HomeMy WebLinkAbout20011149.tiff CAROL Harding - COUNTYCODELETTER#2.doc Page 1
WELD COUNTY
� .S
n1 11°..R 20 AM 9: 23
March 19, 2001
REC = ','L=D
Weld County Commissioners
915 10'" Street
Greeley,Colorado 80631
Dear Commissioner:
I want to say that the discussion at last Thursday's meeting about revisions to the County
Code was stimulating, and hopefully a balance between development requirements and
individual landowner rights can be achieved.
Changing the wording in the definition of Non-Urban Development by deleting the
adjacent to language is a big step toward fairness to all property owners in a given area.
As I mentioned on Thursday,many people want to live in a low density rural
development because it offers more separation between homes, enhanced views, less noise, less
traffic, an opportunity to have larger animals as pets, and a safer place for their children to play,
especially if their children wander out onto the less traveled internal road. The higher market
price of these lots is the true indicator of where people want to live and raise their families.
I have had conversations with people on the Windsor Planning Commission about low
density rural developments, and they see this type of development as a way to preserve the
character of the town.
This low density development could be incorporated in the non-urban definition or as a
third development definition. The main components of this low density development would
include: a minimum density(overall gross lot acreages no smaller than), public water, adequate
sewage disposal,roads, and storm drainage. Development standards that included such things as
curb and gutter,sidewalks, and bike paths are appropriate for developments in urban areas but
not in a rural setting. Snow removal and maintenance of these things are two examples of
excessive burdens to large lot owners and their homeowner associations.
Page 11 of the revisions document has a proposed definition of urban-scale development.
This new definition now requires both central water and sewer. I propose that the word"and"
between water and sewer be deleted and a comma be placed after water. There was discussion at
Thursday's meeting about whether the Soaring Eagle Ranch approved development was urban
scale development or not. In the planning staffs comments to the planning commission,one of
the reasons for recommending denial of the application was the fact that it was urban scale
development. The planning staff and counsel may have resisted the application,but the fact
remains that Soaring Eagle was approved and it had both septic systems and more than five lots
(114).
Pages 26 thru page 31 seem to be excessive and cost prohibitive to some developments.
Traffic studies for minor's and pedestrian rights-of-ways of ten feet are some examples.
Page 32 (24-8-80)refers to protection of irrigation practices,the flow of irrigation water,
and the access to the irrigation system. This section could be used to attempt to couple water
rights to the land to preserve prime irrigated agricultural lands. As president of one of the major
mutual ditch companies in the State of Colorado,I can tell you that water rights are real
property in this state and can only be tied to the land if done so in the by-laws of the mutual
ditch that holds the decrees or the individual himself
EXHIBIT
CAROL Harding - COUNTYCODELETTER#2.doc Page 2
Water rights in the Larimer and Weld County areas are being converted in"change of use
cases"at an increasing rate due to the growth. "Change of use cases" is the legal term for
changing the water use from it's original decreed use,such as agricultural,to either industrial or
municipal use. When the change occurs,the water rights becomes much more valuable. If
owners of irrigated lands are not given some better options for economically feasible
development,their water will go somewhere else. As the market attracts more and more water
out of agriculture,the land could turn into a weed patch, like some of the open space in Boulder
County. The tax revenues from the land will decrease,especially compared to the potential
revenues from some sort of development on the land.
Page 41(sec. 27-4-50) asks to limit the time to one year from the date of staff comments
on a sketch plan to the submittal for change of zone. This is too restrictive given the number of
developmental standards the applicant must resolve before change of zone. My suggestion
would be two years,with extentions, if the applicant can show just cause.
Substantial change#5 starting on page 41 strikes me as being very open ended and
subject to differing interpretations. In road impact fee areas of Weld County,wouldn't those fees
generated address improving adjacent roadways (27-7-30.J)? Requiring the purchase of rights-
of-ways to lands owned by someone else,who may not be a willing seller, is also a concern of
mine.
I will not be able to attend the second reading, so I have written to you instead. Thank
you for reading my comments.
Fred Walker
WORK SESSION NOTES
MARCH 15, 2001
TAPE #2001-12
The Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, met for a work 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, Thursday, March 15, 2001, at the hour of 8:00 a.m.
ROLL CALL: The work session was called to order by the Chair and 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 - EXCUSED
REGARDING 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:Anne Best Johnson, Department
of Planning Services, gave a brief description of the proposed minor changes to Chapter 19. In response
to Chair Geile, Ms. Johnson stated a Use by Special Review (USR) Permit will only be required for
commercial arenas. Commissioner Vaad clarified Section 23-2-40.B states a USR is required for activities
carried out on a fee or contract basis. Responding to Commissioner Vaad, Ms. Johnson stated the two
additional items under this section will be renumbered correctly for second reading. Following further
review, Ms. Johnson responded to Commissioner Jerke by stating citizens will still be able to appeal the
Board of Adjustment decisions.
In response to Arlan Maars, County resident, regarding Section 23-2-200.G.2, Lee Morrison, Assistant
County Attorney, stated a USR does not need to be amended when creating a separate parcel, that is a
separate planning process. Responding to Commissioner Jerke, Ms. Johnson stated applicants are
currently required to determine the mineral owners and under this amendment, they will also be required
to provide evidence of an agreement with the mineral owners. Mr. Morrison stated the last addition under
Minor Change#7 is intended to require the applicant to enter into an agreement with the ditch companies,
or make an attempt to mitigate the ditch company's concerns. Commissioner Jerke suggested the last
sentence be incorporated into the statement prior to the "or" option.
Brad James expressed concern with oil and gas production leases hampering the surface uses. Mr.
Morrison stated if a mineral interest agreement cannot be reached, then the Board can determine if an
adequate attempt has been made. Following further review, Ms. Johnson stated some conservation
easements include terms for tax benefits. Mr. Morrison added each conservation easement will refer to
other documents, and the definition needs to indicate that easements require a perpetual term.
Fred Walker stated he proposed the definition of"conservation easement" at the Planning Commission
meeting, and he explained the intent is to acknowledge the impact of a conservation easement on a piece
of property. Responding to Chair Geile, Mr. Walker stated under his proposed definition, a conservation
easement cannot be developed in the future, and the land owner holds the title, can restrict access, and
has the right to transfer the property.
4 EXHIRIT
j
*Or• tor/
Arlan Maars stated as the Planning Commission considered the proposed definition; however, there was
concern regarding whether the land will remain in its natural state. (Switched to Tape #2001-13.) Ms.
Johnson stated each conservation easement is different and this definition does not determine what is
absolutely required. Mr. Morrison suggested they simply reference the definition from State statute since
that has to be followed anyway. Responding to Commissioner Vaad, Ms. Johnson stated building
envelopes are used in developments as an attempt to preserve the remaining agricultural land.
