The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20082869.tiff EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET Case ORD#2008-13, CHAPTER 22, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description A. Jim Woodward Letter of Concern re: Uranium Mining B. Bruce Nickerson, Town of Firestone E-Mail re: Urban Development Goals and Policies, dated 10/27/2008 C. Lynn Mayer Shults, L.G. Everist E-Mail re: General Commercial Mineral Deposits, dated 10/07/2008 D. Planning Staff Memo re: Potential Revisions, dated 11/07/2008 E. Planning Staff Letter from Town of Milliken, dated 10/27/2008 F. Tim Woodward Written narrative G. Amelia Tuttle Letter on behalf of Town of Severance, dated 11/10/2008 H. Becky Safarik PowerPoint presentation re: Greeley Planning Commission Comments/ Recommendations I. Doug Meyer Smart Growth - Master Plan Primer J. Planning Staff E-mail re: Proposed clerical revisions, dated 11/21/2008 K. Planning Staff Memo re: 3rd Reading revisions, dated 11/21/2008 L. Planning Staff E-mail from Jeff Parsons, dated 11/20/2008 M. Jim Woodward Written narrative N. Pat Kennedy Pictures O. Planning Staff Two E-mails re: Final clerical corrections made, dated 12/8/2008 and 12/10/2008 P. Q. R. a'ad'- a 7 �T )` N.) c• M1 . S.K. r- A o 2 73R \, \ a 17 , 3 N -9 4 k :-..):\>1'.: '(-) z 5'_"� �JC ' S c'JA O CL 11J W ILI 0-m 2 a V� v 1u G z w O d V ' C AC. ;9 ,' \' 0 a dA Q > Cl 13 N y ,J � -t - 3 °,te V ' c .1;d\i Z LL uj 44 a a 0 N =� f 2 Q E w 3 i, vest- 1f �— cJ I- Z A Q "Al — 1 (-17: 4 1P a' kr K `1Nl M In W C G t O Co O >` n r M 0, ) ' , /' 'c1 Q /fw 0 O v �Za N 3 i2, 4 ,?,,, [L Ca 4--1- JW it > a ,� S\ S\•' i �' ZW W 0 1 ° v t V � �7� r , i W % a AA W O W z o *k �C.k- " cl N .- x 0 a I Good morning. My name is Jim Woodward. I reside at 47897 Weld County • i5 nd have been a property owner in the county for close to ten years. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you this morning about the new Comprehensive Plan. I understand the volunteer committee has been working diligently on the updated plan for quite some time, and I apologize for not participating in the process before now. I spoke with Mr. Mueller on Friday, and he said it is not too late to suggest changes to the new plan, so I would like to request that an additional policy statement be added on a topic I am very concerned with. That topic is uranium mining and processing. As you know, the county may be presented with one or more Use by Special Review permit applications in the future for uranium mining and processing facilities. In your quasi-judicial capacity, I know it is inappropriate for you to discuss specific permit applications. However, it is legitimate and appropriate to consider and discuss legislative issues related to uranium mining, and it is my understanding that revisions to the comprehensive plan and zoning code are legislative in nature. Over the last few months, the governing bodies of the City of Greeley and the towns of Timnath, Ault, and New Raymer have passed resolutions opposing uranium mining in the area. The resolutions cite potential detrimental economic and environmental impacts that may result from this activity, as well as the • relatively large populations near the proposed mining areas. The towns of Nunn and Windsor are currently considering taking action on the issue. Uranium mining is a matter of significant public concern in the county and deserves to be specifically addressed in both the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning code. I have personally discussed this issue with many people who reside or own property in the area between Highway 85 and the county line to the west, and virtually all are very concerned about potential contamination of their land, crops, animals, and most importantly, the ground water they rely on. While many of these folks would prefer that uranium mining be prohibited in the county, that is not my purpose in coming before you today. Based on historical and current data from state regulators in Texas, Wyoming, and New Mexico, uranium mining and processing facilities have had significant environmental impacts on surrounding surface and sub-surface environments. Unlike other minerals, there are unique radiological and toxic hazards associated with uranium. • 1 IT k /S1'E 2008-2869 A Did #2do8-'3 • If uranium is to be mined in the county, there should be adequate buffer zones between mining operations and adjacent residential, farming, and other land uses. Buffer zones would serve to minimize the potential for radiological and toxic contamination of land, air, surface water, and ground water from releases of uranium or other heavy metals. At this point, experts are being consulted and research is being done to determine the appropriate sizes of any proposed buffer zones. I would like to suggest a modest and reasonable policy statement be added to the new Comprehensive Plan. I propose that the policy be included under Goal 3 of Section 22-5-80 General commercial mineral deposits ("aggregate") and ore mineral resources goals and policies. Goal 3 is Minimize the impacts of surface and sub-surface mining activities on the surrounding land, land uses, roads, and highways. Using the existing numbering system, this policy would be Policy 3.9. It would read: "Ensure that uranium mining and processing facilities are located at a sufficient distance from other land uses to minimize the impacts of any radiological and toxic releases to the surface and sub-surface • environments." There is currently no mention in the zoning code of buffer zones between uranium mining or processing operations and adjacent land uses. This proposed policy statement is very general and would allow for a rational discussion of specific code provisions by the various stakeholders — landowners, farmers, mineral-rights owners, business-owners, county staff and elected officials, and the mining industry. I ask that you consider this policy for inclusion in the new Comprehensive Plan. Please let me know if you would like to see evidence of the level of public support for this policy statement before you render your decision. Thank you. Jim Woodward 47897 WCR 15 P.O. Box 599 Wellington, CO 80549 970-897-3029 jbw( frii.com • Memorandum • To Brad Mueller, Long Range Planner, Weld County Subject Planning Comments on Weld County Comprehensive Plan Update From Bruce Nickerson, Firestone Town Planner Date October 27, 2008 Thank you for your efforts in addressing the Town's comments in reference to the draft Weld County Comprehensive Plan. Upon reviewing the current 2008 Comp Plan Update Planning Commission Recommendation Draft, updated October 8, 2008, which the Weld County Board of County Commissioners is currently reviewing, we have two remaining comments, noted in bold font below, that we discussed with you on the phone last Friday. We appreciate the ongoing opportunity you have provided us to review and comment on the draft versions of the plan. Sec. 22-2-110. Urban development Goals and Policies. B. UD.Goal 2. Strive to establish an Intergovernmental Agreement concerning urban growth areas with each municipality in the County. 6. UD.Policy 2.6. Support the formation of a Joint Planning Board to consider specified urban land use proposals within an Intergovernmental Agreement urban growth area and within portions of the municipal boundary (i.e. town limits). A simple majority of the Joint Planning Board members should be unincorporated County • residents, to reflect the single elected official representation by these citizens (versus dual representation for town residents). Comment: • For a number of reasons, this provision seems unachievable from a municipal standpoint. As we discussed, if the goal is to provide a greater voice to unincorporated residents on municipal land use matters, then please consider a provision to provide for pre-hearing neighborhood meetings with County planning staff present so that pertinent County resident concerns can be added to County planning staff referral comments. Comment: Consider the addition of a new section and goal in Sec. 22-2-190. Residential development Goals and Policies to read as follows: R.Goal 7. Encourage urban density residential development to annex into a municipality if the new or expanding residential development is adjacent to the municipality's corporate limits. 1. R.Policy 7.1 Municipalities may have comprehensive plans that include lands in unincorporated areas of the County. Applicants are encouraged to discuss their land use plans with those affected municipalities. a. Recommended Strategy R.7.1.a Pursue Intergovernmental Agreements between municipalities and the County. • 1 a Kim Ogle • From: Lynn Mayer Shults [Imshults@LGEVERIST.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 8:45 AM To: Kim Ogle Subject: FW: Weld County Comp Plan -Comments • Hi Kim, If it is not too late, here are two simple comments on the Weld County Comp. Plan. — Lynn Weld County Comprehensive Plan Section 22-5-80. General commercial mineral deposits ("aggregate") and ore mineral resources goals and policies. C. CM. Goal 3. Minimize the impacts of surface and sub-surface mining activities on the surrounding land, land uses, roads, and highways. 5. CM. Policy 3.5. The land use applicant should demonstrate that the street or highway facilities providing access to the mining activity are adequate in functional classification, width and structural capacity to meet the requirements of the proposed mining activity. Require internal road circulation, off-street parking, dust abatement, acceleration lanes, deceleration lanes, common access collection points, signalization and other traffic improvements wherever necessary to mitigate traffic impacts caused by the mining activity. Also, review applications for mining in accordance with the transportation goals and policies. COMMENT on Policy 3.5.: This goal will ensure that mine operations will continue to be required to have "Road Wmprovements and Maintenance Agreements" from Weld County Public Works. Our question is - are all other ndustries and planned developments required to do road improvements? How can we make sure that this is fair across the board? We have had the unfortunate timing of being the first mining operation that comes into an area, and have had to do road improvements, which are then used by the next operation or housing development free of charge to them. Furthermore, mining operations are temporary, so they should not have to pay 100% for road improvements that will benefit many others (for free) after they are long gone. D. CM. Goal 4. Minimize hazardous conditions related to mining activities and the mining site. • 1. CM. Policy 4.1. In reviewing the operational and reclamation plans for a mining operation, impose such conditions as necessary to minimize or eliminate the potential adverse impact of the operation on surrounding properties as follows: a. Require appropriate site-specific security fencing be erected and maintained around extraction sites, as necessary, to minimize potential attractive nuisance hazards associated with operations located near urban uses. b. Require mining operations to use warning signs, fences, guards, lighting and other means to warn and protect people from mine site hazards such as steep slopes, holes, ponds and heavy equipment. Enforce trespass laws to ensure public safety. c. Require all mining operations conform to federal, state, and local safety standards. COMMENT on Policy 4.1.b.: This goal infringes on MSHA jurisdiction. As you know, MSHA is the U.S. Department of Labor agency that regulates mines -the Mine Safety Health Administration -and it has complete jurisdiction over the safety of mine sites. They inspect us at least 2 times per year. Mine operators already conform to the federal MSHA safety standards (and Weld County has it covered by the next requirement in CM. Policy 4.1.c.). The first sentence of 4.1.b. should be removed. The second sentence about trespassing is fine. If you have any questions for me, feel free to call or email. *Sincerely, Lynn Mayer Shults, Regulatory ManagerImshults@lgeverist.com L.G. Everist, Inc.—7321 E.88th Avenue, Suite 200—Henderson,CO 80640 10/08/2008 • Memorandum TO: Board of County Commissioners WI I DATE: November 7, 2008 C FROM: Brad Mueller COLORADO Department of Planning Services RE: Potential revisions to Comp Plan, based on Board Work Sessions & First Reading Hearing CC: County Attorney's Office, Clerk to Board Following is a list of potential revisions to the Planning Commission Recommended Draft of the Comprehensive Plan, the draft that was forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners following Planning Commission hearings on September 30 and October 7. These revisions come from discussion at Board work sessions and the Board's First Reading hearing on October 27; and, in particular, this most recent list of potential revisions reflects discussion items from the November 3 Board work session. These items represent some of the issues raised by the TAC, staff, referral agencies, or the public, and it remains the Board's • discretion to consider other items in addition to these. These items are for consideration as possible changes and/or additions to the draft. They are listed in order of the document, and they are designed to be able to be discussed and decided upon in either a "yes" or"no"fashion. (The Board obviously also has the option to support a variation of any of these, or ask staff to do additional research and provide other alternatives.) The Board has indicated that it will consider these items at the Second Reading of the Comp Plan scheduled for November 10, 2008. Each item below first discusses the reasons for potential revision. That paragraph is then followed by potential replacement language. • Sec. 22-1-110. Relationship to planning documents. Proposed revision is to add paragraph H, to clarify the relationship between Comp Plan policies and adopted regulations. This was change was discussed during the 10/21 Board work session. (Page 10, comparison draft) H. 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. • EXHIBIT I litd 4'taof-13 020O8-.284 • Sec. 22-1-120. Comprehensive Plan Guiding Principles. Proposed revisions to paragraph A, • Private Property Rights. In its 10/21 work session, the Board expressed a desire to have this section reflect the creation of opportunities. Subsequent discussion on 11/3 suggested referring to "promoting"opportunities. (Page 11, comparison draft) A. 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 their private property rights. • Sec. 22-1-130. Principal plan components. Amend paragraph C to clarify that Recommended Strategies are County-initiated and are not the only means by which to achieve the adopted Goals and Policies. This item was discussed during the 10/21 Board work session. (Page 12, comparison draft) C. 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. Listing a Recommended Strategy does not imply that it is the only action that could be taken to support a particular Policy, nor is it a requirement that the action be undertaken. Rather, 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. • Sec. 22-2-30. Agriculture. Board members expressed, in their work session on 10/3, an interest in removing a sentence from this section that seemed to function as a policy, rather than narrative. (Page • 28, comparison draft) C. 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. • Sec. 22-2-60.Agriculture Goals and Policies. A.Goal 3. A.Policy 3.3. At the 11/3 board work session, members noted a preference for simply considering water delivery infrastructure during the land use process, rather than necessarily"protecting"it. (Page 3Z comparison draft) A.Policy 3.3. Land use regulations should consider the traditional and future operational viability of water delivery infrastructure when applications for proposed land use changes are considered. • Sec. 22-2-60. Agriculture Goals and Policies. A.Goal 6. A.Policy 6.4. At the 10/24 board work session, members indicated that they would like to support agri-tourism with potential regulatory changes. The proposed Recommended Strategy below would flag this action item. (Page 33, comparison draft) A.Policy 6.4. Encourage agri-tourism. a. 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. • 2 • • Sec. 22-2-60. Agriculture Goals and Policies. A.Goal 10, A.Policy 10.2. (Right to Farm). Board members noted that certain elements of the Right to Farm Statement are factually incorrect and indicated some other edits would be appropriate. (Page 35, comparison draft) Revise language: 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 .... Remove: . . . .Snow removal for roads within subdivisions are of the lowest priority for public works or may be the private responsibility of the homeowners Remove: Parents are responsible for their children. • Sec.22-2-70. Urban development. UD.Goal 2.6 8 2.7. Jennifer Simmons,Frederick Planning Director, and Rebecca Toberman,Firestone Planner,both expressed at the First Reading hearing(10/27)concern with the practically of having a joint planning board as an option in future IGA's between the County and a municipality. They advocate a clause that would ensure County Planning Staff was invited to pre-hearing neighborhood meetings for municipal land use cases, so that pertinent County resident concerns can be noted and included in consideration of the case. At its work session on 11/3, the Board also commented on text changes for UD.Policy 2.6. (Page 43, comparison draft) UD.Policy 2.6. Consider the formation of a Joint Planning Board to consider specified urban land use proposals within an Intergovernmental Agreement urban growth area and within portions of the • municipal boundary(i.e.town limits). A simple majority of the Joint Planning Board members should be unincorporated County property owners in the specified area, to reflect the single elected official representation by these citizens (versus dual representation for town residents). UD.Policy 2.7. 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 unincorporated County residents' concerns can be noted and included in County referral comments to the municipality. • Sec. 22-2-150.Industrial development Goals and Policies.. (.Goal 6. (.Policy 6.2. Board members indicated a preference to have the industrial screening policy be more flexible at the 10/24 work session. (Page 49, comparison draft) (.Policy 6.2. Support the use of visual and sound barrier landscaping to screen open storage areas from residential uses or public roads. • Sec. 22-2-170. Commercial development Goals and Policies. C.Goal 5. C.Policy 5.2. Board members indicated a preference to have the commercial screening policy be more flexible at the 10/24 work session. (Page 51, comparison draft) C.Policy 5.2. Support the use of visual and sound barrier landscaping to screen open storage areas from residential uses or public roads. • 3 • Sec. 22-2-190. Residential development Goals and Policies. R.Goal 5. R.Policies 5.2 8 5.3. In • discussion at the 10/24 work session, Board members expressed concern that the clause proposed in R.Policy 5.2 of"all lots should have access to common or private open space"may be misinterpreted in the future as a requirement that people be allowed access to individuals'private open space or yards. The draft language below attempts to better define the role of common space and private space in rural residential subdivisions. A similar change would be appropriate for R.Policy 5.3. (Page 55, comparison draft) R.Policy 5.2. 