HomeMy WebLinkAbout20010872.tiff RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
APRIL 16, 2001
TAPE #2001-18
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 16, 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, Carol A. Harding
Director of Finance and Administration, Donald D. Warden
READ ORDINANCE BY TAPE:
MINUTES: Commissioner Masden moved to approve the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners
meeting of April 11, 2001, as printed. Commissioner Vaad seconded the motion, and it carried
unanimously.
CERTIFICATION OF HEARINGS: Commissioner Masden moved to approve the Certification of Hearings
conducted on April 10, 2001, as follows: 1) Violation Hearings; and Hearing on April 11, 2001: 1) Final
Plan for Skylark Ranch Minor Subdivision, S#586, Robert Parsons; and 2)A Site Specific Development
Plan and Use by Special Review Permit #1314, Brighton Industrial North, LLP, do Steve Webb.
Commissioner Jerke 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 Long seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
PUBLIC INPUT: Jerry Knespel, who lives near the National Hog Farm operation, questioned the ability
of the current resident of the hog farm property to keep 10,000 head of cattle and stated the Recorded
Exemption process should not be used for allowing more cattle on a property. Chair Geile stated in the
Agricultural District, the property is limited to four animal units per acre as a Use by Right on the property.
Responding to Commissioner Jerke, Mr. Barker stated a legal lot is defined to include any subdivided or
recorded exemption lot and is looked at to determine the zoning requirements of what is allowed by right,
2001-0872
BC0016
and total contiguous acres are included;therefore,even though an adjacent lot is leased,the total acreage
is used to determine animal units. Julie Chester, Department of Planning Services,explained the property
under discussion was reviewed and no violation exists, since the property is ten acres, with an additional
1,350 contiguous acres leased. She further explained the total acreage figure is used to determine animal
units,even though they are all confined onto the ten-acre parcel, since the lease is contiguous with the ten
acres. Ms. Chester stated the operator has to use Best Management regulations and at some point must
follow the CAFO regulations. Trevor Jiricek, Department of Public Health and Environment, stated 1,000
animal units trigger use of the CAFO regulations, therefore, approximately 720 dairy cows. Mr. Knespel
stated the adjacent property owners need protection from the nuisance conditions created by such a large
number of cattle in close proximity to the neighboring property. After further discussion, Mr. Barker stated
he can look at various options for the Board; however, the way the regulations are set up, a Recorded
Exemption is solely for the purpose of a land split, and the county does not look at any zoning
requirements. Commissioner Vaad suggested this issue cannot be dealt with adequately, due to time
constraints, and suggested a work session be scheduled. The consensus of the Board was to have Mr.
Barker schedule a work session.
WARRANTS: Donald Warden, Director of Finance and Administration, presented the following warrants
for approval by the Board:
All Funds $430,685.34
Commissioner Vaad moved to approve the warrants as presented by Mr. Warden. Commissioner Jerke
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
CONSIDER RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR 3.2 PERCENT BEER RETAIL LICENSE AND AUTHORIZE
CHAIR TO SIGN - MRS. LEO K. WARDMAN, DBA LEO'S HUT: Mr. Barker stated Deputy Harbert
reported there are no concerns with said renewal and the Sheriff's office recommended approval. No
public testimony was given. Commissioner Masden moved to renew the application of Mrs. Leo K.
Wardman, dba Leo's Hut, for a 3.2 percent beer retail license and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded
by Commissioner Long, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER LOCAL EMERGENCY OPERATION PLAN FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ANNEX
EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN: Margie Martinez, Sheriffs Office, stated there was a hazardous
materials incident last year, and not all departments were in sync. As a result, the entire plan has been
reviewed, and amendments recommended. Ms. Martinez stated the HAZMAT response plan has been
in effect since at least 1985,and this is the third update. She explained there are three levels of response,
with Level 1 being the least and Level 3 the largest response. Ms. Martinez stated there are mostly
housekeeping changes. The first change deals with there being only one fire department, Evans, left in
the County, and all the others have been changed to fire districts. Ms. Martinez stated there was also a
name change from Greeley Fire Department to Union Colony Fire Rescue Authority;clarification in the role
of the Department of Public Health and Environment; and a change to allow fire chiefs from each fire
district to contact the Greeley HAZMAT team directly, without going through the Office of Emergency
Management. Responding to Chair Geile and Commissioner Jerke, Ms. Martinez stated she will be
meeting with the fire chiefs in June to train and familiarize them with the amendments to the plan, and she
is uncertain about the participation of regulatory agencies in the initial plan process. Ms. Martinez stated
they are aware that the known owner takes on the responsibility for the cost of the cleanup, and this
process may expedite that procedure by allowing a direct call instead of going through our Office of
Emergency Management. Responding to Chair Geile, Mr. Warden stated the County has had a
Memorandum of Agreement with the City of Greeley for approximately 15 years, which resulted from an
energy impact grant which was obtained to get the HAZMAT team up and running, and to provide training
Minutes, April 16, 2001 2001-0872
Page 2 BC0016
for them. Union Colony then was responsible to maintain training and respond to incidents. The County,
in return, provided administration of the grant and guarantees payment for the cleanups. Commissioner
Vaad moved to approve the Local Emergency Operation Plan, which was seconded by Commissioner
Long. The motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER REQUEST TO TERMINATE AGREEMENT FOR SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE-WAYWARD WIND MOBILE HOME PARK,LLC: Dr. Mark Wallace,Director
of Public Health and Environment,explained the Waywardwind Mobile Home Park has not been delivering
water samples as specified in the agreement, therefore, he recommends termination of said agreement,
in accordance with Section 5. Responding to Commissioner Vaad, Dr. Wallace stated 30-days notice will
be provided. Commissioner Vaad moved to approve the request to terminate said agreement.The motion,
which was seconded by Commissioner Jerke, carried unanimously.
CONSIDER TEMPORARY ROAD CLOSURE OF "F" STREET BETWEEN 35TH AVENUE AND 59TH
AVENUE, WCR 49 BETWEEN WCRS 34.5 AND 38, AND WCR 32.5 BETWEEN WCRS 21 AND 23:
Frank Hempen,Jr., Director of Public Works,stated of the three projects,Weld County Road 49 is the only
one outside normal closures, and it is for a multi-year shouldering project. He said the road needs to be
closed in order to cut down the hill at about Weld County Road 34.5, usually referred to as the Gutterson
Ranch. Commissioner Jerke moved to approve said closures, and Commissioner Masden seconded the
motion. Responding to questions from the Board, Mr. Hempen stated F Street is an overlay project for our
portion of F street, as well as to replace the deck on the bridge; and Weld County Road 32.5 is to replace
a waste water culvert. The motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER AGREEMENT FOR PERMANENT MAN-MADE STRUCTURES WITHIN 200 FEET OF
PROPERTY OWNED BY WELD COUNTY AND AUTHORIZE CHAIRTO SIGN-LOVELAND READY MIX
CONCRETE, INC.: Mr. Hempen stated Loveland Ready Mix Concrete is proposing a pit at Weld County
Roads 15 and 54, and part of the process for permitting is to sign an agreement with any entity with
infrastructure within 200 feet of the proposed pit. He stated they will hold the County harmless and will fully
compensate or repair if anything happens to the roads. Mr. Barker stated it is more a promise to make
whole if any damage occurs to property or structure than a hold harmless agreement; however,they agree
to return the property to the condition of the structure before damage, which is less than indemnification.
Commissioner Jerke moved to approve said agreement and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by
Commissioner Vaad, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER EXTENSION OF SERVICE ENHANCEMENT AGREEMENT FOR HUMAN SERVICE GRANT
NETWORK AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN - SCT GLOBAL GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS: Mr.
Warden stated this is a continuation of the two-year old contract for SCT to maintain the network of 15
Head Start sites,which is outside the scope of the original contract. He stated it is paid for through a grant.
Commissioner Vaad moved to approve said extension agreement and authorize the Chair to sign. The
motion, which was seconded by Commissioner Long, carried unanimously.
