The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20201540.tiffRESOLUTION RE: GRANT APPEAL OF THE DECISION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TO DENY AN ACCESS PERMIT - LARRY AND MICHELLE EHRLICH 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, pursuant to Section 2-4-10 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, submitted by the appellants, Larry and Michelle Ehrlich, and WHEREAS, the Board heard testimony and took evidence from the Department of Public Works staff and the appellants, 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 Larry and Michelle Ehrlich, reverse the decision of the Department of Public Works, and remand the issue back to staff with instruction to issue Access Permit Nos. AP20-00163, AP20-00164, and AP20-00165 referenced in the site diagram marked Exhibit A, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the appeal of Larry and Michelle Ehrlich, be, and hereby is, granted, and the decision of the Department of Public Works is reversed and remanded back to staff with instruction to issue Access Permit Nos. AP20-00163, AP20-00164, and AP20-00165 referenced in Exhibit A. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 20th day of May, A.D., 2020. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO ATTEST: dicett4) „„e ;e1 Weld County Clerk to the Board BY: APP y Attorney Date of signature: 5/29/r-0 Mike Freeman, Chair ine>--Leer Steve I\jbreno, Pro -Tern . James arbara Kirk Kevin D. Ross CG Pw4)(Tt. ! OOt/ ER I C H), Pc. C TP) , C.A C 98), aPPL OCo(aa/aO 2020-1540 EG0078 AP20-00164: Ag access l'Iocated approx. 260ft re north of intersection. RE -3554 LOTB AP20-00163: Ag access located approx. 680ft north of intersection. AP20-00165: Residential access located approx. 190ft east of intersection. Closed Access: Residential access located approx. 90ft north of intersection. Access Element Arterial Collector Local Distance between intersections Signalized 2,640 Unsignalized 1,320 Distance between 660 accesses and intersections N/A N/A 1,320 330 660 330 Distance between 660 330 150 access points Distance between access points in subdivisions 660 330 75 Sec.8.14.30 A. Access to a Single Parcel. Each parcel shall be limited to one (1) access point for safe ingress and egress, which may be an existing or new shared access, except if allowed pursuant to Subsection E., below. E Additional Access. Additional accesses to a parcel may be allowed if they that road. comply with the spacing criteria for EXHIBIT A MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: May 20, 2020 FROM: Tiffnee Lamb, Public Works SUBJECT: Appeal of Access Permit Denial for Larry & Michelle Ehrlich Weld County Public Works received two building permit referrals on February 19, 2020 for address 25041 WCR 60.5 (parcel 096305000046). One of the building permit applications (AGR20-0036) included an access permit for the Ehrlichs c/o PDC for an oil and gas access on the northern portion of the parcel (AP16-00482). Upon further research, the plot plan showed utilizing access points south of this oil and gas access, all of which are unpermitted. Based on this information staff reached out to Mr. and Mrs. Ehrlich via email on February 20th requesting clarification around the oil and gas access permit submittal as well as asking them to submit an access permit for each access they wished to use. On February 24th, Public Works received an email from the Ehrlich's stating they were confused about the requirements regarding the access permit application request and their desire to either set up a meeting or discuss the situation over the phone. A phone call was scheduled in which the access permitting process was explained. Per Weld County Code Section 8.14.30.G: "When an existing access location changes, there is a change in use of the access classification/type, or an increase in the amount of traffic using an access, a new access permit shall be required as a condition of the change in use. A change of use may include, but is not limited to, the amount or type of traffic, structural modifications, remodeling, land use change, expansion of an existing business, change in zoning, change in lot lines, and creation of new parcels." Additionally, Section 8.14.30.F states: "Access Permit a condition of Building permit; The property owner will be asked to apply for a new access permit for any existing access location never previously permitted." During the phone conversation with Mrs. Ehrlich, it was stated that the existing accesses did not meet Section 8.14.30 Table 1 minimum spacing between accesses and intersections. Spacing criterial is detailed below: Access Element Arterial Collector Local Distance between intersections Signalized 2,640 N/A N/A Unsignalized 1,320 1,320 330 Distance between accesses and intersections 660 660 330 Distance between access points 660 330 150 Distance between access points in subdivisions 660 330 75 Staff explained the classification and spacing criteria specific to their parcel. Currently, none of the existing accesses meet Weld County Code except for the northern most agriculture access on CR 51. 