HomeMy WebLinkAbout20073240.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Department of
Planning Services, Hearing Room, 918 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by
Chair, Doug Ochsner, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT Zg Cow
Doug Ochsner-Chair 0 - 30
Tom Holton -Vice Chair I co 0
Paul Branham m o0
Erich Ehrlich C D zz
Bill Hall m P1-i
Robert Grand C N
Mark Lawley cr
Roy Spitzer
Also Present: Brad Mueller, Kim Ogle, and Tom Honn, Department of Planning Services; Dave Bauer,
Department of Public Works; Bruce Barker, County Attorney and Kris Ranslem, Secretary
Paul Branham moved to approve the September 18, 2007 Weld County Planning Commission minutes,
seconded by Tom Holton. Motion carried.
Weld County Code Changes
STAFF: Bruce Barker and Brad Mueller
ITEMS: Chapter 23: Sections 23-1-90, 23-2-20, 23-2-40, 23-2-50, 23-2-150.M, 23-2-160.CC, 23-2-
200.G.1, 23-2-200.H, 23-2-210.B.3, 23-2-230.A.4, 23-2-240.A.12, 23-2-260.6.10, 23-2-
260.B.11, 23-2-260.E.6, 23-2-260.E.7, 23-2-330.6.4, 23-2-370.D.14.h, 23-2-690.A.17, 23-2-
730.T, 23-2-780.D, 23-3-20.O, 23-3-20.U, 23-3-20.X, 23-3-20.Y, 23-3-20.Z, 23-3-40.CC, 23-3-
40.DD, 23-3-110.6.6, 23-3-110.B.7, 23-3-110.D.10, 23-3-130.B.6, 23-3-130.B.7, 23-3-140.6.6,
23-3-140.B.7, 23-3-150.6.6, 23-3-150.8.7, 23-3-210.B.9, 23-3-210.6.10, 23-3-210.B.11, 23-3-
210.0.9, 23-3-220.0.7, 23-3-220.0.8, 23-3-230.0.7, 23-3-230.0.8, 23-3-240.B.7, 23-3-240.6.8,
23-3-240.D.3, 23-3-310.B.8, 23-3-310.6.9, 23-3-310.D.8, 23-3-320.B.8, 23-3-320.B.9, 23-3-
320.D.12, 23-3-330.B.10, 23-3-330.0.14, 23-3-410.H, 23-3-410, 23-4-250, 23-4-260.D, 23-4-
260.F, 23-4-260.G.9, 23-4-260.G.10, 23-4-260.G.14 and 23-4-280.B; Chapter 24: Sections 24-
3-50.T, 24-3-60.D, 24-3-60.M, 24-4-30.6.8, 24-4-30.C.1.d, 24-4-30.C.3.d, 24-4-40.D.5, 24-4-
40.E.3, 24-7-130, 24-8-20.A and 24-4-280.E; Chapter 26: Sections 26-2-80.0, and 26-3-90.D;
Chapter 27: Sections 27-5-30.C, 27-6-120.B.4, 27-6-120.0.4, 27-7-30.M, and 27-7-40.B.3.d.
Brad Mueller, Department of Planning Services, stated that the code changes that are presented to the
Board are a joint effort between Planning Services and the Attorney's office. He added that he would start
by going over the memo that was given to the Board and highlight some of the main items throughout the
codes rather than attempt to go through the codes in order.
We try to review the code on a bi-annual basis roughly in the spring and the fall. The process that we
undertook this fall in looking at code changes are to 1) look at ministerial changes that have come up over
the previous months, 2)to respond to complaints, criticisms, and suggestions that we get from the public
about a particular code and 3)ongoing research of codes. As part of this process, we did a fairly limited
referral with discussions between Planning, the Attorney's office and Public Works primarily. There was
notification in the newspaper as required for Chapter 23.
Mr. Mueller began with the first proposed code change of which is Group Home Facilities and added that it
may be of the most significant. The current code deals with Group Homes in a fairly cursory way. By
Group Homes, we mean those types of assisted living homes and homes that are residences made up of
multiple individuals that are not necessarily a family in the other defined sense of the term. They are not,
however, correctional institutions where a person would be locked in or restricted in their movements.
Primarily, the changes are intended to address state law which has created what could be called a special
classification of certain groups within the state. Specifically those groups are handicapped persons,
r!,in(&1tcna /0-/5-.2oc0-7
2007-3240
persons with developmental disabilities, persons with mental illness and the aged (meaning folks over 60
years or more). The four categories of individuals identified by the state law have been determined that
they should be able to live in group residences without having to go through any extraordinary types of
processing. Those types of residences, with individuals of those classifications, should be allowed to
integrate into a neighborhood without undue processing requirements. The three definitions of a Group
Home Facility that are proposed are first, to address those special classes of individuals, as previously
stated, and allow for their use as a Use by Right.
The second category is a Residential Therapeutic Center which would essentially be all other types of
group homes for other types of purposes;for example, specialized group child care homes, residential
treatment facilities, shelters for the homeless and sex offenders. That whole category of uses would
require a Use by Special Review and that's why that is called out as a separate definition.
Then a third type of group home that wasn't currently addressed clearly in the code was Foster Care
Homes. Those are being called out as a separate use being the residence of a person or family for the
purpose of providing 24 hour care for children who are under the age of 21.
Mr. Mueller continued to move on to the Railroad Freight Depots (Railyards)of the proposed code
changes. He commented that the current code does not call this out specifically as a use; therefore two
proposals are being made 1)to create a definition for railyards and 2)to set up design standards that
would apply to railyards. Those design standards are proposed as Appendix 23-F and the railyards
themselves are defined for use in the Agricultural District and the C-2 and C-3 Districts as well as all the
Industrial Districts.
Commissioner Branham asked what the process was on Appendix 23-F and inquired if this Appendix had
been given to the Railroad Companies to take a look at and get their input. Tom Honn, Director of
Planning Services, replied that what they have done is coordinate with the City of Fort Lupton, City of
Brighton and the County and try to come up with a common set of standards that all three jurisdictions
were comfortable with so that regardless of whose jurisdiction this might be either developed under or
follow-up activities might be developed under, there was going to be a consistent set of standards. The
County felt that they need to create this so it applies to other locations throughout the County. We have
communicated with the Union Pacific Railroad and their representatives for several months looking at
preliminary design and coordinating with them in terms of these set of standards and other aspects of this
code process.
Commissioner Branham asked if we know they railroad companies have actually received a copy of the
proposed Appendix 23-F. Mr. Honn said that he isn't certain; however Kim Ogle can confirm that answer
as soon as he is back here. Mr. Branham indicated that he is concerned with it because if the Board
approves this it could lead to a lot of problems in the future if they are not aware of it. He is concerned
that they make take exception to a lot of things that are proposed, such as Page 7, in talking about the
design of the interior roadways, that they have to line up with adjacent Commercial and Industrial
properties. He added "on Page 8.C.1 and C.2 it talks about a building less than 10,000 square feet and
the pedestrian sidewalk adjacent to it has to be no less than 8 feet wide and if the building is more than
10,000 square feet then the adjacent sidewalks cannot be less than 15 feet wide. We are talking about a
Freight Depot, and I wonder if these kinds of things are going to create a lot of concern with the Railroad
Companies and then we are going to have to go back and look at all these again. I wonder if it might be
better to get their input on these things before we look at them".
Mr. Branham stated his other concern that he has with this Appendix 23-F is on the bottom of Page 5. "It
talks about no less than 30% shall be open space within each parcel for a Commercial and Industrial
development. So they are requiring 30% and then as you continue down to the bottom of that paragraph
and on the next page it says, 'however if the project cannot satisfy the above requirement for open space
the owner may substitute it for cash in-lieu'. Does that mean that if they don't want to have 30% open
space they can buy it?"
Robert Grand stated that he agreed with Mr. Branham and added that this is our first time in the railroad
business and railroads have been here for a long time. He said it doesn't mean they do it right, but thinks
that if they get a shared approach and ask them for some consultation then we would save ourselves
some concern down the road. He added that it shows good faith on our part to develop a workable
scenario.
Mr. Honn stated that he will confirm with Kim, however he does believe that they have had the document
in their hands, as at the last meeting that they had with the representatives of the railroad they were talking
about how some of these standards would apply to development. He added that some of those standards
are for Commercial, not necessarily for Industrial, and without having that specifically in front of him, he
doesn't know if some of the ones Mr. Branham was referring to were Commercial, rather than Industrial
standards. Mr. Honn commented that he knows that they are aware of them and that they have had some
conversations with them about some of the site design issues and how that would apply to certain pieces
of their use.
Mr. Branham commented that the Board can go ahead and approve the code but hold this Appendix 23-F
pending input from the railroad companies.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, stated that they have not provided the railroad specifically
with design standards. We have multiple railroads in the County and since this is an overlay for the entire
County we would have to consult the public for a project with the railroads. He added that typically the
applicant comes in and has a leasehold agreement with the railroad for use of their right-of-way for
transfer facility. Mr. Ogle added that they have a pretty good working relationship with two of the railroads
here in the County so we could provide that to them if that is a recommendation that Commissioners have.
Bruce Barker, County Attorney, commented that he has had conversations with Union Pacific and stated
that he was waiting to see if the Planning Commission agrees to these concepts and then he was going to
send it to the railroad companies for them to review. Mr. Barker added that he can ask them to review it
and then get comments back to the Board by the next meeting.
Commissioner Branham stated that we should get their comments and input and then look at it. He added
that this Appendix is full of so many things that are very important to these railroad companies and would
think that they would want to have input.
Commissioner Hall asked how the design standards were originally put together. Mr. Ogle said that it was
a group effort between some of the planners from the City of Fort Lupton and Brighton. The bulk of those
standards are from what we call Ordinance 201 which is the Tritown IGA which includes Frederick,
Firestone, and Dacono, and those are the most stringent standards in the County that we have for a
Commercial and Industrial development. We took those standards and modified them for warehouse and
commercial facilities that would be associated with ancillary uses that would deal with rail.
Commissioner Hall stated that he is under the same thought process as Commissioners Branham and
Grand that these are tough.
Commissioner Branham stated that one of our main jobs is to screen all of these cases for the County
Commissioners and to get rid of all the problems that exist with them and doesn't think that they can do
that with this Appendix. He added that if they approve it today and then it gets to the County
Commissioner's hearing, they are going to spend a lot of time if the railroad companies find a lot of
problems there.
Paul Branham moved to continue Appendix 23-F to November 6, 2007, seconded by Robert Grand.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes;
Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously
Mr. Branham suggested inviting the railroad companies to the meeting. Mr. Barker stated that he would
invite them.
Mr. Mueller continued with the next proposed code change of which is the Notice to Mineral Rights
Owners. He added that due to some changes in state law the staff is recommending changes to the code.
The existing procedure right now requires that staff, for any land use application, acquire a list of Mineral
Rights Owners from the applicant. Staff then takes that list and mails notice of a hearing to the list of
Mineral Rights Owners and that becomes the official notification. With recent changes in state laws the
county is no longer required to do the noticing itself; rather they must request of an applicant that they
provide a certificate attesting to the fact that they have performed the noticing for the Mineral Rights
Owners.
Commissioner Holton asked where that certificate will come from. Mr. Mueller replied that there will be a
policy document that we will put together and will provide that as part of the application submittal materials
which will be a standard form.
Commissioner Branham noticed in different places where it has been lined out with reference to the
notification of Mineral Owners. He said in specific on Page 6, item 11 at the top, all of the reference to a
sign being posted on the applicant property has also been lined out and asked if that an error. Mr. Mueller
said that it is not and that this is duplicating information that is already in the Process Section of this code
and it is currently incorrectly placed in the Submittal Materials Section. Mr. Branham clarified that this is a
duplicate and we are not eliminating the requirement of a sign being posted. Mr. Mueller stated he was
correct.
Mr. Mueller continued with the next item of Improvement Agreements. He added that the County requires
as part of any platting, an Improvements Agreement that is a Surety document that the applicant and the
County enter into that define the improvements that are required and then the applicant is required to put
up a bond or letter of credit to ensure that those improvements are done completely. As a matter of
practice we also require that of any Use by Special Reviews or Site Plan Reviews. With the Site Plan
Reviews and USR's we typically have been getting collateral and this simply puts that into the code to
make that clear.
Mr. Mueller stated that two changes are proposed to Mining. The first is in the definition. The current
definition is broad and we believe it includes all types of mining, but to avoid any ambiguity in the future we
are recommending a tweaking of that definition.
