The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20183095.tiffRESOLUTION RE: GRANT APPEAL OF THE DECISION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TO DENY ACCESS PERMIT FOR RECORDED EXEMPTION, RECX12-0010 - RICHARD AND SARA WILLIAMS 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 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 Recorded Exemption, RECX12-0010, submitted by the appellants, Richard and Sara Williams, and WHEREAS, the Board heard testimony and took evidence from Department of Public Works staff and Kent Naughton, of Witwer, Oldenburg, Barry and Groom, LLP, on behalf of Richard and Sara Williams, 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 Richard and Sara Williams, reverse the decision of the Department of Public Works, and remand the issue back to staff with instruction to issue the Access Permit and correct the plat for RECX12-0010. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the appeal of Richard and Sara Williams, be, and hereby is, granted, and the decision of the Department of Public Works to deny Access Permits is reversed and remanded back to staff with instruction to issue the Access Permit and correct the plat for RECX12-0010. 4453717 Pages: 1 of 2 12/14/2018 02:13 PM R Fee:$0.00 Carly Koppes, Clerk and Recorder, Weld County, CO 1111 lig VILIVICIddiaPiltilO DCHLk iii .III cc: Pc _KOaIER/CH), PLCTP), ca c Bc/ FH), C.PPL /GPPL REP. icvI aSii' 2018-3095 EG0075 RE: APPEAL FOR ACCESS PERMIT, RECX12-0010- RICHARD AND SARA WILLIAMS PAGE 2 The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 26th day of September, A.D., 2018. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO ATTEST: ��r�J Weld County Clerk to the Board BY:(� D u v Clerk to the Board Date of signature: I C)1 I g'! (R' 4453717 Pages: 2 of 2 12/14/2018 02:13 PM R Fee:$0.00 Carly Koppes, Clerk and Recorder, Weld County, CO 11111 ACh'.i1#5:114,1r Dillik7MILM��li h 11111 e Moreno, Chair Mike Freeman 2018-3095 EG0075 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: September 26, 2018 FROM: Dawn Anderson, Public Works SUBJECT: Appeal of Access Permit Denial for Richard & Sara Williams Weld County Public Works received an access permit application from Richard and Sara Williams on June 26, 2018. The permit application was in connection with a four -lot recorded exemption, RECX12-0010. The access application requested a residential access for Lot C onto WCR 54. This request was in conflict with the signed and recorded plat, dated May 31, 2012, that specifically permitted access to lots A, B & C through a 30 foot access and utility easement on lot A. Please see the attached Exhibit A map associated with this access permit/RE. Public Works staff denied the request for a residential access permit at the proposed location based on the fact that access to this property was already addressed and approved during the Recorded Exemption process with a shared access easement specific to the Weld County Code sections as follows: 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. Upon being informed that the requested access was being denied, Public Works staff received a variance request and hardship, see Exhibit B. In summary, this letter states that during purchase of the property the access already existed with a gate at the current location. The Williams' also state that they were never informed of the easement and shared access point shown on the recorded exemption. The hardship letter also states that there would be a financial hardship with closing the existing access point and building a new access road in excess of 1,000 feet as well as in meeting additional requirements requested by Front Range Fire. Furthermore, the access point that was built and is being proposed for approval on WCR 54 does not meet spacing for an arterial roadway. This access is listed as a spacing safety concern in the inventory of the Freedom Parkway Access Control Plan. This Access Control Plan is not yet adopted so any decision on this access point could be approved without going through the amendment process. Public Works staff made a site visit and took photos of both the non -permitted access point (existing) and the permitted access point (location shown on plat) and those can be seen as Exhibit C. Public Works staff 2018-3095 EGCO-75 would be supportive of an approval of the existing access point because it is in a safer location, but requests that the resolution include a new access permit number (AP18-00461) for recording to tie back to the RE plat. WCR 54 is a paved arterial road as identified on the County's functional classification map. The ADT is 5552 with 26% of the vehicles per day being trucks. I'm available to answer any questions you may have. RECEIVED SEP 1 4 2018 WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1150 O Street P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80631 VNeLD C UN l }r COMMISSIONER Appeal No: Appellants: RICHARD WILLIAMS; and SARA WILLIAMS Appellee: WELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Attorney for Appellants: Kent A. Naughton, No. 37114 Witwer, Oldenburg, Barry & Groom, LLP Phone Number: (970) 352-3161 FAX Number: (970) 352-3165 E-mail: knaughton@witwerlaw.com APPEAL OF DECISION OF THE WELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS COME NOW, Richard Williams and Sara Williams (the "Williams Family"), to the Weld County Board of County Commissioners, pursuant to Weld County Code § 2-4-10, to appeal the decision of the Weld County Public Works Department, dated July 18, 2018, which denied the Williams Family's Access Permit Application. In support thereof, the Williams Family states the following: 1. In 2013, the Williams Family purchased an undeveloped lot in order to build a home. This property contains approximately 17 acres stretching along Weld County Road 54. 2. This property had historically been used as a pasture, and the clearly -apparent access to the property was an old cattle gate on Road 54, toward the east side of the property. 3. The Williams Family hired professionals to help them build their home. Their engineering firm developed professional building and site plans for use in the building permit process and the construction of the home. 4. Throughout the permitting, building, and inspection processes, the Williams Family never learned that the use of the old cattle gate for a driveway was improper in any way. 5. All of the professionals involved apparently assumed that access from this gate was proper. For example, in the Site Plan, the Williams' engineer located their home and garage for easy access from the cattle gate. Thus, the garage is almost directly north of the gate, with easy access from a driveway of approximately 200 feet. 6. Recently, the Williams Family learned that the County planned on improvements to County Road 54. In researching the plans, however, the Williams Family learned that the County considered their driveway access to be nonconforming and unauthorized. 7. Unbeknownst to the Williams Family, Recorded Exemption No. 0957-22-01 RECX12- 0010 depicted only one existing access point off of Road 54 for the Williams' lot (Lot C) and their two neighbors to the west (Lots A and B). (See Ex. A, Recorded Exemption.) 8. The access point depicted on the Recorded Exemption is approximately a quarter -mile west of the Williams' driveway. 9. The Recorded Exemption also depicts a thirty-foot easement crossing under and through a grove of trees in front of the Williams' neighbor's house. These neighbors have made it clear to the Williams Family that such an arrangement is not compatible with their plans and desires for their front yard. 10. Upon learning of the issues with their current driveway, the Williams Family discussed their situation and options with Public Works Department representatives. 11. The Williams Family learned that their current driveway is somewhat preferable and safer than the Recorded Exemption access point from a sight distance perspective, but it fails to comply with the Department's spacing requirements. 12. After discussing the matter with Public Works representatives, the Williams Family applied for a substitute access permit, arguing that the access through their neighbor's property created an undue hardship under Weld County Code § 12-5-30. (See Ex. B, Access Permit Application; Ex. B-1, Hardship Letter) 13. On July 18, 2018, the Department of Public Works denied the Williams Family's application. (See Ex. C, Denial E-mail) 14. The Williams Family hereby appeals this denial, and requests a hearing before the Weld County Board of County Commissioners pursuant to Weld County Code § 2-4-10. 15. Denial of an access permit allowing the Williams Family to continue the use of their current driveway would impose an undue hardship upon the family for several reasons, which include the following: a. The current driveway access is safer from a sight distance perspective. b. The current driveway is safer from a fire safety perspective. These reasons are explained in more detail in a letter that the Williams Family attached to their application. (See Ex. B-2, Fire Marshal Letter.) Tyler Drage, Front Range Fire Rescue Life Safety Chief and Fire Marshal details many reasons why the proposed access across the neighbor's property is unsafe and problematic. Along with the sheer distance of new driveway required, the route is very difficult because it crosses through a grove of trees, close to other buildings, and perhaps most importantly, across a large swampy drainage area of the Williams' property. c. The cost of constructing any new driveway of approximately a quarter -mile creates an undue burden. The cost of constructing a new driveway that is adequate for fire safety is simply prohibitive for the Williams Family. d. In addition, requiring such a lengthy new driveway across a neighbor's property and across the low-lying swampy area would be directly contrary to established Weld County policy, which prohibits "unduly burdensome road construction or driveway maintenance" requirements for fire safety regulations. (See Ex. D, Department of Planning Services Letter Re: Fire Codes.) e. Any marginal safety gains from complying with spacing requirement goals of the Public Works Department are