HomeMy WebLinkAbout20033214.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, November 4, 2003
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2003, in the Weld County
Public Health/Planning Building, (Room 210), 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was
called to order by Chair, Michael Miller , at 1:30p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin Absent
James Rohn Absent
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray . -,
Bruce Fitzgerald --
Tim Tracy Absent in PM
Doug Ochsner
Also Present: Char Davis, Don Carroll,Jacqueline Hatch, Michelle Katyryniuk,Monica Mika,Pam Smith,Sheri
Lockman
The following Case will be continued:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1447
APPLICANT: Becky& Herschel Holloway
PLANNER: Michelle Katyryniuk
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2820; part of the NE4 Section 8, T4N, R64W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for Oil and Gas
Support and Service (Hauling of Water) and Semi-Trailers and Cargo
Containers Situated as Permanent Storage Units in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 48 and west of CR 53.
Michelle Katyryniuk, Department of Planning services,read a letter requesting a continuance to December 2,
2003. The referral agencies have had in adequate time for comment.
The following Cases will be heard:
APPLICANT: Weld County Planning Department
PLANNER: Monica Mika
CASE: Evans IGA
Stephen Mokray excused himself due to a conflict,
Monica Mika, Department of Planning Services, provided information with regard to the coordinated
agreements history with the various municipalities. Ms. Mika identified different maps with regard to Evans.
The maps provide location for the flood plain, annexations and the growth boundary as well as the zoning.
The proposed IGA boundary was indicated as the west boundary being 95th Ave, south is CR 46,east is CR
45 and the northern boundary is delineated between an agreement with the City of Evans and the City of
Greeley. The two areas where development is being proposed is to the east of existing boundary to CR 45,
west to 95th Ave and south of the river. There are areas identified as flood prone areas. There is a section
that is both flood way and flood plain. The flood plain is utilized for water management. Staff is requesting
there be a delineation of those areas on the map. There is a map that indicates what has been annexed into
the City of Evans in the last few years. There are criteria that the County staff will be looking at for review.
The Department is recommending approval of the IGA however,some areas need to be discussed. The area
of the flood plain and flood way is of concern. The Evans Comprehensive Plan talks about preservation to the
flood plain which is consistent with the County. Evans calls out recreational opportunities. Another area of
C5 1
//-.l4-tarn 2003-3214
concern is the primary growth area and the urban growth boundary. There needs to be some clarification with
regard to the long range growth area. Staff questions the length of time involved in this agreement. Public
notification was made by Evans when they were making the proposed changes in their Comprehensive Plan.
Weld County Planning staff sent out notifications to the most current individuals. Notification went to property
owners in the expanded growth area. The original IGA boundary owners were not notified since they are
already within the boundary. Planning staff has some questions with the ability of Evans to develop urban
scale developments. Some primary and secondary trunk lines for sewer proposed in the area but there are no
timing elements.
There are three criteria for developing the Urban Growth Boundary. These can be found in Section 22-2-100.
Staff feels as these criteria, one through five, have been met with this IGA. The Department of Planning
Services recommends approval with three conditions:
1. There needs to be discussion and additional information pertaining to the long term growth area,
solidify what meant by long term area.
2. The areas defined by FEMA will be delineated as limited or restricted building areas.
3. The final criteria is if there is an existing agricultural use it has the right to expand. The concern is the
high intensity agricultural use and the compatibility. There are some concerns with a high intensity
agricultural use, such as Swift, being compatible or incorporated into an urban area. The
recommendation is the owner provide some indication they want to be included.
John Folsom asked about the flood plain and was it established by hydraulic/engineered studies. Ms. Mika
stated there have been specific studies done in some areas and others just have the general information.
Elizabeth Relford, Evans Planner, provided additional information and background on the modifications of the
original agreement. The City of Evans would like the agreement to continue and the amendments will come
forward but the agreement will not expire. The City has been growing and this instigated the growth boundary
becoming larger and amending the Comprehensive Plan.Evans has shown an 18%growth rate in the last few
years. Evans staff has tried to come up with a reasonable plan and focus on quality of life issue. Evans is
surrounded with the river on the south side, Greeley to the north, LaSalle to the east and Milliken to the west.
The Comprehensive Plan has taken on a new focus with the river being the focal point and the development
happening around it. Evans planners are trying to be more pro active and visionary than reactionary. That is
how the long term areas were born. There was a priority growth area which is reflected in the existing
boundary. The long term growth area has issues with existing agricultural uses and intensive uses and being
in flood plain area. There is really not much area that is realistically develop able for the long term growth
area. There are a lot of extenuating circumstances. All the information may not be available as to how the
area will develop. Based on what Evans has and can present they are identifying these areas as part of the
IGA for the Urban Growth Boundary. There is no time line identified in the Comprehensive Plan for the long
term growth because this issue was at the end of the process. There was no way of knowing what the uses
are going to be or how long it will take to build out. There may be some opportunities for mining,open space,
parks and recreation and agriculture in the flood plain. This would coincide with the Weld County Code. The
City of Evans does not have specific plans for the area. Timing elements will depend on several factors,some
being municipal services and developments within the area. The developer must pay the cost for the
improvements. There are several agreements the City of Evans has in place or is working on with regard to
water and growth areas.
The City of Evans and the Board of County Commissioners met previously and some of the issues presented
today were never discussed. There may be a possibility that some issues will have to be discussed through
the elected officials. E vans has n o issue with identifying the flood ways o n the maps. T he intensive
agricultural uses do not seem to be a factor since there is a dairy in the city limits already. There is no reason
to preclude the feedlot from the growth boundary. If the feedlot develops then fine but if it does not then fine
also.
Tim Tracy asked about the Comprehensive Plan and if there was a right to farm provision. Ms. Relford
indicated that it has been adopted.
Doug Ochsner asked where the current sewer facility was and the distance to the proposed long term growth
area was. Ms. Relford stated it was three miles.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about time frame of the Comprehensive Plan being 20 years. Ms. Relford stated that
was a generic period but the plan will be revised nearly every five years. The plan used the figures based on a
2
20 year growth idea.
John Folsom asked the present UGB and rather it has zoning or the Comprehensive Plan has identified those
parcels. Ms. Relford stated that there was a zoning map but the long term parcels was not identified.
Michael Miller asked for clarification on the IGA. Ms. Mika stated the IGA is a tool for governments to
coordinate urban development. The Board of County Commissioners established default areas for urban
development based on 1/2 mile sanitary sewer lines. The Board of County Commissioners stated those were
the areas in Weld County where urban development should happen. If the defined areas do not meet the
vision of the community then IGA's should be entered into to look at the developments in the growth area. It
does not mean someone is immediately being annexed into a community it does mean that if development
happens in the area, and it is at an urban scale then the city will agree to provide urban services. Non urban
scale development and historical agricultural uses could continue to happen and not have annexations.
John Folsom asked about the unilateral annexation of land,the land owner has to voluntarily petition the city to
be annexed except in the case of enclave. Ms. Mike indicated that was correct.
Monica Mika entered into the record additional information. The official City of Evans Zoning District Map,
notification was sent to Swift(Monfort)and analysis of the flood plain/way shows there is 4397 acres of flood
plain of which 1153 acres are flood way.
John Folsom asked if there has been any discussion with the City of Milliken with regard to their attitude
toward increasing the UGB to their boundary. Is this a pre-emptive move. Ms.Mika stated that the agreement
between Milliken and the county has expired. Milliken has been notified and asked to provide the most current
municipal boundary or UGB. There has been nothing submitted. The IGA with expiration dates have
continued in spirit until they can be modified. Mr. Folsom indicated the auto renew language was not part of
Evans IGA. Mr. Barker added this is the new language that is being considered in all of the IGA.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Zack Allely, Dos Rios Subdivision unplatted portion, has three objections. The scope is unreasonable, the
expansion is 13-14 square miles which is more than 8000 acres. The total UGB for Evans is 17000 acres in
area.This is five times the total acreage of Evans in 2002. There has been a growth rate for individuals but it
is more important to focus on the growth rate in terms of acreage. There has been a steady increase of acres
in annexations but the amount of development has not increased. Evans has annexed enough land presently
to meet the growth needs for the next 10-20 years. This proposal tampers with established community
identity. The residents in the UGB identify with several cities in the area. The solution is not to approve the
growth boundary but ask the current land owners what they think. Why is Swift being asked if they approve of
their placement in the UGB but the remainder of the residents do not have a voice?The process and proposal
fails to respect the rights of current owners. Evans has indicated they care about property owners,they have
stated they will not annex unless the owner wants to. This UGB essentially commits those properties to the
City of Evans. The residents were not sufficiently notified for the inclusion into the boundary. Many owners
were surprised they were in already in an IGA. The present land owners were not consulted or notified. They
have to gain permission or at the very least approval from Evans before they can do anything to their property.
Those same owners have no voting power in the City of Evans. Through this process the County has given
the first right of refusal to Evans. The solution is not to expand the boundary but to ask the current residents
what they think and to develop UGB that respect their wishes. A survey was sent to every land owner in the
proposed boundary by the concerned neighbors and to date fifty percent have been received back. When the
survey is complete the information will be shared either with the Planning Commission or the Board of County
Commissioners. This procedure is more appropriate. There are questions that need to be addressed. 1)
Why is Swift getting the chance to voice an opinion on rather they want to be excluded? 2)Is the current IGA
enforced? Is there any protection in the current or proposed IGA for the property owners with regards to what
kinds of development can occur? What are the assurances? 3)Will they be allowed to develop in the flood
plain? 4)Will these be addressed in the agreement and will they be enforced? and who? 5)Will the County
step up and go to court to fight this agreement? 6)Who do the citizens complain to?The property owners
should be asked what they want. Mr. Allely would like a recommendation of denial based on the three
objections.
John Folsom stated the projections that were used were from 1996-2000 and if numbers were available from
2000 on. Ms. Relford mentioned a figure of 16%growth rate. Mr.Allely indicated his information came from
3
the City of Evans and he did not receive additional information. He would be happy to recalculate his figures
with more current data. Mr. Allely added that the information provided by Evans was a growth rate in
population not a growth rate in acreage.
Michael Miller commented that Swift is not being offered a chance to opt out of the area. The County is asking
that the area under the SUP be exempted because of the incompatibility with any other type of use. Mr.Alley
asked if his land which has a special use for wildlife preservation falls under the same category. Mr. Miller
indicated the issue is not opting out of the agreement, the issue is compatibility with adjacent uses. Wildlife
preservation and feedlot are very different uses. Mr. Allely commented that the SUP permit for the feedlot
use has expired.
Monica Mika commented that without property evidence there is a concern about making the statement that
Use by Special Reviews with timing elements are no longer valid.
Michael Miller asked what is the detriment of being in the IGA. Mr. Allely stated the power of government is
being used to preclude other cities from a nnexing t he a rea. T his makes i t m ore difficult for a djacent
municipalities to annex the ground. All the owners are saying is to ask them first. Mr. Miller indicated that
realistically the Town of LaSalle nor the Town of Milliken can provide services for the area and at this point the
City of Evans cannot either. The IGA is stating if development is proposed in the area the county will consult
with Evans because Evans views that as a potential growth area. Mr.Allely commented it is tampering with
the community identity of the people.
Bruce Barker added clarification that this agreement does not preclude any other municipality form annexing a
parcel within the UGB area. If Milliken chooses to annex an area within the boundary they would need to
speak with Evans directly,there is nothing in this agreement that addresses this. This agreement is different it
does not require annexation prior to development of property.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked for clarification with regard to the LaSalle area and the boundary. LaSalle came to the
County and indicated what they wanted and the area they will provide for. Mr. Barker indicated that was
correct.
John Folsom asked for clarification with regard to having to go to Evans because of development. Mr.Barker
indicated this agreement does not require the approval from Evans.
Danny Gibbs, neighbor to Evans,stated he felt that there should have been a public meeting and there should
be a meeting to let the owners express their issues. Mr. Gibbs does not want to go to several agencies if he
chooses to develop the property. Mr. Miller stated that if the development was urban scale urban services
would need to be provided and those would have to be provided by the municipality. The area is opposed to
this agreement.
Pat Brady, Dos Rios, indicated concern with the previous IGA and there was no notification from the County or
Evans. The involvement of property owners is encouraged.
Monica Mika stated the process for public notification for the first IGA was a series of community meetings
between the elected officials and the original property owners. There was not individual notification sent but
the property owners were notified of the open houses. The intent of this meeting is to let individuals have a
chance for input. Notice was placed in the paper and possibly some sign posting for the first IGA.
Orlando Maestas, Evans, reiterated the previous issues. Thank you to the Planning Commission for the only
notification that was received. The issue is the development in the area and there being no notification. The
owners just want to be informed.
Glenn Warning, Evans farmer, indicated that Evans came to them with the idea of the bridge on CR 35 over a
year ago. This change is for the better and if there is a better use for the land then that would be fine. There
will be gains for the community as a whole from the better use. Changes could be exciting.
Peggy Campbell, Evans, Indian Hills,did not receive any notification. The influence of all the homes will have
a large impact on the sewer and schools. The area will be changed due to the influx of homes. There is no
reason for the owners to not be in on the planning when the planning is so vague. There is a historically ranch
in the area.
4
Michael Miller explained there is no concrete plan for area because no one knows what will happen. This
agreement is to coordinate what might happen so that all are talking to each other.
Hugh Arnold, Dos Rios,commented that they would have to deal with Evans for land use changes. This may
have been erroneous. The residents hope they can come back to Weld County if there are any questions or
concerns. Mr. Arnold would like to stay with the county.
Rob Reeve, property owner,questioned the ability of tying his two properties together especially when one is in
LaSalle as commercial and the other in Evans as agriculture,separated by CR 35. It was mentioned that an
owner could opt out and have another entity annex them. Mr. Barker stated that through the LaSalle
agreement they will not annex beyond the area indicated. If LaSalle wants to annex beyond the agreed upon
boundary they would need to let the County know. If the County objects then the IGA could be terminated.
Milliken does not have an agreement with the County and neither does Greeley. If LaSalle voided the IGA
agreement and wanted to annex a portion of what Evans recognized they would need to go to Evans and the
County has no voice.
Cindy Turner, neighbor,commented that this agreement is premature. This boundary creates a presumption.
Milliken should be at the table since they are involved as well as LaSalle. Milliken proposed development
along river. The residents would like to get the towns together to come to an agreement between all.
Martha Richmond,Arrowhead, indicated that the homeowner has right to know who has the final say on their
land.
Robert Luther, neighbor, indicated his concern with road on 35th Avenue. Who determines what the property
is worth. Mr. Barker stated that if the roadway is to going through the municipality decided through
condemnation.The condemnation process included the municipality having to make a good faith effort to offer
a sufficient amount for the ground prior to proceeding. This will need to be proved to the court. The court, if it
went to condemnation, has the power to make this occur. A fair value is determined by a set of
commissioners appointed by the court based on a series of appraisals.
The Chair closed the public portion.
Monica Mika clarified that there is resolution between Evans and Greeley as to where each can provide urban
services. There is also a flood study for the City of Evans. There was a discussion with Cindy Etcheverry,
Weld County Public Health,to determine rather the health permits involving Monfort were null and void. The
permit was orginated in 1969. Ms. Etcheverry was unable to comment at the time on the question.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked for clarification with regard to the IGA areas and the agreements that Evans has
between them and Greeley. Ms. Mika identified the IGA areas accepted by the County, Milliken, LaSalle,
Evans and Greeley. The IGA indicates that the municipalities can provide urban services to the specific areas.
Elizabeth Relford added that Evans has an IGA with the adjoining communities. The surrounding jurisdictions
were made aware of the update of the Comprehensive Plan. They participated in the committee for the new
Comprehensive Plan update. This boundary was a result of the community input. The boundary has been
modified based on Milliken comments. There has been communication between the municipalities. There
was notification to the individuals within the growth area when the Comprehensive Plan was being reviewed.
Individual letters were sent as well as flyers and postings in the newspaper containing the information on open
houses. The boundary with LaSalle is based on the agreement with them. Evans is willing to come to the
table and address issues on a case by case basis. There is some confusion with regard to being in a city
according to the mailing address. Postal routes are decided by the post office and do not have anything to do
with the annexation or association with a municipality.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked for clarification with regard to Milliken agreement. Ms. Relford indicated that there is
an IGA with LaSalle, the Milliken agreement is still being worked on, and Greeley is a Memorandum of
Understanding. The IGA is a form similar to the County IGA.
Doug Ochsner asked if Evans wanted to annex outside the IGA is possible. Ms. Relford stated it does not
follow the intent of the IGA. Mr. Barker stated there is language in the agreement addressing annexation out of
the IGA area and it will not be done. The property owners are involved and affected by the bridge at 35 were
5
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 years 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
for pre treatment of a county road. The excess water has been dumped but that has been it.
John Folsom asked if there was to be one tractor and four trailers. Mr. Folsom asked if it would be
agreeable to change the Development Standards to one tractor and five trailers. Mr. Weimer indicated
that would be fine.
Michael Miller asked about letters referring to operating on holidays and trucks idling. The Development
Standards call for Monday thru Friday 6:00am to 6:00pm and would that be a problem. Mr. Weimer
indicated that he agrees to not operate on holidays and idle trucks to be a bother to the neighbors. Mr.
Weimer would like to reserve the right to haul water into the property on possibly a Saturday for personal
use.
Doug Ochsner asked if there were plans to become larger. Mr. Weimer indicated that they have started to
sell equipment and he plans to stay as owner operator.
Chair opened the public portion of the meeting.
Jesse Banock, neighbor, indicated his concerns with holiday working. Who will enforce the regulations?
The issue is the working on the weekends and disrupting the lifestyle of the neighbors. The extra truck
traffic is not wanted. The road is not graded well now. The request for the magnesium chloride is great
but does not benefit the entire length of the road. The hours of operation will not happen. The question is
whom do the neighbors call when the violations are broken? The question is how many violations does it
take and what time does the Weimers have to comply. If they are broken what is the time frame for
revocations?
Michael Miller indicated that the entire burden of the magnesium chloride couldn't be placed on one single
individual. The concerns of hours of operation have been addressed in the Development Standards;
those will be amended to reference holidays. Mr. Miller added that if there is a violation the Planning office
is contacted and the compliance officer will get the information needed. There is an enforcement process
and those violations will be addressed. Mr. Morrison added that there is no set number for violations; it
depends on the severity of the violation. There is an initial letter sent and then a thirty-day process before
going to the commissioners. That is a two-step process, first being probable cause then two weeks
before the revocation can be considered. The result is for better compliance. Mr. Miller added that there
can be some limitations that can be done but in the agricultural zone there are some noises that must be
dealt with.
Jesse Bancok added that since he has been there there have been issues that continually occur. There
are safety concerns with the kids in the area; added truck traffic is not needed. It has affected the lifestyle
for the last year and half.
Laurel Brayback, neighbor, indicated her concerns with the change of zone from agricultural to industrial.
Considering that change the notification area should have been larger. The landscaping will address the
immediate neighbors. The noise, dust and truck traffic is of great concern. There will be more potential
hazards to the neighborhood. There is no justification for this proposal due to the fact surrounding owners
use semi trucks.
Dean Makelroy, neighbor, indicated his concerns with the notification. The Weimers should have
contacted the surrounding neighbors with the idea. The dust in the area has been tremendous. The
roads are in poor shape. With there being only one truck that will not be much of a problem. Will other
trucks be allowed if business increases? Dust and potential increases need to be addressed.
Michael Miller commented that the dust is a tough one anywhere. The understanding is the truck leaves
the residence does the work off site and returns. Any additions or modifications will require a change to
the proposal. The case is taken individually and the impacts are evaluated at the time. The only thing that
the Planning Commission can consider is the application at hand.
Chair closes the public portion
Mark Weimer, applicant, indicated that he apologized to Mr. Makelroy for lack of notification. Mr. Weimer
is willing to attempt to not come home loaded due to the impact it causes on the road. Mr. Weimer is
9
willing to use an alternate route a majority of the time to try and lessen the effect on the neighbors. He
does not want to be limited to this due to some unforeseen issue. This would affect only one home. Mr.
Miller indicated that this would make the attempt at being a good neighbor more successful. Mr. Weimer
asked if there were an instance of a friend coming and parking in the area, would that be a violation. Mr.
Miller indicated that an occasional use would not be a violation.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked Mr. Carroll about the road maintenance. Mr. Carroll indicated that there is a
rotation system. If the road is not holding up with the traffic the neighbors need to call Public Works and
fill out a complaint form for regarding grading.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the uses by right on the property and what was allowed. Ms. Hatch asked
for clarification on the number of trucks and trailers. Mr. Miller indicated that it would be one truck and five
trailers. Ms. Hatch indicated that the one truck is allowed the trailers are the question. This USR may be
a mout point if there is only one truck being applied for. Mr. Fitzgerald commented that if there was one
truck there could be no regulations on the project. Ms. Hatch indicated that was correct.
John Folsom stated that the requirement for a USR in the agricultural zone is if there is a commercial
operation. A commercial business could not be operated. Mr. Miller indicated that the question is rather
he is operating on site or bringing his truck home and parking it. Mr. Morrison added that staff has
addressed the bringing of work home at night. The uses are standing alone and are not part of an
ongoing agricultural operation. There could be more intensive truck traffic from an agricultural operation
without needing a USR. The other issue is the latitude allowed when someone goes home from work.
Ms. Hatch indicated that one trailer is allowed and since five are proposed a USR is required.
Jacqueline Hatch indicated the Department of Planning Services would like to delete Development
Standard#11 and add the Development Standards from the Department of Public Health referral dated
June 6, 2003 and renumber, delete H and amend B to remove the first sentence and add to the second
sentence "the septic system serving the house shall be reviewed..."
John Folsom moved to accept the changes suggested above. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried
John Folsom moved to amend Development Standard#4 to change the number of company trucks to one
and the number of trailers to five. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried
John Folsom moved to amend Development Standard#3 be amended to state that no operation shall
take place on holidays. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case USR-1432, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards 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; Tim Tracy, yes; Doug
Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1028
APPLICANT: Victor& Martiel Vonfeldt
PLANNER: Michelle Katyryniuk
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-706; part SW4 Section 12, T6N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
Use Permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use by
Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial zone districts,
(indoor storage for recreational vehicles and a construction
company) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 47; north of and adjacent to CR 70.
Michelle Katyryniuk, Department of Planning Services presented Case AmUSR-1028, 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
10
Victor VonFeldt, applicant, indicated that he was available for questions.
Michael Miller asked what type of buildings would be constructed. Mr. Vonfelt indicated they would be the
same type of structure already on the property, the only difference is the roof will be flat. Everything will be
stored inside there will be nothing outside. The plan is when the RVs are removed from the stalls the cars
are placed in the stalls until the client returns. Mr. Miller asked if the spaces would be heated or lighted.
Mr. Vonfelt indicated it would have basic lights and no heat with dirt floor. They are totally enclosed with a
door per compartment. There will be no dumps or fuel storage.
Doug Ochsner asked if the neighbors have been spoken too. Mr. Vonfelt indicated that the neighbors are
happy with this. There seems to be no one upset.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case AmUSR-1028, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. John Folsom 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: SCH-24
APPLICANT: Olando LLC c/o Tammy Ellerman & Ed Orr
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE-2016; being part of the SE4 of Section 16, T6N, R64W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Review of a Previously Denied Application for Land Use (Change of Zone PZ-
547), and request for a Substantial Change Determination.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Hwy 392 and 1/2 mile east of CR 53.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case SCH-24. Ms Lockman stated that
Change of Zone Z-547 was denied by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners on May 16, 2001.
This proceeding is not to rehear the original change of zone but rather to determine if the applicant has
met the criteria established to verify if a substantial change has occurred in order to reapply.
Pursuant to Chapter 2,Article II, Section 2-3-10 of the Weld County Code, the Commissioners shall
consider the applicant's request for a Hearing of Substantial Change and whether within the concept of a
new application, the facts and circumstances are substantially changed from the initial application:
Criteria 1. -- Has the land-use application substantially changed? (e.g., substantial changes in lot
size or density, in internal or external roads, or, in the case of a rezoning, in the uses proposed)
Criteria 2. — Have the surrounding land-uses substantially changed ? (e.g., has the adjacent land
use changed during the period of time since the last application such that what would be
compatible with the adjacent use has changed)
Criteria 3.— Have applicable provisions of the law substantially changed? (e.g., the applicant is
proposing using a different procedure so a different set of criteria apply or the applicable
ordinance has been amended by the Board so the criteria have substantially changed)
Criteria 4. —Within the concept of rehearing the previously denied application, is there newly
discovered evidence that the applicant could not have discovered with diligent effort at the time of
the original application ?
The Department of Planning Services has determined that the submitted information does meet the intent
of a substantial change per criteria 1 and 3.
11
Criteria 1. Is that the land-use application substantially changed?
The original application indicated that the Homeowner's association would be able to lease water from the
applicant for irrigation of the lots and open space. The Board of County Commissioners included in the
reasons for denial the fact that their did not appear to be adequate provisions made for the irrigation and
maintenance of the common open space. The new proposal does not include open space. Staff does
believe that this is a substantial change from the original application and does directly address one of the
reasons for denial.
Criteria 3. States "Have applicable provisions of the law substantially changed? (Is the applicant proposing
using a different procedure so a different set of criteria apply or the applicable ordinance has been
amended by the Board so the criteria have substantially changed)"
The original application was for a Planned Unit Development. The new proposal is for a Minor Subdivision.
Although the applications are similar they do follow a different set of criteria.
John Folsom asked for clarification on the criteria. Ms. Lockman indicated they only need to meet one of
the four criteria. Staff believes they have met two of the four. Mr. Folsom asked about criteria number
four regarding newly discovered evidence. Ms. Lockman indicated that the applicant is not attempting to
meet criteria number four.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the process if this application is approved. Ms. Lockman indicated that if
this application is approved the applicant can resubmit the application. The are asking the Board of
County Commissioners to skip the Sketch Plan process and move directly onto the Change of Zone.
Then the process continues as if the denial did not occur. Mr. Fitzgerald asked about the number of
public forums. Ms. Lockman indicated that there were 5 public forums remaining.
Michael Miller indicated his concern with consistency. There was a substantial change recently heard by
the Planning Commission that change in lot sizes was determined to be a substantial change. Ms.
Lockman indicated that in that case a commissioner had used lot sizes in his reason for denial. This case
was reviewed and Commissioners indicated issues with the water. Mr. Miller indicated the lots were
substantial in size and still need to be irrigated. Ms. Lockman indicated that there has been subdivisions
approved with similar lot sizes that did not have the irrigation water. Planning staff would appreciate the
water. Mr. Miller indicated that if it is not irrigated it would not make much sense.
John Folsom indicated that the application does not include open space. Ms. Lockman confirmed that it
does not and this comes directly from a Board of County Commissioners concern regarding the open
space and the watering of it. A Minor Subdivision does not have a requirement for open space.
Anne Best Johnson, representative for the applicant, provided additional information with regard to the
project. The applicant has indicated that two of the four criteria for substantial change have been met.
Those criteria are: the land use application has substantially changed and the applicable provisions of the
law have substantially changed. The first criteria with regard to the land use application has been met due
to the previous application being a PUD with six estate lots and one agricultural lot. The open space was
15 acres. This application is proposing a minor subdivision, the lots range in size from 5 acres to 15
acres. The internal road has been moved east. The Board of County Commissioners moved to deny the
original request based on access onto the State Hwy. The applicant has worked with CDOT to assure this
has been addressed. The domestic water has been addressed through North Weld County Water District.
The applicant will be placing two fire hydrants on site for fire protection. Previous testimony indicated that
this was prime farmground. The applicant has indicated that the water associated with the property is not
adequate to support productive agricultural activities. The applicant has reached agreements with some
Oil and Gas Companies. The future applications will include all the agreements reached. Compatibility
has increased due to the large estate lots being proposed and the possible buffering to the adjacent
landowners. These issues will be addressed in the covenants that will be submitted at a future application
date. There will be individual septic systems designed and installed to specifications. There are additional
requirements for the minor subdivision process with regard to landscaping, covenants and more. The
second criteria is regarding applicable provisions of the law. This application is proposing a minor
subdivision rather than a PUD. This is clearly a change in procedure which follows a different set of
criteria.
12
Chair open for public comment.
Julie Boyl, neighbor, voiced objection to the project. Ms Boyl noted concern from the Sheriff Department
that there are not adequate resources to absorb any extra demand.
Brad Tucker, neighbor, questioned the process. Mr Tucker indicated he is a surrounding property owner
but did not receive notification and was told about the hearing by a neighbor.
Dale Delk, neighbor, is concerned with the lot sizes and water. Mr. Delk indicated the place has not been
irrigated for the last two years. Water would be placed on the property if there were any. Mr. Delk
opposes the development.
Chair closed public portion
John Folsom commented he feels as though the two criteria staff has indicated have been met.
John Folsom moved to approve. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded.
John Folsom moved that Case SC H-24, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards 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.
Meeting adjourned at 5:30 pm
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
13
Hello