HomeMy WebLinkAbout20180417.tiffRESOLUTION
RE: GRANT APPEAL OF THE DECISION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TO
DENY AN ACCESS PERMIT FOR RECX17-0107 - ROBERT AND HEIDI STREEKS
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to
Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of
administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and
WHEREAS, on January 24, 2018, pursuant to Sections 2-4-10 and 12-5-100 of the Weld
County Code, the Board of County Commissioners considered the appeal of the decision by the
Department of Public Works to deny an Access Permit for RECX17-0107, submitted by the
appellants, Robert and Heidi Streeks, and
WHEREAS, the Board heard testimony and took evidence from Department of Public
Works staff and Robert and Heidi Streeks, and
WHEREAS, based on the testimony and evidence, the Board deemed it advisable to
continue said matter to February 7, 2018, to allow adequate time for appellants and staff to
measure and determine the sight distance, and
WHEREAS, upon consideration of such appeal, including a review of all information
submitted by the appellants and the Department of Public Works, the Board deems it advisable
to grant the appeal of Robert and Heidi Streeks, reverse the decision of the Department of Public
Works, and remand the issue back to staff with instruction to issue an Access Permit, conditional
upon the following: 1) There will be a three (3) foot cover over the utility pipeline, 2) the Access
point will be shifted as far north as possible on Lot B, and 3) the access to Lot A will be a shared
access with Lot B.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld
County, Colorado, that the appeal of Robert and Heidi Streeks, be, and hereby is, granted, and
the decision of the Department of Public Works to deny Access Permit is reversed and remanded
back to staff with instruction to issue an Access Permit, conditional upon the following: 1) There
will be a three (3) foot cover over the utility pipeline, 2) the Access point will be shifted as far north
as possible on Lot B, and 3) the access to Lot A will be a shared access with Lot B.
cc , PwCO -f a ), aPPL f REP
03108`( 1 8'
2018-0417
EG0075
RE: APPEAL FOR AN ACCESS PERMIT - ROBERT AND HEIDI STREEKS
PAGE 2
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted
by the following vote on the 7th day of February, A.D., 2018.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST: s.itAt/t) p; oi
Weld County Clerk to the Board
BY:
Deputy Clerk to the Bo
APP e • di AS
ounty Attorney
Date of signature: 03-7-/$
Sy r
Steve Moreno, Chair
rbara Kirkmeyer,
Joffe A. Cozad
Mike Freeman
2018-0417
EG0075
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
DATE: February 7, 2018
FROM: Dawn Anderson, Public Works
SUBJECT: Appeal of Access Permit Denial for RECX 17-0107
Per the direction of the Weld County Commissioners at the January 24, 2018 hearing, Public Works staff
met with the applicants, Robert and Heidi Streeks, on site at the property requesting a new access point
along WCR 53. This meeting was held on February 2, 2018.
While on site, Public Works staff explained the engineering site distance safety criteria to the applicants
and the proper way to measure the site for compliance with the criteria. While performing the
measurements with the applicants, both parties recognized the sight distance measurements at this location
was a borderline site safety issue and without a full survey could have a small margin of error in either
direction, which could not be confirmed. The applicants acknowledged that their original pictures were
being viewed from the wrong direction and were taken looking from the point of view of vehicles traveling
north along WCR 53 (south of proposed access point) instead of from the point of sight from the vehicle
pulling onto WCR 53 from the access point.
Public Works staff spoke in detail with the applicant regarding their plans for a new access point if approved,
specifically regarding location and drainage. During these discussions the applicant agreed to address
drainage, move the driveway location as far north as possible and build the new access road up a minimum
of three (3) feet. The three (3) foot requirement is a pipeline crossing cover requirement due to an existing
pipeline that runs along the property that the access will need to be constructed over.
Staff recommends approval of the access permit with the conditions that the access point/road is shifted to
the south of the property line and built up a minimum of three (3) feet high in order to ensure the site
distance obstruction concerns are alleviated.
WCR 53 is a local road with 60' of right-of-way as identified on the County's functional classification map.
The ADT is 78 with 17% of the vehicles per day being trucks.
I'm available to answer any questions you may have.
2018-0417
aC,06i5
MEMOR
TO: Board of County Commissioners
DATE: January 24, 2018
FROM: Dawn Anderson, Public Works
SUBJECT: Appeal of Access Permit Denial for RECX 170107
Weld County Public Works received an access permit application from Robert and Heidi Streeks in May
2017. The permit application was in connection with a two -lot recorded exemption, RECX17-0107. The
access application identified one existing access and one proposed new access on WCR 53. Please see
the attached Exhibit A map associated with this access permit/R
Public Works staff denied the request for a new access based on two sections of the Weld County Code:
12-5-30.A, Access to a Single Parcel. Each parcel shall be allowed one access point for safe ingress and
egress, which may be an existing or new shared access. Each parcel shall be limited to this single access,
except as modified by the Board of County Commissioners; as a result of zoning requirements;
consideration in land use applications; safety considerations; subdivision regulations; or the inability to meet
minimum requirements as outlined in the Weld County Engineering and Construction Criteria document
shown in Appendix 12-A.
24-8-40.C, Exemption Standards. An access is, or can be made, available that provides for safe ingress
and egress to a public road. All accesses shall be in accordance with Chapter 12, Article V of this Code,
and shall endeavor to achieve the goal of no "net increase" in the number of accesses onto adjacent County
roads when accesses already exist.
1. Where the access is adjacent to a state highway, the Colorado Department of Transportation has
jurisdiction over existing or proposed access points. The applicant shall be responsible for
obtaining a new Access Permit from the Colorado Department of Transporation.
2. Contiguous lots created through the exemption process shall, when practicable, share access.
3. Existing or future public rights -of -way and additional access points on County roads shall be
dedicated or reserved in conformance with Chapter 22 of this Code and any adopted
intergovernmental agreements or master plans of affected municipalities.
4. A new access with a choice as to which County road it feeds onto shall choose the County road
with the lowest traffic count.
On August 24th, Heidi Streeks, sent staff an email requesting a variance to the above stated code. Staff
reviewed the request and per County Code Section 12-5-120, variance from specific Access Permit
requirements, requested that the applicant resubmit their request for variance and include a hardship or
justification for the variance request as required. This request back to the applicant was made on August
31, 2017. The applicant responded to this request by a letter dated October 3, 2017 from Hackstaff and
Snow, Attorneys at Law, attached as Exibit B.
On November 2, 2017 after review of all submitted documentation and a site visit, staff determined that the
requested new access, as documented on the Exhibit A map, did not meet safety criteria due to the access
site distance requirements as defined in Appendix 12-A of the Weld County Code. Site obstruction was
due to the location of a hill south of the property. At that time, staff recommended that the existing access
located at the top of the hill be utilitzed as a shared access point for both Lot A & Lot B. If this access
becomes a shared access for both lots it addresses all concerns raised by staff as well as meets all code
requirements documented as part of the recorded exemption land use case.
Left Picture: Taken at the proposed new access point looking south.
Right Picture: Taken at the existing access point looking south.
Mr. and Mrs. Streeks, through an attorney, Hoffman Crews Nies Waggener & Foster LLP, submitted a
formal request for an appeal with the Weld County Board of County Commissioners by a letter dated
January 11, 2018, as shown in Exhibit C.
Furthermore, per Exhibit D supplied by the applicant through the recorded exemption process, the request
is to give Lot B access through the existing access point and Lot A will utilize a "shared" access point that
also shows to extend into Lot B. Although the proposed new access is designated on the permit application
as residential access point for Lot A. the applicant appears to be planning for future development of an
unknown nature. Staff can not assume what additional traffic would be generated (count, classification,
etc.) if access were approved at this location and shared at a later date. Again, staff views this access as
a safety risk.
WCR 53 is a local road with 60' of right-of-way as identified on the County's functional classification map.
The ADT is 78 with 17% of the vehicles per day being trucks.