outweighed by the safety gains from better sight distance and better fire access. f. The Williams Family's existing driveway lies directly opposite from an existing access point on the south side of Road 54. This arrangement is preferable from a planning standpoint to staggered access points. WHEREFORE, the Williams Family respectfully requests that the Weld County Board of County Commissioners grant them a hearing on this matter, reverse the decision of the Department of Public Works, grant their access permit application, and take such further and additional action as may be appropriate in the circumstances. Dated this 14h day of 2018. WITWER OLDENBURG BARRY & GROOM, LLP /Kent A.aughton Counsel for Richard and Sara Williams Mid III 1 irirst k INTERMILL LAND SURVEYING, INC. VOW c _ MECCAW° Ex AWfl0N Na O0a1.22-OY MECXR OM : • 9 i WFL0 54 FR NTIER, 11C CR 17 HWY 257 A P 9 Weld County Public Works Dept. 1111 H Street P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Phone: (970)304-6496 Fax: (970)304-6497 Property Owner N a me, ► �ha�i Company Address c,1 fit' f! I. S-14 City {`r'1', 1\ t State CG Zip 1;a1 -n$ Phone t—1o 11 i c Fax E-mail) OJl C,© St(ci ‘C- CI -tom. (c:-\ Parcel Location t� The access is on WCR S Nearest Intersection: WCR 5 Lt- & WCR �J Dist. from Intersection (approx. in ft.) Parcel Number(s) 1C �� 6 i O )9 Section/Township/Range Total # of Existing Accesses to parcel Proposed Use ❑ Temporary (Tracking Pad Required) (#) ❑ Small Commercial (#) ACCESS PERMIT APPLICATION FORM Authorized Agent/Applicant (if different from Owner) Name Company Address City State Zip Phone Fax E-mail Existing County Road Surface Information Asphalt `, Gravel Treated Other Proposed Access Information Culvert Size & Type (15" CMP/RCP min.) Materials used to construct access Access Construction Start Date Access Construction Finish Date )se -Single Residential (#) ❑ Oil & Gas (#) o Large Commercial (#) o Industrial (#) o Field (Agriculture Only) (#) o Subdivision (#) Is this access associated with a Planning or Building Department Process? o USR/MUSR ❑ RECX/SUBX ❑ PUD ❑ WOGLA ❑ COMPLEX (IA required) ❑ Other Planning/Building Department case # Required Attached Documents - Traffic Control Plan (a generic plan can be found at https;//www,weldeov.com/departments/public works/permits/) During the review process it may be determined that a right-of-way use permit will be required as well. - Certificate of Insurance (with "Weld County, Colorado" listed as the certificate holder & as an additional insured) -Access Pictures (from the left, right, into & out of the access — N, 5, E, & W) -Access Authorization Form (Not required if the application is signed by the landowner.) Fee schedule (to be determined by permitting agency) - $75 each access point: Temporary, Small Commercial, Oil & Gas, Single Family Residential - $150 each access point: Industrial, Large Commercial, Subdivisions - Field (Agriculture only): no cost 8 Parcel Sketch (or provide an aerial on an add'I sheet) ♦ = Existing Access A= Proposed Access WCR T N WCR cc Description of Work or Reason for Permit / c By accepting this permit, the undersigned Property Owner/Authorized Agent, under penalty of perjury, verifies they have received all pages of the permit application; they have read and understand all the permit requirements and provisions set forth on all pages. By virtue of their signature the Property Owner/Authorized Agent is bound by and agrees to comply with all said permit requirements and provisions, all Weld County ordinances, and state laws regarding access construction. Signature ts. Printed Name i i t > ,11: c —J' Date Signature r,�; Printed Name hIC-tA‘fccAl t 10.MDate (In case of multiple" Property Owners/Authorized Agents) • Access Permits are good for 1 year from the date of issuance. Property Owner/Authorized Agent must obtain a new permit or request an extension if the construction of the access point is not completed in that timeframe. • Extensions are subject to approval by Public Works • County regulations on road access can be found in Article V of Chapter 12 of the Weld County Code. Richard and Sara Williams 9141 County Road 54 Milliken, CO 80543 970-371-7978 Wazoo898@yahoo.com June 19, 2018 To Whom It May Concern: On June 4th, 2018, we met with Dawn Anderson and Morgan Gabbert, Weld County officials, about our existing driveway access. They have told us that they want to close our current driveway and move our access point to the other side of our 18 acres. By doing this, we would have have shared access with two other neighboring houses. If we are required to make this move, it will cause us a great hardship. When we were meeting with the County Officials, Dawn Anderson initially asked us if we would be willing to move our access a "little bit" in order to keep the current location and to meet the currently existing spacing code of 660 feet. We happily agreed to this solution, but after further consideration, she said that solution would not work as there cannot be two access points directly across from each other. However, this explanation and reconsideration does not make sense. The requested combined access that they want us to create is directly across from a different neighbor's access point for their house. The reason for this meeting was because we were told by County Officials that our existing driveway access point is not permitted and they want to close it to limit access points along County Road 54. Prior to the recent and on -going community meetings regarding the expansion of County Road 54, where we live, we did not know that our driveway was not permitted. When we viewed the property with the previous owner, the current access point was not only in existence, but was utilized by going through an existing gate. To our knowledge, we did not create a new access point. We purchased the property in 2013 and began the process of designing a house and hiring a contractor. Throughout the process, we were under the impression that with each approval for each stage of the building permits we needed, that we were able to have a driveway to access our new home. Each time an inspector arrived and exited from our property, it was done via the existing drive. During our meeting with County Officials, we were advised to apply for a permit in order to keep the existing driveway, hence the current application. We were also told by Morgan Gabbert and Dawn Anderson that the application would be denied, due to the spacing code and that we should submit a letter of hardship along with our permit application. Once we submit our application and letter and the County denies our application, we then will have the opportunity to request an appeal hearing before the Board of Commissioners. In reviewing our current situation, we have come to the conclusion that if we lose our current driveway access and are required to use access on the other side of our property, we will have to build a road that will run over 1000 feet in length. The other access point is also extremely dangerous as it is very difficult to see when turning out onto County Road 54, due to a nearby rise in the road. We have spoken with the Fire Marshal Ty Drage, responsible for the District in which our home lies and he does not support the closing of our current driveway. He took the time to make a site visit and walked our property with us. He stated that currently we have open direct access if emergency vehicles ever need to come to our house. By closing this direct access and placing our entrance further down the road, they would no longer have direct access to our home. He also said if the County requires us to change access points, we will havetobuild an all-weather road, able to support 75,000 lbs. Building a road such as this will require it to be built up in several places due to the water ground water that seeps up along the route. The fire and water trucks will also require enough clearance to turn. In order to create this space, our neighbors will need to cut down several trees, as the new "driveway" will go straight through their front yard and on to our property. We would also have to tear down a loafing shed to accommodate the turning radius in addition to a separate 40-60 foot turning radius for the trucks to fully turn around and exit once finished. From the new access point, the trucks will ultimately have to go through two gates, ours and the neighbors, then travel over 1000 feet to reach our house, causing a delay in response time. Due to the new distance needed to be traveled, we will also be required to either put a sprinkler system in our house or a fire hydrant out in front of our house. This route will also cause a delay in emergency response to either people needing urgent care, or a fire needing attention. All of the changes that would be required by the Fire Marshall would create an estimated expense to us of $200,000-300,000, which we can in no way afford. Enclosed is a letter from the Ty Drage, the Front Range Fire marshal. We have spoken with our neighbors and they don't want our driveway in the middle of their front yard. All of the traffic to our house would have to drive through their front yard, and headlights would shine into their bedroom window at night. They purchased their property after we had completed our home in 2016 and they were not expecting to have traffic running right through their front yard. We sincerely ask that you consider granting us a permit for our existing driveway as we feel that not only the safety of our family and neighbors would be compromised by a move, but we truly cannot afford to make the changes that would be required by the Fire District should we have to close off the existing entrance. Sincerely, Richard Williams Sara Williams FRONT RANGE FIRE RESCUE PO Box 130, Milliken, CO 80543 970-587-4464 / Fax: 970-587-0324 Courage * Compassion * Professionalism Serving Johnstown, Milliken and Weld County for more than 100 years June 22, 2018 To Whom It May Concern, On June 4, 2018, I received a phone call from Sara Williams regarding information she had received from Weld County officials regarding the driveway access to their home at 9141 County Road 54 in Milliken. Sara's primary concern was that the County official had told her