HomeMy WebLinkAbout20140201.tiff ti;-
r IIs
•
. •V s
1y
y # •
ILI
. . l
. • � .1 = m
' ` _
Alb JP
II A.
. = O
Tfls
. WIC
•
lik
• ill •En ser �.sa14483
dr
4r
4e -
• ,
K. ,
4 .` i WO .
, ir
4. •.4
. , 4. , . r. ,•,,. . r •
I
rc
i
• .
•
• •
• .. m
-. •-. a or t
•
•
• i Ili
•
♦ i
iti
•
as
• •.• ' , co
01 M
• + r + r CO
'.1 114
rms
I .
is,
Ap
illit
Z ,-14IC
7. • '
SY `TT
r • • V
- • `' t 0
-' a t
I' •
t .
s .
• • •
IIIFII AM •
•
3
•
•
•
.5 fir.
Y t ,
OF
•
, . f
• . .
• .
•
•
It •
•
`r
a
-..• El ,
{. .•,.
•
•
..
J nas
yr
•
I
•
ti
I1=. .
as
..M
1
E
co
0)
•M
•
CO
M
r
O
N
yr
N--
.......
0)
O
BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Jason Maxey, that the following resolution be introduced for denial by the Weld County
Planning Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: ORDINANCE 2014-1
PRESENTED BY: TOM PARKO
REQUEST: WELD COUNTY CODE ORDINANCE #2014-1, IN THE MATTER OF
REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 24
SUBDIVISIONS,OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE.
be recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners.
Motion seconded by Bret Elliott.
VOTE:
For Denial Against Denial Absent
Benjamin Hansford
Bret Elliott
Bruce Sparrow
Jason Maxey
Jordan Jemiola
Joyce Smock
Mark Lawley
Michael Wailes
Nick Berryman
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of
this case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Kristine Ranslem, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that the above and foregoing resolution is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of
Weld County, Colorado, adopted on January 7, 2014.
Dated the 7th of January, 2014.
Digitally signed by Kristine
`�.al.Lbt11/1t-iI Mt, Ranslem
Date:2014.01.10 13:20:09-0700'
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
2014-0201
Sec.24-8-40. Exemption standards.
An exemption application shall comply with all of the following standards:
A. The water supply for all proposed lots is adequate in terms of quality, quantity and
dependability.
B. An adequate sewer service is available to serve the uses permitted on all proposed lots. The
sewer service shall comply with the requirements of the applicable zone district and the Department
of Public Health and Environment.
C. An access is, or can be made, available that provides for safe ingress and egress to a public
road. All accesses shall be in accordance with Chapter 8,Article II of this Code, and shall endeavor
to achieve the goal of no "net increase" in the number of accesses onto adjacent County roads when
accesses already exist.
1. Where the access is adjacent to a state highway, the Colorado Department of
Transportation has jurisdiction over existing or proposed access points. The applicant shall be
responsible for obtaining a new access permit from the Colorado Department of Transportation.
2. Contiguous lots created through the exemption process shall, when practicable, share
access.
3. Existing or future public rights-of-way and additional access points on County roads shall
be dedicated or reserved in conformance with Chapter 22 of this Code and any adopted
intergovernmental agreements or master plans of affected municipalities.
4. A new access with a choice as to which County road it feeds onto shall choose the County
road with the lowest traffic count.
D. The proposed recorded exemption will comply with Chapter 23,Article V of this Code.
E. The proposal is consistent with the policies and goals of Chapter 22 of this Code.
F. The proposal is consistent with any adopted intergovernmental agreement,if applicable.
G. The proposal has taken into consideration master plans of affected municipalities.
H. The proposal is compatible with the existing surrounding land uses.
I. The proposal is consistent with the intent of the zone district the exemption is located within
as expressed in Chapter 23 of this Code.
J. The proposal is consistent with sound land use planning practices.
K. The proposal is consistent with the Statement of Purpose as expressed in Section 24-1-30 of
this Chapter.
1. The approval of an exemption may be conditioned or restricted to carry out the intent of
Section 24-1-30 of this Chapter or to mitigate impacts or address concerns of referral agencies.
Conditions and restrictions may include, but are not limited to, designation of building
envelopes, creation of conservation easements or other legal mechanisms to encourage
agricultural production on the parcels and to maintain irrigation water for the parcels, the
utilization of existing housing, and the satisfaction of school district concerns, pursuant to the
requirements of Section 30-28-133(4)(a), C.R.S. Conditions of approval shall be met prior to
recording the plat, and restrictions may be enforced by means of notes on the plat.
2. The fact that the applicant has conveyed, within the last calendar year, land which would
have been considered contiguous had it been retained, may be considered as evidence of an
intent to evade the purpose provisions of Sections 24-1-30 and 24-8-20 of this Chapter.
L. The minimum size of any lot proposed with a public water supply is not less than one (I)
acre net. The minimum size of any lot proposed with a well as the water supply is not less than two
and one-half(2' ) acres net. Minimum lot sizes do not apply in zone districts which allow smaller
lots or where exempted by the Board of County Commissioners. The minimum lot size does not
apply to subdivision exemption lots created for the temporary use of a parcel for public utility
facilities or TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNA TOWER facilities.
M. After March 1, 2004, the proposed recorded exemption is eligible for land exemption if it is
not part of:
1. The largest lot of a recorded exemption which was recorded within the last five(5)years.
This requirement may be waived by the Board of County Commissioners if the Board finds
extenuating circumstances experienced by the applicant justify approval of the recorded
exemption and that the recorded exemption is not for the purpose of evading the requirements
and intent of this Chapter.
2. The largest lot of a recorded exemption which was done in conjunction with a subdivision
exemption which was recorded within the last five (5)years. This requirement may be waived
by the Board of County Commissioners if the Board finds extenuating circumstances
experienced by the applicant justify approval of the recorded exemption and that the recorded
exemption is not for the purpose of evading the requirements and intent of this Chapter.
N. None of the smaller lots of recorded exemptions approved after March 1, 2004, are eligible
for future land exemptions.
O. The proposal is consistent with good agricultural practices, if applicable.
P. After August 3, 2010, the largest lot of any recorded exemption may not be less than thirty-
five (35) acres net. This requirement may be waived by the Board of County Commissioners if the
Board finds extenuating circumstances experienced by the applicant justify approval of the recorded
exemption and that the recorded exemption is not for the purpose of evading the requirements and
intent of this Chapter. (Weld County Code Ordinance 2002-9; Weld County Code Ordinance 2003-
10; Weld County Code Ordinance 2005-01; Weld County Code Ordinance 2010-6; Weld County
Code Ordinance 2012-4;Weld County Code Ordinance 2013-1)
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County
Administration Building, Hearing Room, 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado. This meeting was called to
order by Chair, Mark Lawley, at 1:30 pm.
Roll Call.
Present: Benjamin Hansford, Bret Elliott, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Mark Lawley,
Michael Wailes, Nick Berryman.
Absent/Excused: Bruce Sparrow
Also Present: Tom Parko and Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services; Lauren Light and Mary
Evett, Department of Health; Brad Yatabe, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Motion: Approve the December 17, 2013 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by
Jason Maxey, Seconded by Joyce Smock. Motion passed unanimously.
v CASE NUMBER: ORDINANCE 2014-1
PRESENTED BY: TOM PARKO
REQUEST: WELD COUNTY CODE ORDINANCE #2014-1, IN THE MATTER OF
REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 24
SUBDIVISIONS, OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE.
Tom Parko, Planning Services, introduced Ordinance 2014-1 and stated that these changes center
on Recorded Exemptions. Recorded Exemptions allow a landowner to subdivide a piece of property
under certain criteria. Some requirements are that a Recorded Exemption is allowed only every 5 years
and the largest lot of any Recorded Exemption may not be less than 35 acres in size. These cases are
approved administratively; however if the applications do not meet the criteria then staff makes a
determination to forward the case to the Board of County Commissioners for determination.
Mr. Parko stated that some applications received by the Planning Department do not meet the current
criteria in the Weld County Code. After some discussions with the Board of County Commissioners, they
felt that these proposed changes give the Commissioners more discretion.
Commissioner Berryman asked how many of these applications staff has seen. Mr. Parko said that they
haven't seen many applications that don't meet the criteria. He added that there may have been two (2)
in the last year that have been denied and then heard by the County Commissioners.
Commissioner Maxey asked staff to give an example of a recent application that was denied. In addition,
he asked to clarify if the Board of County Commissioners has the right at this time to reverse staff's
decision and approve the case. Mr. Parko said that there was a recent case where the applicant did not
meet the 5 year limit and the parcel was less than 35 acres. Therefore staff denied the application and
forwarded it to the Board of County Commissioners. The County Commissioners initially upheld the
Planning Department's position but decided to reconsider their motion and referred it back to the Planning
Department. Mr. Maxey asked what the applicant's extenuating circumstances were. Michelle Martin,
Planning Services, said that they had a family member that had wanted to build a house on the lot. Mr.
Maxey asked if the County wants smaller parcels or do they want to keep the agricultural theme with
larger acreages.
Commissioner Maxey wished to clarify if, at this time, the Board of County Commissioners has the right to
accept the appeal. Brad Yatabe, County Attorney, said that when this case went before the Board of
County Commissioners it may be a matter of interpretation of the code and in this situation it was pretty
black and white and they didn't really have any latitude to make that decision.
1
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application.
Sandra Heil-Stoner and Gary Stoner, 4998 CR 50, Johnstown, Colorado, stated that they are the
neighbors to the east of the property in the example that was just given. They wanted to know who writes
the County Codes and who puts them into effect. Ms. Heil-Stoner reiterated the question if the Planning
Commission wants to see small lots in the country or do they want to keep it agricultural. She further
asked if code changes are done when there is a large volume request or when there is only a few that
might be affected. They are unclear what makes an extenuating circumstance.
Mr. Parko said that this proposed change doesn't impact the intent of Recorded Exemptions. However,
the proposed changes give the Board of County Commissioners some flexibility and discretion during
instances when a Recorded Exemption is denied by the Planning Staff and forwarded to the Board of
County Commissioners.
Ms. Heil-Stoner said that extenuating circumstances leaves it pretty broad. Mr. Parko said that it is left
undefined and that the applicant will need to make the case before the County Commissioners.
Mr. Parko said that the Code is adopted by the County Commissioners and enforced throughout the
County. Mr. Stoner asked if the County writes the code. Mr. Parko replied yes.
Commissioner Lawley asked if the proposed changes include notice to surrounding property owners. Mr.
Parko replied that no notice is given to the surrounding property owners.
Commissioner Maxey asked Mr. Stoner if the Commissioners should be able to consider applications like
this. Mr. Stoner said that the Code is good as it is written and everyone has lived by them. He added
that extenuating circumstances leaves it too open.
Mr. Parko clarified that this proposed change does not change the 5-year time limit or acreage
requirement but gives the Board discretion. Commissioner Maxey replied that it does open the door to
where those 5 years is not a hard and fast no.
Motion: Forward Ordinance 2014-1 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Planning
Commission's recommendation of approval, Moved by Jordan Jemiola, Seconded by Benjamin
Hansford.
Commissioner Elliott understands the Stoner's concerns and feels that laws are laws and that extenuating
circumstances are pretty vague. He said that there is a good Board of County Commissioners now but
we don't know who will be on the Board in the future. He thinks that this should not be recommended
favorably.
Commissioner Maxey agreed with Mr. Elliott as well. He said that potentially he is more in favor of
proposed changes to Section 24-8-40.P but doesn't really approve of the changes to Section 24-8-40.M.1
and M.2. He added that he understands extenuating circumstances but feels it is left to interpretation.
