HomeMy WebLinkAbout20023167.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Tuesday, February 26, 2002
A special meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday February 26,2002, 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 10:30 a.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
Cristie Nicklas
Fred Walker
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray
Cathy Clamp
Luis Llerena
Bruce Fitzgerald ABSENT
Special Meeting for the Consideration of changes to the Weld County Comprehensive Plan as
recommended by the Weld County Comprehensive Plan rewrite Committee. Comprehensive Plan rewrite
Committee members present were Arlan Marrs, Thomas Cope, Kirt Goble, Tina Bogott, Jim Park, Bruce
Rippe and Perry Buck.
Michael Miller provided clarification regarding the purpose and process of the meeting. The purpose for the
meeting is to address the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan as proposed by the Committee
appointed by the Weld County Board of Commissioners. Mr. Miller stated that the order of presentation will
be: Robert Anderson, Department of Planning Services followed by,Arlan Marrs,the representative for the
Comprehensive Committee,then public comment and then back to the Planning Commission for discussion.
Mr. Miller further stated that the review of the document would proceed article by article.
Robert Anderson presented a brief overview of the Comprehensive Plan revision process with regard to the
time line involved and stated the Department of Planning Services(DPS)approached the document as they
would a case. Mr. Anderson advised the Planning Commission that its comments were based on "Smart
Growth"principles and accepted Planning practice, doctrine, methodologies, basic definitions, experience
and expertise. Mr. Anderson quoted a sentence from the Smart Growth Outline that stated "successful
communities to tend to have one thing in common -- a vision of where they want to go and of what they
value in their community--and their plans for development reflect these values." The Comprehensive Plan
is an overall vision for the entire county. The Principles of Smart Growth are: 1. Create range of housing;
2. Create Walkable Neighborhoods; 3. Encourage Community and Stakeholder Collaboration; 4. Foster
distinctive,Attractive Places with a Strong Sense of Place;5.Make Development Decisions Predictable,Fair
and Cost Effective; 6. Mix Land Uses; 7. Preserve Open Space, Farmland, Natural Beauty and Critical
Environmental Areas;8.Provide a Variety of Transportation Choices;9.Strengthen and Direct Development
Towards Existing Communities; 10.Take Advantage of Compact Building Design. Mr.Anderson addressed
the Overview of Issue that included: 1.Community quality of life;2. Design; 3. Economics;4. Environment;
5. Health; 6. Housing; 7. Transportation. Mr. Anderson added relevant definitions (Smart Growth, Sprawl,
Taking, Highest and Best Use, Growth Management) from American Planning Association Glossary of
Zoning and Planning Terms that would assist the Board in understanding some of the terms of the
document. DPS was aware of the wide range of opinions and tried to remain objective. Mr. Anderson
advised that the DPS evaluated the committees recommended changes as a working document which staff
would use as tool for future recommendations regarding land use cases and mitigating incompatibilities in
the county. Mr. Morrison advised Mr. Anderson to keep the documents for exhibits for the record. Mr.
Morrison advised to state for the record the items under consideration. Mr. Anderson stated the items for
the record are:four draft documents consisting of the original,a document submitted on January 15 for the
joint worksesion with the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Commission, a document
2002-3167
containing the DPS comments from January 28, the last document containing the re-write from the
Comprehensive Plan Re-Write Committee.
Michael Miller stated that the Planning Commission will be working from the document submitted on January
28th which is a copy of the original, with the committee's proposed changes, omissions and additions and
DPS comments. Mr. Anderson stated that Smart Growth hand-out, the Comprehensive Planning
informational hand-out entitled Creating Successful Communities: The Benefits of Effective Planning by
Gunnar Isberg, the selected definitions ( Smart Growth, Sprawl, Taking, Highest and Best Use, Growth
Management) hand-out, the referral response from the City for Longmont, letter from the Board of County
Commissioners, as well as the four previously mentioned documents will be marked as exhibits for the
record in addition to those items received at the previous hearing.
Arlan Marrs,Comprehensive Plan Committee representative, provided additional comments with regard to
the Smart Growth principles. The Committee was not given the information previously but was gratified in
being able to closely relate the Smart Growth principles to the their Comprehensive Plan document. The
vision from the committee was an important component. The committee was not creating a new document
but had an existing document that they felt contained both strengths and weaknesses. With regard to sprawl
the current comprehensive plans tends to encourage it with the minor subdivision process. The committee
had to make some assumptions for possible changes. The second point or definition was highest and best
use and it was an important component of the guiding principles that the committee formulated and used
in drafting the proposed changes. There are certain times that when the term (highest and best use)is
thrown out it is assumed the property owner is doing what he wants with his property to get the highest and
best use;the highest economic value from that property. This was modified to possibly take away from the
property owner the highest and best use and have it be by what is reasonable and what can be
accommodate by infrastructure. The definition of taking was that any government action that denies
economically viable use of the property. A government has the ability to say that the applicant must provide
infrastructure and services that would allow the highest and best use to be accomplished. The final
definition of growth management was using different techniques to manage growth. The Comprehensive
Plan committee feels as though they have done several things that ensure growth is managed appropriately.
