HomeMy WebLinkAbout20032917.tiff MINUTES OF THE WELD COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
Thursday, October 9,2003
A regular meeting of the Weld County Board of Adjustment was held on Thursday,October 9,2003,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. Mr.Bodine asked if there were any corrections to the minutes
of the last meeting. Don Bierbach moved to approve the minutes of the last meeting. Randy Peterson seconded the
motion. Motion carried unanimously. - -
Roll Call:
Don Beierbach
John Donley -absent
Tony Evans
Syl Manlove -absent
Mary O'Neal
Larry Wilson Eric Whitwood-absent
Joseph Bodine
Associate Members:
William Hansen-absent
Randy Peterson
Michael Willits -absent
Also present: Jacqueline Hatch, Planner,Weld County Department of Planning; and Donita May, Secretary.
1. CASE NUMBER: BOA-1023
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
APPLICANT: Virginia Shaw
REQUEST: Appeal administrative decision, Section 24-8-20.C.2.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SW4 SE4 Sections 20 & 29, T2N, R68Wof the 6'" P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: North and south of and adjacent to CR 16 1/2 and approximately % mile
west of CR 5.
Jacqueline Hatch, Weld County Department of Planning Services, introduced Case BOA-1023. The parcels of land
under consideration were described as part of the E2 SW4 of Section 29, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado(Parcel number 1313 29 000076,Lots 1 and 2)and part of Section 20 and 29,T2N,R68W of the 6th P.M.,Weld
County,Colorado(Parcel number 1313 29 000028, Lot 3). Parcel number 1313 29 000076(Lots 1 and 2)was located
north of and adjacent to County Road 16 1/2 and approximately 3/4 mile west of County Road 5 and consisted of 111.90
acres. Parcel number 1313 29 000028 (Lot 3) was located south of and adjacent to County Road 161/2 and
approximately 1/2 mile west of County Road 5 and consisted of 63.5 acres. Ten referral agencies received information
regarding this case, 8 responded . No correspondence had been received from surrounding property owners.
The Weld County Department of Planning Services recommended that this request be denied for the following reasons:
Planning Staff had determined from the information submitted, that Virginia Shaw has three separate legal parcels
(labeled Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot 3). Lots 1 and 2 were separated from Lot 3 by County Road 16%, a 60 foot right-of-way.
Lots 1 and 2 were separated by County Road 3 1/4,a 60 foot deeded right-of-way. The three lots were not contiguous
as required by section 24-8-20.C.2 to allow for a three lot recorded exemption, due to the deeded right-of-ways for
County Roads 16%and 3 1/4. Ms. Hatch said gravel mining was currently on the entire site, USR-1346.
Randy Peterson asked Ms.Hatch to clarify again what the applicant was requesting. Ms.Hatch said they were applying
for a three lot recorded exemption. They wanted all three lots to be on Lot 3. To be able to apply for a three lot recorded
exemption,one hundred sixty acres of contiguous ownership was required,and they did not have that.The lower parcel
was less than sixty four acres and the other parcel was just under one hundred and twelve acres. The application for
a three lot recorded exemption required that at least one lot be a minimum of one hundred twenty acres,which neither
were.
Mr. Bodine asked about contiguity. Ms. Hatch said that if the applicant's were granted the ability to do a three lot
recorded exemption it would create problems for future land use but the bottom line was that the applicants do not have
LF Ursa
/0-aU 2003-2917
one hundred sixty contiguous acres.
Mary O'Neal asked if the land use would make any difference? Ms. Hatch responded that it would not.
Mr. Peterson asked if they were other rules that could cause these lots to be created at sometime in the future? Ms.
Hatch said that to create three lots on any one of these lots at this time,the applicant would need to apply for either a
minor subdivision or a Planned Unit Development(PUD), and that processes existed which would allow the applicant
to achieve three homes on the lower lot.
Tony Evans inquired whether a two lot recorded exemption could be done on Lot 3? Ms.Hatch replied that it could. Mr.
Evans asked if a recorded exemption and a subdivision exemption could be done at the same time? Ms.Hatch said no,
and added that in order to do a subdivision exemption,it would need to fall under a lot line change or to separate existing
homes if there were already two homes out there and there were not,or it could be done for financial purposes. If the
applicant were to apply for a recorded exemption and built two homes,then came in with a subdivision exemption,they
would then be asking to build another home on the property. They could apply for a Use by Special Review, but staff
would not support that because there are other processes to achieve what the applicants have asked for. Mr.Evans then
inquired how many accesses there were to parcel three? Ms. Hatch said she believed there was only one on the north
side,entering off CR 16'A,and that Lot 3 was presently being mined for gravel. She said it looked like the northern part
of Lot 1 was also being mined.
Virginia Shaw,the applicant,stepped forward to answer questions. She stated that her desire was to build her own home
on the property, homes for her two sons, and an additional home to sell off. Her main reason for wanting to move the
recorded exemption to the south lot was because of the wildlife habitat in the area to the north,as well as the existing
views. She emphasized that the homes they intended to build would be high quality,compatible with others in the area.
Mrs. Shaw also presented the argument that if she were allowed to have her recorded exemption on the south lot,they
could make larger lakes on Lot 1 and Lot 2 which would allow for more water storage,another consideration in this day
and age. The lake on Lot 3 would be for their personal use and the use of the house they planned to sell off. It would
not be open to the public. Mrs. Shaw said that if her request was denied, she had a developer interested in creating a
PUD for one hundred and fifteen homes,and they may consider that option,but they prefer to preserve the area around
the lake as it was. She closed by inviting the board members to come and see the beauty of the area for which she was
requesting the appeal.
Mr. Peterson asked the applicant why she was not taking advantage of one of the other methods available to achieve
what she desired. Mrs.Shaw responded that she was concerned with time and money,that this process would cost her
less and take less actual time,thus allowing her to begin building her home sooner.
Mr. Evans asked staff if a single house could be built on Lot 3 today with appropriate permits and applications? Ms.
Hatch replied that yes,one house could be built on Lot 3 at this time. She clarified that though the County was looking
at changing the recorded exemption requirements,it was presently still required that an applicant have one hundred sixty
contiguous acres to do a four lot recorded exemption and staff had determined that the applicant did not have one
hundred sixty contiguous acres. The only option for Mrs. Shaw to have three homes or more on the lot was to apply for
a PUD or a minor subdivision.
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. Bodine closed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Evans commended the applicant's effort to preserve the land, but agreed with staff that the Code did not allow for
that type of use for properties that were not contiguous, and suggested there were other methods available for the
applicant to utilize to reach the desired result.
Tony Evans moved that Case BOA-1023, be approved as proposed. Don Bierbach seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Board of Adjustment for their decision. Don Beierbach, no;
Tony Evans, no; Mary O'Neal, no; Larry Wilson, no; Randy Peterson, no; Joseph Bodine, no.
Motion denied 0-6.
As there was no there business,the meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m .
Re �
Respectfully ullllyy submitted,
y`
t
Donita May
Secretary
a
RESOLUTION OF THE WELD COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Moved by Tony Evans that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Board of Adjustment.
Be it therefore resolved by the Weld County Board of Adjustment that the following be approved:
CASE NUMBER: BOA-1023
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
APPLICANT: Virginia Shaw
REQUEST: Appeal administrative decision, Section 24-8-20.C.2.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SW4 SE4 Sections 20 & 29, T2N, R68Wof the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: North and south of and adjacent to CR 16 Y and approximately 1/2 mile
east of CR 5.
Motion seconded by Don Bierbach.
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage
Don Beierbach
Tony Evans
Mary O'Neal
Larry Wilson
Randy Peterson
Joseph Bodine
The Chair declared the resolution failed to pass and ordered that a certified copy be placed in the file of this case to
serve as a permanent record of these proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Donita May, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Board of Adjustment, do hereby certify that the above and
foregoing resolution, is a true copy of the resolution of the Board of Adjustment of Weld County,Colorado,adopted on
October 9, 2003.
Dated
the
�}9th
h day of October,2003.
� �h` th
Donita May
Secretary
Hello