that they were going to force her to permanently close the driveway to their home on CR54 because it had never been permitted during the development process for the parcel on which their home was located. She stated that she was concerned about this potential because it would force them to use the existing driveway to the home located west of theirs, which would result in a very long driveway that traversed their neighbor's front yard. Based on the information presented to me during the phone conversation, I asked Ms. Williams if it would be possible to meet with her at the home so I could truly understand the scope of the issue. On June 5th, I met with Richard and Sara Williams at their residence. Upon my arrival at their home, I noticed that the current driveway access to CR54 was very clearly marked and easy to find, with the house readily visible at the end of the driveway. I asked them if they knew the history of the current gate they were using for their driveway. Ms. Williams stated that she had spoken with several neighbors and land owners, who told them the gate had been present in that location for more than 50 years and that it had been used regularly during that entire time. I then asked them to show me where the County had told them they would need to relocate their driveway if the current arrangement was stopped. It appears as if the proposed "new" driveway arrangement would result in a common/shared driveway located directly in front of 9143 CR 54 that would serve the addresses of 9139, 9141 and 9143 CR 54. The impact of this new driveway arrangement to the Williams' property would present numerous costly and challenging alterations: Their new driveway would extend more than 1,500 feet, cross through a grove of trees in the front yard of 9143 CR 54, take a sharp 90 -degree turn and pass a loafing shed before taking another 90 - degree turn and travel through a marsh/drainage area before approaching the rear of their home. The potential impact of relocating their driveway causes me some concern in terms of the potential implications for emergency response to their address. Please allow me a moment to list and briefly discuss each of these concerns: 1. Driveway Width: Minimum clear width for a fire apparatus access road is 20 -feet, and there must be at least a 25 -foot turning radius. This is not currently possible and would require the driveway to be significantly widened at several locations, including removing several trees in front of 9143 CR 54. 2. Turnarounds: Due to the extended length of the proposed new driveway, there would need to be at least one, if not more, locations installed to turn around a fire truck. This could be a 90 -foot diameter cul-de-sac, or one of several other hammerhead -type turnarounds. 8-1 LUS d+tWM18 FRONT RANGE FIRE RESCUE PO Box 130, Milliken, CO 80543 970-587-4464 / Fax: 970-587-0324 Courage * Compassion * Professionalism Serving Johnstown, Milliken and Weld County for more than 100 years 3. Road Surface: The new driveway would need to be capable of supporting a fire truck weighing up to 75,000 pounds during all types of weather. Since the new driveway would cross a wetlands/draining area, this would likely require either diverting or otherwise disturbing that area or installing some sort of culvert or bridge structure. 4. Water Supply: There are no fire hydrants in the immediate vicinity of their home, which would result in our response plan including several water tenders. With a proposed driveway length in excess of 1,500 feet, all responding fire apparatus would need to navigate that long and narrow driveway. Coupled with that, our response would need to include the ability to establish a continuous water supply via water tenders. This would necessitate several apparatus making round trips to nearby fire hydrants, delivering water to the scene, and then turning around to refill. Given a fire scenario in this home, and the anticipated response limitations imposed by the driveway access, it would be reasonable to assume that this would become a defensive fire. Thus, I would consider informing the Williams family that they may need to install a residential fire sprinkler system to avoid that potential outcome. In summary, I would respectfully request that Weld County officials support the Williams family in maintaining their current driveway access located directly in front of 9141 County Road 54 based on the combined facts that the driveway gate has been in active use for more than 50 years and that any proposed relocation of their driveway to the area of 9143 County Road 54 would place an unnecessary hardship on the family in terms of anticipated financial expenses as well as a dramatically altered emergency response capabilities from their present reality. Tyler Drage Life Safety Chief/Fire Marshal Front Range Fire Rescue [Forwarding e-mail redacted] From: "Morgan Gabbert" <mgabbert@weldgov.com> To: "wazoo898@yahoo.com" <wazoo898@yahoo.com> Sent: Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 16:32 Subject: Weld County Variance Request - denial Hi Sara & Richard, I needed to notify you that the PW executive committee denied your request for the existing direct access to your property on CR 54. At this time you have the right to request an Appeal of Denial from the Weld County Board of County Commissioners. Please review the Weld County Code sections: 12-5-130 & 2-4-10. This outlines the appeal process moving forward. If there are any questions please let me know. https://library.municode.com/co/weld county/codes/charter and county code Thank you, Morgan Gabbert Engineer Tech 11 Weld County Public Works 1111 H Street P.O. Box 758 1 C e 1 Greeley, CO 80632-0758 (970) 304-6496 ext. 3778 nalahbci aii etJgov,qum 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. 2 March 27, 2017 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES 1555 N. 17TH AVENUE GREELEY, CO 80631 970-353-6100 EXT 3572 FAX 970-304-6498 tparko@weldgov.com RE: International Fire Code (IFC) Adoption To Whom It May Concern, In order to ensure that development requirements regarding issues such as fire access roads, fire flow, and fire suppression systems are consistent throughout the County, the Weld Board of County Commissioners want to establish consistent fire codes. Therefore, the Board of County Commissioners notes several amendments to the International Fire Codes (IFC) that Fire Districts will need to include in the adoption of new codes. 1) No single or double family residential home that is less than 3600 square feet, above grade, will be required to have a fire suppression system. 2) Single and double family residences will not require two access points. 3) Single and double family residences will not require unduly burdensome road construction or driveway maintenance. When preparing or submitting a request pursuant to C.R.S. 32-2-1001 et seq., for the County to consent to enforcement of a fire code, please keep these requirements in mind. Any questions may be directed to the Weld County Building Department. Sincerely, Tom Parko Director, Department of Planning Services Cc: Frank Haug, Assistant County Attorney Jose Gonzalez, Assistant Building Official v Weld County Clerk to the Board's Office Incoming Documents Document Title: P LA ) ofto f - ' G d (.4_...);‘‘ickerN5 Received From: Received By: Date Received: Delivered To: Et/et.; +4 KA1,044dar%, C r 3- ,,tc (-cam M:\CTB\CTB F0RMS\General Forms\Documents Received\CTB Documents Received Form.docx UNSHARED LOCATION UNSHARED LOCATION 0011111 iiJ- •.• Ve. : :rte. .-,C._ _,_ a"- Aiwa - "„ a ICI a a S.„. - s_ r - raw I. Cesar's Concrete 3936 Cedarwood Lane Johnstown, CO 80534 9704209040 cesar@cesarsconcrete.com www.cesarsconcrete.com ESTI MATE ADDRESS Sarah Williams 9141 County Road 54 Miliken, CO CONC E ESTIMATE # 1203 DATE 09/17/2018 DATE ; ACTIVITY 09/17/2018 Driveway Replacement DESCRIPTION Concrete will be 4" thick, 4000PSl, come with rebar at 3' centers. Replace the existing driveway and add to it. The job will be estimated at 1100 linear feet and 14' wide. The price also includes creating a culvert on the low spot of your existing driveway. Full payment is due at the end of pouring the concrete as determined TOTAL by Cesar's Concrete, Corp. Payment options include cash, check, Credit card (3% fee). Price includes Labor, roadbase, compaction, concrete, rebar, and forming. All concrete will be hauled off by Cesar's Concrete, Corp. Demolition of concrete is estimated at 4" thick and if the concrete is any thicker it may require additional fees. Cesar's Concrete, Corp is not responsible for filling holes left by forms, or puncturing unexposed sprinkler lines, electrical line, or any other lines buried where construction will take place. Any alteration or deviation from the above specifications involving extra costs will become an extra charge to the customer over the estimated price, to be determine solely by Cesar's Concrete, Corp. Final price is based on square footage poured. A 5% fee per day will be applied if payment is not received on the day of the pour. Accepted By Accepted Date 15,400 5.25 80,850.00 $80,850.00 Phone: (970) 420-9040 Email: Cesar@cesarsconcrete.com LIZANNA HOMES, INC. P.O. Box 629 LONGMONT, CO. 80502-0629 (303) 775-3261 ESTIMATE Dates 9/16 Your PO# Our Job # To: Richard and Sara Williams 9141 WCR 54 Milliken, CO 80543 Job: 9141 WCR 54 Milliken, CO 80543 I 1 DESCRIPTION a The installation of a wet (holding tank with pump) indoor fire sprinkler system to existing finished residence 1 Approximate installation costs: system needs to be engineered by certified 25,000.00 engineer, such as Freedom Fire, to obtain actual cost 2 Plumbing of water line fees to tank, electrical circuit feed to equipment 3,500.00 3 Repairs before & after sprinkler install a.) Construct plywood catwalks in attic for workers walkways 3,500.00 b.) Drywall repair/ patch work 3,500.00 c.) Paint touch up at drywall patches 1,500.00 d.) Reinsulate Attic 6,500.00 e.) Clean up, draping, misc. tarping 6,150.00 4 Contract Fee/ Supervision 5,000.00 Total estimated costs without actual Sprinkler Engineering Specs. 54,650.00 Subtotal Shipping and handling Subtotal 54,650.00 - 54,650.00 TERMS: Thank You for Your Businness Discount Tax TOTAL 54,650.00 Hello