HomeMy WebLinkAbout20082748.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
A special meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County
Conference Room, 4209 CR 24.5, Longmont, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Doug
Ochsner, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Doug Ochsner-Chair
Tom Holton
Nick Berryman
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Mark Lawley
Roy Spitzer
Also Present: Brad Mueller, Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services; Cyndy Giaugue, County
Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Commissioner Ochnser commented that there will be a couple more Planning Commissioners attending the
meeting;they are just running a little late. He added that the purpose of this meeting is to hear the update of
the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that they will hear a presentation from staff and then it will be opened
up to the public for any comments or questions.
Mr. Ochsner stated that there will be an additional meeting on the update to the Comprehensive Plan where
they will hear further public comments and then forward a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners.
Due to a lack of quorum at the time,the Chair stated that the approval of the minutes from the September 16,
2008 meeting will be placed on the October 7th agenda.
Brad Mueller, Department of Planning Services, said that what he would like to accomplish today is a
background of the Comprehensive Plan, what it is and what the need is for the update and why the County
Commissioners initiated this process. In addition, he would like to give an overview of the process that led to
the document which is before them today.
Mr. Mueller stated that there have been a number of work sessions with the Planning Commission. He added
that it is important to see why the process was initiated and what led to the many discussions that have taken
place concerning the various goals and polices of Weld County. He commented that Weld County is on the
frontier of what has been described as "Megapolitan Areas". He said that the Front Range is the only
Megapolitan that is not in the coastal area or along one of the Great Lakes. He indicated that these are areas
that are larger and expanding more than simply Metropolitan areas, but rather share characteristics of the
merging of multiple Metropolitan Areas.
(Paul Branham entered the meeting at 12:05 p.m.)
Mr. Mueller commented that they are anticipating the population to be a quarter of a million in the next couple
of years and then achieve a half-million by 2035. The timeframe that they have been looking at for the
Comprehensive Plan is about 20 years and by that time we will be close to the half-million if trends are to be
believed.
He gave a visual presentation of the projected population forecast. Mr.Mueller commented that it is important
to understand the characteristics of the population changes. One significant fact is that most of the population
increases come from other parts of Colorado or specifically other parts of the Front Range.
Mr. Mueller added that we are a very transient community with about half of the residents commuting to work
'�ammun eQr..tiw jO- l3--c2OOS 2008-2748
outside of Weld County. The visual presentation showed slides of the growth and change that is anticipated
over the next few years. Mr. Mueller commented that the effects primarily spinning from population increases
is one of the reasons why we needed to update the Comprehensive Plan.
It is also important to discuss what a Comprehensive Plan is and is not. Mr.Mueller wished to recognize that
at one level it is a vision of the future. It also attempts to reconcile and reflect community values. It also has a
practical effect of establishing a specific process and part of that process is balancing what is always the case
in land use of competing interests and demands. He added that they recognize that the plan should reflect the
conditions as they understand them today in Weld County but as they exist also in the larger region. He
added that the County Commissioners have historically had a desire to coordinate and create efficiency in the
provision of services.
Mr. Mueller added that the Comprehensive Plan is also a basis for regulation. He added that it also is the
basis for various community programs (for example weed program). In addition, it serves as a decision
making tool for both the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners specifically in land use
cases such as a request for rezoning. It also goes beyond that to recommend and provide the basis for
performing studies in parts of the County, such as the 1-76 corridor. It is also a source of information such as
the farm census data, demographics, development, etc.
Finally, using it requires that it is a long term guide for the 20 year time frame but applied in a practical way on
an on-going basis today. It is a long range foundation with short term actions that can be taken.
Mr. Mueller pointed out that one thing that is often confusing with the Comprehensive Plan is its relationship to
the Zoning Map. He explained that the Comprehensive Plan is a policy document that leads to the adoption of
regulations, such as the zoning map. However, it is not itself the form of regulation, but rather policies and
goals.
The basic structure of the Comprehensive Plan is the Goals, Policies and Recommended Strategies. The
committee and staff have attempted to ensure that the relationship between those three things is
fundamentally sound. Goals, being something that is stated as an idea for the residents of the County.
Policies, being specific ways that those goals can be achieved or which further those particular Goals. The
new Recommended Strategies are specific action points that can be taken in order to fulfill a Goal or Policy.
These are things that have been identified as good ideas that can be followed up in the future to reach closer
to goals and policies.
Mr. Mueller reminded the Planning Commission of today's goals. After this presentation, there will be an
opportunity by other staff to make some additional presentations as well as for the public to make comment.
Mr. Mueller pointed out to the public that there are some handouts and discs available on the table as they
walked in.
Mr. Mueller indicated that according to our code, there are two ways in which a Comprehensive Plan can be
amended. He stated that an individual can make an application two times a year. The second way is that the
County can initiate a change to the Comprehensive Plan. In fact the Code says that it should be taken at least
every 10 years or sooner as recommended by the Board of County Commissioners. In this particular case the
last update to the Comprehensive Plan was done in 2002. He added that there are various State and County
code requirements that require that we do have a Comprehensive Plan. He mentioned that this update is
being done on a regular basis by other jurisdictions as well.
In the fall of 2006 the County Commissioners directed staff to initiate this update to the Comprehensive Plan.
The Board of County Commissioners asked that the process take place largely independent of them. He
indicated that the County Commissioner's first exposure to the revisions will be from the recommendation of
the Planning Commission.
Mr. Mueller stated that there has been broad public input through the public open house meetings, staff
research, a dedicated website, and the hearing process.
Mr. Mueller showed the audience through his visual presentation the timeline process as well as comments
compiled from public open houses and the website.
2
Mr. Mueller explained the process of developing the Technical Advisory Committee(TAC).The group began
the process in the summer of 2007 and there was an effort to represent the community at large. This group
formed a series of sub-committees and made recommendations to the larger TAC committee.
Mr. Mueller stated that this draft of the Comprehensive Plan was mailed to 470 agencies throughout Weld
County. He indicated that many of the referral agencies have been submitting input on an ongoing basis. He
added that the referral process took place in August with comments due back by mid-September.
Mr. Mueller concluded with key changes discussed at the Planning Commission work sessions and the Public
Open Houses. He started with the first six Articles.
Article I is an overview of Weld County as a whole. There was an effort to improve the overall introduction by
stating the intent right up front as well as giving a brief synopsis of the County. All of the other demographic
data is being proposed to be moved to the Appendix where it can be updated administratively. Mr. Mueller
commented that there was a strong desire to clarify the Guiding Principles. He added that the guiding
principles are not a mission statement or vision of the County but rather a foundation of the Goals and Polices
that follow within the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Mueller stated that the mechanical aspects of Article I deal
with amending the Comprehensive Plan.
Article II speaks of various land uses and how those can be used in the County. In Agricultural there is an
attempt to shift the emphasize from Agriculture as a land or land use and rather recognize it as Industry and
as a component more specifically of the Weld County Economy. Mr. Mueller commented that Weld County is
the economically largest Agricultural producer in the United States for the exception of fruits and nuts in
California. He added that it also acknowledges range and dryland farming. It also affirms the"Right to Farm"
laws and expands the public education efforts for that.
He mentioned that another key proposal in this draft is to move toward a minimum lot size of 35 acres which
would be consistent with what is allowed by State Law. He added that this won't have a legal effect until there
is an amendment or change to the subdivision or zoning regulations.
Another key section of Article II is the effort to affirm that urban scale development be located in municipalities
and appropriate places. It also affirms and recognizes that urban scale development does utilize less land per
person and it attempts to clear up some terms that get used within the Comprehensive Plan and define certain
tools for land use planning.
(Roy Spitzer entered the meeting at 12:45 p.m.)
Mr. Mueller stated that the Plan also attempts to recognize the difference between Agriculture, Rural
Development, and Urban Development and accommodate all these different types of development patterns.
In order to do that it affirms the goal of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs)with each municipality. This
document also recognizes that an IGA may not exist in all cases. In the cases of situations where there is not
an IGA an Urban Growth Boundary is proposed of which the boundary is IA mile from sewer infrastructure that
is located within the city limits. The change in the current policy from that is a'A mile from sewer services with
recognition from the TAC that there is a fiscal reality in expanding that but it also supports the goal of
encouraging urban development in existing urban areas.