Responding to Commissioner Vaad, Ms. Johnson stated the public can refer to the bulk requirements
regarding septic system design. Fred Walker stated a property owner should be allowed to place a home
wherever he chooses on his land and indicated building envelopes are too restrictive.
Todd Hodges stated the overlay districts have setback restrictions in relation to the septic systems.
Responding to Commissioner Vaad, Ms. Hodges stated most people are not familiar with the bulk
requirements and he feels the definition should be more specific. Ms. Johnson stated she will propose
language at the second reading. Arlan Maars stated building envelopes are restrictive, and he suggested
the property owner be allowed to designate several building envelopes, and allowing the land owner to
have the final say in where the home will be placed.
Ms. Johnson reviewed the definition of a "cluster," and stated it would be appropriate to amend the
definition of "conservation easement" so that it simply references the definition in the State statutes.
Commissioner Vaad commented additions to an agricultural conservation easement can specify
allowances for improvements that maintain the land,such as sprinklers,barns,sheds,accessory structures
to a farm. Mr. Morrison stated there is a mechanism for terminating a conservation easement; however,
it may result in some taxation penalties. Mr. Morrison stated he and Ms. Johnson will propose new
language for the definition of"conservation easement"for second reading. Ms.Johnson stated a sentence
will be added to the definition of"mobile home." Responding to Chair Geile, Monica Mika stated if a mobile
home is lawful, the use will be allowed to continue as a nonconforming use. She stated this definition is
specific to mobile homes located in the unincorporated areas of Weld County in the Agricultural Zone
District. Mr. Morrison clarified the addition does not apply to modular homes. In response to Todd
Hodges, Ms. Johnson stated this applies to mobile homes only, not structures designed for storage.
In response to Commissioner Jerke, Ms. Mika stated new mobile homes that are moved in will have to
adhere to today's standards, and added that a Mobile Home Pad is not allowed in Flood Hazard Overlay
District. Chair Geile commented the definition of"Non-Urban Scale Development"be amended to ensure
that a Homeowners'Association is established. Mr. Morrison stated this is only the definition, the actual
requirements for a Homeowners' Association are dealt within a different section of the Code.
Commissioner Jerke suggested "gross acreage" be added to the definition of Non-Urban Scale
Development on public water and septic systems for second reading. Ms. Johnson noted the Minor
Subdivision process is based on five or fewer lots, and is considered to be non-urban in nature; however,
the proposed amendment may require further amendments to the definitions of a Minor and Major
Subdivision. Stan Everitt suggested Minor Change #1 under Chapter 24 also be amended from five to
eight lots if this definition change is approved. He further stated Non-Urban Scale Developments should
not be restricted from locating adjacent to other developments. Commissioner Vaad commented the intent
is to preserve agricultural land, and questioned whether adjacent also included locating across the street
from an existing development. Mr. Morrison stated several non-urban scale developments located
adjacent to each other appear to become an urban scale development without the proper improvements.
He suggested an amendment which will allow the land owner the opportunity to display how they are not
superceding the intent of the minor subdivision process. Ms. Mika stated this language is intended to
maintain consistency of the infrastructure between separate development, and added non-urban scale
developments allow flexibility. Mr. Everitt commented that if a development is located within an urban
growth boundary area, the municipality will have the opportunity to review the proposal. In response to Mr.
Everitt, Ms. Johnson stated agricultural land would allow for clusters. Mr. Morrison suggested the second
Work Session Notes, March 15, 2001
Page 2
sentence be amended to replace the word "shall"with "may," and Ms. Johnson suggested the sentence
also be amended to replace "agricultural production" with "agricultural purposes," and correct the word
"framing" to "farming." Mr. Morrison clarified this amendment will need to remain consistent with State
statute.
Todd Hodges stated he concurs with Mr. Everitt's concern with limiting the allowance of development
adjacent to existing subdivisions or planned unit developments. He stated this language dictates if they
are located adjacent to urban scale development,they must also develop as an urban scale development.
Mr. Hodges suggested the Board consider a number other than eight(8)lots for non-urban developments.
He stated the number of lots should be consistent with the number of lots allowed per well. Commissioner
Jerke suggested nine (9) be allowed since three residences are allowed for each water well.
Fred Walker stated the Board needs to ensure the definition provides consistency for all landowners, and
the preclusion of developments adjacent to existing development will prevent some from developing their
land. He discussed his definition of"suburban scale development," and stated he is in favor of allowing
potable water if it can be brought up to public water standards; however, he is not in favor of private wells
in urban areas. Ms. Mika stated if the Board approves the change to the definition of"non-urban scale,"
the twelve municipalities that have intergovernmental agreements with the County should be notified.
Arlan Maars stated the current proposed changes to the definition of"non-urban scale"set up a first-come,
first-serve situation, which is unfair. However, if non-urban scale developments are allowed to locate
adjacent to municipalities, they may need to have more standards for development.
Chair Geile called a five minute recess. Upon reconvening, Ms. Johnson reviewed the proposed changes
to the definition of"non-urban scale development,"and added staff will also review the definitions of major
and minor subdivisions. She indicated the Mountain View Fire Protection District and the Sheriff's Office
have expressed concern with increasing the number of lots from five to eight. Regarding the definition of
"Recreational Vehicles," Wendi Inloes, Department of Planning Services, stated the proposed definition
is consistent with previous findings of the Board regarding violations involving recreational vehicles.
Responding to Commissioner Jerke, Ms. Johnson stated the definition of"Training Facilities"will require
a Use by Special Review Permit if the facility exceeds the number of animal units allowed on the property
by right. Chair Geile commented the definition of Urban Scale Development does not allow for wells, other
than those defined as public water systems.
In response to Commissioner Jerke, Ms. Johnson stated the definition of "urban scale development"
implies that it does not allow individual sewer systems. Mr. Everitt proposed the word "and" be removed
from the definition. Ms. Mika explained staff has been defining urban scale as those developments which
require urban support services and the word "and" should be left in.
Ms. Johnson reviewed Substantial Change#2,which clarifies mobile homes cannot be used as accessory
structures. Wendi Inloes stated there have been a lot of violations with accessory structures. Ms.Johnson
stated this amendment clarifies the application process, and specifies that temporary mobile homes must
be blocked and tied. She stated engineered foundations are only required in the Flood Hazard Overlay
District. Ms. Mika stated recreational vehicles can be allowed for temporary construction, and no more
than two mobile homes can be attached to a dwelling unit. Responding to Commissioner Jerke, Ms.
Johnson stated this amendment will prevent business from having two signs on the face of a building,and
staff usually recommends a monument sign with the various businesses be posted. The Board concurred
with Commissioner Vaad that item #2 under Substantial Change #3 should be deleted. In response to
Commissioner Geile, Ms. Johnson stated flags will not be considered as signs. Responding to
Commissioner Vaad, Ms.Johnson explained Section 23-4-30.F is being added to ensure that parking lots
within a commercial development are consistent in the type of surface used. She continued by stating
Work Session Notes, March 15, 2001
Page 3
Substantial Change#5 is designed to ensure no development is allowed in the floodway. She explained
the floodway is only two percent of the flood plain, and the applicant can challenge FEMA's determination
as to the floodway boundary. Following further review, Ms. Johnson explained to Chair Geile that more
than one temporary accessory structure may be permitted for storing agricultural goods. Regarding
Substantial Change#7,TrevorJiricek,Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment,stated
the only other County that requires storage and recycling of effluent from concrete batch facilities is Denver
County. He explained recycling of effluent is difficult and may be unnecessary because the facilities are
already required to follow State and Federal rules. Responding to Commissioner Vaad, Mr. Jiricek stated
groundwater is also considered a State water and holding ponds must be lined to prevent seepage into
groundwater. He proposed this section reference the State and Federal regulations,and he read proposed
language for the record that removes the requirement for recycling.
Ms. Johnson reviewed the various minor and major changes to Chapter 24. In response to Chair Geile,
Frank Hempen, Jr., Director of Public Works, stated six lots on a stump street can be continued at a later
date. Diane Houghtaling stated the length of six lots is short enough for fire trucks to back out, but longer
than that requires a turn-a-round. In response to Commissioner Vaad, Mr. Hempen stated items 7, 8,and
9, under Section 24-7-20.A can be deleted because they are being added to the appendices. In response
to Commissioner Jerke, Ms. Houghtaling stated item #14 indicates a maximum of 1,500 feet for safety
purposes,and added emergency services will have an opportunity for input on specific cases. She further
stated shorter stretches of road help reduce the speeds.
In response to Mr. Everitt, Ms. Houghtaling stated the new street design for a minor subdivision does not
require a paved road, and added minor subdivisions must have all lots accessing off of the internal road.
Responding further to Mr. Everitt, Mr. Hempen explained trip generation can be determined with some
flexibility based on each situation. Mr. Everitt suggested the Board consider a hybrid road design for
specific situations. Responding to Commissioner Jerke, Mr. Hempen stated Section 24-7-50.K only
applies within a subdivision, no individual parcels.
Concerning Substantial Change#5, Todd Hodges suggested some flexibility be allowed for active cases.
Mr. Morrison stated there is an opportunity for the property owner to show the proposed use is being
pursued, and added this refers only to the Sketch Plan phase. Mr. Hodges stated he would like to ensure
that the one-year deadline apply only to those where no action is taking place. Commissioner Jerke
suggested the addition be amended to change "shall"to "may" in the last sentence. Mr. Morrison stated
the vested rights law has changed and he wants to ensure there aren't different rules for different cases
based on when they were submitted. Mr. Hodges stated there are instances when the applicant may be
actively pursuing a development; however, delays are caused by other agencies that cannot be controlled
by the applicant. He stated those instances should not be required to resubmit a Sketch Plan.
Fred Walker stated there are two processes an applicant can follow and he agrees there should be some
flexibility based on the individual circumstances of each case. Ms. Johnson stated the first sentence of
Substantial Change #6 will be amended to replace the word "underlying" with "overlaying." Pam Smith,
Department of Public Health and Environment,stated the stricken portions of Substantial Change#6 were
done at request of the Planning Commission; however, she expressed concern that those changes may
be inconsistent with the I.S.D.S. Regulations.
Ms. Johnson reviewed the proposed substantial changes to Chapter 26 regarding structural road
improvements and definitions to be included under the cash-in-lieu regulations.
Ms. Johnson reviewed the proposed changes to Chapter 27. Pam Smith stated the Planning Commission
also removed sentences similar to those discussed in the Subdivision section, and again she expressed
concern that the change may be inconsistent with other existing regulations. In response to Commissioner
Work Session Notes, March 15, 2001
Page 4
Jerke, Ms. Johnson stated the scenic corridors are determined through the cash-in-lieu options.
Commissioner Vaad commented the term"scenic corridor"should be termed as a"view corridor"to ensure
there are not conflicts as to the definition of "scenic." Ms. Smith stated at the request of Mr. Everitt,
Sections 24-7-70 and 27-2-176 could be amended to state,"Enhanced treatment systems can incorporate
one or more of the following..."
Fred Walker reiterated the definition of suburban would address many issues and asked the board to
consider his proposal.
Stan Everitt concurred there is a void between the types of development, and the third category proposed
by Mr. Walker may adequately address that issue. Mr. Everitt also referred to Section 26-2-40.C.2 and
asked that the time of valuation for the land be determined.
There being no further business, this work session was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.
Work Session Notes, March 15, 2001
Page 5
CAROL�-larding -Weld Code comments 3-2001 doc u 4 Page 1
_______
WELD COUNTY
7001 MAR 21 AM 8: 29
RECEIVED
Thank you for your presentation of the revisions and additions to the Weld County Codes
last Wednesday. I am particularly appreciative of Commissioner Geile's willingness to
engage in a thorough discussion of these changes so everyone can gain a good
understanding of what is being proposed. I agree that, for the most part, the revisions
presented are "house cleaning" items and will help in the interpretation and execution of
the Code, but there are some elements in the draft that have significant influence on how
things are done in Weld County.
There are two major items that I would like to discuss, and three minor items that are
more clarification than dispute.
Major Items:
1) New definition of"URBAN-SCALE DEVELOPMENT."
This new definition requires all developments that are not NON-URBAN SCALE
(more than 9 lots or clustered equivalent to 17.5 acre lots) to have central sewer,
regardless of the size of the lots, the conditions of the property, or any other variables.
Clearly this is a significant change. Other sections of the Code make reference to
upgrading septic systems with enhanced treatment, management and maintenance, and I
believe that these more stringent requirements will alleviate the concerns about septic
systems in new developments. If Weld County wants to exclude all developments over 9
lots from being on septic systems then this would have major consequence throughout the
County.
2) The other major concern I have is in the areas concerning road standards. There
are several changes being proposed to road design and construction that may have
profound impacts on all developments in the County. I fully recognize that internal and
external roads must be built to high standards to meet the health and safety needs of the
citizens of the County as well as the residents of new subdivisions, but it appears that
some of the new requirements are excessive and may not be achievable or practical.
Also, there are several references to other documents and/or appendices that are not a part
of this package that I have for review. I think it is important to have Appendices #24-D
and#24-E, the Colorado State Highway Access Code (2 C.C.R. 601.1 Chapters 3 and 4),
a Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, published by the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; the Guide for Design of
Pavement Structures the Trip Generation Manual, and the Weld County Transportation
Plan and other support documents all put together in one package for review along with
these code revisions since these documents will be used as the basis for design and
construction of roads. I believe these documents describe very urban standards that
would not be appropriate to use in most of Weld County. It would be very helpful to
everyone if there were a presentation of what the existing standards are compared to the
proposed standards. I would suggest that the following be removed from adoption at this
l EXHIBIT
S
oL lkrft liZo4-
CAROL.Harding-Weld Code comments 3-20-01.doc Page 2
time so more information about what these changes really mean can be presented and
understood:
a) Substantial Change#2 of Chapter 24: SUBDIVISIONS on pages 26-31;
b) Substantial Change#3 of Chapter 24: SUBDIVISIONS 24-4-40.D.3 on page 31;
c) Substantial Change #1 of Chapter 26: MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT on page
34;
d) Substantial Change #5 of Chapter 27, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT on
page 41.
Minor Items:
1) Section 23-5-250 dealing with development in the floodway eliminates the
possibility of replacing existing crossings or other non-residential improvements such as
fencing, corrals, etc., which may get damaged or need maintaining, that are in the
floodway. With all of the creeks, ditches, rivers and other waterways in Weld County
that are on farms and ranches, it seems practical to allow for these replacements and/or
maintenance without being in violation of the Code.
2) The timing for Sketch Plan review should be extended to 2 years with additional
1-year extensions available, if needed.
3) Appraisals for cash-in-lieu payments for open space should be done based on the
undeveloped value of the land. The language in the Code is not very clear and appraisers
would have difficulty determining a value based on the unclear direction given.
Thanks again for allow me to comment on these revisions. I look forward to discussing
them again at the second reading on March 26th.
Sincerely,
Stanley K. Everitt
Executive Vice President
SKE:dr
CAROL Harding - Code Page 1
From: Anne Johnson
To: Harding, CAROL
Date: 3/19/01 12:14PM
Subject: Code
27-1-96 was deleted at first reading.
EXHIBIT
CAROL Harding - Re: County Code Page 1 i
From: Anne Johnson
To: Jiricek, TREVOR
Date: 3/22/01 3:38PM
Subject: Re: County Code
Thanks. I'll forward to Carol Harding and read the proposal into the record.
>>>TREVOR Jiricek 03/22/01 01:59PM >>>
Anne-
Suggest you make one minor change to proposed Section 23-4-290.L. (this is the section pertaining to
vehicle washing at concrete batch plants). The change is: prior to the phrase"Water Quality Control
Division" add the word "Colorado". Probably not a big deal but definitely adds some clarity....Sorry for the
late notice....
Trevor Jiricek
Environmental Health Services
Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment
tiiricek(@co.weld.co.us
970-304-6415 Extension 2214
>>>Anne Johnson 03/19/01 04:24PM >>>
Attached is the Code for the second reading. Also attached are changes to be made from 1st to 2nd
reading at the 2nd reading. Please review all sections pertaining to your agency to make sure these are
correct.
CC: Harding, CAROL
4 EXHIBIT
-)
Overall: All reference to the Right to Farm Covenant shall be changed to "Weld County's Right to Farm."
CHAPTER 23
ZONING
Add and amend definitions in 23-1-90:
Add BUILDING ENVELOPE: The two-dimensional space within which a structure(s) is permitted to be
built on a lot. The bulk requirements addressed in this Code shall also be followed.
Add one of the two following definitions of Conservation Easement:
CONSERVATION EASEMENT: An encumberance upon an identified parcel of land stipulating
the restriction on additional or future development. The grant of a property right stipulating that
the described land will remain in its natural state and preclude future or additional
development. The easement removes-restricts the development rights to the land, but the
landowner still holds the title to the property, the right to restrict public access, and the right to
sell, give, or transfer ownership of the property.
Identical to the definition of "Conservation Easement in gross"found at§ 38-30.5-102 C.R.S.
as of April 30, 2001 which reads as follows: A right in the owner of the easement to prohibit or
require a limitation upon or an obligation to perform acts on or with respect to a land or water
area or airspace above the land or water owned by the grantor appropriate to the retaining or
maintaining of such land, water, or airspace, including improvements, predominantly in a
natural, scenic, or open condition, or for wildlife habitat, or for agricultural, horticultural,
recreational, forest, or other use or condition consistent with the protection of open land having
wholesome environmental quality or life-sustaining ecological diversity, or appropriate to the
conservation and preservation of buildings, sites, or structures having historical, architectural,
or cultural interest or value.
Amend LIVESTOCK: Table 23-1C
Table 23-1C
Animal Units in the R-1 (Low-Density Residential)
Zone District
Number of
Animals Maximum
Equivalent Number
Animal Unit to one Per
Equivalents Animal Unit Acre
Cattle 1 1 2
Horse 1 1 2
Swine 1 1 1
Sheep .2 5 10
Goat .2 5 10
Poultry .02 50 100
Rabbit .02 50 100
Amend NON-URBAN SCALE DEVELOPMENT. Developments comprised of eight (8) Nine (9) or
fewer residential lots, located in a non-urban area as defined in Chapter 22 of this Code and current
Intergovernmental Agreements, not ADJACENT to other PUDs, subdivisions, municipal boundaries or
EXHIBIT
1 N
e*k Amts-
urban growth corridors. NON-URBAN SCALE DEVELOPMENT shall also include land used or
capable of being used for agricultural production and including developments which combine
clustered residential uses and agricultural uses in a manner that the agricultural lands are suitable for
framing farming and ranching operations for the next forty (40) years. NON-URBAN SCALE
DEVELOPMENT on PUBLIC WATER and septic systems shall have a minimum lot size of one (1)
acre and an overall gross density of two and one-half (2%) acres per septic system. NON-URBAN
SCALE DEVELOPMENT proposing individual, private wells and septic systems shall have a minimum
lot size of two and one-half (2%) acres per lot. A NON-URBAN SCALE PUD preserving a minimum
80-acre agricultural out-lot may be located adjacent to other NON-URBAN SCALE PUD's which also
preserve a minimum 80-acre agricultural out-lot.
Amend URBAN SCALE DEVELOPMENT: DEVELOPMENTS exceeding eight (8) Nine (9) lots and/or
located in close proximity to existing PUD's, subdivisions, municipal boundaries or urban growth
corridors and boundaries. All URBAN SCALE DEVELOPMENTS shall pave the internal road systems
of the DEVELOPMENTS. URBAN SCALE DEVELOPMENT requires support services such as central
water and sewer systems, road networks, park and recreation facilities and programs, and storm
drainage and other similar services which are typically furnished by a municipality.
Add 23-2-260.A.8, 23-2-370.D.2.k, 23-4-260.G.12, 23-2-50.B.14, and 23-2-160.Z. The applicant shall submit
to the Department of Planning Services a copy of an agreement with the owner of any ditch located on or
adjacent to the site, OR shall provide written evidence that an adequate attempt has been made to mitigate
the concerns of the ditch owners. The agreement shall stipulate that ditch activities have adequately been
incorporated into the design of the site. If such agreement cannot be reached, the applicant shall present
evidence that an adequate attempt to reach such agreement has been made.
Add 23-3-40.6.16. Roping Arenas to include both indoor and outdoor arenas, commercial.
Add 23-4-100.D. Attached, FLUSH-WALL SIGNS shall follow the following principles:
2. One (1) nameplate SIGN per business shall be allowed on the building face. Such SICN shall
not exceed two (2) square feet in area, and shall be located at or near the rear entrance of
such business.
Add 23-4-100.E. A SIGN shall not include the following:
8. Temporary interior paper window signs or painted signs on windows intended to promote sale
merchandise for limited periods.
Amend 23-4-130. No MOBILE HOME may be located or relocated in the County after August 25, 1981,
except in accordance with this Division, including the issuance of any zoning permit which may be required by
this Section. Each MOBILE HOME located or relocated in the County after said date must have a BUILDING
permit for a MOBILE HOME issued pursuant to Chapter 29 of this Code. An application for any zoning permit
for a MOBILE HOME required by this Division shall include the following:
Add 23-4-290.L. All concrete batch facilities shall be equipped with an appropriately designed engineered
vehicle washing area. All waste water generated from the washing of vehicles shall be recycled in the
concrete batching process. The washing area shall be designed and constructed to capture all effluent, and
prevent any-discharges from drum washing and the washing of vehicles exteriors. in accordance with the
Rules and Regulations of the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission and the Environmental Protection
Agency.
2
CHAPTER 24
SUBDIVISIONS
Additions to 24-1-40, definitions:
Add BUILDING ENVELOPE: The two-dimensional space within which a structure(s) is permitted to be
built on a lot. Buildings defined as an Agricultural-Exempt Building in the Zoning Ordinance are
exempt from the requirement of being located in the Building Envelope. The bulk requirements
addressed in this Code shall also be followed.
Public Purpose. Shall be defined as parks, playgrounds, trails, paths, and other recreational areas
and open spaces; scenic and historic sites; schools and other buildings and structures; and other
places where the public is directly or indirectly invited to visit or permitted to congregate. A Public
Purpose may also include productive agricultural lands; riparian areas; wetlands and their buffers;
conservation areas; buffer zones or areas; scenic areas; view corridors; floodways and floodplains;
groundwater resources and recharge areas; historic, archaeological and cultural features; scenic
viewsheds from public roads; wildlife preserves; and conservation areas. Areas such as wetlands and
their buffers, conservation areas, buffer zones or areas scenic areas, and view corridors are areas
that These areas may or may not allow public access. These spaces shall serve a public purpose by
providing for the protection of environmentally sensitive lands, agricultural practices, and scenic areas
or corridors.
Amend definitions in 24-1-40:
NOTE: SHOULD THE DEFINITION OF Non-urban Scale Development and Urban scale development
change to be based upon nine (9) lots, all reference to five (5) lots shall also be changed throughout
the CODE, including the definition of Minor Subdivision and Sections 22-2-70, 22-2-80, 22-2-90,
(urban goals); 22-2-160, 22-2-170, (residential goals); 22-2-180, 22-2-190, 22-1-200, (PUD goals);
23-1-90, (definition of both); 24-1-40, (definition of urban, non urban, minor); 24-3-10, (minor
procedure); 27-2-140, (non urban); 27-2-190, (urban); 27-2-210, 27-4-20 E 5.
Non-urban Scale Development: Developments comprised of eight (8) nine (9) or fewer residential
lots, which are located in a non-urban area as defined in Chapter 22 of this Code and current
Intergovernmental Agreements and are not adjacent to other PUDs, subdivisions, municipal
boundaries or urban growth corridors. Non-urban Scale Development shall also include land used or
capable of being used for agricultural production, including developments which combine clustered
residential uses and agricultural uses in a manner that the agricultural lands are suitable for farming
and ranching operations for the next forty (40) years. Non-urban scale development on public water
and septic systems shall have a minimum lot size of one (1) acre and an overall gross density of two
and one-half (2%) acres per septic system. Non-urban scale development proposing individual,
private wells and septic systems shall have a minimum lot size of two and one-half (2%) acres per lot.
A non-urban scale PUD preserving a minimum 80-acre agricultural out-lot may be located adjacent to
other non-urban scale PUD's which also preserve a minimum 80-acre agricultural out-lot.
Urban scale development: Developments exceeding eight (8) nine (9) lots and/or located in close
proximity to existing PUDs, subdivisions, municipal boundaries or urban growth corridors and
boundaries. All urban scale developments shall pave the internal road systems of the development.
Urban scale development requires support services such as central water and sewer systems, road
networks, park and recreation facilities and programs, and storm drainage and other similar services
which are typically furnished by a municipality.
3
Amend 24-3-50.D and 24-4-30.B.4.b. A summary of any concerns identified during the minor subdivision
sketch plan application process with an explanation of how the concerns will be addressed or resolved.
Major changes from a reviewed Sketch Plan may require a resubmittal of a new Sketch Plan for the site. The
applicant is responsible for providing evidence to the Department of Planning Services that diligence is being
made to meet standards and conditions outlined in Sketch Plan comments. The Department of Planning
Services is responsible for determining whether a major change exists except that when more than a year
has elapsed since the Sketch Plan comments, a resubmittal of a new Sketch Plan for the site shall may be
required prior to submittal of an application for a Minor Subdivision and the "application," for purposes of
compliance with Section 24-68-102.5, et. seq., C.R.S., shall be the application for the amended Sketch Plan.
Amend 24-4-30.C.1.i.2. Compliance with Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code, the existing or future
development of the surrounding areas as permitted by the existing zoning and with the future development as
projected by Chapter 22, and the Comprehensive Plan or Master Plan of affected municipalities and
Intergovernmental Agreements
Amend 24-7-20.A. All streets within subdivisions and planned unit developments will be designed and
constructed in accordance with the following standards:
7. Right-of-Way. County streets shall have the following minimum right-of-way widths:
a. Local: sixty (60) feet.
b. Collector: eighty (80)feet.
c. Arterial: one hundred (100) feet.
8. Lane and Shoulder Width. County roads and streets shall have the minimum lane and
shoulder width shown on Table 24.1 below:
met
Leeel 10 feet to 11 feet 4 feet
Cekehr 12 Let 6fed
Mcrial 12 feet 8 fad
9. Lane and shoulder widths for an arterial street with an average daily traffic count greater than
one thousand two hundred fifty (1,250) vehicles is determined on an individual project basis.
Amend 24-7-70. The proposed subdivision shall comply with the sanitary sewage disposal requirements of
the underlying overlaying zone district. Plans for the proposed subdivision shall be referred to the
Department of Public Health and Environment for review. The Department of Public Health and Environment
may else require the applicant to submit additional engineering or geological reports or data and to conduct a
study of the economic feasibility of the sewage treatment works prior to making a recommendation. The
Department of Public Health and Environment may also require that all proposed septic systems provide
enhanced treatment, and a design, installation, monitoring, maintenance, and management plan for all the
individual sewage disposal systems. Enhanced treatment systems are those that incorporate aeration,
alternating fields, effluent filters, sand filter systems, trickling filter systems, etc. Monitoring and maintenance
should outline any scheduled inspections, septic tank pumping schedule, and other duties performed on each
system. The management component should outline the funding source for the oversight of the plan (i.e. the
Homeowners'Association, etc.), who will perform each of the various parts of the plan, and enforcement
provisions.
Amend 24-7-180. Public sites and open spaces.
A. Within a Subdivision, the Board of County Commissioners may require the dedication,
development or reservation of individual parcels, or the placement or purchase of a
conservation easement upon lands within a subdivision or PUD plan for parks, greenbelts or
4
other necessary public purposes. The type of use, lot size and residential density shall be
considered when determining parcels necessary for public purposes. Public purposes may
include common open space, parks, wildlife preserves, riparian areas, trails, or other lands to
be preserved.
E. The amount of land that may be required for public dedication, reservation, or as a measure of
money to be paid in lieu of such dedication or servation, reservation shall be determined by the
standards outlined in Chapters 26 and 27.
Add 24-8-30.M.9. Building envelope(s) shall be designated. If the applicant intends to designate a building
envelope as a means of establishing compliance with the provisions of this Code including, but not limited to,
Sections 1.3.1 and 1.3.10. 24-1-30.A and 24-1-30.J.
CHAPTER 26
MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
Add 26-2-40.C. Cash-in-lieu of Common Open Space Regulation.
1. Definitions.
Sosrrie ViewCorridor. An area visible from a highway, waterway, railway, or major hiking,
biking, or equestrian trail that provides scenic vistas over water, across expanses of
land, such as farmlands, wetlands, prairies and grasslands, or riparian habitat.
CHAPTER 27
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Add one of the two following definitions of Conservation Easement, Section 27-2-76:
An encumbrance upon an identified parcel of land stipulating the restriction on additional or future
development. The easement restricts the development rights to the land, but the landowner still holds
the title to the property, the right to restrict public access, and the right to sell, give, or transfer
ownership of the property.
Identical to the definition of"Conservation Easement in gross" found at § 38-30.5-102 C.R.S. as of
April 30, 2001, which reads as follows: A right in the owner of the easement to prohibit or require a
limitation upon or an obligation to perform acts on or with respect to a land or water area or airspace
above the land or water owned by the grantor appropriate to the retaining or maintaining of such land,
water, or airspace, including improvements, predominantly in a natural, scenic, or open condition, or
for wildlife habitat, or for agricultural, horticultural, recreational, forest, or other use or condition
consistent with the protection of open land having wholesome environmental quality or life-sustaining
ecological diversity, or appropriate to the conservation and preservation of buildings, sites, or
structures having historical, architectural, or cultural interest or value.
To be consistent with other chapters of this code, the definition of Non Urban Scale and Urban Scale
Development shall be amended at second reading as follows:
Amend 27-2-140. Non-Urban Scale Dcvelopment. Non-urban scale development consists of
developments comprised of eight (8) or fewer residential lots, located in a non-urban area as defined
in Chapter 22 of this Code, not adjacent to other PUD's, subdivisions, municipal boundaries or urban
growth corridors. Non urban scale development shall also include land used or capable of being used
for agricultural production and including developments which combine clustered residential uses and
agricultural uses in a manner that the agricultural lands are suitable for farming and ranching
operations for the next forty (40) years. Non-urban scale development on public water and septic
5
systems shall have a minimum lot size of one (1) acre and an overall density of two and one-half(2%)
acres per septic system. Non-urban scale development proposing individual, private wells and septic
systems shall have a minimum lot size of two and one half(2%) acres per lot. A non-urban scale PUD
preserving a minimum agricultural outlot of eighty (80) acres may be located adjacent to other non-
urban scale PUD's which also preserve a minimum agricultural outlot of eighty (80) acres. Non-urban
Scale Development: Developments comprised of nine (9) or fewer residential lots, located in a
non-urban area as defined in Chapter 22 of this Code and current Intergovernmental Agreements.
Non-urban Scale Development shall also include land used or capable of being used for agricultural
production, including developments which combine clustered residential uses and agricultural uses in
a manner that the agricultural lands are suitable for farming and ranching operations for the next forty
(40) years. Non-urban scale development on public water and septic systems shall have a minimum
lot size of one (1) acre and an overall gross density of two and one-half(2%) acres per septic system.
Non-urban scale development proposing individual, private wells and septic systems shall have a
minimum lot size of two and one-half (2%) acres per lot. A non-urban scale PUD preserving a
minimum 80-acre agricultural out-lot may be located adjacent to other non-urban scale PUD's which
also preserve a minimum 80-acre agricultural out-lot.
Add 27-2-174. Scenic View Corridor. An area visible from a highway, waterway, railway, or major hiking,
biking, or equestrian trail that provides scenic vistas over water, across expanses of land, such as farmlands,
wetlands, prairies and grasslands, or riparian habitat.
Add 27-2-176. Sewer Provisions. A PUD Zone District shall be served by an adequate sewage disposal
system. All PUD's containing commercial and/or industrial uses, or those considered urban scale
development, shall be served by an approved sewer system, as defined by the Board of County
Commissioners. The proposed subdivision shall comply with the sanitary sewage disposal requirements of
the underlying overlaying zone district. Plans for the proposed subdivision shall be referred to the Weld
County Department of Public Health and Environment for review. For those residential PUD's where sewage
is proposed to be treated by septic systems, the Department of Public Health and Environment may require
the applicant to submit additional engineering or geological reports or data and to conduct a study of the
economic feasibility of the sewage treatment work prior to making a recommendation. The Department of
Public Health and Environment may also require that all proposed septic systems provide enhanced
treatment, and a design, installation, monitoring, maintenance, and management plan for all the individual
sewage disposal systems. Enhanced treatment systems are those that incorporate one or more of the
following: aeration, alternating fields, effluent filters, sand filter systems, trickling filter systems, etc.
Monitoring and maintenance should outline any scheduled inspections, septic tank pumping schedule, and
other duties to be performed on each system. The management component should outline the funding
source for the oversight of the plan, i.e. the Homeowners' Association, who will perform each of the various
parts of the plan, and enforcement provisions.
Amend 27-2-190. Urban Scale Development. Urban scale development consists of developments
exceeding eight (8) lots and/or located in close proximity to existing PUD's, subdivisions, municipal
boundaries or urban growth corridors and boundaries. All urban scale developments shall pave the internal
road systems of the development. Urban scale development requires support services such as central water
and sewer systems, road networks, park and recreation facilities and programs, storm drainage and other
similar services which are typically furnished by a municipality. Developments exceeding nine (9) lots and/or
located in close proximity to existing PUDs, subdivisions, municipal boundaries or urban growth corridors and
boundaries. All urban scale developments shall pave the internal road systems of the development. Urban
scale development requires support services such as central water and sewer systems, road networks, park
and recreation facilities and programs, and storm drainage and other similar services which are typically
furnished by a municipality.
6
Amend 27-2-210. Water provisions. A PUD Zone District shall be serviced by an adequate water supply. All
PUD's shall be served by a public water system as defined in this Chapter. An exception may be granted for
eight (8)/five (5) nine (9) lots or less residentially clustered PUD's when public water is not available and the
residential PUD results in an intensity of development that preserves and enhances agricultural lands and
production. A PUD applying for an exception to the public water requirement must be considered a non-
urban scale development as defined in this Chapter. A PUD not served by public water shall preserve a
minimum eighty-acre agricultural outlot. The Department of Planning Services and the Department of Public
Health and Environment shall review any PUD applying for an exception to public water to determine if the
application meets the intent of the PUD regulations and state water requirements.
Add 27-4-20.E.16. A statement describing how the applicant intends to improve adjacent roadways to meet
the full typical section specified in the Weld County Transportation Plan and Chapter 24. 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 nexus of proportionality and shall be equivalent to the impacts of the development. The
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 accepted by the Board of County Commissioners.
Amend 27-4-50. Major Changes to a Sketch Plan. Major changes from a reviewed sketch plan may require
a resubmittal of a new sketch plan for the site. The applicant is responsible for providing evidence to the
Department of Planning Services that diligence is being made to meet standards and conditions outlined in
Sketch Plan comments. The Department of Planning Services is responsible for determining whether a
major change exists except that when more than a year has elapsed since the sketch plan comments, a
resubmittal of a new Sketch Plan for the site shall may be required prior to submittal of an application for a
Planned Unit Development zone change and the "application,"for purposes of compliance with Section 24-
68-102.5, C.R.S., shall be the application for the amended sketch plan.
Add 27-5-30:
I. The applicant shall submit to the Department of Planning Services a copy of an agreement
with the owner of any ditch located on or adjacent to the site, OR shall provide written
evidence that an adequate attempt has been made to mitigate the concerns of the ditch
owners. The agreement shall stipulate that ditch activities have adequately been incorporated
into the design of the site. If such agreement cannot be reached, the applicant shall present
evidence than an adequate attempt to reach such agreement has been made.
Add 27-6-80.B.8 All PUD's may apply for a greater density and have reduced common open space when
applying the Cash-In-Lieu alternative listed in Chapter 26 of this Code. Should the applicant choose the
Cash-In-Lieu alternative, the site may be developed at a density equivalent to the remainder of the proposal.
d. The amount collected shall be deposited in an-eserew a segregated account to be expended
within ten years from the collection date for common open space, parks, wildlife preserves,
riparian areas, trails, or other lands to be preserved. Details regarding this option are outlined
in Chapter 26.
7
CAROL Harding Re. Weld County Code Ordinance 2001-1 Page 1
From: Anne Johnson
To: "toddhodgesdesign@earthlink.net".GWIA.CENTDOMAIN
Date: 3/23/01 10:03AM
Subject: Re: Weld County Code Ordinance 2001-1
Thanks for your time, Todd. You really put quite a bit of long range thinking into your correspondence. I will forward this to Carol Harding at Clerk
to the Board, Trevor Jiricek and Pam Smith with Environmental Health, and Frank Hempen and Diane Houghtaling with Public Works.
>>> "Todd Hodges Design, LLC" <toddhodgesdesign@earthlink.net>03/23/01 09:41AM >>>
Anne:
Thank you for your consideration of the items that have been discussed in the 1st reading and the open work session with the Board concerning
the amendments to the County Code.
I believe that the goal of Weld County staff, the Planning Commission members and the Board is to require conscientious planning and design that
encourages smart growth while preserving our natural and agricultural resources. Though discussed in the public realm, I am still compelled to
bring up items that influence the way Weld County will develop as a viable "community".
There are three items that I would like to focus your attention on and will address them based on their order in the Code:
1.) Minor Change#2:
This section deals with intergovernmental agreements with municipalities. I support the concept and use of such agreements but would like to
make the comment that some municipalities tend to interpret such agreements differently than staff and the Board once the agreement is in place.
2.) The definition of NON-URBAN SCALE DEVELOPMENT vs. URBAN SCALE DEVELOPMENT:
I applaud staff on their willingness to re-evaluate how the current definitions of non-urban vs. urban have been interpreted in the past,
however, I feel that it is critical to discuss how these new definitions will be interpreted in the future. I am interested in the idea of a "sub-rural"
category that may fill some of the void between the rural and urban areas. Good land-use planning dictates that when defining urban vs. rural
areas there is a transition zone which acts as a buffer between the different land use areas. One of the ways to accomplish this is to offer the ability
to provide residential/estate/agricultural uses that are at a density which are consistent with uses on both sides and create a smooth transition
instead of putting up an imaginary wall between the urban community and the agricultural community. Smart growth requires that we take into
account existing and proposed infrastructure, environmental impacts, mineral resources, natural resources, stable water sources for potable and
non-potable uses, health and safety issues, and surrounding land uses. Through creative, conscientious design we can provide a buffer/transition
zone that allows for a "NON-URBAN"and "sub-rural"development that is consistent with the adjacent municipality or urban development and the
agricultural zone district of Weld County.
I EXHIBIT
O,af * a-
iCAROL Hardin Re Weld County Code Ord Hance 2001 1 Page 2
3.) Substantial Change#2 and Substantial Change#5:
These items are pertaining to road improvements required through the approval of a subdivision or PUD in Weld County.
I am concerned that the proposed road standards are"URBAN SCALE" in nature and do not allow flexibility for a "NON-URBAN" or"sub-rural"
development. It is understood that developments should "pay their way"but these standards could have a major impact based on the way they are
interpreted.
Substantial Change#5 implies that all PUD developments are going to build the County road system whether the impact is there or not. I believe
this should be discussed at greater length and some clarification be offered by staff on how these changes will be imparted upon a"NON-URBAN
SCALE"development vs. an "URBAN SCALE"development.
Thank you again for your time and consideration of these items. If you have any questions, I may be reached via email or at(970)207-0272.
Please forward this to the appropriate staff and Board members.
Have a good day.
Todd A. Hodges,ASLA
Todd Hodges Design, LLC
CC: Harding, CAROL; Hempen, FRANK; Houghtaling, Diane M.; Jiricek, TREVOR; Smith, PAM
CAROL Harding Code email ...,,,ENV 1
From: Anne Johnson
To: Harding, CAROL
Date: 3/23/01 12:34PM
Subject: Code email
This is a list of items changed since the last email I sent earlier in the week. These a a few minor changes to incorporate into the Resolutions for
Monday.
23-1-90
Chapter 23 definition of Conservation Easement
23-4-290L
24-1-40 Building envelope definition
27-4-50
24-3-50 D
24-4-30 B4b
2 EXHIBIT
Ord #.xoHl
CAROL Hardin Smile Pail"
From: Anne Johnson
To: Harding, CAROL
Date: 3/23/01 2:38PM
Subject: Smile
One more minor change.
Please see 24-7-70
5th Sentence
Thanks.
03/23/2001 05:31 5063697 G W FINANCE GLORIA PAGE 02
MARCH 23, 2000
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY
GREELEY, CO 80631
GENTLEMEN,
IT HAS COME TO MY ATTENTION THAT THERE ARE CHANGES TO THE HELP
COUNTY CODES BEING PROPOSED.
TWO ITEMS IN WHICH I AM INTERESTED ARE:
1. I HAVE BEEN CONCERNED WITH OUR ROADWAYS AND TRAFFIC W
PATTERNS. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE PRUDENT WAY TO PROCE�14A ii9ITH
ANY CHANGES IN THE ROAD STANDARDS IS TO POSTPONE ADOPTT.,f V
UNTIL THERE HAS BEEN MUCH MORE PUBLIC EDUCATION AND nwT. IT
WOULD BR COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO BRING ALL ROADS TO FULL ARTFI.IAL
STANDARDS IF IT IS NOT PRESENTLY IN THE COUNTY COMPREHEt ) E
PLAN OR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE COMMUNITY WHICH did
LOCATED CLOSEST TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. ROAD IMPROVEM`.f�tV '��.�.':I
I
SHOULD BE MADE ONLY AFTER COORDINATION WITH THE COMMON cy
POSSIBLY THROUGH AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TO ENSHAT
ALL EFFECTED PARTIES HAVE INPUT.
2. WITH THE URBAN SCALE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IT SEEMS W,W BE
ENCOURAGING SPRAWL BY REQUIRING ESTATE LOTS TO HOOK UP TSB
SEWER. WELD COUNTY SHOULD ADOPT MANDATORY STANDARDS FOR 1:7 -
GRADED SEPTIC SYSTEMS AND CONTINUE USAGE IN ESTATE LOTS
(MINIMUM 2 1/2 ACRE LOTS) .
AS A MEMBER OF THE WINDSOR PLANNING COMMISSION I KNOW THAT mqOVE
BEEN WORKING WITH SOME OF THE SAME ISSUES. WE ARE ALWAYS HAPPY 9PiC
TOGETHER FOR COOPERATIVE PLANNING. THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION.
SINCERELY,
J-W61
GLORIA J KANE
1030 PINYON COURT
WINDSOR, CO 60550
t EXHIBIT
• Q
0e4 Iboo1-1
WELD Cc: ,
i'aI—�c
In i'liken. Town hall, 1101 Broad St., Drawer 290 • Milliken, CO 80543 • i&t0,1417"1i,31 fra'1 -2678 Fax
+frrHes#
RR's,' i_0
March 28, 2001
The Honorable M. J. Geile, Chair
Weld Board of County Commissioners
P. O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
Dear Mike:
The Town of Milliken has received a letter indicating that Weld County is proposing to change
the definitions of Non-Urban Scale Development and Urban Scale Development. In effect, the
proposed change would allow"non-urban scale development" to occur outside Urban Growth
boundaries at nearly double the current number of residential lots per development - increasing
from five (5) lots to nine (9) lots.
While it is true that urban scale development "requires support services such as central water and
sewer systems, road networks,park and recreation facilities and programs, and storm drainage
and other similar services are typically furnished by a municipality", allowing an increase in the
size of non-urban scale developments in outlying areas by such a significant amount will only
place a greater burden on the area's infrastructure as densities increase in these rural areas. This
increase would contribute to sprawl and work against the principles of "smart growth".
Therefore, the Town of Milliken strongly opposes the proposed amendments to these definitions
by Weld County. Furthermore, the Town is disappointed to have received this letter on March
27, 2001 when the second reading of this amendment was apparently considered by Weld County
on March 26, 2001.
Sincerely,
Ted Ch ez
Mayor
il EXHIBIT
4 • fG
,�`` i City< ,Dano , Colorado
4TiP1?ThIalr RECE '.. ED
April 12, 2001
M. J. Geile, Chair
Weld Board of County Commissioners
915 10th Street
P. O. Box 758
Greeley, Co 80632
Dear Mike:
The City of Dacono has received the County's recent correspondence regarding changes
proposed to the definitions of Urban Scale Development and Non-Urban Scale
Development. An increase from five to nine lots allowed in Non-Urban Scale
Development will have a dramatic increase in the number of rural residents. In turn, the
impacts on and demand for services created by residents of these rural subdivisions on
the adjacent municipalities will also increase. We believe developments of this size
(over five lots) are urban in nature and therefore, should be located within a municipality.
We are also concerned about the use of wells and septic systems on lots as small as 2-1/2
acres and the potential problems that can be caused by wells and septic systems being
located too close together.
In summary, the City of Dacono's position is to oppose the proposed changes to these
definitions. Also, we received your correspondence after the date of the second reading
on these changes and in the future, would appreciate more notice being given on such
items.
Sincerely,
Wade Carlson, Mayor
4 EXHIBIT
IL
s
Cai4. 0.4 tool-
512 Cherry Street • Post Office Box 186 • Dacono, Colorado 80514
Local—(303) 833-2317 Metro—(303) 833-5562 Fax—(303) 833-5528
Hello