I'm available to answer any questions you may have.
Exhibit A
• • a • •
CR 4 14,4
Proposed new access point for Lot A
Access point to remain only for Lot B
•
Proposed Lot A (approx. 4 acres)
Unpermitted access point
Small Commercial
CR 4
)
CR 53
CR 55
ACKSTAFFAsSNOW AT 3� N
October 3, 2017
VIA KMAIL
Weld County Public Works
Attn: Ms. Morgan Gabbert
1111 H St.
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632-0758
Re:
File No
Address :
Subject:
Dear Ms. Gabbert:
Request for Variance
RECX17-0107
268 County Road 53, Keenesburg, CO 80643
Supplemental Information on Variance
J. Aaron Atkinson, Fiisq.
aa@hackstafflaw.com
(303) 534 — 4317
Please note for your files that we represent Ms. Streeks in regards to supplementing the information my client
has already submitted to Public Works in regards to her approved recorded exemption. I understand that
Public Works has requested more information in regards to the request for an additional, shared access point
for this property. My representation of Ms. Streeks is limited to this issue.
On August 31St, you requested that Ms. Streeks elaborate on the hardship or justification for the new access
point in accordance with Weld County Amendment section 12-5-120. Please note that this section calls for
identification of "hardship orjustification for the variance" (emphasis added), and Ms. Streeks would like to
offer information supportive of both these criteria.
First, the new, shared access point will better serve the property and surrounding area as it will allow Ms.
Streeks the ability to properly secure her livestock in the fields of the western section of her property. As you
know, the property is currently zoned for this purpose and Ms. Streeks has utilized her property for ranching
for some time now. The new access point will be guarded off by a fence that will allow her to continue
ranching without possibility that the livestock will either escape and cause traffic and other problems, and
ensure the safety of those traveling to lot B along the new roadway.
While the new access point will allow better security and safety for both lots A and B, there will be virtually
zero impact upon local traffic. The exemption has only afforded Ms. Streeks the ability to partition her
property into two lots not a multitude of lots where many residents might ultimately reside and therefore
the possibilities of heavy traffic along this section will be extraordinarily low. The proposed new access point
is therefore well within the Weld County Engineering and Construction Criteria set forth in Appendix 12-A.
m'77�1'.cnvsika'.u.t='nr�F.F.'ds�r..31 `,aiM9TiErLv4`-7,h�,tirirt::a�Sv,>mz,,:`�x'a;.xvWcZ;.uG:aay.ro.E. .a..FlC7a.x.>sLs'w.i.sr, arw
aax0171,= nra=av v>rianmsrtra rtIVA tlb:tral= aozan ftlI oa MVAIm»:• zoo .^.•.•amnm xm CIIIAM mwc CMCCorv«s�xr.
t a;.•..ae a C. .. .T.T„0.iws, n' . n�. vwyn n -c. qrr :^v�ShT.'.o...r C ..a ..^SR' .(4R? r nA,P., -CS. ,..' .t, .. �^ :,J+S._., u ....r ,...u,�.s,..,,� � . r,.r�jun�•a �j4sjy+,=..ty,y§,Ca�an�. .v a�:v&E� aara S° �..'Y.2�� ��r......,..:_.... va.. � s....., ...,..:, ...e�„L::..•'�a u"�RT�?F�"'s+.FNu^'FhVR'r'...r....."�C��i'�m�'3`�w��.."s.^ b:.',>ry.�s'�iv'�aU
�.z_^ ...,. J=552nr_n:rnr'x^r ..a flXt.s:uia t a!sxa.—. —754 an azr aa...r m .c^aya - tcu
1601 Blake Street, Suite 310, Denver, CO 80202 ph. 303.534.4317 fax. 303.534.4309
www.hackstafflaw.com
Likewise, the current design of the new, shared access point borders the adjoining property and allows access
to the expansive, 65 -acre lot B along the eastern portion of the parcel. This design rninimaeizes any negative
impacts while maximizing the ability to access the outlying portions of the parcel efficiently. Because the
access point does not tie into any other roadway along the eastern border of the property, there is no risk of
increased or congested traffic through this area by other vehicles.
The ability of having two access points is also not foreign to this area. Across County Road 53 is an oil
operation, which currently has two access points in the shape of a "U" for its owner.
In short, given the ranching operation and the possibilities of damage and injury from unsecured livestock,
there would be great hardship in disallowing the additional, shared access point requested by Ms. Streeks. On
the other hand, there would be no negative impact to the traffic or local area by the additional access point.
At present, Weld County has approved the recorded exemption subject to final approval of the additional
access point. Ms. Streeks has paid all fees and costs necessitated by this processs and would like approval of
Public Works in order to finalize her property plans.
You may contact me if you have any questions or require further information along these lines.
Regards,
J. Aaron Atkinson
JAA/
cc: Ms. Heidi Streeks
y.420n:Ym.A 2 n. 777r v real ;x Pra ..zP. r a t x212 ... ;y,,. . v v .. r .:.._..Y'�.w,.:"...'�w.✓.��3za�ss:tiw.a..':<`b'1,..,:c.w.a..&`eYS,.�..L'.a',{I.x,.._�..:...�__.�:.�... t_..��u�i"Sma...�:6�L._,.�.a x. �... ., _.i..m' •::�^;^.c,.w.,��W�:e:"�e�.tv;.b�'tixxetYs&E�7Fe".wuwad:..sv.�...�."Z�..=�.tr,�.r.�.r,�,+^4b;s�.�..:..,.�a.�u'.32'"r�53�3'��+".Wlrg
a .. �r .. w............... ...,=====.1C w,a.r jr ♦._.�—artaOYfdA.WtfdxPTl3YN:AE' n ..SDDM�ffitxty YRTT. Te aars�_L'✓Y1�:::. GATJ^0.L0891R. ••• �_Y•mnm.+.mvn tt
ST6Pu.v.�). /W w .w. "�"'^�ti!rWxO'L irm4`IX w n�rr .GSYCti `_]`1'AN.C' ._ 4^T'A6GRT� SF...1.S'pt'ILNT.'XCiTrT6'�Yl'�"�aTwTS.L2.'lvu .+�ry p3L.LJ•u A.�6.R2 1 'T?]
F ari%$egx:;�ar°N•,' fir, .rr>i -. 4,zajtyua y r" 57x7-5 7C0
�.J
•J. F:9:"J.T:i
1601 Blake Street, Suite 310, Denver, CO 80202 ph. 303.534.4317 fax. 303.534.4309
www.hackstafflaw.com
Nicole R. N ies
Attorney At Law
D: (720) 974-9422
NNIES@HCNVVF-LAVV.COMI
January 11, 2018
VIA EMAIL and FEDEX
Weld County Board of County Commissioners
Attn: Esther Gesick
1150 O St.
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80631
County File No.:
Property Address:
Subject:
Dear Ms. Gesick:
Partners
Julia T. Villaggener
Richard M. Foster
Denise Hoffman White
S. Kato Crews
Nicole R. Nies
Mychael Dave
David M. Spaulding
Of Counsel
Victor Quinn
Associates
Jessammyn Jones
Jared Decoteau
Sarah V. Morris
Taylor Claassen
RECX17-0107
268 County Road 53, Keenesburg, CO 80643
Complaint/Appeal - Weld County Public Works' Denial of
Request for Variance
Please note for your files that our firm represents Robert and Heidi Streeks (the
"Streeks") in connection with this complaint filed with respect to Weld County Public Works'
("Public Works") denial of my client's request for a variance to permit a net new access point to
their property located at 268 County Road 53, Keenesburg, CO 80643 (the "Property"). My
representation of the Streeks is limited to this issue.
This letter will serve as the Streeks' formal complaint and notice of appeal under Section
2-4-10 of the Weld County Code, with respect to the Public Works improper denial of the
Streeks' request for a net new access point to the Property. The facts are as follows:
• On August 24, 2017, the Streeks submitted a request to Public Works for approval of
a net new access point in connection with their approved recorded subdivision
exemption on the Property, which created two separate lots. This request would add a
single access point to proposed Lot A while maintaining the original access for Lot B.
