HomeMy WebLinkAbout20082992.tiff RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
NOVEMBER 10, 2008
The Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, met in regular session in full conformity
with the laws of the State of Colorado at the regular place of meeting in the Weld County Centennial
Center, Greeley, Colorado, November 10, 2008, at the hour of 9:00 a.m.
ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by the Chair and on roll call the following members were
present, constituting a quorum of the members thereof:
Commissioner William H. Jerke, Chair
Commissioner Robert D. Masden, Pro-Tem - EXCUSED
Commissioner William F. Garcia
Commissioner David E. Long
Commissioner Douglas Rademacher
Also present:
County Attorney, Bruce T. Barker
Acting Clerk to the Board, Elizabeth Strong
Director of Finance and Administration, Donald D. Warden
MINUTES: Commissioner Long moved to approve the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners
meeting of November 5, 2008, as printed. Commissioner Garcia seconded the motion, and it carried
unanimously.
CERTIFICATION OF HEARINGS: Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve the Certification of
Hearings conducted on November 5, 2008, as follows: 1) PF#1048-Weld 45 Acre, LLC; and 2)AmUSR
#1614 - SemCrude, LP. Commissioner Long seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA: There were no amendments to the agenda.
PUBLIC INPUT: No public input was given.
CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve the Consent Agenda as printed.
Commissioner Garcia seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
COMMISSIONER COORDINATOR REPORTS: There were no Commissioner Coordinator Reports.
BIDS:
PRESENT CUSTODIAL SERVICES FOR DOWNTOWN BUILDINGS BID - DEPARTMENT OF
BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS: Monica Mika, Director of the Department of Administration, stated the bid
will be presented for approval on November 24, 2008, and seven vendors submitted bids. Chair Jerke
stated the documentation does not include the total amounts and he wishes to see a column with the total
amounts in the future.
2008-2992
BC0016
OLD BUSINESS:
CONSIDER PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES-GOLDEN ALUMINUM, INC.(CON'T
FROM 11/3/2008): Christopher Woodruff,Assessor,stated staff was able to discover several things while
evaluating this petition. Mr. Woodruff stated the petition was received based on a financial appraisal the
company undertook in August, 2006, to obtain additional financing. He stated the four types of value
generated by this appraisal were all due to forced or orderly liquidation values, as if the lender would have
to take back the property and liquidate the assets due to nonpayment, and this is not consistent with
property tax values. He stated the petitioner is requesting over one million dollars of reduction in value for
tax years 2006 and 2007. He further stated that through discussions with representatives of the petitioner,
staff has realized the list of equipment the County has is not the same as the list the petitioner is providing.
Mr. Woodruff stated the Assessor's Office utilizes the personal property declaration schedules the
company files each year to determine the values, and the appraisal proposes a different list of values. He
stated no adjustment is warranted at this time, based on the appraisal. He further stated staff will perform
another physical inspection and appraisal in early 2009. Mr. Woodruff stated if the Board denies the
petition today, the petitioner will have the opportunity to appeal before the Board of Assessment Appeals
and would later come before the Board of Equalization if it is deemed an adjustment is necessary. He
stated it will take some time to work through the matter since there is a lot of value without documentation.
No representative of Golden Aluminum, Inc. was present. In response to Commissioner Rademacher,
Mr. Woodruff reiterated the County's list matches the personal property form previously submitted by the
petitioner; however, it does not match the appraisal. In response to Don Warden, Director of Finance and
Administration, Mr. Woodruff stated the Board of County Commissioners would function as the Board of
Equalization during the Board of Assessment Appeals hearing, in the same way as the Board of County
Commissioners serves as the Board of Equalization during the summer. Commissioner Garcia moved to
deny said abatement, based on staff's recommendation. Seconded by Commissioner Long, the motion
carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
CONSIDER APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR WELD COUNTY YOUTH
CONSERVATION CORPS, AMERICORPS PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZE ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL:
Judy Griego, Director of Human Services, stated this is a grant application for an amount of$189,000.00
each year,for a three year period,to support 15 Member Service Year members in the continued operation
of the Weld County Youth Conservation Corps AmeriCorps Program. Ms. Griego stated the three year
period will commence October 5, 2009, through October 4, 2012, and the Program provides valuable
community service projects that meet both environmental and human needs, in urban and rural
communities. In response to Chair Jerke, Ms. Griego stated the FTE count is one, and a crew leader from
Americorp will work with this Program. Further responding to Commissioner Jerke, Ms. Griego stated the
youth are involved on a voluntary basis and may be rewarded with college tuition funding. In response to
Chair Jerke, Ms. Griego stated the 15 individuals do not each receive $12,000.00, the money will also be
used towards purchasing the items required for the projects. Commissioner Rademacher moved to
approve said application and authorize Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Garcia, the motion
carried unanimously.
CONSIDER RESCINDING RESOLUTION #2008-2685, DATED OCTOBER 8, 2008, AND APPROVE
REVISED LIMITED AMENDMENT FOR TASK ORDER #3 FOR TUBERCULOSIS PROGRAM AND
AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN: Dr. Mark Wallace, Director of the Department of Public Health and
Environment, stated this limited amendment is being revised due to a mathematical error on the part of
the State. Dr. Wallace stated the Department would have awarded an additional $4,457.00; however, the
correction of the math error brings the amount down to $557.00. He stated the additional funds will be
used for the Tuberculosis Program for tuberculosis treatments,and although the Program is supplemented
with Weld County funds, the additional funds are helpful for purchasing medication. Commissioner Long
moved to rescind Resolution #2008-2685, approve revised limited amendment for Task Order #3 for
Minutes, November 10, 2008 2008-2992
Page 2 BC0016
Tuberculosis Program, and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Rademacher, the
motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF CR 88 BETWEEN CRS 43 AND 45: Janet Carter, Department
of Public Works, stated the closure will commence November 17, 2008, through November 21, 2008, to
replace an 18 inch irrigation culvert with a larger one. Ms. Carter stated one mile of the detour will utilize
a water truck for dust abatement. She stated the average daily traffic count for this road is 97 vehicles.
She further stated road signs and barricades will be placed to advise drivers of the closure; however, no
message boards will be used. Commissioner Long moved to approve said temporary closure. Seconded
by Commissioner Rademacher, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF INTERSECTION OF CRS 40 AND 25: Ms. Carter stated the
closure will commence November 17, 2008, through November 21, 2008, to replace a rusty irrigation
culvert pipe. She stated there are two miles of gravel roadway on the detour route, which will be treated
with magnesium chloride for dust abatement. She further stated the average daily traffic count for this
route is 198 vehicles. Ms. Carter stated standard roads signs and barricades will be posted to advise
drivers of the closure; however, no message boards will be used. In response to Chair Jerke, Ms. Carter
stated portions of the detour route are paved. Further responding to Chair Jerke, Ms. Carter stated the
reason staff elected not to utilize message boards is due to the short nature of the closure and the local
residents have been notified of the closure. Commissioner Long moved to approve said temporary
closure. Seconded by Commissioner Garcia, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER ACCEPTANCE OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF ALIGNMENT OPTIONS FROM WELD/ADAMS
COUNTY LINE CROSSROADS ALIGNMENT STUDY TO BE USED BY WELD COUNTY FOR FUTURE
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING: Wayne Howard, Department of Public Works, stated staff conducted
a public presentation of the recommended alignment options from the Weld/Adams County Crossroads
Alignment Study two weeks ago, and at that time the Board asked staff to review the alternative routes for
Tucson Street, since a preferred alternative route was not identified for it. Mr. Howard stated it will cost
between one and two million dollars, per development site, to remedy the situation; therefore, the
Department stands by its recommendation of not adopting an alternative alignment route for Tucson
Street. He stated Adams County has expressed it does not believe Tucson Street will be a major route
for it, and it is not a major route for Weld County. Chair Jerke stated he appreciates the research staff
conducted and he also researched the alternative routes and determined the alternative routes would be
too costly to adopt. Commissioner Rademacher moved to accept the recommendations of the alignment
options from the Weld/Adams County line Crossroads Alignment Study. Seconded by Commissioner
Long, the motion carried unanimously.
FINAL READING OF WELD COUNTY CODE ORDINANCE#2008-14, IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING
AND REENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 2 ADMINISTRATION, CHAPTER 3 HUMAN
RESOURCES, AND CHAPTER 17 PUBLIC PLACES, OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE: Commissioner
Rademacher moved to read the Ordinance by title only. Seconded by Commissioner Garcia, the motion
carried unanimously. Bruce Barker, County Attorney, read Ordinance#2008-14 into the record and stated
there are no changes to be presented for final reading. Mr. Barker reviewed the changes made to
Ordinance #2008-14 on first reading. There was no public testimony. Commissioner Garcia moved to
approve Ordinance #2008-14 on final reading. Seconded by Commissioner Rademacher, the motion
carried unanimously.
FINAL READING OF WELD COUNTY CODE ORDINANCE#2008-15, IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING
AND REENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 14 HEALTH AND ANIMALS, OF THE WELD
COUNTY CODE: Commissioner Long moved to read the Ordinance by title only. Seconded by
Commissioner Garcia, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Barker read Ordinance #2008-15 into the
Minutes, November 10, 2008 2008-2992
Page 3 BC0016
record and stated there is a change proposed for this reading. He stated the change is proposed to make
the renewal process simpler and similar to the liquor license renewal process, and if the Board approves
the new change, Items C and D will be added to Section 14-7-160. He further stated the proposed change
will only require a renewal application to be processed in the same way as a new application under two
circumstances, which are, if the applicant has had a violation in the last 12 months or if there are
substantial changes reported in the applicant's operations. Mr. Barker stated this process will be easier
for staff and the companies working under these regulations. Chair Jerke stated on Page 5, Item C needs
to read "to submit", the word "to"was omitted due to a typographical error. Paul Ferguson, Metro Waste
Water, stated he is concerned regarding the potential of biosolids permits, which have not renewed for a
period of 12 months, being considered abandoned. Mr. Ferguson stated this proposed change will force
his company to permit all of its sites every year, and he wants to permit sites only as needed. In response
to Chair Jerke, Mr. Jiricek stated a three year permit was originally proposed; however, the language was
amended. Mr. Jiricek stated the language was amended in an effort to simplify the process. He stated
the Department generally issues approximately 140 of these permits per year. Mr. Ferguson stated he
submitted a letter with some alternative suggestions for the permit renewal process. He stated it will make
things difficult for him if he does not renew a permit each year, for each site, if it is considered
abandonment. He further stated the new rule is as restrictive as the old rule. Tim Larson, LWM, stated
Item D will make the circumstances as cumbersome as the previous permitting process. Mr. Larson stated
due to hail, drought, and various other circumstances, he does not permit all of the company's sites every
year. Mr. Barker stated Item D is not necessary and may be eliminated, since Item C covers staff's needs.
Commissioner Long moved to delete Item D from Ordinance #2008-15. Commissioner Rademacher
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve
Ordinance #2008-15, as amended, on final reading. Seconded by Commissioner Garcia, the motion
carried unanimously.
PLANNING:
CONSIDER PARTIAL CANCELLATION AND RELEASE OF COLLATERAL FOR SPR#399-JOHN AND
EULALIE LAURIDSON/EULALIE LAURIDSON TRUST, C/O TOM LAURIDSON (CON'T FROM
11/03/2008): Brad Mueller, Director of the Department of Planning Services, stated this item was
previously continued because it was unclear whether the collateral check was under the business or a
personal name. Mr. Mueller stated the business is filing bankruptcy; however, it has been confirmed that
the original collateral check was issued from a personal bank account. He stated the replacement check,
in the amount of$14,678.40, was also issued from a personal bank account. Responding to Chair Jerke,
Commissioner Rademacher stated his concerns have been satisfied and he moved to approve said partial
cancellation and release of collateral. Seconded by Commissioner Garcia, the motion carried
unanimously.
SECOND READING OF WELD COUNTY CODE ORDINANCE #2008-13, IN THE MATTER OF
REPEALING AND REENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 22 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, OF
THE WELD COUNTY CODE: Commissioner Rademacher moved to read by title only. Commissioner
Garcia seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Barker read the Ordinance into the record.
Chair Jerke stated the Comprehensive Plan was presented at the first reading of Ordinance#2008-13,and
recommended staff begin with the proposed amendments. Brad Mueller, Department of Planning
Services, reviewed the process the Comprehensive Plan has followed thus far for attendees who may not
have attended the first reading, including gaining public input through various sources, the formation of
the Technical Advisory Committee(TAC),staff research, Planning Commission contributions,and a formal
hearing and referral process. Mr. Mueller reiterated the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan, which are
to serve as the roadmap to the future of Weld County; to state broad community values; to serve as a
resource for decision making; to serve as a basis for regulations in the Weld County Code; to serve as a
basis for community programs, such as noxious weed management and the annual Chip Seal Program;
to serve as a resource for identifying future planning studies; and it may be used as a source of
Minutes, November 10, 2008 2008-2992
Page 4 BC0016
information,for example,to provide farm census and demographic information. He stated various potential
changes were identified during the first reading, which the Board will consider making today. He further
stated after the Comprehensive Plan has been adopted, there will be an indefinite amount of follow-up on
the recommended strategies it contains and ongoing efforts will be made to realize the goals and policies
outlined. Mr. Mueller stated he will present the potential revisions based on the feedback received during
the first reading and the Board's work sessions. He stated Section 22-1-110.H concerns the relationship
between the Comprehensive Plan and other planning documents, and it specifies the goals and policies
in the Comprehensive Plan are realized through implementation into the Weld County Code. He further
stated the next section concerns the first of the six Guiding Principles, which is related to private property
rights. Mr. Mueller stated Section 22-1-130.C clarifies the components of the recommended strategies.
He stated Section 22-2-10 concerns Agriculture, and there was some concern expressed regarding the
language in the narrative section. He stated Section 22-2-20.C.3(A.Policy 3.3)concerns the water delivery
infrastructure. He further stated Section 22-2-20.J.2(A.Policy 10.2)contains an additional recommended
strategy to promote agri-tourism and suggests reviewing the Weld County Code for additional ways to
support and promote agri-tourism activities. Mr. Mueller stated Policy 10.2, which contains the Right to
Farm statement, contains some factual errors, which will be updated to include the correct information.
He stated Section 22-2-40.6.6(UD Policy2.6),regarding intergovernmental agreements and joint planning
options, includes the consideration of the formation of a joint planning board. He further stated the Towns
of Frederick and Firestone provided testimony at the first reading regarding neighborhood meetings and
formal notification being provided to Weld County residents by municipalities. Mr. Mueller stated
Section 22-2-80.F.2 (I.Policy 6.2) is regarding screening for industrial use and Section 22-2-100.E
(C.Policy 5.2) is regarding screening for commercial use. He stated Section 22-2-100.E (C.Policy 5.2
and C.Policy 5.3) clarify rural residential open space, since there was previously some misinterpretation
that the public at large will have access to private open space. He further stated Section 22-2-130.A is a
narrative section regarding Regional Urbanization Areas(RUAs),formerly Mixed Use Development(MUD)
areas, and it emphasizes municipalities as service providers. Mr. Mueller stated Section 22-2-140.6(RUA
Policy 2.5) states coordination includes private interests, not only jurisdictional and municipal interests.
He stated Section 22-3-60.A(Recommended Strategy T.1.1.a)addresses alternative technologies as part
of the Master Transportation Plan, rather than only including alternative fuels. He further stated
Section 22-3-60.C(T.Policy 3.3)proposes including the by-way signage policies in this section, rather than
in the recommended strategies. Mr. Mueller stated it is recommended that Section 22-3-70.A(TR.Goal 1)
be expanded to include heritage and cultural tourism. He stated Section 22-4-10.A contained syntax
concerns and has been updated to be more accurate regarding narratives of environmental resources.
He further stated Section 22-4-30.A(WA.Policy 1.5 and WA.Policy 1.6) will address"dry-up"areas in Weld
County,with broader language than what was previously proposed by the Planning Commission and TAC.
Mr. Mueller explained"dry up"areas are previously irrigated lands,which do not presently have water rights
associated with the land ownership. He stated Section 22-5-20 will clarify that some wildlife areas are
private, rather than public, and it will alter some language in Section 22-5-30.A (W.Goal 1) to state
"appropriate wildlife", rather than"a species". He further stated there was a concern expressed regarding
Section 22-5-5.A(O.Policy 6.2)that the County is not a party to the private transactions which may occur
for land trusts and similar matters; therefore, language has been proposed to resolve any implied
involvement of the County in these types of matters. Mr. Mueller stated the final policy discussed for
revision is Section 22-6-20.F (ECON.Policy 6.1) and the associated strategy. He stated the Board
expressed an interest in encouraging the supply of"shovel ready" land for industry, outside of the land use
process, and following up with potential supporting programs and code changes. Commissioner Long
stated there have been many ideas proposed for which the Board has determined there is no need for
changes in the Comprehensive Plan, since the matters are already sufficiently addressed. Chair Jerke
stated his suggestion for Section 22-2-120.E(R. Policy 5.3)regarding rural residential development density
is substituting "may" be higher, rather than using the word "should". Mr. Mueller stated the intent of
R.Policy 5.3 is to contrast the information contained in R.Policy 5.2, which addresses areas containing a
private well and a private septic system may have a lower density; and the Policy is intended to create a
Minutes, November 10, 2008 2008-2992
Page 5 BC0016
distinction between the two categories of rural residential, which are those utilizing private well and septic
systems and those which are utilizing public water and sewer systems, more than to provide an indication
of a preference. Chair Jerke inquired whether the language ought to grant permission, rather than to
encourage by using the word "should". Mr. Mueller stated the language is deliberate because when there
is expensive infrastructure in the ground, such as sewer lines, the County intends to encourage higher
density in these areas. He stated the language is intended to be permissive, yet to express a preference.
Mr. Mueller stated a late referral has been received from the Town of Milliken and he entered it into the
record as Exhibit E.
Jim Woodward, Weld County resident, stated at the first reading of Ordinance#2008-13, he requested an
amendment be approved regarding uranium mining and processing and containing simple and straight
forward language. Mr. Woodward stated the language does not delineate distances for proper buffer
zones since those details would be better addressed in the Weld County Code. He stated uranium mining
and processing is fundamentally incompatible with farming and residential land uses. He further stated
the potential public health and environmental impacts are substantial and mitigation of these potential
impacts cannot be controlled by birms, landscaping, and fencing alone. He stated State regulations
require remoteness from heavily populated areas but do not require a buffer zone. Mr. Woodward stated
the possible dispersion of radiological and toxic materials via windblown dust and groundwater migration
dictate that a physical buffer zone be created which is sufficiently large enough to minimize potential
impacts. He stated the proposed amendment to the Weld County Code will not duplicate State regulations,
which only specify that close proximity of uranium mining to populated areas is undesirable, according to
the Colorado Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division, and the State does not require any
buffer zones. He further stated long term ground water monitoring is not required;therefore,a buffer zone
will add a critical measure of protection for nearby domestic and agricultural well owners. Mr. Woodward
stated the Colorado Mine Land Reclamation Board and the State Division of Reclamation, Mining, and
Safety only address reclamation open pit mine sites and their publications state they have no authority over
land use issues and decisions. He stated in arguments with the Colorado Supreme Court on
September 9, 2008, an attorney for the Colorado Mining Association stated the counties, through zoning
codes, can prescribe and prevent mining in specific areas, including residential areas, and the attorney
cited a Court of Appeals mining case which found, in respect to land use authority, it is a valid exercise of
a county's zoning authority to identify areas where mining activity is, and is not, appropriate. He further
stated the Board of County Commissioners clearly has the authority and obligation to enact land use
policies and rules to protect Weld County land owners from impacts associated with uranium mining and
processing. Commissioner Long stated the Board discussed the uranium amendment and determined the
matter was appropriately addressed by State and Federal laws; however, the information Mr. Woodward
has provided indicates the matter is not appropriately addressed by State or Federal laws. Mr. Woodward
stated he had a discussion with Steve Charles, who is in the Radiation Management Unit, who indicated
the amount of required buffer zone is up to the discretion of State regulators. He stated the Environmental
Protection Agency requires a buffer zone around the mines which is a maximum of one-quarter mile;
however, he does not believe one-quarter mile is an adequate amount. In response to Commissioner
Long, Mr. Woodward stated there are some regulations by the federal agencies; however, more stringent
regulations are desired. Responding to Commissioner Long, Mr. Barker stated the Board has the ability
to require setbacks for this type of mining under the Weld County Code dealing with mining; therefore, it
does not need to be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. Further responding to Commissioner Long,
Mr. Barker stated it will likely be spring before the Colorado Supreme Court case results are known.
Chair Jerke stated Section 22-5-80(CM.Policy 3.8),the policy immediately preceding where the proposed
uranium amendment would be placed, states: "Require all mining operations to conform to Federal, State,
and Local environmental standards." He stated since the Comprehensive Plan will only express the
County's intent, rather than a prescribed remedy, it seemed redundant to add the uranium amendment.
He further stated much of the Ordinance already relates to mining setbacks.
Minutes, November 10, 2008 2008-2992
Page 6 BC0016
Robin Davis, Weld County resident, stated she is in favor of Mr. Woodward's proposed amendment.
Ms. Davis stated she hosts a 4-H club on her property, which is surrounded by land owned by an uranium
mining company, and she needs to ensure the surrounding environment will not put the children in her 4-H
club at risk. She stated she does not feel 1,320 feet is an adequate buffer zone.
Amelia Tuttle, Planner for the Town of Severance, thanked the Weld County planning staff and TAC and
offered the following comments on behalf of the Mayor of the Town of Severance: The establishment of
intergovernmental agreements is fundamental to the successful implementation of this plan. Absent
meaningful intergovernmental agreements(IGAs)structured to serve the unique circumstances and needs
of the communities, the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, intentionally or not, is designed to promote
uncontained sprawl and potentially incompatible uses connected by miles of costly infrastructure, which
will ultimately result in rising taxes, compromising quality of life and the ability to compete by undermining
social, economic, and environmental health. Members of TAC have expressed that this is not the
envisioned outcome; instead, the intent is for the County to establish consensual IGAs protecting the
integrity of municipal plans. To achieve this, we recommend that the County take an approach to
development and implementation of IGAs wherein it agrees to discuss the specific aspects of the elements
of Section 22-2-120.6 (R.Goal 2), so that each IGA is designed to meet the unique circumstances of the
communities, achieve efficiencies, and address the needs of all parties. If the objective is to force "one
size fits all" IGAs, the weaknesses and constraints within Article II will be overwhelming. With Consensual
IGAs this Comprehensive Plan can be a guide for a stronger Weld County. The County Urban Growth
Boundary is now defined as a one-quarter mile perimeter around the municipal limits that are currently
physically served by central sewer. Citizens of Weld County, by participating in comprehensive planning
for each municipality, have collectively spent countless hours to thoughtfully address long-term community
development. Without IGAs, municipal planning areas and growth boundaries are not recognized; unless
meaningful IGAs are developed, the county is setting itself up to be forced to allow sprawling development
that will negatively affect the general welfare of all of the residents and taxpayers of Weld County. We
would recommend that an additional strategy be added to Section 22-2-120.E (R.Policy 5.2), to address
the review of land use regulations of all of the municipalities within Weld County to ensure complementary
densities. In response to Commissioner Long, Ms. Tuttle stated there has not been any suggested
language provided for proposed R.Policy 5.2; however, she will write it and send it to Mr. Mueller.
Norman Stevenson, Weld County resident, stated he is in support of the proposed uranium language,
since uranium mining leaves remnants behind in the water which are not healthy. Mr. Stevenson stated
we are responsible for our own County and he does not want to be at the mercy of federal regulations
regarding uranium.
Howard Williams,Weld County resident,stated he whole-heartedly supports the proposed uranium mining
language. Mr. Williams stated he lives near a proposed uranium mining site and he understands there are
thousands of applications being submitted for uranium mining throughout Colorado. He stated he knew
little about uranium before the last two years, other than it being fuel for nuclear submarines and
powerplants and that companies are looking for places to seal it underground, and recently he discovered
he is at risk of having an uranium mining facility in his backyard. He further stated through online research
he has determined Weld County needs a buffer zone between private properties and uranium mining
operations. Mr.Williams stated we can prevent contamination of our aquifer. He stated he is a well owner,
and many people in the area depend on well water. He further stated samples taken by the Weld County
Department of Public Health and Environment have shown his well water is of better quality than the public
drinking water, it only contains a trace of alkaline, and he would like it to remain that way. Mr. Williams
stated the aquifer is massive and provides water to many people. He stated the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission stated mining is an effective way of getting the ore by emulsifying heavy metals and bringing
out the uranium; however, it does have a tendency to contaminate the aquifer. He further stated that Jim
Miller, Hydrologist in the City of Denver, stated groundwater in Weld County becomes surface water and,
Minutes, November 10, 2008 2008-2992
Page 7 BC0016
depending on the amount of mines and heavy metals being extracted, the City may not have the
equipment sufficient to filter or decontaminate its water; therefore, Mr. Miller recommended keeping the
aquifer as clean as possible. Mr. Williams stated once uranium is in the water, it will be there for a long
period of time, possibly 100,000 years. He stated the uranium amendment is not a duplication of other
existing regulations and the County needs to exercise its authority on this matter. He further stated the
EPA has allowed a copper mill,which has been closed for 20 years, to reopen, even though there are two
generations of residents located downwind from the mine that have a 1,200 percent higher rate of cancer
as a result of the carcinogens produced; therefore, we cannot rely on the Federal government.
Responding to Chair Jerke, Mr. Barker stated the Board of County Commissioners will have the ability to
require reasonable mitigation and setbacks regarding any proposed uranium mining operations, with the
current language in the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Jerke stated the Comprehensive Plan is not the place
to list specifics, it is the place to list intent, and the current Comprehensive Plan covers the necessary
points. Mr. Williams stated a future dry period is predicted by scientists and water will be far more valuable
than uranium to the County.
Stan Everitt, Chairman of TAC, stated the suggestion to change the word "should"to the word "may"was
made earlier in regard to rural residential development in Section 22-2-120.E (R. Policy 5.3). Mr. Everitt
stated the word"may"may be a more appropriate than the word"should"since TAC did not intend to imply
that for development to occur, the highest possible density on a piece of land is required when
development is in close proximity to sewer and water lines. He stated when the rural regulations are
created he would like to ensure there are no implications that land development must occur under higher
density conditions. Chair Jerke thanked Mr. Everitt and the other members of TAC for the amount of time
they have invested in this process and stated it is a marvelous document.
Becky Safarik, Director of Community Development for the City of Greeley, presented a powerpoint slide
show summarizing the recommendations of the City of Greeley's Planning Commission, a copy of which
was submitted into the record, marked Exhibit H. Ms. Safarik stated the City of Greeley is presently
updating its Comprehensive Plan presently and she recognizes what a challenging task it is to create a
Comprehensive Plan for Weld County. She stated she would like to clarify a point made in a previous
meeting regarding courtesy notifications for Weld County residents with adjoining land use matters in the
City of Greeley. She stated courtesy notifications are sent to landowners within 500 feet and sometimes
to landowners who are further away; if a different geographic break point makes sense, the City does not
distinguish if landowners are Weld County or City of Greeley residents. She further stated Weld County
records are used to compile the mailing lists for residents outside the Greeley City limits, and testimony
is in no way restricted to Weld County residents and the City of Greeley quite often has Weld County
residents in attendance at its meetings. Ms. Safarik stated the map on the first page of her presentation
includes 29 of the 31 municipalities in Weld County and 1,444 square miles, which is approximately 1/3
of Weld County's geographic area. She stated Grover and New Raymer were the municipalities not
included. She further stated between 95 and 97 percent of the County's population resides in the mapped
area. Ms. Safarik stated according to the Colorado State Demographer, quoted in the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan, Weld County will grow by another 300,000 people by the year 2035, which is an
amount equal to the population of Windsor being added each year for 27 years. She stated a County
Transportation Plan should be developed and adopted as a top priority upon approval of the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan, which is a point supported by the Weld County Planning Commission. She further
stated a comprehensive County Transportation Plan is essential to anticipate the needs of residents,
visitors, and commerce. Ms. Safarik stated the City of Greeley recommends retaining the 80-acre
minimum lot size. She stated Weld County has served as a leader by maintaining the 80-acre minimum
lot size for farming and it has provided opportunity and wealth to the community,which may not be realized
by many. She further stated the County is well positioned to attract larger economic development interests
and to expand sophisticated agric-tech. Ms. Safarik stated there are 3,200 parcels which are 70 acres in
size or greater, within the mapped area, which now exist outside of the municipalities and within the
Minutes, November 10, 2008 2008-2992
Page 8 BC0016
three-mile buffer area. She stated if every one of those parcels divided and downsized to the proposed
new minimum of 35 acres, there would be 12,500 parcels of land. She stated there may be unintended
consequences,such as congesting roads,as a result of lowering the minimum amount of acres to 35. She
further stated Larimer and El Paso Counties have reported lowering the amount to 35, and it has resulted
in a number of unintended consequences which have become nuisance issues. Ms. Safarik stated the
next item the City of Greeley would like to encourage is Weld County promoting the development of sub-
area plans to address particular land use strategies within the overall Comprehensive Plan framework.
She stated the City of Greeley has found if helpful to develop sub-area and sub-neighborhood plans, in
addition to a Comprehensive Plan, to take into account specific and unique areas. She further stated the
County has partnered with the City of Greeley for the East Greeley Comprehensive Plan and the North Rail
Industrial Study and they are two good examples of how sub-area plans can help focus on specific
characteristics of an area and better plan for the area. Ms. Safarik stated the next item is to examine
strategies to revitalize the United States Highway 85 Corridor for economic development and land use
compatibility. She stated the following recommendation is to retain the elements of health, safety, and
quality of life in Weld County and to consider making it a top priority. She further stated the City of Greeley
proposes Weld County craft a vsion statement of its aspirational goals in order for everyone to clearly
understand its purpose and application throughout the County. Ms. Safarik stated the City of Greeley
recommends Weld County reaffirm the current Comprehensive Plan policy to direct urban level scale and
density development to municipalities, and proposes amending Section 22-2-30 to read: "Support the
success of urban development by directing urban uses to municipalities and areas where urban services
exist." She stated the City of Greeley recommends the County clearly identify and provide for a
collaborative relationship between municipal 3-mile plans, IGAs, and Weld County RUAs, and she
proposed amending Section 22-2-30 to read:"Weld County will promote cooperation between the County,
municipalities, and other entities through the development of policies and maps related to the statutory
municipal 3-mile planning areas and intergovernmental agreements to manage conflicting or overlapping
planning areas, particularly in relation to Regional Urbanization Areas." She further stated the City of
Greeley recommends the County work with municipalities to provide community separators and buffers,
and proposed Section 22-2-80.F(Recommended Strategy 1.6.1.a)to read,"Develop community separator
and buffer strategies with municipalities and Weld County property owners as part of the Weld County
Open Space Study." Ms. Safarik stated the final suggestion the City of Greeley has is for the County to
consider municipalities as key partners in economic and land use development. She expressed her
appreciation for the partnership between the City of Greeley and Weld County.
Donna Bunting, Weld County land owner, stated she is in support of the amendment Mr. Woodward has
proposed. Ms. Bunting stated she has not built on the property she owns and is unsure if she will due to
the uranium issue. She stated her children and grandchild reside in an adjourning property to the land she
owns and she is concerned about them being exposed to uranium.
Mr. Mueller stated Section 22-1-110 there is an addition, which will be labeled H, proposed to explain the
relationship between zoning and subdivision and the Comprehensive Plan. In response to Chair Jerke,
Mr. Mueller stated this addition was the result of a work session on October 21, 2008 and discussion with
the County Attorney. Mr. Mueller stated the proposed language will read, " Goals and Policies in the
Comprehensive Plan are implemented through these and other regulations. In the event of any conflict
between the Comprehensive Plan and any land use requirements set forth in the Weld County Code, the
land use regulations, including, but not limited to, those for zoning and subdivision, take priority." The
amendment was adopted unanimously. Mr. Mueller stated in Section 22-1-120.A will be amended to state
the following: "Private Property Rights. One of the basic principles upon which the United States was
founded,which it continues to preserve, and Weld County upholds, is the right of citizens to own and utilize
their property. Private property rights are not unlimited rights but, rather, rights balanced with the
responsibility of protecting community health, safety,and welfare. It is the goal of the Comprehensive Plan
to promote opportunities for County citizens, while protecting private property rights." Chair Jerke stated
Minutes, November 10, 2008 2008-2992
Page 9 BC0016
this amendment is for the purpose of creating opportunity for citizens. The amendment was unanimously
adopted. Mr. Mueller stated Section 22-2-130, Paragraph C,was discussed at the work session conducted
on October 21, 2008, and resulted from a discussion regarding the function of Recommended Strategies.
He stated the proposed language will read, "Recommended Strategies are another component of the
Comprehensive Plan. Recommended Strategies are not Goals or Policies, but rather suggested action
items that the County may want to undertake to implement certain Policies, in an effort to achieve a stated
Goal." He further stated that listing a Recommended Strategy does not imply it is the only action that may
be taken to support a particular Policy, nor is it a requirement that the action be undertaken. Mr. Mueller
stated the Recommended Strategies are suggested action points that officials may want to pursue in the
future, in an effort to implement the Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. "The amendment was
unanimously adopted. Mr. Mueller stated in Section 22-2-10, the proposed language will read, "The
diversion and application of irrigation waters to farmland in Weld County has been the main economic
driver for the County since the 1860's. Currently, the majority of these waters are used for irrigation. As
the population expands, so does the need for domestic, commercial, and industrial water sources." The
amendment was adopted unanimously. Mr. Mueller stated Section 22-2-20.C.3 (A.Policy 3.3), contains
the following proposed language: "Land use regulations should consider the traditional and future
operational viability of water delivery infrastructure when applications for proposed land use changes are
considered." The amendment was adopted unanimously. Mr. Mueller stated Section 22-2-20.F.4
(A.Policy 6.4), was discussed on October 24, 2008, and the following language is proposed for
Recommended Strategy A.6.4.a.,"Review land use regulations to ensure that they are consistent with this
Policy, and that they support agri-tourism. Explore other regulatory and non-regulatory options that
promote and enable rural tourism events and sites." He stated there are several proposed changes to the
Weld County's Right to Farm Statement located in Section 22-2-20.J.2 (A.Policy 10.2) and the revised
language will read, "Weld County is one of the most productive agricultural counties in the United States,
typically ranking in the top ten counties in the country in total market value of agricultural products sold.
The rural areas of Weld County may be open and spacious, but they are intensively used for agriculture.
Persons moving into a rural area must recognize and accept there are drawbacks, including conflicts with
long-standing agricultural practices and a lower level of services than in town. Along with the drawbacks
come the incentives which attract urban dwellers to relocate to rural areas: open views, spaciousness,
wildlife, lack of city noise and congestion, and the rural atmosphere and way of life. Without neighboring
farms, those features which attract urban dwellers to rural Weld County would quickly be gone forever.
Agricultural users of the land should not be expected to change their long-established agricultural practices
to accommodate the intrusions of urban users into a rural area. Well-run agricultural activities will generate
off-site impacts, including noise from tractors and equipment; slow-moving farm vehicles on rural roads;
dust from animal pens, field work, harvest and gravel roads; odor from animal confinement, silage and
manure; smoke from ditch burning; flies and mosquitoes; hunting and trapping activities; shooting sports,
legal hazing of nuisance wildlife; and the use of pesticides and fertilizers in the fields, including the use of
aerial spraying. It is common practice for agricultural producers to utilize an accumulation of agricultural
machinery and supplies to assist in their agricultural operations. A concentration of miscellaneous
agricultural materials often produces a visual disparity between rural and urban areas of the County.
Section 35-3.5-102, C.R.S., provides that an agricultural operation shall not be found to be a public or
private nuisance if the agricultural operation alleged to be a nuisance employs methods or practices that
are commonly or reasonably associated with agricultural production. Water has been, and continues to
be, the lifeline for the agricultural community. It is unrealistic to assume that ditches and reservoirs may
simply be moved "out of the way" of residential development. When moving to the County, property
owners and residents must realize they cannot take water from irrigation ditches, lakes,or other structures,
unless they have an adjudicated right to the water. Weld County covers a land area of approximately four
thousand (4,000) square miles in size (twice the size of the State of Delaware) with more than three
thousand seven hundred (3,700) miles of state and County roads outside of municipalities. The sheer
magnitude of the area to be served stretches available resources. Law enforcement is based on
responses to complaints more than on patrols of the County, and the distances which must be traveled
Minutes, November 10, 2008 2008-2992
Page 10 BC0016
may delay all emergency responses, including law enforcement, ambulance, and fire. Fire protection is
usually provided by volunteers who must leave their jobs and families to respond to emergencies. County
gravel roads, no matter how often they are bladed,will not provide the same kind of surface expected from
a paved road. Services in rural areas, in many cases, will not be equivalent to municipal services. Rural
dwellers must, by necessity, be more self-sufficient than urban dwellers. People are exposed to different
hazards in the County than in an urban or suburban setting. Farm equipment and oil field equipment,
ponds and irrigation ditches, electrical power for pumps and center pivot operations, high speed traffic,
sand burs, puncture vines, territorial farm dogs and livestock, and open burning present real threats.
Controlling children's activities is important, not only for their safety, but also for the protection of the
farmer's livelihood." Mr. Mueller stated changes were discussed for Section 22-2-40.B.6 (UD.Policy 2.6)
on October 27, 2008 and November 3, 2008, regarding joint planning boards. Chair Jerke stated he
concurs with the testimony the provided by Jennifer Simmons, Planning Director for the Town of Frederick,
and Rebecca Toberman, Town of Firestone Planning Department, at the first reading. He stated joint
planning boards may not be practical. Responding to Chair Jerke, Mr. Mueller stated this is simply a
proposed tool for municipalities which are compatible with this type of process, and intergovernmental
agreements would formalize the process for municipalities choosing to utilize the process. In response
to Chair Jerke, Mr. Everitt concurred with Mr. Mueller's comments regarding joint planning boards and
intergovernmental agreements. He stated joint planning boards were proposed as a potential tool to be
utilized to advocate for citizens of unincorporated Weld County who have interests in development
occurring within municipalities. Chair Jerke stated he has issues with adding an extra layer of government,
and finds joint planning boards to be unnecessary. He stated joint planning boards would not have any
power. Commissioner Rademacher stated he appreciates the concept; however, he does not believe joint
planning boards would be effective. He stated the only purpose of joint planning boards is to provide input
and there are existing means available for County residents to provide input. Commissioner Garcia stated
he would like to see people more involved with local government; however, he does not see a benefit to
joint planning boards. Commissioner Long stated joint planning boards may become a negative political
tool and be to the detriment of people in both incorporated and unincorporated areas of Weld County. The
moved to delete UD.Policy 2.6 and replace it with the following language, "Consider agreements with
municipalities that County Planning Staff be notified and invited to any pre-hearing neighborhood meetings
for municipal land use cases near unincorporated areas, so that County residents'concerns can be noted
and included in County referral comments to the municipality." Mr. Mueller stated Section 22-2-80.F
(I.Policy 6.2), will read, "Support the use of visual and sound barrier landscaping to screen open storage
areas from residential uses or public roads", inserting the word "support" in place of"require". He stated
Section 22-2-100.E(C.Policy 5.2)will also be updated to read, "Support the use of visual and sound barrier
landscaping to screen open storage areas from residential uses or public roads", with the word "support"
used instead of the word"require". The Board unanimously approved the amendment of Section 22-2-80.F
(I.Policy 6.2)and Section 22-2-100.E(C.Policy 5.2). Mr. Mueller stated Section 22-2-120.E(R.Policies 5.2
and 5.3) were discussed at the October 24, 2008 work session and during the first reading of the
Ordinance. He stated a greater distinction between rural residential development and urban residential
development is being proposed today. He stated the proposed language for R .Policy 5.2 will read, "The
gross density of Rural Residential development proposed with public water,or wells,and individual sewage
disposal systems should be lower than that of other types of Rural Residential development. Lots should
have access to common or private open space, if applicable. Private open space is encouraged on
individual lots, in order to support high-quality rural character." Mr. Mueller stated the proposed language
for R.Policy 5.3 will read, "The gross density of Rural Residential development proposed with public water
and public sewer service should be higher than those proposed with public water, or wells, and individual
septic systems, but lower than Urban Development. Such development should support lots having access
to common open space. Off-road pedestrian connections(detached or attached sidewalks or trails)should
connect all lots." The Board unanimously approved the amendment to R.Policy 5.2. The Board
unanimously moved to adopt Policy R.5.3, with the "may" substituted for the word "should". Mr. Mueller
stated Section 22-2-130 is regarding Regional Urbanization Areas (RUAs)and the language has been
Minutes, November 10, 2008 2008-2992
Page 11 BC0016
altered due to discussion at the work session on October 24, 2008. He stated the proposed language will
read, "Municipalities are best suited for most types of urban development, and other County policies
encourage urban development within existing municipalities. The Regional Urbanization Areas("RUAs")
are intended to provide a tool that facilitates opportunities that might not otherwise be available. As a land
use tool, the RUA enables the County and its citizens to make decisions regarding future development
within specified areas. Key factors in their creation are wise use of natural resources, development of
quality communities, provision for regional services, employment opportunities, and maintaining fiscal
integrity." He further stated this is a narrative section, and these are not goals or policies. In response to
Chair Jerke, Mr. Mueller stated the word "creates", rather than "facilitates", was previously discussed and
the Board elected to use the word "facilitating". Commissioner Garcia stated the rationale behind their
decision was the Board determined the development, or private entity, creates opportunity and the County
facilitates opportunity. The Board unanimously adopted the amendment. Mr. Mueller stated
Section 22-1-140.B (RUA.Policy 2.5), will add private interests to read, " Coordinate the location,
construction, and funding of public facilities between Weld County, municipalities, other jurisdictions, and
private interests." Commissioner Long stated he is concerned regarding the funding aspect in this Policy
and if it leaves the assumption the County will provide funding. Commissioner Rademacher stated he was
initially concerned about the same thing; however, after reading the entire statement, he is no logner
concerned. The Board unanimously approved the amendment to RUA.Policy 2.5. Mr. Mueller stated in
Section 22-3-60.A (Recommended Strategy T.1.1.a), a clarification of alternative technologies opposed
to alternative fuels is proposed. He stated the item will read, "Consider the potential impacts of alternative
technologies on future transportation systems." Mr. Mueller stated proposed Section 22-3-60.C
(T.Policy 3.3)will read, "Recognize the Pawnee Buttes Scenic Byway, which is the only scenic roadway
designated within the County. Encourage strategically-located signs delineating the Byway, in order to
keep motorists on the appropriate route." The Board unanimously approved the amendment. Mr. Mueller
stated Section 22-3-70 (TR.Goal 1) will include cultural and heritage tourism, to read, "Recognize the
importance of cultural and heritage tourism and recreation to local, regional, and agricultural economies,
including sites and events such as corn mazes, County fairs, farm implement museums, etc. Encourage
the provision of adequate support services and facilities necessary for the continuation and expansion of
these activities, consistent with other Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan." The Board
unanimously adopted the amendment. Mr. Mueller stated Section 22-4-10. A is proposed to read, "Air,
water,waste, noise, and other public health impacts from proposed land uses should be considered." The
Board unanimously approved the amendment. Mr. Mueller stated it is proposed that Section 22-4-30.A
(WA.Policy 1.5 and and WA.Policy 1.6) be amended due to discussions at work sessions on
October 24, 2008 and November 3, 2008. He stated there was discussion as to whether "dry up
agreements"were appropriate. He stated the proposed language for WA.Policy 1.5 will read, "Encourage
alternatives to the "dry-up" (or fallowing) of agricultural land, a practice that otherwise takes agricultural
land out of production, often permanently." He further stated the proposed language for WA.Policy 1.6
reads, "Encourage "dry-up agreements" that allow the use of alternate water sources to keep the land in
production." The Board unanimously approved the amendments to Section 22-4-30.A. Mr. Mueller stated
in Section 22-5-20, Wildlife, the paragraph will read, "The abundance of wildlife in the County is an
important contributor to the economic health and quality of life in the County. The acquisition of properties
to provide public hunting, fishing, and watchable wildlife opportunities has long been an important part of
the Colorado Division of Wildlife's management program. As an added emphasis on the importance of
these lands, private groups also lease or own several of these sites for recreational activities such as
fishing, hunting,shooting sports, and boating. Maintaining wildlife habitats in sufficient supply is necessary
to encourage the social and economic benefit the County receives from this resource. Wildlife Areas -
Existing, the most recent copy of which is on file at the Department of Planning Services, shows most of
the important wildlife habitat areas in the County. It should be noted that the important wildlife areas are
often closely associated with important water supply and aquifer recharge areas." He stated "or own"was
added to the portion referring to private groups leasing lands. The Board unanimously approved the
amendment. Mr.Mueller stated Section 22-5-30.A(W.Goal 1)will be amended to read,"New development
Minutes, November 10, 2008 2008-2992
Page 12 BC0016
should be located and designed to conserve critical ecosystem components, including wetlands,significant
wildlife habitats, and migration corridors. Significant wildlife habitat is defined as a geographical area
containing existing or migrating wildlife and a combination of the essential elements of food,water, cover,
and space in quantities sufficient to support appropriate wildlife." The Board unanimously approved the
amendment. Mr. Mueller stated Section 22-5-50.A (O.Policy 1.2) will read "Encourage and promote
provision of open space utilizing a willing buyer/willing seller approach to any acquisition. If parties fail to
reach a mutually agreed-upon compensation,the County supports landowners' rights to pursue other land
uses through the appropriate land use application process." He stated the language was altered to
alleviate concern about the County being perceived as a party to willing buyer and willing seller private
transactions. The Board unanimously adopted the amendment. Mr. Mueller stated Section 22-6-20.E
(ECON.Policy 5.1)will state,"The County should encourage an adequate supply of both services and land
suitable for industrial development and redevelopment." The Board unanimously approved the
amendment. He stated a new item, ECON.Policy 5.1.a, is recommended, which will state, "Development
program to create 'shovel ready' industrial sites, throughout the County, where zoning and permitting
requirements would be minimal and where primary job providers would be able to develop or redevelop
expeditiously." Chair Jerke stated developers should follow the same requirements; however,the process
may be completed early. Mr. Barker suggested stating the zoning and permitting process will be expedited
in the language. Mr. Mueller suggested using the language to complete the process in advance.
Mr. Barker stated the intent is to expedite the process, while not removing critical parts of the process.
Mr. Mueller stated he will continue to work on the language for this item and he will present it again for
approval at the final reading of the Ordinance.
Chair Jerke responded to the list provided by the City of Greeley. He stated the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan already addresses transportation related matters. Ms. Safarik stated the City of
Greeley was simply expressing its support of Weld County prioritizing transportation issues. In response
to Chair Jerke, Mr. Mueller stated the recommendation regarding agricultural lot size is to provide a
minimum agricultural lot size of 35 acres, to be in conformance with State statutes, and the Policy to
support it states, "Recognize that viable agricultural operations can function on small acreages". He stated
there is a recommended Strategy, which states, "Reviewing County regulations and consider creating a
minimum lot size standard of 35 acres in agricultural areas". He further stated the Comprehensive Plan
lays the foundation for subsequent changes in the Weld County Code. Mr. Mueller stated the purpose of
including this information is to acknowledge modern agricultural processes do not necessarily require 80
acres and modern farming can be done through leasing or accumulation of various parcels. He stated
before the change would be implemented, broader discussion about its implications would need to occur
and analysis would be required to look beyond agricultural interests alone, including examining service and
road impacts. Chair Jerke stated it seems appropriate for the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the State
Statute of 35 acres. Commissioner Long suggested altering the language to more clearly express the
County is acknowledging the State Statute; however, it is not enacting changes. Chair Jerke proposed
stating, "Consider the minimum buildable lot size of parcels in the agricultural areas, created without
County approval, to be in conformance with State Statutes." In response to Chair Jerke, Commissioner
Long stated he would feel more comfortable with the language Chair Jerke suggested, along with the
Comprehensive Plan clearly stating its purpose and parameters. Ms. Safarik proposed adding the
following language to the end of Chair Jerke's proposed addition, "...taking into account the particular
impacts that may be associated with Weld County infrastructure." She reiterated the County should
proceed with caution regarding this matter. Chair Jerke stated he does not wish to proceed with the
proposed language changes for this item today, and he requested Ms. Safarik submit the language the
City of Greeley wishes to propose prior to the Ordinance's final reading. Mr. Mueller stated the
Comprehensive Plan acknowledges sub-area plans since it includes a recommended strategy for the
sub-area plan for North Greeley,which is underway. Ms. Safarik stated the County has a unique role since
it contains the Highway 85 Corridor,which is the lifeblood for Greeley and other surrounding communities.
She stated the Highway 85 Corridor seems to be an under recognized resource. Mr. Mueller stated on
Minutes, November 10, 2008 2008-2992
Page 13 BC0016
Page 80 of the Comparison Draft Section 22-3-60.C (T.Policy 3.5)was added in response to a comment
from the City of Greeley on this matter; however, perhaps a Strategy can later be formed to further support
the idea. He stated T.Policy 3.5 reads, "Recognize Highway 85 as a key roadway into Weld County and
support its improvement. Support adjacent commercial and industrial uses in a functional and attractive
manner, in order to preserve jobs and take advantage of existing infrastructure." In response to Chair
Jerke, Ms. Safarik stated the City of Greeley proposes adding the item regarding health, safety, and
welfare to the Guiding Principles. Mr. Mueller suggested TAC provide input regarding adding to the
Guiding Principles. Mr. Everitt stated he would like to examine this and consult other TAC members before
giving a recommendation, which he can do prior to the final reading. He believes the concept is included
under Section 22-1-120.A and Section 22-1-120.E of the Comparison Draft and Mr. Mueller concurred.
Chair Jerke stated he is satisfied the concept is included. In response to Chair Jerke, Ms. Safarik stated
in regards to the suggestion for crafting a Vision Statement,the suggestion is to chart a longer range vision
for the County as the Board of County Commissioners. She stated the Comprehensive Plan addresses
the"whats"and"hows"; however, citizens look to leadership for what is envisioned for the County over the
next twenty years. Mr. Everitt stated when TAC convened, the members considered what the
Comprehensive Plan should be, and it was determined to be impossible to craft a vision statement which
was applicable to the entire County. He stated it was at this point TAC decided to pursue the roadmap
approach for the Comprehensive Plan. He further stated most of the municipalities plans are limited to a
three mile area,whereas, Weld County's geographic area is larger than the State of Delaware. Mr. Everitt
stated sub-area plans may better be able to address visionary plans for specific areas. Commissioner
Long stated through attending various meetings, he has observed that the Cities and Towns within Weld
County have not been able to agree on a shared vision. Fred Walker,TAC member, stated upon not being
able to reach a consensus for a vision statement, TAC decided to move on and discuss it again at the end
of the process if a vision become clear; however, it did not. Chair Jerke stated each year Weld County
Government works to deliver competent and efficient government services for a reasonable cost;therefore,
vision statements are determined annually within the County government; however, they have not been
decided for the entire County. Commissioner Rademacher stated he observed the Round Tables were
unable to reach a consensus regarding a vision statement and concurred it is near impossible. Regarding
proposed amendment to Section 22-2-70.A, Chair Jerke stated this is reminiscent of language used in a
debate approximately six years ago regarding if services must exist in an area prior to development or may
be reasonably obtained. Ms. Safarik stated this is related to the point that municipalities strive to effectively
provide urban level services, including water, sewer, and fire and police protection; therefore, the City of
Greeley encourages the County to direct developments to municipalities when a development can
reasonably be served by a municipality, to best optimize the taxpayers' money. Chair Jerke stated the
Board does encourage applicants to seek annexation through a municipality when it is possible, and the
Board is often told by applicants they were unable to be annexed by the surrounding municipalities.
Ms. Safarik stated a benefit of having strong intergovernmental agreements between the City and the
County is being able to clearly identify the areas where municipal services are available and to be able to
verify whether the applicants are eligible for annexation in a particular area. Commissioner Rademacher
stated many municipalities obtain services from other locations and do not provide the services
themselves. The board unanimously determined a language change was not warranted regarding
development in relationship to municipalities. Mr. Mueller stated regarding the proposed amendment to
Section 22-2-70, from a structural standpoint any goal or policy regarding municipal 3-mile plans would
make more sense to be placed in Section 22-2-110. He stated Section 22-2-40.E (UD.Goal 5) contains
the statement regarding seeking cooperation in all circumstances, including under an intergovernmental
agreement and absent one. He read Goal 5 into the record, "The County and municipalities should strive
to coordinate urban land use planning in cooperative planning areas, including such items as development
policies and standards, zoning, street and highway construction, open space, public infrastructure, and
other matters associated with urban development." Mr. Mueller stated one of the things he has discovered
when working with various municipalities are many different terms used to describe the same things and
some like terms are used to describe things which are not the same as what the County uses a term for.
Minutes, November 10, 2008 2008-2992
Page 14 BC0016
He stated the amendment proposed by Ms. Safarik regarding collaborative relationships strives utilize
widely recognized terms to encompass all of the other terms which are specific to different municipalities
and entities. He further stated the idea expressed in this proposed amendment is not incompatible with
existing plans, and the mapping function is already accounted for. Ms. Safarik suggested the County
should use less passive language in the Comprehensive Plan. She stated most of the suggestions from
the City of Greeley regarding the Comprehensive Plan are not objections to where the information is
inserted; however,the City feels the matters are not specifically identified as significant topics, highlighted,
and promoted. Mr. Everitt stated the Comprehensive Plan contains an expansive section regarding IGAs
and Urban Development and it strongly encourages the promotion of IGAs. The Board unanimously
determined not to adopt the amendment proposed regarding municipal 3-mile planning areas. Mr. Mueller
stated, in regards to the proposed recommended Strategy regarding separators and buffers,the term open
space means different things to different people. He stated the definitions of open space can vary from
large regional open space, for example, the Saint Vrain State Park, to a very small piece of land at the
entrance of a rural subdivision that is designated for the placement of a sign. He further stated he believes
the City of Greeley wants the County to take an active role in developing a strategy for maintaining open
space. Chair Jerke stated he is aware of one strategy, which is to purchase land for buffering, which a
government may do if it is a high priority. Ms. Safarik stated there are other regulatory tools available,
which the City of Greeley has found useful, including transferring development rights and conservation
easements. Commissioner Rademacher stated he is satisfied with the existing language regarding opens
space,and the Board unanimously determined modification of the language was not required. Ms. Safarik
stated regarding the final item of the list submitted by the City of Greeley, it is simply to thank the County
for including the City of Greeley in its Comprehensive Plan review. Chair Jerke expressed his appreciation
to the City of Greeley and other municipalities for their efforts in advancing economic development.
Mr. Mueller stated there are specific items changed as a result of the City of Greeley's comments, and
some of the changes are found on Page 109.H, subparagraph H. Chair Jerke stated he appreciates the
input provided by municipalities and recognized there were four representatives of municipalities who
served on TAC. Regarding the amendment proposed by Mr. Woodward, Commissioner Rademacher
stated the amendment is not needed in the Comprehensive Plan and perhaps the appropriate place to
address the matter is in the Weld County Code. Commissioner Long concurred the matter is sufficiently
covered in the Comprehensive Plan; however, the Board has added recommended Strategies; therefore,
perhaps the Board may add a Strategy to develop criteria regarding uranium and other types of mining and
processing facilities being located at a safe distance from other activities and uses. Commissioner
Rademacher stated he would not be opposed to Commissioner Long's suggestion, and he stated there
are many other hazardous activities, in addition to uranium mining. Commissioner Long proposed the
following language:"Develop criteria that locates mining and processing facilities,such as uranium mining,
at a sufficient distance from other land uses to minimize the impacts of any radiological and toxic releases
to the surface and subsurface environments." Mr. Barker stated when regulatory language is included in
the Comprehensive Plan, it may have unintended consequences. He stated applicants must demonstrate
compliance with both the Comprehensive Plan and the Weld County Code. He further stated if the
Comprehensive Plan is written in the way Commissioner Long proposed, an applicant may use the
language for reasons which are opposite of the intended effect, for example, the intended effect is for the
Board to set the regulations; however, the language may be used for the applicant to say they have a right
to prove a lesser distance to be in compliance with land use regulations. Chair Jerke stated this is only
a proposed recommended Strategy and it will not be in the Weld County Code. Commissioner Long stated
if this recommended Strategy can be used by the applicant to misuse the intent of the language, any of
the recommended Strategies in the Comprehensive Plan may be used in the same way. Mr. Barker
concurred with Commissioner Long and stated, as council, he needs to advise the Board that applicants
may argue they are in compliance with the Weld County Code, and may do so. Commissioner Long stated
the Comprehensive Plan explains what its parameters are, and it is a separate document from the Weld
County Code. Mr. Barker stated it will be incumbent on the Board to identify an amount of distance
between uranium mining facilities and other uses in the Code. Commissioner Long moved to amend the
Minutes, November 10, 2008 2008-2992
Page 15 BC0016
Comprehensive Plan to include the Recommended Strategy he proposed. Chair Jerke seconded the
motion. Commissioner Garcia stated he is concerned about the language proposed by Commissioner
Long since it makes it incumbent upon the Board to determine the appropriate distance, and he would like
it to state the word "consider" prior to the strategy. Commissioner Long stated Commissioner Garcia's
suggestion is reasonable; however, these strategies exist throughout the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Rademacher stated he is in agreement with Mr. Barker and he is concerned about
unintended consequences. Upon the request for a roil call vote, the motion failed, with Commissioners
Jerke and Long being in favor of the amendment and Commissioners Garcia and Rademacher being
opposed. Chair Jerke stated the amendment may be considered again at third reading. Commissioner
Rademacher stated he is not opposed to adding the amendment; however, he wants to ensure the
appropriate language is used. In response to Chair Jerke, Mr. Mueller stated there was an amendment
regarding economic development which staff will work on for the third reading of the Ordinance, and he
will a draft memorandum on any existing outstanding items. Responding to Mr. Mueller, Commissioner
Rademacher stated he is in favor of conducting another work session prior to the final reading of the
Ordinance. Commissioner Garcia moved to approve Ordinance #2008-13 on second reading, with
amendments. Seconded by Commissioner Rademacher, the motion is carried unanimously.
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES: The resolutions were presented and signed as listed on the
Consent Agenda. Ordinances #2008-14 and #2008-15 were approved on final reading, and Ordinance
#2008-13 was approved on second reading.
Let the minutes reflect that the above and foregoing actions were attested to and respectfully submitted
by the Acting Clerk to the Board.
There being no further business, this meeting was adjourned at 12:47 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
4.w
� a, a�' r�i LG,/
ATTEST: � � - ,J''k
r`sk' L" "' William H. Jerke, Chair
Weld County Clerk toffy s( %r
1 EXCUSED
O - Robert M--•en Pro-Tem
BY: A , /
D-puty Clerk the =oa"'�,��.I� TT((
I:m F. Garcia
David E. Long
�Oa 'ft
oena d'v«� Q
Dougl 9t coacher
Minutes, November 10, 2008 2008-2992
Page 16 BC0016
Hello