HomeMy WebLinkAbout20212913.tiffSUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, October 5, 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 12:33 pm.
Roll Call.
Present: Tom Cope, Lonnie Ford, Elijah Hatch, Skip Holland, Sam Gluck, Butch White, Michael Wailes,
Pamela Edens.
Absent: Michael Palizzi.
Also Present: Michael Hall, Angela Snyder, Maxwell Nader, Jim Flesher, and Tom Parko, Department of
Planning Services; Lauren Light, Department of Health; Bob Choate, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem,
Secretary.
Motion: Approve the September 7, 2021 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by Tom
Cope, Seconded by Butch White. Motion passed unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR21-0011
APPLICANT: ROBERT BORUM
PLANNER: MICHAEL HALL
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR A HOME BUSINESS (MACHINE SHOP) OUTSIDE OF
SUBDIVISIONS AND HISTORIC TOWNSITES IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL)
ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PART OF THE N2SW4SW4 SECTION 21, T1 N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD
COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 17; APPROXIMATELY 0.2 MILES NORTH OF
CR 6.
Tom Cope recused himself from this case as the company he works for has worked on this project
Michael Hall, Planning Services, presented Case USR21-0011, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Mr. Hall noted that no written correspondence or telephone calls were received
from surrounding property owners regarding this application. 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.
Bryan Borum, 11561 River Run Parkway, Henderson, Colorado, stated that the machine shop has been in
existence since 2005. They were located in unincorporated Adams County and the building they were
operating in sold so they had to relocate to a property in Arvada that is one-third the size. In September
2019 they purchased this property with the hopes of operating this business. The business is a short run
production and prototype type machine shop. He added that they do plastics, metals, sawing, milling,
grinding, lathe turning and other fabrication activities. Mr. Borum said that there is not a lot of traffic in or
out of the site.
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 USR21-0011 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 Sam Gluck.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
CoMMVf:Co.1-;onS
lo/o/21
1
aoa I -.P:913
Yes: Butch White, Elijah Hatch, Lonnie Ford, Michael Wailes, Pamela Edens, Sam Gluck, Skip Holland.
Absent: Tom Cope.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOCATION:
COZ21-0003
HIGHPOINT OPERATING CORPORATION, C/O JSB INTERESTS, LLLP
MAXWELL NADER
CHANGE OF ZONE FROM THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT TO THE
C-3 (BUSINESS COMMERCIAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LOT C REC EXEMPT RECX13-0066; PART SE4 SECTION 15, T6N, R66W OF
THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 33; APPROXIMATELY 35 FEET NORTH OF
STATE HWY 392.
Max Nader, Planning Services, presented Case COZ21-0003, reading the recommendation and comments
into the record. Ms. Nader said that the existing USR on the property will be vacated upon approval of the
Change of Zone. Mr. Nader noted that no correspondence or phone calls were received from surrounding
property owners regarding this application. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval
of this application along with conditions of approval.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements.
Andy Gerk, 3780 West 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado, stated that the user will be Baessler Homes, which
is a homebuilder. Baessler Homes has been in existence since 1968. He added that all of their
development and building operations are located in Weld County and would like to make this site their
corporate office.
Commissioner Wailes recalled hearing the USR case by Bill Barrett for the oil and gas support facility and
said that one of the concerns was having trucks go through that intersection. Ms. Nader said that CDOT
reviewed the current application and added that they did not have any comments.
Commissioner Cope asked if they plan to store any materials or will it be strictly administrative. Mr. Gerk
stated that they do not anticipate any storage and added that they have been working with county staff to
ensure that what is permissible under the current zoning is what they will operate with.
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 Conditions of Approval and if they are in
agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Motion: Forward Case COZ21-0003 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, Moved by Tom Cope, Seconded
by Lonnie Ford.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8).
Yes: Butch White, Elijah Hatch, Lonnie Ford, Michael Wailes, Pamela Edens, Sam Gluck, Skip Holland,
Tom Cope.
CASE NUMBER: USR21-0012
APPLICANT: CAMILA LOPEZ AND YOEMNI MARRERO
PLANNER: MAXWELL NADER
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR SIX (6) SEMI -TRAILERS OUTSIDE OF SUBDIVISIONS AND
HISTORIC TOWNSITES IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT A REC EXEMPT RE -1841; PART NE4 SECTION 7, T1N, R65W OF THE
6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 12; APPROXIMATELY 0.50 MILES EAST
OF CR 37.
Max Nader, Planning Services, presented Case USR21-0012, reading the recommendation and comments
into the record. Mr. Nader noted that one anonymous complaint was received with concerns that there was
2
a business on site and there is more than just parking of semi -trailers. However, upon site inspection there
was one (1) commercial vehicle present on site, but this is allowed as an accessory use according to the
Weld County Code in the agricultural zone district. Mr. Nader stated that there were no signs of a business
being operated on site. 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. Ms. Light noted that Development Standard 10 addresses
noise; however, that item can be deleted because this is just for storage.
Camilla Lopez, 18514 CR 12, Ft. Lupton, stated that they have had these trailers on another property.
Since they have moved to this site, they thought there is enough room to place the trailers there to store
personal items, furniture, personal equipment.
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 Staff if there were any changes to the Resolution. Ms. Light recommended deleting
Development Standard 10.
Motion: Delete Development Standard 10 and renumber accordingly, Moved by Tom Cope, Seconded
by Butch White. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended 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 USR21-0012 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the amended
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 Wailes, Pamela Edens, Sam Gluck, Skip Holland,
Tom Cope.
CASE NUMBER:
PRESENTED BY:
REQUEST:
ORDINANCE 2021-15
TOM PARKO/ANGELA SNYDER
IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND REENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS,
CHAPTER 23 ZONING AND CHAPTER 24 SUBDIVISIONS, OF THE WELD
COUNTY CODE (BULK REQUIREMENTS AND PUBLIC WATER).
Tom Parko, Planning Services, presented Ordinance 2021-15 regarding proposed changes in the Weld
County Code. Angela Snyder, Planning Services, provided a brief description of the proposed changes in
building/lot coverage and allowing poultry in the R-5 Zone District in Chapter 23. Additionally, she provided
information on the proposed code changes regarding public water in Chapters 23 and 24.
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 Ford asked if there will be any problems with the 40% coverage on lots less than 6000
square feet or 10% coverage for larger lots. Ms. Snyder said that that staff looked at existing historic
townsites and other areas of the County and tried to come up with a number that would work for most lots.
She noted that there was one (1) lot in Carr that they found exceeded the limit; however, that property is
permitted under a USR (Use by Special Review)
Ms. Snyder noted that they have a change to the building coverage definition in Section 23-1-90 that is
currently proposed as "BUILDING COVERAGE: The combined square footage of all STRUCTURES,
excluding fences divided by the total square footage of the LOT". She said that because it can be confusing
and could be interpreted to mean the bottom of the structure would be counted instead of the actual
coverage and things, such as gazebos or other structures that do affect drainage might come into question
3
if they don't actually have a footprint. Therefore, Ms. Snyder recommends changing the proposed definition
to read "BUIDING COVERAGE: The percentage of a LOT covered by STRUCTURES, excluding fences".
Commissioner Wailes referred to water storage tanks that are mushroom shaped and doesn't know if they
are on county property and asked how that works. Ms. Snyder said that most of those are located on
agricultural zoned property which they don't regulate coverage.
Commissioner Holland asked if this is referring to the area of impervious surface or the structure area. Ms.
Snyder said in the agricultural subdivisions and townsites and in the estate zone, staff is proposing to use
building coverage definition, which would mean the structures only. She added that other zones include
impervious surfaces.
Commissioner Edens asked what would be considered in the PUD ag zoned properties. Ms. Snyder said
that there are very few PUD ag properties. Mr. Parko said that usually the PUDs have ag uses but they will
typically be Estate, R-1 or Commercial. Mr. Snyder added that when designing the PUD, lot coverage can
be negotiated and incorporated into the stormwater management plan.
Motion: Forward Ordinance 2021-15 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Planning
Commission's recommendation of approval along with Staffs change to Section 23-1-90 "BUILDING
COVERAGE: The percentage of a LOT covered by STRUCTURES, excluding fences", 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 Wailes, Pamela Edens, Sam Gluck, Skip Holland,
Tom Cope.
CASE NUMBER:
PRESENTED BY:
REQUEST:
ORDINANCE 2021-16
TOM PARKO/JIM FLESHER
IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND REENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS,
CHAPTER 23 ZONING, OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE (SIGN CODE UPDATE).
Tom Parko, Planning Services, presented Ordinance 2021-16, regarding proposed changes to the Weld
County Code. Jim Flesher, Planning Services, provided a brief description of the proposed changes to the
sign code in Chapter 23. Mr. Flesher noted the proposed changes were sent out to sign companies. He
added that comments were received regarding suggestions to incorporate into the draft resolution and are
included in the packets.
Commissioner Wailes referred to Mr. Messenger's comments included in the packet, specifically regarding
the examples he gave on properties that may be separated from a highway via frontage roads or on -ramps
and that the height limitations could cause visibility issues for people who are traveling on the freeway and
being able to see the sign at that distance and height. Mr. Wailes said that he doesn't know the municipal
boundaries in relationship to the freeways where these overpasses or rises in the highway would occur.
He asked if there is any place in the county that it could be an issue. He further referred to Highway 119
and I-25 where if you are traveling on the interstate and there is a frontage road between the freeway and
the property who has the sign, the limitations on the sign height you can't see the sign from the freeway.
Mr. Flesher said that there is mixture of municipalities and Weld County in that area. He added that he
doesn't know what the height difference is and added that he isn't sure the highway is much taller than 25
feet.
Commissioner Hatch asked if that situation arises and if they are looking for some sort of variance if they
can still apply for a USR. Mr. Flesher said that they would have to submit a variance application to the
Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Parko said that when staff was reviewing the sign code, they were looking at it from a safety standpoint.
He appreciates the comments from Mr. Messenger, but the few billboard signs that are in unincorporated
Weld County in the Del Camino area are still 150 square feet in size and quite visible off the interstate.
Commissioner Wailes asked what the municipalities are doing. He further asked if they have a zone that
they put around those interchanges to allow taller signs. Mr. Parko said he isn't sure about the
municipalities. He added that the County still has the 1:1 setback so for every 1 foot of tower height there
4
is 1 foot of setback. Mr. Flesher added that he has looked at several other sign codes and many of them
are stricter than Weld County. He also said that most counties are stricter and added that it can be tough
to compare.
Mr. Flesher said that the current code has a 25 -foot height limit for Commercial and Industrial zones for
freestanding signs and we are proposing to keep that. He added that it is lower and smaller for billboards
because we are no longer differentiating between billboards and all the other signs anymore.
Commissioner Cope referred to the comments regarding the automatic shut off and that it is not commonly
used. He asked if this was addressed and included in the proposed changes. Mr. Flesher replied yes and
added that after those comments were received, they did include them in the proposed changes.
Commissioner Holland said that he appreciates the work that has been done; however, he feels that he is
drinking out of the fire hose. He asked what is pushing this and asked why we don't take more time to
review it. Mr. Parko said that we are not under a strict deadline and if it is important to spend more time to
review this, we can come back at the next Planning Commission hearing. He added that staff has had a
work session with the County Commissioners and we also reached out to the sign companies and held a
stakeholder meeting to capture as many comments as we could. Mr. Holland said that the County
Commissioners have asked the Planning Commission on several occasions to be careful what they are
passing forward and added that he would expect the Planning Commission to read the comments received.
Commissioner Edens asked why there is not a permit process for lit signs, even if it is powered by solar.
Mr. Parko said that if there is electric to a sign, it does require an electrical permit and often times the signs
are included with a land use process such as a Site Plan Review or USR so staff felt like having a separate
permit for a sign is a little bit overkill when it can be included in the land use application. Mr. Flesher said
that if a sign requires a building permit then staff would review it to make sure the size is in conformance.
He added that banners do not require a building 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.
Commissioner White stated that he would like to postpone this item out of respect for the other
Commissioners who may still have some questions on this, and it will give them some more time to review
it.
Motion: Continue Ordinance 2021-16, Moved by Butch White, Seconded by Skip Holland.
Mr. Parko referred to the three -reading process by the County Commissioners and said that instead of
postponing to the next Planning Commission hearing, we could have first reading with the Board of County
Commissioners and then come back to Planning Commission prior to the second reading and that will give
the Planning Commission some time to review it. He added that during the November lunch we could also
talk about any concerns the Planning Commission may have and forward those along at the County
Commissioner's second reading.
The Chair asked Bob Choate, County Attorney, if that is acceptable with the current motion. Mr. Choate
said that because there was no date included with the motion, we would consider that motion as an
indefinite continuance and we would have to readvertise. Therefore, he recommended amending the
motion on the table to continue the matter until the November 2nd Planning Commission Hearing. Mr.
Flesher said that at the first reading of the Board of County Commissioners there would not be a
recommendation from the Planning Commission, and staff would let them know that the recommendation
would be forwarded at the second reading.
Motion: Amend the motion to continue Ordinance 2021-16 to the November 2, 2021 Planning Commission
hearing, Moved by Butch White, Seconded by Skip Holland. Motion carried 7-1, with Commissioner
Wailes casting the no vote.
The Chair called for the vote for the main motion of continuing Ordinance 2021-16 to the November 2, 2021
Planning Commission hearing.
5
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 7, No = 1, Abstain = 0).
Yes: Butch White, Elijah Hatch, Lonnie Ford, Pamela Edens, Sam Gluck, Skip Holland, Tom Cope.
No: Michael Wailes.
The Chair asked the public if there were other items of business that they would like to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss. Tom Parko,
Planning Services, presented the 2022 Planning Commission hearing dates. He added that we will
continue meeting the 1st Tuesday of every month.
Meeting adjourned at 2:07 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
6
Hello