HomeMy WebLinkAbout20023166.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, April 2, 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 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
Cristie Nicklas
Fred Walker
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray Absent
Cathy Clamp
Luis Llerena Absent
Bruce Fitzgerald Absent
Also Present: Robert Anderson, Drew Scheltinga, Chris Gathman, Pam Smith, Monica Daniels-Mika, Peter
Schei
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on March 19,2002
was approved as read.
Mr. Drew Scheltinga introduced Mr. Peter Schei to the Planning Commission.
CASE NUMBER: Z-570
APPLICANT: Olson Brothers LLC
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2746; a part of the NE4 of Section 30, T4N, R67W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Request for a Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD for 8 residential
lots for Estate uses, one 54.4 acres PUD agricultural outlot, and 12 acres
of common open space.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 42, approximately 1/2 mile east of WCR 13.
Chris Gathman,Department of Planning Services,presented Case Z-570,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 about the lot size and them being smaller than ususal (Lots 1-8 are less than 2.5 acres
in size). Mr. Gathman stated the density of septic systems and that the applicants are proposing a large
irrigated parcel gives the DPS the ability to recommend approval. Mr. Gathman added there are 8 lots for
estate uses and the last lot is the agricultural lot.
Todd Hodges, representative for the applicant, provided some clarification with regard to the project. The
design has been discussed at length. The site is in an urbanized area. There is a need in the area for larger
lots. The design standards for larger lots in the estate zone district allow for this request. It would not be a
request for variance. Chapter 27 of the County Code allows for a minimum lot size of 1 acre for lots on public
water and septic systems. The intent for the PUD design criteria is met. The proposal does cluster the lots
in the less productive portion of the property and retains the larger parcel for farming. The 12 acre open
space will be owned and maintained by the homeowners. The property owners have contacted the referral
agencies, have been working with them, and will continue to work with them throughout the process.
John Folsom asked if perk tests were done. Mr. Hodges stated that there were some perk tests done and an
engineer is here to address those tests. The envelopes were designed with intent in mind of addressing the
septic system issues. The lots on the west portion were created to address some of those septic issues. The
2002-3166
need for lot sizes to increase was so more agricultural ground could be maintained. Ms. Smith, Department
of Public Health and Environment, stated that the water table was at six feet on lot 3. The boring for lot 3 had
the worst rates. Good management practices on the Ag parcel would alleviate some of the possible concerns
with the water table.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Gathman about the provision with water on smaller lots in the estate zone. Mr.
Gathman stated that the applicant has the option to request smaller lots than what is required in the estate
district because they are asking for a PUD, not a standard subdivision. Mr. Hodges added that Section 27-2-
140- Non Urban Scale Development addresses this issue.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Todd Hodges added that the applicant has concerns with#2A1 and would like it to be stricken because the
original delineation does not give enough room for the systems. The applicant would like to see all information
with regard to redesigning the property be removed. The building envelopes are alternatives on lot 9. There
are existing access points to the two alternative lot 9's. The building envelope in the northeast is the preferred
because of the existing access,but both are requested for flexibility. Mr.Gathman stated that DPS contention
is with the addition of another residential access separate from the accesses that are proposed. Any
additional residential access needs to be off of the two proposed roads. If the lot 9 in the southwest was
approved,the Dove Court access could be utilized for all lots proposed by moving it further north. Ms. Nicklas
stated that the lot 9 in the northeast corner would cut out more acreage with the addition of the pivot. Mr.
Hodges stated that there is already a stop for the pivot in the corner because of the existing building.Another
issue is#2E with the statements about redesigning the proposal back to the original. The applicant wants to
keep this as presently designed. Mr. Folsom suggested eliminating the lot 9 building site in the southwest
corner and extending Willow Avenue to the northeast lot 9. This would avoid an additional in the number of
the access. Mr. Hodges stated there is an existing access to the northeast lot 9. The issue is the access and
the increase in them. Mr.Scheltinga stated that the access off Willow Lane is fine and the suggestion by DPS
to switch Dove Court could be beneficial. Mr. Hodges stated in the original design, Dove Court was a longer
road. The intent is to minimize the access points onto the county roads. Mr. Hodges stated that it comes
down to acreage for the septic and the ability to have those envelopes. Ms. Smith stated that the envelopes
for lot 3 are against the pivot and it is the worst perk location on the five perks that were done. Ms. Nicklas
stated that with the movement of the road there is not much difference with the acreage on any of the lots.
Lot 3 will be affected the most but will not affect the Health Department issues. Mr. Hodges stated that one
of the issues is the ditch on the south side, and the setbacks for septic become a real issue. There is one
hundred foot minimum and it takes a large sum of the lots. Mr. Hodges stated they are about 280 feet from
the north to south edge on lots one and two. Mr. Miller stated it would not cramp them too tight for the 100
foot setback to the ditch, and lot 3 will not change regardless.
Tom Finley, Church and Associates Engineer, provided clarification with regards to the septic envelopes on
lots 1-3. If the setbacks on lot 3 were maintained at 100 feet, then it was impossible to get a drain field in.
If the lots are moved south the drain fields would have to be in the front lawns. Surface irrigation on top of
these drain fields is not a positive alternative.
Todd Hodges continued with the requested corrections from the applicant. The applicant feels as though they
have taken care of the issue of current and future oil and gas drilling activity and would like to see this stricken.
There was a letter submitted that has already addressed this issue. The applicant does not want any
misinterpretations prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners Hearing. The applicant would like
#2A 3,4,5,6 be eliminated. The applicant would like to see#2C & D be a part of the final submission, not
prior to recording the plat. The applicant would like to delete #2E. The open space will go into drought
tolerant species and the covenants will cover the animal units. The applicant would like to see this eliminated
due the possibility that the final plat can be drawn by a different surveyor. The applicant would like to strike
#4J because the property has already been annexed to Johnstown. There are some grammatical corrections
to#5H and the amending of language. The applicant is requesting to strike#5J because it is something that
can be done at final approval stage. It is not appropriate until the final copy.
Michael Miller stated it was common to limit residential access points. Ms.Nicklas asked for clarification with
regard to being able to build on both lots or one. Mr.Gathman stated that they could use only one,they would
have to go through a Special Use Permit to allow two principle uses on one agricultural lot. Ms. Nicklas asked
what the significance was for the access to be located in one position adverse to the other. Mr.Hodges stated
that the lay of the farm was the significant. Mr. Hodges stated that there is multiple farm access for the
production and the existing farm building being in the northeast corner with an access.
Gary Olson,applicant,provided information with regard to the lay of the land and the time line for a pivot. The
farm is presently flood irrigated. Mr. Miller asked for clarification with the existing access that is on WCR 42.
Mr. Scheltinga stated that another reason for the relocation of Dove Court would be to get the access out of
the curve on WCR 42. Mr. Scheltinga added that the real complication was the septic in the front yard or the
back. Mr. Folsom asked if there were problems with the septic system in front yard. Ms. Smith stated that
historically the systems that have failed are the ones in the front because of all the landscaping and sprinkler
system. Ms. Smith indicated that the west portion of the property was the worst with regard to the perk test
so it is going to be difficulty no matter what is done. Ms Smith provided some clarification with the regard to
the ditch on the south portion of the property. The ordinance does not allow for any variance on new
construction. There is one possibility for the applicant to request a variance from the county but be in
compliance with the state. Mr. Folsom asked if the elimination of lot nine on southwest corner and extend the
Willow Lane to the lot nine on the north while leaving Dove Court where it is. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Scheltinga
if the access on Dove Court on the corner of WCR 42 could be a safety issue. Mr.Scheltinga stated that the
traffic on WCR 42 was not very high and the configuration would be the key. Mr. Miller stated he would be
more in favor of maintaining the northeast building site as the only possible building lot and eliminating the
southwest building site.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Hodges if the access was moved to the north and there was three lots and develop
the lot nine in the northeast corner. Mr. Hodges stated the applicants would be open to dropping the
southwest building site.
