
question to Mr. Barker who said he could not give legal advice to the public and suggested they obtain the
services of a lawyer.
Kurt Wise, 36495 CR 80, Briggsdale, CO, said he did not want a cemetery in the area due to increased
traffic and access issues. Doug Ochsner said Mr. Wise had taken the right step by attending the hearing
today and making his opinion known.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Chad Auer asked about the definition of a green cemetery. Mr. Mueller said green meant organic burial
versus standard methods, and staff had decided there was no basis for making a distinction between the
two-methods. Mr. Mueller said the Planning Commission needed to make its recommendation for
Chapter 23. Mr. Barker suggested they recommend approval on that specific item now.
Doug Ochsner moved to approve the recommended changes to Chapter 23 of the County Code regarding
cemeteries, as outlined in the memorandum of November 21, 2006. Paul Branham seconded. Motion
carried.
Mr. Mueller then addressed the following:
Minor administrative changes were proposed for Sections 2, 5, 22, 26, and 27. The Commission should
plan to make recommendation on these items, which were continued from the last hearing.
Staff had followed up on the following items requested by the Commission at the November 7 hearing and
no action is needed by the Planning Commission.
The changes for signs, requested by the Planning Commission, would be presented to the Board.
Chapter 29 Agricultural Buildings. The Planning Commission expressed concern that changes proposed
"' by staff to Section 29-3-20 would result in the need for landowners to acquire Building Permits for such
structures as lean-to's, open sheds, and shade shelters. This was, in fact, a part of staff's intention with
the proposed changes. The Planning Commission, however, expressed concern that no Building Permits
should be required for these.
The other reason for the proposed changes was to ensure that larger structures associated with confined
animal operations and dairies, such as milking parlors, calving sheds, etc., that are required to receive a
Use by Special Review permit also be required to acquire Building Permits. After further review of the
Code, staff has determined that these types of structures already are required to get a Building Permit,
because they do not meet the definition of"Agricultural building" and therefore already are not exempt
under Section 29-3-20 of the Code.
Tom Holton asked if the Code was left alone, under a USR, all structures built would require a building
permit. Mr. Mueller said Staff would still carry the Commission's recommendation on this to the Board of
County Commissioners.
Regarding septic connection to new sewer systems, Staff had met with the Health Department about this
concern expressed by the Commission. Because this requirement already existed in the Health
Department's regulations, and was already tied to the time a septic system fails, the language staff
previously presented was not necessary.
Paul Branham motioned they accept revisions per Mr. Mueller. Tom Holton seconded.
The Chair realized that he had neglected to open the public portion of the hearing. No one commented.
Paul Branham moved that the amendments to the County Code, referenced in the memorandum from Mr.
Mueller and dated November 21, 2006, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Mark Lawley,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes; Roy Spitzer,yes;James Welch,yes;
Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Donita May
Secretary
‘,
PROPOSED CODE CHANGES
SUMMARY SHEET
COLORADO
Case: 2006 Fall Code Changes Hearing Date: November 7, 2006
Staff: Brad Mueller& Roger Vigil
Request: Changes to Section 2-3-50; Section 2-9-100; Section 5-7-40; Section 5-8-40; Section 22-
1-150.B.1; Chapter 23; Chapter 24, Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code.
The Planning Commission has, among its duties, the ability to consider newly proposed text amending
Chapter 23, as indicated in Section 23-2-120 of the Code. The Board and Planning Commission may
also from time to time review, revise, and adopt related regulations concerning comprehensive planning,
signage, the subdivision of land, and the building codes.
The Department of Planning Services' staff has received input from the following departments:
• Attorney's Office
Department of Public Health and Environment
Department of Public Works
Department of Building Inspection
• Department of Planning Services
• Zoning Compliance Division
In addition, changes to the Building Code (Chapter 29) were reviewed by the Building Trades Advisory
Committee Board on October 18, 2006.
THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES' STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PROPOSED
CHANGES TO THE WELD CODE BE APPROVED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. Section 23-2-120.8.1 — That the existing text is in need of revision as 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.
2. Section 23-2-120.8.2 — That the proposed amendment will be consistent with the future goals and
needs of the County as set out in Chapter 22 and any other applicable code provision or ordinance
in effect. Fundamentally, the proposed revisions are consistent with County goals that support
agricultural and mixed land uses, promote flexibility and predictability in land use matters, and
ensure fairness and consistency in processing requirements.
3. Section 23-2-120.63 -- That the proposed amendment will be consistent with the overall intent of
this Chapter. The intent of Chapter 23, as defined by Section 23-1-40, is to provide a unified
regulatory system for land use within the County and to promote the health, safety, convenience,
morals, order, and welfare of present and future inhabitants of the County. The proposed changes
2006 Fall Code Changes Page 1
to the Code are designed to clarify ambiguities or omissions in the Code, or to update certain
regulations to be more consistent with modern building and safety standards.
Attached are memos summarizing proposed planning and building Code changes, as well as specific
Sections of the Code proposed for amendment.
2006 Fall Code Changes Page 2
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
a PLANNING &ZONING atrl NORTH OFFICE
918 10th Street
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
IPHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT.3540 70)W� O • FAX (C SOUTHWEST OFFICE OFFICE
4209 CR 24.5
COLORADO LONGMONT CO 80504
PHONE (720)652-4210 ext. 8730
FAX (720)652-4211
Summary of Proposed 2006 Fall Changes:
Zoning, Subdivision & Miscellaneous
Section 2 —Administration
N. • Section 2-3-50 (Land use packets required for submittal)— Omit entire section.
Reason: There is no need to have the number of land use referral packets codified. This
requirement can be set as a matter of departmental policy.
• Section 2-9-100 (Mileage reimbursement)— Revise ". . . the County shall pay mileage per the
County reimbursement schedule of thirty and one-half cents($0.305)per mile . . . "to read: ". . .
the County shall pay mileage per the County adopted reimbursement schedule . . . "
Reason: Specific mileage reimbursement amounts should not be codified.
Section 5 — Revenue and Finance
• Sections 5-7-40 and 5-8-40 (Stormwater impact fees)—Omit both sections, and use the current
Section 5-7-40 to replace Section 5-8-40.
Reason:Sections are essentially duplicative and the omitted section(Le., current Section 5-
8-40) has incorrect information. (Correct standard is the $0.10/sq ft.) Correct section is
relocated to Section 5-8-40 for better continuity.
Section 22 —Comprehensive Plan
• Section 22-1-150.B.1 —Change that amendment proposals"shall be considered biannually. . ."
to "may be considered biannually in August and February . . . "
Reason: Specifying which months in the year eliminates uncertainty. These months were
specified in previous versions of the Code.
1
Section 23—Zoning
N. • Section 23-1-90—Add llamas and alpacas to Table 23-1 C("Animal Units"). Llamas and alpacas
are allowed as .5 animal unit equivalents, with 2 llamas or alpacas being equivalent to one
animal unit, and a maximum number each of 4 llamas or alpacas per lot).
Reason: To include these animals for the R-1 Low-Density Residential Zone District, where
they are already included in the Agricultural and Estate Zone Districts.
N • Section 23-2-250 — Add Section 23-2-250.G to read: "Any off-site and on-site improvements
agreement shall be made in conformance with the County policy on collateral for improvements.
Reason: To specify that standard County Improvement Agreements are required for USRs,
as they currently are for Site Plan Review sites and all subdivisions.
N • Section 23-3-160.L.2.f— Change to 23-3-160.M. Change 23-3-160.M to .N.
Reason: To correct incorrect numbering. As currently numbered, the setback from oil and
gas facilities only applies to mobile home subdivisions, instead of all residential, as intended.
N, • Section 23-3-250.A.4—Add subsection 23-3-250.A.4.c to read: No BUILDING or STRUCTURE
shall be constructed within a two hundred-foot radius of any tank battery,within a one hundred-
fifty-foot radius of any wellhead,or within a twenty-five foot radius of any plugged or abandoned
oil and gas well. Any construction within these setbacks shall require a variance from the terms
of Section 23 3 200 of this Code. 23-4-/Q,O
Reason: To provide offset performance standards in the Commercial Zone District in cases
where a lease agreement does not exist.
N, • Section 23-3-350.F—Add subsection 23-3-350.F.3 to read: No BUILDING or STRUCTURE shall
be constructed within a two hundred-foot radius of any tank battery within a one hundred-fifty-
foot radius of any wellhead, or within a twenty-five foot radius of any plugged or abandoned oil
and gas well. Any construction within these setbacks shall require a variance from the terms of
Section 23 3 300 of this Code. 2'?,-4 -IO.e-
Reason: To provide offset performance standards in the Industrial Zone District in cases
where a lease agreement does not exist.
• Section 23-3-340— Change 23-3-260 reference to 23-3-360.
Reason: To correct typo.
N. • Section 23-4-60 —Various changes to Sign Code. (See attached draft Code.)
Reason: To clarify ambiguous language and to provide clear standards for certain sign
categories where there is currently some uncertainty. Specifically:
o Clarify relationship of building signs, projecting signs, suspended signs, and wall
signs, and clarify bulk standards for these.
o Clarify bulk standards for freestanding signs.
o Eliminate duplication of standards in the appendices. Provide standards for omitted
categories and combines types that are related or sub-sets of other sign categories.
N./. Section 23-4-900.C—Change to read: "Parcel number and legal description of the property for
which the application is made." Remove Section 23-4-900.E., and re-letter the subsection
appropriately.
Reason: To eliminate duplicate submittal requirements for storage of semi-trailers.
2
Section 24—Subdivision
• Section 24,Appendices A&D—Eliminate Appendix D. Re-letter all appendices as appropriate.
Change all references to Appendices throughout Section 24 to reflect re-lettering.
Reason: To eliminate duplicate and contradictory information in the current two charts.
Section 27 — PUD
\ • Section 27-2-120 — Revise to reflect "MUD areas" and "MUD Structural Land Use Maps".
Reason: To reflect the existence of two MUD areas.
General
Revise Colorado Geological Survey application process to Section 24-3-20 (M`nor Subdivision
Sketch Plan), Section 24-4-10 (Major Subdivision Sketch Plan), and Section 27-4-20 (PUD
Sketch Plan). (See attached draft Code.)
Reason: To provide better information about the type of geotechnical report to be
submitted, and to provide consistency in the reports provided for subdivision review
\, • Revise various sections to provide information about abandoned oil and gas wells. (See
summary attached.)
Reason: The County Attorney's Office advises that other jurisdictions, notably
Broomfield, have unintentionally approved subdivisions over abandoned well sites,
resulting in problems for future residents. The proposed additions to the Code would
ensure that known sites are identified.
3
Additional Sign Code changes
4r° Rev. 11/8/06
N Add to definitions (Section 23-4-75):
REAL ESTATE PROMOTION SIGN: A temporary sign, located on-premise and off-
premise, that identifies dwellings or other structures under construction or to be
constructed. This is a type of temporary sign that can otherwise exceed temporary sign
standards as indicated in Appendix 23-D. On-premise signs advertising subdivision
construction shall not be displayed after all lots or dwellings in the subdivision
have been sold. Off-premise signs advertising subdivision construction shall not be
displayed prior to the date of official recording of the subdivision, and shall be removed
within two years from the date of the issuance of the first building permit in the project or
within 30 days from the time 75% of the lots or dwellings in the subdivision have been
sold, whichever time period is the least. Signs advertising site construction may be
displayed during the period of construction and shall be removed upon issuance of a
certificate of occupancy or final inspection, whichever occurs first.
N Add to Appendix 23-D:
REAL ESTATE #allowed Max sign area Max height
PROMOTION SIGN 1 per public access 48 sq ft each 12'
(on-premise) (single- or double faced)
REAL ESTATE 2 single- or double-faced, 48 sq ft each 8'
PROMOTION SIGN must have landowner
(off-premise) permission, min. 300' spacing
Revised version 2 — ISDS Section Only
Proposed Code changes related to ISDS
• New Section 24-7-220 Sketch Plan Individual Sewage Disposal Systems
(ISDS) report requirements
A. For lots between one (1) acre to five (5) acres where individual sewer
systems are proposed, a report conforming to the following standards shall be
submitted in addition to the geotechnical report. The report shall be prepared by
a registered professional engineer licensed to practice in Colorado.
B. The purpose of the ISDS report is to provide additional information about the
soil suitability for the purpose of septic systems, and the relationship of individual
systems to one another.
C. The report shall consist of the following:
1 . A map drawn at the same scale as the(plan locating all lots, drainage-
ways, floodplains, slopes in excess of thirty (30) percent, surface and
subsurface soils hazards, geologic hazards, depth to bedrock, water table
depth, and other hazards.
2. Percolation tests shall be conducted for no fewer that twenty (20)
percent of the total number of lots in the filing. In cases in which unique
geologic, topographic, or soils conditions, such as depth to bedrock, depth
to water, slopes in excess of ten (10) percent, etc. are found, additional
tests may be required.
3. All locations not suited for placement of leach fields due to soils,
geologic, topographic, or hazard conditions shall be noted on the plan.
minimum of two (2) sites appropriate for individual sewage disposal
4. Relationship of the leach fields to other leach fields, wells, structures,
lakes, streams, irrigation systems, and other water forms on adjoining
parcels. Identify any possible hazards. Such identification shall be based
on an analysis of the probable effects of water on the soils, geology and
hydrology of the area.
collection line + * + ithi
tid
from that community system.
1
Proposed Code changes related to plugged oil and gas wells
23-3-50. E. No BUILDING or STRUCTURE, as defined and limited to those occupancies listed
as Groups A, B, E, F, H, I, M and R in Section 302.1 of the 2003 International Building Code,
shall be constructed within a two-hundred-foot radius of any tank battery, Of one-hundred-fifty-
foot radius of any wellhead, or a twenty-five foot radius of any plugged or abandoned oil and
gas well. Any construction within a two-hundred-foot radius of any tank battery or one-
hundred-fifty-foot radius of any wellhead shall require a variance from the terms of this Chapter
in accordance with Section 23-6-10 C. of this Code.
" 23-3-160. M. No BUILDING or STRUCTURE shall be constructed within a three-hundred-fifty
foot radius of any OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION FACILITIES, or within a twenty-five foot
radius of any plugged or abandoned oil and gas well. Any construction within a three-
hundred-fifty foot radius of OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION FACILITIES shall require a
variance from the terms of this Chapter in accordance with Section 23-6-10 C. of this Code.
23-3-440. L. No BUILDING or STRUCTURE, as defined and limited to those occupancies
listed as Groups A, B, E, F, H, I, M, R, S and U in Section 302.1 of the 2003 International
Building Code, shall be constructed within a two-hundred-foot radius of any tank battery, or
one-hundred-fifty-foot radius of any wellhead, or a twenty-five foot radius of any plugged or
abandoned oil and gas well. Any construction within a two-hundred-foot radius of any tank
battery or one-hundred-fifty-foot radius of any wellhead shall require a variance from the terms
of this Chapter in accordance with Section 23-6-10 C. of this Code.
24-3-20. L. 5. Floodplain and geologic hazard areas, existing structures, utility lines, ditches,
streams, lakes, drainageways, vegetative cover, oil and gas production facilities, plugged or
abandoned oil and gas wells, and any other structure or feature located within the proposed
minor subdivision.
24-3-50. U. 20. The minor subdivision plat shall show the location of any plugged or
abandoned oil and gas well. The well shall be permanently marked by a brass plaque set in
concrete, similar to a permanent bench mark, to monument its location. Such plaque shall
contain any information required on a dry hole marker by the Colorado Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission. Renumber 24-3-50. U. 20. to 24-3-50 U. 21, 24-3-50 U. 21 to 24-
3-50 U. 22.
N 24-4-10. B. 12. e. Floodplain and geologic hazard areas, existing structures, utility lines, ditches,
streams, lakes, drainageways, vegetative cover, oil and gas production facilities, plugged or
abandoned oil and gas wells, and any other structure or feature located within the proposed
minor subdivision.
NJ 24-4-40. D. 7. k. The final plat or resubdivision plat shall show the location of any plugged
or abandoned oil and gas well. The well shall be permanently marked by a brass plaque
set in concrete, similar to a permanent bench mark,to monument its location. Such plaque
shall contain any information required on a dry hole marker by the Colorado Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission. Renumber 24-4-40. D. 7. k. to 24-4-40 D. 7. 1., 24-4-40. D. 7. 1. to
24-4-40. D. 7. m., and 24-4-40. D. 7. m. to 24-4-40 D. 7. n., 24-4-40 D. 7. n to 24-4-40 D. 7. o.
N 24-8-50. L. 6. All existing structures and facilities on the proposed exemption property. This
includes,but is not limited to, principal and labor homes, mobile homes, manufactured homes,
outbuildings, pens, irrigation ditches, domestic wells, plugged or abandoned oil and gas wells,
oil well production facilities and electrical transmission lines.
N 24-8-60. I. The exemption plat shall show the location of any plugged or abandoned oil and
gas well. The well shall be permanently marked by a brass plaque set in concrete, similar
to a permanent bench mark, to monument its location. Such plaque shall contain any
information required on a dry hole marker by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission. Renumber 24-8-60. I. to 24-8-60. J., 24-8-60. J. to 24-8-60. K., 24-8-60. K. to 24-
8-60. L., and 24-8-60. L. to 24-8-60. M.
N 27-9-10. G. The location of any existing easements, rights-of-way, structures and uses within the
PUD development, including oil wells, plugged or abandoned oil and gas wells, tank batteries,
irrigation ditches, water bodies and railroad tracks.
N 27-9-20. J. The location of any existing easements, rights-of-way, structures and uses within the
PUD development, including oil wells, plugged or abandoned oil and gas wells, tank batteries,
irrigation ditches, water bodies and railroad tracks. The plugged or abandoned well shall be
permanently marked by a brass plaque set in concrete, similar to a permanent bench mark,
to monument its location. Such plaque shall contain any information required on a dry
hole marker by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
(it0 PLANNING &ZONING
NORTH OFFICE
918 10t"Street
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
IPHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT.3540
III FAX (970) 304-6498
SOUTHW EST OFFICE
• 4209 CR 24.5
COLORADO LONGMONT CO 80504
PHONE (720)652-4210 ext. 8730
FAX (720)652-4211
Additional Proposed 2006 Fall Changes:
Cemeteries
Reason for Changes: The current Code allows for cemeteries as a Use by Right in the Agricultural
District, which does not allow for review of the impacts such as traffic, screening, etc., normally
addressed through the Use by Special Review process. A USR is more appropriate for this use;
however, cemeteries could be expanded to be included in most other zone districts. While "funeral
homes"is a defined term in the Code, "cemeteries"is not, leaving ambiguous whether columbaria and
mausoleums fall under this definition. Both definitions can be broad enough to account for both human
and animal uses.
