The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20061940.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Moved by Mike Miller, that the following resolution be introduced to the Weld County the Board of County Commissioners . Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for: Roger Vigil Building Official Electrical&Permit Code Changes be recommended favorably on a portion and unfavorably on a portion to the Board of County Commissioners: The Planning Commission recommends approval on the following part: Code changes to Section 29-2-70 relative to the 2005 National Electric Code and the amendments Motion seconded by Erich Ehrlich The Planning Commission recommends denial on the following part: Amendments in Section 29-8-40. Motion seconded by Tom Holton Please see attached document for language. VOTE: For Passage Against Passage Absent Michael Miller Bruce Fitzgerald Chad Auer Tom Holton r JamesDougOchsne Welch Erich Ehrlich Roy Spitzer Paul Branham 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,Donita May,Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission,do herebycerifythattheabove and foregoing resolution,is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,Colorado, adopted on January 17,2006. Dated the 17th of January,2006 Donita May Secretary (JQI) u%CPl 2006-1940 I- 11-20C>, Miller,yes;Erich Ehrlich,yes;Tom Holton,yes;Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;Paul Branham,yes. Motion carried unanimously. HEARING ITEMS 4. Roger Vigil Building Official Electrical&Permit Code Changes Roger Vigil,Building Official with the Planning Department,proposed two code changes to Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code. The first code change was to Section 29-2-70 which would approve the 2005 National Electrical Code and amendments. The second was to Section 29-8-40 and would provide a definite expiration date on building permits and prevent building permits from continuing for an indefinite time period, based on progress being made every one hundred eighty (180) days. Mr. Vigil said the Building Trade Advisory Board had recommended approval of the code changes as submitted. The Chair asked about the problems associated with indefinite permits, were there many permits that continued past the six month deadlines, and would this make sense. Mr. Vigil replied that presently of seventy five permits,a list provided by Peggy Gregory,Compliance Officer,about twenty five percent were outstanding permits that have gone past their completion date. Most of these were due to the customer not following through with inspections. These proposed changes would eliminate the ten day letters and the one hundred eighty day roll over presently in place. Mr. Ehrlich asked if building permit fees have increased. Mr.Vigil said not since 2003,that the only fees increased were for manufactured homes. Mr. Ehrlich then asked Mr.Vigil about the seventy four permits presently in violation and how that would work. Mr.Vigil replied that as long as you call for inspections,you have one hundred eighty days from each inspection and then gave some specific examples. Mr. Miller inquired about additional charges for inspections and whether it would make more sense to charge for additional inspections rather than charge another building permit fee. Mr.Vigil responded that at the present time, if a permit expired, the fee to activate it was half of the original building permit fee. Mr. Miller suggested it might make more sense to do the building permits something like manufactured homes were done now where there was a specific time limit to complete the job. Mr. Holton asked how many of the seventy four permits in violation were homes being built by the homeowner. Mr.Vigil said probably all of them. The Chair asked about exceptions after the fact for those that can't complete their building for some reason and what provisions were written in for those instances. Mr.Vigil said the only avenue would be to reapply for a new permit. Mr.Ehrlich asked if commercial building was handled differently than residential as far as utilization periods were concerned. Mr.Vigil said the code changes every three years. Mr.Miller said commercial doesn't usually drag out due to money involved,investors,etc.and he supported amendments to the electrical code but thinks permit changes were overbearing and put unreasonable expectations on the homeowner. Mr.Miller felt it was better to charge for each inspection beyond a certain number rather than pay for another permit after time had expired. Mr. Holton asked about charges for failed inspections. Mr. Vigil responded that a re-inspection fee was assessed if the job was not ready when the inspector was called to come and added that currently there were no consequences for lengthy finishes. The Chair asked Mr.Morrison about recommending changes to the request. Mr.Morrison said if they have specific language,they could recommend an amendment to the language,or just provide comments without proposing specific language. Mr.Morrison added that if you propose a motion,there would be a resolution that would reflect more formally what your position was. The Chair asked about site inspections, set backs etc. and if the cost to the county would be less the second time as these would not need to be done again. Mr. Vigil said that was correct. Mr.Branham said it seems that concern was with private residences and would it be appropriate to approve this as presented, excluding the private residence. Mr. Holton asked if they were going to make adjustments to item b.to specify owner built. Mike Miller moved to accept code changes to Section 29-2-70 relative to the 2005 National Electric Code and the amendments. Erich Ehrlich seconded the motion. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Michael Miller,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes;Tom Holton,yes;Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;Paul Branham,yes. Motion carried unanimously. Mike Miller moved to deny the application for amendments in Section 29-8-40 as written. Tom Holton seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Miller added that he would like Mr. Vigil to compose language that would address this problem in a different manner by establishing a maximum number of inspections that would be included in the building permit fee itself. If a person exceeded that number of inspections they would be charged an inspection fee every time the county was asked to go out and re-inspect. Mr. Miller said he felt that was a more fair and equitable means of accomplishing the same thing and if the building permit did expire, charging the fifty percent fee was far more equitable than starting all over and charging the full fee again. The Chair asked Mr.Vigil if he understood what Mr.Miller was suggesting. Mr.Vigil said he did but that this recommendation was not much different than the previous code. 5. CASE NUMBER: PZ-1078 • APPLICANT: Tom Morton PLANNER: Klm Ogle LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parts of Sections 25,35, and 36,T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado REQUEST: PUD Change of Zone from(A)Agriculture to PUD with(E)Estate;(R-1) Low Density Residential; (R-2) Duplex Residential; (R-3)Medium Density Residential;(R-4)High Density Residential;(C-1)Neighborhood Commercial and(C-2)General Commercial and continuing Oil and Gas Production Uses in the Mixed Use Development Overlay District(St. Vrain Lakes PUD) LOCATION: Multiple parcels generally located East of and adjacent to thel-25 Frontage Road,South of and adjacent to State Highway 66;west of and adjacent to CR 13 and north of and adjacent to St.Vrain River. Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, said this case was continued from the December 20, 2005 Planning Commission Hearing at the request of the applicant and with the support of Planning Staff so that referral comments could be addressed by the applicant. Carma Colorado do Tom Morton and Tyler Packard applied for a request of Change of Zone from (A) Agriculture to PUD with(E)Estate;(R-1)Low Density Residential;(R-2)Duplex Residential;(R-3)Medium Density Residential; (R-4) High Density Residential; (C-1) Neighborhood Commercial, (C-2) General Commercial and continuing Oil and Gas Production Uses in the Mixed Use Development Overlay District to be identified as the St. Vrain Lakes PUD, comprising of approximately 1313 acres. The application materials stated that there would be 4800 to 5131 residential lots with an average lot size of 3700 SF and a minimum lot size of 3300 SF. There were also three commercial development areas (40 acres) and a Municipal development area (22 acres),three school sites and 334 acres of open space. The proposed St.Vrain Lakes PUD was located on multiple parcels generally located east of and adjacent to the 1-25 Frontage Road,south of and adjacent to State Highway 66;west of and adjacent to County Road 13 and north of and adjacent to the St. Vrain River. Surrounding properties were generally agricultural. Sekich Commercial Business Park, the proposed Meadow Ridge Residential/Commercial PUD, and the Grand View Estates PUD were located to the north of the proposed St Vrain Lakes PUD north of the site across State Highway 66. The Corporate City Limits of the Town of Mead were adjacent to the west, agricultural lands were to the east, including the Aurora Organic Dairy,approximately 1 mile to the east of County Road 13 and the Southwest Service Center was to the south, and the Pelican Shores PUD was located to the southeast, south of the St.Vrain River. The site was designated as residential with commercial and areas of limiting site factors designation on the Amended 1-25 Mixed Use Development Area Structural Plan,Map 2.1 Structural Land Use Map dated June 2005. The neighborhood center designation was also present within the boundary of this proposed development. The property sloped slightly to the south of State Highway 66 towards County Road 28. A greater slope was evident south of County Road 28 approximately 2000 feet to the top of the bluff before dropping into the river valley. All lands associated with this proposal area were under agricultural production with the river valley area being part of a former gravel mine. (USR-489, '82; USR-636, '84; USR-907, '89) Sec. 29-2-70. National Electrical Code. The publication of the National Fire Protection Association, known as the National Electrical Code, 2002 2005 Edition, NFPA No. 70 2002 70 2005, is incorporated by this reference as a part of this Building Code for the purpose of establishing standards for the inspection of electrical installations and issuance of electrical permits in the County, with the following amendments: A. Add Section 110.2(A): B. Change Section 230.70(A) to read: T'he service disconnecting means shall be installed at a readily accessible metering equipment." A- Add Section 230.70(A), Exception No. 1: "The service disconnecting means may be located inside a building or