HomeMy WebLinkAbout20041517.tiff MINUTES OF THE WELD COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
Thursday, May 13, 2004
A regular meeting of the Weld County Board of Adjustment was held on Thursday, May 13, 2004, in Room
210 of the Planning/Public Health Building, 1555 N. 17th Avenue,Greeley,Colorado. The meeting was called
to order by Chair Joseph Bodine.
Roll Call:
Don Beierbach
John Donley
Tony Evans
Syl Manlove-Absent
Mary O'Neal
Larry Wilson
Eric Whitwood-Absent
Joseph Bodine
Associate Members: None Present
William Hansen
Randy Peterson
Michael Willits
Larry Wilson motioned to approve and waive reading of the minutes of the last regular meeting of the Weld
County Board of Adjustment held on,January 8,2003. Don Beierbach seconded the motion. Motion carried.
Also Present:Jacqueline Hatch,Chris Gathman,Weld County Department of Planning;Bruce Barker,County
Attorney; and Voneen Macklin, Secretary.
CASE NUMBER: BOA-1025
APPLICANT: Kenneth & Susanna Harris
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1 of Avery Acres PUD; Section 10, T6N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Variance from the side lot line.
LOCATION: Approximately 1/4 mile south of CR 72; approximately
CASE NUMBER: BOA-1026
APPLICANT: Jeffrey Raisley
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 3 of Avery Acres PUD; Section 10, T6N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Variance from the side lot line.
LOCATION: Approximately 1/4 mile south of CR 72; approximately 1/4 mile east of CR
43.
CASE NUMBER: BOA-1027
APPLICANT: Michael Nailbauer
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 4 of Avery Acres PUD; Section 10, T6N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQU,FST: Variance from the side lot line.
LOCATION: Approximately 1/4 mile south of CR 72; approximately 1/4 mile east of CR
43.
Jacqueline Hatch,Department of Planning Services presented BOA-1025,BOA-1026 and BOA-1027 together
while indicating the similar components of each. There would need to be separate motions for each of the
applications. All applicants reside in the Avery Acres Subdivision which is zoned Estate. The average lot size
in the subdivision is 2.6 acres. Ms. Hatch presented an overview of the property indicating the location of each
applicant. The Harris's are requesting a variance from the north and east property line, the Raisley's are
requesting a variance from their south property line and the Nailbauer's are requesting a variance from their
north property line. The Harris's built the garage 8'8"from the north property line and 26' 8"from the east
property line. There is a 40'offset for the north property line, including a 10'utility easement and a 40'offset
b aL cQCO y 2004-1517
from the east property line including a 10' utility easement, therefor a 31'4"variance is requested from the
north property line and a 13'4"variance is requested from the east property line. Avery Acres is zoned PUD
with Estate uses except for the northern lot which is zone agricultural as well as the property to the east. This
is the reason for the 40'setback on the north and east of the Harris's property.
The Reisley's built their garage 10' feet from the south property line and a 20' offset, including a 10' utility
easement is required. The Raisley's are requesting a 10'variance from the south property line.
The Nailbauers built their garage 10' 51/2"from the north property line and a 20'offset, including a 10' utility
easement is required. The Nailbauers are requesting a 9' 6 1/f from the north property line.
Staff is recommending approval of all three cases,if they are approved there are Conditions of Approval. The
Harris's have three conditions consisting of the variance and offset is solely for the garage in relation to the
north and east property lines. Any other uses associated with this parcel must comply with the setbacks and
offset requirements. Should the garage be replaces at any time all setbacks and offsets shall be satisfied.
A revised final plat along with all associated fees shall be submitted to the DPS for review and approval from
the Board of County Commissioners. All utility companies shall be contacted to obtain in writing that those
utility companies have reviewed the variance. The reason for the Replat is that the Harris's encroach into the
utility easement.
The Raisley's and Nailbauer's have the one condition that states the variance and offset is solely for the
garage in relation to the south property line and any new construction shall meet the setbacks and offsets.
Joseph Bodine asked for clarification with regards to the variances being only for the present garages, if they
are removed the setbacks will need to be adhered to. Ms. Hatch indicated that was correct.
