HomeMy WebLinkAbout20003137.tiff HEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 2000-79
RE: SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT#1283
FOR A GUEST FARM (EXTENDED LEARNING CENTER) IN THE A(AGRICULTURAL)
ZONE DISTRICT -JANET REAM
A public hearing was conducted on January 10, 2001, at 10:00 a.m., with the following present:
Commissioner M. J. Geile, Chair
Commissioner Glenn Vaad, Pro-Tern
Commissioner William H. Jerke
Commissioner David E. Long
Commissioner Robert D. Masden
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Esther Gesick
Assistant County Attorney, Lee Morrison
Planning Department representative, Sheri Lockman
Health Department representative, Pam Smith
Public Works representative, Don Carroll
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated December 21, 2000, and duly published
December 28, 2000, in the South Weld Sun, a public hearing was conducted to consider the
request of Janet Ream for a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit
#1283 for a Guest Farm (extended learning center) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. Lee
Morrison, Assistant County Attorney, made this a matter of record. Sheri Lockman, Department
of Planning Services, presented a brief summary of the proposal and entered the favorable
recommendation of the Planning Commission into the record as written. She gave a brief
description of the location of the site which is 109 acres, as well as the surrounding uses. Ms.
Lockman stated ten of the thirteen referral agencies responded in favor of the proposal or
suggested conditions. She explained the City of Greeley expressed concern; however, those
issues were addressed prior to scheduling this hearing, and added a Development Standard has
been added to indicate the site may be effected by the airport operations. Ms. Lockman suggested
the Board consider adding a Development Standard requiring an Avigation Easement, and stated
she received no letters from surrounding property owners. She further stated the applicant met
with the Union Ditch Company; however, they did not come to an agreement regarding mitigation
of the ditch, and the Board must determine if an adequate attempt has been made to address the
Ditch Company's concerns. In response to Chair Geile, Mr. Morrison stated the issue of an
Avigation Easement can be added as a Condition of Approval, or as a note to be added to the plat.
Responding further to Chair Geile, Ms. Lockman stated fireflow has been addressed with a well on
the property. Don Carroll, Department of Public Works,stated the main access is from Highway 34
at Weld County Road 47, and prior to recording the plat, the applicant is required to submit
evidence that an access permit has been authorized for the increased traffic. In response to Chair
Geile, Mr. Carroll further stated the applicant will be able to verify that information with Gloria Hice-
Idler, Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). Ms. Lockman stated the applicant has
2000-3137
1)(' : /-)L /(// (if) I it PL1463
HEARING CERTIFICATION - JANET REAM (USR #1283)
PAGE 2
submitted an application to CDOT and has been approved, so Condition of Approval #3.A can be
deleted. Mr. Carroll further stated the applicant has also completed Conditions #3.E. #3.F, and
#3.G, so they can deleted. Ms. Lockman stated Development Standard #3 should be amended
to add ".5" to end of the Code reference.
In response to Commissioner Long, Mr. Morrison stated the Airport Authority did not raise the issue
of this proposal jeopardizing future airport grants, as it did in the case for Change of Zone#541 for
John and Charlotte Carlson. He added there was no resolution to that issue because the proposal
was withdrawn, and stated this record does not contain a strong objection to the placement of this
proposal within the corridor for the primary runway.
Janet Ream, applicant, stated there is still the outstanding issue with the Union Ditch Company.
In response to Commissioner Vaad, Ms. Ream stated the tail water ditch is located on the eastern
property line, and she is the last shareholder. She stated the ditch carries storm water to the river.,
and the Ditch Company has expressed concern regarding the potential hazard for children. Ms.