0572o 2020-1540 E'&®O78 Mr. and Mrs. Erhlich chose to move forward with the variance process outlined. in the code as they wished to keep all existing access points. Access permit applications and hardships were submitted as follows: On February 25th an access permit application was received for four (4) existing access points. The first hardship letter, as required as part of the variance process, was submitted to Public Works staff on February 26th. Hardship Letter #1 (Exhibit A) stated, in summary, that as far as the Erhlich's knew the accesses had been built and in use since the home was constructed in the 1920's. They also stated that during the time their family has lived there (since 1985) there have not been any accidents involving vehicles entering or exiting the two residential access points. The Ehrlich's also explained that due to having young drivers living at the house; having separate accesses for the farm equipment is much safer. This, as well as the various times of year that flooding occurs in the yard between the house and agricultural structures, would make it difficult for vehicles to travel from the northern agricultural access to the residence. On March 12th Public Works staff denied the variance based on safety criteria and certain sections of the Weld County Code. In addition to the code sections mentioned above the following sections also apply during the review of this parcel: Section 8.14.30 A., "Access to a Single Parcel. Each parcel shall be limited to one (1) access point for safe ingress and egress, which may be an existing or new shared access, except if allowed pursuant to Subsection E." Section 8.14.30 E; "Additional access. Additional accesses to a parcel may be allowed if they comply with the spacing criteria for that road." A phone call and email to the Erhlich's explained the next possible steps of either coming into compliance or filing for an appeal to the Board of County Commissioners. On April 27th an email from the Ehrlichs was received with a second hardship letter attached for re- evaluation. On May 8th, Public Works staff was notified that the Erhlich's had filed an appeal through Clerk to the Board. Hardship letter #2 (Exhibit B) stated, in summary, that in addition to the first hardship letter the Erhlich's wished to add additional specifics about the recommended northern agricultural access suggested by Public Works. The Ehrlichs stated that this access and interior road is and never was built to a safe standard for any vehicles except farm equipment. In addition, if the northern access was the only access to utilize, they would be traveling south toward the intersection of 60.5 where most accidents have occurred. According to the Ehrlichs most accidents happen from vehicles going through the intersection and landing in the field south of the intersection, either due to speed, icy conditions or other factors. They also stated that updating the northern agricultural access to a mixed -use access would be a financial hardship. Ultimately, Public Works denied the variance based on three (3) of the five (5) accesses on this parcel not meeting the Weld County Code. CR. 60.5 is a paved road and is designated on the Weld County Functional Classification Map as a collector roadway. The latest ADT on this roadway counted 3024 VPD with 23% trucks. The 85th percentile speed is 62mph. CR. 51 is a paved road and is designated on the Weld County Functional Classification Map as a collector roadway. The latest ADT on this roadway counted 1052 VPD with 16% trucks. The 85t'' percentile speed is 64mph. Safety evaluations at this intersection over the last five (5) years have shown nine (9) crashes with four (4) injuries. Based on safety criteria, Public Works recommends denial and requests that access points be minimized and brought up to current code standards for spacing. P Exhibit A r Tiffnee, In addition to our access permit application form, parcel sketch, and pictures of the four current access points to our residence, I am including this letter as a hardship plea that our current accesses remain in use, and not be eliminated or moved As you can see from the following photos, we have 2 residential and 2 agricultural accesses that enable us to access our residence & farming operations To our knowledge, these accesses have been in use as long as the home has been in existence since the 1920's The Ag #1 access is —680 feet from the nearest intersection of CR 51 & CR 60 5 It is also the northern -most possible access to our property without going through our existing farmland (which extends north to CR 62 5) The "oil access road" 1/4 mile north of the intersection is another 628 feet to the north of Ag #1 access The Ag #2 access is rarely used, but necessary when flooding cuts off the Ag #1 access As for residential use, we currently utilize the accesses from CR 51 and from CR 60 5 equally (see photos) We appreciate the County's desire to have safe accesses to residences, however, there have been no known accidents involving vehicles entering or exiting either of these accesses since Larry's parents moved to this location in 1985 (and possibly much farther back) There are no other residential accesses east of the current CR 60 5 access (155 feet east of the intersection), and any proposed access 660 feet east of the intersection would interfere with farming our current farmland Moving our current residential accesses north on CR 51 to the proposed minimum standard of 660 feet from our nearest intersection (of CR 51 & CR 60 5) would also create much hardship for us, and very likely pose a greater safety hazard Presumably, the County will suggest that we move our residential accesses to the current Ag #1 access which is —672 ft from the aforementioned intersection Having young drivers in our household, it is very important for us that the agricultural accesses be separate from the residential accesses to avoid potential accidents between residential and agricultural vehicles/equipment In addition to the increased hazard of having one access for agricultural use and residential use, moving/eliminating our current residential access from CR 60 5 would not only presumably require us to change our residential address (a very painstaking process to change with the numerous contacts and places we do business with), but our access to our home would be of greater inconvenience than the current accesses In fact, if our residential access is moved to the Ag #1 access, and the two existing residential accesses closed off, we may likely experience difficulties in accessing our residence at various times of the year, due to the topography of this parcel, flooding often occurs in the land between the existing homes and the Ag #1 access Finally, due to the fact that our residence is 20-30 feet from CR 60 5, and that its location has been apparently grandfathered in to the current setback requirements, we would appreciate the same consideration for continuing to use all the original accesses For all of the above reasons, we are asking that Weld County issue a variance, and allow us to keep our current residential and agricultural accesses as noted on the parcel sketch and per the photos Thank you for your timely consideration on this matter, as we are hoping to build a garage (within current setback standards) near the home as soon as possible Sincerely, Larry and Michelle Ehrlich Exhibit A Ag #1 Access facing south Our primary agricultural access 1-680 ft. to the intersection of CR 51 & CR 60 1/2; see 4 photos below for 4 directions from that location: Ag #1 Access facing north Ag #1 Access facing east Ag #1 Access facing west .�,y..„,� flt,.,y r; l: • irysem".4 �.ti,;,,, wut: , 's: �~l ""�"7 '135/4.T ^QA's' es. f 3Q 1i�� ITT iIc:�� :•: fti.�• ;at "r.. �.. w » I�• .'� 1.�sr1Yt� Exhibit A Ag #2 Access facing south Ag #2 Access facing east Our secondary agricultural access ---260 ft to the intersection of CR 51 & CR 60 %; see 4 photos below for 4 directions from that location: Ag #2 Access facing north Ag #2 Access facing west Exhibit A Residential #1 Access facing south Residential #1 Access facing east (to house) Our primary residential access ---62-82 ft to the intersection of CR 51 & CR 60 1/2; see 4 photos below for 4 directions from that location: Residential #1 Access facing north Residential #1 Access facing west Exhibit A Residential #2 Access facing south Residential #2 access (used equally to Res #1 access) -155 ft east of intersection of CR 51 & CR 601/2; see 4 photos below for 4 directions from that location: Residential #2 Access facing north Residential #2 Access facing east (to house and mail box) Residential #2 Access facing west Exhibit A Parcel Sketch �= Exr tie ACO'SS Ls= Proposed Access CR 624 IlifeLa. (c c s 6Alh rest _o 1 ar, esL. VY0e.r7fr1G 11: -(y'Sto�Lr g� f tr si 4ci h� _sr,atf n.��enre tlirr,rAeD7rat +l bi.f j I cc r-- 1 Exhibit B Tiffnee, In addition to the COVID-19 upheaval, Larry and I have been dealing with other life issues, so we are just now able to get back to you in regard to the Office of Public Works denying the access variance on our property (at 25041 CR 60 1/2, Greeley) On February 20, 2020, you sent an email stating the following "My name is Tiffnee Lamb with Weld County Public Works and I am reviewing your wood frame garage and pole frame storage structure permit on parcel #096305000046 The access permit that was attached with one of the building permits was for an oil and gas access that is north of the access you are proposing to use Due to the permit being for a different access and different use (Oil and Gas) we will need you to submit an access permit application for your proposed access and proposed use (Residential & Ag) I have attached our application to this email " Larry and I were not even sure what this email was in reference to, as we never intended to use the "oil and gas access" that you referred to (which is —1300ft north of our residence), nor did we include it on any access permit attached with any building permits We're still not sure why this oil and gas access was even referenced, as it has nothing to do with our residential accesses or putting up a garage near our existing home After speaking with you on the phone in regard to this email, we were left with the impression that we would not even receive a building permit for our garage until we filled out an access permit application and received an access variance However, in mid -March, when we were issued a building permit for the garage, we assumed that the accesses we currently use were acceptable A few days later, on March 12, we were notified by you via phone and email that our access variance was denied and we would need to appeal to the County Commissioners within 60 days The reasoning as to why our access variance was denied was because "The yellow labeled access is the only access that meets our safety criteria called out in Section 814 30 Table 1 Please see the attached map for reference " Had we known what the criteria was in the first place, in our initial hardship letter to you we would have included more information on the yellow access, including the fact that it has never been designed to be a functional access in the first place, it is only currently used for agricultural purposes Please see further down in this letter to as to the huge financial impact and other difficulties only using the yellow access would pose for us , Now that the construction on our new garage is completed, we recently discovered that we cannot get the final County inspection done until the access variance has been granted (or we accept the closure of our current accesses) We have held off on contacting the County Commissioners up to this point due to