HomeMy WebLinkAbout20213182.tiffSUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, November 2, 2021
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Administration
Building, Hearing Room, 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado. This meeting was called to order by Chair,
Elijah Hatch, at 12:30 pm.
Roll Call.
Present: Tom Cope, Lonnie Ford, Elijah Hatch, Skip Holland, Sam Gluck, Butch White, Michael Wailes,
Michael Palizzi.
Absent: Pamela Edens.
Also Present: Chris Gathman, Maxwell Nader, Jim Flesher, and Tom Parko, Department of Planning
Services; Lauren Light, Department of Environmental Health; Bob Choate, County Attorney, and Michelle
Wall, Secretary.
Motion: Approve the October 5, 2021 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by Tom Cope,
Seconded by Lonnie Ford. Motion passed unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR21-0014
APPLICANT: VICTORIA AND SHAWN MCCUNE
PLANNER: CHRIS GATHMAN
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR ONE (1) SECOND SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING PER LEGAL LOT
IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 5, BLOCK 1 OF NELSON SUBDIVISION; BEING PART OF THE SE4
SECTION 24, T1 N, R66W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO APPALOOSA AVENUE, APPROXIMATELY 250
FEET NORTH OF NELSON STREET AND APPROXIMATELY 450 FEET WEST
OF CR 37.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, presented Case USR21-0014, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application
along with conditions of approval and development standards.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Victoria and Shawn McCune, 2346 Appaloosa Avenue, Brighton, Colorado. Ms. McCune said that they are
requesting to build a second home on their property for her in-laws to live in. She said that a neighbor built
a second home within the last five years and it was a successful project for them. Ms. McCune said they
have a well permit to drill the second well.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Commissioner Cope asked how the applicant plans to close one of the horse -shoe drives and add a second
entrance. Mr. McCune answered that one of the entrances would be closed off. On the north side of the
existing home there would be an entrance for the second home. Ms. McCune explained that the previous
owners had a horse run, and that is where they plan to have the second drive. Mr. Cope asked if the
applicants planned to match the drive that was on the opposite side of the road. Ms. McCune answered
yes.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR21-0014 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval,
Moved by Michael Wailes, Seconded by Butch White.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8).
CoMMun:GoLl-:o/15
2021-3182
Yes: Butch White, Elijah Hatch, Lonnie Ford, Michael Palizzi, Michael Wailes, Sam Gluck, Skip Holland,
Tom Cope.
CASE NUMBER: USR21-0015
APPLICANT: STACY DITTER
PLANNER: MAXWELL NADER
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR OIL AND GAS SUPPORT AND SERVICE (TRUCK PARKING)
OUTSIDE OF SUBDIVISIONS AND HISTORIC TOWNSITES IN THE A
(AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 2 OF RECORDED EXEMPTION RE -32; BEING PART OF THE NW4 OF
SECTION 16, T6N, R64W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: EAST OF AND ADJECENT TO CR 53; APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET SOUTH OF
CR 70.
Maxwell Nader, Planning Services, presented Case USR21-0015, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Staff received a letter of support this morning from one of the surrounding
property owners. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application along
with conditions of approval and development standards.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Kelsey Bruxvoort, Agprofessionals, 3050 67th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. Ms. Bruxvoort said she is
representing Stacy and Kerri Ditter and Ditter Trucking & Oil Field Services. She said Ditter Trucking & Oil
Field Services is a cargo and freight company serving the oil and gas industry. Ms. Bruxvoort stated that
approximately three-quarters of an acre will be used for truck parking. Stacy and Kerri live on site and grow
crops and raise livestock. Ms. Bruxvoort explained the area used for the truck parking is split from the rest
of the property by the Eaton Ditch. She said there are currently eight trucks and one trailer with the
opportunity to expand up to fourteen trucks. There are no onsite employees. The employees come on the
site to pick up and drop off the vehicles. Ms. Bruxvoort feels that this request meets the seven requirements
for an approval of a USR, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, is consistent with the intent of
Agricultural Zone District, is compatible with existing and future development, and the applicant has met
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. She asked for a recommendation of approval.
Commissioner Cope asked if they have an agreement with the neighbor to use the access. Ms. Bruxvoort
said they are currently working on an access permit.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR21-0015 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval,
Moved by Butch White, Seconded by Michael Wailes.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8).
Yes: Butch White, Elijah Hatch, Lonnie Ford, Michael Palizzi, Michael Wailes, Sam Gluck, Skip Holland,
Tom Cope.
CASE NUMBER: ORDINANCE 2021-16
PRESENTED BY: TOM PARKO/JIM FLESHER
REQUEST: IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND REENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS,
CHAPTER 23 ZONING, OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE (SIGN CODE UPDATE).
Jim Flesher, Planning Services, provided a brief description of proposed changes since the prior meeting
held on October 5, 2021.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Todd Messenger, 1801 California Street, Suite 2600, Denver, Colorado. Mr. Messenger said he was
representing Street Media Group. He said he has 21 years of experience in writing signs. Mr. Messenger
presented his suggestions for the Weld County Planning Commission which included freedom of speech
on signs, sign area, sign size, sign readability, sign height and setbacks.
Commissioner Ford asked Mr. Messenger if the sign codes along 1-25 are Federal, State or County
regulated. Mr. Messenger said if the sign is located in unincorporated Weld County, Weld County has
control over the size. There is a federal mandate that the State have a state implementation of the Federal
Highway Beautification Act. The State has some permitting responsibilities along the highway corridors.
Mr. Messenger said the County is who has the final say of the size of the sign.
Commissioner Holland commented that when he returned to this Country when Interstates first started
happening, he was shocked by the size of the signs. His perspective is that people seem to use their
cellphones now to find a business location rather than looking at signs. Mr. Messenger responded that
there is a concept in retail called "drive by" where a person drives by a particular site and the site interests
them. In this case, Mr. Messenger thinks signage is important for picking up that business. He also said
people look for signs to know they are at the correct location.