Ream stated her activities for the children will be supervised, and should not require an eight-foot
chain-link fence because there is an existing easement. She further stated the cost of the
proposed fence was not pursued, and she consulted with her attorney who indicated the request
may be an enticement because the ditch is only one or two feet deep. In response to Chair Geile,
Ms. Ream indicated the location of ditch along the east property line, and stated she does have a
water agreement that provides two rods, and she will be constructing an access road that will
provide a sufficient buffer. In response to Commissioner Vaad, Ms. Ream stated two rods is equal
to 33 feet. Responding to Chair Geile, Ms. Ream stated she wrote the letter, dated December 22,
2000, marked Exhibit N, and her attorney has not been in contact with Union Ditch Company
because she would like to try and settle the matter during this hearing.
William Southard, attorney, represented the Union Ditch Company and stated his client is
concerned with the potential liability issues for insurance purposes. Mr. Southard explained the
ditch can be very fast, it is intended to direct rain runoff from higher land, and return it to the river.
He stated there will be fish and duck ponds at the river which will be supplied by the ditch, and
these areas will likely attract the children. The Ditch Company does not want the responsibility of
protecting children in the area. Commissioner Vaad moved to go into executive council with legal
council regarding a potential conflict of interest for Commissioner Jerke. Commissioner Long
seconded the motion,and the remainder of the Board concurred. Upon reconvening, Mr. Morrison
stated Commissioner Jerke will review the situation for members of the audience . Commissioner
Jerke stated he owns two shares of the total 250 Union Ditch Company shares, and those two
shares are co-owned with his brother. In response to Chair Geile, Ms. Ream stated she has no
objection to Commissioner Jerke remaining on the Commission regarding this matter.
Gary Alles, Union Ditch Company Board President, stated on behalf of the Ditch Board he has no
objection to the proposal, but further conflict may be raised later in testimony regarding
Commissioner Jerke's involvement with the Ditch Company. Mr. Morrison stated it is generally
accepted that less than 5 percent interest is not a conflict.
2000-3137
PL1463
HEARING CERTIFICATION - JANET REAM (USR #1283)
PAGE 3
Mr. Southard continued his testimony by stating the ditch head-gate is located near the Town of
Milliken along the South Platte River, and the Union Ditch also fills the Latham Reservoir. He
reiterated the Ditch Company wants to ensure all precautions are taken to prevent future accidents.
Mr. Southard stated there will be a road along the ditch, and the Ditch Company has had problems
in the past with people playing along or in the ditch, and the Company wants some form of
indemnification for protection. He stated Ms. Ream will likely provide adequate supervision, but
a six-foot fence will help discourage the children from playing near the ditch. He also requested
if a fence is constructed, there be enough keys to allow appropriate personnel access in case of
emergencies. In response to Commissioner Vaad, Mr. Southard stated the amount of water in the
ditch varies depending on weather; at times it flows strong enough to sweep small children off their
feet. In response to Commissioner Vaad, Mr. Southard reiterated the Ditch Company suggests Ms.
Ream carry adequate insurance and list the Ditch Company on the insurance coverage. He stated
the length of the fence would be along the ditch were children are present. Mr. Southard explained
some of the legislature regarding ditches goes back to late 1800's, and in certain circumstances
it needs to be updated to protect against accidents.
Mr. Alles presented further testimony regarding ditch safety, and stated they do not want this
proposal denied, they just want to cover any liability issues. Mr. Alles stated the Ditch Company
did not receive notification for the Planning Commission hearing; however, it did receive a letter
from the applicant indicating there would be school age children during various times of the year.
He stated it appears at certain times there will be a significant number of children present, and he
expressed concern regarding their curiosity regarding the ditch. He further stated the access road
will be along the ditch and may even cross some portions of the easement. Mr. Alles stated he
agrees with Mr. Southard's comments,and added he personally lives three-quarters of a mile south
of the proposed site. He explained during bad storms, the ditch carries up to three feet of water.
Mr. Alles stated the main Union Ditch goes through the Town of LaSalle and when adjacent to
subdivisions, they required the developer to construct a fence. Commissioner Jerke stated he
developed a subdivision located east of LaSalle and negotiated with the Union Ditch Company at
that time to place a fence for the protection of the residents. In response to Chair Geile, Mr.
Morrison stated the comments of the Ditch Company are relevant; however, he does not see them
as a conflict for Commissioner Jerke. Mr. Alles reiterated the Ditch Company's main concern is
for the safety of visitors to the site and surrounding residents. In response to Mr. Morrison, Mr.
Alles stated the main ditch was along Jerke property and it is bigger than the tail water ditch
adjacent to the applicant's property. In comparison, the ditch adjacent to Commissioner Jerke's
development carries approximately 80 to 100 cubic feet per second (cfs), and the tail water ditch
only carries 20 to 30 cfs. He added the amount fluctuates during irrigation and seasonal weather.
In response to Chair Geile, Mr. Alles estimated the applicant would need to place approximately
1,700 to 1,800 feet of fence from the southeast corner of the site to the point where the ditch heads
off to the east. In response to Commissioner Masden, Mr. Alles stated they have requested the
applicant provide a report for drainage patterns regarding placement of culverts.
Dennis Hoshiko, surrounding property owner, stated the surrounding uses are active agriculture,
and he owns and leases land directly south and east of the proposed site. Mr. Hoshiko stated the
applicant purchased the property about a year ago, and has been a good neighbor. He stated he
wants to ensure the applicant is aware there are agricultural activities in the area, including farm
machinery, spring operations, dust, and odors which may effect their plans.
2000-3137
PL1463
HEARING CERTIFICATION - JANET REAM (USR #1283)
PAGE 4
In response to Chair Geile, Ms. Lockman agreed the Right to Farm Covenant should be added as
a Condition prior to recording the plat. Commissioner Vaad read a portion of the application
regarding the applicant's intent to educate children regarding agricultural uses, and commented
it appears the applicant is aware of the surrounding uses. Mr. Hoshiko stated he has young
children, and he is encouraged that this plan may provide a program to educate urban youth
regarding agricultural activities. Responding to Commissioner Jerke, Mr. Hoshiko stated he does
not feel that air traffic will be a major factor for this application because he has not witnessed a
significant increase of air traffic since the new runway has been in operation.
Ms. Lockman stated the northeast portion of site is located within the Flood Plain; constructing a
fence may require Flood Hazard Permits; and she is not sure the applicant would be able to obtain
them. In response to Chair Geile, Ms. Ream stated she understands the Union Ditch Company's
concern; however,she has been a teacher for many years,and understands how to work with kids.
Ms. Ream further stated she comes from an agricultural background and understands there are
potential hazards. In response to Commissioner Vaad, Ms. Ream stated she has not spoken with
her attorney or her insurance company regarding the coverage for the Ditch Company. She stated
the children will be on her property, and she would be liable for any situations; however, there is
an easement which should be sufficient in addressing the Ditch Company's concerns. Ms. Ream
stated there will be school trips, and during the summer, this will be a private operation. In
response to Chair Geile, Ms. Lockman stated fences in Flood Plains require Flood Hazzard
permits, and they are prohibited in a Floodway. Monica Mika, Director of Planning Services,
explained the Flood Plain provides flexibility as to the types of structures allowed; however,
structures are not allowed in the Floodway unless they are reviewed and approved by FEMA,which
may not be economically viable for the applicant.
In response to Chair Geile, Ms. Ream stated she has reviewed and agrees with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards as proposed,as well as the discussed changes. She stated
she has worked in District 6, and feels this will be a much more supervised situation than many of
the children would have otherwise. She further stated this operation will not add any further burden
to the Ditch Company. The children are aware of hazards, they will be more supervised here than
in most situations, there will be many adults present, and she will be liable for her operation.
