HomeMy WebLinkAbout20010723.tiff EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
CODE ORDINANCE#2001-1
Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description
As As A. Planning Staff Memorandum re: Summary of Changes
g (03/01/2001)
/�, �
Q Platt B. James/� Mountain Letter of concern (03/07/2001)
/ -} 434e/200))
C. A, Imo.Q _itC'. ...1161/ /Qf uaow
D. /%4iuiip l Yino:ft/etm..P.e� ..b.. : dittJZcnto (3//21200)
t E. P uu2 .i�rla.(✓u g700 (o3//940o i)
F. .i/letl GJ / s)/4ae/ i o�63�4/200/
j4
J
G. tiL
L � TV/Ykiv7 At ' N dzoa ck.., Icati d..yjp4 (3/,Y/2co i)
H ^I( „!- I1( L iJ \AfG5 () ' ' -3 ( 2-3-H ---1°101--i)
I. AA/ WYY�na I &/ha JA L _ tap,it,a/ is tsi4u
J. (ILA S2saiir-D /Uttlia 60 //512-001)
aK. / iaAibt d�' n/L/Aft •' A pox i ��,/a, „2no1 Ao.
o L. p /LL12y C l ote dare,
.C� (U3� �L00)
CV
T M. ///2 ✓eat.l At (kb �Gare,
N. P/2L np �� Staara4 �ii�sd [01
4no' i�os // 1
R
P. �Qla.� 1197-L , I (Silt r6-0- 00//
/_I Q. (1/4.4;0. .4(i.0 0, „7.t`LL /1i �aJI (8..4.„ /.,.rd„..s-,.,X d 4, „7`
p ro-S/L3/�X7��
R. Jawnsj /1) Afii-. -ol' ��mn..ttn., (3[Zg'/(9/)
,/
S i �J(gdhJ 7�?.l.{ia • (',c, eb. ( //�/ 20-)/
T. ad SC.`1.dL$Z -.: &QTC.A i4tts. o/ 4ma.LtuLJ (0'-///3 IZOoi
u. 74, n« /<-,- 3 . ea�`
o
lic V. a-7-23 S 1 .474.--4-i-4-4--t /4, a. few .-m er. i�,
oa-7- 3 , v
CJ N
4 70 U ) 2001-0723
Sa ‘bnAorAl-id
(oy/ey/o1�
U SQL) Ida do v,�,.
I
Z.
85
Cc.
hN
CE
FF
UC
'WI
/min
JJ - - -
AJM
cc
pp
SS
iT
(fix
MEMORANDUM
/�• O�. To: Commissioner Mike Geile and Monica Daniels-Mika
From: Anne Best Johnson
COLORADO Subject: County Code Amendments
Date: March 1, 2001
This memorandum serves as an Executive Summary of all proposed amendments to the County Code.
These amendments were approved by Planning Commission members on November 21, 2000.
Over-riding minor changes in all Chapters of the County Code shall reflect repagination, grammatical
changes, changing the case of letters of words within this document for County-wide consistency,
correction of agency names after the agency has changed names and any reference to the Right to
Farm Covenant shall be changed to "Weld County's Right to Farm."
Intergovernmental Agreement with Dacono, Frederick and Firestone, Chapter 19
The community of Firestone has requested an amendment to exhibit 19-C by amending the current
map to reflect a smaller Urban Growth Boundary.
Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 23
Additional Amendmeirt not heard at Planning Commission: to add the printed or typed name of all
signees directly under where someone has signed their name. This proposal will affect Section 23-2-
160 6a.
Minor Change 1: To clarify where the Collateral Improvements Agreement is located.
Minor Change 2: To make reference to all IGAs where appropriate.
Minor Change 3: Grammatical change corrected with publication of Code.
Minor Change 4: Addition of three uses in the Agricultural Zone District: Commercial Roping
Arenas, Indoor and Outdoor Roping Arenas, and to add uses such as water
skiing lakes and dirt bike courses as a Recreational Facility.
Minor Change 5: Clarification of the intent of Principally Employed, flood proof certification, and
Board of Adjustment duties of interpreting the Zoning Ordinance.
Minor Change 6: Change process of amending particular USRs to make the process less
cumbersome for applicants.
Minor Change 7: Clarification of Sections based upon current policy and Procedural Guides:
County Treasurer certificate, mineral owner notification and ditch owner
notification.
Minor Change 8: Mylar Plat Submittal requirements consistent with state standards.
Minor Change 9: Provide Easement Certificate example for citizen use.
Substantial Change 1: New terms to be defined: Agricultural Exempt Building, Building
Envelope, Cluster, Conservation Easement, Double Frontage,
Mobile Home Pad, Principally Employed or Principally Engaged,
Reverse Frontage, Sign, Flush Wall Sign, Super Elevation,
Training Facility, and Travel Way. Terms to be clarified include:
Animal Unit, Mobile Home, Non Urban Scale and Urban Scale
Development, Recreational Vehicle, Screened, Setback and
Structure.
Substantial Change 2: Mobile Homes may not be a Temporary Accessory Structure.
Substantial Change 3: Motor vehicles/trailers are not an acceptable sign base.
EXHIBIT
SERVICE,TEAMWORK,INTEGRITY,QUALITY
tRbO of-I
Substantial Change 4: Amendments to Parking Lot requirements by Public Works:
Surface construction, ADA Requirements, plant material height,
turning radius width.
Substantial Change 5: Disallow development in the Flood Way.
Substantial Change 6: To allow one Temporary Accessory Structures in the Agricultural
Zone District as a use by right. Additional Temporary Accessory
Structures will require a permit process, similar to the ZPMH.
This proposal offers safeguards while taking into consideration the
need for such structures.
Substantial Change 7: Amendments to concrete batch plant USR requirements
(engineered vehicle washing area) by Public Health.
Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 24
Minor Change 1: Adding a space for the typed or printed name under signature blocks, Certificate
examples.
Minor Change 2: Mineral Owner/Lessee Notification consistent with Chapter 23 made nearly one
year ago and was overlooked in this Ordinance.
Minor Change 3: This change was made during Codification.
Minor Change 4: Reference to all applicable ordinances for consistency.
Minor Change 5: Deletion due to obsolete language. Correction to reduce confusion on open
space dedication calculation that has been replaced by percentages.
Minor Change 6: Include information found in the Amendment Index regarding the time frame for
subsequent Recorded Exemptions into the text of this Section so that this
information is not lost with the publication of the County Code.
Minor Change 7: Mylar Plat Submittal requirements consistent with state standards.
Substantial Change 1: Definition Section Additions: Building Envelope, Double Frontage,
Maintained County Road, Non Maintained County Road, Reverse
Frontage, Super elevation, Structure, Travel Way. Definition
Amendments: Urban and Non Urban Scale Development, Site
Specific Development Plan, Sketch Plan, Subdivision or
Subdivided Land.
Substantial Change 2: Additions of references to road classification table and cross
sections to be located in the Subdivision Ordinance only to reduce
confusion. All other ordinances will cross-reference these tables
and charts. Other amendments regarding road, access and
sidewalk construction standards at the request of Public Works.
Substantial Change 3: Clarification of Sections based upon current policy and Procedural
Guides: County Treasurer certificate, erosion control plan, road
plan specifications, public dedications, deed requirements,
building envelopes, irrigation company notification, a description
of what constitutes a technical error.
Substantial Change 4: Clarification and amendment to the resubdivision plat
requirements: to illustrate the property before and after the
resubdivision.
Substantial Change 5: An amendment passed by the Planning Commission in 1999 by
the Assistant County Attorney but never heard by the Board of
County Commissioners regarding elapsed time and the right to
develop a Sketch Plan.
Substantial Change 6: Sanitary Sewer requirements at the request of the Department of
Public Health, consistent with Public Health chapters of the
County Code.
SERVICE,TEAMWORK,INTEGRITY,QUALITY
Substantial Change 7: An option for developers to pay Cash-in-Lieu of developing
Common Open Space.
Mixed Use Development Ordinance, Chapter 26
Substantial Change 1: Amendments at the request of Public Works to require developers
to improve typical roadway cross sections.
Substantial Change 2: An option for developers to pay Cash-in-Lieu of developing
Common Open Space.
Planned Unit Development Ordinance, Chapter 27
Minor Change 1: Amendments to reflect where the Collateral requirements are found in the Code.
Minor Change 2: Amendments to prohibit certain signs (rotating components, light movement,
etc.).
Minor Change 3: Amendments consistent with current policy and provides safeguards to reduce
conflict between surface and mineral property owners.
Minor Change 4: Mineral Owner/Lessee notification similar to same notification in the Zoning
Ordinance and missed in this Chapter of the Code.
Minor Change 5: Public notification consistency with state statute.
Minor Change 6: Parking lot surface at the request of Public Works.
Substantial Change 1: New terms to be defined: Conservation Easement. Amended
terms: Non Urban and Urban Scale Development.
Substantial Change 2: Cluster PUD mechanism called out in State Statute. This
provides the mechanism to accomplish a Cluster PUD in Weld
County.
Substantial Change 3: Public Water and Public Sewer requirements proposed by the
Public Health Department and consistent with Public Health
chapters of the County Code.
Substantial Change 4: Final Plat and Vesting of Property Rights proposed one year ago
by the Assistant County Attorney to the Planning Commission
members. This has not been heard by the Board.
Substantial Change 5: Roadway Improvements language addition at the request of
Public Works.
Substantial Change 6: An option for developers to pay Cash-in-Lieu of developing
Common Open Space.
Substantial Change 7: An option to develop Guest Quarters as a non-income producing
addition to new PUD's (housing elderly parents, live-in household
help, etc.)
SERVICE,TEAMWORK,INTEGRITY,QUALITY
JAMES H. MOUNTAIN
r-
Architecture: Space and Site Planning
436 Coffman St. Suite 200
Longmont, Co. 80501
(303) 774-2391,
March 7, 2001 Page 1 of 3
Weld County Commissioners
10th Ave and 10th St.
Greeley, Colorado
Re: Proposed changes to the Subdivision Regulations regarding road/street
construction size requirements for new subdivisions.
Dear Commissioners,
Attached are several sketches showing the intersections of new roads based
upon the requirement that the first developer of any area build the entire road
cross section for county roads adjacent to his subdivision.
My concerns are based upon several points of view of this requirement:
1. There is the neighbor relationship to each other and the fairness of the first
developer building the road and the adjacent neighbor not contributing either
land or money to the contruction of the County required road section
2. There is the financial factor, building twice the road is twice as expensive for
the first developer.
3. There is the physical aspect of the construction, geometry of the road layout
and durability of the final portion of the road.
Item #1
While the County has right of way of 60 feet wide along section lines, the newer
traffic requirements and design requirements for 80 foot wide collectors and 120
foot wide arterial require additional land from each owner adjacent to county
roads under all circumstances. However if the first developer has to build the
entire road section he must contribute 20 to 60 feet additional land to meet the
county regulations.
In addition the entrances from the county road to the private roads will require
additional accel/decel lanes. Depending upon the development's traffic count
and the physical size of the development the accel/decel lanes on a quarter
section will require a 12 foot additional lane for the nearly the entire length of the
property.
2 EXHIBIT
Page 2 of 3
WC roads
March 7, 2001
For a quarter section of land, the taking an additional 30 feet from the first
developer amounts to taking 30ft. x 2,640ft. strip of land (1.81 acres of
open space or approximately eleven 6000 sq.ft. home sites). At the same
time the adjacent neighbor is being given the offsetting 30ft strip because
he does not have to build that portion of the road.
Item #2 - Financial
The cost of building the entire road section is really three parts.
The actual cost of building half of the road width is approximately $200,000 to
$250,000 for one half mile. Building twice the road width is at least double this
cost, if other factors such as irrigation ditches or relocation of overhead and
underground utilities is not involved.
If the first developer is fortunate enough to receive some reimbursement for
"overbuilding the road" due to proportionate shares of outside user loads. He will
not receive the reimbursement for some lengthy amount of time and he will not
collect much interest if any on the initial cost investment.
The first developer losses the ground for the extra width of road and the income
from the ground if it were developed into saleable property. Assuming residential
sites at 35,000 each he losses $385,000 in lot sales. The adjacent neighbor
gains the equivalent amount through no effort of his own.
These financial impacts on the first developer are enough to kill a project where
the developer is building roads on three sides of the project, as he may have to
do on quarter section of land in the MUD area.
Item #3 — the physical aspect
The attached sketches, labeled figures 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, & 7 represent the road
alignment problems when developers build at different times. They represent the
most difficult condition, which occur at the intersections.
Figures 1,2, & 3 represent the current regulations of one developer building first
and the second developer on the diagonal corner building second and the long-
term goal of full development of the area.
�. � Page 3 of 3
WC Roads
March 7, 2001
Figures 5 & 6 represent the proposed regulation where each opposing developer
builds the entire road section on the current right of way and a portion of his land.
The major difference being that the street does not align over time and the lanes
make a 20 to 40 foot jog across the intersection. Given the anticipated higher
traffic volumes and high-speed traffic the jog is even more dangerous than the
original regulations would create. The jog in the lanes would be forever, not just
during the development stages.
Figure 7 represents the condition which will happen at WCR#28 and the
Proposed WCR #9 "A, if all parties developing in the area elect not to develop at
the same time, or maybe never to develop. In this condition there is no existing
ROW for the first and second developers to build in and they would have to build
on their own land.
The resulting road alignment would not work for many safety and functional
reasons.
Durability
The construction of the full width of the road represents long term maintenance
problems. Asphalt roads require traffic to keep their compaction up. If the full
width of the road is built before the number of cars and bicycles demands it, the
road will not receive the heavy traffic need to keep the compaction up. It will
disintegrate from lack of use.
If the cross section includes, turn lanes, and extra one way lanes, and the areas
around it have not developed completely, the lanes will not receive the
compaction needed to keep the road in good shape.
Thank you for considering these points before adopting these regulations.
Sincerely,
O/‘awea Csien 00001- 7
James Mountain, Architect and Planner
File:Weld County Road Regulations
I1
I , I
I
II
OWNER # 1 I 11 OWNER #2
{ : si
0 FT RIGHT OF WAY
{ ! SECTION LINE
1 • . 1
1
. j ,
1
1
I I
OWNER #3 ,1 ` OWNER #4
1 , 1
4
1
7
$
1 1
I I ti
L . . II . . _1
80 FOOT COLLECTOR
TYPICAL INTERSECTION
.1 !,1111
r t1{
OWNER # 1 ; • ` = I OWNER #2
_` 60 FT RIGHT OF WAY
I
SECTION LINE
, , , „
t ; I
OWNER #3 I3 OWNER #4
•
11 11
80 FOOT COLLECTOR
TYPICAL INTERSECTION
FJGUR_ ,
III III
1 II
s; : it
r
:;
OWNER # 1 OWNER #2
�. ; s
SECTION LINE `'
-r:
-- - - - - _- --- --I 60 FT ROW
NEW ROW LINE .�
OWNER #3 I 1 I I OWNER #4
I I :I
l I II
I I .I .
I III
80 FOOT COLLECTOR
TYPICAL INTERSECTION
UNDER PROPOSED REVISION TO ORDINANCES
' �I I
�I I
I
OWNER # 1 II� OWNER D #2
SECTION LINE I
60 FT ROW
NEW ROW LINE
OWNER #3 I I I OWNER #4
I I�
I I�
I
80 FOOT COLLECTOR '
TYPICAL INTERSECTION
UNDER PROPOSED REVISION TO ORDINANCES
FIGURE # 6
k 1 1 1 1 1
IIl III
• i .L ; : s
OWNER # 1 Hill OWNER #2
: : 1 I
SECTION LINE Ia' ) I '_.
► : , .... ....,.. .... _ _
,......_
_ __ .
_ ___________....__..... _ _ -.......7.77.,.. • -
- -. - ..-. WCR -leff -..-
__ ..
____. ____ ___. ____.
. .
-- . -. /
. , ,,N, . ,
! : '1 ! ' I
! , i, : , PROPERTY LINE
Y ill
t :., 4
Y
OWNER #3: /
; OWNER #4
: i
II 1 I
11 II
I mill
120 FOOT ARERIAL
WCR # 9 1 / 2 ® WCR # 28
FIGURE # 7
Z1 •
D i 120'-0' ARTERIAL RIGHT OF WAY I D
Er
w 18 FOOT I BB'-0' FLOWUNE TO FLOWUNE 1I lfi'-0'
ill
LANDSCAPED AREA I 6'-0'I 12'-0' I 12'-0' 1 14'I-0' 1 12'-0' 1 12'-0' 16'-0'! LAROSGPFD AREA ii
a I I BIKE I DRIVE LANE I DRIVE LANE MED1}N OR DRIVE LANE DRIVE LANE I BIKE T &
6' VEROCAL i LANE I I i NRN LANE 1 I 1 �E I MINIMUM 2% la
6 FT. ONC. SIDEWALK CATCH CURB I I I B 1/2' NLTHICK ASPHALT! EARTH SLOPE 1
I 1 1 i i OR 6 1/2'1 CONCRETE ROD TYPICAL 1 6 MOT CONC. SIDEWALK
1 I I SURFACE PER SOILS TORT I
:y,, NiSCUR,.".tS :2 ' ' A ,`nele"i,�Y:`Yi"% "�i,T`J`isyterr``,`lb,' v./4>ee,e///fr///i``�niY/`y/`/////"ii`�i"i/\SIVCY//./`� (u CO EARTH)�'T��iviinY
't/%,,,,v, ,,,:/: te?+i.%/>i%4//Ii ////.NSy,l/t// 4,`�i,.`Y,?i,�7iY���rS,,.`»`1,Si.`b,�y.�h,�i.`✓,y," �7t/eiT`.a`o.`Y,r`,,"TA.`/t.I�`,., „„ ,./., I`/4/V
120 FOOT ARTERIAL
SCALE: 1 ' = 10'-0"
D I BD'-0' COLLECTOR RIGHT OF WAY i w
j! i I 50'-0' FLOWLJNE TO FLOWLINE i I D
a.0 MOT., 6'-0'1 12'-0' 1 14'-0' 1 12'-0' 16'-0'! 15'-0'
a 1LµDSCA*ED AREA; BIKE 1 DRIVE MEDIAN OR DRIVE ( BIKE ;LANDSCAPED ARE,{,Ia
6 FT MEANDERING i 1 e'iVERRCAL l LANE i LANE I NRN LANE I LANE LANE gg
CONC. SIDEWALK CATCH CURB I B 1/2" FULTHICK ASPHALT 11S 6 FT MEANDERING
1 OR 6 1/2 CONCi /E ROAD CONC. SIDEWALK MINIMUM 2%
:%•%%..%%•%) 11 i I I I SURFACE-• PER TOILS REPQRf EARTH SLOPE
/fl..�./mt,/y �j/,� a�.... „ r�y,/'!r vri�i`p.w4;.`�i��et.e.:r�ioo-,-. . . TYPICAL
I\!/\//�//`�eiriI/�//�I`�//\U .2 f ALL �,' /`/I�/..`0:41,t` a.VfQ\I/�7i\//PIP,ItI�4../\��>.</,Kl �r/�ar",(Weg`�/41..k.i14/4//�tarts& EARTH�/1,,,,,„,,,,,,,v35.
,V.//�!/\\!/�!s
s\/b�GYYi�4`4�iS4 AN• CURS ER *4' �e,4"/Y e're�/� viVtpiterore'rrpleZtici�//X/ .$4•\/!/�q�!/\!/IA(UNCOMPApTED).e.epOpGtiatt
/O�O�Q/!��O/!��O�O/!O/!S..�:............ .....,ti0/�J�O/�J!�J/���0/S�/S%fr/�J�O/�JsS`„\`„\,e,O/„J�J/\;Qb�����0/X4L!eO��QJ/!O/!��!!Oett!!pC�/O!� !O�pr!O/!���ett
•
80 FOOT COLLECTOR
SCALE: 11 = 10'-0"
Y
I
m _
CAROL Hardin Subdivision Ordinance Questions
9
From: Anne Johnson
To: Harding, CAROL
Date: 3/12/01 3:03PM
Subject: Subdivision Ordinance Questions
Ok. Subdivision Ordinance.
Minor Change#5 and Substantial Change#7. The following is what I have come to the conculsion based
upon PC Resolution:
24-7-180A amended as written: PLEASE SEE PC RESOLUTION FOR CORRECT LANGUAGE
24-7-180B amended as written
24-7-180C remains the same
24-7-180D deleted
24-7-180E amended as written
24-7-180E1 and E2 deleted
Please send a copy of the ordinance. I have found several items where the language from PC to BOCC
Resolution has changed or language has been deleted. The second reading will be correcting some of
this, but I will need to find it all to make sure our Chapters are correct. Thanks.
•
4 EXHIBIT
C..,
ea 04 tool-/
CAROL Harding Proposed Ordinance Change llW Page 1 ;
WELD COU;'-,;1Y
From: RICKnII -
To:Date: / 1.4:35PM'1 8= 02
Subject: Proposed Ordinance Change IR I am very concerned abut the°proposed re-definition of Non-Urban Scale Development being currently
considered by the Board of County Commissioners. The change appears to broaden the scope of
residential development and support more growth outside urban growth corridors.
Increasing the number to residential lots from five to eight will likely cause a corresponding increase in
the concentrations of residents from 12.5 to 20. This adds that many more residents to areas not normally
within the routine call service area for the Sheriffs Office. As a result, law enforcement services are
stretched by increasing the likelihood services will be needed and distance traveled to respond to
emergencies.
We have already seen several instances where residences built outside urban growth corridors have
installed intrusion alarms. These responses have significant impacts on the Sheriffs Office When
deputies service calls in outlying areas, response capability within the routine call service area is
compromised because that response resource is no longer proximate to the largest service demand. It is
far more efficient to provide services to more concentrated populations and this proposal appears to
support just the opposite.
I am concerned the cumulative effects of this change over time will result in: 1)Accelerated
degradation of emergency response time, and, 2)The need for additional personnel and support
resources at a rate far greater than could be funded by corresponding tax revenues.
CC: COOKE, JOHN; Jordan, ED
I rin
Us °d f-H
CAROL HardinRe 23-3-40 mistake do you have this one Page 1
From: Anne Johnson
To: Morrison, LEE
Date: 3/14/01 7:15AM
Subject: Re: 23-3-40 mistake do you have this one
No. It's a spelling error and I don't think it needs to go to BOCC, I'll forward this to Carol. Thanks, Lee.
The correct word should be"filed". Thanks.
>>> LEE Morrison 03/13/01 04:55PM >>>
P. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS with GROSS FLOOR AREA larger than four percent(4%) of the total
lot area, as detailed in Section 23-3-30 above, per BUILDING on LOTS in an approved or recorded
subdivision plat or LOTS part of a map or plan field prior to adoption of any regulations controlling
subdivisions.
CC: Harding, CAROL
EXHIBIT
ad#zoa-/
CAROL Hardin-6: 3DE FIN ITIONS.doc Page 1
h r-
rinvi:-II-tU LOU'!dry
March 13,2001 frn „
�t � ., ' 19 AM ft: 53
Weld County Commissioners
915 10th Street
EG" `./
Greeley,Colorado 80631
Dear Commissioner:
At last week's meeting about the adoption of the changes to the County Code, I spoke to you about the
planning commission's meeting that recommended those proposed changes. As a member of the planning
commission, I wanted to actually do some"planning for the future", so I submitted to the rest of the commission
my own definitions for their consideration. Mr. Lee Morrison was able to find the document which had four
definitions that I proposed. Those definitions are listed below.
My conservation easement definition was approved by the planning commissioners. The other three
definitions were defeated on a vote of 4 to 4. As I mentioned last week, one of the dissenting members
qualified their vote by stating that if the word public had been used instead of potable,that member would have
voted in favor of the three new definitions.
My proposed Non-Urban development and Sub-Urban development left out the reference to being €�
adjacent to PUD's, subdivisions,municipal boundaries, or urban growth corridors. It seems unfair and
impractical to restrict a property from development if it meets all the other requirements but is located adjacent
to one of these categories. I think that those properties would be appropriate to develop because the water,
roads, and other services would already be there.
The third level of development(Sub-Urban scale)was proposed to address the changing areas within
Weld County, such as Windsor and Severance. I live in this area, and I see how it is changing from strictly
agricultural to a low density residential environment. Both Windsor and Severance have this type of
development(public water and septic systems) in their communities and do not object to similar kinds of
developments in the county. One of the goals of the planning staff is to have development standards that are
consistent within the communities of an area,and this third classification would do that.
CONSERVATION EASEMENT- An encumbrance upon an identified parcel of land stipulating the
restriction of additional or future development. The easement removes 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.
NON-URBAN SCALE DEVELOPMENT -Developments comprised of eight or fewer residential lots located
in a non-urban area as defined by the Weld County Comprehensive Plan.NON-SUBURBAN SCALE
DEVELOPMENT may include 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 years.
SUB-URBAN SCALE DEVELOPMENT-Developments comprised of more than eight residential lots but
whose gross densities are no higher than 2 %2 acres per lot,with a minimum lot size of one acre per residential
lot. All lots would he serviced by potable water and enhanced septic sewer systemic.
URBAN SCALE DEVELOPMENT_-Developments comprised of more than eight residential lots and are
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. URBAN SCALE
DEVELOPMENT requires support services including potable water,sewer systems, road networks, and storm
drainage.
EXHIBIT
Thank you for your consideration.
eO'di,64#ZO01-I
:',-CAROL Harding -3DEFINITIONS.doc Page 2
Fred Walker
E{fI
g!e
CAROL Harding - Subdivisions Page 1 I
‘V E-1
-1 D CCU,, i
From: LuAnn Penfold <Ipenfold@firehousemail.com>
To: "A Johnson"<ajohnson@co.weld.co.us> it -j iv 3 0
Date: 3/14/01 10:06AM "" `
Subject: Subdivisions
Hi Anne, RECEIVED
Regarding our phone call yesterday about subdivisions. When a subdivision is planned we require access
and water supply for fire fighting operations. When a subdivision is planned for an outlying area they are,
in a lot of cases, residential estate type subdivisions and homes built in these areas are typically a lot
larger and require a higher water supply for fire fighting operations. Because they are located in outlying
areas the required water supplies are not usually available as the needed larger waterlines are not
extended to these areas and it becomes very costly for the developer to extend these needed waterlines
or provide the required fire flow.
Hope this information is helpful.
LuAnn
Get Your Own Free E-Mail!
Firehouse.Com
The Web's Community and Resouce for Fire, Rescue and EMS
http://www.Firehouse.Com
EXHIBIT
a
EX4IB$T
{
George-
Please review. Mike will give you a call tomorrow. We intend to propose something very
similar to the following:
All concrete batch facilities shall be equipped with an appropriately designed vehicle washing
area. The washing area shall be designed and constructed to capture all effluent and revent
xxtV'
discharges from drum washing and the washing of vehicles in accordance with tie kiiles and
Regulations of the Water Quality Control Commission and the Environmental Protection
Agency.
Thanks, Trevor
CAROL Harding - COUNTYCODELETTER#2.doc Page
WELD COUNTY
7111 HP 20 AN 9: 23
March 19, 2001
REC \/FD
Weld County Commissioners
915 10th 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 staff's 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.
g EXHIBIT
F 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
Hello