N Section 23-1-90—Add definition for CEMETERY: Land used for the burial of the dead and dedicated
for memorial purposes, whereby plots are reserved and sold. Includes columbaria and mausoleums.
N Section 23-1-90 Change definition of FUNERAL HOME: A BUILDING or part thereof for human
funeral services, including but not limited to space and facilities for embalming, performance of
autopsies, cremation, related storage and a chapel
Section 23-3-20 (Ag Zone District/Uses)— Remove cemeteries.
N S• ection 23-3-40 (Ag Zone District/USR)—Add cemeteries.
NJ Section 23-3-110.D (R-1 Zone District/USR) --Add cemeteries.
(Note: Cemeteries is added to all other residential districts by reference to R-1.)
N Section 23-3-210.D (C-1 Zone District) --Add cemeteries.
N. Section 23-3-220.D (C-2 Zone District) --Add cemeteries.
"a Section 23-3-230.D (C-3 Zone District)-- Add cemeteries.
Ni S• ection 23-3-310.D (I-1 Zone District) --Add cemeteries.
N Section 23-3-320.D (1-2 Zone District) -- Add cemeteries.
S• ection 23-3-330.D (1-3 Zone District) --Add cemeteries.
N Section 23-3-430 (Estate Zone District) --Add cemeteries.
1
Memorandum
TO: Planning Commissioners
I
DATE: November 21, 2006
C FROM: Brad Mueller
•
COLORADO Department of Planning Services
RE: Fall 2006 Code Changes
This memo is provided to summarize the actions needed of the Planning Commission in today's hearing in
regards to the Fall 2006 Code Changes. The Planning Commission considered portions of the proposed
changes at its hearing on November 7, 2006.
• Minor administrative changes are proposed for Sections 2, 5, 22, 26, and 27. I will be happy to go
over these. The Commission should plan to make recommendation on these items, which were
continued from the last hearing.
• Staff has followed up on the following items requested by the Commission at the November 7 hearing.
Some of this information was sent to you prior to today's hearing by e-mail. I will discuss these with
the Commission for informational purposes; no action is needed by the Planning Commission.
o Signs. The attached changes, requested by the Planning Commission, will be presented to the
Board.
o Chapter 29 Agricultural Buildings. The Planning Commission expressed concern that changes
proposed by staff to Section 29-3-20 would result in the need for landowners to acquire Building
Permits for such structures as lean-to's, open sheds, and shade shelters. This was, in fact, a part
of staff's intention with the proposed changes. The Planning Commission, however, expressed
concern that no Building Permits should be required for these.
The other reason for the proposed changes was to ensure that larger structures associated with
confined animal operations and dairies, such as milking parlors, calving sheds, etc., that are
required to receive a Use by Special Review permit also be required to acquire Building Permits.
After further review of the Code, staff has determined that these types of structures already are
required to get a Building Permit, because they do not meet the definition of"Agricultural building"
and therefore already are not exempt under Section 29-3-20 of the Code.
Staff will still carry the Commission's recommendation on this to the Board, but we will discuss this
information.
o Septic connection to new sewer systems. Staff has met with the Health Department about this
concern expressed by the Commission. Because this requirement already exists in the Health
Department's regulations, and is already tied to the time a septic system fails, the language staff
previously presented is not necessary.
• A request has been made since the November 7 hearing to consider requiring cemeteries be
processed as a Use by Special Review, rather than a Use by Right. See the attached information. If
the Planning Commission wishes to consider these changes, they will need to re-consider their
recommendation for Section 23.
1
Building Trade Advisory Committee
October 18, 2006
The Building Trades Advisory Committee met for a regular meeting on October 18, 2006. The
Committee considered staff recommendations for changes to Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code
and to fee changes. Changes 1, 2, 3, and 5 in the Summary were accepted as written. The
Committee recommended 4 and 6 remain unchanged.
1. Require that setback and offset inspections be conducted by Weld County Inspectors prior
to approval from Engineer or Architect in lieu of inspections by Weld County Inspectors.
2. Manufactured Home
a. Eliminate outdated information.
b. Pre 1976 mobile homes with inspections.
3 Adopt the 2006 International Codes including the International Existing Building Code.
4. Eliminate requirement for leak detection system for propane appliances below grade.
Board questioned if the leak detection system is required by propane suppliers or if they are
requiring leak detection systems per Weld County Code. The question of liability because
the Weld County Code presently requires the leak detection system.
5. Work exempt from permit.
6. Eliminate requirement of water service pipe to be installed 42 inches deep.
Board would like to see it kept at 42 inches because some years the frost does go at least 4
feet and homeowners who do their own may not go deeper than 36 inches.
Fee increases.
Committee accepted the fee schedule as proposed by staff with the following recommendation.
Inform the public 90 days before the effective date of the fee increase.
Weld County Panning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
36497 WCR 80 NOV 0 n 2006
Briggsdale, Co. 80611 November 6, 2006 RECEIVED
Monica Daniels-Mika
918 10th Street
Greeley, Co. 80631
Dear Monica Daniels-Mika:
It has come to our attention that the new property owners,
directly next to my property are planning to make their
property into a cemetery. I, as well as all of my adjoining
neighbors am very much against this. We all have many
concerns about this including but not limited to the fallowing;
Privacy issues, property value, security issues, sanitation
problems, traffic on a private road, change of land appearance,
property taxes and land use changes.
It is my understanding that this issue is going to be
discussed during Weld County meetings. I would like to be
informed as to when this topic will be discussed so I can be
present at the meeting(s).
Wendy Tucker
(970)371 -8344
Memorandum
TO: Board of County Commissioners
' DATE: February 12, 2007
C FROM: Brad Mueller
COLORADO Department of Planning Services
RE: Fall 2006 Code Changes: Summay of New
Consideetions
SUMMARY OF ITEMS INTRODUCED SINCE PLANNING COMMISSION
The following items concerning the Fall 2006 Code Changes have been brought to Planning staff's
attention since the Planning Commission hearing. These changes are not reflected in the draft
Ordinance 2007-1 and would need to be added to any approvals.
• Agricultural USR: Commercial Vehicle parking in an Aq Subdivision —
Change Section 23-3-40.0 to read: "More than one (1) semi-trailer, when used as a personal
storage unit, on lot in an approved or recorded subdivisions plat or LOTS which are part of a
map or plan filed prior to the adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions; and more
than two (2) semi-trailers on agricultural parcels not in an approved or recorded subdivision
plat of LOTS which are part of a map or plan filed prior to the adoption of any regulations
controlling subdivisions in the A (Agricultural) Zone District."
• Correct "Temporary Signs" definition to not include political skins--
Correct Section 23-4-75. (Definitions) to read: " TEMPORARY SIGN: Signs relating to public
elections, Construction signs which identify the contractors working on a project on the site and
"for sale" or "for rent" signs indicating that the property or residence is for sale or rent.
Construction signs and "for sale" and "for rent"signs must be removed upon completion of the
project or when the property is sold or rented. In no case shall the signs be allowed to stay
longer than ono (1)year.
• Correct Appendix 23-C: Agricultural Freestanding signs—
The code changes propose correcting the "Other" sign category to "Freestanding." The
proposed correction includes allowing Freestanding signs in the Agricultural Zone District, as
has been historically allowed. However,the draft Ordinance indicates this as"YES/Z", requiring
that such a sign be allowed only with prior zoning approval. Staff's intention is that these be
allowed without prior zoning approval. The chart should just read "YES".
• Maintain Agricultural Buildings in Aq District as exempt from Building Permits —
A code change was originally proposed for Section 29-3-20.6.13 out of concern that a loophole
existed, which allowed milking parlors and other major structures associated with dairies (and
other livestock confinement operations) to be built without a building permit. However, the
exception only applies to shade shelters and other out-structures; buildings for human habitation
or as a place of employment are not considered "agricultural buildings"for the purposes of the
Code (Section 29-1-20)and therefore do require a Building Permit. Staff recommends making
no revisions to Section 29-3-20.8.13.
EXHIBIT
A
t l: Qstaacn ,
Wendy Tucker,
36497 WCR 80
Briggsdale, Co. 80611
(970) 371-8344
wendytuckerAmsn.com
February 5, 2007
Weld County Commissioners
915 10th Street
Greeley, Co. 80632
(970) 336-7204
Dear County Commissioner,
The intended uses of the land located at 36565 WCR 80, Briggsdale, Co.,
by the new land owners will cause financial hardships and or loss for the
adjoining land owners and will change the way we live in this rural part of Weld
County.
The new owners Rick Chase and his sister Laina Coit (current resident),
plan to use the property for a "green" burial ground and a bird sanctuary.
As stated in an article printed in the dailey camera, (Mon. Jan. 8, 2007),
entitled "Green beliefs can be taken to the grave," Mrs. Coit wants to bring back
prairie dogs to the Weld County land. The established residences have all spent
much time and resources to eradicate the large prairie dog towns that have
developed on their properties. The prairie dogs present many problems for the
land owners, all of whom run cattle and or horses. By bringing back or even not
controlling these creatures on their (Coit) property, the other properties will be re-
infested. The impact of this would be that there is little or no grass for
livestock/horses to graze because the prairie dogs destroy the vegetation. Also,
those who are pasturing horses would run an increased risk of broken legs due
to a horse stepping in a prairie dog hole. In addition, there would be a much
greater risk of an animal being bitten by a rattle snake, because the snakes tend
to live with the prairie dogs.
If the adjoining land owners can not utilize their pastures to graze their
stock on, they will be forced to either rent/lease pasture else where or purchase
EXHIBIT
I
n,
additional feed. Both of these options will cost a great deal of money.
