HomeMy WebLinkAbout992781.tiff RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
NOVEMBER 17, 1999
TAPE #99-37
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, November 17, 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-Tem
Commissioner George E. Baxter
Commissioner M. J. Geile
Commissioner Glenn Vaad
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: Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to read Ordinance#89-KK by tape. The
motion, which was seconded by Commissioner Geile, carried unanimously.
MINUTES: Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to approve the minutes of the Board of County
Commissioners meeting of November 15, 1999, as printed. Commissioner Vaad seconded the motion,
and it 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.
PRESENTATIONS:
RECOGNITION OF SERVICES, COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS BOARD-KATHY DEAN: Chair Hall read
the certificate into the record recognizing Kathy Dean for her service over the past three years. Ms. Dean
was not present to receive the award.
RECOGNITION OF SERVICES, JUVENILE COMMUNITY REVIEW BOARD - TERRI OLIVAS, AND
MARK RAPP: Chair Hall read the certificates into the record, recognizing Terri Olivas and Mark Rapp for
six years of service on the Juvenile Community Review Board. Neither Ms. Olivas nor Mr. Rapp were
present.
i
" " __' n 992781
Q_gyp ,_,Q PA0LA-Y BC0016
RECOGNITION OF SERVICES, FAIR BOARD - KARA FRANK, JIM HEIRD, EVELYN HOFFMAN, PAT
KINDVALL,TERRY MAXWELL, MIKE PALLOTTO,AND KEITH PARK:Chair Hall read the certificates into
the record, recognizing the seven members of the Fair Board for their years of service on the Fair Board.
Jim Heird was presented with his award for three years of service.
COMMISSIONER COORDINATOR REPORTS: There were no Commissioner Coordinator Reports.
PUBLIC INPUT: Virginia Shaw, Southwest Weld resident, stated it has now been two years since a group
of citizens in Southwest Weld County, now referred to as the St. Vrain Concerned Citizens, asked to be
a referral agency for land use cases and also that the Commissioners change the wording in MUD and
PUD documents to allow the group to be recognized as a referral agency. She stated referrals sent to the
group are only being done as a courtesy and a number of development parcels have been approved
without acting on their concerns. Ms. Shaw stated several suggestions to address their concerns, including
a moratorium on development proposals, allowing a vote on developments which will affect quality of life,
passing an open space tax, and revising the Recorded Exemption policy to eliminate abuses to the current
policy. Ms. Shaw presented a copy of her comments for the record, marked Exhibit A.
Heather Hollingsworth, Southwest Weld resident, asked the Commissioners to consider the efforts of
surrounding entities, such as Boulder County, to preserve wildlife areas, add open space, and preserve
premiere farmland. She stated the Del Camino area is currently being impacted the most by development;
however, citizens are unable to vote on development issues, and the Commissioners ignore their wishes.
Ms. Hollingsworth submitted copies, marked Exhibit B, of a story in the Daily Times-Call regarding the area
and an ad from Boulder County regarding an issue which was recently on its ballot.
Sharon Hopper, Southwest Weld resident, commented about a meeting on November 16, 1999, of the St.
Vrain School District, which was attended by Commissioners Kirkmeyer and Vaad; however, she felt
Commissioner Vaad gave quick approval without really knowing the impact such developments have on
schools. She stated the Commissioners are not listening to their concerns, nor are municipalities,who are
doing numerous flag pole annexations.
WARRANTS: Donald Warden, Director of Finance and Administration, presented the following warrants
for approval by the Board:
All Funds $257,186.39
Electronic Transfers -All Funds $390.79
Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to approve the warrants as presented by Mr. Warden. Commissioner
Vaad seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
BIDS:
PRESENT 2000 FOOD SERVICE CONTRACT BID- SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT: Mr. Warden read the
names of three vendors who submitted bids. Said bid will be considered for approval on December 1,
1999.
PRESENT 2000 JANITORIAL BID-SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT: Mr. Warden read the names of the four
vendors who submitted bids. Said bid will be considered for approval on December 1, 1999.
PRESENT INMATE COLLECT CALLING PHONE SERVICES BID - SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT: Mr.
Warden read the names of four vendors who submitted bids. Said bid will be considered for approval on
December 1, 1999.
Minutes, November 17, 1999 992781
Page 2 BC0016
NEW BUSINESS:
CONSIDER PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN-
GARY STEWART: Mike Sampson, Assessor's Office, stated the garage was being used as a residence
at the time of appraisal, therefore, he recommended denial. He further stated the equipment shed is
appraised upon the value of the building, whether it is used for storage of equipment or kept empty.
Responding to Chair Hall, Mr. Sampson stated the appraiser determined it was a residence when he visited
the property, and added if that has changed upon the next reappraisal, it will be changed for the next year.
Gary Stewart, petitioner, was not present or represented. Commissioner Geile moved to deny said
petition, and Commissioner Baxter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
PLANNING:
CONSIDER IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT ACCORDING TO POLICY REGARDING COLLATERAL
FOR IMPROVEMENTS (PUBLICLY MAINTAINED ROADS), IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT
ACCORDING TO POLICY REGARDING COLLATERAL FOR IMPROVEMENTS(OFF-SITE),AUTHORIZE
CHAIR TO SIGN, AND ACCEPT COLLATERAL FOR THE ELMS AT MEADOW VALE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT - FLOYD OLIVER: Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, stated an Irrevocable
Letter of Credit, in the amount of$300,000.00, has been received and Exhibit A details the improvements
yet to be completed. He stated a one-year warranty extended to Floyd Oliver for the paving completed
November 16, 1999, was also extended to Weld County for that one year period, in lieu of the required
15 percent retainage for a paving project. Commissioner Geile moved to approve said agreements and
accept the two forms of collateral. Commissioner Kirkmeyer seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously.
FINAL READING OF ORDINANCE#210, IN THE MATTER OF APPROVING AND IMPLEMENTING THE
WINDSOR SERVICE AREA ROAD IMPACT FEE PROGRAM (CON'T FROM 11/03/99): Commissioner
Kirkmeyer moved to read by title only. Commissioner Baxter seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously. Bruce Barker, County Attorney, read the title of said Ordinance and stated there are two
changes recommended for both Ordinance#210 and#211 which are included in the scanned version. The
first is to include a description of the Boundaries and the second is to exempt public schools by deleting
the words "Elementary/Secondary" from the table of Land Use Types included in each Ordinance. Mr.
Barker clarified that public schools would not be getting a building permit in any case; therefore, the
deletion will clarify the meaning. Monica Mika, Director of Planning Services, stated the Planning
Commission reviewed these Ordinances on November 16, 1999, and forwarded them to the Board of
County Commissioners with a favorable recommendation. Ms. Mika stated she will submit to the Clerk to
the Board's Office, a list of actual parcel numbers and a GIS map showing the properties included in this
area. Mr. Barker verified a copy of the Weld County Roadway Improvement Plan is in the official record.
There was no public input given. Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to approve said Ordinance with the
amendments as recommended by Mr. Barker. Commissioner Baxter seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously.
FINAL READING OF ORDINANCE#211, IN THE MATTER OF APPROVING AND IMPLEMENTING THE
SOUTHWEST WELD SERVICE AREA ROAD IMPACT FEE PROGRAM (CON'T FROM 11/03/99):
Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to read by title only. Commissioner Geile seconded the motion, which
carried unanimously. Mr. Barker read said title into the record and noted the same changes were made
as discussed above for Ordinance #210. Ms. Mika presented a list of parcel numbers and a GIS map
showing the specific service area for informational purposes only. There was no public input given.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to approve Ordinance #211 on final reading with amendments as
recommended by staff. Commissioner Vaad seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Minutes, November 17, 1999 992781
Page 3 BC0016
EMERGENCY ORDINANCE#89-KK, IN THE MATTER OF THE REPEAL AND RE-ENACTMENT, WITH
AMENDMENTS OF CERTAIN SECTIONS, AND THE ADDITION OF CERTAIN SECTIONS TO
ORDINANCE#89-JJ, WELD COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE,AS CURRENTLY AMENDED, REVISING
AND ADDING CERTAIN PROCEDURES,TERMS,AND REQUIREMENTS: Ms. Mika stated the Planning
Commission reviewed this Ordinance on November 16, 1999, and forwarded it to the Board with a
favorable recommendation. She submitted correspondence received for the Planning Commission
Hearing, marked Exhibits A and B. She stated Ordinance 89-KK will amend Section 84 to ensure there
is a complete understanding that building permits cannot be issued until the impact fee is paid, as well as
Sections 31.5.5 and 36.3.12 regarding setbacks for oil and gas production facilities; and Section 61.3
concerning the Board of Adjustment hearing appeals for variance from the terms of this Ordinance. Ms.
Mika further stated the Planning Commission requested the Board determine whether the definitions of
"building", "structure", or"oil and gas production facilities"need to be amended. Mr. Barker recommended
the Ordinance be split into three sections for discussion. Chair Hall verified the Board had no questions
on Sections 84 or 61.3.
Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. Mika explained the suggestion for a change in the definition
of structure is due to the current definition being too inclusive. Ms. Mika stated the Planning Commission
indicated the difference in a non-habitable structure versus an occupied structure should be clearly defined,
to answer questions such as whether a pole barn or scale house could be built within the 150-foot setback
area. Following discussion regarding the appropriate definitions, Lee Morrison,Assistant County Attorney,
suggested it might be helpful to hear public testimony before proposing changes in the language.
Bob Burroughs stated the third page of Exhibit A is his suggestion of the appropriate language for
definitions, and added the problem is with wellheads and tank batteries being included in the setbacks.
Mr. Burroughs also stated there is a difference in whether the structures are occupied by people and
suggested a 200-foot setback could be for human occupied structures, and a 150-foot setback for
unoccupied structures. He further stated that farms often have a central sprinkler pivot,which leaves four
odd-shaped corners, and in those instances where oil production facilities are located in another section,
such as across the road, the 150-foot setback would make the parcel unbuildable, and concluded there
should be a clear definition made between occupied and non-occupied structures.
Ken Wonstolen, Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA) representative, stated the setback should be
a minimum of 200 feet for safety reasons, and he agrees with the comments made by Mr. Burroughs. Mr.
Wonstolen stated the standard the industry has to follow is 150 feet or one and one-half times the height
of the derrick, whichever is greater. Because of the normal height of derricks in Weld County, Mr.
Wonstolen stated the average setback is 130 feet. He also discussed safety rules adopted by the
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, (COGCC) which require crude oil storage tanks to be
setback 200 feet from occupied structures and new wells must allow 350 feet. Mr. Wonstolen discussed
several studies that have been completed which indicate there should be a minimum setback of 190 feet
between projects adjacent to hazardous facilities, or 180 feet if people are exposed to danger, and 190
feet from the possible release of wet gas stream or explosive event. He urged the Board, from a safety
standpoint, to look at what COGCC did when it looked at the evidence on record, which is to require 200
feet for tanks, and wellheads. Mr. Wonstolen also stated he is sympathetic with the structures question;
however, he feels the proposed above ground language is too broad. Responding to Commissioner Geile,
Mr.Wonstolen stated no setback should be required for non-occupied structures, and submitted proposed
language, marked Exhibit C, to require the 200-foot setback only for occupied premises. Commissioner
Baxter stated there is a difference when the house is built after the wellhead. Responding to Chair Hall,
Mr. Wonstolen stated his remarks are in the Agricultural and Estate Zone Districts and noted COGCC
requires a 350-foot setback in higher density zones. Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr.
Wonstolen stated 200 feet is effective to get beyond the recommended safety area, and the "above
ground" proposed language was an attempt to exempt buried flowlines or other similar structures from the
Minutes, November 17, 1999 992781
Page 4 BC0016
large setback, and he feels well heads and tank batteries should require the 200-foot setback. Mr.
Wonstolen also stated the non-occupied structures could be dealt with in private.
Brent Coan, of Otis, Coan and Stewart, LLC, stated he represents both the Hall-Irwin Company and Ron
Coleman, and submitted his comments, marked Exhibit D. He stated he agrees the wellhead and tanks
are the main issue, and tank battery should be included in his first comment. Mr. Coan questioned whether
a batch plant or scale house at a gravel pit, both of which are occupied by employees, would fit the
definition of an occupied structure and stated he appreciates the difference between an occupied structure
being built after the wellhead, versus the well being built near an existing residence. His proposal is to
clearly reference residences in the definition of a structure. Mr. Coan also suggested changing the
Residential Zone District to make it consistent with the Agricultural and Estate Zone Districts and further
delineation of definitions. Responding to Commissioner Vaad, Mr. Coan agreed that uses such as parking
lots cause people to temporarily move into harms way, but stated his primary concern is with roads and
gravel-mining operations requiring batch plants or scale houses to operate in closer vicinity. Commissioner
Vaad reiterated there is a difference in temporary exposure such as passing on a road, versus being in
close vicinity working eight hours per day.
Ted Carlson, Austin and Austin, stated concerns of real estate brokers in the area with parcels which are
triangular corners due to a center pivot sprinkler,which are already divided by a 3-lot Recorded Exemption,
and would become unbuildable with large setback requirements. He stated he has no problem with 150
feet setbacks from tank battery and wellhead, but definitions of oil and gas facilities need to be more
clearly defined. (Changed to tape#99-38.) Commissioner Baxter stated the difference between using 150
feet and 200 feet is the possibility of explosion. Mr. Carlson responded that the State standard is 150 feet;
however, the safety study suggests 190 feet, with a margin for error. Responding to Commissioner Vaad,
Mr. Carlson proposed 150 feet or 1.5 times derrick height. Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr.
Morrison stated the COGCC standard is 150 feet or 1.5 times derrick height which, from the testimony
given, would be closer to 200. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated the County's rules should be consistent
with COGCC, and the Board did not intend to go further in the Agricultural and Estate zones; however, a
350-foot setback for necessary for occupied structures. Commissioner Geile clarified that the Board is
considering a 150-foot setback in the Agricultural and Estate Zone Districts.
George Hall of Greeley requested the Board to consider practicality, particularly in the definition of
"structure," and whether or not it is occupied. He stated safety comes first; however, miners have more
safety concerns than being an additional 50 feet closer to the well. Mr. Hall also urged the Board to ensure
mining operations do not lose their ability to mine sand and gravel, and stated one operation should not
affect the other to the point of causing hardship.
Chris Pickett stated he is a civil engineer and is more concerned with rights of people regarding public
safety matters, and he questioned whether the standards are being based on possible occurrences or
actual events, to which Commissioner Kirkmeyer responded it is based on both prevention and actual
explosions.
Bruce Johnson stated he is a member of the COGCC, although today he is speaking on his own behalf.
He explained 150 feet is standard, however, in this area the derrick height is nearer 200 feet; therefore,
it would be simpler to make it 200 feet. He also pointed out there is a difference in ambulatory versus non-
ambulatory populations, for example, nursing homes should not be allowed near. He stated farming
activity is often within eight or ten feet of wellheads and the same standard would fit for mining operations.
Tom Owens of Platteville stated some corners created by the 3-Lot Recorded Exemption process become
unbuildable, because they are only 175 feet from the corner to the sprinkler.
Minutes, November 17, 1999 992781
Page 5 BC0016
Mr. Barker stated the Board is looking at three issues; changing the setback from 350 feet to 150 feet,
changing the definition of building and structure and the groups A through R of Table 3-A ties back into
the County's Building Code Ordinance which is already in place, and redefining oil and gas production
facilities which cannot be changed without going back through and seeing if further amendments are
necessary. He suggested the Board deal with the number of feet required in the setback and, possibly
include wellhead and tank batteries to the language, but leave the other matters to deal with in the future.
He indicated the Ordinance is being considered on an emergency basis because the road impact fees
need to be in place by December 1, 1999.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer suggested new language to replace the first sentence and modify the second
sentence, making the setback 200 feet. She stated the County has a problem if it is left the way it is
currently stated, and she supports 200 feet instead of 150 feet to make it consistent with COGCC.
Mr. Barker suggested language stating, "No building or structure as defined and limited to those
occupancies listed as A through R in Table 3-A of the 1997 Uniform Building Code, shall be constructed
within a_-foot radius of any wellhead or tank battery. Any construction within a_-foot radius of any
wellhead or tank battery shall required a variance from the terms of this Ordinance in accordance with
Section 61.3." Responding to Commissioner Baxter, Mr. Barker clarified a scale house would fit under
group S or U. After discussion, Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated there is the ability to apply for a variance,
and this is an issue of consistency, as well as when looking at a division in property, the applicant and
Board can make sure enough setback is available. Responding to Commissioner Baxter, Mr. Morrison
explained the variance works only for existing lots; if creating lots through the Recorded Exemption
process, and it causes location of residence to be substandard, the applicant would have a tough time
getting a variance. Commissioner Geile indicated he is more inclined to agree with 150 feet.
After further discussion, Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to amend Sections 31.5.5 and 36.3.12 to the
language proposed by Mr. Barker; however, specifying 200 feet for tank battery and 150 feet for wellhead.
Commissioner Vaad seconded the motion. Responding to Commissioner Baxter, Mr. Morrison stated staff
has confirmed a scale house fits into group U-1; however, the Board may want to delete groups F-1 and
F-2 which include batch plants. Commissioner Geile stated he still has a problem with 200 feet and he
does not like considering this issue on an emergency basis. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated the 200 feet
applies only to tank batteries. Commissioner Baxter suggested amending the motion to delete F-1 and
F-2. Both Commissioners Kirkmeyer and Vaad accepted the amendment. Upon a call for the vote, the
motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Barker stated the Board still needs to vote on the portions regarding the impact fees and Board of
Adjustment language. Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to approve the remaining parts of the proposed
amendment on an emergency basis, and to insure the second sentence in Section 31.5.5 is consistent with
the language just approved. Commissioner Vaad seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES: The resolutions were presented and signed as listed on the consent
agenda. Ordinances #210, and #211 were approved on final reading and Ordinance #89-KK was
approved on an emergency basis.
Let the minutes reflect that the above and foregoing actions were attested to and respectfully submitted
by the Acting Clerk to the Board.
Minutes, November 17, 1999 992781
Page 6 BC0016
There being no further business, this meeting was adjourned at 10:55 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WCOUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST: ,�i. rr E c
Dale K(fr . Hall, Chair
Weld County Clerk to the Boa > ♦ /
♦ arbara J. Kirkmeye , Pro-Ter
BY: ice �+ .�': 1 ; 4.
Deputy Clerk to the Board /WI )"
/
Sm— Geor axter
iii-c-,
M. Geile�
Glenn Vaad/4
Minutes, November 17, 1999 992781
Page 7 BC0016
November 10, 1999
TO: WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: ST. VRAIN CONCERNED CITIZENS
It now has been two years since November of 1997, when a group of SW Weld
residents approached the Weld County Planning Department & the Weld County Board of
County Commissioners to become a"referral" agency for the citizens in SW Weld who
felt as though they were not being heard in the development process. The citizens also
wanted changes wording that could be added to the MUD & PUD process that would
allow for agricultural and citizen concerns to be an actual part of the development process.
At the time we approached the Board with our original request, we had called
ourselves St. Vrain Rural Impact District. The Board felt, however, that we did not
quality for a"District", so we changed the name to St. Vrain Concerned Citizens.
Confusion did reign, however, as no one seemed to know how we could establish the
wording changes for the MUD & PUD processes.
You have, however, been most supportive of our concerns to keep in touch by
sending us referrals as they come into the County. We feel, however, that this is being
done only as a "courtesy" (and that term is exactly what was told us by a staff member at
the Planning Department). We have witnessed development parcels that come before the
County(Ex: Idaho Creek), that we -- the Citizens-- are not having our Concerns acted
upon. While maybe you are listening to our concerns, we do not feel that the County is
acting upon our concerns nor is the County is upholding their Comprehensive Plan -- (of
which we understand supersedes the MUD Comp Plan, the Subdivision Plan, and other
county documents.) We feel that you are using discriminatory practices against us.
EXHIBIT
Ake Ott;•
sl.O.frir
If-17 -car
You will say that this is what we asked for when the MUD plan was presented.
Yes, you did present it in several seminars, but there were those of us who asked at that
time to have agricultural buffers in addition to the buffers along the river. There were
those of us who did not realize the tremendous impact of the size of this project --
especially in the fact that the other municipalities of Frederick, Firestone, Dacono, &
Erie's Urban Growth Boundaries were all complied upon top of each other. We were not
given a vote in this process. Agriculture, as it is -- needs larger areas to remain in tack to
be efficient.
In light of the above mentioned concerns -- this is why were are here today. We
need to find an avenue that will at least slow down the development process until our
agricultural -- open space buffers -- and citizens concerns have been addressed --- or it
will be too late to do anything constructive. Several suggestions have been mentioned to
us -- and they are:
(1) The towns of Frederick and Erie have place a moratorium on the development
proposals -- Why can't the County do the same?
(2) The towns of Mead and Erie vote on large annexations or developments --
Why can't the County do the same? Can we form a district in un-incorporated Weld to
vote on issues in our area that will directly affect our way of life?
(3) The town of Frederick recently passed an open space tax -- & while I realize
the agricultural committee is studying this -- Is this going to be too late to be effective in
our area by the time their proposals are put in place? Can the County do anything?
(4) Could the Recorded Exemption policy be reviewed? There are those in SW
Weld who are abusing this process -- thus creating their own"subdivisions" with only a
small penalty from the County.
With some of these municipalities taking some directive steps to control growth
issues, it will only bring more development proposals to the County level. We need your
help TODAY in working with the SW Weld Landowners -- not just the developers
coming into our area -- to work a solution that will satisfy both parties, and it needs to be
done SOON!
We would like this request to be recorded properly and also put with your MUD&
PUD review revisions the next time it comes for revision.
Thank you for listening and your immediate help, and we would
like a response in writing.
en
co _
r 0 - I
H
O EoEb0fryR _�/' '5F ' 2 e ° ° d O d .0%,Ctl � • 6m �'o o m.,`°.Eo of°= c�'� 3₹ iltii
CO dE� frI
pfr - � mfrB °' 3 �". oe "n "F�n tlE v pT ° ur �ynE ^o s�2"�P m r..° 5�i Ui.�= 3.4 do^yY y�'u° I
a Q M 9 $'3 g " -Q2' fe q ue'" o 2.6oE >,-.N >,
n R � —� dB ^d Nab^. a dC7�o`�, a3i c"E
T 88 E1 >.^ o ag.., c .e
a0 � - ix 6 '4 „� ° �� ti a �W °'-�cz o'°.. v '"v� ti)
5Q� ._ 0°,1—
O C y u 4.0 d dg
lll
2 �b °-3 �gn ��tl �a nu2;cWE s.S' coe
W 3p > oxw �earEC4 �o Eaz t>s
- is `.39 c'C o
v v �� c >' > 'cd. 3 Bi `�E isl9 r8 n€ 0 •F8 m9 Cid r:£ es a° 21 y'a�3 'a�3E"io> 2,94402toQ
0.21
e� F9 Nu.o92d0u EYE OW rallANt in C _al
O. Q m o�x�m memos dE
.. O tl Ptl�M .. � is „ g�;ar 1!;: !N; T
' r a g m'°Fwd
ICI:) a :ituiuijiii
'C7107:11 •
ewe, • I (�'. b 5 m'ee'_yS 14,i§-,11.!`�q'. o_
Q.� SPH0M myor Ro.„9hNc�=^'4 `Ldo
O N N �r Nr� dN .�OEV 5
4 m�°caYLdyOwA3 2Edx
a .. > 4. a E�igS A.S'9E suo
d, cal0 _ N"JFlt II '^� N �+,e o^caEa °sW > c w 4110=2 a�a=s,omwm va '3�'r-'v o�.i.00 E.'Pt o>o d�,m=c Nv.ICUotoo 'Eom oE5
g aam
O amo mxxd EAQ >m`� ° Nm� 5 to 2:04`"w .•'..: _S mgA 3o� y g �1�
S3v^ da Aams$a'0022 ``—loal�d w ary 202o3„.-2.- -.Au E3 y5 \�
CliNu voodcy g0E" x" o"-muS a '^ o5;o >
93 2e21'.7 „ . E21", nt c'nb °E� d�co mo 'SUN cc°°' o ma".8
EUcv , - -' EEd4g o 0o.m=°a° u d�o >, a .5 `at14 mob 0S—
dmryg� Em30QA u�dwv ° oactEe80 a3gt c3c3�o.EEico to7
` �,. O '9Wc... E32o .Ub ^...03 > o'd EugagEtisir-i E tilt me 3v
cgy3 4._1I`d g° whoa N.^ So � "Ew$ -4Es a9 cc E.U ' J .5
E>,"N mo'�ryI EE Q08—gEs OD aUc'N. aa' v s m oil
U.ti-2 yoe S mQ E 'm>,u �i �uo3 > vm w d.`�a T3aq. 'o
3� o:ap, o§ PG }9 N= mad o
Q a'ct `"S'°q '"c. al wq'5 000.55 ° >' E ;to acE $ o
Y, iomE a,I E� ;m3.S`° c%d Aij=c�M 2 a •E c=E Ea>.o`� a
q^ O 'on Evm A° Ns a do'° Et,,,,..3. c..9. V .Eau mvdi° a u
V " ZcaU UNv 2n,Ndm:E . 3 N`°^'a `�Q'G V1 >,a i° l, Cas 94..�°'s, c
0s Q.g'.,^r+ti .0...1f, d .a ti 2r-2 .- - SC4E `ad g •Vv Nu °ej0 d
YrU E vo" dv Eq egEo.Lge'o. Wnbbb026 "cN �.., Ey.5 ma 9E
Liz.. ,42.- ,10 .-.2 1vgE a�uE.,°c uieme Ee's!Utd - i73 'cm aEj'4-, 0
gyp° W >,>„'-8z Et . .cdua R:yp a=.°., aSc13 fligywitivs ng Ego 'e
mh QE0048 a,an 2Eamm F aa5E 'cgc°A=C 3 s3kbx 5332„rs+,d-2�da�'
li 74.17
it\itli
w A'
,
Maybe this won 't turn it ,
into 500 new homes . . .
.,,,,, 7 f" ..--f-- - irrytt,,,, ),,,,, „,,tistr-2,; '4 i
.v ° _ I. ; I
Y Pif ref $ u+' *
.y
t (
,. 4 li . «9 r# $. # 7 i 4`I 3@
ft ye r
ut I wou d Pillirnillilli
o t
f ! .
1
a
bet the farm
on it,
Colorado loses over 90,000 acres of rural land to
development each year. All over Boulder County, condos
are cropping up where corn used to grow. Rows and rows
of houses crunch in together, overcrowding the schools
and jamming up the roads. It's obvious: some people look
at a farmer's field - and all they see are dollar signs.
But we look at a field - and we see a beautiful, natural
scene - the kind of place that Open Space can still protect.
We see a place where the only development should be a
good yield and a change in the seasons. A plate where our
agricultural heritage is treasured and our panoramic views
should remain. We see a landscape and a way of life that is
threatened, but one that is worth every single effort we
can make to save it. County Issue 1A, which lets us extend
an existing tax, gives us that opportunity.
(86v® Vote ( Yka . �Sh for Open Space
OPEN p
SPACE on County Issue aA
YES!
The need is so great, the time is so short.
Paid for by Citizens for Open Space-Lana Lathrop,Treasurer
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
I PHONE (970) 356-4000,) Ext.2 4200
Me*
Tjl FAX: (970) 352-0242
P. O. BOX 758
GREELEY, COLORADO 80632
COLORADO
February 2, 2000
Ms. Virginia Shaw
1435 Weld County Road 16.5
Longmont, CO 80504
Re: Your Letter of November 10, 1999
Dear Ms. Shaw:
Thank you for your letter of November 10, 1999. Please accept my apology for the length in time
in responding.
Your letter raises several concerns regarding the impact of development on agriculture. As you
are aware,the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County has established the Agricultural
Ad-Hoc Committee to review possible mechanisms to preserve agricultural lands. The
Committee's role is to recommend to the Board which of the studied mechanisms are best suited
for Weld County. The Committee is scheduled to report back to the Board sometime in the late
spring or early summer of this year. The Board will be happy to share the Committee's
recommendations with you once they are received.
Your letter sets forth four questions. The following is a response to each question:
1. Question: "The towns of Frederick and Erie have placed a moratorium on development
proposals -- Why can't the County do the same?"
Answer: Moratoriums have been used by cities and towns in Colorado to halt
development pending the completion of comprehensive plans or land use codes. Their
goal is to make certain no development occurs which is contrary to the plans or
regulations being promulgated. Weld County already has both a comprehensive plan and
an extensive series of land use ordinances. Weld County typically has taken the position
that development approvals which occur during the ordinance reading process for
changes made to the land use ordinances are subject to those changes, pursuant to the
"pending ordinance doctrine"recognized by the appellate courts in Colorado. However..
the Colorado General Assembly has recently limited local governments' ability to apply
changing regulations once an initial application is made.
Letter, Shaw
February 2, 2000
Page 2
2. Question: "The towns of Mead and Erie vote on large annexations or developments --
Why can't the County do the same? Can we form a district in unincorporated Weld to
vote on issues in our area that will directly affect our way of life?"
Answer: Your question implies that citizens do not have input into land use proposals
being considered by Weld County. As you know,with the exception of exemptions from
the subdivision process(recorded exemptions and subdivision exemptions), all land use
proposals are first considered by the Weld County Planning Commission. Public input
is allowed at all hearings before the Planning Commission and before the Board of
County Commissioners. Citizen comments about such proposals are considered along
with all others received in the hearings. Colorado statutes require such consideration and
do not allow for placing the proposals before only a portion of the electorate for votes at
special or general elections.
3. Question: "The Town of Frederick recently passed an open space tax--&while I realize
the agricultural committee is studying this --Is this going to be too late to be effective in
our area by the time their proposals are put in place? Can the County do anything?"
Answer: Although the Agricultural Ad-Hoc Committee may be considering the merits
of a sales tax to fund the preservation of agricultural lands in the County, the matter
would need to be voted upon before the imposition of such a tax. It is the Board of
County Commissioners' position that the most successful land preservation sales tax
campaigns have been grass root efforts undertaken by citizens. The Board recently held
a meeting with officials from various municipalities in Weld County where the concept
was presented by Mr. Don Sandoval, Colorado Department of Local Affairs. It is the
Board's understanding that the Trust for Public Land is currently studying the political
feasibility of such a sales tax proposal. Any election to consider a sales tax would need
to be set for a general election.
4. Question: "Could the recorded exemption policy be reviewed? There are those in SW
Weld who are abusing this process -- thus creating their own `subdivisions' with only a
small penalty from the County."
Answer: The recorded exemption process in Weld County was intended to enhance the
agricultural uses associated with existing legal lots. The number of approved recorded
exemptions in Weld County has increased steadily each year; however, this does not
necessarily mean the process is being abused. Information regarding the increased
numbers of approved recorded exemptions has been presented to the Agricultural Ad-Hoc
Committee for its review.
Letter, Shaw
February 2, 2000
Page 3
Should you have additional questions, I would be happy to discuss these with you. I may be
reached at(970) 356-4000, ext. 4200.
Since ely,
arbara J. Kirkmeyer, Chair
Board of County Commissioners
of Weld County, Colorado
pc: Monica Mika
Bruce T. Barker
Hello