Anita Owens indicated there is a letter from Public Works stating that all three need to contact the utility
companies. Ms. Hatch clarified that the referral was if there was a concern the applicants were in the utility
easements.
Tony Evans clarified that the Replat is strictly to Replat the utility easement not the entire property. Ms. Hatch
indicated it would be a Replat of the easement at the point of the garage. The Board of County
Commissioners will approve this.
John Donley asked for clarification with regards to the measurements. Why the 40'setback for the Harris's
which means a 31'variance? The Raisleys and the Nailbauers are only requesting a 10'variance, why the
difference? Ms. Hatch indicated that if Estate Zoning is abutting Agricultural Zoning there is a 40' setback
which applies to the Harris's while there is only a 20' setback inside the Estate Zone District. Mr. Donley
asked if the easements for the utilities on the parameters of the lots were encroached upon?And if there were
any utilities in the easement at this time. Ms. Hatch indicated that the Harris's does encroach and the
applicants are indicating that there are no existing utilities in the easement. Mr. Donley stated that the
buildings are not setting on top of any existing lines and the easement is for future development.
Ken Harris,applicant,provided clarification on the easements. Mr. Harris has contacted Xcel Energy and they
indicated no concern. Mr. Bodine asked if this was the only easement? Mr. Harris stated he believes it is only
Xcel. Ms. Hatch clarified that it would be all utilities. Mr. Bodine indicated that the applicant would need to
contact all utilities that service the area to address the condition.
John Donley asked about the Condition that requires the applicant to contact all utilities for review and provide
documentation of approval. There is a difference between review and approval, what is staff's preference?
Ms. Hatch stated that the language can be changed to accommodate. Mr. Donley indicated that if the
regulations do not require approval he would prefer that the applicant not have to go through this. Mr. Donley
stated he would like to see the language requiring approval be removed. Mr. Barker stated that Condition 2
talks more to a Minor Subdivision for the purpose of redoing the easements. In that process the vacation of
easements is done and in this instance the building will be over the easement, that portion will need to be
vacated by the utility companies. Condition 3 encompasses Condition 2. Mr. Donley added he would like to
make is simple for the applicant as well as staff in the follow up process. Mr. Barker indicates that the Minor
Subdivision process allows the utility companies a certain amount of time to respond. Mr. Donley
recommends making this as simple as possible for all those involved within the context of the rules. Ms.
O'Neal clarified that once the land begins to develop around this subdivision this will not create any concerns
with future developments. Ms. Hatch indicated staff is not suggesting the easement be vacated through the
resubdivison of the plat, they are just requesting it be smaller in that specific area.
Anita Owens asked if this is going to continue with this subdivision with the same contractor or will it be halted
now? The contractor has done the same thing to all of the applicants. Mr. Bodine stated the homes have
been in the area for awhile. Ms. Hatch indicated that all parcels have been built on. Ms. Hatch stated that
staff will obtain the name of the contractor who built the garages and a letter will be sent. Mr. Donley asked
the name of the contractor. Mr. Harris indicated it was Steve Doerschlag. Mr. Barker indicated that the
process should work in that building inspectors would have caught this in the inspections of the building. In
this instance they had started the process before the building permits were done, this compounded the
problem. Ms. Owens indicated that the contractor should be made aware of what is needed before building
can occur. Mr. Donley stated"or he knows exactly and doesn't give a damn."(Mr. Donley wanted this on
the record and I quoted him)
Tony Evans asked Mr. Harris if there was any concern from the neighbors to the north and east and if the
building interfered with the farming of the ground? Mr.Harris indicated there has been nothing indicated. Ms.
Hatch indicated the property to the north of the Harris lot is part of the subdivision and no concerns have been
received from surrounding property owners.
Joseph Bodine asked how the applicant will know which utilities to contact to address his conditions? The
concern is that the applicant is able to contact everyone and not worry if he missed someone. Mr. Barker
indicated that in the Minor Subdivision process there is a way of contacting utilities through the Utility Board.
Jeff Raisley, applicant, indicated that the electric comes from the front of the lot and stops and they are on
propane. The only utility is phone and electric and it comes from the front street. Mr. Bodine clarified that the
easement is there for any future use.
