HomeMy WebLinkAbout20040208.tiff RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
JANUARY 12, 2004
TAPE #2004-02
The Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, met in regular session in full conformity
with the laws of the State of Colorado at the regular place of meeting in the Weld County Centennial Center,
Greeley, Colorado, January 12, 2004, at the hour of 9:00 a.m.
ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by the Chair and on roll call the following members were
present, constituting a quorum of the members thereof:
Commissioner Robert D. Masden, Chair
Commissioner William H. Jerke, Pro-Tem
Commissioner M. J. Geile
Commissioner David E. Long
Commissioner Glenn Vaad
Also present:
County Attorney, Bruce T. Barker
Acting Clerk to the Board, Carol A. Harding
Director of Finance and Administration, Donald D. Warden
MINUTES: Commissioner Long moved to approve the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners
meeting of January 7, 2004, as printed. Commissioner Geile seconded the motion, and it carried
unanimously.
CERTIFICATION OF HEARINGS: Commissioner Vaad moved to approve the Certification of Hearings
conducted on January 7, 2004,as follows: 1)Hearing to allow citizens input on CDBG Grant application;
and 2)Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit#1444, Heit Farms, LTD, LLP.
Commissioner Long seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA: There were no amendments to the agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Jerke moved to approve the consent agenda as printed.
Commissioner Vaad seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
PUBLIC INPUT: There was no public input.
2004-0208
BC0016
WARRANTS: Donald Warden, Director of Finance and Administration, presented the following warrants
for approval by the Board:
All Funds $1,212,171.97
Commissioner Jerke moved to approve the warrants as presented by Mr. Warden. Commissioner Vaad
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
CONSIDER LEASE AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN-CENTENNIAL DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES, INC.: Walt Speckman, Director of Human Services, stated this lease is for two classrooms
in the Centennial Developmental Services.,Inc.,facility,for which the County will pay$1,200 per month for
rent and utilities. Mr.Speckman stated the space is being leased while the Billie Martinez School space is
being remodeled. Responding to Commissioner Jerke,Mr.Speckman stated he will verify that the correct
address is included for the site. Commissioner Vaad moved to approve said agreement and authorize the
Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Geile, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER PETITION TO VACATE A PORTION OF WCR 75 NORTH OF WCR 80 SUBJECT TO
DEDICATED AND RECORDED EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY - NORMAN AND MARGARET
PETERSON: Bruce Barker,County Attorney,stated said petition was received to vacate a portion of Weld
County Road 75 north of Weld County Road 80,from Norman and Margaret Peterson. Mr. Barker stated
the legal description should specifically exclude a 30-foot portion of Weld County Road 80, and include a
copy of a survey received in his office. Tom Collins, representing the applicant, stated this request is for
an old portion of road that was not ever built. Norman Peterson, applicant,was present. Responding to
Commissioner Geile, Mr. Collins indicated on the map the portion he is requesting the County to vacate,
which cuts off approximately three-fourths of an acre. Responding to Commissioner Jerke, Don Carroll,
Department of Public Works,stated he conducted a site inspection and found no problem with approval of
the vacation. He presented an aerial map, Exhibit A,for the record. No public testimony was given. Mr.
Barker reiterated for Commissioner Jerke the changes that need to be made to the legal description.
Commissioner Long moved to approve said petition with the amendments stated by Mr. Barker. The
motion, which was seconded by Commissioner Vaad, carried unanimously.
CONSIDER AGREEMENT FOR CONVEYANCE OF EASEMENT AND GRANT OF PERMANENT
EASEMENT AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN-RICHARD BAUMGARTNER: Frank Hempen,Jr.,Director
of Public Works, stated this is the first parcel required for the Weld County Road 51 project, and the
property lies south of Highway 52. He stated this easement includes approximately three-tenths of an acre,
and the cost is$600 by appraisal. Mr. Hempen recommended approval of said agreement. Commissioner
Geile moved to approve said agreement and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner
Vaad, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER AGREEMENT CONCERNING PURCHASE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR CERTAIN
IMPROVEMENTS TO WCR 51 AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN-WAYNE AND JUDITH ECKER: Mr.
Hempen stated this agreement is for a tract at the northeast corner of the south terminus of the same
project. He stated the County is paying $16,700 for one-half acre, by appraisal. Mr. Hempen stated it is
consistent with County policy, and he recommended approval. Responding to Commissioner Jerke
regarding the appraisal,Mr. Hempen stated the entire parcel of 3.8 acres sold for approximately$120,000
without improvements;and this one-half acre is being split off the entire parcel. Commissioner Geile moved
to approve said agreement and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Long,the motion
carried unanimously.
Minutes, January 12, 2004 2004-0208
Page 2 BC0016
CONSIDER NONEXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR THE UPGRADE AND MAINTENANCE OF
WELD COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN-JOEL AND ANGELA RITCHEY:
Mr.Carroll stated this is in regards to Recorded Exemption#3726. He stated the agreement is fora portion
of Weld County Road 47, north of Weld County road 30,along the Section line. He stated this road is not
maintained by the County, and there is a 60 foot right-of-way between Sections 23 and 24. Mr. Carroll
stated adjacent property owners were contacted and did not respond;therefore,he recommends approval.
Commissioner Vaad moved to approve said agreement and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by
Commissioner Jerke, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER NONEXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR THE UPGRADE AND MAINTENANCE OF
WELD COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAYAND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN-HENRY AND GILLIAN KELLY: Mr.
Carroll stated this is Weld County Road 15 north of Weld County Road 102. He stated it is on the section
line and is for the benefit of the second parcel from Weld County Road 102. Mr. Carroll stated 30 feet is
the available right-of-way. Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr.Carroll stated Weld County Road 102
is improved between Weld County Roads 15 and 17,and Weld County Road 104 is improved in that area,
although there are no improvements on Weld County Road 13. Mr. Carroll stated access is provided off
Weld County Road 13 onto many of the parcels with 60 feet of right-of-way having been reserved at the time
the parcels were created. Responding to Commissioner Jerke regarding access to interior lots from Weld
County Road 15, Mr.Carroll stated that every time there is a land split,he makes the property owner aware
that there is no maintenance, and the internal lots access from Weld County Road 15. Commissioners
Geile and Jerke suggested a work session to look at the entire area, to see how access is provided to
various properties,as well as getting information about how the Department of Transportation adds funds
as miles are added to the County Road system. Commissioner Long and Chair Masden agreed,and stated
concerns that the Nonexclusive License Agreements be used for the owners to regulate the roads, for
example, by installing speed bumps. Mr. Carroll stated he will set up a work session on the subject.
Responding to CommissionerJerke, Mr.Barker verified that if approved,the agreement can be revoked at
any time by the Board. No public testimony was given. Commissioner Jerke moved to approve said
agreement and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Long, the motion carried
unanimously.
CONSIDER APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY-DAVID M. GODDARD: Mr.Warden
stated the Board approves appointments administratively in order to establish the beginning salary of
deputies,as required by Statute. Commissioner Geile moved to approve the appointment of David Goddard
as Deputy District Attorney and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by CommissionerJerke,the motion
carried unanimously.
CONSIDER APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY-ANNMARIE M.SPAIN: Commissioner
Long moved to approve the appointment of Annmarie Spain as Deputy District Attorney and authorize the
Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Geile, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER REAPPOINTMENTS TO WELD 911 EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SERVICE AUTHORITY
BOARD: Commissioner Jerke moved to reappoint John Michaels and Tom Bizzell to the 911 Emergency
Telephone Service Authority Board, with terms to expire January 10, 2006. The motion, which was
seconded by Commissioner Long, carried unanimously.
CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS AND REAPPOINTMENT TO NCMC BOARD OF TRUSTEES:
Commissioner Geile moved to reappoint Dr. Ronald Clark and to appoint Robert Hessler and Richard
Boettcher to the NCMC Board of Trustees. The motion, which was seconded by Commissioner Vaad,
carried unanimously.
