HomeMy WebLinkAbout20021590.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, June 4, 2002
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2002, in the South West Weld
County Building, 4209 Weld County Road 24.5, Longmont, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by
Chair, Michael Miller , at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
Cristie Nicklas
Fred Walker
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray
Cathy Clamp
Luis Llerena Absent
Bruce Fitzgerald
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Sheri Lockman, Monica Daniels Mika, Drew Scheltinga, Peter Schei, Pam Smith
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on May 21, 2002,
was approved as read.
The minutes from the March 30, 2002 and April 2, 2002 Comprehensive Plan meetings were approved as
written.
CASE NUMBER: CZ-553
PLANNER: S Lockman
APPLICANT: Dennis Neal
ADDRESS: 4770 Baseline Road, Suite 200
Boulder, CO 80303
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD with Estate uses for nine (9)
residential lots and one agricultural lot with a conservation easement(Mill
Creek PUD)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE-2835 being part of the SW4 Section 29, T4N, R 68W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Weld County Road 40.5 and east of and adjacent
to Weld County Road 3
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case CZ-553, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
John Folsom asked if it was in hazard zone. Ms. Lockman indicated it was not.
Todd Hodges, representative to the applicant, provided some clarification to the project. The surrounding
uses are primarily agriculture. This is a 9 single family estate lots approximately five acres and have been
clustered in the northwest corner of the property. The site has nearly 2 acres of common open space along
the western boundary of lots 1 &4 and at the entrance to the development. The open space will be seeded
with drought tolerant grass species and will be maintained by the HOA. Improvements include a common mail
delivery and school bus stop. All signage will be located at the entrance. Lot 10 is a 99 acre agricultural lot
on which a conservation easement has been granted. The 99 acres will continue in agricultural production
and passive open space. Use of the agricultural lot as active open space is at the discretion of the owner of
lot 10. A series of ponds exist in the lower half of the lot. The applicant has worked with the referral agencies
to complete all the needed agreements. The applicant has set aside two drill sites in the agricultural lot. Mr.
Neal has a copy of the surface use agreement and will be working to finalize that agreement. Colorado Open
Lands,the agency the conservation easement was approved by, does not have any issues with the location
of the drill sites but requests to see the final documents. This proposal meets and exceeds portions of the
review and approval criteria for a PUD COZ in Weld County. This proposal insures the preservation of
farmland and passive open space for this generation and generations to come.
dement Dena , Oce7/7�2 2002-1590
Bryant Gimlin asked about the drilling in the conservation easements. Mr.Hodges indicated that Mr.Neal had
to give up any rights that he would not pursue any active drilling that he owns but they cannot stop any other
mineral interests. This will actually reduce the number of drill sites.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Sam McDonald, adjacent neighbor, stated his concerns with the emergency access coming out over the
concrete ditch. There is a divider box in the concrete ditch and it needs to be accessible. Would like to see
the emergency access moved either to the north or south of the divider box.
Rod Halverson, neighbor, asked about the access roads entrances. There are 14-15 homes being built on
WCR 40.5. WCR 40.5 and WCR 3 needs to be paved and maintained. WCR 5 is another road that should
possibly be paved. These are farm roads and they were not built to handle this amount of traffic. WCR 5 is
over 300 trips per day and it is graded every week.
Drew Scheltinga,stated they required the applicant enter into an improvements agreement for upgrading and
paving WCR 40.5 as was done with the subdivision that was approved adjacent to this proposal. There have
been no requirements for improvements on WCR 3 or WCR 5. Mr. Folsom asked about the funding from
the Town of Mead for Road Impact Fees. Mr. Scheltinga stated they would be in the road impact fee area
since these roads are not in the Town of Mead.
The chair closed the public portion
Michael Miller asked Mr. Hodges to address the emergency access question. Mr. Hodges indicated that the
road will not go on the top but will go to one side or another. The applicant will be working with Public Works
and the Fire District since it is an emergency access. Mr.Walker asked for the owners of the divider box be
involved in the discussion as to where the location of the road is. Mr. Hodges added that the access is for
emergency only so it will be locked. Ms. Clamp asked about the changes to lots two and three and safe
access to the open space. Is there easement agreements between the property owners so there is access
to the lot. Mr. Hodges stated that the ordinance states you make a reasonable effort to provide safe access.
The applicant feels he has done this with the ability to come down the cul-de-sac and onto the emergency
access down the open space into lot 10. Ms. Clamp asked about the landscape on the access from lots 2
and 3 to lot 10 for the use of the open space. Mr. Hodges indicated that they tried to get away from an open
space theme on the west side due to the possibility of it becoming a maintenance issue. They do have safe
access even though not directly adjacent. Ms. Clamp asked for clarification with regard to the access on the
emergency access. Mr. Hodges indicated that the emergency access is locked for vehicular traffic. Ms.