In this letter, Mrs. Streeks lays out the justifications for their request, which include
avoiding potential conflicts between the owners of the adjacent properties, protecting
bothlivestock and traffic from Lot A owners either driving through designated Lot B
pastures or livestock crossing the shared access road, and protecting livestock and
traffic upon the failure of Lot A drivers to close the shared access gate, thereby
allowing the livestock access to the public roads.
Weld County Board of County Commissioners
Attn: Esther Gesick
January 11, 2018
Page 2
• On August 31, 2017, Ms. Gabbert, on behalf of Public Works, responded by
requesting Mrs. Streeks modify her variance letter to elaborate on the hardship or
justification for a new access point in accordance with Weld County Amendment
section 12-5-120.
• On October 6, 2017, Aaron Atkinson of Hackstaff and Snow Attorneys at Law, on
behalf of the Streeks, provided a supplemental letter as per Ms. Gabbert's request,
elaborating on the hardships and justifications for the new access point request (see
attached).
• More than a month later, on November 2, 2017, Ms. Gabbert sent an email indicating
only that the proposed access "does not meet the safety criteria due to sight distance
obstruction and as a result is being denied." No further information was provided as
to the safety criteria, the failure, the analysis, or when the site visit had been
conducted.
• On November 8, 2017, Mrs. Streeks requested the analysis that was used to conclude
the drive did not meet the safety standards.
• On November 15, 2017, Ms. Gabbert responded by stating that the minimum sight
distance for County Road 53 under the Weld County Engineering and Construction
Criteria was 450 feet. She stated further that the item used to determine the farthest
distance visible to the south was the mailbox (existing drive location), which was
located 290 feet from the proposed access. She stated that the distance to the north
was more than adequate.
• The Weld County Engineering and Construction Criteria used by Ms. Gabbert for her
analysis states in Sec. 4.4.1 that "[s]topping sight distance is measured from the
driver's point of view, which is considered to be 3.5 feet above the road surface, to an
object's height of 2 feet."
Upon further analysis of the proposed access point and the site visibility requirement (as
set forth in the Weld County Engineering and Construction Criteria), there is no question that the
site visibility requirement is met. Based upon measurements and photographs, it is clear that
from the proposed new access point you can see (looking to the south) an object 3.5 feet above
the road surface well beyond the mailbox (as used in the Public Works' analysis) and even well
beyond a point that is 450 feet from the proposed new access point.
Ms. Gabbert's analysis is incomplete and incorrect. Ms. Gabbert claims the farthest item
visible to the south from the proposed access is the mailbox, thereby giving her a stopping sight
distance of only 290 feet. However, the surface gradient levels -out where the mailbox is located,
thereby allowing an object 3.5 feet above the road surface, viewed from a height of 2 feet above
the road surface at the new access, to be seen at a distance both much further than that found by
Weld County Board of County Commissioners
Attn: Esther Gesick
January 11, 2018
Page 3
Ms. Gabbert and more than sufficient to meet the 450 feet stopping sight distance requirement.
Consequently, the Public Works' denial of the variance was without proper basis or justification.
As an aside, it is clear from Mrs. Streeks conversations with Ms. Gabbert, that Ms.
Gabbert, for whatever reason, does not "approve of' the recorded subdivision exemption process
and believes it should be discontinued. Ms. Gabbert also seems to be of the position that,
regardless of whether the site/safety and other criteria are met, there should be no net new access
points permitted — ever. While Ms. Gabbert is entitled to her policy opinions, this should not
dictate whether specific, written criteria are met when a property owner submits a request for
variance.
As required by Weld County Code Sec. 2-4-10 (as specified in Sec. 12-5-130), we
respectfully request a hearing with the Board of County Commissioners within 15 days of your
receipt of this complaint/appeal letter. Please confirm in writing your receipt of this letter and
your intent to schedule the requested hearing within the time -frame required.
