The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20120394.tiff To: Weld County Planning Services • Michelle Martin, Planner From: Frank Grimaldi (Homeowner, 261 Hunters Cove Drive, Mead CO 80542) Date: October 25, 2011 (sent by email to: mmartin@co.weld.co.us RE: Case it USR-1683, non-conforming use The opinion and objections stated below have not changed. Indeed, I will present more information at the Public Meeting. Please advise as to when the Public Meeting will be held. To: Weld County Planning Services Attn: Michelle Martin, Planner 4209 County Road 24.5 Longmont, Colorado 80504 From: Frank Grimaldi Date: June 29,2009(Delivered) RE: Case#: USR-1683 Highland Ditch Company, non-conforming use • During 2008 the Highland Ditch Company ignored the law and used this property for many non- conforming uses in violation of Weld County Zoning Sec. 23-3-40. Uses by special review. I personally sent two letters to the High Ditch Company asking them to comply with the law and was ignored. (Please see enclosed copies of letters dated April 30, 2008 and May 2, 2008.)They continued the illegal uses until a neighbor filed a complaint with Weld County. I believe this shows a complete disregard for the law. While they call themselves a "Ski Club" these are some of the activities that took place during Summer 2008 without any safety patrol: • Water Skiing at high rates of speed • Camping adjacent Hunters Cove properties • Open Fires adjacent Hunters Cove properties • People urinating, etc., in public • Music so loud it could be heard inside the dwellings adjacent the Reservoir. • Overloading boats • Not wearing life jackets in boats • Drinking alcohol on the boats I do not live adjacent the Reservoir but the music is so loud we can hear it across Hunters Cove Road. The Reservoir is adjacent Hunters Cove which is a subdivision that allows horses. The Town of Mead recently approved up to 600 residential units on the south side of the Reservoir. The noise created by this non-conforming use is not compatible with the adjacent current and proposed land uses. • I urge this proposal be rejected. EXHIBIT 2012-0394 1 / / - • To: Weld County Planning Services Attn: Michelle Martin, Planner 4209 County Road 24.5 Longmont, Colorado 80504 From: Frank Grimaldi Date: June 29, 2009 (Delivered) RE: Case #: USR-1683 Highland Ditch Company, non-conforming use During 2008 the Highland Ditch Company ignored the law and used this property for many non- conforming uses in violation of Weld County Zoning Sec. 23-3-40. Uses by special review. I personally sent two letters to the High Ditch Company asking them to comply with the law and was ignored. (Please see enclosed copies of letters dated April 30, 2008 and May 2, 2008.) They continued the illegal uses until a neighbor filed a complaint with Weld County. I believe this shows a complete disregard for the law. While they call themselves a "Ski Club" these are some of the activities that took place during Summer 2008 without any safety patrol: • • Water Skiing at high rates of speed • Camping adjacent Hunters Cove properties • Open Fires adjacent Hunters Cove properties • People urinating, etc., in public • Music so loud it could be heard inside the dwellings adjacent the Reservoir. • Overloading boats • Not wearing life jackets in boats • Drinking alcohol on the boats I do not live adjacent the Reservoir but the music is so loud we can hear it across Hunters Cove Road. The Reservoir is adjacent Hunters Cove which is a subdivision that allows horses. The Town of Mead recently approved up to 600 residential units on the south side of the Reservoir. The noise created by this non-conforming use is not compatible with the adjacent current and proposed land uses. I urge this proposal be rejected. • EXHIBIT 1 s-j May 2,2008 • Highland Ditch Company 4311 Highway 66 Longmont, Colorado 80504 RE: HIGHLAND RESERVOIR#1 a/k/a HOWLETT RESERVOIR Parcel No. 120722000041 Dear Members of the Highland Ditch Company: Since delivery of my previous letter dated April 30,20081 was informed that in addition to water skiing the above referenced property is already being used for camping, fires,and storage of camping equipment. This land use also requires a"Use by Special Review Permit". It is the same zoning code cited, and delivered with,my letter dated April 30,2008. A copy of the code is enclosed. I really do not see what the issue is: • • Permits are required by Weld County zoning code(law). • These activities have no Permits and need to cease; then, proceed through the Weld County Planning process. • All that is being asked is the Highland Ditch Company comply with the Weld County zoning code(law). I am not an attorney.Please advise if I am not interpreting the Weld County zoning code(law) correctly. The Weld County Planning Department indicated the"Use by Special Review Permit" is required. Sincere. D y Frank Grimaldi P. O. Box 14 Longmont,CO 80502 Phone: (970) 535-4956 Enclosure • EXHIBIT St Zoning—Zone Districts Div.1,A Agricultural Zone District—Sec.23-3-30 the original condition it was in at the time it was placed on the site as established by the original inspection by the Department of Building Inspection,or it shall be removed from site. • 6. A cargo container used for storage shall be removed from the property upon cessation of the USE. 7. The cargo container may not be used in any manner to display a sign. L. Up to two(2)semi-trailers may be used for accessory storage on agricultural parcels not in an approved or recorded subdivision plat, or LOTS which are part of a map or plan filed prior to the adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. (One [1] semi-trailer used as accessory storage on lots in an approved or recorded subdivision plat,or LOTS which are part of a map or plan filed prior to the adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions in the A(Agricultural)Zone District may be permitted according to the procedure and requirements outlined in Section 23-4-165 of this Chapter for the purpose of storing goods inside the unit.) M. Parking and operation of one(1)COMMERCIAL VEHICLE on property of less than eighty(80)acres in size,when not a LOT in an approved or recorded subdivision,or a LOT which is part of a map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions. Parking and operation of up to five (5) COMMERCIAL VEHICLES from property equal to, or greater than, eighty (80) acres in size when used to haul agricultural goods, equipment or livestock, as long as the number of trips does not exceed sixty (60)per day to and from the property. When the property is located within an approved or recorded subdivision, or part of a LOT which is part of a map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions, such USE may be permitted through Section 23-4-950 of this Code. (Weld County Codification Ordinance 2000-1; Weld County Code Ordinance 2001-1; Weld County Code Ordinance 2002-9; Weld County Code Ordinance 2003-10;Weld County Code Ordinance 2006-2;Weld County Code Ordinance 2006-4) Sec.23-3-40. Uses by special review. The following BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES and USES may be constructed, occupied, operated and maintained in the A (Agricultural) Zone District upon approval of a permit in accordance with the requirements and procedures set forth in Article II,Division 4 of this Chapter. A. Mineral resource development facilities including: • 1. OIL AND GAS STORAGE FACILITIES. 2. OIL AND GAS SUPPORT AND SERVICE. 3. Open pit MINING and materials processing, subject to the provisions of Article IV, Division 4 of this Chapter. 4. Asphalt and concrete batch plants. 5. Coal gasification facilities. 6. MINING or recovery of other mineral deposits located in the County, subject to the provisions of Article IV,Division 4 of this Chapter. B. Agricultural Service establishments primarily engaged in performing agricultural,animal husbandry or horticultural services on a fee or contract basis,including: 1. Sorting,grading and packing fruits and vegetables for the grower. 2. Grain and/or feed elevators. 23-91 Date: 05/02/2008 Supp. 10 • - Zoning—Zone Districts Div.I,A Agricultural Zone District—Sec.23-3-40 3. Crop dusting or spraying operations facilities (includes hangars, landing trips, fertilizer storage facilities, insecticide storage facilities, fuel storage facilities and OFFICES ACCESSORY to the crop dusting or spraying operation). • 4. Farm equipment sales,repair and installation facilities. 5. Veterinary clinics or hospitals. 6. Grain and feed sales. 7. Commercial grain storage and drying. 8. Fertilizer storage,mixing,blending and sales. 9. Seed production,processing,storage,mixing,blending and sales. 10. Animal training and boarding facilities where the maximum number of ANIMAL UNITS permitted in Section 23-3.50.D is exceeded or when the use adversely impacts surrounding properties, including noise,odor,lighting or glare,traffic congestion or trash accumulation, 11. Alcohol production exceeding ten thousand(10,000)gallons per year or the sale or loan of alcohol occurring to any other person not involved in the alcohol production operation. 12. Animal waste recycling or processing facilities. 13. Custom meat processing. 14. LIVESTOCK sale barns and facilities. 15. Forage dehydration facilities. 16. LIVESTOCK CONFINEMENT OPERATIONS. 17. Rodeo Arenas,Commercial 18. Roping Arenas,to include both indoor and outdoor arenas,commercial. C. Recreational facilities and USES including: 1. Race tracks and race courses. • 2. DRIVE-IN THEATERS,subject to the provisions of Section 23-4-410. 3. Golf courses. 4. Shooting ranges,subject to the provisions of Section 23-4-370. 5. Guest farms and hunting lodges. 6. Fairgrounds. 97. PUBLIC,commercial or private tent or RECREATIONAL VEHICLE camping areas. 8. RECREATIONAL FACILITIES such as water skiing lakes and dirt bike race courses, for example, that are used as public or private`OMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL FACILITIES. D. Public Utilities facility,including: 1. Equipment storage or repair facilities,subject to the provisions of Section 23-4-420. 2. Storage tanks,subject to the provisions of Section 23-4-420. 3. MAJOR FACILITIES OF PUBLIC UTILITIES OR PUBLIC AGENCIES,subject to the provisions of Section 23-4-420. 23-92 pate: 05/02/2008 Supp. 10 April 30, 2008 • Highland Ditch Company 4311 Highway 66 Longmont,Colorado 80504 DELIVERED RE: HIGHLAND RESERVOIR#1 a/k/a HOWLETT RESERVOIR Parcel No. 120722000041 Dear Members of the Highland Ditch Company; The above referenced lake/reservoir borders Hunters Cove. I am a resident of Hunters Cove. While we are not adjacent to the above referenced property we were informed by a neighbor that there are plans to use it for: water skiing;a dock;creating a beach;and/or camping. I live directly across the street from the area of the proposed beach. I consulted Weld County Planning and was told this land use requires a"Use by Special Review Permit". A copy of the zoning code which requires this permit was given to me by the Planner. l have enclosed it for your convenience. I was told the land owner must apply for the Permit,not the Lessee. The Planner also handed me a Complaint Form.I do not believe a complaint is necessary. We are neighbors and all we are asking the Highland Ditch Company is to comply with Weld County zoning. • There are many concerns about such land use adjacent residential homes. I am sure these issues will be discussed during the Hearings before the Weld County Planning Commission and Weld County Board of Commissioners. Apparently,there is already a problem with the hunt and fish club. (I am not a member.) Since no Permit has been issued I ask the Highland Ditch Company to stop the property from being used for water skiing and not allow any improvements be made to the site. c Frank Grimaldi P. O. Box 14 Longmont,CO 80502 Phone: (970) 535-4956 Enclosures • EXHIBIT - Zoning—Zone Districts Div.1,A Agricultural Zone District--Sec.23-3-30 the original condition it was in at the time it was placed on the site as established by the original inspection by the Department of Building Inspection,or it shall be removed from site. • 6. A cargo container used for storage shall be removed from the property upon cessation of the USE. 7. The cargo container may not be used in any manner to display a sign. L. Up to two(2)semi-trailers may be used for accessory storage on agricultural parcels not in an approved or recorded subdivision plat, or LOTS which are part of a map or plan filed prior to the adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. (One [I] semi-trailer used as accessory storage on lots in an approved or recorded subdivision plat,or LOTS which are part of a map or plan filed prior to the adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions in the A(Agricultural)Zone District may be permitted according to the procedure and requirements outlined in Section 23-4-165 of this Chapter for the purpose of storing goods inside the unit.) M. Parking and operation of one(1)COMMERCIAL VEHICLE on property of less than eighty(80)acres in size,when not a LOT in an approved or recorded subdivision,or a LOT which is part of a map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions. Parking and operation of up to five (5) COMMERCIAL VEHICLES from property equal to, or greater than, eighty (80) acres in size when used to haul agricultural goods,equipment or livestock,as long as the number of trips does not exceed sixty (60)per day to and from the property. When the property is located within an approved or recorded subdivision, or part of a LOT which is part of a map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions, such USE may be permitted through Section 23-4-950 of this Code. (Weld County Codification Ordinance 2000-1; Weld County Code Ordinance 2001-1; Weld County Code Ordinance 2002-9; Weld County Code Ordinance 2003-10;Weld County Code Ordinance 2006-2;Weld County Code Ordinance 2006-4) Sec.23-3-40. Uses by special review. The following BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES and USES may be constructed, occupied, operated and maintained in the A (Agricultural) Zone District upon approval of a permit in accordance with the requirements and procedures set forth in Article II,Division 4 of this Chapter. A. Mineral resource development facilities including: 1. OIL AND GAS STORAGE FACILITIES. • 2. OIL AND GAS SUPPORT AND SERVICE. 3. Open pit MINING and materials processing, subject to the provisions of Article IV, Division 4 of this Chapter. 4. Asphalt and concrete batch plants. 5. Coal gasification facilities. 6. MINING or recovery of other mineral deposits located in the County, subject to the provisions of Article IV,Division 4 of this Chapter. B. Agricultural Service establishments primarily engaged in performing agricultural,animal husbandry or horticultural services on a fee or contract basis,including: 1. Sorting,grading and packing fruits and vegetables for the grower. 2. Grain and/or feed elevators. 23-91 Supp. 10 • Zoning—Zone Districts Div.1,A Agricultural Zone District—Sec.23-3-40 3. Crop dusting or spraying operations facilities (includes hangars, landing trips, fertilizer storage facilities, insecticide storage facilities, fuel storage facilities and OFFICES ACCESSORY to the crop • dusting or spraying operation). 4. Farm equipment sales,repair and installation facilities. 5. Veterinary clinics or hospitals. 6. Grain and feed sales. 7. Commercial grain storage and drying. 8. Fertilizer storage,mixing,blending and sales. 9. Seed production,processing,storage,mixing,blending and sales. 10. Animal training and boarding facilities where the maximum number of ANIMAL UNITS permitted in Section 23-3-50.D is exceeded or when the use adversely impacts surrounding properties, including noise,odor,lighting or glare,traffic congestion or trash accumulation. 11. Alcohol production exceeding ten thousand(10,000)gallons per year or the sale or loan of alcohol occurring to any other person not involved in the alcohol production operation. 12. Animal waste recycling or processing facilities. 13. Custom meat processing. 34. LIVESTOCK sale barns and facilities. 15. Forage dehydration facilities. 16. LIVESTOCK CONFINEMENT OPERATIONS. 17. Rodeo Arenas,Commercial 18, Roping Arenas,to include both indoor and outdoor arenas,commercial. C. Recreational facilities and USES including: 1. Race tracks and race courses. • 2. DRIVE-IN THEATERS,subject to the provisions of Section 23-4-410. 3. Golf courses. 4. Shooting ranges,subject to the provisions of Section 23-4-370. 5. Guest farms and hunting lodges. 6. Fairgrounds. 7. PUBLIC,commercial or private tent or RECREATIONAL VEHICLE camping areas. 8. RECREATIONAL FACILITIES such as water skiing lakes and dirt bike race courses,for example, that are used as public or private COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL FACILITIES. D. Public Utilities facility,including: 1. Equipment storage or repair facilities,subject to the provisions of Section 23-4-420. 2. Storage tanks,subject to the provisions of Section 23-4-420. 3, MAJOR FACILITIES OF PUBLIC UTILITIES OR PUBLIC AGENCIES, subject to the provisions of Section 23-4-420. 23-92 Supp. 10 • e • • • To: Weld County Department of Planning Services. 01-09-09 From: Hunters Cove Residents We the residents of Hunters Cove would like to oppose the Highlands Ditch application to allow water skiing on Mulligan Reservoir. Expansion of NCU-481 (Section 22, Township 3 North, Range 68 West} Mead Colorado. The proposed use is not consistent and compatible with surrounding land use. Historically Mulligan Reservoir has been use for hunting and fishing only. NO WATER SKIING HAS EVER BEEN ALLOWED ON THE LAKE. The fishing and hunting club has been using the lake for over 100 years. A speed limit of 10 MPH has always been in affect at the lake. The lake is a no wake zone. We have lived on the lake for 13 years and have co-existed with the hunting and fishing club with no problems. We built our homes on the lake because we knew that loud boats and partying were not allowed on the lake. It is a beautiful and peaceful place to live. That all changed this summer,when Hyland Ditch Company allowed water skiing on the lake, without getting a permit from the county. I personally presented our concerns at a Hyland Ditch board meeting but they fell on deaf ears. Nothing was done to help solve the problems we have listed below. • Because of these issues we would like the county to reject the application for water skiing on Mulligan Reservoir. 1) Safety issues on such a small lake. Small two person boats are used for fishing. Due to the small overall size of the lake, large wakes created by large boats going over 10 MPH can capsize the small boats. Fishermen often stand and cast into the marshy treed areas of the lake and large wakes can be very dangerous. The lake is so small that the skiers have to ski around the fishing boats and the fishing lines. 2) The lake is a natural habitat for many animals and water fowl. The noise and water disturbance by large boats going over 10MPH will greatly disturb this habitat. (Bald Eagles) 3) The noise from the loud boats will disturb the residents around the lake. The noise level this summer was off the chart. The ski boats are very loud. The blasting music from the boats was even louder than the large engines. We could here it inside the house with all the doors and windows closed and the air conditioning on. I talked to the skiers several times but it only made it worse. Clearly they were not concerned about disturbing the residents around the lake. • EXHIBIT I5 • I • 4) Lack of sanitation and water facilities. We have personally witnessed skiers urinating behind their cars and trucks. This is in plain view of the homes on the west side of the lake. There is a small outhouse on the south west side of the lake, but I am sure it can not handle 30 more families using it. It is located several hundred yards from the proposed north side new dock the skiers are planning to build. We see this as a real problem. The outhouse will not be used, it is to far way. That only leaves one place left that will be used,the lake. Please think about 30 additional families at this small lake with no facilities. 5) Traffic and parking. There is not adequate parking around the lake. The fishermen park by the club house out of view of the homes on the west side. There is very limited parking and the fishermen use it. The only place left for the skiers to park is along our fences in our back yard. This summer our beautiful lake view turned into a view of a parking lot. Truck,trailers and cars parked all along our fence. The proposed permit would allow for use 7 days a week from sun up to sun down. This means the view from our deck every day would be of a parking lot. This is not very desirable. 6) Hunting and water skiing do not mix. Because of the warm weather this fall this situation actually occurred. The hunter showed up at the lake early in the • morning and the water skiers showed up a few hours later. Luckily the skiers decided not to ski around men with guns. The hunters shoot geese from the south west side of the lake. They shoot across the lake to the north. Any boat on the lake would be in the firing path of the hunters. In conclusion we ask that you please put yourselves in our shoes. We love the area that we live in. We built here because it is beautiful and peaceful. The Hyland Ditch board told me, " We want the revenue from the ski club. This is about money and only about money." It is clear from the actions of the ski club this summer and the lack of response from Hyland Ditch Company that the problems above will only get worse if the permit is granted and water skiing is allowed. We do not believe all things should be about money. Safety of all involved should be the most important issue. We ask that you please reject this special use permit and keep our lake s a l/ H peaceful. _ Caz e 4/2.42L6 tL/i( ‘,2, 2 liaAi`?2Li Co i.)2: 12,-) _ !l \ >� �i ✓a/JAMS A./d 447?? f /Ji" —1 75C Lc4?/? <o.•.,,,c f jpt • // 4 ifit z/.. .?!ILA it,s-/k 44'S(['✓ TO: Highlands Ditch Company, FROM: Mike Marshall 127 Hunters Cove rd Mead Co. 970-525-9270 As per our phone conversation today 6-4-08, I am listing the home owners concerns regarding the water skiing on Mulligan Lake. We would ask that this activity be stopped until a meeting can be held to discuss this situation with the people that it truly affects every day,the home owners. 1) The lake is a natural habitat for many type of animals and water fowl that may or may not be legally protected. The increase in motorized vehicles on the shore and in the water will disturb this habitat. We have personally witnessed bald eagles in the trees around the lake. 2) The noise level at the lake has increased 20 times. The constant noise of the power boats and the loud music being played by the water skiers is non stop now Friday thought Sunday night, 3) We have observed public urination by both males and females. This occurred within 5 feet of our fence by the parked trucks. 4) The skiers park at the end of our fence. We have a beautiful view of the lake from our back deck.This is where we spend most of our time when we are home. Now we see trucks and trailers. THIS WILL AFFECT OUR PROPERTY VALUES. 5) We have observed boaters that are not using safe boat practices such as over crowded boats, skiers with out life jackets and children in boats not wearing life jackets, to name a few. I would like to ask each board member to please put yourself in our shoes, see thing through our eyes. We built our house in 1995, 13 years ago. I researched the lake and learned that boats were not allowed to exceed 10 mph. This rule has been in affect for over 100 years. It is one of the reasons we built here. We love our great view and the quiet peaceful lake abundant with wildlife. The decision to allow water skiing has change all that. Now our view is of trucks and trailers. Our quiet lake has become very noisy. This has affected our way of life and will affect our property values. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Mike Marshall • EXHIBIT 9 . F Gib► *IA eAI-e YY1 h'2 • • To: Weld County Department of Planning Services To: Highland Ditch Company From: Hunters Cove Residents Re: Mulligan Lake Ski Club February 03, 2009 Although I am a member of the proposed ski club at Mulligan Lake in Mead, CO; I am also a resident of Hunter's Cove. I understand that the Hunting and Fishing Club members are not interested in sharing what they consider to be"their lake" and it is certainly their right to voice their opinions. Where I take issue is with their methods. I have come across several written pieces where they are exaggerating and stating flat out lies about what is going on at the lake. Our"club" which is 6-8 members strong (not 30, as stated by Mike Marshall) was conceived out of the desire to ski on a lake that is not full of boats! We can go to Carter Lake any time we want and fight waves and crowds! (And, by the way, co-exist with a lot more fisherman than I have ever seen at Mulligan Lake.) In a ski club, the idea is to run one boat at a time giving each skier the opportunity to ski on smooth water, "glass" if you will. The Hunting and Fishing Club would like you to believe that we are running our boats in a helter skelter manor. On the rare occasion that we even see a member of their club fishing, we stay away from them. For the most part, they are usually along the edges of the lake, as stated by Mike Marshall. There are way too many weeds and way too much debris along the edges for us to take our boats through. We have never skied around the fishing boats or even come near their lines. The safety issues that were stated on several occasions that really stand out for me is that we are skiing without life jackets! That is a LIE. We are all boat owners and skiers (I have personally been skiing for 42 years!) We know all the boating rules and we abide by them. Children are not required to wear life jackets while riding in boats. (The only child I have seen out there was at • least 10-12 years old. There are no babies or toddlers.) I am not a hunter and never will be so I don't know what the laws are about hunting. Is there actually a hunting season? Can the Hunting & Fishing Club hunt whenever they feel like hunting, or do they have to hunt during hunting season only? We have no problem with not skiing during hunting season! We don't want to be shot either! And if that is truly an issue, how are those hunters going to keep from shooting those bald eagles we keep hearing about? The lake is a natural habitat? Aren't all lakes natural habitats? There are several big birds out there and I have yet to see one leave because we are there! I'm not sure what they do when the guns start firing in the fall and winter. The noise from the boats has also been greatly exaggerated. I personally walked from my house on Adams Avenue through Karla's driveway and around the lake to catch up with my husband and one of the other members. (We usually only take one or the other of our boats out on any given day.) The boat they had that day was probably the loudest one out there. I could barely hear it while walking over the dam and toward Mike Marshall's yard. It was a late Saturday AM and the weed eaters, mowers and noise from the freeway was louder than the boat and the stereo in the boat. There is a dense growth of trees, weeds, and cat tails that absorb a lot of the sound. Mike Marshall's house is quite a ways from the lake, so I don't see how it could be louder inside his house with the windows closed and the air conditioner on than it is standing on the road by the lake. He says he talked to the skiers several times and it only made it worse! My husband took his decibel reader to measure noise while boats were running and it proved that Mike Marshall is exaggerating. We would be happy to re-create this test at any time. (By the way, we can hear the shot guns two blocks away!) My husband and I had one conversation with Mike Marshall. He informed us that he is a member of the Hunting & Fishing Club and that he desired • to be a member of the ski club. At that time, we told him, we were not in a position to accept any new members as we were keeping the club to a minimum. Ever since then he has been on a quest to get rid of us through any means he can think up. EXHIBIT 1 i . 