Cristie Nicklas moved to change language in #2 A (1) approval criteria to eliminate sentence "two building
envelopes on lot 9"and replace it with"Only one building envelope will be allowed on the site in the Northeast
corner of the Ag lot." Bruce Fitzgerald seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cristie Nicklas,yes;Bruce Fitzgerald,yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
Drew Scheltinga stated the relocation of Dove Court is something that can be discussed at the final design
stage and should not inhibit the Change of Zone request.
Cristie Nicklas moved to delete the last three sentences on#2E Approval Criteria. Bryant Gimlin seconded.
Motion carried
Chris Gathman indicated that typically when there is an open space there is a direct connection from all the
lots to that open space.
Cristie Nicklas moved to delete#2 A (3)(4)Approval Criteria. Bryant seconded. Motion carried
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to relocate#2 C&D Conditions of Approval to Prior to submittal of the final plat. John
Folsom seconded. Motion carried.
Pam Smith provided some clarification with regard to the reasoning behind having the Surveyor specifically
mentioned. There have been situations where the applicant has changed surveyors and the surveyors plans
did not match the final recorded document when the inspections were done.
Cristie Nicklas move to change the sentence in Conditions of Approval#4D to read the Change of Zone plat
drawings indicated proposed primary and secondary envelopes..."John Folsom seconded. Motion carried.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to delete Condition of Approval #4J. Bryant Gimlin seconded. Motion carried.
Cristie Nicklas moved to correct the language on Condition of Approval#5H. John Folsom seconded. Motion
carried.
Cristie Nicklas moved to relocate Condition of Approval#5J to Prior to Recording Plat then renumber and re-
letter appropriately. John Folsom seconded. Motion carried.
Mr. Hodges stated that are in agreement except for the ones that were requested changed.
Cristie Nicklas moved that Case Z-570 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. John Folsom seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cristie Nicklas,yes;Bruce Fitzgerald,yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
CASE: Draft Comprehensive Plan
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
Fred Walker arrived and Bruce Fitzgerald left.
Robert Anderson addressed the issue about the updated census figures that were tabled in the last
discussion. Mr. Anderson stated that the latest census information is still the 1990 data with the new
information to be released in June. DPS suggested attaching a general demographic profile as an appendix,
to facilitate updates, rather than as a part of the text.
Arlan Marrs stated that the statistics bare out what the committee tried to incorporate into the document.
Cristie Nicklas moved to incorporate DPS language on 22-1-80 Section H, I , J section and create the
appendix that would include the general demographic profile census data when it becomes available. John
Folsom seconded. Motion carried
22-2-70- Urban Development.
Mr. Anderson provided the DPS recommendation consisting of:
22-2-70 Retain entire opening¶
¶B Replace the word" is"with the words"may be"and add the word "residential"
before commercial
Arlan Marrs stated that the committees language does a better job of explaining urban development and
what it means for the county.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Bryant Gimlin stated he likes the committee language because it is easier to follow and more specific. Ms.
Nicklas added to retain the opening, delete committee A and maintain the rest. Mr. Miller asked Mr.
Anderson about the significance of the language. Mr. Anderson stated the DPS language broadens the
range of possible uses. Mr. Walker stated that the committee tried to talk about the specific sections and
stick to that section only.
Cristie Nicklas moved to retain the opening, delete committee A paragraph and insert the DPS language
in paragraph B and retain C. 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; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Fred Walker, no. Motion carried.
22-2-80 Concerns of Development.
Mr. Anderson provided the DPS recommendation consisting of:
¶'s C, D & E Who will determine what is unreasonable? Or. . .what is a basic need or a
necessity? Who adjudicates this inevitable argument?
Arlan Marrs stated that the applicant will be the one who determines whether it is unreasonable and can
challenge from there. Some amenities can have value and some do not. This is why the application should
be evaluated on a case by case basis. The committee desire was to add some scrutiny to a referral in
determining need. It is important that an applicant know he has the right to question a referral and contest
the conditions if necessary. Mr. Anderson stated that DPS would like to see paragraph C read
"Development should pay their share for upgrades to existing systems." Paragraph D would add
" development increase cost as well as increase benefit to the consumer "and strike E in its entirety.
Mr.Walker stated that this is more for a educational purpose for an applicant as what can happen and what
can be done about it. Mr. Anderson stated that planning services relies on referral agencies for expert
information. The current process allows for the preliminary or background work being done before the case
is presented. The current process allows for the challenge of each and every referral agency. Mr. Marrs
suggested paragraph C stay as is and the addition of the word benefit in paragraph D. Mr. Marrs added that
paragraph E states what may happen currently. Mr. Miller stated that paragraph E might benefit the
applicants with regard to the request from the referral agencies. Mr. Marrs indicated that on paragraph E
Mr. Barker assisted in the development of the language. The ability to question the referral and contest the
conditions was the intent. Mr. Gimlin added that paragraph C could open up a can of worms with regard to
being ambiguous. Mr. Marrs stated that this is not intended to lay out what is fair, it is just to educate the
applicants as to what can happen. Mr. Gimlin stated it should be stated positively not negative. Mr. Miller
suggested taking it out of the negative. Mr. Folsom suggested deleting the first sentence of E. Mr. Marrs
stated that the first sentence gives the applicant some information. Mr. Anderson stated that DPS has
issues with the language consisting of basic needs. The rewrite committee's discussions were centered
around Fire Protection Districts, the Uniform Fire Code and what many of the committee felt were
unreasonable requests. As proposed, DPS has no criteria to determine basic needs or an appropriate
recommendation. DPS is not qualified to determine basic needs in some expert areas, such as Fire
Protection or School District needs. Mr. Walker added that referral agencies have overreached the basic
needs aspect. It would come into play in some areas that do not have a code that is approved. Ms Nicklas
stated that DPS needs to rely on the experts of referral agencies to assist them in the determination of basic
needs. Mr. Marrs added that basic needs can come from any referral agency such as the applicant's
experts. Mr. Folsom stated that the applicant has the right to contest the conditions of approval in the
process now.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Carla Grieser, a Comp Plan rewrite Committee member, gave an example of a application in which the
referral district made a suggestion and the applicant was not aware of the possibility to contest the agency.
Had this information been in the Comprehensive Plan the applicant would have been aware of the available
opportunities.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Bryant Gimlin moved to change the language in 22-2-80C to state "Development should pay its
proportionate share to upgrade existing systems that benefit everyone." 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; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Fred Walker,yes. Motion carried.
John Folsom moved to change the language in 22-2-80CD to state"The requirement of additional amenities
to a development increase cost as well as increase benefits to the consumer and should be thoroughly
evaluated as to the necessity of such amenity i.e. bus shelters, pull-outs, trails, etc..." Fred Walker
seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Fred Walker, no. Motion carried.
Cristie Nicklas moved to change the language in 22-2-80E to state "Conditions of approval requested by
referral agencies may be scrutinized by the applicant. The applicant has the right to question the referral
and contest the conditions if necessary." Bryant Gimlin seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Fred Walker, no. Motion carried.
Michael Miller has concerns with 22-2-80F and that a standard needs to be established for referral agencies
and from submittals from the applicants. Is there a way to amend so that all information is to be submitted
in a timely matter to the DPS. Ms. Nicklas agrees but DPS is at the mercy of other departments at times.
The implication is to referral agencies. Mr. Anderson stated that the state statue is 21 days and in most
cases is adhered to. For referrals not returned within the time limit-silence is considered consent, unless
the referral is considered crucial to the planning decision. The land use process is dynamic and changes
or deviation from the norm are common. If the change or requested information is easy then it is presented
to the Boards and if not a continuance is requested. Mr. Walker added that have been times when
applicants have gotten information in the morning which leaves them(the Planning Commission)the inability
to respond properly. When referral agencies are working with the applicant it does not always work. Mr.
Folsom suggested that the removal of the reference to referrals would make it fair for all involved. Mr.
Walker stated thatthereason for the changes in the Development Standards and the Conditions of Approval
are the referral agencies responses. Ms. Nicklas stated that paragraph F is a good piece of information but
the referral agencies do not read the comprehensive plan to become informed. Mr. Anderson stated that
some referral agenices are stretched thinner than before.
Cristie Nicklas moved to add language in 22-2-80 F to read "Implementation of timely submission from
referral agencies and the applicant are required. The Planning Department needs to establish and adhere
to reasonable deadlines for referral and applicant submittals." 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; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Cristie Nicklas,yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried.
22-2-100 Urban Growth Boundaries
Robert Anderson provided DPS recommendations consisting of:
E. Retain current Section 22-2-100 section in its entirety. Historical criteria established by the BCC
outlines State and Local planning relationship/dynamics between the County and other entities.
Insertion or the idea of Public involvement/notification into the delineation or creation of an UGB or
IGA, at the cost of the developer, is supported by DPS. This section is one of the fundamental
tenants or principles of Smart Growth.
Arlan Marrs stated that the committee tried to improve on the existing language. The key idea was land
owner notification and involvement in the development of UGB and IGA. The idea that would be disagreed
upon was the IGA and who was paying for the notification. An IGA is done by the County and the
municipality not the developer but it needs to include the land owner in the process. Mr. Barker wants to
know how the applicant can be included in the discussions with regard to the IGA and the second being the
developer paying for the notification. The developer should not have to pay for. It should be the municipality
that the IGA effects. Ms. Nicklas asked if there were public meeting when in negotiations with the county
for the urban growth boundaries. Mr. Barker stated the public meeting that are being notified for now are
the PC and the BCC. Mr. Marrs stated that the idea of notification has come a long way but the practicality
with regard to the land owner getting the notification as soon as the process has begun is not happening.
The land owner needs the notification from the municipality as soon as the process is begun. How the land
is clasified and what they would like to see is something that the land owner would want to know. The land
owner needs to get involved in the early stages of the process. Mr. Marrs stated that it was important for
the land owners to have the PC and the BCC for assistance because they have no vote in the town board
arena. Mr.Walker stated that land owners would like to be involved at the inception of the idea not later on
in the process. Mr. Barker stated that the land owners are involved in the agreement but are not parites to
it. The boundary would have to be drawn before the effect could be seen. The time and manner to object
is when the effect can be seen. Mr. Walker stated that the land owner would like to be involved in the
process. Mr. Barker suggested notifying on the front end and determine who would like to be involved to
continue with further notification. Mr. Marrs added that if the notification was done and a group was
determined viable and placed on a list for future supplemental information. A series of community meetings
is very effective for those interested. Mr. Walker likes the stronger language and would rather see the
landowner involved from the beginning. Mr. Miller stated that there needed to be a representative with
regard to a group. Mr. Miller stated that there needs to be a system to make sure that everyone involved.
Mr. Marrs stated that this was a large idea document and the details of how it will be accomplished do not
need to be worked out today. Mr. Folsom added that there will never be a concensus irregardless of what
the suggestion be. Mr.Anderson added that the IGA does not specifically define what goes on in the area;
it is an agreement to facilitate the relationship between the county and the municipality. The IGA is very
broad in scope, adequate notification might facilitate the process. The scope of the IGA is to broad. IGA
is essentially a municipalities first right of refusal regarding annexation and providing infrastructure. Mr.
Barker added that the urban uses should be in urban areas. Mr. Marrs stated that areas included in the
IGA's have been specifically called out as to what the zone district should be. The IGA is not always a
general 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 would like to address the language in C regarding whether individual landowner need to be
notified and included in the negotiations of Urban Growth Boundaries. Mr. Barker suggested language to
the effect "notified of negotiations and considerations of UGB agreements" this would include both
processes and the negotiation part. He emphasized "and consideration." Mr.Miller indicated that PC does
not have the authority to force towns to have town meetings. Mr. Barker stated that there is the notification
before the consideration part. Mr. Barker suggested that the sentence state"The individual land owners of
property within the urban growth boundaries shall be notified of any negotiations and consideration of
intergovernmental urban growth boundary agreements."
Cristie Nicklas stated that the language is adequate but it will help to notify the affected property owners
earlier in the process and give them the opportunity to continue their involvement.
Robert Anderson stated that the committee has proposed removing the relationship between DPS and the
applicant as well as DPS's obligations. The redundancy would be removed and this chapter spells out how
DPS helps facilitate growth toward urban areas and efficient development in the county.
Cristie Nicklas moved to retain the entire section of 22-2-100 with the addition of the language from rewrite
committee with the following minor changes, replace preservation with conservation in paragraph A, new
D change wording to add "where infrastructure is available" and delete the last of the sentence, change
middle of sentence"the BCC imparted four(4)criteria to guild the municipalities",change second sentence
in D to reflect Mr. Barkers language previously stated. Bryant Gimlin seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Fred Walker, no. Motion carried.
22-2-110 Urban growth boundaries goals and policies.
Robert Anderson provided DPS recommendations consisting of:
C. 2.a. Who determines timeliness?
C.2.e. 1,2&3 These factors are important in assuring that development is fiscally
responsible for development impacts.
Arlan Marrs stated that in the end the applicant will be the one who ultimately determines the timeliness.
There are some state statues with regard to timeliness as far as annexations. Mr. Barker stated that the
options are left open with the existing language it is appropriate to leave it as that. Mr. Folsom suggests that
"timely manner but not less than a certain number of months." Mr. Barker stated that the statue contains
a certain time frame as to what needs to be done to get it completed. There is a certain amount of time in
which a municipality needs to get an annexation through. Mr. Folsom asked that if the final say is with the
County. Mr. Anderson asked at which stage can this be determined. The normal process is to send a
Notice of Inquiry to the effected municipality and wait for the response. It can take up to three months to get
those responses back due to the town board meeting schedules, lack of staff and such. The question
remains that during the waiting period the municipality decides to annex but the applicant is not willing to
wait until possible services can be available at the site. Who decides the timeliness? This leave DPS trying
to figure out which way to turn and to determine the timeliness. Mr. Barker stated that the applicant should
have the option to proceed with the application.
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 asked Mr.Anderson about 2E on pg 38 include last sentence and 1-3. DPS so recommends
Cristie Nicklas move in 22-2-110 change the language in A 2B to be consistent with previously approved
language dealing with notification of the land owners, change language in B 1 to reflect where urban
infrastructure in available, B2A change language from can be obtained to where it is available, C 2 E
reinstate last two sentences and the sup paragraphs below. Bryant Gimlin seconded
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Fred Walker, no. Motion carried.
22-2-120 Unincorporated Communities
Robert Anderson provided DPS recommendations consisting of:
B. Replace-"is not anticipated"with "has occurred" , "due to the"with"despite a"
and delete the word "small", ¶C add "fire protection, law enforcement and
transportation systems" after "water treatment facilities" , ¶D add "only when
adequate services and infrastructure are available" after the word "encouraged".
Arlan Marrs stated that is was important to keep in mind what these communities are. These communities
are often platted but no official town government. Paragraph B does a better job of what the committee's
future prediction will be. This document is trying to look into the future as to what will happen not past
information. Substantial growth is not anticipated due to the limited availability of services. The county is
responsible for the protective services and it would be difficult for the smaller municipalities to obtain the
revenue to provide explicit services. The development of these communities would be encouraged but there
needs to be adequate services. The language in C is difficult for unincorporated communities. Mr.
Anderson indicated the DPS made few changes to the Committee's recommendation.The sentence could
be cleaned up with some rearranging of words and support DPS observations of actual growth and
development in Unincorporated Weld. Development has occurred in these areas but it may not be
substantial.
Please note that there are no members of the public present, therefor the Chair will not open for public
comment.
Cristie Nicklas moved to incorporate DPS language in paragraph B to state"Population growth has occurred
in these communities despite a lack of community water and/or sewer facilities and their remote location.
These settlements will probably continue to function as centers serving the needs of the surrounding rural
population." Move in paragraph C to include DPS language consisting of " fire protection, law
enforcement and transportation systems " Move in paragraph D to include. only when adequate
services and infrastructure are available."
Fred Walker questions the inclusion in paragraph C and questioned telling the protection services to do what
they are suppose to do. Ms. Nicklas rescinded motion to obtain some clarification from DPS. Mr.Anderson
stated that it was not vital to include the specific references.
Cristie Nicklas moved to incorporate DPS language in paragraph B to state"Population growth has occurred
in these communities despite a lack of community water and/or sewer facilities and their remote locations.
es-
These settlements will probably continue to function as centers serving the needs of the surrounding rural
population." Move in paragraph C to retain the committee language. Move in paragraph D to
include only when adequate services and infrastructure are available." Bryant Gimlin seconded Motion
Carried.
22-1-130 Unincorporated community goals and policies
Robert Anderson provided DPS recommendations consisting of:
Retain deleted C & D, These concepts are universally accepted as "Smart Growth"
principles
Arlan Marrs stated that UC Goal 3 was eliminated because of information received. There are older
communities that have been platted and is poses a problem for new development. If the unincorporated
communities are going to be encouraged to develop the infill process would make the process that much
more difficult. The infill process in the smaller communities that have old plats becomes difficult for the
developer to adhere to. UC Goal 3 is a definition of a UGB being within a half mile of a sewer system and
these communities do not have those systems. This is a little restrictive with regards to where growth should
occur. Mr. Folsom recommends retaining the smart growth principle in paragraph C and in all cases the
difficulties exist. Paragraph 4 could be eliminate. Mr.Walker indicated that if there are lots that are not built
on and the lot may not be appropriate for the request. Mr. Miller stated that the idea is to try and fill the lots
up before development is scattered throughout the community.
Cristie Nicklas moved to retain in 22-2-130 C UC Goal 3(1)to read "Encourage new development through
infill of existing vacant platted lots." Eliminate UC Goal 4. Bryant Gimlin seconded Motion carried
Cristie Nicklas moved to amend 22-2-130 UC Goal and policies UC Goal 3 to state derelict vehicles not
inoperable. John Folsom seconded. Motion carried
Cristie Nicklas moved to amend 22-2-140 to use the term derelict in place of inoperable. John Folsom
seconded. Motion carried with Mr. Walker abstaining.
Mr.Walker indicated that throughout the document the words obtainable will be changed to available and
the Calpine case is a good example that the services were not available but obtainable. The point being if
they are obtainable the applications are allowed.
Cristie Nicklas moved to amend language throughout the document where it states: "where services are
obtainable"to"where services are available." 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; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Fred Walker, no. Motion carried.
22-2-150 Industrial development goals and policies.
Robert Anderson provided DPS recommendations consisting of:
D. 2. a. This appears to mandate a detailed Cost Benefit Analysis. These are
costly, time consuming and technically sophisticated. Who will conduct, provide
or pay for this?
Arlan Marrs indicated that this concept flows throughout the document and the idea begins with the goal
where it is talked about the development having to pay its own way. The policy is to provide not just the
costs associated with development but the benefits also. This will balance them out. Each applicant will
not have to do this but some that are larger and will provide more cost and benefit will be required to prove
the benefits and cost. Mr. Marrs indicated that the applicant will provide this and do the work that is
associated with it at their cost. Mr. Folsom indicated that each applicant finds their own way of addressing
cost and benefits. If this is instated there needs to be a format for obtaining the information. Mr. Miller asked
DPS if there was a database for calculating the information. Mr.Anderson stated that there are established
formulas and uniform standards to accomplish this. By putting this statement into the proposed Comp Plan
it requires that it be done,without specifics such as when its necessary,who determines this and who pays
for it?.
Bruce Barker added to make the language so it is clear as to costs the applicant will need to pay. Mr.
Walker stated the intent was for it to be a tool for the applicant to be able to address the goal of the section.
Mr. Miller stated the entire document needs to be friendly to everyone, there needs to be a system where
there is a standard process and you just fill in the blanks. Mr. Folsom suggested a standard form simplifies
staff examination. Mr. Miller asked what is the end goal for this tool. Mr. Walker indicated that the goal
would be that residential growth pays its own way one way or another. Mr. Marrs stated that the intent was
developer to pay costs but there may be some benefits to them. Ms. Nicklas stated that"when necessary"
is ambiguous and who will decide which applicant does and does not do the analysis. If this stays in the
Comprehensive Plan it is mandated. There needs to be some clarification as to who is going to require this
and how it is going to be done. Mr. Anderson stated that DPS does not object to the addition, just need
clarification on how it will be applied.
Bruce Barker suggested some language that would tie it back to the previous policy. The language would
consist of"Determination of the amount paid by new development for such additional costs may include
evaluation of indirect benefits such as sales and use taxes generated by residents; construction jobs "
If the language "may include" is there it provides the opportunity for the applicant to come in and say that
the additional costs are being offset by these benefits. Mr. Marrs indicated that the burden is the applicants
not the county. Mr.Anderson indicated that this still does not address who is going to pay for this. This is
left very open to interpretation with regard to revenues, jobs etc. Mr. Barker indicated that the ultimate
decision would come from the BCC. This is something that we can get into that is a county procedure. Mr.
Barker indicated that road expansion and road construction are typically the only ones that are utilized.
John Folsom indicated that the only expense that effects the county is road construction/improvement or law
enforcement. Mr. Gimlin indicated that development should pay its own way and try to an address little guy.
If the wording is done correctly than the small development will not be asked to provide this. It is important
to be able to ask for the impact study if the information is substantial. If the benefit is there then there should
be the ability to relax some of the other requirements. Most developers have already done this prior to
submitting the application. Mr.Anderson stated that the latitude is not here, if it is required then it has to be
done. If the requirement is stated then DPS will ask for it at the time of application submittal. The latitude
to apply is the question, DPS agrees with the intent and concept of the requirement. The verbiage supplied
by the county attorney is certainly acceptable but clarification is still needed with regard to who is going to
pay for the study,when will it be required, etc. Mr. Gimlin indicated that the applicant will be the one paying
for the study. Mr. Barker added that the applicant has the option of getting a credit when all is completed.
Cristie Nicklas moved 22-2-150 D 2 (a) state "Determination of the amount paid by new development for
such additional costs may include evaluation of indirect benefits such as sales and use taxes generated by
residents; construction jobs " John Folsom seconded. Motion passed
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Fred Walker,yes. Motion carried.
Cristie Nicklas moved to amend the language in Industrial and Commercial sections to reflect the previously
moved motion. John Folsom seconded. Motion carried.
April 27, 2002 at 10:00 a.m. No further business, meeting adjourned
Meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello