HomeMy WebLinkAbout20021497.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Special Comprehensive Meeting
Tuesday, March 30, 2002
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 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 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
Cristie Nicklas
Fred Walker
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray Absent
Cathy Clamp Absent
Luis Llerena
Bruce Fitzgerald Absent
Also Present: Robert Anderson, Donita May, Voneen Macklin, Monica Daniels Mika
The summary of the minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting held on February 26, 2002 meeting
were approved with amendments as read.
Michael Miller stated that there was a vote that was tabled with regard to section 22-1-100 from the last
meeting. Mr.Anderson presented additional data with regard to the chart that was provided from the State
Demographers Office and recommended insertion of the definitions and the chart itself as an appendix. DPS
recommends the retention of 22-1-100 with the insertion of the chart as an appendix as presented.
Arlan Marrs,representative for the Comprehensive Re-Write Committee,asked Mr.Anderson for clarification
with the regard to the definitions. Mr. Anderson stated That the proposed changes used the standard
definitions provided by the State Demographers office and did not expand beyond that. Mr. Marrs stated that
the committee language on 22-1-90 is appropriate and 22-1-80 is also appropriate. The chart will support the
language so the inclusion of the chart would be fine. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Anderson about DPS position
regarding 22-1-80. Mr.Anderson stated that there was not a concern with 22-1-80 the issue came with the
deletion of 22-1-100 as an unsupported statement when compared to 22-1-90. Sections 22-1-80 through 100
address the economy of Weld County. Section 80 is the general in nature,and 90-100 are specific economic
analysis, indicators and methodology.
Luis Llerena moved to accept the recommendation of staff and insert the chart as an appendix and the
inclusion of the definitions. Cathy Clamp seconded. Motion carried
Cristie Nicklas asked Mr. Anderson if there was a possibility of getting new census figures that apply in the
document. The information will presented on Tuesday, April 2, 2002.
Michael Miller stated that the Planning Commission left ended their discussion on February 26, 2002 at the
beginning of Section 22-2-40.
ARTICLE TWO:
22-2-50: Concerns as farming as an industry.
Cristie Nicklas asked of Mr. Marrs why the committee eliminated the last sentence in sub paragraph C. Mr.
Marrs stated that the reason would be an unsupported statement. Ms.Nicklas would like to have the sentence
put back in. Ms. Nicklas added to eliminate the last sentence in F. Mr.Marrs indicated that from a committee
standpoint is an important concept and reflects back to the idea that these are private properties. There are
alternatives to agricultural production and the property owners have the right to use their property as they see
fit. Mr. Llerena stated that the explanation sounds more definite than the existing sentence. Mr. Marrs stated
eenauct (rurola. ObIIvbca)-
2002-1497
that it is an important concept that a land owner has the ability to change the use of his property while
accepting the rules and regulations of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning etc.
Cristie Nicklas moved to add language sub paragraph F that says"Privately owned land used for agricultural
purposed may be converted to another use in accordance to the state and county land use laws and
regulations." John Folsom seconded. Motion carried
Cristie Nicklas moved to reinstate the last sentence in 22-2-50C. John Folsom seconded.
Fred Walker stated that the sentence is unsubstantiated and should be stricken. Mr. Miller stated that the
preceding statement would fall under the same category. Mr.Llerena added that the new hobby farms do not
understand the agricultural heritage of the area and the resulting consequences. Ms. Clamp stated the she
is not in favor of the word"unrealistic expectations" perhaps a better choice of words would serve the same
purpose. Mr.Anderson added that the beginning of the paragraph begins with perceived and in that context
it appears to be appropriate. Mr. Walker asked if the motion could be amended to state "Many of the
problems stem from not understanding normal agricultural production practices by those seeking a rural
lifestyle."
Ms. Nicklas amended the motion to state"Many of the problems stem from unrealistic expectations and not
understanding normal agricultural production practices by those seeking a rural lifestyle." John Folsom
seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Cathy Clamp,yes; Cristie Nicklas,yes; Fred Walker, no; Luis Llerena,yes.
Motion carried with Mr. Walker abstaining.
Prime Farmland Definitions:
22-2-40: Mr.Anderson presented DPS suggested changes consisting of:"Retain¶'s A&B 22-2-50
and ¶ 2 sub 22-2-60 (below) and stated "The elimination of the designation "Prime and
nonprime"combined with the generalization of A Goal 1 to include all agricultural land and
the fact that most of the county is zoned agriculture may significantly impact land use
applications on Ag zoned property. A possible solution would be to mandate the adoption
or adherence to a tiered agricultural system (A-1,A-2,A-3 etc. )such as those adopted by
agricultural communities across the United States. The use of the current Prime/Non prime
designation appears the least restrictive of several options.
John Folsom asked if removing the Prime/non-prime definition would require changes to the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Anderson stated it would and those would need to be addressed.
Arlan Marrs stated that the definitions are points or definitions that are not needed in the document as the it
is written. The reason behind the removal is the use of the ground not the definition of prime and non prime
being a significant part of the use. The committee's philosophy was that all agricultural land is important not
just prime farm ground. The comprehensive plan needs to be in favor of all agriculture. The promotion of use
is not addressed if types or qualities are selected out. The water on the ground is the key factor in the current
code with regard to prime farm ground. The is a vast amount of land that is considered non prime and is just
as important. The old system with regard to preserve prime farm ground is good if it is used as a tool to limit
growth. This would be a good goal if the purpose was to encourage conflict with surrounding people with
regard to prime and non. The definition is dependent on water and if the water gets sold the ground is no
longer prime. The committees recommendation is shifted toward conserving all agricultural lands. It is
appropriate if the comprehensive plan that is encouraging a collaboration with land owners,municipalities and
neighbors in land use decisions. It is an appropriate goal if it encourages farmers to continue the tradition of
heritage of farming. The conservation of agricultural lands is important if the county want to encourage
cluster, conservation easements, transferable development rights. Those types of techniques are what the
committee used throughout the document and this section follows through on those ideas. Agricultural
producers have a rich heritage of conservation. The word preservation denotes an idea of status quo. You
preserve things of value such as historical sites, parks, museums and some land areas, but the industry is
not preserved. The committees recommendation of shifting the focus of document to conservation of all lands
not just prime and non prime.
Michael Miller asked about how the definition of prime and non prime holds agriculture back from moving
forwards. Mr. Marrs stated that the efficient use of water resources seems to be the major source of the
dilemma. The idea of preservation meaning that what it is now it needs to remain. Agriculture is adept at
bringing in new technologies. This document needs to encourage the new ideas. If there is a way to use the
water rights more efficiently than that is good for the county. Mr. Miller asked how deleting the definition
change the intent for the land. Mr. Marrs stated that the definition encourages the removal of water from the
land because of the ability to use if more efficiently with a different use. Ms. Clamp provided some possible
language consisting of"both prime and non prime farmland as defined by the Natural Resource Conservation
Service exists within Weld County, both are extremely important to the continued health and welfare of the
county residents and will be protected equally to preserve agriculture without the interference of incompatible
uses." Mr. Miller asked if the definitions were eliminated what happens. Mr. Anderson stated Planning
services needs clarification "As it is written rather than evaluating it as either Prime or Non-prime each
application would be evaluated regarding its effect on all Agricultural land in general. Prime is reviewed on
the basis of evaluating a limited resource but is not a singular reason to turn an application down. It would
complicate the land use application, clarification would be needed as to when it affects a use or not.
Approximately 75-80% is zoned Ag and 18% is zoned prime. DPS would be required to potentially
recommend denial on 75-80%rather than 18-20%of application on the basis that the application is affecting
or removing Agriculturally zoned land. Essentially this would add more time to the case in the review aspect.
Mr.Walker stated that every land use case staff comments begin with prime and nonprime designation and
the DPS has used it time and time again for the reason for denial. Residential application would be the first
to get denial because of the removal of prime Ag land. The land was created by farmers to be prime and the
policies were created for the policies. These policies force the farmer to continue farming. These policies
try to restrict the uses because it makes the farmers keep farming and not be able to put the land to another
possibly more economically beneficial use. Mr. Anderson stated that the land and its characteristics existed
before farmers arrived and the definition of prime is not based solely on the water factor. Prime farmland is
a limited rand dwindling resource, and the basis for much of Weld County's success. Regarding the Staff
recommendation to the Planning Commission and Board, DPS presents the information, interprets the
Comprehensive Plan but does not make the decision. The staff comments are tools and recommendations
that Planners present to policy makers. Mr. Marrs stated that the current philosophy is for prime to be a
current issue and the committee believes that it should not change, however, the committee also believes
that the applications need to address agriculture. The current system promotes the preservation of the prime
ground. The committee's recommendation would be to practice conservation on every application. Ms.
Nicklas added that DPS looks at the prime and the board has never denied a application just because of it.
All Ag land needs to be conserved,it is a tool for planning staff to assist for the direction of development. Mr.
Llerena stated that the best way to acknowledge better ground is to maintain the definition. It is obvious that
there are areas that crops grow better and it needs to be acknowledged. Safety of the citizens is an issue and
to cluster the areas of farming and residential areas. Denying the definitions would say that development can
occur anywhere. Definitions seem essential to the type of land we have and that Prime farmland is very rich.
Including the definitions reminds everyone that the area needs to be protected. Mr. Walker stated that the
definition does not deal with the economic viability of the farming industry. The industry is shallow and forcing
the individual to continue using the land as it is may not be economically viable for that person. Mr. Miller
asked if all land is lumped into the same category how would it loosen the regulation for a farmer to change
his use. Mr. Llerena stated that it should not restrict. Ms. Clamp added that all the land is not the same it is
represented different in the two different philosophies. Ms. Clamp stated that the real issue is whether farm
land should be preserved beyond its economic viability. Should farm land be preserved because it is farm
ground or should the economic viability be a factor in it. Do we want to look at the future of the County as
having a focus on preserving farm ground to the exclusion of development. Which does the county want to
preserve either the uses of the land owner or the uses of the land. Mr. Folsom added that preserve and
conserve are being used simultaneously. The Committee hinges on the committees definition of preserve
and conserve. The definitions need to be crystal clear. The action and intent of land use hinges on these
definitions. Mr. Miller stated that there is no benefit to eliminating the definitions; there is no way to lump all
lands into one category. A tiered system might be a choice. Mr. Barker added that the reasons for the
definitions would be the use of the terms later in the document. The philosophy rather that the definitions is
being discussed. Mr. Miller asked to table the discussion for the definitions to a later time.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak regarding the previous business
as well as for or against this application. No one wished to speak.
Robert Anderson added that in a planning sense there is a difference between preservation and conservation.
Preservation involves the element of time while conservation may not. "You conserve gasoline but you
preserve the memory of loved ones" The definitions are very close but subtly different.
22-2-60-Agricultural Goals and Policies
Mr. Anderson presented DPS suggested changes consisting of:
1. ¶A.sub 2. Retain original statement and alter ¶3 to read: The County should develop
creative policies to conserve agricultural land, including preservation techniques and
prioritizing incentives.
2. Retain 5.2. A Policy 2 1.4 in its entirety, Definition helpful to the public and planning
process as well.
3. C. Retain A Goal 3 (renumber) in its entirety, This is a smart growth principle and
discourages"Sprawl"
4. B. A.2. The concept of urban and non urban scale is inextricably tied to the idea of bulk
requirements,zoning classifications and to some extent minimum development standards
as addressed in multiple Chapters of the Code. Many areas of density classification,such
as minimum lot size,are defined by State law and concern issues of public health,welfare
and safety(water wells,septic systems). Density Classifications are an important and vital
tool in the planning process. The removal of these concepts creates unreconcilable
contradictions with the existing Weld County Code. A possible solution would be to
mandate the adoption or adherence to a tiered agricultural system (a system of
progressively restrictive uses allowed in a specific zone or area, ie. A-1, A-2, A-3). The
current use of urban and non urban appears to be the least restrictive and most flexible
5. Retain A.Policy 3.1.8 (#8) a useful tool in creating options and providing a degree of
flexibility for the public as well as planners
6. ¶F.2. A. Policy 6.1 Who determines appropriateness?
7. ¶'s F. 3. & 4. Retain- Water is and will continue to be a significant determinant of
developability. Clarification and emphasis of this information is critical to land use
applications, decisions and uses.
Arlan Marrs asked about the recommendation on 22-2-60A. The large paragraph states a further definition
of prime ground and if the document is not using prime and non prime it is not needed. There are many
definitions of farm ground and most of the definitions that involve prime include water with them. Water is a
key factor in the determination of prime ground. Mr. Marrs believes it makes more sense as written by the
committee. Ms. Clamp asked about various methods of Ag land. Mr. Marrs thinks the county should take
more active partner in developing some of the creative policies to conserve Ag lands. Mr. Marrs stated that
the committee's recommendation all through the document is to conserve Ag lands. Those lands are as
equally as important as prime lands. Mr.Miller stated that there needs to be a determination of prime and non
prime. Ms. Nicklas asked about the definitions with regard to prime and non prime. Mr.Anderson stated that
the definitions are from the US Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Services and a soils identification
program begun in the mid-70's. Mr. Miller asked if there was a specific section that addresses prime and non
prime use of the land. Mr. Anderson stated it was throughout the document.
Michael Miller stated that the definitions of prime and non prime need to be determined. Mr. Barker added
that the idea of conserve and preserve need to be addressed. What is the approach and why conserve it,how
would approach conserving in a practical sense. How does the committee foresee the planning department
reviewing cases with the idea of conservation of Ag lands. Mr. Miller added that eliminating the definitions
would not necessarily benefit the farmer. All ground will need to be looked at in the same light. Mr. Marrs
stated that the basic process is no different, the recommendation is no difference . The application would
have to address the conservation of Ag land. The reason why is that Ag as an industry is important to this
county. All lands are important. In the process how the applications are reviewed are no different than the
process right now. The applicant will have to describe how he is conserving Ag lands for the benefit of the
Ag industry. This is more restrictive than the prime/non prime issue. The change is the idea through the
preserve vs conserve. It is a vital component of the document. Intent was to change focus to conservation
of Ag lands. Conserve has a changing element of the industry. Mr.Anderson added that DPS direction from
the proposed change would result in a inordinate number of recommendations for denial. Any application
which changed a property's use from Agriculture could be interpreted as not within the intent of conserving
agriculture. Mr. Marrs indicated that the idea behind the conservation of land was that an owner does not
take a piece of land place the residence in the middle of the ground. They may use the corner parcels of a
sprinkler pivot. Mr. Folsom added that maybe there needs to be more specifics on the definition. Mr. Marrs
stated that the committee is uncomfortable with the prime and non prime and preservation. Ms Mika added
to the historical background on the definitions. The map is what is relied upon for the determination of prime
and nonprime. The definitions of prime and nonprime and that the problem ties it to the water. The criteria
are the important factors. There may be a certain amount of flexibility with regard to the determination. Does
it have the capability of conversion and what are the criteria factors. Mr. Miller stated that the designation of
prime/nonprime does not inhibit the denial of the case and the problems come in more RE cases. The initial
conversion from Ag to a urban use is in the RE. Mr. Folsom stated that the map has some issues with
missing the prime and non prime. Mr. Walker added that there was a case in his area that DPS made the
applicant move the house from the middle of his ground to next to the corrals because of the prime/nonprime
issues. Mr.Walker feels that if the applicant owns the ground then he should have the ability to put his home
where he wants it. The reasoning from DPS was that it was in Prime Ag land. Mr.Anderson added that DPS
makes recommendations based on accepted planning practices and the applicant may appeal DPS's
recommendation to the Planning Commission or Board. Mr. Anderson stated that the health, safety and
welfare of the inhabitants of Weld County are one of DPS main concerns. Mr. Llerena added that the need
for the definitions are key as to how the county is going to be perceived. It needs to be determined on whether
to keep the definitions. This will determine all the references throughout the document.
Kirk Goble, of the Comp Plan Re-Write Committee expressed his concerns about the effects and how the
applications would be considered with regard to keeping the definitions. The representation was for the cases
to be denied when in fact there would be no change. The process is not like that now and the intent was not
for the process to change. Every application has to address this issue of conservation. The intent of the
committee was for the door to be open for greater techniques for conservation of Ag land. The use of
clustering,conservation is encouraged. Regardless of it is on irrigated or non irrigated. The issues of irrigated
lands and the water was being brought in. The bulk of development is around the cities in prime ground and
the need for conservation easements and corridors would be beneficial. The basic philosophy is private
property rights. Mr. Miller asked how they were restricted with the current definitions.Mr. Goble stated it was
not restricting but it promotes sprawl. If the applicant cannot develop on prime lands which are close to cities
they would move to outlying areas. This would cause more issues of sprawl. Mr. Goble added that
concentrating on the definitions alone is too narrow,there is a need to balance growth while preserving Private
Property Rights of an individual. Mr. Miller asked about the difference. Mr. Goble stated that if it is narrowed
it would not be different but the applications of what could occur. Mr. Anderson stated that Planning
Commission and Board of County Commissioners make the decisions while DPS is purely recommending.
The committee's recommendation of preserving or conserving all Ag zoned lands is more restrictive not less
restrictive than the current Prime/Nonprime system. The Comp Plan and the idea of Prime or non Prime are
at the heart of determining compatibility and the planners need clear definitions to ensure each applicant is
treated equally.The DPS has to go by what is written and if the applicant is proposing something other than
Ag and the committee's goal is in place the DPS is bound to recommend denial. The issue is that the original
use is being changed. The potential is there since this would be in black and white and is the first goal in the
plan.
Bob White,dry land farmer,has concerns with the definition. The definition of prime needed to be determined.
The definition stated adequate water and classification of soil. The soil varies in every region and the
possibility of the addition of fertilizer makes the soil better therefor increasing the viability for it to be prime.
Different ground can be used for different crops. Non prime ground is just as important as the prime. There
should be a constant with regard to the ground. The first thing that needs to be remembered is that of private
property rights. Those owners should be able to determine what to do with it
Bruce Rippey,worked on an ADHOC Agricultural Committee as well as the re-write committee. The ADHOC
committee requested the preservation of Ag land in Weld County. If the economic concerns are not
addressed the viability for the county is in trouble. Ag land preservation is the best. The suggestions made
by the Comprehensive re-write committee would challenge some of the recommendations that the ADHOC
committee made to the BOCC regarding Ag land preservation. The key issues in the prime and non prime
definitions are soil conditions and water. Use of water and water rights are addressed and there are additional
concerns. 18% of Weld County is classified as prime land according to the Department of Agriculture, and
of that 18%, 80% of it is in the part of the county with the highest level of pressure for development. Mr.
Llerena asked if the removal of the definitions would be instrumental in changing the philosophy to now
preserving the Ag areas referred to. Mr. Rippey stated that the committee was not unanimous with regard
to some of the issues raised. Mr. Folsom asked if the ADHOC committee brought it to the attention of rewrite
to change the definitions. Mr. Rippey stated that the committee chose to leave the prime and non prime in
the definitions in their recommendations.
The chair closes the public portion of the meeting.
Luis Llerena stated that it was needed to determine whether to leave the definitions in or take them out. His
recommendation is that they are necessary and if taken out pandoras box will be opened along with a lack
of structure for the planning staff. Ms. Nicklas offered additional language to the non prime language. The
language consist of"Non prime farm land is low capability that is not as important as prime farm land for food
production." The addition of the language does not discount that it is not important but signifies that it is
different ground.
Arlan Marrs added that the whole discussion about the inclusion of the definitions is at hand and if the
references is to be made in the document than the addition of the definitions need to stay. If the tone of the
document is going to change to conserving all Ag land the definitions will not hurt anything but they serve no
purpose. What the plan for the rest of the document with regard to prime ground or all ground. Ms. Nicklas
offered to agree with the committee with regard to conserve not preserve.
Cristie Nicklas moved to change 22-2-50 A non prime farmland definition to read"Nonprime farmland is low
capability land that is not as productive as prime farmland for food production," then continue on with the
sentence. John Folsom seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Michael Miller, yes; Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nicklas,yes; Fred Walker, no; Luis Llerena,yes.
Motion carried.
Cristie Nicklas moved to retain 22-2-40 and 22-2-50 in the document. John Folsom seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Cathy Clamp,yes; Cristie Nicklas,yes; Fred Walker, no; Luis Llerena,yes.
Motion carried
Mr. Walker commented that the definitions forces the farmers to farm and does not give them any other
alternatives. Neither definitions speak to the economic viability of the Ag use in question in the areas. The
first thing that needs to occur is whether it is economically viable.
Ms. Nicklas commented that the Comprehensive Plan is not necessarily the avenue in which to discuss
economic viability.
22-2-60 Agricultural Goals and Policies.
Mr. Miller stated that with the clarification of prime and nonprime being retained in the document the Board
can continue with this discussion.
Mr. Anderson presented DPS suggested changes consisting of:
1. ¶A.sub 2. Retain original statement and alter ¶3 to read: The County should develop
creative policies to conserve agricultural land, including preservation techniques and
prioritizing incentives.
2. Retain 5.2. A Policy 2 1.4 in its entirety, Definition helpful to the public and planning
process as well.
3. C. Retain A Goal 3 (renumber) in its entirety, This is a smart growth principle and
discourages"Sprawl"
4. B. A.2. The concept of urban and non urban scale is inextricably tied to the idea of bulk
requirements,zoning classifications and to some extent minimum development standards
as addressed in multiple Chapters of the Code. Many areas of density classification,such
as minimum lot size, are defined by State law and concern issues of public health,welfare
and safety(water wells,septic systems). Density Classifications are an important and vital
tool in the planning process. The removal of these concepts creates unreconcilable
contradictions with the existing Weld County Code. A possible solution would be to
mandate the adoption or adherence to a tiered agricultural system (a system of
progressively restrictive uses allowed in a specific zone or area, ie. A-1, A-2, A-3). The
current use of urban and non urban appears to be the least restrictive and most flexible
5. Retain A.Policy 3.1.8 (#8) a useful tool in creating options and providing a degree of
flexibility for the public as well as planners
6. ¶F.2.A. Policy 6.1 Who determines appropriateness?
7. ¶'s F. 3. & 4. Retain- Water is and will continue to be a significant determinant of
developability. Clarification and emphasis of this information is critical to land use
applications, decisions and uses.
Cathy Clamp questioned the intent for wanting the county to develop the creative policies to conserve Ag land.
Mr. Marrs stated that the objective was for the county to become a partner in developing new and creative
policies to increase the options to private property owners. Mr. Miller stated that maybe the language needs
to be reworded. Mr.Anderson offered adding"support the applicant in creating creative ideas." Ms. Nicklas
added that in A Goal 1 the need to change the language to reflect a narrower spectrum. The addition of
"prime farm land...." Mr. Marrs asked if the county was only going to conserve prime farm land. Mr Marrs
added that the committee's recommendation included more than just prime. Mr. Marrs stated that the intent
was to make the applicant accountable for the conservation of all lands. Mr. Anderson pointed out that the
process becomes more difficult when there are no criteria is a process of evaluation. Mr. Marrs stated that
the intent was not to make it easier but to make it fairer. The committee trusted that PC and BOCC and staff
are capable of making the determination to the degrees of importance. It is important that all applicants need
to address their impact on Ag lands. This document is not black and white and it requires a different job from
DPS in that the planners need to work with the applicant to determine what is being done on the property to
conserve Ag land. All applications need to be done the same. Mr. Miller stated that most of the prime farm
ground is around the cities and that is where this ground it. Southwest Weld County is the most affected by
these definitions and criteria. Mr. Llerena stated the applicant has a better representation if the criteria is
more defined. Mr. Miller stated that it was not significant to designate prime farm land but to use farm land
as a general statement. Ms. Nicklas added that there is a difference between land used for farming whether
it be dryland or irrigated and land for agricultural purposes which would be pasture land or feed lot.
Fred Walker asked for clarification with regard to the 80%. Mr. Miller stated that the greatest amount of
pressure with regard to development is where the greatest amount of prime Ag land is located. Mr.Walker
stated that the issue with regard to prime and nonprime would not be happening if the farming industry was
as productive as growing homes. The Comprehensive Plan Committee is pressing private property rights and
the fact that there needs to be component of economic viability. In not having these components a farmer is
left with no other options but to farm. Mr. Llerena stated that democracy is based on check and balances and
if everything was agreed upon it would be a dictatorship. It would make sense to protect the land that is
already targeted for development. Mr. Llerena added that PC has approved applications in prime ground.
John Folsom moved to use change the language in A Goal 1 to"Conserve Ag land for Ag purposes which
foster the economic health and continuance of agriculture." Cathy Clamp seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Michael Miller,yes;Cathy Clamp,yes; Cristie Nicklas,yes; Fred Walker,yes; Luis Llerena,yes.
Motion carried.
Cathy Clamp asked about the reference to removing protect from A Policy 2. Robert Anderson stated it
provided clarification -the purpose of zoning is to call out specific uses of an area. It aids the public in their
understanding of land use. It aids planners and policy makers as well. Specific uses are uses by right tied
to specific zones. Clarifies what specific uses are for specific zones.
Michael Miller asked about the deleting of the last part of the sentence on A Policy 2. Louis Llerena provided
some clarification with regard to the possible interference. He said he has seen where proposed residential
development would interfere with proposed agricultural industry. Robert Anderson stated that the right to farm
clause is vital to protecting agriculture. When in an agricultural zone,there are certain uses by right that you
are allowed to do, and those should not be interfered with by residential, commercial, or industrial. Uses by
right in an agricultural zone are very specific.
A Policy 1 - Cathy Clamp moved to have it read "agricultural zoning will be established and maintained to
protect and promote the County's agricultural industry. Agricultural zoning is intended to provide areas for
agricultural activities and other uses interdependent upon agriculture." Cristie Nicklas seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Michael Miller,yes;Cathy Clamp,yes;Cristie Nicklas,yes; Fred Walker,yes; Luis Llerena,yes.
Motion carried.
Cristie Nicklas moved to reinstate the paragraph 2 A Policy 1 sub-paragraph. Luis Llerena seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Cathy Clamp,yes; Cristie Nicklas,yes; Fred Walker, no; Luis Llerena,yes.
Motion carried
Cathy Clamp commented that although it is a quote she would like to readdress this issue at a later time
further thing the document.
Cristie Nicklas moved to include the language in 3 Policy 1.2 to read "The County should support the
development of creative policies to conserve agricultural land including preservation techniques and prioritizing
incentives." Luis Llerena seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Cathy Clamp,yes;Cristie Nicklas,yes; Fred Walker,yes; Luis Llerena,yes.
Motion carried.
5.2 A Policy 2 1.4 Mr. Anderson stated that the DPS would like to retain because of the implications with the
Smart Growth Principles.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Arlan Marrs would still recommend removal of this paragraph. The whole process seems to cover this and
the definition part is not needed. The removal of the word prime that would be better suited.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Luis Llerena stated that the prime is necessary. Ms. Clamp stated the removing the word prime with the
production in place maintains the Ag business aspect.
Cathy Clamp moved to retain#5 2 A Policy 2 but the word"prime"in the second line be removed. No second
to the motion
Cristie Nicklas moved to retain#5 2 A Policy 2 as is. Luis Llerena seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Michael Miller, yes; Cathy Clamp, no; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Fred Walker, no; Luis Llerena, yes.
Motion carried.
C A.3 Goals and Policies
Robert Anderson stated that the DPS recommendation would be to retain A Goal 3(renumber)in its entirety,
This is a smart growth principle and discourages "Sprawl"
Arlan Marrs stated the removal because it is addressed in the following principles. In the previous plan the
word discourage is used frequently and the committee changed it to encourage. Mr. Llerena supports a
possible reword to encourage. Mr. Walker stated he does not like the urban scale development definition.
Mr. Walker does not like the definition of urban scale development as it is only allows for location next to
incorporated municipalities. Mr. Marrs stated this is addressed in subsequent materials.
B A 2 Goal and Policies
Robert Anderson stated that the DPS recommendation would be: Retain in its entirety.
B. A.2. The concept of urban and non urban scale is inextricably tied to the idea of bulk
requirements, zoning classifications and to some extent minimum development standards as
addressed in multiple Chapters of the Code. Many areas of density classification,such as minimum
lot size, are defined by State law and concern issues of public health, welfare and safety (water
wells, septic systems). Density Classifications are an important and vital tool in the planning
process. The removal of these concepts creates unreconcilable contradictions with the existing
Weld County Code.A possible solution would be to mandate the adoption or adherence to a tiered
agricultural system (a system of progressively restrictive uses allowed in a specific zone or area,
ie. A-1, A-2, A-3). The current use of urban and non urban appears to be the least restrictive and
most flexible.
Arlan Marrs states that the main objective of the goal is for conversion of Ag land to urban and industrial uses.
Urban level of development needs to occur within areas that are suitable to those developments such as the
IGA, Urban Growth Boundary area, MUD, 125 mixed use areas and where services are available. The goal
is about where they want to direct the development. Mr. Miller asked how this would be effective if they are
allowing for development any where services are obtainable. Mr. Marrs indicated that services are
realistically obtainable in most areas The language addresses if there is a case where property owners
chooses to develop services in order to develop then it should be considered. Mr. Folsom stated that it would
be appropriate if the land was to be annexed into a municipality. Mr. Walker added that the intent to give
people the opportunity to live where they wanted to live as long as they are willing to pay for the cost
associated with it. It just says that if they can pay for it they can live there. Mr. Llerena stated the definitions
seems to be more centered towards the developer in allowing them to develop where they want to develop
because the resident can still live where they want when they purchase a home. Mr. Anderson presented
detailed information regarding cost benefit analysis of the impact of residential development. Urban scale
developments in rural areas do not pay for themselves. Mr.Walker provided some additional information with
regard to a development that was done and the numbers produced in revenues from the change in land use.
The comparison was from farm ground to the subdivision. Mr.Walker indicated that this development more
than pays for itself to the county. Ms. Clamp indicated that the example development might have but it is
necessary to look towards the future in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Walker indicated that just one of the
homes generated more revenue in Weld County than the original farm ground did. Mr.Walker indicated that
even if the residence spent half of their income in Weld County it was more than the original farm earned.
Mr. Miller stated the issue of being able to obtain adequate services was not appropriate. Mr. Marrs stated
that obtainable was decided by the committee to be the appropriate language. From a private property rights
view, the committee believes that urban level development should be considered when and where services
are obtainable. Mr. Folsom stated the problem with permitting urban scale development is when the
municipalities grow that way the county subdivisions may not be compatible.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Bob White, an application needs to be considered whether it is in an IGA area or not. The private property
rights of the owner needs to be considered. Is it fair to the property owner to tell what they can do with their
land.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Cristie Nicklas asked DPS for clarification with regard to A Goal 2. Mr. Anderson stated the way that it was
written directed DPS to encourage growth where growth was appropriate rather than from a market or profit
standpoint.
Luis Llerena moved to adopt DPS language in A 2 Goals and Policies-A Goal 2. Cristie Nicklas seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Cathy Clamp,yes; Cristie Nicklas,yes; Fred Walker, no; Luis Llerena, yes.
Motion carried.
Cristie Nicklas moved to retain 22-2-60 C A.3 Goals and Policies -A Goal 3. Luis Llerena seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Cathy Clamp,yes; Cristie Nicklas,yes; Fred Walker, no; Luis Llerena,yes.
Motion carried.
Robert Anderson stated that the DPS recommendation would be:
22-2-60 Retain A.Policy 3.1.8 (#8) as a useful tool in creating options and providing a degree of
flexibility for the public as well as planners
Arlan Marrs wants the language removed. The may cause some problems with the builders,the envelopes
may need to be adjusted to ease some problems. Mr. Walker stated that if a RE is requested that the
applicant make the decision where to put the envelope. Mr.Anderson stated that building envelopes are done
primarily to preserve or protect prime Ag land or to address specific planning issues. Building envelopes are
used in cases of blind corners, access, ingress of egress. The Department of Public Works are requesting
the use of Building Envelopes more. A letter of request followed with an amended plat is the current process
which an applicant requests a change in building envelope location. Building envelopes are used to preserve
the health,welfare and safety of the county residents. Ms.Clamp asked Mr.Barker about the possible liability
issue. Mr. Barker stated that there would be no liability unless, for example, the County was blocking off a
road. The county does not make the applicant prove the adequate access before pulling a building permit.
Ms. Clamp asked about density vs intensity in A Goal 3. Mr. Marrs indicated that density is a number and
intensity is not number specific. Mr. Miller pointed out the change of the word available to obtainable. Mr.
Llerena indicated that there was discussion previously with regard to keeping the word available not
obtainable. Mr.Marrs stated that the one thing in obtainability vs availability would be the fact that an applicant
is not going bring in all the needed services and then the application for development with the possibility of
denial. The applicant needs to be able to come in and say that the services are obtainable and begin the
process. Ms. Clamp stated that obtainable is something that is not nearby or around the site but can be
brought in.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Cathy Clamp moved to include urban scale in A Goal 3, change the word back to available in both A Goal 3
and A Policy 3.2 Cristie Nicklas seconded
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Cathy Clamp,yes; Cristie Nicklas,yes; Fred Walker, no; Luis Llerena,yes.
Motion carried.
Luis Llerena moved to approve DPS language to A Policy 3.1.8 to read"Lot and building envelope design and
placement may be employed to mitigate conflict between existing agricultural uses and future non agricultural
uses."Cristie Nicklas seconded. Motion withdrawn
Michael Miller stated that"may be employed"leaves it open. Mr.Walker stated that it was more of a rule than
a policy. Mr.Anderson stated that the committee changed the wording to encourage and the DPS uses this
as a tool. Ms. Clamp stated that the appeal of a building envelope is available but is a nuisance to the basic
homeowner.
Luis Llerena moved to add language to subsection F. A Policy 3.3.5 to read "Encourage techniques and
incentives such as easements, clusters, building envelopes and setbacks to minimize the impacts of
surrounding agricultural land when conversion to another use occurs and to ensure the health safety and
welfare of the inhabitants of Weld County." Cristie Nicklas seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Cathy Clamp,yes;Cristie Nicklas,yes;Fred Walker,yes; Luis Llerena,yes.
Motion carried.
Robert Anderson stated that the DPS request clarification regarding :
22-2-60 ¶F.2. A. Policy 6.1 Who determines appropriateness?
Arlan Marrs stated that the word appropriate was intended so that development can be done in conjunction
while lots are being sold. Mr.Marrs added that the question is does the developer have to finish infrastructure
prior to the lots being sold. Mr.Anderson indicated that the infrastructure needs to be in first but the possibility
of phasing is there. Mr. Anderson stated that the best example is the Fire Districts and their requirement for
or location of fire hydrants. As proposed by the committee; the developer, rather than the Fire District could
determine adequacy or appropriateness. DPS relies on the information and expertise of referral agencies.
Mr.Miller stated that the referral agencies determine what is appropriate and it should not be taken out of their
hands. Mr. Marrs added that the key is in conjunction with the development. The paving of the road being
done with the development rather than prior to saves money on replacement of those roads. Mr. Anderson
stated that the current language guarantees the first homeowner the same protection and level of services
that the last homeowner would get. Mr. Llerena stated that with the phasing the financial aspects can be
taken care of. The main focus of the code is for the heath, safety and wellness of the County residents. Mr.
Walker added that the development process states that a bond must be done to guarantee the infrastructure
will be put in. Mr. Barker stated that the term urban is a term of art and if it is now known what is meant there
needs to be a way of defining it. Eventually the terms will need to be defined and the Board of County
Commissioners will interpret that definition with regard to the code. Mr. Miller added that language should be
added to include in conjunction with the appropriate phase of the development. Mr. Marrs indicated that the
appropriate amount of services at the time of construction may be different than the amount at full build out.
Mr. Miller stated that the problem lies in the language of"in conjunction with." Mr. Marrs stated that all the
services at full build out do not need to be in at the time of the sale of the first lot. Mr. Anderson stated that
paving is an appropriate example. Over time the cost for providing infrastructure, such as street paving,
increase. When subdivisions are not required to put in infrastructure in a timely manner, problems such as
irate homeowners or associations arise. Mr. Anderson stated that you could not guarantee when the
infrastructure will be done. Mr. Barker stated that in conjunction with actually fits better with the way we do
it now.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Robert Anderson stated that the DPS recommendation would be:
22-2-60 ¶'s F. 3. & 4. Retain - Water is and will continue to be a significant determinant of
developability. Clarification and emphasis of this information is critical to land use applications, decisions
and uses.
Arlan Marrs stated that the committee would like to strike out#3 as it is not a critical element. The committee
agrees that#4 should be retained.
Cristie Nicklas stated that retaining the information with regard to the wells would be an beneficial tool for the
public. Mr. Walker stated that it was removed so that less burden was put on DPS, it would require the
applicant go to the State Agencies.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Cristie Nicklas moved to reinstate as written A Policy 6.2 and A Policy 6.3. John Folsom seconded
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Cathy Clamp,yes;Cristie Nicklas,yes; Fred Walker,yes; Luis Llerena,yes.
Motion carried.
Cathy Clamp indicated that the term inoperable is used instead of derelict. The definition of an inoperable
vehicle is any vehicle that cannot be repaired in six hours. This is a difficult policy to enforce whereas a
derelict vehicle is easier to enforce.
Arlan Marrs asked what the definition of derelict is. Mr.Anderson stated that the Weld County Code defines
a DERELICT VEHICLE: A vehicle that is inoperable (unable to move under its own power); is partially or
totally dismantled; has all or portions of its body work missing or is substantially damaged; is not registered
with the State,as required by Section 42-3-103,C.R.S.,or by Section 42-3-138 or42-12-102,C.R.S.,and/or
the number plate assigned to it is not permanently attached to the vehicle,as required by Section 42-3-123,
C.R.S.;or is lacking proper equipment to the extent that it would be unsafe or illegal to USE on public road
rights-of-way or otherwise not equipped with lamps and other equipment as required in Sections 42-4-202
to 42-2-227, C.R.S. This definition shall not include implements of husbandry, farm tractors or vehicles
customarily operated in a FARMING operation.
Cathy Clamp moved to change the term inoperable in A Goal 10 to derelict. Cristie Nicklas seconded.
Motion carried
Meeting adjourned at 4:10pm
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello