HomeMy WebLinkAbout970513.tiffSUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, February 4, 1997
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held February 4, 1997, in the County
Commissioners' Hearing Room (Room #101), Weld County Centennial Building, 915 10th Street, Greeley,
Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chairman, Arlan Marrs.
Tape 519
b(11111
77
Glenn Vaad
Rusty Tucker
Fred Walker
Shirley Camenisch
Cristie Nicklas
Jack Epple
Marie Koolstra
Ann Garrison
Arlan Marrs
Absent
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Also Present: Monica Daniels -Mika, Director, Chris Goranson, Current Planner, Department of Planning
Services; Lee Morrison, Assistant Weld County Attorney; Don Sandoval, Colorado Department of Local Affairs;
Tammie Pope, Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on January 21, 1997,
was approved as read.
DIRECTOR: Monica Daniels -Mika
REQUEST: Intergovernmental Agreement between Frederick, Firestone, and Dacono
Lee Morrison presented a summary of the Interim Coordinated Planning Agreement. Mr. Morrison explained
that under Colorado law, agreements such as this are authorized between various jurisdictions. The
agreement has been negotiated over an extended period of time with the participation of the three
municipalities and Weld County. The concept of the agreement is to pull together various jurisdictions' planning
processes, so that their approach is a matter of coordination rather than competition. One objective is to
accomplish the types of development which best protect the health, safety, prosperity, and general welfare of
the inhabitants by reducing the waste of financial and human resources which result from either excessive
congestion or excessive scattering of population. Another objective is to achieve maximum efficiency and
economy in the process of development. The agreement is interim in the sense that there will be a plan for the
area developed over the next year by the planning staffs involved in the agreement.
Mr. Morrison explained there is a three mile planning area around the municipalities as a whole, a smaller area
called an Urban Growth Area for each of the municipalities, and a small area of overlap. Within the Urban
Growth Area (the area closest to the municipalities), it is anticipated and encouraged that urban type
development occur in order to have the greatest efficiency of services. Non -urban uses are encouraged in the
areas far removed from the municipalities. Urban uses are those that require sewer services. This covers
most types of land use considerations that the Planning Commission hears. Smaller developments, such as
Recorded Exemptions, would not be effected by this agreement, while Subdivisions or Planned Unit
Developments in this area would be effected.
The land use plan that is anticipated to be created will hopefully have land use standards that are consistent
among the four jurisdictions in this area. Procedures for coordination have been established and will continue
to be addressed between the jurisdictions.
Mr. Morrison explained that referrals, which the County has always had to do, will now be reciprocal for
municipal developments within 500 feet of the edge of all of the towns.
970513
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 4, 1997
Page 2
When someone proposes to the County a development within one of the Urban Growth Areas, the County will
encourage an annexation to the municipality. By discussing and agreeing in advance where each
municipality's Urban Growth Area should be, the municipalities are agreeing to not get into annexation wars.
Except in certain unique circumstances, they are agreeing not to exercise all of their annexation powers.
There are other provisions regarding annexations to ensure one jurisdiction does not get saddled with the
burden of another jurisdiction's approval of a development. There is also a requirement that the weight a Board
gives to someone's testimony should be equal regardless of which jurisdiction they live in.
Mr. Morrison explained that, if adopted, this will be the second agreement the County has entered in to. The
first agreement was with Platteville.
Monica Daniels -Mika explained she felt an important issue to acknowledge is that a lot of staff time (not just
the Department of Planning Services' staff time) went into creating this agreement. It took approximately two
years to create with the help of the staffs of Frederick, Firestone, and Dacono, representatives from the
Colorado Division of Local Affairs and the Weld County Commissioners, and several citizens. The most recent
meeting held was on January 14, 1997, and was attended by all but one of the Weld County Commissioners,
representatives of the elected officials from Frederick, Firestone, and Dacono, and several citizens who voiced
a concern or interest in the past. Lee Morrison went through a similar presentation at that time and explained
the agreement.
In order to make sure this is something people are aware of, the Department of Planning Services' staff issued
a press release to the usual entities. In addition, records have been kept of interested citizens, and they were
also notified by letter of today's meeting. Both the press release and the notification letter contained the dates
and location of the readings before the Board of Weld County Commissioners. Ms. Daniels -Mika informed the
Planning Commission Members that the first reading will be on February 19, 1997, the second will be on March
10, 1997, and the final will be on March 24, 1997. All readings will be at 9:00 a.m. in the County
Commissioners' Hearing Room (Room #101), Weld County Centennial Building, 915 10th Street, Greeley,
Colorado.
Cristie Nicklas asked if the Dacono-Erie I-25 Corridor Growth Area has been agreed to by the three
municipalities, or just Dacono and Erie. Lee Morrison stated that it is between Dacono and Erie.
Cristie Nicklas asked how that will effect the Intergovernmental Agreement and how it will effect Weld County.
Mr. Morrison stated that it will not effect the Intergovernmental Agreement because it is not part of the
agreement and will not effect Weld County as it is between Dacono and Erie.
Fred Walker asked about Mr. Morrison's definition of the Urban Growth Area, and whether he had stated "not
all of the land within the three mile perimeter of the communities is actually part of the Urban Growth Area".
Mr. Morrison stated that is what was said. The three mile area is larger than the urban growth area in some
directions.
Fred Walker asked Mr. Morrison about referral protocol and why the municipalities have until the Thursday
prior to a Board meeting to respond, rather than only the standard twenty-one day review period. Lee Morrison
stated that municipalities have tirring problems that require more time due to part-time staffing and only having
two Board meetings per month.
Marie Koolstra asked if this agreement could have the effect of creating more restrictive enforcement of the
County policies, therefore chasing prospective developers to other counties. Mr. Morrison stated that the goal
is not to prevent development, but to encourage quality development.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 4, 1997
Page 3
Cristie Nickles asked if there is any development conflict with the overlap into the Mixed Use Development
(MUD) area and the Urban Growth Boundaries. Monica Daniels -Mika stated that the Department of Planning
Services' staff is proposing that when development occurs in the overlap areas, the standards from the MUD
Ordinance will be used. The next step in this process is to bring all the players to the table and choose a
baseline for standards in this area. It will be decided how compatible the MUD standards are with each of the
various municipal standards.
Arlan Marrs asked what factors are considered "to achieve maximum efficiency and economy" as stated in the
Purposes and Objectives section. Lee Morrison stated that the factors considered are the public sector
services that have to be expanded when growth occurs.
Mr. Marrs asked if the property rights of the property owner are addressed anywhere in the agreement. Monica
Daniels -Mika responded that the rights are addressed in Section 4.4.
Fred Walker asked if an estate -type subdivision (2.5 acre lots) is considered an urban or non -urban
development. Monica Daniels -Mika stated that it is currently defined as a non -intense urban use, but does fit
in the rural area if there are the attributes available to support it.
Mr. Walker stated that he is concerned that Weld County is saying to the individuals in the Urban Growth Area
that if they can't get annexed, they still won't get County approval. Lee Morrison responded that in the Urban
Growth Area, non -urban type uses are discouraged. The County is not precluded from hearing an urban
development proposal in an Urban Growth Area if the municipality is not interested in the annexation. Mr.
Morrison reiterated that existing land uses are not effected and Recorded Exemptions are not effected. Non -
urban uses in Urban Growth Areas are discouraged, but only if it is a new non -urban use. If someone wanted
to do an urban type development in an urban area and came to the County, the County would direct them to
the municipality. If the municipality wouldn't hear the request, then the County would process the application.
Mr. Morrison explained that people's property rights cannot be taken away, but the case law would not support
the view that people are entitled to be in a certain jurisdiction. The property right ties to the use of the land, and
if the only economic use of the land is an urban type development, either the County or the appropriate
municipality will have to consider that and make an appropriate decision.
Mr.Walker again questioned the estate -type development now allowed in Weld County, and whether Monica
Daniels -Mika stated it is considered non -urban development. Ms. Daniels -Mika stated that currently a
subdivision would be a non -urban development, but she feels that under this agreement, because more than
three parcels would be created, it would not fall under the exemption of non -urban. It would then be urban.
Mr. Walker stated that he feels this would take value from the property owner - value they have today that they
will not have once the agreement is signed. Therefore, the agreement is holding this area to a higher standard
than the rest of the County. Jack Epple commented that the scenario Mr. Walker was using stressed facilities
and services which in the past have pushed the growth to the Urban Growth Area. Finding a developer would
be difficult because they have to meet Weld County's regulations. Mr. Epple feels that instead, the land owner
would want to go to the nearest municipality first. Mr. Walker stated he didn't feel this was an unlikely scenario
because many people are drawn to an urban setting in order to live in a less populated area. He stated that
there is a demand for this type of development in an Urban Growth Area. Lee Morrison stated that the
agreement does not specifically address this scenario, only characteristics. In the non -urban development
definition, a cluster -type development is specifically not to be considered urban. It doesn't say all estate zoning
would or would not be allowed in the non -urban area under this agreement. Mr. Morrison stated you have to
look at the attributes to see if it is really an urban or a rural development. Monica Daniels -Mika stated that
instead of the zoning of the property, the actual intensity should be looked at.
Arlan Marrs stated that the Urban Growth Area line on the map is somewhat arbitrarily drawn in that property
owners on one side of the line are entitled to do one thing, while those on the other side are not.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 4, 1997
Page 4
Monica Daniels -Mika responded that the officials from Frederick, Firestone and Dacono spent a lot of time
analyzing whether or not they had the ability to provide services in various areas where the topography would
preclude development. The towns feel that they can provide services inside those areas, or will be able to in
the future. Mr. Marrs stated that he felt that Ms. Daniels-Mika's response was from the County's or a
municipality's point of view. He questioned what rights are being taken or given to the land owner. Specifically,
he questioned what would be said to a property owner who had two pieces of property - one that could be
developed and one that could not. Ms. Daniels -Mika stated that if the property carried the attributes for
development, then development is more of a probability.
Lee Morrison stated that this a plan, not zoning. The plan can be modified by agreement of the parties. The
lines in question could be modified over the course of discussion during the next year. However, property
owners do not have a vested right in the possibility of a future development. Property owners have a property
interest in being allowed an economic use of their property.
Fred Walker stated that he feels the property owners are being precluded from the opportunity to upgrade or
upzone their property. Mr. Morrison stated that there will still be the opportunity to upzone to other types of
uses that are still non -urban. Mr. Walker stated he was referring to urban development. Mr. Morrison stated
that Mr. Walker was jumping back and forth over the line between development outside and inside Urban
Growth Areas.
Marie Koolstra stated that there has to be some sort of master plan, even though some people will feel cheated.
She is concerned however, that the County will be held to a higher standard in the proposed area. Lee
Morrison stated that the plan that is anticipated by the agreement is not done, but the planning staffs have
looked at those issues. He doesn't know whether the standards are higher or lower, only that they are different.
Monica Daniels -Mika stated that the Weld County Comprehensive Plan talks about the need for
intergovernmental agreements, urban growth boundaries, and efficient land development. It lists why one
would want to enter into an agreement and the best tools for doing it. Ms. Daniels -Mika stated there has been
a lot of philosophical discussion in this meeting as to whether this is a good thing, but this is the direction the
Comprehensive Plan gave to us three years ago in order to make municipalities and the County regionally
responsible for what is done in an area. The big picture is that this region in question is developing at an
incredibly fast pace and there has to be some type of relationship between the various government entities.
This is the first step to agree that we're going to agree to go some place. Many of the issues brought up that
some Planning Commission Members are uncomfortable with are currently being done in land use.
There was discussion about whether the one-half mile urban growth boundary had been changed to a three
mile boundary area. Monica Daniels -Mika stated the three mile boundary discussed in the agreement refers
to the outside area of the municipal boundaries; there is still a one-half mile urban growth boundary inside the
area.
Shirley Camenisch asked if all of the towns have signed the agreement. Don Sandoval stated all three of the
towns have signed the agreement and are waiting for it to go through the County process. Mr. Sandoval
explained the municipality annexation process. He also wanted to acknowledge that there has been a lot of
work done and time spent on this project.
Jack Epple moved that the Interim Coordinated Planning Agreement be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners with Planning Commission's recommendation for approval. Shirley Camenisch seconded the
motion.
Arlan Marrs stated that in the past the Planning Commission Members have passed things along to the Board
of County Commissioners with the idea that the Commissioners would take care of it during the three readings.
Mr. Marrs stated that he would like to see the Planning Commission take the initiative to send an agreement
that they truly believe in and agree on to the Board of County Commissioners.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 4, 1997
Page 5
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision.
Cristie Nicklas-yes; Fred Walker -no; Jack Epple-yes; Shirley Camenisch-yes; Marie Koolstra-yes; Arlan Marrs -
no. Motion carried.
2. DIRECTOR: Monica Daniels -Mika
REQUEST: Amend the Department of Planning Services Land -Use Application Fee
Monica Daniels -Mika explained the Department of Planning Services' staff wishes to make an addition (which
will be numbered as 26) to its Land -Use application fees. The staff is in the process of making available to the
public an amendment to an application for a Special Review Permit for Solid Waste Disposal Sites and
Facilities which will read as follows: "The fee to amend an application for a Special Review Permit for Solid
Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities shall not exceed $17,114.00. The full amount shall be submitted to the
Department of Planning Services at the time a complete application is submitted. The full amount shall be
escrowed and charged against by the county based on the standard hourly rate for each department
administering or reviewing the permit. The departments shall include but not be limited to the Department of
Planning Services, Weld County Health Department, Weld County Public Works, and the Weld County
Attorney's Office. The standard hourly rate shall be established by the Weld County Finance Department for
the actual time spent on the review of the application and facility. The applicant shall be provided copies of the
billing five days prior to the cost actually being billed against the escrow account and the applicant. The
applicant's sole remedy to appeal any billing shall be to the Board of County Commissioners. The unused
portion of the submitted application fee held in escrow shall be returned to the applicant within 30 days of
recording the amended Special Review plan map, or within 30 days after denial of the application by the Board
of County Commissioners, or 30 days after the applicant submits a written request to withdraw the application."
Ms. Daniels -Mika stated the fees are based on the amount of time it takes to process an average case and to
go through the various steps of the applications. Recent amendments to Solid Waste Facilities have not
required the entire $17, 114.00 fee, so the department is trying to make it more equitable to those applicants.
Fred Walker asked if the only change is in the monetary amounts for each application. Ms. Daniels -Mika stated
that is the only change.
Shirley Camenisch asked how the staffs time is figured. Ms. Daniels -Mika referred to a memo dated April 4,
1996 from Don Warden, Weld County Finance Director. It figures time based on overhead and support
charges, and indirect and direct costs. The hourly rate for a Planner VII is $71.80, and is $58.18 for an
Environmental Specialist.
Fred Walker asked how the indirect cost compares to the direct cost. Monica Daniels -Mika stated the memo
lists the indirect cost as $22.09 and support costs are $24.41, but she did not know the various components
that comprise direct and indirect costs.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this amendment.
No one wished to speak.
Cristie Nicklas motioned that the amendment to the Department of Planning Services' Land -Use Application
Fees, number 26 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with Planning Commission's
recommendation for approval. Shirley Camenisch seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision.
Cristie Nicklas-yes; Fred Walker -yes; Jack Epple-yes; Shirley Camenisch-yes; Marie Koolstra-yes; Arlan
Marrs -yes. Motion carried unanimously.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 4, 1997
Page 6
Meeting adjourned at 3:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
C (Z'YYI VYI IQ
Tammie Pope
Secretary
Hello