HomeMy WebLinkAbout931134.tiff NELSON ENGINEERS
o
822 7TH STREET GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 (303)356-6362
July 6, 1993
Ms. Connie Harbert
Chairperson
Weld County Board of County Commissioners
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
Subject: Weld County Zoning Ordinance, Paragraph 28 .15. 5
Dear Connie,
The requirement to obtain an extension annually for a PUD
District seems to be cumbersome for both Weld County and a
property owner who plans to develop his property in conformance
with the County requirements. This letter is submitted to
discuss the issue and to request that the Board of Commissioners
review its workability and beneficiality for the citizens of Weld
County.
For any landowner to start a plan is a major gamble because there
is no assurance that a PUD will be granted until plans are
complete. He must be serious to even start the process. There
are far more negative influences than positive as one progresses
to the PUD approval stage. An applicant must satisfy over 20
agencies, untold numbers of citizenry, and organized units
generally opposed to any change and simply opposed to growth or
development of any kind. There is every reason for development
and growth to avoid Weld County and go elsewhere to a more
acceptable climate.
An applicant for a PUD zone can spend as much as 8 months to more
than a year at a cost of as much as $10, 000 in fees for legal ,
engineering, agency reviews, submittals, in addition to special
services such as soils investigations, geologic studies, wetland
evaluations, road agreements, and/or traffic studies.
Yet the engine of America, each state, each county (and of course
Weld County) runs on private enterprise and the entrepreneurial
output of the doers who create developmental activity. They do
this against an increasing amount of odds.
PL0864
Cilb //C3 931134
CC ; dfri
PA-0 5it4,/
I don't understand the reluctance of the planning staff to make a
recommendation regarding extension of a P.U.D. I further do not
understand the apparent reluctance of the Planning Commission to
approve an extension of a P.U.D., especially when the extension
can enhance growth and development and improve the Weld County
tax base with all costs of creating the tax base an obligation of
the developer. I wonder if the individual members really
understand what a landowner is gambling to try to obtain a P.U.D.
An extension of a P.U.D. is not a cost to the taxpayer of Weld
County. Thus there is no downside for Weld County but rather
only upside results, so the matter of time does not seem to have
an overbearing significance. Growth and develpment need not be
placed in an adversarial position. It should be one of positive
cooperation.
For all these reasons, I question, as I believe many in the
development business question, the advisability of Paragraph
28.15.5 and 28.15.6 of the zoning ordinance requiring a review of
each P.U.D. each year. At the rate development can occur at this
juncture in time due to required endless public input and
reviews, one year is an inordinately short time to accomplish any
kind of development. That requirement of extension approval is
not only a burden for a developer but it creates an unnecessary
workload on both planning staff and commission. Further, a
denial by the planning commission can lead to extensive time
involvement by the developer and worse yet , the County
Commissioners and its legal staff to justify denial. To my
knowledge, any other type of zoning in Weld County does not carry
the requirement of an annual review and approval.
The Commissioners should extend the P.U.D. review time to at
least every two years or preferably every 5 years. Or best of
all, arrange to treat a P.U.D. as any other zoning classification
with unlimited time. The cost to Weld County is not increased by
a zone change, and the county, through its ordinances, continues
to maintain control over any and every act of development that
occurs on a rezoned property, whenever it happens. Weld County,
too, is in a position to receive additional tax base resulting
from controlled development.
I will be happy to discuss this issue with you and/or the
Commissioners if you desire.
Respectfully,
0
a ern C. Nelson, P.E.
NELSON ENGINEERS
356-6362 '8
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 (303)
822 7TH STREET
Nelson Engineers Fax No. 356-6486
Date: 7/9/93 Project No. : 116 . 1
Edson
To: Mr . Bill Webster
Project Name:
We are transmitting: herewith X ; under separate cover
via facsimile , facsimile number
Number of Copies Description or Remarks
1 of 2 page letter Copy of letter from Vern
Nelson to Jack Edson
regarding PUD extension ,
dated 6/30/93 .
No exceptions taken As requested
Make corrections noted For approval
Amend and resubmit XX For your records
Rejected - Resubmit
As indicated on each submittal
Respectfully,
NELSON ENGINEERS
‘t( 0:C0&1A--
LaVern C. Nelson , P. E.
LCN/
/3
v-7/,
CC : PG , irk
4,62 v( /R-
NELSON ENGINEERS
822 7TH STREET GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 (303) 356-6362
June 30, 1993
Mr. Jack E. Edson Job 116.1
1482 Leisure World
Mesa, AZ 85206-2307
RE: Edson P.U.D.
Dear Jack,
This letter is to inform you that the P.U.D. has been extended
for one year as requested of the Weld County Planning Commission
on June 15, 1993. The approval for this extension came on an 8
to 0 vote, though it seemed that individually the members were
reluctant to approve the extension. The planning commission
members seemed to be saying that for them to extend, they had to
see concrete evidence of your pursuit of development of a final
plat and the ultimate use of the P.U.D. One member asked for
written evidence of negotiations between you and the neighbor. I
explained that I had first-hand knowledge of those negotiations
because I was representing both parties in that discussion. I
believe that satisfied their concerns. Another member thought
that extending the water line was no big deal since the district
probably has an extension agreement whereby the first user or
installer would be reimbursed proportionally by subsequent users.
I informed the board that that may be true; however, the front
end investment for the water line was rather large and that there
was no assurance of any return on a reimbursed basis since the
first user has no control or authority over the next users.
Chuck Cunliffe, the Director of Weld County Planning seemed
almost IMINIMIgall, indifferent with respect to the request for an
extension. He had no recommendation when asked for one, by one
of the Planning Commission members. My opinion is that staff
would and should have a recommendation on an issue of this sort.
I was particularly disturbed by the fact that Planning Commission
member Bud Clemons voted last with a qualified yes, but said
that if this issue comes up again next year, he would definitely
vote against it. That is premature judgement of an issue which,
in my opinion, is unwarranted at this time. In fact I believe it
may be reason to request that he abstain from any future review
because of that pre-judgement statement. It may even be cause to
have him relieved of his appointment by the County Commissioners
if they are informed of his actions. I do intend to discuss this
matter with - at least one of the County Commissioners at an
appropriate time.
I don't understand why it is apparently so difficult for the
Planning Commission to approve an extension of a P.U.D. The
alternative is to disapprove, with abandonment of the P.U.D. as
the result. There must be a no-growth attitude prevailing in the
Commission; otherwise the Planning Commission members would be
anxious to approve an extension to enhance growth and development
and improve the Weld County tax base without any expense to the
County.
The procedure for extension provides that the Planning Commission
can approve or disapprove the request. If it approves, the added
time is usually one year. If the Planning Commission
disapproves, then the applicant is entitled to a hearing before
the County Commissioners. To this time, hearings before the
Commissioners have been rare or not at all, so it is difficult to
predict the attitude of that body. Incidentally, enforcing this
paticular paragraph of the Ordinances is just now being
accomplished. Legal advice is probably wise at the Commission
hearing stage because to disallow extension surely requires
" just , probable cause. " Legally it would seem that the
advantages are with the applicant, since proving no progress
would seemingly be very difficult.
The county requirements of extension requests annually for a
P.U.D. is definitely unfair and unjust and should be removed from
the statutues. No other zoning category in Weld County requires
annual review that I am aware of.
I have obtained a copy of the minutes of the meeting and am
sending a copy along to you. The minutes do not relate all the
discussions that occurred; however they do relate the pertinent
and, in my opinion, inappropriate comments of Bud Clemons.
Record tapes of the proceedings do exist and could be reviewed if
you desire.
Your next door neighbor to the east, Hiatt, has submitted a
sketch plan to Weld County as of May 18. Comments from reviewing
agencies are past due now, since the review period ended June 18.
Anyway, activity on that site should be renewed soon. That
obviously means a rezoning request will be submitted, followed by
arranging for utilities, grading, and accesses. There are
certain issues that could be beneficially accomplished jointly
between you and Hiatt. I would suggest that you begin a dialogue
with Hiatt to arrange for common utilities and grading.
I also strongly suggest that you keep a written record of any
discussions, agreements or otherwise, in an effort to build a
case should another P.U.D. extension request be needed. Either
Art Uhrich or I can assist with these negotiations , as you
desire, and as we may be needed.
I apologize for the length of this letter. However, I felt
compelled to inform you of the attitudes and problems that we
face with respect your P.U.D. and the various reviewing agencies,
rather than simply telling you that the extension request was
approved. I will try to keep you informed of the status of the
Hiatt P.U.D. request. If you have any questions please call me.
Respectfully,
NELSON ENGINEERS
LaVern . Nelson
pc: Jake Edson
11623 Quivas Circle
Westminster, CO 80234
Hello