6- • • • The issue with our trucks and trailers being parked behind his fence is a dead issue. When Mike Marshall complained about it we moved. At our expense, be installed a gate to the south of their club house and we park our trucks and trailers over where he can't even see them! Our plan since then is to put in a loading ramp on the south-west side of the lake so that we wouldn't bother anybody while loading and unloading our boats. We are clearly concerned about disturbing the residents around the lake. We talked to a few of Mike Marshall's neighbors and they didn't seem to mind what we did. In fact, one of them took the effort to come over to our house to see if he could get on a waiting list to join the ski club! The lack of sanitation is a dead issue as well. If the permit is granted, we understand that we will have to have a porta-potty installed for our use. Mike Marshall has mentioned several times that he has seen both men and women urinating by his fence. When this allegation was first made, it was brought up to the club members. I don't know what he saw or thought he saw, but my husband and a couple other members, while cleaning and mowing around the area witnessed one of the fishermen urinating off the side of his boat, close to the shore and into the lake. Over one weekend, the hunting and fishing club members set up campers and stayed overnight. They then took pictures of their camp trailers and reported to Weld County that they belonged to the ski club. We have NEVER camped or attempted to camp at the lake. The ski club has NEVER had the huge parties I keep hearing about either! We have lived in Hunters Cove for the same 13 years that Mike Marshall has lived in Hunter's Cove. We drive down CR 7 all the time and gaze over at a lake that is rarely used. When we approached the Highland Ditch Company about using the lake for water-skiing it was because we didn't see much activity from the other users. Last summer they ramped up their efforts to be seen on the lake, but considering there are 37 members (?) in the hunting &fishing club, they still • haven't made much of a presence there. I don't see any reason why we can't co-exist. Our club is more than willing to set up parameters with the other club. We have made an effort to be friendly to the few Hunting/Fishing club members that we have seen on the lake and for the most part they act guarded as if they were instructed not to cooperate or converse with us. I don't understand it. What I know for sure is that although the hunting/fishing club have a right to complain, and object to the ski club, they do not have a right to fabricate lies about us just to try to "win". Our club is not made up of a group of"party-animal evil-doers" as they would have you believe. We are of an average age of 45 years old. We all work and most of us have families and own our own homes. We are not disrespectful of anyone's rights. We saw an opportunity for some fun recreation and have gone through the channels to try to make it happen. In closing, let me say that Mike Marshall does not represent all of Hunter's Cove; nor do I. His property buts up to the Highland Ditch Company's property and he is painting a picture that none of us would want to see happen, and it won't. Sincerely, Karen Johnson Marty Johnson 211 Adams Avenue Mead, CO 80542 970-535-9265 • • • Joseph and Marnie Tocko Weld County Planning Department • 217 Adams Avenue SOUTHWLSi BUILDING Mead Colo. 80542 February 4, 2009 FEB 0 2009 RECEIVED Michelle Martin Weld County Dept. of Planning Services 4209 WCR 24.5 Longmont Colo. 80504 Dear Michelle: We are writing to give our support for the Ski Club's use of the lake just east of our home that's owned by the Highland Ditch Company. We understand there has been some concern in our neighborhood about noise caused by the Ski Club and their members. We personally cannot remember a time when noise was ever an issue with us or our family, from boats and skiers enjoying the lake. The noise we have heard in the past though, has been that of shotguns at 6:00 a.m. on a Saturday morning. We would think that the noise from the shotgun blasts, and rifle cracks • would be more of an issue with our neighbors than that of boaters enjoying the lake at reasonable hours. We also have concerns about a gun club being that close to our neighborhood and I-25. If one of the gun club members overshoots their target just once, they could end up injuring someone or something. It only takes one time. We would think Weld County might consider that a fairly higher liability issue. We hope you and your staff will consider our support and concerns regarding the use of that lake. If you have any questions, please feel free to call us. Daytime phone where we can be reached: 970-535-0750 Thank you for your time. We look forward to hearing from you. merely, oseph and Mamie Tocko • EXHIBIT • • Highland Ditch Company 4309 SH 66 Longmont, Colorado 80504 (RID. &w <,y4) NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTICE February 17, 2009 TO: Surrounding property owners within 1500' of the Mulligan Reservoir property. FROM: Highland Ditch Company, c/o: Ray Derr RE: USR-1683 Proposed ski club • A neighborhood meeting will be held from 7 — 8 p.m. on Friday, March 6th for the purpose of reviewing and discussing the proposed USR-1683 ski club use on Mulligan Reservoir. The meeting will be held at the Mead Town Hall building located at 441 Third Street, Mead, Colorado. Please feel free to contact me with any questions at (720)289-5906 or you can contact our planner, Todd Hodges at (970) 613-8556. • EXHIBIT THE MIJO.IGAN FISHING AND GUN COB INC • ORGANIZED APRIL 9, 1909 Brett Corning.President 303 423 0759 Jeny Shepherd,Vice-President 303 232 2714 Spud Renzelman,Sec'y Treasurer 303 973 6564 Mailing Address • 44A4 W(_g Address Littleton,CO 80123 t ! � 7 RA7 x .wua:ri r'aa' t • k f '' ,r.�T � fM1 6< l r e 4 f iii tg . . .y'",^ t i Atilt I1n $* Wait 1 ! �r r ( $ "':4 ,gi a � r d v ,.. I4 �11 !I ""I tR rl0i r u z 1 "t a;:uv r rte- Y se 4.:. + aw'u fX k:I�' }r! q,,'" t i e:Itcilt7 • ','. T"i orwm a kM d ,yq tai 4+x "+"�"'t ' `p:;�, .' ,.�,xi Yr ... .., v � ,r,..x4exe.5 ' � ".::r4:117}.).} t.".3+.'., ., � _. r(�«. ' = .,,�'�° ... � 11 March 2009 Ms. Michelle Martin Weld County Planning 4209 CR 24.5 Longmont, Colorado 80504 Dear Ms. Martin; Thank you for taking the time to meet with and consider the concerns of our Board of Directors and members regarding application USR-1683. This is a proposal for a special use permit for a non-conforming use of Mulligan Reservoir for water skiing in SW Weld County. • Our club is a continuation of a 100-year history in Weld County regarding the sole use of the surface of Mulligan Reservoir as fishing and hunting club. To put our use in perspective, the reservoir was being fished and hunted as the sole use of the surface starting when: William Howard Taft was president The 15' baseball stadium was built in Pittsburgh, PA The YMCA started the 1st father's day The lst cars were delivered to the Whitehouse with nothing but a stable to store them in The ls' biplanes were delivered to the Army prompting the formation of the US Army Air Corps The 1st Lincoln penny was minted in Denver Colorado Jackson County, Colorado was established Greeley was almost 50 years old and the Chicago-Colorado Colony that was to become Longmont was just 39 years old Our club is a non-commercial, family oriented recreational group whose members own the • hunting and fishing rights on Mulligan Reservoir. We acquired them through outright purchase of these rights from the estate that possessed them. Our membership is comprised of 3'd and 4'" EXHIBIT s. � • generation owners. The Mulligan Fishing and Gun Club has maintained the grounds around the reservoir with annual tree planting, lawn mowing of 5 acres, has maintained a roughly 1/3 mile access road, maintained the 100 year old structure pictured above, and has worked to be a good neighbor with adjacent landowners. The club has invested $47,000 in fish stocking and spent $33,667 in grounds keeping fees just since 1992. There is little room on this small 100-acre reservoir to allow additional surface uses; especially when competing uses create safety and use conflicts for historic users, landowners and adjacent county residents around the reservoir. As long-term proprietors of the hunting and fishing rights our group represents the most accurate and defining record of historic surface use on this reservoir. Incompatibility based on historic use: The use of this reservoir as a quiet fishing and hunting club represents the experience that has defined the clubs interaction with the community, adjacent landowners, and other members. Ten decades of this use has come to define the expectations of the community regarding their realized experience as well. Relationships have developed with the club and the adjacent community allowing cooperative interaction with little intervention required from Weld County in the form of county services. Local county citizens have been made aware of membership openings and have joined the club over the years. Most recently, when adjacent landowners built homes near the lake the club planted tree lines to help with neighbors view and continues to mow grass along the shoreline in front of these houses to assure a well kept appearance of the lake within their view. Incorporation of no wake boat operation rules to keep noise interference for the community to a minimum has been developed as well. We strongly urge the Planning Board and the County Commission to reject this application for non-conforming use of the reservoir as a • water ski club because it is not a historic use, it will destroy the good will that has been built between our club and the community and will continue the conflicts that the water ski club has already caused. Operation of any water ski club at this location is envisioned by the local community and our club as incompatible and divisive. Proponents' state in their application that the use of the reservoir for boats and motors has historically occurred. This statement implies that by the proponent's definition of historic use the large, high horsepower, high-speed water ski boats trailing 1-3 skiers they propose would be similar to the historic use that has occurred. This statement needs accurate clarification. As the sole proprietors of the historic surface water use of this reservoir for a century the club have been the participants, police and the protectors of the uses that have occurred. The club has always allowed boats but ONLY small rowboats that for the first 60 years were only propelled by oars. The club encourages this tradition by continuing to provide the majority of small craft that are used by anglers. Many of our members continue to choose self-propulsion because the lake is small at just 100 acres and solitude is a significant benefit expected from this lake. Other members use electric trolling motors or small horsepower motors (< 10 hp) to access the lake to assist in maintaining the expectations of the community and other members. No matter what the propulsion type our by —laws state that only wake less boat speeds can be realized on the lake. Adding to our policy of maintaining the quiet solitude of the lake gasoline motors used are not continually run as this is detrimental to fishing. Members have never operated motors at the loud, high output and dangerous speeds that proponents are requesting Weld County to allow. If this board allows this non-conforming use the interference created from noisy, high output 411 motors will continue to cause waves and disturbing conditions that are a serious threat to the • small boats and one person floatation devices (belly boats, canoes, etc) used by members on the lake. One high horsepower boat using the lake for just 15 minutes will destroy the experiences and expectations of everyone associated with this site (Weld County residents, adjacent homeowners, and club members) at that time. The lake is so small that competing uses can hardly be sequestered and the noise disturbances cannot be abated satisfactorily. Incompatibility with Fishing Water skiing and interference with historic fishing use of this property are of great concern to our club. Water skiers illegally using the lake in 2008 caused numerous engagements of these recreation forms with angling use always being debilitated. The presence of water skiing activities required anglers to cease use due to the extreme danger to life and disturbance of the quiet conditions required to continue fishing this small reservoir. Water skiing and angling use do occur commensurately on some reservoirs; however, it is imperative that the water body be large enough to allow sequestration of each use. Situations where fishing and water skiing occur together include Chatfield Reservoir(1,160 acres), Cherry Creek Res. (885 acres), Horsetooth Res (2,040 acres), and Carter Lake (1,100 acres). These large reservoirs have publicly funded management plans that protect fishing areas with no wake speed restrictions and provide a corps of publicly employed enforcement officers to maintain the peace. Some large public reservoirs that can offer water skiing based on their size have chosen not to so they may protect the solitude that represents an enjoyable, repeatable recreational experience for all users. Examining these reservoirs locally it would include McIntosh Reservoir (962 acres) • and Union Reservoir (736 acre). Local large private reservoirs that could sequester water skiing such as Ish Reservoir(300 acres) and Panama Reservoir 1 (340 acres) also choose to exclude it, again to protect angling use and experience quality. Many of these reservoir companies have required water surface use lessees to specifically exclude water skiing due to potential damage to shorelines and dams from wave action and for safety reasons. Highland Ditch has made this request of our club for many years, which confuses our understanding of their expectations of our club as a good neighbor and seems to illustrate an insensitive profit motive. Mulligan Reservoir is just 100 surface acres and represents little opportunity to maintain safety and protect angling quality by sequestering use. Furthermore, when decision makers understand that the recreational users are two distinct groups that are not administered or coordinated by a common entity with any kind of policing authority; the potential for damage and disaster becomes eminent. We feel the county is justified in denying this application because there is no basis for physical sequestration of neither use nor likelihood that these two entities will ever agree to cooperative coordinated use. Policing and public safety intervention will increase and fall upon the state and the county to provide. Incompatibility with hunting use: Water skiing while others are legally hunting at the same time is virtually unheard of in this region. Thankfully, common sense reigns masterfully in our region. Combining a moving boat and skier on the lake within the zone of shot for adjacent hunting activities is a recipe for bodily injury, harm, and human death. All of the reasons previously identified for the incompatibility of waterskiing on this reservoir are multiplied when trying to coordinate shared use while traditional hunting activities are conducted. The potential for dangerous encounters resulting in • bodily injury are unacceptable and should warrant denial of this application. The potential for conflicts in fall are high as historically members of the club hunt dove and waterfowl during mornings and evenings. During this period hunters are on the surface of the lake and around the perimeter shooting directly into the line of a typical high-speed powerboat that would be using the lake. Additionally, all activities required to access, launch, start up, warm up, and ski using these large boats on the lake disturb the very quarry that hunters have historically pursued on the lake. Continual season long disturbances caused by water skiing not only cause problems and diminish rightful experiences when hunting and skiing are conducted at the same time but the boats, using the entire lake for skiing, disturb and displace waterfowl that normally use the lake for resting during afternoon and evening hours. The potential for bodily injury if Weld County approves water skiing as a use is probable and eminent. This decision would warrant all owners of real estate, access rights, and those living adjacent to the lake to require the County to legally accept responsibilities, and indemnify historic uses. Historic users and adjacent landowners would also require that they be held harmless against all damages that may occur due to the interaction of these two uses approved by the county and the Highland Ditch Company. Until Weld County and the Highland ditch company provide such indemnification we strongly urge the commission to reject this application. Unsuitability of Mulligan Lake for water skiing based on the size of the reservoir: The myriads of conflicts that will be precipitated by an affirmative decision on this application • are also based in the small area of the reservoir useable for water skiing. Mulligan Reservoir is just 100 surface acres. The layout of the reservoir as a circle with shallow north and south bays/benches less than 3' deep diminishes the usable area for water skiing. The 2600' north to south area is the longest water ski fetch (longest straight line available for full acceleration of a high speed boat) has shallow water at both end that reduces the safe water ski zone by 30% to just 1900'. Operators need to accelerate to stand the skier up and maintain the skier for various maneuvers (slalom, weaving, wave jumping, etc) then decelerate to allow the skier to re-enter the water safely. Assuming a minimum overall speed of 30 mph and 1900 linear feet to complete this action the endeavor from north to south is completed in less than 45 seconds. This experience seems inequitable compensation for the increased danger it creates, potential injuries it will surely cause, and the dramatic loss of historic use and aesthetic that it will precipitate. It further illustrates the incompatibility of both uses. Perspectives on the realized experiences of the community and the club during the 2008 period of illegal use by the Water Ski club: The water ski club utilized the lake in 2008 at will with NO regard for coordination of use, compatibility, access, parking, unauthorized use of others facilities or regard for the enhanced safety for their and our members that cooperation would have enhanced. Their conduct of water skiing was completed, in our view, based on a "get out of our way" mentality. The water ski club was the 2008 "bully" of the neighborhood. This application is a product of complaints by neighbors regarding their unlawful use. When water ski proponents were illegally using the reservoir our club members using our typical • small crafts and personal floatation devices reported undesirable, debilitating and dangerous • wave action. Additionally, when water skiing was occurring all other users were involuntarily sequestered to the shoreline areas where wave action is more pronounced and dangerous. The crashing waves and resultant roiling of waters destroyed conditions making fishing unsafe and undesirable for anglers. What frustrates members is that while the ski boats ruin the shallow waters for fishing due to the conditions they create they also eliminate all access for small boats to the deepwater area due to concern for health and safety. As a family club most members' fish with children in their boats. One family has handicapped children that cannot withstand the uncertainty of the wave action which water skiing constantly creates. The effect on their experience is not difficult to deduce. Those members that recreate from low profile, single person floatation craft are difficult to see on the water by high-speed boats and especially vulnerable to being upset by high speed ski boats. The dangers created by water skiing under these conditions are unacceptable. The reservoir associated with a quiet family fishing and hunting club serves as a buffer to the noise and visual distractions of the 1-25 corridor. Legalizing water skiing as a new use of the lake would be particularly destructive to this function of the reservoir for the community and degrade the congenial and cooperative atmosphere that has been developed in this community. As neighbors, the club and Weld County residents have peacefully coexisted for a century with much of this compatibility based in each group's desire for the quiet pristine quality of the experience maintained. Homeowners and club members alike have testified at other hearings, including the Town of Mead, regarding the dramatic disruption that this water ski club represents to the community. Citizens testified regarding concerns for noise, suitable public health facilities, • observances of indecent exposure, litter, late night drinking, and the enforcement of county code infractions (non-conforming uses, indecent exposure, drinking while operating water craft, etc). Approval of this application creates a different and diminished community experience all residents of this part of the county. Club members and citizens are frustrated why this private for profit enterprise by the Highland Ditch Company should be allowed to create a loud and noisy water ski club when it will destroy much of this community's sense of place, destroy the cooperation that has been developed and promote the ongoing need for county and state services all at the cost of the citizens of Weld County. In conclusion, the Mulligan Fishing and Hunt Club, Inc. respectfully requests the Weld County Planning Board and County Commission to reject this application in total based on: • The extreme divergence from the historic use as a small, quiet fishing and hunting club. • The high elevation of noise levels water ski boats create which will destroy the role of the reservoir as an auditory buffer for residents to 1-25. Approval by the commission will sentence residents and club member to experience 1-25 power by propellers in their back yards. • This proposals ability to destroy and degrade the daily community experience which defines the quality of life. A quality of life and view provided at no cost to the county and upon which citizen decisions to locate and build in this area of Weld County have been based. • The physical incompatibility with the existing deeded uses based on the small size of the reservoir and inability to sequester the uses. • Potential conflicts created will destroy the existing value of recreation resulting in losses to • members and citizens of Weld County. • • • The potential that continued conflicts that will increase the need for county services • (emergency, police, and fire) at a cost to the citizens of Weld County. • The low potential for creation and maintenance of suitable water skiing recreation (no more than one active boat on the reservoir at a time; short skiing runs). • The potential to compete with local, county and state water skiing opportunities eliminating the public funding benefit proponents participation would enhance by using those facilities. • It's creation of human health and safety issues regarding potential contact of small boats and personal floatation devices with large high output motor boat with operators and water skiers of unknown and untested capability. • The creation of safety issues for small boats containing members with handicapped and small children • The potential to create extreme and deadly conflicts between hunting uses, maintenance of hunting conditions, and its continual disturbance of wildlife. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly regarding any questions you may have. I would like to request an update from you on the County Planning staff, Planning Board, and County Commission's schedule regarding this application. You can reach me at 303-748-3377. Sincerely; Brett Corning President • Mulligan Fishing and Gun Club, Inc. • • q• Alit ' 1.; -,. , l II 0 . d ' • A Ill 1 r gic - , Q0._._ 11, s.. 'i S • a 9' r.. ,. al c; , witalat �� . � -- i Z• • -- 0 L-. r.. -. - a - . • -.4.t Ilit*� I i' :+ l 1 41 ! .yam ` 1y f 1 s \ Syr y .. mot_ n - -_ 1 a .-r , .f • .3 C I, • j r� 'eik-'T ..f • I , , F / N 1— , t ' ! � • ` ill f. • 1r to 0 \H\si%\s\if1/41.5%\ih 1 ,\,,,. .. I tit • i ; r 3 _ s • • 0 Constitution and By-Laws of The ull . gan Fishing and G Club •,74 (' M1 ..r '�' 5 a id _• • C .airl N .it; N -• • , ...,, 'Ir ccam�,, - ` 4<: (1 Y rd r fk I lalli a F.zr ri -.zaY F�. . ., , . , . setass, _rrWww:' ti _ r va Shat YS ..,,,S7— -r:- M»ar t ,': <<.i+� -'�. ..c% uvi, „ y ax e `.•.' - ` I ;wy fi� t t Organized April 9, 1920 Location - - Mulligan Lake .