the COVID-19 issues In order to avoid having to burden the Board of Commissioners with our appeal on your department's decision to deny our variance (especially at this time of public crisis), we would like to request that you review the following additional information on our case, and would plead with you to reconsider and issue a variance on our original access permit application It would be one thing if we were building a new home on a corner near a major intersection and requesting new accesses to the property, but we would contend that our home (built in 1920) and the current orange and blue accesses that have been used safely for many years, should be "grandfathered in" to any new laws and for us to be issued a variance for our current residential accesses (orange and blue according to your map) We are including our original i Exhibit B hardship plea and photos for your easy reference, and have added other information that may help in your decision (especially in regard to the yellow access not being designed as an appropriate access point for our residential use without incurring a huge financial burden and interfering with normal farming operations) In light of our added information included in this letter, we are hopeful that you and others at the Office of Public Works can resolve this issue quickly without us needing to officially make an appeal to the County Commissioners since their schedule has likely been delayed by the coronavirus outbreak While we appreciate the County's desire to maintain safe roads and intersections, we feel as though we are being treated as "guilty" and made to prove our innocence with regard to this safe access issue Shouldn't we be "innocent" until proven "guilty"? As we will show in this letter, our current residential accesses have not posed any safety hazard in the past, so why close off wh`at have been proven safe and effective accesses? We do not see any benefit safety - wise with closing off our orange, blue, and green accesses, and (on the contrary) find that being required to use only the yellow access will pose more of a safety hazard to us and other users, and will have large financial implications for us as well In our original hardship plea, we weren't sure how detailed we should be, and as a result we neglected to include some important information It is hard to explain our case with mere photos and words due to the many issues involved in the way our property/residence is situated, so we would first request to have someone from your office visit our residence to explain the financial hardship, issues and dangers that we would face were we to be forced to shut off our current accesses to our residence and utilize the yellow access only If an in -person visit is not possible (which is better than us having appear before the Board of Commissioners at this time), then we'll explain our case as best we can, and hope that you will reconsider issuing a variance for our current accesses As an aside, when County building inspectors have come onto our property to do their work within the past month, they did not hesitate to use both the orange and blue residential accesses that you are proposing we close down When told that your office wants to close down these accesses, county workers as well as several construction workers were shocked, and said that we should not have difficulty getting a variance to keep these accesses open due to how precarious it is to navigate through our farm yard to get to the green and yellow accesses (which should really only be used for agricultural purposes) Our home on this property, built in 1920, is —20 feet from the south (front) door to the gate and another 20 feet to the edge of CR 60-1/2 Please see photos from "Residential #2 access facing east" The 20 feet of gently -sloped roadside to our mailbox allows postal workers to easily and safely access our mailbox next to the front fence on this south side of our property closest to our residence Much like a person coming from the east would have to slow down to turn north onto CR 51, the postal carriers coming from the east are safely able to slow down and exit to the north side of CR 60-1/2 to access our mailbox We purchased this home (and the farmland that extends north to CR 62-1/2) on December 31, 2018 Prior to this, Larry's parents owned the same home and property since 1983, so we are well aware of previous accidents that have occurred near the intersection of CR 51 and CR 60-1/2 While we found records from CDOT for this intersection from 2014-2018, the 10 listed did not include a handful of 1 -car accidents that occurred over the past 37+ years when Larry's parents (Robert and Janice) lived at our current residence Robert would Exhibit B occasionally be called on to help out when vehicles driving south on CR 51 were slowing to a stop at the intersection of CR 60-1/2, and due to either speed, icy conditions, or other reasons, the vehicles ended up going past the stop sign and landing in the field south of the intersection From the CDOT reports and from our observation of accidents at this intersection over the past 37+ years, we, as well as Larry's parents can attest to the fact that no accidents have occurred as a result of anyone exiting or entering our current residential accesses (orange & blue) This aforementioned information is one of many reasons we do not want to be forced to utilize the yellow or green agricultural accesses for residential purposes, as it would require us to go south down CR 51 towards this intersection at question, and then go east or west from there, as often as we travel into Greeley on CR 60-1/2, this would put our family at greater risk using this intersection than it would for us to exit our property from the orange access on CR 60-1/2 (or the blue access on CR 51 for that matter), since we exit the orange and blue accesses at a much slower rate of speed and would not have any issues sliding through any potentially icy intersections Entering and exiting our property from the orange access onto or from CR 60 % is much safer and efficient than turning at the T -intersection with CR 51 Again, it is hard to explain with pictures, but an in -person review would show that due to the rather significant rise in the road to the east of our orange access, it is actually easier and safer to exit our property at the orange access rather than turning onto CR 51 and turning at the intersection, because one can see much further east at the orange access (to assess whether there are any 55+mph oncoming - vehicles approaching), than one can from the intersection itself This is another obvious reason for us to be given a variance to continue using the orange access It is actually SAFER for us to exit our property herei Similarly, when returning home from the west (our most frequent trips being back and forth from Greeley), it is easier and safer to enter our property at the orange access rather than turning north onto CR 51, because we can see much further east at the orange access, again, this allows one to see further to the east and make a better assessment whether there are any fast-moving oncoming vehicles approaching As mentioned, a vast majority of our travels are to and from the west towards Greeley, not north on CR 51 Being forced to take CR 51 an additional 680 feet north (from the intersection) to the yellow access, and an additional 625‘feet diagonally SE through our farm yard to access our residence every time we travel to town in our vehicles is an unnecessary expense in extra gas as well as an added safety hazard for us For our next reason closing our orange, blue and green accesses (and only allowing us to use the yellow access) would be a hardship, please refer to the photos of the yellow access, titled our "primary agricultural access 680 ft from intersection of CR 51 and CR 60-1/2 " While this yellow access has only been used by agricultural vehicles for the past 37+ years, and almost never by residential vehicles due to the nature of the access, it has also never been formally designed to be used as any type of access let alone an access for residential use This access is marginally safely accessible only by farm trucks and tractors pulling onto CR 51 from the property (to go north) or entering the propertyfrom the north, these vehicles have larger tires (than a residential vehicle), and are more stable to be able to navigate down the significant embankment and over the rough dirt road that continues on into the yard The preferred agricultural access to use would be the green access, which has a smoother entry onto CR 51 as well as the ability to exit onto/off of CR 51 from a 900 angle 7 Exhibit B If you will notice from the photos, the yellow access comes into CR 51 at approximately a 300 angle Even when farm equipment exit onto CR 51 and go north, it is a very sharp angle (150°) to look south for oncoming traffic, it would be much safer to exit at the green access where one can look 90° north or south Any proposed changes to the yellow access to bring it closer to a safer 90 degree angle would mean it would cut into prime farm land currently in use While there are problems exiting the property at the yellow access, there are even more problems entering the property at this location, especially from the south, as a majority of our travels are to and from the south into Greeley If we are only allowed to use the yellow access, anyone entering our property at this access will not only have to navigate down a significant drop from CR 51 to the dirt road, but they will also find it difficult if not impossible when entering the property from the south to take the very acute turn (-30° angle) to head back south through the farm yard towards our residence, this steep, sharp turn may likely cause damage to a residential vehicle or any vehicle hauling a trailer Please refer to the photo titled "Ag #1 Access facing south" to see the sharp angle we would be required to make on routine visits to and from town In addition to the angle and steepness of the embankment at the yellow access, we are very concerned that if we were forced to use this yellow access for our only residential as well as our only agricultural access to our property, that it would create a maior financial hardship for us Because of the drop from CR 51 at the yellow access down to the dirt road going through our farm yard, we would likely need a culvert to be,put in and road base put over the culvert to bring the dirt road up to the level of CR 51 The entire distance from this yellow access to our garage area is 625 feet which would need to be brought up more level with the roads to avoid flooding issues that we currently experience in this part of the yard To give some perspective, the road base and labor costs alone to build a 625 foot long x 20 foot wide driveway (to accommodate agricultural vehicles) from this yellow access to our garage is estimated by Clayton Fetzer from Fetzer Excavating to cost $89001 This does not include the cost of installing a culvert, or the cost of blacktop or asphalt that may need to be added to maintain the integrity of the road with the vastly increased residential traffic it would incur We do not feel we should be financially