Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout991613.tiff CORRESPOND H;NCE RESPONSE .. DEPARTMENT OF 1 -� -} f ICE n a 1‘.. * * * PLEASE RESPOND WITHIN THREE DAYS.* * * IF RESPONSE WILL BE DELAYED, PLEASE NOTIFY "CTB GROUP" BY E-MAIL OF EXPECTED DATE FOR RESPONSE. RECOMME.\ ICED ACTEON: Narrative: $reps", \A itd ell- , n Lrett&r lawcc ‘"$, v3a-1,.0 * o - A-�n‘ S — a rtnc1.911\ \°\ be. sc>Mc�.4ad KrepS Weld ounty Planning Dept. JUN 24 1999 RECEIVED METHOD OF RESPONSE: Board Action Work Session - Letter (Attached) - Telephone Call f esponse (explain) MUD Depart nt Head Signature M. CAROL\OPMAN\RDCOMP2 dana,vsaiencyfx_ 991613 4u i 111 l ' WIEDEMAN ' " ^� r i I^: ?J AUCTIONEERS & REAL ESTATE, INC. - June 22, 1999 Board of Weld County Commissioners Greeley, CO This letter is being written to give you a brief summary of the events and happenings which have taken place regarding the David & Shirley Dewey property -- Lot A& B of Amended Recorded Exemption 1982, recorded July 30, 1997 in Book 1618, Reception #2560491, being a part of Section 15, Township 6 North, Range 64 West of the 6th P.M. On approx. May 15, 1997 Mr. & Mrs. Dewey contacted me about selling Lot A of RE 1982. After looking at the. plat map, I told the Deweys it was a poor configuration for a building site because it was too long and narrow. I listed the property for sale on April 21, 1997. After several showings, I knew that we would need to do an amended recorded exemption in order to get the property sold. I assisted the Deweys in preparing the amended RE, but Mrs. Dewey submitted the final plat to the Planning Department before I had looked at it. When Mrs. Dewey brought the plat to my office after it had been recorded, I questioned the placement of the building envelope. It was placed on the far northeast corner of the property without any close proximity to utilities and the county road. However, I had talked to a planner earlier regarding building envelopes and was told it should be no problem changing the building envelope by simply submitting a letter requesting the change and the reason for the change. I was satisfied with the explanation and never gave it any more thought. We subsequently sold Lot A. On April 28, 1998 I. listed for sale Lot B. We had shown the property to several prospective buyers including Mr. Waggoner from Johnstown. Apparently, Mr. Waggoner began doing some research on his own and contacted the Planning Department about changing the building envelope. This was done without my knowledge. He never made a verbal or written offer on the property. In fact, he called me and said he was going to continue to look around. On June 22, 1998 Mr. Wayne Howard from Terra West Realty submitted an offer on Lot B from Jack Taylor of Ft. Collins. A final contract was accepted by all parties with a contingency that 928 13th St. • Suite 1 • Greeley, CO 80631 • (970) 356-3943 • Fax(970)356-8344 the building envelope be moved. I relayed to Mr. Taylor what the Planning Dept. had told me about changing the building envelope. On June 25th, I wrote a letter to the Planning Dept. requesting the change. Since I did not hear back from the Planning Dept. nor was I aware that the Deweys had not heard back, I assumed there was no problem. It is my understanding that some time later Mr. Taylor went in to get a building permit to build a barn. He was told it wasn't necessary to have a permit for the barn, and proceeded to build it where he thought the building envelope had been changed to. When he went back to get a permit for the electrical wiring, he was told the barn was in the wrong place. He contacted his Realtor, Wayne Howard, who in turn contacted me. Mr. Taylor and I made an appointment with Eric Jerman of the Planning Dept. to see what had happened. I gave him a copy of the letter with my proposed change for the building site. He agreed to look into the matter and get back with us. On June 1, 1999 Mr. Jerman faxed me a copy of a letter that was sent to Mr. Waggoner on May 29, 1998 approving his request for moving the building envelope on Lot B with the stipulation that the building envelope be adjacent to WCR 55 and Lot A. He also faxed me a copy of a letter he wrote to the Deweys recommending the location of the building envelope where Mr. Waggoner had requested it. Any other changes would be subject to filing an amended recorded exemption. I was totally unaware of the letter to Mr. Waggoner, and couldn't understand why a letter was sent to him, and not the owner of the property since Mr. Waggoner had absolutely no interest in the property. The letter that I had submitted to the Planning Department had no response. I then went back to the Planning Dept. for an explanation. Their response was that it was up to me to have followed up as to why I hadn't received a response. I then contacted Mr. Taylor and he suggested that we present this problem to the County Commissioners. In summary --This letter is not intended to criticize any one planner or the Planning Department. It appears to be a case of miscommunication and errors as follows: 1. The building envelope on the Amended plot map should have been questioned, and a possible recommendation made that it be placed in a more appropriate place. 2. The letter that I had sent to the Planning Dept. requesting the change had no response or reply. Therefore, I assumed there was no problem. 3. The letter that was sent to Mr. Waggoner was sent by mistake, since Mr. Waggoner had no interest in the property. The new owner or previous owner shoud have been notified. The change that Mr. Taylor was requesting was orderly and made good common sense. He placed his barn in the location which he thought was correct. The building was placed away from the county road and away from dirt and noise. It created no major interference with the farm operations. The small portion lying north of his driveway was intended for horse pasture. Considering all the circumstances, it is my opinion that this change should be considered and approved. In conclusion, it is my opinion together with other Real Estate Brokers and surveyors that the building envelope concept should be reconsidered or completely terminated. The reason for our belief is that the person that places the building envelope on the property is not usually the one who will be doing the building. The appropriate location for the building should be decided when the application is made for the building permit. If the decision is made to retain the building envelope concept, I would suggest that a simpler method be arranged for changing it rather than going through an Amended Recorded Exemption as is now required. A letter to the Planning Dept. requesting the change and the reason should be sufficient. If the request is approved by the Planning Dept., the recorded mylar could be amended and re-recorded. Your consideration to this request is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, KREPS WIEDEMfAN AUCTIONEERS & REAL ESTATE, INC. Robert D. Kreps, Broker Encs: Letter to Planning Dept. Map Illustrating Proposed Bldg. Envelope Change Planning Dept. Letter to Waggoner cc: Bruce Barker, Attorney for Weld County Weld County Planning Dept. Jack Taylor, Current Owner of Lot B June 25, 1998 Department of Planning Services Weld County Administrative Offices do Julie Chester 1400 North 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Lot B -- Amended Recorded Exemption#0801-15-2-AM RE1982 Dear Julie: We recently sold this property (closing pending). At the request of the Buyer, he would like the building envelope moved to a different location. I've enclosed a plat map of the amended recorded exemption showing the approximate location of the proposed new building site. The move would be more economical for bringing in the utilities, and it would also be closer to the road access. It would not interfere with the general operation of the farm. Your prompt consideration of this request is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Aar , “Akut /dam Gene Dewey E x aR NOO'08'3O"W o0 o0 Novo6]o•w 2676.45' (M en o -ftL3 - _ - _ __ _ _ N r�.�0 • — ° oo N on y o °o P oj> cc 9, ra�^ r s ti 0 3 rn o R ° �' o .. m p µ �JJ 2 1 �° - v � P g _I. G4CO F °u fO a0 � ° m ^m 3 , , 3 N.o v Cn ! n. 47 z O v A N NOVI w O� n a OW (Au m n • O OV ED u f O a in OP b 9 -f0 i SN P V La !T7 D p�rq O A N Q) O r U A C. A n R Nat R °, m m o aps MOU 0 JO UOIIEaOI 1 aIBUI� Oaddy 1 , I `lj' L' Z Co HOLIQ AIOILdJI2I2II I'IdLYS i".,J, o N e m u y A � G> UU U f A U� AP O •n ^ O O ! C� vm l:f• • G N >q V Nu � r w 45n N O N m O u Vt N n U N b - +N U A U - P — U n R v t' OD P. : .- U 4 r.;q m cl y „ u m m m y P. m y �. P aS O r, 2 al N ; nl 2 alm U P Nu m A 0 R N c. .oQ ooc f— M„ .CI.CON i s N u In 9 m s pU CII 8i° 110 �' O Nco N S. N CO R°� � ''9 '_° N N If 'o cn o U o U ti O / $ a'V N kr co L _ .00toc Y ,� 3"ZSI2Os m (% (': N m m o in O !A C....m Al a. T • U L a re 0 O .n v • '1 ( soary) •L 6'I SO I A i'S.SZ.00S vie inm Kits DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES 119 PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT.3540 FAX (970) 304-6498 k WELD COUNTYGREELIEYINISTRATIVE OFFICES 55 N. 17TH AVENUO E COLORADO June 1, 1999 Mr. David "Gene" Dewey ,.....-_. . . P. O. Box 126 Kersey, CO 80644 RE: Building Envelope for Lot B of AmRE-1982, located in the S2 NW4 Section 15, Township 6 North, Range 64 West of the Th PM, Weld County, CO. Dear Mr. Dewey: The Department of Planning Services has determined that we will support the location of your building envelope adjacent to WCR 55 and Lot A of AmRE-1982 as was originally directed by Planning Staff in a letter to Mr. Waggoner, dated May 29, 1998. In support of the Department of Planning Services Staff decision I would direct you to the following. A.Goal 1 of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan states, "Preserve prime farmland for agricultural purposes which foster the economic health and continuance of agriculture." This land is considered Prime farmland by tt e,USDA Soil Conservation Service map (Weld County, 1979). The Department of Planning Ser 4 es Staff believes that your request to move the building envelope further East and away from WCR 55 would create an "island" of construction surrounded by agricultural uses on Prime farmland. Section 11.4.2.4 of the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance directs Planners to make certain that Recorded Exemption applications demonstrate,"Consistency with the purpose of efficient and orderly development as expressed in Section 1.3 of this Ordinance." Section 1.3.10 of the Subdivision Ordinance reads, "Preserving agricultural land and promoting its most productive agrarian use." Department of Planning Staff believes that the location of the building envelope adjacent to WCR 55 and adjacent to Lot A of AmRE-1982 best suits the intent of A. Goal 1 of the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance and Section 1.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance. I have enclosed the letter to Mr. Waggoner, dated May 29, 1998 from Sheri Lockman, Current Planner. You may apply for a second amendment to AmRE-1982 to move the building envelope, however, given that the Department of Planning Services Staff has reviewed this request twice the result of an amendment may not change the location of the building envelope. You may [The letter is to:} Page 2 request to appeal the administrative decision of the Department of Planning Services staff by going before the Board of County Commissioners. If you wish to pursue this action further with the Board I can arrange to have a date for an appearance before the Board. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me. Sin erply, fi Eric Jerman I1 A Planner PC: George Baxter, Weld County Commissioner Monica Daniels-Mika, Director of Department of Planning Services Julie Chester, Lead Planner DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES HS* Weld County Administrative Offices "MO 1400 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, CO 80631 Phone (970) Fax Ext. 3540 11111141: Fax (970)352.6312 COLORADO May 29, 1998 James Waggoner 23101 WCR 13 Johnstown, CO 80534 Dear Mr Waggoner, The Weld County Planning Staff has reviewed your request to move the building envelope on Lot B Recorded Exemption 1982. Our decision was to approve your request with the stipulation that the new building envelope would be adjacent to WCR 55 and Lot A. We had concerns about the building site being an island in the middle of agricultural use. I have attached a copy of what we had in mind. If you have any further concerns, or want to discuss this further, please call me. Sincerely, 1/7,eit gtociAnce. Sheri Lockman Current Planner Hello