Commissioner Vaad stated he feels the applicant has shown there will be adequate provision for
the protection of the health,safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and citizens
of Weld County. He moved to approve the request of Janet Ream for a Site Specific Development
Plan and Use by Special Review Permit#1283 for a Guest Farm (extended learning center) in the
A(Agricultural)Zone District,based on the recommendations of the Planning staff and the Planning
Commission, with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards as entered into the
record,with deletion of Conditions#3.A,#3.E,#3.F,#3.G,amend Development Standard#3 to add
".5"to the end of the Code reference,add Condition of Approval#3.1 to state,"Weld County's Right
To Farm statement, as it appears in the Weld County Code,Appendix 22-E, shall be placed on the
Plat," and renumber or reletter as appropriate. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Masden. Chair Geile stated he supports the motion because the applicant's plan sufficiently shows
how they will supervise and monitor the children using the facility. The motion carried unanimously.
2000-3137
PL1463
HEARING CERTIFICATION - JANET REAM (USR #1283)
PAGE 5
This Certification was approved on the 15th day of January 2001.
APPROVED:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD CO TY, COLORADO
ATTEST: Lt'#t : 27 IlZ
f NM. J.. eile, C air Weld County Clerk to the rd '12/1144
aei rtik/1
Q1,t- 3lenn Vaad,Vro-Te
u>
Deputy Clerk to the B
�-eih r/ O1 i • m H. Jerke
TAPE #2001-01 c'a-" _
Davi E. Long
DOCKET #2000-79
Robert D. Mas en
2000-3137
PL1463
EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
Case USR #1283 -JANET REAM
Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description
A. Planning Staff Inventory of Item Submitted
B. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation
C. Planning Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes09/05/2000)
D. Clerk to the Board Notice of Hearing
E. Union Colorado Fire Rescue Authority Letter re: Fire Standards (10/30/2000)
F. Division of Wildlife Letter re: Follow up (09/19/2000)
G. William Southard Letter re: Recommended Corrections
(11/22/2000)
H. Applicant Agreement with Union Ditch Company
Applicant Plat summary (11/27/2000)
J. Applicant Road Diagram
K. Applicant Letter re: Traffic Count Study (08/30/2000)
L. Loonan and Associates, Inc. Letter re: Storm Drainage Impacts
(11/02/2000)
M. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Letter re: Trip Generation Estimate
(09/05/2000)
N. Applicant Letter to Union Ditch Company
(12/22/2000)
O. Planning Staff Certification of Sign Posting
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
U.
ATTENDANCE RECORD
HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2000:
DOCKET#2000-79 - JANET REAM
DOCKET#2000-80 - RICHARD AND PHYLLIS PODTBURG
DOCKET#2000-78 - SIEGRIST COMPANIES
PLEASE legibly write or print your name and complete address and the DOCKET#
(as listed above) or the name of the applicant of the hearing you are attending.
NAME AND ADDRESS(Please include City and Zip Code)DOCKET#OF HEARING ATTENDING
_,
r ' f ,her- <t /71 //bill_it 7/_�ibtr let/ ?� '.�s/ ,;12-.7( 7).. /9
��,� �y� `�,^�'j /, / —{fir �,O
., Itg ) ( t x3't.'V(,4c�'a� j,; > - %C,. / G/(,7 4 rr 0(7)6
:Lite)I'')_( 14 it7//r) `7 /(lY I01'K iv/ / 7(2 ,T7r'7°/ '?^-='':L� ,• %
h yGl ) C17 ?/ // 7c%_ l 7// Zv =��-L
V' —/T C1-/A Lc' I '77) r "7-2t; 14' a=il 17- . 61at:<;t- L ') (7c, S Oto 4 W' T<`-,
' r 171 (\,2 i5
U (- Z J i7,1.1 v/i. 'T 772 L s f t-/Jr'(, /1 A )7- -/0/ LJ(,,:ss
„1 kE - ICF ;i.Li '' ,c'ct E4%i 4cit' iri::= cc "(2,2 y
y /E'r�✓ �5� z � L<,L , ism sgtL Ave 6•fe( *G0CC -7 r
Hello