Property values are also a large concern for all of the neighbors. With a
green cemetery and bird sanctuary in the area, the types of people that would
normally want to purchase land in our area will shy away because of the impact
of the issues mentioned in this letter. If we were lucky enough to find a buyer, it
would have to be at such a discounted price, we could not afford to sell. In
addition, this venture could also cause problems for home owners to obtain
home equity loans, refinancing and other types of loans where property values
are a consideration.
As for the cemetery use of this property, this would also create a lifestyle
change for many if not all of the surrounding community. Most of the folks who
live out in this area do so because of the quiet, private and rural lifestyle it offers.
With the addition of a commercial cemetery there would be an increased volume
of traffic, an increase in the possibility of brake -ins, due to "visitors," and a
possibility of body parts being dug up by and dragged around by coyotes and
even our pet dogs.
It has been stated that individuals may dig their own holes in an effort to
conserve money. Anybody that is familiar with this area can testify to how hard
the ground is. It would be very, very, difficult to dig a hole without a backhoe,
deep enough for a body to be berried, without concern of it getting dug up. Even
with the use of a backhoe, there are huge sheets of shale at as little as two feet
down. It would be difficult at best for a person with little working knowledge of a
backhoe to dig a "small" hole for the purpose of a grave.
Right now, there is very little traffic on county road 80 that does not belong
to one of the few houses out there. And the, majority of traffic on highway 392,
that is not a Briggsdale resident, does not get off the highway. By having this
"green cemetery/wildlife-bird sanctuary", there will be a significant amount more
traffic, meaning not only more wear to the county road and easement road, but
also more people looking around that my not have good intentions. Many people
living out there have no need right now to lock doors or remove keys from
vehicles or worry about their children being taken from their yards. If this project
continues, residence will have to start living as if they were living in town. With
nobody around to see, it would be very easy for someone to brake in or steal
property.
Also, the types of people that would be attracted to this type of business
are also largely the type of people that do not understand nor agree with the way
most live in this rural setting. By this I mean that they do not agree with
confinement of livestock, hunting, use of pesticides, use of chemical fertilizer,
roping, consumption of meat or controlling pest that cause economic damage to
the land, along with a long list of other issues. The influx of this different mind set
has the great potential to cause problems for those in this rural community that
partake in these activities. It seems that there is rarely a week goes by that an
organization such as P.E.T.A., Green Peace and other organizations like these
are not making headlines on some sort of protest on the above issues.
Lastly, this property is ill suited for this kind of endeavor if for no other
reason, its location. It is sandwiched in between other small tracts of property.
In order to access the Chase/Colt property, her visitors must travel on a private
easement road and drive through two other private properties. (See attached
land Plot). The owners of these properties have cattle and horse that graze
freely in these pastures. If these people were to get out of there vehicle to look
around or to approach the animals, they may be injured by these animals. This
would leave the owners at risk for a law suit. Also, this easement road is not a
"built" road. It was made by simply driving through the pasture. As it is, it is
barely accessible by residence with the current amount of traffic. If there is an
increase in traffic, the road may become only passable with a four wheel drive.
In closing, I am conservative by definition, and would generally defend a
persons right to use their property any way the see fit. However, this is not an
issue of one person's rights. This is an issue of many people's rights being
hindered by one individual. Our right to live on our land the way we intended
when we purchased is being compromised. Our right to participate in activities
long considered part of living in the country is being compromised. Our right to
the privacy we sought when we purchased the land is being compromised. Our
right to not be concerned about "visitors" being hurt on our property is being
compromised. And, our right to live in the country without fear of a robbery is
being compromised.
The attached petition is in support of this letter.
Thank You,
Wendy ucker
WCR 82
TUCKER WISE/
HALL -
M
FOR
SALE
gU CHASE(COIT) to
7 N
BARTHEL
ToWN
IOF H 392
THORMODSGARD 1 FOSSTON
1 1
WCR 80
LOCATION MAP N
W E
EASEMENT WAD
X X CATTLE GUARDS S
WCR 73 and WCR 82 dc\at exist
January 18,2007
We the residence of Briggsdale, Colorado, strongly oppose the proposed land use at 36565
WCR 80, Briggsale, Colorado.
Proposed land use: Green Cemetery
No embalming or other preservatives,no fiberglass or leak-proof caskets or cement vaults, no big
headstones. Bodies are wrapped in shrouds of cotton or linen and are buried directly in the ground.
They may also be placed in biodegradable cardboard or pine boxes. People or animals have a
marker with gps coordinates on them.
NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS PHONE
l/1q/97 ce-AZc1'e,.a. /�/�,.,,E.. ` , 36o6P Lc2 A 6SG-3777
1f 14107 etitiarn ��� 9r� .fay^- .3lro41-w -CC at 0-374'1
007 1u0,12* h,- / o._ ,3497 art RO 37/-834(1
1/' 241 31,..n7 4.oc c to 37/-fi 3$.3—
//a7/., 7.,i a- f 7 2r a. Egli.. 275557 MO y r2 9a? /0Se 36 ox
y, ,g_ '1' t (....vi 3 F`ifs- EC; 3 S Z- 65-6-3(42-
!ZV�7 1 - it G s c V/32s, Labe P317_, 65 d _3.S,"
N�.. fl pins fard 3L'/13 tacit $o 6SG - 377o
)/a9/01 haftriThormodsgn.di a -. 4(, f 34.' 3 vc Je_To 6,S42-3-79or as.el TPano-44r nr19t..Jrk (1,,,n:no 0- end) :.36.S8,0 lA_DC R SO &5b-353'7
iaae1'' 44..•ta- -2 36 i ra wee ra 156 3537
1 ; 41 r bar -R�.,f ,� &' S5 k-te co �v$6-34b.�
2At•) 4r0to/L 2'14..� / " a . '9(3a wcJ1279 (-reaS-
a_Liko A a-' Bt,r-ihe/ j ,gw,,3" wcx so, 6.56-346,2
a-y o, 7-A9,,,,,5 e 3 9 c Qr_ <et b46.s'!
a-W'0 A.7.w 3470s wCe€0 &- ul.leeb 656 3619
Z'4-07 fie' ( wHa) 503 ,41! ,(# 373408.2007
a -44 zW Lscda � li 9679G�a',7,,ai/t &e,e 9700'115 is
2-4-01-(TV,riC l a.,7Yn.L, f1 2 -- 74 fI.t WU fl.Ku5S s,,0. ,4b (osin-;Y i t
2J- ziv" '�2.. i�lw) )tkic C/"tc 73._ 1I?� /
O1-5- ' 0/,, 4 13 sett 435ol loc. f j3 c% 6ss,�6al
2-5..07 Verda P. ea II tz a'..i SEW- q.3Sn/uie/ 7( g.fdir,t,/,o(' GSG34.2(
r-
January 18, 2007
We the residence of Briggsdale, Colorado, strongly oppose the proposed land use at 36565
WCR 80, Briggsdale, Colorado.
Proposed land use: Green Cemetery
No embalming or other preservatives,no fiberglass or leak-proof caskets or cement vaults, no big
headstones. Bodies are wrapped in shrouds of cotton or linen and are buried directly in the ground.
They may also be placed in biodegradable cardboard or pine boxes. People or animals have a
marker with gps coordinates on them.
N IGNATURE ADDRESS PHONE
��f)-,c,lt J-ill zoo �O „.�"of" - .O", ' � � --� g
v1 ry 1 lielz, i.P .lit . 4 i Y' ZO �.
im- WiSe.. ys-cu Se) 6 3S g tz_jU -t 3(o li 615 ( ) x 'W4 3b�—(000(
Cr(416 Memorandum
TO: Board of County Commissioners
DATE: February 12, 2007
WI D C FROM: Brad Mueller
•
COLORADO Department of Planning Services
RE: Fall 2006 Code Changes: Summay of New
Considerations
SUMMARY OF ITEMS INTRODUCED SINCE PLANNING COMMISSION
The following items concerning the Fall 2006 Code Changes have been brought to Planning staff's
attention since the Planning Commission hearing. These changes are not reflected in the draft
Ordinance 2007-1 and would need to be added to any approvals.
• Agricultural USR: Commercial Vehicle parking in an Aq Subdivision —
Change Section 23-3-40.0 to read: "More than one (1) semi-trailer, when used as a personal
storage unit, on lot in an approved or recorded subdivisions plat or LOTS which are part of a
map or plan filed prior to the adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions; and more
than two (2) semi-trailers on agricultural parcels not in an approved or recorded subdivision
plat of LOTS which are part of a map or plan filed prior to the adoption of any regulations
controlling subdivisions in the A (Agricultural) Zone District."
• Correct "Temporary Skins" definition to not include political skins--
Correct Section 23-4-75. (Definitions) to read: " TEMPORARY SIGN: Signs relating to public
elections, Construction signs which identify the contractors working on a project on the site and
"for sale" or "for rent" signs indicating that the property or residence is for sale or rent.
Construction signs and "for sale"and "for rent"signs must be removed upon completion of the
project or when the property is sold or rented. In no case shall the signs be allowed to stay
longer than one (1) year.
• Correct Appendix 23-C: Agricultural Freestanding signs—
The code changes propose correcting the "Other" sign category to "Freestanding." The
proposed correction includes allowing Freestanding signs in the Agricultural Zone District, as
has been historically allowed. However,the draft Ordinance indicates this as"YES/Z", requiring
that such a sign be allowed only with prior zoning approval. Staff's intention is that these be
allowed without prior zoning approval. The chart should just read "YES".
• Maintain Agricultural Buildings in Aq District as exempt from Building Permits —
A code change was originally proposed for Section 29-3-20.B.13 out of concern that a loophole
existed, which allowed milking parlors and other major structures associated with dairies (and
other livestock confinement operations) to be built without a building permit. However, the
exception only applies to shade shelters and other out-structures; buildings for human habitation
or as a place of employment are not considered "agricultural buildings"for the purposes of the
Code (Section 29-1-20)and therefore do require a Building Permit. Staff recommends making
no revisions to Section 29-3-20.6.13.
EXHIBIT
I
Additional information received after PC
Hearing
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
PLANNING &ZONING
NORTH OFFICE
R 10'"Street
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
PHONE (970)353-6100, EXT.3540
Wig Ci FAX (970) 304-6498
O SOUTHW EST OFFICE
4209 CR 24.5
COLORADO LONGMONT CO 80504
PHONE (720)652-4210 ext. 8730
FAX (720)652-4211
Additional Proposed 2006 Fall Changes:
Schools, Child Care Center, Cluster PUD 80-Acre Outlots
Section 23-1-90 — Revise the definition for SCHOOL (delete stricken):
SCHOOL: Includes any one (1) or more of the following categories: a PUBLIC
SCHOOL, community college, junior college, college or university; an independent or
parochial SCHOOL which satisfies the compulsory SCHOOL attendance requirements
appearing in the School Attendance Law of 1963, Article 33 of Title 22, C.R.S.; but the
word SCHOOL does not include dance schools,business SCHOOLS,trade SCHOOLS
or driving schools.
Reason: Functionally, business schools and trade schools operate in a very
similar matter to public and private schools, and the site issues associated with
them— traffic, hours of operation, and impacts to neighbors— are very similar to
those of public and private schools. It is logical, then, that business schools and
trade schools be subject to the same land use processing as other types of
schools, and eliminating this current exception will allow equal treatment.
. Section 23-3-210—Add the use CHILD CARE CENTER to the list of uses by right in
the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) Zone District.
Reason: Currently child care centers are only allowed in the Agricultural Zone
District. Staff frequently fields inquires about which locations allow child care as
a land use, and owners often are surprised that this use is not available in the
commercial areas of the County. Staff cannot find any compelling reason for
omitting childcare in commercial areas. The recommended change would also
allow child care centers in the C-2 and C-3 districts. All uses by right in the
commercial districts are subject to an administrative site plan review.
1
N, • Section 27-2-210 — Revise water provisions for PUD's as follows (add underlined):
Sec. 27-2-210. Water provisions.
A PUD Zone District shall be serviced by an adequate water supply. All PUDs shall be
served by a public water system as defined in this Chapter. An exception may be
granted for nine (9) lots or less residentially clustered PUDs when public water is not
available and the residential PUD results in an intensity of development that preserves
and enhances agricultural lands and production.A PUD applying for an exception to the
public water requirement must be considered a nonurban scale development as
defined in this Chapter. A PUD not served by public water shall preserve a minimum
eighty-acre agricultural outlot, except for Cluster PUD's. The Department of Planning
Services and the Department of Public Health and Environment shall review any PUD
applying for an exception to public water to determine if the application meets the intent
of the PUD regulations and state water requirements. (Weld County Code Ordinance
2001-1)
Reason: A Cluster PUD is defined by Section 27-2-55 for the purpose of
encouraging clustered development in exchange for presented land, consistent
with State statutes. Current County Code allows for nonurban development of 9-
lots or less without water only in cases where an 80-acre outlot is preserved.
This has the unintended effect of disallowing Cluster PUDs on 80-acre lots, even
though Section 27-10-20— development standards for Cluster PUDs—gives an
example of an 80-acre Cluster PUD. In speaking with the Attorney's Office and
those involved with the creation of the original Code for Cluster PUD's, the
intention of the Cluster PUD was to only require what state law requires — 2/3
open space—not the more onerous 80-acre outlot. The proposed change would
allow for Cluster PUD's on 80 acres.
2
Administration—Planning&Zoning Matters Sec.2-3-40
See. 2 3 50. Land Erse packets.
A. Applicants must provide the following number of land use packets shown on Table 2.2
when submitting applications.
Table 2.2
Land Use Packets
Number of
Type of Case Packets Required
BOA 44
Coz 23
FHDP 3
GHDP 3
ZPMII 3
MAJOR SUBDIVISION 44
MINOR RESUBDIVISION 4
PUD 4--5
RE 9
RESUBDIVISION 24
SPR 9
Number of
Type of Case Paekets Required
SKETCH PLAN 44
SE 2
FINAL PLAT SUBDIVISION 23
PRELIMINARY PLAN 25
SUBDIVISION
USR 4-9
USR MINING 25
USR MAJOR FACILITY 23
USR SOLID WASTE 23
B. Additional copies may be requested by the Planning Staff if they are needed during the
review and/or public hearing process. (Weld County Codification Ordinance 2000 1)
2-1
Supp.7
Sec.2-9-100. Four-wheel drive vehicles.
A. This is a policy decision. In the event snowfall is so great that County equipment cannot be used, the
County will ask its essential employees to use privately owned 4x4 vehicles to perform their duties. If the
employees agree to provide the vehicles, the County shall pay mileage per the County adopted reimbursement
schedule
($0.305)per mile and shall assume full responsibility that may arise out of use during the storm.
Sec.5 7 10. Establish impact fees.
pay the following impact fees to the County at the time of the issuanee of a building permit:
term is defined in Section 23 1 90 of this Code, or ninety five dollars ($95.00) per one thousand (1,000)
square feet of total floor area for a nondwelling unit structure; and
a stormwater drainage plan. (Weld County Code Ordinance 2006-2)
Sec.5-8-40. Establishment of impact fees.
Any person who causes to be constructed a structure within the unincorporated areas of the County shall
pay the following impact fees to the County at the time of the issuance of a building permit:
A. A capital expansion fee of five hundred seventy-five dollars ($575.00) per dwelling unit, as that
term is defined in Section 23-1-90 of this Code, or ninety-five dollars ($95.00) per one thousand ( 1,000)
square feet of total floor area for a nondwelling unit structure; and
B. A stormwater drainage infrastructure fee of ten cents ($0.10) per square foot of total impervious
surface, calculated according to the methods set forth in Appendix 5-N (excluding a single-family
dwelling unit structure located on a lot of an approved recorded exemption or subdivision exemption), for
any property (including commercial, industrial and agricultural) located within any urban area as defined
and recognized by the County. and/or if development on the property otherwise requires the submission of
a stonnwater drainage plan. (Weld County Code Ordinance 2006-2)
pay impact fees to the County at the time of the issuance of the building permit, as follows:
A. A capital expansion foe of five hundred seventy five dollars ($575.00) per dwelling unit, as that
term is defined in Section 23 1 90 of this Code, or ninety five dollars ($95.00) per ono thousand (1,000)
square feet of total floor area for a nondwelling unit structure; and
•
the submission of a stormwater drainage plan. (Weld County Code Ordinaneo 2005 8)
Sec. 22-1-150. Comprehensive Plan amendment procedure.
B. Individuals may submit a proposal to amend this Chapter in accordance with the following
procedure:
1. Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals shall be considered biannually may be considered
biannually in August and February during a public hearing process.
1
Chapter 23 changes
Sec. 23-1-90. Definitions.
Table 23-IC Animal Units in the R-I(Low-Density Residential)Zone District
Animal Unit Number of Animals Equivalent to One Maximum Number
Equivalents Animal Unit Per Lot
Alpacas .5 2 4
Cattle 1 1 2
Horse 1 1 2
Llamas .5 2 4
Swine 1 1 1
Sheep .2 5 10
Goat .2 5 10
Poultry .02 50 100
Rabbit .02 50 100
CEMETERY: Land used for the burial of the dead and dedicated for memorial purposes. whereby plots are
reserved and sold. Includes columbaria and mausoleums.
FUNERAL HOME: A BUILDING or part thereof for]Hansa funeral services, including but not limited to
space and facilities for embalming, performance of autopsies, cremation,related storage and a chapel.
SCHOOL: Includes any one (1) or more of the following categories: a PUBLIC SCHOOL, community
college, junior college, college or university; an independent or parochial SCHOOL which satisfies the
compulsory SCHOOL attendance requirements appearing in the School Attendance Law of 1963, Article 33
of Title 22, C.R.S.; but the word SCHOOL does not include dance SCHOOLS,
SCHOOLS or driving SCHOOLS
Sec. 23-2-250. Operation standards.
G. Any off-site and on-site improvements shall be made in conformance with the County policy on
collateral improvements.
Sec. 23-3-20. Uses allowed by right. •
F. C-enrtcricG.
F.G. Grazing of LIVESTOCK.
G. H. Feeding of LIVESTOCK within the limitations defined in Section 23-3-50 below and Section
23-4-710.
H. L OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION FACILITIES.
1. 3.PUBLIC parks and PUBLIC recreation facilities.
J.K. PUBLIC SCHOOLS and PUBLIC SCHOOL extension classes.
K.I,. UTILITY SERVICE FACILITIES.
L. M. Alcohol production which does not exceed ten thousand (10,000) gallons per year, provided
that alcohol and by-products will be used primarily on the owner's or operator's land.
M. N. TEMPORARY group assemblages(subject to Chapter 12, Article I,of this Code).
N. A. Asphalt or concrete batch plant used temporarily and exclusively for the completion of a
PUBLIC mad improvement project.
O.P. MOBILE HOME subject to the additional requirements of Article IV, Division 3 of this
Chapter.
-- P.Q. Police and Fire Stations or Facilities.
Q.R. Borrow pits used TEMPORARILY and exclusively for the completion of a PUBLIC road
improvement project. In addition, sand, soil and aggregate MINING, regardless of the use of the material,
which qualifies for a single limited impact operation (a 110 permit) or is exempt from any permits2
from the Division of Minerals and Geology, generates no more than five thousand (5,000) cubic yards of
material per year for off-site use and does not involve crushing, screening or other processing. An
Impiovements Agreement, as determined by the Department of Public Works, may be required prior to
commencement of operations.
R.a MANUFACTURED HOME subject to the additional requirements of Section 23-4-700 of
this Chapter.
S.T. ANIMAL BOARDING and animal TRAINING FACILITIES where the maximum number
of ANIMAL UNITS permitted in Section 23-3-50.D below is not exceeded.
T. U. Commercial towers subject to the provisions of Section 23-4-800. However, one (1) amateur
(HAM) radio operator's crank-up antenna may be extended to a maximum of one hundred fifty (150) feet
in height, provided that its resting or"down" position does not exceed seventy(70)feet in height.
U.V. Disposal of domestic sewage sludge subject to the additional requirements of Article IV,
Division 6 of this Chapter.
V. W. Disposal of DOMESTIC SEPTIC SLUDGE subject to the additional requirements of Article
IV, Division 7 of this Chapter. (Weld County Codification Ordinance 2000-1; Weld County Code
Ordinance 2001-1; Weld County Code Ordinance 2002-9)
Sec. 23-3-40. Uses by special review.
BB. CEMETERY
Sec. 23-3-50. Bulk requirements
E. No BUILDING or STRUCTURE, as defined and limited to those occupancies listed as Groups A,
B, E, F, H, I, M and R in Section 302.1 of the 2003 International Building Code, shall be constructed
within a two-hundred-foot radius of any tank battery of within a one-hundred-fifty-foot radius of any
wellhead, or twenty-five foot radius of any plugged or abandoned oil and gas well. Any construction
within a two-hundred-foot radius of any tank battery or one-hundred-fifty-foot radius of any wellhead
shall require a variance from the terms of Section 23 3 10 of this Code this Chapter in accordance with
Section 23-6-10.C of this Code.
Sec.23-3-110. R-1 (Low-Density Residential)Zone District.
D.9. CEMETERY
Sec. 23-3-160. Bulk requirements.
L.2.f. No BUILDING or STRUCTURE shall bo eonstnreted within a three hundred fifty foot
radius of any OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION FACILITIES. Any construction within a three hundred
fifty foot radius of OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION FACILITIES shall require a varianee from the
terms of this Chapter in accordance with Section 23 6 10 C.
M. No BUILDING or STRUCTURE shall be constructed within a three-hundred-fifty-foot radius of any
OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION FACILITIES, or twenty-five foot radius of any plugged or abandoned oil
and gas well. Any construction within a three-hundred-fifty-foot radius of OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION
FACILITIES shall require a variance from the tetras of this Chapter in accordance with Section 23-6-10.C.
N M. All external lighting shall be designed in accordance with Section 23-2-160.U.6. (Weld
County Codification Ordinance 2000-1; Weld County Code Ordinance 2001-1; Weld County Code Ordinance
2003-10)
Sec. 23-3-210. C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial)Zone District.
B.8. CHILD CARE CENTER
D.8. CEMETERY
3
Sec. 23-3-220. C-2(General Commercial)Zone District.
D.6. CEMETERY
Sec. 23-3-230. C-3(Business Commercial)Zone District.
D.7. CEMETERY
Sec.23-3-250. Performance standards.
A.4.c. No BUILDING or STRUCTURE shall be constructed within a two hundred-foot
radius to any tank battery, within a one hundred-fifty foot radius of any wellhead. or within a
twenty-five foot radius of any plugged or abandoned oil and gas well. Any construction within
these setbacks shall require a variance from the terms of this Chapter in accordance with Section 23-
6-10.C of this Code. ti
Sec. 23-3-310. I-1 (Industrial)Zone District.
D.7. CEMETERY
Sec. 23-3-320. I-2(Industrial)Zone District
D.12. CEMETERY
Sec. 23-3-330. I-3(Industrial)Zone District
D.13. CEMETERY
Sec. 23-3-340. Performance standards.
All BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES and land located in the Industrial Zone Districts shall be located,
designed, used and occupied in accordance with the design and operation standards enumerated in Sections
23-3-350 and 23-3 260 360 below. (Weld County Codification Ordinance 2000-1)
Sec. 23-3-350. Design standards.
F.3. No BUILDING or STRUCTURE shall be constructed within a two hundred-foot radius to
any tank battery, within a one hundred-fifty foot radius of any wellhead, or within a twenty-five foot
radius of any plugged or abandoned oil and gas well. Any construction within these setbacks shall
require a variance from the terms of this Chapter in accordance with Section 23-6-10.C of this Code.
Sec.23-3-430. Uses by special review.
L. CEMETERY
Sec. 23-3 410. Bulk requirements.
L. No BUILDING or STRUCTURE, as defined and limited to those occupancies listed as Groups A,
B, E, F, I-I, I, M, R, S and U in Section 302.1 of the 2003 International Building Code, shall be constructed
within a two-hundred-foot radius of any tank battery or one-hundred-fifty-foot radius of any wellhead, or
twenty-five foot radius of any plugged or abandoned oil and gas well. Any construction within a two-
hundred-foot radius of any tank battery or one-hundred-fifty-foot radius of any wellhead shall require a
variance from the terms of Section 23 3 10 of this Code this Chapter in accordance with Section 23-6- -,
10.C of this Code.
Sec. 23-4-75. Definitions.
BUILDING SIGN: Any sign attached to any part of a building, as contrasted to a freestanding sign.
Includes projection signs. suspended signs and wall signs.
FREESTANDING SIGN: Any sign supported by structures or supports that are placed on, or anchored
in, the ground and that are independent from any building or other structure. Does not include billboards
or off-site directional signs.
POLITICAL SIGN: Any temporary sign for political advertising purposes placed prior to an election
PROJECTING SIGN: Any sign affixed perpendicular to, or at an angle to, a building or wall in such a
manner that its leading edge extends more than six (6) inches beyond the surface of such building or wall.
Considered a type of building sign.
4
REAL ESTATE PROMOTIONAL SIGN: A temporary sign, located on-premise and off-premise that
identifies dwellings or other structures under construction or to be constructed. This is a type of temporary
sign that can otherwise exceed temporary sign standards as indicated in Appendix 23-D. On-premise signs.
advertising subdivision construction shall not be displayed after all lots or dwellings in the subdivision
have been sold. Off premise signs advertising subdivision construction shall not be displayed prior to the
date of official recording of the subdivision. and shall be removed within two years from the date of the
issuance of the first building permit in the project or with 30 days from the time 75% of the lots or
dwellings in the subdivision have been sold, whichever time period is the least. Signs advertising site
construction may be displayed during the period of construction and shall be removed upon issuance of a
certificate of occupancy or final inspection, whichever occurs first.
SUSPENDED SIGN: A sign that is suspended from the underside of a horizontal plane surface and is
supported by such surface. Considered a type of building sign.
TEMPORARY SIGN: Signs relating to public elections, construction signs which identify the
contractors working on a project on the site and "for sale" or"for rent" signs indicating that the property or
residence is for sale or rent. Construction signs, "for sale" and "for rent" signs must be removed upon
completion of the project or when the property is sold or rented. In no case shall the temporary signs be
allowed to stay longer than one(1)year.
WALL SIGN: Any sign attached parallel to, but within six (6) inches of, a wall, painted on the wall
surface of or erected and confined within the limits of an outside wall of any building or structure, which
is supported by such wall,building or structure, and which displays only one(1) sign surface. Considered
a type of building sign.
Sec.23-4-900. Semi-trailer permit requirements.
C. Parcel number and legal description of the property for which the application is made.
D. Evidence of interest in the subject land held by the applicant.
E. A legal description of the property for whieh the application is made.
E P. Number of acres of the property.
F G. Evidence that the semi-trailer is currently licensed.
G H. Weld County mad access information sheet.
H4.A sketch plan of the site at the scale of one(1)inch represents fifty(50)feet or other suitable scale
to show:
I 3. An application fee.
J K. A certified list of the names, addresses and the corresponding Parcel Identification Number
assigned by the County Assessor of the owners of property (the surface estate) within five hundred (500)
feet of the property lines of the parcel on which the semi-trailer will be placed. The source of such list
shall be the records of the County Assessor, or an ownership update from a title or abstract company or
attorney, derived from such records or from the records of the County Clerk and Recorder. If the list was
assembled from the records of the County Assessor,the applicant shall certify that such list was assembled
within thirty(30)days of the application submission date.
K 6. Notification responses of at least thirty percent(30%) of surrounding property owners within
five hundred (500) feet of the subject property in opposition to the location of the semi-trailer. (Weld
County Code Ordinance 2006-2)
5
APPENDIX 23-C
PERMITTED SIGNS BY TYPE AND ZONE DISTRICT
SIGN TYPE A R-I R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 E C-I C-2 C-3 C-4 I-1 1-2 1-3 INS
Banner no no no no no no no yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes& yes/z yes/z yes/z
Billboard(not no no no no no no no yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z no
allowed in
PUD)
Building yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
Marker
Building no no no no no no no yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z
Preieetialt
Canopy no no no no no no no yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z no
Development yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/7 yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/i yes/z
signs
Hag yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
l:tees1anding yes/z no no yenta yenta no no yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z
der no no no
Identification yes yes yes yes Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
ldi&eetien yes yes yes yes yee yes yes yes yes yea yes yes yes yes yes
Ineitlent4 yes yea Yee Yes Yes yea yes yes Yes yea Yee Yee yes Yee Yoe
Incidental yes/a yes/a yes/a yes/a yes/a yes/a yes/a yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
Off-Site yes/z no no no no no no yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z no
Directional
(not allowed
in PUD)
Political yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Yes
Real Estate yes/z yes/zs yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z
Promotional
Sign
Residential yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no no no no no no no no
Residential. yes yea yes yes yes yes Yes no no no so us Mt no 9e
Suspended no no no no no no no yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z yes/z
Temporary yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
Wa6 ne ne no no no ee es yenta yenta yenta yente Yeah yente yenta yenta
Window no no no no no no no yes yes yes yes no no no no
*** NOTE: the chart has been re-arranged alphabetically
6
APPENDIX 23-D
NUMBER AND DIMENSIONS OF INDIVIDUAL SIGNS BY ZONE DISTRICT AND TYPE
SIGN TYPE NUMBER ALLOWED MAXIMUM SIGN AREA MAXIMUM HEIGHT
Banner 1 per zone lot 40 sq.ft.
Billboard(not 1 per zone lot. No billboard shall be located less 300 sq.ft. 40 ft.
allowed in PUD) than 500'from any other billboard or off-site
directional sign.
Building No limit On a given wall the sum of all No higher than the top of
BUILDING SIGNS which require a the building
zoning permit shall not exceed 8%of
that wall's sq.ft
Building Marker 1 per building 4 sq.ft
Canopy 1 per building face 10%of the vertical surface of the
canopy or 25 sq.ft.,whichever is
smaller
Development 1 per Planned Unit Development,Minor or Major C&I-150 sq.ft. C&I-25 ft.
Subdivision all other zones- 32 sq.ft. all others-8 ft.
Flag 1 per zone lot A,R,&E-15 sq.ft.total A,R,&E-15 ft.
C,I&INS-60 sq.ft.total C,I&INS-30ft
Freestanding A,I1 3,It 4,INS-l per zone lot. C&I-l per &A 3,R4-16 sq.ft. C&I-25 ft.
Other ZONE LOT,1 per each 500'of mad frontage,or 1 C&I-150 sq.ft. A,R 3,R 4-6 ft.
per each different road frontage,whichever is INS-32 sq.ft. INS-15 ft.
greater.a
identifie_tiee 4-peenene-let 2-aq.-k: 6-k-
Identification 1 per tenant located within the building 2 sq.ft. 4 Ft.
Incidental N/A N/A N/A
ieddentai N/A N/A
Off-Site Directional C,I&A-1 per zone lot. No off-sae directional C&I-300 sq.ft. C&I-40 ft.
(not allowed in PUD sign shall be located less than 500'from any other A-150 sq.ft A-30ft.
zoning) billboard or off-site directional sign.
Political No limits No Limits No Limits
Aejeeting 1 por building 150 sq.ft.
Real Estate I Per Public Access 48 Sy Ft Each 12'
Promotional Sign Single-or Double-faced
fOn-Premise)
Real Estate 2 single-or double-faced:nmst have landowner 48 Sq.Ft.Each 8'
Promotional Sign permission.nun.300'spacing
(Off-Premise)
Residential 1 per zone lot 1 sq.ft. 6 ft.
Auto} 1 ppa z.,n.,kk I cq.ft
Temporary 1per zone lot A,R,&E-4 sq.ft. A,R,&E-6 ft.
C,I,&INS-8 sq.ft C,I,&INS-8ft
Wall N/A N/A
Window N/A 25%of total window area
Chapter 24 Changes
Sec.24-3-20. Sketch plan.
I. .
Colorado Geologieal Survey. The Colorado Geological Survey eharges a separate review fee. This
review fee must be paid upon submittal of a minor subdivision application. A geotechnical report shall be
prepared in compliance with the requirements of Section 24-7-210 and 24-7-220 of this Chapter.
7
L.5. Floodplain and geologic hazard areas,existing structures,utility lines, ditches, stream, lakes,
drainageways, vegetative cover, oil and gas production facilities, plugged or abandoned oil and gas
well. and any other structure or feature located within the proposed minor subdivision.
Sec. 24-3-50. Final plat.
U.20. The minor subdivision plat shall show the location of any plugged or abandoned oil and gas
well. The well shall be permanently marked by a brass plaque set in concrete, similar to a permanent
bench mark, to monument its location. Such plaque shall contain any information required on a dry
hole marker by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
2120. The certificates and seals located at Appendix 24-B to this Chapter shall be placed on the
minor subdivision final plat. Provision shall be made for all seals to be placed approximately two (2)
inches from the minor subdivision final plat border.
22 2-1-.The location of any sign requiring zoning approval shall be shown. Distances from property
lines shall be indicated.
Sec.24-4-10. Sketch plans.
B.9.
report shall indicate if the proposed subdivision will bo affected by any geologic characteristics. An
suitability of the area for the proposed subdivision- The report shall be prepared by a professional
engineer or geologist. A copy of the report will be reviewed by the Department of Natural Resources,
Colorado Geological Survey. The Colorado Geological Survey ehargcs a separate review foe which must
be paid upon submittal of a minor subdivision application. A geotechnical report shall be prepared in
compliance with the requirements of Section 24-7-210 and 24-7-220 of this Chapter.
B.12.e. Floodplain and geologic hazard areas, existing structures, utility lines, ditches,
streams, lakes, drainage ways, vegetative cover, oil and gas production facilities, plugged or
abandoned oil and gas wells. and any other structure or feature located within the proposed
subdivision.
Sec. 24-4-40. Final plat.
D.7.k. The final plat or resubdivision plat shall how the location of any plugged or abandoned
oil and gas well. The well shall be permanently marked by a brass plaque set in concrete, similar to
a permanent bench mark, to monument its location. Such plaque shall contain any information
required on a dry hole marker by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
I k.All land within the boundaries of the subdivision shall be accounted for either as lots, easements,
rights-of-way, private street, alley, walkway,trail or public area.
m I. If a final plat is revised, a copy of the original final plat shall be provided for comparison
purposes.n m. The final plat or resubdivision plat shall contain the certificates and seals located at
Appendix 24-C to this Chapter. Provision shall be made for all seals to be placed approximately two
(2)inches from the final plat border.
o s.The location of any sign requiring zoning approval shall be shown. Distances from property lines
shall be indicated.
New Section 24-7-210 Geotechnical report requirements
A. All Plans submitted for review shall be accompanied with a geology report containing information on the
specific items herein. The soils and geology report shall be prepared by a professional engineer or geologist,
as defined by State statutes. The report shall be properly certified and signed by such professional. The
following concerns shall be fully addressed. If any of these items are addressed in other reports, this report
can refer to these reports appropriately.
B. The purpose of the sketch plan geotechnical report is to determine the suitability of the site for
development. It is recognized that certain geologic interpretations cannot be firm or complete, at least in
advance of grading operations, but it is expected that all pertinent data will be presented fully and clearly, so
that interpretations and recommendations can be critically reviewed by others.
8
C. The sketch plan geotechnical report shall be in accordance with the following outline and contain the
information listed. Failure to comply with the provision of this Section may result in the report being rejected
for review.
1. Mapping. A detailed large-scale map normally will be required for a report on a tract, as well as for
a report on a smaller area where the geologic relationships are not simple. Where three-dimensional
relationships are significant but cannot be described satisfactorily in words alone, the report should be
accompanied by one or more appropriately positioned structure sections. The locations of test holes
and specific sources of subsurface information should be indicated in the text of the report, or,
preferably, on the map and in any sections that are submitted with the report.
2. General information. Each report should include definite statements concerning the following
matters:
a. Location and size of the subject area and its general setting with respect to major
geographic and geologic features
b. Who produced the geologic mapping upon which the report is based and when was the
mapping done.
c. Any other kinds of investigations made by the geologist and, where pertinent, the reason
for doing such work.
d. Topography and drainage in the subject area.
e. Abundance, distribution and general nature of exposures of earth materials within the area.
f. Nature and source of available subsurface information. Suitable explanations should
provide any technical reviewer with the means for assessing the probable reliability of such
data. (Subsurface relationships can be variously determined or inferred, for example, by
projection of surface features from adjacent areas, by the use of test hole logs, or by
interpretation of geophysical data. Different sources of such interpretation can differ
markedly from one another in degree of detail and reliability according to the method used.)
D. The report should contain brief but complete descriptions of all natural materials and structural features
recognized or inferred within the subject area. Where interpretations are added to the recording of direct
observations, the basis for such interpretations should be clearly stated. The following checklist may be
useful as a general, though not necessarily complete, guide for descriptions:
1. Bedrock (igneous, sedimentary, metamorphic types):
a. Identification as to rock type (e.g., granite, silty sandstone, etc.)
b. Relative age, and, where possible, correlations with named formations.
c. Distribution.
d. Dimension features (e.g., thickness, outcrop breadth, vertical extent).
e. Physical characteristics (e.g., color, grain size, nature of stratification, foliation, or
schistocity, hardness, coherence).
f. Special physical or chemical features (e.g., calcareous or siliceous cement, concretions,
mineral deposits, alteration other than weathering).
g. Distribution and extent of weather zones, significant differences between fresh and
weathered rock.
h. Response to natural surface and near surface processes (e.g., raveling, gullying).
