HomeMy WebLinkAbout20023165.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
r
Saturday, April 27, 2002
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Saturday, April 27,2002, in the Weld
County Public Health/Planning Building,(Room 210), 1555 N. 17th Avenue,Greeley,Colorado. The meeting
was called to order by Chair, Michael Miller, at 10:00 a.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin Absent
Cristie Nicklas
Fred Walker Absent
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray
Cathy Clamp
Luis Llerena Absent
Bruce Fitzgerald Absent
Also Present: Robert Anderson, Bruce Barker, County Attorney. Kirk Goble representing Comp Plan
Committee.
The Planning Commission determined that the minutes from the April 2, 2002 and April 27, 2002 will be
reviewed for approval on May 7, 2002.
22-2-160 C Policy 1.1
Mr. Anderson presented DPS suggested changes consisting of:
Department of Planning Services would like to retain word "scale" over "level". The term scale itself is a
planning term. Mr.Anderson stated scale addresses some level of measurement and is more appropriate.
The term level is more ambiguous. Mr. Goble agreed. Mr. Anderson indicated that in 14. C Policy 9.2 the
language needs to be changed to be consistent with the Agricultural language. Mr. Miler indicated that there
were previous motions changing language from obtainable to available.
Cathy Clamp moved to have C.Policy 3.5 re-instated throughout the document as well as in the prior sections.
Cristie Nicklas seconded. Motion carried
Cristie Nicklas moved to adopt Department of Planning Services changes in a. C. Policy 1.1 language to
reflect scale rather then level,change language in 4 C. Policy 9.2 to be consistent with language in industrial
section. Cathy Clamp seconded. Motion carried.
22-2-180 Residential development
Mr.Anderson presented DPS suggested changes consisting of:
Retain deleted¶'s A& B, delete the sentence "The intent is to establish residential areas
which reflect affordability and lifestyle choices, that include dwelling unit type, density,
environmental setting and convenience levels."
B Replace "streets w/barrow ditches" with "limited urban amenities" and add "and
compatibility of land uses".
Kirk Goble had no specific comments.
Cathy Clamp asked about the objection to"streets wit borrow ditches. Mr.Anderson indicated that this is one
of the first things that developers would like to see removed. Ms. Nicklas suggested deleting the fourth
sentence because of it being a duplicate. Mr.Goble stated that the committee stood by what was written and
2002-3165
would recommend the adoption of the changes.
John Folsom motion to retain 22-2-180 A and B as written and to delete the following sentence that begins
with "The intent to establish residential " delete sentence utilities and barrow ditches as per DPS
recommendations. CN seconded. Motion carries.
22-2-190 RA DPS has no issues with strikeouts and replacements until br2goal and policies, retain 1 and 2.
KG says comp plan stands by what they proposed. RA change sewer to sewage takes care of both. Rpolicy
7.2, p 47, DPS rec retaining rgoal 8 to follow state legislation. Federal guidelines for affordable housing,
senior housing, don't know of any standards or conditions. Special needs housing addressed in uniform
building code.
CC replace encouraging with including, but not limited to.
KG encourage creative and innovative approaches to meet to needs of a diverse population. KG asked how
much we need to accommodate state legislation. KG least vague would be to remove.
RA says DPS put in to accommodate societal,county and municipal concerns. Not trying to limit development
options. Just want creative and innovative approaches to development.
KG specifics RA cited should be discussed with the applicant. Comp Plan recommends deletion at this time.
MM serious deficit of affordable and special needs housing. Pro-active approach to encourage and don't see
harm in leaving in.
SM agreed with MM.
CC tie it to federal and state guidelines. Public discussion? None.
MM better for county to take a pro-active approach within the planning process. Look at alternatives. 3rpolicy
4.1 MM reasonable distance from employment centers seems vague (p48).
KG"reasonable" used and interpreted throughout the plan as it applies to any goal or policy. Not everyone
has the same opportunities- distance and proximity need to be considered.
CN p. 47 change reasonable distance and put quantitative spin to it? RA supports PC reasonable distance
recommendation. Subjective term we can work within or with. CN losing cite that we are doing county
development rather than town dev.
MM p.47 DPS rec of 1 and 2, p.48 , and p.49 rec. JF 22-2-190 reccommend retention except for sanitary
sewer blah blah can't hear him!!! SPEAK UP
CN seconded accept staff recommendations. Motion carries.
CC rgoal 8 is confusing motion to change"encourage creative and innovative approaches to address present
and future fed and state guidelines regarding".
CB seconded.. Motion carries.
22-2-200 RA DPS rec retention of strikeout portions of intro par and delete last four sentences. Intro para,
one of planning hallmarks is flexibility. Have developers look at what is around their development. Planners
have to address impact and compliance with the code. Sentences are too broad and leave too many
questions unanswered.
KG committee language reflects flexibility. Bulk requirements remain the same. Provides for some creative,
out of the box thought for staff.
MM to Bruce about first sentance to strike. If it's in the code, how flexible can you be?
BB that's true. Be flexible enough to accept alternatives to get to the same end. MM be creative but must
meet the code. BB times you can be flexible and times you can't. Code has certain things you must comply
with. Two tier, certain things we have to comply with, but second tier allows flexibility. MM as long as you
meet the code, doesn't matter how you get there. BB agrees with RA- gives impression you don't have to
comply with the code. PUD gives that flexibility. BB agrees with DPS that this is a better way to state this.
(P.50)
KG did not intend to go around county codes. May have to get creative etc.,but review process itself provides
safeguards. Committee intent was to preserve flexibility.
MM not okay to not meet requirements of the code. KG wants to preserve flexibility for the applicant and still
accomplish goals while remaining within codes. MM will lawyer argue that it may not be fully aligned with
codes,so why do we have to meet them? Could be a hitch coming uo down the road. KG again stated their
goal is to preserve flexibility.
RA planners don't look at their job as interpreting codes. BB first sentence does what committee wants it to
do. Have alternative to meet intent of compatibility. Second sentence,concern about preserving value of the
land. RA change PUD must to PUD should provide?
CC to Kirk-your take on the language? KG compromise to DPS rec add last sentence of our paragraph. RA
DPS has no dilemma with that. Flexibility is the key.
MM change 3 sentences. BB "entitlement"is a loaded word, rec taking out a loaded word any time you can.
KG says entitlement can be removed. "Preferred method of development" okay by Kirk. Stan Everitt
addressed PC . DPS language is better than what comp plan committee originally wrote. MM goal was to
have a development try and maintain its original flavor.
CN conserve/preserve argument again. See notes Voneen took, regarding DPS recommendations in box.
BB get rid of language. KG Bruce makes a good point. CN CC made some minor changes. CC motion
amend 22-2-200 to delete last 4 sentences and insert DPS recommendations as revised. SM seconded.
(P.50). Retain last sentence. Motion carries.
22-2-210 RA DPS ref retain strikeout portions above. Public may need this information.
KG comp plan wanted to make approach cooperative within box of rules-minimize barriers and confrontation.
MM any problem with 2 sentences-seems like they compliment each other? (P.52) MM to KG and RA what
did you have in mind "provide mechanisms whereby new PUD pays for the costs of . . . RA DPS has no
issues with this.
CN moved to accept DPS rec 22-2-210 . Second by who? and carried.
RA DPS 22-2-230 second paragraph mud a goal 1 DPS left out"and to provide for ease of inclusion in"the
1-25 MUD area . . . CN doesn't like the word ease in there. Remove ease? KG encourage growth where
services exist. CC ease of inclusion and managed growth not at opposite ends? KG no. JF development
in MUD better served by municipalities. MM motion regarding ease of inclusion? None.
22-3-10 (p.59)
22-3-20 lengthy discussion. RA DPS has issues with all of the deletions. No minimum standards. Liability?
Developer vs county fire protection liability. Retain 1-7. KG not opposed to provision for fire protection.
Leaning toward adequate provision. MM who determines what is adequate? KG staff recommendation?
MM do we need a minimum? Some developments require more, some less. JF who qualified to determine
minimum standards? RA DPS concurs with JF can't make a recommendation without a baseline or a
standard. Can deviate from a standard, but must have a standard. CC need language that applicant must
address fire district concerns? Can't set a multitude of standards. Some requirements are too difficult to
provide. RA portions of county still not in fire protection districts, so we defer to the experts in fire protection
districts. KG fire authority set their interpretation of minimum standards and applicant must work with fire
district. MM would work only if it says developer SHALL meet. . . Audience discussion? Sherri Vogt former
DPS
B. Minimum versus basic level of service. DPS deals in black and white not grey areas. If retain basic then
we need a definition in order to give each applicant the same opportunity.
CN motion to in a retain last sentence previously stricken, retain 1-7, in b minimum replaces basic. . . DPS
recommendations basically. (P60)4-1 motion carries.
Adjourned at noon for lunch. Meeting re-adjourned at 1 p.m.
22-3-30 RA no revisions or 22-3-40
22-3-50 DPS has corrections from committee upon it review of the document. No problem adding these as
they are appropriate. See Roberts copy for additions.
22-3-70, 80, 90 and 100 22-3-80 has an addition after"utilized" per Robert's notes.
22-3-60 JF motioned to amend and restore"all roads shall adhere to the standards set forth in"in D. P. 63
CN seconded. Carried.
22-3-110 MM p. 65 deletion paragraph c. and asked Kirk why? KG primarily to make it general so that it
applies to everyone and does not need to be listed. No intent to take away anyone's opportunity for input,but
rather to be all inclusive. MM recommend cooperation of all interested parties. Discussion? None. CC
remain in there but not list names of individual entities. All Interested Parties? Instead. CC moved 22-3-110
item c. be put back in with this change"of all interested parties"rather than listing everyone involved. Didn't
hear a second. Motion carries.
22-3-140 MM p. 67 considered over promotion, why? KG gets away from holding up a project over trail
considerations. MM likes promoting rather than considering because he would like to see more trail systems.
KG concerns about trails and assumptions that ditch rights of way may end up being trails. MM can be
considered on an individual basis. Still wants promoted left in.
CC motion to delete considered and back to promoted. Remove to before links . CN second. Casrries.
RA p. 68 DPS recommendations as per Robert's copy . KG sees no concerns with tourism aspect, fairly
generic and we recognized and discussed this. Road impact fees studies-concerns as to when, how much
it costs , time element. BB suggested"performed by the county to identify" rather than "used to identify" in
e.1.t.goal 5. P. 68. JF motion that 22-3-140 as DPS suggested additions and also as BB suggested and
include in document. CN second. Carried.
Five minute recess.
CN motioned 22-3-150 DPS add their tourism goal. SM second. Carried.
22-4-10 CC problem with a. and b. Concern about taking out first line, in a.;b. is okay but hesitate to remove
prime agricultural land. KG affects on environmental issues should be considered. Approach from one of
negative to positive,to encouragement. MM comp plan sentence first? CC motion that we reverse sentence
order in a.and re-insert stricken language. CN second. Carries. KG clarification did you add the word"any"?
MM yes. CN moved to eliminate b. in 22-4-10 as it is redundant. CC second. Carried.
MM to Bruce public can speak up at any time since only one member of public present thus will not ask for
public discussion.? Okay.
22-4-20 no changes.
22-4-30 DSP recommendations in B.2.a. In C. (p.69)water rights. BB thinks statement about water rights
has no merit. MM not a need to state that water rights are private,they are private. Can discourage diversion
but not mandate it. KG complex issues of Colorado water law. Committee strong about recognizing individual
water rights. RA/MM combined suggestion for C. wa. 3. The county recognizes water rights as private
property but encourages the retention of water rights on the agricultural property. CN moved that 22-4-30
goals and policies c.2.wa. 3 read as previously read. CC second. Carried.
F.wa.goal 6 DPS recommends deletion in entirety due to confusion and inconsistency. KG asked for
clarification regarding voluntary long-term leases. Goal of comp plan committee was to encourage long term
lease over sale of water, so does not want to see this deleted. CN moved that we accept DPS rec to delete
f wa goal 6 (p70)SM second. Carried.
22-4-40, 50, 60, 70 no changes.
22-4-80 RA and DPS changes in B. And C. as per Robert's notes. (P.72). Everything up to 22-4-200 also
okay. Brief recess.
22-5-20 CC motion to amend and add new language of"shooting sports"between hunting and boating. SM
seconded. Carried.
22-5-30 okay as per RA copy.
22-5-40 MM issue with A. CC rather see A.stay in. RA addition of new A.follows planning guiding principles.
Less restrictive but supports individual property rights. KG concerns were of cities,etc. designating privately
owned lands as open space and the general public thinking they had access to privately owned open space.
KG list making can leave someone out and that is why we have shied away from doing that.
22-5-50, 60 okay with typo corrections.
22-5-70 correction in title.
22-5-80, 90 no issues
Appendix 22-E DPS recommendation remove"hazing of nuisance wildlife". Implies cruelty,harassment etc.,
even though this was a DOW recommendation. Is there a recognized definition from the DOW? KG make
it as clear as possible. RA suggest DPS addition of"legal" before"hazing".
CN motion leave as is and add "shooting sports" and "legal" hazing of nuisance wildlife. SM seconded.
Carried.
Appendix 22-F CC felt definitions should be kept in. BB easier to find this in the code rather than the comp
plan. Stays stricken.
Appendix 22-G DPS recommendations. BB recommends removing completely. KG our approach was to
allow for flexibility, no problem with removing them. Motion by CN remove appendix 22-G in entirety. CC
second. Carried.
Appendix 22-H JF has legal notice that the figures in this appendix are being changed? RA, yes they will
change this coming Monday. CN moved to approve updated figures as per third reading on Monday, April
29, 2002. Second? Carried.
Final page DPS suggests as an addendum, accompany rather than be a part. Information to board for their
use, not necessarily published. BB say it is Comp Plan recommendation and not a part of PC document.
MM when will document be available to proof? RA 2002 Base Analysis included with current information.
RA May 21 comp plan after PC meeting. Will try to get entire new version to you in a week.
KG wanted to recognize the 13 of them that worked so hard and also thanked PC and staff for their
dedication. MM thanked all the above as well.
Meeting adjourned 3:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
r
Hello