PLANNING:
CONSIDER CANCELLATION AND RELEASE OF COLLATERAL FOR BIG SKY ESTATES PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT, S#489 -DALE AND LORETTA BURMAN: Ms. Chester stated the Departments
of Public Works and Planning Services have reviewed the project and the 15 percent has been held for
the normal one-year period; therefore, staff recommends full release of the $650.00 collateral still being
held by the County. Commissioner Vaad moved to approve said cancellation and release. Seconded by
Commissioner Long, the motion carried unanimously.
Minutes, April 16, 2001 2001-0872
Page 3 BC0016
PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING FOR USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT#768-BEVERLEY HOBDAY:
Bethany Salzman, Department of Planning Services, stated this is a Probable Cause Hearing concerning
Use by Special Review Permit#768, and Development Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, and
19 are not being met. At Commissioner Vaad's request, Ms. Salzman summarized each item out of
compliance as follows: #1)the permitted use is a recreational train facility; however the facility has been
abandoned and at least a dozen railroad cars have been left on the property, along with numerous old
buildings, constituting a noncommercial junkyard; #2) staff has been unable to find any access to
Highway 52 from the property,although there is one on Weld County Road 39;#3) there is no landscaping
on the property, only tumbleweeds and a few trees; #4) there is a noncommercial junkyard with no
screening; #5)no food service establishment exists;#6)currently there are numerous buildings in derelict
condition;#7)the facility was never opened and there is no evidence of collateral having been posted;#8)
the applicant has not complied with design standards; #9) the facility is not operational and there is no
evidence it has ever been in use; #10)the applicant has not complied with operation standards; and #11
and #12) the Development Standards and other regulations have not been followed as specified. Ms.
Salzman showed a video of the property and stated there are 20 or 30 derelict vehicles left, although
originally there were approximately 70. She indicated the barn structure which is partially collapsed,
causing concern with wiring which is hanging loose, and some of the buildings which staff could see
through, the water tower, another collapsed building; a barber shop; the Hudson jail; a post office; a
collapsed shop; and several train cars with deteriorating roofs. Responding to Commissioner Jerke, Ms.
Salzman stated there is not a policy in place for burning, or other means of cleaning up the site, especially
since the Department of Health and Environment said most wood is treated and, therefore, cannot be
bumed.
Jennifer Carr, attorney for Joan Drawer, stated Ms. Drawer has lived on the property for 30 years, and
stated in 1968 the property was purchased by John Drawer and Charles Hobday, who intended to build
an "historical"town. They received the proper permits, Use by Special Review#768 was issued on April
15, 1987, and they began moving buildings and railroad cars onto the property. Over the next several
years they built approximately a two-mile loop of railroad cars. In 1989,when Mr. Hobday died, USR#768
was still in existence, and still being complied with. Due to a kidney transplant, Mr. Drawer was unable to
continue work on the project, although his son did what he could to continue. Mr. Drawer died in January
2001, and the property has been falling into disrepair for a number of years. Ms. Carr stated Ms. Hobday
lives out of state and Ms. Drawer lives on the property. She explained Ms. Drawer's contention is that
there was a partnership formed and jointly owned, although the property is deeded to Ms. Hobday. Ms.
Carr stated Ms. Drawer boarded up what she could, moved vehicles, and secured the railroad cars;
however, the only person who can pull permits is the owner, who does not live here. Ms. Carr further
stated the matter is scheduled before Judge West on July 5, 2001, to set a trial date to determine
ownership of said property. In the meantime the Colorado Preservation Society and Historical Society are
interested in obtaining some of the buildings and train cars, which are of historical benefit for the
community to save. Ms. Carr mentioned there are some negotiations for settlement underway, which
would bring the matter of ownership to a close prior to the July court date.
Brent Coan,attorney representing Beverly Hobday,clarified that Mr.Hobday alone purchased the property
in 1969, which was then deeded to Ms. Hobday, a resident of Chicago, Illinois. He said his instructions
from Ms. Hobday are to provide cooperation and assistance to the County and, since she sees no value
in maintaining the Use by Special Review Permit, she will not oppose revocation of said permit. Mr. Coan
did note that the County held a meeting regarding the property on Thursday, for which he received no
notice. He asked to be included in any future discussions. Responding to Chair Geile, Mr. Coan stated
the Show Cause Hearing is only for revocation of the permit, and cleanup is a secondary and separate
matter from revocation of the permit. He indicated the purpose today is whether the Permit has been
complied with. Responding to Mr. Barker, Ms. Carr stated Ms. Drawer's position on the permit is to wait
to see what can be done with the buildings and railroad cars and stay any decisions on the permit, since
Minutes, April 16, 2001 2001-0872
Page 4 BC0016
cleanup will have to immediately follow vacation or revocation of said permit,and Ms. Drawer has not made
any determination of the future of the permit at this time, and she would like time to deal with all these
matters. Responding to Commissioner Jerke, Ms. Carr stated the actual trial date will be set on July 5,
2001; however, it would be in the near future. She also stated it may be settled without going to trial, and
reiterated the entire matter is under dispute. Mr. Coan stated he certainly would not object to a delay
because he is trying to cooperate with Ms. Drawer and the County; however, he also would not oppose
the revocation of the permit.
No further public testimony was given. Commissioner Vaad stated this parallels another property, and he
wants everyone to be aware that the citizens of Weld County are not responsible for cleanup of the
property, although the Board of County Commissioners is responsible for the safety, health and welfare
of its citizens. Therefore, Commissioner Vaad moved to delay any action until determination of ownership
has been settled; however, there was no second to the motion. Mr. Barker stated continuation for two
months, to June 18, 2001, would be sufficient to see if resolution was obtained through settlement, at
which time the Board can continue the matter again or set a Show Cause Hearing at that time.
Responding to the Board's concern as to whether any buildings are in imminent danger of collapsing,Jeff
Reif, Department of Planning Services, stated staff did inspect the property on April 13, 2001, and found
that, although there are a couple of buildings in imminent danger of collapse, and are a danger to anyone
making repair to them,the property is isolated enough to not present an immediate danger to citizens. Mr.
Barker stated, since there is no immediate concern about public safety, the Probable Cause could be
continued to June 18, 2001, or July 9 or 16, 2001 would be appropriate. Commissioner Vaad moved to
continue the Probable Cause to June 18, 2001, at 9:00 a.m. Commissioner Long seconded the motion,
and Commissioner Jerke clarified the action at that time would be to simply to review what has happened
to date, then move to set Show Cause Hearing at a later date. Responding to Chair Geile and
Commissioner Masden, Ms. Salzman stated staff has been receiving numerous complaints about the
property,which is located three miles east of Aristocrat, and adjacent to the Platte Valley Airpark, and the
access is from Weld County Road 39, which dead-ends at the property. On a call for the vote, the motion
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 by title only. Commissioner Jerke seconded the motion,which carried unanimously.
Chair Geile read the title of said Ordinance. Anne Johnson, Department of Planning Services,stated there
are a few last adjustments to make, and reviewed the 17 amendments. She stated item#1 is to include
a line underneath the signature being added in Section 23-2-160W.C.W.6.c for the printed/typed name;
item#2 is to add "and their buffers"to the definition of Public Purpose; item#3 is the deletion of the Note
previously listed under Section 244-1-40; items #4, #5, and #6 are the outcome of a meeting with the
Departments of Planning Services and Public Works, and several engineers, which were a followup to
directions to staff at second reading; item#7 is a clarification of the exact language used in other mobile
home sections for consistency throughout the Code; and item#8 is to allow the cash-in-lieu option to be
placed in only the Planned Unit Development section of the Code, and to delete it from the MUD and
Subdivision Sections, leaving only a reference as to where it is found. Ms.Johnson stated,after a meeting
with realtors, it was suggested to add the words"maximum"and"minimum"to the third and fourth column,
respectively, of the table in Section 27-10-20.H. She also reviewed the definition of urban and non-urban
scale development, stating the change to nine lots is for these definitions only, and the minor subdivision
will remain at five lots. Responding to Chair Geile, Ms. Johnson stated there are two ways to divide a
property, a subdivision and a PUD. The PUD is the easiest and, if changed to nine lots, there can be a
urban or a non-urban PUD. If a subdivision, the minor subdivision is still based on five lots; however, a
major subdivision would be based on six or to nine lots, of which those in a non-urban growth boundary
Minutes, April 16, 2001 2001-0872
Page 5 BC0016
area would be nine lots, and an urban growth boundary area would be ten or more lots. Mr. Barker
reiterated the five-lot minor subdivision would not change with these definitions. Commissioner Jerke
expressed his frustration with making too many major changes at this point in the process,and stated there
should only be minor changes on the third reading of an Ordinance; however, in this case,there have been
meetings with realtors, developers, and engineers, and not enough public input along way. He reiterated
the third reading should be minor changes only and stated he will not vote for approval of this many major
amendments. Ms.Johnson responded that the meetings were held at the direction of the Board at second
reading to respond to those who voiced concerns or desired clarification.
Commissioner Vaad questioned whether central water and sewer should be included in the definitions of
urban and non-urban scale development, to which Ms. Johnson stated the language shown on the
overhead is the language as of the second reading. Responding to Commissioner Vaad, Ms. Johnson
stated she does have definitions of public water and public sewer available; however,staff has been using
central and public interchangeably. Responding to Commissioner Masden, Mr. Barker stated they
apparently are being used interchangeably;however,the definitions should state they are interchangeable
for purposes of clarification. Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney, said the definition Ms. Johnson
is using for public water and sewer is not so narrowly defined as to limit it to a governmental entity, it can
be conducted by a group within the development, and he concurs with Ms. Johnson's comment that staff
is considering public and central as synonymous. He reiterated that, whether public or private, the
definition centers on the group effort, as opposed to an individual lot effort.
Bruce Nickerson, Town of Firestone, stated the definitions in the executed Intergovernmental Agreement
do not specifically address the number of lots, only general definitions; however, he would support the
concept of non-urban scale development of five lots, with an 80-acre minimum agricultural cluster area.
He indicated he is concerned about development in Urban Growth Boundary Areas being allowed on septic
systems, which creates problems for the long-term integration of services, and recommended the Board
not compromise urban areas with septic systems.
Todd Hodges stated his main concern is the last sentence in the definition of non-urban scale
development,which allows the preservation of a minimum of 80 acres if adjacent to an existing subdivision,
and asked for clarification as to whether it is limited to those properties which are adjacent to existing
PUD's. He indicated he felt it was for those who use wells, which is the way it is currently, and stated if
this does impact all properties, it may limit smaller properties more suited to development, because an
application could not be made without an 80-acre outlot. No other public testimony was given.
Responding to Commissioner Vaad, Mr. Morrison indicated the Board had already concurred with Mr.
Hodges' recommendation to strike the last clause of the first sentence, and the last sentence is
meaningless at this point, since it is an exception to a rule no longer in place. Responding to Chair Geile,
as to when a septic system is acceptable in an urban area, Ms. Johnson referred to the last page of
Exhibit "U", showing the various types of development and whether they would be considered urban or
non-urban scale development. After further discussion,Mr. Barker stated minor subdivisions would remain
at five lots, not nine, which is a non-urban use; therefore, septic systems would be allowed if outside the
urban growth boundary area. He also clarified the PUD, which is being changed to nine lots with this
amendment, is considered to be non-urban, and reiterated the discussion about the nine-lot PUD within
an urban area that was part of a previous work session with the Board. Mr. Barker stated staff looked at
current Intergovernmental Agreement urban boundary areas, and stated for future Intergovernmental
Agreements, the Board can make an exception to those; however, for those already in place, the Board
can review the requirement, although a nine-lot PUD on septic systems would be allowed in urban areas.
Mr. Barker stated the Comprehensive Plan urban growth goals and policies would not prohibit a nine-lot
PUD on a septic system, and it would be allowed since it is defined as non-urban use. Mr. Barker stated
the major subdivision in the non-urban scale definition would be six to nine lots and they could be on septic
Minutes, April 16, 2001 2001-0872
Page 6 BC0016
systems, and indicated the Board should decide whether to keep the five-lot minor subdivision the same,
and leave the nine-lot PUD as the exception. Commissioner Jerke stated the original intent was to move
the minor subdivision up to nine, although the Planning Commission had moved it to eight, in order to
simplify the division by three. He also stated there is an open space component on PUD issues. Ms.
Johnson stated the minor and major subdivision definitions never changed, only urban and non-urban
scale development.
Commissioner Vaad stated although central and public is used synonymously, he would like to clarify the
language and he moved to change the wording of the last sentence of the definition for Urban scale
developments to state it"requires support services such as central water and sewer systems. . ." There
being no second, the motion died.
Responding to questions from Commissioner Jerke, Ms. Johnson discussed the amendment to the
definition of"Public Purpose" and stated the buffer is not the same for each individual property, and the
change would make the language consistent with two other places in the Code. Ms. Johnson reiterated
the buffer is beyond the actual vegetation that is growing, and it cannot be limited to a specific distance,
since each property would be different. Mr. Hempen responded to Commissioner Jerke that amendment
#4 is recommended to clarify that the design criteria submitted for the overall development is minimum,
and specific design criteria for the site would also be required. Diane Houghtaling, Department of Public
Works, stated the full site design would have some standards not specified in this Section, and it would
be very unlikely that the minimum standards would ever be enough. Mr. Hempen also requested the word
"shall" in the last sentence be changed to "may" although there was no Board action to approve the
change. Commissioner Jerke moved to approve the inclusion of amendment#4. Commissioner Masden
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Responding to further questions from Commissioner Jerke, Ms. Johnson discussed change #17, gave
examples of the formula used to calculate the cash-in-lieu option for Common Open Space and stated the
overall cost of all the lots is what drives the formula, and stated staff needs direction as to how to address
communities with Intergovernmental Agreements.
After further discussion, Chair Geile suggested a work session be held to clarify the definitions being
approved in this Ordinance, and Mr. Barker stated the Board could approve Ordinance#2001-1 with the
written amendments and the addition of the one change requested by Mr. Hempen, which has already
been included by motion. He stated the Board can then continue the third reading. Carol Harding,acting
Clerk to the Board,responded to Chair Geile that the schedule for supplementation of the code would allow
for a two-week continuation of third reading without problems. Commissioner Jerke agreed a work session
would be appropriate,and stated he will vote against the amendments presented at this late date,although
he is not against the overall set of changes; therefore, he verified with Mr. Barker it would be appropriate
to make separate motions. Commissioner Jerke then moved to approve the amendments with one change
previously approved. Commissioner Vaad seconded the motion, which carried four to one, with
Commissioner Jerke opposed.
Commissioner Vaad moved to approve Ordinance#2001-1,as amended. Commissioner Long seconded
the motion. Commissioner Masden asked for clarification of whether this leaves the option of having septic
systems in urban areas. Mr. Barker verified that option is included and, responding to further questions
from the Board,stated the definitions present in the current Intergovernmental Agreements refer to central
sewer so this will not conflict. Monica Mika, Director of Planning Services,stated Mr. Nickerson does have
concerns about this issue. Commissioners Vaad and Long withdrew the motion and second, and Chair
Geile reopened public testimony to hear Mr. Nickerson's comments. Mr. Nickerson stated there is an
Intergovernmental Agreement in place which sets forth specific definitions of urban and non-urban
development,which was intended to preclude urban scale development outside an urban growth boundary
Minutes, April 16, 2001 2001-0872
Page 7 BC0016
area, and as well as a non-urban scale development within an urban growth boundary area without the
80-acre provision, and stated the agreement will start to fall apart with these changes.
Chair Geile suggested with the testimony given by Mr. Nickerson which needs to be thought through, and
the confusion on the definitions,the third reading be continued two weeks,to allow time for a work session.
Commissioner Vaad moved to continue the third reading of Code Ordinance #2001-1 to April 30, 2001,
at 9:00 a.m. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jerke, and carried unanimously.
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES: The resolutions were presented and signed as listed on the consent
agenda. Code Ordinance #2001-1 was continued on third reading to April 30, 2001, at 9:00 a.m.
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 11:45 a.m.
BOARD OF C UNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD CO , COLORADO
ATTEST: ilugg4/1� 1� IF'Ij t' /. 6 V-6-2
M. J. eile, C air
Weld County Clerk to the B i I bw�
ii-d-4A
Glenn Vaad, Pro-Tern
BY:
Deputy Clerk to the Board 4 % jI_ s
avi E L g
R bert D. Malden
Minutes, April 16, 2001 2001-0872
Page 8 BC0016
Hello