2. Structural features, stratification, foliation, schistocity, folds, zones of contortion or crushing, joints,
shear zones, faults, etc.:
9
a. Occurrence and distribution.
b. Dimensional characteristics.
c. Orientation, and shifts in orientation.
d. Relative ages (where pertinent).
e. Specific effects upon the bedrock (Describe conditions of the planar surfaces).
f. Specific features of faults (e.g., zones of gorge and breccia, nature of offsets, timing of
movements); defining faults as active in either the geologic sense or the historical sense.
3. Surficial (unconsolidated) deposits such as artificial (man-made) fill, topsoil, stream-laid alluvium,
beach sands and gravels, residual debris, lake and pond sediments, swamp accumulations, dune
sands, marine and non-marine terrace deposits, talus accumulations, creep and slope wash
materials, various kinds of slump and slide debris, etc.:
a. Distribution, occurrence and relative age; relationships with existing topography.
b. Identification of material as to general type.
c. Dimensional characteristics (e.g., thickness, variation in thickness, shape).
d. Surface expression and correlation with features such as terraces, dunes, undrained
depressions, anomalous protuberances.
e. Physical or chemical features (e.g., moisture content, mineral deposits, content of
expandable clay mineral, alteration, cracks and fissures, fractures).
f. Physical characteristics (e.g., color, grain size, hardness, compactness, coherence,
cementation).
g. Distribution and extent of weathered zones; significant differences between fresh and
weathered material.
h. Response to natural surface and near-surface processes (e.g., raveling, gullying, mass
movement).
4. Drainage, surface water, and groundwater:
a. Distribution/occurrence (e.g., streams, ponds, swamps, springs, seeps, subsurface
basins).
b. Relations to topography.
c. Relations to geologic features (e.g., previous strata, fractures, faults).
d. Sources and permanence.
e Variations in amounts of water(e.g., intermittent spring and seeps, floods).
f. Evidence for earlier occurrence of water at localities now dry.
g. The effect of water on the properties of the in-place materials.
5. Features of special significance:
a. Features representing accelerated erosion (e.g., cliff reentrants, badlands, advancing gully
heads).
b. Features indicating subsidence or settlement (e.g., fissures, scarplets, offset
reference features, historic records and measurements). 10
c. Features indicating creep (e.g., fissures, scarplets, distinctive patterns of cracks and/or
vegetation, topographic budges, displaced or tilted reference features, historic records and
measurements).
d. Slump and slide masses in bedrock and/or surficial deposits; distribution, geometric
characteristics, correlation with topographic and geologic features, age and rates of
movement.
e. Deposits related to recent floods (e.g., talus aprons, debris ridges, canyon-bottom trash).
f. Active faults and their recent effects upon topography and drainage.
E. The types, location and value of mineral resources within the land to be subdivided should be described.
These include, but are not limited to, limestone used for construction, coal, sand, gravel, and quarry
aggregate, for which extraction by an extractor is or will be commercially feasible, or which is a deposit having
significant economic or strategic value to the county, state or nation. Any area known to contain a commercial
mineral deposit shall not be subdivided until such deposit is extracted, unless the Board of County
Commissioners finds that extraordinary environmental damage or public hazard results from such extraction.
F. The Bearing of Geologic Factors upon the intended land use shall be included. Treatment of this general
topic, whether presented as a separate section or integrated in some manner with the geologic descriptions,
normally constitutes the principle contribution of the report. It involves both (1) the effects of geologic features
upon the proposed grading, construction, and land use; and (2) the effects of these proposed modifications
upon future geological processes in the area.
The following checklist includes the topics that ordinarily should be considered in submitting discussion,
conclusions, and recommendations in the geologic reports:
1. General compatibility of natural features with proposed land use: Is it basically reasonable to
develop the subject area?
a. Topography.
b. Lateral stability of earth materials.
c. Problems of flood inundation, erosion, and deposition.
d. Problems caused by features or conditions in adjacent properties.
e. Other general problems.
2. Special recommendations:
a. Areas to be left as natural ground.
b. Removal or buttressing of existing slide masses.
c. Flood protection.
d. Problems of groundwater circulation.
e. Position of structures, with respect to active faults.
G. All Sketch Plan applications will be submitted to the Colorado Geological Survey for review along with the
required geologic maps and investigation reports. Fees as set from time to time by the CGS shall be collected
by the Department of Planning Services at the time the Sketch Plan is submitted. Additional fees may be
required by the CGS; the applicant is responsible for all fees associated with the geological review.
New Section 24-7-220 Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS) report requirements
11
A. For lots between one (1) acre to five (5) acres where individual sewer systems are proposed, a report
conforming to the following standards shall be submitted in addition to the geotechnical report. The report
shall be prepared by a registered professional engineer licensed to practice in Colorado.
B. The purpose of the ISDS report is to provide additional information about the soil suitability for the purpose
of septic systems, and the relationship of individual systems to one another.
C. The report shall consist of the following:
1. A map drawn at the same scale as the plan locating all lots, drainage-ways, floodplains, slopes in
excess of twenty-five (25) percent, surface and subsurface soils hazards, geologic hazards, depth to
bedrock, water table depth, and other hazards.
2. Percolation tests shall be conducted for no fewer that twenty (20) percent of the total number of
lots in the filing. In cases in which unique geologic, topographic, or soils conditions, such as depth to
bedrock, depth to water, slopes in excess of ten (10) percent, etc. are found, additional tests may be
required.
3. All locations not suited for placement of leach fields due to soils, geologic, topographic, or hazard
conditions shall be noted on the plan..
4. Relationship of the leach fields to other leach fields, wells, structures, lakes, streams, irrigation
systems, and other water forms on adjoining parcels. Identify any possible hazards. Such
identification shall be based on an analysis of the probable effects of water on the soils, geology and
hydrology of the area.
Sec. 24-8-50. Submittal requirements.
L.6. All existing structures on the proposed exemption property. This includes, but is not limited
to, principal and labor homes, mobile homes, manufactured homes, outbuildings, pens, irrigation
ditches, domestic wells, plugged or abandoned oil and gas wells. oil well production facilities and
electrical transmission lines.
Sec.24-S-60. Exemption plat
I. The exemption plat shall show the location of any plugged or abandoned oil and gas well. The well
shall be permanently marked by a brass plaque set in concrete, similar to a permanent bench mark, to
monument its location. Such plaque shall contain any information required on a dry hole marker by the
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
J I. All work shall comply with the requirements of Sections 38-50-101, 38-51-101, 38-51-102, 38-53-
103 and 38-53-104,C.R.S.
K3.All work shall comply with the requirements of the Bylaws and Rules of Procedure of the State
Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyors and the Rules of
Professional Conduct of the State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Professional Land
Surveyors—Board Policy Statements.
LIB A signed copy of all Colorado Land Survey Monument Records for indicated "Aliquot
Corners" (Section 38-53-102(2), C.R.S.) will be submitted with the exemption plat. If any "Aliquot
Corner" indicated on the plat is substantially as described in an existing monument record previously filed
and in the appropriate records of the County Clerk and Recorder, a copy of that monument record and a
letter of certification stating that it is as described on the Colorado Land Survey Monument Record shall
be submitted.
Mb. A exemption plat shall bear the certifications shown in Appendix 24-F E to this Chapter.
(Weld County Code Ordinance 2002-9; Weld County Code Ordinance 2003-10; Weld County Code
Ordinance 2005-01)
13
Remove APPENDIX 24 D
DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTION
APPENDIX 24 E D
Sec. 27-2-120. Mixed Use Development areas.
All development located within the MUD areas, as delineated on the MUD Structural Land Use Maps 24,
the most recent copy of which is on file at the Clerk to the Board's office and the Department of Planning
Services,shall be subject to the additional development criteria as indicated in Chapter 26 of this Code.
Sec. 27-2-210. Water provisions.
A PUD Zone District shall be serviced by an adequate water supply. All PUDs shall be served by a public
water system as defined in this Chapter. An exception may be granted for nine (9) lots or less residentially
clustered PUDs when public water is not available and the residential PUD results in an intensity of
development that preserves and enhances agricultural lands and production. A PUD applying for an
exception to the public water requirement must be considered a nonurban scale development as defined in this
Chapter. A PUD not served by public water shall preserve a minimum eighty-acre agricultural outlot, except
for Cluster PUD's. The Department of Planning Services and the Department of Public Health and
Environment shall review any PUD applying for an exception to public water to determine if the application
meets the intent of the PUD regulations and state water requirements. (Weld County Code Ordinance 2001-
1)
Sec.27-4-20. Requirements for submittal.
D. A sketch plan map in accordance with Section 27 9 10 of this Chapter. A sketch plan of
geotechnical report shall be prepared in compliance with the requirements of Section 24-7-210 and 24-7-
220 of this Chapter.
Sec. 27-9-10. Sketch plan map requirements
G. The location of any existing easements, rights-of-way, structures and uses within the PUD
development, including oil wells, plugged or abandoned oil and gas wells, tank batteries,irrigation ditches,
water bodies and railroad tracks.
Sec. 27-9-20. Change of zone and final plat map requirements.
J.The location of any existing easements, rights-of-way, structures and uses within the PUD
development,including oil wells, plugged or abandoned oil and gas wells,tank batteries, irrigation
ditches, water bodies, railroad tracks or dwellings. The plugged or abandoned well shall be
permanently marked by a brass plaque set in concrete, similar to a permanent bench mark, to monument
its location. Such plaque shall contain any information required on a dry hole marker by the Colorado
Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
14
Hello