HomeMy WebLinkAbout20040973.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
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:
APPLICANT: Weld County Building Department/Jeff Reif
CASE: Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code.
REQUEST: Amendment to Section 29-2-90 of the Weld County Code manufactured
home installation standards
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
Please see attached summary of proposed changes to the Weld County Code
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
John Folsom
Bryant Gimlin
Stephen Mokray
Bruce Fitzgerald
James Rohn
Tim Tracy
Doug Ochsner
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 October 21, 2003.
Dated the 21st of October 2003.
CA-02)4 f��c L
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
2004-0973
notified. There were citizens that showed up to the open houses. The feedback was positive.
John Folsom asked Ms. Relford about the map and the conflicts with the map of long term growth.Ms.Relford
commented that the county did not adopt the long term boundary with Milliken. Ms.Mika added that Millikens
long term boundary at the time was not able to meet the scrutiny of the urban services. The boundary was
modified back.
Tim Tracy asked for clarification on the standards required for urban services. Ms.Mika indicated that growth
must be correlated to urban infrastructure. This is the criteria for the urban growth boundary as well as an
urban use. Mr. Tracy indicated that the boundary is based on the way the community plans to grow. This
includes information on the revenues and tax base and the ability to provide services. Ms. Mika stated that
growth is directly correlated to where the infrastructure is. Mr. Tracy added that the IGA are designed to
eliminate some of the conflicts with having to go to several different entities. Ms. Mika stated that the code
indicates it is appropriate to direct urban growth where there the facilities are.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the definitions of urban and non urban growth. Ms. Mika stated that urban use
is identified to a use,to an area and with density. The use is whether the public water and sewer is there. The
locational requirement is if the area is defined for urban uses. The density is if there are nine or more lots.
The non urban is a development of less than 9 lots residential located in non urban areas. The Code
discusses agricultural uses. Mr. Fitzgerald indicated that any urban uses will be referred to Evans. Mr.Miller
added that any non urban uses will go through the County process. Mr. Barker added the referral is not sent
for approval. It goes to Evans and they indicate if they would like it there or not but it still comes back to
County for consideration.There is no delegation of duty to Evans, it remains with the County. It is for referral
comments only. Mr. Miller added that the City of Evans does not have veto power over any project in the
County.
John Folsom commented that UGB Policy 1.2 does not meet the criteria. There is adequate room for growth
within the existing UGB and it is pre mature to add this land. UGB Policy 1.3 requires coordination with
individual land owners and this has not been accomplished by the number of land owners that are not aware
of the plans. Advising is not coordinating with them. UGB Goal 3 required the County municipality should
coordinate land use planning in areas. There have been discussions with the adjacent municipalities but they
have not been adequate. Mr. Folsom stated that this does not meet the requirements of Comprehensive Plan.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Folsom about UGB Goal 3 which stated coordinating land use planning which is what
the agreement is designed to do. Mr. Folsom stated it fails those three alone not everything.
Doug Ochsner indicated his concern in UGB Goal 2 second paragraph where it indicates services must be
provided for future growth. Planning Services has concerns that water and sewer may not be readily available.
The City of Evans stated it could be 20 years down the road and that is not reasonable amount of time.
Michael Miller commented that the areas requested are large and beyond what Evans could provide service.
Adding another 6-7 square miles and not being able to service is a huge concern. The lack of coordination
with the land owners is an issue. Evans would gain a lot by having meeting with property owners.
Communication is a lot of the issue.
John Folsom moved that Case County Code 2003-XX,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
with the Planning Commissions recommendation of denial. Doug Ochsner seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Tim Tracy, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
Tim Tracy left the meeting and Stephen Mokray returned to the meeting
APPLICANT: Weld County Building Department/Jeff Reif
CASE: Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code.
REQUEST: Amendment to Section 29-2-90 of the Weld County Code manufactured home
installation standards.
Jeff Reif, Department of building Inspections, provided information with regard to the proposed changes to
6
the Code. There are several sections that contain proposed changes. The ICBO has merged and the
new organization is called the International Code Council. There is only one set of codes for use with the
merger. The uniform codes will no longer be updated or published. Staff has determined that are no
significant differences. The IRC will permit the construction and inspection of dwellings without the use of
four Code books. The fuel gas code was removed and will be published separately. Weld County is
currently utilizing some of the international codes. The most current additions are being proposed and this
will make it easier to enforce and utilize.-Most of the surrounding jurisdictions have adopted this code or
are in the process of adopting them. The same code needs to be in effect throughout to eliminate the
unnecessary cost to contractors.
Mr. Mokray asked if most insurance companies have adopted. Mr. Reif indicated it was primarily for flood
insurance. The underwriters use to determine rates. Mr. Reif added it could affect flood insurance rates
Jeff Reif continued with the presentation. The international codes will be the only viable codes in the
future. A delay in adopting the codes will make the transition more difficult. Building Inspections
recommends approval of the International Codes. Mr. Reif indicated that the suggestion is to repeal the
sections of chapter 29 that adopt the building and mechanical code then re enacting the sections of the
International Code. The changes in the chapter reflect the International Code. The sections references
need amending to correlate. Mr. Reif indicated the summary of articles and the changes. There are
eleven articles. Article one contains very specific reference changes proposed. Article two adopts the
various codes used in construction inspection and enforcement of permits. Each code is adopted in the
article. Specific provisions are amended in the sections as well as permitting the building department to
tailor local construction practices. This is the main area where the various codes are being repealed and
re enacted. Article three outlines permit provisions, requirements, fees and inspections. The only
changes are the references. Article four outlines permit provisions unique to mechanical permits. There
are no changes requested. Article five outlines electrical permits and there are no changes to that article.
Article six outlines plumbing permits and there are no changes. Article seven outlines permit regulations
related to mobile, manufactured and factory built homes including fees and inspections. There are no
changes in the article. The fee schedule has adopted and the change is to the fee for a $20 pass along
fee as mandated by the State DOH. An insignia is to be installed on the home. Article eight outlines
general permit provision common to all permits and there are no changes to this article. Article nine
outlines provisions for fire suppression systems and alternate materials and there are no changes
proposed to this article. Article ten creates a list of duties for the board of appeals and there are no
changes to this article. Article eleven lists provisions for handling violations and enforcing. The changes
requested are to a reference.
Stephen Mokray asked if there was much training needed to get staff updated. Mr. Reif indicated it would
take some training. There has been training occurring since the beginning of the year. Mr. Mokray asked
the type of training. Mr. Reif indicated there have been formal classes and there has been some in house
training. The plans examiners attended a session and have been passing the information on. Mr. Mokray
asked if there were specialized staff for an area. Mr. Reif indicated that the building inspection has
inspectors for electrical, building inspections, plans examiners with multiple certifications. The staff has
qualified personal and the transitions will be easy.
John Folsom asked about the flood hazard and flood districts, if they had been coordinated so there would
be no conflict. Mr. Reif stated that he has attempted to make the language the same where the flood
references are made. Mr. Folsom asked about the anchoring only addressing mobile or manufactured.
Mr. Reif stated that any structure has to have an engineered foundation with few exceptions. Mr. Folsom
asked about the different options for building in a flood plain for foundations being flood proof or has
openings to equalize the pressure. Mr. Reif stated this would be different approach. The engineer would
evaluate and make a recommendation. Mr. Folsom asked about the municipalities adopting the
International Code. Mr. Reif stated that there could be some variances to the amendments to the code
but the municipalities will maintain the intent.
Chair opened public portion of the meeting
Dean Malkelroy, resident, indicated his concern with the title"international." Mr. Malkelroy stated"his is
not a proponent of globalism or reductions of sovereignty in any way shape or form. I get the sense that
this perhaps would be better labeled United Nations International Building Code." The terminology is the
concern. Mr. Malkeroy asked if the word international has any connections with someone or something
7 .
else? Mr. Reif stated that the basic idea is that buildings respond to the forces imposed upon them
regardless of where they are. The engineering principals that govern construction are closely related.
There are areas of the world that are looking at adopting building codes and there is no need to try and re
create them. These building codes have been around for year and they do provide the basis for codes in
other areas of the world. Mr. Malkelroy asked if the current building codes did not perform the way
intended. Mr. Miller stated that the issue is there are four codes and this will condense the four versions
to one version.
Bruce Fitzgerald indicated this was an industry standard and adopted by most municipalities across the
nation. Mr. Reif stated there is nothing to reduce safety but the change is describing the outcome and
allowing greater flexibility to the designer to achieve the outcome.
Stephen Mokray asked if there had been discussions with the Building Trades Council about the changes.
Mr. Reif indicated that there have been discussions for a year and half. Their recommendation was for
approval. Mr. Mokray asked if there was any additional cost. Mr. Reif indicated the cost burden on the
contactors and property owners would be less.
The chair closed the public portion
Stephen Mokray moved that Case County Code Chapter 29, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners along with the amendments with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval.
Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes.
Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1432
APPLICANT: Mark & Kristi Weimer
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-2612; part SE4 Section 22, T6N, R64W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and A Special Review Permit for a
business permitted as a Use by Right or Accessory Use in the
Industrial Zone District, (Parking of company vehicles and
equipment) in the A(Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Carlton Road/CR 66 and approximately 1/4 mile
west of CR 57.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1432, read the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommended
approval of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
John Folsom asked if the trucks haul exclusive agricultural products. Ms. Hatch indicated the applications
states they do. Mr. Folsom asked if there was a map that showed the roadway to the parking area. Mr.
Carroll gave Mr. Folsom a map that showed this information. Ms. Hatch indicated that the proposed
parking area was approximately 100 feet from the road. Mr. Folsom added that the access on the map
was to a structure. There is nothing to the parking area. Ms. Hatch indicated that the area on the map is
where the trucks will be entering and turning around.
Mark Weimer, applicant, provided further information on the parking area. The area is covered in recycled
asphalt. It goes straight to the parking area. There will be only one truck parked in the area and four
trailers. A large percentage of the business is agriculture. It fit in the agriculture area. There are semis in
the surrounding areas servicing those agriculture uses. A large percentage of the time the truck will leave
and come home days later so there will not be a large amount of truck traffic generated.
Stephen Mokray asked what was hauled in the trucks. Mr. Weimer indicated the trucks haul sugar beets,
silage, carrots and onions, liquid fertilizer and some instances magnesium chloride for county roads. Mr.
Mokray asked about a letter referencing cleaning the truck and dumping it. Mr. Weimer indicated that only
thing that has ever been laid on the property was magnesium chloride for dust. Water has been hauled
8
added in the application at the county level and State level. Mr. Gesso added that there will be some final
engineering plans that have to go to the State for approval. This is so it does not fail.
Tim Tracy moved to change the language in 2C from "will"to "may." James Rohn seconded. Motion
carried.
James Rohn moved to delete Condition of Approval 1C. Tim Tracy seconded. Motion carried.
Bryant Gimlin indicated that Condition of Approval 2B was for the applicant to attempt to address the
condition. The Planning Commission indicated no need for change.
James Rohn commented he would be afraid to add water storage due to other regulations becoming a
factor. Mr. Barker stated there is nothing that prohibits the Planning Commission from adding but it may
not be something the County should be addressing in terms of land use. It can be vacated once all the
items have been met. Mr. Gathman added that the mining operation is the principle use at hand; the
water operation will be the end use. This could limit the applicant if there was a change in the final plan.
A recreational use could be the end result. Mr. Tracy added he does not see any harm in adding it
because they have the option of changing it when the operation is finished. Mr. Gathman questioned if
there is a need to amend the permit if water storage is not the final use. It could be vacated and there is
no limit on the future use at that point. Mr. Carroll added that when the slurry wall is proposed it is added
at the beginning of the operation this way when it is finally mined the de-watering will be less.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to add in Development Standard 1 the use of water storage. Tim Tracy
seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, no; Tim Tracy,
yes. Motion carried.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1444, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of denial. This is based on 22-5-80B, health and because of the traffic. There was no
second. Motion fails.
Tim Tracy moved that Case USR-1444, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation
of approval. There was no second. Motion Fails.
The Planning Commission forwards this case with no recommendation.
APPLICANT: Weld County Building Department/Jeff Reif
CASE: Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code.
REQUEST: Amendment to Section 29-2-90 of the Weld County Code manufactured home
installation standards.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting a continuance to November 4, 2003.
The legal notification was improper.
James Rohn asked about the request to begin at 10:00am. Mr. Ogle stated that the request is for the
hearing to begin the early because there is a great deal of information to cover and it is something the
Planning Commission has not reviewed before. The final decision is up to Planning Commission but it
has a possibility of going longer than expected.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
James Rohn moved to continue Chapter 29 to November 4 beginning at the normal 1:30pm. Bruce
Fitzgerald seconded.
20
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tim
Tracy, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 7:30pm
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
21
Hello