Commissioner Smock said that she also agrees with Commissioners Elliott and Maxey and said that at
the end of 5 years the same process could occur again. She reiterated that in 5 years we could have
different County Commissioners with different points of view.
Commissioner Wailes asked how many homes can be built in the agricultural zone. Mr. Perko said that
one (1) home per legal parcel is allowed as a Use by Right; however if you want multiple homes you can
follow other processes such as a Use by Special Review or a Zoning Permit for a Second Dwelling. Mr.
Wailes asked if the recorded exemption in this case would prevent this house to be built. Mr. Parko said
that they could go through other means like a subdivision process.
2
Commissioner Berryman said that he is concerned over the ambiguity of the language and feels that most
people abide by the standards. He just doesn't know that this is fair application to everyone and that it is
not necessary at this point.
Commissioner Hansford said that he doesn't think everything is set in stone and just because it is against
the rules makes it wrong. He added that nothing ever fits in the same box and there are extenuating
circumstances that need to be looked at in certain cases.
Commissioner Jemiola said that he understands maintaining large agricultural spaces in Weld County but
believes that the County Commissioners were elected to serve the best interest of the people. Based on
the number of applications going to them he doesn't think it will be a problem.
Commissioner Wailes said that he is on the fence with these changes because it should be black and
white but has been in the position of extenuating circumstance and feels that the Board of County
Commissioners should have the latitude to make that decision.
Commissioner Maxey said that the applicants could have done a minor subdivision. He added that there
are other processes in place that allow the applicant to accomplish what they intend to do and it allows for
public notification and the hearing process.
The Chair called for the vote.
Vote: Motion failed (summary: Yes= 3, No= 5, Abstain = 0).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Jordan Jemiola, Mark Lawley.
No: Bret Elliott, Jason Maxey, Joyce Smock, Michael Wailes, Nick Berryman.
Commissioner Elliott does not think it is needed at this point and feels that it is up to interpretation and is
vague. He agreed with Commissioner Maxey that there are other processes that can work for the
applicant.
Commissioner Wailes also agreed with Commissioner Maxey and added that there are mechanisms in
place for a small lot subdivision.
Commissioner Smock concurred with Commissioners Elliott and Wailes and reiterated that she is unsure
of who might be on the Board in the future.
Commissioner Berryman supported Commissioner Elliott's and Commissioner Maxey's comments. He
added that the Recorded Exemption process takes those parcel sizes down to a certain point and from
there you can continue with a different process. He believes the added public notification is appropriate
for those smaller sizes.
Commissioner Maxey echoed Mr. Elliott and Mr. Berryman's comments. He said that there are other
processes available and it allows for public notification.
Motion: Forward Ordinance 2014-1 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Planning
Commission's recommendation of denial, Moved by Jason Maxey, Seconded by Bret Elliott.
Vote: Motion passed(summary: Yes=5, No=3,Abstain = 0).
Yes: Bret Elliott, Jason Maxey, Joyce Smock, Michael Wailes, Nick Berryman.
No: Benjamin Hansford, Jordan Jemiola, Mark Lawley.
The Chair asked the public if there were other items of business that they would like to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss.
Mary Evett and Lauren Light, Environmental Health, presented the new on-site wastewater treatment
system regulations, per State Statute. Ms. Light said that the septic systems will no longer be called
Individual Sewage Disposal Systems. They will be On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems because the
idea is it is not a disposal system; it is a treatment system. She added that there have been minor
3
r
changes to the State Statute since 1973 but no large revisions have been made. Ms. Light said that staff
has done a lot of outreach to installers, pumpers, real estate agencies and have held work sessions with
the Board of County Commissioners. The changes will not go into effect until July 1, 2014.
Meeting adjourned at 3:03 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Lf� j ^ Digitally signed by Kre Ranslem
7 00'
X�/uxC.yYL, Date:2014.01.13 08:39:19-0700'
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
4
Hello