The Comprehensive Plan Committee feels as though in reality there are two distinct plans; one that is
existing and the one that the committee made changes to.
Michael Miller asked Mr.Anderson if he wanted to address the preface first since it was at the beginning of
the document. Mr.Anderson provided an outline of the DPS recommendations and suggested moving the
preface to the appendix as it appears early in the body of the text.
Mr.Marrs provided some history for the preface or executive summary. This would make it user friendly and
easier to use. It lays out the philosophy of the committee/county and the ability for the general public to
know what the document was about.
Cristie Nicklas asked Mr. Marrs about the encouragement of new business and agri business. Ms. Nicklas
would like to add something that encourages new agri business to the preface. There are items that are
further in the document where it can be addressed.
ARTICLE ONE
22-1-30- Mr. Anderson presented DPS suggested changes consisting of:
C.4. Consistency and flexibility are not generally linked together-difficult to accomplish.
Delete "and should not be denied solely on the basis of public sentiment." (Statement
contradicts C2, 3 & 5)
E. Replace the word "accommodate"with "reasonably support . Insert of"privately held
lands in place of "as determined by the property owner." Replace "results in highest land
value" with "considers the balance between the health, safety and welfare of county
residents and the highest land value." As proposed this statement contradicts¶C
Mr. Marrs stated the reasons for the language as written and the idea behind it was consistent requirements
but the need to have flexibility within those consistent requirements. The last sentence with regard to public
sentiment allows the general public to know it cannot be denied for that purpose only.The property owners
desire to use his property to the highest and best use with the stipulation that it has to be from the definitions
in the text.
Luis Llerena stated that he concurs with DPS staff. Staff works with the applicants and deals with the
requirements directly. Mr.Gimlin added that he dislikes the public sentiment directive and the possibility of
bringing in language that could be hard to define. Ms. Clamp stated she would like to see the title reflect
tradition instead of heritage in the title of 4B. Ms. Clamp would like to see some additional language added
to 4B with regard to allowing agricultural businesses to operate without additional constraints. Ms. Clamp
added that the highest and best use is not necessarily the best use in all situations. There needs to be a
balance between both the highest and best use along with what is available. Mr. Miller asked about
paragraph E with regard to Highest and Best use. Mr. Miller added that he does not believe that the term
is the best for the documents content. The idea of selling the property for the highest price without any
concerns for the adjacent property owners is not beneficial to the county as a whole. Mr. Folsom stated his
objection to the highest and best use and the possible combination of those two sentences in paragraph E.
It would include highest and best and the definitions of it.
Arlan Marrs, provided clarification with regard to C7 and denying a proposal for public sentiment and this
is a future document for the general public. "What are the alternatives to highest and best use and do we
want that?" Mr. Miller stated that the way a letter is written can be interpreted to various ways, therefor it
must be concise in description and definition and the definition of highest and best use was not clear.
Chair opened the hearing to public comment.
Thomas Cope(Committee member),provided additional information with regard to the highest and best use
and informed the commission that some of the language was provided to them by the Weld County Attorney,
Bruce Barker.
The Chair closed the public portion
22-1-10- Cristie Nicklas moved for the addition of "in 1995" Stephan Mokray Seconded. Motion
Carried
22-1-30B- Cathy Clamp moved to change Heritage to Tradition in the title as well as the paragraph.
Stephan Mokray seconded. Motion Carried
22-1-30B- Cristie Nicklas moved to add language consisting of"without additional constraints". Cathy
Clamp seconded. Motion carried Bryant Gimlin voted no.
22-1-30C- Cristie Nicklas moved to add the reference to the Right to Farm statement into the
document. Stephan Mokray seconded. Motion Carried
22-1-30C(4)&(7)
Cristie Nicklas moved to delete "coupled with flexibility" from 4 and "and should not be
denied solely on the basis of public sentiment"from 7. Stephan Mokray seconded. Motion
Carried.
Mr. Morrison stated that Mr. Barker had added language to an existing issue. The concern is that highest
and best use brings its own baggage. It may be worth considering eliminating the term without eliminating
the context.
Luis Llerena stated that the highest and best use is going to be a lengthy discussion. The major concern
would be the county has the departments for the welfare, health and safety of its residents. Those
departments are filled with professionals who are qualified to determine the highest and best use. Mr. Miller
stated that this would be a discussion that will continue throughout the process unless some alternative
/ language is considered or developed.
22-1-30E
The question of this section centers around the interpretation of highest and best use. Mr. Miller
stated that the Commission needs to come up with better language for interpretation. Mr.Walker stated that
the committee spent numerous hours on the language for consideration and Bruce Barker offered some of
the language for consideration. The term highest and best can have negative connotations, especially in
regards to potential conflicts with bulk requirements if they remain the same. The proposed language would
not necessarily allow for maximum development,according to the property owner, but would allow the land
owner to achieve a reasonable highest and best use. Mr. Miller stated that the Commission is trying to
eliminate any misinterpretation or possible dilemmas. Mr. Llerena suggested the document and highest
and best use is not based on existing standards and this draft is not like anything on the books. The one
thing that is consistent and repeatedly emphasized is the focus on health, safety and welfare of county
residents. Mr. Miller stated that there needs to be a balance between private property rights and the health,
safety and welfare of the residents of the county. The Board would like to insert appropriate language that
accomplishes the intent and yet not be taken advantage of at a later time. Mr.Walker stated he agreed with
the idea of balance. Mr. Llerena moved to delete the idea of the highest and best idea because of the public
nature of this document and it need to be universally understood and protect the public health,welfare and
safety. Ms. Nicklas proposed an alternative paragraph. Ms. Nicklas stated, "Land Use regulation which
address land use changes should be written to protect public health,safety and economic and social welfare
and the rights of property owners." Mr. Walker stated that the guiding element is the health, safety and
welfare but the it should also protect private land owners.
22-1-10E- Change the title by stopping it after"land use changes." Replace the paragraph with the
preceding language. Ms. Clamp seconded. Motion Carried
22-1-10D Mr. Llerena requested an addition to the subsection diversity. Mr. Anderson provided
clarification to the reason for the section. Mr. Llerena moved to add language consisting
of demographically and culturally. Mr.Anderson stated that this sedction was added by the
committee and is a summary for specific references to be found later in the document.
John Folsom seconded. Motion carried.
22-1-40 thru 22-1-60 Mr. Anderson presented DPS changes consisting of:
22-1-50 ¶E.4. Insert"referral agencies and" before the word "professionals"
22-1-50 ¶E.5. Replace"to achieve"with "in evaluating"
Arlan Marrs provided clarification with the committee's language. Mr. Marrs stated that the goal was the job
of DPS would be to help the property owner achieve the desired use of their property. The thought was for
the DPS to be more of a partner in the application of it.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Mr. Folsom asked Mr.Anderson what constitutes professionals in the referral process. Mr.Anderson stated
that the professionals would include staff and experts from various agencies. Mr. Llerena stated that the
need for professionals and referral agencies is crucial for the final consideration of the project. Mr. Llerena
stated that achieving the goal for all the applicants would be difficult. Mr. Walker stated he supports the
language as written. The committee sees the role of DPS's as a service for the whole county and land use
applicants on a case by case basis. Mr Anderson advised that DPS should not necessarily be an applicants'
advocate or consultant as it removed objectivity from the planning process and exposed DPS and planners
to the potential of being considered arbitrary or capricious. Ms. Nicklas stated DPS is doing its job in
evaluating whether or not an applicants meets the requirements under the code(the black and white), and
its place is not to suggest ways around the code. The applicant is the one who should be asking the
Planning Commission and Board for the waiver(the gray)from the rules. Mr. Miller stated that both sides
were relevant and there is a need to ensure better communication to make sure that the options are present.
,.••.. Bryant Gimlin moved to change the language in 22-1-50E(4) to "the County will rely in part upon
recommendations from referral agencies and professionals in making recommendation on land use
applications." John Folsom Seconded. Motion carried
Ms. Nicklas moved to change the language in 22-1-50E(5)to"the County will cooperate with the applicant
in evaluating the objectives of the applicant and options available to the applicant while ensuring the health,
safety and welfare of the County residents." Stephan Mokray seconded. Motion carried
22-1-60- Mr. Anderson presented DPS changes consisting of:
22-1-60 ¶B.4.c. Retain the words"cultural and"to maintain consistency w/current regulations/Code
22-1-60 ¶B.4.c.Who is to determine"reasonable"? Delete the entire text of B.4. e. 5)and replace
with "Any additional information deemed necessary for review"This maintains consistency
with current regulations& Code
22-1-60 Add¶'s B. 6. c. & d.
c. "The proposed amendment has demonstrated that adequate services are available"
d. "Referral Agency responses"
22-1-60 ¶7.c. Retain the word "cultural"to maintain consistency w/current regulations/Code
22-1-60 Delete ¶10 a. b.& c, previously stated in #7 previous page
22-1-60 Delete ¶13 a. b.& c, previously stated in #7 previous page
In response to DPS recommendations Arlan Marrs responded with the reasoning behind the committees'
proposed changes. The difficulty with accomplishing or identifying the different cultural aspects made the
removal of the language easier. Mr Anderson cited the example of school age children,their demographics
and their specific requirements. The addition of"reasonable" is what the committee would like to see and
did not object to the addition of DPS's paragraph c&d. Mr. Marrs emphasized that this section pertained
predominantly to the MUD area. Mr. Llerena expressed his concern with the deletion of the cultural focus.
He noted that just because something was difficult didn't mean an attempt to correct it should be overlooked.
He further expressed concerns with the committee's apparent lack of trust or confidence in Planning Staff
(both in the Land Use Application process as well as the rewrite process)and stated he did not believe that
the DPS would request anything blatantly unreasonable. Mr.Marrs stated that their changes stemmed from
the public stand-point. Ms.Clamp added if the reasonable information requested is not provided that it does
not preclude the application from going forward. Mr. Anderson stated that the committee's deliberation
regarding referral responses was predominantly centered around referrals from the Fire Protection Districts.
The Committees contention appears to be that some of those requests were unreasonable. Mr Anderson
stated that the real issues goes back to the referral agencies and additional information they request. Most
if not all of the additional requests for information come from referral agencies. From a planning sense,
insertion of the world reasonable challenges referral agencies and their expertise. Mr. Anderson stated that
DPS relies on the information provided by experts such as referral agencies. He further stated referral
agencies, usually other governmental or quasi governmental agencies did not have a vested interest in a
particular stance as did the applicants' experts. Referring once again to the issue of Fire Protection, Mr
Anderson explained DPS's and individual planners reluctance in accepting a determination of fire protection
adequacy without a expert's opinion. Ms.Clamp asked Mr. Morrison about the liability issues. Mr. Morrison
stated that the regulator does not incur liability by not requiring something additional, the only place that
issues may arise if they request something or the applicant to do something a certain way. Mr. Morrison
stated the liability is broad based and the decision should not necessarily be based on that. Mr. Morrison
stated in this section this is not necessarily a land use decision but a conceptual decision. Mr. Folsom
stated that the referrals from Fire Protection Districts quotes a specific and identifiable code requirement,
not anything out of the ordinary. Mr.Gimlin stated that the applicant could provide information if they deem
it necessary.
Mr. Miller stated that he recognizes the need for cultural awareness but wonders how to predict what the
t^' cultural need for a development is without knowing who is going to be living there. Mr. Llerena stated that
cultural sensitivity is an issue and that the county has specific demographics that identify potential needs.
The county has a tradition of agriculture and that culture is an important and critical element to this tradition.
Mr. Llerena stated he does not think the addition of the cultural language is going to make it more difficult
for an applicant. Ms. Nicklas asked what cultural means. Mr. Anderson stated from a planning sense,
"Culture refers to the ideas, customs, skills, art, beliefs, behaviors, institutions, and thoughts of a given
community or population at a given time at a given location. The county is diverse and the DPS recognizes
the county is diverse demographically,economically and cultural diversity is a key issue around the country.
There are many appropriate amenities available and considering the needs of different cultures in the
different areas is essential to good planning.
22-1-60-4(c)- Luis Llerena moved to retain word cultural in the sentence. Cristie Nicklas
seconded. Motion carried.
22-1-60-4-(e)(5) Ms.Clamp stated there is no particular reason for deleting he word or retaining the
reasonable"wording. The reasonable feature will be determined by the applicant
or the requester. Mr.Walker added that with out the word reasonable it places the
applicant in a negative light if they decide not to provide the required information.
Ms. Clamp stated that the question is what is reasonable is in the eye of the
beholder. Fred Walker moved to accept the following language"Any reasonable
additional information required by the Department of Public Works or Department
of Planning Services. Stephan Mokray Seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,no;Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller, no;Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cathy Clamp,yes;Cristie Nicklas,
no; Fred Walker, yes; Luis Llerena, no. Motion carried.
Michael Miller commented that there is no room in regulatory language for gray areas. Aword that is subject
to interpretation is not beneficial.
Mr. Folsom asked why DPS chose to eliminate the respective departments from the language. Mr.
Anderson stated that the DPS left it broad to allow for comments or referrals from municipalities and other
agencies such as school and fire protection districts. Mr. Llerena stated that there will be several agencies
that will need to be included as additional information.
Cristie Nicklas moved to accept the language proposed by DPS on 22-1-60-4(e)(5). Stephan Mokray
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,no;Cristie Nicklas,
yes; Fred Walker, no; Luis Llerena, yes. Motion tied.
Bryant Gimlin stated that he was voting yes on both because the word does not change the content or intent
of the sentence.
22-1-60-C
Fred Walker would like to recommend the change of the last word from available to obtainable. In doing
so it puts the burden on the applicant and the possible financial aspects of that. Ms.Clamp stated that there
are significant issues with and between the words obtainable and available. The word available means it
is existing and obtainable means that it can come from somewhere if the financial aspect a possibility. The
word throughout the document needs to remain available. Mr. Miller stated that the word may have a
different context at a different section of the document. Mr. Walker stated that the Board is still in the
conceptual thought process of the document and it may change at a later time.
22-1-60-6- John Folsom moved that the language be included as stated by the DPS for 6(c)(d). Cristie
Nicklas seconded. Board approved with Fred Walker abstaining.
22-1-60-7c- Cristie Nicklas moved to retain "cultural" in the previously referenced sentence. Stephan
Mokray seconded. Motion carried
Cathy Clamp asked Mr. Marrs for clarification with regard to"addressing the impact." Mr. Marrs stated that
there would be discussion as to the impact. Mr. Miller stated that this is just an addition to the MUD map.
Once the application is submitted the DPS will request further information and detail as to the actual impact.
Cristie Nicklas moved to delete 22-1-60-10 and 13 from the section. Stephan Mokray seconded. Motion
carried
Mr. Miller asked if DPS had any objections to the deletion of 22-1-60-Taxation. Mr. Anderson stated that
DPS had no objections but the Board was provided a letter from a Ms. Boyle at the last meeting. Ms. Boyle
did make reference that the information was important to the public. DPS is familiar with the information and
uses it but have no preference regarding its retention or deletion. Mr. Marrs stated that it was part of the
appendix. Mr. Miller stated that a small part of the information was retained in the appendix. Mr. Marrs
stated it was re-written and placed in Appendix F. Luis Llerena stated that the educational nature is helpful
for the public to understand.
22-1-90 Mr. Anderson presented DPS changes consisting of:
Retain Sec. 22-1-100 or delete Sec 22-1-90 as an unsupported statement.
Mr. Anderson added that 22-1-90 needs to be tied to specific economic indicators which support the
statement. Mr. Anderson stated DPS's preference is to retain 22-1-90 and 100 as is stated in the current
comprehensive plan. Mr. Marrs would recommend that 22-1-90 is as it stands with removal of 22-1-100.
Mr. Marrs added that 22-1-100 does not represent what the county is.They were provided information from
speakers and that is where the information came from. Mr. Miller asked about not having any backup data
for the claims made in 22-1-90. Mr. Marrs stated that the backup data that staff is recommending does not
have the backup data either. Mr. Marrs stated that the agricultural base is still supported but there is
increase industrial along the 1-25 corridor. There has been a shift in the economic base. Mr. Llerena would
support verbage including the economic base becoming more diverse inclusive of agriculture. Mr.Anderson
stated that the State Demographer tracks economic indicators as listed in 22-1-100. And the trend does
remain the same as stated in the current plan.
Mr. Folsom asked for clarification of what the comprehensive plan area includes. Unincorporated vs.
Incorporated Weld County? Mr. Miller stated he wanted some verification as to where the numbers have
come from. Mr.Anderson stated that the information was currently in the Comprehensive Plan and updates
are available from the Sate Demographer. The committee's recommendation is to strike the existing data,
even though DPS has the ability to update the data. Mr. Walker added that before the committee started
they had speakers from the community and obtained the included information. Mr. Morrison suggested to
ask DPS for current information of the economic indicators. Mr. Anderson stated they do have access to
it. Cristie Nicklas moved to table the section of 22-1-90 & 22-1-100 to the next meeting on the
Comprehensive Plan. John Folsom seconded. Motion carried.
Mr. Folsom asked Mr. Morrison if this was a Comprehensive Plan for the Unincorporated County or
Unincorporated County plus all the municipalities in the County. Mr. Morrison stated that the county has
jurisdiction to write a plan that affects the decisions of the county. It does not mean it cannot include
observations from the municipalities. The county will not be making decisions for those municipalities. The
economic figures need to reflect the overall effect of the county. There are other documents to link the
present plans together(IGA's, Comprehensive Plans, etc.).
ARTICLE 2
22-1-110 Mr. Anderson presented DPS changes consisting of:
Retain Strike out¶'s A, B, C and re-letter proposed A, B,C to D, E F. This section is critical
in defining the role of planning and the planning process in managing growth and
development. Change proposed¶B to: B. Agricultural land use remains the predominant
ix-Emery land use in the County Even despite 4h.--IccJI; cJ ;# increased growth of the
and a significant increase in the number and size of annexations.
Coincidentally, the areas of most intense growth pressures are the same areas that have
the best irrigated farmlands. Concurrent with these facts is a weak agriculture economy
that makes it attractive to many landowners to sell their property for development.
r
Mr. Marrs stated that the intent is the same for those three paragraphs. Mr. Llerena had issues with sub-
paragraph C and what is proposed. Ms. Clamp stated that the new language is better for the category use.
Mr.Anderson stated the DPS is not against deletion is suggests the addition of both a,b,c's. Mr.Anderson
suggested that the Right to Farm is a notification to the Urban residents of the potential impact of agricultural
operations. Ms. Nicklas asked for clarification on the percentage of agriculture in the county. Mr.Anderson
stated that the State Demographers office lists an approximate figure of 24.9%agri-business in Weld County
as opposed to 4.9% in Larimer County. This represents the amount of dollars not acres. Mr. Llerena
supports a statement that promotes smart growth and the traditional agricultural status of the county working
together. Ms.Clamp stated she would make suggestions to change the title to"Foundations of existing land
use."
John Folsom added that the Comprehensive plan appears to be written to the unincorporated county and
the figures are going to be baseless because of the municipalities. Mr.Anderson stated that planning is not
done in a vacuum excluding municipalities or exclusively in terms of urban vs non urban scale.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this subject. No
one wished to speak.
Cathy Clamp moved to add"Foundations of"to the title. Cristie Nicklas seconded. Motion passed with Mr.
Walker abstaining.
Cathy Clamp moved to reinsert A, B, C and renumber accordingly, including the additions made by the
Comprehensive Plan Committee. John Folsom seconded. Motion carried with Mr. Walker abstaining.
Cathy Clamp moved to add DPS recommendations to the committee's Sub paragraph B the last sentence.
Stephen Mokray seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, no; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller, no; Bryant Gimlin, no; Cathy Clamp,yes;Cristie Nicklas,
no; Fred Walker, no; Luis Llerena, yes. Motion failed.
Fred Walker commented that the three sections belong somewhere else not included in the new title.
Bryan Gimlin stated he has issues with the last sentence of the new E Formerly the Committee's B). The
statement is being made without any background information.
Bryant Gimlin moved to delete the last sentence of the new Sub paragraph E. Cristie Nicklas seconded.
Motion carried with Mr. Walker and Mr. Folsom abstaining.
Fred Walker commented that there were no agricultural farmers that stated they were doing really well.
Agriculture in Weld County is not prospering. Mr. Gimlin added that the sentence is inclusive of the
agricultural economy.
Cristie Nicklas moved to delete the new paragraph F in its entirety. Cathy Clamp seconded.
Fred Walker stated that it goes with the principle of highest and best use. There are certain portions of the
land that is generating the revenue. The water is worth a great deal.
Cathy Clamp asked Mr. Morrison if there are any services for a land owner to come to the county for
assistance in the sale of the land to maintain the agricultural/open space quality. Mr. Morrison stated that
there are no open space sales tax like some other counties. There is no organized or funded approach.
In some cases things have been done to help with conservation easements. Ms Clamp inquired as to the
county"taking" land. The counties stand on taking is that it must be shown that there is a lack of a viable
economic use for the land. There are several criteria that need to be met first.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, no;Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller, no; Bryant Gimlin, no; Cathy Clamp, yes;Cristie Nicklas,
yes; Fred Walker, no; Luis Llerena, yes. Motion tied.
Michael Miller commented that there is a conflict between the desire to support agriculture and economic
pressure on the land owners.
22-2-20 Mr. Anderson presented the DPS changes consisting of:
Retain¶'s A, B,C, D and re-letter proposed A, B,C, D to D, E, F, G. This section is critical
in defining the role of planning and the planning process in managing growth and
development.
¶4.d. Add innovative and creative, delete "such as those made by the Agriculture Study
Committee." Statement is somewhat limiting
Arlan Marrs stated that the language the committee recommends encompass future uses. The proposals
need to be quality developments. The impact, infrastructure and compatibility needs to be together in the
development proposal. This committee believes this section is very comprehensive. If all of these principles
are followed the development will occur at the intensity that can be handled. They will be quality
developments. Mr. Anderson stated that the first four paragraphs talk about the disadvantages. The final
four paragraphs state the advantages.
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 moved to add DPS language to the section and reletter as needed. Cristie Nicklas seconded.
Motion carried with Mr. Walker abstaining
Cathy Clamp moved to add "Foundation of" to the title "Future Land Use" of the section. Luis Llerena
seconded. Motion carried.
Cristie Nicklas moved to accept the DPS language in the new paragraph F. Stephan Mokray seconded.
Motion carried
Fred Walker added that the language consisting of "Agriculture Study Committee"was a suggestion. Mr.
Anderson stated that the DPS broadened the options by eliminating the limiting nature of specific
suggestions. Ms. Clamp suggested referring to the Agriculture Study Committee.
Cristie Nicklas moved to change the language to consist of"Other innovative and creative techniques such
as, but not limited to, those made by the Agriculture Study Committee." Cathy Clamp seconded. Motion
carried.
Mr. Walker stated that there are legal terms for wetlands. Mr. Anderson stated that the Army Corps of
Engineers determines the wetlands and the DPS relies on their determination. Kim Ogle/DPS stated that
jurisdictional wetlands are recognized by the Army Corps of Engineers as meeting their criteria for wetlands.
DPS recommends the addition of jurisdictional and non jurisdictional. A non jurisdictional wetland is a
wetland that exists but they do not recognize it.
Cathy Clamp moved to delete the term extensive and add jurisdictional. Luis Llerena seconded. Motion
carried.
Bruce Barker is representing the County for Mr. Morrison.
John Folsom asked Mr.Barker about conflicts between the comp plan and the code. Mr.Barker stated that
the Comprehensive Plan will drive changes to other parts of the code. The other code provisions will follow
appropriately.
Robert Anderson provided further clarification with regard to DPS suggestion for 22-2-20 G. The committees
proposed"smart growth management tools"are not smart growth, 3 of 4 actually contradict Smart Growth
principals. DPS recommends deleting the committees use of the term Smart Growth tools.
Mr. Marrs suggests that the smart growth definitions are a part of the sections the committee proposed.
The sections are a basic understanding of what smart growth actually is.
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 asked Mr Anderson if this (Smart Growth) was a professional vocabulary term or area. Mr.
Anderson stated that the committees proposed use and language were not smart growth management tools
but may follow the intent or interpretation of the committee. Mr. Walker stated that what the committee
proposed were smart growth tools because the intent of the tools was to be able to apply them to an overall
objective. Mr. Llerena asked for clarification with regard to the actual name of Smart Growth. Mr. Walker
stated that there were "smart growth management tools" in the document. Mr. Miller questioned whether
the committee's second concept could be supported as smart growth. Mr.Walker stated that the committee
heard from professionals and there is a market related factor to the section. The market is saying that
people want to live outside a municipality. Mr.Miller stated that a market standpoint is an inappropriate gage
of how proper planning is determined. Mr. Walker stated that there is a given amount of market demand
but not for all farm ground. Mr. Walker added that there can be a situation where there are too many lots
available and not sell and the numbers will decrease. Mr. Miller stated he totally disagrees with the idea of
Market Driven Planning. Mr. Miller asked: If someone is willing to pay for it then it is appropriate to do? Mr.
Walker added that if it is within the bulk requirements and all the services and infrastructure that are subject
to the application are met then it is fine. Mr. Llerena added that basically the dollar is going to tell where
development is going to occur and not the guidelines that are built into the Comprehensive Plan as the
tradition of the county. Mr. Llerena added that he would like to see the focus of the county continue to
support the tradition of agriculture rather than allow market pressure determine planning because all the land
will be sold. This will cause another silicone valley, Larimer or Douglas County and will defeat the purpose
of the plan. The county will be reacting to constant problems rather than planning for the future.
Mr.Marrs stated that everyone can agree that they do not want development outside municipalities that can
not be supported. Mr. Miller asked for a definition of what "can be supported." Mr. Marrs stated that it was
the support of infrastructure, roads, water, sewer and economics. It also has to be supported through
services such as police, fire and schools. Mr. Miller stated that any development no matter how large or
small can be supported by services then it is supported. Mr.Marrs added that compatibility is another factor.
Mr. Walker added that the applicant has other requirements, they are inserting that what is appropriate is
a function of what people are willing to pay in a market place situation. Compatibility, road analysis, fire
protection is not being taken away. Mr. Miller added that it is the responsibility of the board to make sure
the language in the document is very clear. Mr. Miller would like to see the language more precise and
make the language more inclusive. Mr. Anderson stated that the paradox in the language and in the
committees' Comp Plan is that is supports agriculture but also supports urban development in agricultural
areas. Mr.Anderson added that the DPS does not support the idea of the market determining the intensity
of development or saleable lots. Mr. Anderson added that a paradigm shift had occurred and identified the
present usage of the term paradigm as Thomas Kuhn's definition,first coined in 1979 in Kuhn's book The
Structure of Scientific Revolution - "A model of reality which for a time identifies problems and offers
solutions for a community". The pendulum has swung from agricultural stewardship to a market driven
planning. DPS, in the comments was trying to bring that pendulum to half way. DPS recognized that there
will be change and the idea is to broaden the working document that exists. Mr. Marrs added that there are
no adopted smart growth ideas by Weld County. With regard to 22-2-20 C2 the opposite is that some
development that could be supported would not be allowed and how or who determines that. There are a
lot of requirements that need to be done prior to the approval of the development. Mr. Folsom asked that
if the infrastructure is there then the development can be placed anywhere if the structure is there. Mr Marrs
and Mr. Walker answered - Yes. Mr. Folsom continued with the idea that the IGA is in place to avoid
sprawl by having the development in those defined areas. Mr. Llerena has concern with the possibility of
services being able to reach those developments and some of those services being a volunteer nature. The
concern is for those areas to be serviced with volunteers and the time it takes for that service to occur could
be detrimental. Mr. Miller stated that those services must be met in the rest of the applications.
Bryant Gimlin moved to change the language to consist of "By following the Guiding Principles of the
Comprehensive Plan and the "smart growth management" type of concepts described below, future land
uses in Weld County will result in:" Cathy Clamp seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, no;Stephan Mokray,yes;Michael Miller, no;Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cathy Clamp,yes;Cristie Nicklas,
no; Fred Walker, yes; Luis Llerena, yes. Motion tied.
John Folsom commented that to use the"Smart Growth"does not apply to the committee's four items that
follow.
Cristie Nicklas commented that the four statements are not indicative of smart growth and since a lay person
is reading this there will be no clear definition of what those actually are.
Michael Miller commented that the term"smart growth"tools is inappropriate when it has been indicated by
staff that three of the following four are opposed to smart growth.
Luis Llerena moved to make changes suggested by DPS. Cristie Nicklas seconded. Motion carried.
Cristie Nicklas moved to delete 22-2-20G2. John Folsom seconded. Motion carried with Fred Walker
abstaining.
Cristie Nicklas moved to accept the suggested language from DPS for 22-2-20G4. John Folsom seconded.
Motion carried.
22-2-30-Agriculture
ea, Cristie Nicklas moved to remove the first duplicate sentence, Stephen Mokray seconded. Motion carried.
22-2-40 and 22-2-50 Mr. Anderson presented DPS changes consisting of:
22-2-50 Retain ¶'s A & B 22-2-50 and¶2 sub 22-2-60 (below)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.
Mr. Anderson added that Prime and Non Prime Agricultural is a based on a federal identification program
or concept of protecting a dwindling national resource and offered the possibility of a tiered agricultural
system. If Prime and Non Prime is eliminated there would be no need for the RE application process. The
RE process was originally developed to assist farmers to split off a piece of less productive farm ground and
not negatively effect farming operations. If prime and non prime are eliminated the RE's link to agriculture
is diminished.
Mr.Marrs stated that it is an important issue. The committee spent numerous time on this topic. There were
varied opinions in the group. There is some basic problems with the prime vs non prime some of them being
the definition. There are parts of the definition that work fine but key components of that is the availability
of the water for the ground and that is a concern for Weld County. There was a significant amount of time
spent on the importance of the land. The committee wanted to broaden the base and eliminate the
significance of the two. This would put importance on all the land not just the prime and the non prime
grounds. The comprehensive plan needed to have a vision for the next years. There was the issue of
/"` being able to obtain water with sprinkler systems. Some of the ground that once was non prime can now
be prime because the irrigation water systems are possible. The vision is to help make all agricultural lands
become"prime". The idea of a tiered agricultural zone would be good but where does the line on the map
go. This was a same desired result that was searched for and the idea was the direction for urban
development to concentrate towards the cities and discourage agricultural operation from those cities. The
committee's idea was for urban type development to occur closer to the cities. The committee does not want
intense urban development in an agricultural dominant area. The current plan does the same as a tiered
agricultural zoning. This an extremely important issue.
Michael Miller stated that this issue is going to take a good length of time and should be discussed at a
future date. Mr. Miller asked Mr.Anderson for potential hearing dates. Mr Anderson stated that April 2 has
been reserved for the Comp Plan and is available or there is the option of Special Meetings. There are
pending cases previously held off that need to be heard at the March hearing dates. There is a need to
continue to date specific.
The next meeting will be a special meeting held on Saturday, March 30, 2002 from 10:00am to 6:00pm.
Meeting adjourned at 5:15 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello