HomeMy WebLinkAbout20063430.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, November 7, 2006
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2006, in the Weld County
Department of Planning Services, Hearing Room,918 10th Street,Greeley,Colorado. The meeting was called
to order by Chair, Chad Auer, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer Absent
James Welch Absent
Bruce Fitzgerald
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
Tom Holton
Paul Branham
Mark Lawley
Also Present: Brad Mueller, Kim Ogle, Roger Vigil, Hannah Hippely, Chris Gathman,
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on October 17,2006,
2006, was approved as amended.
The following Items are on the Continued:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1580
APPLICANT: Justin &Andrea Davis
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part SW4 of Section 32, T12N, R60W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a home
business (manufacturing steel frames for steel washers) in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 99 and approx. 3/4 mile south of CR 136.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services read a letter requesting a continuance to December 19,
2006 to allow for mineral notification.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against the continuance of
this application. No one wished to speak.
Bruce Fitzgerald indicated this was a south hearing. Mr. Gathman stated this was agreeable to the applicant
due to his inability to be at the January 2, 2007 hearing.
Doug Ochsner moved to continue. Erich Ehrlich 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.
The following Items will be Heard:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1577
APPLICANT: Sheryl Hill
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-3591; Pt SE4 of Section 31, T7N, R64W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a use
2006-3430
permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use or a Use by Special
Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone District (Outdoor storage of
tires, Semi-tractor, Cars, Trucks, Trailers, Farm Machinery and Hay) in
the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 51; approx. % mile north of CR 74
Hannah Hippely Department of Planning Services presented the Planning Commission with additions to the
Development Standards and Conditions of Approval. Char Davis, Department of Public Health and
Environment included additional standards.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked how the noise levels were determined. Ms. Davis indicated it would be a commercial
business in residential area and there is only a 10 decibel difference between commercial and residential.
Chad Auer indicated since there was changes this would need to be removed from the Consent Agenda and
heard. Mr. Barker agreed.
Doug Ochsner and Bruce Fitzgerald would like this removed from the Consent Agenda.
Hannah Hippely, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1577, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
approval of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. USR-1577
is for A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a use permitted as a Use by
Right, an Assessory Use, or a Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts
(Outdoor Storage of Tires, Semi-tractor, Cars, Trucks, Trailers, Farm Machinery, and Hay) in the
Agricultural (A)Zone District. The sign announcing the Planning Commission hearing was posted
October 27, 2006 by Planning Staff. The site is located West of and adjacent to County Road 51 and
approximately 1/2 mile North of CR 74. The surrounding property is primarily agricultural. Three
residences are located East and North, across CR 51. Use by Special Review Permit existing in the area
include USR-1133 for 2500 head, located ''A mile north of the site, SUP-315 for a Hog Farm on the
property across does not appear to be active at this time. A permit for an Adult Group Home (USP-703
Am) also exists. Seven referral agencies reviewed this case, five responded favorably or included
conditions that have been addressed through development standards and conditions of approval. No
comments were received from the Sheriff's Office or the Galeton Fire Protection District. The Department
of Planning Services has received two letters from surrounding property owners and one from a property
owner's agent. The property owner's main concerns seem to be the parking of semi-trailers in the county
road during unloading and the safety hazard this creates, the condition of the ditch along the property,
possible fire or environmental hazard, hours of operation, and the possible devaluation of their property.
Staff feels that most of these concerns have been or can be addressed through the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards. Staff would however, like to add two additional development
standards. The first additional standard states: "There shall be no parking or staging of equipment or
vehicles on Weld County roads. Utilize on site parking." The second states: "When no one is present on
the property the gate shall be closed." Furthermore the health and safety issues raised in regards to the
borrow pit and the white material in it are being investigated by The Department of Public Works and the
Department of Public Health and Environment.
Sheryl Hill,applicant, provided clarification on the intent of the proposal. There are no buildings on site. This
storage area is overflow for the existing business in Galeton. There are not buildings on site and there will be
no one on site for an extended period of time.
Doug Ochsner asked for clarification on the outdoor storage of tires,whether they were used or new;whether
they were left on site permanently and the loading of the alfalfa from the road. Ms. Hill stated the tires are both
new and used and they are used for the business and personal use. They are used on old vehicles and
tractors as well as for tire feeders. This site is for storage of overflow of the business. Ms. Hippely added that
there is additional Development Standards that address no parking or staging on Weld County roads. Ms. Hill
added there is adequate room on site; the trucks can pull onto the site. There is no need to be on the county
road.
Paul Branham asked for clarification on derelict vehicles. Ms. Hill stated the vehicles onsite are being parted
out and used. After they are used they can be taken to junkyard, once they are of no use they can be
removed. Mr. Branham asked how many were there; rather they were in running order. Ms. Hill stated there
2
were approximately 10-15 being parted out.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Kimberly Cecil, neighbor, indicated her concerns. They are trying to sell dry corner and the property value has
plummeted; there have been trailers of hay parked on road and this is a safety hazard; the road is heavily
traveled;the tires next to the hay pose a fire hazard;this is an eyesore to the community; it is hazardous to the
area and there is white material (plaster)in ditch which is not part of property. They would not like to see this
be approved.
The Chair closed Public portion
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if this was in violation now and how long used like this. Ms. Hippely added this was in
violation and that case was initiated in 2005.
Paul Branham asked if there had ever been any problems with water run off as result of ditches. Don Carroll,
Department of Public Works, added the material in the ditch appeared to be like plaster. Presently there are
sprinklers on the properties above this site so there would be no tail water or live water the only water would
be flooding or run off. The applicant needs to clean both ends of the culvert. The material may have been
placed adjacent to bank so it would not erode. Mr. Branham asked if there was a Development Standards to
clean that material. Mr. Carroll stated it could be added. There are Conditions of Approval that do not allow
for parking or staging. The material can be evaluated and a recommendation can be made.
Tom Holton asked if this was a county ditch or an irrigation ditch. Mr. Carroll stated it was part of the 60 feet of
right-of-way; it would depend on who was there first the road or the ditch.
Sheryl Hill added the white material is sand from the casting business that her brother owns and it can be
moved. Mr. Branham asked why it was put there. Ms. Hill stated her father in law placed the material there to
stop the erosion of the dirt that was placed on the property.
Erich Ehrlich asked for clarification on the size of the entrance and whether they trucks have the ability to go in
and out safely off CR 51. Ms. Hill stated the size of the gate has tripled in size for semis. Ms. Hippely added
they have been granted 30 foot access according to the plat drawing. Mr. Ochsner asked if that were large
enough for a truck to enter and exit. Mr. Carroll stated they have suggested the applicant utilize onsite parking
for loading and unloading.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked how long they have owned the site and was this the primary site. Ms. Hill stated they
had owned the property for a year and a half and have used it for storage for the past year. The site is strictly
used for the business in Galeton.
Paul Branham asked how many old tires on property pose a fire hazard. Ms. Hill stated there is
approximately 200 +/-tires on site and there can be spacing placed between them. The hay is on the north
side of property.
Tom Holton stated he was not sure about the size of the gate but in his observation the site was full but he
could only see tires. This seems to be more of a salvage yard not an agricultural based business. Ms. Hill
stated they are trying to get some of the tires removed and get more organized. They are working to clean it.
What point would be a breaking point? Ms. Hippely stated that staff had received nothing from Galeton FPD
so they could not address any issues. They are limited as to how many stacks before going over fence. Mr.
Holton asked how many vehicles and agricultural related equipment there were. Ms. Hill stated there were
approximately 8-10 cars, 4-5 trucks,one tractor for parts. Mr. Holton asked at what point this is considered a
salvage yard not an agricultural business. This is presently an accessory to an existing business. Ms. Hippely
stated a salvage yard would need to come through the same USR process as this. Mr. Holton stated there is
a difference and this would be a salvage yard not agricultural. Ms. Hippely added that staff considered the
agricultural use because of the hay and tire tractors and them being used for the support of agricultural.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if this was approved what would keep the applicant from turning this into a wrecking
yard. Mr. Barker stated there are Development Standards that limit what can be stored in terms of quantity;
they can do whatever would fit on property.
3
Doug Ochsner asked Mr. Lawley for suggestions on possible fire hazards. Mr. Lawley stated these are
typically fire hazards and destroy everything. The issue would be the Galeton FPD and what their standards
are which could be different. There could be some spacing issues.
Paul Branham asked if a salvage yard would need a different application. Mr. Barker stated the planners
would need to determine the difference in the USR for a salvage yard and what that would include. A salvage
yard would include activity to dismantle and reassemble. The distinction would be in the code. If the activity is
being done then it may be outside of the USR process. This would mean they are using this more as a junk
yard and not an agricultural business.
Char Davis, Department of Public Health and Environment indicated she has another Development Standards
to be added. The language shall consist of"The applicant shall operate in accordance with approved waste
handling plan."
Hannah Hippely stated the application for salvage or junk yard would be the same process. Staff would get
much the same result from the referral agencies. Mr. Barker stated the code would distinguish between this
and ajunkyard. Ajunkyard or salvage is more commercial use while these are their personal items and they
only have access the site. If turned into a junkyard it would consider a substantial change. Ms. Hippely stated
the public does not have access to the site. This site is storage until such time when they need it. As
opposed to someone's salvage in yard.
Sheryl Hill added the vehicles are used for themselves no one else and this is the same with trucks. Mr.
Holton asked where the tires are from. Ms. Hill stated they are from local dealerships and they use them for
themselves. The tires are also used in the existing tire shop business. The tires that are not used either for
personal use or business use is taken to Tire Mountain to dispose of.
Doug Ochsner asked why the need for a USR if this is for their personal use. Ms. Hippely stated it was due to
the outdoor storage of derelict vehicles. Mr. Ochsner added there are Development Standards that indicate
nothing will be stacked over fence height. Ms. Hippely stated that was correct.
Paul Branham moved to accept the addition of Development Standards#5 to state"There shall be no parking
or staging of equipment or vehicles on Weld County roads. Utilize on site parking" and Development
Standards #7 to state "When no one is present on the property the gate shall be closed." 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.
Char Davis, Department of Public Health and Environment, recommended adding the following Development
Standards and numbering them #25, #26, #27, #28, and#29:
Development Standards#25 shall state"The applicant shall operate in accordance with the approved"waste
Handling plan."
Development Standards#26 shall state"Bottled water for drinking and sanitary purposes shall be available."
Development Standards #27 shall state"This facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels
allowed in the Commercial Zone as delineated in 25-12-103 C.R.S., as amended."
Development Standards#28 shall state"The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of
the State and Federal agencies and the Weld County Code."
Development Standards#29 shall state"Batteries and fluids shall be removed from all vehicles,tractors and
farm equipment and appropriately disposed/recycles before storage to ensure that contamination of soil and
groundwater does not occur."
Tom Holton moved to accept the additional Development Standards from Department of Public Health and
Environment. Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion carried.
Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, suggested amending 2A to modify the date of a memo from
September to November 6, 2006 that was sent to staff. Department of Public Works revised the memo and
brought it to staff.
4
Tom Holton moved to accept the change to Conditions of Approval 2A. Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion
carried.
Sheryl Hill agreed to the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
Tom Holton stated it may not be a salvage yard but there should be some limitations on the vehicles. Mr.
Fitzgerald would like to hear what the applicant feels would be a maximum number of vehicles on site. Ms.
Hill suggested speaking with the Galeton FPD to get an accurate number. Mr. Lawley the fire code will not
address numbers just the height. Ms. Hill added they could leave 10 derelict vehicles there and there could be
a couple hundred tires.
Doug Ochsner added that if the area is screened and fenced;a person cannot tell the quantity on site so there
would not need to be a limit. Limiting tires adds another item that is unenforceable. Mr. Holton asked if the
trailers would be considered derelict if there were no licenses. Ms. Hippely stated they would be considered
derelict if there are no tags and that would give a cause for a limited number. Mr. Holton those would be seen
above the screen. Mr. Ochsner asked if this was not already addressed in the code. This would need to be
clarified. In the agricultural zone they are limited to one as a use by right but an additional limit could be added
the Planning Commission could also limit the number of derelict vehicles including cars trucks and such. The
applicant can place in the application the number they would like. Mr. Branham would agree that 10 in-
operable and/or unlicensed vehicles including trailers not to include agricultural items.
Paul Branham moved to add Development Standards#30 to state"the applicant shall have no more than ten
inoperable and/or unlicensed vehicles." 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, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes;
Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner commented he would like to see it more specific to state just the tractor trailers that are above
site level.
Paul Branham asked if that would adequately address the tires;what number of tires would be adequate. Mr.
Lawley added a Development Standards could be added that would addresses national recognized standards
for tire spacing and tire height. Ms. Hippely added that a Conditions of Approval could be added to Prior to
Recording the applicant would need to get approval from the Galeton FPD. Mr. Barker added that
Development Standards#11 could be changed to state"All materials and items stored shall be handled stored
and/or disposed of in a manner that controls fugitive dust, blowing debris, fire hazards and other potential
nuisance and safety conditions." The number of tires would need to comply with the ability to move them
around and keep material such as hay in safe place.
Tom Holton moved to accept the language by Mr. Barker. Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion carried.
Erich Ehrlich added that this parcel is 1.19 acres and the hay stacks will be above the screening of the fence.
Mr. Branham would like to see Galeton FPD inspect the site and approve the current conditions. Mr. Auer
suggested amending Development Standards #11 and moving the condition to Prior to Board of County
Commissioners or Recording the plat. Mr. Branham suggested the inspection be done now.
Paul Branhan moved to amend Conditions of Approval 1C to state "The applicant shall provide to the
Department of Planning Services a letter of sign off from the Galeton FPD." Bruce Fitzgerald seconded.
Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner added that due to the size of the site,the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval
are a benefit to the surrounding property owners and should the site be out of compliance it can be removed.
If the site materials become too much this is a way to address and the neighbors have something to work with.
Sheryl Hill agrees to the amended Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case USR-1577, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
5
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 propane 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 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.
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
\,I �J� l k'.1 -.) j Y ('
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
11
Hello