}11(7 (Highland Reservoir No. 1 ) 1 mile west of I25 & 1/2 mile North of Hwy 66 on 1/ �d•- Weld County Road #7 Revised June 10, 2000 • • • XI. Each member shall be generally responsible for the maintenance of the club house in a reasonable neat, orderly and sanitary condition, and shall be specifically responsible for any disorderly or unsanitary condition created by the use of the club house by himself, his family, or guests. No dogs shall be allowed in the club house. Members and guests shall remove all trash from premises. XII. No water skiing, boat speeding, or use of motors of more than ten horsepower capacity shall be allowed upon the lake. Power boats shall be used so as to interfere as little as possible with fishing or hunting. XIII. Any member may be fined, suspended or expelled for any violation of these By-Laws upon the vote of a majority of members present at a regular or special meeting, providing such member shall have been given at least ten days notice by registered United States mail at the address shown on the records of the club that such action would be considered at such meeting. XIV. • In the event of death of a member, his membership shall revert to his immediate family, if any subject, however, to that member of his family be approved for membership in the club as herein provided. Such application for membership by the said member of the family must be made by the same with in sixty (60) days from the date of death of said member. In the event such application is not made, or, if made, is not approved, such membership shall revert to the club and be available for the club to deal with as it sees fit in accordance with these By-Laws. XV. These By-Laws may be amended, except as herein otherwise expressly provided, by a two-thirds vote at any regular or special meeting of the membership. XVI. This constitution and these By-Laws shall be in full force and effect from and after the 10th day of June 2000 and shall there after supersede all previous provisions. 10 • � � M .tsUTJ5 ►AIti -/YteA A 80A !to nne''► • b. Request approval of the December 8,2008 Bill List Motion was made by Trustee Morgan,seconded by Trustee Brodhead,to approve the December 8,2008 bill list with the inclusion of the payment of$750 to the Mead Youth Sports Association and with the list distributed this evening. Motion carried on a 7-0 roll-call vote. 4. Audience participation There were no comments from the audience. Mayor Macomber moved item#13.c,the Weld County Referral up on the agenda to accommodate several visitors in the audience from outside Mead. 13. Weld County Referral—Highland Ranch—Mulligan Reservoir located south of CR 32 and East of CR 7 Town Planner Joe Gerdom reported that this is a proposal for a nonconforming use that is before the Weld County Commissioners to allow water skiing on the Mulligan Reservoir. Weld County has the ability to create permits for such activities. The proposal includes the construction of a pier,dock and storage building on the south side of the reservoir,adjacent to property that is already before the Town of Mead for annexation for a low density residential development. There are three access points proposed, and all three will affect residential developments surrounding the reservoir. The plan is to allow water skiing from sun up to sunset seven days a week. Mr.Gerdom noted there are many • inconsistencies in the proposal,and he felt that there needs to be additional information and a better drawing before we respond to the request. He explained that the only drawing we currently have is an aerial photograph,which does not clearly indicate where the area is in relation to the residential areas around the reservoir. He expressed concern that this proposal would allow water skiing in an area that is being used for shooting by the gun club. He recommended that the Board ask the County to require the applicant, Highland Ditch Company,to submit an application for annexation to Mead,which would then allow the Board to address these issues. This would be appropriate since most of the surrounding property is annexed to,or in the process of annexing to,the Town of Mead. Mr.Gerdom included a proposed letter to send to Weld County Planner,Michelle Martin. It was noted that annexing this property would restrict the gun club's ability to discharge guns within the Town limits of Mead. Mayor Macomber opened the floor for public comment. Mike Mitchell of 13810 North 115`h Street, Longmont,CO noted that the gun club is aware that if the C property is annexed,they will no longer be able to discharge firearms. They would, however,still be able to continue fishing. He expressed concern that there are conflicts added by allowing water skiing to ,2-41r the area. The lake is too shallow, and there is sedimentation along the shoreline that will make skiing dangerous. He stated that they have been watching Mead expand into the area, and they are willing to work with the Town to define uses in the area. He encouraged the Board not to allow one more nonconforming use or to bring an additional group to the table when those discussions begin. • Minutes of the Board of Trustees Meeting - 2- December 8,2008 , 0 Larry Budler of 129 Hunters Cove explained that there is an easement on his property,and access has been granted to members of the Mulligan Lake Hunting and Fishing Club. He expressed concern that M5 , allowing the skiers on the reservoir will increase the number of people going through his property. Jerry Shepard of 15865 Jackson,Vice President of the Mulligan Hunting and Fishing Club,explained that the club has been in operation on the reservoir since 1909. They restrict access to boats with ten horse 1-- 5 L power or less, including 10 foot skiffs and 14 foot aluminum boats. He felt that allowing skiing on the e,,, ,1 lake at the same time as fishing would create a safety hazard. Natalie Abshier of 125 Hunters Cove Road noted they have lived next to the reservoir for ten years and have not had problems with the Mulligan Hunting and Fishing Club. Their problems started this summer,when the ski club began using the reservoir. There are trucks coming into the area and parking behind the homes, having loud parties. She expressed concern that there are safety issues,since the reservoir is shallow on one end and the skiers are not wearing life jackets. Mike Marshall of 127 Hunters Cove Road expressed concern about the noise. The skiers park behind the 5 C- homes in the area and play loud music. This summer,they could hear the music in their homes with the i Q.,.. r windows closed and the air conditioning on. They have gone from a quiet community to a party area, and he did not feel this is an appropriate use for the back yards of the homes in the neighborhood. Mayor Macomber explained that this request has been sent to the County,and he felt requesting that it be annexed to the Town would allow the Board to address some of the problems that have been • identified. Annexing the property would give the Town more control of the activities that are allowed on the reservoir. Robert Alexander of P. O. Box 3741, Estes Park explained that the Mulligan Hunting and Fishing Club has i-5 c never had an accident. He expressed concern that when you put water skiers and fishermen together, it n e...19 x ( is a matter of time until something happens. He noted there are children in the fishing boats on the lake, and this is a small environment for the two activities. Bret Corning, 8252 Jellison Court,Arvada, CO, President of the Mulligan Lake Hunting and Fishing Club noted that many of the members are second and third generation,and have enjoyed and maintained C the reservoir and the habitat surrounding the property. He noted they have spent money stocking the VO / reservoir,and the ski club has had a negative impact on fishing. It is not safe to have ski boats on the I e m reservoir, and the club has never allowed ski boats unless they are being powered by trolling motors which do not create a wake. He felt this is a safety issue and asked the Board to help keep the area safe. It was noted that no representative of Highland Ditch was present to discuss this issue. Town Planner Gerdom noted that the Town began getting complaints regarding the skiing in the area in June or July,and contacted the individuals involved. That generated the application to Weld County for a permit for a nonconforming use. Board members encouraged the members of the Mulligan Hunting and Fishing Club to contact both the old and new Weld County Commissioners and express their concerns. They were encouraged to attend Minutes of the Board of Trustees Meeting - 3- December 8,2008 • the Weld County Planning Commission meeting and the Commissioners meetings where this is discussed. In the interim,the Town of Mead will send the letter objecting to this usage and requesting that the property be annexed to the Town. They were also encouraged to contact the County to get on their mailing list to allow them to be aware of any meetings where this will be discussed. Motion was made by Trustee Morgan,seconded by Trustee Brodhead to send the letter prepared by Planner Gerdom to Michelle Martin of the Weld County Commission regarding the Weld County Referral: USR-1683: Highland Ditch Company with the suggested changes. The motion carried on a 7-0 vote. 5. Mead Liquor Authority Mayor Macomber recessed the regular meeting and opened the Mead Liquor Authority at approximately 7:30 p.m. a. Renewal of Rocky Mountain Saloon Liquor License—4329 State Highway 66 Mayor Macomber noted the Weld County Sheriffs Deputy inspected this business and there were customers of the bar smoking in non designated areas. Rocky Mountain Saloon Manager, Nickie Peterson, addressed this concern, noting that they are being more diligent in requiring their patrons to smoke outside. • Motion was made by Trustee Morgan,seconded by Trustee Kraemer to approve the liquor license renewal for the Rocky Mountain Saloon,Inc. at 4329 Highway 66, Mead,CO. The motion carried on a 7-0 roll-call vote. Mayor Macomber adjourned the meeting of the Mead Liquor Authority at approximately 7:40 p.m. and reconvened the regular meeting of the Board of Trustees. 6. Interviews for the Town of Mead Committees/Commissions Mayor Macomber explained there are two vacancies on the Open Space Committee,two vacancies on the Planning Commission,and one vacancy on the Parks and Recreation Committee. a. Open Space Committee Mayor Macomber noted that Jeff Engelman has indicated an interest in being reappointed for an additional term on the Open Space Committee. Michael E. Benson, has not been attending meetings and has not expressed an interest in being reappointed. Motion was made by Trustee Morgan,seconded by Trustee Kraemer to appoint Jeff Engelman to the Open Space Committee for a term ending on December 31, 2011. The motion carried on a 7-0 vote. • Minutes of the Board of Trustees Meeting - 4- December 8,2008 Ms. Michelle Martin 10 March 2009 • Weld County Planning Department 4209 CR 24.5 Longmont,Colorado 80504 Re: USR-1683 Dear Ms. Martin, members of the Weld County Planning Board and Weld County Commission; Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the request of the Highland Ditch Company to create a new non-conforming use of Mulligan Reservoir as a for profit water ski club(USR-1683). My name is Michael Mitchell and I am a professionally trained fisheries biologist with 25 years of experience managing Colorado waters. I have been familiar with Mulligan Reservoir for 20 of those years providing fishery research and management recommendations to the club.The club has invested in the development and use of 20 years of scientific databases to properly manage this reservoir. The club has undertaken tens of thousands of dollars in well thought out actions to properly manage and improve the fisheries in this reservoir.After observing this club for roughly 13 years I purchased a membership for my family. My decision was based on the club's commitment to excellence in fisheries and water management as well as the easily definable solitude that this location provided (under the use being realized). Based on my familiarity with the reservoir, how it has been historically used and requirements of typical regulatory processes I would like to provide comments relative to USR-1683. I am concerned that the proponent's application questionnaire provides inaccurate information and is incomplete. Question 1. The proponents states that boating has been a use associated with the reservoir for many years.This statement should be clarified to state"the historic use of the reservoir has been specifically small boats(<10 hp),which are largely provided by the deeded club,and all users are required to follow mandated wakeless speeds only. " The proponent's application misleads inferring that the loud, high horsepower, high speed water ski boats towing 1-3 water skiers proposed for this new use can be considered similar to the historic boating use that defines the experience of the community. This clarification must be understood by decision makers and proponents should be required to address the obvious conflicts and safety issues that these two very different"boat uses" represent which they have avoided in this application as it presently reads. Question 2. The proponent's proposal does NOT comply with the intent or wording of Weld County Code Chapter 22(Comprehensive Plan). A. It destroys existing passive open space. The allowance of a water ski club on the lake will destroy the presently realized value of Mulligan Reservoir as passive open space for residents of Weld County. Presently the experience of all residents afpund the lake is one of appealing view sheds, quiet solitude,very low use, no conflicts provided IN historic use and the function of the reservoir as a large auditory/viewshed buffer for residents off setting impacts from 1-25. Those historically using the reservoir employ small craft,wakeless speeds while moving,and use electric trolling motors for EXHIBIT • the majority of propulsion while fishing.The presence of 3-7 loud, high horsepower speed boats drafting 1-3 skiers behind from sunrise to sunset(and the associated loud music and loud voice commands also employed by skiers)completely negates the value of Mulligan reservoir as a visual and auditory buffer to I-25 for Weld County residents and the conflicts will negatively affect the sense of place for Weld County residents. The proposal destroys existing view sheds.The location of a new dock, boat ramp, and swimming beach north of the historic club facilities,with a 3-7 truck/trailer/speed boat parking area,the placement of sanitary facilities,and the normal facilities for outdoor cooking/recreation normally associated with a swimming area all lie specifically within the view shed of homeowners giving them a new view shed similar to a public parking lot with swim beach. This will destroy the existing viewshed and have failed to discuss the new use for primary contact swimming use as well. Swimming has never been allowed on this reservoir. The proponent provides an inaccurate statement of existing uses.The proponent provides a list of existing uses but fails to include the 100 year use of the reservoir exclusively for fishing and hunting which was continued by the existing fishing club with 37 years of recorded,deeded ownership and use of the reservoir and site as the Mulligan Fishing and Hunting Club. This failure to accurately list uses allows the applicant to avoid discussion of conflicts of the two very different boating uses, impacts they will cause and how they will mitigate damages to the passive open spaces afforded to • residents by the reservoir and the uses realized now.The proponents fail to provide or discuss mitigation to the club for damages and debilitation to values they have gained from historic use of this small reservoir as quiet family hunting and fishing club.This proposal seriously diminishes many open space values identified in the Weld County Comprehensive plan as important for residents and destroys the value of uses by deeded owners of conflicting but historically proven rights on this reservoir. B. The proponent has NOT adequately considered the health,safety and welfare of Weld County citizens with this application. By deliberately avoiding listing the historic use of the reservoir as hunting and fishing club the applicant denies the county the important information necessary to understand conflicts and decide if these two uses are compatible. The county's ability to decide is especially diminished regarding the health, safety and welfare of Weld County residents.This failure of the application is especially troubling as this proposal represents serious dangers and imminent potential for accidents resulting in injury and death.These dangers are recognized by everyone familiar with the reservoir and its present uses(See referral comments from the Town Board of Mead,Colorado and citizen hearing testimony). Mulligan Reservoir is extremely small at just 85 acres.The proponents list an even smaller area at 73 acres. Regardless of the differences in acreage listed,water skiing and other uses can not be sequestered as they are on larger lakes.All uses when occurring must occur within visual site and • literally within 100-200 yards of each other.There are no safety plans or zonation of the reservoir based on danger avoidance or other safety planning/features which typify most reservoir water • skiing operations(buoys, etc). It is worthy to note that such a layout would likely diminish the area of the reservoir needed for historic uses to less that 30%of the surface area historically used. Confounding decision makers should be the motivation of the proponent to overlook the obvious hazards and imminent injuries associated with water skiing on a lake while hunting and fishing is being conducted. It has not been discussed in the application at all.While fishing,the club uses small, low powered boats, boats that often contain children,elderly and handicapped members, and some use low profile personal floatation devices. All of these craft have little chance of withstanding the wave action caused by 150-300 hp ski boats on this little reservoir. Furthermore personal floatation craft,such as belly boats,are difficult to see and represent a presence that is well documented by the water ski industry to represents the most common safety hazard for ski boat and skier/other user contact accidents on the water. Numerous such accidents are fatal with 3-10 fatalities occurring from water skiing annually(Water Ski Magazine). This application should be rejected based on the proponent's failure to adequately identify and address health,safety and welfare concerns regarding the conflicts their proposed use of this reservoir causes for existing users and members of the community. C. The proponents have NOT adequately addressed the health,safety,and welfare of wildlife and fisheries on this site relative to their proposal. In Sec 22-5-30 Wildlife Goals and Policies the Weld County Comprehensive Plan requires that critical and unique wildlife habitat be identified and protected.As stated by the Colorado Division of Wildlife in their referral response,this site is a • potential habitat for the federally endangered Preble Meadow Jumping Mouse requiring a habitat and trapping survey to determine their presence. The planning staff for the Town of Mead also indicated this concern in their response to the referral as well. If present the proponents must conduct a Section 7 consultation with representatives of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Proponents will need to provide an approved species conservation plan relative to the impacts caused to this species by their proposal. The giant floater(Pyganodon qrandis grandis), a native freshwater mussel has been identified in this reservoir by myself on 2 different occasions. When the reservoir is low these mollusks and their spent shells can be observed and sampled in most of the littoral areas of the lake. It is obvious that the population is established and reproduction occurs.Specimens as large as 7" in length have been observed.The Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) has placed these organisms on their "watch" list for Colorado mollusks and identifies their state ranking status as S2 (statewide imperiled). This ranking,as described by the CNHP, refers to the fact that low numbers of populations are known to exist within its established range in this state. Mollusks are filter feeders requiring abundant phytoplankton to provide their sustenance. Historic boating activities that requires wake-less speeds has had no discernable impact on the giant floaters presence based on the large numbers of mussels observed during the last lake draw down 5-6 years ago.Water skiing is already proven to cause excessive re-suspension of lakebed and bank sediments which limits sunlight penetration and transports these sediments into deeper areas of the littoral zone where • giant floaters live. Proponents should be required to determine the giant floaters status in the lake, adequately determine if their activities will inhibit or endanger this organism, consult with the • necessary environmental experts to identify potential mitigation,and provide documentation of their results before a decision is made to allow water skiing use. Additionally,the riparian and littoral habitats that surround this reservoir represent critical and unique habitat as wetlands. The US Army Corps of Engineers has responded that they do not maintain jurisdiction over the wetlands that are the periphery of water storage reservoirs like Mulligan Reservoir; however,this does not mean that the riparian/littoral habitat present isn't recognized by wildlife as habitat.All reputable habitat scientists and land managers recognize that government jurisdiction does not specifically define habitat,the wildlife that uses it does.When you are in a situation of rapidly diminishing habitat,as recognized by the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, it is not prudent to ignore habitat value based solely on governmental jurisdiction.The objective of the Comprehensive Plan is to protect what we have not just what we have to. The Colorado Division of Wildlife in their response to Weld County on this application have identified that Mulligan Reservoir represents important reproductive,foraging and shelter habitat for many species of wildlife. I have observed the herbaceous/woody species wetland and shallow water littoral habitat around Mulligan Reservoir being used for feeding, nesting,and/or cover by bald and golden eagles,osprey, native hawks, black crowned and blue herons, muskrats, migratory water fowl, songbirds, 10 different species of fish, many species of macroinvertebrates,and one • known species of bivalve. I am concerned regarding the impact of mid spring to mid October daily water skiing on the condition of the reservoir for fisheries. The club has worked for 20 years to physically remove common carp from the reservoir to reduce their impact and disruptions in shallow littoral habitat, sedimentation from roiling and mudding of waters during the period of spawning and reductions in the success of rearing desirable fishes(crappie, bluegill, largemouth bass,and walleye).This effort has increased realized reproduction for our bass and panfish species while increasing the amount of rooted aquatic vascular plants that inhabits the reservoir.Over twenty years the vegetation community has increased an estimated 40 per cent. Aquatic vegetation represents the most manageable and abundant cover in the lake for fish and forage. The advent of water skiing and its daily roiling of shallow waters with damage to plant stands are negating the effects of 20 years of management.This roiling not only causes physical habitat problems but it also diminished the light penetration in lake waters reducing primary productivity such as phytoplankton and zooplankton. Our fishery plan has recognized and depended on creating and maintaining the best water clarity possible. This proposal represents significant challenges to the County's ability to achieve the goals outlined in The Weld County Code Sec. 22-5-30 due to proposed disturbances of shorelines, physical alteration of habitat,and introduction of daily disturbances to wildlife resulting from use by • swimmers,skiers and extreme powered ski boats. • D. The proposal creates a specific and recognizable challenge to the Weld County Comprehensive Plan Sec 22-5-20 Wildlife The Weld County Comprehensive plan recognizes the importance of hunting and fishing uses of land and adds the following emphasis"that private groups lease and own several sites for recreational activities such as fishing, hunting,shooting sports,and boating. Maintaining wildlife habitat in sufficient supply is necessary to encourage the social and economic benefits the County receives from this resource." Mulligan Fishing and Hunting Club, Inc. is the very entity this clause recognizes and encourages protections for. While boating is included in this language,only a desperate argument would imply that this clause implies that allowance of water skiing as boating helps the county receive the benefits it seeks from hunting and fishing use. This proposal absolutely reduces the quality of the habitat which provides hunting and fishing recreation on this reservoir as well as creates conflicts with the historic conduct of hunting and fishing uses. Supporting the goals outlined in the Weld County Comprehensive plan the Colorado Division of Wildlife in their referral response has indicated their recognition and concern for the rapid loss of hunting and fishing opportunity in Weld County as well.Clearly they are encouraging Weld County to consider the impacts of this proposal on the loss of existing hunting and fishing uses. Uses that I would encourage are presently considered compatible by the majority of the community,especially those surrounding the reservoir.The proponents have not provided an adequate response in terms of conflict resolution or damage mitigation for impacts that their proposal represents to the fulfillment of the County's Comprehensive Plans. • E. The proposal requires the county to develop noise policy and standards for this land use. The Weld County Comprehensive Plan section 22-4-70 identifies noise as a form of environmental pollution.This code establishes as a goal minimization of the impact of noise on county residents. This proposal without questions proposes extreme changes to the noise levels citizens of Weld County must endure on Mulligan Reservoir. The proponents should be required to identify noise levels generated by the extreme, high horsepower boats proposed for use. Determine the noise levels above ambient historic levels their activities will create. Upon quantification of the noise levels realized,the county planning staff should compare them to acceptable, recommended levels of noise(federal,state, local)as identified in the Comprehensive Plan and request mitigation actions to offset new levels thereby allowing the county to "minimize the impact of noise on County residents". Question 3. The proponent's proposal does NOT comply with the intent or wording of Weld County Code Chapter 22(Comprehensive Plan). Adequate measures to protect Health and Safety of inhabitants of the neighborhood and the county have been misrepresented. In numerous places in this application the proponent inaccurately states and therefore inappropriately misleads reviewers that the high horsepower ski boats they propose are similar to the historic boat use that has occurred. It is not and furthermore their proposal represents a • direct conflict with the kind of boating that presently and historically occurs on the reservoir. Water skiing has never occurred on this reservoir as an accepted or seasonally allowed use. • The inaccuracy of the application resulted in respondents to the referral being provided inaccurate materials prevented referral respondents from considering the dangers and impacts on health,safety, and welfare. It is reasonable to assume that once respondents understood accurately the conflicts inherent in the forced coexistence of historic users of small craft on this little reservoir with a minimum of 3-7 large, high output speed boats drafting skiers per day(as stated in the application)that the Mountain View Fire Protection District,the Weld County Sheriff,the Colorado Division of Wildlife, and other providers of emergency and public safety enforcement services would have understood the proposal,its hazards and voiced concerns. In 2008 the proponents also made no effort to confer with historic users to discuss safety of use and use features proposed before intiating their illegal use and have not done so to date.Their proposal does not provide any documentation of safety measures to mitigate the extreme and deadly interaction their activities will have with fisherman in small craft and shoreline hunters shooting into the line of their high speed water skiing. It is particularly disconcerting that during the proponent's public meeting of 6 March 2009 they still failed to discuss any of the dangers and threats to health and safety for residents of Weld County. The Town Board of Mead in their response,once cognizant of the obvious conflicts and dangers the employment of high speed water skiing on Mulligan Reservoir represents, strongly urged the county to deny this application. I agree with this sage advice. Question 4. Proponents inaccurately state the term of use for water skiing on this lake. • The application misstates the term of use for water skiing as the fishing and hunting club and the land development west of the reservoir all pre-date the use of the lake for the water skiing use they propose. This fact has also been misrepresented to Weld County Planning staff and is inaccurately stated in their notes from the pre-application meeting dated 25 July 2008.The reservoir has never been used by two different surface use groups. Hunting and fishing use by an organized club is the sole and defining historic use of the surface of Mulligan Reservoir since 1909.This use is as old as the Town of Mead itself. This ongoing use was descended from the original members through family and incorporation if new members, retained within the estates of landowners of Mulligan Reservoir and continued through the sale of the hunting and fishing rights in 1974 to the Mulligan Fishing and Hunting Club. The club was the first licensed lake in Colorado and maintains Lake License#1 from the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Question 5. The application is vague and uninformative regarding the numbers of people using the lake for water skiing and typical outdoor activities related to their use? Water skiing use of this reservoir will include additional activities besides just boats and skiers going at extreme speeds. The application requests installation of swimming facilities,a boat dock,and parking facilities.The proposed dock and swimming beach are planned for installation on the west shoreline where the best largemouth bass, bluegill,and crappie spawning and juvenile rearing habitat is located. This shoreline also represents the best top water fishing found on the lake. Their proposed non- • conforming use will also include the conduct of open bathing,conduct of outdoor cooking, use of open • fires,and parking of all cars,trucks,and trailers. No information has been provided in the application regarding the siting or safety measures associated with these additional and new uses of the reservoir. The application and the county's memoranda (25 July 2008) is conflicting regarding the term of annual use.The application states that use will occur from Mid April through Mid October while the County's report indicates a mid-spring to mid-summer use period.The proponent's term of use is obviously longer increasing the period of conflicts.The proponents stated period of intended use includes the entire historic fishing season and all of the early waterfowl and dove hunting seasons already used by deeded owners of these rights on the reservoir. The application states that there will be a maximum of 30 memberships, but does not give any numeric amount of users these memberships represents.These are the numbers that define the potential for conflicts and should be provided in the application. The hunting and fishing club states clearly in its bylaws that no one may use the lake(including family members) unless a member is present to sponsor attendance. Furthermore,the club bylaws dictate a specific number of guest days per member per year and that a particular guest can only use the lake a specific low number of times per year.These regulations are designed to eliminate the potential for conflicts,overcrowding, problems with unsupervised use,and the potential of two adults"sharing" a membership. Proponents state in the application "up to 3 cars on weekdays and 7 cars on weekend days" which provides very little information for decision makers. It is my experience that if we have any more than 3-5 members trying • to use the lake for fishing at one time the amount of fishable water becomes limited.The applicant should be required to show their regulations and/or bylaws which should include very definite controls on the aforementioned "problems"typically occurring in private water surface use clubs. Regardless, the co-use of this reservoir is incompatible based on impacts to safety for the public,existing and future lake users; impacts to the safety of wildlife and recreation; and destruction of passive open spaces for Weld County residents.This incompatibility should be avoided and the historic uses should be allowed to prevail. Question 7-The proponent completely discounts the need for any reclamation of the site where disturbances created by their proposal will be conducted. The proponent's lists land disturbing activities including the installation of a boat ramp,installation of a dock, installation of a swim beach and the installation/allocation of lands for ongoing use as a parking lot.The proponent's application is confusing regarding location and size of footprint for disturbances is provided. All of these activities will require cut and fill activities to develop them. No quantification is provided for areas disturbed, no descriptions for material planned for discharge,material quantities for cut and fill, material quantities for ingress/egress to the site,or storm water pollution control activities normally associated with even the smallest of construction projects where activities directly access waters. The proponent should be required to produce this information,should be referred to local codes and state statutes related to disturbances of land and required to produce the documented plans and necessary permits required. • Question 8-Explain how storm water drainage will be handled. • • The applicant has discounted that any changes to storm water runoff but provided little documentation for this comment. Documentation and proof of the impacts of their activities and whether they comply with Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment,Water Quality Control Division requirements for Storm Water Management Plans for construction activities should be provided. Any disturbance over 1 acre is required to develop and have approved by the CDPHE a storm water management plan. WS' .cdphe.state.co.us/wq/PennitsUnit/stornnvatcr Question 9. How long will it take to construct the site and when will landscaping begin? The proponent does not answer this question adequately.Their response should be made in specific time units and any impacts to the schedule by weather should include how they will mitigate the impacts of inclement moisture on the disturbed site. This can be done through the aforementioned CDPHE-Storm water Management Plan. The applicant should be required to identify and mitigate any impacts to local landowners and users of the reservoir(i.e. if lake is drawn down so construction of the boat dock and beach area can be done there will be great difficulty launching boats for fishing). The proponent should state how they will assure that heavy equipment accessing the site will control releases of hydrocarbons during servicing,fueling,operations and ingress/egress.They should be required to identify an emergency action plan for potential discharges of hydrocarbons and other pollutants to the site. The proponent should be required to regrade the site with 4-8: 1 slopes and reclaim disturbed soils with broadcasted and harrowed native grasses within 7 days of final grading and within 30 days of initial disturbance. Application of mulch should be required if seed is applied outside • of the normal growing season. The proponent should be required to make sure reclamation is successful. Question 10-Explain where storage and/or stockpile of wastes will occur on this site. The applicant does not adequately grasp the content of this question.The applicant provides a response as to where and how daily trash generated by the water ski club will be removed.The question really requests the applicant to disclose from their construction plans for docks,swim beaches, boat ramps, and parking areas where the additional cut of native site materials which will be replaced by imported fill (concrete, aggregate,sand,etc) will be stored and how it will be attended until stable. If it is planned for re-grading on the site than their claim that stormwater drainage will not be affected is false. The lack of construction plans from the applicant for the County to review is largely responsible for this inadequate response.The applicant should be required to develop,submit,and gain approval from the county for a construction plan that clearly identifies all elements of disturbances they plan to cause. They must include a timeline of disturbances.They should be required to show how they will reclaim, what they will reclaim, provide a timeline for reclamation, and then assure establishment of vegetation on the site. In conclusion, I respectfully submit that this application is inadequate to allow the County Planning Services,County Planning Board and County Commission to determine whether this proposal can receive a special use review and be approved as a non-complying use for Mulligan Reservoir. Review of • the county planning services memoranda indicates the applicant's position in this case have been misleading(i.e.they are not an historic use,they have NEVER shared use of the reservoir prior to 2008, • • • their boats are an extreme divergence from presently realized boat use)causing inaccurate conclusions (i.e.that the proponents are shared users of the reservoir,that there are agreements in place for non use of dangerous jet skis and personal water craft,that they have shared use of existing buildings and access points) . I strongly urge the planning staff to acknowledge that the use of the reservoir as a quiet, family fishing and hunting club is the sole defining historic use of this reservoir and that the reservoir presently provides additional value to the county as a passive open space that helps buffer the visual and auditory impacts of I-25 and future expansions of use in this area of the county. I urge the county to declare high horsepower boats(>25 hp) run at speed above wake less speed to be a conflicting and incompatible use of Mulligan Reservoir. I believe the justification exists for the County Planning Board and the County Commission to deny the applicants request for use of Mulligan Reservoir as a water skiing and for high horsepower boat use because: • The application is inaccurate and incomplete. • The applicant failed to provide an adequate site plan, provide discussion of disturbances to landscapes,failed to identify impacts to riparian/wetland habitats,and failed to provide adequate discussion of reclamation activities for disturbances planned. • The applicant fails to identify the fishing and hunting club as the sole defining historic use and misleads decision makers implying allowing loud, high horsepower speed boats is a compatible historic use. • • Use of the reservoir for high horsepower boat use(>50 hp)operated at speed greater than wake less speeds is a new use for this reservoir. • Failure to identify the use of the reservoir as a quiet family hunting and fishing club for 100 years denies decision makers the information from the applicants required to understand the conflicts and dangers that water skiing will cause if allowed. • Use of the reservoir as fishing and hunting club and water ski club together is incompatible due to small reservoir size. It creates safety and land use conflicts, represents imminent dangers and creates threats to health, safety and welfare of all users. • The proponent have failed to identify the conflicts and dangers of their proposal to the fulfillment of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies(passive open spaces, maintenance of hunting and fishing benefits,safety of residents, maintenance and safety of wildlife habitats, noise control ) I strongly urge the County to deny this application and allow the community to continue to receive the benefits that have been afforded to residents by the presence of a quiet family fishing and hunting club using this small southeastern Weld County Reservoir. I look forward to answering any question you may have regarding my comments(mike@gorconsult.com; 303-589-2178) Sincer ly; • • i ael J. Mitchell, member Mulligan Fishing and Hunting Club. � ` TS i'-QR r+aa' cc ma- _ 042S- cre�+ • e 1 ate.- Freshwater Mussels of the Mitt - Pyganodon grandis 0 Page 1 of 2 Pyganodon (=Anodonta) grandis (Say, 1829) Back I Forward I Index 0 Giant floater ife c._.. ., . \ .. -,.., - sr, i tii . .,,\ %.\,,, - .... , _ , .., , , . ,- ___,7. ._ _ i_zi-..-1..-..___::::: _:: - 2 400..„, �, `„ ' mss. :11-free::):14, : x1-1:1 /1- Pyganodon (=Anodonta) grandis, INNS 10319. Lone Tree Creek, Champaign County, Illinois. Length: 5. 1 inches (13.0 cm). Other common names Floater, stout floater, papershell, hogshell, slopbucket. Key characters Large, thin, elongate shell, beaks elevated above hinge, double-looped beak sculpture, without teeth. • Similar species Flat floater, paperpondshell, creeper, cylindrical P P P ppapershell. Description Shell extremely variable but usually large, somewhat elliptical or elongate, and inflated. Shell extremely thin in young mussels, somewhat thicker in older individuals. Anterior end broadly rounded, posterior end bluntly pointed. Ventral margin straight or slightly curved. Umbos full, usually located in the anterior third of the shell but occasionally more toward the center in the large-river form (P. grandis var. corpulenta), elevated above the hinge line. Beak sculpture of three to five double- looped ridges. Shell smooth, light yellow or yellowish green with rays visible in younger specimens, becoming dark green to brown in older shells. Length to 10 inches (25.4 cm). Valves without teeth, hinge line slightly thickened and curved. Beak cavity broad and shallow. Nacre variable and may be silvery white, cream, pink, salmon, or copper-colored. rw Habitat Typically, ponds, lakes, and sluggish mud-bottomed __ .�.:. pools of creeks and rivers; can be found in a variety of other .:� habitats as well. :. M WrV �:sFlfi3`... eYi2'S.'• •' ., . ;, ...:>.E. Mai 5 tit"t% Sr/S POP 4.' Q x4 SP :5:YT2:• tatus Widespread and common. .:Y,Y,-�:t. ��: ;Yx • •• http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/cbd/musselmanual/page78_9.html 3/6/2009 Giant Floater(Anodonta grant Page 1 of 2 L I HOME TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE Print Friendly • Regulations Publications Outdoor Learning Kids Game Warden Grants Get Involved Shop FAQ Calendar Espanol Life's Better Outside® Fishing&Boating State Parks&Destinations Hunting &Wildlife Land &Water Doing Business Search Go ID BOOKMARK Giant Floater (Anodonta grandis) DESCRIPTION Shell length (from anterior to posterior ends) is up to 6 inches (17 cm). The outside color of the shell varies from tan to light brown, greenish-brown, and dark brown. The inside color is pearly white, with a bluish, light pink, or salmon tint. Giant floaters produce concentric growth lines on the outside of their smooth shell. Other distinguishing characteristics include a toothless hinge and prominent beak(the raised area near the hinge). LIFE HISTORY Giant floaters are freshwater mussels, or bivalves(invertebrates with two shells)that live on the bottom of freshwater streams, rivers, lakes and ponds. They consume tiny aquatic plants and animals, and are preyed upon by raccoons, turtles, water birds, and fish species such as freshwater • drum. It is not known when they reach sexual maturity. Their spawning season is from August to April or May. The number of eggs produced varies depending on age and habitat conditions. Males release sperm directly into the water. Females take the sperm in through their siphons. Eggs located on a female's gills are fertilized and develop in a brood pouch until they are large enough to be released into the water. The free-floating larval stage of development is called the glochidia stage. When the glochidia come in contact with a particular fish species such as longnose gar, redfln shiners, or common carp, they attach to the gills of the fish and live as parasites for several months without harming the fish. When large enough,the juveniles drop off of the fish host, find a good place to dig in, and begin growing into adult mussels. Giant floaters live four to ten years. Giant floaters are filter feeders(eat tiny plants and animals that they filter out of the water taken in through their siphons).Although they remain fairly stationary, partly buried in the muddy or sandy bottoms of quiet streams and ponds, some biologists speculate that giant floaters can generate gasses or trap air bubbles inside their shells and float from one location to another. Giant floaters have thin shells. Even large specimens are lightweight. Some scientists speculate that mussel glochidia, which live as parasites on fish hosts, actually keep the fish from getting other more harmful parasites. Freshwater mussels are often the first species to vanish when environmental conditions change or decline. Drought,floods, or pollutants can have an immediate and sometimes long lasting effect on mussel populations. Finding healthy mussel populations can . mean a healthy aquatic environment for people and animals. HABITAT http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/giantfloater/ 3/6/2009 Giant Floater(Anodonta grant • Page 2 of 2 Giant floaters settle in slow-moving steams or rivers and large ponds or lakes with a muddy or • somewhat sandy bottom. DISTRIBUTION These mussels are widespread across North America. In Texas, giant floaters occur in all major river drainage basins. OTHER As one of more than 50 species of freshwater mussels found in Texas, giant floaters are very widespread. Giant floaters are filter feeders and as such will concentrate in their tissues anything dissolved in the water, including chemicals, heavy metals and other contaminants. Scientists can examine mussel tissue to check for many toxic chemical pollutants that are harmful to aquatic habitats and to people. Humans have harvested giant floaters and other freshwater mussels to use as fish bait. About TPWD I Contact Us I Help I Accessibility I Media I Site Policies I Complaints I Intranet I TRAILS Search I TexasOnline I Compact with Texans rsxns Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, TX 78744 Toll Free: (800) 792-1112, Austin: (512) 389-4800 A�iL L Content of this site © Texas Parks and Wildlife Department unless otherwise noted. Last modified: September 11, 2008, 4:29 pm • http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/giantfloater/ 3/6/2009 Tracked Mollusk Species 4i • Page 1 of 1 • _ i - olorado Natural Heritage Program Providing Comprehensive and Reliable Biological Information 1lbr Colorado Tracked Mollusk Species Site Contents Home Scroll down to see all of the Mollusk species that CNHP tracks. About Us Click Here to see the online document that explains the ranking criteria as found Site Index tables below. Last updated on 8/22/2008. These lists are available for non- Statewide List of commercial purposes only. Tracked Species and Communities Mollusk Species Available Maps and Federal BLMIUSFS CO CNHP CNHP State Map Layers State Scientific State Common Global State listing Sensi- Listing Element Tracking Element Name Name Rank Rank Status tivity iAtu Status Sensitive Status ID Status Botany Page gwloxus Rocky Mountain Full coloradensis Capshell G3 Si - 'SS SC N Tracking 17835 Online Projects, gnodonta Full Documents,and wand's Fbater GS 52 - - - N Tracking 23663 Reports Anodontoldes Cylindrical Full ferussaclanus Papershell GS 52 - - SC N Tracking 22861 Data Requests and Fun Environmental Ferrlssla fregilis Fragile Ancylid GS 51 - - - N Tracking 16773 Review Full Fenissia walked Cloche Ancylid G4G5 53 - - - N hacking 22200 Professional Lymnaea Swampy GS 52 - - _ N Full 18687 Services Provided stagnates Lymnaea Tracking Phyla Hot Springs GSQ 52 - _ N Full 19202 Contact Information cupreonitens Physa Tracking Full Physa skinner! Glass Physa G5 52 - - - N 22867 • Employment and y y Tracking Volunteering Physa utahensis Banded Physa G5T2 51 N Full 22615 Tracking Links Plsid/um Sangre de G1Q SNR - - - N Full 21239 sanguinlrhnstl Christo Peaclam Tracking How Can You Help? Promenetus Sharp Sprite GS 52 - - - N Full 22917 exacuous Tracking Front Range Promenetus Umbilicate G4 53 - - - N Full 19008 umbilicatellus Sprite Tracking Ecoregional Management(FREP) Uniomerus Pondhom GS 51 - - - N Tralcking 18371 Partnership fetralasmus Full Valvata sincere Mossy Valvata G5 53 - - N Tracking 17909 Sr I/� �/� To Top of Page SI Viers V i C') Home Site Index Statewide List of Tracked Species Available Maps and Map Layers Online Projects and Reports Data Requests and Environmental Review Prfessional Services Provided What is the Natural Heritage Network? Contact Information Employment and Volunteering Links How Can You Help? Front Range Ecoregional Management Partnership(FREP) Nnou'IedA+e In Go Planes CSU Believes in Equal Opportunity CSU Disclaimer • http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/tracking/mussels_clams.html 3/6/2009 A • • Understanding Natural Heritage Conservation Status Introduction Determining which plants and animals are thriving and which are rare or declining is crucial for targeting conservation towards those species and habitats in greatest need. As a member of the international Natural Heritage Network governed by NatureServe, the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP)employs a standardized method for evaluating the relative imperilment of both species and ecological communities. These assessments lead to the designation of a conservation status rank. For plant and animal species these ranks provide an estimate of extinction risk,while for ecological communities they provide an estimate of the risk of elimination. There are currently no conservation status ranks determined for Ecological Systems. Conservation status ranks are based on a one to five scale, ranging from critically imperiled (G1)to demonstrably secure (G5). Status is assessed and documented at three distinct geographic scales- global (G), national (N), and state/province (S). These status assessments are based on the best available information, and consider a variety of factors such as abundance, distribution, population trends, and threats. Interpreting NatureServe Conservation Status Ranks The conservation status of a species or community is designated by a number from 1 to 5, preceded by a letter reflecting the appropriate geographic scale of the assessment(G = Global), N = National, and S = Subnational). The numbers have the following meaning: 1 = critically imperiled • 2 = imperiled 3 =vulnerable to extirpation or extinction 4 = apparently secure 5 = demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure. For example, G1 would indicate that a species is critically imperiled across its entire range (i.e., globally). In this sense the species as a whole is regarded as being at very high risk of extinction. A rank of S3 would indicate the species is vulnerable and at moderate risk within a particular state or province, even though it may be more secure elsewhere. Extinct or missing species and ecological communities are designated with either an "X" (presumed extinct or extirpated) if there is no expectation that they still survive, or an"H" (possibly extinct or extirpated) if they are known only from historical records but there is a chance they may still exist. Other variants and qualifiers are used to add information or indicate any range of uncertainty. See the following conservation status rank definitions for complete descriptions of ranks and qualifiers. Global, National, and Subnational Assessments The overall status of a species or ecological community is regarded as its"global"status; this range- wide assessment of condition is referred to as its global conservation status rank (G-rank). Because the G-rank refers to the species or community as a whole, each species or community can have just a single global conservation status rank. The condition of a species or community can vary from one country to another, and national conservation status ranks(N-rank) document its condition in a particular country. A species or community can have as many N-ranks as countries in which it occurs. • Similarly, status can vary by state or province, and thus subnational conservation status ranks (S- rank) document the condition of the species or community within a particular state or province. Again, • IP • there may be as many subnational conservation status ranks as the number of states or provinces in which the species or community occurs. National and subnational status ranks must always be equal to or lower than the global rank for a particular species or community (in this sense a "lower' number indicates greater risk). On the other hand, it is possible for a species or community to be more imperiled in a given nation or state/province than it is range-wide. As an example, a species may be common and secure globally (G5), vulnerable in the United States as a whole (N3), yet critically imperiled in Florida (S1). In the United States and Canada, the combination of global and subnational ranks(e.g., G3S1) are widely used to place local priorities within a broader conservation context. Global conservation status assessments generally are carried out by NatureServe scientists with input from relevant natural heritage member programs and experts on particular taxonomic groups. NatureServe scientists similarly take the lead on national-level status assessments in the United States and Canada, while state and provincial member programs assess the subnational conservation status for species found in their respective jurisdictions. Status assessments ideally should reflect current conditions and understanding, and CNHP, NatureServe, and other member programs of the Natural Heritage Network strive to update these assessments with new information from field surveys, monitoring activities, consultation, and scientific publications. Persons with significant new or additional information are encouraged to contact CNHP. To ensure that CNHP and other Natural Heritage Network programs databases represent the most current knowledge throughout the network, data exchanges are carried out each year between each • individual program and NatureServe. The national and global conservation status ranks (G-ranks and N-Ranks) presented in CNHP data are therefore only as current as the last data exchange with NatureServe. Although most global and national conservation status ranks do not change frequently, the most current G-ranks and N-Ranks can be obtained directly from NatureServe. Status Assessment Criteria Use of standard criteria and rank definitions makes CNHP and NatureServe conservation status ranks comparable across organism types and political boundaries. Thus, G1 has the same basic meaning whether applied to a salamander, a moss species, or a forest community. Similarly, an S1 has the same meaning whether applied to a species or community in Manitoba, Minnesota, or Mississippi. This standardization in turn allows NatureServe scientists to use the subnational ranks assigned by local natural heritage programs to help determine and refine global conservation status ranks. Status assessments are based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative information. Criteria for assigning ranks serve as guidelines, however, rather than arithmetic rules. The assessors overall knowledge of the species or community allows them to weigh each factor in relation to the others, and to consider all pertinent information. The general factors considered in assessing species and ecological communities are similar, but the relative weight given to each factor differs. For species, the following factors are considered in assessing conservation status: • total number and condition of occurrences (e.g., populations) • population size • range extent and area of occupancy • short- and long-term trends in the above factors • • scope, severity, and immediacy of threats • • number of protected and managed occurrences • intrinsic vulnerability • environmental specificity For ecological communities, the association level generally is the classification unit assessed and ranked (see Classification of Ecological Communities for an explanation of the classification hierarchy). Only global conservation status ranks are currently available for ecological communities on NatureServe Explorer. The primary factors for assessing community status are: Species known in an area only from historical records are ranked as either H (possibly extirpated/possibly extinct) or X(presumed extirpated/presumed extinct). Other codes, rank variants, and qualifiers are also allowed in order to add information about the element or indicate uncertainty. See the lists of conservation status rank definitions for complete descriptions of ranks and qualifiers. • total number of occurrences (e.g., forest stands) • total acreage occupied by the community. Secondary factors include the geographic range over which the community occurs, threats, and integrity of the occurrences. Because detailed information on these factors may not be available, especially for poorly understood or inventoried communities, preliminary assessments are often based on the following: • geographic range over which the community occurs • long-term trends across this range • short-term trend (i.e., threats) • degree of site/environmental specificity exhibited by the community • • imperilment or rarity across the range as indicated by subnational ranks assigned by local natural heritage programs. Relationship to Other Status Designations CNHP and NatureServe conservation status ranks are a valuable complement to legal status designations assigned by government agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service in administering the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the Canadian Wildlife Service in administering the Species at Risk Act(SARA). CNHP and NatureServe status ranks, and the documentation that support them, are often used by such agencies in making official determinations, particularly in the identification of candidates for legal protection. Because the Natural Heritage Network assessment procedures-and subsequent lists of imperiled and vulnerable species-have different criteria, evidence requirements, purposes, and taxonomic coverage than official lists of endangered and threatened species, they do not necessarily coincide. The IUCN Red List of threatened species is similar in concept to NatureServe's global conservation status assessments. Due to the independent development of these two systems, however, minor differences exist in their respective criteria and implementation. Recent studies indicate that when applied by experienced assessors using comparable information, the outputs from the two systems are generally concordant. NatureServe is an active participant in the IUCN Red List Programme, and in the region covered by NatureServe Explorer, NatureServe status ranks and their underlying documentation often form a basis for Red List threat assessments. Global Conservation Status Definitions Listed below are definitions for interpreting NatureServe global conservation status ranks (G-ranks). • These ranks reflect an assessment of the condition of the species or ecological community across its entire range. Where indicated, definitions differ for species and ecological communities. • NatureServe Global Conservation Status Ranks Rank Definition GX Presumed Extinct(species)—Not located despite intensive searches and virtually no likelihood of rediscovery. Eliminated (ecological communities)—Eliminated throughout its range, with no restoration potential due to extinction of dominant or characteristic species. GH Possibly Extinct(species)—Missing; known from only historical occurrences but still some hope of rediscovery. Presumed Eliminated—(Historic, ecological communities)-Presumed eliminated throughout its range,with no or virtually no likelihood that it will be rediscovered, but with the potential for restoration, for example,American Chestnut Forest. G1 Critically Imperiled—At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations), very steep declines, or other factors. G2 Imperiled—At high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations(often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors. G3 Vulnerable—At moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors. • G4 Apparently Secure—Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. G5 Secure—Common; widespread and abundant. Variant Ranks Rank Definition G#G# Range Rank—A numeric range rank(e.g., G2G3) is used to indicate the range of uncertainty in the status of a species or community. Ranges cannot skip more than one rank(e.g., GU should be used rather than G1G4). GU Unrankable—Currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially conflicting information about status or trends. Whenever possible,the most likely rank is assigned and the question mark qualifier is added(e.g., G2?)to express uncertainty, or a range rank(e.g., G2G3) is used to delineate the limits(range)of uncertainty. GNR Unranked—Global rank not yet assessed. GNA Not Applicable—A conservation status rank is not applicable because the species is not a suitable target for conservation activities. • • Rank Qualifiers Rank Definition Inexact Numeric Rank—Denotes inexact numeric rank(e.g., G2?) Q Questionable taxonomy—Taxonomic distinctiveness of this entity at the current level is questionable; resolution of this uncertainty may result in change from a species to a subspecies or hybrid, or the inclusion of this taxon in another taxon, with the resulting taxon having a lower- priority conservation priority. C Captive or Cultivated Only—At present extant only in captivity or cultivation, or as a reintroduced population not yet established. Infraspecific Taxon Conservation Status Ranks Infraspecific taxa refer to subspecies, varieties and other designations below the level of the species. Infraspecific taxon status ranks(T-ranks) apply to plants and animal species only; these T-ranks do not apply to ecological communities. Rank Definition T# Infraspecific Taxon (trinomial)—The status of infraspecific taxa(subspecies or varieties)are indicated by a"T-rank"following the species'global rank. Rules for assigning T-ranks follow the same principles outlined above for global conservation status ranks. For example, the global rank of a critically imperiled subspecies of an otherwise widespread and common species would be G5T1. A T-rank cannot imply the subspecies or variety is more abundant than the species as a whole-for example, a G1T2 cannot occur. A vertebrate animal population, such as those listed • as distinct population segments under under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, may be considered an infraspecific taxon and assigned a T-rank; in such cases a Q is used after the T- rank to denote the taxon's informal taxonomic status. At this time, the T rank is not used for ecological communities. National and Subnational Conservation Status Definitions Listed below are definitions for interpreting CNHP and NatureServe conservation status ranks at the national (N-rank) and subnational (S-rank) levels. The term "subnational" refers to state or province- level jurisdictions (e.g., Colorado, Ontario). Assigning national and subnational conservation status ranks for species and ecological communities follows the same general principles as used in assigning global status ranks. A subnational rank, however, cannot imply that the species or community is more secure at the state/province level than it is nationally or globally (i.e., a rank of G1 S3 cannot occur), and similarly, a national rank cannot exceed the global rank. Subnational ranks are assigned and maintained by CNHP. National (N)and Subnational (S)Conservation Status Ranks Status Definition NX Presumed Extirpated—Species or community is believed to be extirpated from the nation or SX state/province. Not located despite intensive searches of historical sites and other appropriate habitat, and virtually no likelihood that it will be rediscovered. NH Possibly Extirpated(Historical)—Species or community occurred historically in the nation or SH state/province, and there is some possibility that it may be rediscovered. Its presence may not have been verified in the past 20-40 years. A species or community could become NH or SH • without such a 20-40 year delay if the only known occurrences in a nation or state/province • • • were destroyed or if it had been extensively and unsuccessfully looked for. The NH or SH rank is reserved for species or communities for which some effort has been made to relocate occurrences, rather than simply using this status for all elements not known from verified extant occurrences. 1411 Critically Imperiled—Critically imperiled in the nation or state/province because of extreme S1 rarity(often 5 or fewer occurrences)or because of some factor(s)such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state/province. N2 Imperiled—Imperiled in the nation or state/province because of rarity due to very restricted S2 range, very few populations(often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the nation or state/province. N3 Vulnerable—Vulnerable in the nation or state/province due to a restricted range, relatively few S3 populations(often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. N4 Apparently Secure—Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concem due to S4 declines or other factors. N5 Secure—Common,widespread, and abundant in the nation or state/province. S5 NNR Unranked—Nation or state/province conservation status not yet assessed. SNR NU Unrankable—Currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially • SU conflicting information about status or trends. NNA Not Applicable—A conservation status rank is not applicable because the species is not a SNA suitable target for conservation activities. N#N# Range Rank—A numeric range rank(e.g., S2S3) is used to indicate any range of uncertainty S#S# about the status of the species or community. Ranges cannot skip more than one rank(e.g., SU is used rather than S1S4). Not Provided Species is known to occur in this nation or state/province. Contact the relevant natural heritage program for assigned conservation status. Breeding Status Qualifiers Qualifier Definition B Breeding—Conservation status refers to the breeding population of the species in the nation or state/province. N Nonbreeding—Conservation status refers to the non-breeding population of the species in the nation or state/province. M Migrant—Migrant species occurring regularly on migration at particular staging areas or concentration spots where the species might warrant conservation attention. Conservation status refers to the aggregating transient population of the species in the nation or state/province. Note: A breeding status is only used for species that have distinct breeding and/or non-breeding populations in the nation or state/province. A breeding-status S-rank can be coupled with its • complementary non-breeding-status S-rank if the species also winters in the nation or state/province, • • • and/or a migrant-status S-rank if the species occurs regularly on migration at particular staging areas or concentration spots where the species might warrant conservation attention. The two (or rarely, three) status ranks are separated by a comma (e.g., "S2B,S3N" or"SHN,S4B,S1M"). Other Qualifiers Rank Definition ? Inexact or Uncertain—Denotes inexact or uncertain numeric rank. (The?qualifies the character immediately preceding it in the S-rank.) Reference The information on this page is a slightly modified version of the NatureServe Conservation Status page found on the NatureServe Explorer website at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ranking.htm . S S •� . Page 1 of 2 Michelle Martin From: Michelle Martin Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:42 AM To: 'Mike Mitchell' Cc: Brett Corning; Spudx@aol.com; Renzelman Spud; GMSKA@aol.com; Mike Marshall Subject: RE: USR-1683 Mike: At this time USR-1683 has not been scheduled for any hearings because the applicants have wanted to try and work through some of the concerns from the referral agencies and the surrounding property owners. I will be meeting with the applicant's next week to talk about there progress and the next step of the process. I recommend you come and view the case file in order to determine what corresponded you would like copies of because we charge by the page($0.25). The south office is only open Tuesday and Thursday 7:30 am - 11:30 and 12:30 -4:30 pm. Let me know when you would like to view the file so I can make arrangements to have it ready for you. Let me know if you have any other questions. Michelle Martin Planner II 4209 CR 24.5 Longmont,CO 80504 mmartin@co.weld.co.us PHONE: (720) 652-4210 x 8730 • FAX: (720)652-4211 Please tell us how we're doing: lutr..www.co.weld.co.us:departments/planning.comp_iniprove comments.cftn • From: Mike Mitchell [mailto:Mike@qorconsult.com] Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 11:51 AM To: Michelle Martin Cc: Brett Corning; Spudx@aol.com; Renzelman Spud; GMSKA@aol.com; Mike Marshall Subject: USR-1683 Michelle; Can you please give me an update on application USR-1683-Highland Ditch Company.What is the status of their application and schedule before the Weld County Planning Board?Can you send me copies of any and all communications that have occurred between Highland ditch and Weld County since February 2009? Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. EXHIBIT Michael J. Mitchell / Senior Aquatic Biologist/Planner S . L (303)651-2514 cell (303)589-2178 • Confidentiality Note:This e-mail, including any attachments, is confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the 6/2/2009 • • Page 2 of 2 intended reciepient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have recieved this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender • and delete this copy from your system.Thank you for your cooperation. • 6/2/2009 .a wir Tod o es esi n, . • December 29, 20I I Michelle Martin, Planner III Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 RE: USR-1683 conditions of approval and development standards Dear Ms. Martin: We appreciate your diligence in providing us with Planning Staff recommendation and working with us towards completion of this project. This letter is to address some of the conditions of approval and development standards prior to the Planning Commission hearing on January 3, 2012 and to request modification of the Staff recommendation for removal of some items. The conditions we would like to address at the Planning Commission hearing are in numerical order below: Condition 1E: We are currently working with the surveyor concerning the delineation of the parking area. It is our opinion that 35 spaces are not necessary based on the nature of the uses and the management of people on the site at one time. This is an item that we would like to discuss further and potentially have modified at the Planning Commission hearing. Condition 1J: Walking trails are not proposed for this project. The access roads are used for walking. We request that "walking trails" be deleted from this condition. Condition 2: After review of the Building Department referral dated October 19, 2011 it is understood that new construction, alterations and additions to existing structures will require a building permit. We request that this condition be considered adequately addressed and deleted. Condition 5: After discussion with the applicant it is our opinion that this condition is not applicable. The only improvements proposed at this time are a fire ring and some road improvements for the future parking area south of the lake. This is a private facility that is not open to the public. We request that this condition be deleted. Condition 6: Condition 1G requires showing the existing oil and gas facilities located on the property. The surveyor is currently working on that item. This proposal does not impact any existing or future drill sites based on the nature of the project. We met with John Butera who at the time was a Senior Landman with Kerr-McGee. I have attached a letter dated July 22, 2009 from Mr. Butera indicating KMG fully acknowledges and supports the application approval. We request that this condition be adequately addressed and deleted. 12 1) nh 1oar! • fort Collins. „h:l Nr k05'6 e ?`)7,'1 t i,i.1` C a .fly EXHIBIT • . =` Todd o s Design, C Condition 7: We met with the Town of Mead concerning this application on October 31, 2011. • The Town of Mead supported our request with three conditions. We are working on the parking layout and the access to the property has always been shown on the maps. As requested, camping is limited to the area near the clubhouse. The request for no water skiing is not acceptable to the applicant for the uses allowed under USR-1683 and needs to remain as a part of the review and approval as submitted. The skiing is regulated under the development standards and any concerns should be mitigated. We request that this condition be found addressed and deleted. Condition 8: After review of the referral comments from Mr. Terry McKee of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers dated October 19, 2011, the applicant understands that any work that falls under the Corps jurisdiction needs to be discussed with the Corp prior to completion of the work. Development Standard 12 covers this item adequately. We request that this condition be considered adequately addressed and deleted. Condition 9: After review of the referral comments from Larry Rogstad with the Colorado Division of Wildlife dated December 21, 2008 the applicant understands the comments and will take them under consideration in the operation of the site. We have consulted with the US Fish and Wildlife Service concerning the Preble's meadow jumping mouse and it has been determined that this proposal does not affect the mouse habitat. The Corp of Engineer item is addressed in the above condition. Mr. Rogstad indicated that these activities provide wholesome recreation for friends and family and provide economic benefit to local retailers. We request that this condition be considered adequately addressed and deleted. • Condition 10: After review of the referral comments from Heidi Hansen, P.E. with Weld County Public Works Department it is our opinion that this condition has been met by prior conditions. Ms. Hansen has four requirements listed in the referral. Item 1 concerning access and approval by Mead has been addressed in the review of this project by Mead. Mead did not request further review concerning the access and the access locations are not changing. Further, condition of approval 1D requires that the recorded access from both CR 32 and CR 7 be shown on the plat. Item 2 is covered under condition of approval 1H, item 3 is covered under condition of approval II and item 4 is covered under development standard 32. We request that this condition be found adequately addressed and deleted. Development Standards 13 & 14: There is language concerning proposed lots. We request that "on the proposed lots" be deleted from both. Development Standards 33 & 37: We request clarification concerning the requirement for a flood hazard development permit for a dock, ramp and beach. Development Standard 36: Campsites and overnight parking are a regular occurrence in the floodplain in many of the States camp sites. This site is not connected to a natural stream or river drainage and water levels are easily controlled based on the nature of the reservoir. We request that this Development Standard be deleted. S ,.� 1 a ,'.t'. t „�/�„� ! ,'( �� ,'ti '6 n 'i) /,, z (1j;.S. 2 'Mui(: t,ukilr,al,r'drvtgnu:‘pi eziijjire at(/ ter. S:l r Todd :a f, . This letter has adequately addressed several of the conditions of approval. Should you need additional information please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest convenience. We appreciate your time concerning this application and look forward to the completion of this project. Sincerely, Todd A, Hodges, Principal Todd Hodges Design, LLC 970-215-4311 cc: Highland Ditch Company Ray Derr Ken Lind Tom Parko • • _ rr tr"v t9lGdt. :. s it ` ., qRY'�I!/Jt (, .fit'd 44 t. • . PI Vi ... • y t' q. • r ; • . A .mss Z - "a .SWIS' - _ , s s.• rte'4.-It' - • . - fir Sr :R: 1, w: _. ' iii Hi - ■ t 1 —^F:� • n w. 0 ll 1.- '*;.. I I . II 0. • so trat f .1'� •,tea R IL ICO . fi at r...' Ls+ • - ` ` 7 I. - I.it• Ct3 o '" - OCS Paint in- ter (1) - ..t NS_ T. iN, , ` . ~ 4 . limp . e- �p t h tom_ . - - - -,. = -. ?.� . • i , i :}I • `y I• i ti. A 1 •, , -r; S .3 . I ,,, -illiit .../...,IL . . . , : .i.... •a_ • •..ie-t J. j r? , . ter y- 7 -'for; t �.• �'•. • :....;',1'.,?<.? i t o .\* .. i ... e.,.. • V' . 0 o -1 ,.. rte- - _ . _ . . .. t -� _ \ a1.. 1 ii. r. •, ..... .. ....... 1 , ^• ...• I �,r r , . • • v .r- -.71' if 71. ) r> �" ,. . +.�1 W. j;` !�..� it - J/:y_rT11. rr p.i'f1, ... • '✓ �.' y M1 ti' y ^� �• 4s..'wl'ea•�Sf•1SY141aClRas9:-an•a: -,••••r11'.;. - '.K_ .•f'c+•f •igibl ira ... 4. + .I. . _ �+ .LG - `/fir r' - • 'ti i, } ,. i oli V 0 N 73 V it E a O •0 or liNE it lim a 0 OCS E ■ � O) 0 4. eli • 0 A. ..) co •0 \ .4 v. \ ' Pit fit • al) )„,\April SO a.‘t; ...:;*4' ler 471". 10 'II to al, . ' ,104 . P i . a k % UJ opt- q . 4.041i14 , ,Z ...., / .1.411 4attert - , r OliTibbilliSsi1/4 ill, air u ' Ili i . • f y♦ ll f •a 4 • V la A a. IP . Or Jr ra .. .. • let a • • • . . 1 S t cc Ct O ozs Ct O. . -- E Lis co ci) 03 co co CO mfrna o x• ii W so o a) ilto L L co a E 8 (..) . O_ sp a) O o E L > (21 CZ x CA 0 W W o .Q a1: Q. U E eii.,„„„ __ li_ .). „ .t us, e II . . i . s g ., L -O ca 0 Q C 4) • X 45 W itt #: . U. 0* .V i 0001 t • C .. O a) }, c -a O O .E � N •L co N Co :�... ca0) aLOO n 0a" N •1- sw .}r = = OOCC - N -F-' p• ( (nOk- cOp � N CcOO ., Carias _c — -0 C • Q) E co n cutE a) � a) o caw O • cnaE pc4 n_ ccnpn Q - .gmpn (nU 2030 2m •— C �... = Q3U a)}' Uc L .127ccvi) •F 4„: 1,-, c 'ag0 co o € � O � C CO - LaO (n (n O >, Q-Oc-2 � NNE mi2 °'n -0 • Q • -af O O u_ co s O (1) .= ..,.mac,, a) L � N � N 06 cn c - cal QY O (n 034- C •N2 O C a3 2 ;�, c a Scot rr. caw 8a La 220 -2 CS ♦-+ >> 2 co +., O 5, (n S L -0 > O r 00 C r00) Nn � _E (6 _ U c N PELoCpp - +' O _00m VOMO •- C i3 145 v -0 76 -c U _ (n 4?.+, COL75a" • Op 2cnnn0 O .Oca ON2 •5 -8 OUt = H Q. Can_ O -aco .nco • ai 'o - >, .4.,,(0 O) O .c = w 0 — aea a 0 � 0 co ma °Cc- on tM E w 0 -04-, c/) 04s> 'x La. ._ _c O a'' N >,CO > OO' 00coCC'� > _C a) (pc L_ O CC �F .caw2 � � � U � .Cc = ONO EAU = •. .Qn L rri a C 0 "O c O N O"02 (�~ 2N � .On000 - L_ 0 _Ca 0 0)� N 5, 0- 0 co 0 � > � (� � .C c OtOOO � Y V Ca_, �� 0 OL_ il al au) > c20 • O ,,_, 0 0 0 L- IMO O (B +� O- V) .� O .0 -o On . � 5 _ .v a) cn a I- co to 0 C N +� (a 'gip -o � O O _ � t0 = vc� L_ oOLV >, L_ ..4:-•- N L > t 102 .C -0 -) U2 _ cu < c) 0- 00o O00 = flmco D 0020,,_ ° , CT w .ccn., � 0 = � pE � Co� (a . � � C > .L � (D 'VOa0OtW = NOOQM CO .C � O DEL_ n el, acre a `}- Zs- C a c : .90 '— •- 0 ww0) 000 'ONU � L t V) = r.. L- 0 O .- L_ I- L_ 0 CO O CO CD--J N (U O •?% ' � L CD -c C • a) CDM ' O) C-15 r N n DO _aL- NOm coCU =-O N- O � CC ow n t6c � .ED 0 �0 � 0 L C McnsE VOOtMSOOC p -on -a E +DpC4' .p vCOQ.cO � L = E � CCS � O � N a) 2c O _c ? ocn OOH -0QacN 2O QL- 8m ?nog; vccnOO . O � I- 608 `'- tnO ca cop m •5,-0 � (7cn -0 OOCc tat5NvwcommE � 1cCmcO > S -o cnoC L L Or •- cNOcn a2cocnC = OOVO %COO rrON - %- 4--• co p0 2QENL > cn • Op O V a- 0 8 co g ° O O p C O5, cn ♦' NN � 2 -c4- -cYC� OUCO >' N -c N.- co CCacnCDC >1CCf a - -a �WIIE ° -om .QOF- � v .0 . 0„D-,� • wO Lcn pOwit; � C = OOU +� a) DE aO4-1 � Oo_ Ea) owco n � C .0CD r (� D � C6 CLDC }' ODpcnO OJOO V liaC L > Cl' c° c�3oom 0cn ° N-- LN ._ Q0 . Q.LO coOQ ♦.r LOcn ._ p„ OOcnN07o-20 -OpQ > C • C' OanCCaca �/ LOL = L'ON0- UU O - = Cm � o � aa >� re i = oN0 Vim• to om -5 CD CUD > OH0aOrn o ca tv o • _ aw L +r E � -OCi- caMc o = j � L = N °DEE - O ) 2 > Op2a) - at oa) a) -a .- •• � � L2 0 .4.J at a'cV t -o -0 0 .c E a O" a to 2 �a L- ca _ c-h c cn � C p U . O .- , W 0c J jOO .c = : cDWOCYoCca Et15 ,_ m --tisma - p2No20m `� avEo 2 f 'D � C - owe 4 . .i.a CD >N - 0 s_ -`0 NEcv� cactf cca 04 -a Cl) o Em Cl) � - 9 � aci � � ---.a3 °» ?% s-- -c E0 � oa - po -C a) owacn .� � � E -24 - Eo6 .ca ° aa) coa) ti ° W%E0 _a • v � cL v � EcaUi L o _ o a 00 > w 0 al cn c O C LL '-_t1♦ CU - 77UUU _N `- LOU1SE O � � N o > L moo r �� roc > O a) cgot2a) � t o � pEc .= Ua > ° o .4-eowocac ° Ec�ac 4- a _ L ,,a— � Ooo °> own o ° o = >.% co � a� Eo °' 0 �_ _a ate _ UC 0 inEn00v .cpcao 3 .-• jcotomEO a) pU > aNWps_ Opcooa) � Cato L a) O cfl cD _ ` c L N '- m O c o Y- NfOMa2 .5. - O t wni- 2 - -00tH crE Qo -0 = �-, c'as 4.- � cCo •- WnocnUcac 75 -0 = cr cn osa0 _c _cw > = 000) 00 0 'a on '5 .0 += - � cnccaaao o� c +rU4, Ucca � u � � � N -v -a te c � NOtto_ Vwwa) oo Cac°� a) , w ° ' cu _ ' 0 .16 = M0 ° oE •ac -av = oE2' a) o .o@ ° E3a) 0 '54C4P ) oc > cn c1:1c �-- a2cc ` ° � a) OW (a .S (O 'O Ot aU OIS 2n 'D QSN UM -a • -a O }, 4- CD N CO 0 _ to to :~ C O a) a C.) F E c c c -a Q cm c0O '� c0 cr) O U N N .= O >, .C (04-0 N 4) > C .� U .N O O co -0 C N N O n N asco a) N a) riz O to N -C U N I— tan .O 0 O °� . . °O . E a °� � • r N M coU O aj .O '� .� N CO U O co N .a) cgi N 06 O N C I NTii co co i'l N N N -O C N 6 N O a M U H co L L. O O RS N O_ U N O te us co= DNE _ = (� _ (0 .C N -a co co N , co 0) cn L- (0 0 o_ o L U co w o_ D c0 ( ' — 2 N A.+ 0 O L E N C w G) N d O U .> L N ED t0 N �.+ > U .. > U E 9 TD W N c ctl co > • CO .� CDCO O w (0 (0 co D 0 O 0 0 a 0 a S cn n 0 • al Ir l V V 1 _1 ._ ....._ 4._ .„_ T. ..i. __ '' Notij , v � q } SL4#' j .L '.: cg . 1 •fie Z• 1 :'� 1y it �` ,� 'Y.. '.; �..� TS � ,•' a, Iwo �� t t, t, �E •Z- �t9 if y' -.. -t @ • y 8 ' _ 7 # i ». rrt ? fi r x jj `IyR.�j� �,� CS �G 1 SE^ I� +▪ 11• I VI .... I 2 . . t S.q_•.. RL b4- i !4:::r " 4r a 1 V { 'teal .♦_ 'fi r ..' 7 es "' r t'•. k .• `. e.tG 9 7 � �4 ,F .1F , ; xi .µ �..� • 2 �, LI x� I: (( L ., � . - • It • .t X0:1. �•..�• �' V 7N•� `I k �4 na 'l c) :j` i.. a ._ . •• XrPeC .,.'�• �P �:•; �a;d� j �T"Y: M1 , A•64j ' +'. • . .4 :;11h } 1R �� N S 1Y'- 'v v %PVittt', pl i !�( iy ▪ 4l!4� =,:} • ,':_ - ;r k iwi Fb.: w •, {+ Ii• 4 oil'= v r n ♦ l• k C., • i S �_ 8r +R�'t , t ~ y ;fi i` 4. •. $.!?Z >_Y I 9 $ w 1� i A' Ir. ~ '1 '. . I 7= XI '.:811.4N v .i ' t 711' t. ...i` .7.i:'.i t e 11 at ti I S .111;EIS l i? F - - . Z�11. t StJ iti • `�,`' k1'"•• I•• t 1.._'.4., ` 4t 1 ' i t, ' 7v'�i.x'� .,: - • '1 :� l" !^ a * t. '� 3. 0 I .:;" ' . / _ _� yy ,1. t .. . R M y .4:111:..-.1±..c.;11: .. (13 :Ai !L .• lL 1•lY 0 a q,;ja.- r may' - 1 I riot 1 �L1• t il '`✓� r _ �,i1- I is .�.• fa' �I'� '\ :.�,• °�92 I ... __ 1 , . Ct r , (5. Ib �• s .1 r I„ t . • ft tr1dr =� III L or: .. ll •1 Ste: i ...:..,f. �` t • __ If a♦ RMa.CO43 a -•..-. ' _ tee. .r; J t t ,.�•.. 1 Iu.• • . 51 .. -{_ ... 1 -i{'Z:".-lnx 1 I ... Cu 1 ,.•0. � i GIITL Ii1J•L - • l • ' 1♦ L ,rq•�r I' .. •R t . . it •'.' • -_ a - 4; :. r t...tot - ' 24! c r _, - .••, is .1 4".:_,......z.--::: • • „ .4 / ; ;_a 0 :,.... : . . i t._ , . :. . • • . P., 4- _ !it - lf t,ilir , .. . .... , .1 . n t, ,.i."4" • N. ay�� ♦t 1 � ` jy � � -`? . Paz f n'w 1t�� ' - ZI' 1W�~ i'y1 � L 5 ,0. . t a • .=}`�g .Iron .I .I. 4 ' t a fr,.. . -. -- • . I . ...inorent.. .. __ ..........: , i s .. .g.:..).A 7e:',3-7-.:i 0.., ;‘' t, . •y COUNT) i?OAQ NO. • 4 - •••• • • «, j S•. _ . .41. 'I /'/ -9.#.4" - Y, 1 ' t ,t� T ,• L1 \ -' Li♦ 11O •- i •X Y Z 1.1114! 4. •II jA ' 1 1. .V r ♦ Mr," I �^ i, ' � ! �f•_' ..,..n= a-.. c--..- ' - - in rN 7 C. '' IT y,r;l. . f r _ .,......,... ....1.4.0”......-414..!:, ye " - Cl ?-!'•J J v 1 N A 11J St t -.3 - _- a, , C. - >_ . I ,.;T. .a a L[' 'iritr•S 'i:.�'r`C '''''''''S-• . -.mow. „'. • ic:.;-1...,.,- , w • • i .„,;!.....,..4. t •'' y"' ;'• t :J.-it •jet `+ �• q. te? " ___ ..: _ . r _'• ✓ �________ . E ,.. .. .. „ , ... • (I)a.,) . . . _ _ . ,• _ - . �. is .. . .. ., •,5-, • ....a., Y ` 'r a •_,. . _, . .....7.„, ,. .. .. • ...... . ...._ ;vit.._ -a."' ,, 014ki-;...4:'7_ 4.4.a;7'..24-- � • 1 > -• . 1f , ••• `• • � ^ l; - H. IL a.•o • ' 'I 4 i. . %0 � _ _ r , R. - i . ) ±i:TS: Hif1ft± r r , ';-• fp III _ t - r „Ai:, �' C.r�Illi it. . .. . • Y 1 .......... . , ..... . ,_ :.. .. -4.- . 1....._ . •,... . . . i ... ._• • pi,: ,. _. _ : \ • •?. ,. ___. . . _ . ___ . ... ......_ _ • 11.4.6, . ." ,-,.. 7..; ': ' 1 . . . • - :: t -7. 1. t 7 :> . ti ' a } 1 • .`t Jul 22 2009 09:34 AM Anadarko Petroleum 7209296000 L Ken'McGee 011 a Gas Onshore LP A Subsidiary of Anadarip• Petroleum Corporation 2 July 22,2009 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S.MAIL Michelle Martin,Planner II Weld County Planning Department 4209 County Road 24.5 Longmont,CO 80504 Re: USR-1683: Highland Ditch Company Township 3 North.Range 68 West.6th P.M. Section 22 Weld County,Colorado Dear Ms.Martin: This letter is being sent by Anadarko Petroleum Corporation on behalf of its subsidiary Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP ("KMG") to inform you that after further review of The Highland Ditch Company's application,KMG fully acknowledges and supports the application's • approval. The applicant's future facility appears to be located more than 800 feet from our current and future oil and gas operations and the traffic related to this project will be accessing from the north. Please contact me at 720-929-6291 if you have any questions or comments about this matter. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. Sincerely, KERR-MCGEE OIL&GAS ONSHORE LP ohn F.Butera Sr. Landman cc: Todd Hodges Design—Applicant's Consultant Matthew T.Miller—Kerr-McGee Oil&Gas Onshore LP • Weld County Referral ' October 19, 2011 COLORADO The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review • Applicant Highland Ddch Company Case Number USR-1683 Please Reply By November 16,2011 Planner Michelle Martin Project A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an Expansion of a Non-conforming Use,fishing and hunting dub to 70 members and the following additional recreational uses:boating,scuba diving,water siding,sag,kataldng, canoeing,and overnight camping in the A(Agricultural)Zone District Legal Mulligan Reservoir in Sedion 2Z T3N.R68W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado. • Location South of CR 32 and East of.CR 7_ Parcel Number 1207 22 000041 The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation Please reply by the above listed date so that you give verelevant to this request to t would be en not received before or on this we a may a give full considerationa si your to the e De enter Wining Services. If you have any date may ebes deemed to be t positive response t�the e Planner associated with the request. Please further questions regarding rmato theytatioe. please _ process. note that new information may be added to applications under review duringcall the �� of If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please Planning Services. ID I*have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan because ® I4b have reviewed the request and find no conflicts wall;our interests. See attached letter. Comments: The Town of Mead Board of Trustees reviewed this application,and submits the following currents: 1. The Board has a favorable recommendation for approval of this application,with the following conditions: a. Provide a detail on the Site Plan,showing the access road;and,parking was and layout- b. Water siting not be approved as a use. c. Camping be restricted to an area behind the dtlhhouse. • • Steve Starnw,Town Planner - ate .November 2.2011 Signature Agency Town of Mead OVNgId Count/Planning Dept e4209 CR 24.5.Longmont,CO.80504 4(720)8524210 ext8730 4{720)652.4211 fax 10/T0 39Gd 00 HOJIQ Oltr1H9IH L*Eb5E50L6 Zb:IT TI0Z/40/TI 1861 - 20 I I MEMORANDUM TO: Michelle Martin, Planning Services DATE: December 13, 2011 WI E L`►�' O N T Y FROM: Heidi Hansen, P.E., Public Works Department ICJ SUBJECT: USR-1683, Highland Ditch Company A Use by Special Review permit for a recreational (hunting, camping,water skiing) lake. The Weld County Public Works Department has reviewed this proposal. This project falls under the Use by Special Review Standard, Weld County Code, Chapter 23, Article II, Division 4, Section 23. Staff comments made during this phase of the Use by Special Review process may not be all-inclusive, as other Issues may arise during the remaining application process. COMMENTS; The Town of Mead has jurisdiction over CR 7 and CR 32.Access and right-of-way requirements shall be determined by the Town. The application states that the recreational traffic to the lake will utilize the existing access from CR 7 and the maintenanc elditch company traffic will utilize the existing access from CR 32.The town must approve the access from CR 7 since the recreational traffic use will be increased with this application. Please show and label the recorded access easements used for access to the lake. Please show a blow up of the recreational area with the existing and future improvements (existing dub house and vault, proposed beach, ramp and dock, etc.). Please show and label all camping and parking spaces on the plat. A portion of the site, is located within the FEMA mapped Mulligan Reservoir Floodplain. The floodplain area is generally within the lake and not on the shoreline, however, FEMA can update the floodplain boundaries at any time so prior to the start of any development activities(new construction or the placing of fill,etc.)the owner should contact Weld County Public Works to determine if the activities are within the floodplain boundaries. At such time as the owner proposes to construct improvements (ramp, dock) or place fly(beach)within the FEMA designated floodplain,a Flood Hazard Development Permit(FHDP)will be required. REQUIREMENTS: 1. Provide approval from the Town of Mead for the increased recreational traffic utilizing the existing access from CR 7. 2. On the Plat, provide a blow-up of the recreational area with existing and future improvements shown and labeled as well as all parking and camping areas. 3. Show and label the FEMA floodplain boundaries on the Plat. 4. Add the following notes to the plat a. WARNING: LOTS MAY NOT BE BUILDABLE DUE TO FLOODPLAIN OR FLOODWAY DESIGNATION. Please be advised that owners of Parcel #120722000041 may not be able to obtain building permits to construct non-agricultural structures. All construction or improvements occurring in the floodplain as delineated on Federal Emergency ( Management Agency FIRM Community Panel Map #08028808500 dated September 28,1982, shall comply with the Flood Hazard Overlay District requirements of Chapter 23, • C:\Doeumenus and Seltings\inmanunLocal SeuiingATempnary Inhemel FikslConlent.(M1ookW1a0GSWOWSR-1683 Revisal Applitaim 2Dl l.doa • Article V, Division 3 of the Weld County Code and all applicable FEMA regulations and requirements as described in 44 CFR parts 59,60,and 65. b. Flood hazard development permits mil be required for development activities located within the FEMA mapped Mulligan Reservoir Floodplain. The FEMA definition of development is any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including by not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation,drilling operations,or storage of equipment and materials. t FEMA's floodplain boundaries may be updated at any time by FEMA. Prior to the start of any development activities, the owner should contact Weld County to determine if the floodplain boundaries have been modified. d. Pursuant to Chapter 15,Articles I and II of the Weld County Code, if noxious weeds exist on the property or become established as a result of the proposed development, the applicantlandowner shall be responsible for controlling the noxious weeds. All vegetation, other than grasses, needs to be maintained at a maximum height of 12 inches until the area is completely developed. e. The historical flow patterns and run-off amounts will be maintained on site in such a manner that it will reasonably preserve the natural character of the area and prevent property damage of the type generally attributed to run-off rate and velocity increases, diversions,concentration andlor unplanned ponding of storm run-off. • • C:\Doammrnts and SNungs\nunatin Lo 1 Swings\Tanporery Wand Fla&Canmr.OutIookWJBOGSW/riUSR-1683 Revised AppliaYiat ?AI I.doa Suitt by Entail Weld County Referral COctober 19,2011 COLORADO The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant :Highland Ditch Company Case Number USR-1683 Please Reply By November 16,2011 Planner Michelle Marlin Project A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an Expansion of a Non-conforming Use,fishing and hunting dub to 70 members and the following additional recreational uses:boating,scuba diving,water skiing,sailing,kayaking, `canoeing,and overnight camping in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. Legal Mulligan Reservoir in Section 22,T3N,R68W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado. Location .South of CR 32 and East of CR 7. Parcel Number 1207 22 000041 The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that new Information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning Services. a We have reviewed the request and find that a does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan because 8 We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. See attached letter. Comments: All new construction,alterations and additions to exiting systems and structures will require a budding permit and must be inspected by Weld County. upxMS tUd ant- Jonathan Gesickdi "`°'""°°°-- 12-12-11 Signature o'ce"J1"„'�:"- Date est ncy Building Department. • Weld County Planning Dept 04209 CR 24.5,Longmont CO.80504 4(720)8524210 ext8730 4(720)8524211 fax RECEIVED • TAI LIND DEC 0 9 2011 J�f & OTTENHOFF, LLP Weld County Planning Department Kenneth E Lind Attorneys at Law GREELEY OFFICE George H.Ottenhoff 355 Eastman Park Dr.,Ste.200 • Windsor,CO 80550 Chrysten S. llinze Telephone (970)674-9888 . Fax; (970)674-9535 Jonathan E.Batt Email: ken@lolaw.us Special Counsel December 6, 2011 Weld County Department of Planning Services Attn: Michelle Martin 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Re: USR — 1683 (Highland Ditch Company) Dear Ms. Martin: . In relation to the above referenced USR Application, it is my understanding that you have requested additional information in relation to the access road to Mulligan Reservoir a/k/a Highland Reservoir No. 1. Said access road is located between Weld County Road 7 on the West and Mulligan Reservoir on the East. Said access road is located immediately North of the South line of the Northwest One Quarter of Section 22, Township 3 North, Range 68 West and is bordered on the North by one parcel of land along with the platted Hunter's Cove Subdivision. The access road is 15 feet in width on the Westerly portion of the road and then is 25 feet in width along the Easterly portion of the road, the Easterly portion being the South end of Lots 15, 16 and 17 of Block 2 of Hunter's Cove Subdivision according to the recorded plat thereof. This access road is shown and platted on the USR plat map submitted as part of the application. The access road is not owned by Highland Ditch Company in fee simple but is a deeded easement which easement was granted pursuant to a Warranty Deed dated November 25, 1922 and as recorded on April 7, 1923 as Book No. 690, Page 470. This deeded easement is owned by the Highland Ditch Company. Additionally, a prescriptive easement exists upon the deeded easement being the same road. The prescriptive easement is owned by the Mulligan Fishing and Gun Club and was created pursuant to an Order of the District Court of Weld County, Colorado in Case No. 09-CV- 570. A certified copy of the Court Order was recorded on November 2, 2011, as Reception No. 3803222, Weld County records. Copies of the recorded Court judgment and the 1922 Deed are attached to this letter as Exhibits 1 and 2 respecti alv EXHIBIT use- ►(oZ3 Weld County Department of Planning Services December 6, 2011 • Page 2 At the time of the 1922 conveyance, the entire Northwest Quarter of said Section 22 (along with other land) was owned by John Reese. Mr. Reese conveyed to Highland Ditch Company all that portion of Mulligan Reservoir that existed in the Northwest Quarter of Section 22 with some additional land all as described in the 1922 Warranty Deed. At the time of this conveyance Mr. Reese also reserved hunting and fishing rights on Highland Reservoir No. 1 (Mulligan Reservoir) but restricted his own use for hunting and fishing such that it would not interfere with the use of the reservoir for irrigation. The easement was not specifically described in the Deed by a metes and bounds description other than by the language that the hunting and fishing uses "shall not in any way interfere with the company's free access to said reservoir at all times." The District Court case provides a good historical analysis of the access road and hunting and fishing rights, and it is the Weld County District Court case that provides the definitive metes and bounds description of the access road easement as owned by Highland Ditch Company as well as granting the Mulligan Hunting and Fishing Club a prescriptive easement being the same description of the access road easement as owned by Highland Ditch Company. There are two totally separate chains of title, the first chain of title is for the Northwest Quarter of said Section 22 and in this chain of title various parcels were • conveyed over the years all of such conveyances being subject to existing or recorded easements. Since the access road easement was both a deeded and existing easement, all subsequent purchasers of property of or adjoining the access road took subject to the access easement in favor of the Highland Ditch Company. There is also a chain of title specifically from Mr. Reese regarding the Mulligan Fishing and Gun Club, and it is these conveyances and use of the access road by Mulligan, in addition to the use by Highland, which resulted in the District Court Order awarding a prescriptive easement in favor of Mulligan Fishing and Gun Club which easement is the same easement as the access road easement owned by Highland Ditch Company. I also call to your attention Paragraphs 8 and 9 on Page 5 of 12 of the certified copy of the District Court Order. Paragraphs 8 and 9 make reference to adverse possession claims by Mulligan Fishing and Gun Club against Highland Ditch Company as to Parcel 2 which is the access road easement. Under these two claims for relief, Mulligan was claiming that Highland Ditch Company is the owner of the access easement but due to adverse possession, Highland Ditch Company was dispossessed of its easement and the ownership of the easement passed to Mulligan. The Court dismissed with prejudice the adverse possession claims and, instead, granted Mulligan a prescriptive easement. By the granting of the prescriptive easement, the Court, by implication, determined that Highland still owned the access easement and had not • been dispossessed of its ownership of the access easement. This further confirms the fact that Highland owns the access easement but said access easement is also in favor Weld County Department of Planning Services December 6, 2011 • Page 3 of Mulligan Fishing and Hunting Club by prescription, meaning that both Highland and Mulligan have access easements in their own right and name. One exception to the 15 foot width of the easement is the final plat of Hunter's Ridge and Hunter's Cove Subdivision used for annexation of the two subdivisions into the Town of Mead. The three lots (Lots 15, 16 and 17) which are located immediately North of the 15 foot wide ingress and egress easement were platted showing a 25 foot wide access easement. The annexation plat indicates that easements were dedicated for the purposes shown upon the plat, and the plat indicates that it is a 25 foot wide access easement and the only access involving these three lots is the access road to Mulligan Reservoir. Thus, the Easterly portion (790.79 feet) is now a 25 foot wide access easement and the Westerly portion (442 feet) is 15 feet wide in accordance with the District Court case. The area of the 25 foot wide access easement is shown upon the USR plat map as well as the survey attached to the District Court Order. Should you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, • Lind & Ottenh P Kenneth.F. Lind KFL/cg pc: Todd Hodges Highland Ditch Company Enclosure • EF re ({ ostf od la Its itfon,iota and correct\ ILIIII LI II IIIIIII 'II IIIII IIIII IIILI III klIl II I I CI of Um orlainaiin my cum dy. Z% 3803222 11/02/2011 02:53P Weld County, CO 1 of 17 R 91.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder � 4 /� • .Clerk of the Combined Court W ee y, 4o t q DISTRICT COURT, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO f i :'. ' , • �Deputy 901 9a'Avenue F FILED Donor/cot—District Court Greeley, CO 80631-1113 2O09CV570 CO Weld County District&n t J9th JD Tiling Date:Jul 16 2010 4:39PM MDT Plaintiff: MULLIGAN FISHING AND GUN CLUB, a Filing ID: 32188782 Colorado non-profit corporation v. Defendant: HIGHLAND DITCH COMPANY, a Colorado non-profit corporation; JOHN DOE, a person or person A COURT USE ONLY • whose real name is currently unknown to Plaintiff; and Case No.: 09CV570 ALL UNKNOWN PERSONS who may claim any right, title or interest in or to Highland Reservoir No. 1 Div. No. 1 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND JUDGMENT This matter came before the court for trial on May 10, 2010. Plaintiff was represented by Mr. Pehr. Defendant Highland Ditch Company ("HDC")was represented by Mr. Overturf and Mr. Frant. • The court heard testimony from Mr. G.W. Renzelman,Mr. Brett Corning, Mr. Michael Mitchell, Dr. Robert Alexander, and Mr. Nick Sekich. Plaintiffs Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 26, 37, 53, and Defendant's Exhibits B, C, D, E, F, G, K, N, Q and V were received. Plaintiffs Exhibit 27 was withdrawn by Plaintiff and was not received into evidence. The court has considered the testimony of witness and exhibits presented at the May 10, 2010 trial, the arguments of counsel, and otherwise being fully advised hereby enters pursuant its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment. I. FINDINGS OF FACT HDC is a farmer-owned corporation which owns and/or operates a total of five reservoirs that are located in Colorado. One of HDC's reservoirs is Highland Reservoir No. 1 ("Highland No. 1" or"the reservoir"). Highland No. 1 is located northeast of Longmont in Weld County, Colorado. More specifically, the reservoir is located in Section 22, Township 3,North Range 68 West, in Weld County, Colorado. The reservoir's primary purpose is to hold irrigation water that is distributed to HDC's shareholders. HDC uses revenue to maintain and operate its reservoirs. For example, in 2004, HDC spent over $100,000 correcting a problem with the dam on Highland No. 1. One source of revenue for HDC is leasing the right to recreate on the reservoirs. In 2002, HDC lost the ability • to generate income from recreational uses on McIntosh Reservoir. HDC had not previously EXHIBIT Page 1 of 12 a 1 111111 IIIi! 1111111 III IIIII 1111111 IIIII III IIIII IIII IIII 3803222 11/02/2011 02:53P Weld County, CO • 2 of 17 R 91.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder leased the recreational right to Highland No. 1 and it now seeks to replace the lost income from McIntosh Reservoir with income from Highland No. 1. HDC initially obtained title to Highland No. 1 in 1880. The location of the reservoir at that time was centered in Section 22 and covered a portion of each of the four quarter Sections converging in the center of the section. HDC's shareholders worked to increase the storage capacity of the reservoir in the early 1920s. On May 31, 1922, Mary Jane Howlett conveyed to HDC land located in the northeast quarter of Section 22, including "the Howlett Reservoir situate on said premises and designated by the State Engineer of the State of Colorado as#7838." (May 31, 1922 Deed, Trial Exhibit C.). HDC paid Ms. Howlett$1,500 for the conveyed land. On October 21, 1922, Charles Webb conveyed to HDC land that was located in the south half of Section 22. The conveyed land included a portion of the lake. HDC paid Mr. Webb $1,463 for the conveyed land. On July 5, 1917, John Reese acquired the northwest quarter of Section 22. On November 25 1922, HDC entered into an agreement with John Reese. At the time of the agreement,Reese owned the land bordering the northwest edge of Highland No. 1. Pursuant to the terms of the 1922 agreement, John Reese conveyed some but not all of the northwest quarter of Section 22 to HDC. In particular, Reese conveyed the part of the northwest quarter that is located to the south • and east of a line described in the deed. Reese retained ownership over a parcel of land in the northwest quarter of Section 22 that was located north and west of the line described in the deed (the"Retained Reese Parcel"). As consideration for the property interest that Reese conveyed to HDC in 1922, HDC paid $1,100 and also granted Reese the following property interest (the "Hunting and Fishing Easement"): As part of the consideration for this Deed, the said JOHN REESE is granted all the rights to fish and hunt on Highland Reservoir No. 1,but it is specifically understood and agreed that he shall not, through the use of said right to hunt and fish on said reservoir, in any way interfere with the use of said reservoir for irrigation or with any work which the Company may do incident thereto, or incident to the repair or enlargement of said Reservoir. The said uses shall not in any way interfere with the Company's free access to said reservoir at all times. The said John Reese shall not at any time place screens or any other contrivances whatsoever on the outlet or ditches running from said reservoir. Reese excluded a clubhouse from the land he granted HDC, but gave HDC the right to move the clubhouse onto his adjacent land at any time: The Club House on the above described premises is excepted from this deed. Title being retained in the present owners. The Highland Ditch Company shall have the privilege at its option of moving said club house at any time onto the land of said John Reese, adjacent to the above described tract, but so long as said • Page 2 of 12 111111111/11 III1I1I III 11111 /11111111111 III 3803222 11/02/2011 02:53P Weld County, CO • 3 of 17 R 91.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk & Recorder Company shall permit the said club house to remain on its land, it shall protect same from injury or damage due to water in said reservoir... On July 22, 1937, Reese conveyed both the Hunting and Fishing Easement and the Retained Reese Parcel to James Mellinger. In particular, the July 22, 1937 deed conveyed the following property interests located in Section 22: The Northwest Quarter(NW 'A) of Section twenty-two (22), in Township three (3) North, of Range sixty-eight(68) West of the 6th P.M., except existing rights of way for reservoir, ditches and highways... Also, all hunting and fishing rights on Highland Reservoir No. 1 granted to first party by deed recorded in Book 690 at page 470 of the Weld County records; subject to a least (sic) to the Mulligan Fishing and Gun Club—all rentals hereafter due under the terms of said lease to be paid to the second party. The Mulligan Fishing and Gun Club (`Mulligan Club") is a Colorado corporation formed in 1933. The Mulligan Club has conducted activities on Highland No. 1 since the 1920s. The Mulligan Club initially conducted its activities on Highland No. 1 pursuant to lease agreements with the owners of the Hunting and Fishing Easement. The first lease agreement was between John Reese and the Mulligan Club. Although it has not been established in what year that first lease was entered, the date was prior to July 22, 1937 because the deed conveying the property • by John Reese to James Mellinger specifically references a lease with the Mulligan Club. On May 11, 1950, the Mulligan Club entered into a written agreement with Laura Mellinger to lease the hunting and fishing rights for Highland No. 1. This lease was to commence on May 8, 1956 with a term of ten years. On April 29, 1962, Laura Mellinger and the Mulligan Club executed an extension of the lease for an additional ten years—from May 8, 1966 until May 8, 1976. On October 4, 1971, Joe Mahaffey conveyed an undivided one-quarter interest to Emory O'Connell in and to all hunting and fishing rights on Highland No. I for property in Section 22 previously owned by James Mellinger and conveyed to Laura Mellinger. On May 29, 1974, James A. Moore conveyed an undivided one-quarter interest to the Mulligan Club in and to all hunting and fishing rights on Highland No. 1 for the NW ''A of Section 22, and this quit claim deed references that the property was previously owned by James Mellinger and conveyed to Laura Mellinger in 1945. On May 24, 1974, Claribel Miller conveyed an undivided one-half interest to the Mulligan Club in and to all hunting and fishing rights on Highland No. 1 for the NW `/a of Section 22. On May 23, 1974, Samuel Moore conveyed an undivided one-quarter interest to the Mulligan Club in and to all hunting and fishing rights on Highland No. 1 for the NW '/4 of Section 22. The conveyances from Claribel Miller, James Moore, and Samuel Moore also included • provisions granting the Mulligan Club a 15 foot wide section of the property from the public Page 3 of 12 AIM HI 1111111 III 11111 3803222 11/02/2011 02:53P Weld County, CO • 4 of 17 R 91.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder road to the clubhouse, the right to access and maintain the clubhouse, and ingress and egress to and from the reservoir. The Mulligan Club expended a total of$7,000.00 from club funds in 1974 to purchase the conveyances from Claribel Miller, James Moore, and Samuel Moore. Prior to 1957, the Mulligan Club posted a sign on the access road to the clubhouse and four signs on the west side of Highland No. 1. The sign located on the access road specifically stated, "No trespassing, Mulligan Fishing and Gun Club, lake permit number 1, license permit number 1." On several occasions between the 1950s and 1980s, the Mulligan Club seined Highland No. 1 to remove carp and other non-gamefish species. Mulligan Club also frequently purchased gamefish species and stocked the reservoir with them. The club requires its members to sign a logbook when using the reservoir. The court has received logbooks dating back to 1956. The club also required the members to record the number and species of fish caught and kept, and the number of ducks and geese harvested each day hunting occurred on the reservoir. Club rules require members to carry a membership card while hunting or fishing on the reservoir. This card must be displayed to other members upon request. Members are instructed • to contact non-members found using the reservoir and to ask the non-member to leave the property. Members were instructed to contact the Weld County Sheriff's Department if the non- member refused to leave. The clubhouse is locked and only members have a key. There is a locked gate where the access road intersects with Weld County Road 7, and only members have a key to the gate lock. In 1971, the club put gravel on the access road to the clubhouse. Mr. Sekich has been an HDC shareholder for fifty years. Mr. Sekich's aunt and uncle owned property on the north side of Highland No. 1 in the 1940s and 1950s, and Mr. Sekich swam and fished the reservoir as a child and young man. Mr. Sekich's son also fished the reservoir on a few occasions in the 1980s. Mr. Sekich and his son were not asked by club members to leave the times they fished the reservoir. There was no other evidence presented to establish that other HDC shareholders hunted or fished on Highland No. 1. The evidence established that other persons, mostly children residing in a housing development near the reservoir and farmers owning property adjacent to the reservoir, have fished the reservoir. The club agreed to provide a membership at no cost to the farmer owning the property on the east side of the reservoir. When neighborhood children fished the reservoir they were sometimes asked to leave by club members, while other times members would allow them to fish as the member's guest for the day. The Mulligan Club's Complaint initially included the following claims: • Page 4 of 12 • Mitt Iltitii 1111 3803222 11102/2011 02:53P Weld County, CO • 5 of 17 R 91.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder 1. First Claim for Relief: Exclusive Right to Hunt and Fish by Deed. (Complaint at¶¶ 10 - 12.) 2. Second Claim for Relief: Hunting and Fishing and Recreational Rights by Adverse Possession, Old Statute. (Complaint at¶¶ 13-19.) 3. Third Claim for Relief Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Rights by Adverse Possession,New Statute. (Complaint at 120-29.) 4. Fourth Claim for Relief Right to Maintain Clubhouse and Improvements on Parcel 1. (Complaint at¶¶ 30-32.) 5. Fifth Claim for Relief Title to Parcel 1 by Adverse possession, Old Statute. (Complaint at¶¶ 33-39.) 6. Sixth Claim for Relief: Title to Parcel 1 by Adverse possession,New Statute. (Complaint at¶¶40-49.) 7. Seventh Claim for Relief Title to Parcel 2 by Deed. (Complaint at¶¶ 50-51.) 8. Eighth Claim for Relief: Title to Parcel 2 by Adverse Possession, Old Statute. (Complaint at¶¶52-58.) • 9. Ninth Claim for Relief: Title to Parcel 2 by Adverse Possession,New Statute. (Complaint at¶¶59-68.) 10. Tenth Claim for Relief: Easement for Access by Prescription. (Complaint at ¶¶ 69-73.) 11. Eleventh Claim for Relief: Under Rule 105, C.R.C.P., as to Fishing and Hunting Rights. (Complaint at¶¶74-76.) 12. Twelfth Claim for Relief: Under Rule 105, C.R.C.P. as to Parcels 1 and 2. (Complaint at¶¶77-79.) 13. Thirteenth Claim for Relief Preliminary Injunction. (Complaint at¶¶ 80-85.) 14. Fourteenth Claim for Relief: Permanent Injunctive Relief. (Complaint at¶¶ 86-89.) 15. Fifteenth Claim for Relief: Damages for Trespass. (Complaint at¶¶ 90-94.) The Mulligan Club was required to disclose its witness trial testimony pursuant to C.R.C.P. I6.1(k)(3) and 16.1(k)(2) on or before February 9, 2010. The Mulligan Club did not disclose its witness trial testimony until April 15, 2010. On March 10, 2010, HDC filed a motion • in limine to preclude the Mulligan Club from providing witness testimony in its case-in-chief Page 5 of 12 1111111 IIIII 1111111 III IIIII 11111111101 III IIIII Lill III! 3803222 11/02/2011 02:53P Weld County, CO 6 of 17 R 91.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder • The Court conducted a hearing on HDC's motion on April 16, 2010. The court issued a verbal ruling at that hearing, which is incorporated by reference into these Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment. Following the hearing, and in accord with statements made by the Mulligan Club's counsel during the hearing, the Mulligan Club withdrew its Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Claims for Relief. Plaintiff also withdrew its Twelfth Claim for Relief to the extent it applied to Parcel 1. Prior to trial,Plaintiff withdrew its Fourth Claim for Relief. These withdrawn claims are referred to collectively herein as the "Withdrawn Claims." Plaintiffs First, Second, Third,Tenth, and Eleventh Claims for Relief, as well as Plaintiffs Twelve Claim for Relief regarding Parcel 2, remain for determination by the court. II. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW • A. The Mulligan Club's First Claim for Relief-- Deeded Title to the Hunting and Fishing Easements In its "First Claim for Relief,"the Mulligan Club asserts that it owns the Hunting and Fishing Easements that HDC granted to John Reese with the November 25, 1922 Warranty Deed. • 1. Rules for Interpreting Easements Colorado law defines an easement as the right"to do or maintain something on land owned by another. . . ." Lobato v. Taylor, 71 P.3d 938, 945 (Colo. 2002). The Mulligan Club asserts in its Complaint that the hunting and fishing rights are a special type of easement called a "profit a prendre"or "profit." A profit is "an easement that confers the right to enter and remove timber, minerals, oil, gas, game, or other substances from land in the possession of another." Id. citing Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 1.2(2). The rules that apply to the interpretation of standard easements also apply to the interpretation of profits. Lobato, 71 P.3d at 953. When determining the "extent of an expressly created easement(i.e., the limits of the privileges of use authorized by the easement)," the "paramount concern" of the courts is to "ascertain the intentions of the parties." Lazy Dog Ranch, 965 P.2d 1229, 1235 (Colo. 1998); Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 4.1 ("a servitude should be interpreted to give effect to the intention of the parties..."). To ascertain the intention of the parties, courts look to the wording of the conveyance document itself. Lazy Dog Ranch, 965 P.2d at 1235. That wording"assumes great importance as the primary source" of the intent of the parties. Id. at 1237. However, courts also recognize that the "circumstances surrounding the grant may be relevant to interpreting the language of the grant" and to determining whether the grant language is ambiguous. Id. at 1235-36. Profits and other types of easements are divided into two categories: appurtenant and in • gross. See e.g. Lobato, 71 P.3d at 944. An easement is "appurtenant"when it can only be held Page 6 of 12 1 111111 11111 1111111 III Ililf 1111111111111111111I11I IIII 3803222 11/02/2011 02:53P Weld County, CO Si of 17 R 91.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder by the owner of a particular unit of land(the"dominant estate"). Restatement(Third) of Property: Servitudes § 1.5. The benefit of the easement "runs with"the dominant estate, meaning that the easement must be conveyed along with the dominant estate. Lazy Dog Ranch, 965 P.2d at 1234. When an individual's ownership interest in the dominant estate terminates, his right to use the appurtenant easement terminates as well because it is passed on to the new owner. Id. In contrast to an appurtenant easement, an"in gross" easement"does not belong to an individual by virtue of her ownership of land. Rather, the easement is a personal right to use another's property." Lobato, 71 P.3d at 945. When courts are asked to decide which category an easement falls into, the presumption is that an easement is appurtenant, and not in gross. Lewitz v. Porath Family Trust, 36 P.3d 120, 122(Colo. App. 2001). The court in Lobato cited to Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 4.5, which provides in pertinent part: (1) Except where application of the rules stated in § 4.1 leads to a different result, the benefit of a servitude is: (a) appurtenant to an interest in property if it serves a purpose that would be more useful to a successor to a property interest held by the original beneficiary of the servitude at the time the servitude was created than it • would be to the original beneficiary after transfer of that interest to a successor; (b) in gross if created in a person who held no property that benefited from the servitude, or if it serves a purpose that would be more useful to the original beneficiary than it would be to a successor to an interest in property held by the original beneficiary at the time the servitude was created; (c) personal if not transferable under the rule stated in § 4.6(2). (2) In cases of doubt, a benefit should be construed to be appurtenant rather than in gross. Restatement(Third) of Property: Servitudes § 4.5. 2. The 1922 warranty deed granted a profit a prendre in gross for the hunting and fishing rights and an appurtenant easement for the clubhouse. The November 25, 1922 Warranty Deed sets forth a transaction that consisted of several • components. Reese conveyed land located in Section 22 to HDC. The parcel consisted of Page 7 of 12 111111111111111111 III 11111111111111111111 (111111111111 3803222 11/02/2011 02:53P Weld County, CO •8 of 17 R 91.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder approximately 40.25 acres located in the NW Y4 of Section 22 and, more specifically, located to the south and east of a line described in the deed that stretched across the NW ''A of Section 22. The transferred land was thus in the SE corner of the NW '/4 of Section 22. As consideration for the land that HDC received in the 1922 deed, HDC paid Reese $1,100 and also granted him "all the rights to fish and hunt"on the Reservoir. The grant was subject to HDC's use, repair, and enlargement of the Reservoir. Reese also"retained" ownership of the"clubhouse" located on the property that he conveyed to HDC, but not ownership in the underlying real estate. By the terms of the deed, HDC retained the right to "move said clubhouse at any time on the land of said John Reese, adjacent to the above described tract . . . ." Several factors convince the court that it was the intent of both HDC and Reese to make the hunting and fishing rights a profit in gross. First, the language of the deed grants the hunting and fishing rights to John Reese and that he, referring to Reese, would not interfere with the use of the reservoir by HDC when exercising the hunting and fishing rights on the reservoir. The unambiguous language of the deed provides that John Reese was given the personal right to use Highland No.1 for hunting and fishing. Hunting and fishing rights were not granted to the sellers in the purchases of land from Howlett and Webb. Second, Reese leased the hunting and fishing rights to the Mulligan Club shortly after obtaining those rights from HDC. The financial benefits of leasing the rights to the Mulligan Club were realized by Reese personally. • Finally, when Reese sold the land to James Mellinger in 1937, Reese specifically granted to Mellinger"all hunting and fishing rights on Highland Reservoir No.1,granted to the first party by a deed..."(emphasis added), subject to the lease with the Mulligan Club. The fact that Reese specifically referred to the hunting and fishing rights as being granted to him lends further support to the court's conclusion that Reese believed the hunting and fishing rights were granted to him personally,rather than as a profit appurtenant to the land. Reese and HDC addressed the hunting and fishing rights and the location of the clubhouse in separate provisions of 1922 deed. HDC purchased land from Reese, Howlett, and Webb to expand the capacity of the reservoir. The clubhouse was located on the parcel of land Reese sold to HDC. Rather than move this house immediately after the transaction or remove it altogether, Reese and HDC agreed that the clubhouse would remain where it was situated. HDC agreed to protect the house from being damaged by water in the reservoir. HDC was given the option, presumably at their expense, to later move the clubhouse onto Reese's land adjacent to the reservoir. HDC has not moved the clubhouse since purchasing the land from Reese. It is noteworthy that the deed from Reese to Mellinger does not make reference to the clubhouse. The lack of reference to the clubhouse in the 1937 deed leads to a conclusion that Reese considered the exemption for the clubhouse in the 1922 deed from HDC to be appurtenant to the land when he sold the property to Mellinger. • Page 8 of 12 i (1111111111 LIILILl III 111111111(1111111III III1I IIII IIII 3803222 11/02/2011 02:53P Weld County, CO • 9 of 17 R 91.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder 3. HDC granted Reese an exclusive profit aprendre to hunt and fish on Highland No. 1. HDC asserts that the language of the 1922 deed can be interpreted to mean that John Reese was given a non-exclusive right to hunt and fish on Highland No. 1, but that HDC retains the right to allow others to hunt and fish on the reservoir. The language in the 1922 warranty deed is clear and unambiguous—HDC granted John Reese "all the rights to hunt and fish on Highland Reservoir No.1 . . . ." The parties chose to use the words "all the rights" in the deed instead of"the right to hunt and fish." Additionally, the deed contains no limitations on the words "all the rights to hunt and fish," nor are there reservations in the deed granting HDC authority to allow others to hunt and fish on the reservoir. HDC argues that it would not have granted Reese the exclusive right to hunt and fish Highland No. 1 because of the value of the hunting and fishing rights to HDC. The court finds the evidence does not support this argument. HDC purchased property from three land owners— Webb, Howlett, and Reese—to expand the water holding capacity of Highland No. 1. The ability to store more water in this reservoir was of great benefit to HDC shareholders. To be successful in this endeavor, HDC needed to acquire the land of all three landowners. HDC purchased 30.18 acres of land from Howlett for$1,500 on May 31, 1922. HDC purchased 40.4 acres from Webb for $1,463 from Webb on October 21, 1922. Reese was the last of the three landowners to sell to HDC, with that sale occurring on November 25, 1922. Reese sold HDC 40.2 acres for$1,100, which was 1/3 less than what HDC paid for the Howlett and Webb • properties. The difference between the Reese transaction and the other two sales, other than the prices, was that HDC granted Reese "all the rights to hunt and fish"on the reservoir. Clearly, HDC and Reese recognized the value of exclusive hunting and fishing rights on the reservoir at the time of the sale because Reese sold his property to HDC at a significantly lower price than his neighbors. The history of the use of Highland No, 1 between 1922 and the filing of this lawsuit also provides proof that the parties believed HDC conveyed exclusive hunting and fishing rights to Reese. Mulligan Club members have been using this lake continuously since the 1920s. In 1957, the Mulligan Club placed "No Trespassing" signs around the lake. The club requires its members to carry membership cards when using the reservoir and instructs members to ask non- members found on the property to leave. The club has spent thousands of dollars stocking the reservoir with fish over the years. The club has also taken efforts to improve the fishery by removing non-game species with seine nets. Club members pay annual membership dues. Other than trespassers, Mulligan Club members and their guests have been the only persons to hunt and fish on Highland No. 1 since the 1920s. Besides Mr. Sekich, there is no evidence that HDC shareholders have hunted or fished on Highland No. 1. HDC has not attempted to lease hunting and fishing rights on Highland No. 1 since conveying the hunting and fishing rights to Reese in 1922. • Page 9 of 12 1 Dill/ 111111111111 III 111111111111III III N11111 11 3803222 11/02/2011 02:53P Weld County, CO 10 of 17 R 91.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder • 4. The Mulligan Club has presented sufficient evidence to show a chain of title between James Mellinger and the Mulligan Club. The evidence presented at trial showed that Reese conveyed the hunting and fishing profit to James Mellinger in 1937. James Mellinger conveyed the property to Laura Mellinger in 1945. Laura Mellinger leased the hunting and fishing rights to the Mulligan Club between 1956 and 1974. The lease was actually scheduled to expire on May 8, 1976; however, in 1974, the Mulligan Club obtained deeds executed by Claribel Miller, James Moore, Samuel Moore Jr., and Emory O'Connell conveying the hunting and fishing rights to Mulligan Club. Each of these four deeds refer to the hunting and fishing rights as previously belonging to James Mellinger and conveyed to Laura Mellinger on September 28, 1945, and recorded in Weld County Records Book 1162, page 64, reception number 962899. There has been no evidence presented to suggest that between 1976, when the last lease between Laura Mellinger and the club expired, and the filing of this case, anyone with an interest in the Laura Mellinger estate has challenged the conveyance of the.hunting and fishing profit to the Mulligan Club. Plaintiff has proven that it is the lawful holder of the exclusive hunting and fishing profit for Highland No. 1 originally conveyed to John Reese by HDC in 1922. • B. The Mulligan Club's Second and Third Claims for Relief—Acquisition of the Hunting and Fishing Profit by Adverse Possession (Prescription The Mulligan Club asserts (Second and Third Claims for Relief) that it has acquired the hunting and fishing profit through adverse possession with a prescriptive easement. "An easement by prescription is established when the prescriptive use is: 1) open or notorious, 2) continued without effective interruption for the prescriptive period, and 3) the use was either a) adverse or b)pursuant to an attempted, but ineffective grant." Lobato v. Taylor, 71 P.3d 938, 950 (Colo. 2002). This claim must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. C.R.S. § 38-41- 101(3)(a). The Mulligan Club's adverse possession claim fails because it cannot establish an open or notorious use that was adverse to HDC. A use is open or notorious if it is "sufficiently obvious to apprise the owner of the servient estate, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, that another is making use of the burdened land so that the owner may object." Olson v. Hillside Community Church SBC, 124 P.3d 874, 880 (Colo. App. 2005)quoting Clinger v. Hartshorn, 89 P.3d 462, 465 (Colo. App. 2003). An adverse use is one made "without the consent of the landowner, or holder of the property interest used, and without other authorization." Restatement(Third) of Property: Servitudes § 2.16, cmnt b. An easement cannot be adversely possessed by use that is done with the permission of the owner of the servient estate. Brown v. Faatz, 197 P.3d 245, 249 (Colo. App. 2008) ("Permissive use during any or all of that period defeats a claim of adverse use, and therefore precludes the acquisition of the prescriptive easement.") • Page 10 of 12 HIED Hill 1111111 III 11111 1111111 11111 III Ellin! 3803222 11/02/2011 02:531) Weld County, CO 11 of 17 R 91.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder • In the 1922 deed, HDC conveyed to Reese an exclusive hunting and fishing profit on Highland No. 1. Beginning in the 1920s, Mulligan Club members hunted and fished on Highland No. 1—first pursuant to lease agreements with Reese and the Mellingers, and later pursuant to the purchase of the profit from the heirs of Laura Mellinger. Hunting and fishing by club members on the reservoir is consistent with, and not adverse to, the profit initially granted to Reese by HDC. C. Mulligan Club's Tenth Claim for Relief—Access to the Property through Prescriptive Easement The Mulligan Club asserts in its Tenth Claim for Relief that it has acquired a prescriptive easement to access the reservoir through a prescriptive easement. "An easement by prescription is established when the prescriptive use is: 1) open or notorious, 2) continued without effective interruption for the prescriptive period, and 3) the use was either a) adverse or b)pursuant to an attempted,but ineffective grant." Lobato v. Taylor, 71 P.3d 938, 950 (Colo. 2002). This claim must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. C.R.S. § 38-41-101(3)(a). The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the Mulligan Club has obtained a prescriptive easement for this access road from Weld County Road 7 to the clubhouse. This prescriptive easement is limited to the dirt/gravel access road, which is roughly 15 feet in width, located in Section 22 from WCR 7 to the clubhouse. Mulligan Club members have openly, • continuously, and exclusively used this road to access the lake since the 1950s. Non-members are prevented access to this road by a locked gate where the road meets the WCR 7. Only club members have a key to the lock on this gate and not even the property owner can access this road from WCR 7. The club placed a no trespassing sign containing the club's name near the gate in 1957 and the sign remains there to this day. The club maintains this road and has placed gravel on the road in the past. D. The Mulligan Club's Withdrawn Claims are Dismissed with Prejudice The Mulligan Club has withdrawn its Fourth Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Claims for Relief. The Mulligan Club also withdrew its Twelfth Claim for Relief to the extent it applied to Parcel 1. These Withdrawn Claims have been fully litigated in this case. They were withdrawn by the Mulligan Club in the context of the Mulligan Club's failure to disclose trial witness testimony and HDC's motion in limine regarding that omission. The Withdrawn Claims are hereby dismissed with prejudice. • Page 11 of 12 MUM iilii 1111111 III 11111111111111111 III 111111 III 1111 3803222 11/02/2011 02:5311 Weld County, CO 12 of 17 R 91.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder • Ill. JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE COURT 1. The Mulligan Club owns a profit a prendre for the exclusive hunting and fishing rights on Highland No. 1 through the conveyance originally made by HDC to John Reese in the 1922 deed. 2. HDC does not have the right to lease, convey, or otherwise grant permission to others to hunt or fish on Highland No. 1. HDC has the legal right to authorize any other recreational use of Highland No. 1. 3. The Mulligan Club has not proven the necessary elements to obtain hunting and fishing rights to Highland No. 1 through adverse possession or by a prescriptive easement, and those claims are dismissed. 4. The Mulligan Club owns the clubhouse itself but HDC retains the right to move that clubhouse at any time. 5. The Mulligan Club has proven all necessary elements for a prescriptive easement for the access road from WCR 7 to the clubhouse. The access road is approximately 15 feet wide. The Mulligan Club shall provide the court with a survey and legal description of this access road within 60 days of the date of this order, which legal description shall be incorporated into the court's order. • Dated: July 16, 2010 By the court: Jo es F. Hartmann C ief Judge th Judicial District • Page 12 of 12 GRANTED o_ �o It is hereby ORDERED that upon r7��./ �� receipt of this order the moving party C.2vrto o shall mail or deliver a copy to any pro • **\ k* se party who has entered an appearance 1816* in this action. James Hartmann D1b1R1-1 COURT, COUNTY OF WELD, COLORADO District Court Judge Court Address: P.O. Box 2038 DATE OF ORDER INDICATED ON ATTACHMENT Greeley, CO 80632 FAILED Document—District Court }' 2009CV570 970-351-7300 CO Weld County District Court 19th JD Filing Date:Sep R 2011 3:45PM MDT Filing ID:39722912 Plaintiffs-: MULLIGAN FISHING AND GUN CLUB, a Colorado non- profit corporation Defendants-: HIGHLAND DITCH COMPANY, a Colorado non- profit corporation;JOHN DOE, a person or person whose real name is currently unknown to Plaintiff; and ALL UNKNOWN PERSONS who may claim any right,title or interest in or to Highland Reservoir No. 1 s COURT USE ONLY Case Number: 09CV570 Ctrm: • ORDER INCORPORATING PLAINTIFF MULLIGAN FISHING AND GUN CLUB'S SUBMISSION OF ACCESS ROAD SURVEY AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION INTO COURT'S JULY 16, 2010 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND JUDGMENT With its July 16, 2010 Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law, and Judgment, this Court ordered Plaintiff Mulligan Fishing and Gun Club to submit a survey and legal description regarding the access road that was addressed in that Judgment. This Court has reviewed the survey and legal description filed by the Mulligan Fishing and Gun Club on September 8, 2011 (attached as Exhibit A) and HEREBY ORDERS that the survey and legal description for the access road filed by the Mulligan Fishing and Gun Club on September 8, 2011 are hereby incorporated into this Court's July 16, 2010 Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law, and Judgment. Dated ::r:::ge Qi tarsi t1!l*tr,` earrect Clerk of the Combined Court wet Count•Col oe 1 A 1111111111111111111III11111111111111111 III Mali 1 Dear* 3803222 11/02/2011 02:53P Weld County, CO 13 of 17 R 91.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder • This document constitutes a nttiug of the court and should be treated as such_ Current Date: Sep 08, 2011 Case Number: 2009CV570 Case Name: MULLIGAN FISHING AND GUN CLUB A COLORADO vs. HIGHLAND DITCH COMPANY et al /s/Judge James Francis Hartmann 111111111111►111111II 111111111111 IIIII III 111111 III ►III 3803222 11/02/2011 02:53P Weld County, CO 14 of 17 R 91.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk & Recorder • • 111111 WWU 111111111111111111111111111 III KIM III 11[1 3803222 • 15 of 17 RFi 91.00D 0.00 Steve oreno Clerk& Recorder CJ' ENGIIJEEKINGP 303682.1131 :: info@°civilarts.us :: 1860 Lef1hna Circle,SuiteA P�ANwNG F303.682.1149 wv;w.civilarts.us ' Longmon4C0 60501 SUPNEVING CIVIL PATS EXHIBIT "A" September 14, 2010 A description of a 15-FOOT ACCESS EASEMENT located in the NW1/4 of Section 22 T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., in Weld County, Colorado. For: Mulligan Fishing and Gun Club LEGAL DESCRIPTION-MULLIGAN FISHING AND GUN CLUB ACCESS EASEMENT A 15-foot strip of land located in the NWI/4 of Section 22 T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., County of Weld, State of Colorado,being 7.50 feet either side of the following described centerline: COMMENCING at the W1/4 Corner of said Section 22 from which the E1/4 Corner of said Section 22 bears N89°1 1'31"E, 5260.01 feet(Basis of Bearings);thence N00°07'42"W, 19.72 feet along the West Line of said NW 1/4/4 of Section 22; thence N89°52'18"E, 30.00 feet to a non-tangent point of curve on the East Right-of-Way Line of Weld County Road No. 7 and the POINT OF BEGINNING; • Thence 25.34 feet along the arc of said curve concave to the south, said arc having a radius of 280.61 feet, a central angle of 5°10'28", and being subtended by a chord which bears N89°57'46"E, 25.33 feet to a point of reverse curve; Thence 107.63 feet along the arc of said curve, said arc having a radius of 2131.97 feet, a central angle of 2°53'33", and being subtended by a chord which bears S88°53'47"E, 107.62 feet to a point of tangency; Thence N89°39'27"E, 193.44 feet to a point of curve to the right; Thence 5.47 feet along the arc of said curve, said arc having a radius of 100.00 feet, a central angle of 3°07'59", and being subtended by a chord which bears S88°46'34"E, 5.47 feet to a point of reverse curve; Thence 65.15 feet along the arc of said curve, said arc having a radius of 2600.00 feet, a central angle of 1°26'08", and being subtended by a chord which bears S87°55'38"E, 65.14 feet to the Westerly Line of Lot 17, Block 2, Hunter's Cove Subdivision according to the plat recorded November 30, 1989 at Reception No. 02198843 (Book 1250 at Page 398) of the Weld County Records; Thence 93.26 feet continuing along the arc of said curve having a radius of 2600.00 feet, a central angle of 2°03'19", and being subtended by a chord which bears S89°40'22"E, 93.26 feet to a point of tangency; • Thence N89°17'59"E, 127.06 feet to the Westerly Line of Lot 16, of said Block 2, Hunter's Cove Subdivision; QA. Development Services for the Communities of the Future 1111111llll! 1111111 III illll HMI IJllI III 111111HIE 3803222 11/02/2011 02:53P Weld County, CO •16 of 17(I' R 91.0000.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder EXHIBIT "A" Thence continuing N89°17'59"E, 218.41 feet to the Westerly Line of Lot 15, of said Block 2, Hunter's Cove Subdivision; Thence continuing N89°17'59"E, 216.66 feet to a point of curve to the left; Thence 62.62 feet along the arc of said curve, said arc having a radius of 326.10 feet, a central angle of 11°00'10", and being subtended by a chord which bears N83°47'54"E, 62.53 feet to a point of reverse curve; Thence 22.17 feet along the arc of said curve, said arc having a radius of 100.00 feet, a central angle of 12°42'11", and being subtended by a chord which bears N84°38'54"E, 22.13 feet; Thence S89°00'01"E, 48.19 feet to the Easterly Line of said Lot 15, Block 2, Hunter's Cove Subdivision; • Thence continuing S89°00'01"E, 49.48 feet to the POINT OF TERMINUS; Area= 18,523 square feet or 0.425 acre, more or less. The sidelines of said easement being produced or truncated to be contiguous with said East Right-of- Way Line of Weld County Road No. 7. nfl' NOTICE: According to Colorado law you must Peter D. Sttggr' rc,,y o 0, rt.- commence any legal action based upon any defect in this Colorado Pkq"e$sional Land survey within three years after you first discovered such Surveyor 141$3/9 . ,c- defect. In no event, may any action based upon anycia ' 't defect in this survey be commenced more than ten years 1860 Lefthadd / j .I pngitd�nt°CO 80501 from the date of the certification shown hereon. Date: ��wom4/,4,tk b- �kti � File:Mulligan Access.Igl.doc Project:828-0 • -2_ • BpzF rc� p ' 3 as nn41 ‘,001" 11"111,1//,,0 b' Wht _iw W LC yw1W~ 1y¢�� a p a In NoamN II \¢s ��mwi t3�b' •`� '�e��G'J( 2Fp�� It!" NIIN� I �� 3� O 2Z1- z}m _ . ''�:�[^ . 2, �i Il milm I N 3—O WZ _ ¢ �Op� IGx J m m0 -F2 NFU wt.. lZ'• J = O IZI ! c ¢UN O�<� Stare .. � ... a W. J` ry Wln La N aW}}1n <>_m4 6, .��._ jr cgC: re O t ¢>Z 671 16' !!�� ) - \� *4) N, CO b0 py F OK<6 •®2 W 5ijV Clef m02•• � 6... C) ,..4 �vibnri I my 83)- §sob 0� m.� p0 Y um NnA A ¢ 0 < �x no i O� ��p` - T O RN C=am C w?I- s I z a o S l- (n 0 m /��Minn: LC \\Q V) W m l`6` II N. u u' OFFz2a moz0 my0¢= W hJ @ I 2-.... .100 F I;I elfin U N I wz C� 0 0-05 < U =n 01 I' < i'Sffi In I <n <n o 1I!�V�y�j'p lyJ •� y-�F yJ m Wm 6 '2N I CJ C0 yIN V N m= O<IJp Z 00 a LL0 Y 0 LS St) U N el N O p O to In om p • Ni d I ► 7. en dz Oz _ 71'RLY UhE or 75, BLOCF; 2 750' w 8 F" H!N.- kis \� V C W CC J U <N x V'g C S I.. J R'm m Wo W 03 N CO 05 I _W a- 0--'1 = O z.--... Z¢iy' PW' W > 5 • S ~O f p< y 0Wp �� / 1DR � w I m i <0 J �' oW o p�p €z u. K' S = _ 0 0 < m z < < O a Z U U 6 y p <w „pt.- ('. Imo.V <8 Ln N r S m 5 <5 m N 2 m 0 o1� WLa z = t Vi OCP OO N. I NW CO I- 0< 0< 6 mZZ O 'Rm ?sl Jm I- 0) I Om a vam i o �o _ O > ". co in Z F O G 0 W W Z �,y o o 88gNNO 11 t? 0 O<07a '3/1073N/1A7L3153f: ` ¢ <Im � e „ W i <• wLi0a m• Q H m m ♦ O flrt. N � i IC wN J W W<1�yJ W< W W FO S �m m Z�.I ti ^ ' Z_ N N N •N F Wt qp 1 u.p y 1 V N Ld F J {__ V R Orl I J No N Zc or O a fil <W gSWm � �S It.,n� �W ;Y, m O$ ii ₹41 mm W WZ 4~ � F b<yO. O ..J y"�S ZN I Zo ZC 6ris_ 6, m < G,_ pp a Cl-C. m F 1n ri e">m. Cn" W on �I�z o S_ 6I� 8011 opOzl < cIIoP D• •I OI F> 2 N(§S p N 2 W IJ3p I` II II lsn m 20 F in a '7Z m.. F m 1 &F < m0S ; gj Jmoom II g Z 8U ��a �< N� o 03 a � UyrU 4 _ y'In ' ` i 5 p m 3 rc a1, 7� !!1 n � 3 z 3 1- 3�F !Y 6 6 I- 0r ,„7 ■'■�I Sa= Sw ?a? wWJ a ?a? xa m 9 «„'A u�I 1-S F Fell ��Ii F� F < W CV _� °1 �oom� I ¢ ¢ 00 .O .o ! ui8 tar Is �I• mUel om¢ < <� w <n r �m 11� Ipm�1°ri K 1`) M eNgn UF= IO im Y Nln I I N An a 2 nIJ `I vi ta_n !a � .. Ilpm ow a;I- S p 0 Jm m I 0. W2 m ell., o' m ,�.(C\�I1 MIS v LII • �iaQr wp K$.tt g mgg 'n:+n Spa 8'Inn8<�I \`V V U tiOi €2 Eh 80 m6 NN 8n 'Arc. 1. c � oy a'op'•ImnYN k' 'II . ANY �p �8� << �0 om6< \� 0 s � !VC nevi l,d \d. 3w OAF'z <m j� 8 ma1711gm+ _ L08Aa i ¢ m0 hi *8:r8 m o< 0 C J�$� Z � X7,- 0 ii In:* Z� WWIs, �1 mm gS <mm6o tz �" 1 W 6 03 na <UO M1 ~w =I_ wNiz, oLi I ow pmU{�2 06 .. Oo w =0 xOCn � Y =oo fv '-`m�� w cFi� 6cc �'mrc <5 € ogx rccssio U ! C 4 w 6Cn 11. N KWN< aZmcc 06 p �U 6600 r IyI N timN3 U<0 > < mY x2 �O �r Z YI�V I N d pt1 N 21 o�•�N} 1W o< amr qJ .� 10 1,,. . n "1 M C.1 ¢ CO N�F 1UJ DJ N> >a F mm ooMIM WY =_--CV 1`ghm. i cm wci °a C Ofm5iUH >C mp U ypj O Ito Ofuu8m i m VIQ . N Zn Ummg j'nW §i O Wg JEm !\ NN lln • Z LsJ R U m ItZ Um m �rr-� J¢cu. •I,,0g-j is d' JIM LI 7 LO Z rHF6r 06 03 S Um ?3^r ! N ,091 b ¢ N �Ev ow* s i Np o 03 apr< !Nr ` `tl p 8'° vl z t<n W. w ,n z z a y mzpm N ur p m0,0 ow Zm bEr: < O W�Jm _��11 1n p OZ2 0< Ibz Om40 !(q0 V. 1,7-r.. I W V•0 � y0�< �bp~ UJ< ix 08 m5 UOp� --O 17 431•I N m \Z <o N<2 m<O <21'1 U m mZW -Mr , NmO mini I r �p \Y �� i1°°'o a�� w<Z 1�Y' pd Zcoi «jr�i NIn rl I. 2 m.:I.W W2' 8.4 W mVl • • .' co/',mil J,f[.(` ' AFFIDAVIT. , William M. Moan and Prank H Lott, both of lawful age being first duly preen, an oath, each • - for himself deposes and says, , •First, That W. W. l0tewlton abase a appears in a certain Deed of Trust, as genteel. as shown by the official reeerb Ma of Weld County, Colorado, in Beek 230. Page 183, in the office of the Clerk and retarder of the said Weld County, Is the fere person an Willard W. Knowlton, grantee in the United States Pst'r- Entry, se shot In boor El. Page 213, of maid records. Also that W. W. Aawiton and Willard W. Knowlton, tote tames appear anywhere in the reacted. of the Clerk and Recorder of the said Weld County, in'so for.,. they pertain to the title to the Wgg of Section 20, Township 2 North, of Lange 66 West of the Sixth P. N., is one end the some party. . Seconds That the Leereaos J.Burns, whose name appears in a certain Deed of Trost, as" shown by the records 1n the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Weld County, Colorado, Book 543. Page 37, is the sere person those ,.,we appear as L. J. Burs, as grantee 1n a certain Warranty Deed, as shown br said records, In Book 260, Pege 522. Wm M. Moan • Prank H. Lott. •+/ ', Subscribed tine sworn to before me this 27th day of March, 1923. lss- �,y1 ""1 1• Henan Reek ely notary public. a C' v}• `,.. My Commission expires December 22th. 1926. No. 404757 sae...--^.+•prows. Filed for record et 2:30 o'clock P M APR 6 - 1223. Pees, t .50 C. E. Newton RECORDER. w•.ng.py - R. C.Orable Dignity. WARRANTY DEED • THIS ]RED, mode this 25th dry of November in the year of our lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two, between JCEP REESE of the County of Weld end State of Colorado, of the first pert, end THE CIa'r.1raD DEICE COVPANY, a corporation, of the county of Boulder end state of Colorado, of the second pert: WIT)ISSSETH, That the said party of the first pert, 'sr end In coneideretten of the sum of Eleven Bundred and no/100 (51100.00) DODOES, to the sett party of the first pert in hand pelt by the said petty of the second port, the receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, has granted, bsrgslned, sold and conveyed, end by these presents does grout, bargain, sell, convey end confirm unto the said party of the second port, Its successors and resigns foreverall the following described lot or tercel of !end, situate, lying end being Sr. the County of WSW end State of Colorado, to-sii: All that portion of the Northwest Quarter of Section 22, Township 3 North, Range 68 West, 6th P. 1:., lying South and test of the following described line, to-wit, Beginning at a point on the South line of Bald Northwest Quarter (KW 1215.E feet east of the rest quarter corner of esid Section 22, thence North 3° 42' West. (sr. 14° 30' sstl 356 feet: thence North 23° 27' Kest. 202 feet; thence North 51° 50' E-st, 145.5 feet; thence North 85° 35' Fest, 327.0 feet; thence %)rth 59° 37' East, 70.0 rt; ' North 2° 04' Teat, 321.0 feet: " Worth 23' 09' East, )loin ftt s North 4' 06' East, 276.0 feet; a North 56° 48' Eat. 957 feet more or less to the test line of void Nortlaest Quarter INwd), said por- tion containing 40.25 scree rare or less. As port of the Consideration for this Deed, the sold J0KM. RESSE is granted ell the rights to fish end hunt on Richland Reservoir go. 1. but it Iv speelf- ieelly understood sod *greed that he shall not, throueh the use of sold rights to hunt end fish on the sold Reservoir, in any way interfere with the use of the said Reservoir for irrigation or with env work which the Company may do incident thereto. or Incident to the repair or enlargement of said Reservoir. The void uses shall not in any way inter- fere with the Company's free access to sold Reservoir it all times. The said JOidi RECSE shell not st any tine place screens or tiny other contrivances whatsoever on the outlet pipes Or Cliches running from the said reservoir. It is further agreed that the said The Highland Iitoh Company shall hart a right of .vey.o! sufficient width to secomodete ordinary oOnve7 need to and from the Highland Reiter/Oft • V031, along the North bock of the present out-let ditch running from said Reservoir. II The Club Rauae on above described premises is excepted from this deed. Title being • r 'retained In the present sneers. The Riphlend Ditch Cowpony 'Nall heve the privilege at it. °r"•%op!.Sao of moving said club house et any tie on to the lend of gold John Reese, adjacent to iYJitota-deseribed treat, bit so long as aeid Cowpony shall permit the seid elnb,hotee to rem • n bn its,land, it shall protect some from injury or damage due to water in said reservoir, dateptidg'$ersge-tue to act of Ood or inevitoble accident. lye EXHIBIT b 2 . f • • TOoETRER with ell ditches and ditch rights of way, end e11 rights to, end inteecct ^Te in, ditches and ditch rights of w y, end el; voter end ester rights, which rave teen and`.- ::�''''2P-y are, used for the irrigation of the above described lends, and for the irrigetionrof earl. tcs 1 port thereof. ",, i' ..6.1 TOOF.THER with ell end singular the hereditament.) end appurtenance.. thereunto be .. longing, or in stiletto appertaining, end the reversion and reversions, remainder and-remain=4' ,;•: dare, rent., issues end profits thereof; end ell the estate, ritht, title, interest, claim . -j.", :. - end demand whatsoever, of the said party of the first part either in lee or equity. of. It:, and to.the 'hove hereoined premises, with the hereditament, end eppirtenances. - TO RAV3 AND TO BOLA the said premises above bergeined end described, with the. - appurtenances, unto the said party of the ddeond pert, its successors end assigns forever. - . And the said JOHN REESE party of the first part, for himself, his Mire, executors end ad- miniatretore, does covenant, grant, bergein end agree to end with the said party-of.the - second pert, its succrssore end assigns, that at the time of the ensesling and delivery of ;{y' these presents he is well seized of the premises above conveyed, es of good,.sure,.perfect, �•- absolute end indefeasible estate of inheritance in law, in fee simple, end has good right. - `;� - full power end lawful authority to grant, bsrgain, sell and coovey the soma in =Inner n:d . ... form aforesaid, and that the rasa ere-free and clear from ell former end other grant., In r- gales, asps ).t.na, taxes, ss.essr.ante and incumbrance, of whatever kind or neture eoeve.. excepting,r4flflt ions end rights of way for roads, railroads end ditches, or any of them, which Include any pert of the premises above described • . end the oboe* bergeined premises in the quiet end peaceable poseeee ion of the said party of the second part its euccessora aid assigns, against all end every person or persons .fully elelminngg:the'—r$ble or any pert thereof, JOHN REESE the said party of the first pert &hell end will WARRANT AND FOREVEk ImtSND. IN mI ins *REAEOF. The said pally of the first part hes hereunto set his hand and seal the dey and year above written. Signed, Sealed end Delivered in presence of) . John Reese (Seal.) .) STATE CF COLORADO, ) :Tr r' 'r"rn se. Boulder county. ) I, JACOB S. SCED.f a Notary Public In and for said county, in the state aforesaid, do hereby certify that JOHN REESE who is personally known to we to be the person. whose name le - subscribed to the foregoing teed, appeared before me this day in parson. and acknowledged • That he agreed, sealed end delivered the said instrument of writing as his free end volun- tary act, for the uses and perpeaee therein se' forth. • fly commission expires August 20, A. D. 1923. . i,t-.e S.S;-. rse ♦*, Given under ri bend end Notorisl seal this 25th day of November `a• A. C. 1222. _ I/ notary k '1d pu8�to a:l �,to .,� Jacob S Sober i" sf tr.', . Notary Public t no. 404629 --- •.p Filed for record et 4 o'clock p. N., ApR 7 1923 C. 7.. Bewten Recorder • Fees, f.75 ^ By Rose E Olmstead Deputy '52 . .V ne,enen n.swan XXX•.ri.C(XXXiXC(X1XXXXlaXXXSXV%XXXXXXXXX??MXXXX10...."\J:`.!.IX!.VAVXXXVX y_XXX XXXXXXYYXXX%X7DXXX: a ".'g • wAhhAN 'a' Y DEED , =' STATE OF "issonrt 1 es. CCONTY CF Texas 1 a KNOT AIL LEN BY TIWbE PRESENTS - . . That R. F. McKinney and Ida B. McKinney, husband and wife of.Texas Connty;tulitearl,•;dq' parties of the first part, in consider.tion of the sumo! One Dollar and axehsnge jersothei4Et +"•.` property in bend paid, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, do great, bergiih.'SeLlt,:i:p end convey unto Beasts Rude.11 the following described Real property and premises. sitasts-•'_Hirt in weld County, Stets of Colorado to-wits All of the Northeast Quarter of-Ssstion Twenty---aevan.• " . •:-%t•:•1+"+ •&` (27) in Township Eight (S) North of Rangc'Sixty-three_(g5) r.-..........A *set of 6 F. N. • together with all the improvements thereon and !be appirienincei thereunto b.lottgtnt,4id'-,;.y warrant the title to the same to Bessie Rudeeill 4;Y _. . - • . +.r 7(1 /17 . ~ � �llnuafreaNDSga.-- •Mel.SM&IL e•d ICS a.1 SI_a. •n�1 .IS -i �,'� _ • !e • r 1`r N• Ant. >_„_ abia) era.wa•thr Plink —Air - -'`- • i WARRANTY DEED le twtaxdrLad rarer sladridaat_otantllt 'awl moat„—,�—_.p. Eion_—.-_... " .; ..-. e satle,.II—,:oily—_—_—_ 1. .`_ -,[• i _—_ _._ u dtta_ _.-_ Otegd �9old -'i laded W- a oo:—•—•.•—..—• aM CM seA..iwe nrnxr. 911.017Cd.agiE iir •ap _•_c t•h7,on to _matt - ., . ^ . ...__.. ....-.e-a _,.._.__.— .- .IIS. , Ostata of _--,' Nth6 0614.140.a(Se Putt __ 1M77®K;A,gut Gra Oda.d Ile ae►tattle tot lsri/ladW of sod - t rASW mlawOn rnas•••6" d Pm.etan xnnetenM at a tr.tiroD.and-M�100_($3484 M) Owen ream. Ire M6rradpes T et W6wlpet Is No laid b IMrfi put— a' The Basdy Dail awidtraerd led,tatesedpledrafbasdgrantrrdra xiswld-'it• rdlooid. as n t -. - • tt._AP.ZY—,M1 .4 by IS.Faris 4t•6srsd.;x t x4 err a d soar Ws _A.-1..-..::40.901.__-. :- ptE._d IL.semi put, t co ziellarape free,at HO farm a Jnso-I-012,1 sad._. — kt_..rpordes,dW,der blear bra Sr—_ _ its t,..7.5__ Oar LergdAdddOdsd Dark rot r All ant portion of the south halt of•Seotion 92. Tr. at North Rep--•- 43, I., 6th P. £., 11.112; north at the.tollosi.n1 d or liner•trWiti . • Hod ring at a point on the north4lno of tho aid South ilalf-df-- -- - Seo. 22, 1812.5 foot east of.the tat Quarter senor thereof. thanes---- 5. 14' E.. (Var. 14'20' E.) 203.e foot. theme 3. 91'29' E., 191.-4---- •- feet; thence b. 44.03' E., 151.9 toot; thence N. Graf' E., 129.2.4 sot; -- tbona' i:. 55.50' 5., 104.5 foot; throw a. OL'14' E., 110.9 fast;•then.. ..-- S. 47022' E., 126.4 foo;; cheueo 5. 14.16'- E.. 167.7 toot; there 4,------•—- 1' 46' T., 223.7 foot; thence S. 20°96' 6., 146.9 nett-alumna.S,-70'06'—— 's., 120.9 test; than,* 5 80°44' E.,.3011.6 feat thenoo K. 66.56'-•;.y-176.9--- — foot; three E. 50.19' -z:.e 131.4 foot; thrum C. 94.27' 2., 169.1-feet —. thence :X. 70'40' E., 946.rfi foot; ,>�ee,,,b..69.65' 'a., 916.6 !sett. rr+r • X'1.92' M2.G ;. Real' I., 237.5 •- ._��Plat/Sat • G. 30.43' L. 254.0 • ; r __ .5. 19.43' 5., 151.3 .' ; . taro or lots to the sell earth line of south htlf et Section 29 said •• 4— - portion er:nlnin9 40.4 sores sown or.loss. the .boca dose;4 star •^ c1 ea that pert roe occupied by the lake. :loo areo between this tree .. ran and too prca:tt H. 17. L. 11.2_area....___ ... . _ _..._. • TOGETHER silk d aad.l u.r,daox.kaeeapp.k.a.e,deco lekoirawit wdrwrblo r,rd a. • .d,mule;reads ad rea%doa abet NS ones tae,;sat s9 Oa eealaaid%Nth dird err d the sad petta_d V•NO pd,air is tae or gig,d,la ad Oster arid isdna wane MdYwY sat'99aterooe TO IIAYS AND TO ROOD iozold—'-alms WpSd sd datalan1.Ida On gpmYwwr,arts ____ -m ctrm.Pat r•t tniU rOxbVE now rid par--at the toed pax.11..oICae oaotenthd rand—lair. lad aw a eL _Anent IN __23lt..-.._..._- ....-T-..&LIyyro pr,lrr_._+ee...hia aae.'^--- e,sera ssdeddddalo,Qds.- =;prat,hurlssad .SsdwLpeaid praal did card lr4'=a led!M a that at fir dm at.Leeter.4 Mlle el tae pi-. 5e I°"4 • .at dad a to plan era,erre&led pad,mate lair*deale ad leddrSt nested W she',Ski,I.S.dfl aged heat_ pad.i t.td tower aka lurid a.t t,asgroat,Lapitallad ate the lash la mart sad ten aroma sal Oat tweealdWpd dur fns all tram and ale Faso Liras*edr.few air.r,rre-sod alma d lauln Idea_CL -- e oar • sad the.ear bupld psba4 a Os Yard treat%Nor he d Os or irrl.g-adtN and let, as. a -.la MU" al, spdet Al tad envy pone r Pear de%tr Midst or te der W whin r an gad d err,owe mid aortic-air am or di WARR1NP AND!OBEYER DD*IIL •err' • . IN wftN®wip,Th.rid,nl..J-d IS.ds p&a. a._-,. s we. - wow-_--a oos__w yen dst shin stari4 m.n,.t.w n n w nr- '•. - •. Orr Sold adearr bard Ie,Arsa d •- -,•. - . . nets or COLORADO. ..=''_!keen ere °non MI, J.. I, lint tow r, 4.n.,ttn •• •Nang Pat a rd is, the ..lA 'Ann%Aer /lair,a W aW atssY,al IRS?SKr*iv , a ids lobs du;es __ -i ens--ia— ..:-._-a:raw r,:... rat de aajj. 1,:::.�•;�:I r ®` 6 *"•:•Iam•i i.tr.ile AS iVSL � t-�-1;' , tia,eWpd W do dp {,maid eat Shoed Or on lsbrirtII es.Sada. hi. ,-•rdrdeaYlitit. "s- loe der awl papw awe od IS'' --._ 'r!ea•. 6. m..• ...• IOW r • f' .. .M . . Alas✓ Y!. i tLr adrgbrd owed xnt..e vly, oink irdt •estoodair.•/re• '..a ere'. .� .. .. - t):.'. ' . _ Mt,t_ . 4 r BRETT CORNING JERRY SHEPHERD SPLD RENZELMAN President Vice-President Sect.Treasurer 1-30.3-423-0759 1.303-232-2714 1-383-935.8688 THE MULLIGAN FISHING AND GUN CLUB • ORGANIZED APRIL 9, 1920 Mailing Address 1774 West WESLEY Ave. Englewood,CO.80110 Agreement This agreement is between Larry Budler (landowner) and Mulligan Fishing and Gun Club Inc. for the use of his land for access to Club properly. The property known as Block 2, Lot 15, Hunter's Cove Subdivision. The Mulligan Fishing and Gun Club will move the fence on the south east corner of property approximately 60' to the west and 105' to the north. (see drawing) In exchange for the use of said easement the Mulligan Fishing and Gun Club will compensate Larry Budler for the use of said property with an annual land owner associate membership which caries a value of $200.00 per year in exchange for this easement. This agreement will be in effect on a calendar year basics and will automatically renew unless 30 day written notice of termination is received by either party. • by: Larry DiJuier date Property owner 20-F8 by: Mulligan Fishing art' un Club date President • Hello