Mr. Mueller added that the draft also speaks to Industrial uses particularly emphasizing the ability for economic
development through industry and particularly recognizing the existence and potential importance of railroad
infrastructure.
Residential provided an opportunity that urban development be supported in areas where services are existing
or reasonably obtainable. It attempts to define rural development and urban development by density rather
than number of lots. This plan would not set any particular threshold for urban development but it would allow
the implementation of that through a subsequent code change.
Mr. Mueller commented that another aspect of the Comp Plan is to speak of the Regional Urbanization Areas
(RUA). One very noticeable change is the name change which is promoted to better reflect the reality of what
3
these areas are. This does more specifically acknowledge what has been practiced in the past but it does
also prioritize the infill of existing ones. It also talks about the importance of employment access for any
populations created through the RUA process.
Article III speaks to land use amenities. The changes are mainly centered around Transportation, very
specifically the recommendation for a Transportation Master Plan. It emphasizes coordination between
various jurisdictions.
Article IV deals with Environmental Resources, specifically speaking to water. This draft recommends the
recognition of water not as only something to be protected but as something to be put to beneficial use.
Article V deals with Natural Resources, more specifically Parks and Recreation, Open Space, Oil and Gas,
etc.,as well as Archeological and Historic Resources. It does encourage that Open Space efforts be taken by
priority by private individuals and if that is taking place,that there be that willing buyer/willing seller relationship.
There is also a fairly expanded area for Natural Resources into alternative Natural Resources in particular. He
added that there are new Goals and Policies that talk about a wide range of Natural Resources that should be
supported as well as a wide range of energy sources.
Article VI is a new section which addresses Economic Development. It emphasizes the support that the
County has given. It also speaks to specific steps that could be undertaken to realize some of those Goals.
The Appendix attempts to pull out those pieces of which are informational only and put them in the back and
make them available to be updated without going through a hearing process, but rather administratively.
Mr. Mueller stated that they recognize when providing government services and regulation that there are
limited dollars and that the land use decisions that are made determine what type of environment we are going
to live in. If managed effectively it can increase our quality of life which is the ultimate vision expressed by this
document.
Mr. Mueller commented that there is another hearing scheduled in Greeley October 7'"and is scheduled with
the Board of County Commissioners beginning October 27, 2008.
The Chair asked if there were any other County Departments who wished to make a presentation.
Pam Smith, Health Department, stated that she is in the Health, Communication, Education and Planning.
Ms. Smith commented that she wrote some referral comments and wanted to go through some of those to
give a better understanding of the some of the language that she proposed.
Ms. Smith stated that she will talk about the Health Impact Assessments, Workforce Housing, Infill
Development and Trails. She said that to give a better understanding of why the Health Department cares
about the built environment she had prepared a presentation. She stated that it affects children and this
generation of children is the first generation to have a shorter life span than we do.She added that some of it
is due to diabetes and also that we get isolated and kids stay home.
Ms. Smith said that the Steps Program has received a grant which was focused on asthma, diabetes and
obesity. She added that these are chronic diseases that we can do something about. The Health Department
has done a lot of work in those areas and the last area to get involved with is the built environment.
Ms. Smith gave a visual presentation on statistics based on data that the Health Department tracks.
Ms.Smith suggested that the Comp Plan language should state very clearly what the vision is that the County
has. She said that they listed some language for parks and stated that they should be visible, centrally
located, and sized to accommodate programs and activities.
Ms. Smith commented that the County had prepared a Community Health Survey in the fall of 2007 and the
top three concerns were traffic, sidewalks, and safety issues.
Ms. Smith pointed out that in Section 22-1-150 in the Comp Plan Amendment Procedure it is talked about
4
having the Health Impact Assessment done as one of the documents needed to submit for either one of those
zone changes. She stated that a Health Impact Assessment is a tool available through the Health Department
and it identifies and quantifies the health of the community. For the East Greeley Study area they collected
and analyzed existing data for the area that was concerned. They provided an overview of the possible health
impacts of the current use of the property and the results of the Health Impact Assessment could be used to
help guide and resolve concerns about infrastructure and policies and procedures that affect the property.
Ms. Smith gave examples of the concerns with the East Greeley Study area.
Ms. Smith stated that Workforce Housing is meant to be for essential service people (teachers, police,
firefighters, etc) that live in and take care of your community. She commented that she had made some
suggestions about that in her referral comments. She indicated on Page 36 of the document under Workforce
Housing, Item H there is a statement that says"Diverse housing options serve people of all income levels and
they provide some citizens the ability to live where they work. A shortage of workforce housing for entry level
or essential employees living on a fixed income may be detrimental to local employer's efforts to maintain an
adequate workforce." She suggested replacing"fixed income"with "moderate income"as a fixed income is
intended more for retired people. Moderate income would more accurately represent a broader group of the
population.
Ms. Smith commented that there is some language on Page 41 with regard to Infill Development. In Section
22-2-230 RUA Goal 1,she offered a suggestion that a Recommended Strategy be added to state"The County
participate in a cooperative public-private partnership between government, the appropriate development
community, financial institutions, non-profit organizations, neighborhood organizations and other essential
resources necessary to achieve infill development" Ms. Smith commented that we need to get the financial
institutions on board because they are the ones that loan the money for this kind of development and if they
don't think that people want it they may not loan it.
Ms. Smith pointed out Goal 8 on Page 66 which talks about trails. She indicated that there is a Weld County
Regional Trails Advisory Group that came together in April 2008. She gave a brief overview of this Group and
wished to express their support for Goal 8 of Section 22-5-40.
The Chair asked if anyone had questions for Ms. Smith. No one had any questions.
The Chair took a recess at 1:39 p.m.
The Chair called the meeting back to order at 1:50 p.m. and opened it up for public comment.
Joe Gerdom, 935 Petras, Erie CO 80516. Mr. Gerdom stated that he represents the Town of Mead. Mr.
Gerdom said that he would like to talk about windfalls and wipeouts. Windfalls are basically unexpected gains
and wipeouts are generally the people who pay for the windfalls.
Mr. Gerdom stated that based on current information that he has from the State,Weld County is primarily an
urban county. He added that 82%of the people in 2006 lived in one of our towns or cities. He hopes that the
Planning Commission will serve the interests of the community at large because it seems to him that they
have had a past where a few select individuals have gained windfalls at the expense of the general taxpayer.
He explained that when a developer can go out and take farmland and convert it to urban uses using some of
the techniques like metrodistricts, what really happens is they make a windfall, but at the expense of the
general taxpayer. He urged the Planning Commission to consider taking the Regional Urbanizing Areas out of
the plan or limit them to areas that they are in now and that only additional infill will be allowed in them.
Mr. Gerdom commented that developments outside of our communities create a tax liability to the general
taxpayer and most of those taxpayers live in towns. He added that if you look at the tax stream it points out
that the areas like Carma do not return the costs to provide services that they create and it's left to the
taxpayers. He further added that the Regional Urbanizing Areas are the prime reason why we see
inefficiencies and these kind of inequities occurring in Weld County.
Mr. Gerdom referred to the 1/6 contiguity and commented that only in Colorado there is defensive annexations
because of predatory aspects of giving windfall zoning bonuses to private property owners at the expense of
5
communities. He added that defensive annexations have produced some ungainly situations for some of the
communities. He said that if you apply the 1/6 contiguity to the RUAs it is not going to slow down the
expansion of them. He further stated that 1/6 contiguity can be overcome in a number of ways. If there is
going to be serious limitations on RUAs 1/6 contiguity is not a very sound or practical limitation.
In summary, he emphasized the fact that he has been in Colorado and has seen a number of changes. We
cannot hope to have Chey-Springs as a realistic application in Colorado. He indicated that Chey-Springs is
the mythical town that exists between Cheyenne and Colorado Springs and was first discussed in the 1960s.
He commented that staff referred to it as the Front Range Megtropolis. Mr.Gerdom stated that we don't have
the water to support all that. He added that if we go out and support disconnect development throughout Weld
County then we will see our resources so diversified and will not see the synergy that comes about by allowing
development to take place in our existing communities.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting as there was no one else from the public who wished to
speak.
The Chair asked any members of the TAC committee for their comments.
Stan Everitt, Chairman of the TAC, expressed appreciation of the staff as well as the committee members.
He added that they have had many long meetings in which there was very cordial and constructive dialogue
between the members. He commented that to a large degree the plan shows that there has been a lot of
thought put into it. He has read the referral comments and finds that they are good comments. Mr. Everitt
stated that he is very pleased with the process and the outcome of the plan.
Commissioner Spitzer asked about the 1/6 contiguity limitation that Mr.Gerdom referred to and where does it
fit into the RUA. Mr. Everitt said that the 1/6 contiguity is a mechanism that the State requires any town that
wants to annex to ensure that it has 1/6 connection. He further elaborated that this property has to have 1/6
connection to an existing boundary of the town in order for an annexation to occur. He added that the TAC felt
that was an appropriate mechanism as RUAs expanded so they weren't skipping.
Commissioner Spitzer asked if the calculation mechanism was stated in the plan. Mr. Everitt said that it is not
included but that they rather assumed that the 1/6 contiguity was understood. He added that maybe from
some of the public's standpoint it isn't understood; however it is understood from a municipal standpoint as
they deal with that frequently. Mr. Everitt added that when dealing with rural areas in close proximity to
municipalities then the 1/6 contiguity has no meaning and stated that we may need to be a little more
expressive about that.
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services, clarified that it is stated in Section 22-1-150 in the
amendment procedure of the RUA on Page 15.
Commissioner Spitzer expressed that he didn't get the idea that predatory annexation was triggered by the
development of the County as much as it was triggered by sales taxes that might be available. He asked if
that was only his perception. Mr. Everitt said that it is clear that the annexations in Weld County that have kind
of exaggerated the extension of these towns is typically toward transportation corridors where there is greater
opportunity for sales tax or even higher property taxes.
Mr. Everitt stated that in the Urban Development Section there are some discussion items on IGAs so that the
County and Urban centers would have more communication about these subjects. He added that some of the
suggestions of the IGA was to rather than to reach out to be predatory or defensive maybe there should be
some logic to that such as if there are services that will be provided and how and when. He further added that
they tried to recognize the impacts on the unincorporated areas of the County when there is aggressive
annexation that takes place.
The Chair asked the Planning Commissioners if they had any questions or comments.
Commissioner Grand indicated that he had a question on Page 17,Section 22-2-30.B,specifically the added
language. He asked if that conflicts with their support of private property rights. Mr.Mueller expressed that he
doesn't believe it does and added that one of the ideas that exist in the current Comprehensive Plan is this
6
more obsolete idea that large contiguous pieces of land are required to practice modern farming. Some of the
feedback they received stated that isn't necessarily the case as there are small successful farms. Mr.Mueller
said that it is being proposed to be taken out of the current draft as an actual policy and rather put into this a
more descriptive narrative and provide some context for the fact that the modern day farm does typically
require some economies of scale but it may not always be in the form that people characterize in the past.
Commissioner Grand pointed out Page 23, Section 22-2-70.E brings up the question he brought up before
about existing sub quality road conditions. He has no problem with new development paying their
proportionate share, but how do we address the difference between the actual cost and that proportionate
share. Mr. Mueller replied that it is a good example of where implementation comes into play. It is through the
implementation of the transportation impact fee and through the fair share contributions for any given specific
development. He pointed out the paragraph which was added to the Transportation Section on Page 48 Item
B as a result of one of our discussions at a previous worksession.
Mr. Grand referred to Item B on Page 48 and asked if maintenance was included in the "funding of
transportation infrastructure". Mr. Mueller said that it could and could be stated more specifically. Mr.Grand
suggested amending the first sentence to include "funding of transportation infrastructure and ongoing
maintenance expense.
Commissioner Grand referred to Page 26, Policy 2.4 it says to inform property owners"within and near the
areas discussed..." and asked if we would want to quantify that such as 100 feet, 500 feet, or 1 mile. Mr.
Mueller replied that he would advise against it because this is a laundry list of things that would be brought to a
discussion of any specific IGA and then at that point he would think it would be important to specify that. Mr.
Grand commented that his concern is referred to the last meeting where there was a substantial amount of
time spent on an issue that was%mile away from the site that was under discussion. Mr. Mueller stated that
if you feel that it is important to specify it, it certainly can be added in there. It is just a general philosophy to
give some parameters to things that should be in IGAs. Commissioner Ochsner said that different
applications require different notification. In this example, this is IGAs and doesn't think that you would
necessarily need to go out very far; however when it comes to policy or actual applications then he believes
that it needs to go a little bit further. Mr.Ochsner stated that each section would vary and it may be confusing
to put numbers into the Comp Plan.
Commissioner Grand referred to Page 44, Goal 6.1.b and raised the issue again of maintenance. He asked
what piece should we be looking for with reference to the additional funding—the gap between their share and
the total cost of the project. Mr. Mueller commented that he has flagged that and may have some language to
introduce to that.
Mr. Grand had the same question on Page 46, Section 22-3-30 again with the funding mechanism with the
additional activity in terms of development, oil and gas production and heavy farming. He asked how the
Sheriff's Department looks to adequately provide officers to minimize the speeding issues that we have
constantly. Mr. Mueller commented that it would probably fall somewhere under Goal 2. There is a Policy 2.5
which talks about a mechanism for funding facilities but staff could work up some language that would include
your question.
Mr.Grand pointed out a similar issue on Page 47,#6 where fire protection should be provided 24 hours a day.
He suggested including something in the Plan which supports communities providing adequate funding for
fire protection services.
Mr. Grand brought up on Page 49, Section 22-3-140.A.1.a that he didn't understand the striving to reduce
vehicle miles traveled. Mr. Mueller stated that this is included in a list of items that maybe should be looked at
as part of the Transportation Master Plan.
Mr. Grand referred to Page 57, Section 22-4-100 Policy 1.3 and would like to include"government"to the list.
Mr. Grand noted Page 70, Goal 5, Policy 5.5 and asked if we are adding an area of expertise to County Staff
in terms of evaluating applications for mining. Mr. Mueller replied that we do have an area of expertise
through the Public Works Department. He added that it is not an expertise in mining but rather in flood hazard
regulations and geo-tech hazards.
7
Mr. Grand pointed out Page 71, Section 22-5-100, Policy 1.3 and referred to Amendment 58 as proposed by
the Governor which would eliminate the tax credit for the local portion. He asked if we could include
something that says"ensure tax revenues are properly affixed,collected and distributed with the interests of
the local community at heart". Mr. Mueller understood his point and will work on that issue.
Mr. Grand noted Page 72, Section 22-5-100, Policy 2.4 and asked that with the drilling skills today it's not
saying that they cannot drill more; they just can't make their window bigger. Mr. Mueller stated that he was
correct.
Mr. Grand referred to Page 79, Policy 2.5 and emphasized that the County is bigger than Greeley. He
commented that he has had this discussion with Larry Burkhardt, President of Upstate Colorado and he
wanted to reinforce the fact that it is the entire County and not necessarily the major population centers.
The Chair thanked Commission Grand for his comments and asked if anyone else had any other questions or
comments.
Commissioner Ehrlich asked when Larimer County revisited their Comprehensive Plan. It was indicated that it
has been several years. Mr. Ehrlich asked if staff could send him Larimer County's Transportation Section.
He indicated that in their referral they mentioned that they didn't have any conflicts or concerns but would like
see how their transportation package mirrors what Weld County's is.
The Chair stated that the next step is to have staff review the comments given today and bring it back to the
next hearing on October 7t" in Greeley.
Mr. Mueller commented that staff will take these comments and put them in where appropriate. He noted that
the TAO has another meeting on Wednesday night, October 1, 2008 and staff will send another draft to the
Planning Commission members including any changes by the end of the week.
Commissioner Grand wished to express his appreciation to the staff and the TAO for all of their hard work.
Meeting adjourned at 2:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Y `gates
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
8
Hello