Tony Evans asked if either the Raisleys or Nailbauers have any concerns with each others buildings? Mr.
Raisley indicated they like it this way because it leaves each parcel more open. Mr. Evans asked if there are
any variance that will need to be done on the lot south of the Harris's? Ms. Hatch indicated that when she did
a site visit the structure looked like it met the setback requirements.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
John Donley moved that Case BOA-1025, be approved along with the Conditions of Approval as proposed.
Mary O'Neal seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Board of Adjustment for their decision. Don
Beierbach,yes;Joseph Bodine,yes;John Donley,yes;Tony Evans,yes;Mary O'Neal,yes;Larry Wilson,yes;
Anita Owens, yes. Motion carried.
John Donley moved that Case BOA-1026, be approved along with the Conditions of Approval as proposed.
Mary O'Neal seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Board of Adjustment for their decision. Don
Beierbach,yes;Joseph Bodine,yes;John Donley,yes;Tony Evans,yes;Mary O'Neal,yes;Larry Wilson,yes;
Anita Owens, yes. Motion carried.
John Donley commented that"I don't know how much this has cost you in time,energy-the Replat,Mr. Harris
is going to go through is not going to be a cheap proposition. I would urge you as a group, collectively, find
an attorney because what the developer and builder did, in my opinion,amounts to gross negligence because
these regulations have been place for a very long time. Anybody in this business should have understood
what he needed to do before he began the building process. All of this cash outlay could be the subject of
a lawsuit for gross negligence which carries with it punitive damages and a demand letter. All of you need
to get together. So with that encouragement that is the way all of this will stop. What we might do
administratively is not gonna stop anything."
John Donley moved that Case BOA-1027, be approved along with the Conditions of Approval as proposed.
Mary O'Neal seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Board of Adjustment for their decision. Don
Beierbach,yes;Joseph Bodine,yes;John Donley,yes;Tony Evans,yes;Mary O'Neal,yes;Larry Wilson,yes;
Anita Owens, yes. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: BOA-1028
APPLICANT: Lucky Stars Car Wash
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 4,Blk 1,Western Dairymen Cooperative Subdivision; pt W2NE4Section
10, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Variance fora minimum landscape setback of 35 feet from Hwy 119(15 feet
within the 50-foot landscape setback required per Section 36-2-70.2c of the
Mixed Use Development District Regulations) in the Mixed Use District
(MUD).
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Hwy 119, North of and adjacent to Stagecoach -
Road (appx 1/4 mile east of I-25).
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services,presented BOA-1028 for a landscape variance from State
Hwy 119. If approved this would allow a 15'encroachment of the 50'landscape setback from the existing and
future right of way from Hwy 119. This property is located withing the Mixed Use District (MUD)which has
specific landscape and setback requirements. This variance would allow the applicant to add 15' for a
concrete turnout to the site. The existing vehicle turnout area is not large enough to accommodate large
vehicles or vehicles with trailers. These vehicles end up driving in the existing landscape area. Staff is
recommending approval with the attached conditions. The first condition being the existing trees will need
to be relocated from the area of the 15'encroachment. The second condition being that the applicant shall
submit a plan and time line for when the weeds will be removed from the property. The final condition being
that the applicant shall submit an updated plan to the county that shows the new setback. The applicants
have one additional petition in favor of the projects that was submitted today. Mr. Gathman indicated that the
berm is approximately 6 feet in height. Mr. Bodine asked for clarification with regards to the weeds and how
it applies to this application. Mr. Gathman stated that staff looks at all aspects of the property. As a condition
staff looks at trying to rectify all the issues on site rather they are related to the application or not. There is
some potential for noxious weeds. The applicant did submit a landscape plan with the Site Plan Review
process that indicated this area would be seeded and landscaped. This area needs to be in conformance with
the approved landscape plan from the original site plan review. The applicant would need to update the
landscape plan with the new area.
Larry Wilson indicated that when the regrading of the berm is to be done there will be a steep drop off that will
need to be controlled or it will wash out. Has the applicant proposed any mitigation on how the berm will be
controlled from erosion? Mr. Gathman indicated the applicant will address this.
