HomeMy WebLinkAbout20092303.tiffMINUTES OF THE WELD COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
A regular meeting of the Weld County Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, September 1, 2009, in
the Hearing Room of the Department of Planning Services, 918 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. The
meeting was called to order by Chair Bruce Fitzgerald at 11:15 a.m.
Roll Call Absent
William Hansen
Erich Ehrlich
Bruce Fitzgerald
Benjamin Hansford
Bill Hall
Jerry Neff
Bryant Gimlin
Also Present: Chris Gathman and Brad Mueller, Department of Planning; Don Carroll, Public Works;
Lauren Light, Environmental Health; Bruce Barker and Cyndy Giauque (via phone), County Attorney; and
Kristine Ranslem, Secretary.
Benjamin Hansford moved to approve the May 5, 2009 Weld County Board of Adjustment minutes,
seconded by William Hansen. Motion carried.
The Chair read the first case into record.
CASE NUMBER: BOA -1058
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
APPLICANT: Jesus & Esther Barron
REQUEST: Application for a variance from the required offset (10 feet) and required setback
(25 feet) in the C-3 (Business Commercial) Zone District. The carport
approximately 10 feet within the required 10 -foot offset (adjacent to the south
properly line) and approximately 18 -feet within the required 25 -foot setback from
the front property line (edge of Denver Avenue Right -of -Way).
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part N2NW4 of Section 32, T2N, R66W of the 6t" P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to Denver Avenue and approximately 470 feet south of CR
16.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, stated that the applicants are requesting a variance for a carport
which is approximately 7 feet from the edge of right-of-way of Denver Ave and would be right along the
south property line of the site.
Staff has received referral responses from Public Works, Ft. Lupton Fire Protection District, Department of
Transportation, City of Ft. Lupton, and Zoning Compliance. Additionally, a referral was just handed out
from the Department of Public Health and Environment.
In reviewing this application, staff has determined that this variance request should be denied for the
following reasons:
1. There are no special conditions or circumstances which are peculiar to this lot. Staff believes
that the applicant has sufficient room on site to place the carport in the location that meets the
required setback and offsets. There is area along the northwest portion of the property to place
the carport in this location that meets the required offsets from adjacent properties.
2. There is nothing in Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code that would prevent the applicant from
placing the carport in the location that meets the required setbacks and offsets.
2C'97- _AS'23
3. This variance request is the result of actions taken by the applicant. The carport was placed on
the property prior to obtaining a building permit.
4. There is no demonstration of special conditions or circumstances that would deprive the applicant
of placing the carport in the location that meets the setback and offset requirements of the county
code. As stated previously, the structure could be utilized without requiring a variance.
5. A building permit is required for this structure. The applicant will have to demonstrate that the
structure is adequately constructed and structurally adequate as a condition of the building
permit.
Should the Board of Adjustment approve this request, the Department of Planning Services recommends
that the following conditions be attached:
1. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals through the Weld County Building
Department.
2. This variance applies only to the carport request that is outlined in this variance request. Should
this carport be removed, any future carports or other structures/buildings shall conform to the
requirements of the Weld County Code including setback and offset requirements as amended.
Mr. Gathman commented that he received an objection letter from an adjacent property owner. He stated
that they are concerned that the carport does not conform with the consistency of other property owners
efforts along Denver Avenue and it should comply with rules already in place regarding setbacks and
landscaping.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if the applicant owns the entire property. Mr. Gathman replied yes.
Erich Ehrlich asked who maintains Denver Avenue. Mr. Gathman stated that it is under the jurisdiction of
the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). He added that they had indicated that they were
acceptable with the request as long as it did not encroach within CDOT right-of-way.
Jesus Barron, 1772 Denver Ave, stated that the proposal that staff is making for the location of the
carport would block the bay door on the east side of the building where he puts his trucks and trailers in.
(Bruce Barker entered the meeting)
Bryant Gimlin asked if the carport is completely built or if it is still in the construction process. Mr. Barron
replied that it is still being constructed. Mr. Gimlin asked how hard it would be to move the carport if
required to do so. Mr. Barron said that it wouldn't be hard.
William Hansen wished to clarify if that would shut off the access to his shop building. Mr. Barron said
that is correct.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked how long the applicant has owned the property. Mr. Barron replied that he has
owned it for three years.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked if he has gotten building permits for any of the other structures. Mr. Barron said yes.
Mr. Barron commented that he built the carport there as he has no other place for his trucks and wishes
to keep them in from the outside elements. He believed he only needed building permits for enclosed
structures.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The chair asked the applicant if he has read through and agrees to the conditions of approval. Mr. Barron
replied that he is in agreement.
Mr. Ehrlich said his concern is the future build -out of Denver Avenue.
Mr. Fitzgerald said he looked at this property recently. He added that it is the obligation of the property
owner to pull building permits prior to construction. In regard to the location of the building it is close to
the road and he believes that it is a site problem and it creates a hazardous issue.
Mr. Ehrlich agreed with the comments regarding public safety and setbacks; however there is nothing in
Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code which would prevent the applicant from placing the carport in a
location that meets the required setbacks and offsets. Mr. Fitzgerald said that if it was 17 feet back the
drivers would have a better chance of seeing the line of sight.
Benjamin Hansford said that he agrees with the safety concerns as anyone traveling north on Denver
Avenue will have very short notice to see that truck. He is especially concerned with wet and slippery
conditions and the dangers that are possible there.
Mr. Gimlin said that the applicant testified that it wouldn't be that hard to move the carport.
Erich Ehrlich cited Section 23-6-40.C.2 and moved that Case BOA -1058 be denied, seconded by Bryant
Gimlin.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Board of Adjustment for their decision. Bill Hall,
absent; William Hansen, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Benjamin Hansford, yes; Jerry Neff, absent; Bryant
Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER:
PLANNER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOCATION:
BOA -1059
Brad Mueller
Debbie Couch
Variance from the lot size requirement in Section 23-3-50.A located in the
Agricultural Zone District.
Part of Lot 7 Block 22 Aristocrat Ranchettes Subdivision being part of Section 27,
T2N, R66W of the 6'" P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
North of and adjacent to Caroline Ave and approximately 230 feet west of Hart
St.
Brad Mueller, Planning Services, stated that the application is a request to receive a variance from the lot
size requirement in the Ag Zone District.
The site is located within the Aristocrat Subdivision and it is a historic subdivision that has been in
existence since 1961. The size of the lot in question does not conform to the minimum lot size of 80
acres in the Agricultural Zone District, but as platted is legally non -conforming. Mr. Mueller stated that the
proposal to reduce the size would make it more non -conforming, which is not allowed by the Code. He
added that the proposal to reduce the size also means that it would not conform to those of the other lots
in the subdivision either.
Mr. Mueller stated that there are five criteria that have to be met in order for this Board to grant a variance
to a situation. With regard to the first criteria, this lot was platted at the same time as all of the other lots
and there is nothing unusual about the lot. Therefore, staff believes that the applicant does not meet this
criteria.
The second criteria states that literal interpretation of the provisions of this Chapter would deprive the
appellant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of
this Chapter. If this variance is not granted it would maintain the 1 acre lot size of the property which
makes it the same as all the other lots in the Aristocrat subdivision. The literal interpretation would not
deprive them of the rights of the others as it would be consistent with others of the subdivision.
Mr. Mueller stated that the applicant did meet the third criteria as the actions were not those of the owner
but rather of previous owners of the lot.
It is impossible to judge whether the minimum amount is being proposed since there is nothing
particularly notable about 20 feet smaller than the platted lot size. The use of the land did not require this
reduction. The structures fit on the property just fine the way they are. Therefore the forth criteria is not
met as well.
Granting this variance would not be supportive of the minimum standards of the zoning district or the
criteria of non -conforming uses as stated in the zoning chapter. It also opens the question of why others
wouldn't request the same. This also does not meet the fifth criteria.
In conclusion, four of the five criteria are not met and therefore the recommendation is for denial of this
application.
Mr. Mueller illustrated two alternatives for consideration. He added that the applicant can apply for a lot
line adjustment that changes the line location but maintains an acre on each lot. Alternatively, they could
revert the deeds to the original platted lot; however that would require moving of the neighbor's garage
structure.
Bruce Fitzgerald stated that he has hired the same consultant as the applicant for a project he has;
however none of the issues relate to him personally and he will not benefit in any way. He asked if there
was any objection for him to continue. No one wished to speak.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked how this happened initially. Mr. Mueller said a quit claim deed was made for the 20
feet difference by the previous owner in 1999.
William Hansen asked if the neighbors are in support of this or if they are opposed. Mr. Mueller said that
he is not aware of any opposition.
Benjamin Hansford asked what year the barn was built and if it was permitted. Mr. Mueller replied that he
does not know that information. Mr. Gimlin is interested to know if the barn was permitted and whether it
was built after the property was deeded.
Todd Hodges, 1269 N Cleveland Ave, Loveland CO, represents the applicants. The request is for a
variance from the 80 acre minimum lot size in the Agricultural Zone District.
This site is located in northeast quarter portion of the Aristocrat Ranchettes. Mr. Hodges indicated that
the property to the east of this site which gained the 20 feet is owned by Mr. Krueger.
Mr. Hodges commented that he disagrees with staffs opinion that there are no special circumstances.
This lot line was created 10 years ago in 1999 by prior property owners and has since changed
ownership several times before Ms. Couch acquired the property as well as Mr. Krueger who owns the
property to the east. The fact that this has been created prior and has been in existence for 10 years is a
special condition and circumstance that exists on this lot.
There are also existing improvements on Mr. Krueger's property that are located where the original lot
line was platted. This creates a very interesting situation where the existing fence line and property line
as it has been transferred would actually create the best use of this property. Therefore this does meet
criteria #1 in that a special circumstance exists on this property.
Mr. Hodges referred to the two alternatives given by Mr. Mueller. The first option is to move the property
line back to the original platted lot which would require the adjacent property owner to move or remove
the existing structure and also potentially additional buildings. This would create an undue hardship for
both property owners by requiring them to come to some kind of agreement concerning property value,
and require physical changes on the property as well as create a financial burden.
Option 2 of adjusting the lot line would create a property that is not efficient and orderly from a lot
standpoint. It would also create the need to remove or move portions of the fence and then have a
potential burden for both property owners to maintain a piece of ground necessary to bring this acreage
up. The existing boundary is the most efficient and orderly way to address the issue and therefore
because of the special conditions and circumstances it does meet criteria #2.
In researching this plat and properties within Aristocrat there are several lots that are very consistent to
the existing size of this lot which is .8988 acres, rounded up with the assessor is .9 acres. On the east
side of this plat there were several lots that were platted in 1969 as lots smaller than the .99 acres which
was the standard platted lot. He listed several lots with acreages ranging between .86 and .9 acres. He
added that three of these lots listed are smaller than the lot in question. Based on the consistency he
believes that criteria #2 is met.
Mr. Hodges reiterated that staff believes that this application does meet criteria #3. The transfer was
done in 1999 by previous property owners.
The existing property line and the resulting acreage of .898 acres is the minimum variance required. The
existing fence and barn could stay based on this variance. The granting of this various will allow the
continued reasonable use of the property as it existed for the last 10 years. Not granting this request may
result in an undue hardship for both property owners involved. Therefore this does meet criteria #4.
Several referral agencies have reviewed this request and there are no negative responses submitted.
There are four signed letters of support from neighbors that are in close proximity to the lot. It states that
they are in support of this application and do wish that the Board approve the variance as requested.
Therefore they believe that criteria #5 is met.
Mr. Hodges commented that through this additional information and review of the codes this proposal is
consistent with existing lots in the subdivision and that approval of this request will not be injurious to the
neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. Mr. Hodges respectfully
requested that through the application materials and testimony provided today that this variance be
granted.
Mr. Ehrlich asked if Mr. Krueger, who owns the property to the east, will take ownership of the 20 feet or if
it will become a separate parcel. Mr. Hodges said the 20 feet has been conveyed back in 1999 therefore
it is included in Mr. Krueger's deed and is excluded on Ms. Couch's deed. He added that if this variance
is granted the next step is to go through a lot line adjustment to replat that lot. Mr. Ehrlich asked if Mr.
Krueger is in favor of this request. Mr. Hodges indicated that the applicants have had numerous
conversations with Mr. Krueger and indicated that he wants the property line where it is.
Debbie Couch, 15725 Caroline Ave, stated that she wants everything to stay the same. She doesn't want
to interfere with Mr. Krueger's lot.
Mr. Hansen asked if there is any documentation from Mr. Krueger. Ms. Couch said that they have emails
indicating his support.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Mr. Ehrlich commented that given the testimony from Mr. Hodges, he feels that this application is
consistent and therefore recommends approving this application.
Mr. Hansen said that it is well documented that there are other lots in the same situation.
Mr. Gimlin said that Mr. Hodges made a compelling argument that they have met at least 4 of the 5
criteria. He feels that if there was any objection it would be from Ms. Couch as she is giving up 20 feet.
Mr. Fitzgerald commented that since there are other lots in the subdivision in the same predicament really
shows that this isn't unusual in that subdivision.
Erich Ehrlich moved that Case BOA -1059 be approved, seconded by Bryant Gimlin.
Mr. Mueller interrupted and commented that staff would like to recommend conditions of approval if the
Board is considering approval. He listed three conditions:
1) All septic systems located on the property shall have appropriate permits from the Weld County
Department of Public Health & Environment. Any existing septic system which is not currently permitted
through the Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment will require an I.S.D.S. Evaluation
prior to the issuance of the required septic permit. In the event the system is found to be inadequate, the
system must be brought into compliance with current I.S.D.S. regulations.
2) All septic systems must be located on their respective lots and meet all lotline setback requirements.
The applicant shall provide a drawing of the septic system, with dimensions and distance from lotlines, to
the Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment for verification of setbacks.
3) The applicant shall complete a re -subdivision for a lotline adjustment, adjusting the lotline to conform to
the area represented by the property deeds and in the variance application.
The Chair called a recess at 12:23 p.m. for the applicant to review the conditions.
The Chair called the meeting back to order at 12:27 p.m.
The Chair asked if the applicant is in agreement with the conditions. Mr. Hodges said that the applicant
has agreed to the conditions.
Erich Ehrlich amended his motion to approve case BOA -1059 along with the conditions of approval as
stated by staff, seconded by Bryant Gimlin.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Board of Adjustment for their decision. Bill Hall,
absent; William Hansen, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Benjamin Hansford, yes; Jerry Neff, absent; Bryant
Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
Hello