The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About881385.tiff Total Engineering Service 4.2k 4415 W. 9th Street e/ �, Greeley, CO 80634 \ li` (303) 351 -8744 Vin, ,-c cis October 3, 1988 .� • Mr. Gene Drantner ,f T°,Y,�,n t� ":': "V- Chairman Weld County Commissioners P.O. Box 758 .43 z„2,1988,„ Greeley, ; '"r4 y CO 80632 r qti y.aop,r GctEfl.c."f. ct.;..-. Dear Commissioner Brantner: I am writing this letter to inform the Weld County Commissioners of a situation that I have found very distressing. This letter is written not to create problems or blame any of the Planning Staff, but simply to inform the Commissioners and Chuck Cunliff that some of the information being provided to Consultants, as myself, is sometimes misleading and may be causing undue hardship. 1 was recently contacted to resubdivide Lot 8 of Geisert Industrial P.U.D. in Weld County. Prior to submitting a proposal to the client, I reviewed the regulations and found the proposed resubdivision would create two lots with a length to width ratio greater than three to one, therefore requiring a variance to the subdivision regulations. I met with Lanell Curry to determine what would be required from the County Planning Department to ensure that I properly discussed the full scope of work required in my proposal to my client. Due to the peculiar nature of the variance, Lanell verified the procedure with Chuck Cunliff. Chuck informed Lanell that a written request would be required and reviewed by the County Commissioners not requiring a public hearing. The variance would be rather quick and uninvolved unless the Commissioners denied the request and at that point, the applicant could request a public hearing. Upon submitting the formal request, I discussed the procedure with Rod Allison who also had to take the request to Chuck Cunliff to verify the procedure. Once again, Chuck informed Rod that the request would be determined rather quickly by the County Commissioners without a public hearing. A couple days after submitting the request, Lanell contacted me to request additional copies to be submitted for the referrals that were to be sent out. Lanell also stated that the referral agencies would have fifteen days for reviewing the material and a public hearing would be set up after that. iT813d5 Total Engineering Service 4'116., 4415 W. 9th Street Greeley, CO 80634 (303) 351 -8744 Commissioner 8rantner Page Two October 3, 1988 I submitted the variance request on September 8, 1988 and em scheduled to be heard on October 5, 1988 in a public hearing before the County Commissioners. This variance request that was described by Chuck Cunliff, to two different staff members two different times, to take approximately one week has taken nearly one month. I arranged the pre-application meeting to ensure the information provided to my client was accurate and complete. I have always had a good rapport with the Planning Department and my client chose my services based on this rapport. Total Engineering Service's credibility has been injured by this incident and it is my understanding that the client has discussed completing this project with other engineers. Not only has this created a hardship for Total Engineering Service for additional hours spent that cannot be billed, but this has delayed the proposed project into the Winter months and depending on the weather perhaps into the Spring. I do understand that the permitting process should commence prior to the date started, however it did appear that my client could commence construction in 1988 as the process was originally described by the Planning Department. I apologize for taking so much of your time to review this letter. However, I do feel this is a situation that could have been avoided with the proper information from Chuck Cunliff. I know I will be more reluctant to request pre-application meetings with the Planning Department in the future. If this situation has occurred to other Consultants in the past then this is creating a detriment to the credibility of the Planning Department. Sincerely, TOTAL ENGINEERING SERVICE 4c2e, Tom Cope, P.E. cc: Chuck Cunliff 1i4, ;r . . . .. ,dwi it1,•n warrant 14,421.61 »vro11 `,mmiasi,,ner lacy moved to approve the warrants as presented by ur. Hanes, Commissioner Kirby seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1 ;S• D: CONSIDER VARIANCE - TOTAL ENGINEERING SERVICE (CONT. FROM � 10/05) : Tom Cope, representing the applicant, came forward and '" ,. withdrew this request for a variance. He said another application will be submitted at a later date. ':FU': CONSIDER WAIVING 45-DAY REQUIREMENT FOR JUNE M. FAUDOA, DEA LA GARRA BAR, CONCERNING TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE WITH EXTENDED HOURS: Bruce Barker, Assistant County Attorney, said Ms. Paudoa's current license will expire October 16, but due to various problems, Ms. Faudoa was not able to renew within the 45-day period. Mr. Barker recommended that the Board waive the 45-day requirement and give Ms. Faudoa a letter allowing her to continue operating her establishment until the renewal request is returned from the State. June Faudoa vas neither present nor represented. Commissioner Kirby moved to waive the 45-day requirement for June M. Faudoa concerning the renewal request for a Tavern Liquor License with extended hours. Seconded by Commissioner Lacy, the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDER RENEWAL REQUEST FOR TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE WITH EXTENDED ED HOURS FROM JUNE M. FAUDOA, DBA LA GARRA: Sgt. Charley representing the Sheriff's Office, said there have been no liquor violations at this establishment within the past year. Mr. Barker said he recommended approval of this renewal request, with the conditions which were imposed last year. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the Tavern Liquor License with extended hours for June M. Faudoa, dba La Cerra, subject to the conditions which were imposed on the previous renewal. Commissioner Kirby seconded the motion which carried unanimously. CONSIDER RESOLUTION RE: APPOINTMENTS AND REAPPOINtntKIS TO FAIR BOARD: Commissioner Lacy moved to approve this Resolution concerning the appointment of Dorothy Bates and Ron Ethos, and the reappointment of Dan McCance, Don Norgren, Herman Libsack, Raymond Carplo, and Curt Johnston to the Pair Board, with their terms to expire October 31, 1991. The motion, which vas seconded by Commissioner Kirby, carried unanimously. RESOLUTIL'INS AND ORDINANCES: The Resolutions were presented and signed as listed on the consent agenda. There were no Ordinances. t Let the minutes reflect that the above end foregoing actions ion were attested to and respectfully submitted by the Acting to the Board. Minutes - October 10, 1988 rage 901.`90 8.0 61:42a Lt-- Pub DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES (� PHONE(303)356-4000 EXT.4400 ( - 915 10th STREET •y GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 I C. COLORADO ti October 5, 1988 tJ Board of County Commissioners 915 Tenth Street Centennial Building �f/lV1 Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Variance from the Lot Size Standards Dear Commissioners: The attached application and related items e in r f rence to a request from Total Engineering Service for a variance f m the of size standards as set forth in the Weld County Subdivisi egula ion . The parcel of land under consideration is described as L t .8, G t ndustrial Planned Unit Development Subdivision (I-3 Unit Dev lop t) , W d County, Colorado. The property is located on East 4th S eet R d, just east of the City of Greeley. The applicant is proposing t divis i of of 8 to allow two lots to be used for industrial purposes. e ere io of the two lots as shown by the applicant would be in v 1 i o ction 8-5 of the Weld County Subdivision Regulations,' whi states: "No lot shall be more than three times as long as it is ide." this eriance application is approved, the applicant will proce with the resu ivision procedure before the lot can be legally divided. Based upon t e submitte ap ication materials and other relevant information reg ding this req est, the Department of Planning Services' staff recommends d ial of thi request. It is the staff's opinion that the applicant has not dem strate that, because of peculiar physical conditions perta ning to this land, th literal enforcement of one or more of the Weld County Subdivision Regul ions is impracticable or will exact undue hardship Lot 8 as prop ed by the original applicant included a 2. 1 to 1 ngth t width ratio. This elongated lot was approved by the Board of u Com issioners as part of the subdivision. It is the staff's opinion th t he division of this lot, which would include a 4 to 1 length to wid ratio, would n t be within the intent of the subdivision regulations uld not be c patible with the existing lots in Geisert Subdivision. ra Total Engineering October 5, 1988 Page 2 The staff has concerns that Sections (E) (1) and (3) as set forth in the resubdivision section of the Weld County Subdivision Regulations could not be met if this variance request is granted. Section (E) (1) states: "No lot or parcel of land shall be created that is less than the minimum requirements for area or dimension as established by these regulations or other applicable ordinances." In addition to not meeting the length to width ratio as set forth in the regulations, the proposal would not meet the area requirement as set forth in the Flood Plains section which states: "No lot one (1) acre or less in area shall include floodlands." This lot is in the floodplain and the applicant's proposal would create two lots, both less than one acre in size. Section (E) (3) states: "The plat shall not be altered in any way which will adversely affect the character of the plat filed." It is the staff's opinion that the alteration of Lot 8 in the manner proposed would adversely affect the character of the approved plat of Geisert Subdivision and that the proposed lots would be incompatible with the previously approved lots. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services' staff that this variance request is not within the general purpose and intent of the rules, regulations and standards established by the Weld County Subdivision Regulations. Respectfully submitted, Lane11�J�`E6rry Current Planner LJC:dn r � FIELD CHECK DATE OF INSPECTION: September 27, 1988 NAME: Total Engineering Service REQUEST: Variance from the lot size standards as set forth in the Weld County Subdivision Regulations. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 8, Geisert Industrial Planned Unit Development Subdivison, Weld County, Colorado, (I-3 Unit Development) . LOCATION: On the south side of East 4th Street Road, which leaves 1st Avenue to the east. LAND USE: N Herdman Electric E EZ Loader Distributor, Bill's Tire and Service S Large metal building, wood storage W U.S. Welding, 1st Avenue ZONING: N I-3 Unit Development E I-3 Unit Development S C-1 (Commercial) W I-3 Unit Development COMMENTS: Access to this lot is from East 4th Street Road, which is paved. Lot 8 is currently in weeds and natural vegetation and is flat. This subdivision is in the flood plain. B ell Curry (tiLV t� a ell Cur Current Planner Total Engineering Service Al& 4415 W. 9th Street Greeley, CO 80634 (303) 351 -8744 September 8, 1988 Mr. Gene Brantner Chairman Weld County Commissioners P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Commissioner Brantner_ Please find enclosed a proposed map and a Plat of a Survey for Lot 8 of Geisert Industrial P.U.D. Subdivision. Recently this lot was sold to Bristol Productions, Inc. with the intent to resubdivide the lot. The resubdivision will allow two lots to be used for industrial purposes compatible with existing uses in the subdivision. The site is located just east of Highway 85 by-pass and north of 5th Street. The adjacent site to the west is US Welding. The creation of the two lots as shown will be in violation of Section 8-5, paragraph A of the Subdivision Regulations which describes a three to one length to width ratio shall not be exceeded. At this time we would like to request a variance from this regulation to allow the creation of the lots as shown on the plan provided. Any attempt to resubdivide the lots in any other manner would create a hardship to the owners of these lots and/or adjacent lot owners. Reasonable access to the lots could not be provided with any other alignment of the lots. An access easement is shown of the Survey Plat along the south property line. Access along this easement would require crossing adjacent lands which may interfere with their business therefore creating a hardship. Also, the necessary utilities are presently installed in East 4th Street Road. We hope you will agree to the variance as described above. The owners intend to proceed with a resubdivision application as soon as receiving the variance requested. 1 have also been in contact with the Planning Staff concerning the resubdivision application. Total Engineering Service 4415 W. 9th Street Greeley, CO 80634 (303) 351 -8744 Commissioner Brantner Page Two September 8, 1988 Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions conerning this matter. Sincerely, TOTAL ENGINEERING SERVICE 4,72-e D'�iYL Tom Cope, RE cc_ File 88-125 Bristol Productions, Inc. Greeley Machine and Welding • . '-' . %_. - . , 7 . ; Lilt Fo ) 1h -.y`\. S7j•/7. ��'0 ,.f. eta/ �a �I I os••�" p w, 4Qbod s 1� /46! Ili 4B q \ N. Wp t • Sco/e: /'•50• �rL s/ , c II round \ Ll �� C 1:14-n get y? / .I13J 6'56'57'05'Ey `/ b � Ce24. 76' {R• 50' I Lo>< 8 v I s a /.92oc. Ih) • I • I • oli I M � • N LI W . s1 • co to .5 ' clo 14 Q I N Legal Description Lot 8 • 00 � I IQ1 GCISERT INDUSTRIAL P. U. 0. 0 . • N I Weld County, Colorado N OI 20Vi•/:'fy, Oralnasei Onion./ y Eocen+i�f Access EaSPmen{ •o S87' 52' 00-id 2/4. 00' .Z. bb..., L.ylf: PONA C•. Caawma'nf N�wowumyy SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATEo^• t9n a'7'Q% 1. I do hereby certify that, under ow personal supervision, "''" this plat and legal description were prepared and that the (.4-t( 661 6 1 corner monuments indicated hereon were properly placed , ley, during an actual and accurate survey of the land completed yr;°f g,. r;' on January II, 190e.� Q`el;F cot°:�"' Gerald •D.Y/Mc'RRR.'e,, Professional Engineer anJ Land Surveyor, Colorado Reg. No. GC16 AicRAE & SHORT,INC. 1227. Od(Avonuo Greolay, Colorado 80611 8400 REFERRAL LIST APPLICANT: Total Engineering Services CASE NUMBER: None SENT REFERRALS OUT: September 9, 1988 REFERRALS TO BE RECEIVED BY: September 16, 1988 NO SR NR NO SR NR County Attorney ✓ X Weld County Health Dept. X Engineering Department County Extension Agent Office of Emergency Mngmt Ed Barring State Engineer Division of Water Resources 1313 Sherman St . , Room 818 Denver, CO 80203 State Highway Department P.O. Box 850 Greeley, CO 80632 Colorado Department of Health Water Quality Control Division 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, CO 80220 City of Greeley Planning Department 1000 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Tri Area Planning Commission P.O. Box 363 Frederick, CO 80530 Historical Society of Colorado Historic Preservation State History Museum 1300 Broadway Denver, CO 80203 NO=No Objection SR=Specific Recommendations NR®No Response u n O _ vat '1/41 DEPARTMr" OF PLANNING SERVICES res \ ( PHONE(303)356-4000 EXT.4400 915 10th STREET GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 WilDe COLORADO 1 4 ';88 September 9, 1988 l: :s ___.... .._ _... ::i. TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is an application from Total Engineering Service for a variance from the lot size standards as set forth in the Weld County Subdivision Regulations. The parcel of land is described as Lot 8, Geisert Industrial Planned Unit Development Subdivision (1-3 Unit Development) . The location for which this application has been submitted is on East 4th Street Road, just east of the City of Greeley. This application is submitted to your office for review and recommendations. Any comments or recommendations you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of the proposal and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendations. Please reply by September 16, 1988, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Please call Lanell J. Curry, Current Planner, if you have any questions about this referral. Thank you for your help and cooperation in this matter. Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above. 1. We have reviewed this request and find that the request (does/does not) comply with our Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons. 2. We do not have a Comprehensive Plan, but we feel this request (is/is not) compatible with the interests of our town for the following reasons: 3. We have reviewed the proposal and find no conflicts with our interests. 74C 60f-et re-Ice, S[v,[( Lice T e Gveofr.7 Mua «ip?-C Se We-✓ 1-4042-4-..., 4. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted to you prior to: 5. Please fer to the enclosed letter. r1 Signed: ;' A(6 Agency: Date: 9 - 7-3- 1/ SEP 2 6 1988 11 - ----Ct. Weld de. Plan gommissiee • ref. & DEPART' " T OF PLANNING SERVICES It 44„„, PHONE(303)356400 15 10 h T.STREET O L 10th O801 GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 WUDc COLORADO September 9, 1988 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is an application from Total Engineering Service for a variance from the lot size standards as set forth in the Weld County Subdivision Regulations. The parcel of land is described as Lot 8, Geisert Industrial Planned Unit Development Subdivision (I-3 Unit Development) . The location for which this application has been submitted is on East 4th Street Road, just east of the City of Greeley. This application is submitted to your office for review and recommendations. Any comments or recommendations you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of the proposal and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendations. Please reply by September 16, 1988, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Please call Lanell J. Curry, Current Planner, if you have any questions about this referral. Thank you for your help and cooperation in this matter. Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above. 1. We have reviewed this request and find that the request (does/does not) comply with our Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons. cm ,con We do not have a Comprehensive Plan, but we feel this request s v (is/is not) compatible with the interests of our town for the following reasons: o. .o 3 m xWe have reviewed the proposal and find no conflicts with our © interests. Ccx,,iL1 Ace-, nrk mca'.c\rG. n E, 4`" Si. ecc4 4. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted to you prior to: 5. le er to the enclosed letter. Signed: Agency: F--R I ` 1 c t d n J Date: 9- 15-3 , Hello