Minutes, January 12, 2004 2004-0208
Page 3 BC0016
OLD PLANNING:
CONSIDER PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING CONCERNING USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT#878-
DANIEL OCHSNER AND BARRY PAYANT(CON'T FROM 11/24/2003): Sheri Lockman, Department of
Planning Services,stated the applicant applied for a two-lot Recorded Exemption and Zoning Permit fora
Mobile Home to be used as a Principal Dwelling on property located west of Highway 85,somewhat north
of Weld County Road 394. She stated the property was originally permitted under Use by Special Review
#878 on July 11, 1990,as a recreational facility. Ms.Lockman explained four cases are being heard at this
time.
Jacqueline Johnson,attorney for the applicant,explained the serious nature of this matter and requested
that,since the end result could deprive Mr.Ochsner of his residence,that the Probable Cause Hearing be
dealt with first, and the applicant is willing to remove the mobile home which is accessory to the Use by
Special Review. She stated the Use by Special Review Permit must be determined before the Recorded
Exemption can be considered. Commissioner Vaad stated he understands Ms. Johnson's concerns;
however, we frequently call up several cases to see the interplay between them. Mr. Barker stated the
Probably Cause is simply for the matter of setting a Show Cause Hearing on the Use by Special Review,
and only has three issues which do not relate to the Recorded Exemption. In response,Ms.Johnson stated
they do inter-relate to some extent and it makes more sense to hear the Use by Special Review prior to
hearing other testimony.
Ms. Lockman summarized the four cases so the relationship to each other is made apparent to the Board.
She stated Mr.Oschnerwas given Conditional Approval of Recorded Exemption#3502 on March 3,2003;
however,subsequent information that had been submitted with previous applications indicated the approval
was based on inaccurate information,and the approval has been rescinded. In reviewing the history of the
site, Ms. Lockman stated in April of 1982,the property owner applied for and was granted a Zoning Permit
for a Mobile Home#575,which is an accessory to the farm mobile home,with three other residences on
site at that time. In July, 1990,Use by Special Review Permit#878 fora recreational facility was approved
by the Board,and it included another mobile home to be used as an accessory to the recreational facility.
Conditions of Approval required that no dwelling within the permitted area would be used as an income
source by persons not directly related to the special use activity,and that a fence and barricade be installed
to prevent access onto or from U. S. Highway 85. In October, 1990, the applicant applied for a Flood
Hazard Development Permit for an office,extension of the existing mobile home,a garage,horse shelter,
and another mobile home,and stated the property is not in the floodway;however, in September of 1991,
Recorded Exemption#1335 was recorded. The application stated Lot A would be fenced, assuring only
Lot A would be accessing onto Highway 85; however, it was never installed. Ms. Lockman stated staff
conditionally approved Recorded Exemption#3502,on March 6,2003,requiring the floodway boundary to
be included on the plat. Based on the previous Flood Hazard Development Permit,staff believed more of
the lot was outside the floodway;however,not only are the structures within the floodway,but Lot B is non-
buildable. Therefore, staff recommends denial of Recorded Exemption #3502, unless Lot A and B be
reconfigured so that one of the original stick built homes remains on each lot, if there is room for septic
systems outside the floodway. Ms. Lockman stated the arena is no longer operating from the site and the
facilities are being leased,the dwellings are being used as rental properties,and the access to Highway 85
has not been blocked by eithera barricade that was agreed upon,or by the fencing of Lot A as stated in the
previous Recorded Exemption application. Ms. Lockman stated staff also recommends denial of Zoning
Permit for a Mobile Home#2385,which is intended to change the existing mobile home from accessory to
the Use by Special Review Permit to a principal residence on proposed Lot B. Ms. Lockman stated the use
for which the mobile home was permitted no longer applies;therefore,the mobile home should be removed.
She also stated half of the mobile home is built on the adjacent property. Ms. Lockman stated regarding
Zoning Permit fora Mobile Home#575,which is for the accessory to the farm, Planning staff was informed
by letter dated September 2, 2003, that the mobile home was no longer on the property. However, staff
conducted a field check on October 24, 2003, and found the second mobile home is still present. Ms.
Minutes, January 12, 2004 2004-0208
Page 4 BC0016
Lockman stated this is the mobile home Ms.Johnson earlier stated the applicant is willing to remove. She
also stated this is within the floodway,and Mr. Ochsner has indicated some willingness to vacate the Use
by Special Review; however, he has indicated he will be doing an amendment to Lot B after this is
completed, for a lot line adjustment to ensure the mobile home is sitting on a single lot. Responding to
Commissioner Vaad, Ms. Lockman indicated on the map and with pictures, the route from Weld County
Road 394 into this property, which follows the ditch, and the access from Highway 85. At the request of
Commissioner Geile, Ms. Lockman reiterated each of the four items of business,and the specific request
to be considered for each one.
Jackie Johnson, attorney for the applicant, stated the applicant is very concerned about the outcome of
these decisions. She stated documents on file identify the arena, horse training facility, and stable for
boarding horses as the use being approved,and that Mr.Ochsner will give testimony regarding the use of
the facility since that time. She stated the use has not been abandoned, and the mobile home was
permitted as accessory to the use,along with the other two stick built homes. In 2003,Mr. Ochsner applied
for a Recorded Exemption to allow the home in which he lives, on proposed Lot B, to be separated from
the Use by Special Review area which is to be included on proposed Lot A. In this manner,she stated, Mr.
Ochsner would maintain his principal dwelling on Lot B;although the applicant has now decided to withdraw
his request to maintain the accessory to farm mobile home, which is the second mobile home on Lot B.
Ms. Johnson stated there was a sale to Mr. Ochsner of the property to the north of Lot B, therefore, he
currently owns the adjacent property on which half the mobile home is sitting, and at a later date, he will
apply for a lot line adjustment. Ms.Johnson stated the real issue is that in 1990,when the mobile home in
which Mr. Ochsner resides was approved, it was believed to be in the floodplain, but not in the floodway.
Subsequently,maps have identified that it is in the floodway. Ms.Johnson stated the second issue is that
the Recorded Exemption was approved administratively by staff in March of 2003, then withdrawn in
October of 2003, at which time Mr. Ochsner was informed he would have to appear before the Board of
County Commissioners for approval. Ms. Johnson stated the basis for the retraction by staff was the
floodway information,which should have been available to staff since 1990;however,staff is claiming they
did not know because they did not have the applicant's plat identifying the floodway information. Ms.
Johnson stated that if the Use by Special Review is not revoked, Mr. Ochsner has every right to keep his
home in the floodway; however, if a Recorded Exemption is approved,staff is saying he cannot have that
home. Ms. Johnson stated it is not logical that the home is okay in one instance and not in the other.
Additionally, in 1994, a metal barn was approved by the Board in the floodway. Ms. Johnson stated that
under one scenario, if the Board revokes the Use by Special Review Permit and denies the Recorded
Exemption, Mr. Ochsner would lose his home. Responding to Commissioner Geile, Ms. Johnson
summarized that there is an accessory to the farm mobile home,which the applicant is relinquishing;the
applicant's residence,which is also a mobile home and would require a lot line adjustment, although he
does own the remainder of the land on which it is sitting;two stick built houses which create the rational for
placement of the lot lines on the Recorded Exemption,leaving one a Use by Right and one a Nonconforming
Use; and the arena and barn which would continue as the Use by Special Review.
Regarding the Probable Cause Hearing, Ms. Johnson stated the issues are the access from Highway 85
and the use of the two stick built homes that are shown on Lot A. Responding to Chair Masden, Ms.
Johnson stated the mobile home the applicant is relinquishing recently burned and cannot be occupied.
Mr.Barker stated the issues under consideration in the Probable Cause Hearing are whether the application
materials were amended;whether the dwellings are being used as an income source,installation of a fence
or barricade to prevent access onto Highway85,and whether access to the Special Review activity is from
Weld County Road 394 via the private drive known as Old Highway85. Ms.Johnson stated the access onto
Highway 85 is available to the Recorded Exemption that now exists;and as an accommodation to them,
Mr.Ochsner has left open a road that permits them also to access off Weld County Road 394. Responding
to Chair Masden,Ms.Johnson stated the proposed Recorded Exemption includes an easement to legally
convey the access.
Minutes, January 12, 2004 2004-0208
Page 5 BC0016
Dan Ochsner,applicant,presented a map,pictures,and a letter,marked Exhibits A,B,and C,respectively,
and described the location of each picture. Mr. Ochsner stated the only people who use the Highway 85
access are those who own it. Responding to Commissioner Geile,Mr.Ochsner stated he owns everything
north of the canal, and nothing south. He stated after approval of the old Recorded Exemption, he could
no longer block access to the residence; therefore, he built a fence to keep people from accessing the
arena from Highway 85. Responding further to Chair Masden,Mr.Ochsner stated that when he purchased
the property he understood the corral was included; however, two years ago he discovered that Mr.
Brantner's property line runs directly through the mobile home. Therefore, after negotiations, he did
purchase the property north of his. Mr.Ochsner stated he has had horses most of the time,and that within
the first two or three years there was lots of activity, as evidenced by advertisements included in his
exhibits. Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Ochsner stated he owns the two old houses, and he
leases them,one to a gentleman who boards horses in the barn. Commissioner Vaad expressed concern
that,as shown in picture#4,a sign advertising the Sandbar Arena,placed at the entrance to the Recorded
Exemption Lot from Highway 85,is deceptive and would encourage the public to enter there. Responding
to Commissioner Vaad, Mr. Barker stated the accessory to farm requires the resident to be someone who
works on the farm, and whose principal income is gained from the farm. Responding to Commissioner
Vaad, Mr. Ochsner stated one of the individuals living in the stick built home does some breeding on the
farm,from which he derives some income;however,the other house is rented out. He stated the problem
is he cannot leave the houses vacant, because they would deteriorate. He stated his farm help originally
lived there; however, the individual who currently does maintenance on the farm lives on his own farm.
Mr. Ochsner stated he forgot about not renting the homes for income.
Commissioner Vaad commented that,although an amendment to the Use by Special Review permit might
be the preferable solution to the overall situation, Mr. Ochsner is testifying there is Probable Cause
regarding the use of the homes to gain income,and the sign invites people to drive in that entrance,which
leads to the second and third issues on the Probable Cause. Responding to Commissioner Jerke, Mr.
Barker stated this process does not allow the Board to amend the current Use by Special Review;however,
if the Recorded Exemption is approved with the two stick built homes on Lot A,the applicant could sell Lot
A,which would remove a chunk of propertyfrom the Use by Special Review area. Ms. Lockman stated the
boundaries of the Use by Special Review may end up much smaller, but some additions might also need
to be made to it because of the additional property Mr.Ochsner has purchased. Responding to Mr. Barker
regarding Lot B,Mr. Ochsner stated the mobile home has been attached to the ground,and he has purged
the title. Discussion ensued about whether the mobile home is actually regarded as a mobile home or
whether it is attached to the ground,and therefore,considered the principal dwelling. Mr. Barker stated staff
needs to research the status of the mobile home to see if it retains its nature as a mobile home,although
it can be in place by right whether or not it is in the floodway. He stated it would be the single family dwelling
on Lot B. Mr. Ochsner clarified for Mr. Barker that he has acquired 22 acres to the west of this property,
and Mr. Barker stated at a minimum,the Use by Special Review permit should be amended to reflect the
addition and deletion of the various pieces of property,and the income properties could be dealt with at the
same time. However,he stated,if Lot A is taken out and sold,one house could be used as the single family
dwelling and the other would need a Use by Special Review permit to allow it as the principal dwelling.
Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Barker stated staff rescinded its approval of the Recorded
Exemption because of the information on the floodway,which makes Lot B non-buildable. Therefore,septic
permits, etc., could not be issued in the future.
Mr.Barker stated Lot B could be amended to include the triangular property now belonging to Mr.Oschner
on the north. He stated staff first needs to determine whether it requires a Zoning Permit for a Mobile Home,
since it is attached to the ground,tax records have been purged, building permits have been issued,and
it has been occupied for an extended period of time. If so, the issue may go away. However, if Lot B
expanded,the question would be whether to grant the Recorded Exemption. Subsequently,if the Recorded
Exemption is granted, the Use by Special Review should then be amended to deal with all the various
Minutes, January 12, 2004 2004-0208
Page 6 BC0016
pieces of property and whether the Use by Special Review is in compliance, since testimony indicates
income is being derived from these homes. Commissioner Jerke stated he would like to see these issues
packaged together,and moved to continue the Probable Cause for six months to allow the applicant time
to amend the Use by Special Review Permit to deal with the property line issues,and the rental issue, as
well as to apply for a Recorded Exemption for Lot B with modified property lines including the parcel to the
north. Commissioner Vaad seconded the motion. Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr.Ochsner stated
he is trying to divide the two houses into separate lots in order to get a home loan. Mr. Barker stated if the
Recorded Exemption is granted, then Mr. Ochsner can deal with his plans for the future, and the
amendment to the Use by Special Review depends on the decision regarding the Recorded Exemption.
Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Barker stated staff has declined to approve the Recorded
Exemption administratively because the property is located in the floodway. Ms. Johnson requested the
Board still hear testimony today from Chris Pickett of Pickett Engineering, Inc., regarding the
floodway/floodplain issue. She stated it is very expensive to amend the FEMA maps,and she would like
the Board to hear his testimony regarding the issue. After discussion, the Board decided to hear Mr.
Pickett's testimony.
Mr. Pickett stated even engineers do not understand FEMA terminology. He defined a floodplain as being
that area affected by a 100-year storm,which has a one percent chance of occurring in any given year;and
the floodway is that area which is arbitrarily, but with scientific methodology, determined by filling in the
floodplain until the water surface elevation reaches a certain amount. In most states, FEMA says that
amount is one foot. Therefore,the floodway can occur at different levels and locations along the river. By
filling in the riverbank in a certain location,the defined floodway moves according to how much was filled
in. FEMA publishes the maps, which are not always accurate, and administers the flood insurance
program. Mr. Pickett stated in this case, a study was done in 1990, and he indicated the floodplain and
floodway as defined through that study,running parallel to the river and including portions of Mr.Ochsner's
property in the floodway. He said the things that have occurred on this particular site that makes him think
the floodway would be in a different location is that,subsequent to the study done in 1990 and under a 404
Permit with the Corps of Engineers,the slope of the riverbank was filled in with a fair amount of concrete
rubble. He stated this was done under a contractor who was removing some of the concrete pavement
used at that time along the banks. Mr. Pickett stated there is a difference of ten to fifteen feet in elevation
between the river and the top of the rubble. Therefore,he believes if a new study were done,the floodway
would be moved further to the north. Mr. Pickett stated it would be very convenient to do this with a Letter
of Map Revision(LOMAR); however, it would not be accepted to revise the maps, it would only stand as a
letter of record with the local jurisdictions. He stated an update would be required to the 1990 study, at a
cost of at least $20,000 with one year to eighteen months to accomplish. Mr. Pickett also stated the
elevations of the floodplain through this area is 5,100.2 feet nearthe house,therefore,the floodway elevation
is 5,200.2 feet. According to work done in 1993, the structures on the application at that time were at or
above the elevation of 5,200.2 feet. Therefore,the house is more than a foot above the floodplain elevation.
Responding to Mr. Ochsner's request for the Recorded Exemption to be completed at this time, Mr. Jerke
stated it would not make sense to him,depending on whether Lot B is completely within the Use by Special
Review boundaries,therefore,that has to be determined first. Mr. Barker stated there is not an issue with
the Use by Special Review Permit and the Recorded Exemption property cannot be taken out of the Use
by Special Review permit area until it has been granted. He stated as long as Mr. Ochsner owns both lots,
the configuration is at his discretion, and the Use by Special Review needs to be amended after both lots
are created. He also stated if the Board addresses the Recorded Exemption to create two parcels, then
one is sold,the Use by Special Review needs to be amended;and if any properties are to be included,that
would be an issue. Ms. Lockman stated the application to amend Lot B can be submitted at any time.
Commissioner Geile stated if that made a more orderly process, he would concur with counsel, which
would enable the applicant to come back with an Amended Recorded Exemption. Mr. Barker stated after
Minutes, January 12, 2004 2004-0208
Page 7 BC0016
the Recorded Exemption is established,then decisions could be made with respect to the property and the
Use by Special Review Permit. Ms. Lockman noted that the applicant has not been using the arena,and
Mr. Ochsner stated he is not sure at this time whether he will be keeping the Use by Special Review.
CommissionerJerke stated he is still concerned that tomorrow an individual who has no relationship to Mr.
Ochsner could own Lot B, which would remain part of a Use by Special Review Permit. Ms. Lockman
stated,if the Recorded Exemption is going to be amended,she would rather see the Use by Special Review
Permit be amended first, using the portion the applicant plans to separate off to get the Recorded
Exemption. Mr. Ochsner stated the Use by Special Review Permit would have to be amended at the time
one of the lots is sold off. Mr. Barker stated if the Recorded Exemption is approved, and one of the lots is
sold,it is still subject to the Use by Special Review,and it would have to be amended at that time. He stated
anyone applying for a Building Permit would be denied because it is still subject to the Use by Special
Review.
CommissionerJerke amended his motion,and Commissioner Vaad his second,to continue the Probable
Cause Hearing to July 12, 2004, at 9:00 a.m. The motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER ZONING PERMIT FORAMOBILE HOME,ZPMH#2385-DANIEL OCHSNER (CON'T FROM
11/24/2003): Ms. Lockman stated this is the one requiring more research from staff. CommissionerJerke
moved to continue this matter to July 12, 2004, at 9:00 a.m. The motion, which was seconded by
Commissioner Long, carried unanimously.
CONSIDER RECORDED EXEMPTION #3502 - DANIEL OCHSNER (CON'T FROM 11/24/2003):
Commissioner Long stated Commissioner Jerke made a strong argument,and he would hate to create a
problem for someone else down the line,therefore,he would move to continue Recorded Exemption#3502
to July 12, 2004, at 9:00 a.m.. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jerke. Responding to
Commissioner Vaad, Mr. Barker stated the applicant would not be precluded from coming back sooner if
he is ready. At the request of Commissioner Geile, staff and counsel clarified the motion and actions
necessary by Mr. Ochsner. Commissioner Geile stated the continuance does not preclude the applicant
from coming back to the Board prior to that time if all the issues are resolved, and Mr. Barker stated staff
should also look at a Subdivision Exemption option. On a call for the vote,the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER ZONING PERMIT FORA MOBILE HOME,ZPMH#575-DANIEL OCHSNER(CON'T FROM
11/24/2003): Ms. Lockman stated this is the case the applicant has withdrawn. Commissioner Long
moved to accept the withdrawl. CommissionerJerke seconded the motion. Responding to Commissioner
Vaad, Mr. Ochsner reiterated he does wish to withdraw this application. The motion carried unanimously
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES: The resolutions were presented and signed as listed on the
consent agenda. No Ordinances were approved.
Let the minutes reflect that the above and foregoing actions were attested to and respectfully submitted by
the Acting Clerk to the Board.
Minutes, January 12, 2004 2004-0208
Page 8 BC0016
There being no further business, this meeting was adjourned at 11:15 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
W LD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST:
E� Robert D. Masden, Chair
Weld County Clerk to th_tsa
/4/
4,2 Svp '1/4;1♦{ William H. J e, Pro-Tern
Deputy Clerk to the =.ár+
0
1
Davi . Long
G enn Vaa:
Minutes, January 12, 2004 2004-0208
Page 9 BC0016
Hello