HomeMy WebLinkAbout20011152.tiff RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
APRIL 30, 2001
TAPE #2001-19
The Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, met in regular session in full conformity
with the laws of the State of Colorado at the regular place of meeting in the Weld County Centennial
Center, Greeley, Colorado, April 30, 2001, at the hour of 9:00 a.m.
ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by the Chair and on roll call the following members were
present, constituting a quorum of the members thereof:
Commissioner M. J. Geile, Chair
Commissioner Glenn Vaad, Pro-Tem
Commissioner William H. Jerke
Commissioner David E. Long
Commissioner Robert D. Masden
Also present:
County Attorney, Bruce T. Barker
Acting Clerk to the Board, Esther E. Gesick
Director of Finance and Administration, Donald D. Warden
MINUTES: Commissioner Long moved to approve the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners
meeting of April 25, 2001, as printed. Commissioner Vaad seconded the motion, and it carried
unanimously.
CERTIFICATION OF HEARINGS: Commissioner Vaad moved to approve the Certification of Hearings
conducted on April 25, 2001, as follows: 1) Final Plan for Skylark Ranch Minor Subdivision, S #586,
Robert Parsons; and 2) A Site Specific Development Plan and Amended Use by Special Review Permit
#1140, Moriah Holsteins, LLC, c/o Marcy Daniels-Gruber. Commissioner Masden seconded the motion,
which carried unanimously.
ADDITIONS TO AGENDA: There were no additions to the agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Vaad moved to approve the consent agenda as printed.
Commissioner Masden seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
PUBLIC INPUT: There was no public input.
2001-1152
BC0016
WARRANTS: Donald Warden, Director of Finance and Administration, presented the following warrants
for approval by the Board:
All Funds $1,028,763.59
Electronic Transfers -All Funds $3,097,212.83
Commissioner Masden moved to approve the warrants as presented by Mr.Warden. Commissioner Long
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
CONSIDER PURCHASE OF SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR LONELINESS OUTREACH PROGRAM AND
AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN-PIERCE SENIOR CENTER:Walt Speckman,Director of Human Services,
stated this is the standard agreement granting $1,000 to the Pierce Senior Center to be used for
operations and outreach activities. In response to Commissioners Jerke and Masden, Mr. Speckman
stated the money comes from State funding, and the intent is to get seniors out of their homes and
involved in community activities. Commissioner Vaad explained when the additional funds were received
from the State, the County asked for input from local senior centers which indicated they would use the
funds to assist with addressing loneliness among seniors. Mr. Speckman stated independent senior
citizens tend to be healthier. Commissioner Long moved to approve said agreement and authorize the
Chair to sign. Commissioner Vaad seconded the motion. Chair Geile commented the University of
Colorado conducted a study which indicates the number one issue facing seniors is loneliness and he feels
this is an important issue. Upon a call for the vote, the motion carried with Commissioner Jerke opposed.
CONSIDER 2000 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GRANT AND AUTHORIZE
CHAIR TO SIGN: Mr. Speckman stated this will conclude the 2000 grant with CDOT and he recommends
approval. Commissioner Vaad moved to approve said grant and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded
by Commissioner Long, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR EARLY HEAD START GRANT AND
AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN: Mr. Speckman stated this is a competitive grant that provides funds
allowing the Department to work with young children and get them involved in Head Start. In response to
Commissioner Masden, Mr. Speckman stated they will be competing with all of the other Head Start
programs across the country,and are requesting up to$500,000.00. Responding to Commissioners Jerke
and Masden, Mr. Speckman stated they teach the children English at a very early age,and they adjust the
program in accordance with the amount of funding granted. He stated the County will not have to
compensate for any decrease in the funding amount. In response to Chair Geile, Mr. Speckman stated
each state has twenty or thirty Head Start programs,generally based on the size of the state,and Colorado
has forty programs. Commissioner Long moved to approve said application and authorize the Chair to
sign. Seconded by Commissioner Masden, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER TWO APPLICATIONS FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR HEAD START CONTINUATION
GRANT AND COST OF LIVING/QUALITY IMPROVEMENT GRANT AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN:
Mr. Speckman stated these applications are for the annual basic Head Start Grant and the cost of living
increases for each year as done in the past. He explained staff will receive retroactive payment.
Commissioner Vaad moved to approve said applications and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by
Commissioner Long, the motion carried unanimously.
Minutes, April 30, 2001 2001-1152
Page 2 BC0016
CONSIDER TWO APPLICATIONS FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR MIGRANT HEAD START BASIC
GRANT AND COST OF LIVING/QUALITY IMPROVEMENT GRANT AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN:
Mr. Speckman stated these applications have the same terms as the prior item; however, they are for the
Migrant Head Start Programs. Commissioner Long moved to approve said applications and authorize the
Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Vaad, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER AGREEMENT FOR SNOW REMOVAL, SANDING, AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS AND
AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN - TOWN OF PIERCE: Jeff Jerome, Department of Public Works, stated
under this agreement Weld County will provide routine snow removal from Weld County Road 31, which
turns into First Street in Pierce. He stated they will also perform sanding and annual pavement marking,
and the Town will reimburse the County for the services. In response to Commissioner Jerke, Mr.Jerome
stated this will be an ongoing contract that only expires if one of the parties requests it be terminated.
Commissioner Jerke moved to approve said agreement and authorize the Chair to sign. Commissioner
Masden seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
CONSIDER CONSENT TO ACCEPTANCE OF ASSIGNMENT OF FARM LEASE AGREEMENT AND
AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN - SHIPPS FARMS, L.P.: Mr. Warden stated Mr. Shipps had the Lease
Agreement since April 18, 1979, because he farmed the land surrounding the Pierce gravel pit. Mr.
Warden explained since Mr. Shipp's death, the farm has been converted into a limited partnership, and
staff recommends approval. Commissioner Masden moved to accept said assignment of the Farm Lease
for Shipps Farms, L.P., and authorize the Chair to sign. Commissioner Jerke seconded the motion,which
carried unanimously.
CONSIDER RATIFICATION OF LETTER AGREEMENT TO ACCEPT RETURN FLOW FROM FULTON
DITCH THROUGH HENDERSON WATERSKI CLUB AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN: Lee Morrison,
Assistant County Attorney, stated this agreement allows the County to get credit for any return flow from
the Fulton Ditch used for augmentation. He explained the State Engineer requires that water be returned
to its natural flow; however, under this agreement, the return flows will go into the ski lake for the skiing
season while still allowing the County to comply with the State Engineer requirements. In response to
Commissioner Jerke, Mr. Morrison stated the ski use does not effect the County's augmentation
agreement. Commissioner Jerke moved to ratify said letter agreement and authorize the Chair to sign.
Seconded by Commissioner Masden, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER CONTRACT FOR ENERGY IMPACT ASSISTANCE GRANT FOR WCR49AND AUTHORIZE
CHAIR TO SIGN: Mr. Warden stated under this contract, Weld County will use $600,000.00 to construct
shoulders and complete other various improvements to Weld County Road 49, and he recommends
approval. Commissioner Jerke moved to approve said contract and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded
by Commissioner Masden, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONER WILLIAM H. JERKE TO PROGRESSIVE 15:
Commissioner Vaad moved to appoint Commissioner Jerke to the Progressive 15, with his term expiring
December 31, 2001. Commissioner Long seconded the motion. Upon a call for the vote, the motion
carried with Commissioner Jerke opposed.
CONSIDER ESTABLISHING MINIMUM VALUE OF FIXED ASSETS TO BE INVENTORIED IN WELD
COUNTY: Mr. Warden stated Section 29-504 of State statute requires assets valuing $5,000.00 or more
have to be inventoried and he recommends approval of the increase from the current value of$1,000.00
to $5,000.00, effective May 1, 2001. Commissioner Vaad moved to establish the minimum value of fixed
assets at $5,000.00. Commissioner Masden seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Minutes, April 30, 2001 2001-1152
Page 3 BC0016
FINAL READING OF CODE ORDINANCE #2001-2, IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND
REENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 15 VEGETATION, OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE:
Commissioner Vaad moved to read Code Ordinance#2001-2 by title only. Commissioner Jerke seconded
the motion,which carried unanimously. Chair Geile read said title into the record. Ron Broda, Department
of Public Works, explained the main changes include adding the Dalmatian toadflax to the list of weed
species that are to be controlled, as well as modifying some of the management techniques. No public
testimony was offered concerning this matter. Commissioner Vaad moved to approve Code Ordinance
#2001-2 on final reading. Commissioner Long seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
FINAL READING OF CODE ORDINANCE #2001-1, IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND
REENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 19 COORDINATED PLANNING AGREEMENTS;
CHAPTER 23 ZONING;CHAPTER 24 SUBDIVISIONS;CHAPTER 26 MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT;AND
CHAPTER 27 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE: Commissioner Vaad
moved to read Code Ordinance#2001-1 by title only. Commissioner Long seconded the motion, which
carried unanimously. Chair Geile read said title into the record. Anne Johnson, Department of Planning
Services, stated this matter was continued from April 16, 2001, to allow adequate time for a work session
to discuss some of the details of the proposal in further detail. Ms. Johnson gave a brief overview of the
proposed changes for the record.
Sam Light, Town of Firestone attorney, stated the Town entered into a Coordinated Planning Agreement
with the County in 1996 regarding concentrating urban development near urban areas or encouraging
annexation within a three-mile radius of the town. Mr. Light stated the agreement defined urban and
nonurban development, and it is the Town's position that the proposed language for this Code Ordinance
conflicts with those included in the agreement. He stated Firestone is not in favor of allowing urban
development in rural areas and is opposed to the proposed definitions. Mr. Light referred to Exhibit Y,
submitted by the County Attorney, and indicated the Town of Firestone would be in favor of the additional
sentence indicated as Proposal E on page 1, and he requested similar language also be included in the
definition of Nonurban Scale Development. In response to Chair Geile, Mr. Light stated the Coordinated
Planning Agreement approved in 1996 designated the Town's Urban Growth Boundary as an area for
future incorporation.
Bruce Nickerson,Town of Firestone Planner,concurred with Mr.Light's comments,and added there needs
to be a specific distinction between urban and nonurban areas. Mr. Nickerson stated he is in favor of
Proposal E,which would exempt existing Coordinated Planning Agreements. Chair Geile commented this
language does not apply to the Mixed Use Development area because there is a zoning overlay. In
response to Commissioner Vaad, Mr. Nickerson stated he would prefer that nonurban scale development
be allowed only in the area beyond the Urban Growth Boundary, but within three miles of the Town.
Responding to Commissioner Vaad, Mr. Barker stated the three mile area beyond the Urban Growth
Boundary is not intended for development, but rather for referral purposes. He further stated the
agreement specified the three-mile area as being from the city limits, not the Urban Growth Boundary.
Monica Mika, Director of Planning Services,explained the Comprehensive Plan was amended in 1995 and
stated the three-mile area extends from the municipality boundary. Mr. Light read a portion of the 1996
Coordinated Planning Agreement and indicated State statute allows the Town to plan for development
within the three-mile area beyond the Urban Growth Boundary, and the Coordinated Planning Agreement
was not intended to eliminate the Town's ability as allowed under State statute. Mr. Light stated the Town
is requesting it have an opportunity for input to the County as to what type of development is allowed
outside the Urban Growth Boundary area for a distance of three miles. Mr. Light stated in some areas,
the city limit has extended to coincide with the Urban Growth Boundary. Chair Geile clarified the intent of
this Code Ordinance amendment is not to override the existing Coordinated Planning Agreement,and the
proposed language will be considered with that in mind.
Minutes, April 30, 2001 2001-1152
Page 4 BC0016
Mary Harnet,LaFarge Colorado Land Division Manager, referred to Section 23-4-290-L regarding concrete
batch facilities. Ms. Harnet stated she also represents the Colorado Rock Association, and they feel the
proposed language is burdensome because concrete batch facilities are already regulated by State laws.
Chair Geile commented the language initially proposed by the Planning Commission was very restrictive.
Based on input from other large concrete operators throughout Weld County, the Board amended the
language so that it would not be as intrusive and simply ties to State regulations. Mr. Harnet stated the
Colorado Ready Mix Association already has these provisions in place, and she questioned whether a
separate enforcement action is necessary. Trevor Jiricek, Weld County Department of Public Health and
Environment,stated the County does not do routine inspections; however,they do respond to complaints,
and do have the authority to take action at the level. Ms. Harnet stated this matter appears to be
unnecessary. (Switched to Tape #2001-20.) In response to Ms. Harnet, Chair Geile commented that
because this matter was brought to the attention of the Board, they will address the Section specifically
in the motion at the conclusion of public input and discussion.