Commissioner Gluck mentioned that he appreciates a larger sign with a bigger font because it is easier to
read. He asked Mr. Messenger if he has met with the Planning staff to discuss his suggestions. Mr.
Messenger said they have not had the chance to have a discussion, but they have exchanged their
comments back and forth. Mr. Flesher said that they had a Teams Meeting in September that Mr.
Messenger attended.
Commissioner Gluck pointed out that some buildings have multiple businesses. If the sign can only be a
certain percentage, he thinks each business should be able to have their own sign.
The Chair reference the pictures of some signs from Mr. Messenger's presentation. He asked Mr. Flesher
if the signs are within 660 feet from an existing highway, are the signs out of compliance. Mr. Flesher
responded that if the property is in unincorporated Weld County and is within 660 feet from a CDOT road,
the sign would have to comply with Weld County and CDOT regulations.
Commissioner Palizzi asked staff why they decided that 150 feet was the maximum size for a sign in the
commercial zones. Mr. Flesher said the current sign code was updated in 2006 and has a 150 square foot
limit for freestanding signs in C and I zones. He is not certain why that size was established. Tom Parko,
Planning Services, said hundreds of businesses have been permitted since 2006 and does not recall any
push back from the businesses regarding sign code. Mr. Parko said if the staff received a lot of complaints,
they would address those issues. Mr. Parko pointed out that sign size is based on compatibility; for
example, if a small business is located in an agricultural zone, neighbors may not want a big sign in their
neighborhood.
Commissioner Ford asked Mr. Messenger if he would be happy if staff would agree to increase sign size
for industrial/commercial businesses. Mr. Messenger replied yes, especially along 1-25, U.S. 34, and for
other commercial businesses.
Commissioner Gluck asked if there is an existing sign that is not compliant but was done prior to 2006, is it
grandfathered in. Mr. Flesher responded that if the sign was permitted and met all the requirements at the
time it was constructed, then it would be.
Commissioner Wailes asked if a sign that grandfathered was destroyed, would the replacement sign have
to meet current code. Mr. Flesher said if the sign was damaged more than 50 percent, the new sign would
have to meet current regulations.
Commissioner Cope said he does not like a lot of signs. He is concerned if we allow signs to be double the
size it will cause a visual impact. Mr. Cope said that the proposed code states that an electronic message
display shall be flush to the wall when there needs to be room behind it to allow for ventilation.
Mr. Palizzi feels that commercial signs, such as restaurant signs, along the highway should be allowed to
be larger than 150 feet. He doesn't feel that commercial businesses should be handicapped by that
regulation. The Chair pointed out that most of the time restaurant signs are located within a municipality
rather than within unincorporated Weld County.
Commissioner Ford referenced Commissioner Gluck's comment about multiple businesses being in one
building. He asked staff if there are options for each business to have their own decent -size sign. Mr.
Flesher explained that a sign can be no more than 10 percent of the area of the wall up to 150 square feet
total, as currently written. He said that the owner of the building would need to split the limited size between
the number of tenants so they could each have their own sign.
Motion: Amend Section 23-4-80.D. read as "No more than fifty (50) percent of the area of allowed signage
on a wall may consist of an ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY, and the SIGN shall be parallel to the wall
and within one (1) foot distance from the wall. Moved by Tom Cope. The motion failed due to lack of
second motion.
Commissioner Wailes stated that he likes to have some flexibility in there where the performance and
maintenance of the sign is not compromised.
Bob Choate, County Attorney, stated that Mr. Messenger sent him an email that you could rely on the
manufacturer's specifications to have a minimum distance.
Motion: Amend Section 23-4-80.D. read as "No more than fifty (50) percent of the area of allowed signage
on a wall may consist of an ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY, and the SIGN shall be parallel to the wall
and within the tolerance of the manufacturer's recommendation for the distance from the wall." Moved by
Tom Cope, Seconded by Michael Wailes. Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Ford referred to Section 23-4-90.A.1.a and said that he thinks 150 square feet is a number
we don't want to put in there because if there are multiple tenants you may not want to limit that to the size
but to the percentage of the size of the building.
Motion: Amend Section 23-4-90.A.1.a. read as "SIGNS on BUILDINGS shall be limited to no more than
ten percent (10%) of the area of the wall to which it is attached (measured as a two -dimension projection)."
Moved by Lonnie Ford, Seconded by Michael Wailes.
After some discussion regarding the possibility of a 600 -square foot sign on a 6,000 -square foot wall,
Commissioner Ford and Commissioner Wailes withdrew the motion.
Mr. Flesher referred to the statement "...up to a maximum of one hundred fifty (150) square feet total on
any given wall" and suggested changing it to "...150 square feet total for any individual sign".
Motion: Amend Section 23-4-90.A.1.a to read "SIGNS on BUILDINGS shall be limited to no more than ten
(10%) of the area of the wall to which it is attached (measured as a two -dimension projection), up to a
maximum of one hundred fifty (150) square feet per individual SIGN, with no limit on the number of such
signs." Moved by Lonnie Ford, Seconded by Sam Gluck. Motion passed unanimously.
Motion: Forward Ordinance 2021-16 to the Board of County Commissioners including changes
recommended by Staff, Moved by Tom Cope, Seconded by Bruce White.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8).
Yes: Butch White, Elijah Hatch, Lonnie Ford, Michael Palizzi, Michael Wailes, Sam Gluck, Skip Holland,
Tom Cope.
The Chair asked the public if there were other items of business that they would like to discuss.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
Meeting adjourned at 2:43 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Wat-
Michelle Wall
Secretary
Hello