structure at a readily accessible location if the service disconnecting means is placed back-to- back with the metering equipment and the total service entrance conductor length does not exceed three feet six inches measured from the exterior wall of the structure. The service disconnecting means shall also be located on the ground level." B. D. Add Section 230.70(A), Exception No. 2: "The service disconnecting means may be located inside a building or structure at a readily accessible location if the service entrance conductors enter the building under a minimum two-inch-thick concrete slab or floor. The total length of the service entrance conductors from the top of the floor to the point of termination in the service disconnecting means shall not exceed seven feet. The service disconnecting means shall be located on the ground level. Service conductors installed under and inside the building shall be installed in an approved raceway for their entire length" E—Amend the first paragraph of Section 250.52 to read: Sections 250.52(A)(1)through(A)(6) shall be bonded together to form the grounding electrode system. (Item(A)(1) shall be required as part of the water supply or distribution system.) The bonding jutnper(s) shall be installed in • . , C. E. Add Section 250.52, Exception 2 after Section 250.52 Exception: "Existing water supply or distribution systems which have not been changed, modified or expanded shall not be required to be modified by installing ten feet of underground metal water pipe in direct contact with the earth?' But two 8- foot ground rods shall be installed no less than 6 feet apart. D. -G. Add Section 300.5(L): "All electrical underground wiring located outside a building or structure shall be separated by a minimum of twelve inches from all other underground utilities, including telephone and cable television. Such separation, may be horizontal or vertical. Gas piping shall be in a separate trench . (See-Seetiefts-60372-and fir Add-Seetien-3007-5(1,)(4)÷ drab. fiel „ T Add S 12'l 12(A� -II-'TtLTL�TIT • • • • • rating n k+�l on r}w n •• I f 1 • r • , • • Overload prof ll t• pr •=dad - - 99 E. Jr Add the following sentence to Section 511.3(B): "The areas described in Sections 511.3(A) and(B) shall also apply to private garages as defined by the IBC." (Weld County Code Ordinance 2002-9: Weld County Code Ordinance 2003-11) UWE Sec.29-8-40. Expiration of permit. A. further that such suspension or abandonment has not exceeded five(5)years, B Anv ry rc' _ a c r L upen--written request by the pormittee showing that circumstances beyond the control-of-the established by the Board of County Commissioners. A. Every permit issued by the Building Official under the provisions of this Building Code shall expire by limitation and become void after the given utilization period has elapsed. The utilization period begins on the date of permit issuance. The expiration date for the building permit shall be specified on the permit in accordance with Sub Section (a). below. An exception may be granted by the Building Official in accordance with Section B, below. (a). Valuation of Building Permit Utilization Period $1000 or less 3 months $ 1,001 - $ 10,000 6 months $10,001- $ 50,000 12 months $ 50,001- $ 1,000,000 24 months $ 1,000,001-$2,000,000 30 months $ 2,000,001-$ 10,000,000 36 months $ 10,000,001 and over Letter B . When a permit is issued, the Building Official may approve an expiration date exceeding the utilization period. The permittee must demonstrate that the complexity or size of the project makes completion of the project within the utilization period unreasonable. C If the building or work authorized by a Building Permit has not received final inspection by the permit expiration date, all work shall stop until a new permit is issued. Extension of Time For A Building Permit A. The Building permit holder may submit a request for an extension of time before the expiration of the utilization period. The Building Official may extend the Building Permit one time, for a period not to exceed 180 calendar days. Such request shall include name, address, telephone number, the building permit number, site address and a description of specific circumstances which prevented completion of the work prior to the expiration date. A processing fee shall be charged if a building permit extension is granted. B. If the Building Permit expires before a request is submitted for an extension, an extension shall not be granted. To proceed with the same project the following process shall be required : I. A new permit must be obtained. 2. The full permit fee must be paid along with any other applicable fees. 3. The applicant must comply with all applicable codes and regulations in effect at the time the new permit application is submitted. (4i MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: January 18, 2006 SUBJECT: Code change to the Weld County Building Code Good Afternoon. Roger Vigil, Building Official with the Planning Department. I am proposing two code changes to chapter 29 of the Weld County Code. 1. Code change to Section 29-2-70 would approve the 2005 National Electric Code and amendments. 2. Section 29-8-40 would provide a definite expiration date on building permits and eliminate building permits to continue for an indefinite time period based on progress being made every 180 days. The Building Trade Advisory Board has recommended approval of the code changes as submitted. You have the recommendations of the County Council Hello