Todd Hodges, Todd Hodges Design, LLC, stated flexibility should be allowed for nonurban scale
development to encourage smart growth within proximity to the urban growth boundary areas. He stated
he is not in favor of Proposal G regarding Nonurban Scale Development. He does, however, agree with
the sentence exempting areas affected by Coordinated Planning Agreements from the new definition of
Urban Scale Development. In response to Chair Geile, Mr. Hodges stated Proposal G restricts nonurban
scale development from developing on smaller acreages,and the transition between urban and nonurban
can still be accomplished through open space and lot sizes. He also recommended the Board strike the
language as indicated in Proposal B for Urban Scale Development and Proposal C for Nonurban Scale
Development to maintain consistency. In responses to Commissioner Jerke, Mr. Hodges stated increasing
the number of lots from five to nine is not the issue; and he is concerned with the "and/or" provision in the
definition of Urban Scale Development. He explained it could potentially cause conflicts because even a
two-lot development located in close proximity could be considered urban scale. In response to
Commissioner Jerke, Mr. Hodges stated the word"or"would be appropriate in stipulating that any amount
over nine lots would automatically be considered urban scale. Mr. Barker suggested replacing "and/or"
with"and that"to indicate urban scale developments would be those that exceed nine lots and are located
in close proximity.
Stan Everitt stated the phrase"and/or'would effect certain developments near old developments, and he
is in favor of striking the entire line as indicated in Proposal B. Mr. Everitt stated he is also in favor of
striking the word "and,"as indicated in Proposal D to allow individual sewer systems in specific instances
where they would not cause a problem. He requested the Board accept Proposals C and H under
Nonurban Scale Development, and explained if Proposal C is accepted,the last sentence under Proposal
G is no longer needed. Mr. Everitt stated he is in favor of increasing the number of lots from five to nine
and exempting existing Coordinated Planning areas from the new language. He stated Item 3 of Exhibit
Y will maintain consistency, he is in favor of Item 4 - Proposals A and B, as well as Item 5 - Proposal B,
to eliminate any confusion and allow the Department of Public Works to deal with the applicant. He further
stated Proposal C is appropriate because there are other options besides paving, and Proposal D should
be accepted to allow the Department of Public Works to determine the number of accesses on a site
specific basis. Mr. Everitt stated the Proposals under Items 6 and 7 are similar, and he stated a traffic
study would be sufficient in allowing the Department of Public Works to determine whether the roads are
adequate. Finally, Mr. Everitt stated he is in favor of the cash-in-lieu option allowing for partial open space
and payment for the remaining portion. He proposed the formula be adjusted to use the appraised land
value before improvements are made, and stated on average, the property value increases three times
its original value after development.
Minutes, April 30, 2001 2001-1152
Page 5 BC0016
Fred Walker thanked staff for providing the necessary documentation of the proposed changes, and
concurred with Mr. Everitt that if Proposal C is approved, Proposal G is redundant and is no longer needed.
Mr.Walker suggested a referral method be used to implement the language proposed under paragraph K
under Item 4. He stated he agrees with Proposal B to strike paragraph M because the language is very
restrictive of personal property rights; he supports all of the proposed changes under Items 5, 6, and 7,
because the initially proposed standards were too strong; and he feels the cash-in-lieu option should use
the anticipated retail value to get the full value of the open space that is not being developed. Chair Geile
commented regarding paragraph M under Item 4, and stated Recorded Exemptions are usually applied
for in an attempt to sell a portion of agricultural land to help maintain operating expenses for the remainder
of the farm. He stated a building envelope should not be placed in such a location as to interfere with the
agricultural production and location of a home may effect or interfere with agricultural products. Mr.Walker
stated there are instances where the placement of a building envelope hinders the sale of the land if the
potential buyer does not like the location. He further stated the property owner should not be restricted
in determining the location of the building envelope. There being no further comments, Chair Geile closed
public testimony.
Chair Geile called a five minute recess. Upon reconvening, Mr.Jiricek responded to Chair Geile by stating
the Board is not required to include Section 23-4-290.L regarding concrete washing facilities referred to
by Ms. Harnet,and added the State already regulates the facilities. Commissioner Vaad commented that
although the facilities are regulated by the State, this language allows for some reinforcement by the
County if there is a complaint. Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney, stated the Weld County Health
Department functions at the local level as an agent for the State, and this Section of the Code is not the
only place that the County requires a concrete batch facility to comply with State rules. Commissioner
Jerke moved to strike Section 23-4-290.L. Commissioner Vaad seconded the motion. He commented he
supports the motion because the language is already a part of the State regulations,and the Weld County
Health Department can act as an agent for the State in addressing a complaint. Upon a call for the vote,
the motion carried with Commissioner Masden opposed.
Ms. Mika suggested the Board keep the portion proposed for deletion under Item 2 - Proposed C, and
accept Item 1 - Proposal B, but replace it with the language from Item 2. She stated she is in favor of
having a higher bench mark and then allow for exceptions. Ms. Mika further stated the word "and"should
not be deleted from the Urban Scale Development definition; however, she is in favor of adding the
sentence as indicated under Proposal E. She further stated she is in favor of Proposals A, B, and C under
Item 2, and Proposal D is not consistent with the general format of the Code; however, if it is helpful to the
public, she has no objections. Ms. Mika stated nonurban scale development, as indicated under
Proposal E, usually requires 2.5-acre lots or an overall density of 2.5 acres. She stated it is difficult to
place both a well and septic system on anything smaller. She added the word "gross" is not really going
to make a significant difference, as indicated under Item 2- Proposal F, and an overall density should be
sufficient. In response to Commissioner Vaad, Ms. Mika stated any parcel under one acre in size must
receive approval from the Health Department for a septic system. She stated Proposal G allows flexibility,
and added 80 acres is the minimum lot size in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. In response to
Commissioner Jerke, Ms. Mika stated people can apply for a Planned Unit Development on less than 80
acres. She stated during public input, the Town of Firestone representatives requested the language
indicated under Proposal B be deleted, as well as add a Proposal Ito add a final sentence to the definition
of Nonurban Scale Development to state, "This definition does not affect or apply to those Coordinated
Planning Agreements between Weld County and municipalities which are in effect as of May 14, 2001."
Chair Geile commented if an area is not annexed the property owner can apply to the County for a
development that may allow for septic systems. Mr. Barker concurred, and added any future
Intergovernmental Agreements should be consistent with the language that is approved today. Chair Geile
clarified the Board will begin with the first proposal listed on Exhibit Y and make a separate motion on each
individual item.
Minutes, April 30, 2001 2001-1152
Page 6 BC0016
Commissioner Jerke moved to accept Item 1 -Proposal A. Commissioner Masden seconded the motion,
which carried unanimously. Chair Geile clarified this number change will need to remain consistent when
making any future motions regarding this matter.
Commissioner Jerke commented he is not in favor of striking the language as indicated by Proposal B
because the 9 lots are consistent with the nature of an urban scale development. Ms. Mika reiterated that
she would prefer the language included in Proposal B be replaced to state, "not adjacent to other PUD's,
subdivisions, municipal boundaries or urban growth corridors." Commissioner Vaad moved to strike
"and/or located in close proximity" and replace it with "adjacent to". Commissioner Long seconded the
motion. Commissioner Jerke stated the term "close proximity" is sufficient because services may still be
available within a reasonable distance. Commissioner Masden concurred and stated properties should
not have to be contiguous. Upon a call for the vote, the motion failed with Commissioner Vaad in favor.
Commissioner Jerke moved to deny Proposal B and keep the language as it exists. Commissioner
Masden seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Commissioner Jerke stated he is in favor of accepting Proposal C because not every instance needs to
have a centralized or public sewer system. He stated the County does not have an Intergovernmental
Agreement with each municipality and some developers may want or need to use septic systems if public
services cannot be provided. In response to Commissioner Masden, Ms. Mika stated the Planned Unit
Development process allows various densities and infrastructure, and the Board of Commissioners can
make exceptions to the baseline rules, which allows some flexibility while not making any guarantees to
the applicant until they receive approval from the Board. Commissioner Jerke moved to accept
Proposal C. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vaad, and upon a call for a vote, it carried
unanimously.
CommissionerJerke moved to accept Proposal D. Commissioner Vaad seconded the motion. In response
to Commissioner Long, Commissioner Jerke clarified this will provide the flexibility of allowing septic
systems if it is determined that they are appropriate for the site, but require central sewer if the soils are
not adequate. Commissioner Vaad stated he is in favor of the motion because the Health Department can
not issue a septic permit if public sewer is within 400 feet of the site, and there is the option of hooking to
public sewer in the future when it becomes available. Commissioner Long expressed concern with the
potential for misinterpretation. Upon a call for the vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Jerke moved to accept Proposal E. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vaad.
In response to Commissioner Jerke, Mr. Barker explained this Code amendment will become effective
May 14, 2001, and the proposed language will not apply to Coordinated Planning Agreements which are
in effect prior to that date. Upon a call for the vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Chair Geile clarified Item 2 - Proposal A, was already addressed in a previous motion to increase the
number of lots form five to nine, and this will provide consistency.
In response to Chair Geile, Mr. Barker stated Proposal B could be stricken because it conflicts with the
previous motion of the Board to add language regarding the exemption of Coordinated Planning
Agreements effective prior to May 14, 2001. Commissioner Vaad moved to delete the language indicated
by Proposal B. Commissioner Masden seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Commissioner Jerke moved to accept Proposal C. Commissioner Long seconded the motion.
Commissioner Jerke commented because the number of lot has been increased to nine, he does not feel
that they should be forced to be adjacent to other Planned Unit Developments, etc. In response to
Commissioner Vaad, Ms. Mika stated deleting this language would allow nine sites to be placed adjacent
to another nonurban development and still all be considered nonurban scale. She stated the size is not
the issue; the design standards for an urban density will no longer be required for two adjacent nonurban
Minutes, April 30, 2001 2001-1152
Page 7 BC0016
developments. In response to Commissioner Vaad, Ms. Mika stated staff does not encourage this type
of development; however, if it is proposed, the decision for approval is left to the Board. Responding to
Commissioner Jerke, Ms. Mika stated this could result in two nonurban developments having the same
intensity as an urban development without the required development standards. She further stated the
applicant also has the option of doing a phased subdivision; however, a three-lot Recorded Exemption will
not work because of the required lot size minimums. Commissioner Vaad stated he is not in favor of the
motion because that process should not be possible without means of requiring proper infrastructure.
Commissioner Masden and Chair Geile concurred. Chair Geile stated this would allow urban scale
development to proceed in a nonurban area. Commissioner Long stated he is in favor of this motion
because it protects personal property rights. Upon a call for the vote, the motion failed with
Commissioners Jerke and Long in favor.
In response to Commissioner Vaad, Mr. Barker explained any chapter revisions will require revisions to
all references throughout the Code. Proposal D failed due to the lack of a motion,therefore,the language
will not be included.
Commissioner Jerke moved to accept Proposal E. Commissioner Vaad seconded the motion, which
carried unanimously.
Commissioner Vaad moved to accept Proposal H. Commissioner Long seconded the motion, which
carried unanimously.
Commissioner Jerke moved to accept Proposal F. Commissioner Masden seconded the motion. In
response to Commissioner Vaad, Ms. Mika stated adding the word "gross" may have an effect on the
minimum lot size, and she proposed the word "shall" be replaced with "may" because of the nature of a
PUD. Commissioners Jerke and Masden concurred to amend their motion as indicated by Ms. Mika. Upon
a call for the vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Vaad stated he is opposed to the addition indicated by Proposal G because of the potential
for having two nonurban developments resulting in impacts similar to those of an urban scale development.
Commissioner Vaad moved to deny Proposal G. Commissioner Masden seconded the motion. In
response to Commissioner Masden, Mr. Barker stated this language was proposed by staff. In response
to Commissioner Jerke, Ms. Mika explained this language was proposed in an attempt to promote cluster
developments and prevent having contiguous nonurban scale developments; however, that was prior to
increasing the number of lots from five to nine. Upon a call for the vote, the motion carried three to two
with Commissioners Long and Jerke opposed.
Commissioner Vaad moved to accept Proposal I as indicated by the Town of Firestone to add a final
sentence to state, "This definition does not affect or apply to those Coordinated Planning Agreements
between Weld County and municipalities which are in effect as of May 14, 2001." Commissioner Long
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Commissioner Long moved to accept the Proposal under Item 3. Commissioner Jerke seconded the
motion, which carried unanimously.
Commissioner Jerke requested paragraphs K, L, and M under Item 4 be considered separately.
Commissioner Jerke indicated the language seems restrictive considering the various use of land on
Recorded Exemptions, including water agreements, and tenant/lease agreements. Ms. Mika stated this
language was added to help address concerns of irrigation companies which were being impacted by the
land splits. She stated the proposed language is consistent with current Recorded Exemption practices,
and helps to ensure the appropriate agencies are contacted. In response to Commissioners Vaad and
Jerke, Ms. Mika stated staff relies on referrals from irrigation companies, and controversial maters are
Minutes, April 30, 2001 2001-1152
Page 8 BC0016
brought to the Board. Commissioner Vaad moved to add paragraph K. Commissioner Long seconded
the motion. In response to Commissioner Masden, Mr. Barker stated this issue is not addressed in Weld
County's Right to Farm, and added this language provides an additional precaution for protection of the
existing ditch easements. Commissioner Jerke stated this language is not necessary because the County
should not determine how irrigation water is used on property. Commissioners Vaad and Long withdrew
their motions. Commissioner Jerke moved to strike paragraph K. Commissioner Masden seconded the
motion, which carried unanimously.
In response to Commissioner Jerke, Mr. Barker stated as proposed, there would be a condition on every
Recorded Exemption to help mitigate additional accesses onto County roads. Chair Geile called a five
minute recess. Upon reconvening, Ms. Mika proposed L be amended to state, "Recorded Exemptions
shall mitigate impacts of additional access to Weld County roads." Commissioner Jerke moved to accept
the language as proposed by Ms. Mika. Commissioner Masden seconded the motion. Upon a call for the
vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Jerke moved to strike paragraph M. Commissioner Masden seconded the motion.
Commissioner Jerke commented a Recorded Exemption is necessary for promoting agriculture and it is
unlikely that a farmer will place a building envelope in the middle of prime agricultural land. Commissioner
Vaad commented that has happened in the past, although it does run opposite of Weld County's policy;
however, he is sympathetic to the private property rights of Weld County residents. Ms. Mika stated this
language does allow flexibility for the placement of building envelopes, as long as they don't impact the
agricultural production of the remaining land. She further stated staff can administratively change the
building envelopes if necessary. Chair Geile stated he does not support the motion because conflicts can
be addressed and settled by the Board, and if this language is not there, then the Department of Planning
Services is forced to make the decision. He stated that although he understands the concern for private
property rights, there needs to be some considerations for the preservation of agricultural land.
Commissioners Vaad and Long concurred. Commissioner Vaad stated staff will still have the flexibility to
allow modifications to the building envelopes, and this language is just a precaution. Upon a call for the
vote, the motion failed with Commissioners Jerke and Masden in favor.
Drew Scheltinga, Department of Public Works, stated staff supports the addition of all four sentences
indicated under Proposal A. He stated Weld County does not have very thorough design standards, and
the language is intended to allow use of minimum design criteria,with the realization that other standards
may need to be considered. Commissioner Jerke moved to accept Proposal A. Commissioner Masden
seconded the motion, which upon a call for the vote, carried unanimously.
Commissioner Jerke commented the word"will"could be replaced with"may" because in some cases the
minimum design criteria is adequate. Commissioner Jerke moved to deny Proposal B, and replace the
word "will" with "may." Commissioner Masden seconded the motion. Commissioner Vaad expressed
concern that some developers turn in minimum designs and without clear direction, they are required to
submit numerous versions until staff determines that it is adequate. Mr. Scheltinga stated draft manuals
could be assembled; however, staff tries to work with the applicants as reasonably as possible, and in
some cases, the plans are very poor. Upon a call for the vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Jerke moved to accept Proposal C. Commissioner Vaad seconded the motion, and upon
a call for the vote, the motion carried unanimously.
In response to Commissioner Jerke regarding Proposal D, Mr. Scheltinga recommended the second
sentence not be deleted, and that the proposed sentence be replaced to state, "A second access may be
permitted to internal subdivision lots onto internal subdivision roads only." He explained requiring an
access plan for each lot is too much for review work. He stated the Department of Planning Services
reviews each individual lot at the building permit phase, and he proposed a second access could be
Minutes, April 30, 2001 2001-1152
Page 9 BC0016
allowed if it is on an internal street. Commissioner Jerke stated he has no opposition to allowing circle
drives that are internal to a subdivision, and he moved to keep the second sentence as it exists, and
replace the proposed language as indicated by Mr. Scheltinga. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Long. Upon a call for the vote, the motion carried unanimously.
CommissionerJerke commented he is in favor of striking the language as indicated by Proposal B because
the large developers will likely provide the necessary services, and spelling out the specific traffic
construction requirements may be excessive for small developers. Commissioner Vaad commented the
language is silent as to how the money is repaid or if it is at all, but regardless, the public needs to have
an complete road and there have been instances where a large developer requested they only be required
to construct half of the road adjacent to their development. Mr. Scheltinga submitted proposed language,
marked Exhibit Z, and stated some have expressed concern that a development may not have a large
enough impact to necessitate the designated type of road in the area. He stated his proposed language,
as indicated in Exhibit Z, could apply to adjacent, as well as off-site improvements and is dependent upon
the direct impacts of the development. Commissioner Jerke stated some areas have already been studied
and it may be redundant to require separate plans from each new developer in the area. Commissioner
Masden suggested changing the word "all" so that the language is not so inclusive. Commissioner Jerke
commented the fourth sentence also seems to be excessive in requiring acceptance by the Board of
Commissioners. Mr. Barker stated the fourth sentence needs to be amended to replace the word
"accepted" with "considered." In response to Commissioner Vaad, Mr. Scheltinga commented staff is
simply requesting a roadway design; the developer may only build that portion of the road which the
development directly impacts. Chair Geile expressed concern that a developer may be prohibited from
completing the development if the transportation study is not approved. Commissioner Vaad moved to
accept Proposal A, and modify the last sentence to strike "accepted" and replace it with "considered."
Commissioner Masden seconded the motion,and upon a call for the vote,the motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Vaad moved to accept Proposal B, and amend the fourth sentence to state, "Structural
Road Improvements. Adjacent roadways shall be designed to meet the full typical section specified in the
Weld County Transportation Plan and Chapter 24 of this Code. Improvements may include the
construction of travel lanes, shoulders, bike lanes, medians, curb, gutter and sidewalks, for example.
Required improvements may also include the acquisition of right-of-way and construction easements that
will be dedicated to the public. Improvements attributed to the development shall be consistent with the
direct impact a particular development has on the County road system. The Road Improvements
Agreement and Roadway Construction Plans shall be considered by the Board of County Commissioners."
Commissioner Masden seconded the motion. Upon a call for the vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Jerke commented the Department of Public Works'approval or denial of the transportation
study may place the developer in a tough situation. Commissioner Vaad moved to add, "as determined
by a transportation study approved by the Department of Public Works" to the end of the sentence
proposed by the previous motion. Commissioner Masden seconded the motion. Upon a call for the vote,
the motion failed with Commissioner Vaad in favor. Commissioner Masden moved to add,"as determined
by a professional transportation study" to the end of the sentence. Commissioner Jerke seconded the
motion, which carried unanimously. Commissioner Vaad concurred following confirmation by Mr.
Scheltinga that the transportation study is signed by an engineer. Mr. Barker stated Section 27-4-20.E.16
has the same language Section 26-2-80.C.4 as proposed by Mr. Scheltinga and amended by the Board.
He recommended Section 27-4-20.E.16 be amended to remain consistent. Commissioner Vaad moved
to amend Section 27-4-20.E.17 as suggested by Mr. Barker. Commissioner Long seconded the motion,
which carried unanimously.
Commissioner Masden stated Proposals A and B under Item 7 are the same as those just approved under
Item 6. He moved to Section 27-6-50.B.11 as approved in the previous motion. Commissioner Vaad
seconded the motion, and upon a call for the vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Minutes, April 30, 2001 2001-1152
Page 10 BC0016
Chair Geile read the proposed changes for the record. Commissioner Vaad moved to accept Proposal A.
Commissioner Long seconded the motion. In response to Commissioner Jerke, Chair Geile commented
if the appraiser is selected by the applicant and Board of Commissioners and there is no agreement, the
cash-in-lieu option cannot be used. Commissioner Jerke questioned why the Commissioners need to be
involved in the selection process. Mr. Barker stated the Board should have no reason to object to a
selected appraiser if they have the appropriate documentation as to their qualifications. Commissioners
Vaad and Long amended their motion to accept Proposal A for addition of Section 27-6-80.B.8.e, but
delete the second to last sentence so the Board of Commissioners is not involved. Upon a call for the
vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Johnson stated staff gave careful consideration to the original formula so that it would be proportional
to the gain on the property and not take more than was necessary. She explained the original formula is
also based on percentages and value on the actual gains,and she expressed concern with multiplying the
appraised value of the undeveloped land by three as proposed by Mr. Everitt. In response to
Commissioner Jerke, Ms. Johnson stated the term "undeveloped" is ambiguous. Commissioner Jerke
commented the value of the undeveloped land also depends on whether it is productive farm land or barren
land. Commissioner Jerke moved to deny Proposal B. Commissioner Masden seconded the motion.
Upon a call for the vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Long moved to approve Code Ordinance #2001-1 on final reading with the amendments
as discussed. Commissioner Jerke seconded the motion, and upon a call for the vote,the motion carried
unanimously. (Clerk's Note: changes were made to all applicable section references as indicated in
Exhibit Y.)
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES: The resolutions were presented and signed as listed on the consent
agenda. Code Ordinance #2001-1 was approved on final reading with changes.
Let the minutes reflect that the above and foregoing actions were attested to and respectfully submitted
by the Acting Clerk to the Board.
There being no further business, this meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
'-_` WELD CTY, COLORADO
ATTEST: 4i44/1///72t IE I� •
A /. ?' ftt"
�J
Weld County Clerk to the Bo.I•.bi g:':`6, /
/ fir. � AV? a.:44L
� Glenn Vaad, pi
BY: �i„ '�._ 's I� , -''�
Deputy Clerk to the Board i� e, 1 ; (.✓//��
Wil ' H. Jerke
Eda,
vid o g ^^\AiRobert D. Masden
Minutes, April 30, 2001 2001-1152
Page 11 BC0016
Hello