The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20030914.tiff MINUTES OF THE WELD COUNTY UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Weld County Utilities Coordinating Advisory Committee was held on Thursday, March 27, 2003, at 10:00 a.m., in the Conference Room of the Weld County Planning Department at 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. Members Present: Doug Dalton, Xcel Energy; Doug Melby, Evans F.P.D.; Cody Wooldridge, Central Weld Water District. Also Present: Monica Mika, WCPD Director; Lance Unverzagt, Planner; Donita May, Secretary. Doug Dalton, Xcel Energy, called the meeting to order. 1. APPLICANT: Marvi & Joel Pruden CASE NUMBER: BOA-1017 PLANNER: Lance Unverzagt REQUEST: Variance to allow a nine inch overhang on the garage to encroach into the front setback LEGAL: Lot 18, Block 4, Idaho Creek Subdivision; Section 10, T2N, R68W of the 61' P.M., Weld County Colorado. LOCATION: 10696 Butte Drive Lance Unverzagt, Planner, presented BOA-1017, with the Department of Planning Service's recommendation for approval. Cody Wooldridge, Central Weld Water District, stated that overhangs of nine inches and one foot,which these four cases address, will not affect the utility company's ability to get equipment into the easements should it ever become necessary. Monica Mika, Weld County Planning Services Director, addressed the fact that these cases have been presented to the Board previously, and that the Board made a recommendation to change the minimum requirements for the utility easements from five feet to four feet. She wanted to remind the Board that they do have the latitude to send a message to the applicant, while the Board understands this may create a hardship, it will not guarantee that it will be looking at this in the future in the same light as it is looking at it now. She also suggested that if the Board repeatedly makes concessions on utility easements, it may send the wrong message to the applicant, and they may want to include a recommendation about future modifications, or a condition attached to their recommendation. Mr. Dalton said he felt the county should not have approved this subdivision in the first place if it does not meet the county requirements. He felt that if the county had not approved it, or had shut it down completely, it would not have become a Utility Board problem and then a Board of Adjustment problem. Mr. Dalton said that as it exists today, the utilities can live with the variances in the subdivision, though they may not agree with them. Ms. Mika asked to give a brief history of the subdivision and pointed out that the subdivision was re- platted. At the onset, the lot matrix showed which models would fit on which lots, the engineering looked good, and everyone seemed content to proceed. At the time the applicants applied for building permits, the county required a location certification signed off by an engineer, showing that the foundations did in fact meet the requirements. Planning and Building did not re-check the engineering calculations, which is not normally done anyway if a professional engineer signs off on it. The field inspector went out, saw the overhangs, did some research, and concluded that the calculations were in error, not once but nine times. That is why there were nine original cases in question. The applicant understands that there are no guarantees the variances will be granted. Ms. Mika emphasized that she wanted the Board to be aware of the continuing problem. She asked where the Board stands on utility easements? If only a minimum amount is needed, then why is the Planning Department asking for more? The lots in this subdivision average approximately 2800 square feet and at some point it must become clear that structures this size will not fit on these lots. Ms. Mika also asked if we give up for utility provisions? Do we give up for fire separation issues? Or do we say � you can't build a house this big? She said she brought up these points because she wanted the Board (1077,77u N/rtpy-VALS 2003-0914 oV-07-O to discuss these issues and decide where they stand as a Board. Ms. Mika said that generally, individual land use does not set precedence, but there is something established though, as to what is and is not acceptable in Weld County. She stated she wanted this entered into the record in order to give the Board the opportunity to think about these issues and have some discussion, but that this may also be discussed at a later date. Mr. Wooldridge spoke and placed blame on the county building inspector who inspected the hole before the footers were pored. He felt the inspector should have measured the setbacks and caught this initially, before it became a problem for the Utility Board. He suggested that perhaps red-flagging this subdivision for the inspectors would alleviate future problems. Ms. Mika said the individual lots were supposed to be staked and that they were staked, but incorrectly. She said if it is staked, a building inspector doesn't generally re-measure. He would assume they were correct. Procedurally, they did not catch it as soon as they could have if they would have re-calculated the numbers. In the best case scenario, they need to be measuring. Additionally, the Nantucket model has been pulled from most of the lots, and this is the model that has been causing the problems. Ms. Mika emphasized that they need to be careful about clouding people's titles because the structures are in the wrong place, and they always will be, even with a Board of Adjustment variance, but at least this will validate the use. Mr. Wooldridge moved to approve BOA-1017, with the notation to the applicant that the Board previously made a concession to change the minimum requirements for the utility easements from five feet to four feet, but that the applicant still has the obstruction, and that while the Board understands this may create a hardship, it will not guarantee that it will be looking at this in the future in the same light as it is looking at it now. Mr. Melby seconded the motion. The motion passed 3 to 0. 2. APPLICANT: Gary & Evelyn Sancomb CASE NUMBER: BOA-1018 PLANNER: Lance Unverzagt REQUEST: Variance to allow a one foot overhang on the garage to encroach into the front setback. LEGAL: Lot 10, Block, 3, Idaho Creek Subdivision; Section 10, T2N, R68W of the 61h P.M., Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: 10669 Butte Drive Lance Unverzagt, Planner, presented BOA-1018 with the Department of Planning Service's recommendation for approval. Mr. Wooldridge moved to approve BOA-1018, with the notation to the applicant that the Board previously made a concession to change the minimum requirements for the utility easements from five feet to four feet, but that the applicant still has the obstruction, and that while the Board understands this may create a hardship, it will not guarantee that it will be looking at this in the future in the same light as it is looking at it now. Mr. Melby seconded the motion. The motion passed 3 to 0. 3. APPLICANT: Justin &Veronica Gleaton CASE NUMBER: BOA-1019 PLANNER: Lance Unverzagt REQUEST: Variance to allow a nine inch overhang on the garage to encroach into the front setback LEGAL: Lot 8 , Block 4, Idaho Creek Subdivision; Section 10, T2N, R68W of the 6'" P.M., Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: 10664 Butte Drive Lance Unverzagt, Planner, presented BOA-1019 with the Department of Planning Service's recommendation for approval. Mr. Wooldridge moved to approve BOA-1019, with the notation to the applicant that the Board previously made a concession to change the minimum requirements for the utility easements from five feet to four feet, but that the applicant still has the obstruction, and that while the Board understands this may create a hardship, it will not guarantee that it will be looking at this in the future in the same light as it is looking at it now. Mr. Melby seconded the motion. The motion passed 3 to 0. 4. APPLICANT: Lainie &Travis Yarger CASE NUMBER: BOA-1020 PLANNER: Lance Unverzagt REQUEST: Request for a variance to allow a one foot overhang on the garage to encroach into the front setback LEGAL: Lot 23, Block 3, Idaho Creek Subdivision; Section 10, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: 10695 Butte Drive Lance Unverzagt, Planner, presented BOA-1020 with the Department of Planning Service's recommendation for approval. Mr. Wooldridge moved to approve BOA-1020, with the notation to the applicant that the Board previously made a concession to change the minimum requirements for the utility easements from five feet to four feet, but that the applicant still has the obstruction, and that while the Board understands this may create a hardship, it will not guarantee that it will be looking at this in the future in the same light as it is looking at it now. Mr. Melby seconded the motion. The motion passed 3 to 0. Respectfully submitted, Donita May Secretary Hello