The second item for mining that is being proposed is in the section dealing with additional supplementary
regulations for mining that is found on Page 14 of the overall code changes. Currently the code makes
reference to open or pit mining for this list of additional requirements that have to be submitted with any
Use by Special Review. In reality those requirements have always been envisioned for any type of mining,
this change would simply remove the reference to open or pit mining and make it true across the board for
all types of mining.
The Board was handed a third proposed code change related to mining under Section 23-4-280
documents that have to be submitted with the Use by Special Review. The applicant shall submit written
evidence of approval for all Federal and State Regulatory Agency permits. Mr. Mueller asked for
clarification from Mr. Ogle if that is specific just to mining or to all Use by Special Review cases. Mr. Ogle
indicated that it is specific to mining.
Mr. Honn noted that back in the 70's we did have an in-situ permit process that we had done for a site in
Weld County and so the interpretation always has been that mining is intended and does cover everything.
However, due to the potential for an upcoming activity that is specifically in-situ we felt it was best to make
sure it was extremely clear in our code.
Commission Holton asked if the applicant is asked, with the proposed change to Section 23-4-280, to do
anything extra or anything above what the state engineer or the water courts require. Mr. Honn stated that
is not the intent. Mr. Holton commented that he believes that we should be involved with dust control and
water for employees but the rest of that the county has no control over.
Commissioner Ochsner asked if oil and gas is considered mining and if there is any trouble there that
those companies could come and say that these rules now apply to them. Mr. Ogle said that these fall
under open mining Section 23-4-250 that deals with Purpose. It is a supplement regulation to mining in
the county. Mr. Barker commented that if you go to Page 2 of where the definition of mining is stated it
says "the act of recovering mineral, sand, gravel, quarry, coal or other resources from the ground". Mr.
Barker believes that it would fit under"other resources from the ground". Mr. Barker said that in answer to
the question, he doesn't believe that this, by virtue of all of the things that we have in the code, applies to
oil and gas exploration and/or recovery because we deal with those separately.
Commissioner Holton asked how we can view that different as opposed to gravel mining or uranium
mining as a Use by Right. Mr. Barker said that the oil and gas is completely governed by the Colorado Oil
and Gas Conservation Commission except for land use in very specific areas and that's why we have
limited it to Residential. As you may recall there was a case where the City of Greeley combined with
another case back in 1994/1995 that said we do have limited capability to do land use regulations with
respect to oil and gas recovery but only in specific areas and those areas are going to be residential.
Uranium mining is regulated by a variety of different regulatory agencies.
Commissioner Holton stated that with gravel you've got the DMG that controls the mining part and the
reclamation, much as the same for the oil and gas commission does. Mr. Barker indicated that the Health
Department is going to be the regulatory agency for the State with respect to the Uranium mining. For
Uranium mining there is going to be a variety of different regulatory agencies that they are going to have to
deal with. For our purposes, we've realized or thought it would be best to have a USR no matter what
zone they are in.
Commissioner Ochsner commented with regard to the memo that was just handed out on item E that the
applicant shall submit written evidence of approval for all Federal and State Regulatory Agency permits
and stated that he wouldn't mind seeing that on a lot of the other USR's too. He said he thinks that there
are times where we are in cases and we can approve it but only if it's approved conditionally. Mr. Mueller
recommended that staff research that.
Mr. Mueller continued to the next proposed code change of Fireworks/Christmas Trees. He said the
current code allows the temporary sale of fireworks and Christmas trees in only the C-3 and 1-3 Districts.
He added that about twice a year we get questions on why they can't be allowed in the agricultural district
or other commercial districts. We have come to recognize that there probably is no good reason to limit it
to just those two districts and so the recommendation is to open it to a wider variety of zone districts
except for residential districts.
Commissioner Branham commented that he does not agree with that. Right now they are allowed in the
C-3 and 1-3 districts for the Fireworks but when you consider the health and safety issues involving
fireworks 1) the building itself is always a danger of explosions and fire 2)the possibility of injuries of kids
using fireworks and 3)the possibility of fire started in a county area by fireworks. Mr. Branham added that
he is not sure of expanding the areas from C-3 and 1-3 to include the C-1, C-4 and 1-1 and doesn't see the
motivation or any reason to do that. He expressed that he is not supportive of expanding the areas of
fireworks into the other 3 zone areas. Mr. Mueller commented that a big part of this is in response to the
fireworks industry. One of the most common targeted areas for vendors is the agricultural zone district
and believes that what the vendors are finding is that the towns understandably have very strict
regulations that make it either very difficult or impossible to set up temporary facilities within the towns and
for very good reasons as Mr. Branham mentioned. Then what the vendors come to us and say is we are
not allowed to do it in the town very easily. We can do it in the county but only in these very isolated
districts which often time isn't near main modes of transportation. Mr. Mueller commented that in all
cases, one of the requirements of our temporary permitting is that they receive an approval and review by
the local Fire District.
Commissioner Lawley stated that he agreed with Mr. Branham. He added that he understands the Fire
Department review and said that is provided that those Fire Districts have the staff available to deal with
the safety issues of putting them in other districts and a lot of them don't. Mr. Lawley commented that if
you look at Weld County, for example, the majority of the Fire Departments are volunteer.
Commissioner Ochsner asked if this would open it up to have fireworks/Christmas tree sale in the
agricultural zone. Mr. Mueller replied that it would and clarified that it would be all districts other than the
residential and estate districts as proposed.
Commissioner Holton commented that anytime a farmer can rent out a little piece of his property and
make a little bit of extra money, he believes it is a good thing. He added that with the fireworks we have
now he doesn't see them as a danger.
Paul Branham made a motion to eliminate the reference of fireworks in the proposed code changes and
stated that they are to remain only allowed in the C-3 and 1-3 Zone Districts, seconded by Mark Lawley.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, no; Robert Grand, no; Bill Hall, no; Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, no; Tom
Holton, no with comment; Doug Ochsner, yes with comment.
Commissioner Holton commented that he would like to have it added to the code as amended by staff.
Commissioner Ochsner commented that he does think there is a huge difference between the fireworks
and Christmas trees and it would be foolish for us to think that people from town aren't going to come in to
the county to purchase these fireworks and if these towns have outlawed them, he thinks that we are not
supporting the towns.
Motion failed.
Discussion continued to the next proposed code change regarding massage parlors. Mr. Mueller stated
that the proposed changes concerning massage parlors would not alter either the processing of them or
the zone districts within which they are allowed. He added that it is simply being called out as a specific
use because of recent requirements by the State that massage parlors as a specific use get licensed.
The licensing is required by the State, but is required to be administered by the County and the license
process would be very similar to a liquor licensing.
Commissioner Holton asked that since it is like a liquor license, do they have to go through a hearing to
get it? Mr. Mueller indicated that there is a form that would need to be filled out and a separate hearing
process. Mr. Barker added that the Board of County Commissioners sits as the Liquor Board and it would
roughly be the same process as for massage parlor hearings. The only difference is that they don't need
to show a desire in the neighborhood to have that operation there.
Mr. Mueller addressed the next proposed code change of Urban Drainage Criteria. He stated that the
Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners adopted a very comprehensive list of
requirements that are submitted for various land use cases for urban drainage. As we've started to
implement that and apply it to various land use cases, it has been brought to our attention that there are a
few sections of the code which still make reference to the old, but more minimal requirements, that existed
for drainage. The proposed changes eliminate those changes and make it consistent with the new section
that was adopted nine months ago.
Mr. Mueller brought up the final subject for consideration concerning temporary batch plants. Right now
batch plants can be set up in the agricultural zone district on a temporary basis under the logic that if you
are doing road improvements in an area it often is necessary to set up a batch plant. Under our current
code, temporary is defined as six(6) months and the logic being that if you have a road way being built out
then you need to have that facility in close proximity to the project.
One proposed change is to add that as a temporary use in the Commercial and Industrial Districts. The
other proposed change is to allow for"temporary"to roll over at the discretion of the Director of Planning
Services. Not all road projects are created equal and sometimes they take longer than six months, so
rather than force an application into a Use by Special Review, we are proposing language that would
make it at the discretion of the Director of Planning Services to extend that temporary use an additional six
(6) months in six month increments.
Commissioner Grand referenced Page 13 and stated that if he read it correctly, you could theoretically
have an infinite 6 month extension. Mr. Mueller stated that was correct. Mr. Grand commented that he
didn't like an unlimited open process. Mr. Mueller said that what they have found is in the past it becomes
difficult to try and find that magic number and what we are asking the Board to authorize is kind of a "trust
us clause" that says the director will use good discretion in making sure it doesn't continue. Mr. Grand
stated that he doesn't want citizens to come back and say that this is the 241h year, the 48th renewal and
thought that this was only a temporary thing. Mr. Mueller mentioned that there are some remedies that a
citizen could take to challenge the director's decision. The intent here is to simply recognize that we as
staff are charged with looking out for the public interest as well and wouldn't abuse that right.
Commissioner Spitzer recalled that there was a USR applied for previously and the citizens who were in
the area were really upset about the idea that there was a temporary batch plant that had been there a
long time. Mr. Spizter inquired when the public knows that it's their opportunity or their right to challenge
that. Mr. Ogle stated that SUP-249 was an existing site for gravel mining only. Coincidently there was
also a State contract issued for repaving on State Highway 52 which a temporary asphalt batch plant was
placed on site for a period of about a year. The temporary batch plants deal with state municipal contracts
and we approve them based on the duration of time.
Mr. Mueller emphasized that this is limited to road projects, as Mr. Ogle stated. He added that staff clearly
could not extend this at a whim if a project was being finished. There would be no ability for the director to
extend that indefinitely for other purposes as it is very narrowly required for road projects.
Paul Branham moved that the proposed code changes including the memo that references Section 23-4-
280, for the exception of Appendix 23-F, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes;
Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if they have any code changes they would like to
have addressed.
Commissioner Holton said that with regard to Special Use Permits it states that before you can turn in an
application you have to have a Surface Use Agreement with the Oil Companies. He added that if it's for
one application, whether it's mining or whatever else, it needs to be consistent. Mr. Mueller referred to
Section 23-2-260.8.14, "the applicants shall submit to the Department of Planning Services a copy of an
agreement with the Mineral Rights Owners associated with the subject property. Such agreement shall
stipulate that the oil and gas activities on the subject property have been adequately incorporated into the
design of the site or shall provide written evidence that an adequate attempt has been made to mitigate
the concerns of the mineral owners of the subject property". Mr. Mueller commented that his
interpretation of that is that our current code does require that a USR application include submittal of the
Surface Rights Agreement. However, there is the condition that if there isn't success in acquiring one of
those agreements, they can as an alternative submit information showing that an adequate attempt has
been made.
Commissioner Holton commented that his question is on interpretation and stated because if you require
that and we've seen that before with other applicants on USR's and PUD's, where it could take two years
to get a Surface Use Agreement with some of these companies. Some oil companies are easy to deal
with, but you have other ones that are looking for money and if you can't make that deal, you've held the
applicant up for a long period of time before they can get that Surface Use Agreement. If you interpret it
that they have to have this done before Planning Services will take the application, you've taken out their
ability to be able to negotiate a contract with the oil and gas company on their piece of property. Mr.
Holton added that we have always done it before that they had to at least show written evidence that they
made an adequate attempt. However, if planning services is using the policy now that they have to have
this in place before they can even turn in their application he believes that is a different interpretation of
what has been done in the past. Mr. Ogle stated that we would ask them for evidence that would show or
demonstrate that they have actually been working on it through emails, evidence of telephone calls, points
of contact, etc. Mr. Holton said that it's basically been notification and then we start the application
process, and then the applicant gets to go through the process of trying to negotiate a deal with these oil
companies, that's what we've done in the past. He expressed that he doesn't understand why we've
changed that interpretation now. Mr. Mueller said that it's hard to comment on that because you are
suggesting a pattern of our approach to how we've been taking in applications. He added that if the
concern is that there has been some inconsistency with that or that we've been interpreting it one way in
one case and one way in another we can certainly have some discussion at staff level about whether that
is the case.
Mr. Holton said that there are certain things in an application that you are not going to be able to get right
away, such as a water certificate from the state engineer on wells, changing over to commercial, surface
use agreements, etc. There are certain items that are going to take a lot of time so why hold up the
applicant when they can get that other stuff done and be working on this stuff at the same time. Mr.
Holton expressed that he doesn't believe we should hold up the process while we are waiting for
negotiations with oil and gas companies. Mr. Mueller indicated that the code as its written right now allows
for that potential, but it can be deferred as a condition. Mr. Ogle commented that there is a statement that
says "or show that an adequate attempt has been made". Therefore, you as the applicant demonstrate to
staff that you've been working with these companies and have been making progress or not and you give
that as evidence with your application. We just want to put it on the record that you are aware that you
have to get a Surface Use Agreement with oil and gas companies. It is up to the board to decide whether
or not to approve the application based on the information provided.
Mr. Holton stated that his understanding is that we can do that and you are going to go ahead and process
the application without having a surface use agreement in place. Mr. Ogle clarified that it's either a
Surface Use Agreement or you are to give us evidence that you've been working towards that. Mr.
Mueller added that they understand what Mr. Holton is saying and his interpretation of the code is that it
allows for that, but staff is not clear on what changes we could or might make to the code to address the
concern.
Commissioner Grand asked if we can get an answer at the next meeting.
The Chair stated that this will be addressed at the November 6, 2007 meeting.
Commissioner Grand commented that a lot of time was spent on the design standards on the railroad
portion and is concerned from an area that is in the beginning stages of development that we don't restrict
the opportunity for businesses to grow by putting in requirements that become prohibitive for new areas of
development.
Commissioner Ochsner mentioned that he would like to look at the code with regard to open space. In the
past we have approved or have had some regulations on urban PUD's that require open space and it can
be anywhere from a four house application to 1000 residential unit is required to have open space. A lot
of times on smaller applications we've seen times where they have plans for a nice gazebo and park and
public area and yet have absolutely no irrigation plan to maintain these areas. We need to define the
common open space in Section 27-2-60. Currently the common open space is defined as "any usable
parcel of land or water unimproved and set aside dedicated, designated or reserved for public or private
use for the use and enjoyment of owners." Mr. Ochsner added that the requirement is in Section 27-6-80
Number 7 and it calls out the 15% open space. He would like to look at perhaps doing the 15% open
space on any application over 25 (picking a number by random) residential units. He doesn't believe that
anything under that should be required to meet the 15% open space requirement. He would also like to
see in Section 27-2-60 either a better definition or a requirement saying that if it is intended for public use
that an irrigation plan must be submitted. Mr. Ochsner added that it has been a contention with him that a
lot of times we approve open space and it looks so pretty on the map and yet it's defined as native
grasses with no irrigation and we know in Colorado it won't be a pretty place with no irrigation.
Mr. Mueller suggested that perhaps to give staff some time to research something that is fairly core to our
subdivision resolution. The intent of the code is to make sure that there is some space that offers it which
maintains some of the character of the area which doesn't become super intensive. He added that
common open space often leads applicants to create a tract which can be designated as open space.
Commission Spitzer mentioned that he believes Mr. Ochsner is aiming mainly at the more rural 9 lot
subdivisions where there really isn't an HOA or entity that is going to take care of them or have the
resources to take care of them. He is concerned with the way these developments are coming together
with 6000 and 7000 square feet lots and he has no idea what their kids do. He expressed that he is a big
advocate of an open field that is native grass where kids can play baseball, football, etc. He is
sympathetic to the fact that we don't have the resources to maintain it, however, as a society we need to
keep an eye on making sure we leave enough open space for individuals to do whatever they want to do,
especially kids.
Mr. Ochsner stated that he is more focused on the small subdivisions that don't have the resources and
yet there are times as we just saw one come through that was a 9 lot subdivision and we required open
space and they had this beautiful plan but there was no irrigation for it.
Mr. Mueller commented that what he is gathering from this conversation is the"common open space"
versus just"open space." The design aspect of open space is something that we can examine through
the process. Staff has been researching the possibility of coming to the development community with an
amended land use process, and that process, in part, is designed to allow us to have a little more
discussion about the design aspects of a smaller subdivision. He recommended that we research this for
the next meeting in November.
Commissioner Hall commented that the key term to all of this is "density" and added that is what they are
currently looking at in the Comp Plan now.
Meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
Respectfully� submitted,
p ,�
4`//MLWi W
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
Hello