responsible for building this road up to a higher level, nor do we feel that it would solve the issue of the acute angle of this access, or the fact that it would still require people to drive through the yard, interrupting our farming operations Because it is a much further distance (650+ feet) from our residence to the yellow access, than the 20 feet from our residence to the orange access, we will also face many safety issues of residential vehicles interfering with the overall farm operation if we are required to enter and exit our property and drive through the farm yard to or from the yellow access The yard in between the yellow access and the garage to the west of our residence is ONLY used for farming purposes The loudness of tractors and other farm equipment will hinder Larry (or anyone else operating the loud farm equipment) from hearing residential vehicles driving through the farm yard This puts a huge burden on the equipment operator who will constantly have to be on the alert for vehicles driving through his work area, and concerned about potentially causing accidents between agricultural and residential vehicles The 650+ feet of farm yard that we would be required to use to get to the yellow access is not ideal ground for residential vehicles to be using, and as already mentioned, would require a major investment to get the entire drive built up to a proper level We have included 4 photos Exhibit B below showing what the yard looks like after a mild rain storm and general farm traffic Because there are several low spots through the yard to the yellow access, we oftentimes have large puddles of standing water (after rain or after melted snow storms) which when travelled on by farm equipment, leaves large ruts that make driving through the yard with residential vehicles very difficult, if not impossible to navigate many times of the year If the only access to our residence is the yellow access, there will therefore be many times during the year that we will not have adequate access to our residence without either incurring damage to our personal vehicles or spending large amounts of money to create a drive from the yellow access to our residence In addition to this being a huge financial burden, it would also negatively impact our current use of this farm yard for our farming operations We do not have flooding issues at the orange or blue residential accesses, so this is yet another reason we believe we should be granted a variance to continue using the orange and blue accesses for residential use For all these reasons, we are requesting that you issue a variance for us to continue using the orange and blue accesses for residential use, and the green and yellow accesses only for agricultural use Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter that will allow us (with the variance) to have the final inspection on our garage completed In light of our added information included in this letter, we are hopeful that you can resolve this issue quickly without us needing to officially make an appeal to the County Commissioners If we do not hear back from you within the week, we will continue on with our appeal to the Commissioners, but we are hopeful that you can issue us a variance based on the new information we have given you Sincerely, Michelle and Larry Ehrlich 25041 CR 60 1/2, Greeley, CO 80631 970-336-1036 P S , Please refer to the pictures of our property below Exhibit B The first four photos below are of our farm yard property facing north towards the yellow access. This area is currently used solely for agricultural purposes, but there would be significant financial implications for us if we are required to use it to get to and from our residence to the yellow access to exit and enter our property. After snow and rain storms, the yard gets significant puddles, and with agricultural usage, ruts form making it very difficult to navigate with a residential vehicle. Photo to the right was taken at the south end of our yard near the orange and blue accesses. This was taken on the same day after of one of the recent snow storms (as in two of the above photos); notice no issues with flooding or ruts from agricultural use. Sec. 2-4-10. - Appeals process. The Board of County Commissioners shall act as a board of appeals to hear complaints on actions taken by County boards, commissions and departments. Except for decisions made by the Board of Adjustment and Uniform Building Code Board of Appeals, procedure for appeals shall be as set forth in this Chapter, by resolution of the Board, or as otherwise provided by law. A. Any person appealing an action by a County board, commission or department to the Board of County Commissioners shall file such a complaint, in writing, with the Clerk to the Board within sixty (60) days of the incident in question. Appeals concerning purchases or procurements made in accordance with Chapter 5, Article IV, of this Code shall be filed within five (5) days of the incident in question. B. Such complaint shall include: 1. The name of the employee, board, commission or department against which the complaint is made. 2. A description of the basic facts involved in the complaint. C. The Clerk to the Board shall schedule a hearing with the Board of County Commissioners, to be held within fifteen (15) days of the filing of the complaint, and shall notify all parties involved in the incident. D. The Board of County Commissioners shall hear all the available facts pertinent to the incident, may schedule a second hearing within thirty (30) days following the initial hearing if the Board determines such a need, and