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 open space, if applicable. Private open space is encouraged on individual lots, in order to support high-quality rural character. R.Policy 5.3. 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. • Sec. 22-2-220. Regional Urbanization Areas(RUAs). During discussion about RUAs at its 10/24 work session, Board members indicated that they want to emphasize that urban development is encouraged in existing municipalities. They also felt the RUA section should clarify that the RUA land use tool exists in order to create opportunities that might not otherwise be available. Modifications to Paragraph A could address these ideas. (Page 61, comparison draft) A. 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. • Sec. 22-2-230. Regional Urbanization Areas(RUAs) Goals and Policies. RUA.Goal 2. RUA.Policy 2.5. Board members noted during the 10/24 work session that private developers should also be called upon to coordinate the construction and funding of public facilities when related to new development. (Page 62, comparison draft) RUA.Policy 2.5. Coordinate the location, construction,and funding of public facilities between Weld County, municipalities, other jurisdictions, and private interests. • Sec. 22-3-140. Transportation Goals and Policies. T.Goal 1. T.Policy 1.1. Recommended Strategy T.1.1.a. The revision proposed below addresses questions raised in the 10/24 work session about how alternative fuels could ever factor into a Transportation Master Plan. (Page 79, comparison draft) Recommended Strategy T.1.1.a. Develop a Transportation Master Plan with the following elements: • Consider the potential impacts of alternative technologies on future transportation systems. • 4 • Sec. 22-3-140. Transportation Goals and Policies. T.Goal 3. T.Policy 3.3. A concern was expressed • at the 10/24 work session that the County historically has not maintained the Scenic Byway signs. Changing the language to encourage such signage also has the effect of making this a policy, so the proposed language includes eliminating the Recommended Strategy. (Page 80, comparison draft) T.Policy 3.3. 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. • Sec. 22-3-150. Tourism goal. TR.Goal 1. A suggestion was made during the 10/24 work session that the tourism section include a reference to heritage and cultural tourism. (Page 83, comparison draft) TR.Goal 1. Recognize the importance of cultural and heritage tourism and recreation to local, regional, and agricultural economies, including events and sites 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. • Sec. 22-4-10. Purpose. (Environmental Resources). Board members noted that the syntax of Paragraph A did not make sense as drafted. (Page 84, comparison draft) A. Air, water, waste, noise, and other public health impacts from proposed land uses should be considered. • • Section 22-4-30. Water Goals and Policies. WA.Goal 1. WA.Policy 1.5. County Commissioners indicated in their work session on 10/24 that WA.Policy. 1.5 might better focus on dry-up of land itself,and they suggested a separate new Policy in the 11/3 work session. The amended Policy, as proposed below, addresses the larger issue of the dry-up phenomenon. This proposal inserts a new Policy, re- locates former Recommended Strategy WA.1.6.a, and re-numbers the remaining Policies. (Page 85, comparison draft) WA.Policy 1.5. Encourage alternatives to the"dry-up"(or fallowing)of agricultural land,a practice that otherwise takes agricultural land out of production, often permanently. a. Recommended Strategy WA.1.5.a. Develop policies for dried-up lands so that they are managed to prevent dust, erosion, and the prevalence of weeds. WA.Policy 1.6. Encourage"dry-up agreements"that allow the use of alternate water sources to keep the land in production. [Re-number WA.Policies 1.6 & 1.7] • Sec. 22-5-20. Wildlife. At the work session on 10/24, the Board noted that wildlife lands may be owned privately, not just leased. This is found in the Wildlife narrative. (Page 94, comparison draft) . . . . 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. • 5 • Sec. 22-5-30. Wildlife Goals and Policies. W.Goal 1. The Board recommended on 10/24 a change • to "significant wildlife habitat"to include appropriate wildlife. (Page 94, comparison draft) W.Goal 1. New development 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. • Sec. 22-5-50. Open space,parks and recreation Goals and Policies. O.Goal 1. O.Policy 1.2. As initially proposed, this Policy seems to imply that the County is a party and decision-maker in a private willing-buyer/willing-seller transaction, which is clearly not the case. Board members, in their 10/24 work session, felt that the proposed amended language below better indicates the County's proper role. (Page 96, comparison draft) O.Policy 1.2. 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. • Section 22-6-20. Economic development Goals and Policies. ECON.Goal 5. ECON.Policy 5.1 & Recommended Strategy ECON.5.1.a. At their 10/24 work session, the Board noted that this Policy did not need to be limited to cases where a land use application is involved. Furthermore, members expressed an interest in having Strategies for supporting"shovel-ready did"for industrial development. (Page 112, comparison draft) • ECON.Policy 5.1. The County should encourage an adequate supply of both services and land suitable for industrial development and redevelopment. (Note that end clause is deleted.) Recommended Strategy ECON.5.1.a. Develop a 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 re-develop expeditiously. • 6 Town Hall, 1101 Broad St., Drawer 290 Milliken, CO 80543 • MiHi1&eri (970) 587-4331 Fax: (970) 587-2678 Weld County Planning Department \HIS GREELEY OFFICE OCT 29 ?nnR October 27, 2008 RECEIVED Brad Mueller RECEIVED Long Range Planner Weld County Planning Services 918 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Weld County Comprehensive Plan Updates Dear Mr. Mueller, The County's task of updating the Comprehensive Plan is a challenging one and the County has provided ample opportunity for public comments about the Draft Plan. In that regard the Town of Milliken Town Board, Planning Commission and staff have reviewed the Draft Plan Update for 2008 and have the following comments: • General Comments: 1. Urban Growth and Development Sections The Town agrees with the statements that direct urban growth to municipalities but would prefer that the term "should" be replaced with "shall" regarding this issue. The Town would like to see language that specifically directs growth to occur within incorporated municipalities and their designated growth areas. 2. Transportation Plan The Town encourages the development of a Transportation Master Plan for the County and would like special consideration given to bicycles, and pedestrians as well as alternative modes of transportation. The Town would also like to see the plan incorporate regional transit options connecting County jurisdictions to the Denver Metro Area as well as Loveland and Fort Collins. In addition, the Town would like to see the incorporation of trails and open space into this plan. 3. Parks, Trails and Open Space The town is concerned that trails, open space and recreation are not priorities in the plan and therefore not supported. We would like to see stronger language added to address these issues with specific mention of regional continuity. There are no real policies and few strategies proposed. Parks, Trails and Open Space help with community health and vitality and can be an attraction for new residences and businesses and thus improve the economic development of an area. As development within Weld County continues to occur it will be increasingly more difficult to plan and set aside land and money for trails, parks and open space leaving fewer options for the future. • EJM vid ;he 4. The town would like to see language added regarding Title 32 Special Districts as there is • an increased trend towards their use in development with special attention to the use of them to finance large projects in unincorporated areas. This language should include notification of nearby municipalities as well as limitations to the scope of what these Special Districts can do. The Town does not want to see Special Districts with all the powers and responsibilities of an incorporated municipality. Specific Comments: 1. Section 22-2-1 10 (UD Policy 2.1(d): "Expansion of municipal boundaries through annexation should include notification of all unincorporated property owners within one mile of the subject property. " The Town of Milliken code currently requires notification of all landowners within three hundred (300) feet of the property asking that we notify people within one (1) mile will place an unnecessary financial burden on the applicant or Town. We would recommend removing this section entirely. Currently, the Town of Milliken is in the process of designating a growth management area and developing an annexation plan. Unincorporated area property owners will be informed of and involved in this plan development process. 2. Section 22-2-110 (UD Goal 3): "Until Intergovernmental Agreements are in place with a particular municipality, define a standard County Urban Growth Boundary as a one- quarter-mile perimeter around the municipal limits that are currently physically served by central sewer (whether by a municipality or a special district). " a. The definition and identification of a County Urban Growth Boundary can vary greatly between municipalities depending on long range plans, utility plans, etc., • and defining them as '/ mile may be too generalized and limiting. The Urban Growth Boundary of some cities and towns in the County may exceed a 1/4 mile limit. b. The town agrees with the County's policy of entering into individualized Intergovernmental Agreements with all incorporated municipalities within the County. The issues of the Urban Growth Boundary, development standards, and annexation procedures could be appropriately addressed in such an agreement. The Town would like to thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan and if you have any questions regarding our comments do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ---31;;;;77/57 Steve House Community Development Director C: Sheryl Trent, Town Administrator All Weld County Municipalities • Good morning. My name is Jim Woodward. I reside at 47897 WCR 15. Two weeks ago I requested that you approve an amendment to the new comprehensive plan, an amendment which deals with uranium mining and processing. My amendment supports Goal 3 of Section 22-5-80. Goal 3 is "Minimize the impacts of surface and sub-surface mining activities on the surrounding land, land uses, roads, and highways." The language of the amendment is simple and straightforward: "Ensure that uranium mining and processing facilities are located at a sufficient distance from other land uses to minimize the impacts of any radiological and toxic releases to the surface and sub-surface environments." It does not define such impacts, and it does not delineate the appropriate buffer zones between uranium activities and other land uses. Those details are best left to those who would draft related zoning code regulations. It does, however, address a land use issue that is not adequately covered in either the comprehensive plan or the zoning code. Implicit in the amendment is that fact that uranium mining and processing is a land use that is fundamentally incompatible with other land uses such as residential and farming. The potential public health and environmental impacts are substantial. Mitigation of these potential impacts cannot be achieved by berms, landscaping, and fencing alone. The possible dispersion of radiological and toxic materials via windblown dust and ground water migration dictate that a physical buffer zone be created that is sufficiently large enough to minimize these impacts. Does this amendment duplicate existing state regulations, or, put another way, do state mining and environmental regulations provide the same level of protection for adjacent landowners? The answer is no. Regarding in-situ leach uranium mining, the Radiation Program of the Colorado Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division regulates ISL facilities under an agreement with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In reviewing an application for a permit, state regulations call for consideration of a mining site's remoteness from populated areas. The regulation is an acknowledgement that close proximity to populated areas is undesirable, but it does not require a buffer zone around ISL mines. In-situ leach mining is of particular concern because of the potential for migration of heavy metals through the aquifer. Since long-term ground water monitoring is not required, a buffer zone would add a critical measure of protection for nearby domestic and agricultural well owners. Regulations promulgated by the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board and the Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety address only reclamation of in- situ and open pit mine sites, as defined under state statutes. Their publications state clearly that that the Board and the Division have no authority over land use issues and decisions. In arguments to the Colorado Supreme Court on September 9 of this year, the attorney for the Colorado Mining Association stated that counties can, through their zoning process, proscribe and prevent mining in specific areas, including residential areas. He also cited a Court of Appeals mining case that found that, with respect to land use authority, it is a valid exercise of a county's zoning authority to identify areas where mining activity is appropriate or not appropriate. To conclude, the Board of County Commissioners clearly has the authority and obligation to enact land use policies and rules that protect Weld County landowners from impacts associated with uranium mining and processing. Please help us begin the process by approving this amendment to the comprehensive plan. Thank you. Jim Woodward 47897 WCR 15 P.O. Box 599 Wellington, CO 80549 970-897-3029 jbwfrii.com TOWN OF "'` °�- pm • Weld County Commissioners 915 10`°Street Greeley,CO 80632 November 10, 2008 Gentlemen, Thank you for the opportunities to review and comment throughout the process. Brad Mueller has done an excellent job of keeping us informed,providing clarification,and receiving comments;we also appreciate that members of the TAC committee have been generous with their time and providing insight. On behalf of the Mayor of the Town of Severance,the following comments are offered in response to the current draft dated October 8, 2008. The establishment of Intergovernmental Agreements(IGA's)is fundamental to successful implementation of this plan. Absent meaningful IGA's 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 the Comprehensive Plan TAC have expressed that this is not the envisioned outcome;instead, the intent is for the County to establish consensual IGA's protecting the integrity of municipal plans. To achieve this,we recommended that the County take an approach to development and implementation of IGA's wherein it agrees to discuss the specific aspects of the elements of 22-2-110 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" IGA's,the weaknesses and constraints within Article II will be overwhelming. With consensual IGA's this Comprehensive Plan can be a guide for a stronger Weld County. The County Urban Growth Boundary is now defined as a'''A 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 IGA's,municipal planning areas and growth boundaries are not recognized;unless meaningful IGA's are developed the County is setting itself up to be forced to allow sprawling development that 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 22-2-190. R.Goal 5.2,to address the review of land use regulations of all of the municipalities within Weld County to ensure complementary densities. Again,thank you for this opportunity to comment and look forward to working with you on the development of an IGA. Sincerely i, � v ktiieli j"fi�tl�,Tb*n Planner On behalf of Pierre DeMilt, Mayor Town of Severance 231 West 4th Avenue •P.O. Box 122 •Severance, Colorado 80546 •ph 970.686.1218 •fax 970.686.6250 EX IBIT ii, v, H `?r 4::: Weld County Comprehensive Plan City of Greeley Planning Commission Comments & Recommendations bet--i— Greeley „_ Legend ' SW Weld County Analysis t . .v t rr rt Ri. 7 wM a, .......•. t to ..r•.� i .<C�...,i.: v v R9 . .. -1 1.Ni •c..•...ry...a County Boundary rattly_ I I .&Lc, •' Sic 0 2 4 6 H to Weld County Zoning A • E 10 .w `u fat RU @1m lig _la� W.1 .;,`at arty I a4 Ra 1 41.4! je 4!.44 _ r J 41 :7 : -`., wa in-t Ro ! {Z !vp 'Y 'v,,1,1rr.. .. .4n, a'].' I -_- rD A W , •• C Y t...: f• tip J V it. pis 10 Nonr I , tt ti f fy e �y 1]Sr ! it ti [ " .ter. .. U. a •g -.1— 1-1 1- _ ..- •7'-rl--R .s ;aa as ,.t♦ ..1ylr rrlt n ..1t1. r _ Ito • UnftGyril{^` .- .] 1 A �1 ' 1 MD " VW ' �_. - .z�to:�A i ' t. - r�10011 11, ~/ " • WEND CI O U T Y rnimie a_ i "octet.' IPar t t'3'°l i Ares o11____ It/ r —. I - r n t. (J ' a.m. ,b 1444 W miss I ar - .. in j Gt a 10 • ;a a, t' 1 Ai I!J w t �� r� we n '4' n �/a" • _ _ to t _- ._ r ,p— " ' Fy� uulwt _ -o•. i Unli.c_—_ cl t p.l ins_ _ i.� -r - AiAate a w a. . t a o iN- -- -- -- a -- r.Llian a;i 1 Greeley Comments 1 ) A County Transportation Plan should be developed & adopted as a top priority upon approval of the County Comp Plan 2 ) Retain the 80-acre minimum lot size Legend 1 • SW Weld County Analysis F`J7 �Cav Lint. Ito 111 ('IW..1. NU -I. 14u .—r.««••«:.''�oYa Minnow 7 1.4�Su.,.Wary R9 I a County dounoery ' ,. MHOS K NM . to Citieti plus 3 'r: 5t, 2 4 e 9 ,o lei I 41 Weld County Zoning mile buffer = au R.1 907 Srfni:- IMO lin tie I: 3,200 parcels 70+ acres y R-2.1%-3 liras in size now exist outside C-4,C-2Mt " - , I cities but win the. 3- -mile C3.C-1 - -�`� , ' buffer area S_ rrt r ue . . 1 RA J PAD - too Ilk c PM ' , 'Z- Ili I iN `}5t}- `11" _ ' Division of the I. ,s. r :1p..luy -! 'i. I 4f20,0. Parcels 10+ I � s, acres lb size into .Qa —iL 11 .. —"�'irs,*� 35 acres = 12, 00 Ip>� ,� _ie .. i w.a u I 7 An s MO a --ni`�>L�1 t ; :=' Alit« 1. E� LD COUNTY M 4;r L.1-' .-iic ,nnl • ; .1 • I 11te II-7.) — 1 I _ Area of Interest l__ b .. .„ a WO 1444 sq miles - _ c .S1.-4 r ! . if, ufti bi 1 d114T..n _ �'7 A t� 1! t& pds .4) I if 1,% i �rik I L J=sj �' 1 I ..1 :'"die `eera,�dlvislon��prpcess 11 w so: � �j1f•..4.'�J ,i �tilL � Ila does .not require sub(d, i froru _ 7......,--L, { county, or public review, no ! I7 %I , ma �•e chance for IOOW=feservationl 'T `��=I 'Li. _.1 ' '�" AC4AA at or othea°` onsiderations I n 1 • 1 3 _ _ _ ., •sa vuty • '- 91 1 , 2 Greela Comments 3 ) Promote development of sub-area plans to address particular land use strategies within the overall Comprehensive Plan framework 4 ) US Hwy 85 Corridor — examine strategies to revitalize the corridor for economic development and land use compatibility Greeley Comments 5 ) Retain elements of health , safety , and quality of life — consider making it a top priority H. Health, Safety, and Welfare. The Comprehensive Plan is predicated on the fundamental function of government to preserve and enhance the health, safety and welfare of its citizens 3 preeiey Comments 1 6 ) Craft a Vision Statement of Weld County's aspirational goals in order for everyone to clearly understand its purpose and application throughout the county [ creeley Comments 1 7 ) Reaffirm the current Comp Plan policy to direct urban level scale and density development to municipalities Amend Sec . 22-2-70 A to read : "Support the success of urban development by directing urban uses to municipalities and areas where urban services exist. " 4 Greeley Comments 8) Clearly identify and provide for a collaborative relationship between municipal 3-mile plans , IGA's and Weld County RUA's Amend Sec. 22-2-70 : 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. Greeley Comments 1 9 ) Work with municipalities to provide for community separators/buffers a. Recommended Strategy 1 . 6 a. Develop community separator and buffer strategies with municipalities and Weld County property owners as part of the Weld County Open Space study 10 )Consider municipalities as key partners in economic and land use development 5 Thank you for the opportunity to comment City �r Greeley 6 SMART DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS �.+oss- OFFICE OF SMART GROWTH GROWTH Colorado's Future Master Plan Primer MASTER PLAN-GENERAL DESCRIPTION: The master plan, sometimes referred to as a comprehensive plan, is a framework and guide for accomplishing community aspirations and intentions. It states goals and objectives and recommends courses of action for future growth and development of land,public facilities and services and environmental protection. PLAN ELEMENTS THAT MAY BE INCLUDED: • Statement of Objectives, Policies and • Urban Influence Area Programs • Housing • Relationship of Plan to the Trends/Plans • Cultural/HistoricaUSocial Setting of the Region • Educational Facilities • Land Use • Energy • Transportation • Environment • Utility and Facility Plan • Recreation and Tourism* *the only plan element required by statutes(see C.R.S.30-28-106 and 31-23-206) BASIS/BACKGROUND FOR PLAN INFORMATION: The plan is based on inventories, studies, surveys, analysis of current trends and must consider social and economic consequences of the plan, existing and projected population. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PLAN: The principal purpose for a master plan is to be a guide for the achievement of community goals. A plan will also: 1. State and promote broad community values in its goals, objectives,policies and programs. 2. Establish a planning process for orderly growth and development, and economic health. 3. Balance competing interests and demands. 4. Provide for coordination and coherence in the pattern of development. 5. Provide for a balance between the natural and built environment. EXHIBIT 6. Reflect regional conditions and consider regional impacts. an i& 7. Address both current and long-teen needs. �— 4 USING THE PLAN: The adopted plan has the potential for many uses and will define the way it is to be used in its implementation section. Among the uses of the plan are the following: 1. A basis for regulatory actions: The plan serves as a foundation and guide for the provisions of the zoning regulations, subdivision regulations,the official map, flood hazard regulations, annexation decisions and other decisions made under these regulations. 2. A basis for community programs and decision making: The plan is a guide and resource for the recommendations contained in a capital budget and program, for a community development program, and for direction and content of other local initiatives, such as for water protection, recreation or open space land acquisition and housing. 3. A source for planning studies: Few plans can address every issue in sufficient detail. Therefore, many plans will recommend further studies to develop courses of action on a specific need. 4. A standard for review at the County and State level: Other regulatory processes identify the municipal plan as a standard for review of applications. Master plans are important to the development of regional plans or inter-municipal programs, i.e.,a regional frail network or valley-wide transit program. 5. A source of information: The plan is a valuable source of information for local boards, commissions, organisations, citizens and business. 6. A long-term guide: The plan is a long-term guide by which to measure and evaluate public and private proposals that affect the physical, social and economic environment of the community. }/ RESPONSIBILITY FOR PREPARATION AND ADOPTION OF THE PLAN: The planning commission is responsible for preparing the plan, distributing the plan,holding public hearings on the plan, and adopting the plan. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: Citizen participation helps to guide the planning commission in making decisions and in promoting community understanding of planning needs and issues.At least one public hearing will be held by the planning commission and by the legislative body before the plan is adopted. To generate support,understanding,and active participation in planning,however,more community involvement is usually needed. Citizens who are not well informed can present obstacles to the implementation of the plan by rejecting bylaws and by not supporting or participating in local programs. Office of Smart Growth 303-866-4552 http://www.dola.state.co.us/SmartGrowth Esther Gesick From: Brad Mueller Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 3:57 PM To: Esther Gesick Subject: RE: Comp plan Attachments: Memo BCC comp plan amdendment considerations for Hearing 3 Nov 21 memo.doc Memo BCC comp )Ian amdendment.. Here is the memo that I plan to use for Monday. Let me know if I need to do some quick editing on those other items. Original Message From: Esther Gesick Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 2 :59 PM To: Brad Mueller Subject: RE: Comp plan Brad, The draft has already been printed and scanned, so you can review it in minutes before Monday. Unfortunately, the changes noted below will have to be addressed via your memo for Board consideration. Thanks! Esther E. Gesick Deputy Clerk to the Board 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 (970) 356-4000 X4226 (970) 352-0242 (fax) Original Message From: Brad Mueller Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 2:39 PM To: Esther Gesick Cc: Brad Mueller Subject: FW: Comp plan Esther, I don't know if you can still make these corrections in the 3rd Reading draft. It's not a concern if you cannot, but we'd want these fixed in the final version (but only as noted below -- see my response IN CAPITAL LETTERS to each) . Thanks! Brad Original Message From: Webmail ghworks [mailto:ghworks@myexcel.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 6:03 PM To: Brad Mueller; Michelle Martin; Bill Jerke; Douglas Rademacher; William Garcia; Dave Long; Rob Masden; Stan Everitt; Fred Walker; Thomas Holton Subject: Comp plan Hi Brad, EXHIBIT There are some items that need clarification or correction in the Ad Q$14 latest draft. These are from my notes, and need verification by 1 aY�2aoF: 3 7e7'—2P(C`I Staff. The more important ones are: 1. Under 22-2-10, the first sentence of paragraph A is inconsistent with the similar sentence in the Right to Farm statement under A Goal 10 as to Weld's ranking. [THIS IS GOING IN THE RECOMMENDATION MEMO] 2. In the Right to Farm Statement, the Commissioners voted on removing the 2nd sentence re snow removal, but not the first, "Snow removal priorities mean that roads from subdivision to arterials may not be cleared for several days after a major snowstorm. " It is removed also, but without a vote. [THIS IS CORRECT -- FIRST SENTENCE IS TO REMAIN] 3. Sec 22-2-130. A. the following was suggested as an addition: the County reserves the right to provide opportunities to develop RUAs. Also, it was suggested to change the word "facilitates" to "creates" in the second sentence. [NO CHANGE NEEDED -- CORRECT AS DRAFTED] 4. Sec. 22-3-60. The recommended strategy T.3 .3 .a was eliminated, but not removed from the draft. [THIS WAS IN MY EDITS TO YOU, SO YOU PROBABLY HAVE MADE THE CHANGE] The rest of the corrections are very minor and for Staff. They are: 1. 22-1-120, F, "a" needs to be removed from between significant and impact. [YES, PLEASE CHANGE] 2. 22-1-150, B, 4, a, 2) , a comma needs to be inserted after including. [YES, PLEASE CHANGE] 3 . 22-1-150, B, 4, b, 11) , projects needs an apostrophe [CORRECT, BUT ALREADY IN THE LATEST RESOLUTION] 4 . 22-1-150, B, 4, c, 1) , "including, but not limited to, " [YES, PLEASE CORRECT] 5. 22-2-20, A.Goal 5, "provide" was changed to "consider" . [MY NOTES SHOW THERE WAS DISCUSSION, BUT MAYBE NOT A DECISION BY THE BOARD. CAN YOU CHECK THE TAPE AND/OR MINUTES TO SEE IF THIS WAS CHANGED? LEAVE 'AS IS' FOR NOW.] 6. 22-3-30, A, shouldn't "process" be plural? [NO -- IT IS CORRECT THE WAY IT IS] 7. 22-4-30, WA.Policy 2 .2, 2.3 and 2.4 "water right" is pluralized in one instance and not in the other two?? [SHOULD BE THE SAME; CHANGE LAST ONE TO BE WATER RIGHT (SINGULAR) LIKE THE OTHER TWO INSTANCES] 8. 22-5-80, CM.Policy 4.1, d, should elimnate the "d" from "required" . [YES, PLEASE CHANGE] These are the things that I noticed as I reviewed the draft. Staff as always has done an excellent job. It looks good! Thanks, Karla 2 Memorandum TO: Board of County Commissioners 111 D DATE: November 21, 2008 C FROM: Brad Mueller COLORADO Department of Planning Services RE: Potential Third Reading revisions to Comp Plan, based on Board Work Sessions & Second Reading Hearing CC: County Attorney's Office, Clerk to Board In the Second Reading Hearing for the Comp Plan on November 10, 2008, the Board continued the process of refining amendments to the draft version of a new updated Comprehensive Plan. The Board voted on several amendments to the draft, all of which will be reflected in the Draft Resolution (Revised)that is being prepared by the Clerk to the Board's office for the Third Reading Hearing on November 24. From discussion at the two previous hearings, from the three Board work sessions concerning the recommended draft, and from the work session on November 20, there remain some items that the Board may yet want to consider, in its efforts to refine the final document. Listed below are additional amendments that the Board may want to discuss and potentially act upon at the November 24 hearing. In addition, the public may make requests at the hearing for additional amendments as well. Each item below first discusses the reasons for potential revision. That paragraph is then followed by potential replacement language. • Section 22-1-20. Overview of Weld County. One goal with this Comp Plan update was to structure the demographic information--which has historically been in the Appendix—as an administrative element. After further discussion, the concept of even including it as an "appendix"seems misguided, since the intent is to simply take it out of the Comp Plan altogether. To make this change, staff now recommends that this administrative role be managed through a "Population & Development Report." (Page 4, comparison draft) C. The Weld County Population&Development Report is an administrative supplement to the Weld County Comprehensive Plan that provides detailed information about the physical characteristics of the County, population trends,employment,and housing. Because much of this information changes frequently, and because new data is available on a regular basis, the Population and Development Report is informational and not an adopted portion of the Comprehensive Plan. EXHIBIT IC 4- • Division 2:Executive Summary of the Plan. Sec. 22-1-50. Summary of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. The TA C and staff have waited on drafting the summary of the Comp Plan until after the main hearings have taken place. After further discussion and thought, staff is now recommending that the summary be removed altogether from the Plan. While the intent may seem practical—to give a reader an overview of the Plan—in practice, staff has seen it cause confusion among users, who tend to read it without recognizing that it is simply making reference to other sections of the Plan. More recently, the County Attorney noted that future users might argue that an omission in the section could somehow mean that listings elsewhere carry less weight—clearly not the intent of a summary section. (Page 5, comparison draft) [Remove drafted Section 22-1-50 from the Plan, and renumber Section 1 accordingly.] • Section 22-2-30. Agriculture. During the 11/20 work session, it was noted that the narrative for sub- section A was not consistent with similar language in the Right to Farm statement concerning the County's standing economically. The following revised language would address that. (Page 28, comparison draft) A. Historically,Weld County is one of the economically largest agricultural producing counties in the nation, regularly the top producer of traditional crops(i.e.,when excluding citrus-or nut-producing counties). The agricultural sector is an important element of the overall County economy. The diversity of agriculture in Weld County ranges from crops, rangelands, and feedlots, to other forms of agribusiness, agri-tourism, agri-tainment, and hobby farms. • Section 22-2-30. Agriculture. During the 11/20 work session, the Board re-addressed an issued first raised during the First Reading(10/27)by Ed Meyer, Weld County resident,concerning references to well and aquifer water, and subsequently discussed by the Board at its work session on 11/10. (Page 28, comparison draft) C. 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. In addition, shallow wells in alluvial areas are also productive sources of irrigation. As the population expands,so does the need for domestic, commercial,and industrial supplies. Land use regulations in the County should protect the infrastructure used for the delivery of water to users. • Section 22-5-50. Open space,parks and recreation Goals and Policies. O.Goal 1. The Board noted during its 11/20 work session that a reference to conservation easements might not be necessary in the list of mechanisms that are sometimes used to provide open space. O.Policy 1.3. Encourage and promote the use of appropriate land use tools such as donations, acquisitions, partnerships, or market-based purchases when open space is proposed. • Section 22-6-20. Economic development Goals and Policies. ECON.Goal 5. ECON.Policy 5.1 & Recommended Strategy ECON.5.1.a. At their 10/24 work session, the Board noted that this Policy did not need to be limited to cases where a land use application is involved. Furthermore, members expressed an interest in having Strategies for supporting"shovel-ready dirt"for industrial development. At the hearing on 10/10, and work session on 10/20, the Board requested additional work on language. (Page 112, comparison draft) ECON.Policy 5.1. The County should encourage an adequate supply of both services and land suitable for industrial development and redevelopment. (Note that end clause is deleted.) 2 Recommended Strategy ECON.5.1.a. Develop a program to create"shovel-ready"industrial sites throughout the County, where primary job providers would be able to develop or re- develop. Zoning, infrastructure,and services would ideally be immediately available for use in such areas. [Text previously proposed: Recommended Strategy ECON.5.1.a. Develop a 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 re-develop expeditiously.] • Section 22-6-20. Economic development Goals and Policies. ECON.Goal 6. ECON.Policy 6.1. With the removal of the Appendix, the reference in this Policy would need to be changed. (Page 112, comparison draft) ECON.Policy 6.1. Regularly maintain economic data for the County. 3 Page 1 of 1 Brad Mueller • From: Bruce Barker Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 9:03 PM To: Brad Mueller Subject: FW: comp plan For Monday. From: Jeffrey C. Parsons [mailto:wmap@igc.orgj Sent: Thu 11/20/2008 12:42 PM To: Bruce Barker Subject: comp plan Hi Bruce—here is a revised suggestion regarding uranium issues and the Comp. Plan. This proposal changes the proposed "policy" language to mirror that for Oil and Gas in OG Policy 2.6, so as to tier off of some prior precedent, and then includes any specifics in "recommended strategies" only. Any thoughts would be most appreciated. Add: CM.Policy 3.9. Ensure the health and safety of all citizens that are in relatively close proximity to uranium and • other mineral mining and processing facilities. a. Recommended Strategy CM3.9.a. Develop land use regulations to ensure the health and safety of all citizens that are in relatively close proximity to uranium and other mineral mining and processing facilities. b. Recommended Strategy CM3.9.b. Consider establishing a moratorium on the review of Use by Special Review applications for uranium mining and processing facilities until land use regulations are adopted. Jeffrey C. Parsons Senior Attorney Western Mining Action Project P.O. Box 349 Lyons, CO 80540 (office) (303) 823-5738 (fax) (303) 823-5732 **************************** 3a • 1'20 Cent r lqa 11/21/2008 Brad Mueller From: Webmail ghworks [ghworks@myexcel.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 6:03 PM To: Brad Mueller; Michelle Martin; Bill Jerke; Douglas Rademacher; William Garcia; Dave Long; Rob Masden; Stan Everitt; Fred Walker; Thomas Holton Subject: Comp plan Hi Brad, There are some items that need clarification or correction in the latest draft. These are from my notes, and need verification by Staff . The more important ones are: 1. Under 22-2-10, the first sentence of paragraph A is inconsistent with the similar sentence in the Right to Farm statement under A Goal 10 as to Weld' s ranking. 2 . In the Right to Farm Statement, the Commissioners voted on removing the 2nd sentence re snow removal, but not the first, "Snow removal priorities mean that roads from subdivision to arterials may not be cleared for several days after a major snowstorm. " It is removed also, but without a vote. 3 . Sec 22-2-130. A. the following was suggested as an addition: the County reserves the right to provide opportunities to develop RUAs. Also, it was suggested to change the word "facilitates" to "creates" in the second sentence. 4 . Sec. 22-3-60. The recommended strategy T.3 .3 .a was eliminated, but not removed from the draft. The rest of the corrections are very minor and for Staff. They are: 1. 22-1-120, F, "a" needs to be removed from between significant and impact. 2 . 22-1-150, B, 4, a, 2) , a comma needs to be inserted after including. 3 . 22-1-150, B, 4, b, 11) , projects needs an apostrophe 4 . 22-1-150, B, 4, c, 1) , "including, but not limited to, " 5 . 22-2-20, A.Goal 5, "provide" was changed to "consider" . 6 . 22-3-30, A, shouldn't "process" be plural? 7. 22-4-30, WA.Policy 2 .2, 2 .3 and 2.4 "water right" is pluralized in one instance and not in the other two?? 8 . 22-5-80, CM.Policy 4 . 1, d, should elimnate the "d" from "required" . These are the things that I noticed as I reviewed the draft. Staff as always has done an excellent job. It looks good! Thanks, Karla 1 ! R Good morning Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, and staff. My name is Jim • Woodward. I reside at 47897 Weld County Road 15. At the first and second reading of the new Comprehensive Plan, we urged you to add a policy addressing uranium mining and processing facilities; specifically, that such operations should be located at sufficient distance from other land uses to minimize potential impacts from surface and subsurface contamination. At the second reading, the county attorney, Mr. Barker, expressed concerns regarding the potential risks and unintended consequences that might result from this proposed amendment, as written. We have taken Mr. Barker's objections into account and we agree with him. He raises a good point. There is a risk associated with inserting language into the Comprehensive Plan that has not been fully vetted. This is a serious issue that must be addressed thoughtfully and with deliberation. On the well-considered advice of Mr. Barker, we have submitted alternative language that we believe is broader, and minimizes any risk of unintended consequences. We propose to amend the comprehensive plan by adding a policy to Section 22- 5-80 along with two recommended strategies to support the policy. • CM.Policy 3.9. Ensure the health and safety of all citizens that are in relatively close proximity to uranium and other ore mineral mining and processing facilities. a. Recommended Strategy CM3.9.a. Develop land use regulations to ensure the health and safety of all citizens that are in relatively close proximity to uranium and other ore mineral mining and processing facilities. b. Recommended Strategy CM3.9.b. Consider establishing a moratorium on the review of Use by Special Review applications for uranium and other ore mineral mining and processing facilities until land use regulations are adopted. This policy is nearly identical to the Oil and Gas Policy 2.6. It addresses the fact that the plan as currently written is silent on the issue of potential public health impacts from uranium and other ore mineral mining. The Recommended Strategies incorporate language that would allow for the Board and Planning staff to fully consider specific land use regulations to address potential threats to public health, safety, and welfare from uranium and other ore mineral mining and processing activities. • EXHIBIT /41 s -P/� A I Adding this language to the Comprehensive Plan would express the need for • reasonable and specific land use regulations for uranium and other ore mineral mining and processing facilities. We hope you agree. Regardless of your decision today on this proposed amendment, we ask you to instruct the Planning department to take a look at this issue and work with us to develop such regulations. We have begun the process of drafting amendments to the zoning code, and we are eager to work with members of the Planning staff to advance this effort. We think it makes sense to put regulations in place before you review an application for a uranium or other ore mineral mining operation so we have included a Recommended Strategy calling for the establishment of a moratorium on review of new applications. A three or four month period should be enough time to complete the process, and we are not aware of any potential applications that might be submitted that soon. A reasonable moratorium would prevent the legal complications that might arise if an application is received before final regulations are adopted. Thank you for your consideration of these requests. • • , ._ _.... .... ... .... . , .air . • - - I a j 'C- --- , • i as.. * ♦•,. -• . YJ - • ` • •_0: - • � .• • • • / V • • • • _ _ -M I" _t a • •• . . ,. . . . . .. . . . ... • ..,,_• - _ • llll • • Pi • • • • .. �' _ Wit• r • - II - •• • \ • • r • r. . • . • • 1 a • iii • - C' • • . a: • • • a .. • •♦_ ` '. . • * ' : i� • • w • •J l - ExHIBIT • In lq "Rdiuj diel g-,3 4 , a r• --- . . .. r le .I r 1 - + n ti G, - - ot - c ' . ' - - .r ' - L a w I. 4• • - - • •. •r .l-. • Rillwa.... 5,. - - - ,, Z Y I•P4 t ; , : .� - w as 7cr : �. ' h'�3� 1�, •,` • r.y1* t. . - IIIMPlinliel a . ." ' • - . * _ 1. �._ s, AA • Mj'+�� %6 is may;4. ..•' ., :��.,, _ `may jlit- r ft%.. P'F V y�}}�,!, �.:.rte) '• •-•r. — • 4. •. �7 r -` rY„rip ♦ C off ; , •0 "- • - _ i •_- ` 1 • •l r l l.. I 44 .4 A .. . •' - ,,•.. • '• • • • _ • Imo'` •rI� • • ' -♦ a � . ' .4 i.e.:4 ownlar4 , a-.....,.. ei.... :4:Lortioctifr.o.:I A1/412.4"...„pairs.rjr a. ini:,"lealleve 1. .-_,-•� -: j. .. .`, r d •a ,.�'�-,�a"A.)f _� E .T ter. -fir. ..4.:k..:1 • midi - • 1 t - jr..4 ..... - . .- . •t . - c ' — .... .-• • • . . . _._ • • 4 .` _ r • • �► . �c.�♦ 41 jiJ+ •i .. i' . w 1 u. may �. - • • • -►'�-.�' -C • 'St'T-1 44 taryC ye 7••M T I } • J-ces w a4' ��.a fit • ! _~�•i ... •j+ +a yam�.� • ,�py}pp' f. 0._t Faerg'11.10:4(174.1 - . dirli • • ...‘ - .. 4,, •••••/....•110.......,•"44A. i, _ s wF vim_ _yam...• �r�.• __•,.; c ♦ - s rti_ “, •-••7it. `•.a 's ......z...;-.• Dn .: ,x''I •r, i� .y.':1V' • t. • . ti -CHI. • ��. -- •R a , ai�!J , � n yS, rry Ni... r *tr ' , . c , 1 T 7 aT 1Ia•J��4�JI.s, , • r v ` I -t j 36' •• �I' le -• .� •`. • as olifte .?f,,,a .a •• r' i• 1..e*" '•?' ', ' ' r 1 * l •. 7 8#� 1. M R •y • r•fl- .. , i r •ca a '•41 - to j r a.. • .y . �,-. ., • } • `tom • • • ky ., y I. - r - .. i. _ -_- ttt y .i . ti _ yr . - y. > r • - t _ye 'all. J- r , Y r,_ -f _•• r � • 1 • .1,1•1•41. 1. h3'wtY • I. .4•• • , ' 0 • 4.11/k . . .• . i. • . • . . . • , ...... . ... ..... .. , , . . •• ._ .. ,„... . .. . e. . • *s ;al I I I 1 te gra • • : 1,1110 • •• • � •. - • •'a1 . • . . -1 ., f w < u i I allit R a nor ! 4 i, , stra.sa . • . . . . _ .. , .. , . _t. ___ . _ e ... k.... de. ... 1. ___ .. , __ _..., SI ... "••.. _ . .rte ill‘ 'OH • - •- _ .T _ _• )111. iiia:. -ailkil----.1 • tlettlielk ' j' y`. tf• �e� try ,,, �r� '..‘ - .yam }�~ ♦ �,•. ,� "� 7 _, . • • • -� - +� w,,tes •l t• fir." -.. }'�•� J T . - _ - . _ _ ♦ 1. T. - - • ' �� _ . • 1^ .. J `: tJ ; I1 - ti t • ---stavaraimitiourippr. ``J ,.. illit .. 1..\ •i ' • JS' f - •, as•./_ .s.- ' � . . ya - y - , , —a .3iti` . C • a` . yr.x" ��J( r • - . 13 i 1 .Y • Memorandum TO: Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners ' DATE: November 25, 2008 C FROM: Brad Mueller • COLORADO Department of Planning Services RE: Third Reading revisions to Comp Plan Esther, this is the list of all of the amendments made by the Board at the Third Reading, based on my notes. Please feel free to double-check. New section numbering is utilized. I am assuming that we will have a chance to look over the final Resolution before it goes to the printer for final publishing, just for a last check. • • Section 22-1-20. Overview of Weld County. C. The Weld County Population&Development Report is an administrative supplement to the Weld County Comprehensive Plan that provides detailed information about the physical characteristics of the County, population trends,employment,and housing. Because much of this information changes frequently, and because new data is available on a regular basis, the Population and Development Report is informational and not an adopted portion of the Comprehensive Plan. • Section 22-1-120. F. The "a" needs to be removed from between significant and impact. • Section 22-1-150, B, 4, a, 2). A comma needs to be inserted after"including." K, • Section 22-1-150, B, 4, b, 11). "Projects" needs an apostrophe. • Section 22-1-150, B, 4, c, 1). To read, "including, but not limited to," Y, • Division 2:Executive Summary of the Plan. Sec. 22-1-50. Summary of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. [Remove drafted Section 22-1-50 from the Plan, and renumber Section 1 accordingly.] • Section 22-2-10. Agriculture. • A. Historically,Weld County is one of the economically largest agricultural producing counties in the nation, regularly the top producer of traditional crops(i.e.,when excluding citrus-or nut-producing EXHIBIT 0 % t 9nd dk za z- counties). The agricultural sector is an important element of the overall County economy. The • diversity of agriculture in Weld County ranges from crops, rangelands, and feedlots, to other forms of agribusiness, agri-tourism, agri-tainment, and hobby farms. )t, • Section 22-2-10. Agriculture. C. 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. In addition, shallow wells in alluvial areas are also productive sources of irrigation. As the population expands, so does the need for domestic,commercial,and industrial supplies. Land use regulations in the County should protect the infrastructure used for the delivery of water to users. X • Section 22-2-20. Agriculture.Agricultural Goals It Policies.A.Goal 9.A.Policy 9.3. A.Policy 9.3. Consider mitigation techniques to address incompatibility issues. Encourage techniques and incentives such as, but not limited to, clustered development and building envelopes to minimize impacts on surrounding agricultural land. X • Section 22-2-20. Agriculture.Agricultural Goals&Policies.A.Goal 9.A.Policy 9.4. Recommended Strategy A.9.4.a. Recommended Strategy A.9.4.a. Provide land owners with information about voluntary techniques to preserve significant agricultural lands, historic sites, and wildlife habitats. • Section 22-2-20. Agriculture.Agricultural Goals &Policies.A.Goal 10.A.Policy 10.2. [Change title to"Weld County Right to Farm Statement."] • After". . . expected from a paved road.", add the following sentence:"Snow removal priorities mean that roads from subdivisions to arterials may not be cleared for several days after a major snowstorm." A • Section 22-2-140. RUA.Goal 6. RUA. Policy 6.4. RUA.Policy 6.4. Consider connections to existing or planned trails systems adjacent to, or in the vicinity of, the RUA. l• • Section 22-3-60.T.Goal 1.T.Policy 1.1. Recommended Strategy T.1.1.a. [Put all of the items in the Recommended Strategy, including the bulleted items, in italics.] • Section 22-3-60. T.Goal 3. T.Policy 3.3. Recommended Strategy T.3.3.a. [Remove Recommended Strategy T.3.3.a.) XI • Section 22.4.30. Water Goals and Policies. WA.Policy 2.4. When possible or applicable, storm water facilities including, but not limited to, detention and retention ponds may be relocated off-site to protect and/or enhance the downstream water right holders' ability to put the water to beneficial use. • 2 X, • Section 22-5-30. W.Goal 3. W.Goal 3. Coordinate with local,state,and federal agencies to identify,conserve, protect,or enhance critical fish and wildlife habitat by attempting to implement measures for the protection or enhancement of such areas. X- • Section 22-5-50. Open space,parks and recreation Goals and Policies. O.Goal 1. O.Policy 1.3. Encourage and promote the use of appropriate land use tools such as donations, acquisitions, partnerships, or market-based purchases when open space is proposed. X, • Section 22-5-80. General commercial mineral deposits ("aggregate")and ore mineral resources goals and policies. CM.Goal 1. CM.Policy 3.9&Recommended Strategy CM.3.9.a. CM.Policy 3.9. Promote the safety of all citizens that are in relatively close proximity to ore mineral mining and processing facilities. Recommended Strategy CM.3.9.a. Consider developing land use regulations(including those adopted as C.R.S. 24-65.5.101 et sec.)to promote the safety of all citizens that are in relatively close proximity to ore mineral mining and processing facilities. aZy oS (1, 1O( [Note:Need to have Bruce check the Statute. Should refer to 1041 regulations.]�� et) • Section 22-5-80, CM.Policy 4.1. Last bullet point sentence should eliminate the"d"from "required". X • Section 22-5-100. Oil and gas goals and policies. OG.Goal2. OG.Policy 2.6. • OG.Policy 2.6. Promote the safety of all citizens and structures that are in relatively close proximity to oil and gas facilities. • Section 22-5-100. Oil and gas goals and policies. OG.Goal2. OG.Policy 2.10. OG.Policy 2.10. Promote that well sites are reclaimed and closed by techniques which address that the future use of the property is not impaired because of environmental or safety problems, or because of the existence of improperly abandoned or unlocated equipment, such as wellheads or flowlines. A • Section 22-6-20. Economic development Goals and Policies. ECON.Goal 5. ECON.Policy 5.1 8 Recommended Strategy ECON.5.1.a. ECON.Policy 5.1. The County should encourage an adequate supply of both services and land suitable for industrial development and redevelopment. (Note that end clause is deleted.) Recommended Strategy ECON.5.1.a. Develop a program to create"shovel-ready'industrial sites throughout the County, where primary job providers would be able to develop or re- develop. Zoning, infrastructure, and services would ideally be immediately available for use in such areas. A. • Section 22-6-20. Economic development Goals and Policies. ECON.Goal 6. ECON.Policy 6.1. ECON.Policy 6.1. Regularly maintain economic data for the County. • 3 Esther Gesick From: Brad Mueller EXHIBIT nt: Monday, December 08, 2008 11:53 AM Esther Gesick 1 a cc: Brad Mueller Subject: PART 1 of 2: RE: Comp Plan - Final Reading Version aa#ee.bE l3 Esther, I've gotten out the fine-toothed comb and have some various comments for you. Overall, it looks really great. I'm still doing the last check for the final half, but rather than wait to give you all then, I' ll forward what I have at this point. * On the copy I received (MS Word) , all of the pages that utilize bullet points have those bullet points oddly spaced. You may want to take a look at those. (jk' 'w ✓ `` '' * Would it be possible to have 2 spaces between each Section? This would be to kb distinguish them from the single-space that is between various sub-paragraphs. Sometimes, in reading the document, the Sections seem to otherwise flow right into the next one. * On the 2nd Whereas of the Ordinance declaration, is the reference to Ordinance 2000-1 (codification) really the most appropriate one? I've had some folks ask if it shouldn't rather make reference to the last general update, which would be Ordinance 2002-6, AJJ 0440( effective on 10/7/02 . ftib C, * Section 22-1-100. Please remove the comma, so it reads: " . . . state law [Section C". D, 30-28-106 (1) , C.R.S. ] and, in part, to set land use . . . " Biwa, ,, d- * (t * Section 22-1-110, please capitalize both "Goals" and "Policies" , which both appear twice in the paragraph. (t1.L ,-Ly Although we had you change it once, please re-insert "a" in Section 22-1-120.F (Econ. • Growth) , so that it reads: " . . . policies have a significant impact . . . " OfsN * In Section 22-1-140 .B, please change the hyphen to a dash: " . . . three key planning issues in depth -- water, rural development, and the urban/rural interface. " CG.),, * Also in Section 22-1-140.E, in the next sentence, please change "citizen' s technical" to "citizens' technical" . (i,u,-, * In Section 22-1-150, please capitalize both "Goals" and "Policies" , which both appear twice in the paragraph. ,-1U42, a * In Section 22-1-150 .B.4 .b.11. , in the last sentence, please add the possessive: " . . . offset a specific project's impacts. " ' <di5W, * In Section 22-1-150.B.4.c.1. , please remove the "is" : " . . . including, but not limited to, roads, stormwater, and . . . i;lvtizt_,a * Missing space between Recommended Strategy A.1.3 .a and A.Policy 1.4 . itu,, 41 * Missing space between A.Policy 3 .4 and A.Goal 4 . UK u„ L.3i * There may be an extra space in A.Goal 5, between "areas" and "created" . ;(.c.4. v * In Section 22-2-30 .A, please capitalize "Goals" and "Policies. " ta„v, ., * At UD.Goal 2, there is a space missing between the first two bullet point items. (And the bullets are mis-formated, as throughout the document. ) ,l;w-N • Missing space between UD.Policy 2.5 and Recommended Strategy UD.2.5.a. eki,✓ ,f * Please change the listed items under UD.Policy 5.1 as bulleted items, rather than CL,taN 4 1 alphabetic. * Please capitalize "County" in UD.Policy 5.2. l 'NW.N * Please un-capitalize "State" in Section 22-2-50.A. • Please italicize Recommended Strategy I.6.4 .a. " * Please add a space between Section 22-2-90.B and 22-2-90.C. okj,,, wf' * Within C.Policy 6.1, please change "cost effective" to "cost-effective" . 060>, * In Section 22-2-110.B. , please remove a comma, so it reads, "adequacy of infrastructure, services serving the proposal, impacts on the natural environment, and other . . . " c{.rv,aN * In Policy 2.2, please revise "privately owned" to "privately-owned" . dsw.&N * Please add a space between R.Policies 5.1 and 5.2. ptp„ t,.i * Please add a space between RUA.Goal 2 and RUA.Policy 2.1. tK L wP * Please un-capitalize "sub-area plans" in RUA.Policy 2.1. cL-;sv * Please un-capitalize "county" in RUA.Policy 6.1. 06.4`4 Thanks! That's it for now. I will have the other half finished for you by this afternoon. Brad • Original Message From: Esther Gesick Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 12:39 PM To: Brad Mueller; Michelle Martin Cc: Bruce Barker; Thomas Honn Subject: Comp Plan - Final Reading Version Brad and Michelle, We're on the home stretch! ! ! ! Please take a look at the attached notice and Final Reading version of the Ordinance and let me know if you see any needed corrections. As a matter of timing, the notice is priority because I have to get it to the paper today by 5:00. After that, I would suggest you and the TAC go through the Ordinance with a fine-toothed comb and make sure there is no additional grammar or formatting corrections that need to be made. I have to submit everything to Colorado Code by the 15th, so I will aed a response by the 8th so I can get the final version to the Board for signature on e 10th and get it to recording. If you have any questions, please let me know. 2 Page 1 of 2 Esther Gesick • From: Brad Mueller Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 5:13 PM To: Esther Gesick Subject: Part 2: final draft of comp plan resolution Esther, Here are some final notes on the last half of the draft Resolution: • Section 22-3-10.C. Please add a comma after"intensity". cont.„, • Section 22-3-10.D. Comma after"orderly," please. cic„,c ., • Section 22-3-10E. Neither"state statues" nor"urban growth boundary"should be capitalized in this context. • Section 22-3-20.B There is subject-verb tense disagreement in the second half; please change to: " . . . have adopted particular fire codes, enforce such fire codes, and . . . " ac,c , • Section 22-3-30A. Please de-capitalize"state statute", which occurs twice in this paragraph. c4, , • P.Policy 2.9. Please add a comma between "districts"and "or". dinAt • • Section 22-4-80.C. Please add a comma after"future"(mid-paragraph), and remove the comma after "and". (So it will read, " . . . in the future, and that the . . . ") yo_ • EP.Goal 2. Please add a comma after"designed". 2'lu.N • Section 22-5-20. Please change the beginning of the second to last sentence to say, "The Existing Wildlife Areas map, the most recent . . . " • Section 22-5-60.A. For all of the definition, please change the hyphen to a dash after the word, and before the definition. olui�� • Section 22-5-60.A. Please de-capitalize"commercial"at the beginning of the definition sentence for alluvial mineral deposits, so that it is the same as all of the other definitions. -P.,0,.. N • CM.Policy 1.3. Please add a comma after"variance". ctarzN, • CM.Policy 2.1. Please remove the last"the" in the sentence, so it reads, " . . . in accordance with regulations in Weld County." gz-wi. • CM.Policy 3.2, please add a comma after"equipment storage". dc- a-", ? • Recommended Strategy CM.3.9.a. Did we ever get the correct State citation from Bruce or Cyndy? I know that this needs to be changed, because the intent was to address Matters of State Interest regulations. Please let me know what the new one is. r.5i dt .4 dV. 65 /-/oj, 6(,S_ • • Section 22-5-90.B. Please de-capitalize "state". c(,,-",.N • Section 22-5-90.C. Also please de-capitalize "state" in this paragraph. c-w.ti 12/11/2008 Page 2 of 2 • OG.Policy 1.1. Please add a comma after"coordination". • • Section 22-6-10.C. Please change the hyphen after"roads"to a dash. r^-"' • ECON.Policy 1.3. Please change the two hyphens in the first sentence to dashes. Olio-,m..' • ECON.Policy 2.5. Please change the two hyphens in the sentence to dashes. olcnN That's it! Looks super-duper! Please let me know about that state statute that needs to be changed. Thanks for the great help! Brad • • 12/11/2008 Hello