The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About962156.tiff fern MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners COLORADO FROM: Gloria Dunn, Current Planner G}°� SUBJECT: Weld County Subdivision Ordinance 173-D DATE: November 8, 1996 Attached is a copy of a letter received today by staff from Kirk Goble regarding the proposed three (3)-lot recorded exemption process. The letter will be entered into in the record at the Final Reading of 173-D on Wednesday, November 13, 1996. SERVICE,TEAMWORK,INTEGRITY,QUALITY 962156 J. L. SEARS & ASSOCIATES INC. REAL ESTATE • F3 tjai7 �'.. ryt sal=( tili,✓ R �. NOV 0 8 1996 November 8, 1996 Weld County Board of County Commissioners and Ms. Gloria Dunn Weld County Department of Planning Services 1400 N. 17th Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Ordinance 173-D Dear Ms. Dunn and County Commissioners, Since I am unable to attend the hearing on the above ordinance, I am submitting this letter as my testimony for the public hearing and ask that it be submitted into the record. I am writing in support of the concept of the proposed 3 lot Recorded Exemption. It is a procedure that should provide for greater flexibility for a landowner while not evading the purpose or intent of the subdivision ordinances. I have a concern and suggestion for determination of minimum lot sizes. The minimum lot size of 80 acres and the proposed minimum lot size of 160 acres for the 3 lot RE has potential to be arbitrarily administered or misinterpreted. Currently, a legal description by quarter section or 1/2 of a quarter section is assumed to be 160 acres or 180 acres, respectively. As you know, due to correction lines and discrepancies in old surveying methods, some sections are longer or shorter and thus may technically contain slightly more or less than the assumed 80 or 160 acres. If a landowner should happen to have an existing survey prior to application for RE that shows actual acreage slightly less than the stated minimum lot size, they may not qualify for the RE, while the landowner who does not have a survey is assumed to have a legal lot by basic rectangular survey description. When the state subdivision laws were enacted, this circumstance was addressed by the legislature through establishment of a minimum lot size of 35 acres rather than the originally proposed 40 acre limitation. It should be prudent and consistent that the Weld County subdivision regulations also address this issue so as not to inadvertently deny an otherwise acceptable land use change. 303/857-2930 - 303/629-0432 - 303/785-2291 140 DENVER AVENUE-FORT LUPTON,COLORADO 80621 I suggest that an interpretation clause be added to the applicable Weld County ordinances that allows for assumption of the minimum lot size by basic rectangular survey legal description as is now provided as well as an allowance for those which may show slightly less than the exact acreage in the event a survey or other acreage determination has been completed. I suggest an allowance for this purpose of 2 1/2 acres for an assumed 80 acre parcel and 5 acres for an assumed 160 acre parcel. The allowance should only be considered when the property has not been previously split by Recorded Exemption. These acreage allowances should provide for the circumstance of short sections, yet maintain the intent of the subdivision ordinance and limit the possibility of intentional evasion of the ordinance. This suggested clause would maintain the minimum lot sizes at 80 and 160 acres, but provide for interpretation in these certain applicable instances. I appreciate your consideration of this matter. Kirk Goble (LC . UcGL) /'L j L/1 4,, Public Relations `1 1?" r^ 7,G. `=t C* ; 6 6880 Wyman Way ... Westminster,Colorado 80030 303.426-1212 CLE" Fax 303-426-1010 TOT '' - / 7 G 63 1. flit 'a- <jt_. �-tv /l ' .. c,44_,„,,_,__ / 73 - a '5 ..'+"c-a,,. . e C. ✓z _6.:,'_..._,e,,,,;,/, L.7J✓i_ ,,,zti -- ,itcsi.C®,,_ie'/,,,A <,ad- .,;,, Z-14 he met.r. --ria-it,ek_ --- +i .-- er_e-e. fr- ..tezl c're-< aa b .O -rG ^�� U �d:nom .��GG ee�✓ s�Uec��a LFGaG � t.,-, t?s & .ice- r, e."-;.cr,y7. r /,:,,©ez-c°2eo G� `7 -e Lc' avy-- y c-44-1- -mac-,2 .�/rctc_. tote.. (S) /SCE y � fl-& t.- /1--Lez i c V ,/r.,w .,-1-"- tr .-egg _ -e sl- h 'l,Cz%£- - 7 /‘X yea e ✓1, c- c-' f-e n. S' iffr ,‘-4; : it7't-t _/� �7ta" C?). -- • ..['�/ v�t-GGLC i% .'G� ' + y._6.6C-el I__G-Le-too-1y_____.-t0 1.,e.-1,E, /2 7J,-/-t-n23 /G^" g . a lL �ti1 A°', i <T t = ¢`r y� ul 7 rLL L f'�d-a ge ._c d . Li e v `L.t'�t-/Lo _. i_e: -7-uE_c-�vc�`,z/e+ ._6i Q pi 4-2--e-041- a --- -- L/ s-, •--11-0-6-4-c-2-' -Gt�z^ 1“) 4-L" fl i21i 4LC,:` aitc--cc.-e cr 2,"°.*-4--e-6--- �z-,2-e.arz- --t y t 6 /4/1/u. ..-c''�-c�<':t` ..z,/� -v e: Z/ -tee (3) p`ti%e.rya di//-/d a e--cc-o -/0-e-4 a cLl/,ne' GAG a-t-e e ll4i taiLs- 9 4.1d-race- �? -eitee_ .-- -2._ Z _ / er _.41.):C.fr-c_ecielKe--e-cr--co"-i-t.__-".1,:_'a--e-e_--Lei;sa---c_e:te‘-:-, ____„cyt,e-teet ii116-'2 it Xr( —1te'i . X--elf-�.. ll. "' ?Ofe—Lf: Z et._,{�,ii f 1//7�/f�,'4 r"rz� INVENTORY OF ITEMS SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION Proposed amendments to Section 11 of the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance #173 Submitted Prepared Prior to HearingAt Hearing 1. Planning Commission Resolution x 2. Comments a. 9/17/96 memo to BOCC from staff x b. Staff recommendation(4 pages) x c. 7/9/96 memo to PC from staff x 3. Legal Notice x I hereby certify that the 3 items identified herein were submitted to the Department of Planning Services at or prior to the scheduled Planning Commission hearing. I further certify that these items were forwarded to the Clerk to the Board's office on September 18, 1996. Glo na D nn, Current Planner STATE OF COLORADO ) COUNTY OF WELD ) t ,btlinni AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS /f day of J'/lt. 19 94 ®TAgY '• HEAL° //tegistnlF OF OO," pq OTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires " 4-97 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 16, 1996 Page 4 Ellen Korthuis explained that they would like three houses in place before they build the main service house. They would like to have at least one house built with in a year. The construction of all the buildings could take several years. The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience wished to speak for against this application. No one wished to speak. Richard Kimmel asked the applicant if she was in agreement with the Department of Planning Services' staff recommendations and Development Standards. Ellen Korthuis stated she agreed with the staff. Ann Garrison moved Case USR-1090 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Commissions recommendation for approval. Cristie Nickles seconded the motion. The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Richard Kimmel-yes; Cristie Nicklas-yes;Ann Garrison-yes; Marie Koolstra-yes; Jack Epple-no; Zachary Allely-yes; Arlan Marrs-no. Motion carried with a vote of 5 to 2. Jack Epple stated that he voted no because he feels that with the complexity with the schools they may not reach an agreement.Also, he is concerned about the additional services the county may have to apply out at the site. Arlan Marrs commented that he realized that this is a needed facility, but he is uncomfortable with the location and the impact on the local community. 3. PLANNER: Gloria Dunn REQUEST: Consider amendments to Sections 4,6,7,8,10,and 11 of the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance (173-E). Gloria Dunn explained that this is a request for proposed amendments to Section 4 for Minor Subdivision, Section 6 &7 for Major Subdivision, Section 8 for Minor Re-Subdivision, Section 10 for Design Standards, and Section 11 for Exemptions of the Weld County Subdivisions Ordinances as amended. Many of the changes requested are to provide clarification to existing standards or to correct typographical errors in the existing document. The new Section 11.9 for the three(3)lot Recorded Exemption is proposed for addition to the Subdivision Ordinance. The three(3) lot Recorded Exemption may be applied for in the following instances: if the subject parcel is twice the minimum lot size or 160 acres and is located in the agricultural zone district; if the largest resulting parcel is no less than 140 acres in size and the two smaller resulting parcels are each less than 35 acres in size. The three (3) lot Recorded Exemption would in general follow the same processing procedure as the two (2) lot Recorded Exemption. The previous Sections 11.9 for Recorded Exemption corrections and 11.10 for Recorded Exemption amendments are renumbered and have been expanded to provide greater detail of these processes. The staff is recommending approval of the proposed amendments for the following reasons: the existing Subdivision Ordinance is need of a revision, the proposed sections will be consistent with the future goals and needs of the County as set forth in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan and the proposed amendments will be consistent with the general intent of the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance. Arlan Marrs asked for the definition of a public sewage system from Section 6.3. Gloria Dunn defined a public sewage system as a system supplied through a municipality. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 16, 1996 Page 4 Ellen Korthuis explained that they would like three houses in place before they build the main service house. They would like to have at least one house built with in a year. The construction of all the buildings could take several years. The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience wished to speak for against this application. No one wished to speak. Richard Kimmel asked the applicant if she was in agreement with the Department of Planning Services' staff recommendations and Development Standards. Ellen Korthuis stated she agreed with the staff. Ann Garrison moved Case USR-1090 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Commissions recommendation for approval. Cristie Nicklas seconded the motion. The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Richard Kimmel-yes; Cristie Nicklas-yes;Ann Garrison-yes; Marie Koolstra-yes; Jack Epple-no; Zachary Allely-yes; Arlan Marrs-no. Motion carried with a vote of 5 to 2. Jack Epple stated that he voted no because he feels that with the complexity with the schools they may not reach an agreement.Also, he is concerned about the additional services the county may have to apply out at the site. Arlan Marrs commented that he realized that this is a needed facility, but he is uncomfortable with the location and the impact on the local community. 3. PLANNER: Gloria Dunn REQUEST: Consider amendments to Sections 4,6,7,8, 10,and 11 of the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance (173-E). Gloria Dunn explained that this is a request for proposed amendments to Section 4 for Minor Subdivision, Section 6 &7 for Major Subdivision, Section 8 for Minor Re-Subdivision, Section 10 for Design Standards, and Section 11 for Exemptions of the Weld County Subdivisions Ordinances as amended. Many of the changes requested are to provide clarification to existing standards or to correct typographical errors in the existing document. The new Section 11.9 for the three(3)lot Recorded Exemption is proposed for addition to the Subdivision Ordinance. The three(3)lot Recorded Exemption may be applied for in the following instances: if the subject parcel is twice the minimum lot size or 160 acres and is located in the agricultural zone district;if the largest resulting parcel is no less than 140 acres in size and the two smaller resulting parcels are each less than 35 acres in size. The three (3) lot Recorded Exemption would in general follow the same processing procedure as the two (2) lot Recorded Exemption. The previous Sections 11.9 for Recorded Exemption corrections and 11.10 for Recorded Exemption amendments are renumbered and have been expanded to provide greater detail of these processes. The staff is recommending approval of the proposed amendments for the following reasons: the existing Subdivision Ordinance is need of a revision, the proposed sections will be consistent with the future goals and needs of the County as set forth in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan and the proposed amendments will be consistent with the general intent of the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance. Arlan Marrs asked for the definition of a public sewage system from Section 6.3. Gloria Dunn defined a public sewage system as a system supplied through a municipality. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 16, 1996 Page 5 Arlan Marrs questioned if you wanted to develop your own subdivision that would provide a sewer treatment plant for the entire subdivision, does this qualify as a public system. Lee Morrison explained that if a special sanitation district is created, it would fit the classification of public. The state most likely will not approve a facility that is not publicly created and financed due to the history of privately owned sewage plants. • Arlan Marrs expressed concerns why is it inadequate to have a septic systems in a subdivision as long as the lots sizes are 2.5 acres or greater. Gloria Dunn explained that with the concentration of the number of septic systems that there is more risk of environmental problems. The intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to locate major subdivisions within an Urban Growth Boundary area within 1/2 mile of a municipality, preferably adjacent to a municipality,so that it is possible for the subdivisions to have public sewer facilities as well as public water. Arlan Marrs questioned what would happen if you were not within a mile of an urban growth boundary. Gloria Dunn stated that the staff would recommend reducing the number of lots to five (Minor Subdivision) or considering another location which meets Urban Growth Boundary requirements. Richard Kimmel questioned Section 11.9,for the three (3) lot Recorded Exemption, regarding lot size requirements for the two smaller lots. Gloria Dunn stated that the 2 smaller lots are required to be less than 35 acres and the remaining larger parcel would be required to be no less than 140 acres. Gloria Dunn stated that there is a change in Section 10.2.1 from the preliminary copy. This section designates that any Major Subdivisions and PUD's containing 5 or more lots for residential, estate, or agricultural uses must be paved and any streets within the Subdivisions and PUD's for commercial or industrial uses, regardless of the size, must be paved. Lee Morrison explained that staff needed to make sure that the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance were not conflicting each other. The Zoning Ordinance allows developments with lot sizes larger than 2.5 acres to use septic systems and the Subdivision Ordinance would also need make reference to this. Lee Morrison recommended that the Planning Commission approve revisions to the Subdivision Ordinance with instructions to the staff to make sure that septic systems are still allowable in an Estate zone district. The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the changes. Zachary Allely moved to forward the amendments to the Board of County Commissioners with the recommendation for approval and instructions to staff to reword the proposal so that it does not conflict with the Zoning Ordinance. Jack Epple seconded the motion. The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Richard Kimmel-yes; Cristie Nicklas-yes;Ann Garrison-yes; Marie Koolstra-no; Jack Epple-yes;Zachary Allely-yes, Arlan Marrs-yes. Motion carried with a vote 6 to 1. Meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ted Cyndie Watts Secretary PROPOSED CHANGES TO WELD COUNTY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE #173-C, SECTION 11, WHICH ARE NOT A PART OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION DATED JULY 16, 1996 11.9 THREE (3)-LOT RECORDED EXEMPTION 11.9.1 Owners of land are eligible to apply for a three (3)-lot recorded exemption only when there is at least twice the contiguous minimum lot size (160 acres) in the A (Agricultural) zone district. 11.9.2 A three (3)-lot recorded exemption consisting of three parcels, two of which are parcels less than 35 acres in size, may be established in the A (Agricultural) zone district when total contiguous ownership is equal to at least twice the minimum lot size and if the largest resulting parcel is at least 120 acres in size. 11.9.3 The three (3)-lot recorded exemption process is described in Section 11.3 through 11.8 of the Ordinance. 11.9.4 The three (3)-lot recorded exemption can be considered to be created as a result of a "rural land use process"under State statute. 11.14.2 When used in conjunction with a Recorded Exemption whose request is to remove existing residential improvements from a parcel, the Subdivision Exemption may be utilized to request separation of one additional existing residence with accessory outbuildings from either of the two habitable Recorded Exemption parcels. A minimum of two habitable residential improvements are required in order for an applicant to be eligible to apply for this subdivision exemption request. No more than one subdivision exemption request for this purpose may be submitted with a Recorded Exemption application. y , ` r r • .m - t ° s t'14.1,10,6 , . i'tl t r flt r 4.,q" l rZ'14r .- !, s ,�,. ;: r , . 4,441'1 { 'i-,,,,,%; r,..,•Ct i,•';;# r 1 $• FEE {�, ten s xi4 y: `'i7"' '4 '# '+h � v• (� Y x • 1J( , ! ' . >, R�st'P bq v.. . c �. �j sir +'' '' ? J.. #.11.,..., v b ,.{ v r t ".r,Mati• a Tr # k try r 4 x ,� 4f a P .) tai �k ix a F h. �1r ~`�' T dYs y{{ a6 Mrtlr • +.# � J � �•- .. - , C t .• r�� " �'^!" 1 :4 ,:,:?):.4.4.;.;:4“...;1c;#.75, *17- tits ° "; ,�`,': •z, °` i. gi1,1 ak r tOC = t-cr - 'Ts, of xiY a` .. � ..-.4' �,_ �J�JTjJ a� ✓ • t � N b t. l ...,41,--,--,--, • { j 4;t •i • ; W••••••,,, 'x _ - 1 1 Y .Yawl f. 2 - lo-k-1 Recorded 'n'!rp � , c� A ,� ,. 4s � Ece m p4' o n Y4. -,4........,...4t,...--/-_, x„q ✓/{y. , ar. x.j ✓ Pvy<..'r h R icy: r J 7 P 9rtb. z cP % i xt' k .��`�'`. 4'A • r t - > 7 pA O-.0.7'''v 1 !' -.-•. '. i' i ,f-'• ; : ah .'$- e . ��$p� S f �i ..l '(� tl t�_y��• $6 �1 . .� ✓ Mfg ) la^ ^rh motfy/ "M P { "S j i1 S ✓ f v/Tub .? xr n ." { �'d�� .St si � � i � M } iY3'FF 'a* '' it j -9'y`i i T i { ?f Y. 7 p" 4 x. 4 • •29 ` ` '4 -4 'I. ° ¢ k • a- ./� s :. : yy q ��jj 9' u, ^ �zF '� e -Yle' L - r'. ft r *tr A , it ft. s,''Yfis 441-'1le e 1 • 1/4. .,1/4.,,,-,./.i.,, A ,Cf }l y y'�i r 1 TM `s Nr ' 4 , ? .>y ,v a• •tr i� J ' 0 _i o f r• �+r c%y 111 F } 2 1r'.. fns a�_ . f � `C A ct V ; • f,t. '' v '" t ,. a '. T• it r .)!!!;.'n- J 1 4 i. - 4 -2 ; y A 3 - t o+ ego rclec) f y ,s ENiCernp4On d ', it(t4131 MEMORANDUM WI`P� TO: Board of County Commissioners September 17, 1996 FROM: Gloria Dunn, Current Planner COLORADO SUBJECT: Proposed amendments to Weld County Subdivision Ordinance#173-C Attached are proposed amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance which were considered by the Planning Commission on July 16, 1996. Since that date staff has been looking at other potential revisions as well as the addition of a new section to the document. At this time staff recommends that Section 11 (Rules and Regulations for Exemptions) be separated from the other proposed amendments contained in the original packet and brought for the Board's consideration in order that the three-lot recorded exemption process may soon be made available to interested applicants. Staff proposes two changes to the original packet which the Planning Commission recommended for approval to the Board. It is the opinion of staff that these are not major changes which would necessitate rehearing by the Planning Commission. The first change is a reduction in the size requirement of the largest lot (Lot C) of the three-lot recorded exemption from 140 to 120 acres. It is staffs opinion that maintaining 140 acres as a minimum standard may be too restrictive in some situations. 11.9 THREE (3)-LOT RECORDED EXEMPTION Owners of land are eligible to apply for a three (3)-lot recorded exemption only when there is at least twice the contiguous minimum lot size (160 acres) in the A(Agricultural)zone district. A three(3)-lot recorded exemption consisting of three parcels, two of which are parcels less than 35 acres in size, may be established in the A(Agricultural)zone district when total contiguous ownership is equal to at least twice the minimum lot size and if the largest resulting parcel is at least 446.44 acres in size. The three (3)-lot recorded exemption process is described in Section 11.3 through 11.8 of this Ordinance. The second proposed change provides clarification to the language associated with the Subdivision Exemption which may be used in conjunction with a Recorded Exemption application (for separation of an additional parcel with residential improvements). 11.42.'[42 When used in conjunction with a Recorded Exemption whose request is to remove existing residential improvements from a parcel, the Subdivision Exemption may be utilized to request • separation of Oneuadditional existing residential improvements eXiStin108-14n5ONVIttiaary ouu i Ing5 from either of the two habitable Recorded Exemption parcels A minimum of two l l habitable residential improvements re required before en existing residential improvement can Of_ be removed from o portal in crderftar an �fph Ot td' a ate i�lt s�(a l)r;fiSi tti r #�4d(?tst4tt exemj$pg14111est ,No rr�5lieIttanonesubdiytstbSSxernptton,fdr'ig0,tfrs+ ,01401 e�sgSn i thr v 1.a i 004ffileal KOMptIai't'eppii lll9n" Staff requests that the Board approve Section 11 as recommended by the Weld County Planning Commission in the July 16, 1996, resolution including the above changes to Sections 11.9 and 11.14.2 as presented by staff. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE WELD COUNTY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE (173) 4.6.16.16 4.6.19 The subdivision will not have an undue adverse affect on wildlife end its habitat, the preservation of agricultural land, and historical sites. 6.2.5 A fist copy of any covenants, grants of easement, and restrictions imposed upon any land, buildings, and structures within the proposed subdivision. 6.2.3.8 A description of the proposed sewer system. The description shall include an estimate of the composition of the sewage in terms of the average pounds of biochemical oxygen demand per day and total number of gallons per day of sewage to be treated by public sewer. er-the suitability of another means of disposal, if public sewer is not required by the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 6.3.1.9.1 That the proposed major subdivision is located within an Urban Growth Boundary area as defined and adopted in any approved intergovernmental agreement(s), or as defined in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. 6.3.1.9.5 That definite provision has been made for a public.sewage disposal system to serve the major subdivisiont if a public sewage disposal system is proposed, provision has been made for the system and, if other methods of sewage disposal ere proposed, evidence that such systems will comply with state end local laws and regulations which are in effect at the time of submission of the subdivision. 6.3.4.1 That the proposed major subdivision is located within an Urban Growth Boundary area as defined and adopted in any approved intergovernmental agreement(s), or as defined in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. 6.3.4.5 That definite provision has been made fora public sewage disposal system to serve the major subdivision. if a public sewage disposal system is proposed, provision has been made for the system end, if other methods of sewage disposal are proposed, evidence that such systems will comply with state and local laws end regulations which ere in effect et the time of submission of the subdivision. 7.2.3.11 A description of the proposed sewer system. The description shall include an estimate of the total number of gallons per day of sewage to be treated by public sewer. or the suitability of another means of disposal if public sewer is not required. 7.2.3.14 A fist copy of any covenants, grants of easement, and restrictions imposed upon any land, buildings, and structures within the proposed subdivision. 7.3.6.1 That the proposed major subdivision is located within an Urban Growth Boundary area as defined and adopted in any approved intergovernmental agreement(s), or as defined in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. 7.3.6.5 That definite provision has been made fora public sewage disposal system to serve the major subdivision. if a public sewage disposal system is proposed, provision has been made for the system and, if other methods of sewage disposal are proposed, evidence that sueh systems will comply with state and local laws end regulations which ere in effect et the time of submission of the subdivision. 7.3.7.1. That the proposed major r subdivision is located within an Urban Growth Boundary area as defined and adopted in any approved intergovernmental agreement(s), or as defined in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. 7.3.7.1.5 That definite provision has been made for a public sewage,disposal system to serve the major subdivision. if a public sewage disposal system is proposed, provision has been made for the system end, if other methods of sewage disposal ere proposed, evidence that such systems will comply with state and local laws and regulations whieh are in effect at the time of submission of the subdivision. 8.2.5.3 A petition signed by seventy(70)(0)percent of the property owners adjacent to the property under consideration. 10.2.1 All streets within major subdivisions and planned unit developments containing five (5) or more lots for residential,estate or agricultural uses and all streets within major subdivisions and planned,unit developments designated for commercial or industnal uses will be paved in accordance with the following standards: 10.2.1.1 Street Plan -- The arrangement, extent , width, type, and location of all streets shall be designed in relation to existing or planned streets,topographic conditions, public convenience and safety, and in relation to the proposed use of land to be served. Streets shall be extended to the boundaries of each building site, except where such extension is prevented by topography, other physical conditions, or where the connection of streets with existing or probable future streets is deemed unnecessary for the advantageous development of adjacent properties. All building sites shall have access to a public street an internal public street within the major subdivision or planned unit development 10.2.1.8.1 Street Lane Width Shoulder Width 10.2.1.13 Cul-de-sac Streets—Permanent cul-de-sac streets serving no more that twenty(20)lots may be permitted and must be provided with a right-of-way turnaround of sixty-five(65)feet radius or more and the outside curb or pavement edge radius must be fifty (50)feet or more. The maximum cul-de-sac length may not exceed 1,500 feet 10.5.6 Each lot shall be provided with an adequate access to an existing internal public street within the major subdivision or planned unit development. 11.3.13.2 The boundaries of the two all lots created by the proposed recorded exemption. 11.3.13.4 The location of all existing and proposed driveways and accesses associated with either lot. 11.7.1.8 The plat shall include a vicinity sketch map at a suitable scale. The map shall locate the recorded exemption lots with respect to adjacent roads and other major land features. The map shall also include the location:O en,proposed and existing accesses 11.7.1.9 The plot shall include eft....-curate drawing of the two (2) approved lots. The smaller parcel shall be designated "Lot A" and the larger parcel"Lot B". The acreage of Lot A and Lot B shall be given. The acreage for Lot A shall be accurately surveyed and the drawing shall include bearings, distances, and curve data for ell lines of Lot A, which shall be referenced to two(2)public land survey monuments of record. Lot B shall also be surveyed, if required by Section 11.7.1.7 of this Ordinance, unless it is 35 acres or greater end the approximate dimensions for the boundary of Lot B can be given. Existing public rights of way providing access to both lots shall be shown. The plat shall include an.accurate drawing of the approved lots. 11.7.1.9.1 Two(2)-lot recorded exemption:, The smaller Parcel shah tea designated Lot A and the larger parcel Lot B. The acreages for:Lot A and'Lot B shall be given.; The acreage for LOA shall be accurately:surveyed and,the drawingshall include bearings„distances,and'curve data for.all lines of Lot A,,which shall.be.referenced to two:(2).public land survey monuments of record. Lot BLot a'snialtais9.heSUrrYedii if required by Section 11„7.1..7 of this Ordinance, unless it is 35 acres or greater and the approximate dimensions for the boundary of Lot B.can be given. Existing public rights-of-way providing access to both tots shall be shown. 11.7.1.9:2 Three(3)-lot recorded exemption, The two(2)smaller parcels shall be designated Lot A and Lot B. The.acreage;for Lot A and Lot B shall be accurately surveyed and.the drawing shall include.bearings, distances,and curve data for all lines of Lot A and Lot 8,which shall be referenced to two'(2).public land:surveymonumerts.of record. The one (1) larger parcel shall be designated:Lot e:,,r Lot C shall also be surveyed if.required by Section 11.7.1.7 of this Ordinance;unless the approximate dimensions for peboundary of Lot,C can be given. Existing;publiatights.of-war providing access:ta alt lots shall be shown. 11.8.1 The water supply for bath all lots as proposed by the recorded exemption application is adequate in terms of quality, quantity, and dependability. 11.8.2 An adequate sewer service is available to serve the uses permitted on bath all proposed lots. The sewer service shall comply with the requirements of the applicable zone district and the Weld County Health Department. 11.8.3 An adequate legal access exists for beet all proposed lots to a public road. All accesses shall be in accordance with Section 3 of the''Weld County Public Works Policies", Ordinance No. 180, as amended. 11.8.7 The recorded exemption application shall include the total contiguous land ownership, except in the A (Agricultural) district. In the A (Agricultural) district when a contiguous ownership equals at least twice the minimum lot size (160 acres), a portion of the lot equal to the minimum lot size(80 acres), may be used in the recorded exemption application. The three (3)-lot recorded:exemption application shall include:the total contiguous land ownership equal to no less than twice the minimum lot size (160 acres) in theA.(Agricultural)zone district. 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 intentto evade the purpose provisions of Sections:1.3 and 11.2.1 of this Ordinance.. 11.8.8 The proposed recorded exemption is not part of an approved a recorded exemption approved within the last ten (10) years. This provision shall not apply in any commercial'or industrial zone district. 11.9 THREE (3)-LOT RECORDEDEXEMPTION Owners of land`are eligible to apply.for a three(3)-lot recorded exemption only when there is at least twice the contiguous minimum lot size (160 acres) in the A (Agricultural) zone district. A three(3)-lot recorded exemption'consisting of three parcels, two of which are parcels less than 35 acres in size, may be established in the A (Agricultural) zone district when total contiguous ownership is equal to at least twice the minimum lot size and if the largest resylting parcel iaat least 14tfacres in size, The three'(3)=1ot recorded eX mptio ptdc 0ideSOMed,in Semen 11.3 thrDUgl141.8:of this Ordinance. 11.10 Amendments RECORDED EXEMPTION CORRECTIONS 11:4 91' The Board-of planner may approves correction to a recorded exemption. The correction shall only address technical errors where such correction is consistent with the approved plat and application. Technical errors include but are not limited to correcting scriveners errors on,the plat and correcting surveyingerrors. 11.10.1.1 A reconfiguration correction may be approved by theBoard or planner when the parcels of the existing recorded exemption are reconfigured inia way which does not substantially change the number of total acres in the original recorded exemption, and creates no additional parcels. 11.10.1.2 The date for calculatingtompliance with the timing provisions of Section 11.8.8 shall be the date of the most recent previous recorded exemptiopssociated with the parcel not the date of:the correction. 11.11 RECORDED EXEMPTION,AMENDMENTS (with no time change):: 11.11.1 Any change to a previously approved recorded exemption which is not a correction, as defined in Section 11,10 of this Ordinance, shall be processed as a new or amended recorded exemption, if eligible. The date for calculating compliance with the timing provisions of Section 11.8,8 shall be the date of the most recent previous recorded exemption associated with the parcel only in the following instances:: 11.11.1:1 Mere a boundary change results'in the expansion of LotiA into Lot awhereby npt creating an:additionai,building site or changing the exterior boundary of Lot B . 11.11.1.2 Where previous approval of a recorded exemption included more than the minimum lot size required in the affected zone district, the,applicant is eligible to apply to decrease Lot B to the minimum tot required subject to,the,limitations of Secpon 11,,8.7 of this Ordinance. 11.12 RECORDED EXEMPTION AMENDMENTS (with time change); 1;1.12.7 Any change to a previously approved'recorded'exemption which is not specifically defined in Section 11.10.1 of this Ordinance, shall be processed as a new or amended recorded exemption, if eligible. The date for calculating compliance with the timing provisions of Section 11.8.8 shall be the date of the recording of the amended plat. Subsequent renumbering,throughout 4 111.13 11.12 11.14 General 11.12.14.1 A Subdivision Exemption shall only be applicable when at least one parcel involved in any boundary exchange or in a temporary use location is less than 35 acres or results in being less than 35 acres. 11.42.14.2 When used in conjunction with a Recorded Exemption whose request is to remove existing residential improvements from a parcel,the Subdivision Exemption may be utilized to request separation of additional existing residential improvements from either of the two habitable Recorded Exemption parcels. A minimum of two habitable residential improvements re are required before an existing residential improvement can be removed from a parcel. 11.4%15.9.5 The plat shall include a complete and accurate legal description of the parcel(s) being created or exchanged and new parcels which will result. All proposed and existing accesses for each parcel shall be shown. BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Moved by Zachary Allely, that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the proposed amendments to Section 11 of the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners. 11.3.13.2 The boundaries of all lots created by the proposed recorded exemption. 11.3.13.4 The location of all existing and proposed driveways and accesses associated with either lot. 11.7.1.8 The plat shall include a vicinity sketch map at a suitable scale. The map shall locate the recorded exemption lots with respect to adjacent roads and other major land features. The map shall also include the location of all proposed and existing accesses. 11.7.1.9 The plat shall include an accurate drawing of the approved lots. 11.7.1.9.1 Two (2)-lot recorded exemption. The smaller parcel shall be designated Lot A and the larger parcel Lot B. The acreages for Lot A and Lot B shall be given. The acreage for Lot A shall be accurately surveyed and the drawing shall include bearings, distances, and curve data for all lines of Lot A, which shall be referenced to two (2) public land survey monuments of record. Lot B shall also be surveyed, if required by Section 11.7.1.7 of this Ordinance, unless it is 35 acres or greater and the approximate dimensions for the boundary of Lot B can be given. Existing public rights-of-way providing access to both lots shall be shown. 11.7.1.9.2 Three(3)-lot recorded exemption. The two(2) smaller parcels shall be designated Lot A and Lot B. The acreage for Lot A and Lot B shall be accurately surveyed and the drawing shall include bearings, distances, and curve data for all lines of Lot A and Lot B, which shall be referenced to two (2) public land survey monuments of record. The one (1) larger parcel shall be designated Lot C. Lot C shall also be surveyed, if required by Section 11.7.1.7 of this Ordinance, unless the approximate dimensions for the boundary of Lot C can be given. Existing public rights-of-way providing access to all lots shall be shown. 11.8.1 The water supply for all lots as proposed by the recorded exemption application is adequate in terms of quality, quantity, and dependability. 11.8.2 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 Weld County Health Department. 11.8.3 A adequate legal access exists for all proposed lots to a public road. All accesses shall be in accordance with Section 3 of the 'Weld County Public Works Policies", Ordinance No. 180, as amended. 11.8.7 The recorded exemption application shall include the total contiguous land ownership, except in the A (Agricultural) district. In the A(Agricultural) district when a contiguous ownership equals at least twice the minimum lot size (160 acres), a portion of the lot equal to the minimum lot size (80 acres), may be used in the recorded exemption application. The three(3)-lot recorded exemption application shall include the total contiguous land ownership equal to no less than twice the minimum lot size (160 acres) in the A(Agricultural)zone district. 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 Section 1.3 and 11.2.1 of this Ordinance. wow 11.8.8 The proposed recorded exemption is not part of a recorded exemption approved within the last ten (10)years. This provision shall not apply in any commercial or industrial zone district. 11.9 THREE (3)-LOT RECORDED EXEMPTION Owners of land are eligible to apply for a three(3)-lot recorded exemption only when there is at least twice the contiguous minimum lot size(160 acres) in the A(Agricultural)zone district. A three(3)-lot recorded exemption consisting of three parcels, two of which are parcels less than 35 acres in size, may be established in the A(Agricultural)zone district when total contiguous ownership is equal to at least twice the minimum lot size and if the largest resulting parcel is at least 140 acres in size. The three (3)-lot recorded exemption process is described in Section 11.3 through 11.8 of this Ordinance. 11.10 RECORDED EXEMPTION CORRECTIONS 11.10.1 The Board of planner may approve a correction to a recorded exemption. The correction shall only address technical errors where such correction is consistent with the approved plat and application. Technical errors include but are not limited to correcting scriveners errors on the plat and correcting surveying errors. 11.10.1.1 A reconfiguration correction may be approved by the Board or planner when the parcels of the existing recorded exemption are reconfigured in a way which does not substantially change the number of total acres in the original recorded exemption, and creates no additional parcels. 11.10.1.2 The date for calculating compliance with the timing provisions of Section 11.8.8 shall be the date of the most recent previous recorded exemption associated with the parcel not the date of the correction. 11.11 RECORDED EXEMPTION AMENDMENTS (with no time change). 11.11.1 Any change to a previously approved recorded exemption which is not a correction, as defined in Section 11.10 of this Ordinance, shall be processed as a new or amended recorded exemption, if eligible. The date for calculating compliance with the timing provisions of Section 11.8.8 shall be the date of the most recent previous recorded exemption associated with the parcel only in the following instances: 11.11.1.1 Where a boundary change results in the expansion of Lot A into Lot B whereby not creating an additional building site or changing the exterior boundary of Lot B . 11.11.1.2 Where previous approval of a recorded exemption included more than the minimum lot size required in the affected zone district, the applicant is eligible to apply to decrease Lot B to the minimum lot size required subject to the limitations of Section 11.8.7 of this Ordinance. 11.12 RECORDED EXEMPTION AMENDMENTS (with time change). 11.12.1 Any change to a previously approved recorded exemption which is not specifically defined in Section 11.10.1 of this Ordinance, shall be processed as a new or amended recorded exemption, if eligible. The date for calculating compliance with the timing provisions of Section 11.8.8 shall be the date of the recording of the amended plat. Subsequent renumbering throughout: 11.13 11.14 General 11.14.1 A Subdivision Exemption shall only be applicable when at least one parcel involved in any boundary exchange or in a temporary use location is less than 35 acres or results in being less than 35 acres. 11.14.2 When used in conjunction with a Recorded Exemption whose request is to remove existing residential improvements from a parcel, the Subdivision Exemption may be utilized to request separation of additional existing residential improvements from either of the two habitable Recorded Exemption parcels. A minimum of two habitable residential improvements are required before an existing residential improvement can be removed from a parcel. 11.15.9.5 The plat shall include a complete and accurate legal description of the parcel(s) being created or exchanged and new parcels which will result. All proposed and existing accesses for each parcel shall be shown. Motion seconded by Jack Epple. VOTE: For Passage Against Passage Cristie Nicklas Marie Koolstra Ann Garrison Jack Epple Zachary Allely Arlan Marrs Richard Kimmel The Chairman declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the attached materials to the Board of County Commissioners for further proceedings. CERTIFICATION OF COPY I, Cyndie Watts, 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 July 16, 1996. Dated the 17th of September, 1996 C Cyndie Watts Secretary Ott MEMORANDUM WIDc To: Weld County Planning Commission July 9, 1996 COLORADO From: Gloria Dunn, Current Planner Subject: Proposed amendments to Sections 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11 of the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance. The Department of Planning Services recommends that the proposed amendments be approved for the following reasons: 1. The existing Subdivision Ordinance is in need of revision. 2. The proposed sections will be consistent with the future goals and needs of the County as set out in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposed amendments will be consistent with the overall intent of the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance. SERVICE,TEAMWORK,INTEGRITY,QUALITY SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,July 16, 1996 A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held on July 16, 1996,in the County Commissioners' Hearing Room (Room#101),Weld County Centennial Building, 915 10th Street,Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chairman, Richard Kimmel. Tape 506 Richard Kimmel Present Ron Sommer Absent Shirley Camenisch Absent Cristie Nickles Present Jack Epple Present Marie Koolstra Present Arlan Marrs Present Ann Garrison Present Zachary Allely Present Also present Monica Daniels-Mika, Director; Shani L. Eastin, Current Planner; Gloria Dunn, Current Planner Department Planning Services; Lee Morrison,Assistant Weld County Attorney; Don Carroll, Department of Public Works;Jeff Stoll, Environmental Protection Services; Cyndie Watts, Secretary. The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on July 2, 1996, was approved as read. The Chairman stated that there was a request to change the order of the agenda to hear Case USR-1090,second. Zachary Allely motioned Case USR-1090 be placed second on the agenda. Arlan Marrs seconded the motion. 1. CASE NUMBER: S-401 PLANNER: Gloria Dunn APPLICANT: John T. Martin and James I.Martin REQUEST: Subdivision Preliminary Plan LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SE4 of the NW4 and the SW4 of Section 12, Ti N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: North and adjacent to Weld County Road 10 and approximately 1/2 mile west of Weld County Road 37. Gloria Dunn requested that the Planning Commission grant a continuance for Case S-401 to August 6, 1996, at 1:30 p.m. In response to a referral from the State Engineer, the applicant has submitted a change in the amount of irrigation water that would be available for usage on the residential lots in the subdivision. The Department of Planning is waiting on the State Engineer's reply in order to evaluate and prepare a recommendation;therefore,the request for a continuance of Case 8-401. The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against the continuance of Case 8-401. Bill Childs,the representative for the applicants,questioned the verbiage in the documents he had received and stated that he would consent to a continuance of Case 8-401 to August 6, 1996. Janet Cooper, a surrounding property owner, is concerned about discrepancies in the water and road plan and supports the continuance of Case S-401. She submitted a letter opposing the subdivision request. Zachary Allely moved for the continuance of Case S-401 to August 6, 1996, at 1:30 p.m.. Ann Garrison seconded the motion. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 16, 1996 Page 2 The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Cristie Nickles- yes;Ann Garrison-yes;Marie Koolstra-yes;Jack Epple-yes;Zachary Alley-yes;Arlan Marrs-yes; Richard Kimmel-yes. Motion carried unanimously. 2. CASE NUMBER: USR-1090 PLANNER: Shani Eastin (Continued from August 15, 1995, regular scheduled meeting). APPLICANT: Preston Christian Ranch c/o-Ellen C.Korthuis REQUEST: A site specific development plan and special use permit for a private school, church and multiple dwelling units in the A(Agricultural) zone district. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Located in the SE4 of the SW4 of Section 17, and the E2 of the NW4 of Section 20,T2N, R62W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Weld County Road 75.5; approximately 1/2 mile north of Weld County Road 18. Shani Eastin reviewed the continuance history of USR-1090. On August 15, 1995, the case was continued to September 7, 1995, because not enough referral agencies responded at that time to make an appropriate recommendation. On September 7, 1995,the case was continued indefinitely to allow the applicant time to address water permits and local school district concerns. At this time the applicant has acquired the appropriate water permits and has been in contact with the local school district. The facility,upon completion,will house 96 children, and 29 employees. The facility will consist of a private school, church and eight multiple dwelling units on 120 acres. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of USR-1090. The staff feels that the materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 24.7 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, as amended. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services'staff that the applicant has shown compliance with Section 24.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, as amended. The proposal is consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan's Agricultural Goals and Policies section. The proposal does not take prime farm ground out of production. This proposal is also consistent with the intent of the A(Agricultural) zone district. Portions of this site lie in the flood plain, but staff feels that adequate provisions have been made in development standards and conditions of approval to substantiate this. The Special Review Permit Development Standards will provide adequate protection of the health, safety and welfare for the neighborhood and County. The Department of Planning Services'Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve USR-1090 with the 8 Conditions of Approval and the 16 Development Standards. Man Marrs was concerned about the responsibilities and liabilities that Weld County could face by allowing the facility to be located so far away from services. Lee Morrison commented that the circumstances were not any different from a public school and did not foresee any additional liability. Don Carroll stated that Public Works does provide emergency assistance for medical reasons, need for propane, or necessary items. Don Carroll will be studying the potential traffic numbers to see if the road might require paving. A traffic count would need to be taken. Dust control measures are in place now. The Chairman asked the applicant if they would like fo come forward. Ellen Korthuis,the applicant,stated that there is an increasing need for permanent homes for children and this request is to provide that need. Marie Koolstra asked what agencies would refer these children. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 16, 1996 Page 3 Ellen Korthuis explained that the basic drawing area would be Weld County; however, they would be open for children anywhere in eastern Colorado including Adams County. Man Marrs questioned how the children would be placed into this facility and who would end up with custody of the children. Also, how many of the 26 employees would be at the facility full time. Ellen Korthuis stated that there are a number of ways for the children to be referred;such as, relatives,and social services. Ellen Korthuis would not adopt the children but would maintain guardianship. The employees will live on the facility full-time. Each house will have two house parents and one helper. The original plan is seven bedroom houses with two children per bedroom. After working with other agencies eight or ten will be a more realistic number of children per house. Arlan Marrs voiced concerns about taking children from an urban to a rural situation and if all education would be provided on the site. Ellen Korthuis explained that children usually thrive in a rural situation and the change is usually a positive one. The plan is to school all children on site when the school is built. Currently all children that can be mainstreamed into the local school district would be. Those with special needs would be taught on the site. Jack Epple and Arlan Marrs both expressed concerns for the local school district; such as funding, and overpopulating. Ellen Korthuis stated that the state reimburses the schools for each child. Each child brings money with them from where they came from in order to pay from schooling. The children would be placed into the public school gradually overtime.The school on the site should be finished eventually to relieve the public school from overpopulating. The local school district of Prospect Valley had three objections: What would the ranch do with the children after the age eight? The ranch will be taking children from the ages two to eight, once the child is there, he/she will stay there even after the age of eight. Would the ranch have total care of the children? Total child care would be taken care of by the ranch. Children would be supplied with psychological help if needed,special schooling, etc. Would the ranch bankrupt the local school district? When a child is placed in a residential child care facility, the school district of residence is responsible for the educational cost of that child. The state would take care of any additional school funding for special care. There are also several other funds available for children being taken care of in a home. Children in a permanent residential home care can receive $991 a month per child. Also,the state will pay for any psychological care and special education needs the children need. Jack Epple questioned if the water wells the state permitted would have enough water. Ellen Korthuis explained that at 80 feet they hit 15 gallons per minute. The state engineers determined that'these two wells would provide enough water. Robert Korthuis stated that in permitting the wells the test holes showed sufficient water. Jack Epple asked Don Carroll as to what type of classification the road is and who maintains it. Don Carroll replied that it is a local road. The county does grade it. Ellen Korthuis stated that they have been working with two other orphanages. They have been helpful with policies and procedures. The land was donated to them and they now have a deed for 120 acres instead of 80 acres. In doing this,the name of the ranch needed to be changed legally to Preston Ranch Ministries. Richard Kimmel questioned the time frame of the buildings. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 16, 1996 Page 4 Ellen Korthuis explained that they would like three houses in place before they build the main service house. They would like to have at least one house built with in a year. The construction of all the buildings could take several years. The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience wished to speak for against this application. No one wished to speak. Richard Kimmel asked the applicant if she was in agreement with the Department of Planning Services' staff recommendations and Development Standards. Ellen Korthuis stated she agreed with the staff. Ann Garrison moved Case USR-1090 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Commissions recommendation for approval. Cristie Nicklas seconded the motion. The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Richard Kimmel-yes; Cristie Nicklas-yes;Ann Garrison-yes; Marie Koolstra-yes; Jack Epple-no; Zachary Alley-yes;Arlan Marrs-no. Motion carried with a vote of 5 to 2. Jack Epple stated that he voted no because he feels that with the complexity with the schools they may not reach an agreement.Also, he is concerned about the additional services the county may have to apply out at the site. Arlan Marrs commented that he realized that this is a needed facility, but he is uncomfortable with the location and the impact on the local community. 3. PLANNER: Gloria Dunn REQUEST: Consider amendments to Sections 4,6,7,8,10,and 11 of the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance (173-E). Gloria Dunn explained that this is a request for proposed amendments to Section 4 for Minor Subdivision,Section 6 &7 for Major Subdivision, Section 8 for Minor Re-Subdivision, Section 10 for Design Standards, and Section 11 for Exemptions of the Weld County Subdivisions Ordinances as amended. Many of the changes requested are to provide clarification to existing standards or to correct typographical errors in the existing document. The new Section 11.9 for the three(3)lot Recorded Exemption is proposed for addition to the Subdivision Ordinance. The three(3)lot Recorded Exemption may be applied for in the following instances: if the subject parcel is twice the minimum lot size or 160 acres and is located in the agricultural zone district;if the largest resulting parcel is no less than 140 acres in size and the two smaller resulting parcels are each less than 35 acres in size. The three(3) lot Recorded Exemption would in general follow the same processing procedure as the two (2) lot Recorded Exemption. The previous Sections 11.9 for Recorded Exemption corrections and 11.10 for Recorded Exemption amendments are renumbered and have been expanded to provide greater detail of these processes. The staff is recommending approval of the proposed amendments for the following reasons: the existing Subdivision Ordinance is need of a revision, the proposed sections will be consistent with the future goals and needs of the County as set forth in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan and the proposed amendments will be consistent with the general intent of the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance. Arlan Marrs asked for the definition of a public sewage system from Section 6.3. Gloria Dunn defined a public sewage system as a system supplied through a municipality. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 16, 1996 Page 5 Arlan Marrs questioned if you wanted to develop your own subdivision that would provide a sewer treatment plant for the entire subdivision,does this qualify as a public system. Lee Morrison explained that if a special sanitation district is created,it would fit the classification of public. The state most likely will not approve a facility that is not publicly created and financed due to the history of privately owned sewage plants. Arlan Marrs expressed concerns why is it inadequate to have a septic systems in a subdivision as long as the lots sizes are 2.5 acres or greater. Gloria Dunn explained that with the concentration of the number of septic systems that there is more risk of environmental problems. The intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to locate major subdivisions within an Urban Growth Boundary area within 1/2 mile of a municipality, preferably adjacent to a municipality,so that it is possible for the subdivisions to have public sewer facilities as well as public water. Arlan Marrs questioned what would happen if you were not within a mile of an urban growth boundary. Gloria Dunn stated that the staff would recommend reducing the number of lots to five (Minor Subdivision) or considering another location which meets Urban Growth Boundary requirements. Richard Kimmel questioned Section 11.9,for the three (3) lot Recorded Exemption, regarding lot size requirements for the two smaller lots. Gloria Dunn stated that the 2 smaller lots are required to be less than 35 acres and the remaining larger parcel would be required to be no less than 140 acres. Gloria Dunn stated that there is a change in Section 10.2.1 from the preliminary copy. This section designates that any Major Subdivisions and PUD's containing 5 or more lots for residential, estate, or agricultural uses must be paved and any streets within the Subdivisions and PUD's for commercial or industrial uses, regardless of the size, must be paved. Lee Morrison explained that staff needed to make sure that the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance were not conflicting each other. The Zoning Ordinance allows developments with lot sizes larger than 2.5 acres to use septic systems and the Subdivision Ordinance would also need make reference to this. Lee Morrison recommended that the Planning Commission approve revisions to the Subdivision Ordinance with instructions to the staff to make sure that septic systems are still allowable in an Estate zone district. The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the changes. Zachary Allely moved to forward the amendments to the Board of County Commissioners with the recommendation for approval and instructions to staff to reword the proposal so that it does not conflict with the Zoning Ordinance. Jack Epple seconded the motion. The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Richard Kimmel-yes; Cristie Nicklas-yes;Ann Garrison-yes; Marie Koolstra-no; Jack Epple-yes;Zachary Allely-yes, Arlan Marrs-yes. Motion carried with a vote 6 to 1. Meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, C-tna A-I W 4.TC) Cyndie Watts Secretary NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Weld County Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, July 16, 1996, at 1:30 p.m. to consider amend- merits SecySuons di 6, 8, ,rand „( 7 -E) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Weld ftl County Subniviabn.Ortlinerge 173•E as follows: Move contents of Section 4.6.19 pe mining to criteria for meeting Recorded Exemption STATE OF COLORADO standards to Section 4.6.16.16'and delete Section 4.6.19. SS. Amend Sections 6.2.5 and 7.2.3.14 pertain- COUNTY OF WELD ing to covenant requirements for a major subdivision. I, Bruce J. Bormann, of said County of Weld, being duly Amend Sections 6.2.3.6, 6.3.4.9.5, 6.3.4.5, sworn,say that I am Publisher of 7.2.3.11, 7.3.6.5 and 7.3.7.1.5 pertaining to public sewage disposal system require- THE NORTH WELD HERALD ments for a major subdivision. Amend Sections 6.3.1.9.1, 6.3.4.1;7.3.6.1 a weekly newspaper having a general circulation in said and 7.3.7.1.1 pertaining to location o1 a ma- 1w subdivision within an Urban Growth County and State, published in the Town of Eaton, in said Boundery area. County and State; and that the notice, of which the annexed is Amend Section 8.2.5.3 pertaining to petition requirements for a minor resubdivision ap- a true copy, has been published in said weekly newspaper for plication. one successive week(s), that the notice was published Amend Sections 10.2.1. 10.2.1.1, 10.2.1,13 and 10.5.6 pertaining to design standards for in the regular and entire issue of every number of the paper streets within a major subdivision of planned unit development. during the period and time of publication, and in the Amend Sections 11.3.13.2.and 11.7.1.9 per- newspaper proper and not in a supplement, and that the taining to recorded exemption sketch plan and plat requirements. publication of said notice: Add sections 11.7.1.9.1 and 11.7.1.9,2 per- Notice of Public Hearing—W/C Planning considering taining to recorded exemption plat require- amendments of WC Subdivisin Ordin (173-E) ments. Amend Sections 11.8.1, 11.8.2, 11.8.3 and was in said newspaper bearing the date(s) of: 11.8.7 pertaining to recorded exemption standards. Thursday,the 4th y day of July, 1996 . Amend Section 11.8.8 to read: The pro- posed recorded exemption is not part of a Thursday,the day of July, 1996 recorded exemption approved within the last ten (10) years. This shall not-apply In any commercial or industrial zone district.' Thursday,the day of July, 1996 Amend Section 11.9 to read: Three (3) lot recorded exemption. Thursday,the day of July , 1996 Owners of land are eligible to apply for a three(3)lot recorded exemption only when there is at least twice the con- and that the said THE NORTH WELD HERALD has been tiguous minimum lot size (160 acres) in the A(Agrtcultural)zone dismct• published continuously and uninterruptedly for the period of 52 A three (3) lot recorded exemption consecutive weeks, in said County and State, prior to the date consisting of three parcels, two of which are parcels less than 35 acres of first publication of said notice, and the same is a newspaper in size, may be established in the A (Agricultural) zonedistrict when total within the meaning of an Act to regulate printing of legal contiguous ownership Is equal to at least twice the minimum lot size and if notices and advertisem , approved May 18, 1931, and all the largest resulting parcel is et least. 140 acres in size. prior acts so far as in pro three (3) lot recordedi exemption 113 Weld County PI n process is ed in Section through 11.8 of this Ordinance. • nin Amend Sections 11.10, 11.11 and 11.12.per- raining to recorded exemption and RU J. BORMANN, PUBLISHER and ions.amendments and renumber subsequent JUL 16 199 sections. Amend Sections 11.14.1 end 11.14.2 per- taining to application for subdivision encamp- P!-•',1 Tc " �aPas `' b ation Cost:$ 3 bons. S E I ! F The public hearing to be held by the Weld County Planning ommission for the con- sideration of the above referenced request /4 ` will be conducted In the Weld County Com- missloners'Hearing Room, First Floor,Weld Subscribed and sworn to before me .7 County Centennial Center,915 Tenth Street, rA Greeley,Colorado. Comments or objections �related to to the above request should be sub- this /21/1-- day of July, 1996 •'` mined in writing to the Weld County Depart- - �) ment of Planning Services, 1400 N. 17th • 'l.C Avenue, Greeley, Colorad 90631, before (/r/1S •, t the above date or presented at the public �[,Ja PJ-/ `r r'r?,.- •��,�hearing on July 16, 1996. ERIKA C. BAGLEY, NOTA PU IC 4�r^%*'' -- . , Copies of the proposed amendments are I,k�,(' (1 K CO�.<. available for public inspection in the De- > partment of Planning Services, 1400 N. 17th Avenue,Greeley,Colorado,- Phone-(970) My commission expires October 21, 1999 353-6100, Extension 3540. Richard Kimmel,Chairperson Weld County Planning.Commission ''-- Published in the North Weld Herald,. _ July 3, 1996 6 rs DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT 3540 ' FAX (970) 352-6312 C. WELD COUNTYLIINISTRATIVE OFFICES E1400 N.Y COLORADO 7THAVENUE GREE1 COLORADO NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Weld County Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, July 16, 1996, at 1:30 p.m. to consider amendments Sections 4, 6, 8, 10 and 11, of the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance (173-E) as follows: Move contents of Section 4.6.19 pertaining to criteria for meeting Recorded Exemption standards to Section 4.6.16.16 and delete Section 4.6.19. Amend Sections 6.2.5 and 7.2.3.14 pertaining to covenant requirements for a major subdivision. Amend Sections 6.2.3.8,6.3.1.9.5,6.3.4.5, 7.2.3.11, 7.3.6.5 and 7.3.7.1.5 pertaining to public sewage disposal system requirements for a major subdivision. Amend Sections 6.3.1.9.1, 6.3.4.1, 7.3.6.1 and 7.3.7.1.1 pertaining to location of a major subdivision within an Urban Growth Boundary area. Amend Section 8.2.5.3 pertaining to petition requirements for a minor resubdivision application. Amend Sections 10.2.1, 10.2.1.1, 10.2.1.13 and 10.5.6 pertaining to design standards for streets within a major subdivision or planned unit development. Amend Sections 11.3.13.2 and 11.7.1.9 pertaining to recorded exemption sketch plan and plat requirements. Add Sections 11.7.1.9.1 and 11.7.1.9.2 pertaining to recorded exemption plat requirements. Amend Sections 11.8.1, 11.8.2, 11.8.3 and 11.8.7 pertaining to recorded exemption standards. Amend Section 11.8.8 to read: The proposed recorded exemption is not part of a recorded exemption approved within the last ten (10) years. This shall not apply in any commercial or industrial zone district. Amend Section 11.9 to read: Three (3) lot recorded exemption. Owners of land are eligible to apply for a three(3)lot recorded exemption only when there is at least twice the contiguous minimum lot size (160 acres) in the A(Agricultural)zone district. A three(3)lot recorded exemption consisting of three parcels, two of which are parcels less than 35 acres in size, may be established in the A(Agricultural) zone district when total contiguous ownership is equal to at least twice the minimum lot size and if the largest resulting parcel is at least 140 acres in size. The three(3)lot recorded exemption process is described in Section 11.3 through 11.8 of this Ordinance. EXHIBIT I Amend Sections 11.10, 11.11 and 11.12 pertaining to recorded exemption corrections and amendments and renumber subsequent sections. Amend Sections 11.14.1 and 11.14.2 pertaining to application for subdivision exemptions. The public hearing to be held by the Weld County Planning Commission for the consideration of the above referenced request will be conducted in the Weld County Commissioners' Hearing Room, First Floor, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 Tenth Street, Greeley, Colorado. Comments or objections related to the above request should be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services, 1400 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado 80631, before the above date or presented at the public hearing on July 16, 1996. Copies of the proposed amendments are available for public inspection in the Department of Planning Services, 1400 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado, - Phone- (970) 353-6100, Extension 3540. Richard Kimmel, Chairperson Weld County Planning Commission To be published in the North Weld Herald. To be published one (1) time by Received by: 4A.C7-$ Date: -7 -/ ?b Hello