shall render a determination within thirty (30) days of the final hearing. E. No person shall be denied the right to appeal, provided that he or she complies with the administrative procedures established by the Board. (Weld County Codification Ordinance 2000-1; Weld County Code Ordinance 2016-14) Esther Gesick From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Good morning, Esther Gesick Tuesday, May 12, 2020 9:59 AM Iair60@what-wire.com Bob Choate; Dawn Anderson; Tiffnee Lamb; Jay McDonald; Elizabeth Relford; CTB RE: Access variance denial complaint - Larry and Michelle Ehrlich Sec._2_4_10._Appeals_process.doc This email serves as confirmation of an Appeal hearing scheduled in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, Administration Building, 1150 O Street, Assembly Room, Greeley, Colorado 80631. DATE: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 TIME: 9:00 a.m. REQUEST: Appeal concerning the decision by the Department of Public Works to deny the application of Larry and Michelle Ehrlich for an Access Permit. Please note your appeal is being processed in accordance with Section 2-4-10 of the Weld County Code (see attachment), and as such, this is a quasi-judicial matter and the Commissioners should not accept input outside of the public hearing. Any emails received will need to be included in the public record. Lastly, you may invite and present testimony from anyone you believe has information relevant to the situation. If you have any additional questions or information to include in the record, please don't hesitate to contact me. Thank you, Esther E. Gesick Clerk to the Board 1150 O Street/P.O. Box 758/Greeley, CO 80632 tel: (970) 400-4226 Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Iair60@what-wire.com <Iair60@what-wire.com> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 5:50 PM To: Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com> Subject: RE: Access variance denial complaint Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. th at 9am works for us. We are hopeful that this issue may be resolved prior to that time, as we should not have needed to fill out an application for new access permit in the first place. We are still trying to work it out with Public 1 Works and the Commissioners via email without having to appear before the Commissioners. If we do have to appear before the Commissioners for this appeal, please let us know what the process is so we are prepared. Can we have other people present to testify on our behalf? Thank you. --Michelle and Larry Ehrlich --- egesick(a)weldgov.com wrote: From: Esther Gesick <eqesickweldgov.com> To: "lair60what-wire.com" <Iair60(what-wire.com> CC: Esther Gesick <egesick(a�weldgov.com> Subject: RE: Access variance denial complaint Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 20:08:26 +0000 Hello Mr. and Mrs. Ehrlich, Your appeal comments have been received. I am required to schedule this matter within 15 days. Will Wednesday, May 20th at 9:00 a.m., work for your schedule? Esther E. Gesick Clerk to the Board 1150 O StreetlP.O. Box 7581 Greeley, CO 80632 tel: (970) 400-4226 Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Iair60(a�what-wire.com <lair60 anwhat-wire.com> Sent: Friday, May 8, 2020 1:49 PM To: Esther Gesick <egesick(a�weldgov.com> Subject: Access variance denial complaint Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ermit. While we do not believe a new access permit is required to close out a building permit for an accessory building on our property, we requested a variance because the Department of Public Works refused to close out our building permit unless we abandoned our existing accesses to our property. Such condition was improperly imposed by the Department, and we hereby request a variance to allow us to continue to use the existing accesses to our property, which have been regularly and safely used for over forty (40) years. 2 Larry and Michelle Ehrlich 25041 CR 60 1/2, Greeley, CO 80631 970-336-1036 lair60what-wire.com 3 ra,i.. " k n—~,rp•, c, J fir',?. - ti rj '-; .-�{.Yt yti t*�`w�yy'{ `7 �1 k,�r .1 x ! 1 Yf S"r y 55. Ft .c+r ,- '"r -r ,- rrr-.r N-7,;../ r, y7'• J ,. cr -f":71:---"r-,...4.7;',.'4."'::....^ _,.. .-.. ,,, r- ., ..... i w t h ' t' r �'JP yby ^` +n+�r.,C`,q ,.• ,. _ �,^+ ?n • �'" �, 7 .q A• r —„w, .n R. �'"S" ..,t D_ r _ C''--.1,',3 �, ;la��.. r;v` :"j .;� - _Ti C '"d7'iu. c Frk Y r '�iS_ of ry' v a t 1,- •74�r'i F u'� t ' . r , C _ t �+. i' w �.rv1r t,. ` r ��{' _ _1 L - 1• w'F s �,.. 6 4 4. ..r \ `` k r J4 5 ... —, _ T nom= ,\ �Y -J _- y ` _-c.�y i` S` _.) (,'"-a x f'.C-�'�xa, , 3 -�S `'+f _ �..._ .w } _ ~^`� T{t �S�� `.H , t, 6' �� , s� ^_ �4✓.~r. art^y~' r— _ Ala ?.'i, )� ✓Y.� _` .. _ _ Sr=,,,,.� c 1 1 \ c1,,, -,<2,--',,,r t fi. (w T � T _ la _A{l,a^ rnY `tv ,�. ��,. ry�t�- wv �i t ^ , i� l S 4i , •' ^• J " is h-.r� .zr., i � i f��ti, tt ff ti. 1�'t !r t i ' r ^r�l "*lr } 4,---,,,.2- F,�' Y' yy N~ r5 J-: � '- r N F c�e�,r �F Y ' 1 r K ,�rt4�' - \\ r' �f L.t..'1� d'�1 +<i,.,1 `.4 �� .'. , ri'"4' y f i , F ,.r Y� yr J, '`Fti' ' ', h{" ₹y,r . ri 1� ..4 ^' i9 vYth\I� , Yr r F � rt J' * 4 ~n_t r -. ,� ."t4 n^ Y r ^ � 1 �o t _ -V '� y t, ,r { r, \� {l r.7' } J „r f �,.,., ,.. I ' `T? P L' ry < + I ✓ ., w+ 1'' 'KLI , ! w\^,!-., a` , `�- ' rl' ,r t, %y 'y r }; ^—Tr ' -Y 1 ) 1 ht JrJ J� Y~ , of Y 5. e.i ^^` '� - r , L " 'ti ` awr r ` 4� ; ' t . F = yG 7r - -. .. rt- .t -t Z. , , , r'� ^,'a x f y�r �ti' 'i�t '> y'.. i "n .'i /'',,,,, ,: fF,r yr f J z u '' 7 6 di iii F Try a ..,:6-..,-.; �f „1�, 1 ,f a yy;M r, •-try t l� a W Hr� Ir• C i* rE t A, o ^w ,yam '`l ,.syilr tr I tir Yr 1,y, F. ','.--A 1 77. ,- �` `F Ehrlich Access Appeal11 [.,"may S i'1`L^_Syr 'T Fra^ScE ,ter'1r n rCk „; x r _ J*,-,..,.. .7"---4.14 a s ' 7µL 25041 WCR. 60.5 F }''' ' ! ..!.7,,,,, Vh: May 20th 2020 k -ices {}` J' , t[ rr�C, , '-' 'r anti e t-, fir- . j a{ J rVi � _ _ ¢Jr ,. 1,41, r`.. -.t �' r . } ' >�R.; , L- ' 'C iJrt_ r '" i ,,--7--"� ! J • Y r'_' v r rr- s 'YH k r �.� r -. 'kY, 4^F1 -4a„+ .t. I '* Yip 1� Y -i -s s^ - f J rf �^ -_y r< - t , i . a r' .. ,i` t `1 ^aP `1 1' {y`I 7I'nr N^ rS-t 'rC qtr= r 3i 'ii." a, r t ^ i t 44 `f .ti _• - `f t ' 'Y `. _ a- r �i Ji �" ' �_.1 , --5.-„..::.,"Y 1.[!r f1 r �'' ` rr -"^ d 'i „ r , 3 d.n� ' ryt4r., .� t r-"~sitf'. ♦ f��-Y r r i >' -2'7,., 7 .ti.�:. °,<n `'y r r� }.E n.^ '` -4, r t" r rt ° ' ,�^ \ , 4t'" :l.Y i^/ as ' a h- ' r• A� J f r'e- '* ^+'.✓ f-•,,' Sr, S< .11 �J+* ... .• I,J -, J. S�'�_}1 1 �T �t J ` acyT'c.` ' t'S LYa v_^ ^••i ...i' -_ „t�f✓ rY��`h)f�� - r WW Y'. , LLe! Sr J ..7 r` I. mot' ° 4 x j T c r v 1�-�� ♦ii' k .w r , ,�"Yb iit.a t�y `.c �'�Xja 1 _ ..?"C.-? 'il 1`F}.t>, it 4�iI4 L �_.{j 4- i �4 �' �� +tk r +2.='rry ` . "'` ..,9 1 . i� N .- S .E,• 5�� '- -' - yrtJ1+ w ' a .� ti" .i 3`r rC c„{ i{' ro , - { !>_♦4J �'I tr-k.4., , z Yi }J 3 - ''',5- r '4j � 2'3-'4' i is r l C :'i..2. `�h�- ,c''' c'� - , -'sr L • fir n , 'a ""- i .va'� n ,{` ...w ChR '�- r� V �f �! r 1 ;i_tJ �t �..'r r rr� .- _ y: J.. '.-_• f-• - - , S `r- + -� r - ? '''' �,,;:-.4,-L,,r `Sr.� �t - N .1 - _ ~ia - N �. , v ` •' r \ "' 'd— r , .l ;. y�,. „ r. - r" ,- t?' '- i •; :• '� r� r a, "„r ^ . x:, vr} ' S' tF t `jam. ` ry_, r? .- - F. Y i_r �t _3 }''4 4r.„'";, rar ,.%' .-t`.` JJc Y ,s ' __ J i s s, c l ,, t ,' °rty c r t s ar ;n iy, y 1 'a- ra., `^ I _ ir, ' r( '� �;J r l2 1h ;r t -, , ,r�r r'.. V„T., 1 J rv, s ^r✓' '1.1 7' z i F, t ,.} r `+4Y_ _'zS, ,44, .f' ," 1, ,t, 7 I .1 ^, pt ' �� _ w 1�`rn. _ ,1f, er,t q.r J; �,` g`M1,a + ,r rJ w- . ,,,r> 'J f" ,s ; s *. rkrr, n 't. l� I S,; .N t.1, - ..^c tr }. [} Y'Mta x 'x iL `'., 1 's4c f ''/xm5 F, TFs�� tr a Ir'a ra, v�: �;5i :'! t - /7 a 7f'v ��,„�"+t :'.§,• r 1f.,wK ,}:�7.,�',rn „ q `-.l tt,.. -�+ 5 � < r` , 1 ,[Fi i :}J '' rk� - 1� —`i�J)>. y 7 ,' ,.y y'i" 'r- t' r' `' i , ,•`Jji-*i j'tki Y r. f t P { y < th' r. t r� _r°� _,�w _ .. �_ c' r t '5 r~ xJ..r,r.,' �a,,r , „ ,, ..., ,G ?x ` � —f r :. rs;', '.. . J —2 -, `'A , { l:`,2-, .. -Cr y 'c -S — x ii' Fs _ - F r� " y,.''' 4 1L{ 7 .- _�)' irk- t —'5' _. , - v. ... '_,r?..»,., '7^ ,: _.., ., ,. r a , .- --'i..__.1 .. a '^ :.t�`-..t,, r _ _._ ..w Z „,-,),—,',-/{`�s `�J r Ye' Ii2'^ 'nr.._ {„- .J �.c .,t RE -3554 LOTS RE -3554 LOTB RE•3527 LOT C 1: 6,703 Weld County Code Sec.8.14.30 F. Access Permit a Condition of Building Permit. When a new access is to be constructed in conjunction with the construction of a new principal structure, the issuance of an access permit shall be a condition for obtaining a building permit for such construction. asked to apply for a new access permit for any existing access location never previously permitted. G. Changes in Use, Classification/Type or Increase in amount of Traffic. When an existing access location changes, there is a change in use of the access classification/type, or an increase in the amount of traffic using an access, a new access permit shall be required as a condition of the change in use. If a new access is the result of a change of use or increased traffic, an improvements and road maintenance agreement may be required as a condition of the access permit, where applicable. A change of use may include, but is not limited to, the amount or type of traffic, structural remodeling, land use change, expansion of an existing business, change in zoning, change in lot lines, and creation of new parcels. The property owner will be modifications, Feb. 19th AG R20- 0036 & ASN20-0026 20-0026 Feb. 24th Email and phone call discussion about accesses and VR. Feb. 20th PW asked for AP app and clarification. Sec.8.14.60 Public Works will respond with an approval or denial in writing within thirty (30) days of receipt of the variance request. March 12th PW denies VR and recommends alt. Feb 25th Complete application and hardship letter are received and submitted for a VR on Feb. 26th. April 27th Rec. 2nd hardship letter. May 8th Notice of Appeal intersection. RE -3554 LOTB Access Element Arterial Collector Local Distance between intersections Signalized 2,640 N/A N/A Unsignalized 1,320 1,320 330 Distance between 660 660 330 accesses and intersections Distance between 660 330 150 access points Distance between access points in subdivisions 660 330 75 Residential access located approx. 0190ft east of intersection. Residential access located approx. 90ft north of intersection. RE -3554 Sec.8.14.30 A. Access to a Single Parcel. Each parcel shall be limited to one (1) access point for safe ingress and egress, which may be an existing or new shared access, except if allowed pursuant to Subsection E., below. E Additional Access. Additional accesses to a parcel may be allowed if they that road. comply with the spacing criteria for P.41:j y ire ..`.1 Ag- structure and accessory structure newly built by secondary access located approx. 260ft north of intersection. Residential #1 Access facing south Blue Residential Access on CR. 51 Residential #1 Access facing north Facing east Facing west Residential #2 Access facing south Orange Residential Access on CR. 60.5 Residential #2 Access facing north Facing west Facing east Green Ag- Access on CR. 51 Facing east Ag #2 Access facing south Ag #2 Access facing north Facing west Ag #1 Access facing south Yellow Ag- Access on CR. 51 Ag #1 Access facing north Facing west Facing east Hello