You may contact me if you have any questions or require further information along these
lines.
Sincerely,
HOFFMAN CREWS DIES
WAGGENER & FOSTER LLP
Nicole R. Nies
Attachment
cc: Ms. Heidi Streeks
Esther Gesick
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Teresa Staples <tstaples@hcnwf-law.com>
Thursday, January 11, 2018 3:25 PM
Esther Gesick
Nicole Nies; Taylor Claassen; bhstreeks@gmail.com
Complaint/Appeal - 268 County Road 53, Keenesburg, CO 80643
Appeal Letter - 1.11.18.pdf
Dear Ms. Gesick,
The attached letter is being sent to you at the request of Nicole R. Nies, Esq.
Kindly acknowledge receipt of this email.
Thank you,
Teresa
Teresa M. Staples, Paralegal
Hoffman Crews Nies Waggener & Foster LLP
5350 S. Roslyn St. I Suite 100 I Greenwood Village, CO 80111
(T) 303.860.7140 I (D) 720.390.3456 I (F) 303.860.7344
tstapleshcnwf-law.com I www.hcnwf-law.com
High Integrity. Experienced Counsel.
Think green before printing
z.Ztvnra s _ ..crmr.�m :ceettrrammxvn.raamw a+xenaalttnr osesty xrassa.au . sass:m.szrexessaa zaa=mer
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the
employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be
privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Any accounting, business or tax advice contained in this communication, including attachments and enclosures, is not intended as a thorough, in-depth analysis of specific issues, nor a substitute for a
formal opinion, nor is it sufficient to avoid tax -related penalties. If desired; Hoffman Crews Nies Waggener & Foster LLP would be pleased to perform the requisite research and provide you with a detailed
written analysis. Such an engagement may be the subject of a separate engagement letter that would define the scope and limits of the desired legal, tax, or general consultation services.
1.
a�
HACKSTAFFA: SNOW
TORN3
January 11, 2018
VIA KMAIL
Weld County Public Works
Attn: Ms. Morgan Gabbert
1111 II St.
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632-0758
Re:
File No.:
Address:
Subject:
Dear Ms. Gabbert:
Request for Variance
RECX17-0107
268 County Road 53, Keenesburg, CO 80643
Supplemental Information on Variance
J. Aaron Atkinson, F-K;sq.
as@hackstafflaw.com
(303) 534 — 4317
Please note for your files that we represent Ms. Streeks in regards to supplementing the information my client
has already submitted to Public Works in regards to her approved recorded exemption. I understand that
Public Works has requested more information in regards to the request for an additional, shared access point
for this property. My representation of Ms. Streeks is limited to this issue.
On August 31St, you requested that Ms. Streeks elaborate on the hardship or justification for the new access
point in accordance with Weld County Amendment section 12-5-120. Please note that this section calls for
identification of "hardship or just f cation for the variance" (emphasis added), and Ms. Streeks would like to
offer information supportive of both these criteria.
First, the new, shared access point will better serve the property and surrounding area as it wiT allow Ms.
Streeks the abi'ity to properly secure her livestock in the fields of the western section of her property. As you
know, the property is currently zoned for this purpose and Ms. Streeks has utlized her property for ranching
for some time now. The new access point will be guarded off by a fence that will allow her to continue
ranching without possibility that the livestock wiT either escape and cause traffic and other problems, and
ensure the safety of those traveling to lot B along the new roadway.
While the new access point will allow better security and safety for both lots A and B, there will be virtually
zero impact upon local traffic. The exemption has only afforded Ms. Streeks the abiity to partition her
property into two lots not a multitude of lots where many residents might ultimately reside and therefore
the possibilities of heavy traffic along this section will be extraordinarily low. The proposed new access point
is therefore well within the Weld County Kngineering and Construction Criteria set forth in Appendix 12-A.
io.akczv^''.;ra'`.rr"°u.V.L.A"^' ^'.Ya' .,J'..1:'''iSro. .e..;'",.:Nas"^ii.C�,.u`" ,:o.:v%wtz.rvu.. aEX%la'rfsa "X34: ^'^n,eltai,z°�3 �.ts�u^.,n.:5.:'.3z"Sti P%Ff:sctedsas..w.eh.v-7V;.•,n -,.,..
ncnsxxcaaacraxax=rzr [IMP w.w,mated:Aaaviceue=nnacasrM+nnsxISxm.971.:..,.mayax:uxurSCAtxr•—,.»re�vX=rt.x^.roisu:umansoasavnr....:
a,f4
'iirdia ter a^�°tY�r ttu..r t^r.•..... s;.: w" zeli"< �-t_o,54.J;.::...,,,"., _--rT r—Lt,F_`-".T"2'. ". '.. ^affA;•n✓"'r"_.exC;..it"r.n"""ee.�b',,.__Ce..."'"."tS"".,/=ti„^'*.... 'r..�5,
rr—n z-J='Jrax-snm 3... ., x -^na m�r...n—^-v as—� a_x_x . 7:71(rrtitC5=====
1601 Blake Street, Suite 310, Denver, CO 80202 ph. 303.534.4317 fax. 303.534.4309
www.hackstafflaw.com
Likewise, the current design of the new, shared access point borders the adjoining property and allows access
to the expansive, 65 -acre lot B along the eastern portion of the parcel. This design minimalizes any negative
impacts while maximizing the ability to access the outlying portions of the parcel efficiently. Because the
access point does not tie into any other roadway along the eastern border of the property, there is no risk of
increased or congested traffic through this area by other vehicles.
The ability of having two access points is also not foreign to this area. Across County Road 53 is an oil
operation, which currently has two access points in the shape of a "U" for its owner.
In short, given the ranching operation and the possibilities of damage and injury from unsecured livestock,
there would be great hardship in disallowing the additional, shared access point requested by Ms. Streeks. On
the other hand, there would be no negative impact to the traffic or local area by the additional access point.
At present, Weld County has approved the recorded exemption subject to final approval of the additional
access point. Ms. Streeks has paid all fees and costs necessitated by this processs and would like approval of
Public Works in order to finalize her property plans.
You may contact me if you have any questions or require further information along these lines.
Regards,
J. Aaron Atkinson
JAA/
cc: Ms. Heidi Streeks
1601 Blake Street, Suite 310, Denver, CO 80202 ph. 303.534.4317 fax. 303.534.4309
www.hackstafflaw.com
Lot A - approx. 4 acres
Exhibit D
Lot B - approx. 65.35
MAI Hi NMI
RECORDED EXEMPTION No_ I ,_,-33-3-RE-2601
THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTrfVYE: r t 4 Ci" SEG ti' .33
TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 4r,,,#.''I4 or, 174E 6th PM.
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
39S WCR53 ai
CONTAINS
LOT B
CONTAINS 69.96 ACRES,
NOTE
AWE HE IRiCEFEANTY — ADJOINING LAND OWNERS
CL MAY ADA LAND S ERAN DEED Let NO THE
DElTA FENCE
pateIMME!iit4Al, An
.t.i r
li!%i1
Ii
4,1.5 ix,
Oar rr **nee ellgt
&AUa .Wryy
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
MN
A
AU
SEC 32
- AREA OF UYCERTAIMY
#Sh?5YFYMERD IA. IN
!4A.8awt�
+aaN#Rstaf ZGMKP &NO
EA
NI
SEC 28
HEAD A
CONTROL MONUMENT DIAGRAM
NOT TO SCALE
t
CONTROL MONUMENT DESCRIPTIONS
FLL
4T7 IAT!OH tA�anit'�i'_ _ .+e t.. Iv... eA nxY..uY5u upo ir3 ,a
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS USED FOR THIS SURVEY
L 'XG •.Pr,Y. r.
S =LEZT=....'. E
wi
3) 1
•
,i., • ..�1.-.•`'•••...4.c.:•.-
�, fir.. s�
r-: ..,4 n►- S. a.
.•� �ar4 •„ „a - . , • _� - a lest.r•Il• -or
ttt
l✓ l►•_ • �• '•..C Vii` - a -s %:
rt
ri a a.- - -•.-.. - - a
Y
L •
- A.F -
r
Sr w_
•
.a} Or. at.
.�
_r - a •
��►ac
;Asia? dote
beeier
\
A
w
• •
•
..•� - • F -- .•+ S
f
- t
tint s•
s
• A-
f.1 • •S -
kn.
tai
1 •
•
' • : {y ma a• 'ky
w atiiai1 --.A 8 . r •
`ate "� . : le
in+ at. „
-. ii s rr. • �..
41
-
V
ra
_i
.• r
:
10
!'.
• �-
4
♦ .
a1.
•
'4- . •:" f'
a •
\
.-.
alrr .
J '
•
" ▪ -
▪ • •
re. w
I
4 •
< • a
ar
t • �. \ is I
--ll `5•• .•
a • iA
r Y r� w
. - -• ••firs -4
et
i
s. •Mr
• ••
:•
•- ♦ •.... Y: a. -_w
• - - i _•c -
• • ire i� ri
1' - - . .
Ir.;
Ai •; `-ry+"4•y ,,1,0 �L1..•• • •yam- _j . el" ijikil a: •
. � • w - a - - • •
O -,• -
...
. • • ,r.
w. a
•-i-4' -�
4•••• •. •
► ..
4
O
011� :
•.
•
•
•
'-"ea „ •••-
w
_
•
• ti •_s. SO
JJc�
•
.• •
•
• L.
•
•
a
a a • V •
ir
r� -
✓ .1 , 191*
• .
• - . ' I _r • r
•
.r
1
•
S.
►' 4 Y
•
•
- •
.• a_
•
•I a•
• 1•
A.
S •
P• ..t ••
%A r •
v. ) ,c-
,........
•.
• r
v•
!� r•
•
A IA VA
e
a.
S.
•
c
•
•
1
▪ •
}
I
MUM
} ,.
•• • t'. ,f 1•i
a
4pJ
‘4. • • 4
t
4
• .� • �' •
,/ �••
• .If
£.4 •
I.t
•-
a
r•
• .
•
�. •
• J • - . •. ,I
4 A
i
• •
f. - 1 w •
• .of , •r•
• ••
\ 1 v
\\ 1
)� . T 4 • • •
7•w r '.
1 •C• i . ,uty• • • • • I • -. is a % 4 •
.• „4,-;• •
Sc•
, , pp
•
••
•
•
•s•
•
f • ,r .
.
•,
•
•
I
•
a
•
4
A • .
Ore
r
..'
•
a .
.. •
I
•
:S
•
-1
• '
•
I •
a 4-
•
L tie
♦ /
lip
F. AS
i • •
Z•;•
I
•• •
•.
♦ I -
a-
•
! J l G
r
.2
•
•
1
•
•
•
1
1
1
•
1 •
1 1
•
•
•
•
• •
e
•
{ 1 1 •
•
1 1 t 1 1` •
l it 1 I I { i t, •
1 t I 1 t, 1 •
t•
1 I I I ► I v c
1 , f 1 1 t 3 1 1
�� .� I 1 Otis a 1 I
1 I 1 I I t a 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 '
' 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 f f 1 1 i
1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I...4
1 t I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 `
1 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I ‘
1 1 I I I I 1 ,..,
I 1 1 1 I I I I
1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1
I I 1 I I I I
41 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1i
1 1 1 1 1 I I I I t i;
1
1 k
1 1 1
1 1 1t
1 1
t 1
1 1
1
t
1 1 1
1
1
t
1 1 1 1 5 1 11 1 1
1 1
1
1 I
1
1
1
1 1 1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Corp'
1 I
1
1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
I I
1 ` 1
1
t
1 1 1 1
I t 1 1 1
1
-1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I I
1
i
1
1
1
t
i
C
1
1
1 t
1 I 1 4
1
I
1
•
410
40,
41,
or
O N
row
73G
Hello