HomeMy WebLinkAbout20140157.tiff 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.
[0' Motion: Approve the December 17, 2013 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by
Jason Maxey, Seconded by Joyce Smock. Motion passed unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: ORDINANCE 2014-1
PRESENTED BY: TOM PARK()
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.
(riming tic c hbvv-)
/_ /3 r/ 2014-0157
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. Parko 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 does not make 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.
ID' 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
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,
Digitally signed by Kristine Ranslem
�E►YtL� . Date: 2014.01 .1616:01 :09 -07'00'
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
4
Hello