HomeMy WebLinkAbout990988.tiff RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
MAY 3, 1999
TAPE #99-14
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,
May 3, 1999, 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 Dale K. Hall, Chair
Commissioner Barbara J. Kirkmeyer, Pro-Tern
Commissioner George E. Baxter
Commissioner M. J. Geile
Commissioner Glenn Vaad
Also present:
County Attorney, Bruce T. Barker
Acting Clerk to the Board, Esther E. Gesick
Director of Finance and Administration, Donald D. Warden
MINUTES: Commissioner Vaad moved to approve the minutes of the Board of County
Commissioners meeting of April 28, 1999, as printed. Commissioner Baxter
seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
CERTIFICATION
OF HEARINGS: Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to approve the Certification of Hearings
conducted on April 28, 1999, as follows: 1) Change of Zone #521 from A
(Agricultural) Zone District to PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zone District,
William Harper; and 2) A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review
Permit #1219, Sand Land, Inc., % Pasquale and Jacqueline Varra.
Commissioner Vaad seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
ADDITIONS TO
AGENDA: There were no additions to the agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Baxter moved to approve the consent agenda as printed.
Commissioner Geile seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
PUBLIC INPUT: There was no public input.
(' 990988
e-. )ya c 0, /Y'aL BC0016
WARRANTS: Donald Warden, Director of Finance and Administration,presented the following
warrants for approval by the Board:
All Funds $1,009,279.07
Electronic Transfers -All Funds $779,825.00
Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to approve the warrants as presented by Mr.
Warden. Commissioner Geile seconded the motion,which carried unanimously.
BUSINESS:
OLD: CONSIDER PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES AND
AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN - HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY (CON'T
FROM 03/17/99): Michael Sampson, Assessor's Office, stated he visited the
site and reviewed the equipment and is still recommending denial of the petition
and the request can be heard by the Board of Assessment Appeals. Karen
Bishop represented the petitioner and stated Hewlett Packard produces
computers and components and according the Division of Property Taxation,
electronic manufacturing equipment should have an economic life of six years.
She stated she has gone through the list of assets submitted to Weld County
by Hewlett Packard for 1996 and identified items which are electronic in nature
and used in electronic manufacturing. Ms. Bishop explained how property life
is determined and stated Hewlett Packard uses a production line for at least
eighteen months up to three years before a product is taken out of production
to be replaced with a new item and the production equipment is not reused. Mr.
Sampson stated the information was submitted to the Assessor's Office in 1996
by individuals who worked at Hewlett Packard at the time and are no longer
there. He agreed that the life expectancy for electronic manufacturing
equipment is six years; however, he has no way of verifying the reported
equipment qualifies when it no longer exists. He stated until he has assistance
from the Board of Assessment Appeals to research the matter further,there are
too many unresolved questions. Ms. Bishop stated the list provided clearly
indicates the type of equipment and did not lump all of the equipment together.
In response to Commissioner Baxter, Mr. Sampson stated the description of the
equipment is not clear enough and the equipment cannot be viewed. Ms.
E3ishop reiterated the equipment has been disposed of; however, the listing of
equipment, marked Exhibit B, does list the assets as they were put unto service.
She stated the only account under consideration is #1730 which was the
electronic manufacturing equipment, and it has been reviewed line-by-line with
Hewlett Packard locally, as well as at the Corporate Headquarters. Mr.
Sampson stated there is no way to verify whether the equipment listed actually
existed. Ms. Bishop explained Hewlett Packard has been doing a nation wide
review of its property taxes and Colorado State Statute does allow to review
records two years prior, and added the current equipment is very similar to what
was used in 1996. Mr. Sampson expressed concern because the information
being reviewed was obtained by the petitioner from the Assessor's records
rather than providing their own documentation. In response to Commissioner
E3axter, Ms. Bishop stated Hewlett Packard feels this equipment should have
been given a six year depreciation value rather than ten years. Responding to
Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Sampson stated if this petition goes to the Board
of Assessment Appeals the petitioner will need to provide their own records
Minutes, May 3, 1999 990988
Page 2 BC0016
proving the equipment did exist in 1996, and Ms. Bishop stated Attachment D
is a summary of Exhibit B. In response to Commissioner Geile, Ms. Bishop
stated the petition amount reflects the proposed valued amount of the entire
manufacturing account at the end of 1996; however, they did separate out
equipment that did not qualify. Chair Hall expressed concern that the
abatement amount does not match the report amounts and Commissioner
Kirkmeyer commented the report is not clear enough to determine whether the
depreciation should be adjusted. Ms. Sampson stated it is not even clear
whether the equipment has actually been sold or is being used on another line.
Mr. Barker clarified the burden of proof is the responsibility of the petitioner. In
response to Commissioner Vaad, Mr. Sampson explained the Board of
Assessment Appeal will hear the Assessor's Office position and possibly
subpoena records to help determine whether the petition is justified. Following
further discussion, Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to deny the petition and
authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Geile, the motion
carried unanimously.
NEW: CONSIDER EXPENDITURE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST FOR
EMPLOYMENT SERVICES AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN: Walt
Speckman, Director of Human Services, stated this request is for Performance
Incentive Funds in the amount of $13,692 and Capacity Building Funds in the
amount of$7,000 which will be used for the One-Stop Career Center programs
and staff training. Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to approve said request and
authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Baxter, the motion
carried unanimously.
CONSIDER AGREEMENT FOR INMATE ELECTRONIC HOME MONITORING
SERVICES AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN - INTERVENTION: Dave
Malcolm, Sheriff's Office, stated this is the same company used previously to
provide electronic monitoring on inmates at home or at an off-site premises of
the Jail. In response to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Malcolm stated the program
monitors approximately 46 inmates. Commissioner Baxter moved to approve
said agreement and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner
Vaad, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER REAPPOINTMENTS TO CHILD PROTECTION CITIZEN REVIEW
PANEL: Commissioner Geile moved to approve the reappointments of Susan
E3jorland, Barbara Rodgers, Janet Flaugher, Kelley Hekowczyk, Gilbert
E3urgerhoff, and Kathleen Laurin to tie Child Protection Citizen Review Panel.
Seconded by Commissioner Kirkmeyer, the motion carried unanimously.
PLANNING: CONSIDER ZPMH #2134 - WAREHIME (CON'T FROM 04/19/99): Wendi
Inloes, Department of Planning Services, submitted a letter from Denver Spine
and Rehabilitation, P.C., marked Exhibit C, which indicates Clinton Warehime
had a recent evaluation on March 2, 1999.
Brent Coan, attorney, stated the doctor did not include the specific requirements
as stated in the ordinance; however, he stated Mr. Warehime does need 24-
hour care, but this is not specifically stated in the letter. Mr. Coan stated the
applicant recently applied for a Recorded Exemption which requires the existing
Temporary Accessory to Farm Permit be justified. The applicant feels a Medical
Minutes, May 3, 1999 990988
Page 3 BC0016
Hardship permit may be more appropriate at this time since the daughter is no
longer principally employed on the farm. Mr. Coan explained the daughter has
a part-time job and still helps maintain the farm, as well as provide medical
supervision when Ms. Warehime is gone. He stated the applicant has
requested if the Medical Hardship Permit is not appropriate, they would like to
renew the Temporary Accessory to Farm Permit.
In response to Commissioner Baxter, Julia Warehime stated they have had an
Accessory To Farm Permit for the past ten years. She stated their daughter
was principally employed at the farm until last year; however, they do still
provide approximately$700 in rent and utilities. Mr. Coan stated their daughter
is not principally employed but she is still engaged in the farm activities.
Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. Inloes stated she conducted two
site inspections and has concerns with the renewal of the Accessory to Farm
Permit due to the size of the property. Ms. Mika explained when the Recorded
Exemption was approved, the applicant was notified of the option to justify the
Accessory to Farm, apply for a Medical Hardship Permit, remove the trailer
since the farming is very small scale, or make one of the two dwellings included
in the Recorded Exemption a principal dwelling and allow the daughter to live
there. She stated the applicant chose to apply for a Medical Hardship Permit.
In response to Chair Hall, Ms. Mika stated the size of the operation is not the
only criteria for granting an Accessory to Farm permit. The applicant has
indicated the daughter's working situation has changed, the crop production
consists mainly of pasturing native grass, there are only a few animal units, and
they do not produce specialty crops. Mr. Coan reviewed the daughter's working
situation and stated Mr. Warehime's condition is permanent. In response to
Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. Warehime stated part of the property is
grassland, approximately 30 acres are in a cover crop, and they have 11 animal
units. She further stated the pasture crops are rotated to prevent overgrazing
and reiterated someone is with Mr. Warehime at all times. In response to
Commissioners Geile and Kirkmeyer, Ms.Warehime stated she or her daughter
are with Mr. Warehime 24-hours per day with the exception of a couple hours
when their work schedules do not coincide, and added they provide their
(laughter's house and utilities which equals approximately$700 per month. Mr.
Coan explained the Recorded Exemption split off the northwest corner which
was naturally separated from the property by a ditch, and Ms. Warehime cannot
manage the remainder of the property and care for Mr. Warehime by herself.
--here was no public testimony concerning this matter. In response to
Commissioner Geile, Mr. Barker confirmed this hearing is for a Medical
Hardship Permit, not the Accessory to Farm and explained the E3oard must
determine whether adequate proof of a medical hardship, as well as the need
for full-time care. Commissioner Kirkmeyer commented this application does
not meet the criteria of a medical hardship as delineated in Sections 43.2.4.1.1
and 43.2.4.1.2. She stated the applicant has not submitted a letter verifying the
subject is physically impaired and requires full-time care, and there is a
reasonable alternative for the use of the mobile homes. Commissioner
Kirkmeyer moved to deny ZPMH #2134. Commissioner Vaad seconded the
motion. Commissioner Baxter stated the circumstances of this case do not fully
qualify for either type of permit. Chair Hall stated he would agree with the
renewal of the Temporary Accessory to Farm permit. Mr. Barker stated the
Minutes, May 3, 1999 990988
Page 4 BC0016
Accessory to Farm Permit has already been issued. He stated the notice was
published for a Medical Hardship permit; however, the Board can confirm
whether or not the Temporary Accessory to Farm permit still exists based on the
testimony and evidence presented. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated she will
remain with her initial motion because she does not feel the farm requires
additional help. In response to Commissioner Vaad, Mr. Barker stated it would
be better for the Board to make a decision rather than delegate the authority to
staff. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated staff has already been delegated the
authority to review the permit annually and has reported the application does not
meet the criteria. The motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Baxter
moved to confirm the Temporary Accessory to Farm permit due to the
circumstances of the applicant. Commissioner Geile seconded the motion.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer expressed concern that the Board is making a Finding
when staff has not yet reviewed the permit to make a recommendation. Chair
Hall stated staff testified that the Accessory to Farm permit is not justified. Ms.
Mika stated the determination would be made on the field check only and not
the economic viability of the site. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer,
Commissioner Baxter clarified the motion to confirm the Accessory to Farm
permit is based on extenuating circumstances which make it difficult for the
principal owner to farm due to his medical condition. The motion carried four to
one with Commissioner Kirkmeyer opposed.
CONSIDER RECORDED EXEMPTION #2444 - BRYANT GORDON: Anne
Best-Johnson, Department of Planning Services, gave a brief description of the
site and stated the Recorded Exemption (RE) will split a 5.8 acre parcel into two
2.9 acre parcels. She stated the site will receive service from the Central Weld
County Water District and have septic systems. Ms. Johnson further stated the
access on the south serves two additional parcels to the east of the property
and there are structures located on Lot B. She stated the applicant has been
notified of the options for bringing the non-commercial junkyard on Lot A into
compliance, and added approval of this RE will create 27 separate parcels in
Section 12. Ms. Johnson stated she has concerns with the potential conflict
between the long-term creation of urban uses in a rural agricultural area. She
further stated the increase of lots results in a higher cost for services to the
area, this development is not efficient, the proposed access creates a flag-lot
configuration, and it is an evasion of the Subdivision Ordinance. Ms. Johnson
clarified Sections 11.2 through 11.8 of the Subdivision Ordinance must be met.
Todd Hodges represented the applicant and stated this parcel was created in
1970 and has not been split since that time. Mr. Hodges referred It the letter
addressed to the Board from Ms. Johnson, dated April 1, 1999, which lists five
items of concern. He stated this application adequately meets all 18
requirements of Section 1.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance. There is an existing
15-foot access easement which was created prior to 1972, and there is access
to utilities as well. Mr. Hodges further stated the site is located within and
complies with the requirements of the Tri-Area Intergovernmental Agreement
Area, as well as the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Dacono which
expressed no concerns. He explained this application exceeds the
requirements of a Recorded Exemption, the requirement to record a plat will
establish new boundary pins for a survey, and review and compliance with the
Conditions of Approval provides a safeguard for the public, homeowners, and
Minutes, May 3, 1999 990988
Page 5 BC0016
developer. Mr. Hodges stated there are existing structures on Lot B, which is
partially designated as prime farmground; however, Lot A is designated as other
land and has no water rights to the site. He further stated Lot B will remain with
improvements to the existing trees and grass, and Lot A remain as native
pasture. The site is not located within a Flood Hazard Overlay District, the City
of Dacono Plan designates this area as rural residential, its Comprehensive
Plan does not include the area for parks, and the applicant is willing to enter into
an agreement with the School District to provide cash for Lot A when the
building permits are issued. Mr. Hodges stated in a letter dated January 7,
'1999, Central Weld County Water District currently serves Lot B and additional
water service can be made available to Lot A. In response to item two of Ms.
Johnson's comments regarding the creation of a flag-lot, Mr. Hodges stated this
issue is not applicable. He explained there is a shared access, rather than an
arm to access Lot A from Weld County Road 11, and added although
Section 10 of the Subdivision Ordinance is specific to subdivisions and should
not apply, he feels this application does meet many of the more stringent
requirements. He stated the only difference is the 30-foot access versus the
60-foot easement required for subdivisions. Mr. Hodges stated easement
agreements were signed in 1972 by all the adjoining property owners to ensure
the access would remain,and displayed overhead photos of the access, marked
Exhibit A. Responding to item three of Ms. Johnson's comments, Mr. Hodges
stated this application exceeds the intent of the Recorded Exemption process
as he discussed earlier. He added it is located in the Agricultural Zone District
which allows for division of parcels into smaller lots, and this will split off the
unimproved portion from the area with the single family residential building site.
In response to items four and five, Mr. Hodges reiterated that the City of Dacono
has no concerns with the application and he submitted a portion of its
Comprehensive Plan, marked Exhibit B, which indicates compliance with the
designation of the site as rural density residential.
In response to Chair Hall, Mr. Hodges stated this Recorded Exemption is
consistent with the surrounding properties, and this is a small parcel classified
as non-prime farmground. Chair Hall commented the intent of a Recorded
[Exemption is to split agricultural land from the existing improvements; however,
Mr. Hodges stated Lot B is designated non-prime agricultural. He further stated
the access will create an island lot rather than a flaglot. Responding to Chair
Hall, Mr. Hodges stated the access easement will be better protected through
the Recorded Exemption because it will be recorded on the plat and the
easement will be shown as well. Mr. Barker stated if there is ever a
disagreement between neighbors concerning the easement, the easement
agreement will be recorded on the plat and the plat would have to be amended
to change the agreement. In response to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Hodges
stated this is the only land the applicant owns and the last sentence of Condition
of Approval #3 is not necessary because the easement has been in existence
since 1972, there has never been a problem, and the agreement will be
recorded on the plat. Mr. Hodges clarified the location of the easement, and
stated this proposal is consistent with the surrounding uses which consist of
single family homes with land for grazing since there is no water in the area. He
further stated Weld County Road 11 has been annexed and the area west of
Weld County Road 11 has been designated as Industrial by the City of Dacono
and these lots act as a buffer between the agricultural and industrial uses. Ms.
Minutes, May 3, 1999 990988
Page 6 BC0016
Johnson stated the City of Dacono is requesting the last sentence of Condition
of Approval#2 needs to be deleted if the RE is approved due to the annexation
of Weld County Road 11. In response to Chair Hall, Mr. Hodges explained the
history of how the surrounding lots were divided prior to zoning. Ms. Johnson
stated at one time parcels 20, 21, 22, 43, and 44 were one parcel and prior to
zoning they were divided to their current sizes. Responding to Chair Hall, Mr.
Hodges stated because this parcel were created prior to zoning, the criteria of
the Agricultural Zone District should not apply, and added through this Recorded
E=xemption, the area and access will be better maintained. In response to
Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Hodges defined agricultural uses as raising crop
and livestock; however, it does not necessarily have to be the sole income of the
property owner. Commissioner Kirkmeyer commented the development
appears to be a linear subdivision. Mr. Hodges stated regardless of prior
property splits, this application exceeds the requirements of a Recorded
[Exemption, and submitted a referral from the City of Dacono, marked Exhibit C,
which underlined the statement that no response from a referral agency is
interpreted as a positive response.
There was no public testimony concerning this matter. In response to
Commissioner Geile, Ms. Johnson state Section 11.2 of the Subdivision
Ordinance defines "prime" and "non-prime" agricultural land, and Chair Hall
stated Section 31.1 of the Zoning Ordinance refers to 11.2 of the Subdivision
Ordinance.
Commissioner Vaad stated the concerns of Ms. Johnson in her letter to the
Board dated April 1, 1999, have been adequately addressed by the applicant
and he moved to approve Recorded Exemption #2444. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Geile. Following discussion, Commissioner Vaad
amended his motion to delete the last sentence of Condition of Approval #2,
delete the third sentence of Condition of Approval#3, add Condition of Approval
4.E.8 to state, "The access agreement shall be shown on the plat.", and amend
Condition of Approval #2.E.5 by deleting the words "if noxious weeds exist".
Commissioner Geile agreed and seconded the amended motion. (Clerk's Note:
Switched to Tape #99-15) Mr. Hodges expressed concern with the Condition
of Approval#3 which gives the authority to approve an additional access to the
other property owners in the Access Agreement which cross the applicant's
property and contradicts the Access Agreement. Mr. Gordon, applicant, read
a portion of the access agreement: for the record. Mr. Barker stated the
applicant can grant access and is only required to notify the other parties of the
access agreement. Chair Hall commented the current parcel is 5.8 acres in size
and splitting it into two 2.9 acres parcels does not further the intent of
agricultural use and stated there is potential for problems with the access in the
future. The motion carried three to two with Chair Hall and Commissioner
Kirkmeyer opposed.
RESOLUTIONS AND
ORDINANCES: The resolutions were presented and signed as listed on the consent agenda.
No Ordinances were approved.
Let the minutes reflect that the above and foregoing actions were attested to
and respectfully submitted by the Acting Clerk to the Board.
Minutes, May 3, 1999 990988
Page 7 BC0016
There being no further business, this meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ELD COUNTY, CO RA
ATTEST: % i , y I
`�� Dal K. Hall, Chair
Weld County Clerk to the Boar, l r V-
c
1661 rct ��i i - j %/4'4 LLB '. c..C/'/4-r'! ''1[ _ , , / ^111 `� ; - Barbara J. Kirkmeyer, Prorfem ��
BY: r. r" I �. 7
Deputy Clerk to the Board : 7J, ,,i,\ -' , - c' —7;
',- _ 7Georgl. . Baxter
M. Geile //
/U�Lt%fruL (/1/f.Q),_.
Glenn Vaad
Minutes, May 3, 1999 990988
Page 8 BC0016
Hello