John Donley asked for clarification on the CDOT right of way. Their referral letter indicates that nothing be
built on that right of way. Mr. Gathman stated that the applicant is not encroaching onto CDOT right of way.
Mr. Gathman did follow up with Ms. Hice-Idler regarding the structures. CDOT indicated they had more
concerns with the buildings or structures in the right of way versus pavement or landscaping. Mr. Donley
clarified that by granting the variance they are not encroaching into the 100'right of way that CDOT requires.
Mr. Gathman indicated they were not.
Tony Evans asked if CDOT had offset requirements from Hwy 119. There was nothing mentioned in the
referral. Most of the offset is taken care of in the 50'setback, basically that is taken from future right of way
reservation. Mr. Barker indicated that CDOT is planning ahead in the case they need to expand the right of
way. CDOT does not want to have buildings in the area that they would have to purchase and demolish. Mr.
Evans asked about the steepness of the berm and if there was any building criteria to manage? Mr.Gathman
indicated that Public Works did not mention anything in their referral. Nothing can be required of the applicant
since no permits are needed. A Condition can be added that they submit a plan for review,staff is requesting
an updated drawing. The condition could require something be submitted that addresses the design of the
turnout with the maps requested. Mr. Evans stated this could be built and could cause stagnant water at the
base of the berm or have a slope that would cause erosion. There needs to be something that would mitigate
this concern. Mr.Barker indicated that when the site plan is redone, Kim Ogle from the Planning Department
could review and see if the landscaping and elevation would be adequate. The applicant has a responsibility
for the water coming from the car wash is taken care of before it goes to the storm drainage.
Lauren Light, representative for the applicants, provided clarification on the project. The applicants will build
a retaining wall along the berm and this will require a building permit. The applicant has planted seed in the
area where the weeds are and have not sprayed for weeds for fear the grass would not take. This will be
taken care of. It was determined by the applicants after several complaints from customers that the turning
radiuswas not large enough. This variance request is for a landscape setback of 35'.The limited area causes
problems for those that tow trailers blocking the lane for other cars to get around. Those cars then drive on
the existing landscape. The applicants have had to replace sprinkler heads and lawn. The view will not be
altered.
Tony Evans asked if there was a maintenance plan established for the maintenance of the area? Ms. Light
indicated that the landscaping would have been reviewed under the site plan review. Mr.Gathman added that
on Site Plan Reviews there is a note on the plat that the owner of the lot is responsible for future maintenance
of the landscaping. Collateral was submitted to cover all landscaping.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Larry Wilson indicated he has driven through the car wash and the one concern is for the berm and erosion
of this. This will cause a drainage problem. Mr. Bodine suggested a possible condition.
Tony Evans asked Mr. Barker for suggestions on trying to ensure the site is being developed properly. Mr.
Barker indicated that with the retaining wall needing a building permit will assist in the overall development.
In the building permit process it will be reviewed that the drainage is adequate in all ways due to liability for
the property owners. The site plan and building permit will be reviewed. The applicant has an obligation that
they properly dispose of the water from the car wash. This should be covered under condition 3 and through
the building permit process. Mr. Gathman suggests that the applicant submit two copies of engineered
drawings of the retention area and indicated how the drainage will be taken care of.
Lauren Light stated that there is an overall drainage plan for the subdivision. The applicant is willing to get
a letter from an engineer stating that the retention wall will not affect the overall drainage plan.
Discussion was inaudible.
Mr. Barker suggests adding Condition #4 to state "the applicant will submit to the Department of Planning
Services a letter from an engineer showing that the drainage after the improvements are made to the berm,
are in compliance with the drainage plan that has been approved and is in place for the subdivision."
Larry Wilson moved that Case BOA-1028, be approved along with the Conditions of Approval as proposed
and amended. Anita Owens seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Board of Adjustment for their decision. Don
Beierbach,yes;Joseph Bodine,yes;John Donley,yes;Tony Evans,yes;Mary O'Neal,yes;Larry Wilson,yes;
Anita Owens, yes. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 5:00pm.
Respectfully submitted,
V'CIUS x-11 1-ke
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello