HomeMy WebLinkAbout961399.tiff 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 _' H
Shirley Camenisch Absent f
Cristie Nicklas 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 S-401.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against the continuance
of Case S-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 S-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.
iejek ` `
961399
Ui i IC1L
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.
Arlan 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 to 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.
Arlan 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 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; Gristle 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,
Cyndie Watts
Secretary
Hello