Nicklas asked Ms. Lockman about the open space requirements. Ms. Lockman stated the open space
requirement for a PUD was 15%but this application is over65%. Ms. Nicklas asked about the requirements
for the access to the open space. Ms. Lockman indicated that her is enough opens space to not have to
grant the owners access. The code allows for the use of the agricultural lot as passive open space even
though it is accessible at lot 10 owners discretion. Mr.Miller stated that the owner of lot 10 could deny access.
Ms. Lockman stated that staff would not go for a denial because they have met the intent. Mr. Miller asked
about safe access to the strip on the west side. Ms. Lockman indicated that the strip is useable. The town
of Berthoud requested a buffering on WCR 40.5 and landscape treatment along it.
Todd Hodges indicated the requested changes to the Conditions of Approval. Item 1B will be moved to Prior
to Hearing, Item 1A will be moved to Prior to Recording the Plat, delete 2D and change the language in 5F.
With regard to item 2D the intent has been met and this may not be needed. The applicant would like to be
able to submit a proposed agreement to share the proportionate cost of improvements on WCR 40.5. Mr.
Scheltinga indicate he has no problem with the language change for the improvements agreement. Ms.
Lockman indicated the changes were not imperative.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to accept the changes as read. Fred Walker seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cathy Clamp,yes;Cristie Nicklas,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Cristie Nicklas moved that Case CZ-553, along with the amendments, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of approval. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes;Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cathy Clamp,yes;Cristie Nicklas,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: CZ-632
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
APPLICANT: John Kadavy
c/o Todd Hodges Design,LLC;2412 Denby Court, Fort Collins,CO 80526
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD with Estate uses for thirteen
(13) residential Lots and 6.9 acres of Common Open Space
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the E2 Section 34, T5N, R63W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Weld County Road 69 and 1/4 mile north of Weld
County Road 50.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services presented Case CZ-632, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Cathy Clamp asked Mr. Ogle about the amended comments with regard to the administrative review. Mr.
Ogle indicated that there were several outstanding issues that would typically be addressed in the sketch plan
review of the application and that staff is asking this application to be heard by Planning Commission at the
final plat stage. Ms. Clamp asked if there were substantial changes to the houses to warrant this. Mr. Ogle
indicated that staff has an issue with permitting through the State of the potable water supply. The applicant
has the quantity of water but the quality is in question. Ms. Clamp asked for the reason behind the building
permit on the monument sign prior to the plat. Mr. Ogle indicated that the sign is already existing and a
building permit was not pulled for it.
John Folsom asked if this was urban scale development. Mr.Ogle stated that it is an urban development that
is already in existence. Section 22.2.60.A.1 does not apply to this application.
Anne B. Johnson, representative for the applicant, provided some clarification on the project. Surrounding
land uses include agriculture, rural residential and conservation. There are 13 one acres lots that were
originally constructed for managers for the National Hog Farm. These units are now abandoned. The site
has 7 acres of common open space. The open space will be seeded in drought tolerant grass species and
will be owned and maintained by the homeowners of the development. There will be improvements in the
common open space including a mail delivery and school bus shelter. There may be a basket ball court in
the future if the resident's would like. Access does exist off of WCR 69. The applicant would like to maintain
the gravel roads for internal circulation. The applicant has worked effectively with the referral agencies. The
applicant has placed a 400' future drill site with a no-build designation in the center of the quarter-quarter
section as required by the oil and gas exploration activities. The applicant has been working on upgrading
the houses themselves. This proposal meets and exceeds portions of the review and approval criteria) for
the PUD. The plan is a method of subdividing agriculturally zoned land, limits the removal of prime
Agricultural land, reduces the impact to service providers and enhances the natural beauty of the county. A
bonus of this project is the reuse and recycling of housing that is already in existence, remove the possibility
of these homes becoming derelict and a compliance problem.
Bryant Gimlin asked about the wells servicing the homes and the maintenance of them. Is there a HOA that
will maintain those wells. There are only two wells that handle the homes. Ms.Johnson indicated that a HOA
will be maintaining the wells. If there is an emergency the State Division of Water Resources Water Quality
Control division will be provided with a specific name,phone number and who to contact which will be spelled
out in the covenants. Heather Holmes on January 5, 2001 indicated that they do not want to do any of the
monitoring of the public water supply until 25 or more person a day for at least 60 days of the year or at least
15 taps are issued. There will be a contact until that time that is spelled out in the covenants. Mr. Gimlin
asked about the testing of those well in the interim. Mr. Kadavy will address those issues.
John Kadavy,applicant, provided clarification with regard to the water quality. There are two residential wells
that supply six homes each, and have an augmentation plan with the allotted acre feet to each. There is
additional water provided for in the augmentation plan for watering of landscaping. The water board has been
dealing with this throughout the year in Denver. The water quality report, pursuant to Colorado Department
of Public Health and Environment, states it was tested per the standards on December 31, 1999 and all the
results were presented to the current homeowners and were submitted with the application. The reports
indicate that the levels were well below the normal standards. The water will be regulated through the HOA
and it will be tested pursuant to the regulations of the Weld County Health and Environmental Department.
Water conditions for the development are excellent,except the water is hard water. Mr. Kadavy indicated he
will be involved with this issues until there is 80% occupancy in the homes. The water will be tested, sent to
the appropriate divisions, drafted and the results will be sent back and placed into a format that Ms. Holmes
has instituted for the public water system applications.
Bryant Gimlin asked Ms. Smith, Department of Public Health & Environment, about the water quality issue.
Ms. Smith stated that the issue is that the development is a community water system deemed by the Water
Quality Control Division. According to the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations,no new person shall
commence construction of any new water works or make improvements to or modify the previous process
of an existing water works or initiate the use of a new source until plans inspection applications have been
approved by the State Health Department. Ms. Smith believes that implementing the third well would be
making improvements and therefor should go back to the State Health Department for review and approval
as a public water system. There are testing requirements that have to be met that are outlined in those
regulation. Ms. Smith want to see that the public water system is up to date when its initiated, currently it is
inactive. Mr. Gimlin asked for clarification for the wells not being the number of them but the number of
people on them.Ms.Smith indicated that the State Engineers office deals with the quantity and there is a letter
stated that they are in agreement with this. The State Health Department, Water Quality Control Division
asserts the water quality issue. Ms. Smith indicated that their view is for the State Health Department to
review the water proposals. Ms. Smith has spoken with Tom Schaefer who is the district engineer. He would
be the one to review the proposal or assign it. Heather Holmes is a technician and she would more than likely
not be the person who reviews the proposal. Ms. Johnson added that the applicant would like to see this
resolved and the condition be placed at prior to recording the plat. This will enable the applicant to get
something from the State Health Department but not impede the process. Ms. Nicklas asked if the third well
will be connected to serve all the lots. Ms.Smith stated it will water the trees in the open space and it will only
be for the 13th lot. Ms. Smith does not know what the State will require with regards to connecting it to the
system or not. Ms. Smith indicated that there are documents that show what a public water system needs
to abide by before it can be initiated. Ms. Smith indicated that some of the conditions that were brought up
by the Health Department would be addressed in the regulations required for the initiation of the public water
system. The Health Department is asking that the applicant show evidence that they have started the process
for the initiation of the system with the State Department. Mr. Miller asked about the time frame for the State.
Ms. Smith indicated the state has 45 days from the submitted date of the completed application. The third
well would have to be tested and brought in line for radiological, organic or inorganic components and the
financial,technical and maintenance aspect of the system would have to be reviewed. These documents may
be in place and may need to be updated. Mr. Kadavy added that the third well was brought into compliance
because it will be part of the HOA. It was a disclosure issue and is a separate permit request. Ms. Clamp
asked for clarification of the system. Mr. Kadavy stated that there is an application in process for the well and
it is separate and will not be tied to the existing system. The existing system with two wells and there is
adequate water. Those are both permitted wells. The wells are in individual cinder block well houses at the
end of each street and are tied together. The wells are 117- 120 feet deep with good pressure. The plan is
not to tie the third well to the system. Ms. Clamp indicated that the average HOA is not allowed to own a
private water system. Mr. Kadavy indicated that this is now being addressed by the attorneys as the bylaws
are being drafted and final conditions on the covenants which should be in place within 7 days. Mr. Kadavy
indicated that the recommendation would be that there be an onsite person who sends the information off for
testing that the result are placed into a document.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Ogle about the water issue and the postponement of the resolution. Mr. Ogle
indicated that the applicant is asking to be able to proceed through the BCC and submit the application to the
State office prior to recording the plat. The Department of Public Health&Environment is in concurrence with
that recommendation. Mr. Ogle indicated that Mr. Barker, County Attorney, has some language that can be
added as a Condition of Approval.
Bruce Barker,County Attorney,suggested an addition of item#3L which will state"The applicant shall submit
evidence to the Department of Planning Services that an entity (not for profit corporation or homeowners
association)has been properly formed in accordance with state law to won and operate a water system fo r
the benefit of owners of the lots within the PUD, and that application has been made by such entity to the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to demonstrate that the water system has adequate
capacity to meet projected needs."
Cristie Nicklas moved for the addition of Condition of Approval #3L be added with the above language.
Stephan Mokray seconded. Motion carried.
Anne Johnson, representative for the applicant, indicated conflicts with item #1A- Prior to scheduling of the
BCC. The meeting has already been scheduled. There is some additional language in the condition that does
not apply. There is an addition of the no build envelope for a future drilling site. Item 2G is requested to be
changed to fifty(50)feet. The internal road way is already existing. Mr.Miller asked Mr.Scheltinga if this was
correct. Mr. Scheltinga, Department of Public Works, stated that the lots have history to them and they have
looked at the layout and feel that the addition requested improvements will fit with the fifty foot right of way.
Mr. Scheltinga indicated that they will still need right of way for the cul-de-sac radius at the end of the roads
included in the final plat. Ms.Johnson indicated that item#36 is replaced by#3L and should be deleted. Item
#3D has been addressed with regard to the Fire District. Item#6A the request is to waive the requirements
for the internal paving of the roadways as this is a rural subdivision that is already in existence an dis in a non-
urban location. Mr. Scheltinga does not agree with not paving the roadway. There are 13 lots and there is
a requirement for the paving of the internal roadways. The original use allowed for the Hog Farm to maintain
the roads,but not that the lots will be sold individually the county will be responsible for the maintenance since
it is 13 lots. The minor subdivision allows for not paving of the roadways. Mr. Scheltinga stated it was less
expensive for the county over the long term to maintain a paved roadway then by the HOA maintaining them.
The calls will be made to the county as to the condition of those roads. The county has had to come back and
pave those roadways as improvements districts. Mr.Walker asked why the internal road would be maintained
by Weld County. Mr.Scheltinga indicated that the unpaved roadways are the only ones that weld county does
not accept for maintenance. If this PUD was paved then Weld County would accept the maintenance for
them. The significance seems to come from the nine or thirteen lots. The citizens will appreciate the paved
roadways in the long run.
Cristie Nicklas moved to delete a portion of section 1 A,delete"scheduling"in the heading. Motion withdrawn.
Cristie Nicklas moved to delete"scheduling"from the heading. John Folsom seconded. Motion carried.
Cristie Nicklas moved to change the language in 2G to read"fifty(50)"feet not sixty(60)feet. Cathy Clamp
seconded. Motion carried.
Cristie Nicklas moved to delete#3B. Cathy Clamp seconded. Motion carried.
Cristie Nicklas and Bryant Gimlin agreed that the recommendation to pave the internal roadways should be
maintained.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case CZ-632, along with the amendments, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of approval. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cathy Clamp,yes;Cristie Nicklas,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE: County Code 2002-XX
PLANNER: Monica Daniels Mika
APPLICANT: City of Longmont/Weld County
REQUEST: Request for a Intergovernmental Agreements between Weld County and
the City of Longmont.
Monica Daniels Mika, Department of Planning Services presented County Code 2002-XX, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
approval of the application. Ms.Mika indicated all individual property owners in the area received an invitation
to this meeting. The purpose for an IGA is the coordination between communities. This IGA includes the
largest portion of the MUD area. This agreement backs up to Mead's IGA area. There is no overlap between
agreements or properties, that is why this IGA took so long. This agreement meets the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Ms.Nicklas asked about specific annexed areas into Longmont. There have been no large scale annexations
for several years. Mr. Fitzgerald asked when the MUD was designated. Ms. Mika indicated that in 1998 the
MUD Standards were incorporated for the area. Development in this area originated in the 1950's. The
county has recognized this area for development. Ms. Mika indicated that prior to this time there were four
different water districts in the area, if one district could be formed it would be better for the area as a whole.
This is when the St.Vrain Sanitation District came into play with the MUD boundaries. Ms. Mika indicated that
municipal boundaries change but the county boundary does not. Ms. Clamp asked about the established
business in the MUD area and the effect on them if the IGA is approved. Ms. Mika indicated that there should
not be an impact for existing land uses. The only difference would be if a change was requested then the
request would be subject to the agreement. This means that a request would have to be made for annexation.
If it could not be annexed the application would continue in the process through the county. The largest
amount of activity is in section 3 and 10. Mr. Walker stated his concerns with regard to the maps and their
creation. Ms. Mika indicated that the maps were created from a standpoint of areas that can be serviced.
Mr.Walker stated his concerns about potential uses of the land. Ms. Mika indicated that the intent of an IGA
is to coordinate land use. The area has urban scale requirements that will be applied from either agency. Mr.
Walker asked what the purpose for the IGA was if the standards for development were so similar. Ms. Mika
stated that an IGA is to ensure the development is compatible with the surrounding uses. The question for
the IGA is to determine if this is the best tool for this area. Ms.Clamp asked why specific areas were omitted.
Ms. Mika indicated that the need to be able to provide services was the prima factor. These IGA boundaries
can be changed but the county tried to ensure that there was no overlapping of the properties in any of the
established IGA areas.
Phil Delvechio, Planning Director Longmont, provided more clarification to the City of Longmont's position.
Mr. Dale Rademacher, Water/Wastewater Utilities Department, is also present to assist in any way. This
agreement has been in the works for several years. Fundamentally the municipalities agreed it makes sense
to have an IGA that will allow both entities to coordinate planning for development in these affected areas.
The City Council for Longmont has adopted this IGA. This indicates that the IGA is something that is wanted
by both agencies. The City of Longmont has been using the model provided from county attorney. There
have been thirteen similar agreements in Weld County. This is carrying out the concept for the area around
Longmont. Mr. Delvechio indicated that a major point was to formalize the review process. This agreement
will clean up the process and provide some time frames to which responses are required. Longmont has
three different areas that include the Municipal Area, Urban Growth Area and referral area. The big picture
in the area is that it affects all of Longmont. The City would like too have the ability to comment on those
projects. The second major issue is to recognize that urban development consists of more than 9 lots and
should receive urban services. Longmont wants the opportunity to provide those services if the development
is in the area. From the Cities perspective it is not who controls growth as it is about who has the services
that are necessary to be delivered. These can be provided by Longmont. Annexation is typically on a
volunteer basis, but if a development is requested the applicant must go the City of Longmont first. If the
development meets certain criteria for annexation for the City of Longmont then it will be requested to annex.
The thing to remember is that the services are provided by the City of Longmont but tax base still goes to
Weld County. The property tax is still based on the county mill levy. Mr. Delvechio is here to listen and
address concerns from the board and citizen issues.
John Folsom asked if the determination of boundaries was arbitrary. Mr. Delvechio stated that originally the
lines coincided with a natural drainage area. They were then moved further east with the use of section lines,
roads and such to square off property trying not to disturb any properties. Mr. Folsom asked about domestic
water and there being no conflict. Mr. Folsom indicated that the City of Longmont has agreements with
Boulder County. Mr.Miller asked about the referral letter from the City of Longmont that expressed hesitancy
to proceed with the IGA until the Comprehensive Plan was finalized. Mr. Delvechio stated that moving ahead
with the IGA would not impede the progress of the Comprehensive Plan being approved. Mr. Delvechio
indicated that their is not much land to offer the development opportunities that might benefit from the
completion of a detailed Comprehensive Plan. The City is prepared to respond to the property owners on a
case by case basis that involve ground outside of the MUD area. Mr. Walker asked about the vision for the
MUD and how it differs with regard to uses that are currently installed. Mr. Delvechio stated that the MUD
serves as the base. The area north of the MUD and west are existing land uses governed by Weld County
ordinances. This is the area for that will be dealt with on a case by case basis. These applicants will be
referred to Longmont for annexation at the beginning of the process with Weld County. There are contiguity
requirements within Longmont's regulations. Mr. Walker asked where the City of Longmont could provide
services as of today. Mr. Rademaker indicated that there has been extensive studies done to determine that
the City of Longmont has the capability to serve the whole area. There are in existence agreements with the
effective Sanitation Districts in the area. If a development were to come in, the City and districts would both
determine who to better service the area. The City is proposing to increase their service area to include west
of Union Reservoir to W CR 1. To the east would require the need for a lift station to pump back to main sewer
line. Mr. Walker asked if Longmont would like to be a provider west of Union Reservoir, where St. Vrain
Sanitation is currently the provider. Mr. Delvechio did not answer that question but did reply that to the north,
neither St. Vrain or Longmont provide in that area. Mr.Walker expressed concerns for the timing of the IGA
when the Comprehensive Plan is not complete. Mr. Walker feels as though it is premature to enter into an
agreement when the Comprehensive Plan is not complete regardless of changes or not. Mr.Delvechio stated
the foundations for land uses in the affected areas will not change. If the concepts are agreeable then there
is no reason to prolong the agreement. Mr. Walker said the County will discourage any non-urban
development in the IGA area of nine lots or less,so would Longmont be against a property owner saying they
did not want urban level services but would like an alternative. How does that affect the County legally. Mr.
Barker explained that the Board changed the definition of urban development and it states that urban
development requires support services such as central water,sewer system. This change would allow septic
systems in the Urban Growth Area outside of the MUD. The MUD requires central sewer. Mr.Walker asked
if there would be any problems with Longmont if a landowner wants less services than what they provide.
Mr. Delvechio stated that if it is not defined as urban that the City of Longmont is not interested in applying
any of their standards. Mr.Walker asked if any of the landowners were asked for input in making boundaries
of the maps. Mr. Delvechio stated no,the input would come from the public hearings. Mr. Miller asked about
the specific language that states the county will deny proposals for non urban developments in the Urban
Growth Area. This is language from the county with regards to their denial requests. Mr. Barker indicated
that the municipality stated there is no objections to the non urban development in the area. Mr. Delvechio
asked indicated that the City would view low density urban development adverse to high density more intense
development requiring more services. Mr. Delvechio stated that the City of Longmont will be willing to come
back and make modifications to the plan if there are areas that do not meet the intent. Mr. Miller asked about
the legalities of denying a case based on it not being to the best interest of the county residents. Mr. Barker
indicated that there are options for the county. What is being discussed is if there is no objection to the use
itself,being a non urban use,from all agencies involved through the agreement then the County can consider
approving the use in the area. Mr. Miller stated his perspective was that the City of Longmont may have
different views in the future. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Barker for clarification with regard to making the applicant
ask for annexation into the municipality as a part of the process. The City of Longmont still has the opportunity
for the referral process and the possible initiation of the annexation of the ground into the city. The
development must be determined to be urban in nature. Mr.Walker asked for clarification with regard to an
applicant who wants to stay in the county because the city regulations are too stringent. Mr. Barker indicated
that the county would have to follow section 3.3.F that obligates the county to not continue with the non urban
use in the are that the applicant is requesting. If it is a urban use the same can happen. Ms. Clamp asked
Mr. Barker if changes can be made to the agreement. Mr.Barker indicated that this is an agreement between
the entities and changes could be recommended. The BCC would then go back to the City of Longmont and
discuss those changes. Ms. Clamp asked Ms. Mika if there are areas that are zoned Agricultural. Ms. Mika
indicated that there are areas zoned Agriculture. The areas are mostly concentrated around Union Reservoir.
Ms. Clamp asked Mr. Delvechio if Longmont's intention was to change the uses in the MUD area. Mr.
Delvechio stated that each case will be evaluated on an individual basis. There would need to be
extenuating circumstances to change the proposed use from what is already approved in the MUD area.
There will be very few instances in which Longmont would need to modify the MUD area.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Don Leffler, Design Development Consultants, WCR 1 Coalition Representative, voiced concerns for the
group. There are several concerns regarding the guidelines of the IGA. The concerns begin with the
notification of the property owners. Weld County Staff has done a wonderful job of notifying the property
owners, however the City of Longmont has not notified the owners sufficiently. Some of the concerns are
the annexation process and what will Longmont require. There needs to be a specific benefit to Longmont
in order to be annexed,what happens if the property owners don't want to be annexed but still want to develop
their property. The property owners still want to be part of the MUD and support it. The IGA does not take
into consideration the quality of life in Weld County, it takes into consideration the City of Longmont. More
concerns include design standards, the City of Longmont's standards are not consistent with Weld County.
The owners want to maintain the quality of life in Weld County.This is an opportunity for the public to express
their concerns with regard to the agreement since they are the most effected. The coalitions would like to see
the Planning commission send this forward to the BCC with a strong denial recommendation. Another option
would be to table this proposal and provide several public forums for the input that is needed. Finally, the
property owners on the west side of Union Reservoir have a resolution that states they are not to be impacted
by the City of Longmont for the proposal of preserving and maintaining the integrity of their property. The IGA
will hinder this process. Why is the City of Longmont rushing the IGA rushing this now.
Chuck Greenman, neighbor, agrees with Mr. Walker. Why give control to Boulder County and City of
Longmont. Weld County has done a good job so far for us. Mr. Greenman spoke with approximately eleven
of his neighbors and each of them objected to this. The main question was the time of the meeting being
during working hours when the general public cannot attend. Some questions for the City of Longmont are
the water and septic systems and cost. There is adequate services available now. There is no need to have
Longmont provide them. Mr. Greenman would like to stay in Weld County and not in the City of Longmont
or Boulder County.
Scott Nix thinks IGA is a good idea. Mr. Nix suggests taking out any reference in the IGA that contains
automatic denials.
Phil Willis,neighbor,is against this agreement because he sees no benefit to annexation for his property. The
City of Longmont is currently working on a Comprehensive Plan, but it is a year and a half away. There are
still many things to be decided before an IGA should go through. The City of Longmont does not recognize
animal units so what does a property owner do that wants a calf or a couple of horses. Why does Longmont
want to dictate the land use when they have not spoken with the land owners. Mr.Willis would like to see the
rejection of IGA agreement.
Jerry Bogott, neighbor,stated that a majority of the neighbors support the denial of IGA. The property owners
have the opportunity to vote for county commissioners but do not have that same opportunity to vote for City
Council for Longmont.
The Chair closed the public portion.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Delvechio and Mr. Rademaker to clarify some of the public concerns. One of the
accusations was the desire to acquire land on the west side of Union Reservoir and the legal action that is
going on. Mr. Delvechio stated that this has been a separate effort that has gone on for years. Mr.
Rademaker indicated that the City of Longmont purchased controlling interest in Union Reservoir and have
approximately 82% of the shares. In 1986 an application for enlargement of the reservoir was filed with the
water court and it was granted.
Cathy Clamp asked about the water and sewer proposals when the land owners already maintain those
utilities. Mr. Rademaker provided clarification about the service areas of the various utility companies in the
area. Many of the residences in the area are being serviced by the City. Sewer has the capability to serve
the land owners. Mr. Miller asked if a landowner were to be annexed into the city would they have to go on
city utilities and who would pay for this. Mr. Rademaker stated that the developer will pay for the installation
and all annexed properties will be on the City's systems. Ms. Clamp asked if those properties that are in
existence were to be annexed would they require them to change to the cities systems. Mr. Rademaker
indicated that if the properties were of no health issues then they would remain. Mr. Delvechio stated that the
owner can stay the same way they are forever. The city has no intention or desire to annex anyone that
doesn't want to be annexed, State Law precludes this. The City of Longmont design standards are not
drastically different in respect to urban standards. Annexation cannot happen involuntarily. The concept is
for urban development being provided urban services. The City of Longmont is in the best position to provide
those services. A developer would pay for these services for a new development. The City of Longmont
would not supercede the MUD standards. The City of Longmont has allowed the continuation of animal units
in some areas. The City is in favor of ultra Low Density Estate development,which has a less impact on our
urban services. If a landowner is annexed then they would have the right to vote.
Fred Walker stated he believes the plan is premature until the Comprehensive Plan is adopted. The
landowner seems to get no benefit from the IGA. The county is committed to providing services and this new
building is a good example. Mr.Walker feels as though Longmont wants control of Weld County. The referral
area should continue, enabling Longmont to comment on developments within the area.
Cathy Clamp stated her concerns about the concept is good but problem is that this IGA is premature and too
large. The idea that the smaller towns are utilizing is to have a large IGA so that no other towns can annex
close to them. This plan seems to impact individuals that are not going to get any reasonable benefit from
it.
Bruce Barker indicated that the Urban Growth Area does not prohibit another municipality from annexing into
that area. The County can't have an agreement to keep another municipality from annexing into that area.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Barker if the City of Longmont can involuntarily annex a landowner. Mr. Barker
stated that they could be annexed only in an enclave situation. Mr. Miller asked about the area around Union
Reservoir. Mr. Barker stated that if the area of Union Reservoir has been annexed would it would but the
rights to the water does not constitute the area.
John Folsom stated that the property that has been acquired by the city of Longmont has established
contiguity so it could be annexed at this time. The concept of this IGA seems to be met with some resistance.
Smart growth calls for development under auspices of government. If development takes place within the
county they are going to put a heavy burden on the city of Longmont for services as far as roads and libraries.
As a matter of principle an IGA is recommended way to associate urban development in county areas that
are adjacent to municipalities.
Stephen Mokray added that the IGA is a good concept for both entities but the disturbing thing is that
Longmont was delinquent in providing information to property owners prior to this meeting.
Bryant Gimlin added that historically he has voted against IGA's because the property owners were not notified
and there has been no public input. The largest problem with this is the land use is not determined but an
agreement is made for the County and City of Longmont to make better use of the land. The other problem
is with the protection of agricultural producers. This agreement limits the counties ability to help the
agricultural producer expand. From a development standpoint this could increase length of the annexation
process. Another side issue is the fact that this agreement gives Boulder County a great deal of political
influence on the ground in Weld County. Mr. Gimlin would be for this agreement if the board did not have to
deny a proposal based on it being a non urban development.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Barker for clarification with regard to the board having to deny a proposal based
solely on it being a non urban use due to the IGA. Mr. Barker stated that this was correct. Mr. Barker stated
that the existing agricultural uses that are uses by right or non conforming uses can expand under this
agreement. If it is a use by special review and they wanted to expand they would need to amend it so it would
fall under the definition of development. Mr. Barker stated that one thing about this agreement is that neither
party can seek damages from the other party. There is the ability to enforce an injunction. There are means
of enforcement but nothing that will enable damages to be sought.
Monica Daniels Mika added that in the past the applications within the separate IGA areas have been
recommended for denial based on the impacts of the use not for them being a non urban application. The
confusion comes in determining the impacts on the uses applied for. The language that was added seems
to be causing the confusion and this language was added to protect the agricultural uses for expansion
reasons.
Michael Miller added that there needs to be distinctions made between the IGA area and the UGB area. Mr.
Barker added that this was a separate procedure.
Bruce Fitzgerald added that this was a natural progression of the MUD. This enables the county to identified
the area as a MUD and as an area that will have substantial growth. An IGA is a natural progression in the
process.
John Folsom added that the section in question seems to be 3.3 F and what are the possibilities of changing
the language in the section. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Barker if the board was in a position to modify this
agreement. Mr. Barker stated that this is a recommendation and that can be included in the boards
recommendation. Mr. Delvechio added that this is a Weld County land issue. The City of Longmont has no
issues with the possible modifications. Mr. Miller agrees whole heartedly with agreements concept but does
not like the idea of giving the decisions for non urban development to the City of Longmont.
John Folsom moved to approve the document with the amended 3.3F to read"At the discretion of the County,
the County may deny proposals for non urban development in the urban growth boundary area." Mr. Barker
stated that the recommendation would be to approve the agreement with the modification to section 3.3 F.
Bruce Fitzgerald seconded.
Fred Walker added that we are handing over control of urban development in Weld County to individuals who
do not live in the county and the property owners in Weld County do not have to opportunity to vote for those
individuals. They are not representative to the community.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, no; Michael Miller, no; Bryant Gimlin, no; Cathy Clamp, no; Cristie Nickles,
yes; Fred Walker, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion denied
Michael Miller added that this is premature in approving this without a Comprehensive Plan in place. The
decision making power is given to others who do not reside in this county is a difficult issue.
John Folsom added that if this IGA is not approved the county is reversing their stand on the existing thirteen
IGA's that are already in place.
Fred Walker added the majority of the approved thirteen IGA's are in Weld County. There can be a strong
message sent by not acting upon it.
Michael Miller would be in favor of not recommending either way but trying to come to an agreement on the
issues that are contentious in the agreement. There needs to be some type of agreement and this has been
years in the making. A fair agreement can be made and it may not be far away. Ms. Clamp asked about the
possibility of tabling the item. Mr. Barker stated that this agreement with minor modifications suggested by
the City of Longmont and the amendments to the definitions of urban and non urban. The issues that are in
conflict need to be stated now so the language can be taken into consideration before the BCC considers the
matter. Those issues need to be discussed with the City of Longmont.
Monica Daniels Mika indicated that this board has sent cases to the BCC stating concerns for the record. The
BCC will look at the record in those cases. The Planning Commission's comments will be forwarded. The
process is to have three hearing process in front of BCC so several opportunities for modification to
incorporate the concerns will be given.
Michael Miller stated it was important to differentiate this IGA from the other thirteen. This is a large,dynamic,
and changing area. The board needs to be very careful in the wording of the agreement. Mr. Barker indicated
that the Planning Commission has the opportunity to voice their ideas about the agreement. If there are
certain things that you would like to see in an agreement it can be sent along today and those changes can
still be communicated through the staff. Mr. Barker recommends that if there is a desire to talk about other
alternatives,then table at this time. Another alternative is to make recommendations at a later date or make
them now with the possible considerations for later with those considerations in writing.
Michael Miller likes the idea of sending it on to board and individually write a letter if there are issues that are
of great concern. Mr. Barker indicated that staff would be willing to assist in the process.
Fred Walker added that he would like see a enhanced referral process rather than give the City of Longmont
the right to urban level development first.
Bryant Gimlin stated that the vote has already been taken and the clarification behind the reasoning for denial
of the IGA.
Bruce Barker suggested that it seems to be a recommendation of denial since a motion for approval with
amendments was denied.
Michael Miller would like to send this to the BCC with the recommendation of approval of concept but voice
objections to specific sections.
Michael Miller indicated that there is not motion on the table so the Planning Commission will take no action
on the IGA but the IGA will be forwarded to the BCC.
Meeting adjourned 5:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello